Proceedings of the ASME 2017 Pressure Vessels and Piping Conference
PVP2017
CRACK GROWTH EVALUATION OF REMNANT CRACKS UNDERNEATH AN EXCAVATE AND
WELD REPAIR
Francis H. Ku
Structural Integrity Associates, Inc.
San Jose, California, USA
ABSTRACT
This paper presents a finite element analysis (FEA) based
approach to perform crack growth evaluation of remnant cracks
in a mockup with a partial arc excavate and weld repair (EWR).
The partial arc EWR is a mitigation option to address stress
corrosion cracking (SCC) in nuclear power plant piping systems.
The mockup is a dissimilar metal weld (DMW) consisting of an
SA-508 Class 3 low alloy steel forging buttered with Alloy 182
welded to a Type 316L stainless steel plate with Alloy 82/182
weld metal. This material configuration represents a typical
DMW of original construction in a pressurized water reactor
(PWR). To create a representative partial arc EWR application,
the outer half of the DMW is excavated and repaired with Alloy
52M weld metal. The crack growth evaluation process
presented herein represents an advanced method to evaluate the
Alloy 82/182 remnant crack growth as required by ASME Code
Case N-847 for implementing a partial arc EWR, which is
currently being considered via letter ballot at ASME BPV
Standards Committee XI. After the repair, any crack that
remains in the Alloy 82/182 remnant and underneath the EWR
needs to be evaluated for stress corrosion cracking (SCC) to
assess its potential to grow beyond the EWR coverage area.
Conventional fracture mechanics approach may not be suitable
to evaluate such a remnant crack because of its close proximity
to multiple materials of different mechanical properties and
unconventional crack shape. In the crack growth evaluation, a
crack that is reminiscent of a circumferential crack in a pipe, and
a crack that is reminiscent of a laminar crack in a pipe are
evaluated to predict the time for each of them to grow beyond
the partial arc EWR coverage arc length. It is expected that the
approach, analysis steps, calculation procedures presented in this
paper will be applicable to analyzing a pipe geometry using
realistic residual stresses and operating stresses for an EWR.
1 Copyright © 2017 ASME
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/04/2018 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
July 16-20, 2017, Waikoloa, Hawaii, USA
PVP2017-66173
Steven L. McCracken
Electric Power Research Institute
Charlotte, North Carolina, USA
INTRODUCTION
Excavate and weld repair (EWR) is an alternative to weld
overlay (WOL) or mechanical stress improvement process
(MSIP) for Class 1 piping and components susceptible to stress
corrosion cracking (SCC) in dissimilar metal welds (DMWs),
where cost and access restrictions can make WOL and MSIP
prohibitive. The EWR method excavates a portion of the outer
thickness of the original SCC susceptible butt weld material,
typically Alloy 82 or 182, and replaces the removed material
with SCC resistant weld metal, typically Alloy 52M.
Code Case N-847, Partial Excavation and Deposition of
Weld Metal for Mitigation of Class 1 Items [1], was developed to
provide rules and requirements for the EWR mitigation
methodology. A description of the EWR mitigation approach
and methodology are provided in EPRI report [2] and paper
PVP2016-63769 [3].
To support Code Case N-847, the EPRI Welding and Repair
Technology Center (WRTC) fabricated two partial arc EWR
mockups. One purpose of fabricating the two mockups was to
demonstrate feasibility of the partial arc EWR from a weldability
perspective. A second purpose was to measure weld residual
stress (WRS) in the mockups and compare the measured values
to computer simulated values. Biaxial WRS experimental
measurements were performed using the contour method and
presented in paper PVP2016-63197 [4]. A three-dimensional
(3D) weld residual stress simulation was performed and
presented in paper PVP2016-63815 [5] and was demonstrated to
compare well with the biaxial measurements. The modeled
components are shown in FIG. 1, while finite element model
used in the WRS analysis is shown in FIG. 2.
This paper provides an analytical approach to perform stress
corrosion crack growth analysis, due to stress corrosion cracking
(SCC), using the WRS results from the 3D FEA simulation [5].
Analytical processes for determining the SCC crack growth of
two common crack types left behind in the unmitigated Alloy
 182 remnant are presented. The two crack types are a A52M EWR
circumferential thumbnail crack underneath the EWR and an
axial thumbnail crack underneath the EWR. Fatigue crack Circumferential flaw
growth (FCG) is not considered because the partial arc EWR is grows within unmitigated
designed as a short term temporary repair and, therefore, FCG A182 remnant
contribution is expected to be insignificant.

