Fusion Engineering and Design 109111 (2016) 789794

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Fusion Engineering and Design

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/fusengdes

Comparative evaluation of structural integrity for ITER blanket shield

block based on SDC-IC and ASME code
Hee-Jin Shim a , Min-Su Ha a, , Sa-Woong Kim a , Hun-Chea Jung a , Duck-Hoi Kim b
a
b

ITER Korea, National Fusion Research Institute, 169-148 Gwahak-Ro, Yuseong-Gu, Daejeon, Republic of Korea
ITER Organization, Route de Vinon sur Verdon - CS 90046, 13067 Sant Paul Lez Durance, France

h i g h l i g h t s

The procedure of structural integrity and fatigue assessment was described.

Case studies were performed according to both SDC-IC and ASME Sec.
III codes The conservatism of the ASME code was demonstrated.
The study only covers the specically comparable case about fatigue usage factor.

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history:
Received 27 August 2015
Received in revised form
24 December 2015
Accepted 28 January 2016
Available online 8 February 2016
Keywords:
ASME
Fatigue assessment
ITER
SDC-IC
Shield block
Structural integrity

a b s t r a c t
The ITER blanket Shield Block is a bulk structure to absorb radiation and to provide thermal shielding to
vacuum vessel and external vessel components, therefore the most signicant load for Shield Block is the
thermal load. In the previous study, the thermo-mechanical analysis has been performed under the inductive operation as representative loading condition. And the fatigue evaluations were conducted to assure
structural integrity for Shield Block according to Structural Design Criteria for In-vessel Components
(SDC-IC) which provided by ITER Organization (IO) based on the code of RCC-MR.
Generally, ASME code (especially, B&PV Sec. III) is widely applied for design of nuclear components,
and is usually well known as more conservative than other specic codes. For the view point of the fatigue
assessment, ASME code is very conservative compared with SDC-IC in terms of the reected Ke factor,
design fatigue curve and other factors. Therefore, an accurate fatigue assessment comparison is needed to
measure of conservatism. The purpose of this study is to provide the fatigue usage comparison resulting
from the specied operating conditions shall be evaluated for Shield Block based on both SDC-IC and
ASME code, and to discuss the conservatism of the results.
2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
ITER blanket system is the one of tokamak plasma- facing components, it is mainly devoted to provide the thermal and nuclear
shielding of the Vacuum Vessel and external ITER components.
It consists of 440 individual modules which are located in the
inboard, upper and outboard regions of the tokamak. The components located inside the ITER vacuum vessel are exposed to neutron
radiation, high heat uxes and electromagnetic forces due to their
specic environments. Therefore, the specic design criteria which
is Structural Design Criteria for In-vessel Components (SDC-IC) was
developed. This criteria started in the early phase for the ITER design

Corresponding author.
E-mail address: msha12@nfri.re.kr (M.-S. Ha).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fusengdes.2016.01.074
0920-3796/ 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

and followed closely the criteria of the RCC-MR code [1]. G. Sannazzaro has described a schematic diagram of code and standard for
the various ITER mechanical components to take account of the
specied code categories due to the neutron irradiation and their
distribution of thermal loads affects.
In the previous study, thermo-mechanical analysis has been performed under the inductive operation as representative loading
condition [2]. Additionally, the fatigue assessments were conducted to assure structural integrity for Shield Block according to
SDC-IC.
In general, ASME B&PV Sec. III is widely used for design of
nuclear components and those piping for the class 1, and is usually well known as more conservative than other specic codes.
For the view point of the fatigue assessment, ASME code is very
conservative compared with SDC-IC in terms of reected Ke factor,
design fatigue curve and strength reduction factor for geomet-

790

H.-J. Shim et al. / Fusion Engineering and Design 109111 (2016) 789794

rical discontinuity (dened in NB-3213.17). However, it has not

been much effort to evaluate the fatigue assessment on the conservatism viewpoint. Thus, it is necessary to further consider the
accurate fatigue evaluation considering viewpoint of conservatism.
To explain the conservatism of the fatigue assessment by ASME Sec.
III-3200 compared to SDC-IC, this manuscript provides the steps for
calculating fatigue usage factors from the two different codes under
the assumptions of the elastic behavior of Shield Block.
2. Structural design rules

