Proceedings of the ASME 2016 Pressure Vessels and Piping Conference

PVP2016
July 17-21, 2016, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada

PVP2016-63040

A Comparison of Different Design Codes on Fatigue Life Assessment Methods

Jinhua Shi Liwu Wei

Amec Foster Wheeler Amec Foster Wheeler
19B Brighouse Court 19B Brighouse Court
Barnett Way Barnett Way
Gloucester, GL4 3RT, UK Gloucester, GL4 3RT, UK

Claude Faidy Andrew Wasylyk Nawal Prinja

Consultant - CF Int Engineering CORDEL, WNA Amec Foster Wheeler
Intgrit-vieillissement des Structures Tower House, 10 Booths Park
Codes et Normes-Sret Nuclaire Southampton Street, Knutsford
France London WC2E 7HA, UK Cheshire, WA16 8QZ, UK

ABSTRACT expected to have an infinite fatigue life. Although this empirical

Different pressure vessel and piping design codes and
standards have adopted different fatigue analysis methods. In
order to make some contribution to current efforts to harmonize
international design codes and standards, a review of fatigue
analysis methods for a number of selected nuclear and non-
nuclear design codes and standards has been carried out. The
selected design codes and standards are ASME Boiler and
Pressure Vessel Code Section III Subsection NB and Section
VIII Division 2, EN 12952, EN 13445, EN 13480, PD 5500,
RCC-M, RCC-MRx, JSME, PNAEG and R5. This paper
presents the initial review results.
The results of the study could be used as part of the on-
going work of the Codes and Standards Task Force of the World
Nuclear Association (WNA) Cooperation in Reactor Design
Evaluation and Licensing (CORDEL) Working Group.
1 INTRODUCTION
The total fatigue life can be defined as a function of the
applied stress range, strain range, mean stress and environment.
In the stress range based or strain range based methods, the
fatigue life of a component is defined as the total number of
cycles to induce fatigue damage and to initiate a dominant
fatigue flaw which propagates to final failure. The philosophy
underlying the cyclic stress-based and strain-based approaches
is distinctly different from that of defect-tolerant methods.
The stress-life approach to fatigue was first introduced in
the 1960s by Wohler [1]. Out of this work evolved the concept
of an endurance limit, which characterizes the applied stress
amplitude below which a (nominal defect-free) material is
method has found widespread use in fatigue analysis, it does not
provide a realistic account of fatigue life when considerable
plastic deformation occurs during cyclic loading. Realizing the
important role of plastic strains in inducing permanent fatigue
damage, Coffin [2] and Manson [3] independently proposed
plastic strain-based continuum characterization of fatigue life.
The stress range based method is used in a number of
design codes, such as the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel
Code Section III Subsection NB [4], Section VIII Division 2
[5], BS EN 12952-3 [6], BS EN 13445-3 [7], BS EN 13480-3
[8], BS EN 1993-2 [9] and PD 5500 [10]. A comparison of the
selected design codes and standards is carried out in Section 2.
The strain range based method is used by the ASME
Section III Subsection NH [11] and the structural integrity
assessment procedure R5 [12]. RCC-M [13] uses a combined
strain and stress approach. A comparison of these approaches is
conducted in Section 3.
After a discussion conducted in Section 4 on harmonizing
international codes and standards, conclusions are drawn in
Section 5.
2 STRESS RANGE BASED METHOD
This section describes the stress range based method used
in different design codes and standards.

