For Official Use NEA/CSNI/R(2005)2

Organisation de Coopration et de Dveloppement Economiques

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
01-Aug-2005
___________________________________________________________________________________________
English text only
NUCLEAR ENERGY AGENCY
COMMITTEE ON THE SAFETY OF NUCLEAR INSTALLATIONS






CSNI INTEGRITY AND AGEING WORKING GROUP

FAT3D- An OECD/NEA benchmark on thermal fatigue in fluid mixing areas




The complete document is only available in pdf format.





JT00188033

Document complet disponible sur OLIS dans son format d'origine
Complete document available on OLIS in its original format

N
E
A
/
C
S
N
I
/
R
(
2
0
0
5
)
2

F
o
r

O
f
f
i
c
i
a
l

U
s
e

E
n
g
l
i
s
h

t
e
x
t

o
n
l
y

Cancels & replaces the same document of 29 July 2005


NEA/CSNI/R(2005)2
2
ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT
Pursuant to Article 1 of the Convention signed in Paris on 14th December 1960, and which came into force on 30th
September 1961, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) shall promote policies designed:
to achieve the highest sustainable economic growth and employment and a rising standard of living in member
countries, while maintaining financial stability, and thus to contribute to the development of the world economy;
to contribute to sound economic expansion in member as well as non-member countries in the process of economic
development; and
to contribute to the expansion of world trade on a multilateral, non-discriminatory basis in accordance with
international obligations.
The original member countries of the OECD are Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland,
Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the
United States. The following countries became members subsequently through accession at the dates indicated hereafter: Japan
(28th April 1964), Finland (28th January 1969), Australia (7th June 1971), New Zealand (29th May 1973), Mexico (18th May
1994), the Czech Republic (21st December 1995), Hungary (7th May 1996), Poland (22nd November 1996), Korea (12th
December 1996) and the Slovak Republic (14 December 2000). The Commission of the European Communities takes part in the
work of the OECD (Article 13 of the OECD Convention).
NUCLEAR ENERGY AGENCY
The OECD Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) was established on 1st February 1958 under the name of the OEEC European
Nuclear Energy Agency. It received its present designation on 20th April 1972, when Japan became its first non-European full
member. NEA membership today consists of 28 OECD member countries: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, the Czech
Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Mexico, the
Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Republic of Korea, the Slovak Republic, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, the United
Kingdom and the United States. The Commission of the European Communities also takes part in the work of the Agency.
The mission of the NEA is:
to assist its member countries in maintaining and further developing, through international co-operation, the
scientific, technological and legal bases required for a safe, environmentally friendly and economical use of nuclear
energy for peaceful purposes, as well as
to provide authoritative assessments and to forge common understandings on key issues, as input to government
decisions on nuclear energy policy and to broader OECD policy analyses in areas such as energy and sustainable
development.
Specific areas of competence of the NEA include safety and regulation of nuclear activities, radioactive waste
management, radiological protection, nuclear science, economic and technical analyses of the nuclear fuel cycle, nuclear law and
liability, and public information. The NEA Data Bank provides nuclear data and computer program services for participating
countries.
In these and related tasks, the NEA works in close collaboration with the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna,
with which it has a Co-operation Agreement, as well as with other international organisations in the nuclear field.

OECD 2005
Permission to reproduce a portion of this work for non-commercial purposes or classroom use should be obtained through
the Centre franais dexploitation du droit de copie (CCF), 20, rue des Grands-Augustins, 75006 Paris, France, Tel. (33-1) 44 07
47 70, Fax (33-1) 46 34 67 19, for every country except the United States. In the United States permission should be obtained
through the Copyright Clearance Center, Customer Service, (508)750-8400, 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923, USA, or
CCC Online: http://www.copyright.com/. All other applications for permission to reproduce or translate all or part of this book
should be made to OECD Publications, 2, rue Andr-Pascal, 75775 Paris Cedex 16, France.



NEA/CSNI/R(2005)2

3
COMMITTEE ON THE SAFETY OF NUCLEAR INSTALLATIONS
The NEA Committee on the Safety of Nuclear Installations (CSNI) is an international committee made up of senior scientists
and engineers, with broad responsibilities for safety technology and research programmes, and representatives from regulatory
authorities. It was set up in 1973 to develop and co-ordinate the activities of the NEA concerning the technical aspects of the
design, construction and operation of nuclear installations insofar as they affect the safety of such installations.
The committees purpose is to foster international co-operation in nuclear safety amongst the OECD member countries. The
CSNIs main tasks are to exchange technical information and to promote collaboration between research, development,
engineering and regulatory organisations; to review operating experience and the state of knowledge on selected topics of nuclear
safety technology and safety assessment; to initiate and conduct programmes to overcome discrepancies, develop improvements
and research consensus on technical issues; to promote the coordination of work that serve maintaining competence in the nuclear
safety matters, including the establishment of joint undertakings.
The committee shall focus primarily on existing power reactors and other nuclear installations; it shall also consider the safety
implications of scientific and technical developments of new reactor designs.
In implementing its programme, the CSNI establishes co-operative mechanisms with NEAs Committee on Nuclear
Regulatory Activities (CNRA) responsible for the program of the Agency concerning the regulation, licensing and inspection of
nuclear installations with regard to safety. It also co-operates with NEAs Committee on Radiation Protection and Public Health
(CRPPH), NEAs Radioactive Waste Management Committee (RWMC) and NEAs Nuclear Science Committee (NSC) on
matters of common interest.
NEA/CSNI/R(2005)2
4
NEA/CSNI/R(2005)2

5
FOREWORD
At the CSNI meeting in June 2002, the proposal for a benchmark on thermal fatigue in fluid mixing
areas based on the test performed by CEA, France was approved. Objectives were to extend the
understanding of 3D thermo mechanical loading as a major factor influencing crack propagation through
the thickness of nuclear piping systems. The benchmark was sponsored by IRSN.
This report presents the analysis results of the calculation of the experiment provided by the
benchmark participants.
The CSNI Working Group on the Integrity and Ageing and in particular its sub-group on the integrity
of metal components has produced extensive material over the last few years. In the area of thermal
fatigue, it has recently produced the following material:
1. Thermal cycling in LWR components in OECD-NEA member countries (NEA/CSNI/R(2005)8) -
Review of operating experience, regulatory framework, countermeasures and current research;
2. This benchmark;
3. Organization with the EPRI and the USNRC of the international conference on fatigue of reactor
components. This conference reviews progress in the areas and provides a forum for discussion
and exchange of information between high level experts. The conference is held every other year
to follow the progress and to direct research to key aspects. The last edition was held on October
3-6, 2004.

In addition a large number of NEA member countries are participating in the OECD Piping Failure
Data Exchange Project (OPDE) to collect field experience on piping degradation.
The complete list of CSNI reports, and the text of reports from 1993 onwards, is available on
http://www.nea.fr/html/nsd/docs/

NEA/CSNI/R(2005)2
6

NEA/CSNI/R(2005)2

7
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This effort would not have been possible without the cooperation and support of many individuals and
groups. The Committee on the Safety of Nuclear Installations (CSNI), the Institut de Radioprotection et de
Surete Nucleaire (IRSN, FR), the Commissariat a lnergie Atomique (CEA, FR) are pleased to have had
the participation of the following organizations in this benchmark on thermal fatigue in fluid mixing areas.
While there were many other individuals who contributed to this effort, the principal correspondents
are listed below:

VAMET (CR) VAMET Ltd. Jan LESTINA
Ivan KRASNY
Jaroslav PETRASEK
INSS (JPN) Institute of Nuclear Safety System Yuzo FUJII,
Masayuki KAMAYA,
Akira NAKAMURA
CRIEPI (JPN) Central Research Institute of Electric
Power Institute
Terutaka FUJIOKA
JOYO (JPN) Joyo Industries Ltd. Hideki TAKASHO
JNC (JPN) Japan Nuclear Cycle Development
Institute
Nobuchika KAWASAKI
Naoto KASAHARA
CRC (JPN) CRC Solutions Ltd. Ichiro FURUHASHI
DNV (SWD) Det Norske Veritas AB

Magnus DAHLBERG
Fredrik SDERGREN
EdF (FR) Electricite de France Jean Philippe SERMAGE
CEA (FR) Commissariat lEnergie Atomique Stephane CHAPULIOT
Olivier ANCELET

These organizations received no financial support from CSNI, IRSN, or CEA, and their efforts are
gratefully acknowledged.
The CSNI also wishes to acknowledge the guidance, support, and encouragement of the CSNIs Eric
Mathet. The CSNI also thanks Dr Stephane Chapuliot, head of laboratory at the Nuclear Department at
CEA, FR for his outstanding work and dedication to make this effort a success.
NEA/CSNI/R(2005)2
8
NEA/CSNI/R(2005)2

9
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Thermal cycling is a widespread and recurring problem in nuclear power plants worldwide. Several
incidents with leakage of primary water inside the containment challenged the integrity of nuclear power
plants although no release outside of containment occurred. Thermal cycling was not taken into account at
the design stage. Regulatory bodies, utilities and researchers have to address it for their operating plants. It
is a complex phenomenon that involves and links thermal hydraulic, fracture mechanic, materials and plant
operation.
Thermal fatigue in a fluid mixing area is a well-known phenomenon that has already been studied in
the past. Generally, this phenomenon is linked to turbulent mixing of two fluids at two different
temperatures and creates elephant skin type damage at the inner surface of the component and some
cracks, which remain relatively small, compared to the thickness of the structure.
However, as was the case for a tee junction of the French Super Phenix fast breeder reactor (chosen
configuration for an international benchmark study [1]) and more recently for a pressurized water reactor at
Civaux nuclear power plant [2], this kind of fatigue damage can create cracks that propagate through the
entire wall thickness.
Some experts consider that 3D thermo mechanical loading is a major factor influencing crack
propagation through the thickness. This factor is linked to the complex thermal hydraulic loading and has
an impact on the stress distribution in the structure and the damage or crack propagation estimates. For this
reason an R&D program, based on a test and numerical interpretations, was launched by IRSN and
conducted by CEA to quantify experimentally the influence of the 3D aspects on crack initiation and
propagation. The main objective was to work on a configuration with a 3D thermal load easy enough to
reproduce using numerical simulations, so that accurate mechanical studies could be carried out and
assessment methodologies be validated or modified.
Under the auspices of the OECD/NEA Committee for the Safety of Nuclear Installations (CSNI) and
its Working Group on Integrity of Components and Structures (IAGE), a benchmark was launched in 2002.
Seven organisations from 4 countries contributed to this effort aiming at comparing different approaches
used for mechanical assessment of this 3D configuration.
Organised in three major steps, the benchmark included the definition, the realisation and the analysis
of a test on fatigue crack propagation under pure thermal loading in which important cracking, until
penetration, was observed.
- The first step was devoted to pre calculation. It gave the first main conclusion on the minimum thermal
loading to observe cracking with the device, the specimen geometry and the models needed to have a
good representation of the loading.
- The second step was an experimental qualification of the thermal loading. The temperature
measurements made on a special mock-up were sent to participants to have a good representation of
the thermal loading for the analyses.
- The final step was the blind interpretation of the test. At this step, participants were asked to estimate
the number of cycles both to initiate a crack and to go through. The test was performed during this
phase.

NEA/CSNI/R(2005)2
10
Due to a movement of the cooling pipe at the beginning of the test, the thermal loading was more
severe than the loading characterised with the thermal mock-up. It was thus difficult to compare
quantitatively the prediction of participants with the experiment.
However, a qualitative comparison showed that predictions were in good agreement with test results:
- The location and the orientation of the cracks were predicted by the participants: due to circumferential
stresses, axial cracks were dominant at the bottom of the cooling area;
- Cracks propagation through the thickness was predicted and, for all participants, the number of cycles
to go through wall was close to the number of cycles for initiation. This was in agreement with the test
(i.e. 12000 cycles to initiate a crack and 17500 for the complete penetration).

Post interpretation made with corrected thermal loading showed that crack initiation happened below
the fatigue best fit curve of the material. This result needs to be confirmed with complementary tests and
analyses.
NEA/CSNI/R(2005)2

11
TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION OBJECTIVES OF THE BENCHMARK.........................................................13
2. BENCHMARK ORGANISATION....................................................................................................14
3. TEST DESCRIPTION: THE FAT3D EXPERIMENT ......................................................................15
3.1 Material data ...................................................................................................................................16
3.2 Mock-up geometry..........................................................................................................................16
3.3 Boundary conditions .......................................................................................................................16
3.4 Load description..............................................................................................................................17
3.4.1 Thermal loading optimization ...............................................................................................18
3.4.2 Qualification of the thermal loading......................................................................................18
3.4.3 Characterization of the surface in contact with water ...........................................................20
4. OBJECTIVE OF THE BENCHMARK ..............................................................................................22
4.1 Main objectives ...............................................................................................................................22
4.2 Expected tests results ......................................................................................................................22
4.3 Pre test calculation ..........................................................................................................................22
4.4 Blind test analysis ...........................................................................................................................23
4.5 Synthesis and discussion.................................................................................................................23
5. MAIN RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS FROM THE PRE TEST ANALYSES............................24
5.1 Preliminary questions......................................................................................................................24
5.2 Participants......................................................................................................................................24
5.3 Synthesis of the main results...........................................................................................................24
6. MAIN RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS FROM THE BLIND TEST ANALYSIS........................25
6.1 Participants and models used ..........................................................................................................25
6.2 Models used ....................................................................................................................................25
6.3 Calibration of the thermal model ....................................................................................................25
6.4 Elastic stress analysis ......................................................................................................................26
6.5 Estimation of the number of cycles to crack initiation....................................................................26
6.6 Estimation of the crack propagation ...............................................................................................27
6.7 Conclusion of this calculation phase...............................................................................................29
7. TEST OBSERVATION......................................................................................................................30
7.1 Crack evolution...............................................................................................................................30
7.2 CEA interpretation of the test taking into account loading variation..............................................31
8. DISCUSSION OF THE RESULTS RECOMMENDATIONS.......................................................33
9. CONCLUSIONS OF THE BENCHMARK.......................................................................................34
Appendix I: Thermal loading characterization ..........................................................................................35
NEA/CSNI/R(2005)2
12
Measurements for = 0............................................................................................................................36
Measurements for = 20..........................................................................................................................37
Measurements for = 40..........................................................................................................................38
Measurements for = 70...........................................................................................................................39
Appendix II: Participant contributions.......................................................................................................40


NEA/CSNI/R(2005)2

13

1. INTRODUCTION OBJECTIVES OF THE BENCHMARK

Thermal fatigue in high flow mixing areas is a longstanding problem. In these areas of high flow rate
and extensive discontinuities, the mixture becomes turbulent and a wide range of turbulence frequencies
and thermal fluctuations are encountered. The consequence for structures is multiple or isolated cracks
which, in some cases, may not be very deep but which in others can cause perforation of the structure.
A highly complicated issue is why some configurations have more capacities than others to withstand
thermal stresses and why multiple cracks should occur in some places and isolated cracks in others. Many
test results are available and R&D programs are currently being carried out to supplement them.
Some experts consider that these phenomenons may be attributed to the fact that the 3D aspect of
thermal loading is becoming predominant in certain flow configurations. These overall thermal loads result
in complex 3D mechanical loads involving the entire thickness of a component. Generally speaking, very
little is known about the thermo hydraulic and thermo mechanical aspects of these loads when they occur
in complex structures such as mixing tees. For this reason an R&D program, based on a test and numerical
interpretations, was launched to quantify experimentally the influence of the 3D aspects on crack initiation
and propagation. The program was intended to clarify and illustrate the problem of overall thermal loading
and to suggest tools that would enable it to be taken into account at the design stage [6]. It included both
laboratory experiments and numerical analyses using the applied loads.
Under the auspices of the OECD/NEA Committee for the Safety of Nuclear Installations (CSNI) and
its Working Group on Integrity of Components and Structures (IAGE), a benchmark was launched in 2002.
Seven organisations from 4 countries contributed to this effort aiming at comparing different approaches
used for mechanical assessment of this 3D configuration.
Main idea of the benchmark was to use a simple laboratory configuration as a basis for comparing and
exchanging know-how and highlighting important physical parameters. It was organized in three major
steps:
Participant approaches were applied to the test design with a view to specifying the test objectives and
how the results would be presented and discussed,
Approaches were applied to the forecast outcome of the test so that they could be compared with
observations made in the laboratory,
A discussion and synthesis reports.

This report constitutes the synthesis phase of the benchmark. It describes the different phases of the
benchmark, the main results and main conclusions which can be highlighted from this work.
NEA/CSNI/R(2005)2
14

2. BENCHMARK ORGANISATION
The benchmark was organised using the CEA - FAT3D experiment. However, because the test was
still at a design level when this benchmark started, it was proposed to the OECD/NEA/CSNI/IAGE
working group members to participate in the test definition. The proposed experimental approach was the
following:
Preliminary calculations: the aim of this stage is to determine the experimental possibilities of the test
apparatus and establish the temperatures and cycle durations to be used etc. This is the first stage of
the benchmark study.
Characterisation of the thermal loading: knowledge of the thermal loading imposed on the structure is
a very important aspect of the problem. It is therefore determined accurately using a thermal mock-up
provided with temperature measurements on the surface and through the thickness.
Blind test analysis. The aim of this stage is to predict cracking of the specimen with a known thermal
load. This is the second stage of the benchmark study for validating the various methods.
The thermo mechanical test takes place concurrently with this calculation stage. The tests results are
not sent to the participants during the calculation stage.
Comparison of results: the results obtained by all the participants are collected and compared with the
test results and discussed at a meeting of OECD work group IAGE.
Synthesis of the benchmark. The objective at this stage is to highlight main results obtained and
propose some general conclusions on the way to take into account 3D thermal loadings in structural
integrity analyses.
This three years effort was divided as follows:
January 2002 September 2002: Preliminary test calculations (all participants)
September 2002 December 2002: Analysis of preliminary calculations (CEA)
January 2003 February 2003: Thermal tests (CEA)
March 2003 September 2003: Assessment of damage (all participants)
March 2003 December 2003: Test (CEA)
January 2004 April 2004: Analysis of results (CEA)
June 2004: Conclusions and discussions (all participants)
December 2004: Synthesis
NEA/CSNI/R(2005)2

15

3. TEST DESCRIPTION: THE FAT3D EXPERIMENT

The first main objective of the test was that it should be easy to carry out (without any loop) and easy
to simulate with a numerical model. The second was to obtain 3D thermal loading. Thus, the choice was
made to design a test on a pipe cooled locally by cyclic water injection:
Cold water was injected into the pipe locally in cycles (Figure 1). During the first step, the cold water
injection point was always the same.
The pipe was placed inside a furnace to maintain a high temperature on the outer surface of the pipe.
The air temperature was kept constant.

Z
max
Local cyclic cooling
Constant heating

time
Cold water
flow
t
cold
Period (t
tot
)

Figure 1: Principle of the FAT3D test
This test was named FAT3D. The main advantages of this configuration were:
The chosen geometry was simple in terms of numerical interpretation of the test. The main difficulty
was the description of the thermal load. But thanks to its simplicity in space and also to the possibility
to measure accurately on the surface and through the thickness of the pipe, it appeared to be possible
to reproduce it by a numerical model,
The thermal load was a 3D load. The resultant loading was a combination between a local load (which
was induced by local thermal transients in the thickness) and an overall load (which was created by the
overall transient from one side of the pipe to the other).
The test was easy to carry out and seemed to be reproducible. The main parameters which govern the
load imposed on the pipe were:
o The high temperature imposed by the furnace,
o The degree of local cooling, imposed by the cold temperature, the flow of cold water, the shape
and angle of the water jet,
o The frequency of the cyclic cooling and the ratio between cold time (tcold - water injection)
and hot time (thot - no water injection).
To limit the number of variable parameters, the choice was made to fix the local cooling conditions:
The shape of the water flow and its angle were fixed.
NEA/CSNI/R(2005)2
16
The cold water flow and temperature were constant.
3.1 Material data
The material data given for the benchmark study were taken mainly from the Appendix A3.3S and
A16 of the RCC-MR [3]. The material data given in SI system were:
Thermal parameter:
= 7800 kg/m
3
- C = 550 J/Kg.C - K = 30 W/m.C - = 16.4.10
-6
C
-1
Mechanical characteristics:
o Young Modulus : E = 186000 MPa (A3.3S)
o Poisson's coefficient : = 0.3 (A3.3S)
o Fatigue resistance curve : (%) = 4.84.NR-0.2 (A3.3S)
o Paris law: da/dN (mm/cycle) = 1.0. K3.3 (A16)
o Propagation threshold: Kth (MPa. m) = 6.5 - 4.5.R with R=Kmin/Kmax (A16)

Comments:
The following comments completed the given data:
In case of thermal calculations, the thermal data (K, Heat exchange coefficients and/or C) had to be
fitted by the participants to reproduce thermal variations observed during the qualification of the
thermal loading (data given were only estimates),
The material was supposed to be linear elastic in the stress calculation. However, cyclic plasticity was
taken into account in the elastic-plastic strain range estimation.
The proposed fatigue resistance curve corresponded to an exponential fit of the RCC-MR material
data at 20C and for a number of cycles between 104 and 106. This curve linked the number of cycles
to failure to the total equivalent elastic-plastic imposed strain range.
The Paris Law corresponded to the 316L (N) material at 100C.
3.2 Mock-up geometry
For first step of the benchmark (pre calculation) the following geometrical parameters were given:
Thickness of the pipe: t = 17.4 mm,
External diameter: De = 170 mm,
Length of the pipe: L = 500 mm.

However, for second step, as a consequence of the first pre calculation step and the furnace capability
(see pre calculation main results chapter), the pipe geometry was modified. Final geometrical parameters
(used for thermal qualification of the test and thermo mechanical test) were:
Thickness of the pipe: t = 6.7 mm,
External diameter: De = 166 mm,
Length of the pipe: L = 360 mm.
3.3 Boundary conditions
The following boundary conditions were adopted during the test:
NEA/CSNI/R(2005)2

17
The section at the top of the pipe was supposed to be embedded.
The section at the bottom of the pipe (where water goes out from the pipe) was free.
3.4 Load description
In the first step concerning test optimization, the surface covered by the cold flow was supposed to
have a parabolic shape on the developed inner surface of the pipe (Figure 2). The following equation
describes this shape:
2
1
2
i
max
r . .
x
1 .
L
Z
L
Z

= with: 5 . 0
L
Z
max
= and 4 . 0 =
The time evolution of the temperature inside this parabolic surface is shown on Figure 3. The thermal
exchange coefficients between the pipe, the air and the water had to be proposed by the participants.

X
Z
Local cooling
2 r
i

Z
max
L
2..r
i
.

Figure 2: Geometrical description of the local cooling

time
Temperature
t
cold
Period (t
tot
)
T
c

T
h


Figure 3: Evolution in time
NEA/CSNI/R(2005)2
18
In second step, the thermal cycle was optimized. The thermal loading amplitude and the boundary of
the cold water flow on the internal surface were measured on a specific mock up. Results are described in
the thermal qualification chapter and in appendix I.
3.4.1 Thermal loading optimization
During the test design, a preliminary thermal loading optimization was performed. Finally, the
optimized cycle was defined by:
Water temperature : Tcold ~ 17 20C
Furnace temperature : Thot = 650C
Total cycle duration : ttot = tcold + thot = 190 s
Water injection time : tcold = 15 s
3.4.2 Qualification of the thermal loading
Figure 4 represents the location of thermocouples used to characterize the thermal loading imposed to
the pipe.

Cold Water
injection
Symetrie plane
Z
x

H = 360
D
ext
= 166
t = 6.7
Z

z = 70
z = 100
z = 130
z = 160
z = 190
z = 220
External
skin (=0)
= 6.0
= 3.2
Cold Water
surface
TC1
TC4
TC2
TC3
TC7
TC5
TC6
TC10
TC8
TC9
TC13
TC12
TC11
TC16
TC15
TC14
Cold surface description Thermocouple localisation


Figure 4: Thermocouples location
Major part of these thermocouples was located in front of the water injection surface ( = 0) at three
different depths:
On external surface ( = 0): TC1 3 6 9 12 15
NEA/CSNI/R(2005)2

19
At a 3.2 mm depth : TC2 5 8 11 14
Close to the inner surface (= 6,1 mm) : TC4 7 10 13 16

At the opposite of the pipe ( = 180), 3 thermocouples were located on the external surface ( = 0):
TC17 18 19. In addition, the mock-up would rotate so that measurements would be performed outside
the symmetry plane of the water injection: the mock up could rotate for an angle which could vary from
0 to 70.
All the measurements performed during the thermal test were given in appendix I. It concerned the
evolution with time of the temperature measured by each thermocouple (19 TC), for the stabilized cycle
and for four angle positions: = 0 20 40 70.
The next figures showed some examples of temperature variation with time:
Temperature transient during the transient, function of the angle or the height Z.
Maximum temperature during the cycle, function of the or the height Z.
Temperature evolution at the water injection point.

It is shown that the main objectives of the thermal loading optimization were partially reached:
The maximum transient measured closed to the inner surface was higher than 310C: maximum was
closed to 350C.
Maximum temperature in the structure was higher than 400C. However, in the area where thermal
loading was maximum (where cracks were expected), the maximum temperature remain close to 400C.

0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
0.0 50.0 100.0 150.0 200.0
Theta (deg.)
T
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e

t
r
a
n
s
i
e
n
t

(

C
)
Ext ernal skin
Int ernal skin

0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
0.0 50.0 100.0 150.0 200.0
Theta (deg.)
M
a
x
i
m
u
m

t
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e

(

C
)
Ext ernal skin
Int ernal skin

Figure 5: Temperature transient and maximum temperature Variation with
NEA/CSNI/R(2005)2
20

0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
0.0 100.0 200.0 300.0
Z (mm)
T
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e

t
r
a
n
s
i
e
n
t

(

C
)
Ext ernal skin
Int ernal skin

0
100
200
300
400
500
600
0.0 100.0 200.0 300.0
Z (mm)
M
a
x
i
m
u
m

t
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e

(

C
)
Ext ernal skin
Int ernal skin

Figure 6: Temperature transient and maximum temperature Variation with Z

0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
0 50 100 150 200
Ti me (s)
T
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
e

(

C
)
Ext ernal skin
Int ernal skin

Figure 7: Temperature evolution with time at the water injection point
Thus, to maximize the possibility to obtain cracking on the inner surface without any initial notch, this
loading was adopted as first experimental loading level. Further tests with lower thermal loading were
planned depending on the experimental observation.
3.4.3 Characterization of the surface in contact with water
The boundary of water flow on the inner surface of the pipe (called cold surface) was measured on
a specific mock up (half pipe to make a direct observation of the surface), next figure represents this cold
surface on the developed inner surface of the pipe: dots correspond to measurements and the curve
corresponds to the polynomial fit defined by the following formula:
NEA/CSNI/R(2005)2

21
( )( ) 0.638 , 293 . 1 and
r . .
x
with . 1 . 1 . Z Z
i
3
max
= =

= + + =

0
50
100
150
200
250
0 50 100 150 200
(mm)
Z

(
m
m
)
Experimental data
Polynomial fit
(mm) Z (mm)
153 0
148 25
142 50
134 75
126 100
115 125
102 150
87 170
77 180
67 190
54 200
36 210
0 217
Measurments
x (mm)
x (mm)

Figure 8: Representation of the cold surface
NEA/CSNI/R(2005)2
22

4. OBJECTIVE OF THE BENCHMARK
4.1 Main objectives
The main objectives of the benchmark were to compare assessment procedures for the evaluation of
fatigue cracking under thermal load:
How to evaluate the thermal load on the structure? What were the most important parameters on the
mechanical loading and the fatigue damage?
How to evaluate cracking? In terms of crack initiation or crack propagation?
The experimental support represented one of the main interests of the proposed exercise, because it
allowed quantifying the quality of the proposed methodologies. However, one had to remember that this
test did not cover all the technical problems linked to thermal fatigue topics, but only a small aspect
corresponding to the 3D thermal loading. Other themes such as high cycle fatigue or random loadings
could not be studied with the proposed test.
4.2 Expected tests results
The objective of the design test was to analyze cracking in a pipe under cyclic loading, in terms of
crack initiation and propagation. However, this test had to respect the following conditions:
In terms of duration: the test had to remain in a reasonable time (between 3 and 6 month)
In terms of temperature: the hot temperature had to remain below 400C to avoid creep damage in the
pipe and important variations of material characteristics with temperature.
The cold thermal shock conditions being fixed, the main parameters which were to be defined in
acceptance with these two experimental objectives were the hot temperature (temperature of the furnace),
the frequency of the thermal cycles and the proportion between cold time and the period ( = tcold / ttot
Figure 1).
4.3 Pre test calculation
The first step was devoted to the pre calculation of the test. At this level, it was asked to the
participants to propose an integrity assessment procedure and to use it to optimize the test conditions:
A description of the employed assessment procedure and the assumptions made to apply it on the
proposed configuration were asked to the participants (thermal load evaluation, stresses and strains
calculation, damage evaluation). The comparison of the different choices was one of the first
interesting results of this benchmark.
At this level, the optimization of the test conditions were performed with the given approximate
loading and material data.
In this first step, it was proposed to participants to perform pre calculation for two problems: crack
initiation from the inner surface and crack propagation from a fatigue crack or an initial notch:
For the crack initiation from the inner surface, the parameters which had to be optimized are the hot
temperature (Th), the load frequency period (ttot) and the water injection time tcold.
For the crack propagation, in addition to these three parameters, the definition of the initial notch was
asked to the participants. To simplify the problem, the shape of this notch was imposed:
o Semi-elliptical surface notch.
NEA/CSNI/R(2005)2

23
o Shape ratio (crack depth over half length): a/c = 1/3.
The only parameter which had to be determined is the initial relative crack depth a/t.
4.4 Blind test analysis
Blind test analysis had consisted of the interpretation of the thermo mechanical test. This step is
composed of three major stages:
The definition of the complete thermal load solicitation: from the measurement made on the thermal
specimen, a description of the thermal load imposed by the water at the inner surface had to be
defined. This stage was mainly performed by a numerical analysis (3D or more simple 1D analysis)
and consisted of the precise determination of the imposed temperature to the structure and of the
thermal data of the problem (heat exchange coefficients, conductivity). The definition of the thermal
field in the pipe was deduced from this calculation.
Knowing the thermal field, the stress and strain fields are determined in the pipe. An analysis of these
fields was then performed:
o Local analysis: evolution of stresses and strains with time, stress on the inner surface,
membrane and bending stresses
o Global analysis: mean stresses on the pipe
Following the stress and strain analysis, the damage analysis or the crack propagation analyses were
performed.
The numbers of cycles to crack initiation on the inner surface and crack propagation celerity through
the thickness of the pipe (for a given number of cycles) were the main required results that were compared
with the test.
4.5 Synthesis and discussion
A synthesis of the different proposed assessment procedures and a comparison of the different
assumptions and results obtained were prepared.
This synthesis was presented to the partners and then discussed [7]. At this level, some perspectives
on structural assessment under 3D thermal fatigue loading were proposed by the participants of the
benchmark.
NEA/CSNI/R(2005)2
24

5. MAIN RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS FROM THE PRE TEST ANALYSES
5.1 Preliminary questions
A series of questions was sent to CEA by participants before the analysis. These questions or
comments mainly concerned the understanding of the thermal loading, the material data All questions
from participants and replies from CEA are given in the second step proposal [5].
5.2 Participants
Four contributions were received for this first step, including global 3D thermo mechanical analysis
and 1D analytical estimations. Participants were:
JNC JOYO CRC (Japan) which proposed an analytical approach called cold spot approach
which allowed taking into account structural effects in 1D thermal approach.
Vamet (Czech Republic), DNV (Sweden) and CEA (France) which proposed a complete 3D massive
thermo mechanical analysis.
5.3 Synthesis of the main results
Main results obtained from the analysis are the following:
From 3D calculations and for the given thermal conditions in the first step for the pre test analysis,
stress level was not important enough to reach crack initiation in a reasonable time on the inner
surface.
1D analysis found a significantly higher loading. This was mainly due to the difficulty to take into
account the strong heat transfer coefficient variation with time on the inner surface (difference
between water and air exchange at different time during the cycle). However, if structural effects were
not taken into account in thermal and mechanical effects, 1D approach should lead to non conservative
estimations.
With the given conditions and because of the high level of structural stresses, it was shown that the
test was more appropriate for fatigue crack propagation than for crack initiation: time to reach 80 % of
the thickness was found to be 70 days to 15 months.
It was interesting to reduce the thickness of the mock up to increase structural effects and then
accelerate damage.
3D thermo mechanical F.E. calculations were time consuming and difficult to fit with experiments
because of the model size and because approximately 20 complete cycles were needed to stabilize the
thermal field in the pipe. As a consequence, it was difficult to optimize the thermal conditions by
precise calculation and experimental optimization had to be performed before the beginning of the
thermo mechanical test.

