ML20078G726
| ML20078G726 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Midland |
| Issue date: | 10/31/1994 |
| From: | Iskander S, Mccabe D, Nanstad R, Swain R OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH (RES) |
| References | |
| CON-FIN-L-1098 NUREG-CR-6249, ORNL-TM-12777, NUDOCS 9411160151 | |
| Download: ML20078G726 (93) | |
Text
--- .. . _ ._ - .
NUREG/CR-6249 ORNL/TM--12777 ;
Unirradia^ec. Material Proaer:ies _ ;
of Mic_anc Wei WF 70 :
i l'repued by I). II. McCabe, R. K. Nanstad. S. K. Iskander. R. I . Swain Oak 1(idge National I.aboratory h
l'repared for U.S. Nuclear Itegulatory Commission l
l 1
9411160151 941031 PDR ADOCK 05000329 :
A PDR I
,n -- . . . - _ . - - _ - . . -- -. . - . . . ._ -. ...-- - -- , ..
l AVAILABILITY NOTICE i AvailatWiety of Reference Matenals Cded in NRC Publicatons ;
i Most documents cited in NRC publications will be available from one of the following sources: j
- 1. The NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street NW., Lower Level, Washington, DC 20555-0001 t
- 2. The Superintendent of Documents. U.S. Government Printing Cffice, P. O. Box 37082, Washington, DC I 20402-9328 !
- 3. The National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA 22161-0002 I J
Although the listing that follows represents the majority of documents cited in NRC publications, it is not tri- l tended to be erbaustive. -
l i
Referenced documents available for inspection and copying for a fee from the NRC Public Document Room include NRC correspondence and internal NRC memoranda: NRC bulletins, circulars, Information notices, in-spection and Inveettgation noticos; ficensee event reports, vendor reports and correspondence; Commission ,
papers; and applicant and licensee documents and correspondence. !
The following documents in the fJUREG series aro avaHable for purchaso frorn the Government Printing Of fice: ,
formal NRC staff and contractor reports, NRC-sponsored conference proceedings, international agreement l report s , grantee reports, and NRC booklets and brochures. Also as allabio are regulatory guides, NRC reguia-tions to the Code of Fedcral Rcguntions, and Nuclear Regulatory Commusion I:suances.
Documents ava!!ab'e from the National Technicalinf ormation Service include NUREG-series reports and tech-nical reports prepared by other federal agencies and reports prepared by the Atomic Energy Commission, forerunner agency to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Documents availablo from public and special t cchnical libraries include all open literature items, such as books, journal articles, and transactions. f ederal Register notices, Fedora! and State legislation, and congressional reports can usuaDy be obtained from these libraries, Documents such as theses, dissertations, foretga reports and translations, and non-fJRC conference pro-ceedings are aval!able for purchase frorn the organization sponsoring the publication cited.
Single copics of NnC draf t reports are available free, to the extent of supply, uponwritten request to the Of fice -
of Administration. Distribution and Mail Services Section. U S. Nuclear Regulatory Commicslon, Washington, DC 20555-0001.
Coples of industry codes and standards used in a substantive manner in the NRC regulatory process are main-3 tained at the f4RC Library. Two Whlte Filnt North.11545 Rockville I4e, Rockdite, MD 2085?-2738, for use by the public. Codes and standards ato usuaDy copyrighted and may be purchased from the originating organiza-tion or, if they aro American National Standards, from the American Nationalstandards Institute,1430 Broad-way, New York, NY 10018-3303.
DISCLAIMER NOTICE This report was prepared as an account of vvor1k sponsored by an agency of the United States Govemment.
Neither the United States Government nor any agency thermf nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, expressed or lmplied, or assumes any legal liability or responsib!!ity for any third party's use, or the results of such use, of any information, apparatus, product, or process diccioned in this report, or represents that its use by such third party would not infnnge privately owned rights.
i i
)
j 2a L 4 & 2 _- % ~
a p NUREG/CR-6249 ORNUTM-12777 -
l Unirradiated Material Properties
, of Midland Weld WF-70 ,
l l -
Manuscript Completed: June 1994 Date l'ublished: October 1994 Prepared by D. E. McCabe, R. K. Nanstad, S. K. Iskander, R. L Swain Oak Ridge National Laboratory Managed by Martin Marietta Energy Systems, Inc.
t Oak Ridge National Laboratory Oak Ridge,1N 37831 Prepared for Division of Engineering Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 ,
NRC FIN L1098 Under Contract No. DE-AC05-840R21400 h
Abstract Weld metal, designated WF-70, taken from the experimental J-R curves reasonably well. The test nozzle course and beltline welds of the Midland temperature effect between 288 and 150*C (550 Reactor, Unit 1, has been given a preliminary and 302*C) was effectively predicted. However, evaluation using the conventional Charpy V-notch room-temperature J-R curve prediction was not I (CVN), drop weight (DWT), and chemical analyses. very good. Despite the fact that the nozzle and These tests indicated essentially identical fracture beltline weld had similar CVN USEs, the nozzle toughness at both locations, but there was a course weld had consistently lower J-R curve significant difference in copper content, nominally toughness than the beltline weld.
0.25% versus 0.40%. Because the objective of this study was to evaluate the before and-after Crack-arrest tests were conducted, but the irradiation properties, these are regarded as specimens failed to develop American Society for ,
different materials. Testing and Materials valid data in all but one test.
Insufficient remaining ligament at crack arrest was This report summarizes material characterization almost always the problem. The invalid K, values results and presents the results of fracture were all above the American Society of Mechanical mechanics tests on the unirradiated material to Engineers (ASME) K,n curve if the CVN determined establish baseline transition temperature and J R range of RTym values from -20 to 37'C (-4 to curves. Tensile properties were also determined. 98.6* F) are used to position the curve. The K.
data are exactly bounded if the DWT NDT of ,
The fracture mechanics transition temperature by -50*C (-58* F) is used to position the curve. A Kxevaluations indicated that the nozzle course proposed method of establishing a mean Km curve weld had a 27*C (49"F) higher transition on data obtained from instrumented CVN test temperature than the betline weld The DWT nil- records was tried. This method suggested a 10*C ductility temperature (NDT) was essentially the (18'F) transition temperature difference (at the same for both: -501 10* C (-58 i 18*F). CVN 100-MPa/xm toughness level) between static and transition temperature curves, although quite dynamic tests. The experimental (invalid) K, data variable among various positions along the girth indicated a 50*C (90*F) difference. The ASME and through the thickness of the Midland vessel, KJK,, lower bound curves suggest that there covered about the same range for both nozzle and should be approximately a 35'C (63*F) difference.
beltline welds. The upper-shelf energy (USE) was More experimentation and test method 89 J (65 ft-Ib) in both cases. development are recommended.
Reference nil-ductikty temperatures, RTnm, Five experimental objectives to be accomplished determined from CVN transition curves [RTnm from the testing of irradiated materials were ,
method specific to low USE materials) varied from identified. One of the more important objectives is
-20 to +37'C (-4 to 99'F) at various locations in to improve the precision of transition temperature the beltline weld. Reference temperatures using a shift and to identify any curve shape changes after fracture mechanics based transition temperature irradiation, concentrating on utilizing data from model were -60*C (-76*F) for the beltline weld small surveillance capsule size specimens. I and -33* C (-27*F) for the nozzle weld.
Tensile tests indicated the nozzle weld had higher ;
strength than the belthne weld.
J-R curves were developed at 21,150, and 288aC (70,302, and 550*F). The J-R curve toughness decreased with increased test temperature, as expected. A multivariable model of Eason et al.
was used to predict J-R curves from CVN USE.
The predicted J R curves matched the I
iij NUREG/CR-6249 I
Contents Page Abstract .... . .. .... . . ... ... . ... . ... . .. . .. . . iii List of Figures . . .. . .. . ........ .. . . . , . . .. vii List of Tables . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . - . ix Acknowledgments .. .. . . . . ... ... . . . ... . xi Previous Reports in Series . . . . . . .... .. .. . . xiii 1
- 1. Introduction ... .. .. .. .. . . . .
- 2. Materials . .. . . . . ... . . . . . . .... 3
- 3. Test Plan . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.1 Scoping Work .. ... . . . . . 5 3.2 Fracture Mechanics Properties . . . . . . . . 13 3.2.1 Transition Temperature Characterization, K 3 . . , 13 3.2.2 Test Procedure . . . .. . . . . 13
- 4. Description of the Proposed Test Practice on Transition Range Definition . 19 4.1 Master Curve Establishment from Midland Ku Data . . .. . .. . . . 20
- 5. Evaluation of J-R Curves . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 5.1 Specimen Size Effect on J-R Curve .
. . . . . 23 5.2 Evaluation of the Multivariable Model .. . . . . . . .. . . 26 5.3 Effect of Test Temperature . . . . . 26 5.4 Modified J versus Deformation Theory J . . . . . . 26 5.5 Comparison of Beltline versus Nozzle Weld . . . . . . 26 5.6 Specimens with Side Grooves versus Specimens Without Side Grooves .. 26
- 6. Crack-Arrest Testing, K,, .. . . . . 37
- 7. Discussion .. ... ,. . . . 45
- 8. Plans for Irradiated Specimens .. . ... .
49
- 9. References . . . . . . . ... . . . 51 Appendix A: Tabulation of Specimen Codes and Ku Values . .. . A-1 Appendix B: Regression Constants on J-R Curve Model and Experimental J R Curves . . B-1 v NUREG/CR-6249 L
Figures Fiaure Paae 1 Sampling layout for Midland beltline sections 1-8 through 1-15 and nozzle course sections 3-1 through 3-5 .. .. , , ... .. , . . . 3 2 Macrograph of Midland beltline weld section 1-13 . .. . . . . . . .. . 4 3 Macrograph of Midland nozzle course weld section 3-1 showing weld WF-67 on the inner half and WF-70 on the outer half. A nozzle attachment weld appears in this section 4 4 Example of Charpy V-notch energy curves from two through-thickness locations.
When observed individually, they suggest uniformity of impact toughness . . . 11 5 Combined Charpy V-notch data taken around the girth and through-thickness positions of the beltline weld . .. .. .. . . . . .. .. 12 0 Transition temperature data for the Midland WF-70 beltline weld for four compact specimen sizes and a master curve on 1T specimen size .. . . 17 7 Transition temperature data for the Midland nozzle course weld WF-70 for two compact specimen sizes and a master curve on 1T specimen size . .. . . . ... 18 8 Master curve and 5% confidence limit curve (dashed) adjusted 10 C (18 F) for uncertainty in reference temperature, To , . . . . . . 21 9 J-R curves of the Midland beltline weld metal with various specimen sizes at 288"C (550"F) . 25 10 Experimental J-R curve and J-R curve calculated from a multivariable model for (a) 1/2T compact specimen, (b) 1T compact specimen, (c) 2T compact specimen, and (d) 4T compact specimen . . . .. . . . .. . 27 11 Effect of test temperature on J-R curve of WF-70 weld metal for (a) 1/2T compact specimens and (b) 1T compact specimens . . .. .. . . 29 12 J R curve comparison on beltline weld metal showing (a) specimen size effect on 1/2T compact specimens. (b) less size effect for larger 1T compact specimens, and (c) comparison on 1/2T compact modified J versus deformation theory J on R-curve for 1T compact specimens . . .. . ... . . . .. . . 30 13 J-R curves that compare the nozzle versus the beltline weld metal ductile tearing resistance at (a) 550"F (288 C), (b) 302 F (150'C), and (c) 70'F (21 C) . 3E 14 (a) J R curves comparing the effect of side grooving on the nozz'e course weld metal (both are legitimate by ASTM standard E 1152-87) and (b) evaluation of the side-groove effect by the multivariable model showing the danger of misuse outside the range of the data fit . . . . 34 15 Crack-arrest specimen of 2T planar proportionality . . . , . C8 l
vii NUREG/CR-6249 l
L
' Fjpure Pace [
16 Crack-arrest data for Midland beltline weld metal. The data are compared to the l ASME lower t,ound K, curves established from RTuoy = 37 C (99'F), RTwor = -20'C (-4*F),
and hypothetical RTna, = -50'C (-58'F) . . . .... . ...,.,, . .... .. . . . . . . . 40 17 Load-time traces for a Charpy specimen of the beltline weld metal: (a) tested on the lower shelf (note low crack-arrest load); (b) tested on the upper shelf (ductile tearing beyond the maximum load); and (c) tested in the transition range (note crack-arrest load P,) . . .... 41 i 18 Plot of crack-arrest loads for the beltline weld metal obtained from test records similar to Fig.17(c) [1 kN = 225 lb] . . .. ... . .. . . . .. . ... . 43 19 K, experimental data from crack arrest in specimens similar to Fig.15; reference temperature. T, is -10"C (14 F) . . . . . . . .. . .. ... . .. . .... . . 44 .
20 Ku data from the beltline weld metal tested in four specimen sizes. The data are compared to the ASME lower boad K, established from RTNor = 37'C (98.6* F) and j RTuor = -20* C (-4* F) .... ..... . . .. , ... . . . . 46 j i
l l
l l
I 1
)
I i
i 1
l I
i i I l NUREG/CR-6249 viii 9
Tables t
Table Pace 4
1 Summary of major radiation-sensitive elements for Midland Unit 1 reactor vessel welds . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . .. ... . .. 6 2 Chemical composition of Midland reactor bettiine section 1-11 . .. ... .. .. .. 7 3 ' Chemical composition of Midland reactor nozzle course section 3-1 . ... . .. . 8 4 Drop weight test results for MMland welds . .. . . .. . .... .. . ... 9 t
5 Summary of Charpy impact results for Midland Unit 1 reactor vessel beltline weld sections ' . . .. .. .. . . . . . ..... 9
- 6. Summary of Charpy impact results for Midland Unit 1 reactor vessel nozzle course weld sections . .. . . .. .... . . .. . .. . 10 t
7 Tensile properties of Midland WF-70 weld metal . . . . . .. . , .. 14 8 Median K.g values [MPa/m (ksi/in.)] for WF-70 weld metal from multiple tests . . .. .. . . . .. . ... 15 9 Comparison of K, (MPa/m) for 1T compact specimens with and without side grooves . . . . . . . 16 10 J-R curve test matrix . . .... . . . .. .. . 24 i
11 Average J values from J-R curves . . . . .. 30 -
12 Crack-arrest toughness values. K, of submerged-arc weld from the beltline region of l the Midbnd reactor pressure vessel measured using specimens with a nominal width of 104 mm (4 in.), except for specimen MW15JC, with a nominal width of 150 mm (6 in.) . 39 A1 Test data for four specimen sizes of WF-70 beltline weld metal (1 Mpa/m = 1.1 Ksi/in.) . .. A-2 A2 Test data for two specimen sizes of WF-70 nozzle course weld metal (1 MPa/m = 1.1 Ksi/in.) A3
. B1 J-R experimental fits to data o[J = A(aa)* exp[C * (Aa) ] . . . . . . . . . B-3 l B2 J R curve constants calculated from multivariable model for Linde 80 welds ,
(using deformation theory, beltline and nozzle,20% side grooved) . . ... . .. .. B-4 ;
i i
t 7
ix NUREG/CR-6249 4
W
I Acknowledgments r
The authors gratefully acknowledge the contributions of J. J. Henry, Jr., for specimen sampling and niachining and J. L Bishop for preparation of the draft manuscript; S. M. Wilson and S. E. Humphrey for final repod
- preparation; K. Spence for editing; and G. R. Carter for quality assurance review. The technical reviews by F. M. Haggag and W. R. Corwin are a!so appreciated.
i k
i I
xi NUREG/CR-6249 ;
=-
Previous Reports in Series NUREG/CR-5859 (ORNUTM-12073),
August 1992.
- 6. R. K Nanstad, D. E. McCabe, and The work here was performed at Oak Ridge R. L Swain, Martin Marietta Energy Systems, National Laboratory under the Heavy-Section Steel Inc., Oak Ridge Natl. Lab., Chemical Irradiation (HSSI) Program, W R. Corwin, Program Composition and RTo Determinations For Manager. The HSSI Program is sponsored by the Midland Weld WF-70, USNRC Report Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research of the U.S. NUREG/CR-5914 (ORNL/TM-12157), to be Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The technical published.
monitor is M. E. Mayfield.
- 7. R. K. Nanstad, F. M. Haggag, D. E. McCabe, This report is designated HSSI Reg .( 10. Reports S. K iskander, K O. Bowman, and in this series are listed below: B. H. Menke, Martin Marietta Energy Systems, Inc., Oak Ridge Natt. Lab.,
- 1. F. M. Haggag, W. R. Corwin, and Irradiation Effects on Fracture Toughness of R. K. Nanstad, Martin Marietta Energy Two High-Copper Submerged-Arc Welds, _
Systems, Inc., Oak Ridge Natl. Lab., HSSI Series 5, USNRC Report Oak Ridge, Tenn., Irradiation Effects on NUREG/CR-5913 (ORNUTM-12156/V1),
Strength and Toughness of Three-Wire Series- October 1992.
