Advances in Fracture Assessment

Procedures

David Lidbury, Serco Assurance, UK

Networking for Effective R&D

JRC-IE, Petten, 23 September 2003
Summary of Talk

¾ The “transferability problem” as a driver for advances in

fracture assessment procedures
¾ Examples of analytical advances derived from
recent/ongoing European programmes
¾ Anticipated Integrated Project of the Euratom FP6
Programme
¾ Concluding Remarks
Projects addressing aspects of the transferability
problem

Area Exploratory Projects NESC Projects Exploitation

Projects

RPV (PTS) • NESC-1 (PTS) • VOCALIST

• NESC-2 (PTS) (constraint)
• NESC-4 (PTS) • SMILE (WPS)

Piping • BIMET (DMW) • NESC-3 (DMW)

Integrity • VORSAC (residual
stress)
• DISWEC (SCC)
• THERFAT (thermal
fatigue)
 Analytical scope: NESC-1 vs. BIMET
NESC-1 BIMET
Structural Feature/Influencing Feature EAM Code FEA Local EAM Code FEA Local
Assmnt. Approach Assmnt. Approach
1. Crack geometry
− Under-clad crack √
− Through-clad crack √ √
− Inclined surface crack √ √
2. Constraint
− Shallow crack
− Near-surface regions of crack front √ √
− Multiaxial loading √
3. Material properties
− Ferritic base metal √ √ √ √ √ √
− Austenitic base metal √ √ √
− Buttering layer √ √ √
− W eld fusion layer √ √ √
− Heat affected zone √ √ √ √
4. Fracture mode
− Ductile √ √ √ √ √ √
− Cleavage √ √ √ √
− Effective crack front length √ √
− Ductile-to-cleavage
− Intergranular fracture
5. Thermal stress √ √ √ √
6. Residual stress
− Structural weld
− Dissimilar metal weld √ √ √
− Cladding √ √
7. Warm prestressing √
8. Crack arrest
9. Cladding effects
− Effects on tensile properties √
− Effects on ductile/cleavage toughness √
− Effects on shallow crack initiation
10. Dissimilar metal weld √ √ √
NESC-1

¾ From the analysis of the results, the

NESC-I project concluded that the
integrated process of inspection by NDE
techniques, use of material-specific
materials data sets, and a range of
structural analysis tools made it possible
to predict accurately the cleavage event
in a large surface-breaking defect under
PTS loads
¾ The major source of uncertainty was DEFECT PRE-TEST DIMENSIONS (mm) DEFECT TYPE

judged to be the intrinsic variability in 208

fatigued
R
material toughness 74
through-clad
EDM notch
¾ Variations in the estimates of driving 261

force were thought to have a lesser B

sub-clad
fatigue crack
impact 77

¾ The uncertainty in reported defect size 69

K
proved relatively uncritical in this test, 24

given the relatively large dimensions 47 sub-clad

under consideration G
14
PISC Type A
EDM notch

19
A
5
BIMET (Structural Integrity of Bimetallic Welds)

2c' crack 25º

a
2c 304 SS 308L SS A 508
weld aactual

θ
309L/308L SS buttering
R0

BIMET01 BIMET02
Ri R 0 (mm) 84 84
R i (mm) 59 59
t (mm) 25 25
aactual (mm) 13.8 9.28
a (mm) 12.5 8.33
a/ t 0.5 0.33
t 2c' (mm) 93 75.5
2c (mm) 88.2 73.0
θ (º) 63.3 51.5
R i/ R 0 0.70 0.70
R mean (mm) 71.5 71.5
BIMET

200

190 Mend,test = 188 kNm

Bending moment (kNm)

180
J
170 δ2
δ5 δ5 δ5
160
MINIT = 154 kNm
150
p initiation range from potential drop
140 p+s
p = primary load
130 p+s = primary load with residual stresses

120 prediction of initiation load

prediction of load at end of test without crack growth correction
prediction of load at end of test with crack growth correction
110
prediction of maximum achievable load with crack correction

100
EAM EAM EAM Reference FEA FEA FEA
FAD R6 Js-A16 ETM-97 EAM Local
Option 2 ETM/σε Approach
BIMET

¾ The BIMET program demonstrated that EAMs can be successfully

applied to the calculation of a cracked body problem that is
considerably more complex than the relatively simple configurations
used for the development of the underlying methods. This is
particularly the case with regard to the assessment of
microstructural/mechanical heterogeneity. However, EAM predictions
always depend on the validity of the underlying assumptions,
idealizations and simplifications. In arriving at this view, the
following general considerations were found to be particularly
important:
BIMET

