Sie sind auf Seite 1von 19

Int. J. Pres. Ves.

& Piping 18 (1985) 35-53

Example Calculations Illustrating Methods for


Analyzing Ductile Flaw Stability in Nuclear Pressure
Vessels

J. G. Merkle
Oak Ridge National Laboratory,
Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830, USA

&
R. E. Johnson
US Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC 20555, USA
(Received: 17 January, 1984)

ABSTRACT
This paper contains example calculations of ductile flaw instability
stresses for hypothetical .)Claws in nuclear pressure vessels. For
comparison, three different methods of estimating upper shelf toughness
as a function of Charpy impact energy were used, namely a power law
R-curve correlation, the Rolfe-Novak correlation, and the Paris Jso
correlation. All three methods were used in L E F M calculations including a
plastic zone size correction, and gave similar results, with the Paris Jso
method being the most conservative at low Charpy upper shelf energy
levels. Safety factors based on the tearing modulus ratio Tm,t/Tappl can
exceed those based on load by considerable amounts and use of them at
this time is not recommended. The use of resistance curve data obtained
.from actual vessel material test specimens is recommended over the use of
correlations. Furthermore, evaluation of a recently proposed modified
crack extension adjustment procedure for R-curve data, which is not overconservative, is recommended.
35
Int. J. Pres. Ves. & Piping 0308-0161/85/$03.30 Elsevier Applied Science Publishers
Ltd, England, 1985. Printed in Great Britain

36

J. G. Merkle, R. E. Johnson

NOMENCLATURE
Crack depth (in).
Initial crack depth (in).
ao
Crack depth at fracture (in).
of
B
Specimen thickness (in).
Half the surface length of a part-through surface crack (in).
b
CVN Charpy V-notch impact energy (ft lb).
Coefficient in the power law representation of the J-integral
c
resistance curve (dimensionless).
E
Modulus of elasticity (psi).
The J-integral (in lb/in2).
J
Value of the J-integral for which J/T= 50 in lb/in 2 (in lb/in2).
Js0
Value of the J-integral at fracture (in lb/in2).
Jc
Value of the J-integral to which Ernst's modified Aa correction has
Ju
been applied (in lb/in2).
Linear elastic stress intensity factor ((ksi) in1' 2).
K
Fracture toughness ((ksi) inl~Z).
K~
Plane strain mode I elastic stress intensity factor ((ksi)in1 2).
KI
Exponent in the power law representation of the J-integral
m
resistance curve (dimensionless).
Design pressure (ksi).
Pd
Inside radius (in).
Ri
Plastic zone radius (in).
I~y
Tearing modulus (dimensionless).
T
Tappl Applied value of the tearing modulus (dimensionless).
Value of the tearing modulus calculated after applying Ernst's
Tv
modified Aa correction to the values of J (dimensionless).
Tearing modulus of a material (dimensionless).
T
Pressure vessel wall thickness (in).
t
Specimen width (in).
W
Correlating parameter for estimating the factors in a power law
X
representation of a J-integral resistance curve (dimensionless).
Geometric shape factor (dimensionless).
Y
Normalized J-integral (dimensionless).
/3
Constraint factor (dimensionless).
Stable crack growth (in).
Aa
Stress (ksi).
(T
Flow stress (ksi).
~70
a

mal

Ductile flaw stabiliO, in nuclear pressure vessels

o'f
O'ys

37

Fracture stress (ksi).


Tensile yield stress (ksi).
Normalized multiplying factor in the power law representation of
a J-integral resistance curve (dimensionless).

