Attachment 06-13a

Summary Basis Document for Proposed Reactor Water

Environmental Fatigue Design Curves
For Nuclear Facility Components
Per Section III of the ASME Code

February 2006 Revision 2*

A Report on Work Performed by the

ASME BPVC Subgroup on Fatigue Strength
with input from the
Section III SG Design Task Group on Environmental
Fatigue
and guidance from the
ASME Code Subcommittee on Design

Summary Basis Document for Proposed Reactor Water

Environmental Fatigue Design Curves
For Nuclear Facility Components
Per Section III of the ASME Code
February 2006 Revision 2*
A Report on Work Performed by the
ASME BPVC Subgroup on Fatigue Strength1
with input from the
Section III SG Design Task Group on Environmental Fatigue
and guidance from the
ASME Code Subcommittee on Design

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Background

1-2

Determinations 1 through 23 on Key Technical Issues

3-12

Figures (A) through (N) providing summaries of Key Data

13-25

References

26-28

Appendix Proposed New Fatigue Design Curves and Tables

29

*Note: This Revision 2 is the same as the original February 2006 Summary Basis Document except that the
tabular values for the existing curves, which have been reworked to improve their accuracy, were restored
to the values now in the Code in accordance with reviewers comments objecting to changing the tabular
values for the existing design curves. These changes are in Tables 2, 4 & 5 only.

Comments being coordinated by:

William J. ODonnell
Chairman, ASME Code Subgroup on Fatigue Strength
ODonnell Consulting Engineers, Inc.
2940 South Park Road Bethel Park, PA 15102
Phone; (412) 835-5007 (412) 835-5017
Email: wjo@odonnellconsulting.com

Summary Basis Document for Proposed Reactor Water

Environmental Fatigue Design Curves
For Nuclear Facility Components
Per Section III of the ASME Code
February 2006 Revision
A Report on Work Performed by the
ASME BPVC Subgroup on Fatigue Strength
with input from the
Section III SG Design Task Group on Environmental Fatigue
and guidance from the
ASME Code Subcommittee on Design

Background
WRC Bulletin 487 presented "PVRC's Position on Environmental Effects on Fatigue Life in
LWR Applications," sponsored by The Board on Nuclear Codes and Standards of the
American Society of Mechanical Engineers and authored by W. Alan Van Der Sluys. It is very
difficult to achieve unanimous consensus in such an interdisciplinary technical area, and even
those on the PVRC Steering committee on Cyclic Life and Environmental Effects, listed on the
cover page of that WRC Bulletin, do not agree with all of the Conclusions and
Recommendations given therein.
The ASME Code Subgroup on Fatigue Strength has made a series of technical
Determinations regarding the key technical issues involved, and developed proposed new
environmental fatigue design curves based thereon. While not unanimously agreed upon,
these Determinations represent consensus agreement within the Subgroup, acting in concert
with the Section III SG Design Task Group on Environmental Fatigue, the Subgroup on Design
Analysis, and the Subcommittee on Design.

The ASME Subgroup on Fatigue Strength (SGFS) has been blessed with superb input and
cooperation from Higuchi, Nakamura, and other MITI investigators in Japan; comprehensive
work at the Argonne National Laboratory by Chopra, Shack and others, and also by Mehta,
Van Der Sluys, Leax, and others. The SGFS has determined that this work has achieved
"proven technology" status for inclusion in the Code, and has developed criteria for
determining the safe fatigue design life of new light water reactor components, including
reactor water environmental effects. These Determinations on the important technical issues
providing a basis for our proposed environmental fatigue design criteria were presented in two
papers at the 2005 PVP Conference and published in the Proceedings:
1. Proposed New Fatigue Design Curves for Austenitic Stainless Steels, Alloys 600
and Alloy 800, by William J. ODonnell, William John ODonnell, Thomas P.
ODonnell, 2005 Proceedings of the ASME Pressure Vessels and Piping
Conference, Vol. 1, Codes and Standards, p. 109 - 132
2. Proposed New Fatigue Design Curves for Carbon and Low Alloy Steels in High
Temperature Water, by William J. ODonnell, William John ODonnell, Thomas P.
ODonnell, 2005 Proceedings of the ASME Pressure Vessels and Piping
Conference, Vol. 1, Codes and Standards, p. 133 - 157

Determinations 1 through 23 on Key Technical Issues

The following is a list of the technical Determinations that cover the basis* of the proposed
new environmental fatigue design curves. This February 2006 Revision includes consideration
of the comments received on the above PVP papers, and the March 2005 Revision and earlier
revisions of this Technical Basis Report.

Of course, we are not attempting to describe all of the work in this field in this Report. WRC Bulletin 487
provides another 60-page summary, and 38 directly related technical Reports are listed herein.

Determination No. 1
The safety margins against Fatigue Failure provided by the current fatigue design curves in the
*

Code provide the desired margin of safety except in two major areas:
(1) Environmental effects are not adequately covered by these curves for reactor
water environmental effects. The latter reduce the fatigue life by an order of
magnitude under certain operating and environmental conditions in the low cycle
regime.

Proposed new fatigue design curves accounting for reactor water

environment effects have been developed by the Subgroup on Fatigue Strength

with input from the Task Group on Environmental Fatigue of Section VIII, SG
Design, and guidance from the Subcommittee on Design.

These proposed

environmental fatigue curves are the subject of this Report.

(2) The simplified Elastic Plastic strain concentration factors currently in the Code are
not accurate and should be updated. [New factors have been developed by the
Subgroup on Design Analyses and are currently going through the Code
committee review process].
Determination No. 2
The individual factors for surface finish, environmental effects, size effects and scatter in the
data which were used to develop the current fatigue design curves in the Code are not
accurate

**

. However, the net factors of 2 on stress amplitude or 20 on cycles to failure,

whichever is more limiting in each regime, provide the desired consideration of these
combined factors, except for the two issues described in Determination No. 1.

The safety margins for fatigue design life.

B. F. Langer, W. E. Cooper, W. J. O'Donnell, and James Farr were the original developers of these factors in
the late 1950s and early 1960s. The belief that failure life data obtained in air environments would differ from
reactor water fatigue life data by less than a factor of 2 has proven not to be the case in the low cycle regime for
carbon, low alloy, and stainless steels.
**

Determination No. 3
Safety margins for the Primary Stress Allowables in pressure vessels are currently being
reduced in Section VIII of the ASME Code in recognition of improved technology.

