Design and Integrity Evaluation

of a Finned-Tube Sodium-to-Air
Hyeong-Yeon Lee
Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute,
989-111 Daedeok-Daero,
Yuseong-gu,
Daejeon 34057, South Korea
Hyungmo Kim
Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute,
989-111 Daedeok-Daero,
Yuseong-gu,
Daejeon 34057, South Korea
Jong-Bum Kim
Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute,
989-111 Daedeok-Daero,
Yuseong-gu,
Daejeon 34057, South Korea
Ji-Young Jeong
Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute,
989-111 Daedeok-Daero,
Yuseong-gu,
Daejeon 34057, South Korea
Heat Exchanger in a Sodium
Test Facility
A high-temperature design and an integrity evaluation for a finned-tube sodium-to-air
heat exchanger (FHX) in a sodium test facility were conducted based on full 3D finite-
element analyses, and comparisons of the design codes were made. A model FHX has
been installed in a sodium test facility of sodium thermal-hydraulic experiment loop for
finned-tube sodium-to-air heat exchanger (SELFA) for simulating the thermal hydraulic
behavior of the FHX unit in the prototype Gen IV sodium-cooled fast reactor (PGSFR).
For the design evaluations, ASME Section VIII Div. 2 has been applied for the FHX as a
whole. For parts of the FHX operating in the creep regime, nuclear grade elevated tem-
perature design (ETD) codes of ASME Section III Subsection NH and RCC-MRx were
additionally applied to evaluate the integrity against creep-fatigue damage. For parts of
the FHX operating at low temperature, ASME Section III Subsection NB was applied
additionally to evaluate the integrity upon load-controlled stresses and fatigue. The
integrity of the FHX was confirmed based on the design evaluations as per the design
codes. Code comparisons were made in terms of the chemical compositions, material
properties, and conservatism. The conservatism was quantified and compared at the criti-
cal low temperature location between ASME Section VIII Div. 2 and ASME-NB, and at
the critical high-temperature location between ASME-NH and RCC-MRx.
[DOI: 10.1115/1.4035038]

Keywords: finned-tube heat exchanger, high-temperature integrity, design evaluation,

sodium test facility

1 Introduction experiment loop for finned-tube sodium-to-air heat exchanger),

for simulating the thermal hydraulic behavior of the FHX at the
The generation IV (hereafter, Gen IV) nuclear reactor sys-
KAERI site in February 2016. The model FHX (hereafter M-
tems have improved the design features of sustainability, econom-
FHX) system in the present study has been modified from the M-
ics, safety, and proliferation resistance compared to those of
FHX of the basic design [3] in terms of the mechanical design as
Generation III reactor systems, and are under construction or
well as the thermal hydraulic design.
operation around the world. The Gen IV nuclear reactor system of
In this study, a high-temperature design and integrity evaluation
a sodium-cooled fast reactor (SFR) is operating at a high tempera-
of M-FHX system was conducted. For the integrity evaluation of
ture of the creep regime. It has improved the design features
the SELFA system, ASME Section VIII Division 2 (hereafter,
against severe accidents of the design basis events or design
ASME VIII(2)) [4] has been applied as a whole. In addition,
extended events compared to those of Gen III systems [1].
ASME Section III Division 1 (hereafter, ASME III(1)) Subsec-
There are safety grade decay heat removal systems (DHRSs)
tion NB [5] has been applied in parallel for low temperature parts
operating in an active way and a passive way based on the concept
with ASME VIII(2), while high-temperature design codes of
of the design redundancy and diversity in the prototype Gen IV
ASME Section III Subsection NH [6] and RCC-MRx [7] have
sodium-cooled fast reactor (hereafter PGSFR) under develop-
been applied in parallel with ASME VIII(2) for the test section
ment at the Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute (KAERI)
parts including serpentine sodium tubes and an inlet pipe to the
[1,2]. There are two active decay heat removal systems
test section, which are operating in the creep regime. Integrity
(ADHRSs) and two passive decay heat removal systems
evaluations for a sodium-to-sodium heat exchanger (DHX) and
(PDHRSs) in a PGSFR.
sodium-to-air heat exchanger (AHX) in the sodium test facilities
In an ADHRS, a forced-draft sodium-to-air heat exchanger
of STELLA-1 were conducted in previous studies [8,9]. Studies
(FHX) with a finned tube is connected to a decay heat exchanger
on the structural design and integrity evaluations on sodium-to-
(DHX) located in a sodium pool of the reactor vessel along with
sodium and sodium-to-air heat exchangers in an SFR were con-
the active electromagnetic pump, while a helical tube type
ducted [1012].
sodium-to-air heat exchanger (AHX) is connected to the DHX and
The maximum sodium temperature in the M-FHX is 480  C,
they consist of a natural circulation decay heat removal system in
and the material of the serpentine tubes and other test section parts
the PDHRS. There has been a need to conduct a performance test
was selected as 304 stainless steel, while the sodium inlet pipe to
of the FHX component and a validation of the computer codes
the test section is made of seamless 304L stainless steel. The inlet
that are used in the thermoshydraulic design of the FHX.
pipe and serpentine tubes were subjected to high-temperature ther-
KAERI has completed the design and construction of the sodium
mal loading while the other parts were subjected to low-
test facility on the FHX, called SELFA (sodium thermal-hydraulic
temperature loading.
Code comparisons were made in terms of the chemical compo-
Contributed by the Pressure Vessel and Piping Division of ASME for publication
in the JOURNAL OF PRESSURE VESSEL TECHNOLOGY. Manuscript received June 15, 2016;
sitions and material properties [13,14] for austenitic 316 stainless
final manuscript received October 15, 2016; published online November 4, 2016. steel and Mod.9Cr-1Mo steel (ASME Grade 91) in previous study
Assoc. Editor: Haofeng Chen. [15]. In the present study, similar code comparisons were made

Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology Copyright V

C 2017 by ASME JUNE 2017, Vol. 139 / 031203-1

Downloaded From: http://pressurevesseltech.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/journals/jpvtas/935828/ on 01/06/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org

 for 304SS and 304L SS that were used as materials in the FHX
systems in terms of the chemical compositions, material proper-
ties, and conservatism.
2 Design Features of Finned-Tube Heat Exchanger
2.1 Decay Heat Removal System in a Sodium Facility. The
reference plant of the SELFA test facility is the prototype sodium-
cooled fast reactor (PGSFR) shown in Fig. 1. This pool type pro-
totype SFR has a capacity of 150 MWe with two loops, and the
core outlet temperature is 545  C [2].
Reliable decay heat removal under any kind of severe accident
is of upmost importance, which is why the decay heat removal
system (DHRS) is classified as a safety-grade system. There are
two kinds of DHRS, active DHRS (ADHRS) with FHX (forced-
draft sodium-to-air heat exchanger) and passive DHRS (PDHRS)
with AHX (natural-draft sodium-to-air heat exchanger) in a
PGSFR, based on the design concept of diversity and redundancy
as shown in Fig. 2.
2.2 Design Features of Sodium-to-Air Heat Exchanger,
FHX. The finned-tube sodium-to-air heat exchanger, FHX in the
PGSFR has the shape of four-pass serpentine (M-shape) tube
arrangements, as shown in Fig. 3, to enhance its heat transfer per-
formance [3].
The design parameters of the FHX in the PGSFR and SELFA
are compared in Table 1. It was shown through the design parame-
ters of the thermal capacity that the number of tubes has a scale
factor of 8, while tube pitch, tube dimensions, and fin dimen-
sions have been preserved. The numbers of heat transfer tubes in
the PGSFR and SELFA are 96 and 21, respectively, as shown in
Table 1. A schematic of the FHX in the PGSFR is shown in
Fig. 3(a) and that in the SELFA test facility is shown in Fig. 3(b).
A separate effect sodium test facility of FHX, called SELFA
(sodium thermal-hydraulic experiment loop for finned-tube
sodium-to-air heat exchanger), was installed at the KAERI site in
February 2016. The SELFA sodium facility was constructed for
verification and validation of a computer code for the design and
thermal-hydraulic performances of the FHX. The sodium flows
inside the piping system and the serpentine tubes, while air flows
in an upward direction outside of the tubes from the forced circu-
lation as shown in Fig. 4.
A 3D image of the SELFA facility is shown in Fig. 5, where the
model FHX (hereafter M-FHX) is installed in the dotted red box
of Fig. 5. Both tubes in the PGSFR and SELFA have the same
outside diameter of 34 mm and thickness of 1.65 mm as shown in
Fig. 1 Schematic of prototype Generation IV sodium-cooled fast reactor (PGSFR)
031203-2 / Vol. 139, JUNE 2017
Downloaded From: http://pressurevesseltech.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/journals/jpvtas/935828/ on 01/06/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org
Table 1. All of the serpentine tubes have helical fins over the
straight tube parts with a density of 152 fins per meter. The actual
finned-tube shapes after fabrication are shown in Fig. 6. The M-
FHX has seven columns and 21 tubes in the central part as shown
in Table 1.
The tube material of the FHX in the PGSFR is Mod.9Cr-
1Mo(T91) steel, whereas that in the M-FHX was selected to be
304 stainless steel. Since the dominant heat transfer resistance
from sodium in the tubes to the ultimate heat sink of air is
convection, which occupies more than 97% from the total heat
removal [16], conduction through the tubes and fins are negligible
when compared to convection. Therefore, the materials of the
tube, fin, and outer shell in the M-FHX need not be preserved, and
were selected as 304SS, which has better characteristics in terms
of the welding and fabrication compared to T91.
In the meantime, the material of the pipe in the SELFA loop
has been selected as 304L stainless steel because of difficulty in
the procurement of the 304SS seamless pipe material. The pipe
connecting the upper chamber and the pipe connecting the lower
chamber are 304L SS, while the material of the other parts in the
M-FHX test section is 304SS.
The M-FHX test section installed in the SELFA test facility is
shown in Fig. 7, where bent tubes on both the right and left sides
are shown. Heat tracing elements are seen in Fig. 7 over the cen-
tral front outer shell and the heat tracing elements are used for
preheating of the M-FHX up to 200  C before commencing the
main tests.
3 Finite-Element Analysis of M-FHX
3.1 Finite-Element Modeling. The model FHX in the SELFA
test facility has been designed using a 3D CAD tool and the 3D
model was transferred to ABAQUS [17] in input form. Figure 8 shows
the FE model of M-FHX along with the frame and tube bundles.
M-FHX including 21-tube bundle, upper and lower chambers,
outer shell structure were fully modeled in the 3D FE model as
shown in Fig. 8. The total number of nodes was 2,150,133 and the
total number of elements (DC3D8 element for heat transfer and
C3D8R element [17] for the thermal stress analysis) was
1,540,300. The fin part of the tube was not modeled because the
present FE model without the fin part is already a huge FE model.
However, the fin effect in the finned tube was taken into account by
considering equivalent heat transfer area. The outer surface area of
the finned tube is eight times higher than that of bare tube. So the
finned-tube part was modeled with bare tube with heat transfer
coefficient eight times of the bare tube. Since the finned tube is
Transactions of the ASME
 Fig. 2 Schematic of active decay heat removal system (ADHRS) concept in PGSFR

applied only over the straight tube parts, the stress level of the
finned-tube part was relatively low compared to that of curved part
or welded joint of tube-to-chamber junction. Table 1 Comparison of design parameters for FHX in PGSFR
The M-FHX will be operated at low pressure and high and SELFA test loop
temperature. The intended test matrix on the thermohydraulic
FHX M-FHX
Design parameters (PGSFR) (SELFA) Ratio

