P. 1


|Views: 148|Likes:
Published by viswabv
BPVC interpretatio
BPVC interpretatio

More info:

Published by: viswabv on Jan 09, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less








1:32 PM

Page 1


Hardayal S. Mehta and Sampath Ranganath
The role of fracture mechanics in Section XI applications comes in the form of evaluation of indications or flaws detected during inservice inspection of nuclear components. The early ASME BPVC Section XI evaluation procedures have been typically based on linear elastic fracture mechanics (LEFM). For example, the vessel flaw evaluation procedure in IWB-3600 in the 1977 edition was based on the LEFM analyses described elsewhere [1,2]. Appendix G of Section XI (essentially the same as Appendix G of Section III) also is an example of the first use of LEFM in Section XI applications. The background of Appendix G LEFM technology is provided in WRC-175 [3]. The current Section XI flaw evaluation procedures (Appendix A) have some provision for loading with limited plasticity in the form of plastic zone size correction. LEFM is limited by the small-scale yielding (SSY) condition that the plastic zone around the crack tip be small compared to the size of the K-dominant region and any relevant geometric dimension. It is virtually impossible to satisfy this condition for high-toughness, low-strength materials, which generally undergo extensive plastic deformation and crack tip blunting prior to the initiation of crack growth. Crack initiation in these materials is usually followed by stable crack growth or tearing. The need to include the influence of significant plastic deformation, which may accompany crack initiation and the subsequent stable growth, has been the main driving force for the development of the field of elastic-plastic fracture mechanics (EPFM). Furthermore, higher load capability (over that predicted by LEFM) can be demonstrated in ductile materials by allowing limited stable crack extension using EPFM techniques. Figure 46.1 [4] shows the role of elastic-plastic or nonlinear fracture mechanics; a center-cracked plate loaded to failure is considered. This figure shows a schematic plot of failure stress versus fracture toughness (KIc). For low toughness materials (such as ferritic steels at lower shelf), brittle fracture is the governing failure mechanism and the critical stress is predicted by the usual LEFM equations and the material KIc. At very high toughness values, LEFM is no longer valid and failure (or collapse by limit load) is governed by the flow properties of the material. Fracture mechanics ceases to be relevant to the problem because the failure stress is insensitive to toughness; a simple limit load analysis is all that is required to predict failure stress. The appropriate material property in this case is the flow stress that may be generally taken as the average of the material yield and ultimate stress or a suitable multiple (e.g., a factor of 3) of the Code allowable stress, Sm. At intermediate toughness levels, there is transition between brittle fracture under linear elastic conditions and ductile overload or collapse. Nonlinear or EPFM bridges the gap between LEFM and collapse. When the plasticity is limited to a small zone surrounding the crack tip, an LEFM solution modified by a plastic zone size is adequate; this zone is called the SSY zone. Some of the ferritic materials used in the nuclear pressure vessel applications at the upper-shelf temperatures are analyzed using this approach with the material fracture resistance determined through appropriate J integral testing.



The movement toward the use of EPFM started in the 1960s; the progress through 1980s is summarized elsewhere [4]. Extracts [4] are presented here to provide the reader a brief background on the development of EPFM. LEFM ceases to be valid when significant plastic deformation precedes failure. During a relatively short time period (1960–1961), several researchers, including Irvin [5], Dugdale [6], Barenblatt [7], and Wells [8], developed analytical methods to correct for yielding at the crack tip. The Irwin plastic zone correction was a relatively simple extension of LEFM, while Dugdale and Barenblatt each developed somewhat more elaborate models based on a narrow strip of yielded material at the crack tip. Wells proposed the displacement of the crack faces, the parameter now known as crack tip opening displacement (CTOD), as an alternative fracture criterion when significant plasticity precedes failure.

26]. Burdekin and Dawes [19] applied ideas proposed by Wells [20] several years earlier and developed the CTOD design curve. Their experiments were very successful and led to the publication of a standard procedure for J testing of metals 10 years later [14]. fracture research in the United Kingdom was motivated largely by the development of oil resources in the North Sea.g. one of which was equivalent to Rice’s J integral. The components covered were the basic fracture test specimen geometries. The material stress-strain behavior in the estimation scheme is characterized in the Ramberg-Osgood form as follows: ( / 0) ( / 0) (( / 0)n (2) . based on the strip yield model of Dugdale and Barenblatt. reactor pressure vessels and piping) typical in nuclear industry applications [17. The applied J integral values were obtained through an estimation scheme that used material stress strain characteristics and a tabulated set of coefficients. A survey paper [23] and another publication [24] provide an excellent description of the advances made in EPFM through 1980.3 ENGINEERING APPROACH TO EPFM AND PIPING APPLICATIONS There are essentially three approaches considered in the application of EPFM in flaw evaluations. A few years later. however. this was followed by solutions for geometries (e. a fracture design analysis based on the J integral was not available until Shih and Hutchinson [15] provided the theoretical framework for such an approach in 1976. the CTOD parameter was applied extensively to fracture analysis of welded structures beginning in the late 1960s. He showed that this nonlinear energy release rate can be expressed as a line integral.3. Eshelby. the nuclear power industry endeavored to apply state-of-the-art technology. 46. 46. as well as political and public relations considerations. In the United Kingdom. one must have a mathematical relationship between toughness. Begley and Landes [13]. 46. In 1971. These analyses showed that the J integral can be viewed as a nonlinear stress intensity parameter as well as an energy release rate.2 [4] schematically illustrates a plot of J versus applied load. implying that both parameters are equally valid for characterizing fracture. All three methodologies consider the calculation of the J integral. with positive aspects of each approach combined to yield improved analyses. That same year. Because of legitimate concerns for safety. and flaw size.qxd 9/27/08 1:32 PM Page 2 2 • Chapter 46 FIG. did not apply his integrals to crack problems. At the time his work was being published. The difficulty with applying fracture mechanics in this instance was that most nuclear pressure vessel steels were too tough to be characterized with LEFM without resorting to enormous laboratory specimens. stress. the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) published a fracture design handbook [16] based on the Shih and Hutchinson methodology. While fracture research in the United States was driven primarily by the nuclear power industry during the 1970s.1 EFFECT OF FRACTURE TOUGHNESS ON THE GOVERNING FAILURE MECHANISM In 1968. Hutchinson [11] and Rice and Rosengren [12] related the J integral to crack tip stress fields in nonlinear materials. To apply fracture mechanics concepts to design or flaw evaluation. By idealizing plastic deformation as nonlinear elastic. The elastic and plastic components of J integral are computed separately and added to obtain the total J as follows: Jtotal Jel Jpl (1) Figure 46. In 1971. many of the problems of practical interest are in the elastic-plastic regime requiring an estimation scheme to calculate the J integral. Rice [9] developed another parameter to characterize nonlinear material behavior ahead of a crack. including fracture mechanics. Rice discovered that Eshelby [10] had previously published several so called conservation integrals. to the design and construction of nuclear power plants. to characterize fracture toughness of these steels with the J integral. who were research engineers at Westinghouse.18]. This is discussed further in the next section. The elastic-plastic estimation procedure derives from the work of Shih and Hutchinson [15] and others [25. Therefore. Although these relationships were well established for linear elastic problems. These approaches are the following: (a) J-integral tearing modulus–based approach or J-T methodology (b) deformation plasticity failure assessment diagram (DPFAD) methodology (c) R-6 methodology ASME BPVC Section XI has considered the first two approaches in the flaw evaluations. the engineering estimation of the applied J integral is discussed next. despite skepticism from their coworkers. Material toughness characterization is only one aspect of fracture mechanics. which he called the J integral.ASME_Ch46_p001-016.1 J Integral Estimation Method As one would guess.. Shih [22] demonstrated a relationship between the J integral and CTOD. came across Rice’s article and decided. evaluated along an arbitrary contour around the crack. a semiempirical fracture mechanics methodology for welded steel structures. Rice was able to generalize the energy release rate to nonlinear materials. The J-based material testing and the flaw evaluation methodologies developed in the United States and the British CTOD methodology have begun to merge in recent years. Both parameters are currently applied throughout the world to a range of materials. Rice’s work might have been relegated to obscurity had it not been for the active research effort by the nuclear power industry in the United States in the early 1970s. The nuclear power industry in the United Kingdom developed their own fracture design analysis [21]. directly or indirectly.

