The 2001 ASME Pressure Vessels and Piping Conference
July 23-26, 2001 - Atlanta, Georgia, USA
JAPANESE FRACTURE TOUGHNESS DATA ANALYSIS
USING MASTER CURVE METHOD
K. K. Yoon J. B. Hall
Framatome ANP Framatome ANP
Lynchburg, Virginia, USA Lynchburg, Virginia, USA Alliance, Ohio, USA
M. Higuchi
Ishikawajima-Harima Heavy Industries Co.
Yokohama, Japan
ABSTRACT
The Japanese KIR Committee conducted a large scale
fracture toughness testing program for Japanese pressure
vessel steels. The fracture toughness data, which has been
analyzed in this paper, was developed under the KIR Project.
Previous publications of the results from this program
concluded that this database is conservatively lower bounded
by the existing ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code KIR
curve. An alternative KIR curve based on this database was
incorporated into ASME Code by Code Case N-610. The
objective of this paper is to analyze this database using a new
technology in handling fracture toughness, generally referred
to by the Master Curve method [ASTM E1921]. This large
data analysis was performed to verify the applicability of the
Master Curve method. This paper presents an application of
the Master Curve method to twenty-four modern Japanese KJc
data sets completed in 1993.
The results affirm that the reference temperature T0 is the
superior indexing parameter for fracture toughness of ferritic
steels compared to the currently used RTNDT approach. The
results also provide a valuable source for establishing the
dynamic fracture toughness data trend.
INTRODUCTION
The fracture toughness data, which has been analyzed in
this paper, was developed by the Japanese KIR Project. The
KIR Committee was organized in order to investigate the effect
a 1988 revision to the ASTM Standard E208 would have on
the RTNDT temperature used in ASME Sec. III Appendix G.
W. A. Van Der Sluys
Consultant
K. Iida
Japan Power Engineering & Inspection Corp.
Tokyo, Japan
The Reference Temperature (RTNDT) is determined by a
combination of the drop weight NDT temperature and Charpy
impact tests and is used with the KIR Curve in the ASME Code
for the determination of the fracture toughness of the pressure
boundary materials. ASTM Standard E208 is the standard
method for the determination of the drop weight NDT
temperature. In 1988, the ASTM revised the procedure for
producing the brittle weld on the drop-weight specimen from a
two-pass procedure to a one-pass procedure. This change can
produce some differences in the measured NDT temperature.
A second objective of the committee was to determine if the
KIR curve was the appropriate curve for use with modern
Japanese pressure vessel steels.
Since the Reference Fracture Toughness Curve (KIR
Curve) specified in Appendix G to ASME Boiler and Pressure
Vessel Code was developed using mainly NDT temperatures
obtained by the two-pass method, it was felt that a re-
evaluation of the KIR curve was needed. The KIR committee
was formed to develop and conduct a research program to re-
evaluate the KIR Curve.
The Japanese KIR research program consisted of:
1. Manufacturing the 24 test materials used in the
project.
2. Characterizing the mechanical properties and
compositions of these materials.
3. Determining drop-weight NDT temperatures for
these materials using both the one and the two pass
methods.
1