A182 DMW

FIG. 3A: PIPE CROSS SECTION ILLUSTRATING POTENTIAL

GROWH PATH OF A REMNANT CIRCUMFERENTIAL CRACK

A52M EWR
FIG. 1: CROSS-SECTION OF DISSIMILAR METAL GROOVE WELD Axial flaw morphs
ON STRONG BACK into laminar flaw
and grows along
A52/A182 interface
Axial flaw in
unmitigated A182
remnant
Weld
Travel

A182 DMW

FIG. 3B: PIPE CROSS SECTION ILLUSTRATING POTENTIAL

GROWH PATH OF A REMNANT AXIAL-LAMINAR CRACK

FIG. 2: 3D MODEL OF THE PARTIAL ARC EWR MOCKUP

CRACK TYPE DEFINITION AND ASSUMPTIONS

In a pipe cross-section, as shown in FIG. 3A, there is

potential for the circumferential remnant crack to continue to
propagate within the Alloy 182 material and potentially grow
outside of the EWR arc length coverage. Similarly, as shown
in FIG. 3B, there is also potential for a radial, or laminar, crack
to form at the tip of the axial remnant crack, which results in a
FIG. 4A: IDEALIZED RECTANGULAR CIRCUMFERENTIAL CRACK IN
“T” shaped crack and propagates along the Alloy 52M and Alloy EWR MOCKUP
182 interface in the circumferential direction, and could
potentially grow outside of the EWR arc length coverage as well.
Since the crack growth analysis uses the WRS results from
the partial arc EWR mockup and the mockup geometry is a
rectangular block, the circumferential and T-shaped axial-
laminar cracks are idealized as rectangular cracks in a plate, as
shown in FIG. 4A and FIG. 4B, respectively.

2 Copyright © 2017 ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/04/2018 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use


FIG. 4B: IDEALIZED RECTANGULAR AXIAL-LAMINAR CRACK IN
EWR MOCKUP
CRACK MODELING USING FINITE ELEMENT
Relative to the composition of the EWR, both cracks are
within close proximity to multiple materials and the axial-
laminar is of unusual “T” shape, calculating stress intensity
factors (K solutions) for these cracks using homogenous closed-
form solutions may not be adequate.
As such, the cracks are modeled using ANSYS [6] and
analyzed using FEA based linear elastic fracture mechanics
(LEFM) analysis. Multiple crack sizes are modeled to
deterministically calculate the K for each crack size, which is
then used to establish a K relationship as a function of crack
length in the circumferential direction.
The modeling of the cracks converts a source finite element
model, which is the 3D partial arc EWR model [5] used in the
WRS simulation, to a crack tip elements model by adding mesh
refinement around the crack front nodes. The process involves
splitting the crack plane and then inserting a “collapsed” mesh
around the crack tips, followed by concentrated mesh
refinements that surround the collapsed mesh, and are referred to
as “wedges” or “crack tip elements”. In the crack tip
conversion process, as illustrated in FIG. 5, 20-node quadratic
solid elements (SOLID95) are used in the crack tip region, while
8-node linear solid elements (SOLID45) are used everywhere
else in the model. The mid-side nodes for the 20-node elements
around the crack tips are shifted to the “quarter point” locations
to properly capture the singularities at the crack tips. The
quarter point mid-side nodes combined with the extra layers of
concentrated elements around the crack tips provide sufficient
mesh refinement to determine the stress intensity factors for the
fracture mechanics analyses.
The crack tip mesh refinement used in this study has been
validated to produce converged stress intensity factor results
within 5% discrepancy, which is acceptable for the significance
of crack growth life and conclusions reported in this study.
3 Copyright © 2017 ASME
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/04/2018 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
Source Half Model without Cracks
Crack Tip Conversion at
A52M and A182 Interface
Collapsed
crack tip mesh
20-node elem.
Mesh refinement
around crack tip
8-node elem.
Mesh transition
to rest of model
8-node elem.
FIG. 5: SCHEMATICS OF CRACK TIP ELEMENT CONVERSION
FINITE ELEMENT CRACK MODELS
The WRS contours on the planes of the circumferential and
lamina cracks are extracted from the WRS simulation [5] and
plotted in FIG. 6. The figure shows that the WRS pattern
between the left and right halves of the mockup are very
symmetrical in the region covered by the partial arc EWR.
Taking advantage of the symmetric stress pattern, only the left
half of the mockup shown in the figure is modeled in the fracture
mechanics analyses. The cracks analyzed in FEA are then “half
cracks” with respect to the circumferential direction as if the
mockup is a pipe.
For conservatism, the depths of the cracks are assumed to be
at the Alloy 52M and Alloy 182 interface, where crack growth is
purely in the circumferential, or length (L), direction. Crack
growth in the through-wall direction and within the SCC
resistant Alloy 52M EWR material is assumed to be negligible
within the design life of the partial arc EWR temporary repair.
Multiple crack lengths and are modeled using ANSYS for
both the circumferential and axial-laminar cracks (varying the
laminar crack length). The half crack lengths modeled in FEA
are: 1 inch, 2 inches, 3 inches, 4 inches, and 5 inches, as
illustrated in FIG. 7A and FIG. 7B.
For reference, the root of the partial arc EWR mockup
excavation is about 10 inches long, or 5 inches long for a half
geometry. The consequent K solutions are calculated for each
crack length to establish a “K versus L” relationship for each of
the two crack types.
 Transverse/Axial stress contour for Circumferential crack
Cut plane through centerline of DMW