1 Copyright 2016 by ASME

2.1 ASME Section III, Subsection NB
ASME III, NB-3222.4 details the analysis for cyclic
operation. The conditions and procedures of ASME III NB-
3222.4 are based on a comparison of peak stresses with strain
cycling fatigue data. The strain cycling fatigue data are
represented by design fatigue strength curves. As defined in
NB-3213.17, a fatigue strength reduction factor is a stress
intensification factor which accounts for the effect of a local
structural discontinuity (stress concentration) on the fatigue
strength. Values for some specific cases, based on experiment,
are given in NB-3338, NB-3339 and NB-3680. In the absence
of experimental data, the theoretical stress concentration factor
may be used. NB-3222.4 (e-2) indicates, for instance, that a
fatigue strength reduction factor of no less than five should be
used.
ASME Section III Appendices, Mandatory Appendix I,
Figures I-9.1 through I-9.8 contain the applicable fatigue design
curves for the materials permitted by Subsection NB. When
more than one curve is presented for a given material, the
applicability of each is identified. Where curves for various
strength levels of a material are given, linear interpolation may
be used for intermediate strength levels of these materials. The
strength level is the specified minimum room temperature
value. A in Fig. 1. These curves show the allowable amplitude
Sa of the alternating stress intensity component (one-half of the
alternating stress intensity range) plotted against the number of
cycles. This stress intensity amplitude is calculated on the
assumption of elastic behaviour and, hence, has the dimensions
of stress, but it does not represent a real stress when the elastic
range is exceeded. The fatigue curves are obtained from
uniaxial strain cycling data in which the imposed strains have
been multiplied by the elastic modulus and a design margin has
been provided so as to make the calculated stress intensity
amplitude and the allowable stress intensity amplitude directly
comparable. Where necessary, the curves have been adjusted to
include the maximum effects of mean stress, which is the
condition where the stress fluctuates about a mean value that is
different from zero. As a consequence of this procedure, it is
essential that the requirements of the primary plus secondary
stress intensity be satisfied at all times with transient stresses
included, and that the calculated value of the alternating stress
intensity be proportional to the actual strain amplitude. To
evaluate the effect of alternating stresses of varying amplitudes,
a linear damage relation is assumed.
The effect of the elastic modulus is also considered by
multiplying the alternating stress intensity by the ratio of the
modulus of elasticity given on the design fatigue curve to the
value of the modulus of elasticity used in the analysis.
Effects of environment are specified in Code Cases N-761
and N-792 [14, 15] and also described in [16] and [17]. More
information is presented in Table 1.
2.2 ASME Section VIII Division 2
Design fatigue curves for non-welded and for welded
construction are provided in ASME VIII Division 2, Annex 3-F
in terms of polynomial functions
2 Copyright 2016 by ASME
Annex 3-F.1 specifies the smooth bar design fatigue curves
for a number of materials based on the stress amplitude, Sa.
Metal temperature limits and minimum specified ultimate
tensile strength values are presented in Table 1.
Welded joint design fatigue curves are detailed in Annex 3-
F.2 for a number of materials based on the computed equivalent
stress range. Again, metal temperature limits and minimum
specified ultimate tensile strength values are presented in Table
1. Furthermore, coefficients for the welded joint fatigue curves
are given not only for mean curve, but also for the lower bound
and upper bound. In addition to the effect of the elastic
modulus, the effects of environment other than ambient air are
also accounted by an environmental modification factor, fE. It is
stated that a value of fE = 4.0 shall be used unless there is
specific information to justify an alternate value based on the
severity of the material/environmental interaction.
2.3 PD 5500
Assessment of pressure vessels subject to fatigue is detailed
in Annex C of [7] to ensure that the vessel is designed to have a
fatigue life which is at least as high as the required service life.
The fatigue strength of a pressure vessel is usually
governed by the fatigue strength of details (e.g. openings,
welds, bolting, attachments) and is assessed on the basis of the
fatigue behaviour of test specimens containing weld details
similar to those under consideration, using SN curves, in which
the fluctuating or repeated stress range, Sr, is plotted against
number of cycles to failure, N. SN curves based on fatigue test
data obtained from plain material, to be used in conjunction
with appropriate stress concentration or fatigue stress reduction
factors, are used to assess bolts and un-welded material.
The design SN curves for the assessment of weld details given
in Fig. 2 have been derived from fatigue test data obtained from
welded specimens, fabricated to normal standards of
workmanship, tested under load-control or, for applied strains
exceeding yield (low-cycle fatigue), under strain control.
Continuity from the low- to high-cycle regime is achieved by
expressing the low-cycle data in terms of the pseudo-elastic
stress range (i.e. strain range multiplied by elastic modulus).
Such data are compatible with results obtained from
pressure cycling tests on actual vessels when they are expressed
in terms of the nominal stress range in the region of fatigue
cracking. The curves are used in conjunction with the
fluctuating stress range, Sr, regardless of applied mean stress.
Regression analysis of the fatigue test data gave the mean
SN curve and standard deviation of log N. The curves in Fig. 2
are two standard deviations below the mean, representing
approximately 95.4% probability of survival. Comparison of
these SN curves and fatigue test data obtained from cyclic
pressure tests on welded vessels indicates that they are
conservative, but not excessively so.
The design procedures given in Annex C.2 and C.3.4
incorporate SN curves three standard deviations below the
mean, representing approximately 99.7% probability of
survival. More information is detailed in Table 1.