4. Extensive fracture toughness testing on these
materials consisting of static, dynamic and crack
arrest toughness testing. Specimens were 1T, 2T, and
full plate thickness compact fracture specimens.
5. Analyze the results of this testing program and make
recommendations for appropriate revisions to the KIR
curve.
The test materials were manufactured to represent the
range of materials used in the fabrication of nuclear pressure
boundaries. They included:
1. One heat of SA302B modified
2. Nine heats of SQV2A material (SA533B-1), these
materials included three heats each of material
intended to represent high, medium, and low
toughness materials.
3. Four heats of SFVQ1A material (SA508 Cl. 3), again
with materials, which were to represent high, medium
and low toughness materials.
4. One heat of SFVQ2A (SA508 Cl. 2)
5. One heat of SQV2B (SA533B-2)
6. Two carbon steel heats, SGV480 and SPV490
(SA516-70)
7. Six weld metals intended to represent high, medium,
and low toughness levels
This was an important contribution to general
characterization of pressure vessel fracture toughness, since
there are great uncertainties in RTNDT determination that were
not as amply addressed as fracture toughness itself. Several
types of fracture toughness tests (crack initiation, crack arrest,
and dynamic fracture tests) were performed on twenty four
different reactor pressure vessel (RPV) steel heats that include
plates, forging and welds. From the dynamic fracture
toughness tests and crack arrest tests, a new KIR curve was
developed [1-4] in 1997.
The test materials were fabricated by six different steel
mills. The weld wire was manufactured by two different
companies. The plate material is equivalent to SA533B and
the three levels of toughness for this plate were created by
varying heat treatment processing and chemical composition.
These properties were judged primarily by the upper shelf
energies and the Charpy transition temperatures of the
materials.
Three different laboratories participated in fracture
toughness testing in this program. Significant is that this is the
first large test program for fracture toughness in the transition
range since the US HSST program in late 1970s. Since the
testing was conducted in early 1990s, up-to-date testing
techniques were used.
RESULTS FROM JAPANESE RESEARCH PROGRAM
The results from the Japanese KIR research program were
published in a series of papers at the 1997 ASME Pressure
The 2001 ASME Pressure Vessels and Piping Conference
July 23-26, 2001 - Atlanta, Georgia, USA
Vessel and Piping Conference [1-5]. Based on the dynamic
fracture toughness and the crack arrest data from this program,
a new KIR curve was developed for Japanese pressure vessel
steels. This curve was indexed by the new reference
temperature for nil-ductility transition, RTNDT. The RTNDT is
determined using both drop-weight and Charpy impact test
data. The drop-weight test was conducted using specimens
made of one-pass welding procedure. This new KIR curve was
adopted by ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code as Code
Case N-610 [6]. When compared with the existing ASME
Code KIR curve, the new curve is slightly above the existing
curve thus showing that the Code KIR curve is conservative for
the Japanese steels used in this test program.
When this testing program was conducted, the ASTM
standard procedure for Master Curve testing (ASTM E1921)
[7] had not been fully developed, therefore, the tests in this
program were not designed to have sufficient number of
replicate specimens at a given test temperature, suitable for the
single-temperature procedure in the original version of E1921-
97. Some KJc testing was performed in the program and a
Master Curve analysis was performed on this KJc data set of
120 tests [5]. When the test program was completed, the
number of KIc data increased to more than 1000 data points.
This KJc database became a very valuable data source for the
Master Curve Method. The results from a Master Curve
Method analysis of this expanded crack initiation, KJc,
database using the ASTM E1921 Master Curve Method is the
subject of this paper. The ASTM E1921 standard is now
undergoing an update process to allow for the use of tests
conducted over a range of test temperatures [9]. This new
multi-temperature procedure allows for the analysis of these
data.
APPPLICATION OF MASTER CURVE METHOD TO
KIc DATA
U.S. Pressure Vessel Research Council (PVRC) requested
the Japanese KIR Committee to provide this database to be
included in the PVRC database [8] so that a joint Japanese-
American data analysis could be performed using the latest
E1921 Master Curve Method. The objective is to demonstrate
how well the recent fracture toughness data behave in terms of
the Master Curve reference temperature (T0). This will
complement the existing RTNDT based data analysis and will
provide a future application of this superior indexing
technology to move forward. This data will provide further
empirical support for the Master Curve indexing technology.
STATIC DATA ANALYSIS
The Japanese research program contains a total of 80
static fracture toughness data sets. Each data set contains from
5 to 20 individual fracture toughness tests, the total number of
2
 The 2001 ASME Pressure Vessels and Piping Conference
July 23-26, 2001 - Atlanta, Georgia, USA

Table 1. Summary of RTNDT and T0 (Heat)

++
Product NDTT RTNDT
+
Material Heat Thickness YS UTS 1pass USE 2 pass vTr30 T0 **
o o o
mm in MPa MPa C J C C °C
1 SQV2A-Low (Eq.:SA533B-1) 230 9.1 486 641 -20 74 9 5.3 -40
2 SQV2A-Low (Eq.:SA533B-1) 160 6.3 491 628 -30 89 -3 -9 -63
3 SQV2A-Low (Eq.:SA533B-1) 160 6.3 494 629 -30 78 -3 -4 -58
4 SQV2A-Med. (Eq.:SA533B-1) 225 8.9 469 641 -25 136 -23 -18 -62
5 SQV2A-Med. (Eq.:SA533B-1) 165 6.5 463 602 -30 112 -20 -20 -59
6 SQV2A-Med. (Eq.:SA533B-1) 165 6.5 479 622 -30 97 -13 -24 -67
7 SQV2A-High (Eq.:SA533B-1) 205 8.1 470 615 -30 219 -30 -60 -95
8 SQV2A-High (Eq.:SA533B-1) 180 7.1 482 618 -35 227 -30 -62 -80*
9 SQV2A-High (Eq.:SA533B-1) 180 7.1 457 590 -30 237 -30 -59 -94
10 SFVQ1A (Eq.:SA508-3) 225 8.9 460 605 -30 224 -35 -50 -88
11 SFVQ1A (SA508-3) 225 8.9 472 592 -30 232 -40 -58 -102*
12 SFVQ1A (SA508-3) 225 8.9 439 585 -35 210 -40 -50 -76
13 SFVQ1A (Eq.:SA508-3) 255 10.0 449 592 -35 207 -35 -56 -63
14 SA302B Mod. 160 6.3 483 633 -30 140 -35 -23 -76
15 SFVQ2A (SA508-2) 160 6.3 489 637 -30 168 -30 -43 -99
16 SQV2A (SA533B-2) 100 3.9 529 669 -25 247 -25 -87 -119
17 SGV480 (Eq.:SA516-70) 50 2.0 352 525 -50 178 -50 -91 -134
18 SPV490 (Eq.:SA515-70) 50 2.0 651 718 -60 319 -60 -97 -130*
19 SQV2A-Low Weld (SAW) 230 9.1 562 658 -55 75 -9 -12 -28
20 SQV2A-Low Weld (SAW) 160 6.3 506 591 -30 148 -21 -21 -47*
21 SQV2A-Low Weld (SAW) 160 6.3 506 591 -40 153 -22 -16 -66
22 SQV2A-Med. Weld (MIG) 165 6.5 502 588 -45 191 -60 -57 -72
23 SQV2A-High Weld (SAW) 205 8.1 472 583 -55 228 -70 -69 -83*
24 SQV2A-High Weld (SAW) 180 7.1 585 630 -70 230 -65 -71 -90
* Insufficient data for a valid T0 per Ref. 9
** T0 calculated from data taken at the 1/4T location with 1TCT specimens.
+
vTr30 – Charpy 30 ft-lb transition temperature
++
RTNDT is determined in Ref. 1.