Vertical/Radial stress contour for Laminar crack

Cut plane at 0.1” below A52M & A182 interface, for Laminar crack

A half model was used in the fracture mechanics

analyses due to symmetry in geometry and stress

FIG. 6: LEFT-RIGHT SYMMETRICAL WRS PATTERN ON

CIRCUMFERENTIAL AND LAMINAR CRACK PLANES

LOADING CONDITIONS

For the purpose of the analysis, the partial arc EWR mockup
is assumed to represent a pipe geometry of outside diameter
(OD) of 30 inches and wall thickness (t) of 2 inches. FIG. 7A: MAPPED CRACK FACE PRESSURE ON HALF
In the crack growth analysis, the through-wall WRS CIRCUMFERNTIAL CRACKS
combined with operating pressure stress in a typical PWR
environment is used to calculate crack growth in the
circumferential direction. Specifically, the WRS from the
welding simulation [5] are mapped onto the crack models as
equivalent crack face pressure. In addition, typical operation
pressure of 2,350 psig and steady state operating temperature of
650°F are added to bring the models to a comparable normal
operating condition of a PWR.
The applied crack face pressures are shown in FIG. 7A and
FIG. 7B for the circumferential and laminar cracks, respectively.
Note that because the cracks are inside diameter (ID) connected,
the operation pressure is superimposed onto the crack face as
well.
In order to effectively account for the internal pressure
induced stresses in a pipe geometry, the side face of the SA-508
block – representing the “axial end” as if the mockup is a pipe –
is applied with a uniform tensile axial pressure equivalent to
PR/2t, while the longitudinal end of the mock – representing the
“circumferential end” as if the mockup is a pipe – is applied with
a uniform tensile axial pressure equivalent to PR/t. The two
equations are the standard internal pressure induced axial and
hoop stress equations for a thin wall cylinder.

4 Copyright © 2017 ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/04/2018 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 STRESS INTENSITY FACTOR (K) RESULTS

K solutions are calculated for each modeled crack type and

crack length to establish a relationship between K and crack
length, “K versus L” for each crack type. The K solutions are
calculated using as the ANSYS built-in KCALC [6] post-
processing command based on crack tip opening displacements
(CTODs) and linear elastic fracture mechanics (LEFM)
principles. A representative crack opening plot for a
circumferential crack is shown in FIG. 8A, and FIG. 8B for an
axial-laminar “T” crack. For the circumferential cracks the K at
the surface node (see FIG. 7A) is reported, and for the axial-
laminar cracks the maximum K along the laminar crack front in
the length direction is reported (see FIG. 7B).

Circumferential crack opening

FIG. 8A: REPRESENTATIVE CRACK OPENING OF A

CIRCUMFERENTIAL CRACK
FIG. 7B: MAPPED CRACK FACE PRESSURE ON HALF LAMINAR
CRACKS

MECHNICAL BOUNDARY CONDITIONS

The side face of the stainless steel block as well as the half- Laminar crack opening
length symmetry plane, excluding axial crack face for the axial-
laminar crack case, are applied with symmetric boundary
conditions. That is, translation into the symmetry plane is
restricted.

