Nuclear Engineering and Design 212 (2002) 49 – 57

www.elsevier.com/locate/nucengdes

Estimation of fracture toughness transition curves of RPV

steels from Charpy impact test data
S.H. Kim, Y.W. Park *, S.S. Kang, H.D. Chung
Korea Institute of Nuclear Safety, Radiation and Engineering Research De6elopment, 19 Kusong-Dong, Yusong-Gu,
Taejon 305 -338, Republic of Korea

Abstract

The major concern for reactor pressure vessels (RPVs) in terms of integrity is the reduction in fracture toughness
of materials due to radiation embrittlement. In order to ensure the structural integrity of RPVs, a very conservative
approach has been employed since the first commercial operation of a nuclear power plant (NPP). RTNDT has been
used as a principal parameter to indicate the degree of irradiated degradation in RPV material, which is determined
using Charpy impact and drop weight tests based on the ASME code requirements. Charpy test is very practical and
easy, but it does not provide the fracture toughness itself. Therefore, the Master Curve method, as a direct method
to determine the fracture toughness of RPV, was investigated by a number of researchers during the last decade. An
alternative approach is proposed in this paper to estimate the reference transition temperature, T0, in the Master
Curve method using Charpy impact test data, which are abundant for old NPPs. Two well-known correlations
between Charpy absorbed energy and KIc were used to estimate the fracture toughness transition curves. © 2002
Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction tegrity of RPV against neutron irradiation embrit-

Reactor pressure vessel (RPV) materials in nu-
clear power plants are degraded by various causes
during plant operation. Among the various
causes, neutron irradiation is most contributive to
the degradation of RPV materials. In case of
ferritic steels, which show the ductile-to-brittle
transition behavior as temperature changes, neu-
tron irradiation decreases fracture toughness and
increases strength. To ensure the structural in-
* Corresponding author. Tel.: + 82-42-868-0166; fax: + 82-
42-861-9945.
E-mail address: k077pyw@kins.re.kr (Y.W. Park).
tlement, the precise fracture-safe analysis must be
done during the plant lifetime. Fracture mechan-
ics, traditionally linear elastic fracture mechanics
(LEFM), has been used for the fracture-safe anal-
ysis of RPV.
For the fracture-safe analysis using LEFM, the
material fracture toughness (KIc) must be exactly
evaluated. However, in the transition region, the
fracture toughness data show a large scatter and
very large specimens are needed to get a valid
linear-elastic fracture toughness value (Landes
and Shaffer, 1980). Moreover, since the space in
which test specimens are irradiated is insufficient,
it is impossible to get the fracture toughness of
irradiated RPV materials using large specimens.