3

static fracture toughness test data is 655. The fracture
toughness data in each data set were all tested by one
laboratory, from a single heat of material, with the specimens
fabricated at a single product thickness location, with the same
specimen size and geometry, and using one loading rate for
testing. The three levels of material toughness (low, medium,
and high) were achieved by varying the chemistry (mostly P
and S) and the heat treatment.
Table 1 shows each 24 material heats with product
thickness, yield strength, ultimate strength, TNDT, upper shelf
energy, RTNDT, Charpy 41 J (30 ft-lb) transition temperature,
and T0 for the static tests conducted at the ¼T location using
1TCT specimens. Ref. 1 shows the chemical compositions for
these materials and how the RTNDTs were determined .
Toughness Indexing Parameters
There are 655 individual static data points (fracture
toughness tests) and 45 data sets as listed in Table 2. A data
set consists of a series of toughness tests in the transition
region where all specimens were of the same size and
fabricated of the same heat of material. The test laboratory
and the loading rate are the same within each set. Figure 1
shows all the static fracture toughness data as a function of
temperature only without any indexing. This shows that there
is a very large scatter and without any indexing of the data this
is not a very usable form of data presentation (as a function of
temperature alone). The same data are presented in terms of
T - RTNDT in Fig. 2. Shifting temperature by RTNDT value
reduces the scatter somewhat and is the current ASME Boiler
and Pressure Vessel Code fracture toughness indexing
method. This enables fracture toughness of all pressure vessel
steels to be presented as one reference toughness curve.
However, there is still significant scatter.
The large data scatter observed in fracture toughness
comes from the statistical nature of cleavage initiation in the
transition range, however, this may also be attributed to
inaccuracies of RTNDT values which are determined by either
NDT temperature or Charpy transition temperature minus
60°F. When the data for the three different product forms are
presented in different symbols, it is note-worthy that the weld
material data in hollow diamonds occupies the bottom part of
the data scatter indicating that the plates and forging have
higher toughness than the weld material when the data are
plotted in terms of the relative temperature T - RTNDT. The
Code KIc curve is still conservative for the weld metal
toughness. The RTNDT for the weld materials may also be
consistently high showing low toughness. Or these are due to
the combined effect of material property differences and
uncertainty in determining RTNDTs.
When the Master Curve T0 is used to index these ferritic
steel fracture toughness data, the differences among plates,
forging, and weld materials become small and indistinguish-
The 2001 ASME Pressure Vessels and Piping Conference
July 23-26, 2001 - Atlanta, Georgia, USA
450
400
350
300
Toughness, Ksi√in
250
200
150
100
50
0
-250 -200 -150 -100 -50
T, F
0 50 100 150
Figure 1. All Static Fracture Toughness Data as a Function of
Temperature without Indexing
able. Therefore, one may conclude that the
RTNDT of weld materials are off, causing the weld materials to
show low toughness. The indexing parameter is a suspect.
The ASME KIc curve is bounding most of the data with a few
points lying below the curve at the lower-shelf temperature
range. Since the RTNDT was measured at the 1/4T location in
the product, only the 1TCT data at the 1/4T location were
plotted in Fig. 3 against T - RTNDT. The data scatter is not
improved by excluding the non-1/4T location data.
KJc Data Plot with Master Curve
A reference temperature T0 was calculated for each data
set and is listed in Table 2. The multi-temperature method
was used for the calculation of T0. This multi-temperature
method is now being incorporated into an update of ASTM
E1921-97 [9]. All KJc data are presented in Fig. 4 against T –
T0. This figure shows that the scatter band is reduced
drastically and almost all data fall between 5/95% tolerance
bound curves.
This empirical evidence strongly supports that the Master
Curve T0 is a superior indexing parameter compared to RTNDT
that is currently used in ASME Code reference toughness
curves. The data obtained at a test temperature outside of
±50°C of T0 is not used in the T0 determination as proposed in
the draft E1921 standard.
Upper Limit Based on Specimen Size
In Fig. 4, all data were plotted whether it exceeded the
toughness limit of M=30 or not, where KJc(limit) = (E b0 yield /
M)1/2 as a function of T – T0. Eight of the 15 points that lie
beyond the tolerance bounds are weld metal. Two each are
SA508 class 2 and SA508 class 3 and one from SA533 lie
4
 The 2001 ASME Pressure Vessels and Piping Conference
July 23-26, 2001 - Atlanta, Georgia, USA

