46 views

Original Title: EPRI-R-3002010332-MRP-418 Use of Master Curve for Pressure-Retaining Materials

Uploaded by Otso Cronvall

- Hb 1011020
- Failure Analysis 1
- Fracture Toughness
- 2. API653-Pt1[1]
- 54f629700cf27d8ed71d64e6
- CTOD
- IWSD 2012-M4_4 Design Against Brittle Fracture
- Natural Fibers
- A New Engineering Method for Prediction of Fracture Toughness Temperature Dependence for RPV Steels
- Susceptibility to brittle fracture of flanges in ASTM A105
- The Effect of Steel Fibres on the Enhancement of Flexural
- [HAY] 334_2
- Fatigue Failure
- Dynamic Analysis
- Pages From Friction-Stir-Welding-And-Processing by Mishra and Mahoney by ASM
- Fracture Behavior and Fatigue Life of Friction Stir Welded AL-LI-CU Alloy
- Viii Paper 07
- 1111Fracture Toughness
- Salem 2005
- P367

You are on page 1of 114

Revision 1 (MRP-418)

Direct Use of Master Curve Fracture Toughness Curve for Pressure-Retaining

Materials of Class 1 Vessels, Section XI

Technical Basis for ASME Code

Case N-830, Revision 1 (MRP-418)

Direct Use of Master Curve Fracture Toughness

Curve for Pressure-Retaining Materials of Class 1

Vessels, Section XI

3002010332

T. Hardin

Quality Assurance Program apply to this product.

3420 Hillview Avenue, Palo Alto, California 94304-1338 ▪ PO Box 10412, Palo Alto, California 94303-0813 ▪ USA

800.313.3774 ▪ 650.855.2121 ▪ askepri@epri.com ▪ www.epri.com

DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTIES AND LIMITATION OF LIABILITIES

THIS DOCUMENT WAS PREPARED BY THE ORGANIZATION(S) NAMED BELOW AS AN ACCOUNT

OF WORK SPONSORED OR COSPONSORED BY THE ELECTRIC POWER RESEARCH INSTITUTE,

INC. (EPRI). NEITHER EPRI, ANY MEMBER OF EPRI, ANY COSPONSOR, THE ORGANIZATION(S)

BELOW, NOR ANY PERSON ACTING ON BEHALF OF ANY OF THEM:

(A) MAKES ANY WARRANTY OR REPRESENTATION WHATSOEVER, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, (I)

WITH RESPECT TO THE USE OF ANY INFORMATION, APPARATUS, METHOD, PROCESS, OR

SIMILAR ITEM DISCLOSED IN THIS DOCUMENT, INCLUDING MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS

FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, OR (II) THAT SUCH USE DOES NOT INFRINGE ON OR

INTERFERE WITH PRIVATELY OWNED RIGHTS, INCLUDING ANY PARTY'S INTELLECTUAL

PROPERTY, OR (III) THAT THIS DOCUMENT IS SUITABLE TO ANY PARTICULAR USER'S

CIRCUMSTANCE; OR

(B) ASSUMES RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY WHATSOEVER

(INCLUDING ANY CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, EVEN IF EPRI OR ANY EPRI REPRESENTATIVE

HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES) RESULTING FROM YOUR

SELECTION OR USE OF THIS DOCUMENT OR ANY INFORMATION, APPARATUS, METHOD,

PROCESS, OR SIMILAR ITEM DISCLOSED IN THIS DOCUMENT.

REFERENCE HEREIN TO ANY SPECIFIC COMMERCIAL PRODUCT, PROCESS, OR SERVICE BY

ITS TRADE NAME, TRADEMARK, MANUFACTURER, OR OTHERWISE, DOES NOT NECESSARILY

CONSTITUTE OR IMPLY ITS ENDORSEMENT, RECOMMENDATION, OR FAVORING BY EPRI.

THE FOLLOWING ORGANIZATIONS PREPARED THIS REPORT:

Phoenix Engineering Associates, Inc.#

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission##

Structural Integrity Associates, Inc.#

## This work was authored in part by a U.S. Government employee in the scope of his/her

THE TECHNICAL CONTENTS OF THIS PRODUCT WERE NOT PREPARED IN ACCORDANCE WITH

THE EPRI QUALITY PROGRAM MANUAL THAT FULFILLS THE REQUIREMENTS OF 10 CFR 50,

APPENDIX B. THIS PRODUCT IS NOT SUBJECT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF 10 CFR PART 21.

NOTE

For further information about EPRI, call the EPRI Customer Assistance Center at 800.313.3774 or

e-mail askepri@epri.com.

Electric Power Research Institute, EPRI, and TOGETHER…SHAPING THE FUTURE OF ELECTRICITY

are registered service marks of the Electric Power Research Institute, Inc.

Copyright © 2017 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Phoenix Engineering Associates, Inc.

119 Glidden Hill Road

Unity, NH 03743

Principal Investigator

M. Erickson

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research (RES)

Washington, DC 20555-0001

Principal Investigator

M. Kirk*

Structural Integrity Associates, Inc.

11515 Vanstory Drive, Suite 125

Huntersville, NC 28078

Principal Investigator

G. Stevens

*

The statements, findings, conclusions and recommendations expressed in this report are those of

the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

This report describes research co-sponsored by EPRI.

This publication is a corporate document that should be cited in the literature in the following

manner:

Technical Basis for ASME Code Case N-830, Revision 1 (MRP-418): Direct Use of Master

Curve Fracture Toughness Curve for Pressure-Retaining Materials of Class 1 Vessels, Section

XI. EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: 2017. 3002010332.

iii

This document was prepared as part of the ASME Code, Section XI Working Group on Flaw

Evaluation. The authors would like to thank the volunteer members of the ASME Code, Section

XI Working Group on Flaw Evaluation for their valuable input, feedback, and review of this

report, as well as their help and participation in solving the sample problems associated with this

effort.

Working Group on Flaw Evaluation Members Who Contributed to This Report:

• Russell Cipolla Intertek

• Yil Kim GE POWER

• Mark Kirk & Mike Benson U.S. NRC

• Darrell Lee BWXT

• Cheng Liu & Steven Xu Kinectrics

• Do Jun Shim Structural Integrity Associates, Inc.

iv

ABSTRACT

Section XI of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code (ASME Code) provides KIc and KIa

fracture toughness models for ferritic steels. These models are based on linear elastic fracture

mechanics (LEFM) methods, and were initially developed in the 1970s for incorporation into the

ASME Code. The models have remained largely unchanged since their original incorporation

into the code. Since the publication of the technical bases documents for the fracture toughness

equations contained in Section XI, considerable advancements to the state of theoretical and

practical knowledge have occurred, particularly with respect to the amount of available fracture

toughness data. The Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) now has a fracture toughness

database containing well over 9,000 fracture toughness values ranging across specimen sizes, test

temperatures and strain rates. As part of the pressurized thermal shock (PTS) re-evaluation

program, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and the industry used this database to

develop an integrated model that predicts the mean trends and scatter of the fracture toughness

behavior of ferritic steels throughout the temperature range from the lower shelf to the upper

shelf fracture regions. This integrated model includes the transition fracture toughness Master

Curve approach that describes the temperature dependence and scatter in KJc in the lower

transition temperature region, a new model for describing the temperature dependence and

scatter of JIc on the upper shelf, and includes identification of a temperature at which the KJc

curve transitions to upper shelf behavior, marking the upper limit of applicability for the KJc

transition curve. This collection of models was used by the NRC to establish the index

temperature screening limits adopted in the Alternate PTS Rule documented in Title 10 to the

U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 50.61a (10CFR50.61a).

The ASME Section XI Working Group on Flaw Evaluation (WGFE) has an ongoing effort

intended to implement the KJc Master Curve (MC) into Section XI of the ASME Code. This

effort began with indirect implementation of the MC through use of a transition reference

temperature, RTT0, defined by using the KJc T0 value to replace RTNDT for indexing the ASME KIc

curve. In Revision 0 of Code Case N-830, direct use of the MC was defined as an alternative to

using the ASME KIc curve. Revision 1 to Code Case N-830 (N-830-1) incorporates the complete

and self-consistent suite of fracture toughness models developed over the last decade to

completely describe the temperature dependence, scatter, and interdependencies between all the

fracture toughness metrics (i.e., KJc, KIa, JIc, J0.1, and J-R) from the lower shelf through the upper

shelf regimes. This report describes the technical basis for Code Case N-830-1.

v

Keywords

Master curve

Fracture toughness model

T0 fracture toughness reference temperature

RTNDT fracture toughness reference temperature

ASME Section XI Appendix A flaw evaluation procedures

vi

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Product Type: Technical Report

Product Title: Technical Basis for ASME Code Case N-830, Revision 1 (MRP-418):

Direct Use of Master Curve Fracture Toughness Curve for Pressure-Retaining Materials

of Class 1 Vessels, Section XI

PRIMARY AUDIENCE: ASME Boiler & Pressure Vessel Code, Section XI, Committees

SECONDARY AUDIENCE: Engineers using Master Curve fracture toughness for vessel integrity evaluations

Currently, the ASME Boiler & Pressure Vessel Code, Section XI methods for evaluation of vessel integrity are

based on methodology developed in the 1970s for conservatively representing fracture toughness without

actually measuring fracture toughness. It is desirable for the Code to provide a modern suite of best estimate

fracture toughness models that provide a complete description of fracture toughness crack initiation and arrest

behavior from lower shelf, through transition, to ductile upper shelf regimes for all ferritic steels.

RESEARCH OVERVIEW

The ASME Section XI Working Group on Flaw Evaluation (WGFE) has an ongoing effort intended to

implement the KJc Master Curve (MC) into Section XI of the ASME Code. This effort began with indirect

implementation of the MC through use of a transition reference temperature, RTT0, defined by using the KJc

T0 value to replace RTNDT for indexing the ASME KIc curve. In Revision 0 of Code Case (CC) N-830, direct

use of the MC was defined as an alternative to using the ASME KIc curve. The proposed Revision 1 to CC N-

830 (N-830-1) incorporates the complete and self-consistent suite of fracture toughness models developed

over the last decade to completely describe the temperature dependence, scatter, and interdependencies

between all the fracture toughness metrics (i.e., KJc, KIa, JIc, J0.1, and J-R) from the lower shelf through the

upper shelf regimes. This report describes the technical basis for Code Case N-830-1. This document was

prepared by a small task group to provide information to the Working Group on Flaw Evaluation to support

finalization and decision-making on CC N-830-1.

KEY FINDINGS

• The technical bases for the fracture toughness models contained in ASME CC N-830-1 are presented

in this report. The suite of best estimate fracture toughness models provides a complete description

of fracture toughness crack initiation and arrest behavior from lower shelf, through transition, to ductile

upper shelf regimes for all ferritic steels.

• The best estimate models used for CC N-830-1 are based on updated techniques and available data,

sound physical bases, and extensive empirical evaluations that collectively promote confidence in their

use for flaw assessment following Nonmandatory Appendix A of ASME Section XI and similar

methods.

• These models are appropriate for use in both deterministic and probabilistic assessments, as each

model describes the full distribution in values about the mean for any temperature and material

condition.

vii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

• Equations that allow an analyst to determine any percentile value of interest for any of the fracture

toughness parameters KJc, KIa, JIc, J0.1, and J-R are presented for each fracture toughness model.

Specific values of these parameters may be used in deterministic assessments, or the entire

distributions may be sampled for use in probabilistic assessments.

The fracture toughness models presented in this report provide a consistent, best-estimate representation of

ferritic steel fracture toughness behavior, including uncertainties, to allow quantitative fracture toughness

assessments that ensure the safety of nuclear (and other) ferritic components.

Equations are presented for each fracture toughness model that allow an analyst to determine any percentile

value of interest for any of the fracture toughness parameters KJc, KIa, JIc, J0.1, and J-R. Specific values of

these parameters may be used in deterministic assessments, or the entire distributions may be sampled for

use in probabilistic assessments.

Regulatory authorities considering the approval of use of Master Curve technologies for integrity evaluations

may also be interested in this report.

3420 Hillview Avenue, Palo Alto, California 94304-1338 • PO Box 10412, Palo Alto, California 94303-0813 USA

800.313.3774 • 650.855.2121 • askepri@epri.com • www.epri.com

© 2017 Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), Inc. All rights reserved. Electric Power Research Institute, EPRI, and

TOGETHER...SHAPING THE FUTURE OF ELECTRICITY are registered service marks of the Electric Power Research Institute, Inc.

NOMENCLATURE

KJc MPa√m

crack initiation

KIa MPa√m fracture toughness measured at cleavage crack arrest

Different Fracture

ductile crack initiation toughness measured according

Toughness Metrics JIc kJ/m2

to ASTM E1820

ductile crack initiation toughness after “x” mm of ductile

Jx kJ/m2

crack extension

J-R kJ/m2

extension

temperature at which the KJc Master Curve 1 has a

T0 °C

median value of 100 MPa√m

Index temperature at which the KIa master curve has a

TKIa °C

Temperatures median value of 100 MPa√m

temperature at which the median KJc Master Curve

TUS °C

crosses the mean JIc upper shelf master curve

p dimensionless percentile for the lower bounding curves

Parameters to

Define Statistical T-statistic multiplier for the lower bounding curves.

Mp dimensionless Standard normal distribution with a mean of zero and

Bounding Curve

standard deviation of 1.0

KJcp MPa√m value of KJc at percentile p

Used in the KIc or KJc

Kmin MPa√m 20 MPa√m

equations

Ko MPa√m value of KJc at the 63.2nd percentile

KIap MPa√m value of KIa at percentile p

equation

1

Master Curve is only capitalized when referring to the KJc Master Curve. In all other cases, “master” is used as an

adjective to describe the type of curve-fit.

ix

Category Symbol Unit Description

JXp kJ/m2 value of JX at percentile p

C kJ/m2

curve. value of C in the equation J = C(Δa)n

n dimensionless

of n in the equation J = C(Δa)n

σΔJIc kJ/m2 standard deviation of JIc

JIcmean kJ/m2 mean value of JIc

JX equations

ΔJIc(US) kJ/m2 value of ΔJIc at TUS

A kJ/m2 fitting parameter in σΔJIc equation

x

CONTENTS

ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................................v

NOMENCLATURE ....................................................................................................................ix

1 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................1-1

1.1 ASME Section XI, Appendix A Approach .......................................................................1-2

1.1.1 Summary of ASME Section XI, Appendix A Flaw Evaluation Procedures ..........1-2

1.1.2 Treatment of Uncertainties in Appendix A ..........................................................1-4

1.1.3 Technical Basis for the Appendix A Methodology ..............................................1-5

1.1.4 Issues with Appendix A Methodology ................................................................1-8

1.2 Objectives of Proposed Code Case N-830-1 ...............................................................1-10

2.1 Introduction....................................................................................................................2-1

2.2 CC N-830-1 Contents ....................................................................................................2-2

2.2.1 Inquiry ...............................................................................................................2-2

2.2.2 Reply .................................................................................................................2-2

2.2.3 Discussion of N-830-1 .......................................................................................2-2

3.1 Cleavage Crack Initiation Toughness, KJc ......................................................................3-1

3.1.1 Description of the KJc Model ..............................................................................3-2

3.1.2 Basic Form ........................................................................................................3-2

3.1.3 Distribution ........................................................................................................3-2

3.1.4 Theoretical Basis ...............................................................................................3-3

3.1.5 Empirical Basis ..................................................................................................3-4

3.1.6 Model Validation ................................................................................................3-5

3.1.7 Limits of Applicability .........................................................................................3-6

xi

3.2 Cleavage Crack Arrest Fracture Toughness, KIa ............................................................3-7

3.2.1 Description of Model ..........................................................................................3-7

3.2.2 Basic Form ........................................................................................................3-7

3.2.3 Distribution ........................................................................................................3-7

3.2.4 Theoretical Basis ...............................................................................................3-8

3.2.5 Model Validation ................................................................................................3-9

3.2.6 Limits of Applicability .........................................................................................3-9

3.3 Ductile Crack Initiation Fracture Toughness, JIc .............................................................3-9

3.3.1 Description of Model ........................................................................................3-10

3.3.2 Basic Form ......................................................................................................3-10

3.3.3 Distribution ......................................................................................................3-10

3.3.4 Theoretical Basis .............................................................................................3-11

3.3.5 Empirical Basis ................................................................................................3-12

3.3.6 Model Validation ..............................................................................................3-13

3.3.7 Limits of Applicability .......................................................................................3-15

4.1 The Relationship Between Cleavage Crack Initiation (KJc) and Upper Shelf (JIc);

TUS.......................................................................................................................................4-1

4.1.1 Mathematical Form of the Model .......................................................................4-1

4.1.2 Physical Basis ...................................................................................................4-2

4.1.3 Empirical Basis ..................................................................................................4-3

4.1.4 Model Validation ................................................................................................4-3

4.1.5 Limits on Validity of the Model ...........................................................................4-4

4.2 The Relationship Between Cleavage Crack Initiation (KJc) and Arrest (KIa) ....................4-4

4.2.1 Mathematical Form of Model .............................................................................4-4

4.2.2 Physical Basis for the Model ..............................................................................4-5

4.2.3 Empirical Basis ..................................................................................................4-6

4.2.4 Model Validation ................................................................................................4-7

4.2.5 Limits on Validity of the Model ...........................................................................4-7

4.3 The Relationship Between Upper Shelf (JIc) Crack Initiation and Upper Shelf

Crack Growth (J-R) .............................................................................................................4-7

4.3.1 Mathematical Form of the Model .......................................................................4-8

4.3.2 Empirical Basis ..................................................................................................4-8

4.3.3 Model Validation ..............................................................................................4-10

4.3.4 Limits on Validity of Model ...............................................................................4-10

xii

5 IMPLICATIONS OF PROPOSED CHANGES .......................................................................5-1

5.1 Introduction....................................................................................................................5-1

5.2 Sources of Uncertainties in Fracture Mechanics Analyses.............................................5-1

5.2.1 Flaw Size Uncertainty ........................................................................................5-2

5.2.2 Stress and Stress Intensity Factor Uncertainty ..................................................5-2

5.2.3 Fracture Toughness Uncertainty........................................................................5-3

5.3 Treatment of Uncertainties ............................................................................................5-3

5.3.1 Treatment of Uncertainty Due to Flaw Size and Location ..................................5-3

5.3.2 Treatment of Uncertainty Due to Stress .............................................................5-6

5.3.3 Treatment of Uncertainty on Fracture Toughness ..............................................5-8

5.4 CC N-830 ....................................................................................................................5-11

5.5 Code Case N-830-1 Uncertainty Treatment .................................................................5-12

5.6 Summary .....................................................................................................................5-14

6.1 Introduction....................................................................................................................6-1

6.2 Past Use of the Wallin Master Curve .............................................................................6-2

6.2.1 Within the ASME Code ......................................................................................6-2

6.2.2 NRC Applications ..............................................................................................6-2

6.3 Currently Foreseen Uses of the CC N-830-1 Suite of Fracture Toughness Models .......6-4

7.1 Introduction....................................................................................................................7-1

7.2 The Sample Problem .....................................................................................................7-1

7.2.1 Allowable Toughness Values .............................................................................7-2

7.2.2 Allowable Flaw Size Values ...............................................................................7-3

9 REFERENCES .....................................................................................................................9-1

Sample Problem 2 Statement ............................................................................................ B-1

xiii

C DRAFT CC N-830-1 (VERSION USED FOR SAMPLE PROBLEM 2)................................. C-1

Direct Use of Fracture Toughness for Flaw Evaluations of Pressure Boundary

Materials in Class 1 Ferritic Steel Components .................................................................. C-1

Section XI, Division 1 ..................................................................................................... C-1

-1000 Scope............................................................................................................. C-1

-2000 Reference Temperature ................................................................................. C-2

-3000 Toughness Variability ..................................................................................... C-3

-4000 Toughness Curves ......................................................................................... C-4

-4100 Cleavage Crack Initiation toughness, KJc ................................................... C-4

-4200 Cleavage Crack Arrest Toughness, KIa ...................................................... C-5

-4300 Ductile Crack Initiation Toughness, JIc ....................................................... C-5

-4400 Ductile Crack Extension Toughness, J-R and JX........................................ C-6

-5000 Applicability Limits .......................................................................................... C-7

-5100 Ductile Crack Extension Range ................................................................. C-7

-5200 Lower Temperature Limits on KJc and KIa................................................... C-7

-5300 Upper Temperature Limits on JIc, J-R, and Jx............................................. C-7

-5400 Intermediate Temperature Limits ............................................................... C-7

-6000 Units Conversions .......................................................................................... C-8

-7000 Nomenclature ................................................................................................. C-8

xiv

LIST OF FIGURES

Serviceability of Ferritic Components. ..............................................................................1-4

Figure 1-2 KIc Curve (top) and KIa [KID] Curve (bottom) Referenced to RTNDT ([6]). ...................1-7

Figure 3-1 Comparison of the temperature dependence exhibited by the JIc data for the

EURO Forge with the model proposed in [65] (i.e., Eqn. (3-15) with uncertainty

bounds based on Eqn (3-16)). ........................................................................................3-14

Figure 3-2 Comparison of the revised JIc model, Eqns. (3-9) and (3-10), with JIc data

from steels having three different upper shelf toughness (JIc(288)) levels [65]. ..................3-16

Figure 4-1 Relationship between TUS and T0 [11, 14]. ..............................................................4-2

Figure 4-2 Schematic illustrating the relationship between the transition and upper shelf

toughness, and defining TUS as the intersection of the Wallin MC and the upper

shelf MC. ..........................................................................................................................4-3

Figure 4-3 Illustration of variation in the temperature separation between the KIa and KJc

master curves as a function of T0 [73]...............................................................................4-5

Figure 4-4 Illustration of the effects of strain rate increase on yield strength elevation for

materials having different degrees of prior strain hardening [61]. ......................................4-6

Figure 5-1 Schematic illustration of physical causes for systematic over-estimation of

flaw size using UT. ...........................................................................................................5-4

Figure 5-2 Cumulative probability distribution function showing the relationship between

RTNDT and T0. ...................................................................................................................5-9

Figure 5-3 Plot of KJc, 1% MC bound, 99% MC bound, the RTNDT-indexed KIc curve, and

the RTT0-indexed KIc curve. ..............................................................................................5-9

Figure 5-4 Plot of KJc, 1% MC bound, 99% MC bound, the RTNDT-indexed KIc curve

divided by √2, and the RTT0-indexed KIc curve divided by √2 (for emergency/faulted

operating conditions). .....................................................................................................5-10

Figure 5-5 Plot of KJc, 1% MC bound, 99% MC bound, the RTNDT-indexed KIc curve

divided by √10, and the RTT0-indexed KIc curve divided by √10 (for normal/upset

operating conditions). .....................................................................................................5-10

Figure 5-6 Plot of KJc, 1% MC bound, 99% MC bound, the CC N-830 5% MC bound, the

CC N-830 5% MC divided by √2, and the CC N-830 5% MC divided by √10 (for

emergency/faulted and normal operating conditions, respectively). ................................5-11

Figure 5-7 Plot of KJc, with the 1% MC bound, 99% MC bound, the CC N-830-1 1% MC

bound, the CC N-830 5% MC bound divided by √2, and the Appendix A RTT0-

indexed KIc curve divided by √2 (all for emergency/faulted operating conditions). .........5-13

xv

Figure 5-8 Plot of KJc, 1% MC bound, 99% MC bound, the 0.5% MC bound (CC N-830-

1), the 5% MC bound divided by √10 (CC N-830), and the RTT0-indexed KIc curve

divided by √10 (Appendix A) for normal/upset operating conditions. ...............................5-14

Figure A-1 Sample Problem Properties ................................................................................... A-2

Figure C-1 Illustration of Intermediate Temperature Limits when 5th Percentile Bounding

Curves are used .............................................................................................................. C-8

xvi

LIST OF TABLES

Table 4-2 Composition of the J-R curve database....................................................................4-9

Table 6-1 Summary of unirradiated RTT0 value for various Linde 80 weld wire heats. .............6-4

Table 7-1 Material Properties for use in Appendix A and Proposed Code Case N-830-1

Sample Problem 2. ...........................................................................................................7-2

Table B-1 Material Properties for use in the Sample Problem 2 .............................................. B-2

Table B-2 Table for Presentation of Results of the Phase II Sample Problem ......................... B-3

Table C-1 Values of p and Mp Corresponding to Different Bounding Toughness Curves......... C-3

Table C-2 RMSD values for different product forms. ............................................................... C-7

Table C-3 Unit Conversion Coefficients................................................................................... C-8

Table C-4 Symbols ................................................................................................................. C-9

Table C-5 Definitions............................................................................................................. C-10

xvii

1

INTRODUCTION

Historically, the safety of nuclear power plant pressure-retaining components has been

demonstrated using the rules of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code (ASME Code, or

Code). Section III of the ASME Code provides Rules for Construction of Nuclear Facility

Components, and Section XI provides Rules for In-Service Inspection of Nuclear Plant

Components. Both sections of the Code provide methods for assessing stresses and moments

contributing to the forces available to drive crack growth in components containing postulated or

detected flaws. The Code primarily makes use of linear elastic fracture mechanics (LEFM)

methods to calculate stress intensity factors, and has fracture toughness models based on

empirical data to estimate material resistance to crack extension. Much of the current Code is

based on LEFM models of material behavior in the presence of flaws that were developed more

than 40 years ago at a time when drop-weight tests [1] and Charpy V-notch (CVN) impact tests

[2] were the accepted standards used to estimate metrics that correlate with fracture toughness,

such as the nil-ductility temperature (NDT) or ductile-to-brittle transition temperature (DBTT).

The ferritic steels used to fabricate nuclear power plant reactor pressure vessels (RPVs) were

selected to have sufficient strength and toughness to provide adequate safety margins against

overload failure and catastrophic crack extension at all operating temperatures and conditions.

To ensure adequate toughness, the RPV steels selected for power plant construction in the 1960s

and 1970s, were chosen to have a DBTT well below the expected operating conditions of the

plant. The CVN and the drop-weight tests were among the most commonly used test methods

for characterizing the DBTT temperature of these steels at that time. However, these tests do not

directly provide the specimen-independent measures of fracture toughness required to support an

ASME Code analysis. These test results can only be correlated to the measure of the material’s

resistance to crack extension. Linear-elastic plane-strain fracture toughness testing, as prescribed

by ASTM Standard E399 [3], was developed to provide a direct measure of a material’s

resistance to crack extension using a measure of the critical stress intensity factor required for

crack extension, KIc. Such a value allows for more direct comparison to the crack driving force

in stress intensity factor calculations.

Linear-elastic plane-strain fracture toughness testing for RPV materials often requires large

specimens to ensure that validity criteria for small scale yielding are met, and the test specimens

and procedures are often expensive. As such, testing an adequate number of specimens to fully

define a fracture toughness transition curve and reference temperature is expensive. Because of

this, the nil-ductility test (used to define NDT) and the CVN test, both of which use smaller test

specimens and simpler test procedures compared to those required for valid KIc determination,

became the dominant methods for characterizing material toughness transition temperature,

RTNDT, defined as the reference temperature for nil ductility transition to signify the reference

temperature below which a material exhibits limited ductility in the presence of a notch.

Calculation of RTNDT from a combination of data from NDT and CVN testing is described in

Paragraph NB-2331 of Section III of the ASME Code [4]. The prevalence of NDT and CVN

1-1

Introduction

data, combined with work performed to correlate these values with KIc [5, 6], resulted in an

RTNDT-referenced KIc curve that was adopted into the ASME Code, Section XI, Appendix A

flaw assessment procedures [7].

There is uncertainty inherent in both the RTNDT and KIc values determined for a specific material.