Pm Sm ; Pm + Pb Keff Sm (Tm , tm )

PL min[1.5Sm (Tm , tm ) , Sy,mim (Tm , tm )]

(1)

where, a bar denotes effective stress. Pm is the general primary

membrane stress, Pb is primary bending stress, PL is local primary membrane stress, Keff is bending shape factor (1.5 for solid
rectangular cross section), and Sm , Sy,min are allowable stress and
minimum tensile yield stress at thickness-averaged temperature
(Tm ) and neutron uence (tm ), respectively.
(ii) Immediate plastic ow localization
PL + QL Se (Tm , tm )

(2)

where, PL + QL is primary plus secondary membrane stress intensity, Se is allowable stress.

(iii) Immediate local fracture due to exhaustion of ductility
PL + Pb + Q + F Sd (Tm , tm , r2 )

(3)

and the total stress, excluding peak stress, is limited by Eq. (4):
PL + Pb + Q Sd (Tm , tm , r3 )

(4)

where, PL + Pb + Q + F is total primary plus secondary stress intensity including peak F, PL + Pb + Q is total primary plus secondary
stress excluding peak F, and Sd is allowable stress dependent on
the r-factor(elastic follow-up factor), temperature, and uence.
The following rules to prevent C-type damage (cyclic load) are
applicable only if the rules for prevention of M-type damage have
been satised.
(i) Progressive deformation or ratcheting
To prevent the occurrence of progressive deformation (ratcheting) on the basis of elastic analysis, either of the following methods
may be used:
- 3Sm rule
For each operating period, the following criteria must be satised:

Max Pm + Pb +  P + Q
3 Sm (Tm , tm )

Limits of stress

Pm
PL , PL + Pb
PL + Pb + Pe + Q

Sm
1.5Sm
3Sm

- Efciency index diagram

Effective primary membrane stress intensity shall not exceed
the following limit:
P1 =

The following assessments are applicable to homogeneous

structure, as per SDC-IC section IC-3000. Moreover, these assessments are applicable for a component on which thermal creep is
negligible as per IC-3050. Herein, one of the important scopes is
to present the most signicant assessment step for blanket system
structural integrity according to SDC-IC code as follows:
At level A (normal operational loading) for elastic analysis, the
following rules for protection against M-type (monotonic load)
damage are considered:
(i) Immediate plastic collapse and plastic instability

Stress criteria

2.1. SDC-IC code

Table 1
Stress categories and limits for Level A service limits according to ASME Sec. III.

max

(5)

where, P is maximum range of stress intensity due to plasma

is maximum range of stress intensity due
disruption loading, Q
to secondary loadings, Sm (Tm , tm ) is allowable stress.

Max Pm
1

1.3 Sm (Tm , tm )

(6)

And effective local primary membrane plus bending stress intensity

of the sum of primary stress shall not exceed the following limit:

P2 =

Max PL + Pb

1.3 1.5 Sm (Tm , tm )

(7)

where, i is efciency indexes. And the nal progressive deformation check is Bree-diagram assessment to protection against
ratcheting.
(ii) Time-independent fatigue
The cumulative fatigue usage factor, V is calculated as the sum
of the fatigue usage factor by Miners rule for all types of cycles as
corresponding of total strain:
V=

 

Vi i =

ni

Ni i

 1

(8)

where, ni denotes the number of occurrences and Ni i means

of the allowable cycles for in terms of i from design fatigue curve.
2.2. ASME Sec. III-3200
Basically, the design rule criteria of ASME Sec. III-3200 are similar to SDC-IC code with structural assessment. As level A regarding
normal operation for elastic analysis, stress limitation is described
in Table 1, where, Pe denotes expansion stress for a piping design. As
can be seen in Table 1, the elastic analysis reected only shakedown
ensure that the maximum range of primary plus secondary stress to
3Sm limiting. If the limit of 3Sm is not satised, it means that ratcheting condition in considering of fatigue assessment, as described in
Ref [3]. Ratcheting means cyclic growth of the structure leading to
collapse. Thermal ratcheting requirement is included in simplied
elastic-plastic analysis which is applied by a called penalty factor
of Ke to the elastically calculated stress.
3. Difference of SDC-IC and ASME
3.1. Fatigue assessment
For each code application to fatigue assessment, the equivalent
stress (or strain), which is applying to input of fatigue curve, is calculated as follows steps. SDC-IC fatigue curve has been developed
for y-axis of strain range, while the fatigue design curves of ASME
Sec. III, Div. 1, App. 1 has provided in terms of stress amplitude.
(i) In the SDC-IC code, it is supposed that total strain range t ,
is obtained from the total equivalent stress range which is applying
for input to the fatigue curve. The total equivalent stress range, t
including peak stress (F) can be dened by Eq. (9):
t = (P + Q + F)