0029-5493/02/$ - see front matter © 2002 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 0 2 9 - 5 4 9 3 ( 0 1 ) 0 0 4 7 9 - 4
50 S.H. Kim et al. / Nuclear Engineering and Design 212 (2002) 49–57
The determination of KIc of each heat of unirradi-
ated or irradiated RPV steels in the transition
region is expensive and impractical. Thus, in or-
der to evaluate the fracture toughness of RPV
materials, current ASME Boiler and Pressure Ves-
sel Code introduces standard reference toughness
curves which are based on an approach that uti-
lizes a material normalizing and indexing parame-
ter, RTNDT, which is based on the results from
Charpy V-notch and drop weight tests. In many
cases, this indexing parameter has known to be
overly conservative relative to the real toughness
of ferritic pressure vessel steels (Server et al.,
1998).
Advances in fracture mechanics technology
during the past two decades have made it possible
to improve the ASME Code approach by intro-
ducing elastic– plastic fracture mechanics in deter-
mining fracture toughness values with much
smaller specimens based on J-integral techniques,
that is, measuring values of KJc. In addition, as
test results accumulate, the statistical nature of
fracture in the transition region turns out to be
obvious. It was demonstrated that fracture tough-
ness test data in lower shelf and transition region
follow the Weibull distribution (Anderson and
Stienstra, 1989; Wallin, 1984). A reference transi-
tion temperature, designated as T0, can be defined
directly from measurements of linear-elastic and/
or elastic– plastic fracture toughness (ASTM
E1921, 1997; Merkle et al., 1998). This approach
is called the Master Curve approach and was
standardized as ASTM E1921. The Master Curve
approach has been recognized to be very effective
in determining the fracture toughness of RPV
steels. In 1999, the Master Curve method was
adopted by AMSE Code Committee as Code
Case N-629 for Section XI applications and Code
Case N-631 for Section III applications.
The fracture toughness of RPV materials has
been evaluated mainly by Charpy test, so there
are abundant Charpy test data for old RPVs.
However, the main drawback was that Charpy
test could not provide fracture toughness itself. It
may be helpful to develop a method for evaluat-
ing the fracture toughness parameter, T0 of the
Master Curve method using abundant Charpy
test data. In this study, an approach to estimate
T0, which specifies the elastic–plastic fracture
toughness transition curve, by using the correla-
tion between CVN data and fracture toughness
was investigated.
2. Fracture behavior of ferritic steels in the
transition region
For ferritic steels, which show the ductile-to-
brittle transition behavior, the main fracture
mechanism in the transition region is micro-crack
initiation, growth and brittle fracture by cleavage.
It is shown that cleavage fracture in ferritic steel is
of a statistical nature and cleavage fracture tough-
ness measurement of steels in the lower shelf and
ductile-to-brittle transition region reveals signifi-
cant scatter (Landes and Shaffer, 1980; Wallin,
1984). This behavior of cleavage fracture is
known to be an inherent feature of material
rather than a result of experimental error. Many
micromechanical models have been developed to
explain and describe the statistical nature of the
cleavage fracture toughness data (Anderson and
Stienstra, 1989; Wallin, 1984).
Wallin (1984) showed that the cleavage fracture
toughness distribution for a given steel at a given
temperature in the transition region can be well
characterized by the following three-parameter
Weibull distribution:
  n
Kc − Kmin m
Pf = 1−exp − , (1)
K0 − Kmin
where Pf is the cumulative fracture probability, Kc
is the fracture toughness, m is the Weibull slope
and K0 is equal to the value of Kc which repre-
sents the failure probability of 0.63.
In the transition region, specimen thickness has
a great effect on the fracture toughness data
(Landes and Shaffer, 1980; Wallin, 1985). The
fracture toughness can either be determined using
large specimens satisfying linear-elastic require-
ments or it can be derived from the elastic–plastic
critical J-integral value corresponding to brittle
fracture with the following equation:
KJc = JcE, (2)
 S.H. Kim et al. / Nuclear Engineering and Design 212 (2002) 49–57
where E is the modulus of elasticity. Regardless of
whether KIc or KJc is used, fracture toughness, in
the case of brittle fracture, can be thickness cor-
rected with the following equation, based on the
weakest link theory (Merkle et al., 1998):
KB1 =Kmin +(KB2 −Kmin)
B2  1/m
. (3)
B1
In Eqs. (1) and (3), Weibull slope, m, for cleav-
age fracture was known to be 4 and the threshold
value for fracture, Kmin is known to be about
20 MPa m for ferritic steel (Wallin, 1984, 1985).
Therefore, the only fitting parameter in Eq. (1),
necessary to characterize cleavage fracture tough-
ness distribution for a given condition, is K0,
which varies with temperature.
A ‘Master Curve’ describing the temperature
dependence of 1T-equivalent fracture toughness
of a wide range of ferritic steels was proposed by
Wallin (Merkle et al., 1998; Wallin, 1995a):
K0 =31+77 exp [0.019 (T − T0)],
where K0 is in MPa m, T is temperature in °C,
and T0 is the transition temperature where the
mean fracture toughness corresponding to a 1-
inch thickness specimen is 100 MPa m. If, for a
given material, T0 is known, Eqs. (1) and (4) can
completely describe the fracture toughness in the
transition region. ASTM Standard E1921 outlines
the procedure for determining T0 for a given steel.
K0 is calculated from the test results which corre-
spond to one single temperature:
K0 = %
N
n
(KJc(i ) −Kmin) 1/4
