Technical Basis for ASME Code Case N830, Revision 1 (MRP418)
Direct Use of Master Curve Fracture Toughness Curve for PressureRetaining Materials of Class 1 Vessels, Section XI
Technical Basis for ASME Code Case N830, Revision 1 (MRP418)
Direct Use of Master Curve Fracture Toughness Curve for PressureRetaining Materials of Class 1 Vessels, Section XI
3002010332
Final Report, October 2017
EPRI Project Manager T. Hardin
All or a portion of the requirements of the EPRI Nuclear Quality Assurance Program apply to this product.
ELECTRIC POWER RESEARCH INSTITUTE 3420 Hillview Avenue, Palo Alto, California 943041338 ▪ PO Box 10412, Palo Alto, California 943030813 ▪ USA 800.313.3774 ▪ 650.855.2121 ▪ askepri@epri.com ▪ www.epri.com
DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTIES AND LIMITATION OF LIABILITIES
THIS DOCUMENT WAS PREPARED BY THE ORGANIZATION(S) NAMED BELOW AS AN ACCOUNT OF WORK SPONSORED OR COSPONSORED BY THE ELECTRIC POWER RESEARCH INSTITUTE, INC. (EPRI). NEITHER EPRI, ANY MEMBER OF EPRI, ANY COSPONSOR, THE ORGANIZATION(S) BELOW, NOR ANY PERSON ACTING ON BEHALF OF ANY OF THEM:
(A) MAKES ANY WARRANTY OR REPRESENTATION WHATSOEVER, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, (I)
WITH RESPECT TO THE USE OF ANY INFORMATION, APPARATUS, METHOD, PROCESS, OR SIMILAR ITEM DISCLOSED IN THIS DOCUMENT, INCLUDING MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, OR (II) THAT SUCH USE DOES NOT INFRINGE ON OR
INTERFERE WITH PRIVATELY OWNED RIGHTS, INCLUDING ANY PARTY'S INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, OR (III) THAT THIS DOCUMENT IS SUITABLE TO ANY PARTICULAR USER'S CIRCUMSTANCE; OR
(B) ASSUMES RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY WHATSOEVER
(INCLUDING ANY CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, EVEN IF EPRI OR ANY EPRI REPRESENTATIVE HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES) RESULTING FROM YOUR SELECTION OR USE OF THIS DOCUMENT OR ANY INFORMATION, APPARATUS, METHOD,
PROCESS, OR SIMILAR ITEM DISCLOSED IN THIS DOCUMENT.
REFERENCE HEREIN TO ANY SPECIFIC COMMERCIAL PRODUCT, PROCESS, OR SERVICE BY ITS TRADE NAME, TRADEMARK, MANUFACTURER, OR OTHERWISE, DOES NOT NECESSARILY CONSTITUTE OR IMPLY ITS ENDORSEMENT, RECOMMENDATION, OR FAVORING BY EPRI.
THE FOLLOWING ORGANIZATIONS PREPARED THIS REPORT:
Phoenix Engineering Associates, Inc. ^{#}
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ^{#}^{#}
Structural Integrity Associates, Inc. ^{#}
^{#} Under contract to EPRI.
^{#}^{#} This work was authored in part by a U.S. Government employee in the scope of his/her employment. EPRI disclaims all interest in the U.S. Government’s contribution.
THE TECHNICAL CONTENTS OF THIS PRODUCT WERE NOT PREPARED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE EPRI QUALITY PROGRAM MANUAL THAT FULFILLS THE REQUIREMENTS OF 10 CFR 50, APPENDIX B. THIS PRODUCT IS NOT SUBJECT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF 10 CFR PART 21.
NOTE
For further information about EPRI, call the EPRI Customer Assistance Center at 800.313.3774 or email askepri@epri.com.
Electric Power Research Institute, EPRI, and TOGETHER…SHAPING THE FUTURE OF ELECTRICITY are registered service marks of the Electric Power Research Institute, Inc.
Copyright © 2017 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The following organizations prepared this report:
Phoenix Engineering Associates, Inc. 119 Glidden Hill Road Unity, NH 03743
Principal Investigator
M. Erickson
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research (RES) Washington, DC 205550001
Principal Investigator
M. Kirk ^{*}
Structural Integrity Associates, Inc. 11515 Vanstory Drive, Suite 125 Huntersville, NC 28078
Principal Investigator
G. Stevens
^{*} The statements, findings, conclusions and recommendations expressed in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
This report describes research cosponsored by EPRI.
This publication is a corporate document that should be cited in the literature in the following manner:
Technical Basis for ASME Code Case N830, Revision 1 (MRP418): Direct Use of Master Curve Fracture Toughness Curve for PressureRetaining Materials of Class 1 Vessels, Section XI. EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: 2017. 3002010332.
iii
This document was prepared as part of the ASME Code, Section XI Working Group on Flaw Evaluation. The authors would like to thank the volunteer members of the ASME Code, Section XI Working Group on Flaw Evaluation for their valuable input, feedback, and review of this report, as well as their help and participation in solving the sample problems associated with this effort.
Working Group on Flaw Evaluation Members Who Contributed to This Report:
• Russell Cipolla 
Intertek 
• Yil Kim 
GE POWER 
• Mark Kirk & Mike Benson 
U.S. NRC 
• Darrell Lee 
BWXT 
• Cheng Liu & Steven Xu 
Kinectrics 
• Do Jun Shim 
Structural Integrity Associates, Inc. 
iv
ABSTRACT
Section XI of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code (ASME Code) provides K _{I}_{c} and K _{I}_{a} fracture toughness models for ferritic steels. These models are based on linear elastic fracture mechanics (LEFM) methods, and were initially developed in the 1970s for incorporation into the ASME Code. The models have remained largely unchanged since their original incorporation into the code. Since the publication of the technical bases documents for the fracture toughness equations contained in Section XI, considerable advancements to the state of theoretical and practical knowledge have occurred, particularly with respect to the amount of available fracture toughness data. The Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) now has a fracture toughness database containing well over 9,000 fracture toughness values ranging across specimen sizes, test temperatures and strain rates. As part of the pressurized thermal shock (PTS) reevaluation program, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and the industry used this database to develop an integrated model that predicts the mean trends and scatter of the fracture toughness behavior of ferritic steels throughout the temperature range from the lower shelf to the upper shelf fracture regions. This integrated model includes the transition fracture toughness Master Curve approach that describes the temperature dependence and scatter in K _{J}_{c} in the lower transition temperature region, a new model for describing the temperature dependence and scatter of J _{I}_{c} on the upper shelf, and includes identification of a temperature at which the K _{J}_{c} curve transitions to upper shelf behavior, marking the upper limit of applicability for the K _{J}_{c} transition curve. This collection of models was used by the NRC to establish the index temperature screening limits adopted in the Alternate PTS Rule documented in Title 10 to the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 50.61a (10CFR50.61a).
The ASME Section XI Working Group on Flaw Evaluation (WGFE) has an ongoing effort intended to implement the K _{J}_{c} Master Curve (MC) into Section XI of the ASME Code. This effort began with indirect implementation of the MC through use of a transition reference temperature, RTT _{0} , defined by using the K _{J}_{c} T _{0} value to replace RT _{N}_{D}_{T} for indexing the ASME K _{I}_{c} curve. In Revision 0 of Code Case N830, direct use of the MC was defined as an alternative to using the ASME K _{I}_{c} curve. Revision 1 to Code Case N830 (N8301) incorporates the complete and selfconsistent suite of fracture toughness models developed over the last decade to completely describe the temperature dependence, scatter, and interdependencies between all the fracture toughness metrics (i.e., K _{J}_{c} , K _{I}_{a} , J _{I}_{c} , J _{0}_{.}_{1} , and JR) from the lower shelf through the upper shelf regimes. This report describes the technical basis for Code Case N8301.
v
Keywords
Master curve Fracture toughness model T _{0} fracture toughness reference temperature RT _{N}_{D}_{T} fracture toughness reference temperature ASME Section XI Appendix A flaw evaluation procedures
vi
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Deliverable Number: 3002010332
Product Type: Technical Report
Product Title: Technical Basis for ASME Code Case N830, Revision 1 (MRP418):
Direct Use of Master Curve Fracture Toughness Curve for PressureRetaining Materials of Class 1 Vessels, Section XI
PRIMARY AUDIENCE: ASME Boiler & Pressure Vessel Code, Section XI, Committees
SECONDARY AUDIENCE: Engineers using Master Curve fracture toughness for vessel integrity evaluations
KEY RESEARCH QUESTION
Currently, the ASME Boiler & Pressure Vessel Code, Section XI methods for evaluation of vessel integrity are based on methodology developed in the 1970s for conservatively representing fracture toughness without actually measuring fracture toughness. It is desirable for the Code to provide a modern suite of best estimate fracture toughness models that provide a complete description of fracture toughness crack initiation and arrest behavior from lower shelf, through transition, to ductile upper shelf regimes for all ferritic steels.
RESEARCH OVERVIEW
The ASME Section XI Working Group on Flaw Evaluation (WGFE) has an ongoing effort intended to implement the K _{J}_{c} Master Curve (MC) into Section XI of the ASME Code. This effort began with indirect implementation of the MC through use of a transition reference temperature, RT _{T}_{0} , defined by using the K _{J}_{c} T _{0} value to replace RT _{N}_{D}_{T} for indexing the ASME K _{I}_{c} curve. In Revision 0 of Code Case (CC) N830, direct use of the MC was defined as an alternative to using the ASME K _{I}_{c} curve. The proposed Revision 1 to CC N 830 (N8301) incorporates the complete and selfconsistent suite of fracture toughness models developed over the last decade to completely describe the temperature dependence, scatter, and interdependencies between all the fracture toughness metrics (i.e., K _{J}_{c} , K _{I}_{a} , J _{I}_{c} , J _{0}_{.}_{1} , and JR) from the lower shelf through the upper shelf regimes. This report describes the technical basis for Code Case N8301. This document was prepared by a small task group to provide information to the Working Group on Flaw Evaluation to support finalization and decisionmaking on CC N8301.
KEY FINDINGS
• The technical bases for the fracture toughness models contained in ASME CC N8301 are presented in this report. The suite of best estimate fracture toughness models provides a complete description of fracture toughness crack initiation and arrest behavior from lower shelf, through transition, to ductile upper shelf regimes for all ferritic steels.
• The best estimate models used for CC N8301 are based on updated techniques and available data, sound physical bases, and extensive empirical evaluations that collectively promote confidence in their use for flaw assessment following Nonmandatory Appendix A of ASME Section XI and similar methods.
• These models are appropriate for use in both deterministic and probabilistic assessments, as each model describes the full distribution in values about the mean for any temperature and material condition.
vii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
• Equations that allow an analyst to determine any percentile value of interest for any of the fracture toughness parameters K _{J}_{c} , K _{I}_{a} , J _{I}_{c} , J _{0}_{.}_{1} , and JR are presented for each fracture toughness model. Specific values of these parameters may be used in deterministic assessments, or the entire distributions may be sampled for use in probabilistic assessments.
WHY THIS MATTERS
The fracture toughness models presented in this report provide a consistent, bestestimate representation of ferritic steel fracture toughness behavior, including uncertainties, to allow quantitative fracture toughness assessments that ensure the safety of nuclear (and other) ferritic components.
HOW TO APPLY RESULTS
Equations are presented for each fracture toughness model that allow an analyst to determine any percentile value of interest for any of the fracture toughness parameters K _{J}_{c} , K _{I}_{a} , J _{I}_{c} , J _{0}_{.}_{1} , and JR. Specific values of these parameters may be used in deterministic assessments, or the entire distributions may be sampled for use in probabilistic assessments.
LEARNING AND ENGAGEMENT OPPORTUNITIES Regulatory authorities considering the approval of use of Master Curve technologies for integrity evaluations may also be interested in this report.
EPRI CONTACTS: Timothy C. Hardin, Technical Executive, thardin@epri.com
PROGRAM: Materials Reliability Program, 41.01.04
IMPLEMENTATION CATEGORY: Reference; Early R&D
Together
Shaping
the Future of Electricity®
Electric Power Research Institute 3420 Hillview Avenue, Palo Alto, California 943041338 • PO Box 10412, Palo Alto, California 943030813 USA 800.313.3774 • 650.855.2121 • askepri@epri.com • www.epri.com
© 2017 Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), Inc. All rights reserved. Electric Power Research Institute, EPRI, and
TOGETHER
SHAPING
THE FUTURE OF ELECTRICITY are registered service marks of the Electric Power Research Institute, Inc.
NOMENCLATURE
Category 
Symbol 
Unit 
Description 
KIc 
MPa√m 
plane strain fracture initiation toughness 

