0
RESEARCH PAPERS

Review and Consideration of Unsettled Problems on Evaluation of Fatigue Damage in LWR Water

[+] Author and Article Information
Makoto Higuchi

 Ishikawajima-Harima Heavy Industries Co., Ltd., 1 Shin-nakahara, Isogo-ku, Yokohama, 2358501, Japan

Katsumi Sakaguchi

 Japan Nuclear Energy Safety Organization, 3-17-1 Toranomon, Minato-ku, Tokyo, 1050001, Japan

J. Pressure Vessel Technol 129(1), 186-194 (Jun 01, 2006) (9 pages) doi:10.1115/1.2409316 History: Received January 18, 2006; Revised June 01, 2006

Reduction in the fatigue life of structural materials of nuclear components in Light Water Reactor (LWR) water was initially detected and examined by the authors in the 1980s, who subsequently directed considerable effort to the development of a method for evaluating this reduction quantitatively. Since the first proposal of equations to calculate environmental fatigue life reduction for carbon and low-alloy steels was published in 1985 by Higuchi and Sakamoto (J. Iron Steel Inst. Jpn.71, pp. 101–107), many revisions were made based on a lot of additional fatigue data in various environmental and mechanical test conditions. The latest models for evaluation using Fen of the environmental fatigue life correction factor were proposed for carbon and low alloy steels in the year 2000 and for austenitic stainless steel, in 2002. Fen depends on some essential variables such as material, strain rate, temperature, dissolved oxygen and sulfur concentration in steel. The equation for determining Fen is given by each parameter for each material. These models, having been developed three to five years ago, should be properly revised based on new test results. This paper reviews and discusses five major topics pertinent to such revision.

Copyright © 2007 by American Society of Mechanical Engineers
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 1

Relation of Fen to strain rate for CS in BWR

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 2

Relation of Fen to strain rate for LAS in BWR

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 3

Relation of Fen to strain rate for cast SS in PWR

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 4

Relation of Fen to strain rate for rolled SS in PWR

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 5

Relation of Fen to strain rate for cast and rolled SS in BWR

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 6

Relation of εa to Nw for CS in BWR

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 7

Relation of εa to Nw for CS in PWR

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 8

Relation of εa to Nw for LAS in BWR

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 9

Relation of εa to Nw for LAS in PWR

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 10

Relation of εa to Nw for stainless steel in BWR

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 11

Relation of εa to Nw for stainless steel in PWR

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 12

Relation of Nw to hold time for CS in BWR-1

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 13

Relation of Nw to hold time for CS in BWR-2

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 14

Relation of Nw to hold time for LAS in BWR

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 15

Effects of water flow rate on fatigue life (Carbon steel, high sulfur) (11)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 16

Effects of water flow rate on fatigue life (Carbon steel, low sulfur) (11)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 17

Comparison of water flow rate effect with sulfur (11)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 18

Effects of water flow rate on fatigue life (Type 316NG stainless steel) (11)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 19

Effects of water flow rate on fatigue life (Type 304 stainless steel) (11)

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In