Nuclear Engineering and Design 272 (2014) 84–91

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Nuclear Engineering and Design

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/nucengdes

Structural integrity assessment of the reactor pressure vessel under

the pressurized thermal shock loading
Mingya Chen ∗ , Feng Lu, Rongshan Wang, Ai Ren
Suzhou Nuclear Power Research Institute, 215004 Suzhou, Jiangsu Province, PR China

h i g h l i g h t s

• The regulation and the code are proved to be conservative in the integrity assessment.
• This study is helpful to understand the complex influence of the parameters.
• The most dangerous case is given for the reference transient.

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Fracture mechanics analysis of pressurized thermal shock (PTS) is the key element of the integrity eval-
Received 30 November 2013 uation of the nuclear reactor pressure vessel (RPV). While the regulation of 10 CFR 50.61 and the ASME
Received in revised form 13 January 2014 Code provide the guidance for the structural integrity, the guidance has been prepared under conser-
Accepted 28 January 2014
vative assumptions. In this paper, the effects of conservative assumptions involved in the PTS analysis
were investigated. The influence of different parameters, such as crack size, cladding effect and neutron
fluence, were reviewed based on 3-D finite element analyses. Also, the sensitivity study of elastic–plastic
approach, crack type and cladding thickness were reviewed. It was shown that crack depth, crack type,
plastic effect and cladding thickness change the safety margin (SM) significantly, and the SM at the deep-
est point of the crack is not always smaller than that of the surface point, indicating that both the deepest
and surface points of the crack front should be considered. For the reference transient, deeper cracks
always give more conservative prediction. So compared to the prescribed analyses of a set of postulated
defects with varying depths in the ASME code, it only needs to assess the crack with maximum depth in
the code for the reference transient according to the conclusions.
© 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
The dominant type of damage in the reactor pressure vessel
(RPV) is embrittlement under neutron irradiation, especially in the
beltline area (Coste, 2012). During operation of a nuclear power
plant (NPP), certain accidents could initiate the emergency cool-
ing system (pressure and temperature transients) leading to rapid
cool-down of the RPV wall, so-called pressurized thermal shocks
(PTS), which may induce significant stresses in the RPV material.
If an embrittled RPV were to have a flaw of critical size, the flaw
could propagate very rapidly through the vessel during the PTS
transient. Thus, the PTS event poses a potentially significant chal-
lenge to the structural integrity of the RPV (Qian, 2008; Moinereau,
2001; Martina and Johannes, 2012).
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +86 051268701169; fax: +86 051268602518.
E-mail addresses: p134362@163.com.cn, chenmingya@cgnpc.com.cn (M. Chen).
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) sets the PTS rule
in 10 CFR 50.61 (U.S. NRC, 1984), and the ASME Code Sec. XI App. E
(ASME, 2010a) provides acceptance criteria and guidance for per-
forming an engineering evaluation of PTS effects on the structural
integrity of the RPV beltline region. However, the regulation and
code are prepared upon several overly conservative assumptions
in terms of neutron fluence, crack type, etc. and need to assess a
set of postulated defects with varying depths due to the lack of
the most dangerous crack in the code. Neutron fluence at the clad-
base metal interface is used to calculate the reference temperature
RTNDT according to 10 CFR 50.61, and this requirement has been
prepared under the conservative assumption (fluence at the crack
tip in the base metal is less than that of the interface point). In
the ASME code, the surface crack is postulated. While it is known
that no flaws in base metal extended up to the inner surface were
found in real cladding RPVs (Lee, 2002; Hohe, 2010). The maximum
depth of the postulated crack is also a very important parameter,
and the depth of the maximum crack specified in the ASME code