INTRODUCTION
This paper contains example calculations of ductile flaw instability
stresses for hypothetical flaws in nuclear pressure vessels. These
calculations were originally prepared for the ASME Section XI Working
Group on Flaw Evaluation, which is part of the American Society of
Mechanical Engineers' Boiler and Pressure Vessel Committee. The
purpose of the calculations was to illustrate the results of applying the
elastic-plastic fracture mechanics analysis procedures described in the
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission 'For Comment' report
NUREG-0744, 'Resolution of the reactor vessel materials toughness
safety issue', ~ to conditions that might be encountered in the evaluations
of flaws in nuclear pressure vessels. For comparison, three different
methods for estimating upper shelf toughness as a function of Charpy
impact energy were used. The 'For Comment' version of Ref. 1 was used
as the basis for the task. The calculations were done to illustrate the
approach described on page 6-1, Ref. 1, reprinted, using italic for
emphasis, as Appendix A herein. After having been edited to
accommodate the comments that were received, Chapter 6 of NUREG0744, Revision 1, no longer includes the approach suggested in the earlier
version (i.e. Appendix A).
Much of the following description of analytical procedures can be
found in NUREG-0744, Appendix C, Section 3, 'Methods for vessel flaw
analysis'. Values of specific input parameters used in the calculations are
listed in Table 1. The parameter/~ listed in Table 1 is most familiar as part
of the Irwin crack tip plastic zone radius formula
ry ----~

(K/ao) 2

(1)

where ry = crack tip plastic zone radius, fl = 2 for plane stress and 6 for
plane strain, and K = stress intensity factor (which is assumed to be K~
when fl = 6).

38

J. G. Merkle, R. E. Johnson

TABLE 1
Parameter Values Used for Calculations
Vessel wall thickness
Initial crack depth
Flaw shape ratio
Stress state parameter
Geometry correction factor
Flow stress
Tensile elastic modulus

t=8in
a o = t/4 = 2 in
a / 2 b = 1/6

/~=6
Y=I
ao = 90 ksi
E = 3 0 106 psi

Note: a2/E = 270 psi.

In eqn (1), for consistency with eqn [26]* of Appendix B in Ref. 1, the
expression for ry w a s written in terms of the flow stress, tro, instead of the
tensile yield stress, tryS.
The factor Y in Table 1 was described in NUREG-0744, Appendix B
(page B-12ff.) and Appendix C (page C-14ff.). Note, on page C-17 of
Ref. 1, that the value Y= 1 was used for the surface crack problem
addressed therein.
The flow stress, tr0, is generally taken as half-way between the tensile
yield and ultimate strengths. Here, the value of 90 ksi was chosen as a
representative value for irradiated reactor pressure vessel steels.
Also, values of Charpy V-notch impact energy, CVN, were selected as
required.
To be determined were values at fracture of failure stress, af; J-integral,
J; and crack extension, Aa.
UPPER SHELF FRACTURE ANALYSIS PROCEDURES
Failure stresses were determined on the basis of LEFM, with a plastic
zone size correction, using three different correlations between Charpy
upper shelf impact energy and fracture toughness. First, a power-law fit to
the R-curve, as described in NUREG-0744, Appendices C and D, was
used to relate fracture mechanics and impact test parameters. Second, the
correlation established by Rolfe and Novak 2 between toughness and
Charpy energy was used. Third, the correlation between the J-integral
corresponding to the ratio J/T = 50 in lb/in 2 and the Charpy upper shelf
impact energy was used as described in NUREG-0744, Appendices B, D
* The equation numbers given in square brackets in this report are the same as those in
NUREG-0744, ~For comment' (Ref. 1), Appendix C.

39

Ductile .flaw stability in nuclear pressure vessels

3000

IRRADIATED
O UNIRRADIATED

A533WELD V84--~o
/
o o I
I
I

ooo

A A533WELDC88

ff
I

C_

1000

A533WELDE 1 9 ~ ~ /

A302B~A533

Fig. I.

WELDV86

~ ~====~A302B

20

40

60
80
100
120
Cv (ft-lb)
An attempted correlation of Jso values with Charpy upper shelf values (from
Ref. 1).

and H. The specific correlation for the third case is illustrated in Fig. 1 of
this report, which is reprinted from NUREG-0744, 'For Comment',
Appendix B.
Power law R-curve correlation

Referring to NUREG-0744, 'For Comment', Appendix C, the power-law


representation for the R-curve was given as

[Aa\"

J = 1000C[l~0
] \ /

[14] (2)

40

J. G. M e r k l e ,

R. E. J o h n s o n

The coefficient c was fitted by the equation


c=-0.114

CVNX]

CVN

-1 o/

[15] (3)

It was found that by defining


[16]

(4)