KJc 
MPa√m 
Kequivalent of the value of J measured at cleavage crack initiation 

KIa 
MPa√m 
fracture toughness measured at cleavage crack arrest 

Different Fracture 

Toughness Metrics 
JIc 
kJ/m ^{2} 
ductile crack initiation toughness measured according to ASTM E1820 
Jx 
kJ/m ^{2} 
ductile crack initiation toughness after “x” mm of ductile crack extension 

JR 
kJ/m ^{2} 
variation of ductile fracture toughness with stable crack extension 

T0 
°C 
temperature at which the KJc Master Curve ^{1} has a 

median value of 100 MPa√m 

Index 
temperature at which the KIa master curve has a median value of 100 MPa√m 

Temperatures 
TKIa 
°C 

TUS 
°C 
temperature at which the median KJc Master Curve crosses the mean J _{I}_{c} upper shelf master curve 

Temperature 
T 
°C 
temperature at the cracktip 
Parameters to 
p 
dimensionless 
percentile for the lower bounding curves 
Define Statistical 
Tstatistic multiplier for the lower bounding curves. 

Bounding Curve 
M p 
dimensionless 
Standard normal distribution with a mean of zero and standard deviation of 1.0 
KJc ^{p} 
MPa√m 
value of KJc at percentile p 

Used in the KIc or KJc equations 
Kmin 
MPa√m 
20 MPa√m 
Ko 
MPa√m 
value of K _{J}_{c} at the 63.2 ^{n}^{d} percentile 

Used in the KIa equation 
KIa ^{p} 
MPa√m 
value of K _{I}_{a} at percentile p 
^{1} Master Curve is only capitalized when referring to the K _{J}_{c} Master Curve. In all other cases, “master” is used as an adjective to describe the type of curvefit.
ix
Category 
Symbol 
Unit 
Description 

JIc ^{p} 
kJ/m ^{2} 
value of JIc at percentile p 

JX ^{p} 
kJ/m ^{2} 
value of J _{X} at percentile p 

C 
kJ/m ^{2} 
leading coefficient of an exponential fit to the JR curve. value of C in the equation J = C(Δa) ^{n} 

dimensionless 
slope of an exponential fit to the JR curve. The value 

n 
of n in the equation J = C(Δa) ^{n} 

σΔJIc 
kJ/m ^{2} 
standard deviation of JIc 

_{J} 
_{I}_{c} mean 
kJ/m ^{2} 
mean value of JIc 

Used in the JR and JX equations 
Jc(US) 
kJ/m ^{2} 
value of Jc at TUS 

ΔJIc(US) 
kJ/m ^{2} 
value of ΔJIc at TUS 

E 
GPa 
Young’s modulus 

A 
kJ/m ^{2} 
fitting parameter in σΔJIc equation 

B 
1/°C 
fitting parameter in σΔJIc equation 

P 
dimensionless 
percentile in σΔJIc equation 

P1 
dimensionless 
percentile in σΔJIc equation 

P2 
dimensionless 
percentile in σΔJIc equation 

ν 
dimensionless 
Poisson’s ratio, a value of 0.3 can be used 
x
CONTENTS
ABSTRACT 
v 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 
vii 

NOMENCLATURE 
ix 

1 INTRODUCTION 
11 

1.1 
ASME Section XI, Appendix A Approach 
12 

1.1.1 Summary of ASME Section XI, Appendix A Flaw Evaluation Procedures 
12 

1.1.2 Treatment of Uncertainties in Appendix A 
14 

1.1.3 Technical Basis for the Appendix A Methodology 
15 

1.1.4 Issues with Appendix A Methodology 
18 

1.2 
Objectives of Proposed Code Case N8301 
110 

2 OVERVIEW OF CODE CASE N8301 
21 

2.1 Introduction 
21 

2.2 CC N8301 Contents 
22 

2.2.1 Inquiry 
22 

2.2.2 Reply 
22 

2.2.3 Discussion of N8301 
22 

3 FRACTURE TOUGHNESS MODELS IN CC N8301 
31 

3.1 
Cleavage Crack Initiation 
Toughness, K _{J}_{c} 
31 

3.1.1 
Description of the K _{J}_{c} Model 
32 

3.1.2 
Basic Form 
32 

3.1.3 
Distribution 
32 

3.1.4 
Theoretical Basis 
33 

3.1.5 
Empirical Basis 
34 

3.1.6 
Model Validation 
35 

3.1.7 
Limits of Applicability 
36 
xi
3.2 Cleavage Crack Arrest Fracture Toughness, K _{I}_{a} 
37 

3.2.1 
Description 
of Model 
37 
3.2.2 
Basic Form 
37 

3.2.3 
Distribution 
37 

3.2.4 
Theoretical Basis 
38 

3.2.5 
Model Validation 
39 

3.2.6 
Limits of Applicability 
39 

3.3 Ductile Crack Initiation Fracture Toughness, J _{I}_{c} 
39 

3.3.1 
Description 
of Model 
310 
3.3.2 
Basic Form 
310 

3.3.3 
Distribution 
310 

3.3.4 
Theoretical Basis 
311 

3.3.5 
Empirical Basis 
312 

3.3.6 
Model Validation 
313 

3.3.7 
Limits of Applicability 
315 

4 FRACTURE TOUGHNESS LINKAGE MODELS IN CC N8301 
41 

4.1 The Relationship Between Cleavage Crack Initiation (K _{J}_{c} ) and Upper Shelf (J _{I}_{c} ); 

T _{U}_{S} 
41 

4.1.1 
Mathematical Form of the Model 
41 

4.1.2 
Physical Basis 
42 

4.1.3 
Empirical Basis 
43 

4.1.4 
Model Validation 
43 

4.1.5 
Limits on Validity of the Model 
44 

4.2 The Relationship Between Cleavage Crack Initiation (K _{J}_{c} ) and Arrest (K _{I}_{a} ) 
44 

4.2.1 Mathematical Form of Model 
44 

4.2.2 Physical Basis for the Model 
45 

4.2.3 Empirical Basis 
46 

4.2.4 Model Validation 
47 

4.2.5 Limits on Validity of the Model 
47 

4.3 The Relationship Between Upper Shelf (J _{I}_{c} ) Crack Initiation and Upper Shelf 

Crack Growth (JR) 
47 

4.3.1 Mathematical Form of the Model 
48 

4.3.2 Empirical Basis 
48 

4.3.3 Model Validation 
410 

4.3.4 Limits on Validity of Model 
410 
xii
5 IMPLICATIONS OF PROPOSED CHANGES 
51 

5.1 Introduction 
51 

5.2 Sources of Uncertainties in Fracture Mechanics Analyses 
51 

5.2.1 Flaw Size Uncertainty 
52 

5.2.2 Stress and Stress Intensity Factor Uncertainty 
52 

5.2.3 Fracture Toughness Uncertainty 
53 

5.3 
Treatment of Uncertainties 
53 

5.3.1 Treatment of Uncertainty Due to Flaw Size and Location 
53 

5.3.2 Treatment of 
Uncertainty 
Due 
to 
Stress 
56 

5.3.3 Treatment of Uncertainty on Fracture Toughness 
58 

5.4 CC N830 
511 

5.5 Code Case N8301 Uncertainty Treatment 
512 

5.6 Summary 
514 

6 POTENTIAL CODE/REGULATORY APPLICATIONS OF CC N8301 
61 

6.1 Introduction 
61 

6.2 Past Use of the Wallin Master Curve 
62 

6.2.1 Within the ASME Code 
62 

6.2.2 NRC Applications 
62 

6.3 
Currently Foreseen Uses of the CC N8301 Suite of Fracture Toughness Models 
64 

7 SAMPLE PROBLEMS AND RESULTS 
71 

7.1 Introduction 
71 

7.2 The Sample Problem 
71 

7.2.1 Allowable 
Toughness Values 
72 

7.2.2 Allowable Flaw Size Values 
73 

8 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 
81 

9 REFERENCES 
91 

A SAMPLE PROBLEM 
1 STATEMENT 
A1 

B SAMPLE PROBLEM 
2 STATEMENT 
B1 

Sample Problem 2 Statement 
B1 
xiii
C DRAFT CC N8301 (VERSION USED FOR SAMPLE PROBLEM 2) 
C1 

Direct Use of Fracture Toughness for Flaw Evaluations of Pressure Boundary Materials in Class 1 Ferritic Steel Components 
C1 