This uncertainty is caused by the natural material inhomogeneity that controls fracture behavior,

and the uncertainties surrounding modeling assumptions, test procedures, and analytical methods

used for determining these values. These uncertainties can be treated explicitly by quantifying

the uncertainties in these values (defining their distributions) and then either taking a lower

bound value, or assigning a factor that is applied to the best-estimate value that directly accounts

for the uncertainties. If the distributions in the data are not well established, the uncertainties can

be treated implicitly by making conservative assumptions about the operating conditions or using

conservative models of material behavior. Explicit treatments of uncertainties are preferred, as

they are more transparent, their impact more easily understood, and they can more readily be

changed as knowledge and information are expanded. The method employed in ASME Code,

Section XI, Appendix A uses both implicit and explicit treatments of uncertainties, which

obscures accurate representation of material behavior and increases the difficulty of taking

advantage of increased knowledge of material properties.

ASME Code, Section XI, Nonmandatory Appendix A, “Analysis of Flaws,” [7] provides

analytical procedures for use in determining the acceptability of flaws for continued service that

are detected during inspection and that exceed the flaw acceptance standards of IWB-3500. The

procedures are based on LEFM principles and apply to ferritic components with wall thicknesses

of 100 mm (4 inches) or greater, and having simple geometries and stress distributions.

Appendix A is limited to ferritic steels having a minimum yield strength of 350 MPa (50 ksi) or

less, and provides procedures for three areas of flaw assessment: (1) characterization of the flaw

size, shape, and location for use in the LEFM analysis, (2) methods for performing crack driving

force (stress intensity factor) calculations, and (3) methods for determining allowable material

properties (fracture resistance) to be used in the analyses.

Appendix A, developed based on the work described in References [5, 6] describes a method that

can be used to determine whether a ferritic steel component with a detected flaw that exceeds the

IWB-3500 flaw acceptance criteria is acceptable for continued use. The methods involve the

following steps [7]:

1. Determine the actual flaw configuration in accordance with IWA-3000.

2. Characterize the flaw in accordance with IWB-3610.

3. Resolve the flaw into a simple shape that can be readily analyzed.

4. Determine the stresses at the location of the observed flaw for normal, emergency, and

faulted conditions.

5. Calculate stress intensity factors for each condition.

6. Determine the necessary material properties, including the effects of irradiation, if applicable.

1-2

Introduction

a) af = expected end-of-life flaw size

b) ac = minimum critical flaw size for normal conditions

c) ai = minimum critical initiation flaw size for emergency and faulted

conditions.

8. Using the critical flaw parameters, af, ac and ai, apply the flaw evaluation criteria of IWB-

3600 to determine whether the observed flaw is acceptable for continued service.

The methods described in Appendix A are based in LEFM, and therefore only apply to

conditions for which the ferritic steel of interest exhibits lower transition fracture toughness

behavior. For conditions in which the ferritic steel of interest exhibits upper shelf toughness

behavior, Appendix A is not applicable. For vessels in these situations the methodology

described in Nonmandatory Appendix K, “Assessment of Reactor Vessels with Low Upper Shelf

Charpy Impact Levels,” [8] may be used. The Code does not provide any guidance to identify

when this transition in behavior occurs.

Figure 1-1 contains a diagram showing the steps of the Appendix A process that are described in

1-8 above. The steps are separated into the major components of the process, as depicted by the

Flaw Evaluation, Crack Driving Force Calculation, and Resistance Calculation shaded areas.

Flaw evaluation procedures are described in Article A-2000 of Appendix A, and the procedures

for calculating the stress intensity factors for use in assessing flaw growth and acceptability are

described in Article A-3000. The procedure for determining the appropriate material property

for use in comparing to the stress intensity factor is described in Article A-4000. Of particular

note, Article A-4000 specifies the lower bounding fracture toughness curve, KIc, as a function of

the difference between the metal temperature, T, and the material RTNDT determined in

accordance with Paragraph NB-2331 of Section III of the ASME Code [4]. Where appropriate,

RTNDT is adjusted to account for the effects of neutron irradiation embrittlement. Use of RTNDT

as a reference temperature value for the KIc curve provides a level of implicit conservatism that

has proven to be sufficiently conservative with respect to expected material toughness behavior

[5]. However, the level of conservatism is unknown and varies for different materials because

neither RTNDT nor KIc provide accurate representations of material fracture toughness behavior.

1-3

Introduction

Figure 1-1

Appendix A Flaw Evaluation Procedure to Evaluate the Continued Serviceability of Ferritic

Components.

RTNDT is not a true measure of material fracture behavior but only an indication of the

temperature below which a material exhibits little to no ductility. Because RTNDT is determined

using a combination of nil-ductility drop-weight and Charpy v-notch data, there is a lot of scatter

inherent in RTNDT values, and inconsistency in how well a material’s actual ductile-to-brittle

transition temperature (DBTT) is represented by RTNDT. The ASME NB-2331 methods for

determining RTNDT were developed to provide conservative estimates of the DBTT.

The use of RTNDT to reference the KIc curve provides a level of implicit conservatism believed

sufficient to very conservatively bound expected material fracture toughness behavior [5]. It is

difficult to quantify the conservatism provided by RTNDT because neither RTNDT nor the KIc lower

bound curve provide accurate representations of material fracture toughness behavior. This

inaccuracy results in an inconsistent treatment of uncertainties as the level of conservatism (and

accounting for uncertainties) varies with each material.

A relatively recent change to Appendix A includes use of a best-estimate T0 value, if it is

available for the material of interest, to calculate an RTT0 value to be used as the reference

temperature adjustment for the KIc curve instead of RTNDT. While T0 is considered an accurate

representation of a material’s fracture toughness behavior, the ASME Code adds a “margin” by

defining RTT0 as:

RTT0= T0 + 19.4°C or RTT0= T0 + 35°F Eq. 1-1

1-4

Introduction

Further conservatism is added in the ASME approach when comparing the KIc values to the

crack driving forces based on the criteria required by Paragraph IWB-3612 of Section XI. The

allowable stress intensity factor criteria impose additional structural factors depending on the

applicable Service Level: KIc must exceed KI√10 for normal operating conditions, and must

exceed KI√2 for postulated emergency or faulted conditions. The bases for the use of the factors

of √2 and √10 are described in Reference [6]. This explicit use of these structural factors further

adds additional conservatism with unquantified uncertainty to the Appendix A approach.

Although many changes have been implemented in Appendix A since it was first published, the

RTNDT-referenced KIc curve still provides a conservative method for characterizing material

resistance to crack extension. The technical bases for Appendix A are documented in the

Welding Research Council (WRC) Bulletin 175 [5] and EPRI Report NP-719-SR [6]. Together,

these two documents define flaw characterization methods, material fracture toughness curves,

and crack driving force calculation procedures currently contained in Appendix A.

In 1971, the Pressure Vessel Research Committee (PVRC) of the WRC undertook the task to

review research and make recommendations on toughness requirements for ferritic materials in

nuclear power plant components to both the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Committee and to

the Atomic Energy Commission. Specifically, these recommendations, based on knowledge that

was current at the time, were intended to provide ferritic-material-toughness requirements for

pressure retaining components of the reactor coolant pressure boundary operating below 370°C

(700°F). The goal was that these criteria, together with the stress limits allowed by the ASME

Code, would permit the establishment of safe operating procedures for nuclear reactor

components under normal, upset, and test conditions.

The requirements and recommendations arising from WRC 175 [5] that pertain to Appendix A,

Article A-4000, “Material Properties,” included the following:

• A lower bound, temperature-dependent KIa curve was defined based on a curve drawn below

all the KId (the stress intensity factor under dynamic loading) and KIa data available at the

time, referenced to the drop-weight nil-ductility temperature, TNDT (KIc data was too high to

have any impact on the lower bounding curve) as shown in Figure 1-2. The equation to

describe the temperature dependence of KIa is given by:

KIa = 13.675 exp [0.0261 (T- TNDT)] + 29.4 (in units of MPa√m, oC)

KIa = 1.223 exp {0.0145[T- (TNDT +160)]} + 26.8 (in units of ksi√in, °F) Eq. 1-2

This KIa curve was then termed the reference toughness KIR curve and was indexed using TNDT to

eliminate the need for performing expensive KIc tests.

• To ensure that the transition temperature used to reference the KIa curve was well below the

upper shelf temperature for the material of interest, a criterion was described that combined

nil-ductility test results to establish TNDT, and CVN tests to define the temperature at least

33°C (60°F) above TNDT at which Charpy specimens exhibited at least 0.89 mm (35 mils =

0.35 in.) of lateral expansion. These two results were combined to define RTNDT as T0.89(mm) –

1-5

Introduction

33°C (T35(mils) - 60°F), such that RTNDT was defined as the higher of TNDT or T0.89(mm) – 33°C

(T35(mils) - 60°F). An alternate requirement involving both 0.89 mm (35 mils) of lateral

expansion and a minimum CVN energy of 68 J (50 ft-lb) was also suggested, i.e., T68J – 33°C

(T50(ft-lb) - 60°F). The minimum of the CVN energy and the lateral expansion criteria were

recommended to eliminate materials that might have a low transition temperature or very low

upper shelf energies from consideration using the KIR-RTNDT procedure.

• A very conservative defect size that included a depth of one-quarter of the wall thickness

(¼t), a length of six times the depth (or 1.5t), a sharp crack tip, and an orientation

perpendicular to the maximum stress direction was recommended.

• A safety factor was recommended for application to the crack driving force stresses along

with a flaw size safety margin by recommending a reference flaw size considerably larger

than the actual or anticipated maximum flaw size.

• Procedures for calculating the allowable loading were presented in an Appendix to WRC 175

[5] that involved primary membrane stresses due to pressure and secondary thermal stresses

caused by thermal gradients near the crack tip.

• Additional safety factors on loading beyond safety factors between 1.0 and 2.0 applied to

stresses were not recommended as these were believed to be outside the scope of the PVRC.

The recommendations presented in WRC 175 [5] were modified by Marston, et al. [6] of the

newly formed ASME Section XI Working Group on Flaw Evaluation before they were

implemented into Appendix A. The modifications included using RTNDT to index the KIa curve

instead of TNDT. A bounding KIc curve was defined by drawing a curve beneath all the available

static plane strain fracture toughness data referenced to RTNDT for the same materials, in a

manner similar to that used to define the KIa curve, defining the temperature dependence of KIc

as:

KIc = 36.5 + 22.783 exp [0.036 (T - RTNDT)] (in units of MPa√m, °C)

KIc = 33.2 + 20.734 exp [0.02 (T - RTNDT)] (in units of ksi√in, °F) Eq. 1-3

While no upper shelf toughness was defined in WRC 175, the EPRI report, or Appendix A,

Marston, et al. recommended that the calculations made using the newly proposed J-integral and

equivalent energy methods showed upper shelf toughness exceeded 220 MPa√m even for

irradiated materials [7, 8]. Based on this, a value of 220 MPa√m has been used by many analysts

to define the upper limit of applicability for the KIc curve.

1-6

Introduction

Figure 1-2

KIc Curve (top) and KIa [KID] Curve (bottom) Referenced to RTNDT ([6]).

1-7

Introduction

Because there have been no changes made to these material toughness curves since they were

originally published in the 1970s, they retain their inherent conservatisms. These two curves are

both similarly affected by degradation due to irradiation through ∆RTNDT. Because both curves

are referenced to T-RTNDT, and since irradiation embrittlement is characterized by the

temperature at which the CVN energy is 41 J (30 ft-lb), ∆T41J, the separation between KIc and KIa

does not change with irradiation. The upper limit of applicability for the linear elastic KIc curve

of 220 MPa√m (200 ksi√in), which is sometimes assumed by analysts, also does not change with

irradiation. However, upper shelf Charpy energy values falling below 68 J (50 ft-lb) 2 require an

Equivalent Margins Assessment (EMA) by Appendix G to 10 CFR Part 50 [9]. An EMA can be

performed using USNRC RG 1.161 [10], or using elastic-plastic fracture mechanics (EPFM) as

described in Appendix K of the ASME, Section XI Code, or using other similar methods that

have been developed, such as the Owner’s Groups evaluations representing different nuclear

steam supply system (NSSS) vendors.

Issues arise in use of the Appendix A method in two main areas:

1. Unquantified uncertainties that are treated both implicitly and explicitly, which result in a

very conservative bias in the characterization of material resistance to fracture.

2. Use of models that do not consistently represent material behavior resulting in varying, and

unknown, degrees of conservative bias in different situations.

The conservatisms inherent in the Appendix A approach arise, in large part, due to the continued

use of RTNDT to reference the KIc and KIa curves, as well as the shape (i.e., temperature

dependence) of the curves themselves. While correlations have been established between KIc

and CVN behavior versus temperature and irradiation, conservatisms remain and additional

margins are typically added to account for material inhomogeneity, uncertainty in material

property information available for specific materials, and uncertainties in the use of CVN to

provide a measure of material fracture toughness [5, 6]. Structural factors are also added to the

estimate of material fracture toughness to account for uncertainties in the knowledge of the

stresses at the crack tip used to calculate the crack driving force for crack growth.

Considerable advancements to the state-of-knowledge, both theoretical and practical, have

occurred since WRC 175 and NP-719-SR were published, particularly with regards to the

amount of available data. These data were used in recent studies to develop a set of integrated,

best estimate models that predict the mean trends and scatter of fracture toughness of ferritic

steels throughout the temperature range between lower shelf behavior, through DBTT to upper

shelf behavior [11, 12]. Comparisons of these new models to the Appendix A methodology

reveal areas where Appendix A is inconsistent with trends predicted by the large amount of

ferritic steel fracture toughness data now available. Some of these areas include:

1. On the lower shelf, the low-temperature asymptote of the Appendix A KIc curve does not

represent a lower bound to all available data resulting in a non-conservative bias. The ASME

model over-estimates the lower shelf fracture toughness at temperatures ≈60°C or more

below RTT0 for all values of RTT0. For un-irradiated materials, such low temperatures cannot

2

Parameters in the historical discussion were presented in both Metric and English units. All subsequent discussion

will be in terms of metric units.

1-8

Introduction

material transition temperature to approach regulatory limits (e.g., the PTS limits of 132 and

149°C in 10CFR50.61 [13]), a temperature 60°C below these values may be within the

achievable temperature range during a cool-down event.

2. The temperature dependence of the Appendix A KIc curve does not accurately reflect the

temperature dependence of transition toughness data at all temperatures. This results in a

conservative bias, particularly in the lower transition temperature region.

3. On the upper shelf, the KIc limit of applicability of 220 MPa√m exceeds available data,

especially after consideration of irradiation effects. This could result in a non-conservative

bias in estimates of fracture toughness. Above RTT0 of 0°C, 220 MPa√m exceeds the upper

shelf fracture toughness of most RPV steels by a considerable amount, suggesting a practical

limit on KIc should be informed by the upper shelf fracture toughness. The upper shelf of

many ferritic materials falls below 220 MPa√m, even when J0.1 3 (the value of J at 0.1 inch

crack extension, or 2.54 mm of crack extension) is used as the characterizing parameter. The

temperature at which the mean KJc curve equals the mean JIc curve, TUS, can be used to define

the upper limit of applicability for the KIc curve based on supporting data [11, 14].

4. The separation between the KIc and KIa curves depends on the amount of irradiation

embrittlement, a functionality not captured by the Appendix A equations. Recently

developed data-based models show that, as RTT0 increases, the KIc and KIa curves converge.

This convergence is not a feature of the Appendix A curves, which maintain a constant

temperature separation. The result of using a constant temperature separation to represent the

actual material behavior is that the Appendix A model is overly pessimistic for high values of

RTT0, indicative of highly irradiated material, and the model over-estimates KIa at low values

of RTT0.

5. The temperature above which upper shelf behavior can be expected depends on the amount

of irradiation embrittlement, a functionality not captured in the Appendix A equations.

With the development of best-estimate, probabilistic models of material fracture toughness

behavior and a clearer understanding of the mechanisms driving crack extension in ferritic steels,

the conservatisms inherent in the Appendix A fracture toughness models are no longer necessary.

With increased knowledge, extensive additions of data, and better test methodologies, the

uncertainties for these models may be quantified and set appropriately to reflect the uncertainties

for Charpy, Nil-Ductility and LEFM-based models. In many cases, measurements of both

unirradiated and irradiated KJc fracture toughness are available for various limiting RPV

materials, providing a means by which direct comparisons between crack driving force, KI, and

the material resistance, KJc, can be made. This knowledge provides a technical and rational basis

for the reduction, or elimination, of the conservatism and unnecessary margins that may prohibit

continued plant operation. Test methodologies are continuing to improve with better,

standardized ASTM testing procedures to determine more reliable KJc values from miniature

specimens, thereby enabling use of surveillance CVN specimen for determining irradiated T0

3

Throughout this report we adopt the common nomenclature used in the international literature of J0.1 (representing

the value of J at 0.1 inch of crack extension, and equivalently, representing the value of J at 2.54 mm of crack

extension). All formulas for Jx (J at x mm of crack extension) are in metric units with x representing the amount of

crack extension in millimeters.

1-9

Introduction

values. All these advances provide for superior modelling and a sound technical basis for

incorporating more accurate, T0-based models into Appendix A of the ASME Code.

The objective of Code Case N-830-1 is to implement an integrated suite of best-estimate fracture

toughness models that can all be determined from a knowledge of a material-specific T0 value for

use in component flaw evaluations. These models are appropriate for use in both deterministic

and probabilistic assessments, as each model describes the full distribution in values about the

mean for any temperature and material condition. Specific goals for CC N-830-1 implementation

include:

1. To ensure that material properties are accurately represented by the latest available best-

estimate models, that uncertainties in fracture toughness are well quantified, characterized,

and explicitly treated either by use of bounding values or well-understood margins,

2. To ensure that fracture toughness models are appropriately linked to consistently account for

the effects of hardening and irradiation,

3. To take advantage of varying degrees of knowledge regarding material properties. For

example, measured T0 values for a given material should result in lower margins, and T0

values established through correlations should result in larger margins, and

4. To enable predictions and estimates of all toughness values for any level of embrittlement

from knowledge of a single value, T0.

This report describes the technical bases for new fracture toughness models contained in Code

Case N-830-1 that satisfy the above objectives. This document was prepared by a small task

group to provide information to the Working Group on Flaw Evaluation to support finalization

and decision-making on CC N-830-1. Chapter 2 provides a summary of the information

contained in CC N-830-1. Chapters 3 and 4 provide information supporting all of the models

contained in CC N-830-1 including the data supporting the empirical derivations, the physical

basis for the trends observed in the models, and work performed in validation of the models.

Chapter 5 discusses sources and treatment of uncertainty in Appendix A calculations including

comparisons between treatment of uncertainty in the current Appendix A, the original CC N-830

and, the proposed CC N-830-1. Chapter 6 discusses applications for CC N-830-1, and Chapter 7

describes results of a several sample problems worked by the WGFE in support of CC N-830-1

development. This report ends with a summary of information supporting CC N-830-1 in

Chapter 8.

1-10

2

OVERVIEW OF CODE CASE N-830-1

2.1 Introduction

With standardization of the test methodology for obtaining the T0 fracture toughness reference

temperature in ASTM E1921 [15] the stage was set for implementation of T0 into the ASME

Code. This implementation occurred via the adoption of two Code Cases: N-629 in Section XI

and N-631 in Section III [16, 17]. These Code Cases proposed use of a T0-based reference

temperature for use in indexing the ASME’s KIc curve in Section XI and Section III Code

applications. RTT0 is a T0-based transition toughness reference temperature defined by Equation

(1-1).

Code Case (CC) N-830 was approved by ASME in 2014, and was the first direct implementation

of the KJc Master Curve (MC) into the ASME Code [18]. The CC made use of the 5th percentile

lower bound of the Wallin Master Curve as an alternative to the ASME KIc curve to characterize

material resistance to fracture in flaw evaluations. Since that time, work has progressed within

the ASME Section XI Working Group on Flaw Evaluation (WGFE) to expand and improve the

original CC methods.

To take advantage of the best-estimate fracture toughness models recently developed and linked

to T0, CC N-830 was modified to include a suite of self-consistent fracture toughness models

describing material fracture toughness behavior from lower shelf, through transition, to upper

shelf behavior [19]. These models include linkage models that describe the inter-relationships

controlling changes in toughness behavior for all toughness parameters with irradiation. The

proposed Revision 1 of CC N-830 incorporates a complete suite of best-estimate models that

completely describe the temperature dependence, scatter, and interdependencies (such as those

resulting from irradiation or other hardening mechanisms) between all fracture toughness metrics

(i.e., KJc, KIa, JIc, J0.1, and J-R). By incorporating both a statistical characterization of fracture

toughness, and the ability to estimate a toughness curve for any percentile bound, CC N-830-1

provides a consistent basis for the conduct of both conventional deterministic flaw evaluations,

as well as probabilistic evaluations. Additionally, both transition and upper shelf toughness

properties are defined in a consistent manner in one document to provide the analyst an easy

means to determine what fracture behavior (i.e., transition or upper shelf) can be expected for

any condition.

2-1

Overview of Code Case N-830-1

2.2.1 Inquiry

The inquiry for CC N-830-1 is as follows:

“What current best-estimate (alternative) fracture toughness models and

relationships may be used for flaw evaluations performed in accordance with

Nonmandatory Appendix A and/or Nonmandatory Appendix K in lieu of the

current requirements of these Appendices for the values of KIc, KIa, JIc, J0.1,

and J-R?”

2.2.2 Reply

The initial portion of the reply for CC N-830-1 is as follows:

“It is the opinion of the Committee that the fracture toughness models based on

the Master Curve Method in accordance with ASTM E-1921 may be used in lieu

of the current requirements of Nonmandatory Appendices A or K when

determining values for KIc, KIa, JIc, J0.1, and J-R using the procedures and

equations given below.”

CC N-830-1 uses a T0 value measured in accordance with ASTM Standard E1921, “Standard

Test Method for the Determination of Reference Temperature, To, for Ferritic Steels in the

Transition Range” [15]. Using T0, it is possible to estimate the variation of fracture toughness

with temperature across the entire range of interest to operating vessels for Class 1 ferritic

reactor pressure vessel (RPV) materials. This estimate can be used as an alternative to:

• The crack initiation fracture toughness curve, KIc, of Nonmandatory Appendix A, Subarticle

A-4200 for pressure retaining materials other than bolting, and

• The crack arrest fracture toughness curve, KIa, of Nonmandatory Appendix A, Subarticle

A-4200 for pressure retaining materials other than bolting, and

• The J-integral fracture resistance for the material at a ductile flaw extension of 0.1-in.

(2.5 mm), J0.1, of Nonmandatory Appendix K for pressure retaining materials other than

bolting.

• The J-integral fracture resistance for the material and its variation with ductile flaw

extension, Δa, J-R, of Nonmandatory Appendix K for pressure retaining materials other than

bolting.

The remaining content of the reply to CC N-830-1 defines all these relationships.

CC N-830-1 defines best-estimate models of fracture toughness for implementation into the

ASME Code. The CC provides definitions for temperature dependencies and distributions for

best-estimate models that describe fracture toughness behavior from the lower shelf, through the

transition region, and to the upper shelf. In addition, the linkage models that enable consistent

representation of fracture toughness behavior across all temperatures and conditions are defined.

2-2

Overview of Code Case N-830-1

These models are based on large databases of measured fracture toughness values such that

uncertainties in values are well understood, characterized, quantified and validated. Full

distributions are defined for each fracture toughness parameter to enable consistent and explicit

treatment of uncertainties in both deterministic and probabilistic assessments.

CC N-830-1 defines bounding values for percentiles of interest for use in deterministic

evaluations. The linkage models ensure consistent data bounds for all material hardening

conditions provided the same percentiles are selected for the transition and upper shelf toughness

models. The distributions defined for all parameters provide the information required to sample

across the expected range of values at each temperature for probabilistic assessments, with the

linkage models ensuring that these distributions change synchronously, as material conditions

change.

The materials fracture toughness models presented in CC N-830-1 are meant to be used in lieu of

those described in Article 4000 of the current Appendix A for describing material resistance to

fracture. Lower bounding values of the distributions are recommended for use in deterministic

flaw analyses. Use of the same percentile bounding value for all toughness curves from lower

shelf through upper shelf, coupled with elimination of structural factors, ensures consistent

representation of material behavior for all fracture modes. While these recommendations for CC

N-830-1 apply explicitly only to the fracture toughness parameter, we argue in Chapter 5 that

explicit factors applied to stress and flaw size are not needed due to the conservatisms inherent to

non-destructive flaw sizing and the analytical determination of stresses.

To ensure that the uncertainties inherent in all aspects of flaw analysis are treated appropriately

and consistently, the WGFE plans to develop explicit partial structural factors to apply to each

parameter (flaw characterization, driving force analysis and material resistance) in the flaw

analysis to more accurately reflect the uncertainties in that specific parameter. The

recommendations contained in CC N-830-1 for appropriate bounding values to use for material

fracture toughness only account for the uncertainties in the fracture toughness parameter.

The best estimate fracture toughness models, linkage models, and technical bases for the models

contained in CC N-830-1 are presented in Chapters 3 and 4. The model temperature dependence

and distributions are described, along with a summary of their development and validation,

including limitations on their use.

2-3

3

FRACTURE TOUGHNESS MODELS IN CC N-830-1

There are three basic fracture toughness models presented in CC N-830-1; KJc, and JIc to describe

the initiation fracture toughness in the transition region and on the upper shelf, and KIa to

describe the crack arrest fracture toughness. Measured values of KJc and KIa are used to define

indexing temperatures (T0 and TKIa, respectively) that are material specific. These indexing

temperatures were used to normalize the KJc and KIa curves to establish a single temperature

dependence for each curve. The JIc curve was normalized to establish the temperature

dependence of JIc for all ferritic steels based on the JIc value at 288 °C, JIc288. Each of these

models was empirically derived from large databases of toughness values, but the model forms

were informed from a mechanistic understanding of the fracture process that provides a

theoretical underpinning to identify empirical trends. The assumption used for all models was

that applied energy absorption by dislocation motion prior to fracture is the mechanism

controlling the temperature dependence of the fracture toughness. Therefore, these models are

applicable only to ferritic steels, and only in temperature regions where deformation is

dislocation-dominated.

Wallin, working in collaboration with Sarrio and Törrönen, began to publish papers that became

the basis for what is now referred to as the Master Curve as part of his doctoral research work in

1984. This work includes two components: a statistical model of cleavage fracture, and a

temperature dependency of fracture toughness common to all ferritic steels [20, 21]. The

concept includes:

• a weakest-link failure model that uses a 3-parameter Weibull function to describe the

distribution of fracture toughness values at a fixed temperature,

• a temperature-dependence described by an inverse Peierls-Nabarro relationship, and

• a methodology to account for the effect of crack front length (size effects) on fracture

toughness.

Wallin observed that the temperature dependence of fracture toughness is not sensitive to steel

alloying, heat treatment, or irradiation [22]. This observation led to the concept of a universal

temperature-dependent curve shape for all ferritic steels. Several investigators have empirically

assessed the validity of the universal curve shape for both unirradiated and irradiated nuclear

RPV steels, with favorable results [23, 24]. These research and development activities led to

publication of an ASTM Standard (E1921-97) to estimate the MC index temperature (T0) [15],

and, later, to adoption of Code Case N-629 and N-631 in Section XI and Section III of the

ASME Code that uses T0 to establish an index temperature (RTT0) for the KIc and KIR curves [16].

Note that Code Case N-629 has been replaced by Code Case N-851 to include the proper

relationship to TKIa [25]. Code Case N-851 also has been incorporated into Section XI of the

3-1

Fracture Toughness Models in CC N-830-1

Code in both Appendices A and G, and Code Case N-631 is in the process of being included in

Section III in NB-2300 [26]. Research, and test and evaluation programs, aimed at enhancing the

wealth of information collected on the applicability of the MC and the MC methodology, provide

support for direct implementation of the MC and T0 for use in assessing the fracture safety of

critical RPV components.

The model developed by Wallin, et al. [20] was first presented as an expression for the

probability of failure, Pf, of a cracked specimen using the simple Weibull form:

𝑩𝑩 𝑲𝑲 −𝑲𝑲 𝟒𝟒

𝑷𝑷𝒇𝒇 = 𝟏𝟏 − 𝒆𝒆𝒆𝒆𝒆𝒆 �− 𝑩𝑩 �𝑲𝑲 𝑰𝑰 −𝑲𝑲𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎 � � Eq. 3-1

𝟎𝟎 𝟎𝟎 𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎

where B0 and K0 are normalization constants, KI is measured toughness and Kmin is taken as

20 MPa√m. B0 can be set to any desired specimen reference thickness but is usually taken as

25.4 mm. K0 is the temperature dependent scale parameter taken as the 63.2% probability of

fracture for a specimen of thickness B0. The shape parameter is defined by the exponent of 4.