All these results were presented in the second step proposal [5] and at the OECD/NEA/CSNI/IAGE
working group meeting (April 2004 Stockholm [7]).
NEA/CSNI/R(2005)2

25

6. MAIN RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS FROM THE BLIND TEST ANALYSIS
6.1 Participants and models used
For this second analysis step, six participants have proposed a contribution to the benchmark:
Three from Japan: JNC, CRIEPI and INSS.
Two from France: CEA and EdF.
One from Sweden: DNV.
Comment:
The two last participants sent their contributions after the test results presentation in Stockholm [7]
and Seville [8]. However, their calculations were made without taking into account specific
accommodations.
The contribution from EdF was a tentative detailed F.E. analysis focused on crack growth. No
contribution was sent concerning crack initiation analysis.
6.2 Models used
As a consequence of the conclusions of previous step, all the contributions are based on complete 3D
thermo mechanical models. However, JNC proposed a 1D thermal pre analysis to limit the 3D parametric
study for physical parameter determination.
6.3 Calibration of the thermal model
At this level, a calibration of the thermal F.E. model was needed to fit the physical parameter of the
problem. The objective was to reproduce the temperature evolution measured during the thermal
qualification of the test and sent to the participants.
Three different kinds of parametric study were proposed:
First one, made by INSS, CRIEPI and DNV consisted of the determination of the heat exchange
coefficient with air (Hair) and the heat exchange coefficient with water (Hwater), as it was specified in
the benchmark proposition. The conduction coefficient was the one given in the benchmark
specification [4].
JNC proposed to reduce the conduction coefficient based on material data: usually K values of this
material are less than 20 W/m/C. Instead of the radiation calculation, Hair at outer surface was
supposed to be higher than Hair at inner surface.
EdF also modified the conduction coefficient factor, but with a different value: K = 27 W/m/C. In
addition a variable value of Hwater was proposed to represent the thermal cycle:
Hwater = 5195 W/m/C during water injection and Hwater = 1000 W/m/C just after water injection,
when some evaporation might occur on the cooling surface.
As to CEA, as well as in JNC contribution, the K coefficient was modified (by numerical
optimization) to reproduce thermal transient through thickness. In addition to reproduce the more
important heat on the external surface, the radiation of the furnace on the outer surface was taken into
account.
Table 1 makes the synthesis of the models and physical coefficient determined by the participants.
This table shows a good agreement between the different coefficients.
NEA/CSNI/R(2005)2
26

Part.
H
air

(W/m/C)
H
water

(W/m/C)
Other parameters
INSS 50 5000 K = 30 W/m/C
CRIEPI 40 5000 K = 30 W/m/C
JNC 40 (ext.) 5 (int.) 4000 Codified value of K: 14 < K(T) <20
CEA 5 6000 K = 16.5 W/M/C Model of furnace radiation
DNV 80 5000 K = 30 W/m/C
EdF 43 5195 1000 K = 27 W/m/C, variable value of H
water

Table 1: Physical data for thermal calculation
6.4 Elastic stress analysis
Using the fitted cyclic thermal evolution, all participants proposed a stress determination by a 3D
massive elastic F.E. model. In all cases, maximum stress range was observed close to water injection point,
for Z = 210 mm, in the circumferential direction. Table 2 shows the relevant stress levels calculated by the
participants.
From these results, one could make the following comments:
For each contribution, the relevant stress was in an equivalent stress range (Von-Mises),
The stress ranges calculated by JNC and CEA were higher than the stress ranges proposed by CRIEPI
and INSS. This observation was certainly linked to the conduction coefficient two times lower for
these two calculations. This parameter had a strong influence on the thermal transient through the
thickness and thus on the bending stress in the pipe,
Stress level calculated by CEA was higher than the one calculated by JNC. This might be due to a
higher heat exchange coefficient for CEA,
Stress level calculated by DNV was intermediate between JNC and CEA calculations. This also might
be due to the higher values of Hwater and Hair used in calculations.
In summary, this comparison showed that both the heat exchange coefficient and the conduction
coefficient were important on the stress level evaluation. Thus, a good knowledge of the temperature with
time and through the thickness was found essential to have a precise determination of these physical
parameters.
Participant Relevant stress range Type
INSS 572 MPa Equivalent stress range
CRIEPI 507 Mpa Equivalent stress range
JNC 650 Mpa Equivalent stress range
CEA 805 Mpa Equivalent stress range
DNV 715 Mpa Equivalent stress range
EdF No contribution from EdF
Table 2: Relevant stress range definition
6.5 Estimation of the number of cycles to crack initiation
For all participants, a relevant strain range was deduced from the equivalent stress range. The number
of cycle to crack initiation was then deduced from the fatigue curve ( Nr) of the material. To determine
this relevant strain range, three types of corrections were proposed:
NEA/CSNI/R(2005)2

27
JNC and CRIEPI proposed to deduce an elastic-plastic strain range from the elastic strain range
( eq / E) with an elastic follow up factor,
E
Ke
eq
elpl

= '. with ( )

=
y
. 2
1 . 1 q 1 ' Ke and q = 5/3
CEA used the same kind of approach: the elastic plastic strain range was deduced from the elastic one
by a codified parameter

K [3]. In its loading configuration,

K 1.3,
( )
E
K
eq
elpl

+
= .
3
1 . 2
.
DNV proposed a direct calculation of the equivalent strain range by the formula:
( )
( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
2
1
2
xz
2
yz
2
xy
2
x z
2
z y
2
y x eq
.
2
3
.
' 1 . 2
2

+ + + + +
+
=
A plastic amplification was also proposed, assuming incompressibility:
( )
' 1
'.
z
r

+
=


This formulation was equivalent to the one proposed by CEA for the effective Poissons ratio = 0.5
(value adopted by DNV). Plastic amplification obtained was closed to 1.25.
INSS proposed a different approach: the relevant stress range was firstly modified in a Goodman
diagram (assuming R = 0). This stress, converted in strain, was then used in the fatigue curve of the
material.
Table 3 summarises the propositions made by the partners and the estimated number of cycles to
crack initiation.
Part.
elpl
Cycles Comments
CRIEPI
E
'. Ke
eq

6.4E5
Parametric study on the definition of the initial crack: Nr =
3.2E5 for a 1mm initial crack, Nr = 6.4E4 for a 0.05 initial
crack
JNC
E
'. Ke
eq

1.1E5
Proposition of Nr determined from Japanese codified curve : Nr
= 2.8E4
INSS
E
goodman

3.8E4
No initiation if no Goodman correction.
Tensile strength adopted: 600 Mpa
CEA
( )
E
.
3
1 . 2
. K
eq

+

5.0E4 Codified value of K

DNV
( )
eq
. ' K
8.5E4 Direct calculation of
eq
and plastic correction
EdF No contribution from EdF
Table 3: Estimated number of cycles

It must be pointed out that the use of Goodman correction led to a reduced number of cycles in
comparison to the elastic plastic corrections.
6.6 Estimation of the crack propagation
Due to the higher level of stresses in the circumferential direction, each participant estimated that
multiple cracking would occur in the longitudinal direction, at the bottom of the cooling area.
NEA/CSNI/R(2005)2
28
However, at this step for crack propagation estimation, a main question appeared: what are the
dimensions of the initial crack? Different assumptions were adopted. They are summarized in table 4 with
the estimated number of cycles to reach crack penetration:
JNC considered a 0.25 mm deep and 2.5 mm long single crack for the propagation calculation. In the
estimation of crack initiation, assumed crack size was 0.25 mm deep and 0.5 mm long crack. To
consider coalescence of multiple cracks, crack length was supposed to be conservative by a factor of
5.
CEA proposed a 0.6 mm deep (a/h = 0.1) and 4.8 mm long crack. This length was chosen because of
the surface thermal loading, assumed to create long crack initiation on surface. K was determined by
analytical formulae. Crack length at penetration was 2.c = 54 mm.
INSS used a F.E. step by step determination of K
I
to determine the crack evolution. The initial crack
size was assumed to be a = 1.5 mm and 2.c = 6 mm. Crack length at penetration was evaluated at
58 mm.
CRIEPI proposed a parametric study on the initial crack depth (assuming c/a = 3). The effect of R
ratio on crack propagation was also proposed. A K
I
compendium was also used and crack length at
penetration was estimated at 31 mm for each case.
DNV proposed two initial crack sizes: a = 0.5 mm and a = 1 mm (assuming c/a = 3). Crack length at
the penetration was 2c = 38 mm.
EdF proposed a tentative detailed F.E. analysis with a calculation of the crack front evolution using an
automatic meshing procedure: K was calculated at each point of the crack front. The initial crack size
was a = 0.5 mm and 2.c = 3 mm. Calculation was only possible until 0.69 crack depth.
Part. Initial size Cycles Comments
CRIEPI
a = 0.025 to 1.5 mm
Ratio c/a = 3
97000 to
11000
Crack propagation made in the continuation of the
parametric study on initiation
JNC
a = 0.25
2.c = 2.5
4000 or
4600
Use of the given Paris Law or the Japaneze codified rule:
da/dN = 7E5.J
1.37

INSS
a = 1.5 mm
2.c = 6 mm
5000
Comparison between unique and multiple cracking,
longitudinal and circumf. Cracks
CEA
a = 0.6 mm
2.c = 9.6 mm
1400 Account of plasticity (A16 approach [3])
DNV
a = 0.5 or 1 mm
Ratio c/a = 3
3400 or
2400
Proposition of two initial crack sizes
EdF
a = 0.5 mm
2.c = 3 mm
5500
Number of cycles corresponds to 0.69 mm deep and
3.34 mm long crack
Table 4: Estimated number of cycles for crack propagation

From the table 4, conclusions are:
The propagation rate for the given loading was important and the number of cycle to penetrate the pipe
was small in comparison to the number of cycles to initiate a crack (approximately 10%).
Considering CRIEPI, DNV and EdF contributions, the beginning of crack propagation (for a < 1 mm)
was long in comparison with the following propagation. As CRIEPI suggested, the initial crack depth
should be defined in coordination with the crack initiation criteria.
NEA/CSNI/R(2005)2

29
Calculated number of cycles by CRIEPI was larger than the other contribution. At the opposite, CEA
estimation was lower. This might be due to the estimation of the thermo mechanical loading, lower for
CRIEPI and higher for CEA. Figure 9 illustrated this fact, showing that this fact was mainly linked to
the exponent of the Paris law (exponent of the fitted curve is closed to the exponent of the Paris law).
y = 3E+15x
-4.2397
1E+3
1E+4
1E+5
100 1000
Re l e vant stre ss range (MPa)
N
u
m
b
e
r

o
f

c
y
c
l
e
s

t
o

p
e
n
e
t
r
a
t
e

Figure 9: Number of cycles vs. number of cycles to penetrate
6.7 Conclusion of this calculation phase
The main difficulty of this calculation phase was the calibration of the thermal model: the thermal
loading was shown to be complex to be reproduced by F.E. calculation. However, a reasonably good
agreement was obtained by the participants.
The stress fields deduced from the thermal modelling showed that either the conduction factor (K
coefficient) or the heat exchange coefficients (H coefficients) had an importance on the stress calculated on
the internal skin of the pipe: temperature evolution with time and true thickness stress transient were
depending on these two parameters.
For all participants, the relevant strain for crack initiation evaluation were equivalent strain range
(Von-Mises type) deduced from elastic F.E. calculations. However two types of correction were proposed:
Major part of participants proposed a plastic correction (with no R ratio consideration) and one participant
proposed a Goodman correction (without plastic correction). The second approach seemed to be lead to a
lower number of cycles to crack initiation.
Concerning crack propagation, the main question was the definition of the initial crack depth to
consider in the analysis. Participants had proposed initial crack depth ranking from 0.5 mm to 1.5 mm.
However, all crack propagation phases were in accordance showing that:
The number of cycles to penetration was strongly linked to the level of loading. This was due to the
exponent of the Paris law.
For the proposed thermal loading, the propagation phase was short in comparison to the initiation
phase (about 10%). This was already a conclusion of the first pre test analysis.
NEA/CSNI/R(2005)2
30

7. TEST OBSERVATION

The test in support of the benchmark was conducted in parallel of the blind analyses. The objective
was to compare, in fine, the participant predictions to the experimental results.
However, due to a movement of the cooling pipe inside the mock-up (figure 10) the thermal loading
became more severe after approximately 1000 cycles.



Thermal variation on the external skin
(maximum loaded point)
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
0.0 50.0 100.0 150.0 200.0 250.0
Z (mm)
t
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e

(

C
)

Transient (after 1000 cycles))
Transient (beginning of the test)

Figure 10: Thermal loading evolution
As a consequence, it was difficult to compare quantitatively the predictions and the experimental
results.
A qualitative comparison on the crack location, orientation or propagation rate could however be
made because the thermal loading shape was similar.
7.1 Crack evolution
A view to the internal and external surfaces of the mock up was shown in figure 10. It can be seen on
this figure:
An important number of cracks appeared on the internal surface. They were located at the bottom of
surface cooled by cold water injection.
The most important crack, in the symmetry plane of the pipe, penetrated through the thickness of the
mock up. This crack was approximately 50 mm long on the inner surface and 37 mm on the outer
surface.
The first cracking was observed on the inner surface after 12000 cycles (visual observations). The
main crack penetrated after a total of 17500 cycles.
The observation of the crack surface (figure 11) showed that the crack shape could be approximated
by a semi elliptical crack front. The striation showed that the crack propagation was a pure fatigue
propagation phenomenon.
NEA/CSNI/R(2005)2

31

Figure 10: Crack location on the mock up: internal (left) and external surfaces (right)

Figure 11: Crack surface observation
An estimation of the crack length at penetration could be proposed: 2.c = 36 mm. This estimation
could be made because the surface defect just before penetration was visible on the crack surface (the
coloration was different).
The two previous figures compared to the analyses showed that there was a good qualitative accuracy
between test and calculations:
In terms of crack location, at the top of the cooling area,
In terms of crack orientation: main crack is axial,
In terms of capability of the thermal loading to create a through wall crack.
7.2 CEA interpretation of the test taking into account loading variation
The CEA thermal model was corrected to take into account the evolution of the experimental thermal
loading. Two main corrections were made:
Modification of the cold surface in contact with water: because of the movement of the cooling pipe,
the surface was larger,
Increase of the heat exchange coefficient (H
water
).
NEA/CSNI/R(2005)2
32

volution des tempratures en surface (98)
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Z en mm
t
e
m
p

r
a
t
u
r
e

e
n

C
Tmax
Tmin
dText
Tmax MEF
Tmin Mef
dT Mef

0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.E+03 1.E+04 1.E+05 1.E+06
Number of cycles

t
Best fit fatigue curve
Uniaxial tests
FAT3D test
Initiation on
internal surface
Crack
penetration

Figure 12: CEA interpretation of the test
Figure 12 showed a comparison of measured and calculated temperatures. One could see on this
figure that a good accordance between the experiment and the F.E. model was obtained.
The thermo mechanical calculation was then performed. The maximum equivalent stress obtained was
then:
eq
= 1170 MPa. The RCC-MR [3] rule was then applied:
( )
% 8 . 0 .
3
1 . 2
. =

+
=
E
K
eq
elpl

with 3 . 1 K

The associated point was plotted against the fatigue curve of the material in figure 12. From this
figure, the point corresponding to crack initiation was close but under the best fit fatigue curve of the
material. However, because we had only one test, this result had to be confirmed by some complementary
analysis and tests with the device.
NEA/CSNI/R(2005)2

33

8. DISCUSSION OF THE RESULTS RECOMMENDATIONS

The experimental configuration and the associated F.E. interpretation proposed in this benchmark
were relatively simple but had led to interesting results in terms of integrity assessment evaluation under
thermal loading.
Concerning thermal loading evaluation, the different calculations performed showed the importance
of the physical parameter such as K (conduction coefficient) and H (heat exchange coefficient) on the
temperature and stress variation evaluation: first term had a major effect on the stress transient through the
thickness although the second one had an importance on the local stress variation on surface.
More generally, for a given thermal loading, it was difficult to reproduce the measured temperatures
by the numerical simulation.
Concerning relevant stress and strain evaluation for crack initiation, all contributors proposed an
equivalent stress and strain ranges (Von-Mises type). But two corrections were proposed to amplify the
elastic strain range determined from thermo mechanical F.E. calculation: a plastic correction to take into
account the plasticity which might occur on the surface (due to high level of loading) or a Goodman
correction, to take into account a R ratio.
From the proposed results, the Goodman correction seems to be more severe (in terms of calculated
number of cycles to crack initiation).
From these estimates, the location and the orientation of the crack initiation were correctly found: as
in the test, the major cracking was predicted at the top cooling area, in the axial direction. Thus, even if the
relevant strain was an equivalent strain range, the major crack orientation was governed by the maximum
principal stress range (circumferential stress in the symmetry plane).
Concerning crack propagation phase, multiple cracking was observed, but only one of them emerged
from the crack network and penetrated the thickness of the pipe.
From the analysis side, the main difficulty was the definition of the initial crack size. This choice had
an importance on the integrity assessment evaluation:
Crack propagation at the beginning was important in terms of number of cycles to propagate (because
of the low values of K for small cracks).
As suggested by one participant, this initial crack size should be defined in conjunction with crack
initiation criteria.
In addition, the comparison of the different propagations given by the participants showed that the
number of cycles to penetrate was strongly linked to the evaluated thermal loading on surface. The
observed exponent was directly linked to the exponent of the Paris law.
Finally, they all showed that the proposed thermal loading was able to propagate a single crack
through the thickness of the pipe, as it was observed in the test.
NEA/CSNI/R(2005)2
34

9. CONCLUSIONS OF THE BENCHMARK

The benchmark proposed in the frame of the OECD/NEA/CSNI/IAGE working group was now
completed. Organised in three major steps, it allowed defining, realising and analysing an example of
fatigue crack propagation under pure thermal loading in which important cracking, up to penetration, was
observed.
First step devoted to pre calculation gave the first main conclusions on the minimum thermal loading
to observe cracking with the mock up, the specimen geometry or the models needed to have a good
representation of the loading,
Second step was an experimental qualification of the thermal loading. The temperature measurements
made on a special mock-up were sent to participants to have a good representation of the thermal
loading for analyses,
Final step was the blind interpretation of the test. At this step, participants were asked to estimate the
number of cycles to crack initiation and to full propagation through the thickness. The test was
performed in parallel.
Due to a movement of the cooling pipe at the beginning of the test, the thermal loading was more
severe than the loading characterised with the thermal mock-up. It was difficult to compare quantitatively
the prediction of the participants with the experiment.
However, a qualitative comparison showed that predictions were in good agreement with the test
results:
The location and the orientation of the cracks were predicted by the participants: due to the
circumferential stresses, axial cracks are dominant, at the bottom of the cooling area.
The capability of the cracks to propagate through the thickness was predicted and, for all participants,
the number of cycles to penetrate the pipe wall was small compared to the number of cycles for
initiation. This was observed during the test with 12000 cycles to initiate a crack and 17500 for the
complete penetration.
CEA post interpretation made with corrected thermal loading showed that the point corresponding to
crack initiation was below the fatigue best fit curve of the material. This first result had to be confirmed
with complementary tests and analyses.


NEA/CSNI/R(2005)2

35










Appendix I: Thermal loading characterization

NEA/CSNI/R(2005)2
36
Measurements for = 0

(deg.) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 180.0 180.0 180.0
Z (mm) 220.0 190.0 190.0 190.0 160.0 160.0 160.0 130.0 130.0 130.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 70.0 70.0 70.0 270.0 180.0 90.0
(mm) 0.0 3.2 0.0 6.0 3.2 0.0 6.0 3.2 0.0 6.0 3.2 0.0 6.0 3.2 0.0 3.2 0.0 0.0 0.0
T 178.5 319.1 297.4 333.7 240.6 224.6 250.2 197.3 183.8 203.8 177.0 166.2 183.9 159.5 149.3 167.3 6.0 6.2 6.1
Tmin 330.8 92.4 122.4 72.1 88.9 113.6 66.4 73.4 100.9 62.6 68.2 94.3 58.0 74.9 98.2 64.6 627.5 573.1 488.4
Tmax 509.3 411.5 419.8 405.8 329.5 338.2 316.6 270.7 284.7 266.4 245.2 260.5 241.9 234.4 247.5 231.9 633.5 579.3 494.5
Temps TC1 TC2 TC3 TC4 TC5 TC6 TC7 TC8 TC9 TC10 TC11 TC12 TC13 TC14 TC15 TC16 TC17 TC18 TC19
(s) (C) (C) (C) (C) (C) (C) (C) (C) (C) (C) (C) (C) (C) (C) (C) (C) (C) (C) (C)
0.0 507.6 409.1 418.2 405.3 328.8 337.6 316.1 270.1 283.4 265.7 244.7 257.5 241.4 233.9 247.1 231.5 631.2 578.8 494.1
1.0 507.9 409.2 418.7 405.8 329.5 338.2 316.6 270.7 284.0 266.4 245.2 258.0 241.9 234.4 247.4 231.9 631.3 578.7 493.8
2.0 508.3 411.5 419.8 389.4 323.0 337.5 296.3 265.6 284.7 235.6 240.9 260.5 214.9 234.2 247.5 216.3 630.7 576.1 491.9
3.0 509.1 386.4 416.9 304.3 300.4 327.4 264.0 244.6 278.4 205.7 219.8 255.9 182.4 220.3 245.0 184.7 629.0 575.2 491.3
4.0 509.3 345.2 396.6 257.6 273.7 308.6 234.1 222.1 262.8 183.5 198.4 241.4 161.6 201.8 235.2 164.5 628.8 574.4 490.8
5.0 509.0 306.2 366.0 225.1 248.0 286.4 207.8 201.0 244.0 165.0 179.5 223.5 145.4 184.0 221.1 148.5 628.3 573.6 490.1
6.1 505.5 263.0 324.9 192.9 218.8 258.7 178.0 177.7 220.7 145.3 159.1 199.7 128.7 164.2 202.8 132.7 627.5 574.1 489.8
7.0 497.7 242.9 302.6 176.6 203.6 243.0 165.6 165.6 208.1 135.0 148.1 190.0 119.8 154.0 192.4 124.0 629.6 574.1 489.9
8.0 482.5 217.6 275.0 157.7 185.4 224.0 148.8 151.0 192.5 122.7 135.3 175.9 109.2 141.7 179.5 114.1 629.9 574.5 490.2
9.0 464.8 195.5 250.5 141.4 169.4 206.9 134.1 138.2 178.4 111.9 124.0 163.1 100.2 130.7 167.6 105.2 630.1 574.9 490.4
10.0 444.8 176.6 228.6 127.3 155.2 191.6 121.4 126.7 165.6 102.4 114.0 151.7 92.0 120.9 156.5 97.4 630.3 575.3 490.3
11.0 415.7 150.4 199.6 109.5 136.8 171.4 103.5 111.9 149.1 90.5 101.2 135.0 81.6 108.2 142.2 87.4 628.8 575.7 490.1
12.0 407.4 143.9 191.8 104.6 131.7 165.7 99.2 107.8 144.5 87.0 97.5 130.9 78.5 104.6 138.1 84.6 628.8 575.6 490.0
13.0 390.6 132.8 177.3 95.3 121.9 154.8 92.5 99.7 135.6 80.2 90.4 124.8 72.7 97.8 130.0 79.1 630.4 575.0 490.1
14.0 375.9 121.8 164.6 87.3 113.7 145.7 85.3 92.8 128.0 74.5 84.2 118.0 67.7 91.8 123.2 74.2 630.3 574.8 490.0
15.0 363.6 112.2 153.6 80.4 106.4 137.7 79.0 86.7 121.3 69.6 78.8 111.8 63.4 86.5 117.2 70.0 630.2 574.8 489.9
16.0 353.2 103.8 144.2 74.4 100.2 130.8 73.5 81.4 115.2 65.2 74.1 106.4 59.5 81.7 111.8 66.2 630.2 574.8 489.9
17.1 341.6 93.2 133.6 72.1 94.0 123.6 66.4 75.8 108.6 62.6 69.4 98.6 58.0 76.6 106.3 64.6 628.4 575.2 489.5
18.0 335.5 92.5 128.4 77.1 90.7 119.4 66.8 73.8 105.2 63.3 68.2 97.4 59.9 75.3 102.7 66.1 630.2 574.7 489.6
19.0 331.4 92.4 124.0 82.3 89.0 115.8 67.4 73.4 102.2 65.6 68.5 95.1 62.4 74.9 99.9 68.3 630.1 574.8 489.6
20.0 330.8 93.9 122.4 86.0 88.9 114.0 68.8 74.0 100.9 67.4 69.4 94.3 64.4 75.4 98.5 70.1 630.3 574.8 489.5
21.0 332.1 96.0 122.5 88.6 89.8 113.6 70.8 75.2 100.9 69.3 70.7 94.6 66.2 76.4 98.2 71.5 630.4 574.8 489.6
22.0 336.2 97.5 124.5 91.6 93.0 115.1 72.5 77.6 102.2 73.0 73.1 94.4 68.9 78.1 99.9 74.0 629.0 575.4 489.7
23.0 337.5 98.6 125.3 92.6 93.8 115.7 73.5 78.3 102.7 73.7 73.8 94.9 69.7 78.6 100.2 74.7 629.1 575.4 489.7
24.0 339.7 102.4 127.0 94.7 94.6 116.7 77.2 79.7 103.7 74.2 75.0 97.8 70.9 79.9 100.2 75.5 630.3 574.9 489.7
29.0 352.5 114.2 137.6 106.3 103.8 125.5 86.8 87.5 110.7 81.9 82.4 104.3 78.2 85.9 105.8 81.9 629.5 575.1 489.7
34.0 363.7 126.4 149.7 119.5 111.6 133.2 93.9 94.8 117.3 88.8 88.7 109.7 84.9 91.7 110.9 87.5 628.9 575.9 489.3
39.1 372.8 140.0 162.2 134.1 119.1 139.1 100.8 101.1 123.8 96.3 95.4 115.5 91.7 97.6 117.0 93.6 629.4 573.2 489.1
44.0 382.0 154.7 176.3 148.9 126.8 146.5 108.8 107.2 129.7 102.4 101.1 121.5 96.8 103.0 122.4 98.4 630.0 573.5 489.3
49.0 389.0 168.3 188.4 161.9 132.9 152.2 116.8 112.6 135.3 107.2 105.5 127.1 101.9 107.3 125.9 101.9 630.1 575.8 489.0
54.0 395.4 181.4 201.1 175.7 140.2 159.1 123.4 118.5 141.9 113.2 110.9 131.9 107.3 113.1 130.7 107.1 631.1 575.3 490.5
59.0 404.0 195.2 214.7 189.2 147.4 166.9 130.8 124.8 146.7 119.2 117.2 137.4 113.2 117.4 135.5 113.1 632.8 577.2 491.0
64.0 409.4 208.0 226.4 202.1 153.9 172.5 137.9 130.3 151.2 124.9 122.4 141.7 118.5 120.6 138.2 115.9 631.5 576.2 490.3
69.0 413.5 220.0 236.2 214.5 160.1 178.1 145.0 135.0 155.7 130.2 127.5 146.0 122.8 125.3 141.3 121.6 629.8 573.1 488.9
74.0 419.8 231.8 247.5 225.9 167.2 185.9 152.1 140.8 161.2 135.8 133.3 151.0 128.0 130.5 146.6 127.5 630.1 574.4 489.2
79.0 426.8 243.1 259.2 237.3 174.7 193.4 159.4 146.4 166.9 141.5 138.6 156.0 133.2 135.0 151.8 129.1 630.2 575.2 488.7
84.0 431.5 254.2 270.0 248.0 182.6 200.2 167.2 152.3 172.9 147.5 143.4 161.3 138.8 138.8 155.0 134.9 632.2 575.3 490.1
89.0 437.5 265.0 281.0 259.3 190.8 207.3 175.3 158.8 178.5 153.5 148.1 166.5 144.3 144.0 160.2 139.8 632.5 577.0 490.9
94.1 441.3 275.1 290.1 268.6 198.2 213.4 182.9 164.4 182.2 159.8 152.9 170.8 149.4 147.9 164.8 144.8 629.3 575.1 488.4
99.0 446.8 285.2 299.2 279.5 205.3 221.2 190.5 169.4 188.4 164.9 158.8 175.6 154.0 153.7 169.3 150.7 630.3 575.1 488.8
104.0 450.6 293.3 308.0 288.3 212.4 227.6 196.6 175.5 193.4 170.0 162.7 179.5 159.2 158.0 174.2 154.6 629.9 575.3 490.3
109.0 455.3 301.6 316.9 297.0 220.2 234.9 204.2 180.7 198.9 175.8 167.8 184.6 164.0 162.9 179.5 159.5 630.8 576.6 490.6
114.0 459.6 311.6 325.1 306.3 227.7 241.7 212.8 186.5 204.4 181.3 172.7 189.9 169.2 168.2 183.5 164.4 632.8 577.6 491.9
119.0 462.8 319.6 332.2 314.7 234.4 247.6 220.2 191.7 208.9 186.9 177.5 193.9 174.0 172.6 187.2 169.1 632.0 576.9 491.4
124.0 465.5 325.8 338.6 321.6 240.8 253.5 226.3 196.7 213.1 192.4 182.0 197.1 178.5 176.4 191.6 173.5 629.3 575.7 490.3
129.0 469.6 333.4 346.0 329.2 247.9 260.3 233.5 202.3 218.5 198.0 186.8 201.8 183.3 180.9 196.2 178.1 630.1 576.5 491.0
134.0 474.2 341.6 353.3 337.0 255.5 266.9 241.5 208.0 224.1 202.9 191.1 207.5 188.1 185.5 200.5 182.6 631.5 577.3 491.3
139.0 477.2 349.2 360.2 344.6 262.3 273.8 249.1 213.6 229.5 209.0 196.4 211.8 193.2 190.5 204.3 187.3 632.6 578.0 492.5
144.0 478.7 354.7 365.4 351.0 268.4 279.2 255.8 217.8 233.8 213.8 201.0 215.7 196.8 194.4 207.2 192.3 630.0 575.9 491.0
149.1 482.3 362.5 371.8 357.3 275.3 286.5 263.0 224.1 239.1 219.9 206.3 220.6 202.2 198.8 212.1 196.7 631.9 576.4 490.8
154.0 486.2 368.8 378.7 363.9 282.9 293.8 270.3 229.9 245.2 225.8 211.4 225.9 207.1 203.4 217.1 201.3 631.7 577.2 491.3
159.0 490.4 375.1 385.2 370.8 289.6 300.0 276.8 235.8 250.9 231.2 215.4 230.4 212.2 208.0 221.5 204.9 633.1 578.7 493.5
164.0 492.7 381.1 390.5 376.8 295.8 305.7 283.4 241.3 255.7 236.8 220.1 234.5 217.0 212.3 225.1 209.3 632.1 577.9 493.1
169.0 493.6 386.0 395.0 382.4 301.3 311.0 289.1 246.7 260.2 242.1 224.6 238.1 221.9 216.3 228.9 213.4 630.4 576.0 493.0
174.0 496.9 391.7 400.7 388.1 307.9 317.4 295.6 252.4 265.9 247.7 229.4 243.0 226.7 220.7 233.4 217.9 631.1 576.8 493.7
179.0 502.2 397.9 407.1 393.9 315.0 324.4 302.8 258.0 271.8 253.4 234.4 248.6 231.2 225.3 238.2 222.3 633.5 579.3 494.5
184.0 504.4 403.3 412.0 399.4 321.0 330.3 309.1 263.3 277.0 258.8 239.3 252.9 235.7 229.7 241.6 226.9 631.5 578.2 494.0
189.0 505.7 407.0 416.1 403.7 327.3 335.0 314.6 268.4 281.4 265.0 243.3 256.6 240.3 233.1 246.5 230.6 631.3 577.6 493.5
NEA/CSNI/R(2005)2

37
Measurements for = 20



(deg.) 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 200.0 200.0 200.0
Z (mm) 220.0 190.0 190.0 190.0 160.0 160.0 160.0 130.0 130.0 130.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 70.0 70.0 70.0 270.0 180.0 90.0
(mm) 0.0 3.2 0.0 6.0 3.2 0.0 6.0 3.2 0.0 6.0 3.2 0.0 6.0 3.2 0.0 3.2 0.0 0.0 0.0
T 152.7 326.2 303.9 342.6 246.7 230.6 257.7 208.6 194.4 215.4 187.1 175.3 193.4 167.1 155.0 175.0 8.4 6.8 7.4
Tmin 367.1 96.8 128.1 77.7 96.5 121.1 75.9 75.4 102.2 65.1 70.9 96.6 61.8 80.4 104.4 69.5 635.0 579.4 493.5
Tmax 519.8 423.0 432.0 420.3 343.2 351.7 333.6 284.0 296.6 280.5 258.0 271.9 255.2 247.5 259.4 244.5 643.4 586.2 500.9
Temps TC1 TC2 TC3 TC4 TC5 TC6 TC7 TC8 TC9 TC10 TC11 TC12 TC13 TC14 TC15 TC16 TC17 TC18 TC19
(s) (C) (C) (C) (C) (C) (C) (C) (C) (C) (C) (C) (C) (C) (C) (C) (C) (C) (C) (C)
0.0 519.3 422.0 431.0 420.3 342.3 350.6 333.6 283.0 295.6 280.5 257.1 271.4 255.2 246.8 259.4 244.0 640.7 585.6 500.9
1.0 519.8 423.0 432.0 420.3 343.2 351.7 333.2 284.0 296.6 273.1 258.0 271.9 252.5 247.5 259.1 244.5 638.1 583.7 499.3
2.1 519.4 408.3 431.1 340.0 324.2 346.6 296.7 261.1 292.2 222.6 236.0 269.2 200.0 238.0 258.6 203.6 635.6 581.9 498.0
3.0 518.9 378.1 420.7 293.5 304.2 335.8 272.2 243.0 281.8 202.4 219.2 259.6 181.5 223.8 252.5 186.4 635.4 582.3 496.5
4.0 518.9 335.9 393.6 253.4 277.8 315.7 243.2 219.8 262.9 180.8 197.4 242.0 161.5 204.9 239.7 168.2 635.4 580.0 495.8
5.0 518.5 298.0 360.5 222.5 252.8 293.0 217.4 198.7 242.6 162.8 178.1 222.7 145.6 187.3 224.5 153.1 635.0 579.4 495.3
6.0 516.4 264.8 327.5 197.3 230.1 271.0 195.0 180.1 223.4 147.0 161.3 204.9 131.8 171.7 209.5 140.2 635.5 579.8 495.3
7.0 504.3 223.6 282.4 167.0 200.6 240.5 166.7 155.4 198.1 127.1 140.2 181.5 113.9 152.0 189.5 123.8 636.3 580.7 495.4
8.0 498.6 212.2 269.7 158.8 192.3 231.7 158.8 148.6 190.8 121.5 134.3 174.9 109.0 146.4 183.4 119.2 636.4 580.6 495.5
9.0 485.2 190.9 246.8 142.8 175.8 214.5 143.7 137.1 175.9 110.6 122.8 161.7 101.0 134.9 170.8 110.0 636.2 581.5 495.7
10.0 469.3 172.6 226.1 128.9 161.4 198.8 130.7 125.8 163.0 101.3 112.9 150.3 93.1 124.9 159.9 102.1 636.3 581.6 495.4
11.0 453.2 156.8 207.5 117.0 148.8 184.7 119.2 115.9 151.8 93.2 104.2 140.4 86.1 116.3 150.3 95.0 636.3 581.4 495.2
12.0 437.6 143.2 191.5 106.6 137.8 172.4 109.2 107.2 142.1 86.0 96.6 131.6 79.9 108.5 141.7 88.6 636.3 581.4 495.1
13.1 419.1 128.4 172.7 95.8 125.8 160.0 98.5 96.2 131.8 78.3 89.1 122.4 71.9 100.2 132.1 82.6 636.7 580.0 495.5
14.0 409.6 120.5 165.7 90.1 119.6 152.2 92.8 92.9 125.9 74.2 83.9 117.2 70.0 95.6 127.2 78.2 636.4 581.0 494.9
15.0 397.3 111.4 154.9 83.3 112.1 144.1 86.1 86.6 119.2 69.4 78.7 111.5 65.5 90.2 121.1 73.7 636.5 580.1 495.0
16.0 386.8 103.1 145.5 77.7 105.6 136.6 80.4 81.4 113.4 65.1 73.9 106.2 61.8 85.3 115.7 69.5 636.8 580.1 495.1
17.0 377.7 97.4 137.4 81.7 100.3 130.1 76.4 77.4 108.1 65.3 70.9 101.4 63.1 81.7 110.7 70.4 636.9 580.2 494.9
18.0 370.3 96.8 128.9 90.3 96.7 124.7 75.9 75.4 103.2 69.0 72.3 97.0 66.1 80.4 105.6 75.1 636.1 580.6 493.8
19.0 369.3 97.5 128.1 91.9 96.5 123.4 76.4 75.8 102.6 70.0 72.7 96.6 67.1 80.6 104.9 75.6 636.0 580.6 494.0
20.0 367.1 99.2 128.7 94.6 97.2 121.3 78.2 77.9 102.2 72.3 72.6 96.8 70.1 81.3 104.4 76.4 636.7 579.8 495.4
21.0 367.9 101.3 129.5 97.1 98.5 121.1 79.9 79.3 102.7 74.5 74.3 97.4 71.8 82.3 104.7 77.8 636.7 579.9 495.4
22.0 368.9 103.6 131.1 99.5 99.7 121.8 81.8 80.9 103.6 76.2 75.8 98.5 73.5 83.4 105.3 79.1 636.7 579.7 495.2
23.0 370.3 106.0 133.0 102.1 101.3 122.8 83.7 82.5 104.8 78.0 77.3 99.7 75.1 84.5 106.1 80.3 636.7 579.7 495.2
24.1 372.6 109.3 134.8 105.2 102.9 125.2 85.7 83.5 106.6 79.6 80.0 101.3 76.0 86.1 106.9 82.5 636.3 580.5 493.8
29.0 380.7 123.4 147.7 120.1 111.3 133.1 94.2 91.8 114.4 87.6 87.7 108.7 83.7 92.1 112.5 88.5 636.4 580.5 493.5
34.0 386.4 136.2 160.8 133.4 117.4 138.0 100.4 99.1 120.5 93.6 92.9 115.0 90.7 97.2 117.5 92.7 637.4 580.1 494.8
39.0 394.0 150.9 175.0 148.5 124.5 144.6 107.2 105.1 126.4 99.7 99.3 121.1 96.6 102.3 122.9 97.7 637.0 580.1 494.6
44.0 400.6 165.1 188.2 163.2 132.0 151.0 114.2 110.4 131.9 106.3 104.6 126.1 101.2 106.6 127.8 102.2 636.7 581.0 493.9
49.0 406.6 180.0 201.8 177.9 139.0 157.4 121.7 116.2 137.9 112.3 110.1 131.7 106.8 112.1 132.5 107.5 638.2 580.2 494.8
54.0 413.2 194.4 215.5 191.1 145.7 164.2 130.1 122.6 143.4 117.8 115.7 138.2 112.9 117.0 137.1 112.7 637.7 582.0 493.9
59.0 418.5 208.7 228.2 205.1 153.2 171.6 138.4 128.4 149.4 123.7 121.5 144.6 118.3 122.7 142.4 118.1 639.4 581.7 495.1
64.0 424.7 221.2 240.7 218.6 161.0 179.1 146.2 134.5 156.0 130.1 126.7 149.4 123.6 127.2 146.9 122.5 638.2 582.8 494.8
69.0 429.2 233.5 252.4 231.0 168.8 185.9 153.5 140.4 162.0 136.2 131.6 153.9 128.8 132.4 151.5 127.1 639.7 582.3 495.2
74.0 435.8 245.1 264.3 241.8 176.9 194.0 162.0 147.1 166.9 142.4 137.5 159.7 135.0 136.6 156.6 132.7 639.1 583.0 494.9
79.1 441.1 258.0 275.6 254.5 185.3 202.1 171.5 153.1 173.2 148.7 142.0 165.9 138.3 141.4 161.7 136.1 640.7 582.8 496.0
84.0 446.5 269.0 286.9 266.4 194.1 210.0 179.6 159.2 180.2 155.2 146.4 169.1 144.1 145.5 164.9 140.8 640.7 583.3 496.2
89.0 451.8 278.2 296.1 276.0 201.3 217.8 186.8 164.9 184.9 160.6 152.2 173.3 149.6 150.0 168.9 146.2 642.2 584.9 497.5
94.0 454.8 287.3 305.2 285.8 207.8 224.2 194.3 171.5 189.7 165.8 157.5 177.2 155.8 154.7 172.2 151.1 639.7 583.6 496.1
99.0 458.8 297.1 314.0 295.4 216.3 231.7 202.7 177.2 195.3 172.4 162.9 182.9 161.0 159.9 178.0 156.1 641.0 583.0 497.5
104.0 464.4 306.0 322.7 304.0 225.5 239.2 210.5 182.6 201.0 179.5 168.2 188.0 165.8 164.7 184.2 161.2 641.8 584.3 497.2
109.0 469.5 316.1 331.8 313.9 232.7 247.2 219.3 188.8 207.5 184.7 174.0 193.9 171.4 170.5 188.2 166.6 643.4 586.1 499.1
114.0 472.6 324.5 339.3 322.6 239.9 253.7 227.2 194.7 212.5 190.7 179.3 198.2 176.8 175.3 192.1 171.6 642.5 585.4 498.7
119.0 475.1 332.3 346.2 330.2 246.8 259.4 235.2 200.1 217.5 196.6 184.1 203.2 181.8 180.1 196.1 176.0 639.7 584.6 497.3
124.0 478.5 339.9 353.3 338.8 254.3 266.1 242.4 205.7 224.2 202.7 188.8 207.7 186.7 185.7 201.1 180.4 641.4 584.1 498.8
129.0 484.4 348.1 361.8 346.2 262.2 274.7 250.5 212.4 229.4 208.8 195.1 213.2 192.6 189.9 206.0 186.3 643.2 586.2 499.8
134.1 487.3 355.8 368.5 353.9 269.4 281.3 258.3 218.6 234.7 215.2 200.5 217.8 198.1 194.8 210.0 191.4 642.2 585.6 499.4
139.0 489.3 362.6 374.2 360.4 275.8 287.2 266.0 224.4 239.4 221.1 205.5 222.8 203.2 198.9 213.9 195.8 639.1 583.3 498.0
144.0 493.7 368.2 380.1 366.2 282.2 294.4 272.0 229.3 244.9 226.2 211.3 226.8 207.5 203.5 218.0 201.4 640.2 584.3 497.7
149.0 497.4 375.7 387.5 373.8 290.1 300.9 279.7 235.9 251.3 232.8 215.6 232.3 213.3 208.5 223.4 205.2 642.5 585.9 499.9
154.0 499.7 382.0 393.1 380.2 296.7 307.0 286.7 241.7 256.3 238.6 220.6 236.8 218.4 213.1 227.3 209.8 641.5 585.2 499.5
159.0 501.5 387.2 397.7 385.0 302.5 312.8 293.0 246.7 260.8 244.1 226.0 240.8 222.8 217.0 230.8 214.8 639.2 583.7 497.5
164.0 505.6 393.2 403.7 391.1 309.1 319.6 299.7 252.6 266.9 249.8 231.3 246.0 227.9 221.8 235.4 219.5 639.7 584.3 498.1
169.0 508.3 399.3 409.0 397.5 315.9 326.8 306.7 258.1 273.1 255.6 236.4 251.5 232.7 226.6 240.3 224.2 641.0 584.3 499.8
174.0 512.0 405.6 415.8 403.8 323.2 332.5 313.6 264.9 278.8 262.1 240.9 256.4 238.8 231.4 245.1 228.2 641.8 586.0 500.7
179.0 514.0 410.9 420.4 409.2 329.0 337.8 320.0 270.5 283.7 267.8 245.7 260.5 243.7 235.7 248.7 232.7 640.9 585.3 500.2
184.0 515.1 416.0 424.0 413.5 333.8 342.3 326.7 275.5 287.9 272.8 249.9 265.6 248.2 239.4 252.1 236.5 639.7 583.4 499.2
189.1 518.5 421.4 429.5 418.8 340.7 348.7 333.1 281.4 293.9 278.9 255.0 270.9 253.3 244.0 257.1 241.0 640.5 584.2 499.8
NEA/CSNI/R(2005)2
38
Measurements for = 40



