Proceedings of PVP2009 2009 ASME Pressure Vessels and Piping Division Conference July 26- 30, 2009, Prague,

Czech Republic

PVP2009-77915

STUDY OF THE EFFECTS OF ENVIRONMENT IN THE FATIGUE ANALYSIS ON EXISTING LWR AS PROPOSED IN USNRC RG 1.207
Eugene Tom, Milton Dong and Dr. Hong Ming Lee
Unisont Engineering, Inc. Oakland, California, USA Phone: 510-338-4208 Fax: 510-832-8858 E-Mail: mdong@unisont.com

ABSTRACT
US NRC Regulatory Guide 1.207 Rev. 0 provides guidance for use in determining the acceptable fatigue life of ASME pressure boundary components, with consideration of the light-water reactor (LWR) environment. Because of significant conservatism in quantifying other plant-related variables (such as cyclic behavior, including stress and loading rates) involved in cumulative fatigue life calculations, the design of the current fleet of reactors is satisfactory. For new plants under design and current operating plants considering applying for License Renewal, the environment effects may need to be considered in the design. RG 1.207 proposes using an environmental correction factor (Fen) to account for LWR environments by correcting the fatigue usage calculated with the ASME air curves. The Fen method is presented in NUREG/CR-6909, Effect of LWR Coolant Environments on the Fatigue Life of Reactor Materials. By definition, Fen is the ratio of fatigue life of the component material at room temperature air environments to its fatigue life in LWR coolant at operating temperature. To incorporate environmental effects into the fatigue evaluation, the fatigue usage is calculated using provisions set forth in Section III of the ASME Code, and is adjusted by multiplying a correction factor. The calculated Fen values are then used to incorporate environmental effects into ASME fatigue usage factor evaluation. Once the environmental correction factors have been determined, the previously calculated allowable number of cycles for each load set pair based on the current Code fatigue design curve can be adjusted to determine the new fatigue usage factors for environmental effects. This paper presents a study of the effect of the Regulatory Guide if it is to be implemented on the current fleet of LWR. A quick assessment of the sensitivity of the various environmental parameters is also included in this paper. The comparison of environmental effects between the simplified approach in this paper and the results with detailed computer analyses, such as Unisonts propriety computer code UPIPENB (Ref. 4), will be our next research project to be presented in the future conference.

Copyright 2009 by ASME

NOMENCLATURE
ASME CUF DO Fen Nij Nall Nadj Nnew NRTair Nwater OBE OD S SRV Salt Sp t T Tavg U Unew = American Society of Mechanical Engineers = Cumulative Usage Factor = Dissolved Oxygen in Water = Strain Rate = Environmental Correction Factor = Actual no. of Cycles for Load Set Pair (i-j) = Allowable no. of Cycles = Adjusted Allowable no. of Cycles with Environmental Correction Factor = Allowable no. of Cycles based on New Design Curve = Allowable no. of Cycles in air at room temperature = Allowable no. of Cycles in water at service temperature = Operating Basis Earthquake = Pipe Outside Diameter = Sulfur Content in Steel = Safety Relief Valve Actuation = Alternating Stress Intensity = Peak Stress Intensity = Pip Thickness = Pipe Temperature = Average Temperature of the load set pair (i-j) = Usage Factor = Adjusted Usage Factor

found to be acceptable for used with the procedure in RG 1.207 to determine the fatigue life of these materials, since their use will yield conservative results. This paper presents the results for performing such analyses on a typical operating power plant system.