When J-controlled crack growth is applicable.1. the condition for continued crack growth is [28. is usually defined by a limit load solution for the geometry of interest. It should be noted that the plastic load line displacement. the h factors for various geometries and n values have been tabulated in several EPRI reports [16–18.29] as follows: J(a. 46. P0 normally corresponds to the load at which the net cross-section yields. 46. Typical fully plastic equations for J. and is obtained experimentally. n) (P/P0) n (4) (5) where (7) 2 for plane stress 6 for plane strain conditions The analytical expressions for KI are available from fracture mechanics handbooks [27]. the crack driving force J is a function of crack length a and load per unit thickness P. crack mouth opening displacement (Vp). Therefore. h2. and load line displacement ( p) would have the following form in the estimation scheme: n 1 (3) Jpl 0 0 b h1 (a/W.3.qxd 9/27/08 1:33 PM Page 3 COMPANION GUIDE TO THE ASME BOILER & PRESSURE VESSEL CODE • 3 where b a h1.ASME_Ch46_p001-016. The effective crack size is determined from the Irwin correction modified to account for strain hardening as follows: aeff a {1/[1 (P/P0)2]}{1/( )} {(n 1)/(n 1)}{KI(a)/ 0}2 a h2 (a/W.3 [27] shows a typical Ramberg-Osgood fit for a carbon steel material typically used in nuclear applications. is only that component of plastic displacement that is due to the crack. It is convenient in . v is the Position’s ratio and is typically assumed equal to 0. The JR curve is a function of the amount of crack growth.2 THE EPRI J ESTIMATION SCHEME where 0 The reference load. n) (P/P0) Vp p 0 0 The parentheses in the preceding equation indicate that KI is a function of aeff rather than a multiplication product.27] the applied load P FIG. a (a a0). p. and h3 the uncracked ligament length the crack length dimensionless parameters that depend on geometry and strain-hardening exponent. n) (P/P0)n a h3 (a/W. Figure 46. The specific values for dimensionless parameter h1 are given in Table 46. The total displacement in a structure is the sum of the elastic and plastic crack and no-crack components. crack growth is unstable if the following applies: (0 J/0 a) FIG. 0 0 /E Young’s modulus a dimensionless constantn the strain-hardening exponent Figure 46.4 shows the analytical expression for the calculation of Jpl for a pipe with a through-wall circumferential crack subjected to axial load and/or bending moment.3 TRUE-STRESS TRUE-STRAIN CURVE FOR A333 GRADE 6 BASE MATERIAL IN NRC/BCL 4111-1 PIPE T dJR/da (9) The subscript in the preceding equation denotes a partial derivative with the total displacement ¢ T held fixed. The elastic component of J is computed from the elastic stress intensity factor for an effective crack size as follows: Jel where E E for plane stress and E E/(1 v2) for plane strain condition. P0. {KI 2 (aeff)}/E (6) E n a reference stress value that is usually equal to the yield strength. P) JR(a a0) (8) For any given configuration.

5b. The predicted instability load is shown in Fig. The evaluation was based on a plastic collapse failure mechanism and allowable flaw sizes were developed using limit load analysis.2 Application of J-T Approach to Austenitic Stainless Steel Piping Flaw Evaluations Prior to the publication of the BPVC 1983 Addenda.4 FULLY PLASTIC J INTEGRAL FOR CIRCUMFERENTIAL THROUGH-WALL FLAWS IN CYLINDERS examining stability to introduce nondimensional tearing moduli [28] as follows: TJ {E/ 0 2 }(0 J/0 a) T and TJR {E/ 0 2 }(dJR/da) (10) secondary stress.ASME_Ch46_p001-016. 46. 46. T. flaw evaluation procedures in IWB-3600 were applicable to ferritic steel components 4 in.3. A J-T analysis for assumed The instability criterion is then simply phrased in terms of these moduli as follows: TJ TJR (11) Figure 46. Flaw evaluation procedures and allowable flaw sizes for LWR austenitic piping first appeared in IWB-3640 in that Addenda. 46. is assumed to be relaxed at failure and only primary membrane and bending stresses were used when performing flaw evaluations in accordance with IWB-3640.5 DETERMINATION OF INSTABILITY J.5 shows the J-T diagram.qxd 9/27/08 1:33 PM Page 4 4 • Chapter 46 FIG. such as bending due to thermal expansion. or greater in thickness (based on LEFM). 46. Because plastic collapse is the anticipated failure mechanism. FIG. AND ASSOCIATED LOAD FOR LOAD CONTROL EPFM ANALYSIS .

This distinction became necessary because some small specimen experimental data suggested that the applicable failure mechanism for the flux welds is unstable crack extension that would occur at loads lower than the plastic collapse load [32.1 FULLY PLASTIC J INTEGRAL FOR CIRCUMFERENTIAL THROUGH-WALL FLAWS IN CYLINDERS through-wall flaw geometries [30] showed that the predicted instability loads essentially reach those predicted by limit load and. the need arose to distinguish between high-toughness materials. The FIG. 46. The approach used was to develop some penalty factors or so-called Z factors to reduce the allowable flaw size at any specified load for flux welds relative to the hightoughness materials. was reported [31] with the conclusion that limit load conditions are achieved at the cracked section. Through-wall flaw geometries were assumed. Figure 46. thus. A similar EPFM evaluation for a weld overlay geometry.6 shows an example of this prediction. such as the wrought austenitic material. provided additional technical basis for the limit load approach. where the Sm is the Code-specified allowable stress for the pipe material.7 [32] shows an example of this evaluation. the flow stress was assumed as 3Sm. An EPFM approach was used to develop these factors. which include shielded metal arc welds (SMAW) and submerged arc welds (SAW). where a 360 flaw with depth equal to the original pipe thickness was assumed. For limit load comparison. 46.qxd 9/27/08 1:33 PM Page 5 COMPANION GUIDE TO THE ASME BOILER & PRESSURE VESSEL CODE • 5 TABLE 46.ASME_Ch46_p001-016.33]. and certain lower toughness flux welds. Subsequently.7 DETERMINATION OF J AND T AT CRACK INSTABILITY FOR AUSTENITIC SAW AT 550 F . Figure 46.6 COMPARISON OF NET-SECTION COLLAPSE LOAD AND ESTIMATION SCHEME MAXIMUM LOAD FOR AXIALLY LOADED 304 STAINLESS STEEL PIPE WITH THROUGH-WALL CIRCUMFERENTIAL CRACK FIG.