2.4 BS EN 12952-3
Chapter 13 of BS EN 12932-3 states that due to the
simplicity of the fatigue analysis, the life prediction calculated
may in some cases be overly conservative. More complex
methods, such as finite element analysis, may be applied to
obtain more accurate life predictions should the need arise.
A complete load cycle which includes a period of steady
state, shutdown, start-up and a further period of steady state
should be examined, primarily examining the effects of pressure
and temperature. During thermal transient events, temperature
differences between the header and branch can be obtained
either by deriving the temperature difference between the
branch and the main shell or by using the steam temperature
ramp rate.
The material properties of a component are a function of
the cyclic temperature and these should constantly change
throughout the cycle. During a load cycle, in the case of BS EN
12952-3, this is simplified to the input of a single temperature,
defined as the reference temperature. The stress concentration
factors, m, and t,, due to pressure and thermal loadings are
included in calculating cyclic stress ranges. The calculated
cyclic stress ranges can be then further refined using a series of
equations depending on whether the calculated stress range is
elastic, partly plastic or fully plastic.
The fatigue curves are shown in Fig. 3: Rm is the tensile
strength at room temperature and 2fa the stress range. More
information is given in Table 1 for the comparison.
3 STRAIN RANGE BASED METHOD
The strain range based method has been used in ASME III
Subsection NH and R5 for high temperature applications.
3.1 ASME III Subsection NH
NH-3213.16 defines that strain cycle is a condition in
which the strain goes from an initial value, through an algebraic
maximum value and an algebraic minimum value and then
returns to the initial value. In cases where creep or ratcheting is
present in the cycle, there will not be a return to the initial strain
value. Instead the designer will have to examine the hysteresis
loop for inelastic analysis and the stress history for elastic
analysis to determine the end point of the cycle. NH-T-1413
provides the method of combining cycles for fatigue analysis. A
single service cycle may result in one or more strain cycles.
Dynamic effects shall also be considered as strain cycles.
Fatigue strength reduction factors currently exist only for cycles
that do not involve significant creep effects. Fatigue damage is
that part of the total material damage caused by cyclic
deformation that is independent of time effects (e.g., stress
hold-time, strain hold-time, frequency).
The damage is expressed in terms of a cycle ratio. Creep-
fatigue interaction is the effect of combined creep and fatigue
3 Copyright 2016 by ASME
on the total creep-fatigue damage accumulated at failure, as
shown in Fig. 4.
Fatigue design curves are given in Figures NH-T-1420-1A
to NH-T-1420-1E corresponding to the maximum metal
temperature occurring during the cycle for steels of 304 SS, 316
SS, Ni-Fe-Cr Alloy 800H, 2Cr-1Mo and 9Cr-1Mo-V. The
design fatigue curves were determined from completely
reversed loading conditions at strain rates greater than, or equal
to, those noted on the curves. An equivalent strain range is used
to evaluate the fatigue damage sum for both elastic and inelastic
analysis.
3.2 R5
R5 is an established structural integrity assessment
procedure which is frequently used in the structural integrity
assessments of Advanced Gas-Cooled Reactor (AGR)
components operating in the creep range in the UK. The
procedure is also relevant to high temperature plants outside the
nuclear power generation industry. Furthermore, R5 is under
continually development and further development areas are
under regularly review. Therefore, in this Section the current R5
fatigue method is described first in Subsection 3.2.1 and then
the proposed methodology is given in Subsection 3.2.2.
3.2.1 Previous R5 fatigue life calculation
The total creep-fatigue damage, D, at the assessment
location: D is defined as the linear sum of damage due to
fatigue (Df) and creep (Dc). Crack initiation is conceded when
the total damage D=1.
The process of fatigue damage is considered to consist of
two stages. The first corresponds to the formation of a defect of
