0 évaluation0% ont trouvé ce document utile (0 vote)

214 vues16 pagesBPVC interpretatio

Jan 09, 2013

© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

PDF, TXT ou lisez en ligne sur Scribd

BPVC interpretatio

Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

0 évaluation0% ont trouvé ce document utile (0 vote)

214 vues16 pagesBPVC interpretatio

Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 16

qxd

9/27/08

1:32 PM

Page 1

CHAPTER

46

APPLICATIONS OF ELASTIC-PLASTIC FRACTURE MECHANICS IN SECTION XI, ASME CODE EVALUATIONS

Hardayal S. Mehta and Sampath Ranganath

46.1 INTRODUCTION

The role of fracture mechanics in Section XI applications comes in the form of evaluation of indications or aws detected during inservice inspection of nuclear components. The early ASME BPVC Section XI evaluation procedures have been typically based on linear elastic fracture mechanics (LEFM). For example, the vessel aw evaluation procedure in IWB-3600 in the 1977 edition was based on the LEFM analyses described elsewhere [1,2]. Appendix G of Section XI (essentially the same as Appendix G of Section III) also is an example of the rst use of LEFM in Section XI applications. The background of Appendix G LEFM technology is provided in WRC-175 [3]. The current Section XI aw evaluation procedures (Appendix A) have some provision for loading with limited plasticity in the form of plastic zone size correction. LEFM is limited by the small-scale yielding (SSY) condition that the plastic zone around the crack tip be small compared to the size of the K-dominant region and any relevant geometric dimension. It is virtually impossible to satisfy this condition for high-toughness, low-strength materials, which generally undergo extensive plastic deformation and crack tip blunting prior to the initiation of crack growth. Crack initiation in these materials is usually followed by stable crack growth or tearing. The need to include the inuence of signicant plastic deformation, which may accompany crack initiation and the subsequent stable growth, has been the main driving force for the development of the eld of elastic-plastic fracture mechanics (EPFM). Furthermore, higher load capability (over that predicted by LEFM) can be demonstrated in ductile materials by allowing limited stable crack extension using EPFM techniques. Figure 46.1 [4] shows the role of elastic-plastic or nonlinear fracture mechanics; a center-cracked plate loaded to failure is considered. This gure shows a schematic plot of failure stress versus fracture toughness (KIc). For low toughness materials (such as ferritic steels at lower shelf), brittle fracture is the governing failure mechanism and the critical stress is predicted by the usual LEFM equations and the material KIc. At very high toughness values, LEFM is no longer valid and failure (or collapse by limit load) is governed by the ow properties of the material. Fracture mechanics ceases to be relevant to the problem because the failure stress is insensitive to toughness; a simple limit load analysis is all that is required to predict failure stress. The appropriate material property in this case is the ow stress that may be generally taken as the average of the material yield and ultimate stress or a suitable multiple (e.g., a factor of 3) of the Code allowable stress, Sm. At intermediate toughness levels, there is transition between brittle fracture under linear elastic conditions and ductile overload or collapse. Nonlinear or EPFM bridges the gap between LEFM and collapse. When the plasticity is limited to a small zone surrounding the crack tip, an LEFM solution modied by a plastic zone size is adequate; this zone is called the SSY zone. Some of the ferritic materials used in the nuclear pressure vessel applications at the upper-shelf temperatures are analyzed using this approach with the material fracture resistance determined through appropriate J integral testing.

46.2

The movement toward the use of EPFM started in the 1960s; the progress through 1980s is summarized elsewhere [4]. Extracts [4] are presented here to provide the reader a brief background on the development of EPFM. LEFM ceases to be valid when signicant plastic deformation precedes failure. During a relatively short time period (19601961), several researchers, including Irvin [5], Dugdale [6], Barenblatt [7], and Wells [8], developed analytical methods to correct for yielding at the crack tip. The Irwin plastic zone correction was a relatively simple extension of LEFM, while Dugdale and Barenblatt each developed somewhat more elaborate models based on a narrow strip of yielded material at the crack tip. Wells proposed the displacement of the crack faces, the parameter now known as crack tip opening displacement (CTOD), as an alternative fracture criterion when signicant plasticity precedes failure.

ASME_Ch46_p001-016.qxd

9/27/08

1:32 PM

Page 2

2 Chapter 46

In 1968, Rice [9] developed another parameter to characterize nonlinear material behavior ahead of a crack. By idealizing plastic deformation as nonlinear elastic, Rice was able to generalize the energy release rate to nonlinear materials. He showed that this nonlinear energy release rate can be expressed as a line integral, which he called the J integral, evaluated along an arbitrary contour around the crack. At the time his work was being published, Rice discovered that Eshelby [10] had previously published several so called conservation integrals, one of which was equivalent to Rices J integral. Eshelby, however, did not apply his integrals to crack problems. That same year, Hutchinson [11] and Rice and Rosengren [12] related the J integral to crack tip stress elds in nonlinear materials. These analyses showed that the J integral can be viewed as a nonlinear stress intensity parameter as well as an energy release rate. Rices work might have been relegated to obscurity had it not been for the active research effort by the nuclear power industry in the United States in the early 1970s. Because of legitimate concerns for safety, as well as political and public relations considerations, the nuclear power industry endeavored to apply state-of-the-art technology, including fracture mechanics, to the design and construction of nuclear power plants. The difculty with applying fracture mechanics in this instance was that most nuclear pressure vessel steels were too tough to be characterized with LEFM without resorting to enormous laboratory specimens. In 1971, Begley and Landes [13], who were research engineers at Westinghouse, came across Rices article and decided, despite skepticism from their coworkers, to characterize fracture toughness of these steels with the J integral. Their experiments were very successful and led to the publication of a standard procedure for J testing of metals 10 years later [14]. Material toughness characterization is only one aspect of fracture mechanics. To apply fracture mechanics concepts to design or aw evaluation, one must have a mathematical relationship between toughness, stress, and aw size. Although these relationships were well established for linear elastic problems, a fracture design analysis based on the J integral was not available until Shih and Hutchinson [15] provided the theoretical framework for such an approach in 1976. A few years later, the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) published a fracture design handbook [16] based on the Shih and Hutchinson methodology. The

components covered were the basic fracture test specimen geometries; this was followed by solutions for geometries (e.g., reactor pressure vessels and piping) typical in nuclear industry applications [17,18]. The applied J integral values were obtained through an estimation scheme that used material stress strain characteristics and a tabulated set of coefcients. This is discussed further in the next section. In the United Kingdom, the CTOD parameter was applied extensively to fracture analysis of welded structures beginning in the late 1960s. While fracture research in the United States was driven primarily by the nuclear power industry during the 1970s, fracture research in the United Kingdom was motivated largely by the development of oil resources in the North Sea. In 1971, Burdekin and Dawes [19] applied ideas proposed by Wells [20] several years earlier and developed the CTOD design curve, a semiempirical fracture mechanics methodology for welded steel structures. The nuclear power industry in the United Kingdom developed their own fracture design analysis [21], based on the strip yield model of Dugdale and Barenblatt. Shih [22] demonstrated a relationship between the J integral and CTOD, implying that both parameters are equally valid for characterizing fracture. The J-based material testing and the aw evaluation methodologies developed in the United States and the British CTOD methodology have begun to merge in recent years, with positive aspects of each approach combined to yield improved analyses. Both parameters are currently applied throughout the world to a range of materials. A survey paper [23] and another publication [24] provide an excellent description of the advances made in EPFM through 1980.