Arc Stainless Steel Weld Overlay Cladding, NUREG/CR-5511 (ORNL/TM.11439), 8. S. K lskander, W. R. Corwin, and FM, uary 1990. R. K. Nanstad, Martin Marietta Energy Systems, Inc., Oak Ridge Natl. Lab., Crack-
- 2. L F. Miller, C. A. Baldwin, F. W. Stallman, Arrest Tests on Two Irradiated High-Copper and F. B. K. Kam, Martin Marietta Energy Welds, USNRC Report NUREG/CR-6139 Systems, Inc., Oak Ridge Natl. Lab., (ORNL/TM 12513), March 1994.
Oak Ridge, Tenn., Neutron Exposure Parameters for the Metallurgical Test 9. R. E. Stoller, Martin Marietta Energ/ Systems, Specimens in the Sixth Heavy-Section Steel Inc., Oak Ridge Natl. Lab., A Comparison of Irradiation Series, NUREG/CR-5409 the Relative Importance of Copper (ORNLJTM-11267), March 1990. Precipitates and Point Defect Clusters in Reactor Pressure Vessel Embrittlement,
- 3. S. K. Iskander, W. R. Corwin, and USNRC Report NUREG/CR 6231 R. K. Nanstad, Martin Marietta Energy (ORNL-6811), June 1994.
Systems, Inc., Oak Ridge Natl. Lab.,
- 10. This report. )
Oak Ridge, Tenn., Results of Crack-Arrest Tests on Two Irradiated High-Copper Welds, NUREG/CR-5584 (ORNL/TM-11575),
December 1990. The HSSI Program includes both follow-on and the direct continuation of work that was performed
- 4. R. K Nanstad and R. G. Berggren, Martin under the Heavy-Section Steel Technology (HSST)
Marietta Energy Systems, Inc.. Oak Ridge Program. The HSST reports related to irradiation Natl. Lab., frradiation Effects on Charpy effects in pressure vessel materials and those impact and Tensile Properties of low containing unirradiated properties of materials Upper-Shelf Welds, HSSI Series 2 and 3, used in HSSI and HSST irradiation programs are llSNRC Report NUREG/CR-5696 tabulated below as a convenience to the reader.
(ORNL/TM-11804), August 1991.
C. E. Childress, Union Carbide Corp. Nuclear Div.,
- 5. R. E. Stoller, Martin Marietta Energy Systems, Oak Ridge Natt. Lab., Oak Ridge, Tenn.,
Inc., Oak Ridge Natl. Lab., Modeling the Fabrication History of the First Two 12-in.-Thick Influence of Irradiation Temperature and A-533 Grado B, Class 1 Steel Plates of the Heavy Displacement Rate on Radiation-Induced Section Steel Technology Program. ORNL-4313, Hardening in Ferritic Steels, USNRC Report February 1969.
xiii NUREG/CR-6249
T. R. Mager and F. O. Thomas, Westinghouse Temperature Considerations for Thick-Wall Nuclear Electric Corporation, PWR Systems Division, Pressure Vessels, ORNL/TM-3114, October 1970.
Pkttsbutgh, Pa., Evaluation by Linear Elastic Fracture Mechanics of Radiation Damage to T. R. Mager, Westinghouse Electric Corporation, Pressure Vessel Steels, WCAP-7328 (Rev.), PWR Systems Div., Pittsburgh, Pa., Fracture October 1969. Toughness Characterization Study of A533, Grade B, Class 1 Steel, WCAP-7578, October 1970.
P. N. Randall, TRW Systems Group, Redondo W. O. Shabbits, Westinghouse Electric Corp., PWR Beach, Caltf., Gross Strain Measure of Fracture Systems Div., Pittsburgh, Pa., Dynamic Fracture Toughness of Steels, HSSTP-TR-3, Nov.1,1969. Toughness Properties of Heavy Section A533 Grade B Class 1 Steel Plate, WCAP-7623, L W. Loechel, Martin Marietta Corporation, December 1970.
Denver, Colo., The Effect of Testing Variables on t50 Transition Temperature in Steel, MCR-69-189, C. E. Childress, Union Carbide Corp. Nuclear Div.,
t lov. 20,1969. Oak Ridge Natt. Lab., Oak Ridge, Tenn.,
Fabrication Procedures and Acceptance Data for W. O. Shabbits, W. H. Pryle, and E. T. Wessel, ASTM A-533 Welds and a 10-in.-Thick ASTM A-543 Westoghouse Electric Corporation, PWR Systems Plate of the Heavy Section Steel Technology Division, Pittsburgh, Pa., Heavy-Section Fracture Program, ORNL-TM-4313-3, January 1971.
Toughness Proporties of A533 Grade B Class 1 Steel Plate and Submerged Arc Weldment, D. A. Canonico and R. G. Berggren, Union Carbide WCAP-7414, December 1969. Corp. Nuclear Div., Oak Ridge Natl. Lab.,
Oak Ridge, Tenn., Tensile and Impact Properties C. E. Childress, Union Carbide Corp. Nuclear Div., of Thick-Section Plate and Weldments, Oak Ridge Natl. Lab., Oak Ridge, Tenn., ORNijTM-3211, January 1971.
Fabrication History of the Third and Fourth ASTM A-533 Steel Plates of the Heavy Section Steel C. W. Hunter and J. A. Williams, Hanford Eng. Dev.
Technology Program, ORNL-4313-2, Lab., Richland, Wash., Fracture and Tensile February 1970. Behavior of Neutron-Irradiated A533-B Pressure Vessel Steel, HEDL-TME-71-76, February 6,1971.
P. B. Crosley and E. J. Ripling, Materials Research Laboratory, Inc., Glenwood. Ill., Crack Arrest C. E. Childress, Union Carbide Corp. Nuclear Div.,
Fracture Toughness of A533 Grade B Class 1 Oak Ridge Natl. Lab., Oak Ridge, Tenn., Manual for Pressure Vessel Steel, HSSTP-TR-8, March 1970.
ASTM A533 Grade B Class 1 Steel (HSST Plate 03)
Provided to the Intemational Atomic Energy Agency, F. J. Loss. Naval Research Laboratory, ORNL/TM-3193, March 1971.
Washington, D.C., Dynamic Tear Test Investigations of the Fracture Toughness of Thick-Section Steel, P. N. Randall, TRW Systems Group, Redondo NRL-7056, May 14,1970. Beach, Calif., Gross Strain Crack Tolerance of A533-B Steel, HSSTP-TR-14, May 1,1971.
T. R. Mager, Westinghouse Electric Corporation, PWR Systems Div., Pittsburgh, Pa., Post-Irradiation C. L Segaser, Union Caibide Corp. Nuclear Div., i Testing of 2T Compact Tension Specimens, Oak Ridge Nati. Lab., Oak Ridge, Tenn., Feasibility WCAPd561, August 1970. Study, Irradiation of Heavy-Section Steel Specimens in the South Test Facility of the Oak Ridge ,
F. J. WP and R. G. Berggren, Union Carbide Corp. Research Reactor, ORNL/TM-3234, May 1971. j Nuclear Div., Oak Ridge Natl. Lab., Oak Ridge, ;
Tenn., Size Effects and Energy Disposition in H. T. Corten and R. H. Sailors, University of Illinois, !
Impact Specimen Testing of ASTM A533 Grade B Urbana, ll1., Relationship Between Material Fracture Steel, ORNL/TM-3030, August 1970. Toughness Using Fracture Mechanics and y Transition Temperature Tests, T&AM Report 346, D. A. Canonico, Union Carbide Corp. Nuclear Div., August 1,1971.
Oak Ridge Natl. Lab., Oak Ridge, Tenn., Transition '
NUREGICR-6249 xiv
L A. James and J. A. Wniliams, Hanford Eng. Dev. Toughness of ASTM A533, Grade B, Class 1 Steel Lab., Richland, Wash., Heavy Section Steel Plate and Submerged Arc Weldment, WCAP-8775, Technology Program Technical Report No. 21, The October 1976.
Effect of Temperature and Neutron irradiation Upon the Fatigue-Crack Propagation Behavior of ASTM J. A. Williams, Hanford Eng. Dev. Lab., Richland, A533 Grade B, Class 1 Steel, HEDL-TME 72-132 Wash., Tensile Properties of Irradiated and September 1972. Unitradiated Welds of A533 Steel Plate and A508 Forgings, NUREGICR-1158 r P. B. Crosley and E. J. Ripling, Materials Research (ORNL/SUB-79/50917/2), July 1979.
Laboratory, Inc., Glenwood, Ill., Crack Arrest in an i Increasing K-Field, HSSTP-TR-27, January 1973. J. A. Williams, Hanford Eng. Dev. Lab., Richland, Wash., The Ductile Fracture Toughness of Heavy
. W. J. Stelzman and R. G. Berggren, Union Carbide Section Steel Plate, NUREG/CR-0859, l Corp. Nuclear Div., Oak Ridge Natl. Lab., September 1979. I Oak Ridge, Tenn., Radiation Strengthening and Embrittlement in Heavy-Section Steel Plates and K. W. Carlson and J. A. Williams, Hanford Eng.
Welds. ORNL-4871, June 1973. Dev. Lab., Richland, Wash., The Effect of Crack Length and Side Grooves on the Ductile Fracture J. M. Steichen and J. A. Williams, Hanford Eng. Toughness Properties of ASTM A533 Steel, Dev. Lab., Richland, Wash., High Strain Rate NUREG/CR-1171 (ORNL/SUB-79/50917/3),
Tensile Properties of Irradiated ASTM A533 October 1979.
Grade B Class 1 Pressure Vessel Steel, HEDL-TME 73-74, July 1973. G. A. Clarke, Westinghouse E!actric Corp.,
Pittsburgh, Pa., An Evaluation of the Unloading .
J. A. Williams, Hanford Eng. Dev. Lab., Richland, Compliance Procedure for J-Integral Testing in Wash., The Irradiation and Temperature the Hot Cell, Final Report, NUREGICR-1070 ;
Dependence of Tensile and Fracture Properties of (ORNIJSub-7394/1), October 1979. ,
ASTM A533, Grade B, Class 1 Steel Plate and Weldment, HEDL-TME 73-75, August 1973. P. B. Crosley and E. J. Ripling, Materials Research Laboratory, Inc., Glenwood, Ill., Development of a J. A. Williams, Hanford Eng. Dev. Lab., Richland, Standard Test for Measuring K al with a Modified ,
Wash., Some Comments Related to the Effect of Compact Specimen, NUREGICR-2294 Rate on the fracture Toughness of Irradiated ASTM (ORNLISUB-81/7755/1), August 1981, ;
A553-B Steel Based on Yield Strength Behavior, !
HEDL-SA 797, December 1974. H. A. Domian, Babcock and Wilcox Company, i Alliance, Ohio, Vessel V-8 Repair and Preparation :
J. A. Williams, Hanford Eng. Dev. Lab., Richland, of Low Upper-Shell Weldment, NUREG/CR 2676 ;
Wash., The Irradiateo Fracture Toughness of ASTM (ORNLISub/81-8581311), June 1982. l' A533, Grade B, Class 1 Steel Measured with a four-/nch Thick Compact Tension Specimen, R. D. Cheverton, S. K. Iskander, and D. G. Ball, HEDL-TME 75-10, January 1975. Union Carbide Corp. Nuclear Div., Oak Ridge Natt Lab., Oak Ridge, Tenn., PWR Pressure Vessel '
J. G. Merkle, G D. Whitman, and R. H. Bryan, Integrity During Overcooling Accidents: A Union Carbide Corp. Nuclear Div., Oak Ridge. Natl. Parametric Analysis, NUREG/CR-2895 r Lab., Oak Ridge Tenn., An Evaluation of the HSST (ORNL/TM-7931), February 1983.
Program Intermediate Pressure Vessel Tests in .
Terms of Light-Water Reactor Pressure Vessel J. G. Merkle, Union Carbide Corp. Nuclear Div.,
Safety, ORNL/TM-5090, November 1975. Oak Ridge Natl. Lab., Oak Ridge, Tenn., An ;
Exambation of the Size Effects and Data Scatter i J. A. Davidson, L. J. Cmchini. R. P. Shogan, and Observed in Small Specimen Cleavage fracture G. V. Rao, Westinghouse Electric Corporation, Toughness Testing, NUREG/CR-3672 Pittsburgh, Pa., The Irradiated Dynamic Fracture (OHNL/TM-9088), April 1984.
l xv NUREG/CR-6249 4
W. R. Corwin, Martin Marietta Energy Systems, Martin Marietta Energy Systems, Inc., Oak Ridge j inc., Oak Ridge Natt Lab., Oak Ridge Tenn., Natt Lab., Oak Ridge, Tenn., Test of 6-in.-Thick Assessment of Radiation Effects Relating to Reactor Pressure Vessels. Series 3: Intermediate Test Pressure Vessel Cladding, NUREG/CR-3671 Vessel V-BA - Tearing Behavior of Low Upper-Shell (ORNL-6047), July 1984. Material, NUREG-CR-4760 (ORNL-6187), May 1987.
W. R. Corwin, R. G. Berggren, and R. K. Nanstad, D. B. Barker, R. Chona, W. L Fourney, and :
Martin Marietta Energy Systems, Inc., Oak Ridge G. R. Irwin, University of Maryland, College Park, Natl Lab., Oak Ridgo, Tenn., Charpy Toughness Md., A Report on the Round Robin Program and Tensile Properties of a Neutron Irradiated Conducted to Evaluate the Proposed ASTM Stainless Steel Submerged-Arc Weld Cladding Standard Test Method for Determining the Plane Overlay, NUREGICR-3927 (ORNL/TM-9709), Strain Crack Arrest Fracture Toughness, la K Of September 1984. Territic Materials, NUREG/CR-4966 ;
(ORNL/Sub/79-7778/4), January 1988.
J. J. McGowan, Martin Marietta Energy Systems, Iric., Oak Ridge Natt Lab., Oak Ridge, Tenn., L F. Miller, C. A. Baldwin, F. W. Stallman, and i Tensile Properties of Irradiated Nuclear Grade F. B. K. Kam. Martin Marietta Energy Systems, Inc.,
Pressure Vessel Plate and Welds for the Founh Oak Ridge Natl. Lab., Oak Rioge, Tenn., Neutron HSST Irradiation Series, NUREGlCR-3978 Exposure Parameters for the Metallurgical Test (ORNL/TM.9516), January 1985. Specimens in the Fifth Heavy-Section Steel Technology Irradiation Series Capsules, J. J. McGowan, Martin Marietta Energy Systems, NUREG/CR-5019 (ORNt/TM-10582), March 1988. ;
inc., Oak Ridge Natl. Lab., Oak Ridge, Tenn., '
Tensile Properties of Irradiated Nuclear Grade J. J. McGowan, R. K. Nanstad, and K. R. Thoms, Pressure Vessel Welds for the Third HSST Martin Marietta Energy Systems, Inc., Oak Ridge Irradiation Series, NUREG/CR-4086 (ORNL/TM- Natt Lab., Oak Ridge, Tenn., Characterization of 9477), March 1985. Irradiated Current-Practice Welds and A533 Grade B Class 1 Plate for Nuclear Pressure Vessel W. R. Corwin, G. C. Robinson, R. K. Nanstad, Service, NUREG/CR-4880 (ORNL-6484/V1 and V2),
J. G. Merkle, R. G. Berggren, G. M. Goodwin, July 1988. ;
R. L Swain, and T. D. Owings, Martin Marietta Energy Systems, Inc., Oak Ridge Natl. Lab., R. D. Cheverton, W. E. Pennell, G. C. Robinson, Oak Ridge, Tenn., Ellects of Stainless Steel Weld and R. K. Nanstad, Martin Marietta Energy Overlay Cladding on the StructuralIntegrity of Systems, Inc., Oak Ridge Natl Lab., Oak Ridge, Flawed Steel Plates in Bending, Series 1, Tenn., Impact of Radiation Embrittlement on NUREG/CR-4015 (ORNLITM-9390), April 1985. Integrity of Pressure Vessel Supports for Two PWR Plants, NUREG/CR 5320 (ORNL/TM-10966),
W. J. Stelzman, R. G. Berggren, and T. N. Jones, February 1989.
Martin Marietta Energy Systems, Inc., Oak Ridge Natt Lab., Oak Ridge, Tenn., ORNL J. G. Merkle, Martin Marietta Energy Systems, Inc.,
Characterization of Heavy-Section Steel Technology Oak Ridge Natl Lab., Oak Ridge, Tenn., An Program Plates 01, 02, and 03, NUREGICR-4092 Overview of the Low-Upper-Shelf Toughness Safety (ORNL/TM-9491), April 1985. Margin Issue, NUREG/CR-5552 (ORNL/TM-11314),
August 1990.
G. D. Whitman, Martin Marietta Energy Systems, Inc., Oak Ridge Natt Lab., Oak Ridge, Tenn., R. D. Cheverton, T. L Dickson, J. G. Merkle, Historical Summary of the Heavy-Section Steel and R. K. Nanstad, Martin Marietta Energy Technology Program and Some Related Activities in Systems, Inc., Oak Ridge Natl Lab., Oak Ridge, Light Water Reactor Pressure Vessel Safety Tenn., Review of Reactor Pressure Vessel Research, NUREGlCR-4489 (ORNL-6259), Evaluation Report for Yankee Rowe Nuclear Power March 1986. Station (YAEC No.1735), NUREG/CR-5799 (ORNL/TM-11982), March 1992.