ANALYSIS APPROACH
Only the types of stress cycles or load set pairs that exceed strain threshold criteria for carbon and low-alloy steels, austenitic stainless steel, and Ni-Cr-Fe alloys need to be considered for Fen calculations. The evaluation options depend on the complexity of the analyzed transient condition and the detail of the evaluation. For example, in an evaluation in which the results of detailed transient analyses are available to determine the necessary parameters (strain rate, temperature, and others), the modified rate approach (presented in Section 4.2.14 of NUREG/CR-6909, Ref. 2) is an acceptable method for determining the Fen values. This method involves a strain-based integral for evaluating conditions for which temperature and strain rate change, resulting in the variation of Fen over time. This detailed approach calculates the Fen values based on the strain history for each load set in the fatigue analysis evaluation, considering the effects of strain rate and temperature variations for each incremental segment in the strain history. Such results may be used to reduce conservatism in the calculated Fen values. For simplified calculation yielding a more conservative result for a complex or well defined set of transients, the use of temperature is equal to the average temperature in the transient or segment. The calculated Fen values are then used to incorporate environmental effects into ASME fatigue usage factor evaluation. As most transients are fairly complex, the detailed evaluation is beyond the scope of this paper. Currently, most of the commercial piping computer codes used for preparing stress report do not contain a capability to evaluate the effects of environment on the calculated usage factors using the provisions set forth in Section III of the ASME Code (Ref. 3). Hence, the simplified approach will be used and the results due to environment components will be discussed in this paper. The effects of reactor coolant environments on fatigue life have also been expressed in terms of environmental fatigue correction factor, Fen, which is defined as the ratio of life in air at room temperature, NRTair, to that in water at service temperature, Nwater. Values of Fen can be obtained from the ANL fatigue life model, where: ln(Fen) = ln(NRTair) - ln(Nwater) (Equation 26 in Ref. 2) The environmental fatigue correction factor for carbon steels is given by (equation 27 in Ref. 2):

INTRODUCTION
RG 1.207 proposes using an environmental correction factor (Fen) to account for LWR environments by correcting the fatigue usage calculated with the ASME air curves. The Fen method is presented in NUREG/CR-6909, Effect of LWR Coolant Environments on the Fatigue Life of Reactor Materials (Ref. 2). In developing the underlying models, researchers from Argonne National Laboratory (ANL) analyzed existing data to predict fatigue lives as a function of temperature, strain rate, dissolved oxygen level in water, and sulfur content of the steel. By definition, Fen is the ratio of fatigue life of the component material at room temperature air environments to its fatigue life in LWR coolant at operating temperature. To incorporate environmental effects into the fatigue evaluation, the fatigue usage is calculated using provisions set forth in Section III of the ASME Code (Ref. 3), and is multiplied by the correction factor. In addition, NUREG/CR-6909 provides new stainless steel air design curve due to the non-conservatism of the current ASME Code design curve for austenitic stainless steel. The existing ASME air curves for carbon and low-alloy steels are

Copyright 2009 by ASME

 = ln(0.0004/0.4) Fen = exp(0.632 - 0.101 S* T* O* *), and for low-alloy steels, by (equation 28 in Ref. 2): Fen = exp(0.702 - 0.101 S* T* O* *), Where the constants S*, T*, O*, and * are defined as followed: S* = 0.015 S* = 0.001 S* = S S* = 0.015 T* = 0 T* = T-150 O* = 0 O* = ln(DO/0.04) O* = ln(12.5) * = 0 * = ln(E) * = ln(0.001) (DO >1.0 ppm) (DO 1.0 ppm and S 0.001 wt,%) (DO 1.0 ppm and 0.001< S 0.015 wt,%) (DO 1.0 ppm and S > 0.015 wt,%) (T150 oC) (150< T 350 oC) (DO0.04 ppm) (0.04 ppm < DO 0.5 ppm) (DO > 0.5 ppm) ( > 1%/s) (0.001 1%/s) ( < 0.001%/s)

( < 0.0004%/s)

Once the environmental correction factors have been determined, the previously calculated allowable number of cycles for each load set pair based on the current Code fatigue design curve can be adjusted to determine the new fatigue usage factors for environmental effects. Some of the piping computer code is available commercially to calculate the usage factors based on ASME Section III, Subsection NB3650 requirements. The computer code used for the fatigue evaluation in this study is Unisonts UPIPENB (ref. 4).