beyond the tolerance bounds. Based on this it seems that the (SA533B-1)
welds and SA508 class 2 have the greatest scatter with the SFVQ1A (:SA508-3) 1TCT 1/4T 20 1.00 -88
SA533 and SA508 class 3 have the least scatter. Also the line 1TCT 0/4T 10 0.33 -105
showing the validity limit for 1T specimens (a/W = 0.5) with
1TCT 1/2T 10 0.62 -76
M = 30 is plotted.
Figure 5 shows the same data excluding those with M < 9TCT 5 0.67 -95
30 (δ=0) and the upper-shelf toughness points. There are 356 SFVQ1A (SA508-3) 1TCT 1/4T 20 0.92 -102
data points in the plot in Fig. 5. Fifteen data points (4%) lie SFVQ1A (SA508-3) 1TCT 1/4T 20 0.95 -76
outside the 5/95% tolerance bounds. Therefore, the data is SFVQ1A (SA508-3) 1TCT 1/4T 20 1.25 -63
conservatively bounded by these tolerance bounds. The 1TCT 0/4T 10 1.29 -89
Master Curve represents all the materials well. 1TCT 1/2T 10 0.95 -51
10TCT 5 0.17 -80
KIc Curve with Code Case N-629 RTT0
In Fig. 5, the ASME Code KIc curve is shown with RTNDT SA302B Mod. 1TCT 1/4T 20 0.95 -76
by replaced with RTT0 defined in ASME Code Case N-629 1TCT 12 1.20 -32
[10] where RTT0 is equal to T0 plus 35°F. As can be seen from SFVQ2A (SA508-2) 1TCT 1/4T 20 1.00 -99
this figure, the Code Case approach is a valid approach to use SQV2A (SA533B-2) 1TCT 1/4T 20 1.62 -119
T0 information obtained from a material testing in accordance 4TCT 10 0.33 -126
with the ASTM E1921 procedure.
SGV480 (SA516-70) 1TCT 1/4T 20 1.29 -134
2TCT 10 1.00 -128
Table 2. Japanese Research Program Fracture SPV490 (SA515) 1TCT 1/4T 20 0.95 -130
Toughness Data – Static 2TCT 10 0.95 -117
SQV2A-Low 1TCT 20 1.87 -28
Material Specification Specimen No of Validit T0 (SA533B-1) Weld 9TCT 10 0.33 -39
Size/ Speci y °C (SAW)
Location mens Check SQV2A-Low Weld 1TCT 20 1.29 -47
n* (SAW) 6TCT 5 0.83 -46
SQV2A-Low 1TCT 1/4T 20 1.62 -40 SQV2A-Low Weld 1TCT 20 1.62 -66
(SA533B-1) 1TCT 0/4T 10 0.58 -61 (SAW) 6TCT 5 0.67 -57
1TCT 1/2T 10 0.29 -27 SQV2A-Med. Weld 1TCT 20 1.29 -72
9TCT 5 0.17 -63 (MIG)
SQV2A-Low 1TCT 1/4T 20 1.25 -63 SQV2A-High Weld 1TCT 20 0.95 -83
(SA533B-1) 1TCT 0/4T 10 0.95 -84 (SAW)
SQV2A-High Weld 1TCT 20 1.00 -90
1TCT 1/2T 10 1.20 -58 (SAW)
6TCT 5 0.67 -72
SQV2A-Low 1TCT 1/4T 20 1.70 -58 *n>1 required for validity per Ref. 9
(SA533B-1) 1TCT 0/4T 10 1.29 -67
1TCT 1/2T 10 1.20 -54
6TCT 5 0.67 -72 Fracture Toughness Variation in Through-Wall
SQV2A-Med. 1TCT 1/4T 20 1.25 -62 Direction
(SA533B-1) Figure 6 shows T0 variation through the wall thickness of
SQV2A-Med. 1TCT 1/4T 20 1.20 -59 SA533 plates. Three plots in this figure represent three
(SA533B-1) different heats of material and test laboratories. The effect of
SQV2A-Med. 1TCT 1/4T 20 1.29 -67
specimen location within the product thickness is illustrated
(SA533B-1)
by comparing the T0 values of the 1TCT specimens at
SQV2A-High 1TCT 1/4T 20 1.00 -95
(SA533B-1) 0/4T(surface), 1/4T, and 1/2T locations to a full thickness
SQV2A-High 1TCT 1/4T 20 0.95 -80 (6TCT to 10TCT) specimen data. What is observed is the
(SA533B-1) expected trend with highest toughness at the surface and
SQV2A-High 1TCT 1/4T 20 1.00 -94 declining to a lower toughness in the center of the product.