Wallin first suggested a temperature dependence common to all ferritic steels in work published

from his Ph.D. dissertation [21]. Further work demonstrated that the alloying, heat treatment and

irradiation conditions characteristic of a particular ferritic material only influences the position of

the transition fracture toughness curve on the temperature axis, while the variation of cleavage

fracture toughness with temperature follows a common form irrespective of these factors [22].

Definition of the temperature dependence of the MC was based on analysis of irradiated and

unirradiated KJc data from Welds 72W and 73W tested as part of the Heavy Section Steel Test

(HSST) Irradiation Program at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) [23]. Normalizing

the data to a 25.4-mm-long crack front, the temperature dependent scale parameter, K0, was

defined by:

𝑲𝑲𝟎𝟎 = 𝟑𝟑𝟑𝟑 + 𝟕𝟕𝟕𝟕 ⋅ 𝒆𝒆𝒆𝒆𝒆𝒆[𝟎𝟎. 𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎(𝑻𝑻 − 𝑻𝑻𝒐𝒐 )] Eq. 3-2

where T is the test temperature and T0 is the temperature at which the measure KJc value is 100

MPa√m. The median cleavage crack initiation toughness, KJc(median), curve was then defined as:

𝑲𝑲𝑱𝑱𝑱𝑱(𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎) = 𝟑𝟑𝟑𝟑 + 𝟕𝟕𝟕𝟕 ⋅ 𝒆𝒆𝒆𝒆𝒆𝒆[𝟎𝟎. 𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎(𝑻𝑻 − 𝑻𝑻𝒐𝒐 )] Eq. 3-3

3.1.3 Distribution

The distribution of data at any given temperature follows a Weibull distribution with a slope of

four and Kmin equal to 20 MPa√m [20, 23], as shown in Eqn. (3-1). The cleavage crack initiation

toughness, KJc, curve can be defined at any percentile, p, as follows:

𝒑𝒑

𝑲𝑲𝑱𝑱𝑱𝑱 = 𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐 + (𝑲𝑲𝒐𝒐 − 𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐){−𝒍𝒍𝒍𝒍(𝟏𝟏 − 𝒑𝒑)}𝟏𝟏/𝟒𝟒 Eq. 3-4

Eqn. (3-4) can be used to produce both lower and upper bound curves. For example, using a

value of 0.05 for p would produce a 5% lower bound curve, while using a value of p equal to

0.95 would produce a 95% upper bound curve. The scale factor, K0, is given by Eqn. (3-2).

There is no effect of product form or irradiation on Eqn. (3-4).

3-2

Fracture Toughness Models in CC N-830-1

Eqn. (3-4) assumes a crack front length of 25.4 mm (1 in.) in laboratory test specimens with

straight crack fronts. While an adjustment to Eqn. (3-4) that accounts for different crack front

lengths in laboratory test specimens was developed, currently there is insufficient basis to

recommend a generic equation that applies to non-straight cracks fronts (e.g., surface breaking

cracks, fully embedded cracks, etc.) that are of interest in structural analyses. CC N-830-1

therefore uses Eqn. (3-4) unless the user can demonstrate that a crack front length other than

25.4 mm (1 in.) is appropriate to the structural situation of interest.

Based on dislocation mechanics considerations, Zerilli and Armstrong (Z-A) [27] described the

constitutive behavior of metals using an equation that divided the flow behavior due to loading

into dislocation mechanisms that were thermally activated, and those that were not thermally

activated. Short range barriers to dislocation motion are those described by length scales on the

order of the atomic spacing of the metal that can be affected by changes in temperature and thus

lattice atom vibration. These were included in the thermally activated terms in the constitutive

equation. Long range barriers to dislocation motion, i.e., those barriers that have inter-barrier

spacings that are orders of magnitude greater than the atomic spacing of the lattice structure, are

not affected by changes in temperature, so they were included in the non-thermally activated

constitutive equation terms. The temperature dependence of the flow stress, as derived by Z-A,

was controlled by the short-range barriers to dislocation motion with the temperature dependence

described by that of the Peierls-Nabarro stress. For body-centered cubic (BCC) metals (e.g., all

ferritic steels), the only short-range barriers to dislocation motion are the lattice atoms

themselves. All other metallurgical features, including grain boundaries, other dislocations,

point defects, precipitates and inclusions, are all considered to be long range barriers, so they do

not affect any control of the temperature-dependent behavior of ferritic steels.

Following the work by Z-A, Natishan, et al. [28-30] demonstrated that the temperature

dependence of the fracture toughness in the fracture mode transition region also depends only on

the short-range barriers to dislocation motion established by the lattice structure of the material

(BCC for ferritic steels). Other microstructural features that vary with steel composition, heat

treatment, and irradiation include grain size/boundaries, point defects, inclusions, precipitates,

and dislocation substructures; these features only influence the position of the transition curve on

the temperature axis (i.e., T0 as determined by E1921-97), but not the shape of the curve. This

understanding suggests that the myriad of metallurgical factors that can influence absolute

strength and toughness values exert no control over the form of the variation of toughness with

temperature in fracture mode transition. Moreover, this understanding provides a theoretical

basis to establish, a priori, those steels to which the MC and T0-linked equations should apply,

and those to which they should not. On this basis, the MC and T0-linked models are particularly

good at describing the temperature-dependence of the fracture toughness of all steels having an

iron BCC lattice structure (e.g., pearlitic steels, ferritic steels, bainitic steels, and tempered

martensitic steels) from lower shelf, through transition and upper shelf behavior, including arrest

toughness behavior. Conversely, these temperature-dependent fracture toughness models should

not be applied to un-tempered martensitic steels, which have a body-centered tetragonal (BCT)

lattice structure, or to austenite, which has a face-centered cubic (FCC) structure.

The statistical model of cleavage fracture proposed by Wallin, Sarrio and Törrönen (WST) [21]

was based on an understanding of the weakest link nature of the fracture mechanisms describing

3-3

Fracture Toughness Models in CC N-830-1

cleavage fracture dating to the 1950s. The idea that cleavage fracture of ferritic steel occurs

when a critical tensile stress is exceeded at a critical particle evolves from the work of McMahon

and Cohen, Curry and Knott, and Smith, among others [31-37]. In the 1970s, Ritchie, Knott, and

Rice (RKR), and Curry and Knott incorporated these observations into models that predict,

respectively, how toughness changes with temperature, and the scatter of fracture toughness at a

single temperature [32-34, 38, 39]. The WST model begins with the notion, most commonly

attributed to RKR, that cleavage fracture will initiate and propagate to failure when a critical

opening mode stress is exceeded over some critical distance ahead of the crack tip. WST

combined an RKR-type model with Curry and Knott’s idea that cleavage fracture is controlled

by a “statistical competition between crack nuclei of varying sizes and frequencies in the rapidly

changing stress gradient ahead of a {sharp} crack tip” [38]. The most significant contribution of

the WST model is not the introduction of a new understanding of cleavage fracture, but rather

the important generalizations WST made concerning the cleavage fracture behavior of all ferritic

steels.

As discussed previously, the empirical basis of the MC temperature-dependence derivation was

based on data obtained from the ORNL HSST Irradiation Program [23]. Within the ORNL

program, there were two very large datasets containing both unirradiated and irradiated

toughness values for welds 72W and 73W. These very large datasets presented an excellent

opportunity to study the effects of irradiation embrittlement on the shape of the transition

fracture toughness curve with respect to temperature. Even when large shifts in toughness were

observed with irradiation, the shape of the temperature-dependence curves remained the same,

confirming the theory that the equation describing the temperature-dependence of transition

fracture toughness was common to all ferritic steels regardless of their irradiated condition.

In 1984, Wallin [20] demonstrated that the distribution of cleavage fracture toughness values at a

single temperature is well represented by a three-parameter Weibull distribution having two

parameters fixed: a minimum value (Kmin) of 20 MPa√m, and a shape parameter (b) of four.

Wallin showed that this distribution applies to ferritic materials that can be considered to have a

random distribution of cleavage initiation sites spread homogeneously throughout the material.

The only material dependent quantity needed to establish the distribution of cleavage fracture

toughness values at a single temperature is the third parameter of the Weibull distribution, the

location parameter, which Wallin called K0.

The Weibull shape parameter of four is theoretically based. It depends only on the assumption

of small scale yielding in the presence of a sharp crack and a homogeneous distribution of

potential cleavage initiators spread throughout the ferrite matrix. Wallin drew data from nine

literature sources (several dozen data points in all, including both RPV and non-RPV steels, both

base materials and welds) to provide empirical evidence that supported a Weibull shape

parameter of four [20].

Wallin observed that some experimental data sets were not represented well by a two-parameter

Weibull distribution with a shape parameter of four, despite the fact that the data was in good

conformance with the underlying assumptions [20]. Referencing the WST work [21], he argued

that the primary reason for this departure from theoretical expectation was that:

3-4

Fracture Toughness Models in CC N-830-1

limiting KIc value beneath which cleavage crack propagation becomes impossible.

The existence of a limiting value is, however, physically reasonable. This can

also be shown with the WST-model. The WST-model predicts a Kmin between 5

and 15 MPa√m below which crack propagation is impossible in more than one

grain, causing blunted microcracks.

In [22], Wallin used the same literature database described previously to demonstrate that a

reasonable value of Kmin lies between 10 and 20 MPa√m. In his 2011 textbook, Wallin states

[40]:

The assumption of Kmin = 10 MPa√m improves the compatibility between

experiments and theory, but the best compatibility is obtained when assuming Kmin

= 20 MPa√m. It was thus concluded that realistic values for Kmin, in the case of

normal structural steels would be of the order of 10-30 MPa√m. Since a reliable

experimental estimation of Kmin is not possible [from limited data] … in the

standard MC procedure it was adopted a constant value of Kmin = 20 MPa√m.

ASTM E1921 adopted the value of 20 MPa√m.

A consequence of the work in [20, 21] is that the effect of specimen size (i.e., crack front length)

on fracture toughness was found to scale with the ¼-power of thickness [41-43]. This derives

directly from the Weibull shape parameter of four, so it is a theoretical expectation dependent on

the same conditions as the shape parameter (i.e., the assumption of small scale yielding in the

presence of a sharp crack and a homogeneous distribution of potential cleavage initiators

throughout the ferrite matrix).

Extensive work has occurred since the late 1990s to validate the three fundamental aspects of the

MC:

• Distribution of KJc values following a three-parameter Weibull distribution having two

parameters fixed (shape parameter of four and a Kmin equal to 20 MPa√m).

• A “size,” or crack front length, effect having an exponent equal to the ¼-power of thickness.

• A temperature dependency having an exponential slope of 0.019.

Some of the more extensive efforts are listed below:

• In the late 1990s and early 2000s, the U.S. nuclear power industry undertook an extensive

effort to review the MC for potential use in the ASME Code. That effort resulted in the RTT0

Code Cases [16, 17, 44]. As part of this activity, an extensive empirical database was

compiled from the literature and was used to empirically evaluate the three fundamentals

aspects of the MC. This work, and closely related efforts (e.g., the Kewaunee plant

submittal), are reported in [45-49].

• In 2009, the NRC published its own evaluation, using a similar methodology to that used by

the industry, but expanded to include more data from the literature [24].

3-5

Fracture Toughness Models in CC N-830-1

• Between 2000 and 2005, a group of laboratories working under European Commission

funding performed extensive KJc characterization of a single RPV-grade forging to validate

the MC. Key papers from this work include [50, 51].

• In the early 2000s, the NRC sponsored a study at the University of California at Santa

Barbara focused specifically on the size-effect aspect of the MC. This study featured an

extensive KJc characterization using ex-vessel (Shoreham) materials [52, 53].

Across the board these efforts found no substantial deviations from the Master Curve model as

originally proposed by Wallin [20-22] and as represented within E1921.

Over the past 15 years, various publications have suggested possible further refinements of the

MC concept that are useful in specific situations. These include the following:

• On temperature dependence, References [54] and [55] provide information on how the

exponential slope of 0.019 is affected by various factors. There is considerable dispersion in

the data, but even so, a tendency to a reduction of the value of 0.019 with increasing

embrittlement can be seen. Reference [55] provides a formula to estimate this effect.

• On Kmin, a method proposed in Reference [56] enables estimation of a data-set specific value

for Kmin. However, large amounts of KJc data are needed to use the procedure, and the value

of Kmin of 20 MPa√m is still seen as a practicable estimate.

• Methods have been developed when it is suspect that a particular KJc dataset may not have

been obtained from a homogeneous population of cleavage crack initiators. These methods

are particularly useful in application to T0 values measured on welds [57].

• Some empirical evidence demonstrates that, as embrittlement occurs and the crack initiation

and crack arrest distributions merge, the constant Weibull shape parameter of four becomes

less accurate. EricksonKirk and co-workers [58, 59] postulated that the cause of this

behavior might be stable micro-arrests in high embrittlement materials.

All the foregoing reports were reviewed and form the basis for the limits on the applicability of

CC-N-830-1, as appropriate. As additional information comes to light, more refined models may

be developed for implementation into a subsequent revision of CC N-830-1.

Based on the development and validation work described above, the following limitations for

using the KJc model are contained in CC N-830-1:

• The MC KJc model cannot be applied to non-ferritic steels (e.g., not to hardened martensite,

or austenitic steels).

• The MC KJc model may not be applicable to specimens loaded to very high strain rates. At

higher strain rates, there may be a slight effect of increasing strain rate that results in an

increase in the slope of the transition toughness curve such that toughness becomes less

sensitive to temperature. But even at the rates included in the EPRI database, the effect is

very slight [11].

3-6

Fracture Toughness Models in CC N-830-1

• The MC KJc model cannot be used at temperatures above which crack extension occurs by

dislocation motion, void initiation growth, and coalescence (i.e., upper limit of applicability

of the MC).

• The MC KJc model may not be applicable at temperatures below which deformation occurs

predominantly by twinning (T0-160oC).

Wallin et al. [60] also developed a model for the temperature dependence and distribution of

crack arrest fracture toughness, KIa. Consistent with the MC treatment, Wallin selected the

temperature at which the mean measured KIa value is 100 MPa√m for use as the temperature to

index data from different heats of steel together to form a single crack arrest transition curve.

Wallin called this index temperature TKIa [60].

In questioning the ASME-specified separation between KIc and KIa, Wallin, et al. [60] analyzed

nine sets of KIa data using a method similar to that used in developing the KJc MC. The authors

started with the assumption that the KIa data followed the same temperature-dependence as was

observed for the KJc MC (Eqn. (3-3)), and defined TKIa as the temperature at which the mean KIa

value equals 100 MPa√m. They further reasoned that because crack arrest is not a weakest-link

mechanism, there shouldn’t be a size effect since the scatter in data is controlled by the matrix

properties and not the distribution of crack initiating particles. Using TKIa to normalize the data

from the nine datasets, Wallin confirmed that the assumed temperature-dependence fit the data

well.

The mean temperature dependence of KIa follows the form given for the initiation MC, and is

given by [60]:

𝑲𝑲𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎

𝑰𝑰𝑰𝑰 = 𝟑𝟑𝟑𝟑 + 𝟕𝟕𝟕𝟕 ⋅ 𝒆𝒆𝒆𝒆𝒆𝒆[𝟎𝟎. 𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎(𝑻𝑻 − 𝑻𝑻𝑲𝑲𝑲𝑲𝑲𝑲 )] Eq. 3-5

𝑻𝑻𝑲𝑲𝑲𝑲𝑲𝑲 = 𝑻𝑻𝟎𝟎 + 𝟒𝟒𝟒𝟒. 𝟗𝟗𝟗𝟗𝟗𝟗𝟗𝟗𝟗𝟗[−𝟎𝟎. 𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝑻𝑻𝟎𝟎 ] Eq. 3-6

Assessment of additional data combined with the nine datasets used by Wallin further confirmed

the temperature dependence described by Eqn. (3-5) [61, 62]. Moreover, the data suggest that,

similar to the initiation MC, the temperature dependence of KIa is not affected strongly by

irradiation [62].

3.2.3 Distribution

Wallin observed that the scatter in KIa data was less than that observed for KJc. He assumed a

log-normal distribution so that the proportional scatter in KIa was constant, matching the

empirical evidence. A log normal distribution with a variance equal to 18% of the mean value

was found to match the data well [60]. Using Wallin’s log normal distribution the crack arrest

toughness curve at percentile, p, is defined as:

3-7

Fracture Toughness Models in CC N-830-1

𝒑𝒑

for lower bound curves: 𝑲𝑲𝑰𝑰𝑰𝑰 = 𝑲𝑲𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎

𝑰𝑰𝑰𝑰 �𝟏𝟏 − 𝟎𝟎. 𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏𝑴𝑴𝒑𝒑 � Eq. 3-7

(𝟏𝟏−𝒑𝒑)

𝑲𝑲𝑰𝑰𝑰𝑰 = 𝑲𝑲𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎 �𝟏𝟏 + 𝟎𝟎. 𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏𝑴𝑴𝒑𝒑 � Eq. 3-8

for upper bound curves: 𝑰𝑰𝑰𝑰

Using Eqn. (3-7), a value for p of 0.05 will produce a 5% lower bound curve. A 95% upper

bound curve is similarly defined using Eqn. (3-8). When using either of these equations, the

value of p cannot exceed 0.5 (0 < p < 0.5). There is no effect of component thickness, crack

front length, or product form on Eqns. (3-7) and (3-8).

In 2002, Kirk, et al [61] presented a physically-based mechanism for crack arrest to support the

crack arrest toughness model of ferritic steels developed by Wallin [60]. They present a detailed

discussion based in dislocation mechanics that demonstrates that the empirical trends observed

by Wallin are anticipated physically.

The mechanism controlling the temperature-dependence of crack arrest toughness is the same as

that controlling the temperature dependence of initiation toughness, i.e., dislocation motion

through the matrix to absorb the applied energy. Crack initiation occurs when energy absorption

by dislocation motion can no longer occur and energy is then available to drive crack initiation

and growth. Crack arrest occurs when dislocations once again become mobile in a material and

can move to the crack tip to absorb the energy of the propagating crack. Because of this, both

KIc and KIa data are expected to exhibit the same temperature dependence. This temperature

dependence results from the temperature dependence of the Peierls-Nabarro stresses required to

move dislocations through the ferritic matrix. The temperature dependence of both toughness

values is controlled by the atomic arrangement, or crystal structure of the material.

Consequently, the temperature dependence of KIc and KIa is expected to be common to all ferritic

steels.

Wallin observed a significant reduction in the scatter inherent in KIa data over that observed in

KIc data. The cause of this reduction is based on the difference in the distribution of dislocation-

trapping barriers that affect each property. Crack initiation occurs when dislocations accumulate

at non-coherent particles (i.e., carbides, grain boundaries, twin boundaries, etc.) and produce

enough strain to elevate the local stress at the barrier high enough to fracture the barrier or cause

its decohesion from the matrix. These non-coherent particles are large with respect to size and

inter-particle spacing relative to the dislocation trapping sites responsible for crack arrest

toughness. The non-coherent particles responsible for initiation are of sub-micron size (i.e., 1/10

micron), and their spacing is on the same order. The dislocation-trapping defects responsible for

crack arrest (i.e., vacancy clusters, interstitial clusters, coherent and semi-coherent particles, and

other dislocations) are of a much smaller size (nanometer) and have a spacing on the same scale.

The possible variation in local stress state over the microstructural distances that control crack

arrest is also much smaller than that possible over the microstructural distances that control crack

initiation. This is due to the high strain rate in front of the moving crack tip, which constrains

the development of a large strain field.

The considerably smaller size and spacing of the defects responsible for crack arrest, relative to

those responsible for crack initiation, also suggests that crack arrest toughness should not be

greatly influenced by the length of the crack front for all crack front lengths of practical concern

3-8

Fracture Toughness Models in CC N-830-1

in RPV applications. The size effect observed in crack initiation toughness is due to the weakest

link nature of the initiation event, but crack arrest is not a weakest-link phenomena.

After the initial development of the KIa curve, Wallin continued his analysis with 53 sets of KIa

data. Most of the data consisted of RPV steels, including plates, forgings and welds, both

irradiated and unirradiated, but other steels (non-RPV) were included as well. The data sets

covered a wide range of yield strengths (280 MPa to 1,082 MPa). To ensure that TKIa for each

dataset could readily be obtained, it was desired that each dataset contained at least ten

specimens [60], although several datasets contained fewer specimens.

TKIa was determined for each dataset and used to normalize the datasets. The normalized data

were then compared to the temperature dependence and log normal distribution assumed in the

initial model development, and were found to match well, verifying the initial assumptions. The

data were then used to develop a correlation between T0 and TKIa, as described in Chapter 4.

Other validation efforts have subsequently been conducted, including that of Hein, et al. [62] in

the CARINA and CARISMA projects in which RPV materials consisting of six base materials

(plates and forgings), seven welds, and weld heat affected zone (HAZ) materials were tested.

The data, including both KJc and KIa, were used to confirm the efficacy of the MC approach for

assessing German nuclear power plant safety. The materials were tested in both the irradiated

and unirradiated conditions to assess the effects of embrittlement on the characterization of

toughness behavior. Compact crack arrest and duplex crack arrest specimens were tested

following the ASTM E1221-10 standard test method [63], and KIa values used to determine TKIa

for each data set. The results of this program showed that the KIa master curve, with the

temperature dependence described by Eqn. (3-5) and log normal distribution defined by Eqns.

(3-7) and (3-8), well represented all the KIa data sets tested in the CARINA project.

Based on the development and validation work described above, the following limitations for

using the KIa model are contained in CC N-830-1:

• The KIa model cannot be applied to non-ferritic steels (e.g., not to hardened martensite, or

austenitic steels).

• The KIa model cannot be used at temperatures above which crack extension occurs by

dislocation motion, void initiation growth, and coalescence (i.e., the upper limit of

applicability of the MC).

• The KIa model may not be applicable at temperatures below which deformation occurs

predominantly by twinning (T0-160oC), but it is believed that cracks arrest does not occur at

such low temperatures.

To identify the upper limit of applicability of the KJc MC, EricksonKirk et al. [11, 62] developed

a model describing the temperature dependence of upper shelf fracture toughness (JIc) that

pertained to all ferritic steels. This upper shelf model was used to define the temperature region

3-9

Fracture Toughness Models in CC N-830-1

thereby defining a point beyond which the MC should no longer be used.

Both ductile fracture toughness and flow stress measure the ability of a material to absorb energy

by dislocation motion. This similarity in mechanism provided EricksonKirk the justification to

look to the temperature dependence of the flow stress to define the temperature dependence of

the upper shelf fracture toughness. The JIc model development was based on the Zerilli-

Armstrong (Z-A) constitutive equation describing the temperature dependence of the flow stress

that was common to ferritic steels [27]. The equation describing the temperature dependence of

JIc was found to be a simple scalar multiple of the temperature dependence predicted by Z-A for

flow stress. By assuming this temperature-dependence, individual datasets of JIc data versus test

temperature were fit, and then each dataset was normalized by the mean JIc at a single

temperature. The JIc at 288o C was selected as the reference value to use in normalizing the data

for model development [11, 64].

Similar to the Wallin MC, the JIc equation has two components; a temperature dependence

common to all ferritic steels, and a distribution that defines the expected scatter in JIc at any

given temperature.

The equation describing the temperature dependence of the mean value of JIc, is defined in CC

N-830-1 as:

𝑱𝑱𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎

𝑰𝑰𝑰𝑰 = 𝟏𝟏. 𝟕𝟕𝟕𝟕{𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏 ∙ 𝐞𝐞𝐞𝐞𝐞𝐞[−𝟎𝟎. 𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎(𝑻𝑻 + 𝟐𝟐𝟕𝟕𝟑𝟑. 𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏)] − 𝟑𝟑. 𝟑𝟑𝟑𝟑𝟑𝟑} + 𝑱𝑱𝒄𝒄(𝑼𝑼𝑼𝑼) − 𝚫𝚫𝑱𝑱𝑰𝑰𝑰𝑰(𝑼𝑼𝑼𝑼) Eq. 3-9(a)

Where T is the temperature in oC and the reference JIc value is taken at 288o C. Jc(US) and ∆JIc(US)

are given by:

𝟏𝟏−𝝊𝝊𝟐𝟐

𝑱𝑱𝒄𝒄(𝑼𝑼𝑼𝑼) = {𝟑𝟑𝟑𝟑 + 𝟕𝟕𝟕𝟕 × 𝐞𝐞𝐞𝐞𝐞𝐞[𝟎𝟎. 𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎(𝟒𝟒𝟒𝟒. 𝟖𝟖𝟖𝟖𝟖𝟖 − 𝟎𝟎. 𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐𝑻𝑻𝒐𝒐 )]}𝟐𝟐 Eq. 3-9(b)

𝑬𝑬𝑼𝑼𝑼𝑼

𝚫𝚫𝑱𝑱𝑰𝑰𝑰𝑰(𝑼𝑼𝑼𝑼) = 𝟏𝟏. 𝟕𝟕𝟕𝟕{𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏 ∙ 𝐞𝐞𝐞𝐞𝐞𝐞[−𝟎𝟎. 𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎(𝑻𝑻𝑼𝑼𝑼𝑼 + 𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐. 𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏)] − 𝟑𝟑. 𝟑𝟑𝟑𝟑𝟑𝟑} Eq. 3-9(c)

{𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐−𝟕𝟕𝟕𝟕.𝟒𝟒𝑻𝑻𝑼𝑼𝑼𝑼 }

𝑬𝑬𝑼𝑼𝑼𝑼 = Eq. 3-9(d)

𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏

3.3.3 Distribution

The distribution on JIc is a function of both temperature and prior hardening, as defined by the

mean value of JIc at 288o C. Based on the work presented by Kirk, et al. [65], the standard

deviation for JIc, σΔJIc , is defined in CC N-830-1 as:

3-10

Fracture Toughness Models in CC N-830-1

𝑱𝑱𝑰𝑰𝑰𝑰(𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐)

𝑷𝑷𝟏𝟏 = − 𝟎𝟎. 𝟒𝟒𝟒𝟒 Eq. 3-10(e)

𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏

𝑱𝑱𝑰𝑰𝑰𝑰(𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐)

𝑷𝑷𝟐𝟐 = + 𝟎𝟎. 𝟓𝟓𝟓𝟓 Eq. 3-10(f)

𝟖𝟖𝟖𝟖𝟖𝟖

The ductile crack initiation toughness curve at percentile, p, or (1-p), is defined as follows:

𝒑𝒑

𝑱𝑱𝑰𝑰𝑰𝑰 = 𝑱𝑱𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎 − 𝝈𝝈𝚫𝚫𝑱𝑱𝑰𝑰𝑰𝑰 𝑴𝑴𝒑𝒑 Eq. 3-11(a)

for lower bound curves 𝑰𝑰𝑰𝑰

(𝟏𝟏−𝒑𝒑)

𝑱𝑱𝑰𝑰𝑰𝑰 = 𝑱𝑱𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎 + 𝝈𝝈𝚫𝚫𝑱𝑱𝑰𝑰𝑰𝑰 𝑴𝑴𝒑𝒑 Eq. 3-11(b)

for upper bound curves: 𝑰𝑰𝑰𝑰

As an example, a value for p of 0.05 would produce a 5% lower bound curve using Eqn. (3-11a),

and a 95% upper bound curve using Eqn. (3-11b). When using Eqns. (3-11a) and (3-11b), the

value of p should not exceed 0.5 (0 < p < 0.5).