46.3

There are essentially three approaches considered in the application of EPFM in aw evaluations. These approaches are the following: (a) J-integral tearing modulusbased approach or J-T methodology (b) deformation plasticity failure assessment diagram (DPFAD) methodology (c) R-6 methodology ASME BPVC Section XI has considered the rst two approaches in the aw evaluations. All three methodologies consider the calculation of the J integral, directly or indirectly. Therefore, the engineering estimation of the applied J integral is discussed next.

46.3.1

As one would guess, many of the problems of practical interest are in the elastic-plastic regime requiring an estimation scheme to calculate the J integral. The elastic-plastic estimation procedure derives from the work of Shih and Hutchinson [15] and others [25,26]. The elastic and plastic components of J integral are computed separately and added to obtain the total J as follows: Jtotal Jel Jpl (1)

Figure 46.2 [4] schematically illustrates a plot of J versus applied load. The material stress-strain behavior in the estimation scheme is characterized in the Ramberg-Osgood form as follows: ( / 0) ( / 0) (( / 0)n (2)

ASME_Ch46_p001-016.qxd

9/27/08

1:33 PM

Page 3

where b a h1, h2, and h3 the uncracked ligament length the crack length dimensionless parameters that depend on geometry and strain-hardening exponent; the h factors for various geometries and n values have been tabulated in several EPRI reports [1618,27] the applied load

FIG. 46.2

where

0

The reference load, P0, is usually dened by a limit load solution for the geometry of interest; P0 normally corresponds to the load at which the net cross-section yields. It should be noted that the plastic load line displacement, p, is only that component of plastic displacement that is due to the crack. The total displacement in a structure is the sum of the elastic and plastic crack and no-crack components. Figure 46.4 shows the analytical expression for the calculation of Jpl for a pipe with a through-wall circumferential crack subjected to axial load and/or bending moment. The specic values for dimensionless parameter h1 are given in Table 46.1. The elastic component of J is computed from the elastic stress intensity factor for an effective crack size as follows: Jel where E E for plane stress and E E/(1 v2) for plane strain condition; v is the Positions ratio and is typically assumed equal to 0.3. {KI 2 (aeff)}/E (6)

E n

a reference stress value that is usually equal to the yield strength, 0 0 /E Youngs modulus a dimensionless constantn the strain-hardening exponent

Figure 46.3 [27] shows a typical Ramberg-Osgood t for a carbon steel material typically used in nuclear applications. Typical fully plastic equations for J, crack mouth opening displacement (Vp), and load line displacement ( p) would have the following form in the estimation scheme: n 1 (3) Jpl 0 0 b h1 (a/W, n) (P/P0) Vp

p 0 0

The parentheses in the preceding equation indicate that KI is a function of aeff rather than a multiplication product. The effective crack size is determined from the Irwin correction modied to account for strain hardening as follows: aeff a {1/[1 (P/P0)2]}{1/( )} {(n 1)/(n 1)}{KI(a)/ 0}2

n

(7)

2 for plane stress 6 for plane strain conditions The analytical expressions for KI are available from fracture mechanics handbooks [27]. When J-controlled crack growth is applicable, the condition for continued crack growth is [28,29] as follows: J(a, P) JR(a a0) (8)

For any given conguration, the crack driving force J is a function of crack length a and load per unit thickness P. The JR curve is a function of the amount of crack growth, a (a a0), and is obtained experimentally. Therefore, crack growth is unstable if the following applies: (0 J/0 a)

FIG. 46.3 TRUE-STRESS TRUE-STRAIN CURVE FOR A333 GRADE 6 BASE MATERIAL IN NRC/BCL 4111-1 PIPE

T

dJR/da

(9)

The subscript in the preceding equation denotes a partial derivative with the total displacement T held xed. It is convenient in

ASME_Ch46_p001-016.qxd

9/27/08

1:33 PM

Page 4

4 Chapter 46

FIG. 46.4

0 2

}(0 J/0 a)

and TJR

{E/

}(dJR/da)

(10)

secondary stress, such as bending due to thermal expansion, is assumed to be relaxed at failure and only primary membrane and bending stresses were used when performing aw evaluations in accordance with IWB-3640. A J-T analysis for assumed

The instability criterion is then simply phrased in terms of these moduli as follows: TJ TJR (11)

Figure 46.5 shows the J-T diagram. The predicted instability load is shown in Fig. 46.5b.

46.3.2

Prior to the publication of the BPVC 1983 Addenda, aw evaluation procedures in IWB-3600 were applicable to ferritic steel components 4 in. or greater in thickness (based on LEFM). Flaw evaluation procedures and allowable aw sizes for LWR austenitic piping rst appeared in IWB-3640 in that Addenda. The evaluation was based on a plastic collapse failure mechanism and allowable aw sizes were developed using limit load analysis. Because plastic collapse is the anticipated failure mechanism,

FIG. 46.5 DETERMINATION OF INSTABILITY J, T, AND ASSOCIATED LOAD FOR LOAD CONTROL EPFM ANALYSIS

ASME_Ch46_p001-016.qxd

9/27/08

1:33 PM

Page 5

TABLE 46.1

through-wall aw geometries [30] showed that the predicted instability loads essentially reach those predicted by limit load and, thus, provided additional technical basis for the limit load approach. Figure 46.6 shows an example of this prediction. For limit load comparison, the ow stress was assumed as 3Sm, where the Sm is the Code-specied allowable stress for the pipe material. Through-wall aw geometries were assumed. A similar EPFM

evaluation for a weld overlay geometry, where a 360 aw with depth equal to the original pipe thickness was assumed, was reported [31] with the conclusion that limit load conditions are achieved at the cracked section. Subsequently, the need arose to distinguish between high-toughness materials, such as the wrought austenitic material, and certain lower toughness ux welds, which include shielded metal arc welds (SMAW) and submerged arc welds (SAW). This distinction became necessary because some small specimen experimental data suggested that the applicable failure mechanism for the ux welds is unstable crack extension that would occur at loads lower than the plastic collapse load [32,33]. The approach used was to develop some penalty factors or so-called Z factors to reduce the allowable aw size at any specied load for ux welds relative to the hightoughness materials. An EPFM approach was used to develop these factors. Figure 46.7 [32] shows an example of this evaluation. The

FIG. 46.6 COMPARISON OF NET-SECTION COLLAPSE LOAD AND ESTIMATION SCHEME MAXIMUM LOAD FOR AXIALLY LOADED 304 STAINLESS STEEL PIPE WITH THROUGH-WALL CIRCUMFERENTIAL CRACK

FIG. 46.7 DETERMINATION OF J AND T AT CRACK INSTABILITY FOR AUSTENITIC SAW AT 550 F

ASME_Ch46_p001-016.qxd

9/27/08

1:33 PM

Page 6

6 Chapter 46

analysis considered a pipe with a through-wall aw subjected to a bending moment. The ratio of the limit load to the calculated instability load provided the Z factor value. By taking conservative bounds of the instability load results, the following expressions for Z factors were developed: for SMAW, Z for SAW, Z where OD the pipe outer diameter in inches Subsequent experimental work by Battelle [34] indicated that there was no statistically signicant difference between the SAW and SMAW J-R curves and, therefore, the 2004 Edition of Appendix C species the SAW Z factor for SMAW also. Because limit load may not be reached prior to failure, it was recommended that the expansion stresses with a margin of 1.0 be included along with primary membrane and bending stress when evaluating aws in ux welds. The allowable aw sizes (e.g., in ASME BPVC Section XI, Appendix C, 2004 Edition) are presented in tabular form as a function of stress ratio. When using the EPFM approach, the stress ratio for a circumferentially awed pipe is dened as the following: stress ratio where

m b e f

46.3.3

1.15 [1 1.30 [1

(12) (13)