With

respect to the fatigue design life, PVRC Committees and the Subgroup on Fatigue Strength
have reviewed the safety margins and concluded that they are much smaller in terms of
probability of failure and reliability than the Primary Stress allowable margins, and that no
basic Code safety margin reductions can be justified for fatigue design life.
Determination No. 4
The use of finite element analyses has allowed much more accurate thermal transient stress
analysis for new reactor component designs. This has taken a great deal of conservatism out
of the nuclear component fatigue design calculations previously performed using conservative
approximations. Accordingly, it is necessary to use accurate fatigue design curves which
include environmental effects in modern finite element based design analyses.
Determination No. 5
The fatigue design curves in the Code are based on data for complete failure and not on crack
initiation* data. Conventional unnotched strain controlled fatigue specimens are only about
0.25 inches in diameter.

Following crack initiation, the fatigue cracks propagate at an

accelerating rate in Mode 2 tensile crack propagation and achieve very high propagation rates
at a depth of about 3 mm (0.12 inches), or half the conventional specimen diameter. Cracks
larger than this propagate at a very high rate.

Accordingly, the cycles to failure are not

substantially greater for fatigue test specimens or thick walls which are an order of magnitude
heavier than conventional fatigue specimens. [Of course, the situation is different in notched
specimens or components, where the fatigue strength reduction factor is a function of
geometry.]

Crack initiation is a process of microcrack development due to shear generated intrusions and extrusions at the
surface, and shear crack propagation through microstructural barriers.

Determination No. 6
Analyses of fatigue data and fatigue failures can most effectively be performed by defining
crack initiation as the development of a crack large enough to be treated using continuum
mechanics without regard to microstructural barriers such as grain boundaries, triple points
and the like. The total failure mechanism is then the process of crack initiation, propagation,
and final rupture.
Determination No. 7
In the low cycle regime, the cycles to failure are dominated by crack propagation, as crack
initiation occurs at a small fraction of the cycles-to-failure. In the high cycle regime, once crack
initiation occurs, only a small portion of the cycles-to-failure remains. Thus, crack propagation
dominates failure life in the low cycle regime and the cycles required for crack initiation
dominate life in the high cycle regime.
Determination No. 8
The fatigue design curves for nickelchromiumiron Alloy 800 and Alloy 600 in air are
lumped together with the austenitic stainless steels in the current version of the Code.
However, the fatigue properties are significantly different and a Determination was made that
they should be separated. The data for Alloy 800 and Alloy 600 are shown in Figs. (a) and (b).
Figure (1) herein shows the proposed new Fatigue design curve for Low Strength Nickel
Based Alloys, Alloy 600 and Alloy 800, for temperatures not exceeding 800F (427C), along
with the tabulated values. Note the warning about stress corrosion cracking in Alloy 600 at
elevated temperatures.

Determination No. 9
Existing fatigue data for austenitic stainless steels in air shows the need to revise the fatigue
design curves for air.

Figs. (c), (d), and (e) show compilations of all available data for

austenitic stainless steels. Fig. (c) shows the room temperature data, Fig. (d) shows the data
at 550 F and Fig. (e) shows a compilation. The new best fit curves and the proposed new
design curve are also shown on all figures.
Fig. (2) of the Appendix herein (compilation of proposed new design curves) shows a
comparison of the existing and proposed new fatigue design curves for austenitic stainless
steels in air, along with tabulated values for the proposed new design curve.
Determination No. 10
A study of data obtained on carbon and low alloy steels shows that there are significant
temperature effects not included in the existing air fatigue curves. However, reactor transients
typically occur over a range of temperatures.

Curves could be developed for constant

temperature cycling of carbon and low alloy steels (due for example to vibrations). However,
the summation of damage obtained using constant temperature curves with damage incurred
for cycles occurring over a range of temperatures does not provide accurate cumulative fatigue
summations.

The additional accuracy that could be achieved in the fatigue design life

evaluation method by adding constant temperature fatigue design curves and complex
cumulative fatigue summation rules is not sufficient to justify adding this complexity.

Determination No. 11
Fen technology for environmental effects is now being very successfully used for license
renewal without ASME Code support. The Fen approach is very useful where the operating
history is known, and the Subgroup is developing Fen evaluation methods for possible use in
Section XI of the Code. However, their use in Section III introduces downstream regulatory
uncertainties when used to design new plants because of its dependence on oxygen levels,
sulfur levels, temperature and strain rates. The interdependence of these parameters has not
yet been evaluated and future work is likely to change the Fen factors in a way that could
jeopardize the design life of new generation plants should Fen be used as their design bases.
Such downstream uncertainties and risks would discourage the investments needed for new
nuclear plants.
Determination No. 12
The current Code fatigue design curves are based entirely on air data, and include a factor of
2 on life to account for environmental effects. Accordingly, any environmental effects which
reduce life by a factor of 2 or less need not be considered in developing new environmental
fatigue design curves.

Further, the "best fit" environmental fatigue life reduction factors,

expressed for example by proposed Fen factors, can be divided by 2 before corrections are
made to the existing fatigue design curves to account for environmental effects.
Determination No. 13
Higher flow rates have been found to reduce environmental degradation in some tests, and not
in others. The current database and technology lack an adequate technical basis to take
credit for higher flow rates in reducing environmental effects on the design life of new nuclear
components.

Determination No. 14
Although the supporting data on temperature dependence is somewhat meager, reactor water
environmental effects on carbon and low alloy steels appear to be less than a factor of 2 on
failure life below 300 F. For stainless steels, this threshold temperature is 360F. While
undoubtedly temperature dependent at higher temperatures, it is not feasible to make the
Code fatigue design curves temperature dependent because the plant operating transients
which limit fatigue life occur over a range of temperatures. Cumulative fatigue damage must
be summed obtained including varying temperature effects.
Determination No. 15
For austenitic stainless steels, reactor water environmental effects are surprisingly high at very
low coolant dissolved oxygen levels, and even show an increasing trend with lower oxygen
levels. Consequently, no practical lower bound oxygen threshold level can be used to allow
the use of the air curves at lower oxygen levels for stainless steels. Figs. (f), (g), and (h) show
compilations of reactor water fatigue data for austenitic stainless steels. Fig. (f) shows the
PVRC Bulletin 487 Compilation of Simulated PWR Conditions; Fig. (g) shows data for 316 NG
Stainless Steels obtained under Simulated BWR Conditions, and Fig. (h) shows the combined
PVRC data compilation.
Determination No. 16
Strain rate
steels.

is a sensitive parameter for reactor water environmental effects on stainless

However, the data shows that at strain rates faster than 1.0% in/in/sec., the

environmental effects are usually less than a factor of 2 on life. There is also a threshold effect
at very slow strain rates. When strain rates are slower than 0.0004 % in/in/sec in stainless
steels, the strain rate effects appear to saturate so that further decreases in strain rate do not
produce further degradation of the environmental fatigue life.