it was recommended that the expansion stresses with a margin of 1. however.51.8 implies that the associated Sr value is small. stress-strain curve with the following 2.2 SAFETY/STRUCTURAL FACTORS FOR CIRCUMFERENTIAL AND AXIAL FLAWS . 46. the 2004 Edition of Appendix C specifies the SAW Z factor for SMAW also. the parameters Kr and Sr are defined as follows: Kr Sr [KI2/(E JIC)]0. The allowable flaw sizes (e. the allowable flaw depth would be affected by these changes. The structural factor (SF) has the same meaning as the safety factor. JIC is the measure of toughness at the onset of crack extension. Sm was used instead of f in developing tables. Table 46. The technical basis for these changes is provided elsewhere [35]. This resulted in the introduction of Code Case N-463 [38] in the 1988 Addenda and Nonmandatory Appendix H in the 1989 Edition [39]. Prior to that.5 on primary membrane stress for normal/upset and emergency/faulted conditions.3 Application of J-T Approach to Ferritic Piping Flaw Evaluations 1.1 ksi. the EPFM approach on requires data JIC of the material. n 4. based on the DPFAD.30 [1 0.2 gives the revised SFs. indicating small-scale yielding. Appendix C.ASME_Ch46_p001-016. For circumferential flaws. the use of actual material properties was allowed where such information is available. A screening procedure based on DPFAD method is provided to identify the appropriate failure mode. therefore. could range from linear elastic fracture to elastic-plastic ductile tearing to plastic collapse.0 and 1.g. these SFs are applicable to Classes 1.2. The ASME Section XI Working Group on Flaw Evaluation approached this problem through the development of two separate approaches to address the region where EPFM is applicable. the stress ratio for a circumferentially flawed pipe is defined as the following: stress ratio where m b e f 46. It should also be noted that.013 (OD-4)] 0.3. If a low Kr value is calculated at initiation. The first approach was similar to the J-T approach used for austenitic piping [36. the parameters are the same as those used in DPFAD. it is an indication that fracture would be predicted near TABLE 46. The flow stress was also redefined from 3Sm to the average of yield and ultimate stress.37]. is described in the next section. The Code Case and the Nonmandatory Appendix of the Section XI Code provide the appropriate mathematical expressions to calculate the values.77 (for normal/upset or Levels A/B conditions) and 1. By taking conservative bounds of the instability load results. the Working Group on Flaw Evaluation of Section XI initiated work on the development of flaw evaluation procedures for ASME Class 1 ferritic piping. Flawed ferritic piping was recognized to have possible failure mechanisms. the following expressions for Z factors were developed: for SMAW. values of Ramberg-Osgood parameters: 27. Z where OD the pipe outer diameter in inches Subsequent experimental work by Battelle [34] indicated that there was no statistically significant difference between the SAW and SMAW J-R curves and. The Code is currently transitioning from safety factor terminology to structural factor to specify the required structural margins.qxd 9/27/08 1:33 PM Page 6 6 • Chapter 46 analysis considered a pipe with a through-wall flaw subjected to a bending moment. the JIC and y values (if user-specified values are unavailable) are shown in Table 46. As a minimum. 2.3. Also. The other approach. Separate SFs for primary membrane and primary bending and separate SFs for various service levels were incorporated in the 2002 Addenda.5 ( b e)/ b (15) (16) SFb primary membrane stress primary bending stress secondary bending stress material flow stress structural factor for bending Note that the preceding definition of stress ratio is consistent with the 2002 Addenda of ASME BPVC Section XI. The ratio of the limit load to the calculated instability load provided the Z factor value. The revision of SFs and the definition of flow stress do not directly affect the Z factors. When using the EPFM approach. The reference limit load bending stress is sb ¿ calculated using y as the flow stress. The evaluation methodology also developed a correlation between JIC and the more generally available Charpy V-notch (CVN) absorbed energy. Simply. in ASME BPVC Section XI.0 be included along with primary membrane and bending stress when evaluating flaws in flux welds. depending on operating temperature. Z for SAW. This wide variation of failure mechanisms necessitated an evaluation procedure that could account for all possible failure modes. because they are based on the ratio to limit load. and 3 piping and to both the austenitic and ferritic materials. Figure 46. respectively. and E 26000 ksi. The stress intensity factor KI is the sum of the LEFM contributions from applied membrane and bending stresses including e. the allowable circumferential flaws were developed using an SF of 2. The rationale for this change was to bring consistency with ASME BPVC Section III.010 (OD-4)] (12) (13) Z[( m b e /SFb)/ f (14) In 1983. The DPFAD assessment curve was generated using a lower-bound. which. Allowable longitudinal flaw sizes were developed using an SF of 3. 0 A high Kr value at failure (a point on the failure assessment curve) in Fig. 2004 Edition) are presented in tabular form as a function of stress ratio.39 (for emergency/faulted or Levels C/D conditions) on the sum of the primary membrane and bending stresses.15 [1 1. Because limit load may not be reached prior to failure..8 shows the screening procedure used. prior to the 2002 Addenda.

as shown in Fig. 46.3 DEFAULT MATERIAL PROPERTIES AND Z FACTORS FOR FERRITIC PIPING WITH CIRCUMFERENTIAL FLAWS 46. The general DPFAD procedure involves the following three steps [45]: (a) The generation of the DPFAD curve from elastic-plastic analysis of a flawed structure using deformation plasticity solutions for a simple power law strain hardening material based on the Ramberg-Osgood stress-strain equation.8 DPFAD FOR FAILURE MODE SCREENING CRITERION The difference between JIe and G is that JIe includes the small-scale.10 [37] shows the J-T curves associated with two JIC that were used to generate the mathematical expressions for Z factors.3. Based on this concept.qxd 9/27/08 1:33 PM Page 7 COMPANION GUIDE TO THE ASME BOILER & PRESSURE VESSEL CODE • 7 limit load. yielding plastic zone correction while G does not. The flow diagram leading to EPFM evaluation option is shown in Fig. 46. The approach was an alternate to then Appendix H of Section XI and allowed the user to remove some conservatism in the existing procedure by allowing the use of pipe-specific material properties.9. Bloom and coworkers [42-45].3. structural . The revision also included the incorporation of separate SFs for membrane and bending loading into the screening criteria evaluations and the mathematical expressions for the calculation of allowable stresses [40]. the resulting Z factors expressions are provided in Table 46. The default material properties used in the evaluation and the corresponding Z factor expressions are shown in Table 46.8. the Code approved Code Case N-494 [41] as an alternative procedure for evaluating flaws in light-water reactor (LWR) ferritic piping. which is a function of flaw geometry.ASME_Ch46_p001-016. If the J-integral response of the structure can be represented by the following: Japplied then the following applies: JIe Jp (17) [Japplied/G] K r = 2(G/Japplied) = f(Sr) 1Kr2 (JIe Jp)/G where Sr the ratio of applied stress to net section plastic collapse stress G = KI2/E FIG. In 1990. In the ASME BPVC 2002 Addenda. 46.4. The resulting expression defines a curve in the Kr Sr plane.17] for cracked structures in the format of the British Central Electricity Generating Board’s (CEGB) R-6 two-criteria failure assessment diagram (FAD). TABLE 46.4 DPFAD Method The DPFAD procedure uses deformation plasticity solutions [16. When user-specified JIC values are available. The technical basis was documented in several technical papers authored by J. Figure 46. the applicability range of limit load and LEFM were defined by the ratio of Kr to Sr . Appendices H and C were combined into a revised Appendix C.M.