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.nucengdes.2014.01.021
0029-5493/© 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
 M. Chen et al. / Nuclear Engineering and Design 272 (2014) 84–91
Fig. 1. The critical time of the PTS transient.
Sec. XI App. E is 25.4 mm. The stress intensity factor (SIF) values
increase in the most cases with increasing crack depth, but at the
same time the temperature and fracture toughness at the deepest
point of the crack also increase with increasing crack depth during
the cool-down process. The influence of the several parameters is
not a priori clear. Moreover, if the distribution of neutron fluence
is taken into account, the deeper point may not be so dangerous as
points more close to the inner surface. Due to this fact, the ASME
code prescribes analyzing a set of postulated defects with varying
depths.
The comprehensive analyses should consider all parameters,
including crack size, cladding effect, neutron fluence, and temper-
ature distribution in order to find the most limiting conditions for
the PTS transient. The effect of the parameters can be reflected by
the safety margin (SM) parameter, and the challenge is to provide
the safety studies showing the SM under different conditions. In
this paper, the analysis of the parameters is shown, and a more
precise safety assessment based on finite element analyses is given
for a reference transient.
2. Methodology
The study concerns the assessment of component resistance
against brittle fracture for PTS events. This assessment is based on
the SIF KI evaluation for a postulated crack and comparison with
the material toughness KIC . The crack initiation criterion is based
on:
KI < KIC
Because the maximum of KI does not in general intersect with
the KIC -curve, curves such as in Fig. 1 should be prepared for the
whole transient to establish the most dangerous time according to
the tangent criteria (Jang, 2003; Pugh, 2007).
2.1. Fracture initiation toughness
The fracture initiation toughness KIC is based on the lower bound
of static toughness test results. In the ASME CodeSec. XI, KIC is
0.036(T −RTNDT )
KIC = 22.783e + 36.5
KIC ≤ 240 (2b)
√ ◦
where KIC is expressed in MPa m, T ( C) is material temperature,
and RTNDT (◦ C) is the reference transition temperature.The material
is likely embrittled, and the degree of embrittlement is quantified
85
Fig. 2. The inner surface crack model.
by the change in RTNDT . In 10 CFR 50.61, the analytic expression of
the RTNDT is as follows:
RTNDT = RTNDT (U) + M + RTNDT (3)
where RTNDT(U) means the reference temperature for a reactor ves-
sel material in the pre-service condition, evaluated according to the
procedure in the ASME Code, Paragraph NB-2331 (ASME, 2010b)
or other approved methods. M means the margin to be added to
account for uncertainties in the values of RTNDT(U) . RTNDT is the
mean change in RTNDT , and can be calculated using Eq. (4).
(0.28−0.10 log fsurf )
RTNDT = CF · fsurf (4)
where CF(◦ F) is the chemistry factor, and fsurf is the best estimate
neutron fluence, in units of 1019 n/cm2 (E greater than 1 MeV), at
the clad-base metal interface. As fluence at the crack tip in the base
metal is less than that of the interface point, it has been calculated
under the conservative assumption. The methodology to calculate
the neutron fluence at arbitrary depths of the reactor vessel wall is
contained in Regulatory Guide 1.99 Rev. 2 (U.S. NRC, 1988). And, it
should be noted that the adjusted reference temperature (ART) in
Regulatory Guide 1.99 Rev. 2 is equivalent to the reference transi-
tion temperature in 10 CFR 50.61 for the KIC equation. The neutron
fluence f at the depth in the vessel wall is determined as follows in
Regulatory Guide 1.99 Rev. 2:
f = fsurf · e−0.24x (5)
where x (in inches) is the depth into the vessel wall measured from
the clad-base metal interface (wetted surface).
2.2. Crack tip SIF
The parameter used to characterize the loading condition at the
postulated flaw is the SIF, denoted by KI for elastic analysis or KJ
(1) when derived from elastic–plastic evaluation of the J integral. In
many cases, a liner elastic fracture mechanics is sufficient consid-
ering the simplification. However for the conditions characterized
by significant plasticity, elastic–plastic fracture mechanics based
on the J-integral should be used.
To calculate the SIF KI or KJ , direct finite element analysis of
cracks allows accurate analysis of the SIF considering a range of
factors, such as defect profile, material condition and loading tran-
sient.
3. Analysis model
(2a) An RPV was chosen for modeling. As shown in Fig. 2, the inner
radius Ri is 1994 mm, the thickness of the base metal t is 200 mm,
and the thickness of cladding tcladding is 7.5 mm, respectively. The
inner side of a RPV is assumed to be subjected to thermal shocks,
and the thermal load is assumed to be rotationally symmetric and
homogeneous along the Z-axis in the analysis. The beltline region
86 M. Chen et al. / Nuclear Engineering and Design 272 (2014) 84–91

300
18

250
15 pressure

Fluid temperature [ C]
fluid temperature
200

Pressure [MPa]
12

9 150

6 100

O
3 50

0 0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000
Transient time [s]

Fig. 4. Pressure and temperature histories.