+Kmin.
i = 1 (r − 0.3068)
In Eq. (5), N is the total number of fracture
toughness values and r is the number of toughness
values corresponding to brittle failure. Once K0 is
known at a given temperature, T, T0 can be
determined from Eq. (4) as follows:
T0 = T−
1 
ln
K0 −31
.
n (6)
0.019 77
Wallin (1995a) proposed another method to
calculate T0 when fracture toughness data were
available at different temperatures.
51
N
li exp [0.019 (Ti − T0)]
%
i=1 11+ 77 exp [0.019 (Ti − T0)]
N
(KJc(i ) − 20)4 exp [0.019 (Ti − T0)]
−% = 0. (7)
i = 1 {11+77 exp [0.019 (Ti − T0)]}
5
Kroneckers delta (li ) is one when KJc corresponds
to failure by brittle fracture and li = 0 when KJc
corresponds to non-failure.
3. Correlations between Charpy impact energy
and fracture toughness
Charpy impact tests are the most commonly
used to determine the susceptibility of steel to
brittle fracture under notched conditions in the
transition region because they can provide a rela-
tively simple, quick, and inexpensive measure of
material toughness. CVN specimens have been
widely used for years, and the results are particu-
larly well known and useful to metallurgists for
(4) controlling heat treatments and other production
processes. Recognizing the ease of preparation
and low cost of the CVN impact tests, many
researchers have tried to correlate linear-elastic
fracture toughness, KIc, with the CVN data.
For the transition region, there are several em-
pirical correlations between CVN absorbed en-
ergy and KIc. In this study, two well-known
correlations were investigated to estimate the frac-
ture toughness transition curve. Based on experi-
mental results from eight different carbon and
alloy steels with yield strengths ranging between
(5)
270 and 1700 MPa, Barsom and Rolfe (1970))
correlated KIc with the transition Charpy impact
energy by the following equation:
K 2Ic
= 2.2×10 − 4(CVN)3/2, (8)
E
where KIc is in MPa m, E is Young’s modulus of
the material in MPa, and CVN is Charpy ab-
sorbed energy in Joule (J). Similarly, Sailors and
Corten (1972)) obtained a fairly simple correlation
between the transition CVN energy and KIc for
steels with a range of minimum yield strength
from 410 to 480 MPa as follows:
KIc = 14.63 (CVN)1/2. (9)
52 S.H. Kim et al. / Nuclear Engineering and Design 212 (2002) 49–57
The fracture toughness value obtained from Eq.
(8) or Eq. (9) is the linear-elastic plane strain
fracture toughness, KIc, which could be obtained
on a relatively large specimen.
As mentioned, the thickness effect is not negli-
gible according to the weakest link theory. A
larger thickness is needed for the higher tempera-
ture to get a valid KIc as a material constant.
Therefore, the fracture toughness values obtained
from Eq. (8) or Eq. (9) should be normalized to
those of the 1T size using Eq. (3) to be consistent
with the Master Curve approach. However, the
thickness values for corresponding KIc data are
not available. To get a valid KIc value, the thick-
ness of the specimen should not be less than
2.5(KIc/|ys)2. On this basis, the following relation-
ship was taken to determine the thickness values
for corresponding KIc data obtained from CVN
data using Eq. (8) or Eq. (9) when the calculated
thickness, B, was greater than 1T.
KIc 2
B=2.5 . (10)
|ys
In the case where the calculated thickness from
Eq. (10) was less than 1T, the estimated thickness
was cut off as 1T. So, if a Charpy transition curve
Fig. 1. Schematic procedure for the estimation of fracture
toughness transition curve using CVN data.
of a material is available, it is possible to estimate
the linear-elastic fracture toughness, KIc from Eq.
(8) or Eq. (9), and, finally, the 1T-equivalent
elastic–plastic fracture toughness (KJc) transition
curve of the material could be obtained using Eqs.
(3) and (10). This is shown in Fig. 1, schemati-
cally. The Charpy transition curve could be ob-
tained by fitting the CVN data to a tangent
hyperbolic function. Once the KJc curve versus
test temperature is obtained, we can consider this
curve to represent KJc test data at different test
temperatures. We need to select an appropriate
number of KJc data from this curve to determine
T0 using Eq. (7) which is used to calculate T0
when fracture toughness values are available at
different temperatures. Ten KJc data were taken
from this curve over the transition region at an
equi-distance on the temperature axis. Data selec-
tion range from this curve was determined by two
criteria: the first was the range over which the
difference between the estimated KJc curve from
CVN data and that of the experiment was mini-
mal (Criterion 1), the second was the same range
as used by Sailors–Corten in Eq. (9) (Criterion 2).
The former results in a range from 50 to 150
MPa m and the latter gives the values of KJc
ranging from 5 to 50 ft-lb in CVN energy.
4. Descriptions of materials
In this study, the fracture toughness and CVN
data of 15 RPV materials were investigated. All of
the data was from the literature. Included steels
were SA508-3 forging, several heats of SA533B-1
plates, a SA302-B plate and submerged-arc welds
made with Linde 80, 0091, and 124 fluxes. Eleven
steels were irradiated in test reactors. Therefore, a
total of 26 sets of fracture toughness and CVN
data were used in this study. In Table 1, the
chemical compositions and irradiation conditions
of those steels are presented.
In Table 1, the material designated as KRPV
was installed in one of RPVs in Korea, and its
fracture toughness and CVN data were provided
by the Reactor Pressure Vessel Material Develop-
ment Group of KAERI (Korea Atomic Energy
Research Institute). The fracture toughness data
Table 1
Chemical composition and irradiation condition of steels investigated