TABLE 46.ASME_Ch46_p001-016.qxd 9/27/08 1:33 PM Page 8 8 • Chapter 46 FIG.9 FLOW CHART FOR SCREENING CRITERIA TO ESTABLISH THE ANALYSIS METHOD (b) The determination of assessment points based the ratio of KI or √ 1JI of the structure divided by the relevant material property √ 1KIC or 1JIC at flaw initiation or for stable configuration. 46. and stress-strain behavior of the material defined uniquely by and n.4 Z FACTORS FOR CIRCUMFERENTIAL FLAWS IN FERRITIC PIPING WITH USER-SPECIFIED MATERIAL PROPERTIES . Because both Kr and Sr are linear in applied stress. the DPFAD curve is independent of the magnitude of the applied loading.10 FERRITIC MATERIAL J-T CURVES USED IN EPFM EVALUATION FIG. 46.

qxd 9/27/08 1:33 PM Page 9 crack growth. and only one load level is needed to determine the instability load. For tearing instability. The first R-6 document [21] emerged in 1976 as a result of a requirement of the Central Electricity Generating Board in the United Kingdom to include the assessment of fracture resistance in the design of steam-generating heavy-water reactor (SGHWR). The resolution of USI A-11 was documented by the U. developments in fracture mechanics methodology. Although NUREG-0744 provided methods for evaluating the fracture behavior of these materials. it did not provide specific criteria for demonstrating the equivalence of margins with Appendix G of the ASME Code.1 Appendix K Criteria.1. Work is in progress to revise the Sr cut-off to be consistent with Appendix C. (c) Crack initiation or tearing instability can be determined graphically by plotting the calculated assessment point(s) on the FAD. as summarized below: (a) Level A/B Conditions. The problem of evaluating materials that did not meet the regulatory requirement of 50 ft-lb was designated as Unresolved Safety Issue A-11.S.61 [56].4. It was found that vessels welded with the Linde 80 weld material did not always meet the regulatory requirement of 50 ft-lb. NRC in NUREG0744. 46. Sr .S. a single assessment point is calculated. and a probabilistic approach.11 INSTABILITY POINT DETERMINATION IN DPFAD SPACE . the new Section XI flaw evaluation approach. Appendix G of 10 CFR Part 50 [52] requires that “reactor vessel beltline materials must have Charpy upper-shelf energy of no less than 75 ft-lb (102 J) initially and must maintain uppershelf energy (USE) throughout the life of the vessel of no less than 50 ft-lb (68 J). both axial and circumferential interior flaws are postulated. the critical instability load is determined by the tangency of the assessment locus with the DPFAD curve. and the American Petroleum Institute document API 579. Kr . Resolution of the Task A-11 Reactor Vessel Materials Toughness Safety Issue [54]. in particular the procedure resulting from the European project SINTAP. For crack initiation. Recently. 46. Appendix K specifies different requirements for Levels A/B conditions and Levels C and D conditions. stimulated the decision to revise R-6 in its entirety as the new Revision 4 [49].1 LOW UPPER-SHELF ENERGY EVALUATION One of the first applications of EPFM for pressure vessels was in addressing the resolution of the low upper-shelf toughness issue. The instability load is determined by multiplying the applied load by the ratio of the distance from the origin to the point of intersection of the line with the DPFAD curve to the distance from the origin of the diagram to the applied load point. The U. For flaw initiation.11. the single assessment point must fall on the DPFAD curve or inside the curve.47]. When the upper-shelf Charpy energy of the base metal is less than 50 ft-lb. 46. COMPANION GUIDE TO THE ASME BOILER & PRESSURE VESSEL CODE • 9 46. For stable crack growth.S. and the ratio of the applied stress (load) to net section plastic collapse (limit load) for the abscissa. 46. This was subsequently developed by the ASME Section XI Subgroup on Evaluation Standards and then issued as Appendix K of Section XI [55]. NRC approved Appendix K but provided guidance acceptable to the NRC staff for evaluating pressure vessels that did not meet the 50 ft-lb regulatory requirement in Regulatory Guide 1. a locus of assessment points are determined by incrementing the crack size a by a a in the calculation of JI for a constant applied load. These are evaluated using the toughness properties for the corresponding FIG.5 R-6 Method and EPFM in Non-U. 46. 46.11 in the shape of a candy cane. Any assessment point on a line from the origin of the diagram is directly proportional to load with any other point on that same line. 1Jg(¢a). the British Standards Guide BS7910.ASME_Ch46_p001-016. which was being considered at that time for commercial operation.3. The resulting locus is shown in Fig.51]. The last major revision of R-6 was in 1986 [48]. The original Code Case N-494 was further revised in 1994 to include assessment of austenitic piping where the material stressstrain behavior cannot be fit to the Ramberg-Osgood model [46. as shown in Fig. the tearing resistance of the material for the ordinate. Codes and Standards The British R-6 method was used as the initial framework of the DPFAD method. This Code Case has been revised in 2007 to incorporate the impact of separate safety factors for membrane and bending stresses. Other work of interest related to EPFM is the Swedish SKI work [50.” unless it is demonstrated that lower uppershelf energy will provide safety margins equivalent to those required by ASME BPVC Appendix G [53]. The 2002 Addenda to ASME BPVC Section XI also created a new Nonmandatory Appendix H covering the DPFAD methodology (the old Appendix H was folded into a revised Appendix C).4 APPLICATION TO RPV EVALUATION The EPFM has been applied to RPV evaluation in three distinct ways: upper-shelf energy evaluation.4.

The initiation and stability criteria are the same as those in Eqs. as given by the following equations: Japplied where Japplied the J-integral value calculated for the postulated flaw under pressure and thermal loading. factor one on pressure and thermal stresses). Table 46. A smaller flaw size may be used on an individual case if the basis is justified.1. the J-R curve used in the analysis must be a “best estimate representation” of the vessel material. except that the Japplied is TABLE 46. The lower factor is justified based on the fact that Level C represents lower probability events. There is no criterion for ductile crack extension (initiation) but there is a criterion for crack stability. (b) Level C Conditions.qxd 9/27/08 1:33 PM Page 10 10 • Chapter 46 orientation. as denoted by a J-R curve test at a crack extension of 0. The calculation of Japplied assumes small-scale yielding.75 times the wall thickness and the remaining ligament must be safe from tensile instability. Level C. The lower factor is justified based on the fact that Level D represents the lowest probability events. Also. it describes the procedure for calculating Japplied and three methods for the stability evaluation. The technical basis for Appendix K is described in detail in WRC Bulletin 413 [57]. (c) Level D Conditions.25 times the maximum accumulation pressure.. The second criterion is based on flaw stability. The first step is the calculation of K for pressure {KIp(a)} and thermal {KIt(a)} loading for the postulated flaw.5 J0. The first criterion is based solely on limited ductile crack extension (initiation). The effective flaw depth. 46. with thermal loading.1 times the thickness plus clad thickness but not more than 1 in.. ae. Also. with load held constant at Japplied Jmaterial where Japplied the J-integral value calculated for the postulated flaw under pressure and thermal loading.e. For Level D conditions.2 Evaluation Procedure for the Calculation of Japplied. and Level D for the low upper-shelf evaluation. for smallscale yielding is determined by adding the plastic zone size to the postulated flaw size as follows: ae where a (1/(6 ))[(KIp(a) KIt(a))/ y]2 (20) (19) APPENDIX K REQUIREMENTS FOR DIFFERENT CONDITIONS . with thermal loading using the plantspecific heatup and cooldown conditions.25 and with an aspect ratio of 6-to-1 surface length to flaw depth is postulated. the J-R curve used in the analysis must be a “conservative representation” of the vessel material. (19) applies with Japplied being calculated for the governing Level D loading conditions (i.1 times the thickness plus clad thickness but not more than 1 in. where the assumed pressure is 1. and aspect ratio a/ 1/6. The J-R curve used in the analysis must be a conservative bound of the J-R data representative of the vessel material. where the assumed pressure is 1. The elastic K calculations can be performed using the equations in Appendix K or other fracture mechanics solutions. the postulated flaw is somewhat smaller: 0. the stable flaw depth must not exceed 0.15 times the maximum accumulation pressure.ASME_Ch46_p001-016.4. (1) and (2). factor one on pressure and thermal stresses). Specifically. the postulated flaw is the same as that for Level C: 0. the J-integral characteristic of the material’s resistance to ductile tearing (Jmaterial).5 summarizes the different requirements for the different conditions: Levels A/B. in which case ductile stable tearing is considered. In addition to the flaw stability requirement. Two criteria must be satisfied as described below: the crack driving force must be shown to be less than the material toughness. A semielliptical surface flaw with an a/t 0. and aspect ratio a/ 1/6. Japplied/ a Jmaterial/ a.1 calculated for the governing Level C loading conditions (i. The stability requirement of Eq.1 (18) J0.1 in.e. For Level C conditions.