5
 The 2001 ASME Pressure Vessels and Piping Conference
July 23-26, 2001 - Atlanta, Georgia, USA

The full thickness T0 tends to be closest to the T0 at the SQV2A-Med. 1TCT 1.2E+05 12 1.29 -24
surface. Similar trends are shown in Fig. 7 for two forging (SA533B-1)
heats tested by separate laboratories. This observation is SQV2A-Med. 1TCT 1.2E+05 12 1.54 -33
consistent with other similar observations made by Wallin (SA533B-1)
[11] on HSST data and Vhierig [12]. For engineering SQV2A-High 1TCT 1.2E+05 12 1.54 -57
application it is better not to use toughness values from a (SA533B-1)
SQV2A-High 1TCT 1.2E+05 12 1.58 -39
surface or a full plate thickness specimen.
(SA533B-1)
SQV2A-High 1TCT 1.2E+05 12 1.29 -66
Experience Applying the Proposed Revision of (SA533B-1)
E1921 to the Japanese Research Program Data SFVQ1A 1TCT 1.2E+05 12 1.29 -46
For each data set, the reference temperature (T0) was (SA508-3) 2TCT 8.5E+04 6 0.60 -53
calculated using the multi-temperature calculation procedure.
Since this testing was performed before the development of SFVQ1A 1TCT 1.2E+05 12 1.20 -54
(SA508-3)
the procedure used, the data was interpreted as follows: Static
SFVQ1A 1TCT 1.2E+05 12 1.20 -30
data that was labeled as KIc or KJc was considered to have (SA508-3)
failed by cleavage and a Kronecker δ value of 1 was assigned. SFVQ1A 1TCT 1.2E+05 12 1.29 -24
Data labeled as KJQ or KJIc was considered to have produced a (SA508-3) 2TCT 8.5E+04 6 0.64 -40
J-R curve (not cleaved) and δ was set to 0. Data that was
SA302B 1TCT 1.2E+05 12 1.20 -32
tested at a test temperature outside the required temperature
Mod.
range of T0 ± 50°C [9] was excluded. This forced 36% of the SFVQ2A 1TCT 1.2E+05 12 1.62 -48
data sets to become invalid due to insufficient number of data (SA508-2)
points within the required temperature range. SQV2A 1TCT 1.2E+05 12 1.29 -66
(SA533B-2)
2TCT 8.5E+04 6 0.64 -67
DYNAMIC DATA ANALYSIS
As part of the Japanese fracture testing program, high SGV480 1TCT 1.2E+05 12 1.29 -74
(SA516-70) 2TCT 8.5E+04 6 0.62 -72
loading rate (dynamic fracture) testing was also conducted.
Dynamic fracture toughness test data are of importance SPV490 1TCT 1.2E+05 12 1.62 -94
because these together with crack arrest data form the basis of (SA515-70?) 2TCT 8.5E+04 6 0.63 -13
the KIR curve. The dynamic fracture toughness data was SQV2A-Low 1TCT 1.2E+05 12 1.54 1
obtained by tests using a cross-head speed of 500mm/sec. Weld (SAW) 2TCT 8.5E+04 6 0.63 -13
Loading rates correspond to;
SQV2A-Low 1TCT 1.2E+05 11 0.79 1
1TCT static rate 1.17 MPa¥m/sec
Weld (SAW) 2TCT 8.5E+04 6 0.63 -13
1TCT dynamic rate 1.18E+05 MPa¥m/sec
2TCT dynamic rate 8.45E+04 MPa¥m/sec. SQV2A-Low 1TCT 1.2E+05 12 1.20 1
Weld (SAW) 2TCT 8.5E+04 6 0.48 4
All dynamic fracture toughness data are presented in Table 3.
SQV2A-Med. 1TCT 1.2E+05 12 1.29 -20
Table 3. Fracture Toughness Data – Dynamic Weld (MIG)
SQV2A-High 1TCT 1.2E+05 12 1.54 -59
Specification Data K rate No of Validity T0 Weld (SAW)
Set Speci Check SQV2A-High 1TCT 1.2E+05 12 1.00 -51
MPa√m/s men n* °C Weld (SAW)
SQV2A-Low 1TCT 1.2E+05 12 1.20 -4 *n>1 required for validity per Ref. 9
(SA533B-1) 2TCT 8.5E+04 6 0.60 -9
Figure 8 presents plots of 1T equivalent toughness and the
SQV2A-Low 1TCT 1.2E+05 12 1.20 -26 Master Curve as a function of T - T0. The dynamic data are
(SA533B-1) 2TCT 8.5E+04 6 0.64 -43 well represented by the median master and 5/95% tolerance
SQV2A-Low 1TCT 1.2E+05 12 1.29 -25 bound curves. Only 20 out of 330 points lie outside these
(SA533B-1) 2TCT 8.5E+04 6 0.60 -32 tolerance bounds. This dynamic fracture toughness data plot
SQV2A-Med. 1TCT 1.2E+05 12 1.20 -32 indicates that the Master Curve method is well suited for
(SA533B-1) dynamic fracture toughness. The shape of the Master Curve