APPLICATION AND EXAMPLE

A typical feed water (FW) system of a nuclear power plant was selected. The FW system selected is based on a BWR plant. The portion of the piping considered is from the containment penetration to the reactor nozzles. The piping system consist of a 24 inch header and branches out to 3 lines consisting of 12 inch pipe connecting to the RPV nozzles (Figure 1). The piping segment considered in the study is at the 24 inch pipe header located at the containment penetration. The properties of the 24 inch carbon steel pipe are 1.531 inch thick of SA-333 Gr 6 material. The applicable load sets with the number of cycles and pipe temperatures are shown in Table 1. The calculated usage factors for all significant load set pairs are shown in Table 3. Four cases were chosen for this study. First case considered sulfur content of 0.01% by weight, dissolved oxygen in water of 0.4 ppm, and strain rate < 0.001 %/s. Second case considered sulfur content > 0.015% by weight (worst case scenario) and all other parameters remain the same as case 1. Third case considered sulfur content of > 0.015% by weight, dissolved oxygen in water of 0.3 ppm, and strain rate of 0.01%/s. Finally the fourth case considered sulfur content > 0.015% by weight, dissolved oxygen > 0.5 ppm, and strain rate < 0.001%/s (worst case scenario for all parameters). The third and fourth cases are used to determine the sensitivity of dissolved oxygen and strain rate. These two parameters are usually not readily available. Sulfur content can be obtained from certified material test report or equivalent source. If value is unknown, then its value can be assumed as the maximum value specified in the procurement specification or applicable construction code. Our study also investigates the effect of new air curve for stainless steel pipe. Three cases were also selected for the reasons of determining the sensitivity of strain rate on the correction factor since all other variables are pretty much fixed (i.e., temperature and dissolved oxygen). First case (case no. 5) considered strain rate of < 0.0004 %/s (worst case scenario). Second case (case no. 6) considered strain rate of 0.01%/s. Finally the third case (case no. 7) considered strain rate of

The environmental fatigue correction factor for stainless steels is given by (equation 38 in Ref. 2): Fen = exp(0.734 T O ), Where the constants T. O, and E are defined as followed: T = 0 T = (T-150)/175 T = 1 O = 0.281 = 0 = ln(/0.4) (T < 150 oC) (150 T <325 oC) (T 325 oC) (all DO levels) ( > 0.4%/s) (0.0004 0.4%/s)

Copyright 2009 by ASME

0.1%/s. These cases are used to determine the sensitivity of strain rate. Dissolved oxygen used for all cases is 0.281 ppm. The strain rates are usually not readily available. If value is unknown, then a worst case value of < 0.0004%/s can be assumed for conservatism. A typical Reactor Recirculation Loop pipe was considered. The piping segment considered in the study is at the 12 inch nominal diameter pipe segment located adjacent to the Reactor Vessel nozzle. The properties of the 12 inch stainless steel pipe are 0.711 inch thick of SA358 Gr.TP304 material. The applicable load sets with the number of cycles and pipe temperatures are shown in Table 2. The calculated usage factors for all significant load set pairs are shown in Table 4. New design fatigue curves are used in the study. Figure 2 shows a comparison of the new curve to the old curve for carbon steel. Also, the curve is cut off at N = 106 (allowable cycles). NUREG/CR-6906 provided data up to 1011. At all stress amplitudes, the previous curve envelopes the new curve. Figure 3 shows a comparison of the new curve to the previous curve for stainless steel. As can be seen in the comparison at low stress amplitudes, the previous curve are under estimating the fatigue usage.

DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
Table 5 shows the calculated environment correction factors, adjusted allowable stress cycles, and usage factors due to the environmental effects for Case 1 at all dominating load set pairs. The maximum calculated environment correction factor is 8.811 for load set (12-15). This does not represent the maximum increase in the usage factor. The maximum ratio of the new fatigue usage factor to the old fatigue usage factor is 2.9824 for load set (5-22). Note that some of these ratios are less than 1 due to use of the less conservative new design fatigue curve proposed in NUREG/CR-6909. The new CUF with environmental effects is now 0.0873 vs. 0.0718 without environmental effects. This represented an increase of 22% in the CUF. Table 6 shows the calculated environment correction factors, adjusted allowable stress cycles, and usage factors for environmental effects for Case 2 at all significant load set pairs. The maximum calculated environment correction factor is 19.0678 for load set (12-15). This does not represent the maximum increase in the usage factor. The maximum ratio of the new fatigue usage factor to the old fatigue usage factor is 6.3117 for load set (5-22). The new CUF with environmental effects is now 0.0873 vs. 0.1468 without environmental effects. This represented an increase of 105% in the CUF. Table 7 shows the calculated environment correction factors, adjusted allowable stress cycles, and usage factors for environmental effects for Case 3 at all significant load set pairs. The maximum calculated environment correction factor

is 7.2652 for load set (12-15). The maximum ratio of the new fatigue usage factor to the old fatigue usage factor is 2.6002 for load set (2-2). The new CUF with environmental effects is now 0.0768 vs. 0.0718 without environmental effects. This represented an increase of 7% in the CUF. Table 8 shows the calculated environment correction factors, adjusted allowable stress cycles, and usage factors for environmental effects for Case 4 at all significant load set pairs. The maximum calculated environment correction factor is 23.8658 for load set (12-15). The maximum ratio of the new fatigue usage factor to the old fatigue usage factor is 7.8488 for load set (5-22). The new CUF with environmental effects is now 0.0873 vs. 0.1726 without environmental effects. This represented an increase of 140% in the CUF. Table 9 shows the calculated environment correction factors, adjusted allowable stress cycles, and usage factors for environmental effects for Case 5 at all dominating load set pairs. The maximum calculated environment correction factor is 5.6361 for load set (3-9). The maximum ratio of the new fatigue usage factor to the old fatigue usage factor is 20.0438 for load set 3-9). The new CUF with environmental effects is now 0.0195 vs. 0.0854 without environmental effects. This represented an increase of 338% in the CUF. Table 10 shows the calculated environment correction factors, adjusted allowable stress cycles, and usage factors for environmental effects for Case 6 at all significant load set pairs. The maximum calculated environment correction factor is 3.5447 for load set (3-9). The maximum ratio of the new fatigue usage factor to the old fatigue usage factor is 12.6061 for load set (3-9). The new CUF with environmental effects is now 0.0195 vs. 0.0735 without environmental effects. This represented an increase of 277% in the CUF. Table 11 shows the calculated environment correction factors, adjusted allowable stress cycles, and usage factors for environmental effects for Case 7 at all dominating load set pairs. The maximum calculated environment correction factor is 2.544 for load set (3-9). The maximum ratio of the new fatigue usage factor to the old fatigue usage factor is 9.0472 for load set (3-9). The new CUF with environmental effects is now 0.0195 vs. 0.0675 without environmental effects. This represented an increase of 246% in the CUF. In summary, the environmental effects can be quite significant. In our study, for carbon steel pipe the adjusted CUF increase ranges from 7% to 140% and for stainless steel pipe the adjusted CUF increase ranges from 246% to 338%. The impact on carbon steel pipe is less severe as a result of less conservative air curves used. If the parameters such as sulfur content, dissolved oxygen in water and strain rate are well defined, then the conservatism can be reduced. For stainless steel pipe the impact is more severe. It is due in part as a result of the under conservatism in the old fatigue curve. In addition from the study the pipe temperature plays a significant part in the correction

Copyright 2009 by ASME

factor. At average temperature greater than 150 oC (302 oF), the effect of temperature affecting the CUF increases as the temperature increases. Thus, the effects of environment on the fatigue life can not be ignored.

incremental segment in the strain history of calculating Fen values which could require extensive manual calculations that would best suited for future development of UPIPENB.