Material Irradiation temperature (°C) Fluence, 1019 n cm−2, (E\1 MeV) Chemical composition (wt.%)

C Mn P S Si Cr Ni Mo Cu V

a
KRPV (SA508-3 forging) – – 0.19 1.35 0.006 0.002 0.08 0.17 0.82 0.51 0.03 0.002
HSST02b (SA533B-1 plate) 288 1.85 0.23 1.55 0.009 0.014 0.20 0.04 0.67 0.53 0.14 0.003
1bBc (SA533B-1 plate) – – 0.25 1.41 0.008 0.014 0.26 0.11 0.46 0.49 0.12 0.003
1bCc (SA533B-1 plate) – – 0.21 1.45 0.006 0.009 0.23 0.05 0.55 0.64 0.13 0.003
67Cd (SA533B-1 plate) 288 1.6 0.23 1.31 0.025 0.018 0.20 B0.003 0.70 0.51 0.002 –
68Ad (SA533B-1 plate) 288 1.6 0.23 1.31 0.003 0.017 0.22 B0.003 0.70 0.52 0.30 –
68Cd (SA533B-1 plate) 288 1.6 0.23 1.31 0.028 0.017 0.22 B0.003 0.70 0.52 0.30 –
6Ad (SA 302-B plate) 288 1.6 0.23 1.29 0.002 0.013 0.22 – 0.045 0.53 0.28 –
71Wb (Weld-Linde 80 flux) 288 1.66 0.12 1.58 0.011 0.011 0.54 0.12 0.63 0.45 0.046 0.005
WF70e (Weld-Linde 80 flux) – – 0.083 1.61 0.013 0.006 0.59 0.10 0.57 0.41 0.23 0.006
68Wb (Weld-Linde 0091 flux) 288 1.3 0.15 1.38 0.008 0.009 0.16 0.04 0.13 0.60 0.04 0.007
69Wb (Weld-Linde 0091 flux) 288 1.31 0.14 1.19 0.010 0.009 0.19 0.09 0.10 0.54 0.12 0.005
70Wb (Weld-Linde 124 flux) 288 1.64 0.10 1.48 0.011 0.011 0.44 0.13 0.63 0.47 0.056 0.004
72Wf (Weld-Linde 124 flux) 288 1.51 0.093 1.60 0.006 0.006 0.44 0.27 0.60 0.58 0.23 0.003
73Wf (Weld-Linde 124 flux) 288 1.51 0.098 1.56 0.005 0.005 0.45 0.25 0.60 0.58 0.31 0.003