Section XI, Division 1 
C1 

1000 
Scope 
C1 

2000 
Reference Temperature 
C2 

3000 
Toughness Variability 
C3 

4000 
Toughness Curves 
C4 

4100 Cleavage Crack Initiation toughness, K _{J}_{c} 
C4 

4200 Cleavage Crack Arrest Toughness, K _{I}_{a} 
C5 

4300 Ductile Crack Initiation Toughness, J _{I}_{c} 
C5 

4400 Ductile Crack Extension Toughness, JR and J _{X} 
C6 

5000 Applicability Limits 
C7 

5100 Ductile Crack Extension Range 
C7 

5200 Lower Temperature Limits on K _{J}_{c} and K _{I}_{a} 
C7 

5300 Upper Temperature Limits on J _{I}_{c} , JR, and J _{x} 
C7 

5400 Intermediate Temperature 
Limits 
C7 

6000 
Units Conversions 
C8 

7000 
Nomenclature 
C8 
xiv
LIST OF FIGURES 

Figure 11 Appendix A Flaw Evaluation Procedure to Evaluate the Continued Serviceability of Ferritic 
14 
Figure 12 K _{I}_{c} Curve (top) and K _{I}_{a} [K _{I}_{D} ] Curve (bottom) Referenced to RT _{N}_{D}_{T} 
17 
Figure 31 Comparison of the temperature dependence exhibited by the J _{I}_{c} data for the EURO Forge with the model proposed in [65] (i.e., Eqn. (315) with uncertainty bounds based on Eqn Figure 32 Comparison of the revised J _{I}_{c} model, Eqns. (39) and (310), with J _{I}_{c} data from steels having three different upper shelf toughness (J _{I}_{c}_{(}_{2}_{8}_{8}_{)} ) levels Figure 41 Relationship between T _{U}_{S} and T _{0} [11, 
314 
316 

42 

Figure 42 Schematic illustrating the relationship between the transition and upper shelf toughness, and defining T _{U}_{S} as the intersection of the Wallin MC and the upper shelf 
43 
Figure 43 Illustration of variation in the temperature separation between the K _{I}_{a} and K _{J}_{c} master curves as a function of T _{0} [73] 
45 
Figure 44 Illustration of the effects of strain rate increase on yield strength elevation for materials having different degrees of prior strain hardening [61] 
46 
Figure 51 Schematic illustration of physical causes for systematic overestimation of flaw size using Figure 52 Cumulative probability distribution function showing the relationship between RT _{N}_{D}_{T} and T _{0} Figure 53 Plot of K _{J}_{c} , 1% MC bound, 99% MC bound, the RT _{N}_{D}_{T} indexed K _{I}_{c} curve, and the RTT _{0} indexed K _{I}_{c} curve Figure 54 Plot of K _{J}_{c} , 1% MC bound, 99% MC bound, the RT _{N}_{D}_{T} indexed K _{I}_{c} curve divided by √2, and the RTT _{0} indexed K _{I}_{c} curve divided by √2 (for emergency/faulted operating 
54 
59 

59 

510 

Figure 55 Plot of K _{J}_{c} , 1% MC bound, 99% MC bound, the RT _{N}_{D}_{T} indexed K _{I}_{c} curve divided by √10, and the RTT _{0} indexed K _{I}_{c} curve divided by √10 (for normal/upset operating Figure 56 Plot of K _{J}_{c} , 1% MC bound, 99% MC bound, the CC N830 5% MC bound, the CC N830 5% MC divided by √2, and the CC N830 5% MC divided by √10 (for emergency/faulted and normal operating conditions, 
510 
511 

Figure 57 Plot of K _{J}_{c} , with the 1% MC bound, 99% MC bound, the CC N8301 1% MC bound, the CC N830 5% MC bound divided by √2, and the Appendix A RTT _{0}  indexed K _{I}_{c} curve divided by √2 (all for emergency/faulted operating 
513 
xv
Figure 58 Plot of K _{J}_{c} , 1% MC bound, 99% MC bound, the 0.5% MC bound (CC N830 1), the 5% MC bound divided by √10 (CC N830), and the RTT _{0} indexed K _{I}_{c} curve divided by √10 (Appendix A) for normal/upset operating conditions 
514 
Figure A1 Sample Problem Properties 
A2 
Figure C1 Illustration of Intermediate Temperature Limits when 5 ^{t}^{h} Percentile Bounding Curves are used 
C8 
xvi
LIST OF TABLES
Table 41 RMSD values for different product forms 
48 

Table 42 Composition of the JR curve database 
49 

Table 61 Summary of unirradiated RTT _{0} value for various Linde 80 weld wire 
64 

Table 71 Material Properties for use in Appendix A and Proposed Code Case N8301 Sample Problem 2 
72 

Table B1 Material Properties for use in the Sample Problem 2 
B2 

Table B2 Table for Presentation of Results of the Phase II Sample Problem 
B3 

Table C1 Values of p and M _{p} Corresponding to Different Bounding Toughness Curves 
C3 