¾ Achieving a realistic depiction of the global system and its boundary

conditions
¾ Reducing the system to an idealized problem that can be addressed
with available EAM solutions
¾ Acknowledging the presence of residual stresses
¾ Selecting appropriate handbook solutions for calculating K-values and
plastic limit loads, and supporting these solutions with the results of
elastic-plastic FEAs, as appropriate
¾ Recognizing that the assessments can be very sensitive to the exact
shape of the input σ versus ε data, and ensuring that gradients in
material properties across the weld have been adequately ‘captured’ by
small specimen tests
¾ Defining weld mismatch parameters appropriately
BIMET

¾ The analytical work succeeded in taking defect analysis beyond what

was the state of the art at the start of the program
¾ The experimental results provided important data for validating the use
of various procedures applied to the assessment of defects in complex
welded joints
¾ BIMET demonstrated the synergy that is made possible by combining
engineering assessment methods with basic finite element analyses.
VOCALIST (Validation of Constraint Based
Methodology in Structural Integrity)
WP1: Co-ordination & Project Management

WP2: Handbook of Best

Practice

Benchmark &
Structural Features
WP3: Tests

WP4:
Analytical Studies

Programme
WP6
Evaluation

WP5:
Synthesis & Update of
Best Practice
Handbook

Exploitation of
Results
VOCALIST

Material Loading Postulated

Component
Conditions Conditions Flaws

Structural Analysis and Assessment

Brittle Fracture Ductile Fracture

• Master Curve (K or KJ vs. T) • J-Integral
• Weibull models (e.g. Beremin) • Damage Mechanics (e.g. Gurson)

Constraint Modification (e.g. J-T, J-Q, J-h, Local Approach)

Revised Safety Margins

VOCALIST

CONSTRAINT-BASED
FRACTURE MECH.

Implicitly accounts for • Definition of T0 via high

• Crack-tip constraint (σW) Deep notch, high constraint constraint data
• biaxial loading effects • Correction for low
• Crack-front width constraint, ∆T0

Shallow notch, low constraint

– Constraint-configurations
which span the structural
application
– Two-parameter fracture
mechanics (Jc, Q)

LOCAL APPROACH MASTER CURVE

KJ

• Weibull (weakest link)

description of cleavage *
**
• Replicate KJC-T curve via ** **
*** *
parameters m, σu(T) **
*
• Crack-front width scaling
T0 T

– BEREMIN cleavage – Standard description

model of transition curve
– Crack front width
correction (B/B0)1/α
VOCALIST

Calibration data:
low constraint Prediction of
Kmat/KJC, Kapp/KJC

Features test results

Features
test data Calibration data:
high constraint

Calibrated failure locus

Calculated loading line for
Features tests

Q, T/σy
 VOCALIST

1.8
Option 1 FAD
1.6 Modified Option 1 FAD
p = 5%
1.4 p = 50%
1.2 p = 95%

1
Kr

0.8

0.6
T-stress provides a marginally more conservative assessment
0.4 than QH. This results from the balance of two effects:

0.2 (i) Lower failure locus in KJ-QH space than KJ- T/σy space
(ii) Constraint is assessed to be higher using T/σy than QH
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
Lr
 VOCALIST

T=-60, m=5.62, Su=2062.0 MPa (50 points)

Sw( MPa )
1.0
3500 Weibull Stress Calibrated Model
(1T)
5%
3000 0.9
95%
2500
0.8
2000
Deep Flaw, a/w=0.5
0.7Shallow Flaw, a/w=0.1
SSY
1500

1000 0.6

500
0.5
Pf
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
JI (kJ/m2) 0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0.0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
2
J-integral (kJ/m )
 VOCALIST

-90
All CT
Material A
-100

Uniaxial +/- 1σ All SEN(B)

-110 T-stress a/W = 0.5
evaluation
T0 [ C]