–, not available.
a
Korean RPV material.
b
Ref. McGowan et al. (1988).
c
Ref. Server and Oldfield (1978).
d
Ref. Hiser (1989).
e
Ref. McCabe et al. (1994).
f
S.H. Kim et al. / Nuclear Engineering and Design 212 (2002) 49–57

Ref. Nanstad et al. (1992).

53
54 S.H. Kim et al. / Nuclear Engineering and Design 212 (2002) 49–57
Fig. 2. Comparison between measured and estimated T0 val-
ues: Barsom – Rolfe’s equation and Criterion 1.
Fig. 3. Comparison between measured and estimated T0 val-
ues: Barsom – Rolfe’s equation and Criterion 2.
Fig. 4. Comparison between measured and estimated T0 val-
ues: Sailors – Corten’s equation and Criterion 1.
of KRPV were obtained mainly using pre-cracked
Charpy-sized specimen.
The data for the materials designated as
HSST02, 68, 69, 70 and 71 W were from the
Fourth Irradiation Series in the Heavy-Section
Steel Irradiation (HSSI) Program (McGowan et
al., 1988). These materials were irradiated in the
Bulk Shielding Reactor at Oak Ridge National
Laboratory at 288 °C to target neutron fluences
of 2× 1019 neutrons cm − 2 (\ 1 MeV).
The data for 1bB and 1bC materials were from
the literature (Server and Oldfield, 1978). They
were two heats of SA533B-1 plate materials.
The materials designated as 6A, 67C, 68A and
68C were lab-melt plates (Hiser, 1989). Plate 6A
has the composition of A 302-B steel and plates
67C, 68A and 68C all meet the composition re-
quirements of A 533-B steel, whereby each has a
high nickel content of 0.70%. These materials
were irradiated in the UBR reactor at the Buffalo
Materials Research Center (BMRC), at the State
University of New York at Buffalo. A 0.5 T
compact tension test specimen was used for the
fracture toughness tests of these materials.
A weld metal, designated as WF-70, was taken
from the Midland Reactor of U.S. (McCabe et
al., 1994). The designation WF-70 stands for a
specific heat of weld wire used with a specific lot
of Linde 80 flux. This is a high-copper weld metal.
The test data of two materials, designated as 72
and 73 W were from the Fifth Irradiation Series
in the HSSI Program (Nanstad et al., 1992).
These materials were submerged-arc welds with
relatively high copper contents. Compact tension
test specimens of thickness ranged from 25.4 to
203.2 mm were used for the fracture toughness
tests of these materials.
5. Results and discussion
In Figs. 2–5, the measured T0 values (T0,exp)
obtained from fracture toughness test were com-
pared to the estimated T0 values (T0,est) obtained
using the procedures mentioned in the foregoing
section. The estimated values have linear correla-
tions with the measured T0 values and the stan-
dard deviation of each correlation was about
 S.H. Kim et al. / Nuclear Engineering and Design 212 (2002) 49–57 55

Fig. 5. Comparison between measured and estimated T0 val- Fig. 6. Errors between the measured and the estimated T0
ues: Sailors – Corten’s equation and Criterion 2. values versus material yield strength at room temperature.

