Scholarlink

The transformed strain rate of environmental fatigue correction factor (Fen), which is used to consider the influence of PWR primary coolant environment on material fatigue, is studied. EPRI’s guideline and the AFCEN’s probationary phase rule (RPP) No.3 of Volume VI in RCC-M 2017 edition provide two different calculation methods of transformed strain rate separately. NUREG CR-6909 gives two versions of prediction models of Fen for Low alloy steel, nickel base alloy and austenitic stainless steel. The model and transients of Sample 2 in EPRI’s guideline are selected for calculation and comparison to verify whether the analysis method is reasonable. Firstly, the fatigue analysis in air is carried out, and then based on the combination, the detailed calculation of strain rate is carried out to calculate environmental fatigue results. The analysis results are compared with the results of EPRI’s guideline, and its difference is small. Then, the main pipeline safety injection nozzle component with small fatigue margin in PWR is selected to carry out environmental fatigue analysis. In the analysis, different methods of calculating modified strain rates are used, and different prediction models in CR-6909 are used. The coefficient of Fen integrated in RPP3 is considered, and the effects of various calculation methods on the results are compared. The results show that the results of RCC-M RPP3 method are less than those of EPRI’s guideline for austenitic stainless steel. The prediction model of NUREG CR-6909 version 1 greatly decreases the values of the Fen by comparing with that of version 0.

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

A Comparative Study of Numerical Analysis Methods for the Strain Rate of PWR Environmental Fatigue Correction Factor

  • 会议论文

  • 发表日期：

    2026年

查看全文
  • Xuejiao Shao,
  • Hai Xie,
  • Xiaoming Bai,
  • Hui Li,
  • Jianhao Zhang,
  • Shuai Liu,
  • Daoping Liu

摘要

The transformed strain rate of environmental fatigue correction factor (Fen), which is used to consider the influence of PWR primary coolant environment on material fatigue, is studied. EPRI’s guideline and the AFCEN’s probationary phase rule (RPP) No.3 of Volume VI in RCC-M 2017 edition provide two different calculation methods of transformed strain rate separately. NUREG CR-6909 gives two versions of prediction models of Fen for Low alloy steel, nickel base alloy and austenitic stainless steel. The model and transients of Sample 2 in EPRI’s guideline are selected for calculation and comparison to verify whether the analysis method is reasonable. Firstly, the fatigue analysis in air is carried out, and then based on the combination, the detailed calculation of strain rate is carried out to calculate environmental fatigue results. The analysis results are compared with the results of EPRI’s guideline, and its difference is small. Then, the main pipeline safety injection nozzle component with small fatigue margin in PWR is selected to carry out environmental fatigue analysis. In the analysis, different methods of calculating modified strain rates are used, and different prediction models in CR-6909 are used. The coefficient of Fen integrated in RPP3 is considered, and the effects of various calculation methods on the results are compared. The results show that the results of RCC-M RPP3 method are less than those of EPRI’s guideline for austenitic stainless steel. The prediction model of NUREG CR-6909 version 1 greatly decreases the values of the Fen by comparing with that of version 0.