(deg.) 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 220.0 220.0 220.0
Z (mm) 220.0 190.0 190.0 190.0 160.0 160.0 160.0 130.0 130.0 130.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 70.0 70.0 70.0 270.0 180.0 90.0
(mm) 0.0 3.2 0.0 6.0 3.2 0.0 6.0 3.2 0.0 6.0 3.2 0.0 6.0 3.2 0.0 3.2 0.0 0.0 0.0
T 72.4 319.4 296.9 337.1 260.2 245.1 274.0 221.5 206.3 229.2 191.9 179.1 199.8 169.5 157.4 177.2 10.9 7.5 7.0
Tmin 465.3 125.0 157.2 106.5 106.1 130.2 83.5 81.7 110.2 71.7 82.5 110.3 71.7 91.7 119.1 81.7 635.3 577.4 477.9
Tmax 537.7 444.4 454.1 443.6 366.3 375.3 357.5 303.2 316.5 300.9 274.4 289.4 271.5 261.2 276.5 258.9 646.2 584.9 484.9
Temps TC1 TC2 TC3 TC4 TC5 TC6 TC7 TC8 TC9 TC10 TC11 TC12 TC13 TC14 TC15 TC16 TC17 TC18 TC19
(s) (C) (C) (C) (C) (C) (C) (C) (C) (C) (C) (C) (C) (C) (C) (C) (C) (C) (C) (C)
0.0 536.6 443.7 453.1 442.8 365.9 374.1 357.4 302.5 315.4 300.9 273.9 288.6 271.5 260.7 275.7 258.9 640.8 583.0 483.2
1.0 536.8 444.4 454.1 440.4 366.3 375.3 357.5 303.2 316.5 299.2 274.4 289.4 270.7 261.2 276.2 258.7 637.2 580.1 480.8
2.0 536.4 443.0 454.1 438.0 358.1 374.1 335.5 289.8 315.7 254.7 263.0 289.0 231.0 259.5 276.5 236.8 635.3 578.8 480.1
3.0 534.2 402.6 443.6 321.9 317.8 351.4 282.5 249.4 294.8 208.3 227.0 272.1 190.7 232.8 268.0 193.8 636.1 577.5 480.6
4.0 533.7 381.7 432.4 299.4 304.1 340.8 267.2 237.1 284.7 197.1 216.6 263.6 181.2 223.6 262.1 185.4 636.2 577.4 480.4
5.0 533.4 341.0 402.0 263.4 276.9 317.6 238.3 213.6 261.7 176.9 197.8 245.1 164.3 204.6 247.9 171.3 636.2 577.8 478.5
6.0 532.3 305.5 368.4 236.2 251.9 293.9 213.5 192.9 240.2 159.6 180.3 227.0 149.7 188.7 232.7 158.0 637.1 578.3 478.5
7.0 532.2 275.0 336.5 212.8 229.7 271.6 192.0 175.0 221.1 144.8 165.0 210.5 137.0 174.3 218.3 146.2 637.7 578.8 478.9
8.0 532.3 248.5 307.9 192.9 210.0 251.3 173.2 159.4 203.9 131.9 151.5 195.6 125.7 161.6 205.1 135.6 638.0 579.1 479.0
9.1 531.1 220.1 276.1 172.7 188.0 227.4 153.3 142.4 186.3 117.3 135.5 179.0 113.5 148.8 189.3 122.9 638.1 579.0 481.0
10.0 528.9 205.6 260.0 160.4 176.8 216.0 142.8 133.6 175.0 110.4 128.9 170.0 107.0 140.0 180.9 117.7 638.6 579.6 479.3
11.0 526.2 188.5 240.2 148.2 162.9 200.6 130.2 123.1 163.0 101.8 119.6 159.2 99.5 130.8 170.4 110.1 638.8 579.7 479.5
12.0 522.8 173.8 223.1 137.3 150.8 187.1 119.5 113.8 152.4 94.2 111.4 149.7 92.6 122.6 161.2 103.2 639.0 579.7 479.4
13.0 518.9 161.2 208.4 128.7 140.3 175.3 109.9 105.6 143.3 87.5 103.9 141.4 86.4 115.3 152.9 97.0 638.9 579.5 479.3
14.0 512.2 145.5 189.6 118.1 126.2 159.1 97.8 95.0 132.7 78.3 93.1 130.5 78.3 106.6 141.9 87.7 638.8 578.7 480.7
15.0 509.8 141.0 184.6 114.7 122.4 155.0 94.4 92.0 129.3 75.9 90.3 127.3 76.0 103.8 138.7 85.4 638.7 578.7 480.6
16.0 504.3 132.4 175.1 106.5 115.5 148.2 87.7 86.5 121.6 71.7 86.1 121.1 71.7 96.9 132.8 81.7 638.3 579.0 478.7
17.0 499.2 126.3 166.6 111.3 109.9 141.2 83.7 82.6 116.1 72.6 82.9 115.8 73.6 92.9 127.3 83.1 638.2 578.8 478.4
18.0 494.2 125.0 160.6 116.8 107.0 135.9 83.5 81.7 112.1 75.1 82.5 112.1 76.4 91.7 123.0 85.4 638.0 578.7 478.3
19.0 489.6 126.1 157.8 121.4 106.1 132.8 84.6 82.2 110.2 77.4 83.3 110.4 78.4 91.8 120.4 87.2 637.8 578.5 478.3
20.1 484.6 129.2 157.2 128.1 106.5 130.2 87.2 83.9 111.4 79.7 83.7 110.3 80.6 94.0 119.1 88.0 638.1 577.9 480.1
21.0 481.8 131.4 158.6 129.8 107.7 131.3 88.5 85.1 110.6 81.6 85.6 110.6 81.9 93.3 119.2 89.8 637.8 578.4 478.1
22.0 478.9 135.0 161.0 134.0 109.3 132.1 90.6 86.8 111.7 83.6 87.1 111.5 83.5 94.3 119.5 90.9 637.7 578.3 478.1
23.0 476.5 138.7 164.0 138.1 111.1 133.4 92.6 88.7 113.2 85.4 88.5 112.7 85.0 95.3 120.2 92.0 637.7 578.3 478.0
24.0 474.4 142.6 167.2 142.4 112.9 134.9 94.4 90.4 114.8 87.1 89.9 114.0 86.4 96.4 121.0 93.0 637.5 578.1 477.9
29.0 468.1 162.7 185.7 163.3 120.8 142.2 102.2 98.7 122.5 94.7 96.7 120.5 93.0 101.4 125.6 97.8 638.0 578.4 477.9
34.0 466.2 181.8 204.0 183.0 127.9 149.1 110.2 105.0 128.8 100.7 102.4 126.0 98.3 106.1 129.8 102.9 638.1 578.4 477.9
39.0 465.6 199.7 221.1 201.1 135.6 156.7 118.4 111.4 135.0 107.0 108.4 131.4 104.3 111.5 134.5 108.4 638.4 578.5 478.9
44.0 465.3 216.1 236.2 217.4 143.6 164.2 127.2 117.6 141.1 113.4 114.3 137.4 110.1 116.8 139.6 113.7 639.1 577.9 479.0
49.0 466.8 231.1 250.7 232.2 152.0 172.2 136.1 124.0 147.3 119.8 120.1 143.2 115.8 122.2 145.0 119.0 639.3 577.8 479.3
54.0 468.7 244.8 263.9 245.7 160.6 179.7 145.1 130.3 153.4 126.3 125.5 148.9 121.7 127.5 150.0 123.8 639.7 577.7 479.5
59.0 471.3 258.0 277.2 258.7 170.0 187.6 155.1 137.2 159.9 133.3 130.8 155.2 127.8 133.3 155.8 128.7 639.1 579.6 479.4
64.1 474.0 270.6 289.3 271.1 179.3 196.3 164.9 144.0 166.5 140.2 136.7 161.2 134.0 138.9 161.3 134.1 639.5 579.9 479.7
69.0 476.1 282.0 300.3 282.9 188.9 205.1 174.0 150.6 173.3 147.1 142.5 166.5 139.9 144.6 166.7 139.4 640.8 579.3 480.2
74.0 480.3 291.3 309.6 291.8 196.5 214.7 182.1 156.5 178.4 152.6 149.2 171.1 145.2 148.8 170.9 145.6 640.4 580.1 479.7
79.0 482.4 301.4 319.4 301.6 205.8 223.0 191.4 163.1 184.7 159.6 154.8 176.7 151.0 153.9 176.4 150.8 640.6 580.4 479.7
84.0 485.6 311.5 328.8 311.6 214.9 231.6 200.8 170.2 191.3 166.4 160.7 182.4 157.1 159.4 181.5 156.1 642.5 580.5 480.9
89.0 488.6 320.7 337.8 320.8 223.1 239.9 210.1 177.2 197.8 172.6 166.4 187.9 163.3 164.9 185.9 161.4 642.6 580.4 481.2
94.0 491.9 328.9 346.2 329.4 231.9 247.9 218.9 184.2 204.3 179.4 171.5 193.2 169.3 170.2 191.0 166.1 641.6 581.0 481.3
99.0 495.2 337.3 355.1 337.3 241.1 256.2 228.0 191.6 210.6 186.7 177.3 198.9 175.7 175.2 196.6 171.5 642.4 582.3 481.3
104.0 498.1 345.5 362.9 345.4 250.0 264.4 237.0 198.1 217.3 193.6 183.1 204.7 181.3 180.5 201.7 176.6 643.5 581.6 481.7
109.0 502.0 354.2 370.1 353.9 259.1 273.0 246.3 204.5 224.2 201.2 189.1 210.6 186.4 186.1 207.1 182.2 645.2 583.5 482.9
114.0 503.0 360.5 376.6 360.3 266.1 279.3 253.9 211.9 229.4 207.3 194.2 214.7 192.6 190.6 210.2 186.9 642.9 581.0 481.3
119.1 505.8 368.1 382.2 368.0 274.5 287.3 262.8 217.5 236.7 214.5 200.4 220.8 197.5 196.7 215.7 192.6 643.4 582.0 481.4
124.0 509.4 374.7 389.6 375.2 282.6 294.9 270.7 224.6 243.5 221.4 205.6 226.2 203.4 202.0 221.1 197.2 642.8 583.1 482.2
129.0 512.7 382.1 396.1 381.6 290.1 302.3 278.5 230.7 248.9 227.8 211.1 231.5 208.8 206.0 225.7 202.2 646.2 584.9 484.0
134.0 514.5 388.3 401.5 388.0 297.0 308.5 286.0 236.9 254.3 234.2 216.6 235.9 214.2 210.7 229.3 207.1 645.3 584.3 483.6
139.0 516.1 394.2 406.5 393.9 303.5 314.5 293.2 243.1 259.5 240.5 221.8 240.2 219.5 215.2 233.0 211.7 644.4 583.6 483.2
144.0 517.8 399.8 411.4 399.6 309.9 320.2 300.1 249.0 264.7 246.7 226.8 244.5 224.7 219.6 236.6 216.3 643.5 583.2 482.8
149.0 517.9 404.5 415.2 404.2 315.9 324.7 306.4 254.2 269.9 252.5 230.7 248.7 229.0 224.0 240.3 219.7 641.8 581.3 481.3
154.0 521.7 409.9 421.3 409.4 322.5 331.3 313.5 260.5 275.9 258.5 235.7 254.3 234.4 228.5 245.1 224.3 641.6 582.6 481.9
159.0 524.3 415.2 425.9 415.3 328.9 338.5 319.7 266.1 282.5 264.2 241.3 258.9 239.3 233.4 249.8 229.5 643.1 583.7 483.1
164.0 527.5 421.1 431.8 420.7 336.2 345.5 326.8 272.9 287.8 270.8 247.1 264.1 245.2 237.6 253.9 234.5 643.9 584.1 483.8
169.0 528.9 425.9 435.9 425.5 341.8 350.8 333.0 278.6 292.8 276.7 252.0 268.4 250.3 242.0 257.6 239.0 642.9 583.4 483.5
174.1 529.8 429.3 439.5 429.2 348.2 355.8 338.1 284.2 297.5 283.3 256.8 272.0 255.1 245.6 262.3 243.4 640.3 581.9 482.3
179.0 532.6 433.9 444.5 434.0 353.7 362.1 344.3 290.1 303.4 288.5 262.1 277.2 260.3 250.3 266.4 248.0 640.7 582.7 482.9
184.0 534.6 439.6 448.6 438.0 359.1 367.2 351.4 295.2 308.6 293.4 266.1 283.6 264.7 254.3 270.2 251.4 642.9 583.0 483.5
189.0 537.7 444.2 453.7 443.6 365.6 373.9 357.0 301.4 315.1 299.5 271.9 287.9 270.2 259.6 274.9 256.7 643.4 584.3 484.9
NEA/CSNI/R(2005)2

39
Measurements for = 70



(deg.) 70.0 70.0 70.0 70.0 70.0 70.0 70.0 70.0 70.0 70.0 70.0 70.0 70.0 70.0 70.0 70.0 250.0 250.0 250.0
Z (mm) 220.0 190.0 190.0 190.0 160.0 160.0 160.0 130.0 130.0 130.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 70.0 70.0 70.0 270.0 180.0 90.0
(mm) 0.0 3.2 0.0 6.0 3.2 0.0 6.0 3.2 0.0 6.0 3.2 0.0 6.0 3.2 0.0 3.2 0.0 0.0 0.0
T 8.2 46.3 41.6 42.8 219.7 202.2 218.5 253.9 237.5 262.3 218.6 206.6 226.3 188.7 175.8 195.3 6.8 6.2 17.9
Tmin 586.9 488.0 498.7 491.2 248.7 272.6 245.9 142.4 169.1 135.0 126.3 152.4 118.8 125.1 152.0 116.7 640.9 570.5 423.9
Tmax 595.1 534.3 540.3 534.0 468.4 474.8 464.4 396.3 406.6 397.3 344.9 359.0 345.1 313.8 327.8 312.0 647.7 576.7 441.8
Temps TC1 TC2 TC3 TC4 TC5 TC6 TC7 TC8 TC9 TC10 TC11 TC12 TC13 TC14 TC15 TC16 TC17 TC18 TC19
(s) (C) (C) (C) (C) (C) (C) (C) (C) (C) (C) (C) (C) (C) (C) (C) (C) (C) (C) (C)
0.0 595.0 534.1 540.1 533.9 468.0 474.5 464.0 395.7 406.0 396.8 344.2 358.3 344.7 313.2 327.2 311.7 645.7 576.3 441.6
0.9 594.9 534.3 540.3 534.0 468.4 474.8 464.4 396.3 406.6 397.3 344.9 359.0 345.1 313.8 327.8 312.0 644.1 574.6 440.2
1.9 591.5 533.1 537.6 531.9 466.7 474.6 461.2 396.0 406.2 396.2 344.5 358.7 343.7 312.7 327.8 310.1 641.2 571.7 439.2
2.9 590.6 532.3 538.0 530.6 465.5 472.8 459.2 395.3 406.3 396.0 344.3 358.6 343.6 313.0 327.8 310.7 641.6 571.7 439.6
3.9 589.6 531.7 537.3 530.3 464.2 471.4 458.2 395.1 405.9 396.3 342.6 358.2 337.0 313.0 327.4 311.0 641.8 571.3 438.6
4.9 589.5 530.4 536.2 530.1 461.4 470.1 457.7 372.2 401.7 339.7 300.5 346.5 260.6 288.7 322.8 247.7 641.6 572.4 437.9
5.9 589.4 530.3 536.6 529.8 461.2 469.8 457.6 355.7 395.3 315.9 286.7 337.3 246.9 276.3 317.6 233.5 641.8 572.4 437.9
6.9 588.8 530.3 536.2 529.5 457.1 467.9 454.7 321.5 373.5 281.8 260.8 314.8 224.1 252.1 302.6 211.6 642.5 571.1 437.8
7.9 589.1 530.0 536.1 529.2 439.6 461.0 437.2 292.3 346.7 255.6 239.1 291.6 206.5 231.5 284.0 195.1 642.4 571.7 437.7
8.9 589.1 529.6 536.0 529.1 413.7 445.1 407.0 267.0 320.0 234.1 220.6 270.5 191.9 213.7 265.4 181.7 642.3 571.5 437.9
9.9 589.2 529.1 536.0 528.9 386.2 423.5 375.5 245.5 295.8 215.9 204.6 251.9 179.5 198.7 248.0 170.3 642.2 571.8 438.2
11.0 588.9 529.1 535.0 528.6 353.6 394.4 341.3 222.2 269.8 194.6 187.5 231.6 164.9 183.1 227.3 157.9 641.6 570.9 438.6
11.9 589.1 528.3 536.0 527.8 339.1 377.4 324.5 210.1 255.8 185.6 178.0 221.3 157.1 174.4 219.0 150.7 642.4 571.8 438.5
12.9 589.2 527.6 535.8 527.3 319.6 356.6 303.8 195.4 239.3 173.0 167.1 208.4 147.3 164.2 207.0 142.3 642.0 571.5 438.5
13.9 589.4 526.7 535.3 526.8 301.6 337.6 286.0 182.2 224.6 161.6 156.8 196.7 138.4 154.9 196.5 134.2 641.5 571.6 438.5
14.9 589.4 525.6 534.7 525.9 285.5 320.4 270.5 170.4 211.3 151.1 147.6 186.5 130.1 146.4 186.8 126.7 641.3 571.5 438.4
15.9 588.3 524.7 532.0 524.5 264.8 298.1 252.3 154.7 194.4 136.9 135.3 172.9 119.0 135.1 173.3 116.8 642.8 570.5 438.8
16.9 588.3 523.8 531.5 523.9 259.3 292.0 247.7 150.5 189.5 135.0 132.0 168.9 118.8 132.0 169.6 116.7 642.8 570.5 438.8
17.9 589.2 521.4 530.2 522.9 251.3 280.9 245.9 144.9 179.8 135.1 128.0 161.2 119.1 127.7 163.0 116.9 640.9 570.9 438.6
18.9 589.3 519.3 528.6 521.3 248.7 274.7 250.0 142.7 173.7 137.1 126.3 156.4 121.1 125.5 158.1 117.5 640.9 570.6 438.8
19.9 589.4 517.1 526.9 519.4 249.7 272.6 255.0 142.4 170.4 139.1 126.3 153.5 122.9 125.1 154.8 119.2 640.9 570.7 438.6
20.9 589.5 514.9 525.0 517.6 252.6 273.3 259.9 143.1 169.1 141.1 126.8 152.4 124.6 125.4 153.0 120.7 641.2 570.6 438.5
22.0 588.9 512.0 523.3 513.7 257.2 276.6 266.4 143.9 169.2 143.3 128.5 152.9 125.5 126.3 152.0 122.7 642.1 571.6 437.2
22.9 589.0 510.7 521.3 513.9 260.3 278.7 269.2 145.9 169.8 145.1 128.8 153.1 127.3 127.0 152.4 123.2 642.4 570.7 438.2
23.9 588.9 508.7 519.6 512.1 264.3 282.1 273.4 147.6 170.9 147.2 129.9 154.0 128.5 128.0 152.9 124.4 642.1 570.7 437.9
28.9 589.3 500.7 511.6 504.1 281.0 297.7 289.5 157.4 178.9 158.2 136.0 159.0 135.1 133.4 156.9 129.6 642.5 571.1 436.1
33.9 590.1 494.7 506.7 498.5 294.7 310.5 301.7 168.4 188.9 170.2 142.1 164.6 141.8 139.0 162.0 135.4 642.6 571.6 433.1
38.9 589.4 491.8 502.0 495.5 306.0 322.4 312.1 178.6 200.1 182.0 149.7 171.5 147.6 145.0 167.1 141.9 642.8 572.1 431.1
44.0 589.2 489.7 499.9 493.2 317.0 333.0 321.7 190.6 212.0 194.4 157.1 179.1 155.3 151.0 172.9 147.9 643.2 572.6 429.1
48.9 588.6 488.7 498.7 491.9 326.9 341.9 330.2 202.2 223.6 206.2 164.4 187.0 163.1 157.1 179.0 153.6 643.3 572.6 427.5
53.9 588.9 488.0 498.7 491.2 334.4 349.4 336.5 213.3 233.0 215.9 171.1 192.8 171.5 162.4 184.1 158.8 642.8 574.1 426.4
58.9 587.8 489.1 498.7 491.3 342.0 356.8 343.6 223.0 242.8 226.1 178.6 200.1 178.7 168.3 189.6 164.9 643.3 573.3 425.9
63.9 587.9 489.8 499.5 491.7 350.3 364.1 351.0 232.9 252.6 236.0 186.8 208.2 186.6 174.4 195.6 171.4 644.8 573.5 425.5
68.9 589.6 491.2 501.7 493.3 358.2 371.0 357.9 242.6 261.8 246.5 194.1 216.1 194.5 180.6 202.5 177.4 646.0 575.8 426.1
73.9 586.9 491.0 501.5 492.6 363.8 376.3 363.6 251.0 269.6 255.0 201.9 222.6 201.6 186.3 207.2 183.9 644.6 574.2 424.1
78.9 588.1 492.3 502.7 493.7 369.9 382.3 368.9 259.6 277.9 263.5 209.4 230.1 209.1 192.3 213.4 190.1 643.8 574.4 423.9
83.9 588.4 494.2 504.4 495.9 376.0 389.0 374.6 268.0 286.3 271.3 217.3 237.3 216.7 198.6 219.2 196.7 644.0 574.7 424.7
88.9 587.2 496.0 505.1 497.5 381.8 394.4 380.2 276.0 294.2 279.3 224.7 244.7 224.0 204.8 225.2 202.8 645.3 574.7 425.7
93.9 587.6 497.8 507.8 498.6 388.4 398.7 386.0 284.1 301.9 287.7 230.5 252.3 231.5 211.0 232.2 207.6 645.7 575.1 426.7
99.0 589.2 500.7 510.3 501.8 394.5 405.4 391.9 292.8 309.6 295.8 239.0 259.2 239.8 217.6 237.8 215.1 647.2 576.3 428.0
103.9 587.5 501.1 510.4 501.6 398.9 409.2 396.3 299.6 315.3 302.8 246.4 265.1 246.5 223.0 242.4 221.7 644.1 573.9 426.1
108.9 586.9 503.6 511.4 504.1 403.1 413.2 400.9 306.0 321.7 308.6 252.4 271.0 253.0 228.7 247.2 227.0 645.6 573.2 427.3
113.9 588.6 504.7 513.6 505.9 407.8 418.4 405.0 313.7 328.4 315.4 258.7 277.2 260.3 234.4 253.3 232.5 645.2 575.1 428.5
118.9 589.8 508.1 516.8 508.8 414.0 423.6 410.7 320.1 335.2 322.7 265.6 284.3 266.4 240.6 259.3 238.5 647.2 576.0 430.1
123.9 589.3 509.8 518.0 510.6 418.3 427.3 415.0 326.5 340.6 328.8 271.9 289.7 272.9 246.1 263.7 244.3 645.4 574.2 429.4
128.9 589.1 510.4 518.5 511.3 421.6 430.9 418.3 331.9 345.2 334.7 277.6 295.1 278.6 250.6 269.0 249.4 644.1 574.0 428.8
133.9 589.1 512.1 520.2 513.1 425.6 435.0 422.7 338.2 351.7 339.8 283.7 301.7 284.6 256.4 274.5 254.8 644.9 575.6 431.1
138.9 590.4 514.8 522.5 515.7 430.6 439.5 426.5 343.6 358.1 345.8 289.6 307.1 290.2 262.7 279.8 260.1 645.2 575.4 432.9
143.9 591.8 517.9 525.8 518.1 436.0 444.5 431.9 350.4 364.0 352.3 296.3 313.6 297.0 268.1 285.4 266.3 647.7 576.7 434.4
148.9 591.6 519.7 527.1 520.0 439.7 447.6 435.8 355.9 368.7 357.8 302.0 318.5 302.7 273.2 289.7 271.6 646.8 576.0 434.7
154.0 590.0 520.4 527.4 520.3 442.9 449.6 438.9 360.7 373.0 363.0 307.3 323.1 307.9 278.6 294.0 276.7 644.6 574.2 434.0
158.9 591.8 521.9 529.4 521.6 446.5 453.9 442.6 366.2 377.8 368.0 313.4 328.8 313.5 283.1 299.4 282.4 645.1 574.8 434.6
163.9 593.0 525.1 532.1 525.2 450.8 458.2 446.9 371.5 383.4 373.1 318.4 333.9 319.0 288.4 304.0 286.9 646.6 576.0 437.0
168.9 592.7 526.9 533.3 527.0 454.0 461.0 450.3 376.3 387.6 378.0 323.5 338.4 324.2 293.2 308.1 291.8 645.7 575.4 437.3
173.9 591.8 526.6 533.6 527.4 455.9 462.9 452.6 380.6 390.9 382.0 327.8 342.7 328.8 297.4 312.0 296.1 642.9 574.6 436.9
178.9 592.0 529.2 535.0 529.7 459.5 466.5 455.9 384.7 396.8 386.2 332.8 347.2 333.1 303.2 316.7 300.6 643.3 574.4 439.6
183.9 595.1 532.1 538.6 532.0 464.4 471.2 460.3 390.5 401.6 391.7 338.6 353.3 339.1 307.6 322.5 306.1 646.7 576.7 441.2
188.9 595.0 533.9 540.0 533.7 467.5 474.0 463.5 395.0 405.5 396.2 343.5 357.6 344.0 312.3 326.4 310.9 645.7 576.4 441.8
NEA/CSNI/R(2005)2
40










Appendix II: Participant contributions




For CRIEPI: Analytical assessment of OECD thermal fatigue test Second step
For INSS: Analysis result for OECD benchmark on thermal fatigue problem
For JNC: OECD benchmark on thermal fatigue problem - Second step: Evaluation based on FEM
For DNV: Thermal fatigue benchmark final
For EdF: Etude de la propagation dune fissure par fatigue thermique (benchmark OCDE) Text
in French
For CEA: The contribution is included in the synthesis report.
1

ANALYTICAL ASSESSMENT OF OECD THERMAL FATIGUE TEST - SECOND STEP

Terutaka FUJIOKA
Central Research Institute of Electric Power Industry (CRIEPI)
2-6-1 Nagasaka, Yokosuka, Kanagawa 240-0196 Japan
fujioka@criepi.denken.or.jp

NOMENCLATURE

a ; crack depth
; thermal expansion coefficient
c ; half crack length
C ; specific heat
dN da / ; crack propagation rate per cycle
o
D ; outer diameter of a pipe
E ; Young's modulus
; total strain range (elastic-plastic)
k ; thermal conductivity
K ; stress intensity factor
max
K ; maximum stress intensity factor in a thermal cycle
min
K ; minimun stress intensity factor in a thermal cycle
K ; stress intensity factor range
eff
K ; effective stress intensity factor range
L ; pipe length
R
N ; fatigue life
p
q ; elastic follow-up parameter for peak stress and strain
R ; stress ratio,
max min
/ K K R
; density of pipe material
; stress
; stress range
e
; elastically estimated stress range
t ; time
T ; temperature
; shear stress
; Poisson's ratio
w ; pipe wall thickness

2
1. INTRODUCTION
High cycle fatigue failure induced by temperature fluctuation draws a worldwide concern from recent pipe
failures in light water reactors. The Japanese nuclear industry produced assessment procedures for high cycle
fatigue for pipes containing hot water in 2003 [1], having been advised by the Japanese regulatory body in 1998
after the JAPC Tsuruga-2 primary water leakage [2]. The French parties, almost at the same time, experienced a
pipe failure due to the same mechanics at Civaux-1 in 1998, and began working on the development of evaluation
methodologies.

The French Atomic Energy Commission (CEA) proposed performance of a benchmark analysis with
participations from major nuclear institutions as a part of OECD collaboration in 2000 [3-4]. In the collaboration
with participations from five nations, seven institutions including three from Japan, thermal fatigue test using
pipe specimen subjected to cyclic thermal loads is under performance at CEA. The participants are expected to
predict the crack initiation life and propagation behavior with their own methods and software tools. This report
describes the methods and results of the analysis performed by CRIEPI.

CRIEPI's analysis is based on a simplified approach consisting of elastic finite element analysis to determine
stress situations in the specimen and simplified method evaluating elastic-plastic strain range from the elastic
analysis resultant employed in the Japanese Demonstration Fast Breeder Reactor High Temperature Design
Guideline [5]. Crack propagation analysis has been also performed using asymmetric stress intensity factor
database developed by CRIEPI [6] and simplified crack propagation prediction procedures in inelastic situations
[7]. The analyses placed an emphasis on simplicity rather than employing accurate but complex procedures.

2. OUTLINE OF THERMAL FATIGUE TEST
The thermal fatigue test performed by CEA employs a pipe specimen made of 316L stainless steel with the
external diameter,
o
D being 166 mm, the wall thickness, w =6.7 mm and the pipe length, L =360 mm. The
reference material properties were provided in the second step proposal [4] as follows:

3
/ 7800 m kg ; density
C kg J C / 550 ; specific heat
C m W k / 30 ; thermal conductivity
C / 10 4 . 16
6
; thermal expansion coefficient
MPa E 000 , 186 ; Young's modulus
3 . 0 ; Poisson's ratio
The second step proposal also included the following equations for material strength:
Fatigue resistance curve:
2 . 0
0484 . 0
R
N , (1)
Crack propagation law:
3 . 3 8
10 2 . 1 / K dN da , (2)
where is the total strain range in mm/mm,
R
N is the fatigue life in cycles, dN da/ is the crack propagation
rate in mm/cycle and K is the stress intensity factor range in m MPa . These are derived from the French
Standards, A3.3S and A16 in RCC-MR.
3
The specimen is contained in an electric furnace in which the atmosphere temperature is kept at 650 C . Cyclic
local cooling is applied to a part of the specimen as shown in Fig. 1. The boundary of the area cooled is
expressed by:

3
1 1
mzx
z z (3)

i
r x / , 0 . 217
mzx
z mm, 293 . 1 , 638 . 0
where
i
r is the inner radius, x is the coordinate along the internal surface in the circumferential direction.

z
x
2 r
i
L
Z
m
a
x
2 r i
Local cooling
z
x
2 r
i
2 r
i
L
Z
m
a
x
Z
m
a
x
2 r i 2 r i
Local cooling

Fig. 1 The shape of the area on which thermal cycles are applied (unfolded internal surface of the specimen)

The wave form of the thermal cycle is a step function type as shown in Fig. 2.

time
t
tot t
cold
t
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e
T
hot
T
cold
time
t
tot
t
tot t
cold
t
cold
t
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e
T
hot
T
hot
T
cold
T
cold

Fig. 2 Wave form of the applied thermal cycle expressed by the temperature change of contacting fluid on the
locally cooled area

4
The hottest temperature of contacting fluid,
hot
T is 650 C (air), and the coldest,
cold
T is 17 C (injected
water). The period of one cycle,
tot
t is 190 s, and the period of cooling in a cycle,
cold
t is 15 s.

Prior to the test performance, temperature distribution was measured at certain points in the vicinity of the cooled
area. Locations of the temperature measurements are shown in Fig. 3. The results of the measurements were
given in the second step proposal [4].

TC14
=6.0
z=70
Cold water
surface
z
External
skin ( =0)
z
Symmetric plane
t=6.7
L
=
3
6
0
Do = 166
TC1
TC4
TC2
TC3
TC7
TC5
TC6
TC10
TC8
TC9
TC13
TC12
TC11
TC16
TC15
=3.2
z=220
z=190
z=160
z=130
z=100
Cold water
injection
TC14
=6.0
z=70
Cold water
surface
z
External
skin ( =0)
z
Symmetric plane
t=6.7
L
=
3
6
0
Do = 166
TC1
TC4
TC2
TC3
TC7
TC5
TC6
TC10
TC8
TC9
TC13
TC12
TC11
TC16
TC15
=3.2
z=220
z=190
z=160
z=130
z=100
TC14
=6.0
z=70
Cold water
surface
z
External
skin ( =0)
z
Symmetric plane
t=6.7
L
=
3
6
0
Do = 166
TC1
TC4
TC2
TC3
TC7
TC5
TC6
TC10
TC8
TC9
TC13
TC12
TC11
TC16
TC15
=3.2
z=220
z=190
z=160
z=130
z=100
Cold water
injection

Fig. 3 Schematic illustration of thermal loading and locations where temperatures were measured

The test is to be performed until a certain number of cycles, and then the specimen will be inspected for crack
observation.

3. TEMPERATURE DISTRIBUTION ANALYSIS
3.1 Determination of Thermal Transfer Coefficients
For simplicity, uniform temperatures and thermal transfer coefficients were applied repeatedly to the specimen in
the finite element thermal transfer analysis. Temperature of the contacting fluid (air or water) on the hatched area
in Fig. 1 was changed repeatedly according to the wave form in Fig. 2. Air temperature contacting the rest of the
specimen surface was fixed to 650 C . Thermal transfer coefficient between metal and water is denoted
w
h , and
that between metal and air is denoted
a
h . These coefficients were changed parametrically in the temperature
analysis to determine the appropriate values for the following stress analysis. Combinations of the coefficients
examined are:
Case 1: C m W h
a
2
/ 30 , C m W h
w
2
/ 4000
Case 2: C m W h
a
2
/ 40 , C m W h
w
2
/ 4000
5
Case 3: C m W h
a
2
/ 30 , C m W h
w
2
/ 5000
Case 4: C m W h
a
2
/ 40 , C m W h
w
2
/ 5000
The other properties such as density and thermal conductivity were fixed to the values given in chapter 2 since
these should be specified by codes and standards.