6

remains the same as that of static fracture toughness and the
5/95% tolerance bound curves bound almost all the data.
The effect of loading rate on T0 is demonstrated in Fig. 9
where the T0 values from both static and dynamic tests are
presented as a function of loading rate, dKI/dt. It is observed
that the following empirical relationship exists:
T0 = A ln (LR) + B
where LR is loading rate in MPa¥m/second and A and B are
constants.
The same relationship has been seen in all RPV steels
examined to date [13]. Also shown in Fig. 9 are the Joyce’s
SA515 data [14] which represent an upper limit of the
dynamic shift behavior. The loading rate parameter A ranging
from 2.1 to 5.7 is consistent with other RPV steels. The A515
steel displayed for comparison has the parameter A that is at
the high end of the range in A values seen in RPV steels.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
This large database provided another major source of
pressure vessel steel fracture toughness data in the transition
temperature range. Application of the Master Curve Method
to these data sets reaffirmed the superiority the Master Curve
T0 in indexing transition range fracture toughness data. This is
a far better way of treating fracture toughness than the
traditional RTNDT approach which is the current indexing
parameter employed by ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel
Code fracture toughness curves.
Contrary to uncertainties surrounding RTNDT, T0 based
indexing presents one master trend curve representing
toughness behavior in the transition temperature region for
ferritic steels. This presents a tight scatter band with statistical
tolerance bounds. This new method of indexing fracture
toughness is more advantageous in probabilistic fracture
mechanics analyses that are increasingly needed for the risk-
informed structural integrity assessment arena.
Based on this study following conclusions can be drawn:
1. The master curve and the 5/95% tolerance bounds
satisfactorily represents all the modern Japanese RPV
weld, forging, and plate materials tested in the
Japanese KIR Project. This applies to the static and
dynamic fracture toughness data.
2. From the results of this study, it is obvious that the
industry needs to consider switching the Master
Curve based fracture toughness from the RTNDT
based fracture toughness that is used today.
3. The rate effects seen in the Japanese RPV weld,
forging, and plate materials tested in the Japanese KIR
Project are consistent with other RPV steels.
The 2001 ASME Pressure Vessels and Piping Conference
July 23-26, 2001 - Atlanta, Georgia, USA
Acknowledgement
The authors thank Japanese KIR Committee for their
contribution of their data through U. S. PVRC to promote
development of the new Master Curve technology. Also, the
authors would like to thank the B&W Owners Group for their
support of the data analysis.
References:
1. M. Higuchi, Y. Tanaka, T. Yamauchi, and K. Iida,
“Effects of the Drop Weight Test Procedure on TNDT,”
Proceedings of ASME Pressure Vessel and Piping
Conference, PVP-Volume 346, Fatigue and Fracture-
1997, Orlando Florida, July 27-31, 1997.
2. T. Tomimatsu, E. Murakami, T. Takahashi, and S.
Machida, “Full Thickness Crack Arrest Fracture
Toughness of Nuclear Pressure Vessel Steels,”
Proceedings of ASME Pressure Vessel and Piping
Conference, PVP-Volume 346, Fatigue and Fracture-
1997, Orlando Florida, July 27-31, 1997.
3. M. Sakai, O. Maekawa, M. Iida, and M. Tani,
“Applicability of Charpy Transition Temperature as
fracture toughness Control Parameter,” Proceedings of
ASME Pressure Vessel and Piping Conference, PVP-
Volume 346, Fatigue and Fracture-1997, Orlando Florida,
July 27-31, 1997.
4. O. Maekawa, et al., “Establishment of a New KIR Curve
Based on TNDT Obtained by the One Pass Procedure,”
Proceedings of ASME Pressure Vessel and Piping
Conference, PVP-Volume 346, Fatigue and Fracture-
1997, Orlando Florida, July 27-31, 1997.
5. T. Tomimatsu, M. Kikuchi, and M. Sakai, “Fracture
Toughness Evaluation Based on the Master Curve
Procedure,” Proceedings of ASME Pressure Vessel and
Piping Conference, PVP-Volume 353, Fatigue and
Fracture-1997, Orlando Florida, July 27-31, 1997.
6. Code Case N-610, Alternative Reference Stress Intensity
Factor (KIR) Curve for Class 1 Components Section III,
Division 1, ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, July
30, 1998.
7. ASTM, 1998, Standard E1921-97, "Standard Test Method
for the Determination of Reference Temperature, T0, for
Ferritic Steels in the Transition Range," 1998 Annual
Book of ASTM Standards, Vol. 03.01, American Society
for Testing and Materials, West Conshohocken, PA.
8. W. A. Van Der Sluys, K. K. Yoon, D. E. Killian, and J. B.
Hall, “Fracture Toughness of Ferritic Steels and ASTM
Reference Temperature (T0),” BAW-2318, Framatome
Technologies, 1998.
9. Draft Revision to ASTM E1921, "Standard Test Method
for the Determination of Reference Temperature, T0, for
Ferritic Steels in the Transition Range," to be issued in
2001 Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Vol. 03.01,
7
 The 2001 ASME Pressure Vessels and Piping Conference
July 23-26, 2001 - Atlanta, Georgia, USA