MATERIAL PROPERTIES

For the LEFM analysis, temperature dependent material

properties for carbon steel, low alloy steel, stainless steel, Alloy
82/182 weld metal, and Alloy 52M weld metal are obtained from Axial crack opening
the ASME Code, Section II [12]. The material properties are
tabulated in TABLE 1 through TABLE 5. A constant Poisson’s
ratio of 0.3 is assumed for all materials. FIG. 8B: REPRESENTATIVE CRACK OPENING OF AN AXIAL-
LAMINAR CRACK

5 Copyright © 2017 ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/04/2018 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 The deterministic “K versus L” results for each crack type
are plotted in FIG. 9A and FIG. 9B (solid dots) for the
circumferential and axial-laminar cracks, respectively. The
results are further curve fitted to a third order polynomial to
refine the solution resolution needed for the crack growth K_max vs. Half Laminar Crack Length
calculations. Since K solutions for only five deterministic crack 10
lengths are modeled and analyzed, the curve fit provides a 9
smooth ∆K function such that precise ∆K values can be 8
y = 0.063788x3 - 0.547963x2 + 1.578949x + 6.909932
determined for a small increment of crack propagation (da) 7
R² = 0.971513

K (ksi*in^0.5)
during the fatigue crack growth calculation. The curve-fit 6
polynomial is represented in the equation below: 5 K_FEA
4 K_ploynomial
3
K ( a ) = C 0 + C1 a + C 2 a 2 + C 3 a 3 2
1
0
Where, 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Half Laminar Crack Length (inch)
K = K as function of length from center of crack (ksi√in)
FIG. 9B: K SOLUTIONS FOR AXIAL-LAMINAR CRACK
Ci = Polynomial curve fit coefficients, i = 0, 1, 2, and 3
a = Distance (length) from center of crack (in)
The curve fit plots are overlaid on the “K versus L” results CRACK GROWTH CALCULATION
in FIG. 9A and FIG. 9B (hallow circles). The comparisons in
the figures indicate that the curve fits are close match with the Using the curve fit results derived from the “K versus L”
input “K versus L” data. The curve fit coefficients are listed in relationship, a stress-corrosion crack growth calculation to
TABLE 6. determine the time for each crack type to reach the length
Note that a zero point (0,0) is not used in deriving the curve covered by the EWR is performed.
fit in order to produce a better fit through the data points. The In the crack growth analysis, and per the EWR technical
exclusion of the zero point results in conservative non-zero K basis document MRP-291 [8], crack growth rate for evaluating
values at zero crack length. crack growth due to PWSCC in Alloy 82/182 material is
provided in MRP-115 [9] as:

 Q 1 
a = exp − g  − 1   α ( K )β
T T 
 R  ref 

K_surface vs. Half Circ. Crack Length Where,

50
45
y = 0.243983x3 - 1.661821x2 + 6.272895x + 25.423220
R² = 0.999983
a = Crack growth rate (da/dt) at temperature T (in/hour)
40
35
Qg = Thermal activation energy for crack growth
K (ksi*in^0.5)

30 = 31 kcal/mole
25
R = Universal gas constant = 1.103×10-3 kcal/mole-°R
20
K_FEA
15 T = Abs. operating temp. at location of crack = 1082°R
10 K_ploynomial (650°F)
5
0 Tref = Abs. reference temp. used to normalize data
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 = 1077°R (617°F)
Half Circ. Crack Length (inch)
α = Power-law constant multiplier
FIG. 9A: K SOLUTIONS FOR CIRCUMFERENTIAL CRACK = 2.47×10-7 at 1077°R (617°F)
β = Power-law constant exponent = 1.6
K = Crack tip stress intensity factor (ksi√in)
The crack growth calculation is an iterative process, starting
from an assumed initial crack length of 0.1 inches, at which the