Z[(

e /SFb)/ f

(14)

In 1983, the Working Group on Flaw Evaluation of Section XI initiated work on the development of aw evaluation procedures for ASME Class 1 ferritic piping. Flawed ferritic piping was recognized to have possible failure mechanisms, which, depending on operating temperature, could range from linear elastic fracture to elastic-plastic ductile tearing to plastic collapse. This wide variation of failure mechanisms necessitated an evaluation procedure that could account for all possible failure modes. The ASME Section XI Working Group on Flaw Evaluation approached this problem through the development of two separate approaches to address the region where EPFM is applicable. The rst approach was similar to the J-T approach used for austenitic piping [36,37]. This resulted in the introduction of Code Case N-463 [38] in the 1988 Addenda and Nonmandatory Appendix H in the 1989 Edition [39]. The other approach, based on the DPFAD, is described in the next section. As a minimum, the EPFM approach on requires data JIC of the material. The evaluation methodology also developed a correlation between JIC and the more generally available Charpy V-notch (CVN) absorbed energy. A screening procedure based on DPFAD method is provided to identify the appropriate failure mode. Figure 46.8 shows the screening procedure used; the parameters are the same as those used in DPFAD. Simply, the parameters Kr and Sr are dened as follows: Kr Sr [KI2/(E JIC)]0.5 ( b e)/ b (15) (16)

SFb

primary membrane stress primary bending stress secondary bending stress material ow stress structural factor for bending

Note that the preceding denition of stress ratio is consistent with the 2002 Addenda of ASME BPVC Section XI. Prior to that, Sm was used instead of f in developing tables. The structural factor (SF) has the same meaning as the safety factor. The Code is currently transitioning from safety factor terminology to structural factor to specify the required structural margins. It should also be noted that, prior to the 2002 Addenda, the allowable circumferential aws were developed using an SF of 2.77 (for normal/upset or Levels A/B conditions) and 1.39 (for emergency/faulted or Levels C/D conditions) on the sum of the primary membrane and bending stresses. Allowable longitudinal aw sizes were developed using an SF of 3.0 and 1.5 on primary membrane stress for normal/upset and emergency/faulted conditions, respectively. Separate SFs for primary membrane and primary bending and separate SFs for various service levels were incorporated in the 2002 Addenda. The rationale for this change was to bring consistency with ASME BPVC Section III. The technical basis for these changes is provided elsewhere [35]. Table 46.2 gives the revised SFs; these SFs are applicable to Classes 1, 2, and 3 piping and to both the austenitic and ferritic materials. The ow stress was also redened from 3Sm to the average of yield and ultimate stress. Also, the use of actual material properties was allowed where such information is available. The revision of SFs and the denition of ow stress do not directly affect the Z factors, because they are based on the ratio to limit load; however, the allowable aw depth would be affected by these changes.

The stress intensity factor KI is the sum of the LEFM contributions from applied membrane and bending stresses including e. The Code Case and the Nonmandatory Appendix of the Section XI Code provide the appropriate mathematical expressions to calculate the values. JIC is the measure of toughness at the onset of crack extension. The reference limit load bending stress is sb calculated using y as the ow stress. For circumferential aws, the JIC and y values (if user-specied values are unavailable) are shown in Table 46.3. The DPFAD assessment curve was generated using a lower-bound, stress-strain curve with the following 2.51, n 4.2, values of Ramberg-Osgood parameters: 27.1 ksi, and E 26000 ksi. 0 A high Kr value at failure (a point on the failure assessment curve) in Fig. 46.8 implies that the associated Sr value is small, indicating small-scale yielding. If a low Kr value is calculated at initiation, it is an indication that fracture would be predicted near

TABLE 46.2 SAFETY/STRUCTURAL FACTORS FOR CIRCUMFERENTIAL AND AXIAL FLAWS

ASME_Ch46_p001-016.qxd

9/27/08

1:33 PM

Page 7

limit load. Based on this concept, the applicability range of limit load and LEFM were dened by the ratio of Kr to Sr , as shown in Fig. 46.8. The ow diagram leading to EPFM evaluation option is shown in Fig. 46.9. The default material properties used in the evaluation and the corresponding Z factor expressions are shown in Table 46.3. Figure 46.10 [37] shows the J-T curves associated with two JIC that were used to generate the mathematical expressions for Z factors. When user-specied JIC values are available, the resulting Z factors expressions are provided in Table 46.4. In the ASME BPVC 2002 Addenda, Appendices H and C were combined into a revised Appendix C. The revision also included the incorporation of separate SFs for membrane and bending loading into the screening criteria evaluations and the mathematical expressions for the calculation of allowable stresses [40].

TABLE 46.3 DEFAULT MATERIAL PROPERTIES AND Z FACTORS FOR FERRITIC PIPING WITH CIRCUMFERENTIAL FLAWS

46.3.4

DPFAD Method

The DPFAD procedure uses deformation plasticity solutions [16,17] for cracked structures in the format of the British Central Electricity Generating Boards (CEGB) R-6 two-criteria failure assessment diagram (FAD). In 1990, the Code approved Code Case N-494 [41] as an alternative procedure for evaluating aws in light-water reactor (LWR) ferritic piping. The approach was an alternate to then Appendix H of Section XI and allowed the user to remove some conservatism in the existing procedure by allowing the use of pipe-specic material properties. The technical basis was documented in several technical papers authored by J.M. Bloom and coworkers [42-45]. The general DPFAD procedure involves the following three steps [45]: (a) The generation of the DPFAD curve from elastic-plastic analysis of a awed structure using deformation plasticity solutions for a simple power law strain hardening material based on the Ramberg-Osgood stress-strain equation. If the J-integral response of the structure can be represented by the following: Japplied then the following applies: JIe Jp (17)

[Japplied/G]

where Sr the ratio of applied stress to net section plastic collapse stress G = KI2/E

The difference between JIe and G is that JIe includes the small-scale, yielding plastic zone correction while G does not. The resulting expression denes a curve in the Kr Sr plane, which is a function of aw geometry, structural

ASME_Ch46_p001-016.qxd

9/27/08

1:33 PM

Page 8

8 Chapter 46

FIG. 46.9 FLOW CHART FOR SCREENING CRITERIA TO ESTABLISH THE ANALYSIS METHOD

(b) The determination of assessment points based the ratio of KI or 1JI of the structure divided by the relevant material property 1KIC or 1JIC at aw initiation or for stable

conguration, and stress-strain behavior of the material dened uniquely by and n. Because both Kr and Sr are linear in applied stress, the DPFAD curve is independent of the magnitude of the applied loading.