[171

(5)

the exponent m in eqn (2) could be fitted by


D1 z

0.473x 3
. . . .
14.42 + .v3

From the derivation given on page C-10 of Ref. 1, it was shown that, at
instability,
Aa=~l

m)ao

[24]

(6)

[23]

(7)

and because (at fracture) af = a 0 + A a , it follows that


Aa=maf
From eqn [29] on page C-13 of Ref. 1 and the relationship
K e = EJ

(8)

it follows that for loads below gross section yield levels, the applied value
of the stress intensity factor is given by
"

Yax/" ~a
K ...................
1__ Y2

(9)

Also, the tearing modulus, 7", is defined as

Using the substitutions


v-

EJ
,
o-;

[42] (11)

Ductile flaw stability in nuclear pressure vessels


and

41

= ( 1000c)/(a2/E)

[44] (12)

y = q~(Aa)m

[43] (13)

eqn (2) can be written


Also, by operating on eqn (13), eqn (10) can be written as
T = dy/da

= m0(Aa)"- 1

[46] (14)

Writing eqn (14) as


T - mO(Aa)"
Aa

(15)

and substituting in accordance with eqns (7) and (13), the material value
of the tearing modulus at instability is given by
T-

my _ y

maf

[42] (16)

af

Squaring both sides of eqn (9), then using eqn (8) and dividing both sides
by a~ gives

y 2 ( ff )2Tca
EJ _

\go/

Y2 ( ' ) 2

(17)

Neglecting the variation of Y with a, applying eqn (10) to eqn (17) gives
EJ

T - aoZa

(18)

and by using eqn (18)

K2
T = a2 a

(19)

Substituting eqn (19) into eqn (9) gives

T-

\ao/

fl \ g o /

(20)

TABLE 2
Results of Example Calculations

(a) Power law R-cur~,e extrapolation


CV N
(13 Ih)

Aa
(in)

,I;
(in Ih,in 2 )

30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75

0.450 2
0.6194
0.815 5
1038 6
12885
1.5654
1.869 1
2.1998
2.557 4
2.941 9

0" 136 2
0.1638
O- 195 5
0-229 8
0.2650
02990
03302
0.3577
0380 9
0400

0.315 5
0391 7
0.485 9
0.596 8
0721 0
0853 I
0.9862
1.1138
1.230 6
1.333 5

385
531
708
922
I 182
1 493
I 861
2286
2 768
3 301

CVN

(0 Ih)
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75

0.6154
0.822 7
1-055 1
1.3156
1.608 2
19378
2.307 6
2.7194
3.173 1
3.6674

(T I

Kc

(ksi)

(ksi #112)

39.2
45 I
50'8
56.3
61 8
67.3
72.8
78.3
837
89-0

107
126
146
166
188
212
236
262
288
315

(b) Rolfi" Novak


CVN
(fi lh)

Kc
(ksi in j:2)

cx~
(ksi)

30
35
40
45
50

1.416 7
1.6944
1-972 2
2.2500
2.527 8

107
117
126
135
143

420
45.7
49.2
!52-3
155.3 [

55

2.8056

151

i580i

60
65
70
75

3083 3
3-361 1
3.638 9
3.9167

158
165
172
178

60.6
63.
i 65-4
67.6

Ductile flaw stability in nuclear pressure vessels

43

TABLE 2--Contd.
(c) Paris Jso

CVN
(.It Ih)
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75

Jso
(in Ih/in 2)

K,

)'

(ksi in t/2)

320
380
440
520
620
710
820
960
1060
1180

O'f

(ksi)

98
107
I 15
125
36
46
57
70
78
88

1.1852
1'4074
I "629 6
1-925 9
2.296 3
2.629 6
3.037 0
3" 555 6
3.925 9
4.3704

38.5
41-8
44.9
48"6
52-8
56"3
60"2
64-7
B67.7
71.1

Solving eqn (20) for (0"/0"0) 2 gives


1

At instability, using the values of Y and/3 given in Table 1, eqn (21) gives

0.0
0.r - / ~ n

(22)
1

For a specified value of CVN, the coefficient c can be determined from


eqn (3). Substituting the resulting value ofc and the given value of the flow
stress (a o = 9 0 k s i ) into eqn (4) produces the value of x, which when
substituted into eqn (5) produces the value of the exponent m. Given the
inital crack length, a o = 2 in, and the calculated value of m, Aa can be
calculated using eqn (6). For conditions at flaw instability, the calculated
values of c, Aa and m, inserted into eqn (2) will yield the value of Jc.
Remembering that af = a o + Aa, and that we were given 0.~/E= 270 psi, T
at instability can be calculated from eqns (11) and (16). The fracture
stress, of, then can be determined from eqn (22). Finally, from the
relationship K = x / - E ~ , the critical stress intensity factor can be
determined.