Table C2 RMSD values for different product 
C7 

Table C3 Unit Conversion Coefficients 
C8 

Table 
C4 
Symbols 
C9 
Table 
C5 
Definitions 
C10 
xvii
1
INTRODUCTION
Historically, the safety of nuclear power plant pressureretaining components has been demonstrated using the rules of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code (ASME Code, or Code). Section III of the ASME Code provides Rules for Construction of Nuclear Facility Components, and Section XI provides Rules for InService Inspection of Nuclear Plant Components. Both sections of the Code provide methods for assessing stresses and moments contributing to the forces available to drive crack growth in components containing postulated or detected flaws. The Code primarily makes use of linear elastic fracture mechanics (LEFM) methods to calculate stress intensity factors, and has fracture toughness models based on empirical data to estimate material resistance to crack extension. Much of the current Code is based on LEFM models of material behavior in the presence of flaws that were developed more than 40 years ago at a time when dropweight tests [1] and Charpy Vnotch (CVN) impact tests [2] were the accepted standards used to estimate metrics that correlate with fracture toughness, such as the nilductility temperature (NDT) or ductiletobrittle transition temperature (DBTT).
The ferritic steels used to fabricate nuclear power plant reactor pressure vessels (RPVs) were selected to have sufficient strength and toughness to provide adequate safety margins against overload failure and catastrophic crack extension at all operating temperatures and conditions. To ensure adequate toughness, the RPV steels selected for power plant construction in the 1960s and 1970s, were chosen to have a DBTT well below the expected operating conditions of the plant. The CVN and the dropweight tests were among the most commonly used test methods for characterizing the DBTT temperature of these steels at that time. However, these tests do not directly provide the specimenindependent measures of fracture toughness required to support an ASME Code analysis. These test results can only be correlated to the measure of the material’s resistance to crack extension. Linearelastic planestrain fracture toughness testing, as prescribed by ASTM Standard E399 [3], was developed to provide a direct measure of a material’s resistance to crack extension using a measure of the critical stress intensity factor required for crack extension, KIc. Such a value allows for more direct comparison to the crack driving force in stress intensity factor calculations.
Linearelastic planestrain fracture toughness testing for RPV materials often requires large specimens to ensure that validity criteria for small scale yielding are met, and the test specimens and procedures are often expensive. As such, testing an adequate number of specimens to fully define a fracture toughness transition curve and reference temperature is expensive. Because of this, the nilductility test (used to define NDT) and the CVN test, both of which use smaller test specimens and simpler test procedures compared to those required for valid K _{I}_{c} determination, became the dominant methods for characterizing material toughness transition temperature, RT _{N}_{D}_{T} , defined as the reference temperature for nil ductility transition to signify the reference temperature below which a material exhibits limited ductility in the presence of a notch. Calculation of RT _{N}_{D}_{T} from a combination of data from NDT and CVN testing is described in Paragraph NB2331 of Section III of the ASME Code [4]. The prevalence of NDT and CVN
11
Introduction
data, combined with work performed to correlate these values with K _{I}_{c} [5, 6], resulted in an RT _{N}_{D}_{T} referenced K _{I}_{c} curve that was adopted into the ASME Code, Section XI, Appendix A flaw assessment procedures [7].
There is uncertainty inherent in both the RT _{N}_{D}_{T} and K _{I}_{c} values determined for a specific material. This uncertainty is caused by the natural material inhomogeneity that controls fracture behavior, and the uncertainties surrounding modeling assumptions, test procedures, and analytical methods used for determining these values. These uncertainties can be treated explicitly by quantifying the uncertainties in these values (defining their distributions) and then either taking a lower bound value, or assigning a factor that is applied to the bestestimate value that directly accounts for the uncertainties. If the distributions in the data are not well established, the uncertainties can be treated implicitly by making conservative assumptions about the operating conditions or using conservative models of material behavior. Explicit treatments of uncertainties are preferred, as they are more transparent, their impact more easily understood, and they can more readily be changed as knowledge and information are expanded. The method employed in ASME Code, Section XI, Appendix A uses both implicit and explicit treatments of uncertainties, which obscures accurate representation of material behavior and increases the difficulty of taking advantage of increased knowledge of material properties.
1.1 ASME Section XI, Appendix A Approach
ASME Code, Section XI, Nonmandatory Appendix A, “Analysis of Flaws,” [7] provides analytical procedures for use in determining the acceptability of flaws for continued service that are detected during inspection and that exceed the flaw acceptance standards of IWB3500. The procedures are based on LEFM principles and apply to ferritic components with wall thicknesses of 100 mm (4 inches) or greater, and having simple geometries and stress distributions. Appendix A is limited to ferritic steels having a minimum yield strength of 350 MPa (50 ksi) or less, and provides procedures for three areas of flaw assessment: (1) characterization of the flaw size, shape, and location for use in the LEFM analysis, (2) methods for performing crack driving force (stress intensity factor) calculations, and (3) methods for determining allowable material properties (fracture resistance) to be used in the analyses.
1.1.1 Summary of ASME Section XI, Appendix A Flaw Evaluation Procedures
Appendix A, developed based on the work described in References [5, 6] describes a method that can be used to determine whether a ferritic steel component with a detected flaw that exceeds the IWB3500 flaw acceptance criteria is acceptable for continued use. The methods involve the following steps [7]:
1. Determine the actual flaw configuration in accordance with IWA3000.
2. Characterize the flaw in accordance with IWB3610.
3. Resolve the flaw into a simple shape that can be readily analyzed.
4. Determine the stresses at the location of the observed flaw for normal, emergency, and faulted conditions.
5. Calculate stress intensity factors for each condition.
6. Determine the necessary material properties, including the effects of irradiation, if applicable.
12
7. Determine the following critical flaw parameters:
Introduction
a) a _{f} = expected endoflife flaw size
b) a _{c} = minimum critical flaw size for normal conditions
c) a _{i} = minimum critical initiation flaw size for emergency and faulted conditions.
8. Using the critical flaw parameters, a _{f} , a _{c} and a _{i} , apply the flaw evaluation criteria of IWB 3600 to determine whether the observed flaw is acceptable for continued service.
The methods described in Appendix A are based in LEFM, and therefore only apply to conditions for which the ferritic steel of interest exhibits lower transition fracture toughness behavior. For conditions in which the ferritic steel of interest exhibits upper shelf toughness behavior, Appendix A is not applicable. For vessels in these situations the methodology described in Nonmandatory Appendix K, “Assessment of Reactor Vessels with Low Upper Shelf Charpy Impact Levels,” [8] may be used. The Code does not provide any guidance to identify when this transition in behavior occurs.
Figure 11 contains a diagram showing the steps of the Appendix A process that are described in 18 above. The steps are separated into the major components of the process, as depicted by the Flaw Evaluation, Crack Driving Force Calculation, and Resistance Calculation shaded areas. Flaw evaluation procedures are described in Article A2000 of Appendix A, and the procedures for calculating the stress intensity factors for use in assessing flaw growth and acceptability are described in Article A3000. The procedure for determining the appropriate material property for use in comparing to the stress intensity factor is described in Article A4000. Of particular note, Article A4000 specifies the lower bounding fracture toughness curve, K _{I}_{c} , as a function of the difference between the metal temperature, T, and the material RT _{N}_{D}_{T} determined in accordance with Paragraph NB2331 of Section III of the ASME Code [4]. Where appropriate, RT _{N}_{D}_{T} is adjusted to account for the effects of neutron irradiation embrittlement. Use of RT _{N}_{D}_{T} as a reference temperature value for the K _{I}_{c} curve provides a level of implicit conservatism that has proven to be sufficiently conservative with respect to expected material toughness behavior [5]. However, the level of conservatism is unknown and varies for different materials because neither RT _{N}_{D}_{T} nor K _{I}_{c} provide accurate representations of material fracture toughness behavior.
13
Introduction
Figure 11 Appendix A Flaw Evaluation Procedure to Evaluate the Continued Serviceability of Ferritic Components.
1.1.2 Treatment of Uncertainties in Appendix A
RT _{N}_{D}_{T} is not a true measure of material fracture behavior but only an indication of the temperature below which a material exhibits little to no ductility. Because RT _{N}_{D}_{T} is determined using a combination of nilductility dropweight and Charpy vnotch data, there is a lot of scatter inherent in RT _{N}_{D}_{T} values, and inconsistency in how well a material’s actual ductiletobrittle transition temperature (DBTT) is represented by RT _{N}_{D}_{T} . The ASME NB2331 methods for determining RT _{N}_{D}_{T} were developed to provide conservative estimates of the DBTT.
The use of RT _{N}_{D}_{T} to reference the K _{I}_{c} curve provides a level of implicit conservatism believed sufficient to very conservatively bound expected material fracture toughness behavior [5]. It is difficult to quantify the conservatism provided by RT _{N}_{D}_{T} because neither RT _{N}_{D}_{T} nor the K _{I}_{c} lower bound curve provide accurate representations of material fracture toughness behavior. This inaccuracy results in an inconsistent treatment of uncertainties as the level of conservatism (and accounting for uncertainties) varies with each material.
A relatively recent change to Appendix A includes use of a bestestimate T _{0} value, if it is available for the material of interest, to calculate an RTT _{0} value to be used as the reference temperature adjustment for the K _{I}_{c} curve instead of RT _{N}_{D}_{T} . While T _{0} is considered an accurate representation of a material’s fracture toughness behavior, the ASME Code adds a “margin” by defining RTT _{0} as:
RTT _{0} = T _{0} + 19.4°C
or
RTT _{0} = T _{0} + 35°F
Eq. 11
14
Introduction
to ensure a very conservative estimate of material resistance to crack growth.
Further conservatism is added in the ASME approach when comparing the K _{I}_{c} values to the crack driving forces based on the criteria required by Paragraph IWB3612 of Section XI. The allowable stress intensity factor criteria impose additional structural factors depending on the applicable Service Level: K _{I}_{c} must exceed K _{I} √10 for normal operating conditions, and must exceed K _{I} √2 for postulated emergency or faulted conditions. The bases for the use of the factors of √2 and √10 are described in Reference [6]. This explicit use of these structural factors further adds additional conservatism with unquantified uncertainty to the Appendix A approach.
Although many changes have been implemented in Appendix A since it was first published, the RT _{N}_{D}_{T} referenced K _{I}_{c} curve still provides a conservative method for characterizing material resistance to crack extension. The technical bases for Appendix A are documented in the Welding Research Council (WRC) Bulletin 175 [5] and EPRI Report NP719SR [6]. Together, these two documents define flaw characterization methods, material fracture toughness curves, and crack driving force calculation procedures currently contained in Appendix A.
1.1.3 Technical Basis for the Appendix A Methodology
In 1971, the Pressure Vessel Research Committee (PVRC) of the WRC undertook the task to review research and make recommendations on toughness requirements for ferritic materials in nuclear power plant components to both the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Committee and to the Atomic Energy Commission. Specifically, these recommendations, based on knowledge that was current at the time, were intended to provide ferriticmaterialtoughness requirements for pressure retaining components of the reactor coolant pressure boundary operating below 370°C (700°F). The goal was that these criteria, together with the stress limits allowed by the ASME Code, would permit the establishment of safe operating procedures for nuclear reactor components under normal, upset, and test conditions.
The requirements and recommendations arising from WRC 175 [5] that pertain to Appendix A, Article A4000, “Material Properties,” included the following:
• A lower bound, temperaturedependent K _{I}_{a} curve was defined based on a curve drawn below all the K _{I}_{d} (the stress intensity factor under dynamic loading) and K _{I}_{a} data available at the time, referenced to the dropweight nilductility temperature, T _{N}_{D}_{T} (K _{I}_{c} data was too high to have any impact on the lower bounding curve) as shown in Figure 12. The equation to describe the temperature dependence of K _{I}_{a} is given by:
K _{I}_{a} = 13.675 exp [0.0261 (T T _{N}_{D}_{T} )] + 29.4 (in units of MPa√m, ^{o} C)
K _{I}_{a} = 1.223 exp {0.0145[T (T _{N}_{D}_{T} +160)]} + 26.8 (in units of ksi√in, °F)
Eq. 12
This K _{I}_{a} curve was then termed the reference toughness K _{I}_{R} curve and was indexed using T _{N}_{D}_{T} to eliminate the need for performing expensive K _{I}_{c} tests.
• To ensure that the transition temperature used to reference the K _{I}_{a} curve was well below the upper shelf temperature for the material of interest, a criterion was described that combined nilductility test results to establish T _{N}_{D}_{T} , and CVN tests to define the temperature at least 33°C (60°F) above T _{N}_{D}_{T} at which Charpy specimens exhibited at least 0.89 mm (35 mils = 0.35 in.) of lateral expansion. These two results were combined to define RT _{N}_{D}_{T} as T _{0}_{.}_{8}_{9}_{(}_{m}_{m}_{)} –
15
Introduction
33 ^{°}^{C} (T _{3}_{5}_{(}_{m}_{i}_{l}_{s}_{)}  60°F), such that RT _{N}_{D}_{T} was defined as the higher of T _{N}_{D}_{T} or T _{0}_{.}_{8}_{9}_{(}_{m}_{m}_{)} – 33°C
(T _{3}_{5}_{(}_{m}_{i}_{l}_{s}_{)}  60°F). An alternate requirement involving both 0.89 mm (35 mils) of lateral expansion and a minimum CVN energy of 68 J (50 ftlb) was also suggested, i.e., T _{6}_{8}_{J} – 33°C
(T _{5}_{0}_{(}_{f}_{t}_{}_{l}_{b}_{)}  60°F). The minimum of the CVN energy and the lateral expansion criteria were recommended to eliminate materials that might have a low transition temperature or very low upper shelf energies from consideration using the K _{I}_{R} RT _{N}_{D}_{T} procedure.
• A very conservative defect size that included a depth of onequarter of the wall thickness (¼t), a length of six times the depth (or 1.5t), a sharp crack tip, and an orientation perpendicular to the maximum stress direction was recommended.
• A safety factor was recommended for application to the crack driving force stresses along with a flaw size safety margin by recommending a reference flaw size considerably larger than the actual or anticipated maximum flaw size.
• Procedures for calculating the allowable loading were presented in an Appendix to WRC 175 [5] that involved primary membrane stresses due to pressure and secondary thermal stresses caused by thermal gradients near the crack tip.
• Additional safety factors on loading beyond safety factors between 1.0 and 2.0 applied to stresses were not recommended as these were believed to be outside the scope of the PVRC.
The recommendations presented in WRC 175 [5] were modified by Marston, et al. [6] of the newly formed ASME Section XI Working Group on Flaw Evaluation before they were implemented into Appendix A. The modifications included using RT _{N}_{D}_{T} to index the K _{I}_{a} curve instead of T _{N}_{D}_{T} . A bounding K _{I}_{c} curve was defined by drawing a curve beneath all the available static plane strain fracture toughness data referenced to RT _{N}_{D}_{T} for the same materials, in a manner similar to that used to define the K _{I}_{a} curve, defining the temperature dependence of K _{I}_{c} as:
K _{I}_{c} = 36.5 + 22.783 exp [0.036 (T  RT _{N}_{D}_{T} )]
K _{I}_{c} = 33.2 + 20.734 exp [0.02 (T  RT _{N}_{D}_{T} )]
(in units of MPa√m, °C)
(in units of ksi√in, °F)
Eq. 13
The K _{I}_{a} and K _{I}_{c} curves are shown in Figure 12.
While no upper shelf toughness was defined in WRC 175, the EPRI report, or Appendix A, Marston, et al. recommended that the calculations made using the newly proposed Jintegral and equivalent energy methods showed upper shelf toughness exceeded 220 MPa√m even for irradiated materials [7, 8]. Based on this, a value of 220 MPa√m has been used by many analysts to define the upper limit of applicability for the K _{I}_{c} curve.
16
Introduction
Figure 12 K _{I}_{c} Curve (top) and K _{I}_{a} [K _{I}_{D} ] Curve (bottom) Referenced to RT _{N}_{D}_{T} ([6]).
17
Introduction
Because there have been no changes made to these material toughness curves since they were originally published in the 1970s, they retain their inherent conservatisms. These two curves are both similarly affected by degradation due to irradiation through ∆RT _{N}_{D}_{T} . Because both curves are referenced to TRT _{N}_{D}_{T} , and since irradiation embrittlement is characterized by the temperature at which the CVN energy is 41 J (30 ftlb), ∆T _{4}_{1}_{J} , the separation between K _{I}_{c} and K _{I}_{a} does not change with irradiation. The upper limit of applicability for the linear elastic K _{I}_{c} curve of 220 MPa√m (200 ksi√in), which is sometimes assumed by analysts, also does not change with irradiation. However, upper shelf Charpy energy values falling below 68 J (50 ftlb) ^{2} require an Equivalent Margins Assessment (EMA) by Appendix G to 10 CFR Part 50 [9]. An EMA can be performed using USNRC RG 1.161 [10], or using elasticplastic fracture mechanics (EPFM) as described in Appendix K of the ASME, Section XI Code, or using other similar methods that have been developed, such as the Owner’s Groups evaluations representing different nuclear steam supply system (NSSS) vendors.
1.1.4 Issues with Appendix A Methodology
Issues arise in use of the Appendix A method in two main areas:
1. Unquantified uncertainties that are treated both implicitly and explicitly, which result in a very conservative bias in the characterization of material resistance to fracture.
2. Use of models that do not consistently represent material behavior resulting in varying, and unknown, degrees of conservative bias in different situations.
The conservatisms inherent in the Appendix A approach arise, in large part, due to the continued use of RT _{N}_{D}_{T} to reference the K _{I}_{c} and K _{I}_{a} curves, as well as the shape (i.e., temperature dependence) of the curves themselves. While correlations have been established between K _{I}_{c} and CVN behavior versus temperature and irradiation, conservatisms remain and additional margins are typically added to account for material inhomogeneity, uncertainty in material property information available for specific materials, and uncertainties in the use of CVN to provide a measure of material fracture toughness [5, 6]. Structural factors are also added to the estimate of material fracture toughness to account for uncertainties in the knowledge of the stresses at the crack tip used to calculate the crack driving force for crack growth.
Considerable advancements to the stateofknowledge, both theoretical and practical, have occurred since WRC 175 and NP719SR were published, particularly with regards to the amount of available data. These data were used in recent studies to develop a set of integrated, best estimate models that predict the mean trends and scatter of fracture toughness of ferritic steels throughout the temperature range between lower shelf behavior, through DBTT to upper shelf behavior [11, 12]. Comparisons of these new models to the Appendix A methodology reveal areas where Appendix A is inconsistent with trends predicted by the large amount of ferritic steel fracture toughness data now available. Some of these areas include:
1. On the lower shelf, the lowtemperature asymptote of the Appendix A K _{I}_{c} curve does not represent a lower bound to all available data resulting in a nonconservative bias. The ASME model overestimates the lower shelf fracture toughness at temperatures ≈60°C or more below RTT _{0} for all values of RTT _{0} . For unirradiated materials, such low temperatures cannot
^{2} Parameters in the historical discussion were presented in both Metric and English units. All subsequent discussion will be in terms of metric units.
18
Introduction
be achieved during normal operations. However, as radiation embrittlement causes the material transition temperature to approach regulatory limits (e.g., the PTS limits of 132 and 149°C in 10CFR50.61 [13]), a temperature 60°C below these values may be within the achievable temperature range during a cooldown event.
2. The temperature dependence of the Appendix A K _{I}_{c} curve does not accurately reflect the temperature dependence of transition toughness data at all temperatures. This results in a conservative bias, particularly in the lower transition temperature region.
3. On the upper shelf, the K _{I}_{c} limit of applicability of 220 MPa√m exceeds available data, especially after consideration of irradiation effects. This could result in a nonconservative bias in estimates of fracture toughness. Above RTT _{0} of 0°C, 220 MPa√m exceeds the upper shelf fracture toughness of most RPV steels by a considerable amount, suggesting a practical limit on K _{I}_{c} should be informed by the upper shelf fracture toughness. The upper shelf of many ferritic materials falls below 220 MPa√m, even when J _{0}_{.}_{1} ^{3} (the value of J at 0.1 inch crack extension, or 2.54 mm of crack extension) is used as the characterizing parameter. The temperature at which the mean K _{J}_{c} curve equals the mean J _{I}_{c} curve, T _{U}_{S} , can be used to define the upper limit of applicability for the K _{I}_{c} curve based on supporting data [11, 14].
4. The separation between the K _{I}_{c} and K _{I}_{a} curves depends on the amount of irradiation embrittlement, a functionality not captured by the Appendix A equations. Recently developed databased models show that, as RTT _{0} increases, the K _{I}_{c} and K _{I}_{a} curves converge. This convergence is not a feature of the Appendix A curves, which maintain a constant temperature separation. The result of using a constant temperature separation to represent the actual material behavior is that the Appendix A model is overly pessimistic for high values of RTT _{0} , indicative of highly irradiated material, and the model overestimates K _{I}_{a} at low values of RTT _{0} .
5. The temperature above which upper shelf behavior can be expected depends on the amount of irradiation embrittlement, a functionality not captured in the Appendix A equations.
With the development of bestestimate, probabilistic models of material fracture toughness behavior and a clearer understanding of the mechanisms driving crack extension in ferritic steels, the conservatisms inherent in the Appendix A fracture toughness models are no longer necessary. With increased knowledge, extensive additions of data, and better test methodologies, the uncertainties for these models may be quantified and set appropriately to reflect the uncertainties for Charpy, NilDuctility and LEFMbased models. In many cases, measurements of both unirradiated and irradiated K _{J}_{c} fracture toughness are available for various limiting RPV materials, providing a means by which direct comparisons between crack driving force, K _{I} , and the material resistance, K _{J}_{c} , can be made. This knowledge provides a technical and rational basis for the reduction, or elimination, of the conservatism and unnecessary margins that may prohibit continued plant operation. Test methodologies are continuing to improve with better, standardized ASTM testing procedures to determine more reliable K _{J}_{c} values from miniature specimens, thereby enabling use of surveillance CVN specimen for determining irradiated T _{0}
^{3} Throughout this report we adopt the common nomenclature used in the international literature of J _{0}_{.}_{1} (representing the value of J at 0.1 inch of crack extension, and equivalently, representing the value of J at 2.54 mm of crack extension). All formulas for J _{x} (J at x mm of crack extension) are in metric units with x representing the amount of crack extension in millimeters.
19
Introduction
values. All these advances provide for superior modelling and a sound technical basis for incorporating more accurate, T _{0} based models into Appendix A of the ASME Code.
1.2 Objectives of Proposed Code Case N8301
The objective of Code Case N8301 is to implement an integrated suite of bestestimate fracture toughness models that can all be determined from a knowledge of a materialspecific T _{0} value for use in component flaw evaluations. These models are appropriate for use in both deterministic and probabilistic assessments, as each model describes the full distribution in values about the mean for any temperature and material condition. Specific goals for CC N8301 implementation include:
1. To ensure that material properties are accurately represented by the latest available best estimate models, that uncertainties in fracture toughness are well quantified, characterized, and explicitly treated either by use of bounding values or wellunderstood margins,
2. To ensure that fracture toughness models are appropriately linked to consistently account for the effects of hardening and irradiation,
3. To take advantage of varying degrees of knowledge regarding material properties. For example, measured T _{0} values for a given material should result in lower margins, and T _{0} values established through correlations should result in larger margins, and
4. To enable predictions and estimates of all toughness values for any level of embrittlement from knowledge of a single value, T _{0} .
This report describes the technical bases for new fracture toughness models contained in Code Case N8301 that satisfy the above objectives. This document was prepared by a small task group to provide information to the Working Group on Flaw Evaluation to support finalization and decisionmaking on CC N8301. Chapter 2 provides a summary of the information contained in CC N8301. Chapters 3 and 4 provide information supporting all of the models contained in CC N8301 including the data supporting the empirical derivations, the physical basis for the trends observed in the models, and work performed in validation of the models. Chapter 5 discusses sources and treatment of uncertainty in Appendix A calculations including comparisons between treatment of uncertainty in the current Appendix A, the original CC N830 and, the proposed CC N8301. Chapter 6 discusses applications for CC N8301, and Chapter 7 describes results of a several sample problems worked by the WGFE in support of CC N8301 development. This report ends with a summary of information supporting CC N8301 in Chapter 8.
110
2
OVERVIEW OF CODE CASE N8301
2.1 Introduction
With standardization of the test methodology for obtaining the T _{0} fracture toughness reference temperature in ASTM E1921 [15] the stage was set for implementation of T _{0} into the ASME Code. This implementation occurred via the adoption of two Code Cases: N629 in Section XI and N631 in Section III [16, 17]. These Code Cases proposed use of a T _{0} based reference temperature for use in indexing the ASME’s K _{I}_{c} curve in Section XI and Section III Code applications. RTT _{0} is a T _{0} based transition toughness reference temperature defined by Equation
(11).
Code Case (CC) N830 was approved by ASME in 2014, and was the first direct implementation of the K _{J}_{c} Master Curve (MC) into the ASME Code [18]. The CC made use of the 5 ^{t}^{h} percentile lower bound of the Wallin Master Curve as an alternative to the ASME K _{I}_{c} curve to characterize material resistance to fracture in flaw evaluations. Since that time, work has progressed within the ASME Section XI Working Group on Flaw Evaluation (WGFE) to expand and improve the original CC methods.
To take advantage of the bestestimate fracture toughness models recently developed and linked to T _{0} , CC N830 was modified to include a suite of selfconsistent fracture toughness models describing material fracture toughness behavior from lower shelf, through transition, to upper shelf behavior [19]. These models include linkage models that describe the interrelationships controlling changes in toughness behavior for all toughness parameters with irradiation. The proposed Revision 1 of CC N830 incorporates a complete suite of bestestimate models that completely describe the temperature dependence, scatter, and interdependencies (such as those resulting from irradiation or other hardening mechanisms) between all fracture toughness metrics (i.e., K _{J}_{c} , K _{I}_{a} , J _{I}_{c} , J _{0}_{.}_{1} , and JR). By incorporating both a statistical characterization of fracture toughness, and the ability to estimate a toughness curve for any percentile bound, CC N8301 provides a consistent basis for the conduct of both conventional deterministic flaw evaluations, as well as probabilistic evaluations. Additionally, both transition and upper shelf toughness properties are defined in a consistent manner in one document to provide the analyst an easy means to determine what fracture behavior (i.e., transition or upper shelf) can be expected for any condition.
21
Overview of Code Case N8301
2.2 CC N8301 Contents
2.2.1 Inquiry
The inquiry for CC N8301 is as follows:
“What current bestestimate (alternative) fracture toughness models and relationships may be used for flaw evaluations performed in accordance with Nonmandatory Appendix A and/or Nonmandatory Appendix K in lieu of the current requirements of these Appendices for the values of K _{I}_{c} , K _{I}_{a} , J _{I}_{c} , J _{0}_{.}_{1} , and JR?”
2.2.2 Reply
The initial portion of the reply for CC N8301 is as follows:
“It is the opinion of the Committee that the fracture toughness models based on the Master Curve Method in accordance with ASTM E1921 may be used in lieu of the current requirements of Nonmandatory Appendices A or K when determining values for K _{I}_{c} , K _{I}_{a} , J _{I}_{c} , J _{0}_{.}_{1} , and JR using the procedures and equations given below.”
CC N8301 uses a T _{0} value measured in accordance with ASTM Standard E1921, “Standard
Test Method for the Determination of Reference Temperature, T _{o} , for Ferritic Steels in the Transition Range” [15]. Using T _{0} , it is possible to estimate the variation of fracture toughness with temperature across the entire range of interest to operating vessels for Class 1 ferritic
reactor pressure vessel (RPV) materials. This estimate can be used as an alternative to:
• The crack initiation fracture toughness curve, K _{I}_{c} , of Nonmandatory Appendix A, Subarticle A4200 for pressure retaining materials other than bolting, and
• The crack arrest fracture toughness curve, K _{I}_{a} , of Nonmandatory Appendix A, Subarticle A4200 for pressure retaining materials other than bolting, and
• The Jintegral fracture resistance for the material at a ductile flaw extension of 0.1in. (2.5 mm), J _{0}_{.}_{1} , of Nonmandatory Appendix K for pressure retaining materials other than bolting.
• The Jintegral fracture resistance for the material and its variation with ductile flaw extension, Δa, JR, of Nonmandatory Appendix K for pressure retaining materials other than bolting.
The remaining content of the reply to CC N8301 defines all these relationships.
2.2.3 Discussion of N8301
CC N8301 defines bestestimate models of fracture toughness for implementation into the
ASME Code. The CC provides definitions for temperature dependencies and distributions for bestestimate models that describe fracture toughness behavior from the lower shelf, through the transition region, and to the upper shelf. In addition, the linkage models that enable consistent representation of fracture toughness behavior across all temperatures and conditions are defined.
22
Overview of Code Case N8301
These models are based on large databases of measured fracture toughness values such that uncertainties in values are well understood, characterized, quantified and validated. Full distributions are defined for each fracture toughness parameter to enable consistent and explicit treatment of uncertainties in both deterministic and probabilistic assessments.
CC N8301 defines bounding values for percentiles of interest for use in deterministic