In developing the model for upper shelf fracture toughness behavior, EricksonKirk [11, 64]

assumed that, since the upper shelf fracture toughness mechanism was dislocation-controlled

(void nucleation, growth and coalescence), it should follow the same, or similar, temperature

dependence as the flow stress. Starting with the Zerilli-Armstrong constitutive equation for the

flow stress in ARMCO iron [27], the Z-A equation for BCC-material flow stress is given by:

−𝟏𝟏� 𝟏𝟏�

𝝈𝝈𝒁𝒁𝒁𝒁 = 〈𝝈𝝈𝑮𝑮 + 𝒌𝒌𝒅𝒅 𝟐𝟐 + 𝑲𝑲𝜺𝜺 𝟐𝟐 〉 + �𝑩𝑩𝟎𝟎 𝒆𝒆−(𝜷𝜷𝟎𝟎 −𝜷𝜷𝟏𝟏 𝒍𝒍𝒍𝒍𝜺𝜺̇ )𝑻𝑻 � Eq. 3-12

where:

σG = the prior hardening term

kd-1/2 = the Hall-Petch grain boundary hardening term

Kε1/2 = the strain hardening term

B0 and β0 = material constants

𝛽𝛽1 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝜖𝜖̇ = term that accounts for dynamic strain aging in BCC materials

T = temperature (K)

All three of the terms in the <brackets> are athermal terms, and the terms in [square brackets] are

the thermal terms.

Only the thermal terms were used in characterizing the upper shelf fracture behavior. JIc is

characterized using quasi-static test rates, so the dynamic strain aging term was set to a constant

3-11

Fracture Toughness Models in CC N-830-1

using 𝜀𝜀̇ equal to 0.0004/sec. To develop an empirical fit to identify the constants, the data was

characterized relative to a reference JIc value, arbitrarily chosen as the JIc at 288o C, and

compared to the difference in flow stress between that predicted by the Z-A equation and the

flow stress measured at a reference temperature:

Where α has units of mm to convert from stress units (MPa) inside the {brackets} to J units of

kJ/m2.

Substituting the Z-A thermal flow equation for ∆𝜎𝜎𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 , and taking the reference temperature as

288oC for both JIc and σflow, gives the temperature-dependence equation for JIc as:

∆𝑱𝑱𝑰𝑰𝑰𝑰 ≡ 𝑱𝑱𝑰𝑰𝑰𝑰 (𝑻𝑻) − 𝑱𝑱𝑰𝑰𝑰𝑰(𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐) = 𝜶𝜶�𝑩𝑩𝟎𝟎 𝒆𝒆𝒆𝒆𝒆𝒆[−𝜷𝜷𝟎𝟎 𝑻𝑻 + 𝜷𝜷𝟏𝟏 𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻(𝜺𝜺̇ )] − 𝝈𝝈𝒇𝒇𝒇𝒇𝒇𝒇𝒇𝒇(𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐) � Eq. 3-14

This Z-A dislocation mechanics-based equation was used as the basis for the empirical fitting

performed to develop the JIc versus temperature equation as described in detail in References

[11, 64]. The empirical basis for the model is described in the following section of this report.

The expected scatter in the JIc data at a given temperature can be understood in the context of

dislocation mechanics. Ductile fracture occurs by accumulation of dislocations at defects in the

material upon loading. When a critical dislocation density is reached, voids initiate, followed by

growth of the void and coalescence with other voids to form a crack. The energy absorbed by

dislocation motion leading to ductile crack initiation in a specimen, and therefore the energy

defining the upper shelf fracture toughness, is controlled by the strain history and defect density

of the material prior to loading, as well as the ease with which dislocations move within the

material. Dislocation motion is controlled by the temperature-dependent Peierls-Nabarro stress,

which in turn is controlled by the short-range obstacles to dislocation motion provided by the

lattice atoms (BCC crystal structure in the case of ferritic steels). The total energy absorbed

prior to crack initiation is controlled by the long-range barriers to dislocation motion, i.e., the

defects in the material (vacancies/interstitials, other dislocations and precipitates/particles) [11].

The higher the initial defect density in the material, the less energy is absorbed by movement of

dislocations upon loading before the critical dislocation density is obtained for void initiation and

growth. As a result, materials that have a higher yield strength and hardness have a lower JIc at

any given test temperature and show less scatter in the data compared to specimens that have a

lower yield strength and hardness. The microstructural features controlling hardness and yield

strength will not affect the temperature-dependence of dislocation motion for the reasons stated

in the KJc Theoretical Basis Section, but they will affect the scatter in the JIc data at any given

temperature. Based on this understanding of the dislocation-based, ductile fracture process, it is

expected that scatter in JIc data varies with temperature and the mean value of JIc at any given

temperature.

A database of over 1,000 JIc values was compiled from the literature [64] and used to develop an

empirical fit to the theoretically-derived model form described by Eqn. (3-14). The data

consisted primarily of RPV steels (ASTM A533B and A508 and their welds) in the unirradiated

and irradiated conditions, as well as some high strength, low alloy ferritic steels used by the U.S.

3-12

Fracture Toughness Models in CC N-830-1

Navy. The data were filtered to ensure that only data obtained at quasi-static loading rates were

used, that each dataset had at least five JIc values, and that each dataset contained JIc values

obtained from at least two different temperatures. This filtering resulted in a total of 809 JIc

values that were appropriate to use in the development of the upper shelf fracture toughness

model.

Starting with Eqn. (3-14), an iterative process was used to determine the constants in Eqn. (3-14)

[64]. A reference temperature, Tref, was arbitrarily set to 288oC, as there was a significant

amount of data at this test temperature. Both ∆σflow and ∆JIc are zero at Tref, resulting in σT (the

value of the thermal part of the flow stress at 288 oC) equal to 3.3 MPa using starting values for

the constants in the Z-A equation for ferritic steels of B0 = 1,000 MPa, β0 = 0.0074 K-1, and

β1 = 0.004 K-1 [66], and taking α to be 2.1 mm based on a preliminary analysis of a small

dataset. The equation was fit to individual datasets using a least squares method, thereby

establishing a value of JIc at 288oC for every data set. The value of α was then adjusted to

minimize the sum of squares residuals between each measured ∆JIc value (∆JIc = JIc(T) – JIc(288))

and each predicted value of ∆JIc (∆JIc=α{B0exp[-β0T+β1Tln𝜀𝜀̇]-σflow(288)}), which required 15

iterations to converge. Once α was minimized for all datasets, the 809 values were considered

together, and a final iteration was performed to adjust the constants to define a best estimate

model to represent all ferritic steels. Inserting the constants determined from the least squares

fitting method into Eqn. (3-14) gives the temperature dependence of the JIc MC:

𝒌𝒌𝒌𝒌

∆𝑱𝑱𝑰𝑰𝑰𝑰 ≡ 𝑱𝑱𝑰𝑰𝑰𝑰 (𝑻𝑻) − 𝑱𝑱𝑰𝑰𝑰𝑰(𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐) = 𝟏𝟏. 𝟕𝟕𝟕𝟕{𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏[−𝟎𝟎. 𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎 + 𝟎𝟎. 𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎(𝜺𝜺̇ )] − 𝟑𝟑. 𝟑𝟑} � � 𝟐𝟐 � Eq. 3-15

𝒎𝒎

The original work to develop Eqn. (3-15) did not consider characterization of the scatter in the

data at any one temperature [11]. Follow-on work by Kirk, et al. [63] using the same data

demonstrated the scatter in ∆JIc to be temperature-dependent, with the standard deviation given

by:

Ic

Eq. 3-16

The JIc models given by Eqns. (3-15) and (3-16) well represent both the temperature dependence

and the scatter of the JIc data to which they were fit. While the findings from [63] are promising,

questions remained concerning the possible influence of the ∆JIc normalization procedure on the

outcome of the analysis. A more detailed analysis of the data used in the original model

development was performed to better calibrate the fitting parameters, and this recalibrated JIc

model was used to assess the appropriateness of the models in describing the behavior of a more

recent, larger set of JIc data from a RPV forging (ASTM A508 Class 3 steel called the EURO

Forge) [65]. The EURO Forge is a well-characterized material that was extensively tested and

documented [67-71]. The data in this validation and recalibration effort included 45 JIc data

points (defined using ASTM E1820-05 [72]) obtained at test temperatures ranging between -20

and +288oC, with 6 to 8 specimens tested at each temperature to quantify the scatter.

Figure 3-1 shows the EURO Forge data relative to the JIc temperature dependence and scatter

model described in Eqns. (3-15) and (3-16). Except for the dataset at 175oC, the models describe

the data reasonably well. Further assessment of the specimen tested at 175oC provided no

3-13

Fracture Toughness Models in CC N-830-1

explanations for this outlier data set. A more quantitative assessment of the scatter in the EURO

Forge specimens was performed to confirm the observations made in plotting the data relative to

the model predictions. The outcome of that assessment was a finding that the scatter in the

EURO Forge data was higher than predicted by the model, and that the scatter had an athermal

component that had not been observed previously. This athermal component of the scatter was

found to scale in proportion to the mean upper shelf toughness of the dataset, i.e., higher

toughness materials (such as the EURO Forge material) exhibited higher scatter than did lower

toughness materials [65]. This aspect of the scatter may not have been observed in the upper

shelf model development study due to the limited amount of JIc values at higher temperatures in

the original database.

Figure 3-1

Comparison of the temperature dependence exhibited by the JIc data for the EURO Forge

with the model proposed in [65] (i.e., Eqn. (3-15) with uncertainty bounds based on Eqn

(3-16)).

A detailed quantitative assessment of the scatter in the EURO Forge data, combined with the

data used in the original model development, was performed relative to both the temperature and

mean value of JIc for each dataset [65]. The TUS model [11] (described in Chapter 4) was used to

censor data at low upper shelf temperatures that may have cleavage components to the fracture

mode, and the JIc data was divided into five bins based on the percentile of the total distribution

of JIc(288) for all datasets the average JIc(288) value for each dataset fell into. Datasets for which

the JIc(288) value fell between the zero and 20th percentiles were placed into the first bin, between

the 20th and 40th percentiles were placed in the second bin, and so on (the JIc(288) value of 283

kJ/m2 of the EURO Forge placed it at the 83rd percentile or the fifth bin). The standard deviation

for each bin was calculated, and this showed a trend of increasing standard deviation with

increasing JIc(288). Based on this analysis, a fit of the form:

3-14

Fracture Toughness Models in CC N-830-1

σ ∆J = A ⋅ e (B⋅T )

ˆ

Ic

Eq. 3-17

was identified to represent the standard deviation in JIc. In this equation, A and B are fitting

parameters, and 𝑇𝑇� is the test temperature expressed relative to 288oC, which was the reference

temperature used to define the bins. Fitting this equation to the data in each of the five bins

resulted in definitions of the A and B as shown in Eqn. (3-10).

The distribution model described by Eqn. (3-10) was developed using all the available JIc data

(the original 91 datasets and the additional EURO Forge 45 JIc values). In Figure 3-2, the JIc

temperature dependence model from Eqn. (3-9) is combined with the JIc scatter model of Eqn.

(3-10) and compared to three data sets having considerably different upper shelf toughness

levels. This comparison demonstrates the ability of the combined model from Eqns. (3-9) and

(3-10) to represent the temperature dependence and scatter of a wide range of toughness

conditions. Further validation efforts await additional JIc data.

Based on the development and validation work described above, the following limitations for

using the JIc model are contained in CC N-830-1:

• The use of the models described in Eqns. (3-9) through (3-11) is limited to the ranges of

data used in their development and validation. As such, these models should only be used to

predict fracture toughness on the upper shelf and should not be applied at temperatures for

which cleavage fracture is the expected fracture mode.

• The JIc, upper shelf model only pertains to ferritic steel materials and should not be used to

predict upper shelf behavior of non-ferritic materials (e.g., martensite, austenite or other

alloys).

• Data was not available at temperatures above 300oC, so extrapolation of the model to higher

temperatures is questionable.

• This model is not intended to predict ductile fracture toughness at high (dynamic) strain

rates, nor should it be used in temperature and strain rate conditions where dynamic strain

aging occurs as these may change the temperature dependence of upper shelf toughness for

the material.

3-15

Fracture Toughness Models in CC N-830-1

Figure 3-2

Comparison of the revised JIc model, Eqns. (3-9) and (3-10), with JIc data from steels

having three different upper shelf toughness (JIc(288)) levels [65].

3-16

4

FRACTURE TOUGHNESS LINKAGE MODELS IN CC N-

830-1

While the models summarized in Chapter 3 describe the temperature dependence and scatter

inherent to different measures of the fracture toughness of ferritic steels, they do not describe the

interrelationship of the different toughness measures. While general relationships have long

been recognized (e.g., steels with low transition temperatures tend to have high toughness on the

upper shelf), it is only in the last 10 to 15 years that systematic trends common to all ferritic

steels have been noted.

In this chapter, three models that link the KJc, KIa, and JIc toughness models described in Chapter

3 are summarized. These linkage models include the relationship between cleavage crack

initiation (KJc) and upper shelf (JIc) fracture toughness data, the relationship between cleavage

crack initiation (KJc) and cleavage crack arrest (KIa) fracture toughness data, and the relationship

between upper shelf (JIc) crack initiation and upper shelf crack growth (J-R) fracture toughness

data. These three linkage models, taken together, provide the relationships that link all

toughness values to a single reference value, T0.

4.1 The Relationship Between Cleavage Crack Initiation (KJc) and Upper

Shelf (JIc); TUS

Conventionally, the transition fracture toughness and upper shelf fracture toughness of ferritic

steels have been viewed as either separate properties or as properties between which only

general/qualitative relationships exist. Information presented in 2004 by EricksonKirk [11] and

further developed in 2006 by EricksonKirk, et al. [14] demonstrated the opposite to be true. The

EricksonKirk studies [11, 14] showed transition fracture toughness and upper shelf fracture

toughness to be directly related because the microstructural features responsible for both the

temperature dependence of fracture toughness and for the magnitude of fracture toughness at any

given temperature are the same in both transition and on the upper shelf. Data from several

dozen steels demonstrated a consistent linear relationship between T0 and the temperature at

which KJc (converted to Jc) and JIc are equal, termed TUS, over a range of T0 values exceeding

300°C (-180°C < T0 < +140°C).

Figure 4-1 shows the data from Reference [14]. These define the following relationship between

T0 and TUS:

4-1

Fracture Toughness Linkage Models in CC N-830-1

200

R2 = 0.9812

100

TUS [ C] 50

o

Weld

0 Plate

Forging

-50 HSLA

Mild Steel

-100 All

Linear (All)

-150

-200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 200

T o [oC]

Figure 4-1

Relationship between TUS and T0 [11, 14]

EricksonKirk, et al. performed their studies motivated by the observation of “master curves” that

consistently describe the temperature dependence and scatter of fracture toughness in both

fracture mode transition [20, 21] and on the ductile upper shelf [11, 64]. They noted that the

interatomic spacing in the BCC ferritic steel matrix was responsible for the temperature

dependence of both the transition and upper shelf fracture toughness, and the size and

distribution of barriers to dislocation motion (second phase particles, point defects and other

dislocations) control the magnitude of fracture toughness at any given temperature for both

transition and upper shelf behavior. For example, steels exhibiting a low T0 (high KJc at any

given temperature) also exhibit a high JIc on the upper shelf because these materials exhibit a

fine/homogeneous distribution of defects (that is, many small, second phase particles, grain

boundaries, etc.). Such steels can accommodate considerable uniform dislocation motion prior

to sufficient accumulation of dislocations at any defect, which results in either cracking of the

second-phase particle (in transition) or decohesion of the second phase particle and subsequent

void growth (on the upper shelf). Because considerable uniform dislocation motion is possible,

higher toughness values occur at any temperature whether in transition or on the upper shelf.

Conversely, steels that have a high T0 also exhibit low upper shelf JIc values because these steels

contain a larger, less homogeneous distribution of defects (that is, larger grain sizes, larger

second-phase particles, higher original dislocation density, etc.). Such steels cannot

accommodate as much uniform dislocation motion prior to sufficient accumulation of

dislocations at any defect, which results in either cracking of the second-phase particle (in

transition) or the decohesion of the second phase particle and subsequent void growth (on the

upper shelf). Higher initial defect density results in less energy absorbed by dislocation motion

upon load application prior to accumulation of sufficient strain to cause fracture at any given

temperature, whether it is in the transition region or on the upper shelf.

4-2

Fracture Toughness Linkage Models in CC N-830-1

The TUS model is supported by data from 38 ferritic steels for which sufficient KJc and JIc data

were available for defining, respectively, the KJc MC and the upper shelf, JIc, master curve.

These materials are predominately nuclear grade base and weld metals that were tested in both

the unirradiated and irradiated conditions. Additionally, some data for mild steels and for a

copper precipitation hardened high-strength low alloy (HSLA) steel supported the model. A

total of 47 data sets existed for different material and irradiation conditions [14].

The model was developed as illustrated in Figure 4-2. The KJc model was used to define the MC,

and the JIc model was used to define the upper shelf master curve using Eqns. (3-3) and (3-9),

respectively. The intersection point of these two curves was called TUS [11, 14]. TUS can be

defined for any percentile of toughness values by using the same percentiles in Eqns. (3-4) and

(3-11) for KJc and JIc, respectively.

TUS was defined for individual datasets containing both KJc and JIc data. The T0 value determined

for a given KJc dataset was used to locate the median KJc MC (converted to Jc using Eqn. (4) in

[14]). The best least squares fit of the upper shelf master curve [64] through measured JIc data

was used to define the average JIc curve. The intersection of the median Jc curve with the

average JIc curve was used to define the temperature, TUS, for the given dataset. Once TUS was

established for each dataset, a fit to the plot of TUS versus T0 was used to define the relationship

described by Eqn. (4-1).

Fracture Toughness

100 MPa√m

TUS

To

Temperature

Figure 4-2

Schematic illustrating the relationship between the transition and upper shelf toughness,

and defining TUS as the intersection of the Wallin MC and the upper shelf MC.

Considerable data was used in the development of the TUS model [11, 14] that included RPV

steels and low alloy, naval steels, spanning T0 values over a broad range from −180oC to +140oC.

This data included both irradiated and non-irradiated plates, forgings and welds, with a variety of

chemical compositions and heat treatments. This model has strong theoretical and empirical

support and shows a very clear trend with little scatter.

Comparisons of the TUS model predictions to individual KJc/JIc datasets show that the accuracy

with which upper shelf behavior is predicted from T0 depends primarily on the accuracy with

4-3

Fracture Toughness Linkage Models in CC N-830-1

which T0 and TUS can be determined from measured data. This accuracy is strongly influenced

by the size of individual KJc and JIc data sets and not by the material variability. The KJc MC is

very steep at the transition from cleavage to upper shelf behavior, so predictions of upper shelf

behavior from T0 are very sensitive to very small variations, or uncertainties, in T0. This was

confirmed by EricksonkKirk, et al. [14] in their investigation that studied the effects of dataset

size (i.e., how many KJc and JIc values were available for determining T0 and TUS) on the fitting

error of Eqn. (4-1). They found that the error in the fit was inversely proportional to the number

of both KJc and JIc values in the dataset; the higher the number of values, the smaller the fit error.

The conclusion was that the uncertainty in the TUS model is not a material-dependent effect, but

rather is due to epistemic uncertainties on measured T0 and TUS determinations.

Empirically, the TUS model applies over a wide range of T0 values, from -180°C to +140°C, with

very little scatter, as shown in Figure (4-1). The model is based on a variety of ferritic steels,

both irradiated and un-irradiated nuclear RPV steels (including different product forms and “low

upper shelf” welds), mild steels, and the higher-strength copper precipitation hardened steels

(ASTM A710 and HSLA-100) used by the U.S. Navy in surface ship fabrication. An error

analysis of the data [14] demonstrated that material-dependent effects are not responsible for the

uncertainty in the relationship between T0 and TUS shown in Figure (4-1). This evidence,

combined with the physical basis information summarized in Chapter 3, suggests that Eqn. (4-1)

should apply without exception to any ferritic steel.

Eqn. (4-1) only applies to ferritic steels. Extrapolation beyond the data used to develop the

model (-180oC < T0 < +140oC) should be validated prior to use of Eqn. (4-1) in any analysis.

4.2 The Relationship Between Cleavage Crack Initiation (KJc) and Arrest

(KIa)

It is generally recognized that steels with higher amounts of hardening (that is, a higher T0 value)

tend to have less separation between the cleavage crack initiation (KJc) and cleavage crack arrest

(KIa) curves. This relationship was first shown by Wallin and Rintamma in 1998 [60] using a

large quantity of data. Further work on this concept, which added more data and provided a

physical basis for the observation, was reported in 2002 and 2014 by Kirk, et al. [61, 73]. Kirk’s

2014 work included a large amount of data that was used to refine the models presented in the

1998 and 2002 studies [60, 61]. However, it should be noted that even though the 2014 work

included considerably more data than that reported in either 1998 or 2002, the relationship did

not change significantly.

Figure 4-3 shows the data from Kirk’s 2014 investigation [73]. These define the relationship

between TKIa and T0 as shown in Eqn. (3-6) and repeated here:

𝑻𝑻𝑲𝑲𝑲𝑲𝑲𝑲 = 𝑻𝑻𝒐𝒐 + 𝟒𝟒𝟒𝟒. 𝟗𝟗𝟗𝟗𝟗𝟗𝟗𝟗𝟗𝟗[−𝟎𝟎. 𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟔𝟔𝟔𝟔𝟔𝟔𝑻𝑻𝒐𝒐 ] Eq. 4-2

4-4

Fracture Toughness Linkage Models in CC N-830-1

160

120 Base

TKIa - To [°C]

Weld

HAZ

80

High Yield

Low Yield

40 Original Fit

All Data Fit

RPV Data Fit

0

-200 -100 0 100 200

To [°C]

Figure 4-3

Illustration of variation in the temperature separation between the KIa and KJc master

curves as a function of T0 [73].

Eqn. (4-2) is represented by the dashed black line labeled “All Data Fit.”

Materials experience higher strain rates prior to crack arrest compared to strain rates experienced

prior to quasi-static crack initiation. High strain rates elevate the energy required to move

dislocations past barriers, resulting in an increase in the apparent yield stress of the steel in a

manner similar to that produced by prior strain hardening. As shown in Figure 4-4, Kirk, et al.

[61] used the idea of a universal hardening curve for all ferritic steels to explain how the effects

of strain elevation caused by the dynamic strain rate associated with crack arrest (defined as ∆εo)

produces a progressively diminishing elevation in the yield strength as prior hardening (εo)

increases. As shown on the figure, incremental increases in strain hardening (∆ε) produce

diminishing amounts of increase in yield strength. This suggests that the dynamic strain rates

associated with crack arrest will have a smaller impact on crack arrest toughness of high

hardness material than they will on materials with lower yield strengths/hardness. Since T0

scales with yield strength, this theory of progressively diminishing effects of hardening on yield

strength elevation (whether due to strain hardening or strain rate hardening) suggests a physical

basis for the observed trend of a progressively diminishing separation between the crack

initiation and crack arrest curves for steels with higher T0 values. The invariance of the true

stress at the maximum load that follows directly from the universal hardening curve suggests

that, in the limit of very high strength ferritic materials, the crack initiation and crack arrest

transition curves should approach each other (i.e., TKIa ≈ T0). This trend is demonstrated by the

available data.

4-5

Fracture Toughness Linkage Models in CC N-830-1

Figure 4-4

Illustration of the effects of strain rate increase on yield strength elevation for materials

having different degrees of prior strain hardening [61].

The TKIa/T0 linkage model is supported by data from 64 ferritic steels for which sufficient KJc and

KIa data were available to define, respectively, the KJc MC defined by Eqn. (3-3), and the crack

arrest MC defined by Eqn. (3-6) [71]. These materials are predominately nuclear grade base and

weld metals that were tested in both the unirradiated and irradiated conditions. Additionally,

some data for mild and high strength steels supported the model. The yield strengths of the

steels tested ranged from 280 MPa to 1,082 MPa, with the majority of strengths between 450

MPa and 650 MPa. Details on the data used in development of the TKIa/T0 linkage model are

provided in the next section, with further details provided in References [60, 62].

4-6

Fracture Toughness Linkage Models in CC N-830-1

Validation of the TKIa/T0 linkage model presented in Eqn. (4-2) was performed by Kirk, et al.

[73] using the data from the CARINA project [62], as well as data from the original TKIa/T0

model development study [61]. In their study, Kirk, et al. binned the data for regression analysis

to fit the original data, the CARINA data, followed by fitting all the data using a model of the

form:

𝑻𝑻𝑲𝑲𝑰𝑰𝑰𝑰 − 𝑻𝑻𝟎𝟎 = 𝑨𝑨 × 𝒆𝒆𝒆𝒆𝒆𝒆[𝑩𝑩 × 𝑻𝑻𝟎𝟎 ] Eq. 4-3

where A and B are fitting parameters and TKIa and T0 are in oC. The authors compared the

results to the original fit [61], including a statistical assessment relative to fit bias, trend with T0,

and uncertainty, or scatter, about the mean to assess the log-normal distribution fit the data.

The conclusions of the statistical assessment [73] were as follows:

• the original TKIa/T0 relationship [60, 61] well-represented each of the datasets (well within

the margin of error),

• there were no trends exhibited by any of the data that clearly differed from trends exhibited

by all the data, and

• limiting the data to only RPV steels did not change the fit. The trends observed for only the

RPV data were the same as trends observed for all or the data.

This statistical assessment validates the use of Eqn. (4-2) for use in assessment of all ferritic

steels.

Empirically, the TKIa/T0 linkage model applies over a wide range of T0 values, from -150oC to

+175°C. The model is based on a variety of ferritic steels, both irradiated and un-irradiated

nuclear RPV steels (including different product forms and “low upper shelf” welds), as well as

non-RPV steels having yield strengths that are much higher and lower than characteristic of RPV

steels.

The TKIa/T0 linkage model applies only to ferritic steels with KJc tested at quasi-static strain rates.

The model should not be used outside the ranges of the temperatures and yield strengths of the

data used in the model development and validation.

4.3 The Relationship Between Upper Shelf (JIc) Crack Initiation and Upper

Shelf Crack Growth (J-R)

All other models used in Code Case N-830-1, and summarized above, predict toughness values,

or link different toughness values, as a function of T0. However, prior to efforts undertaken

within the WGFE to develop Code Case N-830-1, all J-R curve models were formulated as a

function of Charpy upper shelf energy (USE) instead of T0 [74-76]. Therefore, in 2015 Kirk,

Erickson, and Stevens [77] undertook development of a model to predict the J-R curve from

information on JIc and the product form of the material. JIc, and its temperature dependence are

predicted from T0 as shown in Eqns. (3-9). Combining the models in Eqns. (3-9) with those

presented earlier in this section provides a means to estimate J-R curves from T0.

4-7

Fracture Toughness Linkage Models in CC N-830-1

J-R curves are represented by the following two-parameter power-law curve:

Where C and n are parameters fit to the J vs. ∆a data for a particular tested specimen. The

database used in Reference [74] showed strong correlations between JIc and both the C and n

fitting parameters. The following model was developed from the data summarized in Table 4-1

[77].

𝑱𝑱𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎

𝑿𝑿 = 𝑪𝑪 × ∆𝒂𝒂𝒏𝒏 Eq. 4-4(b)

𝑪𝑪 = 𝟏𝟏. 𝟔𝟔 × 𝑱𝑱𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎

𝑰𝑰𝑰𝑰 Eq. 4-4(c)

In these equations, “X” is used as a subscript for compactness and signifies a particular amount

of ductile crack extension, or Δa, in mm. Values of J at a particular ductile crack extension (for

example, the value of J at 2.54 mm (0.1 inch)) can be determined by using these equations.

Also, the entire J-R curve can be produced by solving these equations for a range of Δa values.

Lower and upper bounds on J-R can also be predicted using the following formula:

𝒑𝒑

𝑱𝑱𝑿𝑿 = 𝒆𝒆𝒆𝒆𝒆𝒆�𝒍𝒍𝒍𝒍[𝑱𝑱𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎 ] − 𝑴𝑴𝒑𝒑 × 𝑹𝑹𝑹𝑹𝑹𝑹𝑹𝑹� Eq. 4-5(a)

for lower bound curves: 𝑿𝑿

(𝟏𝟏−𝒑𝒑)

= 𝒆𝒆𝒆𝒆𝒆𝒆�𝒍𝒍𝒍𝒍[𝑱𝑱𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎 ] + 𝑴𝑴𝒑𝒑 × 𝑹𝑹𝑴𝑴𝑴𝑴𝑴𝑴� Eq. 4-5(b)

for upper bound curves: 𝑱𝑱𝑿𝑿 𝑿𝑿

The value of p should not exceed 0.5. Values of root mean square deviation (RMSD) for

different product forms appear in Table 4-1. There is no effect of component thickness or crack

front length on Eqns. (4-4) and (4-5).