TABLE 46.4

Z FACTORS FOR CIRCUMFERENTIAL FLAWS IN FERRITIC PIPING WITH USER-SPECIFIED MATERIAL PROPERTIES

ASME_Ch46_p001-016.qxd

9/27/08

1:33 PM

Page 9

crack growth, 1Jg(a), the tearing resistance of the material for the ordinate, Kr , and the ratio of the applied stress (load) to net section plastic collapse (limit load) for the abscissa, Sr . For aw initiation, a single assessment point is calculated. For stable crack growth, a locus of assessment points are determined by incrementing the crack size a by a a in the calculation of JI for a constant applied load. The resulting locus is shown in Fig. 46.11 in the shape of a candy cane. (c) Crack initiation or tearing instability can be determined graphically by plotting the calculated assessment point(s) on the FAD. For crack initiation, the single assessment point must fall on the DPFAD curve or inside the curve. For tearing instability, the critical instability load is determined by the tangency of the assessment locus with the DPFAD curve, as shown in Fig. 46.11. Any assessment point on a line from the origin of the diagram is directly proportional to load with any other point on that same line, and only one load level is needed to determine the instability load. The instability load is determined by multiplying the applied load by the ratio of the distance from the origin to the point of intersection of the line with the DPFAD curve to the distance from the origin of the diagram to the applied load point. Work is in progress to revise the Sr cut-off to be consistent with Appendix C. The original Code Case N-494 was further revised in 1994 to include assessment of austenitic piping where the material stressstrain behavior cannot be t to the Ramberg-Osgood model [46,47]. This Code Case has been revised in 2007 to incorporate the impact of separate safety factors for membrane and bending stresses. The 2002 Addenda to ASME BPVC Section XI also created a new Nonmandatory Appendix H covering the DPFAD methodology (the old Appendix H was folded into a revised Appendix C).

46.3.5

The British R-6 method was used as the initial framework of the DPFAD method. The rst R-6 document [21] emerged in 1976 as a result of a requirement of the Central Electricity Generating Board in the United Kingdom to include the assessment of fracture resistance in the design of steam-generating heavy-water reactor (SGHWR), which was being considered at that time for commercial operation. The last major revision of R-6 was in 1986 [48]. Recently, developments in fracture mechanics methodology, in particular the procedure resulting from the European project SINTAP, the British Standards Guide BS7910, and the American Petroleum Institute document API 579, stimulated the decision to revise R-6 in its entirety as the new Revision 4 [49]. Other work of interest related to EPFM is the Swedish SKI work [50,51].

46.4

The EPFM has been applied to RPV evaluation in three distinct ways: upper-shelf energy evaluation, the new Section XI aw evaluation approach, and a probabilistic approach.

46.4.1

One of the rst applications of EPFM for pressure vessels was in addressing the resolution of the low upper-shelf toughness issue. Appendix G of 10 CFR Part 50 [52] requires that reactor vessel beltline materials must have Charpy upper-shelf energy of no less than 75 ft-lb (102 J) initially and must maintain uppershelf energy (USE) throughout the life of the vessel of no less than 50 ft-lb (68 J), unless it is demonstrated that lower uppershelf energy will provide safety margins equivalent to those required by ASME BPVC Appendix G [53]. It was found that vessels welded with the Linde 80 weld material did not always meet the regulatory requirement of 50 ft-lb. The problem of evaluating materials that did not meet the regulatory requirement of 50 ft-lb was designated as Unresolved Safety Issue A-11. The resolution of USI A-11 was documented by the U.S. NRC in NUREG0744, Resolution of the Task A-11 Reactor Vessel Materials Toughness Safety Issue [54]. Although NUREG-0744 provided methods for evaluating the fracture behavior of these materials, it did not provide specic criteria for demonstrating the equivalence of margins with Appendix G of the ASME Code. This was subsequently developed by the ASME Section XI Subgroup on Evaluation Standards and then issued as Appendix K of Section XI [55]. The U.S. NRC approved Appendix K but provided guidance acceptable to the NRC staff for evaluating pressure vessels that did not meet the 50 ft-lb regulatory requirement in Regulatory Guide 1.61 [56]. 46.4.1.1 Appendix K Criteria. Appendix K species different requirements for Levels A/B conditions and Levels C and D conditions, as summarized below: (a) Level A/B Conditions. When the upper-shelf Charpy energy of the base metal is less than 50 ft-lb, both axial and circumferential interior aws are postulated. These are evaluated using the toughness properties for the corresponding

ASME_Ch46_p001-016.qxd

9/27/08

1:33 PM

Page 10

10 Chapter 46

orientation. A semielliptical surface aw with an a/t 0.25 and with an aspect ratio of 6-to-1 surface length to aw depth is postulated. A smaller aw size may be used on an individual case if the basis is justied. Two criteria must be satised as described below: the crack driving force must be shown to be less than the material toughness, as given by the following equations: Japplied where Japplied the J-integral value calculated for the postulated aw under pressure and thermal loading, where the assumed pressure is 1.15 times the maximum accumulation pressure, with thermal loading using the plantspecic heatup and cooldown conditions. the J-integral characteristic of the materials resistance to ductile tearing (Jmaterial), as denoted by a J-R curve test at a crack extension of 0.1 in. Japplied/ a Jmaterial/ a, with load held constant at Japplied Jmaterial where Japplied the J-integral value calculated for the postulated aw under pressure and thermal loading, where the assumed pressure is 1.25 times the maximum accumulation pressure, with thermal loading. The rst criterion is based solely on limited ductile crack extension (initiation). The second criterion is based on aw stability, in which case ductile stable tearing is considered. The J-R curve used in the analysis must be a conservative bound of the J-R data representative of the vessel material. (b) Level C Conditions. For Level C conditions, the postulated aw is somewhat smaller: 0.1 times the thickness plus clad thickness but not more than 1 in. and aspect ratio a/ 1/6. The initiation and stability criteria are the same as those in Eqs. (1) and (2), except that the Japplied is

TABLE 46.5

J0.1

(18)

J0.1

calculated for the governing Level C loading conditions (i.e., factor one on pressure and thermal stresses). The lower factor is justied based on the fact that Level C represents lower probability events. Also, the J-R curve used in the analysis must be a conservative representation of the vessel material. (c) Level D Conditions. For Level D conditions, the postulated aw is the same as that for Level C: 0.1 times the thickness plus clad thickness but not more than 1 in. and aspect ratio a/ 1/6. There is no criterion for ductile crack extension (initiation) but there is a criterion for crack stability. The stability requirement of Eq. (19) applies with Japplied being calculated for the governing Level D loading conditions (i.e., factor one on pressure and thermal stresses). The lower factor is justied based on the fact that Level D represents the lowest probability events. Also, the J-R curve used in the analysis must be a best estimate representation of the vessel material. In addition to the aw stability requirement, the stable aw depth must not exceed 0.75 times the wall thickness and the remaining ligament must be safe from tensile instability. Table 46.5 summarizes the different requirements for the different conditions: Levels A/B, Level C, and Level D for the low upper-shelf evaluation. The technical basis for Appendix K is described in detail in WRC Bulletin 413 [57]. Specically, it describes the procedure for calculating Japplied and three methods for the stability evaluation. 46.4.1.2 Evaluation Procedure for the Calculation of Japplied. The calculation of Japplied assumes small-scale yielding. The rst step is the calculation of K for pressure {KIp(a)} and thermal {KIt(a)} loading for the postulated aw. The elastic K calculations can be performed using the equations in Appendix K or other fracture mechanics solutions. The effective aw depth, ae, for smallscale yielding is determined by adding the plastic zone size to the postulated aw size as follows: ae where a (1/(6 ))[(KIp(a) KIt(a))/ y]2 (20)

(19)

ASME_Ch46_p001-016.qxd

9/27/08

1:33 PM

Page 11

y

the postulated aw depth (inches) ksi 1inch the yield strength (ksi)

The effective stress intensity factor Ke KIp(ae) KIt(ae) is determined by substituting ae in place of a. The applied J for small-scale yielding is given by the following: J where J E v in.-lb/in.2 Youngs modulus (ksi) Poissons ratio 1000 Ke2 > [E/(1 v2)] (21)