Fig. 3. Three-dimensional mesh of the vessel containing a surface crack (the crack Niffenegger and Reichlin, 2012). Temperature dependent material
depth a = 20 mm). properties used in the analyses are summarized in Tables 1 and 2
(IAEA, 2010).
of RPV is sufficiently far away from the nozzle area to be treated as
axisymmetric cylindrical shell. 4.2. Reference transient information
An axial crack with different depths up to one quarter of the
vessel wall is assumed according to different standards. In gen- The reference transient was selected from the PTS transients
eral, most of the cracks found in beltline region are shallow cracks used in the IAEA report (IAEA, 2010). During the transient, the pres-
ranging from 10 to 15 mm deep (Dickson, 2000; Nanstadt, 1993; sure load is suddenly increased at 7200 s, so it is assumed to be the
Marshall, 1982), and the maximum depth of the postulated crack critical phase of the transient.
specified in the ASME code Sec. XI App. E is 25.4 mm. Therefore, five For the thermal analysis, heat flow through the inner surface
different cracks of a/t = 0.05, 0.10, 0.15, 0.20 and 0.25 were modeled of the vessel is determined from the fluid temperature and heat
with fixed crack aspect ratio of a/c = 1/3 to investigate the effect of transfer coefficient, and there is no heat flow at the outer surface of
crack depth on the SM. All cracks were placed on the inner surface the vessel. The model is assumed to be at a uniform initial temper-
of wall considering the high tensile stress during the PTS transient. ature. The pressure and fluid temperature in the downcomer are
One of the surface crack models is illustrated in Fig. 2. The pressure presented in Fig. 4, and the heat transfer coefficient at the inner
load on the crack surface should be considered for the through-clad surface of the vessel is shown in Table 3.
defect.
In order to evaluate the SIF, elastic and elastic–plastic FEA 5. Results and discussion
were carried out using the general-purpose finite element program
ABAQUS, Version 6.12. Fig. 3 shows an example of the finite ele- 5.1. Validity of FEA
ment model, and only one quarter of the beltline was modeled
considering symmetric conditions. The 20-node hexahedron ele- Fig. 5 shows the comparison of the SIF of the surface crack
ment is used, and the number of elements in the finite element between the reference data (IAEA, 2010) and the result obtained
model is 20,750. The stress field around the crack is characterized by the elastic analysis using the current finite element model.
by a stress singularity at the crack tip (Anderson, 2005). The effect of The analyses were carried out under the condition of a/t = 0.06,
√
singularity is approximately proportional to 1/ r for elastic mate-
rials, where r is the distance from the crack front. So the mid-point
nodes of the finite element around the crack tip line were changed
to the one-quarter point for the elastic analyses. The crack tip is
modeled with a focused wedge-type element with 9 half-circular
contours, as shown in Fig. 3. J-integral is computed based on the
domain integral using the 9 contours around the crack tip line. It is
observed that the last 7 contours give almost path independent val-
ues of J-integral. Thus, the average value of J is calculated by using
the results from the outer 7 contours. The minimum element size
ahead of the crack tip is about 40 ␮m, whereas 30 ␮m for precise
analysis, respectively. Almost identical SIF shows the well result
was obtained with the current mesh size.

4. Material properties and the reference transient

4.1. Material property

The RPV was modeled with SA508 Class 3 steel and the cladding
was made of austenitic stainless steel, respectively (Tanguy, 2005; Fig. 5. Comparison of the FEA results.
 M. Chen et al. / Nuclear Engineering and Design 272 (2014) 84–91 87

Table 1
Material properties of the base metal and cladding.

Material Temperature Young modulus/E Poisson’s Thermal conductivity Thermal diffusivity, Density Coefficient of thermal Yield stress
(◦ C) (GPa) ration/ (W/(m ◦ C))  = /C (10−6 m2 /s) (103 kg/m3 ) expansion (10−6 /◦ C) (MPa)

Base metal 20 204 54.6 14.7 10.9 588

0.3 7.6
300 185 45.8 10.6 12.9 517
Cladding 20 197 14.7 4.1 16.4 380
0.3 7.6
metal 300 176.5 18.6 4.3 17.7 270

Table 2
Stress–strain curves of the base metal and cladding.