Four cycles of the thermal load were applied to get steady temperature changes. Finite element mesh subdivisions
used are shown in Fig. 4. The analyses were performed with an FEM program developed by CRIEPI [8].

Fig. 4 Coarse finite element mesh subdivisions used in the parametric temperature analyses

The obtained temperature distributions are shown in Figs. 5 to 16 compared with the measured temperatures
along the line of 0 on the internal surface.. Based on the accuracy of prediction in difference between the
lowest and highest temperatures in these graphs, the proper combination of thermal transfer coefficients in Case 4
was selected for further analyses.

6
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
0 50 100 150 200
TC1 (FEM)
TC1 (Measured)
T
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e

(
d
e
g
.

C
)
Time, t (sec)
Case 1: h
w
=4000W/m
2
K, h
a
=30W/m
2
K
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
0 50 100 150 200
TC1 (FEM)
TC1 (Measured)
T
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e

(
d
e
g
.

C
)
Time, t (sec)
Case 1: h
w
=4000W/m
2
K, h
a
=30W/m
2
K
Fig. 5 Comparison between measured and analyzed temperatures at location TC1 ( =0 deg., Z=220 mm) in Case
1
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
0 50 100 150 200
TC2 (FEM)
TC3 (FEM)
TC4 (FEM)
TC2 (Measured)
TC3 (Measured)
TC4 (Measured)
T
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e

(
d
e
g
.

C
)
Time, t (sec)
Case 1: h
w
=4000W/m
2
K, h
a
=30W/m
2
K
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
0 50 100 150 200
TC2 (FEM)
TC3 (FEM)
TC4 (FEM)
TC2 (Measured)
TC3 (Measured)
TC4 (Measured)
T
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e

(
d
e
g
.

C
)
Time, t (sec)
Case 1: h
w
=4000W/m
2
K, h
a
=30W/m
2
K

Fig. 6 Comparison between measured and analyzed temperatures at location TC2, 3 and 4 ( =0 deg., Z=190 mm)
in Case 1

7
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
0 50 100 150 200
TC5 (FEM)
TC6 (FEM)
TC7 (FEM)
TC5 (Measured)
TC6 (Measured)
TC7 (Measured)
T
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e

(
d
e
g
.

C
)
Time, t (sec)
Case 1: h
w
=4000W/m
2
K, h
a
=30W/m
2
K
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
0 50 100 150 200
TC5 (FEM)
TC6 (FEM)
TC7 (FEM)
TC5 (Measured)
TC6 (Measured)
TC7 (Measured)
T
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e

(
d
e
g
.

C
)
Time, t (sec)
Case 1: h
w
=4000W/m
2
K, h
a
=30W/m
2
K

Fig. 7 Comparison between measured and analyzed temperatures at location TC5, 6 and 7 ( =0 deg., Z=160 mm)
in Case 1

0
100
200
300
400
500
600
0 50 100 150 200
TC1 (FEM)
TC1 (Measured)
T
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e

(
d
e
g
.

C
)
Time, t (sec)
Case 2: h
w
=4000W/m
2
K, h
a
=40W/m
2
K
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
0 50 100 150 200
TC1 (FEM)
TC1 (Measured)
T
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e

(
d
e
g
.

C
)
Time, t (sec)
Case 2: h
w
=4000W/m
2
K, h
a
=40W/m
2
K
Fig. 8 Comparison between measured and analyzed temperatures at location TC1 ( =0 deg., Z=220 mm) in Case
2

8
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
0 50 100 150 200
TC2 (FEM)
TC3 (FEM)
TC4 (FEM)
TC2 (Measured)
TC3 (Measured)
TC4 (Measured)
T
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e

(
d
e
g
.

C
)
Time, t (sec)
Case 2: h
w
=4000W/m
2
K, h
a
=40W/m
2
K
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
0 50 100 150 200
TC2 (FEM)
TC3 (FEM)
TC4 (FEM)
TC2 (Measured)
TC3 (Measured)
TC4 (Measured)
T
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e

(
d
e
g
.

C
)
Time, t (sec)
Case 2: h
w
=4000W/m
2
K, h
a
=40W/m
2
K

Fig. 9 Comparison between measured and analyzed temperatures at location TC2, 3 and 4 ( =0 deg., Z=190 mm)
in Case 2

0
100
200
300
400
500
600
0 50 100 150 200
TC5 (FEM)
TC6 (FEM)
TC7 (FEM)
TC5 (Measured)
TC6 (Measured)
TC7 (Measured)
T
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e

(
d
e
g
.

C
)
Time, t (sec)
Case 2: h
w
=4000W/m
2
K, h
a
=40W/m
2
K
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
0 50 100 150 200
TC5 (FEM)
TC6 (FEM)
TC7 (FEM)
TC5 (Measured)
TC6 (Measured)
TC7 (Measured)
T
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e

(
d
e
g
.

C
)
Time, t (sec)
Case 2: h
w
=4000W/m
2
K, h
a
=40W/m
2
K

Fig. 10 Comparison between measured and analyzed temperatures at location TC5, 6 and 7 ( =0 deg., Z=160
mm) in Case 2

9
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
0 50 100 150 200
TC1 (FEM)
TC1 (Measured)
T
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e

(
d
e
g
.

C
)
Time, t (sec)
Case 3: h
w
=5000W/m
2
K, h
a
=30W/m
2
K
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
0 50 100 150 200
TC1 (FEM)
TC1 (Measured)
T
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e

(
d
e
g
.

C
)
Time, t (sec)
Case 3: h
w
=5000W/m
2
K, h
a
=30W/m
2
K

Fig. 11 Comparison between measured and analyzed temperatures at location TC1 ( =0 deg., Z=220 mm) in Case
3

0
100
200
300
400
500
600
0 50 100 150 200
TC2 (FEM)
TC3 (FEM)
TC4 (FEM)
TC2 (Measured)
TC3 (Measured)
TC4 (Measured)
T
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e

(
d
e
g
.

C
)
Time, t (sec)
Case 3: h
w
=5000W/m
2
K, h
a
=30W/m
2
K
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
0 50 100 150 200
TC2 (FEM)
TC3 (FEM)
TC4 (FEM)
TC2 (Measured)
TC3 (Measured)
TC4 (Measured)
T
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e

(
d
e
g
.

C
)
Time, t (sec)
Case 3: h
w
=5000W/m
2
K, h
a
=30W/m
2
K

Fig. 12 Comparison between measured and analyzed temperatures at location TC2, 3 and 4 ( =0 deg., Z=190
mm) in Case 3

10
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
0 50 100 150 200
TC5 (FEM)
TC6 (FEM)
TC7 (FEM)
TC5 (Measured)
TC6 (Measured)
TC7 (Measured)
T
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e

(
d
e
g
.

C
)
Time, t (sec)
Case 3: h
w
=5000W/m
2
K, h
a
=30W/m
2
K
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
0 50 100 150 200
TC5 (FEM)
TC6 (FEM)
TC7 (FEM)
TC5 (Measured)
TC6 (Measured)
TC7 (Measured)
T
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e

(
d
e
g
.

C
)
Time, t (sec)
Case 3: h
w
=5000W/m
2
K, h
a
=30W/m
2
K

Fig. 13 Comparison between measured and analyzed temperatures at location TC5, 6 and 7 ( =0 deg., Z=160
mm) in Case 3

0
100
200
300
400
500
600
0 50 100 150 200
TC1 (FEM)
TC1 (Measured)
T
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e

(
d
e
g
.

C
)
Time, t (sec)
Case 4: h
w
=5000W/m
2
K, h
a
=40W/m
2
K
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
0 50 100 150 200
TC1 (FEM)
TC1 (Measured)
T
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e

(
d
e
g
.

C
)
Time, t (sec)
Case 4: h
w
=5000W/m
2
K, h
a
=40W/m
2
K

Fig. 14 Comparison between measured and analyzed temperatures at location TC1 ( =0 deg., Z=220 mm) in Case
4

11
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
0 50 100 150 200
TC2 (FEM)
TC3 (FEM)
TC4 (FEM)
TC2 (Measured)
TC3 (Measured)
TC4 (Measured)
T
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e

(
d
e
g
.

C
)
Time, t (sec)
Case 4: h
w
=5000W/m
2
K, h
a
=40W/m
2
K
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
0 50 100 150 200
TC2 (FEM)
TC3 (FEM)
TC4 (FEM)
TC2 (Measured)
TC3 (Measured)
TC4 (Measured)
T
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e

(
d
e
g
.

C
)
Time, t (sec)
Case 4: h
w
=5000W/m
2
K, h
a
=40W/m
2
K

Fig. 15 Comparison between measured and analyzed temperatures at location TC2, 3 and 4 ( =0 deg., Z=190
mm) in Case 4

0
100
200
300
400
500
600
0 50 100 150 200
TC5 (FEM)
TC6 (FEM)
TC7 (FEM)
TC5 (Measured)
TC6 (Measured)
TC7 (Measured)
T
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e

(
d
e
g
.

C
)
Time, t (sec)
Case 4: h
w
=5000W/m
2
K, h
a
=40W/m
2
K
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
0 50 100 150 200
TC5 (FEM)
TC6 (FEM)
TC7 (FEM)
TC5 (Measured)
TC6 (Measured)
TC7 (Measured)
T
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e

(
d
e
g
.

C
)
Time, t (sec)
Case 4: h
w
=5000W/m
2
K, h
a
=40W/m
2
K

Fig. 16 Comparison between measured and analyzed temperatures at location TC5, 6 and 7 ( =0 deg., Z=160
mm) in Case 4

3.2 Re-calculation of Temperature Distribution with Fine Mesh
Since the FEM mesh subdivisions used in the previous section were coarse for quick calculations, the refined
FEM mesh in Fig. 17 was employed for re-calculation of temperature distribution with the coefficients of Case 4.
The FEM results are shown in Figs. 18 to 20 in a same manner as Figs. 7 to 16. Accuracy of prediction in
12
temperature changes at location TC1 in Fig. 18 was slightly improved from Fig. 14. Then the results from this
analysis were used for stress analysis in the following chapter.


Fig. 17 Fig. 4 Fine finite element mesh subdivisions used in the temperature analyses for stress analysis

0
100
200
300
400
500
600
0 50 100 150 200
TC1 (FEM)
TC1 (Measured)
T
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e

(
d
e
g
.

C
)
Time, t (sec)
Case 4: h
w
=5000W/m
2
K, h
a
=40W/m
2
K
with fine mesh
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
0 50 100 150 200
TC1 (FEM)
TC1 (Measured)
T
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e

(
d
e
g
.

C
)
Time, t (sec)
Case 4: h
w
=5000W/m
2
K, h
a
=40W/m
2
K
with fine mesh

Fig. 18 Comparison between measured and analyzed temperatures at location TC1 ( =0 deg., Z=220 mm) in Case
4 with fine mesh

13
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
0 50 100 150 200
TC2 (FEM)
TC3 (FEM)
TC4 (FEM)
TC2 (Measured)
TC3 (Measured)
TC4 (Measured)
T
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e

(
d
e
g
.

C
)
Time, t (sec)
Case 4: h
w
=5000W/m
2
K, h
a
=40W/m
2
K
with fine mesh
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
0 50 100 150 200
TC2 (FEM)
TC3 (FEM)
TC4 (FEM)
TC2 (Measured)
TC3 (Measured)
TC4 (Measured)
T
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e

(
d
e
g
.

C
)
Time, t (sec)
Case 4: h
w
=5000W/m
2
K, h
a
=40W/m
2
K
with fine mesh

Fig. 19 Comparison between measured and analyzed temperatures at location TC2, 3 and 4 ( =0 deg., Z=190
mm) in Case 4 with fine mesh

0
100
200
300
400
500
600
0 50 100 150 200
TC5 (FEM)
TC6 (FEM)
TC7 (FEM)
TC5 (Measured)
TC6 (Measured)
TC7 (Measured)
T
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e

(
d
e
g
.

C
)
Time, t (sec)
Case 4: h
w
=5000W/m
2
K, h
a
=40W/m
2
K
with fine mesh
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
0 50 100 150 200
TC5 (FEM)
TC6 (FEM)
TC7 (FEM)
TC5 (Measured)
TC6 (Measured)
TC7 (Measured)
T
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e

(
d
e
g
.

C
)
Time, t (sec)
Case 4: h
w
=5000W/m
2
K, h
a
=40W/m
2
K
with fine mesh

Fig. 20 Comparison between measured and analyzed temperatures at location TC5, 6 and 7 ( =0 deg., Z=160
mm) in Case 4 with fine mesh

Color contours of the temperature distributions obtained in the fine mesh analysis are shown in Figs. 21 to 26 for
certain times. Severe temperature gradients are found in the vicinity of TC1 (Z=220 mm) at around t = 15 s..

14
temperature in degree C temperature in degree C

Fig. 21 Temperature distribution estimated by the fine mesh temperature analysis ( t =1 s)
temperature in degree C temperature in degree C

Fig. 22 Temperature distribution estimated by the fine mesh temperature analysis ( t =5 s)

15
temperature in degree C temperature in degree C

Fig. 23 Temperature distribution estimated by the fine mesh temperature analysis ( t =15 s)
temperature in degree C temperature in degree C

Fig. 24 Temperature distribution estimated by the fine mesh temperature analysis ( t =25 s)

16
temperature in degree C temperature in degree C

Fig. 25 Temperature distribution estimated by the fine mesh temperature analysis ( t =50 s)

temperature in degree C temperature in degree C

Fig. 26 Temperature distribution estimated by the fine mesh temperature analysis ( t =105 s)


4. STRESS AND DAMAGE ANALYSIS
4.1 Elastic Stress Analysis
Elastic finite element analysis was performed using the same mesh subdivisions in Fig. 17, the temperature
17
distributions obtained in section 3.2 and the material properties in chapter 2. The analysis was performed with
also the CRIEPI's FEM code [8].

The maximum principal stress distributions estimated are shown in Figs. 27 to 32 as color contour displays.

stress in Pa stress in Pa

Fig. 27 Maximum principal stress distribution estimated by the fine mesh stress analysis ( t =1 s)

stress in Pa stress in Pa

Fig. 28 Maximum principal stress distribution estimated by the fine mesh stress analysis ( t =5 s)
18

stress in Pa stress in Pa

Fig. 29 Maximum principal stress distribution estimated by the fine mesh stress analysis ( t =15 s)

stress in Pa stress in Pa

Fig. 30 Maximum principal stress distribution estimated by the fine mesh stress analysis ( t =25 s)

19
stress in Pa stress in Pa

Fig. 31 Maximum principal stress distribution estimated by the fine mesh stress analysis ( t =50 s)

stress in Pa stress in Pa

Fig. 32 Maximum principal stress distribution estimated by the fine mesh stress analysis ( t =105 s)

4.2 Determination of Initiation Location and Direction of Crack
Since crack propagation behaviors may be well described by the difference between maximum and minimum
principal stresses, the node where the difference became greatest was searched. Then the node with number 1239
was chosen. This node was located on the internal surface with the coordinates, Z=209 mm and =0 degree. The
20
information on this node is tabulated in Table 1.
Table 1 Principal stresses and principal stress range at node "1239 estimated by elastic FEM
Distance from external surface, 6.7 mm
Angler coordinate, 0.0 degree
Axial coordinate, Z 209 mm
Time when maximum principal
stress is generated
10 s
Maximum principal stress 613.4 MPa
Time when minimum principal
stress is generated
190 s
Minimum principal stress 33.97 MPa
Principal stress range
579.5 MPa
Distance from external surface, 6.7 mm
Angler coordinate, 0.0 degree
Axial coordinate, Z 209 mm
Time when maximum principal
stress is generated
10 s
Maximum principal stress 613.4 MPa
Time when minimum principal
stress is generated
190 s
Minimum principal stress 33.97 MPa
Principal stress range
579.5 MPa


The principal stress range was mostly given by the maximum principal stress at 10 sec. The stress components at
this time are tabulated in Table 2. The shear stresses were small enough compared with the other components.
The maximum principal stress and the direction at this time were estimated as:
Maximum principal stress =613.4 MPa
Direction = -6.416 degree
The direction was defined with zero degree in the direction and 90 degree in the Z direction in Fig. 3. Thus the
crack expected to initiate would be almost an axial crack.

Table 2 Stresses at the node #1239 when the maximum principal stress is generated (t=10 sec)
Stress component
Hoop, 607.6
Radius,
r
6.645
Stress
Axial,
z
412.05
Shear,
r
Shear,
rz
Shear,
z
-44.20
7.383
-22.28
Stress component
Hoop, 607.6
Radius,
r
6.645
Stress
Axial,
z
412.05
Shear,
r
Shear,
rz
Shear,
z
-44.20
7.383
-22.28


4.3 Crack Initiation Life Estimate
Crack initiation analysis was based on the simplified method in the Japanese Demonstration Fast Breeder Reactor
Design Guideline [5] where the total (elastic-plastic) strain range is to be estimated from elastic analysis and
elastic follow-up behavior. Since this evaluation is aiming to nominal life prediction, a realistic value for the
elastic follow-up factor, 5 . 1
p
q , was used though the conservative value for design is three in the guideline.

The stress-strain curve for this material was assumed to the same as the Japanese fast reactor material, 316FR,
21
which has low carbon content likewise the material of the specimen. The equations of the curve are given in the
Materials Strength Standards of the guideline [9-10], and lead to slightly harder than the actual cyclic stress
strain curve. The equations are:
E A A
t p
/ log 2 log
1 0 10
,
p
2 (4a)
E ,
p
2 (4b)

3 8 2 5 2
0
10 1593061 . 0 10 1354228 . 0 10 4434273 . 0 131076 . 5 T T T A (4c)

3 8 2 5 2
1
10 2083600 . 0 10 7832692 . 0 10 7045263 . 0 171727 . 2 T T T A (4d)

T
T T
T T
p
5 326245 . 0
2 2 3 7
2 4 1 2
10 13276 . 6 002 . 0
10 51235 . 9 10 93157 . 3 10 01396 . 5
10 88358 . 7 10 94762 . 4 10 62890 . 2
(4e)
where T is the temperature in degree C, is the stress range in MPa and
p
is the limit of proportionality.
These equations were validated between 425 and 650 degree C, thus accuracy in the specimen temperature is not
clear. Reference [10] contained some typographical errors, thus the equations in [9] were used.

Elastically estimated maximum stress range,
e
in the specimen was calculated from the following von Mises
type equations:

2 / 1 2 2 2 2 2 2
)} ( 6 ) ( ) ( ) {(
2
1
zx yz xy x z z y y x
e
, (5a)
where
x
,
y
and
z
are stress ranges, and
xy
,
yz
and
zx
are shear stress ranges defined below
for stress and shear stress components at certrain times,
) 1 (
x
,
) 1 (
y
,
) 1 (
z
,
) 2 (
x
,
) 2 (
y
,
) 2 (
z

) 1 (
xy
,
) 1 (
yz
,
) 1 (
zx
,
) 2 (
xy
,
) 2 (
yz
and
) 2 (
zx
:

) 2 ( ) 1 (
x x x
, (5b)

) 2 ( ) 1 (
y y y
, (5c)

) 2 ( ) 1 (
z z z
, (5d)

) 2 ( ) 1 (
xy xy xy
, (5e)
,
) 2 ( ) 1 (
yz yz yz
(5f)

) 2 ( ) 1 (
zx zx zx
. (5g)
The superscripts, (1) and (2) denote the time steps which define the maximum value of
e
. In this analysis, the
coordinates, x, y and z correspond to , r and z, respectively.
e
was estimated as 507 MPa.

The maximum stress range,
e
may be translated approximately into the total strain range, following the
schematically illustrated procedure in Fig. 33.

22
s
t
r
e
s
s
strain
e
e
A
B
E
) 1 /(
p
q E
realistic hysteresis loop
C
Y
2
' '
e
K
elastic, perfectly
plastic model
s
t
r
e
s
s
strain
e
e
A
B
E
) 1 /(
p
q E
realistic hysteresis loop
C
Y
2
' '
e
K
elastic, perfectly
plastic model

Fig. 33 Schematic illustration of the methodology to translate elastically estimated stress range into
elastic-plastic strain range

In the design guideline, elastic, perfectly-plastic model with the yield strength,
Y
, is conservatively assumed to
estimate total strain range,
e
K , on Point C in Fig. 33, but this analysis employed Point B value of strain range
for the nominal prediction using the realistic hysteresis loop expressed by eqs. (4a) to (4d). The elastic follow-up
factor,
p
q , might be more accurately estimated by cyclic elastic, perfectly-plastic analysis, but an empirical
value of 1.5 was employed without performing cyclic inelastic analysis for simplicity.

The estimated total strain ranges and the crack initiation lives are tabulated in Table 4. Since a large crack is
usually generated in standard fatigue test specimen when a specimen reaches to the fatigue life defined by the
25% load reduction,
R
N , simply estimating life by and eqn. (1) doe not correspond with the exact crack
initiation life. From experiments performed for 316FR under various loading conditions [11] show that small
cracks with 1.0 mm in surface length were generated at about 2 /
R
N for both coarse and fine grain materials,
and micro cracks with 0.05 mm in length were at about 10 /
R
N for a coarse grain material. Small crack
initiation lives estimated referring to these are also shown in Table 4. From
R
N in Table 4 assumption of
temperature did not produce a great difference. Using the maximum temperature may be recommended for a
slightly conservative assessment of
R
N .

The micro crack observations in [11] show that crack length at early stage of fatigue is influenced by grain size.
Coarse grain sized material is apt to initiate in very early stage of fatigue around 10 /
R
N , while fine grain sized
one is not. Which of these should be employed depends on details of the material tested. Therefore, the two
assumptions, 2 /
R
N and 10 /
R
N , were employed and compared.





23
Table 4 Estimated total strain ranges and fatigue lives
Temperature assumed to
define stress-strain curve
(degree C)
Total strain
range (%)
Fatigue life,
N
R
(cycles)
Crack init iation
life, N
R
/2 (cycles)
Maximum in a cycle, 459.5
Average in a cycle, 348.8
0.331
0.334
673,285 336,643
641,994 320,997
*1
*1 defined by load reduction of 25% in standard fatigue test specimen
*2 defined by small crack init iation of approximately 1.0 mm in length
*3 defined by small crack init iation of approximately 0.05 mm in length
*2
Crack init iation
life, N
R
/10 (cycles)
67,329
64,199
*3
Temperature assumed to
define stress-strain curve
(degree C)
Total strain
range (%)
Fatigue life,
N
R
(cycles)
Crack init iation
life, N
R
/2 (cycles)
Maximum in a cycle, 459.5
Average in a cycle, 348.8
0.331
0.334
673,285 336,643
641,994 320,997
*1
*1 defined by load reduction of 25% in standard fatigue test specimen
*2 defined by small crack init iation of approximately 1.0 mm in length
*3 defined by small crack init iation of approximately 0.05 mm in length
*2
Crack init iation
life, N
R
/10 (cycles)
67,329
64,199
*3


4.4 Crack Propagation Life Estimate
Crack propagation estimates were performed by stress intensity factor range, K and eqn. (2). To estimate
K , asymmetrical stress intensity factor database developed by CRIEPI [12] were used. In the database,
dimensionless coordinates, , and on the semi-elliptical crack surface are defined as Fig. 34.

Center line
1.0
1.0
Semi-elliptical crack
O
Center line
1.0
1.0
Semi-elliptical crack
O

Fig. 34 Definition of dimensionless coordinates on the semi-elliptical crack surface

Stress intensity factor for a certain stress distribution, K , may be estimated by the weight function method as:

)
( /
4 4
31 31 3 3
22 22 21 21 2 2
13 13 12 12 11 11 1 1
4 4 3 3 2 2 1 1
o o
o o
o o
o o
o o o o o o o o oo oo o
F A
F A F A
F A F A F A
F A F A F A F A
F A F A F A F A F A Q a K
(6a)

65 . 1
) / ( 464 . 1 1 c a Q (6b)
where a is the crack depth and c is the half crack length,
o
is a unit stress in MPa, and dimensionless
coefficients,
ij
A , are coefficients for approximating stress distribution normal to the crack surface in:

)
(
4
4
3
31
3
3
2 2
22
2
21
2
2
3
13
2
12 11 1
4
4
3
3
2
2 1
o
o
o
o
o o o o oo o
A
A A
A A A
A A A A
A A A A A
(7)
Dimensionless stress intensity factors,
ij
F , have been obtained for axially cracked cylinders with
radius/thickness ratio being 2, 5 and 10 [12]. The values of
ij
F were interpolated for the pipe geometry of the
24
specimen.

The initial crack dimensions were, for comparison, determined to:
Case A: 5 . 1 a mm, 3 / 1 / c a ,
Case B: 0 . 1 a mm, 3 / 1 / c a ,
Case C: 5 . 0 a mm, 3 / 1 / c a ,
Case D: 025 . 0 a mm, 3 / 1 / c a ,
Case E: 025 . 0 a mm, 1 / c a .
The initial aspect ratios were equated with the value given in the second step proposal [4] for most cases. In a
case with the micro crack initiation, a/c=1.0 was assumed for comparison, because approximately uniform stress
is applied to a small crack.

The effect of stress ratio, R was considered for each case as well as the simple use of eqn. (2) by replacing
K with the effective stress intensity factor,
eff
K in eqn. (2).
eff
K may be estimated by:

R
K
K
eff
1
(8)

max min
/ K K R (9)
where
min
K is the minimum stress intensity factor in a cycle, and
max
K is the maximum stress intensity factor.
The loading of the test produces plastic strain, thus the stress ratio may approache to -1. On the other hand, high
residual stresses exist in some actual pipes. The analyses performed here employed both -1 and zero for R .

The results of the crack propagation analyses are shown in Figs. 35 and 36, and the crack penetration lives
estimated are tabulated in Tables 5 and 6. An example of the crack center movement and the shape change are
shown in Fig. 37 for the Case C without consideration of stress ratio.

From these figures crack propagation life is significantly influenced by stress ratio and initial crack depth. Effect
of initial aspect ratio for the small crack cases is not significant. The cracks moved toward in the negative
direction of Z, which corresponds the stress distribution. Crack shape and half length at penetration were
434 . 0 / c a and mm c 4 . 15 for all cases.

25
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
20000 40000 60000 80000 100000
initial depth=0.5mm (R=0)
initial depth=1.0mm (R=0)
initial depth=1.5mm (R=0)
initial depth=0.5mm (R=-1)
initial depth=1.0mm (R=-1)
initial depth=1.5mm (R=-1)
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s

c
r
a
c
k

d
e
p
t
h
,

a
/
w
Number of cycles

Fig. 35 Crack propagation behaviors estimated by the analyses performed for Cases A, B and C

0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
0 100000 200000 300000 400000 500000
initial a/c=1 (R=0)
initial a/c=1/3 (R=0)
initial a/c=1 (R=-1)
initial a/c=1/3 (R=-1)
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s

c
r
a
c
k

d
e
p
t
h
,

a
/
w
Number of cycles

Fig. 36 Crack propagation behaviors estimated by the analyses performed for Cases D and E

26
0
2
4
6
8
10
190 195 200 205 210 215 220 225
C
r
a
c
k

d
e
p
t
h
,

a

(
m
m
)
Axial distance, Z (mm)
4,000 cycles
8,000 cycles
12,000 cycles
16,000 cycles
at penetration
initial depth=0.5 mm (R=0)
0
2
4
6
8
10
190 195 200 205 210 215 220 225
C
r
a
c
k

d
e
p
t
h
,

a

(
m
m
)
Axial distance, Z (mm)
4,000 cycles
8,000 cycles
12,000 cycles
16,000 cycles
at penetration
initial depth=0.5 mm (R=0)

Fig. 37 An example of movement of the crack center and change of the shape (Case C, R=0)

Table 5 Crack penetration life estimated by the Paris's law without consideration of stress ratio
Number of cycles to crack
penetration (cycles)
Case No.
Initial half
length, c (mm)
A
B
C
D
E
Initial aspect
ratio, a/c
0.5
1.0
1.5
0.025
0.025
1/3
1/3
1/3
1/3
1.0 71,959
96,880
19,251
13,863
11,419
Number of cycles to crack
penetration (cycles)
Case No.
Initial half
length, c (mm)
A
B
C
D
E
Initial aspect
ratio, a/c
0.5
1.0
1.5
0.025
0.025
1/3
1/3
1/3
1/3
1.0 71,959
96,880
19,251
13,863
11,419


Table 6 Crack penetration life estimated by the Paris's law with consideration of stress ratio
Number of cycles to crack
penetration (cycles)
Case No.
Initial half
length, c (mm)
A
B
C
D
E
Initial aspect
ratio, a/c
0.5
1.0
1.5
0.025
0.025
1/3
1/3
1/3
1/3
1.0 225,822
304,032
60,410
43,502
35,832
Number of cycles to crack
penetration (cycles)
Case No.
Initial half
length, c (mm)
A
B
C
D
E
Initial aspect
ratio, a/c
0.5
1.0
1.5
0.025
0.025
1/3
1/3
1/3
1/3
1.0 225,822
304,032
60,410
43,502
35,832


4.5 Summary of Life Estimate
Total life, defined by a sum of the crack initiation life and the propagation life, can change depending on the
definition of crack initiation and the stress ratio. The total life estimates may be those in Table 7 with
prioritization for credibility of assessment. As residual stress in an actual pipe is usually unknown, conservative
assumption of 0 R may be recommended.

27
Table 7 Summary of Life Estimate
Priority Assumptions
Initiation
life (cycles)
Propagation
life (cycles)
Total life
(cycles)
Total life
(hr)
1
Half crack length at init iation=0.5mm
Stress ratio effect neglected
320,997
19,251 340,248 17,958
2
Half crack length at init iation =0.025mm
Stress ratio effect neglected
64,199 71,959 136,158 7,186
3
Half crack length at init iation =0.5mm
Stress ratio effect considered
60,410 381,407 20,130
320,997
4
Half crack length at init iation =0.5mm
Stress ratio effect considered
225,822 290,021 15,307 64,199
Notes
Fine grain size
High residual stress
Coarse grain size
High residual stress
Fine grain size
Low residual stress
Coarse grain size
Low residual stress
Priority Assumptions
Initiation
life (cycles)
Propagation
life (cycles)
Total life
(cycles)
Total life
(hr)
1
Half crack length at init iation=0.5mm
Stress ratio effect neglected
320,997
19,251 340,248 17,958
2
Half crack length at init iation =0.025mm
Stress ratio effect neglected
64,199 71,959 136,158 7,186
3
Half crack length at init iation =0.5mm
Stress ratio effect considered
60,410 381,407 20,130
320,997
4
Half crack length at init iation =0.5mm
Stress ratio effect considered
225,822 290,021 15,307 64,199
Notes
Fine grain size
High residual stress
Coarse grain size
High residual stress
Fine grain size
Low residual stress
Coarse grain size
Low residual stress


5. CONCLUSIONS
Analyses for the conditions of the thermal fatigue test to be performed by CEA have been done. The assessments
were basically simplified approaches, based on the Japanese Fast Breeder Reactor Design Guideline [5] for
translating elastic stress resultant into crack initiation life assessment in inelastic situations, and the simplified
crack propagation assessment procedures recommended by CRIEPI [7]. The assessments were performed using
the software developed by CRIEPI including the asymmetrical stress intensity factor database. The definition of
crack initiation was determined by referring to micro crack observations of a similar material in [11]. The
estimates of life depend on details of the test specimen, e.g., residual stress and grain size. The total life has been
estimated between 136,158 and 381,407 cycles.


REFERENCES
[1] JSME, Guideline for Evaluation of High-Cycle Thermal Fatigue of a Pipe, JSME S017-2003, 2003.
[2] T. Hoshino, et al., Leakage from CVCS Pipe of Regenerative Exchanger Induced by High-cycle Thermal
Fatigue at Tsuruga Nuclear Power Station Unit 2, Proc. of 8th International Conference on Nuclear
Engineering (ICONE8), Baltimore, 2000.
[3] S. Chapuliot and T. Payen, Benchmark Proposal on Thermal Fatigue Problem, Final Proposal - January 2002,
Proposed under the Auspice of the OECD/NEA/CSNI/Integrity and Ageing Working Group, 2002.
[4] S. Chapuliot and T. Payen, Benchmark Proposal on Thermal Fatigue Problem, Second Step Proposal - April
2003 Proposed under the Auspice of the OECD/NEA/CSNI/Integrity and Ageing Working Group, 2003.
[5] Japan Atomic Power Company, Demonstration Fast Breeder Reactor High Temperature Structural Design
Guideline, 1999. (in Japanese)
[6] T. Fujioka, et al., Development of Platform-free Fracture Mechanics Analysis Tools Based on Web
Shear-based Stress Intensity Factor Database, The 14th Computational Mechanics Conference, JSME,
Sapporo, 2001, pp. 353-354. (in Japanese)
[7] T. Fujioka, Simplified Estimation Method of Inelastic J-integral for Creep-Fatigue Crack Propagation
Prediction in General Loading Conditions, Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Creep and
Fatigue at Elevated Temperatures, JSME, No. 01-201, Tsukuba, 2001, pp. 365-372.
28
[8] T. Fujioka, Manual for the Object-Oriented Finite Element Analysis Modules, CRIEPI Research Document,
W02904, 2003. (in Japanese)
[9] Japan Atomic Power Company, Demonstration Fast Breeder Reactor High Temperature Structural Design
Guidelines - Materials Strength Standard,1999. (in Japanese)
[10] K. Kurome, M. Sukekawa, K. Takakura, N. Kawasaki and Y. Tanaka, Material Strength Standard of 316FR
and Modified 9Cr-1Mo Steel, PVP-Vol. 391, Advances in Life Prediction Methodology, ASME, 1999, pp.
47-54.
[11] N. Isobe, S. Saikurai and M. Yasube, Micro Crack Initiation and Growth Behavior and Life Prediction under
Creep Fatigue Conditions for Low-Carbon/Nitrogen-Added SUS316, Journal of the Japan Society of
Mechanical Engineers (Vol. A), Vol.67, No.663, JSME, 2001, pp. 80-86. (in Japanese)
[12] T. Fujioka, T. Ogata, T. Yoshida, D. Kato and Y. Matsumura, Development of platform-free fracture mechanics
analysis tools based on Web-shear-based stress intensity factor database, Proceedings of the 14th JSME
Computational Mechanics Conference, JSME, 2001, pp. 353-354.

(INSS) 1/33

Analysis result for OECD benchmark on thermal fatigue problem

Masayuki Kamaya, Akira Nakamura and Yuzou Fujii

Institute of Nuclear Safety System, Inc. (INSS)
64 Sata, Mikata-gun, Mihama-cho, Fukui, 919-1205 JAPAN
kamaya@inss.co.jp

1. Introduction

The main objective of this analysis is to understand the crack growth behavior under
three-dimensional (3D) thermal fatigue by the conducting 3D crack initiation and
propagation analyses. The possibility of the crack propagation through the wall
thickness of pipe, and the accuracy of the prediction of crack initiation and propagation
are our major interests.
In this report, in order to estimate the heat transfer coefficients and evaluate the
thermal stress, conventional finite element analysis (FEA) is conducted. Then, the crack
driving force is evaluated by using the finite element alternating method (FEAM),
which can derive the stress intensity factor (SIF) under 3D mechanical loading based on
finite element analysis without generating the mesh for a cracked body. Through these
two realistic 3D numerical analyses, we try to predict the crack initiation and
propagation behavior.

2. Model definition

The analysis follows the experiment named FAT3D. In this test, cyclic cooling water is
injected inside the pipe placed inside a furnace to maintain a hot temperature at the
outer surface of the pipe as shown in Fig. 2.1.

2.1 Pipe geometry
The pipe used for the test is made of 316L stainless steel. The geometrical parameters
are as follows:
(1) Thickness: t = 6.7 mm
(INSS) 2/33
(2) External diameter: De = 166 mm
(3) Length of pipe: L = 360 mm

2.2 Material data
(1) Thermal properties of the material:
o 7800 kg/m
3
C 550 J/kg !C
K 30 W/m !C
o16.4 x 10
-6
!C

The heat transfer coefficients between the pipe, air and water are not given.