Biaxial
o

-120 bend POR

SEN(B)
a/W = 0.1
o o
-130 T0 = -111 C + 40 C * T/σY

SEN(B)
a/W = 0.13
-140

-0,8 -0,6 -0,4 -0,2 0,0 0,2 0,4

T/σY
VOCALIST

¾ Production of the first draft of a Handbook of best practice

¾ Calibration of models of cleavage and ductile fracture
¾ Design, execution and prediction of CT(POR) and large-scale
biaxial bend (cruciform) benchmark tests; prediction of pre-
existing large-scale biaxial bend benchmark tests
¾ Integration of classical two-parameter constraint-based fracture
mechanics methodology with the Master Curve and Local
Approach descriptions of cleavage toughness to describe
fracture behaviour in ‘features’ and benchmark tests
¾ Development and application of an energy-based approach to
describe the effect of crack-tip constraint on cleavage fracture
¾ Development and application of continuum damage mechanics
and energy-based approaches to describe the effects of crack-
tip constraint on ductile fracture of a cracked pipe
Significance of irradiation damage on reactor components within
overall context of reactor degradation mechanisms

Corrosion
Aging

Fatigue (HCF, LCF)

Mechanisms

Corrosion Cracking
Stress Corrosion

Corrosion Attack
Thermal Aging
Irradiation

Strain Induced

Intergranular
Corrosion

Corrosion
Corrosion
Cracking
Effect on

General
Erosion
Fatigue

Attack
Creep

Local

Wear
Components
Change of Material
Properties
Cracking

Change of Dimensions

Wall Thinning

Denting

Pitting
Summary of current state-of-the-art

Modelling Issue Un-irradiated Irradiated

Material Material
Correlation between ∆σy and ∆T0 with irradiation √√√∗

Constraint effect √√√

Crack size effect √

Shape change of cleavage transition curve with

irradiation
Brittle IGF √√

Mixed cleavage and brittle IGF √

Effect of inhomogeneous microstructure on √

cleavage toughness
Ductile to brittle transition √√

*Currently based on empirical models

PERFECT (Prediction of Irradiation Damage Effects
in Reactor Components)

Sub-Project
"Integration"

RPV-2

Sub-Project Sub-Project
"RPV & Toughness "RPV : Mechanics
Internals : Module Modelling"
Physics
Modeling"

INTERN-1
Sub-Project
"Internals :
IASCC
Module
Mechanics &
Corrosion Modeling"

Sub-Project
"User
Group"
PERFECT

Modelling Issue Un-irradiated Irradiated

Material Material
Correlation between ∆σy and ∆T0 with irradiation √√√∗

Constraint effect √√√ √√

Crack size effect √ √

Shape change of cleavage transition curve with √√√

irradiation
Brittle IGF √√ √

Mixed cleavage and brittle IGF √ √

Effect of inhomogeneous microstructure on √ √√

cleavage toughness
Ductile to brittle transition √√ √

*Currently based on empirical models

 Simulated flow, work
RPVM 1: Model of hardening, dislocation
RPVM 2.1: Model mobility & P-segregation on
microcrack of P-induced brittle
nucleation grain boundaries of irradiated
IGF steel (I/P from Physics
Module)

RPVM 2.2: Stress

RPVM 2: Models of brittle fracture behaviour vs. strain on grain
boundaries

RPVM 3: Selection and Fundamental Studies

implementation of preferred
model(s) Applications

RPVM 3.1: Correlation(s)

between ∆σ0 and ∆T0 +
trend curves

RPVM 3.2: RPVM 3.3:

Simulation of Master RPVM 4: Benchmarking:
Simulation of KJC =
Curve for irradiated experimental mechanical
f(T) for irradiated
steel properties data on irradiated steels
steel

RPVM 5: Simulation of irradiated RPV behaviour, including constraint effect: validation of models
 Simulated flow, work
RPVM 1: Model of hardening, dislocation
RPVM 2.1: Model mobility & P-segregation on
microcrack of P-induced brittle
nucleation grain boundaries of irradiated
IGF steel (I/P from Physics
Module)

RPVM 2.2: Stress

RPVM 2: Models of brittle fracture behaviour vs. strain on grain
boundaries

RPVM 3: Selection and Fundamental Studies

implementation of preferred
model(s) Applications

RPVM 3.1: Correlation(s)

between ∆σ0 and ∆T0 +
trend curves

RPVM 3.2: RPVM 3.3:

Simulation of Master RPVM 4: Benchmarking:
Simulation of KJC =
Curve for irradiated experimental mechanical
f(T) for irradiated
steel properties data on irradiated steels
steel

RPVM 5: Simulation of irradiated RPV behaviour, including constraint effect: validation of models
 Simulated flow, work
RPVM 1: Model of hardening, dislocation
RPVM 2.1: Model mobility & P-segregation on
microcrack of P-induced brittle
nucleation grain boundaries of irradiated
IGF steel (I/P from Physics
Module)