Total strain ε 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09
◦
Stress/yield stress for 20 C 1.02 1.11 1.19 1.25 1.29 1.33 1.36 1.38 1.40
base metal 300 ◦ C 1.11 1.21 1.28 1.33 1.37 1.41 1.43 1.45 1.47
Stress/yield stress for 20 ◦ C 1.06 1.10 1.13 1.16 1.19 1.22 1.25 1.27 1.30
cladding 300 ◦ C 1.07 1.11 1.14 1.17 1.20 1.23 1.26 1.29 1.31

Table 3
Heat transfer coefficient at the inner surface.

Temperature (◦ C) 37 48 49 59 69 96 106 115 152

Heat exchange coefficient (W/(m2 ◦ C)) 992 877 790 1147 602 710 1229 1057 1838
Temperature (◦ C) 206 251 261 268 276 279 287 295
Heat exchange coefficient (W/(m2 ◦ C)) 1581 4834 1757 6232 3453 1054 24,696 24,125

a/c = 1/3, and the same thermal-mechanical load. The agreement
of the results implies that the finite element model used in this
study is valid for precise analysis.
5.2. Structural integrity assessment
5.2.1. Stress intensity factor
The temperature distribution through the vessel wall at 7200 s
(the critical repressure time) into the transient is shown in Fig. 6.
Due to the reduced thermal conductivity of the cladding material,
the temperature gradient is steeper in the cladding than in the base
material. In order to evaluate the SM, the distribution of the temper-
ature in the base metal can be fitted by a polynomial with variable
x, in the following form:

4
T (x) = Ti xi
i=0
where x is the distance from the crack tip to the interface, 0 ≤ x ≤ a
(as shown in Fig. 2), and a is the crack depth. Ti is the coefficient
from Eq. (6) that represents the temperature distribution over the
crack depth.
The hoop stress profile through the vessel wall at 7200 s is also
shown in Fig. 6. The discontinuity of the stress in the clad-base
metal interface is due to the different properties of the materials.
The higher thermal expansion coefficient and the lower thermal
conductivity of the cladding are responsible for the increased stress
in the cladding zone (reaching the yield stress).
The SIF history at the deepest point of the crack (x = a in Fig. 2) is
shown in Fig. 7. The largest SIFs are always obtained at the critical
repressure time, and deeper cracks give more conservative predic-
tions of the SIF values.
The time at repressurization is the most critical phase. In addi-
tion to the analysis for the deepest point of the crack, the SIF along
the crack front was also analyzed at the critical time. Fig. 8 shows
the SIF distributions around the crack tip at the most critical time
for the various cracks. In the region near the clad-base interface
where the effect of cladding stress is dominant, the SIF decreases
(6)
obviously with the increase of x, and the dominant distance of the
cladding stress is about 1/6 crack depth. Out of the dominant region,
KI is relatively constant along the crack front (increases slightly with
increasing x).

500
100
450
95
400

90
temperature
Hoop stress [MPa]

350
Temperature [ C]
O

85 hoop stress 300

80 250

75 200

70 150

65 100

0 50 100 150 200

Distance from the interface [mm]

Fig. 6. Variation of temperature and hoop stress through the wall. Fig. 7. The SIF history at the deepest points of the crack.
88 M. Chen et al. / Nuclear Engineering and Design 272 (2014) 84–91

Fig. 9. KIC along the thickness of the base metal.

Fig. 8. SIF vs. x/a along the crack tip at the critical time.

separately at 90 ◦ C, 80 ◦ C and 70 ◦ C. And, the fracture toughness

It should be noted that the SIF at the surface point is always
higher than that at the deepest point except for the most shal-
low crack (a/t = 0.05). The reason is that the stress field near the
clad-base metal interface is influenced by the high stresses in the
cladding metal. This implies that cracks may initiate firstly either
at the surface point or at the deepest point. Thus, attention should
be paid to both the surface and the deepest points of a crack front
in the integrity analysis.
As summarized in Table 4, the SIF values increase dramatically
with the crack depth increment for the interface points, while the
SIFs increase slightly with increasing depth for the deepest points.
In order to evaluate the SM, the distribution of the SIFs can be
fitted by a polynomial with variable x, in the following form:

4
K(x) = Ki xi
i=0
where x is the distance from the crack tip to the interface, 0 ≤ x ≤ a,
and Ki is the coefficient from Eq. (7) that represents the hoop stress
distribution over the crack depth.
5.2.2. Fracture initiation toughness
The chemical composition of Cu and Ni are the critical elements
for the irradiation embrittlement (Margolin, 2003). In this paper,
the mean weight-percent measured values of Cu and Ni for the
base metal are 0.06% and 0.85% separately, and the initial RTNDT is
set as −12.22 ◦ C (−10 ◦ F). At the end of life, the maximum neutron
fluence at the wetted surface is 8.9×1019 n/cm2 (E > 1 MeV). The
initial RTNDT is a generic value, and the surveillance data is not used,
so the margin to be added to the initial RTNDT is 8.94 ◦ C (48.1 ◦ F)
according to 10 CFR 50.61.
When the distribution of neutron fluence is taken into account,
RTNDT along the thickness of the base metal wall is calculated
according to Regulatory Guide 1.99 Rev. 2. And KIC along the thick-
increases 2.12%, 1.99% and 1.79% respectively by increasing the
distance from 0 to 25 mm at these three different temperatures.
5.2.3. Safety margin
This safety assessment is based on a comparison between the
material toughness KIC and the SIF KI . The SM is denoted by:
KIC
SM = (8)
KI
The SM along the different crack tips is shown in Fig. 10 at the
critical time. The SIF values increase with the increase of crack
depth, but at the same time the temperature and fracture toughness
of the material at the deepest point of the crack also increase with
increasing crack depth during the cool-down process. Moreover,
(7) the fluence at the deepest point is less than that of the points more
close to the interface. Due to this fact, the SM at the deepest point
of the different cracks is relatively constant. If the stress intensity
is evaluated at the interface, deeper cracks always give more con-
servative predictions of SIF values, so the SM values of the interface
point decrease with the increase of crack depth.
When the crack depth is increased, the assessment of the deep-
est point gives less conservative, and points closer to the cladding
interface becomes more critical. As shown in Fig. 10, it should be
3.6
a/t=0.05
a/t=0.10
3.2
a/t=0.15
a/t=0.20
2.8
a/t=0.25
2.4
SM

ness of the base metal wall is shown in Fig. 9 according to the ASME
code. By increasing the distance x (as shown in Fig. 2) from 0 to 2.0

50 mm, the fracture toughness increases 4.70%, 4.37% and 3.96%

1.6
Table 4
The SIF values increased with the crack depth increment.
1.2
a/t Increment compared to 0.05 (%)
0 20 40 60 80 100
0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25
x/a (%)
Deepest points 6.30 17.03 28.12 43.52
Surface points 30.28 48.30 70.83 109.79
Fig. 10. SM along the crack tip at the critical time.
 M. Chen et al. / Nuclear Engineering and Design 272 (2014) 84–91 89

Fig. 13. The sub-clad crack model.

Fig. 11. SIF vs. x/a along the crack tip for the elastic–plastic analysis.

noted that the SM at the surface point is always smaller than that for the interface points, and also for the deepest point of the most
at the deepest point except for the most shallow crack (a/t = 0.05). shallow crack as shown in Fig. 11. But out of the region where the
effect of cladding stress is dominant, KJ tends to be smaller than KI .
Since it is not a priori clear whether linear elastic or elastic–plastic
5.3. Sensitivity study
calculation of KI are more conservative, both material descriptions
were applied as shown in Fig. 11.
5.3.1. Effects of plasticity
The SM of the elastic–plastic analysis along the crack tip is
For conditions characterized by significant plasticity,
shown in Fig. 12. The SM is decreased in the interface region when
elastic–plastic fracture mechanics based in the J-integral should
the plasticity is incorporated and shallower cracks show more
be used. The SIF was obtained by converting the J-integral, and the
reduction. Out of the interface region, the SM shows less difference
relation between J-integral and SIF KJ for plane–strain conditions
between the elastic–plastic analysis and elastic analysis.
is given by:

JE 5.3.2. Effects of crack type
KJ = (9) In the ASME code, the surface crack is postulated. While it is
1 − 2
known that no flaws in base metal extended up to the inner surface
where E is the elastic modulus (MPa), and  is Poisson’s ratio. of the RPV are found in real cladding RPVs. The surface crack is
The SIF at the critical time is shown in Fig. 11. As the previous more conservative than the sub-clad one. One of the sub-clad crack
analysis, the stress in the cladding region is higher than the yield models in the beltline of the RPV is showed in Fig. 13.
stress, the stress within the cladding would be limited when the The SIFs of the sub-clad crack are presented in Fig. 14. The
plasticity is incorporated, and the stress in the base metal near the sub-clad defects exhibit much smaller SIF values than the surface
interface region would increase slightly to compensate the low- breaking defects display. In the SIF for the sub-clad crack is 50% less
ered stress in the cladding zone. So the KJ values are bigger than KI than for the surface breaking crack. In addition, as the stress in the
base metal near the interface region increases slightly to compen-
sate the lowered stress in the cladding zone for the elastic–plastic
a/t=0.05 K I approach, an elastic analysis of the sub-clad defect is not
3.2 a/t=0.05 K J conservative.
3.0 a/t=0.15 K I
2.8 a/t=0.15 K J
2.6 a/t=0.25 K I
2.4 a/t=0.25 K J
2.2
SM

2.0

1.8

1.6

1.4

1.2

1.0
0 20 40 60 80 100
x/a [%]

Fig. 12. SM for the elastic–plastic analyses.

Fig. 14. SIF vs. x/a along the crack tip for the sub-clad cracks.
90 M. Chen et al. / Nuclear Engineering and Design 272 (2014) 84–91

100
clad thickness=6mm 5.3.3. Effects of cladding thickness
To consider the effects of cladding thickness, the cladding thick-
95
clad thickness=7.5mm
ness to base metal thickness ratio (tclad /t) of 0.0375 was reduced
20%. Figs. 15 and 16 show the temperature and applied SIFs KI
90
along the surface crack front at the critical time. As shown in
the figures, both the temperature and SIFs decrease slightly with
Temperature [ C]

85
the decrease of the cladding thickness. Lower applied SIF with
O

80 decreased cladding thickness could be attributed to the reduction

of the region subjected to the high cladding stress. Because both
75 the temperature and the applied SIFs decrease with the decrease of
cladding thickness, it is not clear what would have more influence
70 on the SM.
The influence of cladding thickness on the SM is shown in Fig. 17.
65
For this study, the SM increases with the decrease of the cladding
thickness, and the influence decreases with increasing crack depth.
60
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210
Distance from the inner sfurface [mm] 6. Conclusions

Fig. 15. Temperature distributions through the vessel wall.

The comprehensive consideration of crack size, neutron fluence,
temperature distribution and cladding effect makes the structure
integrity assessment of the PTS transient complicated. In the paper,
the influence of the size and type of postulated cracks in the RPV,
cladding thickness as well as the role of different description of the
materials behavior (linear elastic or elastic–plastic) on the SM con-
cerning crack initiation is studied by 3-D finite element analyses.
Based on the study, the following conclusions can be made:

1. It is conservative to calculate the reference temperature using

the neutron fluence at the cladding and base metal interface
according to 10 CFR 50.61, and the fracture toughness at arbi-
trary depths of the reactor vessel can be increased slightly with
the methodology in Regulatory Guide 1.99 Rev. 2.
2. For the transient studied, the stress field near the clad-base metal
interface is influenced by the high stress in the cladding metal.
So both the deepest and surface points of the crack front should
be considered, and compared to the prescribed analyses of a set
of postulated defects in the ASME code, it only needs to assess
the crack with maximum depth.
3. For the transient studied, the SM values decrease dramatically
with the increase of the surface crack depth for the interface
Fig. 16. SIF vs. x/a along the crack tip depending on the cladding thickness. point, while the SM values decrease slightly for the deepest point.
4. For the transient studied, both elastic and elastic–plastic analy-
ses are needed.
5. For the transient studied, in the SIF for the sub-clad crack is 50%
less than for the surface breaking crack. That is, the surface crack
3.5 a/t=0.05,tclad/t=0.0375 postulated in the ASME code is proved to be too conservative.
6. For the transient studied, both the temperature and the applied
a/t=0.05,tclad/t=0.03
SIFs decrease with the decrease of cladding thickness, and the
a/t=0.15,tclad/t=0.0375 SM increases with the decrease of cladding thickness.
3.0
a/t=0.15,tclad/t=0.03 7. A general conclusion can be further received by including a wide
range of transients.
2.5