Table 4-1

RMSD values for different product forms.

Plate (A533B) 0.138

It is noted that the values of the coefficients contained in Eqns. 4-4(c) and 4-4(d) and the RMSD

values in Table 4-1 differ from those presented in [77]. Analyses subsequent to those described

in [77] identified errors which have been corrected here, as explained in [101].

4-8

Fracture Toughness Linkage Models in CC N-830-1

The goal of ASME CC N-830-1 is to define a suite of best estimate fracture toughness models

for predicting fracture behavior across a broad range of temperatures. All the models described

in this report were available prior to initiating the revision to CC N-830. The only missing

information was a model for determining J-R behavior from T0. Such a model allows for

prediction of J at any level of crack growth based on knowledge of T0 value. To keep

development of the model as simple as possible, a straight, empirical approach was taken to fit

the trends observed in the data.

The database compiled by Eason [74], and shown in Table 4-2, was used as the basis for the

empirical model development Reference [77]. This included data from 403 J-R curves from

nuclear grade base and weld metals that were tested in unirradiated and irradiated conditions

using the procedures in ASTM 1820 [72]. Both two-parameter and three-parameters fits to the

data were made to determine which provided the most accurate representation of the 403 sets of

data. The forms of these fitting equations are given by:

𝒏𝒏𝟐𝟐 )

𝑱𝑱 = 𝑫𝑫 × ∆𝒂𝒂(𝒏𝒏𝟏𝟏×∆𝒂𝒂 Eq. 4-6(b)

where C, D, n, n1 and n2 are fitting parameters used to fit individual sets of J-∆a data. Both

equations were determined to fit the data well for small amounts of crack extension, but the three

fitting-parameter form shown in Eqn. (4-6b) provided a more accurate representation of the data

at larger crack extensions. Based on these findings, Kirk, et al. developed the J-R/T0 model

using Eqn. (4-6b).

Correlations were identified between JIc and the J-R curve fitting parameter C, and between the

J-R curve fitting parameters C and n. The goal was to develop a correlation between J-R and T0

since it was already established that JIc is correlated to T0.

Best fit parameters were developed using the two-parameter and three parameter models, with

and without variability due to product form. Based on comparisons of the model predictions to

measured data relative to bias and scatter, the two-parameter model, which accounts only for the

effects of product form in predicting the scatter about the mean, was selected for incorporation

into CC N-830-1. This is the model defined by Eqns. (4-4) and (4-5).

Table 4-2

Composition of the J-R curve database.

# of Unirradiated # of Irradiated

Product Form Totals

Specimens Specimens

Forging (A508) 55 7 62

Plate (A533B) 62 18 80

RPV Welds 30 29 59

4-9

Fracture Toughness Linkage Models in CC N-830-1

An independent validation effort has not yet been conducted on this model. However, the

prediction capabilities of the model described by Eqns. (4-4) and (4-5) were compared to the

predictive capabilities of other, candidate models for predicting the measured J-R curves

contained in the database [77]. The two-parameter model performed similarly to the three-

parameter model, despite the fact that the three-parameter model showed a better representation

of individual specimen J-R curves at large amounts of crack extension. Because of this similar

predictive performance, the complexity of the three-parameter model could not be justified. The

two-parameter, JIc-based model performed better than the USE-based, J-R curve predictive

models to which it was compared.

Eqns. (4-4) and (4-5) can be used to predict J-∆a over a crack extension range of 0.5 to 10 mm

for temperatures up to 300°C, which reflects the range of crack growth and test temperatures

used in the model development. While the equations may have applicability to a broader range

of ferritic steels, their applicability has only been demonstrated to-date for nuclear grade ferritic

steels and their weldments. This model is strictly an empirically-derived model. In the future,

additional development work may be undertaken to assess the applicability of this model, and/or

its expansion, to other grades of RPV steel (i.e., A302B) and to ferritic piping steels. The

underlying physics of this model have not yet been investigated.

4-10

5

IMPLICATIONS OF PROPOSED CHANGES

5.1 Introduction

The changes adopted in Code Case (CC) N-830-1 are an alternative to the RTNDT-indexed KIc

fracture toughness curve prescribed in Section XI, Nonmandatory Appendix A with curves that

better reflect the scatter and temperature dependence observed in material fracture toughness

from lower shelf, through transition to upper shelf behavior, including crack arrest. The RTNDT-

indexed KIc curve bounds most, but not all, of the available fracture toughness data [12] because

it does not fully account for the uncertainty inherent in using the Charpy-based RTNDT to index a

fracture toughness curve, and the KIc curve was developed based on a limited fracture toughness

dataset. Using the updated CC N-830-1 fracture toughness models eliminates the implicit

conservatism inherent in the RTNDT-indexed KIc curve method, and replaces it with a full

distribution of toughness curves that more consistently and accurately represents fracture

toughness behavior and enables selection of a bounding value that explicitly and quantitatively

accounts for uncertainties. This chapter discusses the sources and treatments of uncertainties in

the Appendix A flaw evaluation methodology, in the original CC N-830 method adopted in

2014, and in the new CC N-830-1 method and compares the material fracture toughness curves

contained in each their ability to represent measured fracture toughness data.

Fitness-for-Service (FFS) procedures typically contain methods to account for uncertainties that

arise due to incompleteness of models, lack of knowledge about the inputs and material behavior,

and random variability of material properties. In probabilistic methods, uncertainties are

typically differentiated by those that are due to random variability (aleatory uncertainty), and

those that arise due to a lack of knowledge (epistemic uncertainty). This differentiation allows

for implementation of sampling methods to properly account for the effects of each type of

uncertainty on the outcome, resulting in refinement of outcome estimation. In deterministic

methods, these uncertainties are not differentiated, and are rarely quantified. Uncertainties in

deterministic methods are typically treated using excess conservatisms (bounding models, safety

factors, etc.), but the lack of characterization of the uncertainties makes it difficult to quantify the

conservative bias of the results and thus, the level of safety provided by the deterministic

method. Experience over time with deterministic assessments and their results contribute to a

level of confidence that the factors applied are sufficiently conservative but not overly

operationally restrictive. Despite the inability to directly compare deterministic results to a risk-

informed safety metric, the veracity of newer probabilistic models is often judged relative to

deterministic methods due to the greater level of experience with deterministic methods even

though probabilistic methods provide a more transparent description of the physical reality being

modeled.

5-1

Implications of Proposed Changes

In this chapter, the sources and treatment of uncertainties defined by relevant flaw evaluation

codes are discussed with regard to the implications of the changes in CC N-830-1, and compared

to provide a foundation for the proposed treatment of uncertainties in a future revision to CC N-

830-1. This discussion is included to help place context on the new fracture toughness models

incorporated into CC N-830-1 and their intended use.

The typical uncertainties associated with FFS assessments are divided into three parts for this

discussion: (1) uncertainty due to flaw size, (2) uncertainty due to applied stress, and (3)

uncertainty due to the material resistance to crack extension characterized by the material

fracture toughness. These three sources of uncertainties are described in the following sections,

followed by a discussion of how these uncertainties are treated in various flaw evaluation codes.

For the nuclear-grade ferritic materials that comprise the reactor pressure vessel (RPV) primary

pressure boundary, flaw size and location is typically determined using nondestructive

examination (NDE) volumetric methods. These methods, when used in the field, have a

considerable uncertainty associated with them [78] from a probability of detection perspective as

well as from a sizing and location accuracy perspective. These uncertainties are dependent upon

several factors, including NDE delivery technique, component accessibility, inspector

experience, tool positioning and placement, and material surface finish and homogeneity.

The U.S. nuclear industry has conducted extensive investigations and demonstrations of NDE

techniques appropriate for volumetric inspection of RPVs. These efforts have included the

design, fabrication, and inspection of mockups containing realistic simulations of the degradation

mechanisms of concern. These investigations resulted in the development of evaluation factors,

which are numerical values, related to the uncertainties inherent in delivering and executing an

NDE technique in a RPV. These evaluation factors are combined with the actual results of an

inspection to form input into a fracture-mechanics assessment of the component’s serviceability.

Calculation of stresses due to applied loadings depend on knowledge of component geometry,

loading conditions and time variability of loading, method of calculating stress, the accuracy of

the fracture mechanics models used to determine crack tip stress intensity factors, and the

accuracy of crack growth rate models used to determine the end-of-evaluation-period flaw size.

Flaw size and location are also important factors in determining the stress at the flaw location as

stresses vary throughout a component based on the flaw’s proximity to applied loads, geometric

or material discontinuities and free surfaces, including other flaws.

Article A-3000 of Section XI, Nonmandatory Appendix A contains a procedure for calculating

the stress intensity factor for planar flaws. The procedure depends on knowledge of the applied

stresses from all forms of loading including pressure, thermal gradients, welding, and cladding.

While pressure is generally well-known and carefully controlled, weld residual stress (WRS),

cladding-induced stresses, and thermal stresses have significant variability, so they are

significant contributors to the uncertainties in stress characterization. There is also an

uncertainty contribution from the analysis methods chosen by the individual analyst, particularly

in the assumptions made concerning the geometric idealization of the component, model

refinement (i.e., finite element methods, hand calculations, etc.), discretization of stresses

5-2

Implications of Proposed Changes

through the component thickness (whether the stresses are fit using a polynomial or linear stress

distribution, interpolated), non-linear behavior (e.g., plasticity), etc. These analyst-dependent

factors can significantly alter the calculated applied stresses, and therefore lead to variations in

the estimate of critical flaw size. This is particularly true when the crack driving force, KI-applied,

calculated from the stresses, flaw size and location are compared to the allowable toughness,

KJcmaterial, in the steep part of the fracture toughness transition curve [79].

The uncertainty in fracture toughness measurements arise from inherent material inhomogeneity

and the models used to characterize the toughness. The ferritic steels that are relevant to

Appendix A and CC N-830 analyses are comprised of a body-centered-cubic (BCC) iron matrix,

which contains a small amount of dissolved carbon and other alloying elements, along with

precipitates of iron carbide. Inhomogeneity arises due to grain size variation, precipitate size and

density variations through the thickness, and chemical variability arising from alloy segregation,

all due to variations in heating and cooling rates during fabrication of thick-section components.

These microstructural inhomogeneities cause uncertainties in measured ferritic steel properties

such as fracture toughness.

Material inhomogeneity is not the only source of material property uncertainty in FFS

assessments. Test methodology contributes to uncertainty as does the conversion from

properties determined from specimens tested in laboratory conditions (e.g. small specimen sizes,

uniform, quasi-static, loading rate, controlled environment) to actual components in the field.

Constraint and crack front length are among the sources of uncertainties when converting

laboratory-based fracture toughness models to predicting toughness in actual components.

Currently the assumption is that laboratory-measured toughness values apply 1:1 to field

conditions.

A discussion of the treatment of uncertainties in the context of a fracture safety acceptance

criteria is important. However, the flaw assessment procedure in ASME Appendix A does not

contain a risk-based acceptance criteria; rather, it requires that Kdriving be less than αKresistance at

all times and for all loadings, where α is a structural factor to compensate for uncertainties and to

add conservatism. Since CC N-830-1 only addresses alternative equations for describing

material toughness, the comparisons of the effects of uncertainty treatment at the end of this

chapter are limited to only those uncertainties that apply to material toughness. For

completeness, and to provide context for the subsequent quantitative discussion and comparisons

of material toughness uncertainty treatments, a qualitative discussion of the treatment of

uncertainties on flaw size and location, and stress calculations are first summarized.

Prior to flaw assessment, the flaw must first be located and sized using NDE techniques.

Generally, for through-wall depth and surface or subsurface location, most examinations must be

performed using volumetric techniques such as ultrasonic testing (UT). Because of uncertainties,

the procedures used in UT inspections may result in detected flaw sizes that are different than the

actual flaw dimensions. These differences depend on the equipment and the actual size of the

5-3

Implications of Proposed Changes

flaw. Generally, smaller flaws are oversized by UT equipment, and larger flaws are undersized.

These differences are, in part, caused by the physical characteristics of the equipment. For

example, flaws that are smaller than the UT wavelength cannot be sized; in this situation, an

echo from the UT equipment will typically be sized as the wavelength of the UT beam (see

Figure 5-1, top). For large indications that interact with the UT beam on multiple scans, flaw

size is more difficult to estimate because it is more difficult to precisely locate the flaw tips (see

Figure 5-1, bottom). While other factors not discussed here influence UT estimates, and while

some examples exist of flaw under-sizing by UT, the factors discussed here make the probability

of an overcall (over-estimating the physical size of the flaw) more likely than that of an

undercall. If the flaw size is overestimated the ligament either between one flaw and another

situated nearby, or between the subject flaw and the free surface of the component will be

underestimated. Under-estimation of the ligament increases the likelihood of adjacent flaws

being treated as a single larger flaw, or of near-surface flaws being classified as surface-breaking

via the application of flaw interaction rules, as will be discussed in the following paragraphs.

Figure 5-1

Schematic illustration of physical causes for systematic over-estimation of flaw size using

UT.

5-4

Implications of Proposed Changes

Article IWA-3000 contains procedures for characterizing flaws detected during NDE. IWA-

3300 provides methods to conservatively bound flaw sizes, and provides proximity rules for

determining when subsurface flaws should be treated as surface flaws, and for when multiple

flaws should be combined and treated as a single, larger flaw. These proximity rules are based

on fracture mechanics assessment of interacting flaws, and generally combine two adjacent flaws

when the stress intensity factor of one flaw affects the adjacent flaw by more than about 15%.

Thus, the simplification of combining adjacent flaws tends to be conservative. A subsurface

flaw is treated as a surface flaw if the distance between the flaw and the component surface is

less than or equal to 0.4d, where 2d is the through-thickness measured depth of the flaw. Two

flaws (either surface or internal) are combined, with the overall flaw dimension given by the

rectangle encompassing both flaws, if the smallest distance between the flaws is less than or

equal to the larger of the two flaw depths. The Section XI proximity rules have been shown to

be conservative in work that assessed surface flaw interactions [80, 81].

Much of the conservatism in the Section XI flaw evaluation procedure arises from the

simplifications made to what is, essentially, a complex problem, as described in Section B-2 of

EPRI NP-719-SR [6]:

“Recognizing the limits of ultrasonic examination techniques to define precisely

the dimensions, areas, and orientation of flaws, the code rules incorporate many

simplifications that obviate the need to determine the precise flaw size and

orientation”

Section XI flaw evaluation assumes that all observed indications, such as crack-like defects, slag

inclusions, porosity, lack of weld fusion, laminations, and any combinations thereof should be

treated as planar cracks. In addition, to simplify the analyses of detected flaws, irregularly

shaped flaws are represented by idealized simple geometric shapes. Thus, the development of

flaw standards criteria was simplified to facilitate the application of the principles of fracture

mechanics [6]. Such considerations were based, in large part, on judgements rather than precise

science, and their continued use is supported by field observations.

Experimental evidence suggests that the stress fields of two surface cracks will begin to interact

when the distance between them is between 0.0d and 0.75d, where d is the depth of the surface

flaws. This is less than the value of d adopted in IWA-3300. The interaction of the stress fields

of two subsurface flaws is more constrained than for surface flaws, so using the surface flaw

proximity criterion for subsurface flaw spacing is even more conservative [81]. Dulieu and

Lacroix provide further evidence of this conservatism in their assessment of the flaw interaction

rules for quasi-laminar hydrogen flakes [80]. They show that when flaws grouped by interaction

rules are instead analyzed as separate flaws, the resultant driving force on the un-grouped flaws

drops by a factor of 2 to 3.

To date, the best available quantitative treatment of the total uncertainties associated with NDE

may be estimated from the work performed by the EPRI NDE Center. EPRI’s Performance

Demonstration Initiative (PDI) estimates NDE uncertainties, and includes development of

models that describe the probability of detection (POD) and sizing accuracy of flaws using UT

techniques [78]. Although this work provides quantitative characterization of the uncertainty

inherent in the NDE procedures, it does not assess the uncertainties associated with the IWA-

3300 flaw proximity rules.

5-5

Implications of Proposed Changes

ASME Appendix A does not currently address NDE uncertainties. Flaw sizes estimated from

UT exams are used as input to ASME Code flaw evaluations. ASME Appendix A requires that

the end-of-evaluation-period flaw size be used, so the UT flaw size must be increased by the

amount of crack growth anticipated over the evaluated period of operation before additional

inspection or repair is performed. As a result, most UT flaw sizes are increased by some amount

for flaw assessment. For these reasons, it is recommended that the future revision of CC-N830-1

consider NDE uncertainties associated with flaw size and characterization based on EPRI’s POD

and sizing accuracy work [78]. It is anticipated that the next revision of CC N-830-1 will adopt

partial structural factors (PSFs) to enable an explicit accounting of flaw size uncertainty.

In a RPV, stresses are caused by internal pressure, thermal gradients experienced during plant

transients (actual or postulated accident events), earthquakes, attached piping loads, and welding

residual stresses (from both structural welds and cladding). These stresses can be estimated

using either closed-form equations (provided in the Code or elsewhere) or by using numerical

techniques, such as the finite element (FE) method. Advanced numerical techniques such as FE

offer accuracies for complex geometries that were, in practical terms, unobtainable as little as a

few decades ago. Because these FE advanced methods were not readily available at the time that

many of the procedures for analysis of the structural integrity of nuclear components were

developed, conservative, simplified approximations were used to provide the closed-form

solutions contained in the Code. Even today, with the ready availability of very accurate

solutions, the method chosen for a particular analysis is usually driven by factors that include the

training and experience of the engineers involved, and the economic considerations of the

problem to be addressed. More often than not, a simple closed-form solution can be chosen to

represent a more complex situation even though the closed-form solution may be a much more

conservative approach. Oftentimes the high toughness and flaw tolerance characteristics of

nuclear grade steels enable the stress analysts to adopt conservative stress estimates while still

demonstrating adequate structural integrity.

Engineers tend to gravitate towards conservative (i.e., high) estimates of stress, but beyond that,

the ASME Code methods also contribute to additional conservatism. This additional

conservatism come in two forms:

• Intentionally conservative stress estimates: The Code generally provides the analyst with

different options for stress estimation. Sometimes these options are intentionally

conservative to allow for simpler evaluation. Some examples of intentionally conservative

stress estimates that appear in the Code are as follows:

– Section XI Appendix A: Article A-3211 provides a method using a fourth-order

polynomial to represent stresses acting normal to the plane of the flaw. Generally, this

polynomial is fit to the stresses acting over the whole crack depth; however, A-3211 also

states, “Alternatively, the stress distribution that upper bounds the actual stress field over

the flaw may be used.” The Code provides an example of a “conservative linearization of

a stress field” in its Figure A-3210-3.

– Section XI Appendix G: One option for thermal stress estimation in G-2214.3 is to use

equations that estimate the maximum thermal stress during a normal heat-up or cool-

down transient such that the analyst may assume that this maximum thermal stress

5-6

Implications of Proposed Changes

persists throughout the transient. This is very conservative compared to the more

complex method of evaluating time-varying thermal stresses throughout a transient,

which tend toward zero as isothermal conditions are achieved. Thus, for portions of

transients, the recommendations of G-2214.3 can be very conservative.

– Section XI Appendix K: For Service Level A and B loadings, K-2200(a) recommends

that the applied pressure inside the vessel be estimated as 1.15 times the accumulation

pressure (PACCUM) 4 for assessment of ductile crack initiation and 1.25 times PACCUM for

assessment of ductile crack growth stability. This guidance is grossly conservative, as

demonstrated by the following facts:

o The Code defines PACCUM as 1.1 times the design pressure, PDESIGN (again see

footnote 3).

o The operating pressure, POPERATING, is 0.9 times the PDESIGN.

o POPERATING is therefore 0.9÷1.1 = 0.81×PACCUM. Combining this with the

recommendations of K-2200(a) to use a pressure of either 1.15×PACCUM or

1.25×PACCUM, the result is that K-2200(a) recommends use of a pressure between 1.4

and 1.52 times higher than POPERATING. Additionally, it should be noted that the

safety relief valves prevent the RPV pressure from ever reaching PACCUM.

• Structural Factors: Structural factors appear in various places in the Code. These structural

factors normally increase the applied value of stress to introduce a margin between the

allowed flaw size and the critical flaw size. Some examples that apply exclusively to stress

estimation are as follows:

– Section XI Appendix G: G-2215 specifies a structural factor of 2.0 on pressure for

normal heat-up and cool-down loading. For hydro-test loading, G-2400(b) specifies a

structural factor of 1.5 on pressure.

The structural factors of √10 (for normal operating conditions) and √2 (for emergency

and faulted conditions) appear in IWB-3600 and, thus, are used in flaw evaluations

performed according to Section XI Appendix A. Since the √10 or √2 structural factors

reduce the allowable toughness, they impose a conservatism on the maximum allowed

value of applied stress times the square-root of flaw size.

In summary, the conservative nature of engineering stress analysts is further compounded by

ASME Code requirements that lead to conservative stress estimates. In all cases, the use of

structural factors increases the estimated applied stress to account for unknown-unknowns.

These factors all ensure that current stress estimates achieved following Code procedures are

conservative. It is anticipated that the next revision of CC N-830 will adopt PSFs to minimize

unnecessary conservatism and enable an explicit accounting of uncertainties associated with

stress estimation. The experience by other Code bodies that have implemented PSFs [82-84] is

4

In a PWR, PACCUM represents the maximum overshoot pressure that could result from a mass imbalance. A

mass imbalance could occur during an event when the low-temperature overpressure protection (LTOP) system and

the relief values open because the injection rate is too high. In ASME Code terminology PACCUM is defined as

being equal to 1.1 times the design pressure (1.1×PDESIGN). While BWRs have safety relief values there is no

clear equivalent to an “accumulation” pressure, so for BWRs the Code definition of PACCUM = 1.1×PDESIGN is

used along with the guidance of K-2200(a).

5-7

Implications of Proposed Changes

expected to help support the development of PSFs within ASME Section XI in a revision to CC

N-830-1.

Appendix A allows use of either the RTNDT-KIc curve or the RTT0-KIc curve to describe material

fracture toughness. Section XI Paragraph IWB-3612 requires that these toughness values be

reduced by structural factors of √2 or √10 for assessing flaw acceptability for emergency/faulted

or normal/upset operating conditions, respectively. As described in Chapter 1, the RTNDT index

temperature does not represent a direct measure of fracture toughness, but is obtained from a

correlative approach (using Charpy and NDT testing) to characterizing toughness. This index

temperature provides a conservative estimate of the actual toughness transition index

temperature as represented by T0, as shown in Figure 5-2. Using RTT0 to index the KIc curve

provides an index temperature directly related to the fracture toughness transition temperature

with an additional margin of 19oC to account for uncertainties. This adds additional

conservatism beyond the structural factor that leads to an overly conservative representation of

the actual toughness transition temperature for a material.

The conservatism of both RTNDT and RTT0 is further increased by using the ASME KIc curve to

represent material fracture toughness in the transition region. Figure 5-3 compares the KJc data

overlaid with the 1% and 99% bounds of the MC, the RTNDT-indexed KIc curve (taking the 50%

cumulative probability distribution (CPD)) value of RTNDT-T0 = 50oC), and the RTT0-indexed KIc

curve. The conservatism of the RTNDT-indexed KIc and RTT0-indexed KIc curves is clear.

However, neither the RTNDT-indexed KIc curve nor the RTT0-indexed KIc curve bounds the data,

and both are non-conservative in the lower shelf toughness region.

The applied stress intensity factor and material resistance to crack extension/arrest determined in

ASME Appendix A are compared for acceptability using the equations in Paragraph IWB-3612

as follows:

Kapplied < KIc/√10 for normal operating conditions, and

Eq. 5-1

The structural factors of √2 and √10 are intended to account for uncertainties from all sources.

As described in EPRI Report No. NP-719-SR [6], Section XI adopted conservative assumptions

to accounts for unknowns. Supporting document WRC-175 [5] referred to these unknowns as

“factors of ignorance.” These structural factors add further conservatism beyond that included

in the material fracture toughness relative to actual data as shown in Figures 5-4 and 5-5.

5-8

Implications of Proposed Changes

Figure 5-2

Cumulative probability distribution function showing the relationship between RTNDT and

T0.

Figure 5-3

Plot of KJc, 1% MC bound, 99% MC bound, the RTNDT-indexed KIc curve, and the RTT0-

indexed KIc curve.

5-9

Implications of Proposed Changes

Figure 5-4

Plot of KJc, 1% MC bound, 99% MC bound, the RTNDT-indexed KIc curve divided by √2, and

the RTT0-indexed KIc curve divided by √2 (for emergency/faulted operating conditions).

Figure 5-5

Plot of KJc, 1% MC bound, 99% MC bound, the RTNDT-indexed KIc curve divided by √10, and

the RTT0-indexed KIc curve divided by √10 (for normal/upset operating conditions).

5-10

Implications of Proposed Changes

5.4 CC N-830

The original version of CC N-830 was adopted by ASME in 2014, and permits the 5th percentile

T0-indexed KJc MC to be used in lieu of either the RTNDT- or RTT0-referenced KIc curve for

determining the fracture toughness for comparison to the applied stress intensity factor in IWB-

3612. Following the procedure in IWB-3612, the value of fracture toughness determined using

CC N-830 is divided by the structural factors described in Eqn. (5-1) to account for uncertainties

from all sources. In contrast, the T0-indexed KJc MC provides a best-estimate model of material

fracture toughness, so using a 5th percentile lower bounding value from this curve provides a

conservative estimate of material fracture toughness that is consistent with two-sigma bounds

commonly adopted in regulatory assessments. When combined with the structural factors in

IWB-3612, the conservatism in the estimate of material fracture toughness increases

substantially as shown in Figure 5-6.

Dividing the 5th percentile CC N-830 MC by √2 to assess emergency/faulted operating

conditions results in a bounding value of the data approximately equal to the 1st percentile MC

bound. Therefore, this curve bounds 99% of the toughness data and accounts for 99% of the

expected scatter. Dividing the 5th percentile CC N-830 MC by √10 to assess normal/upset

operating conditions results in excessive conservatism; the resulting curve bounds all known KJc

toughness data and is equal to the conservatism present in the ASME Appendix A RTT0-indexed

KIc curve divided by √10 (shown in red in Figure 5-6).

Figure 5-6

Plot of KJc, 1% MC bound, 99% MC bound, the CC N-830 5% MC bound, the CC N-830 5%

MC divided by √2, and the CC N-830 5% MC divided by √10 (for emergency/faulted and

normal operating conditions, respectively).

5-11

Implications of Proposed Changes

CC N-830-1 provides for use of the T0-indexed KJc MC in lieu of either the RTNDT or RTT0-

referenced KIc curve for determining the fracture toughness for comparison to the applied stress

intensity factor. CC N-830-1 provides no guidance on selection of appropriate bounding curves

to use in an analysis to account for uncertainty but instead leaves this to the User to define and

justify. In the comparisons below, the 1% and 0.5% KJc curves are shown, without any structural

factor, to indicate what “direct use” might look like. These curves are shown relative to fracture

toughness data and other Code-provided fracture toughness representations. A goal of CC N-

830-1 in moving forward is to enable implementation of fracture toughness bounding curves,

without use of structural factors, to account for uncertainty in fracture toughness directly and

consistently.