size, ai = 0.02mm (20m). The second stage is the growth of
this defect to a specified depth, a0, which corresponds to the
initiation criterion. This separation enables assessments to be
made for thin sections in which a0 must be specified to be
smaller than the crack size, a , corresponding to failure in a
laboratory specimen. The separation also enables allowance to
be made for the order in which cycles are applied and for the
different effects of multiaxial stress state on the formation and
growth processes.
For thick section components, set a0 equal to a . For thin-
section components, set a0 equal to a small fraction (typically
less than 10%) of the cross-section so that uncracked body
stress analysis is appropriate. A convenient choice is often the
extent of the cyclic plastic zone, rp. The reasons for the choice
of a0 should be reported.
The total strain range tot during a cycle is simply given by
the sum of the elastic, plastic, volumetric and creep
components, where the elastic-plastic point lies on the
intersection of the cyclic stress-strain curves and the Neuber
hyperbola from the elastic equivalent surface stress.
For weldments, the total strain range is enhanced by a fatigue
strength reduction factor (FSRF), based on weld types and
whether or not the weld being dressed (profiled) or undressed
(as-welded), and also enhanced by a thickness factor of
(section thickness/22mm)0.25.
3.2.2 Current R5 fatigue life calculation
The current approach as proposed in [18] involves splitting
the existing FSRF into a Weldment Endurance Reduction
(WER), which accounts for reduced fatigue endurance due to
weld imperfections, and a Weldment Strain Enhacement Factor
(WSEF), which accounts for material mismatch and local
geometry. It should be noted that the proposed new approach
makes no distinction between dressed and un-dressed welds. As
described in [18], the WSEFs can be derived such that the
parent mean fatigue curve, factored by the WSEF and WER,
provides a mean fit to the weldment fatigue data assuming a log
normal distribution of fatigue life.
3.3 RCC-M ANNEX Z D
ANNEX Z D, RCC-M [13] provides a combined strain and
stress approach to fatigue damage assessment, and concerns the
acceptable rules for analyzing fatigue behaviour in zones with
geometrical discontinuities similar to crack-type discontinuities.
The rules specified in this annex use the fatigue initiation factor
to calculate an allowable number of cycles before the
appearance of fatigue damage, (i.e. before fatigue crack
initiation). The evaluation method of the fatigue initiation factor
is detailed in ANNEX Z D 2220. Table Z D 2300 gives fatigue
initiation curves for three different types of steel (low alloy
steel, stainless steel and Ni-Cr-Fe alloy) in Air and PWR
environment, which can be used if no other data are available.
With ANNEX Z D 3000, the permissible number of cycles
can also be determined by calculating the local strain as
follows:
- Evaluation of the product . with the following
formula: .d
t m, n
2
E Definition of events, loads and load combinations,
- Determination of the corresponding to the product
., using the cyclic strain hardening curve for the
material (or a simplified low envelope of this curve),
giving the relationship between . and the strain
amplitude . Note that until these cyclic hardening
curves are not integrated in the code, the curves used
must be substantiated on a case by case basis.
- Evaluation of the allowable number of cycles using the
S-N fatigue curves in ANNEX ZI and using the
E
relationship: Sa .
3 5
4 INTERNATIONAL CODES AND
STANDARDS HARMONIZATION
In an increasingly global industry, there are several obvious
benefits to harmonising the rules in codes and standards, such
4 Copyright 2016 by ASME
as the ones for fatigue described in this paper. Harmonisation
of codes and standards is an attractive concept for several
reasons, and can bring clear benefits such as a common level of
quality and standardised designs.
To carry out harmonisation of nuclear codes and standards,
three organisations have been set up:
World Nuclear Association / Cooperation in Reactor
Design Evaluation and Licensing (CORDEL)
Standards Development Organisations (SDOs) Code
Convergence Board
Multinational Design Evaluation Program (MDEP)