J. G. Merkle.

44

R. E. Johnson

All of the above-named


parameters (c, m, Au, J,, T, of and K,) were
calculated for assumed CVN values ranging from 30 to 75 ft lb and the
results listed in Part (a) of Table 2.
Rolfe-Novak
The correlation

correlation
developed

by Rolfe and Novak2

can be written as
(23)

where the second equality


direct result of eqn (23)

follows from eqns (8) and (11). Moreover,


Kc = o,&

as a

(24)

For the conditions


under which the RolfeeNovak
correlation
is
applicable, crack extension is neglected. Thus, at instability, combining
eqns (9) and (24) gives
(25)

from which it follows that


01.=

(10

--r---

nuo
-+;

(26)

For specified values of CVN and oO, the parameter _r can be calculated
from eqn (23). From eqn (24) K, can be determined and the fracture stress
can be calculated using eqn (26). The results of determining values for the
three parameters are listed in Part (b) of Table 2.
Paris J,, correlation
Given any CVN value for the upper shelf of a Charpy impact energy
curve, the correlation shown in Fig. 1 (preferably the lower bound curve,
for conservatism)
can be used to determine the value of the J-integral
corresponding
to the ratio J/T =50in lb/in. Again using the elastic

45

Ductile [taw stability in nuclear pressure vessels"

approximation, K 2 = E J, with appropriate notation for the case at hand


K c=x/EJso

(27)

Rewriting eqn (17) in compliance with the notation for this section,
J5o

The equation for the fracture stress, ~f, neglecting crack extension, is
still eqn (26).
From Fig. 1 and eqns (26)-(28), values of Jso, Kc, 3' and af can be
determined. The results of these calculations are listed in Part (c) of
Table 2.
Application of results to nuclear vessels
Consider a pressure vessel with a design pressure
Pd = 2500 psi

(29)

and a radius-to-thickness ratio of 10 (typical R P V design parameters).


Applying a safety factor of 2 to the design pressure, for consistency with
ASME code provisions, 3 and neglecting any contributions from thermal
transients and other secondary or residual stresses, we calculate
2pd --=Ri 50 ksi

(30)

as the desired level of strength. Calculated failure stresses in excess of


50ksi have been highlighted by boxing them in Table 2. Because the
associated values of CVN are on the order of 40 to 50 ftlb it can be
concluded that the 50 ft lb minimum requirement presently used by the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) does provide an adequate safety
margin against ductile flaw instability under design pressure loading. The
results presented in Table 2 also illustrate that the three methods for
ductile flaw instability analysis examined in this work produce
numerically similar values. Furthermore, these results show that the
elastic-plastic method described in NUREG-0744 can be applied to the
analysis of a pressure vessel in a relatively easy, straightforward manner.

46

J. G. Merkle, R. E. Johnson

DISCUSSION

Safety factors
Consider the safety factors suggested in Chapter 6 of N U R E G - 0 7 4 4 , 'For
Comment'* (see Appendix A). It was recommended that
Treat > 2

(31)

7~appl --

If the conservative 50-to-1 linear J / T load line is used in evaluation,


Jso _ 50
Tm~t

or

Tm, t = J50/50

(32)

Note that the equation for T~ppl given on page B-20, Appendix B,
N U R E G - 0 7 4 4 , ~For Comment', should be corrected by deleting the
factor (a2a/E); otherwise it is a reasonable estimate of the plastic-zone
size corrected tearing modulus. Thus

V:ro/

T.,pl -

_l ( ~ 2

1 -

(33)

6 \O'o)

Consider a steel vessel for which the upper shelf Charpy V-notch
impact energy is 50 ft lb, which is the limit of acceptability according to
the N R C regulations. For that case, Fig. 1 was used to determine
J 5 o = 620 in lb/in 2

Then
J5o _ 12'4
Tm"t- 50
Using the 'Paris Jso' result given in Table 2 for C V N = 50 ft lb, we note
that
af = 528 ksi
* In response to several reviewers' comments, Chapter 6 of NUREG-0744 was rewritten
extensively and the safety margins in the Rev. I version are very different from the original
recommendations.