6 Copyright © 2017 ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/04/2018 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 number of hours for the crack to grow every 0.1 inches are Circumferential
calculated. The crack growth rate (CGR) results are plotted in
FIG. 10A and FIG. 10B for the circumferential crack and axial-
laminar crack, respectively.
Then, the crack growth time are determined via cumulating CG Time vs. Half Circ. Crack Length
the crack growth rate iterations and reported in terms of days 3,000 8
and years, as shown in FIG. 11A and FIG. 11B. The crack
growth iterations are tabulated in TABLE 7A and TABLE 7B 2,500 7

for the circumferential crack and axial-laminar crack, 6

CG Time (year)
2,000

CG Time (day)
respectively. 5
The crack growth time results show that, in the as-welded 1,500 4
condition and under normal PWR operating temperature and 1,000 3
pressure, it would take 7.2 years for a remnant circumferential 2
crack of initial half-length of 0.1 inches to grow through the 5 500
1
inches half-length covered by the partial arc EWR, and it would 0 0
take 70 years for a remnant axial-laminar crack of initial half- 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
length of 0.1 inches at the axial crack tip to grow through the 5 Half Circ. Crack Length (inch)
inches half-length covered by the partial arc EWR.
FIG. 11A: FEA LONGITUDINAL (HOOP) RESIDUAL STRESS
CONTOURS
da/dt vs. Half Circ. Crack Length
1.40E-04

1.20E-04 Laminar
1.00E-04
da/dt (in/hour)

8.00E-05

6.00E-05 CG Time vs. Half Laminar Crack Length

30,000 80
4.00E-05
25,000 70
2.00E-05
60

CG Time (year)
0.00E+00 20,000
CG Time (day)

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 50
15,000 40
Half Circ. Crack Length (inch)
10,000 30
FIG. 10A: CGR RESULTS FOR CIRCUMFERENTIAL CRACK
20
5,000
10
0 0
da/dt vs. Half Laminar Crack Length 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
1.00E-05 Half Laminar Crack Length (inch)
9.00E-06
8.00E-06 FIG. 11B: FEA TRANSVERSE (AXIAL) RESIDUAL STRESS
7.00E-06
CONTOURS
da/dt (in/hour)

6.00E-06
5.00E-06
4.00E-06 CONCLUSIONS
3.00E-06
2.00E-06 A finite element based linear elastic fracture mechanics
1.00E-06
approach has been presented in this paper to analyze two
0.00E+00
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
common types of crack growth due to stress corrosion cracking
Half Laminar Crack Length (inch)
in the remnant Alloy 82/182 weld metal underneath a partial arc
EWR mockup. It is expected that the approach, analysis steps,
FIG. 10B: CGR RESULTS FOR AXIAL-LAMINAR CRACK calculation procedures presented in this paper will be applicable
to analyzing a pipe geometry using component specific residual
stresses and operating stresses for an EWR.
The crack growth results have demonstrated that, in the as-
welded condition and under normal PWR operating temperature
and pressure, it would take 7.2 years for a remnant
circumferential crack of initial half-length of 0.1 inches to grow
through the 5 inches half-length covered by the partial arc EWR,