American Society for Testing and Materials, West
Conshohocken, PA, September 19, 2000.
10. Code Case N-629, Use of Fracture Toughness Test Data
to Establish Reference Temperature for Pressure
Retaining Materials, Section XI, Division 1, ASME Boiler
and Pressure Vessel Code, 1999.
11. K. Wallin, "Application of the Master Curve Method to
Crack Initiation and Crack Arrest," Proceedings of ASME
Pressure Vessels and Piping Conference, PVP-Volume
393, Fracture, Fatigue and Weld Residual Stress, Boston,
Massachusetts, August 1-5, 1999.
12. H-W. Viehrig and J. Boehmert, "Some Issues by Using
the Master Curve Concept," SMiRT-15, Seoul, Korea,
August 15~20, 1999.
13. K. K. Yoon, W. A. Van Der Sluys, and K. Hour, "Effect
of Loading Rate on Fracture Toughness of Pressure
Vessel Steels," J. of Pressure Vessel Technology, Vol.
122, pp 125-129, May 2000.
14. J. A. Joyce, “On the Utilization of High Rate Charpy Test
Results and the Master Curve to Obtain Accurate Lower
Bound Toughness Predictions in the Ductile-to-Brittle
Transition, Small Specimen Test Techniques,” 5OCNN
5RGEKOGPU 6GUV 6GEJPKSWG #56/ 562  94
%QTYKP S.T. Rosinski, and E. Van Walle. Eds., ASTM,
1997.

JTK-1 SQV2A-LM 1TCT 0-4t ,To = -63 C

JTK-1 SQV2A-LM 1TCT 1-4t ,To = -41 C
JTK-1 SQV2A-LM 1TCT 1-2t ,To = -39 C
JTK-1 SQV2A-LM 9TCT ,To = -63 C
JTK-2 SQV2A-LB 1TCT 0-4t ,To = -91 C
450
JTK-2 SQV2A-LB 1TCT 1-4t ,To = -79 C
JTK-2 SQV2A-LB 1TCT 1-2t ,To = -73 C
JTK-3 SQV2A-LI 1TCT 0-4t ,To = -68 C
JTK-3 SQV2A-LI 1TCT 1-4t ,To = -63 C
400
JTK-3 SQV2A-LI 1TCT 1-2t ,To = -55 C
JTK-3 SQV2A-LI 6TCT ,To = -78 C
JTK-4 SQV2A-MM 1TCT 1-4t ,To = -62 C
JTK-5 SQV2A-MB 1TCT 1-4t ,To = -63 C 350
JTK-6 SQV2A-MI 1TCT 1-4t ,To = -70 C
JTK-7 SQV2A-HM 1TCT 1-4t ,To = -93 C
JTK-8 SQV2A-HB 1TCT 1-4t ,To = -84 C
JTK-9 SQV2A-HI 1TCT 1-4t ,To = -93 C 300
JTK-10 SFVQ1A-M1 1TCT 0-4t ,To = -122 C
Toughness, Ksi √in