(2) Mechanical characteristics of the material:
Youngs Modulus: E = 186000 MPa
Poissons coefficient: v = 0.3
Fatigue resistance curve: Ac = 4.84 N
-0.2

Crack growth rate: da/dN(mm/cycle) = 1.2 x 10
-8
AK
3.3

Threshold oI Iatigue propagation: AK
th
(MPa\m) 6.5!4.5 R (R K
min
/K
max
)

2.3 Description of load
The inner surface of the pipe is periodically covered by the cold water. The shape of
the covered portion is described by the following equation:

" #" #
3
max
i
1 1 Z Z x x
x
x
r
$
%&
' ( ) )
'
x
(1)

where 1.293 and 0.638 (See. Fig. 2.2). The time evolution oI the temperature inside this
portion is shown in Fig. 2.3. The parameters deIined in this Iigure are set as Iollows:
(1) Water temperature: T
cold
18 !C
(2) Furnace temperature: T
hot
650 !C
(3) Total cycle duration: t
tot
t
cold
t
hot
190 s
(4) Water injection time: t
cold
15 s

(INSS) 3/33
3. Estimation of heat transfer coefficient

Based on the measured temperature, the heat transfer coefficients between the pipe,
air and water are estimated. Although the coefficients will vary with time and location
on the surface, they are assumed to be constant, Hair for the heat transfer coefficient
between the pipe and air, and Hwater for that between the pipe and water. Since the
objective of the benchmark problem is to evaluate the crack initiation and propagation
behavior, the coefficients are determined so that the temperature at the position where
the crack would be initiated follows the measured temperature. Near the points TC2,
TC3 and TC4 at 0 =0!, 20! and 40!, which are defined in Fig. 3.1, the maximum stress
occurs as stated later. The temperatures of interest are the minimum, maximum and
difference of minimum and maximum temperatures at a steady cycle. The value of Hair
and Hwater are determined such that the error function Eh, which is defined as follows, is
minimized:

" #
" #
" #
2
h ( ) max (test) ( ) max (cal)
2,3,4 0,20,40
2
( ) min (test) ( ) min(cal)
2,3,4 0,20,40
2
( ) diI(test) ( ) diI(cal)
2,3,4 0,20,40
i i
i
i i
i
i i
i
E T T
T T
T T
* *
*
* *
*
* *
*
' '
' '
' '
' (
) (
) (
+ +
+ +
+ +
(2)

where Ti(0)_max, Ti(0)_min and Ti(0)_dif denote the maximum temperature, minimum
temperature and the difference at point TCi (i =2,3,4) at angle 0 (0 = 0!, 20!, 40!),
respectively. The temperature obtained by the test and calculation is represented by
adding the subscripts (test) and (cal), respectively.
Eh is evaluated using the results of FEA performed under various Hair and Hwater. The
finite element mesh used for the calculation is shown in Fig. 3.2. The mesh consists of
1555 8-noded solid elements. ABAQUS/Ver.6.3 was employed as the FEA solver.
Calculations were performed for all the possible combinations of heat transfer
coefficients Hair = 30, 35, 40, 45, 50 and 55 W/m
2
K and Hwater = 3000, 4000, 5000, 6000,
7000, 8000, 9000 and 10000 W/m
2
K, where the other parameters are taken to be
constant. Eh is calculated for the tenth cycle, at which the temperature fluctuation
seems to be sufficiently stable as shown in Fig. 3.3. Eh is plotted in Fig. 3.4 against Hair
and Hwater. The pair of Hair = 40 W/m
2
K and Hwater = 5000 W/m
2
K gives the minimum Eh.
(INSS) 4/33
The contour plot of temperature and change in temperature with time are shown in Figs.
3.5 and 3.6, respectively. The changes in temperature obtained by FEA agree well with
the measured ones at all points.

4. Crack Initiation

The thermal stress is calculated based on the evaluated temperature. Figure 4.1
shows the Von Mises stress during the initial five temperature cycles. The stress shows
the maximum value at Pcold and the minimum one at Phot, which are defined in Fig. 3.5.
The stress distributions at the tenth temperature cycle are shown in Fig. 4.2 for each
case. The results can be summarized as follows:
(1) Although the stress is significant in the longitudinal direction (o
z
) and
circumferential direction (o
"
), there is little stress in the depth direction (o
t
).
Therefore, the crack would be initiated and propagate in the circumferential and
longitudinal directions.
(2) Relatively large stress is observed at the upper portion of the cooling area, and the
maximum stress occurs along the line of symmetry. The maximum Mises equivalent
stress occurs at z =208 mm, and its value is o
max
572 MPa.
(3) The stress becomes almost the initial condition at the timing of Phot.
Since the stress at crack initiation under the multi-axial stress condition is related to Mises stress,
the number oI cycles to crack initiation, N
R
, can be estimated Irom the given curve in Fig. 4.3. In this
case, the eIIect on the mean stress should be taken into account, otherwise no crack would be
initiated within a practical time. The mean stress eIIect is evaluated according to the modiIied
Goodman diagram shown in Fig. 4.4. In this diagram, the equivalent stress, which is applied to Fig.
4.3, is estimated by extrapolating the curve connecting the tensile strength and the stress by FEA.
Although it is diIIicult to identiIy the tensile strength under Iluctuating temperature condition, the
value is assumed to be almost equivalent to that at room temperature, 600 MPa. Thus, the equivalent
stress range, Ao
eq
1093 MPa, is obtained and a macroscopic crack is expected to be initiated when
the number oI cycles reaches N 3.8x10
4
, which equivalent to 84 days under t
tot
190 s cycle time.

5. Crack propagation

5.1 Stress analysis
For the precise calculation, a finer mesh as shown in Fig. 5.1 is employed. Especially,
(INSS) 5/33
fine elements were adopted around the crack portion. The mesh shown in Fig. 5.1
consists of 69312 8-noded solid elements.
The stress distribution around the crack initiation point is shown in Fig. 5.2. As
mentioned, relatively large stress is observed along the line of symmetry. The maximum
value of o
z
, o
"
and the Mises stress occur at z = 201 mm, z = 210 mm and z = 208 mm,
respectively. The stress changes in the depth direction are shown in Fig. 5.3 at the
maximum stress positions (z = 201 mm and z = 210 mm) and near the boundary of the
cooling area. The stress decreases monotonously in the depth direction and becomes less
than zero.

5.2 Stress intensity factor
In order to evaluate the crack growth behavior, the stress intensity factor (SIF) has to
be calculated. We adopted the finite element alternating method (FEAM) for the SIF
calculation. The FEAM is an alternating technique in conjunction with the FEA and the
analytical solution, which was derived by Nishioka et al. [1] and cited as the VNA
solution, for an elliptical crack in an infinite solid subject to arbitrary crack-face
traction. The FEAM can be used for evaluating the SIFs of elliptical embedded and
semi-elliptical surface cracks in a finite body. The major advantage of this method is
that the SIF can be calculated by using the FEA results directly for an uncracked body
such as the result shown in Fig. 5.2. The finite element mesh for a cracked body is not
required. Therefore, precise SIFs under complex stress states, such as the current
problem, can be evaluated relatively easily. The details of the FEAM are described in
the Appendix.
The obtained SIF of the circumferential crack is shown in Fig. 5.4 for various crack
depths, a, for aspect ratios a/c = 0.5 and 0.3. Since the SIF is related to the crack size,
the SIF becomes large as the crack size increases. The SIF at the surface point becomes
large with the depth. On the other hand, the SIF at the deepest point becomes small,
especially when the depth is a = 5.5 mm. This small SIF would suppress crack
propagation in the depth direction.
Figure 5.5 shows the SIF of longitudinal cracks. In this case, the SIFs do not decrease
significantly even if the crack becomes deep, so the crack will penetrate the wall of the
pipe. The difference between circumferential and longitudinal cracks is supposed to be
brought about by the deformation constraint caused by the geometry of the cylinder.
The SIF of cracks inside the cylinder is suppressed by the constraint under the thermal
(INSS) 6/33
loading condition [1]. Of course, the decrease of stress along the depth direction
contributes to the small SIF, and so propagation through the wall thickness is possible
in longitudinal cracks, although it is hard in circumferential ones.

5.3 Influence of interaction between multiple cracks
In the thermal loading condition, many cracks tend to be initiated. Therefore, it is
very important to investigate the effect of interaction on the SIFs. Figure 5.6 shows the
SIF under interaction. The cracks are parallel and the distance between cracks is
assumed to be 3 mm and 4 mm in the case of circumferential and longitudinal cracks,
respectively. The SIF decreases with the number of cracks and becomes smaller than
the threshold at the deepest position. Although it is possible for the longitudinal crack
to penetrate the wall, initiation of multiple cracks may stop propagation due to the
interaction. The influence of the interaction is relatively large for circumferential cracks,
for which SIFs become almost zero at the deepest point due to the interaction between
only three cracks.
Since the crack growth is greatly affected by the interaction, it is important to
consider the number of cracks and their relative position for precise prediction of growth.
The area of hot spots or cold spots may be important information for estimating the
number of cracks: a small area would lead to the initiation of a few cracks.

5.4 Crack growth evaluation
The most important point in the evaluation of crack growth is the size of initial cracks.
Many studies have been reported which investigated the relationship between number
of cycles and crack size during fatigue tests, some of which are shown in Fig. 5.7 [2][3].
These results indicate that small cracks are initiated at the early stage of the fatigue
test and they grow continuously. Although it is difficult to determine the unique size of
initiation, we assume that crack size becomes the surface length of 2c = 6 mm and the
depth of a = 1.5 mm at the end of the test.
The procedure for predicting the crack growth is summarized in Fig. 5.8. The SIF is
calculated by the FEAM based on the crack size at each step. The crack extension
length in the surface direction c and depth direction a are assumed to be calculated
by:

(INSS) 7/33
( 0 ) ( 180 )
( 90 )
2
m m
m
K K
c D N
a D K N
* *
*
, ,
, ,
- . , ) ,
/ 0 '
/
1
' ,
! !
!
0
2
(3)

where D and m are material constants, and D = 1.2x10
-8
and m = 3.3 are adopted.
K(=0), K(=90) and K(=180) are the SIF range obtained by the FEAM where
denotes the crack tip position defined in Figs. 5.4 and 5.5. The SIF ranges are assumed
to be half of the SIF at the timing of Pcold defined in Fig. 3.5. N is the interval of the
step, which is controlled so that c and a do not exceed 5% of the crack size. The
threshold of SIF for crack propagation is considered. The extension lengths c and a
are given in mm and the SIF in MPam. Then, the FEAM is performed again based on
the extended crack size. The shape of cracks is assumed to remain semi-elliptical.
Figure 5.9 shows the relationship between the number of cycles and crack size. The
crack size increases with the number of cycles in the surface and depth directions. The
circumferential crack, however, is arrested at the depth of 5.5 mm as deduced in Fig. 5.4.
On the other hand, the longitudinal crack penetrates the wall of the pipe. The aspect
ratio a/c converges to 0.3 for both cases.
The longitudinal crack grows at a faster rate than the circumferential crack, and
penetrates the wall within N = 5000 cycles after initiation. Therefore, the majority of
the time is occupied by the crack initiation, where initiation is defined as the
appearance of a crack of c = 3 mm and a = 1.5 mm. The total number of cycles to crack
penetration is assumed to be 4.3x10
4
when only one crack is initiated in the longitudinal
direction.

6. Conclusion

The thermal fatigue crack initiation and propagation behavior were numerically
analyzed. The conventional FEA was conducted in order to estimate the heat transfer
coefficient and evaluate the thermal stress. Then, the FEAM, which is very effective for
the evaluation of SIFs under three-dimensional stress, was conducted to evaluate the
SIFs of surface single cracks and interacting multiple cracks, and crack growth was
evaluated. The results are summarized as follows:

(INSS) 8/33
(1) The heat transfer coefficients were estimated as Hair = 40 W/m
2
K and Hwater = 5000
W/m
2
K. This allows simulation of the change in temperature with time at the crack
initiation points obtained by the experiment.
(2) The maximum stress occurred along the line of symmetry and the maximum Mises
equivalent stress was 572 MPa.
(3) By taking the effect of mean stress into account according to the modified Goodman
diagram, the equivalent stress range and the number of cycles to crack initiation
were estimated as 1093MPa and 3.8x10
4
, respectively, although the tensile strength
was assumed to be 600 MPa.
(4) It was shown from the evaluated SIFs that longitudinal cracks can penetrate the
wall of the pipe, whereas propagation of circumferential cracks is suppressed at a
certain depth due to the deformation constraint brought about by the geometry of the
cylinder.
(5) The SIFs were reduced by the interaction between multiple cracks.
(6) The longitudinal crack grew at a faster rate than the circumferential crack, and
penetrated the wall within N = 5000 cycles after initiation. Therefore, estimation of
the time to crack initiation is important.
(7) The aspect ratio a/c converged to 0.3 in the circumferential and longitudinal cracks.
(8) The total number of cycles to crack penetration was supposed to 4.3x10
4
when only
one crack is initiated in the longitudinal direction.

References
1. T. Meshii and K. Watanabe, Maximum stress intensity factor for a circumferential
crack in a finite-length thin-walled cylinder under transient radial temperature
distribution, Engng Fract. Mech., 63 (1999) 23-38.
2. O. K. Chopra, Mechanism and estimation of fatigue crack initiation in austenitic
stainless steels in LWR environments, NUREG/CR-6887 (2002).
3. S. Ishihara, K. Shiozawa and K. Miyao, Effects of specimen diameters on the
distribution of corrosion fatigue cracks, Trans. of JSME, 54 (1988) 1482-1488.

(INSS) 1/33
INSS (9/33)
Z
max
Local cyclic cooling
Constant heating
Fig.2.1 Schematic figure of test principle.
X
Z
Local cooling
2& r
i
Z
max
L
2.&.r
i
.%
Fig.2.2 Geometrical description of local cooling.
(INSS) 2/33
INSS (10/33)
time
Cold water
flow
t
cold Period (t
tot
)
T
hot
T
cold
Fig.2.3 Water injection evolution in time
Fig.3.1!Thermocouples location.
(INSS) 3/33
INSS (11/33)
Fig.3.2 Finite element mesh.
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
550
600
650
700
0 1000 2000 3000 4000
Time, sec.
T
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e
,

d
e
g
.
2
3
4
Fig.3.3 Change in temperature with time of typical case.
(INSS) 4/33
INSS (12/33)
3
0
4
0
5
0
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
10000
0
200
400
600
Eh
Hair
Hwater
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
10000
Fig.3.4 The error function E
h
against the H
air
and H
water
.
(INSS) 5/33
A
B
50
150
250
350
450
550
650
#C
time
Cold water
flow
t
cold Period (t
tot
)
P
cold
INSS (13/33)
(a) Sight A (b) Sight B
(c) Magnification view of sight A
Fig.3.5(a) Temperature at transient point P
cold
.
(INSS) 6/33
A
B
50
150
250
350
450
550
650
#C
time
Cold water
flow
t
cold Period (t
tot
)
P
hot
INSS (14/33)
(a) Sight A (b) Sight B
(c) Magnification view of sight A
Fig.3.5(b) Temperature at transient point P
hot
.
(INSS) 7/33
INSS (15/33)
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
time, sec.
T
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e
,

d
e
g
.
TC2(cal.)
TC3(cal.)
TC4(cal.)
TC2(exp.)
TC3(exp.)
TC4(exp.)
0 "#"$%
(a) "=0#
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
0 50 100 150 200
time, sec.
T
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e
,

d
e
g
.
TC2(cal.)
TC3(cal.)
TC4(cal.)
TC2(exp.)
TC3(exp.)
TC4(exp.)
0 "#"&$%
(b) "=20#
Fig.3.6 Change in temperature with time.
(INSS) 8/33
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
0 50 100 150 200
time, sec.
T
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e
,

d
e
g
.
TC2(cal.)
TC3(cal.)
TC4(cal.)
TC2(exp.)
TC3(exp.)
TC4(exp.)
0 "#"'$%
(c) "=40#
INSS (16/33)
Fig.3.6 (Cont.)
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
550
600
650
0 200 400 600 800 1000
Time, sec.
M
i
s
e
s

s
t
r
e
s
s
,

M
P
a
TC2
TC3
TC4
Fig.4.1 Change in Mises stress with time.
(INSS) 9/33
A
B
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
MPa
time
Cold water
flow
t
cold Period (t
tot
)
P
cold
INSS (17/33)
(a) Sight A (b) Sight B
(c) Magnification view of sight A
Fig.4.2(a) Stress (Mises) at transient point P
cold
.
(INSS) 10/33
A
B
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
MPa
time
Cold water
flow
t
cold Period (t
tot
)
P
cold
INSS (18/33)
(a) Sight A (b) Sight B
(c) Magnification view of sight A
Fig.4.2(b) Stress ((
z
) at transient point P
cold
.
(INSS) 11/33
A
B
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
MPa
time
Cold water
flow
t
cold Period (t
tot
)
P
cold
INSS (19/33)
(a) Sight A (b) Sight B
(c) Magnification view of sight A
Fig.4.2(c) Stress ((
"
) at transient point P
cold
.
(INSS) 12/33
A
B
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
MPa
time
Cold water
flow
t
cold Period (t
tot
)
P
cold
INSS (20/33)
(a) Sight A (b) Sight B
(c) Magnification view of sight A
Fig.4.2(d) Stress ((
t
) at transient point P
cold
.
(INSS) 13/33
A
B
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
MPa
time
Cold water
flow
t
cold Period (t
tot
)
P
hot
INSS (21/33)
(a) Sight A (b) Sight B
(c) Magnification view of sight A
Fig.4.2(e) Stress (Mises) at transient point P
hot
.
(INSS) 14/33
A
B
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
MPa
time
Cold water
flow
t
cold Period (t
tot
)
P
hot
INSS (22/33)
(a) Sight A (b) Sight B
(c) Magnification view of sight A
Fig.4.2(f) Stress ((
z
) at transient point P
hot
.
(INSS) 15/33
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
1.E+02 1.E+03 1.E+04 1.E+05 1.E+06 1.E+07
Number of cycles to crack initiation N
S
t
r
e
s
s

r
a
n
g
e

A
o
,
!
M
P
a
INSS (23/33)
Fig.4.3 Number of cycles to crack initiation.
Mean stress
Tensile strength
The maximum
stress by FEA
572MPa
286MPa
S
t
r
e
s
s

r
a
n
g
e
Equivalent
stress range
$%
eq
Fig.4.4 Correction of mean stress by the modified Goodman diagram.
(INSS) 16/33
INSS (24/33)
Fig.5.1 Finite element mesh for crack propagation analyses.
(INSS) 17/33
INSS (25/33)
(a) Mises equivalent stress
(b) Longitudinal direction ((
z
)
Fig.5.2 Stress distribution near the crack postion.
(INSS) 18/33
INSS (26/33)
(c) Circumferential direction ((
)
)
(d) Depth direction ((
t
)
Fig.5.2 (Cont.)
(INSS) 19/33
INSS (27/33)
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
800
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Depth, mm
S
t
r
e
s
s
,

M
P
a
Sr
Sz
180
185
190
195
200
205
210
215
220
0 10 20 30 40 50
0 ,deg
:

,
m
m
Cooling zone
180
185
190
195
200
205
210
215
220
0 10 20 30 40 50
0 ,deg
:

,
m
m
Cooling zone
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
800
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Depth, mm
S
t
r
e
s
s
,

M
P
a
Sr
Sz
180
185
190
195
200
205
210
215
220
0 10 20 30 40 50
0 ,deg
:

,
m
m
Cooling zone
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
800
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Depth, mm
S
t
r
e
s
s
,

M
P
a
Sr
Sz
Fig.5.3 Stress distribution along depth direction
(depth is 0 at inner surface, wall thickness is 6.7 mm).
(INSS) 20/33
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
0 30 60 90
Elliptical angle ", deg.
S
t
r
e
s
s

i
n
t
e
n
s
i
t
y

f
a
c
t
o
r

K
,

M
P
a

m
0
.
5
1.5
2.5
3.5
4.5
5.5
a (mm) a/c=0.5
Circumferential crack
: = 201 mm
2c
a
INSS (28/33)
(a) a / c = 0.5
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
0 30 60 90
Elliptical angle ", deg.
S
t
r
e
s
s

i
n
t
e
n
s
i
t
y

f
a
c
t
o
r

K
,

M
P
a

m
0
.
5
1.5
2.5
3.5
4.5
5.5
a (mm)
a/c=0.3
Circumferential crack
: = 201 mm
2c
a
(b) a / c = 0.3
Fig.5.4 Stress intensity factors of semi-elliptical circumferential surface crack.
(INSS) 21/33
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
0 30 60 90 120 150 180
Elliptical angle ", deg.
S
t
r
e
s
s

i
n
t
e
n
s
i
t
y

f
a
c
t
o
r

K
,

M
P
a

m
0
.
5
1.5
2.5
3.5
4.5
5.5
a (mm) a/c=0.5
Longitudinal crack
: = 210 mm
(a) a / c = 0.5
2c
a
INSS (29/33)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
0 30 60 90 120 150 180
Elliptical angle ", deg.
S
t
r
e
s
s

i
n
t
e
n
s
i
t
y

f
a
c
t
o
r

K
,

M
P
a

m
0
.
5
1.5
2.5
3.5
4.5
5.5
a/c=0.3
Longitudinal crack
: = 210 mm
(b) a / c = 0.3
2c
a
a (mm)
Fig.5.5 Stress intensity factors of semi-elliptical longitudinal surface crack.
(INSS) 22/33
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
0 30 60 90
Elliptical angle ", deg.
S
t
r
e
s
s

i
n
t
e
n
s
i
t
y

f
a
c
t
o
r

K
,

M
P
a

m
0
.
5
Single crack
2 cracks
3 cracks
a/c=0.5
Circumferential crack
(a) Circumferential crack
2c
a
: =201
2c =18
3
Target crack
2nd crack
3rd crack
: =201
2c =18
3
Target crack
2nd crack
3rd crack
INSS (30/33)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0 30 60 90 120 150 180
Elliptical angle ", deg.
S
t
r
e
s
s

i
n
t
e
n
s
i
t
y

f
a
c
t
o
r

K
,

M
P
a

m
0
.
5
Single crack
3 cracks
5 cracks
a/c=0.5
Longitudinal crack
(b) Longitudinal crack
2c
a
: = 210
2c =18
4
Target crack
3 crack
5 crack
: = 210
2c =18
4
Target crack
3 crack
5 crack
Fig.5.6 Stress intensity factors under interaction between adjacent cracks.
(INSS) 23/33
INSS (31/33)
(a) From reference [2]
(a) (reference [2])
(b) Fatigue in air (reference [3])
Fig.5.7 Relationship between crack size and number of cycles during the
fatigue test.
(INSS) 24/33
INSS (32/33)
Calculate the crack extension length
Extend the crack size
c c c
a a a
,
,
3 )
3 )
No
( =0 ) ( =180 )
( =90 )
2
m m
m
K K
c D N
a DK N
* *
*
, ,
, ,
- . )
/ 0 '
/ 0
1 2
'
! !
!
Evaluate the SIF by the FEAM
End of prediction ?
End
Start of crack growth prediction
Read initial conditions
Yes
Fig.5.8 Procedure of the crack growth prediction.
(INSS) 25/33
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
0 10000 20000 30000 40000
Number of cycles N
C
r
a
c
k

s
i
z
e
,

m
m
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
A
s
p
e
c
t

r
a
t
i
o

a
/
c
Semi-surface length c
Depth a
Aspect ratio a/c
INSS (33/33)
(a) Circumferential crack
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
Number of cycles N
C
r
a
c
k

s
i
z
e
,

m
m
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
A
s
p
e
c
t

r
a
t
i
o

a
/
c
Semi-surface length c
Depth a
Aspect ratio a/c
(b) Longitudinal crack
Fig.5.9 Crack growth behavior (initial crack size c=3.0, a=1.5).
Appendix
Finite Element Alternating Method for Evaluation of Stress Intensity Factors

1. Introduction

The finite element alternating method (FEAM) is an alternating technique in conjunction with the finite
element analysis (FEA) and the analytical solution, which was derived by Nishioka et al. [1] and cited as the
VNA solution, for an elliptical crack in an infinite solid subject to arbitrary crack-face traction. The FEAM
can be used for evaluating the stress intensity factors (SIFs) of elliptical embedded and semi-elliptical surface
cracks in a finite body, and has been utilized for various problems, such as surface cracks in pressure vessels
[2], and multiple interacting crack problems [3]-[6]. The major advantage of this method is that the SIF can be
calculated by using the FEA results for an uncracked body. Therefore, the SIF of cracks in complex structural
components or complex stress state can be evaluated relatively easily as far as the conventional FEA result of
the uncracked body is available.
In the FEAM calculation program, the conventional FEA for the uncracked body with initial loading
condition is separated from the FEAM alternating subroutine, which has a simple interface. The subroutine
requires the geometric data of cracks, such as size, location and inclination, in addition to the FEA results of
the original problem, in which the crack is not included. The commercial code, ABAQUS version 6.3, is used
for FEA. The accuracy and validity of the FEAM procedure is confirmed in this appendix.

2. Finite Element Alternating Method

2.1 Basic Procedure
The FEAM is based on the principle of superposition, the basic procedure of which is shown in Fig. A1.
At first, the FEA is solved for the uncracked body under the initial loading, and the stress around the crack is
calculated by the VNA solutions based on the crack-face traction obtained by the FEA. In order to satisfy the
free surface conditions, the second FEA is performed under the surface load that is obtained by reversing the
stresses at the surface derived by the VNA solutions. The FEA result is quoted as the traction for the VNA
solution again. The alternation between the FEA and stress calculation by the VNA solutions are repeated
until the traction becomes negligible compared to the initial load.

2.2 The solution for an elliptical crack in an infinite solid subject to arbitrary crack-face traction (The
VNA solution)
In this section, only the Mode I problem is considered. The solution for Modes II and III is given in
1
reference [1]. Let x
3
be the coordinate normal to the elliptical crack face, and let the tractions along the crack
surface be expressed in the form
" # " #
1 1
0 2 2 2
33 3 1 2
0 0 0 0
M m
i , f m n i n f
,m n,n
i f m n
A x x 4
( ) )
(
' ' ' '
'
++++
(A1)
where As are undetermined coefficients and the parameters i and f specify the symmetries of the load with
respect to the axes of the ellipse, x
1
and x
2
, wherein the commas are introduced for convenience only. M is an
arbitrary integer which is related to the order of the polynomial.
The solution corresponding to the arbitrarily distributed crack-face tractions expressed by Eq. (A1) can
be assumed in terms of the harmonic potential functions
" #
1 1
3 3 2
0 0 0 0
M k
i , f
,k l ,l k l i , l f
i f k l
f C F
( ( ) )
' ' ' '
'
++++ 2 2
(A2)
where Cs are undetermined coefficients and Fs are basic potentials wherein again the commas are used for
convenience only. The components of stress o
ij
as well as displacement can be expressed by the potential
function f
3
[1]. Thus, stress is given in a matrix form
5 6 7 8 5 6
6 1 6 1
P C
N N
4 '
9 9 9
(A3)
where [P] is a function of the coordinates (x
1
, x
2
, x
3
) and N is the total number of coefficients A and C.
Satisfying the boundary condition on the crack surface, the relation between the parameters A and C in
Eqs.(A1) and (A2) can be summarized in a matrix form
5 6 7 8 5 6
1 1
A B C
N N N N
'
9 9 9
(A4)
The detailed expression of the components of [B] is given in reference [1]. For a complete polynominal
loading expressed by Eq.(A1), the maximum degree of polynomial M
c
and the number of coefficients N can
be expressed, respectively, by M
c
=2M+1 and N=(M+1)(2M+3).
For any load given in Eq. (A1), the coefficients C can be determined by solving Eq. (A4). Once the
coefficients C are determined, the Mode I stress intensity factors corresponding to the given load are
evaluated from the following equation:
1 1
4 2
I
1 2 1 2
8
Q
K H
a a a a
&
:
- .
'
/ 0
1 2
(A5a)
where
2 2 2 2
1 2
Q a sin a cos * * ' ) (A5b)
" # " #
" #
2 2 2
1 1
2
3
0 0 0 0 1 2
2 2 1 !
k l i l f
M k
k i f i , f
,k l ,l
i f k l
cos sin
H k i f
a a
* *
( ) )
) )
(
' ' ' '
- . - .
' ( ) ) )
/ 0 / 0
1 2 1 2
++++
C (A5c)
2
0 denotes the elliptical angle as shown in Fig. A2 and n is the shear modulus. The elliptic angle concerning
point P is measured from the x
1
axis. The elliptical crack size is defined by major semi-axis a
1
and minor
semi-axis a
2
.

2.3 Procedure of analysis
The subroutine is carried out using the data relating crack geometry and the FEA result of the original
problem. The flow chart of the analysis procedure is shown in Fig. A3.

Step (0) Perform the FEA for the uncracked body under the given external loads. The information about the
model, such as model geometry, location of nodes, and integration points as well as the stresses is
utilized in subsequent FEAM. In ABAQUS, these data are stored in the result file and restart
file.
Step (1) The geometric data of the crack, such as size, position and inclination, is stored in this step.
Step (2) In order to evaluate the crack-face traction expressed by Eq. (A1), the interpolation points (IPs), at
which the stress is calculated, are determined. In the present study, the IPs are selected as shown in
Fig. A4.
Step (3) For efficient calculation, some basic parameters are calculated before the iteration process. In order
to obtain the stress at the IPs, the interpolations are carried out using the stress at adjacent integration
points of the finite element model. In this step, the related integration points used for the
interpolations are determined for each IP. The surface information, such as element number at
surfaces and distance from crack center, which is related to the matrix [P] of Eq. (A3), is also
calculated in this step.
Step (4) The initial stress at crack-face is evaluated at the IPs by interpolation using the volume coordinate.
Step (5) To satisfy the stress boundary condition at the crack-face, reverse the stress evaluated in Step (4).
Then evaluate the coefficients A in Eq. (A1) for applied stress by using the least squares method. The
maximum degree of polynomial M
c
=5 is used in the present study.
Step (6) The coefficients C of Eq. (A2) can be derived by solving Eq. (A4) with coefficients A evaluated in
the previous step.
Step (7) Calculate the SIF for the current iteration by substituting coefficients C in Eq. (A5).
Step (8) Calculate the residual stresses on external surfaces of the body due to the loads applied in Step (5).
To satisfy the stress boundary condition at the free surface, reverse the residual stresses and
calculated equivalent nodal forces. The stresses at the external surfaces can be calculated using Eq.
(A3), in which the matrix [P] was determined previously in Step (3). Although the matrix [P] has
stress singularity at the crack front, the magnitude of the matrix decays rapidly with the distance
3
from the crack front. Thus, at the surfaces that are far from the crack, the residual stresses can be
neglected in order to reduce the calculation time.
Step (9) Conduct the FEA for the uncracked body under external loads consisting of the nodal forces
calculated in Step (8).
Step (10) Again, calculate the stress at IPs according to the same procedure as Step (4).
Step (11) Repeat all steps in the iteration process, from Step (5) to Step (11), until the stresses acting on the
crack-face, which is calculated in Step (10), become negligible. In the present study, the threshold
for the end of the iteration was set to 1 percent of the mean initial stress obtained in Step (4).
Step (12) To obtain the final SIF, add the SIF calculated in Step (7) of all iteration processes.

The VNA solution is valid for entire elliptical crack. Therefore, in order to calculate the SIF of a
semi-elliptical crack, it is necessary to assume the stress at the portion existing outside the body in Step (5). In
reference [1], numerical experimentation was conducted for arriving at an optimum stress distribution on a
crack surface extended into the fictitious region outside of the body. From the conclusion of the numerical
experimentation, in the present study, the fictitious stress for the region x
2
<0 is assumed to vary in the x
1

direction and remains constant in the x
2
direction as shown in Fig. A5.

3. Surface Cracks on Plate

The SIF of semi-elliptical surface cracks on a plate subjected to tensile and bending stress is evaluated by
the FEAM. The model geometry and finite element mesh for uncracked plate is shown in Fig. A6. The
thickness, t, half-length, B, and half-width of the plate, W, are t/a = 10, B/c = 10 and W/c = 5, where a is crack
depth and c is half crack length at the surface. These sizes are large enough so that the crack is considered to
exist in an infinite plate [7].
Due to the symmetries of the problem, only one quarter of the plate was modeled by finite elements. Fine
elements were adopted around the crack portion for accurate analysis, although the mesh is not included in the
crack. The mesh shown in Fig. A6, the model consists of 28000 8-noded solid elements. The depth of crack is
a/c=0.5 and the crack is assumed to be located at center of the plate. Poissons ratio of the material is taken to
be 0.3 and this value is used for all calculations of the appendix.
According to the procedure shown in Fig. A3, the FEA for the uncracked body shown in Fig. A6 is
performed under the initial loading conditions. Then the FEAM alternating subroutine is carried out. The data
required in the subroutine, such as the crack shape, location and the FEA results, is automatically taken into
the subroutine through the data read program.
The SIFs is shown in Fig. A7 together with the ones by other studies [7][8][9]. The SIFs are normalized
4
by the following equation:

I
I
o
K
F
a 4 &
' (A6)
where K
I
denotes the SIF of mode I and o
o
is the tensile or bending stress. The present results agree well with
those obtained in the references for the tensile and bending stress conditions. Based on the SIFs of reference
[7], in which precise SIFs were obtained by conventional finite element method, the maximum error in the
crack front is 2.0 and 2.4 percent under tensile and bending stress, respectively

4. Conclusion

The FEAM was successfully used to obtain accurate SIFs of semi-elliptical surface crack on a plate. By
using fine mesh, the maximum error in the evaluation of the FEAM can be suppressed less than 3 percent.