evaluations. The linkage models ensure consistent data bounds for all material hardening conditions provided the same percentiles are selected for the transition and upper shelf toughness models. The distributions defined for all parameters provide the information required to sample across the expected range of values at each temperature for probabilistic assessments, with the linkage models ensuring that these distributions change synchronously, as material conditions
change.
The materials fracture toughness models presented in CC N8301 are meant to be used in lieu of
those described in Article 4000 of the current Appendix A for describing material resistance to
fracture.
flaw analyses. Use of the same percentile bounding value for all toughness curves from lower shelf through upper shelf, coupled with elimination of structural factors, ensures consistent representation of material behavior for all fracture modes. While these recommendations for CC N8301 apply explicitly only to the fracture toughness parameter, we argue in Chapter 5 that explicit factors applied to stress and flaw size are not needed due to the conservatisms inherent to
nondestructive flaw sizing and the analytical determination of stresses.
To ensure that the uncertainties inherent in all aspects of flaw analysis are treated appropriately
and consistently, the WGFE plans to develop explicit partial structural factors to apply to each
parameter (flaw characterization, driving force analysis and material resistance) in the flaw analysis to more accurately reflect the uncertainties in that specific parameter. The recommendations contained in CC N8301 for appropriate bounding values to use for material
fracture toughness only account for the uncertainties in the fracture toughness parameter.
The best estimate fracture toughness models, linkage models, and technical bases for the models contained in CC N8301 are presented in Chapters 3 and 4. The model temperature dependence
and distributions are described, along with a summary of their development and validation,
including limitations on their use.
Lower bounding values of the distributions are recommended for use in deterministic
23
3
FRACTURE TOUGHNESS MODELS IN CC N8301
There are three basic fracture toughness models presented in CC N8301; K _{J}_{c} , and J _{I}_{c} to describe the initiation fracture toughness in the transition region and on the upper shelf, and K _{I}_{a} to describe the crack arrest fracture toughness. Measured values of K _{J}_{c} and K _{I}_{a} are used to define indexing temperatures (T _{0} and TK _{I}_{a} , respectively) that are material specific. These indexing temperatures were used to normalize the K _{J}_{c} and K _{I}_{a} curves to establish a single temperature dependence for each curve. The J _{I}_{c} curve was normalized to establish the temperature dependence of J _{I}_{c} for all ferritic steels based on the J _{I}_{c} value at 288 °C, JIc _{2}_{8}_{8} . Each of these models was empirically derived from large databases of toughness values, but the model forms were informed from a mechanistic understanding of the fracture process that provides a theoretical underpinning to identify empirical trends. The assumption used for all models was that applied energy absorption by dislocation motion prior to fracture is the mechanism controlling the temperature dependence of the fracture toughness. Therefore, these models are applicable only to ferritic steels, and only in temperature regions where deformation is dislocationdominated.
3.1 Cleavage Crack Initiation Toughness, K _{J}_{c}
Wallin, working in collaboration with Sarrio and Törrönen, began to publish papers that became the basis for what is now referred to as the Master Curve as part of his doctoral research work in
1984. This work includes two components: a statistical model of cleavage fracture, and a
temperature dependency of fracture toughness common to all ferritic steels [20, 21]. The
concept includes:
• a weakestlink failure model that uses a 3parameter Weibull function to describe the distribution of fracture toughness values at a fixed temperature,
• a temperaturedependence described by an inverse PeierlsNabarro relationship, and
• a methodology to account for the effect of crack front length (size effects) on fracture toughness.
Wallin observed that the temperature dependence of fracture toughness is not sensitive to steel alloying, heat treatment, or irradiation [22]. This observation led to the concept of a universal temperaturedependent curve shape for all ferritic steels. Several investigators have empirically assessed the validity of the universal curve shape for both unirradiated and irradiated nuclear RPV steels, with favorable results [23, 24]. These research and development activities led to publication of an ASTM Standard (E192197) to estimate the MC index temperature (T _{0} ) [15], and, later, to adoption of Code Case N629 and N631 in Section XI and Section III of the ASME Code that uses T _{0} to establish an index temperature (RTT _{0} ) for the K _{I}_{c} and K _{I}_{R} curves [16]. Note that Code Case N629 has been replaced by Code Case N851 to include the proper relationship to TK _{I}_{a} [25]. Code Case N851 also has been incorporated into Section XI of the
31
Fracture Toughness Models in CC N8301
Code in both Appendices A and G, and Code Case N631 is in the process of being included in Section III in NB2300 [26]. Research, and test and evaluation programs, aimed at enhancing the wealth of information collected on the applicability of the MC and the MC methodology, provide support for direct implementation of the MC and T _{0} for use in assessing the fracture safety of critical RPV components.
3.1.1 Description of the KJc Model
The model developed by Wallin, et al. [20] was first presented as an expression for the probability of failure, P _{f} , of a cracked specimen using the simple Weibull form:
_{} =
− �−
^{�}
−
� �
_{} −
Eq. 31
where B _{0} and K _{0} are normalization constants, K _{I} is measured toughness and K _{m}_{i}_{n} is taken as 20 MPa√m. B _{0} can be set to any desired specimen reference thickness but is usually taken as
25.4 mm.
fracture for a specimen of thickness B _{0} . The shape parameter is defined by the exponent of 4.
K _{0} is the temperature dependent scale parameter taken as the 63.2% probability of
3.1.2 Basic Form
Wallin first suggested a temperature dependence common to all ferritic steels in work published from his Ph.D. dissertation [21]. Further work demonstrated that the alloying, heat treatment and irradiation conditions characteristic of a particular ferritic material only influences the position of the transition fracture toughness curve on the temperature axis, while the variation of cleavage fracture toughness with temperature follows a common form irrespective of these factors [22]. Definition of the temperature dependence of the MC was based on analysis of irradiated and unirradiated K _{J}_{c} data from Welds 72W and 73W tested as part of the Heavy Section Steel Test (HSST) Irradiation Program at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) [23]. Normalizing the data to a 25.4mmlong crack front, the temperature dependent scale parameter, K _{0} , was defined by:
_{} = + ⋅ [. ( − _{} )]
Eq. 32
where T is the test temperature and T _{0} is the temperature at which the measure K _{J}_{c} value is 100 MPa√m. The median cleavage crack initiation toughness, K _{J}_{c}_{(}_{m}_{e}_{d}_{i}_{a}_{n}_{)} , curve was then defined as:
_{}_{}_{(}_{}_{}_{}_{}_{}_{}_{)} = + ⋅ [. ( − _{} )]
Eq. 33
3.1.3 Distribution
The distribution of data at any given temperature follows a Weibull distribution with a slope of four and K _{m}_{i}_{n} equal to 20 MPa√m [20, 23], as shown in Eqn. (31). The cleavage crack initiation toughness, K _{J}_{c} , curve can be defined at any percentile, p, as follows:
^{}
= + ( _{} −){−(−)} ^{}^{/}^{}
_{E}_{q}_{.} _{3}_{}_{4}
Eqn. (34) can be used to produce both lower and upper bound curves. For example, using a value of 0.05 for p would produce a 5% lower bound curve, while using a value of p equal to
0.95 would produce a 95% upper bound curve. The scale factor, K _{0} , is given by Eqn. (32).
There is no effect of product form or irradiation on Eqn. (34).
32
Fracture Toughness Models in CC N8301
Eqn. (34) assumes a crack front length of 25.4 mm (1 in.) in laboratory test specimens with straight crack fronts. While an adjustment to Eqn. (34) that accounts for different crack front lengths in laboratory test specimens was developed, currently there is insufficient basis to recommend a generic equation that applies to nonstraight cracks fronts (e.g., surface breaking cracks, fully embedded cracks, etc.) that are of interest in structural analyses. CC N8301 therefore uses Eqn. (34) unless the user can demonstrate that a crack front length other than 25.4 mm (1 in.) is appropriate to the structural situation of interest.
3.1.4 Theoretical Basis
Based on dislocation mechanics considerations, Zerilli and Armstrong (ZA) [27] described the constitutive behavior of metals using an equation that divided the flow behavior due to loading
into dislocation mechanisms that were thermally activated, and those that were not thermally activated. Short range barriers to dislocation motion are those described by length scales on the order of the atomic spacing of the metal that can be affected by changes in temperature and thus lattice atom vibration. These were included in the thermally activated terms in the constitutive
equation.
spacings that are orders of magnitude greater than the atomic spacing of the lattice structure, are not affected by changes in temperature, so they were included in the nonthermally activated constitutive equation terms. The temperature dependence of the flow stress, as derived by ZA, was controlled by the shortrange barriers to dislocation motion with the temperature dependence described by that of the PeierlsNabarro stress. For bodycentered cubic (BCC) metals (e.g., all ferritic steels), the only shortrange barriers to dislocation motion are the lattice atoms themselves. All other metallurgical features, including grain boundaries, other dislocations, point defects, precipitates and inclusions, are all considered to be long range barriers, so they do
not affect any control of the temperaturedependent behavior of ferritic steels.
Following the work by ZA, Natishan, et al. [2830] demonstrated that the temperature dependence of the fracture toughness in the fracture mode transition region also depends only on the shortrange barriers to dislocation motion established by the lattice structure of the material (BCC for ferritic steels). Other microstructural features that vary with steel composition, heat treatment, and irradiation include grain size/boundaries, point defects, inclusions, precipitates, and dislocation substructures; these features only influence the position of the transition curve on the temperature axis (i.e., T _{0} as determined by E192197), but not the shape of the curve. This understanding suggests that the myriad of metallurgical factors that can influence absolute strength and toughness values exert no control over the form of the variation of toughness with temperature in fracture mode transition. Moreover, this understanding provides a theoretical basis to establish, a priori, those steels to which the MC and T _{0} linked equations should apply, and those to which they should not. On this basis, the MC and T _{0} linked models are particularly good at describing the temperaturedependence of the fracture toughness of all steels having an iron BCC lattice structure (e.g., pearlitic steels, ferritic steels, bainitic steels, and tempered martensitic steels) from lower shelf, through transition and upper shelf behavior, including arrest toughness behavior. Conversely, these temperaturedependent fracture toughness models should not be applied to untempered martensitic steels, which have a bodycentered tetragonal (BCT) lattice structure, or to austenite, which has a facecentered cubic (FCC) structure.
The statistical model of cleavage fracture proposed by Wallin, Sarrio and Törrönen (WST) [21] was based on an understanding of the weakest link nature of the fracture mechanisms describing
Long range barriers to dislocation motion, i.e., those barriers that have interbarrier
33
Fracture Toughness Models in CC N8301
cleavage fracture dating to the 1950s. The idea that cleavage fracture of ferritic steel occurs when a critical tensile stress is exceeded at a critical particle evolves from the work of McMahon and Cohen, Curry and Knott, and Smith, among others [3137]. In the 1970s, Ritchie, Knott, and Rice (RKR), and Curry and Knott incorporated these observations into models that predict, respectively, how toughness changes with temperature, and the scatter of fracture toughness at a single temperature [3234, 38, 39]. The WST model begins with the notion, most commonly attributed to RKR, that cleavage fracture will initiate and propagate to failure when a critical opening mode stress is exceeded over some critical distance ahead of the crack tip. WST combined an RKRtype model with Curry and Knott’s idea that cleavage fracture is controlled by a “statistical competition between crack nuclei of varying sizes and frequencies in the rapidly changing stress gradient ahead of a {sharp} crack tip” [38]. The most significant contribution of the WST model is not the introduction of a new understanding of cleavage fracture, but rather the important generalizations WST made concerning the cleavage fracture behavior of all ferritic steels.
3.1.5 Empirical Basis
As discussed previously, the empirical basis of the MC temperaturedependence derivation was based on data obtained from the ORNL HSST Irradiation Program [23]. Within the ORNL program, there were two very large datasets containing both unirradiated and irradiated toughness values for welds 72W and 73W. These very large datasets presented an excellent opportunity to study the effects of irradiation embrittlement on the shape of the transition fracture toughness curve with respect to temperature. Even when large shifts in toughness were observed with irradiation, the shape of the temperaturedependence curves remained the same, confirming the theory that the equation describing the temperaturedependence of transition fracture toughness was common to all ferritic steels regardless of their irradiated condition.
In 1984, Wallin [20] demonstrated that the distribution of cleavage fracture toughness values at a single temperature is well represented by a threeparameter Weibull distribution having two parameters fixed: a minimum value (K _{m}_{i}_{n} ) of 20 MPa√m, and a shape parameter (b) of four. Wallin showed that this distribution applies to ferritic materials that can be considered to have a random distribution of cleavage initiation sites spread homogeneously throughout the material. The only material dependent quantity needed to establish the distribution of cleavage fracture toughness values at a single temperature is the third parameter of the Weibull distribution, the location parameter, which Wallin called K _{0} .
The Weibull shape parameter of four is theoretically based. It depends only on the assumption of small scale yielding in the presence of a sharp crack and a homogeneous distribution of potential cleavage initiators spread throughout the ferrite matrix. Wallin drew data from nine literature sources (several dozen data points in all, including both RPV and nonRPV steels, both base materials and welds) to provide empirical evidence that supported a Weibull shape parameter of four [20].
Wallin observed that some experimental data sets were not represented well by a twoparameter Weibull distribution with a shape parameter of four, despite the fact that the data was in good conformance with the underlying assumptions [20]. Referencing the WST work [21], he argued that the primary reason for this departure from theoretical expectation was that:
34
Fracture Toughness Models in CC N8301
… the twoparameter form of the Weibull distribution is used, which assumes no limiting K _{I}_{c} value beneath which cleavage crack propagation becomes impossible. The existence of a limiting value is, however, physically reasonable. This can also be shown with the WSTmodel. The WSTmodel predicts a K _{m}_{i}_{n} between 5 and 15 MPa√m below which crack propagation is impossible in more than one grain, causing blunted microcracks.
In [22], Wallin used the same literature database described previously to demonstrate that a
reasonable value of K _{m}_{i}_{n} lies between 10 and 20 MPa√m. In his 2011 textbook, Wallin states
[40]:
The assumption of K _{m}_{i}_{n} = 10 MPa√m improves the compatibility between experiments and theory, but the best compatibility is obtained when assuming K _{m}_{i}_{n} = 20 MPa√m. It was thus concluded that realistic values for K _{m}_{i}_{n} , in the case of normal structural steels would be of the order of 1030 MPa√m. Since a reliable experimental estimation of K _{m}_{i}_{n} is not possible [from limited data] … in the standard MC procedure it was adopted a constant value of K _{m}_{i}_{n} = 20 MPa√m.