The J integral (JI) for the 0.1-in. aw extension is given by using Eq. (4) and the appropriate factor on stress (e.g., 1.15 on pressure stress and 1 on thermal stress for Levels A/B conditions). The aw depth is set at 0.25t 0.1 in. for Levels A/B conditions; the appropriate acceptance criterion for ductile crack extension is JI J0.1. 46.4.1.3 Evaluation Procedure for Flaw Stability Analysis. WRC Bulletin 413 describes three ways to perform the stability analysis. (a) J-R Curve-Crack Driving Force Diagram Procedure. Figure 46.12 shows the concept of ductile crack extension and crack stability evaluation. The applied J is calculated for a series of crack depths corresponding to increasing levels of crack extension. For Levels A/B conditions, a factor of 1.25 on pressure is used. The applied J is plotted against crack depth. As shown in Fig. 46.12, the material J-R curve is superposed. Flaw stability at a given applied load is demonstrated when the slope of the applied J curve is less than the slope of J-R curve at the point where the two curves intersect. (b) Failure Assessment Diagram Procedure. The DPFAD for a quarter T aw is shown in Fig. 46.13. The DPFAD plots the relationship between Kr (square root of the ratio of the elastic J and the elastic-plastic J) and Sr (ratio of the actual pressure to the limit pressure). The structural factor on pressure is determined by scaling distances along a line through

the origin and the assessment point. The pressure is multiplied by 1.25 when the assessment points are calculated and plotted on the DPFAD. The acceptance criterion for aw stability is satised when the assessment points lie inside the DPFAD curve. (c) J-Integral/Tearing Modulus (J-T) Procedure. Figure 46.14 shows a schematic plot of the J-T curve. The J-T procedure consists of the following steps:

ASME_Ch46_p001-016.qxd

9/27/08

1:33 PM

Page 12

12 Chapter 46

(1) Determine the material J-T curve. (2) Calculate the value of J at the onset of instability (intersection of the applied J-T and material J-T curve). (3) Calculate the internal pressure at the point of aw instability. (4) Apply the acceptance criteria. 46.4.1.4 Guidance on the Material J-R Curve. The generic J-integral fracture resistance curve equation is given in RG 1.161 [56] as follows: JR (MF){C1( a)C2 exp[C3( a)C4]} (22)

46.4.2

The values for C1, C2, C3, and C4 are based on correlations developed by Eason et al [58]. For generic reactor pressure welds, RG 1.161 provides the values of various constants in the preceding equation. For analyses addressing Service Levels A, B, and C, the factor MF was set as 0.629. For analyses addressing Service Level D, the value of MF was set as 1.0. Table 46.6 gives the values for other materials such as the Linde 80 ux welds and reactor pressure vessel plate materials. C1 C2 C3 C4 exp[ 4.12 0.077 0.0812 0.5 1.49 ln (CVN) 0.0092 ln C1 0.00249T] (23) (24) (25) (26)

0.116 ln C1

ASME BPVC Section XI procedures for vessel aw assessment are based on LEFM evaluation. The LEFM methods may be sometimes overly conservative and may underestimate the actual margin, particularly for upper-shelf condition when the deformation behavior is ductile. ASME BPVC Section III recognizes the inherent ductile nature of pressure vessel behavior by excluding secondary stresses (displacement-governed stresses such as thermal and discontinuity stresses) from explicit stress limits (the 3Sm limit on secondary stress range is related to shakedown and fatigue, not to ductile failure.) Appendix G and the recent Appendix K also recognize the inherent differences between thermal and pressure stresses by assigning structural lower factors for thermal stresses. ASME is in the process of developing alternate acceptance criteria based on EPFM techniques. The proposed Code Case N-XXX, Alternative Acceptance Criteria and Evaluation Procedure for Flaws in Ferritic Steel Components Operating in the Upper Shelf Range [62], has been approved by the ASME Section Subgroup on Evaluation Standards and is now being considered by the Section XI Subcommittee. Because of the importance of this Code Case and the fact that it represents a signicant change in the technical approach to aw evaluation, the Code Case criteria and the technical basis are described in detail here. 46.4.2.1 Background. The ASME Section XI aw evaluation rules for vessels (IWB-3600 plus Appendix A) are based on LEFM techniques and were developed primarily for the irradiated RPV belt-line region and other low-temperature carbon and low-alloy steel applications in which the material exhibits limited or no ductility. There are situations in which ferritic steel components operate at the upper-shelf region and, therefore, exhibit ample ductility. Application of LEFM techniques to these Cases is very conservative. This Code Case proposes alternate acceptance criteria for situations in which the component is operating in the upper-shelf temperature region and, therefore, possesses adequate ductility to allow the use of EPFM techniques. 46.4.2.2 Technical Approach. EPFM is a more appropriate fracture mechanics technology than LEFM for nonirradiated materials at higher temperatures, such as normal operating conditions for both PWRs and BWRs. In the proposed Code Case, both stable

CVN is the Charpy USE in ft-lb and T is the crack tip temperature in F. Note that the equations for C2, C3, and C4 are the same for all materials. In the application of the JR formulation in Eq. (5), CVN is the irradiated USE. This may be available from surveillance specimen testing or, alternatively, the values can be estimated from RG 1.99, Revision 2 [59], which provides the relationship of USE to crack tip uence. The alternative relationship between the irradiated USE and the unirradiated USE and uence is provided elswhere [7]. Mehta [60] and Griesbach and Smith [61] provided examples for the use of Appendix K in evaluating reactor vessels with low upper-shelf toughness. An important thing to remember is that Appendix K considers postulated aws not actual aws. Its intent is only to determine whether adequate structural factors can be maintained even in the low USE condition and with rather large aw postulates.

TABLE 46.6

RECOMMENDED J-R CURVE PARAMETERS FROM RG 1.161 JR (MF){C1( a)C2 exp[C3( a)C4]}

ASME_Ch46_p001-016.qxd

9/27/08

1:33 PM

Page 13

ductile crack extension and aw stability due to ductile tearing are considered to ensure that crack extension, even for a stable aw, is limited. (a) Basis for the Use of EPFM. Ample precedent exists in ASME BPVC Section XI for the application of EPFM to materials that exhibit some ductility. Such precedent may be seen in Appendix C for evaluation of aws in austenitic piping and ferritic piping and in Appendix K for the assessment of RPVs with low upper-shelf toughness. Appendix C includes a screening criterion to determine which regime a ferritic piping aw evaluation must consider (LEFM, EPFM, or limit load), and, for the problems that fall into the EPFM regime, species different structural factors for primary stresses ( ' 3) than for secondary loadings (1). An even more appropriate approach is presented in Appendix K; in addition to different structural factors for primary versus secondary loadings, this appendix also provides an approximate procedure for performing aw instability analysis for aws in RPV materials operating at the upper shelf. The EPFM approach proposed in this Code Case is very similar to that in Appendix K of Section XI, and, in that sense, the use of the EPFM techniques proposed for this Code Case is not unprecedented, except that these techniques are applied to actual aws rather than hypothetical aws. (b) Determination of Upper-Shelf Temperature. For use of this Code Case, it must be demonstrated that the vessel material is operating within the upper-shelf range of its Charpy energy curve. This Code Case requires that the operating temperature must exceed the upper-shelf, trigger-point temperature, Tc, dened as RTNDT 105 F. The denition ensures that the material exhibits ample ductility in thick sections and, under applied loading, allows the use of EPFM techniques. (c) Loads and Stresses. All primary stresses (i.e., from pressure and mechanical loads) and secondary and peak stresses (i.e., thermal, residual, and highly localized stresses) are to be considered in applying this Code Case. This is consistent with the present procedure for aw evaluation in vessels in Section XI, IWB-3600, and Appendix A. 46.4.2.3 Evaluation Procedure. The following analytical procedure must be used: (a) Applicability of this procedure and acceptance criteria is limited to ferritic steel components on the upper shelf of the Charpy energy curve. The temperature of the operating condition must exceed the upper-shelf trigger temperature, dened as Tc RTNDT 105 F. The effect of radiation embrittlement must be considered in determining RTNDT. (b) The aws must be characterized in accordance with the requirements of IWA-3300, including the proximity rules of IWA-3300. The aws must be projected in both axial and circumferential orientations, and each orientation evaluated. (c) A aw growth analysis must be performed to determine the maximum amount of crack propagation due to fatigue, stress corrosion cracking, or both mechanisms when applicable, during a specied evaluation period. (d) All applicable loading (primary and secondary) must be evaluated, including weld residual stresses, in calculating the crack growth and determining aw acceptability.