Refereces
1. T. Nishioka and S. N. Atluri, An Analytical Solution for Embedded Elliptical Cracks, and Finite Element
Alternating Method for Elliptical Surface Cracks, Subjected to Arbitrary Loadings, Engng Fract. Mech.,
17 (1983) 247-268.
2. T. Nishioka and S. N. Atluri, Analysis of Surface Flaw in Pressure Vessels by a New 3-Dimensional
Alternating Method, ASME J. Pressure Vessel Technology, 104 (1982) 299-307.
3. P. E. ODonoghue, T. Nishioka and S. N. Atluri, Multiple Surface Cracks in Pressure Vessels, Engng
Fract. Mech., 20 (1984) 545-560.
4. T. Nishioka, T. Tokunaga and T. Akashi, Alternating Method for Interaction Analysis of a Group of
Micro-Elliptical Cracks, J. Soc. Mat. Sci., Japan, 43 (1994) 1271-1277.
5. T. Nishioka, T. Akashi and T. Tokunaga, On the General Solution for Mixed-Mode Elliptical Cracks and
Their Applications, Tran. JSME, 60 (1994) 364-371.
6. T. Nishioka and T. Kato, An Alternating Method Based on the VNA Solution for Analysis of Damaged
Solid Containing Arbitrarily Distributed Elliptical Microcracks, Int. J. Fracture, 97 (1999) 137-170.
7. M. Kamaya, Evaluation of Coalescence criteria for parallel cracks, ASME PVP-Vol.438 (2002) 181-186.
8. N. Noda and S. Miyoshi, Analysis of variation of stress intensity factor along crack front of
semi-elliptical surface crack using singular integral equation method, Trans. of JSME, 66 (1995)
1232-1240.
9. J. C. Newman, Jr. and I. S. Raju, An empirical stress intensity factor equation for the surface crack,
Engng Fract. Mech. 15 (1981) 185-192.
5
= +
+ +
+
Repeat until the traction on the crack-
face becomes negligible
Crack
Finite element
analyses
VNA solution
Fig. A1 Finite element alternating method for finite cracked body under
remote loading.
"
P
x
1
a
1
x
2
a
2
Fig. A2 Elliptic angle )for point P on the edge of an elliptical crack.
Stress
Mesh data
Model geometry
Restart data
Calculate stresses at IPs using original FEA results
Determine coefficients A in the applied stresses by
derived stress at IPs
Determine coefficients C in the potential functions
Calculate the SIF for the current iteration
Calculate residual stresses on external surfaces of
the model due to the loaded crack. Reverse them and
determine nodal force for next FEA.
Perform FEA under external loads derived in step (8)
Calculate stresses at IPs using FEA results of step (9)
Are the stresses at
IPs negligible ?
Step (4)
Step (5)
Step (6)
Step (7)
Step (8)
Step (9)
Step (10)
Step (11)
Data read
program
FEAM subroutine
Start
Perform the FEA for
original problem, which
dose not include cracks.
Generate base data
Determine stress interpolation points (IPs)
Find adjacent integration points of each IP
for stress interpolation from FEA results
Determine surface data and calculate the
matrix [P] of Eq.(3)
Add the SIF solutions of all iterations
End
Step (1)
Read crack data (shape, location, inclination etc.) Crack data
Step (2) Step (0)
Step (3)
Step (12)
Fig. A3 Flow chart of the finite element alternating method.
Crack front
x
1
x
2
Interpolation points
Fig.A4 Location of interpolation points (total 709 points are employed).
x
1
a
2
- a
2
R
33
4
" #
R R
33 33 2
0 x 4 4 ' '
Solid
Fig. A5 Residual stress distribution over the entire crack surface.
2W = 10c
c
t = 10a
a
c
2c
a
2B
= 20
Fig. A6 Geometry of cracked plate and finite element mesh for an
uncracked plate.
0.60
0.65
0.70
0.75
0.80
0.85
0.90
0.95
0 30 60 90
Crack tip position#$, %
N
o
r
m
a
l
i
z
e
d

s
t
r
e
s
s

i
n
t
e
n
s
i
t
y

f
a
c
t
o
r

F
1
This study
Raju & Newman![*]
Noda et al. [*]
Kamaya et al. [*]
1
I
o
K
F
a 4 &
'
7
8
9
a/c = 0.5
t/a = 10
B/c = 10
W/c = 5
(a) Tension
a/c = 0.5
t/a = 10
B/c = 10
W/c = 5
0.60
0.65
0.70
0.75
0.80
0.85
0 30 60 90
Crack tip position#$, %
N
o
r
m
a
l
i
z
e
d

s
t
r
e
s
s

i
n
t
e
n
s
i
t
y

f
a
c
t
o
r

F
1
This study
Raju and Newman [*]
Kamaya et al. [*]
1
I
o
K
F
a 4 &
'
9
7
(b) Bending
Fig. A7 Normalized stress intensity factor for a surface crack on a plate.
Page 1
OECD benchmark on thermal fatigue problem
- Second step: Evaluation based on FEM-
Nobuchika KAWASAKI, Naoto KASAHARA
O-arai Engineering Center, Japan Nuclear Cycle Development Institute
4002 Narita, Oarai, Higashi Ibaraki-gun, Ibaraki-Pref., 311-1393, Japan
Hideki TAKASHO
Joyo Industries Ltd.
4002 Narita, Oarai, Higashi Ibaraki-gun, Ibaraki-Pref., 311-1393, Japan
Ichiro FURUHASHI
CRC Solutions Ltd.
4002 Narita, Oarai, Higashi Ibaraki-gun, Ibaraki-Pref., 311-1393, Japan
1. Objective of the benchmark
The main objectives of the benchmark is to compare assessment procedures for the
evaluation of fatigue cracking under thermal load. Especially the following points are
stressed in the evaluation.
x How to evaluate the thermal load on the structure ? What are the most important
parameters on the mechanical loading and the fatigue damage ?
x How to evaluate cracking ? in terms of crack initiation or crack propagation ?
2. Second step of the benchmark
This benchmark consists of 5 steps as a whole as follows, and there are 2 steps of
integrity assessment by participants.
Pre test calculation:
At this step, the participants are asked to propose simple assessment procedures to
estimate crack initiation and crack propagation and to use it to optimize the test
configuration: definition of the experimental conditions (temperatures, load frequency),
estimation of the test duration
Thermal qualification of the test:
This work will be performed at CEA on a specific specimen with thermal
measurements on the skin and through the thickness of the pipe. The objective of this step
is to provide a description of the thermal load for the precise thermo mechanical analysis
that will follow in the second analysis phase.
OECD benchmark on thermal fatigue-JNC
Page 2
Thermo-mechanical test interpretations:
The participants are asked to apply integrity assessment procedures (simplified ones or
numerical investigations), to estimate the cracking in the structure. This estimation will be
performed as a blind exercise so that interesting results will be provided on the accuracy
and the needs for this 3D mechanical analysis problem. At this level, all thermal
measurements performed at the previous step will be provide to participants for the
analysis.
Synthesis of the results and comparison with the experiment:
A synthesis of the different proposed procedures and a comparison with the
experimental results will be performed by CEA.
Discussion on the results:
As conclusion for this benchmark, a discussion between participants will be conducted
and some common recommendations on the assessment evaluations under thermal load will
be proposed.
This report corresponds to the integrity assessment in thermo-mechanical test
interpretations. The test configuration was already decided by CEA from the pre test
calculation.
In this second step of the integrity assessment, it is asked to participants to:
x Estimate the number of cycles to crack initiation on the inner surface, without any
initial notch. This estimation may be performed by thermo mechanical analysis of the
3D thermal loading or by an interpretation of thermal measurements. However, in
any case, it should take into account the 3D aspects of the loading, the multi-axial
stresses, the mean stress field and any other significant parameters.
x If the crack initiation is reached before the maximum expected number of cycles,
estimate the crack propagation through the thickness and answer the following
questions :
Will the crack(s) reach the outer surface ? If yes, how many cycles are needed ?
What kind of cracking will be observe : multiple cracking ? unique cracking ?
circumferential or longitudinal cracking or both ?
3. Scope of this report
This report consists of evaluations based on FEM.
Thermal and stress calculations are done by 3D-FEM, and based on these results, the
number of cycles to crack initiation and propagation are estimated.
A simplified method based on frequency transfer functions is going to be introduced by
the other report.
OECD benchmark on thermal fatigue-JNC
Page 3
4. Test definition
Pipe geometry, material data, and load description are decided and provided to
participants as the common calculation conditions based on pre test calculation and thermal
qualification of the test.
4.1 Pipe geometry and boundary conditions
The final mock up geometry adopted for the test is defined by :
x Length of the pipe : 360 mm
x External diameter : 166 mm (or 165mm?)
x Thickness of pipe : 6.7 mm
The following boundary conditions are adopted during the test:
x The section at the top of the pipe is embedded.
x The section at the bottom of the pipe (where water goes out from the pipe) is free.
4.2 Material data
The material data are mainly decided from the A3.3S appendix of the RCC-MR French
code (best fit data deduced from the RCC-MR codified values at 20C and 100C), from
A16 appendix of the RCC-MR and also from the knowledge of the CEA laboratory for
thermal load evaluation.
The material data given in SI system are the following:
x Thermal parameter of the material:
= 7800 kg/m
3
C = 550 J/Kg/C
K = 30 W/m/C
o = 16.410
-6
C
-1
x Mechanical characteristics of the material:
Young Modulus : E = 186000 MPa (A3.3S)
Poisson's coefficient : v = 0.3 (A3.3S)
Fatigue resistance curve : Ac(%) = 4.84N
R
-0.2
(A3.3S)
Paris law : da/dN(mm/cycle) = 1.210
-8
AK
3.3
(A16)
Fatigue propagation threshold: AK
th
(MPa.\m)= 6.5 - 4.5R with R=K
min
/K
max
(A16)
The following comments complete the given data:
x In case of thermal calculations, the thermal data (K, Heat exchange coefficients
and/or C) have to be fitted by the participants to reproduce thermal variations
observed during the qualification of the thermal loading (data given are only
estimations).
OECD benchmark on thermal fatigue-JNC
Page 4
x The material is supposed to be linear elastic in the stress calculation. However, cyclic
plasticity may be taken into account in the elastic-plastic strain range estimation.
x The proposed fatigue resistance curve corresponds to an exponential fit of the
RCC-MR material data at 20C and for a number of cycles between 10
4
and 10
6
. This
curve link the number of cycles to failure to the total elastic-plastic imposed strain
range.
x The Paris Law corresponds to the 316L(N) material at 100C.
4.3 Load description
The cyclic cooling is imposed by a local cyclic injection of cold water inside the pipe.
The localization of the cold water injection point is always the same. The pipe is placed
inside a furnace to maintain a hot temperature at the outer surface of the pipe. The air
temperature is maintained constant.
Figure 1: scheme of the test
The optimized cycle is defined by :
Water temperature : T
cold
~ 17 20C
Furnace temperature : T
hot
= 650C
Total cycle duration : t
tot
= t
cold
+ t
hot
= 190 s
Water injection time : t
cold
= 15 s
Figure 2 represents the location of thermocouples used to characterize the thermal
loading imposed to the pipe.
OECD benchmark on thermal fatigue-JNC
Page 5
Figure 2: Thermocouples location
Major part of these thermo-couples are located in front of the water injection surface (u
= 0) at three different depth :
x On external surface ( = 0): TC1 3 6 9 12 15
x At a 3.2 mm depth : TC2 5 8 11 14
x Close to the inner surface ( = 6,1 mm) : TC4 7 10 13 16
At the opposite of the pipe (u = 180), 3 thermocouples at located on the external
surface ( = 0) : TC17 18 19. In addition, the mock-up can rotate so that measurements
can be performed outside the symmetry plane of the water injection : the mock up can
rotate for an angle u which can vary from 0 to 70.
Temperatures measured by above thermocouples are provided to participants
The boundary of water flow on the inner surface of the pipe (called cold surface) was
measured on a specific mock up (half pipe to make a direct observation of the surface), next
figure represent thiscold surface on the developed inner surface of the pipe : dots are
corresponding to the measurements and the curve corresponds to the polynomial fit defined
by the following formula :
OECD benchmark on thermal fatigue-JNC
Page 6
Figure 3: Representation of the cold surface
5. Finite element method
5.1 Thermal calculation by FEM
5.1.1 Setting the thermal properties using 1D-FEM
To determine the thermal properties, parametric 1D thermal FEM calculation has been
done, the parametric cases are as in Table 1. In the table, heat transfer coefficient H
water
is
the coefficient between injected-water and the pipe, H
inner-gas
is the coefficient between
inner-gas and the pipe when the water is not injected, H
outer
is the coefficient between outer
air heated by the furnace and the pipe. The temperature of the injected-water is considered
as 20C constant, and the temperature of the inner-gas and furnace is considered as 650C
constant.
From figures 4 to 9 are graphs that are showing temperature history calculated by
1D-FEM. At the test, inside of the pipe is cooled partially, but in the 1D-FEM, inside of the
pipe is wholly cooled. Therefore the thermocouples at the bottom (z=70, TC15 and 16) are
selected to be compared with FEM results. TC16 is located near inner skin, =6.0mm, this
is 0.7mm inside of the thickness. TC15 is located at external skin, =0.0mm. Temperatures
at the thermocouples are measured in the stabilized cycle. Therefore the temperatures of
FEM are selected from the stabilized cycle, and that is at 10 cycles.
OECD benchmark on thermal fatigue-JNC
Page 7
Figures 4 and 5 show that H
outer
is quite higher than 5W/m
2
/C. The capability of
furnace is not sure in this benchmark, so H
outer
was decided from parametric FEM, and
from case 1-2 to 1-7, H
outer
was decided as 50 W/m
2
/C.
Figure 6 and 7 shows the results of H
water
=3,000W/m
2
/C, and Figure 8 and 9 shows
the results of H
water
=4,000W/m
2
/C. As figure 6 shows, AT
time
during cold shock is smaller
than the test result with the condition of H
water
=3,000W/m
2
/C.
At the end of cold shock, that time is 17.1sec, the difference of temperature between
TC15 and TC16 is 41.7C. This indicates thermal conductivity is quite lower than
30W/m/C. Unlike heat transfer coefficient, thermal conductivity is a material properties,
so thermal conductivity is decided from Japanese SUS316 material data as in Table 2.
From all temperature histories, case1-6 was selected as a most likely case, and that is
the case A in table 3.
In addition to case1-6, the case with thermal parameters in chapter 4.2 was selected as
reference calculation case, and that is the case B in table 3.
OECD benchmark on thermal fatigue-JNC
Page 8
Table 1: Parametric cases for 1D thermal FEM
case 1-1 case 1-2 case 1-3 case 1-4 case 1-5 case 1-6 case 1-7
Density
| kg/m
3
]
7,800
(CEA)
7,800
(CEA)
7,970
(Table 2
: 20C)
Temperat
ure-
dependent
(Table 2)
7,970
(Table 2
: 20C)
Temperat
ure-
dependent
(Table 2)
7,970
(Table 2
: 20C)
Specific Heat
C [J/Kg/C]
550
(CEA)
550
(CEA)
452
(Table 2
: 20C)
Temperat
ure-
dependent
(Table 2)
452
(Table 2
:20C)
Temperat
ure-
dependent
(Table 2)
452
(Table 2
:20C)
Thermal
conductivity
K[W/m/C]
30
(CEA)
30
(CEA)
14.6
(Table 2
: 20C)
Temperat
ure-
dependent
(Table 2)
14.6
(Table 2
: 20C)
Temperat
ure-
dependent
(Table 2)
14.6
(Table 2
: 20C)
H
water
[W/m
2
/C]
3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 4,000 4,000 4,000
H
inner-gas
[W/m
2
/C]
5 5 5 5 5 5 50
H
outer
[W/m
2
/C]
5 50 50 50 50 50 50
Table 2: Material data (JNC ZN9520 95-013 FINAS ver.12.0 users manual)[1]
OECD benchmark on thermal fatigue-JNC
Page 9
Table 3: Selected cases from 1D thermal FEM
case A
(Most likely)
case B
(Reference)
Density
| kg/m
3
]
Temperature-
dependent
(Table 2)
7,800
(CEA)
Specific Heat
C [J/Kg/C]
Temperature-
dependent
(Table 2)
550
(CEA)
Thermal
conductivity
K[W/m/C]
Temperature-
dependent
(Table 2)
30
(CEA)
H
water
[W/m
2
/C]
4,000 4,000
H
inner-gas
[W/m
2
/C]
5 5
H
outer
[W/m
2
/C]
50 50
OECD benchmark on thermal fatigue-JNC
Page 10
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
0 50 100 150 200
Timesec
T
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e

TC16-0
case1-1
case1-2
Figure 4: Temperature history - 1D FEM- 0.7mm inside of the thickness - case 1-1,1-2
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
0 50 100 150 200
Timesec
T
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e

TC15-0
case1-1
case1-2
Figure 5: Temperature history - 1D FEM- external skin - case 1-1,1-2
OECD benchmark on thermal fatigue-JNC
Page 11
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
0 50 100 150 200
Timesec
T
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e

TC16-0
case1-2
case1-3
case1-4
Figure 6: Temperature history - 1D FEM- 0.7mm inside of the thickness
- case 1-2,1-3,1-4
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
0 50 100 150 200
Timesec
T
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e

TC15-0
case1-2
case1-3
case1-4
Figure 7: Temperature history - 1D FEM- external skin - case1-2,1-3,1-4
OECD benchmark on thermal fatigue-JNC
Page 12
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
0 50 100 150 200
Timesec
T
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e

TC16-0
case1-5
case1-6
case1-7
Figure 8: Temperature history - 1D FEM- 0.7mm inside of the thickness
- case 1-5,1-6,1-7
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
0 50 100 150 200
Timesec
T
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e

TC15-0
case1-5
case1-6
case1-7
Figure 9: Temperature history - 1D FEM- external skin - case 1-5,1-6,1-7
OECD benchmark on thermal fatigue-JNC
Page 13
5.1.2 Thermal calculation by 3D-FEM
Thermal calculations by 3D-FEM are stared using thermal properties in table 3, case2-1
in table 4 means case1-6 in the 1D-FEM.
Figure 10 and 11 show calculated temperature-contours at 0 sec and 15 sec about case
2-1. 0 sec is the starting point in the stabilized cycle, and 15 sec is the end of water
injection. Figures 12, 13, and 14 show temperature histories at Z=190mm, 160mm, 70mm,
in the all cases u = 0.
This result show additional considerations to the thermal properties. At Z=70mm u = 0,
FEM highly represents the test. However at Z=190mm u = 0 there is large temperature
difference between FEM and the test, because this is partially cooled position.
At Z=190mm u = 0, T
start
and AT in the case 2-1 is lower than those in the test, (AT/dt
is nearly same), as table 5 and 6 show. T
start
is the temperature at the starting point of the
thermal transient. AT is the temperature difference between the starting point and ending
point of the thermal transient. AT/dt is the temperature transition rate during 3 seconds after
the transient.
This means H
outer
at this position is larger than expected. The maximum stress is to be
generated around this position, therefore to represent at this position is emphasized than the
others. As a result case 2-2 is added to calculate.
Figures 15, 16, and 17 show calculated temperature-contours at 3sec in the all cases
shown in the table 4.
Figure 18 show the positions of selected thermocouples. Figures 19, 20, and 21 show
temperature histories at Z=190mm, 160mm, 70mm, u = 0 about case 2-2. Figures 22, 23,
and 24 show temperature histories at Z=190mm, 160mm, 70mm, u = 0 about case ref.
Table 5 and 6 show the comparison of the temperatures between the test and FEMs.
Case2-2 highly represents T
start
and AT/dt. In this case the calculated AT is smaller than
the one in the test. However as written later the maximum stress is generated during the
transient not at 15 sec, therefore AT/dt is regarded as more important than AT.
Finally case 2-2 is decided as the most likely case, and case ref is decided as the
reference case.
OECD benchmark on thermal fatigue-JNC
Page 14
Table 4: Parametric cases for 3D thermal FEM
case 2-1 case 2-2 case ref
Density
| kg/m
3
]
Temperat
ure-
dependent
(Table 2)
Temperat
ure-
dependent
(Table 2)
7,800
(CEA)
Specific Heat
C [J/Kg/C]
Temperat
ure-
dependent
(Table 2)
Temperat
ure-
dependent
(Table 2)
550
(CEA)
Thermal
Conductivity
K[W/m/C]
Temperat
ure-
dependent
(Table 2)
Temperat
ure-
dependent
(Table 2)
30
(CEA)
H
water
[W/m
2
/C]
4,000 4,000 4,000
H
inner-gas
[W/m
2
/C]
5 5 5
H
outer
[W/m
2
/C]
50 75 50
OECD benchmark on thermal fatigue-JNC
Page 15
Table 5: Comparison of the temperatures u = 0
0.7mm inside (TC4) External skin (TC3) Z=190mm
Tstart [C] AT [C] Tstart [C] AT [C]
TEST 406 334 420 297
Case 2-1 347 259 350 230
Case 2-2 404 303 408 267
Case ref 355 267 356 252
0.7mm inside (TC7) External skin (TC6) Z=160mm
Tstart [C] AT [C] Tstart [C] AT [C]
TEST 317 250 338 225
Case 2-1 281 206 285 181
Case 2-2 346 257 351 224
Case ref 294 218 296 206
0.7mm inside (TC16) External skin (TC15) Z=70mm
Tstart [C] AT [C] Tstart [C] AT [C]
TEST 232 167 248 149
Case 2-1 240 174 244 152
Case 2-2 310 228 315 198
Case ref 230 167 233 157
Table 6: Comparison of the temperatures AT/dt : 0.7mm inside (TC4)
u = 0 AT/dt [C]
Z=190mm
AT/dt[C]
Z=160mm
AT/dt[C]
Z=70mm
TEST 49.4 27.5 22.5
Case 2-1 46.4 37.3 31.7
Case 2-2 54.1 46.1 41.3
Case ref 43.1 35.1 26.9
OECD benchmark on thermal fatigue-JNC
Page 16

C
Figure 10: Temperature contour case 2-1- 0sec
OECD benchmark on thermal fatigue-JNC
Page 17

The line of
polynominal fit
C
Figure 11: Temperature contour case 2-1- 15sec
OECD benchmark on thermal fatigue-JNC
Page 18
50
150
250
350
450
0 50 100 150 200
Time (sec)
T
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e

TC4-0
FEM
50
150
250
350
450
0 50 100 150 200
Time (sec)
T
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e

TC3-0
FEM
Z=190mm,0
0.7mm inside
Z=190mm,0
external skin
Figure 12: Temperature history - 3D FEM- Z=190mm - case 2-1
OECD benchmark on thermal fatigue-JNC
Page 19
50
150
250
350
450
0 50 100 150 200
Time (sec)
T
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e

TC7-0
FEM
50
150
250
350
450
0 50 100 150 200
Time (sec)
T
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e

TC6-0
FEM
Z=160mm,0
0.7mm inside
Z=160mm,0
external skin
Figure 13: Temperature history - 3D FEM- Z=160mm - case 2-1
OECD benchmark on thermal fatigue-JNC
Page 20
50
150
250
350
450
0 50 100 150 200
Time (sec)
T
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e

TC16-0
FEM
50
150
250
350
450
0 50 100 150 200
Time (sec)
T
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e

TC15-0
FEM
Z=70mm,0
0.7mm inside
Z=70mm,0
external skin
Figure 14: Temperature history - 3D FEM- Z=70mm - case 2-1
OECD benchmark on thermal fatigue-JNC
Page 21

C
Figure 15: Temperature contour case 2-1- 3sec
OECD benchmark on thermal fatigue-JNC
Page 22

C
Figure 16: Temperature contour case 2-2- 3sec
OECD benchmark on thermal fatigue-JNC
Page 23

C
Figure 17: Temperature contour case ref- 3sec
OECD benchmark on thermal fatigue-JNC
Page 24
X Y
Z
V1
O2O 7O
7Omm
16Omm
19Omm
Figure 18: Positions of the selected thermocouples
OECD benchmark on thermal fatigue-JNC
Page 25
50
150
250
350
450
0 50 100 150 200
Time (sec)
T
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e

TC4-0
FEM
50
150
250
350
450
0 50 100 150 200
Time (sec)
T
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e

TC3-0
FEM
Z=190mm,0
0.7mm inside
Z=190mm,0
external skin
Figure 19: Temperature history - 3D FEM- Z=190mmu = 0 - case 2-2
OECD benchmark on thermal fatigue-JNC
Page 26
50
150
250
350
450
0 50 100 150 200
Time (sec)
T
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e

TC7-0
FEM
50
150
250
350
450
0 50 100 150 200
Time (sec)
T
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e

TC6-0
FEM
Z=160mm,0
0.7mm inside
Z=160mm,0
external skin
Figure 20: Temperature history - 3D FEM- Z=160mmu = 0 - case 2-2
OECD benchmark on thermal fatigue-JNC
Page 27
50
150
250
350
450
0 50 100 150 200
Time (sec)
T
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e

TC16-0
FEM
50
150
250
350
450
0 50 100 150 200
Time (sec)
T
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e

TC15-0
FEM
Z=70mm,0
0.7mm inside
Z=70mm,0
external skin
Figure 21: Temperature history - 3D FEM- Z=70mmu = 0 - case 2-2
OECD benchmark on thermal fatigue-JNC
Page 28
50
150
250
350
450
0 50 100 150 200
Time (sec)
T
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e

TC4-0
FEM
50
150
250
350
450
0 50 100 150 200
Time (sec)
T
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e

TC3-0
FEM
Z=190mm,0
0.7mm inside
Z=190mm,0
external skin
Figure 22: Temperature history - 3D FEM- Z=190mmu = 0 - case ref
OECD benchmark on thermal fatigue-JNC
Page 29
50
150
250
350
450
0 50 100 150 200
Time (sec)
T
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e

TC7-0
FEM
50
150
250
350
450
0 50 100 150 200
Time (sec)
T
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e

TC6-0
FEM
Z=160mm,0
0.7mm inside
Z=160mm,0
external skin
Figure 23: Temperature history - 3D FEM- Z=160mmu = 0 - case ref
OECD benchmark on thermal fatigue-JNC
Page 30
50
150
250
350
450
0 50 100 150 200
Time (sec)
T
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e

TC16-0
FEM
50
150
250
350
450
0 50 100 150 200
Time (sec)
T
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e

TC15-0
FEM
Z=70mm,0
0.7mm inside
Z=70mm,0
external skin
Figure 24: Temperature history - 3D FEM- Z=70mmu = 0 - case ref
OECD benchmark on thermal fatigue-JNC
Page 31
5.2 Stress calculation
Stress calculations by FEM are done for case 2-1, 2-2, and ref as written in table 7. For
case 2-1 and 2-2, material data shown in table 8 are used. For case ref, material date shown
in the chapter 4.2 are used.
Figure 25 and 26 show VonMises stress after 8 seconds in the stabilized cycle in case
2-2, and at that time the maximum stress during the cycle is generated. The highest position
of the injected water is Z=217mm, and the highest points of stress are below from this point.
As Figure 26 shows, from Z=210mm to Z=204mm, these are the area whose stress is
between 700MPa and 710MPa. The ratio of the radii in this oval area, which is the radius
along Z : the radius along u, equals about 1 : 3.
Figure 27 shows the temperature contours at 0, 1, 3, and 8 seconds in case 2-2. Two
white dots show the points of Z=210mm and Z=204mm. This figure show that the cold
front which is below 250C comes up in the inner surface of the pipe, and this cold front
makes temperature gradient in the thickness and large stress in the direction of Z and u.
Figure 28 shows VonMises stress and temperature history at Z=207.4mm, u=0, where
the stress is the maximum. Figure 29 shows temperature distribution along Z at u=0, and
figure 30, 31, and 32 show stress distribution along Z at u=0. All figures are about case
2-2.
Figure 33 shows VonMises stress histories in case 2-1, 2-2, and ref. The difference
between case 2-1 and 2-2 is only H
outer
shown in table 4, and the difference between case
2-1 and ref is thermal and mechanical properties shown in table 4 and table 7.
Case ref has higher diffusivity of heat K/C than case 2-1, therefore the heat of cooling
spread widely in all direction, and the stress generated by temperature gradient becomes
smaller than case 2-1. The thermal stress is proportional to EoAT/2(1-v), and case 2-1 has
higher Eo/2(1-v) than case ref above 150C. Therefore case 2-1 has larger stress than case
ref even for the same AT.
Case 2-2 has larger H
outer
than case 2-1 and this generates higher T
start
as shown in
table5. Therefore case 2-2 has larger AT/dt than case 2-1, and generates the largest stress in
all cases.
The most likely maximum VonMises stress is 708MPa, and the most likely maximum
VonMises stress range is 653MPa in case 2-2.
To understand 3D effect, additional 2D-FEM and 1D-FEM were done. In both cases
thermal and mechanical properties are the same as case 2-2. Figure 34 shows VonMises
stress histories for all three cases. Figure 35 shows temperature contours at 0, 1, 3, and 4
sec for 2D-FEM, the maximum VonMises stress is generated at 4 sec at Z=207.4mm.
Figure 36 shows temperature contours at 0, 1, and 3 sec for 1D-FEM, the maximum
VonMises stress is generated at 3 sec. Figure 37 shows temperature distribution in the
thickness at 3 sec, for 2D and 3D FEM Z=207.4mm.
The non-cooled surrounding hot area effects the stabilized temperature at 0 sec in the
calculations. By that result the temperature at 3 sec at outer surface varies for each case. 3D
FEM generates the highest outer temperature and 1D FEM is the lowest.
The difference of the stabilized temperature and the surrounding temperature generates
OECD benchmark on thermal fatigue-JNC
Page 32
different temperature gradient in the thickness. This difference effects the magnitude of the
stress as shown in figure 34. For these reasons, 3D-FEM generates almost 2 times higher
stress than 1D-FEM.
OECD benchmark on thermal fatigue-JNC
Page 33
Table 7: Analyses cases for 3D stress FEM
case 2-1 case 2-2 case ref
Youngs Modulus
|MPa]
Temperature-
dependent
(Table 8)
Temperature-
dependent
(Table 8)
186000
(A3.3S)
Poissons ratio
Temperature-
dependent
(Table 8)
Temperature-
dependent
(Table 8)
0.3
(A3.3S)
Linear expansion
coefficient
[1/C]
Temperature-
dependent
(Table 8)
Temperature-
dependent
(Table 8)
16.410
-6
(CEA)
Density
| kg/m
3
]
Temperature-
dependent
(Table 2)
Temperature-
dependent
(Table 2)
7,800
(CEA)
Specific Heat C
[J/Kg/C]
Temperature-
dependent
(Table 2)
Temperature-
dependent
(Table 2)
550
(CEA)
Thermal
Conductivity
K[W/m/C]
Temperature-
dependent
(Table 2)
Temperature-
dependent
(Table 2)
30
(CEA)
H
water
[W/m
2
/C]
4,000 4,000 4,000
H
inner-gas
[W/m
2
/C]
5 5 5
H
outer
[W/m
2
/C]
50 75 50
OECD benchmark on thermal fatigue-JNC
Page 34
Table 8: Material data (JNC ZN9520 95-013 FINAS ver.12.0 users manual) [1]
OECD benchmark on thermal fatigue-JNC
Page 35

MPa
Figure 25: Stress contour (VonMises) at 8sec: case2-2
OECD benchmark on thermal fatigue-JNC
Page 36

Z=204
Z=210
MPa
Figure 26: Stress contour (VonMises) at 8 sec: case2-2
OECD benchmark on thermal fatigue-JNC
Page 37

Time=
0sec

Time=
3sec

C
Time=
8sec
Z=210
Z=204
Figure 27: Temperature contour Time=0, 1, 3, 8 sec: case 2-2
C C
OECD benchmark on thermal fatigue-JNC
Page 38
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
0 5 10 15 20
Time(sec)
T
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e
(

) internal skin
external skin
Z=207.4mm u=0
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
0 5 10 15 20
Time(sec)
M
i
s
e
s
-
S
t
r
e
s
s
(
M
P
a
)
internal skin
external skin
Z=2O7.4mm u=0
Figure 28: Stress and temperature history: case 2-2
OECD benchmark on thermal fatigue-JNC
Page 39
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
150 170 190 210 230 250
height -Z (mm)
t
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e
(

)
0sec
3sec
8sec
Internal skin
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
150 170 190 210 230 250
height -Z (mm)
t
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e
(

)
0sec
3sec
8sec
External skin
Figure 29: Temperature distribution along Z: case 2-2
OECD benchmark on thermal fatigue-JNC
Page 40
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
0 100 200 300 400
height -Z (mm)
M
i
s
e
s

s
t
r
e
s
s
(
M
P
a
)
0sec
3sec
8sec
Internal skin
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
0 100 200 300 400
height -Z (mm)
M
i
s
e
s

s
t
r
e
s
s
(
M
P
a
)
0sec
3sec
8sec
External skin
Figure 30: VonMises stress distribution along Z : case 2-2
OECD benchmark on thermal fatigue-JNC
Page 41
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
800
0 100 200 300 400
height -Z (mm)
s
t
r
e
s
s
-

(
M
P
a
)
0sec
3sec
8sec
Internal skin
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
800
0 100 200 300 400
height -Z (mm)
s
t
r
e
s
s
-

(
M
P
a
)
0sec
3sec
8sec
External skin
Figure 31: Stress u distribution along Z : case 2-2
OECD benchmark on thermal fatigue-JNC
Page 42
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
800
0 100 200 300 400
height -Z (mm)
s
t
r
e
s
s
-
z
(
M
P
a
)
0sec
3sec
8sec
Internal skin
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
800
0 100 200 300 400
height -Z (mm)
s
t
r
e
s
s
-
z
(
M
P
a
)
0sec
3sec
8sec
External skin
Figure 32: Stress Z distribution along Z : case 2-2
OECD benchmark on thermal fatigue-JNC
Page 43
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
0 5 10 15 20
Time(sec)
M
i
s
e
s
-
S
t
r
e
s
s
(
M
P
a
)
case2-1
case2-2
case ref
Figure 33: Stress histories: case 2-1, 2-2, and ref
OECD benchmark on thermal fatigue-JNC
Page 44
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
0 5 10 15
Time(sec)
M
i
s
e
s
-
S
t
r
e
s
s
(
M
P
a
)
20
3D (2-2)
2D (2-2)
1D (2-2)
2D,3D:Z=207.4mm
u=0
3D-Analysis 2D-Analysis 1D-Analysis
Water injected Water injected Water injected
Figure 34: Stress histories: case 2-2(-3D), 2-2-2D, and 2-2-1D
OECD benchmark on thermal fatigue-JNC
Page 45

Time=
0sec
Time=
1sec
C C

Time=
3sec
Z=204
Z=210
Time=
4sec
Stress
Max.
C C
Figure 35: Temperature contours: 2-2-2D
OECD benchmark on thermal fatigue-JNC
Page 46

Time=0sec
C

Time=1sec
C

Time=3sec Stress max.

C
Figure 36: Temperature contours: 2-2-1D
OECD benchmark on thermal fatigue-JNC
Page 47
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
thickness(mm)
t
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e
(

)
3D-3sec, Tthickness=162
2D-3sec, Tthickness=152
1D-3sec, Tthickness=116
Figure 37: Temperature distribution in the thickness at 3 seconds
: case 2-2(-3D), 2-2-2D, and 2-2-1D
OECD benchmark on thermal fatigue-JNC
Page 48
5.3 Estimation of the crack initiation
5.3.1 Estimation of the total strain range
Total strain range in case 2-2 was estimated. As Figure 38 shows, the maximum and the
minimum stresses are generated at 8 and 0 second. Equivalent stress range Ao|
x=0
is 653
MPa.
JNC procedure estimates total strain range Ac
tot
from elastically calculated equivalent
stress range[2] as
,
0
'
tot e e
x
Ke E c c c o
=
A = A A = A / (1)
0
' {1 ( 1)(1 2 / )}
y
x
Ke q o o
=
= + A (2)
where q is an elastic follow-up parameter and can be adjusted to q=5/3, when stress is
generated by temperature gradient across wall thickness. Youngs modulus in A3.3S and
Youngs modulus in table 8 at 200C is similar, therefore Youngs modulus in A3.3S is
used in equation (1). Yield stress o
y
at 200C is 149 MPa in JNC material data for SUS316,
that is used in equation (2).
The following chart are total strain range Ac
tot
.
Table 9 Generated strain range
Case 2-2
Ao|
x=0
653 MPa
Ac
tot
0.48 %
OECD benchmark on thermal fatigue-JNC
Page 49
5.3.2 Fatigue curves and estimation of crack initiation
This benchmarks fatigue resistance curve is Ac(%) = 4.84N
R
-0.2
from A3.3S.
JNC has fatigue resistance curve shown in table 11 [3]. At the starting point of the
transient the temperature is 450C, therefore this curve at 450C is used.
In this curve, the failure is defined as the number of repetitions observed when the
tensile peak stress reaches 3/4 of the value that is almost constant at the middle of fatigue
life by JIS 2279-1992[4], and a visible crack initiation as 0.5mm length is found from
around 80% to nearly 100% of the failure life at this strain range. Therefore in JNC
procedure, crack initiations are estimated 90% of the fatigue life.
Around 0.5% strain range, data scatterings in failure cycles is within factor 2[3].
Table 10 Crack initiation
Case 2-2,
JNC
Case 2-2,
Benchmark
Strain range [%] 0.48 0.48
Strain rate [%/sec] 0.06 -
Average initiation 2.810
4
1.110
5
The most likely average initiation cycle is 2.810
4
, which means cracks initiate during
the test period.
If the test finishes at 510
4
cycles. JNC curve predicts crack initiates the area above
645MPa as maximum VonMises stress. Red area in figure 40 shows crack initiation area
predicted in case 2-2 with JNC curve.
As figure 39 shows, a direction of the maximum stress component is circumferential
one which leads to generate multiple longitudinal cracks.
OECD benchmark on thermal fatigue-JNC
Page 50
Table 11: JNC fatigue resistance curve[3]
Valid for from 400C to 650C.
OECD benchmark on thermal fatigue-JNC
Page 51
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
thickness(mm)
t
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e
(

)
0sec
1sec
2sec
3sec
4sec
5sec
6sec
7sec
8sec
9sec
10sec
11sec
12sec
13sec
14sec
15sec
16sec
17sec
18sec
19sec
20sec
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
thickness(mm)
M
i
s
e
s

s
t
r
e
s
s
(
M
P
a
)
0sec
1sec
2sec
3sec
4sec
5sec
6sec
7sec
8sec
9sec
10sec
11sec
12sec
13sec
14sec
15sec
16sec
17sec
18sec
19sec
20sec
Figure 38: Stress and temperature distribution along thickness: case 2-2
OECD benchmark on thermal fatigue-JNC
Page 52
-200
-100
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
thickness(mm)
s
t
r
e
s
s
-

(
M
P
a
)
0sec
1sec
2sec
3sec
4sec
5sec
6sec
7sec
8sec
9sec
10sec
11sec
12sec
13sec
14sec
15sec
16sec
17sec
18sec
19sec
20sec
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
thickness(mm)
s
t
r
e
s
s
-
z
(
M
P
a
)
0sec
1sec
2sec
3sec
4sec
5sec
6sec
7sec
8sec
9sec
10sec
11sec
12sec
13sec
14sec
15sec
16sec
17sec
18sec
19sec
20sec
Figure 39: Stress distribution along thickness: case 2-2
OECD benchmark on thermal fatigue-JNC
Page 53