7 Copyright © 2017 ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/04/2018 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 and it would take 70 years for a remnant axial-laminar crack of TABLE 7A: CRACK GROWHT RESULTS FOR HALF
CIRCUMFERENTIAL CRACK
initial half-length of 0.1 inches at the axial crack tip to grow
through the 5 inches half-length covered by the partial arc EWR. a
K_curve
da/dt dt CG Time CG Time
The crack growth calculation example demonstrates that a (in) (in/hour) (hour) (day) (year)
0 25.423
partial arc EWR, even with the less than optimum residual stress 0.1 26.034 5.13E-05 1.95E+03 8.13E+01 2.23E-01
profile, has adequate life and will provide the necessary safety 0.2 26.613 5.31E-05 1.88E+03 1.60E+02 4.38E-01
margin needed for mitigation of critical components in a typical 0.3 27.162 5.49E-05 1.82E+03 2.36E+02 6.46E-01
0.4 27.682 5.66E-05 1.77E+03 3.09E+02 8.47E-01
PWR environment. Moreover, the crack growth calculation 0.5 28.175 5.82E-05 1.72E+03 3.81E+02 1.04E+00
demonstrates that 3D modeling can be developed for crack 0.6 28.641 5.97E-05 1.67E+03 4.51E+02 1.23E+00
growth analysis as required by Case N-847 for a partial arc EWR. 0.7 29.084 6.12E-05 1.63E+03 5.19E+02 1.42E+00
0.8 29.503 6.26E-05 1.60E+03 5.85E+02 1.60E+00
0.9 29.901 6.40E-05 1.56E+03 6.50E+02 1.78E+00
1.0 30.278 6.53E-05 1.53E+03 7.14E+02 1.96E+00
1.1 30.637 6.65E-05 1.50E+03 7.77E+02 2.13E+00
TABLE 1: MATERIAL PROPERTIES FOR CARBON STEEL 1.2 30.979 6.77E-05 1.48E+03 8.38E+02 2.30E+00
1.3 31.306 6.89E-05 1.45E+03 8.99E+02 2.46E+00
Temperature Young’s Modulus Mean Thermal Expansion
1.4 31.618 7.00E-05 1.43E+03 9.58E+02 2.63E+00
(°F) (x103 ksi) (x10-6 in/in/°F)
1.5 31.917 7.10E-05 1.41E+03 1.02E+03 2.79E+00
70 29.5 6.4
1.6 32.205 7.21E-05 1.39E+03 1.07E+03 2.94E+00
500 27.3 7.3
1.7 32.483 7.31E-05 1.37E+03 1.13E+03 3.10E+00
700 25.5 7.6
1.8 32.753 7.40E-05 1.35E+03 1.19E+03 3.26E+00
1.9 33.016 7.50E-05 1.33E+03 1.24E+03 3.41E+00
2.0 33.274 7.59E-05 1.32E+03 1.30E+03 3.56E+00
TABLE 2: MATERIAL PROPERTIES FOR LOW ALLOY STEEL 2.1 33.527 7.69E-05 1.30E+03 1.35E+03 3.71E+00
Temperature Young’s Modulus Mean Thermal Expansion 2.2 33.778 7.78E-05 1.29E+03 1.41E+03 3.85E+00
(°F) (x103 ksi) (x10-6 in/in/°F) 2.3 34.028 7.87E-05 1.27E+03 1.46E+03 4.00E+00
70 27.8 6.4 2.4 34.279 7.96E-05 1.26E+03 1.51E+03 4.14E+00
500 25.7 7.3 2.5 34.531 8.06E-05 1.24E+03 1.56E+03 4.28E+00
700 24.6 7.6 2.6 34.787 8.15E-05 1.23E+03 1.61E+03 4.42E+00
2.7 35.048 8.25E-05 1.21E+03 1.66E+03 4.56E+00
2.8 35.315 8.35E-05 1.20E+03 1.71E+03 4.70E+00
TABLE 3: MATERIAL PROPERTIES FOR TYPE 316L SS STEEL 2.9 35.589 8.46E-05 1.18E+03 1.76E+03 4.83E+00
3.0 35.873 8.56E-05 1.17E+03 1.81E+03 4.97E+00
Mean Thermal 3.1 36.168 8.68E-05 1.15E+03 1.86E+03 5.10E+00
Temperature Young’s Modulus
Expansion 3.2 36.474 8.80E-05 1.14E+03 1.91E+03 5.23E+00
(°F) (x103 ksi)
(x10-6 in/in/°F) 3.3 36.795 8.92E-05 1.12E+03 1.95E+03 5.36E+00
70 28.3 8.5 3.4 37.130 9.05E-05 1.11E+03 2.00E+03 5.48E+00
500 25.8 9.7 3.5 37.482 9.19E-05 1.09E+03 2.05E+03 5.61E+00
700 24.8 10.0 3.6 37.852 9.33E-05 1.07E+03 2.09E+03 5.73E+00
3.7 38.241 9.49E-05 1.05E+03 2.13E+03 5.85E+00
3.8 38.651 9.65E-05 1.04E+03 2.18E+03 5.97E+00
TABLE 4: MATERIAL PROPERTIES FOR ALLOY 82/182 3.9 39.084 9.82E-05 1.02E+03 2.22E+03 6.08E+00
4.0 39.541 1.00E-04 9.99E+02 2.26E+03 6.20E+00
Mean Thermal
Temperature Young’s Modulus 4.1 40.022 1.02E-04 9.80E+02 2.30E+03 6.31E+00
Expansion
(°F) (x103 ksi) 4.2 40.531 1.04E-04 9.60E+02 2.34E+03 6.42E+00
(x10-6 in/in/°F)
4.3 41.068 1.06E-04 9.40E+02 2.38E+03 6.53E+00
70 31.0 6.8
4.4 41.635 1.09E-04 9.20E+02 2.42E+03 6.63E+00
500 29.0 7.6
4.5 42.232 1.11E-04 8.99E+02 2.46E+03 6.73E+00
700 28.2 7.9
4.6 42.863 1.14E-04 8.78E+02 2.49E+03 6.83E+00
4.7 43.527 1.17E-04 8.57E+02 2.53E+03 6.93E+00
4.8 44.227 1.20E-04 8.35E+02 2.56E+03 7.03E+00
TABLE 5: MATERIAL PROPERTIES FOR ALLOY 52M 4.9 44.964 1.23E-04 8.13E+02 2.60E+03 7.12E+00
Mean Thermal 5.0 45.740 1.26E-04 7.92E+02 2.63E+03 7.21E+00
Temperature Young’s Modulus
Expansion
(°F) (x103 ksi)
(x10-6 in/in/°F)
70 30.3 7.7
500 28.3 8.1
700 27.6 8.3