JTK-10 SFVQ1A-M1 1TCT 1-4t ,To = -93 C

JTK-10 SFVQ1A-M1 1TCT 1-2t ,To = -77 C
JTK-10 SFVQ1A-M1 9TCT ,To = -97 C 250
JTK-11 SFVQ1A-M2 1TCT 1-4t ,To = -101 C
JTK-12 SFVQ1A-M3 1TCT 1-4t ,To = -71 C
JTK-13 SFVQ1A-I 1TCT 0-4t ,To = -89 C
JTK-13 SFVQ1A-I 1TCT 1-4t ,To = -64 C 200
JTK-13 SFVQ1A-I 1TCT 1-2t ,To = -66 C
JTK-13 SFVQ1A-I 10TCT ,To = -84 C
JTK-14 SA302B-B 1TCT 1-4t ,To = -78 C
JTK-15 SFVQ2A-B 1TCT 1-4t ,To = -100 C 150
JTK-16 SQV2B-M 1TCT 1-4t ,To = -129 C
JTK-16 SQV2B-M 4TCT ,To = -121 C
JTK-17 SGV480-M 1TCT 1-4t ,To = -138 C
JTK-17 SGV480-M 2TCT ,To = -128 C 100
JTK-18 SPV490-I 1TCT 1-4t ,To = -152 C
JTK-18 SPV490-I 2TCT ,To = -118 C
JTK-19 SQV2AWM-LM 1TCT ,To = -33 C
JTK-19 SQV2AWM-LM 9TCT ,To = -35 C 50
JTK-20 SQV2AWM-LB 1TCT ,To = -52 C
JTK-20 SQV2AWM-LB 6TCT ,To = -46 C
JTK-21 SQV2AWM-LI 1TCT ,To = -69 C
JTK-21 SQV2AWM-LI 6TCT ,To = -56 C 0
JTK-22 SQV2AWM-MB 1TCT ,To = -70 C
JTK-23 SQV2AWM-HM 1TCT ,To = -83 C -250 -200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150
JTK-24 SQV2AWN-HI 1TCT ,To = -94 C
ASME Kic Curve T-RTNDT, F

Figure 2. Static Fracture Toughness vs. T - RTNDT

8
 The 2001 ASME Pressure Vessels and Piping Conference
July 23-26, 2001 - Atlanta, Georgia, USA

Only 1/4T position plotted since RTndt was determined at 1/4T position

450

400

350

300
Toughness, Ksi√ in

250

200

150

100

50

0
-250 -200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150
T - RTNDT, F

Figure 3. KJc Data at 1/4T Location

All data
450

400

350
1T Equivalent Toughness, MPa√m

300 M = 30 (1T)

250

200

150

100

50

0
-150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150
T - To, C

Figure 4. All KJc Data versus T – T0

9
 The 2001 ASME Pressure Vessels and Piping Conference
July 23-26, 2001 - Atlanta, Georgia, USA

450

400

350
1T Equivalent Toughness, MPa√ m

300

250

Code Case N-629

200 Kic Curve

150

100

50

0
-150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150
T - To, C

Figure 5. Valid KJc Data with Master Curves (Median and 5/95% TB)

10
 The 2001 ASME Pressure Vessels and Piping Conference
July 23-26, 2001 - Atlanta, Georgia, USA

SQV2A-L - SFQV1A - M1
-120 M -120
-100 To from 9T CT
-100
To -80 To from 9T CT -80

To (C)
(C) -60
-60
-40
-40
-20
-20
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0
X (inches) 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
X (inches)

SQV2A-L - I
-120
SFQV1A - I
-100
-120
-80 To from 6T CT
To (C)

-100
-60 To from 10T CT
-40 -80 10

-20 To (C) -60

0 -40
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 -20
X (inches)
0
0 1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
X (inches)
X is distance from surface w here 1TCT
SQV2A-L - I spesim en is fabricated.
-120
-100
-80
To (C)

-60 Figure 7. T0 Variation Through Wall Thickness - Forging

-40
-20
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
X (inches)
X is distance from surface w here
1TCT specimen is fabricated.

Figure 6. T0 Variations Through Wall Thickness – Plates

11
 The 2001 ASME Pressure Vessels and Piping Conference
July 23-26, 2001 - Atlanta, Georgia, USA

Valid dynamic data only

450

400

350
1T Equivalent Toughness, MPa√m

300

250

200

150

100

50

0
-150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150
T-To, C

Figure 8. Dynamic KJc Data versus T – T0

T0, Static vs. Dynamic

200
A515 Steel (Joyce) To = 6.1 Ln(dK/dt) - 18

SQV2A-Low (Eq.:SA533B-1) To = 3.2 Ln(dK/dt) - 60

150
SQV2A-Med. (Eq.:SA533B-1) To = 2.9 Ln(dK/dt) - 63

SQV2A-High (Eq.:SA533B-1) To = 3.1 Ln(dK/dt) - 90

100
SFVQ1A (Eq.:SA508-3) To = 3.6 Ln(dK/dt) - 83

SQV2A-Low (SA533B-1) Weld Metal(SAW) To = 4.6 Ln(dK/dt) - 54

50
T0, C

SQV2A-High (SA533B-1) Weld Metal(SAW) To = 2.7 Ln(dK/dt) - 87

o

-50

-100

-150
1.E-01 1.E+00 1.E+01 1.E+02 1.E+03 1.E+04 1.E+05 1.E+06
dKI/dt (MPa√m/s)
Figure 9. T0 versus Loading Rate for Japanese KIR Data

12