ASME_Ch46_p001-016. 46.2 Young’s modulus (ksi) Poisson’s ratio 1000 Ke2 > [E/(1 v2)] (21) The J integral (JI) for the 0. The flaw depth is set at 0. As shown in Fig. the appropriate acceptance criterion for ductile crack extension is JI J0. 46. The DPFAD for a quarter T flaw is shown in Fig. for Levels A/B conditions. The pressure is multiplied by 1.25 on pressure is used. 46. 1.25 when the assessment points are calculated and plotted on the DPFAD. a factor of 1.qxd 9/27/08 1:33 PM Page 11 a KIp and KIt y the postulated flaw depth (inches) ksi 1inch the yield strength (ksi) COMPANION GUIDE TO THE ASME BOILER & PRESSURE VESSEL CODE • 11 The effective stress intensity factor Ke KIp(ae) KIt(ae) is determined by substituting ae in place of a.4. The applied J for small-scale yielding is given by the following: J where J E v in. The structural factor on pressure is determined by scaling distances along a line through FIG. The J-T procedure consists of the following steps: FIG. 46.12.12 DUCTILE CRACK GROWTH STABILITY EVALUATION FIG.14 shows a schematic plot of the J-T curve. WRC Bulletin 413 describes three ways to perform the stability analysis.1. Figure 46.1.14 THE J INTEGRAL-TEARING MODULUS (J-T) PROCEDURE .15 on pressure stress and 1 on thermal stress for Levels A/B conditions). Figure 46. flaw extension is given by using Eq. (a) J-R Curve-Crack Driving Force Diagram Procedure.13 DPFAD FOR A 1/4 T FLAW the origin and the assessment point.1-in. (b) Failure Assessment Diagram Procedure. The applied J is calculated for a series of crack depths corresponding to increasing levels of crack extension. the material J-R curve is superposed. The applied J is plotted against crack depth.-lb/in. The acceptance criterion for flaw stability is satisfied when the assessment points lie inside the DPFAD curve. 46. For Levels A/B conditions. Flaw stability at a given applied load is demonstrated when the slope of the applied J curve is less than the slope of J-R curve at the point where the two curves intersect.25t 0.13.g. (c) J-Integral/Tearing Modulus (J-T) Procedure. The DPFAD plots the relationship between Kr (square root of the ratio of the elastic J and the elastic-plastic J) and Sr (ratio of the actual pressure to the limit pressure). (4) and the appropriate factor on stress (e. 46.1 in.3 Evaluation Procedure for Flaw Stability Analysis..12 shows the concept of ductile crack extension and crack stability evaluation.

Note that the equations for C2. Mehta [60] and Griesbach and Smith [61] provided examples for the use of Appendix K in evaluating reactor vessels with low upper-shelf toughness.49 ln (CVN) 0. the values can be estimated from RG 1.12 0. The generic J-integral fracture resistance curve equation is given in RG 1.4. Its intent is only to determine whether adequate structural factors can be maintained even in the low USE condition and with rather large flaw postulates. There are situations in which ferritic steel components operate at the upper-shelf region and. the Code Case criteria and the technical basis are described in detail here. 46. the value of MF was set as 1. exhibit ample ductility.6 gives the values for other materials such as the Linde 80 flux welds and reactor pressure vessel plate materials. The proposed Code Case N-XXX. The ASME Section XI flaw evaluation rules for vessels (IWB-3600 plus Appendix A) are based on LEFM techniques and were developed primarily for the irradiated RPV belt-line region and other low-temperature carbon and low-alloy steel applications in which the material exhibits limited or no ductility. (5).116 ln C1 ASME BPVC Section XI procedures for vessel flaw assessment are based on LEFM evaluation. and C. which provides the relationship of USE to crack tip fluence. For generic reactor pressure welds.99. C3.2.4 Guidance on the Material J-R Curve. alternatively. 46. TABLE 46. RG 1. possesses adequate ductility to allow the use of EPFM techniques. not to ductile failure.00249T] (23) (24) (25) (26) 0. For analyses addressing Service Level D.qxd 9/27/08 1:33 PM Page 12 12 • Chapter 46 (1) Determine the material J-T curve. and C4 are the same for all materials.5 1.6 RECOMMENDED J-R CURVE PARAMETERS FROM RG 1. has been approved by the ASME Section Subgroup on Evaluation Standards and is now being considered by the Section XI Subcommittee.4. therefore.1.2 New Section XI Approaches for EPFM Evaluation The values for C1. B. Table 46. and C4 are based on correlations developed by Eason et al [58]. In the application of the JR formulation in Eq.2. CVN is the irradiated USE. In the proposed Code Case. Revision 2 [59]. therefore. C1 C2 C3 C4 exp[ 4. 46. The LEFM methods may be sometimes overly conservative and may underestimate the actual margin.0. such as normal operating conditions for both PWRs and BWRs. ASME is in the process of developing alternate acceptance criteria based on EPFM techniques. C3.161 provides the values of various constants in the preceding equation. C2.077 0. particularly for upper-shelf condition when the deformation behavior is ductile. ASME BPVC Section III recognizes the inherent ductile nature of pressure vessel behavior by excluding secondary stresses (displacement-governed stresses such as thermal and discontinuity stresses) from explicit stress limits (the 3Sm limit on secondary stress range is related to shakedown and fatigue.2 Technical Approach. Application of LEFM techniques to these Cases is very conservative. This may be available from surveillance specimen testing or. For analyses addressing Service Levels A.0812 0.161 JR (MF){C1( a)C2 exp[C3( a)C4]} .ASME_Ch46_p001-016.) Appendix G and the recent Appendix K also recognize the inherent differences between thermal and pressure stresses by assigning structural lower factors for thermal stresses. the factor MF was set as 0. (4) Apply the acceptance criteria.0092 ln C1 0. This Code Case proposes alternate acceptance criteria for situations in which the component is operating in the upper-shelf temperature region and. EPFM is a more appropriate fracture mechanics technology than LEFM for nonirradiated materials at higher temperatures. Alternative Acceptance Criteria and Evaluation Procedure for Flaws in Ferritic Steel Components Operating in the Upper Shelf Range [62]. Because of the importance of this Code Case and the fact that it represents a significant change in the technical approach to flaw evaluation.1 Background. both stable CVN is the Charpy USE in ft-lb and T is the crack tip temperature in F. The alternative relationship between the irradiated USE and the unirradiated USE and fluence is provided elswhere [7]. An important thing to remember is that Appendix K considers postulated flaws not actual flaws. (2) Calculate the value of J at the onset of instability (intersection of the applied J-T and material J-T curve).161 [56] as follows: JR (MF){C1( a)C2 exp[C3( a)C4]} (22) 46.4. (3) Calculate the internal pressure at the point of flaw instability.4.629.