The strain rate which governs environmental effects is the average strain rate during increasing tensile straining
during the cycle.

The air curve and the saturated low strain rate curves provide bounds on the phenomenon.
Figure (3) in the Appendix (The proposed new ASME Code Fatigue Design Curves) shows the
resulting curves and tabulated data. It is possible to interpolate between the two extreme
curves, and strain rate dependant intermediate curves are provided as an aid to this
interpolation. This is a difficult interpolation for the component designer since the operating
transient rates are generally not precisely known and may be subsequently changed by the
reactor operator. Accordingly, it may be advisable to use the limiting environmental curve for
transients not satisfying the conditions for using the air curves.
Fatigue cycling caused by seismic events, mechanical vibrations and thermal mixing occur at
rapid strain rates where the air curve should be used.
Determination No. 17
A study of carbon and low alloy steel data shows that there is not enough difference in
environmental effects to distinguish materials other than the current dependence on ultimate
strength.
Determination No.18
While experimental data suggests that the sulfur content of carbon and low alloy steels is a
variable in the determination of the environmental effect, however, there is a lack of sufficient
experimental evidence to support a threshold value or a correlation with sulfur content and
morphology.

Determination No. 19
The environmental effects of interest in carbon and low alloy steels appear to be largely effects
on the crack propagation rates. Measurements of crack growth rates in reactor water show
environmental conditions where the rates are an order of magnitude higher than in air.

Analyses of conventional fatigue specimen failure data for carbon and low alloy steels in air
show that when the crack propagation rates in air are substituted by the crack propagation
rates in reactor water, the cycles to failure in reactor water are predicted. This confirms that
reactor water environmental effects in carbon and low alloy steels are largely crack
propagation effects. The fact that the effects of reactor water are apparently nil below stress
ranges which produce cyclic plastic shear in carbon and low alloy steels also indicates that
such environmental effects on crack initiation are small.
A similar Determination has not been made for stainless steels.
Of course, the actual S-N environmental data includes crack initiation, propagation, and final
fracture phases of failure, and this data is the basis for the proposed new fatigue design
curves which include reactor water environmental effects.
Determination No. 20
For carbon and low alloy steels, reactor water environmental effects on fatigue appear to be
less than a factor of 2 on life below coolant dissolved oxygen levels of 0.04 PPM. Fig (i)
shows the deleterious effects of Dissolved Oxygen Content (PPM) for carbon and low alloy
steels, respectively. While these effects are oxygen level dependent above 0.04 PPM, this
dependence is tied to the temperature level and therefore changes during the transient.
Accordingly, it would not be feasible to make the Code Fatigue Design Life dependent on
*

oxygen levels above 0.04 PPM .

Such a dependence would also be undesirable for the plant operator, since losing control of the oxygen level
could raise serious future design life regulatory issues.

10

Determination No. 21
Figs. (j), (k), (L), and (m) show a compilation of available environmental fatigue data on carbon
and low alloy steels. Fig. (j) shows data for carbon steels in simulated PWR conditions. Fig.
(k) shows data for carbon steels in simulated BWR reactor water. Fig. (L) shows the total data
compilation for carbon steels and Fig. (m) shows the total data compilation for low alloy steels.
Fig. (7) of the Appendix shows a comparison of the data analyses and models developed by
Higuchi, and others in Japan, Chopra at ANL, and Meta at G.E.

The design curve proposed

by the Subgroup on Fatigue Strength is also shown In Fig. (7) for comparison purposes. This
curve includes the saturated low strain rate (0.001% in/in/sec) and the oxygen levels, sulfur
levels and temperatures of interest in the design of new reactors.

Its use will prevent

downstream regulatory uncertainties and risks.

The air curve is suitable for all areas not exposed to reactor water and for all transients at
strain rates exceeding 1% sec. The latter includes seismic events, mechanical vibrations,
including flow induced vibrations and thermal mixing. The environmental curves include a
factor of 10 on life vs. the mean failure curves, whereas the air curve includes a factor of 20.
The factor of 2 on stress which is used in the high cycle regime is maintained but is not
controlling because the environmental effects are not prevalent in this regime. Intermediate
strain rate curves are provided as an aid to interpolation but their usefulness is limited to
relatively high strain rate transients. These proposed design curves maintain current fatigue
design safety margins in the ASME Code.

11

Determination No. 22
Strain rate

**

is a sensitive parameter for reactor water environmental effects on carbon and

low alloy steels. Fig. (N) shows a compilation of the environmental degradation for carbon
steels as a function of strain rate. The data shows that at strain rates faster than 1% in/in/sec.,
the environmental effects are usually less than a factor of 2 on life. There is also a threshold
effect at very slow strain rates. When strain rates are slower than 0.001% in/in/sec. in carbon
and low alloy steels, the strain rate effects appear to saturate so that further decreases in
strain rate do not produce further degradation of the environmental fatigue life. Thus, the air
curve and the (saturated low) strain rate curves provide bounds on the phenomenon. Between
these strain rates, it is possible to interpolate between the two extreme curves, and strain rate
dependent intermediate curves are provided as an aid to this interpolation. This is a difficult
interpolation for the component designer since the operating transient rates are generally not
precisely known and may be changed by the reactor operator.

Accordingly, it may be

advisable to use the limiting curve for transients not satisfying the conditions for using the air
curves.
Fatigue cycling caused by seismic events, mechanical vibrations and thermal mixing occur at
rapid strain rates where the air curve should be used.
Determination No. 23
Sufficient environmental fatigue data has been generated in several laboratories and has been
thoroughly evaluated by many investigators to support new ASME Code fatigue design curves
for carbon, low alloy, and stainless steels in reactor water. High cycle stainless steel with mean
stress effects appears to be the regime of greatest uncertainty.