R. H. Bryan, B. R. Gass, S. E. Bolt J. W. Bryson, J. G. Merkle, R. K. Nanstad, and G. C. Robinson, NUREG/CR-6249 xvi
UNIRRADIATED MATERIAL PROPERTIES OF MIDLAND WELD WF-70' D. E. McCabe, R. K. Nanstad, S. K. Iskander, and R. L. Swain
- 1. Introduction The objective of the Heavy-Section SteelIrradiation being a low upper-shelf (LUS) material. WF-70 (HSSI) Program Tenth Irradiation Series is to develops less than 684 (50-ft-Ib) energy at characterize the properties before and after drop-weight (DWT) nil-ductility temperature irradiation of Babcock and Wilcox (B&W) WF-70 (NDT) + 33*C (NDT + 60*F), which requires -
weld metal. The designation WF-70 stands for a that reference nil-ductility temperature, RT ,
2 be determined from the Charpy curve The specific heat of weld wire used with a specific lot of Linde 80 flux, and 'his particular weld has been upper-shelf energy (USE) is nominally 89 J used in about seven currently operating power (65 ft-lb). Title 70, Code of Federal generating reactors.' The test material became Regulations, Part 50, Appendix G,* requires available to Oak Ridge National Laboratory that unirradiated beltline materials must have a because of a decision made by Consumers Power 102-J (75-ft-Ib) USE and no less than 68-J Company of Midland, Michigan, to not operate an (50-ft-lb) USE during the operating lifetime, Materials that do not have the Code-required almost completed nuclear power plant. The vessel of the Midland Reactor Unit 1 became available for 102 J (75 ft-lb) are considered low USE and research studies, and a consortium of utilities, have a higher probability of slipping below 68 J vendors, and the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory (50 ft-lb). For such cases, a fitness-for-service Commission (NRC) recognized this as an analysis is required for continued operation.
opportunity to expand and possibly improve the Currently, the fracture mechanics properties data base on WF-70. The part of the HSSI required for the analysis are obtained through correlations developed with other production Program focusing on WF-70 was developed to understand its properties before and after lots of materials that may or may not be irradiation. In particular, WF-70 is a high-copper accurate for a plant-specific analysis.
weld metal, nominally 0.4 wt % Cu, and is noted as -
"Research was sponsored by the Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, Division of Engineering, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, under interagency Agreement DOE 1886-8109-8L with the U.S Department of Energy under Contract DE-AC05-840R21400 with Martin Marietta Energy Systems, Inc.
- 2. Materials Figure 1 shows the sampling plan for the Midland specimet . Both welds had been postweld beltline weld (seam 1) and nozzle course weld heat treated (FWHT) at 607'C (1125'F) for (seam 3). Sections 1-9 to 1-15 of the beltline and 24 h. The pieces of the beltline (see Figure 1),
3-1 and 3-4 of the nozzle course weld were were about 1.1 m long (45 in.), and vessel obtained for this program. Both welds are thickness at that location was about 216 mm double-V submerged-arc (WF-70) welds (SAWS) (8.5 in.). A macrograph of the weld cross made with heat No. 72105 weld wire and lot 8669 section is shown in Figure 2. The two nozzle Linde-80 flux. However, the nozzle course weld pieces were about 1 m (41 in.) long, and had B&W WF-67 on the inside half on the vessel thickness at that position was about double-V, which was not of interest to this test 317 mm (12.5 in.). This cross section is shown program. The beltline weld had a few short in Figure 3. Again, only the WF-70 material segments of repair weld that were also avoided in was included in the current characterization the sarnpling plan of fracture mechanics plan.
ORNL-DWG 92-11823A Z W X Y Z l
18(2-Blocks)
(3-1 B 3-4)-
N T O
( WELD , _ , _ _ ,
"N 1 3-6 y_3 ] wOl 3-2 f 3-3 3-4 h 3-5 t t t [13(4b60cks, L9 -BLOCK IDENT.
( WELD g SEAM Na2 - -- 211 2-d 2-3' '
23% - -- M= Ii BLOCK IDENT.
TR VEL t WELD phg SEAM g 1 -13 1-14 1-15 1 -1 1-2 l 1-314-4fi-Si t-6l 1L7 i-8 1-9 i-10 1 -11 1-12 1-13 d- 30
=r -
23%to! 13 46h TRAVEL (7-BLOCKS) D /E Figure 1. Sampling layout for Midland beltline sections 1-8 through 1-15 and nozzle course sections 3-1 through 3 5.
YP8064B gp g - , y y y 3,39377v m
-p >
s z.g . , .
m q
.m
.n.
- e s m p- ,
- ~ - a. .
-[.; .-+o .
A; '
, -i :
, .o
%. , . P
+f wgagg;, .< 4W Q ?u fG&yT:%p.e+?Of "jJ,n ;. i9 Afp_ - bi n A:.
- F :> ! . g, h,4 ,6'(y QV , Q(3,4 %M:q ,, E M
? . .,,
SM, L'y r~ - ;ws,kvM W a+e.u Q.% g g; 4 *., ' '
..n >
%, ww 5:%. ' ' J h .-
{
y- ,
yg As:- ~ - *
(.yj '!U, , , ,3. 8 o - 9, e - ,
U:
'.? .,-a_ .;, .e s
. - .; m.. .; ,4
}
ip- ,,et Figure 2. Macrograph of Midland beltline weld section 1-13.
YP12922 i,.ni a,,n & ,
e! . mn ow um n v.n mnea , . umc.otwmsu one
- u p
. : :,,, ,k
[ .k r >
- v. pi X O ;
.2% N no ~h,9f6d.ekNkh 1; Of ag ,- y :> k1
! s;._gja , ..
g.js-,
x,g cryy
, w :: a ; ,m :&n w 4
4 %)hg
' ga . .g::;y ;yv
! 9y Ml$p)
/fW 4,-
. ,,,,._i_..,, ;
- 4. e
.. l
/g%
, nn% )[ - .
W9 L gbk J..
? j,N}Qj@9 TW gS (n. g 1
i %a w/pcgf egn ...
y -- 77',"# , ' e vggyk-. e:wfp;A " su,,, u ,
Figure 3. Macrograph of Midland nozzle course weld section 3-1 I
showing weld WF-67 on the inner half and WF-70 on the f outer half. A nozzio attachment weld appears in this section.
l i
1
=
- 3. Test Plan The material property characterization plan had Reference temperature, RTer, for pressure three major milestones, the first of which was to vessel steels is most commonly indexed to the conduct a comprehensive evaluation of chemical DWT NDT temperature. As previously composition and toughness in the form of Charpy mentioned, both welds were sampled for DWT V-notch (CVN) surveys around the vessel girth and NDT at 1/4t and 3/4t tt. cough-thickness through the thickness. DWT NDT tests were also positions, and these results are given in included.' This material characterization work has Table 4. Reproducibility was excellent at been previously reported? The principal findings -50*C (-58'F) i 10* C (118* F). However, will be summarized here for convenience when because WF-70 is an LUS material, reference comparing to the fracture mechanics results. The temperature is controlled instead by the second milestone involves the development of Charpy V energy curve at the 68-J temperature fracture mechanics-related material toughness less 33* C (60* F).
properties that includes a study of specimen size effects on Jn curve as well as the identification of CVN transition curves were also made at transition temperature in the form of Ku values. . A 90* intervais around the girth of the beltline K3value is defined as the elastic-plastic fracture weld and at 180* intervals around the nozzle toughness at the onset of cleavage fracture. The girth. All but one of the beltline pieces were third major milestone is the development of sampled at five locations through the postirradiation properties, and these results will be thickness, giving a total of 19 Charpy curves.
reported later. The nozzle weld was sampled at three through-thickness positions in the WF-70 f .' ,
3.1 Scoping Work giving six CVN transition curves. Test temperatures for 41- and 68-J (30- and 50-ft-Ib) energy levels and USE are presented in The beltline weld was sampled at four equally Tables 5 and 6. As expected, neither weld spaced positions around the vessel girth and at metal developed the required 68 J (50 ft-Ib) at five through-thickness locations (1/4t,1/2t, 5/8t' -17* C (-1.4* F) [NDT + 60* F], and the USE 3/4t, and 7/8t) for chemistry and CVN toughness, was about 89 J (65 ft-lb), so the LUS weld The NDT was determined at the same four girth metal classification for WF-70 was verified. The positions, but only at the 1/4t and 3/4t procedure to determine RTw1 is to establish a through-thickness locations.' lower bound curve fit to the CVN energy data scatter in the transition range and then select Table 1 summarizes the overall averages and the 68-J temperature on this lower bound and extremos of variation for the five chemical elements subtract 33*C (60*F). The RTer temp-considered to affect irradiation sensitivity. All were cratures determined in this way are listed in essentially the same in the two welds except for the right-hand columns of Tables 5 and 6.
the copper content. The typical through-thickness Extreme values in RT for beltline weld differ variation is shown in Table 2 for the beltline weld by 57'C (103* F) and by 26*C (47'F) for and in TcNe 3 for the nozzle weld. Such copper nozzle weld material.
vanations do not normally have a significant effect on the unirradiated properties." However, the An interesting observation was that, although r expected difference in transttion temperature shift each individual Charpy curve gave an due to irradiation damage (ATT) is well known.' impression of excellent material uniformity (see Other elements were far more uniform than copper typ cal examples in Figure 4) when data from content. Table 3 shows that there is a all 19 positions were combined (see Figure 5),
considerable difference in copper content between the reason for the large scatter of RT, WF-67 and WF-70 of the nozzle weld metals. Also, temperatures in Table 5 can be understood.
the copper content of the WF.70 nozzle material was uniformly higher than that of the beltline Tensile propeny determinations were made at WF-70 weld. temperatures ranging from -100 to 288*C 5 NUREG/CR-6249
z Table 1. Summary of major radiation-sensitive elements for Midland Unit 1 reactor vessel welds C
M eo !
Element, wt % 1a Section ",
number Cu' Ni P Mn Si Beltfine ws;d 1-9 8 0.26 0.441 0.566 0.031 0.016 2 0.0013 1.629
- 0.050 0.605 0.031 (0.22-0.34) 1-11 8 0.258 2 0.027 0.57 2 0.007 0.016 1 0.0014 1.615 t 0.015 0.62 2 0.029 (0.23-0.31) 1-13 5 0.248 0.039 0.604 t 0.016 0.018 2 0.002 1.55 = 0.067 0.62 0.041 (0.21-0.32) 1-15 7 0.254 1 0.026 0.567 0.009 0.018 1 0.0013 1.614 1 0.014 0.644 i 0.016 (0.22-0.29)
Average 28 0.256 0.034 0.574 0.023 0.017 2 0.0019 1.607 0.049 0.622 1 0.033 03 (0.21-0.34)
Nozzle course weld 3-1 4 0.398 0.034 0.576 2 0.021 0.015 2 0.001 1.59
- 0.045 0.548
- 0.051 (0.37-0.46) 3-4 5 0.392 t 0.016 0.567 i 0.008 0.015 1 0.002 1.61 2 0.018 0.55 0.043 (0.3r- 142)
Average 9 0.396 i 0.028 0.572
- 0.017 0.015 0.002 1.59 0.037 0.55
- 0.048 (0.37-0.46)
Total 37 0.290 2 0.068 0.574 0.022 0.016 0.002 1.604 0.046 0.605 t 0.048 average (0.21-0.46)
- Number of measurements.
- Range of copper shown in parentheses.
. . e n o 8 8 8 8 O O O O
- b b b b O O O O a 8 8 3 a O O O O j . .
i 8 8 8 8 O O O O O O O O 6 O.
v O.
v O.
v O.
v i
3 b 8 8 3 p O O O O N N N N
= 8 8' 8 8 d O. d d I b b b b '
O O O O h db b b b
$ D O d ,
g +
e O O O O
& $ 6 O O O b
V- V- v. V.
.g! ] y . . , ,
1 } .. ..
3 o > $.8 8 8 9s ?,$
y 0 0 O C' O O OO d R0 O O O 48O O88 O 85 O O 7O 0 0 7 3 ~
g i 7 ; 5 O O O O O O O 6
l 2 S S E $ $ S S E E O O O O O O O O 3 0 9 ? ; 9 2 8 9 ? *5 '
a ed g
6 O d 6 d o e O s
l y a : 8 3 $ 8 O s
s OO OO O O O O
>, i e n n 1
= $.8 O
$$ 8d 4$
O O' O 8 8 o d }g .
[
n a n a n e . e U b b b b b b b b .
O O O O 6 o O o !
c s
9 e e 8 {2 2 o e S Se g g
. e p
M M N , M M M o 8 a O O as O O sO O O 8 s O O s .
U
- * *
- b
- f. 1 e
e n
g a
l O M , , . . . .
o ,8 8 8 8 8 8 B B O O O O O O O O
. M O - - M a .
z 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 O O O O O O O O
- 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 O 6 d O O O 6 6 V V V V V V V V
. ~ . M s E 8 8 8 E. E. 8 $
0 o O O O O e O 2 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $
6 6 O O 6 O M M M M M M M M N 6 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 O O O O 6 O d d
."Q -_
3 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 O O O O O O O O v v v v v v v v g __
. 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 O O O O O O O O V V V y v v v V Q __
k I
?
O b
b o
O R
O O
?
O O 6 O O O O O O h h 9 e 0 e e e m
- n ; a 5 8 s s s s 5 5 e
l_ --
C O O O O O O 6 6 u is - - - - - - *
- 31 g ~ 8 8 8 8 O 8 8 8 8 l 9 g
O v
O v
O v
O v
~
g O
v O
v O
v O
v s
s y __
g . . M o . , y
> 5 8 8 o O 8 8 5
._@ O O O O O O C O d O O O M
O M
O O- 0 0 Q f h k N k-O O O O O O O O
~~
, = a : : : ;
O O O O O O O O g __
U O $ E E I. I E E $
O O O O O O O O M' __
S a : : 2 3 : :
j O 6 o O O O O O g __
. ~ . . . - ~
= 8 5 5 8 8 $ 8 8 O O O O d d O d e - e w g 4 m -
S b b b O b b b .p O O O O O O O O r i
h *
- 6 @ O
. - - - . - - - .f g
l-
- u : ; 2 8 : -
O O O - - O O 8 j O O O O O O O O g
U O O O O O O O .
3 NUREG/CR-6249 8 f
l-m__ _m __ _
Table 4. Dropweight test resuus for Midland welds NDT temperature Girth (" C(* F)}
location 19 1-11 1-13 1 15 3-1' 3-4' 1/4t -60 (-76) -6G (-76) -60 (-76) -45 (-49) -45(49) -55 (-67) 3/4t 50 (-58) -50 (-58) 45 (-49) -55 (-67) -40 (-40) -50 (-58)
'Nor2!e weids 3-1 and 34 at 7/8t positions instead of 1/4L Table 5. Summary of Charpy impact results for Midland Unit 1 reactor vessel beltline weld sections Cherpy V-notch tests to Through- 41-J temperature. 68-J temperature. Upper shelf energy.
- C (
- F),
- C (* F).
thickness *C (* F). *C (* F). J (ft-Ib),
at weld section at weld section position at weld section at weld section at weld sect ion 1-13 1-9 1-1 i 1-15 1-13 1-9 1-11 1-15 1-13 1-9 1-11 1-15 1-13 1-9 1-11 1-15 1-13 1-9 1-11 1-15 1/4t -11 -6 13 4 21 37 25 50 101 77 91 82 -9 3 -9 16 -13 14 16 (12) (21) (8) (39) (69) (98) (76) (122) (74) (57) (67) (60) (15) (37) (16) (61) (9) (57) (16) (61) 1/2t -16 -11 -4 -9 29 25 23 17 104 83 91 88 -5 -8 -10 -16 2 -8 -10 -15 (3) (13) (25) (15) (84) (77) (74) (63) (77) (61) (67) (65) (24) (17) (14) (3) (36) (17) (14) (5) 5/8t -22 -18 -10 3 9 18 17 49 108 88 90 85 -25 -16 -16 15 -20 -16 -16 8
(-7) (0) (1 31 (37) (48) (64) (63) (121) (80) (65) (66) (62) (-12) (3) (3) (60) (-3) (3) (3) (47) 3/4t -2 3 14 -6 37 53 58 28 90 81 84 89 3 20 24 -6 6 20 37 -6 (27) (38) (57) (21) (98) (128) (136) (82) (66) (60) (62) (66) (37) (68) (76) (21) (43) (68) (99) (22) 7/8t -3 -13 -8 46 30 22 78 79 83 13 -4 -12 13 18 -3 (26) (8) (18) (116) (86) (72) (57) (58) (61) (55) (25) (11) (56) (65) (26) 7
- Determined from T o - 60*F (T., - 33*C) using average curve fit. where T is the temperature corresponding to 50 ft-1b.
p ' Determined from T.o - 60*F (T., - 33*C) using minimum curve fit, where T.,is the temperature corresponding to 50 ft-lb.
m O
O
'D e
b
?!
e 9
dn 2
e Table 6. Summary of Charpy impact results for Midland Unit 1 reactor vessel nozzle course weld secbons 1
Charpy V-notch tests 41 -J 68-J Upper-shelf , T r Through- , ,
thickness temperature, temperature, energy, ' '
C ( F), C ( F), at weld section at weld section position J (ft-lb),
at weld section at we!d section at weld section 3-1 3-4 3-1 3-4 3-1 3-4 3-1 3-4 3-1 3-4 1/2t 5 -11 47 51 86 88 14 18 14 18 o (42) (13) (117) (125) (63) (65) (57) (65) (57) (65) 3/4t 2 -1 49 45 89 85 16 11 16 11 (35) (30) (120) (112) (65) (63) (61) (52) (61) (52) 7/8t -10 5 26 47 90 89 -8 14 -8 14 (15) (42) (78) (116) (66) (66) (18) (57) (18) (57)
" Determined from Tw - 60 F (To , - 33 C) using average curve fit.