ASTM E1921 adopted the value of 20 MPa√m.
A consequence of the work in [20, 21] is that the effect of specimen size (i.e., crack front length)
on fracture toughness was found to scale with the ¼power of thickness [4143]. This derives directly from the Weibull shape parameter of four, so it is a theoretical expectation dependent on the same conditions as the shape parameter (i.e., the assumption of small scale yielding in the presence of a sharp crack and a homogeneous distribution of potential cleavage initiators
throughout the ferrite matrix).
3.1.6 Model Validation
Extensive work has occurred since the late 1990s to validate the three fundamental aspects of the MC:
• Distribution of K _{J}_{c} values following a threeparameter Weibull distribution having two parameters fixed (shape parameter of four and a K _{m}_{i}_{n} equal to 20 MPa√m).
• A “size,” or crack front length, effect having an exponent equal to the ¼power of thickness.
• A temperature dependency having an exponential slope of 0.019.
Some of the more extensive efforts are listed below:
• In the late 1990s and early 2000s, the U.S. nuclear power industry undertook an extensive effort to review the MC for potential use in the ASME Code. That effort resulted in the RTT _{0} Code Cases [16, 17, 44]. As part of this activity, an extensive empirical database was compiled from the literature and was used to empirically evaluate the three fundamentals aspects of the MC. This work, and closely related efforts (e.g., the Kewaunee plant submittal), are reported in [4549].
• In 2009, the NRC published its own evaluation, using a similar methodology to that used by the industry, but expanded to include more data from the literature [24].
35
Fracture Toughness Models in CC N8301
• Between 2000 and 2005, a group of laboratories working under European Commission funding performed extensive K _{J}_{c} characterization of a single RPVgrade forging to validate the MC. Key papers from this work include [50, 51].
• In the early 2000s, the NRC sponsored a study at the University of California at Santa Barbara focused specifically on the sizeeffect aspect of the MC. This study featured an extensive K _{J}_{c} characterization using exvessel (Shoreham) materials [52, 53].
Across the board these efforts found no substantial deviations from the Master Curve model as originally proposed by Wallin [2022] and as represented within E1921.
Over the past 15 years, various publications have suggested possible further refinements of the MC concept that are useful in specific situations. These include the following:
• On temperature dependence, References [54] and [55] provide information on how the exponential slope of 0.019 is affected by various factors. There is considerable dispersion in the data, but even so, a tendency to a reduction of the value of 0.019 with increasing embrittlement can be seen. Reference [55] provides a formula to estimate this effect.
• On K _{m}_{i}_{n} , a method proposed in Reference [56] enables estimation of a dataset specific value for K _{m}_{i}_{n} . However, large amounts of K _{J}_{c} data are needed to use the procedure, and the value of K _{m}_{i}_{n} of 20 MPa√m is still seen as a practicable estimate.
• Methods have been developed when it is suspect that a particular K _{J}_{c} dataset may not have been obtained from a homogeneous population of cleavage crack initiators. These methods are particularly useful in application to T _{0} values measured on welds [57].
• Some empirical evidence demonstrates that, as embrittlement occurs and the crack initiation and crack arrest distributions merge, the constant Weibull shape parameter of four becomes less accurate. EricksonKirk and coworkers [58, 59] postulated that the cause of this behavior might be stable microarrests in high embrittlement materials.
All the foregoing reports were reviewed and form the basis for the limits on the applicability of CCN8301, as appropriate. As additional information comes to light, more refined models may be developed for implementation into a subsequent revision of CC N8301.
3.1.7 Limits of Applicability
Based on the development and validation work described above, the following limitations for using the K _{J}_{c} model are contained in CC N8301:
• The MC K _{J}_{c} model cannot be applied to nonferritic steels (e.g., not to hardened martensite, or austenitic steels).
• The MC K _{J}_{c} model may not be applicable to specimens loaded to very high strain rates. At higher strain rates, there may be a slight effect of increasing strain rate that results in an increase in the slope of the transition toughness curve such that toughness becomes less sensitive to temperature. But even at the rates included in the EPRI database, the effect is very slight [11].
36
Fracture Toughness Models in CC N8301
• The MC K _{J}_{c} model cannot be used at temperatures above which crack extension occurs by dislocation motion, void initiation growth, and coalescence (i.e., upper limit of applicability of the MC).
• The MC K _{J}_{c} model may not be applicable at temperatures below which deformation occurs predominantly by twinning (T _{0} 160 ^{o} C).
3.2 Cleavage Crack Arrest Fracture Toughness, K _{I}_{a}
Wallin et al. [60] also developed a model for the temperature dependence and distribution of crack arrest fracture toughness, K _{I}_{a} . Consistent with the MC treatment, Wallin selected the temperature at which the mean measured K _{I}_{a} value is 100 MPa√m for use as the temperature to index data from different heats of steel together to form a single crack arrest transition curve. Wallin called this index temperature TK _{I}_{a} [60].
3.2.1 Description of Model
In questioning the ASMEspecified separation between K _{I}_{c} and K _{I}_{a} , Wallin, et al. [60] analyzed nine sets of K _{I}_{a} data using a method similar to that used in developing the K _{J}_{c} MC. The authors started with the assumption that the K _{I}_{a} data followed the same temperaturedependence as was observed for the K _{J}_{c} MC (Eqn. (33)), and defined TK _{I}_{a} as the temperature at which the mean K _{I}_{a} value equals 100 _{M}_{P}_{a}_{√}_{m}_{.} They further reasoned that because crack arrest is not a weakestlink mechanism, there shouldn’t be a size effect since the scatter in data is controlled by the matrix properties and not the distribution of crack initiating particles. Using TK _{I}_{a} to normalize the data from the nine datasets, Wallin confirmed that the assumed temperaturedependence fit the data well.
3.2.2 Basic Form
The mean temperature dependence of K _{I}_{a} follows the form given for the initiation MC, and is given by [60]:
^{}^{}^{}^{} = + ⋅ [. ( − _{}_{}_{} )]
where TK _{I}_{a} is defined relative to T _{0} using:
_{}_{}_{} = _{} + . [−. _{} ]
Eq. 35
Eq. 36
Assessment of additional data combined with the nine datasets used by Wallin further confirmed the temperature dependence described by Eqn. (35) [61, 62]. Moreover, the data suggest that, similar to the initiation MC, the temperature dependence of K _{I}_{a} is not affected strongly by irradiation [62].
3.2.3 Distribution
Wallin observed that the scatter in K _{I}_{a} data was less than that observed for K _{J}_{c} . He assumed a lognormal distribution so that the proportional scatter in K _{I}_{a} was constant, matching the empirical evidence. A log normal distribution with a variance equal to 18% of the mean value was found to match the data well [60]. Using Wallin’s log normal distribution the crack arrest toughness curve at percentile, p, is defined as:
37
Fracture Toughness Models in CC N8301
for lower bound curves:
for upper bound curves:
^{} = ^{}^{}^{}^{} � − . _{} �
(−) _{=} _{} ^{}
^{}^{}^{}^{} � + . _{} �
Eq. 37
Eq. 38
Using Eqn. (37), a value for p of 0.05 will produce a 5% lower bound curve. A 95% upper bound curve is similarly defined using Eqn. (38). When using either of these equations, the value of p cannot exceed 0.5 (0 < p < 0.5). There is no effect of component thickness, crack front length, or product form on Eqns. (37) and (38).
3.2.4 Theoretical Basis
In 2002, Kirk, et al [61] presented a physicallybased mechanism for crack arrest to support the crack arrest toughness model of ferritic steels developed by Wallin [60]. They present a detailed discussion based in dislocation mechanics that demonstrates that the empirical trends observed by Wallin are anticipated physically.
The mechanism controlling the temperaturedependence of crack arrest toughness is the same as that controlling the temperature dependence of initiation toughness, i.e., dislocation motion through the matrix to absorb the applied energy. Crack initiation occurs when energy absorption by dislocation motion can no longer occur and energy is then available to drive crack initiation and growth. Crack arrest occurs when dislocations once again become mobile in a material and can move to the crack tip to absorb the energy of the propagating crack. Because of this, both K _{I}_{c} and K _{I}_{a} data are expected to exhibit the same temperature dependence. This temperature dependence results from the temperature dependence of the PeierlsNabarro stresses required to move dislocations through the ferritic matrix. The temperature dependence of both toughness values is controlled by the atomic arrangement, or crystal structure of the material. Consequently, the temperature dependence of K _{I}_{c} and K _{I}_{a} is expected to be common to all ferritic steels.
Wallin observed a significant reduction in the scatter inherent in K _{I}_{a} data over that observed in K _{I}_{c} data. The cause of this reduction is based on the difference in the distribution of dislocation trapping barriers that affect each property. Crack initiation occurs when dislocations accumulate at noncoherent particles (i.e., carbides, grain boundaries, twin boundaries, etc.) and produce enough strain to elevate the local stress at the barrier high enough to fracture the barrier or cause its decohesion from the matrix. These noncoherent particles are large with respect to size and interparticle spacing relative to the dislocation trapping sites responsible for crack arrest toughness. The noncoherent particles responsible for initiation are of submicron size (i.e., 1/10 micron), and their spacing is on the same order. The dislocationtrapping defects responsible for crack arrest (i.e., vacancy clusters, interstitial clusters, coherent and semicoherent particles, and other dislocations) are of a much smaller size (nanometer) and have a spacing on the same scale. The possible variation in local stress state over the microstructural distances that control crack arrest is also much smaller than that possible over the microstructural distances that control crack initiation. This is due to the high strain rate in front of the moving crack tip, which constrains the development of a large strain field.
The considerably smaller size and spacing of the defects responsible for crack arrest, relative to those responsible for crack initiation, also suggests that crack arrest toughness should not be greatly influenced by the length of the crack front for all crack front lengths of practical concern
38
Fracture Toughness Models in CC N8301
in RPV applications. The size effect observed in crack initiation toughness is due to the weakest link nature of the initiation event, but crack arrest is not a weakestlink phenomena.
3.2.5 Model Validation
After the initial development of the K _{I}_{a} curve, Wallin continued his analysis with 53 sets of K _{I}_{a} data. Most of the data consisted of RPV steels, including plates, forgings and welds, both irradiated and unirradiated, but other steels (nonRPV) were included as well. The data sets covered a wide range of yield strengths (280 MPa to 1,082 MPa). To ensure that TK _{I}_{a} for each dataset could readily be obtained, it was desired that each dataset contained at least ten specimens [60], although several datasets contained fewer specimens.
TK _{I}_{a} was determined for each dataset and used to normalize the datasets. The normalized data were then compared to the temperature dependence and log normal distribution assumed in the initial model development, and were found to match well, verifying the initial assumptions. The data were then used to develop a correlation between T _{0} and TK _{I}_{a} , as described in Chapter 4.
Other validation efforts have subsequently been conducted, including that of Hein, et al. [62] in the CARINA and CARISMA projects in which RPV materials consisting of six base materials (plates and forgings), seven welds, and weld heat affected zone (HAZ) materials were tested. The data, including both K _{J}_{c} and K _{I}_{a} , were used to confirm the efficacy of the MC approach for assessing German nuclear power plant safety. The materials were tested in both the irradiated and unirradiated conditions to assess the effects of embrittlement on the characterization of toughness behavior. Compact crack arrest and duplex crack arrest specimens were tested following the ASTM E122110 standard test method [63], and K _{I}_{a} values used to determine TK _{I}_{a} for each data set. The results of this program showed that the K _{I}_{a} master curve, with the temperature dependence described by Eqn. (35) and log normal distribution defined by Eqns. (37) and (38), well represented all the K _{I}_{a} data sets tested in the CARINA project.
3.2.6 Limits of Applicability
Based on the development and validation work described above, the following limitations for using the K _{I}_{a} model are contained in CC N8301:
• The K _{I}_{a} model cannot be applied to nonferritic steels (e.g., not to hardened martensite, or austenitic steels).
• The K _{I}_{a} model cannot be used at temperatures above which crack extension occurs by dislocation motion, void initiation growth, and coalescence (i.e., the upper limit of applicability of the MC).
• The K _{I}_{a} model may not be applicable at temperatures below which deformation occurs predominantly by twinning (T _{0} 160 ^{o} C), but it is believed that cracks arrest does not occur at such low temperatures.
3.3 Ductile Crack Initiation Fracture Toughness, J _{I}_{c}
To identify the upper limit of applicability of the K _{J}_{c} MC, EricksonKirk et al. [11, 62] developed a model describing the temperature dependence of upper shelf fracture toughness (J _{I}_{c} ) that pertained to all ferritic steels. This upper shelf model was used to define the temperature region
39
Fracture Toughness Models in CC N8301
in which fracture transitioned from cleavagedominated to ductilecrackextensiondominated, thereby defining a point beyond which the MC should no longer be used.
Both ductile fracture toughness and flow stress measure the ability of a material to absorb energy by dislocation motion. This similarity in mechanism provided EricksonKirk the justification to look to the temperature dependence of the flow stress to define the temperature dependence of the upper shelf fracture toughness. The J _{I}_{c} model development was based on the Zerilli Armstrong (ZA) constitutive equation describing the temperature dependence of the flow stress that was common to ferritic steels [27]. The equation describing the temperature dependence of J _{I}_{c} was found to be a simple scalar multiple of the temperature dependence predicted by ZA for flow stress. By assuming this temperaturedependence, individual datasets of J _{I}_{c} data versus test temperature were fit, and then each dataset was normalized by the mean J _{I}_{c} at a single temperature. The J _{I}_{c} at 288 ^{o} C was selected as the reference value to use in normalizing the data for model development [11, 64].
3.3.1 Description of Model
Similar to the Wallin MC, the J _{I}_{c} equation has two components; a temperature dependence common to all ferritic steels, and a distribution that defines the expected scatter in J _{I}_{c} at any given temperature.
3.3.2 Basic Form
The equation describing the temperature dependence of the mean value of J _{I}_{c} , is defined in CC N8301 as:
^{}^{}^{}^{} = . { ∙ [−. ( + . )] − . } + _{}_{(}_{}_{}_{)} − _{}_{}_{(}_{}_{}_{)} Eq. 39(a)
Where T is the temperature in ^{o} C and the reference J _{I}_{c} value is taken at 288 ^{o} C. J _{c}_{(}_{U}_{S}_{)} and ∆J _{I}_{c}_{(}_{U}_{S}_{)} are given by:
^{} () ^{=}
− ^{}
^{} _{}_{} { + × [. (. − . _{} )]} ^{}
_{}_{}_{(}_{}_{}_{)} = . { ∙ [−. ( _{}_{} + . )] − . }
= {−. _{}_{} }
_{}_{} = . + . _{}
_{E}_{q}_{.} _{3}_{}_{9}_{(}_{b}_{)}
Eq. 39(c)
Eq. 39(d)
Eq. 39(e)
There is no effect of component thickness or crack front length on Eqn. (39.).
3.3.3 Distribution
The distribution on J _{I}_{c} is a function of both temperature and prior hardening, as defined by the mean value of J _{I}_{c} at 288 ^{o} C. Based on the work presented by Kirk, et al. [65], the standard deviation for J _{I}_{c} , σ _{Δ}_{J}_{I}_{c} _{,} is defined in CC N8301 as:
_{}_{}_{}_{} = ⋅ [( − )]
Eq. 310(a)
310