The 1st percentile MC provides similar (but more consistent) bounds as the Appendix A approach

for emergency and faulted conditions (either the RTT0-indexed KIc curve divided by √2 or the CC

N-830 5th percentile MC divided by √2), as shown by comparison of the dashed green curves in

Figures 5-7 to the magenta curve. The 0.5th percentile MC provides a slightly less conservative

bound to the fracture toughness data compared to either the Appendix A RTT0-indexed KIc curve

divided by √10 or the CC N-830 5th percentile MC divided by √10, as shown in Figure 5-8. The

excessive conservatism demonstrated by the RTT0-indexed KIc curve divided by √10 and 5th

percentile MC divided by √10 is not necessary to adequately bound the uncertainties inherent in

fracture toughness data. These conclusions are demonstrated by the more than 7,000 data points

contained in the MC database. The blue curves in Figure 5-8 both have values well below 20

MPa√m over most of the temperature range. Not only has no fracture toughness data for a

ferritic steel ever been observed at these low values, the technical basis for the MC Weibull

distribution provides strong support for the notion that such low values cannot occur, suggesting

that this amount of conservatism is not necessary for uncertainties in fracture toughness.

5-12

Implications of Proposed Changes

Figure 5-7

Plot of KJc, with the 1% MC bound, 99% MC bound, the CC N-830-1 1% MC bound, the CC

N-830 5% MC bound divided by √2, and the Appendix A RTT0-indexed KIc curve divided by

√2 (all for emergency/faulted operating conditions).

Note that the 1% MC and the 5% MC divided by a √2 structural factor coincide over most of the

temperature region shown.

5-13

Implications of Proposed Changes

Figure 5-8

Plot of KJc, 1% MC bound, 99% MC bound, the 0.5% MC bound (CC N-830-1), the 5% MC

bound divided by √10 (CC N-830), and the RTT0-indexed KIc curve divided by √10 (Appendix

A) for normal/upset operating conditions.

5.6 Summary

The method described in ASME Section XI, Non-Mandatory Appendix A for evaluating the

fracture tolerance of flaws is a deterministic procedure containing many implicit and explicit

conservatisms to account for the known and unknown sources of uncertainty inherent in the

fracture mechanics evaluation. Implicit conservatisms are contained in NDE sizing and location

procedures, flaw proximity rules, and stress analysis methods. Implicit conservatisms are also

contained in the methods used to define a material fracture toughness, including use of a lower

bound linear elastic fracture toughness curve indexed by a Charpy-based reference temperature,

or by a fracture toughness-based reference temperature with additional margin added.

Additional conservatism is explicitly applied to the material fracture toughness term by dividing

the lower bound value by a √2 or √10 structural factor depending on whether emergency/faulted

or normal operating are being evaluated.

The best-estimate models of fracture toughness contained in CC N-830-1 provide a much more

consistent representation of an extensive database of fracture toughness values than does either

the RTNDT or RTT0-indexed KIc curve, eliminating much of the implicit conservatism inherent to

the older, linear-elastic-based model. The full distribution fracture toughness curves defined in

CC N-830-1 enables selection of a bounding value that explicitly and quantitatively accounts for

uncertainties and can thus readily support not only deterministic evaluations but also

probabilistic methods.

5-14

Implications of Proposed Changes

The1st percentile bounding KJc MC curve for the emergency/faulted accident conditions is

approximately equivalent to the combination of structural factors and the 5th percentile fracture

toughness curve in accounting for uncertainties. The 0.5th percentile bounding KJc toughness

MC, without the explicit use of structural factors, provides a conservative lower bound sufficient

to account for all uncertainties. The use of the 1% and 0.5% bounding curves without structural

factors would provide a much more consistent representation of material fracture toughness

across all temperatures and conditions compared to curves reduced by structural factors. It

would be an improvement to Appendix A procedures to eliminate the existing structural factors

through the selection of an appropriate statistical bound to the fracture toughness curve or

through a combination of partial structural factors that reflect a consistent margin requirement

over the operating temperature range.

5-15

6

POTENTIAL CODE/REGULATORY APPLICATIONS OF

CC N-830-1

6.1 Introduction

CC N-830-1 provides a complete description of the fracture toughness of ferritic steel, including

all fracture toughness metrics, from the lower shelf through the upper shelf. These best-estimate

equations define the full distribution of expected toughness values, defining the temperature

dependence and scatter inherent to fracture toughness behavior. These equations can be used to

define any bounding curve to provide the desired level of conservatism in a deterministic fracture

mechanics evaluation, or they can be used to define input distributions for ferritic steel fracture

toughness for probabilistic assessments. In principle, the CC N-830-1 fracture toughness

equations can be used to define material resistance to fracture in any fracture mechanics, FFS

evaluation. Thus, the potential Code / Regulatory applications of the Code Case include any

instance for which fracture toughness is an input to an assessment or analysis. These include the

following:

Within the ASME Code

• Section XI

– The IWB 3500-1 table of allowable planar flaws.

– The acceptance criteria of IWB-3612 for regions remote from geometric discontinuities,

or of IWB 3613 for regions near geometric discontinuities

• Assessment of found flaws following the requirements of Nonmandatory Appendix A

• Evaluation of unanticipated operating events using Nonmandatory Appendix E [85]

• Assessment of pressure temperature limits using Nonmandatory Appendix G [86], including:

– G2215 Allowable pressure for shell regions

– G-2216, Risk-Informed allowable pressure

– G2223 Allowable pressure for nozzles

– G2400 for Hydrostatic Test Temperature determination

• Assessment of RPVs having low upper-self energy levels using Nonmandatory Appendix K

[8].

Within the Requirements of the NRC as Outlined within the Code of Federal Regulations

and Related Regulatory Guides

• In support of analysis of pressurized thermal shock following 10 CFR 50.61 or 10 CFR

50.61a [87]

6-1

Potential Code/Regulatory Applications of CC N-830-1

50, including [9]:

– Appendix G to 10 CFR Part 50 incorporates by reference Nonmandatory Appendix G to

Section-XI of the ASME Code, so all the above listed situations apply.

– Estimation of minimum temperature requirements for the flange

– Demonstration of equivalent margins for low upper shelf materials (i.e., materials having

an upper shelf energy projected to fall below 68J

The one part of the suite of CC N-830-1 toughness models that has seen previous Code /

Regulatory use is the Wallin KJc Master Curve; the next section summarizes these uses. This

discussion is followed by a section that discusses currently foreseen uses for the CC N-830-1

toughness models.

Shortly following the first adoption of the ASTM Standard Testing procedure for T0 estimation

in 1997 [15], the industry undertook an effort to justify the use of T0 to define a reference

temperature for the KIc and KIa curves equivalent in function to RTNDT. The associated report [44]

became the technical basis for definition of RTT0 as T0 + 19.4°C; the 19.4°C margin term shifts

the median Master Curve so that it provides an ≈95% bounding curve to the dataset used in the

early 1970s to establish the ASME KIc curve. Within the Code, RTT0 was first introduced in 1999

through Code Cases N-629 and N-631, applicable to Sections XI and III, respectively [16, 17].

Use of RTT0 indexing was later incorporated directly into Appendices A and G of Section XI.

RTT0 is also used in the Code to bound KIa data to ensure appropriate bounding [7]. Further Code

applications of the Master Curve include the first publication of CC N-830 in 2014 [18], which

was discussed earlier in this report.

Beginning in the 1990s there have been three uses of data generated within the framework of the

Wallin Master Curves that have been used by the industry with NRC approval. These are

summarized below.

In 1993 the B&W Owners’ Group (BWOG) published BAW-2202 [88], which used Master

Curve KJc data to justify use of an unirradiated value of RTNDT based only on NDT data, not on

NDT and Charpy data as defined by ASME NB-2331. The effort was motivated by the

unusually high values (between +14.4 and +50.6oC) of unirradiated RTNDT for Linde 80 welds of

weld wire heat WF-70. These values, applicable to beltline welds in Rancho Seco, Crystal

River-3, TMI-1, and Zion Units 1 and 2, led to predictions of RTPTS values for these units

exceeding the 10 CFR 50.61 screening criteria before 40 years of operation. The BWOG used a

draft version of ASTM E1921, which appears as an appendix to BAW-2202, to generate KJc data

for WF-70 welds under both quasi-static and dynamic loading rates. These data were compared,

respectively, to KIR and KIc curves indexed to a mean TNDT value of -48°C with a standard

deviation (σ) of 8.2°C to establish the margin term. The -48 and 8.2°C values were based on 24

TNDT values from BWOG operating plants and from work performed at the Oak Ridge National

6-2

Potential Code/Regulatory Applications of CC N-830-1

Laboratory [89] on the WF-70 weld harvested from the cancelled Midland Nuclear Power Plant

in Michigan. The comparison showed that the KIR and KIc curves bounded the data, and

ultimately the NRC approved use of the -48 and 8.2°C values based on this justification. BAW-

2202 does not mention why a TNDT value was used to index the KIR and KIc curves, but it may

have had something to do with the fact that the ASTM standard was still a draft, and that there

was, at the time, no context within the ASME Code to use T0 values or KJc data.

In follow-on work first submitted to the NRC in 2002, the BWOG expanded the BAW-2202

work to establish alternative unirradiated RTNDT values, and associated σ terms, for different

heats of Linde 80 welds present in the beltline regions of B&W fabricated vessels. The topical

report, BAW-2308, uses the Master Curve reference temperature approach for determining RTT0

as described in ASME Code Case N-629 and based its generic RTT0 values on large KJc data

populations for each weld wire heat [90]; in total over 300 KJc specimens were tested. The NRC

reviewed this topical report, but required plant-specific submittals for each application of the

approach. To date the following thirteen units have been granted exemptions to use the RTT0-

based RTNDT values to demonstrate compliance with the requirements of the PTS rule (10 CFR

50.61a):

• Arkansas Nuclear Unit 1

• Davis Besse

• Oconee Units 1, 2, and 3

• Three Mile Island Unit 1

• Crystal River Unit 3

• Turkey Point Units 1 and 2

• Surry Units 1 and 2

• Point Beach Units 1 and 2

In their calculation of generic RTT0 values to use with each heat the BAW-2308 approach

includes the following factors to account for uncertainties:

• An added factor (bias) of +10°C when data from precracked Charpy specimens is used to

account for the constraint differences between bend and compact tension specimens.

• A factor included in the square-root sum-of-squares (SRSS) margin calculation of between

4°C -9.5°C to account for variability associated with test procedure and material

inhomogeneity, and

• A factor included in the SRSS margin calculation of between 1°C to 6°C to account for lack

of T0 estimation precision due to finite sample sizes.

Table 6-1 summarizes the outcome of the BAW-2308 effort, and indicates a reduction of

estimated unirradiated index temperature from 15°C to 55°C depending on the weld wire heat.

Similar to the data in Figure 5-2, these data attest to the conservatism implicit to RTNDT indexing

procedures.

Beginning in 1998 the Kewaunee Nuclear Power Plant used Master Curve data and CC N-629

[91] to obtain a license amendment to use these data in its assessment of the PTS screening

criteria (10 CFR 50.61a), in setting pressure-temperature limits (10 CFR 50 Appendix G), and as

6-3

Potential Code/Regulatory Applications of CC N-830-1

part of the surveillance program (10 CFR 50 Appendix H) [92]. Kewaunee used both irradiated

and unirradiated KJc data for the limiting circumferential weld wire heat, 1P3571. Kewaunee

was the first application to the NRC using CC N-629. For this reason, Kewaunee undertook

extensive efforts to address NRC staff questions concerning the applicability of the Master Curve

to RPV material characterization in general [46]. Kewaunee’s initial submittal to the NRC

argued that the irradiated RTNDT-based index temperature for 1P3571 could be reduced by

26.7°C. Staff concerns regarding use of KJc data from pre-cracked Charpy specimens, use of

sister plant data, and material variability changed this value to 5°C in the final safety evaluation

report.

Table 6-1

Summary of unirradiated RTT0 value for various Linde 80 weld wire heats.

72105 -31.1 13.7

Toughness Data

72442 -33.2 12.2

Generic Value for -48.6** 18.0

Other Heats

RTNDT Based Values All heats -7 to +10 17

** Includes 20oF addition to address NRC’s concerns with the equivalency of bounding provided by a

RTT0 indexed KIc curve.

Models

As mentioned in the introduction to this Chapter, because CC N-830-1 provides a complete

description of the fracture toughness of ferritic steel from the lower shelf through the upper shelf

it can, in principle, be find use in any Code or Regulatory activity needing fracture toughness as

an input value. The following list highlights only those topics currently being pursued.

• Revision 2 of CC N-830: As mentioned previously in this report, Revision 1 of CC N-830 is

a step in the evolution and refinement of the methods provided by this CC. Work is already

underway within the WGFE on a Revision 2 of the Code Case [93]. Revision 2 will adopt

partial structural factors (PSFs) to address the impact of uncertainties on the three key

variables in a fracture safety assessment: fracture toughness, flaw size, and stress. Use of

PSFs improves on the Revision 1 approach, which assigns a structural factor only to fracture

toughness, in that it explicitly and transparently addresses the uncertainties associated with

6-4

Potential Code/Regulatory Applications of CC N-830-1

each variable, and allows adjustment of the values of the structural factors used to directly

reflect the state of knowledge concerning each variable. PSFs also provide a linkage

between deterministic and probabilistic assessments (see [91] for details).

• Nozzles: The PWROG has an effort underway entitled “Pressurized Water Reactor, Reactor

Pressure Vessel Appendix G Margins” [94]. The purpose of this project is to address an

issue identified in NRC Regulatory Issue Summary (RIS) 2014-11 [95], which states that

“All licensees should ensure that P-T limits sufficiently address all ferritic materials of the

reactor vessel, including the impact of structural discontinuities, and address the impact of

neutron fluence accumulation in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50,

Appendix G.” This RIS identified the need for fracture toughness data for the RPV nozzle

course, which in some cases is not available in construction records. The PWROG effort has

therefore proposed to use a generic RTT0 value for nozzle-course forgings, and to also

account for the systematic through-thickness variation of RTT0 known to be responsible for

greater fracture toughness near the inner-diameter surface of the nozzle where flaws are

postulated to exist.

• PWROG Direct Fracture Toughness Initiative: The PWROG has an effort underway

entitled “Transitioning RV Integrity to Direct Fracture Toughness, Phase 1” [96]. The

topical report from this phase, which will be submitted to the NRC for review and approval,

will propose a method to use irradiated fracture toughness data to improve or demonstrate

margin in pressure-temperature limit curves. The report will address the generation of

irradiated T0 data, methods to account for material variability, and, because the irradiated T0

data will be generated in test reactors, a discussion of and, if necessary, and accounting for

flux effects.

• EPRI Effort for Multi-Data T0 Estimation: The PWROG proposed plan to measure T0 for

RPV materials will provide a large database of BOL T0 values as well as irradiated T0 values.

However, there are many critical materials for which archival test material is unavailable. In

addition, because testing of irradiated specimens is expensive, not all available archival

materials will be tested. These factors necessitate the development of alternative methods for

estimating T0 values for these materials. EPRI is supporting a program to define the

correlations necessary to enable estimation of T0 from any combination of material toughness

properties already available through previous testing, including NDT, T30, USE, KIa,

instrumented Charpy, JIc and J0.1, and strength properties. Correlations between some of

these properties have been clearly demonstrated [11, 12, 14, 64, 73, 77, 97, 98]. This

program focuses on establishing correlations between NDT, T30 and USE, and to link these

approximate measures of toughness to T0 to enable estimation of any toughness parameter

from some combination of other toughness parameters.

• EPRI T0-based Embrittlement Trend Curve: In the development of large-scale,

probabilistic models to assess fracture safety of RPVs, it is desired to move towards direct

use of fracture toughness properties instead of a correlative approach. However, this

requires development of a fracture toughness-based embrittlement trend curve (ETC), and

wide-spread acceptance of fracture toughness models. The current CC N-830-1 initiative to

implement more rigorous fracture toughness models into the ASME Code provides best

estimate models of fracture toughness in all fracture mode regimes, but it does not include a

T0-based ETC. The largest impediment to development and acceptance of a T0-based ETC

6-5

Potential Code/Regulatory Applications of CC N-830-1

is limitations on the T0 data available for materials for which Charpy data is also available

for the same or similar exposure conditions that would enable direct comparison of the

current Charpy-based ETC models. The T0 ETC program compiled a large database

containing both CVE and KJc data that was used to define both a TCVE ETC [99] and a T0

ETC [100]. Most of the fracture toughness data available to use in ETC development was

research data with varying exposures, environments and heat treatments. A T0-based ETC

was developed that was shown to fit all the available fracture toughness data with little bias;

however, the scatter about the mean was almost double that of Charpy-based ETCs. The

cause of the larger-than-expected scatter observed in the fracture toughness data was found

to be lack of descriptor fields in the fracture toughness database relative to the more

prescriptively acquired Charpy surveillance data. This is due, in large part, to the fact that

much of the fracture toughness data was developed as part of research programs whose

primary goal was in understanding a variety of effects on the measure of fracture toughness

and not specifically in monitoring radiation degradation. For this reason, the fracture

toughness database contains toughness data measured using many different specimen

configurations, test apparatus, and many exposure conditions including some post-

irradiation annealing, the details of which were not always captured in the database fields.

Comparison of the T0-based ETC with 4 Charpy-based ETCs supports the 1:1 correlation

between Charpy shift and fracture toughness shift that is often cited [100]. Due to the

inherent scatter observed in the fracture toughness data, a 1:1 correlation on the uncertainty

is harder to support.

6-6

7

SAMPLE PROBLEMS AND RESULTS

7.1 Introduction

Two sample problems were developed and solved within the WGFE to support the development

of CC N-830-1. The first sample problem was conducted in late 2015 and focused exclusively

on calculation of the allowable toughness values as outlined by the CC, with the objective of

ensuring that the CC provided sufficient clarity to enable ready implementation of the equations

contained therein. The Sample Problem 1 statement is provided in Appendix A of this report.

A second sample problem was conducted in 2016 with two objectives:

5. Calculation of allowable toughness values (same as in the first sample problem).

6. Calculation of allowable flaw sizes from these allowable toughness values.

While CC N-830-1 pertains only to determination of allowable toughness, calculation of the

allowable flaw size was performed in Sample Problem II to enable comparison of the effects of

the implementation of the CC N-830-1 allowable toughness equations with calculations made

using the current Appendix A allowable toughness metrics.

The second sample problem fully contains the first sample problem; its conduct and results were

documented in a technical paper presented at the 2017 ASME Pressure Vessel and Piping

Conference [79]. This chapter provides a synopsis of the full results described in detail in [79].

The full Sample Problem 2 statement is provided in Appendix B of this report. Since CC N-830-

1 has not yet been adopted by Section XI of the ASME Code and is still subject to change, the

version used in the conduct of Sample Problem 2 is included as Appendix C to provide context.

The following individuals solved the two sample problems:

• Yil Kim GE POWER

• Mark Kirk U.S. NRC

• Darrell Lee BWXT

• Cheng Liu & Steven Xu Kinectrics

• Do Jun Shim & Gary Stevens Structural Integrity Associates, Inc.

The second sample problem involved the calculation of allowable toughness values using the

following three methods:

Method 1: Using the toughness equations in CC N-830-1 at their 1st percentile lower bounds.

Method 2: Using the mean or median toughness values from CC N-830-1 divided by √10.

7-1

Sample Problems and Results

Method 3: Using the toughness equations in ASME Section XI Appendix A divided by √10.

Methods 1 and 2 represent allowable toughness values being considered by the WGFE for use in

CC N-830-1, while Method 3 represents the current ASME Code Appendix A calculation. For

Method 3, since the ASME Code does not specify a method to estimate J0.1 values for different

steels, the participants were allowed to specify the method they used (e.g., Regulatory Guide

1.161), or simply state that the results were “undefined” according to Section XI Appendix A.

For each method nine material Case IDs were defined, as outlined in Table 7.1. These cases

explore the full range of epistemic uncertainty inherent to the relationship between RTNDT and T0

(see Figure 5-1).

Once allowable toughness values were calculated using these three Methods and nine Case IDs,

the participants were asked to calculate allowable flaw sizes for a typical PWR at operating

pressure and under isothermal conditions at 50 °C (see Appendix B for full details). This single

allowable flaw size calculation does not represent all conditions of interest; it was performed

only to give WGFE members a sense of how changes in allowable toughness scale to changes in

allowable flaw size. Also, it should be noted that CC N-830-1 does not specify or propose to

change the Code’s allowable flaw size calculations. Thus, the allowable flaw size part of the

sample problem is not directly pertinent to the proposed revision of the Code Case; it was

performed for the information of WGFE members.

Table 7-1

Material Properties for use in Appendix A and Proposed Code Case N-830-1 Sample

Problem 2.

CDF Actual

Temperature Temperature Temperature

%-ile RTNDT-T0

Case RTNDT T0 Case RTNDT T0 Case RTNDT T0

RTNDT-T0 o

C

ID o

C o

C ID o

C o

C ID o

C o

C

th

5 10 L-5 -20 -10 M-5 100 90 H-5 180 170

th

50 48 L-50 -20 -68 M-50 100 52 H-50 180 132

95th 92 L-95 -20 -112 M-95 100 8 H-95 180 88

Once allowable toughness values were calculated using these three Methods and nine Case IDs,

the participants were asked to calculate allowable flaw sizes for a typical PWR at operating

pressure and under isothermal conditions at 50 °C (see Appendix B for full details). This single

allowable flaw size calculation does not represent all conditions of interest; it was performed

only to give WGFE members a sense of how changes in allowable toughness scale to changes in

allowable flaw size. Also, it should be noted that CC N-830-1 does not specify or propose to

change the Code’s allowable flaw size calculations. Thus, the allowable flaw size part of the

sample problem is not directly pertinent to the proposed revision of the Code Case; it was

performed for the information of WGFE members.

7-2

Sample Problems and Results

As documented in [79], achieving agreement in allowable flaw depth values among the six

participants was more difficult. While all six participants used formulae outlined in the Code

and numerical methods permitted by standard Code practice, the Code itself is not fully

prescriptive in how allowable flaw depths should be calculated. Differences between the

calculation methods used by different participants were observed to contribute to the differences

in results as follows:

• Method used to estimate through-wall stresses (thick wall vs. thin wall solutions)

• Whether or not a plastic zone correction was performed.

• Whether the possibility of failure at the point where the semi-elliptic flaw intersects the

inner-diameter of the RPV was considered in addition to the location at the deepest point of

the semi-elliptic flaw.

• The method used to fit the stress distribution and then, based on this fit, calculate the

KAPPLIED value.

• The level of discretization used for both temperature and flaw depth.

A full assessment of the effects of these differences appears in [79]. For conditions of high

allowable toughness, the resultant differences in allowable flaw depth were small, generally 5-

10% between participants. However, for low allowable toughness conditions greater differences

(30-40%) in allowable flaw depth occurred.

When comparing allowable flaw depths calculated from current Code methods (Method 3) and

potential Code Case methods (Methods 1 and 2), current Code estimates of allowable flaw depth

were more conservative (that is: smaller) than estimates based on the candidate CC methods.

This was mostly due to the generally-conservative bias of the Code’s RTNDT –indexed, KIc curve

approach (as an example, see Figure 5-5). The conservatism inherent to current Code methods

was found to vary considerably depending on the material condition (Case-ID), ranging from

modest increases (e.g., 1.1-2x for Case H-5) to quite large increases (e.g., ≈15x for Case M-95).

The cause of this significant effect of material condition on the conservatism inherent to current

Code estimates can be illustrated by comparing the various allowable toughness curves with

actual fracture toughness data for RPV steels, such as those appearing in Figures 5-2 through 5-

7. Both the current Code and the candidate CC N-830-1 allowable toughness methods produce

lower-bounding representations of the data, but to greatly varying degrees of conservatism

depending on the temperature at which the flaw evaluation is performed. The differences in

vertical extent between the bounding curves and the toughness data at any given temperature

cause the differences in allowable flaw depth. In addition, the current Code definition of an

allowable toughness curve for normal operating conditions (SF=√10) drives the allowable

toughness value below 20 MPa√m at temperatures below T-T0 = +50°C. However, neither

empirical nor theoretical evidence exists to support such low toughness values in RPV steels.

It is not possible to achieve consistent conservatism across the conditions occurring in the

operating fleet using the Code’s RTNDT-indexed, KIc curve approach due to the correlative and

intentionally biased nature of RTNDT, and because the temperature dependence of the KIc curve

does not match the temperature dependence of all currently-available fracture toughness data for

RPV steels. These issues are easily addressed by the candidate CC approaches for normal

7-3

Sample Problems and Results

temperature (T0) defined by actual fracture toughness data and a temperature dependence defined

by those data.

7-4

8

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

The technical bases for the fracture toughness models contained in ASME CC N-830-1 are

presented in this report. The suite of best estimate fracture toughness models provides a

complete description of fracture toughness crack initiation and arrest behavior from lower shelf,

through transition, to ductile upper shelf regimes for all ferritic steels.

The best estimate models used for CC N-830-1 are based on updated techniques and available

data, sound physical bases, and extensive empirical evaluations that collectively promote

confidence in their use for flaw assessment following Nonmandatory Appendix A of ASME

Section XI and similar methods. These models are appropriate for use in both deterministic and

probabilistic assessments, as each model describes the full distribution in values about the mean

for any temperature and material condition.

Equations are presented for each fracture toughness model that allow an analyst to determine any

percentile value of interest for any of the fracture toughness parameters KJc, KIa, JIc, J0.1, and J-R.

Specific values of these parameters may be used in deterministic assessments, or the entire

distributions may be sampled for use in probabilistic assessments. Collectively, these fracture

toughness models provide a consistent, best-estimate representation of ferritic steel fracture

toughness behavior, including uncertainties, to allow for quantitative fracture toughness

assessments that ensure the safety of nuclear (and other) ferritic components.

Sample problem assessments were performed to ensure the adequacy of the technical content in

CC N-830-1, to verify the accuracy of the CC content, and to ensure that the CC could be applied

by knowledgeable engineers to produce reasonable and reliable results in typical flaw

evaluations.

This document is provided to the ASME Section XI Working Group on Flaw Evaluation for their

use to support moving forward with direct implementation of best-estimate fracture toughness

curves.

8-1

9

REFERENCES

1. ASTM E208, “Standard Test Method for Conducting Drop-Weight Test to Determine Nil-

Ductility Transition Temperature of Ferritic Steels,” Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Vol.

03.01, American Society for Testing and Materials, West Conshohocken, PA, 2002.

2. ASTM E23, “Standard Test Methods for Notched Bar Impact Testing of Metallic Materials,”

Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Vol. 03.01, American Society for Testing and Materials,

West Conshohocken, PA, 2002.

3. ASTM E 399 “Standard Test Method for Linear-Elastic Plane-Strain Fracture Toughness KIc

of Metallic Materials,” Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Vol. 03.01, American Society for

Testing and Materials, West Conshohocken, PA, 2013.

4. ASME NB-2331, 1998 ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Rules for Construction of

Nuclear Power Plants, Division 1, Subsection NB, Class 1 Components.

5. PVRC Ad Hoc Group on Toughness Requirements, “PVRC Recommendations on

Toughness Requirements for Ferritic Materials.” Welding Research Council Bulletin No.

175, August 1972.

6. Marston, T.U., “Flaw Evaluation Procedures, Background and Application of ASME Section

XI Appendix A,” EPRI Report NP-719-SR, Electric Power Research Institute, 1978.

7. ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Rules for In-service Inspection of Nuclear Power

Plants, Section XI, Appendix A., “Analysis of Flaws” 2013.

8. ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section XI, “Rules for In-service Inspection of

Nuclear Power Plant Components,” Appendix K, “Assessment of Reactor Vessels with Low

Upper Shelf Charpy Impact Energy Levels,” 2013.

9. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Part 50, Appendix G, “Fracture Toughness

Requirements.”

10. Regulatory Guide 1.161, “Evaluation of Reactor Pressure Vessels with Charpy Upper-Shelf

Energy of Less Than 50 ft-lb,” United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, June 1995.

11. Materials Reliability Program: Implementation Strategy for Master Curve Reference

Temperature, T0 (MRP-101), EPRI, Palo Alto, CA, and U.S. Department of Energy,

Washington, DC: 2004. 1009543.