**

The strain rate which governs environmental effects is the strain rate during increasing tensile straining.

12

Figures (A) through (N) Provide Summaries of Key Data

Fig (a) Fatigue Curve for nickel-iron-chromium alloy 800 from ODonnell-Jaske

Fig. (b) Fatigue curve for nickel-chromium-iron alloy 600 from ODonnell-Jaske

13

14

Original

Fig. (c) PVRC Data For Austenitic Stainless Steel In Air At room Temperature With Data From Jaske And
ODonnell

Proposed New ASME Design Curve

Current ASME Design

New Best Fit Failure Curve

Proposed New ASME Design Curve

Current ASME Design Curve

Original

Stainless Steel In Air At

550F

New Best Fit Failure Curve

Fig. (d) PVRC Data For Austenitic Stainless Steel In Air At 288C With Data From Jaske And
ODonnell from WRC Bulletin 487

15

16

Fig. (e) Compilation of Stainless Steel Fatigue Data In Air From WRC Bulletin 487

Proposed New ASME Design Curve

Current ASME Design

Curve

17

Fig. (f) PVRC Data for Austenitic Stainless Steel Obtained Under
Simulated PWR Conditions From WRC Bulletin 487

18

Fig. (g) Data for 316 NG Stainless Steel Obtained Under Simulated BWR Conditions From
WRC Bulletin 487

19

Fig. (h) Compilation of Environmental Fatigue Data For Stainless Steels

Relative Life Nair/ N water

Relative Life Nair/ N water

Fig. (i) Dissolved Oxygen Effects at 290o C 554o F at a Strain Rate of

0.001%/ sec

20

%
Fig. (j) PVRC Data for Carbon Steels Obtained Under
Simulated PWR Conditions from WRC Bulletin 487

21

Best Fit In Air

Fig. (k) PVRC Laboratory Data for Carbon Steel Obtained Under
Simulated BWR Reactor Water Environments from WRC Bulletin 487

22

Fig. (L) Compilation of Environmental Fatigue Data for Carbon Steels

23

Fig. (m) Compilation of Environmental Fatigue Data for Low Alloy Steels

24

Fig. (N) S-N Fatigue Test Results in a LWR Environment Showing the
Effect of Strain Rate on Fatigue Life

Reference: Gavenda, D.J., et.al., Crack Initiation and Growth Behavior of

Carbon and Low Alloy Steels ASME PVP Vol. 350 Fatigue and Fracture 1

25

References:
1. C.E. Jaske and W.J. ODonnell, Fatigue Design Criteria for Pressure Vessel Alloys,
ASME Transactions, Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology, Vol. 99, No. 4, November
1977, pp. 584-592.
2. W.F. English, R.L. Greene, D.A. Hughes, and R. I. Post; L.F. Coffin; M.J. Manjoine; and
D.R. Diercks; ASME Transactions, Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology, Vol. 100, No.2,
May, 1978, pp. 236-243.
3. Synthesis of S-N and da/dN Life Evaluation Technologies, by W.J. ODonnell, presented
at the American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Pressure Vessel and Piping Conference,
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, PVP Vol. 10, 1988.
4. Welding Research Council Bulletin 487, PVRCs Position on Environmental Effects on
Fatigue Life in LWR Applications, edited by W. Alan Van Der Sluys, December 2003.
5. Leax, T.R., Development of a Water Environment Fatigue Design Curve for Austenitic
Stainless Steels, ASME PVP Volume 453, Pressure Vessel and Piping Codes and
Standards 2003.
6. Chopra, O.K., et al., Environmentally Assisted Cracking in Light Water Reactors,
Semiannual Report, April, 1995-December, 1995, NUREG/CR-4667, ANL-96/1, Vol. 21.
7. Chopra, O.K. and Gavenda, D.J., Effects of LWR Environments on Fatigue Lives of
Austenitic Stainless Steels, PVP Vol. 353, ASME, 1997, pp.87-97.
8. Chopra, O.K. and Shack, W.J., Methods for Incorporating the Effects of LWR Coolant
Environment into ASME Code Fatigue Evaluations, Probabilistic and Environmental
Aspects of Fracture and Fatigue, PVP-Volume 386, ASME PVP 1999, New York, NY,
August, 1999.
9. Chopra, O.K. and Shack, W.J., Methods for Incorporating the Effects of LWR Coolant
Environment in Pressure Vessel and Piping Fatigue Evaluations, International Conference
on Fatigue of Reactor Components, July 2002, Snowbird, Utah.
10. O. Chopra, Effect of LWR Coolant Environments on Fatigue Design Curves of Austenitic
Stainless Steels, NUREG/CR-5704 (ANL-98/31), April 1999.
11. K. Tsutsumi, H. Kanasaki, T. Umakoshi, T. Nakamura, and S. Urata, Fatigue Life
Reduction in PWR Water Environment for Stainless Steels, PVP-Vol. 410-2, ASME PVP
2000, Seattle, WA, July 24-28, 2000.
12. Nishimura, M. Nakamura, T., and Asada, T., TEMPES Guidelines for Environmental
Fatigue Evaluation in LWR Nuclear Power Plants in Japan, Materials Reliability Program:
Second International Conference on Fatigue of Reactor Components MRP-84) July 2002.
Snowbird, Utah.
13. Higuchi, M. and Iida, K., Fatigue Strength Correction Factors for Carbon and Low-Alloy
Steels in Oxygen-Containing High-Temperature Water, Nuclear Engineering and Design,
1991, Vol. 129, pp. 293-306.
14. Higuchi, M., Iida, K., and Asada, Y., Effects of Strain Rate Change on Fatigue Life of
Carbon Steel in High-Temperature Water, Effects of the Environment on the Initiation of
Crack Growth, ASTM STP 1298, ASTM, 1997, pp. 116-230.
15. Chopra, O. and Shack, W., Effects of LWR Environments on Fatigue Life of Carbon and
Low-alloy Steels, In PVP-Vol. 306, pp. 95-109, presented at ASME PVP 1995, Honolulu,
HI, July 23-27, 1995.