Thermal duty (MWt) 2.5 0.3125 1/8

No. of tube columns 32 7 1/8
No. of tubes 96 21 1/8
Tube pitch, PL/D and PT/D 2.05/2.5 2.05/2.5 1/1
Tube material T91 304SS
Tube OD/ID (mm) 34.0/30.7 34.0/30.7 1/1
Thickness (mm) 1.65 1.65 1/1
Finned-tube length (m) 8.000 7.722 0.965
Fin height (mm) 15.0 15.0 1/1
Fin thickness (mm) 1.5 1.5 1/1
Tube inclined angle (deg) 7.2 7.2 1/1
No. of fin (per unit length, m) 152 157.48 0.965
Spacing between fins (mm) 5.08 4.85 0.955
Total fin surface area (m2) 656.34 82.04 1/8
Total no. of fins per single 1216 1216 1/1
tube (EA)
Fig. 3 Schematics of FHX (a) FHX (PGSFR), (b) FHX_1 (SELFA), Frontal area (W  D, m) 1.984  2.763 1.984  0.383 1/8
and (c) FHX_2(SELFA)

Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology JUNE 2017, Vol. 139 / 031203-3

Downloaded From: http://pressurevesseltech.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/journals/jpvtas/935828/ on 01/06/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org


Fig. 4 Configurations of the test section in the SELFA test
facility
tests is shown in Table 2, which shows that the maximum tem-
perature of sodium in M-FHX is 480  C, and the next highest
temperature is 380  C. Since the material of M-FHX is 304SS, a
high-temperature effect due to creep needs to be considered for
Fig. 5 Three-dimensional image of the SELFA test facility
Fig. 6 Shape of finned tubes in M-FHX
031203-4 / Vol. 139, JUNE 2017
Downloaded From: http://pressurevesseltech.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/journals/jpvtas/935828/ on 01/06/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org
the parts whose wall temperature exceeds 427  C [18] or 425  C
[19].
As the loading conditions, the design transients for the sodium
side (at the inlet of the upper chamber) was assumed as in
Fig. 9(a) over a temperature range of 200480  C. The rates for the
heating and cooling were conservatively assumed to be 100  C/h.
The design transients for the air side (shell side) were assumed, as
shown in Fig. 9(b), over the temperature range of 20290  C.
As boundary conditions, the lower frame surface connecting
the points CDEF in Fig. 8 was vertically fixed (z-direction)
because the lower surface of the outer frame is to be supported on
a floor. The piping-cut surface of A and B in Fig. 8 connecting
upper chamber and lower chamber, respectively, was also verti-
cally fixed. In addition, a line connecting point C and point D was
fixed horizontally in y-direction, and a line connecting point E and
point F (opposite point of E in y-direction) was fixed horizontally
in x-direction as boundary conditions for the present finite-
element analyses. The heat transfer conditions of the M-FHX
were simplified as shown in Fig. 10. The bulk fluid temperatures
were assumed to vary linearly from 480  C (upper chamber) to
288  C (lower chamber) on the sodium side, whereas the air tem-
peratures were assumed to vary linearly from 290  C (upper cham-
ber part) to 20  C (lower chamber part) in the shell.
3.2 Distribution of Temperatures and Stresses. A heat
transfer analysis was conducted by taking the design transients of
Fig. 9 into account using the full 3D FE model of Fig. 8. The over-
all temperature distributions of the M-FHX test section at 35 min
after the heat-up started are shown in Fig. 11(a), whereas those for
Transactions of the ASME
 Fig. 7 Test section part with bent tubes in M-FHX

Fig. 8 Finite-element model of M-FHX test section

Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology JUNE 2017, Vol. 139 / 031203-5

Downloaded From: http://pressurevesseltech.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/journals/jpvtas/935828/ on 01/06/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org

 Table 2 Test matrix of M-FHX

Tube-side (sodium) Sodium Sodium Sodium Sodium Sodium Sodium

flowrate: flowrate: flowrate: flowrate: flowrate: flowrate:
0.99 kg/s 1.06 kg/s 1.25 kg/s 1.50 kg/s 2.19 kg/s (design point) 4.38 kg/s

Shell-side (air) Inlet Inlet Inlet Inlet Inlet Inlet Inlet Inlet
sodium sodium sodium sodium sodium sodium sodium sodium
temp: temp: temp: temp: temp: temp: temp: temp:
187  C 380  C 186  C 366  C 200  C 335  C 480  C 335  C

Inlet air temp: 20  C Air flowrate: 0.12 kg/s

Air flowrate: 0.28 kg/s
Air flowrate: 0.5 kg/s
Air flowrate: 0.65 kg/s
Air flowrate: 0.71 kg/s
Air flowrate: 1.0 kg/s
Air flowrate: 1.70 kg/s (design point)
Air flowrate: 2.50 kg/s
Air flowrate: 3.00 kg/s
Air flowrate: 3.40 kg/s

7 h after the heat-up started are shown in Fig. 11(b), which shows A stress analysis taking the temperature distributions into
a gradual temperature increase as the time elapses, and the tem- account was conducted for the M-FHX. In the present study, lin-
perature reached almost 480  C at the inlet sodium tubes of the M- ear elastic stress analyses were conducted for design evaluations
FHX. It was shown that the temperatures of FHX frame and outer of both high-temperature and low-temperature components. For
shell of the test section were quite low compared to those of the
tube bundles as shown in Figs. 11 and 12. The temperature distri-
butions of the tube bundle and chambers are shown in Fig. 12,
which shows the temperature gradients of the tube bundles along
the vertical direction.

Fig. 9 Design transients of the M-FHX

Fig. 11 Heat transfer analysis results of the SELFA test section

Fig. 10 Heat transfer condition of the M-FHX (unit:  C) (a) t 5 35 min and (b) t 5 7 h

031203-6 / Vol. 139, JUNE 2017 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://pressurevesseltech.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/journals/jpvtas/935828/ on 01/06/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org