12. Kirk, M., M. Erickson, G. Stevens, W. Server, and R. Cipolla, “Assessment of Fracture

Toughness Models for Ferritic Steels Used in Section XI of the ASME Code Relative to

Current Data-Based Models,” PVP2014-28540, Proceedings of PVP2014, 2014 ASME

Pressure Vessels and Piping Division Conference, July 20-24, 2014, Anaheim, CA, USA.

9-1

References

13. Code of Federal Regulation 10CFR Part 50.61, “Fracture Toughness Requirements for

Protection Against Pressurized Thermal Shock Events.”

14. EricksonKirk, M.A., and M. T. EricksonKirk, “The Relationship Between Transition and

Upper-Shelf Fracture Toughness of Ferritic Steels,” Fatigue & Fracture of Engineering

Materials & Structures, 29, March 2006, 672–684.

15. ASTM E1921-97, “Standard Test Method for Determination of Reference Temperature, T0,

for Ferritic Steels in the Transition Range,” ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA,

2002, www.astm.org.

16. ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code Case N-629, “Use of Fracture Toughness Test Data

to Establish Reference Temperature for Pressure Retaining Materials, Section XI, Division

1,” 1999.

17. ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code Case N-631, “Use of Fracture Toughness Test Data

to Establish Reference Temperature for Pressure Retaining Materials Other Than Bolting for

Class 1 Vessels Section III, Division 1, 1999.

18. ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code Case N-830 (BC 09-182), Direct Use of Master

Fracture Toughness Curve for Pressure Retaining Materials for Vessels of a Section XI,

Division 1, 2014.

19. ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code Case N-830-1 (14-1073), Direct Use of Master

Fracture Toughness Curve for Pressure Retaining Materials for Vessels of a Section XI,

Division 1, 2017 DRAFT.

20. Wallin, K., “The Scatter in KIc Results,” Engineering Fracture Mechanics, 19(6), pp. 1085-

1093, 1984.

21. Wallin, K., Saario, T., and Törrönen, K., “Statistical Model for Carbide Induced Brittle

Fracture in Steel,” Metal Science, Vol. 18, January 1984, 13-16.

22. Wallin, K., “Irradiation Damage Effects on the Fracture Toughness Transition Curve Shape

for Reactor Vessel Steels,” Int. J. Pres. Ves. & Piping, 55, pp. 61-79, 1993.

23. Wallin, K., “Master Curve Analysis of Ductile to Brittle Region Fracture Toughness Round

Robin Data: The ‘EURO’ Fracture Toughness Curve,” VTT Manufacturing Technology,

VTT Publication 367, 1998.

24. Kirk, M.T., “The Technical Basis for Application of the Master Curve to the Assessment of

Nuclear Reactor Pressure Vessel Integrity,” NRC Technical Note, ADAMS ML093540004.

25. ASME Section XI Division I, Code Case N-851, “Alternative Method for Establishing the

Reference Temperature for Pressure Retaining Materials, Adopted Nov. 2014.

26. ASME Section III, Division 1, Record # 11-1383R1.

27. Zerilli, F.J., and Armstrong, R.W., “Dislocation-Mechanics-Based Constitutive Relations for

Material Dynamics Calculations,” Journal of Applied Physics, Vol. 61, No. 5, March 1987,

1816-1825.

9-2

References

28. Natishan, M. and Kirk, M., “A Micromechanical Evaluation of the Master Curve,” Fatigue

and Fracture Mechanics, 30th Volume, ASTM STP-1360, K. Jerina and P. Paris, Eds.,

American Society for Testing and Materials, 1998.

29. Natishan, M.E., Wagenhoefer, M., and Kirk, M.T., “Dislocation Mechanics Basis and Stress

State Dependency of the Master Curve,” Fracture Mechanics, 31st Symposium, ASTM STP

1389, K. Jerina and J. Gallagher, Eds., American Society for Testing and Materials, 2000.

30. Natishan, M. and Kirk, M., “A Physical Basis for the Master Curve,” Proc. of the 1999

ASME Pressure Vessel and Piping Conference, ASME, July 1999.

31. Curry D.A., and Knott J.F., “The Relationship Between Fracture Toughness and

Microstructure in the Cleavage Fracture of Mild Steel,” Metal Science, 10, pp. 1-6, 1976.

32. Curry D.A., and Knott J. F., “Effects of Microstructure on Cleavage Fracture Stress in Steel,”

Metal Science, 12, pp. 511-514, 1978.

33. Curry, D.A. and Knott, J.F., “Effect of Microstructure on Cleavage Fracture Toughness of

Quenched and Tempered Steels,” Metal Science, 13, pp. 341-345, 1979.

34. Knott, J.F., J. Iron Steel Inst., 204, p. 104, 1966.

35. McMahon, C.J. and Cohen, M., “Initiation of Cleavage in Polycrystalline Iron,” Acta

Metalla., Vol. 13, pp. 591-604, 1965.

36. Smith, E., Physical Basis of Yield and Fracture, Conference Proceedings, Institute of Physics

and the Physical Society, London, p. 36, 1966.

37. Smith, E., “Cleavage Fracture in Mild Steels,” Int. J. Fract. Mech., Vol. 4, pp. 131-145, 1968.

38. Ritchie, R.O., Knott, J., and Rice, J., “On the Relationship Between Critical Tensile Stress

and Fracture Stress in Mild Steels,” Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids, Volume

21, Issue 6, 1973, pp. 395-410.

39. Curry, D.A., “Comparison Between Two Models of Cleavage Fracture,” Met. Sci., pp.78-80,

Feb. 1980.

40. Wallin, K., “Fracture Toughness of Engineering Materials, Estimation and Application,”

EMAS Publishing, ISBN: 978-0-9552994-6-9, 2011.

41. Wallin, K., “The Size Effect in KIc Results,” Engineering Fracture Mechanics, 22, pp. 149-

163, 1985.

42. Wallin, K., “Statistical Modelling of Fracture in the Ductile to Brittle Transition Region,”

Defect Assessment in Components – Fundamentals and Applications, ESIS/EGF9, J.G.

Blauel and K.-H. Schwalbe, Eds., pp. 415-445, 1991.

43. Wallin, K., “Statistical Aspects of Constraint with Emphasis on Testing and Analysis of

Laboratory Specimens in the Transition Region,” Constraint Effects in Fracture, ASTM STP-

1171, E.M. Hackett, K.-H. Schwalbe, and R.H. Dodds Eds., American Society for Testing

and Materials, 1993.

44. “Application of Master Curve Fracture Toughness Methodology for Ferritic Steels,” EPRI-

TR-108390 Revision 1, 1999.

9-3

References

45. Kirk, M., Lott, R., Kim, C., and Server, W., “Empirical Validation of the Master Curve For

Irradiated And Unirradiated Reactor Pressure Vessel Steels,” Proceedings of the 1998

ASME/JSME Pressure Vessel and Piping Symposium, July 26-30, 1998, San Diego,

California, USA.

46. Lott, R.G., Kirk, M.T., and Kim, C.C., “Master Curve Strategies for RPV Assessment,”

Westinghouse Electric Company, WCAP-15075, September 1998, Available on the USNRC

website at Legacy ADAMS 9811240260 and at ADAMS ML111861647.

47. W. A. VanDerSluys, C. L. Hoffmann, K. K. Yoon, D. E. Killian and J. B. Hall, “Fracture

Toughness Master Curve Development: Fracture Toughness of Ferritic Steels and ASTM

Reference Temperature (To),” Welding Research Council, WRC-457, December 2000.

48. W.A. VanDerSluys, C.L. Hoffmann, K.K. Yoon, W.L. Server, R.G. Loft, S. Rosinski, M.T.

Kirk, S. Byrne and C.C. Kim, “Fracture Toughness Master Curve Development: Application

of Master Curve Fracture Toughness Methodology for Ferritic Steels,” Welding Research

Council, WRC-458, January 2001.

49. W.A. VanDerSluys, C.L. Hoffman, W.L. Server, R.G. Lott, M.T. Kirk and C.C. Kim,

“Fracture Toughness Master Curve Development: Strategies for RPV Assessment,” Welding

Research Council, WRC-459, February 2001.

50. J. Heerens, D. Hellmann, “Development of the Euro fracture toughness dataset,” Engineering

Fracture Mechanics 69 (2002) 421–449.

51. J. Heerens, R.A. Ainsworthb, R. Moskovicc, K. Wallin, “Fracture toughness characterisation

in the ductile-to-brittle transition and upper shelf regimes using pre-cracked Charpy single-

edge bend specimens,” International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 82 (2005) 649–

667.

52. Rathbun, H. J., Odette, G R, He, M. Y., “On the Size Scaling of Cleavage Toughness in the

Transition: A Single Variable Experiment and Model Based Analysis,” Proceedings of the

10th International Conference on Fracture, Honolulu, Hawaii – 2001.

53. Rathbun, H. J., G. R. Odette, M. Y. He, G. E. Lucas, and T. Yamamoto, “Size Scaling of

Cleavage Toughness in the Transition: A Single Variable Experiment and Model-Based

Analysis,” United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG.CR-6790, August 2002.

54. Leax, T.R., “Temperature Dependence and Variability of Fracture Toughness in the

Transition Regime for A508 Grade 4N Pressure Vessel Steel,” Journal of ASTM

International, Volume 3, Issue 1 (January 2006).

55. Wallin, K., “The Elusive Temperature Dependence of the Master Curve,” Proceedings of the

13th International Conference on Fracture, June 2013, Beijing, China.

56. IAEA TRS-429, “Guidelines for Application of the Master Curve Approach to Reactor

Pressure Vessel Integrity in Nuclear Power Plants,” International Atomic Energy Agency,

Vienna Austria, 2005.

57. Pisarski, H.G. and Wallin, K., “Application and Verification of the SINTAP Fracture

Toughness Estimation Procedure for Welds and Parent Metals,” Proceedings of the 18th

9-4

References

2043, ASME, July 1999.

58. EricksonKirk, M.T., M. A. EricksonKirk, Charles Roe, and Xian J. Zhang, “Use of Large

Databases to Identify Trends in the Behavior of Ferritic Steels,” PVP2009-77788,

Proceedings of PVP2009, 2009 ASME Pressure Vessel and Piping Division Conference, July

27-31, 2009, Prague, Czech Republic.

59. EricksonKirk,M.A., M. EricksonKirk, and T. Williams, “The Interrelationships of KIa, KIc,

And JIc, and the Implications of These Relationships on Use of Fracture Models Over the

Ranges of Hardening Observed in Ferritic Steels,” PVP2006-ICPVT-11-93651, Proceedings

of PVP2006-ICPVT-11: ASME 2006 Pressure Vessels and Piping/ICPVT-11 Conference,

July 23-27, 2006, Vancouver BC, Canada.

60. Wallin, K., and Rintamaa, R., “Master Curve Based Correlation Between Static Initiation

Toughness KIc and Crack Arrest Toughness KIa,” Proceedings of the 24th MPA-Seminar,

Stuttgart, October 8 and 9, 1998.

61. Kirk, M. T., Natishan, M. E., and Wagenhofer, M., “A Physics-Based Model for the Crack

Arrest Toughness of Ferritic Steels,” Fatigue and Fracture Mechanics, 33rd Volume, ASTM

STP-1417, W. G. Reuter, and R. S. Piascik, Eds., American Society for Testing and

Materials, West Conshohocken, PA, 2002.

62. H. Hein, E. Keim, H. Schnabel, J. Barthelmes, C. Eiselt, F. Obermeier, J. Ganswind, and M.

Widera, “Final Results from the CARINA Project on Crack Initiation and Arrest of Irradiated

German RPV Steels for Neutron Fluences in the Upper Bound,” 26th ASTM Symposium on

Effects of Radiation on Nuclear Materials, June 12-13, 2013, Indianapolis, IN (USA).

63. ASTM E1221-10, “Standard Test Method for Determining Plane-Strain Crack-Arrest

Fracture Toughness, KIa, of Ferritic Steels.” Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Vol. 03.01,

American Society for Testing and Materials, West Conshohocken, PA, 2010.

64. EricksonKirk, M.A., and M.T. EricksonKirk, “An Upper-Shelf Fracture Toughness Master

Curve for Ferritic Steels,” International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping, 83 (2006)

571-583.

65. Kirk, M.T., M. Erickson, R. Link, C. Roe, “Large Database Assessment of the Upper Shelf

Master Curve,” Proceedings of PVP2017, ASME Pressure Vessels and Piping Division

Conference, July 16-20, 2017, Honolulu Hawaii, USA.

66. Wagenhofer, M., “Modeling the transition region fracture behavior of ferritic steels.” Ph.D.

Dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, 2002.

67. Heerens, J. and D. Hellman, “Development of the Euro Fracture Toughness Dataset,”

Engineering Fracture Mechanics, Vol. 69, 2002, pp. 419-449.

68. Wallin, K., “Master Curve Analysis of the “Euro” Fracture Toughness Dataset,” Engineering

Fracture Mechanics, Vol. 69, 2002, pp. 451-481.

69. Heerens, J, M. Pfuff, D. Hellmann and U. Zerbst, “The Lower Bound Toughness Procedure

Applied to the Euro Fracture Toughness Dataset,” Engineering Fracture Mechanics, Vol. 69,

2002, pp. 483-495.

9-5

References

70. Neale, B.K., “An Assessment of the Fracture Toughness in the Ductile-to-Brittle-Transition

Regime Using the Euro Fracture Toughness Dataset,” Engineering Fracture Mechanics, Vol.

69, 2002, pp. 495-509.

71. Moskovic, R., “Modelling of Fracture Toughness Data in the Ductile-to-Brittle Transition

Temperature Region by Statistical Analysis,” Engineering Fracture Mechanics, Vol. 69,

2002, pp. 511-530.

72. ASTM E1820-01 (2002) Standard test method for measurement of fracture toughness.

ASTM. Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Vol. 03.01. American Society for Testing and

Materials, West Conshohocken, PA.

73. Kirk, M.T., H. Hein, M. Erickson, W. Server, G. Stevens, “A Fracture-Toughness Based

Transition Reference Temperature for Use in the ASME Code With the Crack Arrest (KIA)

Curve,” PVP 2014-28311, 2014 ASME Pressure Vessels and Piping Conference, July 20-24,

2014, Anaheim, CA, USA.

74. Eason, E., Wright, J., and Nelson, E., “Multivariable Modeling of Pressure Vessel and Piping

J-R Data,” United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG/CR-5729, 1991.

75. Wallin, K., “Low-cost J-R Curve Estimation Based on Charpy Upper Shelf Energy,” Fatigue

and Fracture of Engineering Materials and Structures, 24, 537-549, 2001.

76. Matsuzawa, H., and Osaki, T., “Fracture Toughness of Highly Irradiated Pressure Vessel

Steels in the Upper Shelf Temperature Region,” Proceedings of PVP2006-ICPVT-11,

Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, July 23-27, 2006 (PVP2006-ICPVT11-93032).

77. Kirk, M.T., M.A. Erickson, G. Stevens, “Models of the Temperature Dependence and Scatter

in J-R and J0.1 for Ferritic Reactor Pressure Vessel Steels,” PVP2015-45253, Proceedings of

PVP2015 2015 ASME Pressure Vessels and Piping Division Conference, July 19-23, 2015,

Boston, Massachusetts, USA.

78. Nondestructive Evaluation: Probabilistic Analysis of Performance Demonstration Ultrasonic

Flaw Detection and Through-Wall Sizing Results for Reactor Pressure Vessel Inspections.

EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: 2012. 1025787.

79. M. Kirk, S. Xu., C. Liu, M. Erickson, Y. Kim, D. Lee, D.J. Shim, and G. Stevens., “Solution

of a Sample Problem Related to Revision 1 of Code Case N-830,” 2017 ASME Pressure

Vessel and Piping Conference, July 16-20, 2017, Waikoloa Hawaii, PVP2017-66150.

80. Pierre Dulieu and Valéry Lacroix, “Structural Integrity Assessment of Doel 2 and Tihange 2

RPVs Affected by Hydrogen Flakes: Refined X-FEM Analyses,” 2016 ASME Pressure

Vessel and Piping Conference, Vancouver, British Columbia, PVP2016-63766.

81. Valéry Lacroix, Pierre Dulieu, and Damien Couplet, “Alternative Characterization Rules for

Quasi-Laminar Flaws,” 2014 ASME Pressure Vessel and Piping Conference, Anaheim,

California, PVP2014-28200.

82. BS 7910:2013, “Guide to Methods for Assessing the Acceptability of Flaws in Metallic

Structures,” British Standards Institute, 2013.

83. API 579-1, ASME FFS-1, “Fitness for Service,” June 2016.

9-6

References

84. Risk-Informed Method to Determine ASME Section XI Appendix G Limits for Ferritic Reactor

Pressure Vessels - An Optional Approach Proposed for ASME Section XI Appendix G. MRP-

250 and BWRVIP-215NP. EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: 2009. 1016600.

85. ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section XI, “Rules for In-service Inspection of

Nuclear Power Plant Components, Appendix E., “Evaluation of Unanticipated Operating

Events,” 2013.

86. ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section XI, “Rules for In-service Inspection of

Nuclear Power Plant Components,” Appendix G, “Fracture Toughness Criteria for Protection

Against Failure,” 2013.

87. Code of Federal Regulations, 10 CFR 50.61, “Fracture Toughness Requirements for

Protection Against Pressurized Thermal Shock Events.”

88. K.K. Yoon, “Fracture Toughness Characterization of WF-70 Weld Metal,” Report to the

B&W Owners Group Materials Committee, BAW-2202, September 1993.

89. D. E. McCabe, R. K. Nanstad, S. K. Iskander, R. L. Swain, “Unirradiated Material Properties

of Midland Weld WF-70,” United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Report

NUREG/CR-6249, October 1994.

90. “Initial RTNDT of Linde-80 Weld Materials,” Report to the PWR Owners Group, BAW-2308

Rev. 2A, March 2008.

91. NRC Safety Evaluation Report on Kewaunee Master Curve Submittal, Letter of 1st May 2001

from Lamb to Reddemann, ADAMS ML011210180.

92. Code of Federal Regulations 10 CFR 50 Appendix H, “Reactor Vessel Material Surveillance

Program Requirements,” Published by the Office of the Federal Register, National Archives

and Records Administration, Washington, D.C., 2000.

93. Erickson, M.A., and M. T. Kirk, “Development of a Partial Structural Factor Approach for

Direct Fracture Toughness Implementation into the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel

Code,” 2017 ASME Pressure Vessel and Piping Conference, July 16-20, 2107, Waikoloa

Hawaii, PVP2017-66148.

94. Chris Koehler, Heather Malikowski, Brian Hall, and Justin Webb, “PWR RPV Nozzle

Appendix G Margins,” presentation at 19 January 2016 NRC meeting, ADAMS ML

16021A002.

95. NRC Regulatory Issue Summary 2014-11, “Information on Licensing Applications for

Fracture Toughness Requirements for Ferritic Reactor Coolant Pressure Boundary

Components,” October 14, 2014, ADAMS ML14149A165.

96. J. Brian Hall, Elliot Long, Ben Mays, Heather Malikowski, and Chris Koehler, “Plan for

Transitioning RV Integrity to Direct Fracture Toughness,” presented at the International

Light Water Reactors Material Reliability Conference, Chicago, August 2016.

97. Kirk, M., and M. Erickson, “Assessment of the Temperature Dependence of Ferritic Steel

Fracture Toughness on or Near the Lower Shelf,” Proceedings of PVP2015 2015 ASME

Pressure Vessels and Piping Division Conference, July 19-23, 2015, Boston, Massachusetts,

USA, PVP2015-45850.

9-7

References

98. Kirk, M.T., M. Erickson, G. Stevens, H. Gustin and W. Server, “Options for Defining the

Upper Shelf Transition Temperature (Tc) for Ferritic Pressure Vessel Steels,” Proceedings of

PVP2015, 2015 ASME Pressure Vessels and Piping Division Conference, July 19-23, 2015,

Boston, Massachusetts, USA, PVP2015-45307.

99. Materials Reliability Program: Developing an Embrittlement Trend Curve Using the Charpy

“Master Curve Transition Reference Temperature (MRP-289). EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: 2011,

1020703.

100. Materials Reliability Program: Development of a T0 –Based Embrittlement Trend Curve

and Comparison With the Charpy Master Curve Embrittlement Trend Curve (MRP-389).

EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: 2014. 3002003040.

101. Kirk, M.T., “Evaluation and/or Validation of the J-R Curve Prediction Model Proposed

for use in Revision 1 to ASME Code Case N-830,” presentation at the International Group on

Radiation Damage Mechanisms (IGRDM) 20th Meeting, Santiago de Compostela, Spain,

October 2017. (ADAMS ML17271A110).

9-8

A

SAMPLE PROBLEM 1 STATEMENT

Code Case N-830-1, “Direct Use of Fracture Toughness for Flaw Evaluations of

Pressure Boundary Materials in Section XI, Division 1, Class 1 Vessels”

Code Action No. 14-1073

Purpose: The purpose of this document is to define a sample problem to test the procedures of

proposed Code Case N-830-1. This problem will be solved in two phases. Phase I

involves developing solutions for allowable toughness (e.g., JIc, KIc) using two

different methods: (A) those proposed by the proposed revision to Code Case N-830,

and (B) those used by existing ASME Code Appendix A rules. Phase II (LATER)

will include developing solutions for allowable flaw size for these two methods.

Inputs: Figure B-1 defines the inputs needed for Phase I of the sample problem.

Requested Outputs:

A. Calculate the variation with temperature of allowable toughness (i.e., of KJc, KIa, JIC, and J0.1)

for the nine (9) cases identified in Figure B-1 (Case ID-s are given in RED TYPE) using the

proposed Code Case methodology (Attachment 1) for Emergency and Faulted operating

conditions.

B. Calculate the variation with temperature of allowable toughness (i.e., of KIc, KIa, and J0.1) for

the nine (9) cases identified in Figure B-1 (Case ID-s are given in RED TYPE) using the

existing Code Appendix A methodology for Emergency and Faulted operating conditions.

Note: The ASME Code does not currently specify a method to estimate J0.1 values

for different steels. In the past, the equations in USNRC Regulatory Guide

1.161 have been used. A Member solving this Sample Problem may elect to

use Regulatory Guide 1.161, or another method. If another method is used it

should either be documented or adequately referenced.

C. Make graphs to compare the results of the (A) and (B) calculations for each of the nine (9)

cases.

D. Fill out the attached spreadsheet with one worksheet, labelled with the Case ID, for each test

case.

A-1

Sample Problem 1 Statement

Figure A-1

Sample Problem Properties

A-2

B

SAMPLE PROBLEM 2 STATEMENT

Proposed Code Case N-830-R1, “Direct Use of Fracture Toughness for Flaw

Evaluations of Pressure Boundary Materials in Section XI, Division 1, Class 1

Vessels”

Code Action No. 14-1073

Purpose: The purpose of this document is to define the Phase II sample problem to test the

procedures described in proposed Code Case N-830-R1. The Phase I sample problem

involved developing solutions for allowable toughness (e.g., JIc, KIc) using two

different methods: (A) those of the proposed revision to Code Case N-830, and (B)

those of Nonmandatory Appendix A of ASME Code Section XI. Phase II includes

developing solutions for allowable flaw size using these three methods (two based on

CC N-830-R1 and one using the procedures of Appendix A). In the interest of

simplicity, a low temperature isothermal pressurization is analyzed. Because at this

time Nonmandatory Appendix A of ASME Code Section XI applies only to

conditions in fracture mode transition (that is, NOT on the upper shelf) the

temperature to be analyzed is arbitrarily set at 50o C.

Inputs: This problem pertains to a typical PWR: a 0.2032 m thick pressure vessel (A508

Grade 2 Class 3) with an inner radius of 2.032 m. A semi-elliptical ID surface flaw

of depth 0.01 m and length 0.0333 m has been found, oriented axially in the vessel.

The vessel operating pressure is 15.3 MPa and the analysis temperature is 50o C. The

vessel is made from an A508 Grade 2 Class 3 forging that has a specified minimum

yield strength of 450 MPa. Assume isothermal conditions at the pressure and

temperature to be used in this analysis. Ignore the plastic zone correction (for

simplicity).

The material property inputs for nine cases are defined in Table B-1.

5

Sections of the problem statement in red are additions that were made to the original problem statement to provide

clarification and more detailed instructions to the participants.

B-1

Sample Problem 2 Statement

Table B-1

Material Properties for use in the Sample Problem 2

CDF Actual

Temperature Temperature Temperature

%-ile RTNDT-T0

Case RTNDT T0 Case RTNDT T0 Case RTNDT T0

RTNDT-T0 o

C

ID o

C o

C ID C o o

C ID o

C o

C

th

5 10 L-5 -20 -30 M-5 100 90 H-5 180 170

th

50 48 L-50 -20 -68 M-50 100 52 H-50 180 132

95th 92 L-95 -20 -112 M-95 100 8 H-95 180 88

Requested Outputs:

E. Calculations: Calculate the allowable toughness and critical flaw size for each of the nine

sets of material properties using the three different methods described below. For each of the

three methods (a) use the standard ASME Code Appendix A methodology to define the

driving force, and (b) assume that the aspect ratio of the critical flaw is fixed at a/ℓ =0.3. For

Method 1 and 2 use J0.1 for upper shelf calculations. Use the 1% lower bound for Method 1

and the Median J0.1/√10 for Method 2. For critical flaw size evaluations for all three

methods, use 75% as the cut-off for a/t.

The three methods are distinguished by how the allowable toughness is calculated, as

described below:

Method 1: Determine the allowable toughness using the equations in CC-N-830-R1

using 1st percentile toughness values (i.e., for normal operating conditions).

Method 2: Determine the allowable toughness using the mean or median toughness

values from CC-N-830-R1 divided by √10.

Method 3: Determine the allowable toughness using the toughness equations in

Appendix A divided by √10.

Note on Method 3: The ASME Code does not currently specify a method to estimate J0.1 values

for different steels. In the past, most analysts made use of the equations in USNRC Regulatory

Guide 1.161. Problem solvers may elect to use Regulatory Guide 1.161, or another method, or

simply state that the answer is “undefined” according to Appendix A. If another method is used,

it should be referenced.

F. Tabular output format: The output is requested in the tabular format as shown in Table

C-2. For any case for which the input flaw size exceeds the allowable flaw size, please

highlight the allowable flaw size in red.

G. Please provide a step-by-step description of how you determine the critical flaw size

(method of driving force determination, etc.) so that we might better understand any

discrepancies.

B-2

Sample Problem 2 Statement

Table B-2

Table for Presentation of Results of the Phase II Sample Problem

Ratio Ratio

Per CC N-830-R1 Per CC N-830-R1 Per ASME SC-XI

Case # Desired Results Method 1/ Method 1/

Method 1 Method 2 Method 3

Method 3 Method 3

Allowable Toughness (MPa√m)

L5

Allowable Flaw Size (mm)

Allowable Toughness (MPa√m)

L50

Allowable Flaw Size (mm)

Allowable Toughness (MPa√m)

L95

Allowable Flaw Size (mm)

Allowable Toughness (MPa√m)

M5

Allowable Flaw Size (mm)

Allowable Toughness (MPa√m)

M50

Allowable Flaw Size (mm)

Allowable Toughness (MPa√m)

M95

Allowable Flaw Size (mm)

Allowable Toughness (MPa√m)

H5

Allowable Flaw Size (mm)

Allowable Toughness (MPa√m)

H50

Allowable Flaw Size (mm)

Allowable Toughness (MPa√m)

H95

Allowable Flaw Size (mm)

B-3

C

DRAFT CC N-830-1 (VERSION USED FOR SAMPLE

PROBLEM 2)

Case

14-1073 N-830-1

Editor’s Note: This proposal replaces

Rev. 0 N-830 in its entirety

11/8/2016

Case N-830-1

Boundary Materials in Class 1 Ferritic Steel Components

Inquiry: What alternative fracture toughness models and reference equations may be used for

analytical evaluations performed in accordance with Nonmandatory Appendices A or K in lieu

of the current requirements of these Appendices when determining the values for KIc, KIa, JIc,

J0.1, and J-R?