26

16. James, L.A., and Van Der Sluys, W.A., The Effects of Aqueous Environments Upon the
Initiation and Propagation of Fatigue Cracks in Low-Alloy Steels, NACE CORROSION 96
Symposium, March 24-29, 1996, Denver, CO.
17. Chopra, O.K. and Shack, W.J., Effects of LWR Coolant Environments on Fatigue Design
Curves of Carbon and Low-Alloy Steels, NUREG/CR-6583 (ANL-97/18), Argonne National
Laboratory, Argonne, IL, March 1998.
18. H.B. Park and O. Chopra, A Fracture Mechanics Approach for Estimating Fatigue-Crack
Initiation in Carbon and Low-Alloy Steels in LWR Coolant Environments, PVP-Vol. 410-2,
ASME PVP 2000, Seattle, WA, July 24-28, 2000.
19. M. Higuchi, Fatigue Curves and Fatigue Design Criteria for Carbon and Low Alloy Steels
in High-Temperature Water, PVP-Vol. 386, ASME PVP 1999.
20. K. Kishida, Umakoshi, T., and Asada, Y., Advances in Environmental Fatigue Evaluation
for Light Water Reactor Components, ASTM Standard Technical Publication 1298, p.282,
1997.
21. M. Higuchi and K. Iida, Fatigue Strength Correction Factors for Carbon and Low-Alloy
Steels in Oxygen-Containing High-Temperature Water, Nuclear Engineering and Design,
Vol. 129, pp. 293-306, 1991.
22. J.B. Terrell, Effect of Cyclic Frequency on the Fatigue Life on ASME SA-106-B Piping
Steel in PWR Environments, Truncations ASME, Journal of Materials Engineering, Vol. 10
pp. 193-203, 1988.
23. Van Der Sluys, W.A. and Yukawa, S., Studies of PVRC Evaluation of LWR Coolant
Environmental Effects on the S-N Fatigue Properties of Pressure Boundary Materials, in
PVP-Vol. 306, pp. 47-58, presented at ASME PVP 1995, Honolulu, HI, July 23-27, 1995.
24. Van Der Sluys, W.A. and Yukawa, S., S-N Fatigue Properties of Pressure Boundary
Materials in LWR Coolant Environments, in PVP-Vol. 374, pp. 269-276, presented at
ASME PVP 1998, San Diego, July 26-30, 1998.
25. Ware, A.G., Morton, D.K. and Nitzel, M.E., Application of NUREG/CR-5999 Interim
Fatigue Curves to Selected Nuclear Power Plant Components, PVP-Vol. 323, ASME,
1996, pp. 141-150.
26. Ware, A.G., Morton, D.K., and Nitzel, M.E., Applications of NUREG/CR-5999 Interim
Fatigue Curves to Selected Nuclear Power Plant Components, NUREG/CR-6260, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, March 1995.
27. Mehta, H.S. and Gosselin, S.R., An Environmental Factor Approach to Account for
Reactor Water Effects In Light Water Reactor Pressure Vessels and Piping Fatigue
Evaluations, PVP-Vol. 323, ASME, 1996, pp. 171-185.
28. Meisler, J. and Chopra, O., Statistical Analysis of Fatigue Strain Life Data for Carbon and
Low-Alloy Steels, PVP-Vol. 296, Risk and Safety Assessments: Where is the Balance?
Book No. H00959-1995.
29. Nakao, G., Higuchi, M., Iida, K., and Asada, Y., Effects of Temperature and Dissolved
Oxygen Contents on Fatigue Lives of Carbon and Low Alloy Steels in LWR Water
Environments, Effects of the Environment on the Initiation of Crack Growth, ASTM STP
1298, ASTM, 1997, pp. 232-245.
30. James, L.A., Technical Basis for the Initiation and Cessation of Environmentally Assisted
Cracking of Low-Alloy Steels in Elevated Temperature PWR Environments, 1998 ASME
PVP Conference, San Diego, CA.
31. N. Nagata, S. Sato, and Y. Katada, Low-Cycle Fatigue Behavior of Low-Alloy Steels in
High-Temperature Pressurized Water, Transactions, 19th International Conference on

27

Structural Mechanics In Reactor Technology, Vol. F, Edited by A.H. Hadjian, International

Association for Structural Mechanics In Reactor Technology, Anaheim, CA, 1989.
32. Chopra, O.K., "Effects of LWR Coolant Environments on Fatigue Design Curves of
Austenitic Stainless Steels", NUREG/CR-5704 (ANL-98/31 R5), March, 1999.
33. Chopra, O.K. and Shack, W.J., "Effects of LWR Coolant Environments on Fatigue Design
Curves of Carbon and Low-Alloy Steels", NUREG/CR-6583 (ANL-97/18 R5), February,
1998.
34. Chopra, O.K., et. al., "Environmentally Assisted Cracking in Light Water Reactors", Annual
Report January - December 2001, NUREG/CR-4667, Vol. 32 (ANL-02/33), June, 2003.
35. Chopra, O.K., et. al., "Environmentally Assisted Cracking in Light Water Reactors",
Semiannual Report July 2000 December 2000, NUREG/CR-4667, Vol. 31 (ANL-01/09),
April 2002.
36. Chopra, O.K. and Shack, W.J., "Environmental Effects on Fatigue Crack Initiation in Piping
and Pressure Vessel Steels", NUREG/CR-6717 (ANL-00/27), May, 2001.
37. Chopra, O.K., "Mechanism and Estimation of Fatigue Crack Initiation in Austenitic Stainless
Steels in LWR Environments", NUREG/CR-6787 (ANL-01/25), July, 2002.
38. Chopra, O.K. and Shack, W.J., "Review of the Margins for ASME Code Fatigue Design
Curve Effects of Surface Roughness and Material Variability", NUREG/CR-6815 (ANL02/39), September, 2003.

28

APPENDIX: Proposed New Fatigue Design Curves and Tables

The following are the recommended design curves proposed by the Subgroup on Fatigue
Strength and approved by the Subcommittee on Design:
Figure (1)

A proposed new fatigue design curve for Low Strength Nickel Based Alloys, Alloy
600, and Alloy 800 in air. This curve is based on the usual 2 and 20 factors and
the data supporting this curve is analyzed in detail in Reference (1).

Figure (2)

A proposed new fatigue design curve for austenitic stainless steels in air. This
curve is based on the 2 and 20 factors and the data supporting this curve is
analyzed in detail in References (1) and (2) and has been extensively discussed
in prior Code meetings.