- Determined from Tw - 60 F (T , - 33 C) using minimum curve fit.
El , _ _ - - -
ORNL-DWG 92-11828 TEMPERATURE (*F)
-200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 '
125 g ; , g g i g g OO lMW 1-13, S/8 Tj e 100 -
4 3 -
60 g I
} 75 -
- 5 O >-
E O W - 40 g O 50 - O y w
~
20 QCHARPY DATA MEAN IMPACT CURVE I I I I I O 0
-100 0 100 200 300 TEMPERATURE ( C)
ORNL-DWG 92-11829 TEMPERATURE (*F)
-200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 (25 g g g g g g g g g
- 80 100 -
lMW 1-t3,3/4 Tj O
Q -
60 g
} 75 -
{D 0 >-
E O W - 40 g O 50 -
y w
O
~
25 -
0 O CHARPY DATA MEAN IMPACT CURVE f f l t n n
-100 0 100 200 300 TEMPERATURE ('C)
Figure 4. Examplo of Charpy V-notch energy curves from two through-thickness locations. When observed individually, they suggest uniformity of impact ,
toughness.
11 NUREG/CR-6245 l
l l
ORNL-DWG 93-9511 C
g TEMPERATURE ( F)
$ -200 -100 O 100 200 300 400 500 600 g 140
's l l l l l l l l l- 100 MW BELTLINE ALL 420 -
O o 80 O_,,,,,,.....'O"""'""""'"
100 -
o O o O
.S o .:E 9 o n O x Lm g Co D ,
- 3 3 80 i
'C El 8 l
h -
o a- ....,__...........................o .y . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
y 60 -
/g' ,g
, w / c' / --
40 $ z
~ :
~
w 40 - !
Q / b o CHARPY DATA f dg"/ o
' ' ' , . .3 .O MEAN IMPACT CURVE 20
- 95% CONFIDENCE 20 n
~
-/ INTERVAL i/s "
/
O -!'5 I/ I l l I l l I O
-150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 TEMPERATURE (*C)
Figure 5. Combined Charpy V-notch data taken around the girth and through-thickness positions of the beltline weld.
(-150 to 550*F). The trend of reduced strength limited amount of nozzle material available.
with increased test temperature is clearly evident Individual data for both matrices are tabulated (see Table 7). However, it appears that the in Appendix A. For the data reported in material strength of the nozzle weld is significandy Appendix A, some specimens tested at O'C j higher than that of the beltline weld. This (32'F) did not fail by cleavage fracture, and l appeared to have developed despite the fact that these are designated m J with no reported both were given essentially the same PWHT. value. Specimen codes are reported to Increased strength is usually accompanied by document the position for each data point reduced fracture toughness, but this was not within the weld. ,
detected in the CVN USEs nor in the NDT or RT, ,
transition temperatures. To compare with the 3.2.2 Test Procedure j measured tensile values, an automated ball i l indentation (ABI) test was performed on some The test practice involved cooling of the blocks made of the two weld metals.' These specimens to test temperature using vaporized blocks were appropriately prepared for the ABI test Iquid nitrogen. Each specimen was given l by surface grinding parallel surfaces. These sufficient soak time at test temoerature to results were consistent with the properties reported ensure thermal stability prior to running of the i in Table 7 at room tempeiature. test, typically 5 min or more. Again, most tests l terminated in Ku- type cleavage fracture.
Principally, on the basis of copper content, a However, some of the specimens tested in the decision was made to define nozzle WF-70 weld mid-transition temperature range did not fail by metal and beltline WF-70 weld metal as two cleavage but instead developed slow-stable different materials. The specimen sampling plan, crack growth. Periodic partial unloading therefore, was designed to evaluate properties of compliance was employed routinely so that these two materials independently before and after crack growth could be measured and irradiation- J-R curves could be developed in such cases.
3.2 Fracture Mechanics Properties Fracture toughness at the onset of cleavage fracture was calculated in terms of J-integral The second phase of the test program consisted (J ) [ref.10], and then all values were of fracture mechanics-related toughness converted to their equivalent value in units of development for the unitradiated condition. These stress-intensity factor, K,, using the following:
data were then used to evaluate (1) a new fracture mechanics-based transition temperature (1) g'c~_~b cf7g
- characterization methodology, (2) the Eason et al. -
multivariable model' to estimate J-R curves, and (3) a method to develop the Ka transition curve where E is the plane stress elastic modulus. -
using instrumented CVN load-time test records.
At the beginning of the testing, a small experiment in side-groove effects was 3.2.1 Transition Temperature ,
performed to evaluate the effect on Ku -
Characterization, KA toughness. The comparison developed is shown in Tab;e 9. Because there is increased Beltline WF-70 weld metal was tested in the form of constraint with side grooving, one would >
compact specimens in sizes ranging from 1/2T to expect to find either no change or reduced K y +
4T and at test temperatures ranging from -100 to for specimens that are side grooved. Since ;
0*C (-148 to 32'F); see Table 8. One part of the the results indicated only a mild reversed effect matrix outlines the beltline test condition variations. that could not be rationalized on the physical and the other the nozzle course test variations, basis of constraint, it was concluded that there both reporting the median K, values from multiple was no evidence of a significant constraint tests at each level. The fewer test conditions effect on K,, and as a consequence, the applied to the nozzle welds are the result of the balance of the testing was performed without 13 NUREG/CR-6249
+
Table 7. Tensile properties of Midland WF-70 weld metal Strength Temperature Yield Ultimate tensile C f F MPa ksi MPa ksi Nozzlo
-100 -148 648 94.0 820 118.9
-75 -103 620 89.9 765 111.0
-50 -58 579 84.0 717 104.0 23 73 545 79.0 655 95.0 160 320 483 70.1 586 85.0 288 550 483 70.1 586 89.0 Beltline
-100 -148 548 79.5 758 110.0
-75 -103 483 70.1 710 103.0
-50 -58 4C5 67.4 682 98.9 23 73 407 59.0 586 85.0 288 550 427 61.9 558 80.9 NUREG/CR-G249
$4 e
..._.__......,y .
Table 8. Median Kg values [MP /m(ksi/in.)] for WF-70 weld metal from multiple tests l
I Test temperature C ( F)
O (32) -25 (-13) -50 (-58) -75 (-103) -100 (-148)
MPdm ksdin. MPdm ksVin. MPdm ksVin. MPdm ksVin. MPdm ksVin.
- Battline ci ll2T 203.5 185.0 133.4 121.3
, 1T 265 240.9 159.9 145.4 97.8 i 88.9 67.5 61.4 51.3 46.6 2T 234 212.7 162.7 147.9 106.4 96.7 l'
4T 109.1 99.2 i Nozzle 1
1/2T 91.6 83.3 1T 191.3 173.9 109.5 99.5 71.3 64.8 46.7 42.5 E
Pn i o
o
? '
8
_ y ___
l z E
8 .
i 0
$ Table 9. Companson of K, for 1T compact specimens with and without side grooves Beltline Nozzle i Test temperature With Without With Without side side grooves side grooves side grooves grooves C F MPaVm ksiVm MPaVm ksiVm MPaVm ksiVm MPaVm ksi/m l
0 32 197 179 140 127 220 200 145' 132 274 249 256 233 229 208 168 1'63 317 288 296 269 300 273 g a a a a Average values: 263 239 321 210 224 204 204 186
-25 -13 119 108 120 109 87 79 84 76 133 121 139 126 147 134 96 87 193 176 139 126 97 88 267 243 143 130 114 104 151 137 120 109 121 110 Average values: 178 162 138 126 117 106 105 96 "J-R curve.
side g ooving. It is possible that the apparent considered acceptable according to early higher toughness values of the side-grooved concepts for evaluation of transitiori specimens could be caused by computational temperature fracture toughness. Lower bound problems associated with the manner in fracture toughness has, for many years, been which the effective specimen thickness (By) believed to be achievable only througa valid K e is commonly used in the calculation data. However, recent developments in the i
of J,. technology of ductile-brittle behavior have produced methods that predict specimen size The data from all the beltline weld specimens of all effects and methods by which the transition sizes that failed in cleavage are plotted in Figure 6. range behavior can be defined by a different Data for the nozzle weld metal are shown in concept of universal curve.'8 This information Figure 7. Almost none of these Ku values satisfy is currently being documented in the form of the validity requirements for plane strain Km an American Society for Testing and Materials (ref.11). Hence, these data would not be (ASTM) standard practice.'
ORNL-DWG 94-6596 TEST TEMPERATURE ( F)
-300 200 -100 0 400 200 500 I I I l l l MIDLAND WELD-BELTLINE -
500 UNIRRADIATED KJc (MPa8) o % TCT SPECIMENS MASTER 400 _
CURVE
- O i TCT SPECIMENS O 2 TCT SPECIMENS -
400 g 8 V 4 TCT SPECIMENS k300 -
0 300
}
2 o 5%
CONFIDENCE tu
$ Q LIMIT {
W 200 -
/ e 8 / -
e r
a ,
o/ /
200 @
3 O %
n =
100 -
o I. , , k ,$ _
400 s
-e-I I I I I o 0
-200 -450 -100 -50 0 50 100 TEST TEMPERATURE ( C)
Figure 6. Transition temperature data for the Midland WF-70 beltline weld for four compact specimen sizes and a master curvo on 1T specimen size.
I ORNL-DWG 94-6598 i
f e
-300 -200 TEST TEMPERATURE (*F)
-100 O 100 200 i Q 500 g ; 9 g g l MIDLAND WELD-NOZZLE -
500 UNIRRADIATED Kgc (MPafrn) 400 - A h TCT SPECIMENS
- o i TCT SPECIMENS
$o -
@O _
MASTER ld
$ CURVE 5y
- 300 -
0 /
2 -
300$
I m' / $
m 8 / z 1
N 200 -
,/ N m
@ f 200 g a /5% F O O / CONFIDENCE
- R g y f LIMIT 00 -
A / -
100 o ,,-
l -_
I ! ! ! ! O 0
-200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 400 l
i TEST TEMPERATURE ( C) l Figure 7. Transition temperature data for the Midland nozzle course weld WF-70 for two compact specimen sizes and a master ctnve on IT sptunen size.
~. _ _ - _ - - -- . _ _ _ _ . .
l
!- =
- 4. Description of the Proposed Test Practice on Transition Range Definition I
The proposed test practice currently under be determined from the experimental data. Six development is designed to obtain useful fracture or more replicate K2 tests are required to mechanics information from small specimens that establish the scale parameter with sufficient l are of a size suitable for insertion into surveillance accuracy.
capsules. One objective is to model transition toughness data scatter with the three-parameter Given that two of the three Weibull parameters Weibull data distribution model" and to employ a are fixed, as just described, adjustment for weakest-link statistical theory" to adjust fracture specimen size is easily made using the I
toughness for specimen size effects. Then, the following:"
median trend of fracture toughness, adjusted to a single specimen size, is postulated to fit a universal + 20 ' (3) trend curve, termed a ' master curve.' Standard K*M = (K M - 20) , B,,
deviation of data scatter is a function of the Weibull fitting parameters, and, thus, confidence bounds [
about the median fracture toughness trend can be where Kuis the toughness, expressed in units calculated. A " reference temperature,' T,, is then of MPa/m, for specimens of size "x.' Km is determined to position the master curve on the the predicted toughness for specimens of size temperature coordinate, and affiliated confidence "y."
bound curves are then determined as a function of median toughness. Addrtionally, a margin Equation (3) can be used to adjust Ku for size adjustment can be applied to the lower confidence on single datum or to adjust a Weibull scale bound curve to cover the uncertainty in reference parameter, K,, or the median K u of a data set.
temperature i' only a small number of specimens are used to wtablish the reference temperature. The median Kx on 1T size specimens is defined by the following master curve Data scatter on Ky values can be fitted using the equation:"
following three-parameter Weibull function:
Kg,g - 30 + [4)
' 4 2 - K,f b 70 exp[0.019(T- T,)],
P, exp - , (2)
K, - K,m Again, the units are expressed in MPa/m. The above equation contains one variable, test where: temperature, T, and one adjustable parameter, reference temperature, To . Standard deviation P, = the probability that a chosen on K, data is defined by:
specimen will develop a specified K, toughness, o 0.28 Kg ,g [1 - 20/K b = the Weibull slope (parameter 1), 4 ,g], (5)
Km = the lowest possible fracture toughness (parameter 2), Assignment of the standard normal deviate K, = the scale parameter (parameter 3). obtained from statistical tables can be used to establish confidence bounds. The standard Wallin has shown that pressure vessel steels tend normal deviate at 5% cumulative probability is to develop a consistent data scatter profile such 1.64. Using this with Eq. (5) results in the that two of the above three parameters tend to be following equation:
constant." That is, when K,,,,,, is set at 20 MPa/m (18 ksi/in.), the Weibull slope tends to be constant Kuo o33 - 25.4 + (6) at 4. Then, only the scale parameter, K,, needs to 37.9 exp [0.019(T- T,)],
19 NUREG/CR-6249 1
l
Reference temperature, T , is the test temperature 80.2 and 115.3 MPa/m (72.9 and where the median K, for 1T size specimens is 104.8 ksi/in.), respectively. Then, the expected to be 100 MPa/m. If one wishes to test equivalent values were used to establish only six replicate specimens, the temperature reference temperatures, T , giving -60*C selection for optimum accuracy (on establishment (-76*F) for the beltline weld and -33*C of T,) is near to temperature, To . The following (-27'F) for the nozzle course weld, a 27'C crude correlation between the 28-J (20 ft-lb) (49'F) difference in transition temperature.
Charpy energy temperature, Tw, and To has been This toughness difference was not detected offered as an aid to select a test temperature (in from the DWT NDT tests nor the CVN this case for IT size test specimens): evaluations.
T, Tz u - 18' C. (7)
Figures 6 and 7 show the master curves derived from the 1/2T compact specimen data The constant on the right side of Eq. (7) can be as well as the 5% cumulative probability adjusted for other specimen sizes. As an example, curves. The data points shown are not for 1/2T compact specimens, the constant is specimen size adjusted. Despite this, the 5%
-28' C (-18.4* F). confidence bound tends to enclose most of the unadjusted data.
Finally, if the lower bound confidence curve of Eq. (6) is to be used to address safety issues, a An example margin adjustment to the 5%
margin can be added to account for the confidence limit based on the six replicate uncertainty in reference temperature, T,. The specimens and 85% confidence margin standard deviation on this uncertainty is estimated adjustment is shown in Figure 8. Here, a using the following:" 10*C (18*F) margin has been calculated and ar ,- 18//// , (8)
The postirradiated specimens will be similarly evaluated to establish the transition where N is the number of Ku datum used to temperature shift, establish T o.
Equation (8) is most accurate when the K, data development is near 100 MPa/m. The standard .
normal deviate on T, should be obtained for two-tail standard normal deviates, and a reasonable confidence level assignment is 85%.
4.1 Master Curve Establishment from Midland K3 Data Estimates of temperatures corresponding to the 28-J CVN energy level for beltline and nozzle welds were obtained from data such as that shown in Figure 5. Both weld metals indicated -23*C
(-9.4*F), and using Eq. (7) adjusted for 1/2T specimen size, a test temperature of -50*C
(-58* F) was indicated to obtain 100-MPa/m (91 kst/in.) median Kx. As indicated in Tables 8, A1, and A2,1/2T compact specimens were tested at -50*C (-58'F), giving median Ky of 91.6 MPa/m (83.3 ksi/in.) for the nozzle weld and 133 MPa/m (121 ksi/in.) for the beltline weld.
These values were converted to 1T equivalents of NUREG/CR-6249 20
ORNL-DWG 94-6597 TEST TEMPERATURE ( F)
-300 -200 -100 O 100 200 500 ; ; ; g g ;
MIDLAND WELD -BELTLINE -
UNIRRADIATED KJc (MNS)
A % TCT SPECIMENS MASTER 400 -
CURVE
_ o i TCT SPECIMENS O 2 TCT SPECIMENS 400 2 V 4 TCT SPECIMENS a
{2 3 300 _
6 8 0 x o 0 -
3T m LOWER [0 uf BOUND Z m Q z 200 -
/ E g 0 -
200 3 S 3
/
/ O a .