Fig. 12 Temperature distribution of the tube structure in M-
FHX (t 5 7 h) (unit:  C)
Fig. 13 Stress analysis results of the FHX frame (t 5 35 min,
130.2  C) (unit: MPa)
the components subjected to high-temperature load, design evalu-
ations were conducted as per elastic analysis procedures of the
ETD codes [6,7], which simulate nonlinear behaviors of the com-
ponent with introduction of the various coefficients based on lin-
ear elastic finite-element analysis. Creep-fatigue damage and
inelastic deformation were evaluated according to the elastic anal-
ysis procedures of the ETD codes in the present study.
The stress distributions of M-FHX at t 35 min show that the
maximum stress intensity (S.I) at the part indicated with the red
arrow in Fig. 13 was 431.9 MPa. Stress profiles for the tube bundle
at t 7 h are shown in Fig. 14, and the maximum S.I was
251.60 MPa. In the meantime, more detailed stress distributions
for the tube bundle and the upper and lower chambers show that
the stress magnitude is quite low with a maximum S.I of
71.42 MPa at the lower chamber as shown in Figs. 15 and 16. The
stress intensities of the outer shell at t 35 min and t 7 h were
relatively low with maximum S.I of 172.58 MPa compared to
FHX frame and tube bundle as shown in Fig. 17.
4 Design Codes for Integrity Evaluations
4.1 Design Codes Applied in Integrity Evaluations. The
integrity evaluation of the model FHX was conducted using
Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology
Downloaded From: http://pressurevesseltech.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/journals/jpvtas/935828/ on 01/06/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org
Fig. 14 Stress analysis results of the tube bundle (t 5 7 h,
479.83  C) (unit: MPa)
Fig. 15 Stress analysis results of the tube bundle of M-FHX
under combined primary and secondary loads (t 5 7 h,
430.07  C) (unit: MPa)
elevated temperature design codes of ASME-NH and RCC-
MRx in addition to ASME VIII(2) for hot spots operating in
the creep regime, and the evaluation results were compared.
As for the low-temperature parts, evaluations were
conducted by ASME Section VIII(2) and ASME Section III
Division 1 Subsection NB, and the evaluation results were
compared. Code comparisons were also made in terms of the
chemical compositions, material properties [14,15], and
conservatism.
4.2 Chemical Compositions. The material of serpentine
tubes and other test section parts is 304SS while the material of
sodium inlet and outlet pipe to the test section is seamless 304L
stainless steel. Chemical compositions of the 304SS and 304L SS
in design codes [18,19], and those of the mill sheets for M-FHX
are provided in Table 3. There are a few aspects to note in
Table 3.
The first thing to note is there are two 304SSs in the ASME
code: 304SS registered in the ASME-NH for the elevated temper-
ature design, and another 304SS registered in ASME Section II
Part A (hereafter ASME II-A) for the low temperature design,
which are apparently different in terms of their chemical composi-
tions such as carbon, sulfur, and silicon, as shown in Table 3, as
well as their material properties.
Second, it should also be noted that 304SS in the tube and shell
of the mill sheet is closer to that of ASME-NH, rather than those
of ASME II-A or RCC-MRx as shown in Table 3.
Third, the carbon content, which has a great influence on the
material strengths in 304SS of ASME II-A and RCC-MRx is the
same (0.08%), while the carbon content of 304L SS is 0.035% in
ASME II-A and 0.03% in RCC-MRx [19].
JUNE 2017, Vol. 139 / 031203-7
 Fig. 16 Stress analysis results of upper and lower chamber of
M-FHX under combined loads (t 5 7 h, lower chamber max:
479.54  C) (unit: MPa) (a) upper chamber and (b) lower chamber

4.3 Comparison of Material Properties. The M-FHX mate- Fig. 17 Stress analysis results of the outer shell in M-FHX
rial of 304SS and SELFA pipe material of 304L SS were com- (unit: MPa) (a) t 5 35 min and (b) t 5 7 h
pared with those of the design codes in terms of the yield strength
(hereafter YS) and tensile strength (hereafter TS) as shown in
In the application of ASME Section VIII(2), the maximum
Table 4. The strength properties of 304SS in ASME Section II
allowable stress, S, is used instead of the design stress intensity,
Part D [13] (hereafter, ASME II-D) of Table 4 are the properties
Sm, which is used in the design evaluation of a nuclear grade as
corresponding to 304SS of ASME II-A in Table 3.
per ASME Section III Division 1.
When comparing the material properties of 304SS and 304L SS
The maximum allowable stress, S, in the design-by-analysis
in ASME II-D, the strength values of 304L are lower by up to
(DBA) (Part 5) of ASME VIII(2) for low temperature application
16.9% for the yield strength and 6.6% for the tensile strength
is determined to be the lowest of the following [14]:
compared with those of 304SS in the ASME code of Table 4,
which is mainly influenced by the low carbon contents in 304L SS
(0.035%) compared to that in 304SS (0.08%). The same trends are
Table 3 Chemical compositions of stainless steel 304 and
observed for YS and TS in the RCC-MRx, as shown in Table 4,
304L in design codes and mill sheets
but the discrepancies of the strength values (YS, TS) between
304SS and 304L SS were smaller in RCC-MRx than those in Grade (design code) C Mn P S Si
ASME II-D as shown in Table 4.
When comparing the material properties in the mill sheets and 304SS (ASME-NH) 0.040.06 1.02.0 0.045 0.02 0.6
the design codes for 304SS, the properties in the mill sheet were 304SS (ASME II-A) 0.08 2.0 0.045 0.03 1.0
60.4% higher for YS and 41.6% higher for TS at room tempera- 304SS (RCC-MRx) 0.08 2.0 0.03 0.015 1.0
ture compared with those of the design codes, which shows con- 304L SS (ASME II-A) 0.035 2.0 0.045 0.03 1.0
servatism of the design codes in terms of material strength. The 304L SS (RCC-MRx) 0.03 2.0 0.03 0.015 1.0
same trends were observed for 304L SS when the strengths of the 304SSa (SELFA-tube) 0.013 1.752 0.032 0.008 0.37
304SSa (SELFA-shell) 0.058 1.09 0.04 0.004 0.45
design codes were compared with those of the mill sheets. 304L SSa (SELFA-pipe) 0.009 1.669 0.034 0.006 0.27
When comparisons were made for the YS and TS values of
304SS in the design codes depending on the temperatures between Cr Ni Mo N B other
the ASME code and RCC-MRx, the YS and TS values in the
ASME code were higher than those in the RCC-MRx as shown in 18.520.0 8.010.0 0.2 0.040.07 0.003 Al 0.05
Figs. 18(a) and 18(b), respectively. The strength values of the 18.020.0 8.0111.0
17.019.0 8.011.0 0.11
ASME code were higher by 8.2% for YS and 1.4% for TS at room
18.020.0 8.0111.0
temperature than those of RCC-MRx as shown in Table 4. The 17.519.5 8.010.0 0.11
design stress intensity values determined from YS and TS were 18.15 8.135
correspondingly higher in the ASME code as shown in Fig. 19. 18.04 8.04
The maximum difference in design stress intensity between the 18.38 9.25
ASME code and RCC-MRx was a maximum of 23.3% at 600  C
a
as shown in Fig. 19. mill sheet.