46.4.2.4 Acceptance Criteria. Two alternate acceptance criteria are proposed in this proposed Code Case. The rst criterion is based solely on limited ductile crack extension (initiation). This criterion does not consider stable ductile tearing and, therefore, is conservative. It does offer simplicity in the evaluation process for cases where the material is relatively tough or the applied loads are relatively small. The second criterion is based on aw stability, in which case ductile stable tearing is considered. A aw is acceptable for continued operation if the J integral (J) satises either of the criteria below. For all evaluations, the J-integral resistance versus aw extension curve must be a conservative representation for the vessel material at the aw location. (a) Acceptance Criteria Based Solely on Limited Ductile Crack Extension (1) Normal/Upset Conditions. J must be evaluated at loads equal to 3.0 times the primary loads and 1.0 times the secondary loads, including thermal and residual stresses. The applied J must be less than the J integral of the material at a ductile aw extension of 0.10 in. (2) Emergency and Faulted Conditions. J must be evaluated at loads equal to 1.5 times the primary loads and 1.0 times the secondary loads, including thermal and residual stresses. The applied J must be less than the J integral of the material at a ductile aw extension of 0.10 in. (b) Acceptance Criteria Based Solely on Limited Ductile Crack Extension and Instability (1) Normal/Upset Conditions (a) For ductile crack extension, J must be evaluated at loads equal to 1.5 times the primary loads and 1.0 times the secondary loads, including thermal and residual stresses. The applied J must be less than the J integral of the material at a ductile aw extension of 0.10 in. (b) For aw instability due to ductile tearing, the applied J must be evaluated at loads equal to 3 times primary loads and 1.0 times secondary loads, including thermal and residual stresses. The applied J must be less than the predicted instability point, as shown in Fig. 46.14. (2) Emergency/Faulted Conditions (a) For ductile crack extension, J must be evaluated at loads equal to 1.25 times the primary loads and 1.0 times the secondary loads, including thermal and residual stresses. The applied J must be less than the J integral of the material at a ductile aw extension of 0.10 in. (b) For aw instability due to ductile tearing, the applied J must be evaluated at loads equal to 1.5 times primary loads and 1.0 times secondary loads, including thermal and residual stresses. The applied J must be less than the predicted instability point determined as shown in Fig. 46.14. 46.4.2.5 Justication for the Structural Factors. The LEFM methodology treats all loadings on the vessel equivalently, applying equal structural factors ( ' 3 for normal and upset loads) to both primary stresses due to internal pressure and mechanical loads as well as to secondary and peak stresses, such as those caused by

ASME_Ch46_p001-016.qxd

9/27/08

1:33 PM

Page 14

14 Chapter 46

differential thermal expansion and residual stresses. These loadings are equivalent in their potential to produce fracture in only the most brittle of materials, such as glass; RPV beltline materials at low temperatures after signicant irradiation embrittlement; and thick, ferritic materials at very low temperatures. In the EPFM evaluation in Appendix K, structural factors of 3 on primary loads and 1 on secondary loads are applied. However, it must be recognized that Appendix K is not dealing with aw evaluations, rather with demonstrating adequate levels of toughness, and, in so doing, it postulates very large hypothetical aw sizes. This Code Case deals with realistic aw sizes that might potentially be expected to occur in vessels. Therefore, more conservative structural factors, paralleling those in ASME BPVC Section XI, Appendix C, are deemed appropriate. Similar to Section XI, Appendix C, this Code Case proposes different structural factors for normal/upset conditions and emergency/faulted conditions. Different structural factors are also proposed for aw instability and limited ductile crack extension. Because in an EPFM evaluation, failure is predicted at instability, higher structural factors are applied for this condition and lower structural factors are applied when considering limited ductile crack extension. (a) Normal/Upset Conditions. For the acceptance criterion based solely on limited ductile crack extension, structural factors of 3 for primary loads and 1.0 for secondary and peak loads (including residual stresses) are proposed. Note that these are more conservative than the structural factors actually specied for primary and secondary loads in Appendix K of 1.5 for primary loads and 1.0 for secondary loads. The proposed structural factor of 1.0 on secondary loads is also consistent with that specied in Section XI, Appendix C for secondary loads. For the acceptance criterion based on aw instability, structural factors of 3 for primary loads and 1.0 for secondary and peak loads (including residual stresses) are proposed. For this Code Case also, a check is made on limited ductile crack extension with structural factors of 1.5 for primary loads and 1.0 for secondary loads to ensure that crack extension is not excessive. Because failure is not associated with ductile crack extension, these structural factors are deemed to be appropriate. (b) Emergency/Faulted Conditions. For the acceptance criterion based solely on limited ductile crack extension, structural factors of 1.5 on primary loads and 1.0 on secondary and peak loads are proposed. This is consistent with the structural factors for EPFM evaluations in Appendix C of Section XI. For the acceptance criterion based on aw instability, structural factors of 1.5 for primary loads and 1.0 for secondary and peak loads (including residual stresses) are proposed. For this Code Case also, limited ductile aw extension, structural factors of 1.25 on primary loads and 1.0 on secondary loads are proposed. Once again, these lower safety factors for limited ductile crack extension are justied because limited stable ductile extension does not constitute failure. 46.4.2.6 J-Integral Material Resistance Curve. The use of EPFM as a basis for acceptance criteria requires adequate characterization of the J-integral resistance curve for the vessel material. Section XI, Appendix K species three methods for selection of the material J-integral resistance curve. A J-R curve may be generated by actual testing of the material, following accepted test

procedures; it may be generated from a J-integral database obtained from the same class of material with the same orientation; or an indirect method of estimating the J-R curve may be used, provided the method is justied for the material. This Case proposes the same three methods for determining the J-R curve as in Section XI, Appendix K. 46.4.2.7 Conclusion. The proposed Code Case provides alternate criteria for using EPFM methodology for the evaluation of aws discovered in ferritic steel components, which have been clearly demonstrated to operate in the upper-shelf temperature range. The technical requirements in this Code Case are very similar to those in Section XI, Appendix K, which allows the use of EPFM techniques for RPVs with low upper-shelf toughness. Structural factors consistent with other provisions in Section XI, which allow the use of EPFM for actual aws, are proposed in this Code Case. It is expected that the proposed Code Case will reduce the excess conservatisms inherent in present aw evaluation methodologies in Section XI and allow for more appropriate aw evaluation procedures for vessels that operate in the upper-shelf temperature range.