Figure (3)

Proposed design curves for austenitic stainless steels in reactor water. The latter
are based on the Jones/Leax model and the data analyses and models by the
PVRC, Chopra, Higuchi, Miti, Nakamura, Van Der Sluys, Mehta in References
(3) thru (38).

Figure (4)

Proposed design curves for carbon and low alloy steels having ultimate tensile
strengths (UTS) < 80 Ksi. The curves for reactor water are based on the PVRC,
Chopra, Shack, Higuchi, Miti, Nakamura, and Van Der Sluys work in References
(3 and 13 thru 38). This figure covers the range between 10 and 106 cycles.

Figure (5)

Proposed design curves for carbon and low alloy steels having ultimate tensile
strength (UTS) = (115-130) Ksi. The curves for reactor water are based on the
PVRC Chopra, Shack, Higuchi, Miti, Mehta, Nakamura, and Van Der Sluys work
in References (3 and 13 thru 38). This Figure covers the range between 10 and
106 cycles.

Figure (6)

Proposed design curves for carbon and low alloy steels in both air and reactor
water in the very high cycle regime (106 to 1011 cycles). In this high cycle
regime, the design curves are the same for air and reactor water.

Figure (7)

Provides a comparison of various other proposals for reactor water design curves
which include all reactor water conditions, including low to moderate strain rates.

Figures (1-6) and their respective tables 1-5 were prepared for use in the ASME Code. The
supporting data has been under development for many years. New data is not expected to
change them significantly. The ASME Code needs to keep up with worldwide technology and
data and simply cannot afford to become obsolete in a futile search for agreement on a myriad
of interdisciplinary minutiae.

29

Proposed Fatigue Curve For Low Strength Nickel Based Alloys

Alloy 600 & Alloy 800 in Air
For Temperature Not Exceeding 800o F (427o C)

Value of Sa, Ksi

1,000

100
Warning: Alloy 600 is Susceptible to Stress Corrosion
Cracking at Elevated Temperature

E= 29.6 x 103 Ksi (204 x 103 MPa)

10
1.E+01

1.E+02

1.E+03

1.E+04

1.E+05

1.E+06

1.E+07

Number of Design Cycles, N

1.E+08

1.E+09

1.E+10

ASME Subgroup Fatigue Strength

February 2006
Figure 1

1.E+11

Table 1 Proposed Fatigue Curve

for Low Strength Nickel Based Alloys - Alloy 600 & Alloy 800 in Air
For Temperature Not Exceeding 800o F (427o C) (Figure1) February, 2006
N (cycles)
Sa (Ksi)
Sa (MPa)
1.E+01
725
4,995
2.E+01
525
3,617
5.E+01
335
2,308
1.E+02
246
1,695
2.E+02
190
1,309
5.E+02
137
944
1.E+03
108
744
2.E+03
88.0
606
5.E+03
68.5
472
1.E+04
57.0
393
2.E+04
49.0
338
5.E+04
40.0
276
1.E+05
34.5
238
2.E+05
30.8
212
5.E+05
26.8
185
1.E+06
24.0
165
2.E+06
22.5
155
5.E+06
20.7
143
1.E+07
20.0
138
2.E+07
19.2
132
5.E+07
18.5
127
1.E+08
18.0
124
2.E+08
17.5
121
5.E+08
16.8
116
1.E+09
16.4
113
2.E+09
16.0
110
5.E+09
15.4
106
1.E+10
15.0
103
2.E+10
14.6
101
5.E+10
14.0
96.5
1.E+11
13.7
94.4

Fatigue Design Curve

Types 304, 310, 316, 347 and 348 Austenitic Stainless Steels in Air
For Temperature Not Exceeding 700o F
1,000

Value of Sa, Ksi

E = 28.3 x 103 Ksi (195 x 103 MPa)

Existing ASME Code

100

10
1.E+01

1.E+02

1.E+03

1.E+04

1.E+05

1.E+06

1.E+07

Number of Design Cycles, N

1.E+08

1.E+09

1.E+10

ASME Subgroup Fatigue Strength

February 2006
Figure 2

1.E+11

Table 2 Fatigue Design Curve for Types 304, 310, 316, 347, and 348
Austenitic Stainless Steel in Air for Temperature not Exceeding 700o F (371o C)
Existing
Proposed

Existing

ASME Code

N (Cycles)
Sa (Ksi)
Sa (Ksi)
1.E+01
700
2.E+01
501
5.E+01
321
1.E+02
235
2.E+02
178
5.E+02
127
1.E+03
99.0
2.E+03
80.2
5.E+03
61.1
1.E+04
50.5
2.E+04
42.9
5.E+04
34.8
1.E+05
29.9
2.E+05
26.1
5.E+05
21.9
1.E+06
19.5
2.E+06
17.9
5.E+06
16.1
1.E+07
15.5
2.E+07
15.0
5.E+07
14.6
1.E+08
14.2
2.E+08
13.8
5.E+08
13.4
1.E+09
13.0
2.E+09
12.7
5.E+09
12.3
1.E+10
12.0
2.E+10
11.7
5.E+10
11.3
1.E+11
10.9

(Figure 2)

Proposed

708
512
345
261
201
148
119
97.0
76.0
64.0
55.5
46.3
40.8
35.9
31.0
28.3
22.8
18.4
16.4
15.2
14.3
14.1

13.9

13.7

13.6

ASME Code

N (Cycles) Sa (MPa) Sa (MPa)

1.E+01
4,823
4,882
2.E+01
3,452
3,530
5.E+01
2,212
2,379
1.E+02
1,619
1,800
2.E+02
1,226
1,386
5.E+02
875
1,020
1.E+03
682
821
2.E+03
553
669
5.E+03
421
524
1.E+04
348
441
2.E+04
296
383
5.E+04
240
319
1.E+05
206
281
2.E+05
180
248
5.E+05
151
214
1.E+06
134
195
2.E+06
123
157
5.E+06
111
127
1.E+07
107
113
2.E+07
103
105
5.E+07
101
99.0
1.E+08
97.8
97.0
2.E+08
95.1
5.E+08
92.3
1.E+09
89.6
96.0
2.E+09
87.5
5.E+09
84.7
1.E+10
82.7
94.0
2.E+10
80.6
5.E+10
77.9
1.E+11
75.1
94.0