031203-8 / Vol. 139, JUNE 2017 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://pressurevesseltech.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/journals/jpvtas/935828/ on 01/06/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org

 Table 4 Material strengths of stainless steel 304 and 304L in
design codes and mill sheets

Yield strength (MPa) Tensile strength (MPa)

Grade (code) At RT At 450  C At RT At 450  C

304SS (ASME II-D) 207 114 517 429

304SS (RCC-MRx) 190 103 490 370
304L SS (ASME II-D) 172 98.9 483 377
304L SS (RCC-MRx) 180 85 460 331
304SSa (SELFA-tube) 315 578
304SSa (SELFA-shell) 316 694
304 L SSa (SELFA-pipe) 295 590
a
mill sheet

Fig. 19 Comparison of design stress intensity for 304SS

Fig. 20 Comparison of design stress intensity (Sm) and maxi-

mum allowable stresses (S) for 304L SS

deformation is acceptable. The stress value in this range

Fig. 18 Comparison of material strengths in design codes for
304SS (a) yield strength and (b) tensile strength
The specified minimum tensile strength at room tempera-
ture divided by 2.4.
The specified minimum yield strength divided by 1.5.
The yield strength at temperature divided by 1.5, except for
austenitic stainless steels, high-nickel steels, nickel, and
nickel alloys.
For austenitic stainless steels, owing to their relatively low
yield strength, higher stress values are established at tem-
peratures where the short-time tensile properties govern to
permit the use of these alloys where a slightly greater
exceeds 66 2/3%, but does not exceed 90% yield strength,
but never exceed two-thirds of the specified romp-
temperature minimum yield strength, while the design
stress intensity, Sm, in ASME Section III Division 1 is
determined to be the lowest of the following:
one-third of the specified minimum tensile strength at room
temperature
one-third of the tensile strength at temperature
two-thirds of the specified minimum yield strength at room
temperature
two-thirds of the yield strength at temperature and may be
as high as 90% of the yield strength for austenitic
materials.
A comparison of Sm (ASME Section III(1)) and S (ASME Sec-
tion VIII(2), design-by-analysis) depending on temperature shows
that S is the same as Sm in the ASME codes, but slightly higher
than Sm over a temperature range of higher than 400  C, as shown
in Fig. 20, although the high-temperature material of Sm is avail-
able at only up to 450  C for 304 L. Therefore, it is shown that the
ASME VIII(2) property, S, of the design-by-analysis is slightly
more conservative than Sm of ASME III(1) for a temperature
higher than 400  C.
In addition, it should be noted that the factor on the TS in the
determination of the S value in ASME Section VIII Division 1
(design-by-rule: DBR) is 3.5, and this factor of 3.5 is comparable

Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology JUNE 2017, Vol. 139 / 031203-9

Downloaded From: http://pressurevesseltech.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/journals/jpvtas/935828/ on 01/06/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org

 Fig. 22 Comparison of fatigue strengths in ASME-NH and
RCC-MRx
Fig. 21 Comparison of maximum allowable stresses in ASME
codes and RCC-MRx for 304L stainless steel

with 2.4 in VIII(2) (design-by-analysis: DBA), which means the

maximum allowable values of DBR are more conservative than
those of DBA, but DBR usually requires less stringent nondestruc-
tive examinations. In the case of austenitic stainless steel, which
has a relatively low YS, these values of 3.5 and 2.4 on TS do not
affect the determination of S, but two-thirds of the YS determines
the values such that the S value is the same.
In the case of an elevated temperature design in the creep
regime, the maximum allowable stress, S, is determined as the
lowest value of the following:
100% of the average stress to produce a creep rate of
0.01%/1000 h
100Favg% of the average stress to cause a rupture at the end
of 100,000 h
80% of the minimum stress to cause a rupture at the end of
100,000 h
where Favg is a multiplier applied to the average stress for a rup- Fig. 23 Comparison of creep rupture strengths in stainless
ture in 100,000 h. steel 304 between ASEM-NH and RCC-MRx
A comparison of the S values in the creep range and noncreep
range between the ASME codes (III(1) and VIII(2)) depending on code than in RCC-MRx as shown in Fig. 25. Therefore, the
temperature was made in Fig. 21, which shows that the S values ASME code is more conservative in thermal properties because
of RCC-MRx are lower than those of the ASME codes for temper- the higher thermal expansion coefficients with a lower thermal
atures higher than 300  C. Therefore, the S values of RCC-MRx conductivity will induce higher thermal stresses.
are more conservative than the ASME code values over tempera-
tures higher than 400  C as shown in Fig. 21.
It is important to note that the creep is not directly considered
in the design evaluation procedure as per ASME Section VIII(2), 5 Design Evaluation of M-FHX
but takes the three factors of the creep rate, average stress causing The design evaluations were conducted for the test section of
a rupture, and minimum stress rupture into account as shown M-FHX including the frame structure according to ASME Section
above. In the present study, the elevated temperature design eval- VIII Division 2 as a whole. In addition, because ASME VIII(2)
uations were compared between the evaluation results according does not take creep-fatigue damage into account explicitly, the
to the ETD codes of ASME-NH and RCC-MRx. ETD codes of ASME-NH and RCC-MRx were applied for
In the design evaluation according to the ETD codes, the mate- defense-in-depth to the high temperature part, and code compari-
rial properties of the fatigue strengths and creep rupture strengths sons were made between the codes.
are used. A comparison of the fatigue strengths for 316L SS For low-temperature parts in M-FHX, ASME Section VIII(2)
between ASME-NH and RCC-MRx shows that the RCC-MRx was basically applied for the design evaluations. In addition,
properties are more conservative for low cycle fatigue and less ASME Section III Division 1 Subsection NB was applied to check
conservative for high cycles of over 200,000 as shown in Fig. 22. the load-controlled stress and fatigue analysis. Fatigue evaluations
In the meantime, the creep rupture strengths for 316L SS between in ASME Section VIII(2) are not required from fatigue screening
ASME-NH and RCC-MRx show that the two creep strength data criteria in the case of low numbers of cycles of less than 1000 for
are almost the same as shown in Fig. 23. an integral construction [4]. The number of plant heat-up and
When comparing the thermal properties of 304SS between the cool-down cycles for the SELFA test facility is 500.
ASME code and RCC-MRx, the thermal expansion coefficients of For the high-temperature parts in M-FHX, ASME-NH and
the ASME code are higher than those of RCC-MRx, as shown in RCC-MRx have been applied to quantify the creep-fatigue dam-
Fig. 24, while the thermal conductivities are lower in the ASME age and confirm the integrity against creep-fatigue damage.