By creating these three groups, then the key stakeholders
involved, i.e., industry (CORDEL), code writing bodies (SDO
Convergence Board) and regulators (MDEP) are all represented
in harmonisation of codes and standards. In addition, the
Western European Nuclear Regulators Association (WENRA) is
also a regulators association and has certain objectives relating
to harmonisation of safety in nuclear facilities. The interface
between MDEP and WENRA has been defined in order to
avoid any duplication of tasks or objectives, see Reference [19].
The particular topic for harmonisation that is of direct
relevance to this paper has been identified by WNA CORDEL
as being Non-Linear Analysis [20].
For non-linear analysis, the CORDEL Design Methodology
and Limits Expert Group concentrates on the convergence of
five issues related to the mechanical design of power plants:
Plastic analysis, harmonising the finite element
techniques employed to assess strength (limit load
analysis), shakedown (direct shakedown prediction)
and fatigue (ratcheting and strain based fatigue
analysis) methodologies used internationally,
Stress Classification, concentrating on the
standardisation of definitions and terms used in stress
classifications,
concentrating on harmonisation of definition of events
and methodologies of load combinations,
Stress and strain limits, and
Analysis and assessment of extreme dynamic events.
Comparative studies, such as the one presented in this
paper, could be used by CORDEL as the basis for progress in
harmonization of rules for ratcheting and strain based fatigue
analysis.
REMARKS
This paper has summarized the different approaches to
fatigue design in various national and international codes and
standards. It is evident that differences in the rules have arisen
as national standards have developed in isolation. Therefore,
the paper has put this in context by highlighting the ongoing
efforts by various international groups to limit further
divergence and encourage convergence of the technical rules in
codes and standards worldwide. Technical remarks can be
obtained as follows:
The design fatigue curves presented in this paper
mainly concentrate on low cycle fatigue (LCF).
The stress range based approach is relatively simple to
use. However, apart from BS EN12952-3, the method
has been used in the design codes below creep regime.
The strain range based method is more complex and
has been mainly adopted by high temperature design
codes and assessment procedures.
Weldments are important components and have been
considered in most design codes.
Most design codes and assessment procedures are
based on elastic stress analyses; however, inelastic
stress analyses can be used.
R5 is less conservative than design codes, as it is an
assessment procedure not a design code, thus it does
not contain inherent design safety margins.
ASME III Subsection NH and R5 have focused more
on creep and creep-fatigue interaction.
RCC-M is based on a combined strain and stress
approach.
6 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This paper is published by the permission of AMEC Foster
Wheeler.
7 REFERENCES
[1] Wohler, A. (1860): Versuche uber die Festigkeit der
Eisenbahnwagenachsen. Zeitsschrift fur Bauwesen 10;
English summary (1867). Engineering 4, pp. 160-161.
[2] Coffin, F.F. (1954): A study of the effects of cyclic
thermal stresses on a ductile metal. Transactions of the
American Society of Mechanical Engineers 76, pp.
931-950.
[3] Manson, S.S. (1954): Behavior of materials under
conditions of thermal stress. National Advisory
Commission on Aeronautics: Report 1170. Cleveland:
Lewis Flight Propulsion Laboratory.
[4] The American Society of Mechanical Engineers
(2013): ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,
Section III, Rules for Construction of Nuclear Facility
Components, Division 1 - Subsection NB, Class 1
Components. Two Park Avenue, New York.
[5] The American Society of Mechanical Engineers
(2011): ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,
Section VIII, Rules for Construction of Pressure V
5 Copyright 2016 by ASME
essels, Division 2, Alterative Rules. Two Park Avenue,
New York.
[6] BSi (2011): BS EN 12952-3:2011, Water-tube boilers
and auxiliary installations. Part 3: Design and
calculation for pressure parts of the boiler.