TABLE 6: CURVE FIT COEFFICIENTS OF K SOLUTIONS

Polynomial Curve Fit Coefficients

Crack Type
C0 C1 C2 C3
Circumferential Crack
25.423 6.273 -1.662 0.244
Surface Node
“T” Crack
6.910 1.579 -0.548 0.064
Laminar Crack Front

8 Copyright © 2017 ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/04/2018 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 TABLE 7B: CRACK GROWTH RESULTS FOR HALF AXIAL- ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
LAMINAR CRACK
a
K_curve
da/dt dt CG Time CG Time The EPRI Welding and Repair Technology Center provided
(in) (in/hour) (hour) (day) (year) financial support for this work. Steve McCracken and Jon
0 6.910
0.1 7.062 6.36E-06 1.57E+04 6.55E+02 1.80E+00
Tatman (EPRI Welding and Repair Technology Center) provided
0.2 7.204 6.56E-06 1.52E+04 1.29E+03 3.53E+00 industry expertise and supported fabrication of the EWR
0.3 7.336 6.76E-06 1.48E+04 1.91E+03 5.22E+00 mockups. We acknowledge Mitchell Olson, Adrian DeWald,
0.4 7.458 6.94E-06 1.44E+04 2.51E+03 6.87E+00
0.5 7.570 7.11E-06 1.41E+04 3.09E+03 8.47E+00 and Michael Hill (Hill Engineering) for help regarding residual
0.6 7.674 7.26E-06 1.38E+04 3.67E+03 1.00E+01 stress measurements and comparisons, as well as Dr. Pete
0.7 7.769 7.41E-06 1.35E+04 4.23E+03 1.16E+01 Riccardella (Structural Integrity Associates) for providing
0.8 7.855 7.54E-06 1.33E+04 4.78E+03 1.31E+01
0.9 7.934 7.66E-06 1.31E+04 5.33E+03 1.46E+01 guidance on the fracture mechanics analysis and crack growth
1.0 8.005 7.77E-06 1.29E+04 5.86E+03 1.61E+01 calculation.
1.1 8.069 7.87E-06 1.27E+04 6.39E+03 1.75E+01
1.2 8.126 7.96E-06 1.26E+04 6.92E+03 1.89E+01
1.3 8.177 8.04E-06 1.24E+04 7.43E+03 2.04E+01
1.4 8.221 8.11E-06 1.23E+04 7.95E+03 2.18E+01 REFERENCES
1.5 8.261 8.17E-06 1.22E+04 8.46E+03 2.32E+01
1.6 8.295 8.23E-06 1.22E+04 8.96E+03 2.46E+01
1.7 8.324 8.27E-06 1.21E+04 9.47E+03 2.59E+01 [1] ASME Record No.: 10-1845, BPV XC-XI WG Welding
1.8 8.349 8.31E-06 1.20E+04 9.97E+03 2.73E+01 and Special Repair Processes, Partial Excavation and
1.9 8.369 8.34E-06 1.20E+04 1.05E+04 2.87E+01 Deposition of Weld Metal for Repair or Mitigation of
2.0 8.386 8.37E-06 1.19E+04 1.10E+04 3.00E+01
2.1 8.400 8.39E-06 1.19E+04 1.15E+04 3.14E+01 Class 1 Items.
2.2 8.411 8.41E-06 1.19E+04 1.20E+04 3.28E+01 [2] Welding and Repair Technology Center: Technical Basis
2.3
2.4
8.419
8.425
8.42E-06
8.43E-06
1.19E+04
1.19E+04
1.25E+04
1.29E+04
3.41E+01
3.55E+01
and Residual Stress Studies to Support the Excavate and
2.5 8.429 8.44E-06 1.18E+04 1.34E+04 3.68E+01 Weld Repair (EWR) Methodology for Mitigation of SCC in
2.6 8.432 8.44E-06 1.18E+04 1.39E+04 3.82E+01 ASME Class 1 Butt Welds, EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: 2016.