(9)

The procedure summarized in Fig. 1 to evaluate t from t and

analytically, t is sum of four terms [4]:
t = 1 + 2 + 3 + 4

(10)

H.-J. Shim et al. / Fusion Engineering and Design 109111 (2016) 789794

791

3.50
3.00

Values of Ke

2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
SDC-IC A.S02.5.8
0.50

ASME NB-3228.5

0.00
0

200

400

Fig. 1. Graphical determination of t [4].

1
Sp Ke
2

(12)

This penalty factor, Ke is applied based on the primary plus secondary stress intensity range (Sn ) along with several other factors.
This formulation from NB-3228.5 is as follows:

Ke =

1.0
1n
Sn
1.0 +
n (m 1) (3Sm 1)
1/n

1000

1200

1400

1600

Fig. 2. Comparison of values of Ke according to ASME and SDC-IC code.

given allowable, 3Sm both codes permit the reection of a strain

concentration factor, but the formulae to calculate this factor are
different. The physical meaning of Ke factor is as follows:
actual = Ke elastic

(13)

For the austenitic steel, SDC-IC has separate expressions for the
plastic amplication strain, Ke as function of maximum stress range,
temperature and neutron uence. But the ASME, more conservatively, uses the expression for the combined mechanical and
thermal total stress range. This implies a noticeable difference in
practice for fatigue results for austenitic steels.
Fig. 2 show the corresponding comparison curves for the Ke values at 300 C with those both criteria. As shown in Fig. 2, ASME Sec.
III3200 can be explained more excessively conservative code with
considering this factor as the stress range increases.

(11)

The maximum alternating stress amplitude Sa is determined by

multiplying the one-half of the total stress range. In ASME code,
if the limit of 3Sm is exceeded, it is applied to multiply the total
stress by the penalty factor, Ke [5]. The requirements for simplied
elastic-plastic analysis expressed by Eq. (12):
Sa =

800

Stress Range (MPa)

with, 1 = 23 (1+)
t , E is elastic modulus at maximum temperE
ature and minimum uence during the cycle, and is Poissons
ratio.
2 is the strain range at  (Pm + 0.67 (Pb + PL Pm )) represents the plastic strain range due to cyclic primary stress. The value
of 2 is generally very low.
3 = (Ke 1) (1 + 2 ) , plastic amplication strain, established with the Neubers method, Ke obtained with specic curve.
4 = (K 1) 1 , plastic amplication strain due to triaxiality and Poissons coefcient variation in the plastic domain,
Kv obtained with specic curve.
(ii) ASME Sec. III-3200 provides that the fatigue damage is quantied in terms of the alternative peak stress amplitude. The ASME
code requires that the maximum primary plus secondary stress
intensity range, Sn limit not to exceed 3Sm as previously mentioned.
The total stress including peak stress can be computed by Eq.
(11):
Sp =  (PL + Pb + Q + F)

600

for Sn 3Sm
for 3Sm < Sn < 3mS m
for Sn > 3mS m

where, the material constants of m, n for the stainless steel are 1.7
and 0.3, respectably.
The alternative fatigue analyses to using this factor, NB-3228.4
(a) through (c) are provided for performing a plastic fatigue analysis
related shakedown.
3.2. Ke factor
For fatigue assessment, a signicant difference is the denition
of Ke factor. When the stress range in fatigue analysis exceeds the