= 
. ⋅ (. ⋅ ) 

= 
{, (. ⋅ − . )} 
= {, [, ( _{} , _{} )]}
= ^{} ()
= ^{} ()
−
+
.
.
Fracture Toughness Models in CC N8301
Eq. 310(b)
Eq. 310(c)
Eq. 310(d)
Eq. 310(e)
Eq. 310(f)
The ductile crack initiation toughness curve at percentile, p, or (1p), is defined as follows:
for lower bound curves
for upper bound curves:
^{} =
^{}^{}^{}^{} − _{}_{} _{}_{} _{}
(−) _{=} _{} ^{}
^{}^{}^{}^{} + _{}_{} _{}_{} _{}
Eq. 311(a)
Eq. 311(b)
As an example, a value for p of 0.05 would produce a 5% lower bound curve using Eqn. (311a), and a 95% upper bound curve using Eqn. (311b). When using Eqns. (311a) and (311b), the value of p should not exceed 0.5 (0 < p < 0.5).
3.3.4 Theoretical Basis
In developing the model for upper shelf fracture toughness behavior, EricksonKirk [11, 64] assumed that, since the upper shelf fracture toughness mechanism was dislocationcontrolled (void nucleation, growth and coalescence), it should follow the same, or similar, temperature dependence as the flow stress. Starting with the ZerilliArmstrong constitutive equation for the flow stress in ARMCO iron [27], the ZA equation for BCCmaterial flow stress is given by:
_{}_{} = 〈
Molto più che documenti.
Scopri tutto ciò che Scribd ha da offrire, inclusi libri e audiolibri dei maggiori editori.
Annulla in qualsiasi momento.