13 °C. Table 2 shows fitting parameters in the
linear correlation for each method, standard devi-
ations of the correlations and the maximum errors
between the measured and estimated T0 values.
As shown in Figs. 2 and 3, when Eq. (8) was used,
T0 values were overestimated for low T0 materials
and underestimated for high T0 materials. How-
ever, when Eq. (9) was used as shown in Figs. 4
and 5, T0 values were overestimated as a whole.
When Eq. (8) with Criterion 2 was used, the
errors between measured and estimated T0 values
were minimal. In Fig. 6, the errors between T0
values obtained from experimental measurement
and estimated values based on Eq. (8) with Crite-
rion 2 were presented as a function of material
yield strength at room temperature. As shown in
Fig. 6, the errors were nearly independent of
material yield strength.
On the other hand, Wallin (1989) tried another
approach to correlate the fracture toughness
parameter, T0, with Charpy-V impact test data.
He derived an empirical correlation between T0
and T28 J (the transition temperature correspond-
ing to Charpy-V impact energy 28 J) using more
than 350 of fracture toughness and CVN data sets
of different steels including welds, base material
and castings. In his paper, the correlation was
written as the following form:
T0 = T28 J − 18 °C, (11)
and its standard deviation was 15 °C. As shown
in Table 2, the standard deviations of the correla-

Table 2
Correlation between the measured and estimated T0 values

CVN-KIc Criterion to specify the Fitting parameter of linear Standard deviation of Maximum
correlation transition region correlationa correlation (°C) errorb (°C)

A (°C) B (°C)

Barsom–Rolfe’s Criterion 1 −10.7 1.18 13.5 36

equation
Criterion 2 0.1 1.09 13.4 29
Sailors–Corten’s Criterion 1 −19.3 1.16 13.2 43
equation
Criterion 2 −20.8 1.14 13.0 46