February, 2006

Environmental Fatigue Design Curve

Types 304, 310, 316, and 348 Austenitic Stainless Steels
For Temperature Not Exceeding 700o F
1,000
Curve A, Air and Reactor Water Meeting Restricted Conditions:
High Strain Rates ( > 1% / sec) or
Low Temperature (< 360o F)

Value of Sa, Ksi

Strain Rate Dependent Intermediate Curves for Reactor Water

> 1.0% / sec
> 0.1% / sec
> 0.01% / sec
> 0.0014% / sec
> 0.0004% / sec

100

For average strain rates during increasing tensile portion of cycle

E=28.3 x 103 Ksi (195 x 10 3 MPa)

Curve B, Unrestricted Use in

Reactor Water

10
1.E+01

1.E+02

1.E+03

1.E+04

1.E+05

1.E+06

1.E+07

Number of Design Cycles, N

1.E+08

1.E+09

1.E+10

ASME Subgroup Fatigue Strength

February 2006
Figure 3

1.E+11

Table 3 Environmental Fatigue Design Curve Type 304, 310, 316, and 348 Austentitic Stainless Steels
For Temperatures Not Exceeding 700o F (Figure 3) February, 2006
N (cycles)

1.E+01
2.E+01
5.E+01
1.E+02
2.E+02
5.E+02
1.E+03
2.E+03
5.E+03
1.E+04
2.E+04
5.E+04
1.E+05
2.E+05
5.E+05
1.E+06
2.E+06
5.E+06
1.E+07
2.E+07
5.E+07
1.E+08
2.E+08
5.E+08
1.E+09
2.E+09
5.E+09
1.E+10
2.E+10
5.E+10
1.E+11

Sa (Ksi)
Curve A
=1.0
700
501
321
235
178
127
99.0
80.2
61.1
50.5
42.9
34.8
29.9
26.1
21.9
19.5
17.9
16.1
15.5
15.0
14.6
14.2
13.8
13.4
13.0
12.7
12.3
12.0
11.7
11.3
10.9

in % / sec
=.1

=.01
600
442
295
216
167
119
93.1
75.4
57.8
48.1
40.9
33.3
28.4
24.8
21.0
18.9
17.4
15.9

530
390
259
192
148
105
84.2
68.1
52.6
44.4
37.8
30.8
26.5
23.5
20.1
18.2
16.9
15.9

N (cycles)
=.0014
384
286
190
144
112
81.5
65.6
53.6
42.6
36.3
31.1
25.5
22.8
20.5
18.5
17.3
16.7
15.9

Curve B
=.0004
280
202
131
94.9
73.2
52.7
42.6
36.0
29.9
26.6
24.3
21.6
20.0
18.8
17.5
16.7
16.3
15.9

1.E+01
2.E+01
5.E+01
1.E+02
2.E+02
5.E+02
1.E+03
2.E+03
5.E+03
1.E+04
2.E+04
5.E+04
1.E+05
2.E+05
5.E+05
1.E+06
2.E+06
5.E+06
1.E+07
2.E+07
5.E+07
1.E+08
2.E+08
5.E+08
1.E+09
2.E+09
5.E+09
1.E+10
2.E+10
5.E+10
1.E+11

Sa (MPa)
Curve A
=1.0
=.1
4,823
3,452
2,212
1,619
1,226
875
682
553
421
348
296
240
206
180
151
134
123
111
107
103
101
97.8
95.1
92.3
89.6
87.5
84.7
82.7
80.6
77.9
75.1

in % / sec
=.01
4,134
3,045
2,033
1,488
1,151
820
641
520
398
331
282
229
196
171
145
130
120
110

3,652
2,687
1,785
1,323
1,020
723
580
469
362
306
260
212
183
162
138
125
116
110

Curve B
=.0014
=.0004
2,646
1,929
1,971
1,392
1,309
903
992
654
772
504
562
363
452
294
369
248
294
206
250
183
214
167
176
149
157
138
141
130
127
121
119
115
115
112
110
110

Reactor Water Environmental

Fatigue Design Curves for Carbon and Low Alloy Steels
For Temperatures Not Exceeding 700 oF (371o C) and N< 106 Cycles
UTS < 80 Ksi (552 MPa)
1,000

Curve A, Air; and Reactor Water Meeting Restricted Conditions:

High Strain Rates ( > 1% / sec) or
o
Low Temperature (< 300 F) or
Low Dissolved Oxygen (< 0.04 PPM)
Strain Rate Dependent Intermediate Curves for Reactor Water

Value of Sa, Ksi

> 1.0% / sec

> 0.1% / sec
> 0.014% / sec
> 0.004% / sec
> 0.001% / sec
For average strain rates during increasing tensile portion of cycle

100

Curve B, Unrestricted Use for Reactor Water

E= 30 x 103 Ksi (207 x 103 MPa)

10
1.E+01

1.E+02

1.E+03

1.E+04

Number of Design Cycles, N

1.E+05
ASME Subgroup Fatigue Strength
February, 2006 Figure 4

1.E+06

Table 4 Reactor Water Environmental Fatigue Design Curves for Carbon and Low Alloy Steels
For Temperatures Not Exceeding 700 o F (371o C) and N < 106 Cycles UTS < 80 Ksi (552 MPa)
(Figure 4) February, 2006

N (cycles)

Sa (Ksi)

N (cycles)
in % / sec

1.E+01
2.E+01
5.E+01
1.E+02
2.E+02
5.E+02
1.E+03
2.E+03
5.E+03
1.E+04
2.E+04
5.E+04
1.E+05
2.E+05
5.E+05
1.E+06

Curve A
=1.0
=.1
580
410
275
205
155
105
83.0
64.0
48.0
38.0
31.0
23.0
20.0
16.5
13.5
12.5

500
368
245
183
138
96.0
75.0
59.0
44.0
35.0
28.5
22.0
18.5
16.0
13.5
12.5

=.014
=.004
351
295
262
223
185
150
137
114
104
87.0
74.0
63.0
58.0
50.0
46.0
40.0
35.0
30.0
28.5
24.8
23.3
20.5
18.5
17.3
16.3
15.7
14.8
14.5
13.5
13.3
12.5
12.5

Curve B
=.001
180
134
91.0
70.0
55.0
41.0
33.0
27.5
21.5
18.5
16.5
15.0
14.1
13.5
12.9
12.5