The nuclear industry is increasingly using probabilistic analysis and risk-informed evaluation to optimize inspections of pressure vessel and piping inspections. The risk-informed analysis methodology and application have been dened and approved by the ASME Code and the U.S. NRC. Most of the risk-informed fracture mechanics evaluations have been based on LEFM analysis. With greater acceptance of EPFM and risk-informed analysis, it is reasonable to expect that, at some point in the future, probabilistic EPFM evaluations will be used to assess the effectiveness of inspections. Rahman [63] described a probabilistic model for predicting elastic-plastic fracture initiation in piping with part through nite length circumferential cracks in piping, using J-integralbased EPFM methods and standard methods of structural reliability theory. The model uses a deformation plasticitybased J-integral analysis and incorporates a local reduced thickness analogy for simulating system compliance due to the presence of a crack. Analytical equations are developed to predict the J integral for a surface-cracked pipe under pure bending. The models were qualied by comparison with nite element calculations of the J integral. Statistical representation of the uncertainties in loads, crack size, loads, and material properties, were used in conjunction with rst- and second-order reliability methods. The statistical distribution of the initial aw was not based on in-service inspection data. Instead, it was assumed that the crack length and depth would follow a Gaussian probability distribution. The statistical parameters and their probability distribution were arbitrary and the intent was to illustrate the methodology. For a given applied moment, the J distribution was calculated both by the application of the second-order reliability method and by Monte Carlo simulation. The results indicated that the reliability theory was consistent with the Monte Carlo simulation.

46.5

REFERENCES

1. Maccary RR. Nondestructive Examination Acceptance Standards Technical Basis and Development of Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, ASME Section XI, Division 1 (EPRI Report NP-1406-SR). Palo Alto, CA: Electric Power Research Institute; 1980.

ASME_Ch46_p001-016.qxd

9/27/08

1:33 PM

Page 15

2. Flaw Evaluation Procedures: ASME Section XI (EPRI Report NP719-SR). Palo Alto, CA: Electric Power Research Institute; 1978. 3. WRC Bulletin 175, PVRC Recommendations on Toughness Requirements for Ferritic Materials. New York: Welding Research Council; 1972. 4. Anderson TL. Fracture Mechanics Fundamentals and Applications. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press; 1995, 2005. 5. Irwin GR. Plastic Zone Near a Crack and Fracture Toughness. Sagamore Research Conference Proceedings 1961;4. 6. Dugdale DS. Yielding in Steel Sheets Containing Slits. Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids 8:100104. 7. Barenblatt GI. The Mathematical Theory of Equilibrium Cracks in Brittle Fracture. In: Advances in Applied Mechanics, Vol. VII. Academic Press; 1962: pp. 55129. 8. Wells AA. Unstable Crack Propagation in Metals: Cleavage and Fast Fracture. Proceedings of the Crack Propagation Symposium, Vol. 1, Paper 84. Craneld, UK; 1961. 9. Rice JR. A Path Independent Integral and the Approximate Analysis of Strain Concentration by Notches and Cracks. Journal of Applied Mechanics 1968;35:379386. 10. Eshelby JD. The Continuum Theory of Lattice Defects. Solid State Physics 1956;3. 11. Hutchinson JW. Singular Behavior at the End of a Tensile Crack Tip in a Hardening Material. Journal of Mechanics and Physics of Solids 1968;16:1331. 12. Rice JR, Rosengren GF. Plane Strain Deformation Near a Crack Tip in a Power Law Hardening Material. Journal of Mechanics and Physics of Solids 1968;16:112. 13. Begley JA, Landes JD. The J-Integral as a Fracture Criterion (ASTM Special Technical Publication 514). West Conshohocken, PA: American Society for Testing and Materials; 1972: pp. 120. 14. ASTM E 813-81, Standard Test Method for JIc, a Measure of Fracture Toughness. West Conshohocken, PA: American Society for Testing and Materials; 1981. 15. Shih CF, Hutchinson JW. Fully Plastic Solutions and Large Scale Yielding Estimates for Plane Stress Crack Problems. Journal of Engineering Materials and Technology 1976;98:289295. 16. Kumar V, German MD, Shih CF. An Engineering Approach for Elastic-Plastic Fracture Analysis (EPRI Report NP-1931). Palo Alto, CA: Electric Power Research Institute; 1981. 17. Kumar V, et al. Advances in Elastic-Plastic Fracture Analysis (EPRI Report NP-3607). Palo Alto, CA: Electric Power Research Institute; 1984. 18. Kumar V, German MD. Elastic-Plastic Fracture Analysis of ThroughWall and Surface Flaws in Cylinders (EPRI Report NP-5596). Palo Alto, CA: Electric Power Research Institute; 1988. 19. Burdekin FM, Dawes MG. Practical Use of Linear Elastic and Yielding Fracture Mechanics with Particular Reference to Pressure Vessels. Proceedings of Institute of Mechanical Engineers Conference, London, May 1971, pp. 2837. 20. Wells AA. Application of Fracture Mechanics at and Beyond General Yielding. British Welding Journal 1963;10:563570. 21. Harrison RP, Loosemore K, Milne I. Assessment of the Integrity of Structures Containing Defects (Central Electricity Generating Board Report R/H/R6). 1976. 22. Shih CF. Relationship Between the J-Integral and the Crack Opening Displacement for Stationary and Extending Cracks. Journal of Mechanics and Physics of Solids 1981;29:305326.