a
T0,exp = A+B×T0,est.
b
Error= T0,est–T0,exp.
56 S.H. Kim et al. / Nuclear Engineering and Design 212 (2002) 49–57
tions (T0,exp =A + B × T0,est) in this study were
about 13 °C. Although, the data used in this study
was smaller than that of Wallin’s analysis, the
standard deviation was nearly same. Therefore, the
method developed in this study to estimate T0 value
using CVN-KIc correlation seems to be appropriate.
In Fig. 7, the shift in T0 values due to irradiation
was compared with Charpy-V transition
temperature shift in 41 J Charpy absorbed energy
level. The standard deviation between (DT0)exp and
DT41J was 12.2 °C. This figure shows that
Charpy-V shift is less than the static fracture
toughness shift, which is really discouraging in
terms of safety when considering the irradiation
shift has been measured by Charpy-V test. Wallin
Fig. 7. Comparison between static fracture toughness shift DT0
and Charpy-V shift DT41J.
Fig. 8. Comparison between the shift in measured T0 values
and in estimated T0 values.
made similar comparisons using IAEA CRP3
fracture mechanical results and found that in all
cases Charpy-V shift is less than the static fracture
toughness shift except in one case of GWA material
(Wallin, 1995b). Based on such a comparison, it can
be concluded that the Charpy-V shift is not
appropriate for the estimation of the static fracture
toughness shift of RPV steels.
However, as shown in Fig. 8, the comparison
between the irradiation shift of measured T0 values
and that of T0 values estimated using the method
in this study (using Eq. (8) with Criterion 2) shows
a good relationship: the standard deviation
between (DT0)exp and (DT0)est was 5.4 °C, whereas
that of (DT0)exp and DT41J was 12.2 °C. This means
that (DT0)est obtained by the proposed method in
this study has useful meaning to assess the
irradiation embrittlement.
In general, irradiation embrittlement has been
evaluated by traditional Charpy impact test.
Recently, there are some research activities to
obtain the fracture toughness from the subsize or
reconstituted specimen by using the Master Curve
approach. Therefore, considering the increasing
importance of the direct measurement of fracture
toughness shift and the abundance of CVN data in
old nuclear power plants, the simple method
proposed in this study could be of use because it
can provide a reasonable estimation of T0 as well
as fracture toughness shift without an expensive
fracture test in a hotcell.
6. Summary
Evaluation of RPV material degradation is im-
portant for assessment of the integrity of RPV.
Irradiation embrittlement is considered the main
concern of RPV integrity, but its degradation was
so far indirectly measured from Charpy impact
tests. Owing to the development of elasto-plastic
fracture mechanics during the last two decades,
valid fracture toughness can be measured from
small specimens. The Master Curve method was
developed for the evaluation of RPV materials in
the transition region.
This paper proposed a method to estimate ref-
erence transition temperature, T0, which charac-
 S.H. Kim et al. / Nuclear Engineering and Design 212 (2002) 49–57
terizes the fracture toughness transition curve in
the Master Curve approach. T0 values were esti-
mated using the correlation between Charpy ab-
sorbed energy and KIc considering thickness and
temperature effect on fracture toughness. Using
the method proposed in this paper, it is possible
to estimate the T0 value of RPV materials as well
as fracture toughness shift due to irradiation using
only CVN data.
Acknowledgements
The fracture toughness and CVN data of Ko-
rean RPV were provided by the Reactor Pressure
Vessel Material Development Group of KAERI.
References
Anderson, T.L., Stienstra, D., 1989. A model to predict the
sources and magnitude of scatter in toughness data in the
transition region. Journal of Testing and Evaluation 17,
46 – 53.
ASTM E1921, 1997. Standard test method for determination of
reference temperature, T0, for ferritic steels in the transition
range. Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Vol. 03.01.
Barsom, J.M., Rolfe, S.T., 1970. Correlations between KIc and
Charpy V-notch test results in the transition –temperature
range. ASTM STP 466, 281 –302.
Hiser, A.L., 1989. Post-irradiation fracture toughness character-
ization of four lab-melt plates. NUREG/CR-5216.
57
Landes, J.D., Shaffer, D.H., 1980. Statistical characterization of
fracture in the transition region. ASTM STP 700, 368 –382.
McCabe, D.E., Nanstad, R.K., Iskander, S.K., Swain, R.L.,
1994. Unirradiated material properties of midland weld
WF-70. NUREG/CR-6249.
McGowan, J.J., Nanstad, R.K., Thoms, K.R., 1988. Character-
ization of irradiated current-practice welds and A533 Grade
B Class 1 plate for nuclear pressure vessel service. NUREG/
CR-4880.
Merkle, J.G., Wallin, K., McCabe, D.E., 1998. Technical basis
for an ASTM standard on determining the reference temper-
ature, T0, for ferritic steels in the transition range. NUREG/
CR-5504.
Nanstad, R.K., Haggag, F.M., McCabe, D.E., Iskander, S.K.,
Bowman, K.O., Menke, B.H., 1992. Irradiation effects on
fracture toughness of two high-copper submerged-arc welds,
HSSI Series 5. NUREG/CR-5913.
Sailors, R.H., Corten, H.T., 1972. Relationship between mate-
rial fracture toughness using fracture mechanics and transi-
tion temperature tests. ASTM STP 514, 164 –191.
Server, W.L., Oldfield, W., 1978. Nuclear pressure vessel steel
data base. EPRI-NP-933.
Server, W.L., Rosinski, S.T., Hoffmann, C., Byrne, S., Yoon,
K., Lott, R., 1998. Application of master curve fracture
toughness methodology for ferritic steels. EPRI-TR-108390.
Wallin, K., 1984. The scatter in KIc results. Engineering Fracture
Mechanics 19, 1085 – 1093.
Wallin, K., 1985. The size effect in KIc results. Engineering
Fracture Mechanics 22, 149 – 163.
Wallin, K., 1989. A simple theoretical Charpy-V —KIc correla-
tion for irradiation embrittlement. ASME PVP 170, 93 –100.
Wallin, K., 1995a. Validity of small specimen fracture toughness
estimates neglecting constraint corrections. ASTM STP
1244, 519 – 537.
Wallin, K., 1995b. Summary of the IAEA/CRP 3 fracture
mechanical results. IWG-LMNPP-95/5, Vol. II.