Tc. IWB-3600.5 times the primary loads and 1. trigger-point temperature. including the proximity rules of IWA-3300. under applied loading. The first criterion is based solely on limited ductile crack extension (initiation). It does offer simplicity in the evaluation process for cases where the material is relatively tough or the applied loads are relatively small. (a) Basis for the Use of EPFM. 46. Appendix C includes a screening criterion to determine which regime a ferritic piping flaw evaluation must consider (LEFM. and highly localized stresses) are to be considered in applying this Code Case. is conservative. The applied J must be less than the predicted instability point. from pressure and mechanical loads) and secondary and peak stresses (i. (b) Acceptance Criteria Based Solely on Limited Ductile Crack Extension and Instability (1) Normal/Upset Conditions (a) For ductile crack extension. including thermal and residual stresses. This Code Case requires that the operating temperature must exceed the upper-shelf. An even more appropriate approach is presented in Appendix K. stress corrosion cracking. the J-integral resistance versus flaw extension curve must be a conservative representation for the vessel material at the flaw location. (2) Emergency/Faulted Conditions (a) For ductile crack extension. (2) Emergency and Faulted Conditions. including thermal and residual stresses. (d) All applicable loading (primary and secondary) must be evaluated. J must be evaluated at loads equal to 1.0 times the secondary loads. This is consistent with the present procedure for flaw evaluation in vessels in Section XI. 46. including thermal and residual stresses. The applied J must be less than the predicted instability point determined as shown in Fig. and. The flaws must be projected in both axial and circumferential orientations. and Appendix A.0 times the secondary loads. The applied J must be less than the J integral of the material at a ductile flaw extension of 0. allows the use of EPFM techniques. This criterion does not consider stable ductile tearing and. as shown in Fig. in which case ductile stable tearing is considered. applying equal structural factors ( ' 3 for normal and upset loads) to both primary stresses due to internal pressure and mechanical loads as well as to secondary and peak stresses. the applied J must be evaluated at loads equal to 3 times primary loads and 1.4.0 times the primary loads and 1. defined as Tc RTNDT 105 F. (b) For flaw instability due to ductile tearing. The temperature of the operating condition must exceed the upper-shelf trigger temperature. including weld residual stresses. or limit load). (b) Determination of Upper-Shelf Temperature.25 times the primary loads and 1. The second criterion is based on flaw stability. EPFM. The following analytical procedure must be used: (a) Applicability of this procedure and acceptance criteria is limited to ferritic steel components on the upper shelf of the Charpy energy curve. therefore. specifies different structural factors for primary stresses ( ' 3) than for secondary loadings (1). (c) A flaw growth analysis must be performed to determine the maximum amount of crack propagation due to fatigue.4. J must be evaluated at loads equal to 1.0 times the secondary loads.4 Acceptance Criteria.e. is limited.0 times secondary loads. For all evaluations.10 in. A flaw is acceptable for continued operation if the J integral (J) satisfies either of the criteria below.10 in.2.qxd 9/27/08 1:33 PM Page 13 COMPANION GUIDE TO THE ASME BOILER & PRESSURE VESSEL CODE • 13 ductile crack extension and flaw stability due to ductile tearing are considered to ensure that crack extension. 46. except that these techniques are applied to actual flaws rather than hypothetical flaws. 46. even for a stable flaw. Ample precedent exists in ASME BPVC Section XI for the application of EPFM to materials that exhibit some ductility. Two alternate acceptance criteria are proposed in this proposed Code Case. The applied J must be less than the J integral of the material at a ductile flaw extension of 0. in addition to different structural factors for primary versus secondary loadings.4. for the problems that fall into the EPFM regime. such as those caused by .0 times secondary loads.10 in. J must be evaluated at loads equal to 1. (a) Acceptance Criteria Based Solely on Limited Ductile Crack Extension (1) Normal/Upset Conditions. The definition ensures that the material exhibits ample ductility in thick sections and.ASME_Ch46_p001-016. The LEFM methodology treats all loadings on the vessel equivalently. (c) Loads and Stresses. thermal. including thermal and residual stresses.5 times primary loads and 1.0 times the secondary loads.. The applied J must be less than the J integral of the material at a ductile flaw extension of 0. (b) The flaws must be characterized in accordance with the requirements of IWA-3300.5 Justification for the Structural Factors. it must be demonstrated that the vessel material is operating within the upper-shelf range of its Charpy energy curve.2.. defined as RTNDT 105 F.e. Such precedent may be seen in Appendix C for evaluation of flaws in austenitic piping and ferritic piping and in Appendix K for the assessment of RPVs with low upper-shelf toughness.14.3 Evaluation Procedure. and each orientation evaluated. in calculating the crack growth and determining flaw acceptability. 46. For use of this Code Case. the use of the EPFM techniques proposed for this Code Case is not unprecedented. the applied J must be evaluated at loads equal to 1. J must be evaluated at loads equal to 3. residual. The EPFM approach proposed in this Code Case is very similar to that in Appendix K of Section XI. including thermal and residual stresses. during a specified evaluation period.10 in.5 times the primary loads and 1. and. All primary stresses (i.14. The effect of radiation embrittlement must be considered in determining RTNDT. (b) For flaw instability due to ductile tearing. or both mechanisms when applicable. this appendix also provides an approximate procedure for performing flaw instability analysis for flaws in RPV materials operating at the upper shelf. including thermal and residual stresses. in that sense.2. The applied J must be less than the J integral of the material at a ductile flaw extension of 0.

(a) Normal/Upset Conditions.3 Probabilistic EPFM The nuclear industry is increasingly using probabilistic analysis and risk-informed evaluation to optimize inspections of pressure vessel and piping inspections.0 for secondary and peak loads (including residual stresses) are proposed. higher structural factors are applied for this condition and lower structural factors are applied when considering limited ductile crack extension. For this Code Case also.25 on primary loads and 1. limited ductile flaw extension. in so doing.6 J-Integral Material Resistance Curve. This Case proposes the same three methods for determining the J-R curve as in Section XI. The risk-informed analysis methodology and application have been defined and approved by the ASME Code and the U. structural factors of 1. For the acceptance criterion based on flaw instability.S. Rahman [63] described a probabilistic model for predicting elastic-plastic fracture initiation in piping with part through finite length circumferential cracks in piping.4. Palo Alto. Appendix C. structural factors of 1.5 for primary loads and 1.0 on secondary loads are proposed. For this Code Case also.5 on primary loads and 1. structural factors of 3 for primary loads and 1.5 for primary loads and 1.4. which allows the use of EPFM techniques for RPVs with low upper-shelf toughness. are proposed in this Code Case. Analytical equations are developed to predict the J integral for a surface-cracked pipe under pure bending. a check is made on limited ductile crack extension with structural factors of 1. For the acceptance criterion based on flaw instability. Appendix C for secondary loads. following accepted test procedures. 46. Different structural factors are also proposed for flaw instability and limited ductile crack extension.4. and. Most of the risk-informed fracture mechanics evaluations have been based on LEFM analysis. ferritic materials at very low temperatures.and second-order reliability methods.2. are deemed appropriate. Statistical representation of the uncertainties in loads. The proposed structural factor of 1. RPV beltline materials at low temperatures after significant irradiation embrittlement. Section XI. However. With greater acceptance of EPFM and risk-informed analysis. The use of EPFM as a basis for acceptance criteria requires adequate characterization of the J-integral resistance curve for the vessel material. structural factors of 1. This Code Case deals with realistic flaw sizes that might potentially be expected to occur in vessels. 46. structural factors of 3 on primary loads and 1 on secondary loads are applied. at some point in the future. The proposed Code Case provides alternate criteria for using EPFM methodology for the evaluation of flaws discovered in ferritic steel components. Appendix K. provided the method is justified for the material.5 for primary loads and 1. failure is predicted at instability. Appendix C. it must be recognized that Appendix K is not dealing with flaw evaluations. Once again. such as glass. It is expected that the proposed Code Case will reduce the excess conservatisms inherent in present flaw evaluation methodologies in Section XI and allow for more appropriate flaw evaluation procedures for vessels that operate in the upper-shelf temperature range. . Structural factors consistent with other provisions in Section XI. rather with demonstrating adequate levels of toughness. this Code Case proposes different structural factors for normal/upset conditions and emergency/faulted conditions. Appendix K. structural factors of 3 for primary loads and 1. these structural factors are deemed to be appropriate. Maccary RR. probabilistic EPFM evaluations will be used to assess the effectiveness of inspections.0 for secondary and peak loads (including residual stresses) are proposed. it was assumed that the crack length and depth would follow a Gaussian probability distribution. Nondestructive Examination Acceptance Standards – Technical Basis and Development of Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code. loads. and material properties.0 on secondary loads is also consistent with that specified in Section XI. The models were qualified by comparison with finite element calculations of the J integral.5 REFERENCES 1. it postulates very large hypothetical flaw sizes. These loadings are equivalent in their potential to produce fracture in only the most brittle of materials. The technical requirements in this Code Case are very similar to those in Section XI. were used in conjunction with first. Similar to Section XI. Division 1 (EPRI Report NP-1406-SR). CA: Electric Power Research Institute. 46. or an indirect method of estimating the J-R curve may be used. Instead.0 for secondary loads to ensure that crack extension is not excessive. The model uses a deformation plasticity–based J-integral analysis and incorporates a local reduced thickness analogy for simulating system compliance due to the presence of a crack. it is reasonable to expect that. For the acceptance criterion based solely on limited ductile crack extension. which allow the use of EPFM for actual flaws. The results indicated that the reliability theory was consistent with the Monte Carlo simulation. 46. Note that these are more conservative than the structural factors actually specified for primary and secondary loads in Appendix K of 1. these lower safety factors for limited ductile crack extension are justified because limited stable ductile extension does not constitute failure. NRC. and thick. (b) Emergency/Faulted Conditions.2. crack size. A J-R curve may be generated by actual testing of the material. In the EPFM evaluation in Appendix K. which have been clearly demonstrated to operate in the upper-shelf temperature range. For the acceptance criterion based solely on limited ductile crack extension. Because failure is not associated with ductile crack extension. This is consistent with the structural factors for EPFM evaluations in Appendix C of Section XI. it may be generated from a J-integral database obtained from the same class of material with the same orientation. more conservative structural factors. For a given applied moment.0 for secondary loads. Because in an EPFM evaluation.ASME_Ch46_p001-016.0 on secondary and peak loads are proposed.7 Conclusion. The statistical parameters and their probability distribution were arbitrary and the intent was to illustrate the methodology. 1980. The statistical distribution of the initial flaw was not based on in-service inspection data. using J-integral–based EPFM methods and standard methods of structural reliability theory. Appendix K specifies three methods for selection of the material J-integral resistance curve. the J distribution was calculated both by the application of the second-order reliability method and by Monte Carlo simulation.0 for secondary and peak loads (including residual stresses) are proposed.qxd 9/27/08 1:33 PM Page 14 14 • Chapter 46 differential thermal expansion and residual stresses. Therefore. paralleling those in ASME BPVC Section XI. ASME Section XI.

