Historical data collection on nuclear fuel cladding materials has focused on generating a statistically significant amount of data to assess the material and its failure behavior. Furthermore, data generated to support material model and failure criteria development were previously posttest evaluations, so a large number of tests was required to gain new understanding.

A way to expedite this process is to develop techniques capable of generating large, high-fidelity data sets from a single test with lower uncertainty or quantified uncertainty. One such example of this approach is Oak Ridge National Laboratory’s use of modified burst tests (MBTs) to analyze the mechanical behavior and failure conditions of cladding during a simulated reactivity-initiated accident (RIA). Each test incorporates digital image correlation (DIC) analysis techniques that are used to assess the accumulated strain in situ, as well as eventual cladding failure. This work has been fruitful in defining strain-to-failure conditions for materials like silicon carbide (SiC) fiber–reinforced/SiC matrix composite tubes (SiC/SiC), iron-chromium-aluminum (FeCrAl) alloy tubes, and chromium-coated Zircaloy-4 tubes.

However, there are numerous DIC software available, including open-source and proprietary software. The different DIC software use various algorithms to process images and calculate displacement values. Using these different software and algorithms can lead to varying results, and perhaps larger-than-expected uncertainties. In the present study, previously published MBT data encompassing a variety of test conditions were reanalyzed with two different DIC software to assess the variance in the calculated strain results.

The data consisted of SiC/SiC, FeCrAl, and chromium-coated Zircaloy-4 tubes. Plots of the calculated strains during the transient revealed good agreement between the two DIC software. The average root-mean-square errors between the two software was 0.20% strain, which is slightly larger than a previously reported error value for these tests. This variance in results is low enough that this analysis method can be used for code validation.

Highlights of the study include the following:

1. A standardized process to analyze in situ strain from separate-effects experiments simulating RIAs is presented.

2. Two DIC software were utilized to highlight the differences in results stemming from software choice and user input.

3. This analysis method was designed for in situ strain results to be compared to fuel performance codes such as BISON.