REFERENCES CONCLUSIONS
The environment effects on the fatigue life in LWR can be determined with a simplified approach based on an environmental correction factor. In our examples, conservative values of dissolved oxygen in water and strain rate were used. By using all these conservatism, the calculated maximum increase in the CUF is 140% for carbon steel and 338% for stainless steel. If realistic parameters are available, these increases will be substantially reduced. Detailed testing may be required to determine the dissolved oxygen in water. From our study the adjusted CUFs considering the environmental effects have increase significantly, but still within the usage allowable of 1.0. A detailed approach calculating the Fen values based on the strain history for each load set in the fatigue analysis evaluation modified rate approach (presented in Section 4.2.14 of NUREG/CR-6909, Ref. 2) can be used to reduce conservatism. However, this detailed evaluation considered the effects of strain rate and temperature variations for each 1. Regulatory Guide 1.207, Guidelines for Evaluation Fatigue Analyses Incorporating the Life Reduction of Metal Components due to the Effects of the LightWater Reactor Environment for New Reactors, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, March 2007. NUREG/CR-6909, Effect of LWR Coolant Environments on Fatigue Life of Reactor Materials (Final Report), ANL-06/08, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, February 2007. ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section III, Rules for Construction of Nuclear Power Plant Components, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York, NY 1992. UPIPENB Computer Code, Version 0.001, 2009, Unisont Engineering, Inc., Oakland California

2.

3.

4.

FIGURES AND TABLES

Carbon Steel Fatigue Curve

1000
new old

S alt (ksi)

100

10

1 1.E+00 1.E+01 1.E+02 1.E+03 1.E+04 1.E+05 1.E+06 Allowable Cycle

Figure 1: Typical Feed Water System inside Containment

Figure 2. New vs. Old Design Fatigue Curve for Carbon Steel

Copyright 2009 by ASME

Stainless Steel Fatigue Curve

1000
old

S alt (ksi)

100
new

10

1 1.E+01

1.E+02

1.E+03

1.E+04

1.E+05

1.E+06

Allowable Cycles

Figure 3. New vs. Old Design Fatigue Curve for Stainless Steel TABLE 1. Load Sets Considered for Feed Water - Carbon Steel Pipe
Load Set No. Load Set Description No. of Cycles Temp. ( oF)

TABLE 2. Load Sets Considered for Recirculation - Stainless Steel Pipe Load Set No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Load Set Description Leak Test Start Up 1 Start Up 2 Turbine Trip Partial FW Heater T.G Trip Down T.G Trip Up T.G Trip +(SRV+OBE) T.G Trip -(SRV+OBE) Shut Down 1 Down Shut Down 1 - Up Shut Down 2 Emergency Faulted Design Cool Down T.G Trip +(SRV) T.G TRIP-(SRV) No. of Cycles 130 120 300 80 80 180 180 50 50 111 111 111 0 0 0 120 48635 48635 Temp. ( oF) 100 551 527 495 527 400 551 551 400 80 337 337 575 575 575 70 551 527

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29

Leak Test OBE Range Startup-1 Up Startup-1 Down Startup-2 Daily Power Down Daily Power Up Weekly Power Down Weekly Power Up Turbine Trip Down Turbine Trip Up Partial FW Heater Down Partial FW Heater Up Turbine Gen. Trip Down Turbine Gen. Trip Up T.G. + (SRV+OBE) T.G. - (SRV+OBE) T.G. + SRV T.G. - SRV Shutdown-1 Down Shutdown-1 Up Shutdown-2 Down Shutdown-2 Up Emergency Faulted Design Cooldown SRV Cycling Up SRV Cycling Down

130 45 120 120 120 10400 10400 2000 2000 10 10 70 70 180 180 5 5 130 130 111 111 555 555 0 0 0 120 48505 48505

100 420 551 90 420 354 420 324 420 100 420 265 420 100 420 420 100 420 100 265 551 100 551 551 551 575 70 420 100 6