Ductile flaw stability in nuclear pressure vessels

47

(incidentally, the most conservative value of af in Table 2 at the 50 ft lb


energy level). Assuming an allowable accident-level pressure limit of twice
the design pressure, let
p = 2Pd = 2(2500) = 5000 psi
Then
a = 50 ksi
That results in

/50x~ 2

1 6\90)
Therefore
Tm. , __ 12"4
rappl
1"02

12"2

which is well in excess of the safety factor of 2 on the tearing modulus


suggested in N U R E G - 0 7 4 4 , 'For Comment'. But at the same time
af _ 52"8
- 1 "056
a
50
or, from the other viewpoint
O"
-- = 95 o/

/ O

o'f

Thus it can be seen that although an acceptable safety .margin against


fracture appears to exist in terms of the tearing modulus, the applied
stress may be quite close to the calculated failure stress.
By way of another example, assume an internal pressure of 3000 psi. In
fact, pressures much in excess of 3000psi are unlikely at high
temperatures for a number of reasons, so the 3000psi value would be
useful in analyzing a vessel with radius 10 times the wall thickness. Using
the same equation as before,

(30V
Tappi-

n\90]'~/

=0'356

_1(3oV
1

6 \90)

48

J. G. Merkle. R. E. Johnson

and
Tma, _ 12.4 _ 34.8
0"356

Tappl

which is far in excess of the factor of 2 suggested in NUREG-0744, 'For


Comment'. At the same time, however, a f / a = 5 2 . 8 / 3 0 = 1.76, or
a/af = 0"568. The conclusion drawn from this example is that there is a
very large apparent safety margin in terms of the tearing modulus, but an
actual safety margin still slightly less than 2 in terms of pressure, for a
reasonable value of accident condition stress, with a conservative
assumption of a pre-existing crack one-fourth of the way through the
vessel wall in the most severe orientation (normal to the maximum
principal stress). Thus, the use of safety margins expressed in terms of the
tearing modulus ratio may be premature until such time as more extensive
correlations have been established with the corresponding load
ratios.
R-curve data

One of the principal factors in a ductile flaw instability analysis is the


resistance curve of the material. In determining this curve from small
specimen test data, it is necessary to make mathematical adjustments for
the a m o u n t of crack extension taking place during the test, and for the
inelastic rotation of the specimen arms (see attachments I and 2 to
Appendix C of Ref. 1). These adjustments tend to reduce the calculated
toughness values as well as the slope of the resistance curve. It has recently
been pointed out by Ernst 4 that the adjustment procedure presently in use
may include a degree of conservatism that increases with decreasing
specimen size, as indicated by the J - T data shown in Fig. 2. Ernst 4
developed a modified crack extension adjustment procedure that tends to
eliminate the apparent size effects shown in Fig. 2. Application of the
modified adjustment results in an upward readjustment of the J - T data
for the small specimens and, as shown in Fig. 3, substantial agreement
with the larger specimen data. The possibility of relaxing the present
restrictions on the toughness levels that can be reached without exceeding
accuracy limits due to crack extension also was discussed by Ernst. 4 Since
the data shown in Fig. 1 were obtained from relatively small specimens
without Ernst's modified adjustment procedure, the correlation between

Ductile flaw stability in nuclear pressure vesseI.Y

9000

JVST
A 508 C LASS 2A
TEMP. 400F
COMPACT SPECIMENS
a/W ~ 0.6
B = PROPORTIONAL
(W/2)

8000

7000

6000

49

-~o

10T
[]
4T
A
1T
O 1/2T

I'1
5000

[]

.E
v

[3
4000

O
[]

3000

/k

/k

2000

-0 0

[]
A

Z&O
A
0
A

D
0

1000

o
Fig. 2.