[7] BSi (2012): BS EN 13445-3:2009+A1:2012, Unfired
pressure vessels. Part 3: Design.
[8] BSi (2012): BS EN 13480-3:2012, Metal industry
piping. Part 3: Design and calculation.
[9] BSi (2010): BS EN 1993-2:2006, Eurocode 3 - Design
of steel structures Part 2: Steel bridges.
[10] BSi (2012): PD 5500:2012, Specification for unfired
fusion welded pressure vessels.
[11] The American Society of Mechanical Engineers
(2015): ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,
Section III, Rules for Construction of Nuclear Facility
Components, Division 1 - Subsection NH, Class 1
Components in Elevated Temperature Service.
[12] EDF Energy Generation (2003), R5, Assessment
Procedure for the High Temperature Response of
Structures, Issue 3, Revision 1.
[13] AFCEN (2007): RCC-M - Edition 2007 Addendum
December 2008: Design and Construction Rules for
Mechanical Components of PWR Nuclear Islands.
[14] The American Society of Mechanical Engineers
(2010): ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Code
Cases: Nuclear Components. Case N-761 Fatigue
Design Curves for Light Water Reactor (LWR)
Environments, Section III, Division 1.
[15] The American Society of Mechanical Engineers
(2010): ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Code
Cases: Nuclear Components. Case N-792 Fatigue
Evaluations Including Environmental Effects, Section
III, Division 1.
[16] Chopra, O.K.; Shack, W.J. (2007): Effect of LWR
Coolant Environments on the Fatigue Life of Reactor
Materials, NUREG/CR-6909.
[17] de Haan de Wilde, F.H.E; Hannink, M.H.C.;
Blom, F.J. (2013): Overview of international
implementation of environmental fatigue. Proceedings
of the ASME 2013 Pressure Vessels and Piping
Conference, PVP2013-97695.
[18] Dean, D.; Spindler, M.W.; Chevalier, M.; N G
Smith, N.G. (2013): Recent Developments in the R5
Volume 2/3 Procedures for Assessing Creep-Fatigue
Initiation in Defect-Free Components Operating at
High Temperatures. Proceedings of the ASME 2013
Pressure Vessels and Piping Conference, PVP2013-
98134.
[19] WENRA website, http://www.wenra.org.
[20] WNA Report: Cooperation in Reactor Design
Evaluation and Licensing (CORDEL). Working Group
Annual Report 2011-2012.
 Temperature Yield Stress, Smooth Effect of Elastic Effect of Effect of Mean LB UB
Code/Standard Material Limit, C MPa UTS, MPa Bar Weld Stress Modulus Environment Thickness Curve Curve Curve
ASME III Subsection NB Carbon, low alloy and high tensile steels 370 Y 552 Y Y Amplitude Y [13-16] Y
Carbon, low alloy and high tensile steels 370 Y 793 - 896 Y Y Amplitude Y [13-16] Y
Austenitic steels, nickel-chromium-iron alloy,
nickel-iron-chromium alloy and nickel-copper
alloy 425 All All Y Y Amplitude Y [13-16] Y
High Strength Steel Bolting 370 All All Amplitude Y Y
Carbon, Low Alloy, Series 4xx, and High
ASME VIII Division 2 Tensile Strength Steels 371 552 Y Amplitude Y Y
Carbon, Low Alloy, Series 4xx, and High
Tensile Strength Steels 371 793 - 892 Y Amplitude Y Y
Series 3xx High Alloy Steels, Nickel-Chromium-
Iron Alloy, Nickel-Iron-Chromium Alloy, and
Nickel-Copper Alloy 427 All Y Amplitude Y Y
Nickel-Chromium-Molybdenum-Iron, Alloys X,
G, C-4, And C-276 427 All Y Amplitude Y Y
High Strength Steel Bolting 371 All Y Amplitude Y Y
Carbon, Low Alloy, Series 4xx, and High
Tensile Strength Steels 371 All Y Range Y Y Y Y Y
Series 3xx High Alloy Steels, Nickel-Chromium-
Iron Alloy, Nickel-Iron-Chromium Alloy, and
Nickel-Copper Alloy 427 All Y Range Y Y Y Y Y
Nickel-Chromium-Molybdenum-Iron, Alloys X,
G, C-4, and C-276 427 All Y Range Y Y Y Y Y
BS EN 12952-3 All steels 800 All All Y Y Range Y Y Y
PD 5500 Ferritic steels 350 All All Y Y Range Y Y Y
Austenitic steels 430 All All Y Y Range Y Y Y
Nickel alloys 450 All All Y Y Range Y Y Y
Bolts As above All All Y Range Y Y Y

Table 1: Comparison of stress based design codes

Figure 1: One of ASME III fatigue curves

6 Copyright 2016 by ASME

 Figure 2: Fatigue design S-N curves for welds from PD 5500

Figure 3: Number of cycles for crack initiation from BS EN 12952-3

7 Copyright 2016 by ASME

 Figure 4: Creep-fatigue damage envelope, reproduced from Figure NH-T-1420-2

8 Copyright 2016 by ASME

The author has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. All in-text references underlined in blue are linked to publications on ResearchGate.