23. Kanninen MF, Popelar CH, Broek D. A Critical Survey on the Application of Plastic Fracture Mechanics to Nuclear Pressure Vessels and Piping. Nuclear Engineering and Design 1981;67:2755. 24. Kanninen MF, Popelar CH. Advanced Fracture Mechanics. Oxford Science Publications; 1985. 25. Bucci RJ, Paris PC, Landes JD, Rice JR. J-Integral Estimation Procedures (ASTM Special Technical Publication 514). West Conshohocken, PA: American Society for Testing and Materials; 1972: pp. 4069. 26. Rice JR, Paris PC, Merkle JG. Some Further Results on J-Integral Analysis and Estimates (ASTM Special Technical Publication 536). West Conshohocken, PA: American Society for Testing and Materials; 1973: pp. 231245. 27. Zahoor A. Ductile Fracture Handbook, Vol. 1: Circumferential Throughwall Cracks (EPRI Report NP-6301-D). Palo Alto, CA: Electric Power Research Institute; 1989. 28. Paris PC, Tada H, Zahoor A, Ernst H. The Theory of Instability of the Tearing Mode of Elastic-Plastic Crack Growth. In: Elastic-Plastic Fracture (ASTM Special Technical Publication 668). West Conshohocken, PA: American Society for Testing and Materials; 1979: pp. 65120. 29. Hutchinson JW, Paris PC. Stability Analysis of J-Controlled Crack Growth. In: Elastic-Plastic Fracture (ASTM Special Technical Publication 668). West Conshohocken, PA: American Society for Testing and Materials; 1979: pp. 3764. 30. Ranganath S, Mehta HS. Engineering Methods for the Assessment of Ductile Fracture Margin in Nuclear Power Plant Piping. In: ElasticPlastic Fracture: Second Symposium, Volume II Fracture Resistance Curves and Engineering Applications (ASTM Special Technical Publication 803, Vol. 2). West Conshohocken, PA: American Society for Testing and Materials; 1983: pp. 309330. 31. Mehta HS. J-Integral Analysis of Ductile Fracture Margin in Piping Weld Overlays. Transactions of the Ninth International Conference on Structural Mechanics in Reactor Technology 1987;G:469474. 32. EPRI Report NP-4690-SR, Evaluation of Flaws in Austenitic Steel Piping. Palo Alto, CA: Electric Power Research Institute; 1986. 33. Evaluation of Flaws in Austenitic Steel Piping: Section XI Task Group for Piping Flaw Evaluation, ASME Code. Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology 1986;108:352366. 34. Ghadiali N, Wilkowski GM. Fracture Mechanics Database for Nuclear Piping Materials (PIFRAC). In: ASME PVP Vol. 324, Fatigue and Fracture, Vol. 2. New York: American Society of Mechanical Engineers; 1996; pp. 7784. 35. Cipolla RC, Scarth DA, Wilkowski GM, Zilberstein VA. Technical Basis for Proposed Revision to Acceptance Criteria for ASME Section XI Pipe Flaw Evaluation (ASME PVP Vol. 422). New York: American Society of Mechanical Engineers; 2001: pp. 3151. 36. Zahoor A, Gamble RM, Mehta HS, Yukawa S, Ranganath S. Evaluation of Flaws in Carbon Steel Piping (EPRI Reports NP-4824M and NP4824SP). Palo Alto, CA: Electric Power Research Institute; 1986. 37. EPRI Report NP-6045, Evaluation of Flaws in Ferritic Piping. Palo Alto, CA: Electric Power Research Institute; 1988. 38. ASME BPVC Code Case N-463, Evaluation Procedures and Acceptance Criteria for Flaws in Ferritic Piping That Exceed the Acceptance Standards of IWB-3514.2, Section XI, Division 1. In: ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code. New York: American Society of Mechanical Engineers; 1988. 39. ASME BPVC Section XI, Appendix H, Evaluation of Flaws in Ferritic Piping. In: ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code. New York: American Society of Mechanical Engineers; 1989.

ASME_Ch46_p001-016.qxd

9/27/08

1:33 PM

Page 16

16 Chapter 46

40. Scarth DA, et al. Flaw Evaluation Procedures and Acceptance Criteria for Nuclear Piping in ASME Code Section XI (ASME PVP Vol. 463). New York: American Society of Mechanical Engineers; 2003. 41. ASME BPVC Code Case N-494, Pipe Specic Evaluation Procedures and Acceptance Criteria for Flaws in Class 1 Ferritic Piping That Exceed the Acceptance Standards of IWB-3514.2, Section XI, Division 1. In: ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code. New York: American Society of Mechanical Engineers; 1991. 42. Bloom JM, Malik SN. A Procedure for the Assessment of Integrity of Structures Containing Defects (EPRI Report NP-2431). Palo Alto, CA: Electric Power Research Institute; 1982. 43. Bloom JM. Validation of a Deformation Plasticity Failure Assessment Diagram Approach to Flaw Evaluation (ASTM Special Technical Publication 803). West Conshohocken, PA: American Society for Testing and Materials; 1983: pp. 206238. 44. Bloom JM. Deformation Plasticity Failure Assessment Diagram. In: Elastic-Plastic Fracture Mechanics Technology (ASTM Special Technical Publication 896). West Conshohocken, PA: American Society for Testing and Materials; 1985. 45. Bloom JM. Evaluation of Flaws in Ferritic Piping, Appendix J: Deformation Plasticity Failure Assessment Diagram (DPFAD) (EPRI Report NP-7492). Palo Alto, CA: Electric Power Research Institute; 1991. 46. Bloom JM. DPFAD for Materials with Non-Ramberg-Osgood StressStrain Curves. In: ASME PVP Vol. 287, Fracture Mechanics Applications. New York: American Society of Mechanical Engineers; 1994. 47. Bloom JM. Technical Basis for the Extension of ASME Code Case N-494 for Assessment of Austenitic Piping. In: ASME PVP Vol. 304, Fatigue and Fracture Mechanics in Pressure Vessels and Piping. New York: American Society of Mechanical Engineers; 1995. 48. Milne I, et al. Background to and Validation of CEGB Report R/H/R6, Revision 3. International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 1988;32:105196. 49. Dowling AR, et al. An Overview of R6 Revision 4. In; ASME PVP Vol. 423, Fracture and Fitness. New York: American Society of Mechanical Engineers; 1995. 50. Nilsson F, et al. Elastic-Plastic Fracture Mechanics for Pressure Vessel Design, Research Project 87116, SKI Report TR 89:20; 1989. 51. Andersson P, et al. A Procedure for Safety Assessment of Components with Cracks Handbook, SKI Report 99:49 (Revision 3); 1999.

52. CFR Title 10, Part 50, Appendix G, Fracture Toughness Requirements. In: Code of Federal Regulations. Washington, DC: National Archives and Records Administrations (NARA) Ofce of the Federal Register (OFR)/Government Printing Ofce (GPO); 1983. 53. ASME BPVC Section XI, Appendix G, Fracture Toughness Criteria for Protection Against Failure. In: ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code. New York: American Society of Mechanical Engineers; 1989. 54. U.S. NRC Resolution of the Task A-11 Reactor Vessel Materials Toughness Safety Issue (NUREG-0744). Washington, DC: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 55. ASME BPVC Section XI, Appendix K, Assessment of Reactor Vessels With Low Upper Shelf Charpy Impact Energy Levels. In: ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code. New York: American Society of Mechanical Engineers; 1993: pp. 482.1482.15. 56. U.S. NRC Regulatory Guide 1.161, Evaluation of Reactor Pressure Vessels with Charpy Upper-Shelf Energy Less Than 50 ft-lb. Washington, DC: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission; 1995. 57. WRC Bulletin 413, Development of Criteria for Assessment of Reactor Vessels with Low Upper Shelf Fracture Toughness. New York: Welding Research Council; 1996. 58. Eason EA, Wright JE, Nelson EE. Multivariable Modeling of Pressure Vessel and Piping J-R Data (NUREG/CR-5729). Washington, DC: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission; 1991. 59. U.S. NRC Regulatory Guide 1.99, Radiation Embrittlement of Reactor Vessel Materials (Revision 2). Washington, DC: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission; 1988. 60. Mehta HS. A Low Upper Shelf Energy Fracture Mechanics Evaluation for a Reactor Pressure Vessel. In: ASME PVP Vol. 260, Fracture Mechanics-Applications and New Materials New York: American Society of Mechanical Engineers; 1993. 61. Griesbach TJ, Smith E. A Review of the ASME Low Upper Shelf Evaluation Procedures for Nuclear Reactor Pressure Vessels. Nuclear Engineering and Design 1991;130. 62. Coe N, Riccardella PC, Yoon K. Technical Basis for Proposed Code Case N-xxx Alternative Acceptance Criteria and Evaluation Procedure for Flaws in Ferritic Steel Components Operating in the Upper Shelf Range, Revision 4, Presented to Working Group on Flaw Evaluation, Orlando, FL, May 10, 2005. 63. Rahman S. Probabilistic Elastic-Plastic Fracture Analysis of Circumferentially Cracked Pipes with Finite-Length Surface Flaws. Nuclear Engineering and Design 2000;195.

## Bien plus que des documents.

Découvrez tout ce que Scribd a à offrir, dont les livres et les livres audio des principaux éditeurs.

Annulez à tout moment.