RPVM 2.2: Stress

RPVM 2: Models of brittle fracture behaviour vs. strain on grain
boundaries

RPVM 3: Selection and Fundamental Studies

implementation of preferred
model(s) Applications

RPVM 3.1: Correlation(s)

between ∆σ0 and ∆T0 +
trend curves

RPVM 3.2: RPVM 3.3:

Simulation of Master RPVM 4: Benchmarking:
Simulation of KJC =
Curve for irradiated experimental mechanical
f(T) for irradiated
steel properties data on irradiated steels
steel

RPVM 5: Simulation of irradiated RPV behaviour, including constraint effect: validation of models
 Simulated flow, work
RPVM 1: Model of hardening, dislocation
RPVM 2.1: Model mobility & P-segregation on
microcrack of P-induced brittle
nucleation grain boundaries of irradiated
IGF steel (I/P from Physics
Module)

RPVM 2.2: Stress

RPVM 2: Models of brittle fracture behaviour vs. strain on grain
boundaries

RPVM 3: Selection and Fundamental Studies

implementation of preferred
model(s) Applications

RPVM 3.1: Correlation(s)

between ∆σ0 and ∆T0 +
trend curves

RPVM 3.2: RPVM 3.3:

Simulation of Master RPVM 4: Benchmarking:
Simulation of KJC =
Curve for irradiated experimental mechanical
f(T) for irradiated
steel properties data on irradiated steels
steel

RPVM 5: Simulation of irradiated RPV behaviour, including constraint effect: validation of models
 Simulated flow, work
RPVM 1: Model of hardening, dislocation
RPVM 2.1: Model mobility & P-segregation on
microcrack of P-induced brittle
nucleation grain boundaries of irradiated
IGF steel (I/P from Physics
Module)

RPVM 2.2: Stress

RPVM 2: Models of brittle fracture behaviour vs. strain on grain
boundaries

RPVM 3: Selection and Fundamental Studies

implementation of preferred
model(s) Applications

RPVM 3.1: Correlation(s)

between ∆σ0 and ∆T0 +
trend curves

RPVM 3.2: RPVM 3.3:

Simulation of Master RPVM 4: Benchmarking:
Simulation of KJC =
Curve for irradiated experimental mechanical
f(T) for irradiated
steel properties data on irradiated steels
steel

RPVM 5: Simulation of irradiated RPV behaviour, including constraint effect: validation of models
 Simulated flow, work
RPVM 1: Model of hardening, dislocation
RPVM 2.1: Model mobility & P-segregation on
microcrack of P-induced brittle
nucleation grain boundaries of irradiated
IGF steel (I/P from Physics
Module)

RPVM 2.2: Stress

RPVM 2: Models of brittle fracture behaviour vs. strain on grain
boundaries

RPVM 3: Selection and Fundamental Studies

implementation of preferred
model(s) Applications

RPVM 3.1: Correlation(s)

between ∆σ0 and ∆T0 +
trend curves

RPVM 3.2: RPVM 3.3:

Simulation of Master RPVM 4: Benchmarking:
Simulation of KJC =
Curve for irradiated experimental mechanical
f(T) for irradiated
steel properties data on irradiated steels
steel

RPVM 5: Simulation of irradiated RPV behaviour, including constraint effect: validation of models
Concluding Remarks

¾ The so-called “transferability problem” is a major driver for

current advances in fracture assessment procedures
¾ A simplification in methodology for dealing with aspects of the
transferability problem is beginning to emerge in certain areas
¾ This is a development that has largely been driven by the
numerous analytical insights that have resulted from comparing
the predictions and outcomes of well-conceived structural
features tests
¾ Although such tests address issues important to the nuclear
industry, non-nuclear industries may be expected to benefit,
primarily through the development of simplified procedures with
the proven capability of addressing specific transferability issues
Acknowledgements

¾ The author wishes to acknowledge numerous colleagues, in

particular Andrew Sherry (Serco Assurance), Richard Bass
(ORNL), Elisabeth Keim (Framatome ANP), Kim Wallin (VTT)
¾ BIMET was funded by DG.RTD as a Euratom FP4 SCA
¾ VOCALIST is currently being funded by DG.RTD as a Euratom
FP5 SCA
¾ PERFECT is a prospective Integrated Project under the
Euratom FP6 Programme