031203-10 / Vol. 139, JUNE 2017 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://pressurevesseltech.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/journals/jpvtas/935828/ on 01/06/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org

 Table 6 Design stress intensity and maximum allowable stress
in design codes

Design Design A B C D
codes stress (130  C) (480  C) (430  C) (288  C)

ASME III Div. 1 Sm (MPa) 138 78 104.6 117.2

ASME VIII Div. 2 S (MPa) 138 78 104.6 117.2
RCC-MRx Sm (MPa) 126.4 82 85.6 98.6
S (MPa) 117.2 82 85.6 98.6

ASME-NB. Point B in Fig. 14 and point C in Fig. 15 are high-

Fig. 24 Comparison of thermal expansion coefficients for
304SS between ASME code and RCC-MRx
Fig. 25 Comparison of thermal conductivity for 304SS
between ASME code and RCC-MRx
Comparisons of the two ETD codes were made for 304L stainless
steel material at a sodium inlet pipe to the M-FHX in terms of
conservatism.
Four significant locations shown in Figs. 1316 were selected
for the design evaluations. Two locations of low-temperature parts
were evaluated as per ASME VIII(s) and ASME-NB, and the
other high temperature part was evaluated as per ETD codes of
ASME-NH and RCC-MRx, in addition to ASME VIII(2).
temperature parts and are treated in Sec. 5.2.
The evaluation results for points A and D are shown in Table 5,
which shows that all calculated results according to ASME
VIII(2) were well within the allowable limits. In Table 5, Pm is
the primary membrane stress, PL is the primary local membrane
stress, and Q is the secondary stress. The calculation procedures
of the load-controlled stress limits in Table 5 for ASME VIII(2)
are the same as those of ASME III(1) except for the allowable val-
ues. The allowable value in ASME III(1) is the designed stress
intensity, Sm, while in ASME VIII(2), it is maximum allowable
stress, S. The values of Sm and S are compared in Table 6, which
shows that the values are the same in the ASME case of 304SS,
except at location A (130  C) in RCC-MRx case. In the present
analysis, however, conservatism of ASME VIII(2) and ASME
III(1) was shown to be the same as shown in Table 6.
Fatigue analysis for the location of A and D has been conducted
according to ASME-NB but fatigue analysis for the present prob-
lem was shown to be unnecessary according to ASME VIII(2)
because the number of load cycles was within screening criteria
limits in ASME VIII(2). The present problem with the number of
500 cycles in M-FHX mode was shown to be within the range of
fatigue screening criteria, 1000 cycles specified in ASME VIII(2).
The total number of cycles in the screening criteria [4] from sum-
mation of full-range pressure cycle (NDFP), number of operating
pressure cycle (NDPO), effective number of changes in metal tem-
perature difference between two adjacent points, (NDTE) and num-
ber of temperature cycles for components involving welds
between materials having different coefficients of thermal expan-
sion (NDTa) is specified as 1000, which is higher than the present
number of occurrences of 500. Therefore, fatigue analysis as per
VIII(2) is not needed in the present M-FHX model.
A fatigue analysis has been conducted for the most critical part
of location A according to ASME-NB in Fig. 13 with the highest
range of stresses. The range of total stress intensity was calculated
as 461.8 MPa, as shown in Eq. (1), and the corresponding fatigue
life cycle (Nd) was 320,000 from the fatigue strength curve of
304SS. The fatigue damage owing to this range of alternating
stress was finally calculated as 0.0016 as shown in Eq. (2)
DPL Pb Q F 461:8 MPa (1)

5.1 Design Evaluation for Low-Temperature Parts. As n

Df 0:0016 (2)
mentioned before, ASME Section VIII(2) has been applied to the Nd
low-temperature parts. Two significant locations, point A of
Fig. 13 and point D of Fig. 16(b), were selected as the target parts Therefore, the integrity of the M-FHX low-temperature parts
and design evaluations according to ASME Section VIII(2) and whose wall temperatures are in the noncreep regime is confirmed

Table 5 Evaluation results as per ASME VIII Division 2

a
Location A Ba Ca Da

Loads Calc. Allowable Calc. Allowable Calc. Allowable Calc. Allowable

Pm 40.0 138 11.9 78 3.1 104.6 11.5 117.2

PLPb 43.6 207 26.8 117 2.9 156.9 23.3 175.8
PL Pb Q 385.4 402 34.4 234 25.4 313.8 19.7 351.6
a
Location of A to D in Figs. 13 to 16, respectively.

Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology JUNE 2017, Vol. 139 / 031203-11

Downloaded From: http://pressurevesseltech.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/journals/jpvtas/935828/ on 01/06/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org

 because fatigue damage at the location under the highest alternat-
ing stress range was evaluated to be negligible and the load-
controlled stress limits were satisfied as shown in Table 5.
5.2 Design Evaluation for High-Temperature Parts. The
wall temperature of location B (479.83  C, 304 L SS) in Fig. 14
and location C (430.07  C, 304SS) in Fig. 15 is high in the creep
regime. Basically, ASME VIII(2) has been applied, and the evalu-
ation results showed that the calculated results were within the
allowable limits as shown in Table 5.
In addition to ASME VIII(2), the ETD codes of ASME-NH and
RCC-MRx have been applied. An integrity evaluation was con-
ducted for location B, whose stress profiles are far higher than
location C. If the creep-fatigue damage of location B is within the
allowable limit, location C should be within the limit as well.
The concept and evaluation procedure of ASME-NH and RCC-
MRx are basically the same, but it should be noted that their dif-
ferences are not negligible in many aspects such as the material
properties and evaluation procedures of inelastic strain and creep-
fatigue damage.
Important material properties of fatigue strengths and creep
rupture strengths for 304SS in ASME-NH and RCC-MR are com-
pared in Figs. 22 and 23. As shown in Fig. 22, fatigue strengths of
304SS in RCC-MRx are provided in a more conservative way
than ASME-NH at up to around 105 cycles, while ASME-NH pro-
vides lower values at higher cycles of around 105. It should be
noted that the difference in the two design codes is significant,
especially at low frequencies. In the meantime, however, creep
rupture strength data of 304SS in ASME-NH and RCC-MRx are
almost the same as shown in Fig. 23.
5.2.1 Evaluation of Creep-Fatigue Damage as Per ASME-
NH. The total inelastic strain range calculated according to
ASME-NH was 0.268% as shown in the following equation:
et 0:268% (3)
Creep-fatigue damage evaluations were conducted for the
welded joint location B of Fig. 14 whose wall temperature was
479.83  C, and it was shown that fatigue damage (Df) and creep
damage (Dc) of the welded joint of location B were almost negli-
gible when design evaluation procedures of ASME-NH were
applied for the welded joint of location B as shown in Table 7 and
Fig. 26. The material connecting the DHRS pipes to the upper and
lower chambers is 304L SS, whereas the other parts including ser-
pentine tubes and chambers are 304SS.
Because no material properties at an elevated temperature of
higher than 427  C are provided for 304L SS in ASME-NH or
ASME II-D, evaluations on DHRS piping systems were con-
ducted for 304SS instead of 304L SS when evaluations based on
ASME-NH were conducted.
5.2.2 Evaluation of Creep-Fatigue Damage as Per RCC-MRx.
The total inelastic strain range (De ) in Eq. (4) was calculated
according to RCC-MRx, and it was calculated as 0.284%, which
is a bit larger than that of ASME-NH
De 0:284% (4)
The design evaluation was conducted for the welded joint
according to RCC-MRx and the evaluation results of creep-
Table 7 Evaluation results of creep-fatigue damage at inlet
pipe part of the M-FHX
FHX ASME-NH RCC-MRx
Df 0.031 0.061
Dc 0.003 0.005
031203-12 / Vol. 139, JUNE 2017
Downloaded From: http://pressurevesseltech.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/journals/jpvtas/935828/ on 01/06/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org
Fig. 26 Creep-fatigue damage evaluation results according to
ASEM-NH and RCC-MRx at upper chamber nozzle
fatigue damage showed that fatigue damage (Df) and creep dam-
age (Dc) were slightly larger than those of ASME-NH which was,
however, well within allowable limited as shown in Table 7 and
Fig. 26. From Fig. 26, the integrity of the FHX was confirmed for
the intended design transients because creep-fatigue damage was
almost negligible.
Comparing the conservatism of the creep-fatigue damage
according to ASME-NH and RCC-MRx from the present creep-
fatigue damage, RCC-MRx was shown to be slightly more con-
servative in fatigue and creep damage than ASME-NH as shown
in Table 7. However, it should be noted that the actual fabrication
of the inlet pipe to the M-FHX was made of 304L SS, and the
material of RCC-MRx was 304L SS, while it was 304SS in the
application of ASME-NH because no elevated material properties
on 304L SS are available in ASME-NH.
6 Conclusions
An elevated temperature design (ETD) and integrity evaluation
for a finned-tube sodium-to-air heat exchanger (FHX) in the
SELFA (sodium thermal-hydraulic experiment loop for finned-
tube sodium-to-air heat exchanger) sodium test loop were con-
ducted based on full 3D FE analyses, and comparisons of the
design codes were made. A model FHX was designed, fabricated,
and installed in a sodium test facility of SELFA for simulating the
thermal hydraulic behavior of the FHX unit in the PGSFR. The
material of the SELFA piping system was 304L SS, and all other
parts were of 304SS.
Code comparisons were made in terms of the chemical compo-
sitions, material properties, and conservatism. The conservatism
of the design codes was quantified from the actual applications of
the design rules to the present M-FHX test section. There were
significant differences in the chemical compositions between
304SS of ASME II-A and 304SS of ASME-NH, which means
there are actually two 304SSs within the ASME codes, one of
which is 304SS for ETD, and the other one is for 304SS for non-
creep design applications. There were also significant differences
in the design material properties. In the case of the design stress
intensities, there was maximum difference of 23.3% for 304SS
between ASME and RCC-MRx. There were, however, slight dif-
ferences in fatigue strengths and creep rupture strengths between
ASME-NH and RCC-MRx for 304SS.