Acknowledgements
SM

2.0 The project is supported by National High Technology Research

and Development Program of China (863 program) under Grant
a/t=0.25,tclad/t=0.0375 No. 2012AA050901, and the National Natural Science Foundation
1.5
a/t=0.25,tclad/t=0.03 of China (No. 51275338). The financial supports are greatly appre-
ciated.

1.0
0 20 40 60 80 100 References
x/a [%]
Anderson, T.L., 2005. Fracture Mechanics – Fundamentals and Applications, 3rd ed.
ASME, 2010a. ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section XI, Rules for Inservice
Fig. 17. Influence of the cladding thickness on the SM. Inspection of Nuclear Power Plant Components, New York.
 M. Chen et al. / Nuclear Engineering and Design 272 (2014) 84–91
ASME, 2010b. ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section III, Rules for Construc-
tion of Nuclear Facility Components, New York.
Coste, P., et al., 2012. Validation of the large interface method of NEPTUNE CFD 1.0.8
for pressurized thermal shock (PTS) applications. Nucl. Eng. Des. 253, 296–310.
Dickson, T.L., et al., 2000. Validation of a linear-elastic fracture methodology for
postulated flaws embedded in the wall of a nuclear reactor pressure vessel. In:
Proceedings of ASME Pressure Vessel and Pipings, PVP, vol. 403.
Hohe, J., et al., 2010. Behaviour of sub-clad and through-clad cracks under
consideration of the residual stress field. Eng. Fract. Mech. 77, 217–
228.
International Atomic Energy Agency, 2010. Pressurized Thermal Shock in Nuclear
Power Plants: Good Practices for Assessments. IAEA, Austria, IAEA-TECDOC-
1627.
Jang, C., et al., 2003. The effects of stainless steel cladding in the pressurized thermal
shock evaluation. Nucl. Eng. Des. 226, 127–140.
Taek-Jin Lee, et al., 2002. A parametric study on pressure temperature limit curve
using 3D finite element analyses. Nucl. Eng. Des. 214, 73–81.
Margolin, B.Z., et al., 2003. A new engineering method for prediction of the fracture
toughness temperature dependence for RPV steels. Int. J. Press. Vessels Pip. 80,
817–829.
Marshall, W., 1982. An Assessment of the Integrity of PWR Pressure Vessels. Sec-
ond Report by a Study Group under the Chairmanship of Dr W. Marshall,
UKAEA.
91
Scheuerer, M., Weis, J., 2012. Transient computational fluid dynamics analysis of
emergency core cooling injection at natural circulation conditions. Nucl. Eng.
Des. 253, 343–350.
Moinereau, D., et al., 2001. Methodology for the pressurized thermal shock evalua-
tion: recent improvements in French RPV PTS assessment. Int. J. Press. Vessels
Pip. 78, 69–83.
Nanstadt, R.K., et al., 1993. Preliminary Review of the Bases for the KIC Curve in the
ASME Code, ORNL/NRC/LTR/93-15.
Niffenegger, M., Reichlin, K., 2012. The proper use of thermal expansion coefficients
in finite element calculations. Nucl. Eng. Des. 243, 356–359.
Pugh, C.E., et al., 2007. Role of probabilistic analysis in integrity assessment of reactor
pressure vessels exposed to pressurized thermal-shock conditions. Eng. Fail.
Anal. 14, 501–517.
Qian, X., et al., 2008. Cleavage fracture modeling of pressure vessels under transient
thermo-mechanical loading. Eng. Fract. Mech. 75, 4167–4189.
Tanguy, B., et al., 2005. Ductile to brittle transition of an A508 steel characterized by
Charpy impact test. Eng. Fract. Mech. 72, 49–72.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 1984. 10 CFR 50.61, Fracture Toughness
Requirements for Protection Against Pressurized Thermal Shock Events.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 1988. Regulatory Guide, No. 1.99, Revision 2,
Radiation Embrittlement of Reactor Vessel Materials.