R @ 1 of
/
l 100 -
o { v 3 100
,P'
__ _. -o -
I I I 0 0
-200 -150 -400 -50 0 50 100 TEST TEMPERATURE ( C)
Z Figure 8. Master curve and 5% confidence limit curve (dashed) adjusted 10* C (18* F) for uncertainty g in reference temperature, T,.
O r
w
=
- 5. Evaluation of J-R Curves Because WF-70 weld metal is an LUS energy used to generate J-R curve plots. Instructions material, J-R curve characterization is needed to for calculating these same constants for the r demonstrate by analysis that a reactor vessel can Eason et al. multivariable model are given in I be safely operated with this material. ref. 9. For the latter, upper shelf CVN energy Unfortunately, thero are many cases where reactor and other test condition parameters are used surveillance capsules do not have fracture to calculate the constants applicable to mechanics-type specimens that are suitable for J-R Linde 80 welds, and these are presented in curve development. Blunt, notched Charpy V Table B2 (ref.19).
specimens are far more common. For st-h cases, it is now possible to estimate J-R curve usag Experimental and calculated constants can be correlations developed from multivariable modeling compared, but it is clear that the experimental of data bank information. A model has been regression fit constants can be onfy an developed by Eason et al.' that uses a correlation approximation to those derived on the basis of _
based principally on upper-shell CVN energy as data from multiple tests and multiple material well as accounting for other experimental variables sources.
that influence J R curves. Variables such as specimen size, chemistry, test temperature, and 5.1 Specimen Size Effect on J-R irradiation exposure are accounted for in th Curve models. This study presented an opportunity to independently compare the correlation model for Linde 80 weld metals to new experimentally Specimen size effect (experimental) was generated data. evaluated on beltline weld metal at 550*F
\
(288'C), and the result is shown in Figure 9.
Table 10 shows the levels of specimen sizes and A considerable spread is observed, almost all test temperatures at which J R curves were of which is attributable to the 2T specimens.
developed in this experiment. The experimentally The 1T and 4T specimens agree reasonably derived J-R curves are shown in Appendix B. All well, and the 1/2T specimens tend to show but the last two entries have toughness expressed moderately lower toughness, as might have in terms of deformation theory J. The last two been expected. Clearly the lack of a curves used modified J. In most cases, duplicate consistent trend from 1/2T to 4T is attributable tests were performed, and the data were combined to the 2T specimens that behaved like a for a least-squares curve fit. The equation (curve) different material. Unfortunately, an fitted is of the same form as that used by Eason in examination of test records and evaluation of the multivariable modeling of data bank physical evidence have turned up no information: explainable reason for the inconsistency. Both 2T specimens came from the same Jg - A(Aa,)8 exp[C/(Aay)n2], (9) through-thickness position at 3/4t, and both were from the same cutout (section 1-10) of the weld (see Figure 1). Other 2T specimens where: were made from this segment of the weld, and these were put into an irradiation capsule. The A,B,C = curve-fitting constants, above observation will be kept under A a, = physical slow-stable crack growth. consideration when evaluating the postirradiation results. Size effects were not Table B1 tabulates the least-squares-derived determined on nozzle weld metal because constants of Eq. (9). These values can then be there were only 1/2T and 1T specimens.
23 NUREG/CR-f,249 l
c Tablo 10. J41 curve test matrix Number of specimens at Specimen various temperatures' size 21 C 150 C 288*C (70 F) (302*F) (550 F)
Beltline 1/2T 2- 2 2 1T 2 2 2 2T - -
2 4T - -
2
{
Nozzle 1/2T - -
2 l 1T 46 2 2 [;
'All specimens 20% side grooved unless '
noted otherwise,
- Two specimens not side grooved.
1
- 1 i
l NUREG/CR-6249 24 4
w
~ _. _,
1 oRNL-DWG 93-13864 CRACK GROWTH (mm) o i 2 3 4 5 3.o '- -
g i ; ) -
500 SPECIMEN SIZE EFFECT AT 550*F BELTLINE WELD
~
~
WTCT
- - - - - - iTCT
--- 2 TCT "d
4TCT N q 2.0 -
E 4
i -
300 5 s
5 ui
, 4 .5 -
' /' W i s, z g ....-
g ,/, ja cl '
200 y g
g g 1.0 -
/
? / ,/y
/./ / - too 0.5 --
I I I I I o I I I o.o 0.475 o.200 o.000 0.025 o.oso o.075 o.ioo o.425 o.150 CRACK GROWTH (in.)
Figure 9. JR curves of the Midland beltline weld pal with various specimen sizes at z 288* C (550* F).
C m
O ii Il e
, i 11-
\
1 5.2 Evaluation of the Multivariable Ernst et al. " has in fact satisfied the property /
' " ' ' "S" 5"99 S' d 'Y Ri'"
Model Figures 12(a)-(c) compare modified J and Figures 10(a) through (d) compare WF-70 deformation theory J fracture toughness expenmental J-R curves to predicted J-R curves computations. Note that the separation using the 89 J (65-ft.lb) USE in the Linde 80 between the two criteria is small when da is multivariable model. These predicted curves small relative to initial ligament size (see compare to the experimental curves quite well Figures 12(a) and (b)]. Figure 12(c) shows except, of course, for the 2T size specimens, again how modified J-R curves for 1/2T and 1T seeming to bong into question the experimental specimens comparn more favorably, J-R curve result. Specimen size effects are eliminated by modified J up to the point of massive rigid- 1 5.3 Effect of Test Temperature body deformation, where divergence wiii again develop. These J-R curves do not approach }
that particular limit thereby illustrating that Figures 11(a) and (b) compare experimental J R modified J can be used to develop curves over three test temperatures, one figure for geometry-independent J-R curves. However, I 1/2T compact specimens and the other for 1T an appropriate limitation on specimen compact specimens. It is clear that slow-stable deformation, as yet uncefined, needs to be crack growth resistance diminishes with increased established.
test temperature. There is some difference in trend between the two figures, but it is likely that this is merely a phenomenon nf material property 5.5 Comparison of Beltline variabmty. versus Nozzle Weld Table 11 lists J values determined from these J-R r
Experimentally determined J-R curves that curves over the same temperature range plus compare the toughness of beltline and nozzle other Jmvalues generated in mid-transition at 0*C welds are shown in Figures 13(a)-(c) These (32* F).
comparisons are made on one specimen size (1T) covering three temperature levels. There 5.4 Modified J versus Deformation is repea:ed indication that the J-R curve Theory J toughness of the nozzie course weiri is lower than that of the beltline weld. Again, this lower ductile tearing resistance of the nozzle weld An unresolved technical issue is the proper way to was not detected by the upper-shelf CVN calculate J integral when the crack growth energy conditions of the specimens violate the validity requirements for deformation theory J. The limitations on deformation theory J for massive 5.6 S Pecimens with Side hoid. body piastic deformation and the tolerance for Grooves versus Specimens excessive slow-stable crack growth are cornmonly Without Side Grooves ignored, even by those that are well aware of the fundamental problems. The ASTM standard E 1152 on J-R curves allows up to 10% of the J-R curve specimens are almost always side initial remaining ligament in bend type specimens. grooved to control crack shape, as advised in This growth is almost certain to show some small the ASTM J R curve test practice." However, amount of specimen size dependence. To mitigate side groove depth (and even the complete this weakness, modified J was developed as a absence of side grooves) is not a controlled J.like parameter that has the propeny of crack requirement in the ASTM test standard Any growth rate independence. The desirability of a presumption that J-R curve is not,significantly growth rate independent property from a J-like affected by side-groove practice would be parameter had been initially pointed out by wrong, as evidenced by Figure 14(a). The Rice et al."' Modified J developed by difference in J-R curve slope between 0 and NUREG!CR-6249 26
ORNL-DWG 93-13865 CRACK GROWTH (mm) 30 I I l I I 500 LINDE Bo Jd MoDEL VERSUS EXPERIMENTAL
%TCT SPECIMEN AT 550*F 2.5 -
MIDLAND BELTLINE WELD
- EXPERIMENTAL -
400 I a. --- MULTIVARIABLE
( ?.o - MoDEL .-
i !
I- 5 -
300 S
$ t.5 -
's vi 0 z
0 z -
200 $
)
61.0 --
- 8 g ,,_
e too o3 ._
I I I I I I I o 0.0 0050 0.075 0.100 0.t 25 0.150 0.175 0.200 (a) vooo 0.025 CRACK GROWTH (in.)
ORNL-0WG 93-13868 CRACK GROWTH (mm) 0 1 2 3 4 5 I I I l l 500 LINDE 80Je MODEL VERSUS EXPERIMENTAL 2.5 -- (TCT SPECIMEN AT 550*F MIDLAND BELTLINE WELD EXPERIMENTAL -
400
--- MULTIVARIABLE
"[s 2.0 - MODEL "E_
s E
2 y' -
20 z 91.5 - p
$ W w
i / -
200 $
g g i.o n
,/./ ~
100 o.5 -
I I I oo I I I I o 0.000 0025 0050 0 075 Q100 0125 0150 0175 0200 CRACK GROWTH (in.)
Figure 10. Experimental JR curve and JB curve calculated from a Multivariable model for (a) 1/2T compact specimen, (b) 1T compact specimen, (c) 2T compact specimen, and (d) 4T compact specimen.
27 NUREG/CR-6249 l
f ORNL-DWG 93-13878 CRACK GROWTH (mm)
O 1 2 3 4 5 I I I i 1
- 500 LINDE 80J4 MODEL VERSUS EXPERIMENTAL 2.5 -
2TCT SPECIMEN AT 550Y MIDLAND DELTL!NE WELD EXPERIMENTAL -
400
~_
--- MULTIVARI ABLE j 2.0 --
MvDEL fa ~};
, 1.5 300
{
p y
$_ E E -
200 5 5 to -
, / p~
~
8 :
g ~
r -
/
o.! ', - / -
100
/
/
/
O.0 J- 1 I l ! I I o
0.000 0.025 0.050 0075 0100 Ot25 0150 0175 0200 (C) CRACK GROWTH (in )
ORNL-DWG 93-13866 CRACK GROWTH (mm)
O 4 2 3 4 5 I I I I I wO LINDE 80Jd MODEL VERSUS EXPERIMENTAL 2.5 -
4TCT SPECIMEN AT 550T fAIDLAND BELTLINE WELD
,- EXr .HIMENTAL -
400
$ --- MULTIVARI ABLE _
N 2.0 -
MODEL "g
$ h
[ --
300 k
'. 1.5 -
[
sn W W W " $
s>
mo o 1.0 -
, h n ,
/
05 -- f / ~
1
/
00 ! I l l I I I o
0000 0 025 0050 0075 0100 0125 0150 0375 Q200 (d) CRACK GROWTH (in.)
q Figure 10 cont.
I NUREG/CR-6249 28
ORNL-DWG 93-13867 CHACK GROWTH (mm) 3.0 l I I I i__ Soo 2.5 -
400 I 2.0 - .~.
$ ,k n ;
3m E,
-f.
' 1.5 y
c
~' y
' ' 5 i f -
200 3 1.C -,
S f ,/ ,
.0' 4 CURVE TEST TEMPERATURE EFFECT f
0.5 -
['-,
MIDLAND BELTLINE WELD Al L % TCT SPECIMENS 550*F (288'C) 100 302T (150*C)
- 70 T (21*C)
I I So I I I I I o 0.000 0.025 0050 0.075 0100 0.t25 0.150 0175 0.200 (8) CRACK GROWTH (in.)
i I
ORNL-DWG 93-13869 l CRACK GROWTH (mrr) i 0 1 2 3 4 5 l l l l l 500 Jn CURVE TES* NMPERATURE EFFECT M'DLANt, .sELTLINE WELD 2.5 -
ALL 1 TCT SPECIMENS l
550T (288 *C) --
400 f 302V (150*C) ,
I go ._
~ 70T (21*C) ~
f 300 s 2
l y /,, '
- i .5 - vt
\ .
$ ... ,V $
l !
g 1.o -
4'
..O' -
200 h R
l
- R d' I
j -
i c5 ;/
I I ! I I uo I I o 0.000 0.025 0.050 0075 O!OO 0.925 0150 0.175 0.200 (b) CRACK GROWTH (in)
Figure 11. Effect of test temperature on J-R curve of WF-70 weld metal for (a) 1/2T compact specimens and (b) 1T compact specimerts.
29 NUREG/CR-6249 I
a
l Table 11. Average J3 values from J-R curves j 4 -
J,, values IkJ/m (in.-lb/in.2)] .
Specimen -
size 0"C 21 C 150 C 28E' C f (32
- F) (73 F) (302 F) (550 C) i l
Beltline 1/2T 130 (740) 115 (670) 85 (495) 1T 160 (920) 130 (750) 120 (685) 75 (435) 2T 150 (850)
Nozzle 1/2T j 1T 120 (700) 125 (725) 85 (500) 55 (320) 1 2T i l
i ORNL-DWG 93-13870 CRACK GROWTH (mm) i 2 3 4 5 2.0 I I I l l COMPARISON OF J CALCULATIONS
% TCT SPECIMENS AT 550'F
--- MODIFIED J - 300
^ 1.5 - DEFORMATION w THEORY J
( =
^
.s
'- 4 L 2 5 / -
200 5
' 1.0 -
/ g
$ s' 0 E s' E 5 s' 8 8
" O.5 -
/ -
400 R
I I I I I 00 I I o
0.000 QO25 0.050 0.075 Q100 ai25 0.450 0,175 Q2OO (a)
CRACK GROWTH (in.)
l Figure 12. J-R curve comparison on beltline weld metal showing (a) specimen size effect on 1/2T compact specimens, (b) less size effect for larger IT compact specimens, and (c) com;mrison on 1/2T compact modified J versus deformation theory J on Roxve for 1T compact specimens.
/ NUREG/CR-6249 l 30 1
I ORNL-DWG 93-13871
- CRACK GROWTH (mm)
O i 2 3 4 5 2.0 j ;
, i COM?ARISON OF J CALCUL ATIONS iTCT SPECIMENS AT 550*F ~
1TCT MODIFIED J i'5 __
iTCT DEFORMATION
- THEORY J
.s ',- "E 2 -
4 r - E
' 200 ,
% to -
' s, g / w
\ w / z W ' 5 i 8 8
- o -
100
- O.5 --
I I I I I I I 00 O O.000 0.025 0.050 0.075 0.100 0.125 0150 0.175 0.200 (b) CRACK GROW 1H 'M)
ORNL-DWG 93-13872 CRACK GROWTH (mm) 20 I I I I I COYPARISON OF Ja-CURVES
%TCT B iTCT AT 550*F __
300
--- W TCT MODIFIED J 1.5 -
1TCT DEFORMATION "g THEORY J -
5 "E
.y a -
',- 4 E
g -
200 ,
' 10 - d i '
/ 0 C / i i s' 8
, B R /
/ e 100 0.5 -
! I I I I I l 0.0 0 OCOO O.025 0050 0.075 0.100 0.125 0.150 O.17e 0.200 CRACK GROWTH (in.)
Figure 12 cont.
31 NUREG/CR-6249 e
i l
1 l
f ORNL-DWG 93-13873 CRACK GROWTH (mm) 0 1 2 3 4 5 30 1 I I l l
- 500 Jn CURVE COMPARISON,iTCT 2.5 - BELTUNE VERSUS NOZZLE WELDS BE LTLINE , 70*F
--- NOZZLE WELD, 70*F - 400
$ 2.0 -
"}
f S
$ ~
', 4.5
,s,-
g
$ )
,/ -
200 h g 1.0 -
7 g f! /
/
/
O.5 0.0 I '
O O.000 0.025 0050 0.075 0.100 0.t25 0150 0.175 0.200 (0}
CRACK GROWTH (in.)
ORNL-DWG 93-13874 CHACK GROWTH (mm) 0 1 2 3 4 5 I I I I l 500
' JR CURVE COMPARISON, tTCT 2.5 - DELTLINE VERSUS NO7ZLE WELOS BELTLINE , 302*F
--- NOZZLE WELD, 302*F _
400 E
k, 2.0 --
- }
E 4
b -
300 5
, ', 1.5 -
p
$ N 200 g i.O ~
S e ,/ j
/ '
O.5 /
,f gg' I i 1 I I I I O
0000 0.025 0 050 0075 0.400 0125 0.150 0175 0200 (D) CRACK GROWTH (in )
Figure 13. J-R curves that compare the noz2le versus the beltline weld metal ductile tearing resistance at (a) 550'F (288'C),
(b) 302* F (150* C), and (c) 70* F (21* C).
ORNL.DWG 93-13875.
CRACK GROWTH (mm)
O i 2 3 4 5 3'
I I I l l 500 Ja CURVE COMPARISON,iTCT BELTLINE VERSUS NOZZLE WELDS 2.5 -
BELTLIN E, 550 *F
--- N0ZZLE WELD, 550*F _
400 c --
~
~
I 2.0 -
,E
)~ .d.