Vol. Eshelby JD. 1961. In: Advances in Applied Mechanics. 9. Burdekin FM. Journal of Applied Mechanics 1968. Landes JD. Palo Alto. CA: Electric Power Research Institute. Broek D. May 1971.67:27–55. Landes JD. Fatigue and Fracture. 1981. 1986. Wells AA. CA: Electric Power Research Institute. PA: American Society for Testing and Materials. A Path Independent Integral and the Approximate Analysis of Strain Concentration by Notches and Cracks. 1. 24. Evaluation Procedures and Acceptance Criteria for Flaws in Ferritic Piping That Exceed the Acceptance Standards of IWB-3514. In: ASME PVP Vol. UK. New York: American Society of Mechanical Engineers. Rice JR. 32. Rice JR. 1996. 1976. . Paris PC. Evaluation of Flaws in Ferritic Piping. 2001: pp. New York: American Society of Mechanical Engineers. Paper 84. PA: American Society for Testing and Materials. Standard Test Method for JIc. Palo Alto. 1988. Shih CF. Cipolla RC. 1985. Gamble RM. Yielding in Steel Sheets Containing Slits. Sagamore Research Conference Proceedings 1961. Harrison RP. Journal of Engineering Materials and Technology 1976. Flaw Evaluation Procedures: ASME Section XI (EPRI Report NP719-SR). 1979: pp. 31. German MD. West Conshohocken. Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology 1986. Hutchinson JW. Oxford Science Publications. EPRI Report NP-4690-SR. Zahoor A. Dugdale DS. 19. Vol. 18. Kanninen MF. In: ElasticPlastic Fracture: Second Symposium. 1995. Journal of Mechanics and Physics of Solids 1968. CA: Electric Power Research Institute. West Conshohocken. Wells AA. 1988. The Continuum Theory of Lattice Defects. ASTM E 813-81. Scarth DA. Fracture Mechanics Database for Nuclear Piping Materials (PIFRAC). 35. Cranfield. The Theory of Instability of the Tearing Mode of Elastic-Plastic Crack Growth.16:13–31. 324. Advanced Fracture Mechanics. Shih CF. 14. 37–64. 12. EPRI Report NP-6045. 1989. Transactions of the Ninth International Conference on Structural Mechanics in Reactor Technology 1987.98:289–295. 1972: pp. Palo Alto. Unstable Crack Propagation in Metals: Cleavage and Fast Fracture. 20. Vol. pp. Zilberstein VA. 1983: pp. Dawes MG. Zahoor A. Milne I. Irwin GR. 1972. VII. German MD. Wilkowski GM. 17. Yukawa S. Palo Alto. 55–129. In: Elastic-Plastic Fracture (ASTM Special Technical Publication 668). CA: Electric Power Research Institute. Paris PC. PVRC Recommendations on Toughness Requirements for Ferritic Materials. Kanninen MF. Rosengren GF. 27.qxd 9/27/08 1:33 PM Page 15 COMPANION GUIDE TO THE ASME BOILER & PRESSURE VESSEL CODE • 15 2. 231–245. Engineering Methods for the Assessment of Ductile Fracture Margin in Nuclear Power Plant Piping. Paris PC. Plastic Zone Near a Crack and Fracture Toughness. 7. Kumar V. Ductile Fracture Handbook. WRC Bulletin 175. Section XI. London. Evaluation of Flaws in Austenitic Steel Piping. 1981. The J-Integral as a Fracture Criterion (ASTM Special Technical Publication 514). Barenblatt GI. PA: American Society for Testing and Materials. Kumar V. 16. Evaluation of Flaws in Carbon Steel Piping (EPRI Reports NP-4824M and NP4824SP). Ranganath S. 29. 1973: pp. 23. Loosemore K.10:563–570. Volume II – Fracture Resistance Curves and Engineering Applications (ASTM Special Technical Publication 803. 40–69. Evaluation of Flaws in Ferritic Piping. 1989. 15. 3. pp. J-Integral Estimation Procedures (ASTM Special Technical Publication 514). 11.2. CA: Electric Power Research Institute. PA: American Society for Testing and Materials. Some Further Results on J-Integral Analysis and Estimates (ASTM Special Technical Publication 536). Palo Alto. Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids 8:100–104. 1979: pp. Vol. 77–84. Proceedings of Institute of Mechanical Engineers Conference. 28. An Engineering Approach for Elastic-Plastic Fracture Analysis (EPRI Report NP-1931). Relationship Between the J-Integral and the Crack Opening Displacement for Stationary and Extending Cracks. 10. 6. 309–330. 2. 2). Division 1. Mehta HS. Technical Basis for Proposed Revision to Acceptance Criteria for ASME Section XI Pipe Flaw Evaluation (ASME PVP Vol. 28–37. Ghadiali N. Assessment of the Integrity of Structures Containing Defects (Central Electricity Generating Board Report R/H/R6). Wilkowski GM. 39. 1986. 37. 422). 34. Evaluation of Flaws in Austenitic Steel Piping: Section XI Task Group for Piping Flaw Evaluation. Fully Plastic Solutions and Large Scale Yielding Estimates for Plane Stress Crack Problems. Fracture Mechanics – Fundamentals and Applications. Mehta HS. Practical Use of Linear Elastic and Yielding Fracture Mechanics with Particular Reference to Pressure Vessels. Palo Alto. 36. Boca Raton. 4. Nuclear Engineering and Design 1981. West Conshohocken. 1984. Kumar V. Singular Behavior at the End of a Tensile Crack Tip in a Hardening Material. 2005. Journal of Mechanics and Physics of Solids 1981. Rice JR. FL: CRC Press. The Mathematical Theory of Equilibrium Cracks in Brittle Fracture. Merkle JG. 5. 1962: pp. Hutchinson JW. Solid State Physics 1956. West Conshohocken. Journal of Mechanics and Physics of Solids 1968. New York: American Society of Mechanical Engineers. Hutchinson JW. 25. Stability Analysis of J-Controlled Crack Growth. PA: American Society for Testing and Materials. ASME BPVC Code Case N-463. Tada H. West Conshohocken. Zahoor A. In: ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code. Paris PC. 1: Circumferential Throughwall Cracks (EPRI Report NP-6301-D). Palo Alto. CA: Electric Power Research Institute. 21.3. PA: American Society for Testing and Materials. West Conshohocken. 26. 33. In: ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code. Elastic-Plastic Fracture Analysis of ThroughWall and Surface Flaws in Cylinders (EPRI Report NP-5596). ASME Code.35:379–386. Shih CF. 38. 8. et al. Begley JA. Academic Press. New York: American Society of Mechanical Engineers.ASME_Ch46_p001-016. 13.G:469–474. 22. Advances in Elastic-Plastic Fracture Analysis (EPRI Report NP-3607). 1988. Rice JR. 31–51. Ernst H. Anderson TL. 1972: pp. J-Integral Analysis of Ductile Fracture Margin in Piping Weld Overlays. Appendix H.108:352–366. Proceedings of the Crack Propagation Symposium. 65–120. 1–20. CA: Electric Power Research Institute. Popelar CH.16:1–12. New York: Welding Research Council. British Welding Journal 1963. Ranganath S. Plane Strain Deformation Near a Crack Tip in a Power Law Hardening Material. Bucci RJ. West Conshohocken. A Critical Survey on the Application of Plastic Fracture Mechanics to Nuclear Pressure Vessels and Piping. a Measure of Fracture Toughness.29:305–326. 30. 1978.4. PA: American Society for Testing and Materials. In: Elastic-Plastic Fracture (ASTM Special Technical Publication 668). Palo Alto. CA: Electric Power Research Institute. ASME BPVC Section XI. Popelar CH. Mehta HS. Application of Fracture Mechanics at and Beyond General Yielding. Vol.