For the design evaluations, ASME Section VIII Div. 2 was
applied for the high-temperature and low-temperature parts in the
M-FHX as a whole. ASME Section III Subsection NB was addi-
tionally applied to evaluate the load-controlled stresses and
Transactions of the ASME
 fatigue analysis for the parts of the FHX operating at low tempera- Q secondary stress
ture. Code comparisons were made on the conservatism at the crit- S maximum allowable stress
ical locations between ASME Section III(1) Subsection NB and Sm design stress intensity
ASME Section VIII(2). The conservatism of ASME III(1) was the SELFA sodium thermal-hydraulic experiment loop for
same as that of ASME VIII(2) because the values of the designed finned-tube sodium-to-air heat exchanger
stress intensity, Sm, and maximum allowable stress, S, were the SFR sodium-cooled fast reactor
same for 304SS. TS tensile strength
In addition, the ETD codes of the ASME Section III Subsection YS yield strength
NH and RCC-MRx were applied for parts of the FHX operating in 304 SS 304 stainless steel
the creep regime to confirm the integrity against creep-fatigue 304L SS 304L stainless steel
damage. Comparing the conservatism of ASME-NH and RCC- De total inelastic strain range in RCC-MRx
MRx, RCC-MRx was slightly more conservative in fatigue and et total inelastic strain range in ASME-NH
creep damage than ASME-NH.
The integrity of the M-FHX was confirmed based on the design References
evaluations as per all design codes of ASME VIII(2), ASME-NB, [1] Kim, Y. I., Jang, J. W., Lee, J. H., Kim, S. J., Kim, S. O., Kim, J. B., and Jung,
H. Y., 2012, Conceptual Design Report of SFR Demonstration Reactor of
ASME-NH, and RCC-MRx. 600MWe Capacity, Report No. KAERI/TR-4598/2012.
[2] IAEA, 2012, Status of Fast Reactor Research and Technology Development,
Report No. IAEA-TECDOC-1691.
Acknowledgment [3] Lee, H. Y., Eoh, J. H., and Lee, Y. B., 2013, High Temperature Design of
This study was supported by the Korean Ministry of Science, Finned-Tube Sodium-to-Heat Exchanger in a Sodium Test Loop, Nucl. Eng.
Des., 265, pp. 833840.
ICT and Future Planning through its National Nuclear Technology [4] ASME, 2015, BVPC Section VIII Rules for Construction of Pressure Vessels,
Programs (2012M2A8A2025635) and the International Research Division 2 Alternative Rules, ASME, New York.
& Development Program (2013K1A3A7A03078195). Technical [5] ASME, 2015, BVPC Section III Rules for Construction of Nuclear Facility
assistance from AD Solution Ltd. is gratefully acknowledged. Component, Subsection NB Class 1 Components, ASME, New York.
[6] ASME, 2015, BVPC Section III Rules for Construction of Nuclear Facility
Component Subsection NH Class 1 Components in Elevated Temperature Serv-
Nomenclature ice, ASME, New York.
[7] RCC-MRx, 2015, Section III Tome 1, Subsection RB, Class N1Rx Reactor
ADHRS active decay heat removal systems Components, AFCEN, Lyon, France.
AHX helical tube type sodium-to-air heat exchanger [8] Lee, H. Y., Kim, J. B., and Park, H. Y., 2012, High Temperature Design and
ASME II-A ASME Section II Part A Damage Evaluation of Mod.9Cr-1Mo Steel Heat Exchanger, ASME J. Pres-
sure Vessel Technol., 134(5), p. 051101.
ASME II-D ASME Section II Part D [9] Lee, H. Y., Kim, J. B., and Park, H. Y., 2012, Creep-Fatigue Damage Evalua-
ASME III(1) ASME Section III Division 1 tion of Sodium to Air Heat Exchanger in Sodium Test Loop Facility, Nucl.
ASME-NB ASME Section III Division 1 Subsection NB Eng. Des., 250, pp. 308315.
[10] Jalaldeen, S., Srinivasan, R., Selvaraj, P., and Chellapandi, P., 2010,
ASME-NH ASME Section III Division 1 Subsection NH Comparison of Life of Two Types of Decay Heat Exchangers Used in Proto-
ASME VIII(2) ASME Section VIII Division 2 type Fast Breeder Reactor, Trans. Indian Inst. Met., 63(23), pp. 647651.
Dc creep damage [11] Winston, S., Srinivasan, R., Vinayagam, P. P., Chellapandi, P., and Chetal, S.
Df fatigue damage C., 2010, Creep-Fatigue Damage Assessment of Special Type of Sodium to
Air Heat Exchanger Having Toroidal Shape Headers, Trans. Indian Inst. Met.,
DBA design-by-analysis 63(23), pp. 611616.
DBR design-by-rule [12] Chellapandi, P., Srinivasan, R., Vaze, K. K., Chetal, S. C., and Bhoje, S. B.,
DHRS decay heat removal systems 1989, Structural Design of the IHX for PFBR, 10th International Conference
DHX decay heat exchanger on Structural Mechanics in Reactor Technology (SMIRT-10), Anaheim, CA,
Aug. 1418.
ETD elevated temperature design
[13] ASME, 2015, BVPC Section II Materials Part D Properties, ASME, New
Favg multiplier applied to the average stress for rup- York.
ture in 100,000 h, at 815  C and below, [14] RCC-MRx, 2015, Section III Tome 1, Subsection Z, Appendix A3, AFCEN,
Favg 0.67 Lyon, France.
[15] Lee, H. Y., 2016, Comparison of Elevated Temperature Design Codes of
FHX forced-draft sodium-to-air heat exchanger ASME Subsection NH and RCC-MRx, Nucl. Eng. Des., 308, pp. 142153.
Gen IV generation IV [16] Eoh, J. H., Lee, H. Y., Kim, T. J., Jeong, J. Y., and Lee, Y. B., 2013, Design
KAERI Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute Features of a Large-Scale Sodium Thermal-Hydraulic Test Facility: STELLA,
M-FHX model finned-tube sodium-to-air heat exchanger International Conference on Fast Reactors and Related Fuel Cycles, Safe Tech-
nologies and Sustainable Scenarios (FR13), Paris, Mar. 47, Paper No. IAEA-
Nd fatigue life cycle
CN-199.
Pb primary bending stress [17] Simulia, 2012, ABAQUS Users Manual, Version 6.12, Simulia, Providence,
PL local primary membrane stress RI.
Pm primary membrane stress [18] ASME, 2015, BVPC Section II Materials Part A Ferrous Material Specifica-
tions, ASME, New York.
PDHRS passive decay heat removal systems [19] RCC-MRx, 2015, Section III Tome 2, Materials (Parts and Products
PGSFR prototype Gen IV sodium-cooled fast reactor Procurement), AFCEN, Lyon, France.

Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology JUNE 2017, Vol. 139 / 031203-13

Downloaded From: http://pressurevesseltech.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/journals/jpvtas/935828/ on 01/06/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org