.e -
300 E, s
, 1.5 - ur '
} vi 0 '
0 5 g
200 g 8 '0 ~
- 9
~ ~
R y,
o.5
/
,[ ~
400 ,
I I I I I I o o.o 0.000 0025 0.050 0.075 0.100 Qi25 0.450 0.175 0.200 (c) CRACK GROWTH (in.)
Figure 13 cont.
4 -
1 33 NUREG/CR-6249
ORNL-DWG 93-13876 CRACK GROWTH (mm)
O f 2 3 4 5 30 I I I I I
-- 500
/
2.5 -
/
/
.T - 400
/
k 2.0 -
/
~
c / "E j
/ 4 a
} 15 -
/
300
{
,/
$ / h.
y / I 200 g g
h iD - f SIDE GROOVING EFFECT Of4 Jn CURVE R
/ (TCT SPECIMENS Ar 70*F s
f M10L AND NOZZLE COURSE WELD 05 20% Sf0E GRO(7/ED -
100
--- NON-SIDE GROOVED l l I i l i I O
0000 0 025 0050 0 75 0100 0125 0150 0.175 0200 (3)
CRACK GROWTH (in)
ORNL-DWG 93 13877 CRACK GROWTH (mm)
O i 2 3 30 4 5 l I / l I 500
/
2.5 -
l p
/
/ EVALUAtlON OF SIDE GROOVE EFFECT MULilVARIABLE MODEL AT 70*F -- 400
'c:_ -
--- By = 0.8B
[ 2.0
^
~
88=8 I [3 a
- 1. 5 -
300 (
A $.
N h 10 -
2')O h
$ O i
05 -
100 COO 0 025 0050 0075 0100 0125 Q150 0.175 02 h) CRACK GROWTH (in)
{ Figure 14.
(a) J-R curves comparing the effect of side grooving on the nozzle course weld metal. Both are legitimate by ASD4 standard E 115247. (b) Evaluation of the side-groove offect by the multivanable model showing the danger of misuse outside the range of the data fit.
t i
=
l 20% side groove used here is about a factor of 2. side-groove practice should be given attention it should be noted, however, that crack growth was in analyses that relate to safety issues.
measured by compliance in both cases. There almost always is some inaccuracy of crack size The impact of side grooving as viewed by the determination on thick specimens without side multivariable model will not indicate significant i grooves" In this case, there was an approximate effect, as is illustrated in the example test case 25% lag of Aa, behind the 9-point heat tint in Figure 14(b), Here, the comparison is made measurement of final crack size, On the other assuming two 1T compact specimens, one
- hand, if each compliance calculated Aay is without side grooves and one with 20% side l adjusted 25% to compensate for the error, the groove. The reason for this insensitivity is that influence on the dashed line would be relatively the input data used to develop the minor, and the J R curve difference remains highly rnultivariable models came from side-grooved significant. The disturbing aspect of this is that specimens. The data mix was dominated by f vahd J-R curves developed in conformance with an specimens within a rather narrow range of 20 ASTM standard practice can be radically to 25% side Groove so that the side-groove i manipulated through side-groove practice. It is depth effect on J-R curve is ingrained within also well known that J-R curve slope is a function the model. The positive side of this is that the [
) of side-groove depth without an asyrnptotic lower multivariable J-R curve estimations, unlike test _
! bound characteristic, at least up to 50% side data, cannot be manipulated to give Groove. Because there is the potential to nonconservative J-R curves.
manipulate apparent material toughness by 35 NUREG/CR-6249 1
4 l
I i
[
4
- 6. Crack-Arrest Testing, K u The crack-arrest fracture toughness was than the established range of RTuor values determined using a specimen with plantform which, for the Midland weld, were controlled by dimensions of the basic 2T compact specimen its CVN behavior.
(see Figure 15). The specimen thickness is not proportional to the conventional 2T design, Recently, there has been some interest in a K, however, being 25.4 or 33 mm (1 or 1.3 in.) curve estimation scheme that uses instead of 50.8 mm (2 in.). The crack tips had a instrumented CVN test records.22 Such is brittle weM bead made with McKay DWT stick feasible because it is possible to detect the electrode. onset of unstable cleavage crack propagation and subseq'ient crack arrest from load-time During testing, it was discovered that the running traces. 20 relevant test records occur within crack introduced by the brittle weld bead would a narrow f amperature window, just above the prematurely pop-in at low loads and then arr a in lower-shelf region of the Charpy transition ,,,
the heat-affected zone (HAZ) of the weld. With temperature curve.
continued wedge loading, cleavage cracks would then initiate from- the much tougher HAZ material at Example test records from the instrumented high crack drive and often times with some prior Charpy machine are shown in Figures 17(a).
slow-stable crack growth. As a result, crack arrest (c). Figure 17(a) is from a specimen tested on would occur with small remaining ligaments, and the lower shelf at -25'C (-13"F). The sharp load drop beyond maximum load to near zero the validity conditions of ASTM test standard E 122188 on
- Determining Plane-Strain Crack- load is indicative of cleavage to nearly Arrest Fracture Toughness, K,, of Ferritic Steels d' comp!ete separation of the specimen.
were violated. This occurred in all cases but with Figure 17(b) shows the upper-shelf behavior at one exception. One specimen made to 3T 25* C (72* F) where there is crack initiation plantform dimensions produced one valid V,, and stable ductile tearing to spedmen datum (see Table 12 and Figure 16). Even though separation. Figure 17(c) at 0*C (32*F) is the majonty of the data is invalid according to the characteristic of transition range behavior stringent requirements of E 1221-88, there is where there is cleavage crack initiation evidence that the ASTM validity requirements may followed by crack arrest. Here, the specimen be overly conservative for pressure vessel steels in displacement rate is a little slower in general and LUS materials in particular. The mid-transition, allowing the striker to catch up validity criteria within E 1221-88 are currently being with the displucement rate of the specimen at reviewed by the cognizant committee within the load, P,. The arrest load obtained from several 6 ASTM. test records through the transition range can be plotted against test temperature, as shown The data, while almost entirely invalid, fit well in Figure 18. A calibration load has been above the Ame.ican Society of Mechanical suggested for the development of a correlation Engineers (ASME) K, curve when the bounding between P, (arrest load) and K, curves.
values determined for the RTyny of the Midland Wallin22has chosen the load of P, = 4 kN (
weld, -20 to 37*C (-3 to 99'F), are used for its (900 lb) to correlate to K, data. Temperature, indexing (see Figure 16). It is interesting to note (T,), is defined as the temperature where the that the lower bound of the crack-arrest data median of Km data scatter is about coincides exactly with the ASME K, curve when 100 MPa/m. This is predicted from the
-50*C (-58*F) is used as the RTwr indexing following equation:
value. While the value of -50*C is in agreement with the average NDT value, it is significantly lower ( T,),, - Tr4 -10'C (10) 37 NUREG/CR-6249
z C
E!
e o
P O ORNL-DWG 93-13879
$ BRITTLE
" l l WELD XXXXX + ~O.075 g ,-
'N
' N 1.250+_ ddiam.
2.175
\
l4k 7:($s i
J ------
\ '
?}jY.-
/
,1 4.800 L /
e'N Il- I, - -
~ ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~
\-' am O.450 "- ggoR(typ) 65nR ng53
- ' st,/
DETAll "A" ff A" _______
M Q225
@ STEEL STAMP
, XXXXX SPECIMEN ID Ysin.
FIGURES, TWO PLACES g AS SHOWN.
NOTE:
Y ALL DIMENSIONS ARE IN INCHES.
,9, g
= 2.480 &
5.000
=
Figure 15. Crack-arrest specimen of 2T planar proportiormlity.
l l
1
- --g -
Table 12. Crack-arrest toughrtnes values, K,, of subntarged-arc weld from the beltline region of the Midland reactor pressure vessel measured usang specimens with a nominal wKith of i 104 mm (4 in.), except for specimen MW ISJC, with a nominal wKith of 150 mm (6 in.)
Test temperature Crack-arrest toughness, K, Validity
- Specimen C F and MPalm ksidin. comments MW12 A18 -40 -40 58.5 53.2 a,b l MW12 EBB -40 -40 75.3 68.4 a,b.e i
MW12A1 -30 -22 76.3 69.4 a,b.e MW12D1 A -30 -22 78.7 71.5 a,b,e MW12HBB -30 -22 91.8 83.4 a,b,e MW12EAB -- 30 -22 93 84.5 a,b MW12G AB -25 -13 92.9 84.4. a,b O MW15JC -20 -4 65.3 59.4 Val /d,150 mm spec MW15HAA -20 -4 101.1 91.9 a,b MW12FBB -20 -4 148.4 134.9 a,b,c.e 14DRW34 -10 14 107.5 97.7 a,b.e MW12HBA O 32 90 81.8 a,b MW12HAA 10 50 95.4 86.7 a,b.e
- 0ne or more letters for a specimen indicate that the test results did not meet requirements of the ASTM E 1221 88 validity criteria. a,b = remaining ligament too small; c = specimen too thin; d,e = insufficient crack-jump length.
Z E
m 0
O 3) e
ORNL-DWG 94-6048 TEST TEMPERATURE (*F)
-300 -200 -100 O 100 200 300 f
- l l l l l l l 1
g SUBMERGED-ARC WELD METAL -
500 2 FROM MIDLAND RPV
~ 400 -
o REMAINING UGAMENT TOO SMALL AND 2 SOME CRACK-JUMP TOO SMALL -
400 g
- VALID ACCORDING TO ASTM 1221-88 y 300 - (150mm specimen)
E -
300 .-
o ASME Kia CURVES WITH -50"C -20*C
" 200 -
$ /
200 u
T l
/
'f 100 -
a9 o / -
100 5 go g
0 I I
_/
I I I I I 0 O
-200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 200 TEST TEMPERATURE (*C)
Figuae 16. Crack-arrest data for Midland beltline weld metal. The data are compared to the ASME lower bound K Cun'es established from RT, = 37'C (99* F), RT, = -20*C (-4* F), and hypothetical RT, = -50" C (-58* F).
_- - ---- - - - - - - - r
=
l ORNL-DWG 93-13861 30 I I I l I I I I 2.5 - SPECIMEN: MW9BI2 -
oRIENTAitoN: T-L GEOMETRY:t/1-SIZE CVN l
TEMPER ATURE : -25T/-13Y 2D -
} t.5 0
I 3 1D -
I o.5 -
oD -
&A - C I I ! ! I
- o.5
-os -o25 oro 025 cm a75 1.00 1.25 4.50 1.75 a) AE (ms)
ORNL-DWG 93-13862 2 50 ; ; ; ; ; ; ;
2.25 - -
2.00 --.
f SPECIMEN ~ MW9BC3 ORIENTATION : T-L _.
i GEOMETRY:4/1-SIZE CVN TEMPERATURE : +25t/ 77T
, ,7 3 _
1.5o ._
2 1.25 -
O y i.oo --
0.75 -
o 50 -
o.25 -
oDo -
--o -
I I I I I I 1
. o p,,
-t o -o5 ao a5 1.o 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 TIME (ms)
(L)
Figure 17. Load-time traces for a Charpy specimen of the beltline weld metal: (a) Tested on the lower shelf (note low crack-arrest load), (b) tested or: the upper shelf (ductile teanng beyond the maximum load), and (c) tested in the transition range (note crack-arrest load, P,).
41 NUREG/CR-6249 l
l ORNL-DWG 93-13863 I l I l l 2.5 -
SPECIMEN: MW9AF4 -
ORIENTATION: T-L GEOMETR'i : 1/1-SIZE CVN TEMPERATURE: 0*C/32*F 2.0 -
p _
(
LOAD P o b 4.0 - -
0.5 - -
0.0 -
d -
-0.5 L
-0.5 0.0 0.5 4.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 W TIME (ms)
Figure 17 cont.
=
ORNL-DWG 93-13880R 25 j TFa @4 KN = -40 C e AVERAGE 20 -_
O SINGLE DATUM
[
LIMIT LOAD, P t= 15.8 KN O P o 15 - L-J O p O o g .
m O E 40 -. 8 -
y O O O
<t O T
U O
- O 5 -
O I O I
l l I I g I
-40 -20 0 20 40 TEST TEMPERATURE ( C)
Figuro 18. Plot of crack-arrest loads for the beltline weld metal obtained from test records similar to Figure 17(c).
-I 11 appears that Tu in Figure 18 is -40*C (-40*F) Experimentally determined K, (invalid data) is and so the estimate for (T,), is -50* C (-58'F). fitted with the master curve and 95%
L Wallin has mah. ained that the universal confidence curve in Figure 19. In this case, To crack-arrest mediac K, curve has the same shape [ replacing T, in Eq. (11)] of about -10*C as the previously mentioned master curve. (14*F) was indicated. Hence, the CVN Temperature [(T,),] is inserted into the following inferred (T,),, differed by about 40*C (50* F) relationship for median K : from the experirnental data. It is clear that -
more evaluation work is needed. A supporting
/ A.la " M + (11) data package of valid K, values would be of 70 exp(0.019 f T- (T,),,)} . more help in the evaluation.
ORNL-DWG 94-6595 TEST TEMPERATURE (*F)
-100 -50 0 50 100 150 200 300 I I I l l l l MASTER CURVE FIT -
300 TO Klo BELTLINE DATA 250 --
To = -10 C
--- 5% CONFIDENCE LIMIT -
250 E 200 -
200 k.-
x x
~
- 450 -
o w f
/ -
150 $
w Z / 2 I o / I O 100 O o
/
g 00 o O f -
100 g H
/ H 50 -
O '-
50 I I I I I I I 0- O
-100 -75 -50 -25 0 25 50 75 400 TEST TEMPERATURE (*C)
Figure 19. K, experimental data from crack arrest in specimens similar to Figure 15; reference temperature, T c, is -10* C (14* F).
- 7. Discussion The present data development work on the group activity within ASTM. This method Midland WF-70 weld metal has provided good addresses the statistical variability of material baseline properties to compare to the irradiation- toughness as a part of the analysis procedure.
damaged properties. The nozzle weld metal has Six 1/2T compact specimens of nozzle weld been singled out from the beltline weld metal as a and six 1/2T specimens of beltline weld were different material on the basis of copper content, used to set up master curves that define the determined in the initial scoping work. At the transition toughness and confidence limits on same time, Charpy transition curves and DWT NDT scatter for data obtained from all specimen tests reported in the same early work indicated no sizes. This method of material characterization difference in the fracture pmporties. However, has worked quite well in this case.
fracture mechanics tests in tb.s report clearly indicated a difference in iwc;ure toughness J R curves were developed on be- 9 and transition temperature of 27'C (81*F) between nozzle course weld metals. Both sr.vwed loss nozzle course and beltline welds. Likewise, J-R of ductile tearing resistance with increased test curves indicated lower ductile tearing resistance in temperature from room temperature to 288*C the nozzle course weld, and tensile tests showed (550*F). There also was ' convincing evidence the nozzle weld to have higher strength. of a difference in J-R curve toughness between beltline and nozzle weld metals. This Because none of the 19 beltline CVN transition difference did not show up in the upper-shelf temperature curves or six nozzle course curves Charpy energy determinations, both indicating had developed at least 103-J (75 ft-lb) USE, these about 89-J (65-ft-Ib) USE.
materials were verified to be LUS weld metal. The 19 sampling positions for beltline Charpy curves The multivariable model of Eason et al. to produced 19 RTer temperatures varying from develop J-R curves from Charpy USE was
+37'C (+99'F) to -20* C (-4*F). The tested against the experimental J-R curves.
application of these 19 RTmr values to position the The modet for Linde 80 welds was used. The ASME lower bound Ke curve covers the area comparisori of predicted versus experimental bounded by the dashed lines shown in Figure 20. J-R curve for beltline weld was quite decent in The fracture toughness data in the form of static this case. An unavoidable weakness of the K, were shown to be almost bounded by an methodology, however, is the use of Charpy ASME Ky curve using a reference temperature. USEs that tend to lack the sensitivity needed RT e r, of -50*C (-58'F) from the DWT NDT tests. to detect subtle changes in J-R curve Likewise, the K, data were bounded using this toughness.
same reference temperature. However, ASME acceptance standards in Section Ill (NB 2331) Side-grooving of compact specimens was stipulate the use of Charpy curves such as might evaluated on a relatively small . scale within this be applied in the plant-specific analysis which, for experiment. It was determined 'lat the choice Midland, could position the lower bound Ky curve between side grooving or not K3 (transition for design over a relatively wide range of range) testing is not significar Jn the other temperatures. Clearly, the assessment of the hand, side grooving is a major /ariable in J-R material enbrittlement would be a matter of curve development. In this experiment, J-R probability, making the decision to license a plant curve slope was shown to be increased by a for continued opa ation dependent on sampling factor of about two without side grooves.
location and chance ordering of the Charpy Side-grooving recommendations in ASTM specimens. Standard E 1152 (" Standard Test Method for
- Determining J-R Curves") fail to point out or A ductile-to-brittle transition temperature (DBTT) emphasize the significance of such procedure that uses fracture mechanics test considerations. Side-groove depth has an oractices is currently under development in a task important impact on J-R curves.
g; (W!SM) SS3NH0001 m
9 g g O O 1
$o tn # 0 0 kC f'
I I I I I ob jk 9
- 0
!8 to S-d 11 h
ll Mg BP eg l pZ $' ~~m' O I m+
~
_ ~~
~
9 ,)t 5 E gi
'N U b b gP N s - o s-fa ao z in w mO p -
HTO E
~~_'*% %
\
g [
a )) j k s g h 2 l b O 00 0 O O \k- O$ 3E 1 \ Q-i slj ge 5 gi
< O m e mmt 3 H
H .g H
m N-Z J2 W ZZZ MMM <l <3CMIIE) O I 9 - 8Hi m $aw~2 y m ~g 2 WWW 8 W 5 wb H - w g gE3 OE 8 H ak. o T o aom *WSSB
- a. a. o.