FL. 52. In: Code of Federal Regulations. 463). 1991. Evaluation of Flaws in Ferritic Piping. Fatigue and Fracture Mechanics in Pressure Vessels and Piping. Development of Criteria for Assessment of Reactor Vessels with Low Upper Shelf Fracture Toughness. Revision 4. ASME PVP Vol. 2003. 62.S.S. 46. U. New York: American Society of Mechanical Engineers. 1983. U.1–482. et al. Riccardella PC. 1993. . ASME BPVC Section XI. Probabilistic Elastic-Plastic Fracture Analysis of Circumferentially Cracked Pipes with Finite-Length Surface Flaws. CFR Title 10. 260. 1988. 54. New York: American Society of Mechanical Engineers. ASME BPVC Code Case N-494. et al. Section XI. In: ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code. 1982. 1991. 43. Washington. 423. ASME BPVC Section XI. 63. In: ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 1991. A Low Upper Shelf Energy Fracture Mechanics Evaluation for a Reactor Pressure Vessel. DC: National Archives and Records Administration’s (NARA) Office of the Federal Register (OFR)/Government Printing Office (GPO). 482. Research Project 87116. A Procedure for Safety Assessment of Components with Cracks – Handbook. CA: Electric Power Research Institute. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 304. 59. PA: American Society for Testing and Materials. Division 1. Appendix J: Deformation Plasticity Failure Assessment Diagram (DPFAD) (EPRI Report NP-7492). Palo Alto. 1989. Griesbach TJ. Bloom JM. 1995. NRC Resolution of the Task A-11 Reactor Vessel Materials Toughness Safety Issue (NUREG-0744). In: ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code. PA: American Society for Testing and Materials. Presented to Working Group on Flaw Evaluation.qxd 9/27/08 1:33 PM Page 16 16 • Chapter 46 40. Orlando. Part 50. Appendix K. Washington. 206–238. In: ASME PVP Vol. Appendix G. Fracture Mechanics Applications. Bloom JM. Bloom JM. 287. 44. 55. Fracture and Fitness. Radiation Embrittlement of Reactor Vessel Materials (Revision 2). New York: American Society of Mechanical Engineers. West Conshohocken. 1989. Appendix G. Wright JE. 57. 2005. 51.130.32:105–196. A Procedure for the Assessment of Integrity of Structures Containing Defects (EPRI Report NP-2431). Fracture Toughness Criteria for Protection Against Failure. West Conshohocken. 50. Fracture Toughness Requirements. Background to and Validation of CEGB Report R/H/R6. Andersson P. 1995. Pipe Specific Evaluation Procedures and Acceptance Criteria for Flaws in Class 1 Ferritic Piping That Exceed the Acceptance Standards of IWB-3514. Evaluation of Reactor Pressure Vessels with Charpy Upper-Shelf Energy Less Than 50 ft-lb. 49. Scarth DA.15. 56. In: Elastic-Plastic Fracture Mechanics Technology (ASTM Special Technical Publication 896). 1999. 41.195. Bloom JM. Nelson EE.S. New York: Welding Research Council. 47. Flaw Evaluation Procedures and Acceptance Criteria for Nuclear Piping in ASME Code Section XI (ASME PVP Vol. Malik SN. In: ASME PVP Vol. Rahman S. 48. Multivariable Modeling of Pressure Vessel and Piping J-R Data (NUREG/CR-5729). 1985. 1983: pp. 58. Fracture Mechanics-Applications and New Materials New York: American Society of Mechanical Engineers. In: ASME PVP Vol. Nilsson F.S. Mehta HS. New York: American Society of Mechanical Engineers. New York: American Society of Mechanical Engineers. et al. 42. DC: U. DC: U. 1993: pp. U. Technical Basis for Proposed Code Case N-xxx Alternative Acceptance Criteria and Evaluation Procedure for Flaws in Ferritic Steel Components Operating in the Upper Shelf Range.161. Assessment of Reactor Vessels With Low Upper Shelf Charpy Impact Energy Levels.99.ASME_Ch46_p001-016. Elastic-Plastic Fracture Mechanics for Pressure Vessel Design.S. Dowling AR. Bloom JM. SKI Report TR 89:20. 45. A Review of the ASME Low Upper Shelf Evaluation Procedures for Nuclear Reactor Pressure Vessels. 1996. Washington. Nuclear Engineering and Design 2000. Revision 3. NRC Regulatory Guide 1. Washington. New York: American Society of Mechanical Engineers. Washington. Validation of a Deformation Plasticity Failure Assessment Diagram Approach to Flaw Evaluation (ASTM Special Technical Publication 803). 1995. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Yoon K. Cofie N.S. 60. An Overview of R6 Revision 4. et al. Smith E. et al. 61. CA: Electric Power Research Institute.S. Eason EA. Deformation Plasticity Failure Assessment Diagram. Nuclear Engineering and Design 1991. 53. May 10. WRC Bulletin 413.2. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. In. 1994. Bloom JM. DC: U. SKI Report 99:49 (Revision 3). DC: U. NRC Regulatory Guide 1. International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 1988. DPFAD for Materials with Non-Ramberg-Osgood StressStrain Curves. Technical Basis for the Extension of ASME Code Case N-494 for Assessment of Austenitic Piping. New York: American Society of Mechanical Engineers. Milne I. Palo Alto.

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->