Copyright 2009 by ASME

TABLE 3.
Existing Cumulative Fatigue Factors for Each Load Set Pairs (CS FW Pipe) load set i j 10 11 14 16 14 18 14 15 12 15 15 17 15 22 13 22 22 27 5 22 7 22 4 7 2 2 Tavg ( oF) 310 310 310 310 475 470 470 470 135 470 470 300 420 Sp (psi) 148.338 109.902 100.457 96.392 81.82 75.226 69.379 61.974 49.196 47.936 37.205 31.845 27.405 Salt (psi) 74.169 54.951 50.229 48.196 40.910 37.613 34.690 30.987 24.598 23.968 18.603 15.923 13.703 Nij 10 5 130 45 70 5 60 70 120 120 185 120 45 Nall 1382 3366 4437 4996 7972 10207 12984 18164 43981 48754 138620 279485 549937 CUF U 0.0072 0.0015 0.0293 0.0090 0.0088 0.0005 0.0046 0.0039 0.0027 0.0025 0.0013 0.0004 0.0001 0.0718

TABLE 5.
Calculated Fen and Adjusted Usage Factors with S=0.01%, DO=0.4, and <0.001% (CS Case 1) load set i j 10 11 14 16 14 18 14 15 12 15 15 17 15 22 13 22 22 27 5 22 7 22 4 7 2 2 Fen 2.0206 2.0206 2.0206 2.0206 8.8110 8.4265 8.4265 8.4265 1.8814 8.4265 8.4265 1.8814 5.3932 Nnew 3201 9446 12900 14863 26623 36326 48997 78126 120462 137751 1000000 1000000 1000000 Nadj 1584 4675 6384 7356 3022 4311 5815 9271 64029 16347 118674 531528 185420 CUF Unew 0.0063 0.0011 0.0204 0.0061 0.0232 0.0012 0.0103 0.0076 0.0019 0.0073 0.0016 0.0002 0.0002 0.0873 Unew/U 0.8767 0.7131 0.6950 0.6792 2.6383 2.3677 2.2330 1.9591 0.6869 2.9824 1.1681 0.5258 2.9659 1.2161

TABLE 4. Existing Cumulative Fatigue Factors for Each Load Set Pairs (SS Pipe) load set i j 10 11 5 12 8 12 4 16 8 16 3 16 Tavg ( oF) 209 432 444 283 311 299 Sp (psi) 128.045 94.132 89.223 70.897 68.421 66.948 Salt (psi) 64.022 47.066 44.611 35.449 34.210 33.474 Nij 111 80 31 80 19 21 Nall 7407 29506 38270 134914 167266 190775 CUF U 0.015 0.0027 0.0008 0.0006 0.0001 0.0001 0.0195

TABLE 6. Calculated Fen and Adjusted Usage Factors with S>0.015%, DO=0.4, and <0.001% (CS Case 2) load set i j 10 11 14 16 14 18 14 15 12 15 15 17 15 22 13 22 22 27 5 22 7 22 4 7 2 2 Fen 2.0940 2.0940 2.0940 2.0940 19.0678 17.8333 17.8333 17.8333 1.8814 17.8333 17.8333 1.8814 9.1312 Nnew 3201 9446 12900 14863 26623 36326 48997 78126 120462 137751 1000000 1000000 1000000 Nadj 1529 4511 6160 7098 1396 2037 2748 4381 64029 7724 56075 531528 109514 CUF Unew 0.0065 0.0011 0.0211 0.0063 0.0501 0.0025 0.0218 0.0160 0.0019 0.0155 0.0033 0.0002 0.0004 0.1468 Unew/U 0.9086 0.7390 0.7202 0.7039 5.7096 5.0109 4.7257 4.1462 0.6869 6.3117 2.4720 0.5258 5.0216 2.0455