! $$h 004 _ 8 wW Wmm -
h S Il 9QH HHH l dB g 8 -
05 R SSF i
" 1b T yy3-NT l_ @ Et gm <OOD 7 x8E
-2 ED to l l l l g g O O O O O O NI O O O O O i un e to w - ..
LA.
(W/odW) IM 'SS3NH0nO1 NUREG/CR-6249 46 i
- .. . - - .- ~ ~. . -- .- _ - - . . - .
Crack-arrest tests were performed on beltline weld crack-arrest data with significantly different i metal with a great deal of difficulty A new brittle amounts of rregin raises further questions weld bead crack starter material (McKay DWT) was about the appocability of using an RTuor based used to control crack initiation, but because of on Charpy properties as the correct indexing easy crack pop-in in the brittle bead, most parameter for the class of LUS welds, indeed, cleavage cracks initiated from the HAZ of these the overall question of the most appropriate brittle zone welds. Consequently, initiation K, was method to adjust predictions of fracture high and ligament size at arrest was nearly always toughness of pressure vessel materials to too small for K, validity. As a result, the accuracy account for irradiation-induced embrittlement is of the K, values reported here can be questioned. being examined within the HSSI Program. To The transition temperature shift from static to complement this work, a technique of inferring dynamic appeared to be about 50 K, which seems K, from test records of the instrumented a bit high. Nonetheless, there is reason to believe Charpy test was tried. In this case, the that the crack-arrest data may be representative of static-to-dynamic transition temperature shift the material. The one valid result obtained with the was about 10'C (18'F). The ASME K,cK,,
larger specimen is seen in Figure 16 to correspond curve shift at the 100-MPa/m (91-ksi/in.) level reasonably well with the remainder of the invalid is on the order of 36*C (64*F), so it is difficult data, even though it lies toward the lower bound of to draw firm conclusions on the significance of the data set. The fact that the wide range of RTuo, these results. .
values determined fur the Midland weld bound the i
1 47 NUREG/CR-6249
- 8. Plans for Irradiated Specimens -
1 HSSI capsules 10.05 and 10.06 contain 1/2T,1T, 3. Establish the data scatter of CVN transition and 2T compact specimens and crack-arrest range data. Establish the data scatter on specimens, as well as numerous standard notched RT, and ATT y and compare this to the and precracked Charpy specimens of beltline and fracture mechanics-based results.
nozzle course material. There are also sixteen 1/2T compact specimens and CVN specimens 4. Determine postirradiation K,, lower bound from the HSSI Frfth Irradtation Series and many using 15 crack-arrest specimens. This other previously well-characterized materials. evaluation would also include further exploration of crack-arrest determined by The overall plan of attack for irradiation evaluations instrumented Charpy impact tests, will be designed to satisfy the following objectives:
- 5. Evaluate the effect of irradiation on J-R
- 1. Establish a master curve for irradiated beltline curve for WF-70 weld metal. Also, i and nozzle course welds using a few 1/2T compare experimental and multivariable compact specimens of each material. copper-fluence model predicted J-R Compare the master curve to all the irradiated curves.
results.
- 2. Determine if the master curve of the irradiated materials car' be established from slow-bend precracked Charpy specimens.
1 s
,.gs 4\/# x~4 o 3
9 sn
't IMAGE EVALUATION ///p, ,)Q, 4)
O gy,*y TEST TARGET (MT-3) g ,
,.o ,,
E' [ N $
E'. 2 j,l . I$m.0e J4 1.25 1.4 1.6
_z 150mm >
4-6" >
4 _ _ _.-- - -
A my + /A sh,Vb,,f, biq,yl4 %
O, 4p s sf? ,
.j
R&'
, & qp'#) yg, st, ey 1'i IMAGE EVALUATION to 9
6 4g, l '
/ 8 ',f D ((4 ,
[/g// idIf# TEST TARGET (MT-3)
II///2, b ($f
+ffr
+ +
1.0 2:- m3" W -
mu2
- , u, ders ,
~.
l,l ; llli'l 2.0 J1 1.25 1.4
- q,__i.6 150mm >
4_...-
. . _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . 6" >
4-k .-
fl- /,3, -. -
f .m/ :
O sp <p
4 -- --
- g. .__.----------- - ---
6" - > ??? l N kr# " 4 4;~&,,4 v
- )k,nlpy' 6 . v.
////h O (b @. o qp e =
- 9. References 1.' B&W Owners Group, Materials Committee of '7. U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the Reactor Vessel Ir:tegrity Program, WF-70 Regulatory Guide 1.99, Revision 2, ' Radiation Evaluation Program, Review Meeting with NRC, Embrittlement of Reactor Vessel Materials,'
B&W Nuclear Service Company, Lynchburg, Va., May 1988.** June 13,1991,*
- 8. F. M. Haggag. R. K. Nanstad, and D. N. g j
- 2. ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code. An Braski, ' Structural Integrity Evaluation Based American National Standard, Sect. Ill, NB-2331, on an innovative Field indentation Microprobe,"
American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New pp.101-7 in /nnovative Approaches to York,1986.* /rradiation Damage and Fracture Analysis, PVP-Vol.170, ed. D. L Marriott,, T. R. Mager, and
- 3. " Title 10," Code of Federal Regulations, Part 50, W. H. Bamford, American Society of -
U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., Mechanica: Engineers, New York,1989.* January 1987.'
- 9. E. D. Eason, J. E. Wright, and
- 4. Standard Test Method for Conducting Drop- E. E. Nelson, Modeling and Computing Weight Test to Determine Nil-Ductility Transition Sevices, Inc., Multivariable Modeling of Temperature for Ferritic Steels, ASTM E 208-91, Pressure Vessel and Piping J-R Data, USNRC Amedcan Society for Testing a,d Materials, Report /CR-5729 (MCS 910401), May 1991.'
Philadelphia,1992.'
- 10. Standard Test Method for Determining J-R
- 5. R, K. Nanstad, D. E. McCab't, F. L Swain, and Curves, ASTM E 1152-87, American Society for M. h. Miller, Martin Marietta Energy Systems, Inc , Testing and Materials, Philadelphia,1992.'
Oak Ridgo Natl. Lab., Chemical Composition and RTa Dtcrninations for Miciled W6d WF-70, 11. Standard Test Method for Plane-Strain USHRC Report NUREGICR-5914 (ORNI.-6740), Fracture Toughness of Metallic Materials, ASTM Decembel 1992.' E 399-90, Vol. 03.01, American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia,1992. ~ 6. R. K. NaAmd, D. E. McCabe, B. H. Menke, S. K. Iskander, snd F. M. Haggag, ' Effects of 12. K. Wallin, "A Simple Theoretical Charpy V - Radiation on K Curves for HkJh-Copper Welds," K, Correlation for Irradiation Embrittlement,' pp. 214-33 in Effects of Radiation on Materials: pp. 93100 in Innovative Approaches to 14th Intemational Symposium (Vol. II), ed. Irradiation Damage and Fracture Analysis, PVP-N. H. Packan, R. E. Stoller, and A. S. Kumar, Vol.170, ed. D. L Marrott, T. R. Mager, and American Society for Testing and Materials, W. H. Bamford, American Society of Philadelphia,1990.' Mechanical Engineers, New York.' 'Available from B&W Nuclear Techonologies, P.O. Box 1.09 Lynchburg, VA 24506-0935 t Available in public technical libraries.
- Available aHaW hom E Gownment Mng Mce, for purchase from National Technical Washington, DC 20402. ATTN: Regulatory information Service, Springfield, VA 22161.-
Guide Account. 51 NUREG/CR-6249 i
- 13. J. D. Landes and D. E. McCabe, 'Effect of pp.128-38 in Fracture Mechanics: Twelfth Section Size on Transition Temperature Behavior of Conference, ASTM STP 700, American Society Structural Steels ' pp. 378 92 in Fracture for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia,1979.'
Mechanics: Fifteenth Symposium, ASTM STP 883, ed. R. J. Sanford, American Society for Testing 19. H. A. Ernst and J. D. Landes, " Predictions and Materials, Philadelphia,1984.' of Instability Using the Modified J, J u Fesistance Curve Approach," pp.128-38 in
- 14. T. L. Anderson, D. Stienstra, and R. H. Dodds, Elastic-Plastic Fracture Mechanics Technology,
- A Theorethical Framework for Addressing Fracture ASTM STP 896, American Society for Testing in the Ductife-Brittle Transition Region," pp.186-214 and Materials, Philadelphia,1985.'
in Reflections in Fracture Mechanics Research, ASTM STP 1207, American Society ior Testing and 20. T. Holistein, J. G. Blauel, and B. Voss, "On Materials, Philadelphia,1994.1 the Determination of Elastic-Plastic Fracture Material Parameters: A Comparison of
- 15. K. Wallin, 'The Scatter in Ky - Results,' Eng. Different Test Methods," pp.104-16 in Elastic-Frac. Mech. 19(6), 1085 03 (1994). Plastic Fractuto Test Methods: The IJsers Experience, ASTM STP 8850, American Society
- 16. D. E. McCabe, J. G. Merkle, and R. K. Nanstad, for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia,1992.'
'A Perspective on Transition Temperature and K,y Data Characterization," pp. 215-32 in Reflections in 21. S'andard Test Method on Determining Fracture Mechanics Research, ASTM STP 1207, Plane-Strain Crack-Arrest Fracture Toughness, American Society for Testing and Materials, Km, ASTM E 1221-88, American Society for Philadelphia,1994.' Testing and Materials, Philadelphia,1992.* 17 K. Wallin, " Recommendations for the 22. K. Wallin, Descriptive Potential of Charpy-V Application of Fracture Toughness Data for Fracture Arrest Parameter with Respect to Structural intergrity Assessments,' pp. 465-94 in Crack Arrest K,,, VTT-MET B-221, Technical Proceedings of the IAEAICSNI Specialists Meeting Research Centre of Finland, Espoo, Finland, on Fracture Mechanics Venfication by Large Scale January 1993.* Testing, Oak Ridge, Tenn., Oct. 26-29, 1992.'
- 18. J. R. Rico, W. J. Drugan and T. L. Sham,
' Elastic-Plastic Analysis of Growing Cracks,"
- Available in public technical libraries.
l NUREG/CR-6249 52 u -- = i e-Appendix A Tabulation of Specimen Codes and K;, Values A-1 NUREG/CR-6249 . - ~ . l l Table A1. Test data for four specimen sizes of WF-70 beltline weld metal ! (1 Mpa/m = 1.1 ksi/in.) i l l Values, K. Test (MPa/m) temperature U2T 1T 2T 4T ('C) Code' K. Code
- K. Code
- K. Code
- K. Code
- K.
21 11FB b 15GA b 11FC* b 15GB b O 9FA D DCB' 274.0 10G2 180.2 11GC' b 15FA 255.6 10C2 287.1 i 11GD b 15GD' 181.6 D2 6 ! Illa 316.7 9tA 140.0 -25 10EIFB 183.2 9FC' 266.9 9FB 143.2 12C1 184.2 14B 119.8 I 11MDA 108.5 15FC 138.9 15FD' 119.2 10C1 144.4 14A 98.4 11JEA 214.9 9CC 150.7 15J1 141.0 9HfB 220 0 11FA 193.5 1001 124.7 11MCB 212.6 11GA 139.4 1081 120.0 11 LEA 307.6 9 F D' 132.7 -50 10E2F 167.3 9GA' 120.2 10B2 105.2 SLF B 146.8 11GB 118.1 10H2 108.4 10EIEB 137.7 11 F D' 103.3 12C2 97.7 10EIEA 131.1 15GC' 91.9 12D1 115.0 10 elf A 119.3 15FB 88.4 15J2 94 0 10E2E 91.6 9CD 65.0 -75 10ElB 93.8 10EIA 67,7 1 CEIC 72.2 9JD 61.1 SND 55.7 11LA 55.0 -100 111B 68.4 9KA 55.8 11KB 54.9 91B 54.6 10EID 40.1 11KA 38.4
- Example code 11GC: 11 indicates be:tiine section 1-11. G indicates slice piece G from slice order A through M, and C ind cates through thickness slate position C.
- J H curves (no instability).
' Side grooved specimens. NUREG/CR-6249 A-2 Table A.2. Test data for two specimen sizes of WF-70 nozzle core weld metal (1 MPa/m = 1.1 ksi/in.) Values, K3 , Test (MPa/m) temperature 1/2T IT ( C) Code' K;, Code
- K;, Code' K;, Code
- K;,
21 31DB* c 34lE e 34FG* c 31DA c 31DB* c 34CB c O H34M c 341A 144.6 84FA 228.4 134M 281.8 34CA 167.3 31AC 239.7 31FA 220.1 -25 31CB 146.8 311D 97.4 34JE 120.6 31BC 95.9 31KD 113.7 34EB 87.3 34JA 120.9 34AC 84.5 -50 B34M 133.7 J34M 77.9 34EA 84.5 34 BC* 63.8 A34M 125.7 E34M 69.2 31CA 84.6 34LD 76.4 G34M 98.1 D34M 58.5" 34KE 63.9 31EB' 54.8 F34M 93.2 -100 31JE 67.9 34LC 47.1 3118 50.2 31JB 36.8 31JD 49.1 31HB 35.6 ' Example code 11GC: 11 indicates beltline section 1 11, G indicates slice piece G frorn slice order A through M, and C indicates through-thickness slice position C. ' Side-grooved specimens. 'J-R curves (no instability). "K;, at crack pop-in. A-3 NUREG/CR-6249 Appendix B Regression Constants on J-R Curve Model and Experimental J-R Curves B-1 NUREG/CR-6249 l Regression Constants on J-R Curve Model J = A(A a p)8 exMC (A a g)DJ , where J is deformation theory, J(kip-in./in.2), and Aa, is physical crack growth (in.). The constants in the multivariable model were developed to calculate J R curves in the Enghsh units, presumably for convenience in the application of the J-R curves to work engineering problems. To avoid the labor of rederiving the various constants of the multivariable model for metric equivalent, English units will be used in these comparisons. NUREG/CR-6249 B-2 I Tabio B1. J-R experimental fits to data [J = A(Aa)" exp[C * (Aa)"] l Test conditions J-R curve-fitting parameters Figure Side Specimen Test W eld J groove size temperature A B C D-(%) (T) (*F) B1 Beltline Deformation theory 20 1/2 550 2.322 0.343 0.00225 -0. 5 82 Beltline Deformation theory 20 1 550 2.251 0.0387 -0.134 -0.5 $ B3 Beltline Deformation theory 20 2 550 3.067 0.310 0.00787 -0.5 B4 Beltline Deformation theory 20 4 550 3.624 0.494 0.0379' -0.5 BS Beltiine Deformation theory 20 1/2 300 2.670 0.254 -0.0207 -0.5 B6 Beltline Deformation theory 20 1 300 4.352 0.366 -0.0258 -0.5 B7 Beltline Deformation theory 20 1/2 Rm 7.749 0.576 0.0181 -0. 5 88 Beltline Deformation theory 20 1 Rm 4.375 0.263 -0.0808 -0. 5 B9 Nozzle Deformation theory 20 1/2 550 2.390 0.409 -0.00192 -0.5 B10 Nozzle Deformation theory 20 1 550 2.202 0.306 -0.0466 -0.5 811 Nozzle Deformation theory 20 1 300 2.896 0.379 -0.0022 -0.5 l B12 Nozzle Deformation theory 20 1 Rm 3.566 0.346 -0.0190 -0.5 -0.5 B13 Nozzle Deformation theory No 1 Rm 11.305 0.671 0.0379 B14 Beltline Modified J 20 1/2 550 3.482 0.464 0.02121 -0.5 BIS Beltline Modified J 20 1 550 3.168 0.305 -0.0501 -0.5 E ?! O d TI e . - - . .. - . . . . . _ g O d ? l3 e Table 82. J-R curve constants calculated from multivanable model for Unde 80 welds (using deformation theory, beltfine and nozzle,20% side grooved) Specimen Test J-R curve-fitting parameters size temperature (T) (oF) A B C D 1/2 550 1.744 0.231 -0.022 -0. 5 m 1 550 1.928 0.175 -0.072 -0.5 a 2 550 2.132 0.119 -0.121 -0. 5 4 550 2.357 0.063 -0.170 -0. 5 1/2 300 3.743 0.319 -0.029 -0. 5 1 300 4.138 0.263 -0.079 -0. 5 2 300 4.576 0.208 -0.128 -0. 5 4 300 5.060 0.152 -0.177 -0. 5 1/2 Rm 7.648 0.402 -0.036 -0.5 1 Rm 8.456 0.346 -0.086 -0.5 2 Rm 9.350 0.290 -0.135 -0. 5 4 Rm 10.340 0.235 -0.184 -0.5 1 ll lI l l I 9 > 0 0 8 i0 0 7 i0 0 6 I 7 9 6 = i0 F 2 0 R 0 5 ) 5 5 5 t X" i0 a / 4 3 0 )n i( T 1 a C ( P A T X E i0 4 1 0 7 e8 8 i n0 l l t X 3 i0 e 1 5 0 B 2 2 O = Y 2 i0 O 0 O 0 1 i0 O 0 OO O O 3 B 0 2 1 8 6 4 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 \ C s.3.b.2v ' mb 5 A @xATe
- l l' l llll1l l1!