3.3. Fatigue design curve

Design fatigue curves for the material will be constructed
according to the criteria of the SDC-IC based from RCC-MR (Sec. 1,
Subsection Z 2007 Edition [6]) and the ASME (Sec. III, Div. 1App.,
I 2007 Edition [7]) codes in a similar way. Those data was obtained
from uniaxial strain controlled low cycle fatigue test performed
with a strain rate in order 103 s1 at stress ratio R = 1 [8]. A best
t to experimental data is obtained by applying the method of least
squares to the logarithms of the strain range values. The design
fatigue curves are then deduced from the best t curve by applying
a factor of 2 on strain (or stress) range or a factor of 20 on cycles,
whichever is more conservative at each point. And then this curve
transforms to stress range from strain range using elastic modulus
at test temperature in case of ASME design curve. These factors are
intended to most signicant effects for calculation of usage factor
for stress amplitude, it should be compensate for an elastic modulus
of fatigue curve, Ec as follows equation to stress amplitude.
Sa =

Ec
1
Sp Ke
2
Ea

(14)

It should be multiplied by a constant to corrects in accordance with

NB-3222.4(e)(4), where Ea is modulus of elasticity at critical each
point temperature from thermal analysis.
And other signicant difference is irradiation effects on the
material behavior. In the ASME code, the number of cycles to failure
is applied to fatigue data for unirradiated material. However, irradiation can have a signicant effect on low cyclic fatigue. In SDC-IC,
the fatigue strength curves are determined in irradiated and unir-

792

H.-J. Shim et al. / Fusion Engineering and Design 109111 (2016) 789794
Table 2
M-type assessment summary for worst slit end hole path identied according to
SDC-IC.
Criteria

Calculated (MPa)

Allowable (MPa)

Pm Sm
Pm + Pb Keff Sm
PL + QL Se
P + Q + F Sd

1
1
22
209

125
187
879
No limit

Table 3
C-type assessment summary for worst slit end hole path identied according to
SDC-IC.
Criteria

Calculated

3Sm rule
Efciency index
Parameter
Bree diagram

P1
P2
X
Y

96
6
7
0.004
0.25

Allowable
374 MPa
162 MPa
243 MPa
1
100

Table 4
Fatigue usage factor assessment summary for worst slit end hole path identied
according to SDC-IC.

Fig. 3. Design fatigue curves from SDC-IC App. A for 316L(N) and ASME Sec. III, Div.
1, App. I for stainless steel.

radiated conditions with an imposed uniaxial fatigue test. Fig. 3

shows the fatigue design curves of SDC-IC for 316L(N) and ASME
for stainless steels, respectively [6,7].
4. Comparison results for shield block assessments
4.1. Transient analysis
The objective of this investigation is to compare the two types of
code with fatigue assessment criteria. Therefore, herein the comparison fatigue usage results of SDC-IC and ASME Sec. III-3200 are
provided and treated independently each code. And creep shall not
be signicant. The equivalent stress is calculated using the Tresca
criterion for both SDC-IC and ASME code.
The rst analysis stage of thermal analysis is devoted to the
calculation of transient for ITER operation modes, inductive loading case [9]. Based on the thermo-transient analysis results, the
structural analysis was carried out. In addition, 4 MPa operational
coolant pressure were considered with primary stress. The applied
loads of Shield Block are provide from Blanket System Final Design
Review (FDR) protocol prepared by IO [10]. The most signicant
loads for Shield Block are the thermal and electromagnetic (EM)
loads. During operation conditions, the large EM loads will be produced in the Shield Block. However, the slits reduce the mutual
inductance between the plasma and the Shield Block, which reduce

1 (%)

2 (%)

3 (%)

4 (%)

t (%)