Copyright 2009 by ASME

TABLE 7. Calculated Fen and Adjusted Usage Factors with S>0.015%, DO=0.3, and =0.01% (CS Case 3) load set i j 10 11 14 16 14 18 14 15 12 15 15 17 15 22 13 22 22 27 5 22 7 22 4 7 2 2 Fen 2.0027 2.0027 2.0027 2.0027 7.2652 6.9870 6.9870 6.9870 0.5106 6.9870 6.9870 1.8522 4.7283 Nnew 3201 9446 12900 14863 26623 36326 48997 78126 120462 137751 1000000 1000000 1000000 Nadj 1598 4717 6441 7422 3665 5199 7013 11182 235938 19715 143124 539895 211494 CUF Unew 0.0063 0.0011 0.0202 0.0061 0.0191 0.0010 0.0086 0.0063 0.0005 0.0061 0.0013 0.0002 0.0002 0.0768 Unew/U 0.8689 0.7067 0.6888 0.6732 2.1755 1.9632 1.8515 1.6244 0.1864 2.4729 0.9685 0.5177 2.6002 1.0693

TABLE 9. Calculated Fen and Adjusted Usage Factors with DO=0.281 and <0.0004%/s for SS (Case 5) load set i j 10 11 5 12 8 12 4 16 8 16 3 16 3 9 Fen 2.0834 4.6417 4.9979 2.0834 2.1954 2.0834 5.6361 Nnew 5352 15324 18366 43207 49398 53637 70297 Nadj 2569 3301 3675 20739 22500 25745 12473 CUF Unew 0.0432 0.0242 0.0084 0.0039 0.0008 0.0008 0.0040 0.0854 Unew/U 2.8804 8.9752 10.5453 6.4292 8.4444 8.1569 20.0438 4.3796

TABLE 10. Calculated Fen and Adjusted Usage Factors with DO=0.281 and =0.01%/s for SS (Case 6) load set i j 10 11 5 12 8 12 4 16 8 16 3 16 3 9 Fen 2.0834 3.1957 3.3244 2.0834 2.1425 2.0834 3.5447 Nnew 5352 15324 18366 43207 49398 53637 70297 Nadj 2569 4795 5525 20739 23056 25745 19832 CUF Unew 0.0432 0.0167 0.0056 0.0039 0.0008 0.0008 0.0025 0.0735 Unew/U 2.8804 6.1791 7.0142 6.4292 8.2408 8.1569 12.6061 3.7703

TABLE 8. Calculated Fen and Adjusted Usage Factors with S>0.015%, DO>0.5, and <0.001% (CS Case 4) load set i j 10 11 14 16 14 18 14 15 12 15 15 17 15 22 13 22 22 27 5 22 7 22 4 7 2 2 Fen 2.1159 2.1159 2.1159 2.1159 23.8658 22.1763 22.1763 22.1763 0.1620 22.1763 22.1763 1.8269 10.6418 Nnew 3201 9446 12900 14863 26623 36326 48997 78126 120462 137751 1000000 1000000 1000000 Nadj 1513 4464 6097 7025 1116 1638 2209 3523 743722 6212 45093 547370 93969 CUF Unew 0.0066 0.0011 0.0213 0.0064 0.0627 0.0031 0.0272 0.0199 0.0002 0.0193 0.0041 0.0002 0.0005 0.1726 Unew/U 0.9181 0.7467 0.7278 0.7112 7.1463 6.2312 5.8766 5.1559 0.0591 7.8488 3.0741 0.5106 5.8523 2.4039

TABLE 11. Calculated Fen and Adjusted Usage Factors with DO=0.281 and =0.1%/s for SS (Case 7) load set i j 10 11 5 12 8 12 4 16 8 16 3 16 3 9 Fen 2.0834 2.4468 2.4833 2.0834 2.1054 2.0834 2.5440 Nnew 5352 15324 18366 43207 49398 53637 70297 Nadj 2569 6263 7396 20739 23462 25745 27633 CUF Unew 0.0432 0.0128 0.0042 0.0039 0.0008 0.0008 0.0018 0.0675 Unew/U 2.8804 4.7311 5.2397 6.4292 8.0981 8.1569 9.0472 3.4597

Copyright 2009 by ASME