E Beltline 2TCT at 550 F in .310 o 2 o Y = 3.067 X EXP(.00787 / X'5) R = .981 l 2.5 e e 2-o O g 1 .5 - .E N o o m T 6 .9-6 o , 1-o O O 6 0.5 - i i . i i i O i 0.35 0.4 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0 Aa (in.) k Beltline 4TCT at 550 F .494 Y = 3.624 X EXP(.0379 / X 5) R2= .979 3 2.5 - O o O O O 2- o o O o O l w 2- 1.5 - O o 4 .9- o X, O O 1- g g I 0 0 ! O i 0.5 - i, O i i i i i i i i i g 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 e Aa (in) 9 e f S m 9 o O N -9 O e -9 o en m cn-LL 11 O O N Lo N C -9 O CO - + 9 CU X O d ~ H Si _o C O 8 6 <5 H i N N Q O r- w n m Om _o N 6 .C-x ~ w O _ e O to CD ni 11 O _o > 0 0 O O -9 O o O O O O O O o i i i a i i o
- N '
9 9
- N o
- o o o o (fu!/u!-dpj) p NUREG/CR 6249 B-8 e Beltline 1TCT at 302 F .366 Y = 4.352 X EXP( .0258 / X.5) R2=.931 1.8 O 1.6 - O c O O 1.4 -- o O O O O 1.2 - o cc .5 1~ O P . .s x 0.8 - v O O D 0.6 - 0 O O 0.4 - O O O 0.2 - , O Z E O i i i i i i i i $ 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 .0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09 y Aa (in) - e o 6 m _q o O N -9 o i E 9 O _8 LL ll 6 N O LC O N ^ ~ m O _8 % i< ' d2C }- m O E O m b G C O v C\1 % y' -9 o V O O$* 0 C = X 0 - m O d O N O CD W 11 > O O g -9 O O O O oo _g O O d O U OO O OO i i i i i i i i O t,o , o N m 9 4 N " m 9 9 N O .- - - - o o o o (3u!,u!-d >l) ! p NUREG/CR-6249 B-10 Beltline 1TCT at 70 F Y = 4.375 X EXP( .0808 / X.5) R 2=,ggg ^ 1.8 1.6 - 1.4 - 1.2 - WCc 1-a2 s^ E -r O. 2 0.8-0.6 - I I 0.4 - 0.2 - @ 0- i i i i i i i i i in 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.1 n Aa (in) e , u E x Nozzle 1/2TCT at 550 F $ .409 2 1 o Y = 2.390 X EXP( .00192 / X 5) R =.999 P ~ 1.2 f3 e 1-0.8 - ^ C\i d --E O.e - e a Q. to g v O 0.4 - 0.2 - o 0 0 i i i . > 6 0 6 . i 0.09 0.1 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0 0.01 Aa (in) _____ ff Nozzle 1TCT at 550 F Y = 2.202 X EXP( .0466 / X.5) R2= .992 0.9 o l 0.8 - o 0.7 - o 0.6 - o C\1 c ' O.5 - , m E_. b .b. 2 0.4 - 0.3 - o l 0.2 - l O 0.1 - o . @ 0 i i e i i i i i g 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09 E Aa (in) 9 h l 8 W e O O m -9 O CO -9 O c) N N 9 -O 11 0 1 N c 0 N (O O - -9 CO w 1 s O ^ % O N C h o O o9 i 6 <m }- r Y , Q) c) -O -N 6 Nm O N x O . Z e m = -9 N O 11 N -9 O O O O O 6 O o O . . . . . O N w CO LO 4 N O A d 6 6 6 (gt!/u!-d !>l) r NUREG/CR-6249 B-14 6 1 0 4 . 1 . 0 0 . 2 . 1 . 0 7 9 9 . = F 2 R 1 0 0 7 5 ) t X a / 0 ) n T 0 1 8i C 0 0. 0 (a h T ( P X 1 E l e6 4 z3 6 .0 z X 0 o 6 N 6 5 3 = 4 Y 0 0 2 i0 0 . o Oo O 8 6 4 2 1 8 6 4 2 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 Clg$.62 D \ C os* zE59se -,s. --mewis - - . - - pps.--in--. . l o O _o 6 OO co -9 o O LL O o h S O - ll O 6 N e "x 0 W OO m .8 6 - Qc; i< o m ~ O m .2 - t o v r x w O O n O y,-- -9 F- 0 o T-- x i 10 ! o o l _e m. m ! N " -9 N Z N -9 o C -9 O o O O "R m m N m e- in o N M d (gt!/u!-d !M) r NUREG/CR-6249 B.16 -__ - ---- F Beltline 1/2TCT at 550 F (Modified J) .464 Y = 3.482 X EXP(.02121/ X'5) R2=.969 1.4 o 1.2 - O o o o 1- o o o o m o o N - J.8 - .5 o o ? I o, 'T o A R O /O d$. 0.6 - 7 o o oo 0.4 - o o 0.2 - @ 0 i i i i i i i i i g 0 0.01 0.0.2 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.1 x Aa (in) e j Beltline 1TCT at 550 F (Modified J) .305 2 Y = 3.168 X EXP( .05014 / X.5) R =.988 g 1.4 e 1.2 - 1-o N 0.8 - m ET O s O
- .9-6 0.6-O 0.4 - o dP 0.2 -
3 i . . . 0 i e i e 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09 Aa (in) NUREG/CR-6249 ORNLJTM-12777 i Dist. Category RF -l INTERNAL DISTRIBUTION
- 1. D. J. Alexander 26-30. R. K. Nanstad ,
- 2. B. R. Bass 31. W. E. Pennell
- 3. J. Bryson 32. C.E.Pugh -
4, R. D. Cheverton 33. 1.1. Siman Tov 5-9. W. R. Corwin 34. R. E. Stoller i
- 10. D. F. Craig 35-39. R. L Swain i T. L Dickson
- 11. 40. K. R. Thoms
- 12. F.M.Haggag 41. J. A. Wang 13-15. S. K iskander 42. ORNL Patent Section ;
- 16. F.B.Kam 43. Central Research Library
- 17. J. A. Keeney 44. Document Reference Section
- 18. W. McAfee 45-46. Laboratory Records Department 19-24. D.E.McCabe 47. Laboratory Records (RC)
- 25. J. G. Merkle 48-50. M&C Records Office EXTERNAL DISTRIBUTION 51-52. ABB-CombucJon Engineering. Department 487-4, Windsor, CT 60695 D. J. Ayres S. T. Byrne 53-54. AEA-Technology-Harwell. Thermal Reactor Services, Oxfordshire OX11 ORA, United Kingdom ;
G. Gage l R. McElroy .
- 55. ATl, Suite 160,2010 Crow Canyon Place, San Ramon, CA 94583 W. L. Server ;
- 56. BABCOCK AND WILCOX, Research and Development Division,1562 Beeson Street, Alliance, OH 44601 t
W. A. Van Der Sluys [
- 57. BABCOCK AND WlLCOX,3315 Old Forest Road, Lynchburg, VA 24501 K. E. Moore i
- 58. BETTIS ATOMIC POWER LABORATORY, Westinghouse Electric Corp., P.O. Box 79, West Mifflin PA 15122 L A. James Distribution-1 NUREG/CR-6249
f I
- 59. ELECTRIC POWER RESEARCH INSTITUTE, P.O. Box 10412, Palo Alto, CA 94303 R.' Carter i
60-61. ' Electricite de France, Les Renardieres Research Center, B.P. No.1, F-77250 Moret-Sur-Long, France 5 l M. Bethmont i I 62-63. ENERGIA NUCLEARE DELLA ENERGIA ALTENATIVE (ENEA-DISP), Via Brancati,00144 - Roma, Italy _ P. M. Pietro A Pini
- 64. Framatome, Tour Fiat Cedex 16,92084 Paris la Defense, France i
B. Houssin ,
- 65. FRAUENHOFER-INSTITUT FUER WERKSTOFFMECHANIK, Woehlerstr.11, ,
D 7CCO Freiburg, Germany W. Boehme
- 66. Grove Engineering Inc., Suite 218,9040 Executive Park Drive, Knoxville, TN 37923 W. A. Pavinich
- 67. HANFORD ENGINEERING DEVELOPMENT LABORATORY, P.O. Box 1970, Richland, WA 99352 M. L. Hamilton
- 68. IMATRON VOIMA, Mechanical Department, P.O. Box 138, SS 00101, Helsinki 10, Finland R. Ahlstrand
- 69. IMPERIAL COLLEGE, Mechanical Engineering Department, Exhibition Road, London, SW7 2AZ England H. J. Macgillivray
- 70. MITSUBISHI HEAVY INDUSTRIES, LTD., Takasago Research and development Center,2-1-1 Shinhama, ARAl-CHO, Takasago,676 Japan Y. Urabe
- 71. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS, Department of Commerce, Office of Nondestructive Evaluation, Gaithersburg. MD 20899 J. Gudas, Deputy Chief NUREG/CR-6249 Distribution-2
= 72-75. NRC, RES/MEB, MS-T10-E10, Washington, DC 20555 A. Hiser S. N. Malik M. E. Mayfield L C. Shao 76-77. SOUTHWEST RESEARCH INSTITUTE, P.O. Drawer 28510, 6220 Culeebra Rd., San Antonio, TX 78284 S. J. Hudak M. F. Kanninen 78-79. STAATL. MATERIALPRUFUNGSANSTALT, Pfaffenwalding 32,7000 Stuttgart 80, Federal Republic of Germany J. Fohl _ R Gillot
- 80. L. E. Steele, 7624 Highland St., Springfield, VA 22150-3931 81-82. TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY, Department of Mechanical Engineering, College Station, TX 77843-3123 T. Anderson R.Chona
- 83. TOYOHASHI UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY,1-1 Tempaku-Cho, Toyohashi, Japan 441 H. Homma
- 84. TVFA TU VIENNA, Karlsplatz 13,1040 Vienna, Austria T. Varga 85-86. UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, Department of Chemical and Nuclear Engineering. Ward Memorial Drive, Santa Barbara, CA 93106 G. E. Lucas G. R. Odette 87-88. UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND, Mechanical Engineering Department, College Park, MD 20742 W. L. Fourney G. R. Irwin
- 89. UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE, Engineering Science and Mechanics,310 Perkins Hall, Knoxville, TN 37996-2030 J.D.Landes
- 90. VTT, Technical Research Centre of Finland, Kemistintie 3, Box 2G, Espoo 02750. Finland 1
K. Wallin Distribution-3 NUREG/CR-6249
- 91. WASHINGTON STATE UNIVERSITY, Mechanical and Materials Engineering Department, Pullman, WA 99164 R. G. Hogland
- 92. E. T. Wessel, Lake Region Mobile Home Village,312 Wolverine Lane, Haines City, FL 33844 93-94. WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORP., P.O. Box 355, Pittsburgh, PA 15230 W. Bamford T. Mager
- 95. WESTINGHOUSE R & D CENTER,1310 Beulah Rd., Pittsburgh, PA 15325 R. G. Lott
- 96. Sumio Yukawa,4925 Valkyrie Drive, Boulder, CO 80301
- 97. DOE, OAK RIDGE OPERATIONS OFFICE, Oak Ridge, TN 37831-6269 Office of Deputy Assistant Manager for Energy Research and Development 98-99. DOE, OFFICE OF SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL INFORMATION, P.O. Box 62, Oak Ridge, TN 37831 100-218. Given distribution as shown in category RF (NTIS-10)
NUREG/CR-6249 r';stribution-4 e 1, REPORT NUMBER E NRC FORM 335 U.S. NUCLE AR REGULATORY COMMISSION c is 1102, Adden hu rs t n 220$. nm BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA SHEET tsee instructens on the reverse) NUREGlCR-6249
- 2. TITLE AND SUBTITLE ORNL/TM-12777 Unirradiated Material Properties of Midland Weld WF-10 3. DATE REPORT PUBLISHED MONTH stAn October 1994
- 4. F IN oR GR ANT NUMBE R l
I L1098
- 5. AUTHOR (S) 6. TYPE OF REPORT l
D. D. McCabe, R. K. Nanstad , S. K. Iskander, R. L. Swain Technical 7 PE RIOD COVE R E D tinctus,.e onrest
- 8. PE R F oHMENG ORGANIZAT l0 4 - N AME AND ADDR ESS ist NRC. pron
- Ownsen. ort,cr or R,gma. u.s metest Reevostory Commswon. sad msokns eadress. ot contrerrer. orovode name end mosling endread _
Oak Ridge National Laboratory Oak Ridge, TN. 37831-6151
- 9. SPONSOR lNG oRGANiZ ATlON - N AM E AND ADDR ESS tri NRC. tvpe "Same es armer", it comreaor, prowde NRC Davosnan, Of twe or Regen. U S %cker Re,vistory Commswon, and me.u,,, sad,sa Division of Engineering Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555-0001
- 10. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES l
- 11. ABSTRACT 1200 words or kast Wald metal, designated WF-70, taken from the nozzle course and beltline welds of the Midland Reactor, Unit 1, has be:n given a preliminary evaluation using the conventional Charpy V-notch (CVN), drop-weight (DWT), and chemical antlyses. There was a significant difference in copper content, nominally 0.25% versus 0.40% Because the objrctive of this study was to evaluate the before-and-after irradiation properties, these are regarded as different materials. This report summarizes material characterization results and presents the results of fracture mechanics t:sts on the unitradiated material to establish baseline transition temperature and J-R curves. Tensile properties w:re also determined. Reference nil-ductility temperatures, RT,,or, determined from CVN transition curves (RT,,or msthod specific to low upper-shelf energy materials) varied from -20 to +37'C (-4 to 99*F) at various locations in the beltline weld. Reference temperatures using a fracture mechanics-based transition temperature model were
-60'C (-76*F) for the beltline weld and -33aC (-27 F) for the nozzle weld. Tensile tests indicated the nozzle weld h:d higher strength than the beltline weld. J-R curves were developed at 21, 50, and 288'C (70,32, and 550*F). Th3 predicted J-R curves matched the experimental J-R curves reasonably well. Crack-arrest tests were conducted, but the specimens failed to develop American Society for Testing and Materials valid data in all but one test. More experimentation and test method development are recommended. Five experimental objectives to be accomplished from the testing of irradiated material were identified.
- 12. KE Y WORDS/DE SCR:P T OR S itset ivords orphrases rest ownfisssest reseserners da #ocaten, the swas,re.; 13. Av AlL AtllLii Y $i Al LML NI
. Unlimired Charpy V-notch, Fracture toughness, tensile, copper content, i. secomi v u ss,ncmo~ nil-ductility transition, upper-shelf energy, crack arrest, ,to,,,,,,,., reactor pressure vessel, weld, drop-weight, reference temperatur Unclassified IThas Heport.b Unclassified
- 15. NUMBE R OF PAGES Iti. PRICE NHC FORM 235 Q49)
i l I Printed on recycled paper Federal Recycling Program N i-- t - NUREGICR-6249 .., UNIRRADIATED MATERIAL PROPERTIES OF MIDLAND WELD WF-70 ;
- r. +
..t UNITED STATES ' snCIAL FOURTM CLASS RATE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION -POSTAGE AND FEES PAC y USNRC- j . WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555 0001- -PtnWT NO. G 67 ; OFFICIAL BUSINESS PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE. $300 120555139mi2 U" NRC-CAby 1 1ANIF5 . DIV FCIA e p i T os-pDR-Ndo r'UPL T C A T T ONS SVCS <UFN-gty , WASHINGTON l OC 20555 L B i I 1 T1 -W"9"wwww-'a .x - - _ _ _ - _ . _a.--.__-r ____1a.-m-_umm-m__ _ _ _ . _ _ - _ - a-- - wwwwer w d w't--M1r=*4W W Fe W 2- .WDVT-
- -"M*T-N=W'15-Se r v' r"few-#T-- 'si w F k- ._ _.__.