0.0939
Ni = 30, 000

0.0001

0.0065
ni = 1E8

0.0047

0.1052
Ui = 0.0003

the eddy and halo current. Therefore, in the FDR phase, only thermal loading condition analyses were performed [11] because the
EM load was judged to have small inuence on their structural
behavior. Hence, herein only thermal transient analysis was conducted. The heat transfer coefcient for transient thermal analysis
is assumed to be 5000 W/m2 K for all the Shield Block coolant circuit.
And the boundary conditions for structural analysis are followed
the FDR analysis protocol. The structural analysis was performed
and then fatigue usage assessment has been carried out basing upon
the result of structural analysis in accordance with both criteria as
previously mentioned.
Fig. 4 presents the distribution of maximum temperature and
Tresca stress at 9400 s under inductive operation. The maximum
temperature is about 227.7 C. As depicted in Fig. 4, the maximum
stress occurs at near the inter-modular key pad of back side. In
the previous study [2]. the critical region for structural integrity
was focused on the toroidal slit end hole and their design fatigue
lives were identied less than 30,000 cycles. Hence, it was observed
the likely critical path, which a signicant temperature and stress
intensity under operating load in shield block are given in Fig. 5.
In Table 2 structural assessment (M-type) for the worst path
identied of one of the slit end hole is summarized according to
SDC-IC. In this paper there is no intention to comparative calculation of M-type damage according to different code, but to give the
only results of SDC-IC code.
4.2. Assessment of fatigue analysis
The fatigue evaluation (C-type) for against of thermal ratcheting
based on SDC-IC code describing such likely different steps is given
in Table 3. Finally, the noticeable comparison results of fatigue
usage factor taken into account SDC-IC and ASME code are shown in
Table 4 and Table 5, respectively. As shown in Table 5, the usage factor by ASME code was slightly different as more conservative even
though Ke factor is 1.00. A constant of modulus of elasticity (Ky )
is 1.067 with 195 GPa from ASME Sec. III, Fig. I-9.2.1 M. According
to this result, the difference of 20 times has been observed. From
this, it may concluded that the usage factor by SDC-IC code indi-

H.-J. Shim et al. / Fusion Engineering and Design 109111 (2016) 789794

Fig. 4. Maximum temperature and stress intensity distribution at 9400 s under inductive operation.

Fig. 5. Temperature and stress evolutions at slit end hole.

793

794

H.-J. Shim et al. / Fusion Engineering and Design 109111 (2016) 789794

Table 5
Fatigue usage factor assessment summary for worst slit end hole path identied
according to ASME Sec. III.
Sn (MPa)

Sp (MPa)

Ke

94.97
Ni = 30, 000

189.99

1.000
1.067
ni = 5.297E6

Ky

contract (2007-2006983). The views and opinions expressed herein

do not necessarily reect those of ITER Organization. ITER is a
Nuclear Facility INB-17.

Sa (MPa)
101.34
Ui = 0.006

cates lower conservatism due to their lower thermal contribution

to strain range.
5. Conclusions
In this paper, the brief procedure of structural integrity and
fatigue assessment was described. And the detailed comparative
fatigue evaluations were performed in accordance with both SDCIC and ASME Sec. III codes. The conservatism of the ASME code,
regarding with Ke factor and design curve, was demonstrated
through the comparison of fatigue usage factors, and a case study is
carried out for the Shield Block. The work in this study only covers
the specically comparable case in the view point of fatigue usage
factor.
Acknowledgments
This research was supported by the Ministry of Science, ICT and
Future Planning of Republic of Korea under the Korean ITER project

References
[1] G. Sannazzaro, et al., Development of design criteria for ITER in-vessel
components, Fusion Eng. Des. 88 (2013) 21382141.
[2] Duck-Hoi Kim, et al., Thermo-hydraulic performance analysis for conceptual
design of ITER blanket shield block, Fusion Eng. Technol. 60 (2011) 118122.
[3] Robert Gurdal, et al. A comparative study of Ke factor in Design by analysis for
Fatigue Evaluation, ASME. (2008) Pressure Vessels Piping Conference 1,2008;
5562.
[4] O. Faure, J.P. Debaene, Nuclear Science and Technology-Codication of LMFBR
Rules and Comparison of Codes, Commission of the European Communities,
1993.
[5] C. Slagis Gerry, Meaning of Ke in Design-by-Analysis Fatigue Evaluation ASME
2005 Pressure Vessels and Piping Conference 3, (2005) 443450.
[6] AFCEN, Design and Construction Rules for Mechanical Components for the
FBR Nuclear Islands, RCC-MR, Section 1, Subsection Z, (2007) Edition.
[7] ASME, Rules for Construction of Nuclear Facility Components, Section III,
Division 1, Appendix I, (2007) Edition.
[8] ITER Organization, ITER Material Properties Handbook, ITER, 2008.
[9] M.N. Sviridenko, et al., STrength analysis results for the RF modied option of
the shielding block for ITER blanket module, Fusion Eng. Des. 85 (2010)
13541361.
[10] ITER Organization, Blanket FDR Protocol, ITER, 2013.
[11] ITER Organization, Blanket FDR Structural Integrity Report, ITER, 2013.