1.E+01
2.E+01
5.E+01
1.E+02
2.E+02
5.E+02
1.E+03
2.E+03
5.E+03
1.E+04
2.E+04
5.E+04
1.E+05
2.E+05
5.E+05
1.E+06

Sa (MPa)
in % / sec
Curve A
Curve B
=1.0
=.1
=.014
=.004
=.001
3,999
3,445
2,418
2,033
1,240
2,827
2,536
1,805
1,536
923
1,896
1,688
1,275
1,034
627
1,413
1,261
944
785
482
1,069
951
717
599
379
724
661
510
434
282
572
517
400
345
227
441
407
317
276
189
331
303
241
207
148
262
241
196
171
127
214
196
161
141
114
159
152
127
119
103
138
127
112
108
97.1
114
110
102
100
93.0
93.0
93.0
93.0
91.6
88.9
86.0
86.0
86.0
86.0
86.0

Reactor Water Environmental

Fatigue Design Curves for Carbon and Low Alloy Steels
For Temperatures Not Exceedding 700o F (371o C) and N<106 Cycles
UTS 115-130 Ksi (793 - 896 MPa)

1,000

Curve A, Air; and Reactor Water Meeting Restricted Conditions:

High Strain Rates ( > 1% / sec) or
Low Temperature (< 300o F) or
Low Dissolved Oxygen (< 0.04 PPM)

Strain Rate Dependent Intermediate Curves for Reactor Water

Value of Sa, Ksi

> 1.0% / sec

> 0.1% / sec
> 0.014% / sec
> 0.004% / sec
> 0.001% / sec
For average strain rates during increasing tensile portion of cycle

100

Curve B, Unrestricted Use for Reactor Water

E= 30 x 103 Ksi (207 x 103 MPa)

10
1.E+01

1.E+02

1.E+03

1.E+04

Number of Design Cycles, N

1.E+05
ASME Subgroup Fatigue Strength
February 2006
Figure 5

1.E+06

Table 5 Reactor Water Environmental Fatigue Design Curves for Carbon and Low Alloy Steels
For Temperatures Not Exceeding 700o F (371o C) and N < 106 Cycles UTS 115-130 Ksi (793 - 896 MPa)
(Figure 5) February, 2006

N (cycles) Sa (Ksi)

N (cycles) Sa (MPa)
in % / sec

1.E+01
2.E+01
5.E+01
1.E+02
2.E+02
5.E+02
1.E+03
2.E+03
5.E+03
1.E+04
1.2E+04
2.E+04
5.E+04
1.E+05
2.E+05
5.E+05
1.E+06

Curve A
=1.0
=.1
420
320
230
175
135
100
78.0
62.0
49.0
44.0
43.0
36.0
29.0
26.0
24.0
22.0
20.0

380
288
203
158
124
89.0
70.0
58.0
47.0
41.0
--33.0
28.3
25.5
23.7
21.7
20.0

=.014
=.004
303
265
226
196
160
138
124
106
96.0
82.0
70.0
60.0
57.0
51.0
49.0
44.0
40.0
33.5
33.0
29.9
----29.0
27.5
26.3
25.3
24.5
23.7
23.1
22.5
21.5
21.0
20.0
20.0

Curve B
=.001
180
134
91.0
69.5
55.0
41.0
33.0
28.0
24.0
22.8
--22.0
21.5
21.0
20.7
20.3
20.0

1.E+01
2.E+01
5.E+01
1.E+02
2.E+02
5.E+02
1.E+03
2.E+03
5.E+03
1.E+04
1.2E+04
2.E+04
5.E+04
1.E+05
2.E+05
5.E+05
1.E+06

in % / sec
Curve A
Curve B
=1.0
=.1
=.014
=.004
=.001
2,896
2,618
2,088
1,826
1,240
2,206
1,984
1,557
1,350
923
1,586
1,399
1,102
951
627
1,207
1,089
854
730
479
931
854
661
565
379
690
613
482
413
282
538
482
393
351
227
427
400
338
303
193
338
324
276
231
165
303
282
227
206
157
296
--------248
227
200
189
152
200
195
181
174
148
179
176
169
163
145
165
163
159
155
143
152
150
148
145
140
138
138
138
138
138

20
NOTES:
6
3
(1) E=30 x 10 psi (207 x 10 Mpa)
(2) Interpolate for UTS 80-115 Ksi (552-793 MPa)

18
16

Values of Sa, Ksi

14

Air and Reactor Water Environments

For UTS < 115-130 Ksi (793-896 MPa)

12
10
8

Air and Reactor Water Environments

For UTS < 80 Ksi (552 MPa)

6
4
2
0

1.E+06

1.E+07

No. of Cycles

1.E+08
1.E+09
Number of Cycles

1.E+10

1.E+11

1.E+06

1.E+07

1.E+08

1.E+09

1.E+10

1.E+11

Curve A

20

17.8

15.9

14.2

12.6

11.2

Curve B

12.5

11.1

9.9

8.8

7.9

7.0

ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN FATIGUE CURVES FOR CARBON, LOW ALLOY, SERIES 4XX, HIGH ALLOY STEELS
AND HIGH TENSILE STEELS FOR TEMPERATURES NOT EXCEEDING 700o F (371o C) AND N > 106
ASME Subgroup Fatigue Strength
August 2004
Figure 6

Proposed New ASME Code Reactor Water Environmental

Fatigue Design Curve for Carbon and Low Alloy Steels
For Temperature Not Exceeding 700o F (371o C) and N < 106 Cycles

Value of Sa, ksi

1,000

Design, (UTS <80 Ksi) Air

Design, (UTS 115-130 ksi) Airr
MEHTA for Low Alloy Steels (Reactor Water)
CHOPRA for Low Alloy Steels (Reactor Water)
MITI for Low Alloy Steels (Reactor Water)
Design Curve (All UTS) Reactor Water
Design in Air and Design in Reactor Water
Meeting Restricted Conditions:
(i) Low Dissolved Oxygen (<0.04 PPM), OR
(ii) High Strain Rates (*) (> 1%/sec) OR
(iii) Low Temperature (<300 F)

100

Design for All UTS in Reactor

Water Unrestricted (Not
Meeting Restricted Conditions
for Use of Air Curve)

10
1.E+01

1.E+02

1.E+03
1.E+04
Number of Design Cycles, N

1.E+05

1.E+06

Figure 7
ASME Subgroup on Fatigue Strength
August 2004