Reply: It is the opinion of the Committee that the fracture toughness models based on the Master

Curve Method in accordance with ASTM E-1921 may be used in lieu of the current requirements

of Nonmandatory Appendices A or K when determining values for KIc, KIa, JIc, J0.1, and J-R

using the procedures and equations given below.

-1000 Scope

(a) This Case applies to Division 1, Class 1 ferritic steel components subject to the scope of

applicability of the ductile crack extension toughness equations based on product form.

(b) This Case defines the variation of fracture toughness as a function of temperature over the

entire material toughness range of interest to operating Class 1 vessels (lower shelf, transition

region, and upper-shelf).

(c) This Case may be used as an alternative to the determination of the following:

(1) Crack initiation fracture toughness reference curve, KIc, of Nonmandatory Appendix A,

Paragraph A-4200 for pressure retaining materials other than bolting,

(2) Crack arrest fracture toughness reference curve, KIa, of Nonmandatory Appendix A,

Paragraph A-4200 for pressure retaining materials other than bolting,

C-1

Draft CC N-830-1 (Version Used for Sample Problem 2)

(3) J-integral fracture resistance for the material at a ductile flaw extension of 0.1 in. (2.5

mm), J0.1, of Nonmandatory Appendix K Class 1 for pressure retaining materials other

than bolting, and

(4) J-integral fracture resistance curve for the material and its variation with ductile flaw

extension, Δa, J-R, of Nonmandatory Appendix K Class 1 for pressure retaining materials

other than bolting.

(d) When using this Case as part of an analytical evaluation, it is the responsibility of the user to

account for the variability inherent to the fracture toughness properties. For traditional

deterministic analysis, variability in the fracture toughness curve can be accounted for

through the selection of a statistical limit associated with a particular percentile of the

toughness distribution. For a probabilistic assessment, the variability about the mean and

median trends is evaluated through a sampling simulation using a suitable numerical method

such as the Monte Carlo method or other techniques. Guidance on this subject is given in -

3000 and -4000.

(e) This Case provides the fracture toughness information necessary to support both

deterministic and probabilistic assessments and is organized in seven sections, as follows:

-1000 Scope: provides the applicability and organization of the Case

-2000 Reference Toughness Temperature: describes data needed to use this Code

Case.

-3000 Toughness Variability: describes values that can be used along with the

equations of -4000 to account for toughness variability.

-4000 Toughness Curves: provides equations describing the variation with

temperature of, and variability associated with, cleavage and ductile crack

initiation toughness, and of cleavage crack arrest toughness.

-5000 Applicability Limits: provides the limits over which the curves of -4000 can be

applied.

-6000 Unit Conversions: input values and equations within this Code Case are

expressed in System International (SI) units. Conversions to US Customary

(USC) units are provided.

-7000 Nomenclature: symbols and abbreviations used in this Code Case are defined.

The principle parameter for calculating fracture toughness parameters, KJc, KIa, JIc, J0.1, and J-R,

is the reference temperature, T0. The temperature, T0, is based on the Master Toughness Curve

method and is calculated from measured toughness data in accordance with ASTM E 1921, or

from database information on representative RPV steels. The product form of the steel is

accounted for in -4400.

C-2

Draft CC N-830-1 (Version Used for Sample Problem 2)

The value of T0 may be adjusted to account for the effects of measurement or material

uncertainty6. Also, the value of T0 shall be adjusted to account for the effects of irradiation if the

component of interest is exposed to neutron irradiation in excess of 1×1017 n/cm2 (E > 1 MeV) 7.

The equations in -4000 assume that the value of T0 has been adjusted appropriately for these

effects. The cognizant regulatory authority may specify margins or adjustments to T0 intended to

account for these effects.

The equations in -4000 describe both the temperature dependence of and the variability in the

fracture toughness of ferritic steels from the lower shelf through to the upper shelf. Bounding

toughness curves can be generated from the equations in -4000 by using the values of p and Mp

from Table C-1, where p is the probability limit to be used and Mp is the standard normal

distribution with a mean of zero and a standard deviation of unity. Selection of values of p and

Mp appropriate for a particular application is the responsibility of the user. The values of p and Mp

selected should be applied consistently to all toughness curves. When the fracture toughness

equations are used as part of a probabilistic analysis, then the entire range of the distribution (that

is, p ranging from 0 to 1) would be used.

Table C-1

Values of p and Mp Corresponding to Different Bounding Toughness Curves

p Mp

0.005 2.58

0.010 2.33

0.015 2.17

0.020 2.05

0.025 1.96

0.030 1.88

0.035 1.81

0.040 1.75

0.045 1.70

0.050 1.64

0.055 1.60

0.060 1.55

6

Methods to perform adjustments for measurement uncertainty can be found in ASTM Standard Test Method

E1921-14, “Standard Test Method for Determination of Reference Temperature, To, for Ferritic Steels in the

Transition Range.”

7

Methods to perform adjustments for irradiation can be found in ASTM Standard Guide E900-15, “Standard Guide

for Predicting Radiation-Induced Transition Temperature Shift in Reactor Vessel Materials.”

C-3

Draft CC N-830-1 (Version Used for Sample Problem 2)

Values of p and Mp Corresponding to Different Bounding Toughness Curves

p Mp

0.065 1.51

0.070 1.48

0.075 1.44

0.080 1.41

0.085 1.37

0.090 1.34

0.095 1.31

0.100 1.28

MS-Excel with the formula Mp = -NORMSINV(p).

This article provides the equations to calculate the toughness parameters, KJc, KIa, JIc, Jx, and J-R.

Regarding J0.1 and J-R provided in this Case, J-R is calculated first based on the equations in

-4400. The J resistance toughness for a fixed amount of ductile crack extension, ∆a, called JX,

where X is a fixed amount of ductile crack extension, is calculated from the J-R curve. As an

example, the value, J0.1 is the case of JX where X = 0.01 in.

Values of K are expressed in MPa√m, values of J are expressed in kJ/m2, and values of

temperature are expressed in °C. J can be converted to K as follows:

𝑱𝑱⋅𝑬𝑬

𝑲𝑲 = � Eq. C-1 (a)

𝟏𝟏−𝝂𝝂𝟐𝟐

where,

{𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐−𝟕𝟕𝟕𝟕.𝟒𝟒𝟒𝟒}

𝑬𝑬 = Eq. C-1 (b)

𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏

The median cleavage crack initiation toughness curve is defined as follows:

𝒑𝒑

𝑲𝑲𝑱𝑱𝑱𝑱 = 𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐 + (𝑲𝑲𝒐𝒐 − 𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐){−𝒍𝒍𝒍𝒍(𝟏𝟏 − 𝒑𝒑)}𝟏𝟏/𝟒𝟒 Eq. C-2 (b)

C-4

Draft CC N-830-1 (Version Used for Sample Problem 2)

Eq. C-2(b) can be used to produce both lower and upper bound curves. For example, using a

value of p=0.05 would produce a 5% lower bound curve while using a value of p=0.95 would

produce a 95% upper bound curve.

In eq. C-2(b),

𝑲𝑲𝒐𝒐 = 𝟑𝟑𝟑𝟑 + 𝟕𝟕𝟕𝟕 ⋅ 𝒆𝒆𝒆𝒆𝒆𝒆[𝟎𝟎. 𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎(𝑻𝑻 − 𝑻𝑻𝒐𝒐 )] Eq. C-2 (c)

Eq. C-2 applies to a crack front length of 25.4 mm (1 in.) in straight-fronted laboratory test

specimens. While an adjustment to eq. C-2 to account for different crack front lengths in

laboratory test specimens have been developed, currently there is insufficient basis to

recommend a generic equation that applies to the non-straight fronted cracks (e.g., surface

breaking cracks, fully embedded cracks, etc.) of interest in a structural analysis. For this

application, eq. C-2 is recommended unless the user can demonstrate that a crack front length

other than 25.4 mm (1 in.) is appropriate to the structural situation of interest.

The crack arrest toughness curve at percentile p is defined as follows:

𝒑𝒑

𝑲𝑲𝑰𝑰𝑰𝑰 = 𝑲𝑲𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎 �𝟏𝟏 − 𝟎𝟎. 𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏𝑴𝑴𝒑𝒑 � Eq. C-3 (a)

for lower bound curves 𝑰𝑰𝑰𝑰

(𝟏𝟏−𝒑𝒑)

𝑲𝑲𝑰𝑰𝑰𝑰 = 𝑲𝑲𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎 �𝟏𝟏 + 𝟎𝟎. 𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏𝑴𝑴𝒑𝒑 � Eq. C-3 (b)

for upper bound curves 𝑰𝑰𝑰𝑰

where,

𝑲𝑲𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎

𝑰𝑰𝑰𝑰 = 𝟑𝟑𝟑𝟑 + 𝟕𝟕𝟕𝟕 ⋅ 𝒆𝒆𝒆𝒆𝒆𝒆[𝟎𝟎. 𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎(𝑻𝑻 − 𝑻𝑻𝑲𝑲𝑲𝑲𝑲𝑲 )] Eq. C-3 (c)

As an example, a value for p of 0.05 will produce a 5% lower bound using eq. C-3a and a

95% upper bound using eq. C-3b. When using eq. C-3, the value of p shall not exceed 0.5

(0 < p < 0.5). There is no effect of component thickness, crack front length or product form

on eq. C-3.

The ductile crack initiation toughness curve at percentile p or (1-p) can be defined as follows:

𝒑𝒑

𝑱𝑱𝑰𝑰𝑰𝑰 = 𝑱𝑱𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎 − 𝝈𝝈𝚫𝚫𝑱𝑱𝑰𝑰𝑰𝑰 𝑴𝑴𝒑𝒑 Eq. C-4 (a)

for lower bound curves 𝑰𝑰𝑰𝑰

(𝟏𝟏−𝒑𝒑)

𝑱𝑱𝑰𝑰𝑰𝑰 = 𝑱𝑱𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎 + 𝝈𝝈𝚫𝚫𝑱𝑱𝑰𝑰𝑰𝑰 𝑴𝑴𝒑𝒑 Eq. C-4 (b)

for upper bound curves 𝑰𝑰𝑰𝑰

As an example, a value for p of 0.05 would produce a 5% lower bound using eq. C-4a and

a 95% upper bound using eq. C-4b. When using eq. C-4, the value of p shall not exceed

0.5 (0 < p < 0.5).

C-5

Draft CC N-830-1 (Version Used for Sample Problem 2)

𝑱𝑱𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎

𝑰𝑰𝑰𝑰 = 𝟏𝟏. 𝟕𝟕𝟕𝟕{𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏 ∙ 𝐞𝐞𝐞𝐞𝐞𝐞[−𝟎𝟎. 𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎(𝑻𝑻 + 𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐. 𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏)] − 𝟑𝟑. 𝟑𝟑𝟑𝟑𝟑𝟑} + 𝑱𝑱𝒄𝒄(𝑼𝑼𝑼𝑼) − 𝚫𝚫𝑱𝑱𝑰𝑰𝑰𝑰(𝑼𝑼𝑼𝑼) Eq. C-4 (c)

𝟏𝟏−𝝊𝝊𝟐𝟐

𝑱𝑱𝒄𝒄(𝑼𝑼𝑼𝑼) = {𝟑𝟑𝟑𝟑 + 𝟕𝟕𝟕𝟕 × 𝐞𝐞𝐞𝐞𝐞𝐞[𝟎𝟎. 𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎(𝟒𝟒𝟒𝟒. 𝟖𝟖𝟖𝟖𝟖𝟖 − 𝟎𝟎. 𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐𝑻𝑻𝒐𝒐 )]}𝟐𝟐 Eq. C-4 (d)

𝑬𝑬𝑼𝑼𝑼𝑼

𝚫𝚫𝑱𝑱𝑰𝑰𝑰𝑰(𝑼𝑼𝑼𝑼) = 𝟏𝟏. 𝟕𝟕𝟕𝟕{𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏 ∙ 𝐞𝐞𝐞𝐞𝐞𝐞[−𝟎𝟎. 𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎(𝑻𝑻𝑼𝑼𝑼𝑼 + 𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐. 𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏)] − 𝟑𝟑. 𝟑𝟑𝟑𝟑𝟑𝟑} Eq. C-4 (e)

{𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐−𝟕𝟕𝟕𝟕.𝟒𝟒𝑻𝑻𝑼𝑼𝑼𝑼 }

𝑬𝑬𝑼𝑼𝑼𝑼 = Eq. C-4 (f)

𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏

𝑱𝑱𝑰𝑰𝑰𝑰(𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐)

𝑷𝑷𝟏𝟏 = − 𝟎𝟎. 𝟒𝟒𝟒𝟒 Eq. C-4 (l)

𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏

𝑱𝑱𝑰𝑰𝑰𝑰(𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐)

𝑷𝑷𝟐𝟐 = + 𝟎𝟎. 𝟓𝟓𝟓𝟓 Eq. C-4 (m)

𝟖𝟖𝟖𝟖𝟖𝟖

The value JIc(288) in eqs. C-4l and C-4m is calculated using eq. C-4c and a value of 288°C for T.

There is no effect of component thickness or crack front length on eq. C-4.

The ductile crack extension toughness, which defines the value of J at a specified amount of

ductile crack extension at percentile p or (1-p), is as follows:

𝒑𝒑

𝑱𝑱𝑿𝑿 = 𝒆𝒆𝒆𝒆𝒆𝒆�𝒍𝒍𝒍𝒍[𝑱𝑱𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎 ] − 𝑴𝑴𝒑𝒑 × 𝑹𝑹𝑹𝑹𝑹𝑹𝑹𝑹� Eq. C-5 (a)

for lower bound curves 𝑿𝑿

(𝟏𝟏−𝒑𝒑)

= 𝒆𝒆𝒆𝒆𝒆𝒆�𝒍𝒍𝒍𝒍[𝑱𝑱𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎 ] + 𝑴𝑴𝒑𝒑 × 𝑹𝑹𝑹𝑹𝑹𝑹𝑹𝑹� Eq. C-5 (b)

for upper bound curves 𝑱𝑱𝑿𝑿 𝑿𝑿

As an example, a value for p of 0.05 would produce a 5% lower bound using eq. C-5a and a 95%

upper bound using eq. C-5b. The value of p used in eqs. C-5a and C-5b shall not exceed 0.5.

In eqs. C-5a and C-5b,

𝑱𝑱𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎

𝑿𝑿 = 𝑪𝑪 × 𝚫𝚫𝒂𝒂𝒏𝒏 Eq. C-5 (c)

𝑰𝑰𝑰𝑰 Eq. C-5 (d)

C-6

Draft CC N-830-1 (Version Used for Sample Problem 2)

Here X is used as a subscript for compactness; X signifies a particular amount of ductile crack

extension, or Δa. Values of J at a particular ductile crack extension, for example the value of J

at 2.54 mm (or, equivalently 0.1 in.), can be determined by using these equations. The entire J-R

curve can be produced by solving these equations for a range of ∆a values

The mean toughness, JIcmean is defined in -4300. Values of root mean square deviation (RMSD)

depends on product form as shown in Table C-2. There is no effect of component thickness or

crack front length on eq. C-5.

Table C-2

RMSD values for different product forms.

Linde 80 RPV Welds 0.180

* A default of 0.180 is assumed unless the user can justify a lower value.

As expressed in eq. C-6a, the value of ductile crack extension used in eq. C-5 must be between

0.5 and 10 mm.

𝟎𝟎. 𝟓𝟓𝐦𝐦𝐦𝐦 ≤ 𝚫𝚫𝒂𝒂 ≤ 𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏𝐦𝐦𝐦𝐦 Eq. C-6 (a)

As expressed in eq. C-6b, eq. C-2 for KJc may be used to temperatures as low as (T0 - 160°C).

𝐓𝐓 ≥ 𝑻𝑻𝟎𝟎 − 𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏 °𝐂𝐂 Eq. C-6 (b)

As expressed in eq. C-6c and eq. C-3 for KIa may be used to temperatures of (TKIa - 100°C).

𝐓𝐓 ≥ 𝑻𝑻𝑲𝑲𝑲𝑲𝑲𝑲 − 𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏 °𝐂𝐂 Eq. C-6 (c)

As expressed in eq. C-6d, eqs. C-4 and C-5 may be used to temperatures as high as +300°C

𝐓𝐓 < + 𝟑𝟑𝟑𝟑𝟑𝟑 °𝐂𝐂 Eq. C-6 (d)

The equations of this Code Case account for the interaction between brittle and ductile fracture

in RPV steels, i.e., when to transition from KJc and KIa to JIc, J-R, and Jx. As such these

equations can be used together, as illustrated in Figure C-1, to develop intermediate limits

C-7

Draft CC N-830-1 (Version Used for Sample Problem 2)

concerning the temperature at which analysis should transition from linear elastic fracture

mechanics (i.e., from using KJc and KIa) to elastic plastic fracture mechanics (i.e., using JIc, Jx,

and J-R).

Figure C-1

Illustration of Intermediate Temperature Limits when 5th Percentile Bounding Curves are

used

Table C-3 provides multiplying factors that can be used to convert toughness values from the SI

units to USC units.

Table C-3

Unit Conversion Coefficients

Multiply SI by this

Toughness Curve Symbols SI Units USC Units

factor to determine USC

MPa√m ksi√in 0.909

Cleavage Crack Arrest KIa

Ductile Crack Initiation JIc

kJ/m2 (in-lbs)/in2 5.713

Ductile Crack Extension Jx & J-R

-7000 Nomenclature

Tables C-4 and C-5 contains a list of symbols and definitions.

C-8

Draft CC N-830-1 (Version Used for Sample Problem 2)

Table C-4

Symbols

KJc MPa√m

crack initiation

Different Fracture

ductile crack initiation toughness measured according to

Toughness Metrics JIc kJ/m2

ASTM E1820

Jx kJ/m2

crack extension

J-R kJ/m2

extension

T0 °C

value of 100 MPa√m

TKIa °C

Temperatures value of 100 MPa√m

TUS °C

crosses the mean JIc upper shelf master curve

Parameters to

Define Statistical T-statistic multiplier for the lower bounding curves.

Mp dimensionless Standard normal distribution with a mean of zero and

Bounding Curve

standard deviation of 1.0

Used in the KIc or KJc

Kmin MPa√m 20 MPa√m

equations

Ko MPa√m value of KJc at the 63.2nd percentile

KIap MPa√m value of KIa at percentile p

equation

C-9

Draft CC N-830-1 (Version Used for Sample Problem 2)

Symbols

JXp kJ/m2 value of JX at percentile p

C kJ/m2

value of C in the equation J = C(Δa)n

slope of an exponential fit to the J-R curve. The value of

n dimensionless

n in the equation J = C(Δa)n

JIcmean kJ/m2 mean value of JIc

JX equations

ΔJIc(US) kJ/m2 value of ΔJIc at TUS

E GPa Young’s modulus

Table C-5

Definitions

Word Definition

C-10

The Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. (EPRI, www.epri.com)

conducts research and development relating to the generation, delivery

and use of electricity for the benefit of the public. An independent,

nonprofit organization, EPRI brings together its scientists and engineers

as well as experts from academia and industry to help address

challenges in electricity, including reliability, efficiency, affordability,

health, safety and the environment. EPRI members represent 90% of the

electric utility revenue in the United States with international participation

in 35 countries. EPRI’s principal offices and laboratories are located in

Palo Alto, Calif.; Charlotte, N.C.; Knoxville, Tenn.; and Lenox, Mass.

Program:

Pressurized Water Reactor Materials Reliability Program (MRP)

© 2017 Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), Inc. All rights reserved. Electric Power

Research Institute, EPRI, and TOGETHER...SHAPING THE FUTURE OF ELECTRICITY are

registered service marks of the Electric Power Research Institute, Inc.

3002010332

3420 Hillview Avenue, Palo Alto, California 94304-1338 • PO Box 10412, Palo Alto, California 94303-0813 USA

800.313.3774 • 650.855.2121 • askepri@epri.com • www.epri.com

- Hb 1011020Uploaded bySunil Kumar P G
- Failure Analysis 1Uploaded byRendra Maha Putra Jf
- Fracture ToughnessUploaded byaap1
- 2. API653-Pt1[1]Uploaded byGrave-da
- 54f629700cf27d8ed71d64e6Uploaded byE_Amr_Sorour
- CTODUploaded byHilmy Echsan
- IWSD 2012-M4_4 Design Against Brittle FractureUploaded byPourya Noury
- Natural FibersUploaded byHardik Gosar
- A New Engineering Method for Prediction of Fracture Toughness Temperature Dependence for RPV SteelsUploaded byOtso Cronvall
- Susceptibility to brittle fracture of flanges in ASTM A105Uploaded byPaul Jameson
- The Effect of Steel Fibres on the Enhancement of FlexuralUploaded byBan
- [HAY] 334_2Uploaded byTimmy Vo
- Fatigue FailureUploaded byRohit Muna
- Dynamic AnalysisUploaded byTashreeq Tahir
- Pages From Friction-Stir-Welding-And-Processing by Mishra and Mahoney by ASMUploaded bychintans_47
- Fracture Behavior and Fatigue Life of Friction Stir Welded AL-LI-CU AlloyUploaded byIRJET Journal
- Viii Paper 07Uploaded bymoonisq
- 1111Fracture ToughnessUploaded byPei-YuChen
- Salem 2005Uploaded byArun Kumar
- P367Uploaded by_Asylum_
- NED_1992Uploaded byjhon ortiz
- Mos Kovic 2004Uploaded byamd mhm
- art%3A10.1007%2FBF00258164Uploaded byBárbara de Oliveira
- 12_references.pdfUploaded byஅன்புடன் அஸ்வின்
- Development of Al-Cu-Mg-Li MnZrSc Alloys for Age-fUploaded byPhung Tuan Anh
- Materials CourseworkUploaded byDivester Smfnv
- 2 IJSS 03 239 FinalUploaded bykamal hameed tayy
- 4._Introduction_to_OCTG_Proprietary_Steel_Grades_in_Non_Corrosive_Environments.pdfUploaded byBeatriz Velásquez León
- 179-182Uploaded bySinhro018
- Phase field modelling of anisotropic crack propagationUploaded byheinsteinz

- Nulife-08-23 - Scc Pilot Study Ra-3Uploaded byOtso Cronvall
- Report_VTT-R-02200-10_FRAS-1-1-3_06May2010Uploaded byOtso Cronvall
- Report_VTT-R-08651-12Uploaded byOtso Cronvall
- Report_VTT-R-02199-10_FRAS-1-1-3_26Apr2010Uploaded byOtso Cronvall
- SMiRT20 Manuscript VTTORC Div II Paper 1797Uploaded byOtso Cronvall
- Cracking in Swedish BWR internals - Nuclear Engineering and Design 1990Uploaded byOtso Cronvall
- Design of Nuclear Reactors Neighbouring the Nordic Countries, 1994.pdfUploaded byOtso Cronvall
- NUREG-1903-Seismic Considerations for the Transition Break SizeUploaded byOtso Cronvall
- On Hawking’s Final Theory on the Big Bang -- PBS NewsHour May2018Uploaded byOtso Cronvall
- NULIFE-08-33 - Load History Effects on Crack Driving Force – Contribution to EG2-EG3 RPV Case Study - Dec2008Uploaded byOtso Cronvall
- NULIFE-07-23 - Identification of Priority R-et-D and Harmonisation AreasUploaded byOtso Cronvall
- NULIFE-08-32 - Improved Methods for Dealing With Combined Primary and 2ndary Stresses in Defect AssessmentsUploaded byOtso Cronvall
- NULIFE-07-21 - Guideline for the Development of High Quality SCC Growth DataUploaded byOtso Cronvall
- NUREG-0313_Rev-2_Material Selection and Processing for BWR PipingUploaded byOtso Cronvall
- Beyond RPV Design LifeUploaded byOtso Cronvall
- A New Engineering Method for Prediction of Fracture Toughness Temperature Dependence for RPV SteelsUploaded byOtso Cronvall
- Accurate Prediction of Residual Stress in Stainless Steel Welds--2012Uploaded byOtso Cronvall
- NUREG-CR-2815 - Probabilistic Safety Analysis Procedures GuideUploaded byOtso Cronvall
- NUREG-CR-5378 Aging Data Analysis and Risk Assessment EtcUploaded byOtso Cronvall
- NUREG-CR-4407--Pipe Break Frequency Estimation for Nuclear Power Plants- 1987Uploaded byOtso Cronvall
- NUREG-CR-5587 Approaches for Age-Dependent PSAs EtcUploaded byOtso Cronvall
- Nureg Cr 5632 Agingpra SmithUploaded byWilliam Ivans
- 3445605994528Uploaded bydudumuitoloco
- NUREG-1513 Integrated Safety Analysis Guidance DocumentUploaded byOtso Cronvall
- NUREG_SR_1482 REVISION 1 GUIDELINES FOR IST.pdfUploaded bySRVfiv
- Ml 041040063Uploaded byNathan Block
- NUREG Sensitivity and Uncertainty Analyses in Aging Risk-based PrioritizationsUploaded byOtso Cronvall
- Nureg-0619 Bwr Feedwater Nozzle and Control Rod Drive Return Line Nozzle CrackingUploaded byOtso Cronvall

- Factor de FormaUploaded byNeto Ramírez
- Newton's Second Law - RevisitedUploaded byJonathan Majaw
- Overview of factors contributing to steel spring performance and failureUploaded bymp87_ing
- AbsorptionUploaded byShwu Huey
- Pengantar Polimer Koordinasi PoncoUploaded byas.musa.ce053815
- Gripping Effects in Composite Fatigue TestingUploaded byCan Kutay Tuç
- AMM.862.326Uploaded bySuntoyo Saja
- Complex SoundUploaded byေမာင္ ပညာ
- Steel Ch 5, Connections, 2010Uploaded byChris Findlay
- Bearing-and-their-types.pdfUploaded byOsaid Haq
- EASA Part-66 Exam Questions of Module 03 Electric - Part IUploaded bySteven J. Selcuk
- NIT KKR Sllyabus_revisedUploaded byamanpreet_ahuja
- Engineering Design Guideline- Furnace Rev02 WebUploaded byMarco Bertoldi
- AISC RequirementsUploaded byparag7676
- Circular MotionUploaded byPhan Ning
- Phase2 VerificationUploaded byFlor Maria De La Cruz Canchari
- Jet_engine DGCA QuestionsUploaded bystuartb4u
- C1583C1583M-13 Standard Test Method for Tensile Strength of Concrete Surfaces and the Bond Strength or Tensile Strength of Concrete Repair and Overlay Materials by Direct Tension (Pull-Off Method)Uploaded byKali Prasad
- Earthquake - Hawke's Bay Emergency Management GroupUploaded byVarun Shukla
- plasma3.pdfUploaded byMaan Lakra
- 120161591 Livro Problems in General Physics Por Wolkenstein MIR PublishersUploaded bybigbr185
- DUCT-SOX Manual Ingenieria y DiseñoUploaded byJeferson Binay-an
- Air Cooled Condenser Report NewUploaded byganesh
- <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2 Final//EN"> <html> <head> <style> a:link {font:8pt/11pt verdana; color:red} a:visited {font:8pt/11pt verdana; color:#4e4e4e} </style> <meta HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" Content="text-html; charset=Windows-1252"> <title>Cannot find server</title> </head> <body bgcolor="white"> <table width="400" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="5"> <tr> <td id="tableProps2" align="left" valign="middle" width="360"><h1 id="textSection1" style="COLOR: black; FONT: 13pt/15pt verdana"><span id="errorText">The page cannot be displayed</span></h1> </td> </tr> <tr> <td id="tablePropsWidth" width="400" colspan="2"><font style="COLOR: black; FONT: 8pt/11pt verdana">The page you are looking for is currently unavailable. The Web site might be experiencing technical difficulties, or you may need to adjust your browser settings.</font></td> </tr> <tr> <td id="tablePropsWidth" width="400" colspan="2"><fontUploaded byfdoppel
- Vaillant Split SustavUploaded byDanijel
- Dasar Teori Gravitasi BumiUploaded bysingonegaran
- Ku Rs ProgramUploaded bysqaiba_g
- Material Science - Steel BookletUploaded bymaxcois
- Mos Ii_tutorial Sheet Week 5Uploaded byHarikumar Andem
- A quiz on carrier generation mechanisms in semiconductorsUploaded byMustafa Lokhandwala