2.7 8.434 8.45E-06 1.18E+04 1.44E+04 3.95E+01
2.8 8.435 8.45E-06 1.18E+04 1.49E+04 4.09E+01
3002007901
2.9 8.436 8.45E-06 1.18E+04 1.54E+04 4.22E+01 [3] S.L. McCracken, J.K. Tatman, P.C. Riccardella, F.H. Ku,
3.0 8.437 8.45E-06 1.18E+04 1.59E+04 4.36E+01 and C.L. Latiolais, 2016, “Technical Basis for Code Case
3.1 8.439 8.46E-06 1.18E+04 1.64E+04 4.49E+01
3.2 8.442 8.46E-06 1.18E+04 1.69E+04 4.63E+01
N-847 – Excavate and Weld Repair (EWR) for SCC
3.3 8.445 8.47E-06 1.18E+04 1.74E+04 4.76E+01 Mitigation”, PVP2016-63769, Proc. ASME 2016 PVP
3.4 8.451 8.47E-06 1.18E+04 1.79E+04 4.90E+01 Division Conference, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
3.5 8.459 8.49E-06 1.18E+04 1.84E+04 5.03E+01
3.6 8.469 8.50E-06 1.18E+04 1.89E+04 5.17E+01
[4] M.D. Olson, A.T. DeWald, M.R. Hill, and S.L.
3.7 8.481 8.52E-06 1.17E+04 1.93E+04 5.30E+01 McCracken, 2016, “Residual Stress Mapping for an
3.8 8.498 8.55E-06 1.17E+04 1.98E+04 5.43E+01 Excavate and Weld Repair Mockup”, PVP2016-63197,
3.9 8.517 8.58E-06 1.17E+04 2.03E+04 5.57E+01
4.0 8.541 8.62E-06 1.16E+04 2.08E+04 5.70E+01
Proc. ASME 2016 PVP Division Conference, Vancouver,
4.1 8.569 8.66E-06 1.15E+04 2.13E+04 5.83E+01 BC, Canada.
4.2 8.601 8.72E-06 1.15E+04 2.18E+04 5.96E+01 [5] F.H. Ku, S.L. McCracken, 2016, “3D Residual Stress
4.3 8.639 8.78E-06 1.14E+04 2.22E+04 6.09E+01
4.4 8.682 8.85E-06 1.13E+04 2.27E+04 6.22E+01
Simulation of an Excavate and Weld Repair Mockup”,
4.5 8.732 8.93E-06 1.12E+04 2.32E+04 6.35E+01 PVP2016-63815, Proc. ASME 2016 PVP Division
4.6 8.787 9.02E-06 1.11E+04 2.36E+04 6.48E+01 Conference, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
4.7 8.849 9.12E-06 1.10E+04 2.41E+04 6.60E+01
4.8 8.918 9.24E-06 1.08E+04 2.45E+04 6.72E+01
[6] ANSYS Mechanical APDL, Release 14.5 (UP20120918),
4.9 8.995 9.36E-06 1.07E+04 2.50E+04 6.85E+01 ANSYS, Inc., 2012.
5.0 9.079 9.50E-06 1.05E+04 2.54E+04 6.97E+01 [7] ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section II, Part
D – Properties, 2001 Edition w/ Addenda through 2003.
[8] Material Reliability Program: Topical Report:
Application of the Excavate and Weld Repair Process for
Repair and Mitigation of Alloy 182 and 82 in PWRs
(MRP-291), EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: 2010. 1021012.
[9] Material Reliability Program: Crack Growth Rates for
Evaluating Primary Water Stress Corrosion Cracking
(PWSCC) of Alloy 82, 182, and 132 Welds (MRP-115),
EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: 2004. 1006696.

9 Copyright © 2017 ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/04/2018 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use