Crack initiation area: u=30, From Z=213 to 198mm

The maximum stress is generated at Z=207.4mm
Figure 40: Estimated crack initiation area
OECD benchmark on thermal fatigue-JNC
Page 54
5.4 Estimation of the crack propagation
5.4.1 Evaluation procedure for crack propagation
In the estimation of the crack propagation, unique longitudinal semi-elliptical internal
initial crack is assumed as a fatigue initiated crack. An assumed initial crack is the one
whose depth a=0.25mm, and whose length 2c=2.5mm, c/a=5. This longer crack length is
determined to consider coalescence and interaction of multiple cracks, because in the
estimation of crack initiation at 5.3.2 supposed crack length is 0.5mm and supposed crack
depth is 0.25mm, c/a=1.
Two crack propagation rules are applied to estimate above cracks.
Benchmark(A16):
da/dN(mm/cycle) = 1.210
-8
AK
3.3
Unit: A K [MPa.\m] (3)
= 1.3510
-13
AK
3.3
Unit: A K [MPa.\mm]
CRIEPI[5][6]: da/dN(mm/cycle)=710
-5
AJ
f
1.37
Unit: AJ
f
[N/mm] (4)
AJ
f
= FA J
e
, A J
e
=AK
2
/ E (5)
AK= K
max
- K
min
, E=E/(1-v
2
) (6)
where, F is plastic modification factor calculated with reference
stress[7].
In the all calculations, AK is calculated using A16.8434[8].
OECD benchmark on thermal fatigue-JNC
Page 55
5.4.2 Estimated Crack propagation
Crack propagation is estimated for case 2-2, and the maximum K
I
is calculated as at 15
sec. The evaluation line is assumed as a perpendicular line from the highest stress point.
The propagation until 80% is considered as a penetration and the calculations until 80%
has been done. Estimated propagation cycles are as follows. The crack length 2c at the
penetration is about 23mm for both cases.
Table 12 crack propagation
case 2-2 Benchmark CRIEPI
propagation cycles 4,020 4,560
Figure 41 shows the crack propagation, figure 42 shows AKa, and figure 43 shows
crack propagation rate.
Most likely operational period for propagation is 22,000 cycles, therefore both
estimation methods predict the penetration of the crack. The most likely propagation cycle
which is estimated by CRIEPI method is 4,560 and that is quite less cycle compared with
the cycle to initiate(28,000). From these analyses, most of the cracks are estimated to reach
the outer surface if the cracks are initiated during the test period.
This small propagation cycle depends on the large membrane stress shown in figure 39.
With a stress classification at 15 sec, the membrane stress u is 266MPa, and the bending
stress is 466MPa. If there is no membrane stress, crack propagation rate become as figure
44. In this figure, Without membrane stress means that the membrane stress is removed
in the calculation, membrane bending stress means that the membrane stress is
replaced as the same magnitude of bending stress. At the middle of the thickness, crack
propagation rate with membrane stress is 1.610
-3
mm/cycle, on the other hand, the one
without is 1.710
-4
mm/cycle and the one replaced is 6.610
-4
mm/cycle. This means that
with membrane constraint there is possibility to increase the crack propagation rate into 10
times faster. As a result, estimated propagation cycle with membrane stress becomes 9
times shorter than the one without membrane stress as shown in figure 45.
OECD benchmark on thermal fatigue-JNC
Page 56
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
cycles
c
r
a
c
k

d
e
p
t
h

[
m
m
]
Benchmark
CRIEPI
Figure 41: Estimation of the crack propagation
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
0 1 2 3 4 5
crack depth [mm]
A
K
a

[
M
P
a

m
m
0
.
5
]
A16
Figure 42: AKa
OECD benchmark on thermal fatigue-JNC
Page 57
0.0E+00
5.0E-04
1.0E-03
1.5E-03
2.0E-03
2.5E-03
0 1 2 3 4 5
crack depth [mm]
d
a
/
d
N

[
m
m
/
c
y
c
l
e
]
Benchmark
CRIEPI
Figure 43: Crack propagation rate
0.0E+00
2.0E-04
4.0E-04
6.0E-04
8.0E-04
1.0E-03
1.2E-03
1.4E-03
1.6E-03
1.8E-03
2.0E-03
0 1 2 3 4 5
crack depth [mm]
d
a
/
d
N

[
m
m
/
c
y
c
l
e
]
With membrane stress-CRIEPI
Without membrane stress-CRIEPI
membrane bending stress-CRIEPI
Figure 44: Comparison of the crack propagation rate: membrane effect
OECD benchmark on thermal fatigue-JNC
Page 58
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
0 20000 40000 60000
cycles
c
r
a
c
k

d
e
p
t
h

[
m
m
]
With membrane stress-CRIEPI
Without membrane stress-CRIEPI
membrane bending stress-CRIEPI
Figure 45: Comparison of the crack propagation: membrane effect
OECD benchmark on thermal fatigue-JNC
Page 59
6. Conclusion
Three dimensional Finite Element Analysis with JNC fatigue evaluation procedure
estimated the most likely average crack initiation cycle as 2.810
4
. The maximum
VonMises stress was 708MPa, and the stress range was 653MPa. The total strain was
0.48%.
The estimated cracks are multiple longitudinal ones. Cracking area is from Z=213 to
198mm and u=30.
The cycle number for penetrating the thickness is estimated to be 4.610
3
and the
crack will reach the outer surface during the planning test period.
A detailed estimation of heat transfer coefficients H
water
and H
outer
is inevitable for a
precise stress prediction. And as the stress difference between case 2-1 and ref in figure 33
shows, precise estimations of thermal and mechanical properties, especially thermal
conductivity is important for a precise stress prediction.
The difference among 3D, 2D, and 1D FEM is large as shown in figure 34. Only 3D
FEM can consider global circumstantial temperature difference, which leads to generate
large membrane stress.
With this membrane stress, the cycle number for crack penetration becomes 9 times
shorter than the one without membrane stress as shown in figure 45. This effect is quite
large and the precise estimation of the membrane stress is important.
OECD benchmark on thermal fatigue-JNC
Page 60
7. References
[1] Power reactor and nuclear fuel development corporation, 'FINITE ELEMENT
NONLINEAR STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS SYSTEM FINAS ver 12.0 users manual',
JNC,PNC ZN9520 95-013,(1995) , p4-81 and 6-41
[2] Naoto KASAHARA. et al., 'Advanced Creep-fatigue Evaluation Rule for Fast Breeder
Reactor Components : Generalization of Elastic Follow-up Model', NED 155,(1995),
p499-518
[3] Y.Wada, et al., 'A statistical approach to fatigue life prediction for SUS304, 316, and
321 austenitic stainless steels', ASME PVP-Vol.123, p43-48
[4] Japanese Standard Association, 'Method of high temeperature low cycle fatigue testing
for metallic materials', Japanese Standards Association, JIS Z 2279-1992,(1992)
[5] CRIEPI, 'Draft Guideline for Structural Integrity Assessment for Fast Reactor Plant',
CRIEPI,(2002),(in Japanese)
[6] Miura N, et al., 'Development of Flaw Evaluation Guideline for FBR Components',
Trans. Int. Conf. SMiRT 15, Vol.5,(1999), pV.137-V.144
[7] Iradj Sattari-Far, 'Finite element analysis of limit loads for surface cracks in plates', Int.
J. Pres. Ves. & Piping 57,(1994) , p237-243
[8] Afcen, 'RCC-MR 2002 Appendix A16', Afcen, (2002), p120-125
OECD benchmark on thermal fatigue-JNC
RESEARCH REPORT
DET NORSKE VERITAS
D
N
V
F
O
U
R
e
p
o
r
t
E
n
g
D
N
V
T
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
y
S
w
e
d
e
n
U
t
g
3
.
0
2
0
0
4
-
0
3
-
0
5
THERMAL FATIGUE BENCHMARK FINAL
FREDRIK SDERGREN
RSE R&DREPORT NO. 2004/10
REVISION NO. 1
DET NORSKE VERITAS
RESEARCH REPORT
DET NORSKE VERITAS AB
DNV Technology Sweden
Box 30234
SE-104 25 STOCKHOLM, Sweden
Tel: +46 8 587 940 00
Fax: +46 8 651 70 43
http://www.dnv.com
VAT No: SE556537340301
ISSN 1401-5331
Report title:
Thermal Fatigue Benchmark Final
Author:
Fredrik Sdergren
Client:
SKI
Summary:
DNV has analysed a 3D mock-up, loaded with variable temperature. The load is applied to the
internal of a pipe, and deviates from the axi-symmetrical case. The calculations were performed in
blind in an international benchmark project. DNVs contribution was funded by SKI.
The calculations show the importance of taking the non-axi-symmetry into account. An axi-
symmetrical analysis would underestimate the stresses in the pipe.
The temperature field in the mock-up was measured at several locations in the pre-test condition. It
turned out to be difficult to capture the measured field by applying only convection, adjusting heat
transfer coefficients. The adjustment of the heat transfer coefficient proved to be a major problem. No
standard estimation of these parameters were capable of satisfyingly capture the temperature fields.
This highlights the complexity of this kind of problems.
It was reported by CEA that modelling of radiation was required for accurately resolving of the
stresses.
The time to crack initiation was computed, as well as crack propagation rates. The computed crack
initiation time is significantly longer than the crack propagation time.
All results by DNV in terms of maximum stress range, computed design life and crack propagation
time are comparable to those obtained by other contributors to the benchmark project. The DNV
computed maximum stress range is = 715 MPa (von Mises). The contribution by other members
range from 507 to 805 MPa.
The DNV computed fatigue life (from two mean curves, ASME and CEA) range from 100.000 to
1.000.000 depending on different assumptions.
RSE R&D Report No.: Date of first issue:
2004/10
Date of this revision: Rev. No.: Number of pages:
1 24 Unrestricted distribution
Work verified by:
Magnus Dahlberg Limited distribution within
Det Norske Veritas
Work approved by:
Peder Andersson No distribution without permission from the
Client or responsible organisational unit
DET NORSKE VERITAS
Report No: 2004/10, rev. 1
RESEARCH REPORT
Page i
REFERENCE TO PART OF THIS REPORT WHICH MAY LEAD TO MISINTERPRETATION IS NOT PERMISSIBLE.
Table of Content Page
1. INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................ 1
2. GENERAL INPUT DATA .......................................................................................... 1
3. THERMAL ANALYSIS.............................................................................................. 3
4. STRESS RESULTS ..................................................................................................... 8
5. FATIGUE..................................................................................................................... 9
6. CRACK PROPAGATION ANALYSIS .................................................................... 11
7. CONCLUSIONS........................................................................................................ 15
REFERENCES......................................................................................................................... 15
TABLE OF REVISIONS ......................................................................................................... 16
APPENDIX A........................................................................................................................... 17
DET NORSKE VERITAS
Report No: 2004/10, rev. 1
RESEARCH REPORT
Page 1
REFERENCE TO PART OF THIS REPORT WHICH MAY LEAD TO MISINTERPRETATION IS NOT PERMISSIBLE.
1. INTRODUCTION
This work is performed as a part of the calculations of the CEA project on thermal fatigue.
The results serve as a verification of the results obtained by CEA but also, the influence of a few
parameters has been tested.
The background to the project is discussed more in detail in ref. /1/.
2. GENERALINPUT DATA
In the experiments a 316L pipe is subjected to cyclic cooling on the inner surface. The
geometrical data and materials data for the problem is identical to that described in ref /1/.
Z
max
Local cyclic cooling
Constant heating
time
Cold water
flow
t
cold
Period (t
tot
)
Figure 2-1: The experimental set-up and the load description as illustrated in ref. /1/.
The pipe has the size:
Thickness of the pipe: t=6.7 mm
External diameter: D
e
=166 mm
Length of the pipe : L=360 mm
The load area in Figure 2-1 is described by the formula:
2
1
2
i
max
r . .
x
1 .
L
Z
L
Z

= with : 5 . 0
L
Z
max
= and 4 . 0 = , (2-1)
referring to the figure below:
DET NORSKE VERITAS
Report No: 2004/10, rev. 1
RESEARCH REPORT
Page 2
REFERENCE TO PART OF THIS REPORT WHICH MAY LEAD TO MISINTERPRETATION IS NOT PERMISSIBLE.
X
Z
Local cooling
2 r
i
Z
max
L
2..r
i
.
Figure 2-2: The load geometry as illustrated in ref. /1/.
The following data was used, following the data suggested in ref /1/:
E [MPa] 186000
[-] 0.3
[-] 1.6410
-5
C] [W/m
o
30
[kg/m
3
] 7800
1)
v
C C] [J/kg
o
550
No temperature dependence of the materials data was suggested.
3D parabolic, structural and thermal elements where used.
The heat transfer coefficients were set to C W/m 5000
o
2
=
er coolingwat
h and C W/m 80
o
2
=
air
h .
These values resulted in the most accurate description of the temperature cycles compared to the
measured temperatures.
The interpretation of constant heating as described in figure 2-1 caused some problems. Here it
will be interpreted as if the specimen is subjected to air temperature to hot air temperature (T
hot
,
h
air
) except the area that is cyclically subjected to cold water injection (T
cold
, h
coolingwater
). In
between the cooling periods, the entire specimen will be subjected to hot air (T
hot
, h
air
).
DET NORSKE VERITAS
Report No: 2004/10, rev. 1
RESEARCH REPORT
Page 3
REFERENCE TO PART OF THIS REPORT WHICH MAY LEAD TO MISINTERPRETATION IS NOT PERMISSIBLE.
3. THERMALANALYSIS
The model was run with a period time of t
tot
= 190 s, and the cooling time is t
cold
= 15 s. The
corresponding temperatures are T
hot
= 650
o
C and T
cold
= 17
o
C.
In order to calibrate the temperature field to the measured field, a range of different coefficient
values of the heat transfer coefficients was tried, see table 3-1.
Table 3-1: Variations in parameters for thermal study
Variation C K H-air H-water Comment
1 550 30 5 15000
2 " 30 30 15000
3 " 30 100 15000 Good !
4 " 30 5 3000
5 " 30 30 3000
6 " 20 60 15000
7 " 30 60 15000
8 " 30 5 1000
9 " 30 100 10000
10 " 30 80 5000 Best !
11 " 30 80 1000
12 " 30 80 3000
12 " 20 80 5000
Variation 10 turned out to be the one best describing the measured temperature field. These
values were accepted and used in the further study. It was obvious that trying to determine the
exact values of the heat transfer coefficients are very hard. In order to do that accurately, an
environmental study of the conditions inside the pipe during a cycle is necessary. The heat
transfer coefficients are not constant through the duration of a cycle due to water spray.
As can bee seen in Figure 3-1, there are still differences in measured and calculated temperatures
through the pipe thickness. The calculated temperature at a certain point, especially at the
cooling surface, is higher than the measured temperature during heating. The reason for this
might be the drop in air temperature after a cooling spray due to remaining humidity. During the
cooling the temperature drops faster at the surface in the calculations than in reality. The reason
for this is possibly the gas forming between the surface and the water, contributing to lowering
the heat transfer coefficient.
DET NORSKE VERITAS
Report No: 2004/10, rev. 1
RESEARCH REPORT
Page 4
REFERENCE TO PART OF THIS REPORT WHICH MAY LEAD TO MISINTERPRETATION IS NOT PERMISSIBLE.
0.0
50.0
100.0
150.0
200.0
250.0
300.0
350.0
400.0
450.0
0.0 50.0 100.0 150.0 200.0
TC12-Measured
TC12-Ansys
TC13-Measured
TC13-Ansys
TC11-Measured
TC11-Ansys
0.0
50.0
100.0
150.0
200.0
250.0
300.0
350.0
400.0
450.0
0.0 50.0 100.0 150.0 200.0
TC5-Measured
TC6-Measured
TC7-Measured
TC5-Ansys
TC6-Ansys
TC7-Ansys
Figure 3-1: Measured temperatures at certain thermo-couplings compared to calculated
temperatures. Calculated temperatures generally have a faster response.
The calculated temperature field becomes stable after a few cycles.
DET NORSKE VERITAS
Report No: 2004/10, rev. 1
RESEARCH REPORT
Page 5
REFERENCE TO PART OF THIS REPORT WHICH MAY LEAD TO MISINTERPRETATION IS NOT PERMISSIBLE.
Figure 3-2: Temperature cycles over time. Stable cycles are reached after approximately five
cycles. The temperature locations are the same as the thermo-couplings on the cooling surface.
1
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
VALU
0
250
500
750
1000
1250
1500
1750
2000
2250
2500
TIME

SEP 15 2004
15:59:34
PLOT NO. 1
POST26
TC4
TC7
TC10
TC13
TC16
DET NORSKE VERITAS
Report No: 2004/10, rev. 1
RESEARCH REPORT
Page 6
REFERENCE TO PART OF THIS REPORT WHICH MAY LEAD TO MISINTERPRETATION IS NOT PERMISSIBLE.
Figure 3-3: A close-up of the stable cycle. The temperatures have a lower peak the further down
in the cooling area the point is located. This is natural and corresponds well with measured
temperatures.
1
0
40
80
120
160
200
240
280
320
360
400
VALU
1500
1550
1600
1650
1700
1750
1800
1850
1900
1950
2000
TIME

SEP 16 2004
15:56:29
PLOT NO. 1
POST26
TC4
TC7
TC10
TC13
TC16
DET NORSKE VERITAS
Report No: 2004/10, rev. 1
RESEARCH REPORT
Page 7
REFERENCE TO PART OF THIS REPORT WHICH MAY LEAD TO MISINTERPRETATION IS NOT PERMISSIBLE.
Figure 3-4: Temperature distribution at the beginning of cooling cycle.
Trying to evaluate the temperature distribution by using measured temperatures as input, proved
to be very difficult. To accurately apply the measured temperature field, it is necessary to know
the temperature over the entire surface of the structure.
1
MN
MX
X
Y
Z

96.344
157.305
218.266
279.227
340.188
401.148
462.109
523.07
584.031
644.991
SEP 15 2004
16:02:55
PLOT NO. 1
NODAL SOLUTION
TIME=1715
TEMP (AVG)
RSYS=0
SMN =96.344
SMX =644.991
DET NORSKE VERITAS
Report No: 2004/10, rev. 1
RESEARCH REPORT
Page 8
REFERENCE TO PART OF THIS REPORT WHICH MAY LEAD TO MISINTERPRETATION IS NOT PERMISSIBLE.
4. STRESS RESULTS
The stress results are derived from a fully elastic FE analysis. Worth mentioning, is the fact that
during cycles the stress levels are significantly high, well above the yield stress. However, the
area exposed to these high stresses is represented by the tube skin, see Figure 5-1. This implies
that the behaviour is mainly elastic through the thickness of the pipe, and eventual plasticity is
very local. This being said, it is hard to draw any conclusions whether the local plasticity is of
importance when studying what initiates surface cracks. The crack growth was determined by
studying the elastic properties of the material.
Figure 4-1: The large stress levels occurring due to the thermal gradients are very superficial
and local. This would indicate that the main behaviour of the material is elastic.
1
MX

ELEMENT SOLUTION
TIME=1715
SEQV (NOAVG)
DMX =.003994
SMN =.147E+07
SMX =.755E+09
X
Y
Z
.147E+07
.852E+08
.169E+09
.253E+09
.337E+09
.420E+09
.504E+09
.588E+09
.672E+09
.755E+09
DET NORSKE VERITAS
Report No: 2004/10, rev. 1
RESEARCH REPORT
Page 9
REFERENCE TO PART OF THIS REPORT WHICH MAY LEAD TO MISINTERPRETATION IS NOT PERMISSIBLE.
Figure 4-2: Linearised stresses through the thickness of the pipe in the axial direction. There is
a significant amount of bending.
5. FATIGUE
When performing a fatigue evaluation, looking at single strain components is not sufficient. To
get an accurate assessment of the fatigue life of a component under thermal fatigue, it is
necessary to take in to consideration the multi-axial state of stresses and strains. This means that
a form of effective measurement of the current strain state should be applied. This equation is
shown below, /4/.
) (
2
3
) ( ) ( ) (
2 ) ' 1 (
1
2 2 2 2 2 2
xz yz xy z x z y y x eq

+ + + + +
+
= (5-1)
Where:
eq
is the equivalent strain range.
'
is the effective Poissons ratio.
z y x
, , are the strain range in the different principal directions.
xz yz xy
, , are the shear ranges.
-2638.979
-1592.027
-545.075
501.876
1548.828
2595.780
3642.732
4689.684
5736.636
6783.588
7830.536
(x10**5)
SY
0
.834
1.668
2.502
3.336
4.17
5.004
5.838
6.672
7.506
8.343
DIST
(x10**-3)
SEP 23 2004
11:22:19
PLOT NO. 1
MEMBRANE
MEM+BEND
TOTAL
DET NORSKE VERITAS
Report No: 2004/10, rev. 1
RESEARCH REPORT
Page 10
REFERENCE TO PART OF THIS REPORT WHICH MAY LEAD TO MISINTERPRETATION IS NOT PERMISSIBLE.
Since the high strain levels in the radial direction will contribute to plasticity, but the amount of
plasticity is hard to determine without the use of very sophisticated material models, an
assumption of total incompressibility is made. This is generally a conservative assumption.
From the equation below, the corrected radial strain can then be calculated, /4/.
' 1
) ( '

+
=
y
r
(5-2)
Where:
r
,

,
y
are the principal strains.
'
is the effective Poissons ratio fixed at 0.5.
The computed
eq
(=
VM
/E) is 0.38%. The amplification due to maximum plasticity is 1.25
with the effective strain range as above and radial component
r
computed with '=0.5 as above.
10 100 1
.
10
3
1
.
10
4
1
.
10
5
1
.
10
6
1
.
10
4
1
.
10
3
0.01
0.1
Figure 5-1: The two points on the fatigue curve corresponding to calculated strain ranges.
ASME design curve.
According to Figure 5-1, crack initiation should occur at 20 000 cycles for the elastic case and at
7 000 cycles when taking plasticity into consideration and input to ASME design curve. Instead
using the ASME mean curve will lead to 1.000.000 for the elastic case and 200.000 with
correction for maximum plasticity.
Number of cycles, N
S
t
r
a
i
n
r
a
n
g
e
,

Corrected effected strain

range, =0.5
Effective strain range
DET NORSKE VERITAS
Report No: 2004/10, rev. 1
RESEARCH REPORT
Page 11
REFERENCE TO PART OF THIS REPORT WHICH MAY LEAD TO MISINTERPRETATION IS NOT PERMISSIBLE.
Instead using the CEA proposed fatigue curve leads to other results. Another measure of the
effective strain should probably be used, with
( )
eq eq

+
=
3
' 1 2
' as input to the CEA fatigue
curve. The elastically computed entity will be
eq
' =0.33%. The amplification due to maximum
plasticity will be higher, a factor K

=1.45. The corresponding number of cycles is 680.000 and

100.000, respectively.
The computed maximum stress range is
VM
= 715 MPa (von Mises). The contribution by other
members range from 507 to 805 MPa.
6. CRACK PROPAGATIONANALYSIS
The crack propagation relation was stated to be /1/:
3 . 3 8
10 2 . 1 K dN da =

, (propagation rate in mm/cycles and K in MPam).
Also, an R-dependent (R = K
min
/K
max
) threshold value is given:
K
th
(MPa.m)=6.5-4.5R
It could be observed that the FCP relation above describes a relatively rapid propagation. These
data could be compared to those of the IIW-code /3/ which are supposed to be conservative for a
large number of steels, where
3 8
10 95 . 0 K dN da =

.
Figure 6-1 shows where the stresses for the crack propagation analysis were retrieved.
DET NORSKE VERITAS
Report No: 2004/10, rev. 1
RESEARCH REPORT
Page 12
REFERENCE TO PART OF THIS REPORT WHICH MAY LEAD TO MISINTERPRETATION IS NOT PERMISSIBLE.
Figure 6-1: The path through the thickness of the pipe from which the stresses was retrieved for
the crack propagation analysis. The path is not perpendicular to the surface but close to. The
reason for this being the element edges are at a slight angle and it is preferable to follow the
node path when retrieving the stresses. The effect should be negligible.
Stresses evaluated along the path are shown in table 6-1 and 6-2.
Table 6-1: The circumferential stress-distribution for the crack propagation analysis:
Coordinate through thickness
[mm]
Circumferential maximum
stress, time=1715 s
[MPa]
Circumferential minimum
stress, time=2280 s
[MPa]
0.00 789.0 47.9
0.42 720.3 43.5
0.83 651.7 39.1
1.25 583.0 34.7
1.67 514.3 30.3
2.09 445.7 25.9
2.50 389.1 21.5
2.92 332.6 17.0
X Y
Z
.147E+07
.852E+08
.169E+09
.253E+09
.337E+09
.420E+09
.504E+09
.588E+09
.672E+09
.755E+09
ELEMENT SOLUTION
TIME=1715
SEQV (NOAVG)
DMX =.003994
SMN =.147E+07
SMX =.755E+09
Stress-path
DET NORSKE VERITAS
Report No: 2004/10, rev. 1
RESEARCH REPORT
Page 13
REFERENCE TO PART OF THIS REPORT WHICH MAY LEAD TO MISINTERPRETATION IS NOT PERMISSIBLE.
3.34 276.0 12.5
3.75 219.4 8.03
4.17 162.9 3.56
4.59 122.4 -0.95
5.01 81.99 -5.45
5.42 41.54 -9.95
5.84 1.09 -14.5
6.26 -39.35 -19.0
6.68 -64.56 -23.5
7.09 -89.77 -28.0
7.51 -115.0 -32.5
7.93 -140.2 -37.0
8.34 -165.4 -41.5
DET NORSKE VERITAS
Report No: 2004/10, rev. 1
RESEARCH REPORT
Page 14
REFERENCE TO PART OF THIS REPORT WHICH MAY LEAD TO MISINTERPRETATION IS NOT PERMISSIBLE.
Table 6-2: The axial stress-distribution for the crack propagation analysis:
Coordinate through thickness
[mm]
Axial maximum stress,
time=1715 s
[MPa]
Axial minimum stress,
time=2280 s
[MPa]
0.00 535.7 25.6
0.42 467.3 22.1
0.83 398.9 18.7
1.25 330.5 15.3
1.67 262.1 11.9
2.09 193.7 8.43
2.50 143.9 5.04
2.92 94.17 1.64
3.34 44.42 -1.7
3.75 -5.3 -5.1
4.17 -55.08 -8.5
4.59 -87.90 -11.9
5.01 -120.7 -15.3
5.42 -153.5 -18.7
5.84 -186.3 -22.1
6.26 -219.2 -25.4
6.68 -237.8 -28.8
7.09 -256.5 -32.2
7.51 -275.2 -35.6
7.93 -293.9 -39.0
8.34 -312.6 -42.4
Table 6-3 shows the resulting crack geometries and the number of cycles to failure. Failure is
defined by the number of cycles needed for the crack depth to reach 80% of the wall thickness.
Table 6-3: Resulting crack geometries and number of cycles to failure.
Geometry Initial crack size
[mm]
Final crack size
[mm]
Number of cycles
[-]
Axial crack a
i
= 0.5, l
i
= 3 a
f
= 6.7, l
f
= 38.2 3389
Axial crack II a
i
= 1, l
i
= 6 a
f
= 6.7, l
f
= 38.3 2293
DET NORSKE VERITAS
Report No: 2004/10, rev. 1
RESEARCH REPORT
Page 15
REFERENCE TO PART OF THIS REPORT WHICH MAY LEAD TO MISINTERPRETATION IS NOT PERMISSIBLE.
7. CONCLUSIONS
The calculations show the importance of taking the non-axi-symmetry into account. An axi-
symmetrical analysis would underestimate the stresses in the pipe.
The temperature field in the mock-up was measured at several locations. It turned out to be
difficult to capture the measured field by applying only convection, adjusting heat transfer
coefficients.
All results by DNV in terms of maximum stress range, computed design life and crack
propagation time are comparable to those obtained other contributors to the benchmark project,
ref /6/.
The experiments turned out to different from the pre-test conditions. However, it was observed
that the mock-up load was larger than intended, ref /6/. An increase of the stresses to the order of
50% of the stresses was estimated. This severely hampers the comparison between the computed
fatigue results and the results from the fatigue testing.
However, the location and orientation of the dominant crack is well in agreement with our
results.
All results by DNV in terms of maximum stress range, computed design life and crack
propagation time are comparable to those obtained by other contributors to the benchmark
project. The DNV computed maximum stress range is = 715 MPa (von Mises). The
contribution by other members range from 507 to 805 MPa.
The DNV computed fatigue life (from two mean curves) range from 100.000 to 1.000.000
depending on different assumptions.
REFERENCES
/1/ Chapuliot S., Payen T., Benchmark proposal on thermal fatigue problem,
OECD/NEA/CSNI Integrity and Ageing Working Group, September 2001
/2/ Chapuliot S., Payen T., Mathet M., OECD Benchmark proposal on thermal fatigue
problem, Proposition made under the auspice of the OECD/NEA/CSNI, August 2002
/3/ Fatigue Design of Welded Joints and Components, Recommendations of IIW,
Arbington Publishing, (1997).
/4/ SOCIE DARREL F. and GARY B. MARQUIS (2000), Multiaxial fatique. Society of
Automotive Engineers Inc,Warrendale,USA, S172
/5/ Dahlberg M., Thermal Fatigue Benchmark, RSE R&D Report 2002/22, rev. 0, DNV,
2002
/6/ Chapuliot S. et. al., OECD benchmark on thermal fatigue problem. Synthesis of the
benchmark, Third International Conference on Fatigue of Reactor Components
Seville, Spain, October 3-6, 2004,
DET NORSKE VERITAS
Report No: 2004/10, rev. 1
RESEARCH REPORT
Page 16
REFERENCE TO PART OF THIS REPORT WHICH MAY LEAD TO MISINTERPRETATION IS NOT PERMISSIBLE.
TABLE OF REVISIONS
DET NORSKE VERITAS
Report No: 2004/10, rev. 1
RESEARCH REPORT
Page 17
REFERENCE TO PART OF THIS REPORT WHICH MAY LEAD TO MISINTERPRETATION IS NOT PERMISSIBLE.
APPENDIXA
Figure A1: Stresses in the x-direction.
1
MN
MX
X
Y
Z

-.258E+09
-.177E+09
-.957E+08
-.145E+08
.667E+08
.148E+09
.229E+09
.310E+09
.392E+09
.473E+09
SEP 15 2004
15:03:37
PLOT NO. 1
ELEMENT SOLUTION
TIME=1715
SX (NOAVG)
RSYS=0
DMX =.003994
SMN =-.258E+09
SMX =.473E+09
DET NORSKE VERITAS
Report No: 2004/10, rev. 1
RESEARCH REPORT
Page 18
REFERENCE TO PART OF THIS REPORT WHICH MAY LEAD TO MISINTERPRETATION IS NOT PERMISSIBLE.
Figure A2: Stresses in the y-direction.
1
MN
MX
X
Y
Z

-.302E+09
-.181E+09
-.598E+08
.615E+08
.183E+09
.304E+09
.425E+09
.546E+09
.668E+09
.789E+09
SEP 15 2004
15:03:48
PLOT NO. 1
ELEMENT SOLUTION
TIME=1715
SY (NOAVG)
RSYS=0
DMX =.003994
SMN =-.302E+09
SMX =.789E+09
DET NORSKE VERITAS
Report No: 2004/10, rev. 1
RESEARCH REPORT
Page 19
REFERENCE TO PART OF THIS REPORT WHICH MAY LEAD TO MISINTERPRETATION IS NOT PERMISSIBLE.
Figure A3: Stresses in the z-direction.
1
MN
MX
X
Y
Z

-.470E+09
-.340E+09
-.210E+09
-.796E+08
.505E+08
.181E+09
.311E+09
.441E+09
.571E+09
.701E+09
SEP 15 2004
15:04:04
PLOT NO. 1
ELEMENT SOLUTION
TIME=1715
SZ (NOAVG)
RSYS=0
DMX =.003994
SMN =-.470E+09
SMX =.701E+09
DET NORSKE VERITAS
Report No: 2004/10, rev. 1
RESEARCH REPORT
Page 20
REFERENCE TO PART OF THIS REPORT WHICH MAY LEAD TO MISINTERPRETATION IS NOT PERMISSIBLE.
Figure A4: Equivalent stress according to von Mises.
1
MN
MX
X
Y
Z

.147E+07
.852E+08
.169E+09
.253E+09
.337E+09
.420E+09
.504E+09
.588E+09
.672E+09
.755E+09
SEP 15 2004
15:04:19
PLOT NO. 1
ELEMENT SOLUTION
TIME=1715
SEQV (NOAVG)
DMX =.003994
SMN =.147E+07
SMX =.755E+09
DET NORSKE VERITAS
Report No: 2004/10, rev. 1
RESEARCH REPORT
Page 21
REFERENCE TO PART OF THIS REPORT WHICH MAY LEAD TO MISINTERPRETATION IS NOT PERMISSIBLE.
Figure A5: Stresses in the x-direction on the outside of pipe.
1
MN
MX X
Y
Z

-.258E+09
-.177E+09
-.957E+08
-.145E+08
.667E+08
.148E+09
.229E+09
.310E+09
.392E+09
.473E+09
SEP 15 2004
15:06:14
PLOT NO. 1
ELEMENT SOLUTION
TIME=1715
SX (NOAVG)
RSYS=0
DMX =.003994
SMN =-.258E+09
SMX =.473E+09
DET NORSKE VERITAS
Report No: 2004/10, rev. 1
RESEARCH REPORT
Page 22
REFERENCE TO PART OF THIS REPORT WHICH MAY LEAD TO MISINTERPRETATION IS NOT PERMISSIBLE.
Figure A6: Stresses in the y-direction on the outside of pipe.
1
MN
MX
X
Y
Z

-.302E+09
-.181E+09
-.598E+08
.615E+08
.183E+09
.304E+09
.425E+09
.546E+09
.668E+09
.789E+09
SEP 15 2004
15:06:27
PLOT NO. 1
ELEMENT SOLUTION
TIME=1715
SY (NOAVG)
RSYS=0
DMX =.003994
SMN =-.302E+09
SMX =.789E+09
DET NORSKE VERITAS
Report No: 2004/10, rev. 1
RESEARCH REPORT
Page 23
REFERENCE TO PART OF THIS REPORT WHICH MAY LEAD TO MISINTERPRETATION IS NOT PERMISSIBLE.
Figure A7: Stresses in the z-direction on the outside of pipe.
1
MN
MX
X
Y
Z

-.470E+09
-.340E+09
-.210E+09
-.796E+08
.505E+08
.181E+09
.311E+09
.441E+09
.571E+09
.701E+09
SEP 15 2004
15:06:39
PLOT NO. 1
ELEMENT SOLUTION
TIME=1715
SZ (NOAVG)
RSYS=0
DMX =.003994
SMN =-.470E+09
SMX =.701E+09
DET NORSKE VERITAS
Report No: 2004/10, rev. 1
RESEARCH REPORT
Page 24
REFERENCE TO PART OF THIS REPORT WHICH MAY LEAD TO MISINTERPRETATION IS NOT PERMISSIBLE.
Figure A8: Equivalent stress according to von Mises on the outside of pipe.
- o0o -
1
MN
MX
X
Y
Z

.147E+07
.852E+08
.169E+09
.253E+09
.337E+09
.420E+09
.504E+09
.588E+09
.672E+09
.755E+09
SEP 15 2004
15:31:11
PLOT NO. 1
ELEMENT SOLUTION
TIME=1715
SEQV (NOAVG)
DMX =.003994
SMN =.147E+07
SMX =.755E+09


B RA NCHE ENERGI ES B RA NCHE ENERGI ES B RA NCHE ENERGI ES B RA NCHE ENERGI ES
SERVI CE TUDES ET PROJ ETS
THERMI QUES ET NUCLAI RES

SEPTEN SEPTEN SEPTEN SEPTEN
12-14, AVENUE DUTRIVOZ - 69628 VILLEURBANNE CEDEX - FRANCE - TL. : 04 72 82 77 77 - FAX : 04 72 82 70 00
ENTREPRISE CERTIFIE ISO 9001 PAR L'AFAQ (certifi cat NQUAL/1999/11 616) - EDF - RCS PARIS B 552 081 317
W 003 F


Diffus le : Voir code barres ci-dessus
Rf. : ENRETM040288
Entit mettrice : RE
Rdacteur : SERMAGE J.P., GALENNE E.
(1)
, CARCAN A.
(2)
Nbre de pages : 28
Domaine d'application : REP Nbre d'annexes :
Titre : Etude de la propagation dune fissure par fatigue thermique (benchmark OCDE)
ENRETM040288 A
Rfrence

Code Projet
E235/006421
Type de document : Note dtude
Mots cls : Fatigue thermique Propagation - Benchmark
Rsum : Cette note a pour objet la ralisation de calculs de propagation dune fissure par
fatigue thermique sur la base du module PROFAT intgr au Code_Aster

. Ces
calculs sinscrivent dans le cadre du benchmark international propos par lOCDE
qui a pour but de comparer les mthodes dvaluation dintgrit de structures
soumises des chargements de fatigue thermique.




(1)
EDF/R&D/AMA -
(2)
Socit CETIM
Approbateur
Rdacteur Vrificateur
Chef dentit Chef de rang suprieur
Nom-Date Visa Nom-Date Visa Nom-Date Visa Nom-Date Visa
SERMAGE J.P.

GALENNE E.
TROLLAT C.


PREVOST A.





Evolutions des trois derniers indices
Cocher sil y a changement de mthodologie
Cocher ici sil y a volution des donnes amont
Indice
Date
d'approbation Motif du changement d'indice Modifications apportes






Elabor sous AQ : OUI
Archivage long : OUI Archiv au FDU : OUI Copyright EDF 2004
Confidentiel : Linitiateur tablit une liste nominative des destinataires. Chacun deux reoit un exemplaire
numrot et ne peut tendre la diffusion sans laccord de linitiateur.
Dif. Restreinte : Linitiateur tablit une liste explicite des destinataires. Le chef de service dun destinataire peut
tendre la diffusion sous sa responsabilit et dans sa Direction (sur la base dune liste explicite).
X Accs E.D.F : Ne peut tre transmis lextrieur dEDF que par un chef de service.
Accs libre : Document public.
Inventaire protection Sous famille : Analyse de conception mcanique



EDF Note dtude Indice Page
SEPTEN ENRETM040288 A 2/28
Etude de la propagation dune fissure par fatigue thermique (benchmark OCDE)

W 073B
FICHE DE GESTION
Important pour la sret (IPS) OUI
NON X
Document HPIC : OUI NON X
Vrification demande OUI Par EDF En ligne En cours
Indpendante NON X Hors EDF En diffr Effectue
Responsable vrification (NOM, SERVICE / SOCIT) :

Prdiffusion du prsent indice : OUI X NON
Auprs de : PREVOST A. (RE)
TAHERI S. (R&D/AMA)
Existe-t-il un dossier d'tude associ la note cet indice ? : OUI X NON
Note support une position technique formalise du SEPTEN : OUI NON X
Contrle linguistique renforc : OUI NON X



EDF Note dtude Indice Page
SEPTEN ENRETM040288 A 3/28
Etude de la propagation dune fissure par fatigue thermique (benchmark OCDE)

W 073B
SYNTHSE

Le REX dexploitation des REP a mis en vidence quelques cas de fissurations attribus de la
fatigue thermique. Dans cette affaire, EDF se doit de progresser dans le domaine de la fatigue
thermique grand nombre de cycles sous sollicitations complexes afin dvaluer le risque
dendommagement et dtablir la nocivit dun faenage thermique. Des actions de R&D ont t
inities pour rpondre ce besoin. En parallle et dun point de vue plus industriel, il est important de
disposer doutils analytiques, pour terme, matriser les critres dvaluation du risque
dendommagement et anticiper des solutions permettant de prserver des conditions dexploitation
normales.
Pour cette tude, le client est le projet E235/006421 Mthodes de dimensionnement des
structures , et plus prcisment le lot THERMO : outils et mthodes en thermomcanique des
structures. Dans le cadre de cette affaire, SEPTEN/RE capitalise les acquisitions de connaissances
issues du retour dexprience et de la R&D, avec pour objectif la validation des mthodes dingnierie.
Le lot 4 projet R&D FATMAV prvoit la participation dEDF au benchmark de lOCDE. Dans le
cadre du projet FATMAV, le lot 4 mthodologie et validation pour le calcul de propagation 3D a
pour objectif de raliser une modlisation conservative de propagation dun rseau de fissure 2D sous
chargement thermomcanique pour lacier 304L.
Cet objectif passe par la ralisation dun module de propagation 3D dans Code_Aster

, la
comprhension des mcanismes de propagation sous chargement thermique, par la ralisation
dessais et la mise au point dun modle de propagation 3D. Le module PROFAT a t dvelopp
dans le cadre de ce lot, il permet de raliser des analyses de propagation dun rseau de fissure 3D
(limit, pour le moment, deux fissures perpendiculaires et proches). Cet outil est compos dun
mailleur automatique (inspir du mailleur automatique ASCOUF) et dun solveur (loi de propagation
pour un acier sous chargement thermomcanique multiaxial) et est entirement intgr au
Code_Aster

.
La tche 4.8 prvoit la participation dEDF au benchmark international propos par lOCDE. Ce
benchmark bas sur un essai (FAT3D) a pour but de comparer les mthodes dvaluation dintgrit
de structures soumises des chargements de fatigue thermique. Lobjet de ltude consiste raliser
des calculs de propagation dune fissure par fatigue thermique sur la base du module PROFAT. Les
rsultats des calculs constituent la participation dEDF au benchmark.
Les donnes dentre issues de la documentation sont discutes. Une stratgie de calcul sur la base
du logiciel PROFAT est ensuite propose (choix du dfaut initial). Le calcul thermique est ralis
avec sur plusieurs cycles de chargement jusqu lobtention dun cycle stabilis. Les donnes dentre
sont recales de manire se rapprocher au maximum des donnes exprimentales. Le champ
thermique sert de donne dentre du calcul thermomcanique dun tube fissur. On calcule alors le
champ de contraintes dans la structure, puis les facteurs dintensit de contraintes en fond de fissure.
La propagation de la fissure sur un cycle de chargement thermique est alors dtermine partir de la
loi de Paris.
Le module PROFAT a t dvelopp et intgr au Code_Aster

pour permettre la ralisation de calcul

de propagation 3D. La simulation de lessai FAT3D (tube chauff soumis un refroidissement local) a
t ralise. Le calcul thermique est effectu sur un maillage sain. Les rsultats du calcul thermique
sont projets sur le maillage fissur pour la ralisation du calcul thermomcanique et de propagation
de la fissure. Au bout de 5 500 cycles, la fissure a propag denviron 38% dans la profondeur et 12 %
dans la longueur. Au-del de 5 500 cycles, les nouvelles valeurs des axes de la fissure sont trop
importantes par rapport aux limites du module PROFAT.
Les suites donner concernent lamlioration des capacits de PROFAT pour, par exemple, simuler
une propagation plus importante (taille de la fissure propage, maillage plus adapt). Ltude de la
propagation dun rseau de fissure (fissures parallles et/ou orthogonales) dun tube soumis un
chargement thermomcanique est galement un objectif du projet FATMAV.



EDF Note dtude Indice Page
SEPTEN ENRETM040288 A 4/28
Etude de la propagation dune fissure par fatigue thermique (benchmark OCDE)

W 073 B
SOMMAIRE

1. Rfrences.........................................................................................6
1.1 Donnes d'entre.............................................................................................. 6
1.1.1 Exigences client (dont revue de contrat)............................................................ 6
1.1.2 Donnes de base "rfrentiel gnral ou projet"............................................... 6
1.2 Donnes de base complmentaires (rsultat d'un choix d'hypothse)....... 6
1.2.1 Dfinies dans des documents internes .............................................................. 6
1.2.2 Autres donnes de base...................................................................................... 6
1.3 Autres documents produits dans le cadre de la mme affaire..................... 6
1.4 Autres rfrences (mthodologie, retour d'exprience) ............................... 6
2. Introduction .......................................................................................7
2.1 Contexte............................................................................................................ 7
2.2 Identification de la demande client ................................................................. 7
2.3 Objectif de la note ............................................................................................ 7
2.4 Dmarche adopte ........................................................................................... 8
2.5 Plan de la note qui en dcoule........................................................................ 8
3. Donnes d'entre de l'tude .............................................................8
3.1 Aspects gomtriques du benchmark............................................................ 9
3.2 Aspects thermiques du benchmark................................................................ 9
3.2.1 Chargement .......................................................................................................... 9
3.2.2 Matriaux ............................................................................................................ 10
3.2.3 Modlisation ....................................................................................................... 11
3.3 Aspects mcaniques du benchmark ............................................................ 11
3.3.1 Chargement et conditions aux limites.............................................................. 11
3.3.2 Modlisation ....................................................................................................... 11
4. Dmarche de calcul .........................................................................12
4.1 Calcul thermique ............................................................................................ 12
4.2 Calcul thermomcanique sur un tube fissur.............................................. 13
4.3 Calcul de propagation avec PROFAT ........................................................... 13
5. Rsultats et analyse........................................................................14
5.1 Calcul thermique cyclique............................................................................. 14



EDF Note dtude Indice Page
SEPTEN ENRETM040288 A 5/28
Etude de la propagation dune fissure par fatigue thermique (benchmark OCDE)

W 073 B
5.2 Calcul thermomcanique............................................................................... 22
5.3 Calcul de propagation.................................................................................... 25
6. Conclusion.......................................................................................28
6.1 Rponse aux objectifs ................................................................................... 28
6.2 Suites donner............................................................................................... 28




EDF Note dtude Indice Page
SEPTEN ENRETM040288 A 6/28
Etude de la propagation dune fissure par fatigue thermique (benchmark OCDE)

W 073 B
1. Rfrences
1.1 Donnes d'entre
1.1.1 Exigences client (dont revue de contrat)
[2] PQD Lot THERMO ENESMS0200617A - TROLLAT C.

1.1.2 Donnes de base
1
"rfrentiel gnral ou projet"
[1] Lettre de mission du projet FATMAV
Courrier ENESMS0200719 (02D03595) - BEDIOU J.

[3] Contrat du projet FATMAV
Document EDF R&D/AMA HT-26/02/019/A (N03A0004606) - TAHERI S.

1.2 Donnes de base
1
complmentaires (rsultat d'un choix d'hypothse)
1.2.1 Dfinies dans des documents internes
[10] CST ENRETM040049 (N04D0014256) - SERMAGE J.P.

1.2.2 Autres donnes de base
[9] Benchmark proposal on thermal fatigue problem Second step proposal -
CHAPULIOT S. et PAYEN T.
Socits CEA, IRSN. Avril 2003. 19 pages.

[8] Fat3D n 2 Test : Thermal qualification of experimental set-up and registration of
physical data by 3D calculation - CHAPULIOT S.
Socit CEA. Dcembre 2002. 16 pages.

[7] Benchmark proposal on thermal fatigue problem - CHAPULIOT ET PAYEN.
Socit CEA. Janvier 2002. 16 pages.

1.3 Autres documents produits dans le cadre de la mme affaire
[5] Note dtude Module de propagation automatique de fissures
Socit AUSY. Novembre 2003. 33 pages.

1.4 Autres rfrences (mthodologie, retour d'exprience)
[6] Fiche de mise en exploitation de Code_aster

version 6.5
ENGSDS030952A (N03D0009784) - CHAMPAIN E.



EDF Note dtude Indice Page
SEPTEN ENRETM040288 A 7/28
Etude de la propagation dune fissure par fatigue thermique (benchmark OCDE)

W 073 B

2. Introduction
2.1 Contexte
Le REX dexploitation des REP a mis en vidence quelques cas de fissurations attribus
de la fatigue thermique. Dans cette affaire, EDF se doit de progresser dans le domaine de la
fatigue thermique grand nombre de cycles sous sollicitations complexes afin dvaluer le
risque dendommagement et dtablir la nocivit dun faenage thermique [1]. Des actions
de R&D ont t inities pour rpondre ce besoin. En parallle et dun point de vue plus
industriel, il est important de disposer doutils analytiques, pour terme, matriser les critres
dvaluation du risque dendommagement et anticiper des solutions permettant de prserver
des conditions dexploitation normales.

2.2 Identification de la demande client
Pour cette tude, le client est le projet E235/006421 Mthodes de dimensionnement des
structures , et plus prcisment le lot THERMO : outils et mthodes en thermomcanique
des structures [2]. Dans le cadre de cette affaire, SEPTEN/RE capitalise les acquisitions de
connaissances issues du retour dexprience et de la R&D, avec pour objectif la validation
des mthodes dingnierie. Le lot 4 projet R&D FATMAV prvoit la participation dEDF au
benchmark de lOCDE.

2.3 Objectif de la note
Dans le cadre du projet FATMAV [3], le lot 4 mthodologie et validation pour le calcul de
propagation 3D a pour objectif de raliser une modlisation conservative de propagation
dun rseau de fissure 2D sous chargement thermomcanique pour lacier 304L.
Cet objectif passe par la ralisation dun module de propagation 3D dans Code_Aster

, la
comprhension des mcanismes de propagation sous chargement thermique par la
ralisation dessais et la mise au point dun modle de propagation 3D.
Le module PROFAT [5] a t dvelopp dans le cadre de ce lot, il permet de raliser des
analyses de propagation dun rseau de fissure 3D (limit, pour le moment, deux fissures
perpendiculaires et proches). Cet outil est compos dun mailleur automatique (inspir du
mailleur automatique ASCOUF) et dun solveur (loi de propagation pour un acier sous
chargement thermomcanique multiaxial) et est entirement intgr au Code_Aster

[6].
La tche 4.8 prvoit la participation dEDF au benchmark international propos par lOCDE.
Ce benchmark bas sur un essai (FAT3D) a pour but de comparer les mthodes
d valuation dintgrit de structures soumises des chargements de fatigue thermique [7].
Lobjet de ltude consiste raliser des calculs de propagation dune fissure par fatigue
thermique sur la base du module PROFAT [10]. Les rsultats des calculs constituent la
participation dEDF au benchmark.




EDF Note dtude Indice Page
SEPTEN ENRETM040288 A 8/28
Etude de la propagation dune fissure par fatigue thermique (benchmark OCDE)

W 073 B
2.4 Dmarche adopte
Les donnes dentre issues de la documentation [8], [9] sont discuts. Une stratgie de
calcul sur la base du logiciel PROFAT est ensuite propose (choix du dfaut initial).
Le calcul thermique est ralis avec sur plusieurs cycles de chargement jusqu lobtention
dun cycle stabilis. Les donnes dentre sont recales de manire se rapprocher au
maximum des donnes exprimentales.
Le champ thermique sert de donne dentre du calcul thermomcanique dun tube fissur.
On calcule alors le champ de contraintes dans la structure, puis les facteurs dintensit de
contraintes en fond de fissure. La propagation de la fissure sur un cycle de chargement
thermique est alors dtermine partir de la loi de Paris.

2.5 Plan de la note qui en dcoule
Le chapitre 3 rappelle les donnes dentre pour le benchmark relatives aux chargements et
aux mthodes utilises.
Le chapitre 4 prsente la dmarche adopte pour le calcul de propagation.
Dans le chapitre 5, les rsultats des calculs thermiques, thermomcanique et de propagation
sont prsents et discuts.

3. Donnes d'entre de l'tude
La simulation raliser est base sur le dispositif exprimental mis au point par le CEA [8] et
[9] o un tube est soumis un refroidissement local (schma 1) :


Z
max
Local cyclic cooling
Constant heating

time
Cold water
flow
t
cold
Period (t
tot
)

Schma 1: Principe du test FAT3D

Le cycle de refroidissement est impos par une injection locale et cyclique deau froide
lintrieure du tube. Le tube est plac lintrieur dun four pour maintenir une temprature
chaude sur la surface extrieure du tube. La temprature de lair est maintenue constante.
Les principaux paramtres qui pilotent le chargement impos au tube sont les suivants :
la temprature chaude impose par le four,



EDF Note dtude Indice Page
SEPTEN ENRETM040288 A 9/28
Etude de la propagation dune fissure par fatigue thermique (benchmark OCDE)

W 073 B
limportance du refroidissement local, impos par la temprature froide, lcoulement
deau froide, la forme et langle de linjection de leau,
la frquence du cycle de refroidissement et la rpartition des priodes froides (t
cold

injection deau) et des priodes chaudes (t
hot
pas dinjection).
Pour limiter le nombre de paramtres variables, le choix a t fait de fixer les conditions du
refroidissement local :
la forme de lcoulement de leau et son angle sont fixs,
lcoulement et la temprature deau froide sont constants.
Au cours de lessai, les conditions aux limites mcaniques sont les suivantes :
la section suprieure du tube est encastre,
la section infrieure du tube (par o leau est vacue) est libre.

3.1 Aspects gomtriques du benchmark
Les donnes gomtriques du tube sont les suivantes, paisseur = 6.7 mm, diamtre
extrieur = 166 mm et longueur = 360 mm.
Le module PROFAT ne traite pas de propagation de fissure automatique avec symtrie,
cette restriction impose la modlisation complte de la fissure et donc du tube.
La fissure est de forme semi-elliptique dont les dimensions sont a = 0,5 mm pour sa
profondeur et 2c = 3 mm pour sa longueur. Elle est situe mi-hauteur du tube, au centre du
jet et perpendiculaire laxe du tube.

3.2 Aspects thermiques du benchmark
3.2.1 Chargement
Les informations physiques et gomtriques concernant le jet deau froide appliquer sont
importantes et jouent un rle prpondrant sur les rsultats en termes de champs de
temprature. Les paramtres principaux sont la vitesse, linclinaison et la zone dimpact du
jet imposer.
Ces diffrents paramtres ont une influence directe sur :
La forme de la zone refroidie,
La valeur du coefficient dchange introduire (non constant au cours du cycle aussi
bien en chauffage quen refroidissement),
La valeur de la temprature initiale (20) non uniforme loin de la zone dimpact,
La forme du jet est celle dcrite dans le paragraphe 7.5 de larticle [8].
Les valeurs des coefficients dchange seront considres variables au cours du chauffage
et du refroidissement, recales partir de corrlations spcifiques pour une vitesse et une
inclinaison donnes du jet.



EDF Note dtude Indice Page
SEPTEN ENRETM040288 A 10/28
Etude de la propagation dune fissure par fatigue thermique (benchmark OCDE)

W 073 B
Afin de prendre en compte l'vaporation du film d'eau en surface au cours du cycle
thermique, le calcul thermique comportera 3 phases principales distinctes au lieu de 2
indiques initialement par le cycle de refroidissement priode froide, priode chaude (Tmin,
Tmax). Pendant la phase d'vaporation, qui intervient l'issue de la phase de
refroidissement, la temprature du film d'eau en paroi sera fixe 100C. Cette division en
trois phases est visible sur la figure n1 reprsentant l'volution de la temprature mesure
proximit de la paroi prs de l'impact de jet, donne dans [8].
Les hypothses de base suivantes sont galement prises en compte :
Ecoulement et temprature deau froide constants,
Temprature impose par le four 650C avant refroidissement.

Le chargement thermique se dcompose de la faon suivante :
Temprature eau : 17-20 C
Temprature du four 650C
Dure totale du cycle 190 s
Dure dinjection de leau 15 s
Les caractristiques des coefficients dchange h
air
et h
eau
sont valuer.
Mesures de temprature TC4
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
temps, s
te
mp
ra
tur
e,
C
phase 1
phase 2
phase 3

Figure n1 : Evolution de la temprature

3.2.2 Matriaux
Les donnes thermiques matriaux (capacit calorifique, coefficient de conductivit et masse
volumique) fournies dans [8] et le RCC-M sont :



EDF Note dtude Indice Page
SEPTEN ENRETM040288 A 11/28
Etude de la propagation dune fissure par fatigue thermique (benchmark OCDE)

W 073 B
Conductivit thermique : = 30 10
-6
kJ/mm
3
/C
Capacit calorifique : C = 550 kJ/t /C
Coefficient de dilatation thermique : = 16.4 10
-6
/C
Masse volumique : = 7.810
-9
t/mm
3

Module dYoung : E = 186 000 Mpa
Coefficient de Poisson : = 0.3
Loi de Paris : da/dN = 1.2 10
-8
dK
3.3
mm/cycle
A noter que la conductivit thermique indique ici, issue de [8], ne correspond pas celle
dun acier 316L des tables du RCC-M. La valeur de la conductivit sera modifie dans la
suite afin de se rapprocher au maximum des donnes exprimentales de temprature.

3.2.3 Modlisation
Le cycle thermique dbute une fois que le tube sest refroidi au voisinage de la temprature
moyenne d'quilibre, soit au voisinage de 405C.
Les rsultats en temprature sont obtenus sur un maillage sain en labsence de fissure.
Le module PROFAT nest pas utilis dans cette tape de calcul purement thermique.

3.3 Aspects mcaniques du benchmark
3.3.1 Chargement et conditions aux limites
La section suprieure du tube est encastre et la section infrieure du tube est libre.
Les chargements appliquer correspondent un chargement de type thermo-mcanique.
Les valeurs de temprature obtenues lors de ltape thermique doivent tre prises en compte
pour le calcul thermo-mcanique.
Le module PROFAT a t adapt afin de prendre en compte la possibilit de relire les
diffrents tats de champ thermique correspondants au cycle stabilis, de calculer les
facteurs intensit de contrainte pour chaque tat, dextraire le K = max Ki - min Ki au fond
de fissure et au centre de lellipse afin dobtenir lamplitude de contrainte favorisant
louverture en mode I.

3.3.2 Modlisation
La procdure de maillage (raffinement du maillage) est troitement lie au module PROFAT
qui impose un certain raffinement au voisinage de la fissure et gnre galement des mailles
de trs grande taille proximit de celle-ci (cf. figure 2).
Dans Code_Aster

, il est possible de transfrer un champ de temprature obtenu sur un

maillage (M1) vers un maillage compltement diffrent (M2) en utilisant le module PROFAT
en prsence dune fissure (pour le maillage M2). Pour amliorer la prcision des calculs, on
utilisera donc deux maillages distincts, le premier pour le calcul thermique pralable et le
second, issu de PROFAT, pour le calcul de propagation.



EDF Note dtude Indice Page
SEPTEN ENRETM040288 A 12/28
Etude de la propagation dune fissure par fatigue thermique (benchmark OCDE)

W 073 B


Figure 2 : Maillage avec axe 1.5 mm de lellipse

4. Dmarche de calcul
Avec lensemble des hypothses proposes au chapitre 3, une dmarche en trois tapes a
t adopte pour raliser le benchmark international propos par l OCDE. Ces trois tapes
sont dcrites ci-dessous et rsumes sur le schma 2.

4.1 Calcul thermique
Les diffrentes tapes suivantes sont ralises :
Maillage tridimensionnel (M1) de la gomtrie du tube complet sans fissure,
Dtermination de la zone relative au jet deau partir dune quation polynomiale,
Pour une configuration de jet donn, calcul des coefficients dchange thermique et de la
temprature extrieure appliquer pour les diffrentes zones internes du tube dfinies
par le jet deau,
Imposition de la temprature du four 650C,
Introduction des caractristiques thermiques du tube,
Calcul thermique transitoire dans Code_Aster

(avec trois tapes principales) sur

plusieurs cycles de chargement jusqu lobtention dun cycle stabilis,
Visualisation et analyse des champs de temprature dans le tube,
Comparaison des valeurs obtenues par calcul avec les valeurs exprimentales fournies
dans larticle [9].




EDF Note dtude Indice Page
SEPTEN ENRETM040288 A 13/28
Etude de la propagation dune fissure par fatigue thermique (benchmark OCDE)

W 073 B
4.2 Calcul thermomcanique sur un tube fissur
Pour le calcul thermomcanique, la dmarche est la suivante :
Maillage du tube complet (M2) avec prise en compte de la gomtrie et de la position de
la fissure initiale laide du mailleur du module PROFAT,
Transfert des valeurs de temprature obtenues dans le calcul thermique sur le maillage
M1 vers le maillage M2,
Prise en compte des champs thermiques correspondants au cycle stabilis,
Introduction des conditions aux limites et des caractristiques matriaux du tube
(lastique et loi de Paris),
Calcul thermomcanique et visualisation des champs de contraintes,
Dtermination de linstant t
max
(respectivement t
min
) conduisant aux facteurs dintensit de
contrainte maximum (respectivement minimum) en fond de fissure.

4.3 Calcul de propagation avec PROFAT
Le calcul de propagation de la fissure est ralis de manire automatique par le module
PROFAT de la manire suivante :
Initialisation des paramtres de la fissure : a = 0.5 mm, c = 1.5 mm
Gnration du maillage,
Calcul thermomcanique aux instants t
min
et t
max
, partir des champs de tempratures
dtermins dans ltape 1,
Calcul du K puis de lavance de chaque nud du fond de fissure avec la loi de Paris
laide du module PROFAT,
Identification des nouvelles proprits de la fissure et retour la gnration du maillage

Schma 2 : Dmarche du calcul de propagation dune fissure par fatigue thermique
Calcul thermique sur
maillage fin
Dtermination du cycle stabilis
Recalage des coefficients
dchange
Calcul thermomcanique
sur tube fissur
Calcul thermomcanique
pour la propagation
Paramtres gomtriques
de la fissure (a ,c)
Kj = Kj(tmax) Kj(tmin)
aj = c. Kj
m

pour j=1...nb_noeud_fiss
Dtermination des instants tmin et
tmax correspondant aux valeurs
minimale et maximale de KI
Gnration du maillage Profat
Ractualisation de a et c
Projection du champ de
temprature dun maillage
lautre
Utilisation des champs
T(tmin) et T(tmax)




EDF Note dtude Indice Page
SEPTEN ENRETM040288 A 14/28
Etude de la propagation dune fissure par fatigue thermique (benchmark OCDE)

W 073 B

5. Rsultats et analyse
5.1 Calcul thermique cyclique
Les principales hypothses mises dans le paragraphe 3.2.1 sont prises en compte pour le
calcul thermique cyclique, savoir :
La forme de la zone refroidie est dtermine par une quation,
Les valeurs des coefficients dchange introduire (non constant au cours du cycle aussi
bien en chauffage quen refroidissement) sont identifies par recalage,
La valeur de la temprature initiale (20) est uniforme sur toute la surface de leau,
on prend en compte de l'vaporation du film d'eau en surface au cours du cycle
thermique en 3 phases principales distinctes,
Lcoulement et la temprature deau froide sont constants,
Temprature impose par le four 650C avant refroidissement,
La structure est saine et ne prsente pas de fissure.

Le maillage du tube, gnr par le logiciel GIBI, est report sur les figures 3 et 4. Il est
constitu de 20 045 nuds et 68 656 lments linaires.
Nous avons galement effectu des calculs avec un maillage quadratique constitu de 80
167 nuds et 25 182 lments. Cette discrtisation napportant pas de meilleurs rsultats
pour lanalyse thermique, linfluence des diffrents paramtres avec le maillage linaire sont
examins dans la suite.
Le maillage a t discrtis afin de prendre en compte la surface en contact avec de leau.
Celle-ci vrifie lquation suivante :

Z = Z
max
(1-X) (1+X+ X
3
)

avec X = x / (0.638.PI.r
i
)
Z
max
= 217 mm
= 1.293
r
i
rayon intrieur du tube.




EDF Note dtude Indice Page
SEPTEN ENRETM040288 A 15/28
Etude de la propagation dune fissure par fatigue thermique (benchmark OCDE)

W 073 B

Figure 3 : Maillage linaire du tube




EDF Note dtude Indice Page
SEPTEN ENRETM040288 A 16/28
Etude de la propagation dune fissure par fatigue thermique (benchmark OCDE)

W 073 B

Figure 4 : Maillage linaire dans la zone du jet

Le cycle thermique est dfini par les temps suivants 15 s + 10 s + 165 s = 190 s et se
dcompose en trois phases principales :
Phase 1 (en 15 s injection) : 0 2 s : 10 incrments
2 15 s : 20 incrments
Phase 2 (en 10 s - vaporation) : 15 15.5 s : 5 incrments
15.5 25 s : 5 incrments
Phase 3 (en 165 s - chauffage) : 25 27 s : 5 incrments
27 190 s : 25 incrments

Nous avons introduit les caractristiques identiques suivantes pour les trois phases :
Conductivit thermique : = 27.0 10
-6
kJ/mm
3
/C
Masse volumique x Capacit calorifique : C = 4.29 10
-6
kW/mm/C
Coefficient dchange air : h
air
= 43 10
-9
kW/mm
2
/C
Temprature extrieure : Text = 650C

Nous avons introduit des caractristiques diffrentes suivantes pour chaque phase :
Phase 1 : h
eau
= 5 195 10
-9
kW/mm
2
/C
Text = 20C
Phase 2 : h
eau
= 1 000 10
-9
kW/mm
2
/C
Text = 70C



EDF Note dtude Indice Page
SEPTEN ENRETM040288 A 17/28
Etude de la propagation dune fissure par fatigue thermique (benchmark OCDE)

W 073 B
Phase 3 : h
eau
= 43 10
-9
kW/mm
2
/C (= h
air
)
Text = 650C

Afin dacclrer lobtention du cycle stabilis, les calculs sont effectus avec une
temprature initiale de 405 C pour le tube complet, au temps t=0s. Le calcul thermique se
stabilise au bout de 10 cycles.
Nous avons report, sur la figure 5, la rpartition du champ de temprature juste aprs le
dbut du dernier cycle (au temps t=1.6s) et, sur la figure 6, la rpartition du champ de
temprature la fin du dernier cycle (au temps t=190s), quivalente la rpartition avant
linjection de leau du cycle prcdent.


Figue 5 : Champ de temprature au temps t=1.6s, cycle stabilis




EDF Note dtude Indice Page
SEPTEN ENRETM040288 A 18/28
Etude de la propagation dune fissure par fatigue thermique (benchmark OCDE)

W 073 B

Figure 6 : Champ de temprature au temps t=190 s, (cycle stabilis)

De nombreux calculs ont t mens pour identifier les diffrents paramtres (coefficients
dchange, temprature extrieure pour la phase 2, conductivit thermique).
Des recalages ont t effectus pour obtenir au cycle stabilis les valeurs suivantes :
Temprature maximale au point TC4 : 405.8 C ( t = 0s),
Temprature minimale au point TC4 : 72.1 C ( t = 15s),
Diffrence TC3-TC4 (cart maximal de temprature peau interne/peau externe) : 140 C
( t = 1.6s).
Ces valeurs sont issues de lappendix VI : Thermal loading charactrization, thermocouple
TC4, Measurements for = 0, du rapport [8]. Nous avons report, sur les figures 7a et
7b, les rsultats obtenus en temprature sans prendre en compte la phase 2.
La premire figure correspond la valeur de temprature TC4 pour toute la dure du cycle
stabilis (190s). La seconde figure correspond la diffrence TC3-TC4 pour les 50
premires secondes du cycle stabilis.



EDF Note dtude Indice Page
SEPTEN ENRETM040288 A 19/28
Etude de la propagation dune fissure par fatigue thermique (benchmark OCDE)

W 073 B
Nous remarquons une diffrence notable entre les rsultats numriques et les valeurs
mesures pendant les essais. Il est donc ncessaire de prendre en compte la phase 2
relative lvaporation du film deau en surface.
Les valeurs de h
eau
et T
ext
de la seconde phase sont dtermines afin dobtenir les rsultats
les plus proches des valeurs exprimentales.
Dautre part, les valeurs h
eau
(1
re
phase) et h
air
ont t obtenues par rgression linaire en
effectuant au pralable des calculs pour des valeurs diffrentes de ces deux paramtres.
Le matriau (acier 316 L) a selon les tables du RCC-M, une conductivit thermique proche
de 18 W/m/C. Nous avons report, sur les figures 8a et 8b, les rsultats en temprature
obtenus pour cette valeur de conductivit avec la prise en compte des trois phases.
La valeur du gradient de temprature calcule (TC3-TC4), au point maximal de la courbe,
est trs diffrente de la valeur mesure pour = 18 W/m/C.
Nous avons pris la valeur du coefficient dchange = 27 W/m/C, valeur proche de celle
fournie par EDF (30 W/m/C). Nous avons report, sur les figures 9a et 9b, les rsultats
obtenus en temprature pour cette valeur de conductivit avec la prise en compte des trois
phases.
Nous constatons une bonne corrlation entre les valeurs en temprature calcules et
mesures. A noter que la diffrence de temprature peau interne/peau externe sannule au
cours du cycle daprs nos calculs, alors que ce nest pas le cas dans les mesures
exprimentales. On peut expliquer cette diffrence par une ventuelle exposition du capteur
de temprature en peau externe au rayonnement du four, ce qui fausserait les mesures.


Figure 7a : Tempratures avec = 27 W/m/C, sans la phase 2



EDF Note dtude Indice Page
SEPTEN ENRETM040288 A 20/28
Etude de la propagation dune fissure par fatigue thermique (benchmark OCDE)

W 073 B

Figure 7b : Tempratures avec = 27 W/m/C, sans la phase 2



Figure 8a : Tempratures avec = 18 W/m/C et les trois phases



EDF Note dtude Indice Page
SEPTEN ENRETM040288 A 21/28
Etude de la propagation dune fissure par fatigue thermique (benchmark OCDE)

W 073 B

Figure 8b : Tempratures avec = 18 W/m/C et les trois phases




Figure 9a : Tempratures avec = 27 W/m/C et les trois phases



EDF Note dtude Indice Page
SEPTEN ENRETM040288 A 22/28
Etude de la propagation dune fissure par fatigue thermique (benchmark OCDE)

W 073 B

Figure 9b : Tempratures avec = 27 W/m/C et les trois phases

5.2 Calcul thermomcanique
Lobjectif de ce paragraphe consiste valuer les contraintes dans le tube suite au calcul
thermique de ltape prcdente.
Aprs avoir projet le champ de temprature obtenu partir du maillage quadratique sur le
maillage linaire gnr par le module PROFAT (figure 10, le champ de temprature projet
sur le maillage linaire), ltat de contrainte au temps t = 1.6 s du cycle stabilis est calcul.
Les figures 11 14 montrent la contrainte de Mises et la contrainte axiale en peau externe
et interne du cylindre, au temps t = 1.6 s, cycle stabilis. La visualisation se fait sur une
structure saine.
Nous constatons que la peau interne du cylindre est en traction, phnomne qui tend
ouvrir la fissure en mode I.




EDF Note dtude Indice Page
SEPTEN ENRETM040288 A 23/28
Etude de la propagation dune fissure par fatigue thermique (benchmark OCDE)

W 073 B
Figure 10 : Champ de temprature au temps t=1.6 s, (cycle stabilis)


Figure 11 : Contrainte de Mises, peau externe, t=1.6 s, (cycle stabilis)



EDF Note dtude Indice Page
SEPTEN ENRETM040288 A 24/28
Etude de la propagation dune fissure par fatigue thermique (benchmark OCDE)

W 073 B


Figure 12 : Contrainte axiale, peau externe, t=1.6 s, (cycle stabilis)


Figure 13 : Contrainte de Mises, peau interne, t=1.6 s (cycle stabilis)




EDF Note dtude Indice Page
SEPTEN ENRETM040288 A 25/28
Etude de la propagation dune fissure par fatigue thermique (benchmark OCDE)

W 073 B


Figure 14 : Contrainte axiale, peau interne, t=1.6 s (cycle stabilis)

5.3 Calcul de propagation
Sur la figure 15, on reporte lvolution du facteur intensit de contrainte pour une fissure de
profondeur 0.5 mm et de longueur 3 mm. Le cycle thermique stabilis utilis est calcul avec
les rsultats relatifs la configuration de la figure 9, savoir une valeur du coefficient
dchange = 27 W/m/C et la prise en compte des trois phases.
La valeur maximale de K1 est obtenue au temps t = 1.6 s (numro dordre 8), 0.
La valeur minimale de K1 est obtenue au temps t = 190 s (numro dordre 70), 0.
Ces deux tats dfiniront le cycle de base pour le calcul avec propagation partir du champ
thermique issu dun maillage linaire du tube sans fissure.





EDF Note dtude Indice Page
SEPTEN ENRETM040288 A 26/28
Etude de la propagation dune fissure par fatigue thermique (benchmark OCDE)

W 073 B

Figure 15 : Facteur intensit de contrainte, cycle stabilis

Nous avons galement report, sur la figure 16, la valeur du facteur intensit de contrainte
le long du front de fissure entre 0et 180au temps t = 1.6s. La valeur maximale est obtenue
au centre du front de fissure.



Figure 16 : Facteur intensit de contrainte, front de fissure



EDF Note dtude Indice Page
SEPTEN ENRETM040288 A 27/28
Etude de la propagation dune fissure par fatigue thermique (benchmark OCDE)

W 073 B
Pour la cration du maillage du tube en prsence de la fissure (benchmark), nous avons
introduit dans le module PROFAT, les valeurs de paramtres suivantes :
nt = 8, ns = 4, nc = 4, rc
0
= 0.03, rc
2
= 1, rc
3
= 0, d
max
= 0.03
a = 0.5 mm, c = 1.5 mm
= 1.64 10
-5
/C
Loi de Paris : da/dN = 1.2 10
-8
dK
3.3
mm/cycle
Le maillage gnr contient 15 588 nuds et 4 348 lments
Nous avons report, sur la figure 17, lvolution quasi-linaire des demi-axes de lellipse en
fonction du nombre de cycles. Nous remarquons que la fissure se propage plus rapidement
suivant le petit axe a que suivant le grand axe c.
Au bout de 5 500 cycles, nous obtenons les valeurs suivantes :
demi axe c : 1.6706 mm
demi axe a : 0.6944 mm
Au-del de 5 500 cycles, GIBI narrive plus re-gnrer un maillage, les nouvelles valeurs
des axes de la fissure semblent trop importantes par rapport aux limites du module PROFAT
(le calcul de propagation des 5 500 cycles prend 12h00 sur PC).


Figure 17 : Propagation de la fissure




EDF Note dtude Indice Page
SEPTEN ENRETM040288 A 28/28
Etude de la propagation dune fissure par fatigue thermique (benchmark OCDE)

W 073 B

6. Conclusion
6.1 Rponse aux objectifs
Ce document, mis dans le cadre du projet FATMAV, constitue la participation dEDF au
benchmark propos par lOCDE. Ce benchmark a pour but de comparer des mthodes
dvaluation dintgrit de structures soumises des chargements de fatigue thermique.
Un module PROFAT pour permettre la ralisation de calcul de propagation 3D a t
dvelopp et intgr au Code_Aster

. La simulation de lessai FAT3D (tube chauff soumis

un refroidissement local) a t ralise. Le calcul thermique est effectu sur un maillage
sain. Les rsultats du calcul thermique sont projets sur le maillage fissur pour la ralisation
du calcul thermomcanique et de propagation de la fissure.
Au bout de 5 500 cycles, la fissure a propag denviron 38% dans la profondeur et 12 %
dans la longueur. Au-del de 5 500 cycles, les nouvelles valeurs des axes de la fissure sont
trop importantes par rapport aux limites du module PROFAT.

6.2 Suites donner
Les suites donner concernent lamlioration des capacits de PROFAT pour, par exemple,
simuler une propagation plus importante (taille de la fissure propage, raffinement du bloc
fissure).
Ltude de la propagation dun rseau de fissure (fissures parallles et/ou orthogonales) dun
tube soumis un chargement thermomcanique est galement un objectif du projet
FATMAV.