O[3

--

50

100

150

Y
J-integral-tearing modulus correlation for reactor vessel steel specimens (from
Ref. 4).

J. G. Merkle, R. E. Johnson

50

9000

Q~
JM VS T M

8000

[]

A 508 CLASS 2A
TEMP 400F
a/W = 0.6
B = PROPORTIONAL
(W/2)

[]

7000

10T
[-I
4T
/~
1T
O 1/2T

6000

5OOO

D
4000

n
@n

3000

D
0
2000

A
O

OA
A

0
A

O@rl-

1000

50

rl

100

150

TM

Fig. 3.

The same test results as in Fig. 2, after modification (from Ref. 4).

Ductile.flaw stability in nuclear pressure vessels

51

J5o and CVN shown in Fig. 1 may contain some unnecessary conservatism. Further evaluations of the modified adjustment are recommended, as well as the use of actual pressure vessel material test data
where possible.
CONCLUSIONS
The following conclusions were drawn from the work on application of
the elastic plastic pressure vessel analysis presented in NUREG-0744.
1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

The method presented in NUREG-0744 can be applied in a


straightforward manner to pressure vessels to determine the
pressure at ductile flaw instability.
Safety factors in terms of the ratio Tmat/Tapplgenerally will not be
the same as the corresponding safety factors expressed as stress or
load ratios and, for the examples chosen, the tearing modulus
ratio was shown to be quite large even though the corresponding
stress ratio was rather small.
The modified crack extension adjustment suggested by Ernst,
which appears to bring data from specimens of different sizes
together, should be evaluated and, if validated, applied because of
the significant increase in the indicated value of J at instability that
may result, especially for actual vessel materials.
The use of the actual resistance curves for vessel materials is
preferred over the use of conservative values obtained from the
correlations between Jso and CVN.
Where relevant data are available for a vessel to be analyzed, the
use of Aa values beyond the loading curve of slope J/T= 50 in lb/in 2
should be considered.

NOTE
Research sponsored by the Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research,
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, under Interagency
Agreements 40-551-75 and 40-552-75 with the US Department of Energy
under Contract W-7405-eng-26 with the Union Carbide Corporation.
The work reported in this paper was done as an elaboration of a
suggested approach to evaluation of flaws in nuclear reactor pressure

52

J. G. Merkle, R. E. Johnson

vessels using the elastic-plastic fracture mechanics relationships developed under the NRC Unresolved Safety Issue Task A-11. The flaw
evaluation approach had been reported in the document NUREG-0744,
'For Comment'. One of the substantive comments received was that the
N U R E G report suffered from a lack of illustrative examples. The
authors, both of whom serve on the ASME Code Subcommittee that
plans to establish elastic-plastic fracture mechanics vessel margins,
prepared this report to provide some example calculations and to serve as
a basis for the committee work.
Although this paper has maintained the authors' version which
references the 'For Comment' version, the reader is advised that the final
report has been issued as NUREG-0744, Revision 1. With the issuance of
that document, the NRC completed Task A-11 and it became a resolved
issue. Responsibility for all implementation actions has been transferred
to the Division of Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation of the
NRC.
REFERENCES
I. Johnson, R., et al., Resolution of the reactor vessel materials toughness safety
issue, N UREG-0744, "For Comment', U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, D.C., September 1981.
2. Rolfe, S. T. and Novak, S. R., Slow bend K~ctesting of medium-strength hightoughness steels, Review of Developments in Plane Strain Fracture Toughness
Testing, ASTM-463 American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia,
1970, pp. 124-59,
3. A S M E Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section Ili, Division 1, Nonmandatory Appendix G, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New
York, NY, 1980.
4. Ernst, H. A., Material resistance and instability beyond J-controlled crack
growth, Elastic' Plastic' Fracture, Second Syrnposium, Vol. 1, Inelastic' Crack
Analysis, ASTM STP 803, American Society for Testing and Materials,
Philadelphia, 1983, pp. 191 213.

APPENDIX: LICENSING ASPECTS*


The staff concludes that the approach and methodology described in the
following paragraphs provide an acceptable means for all commercial
* This appendix quotes the content of a page from NUREG-0744, ~For Comment'.
(Sections of the text have been italicized for emphasis by the present author.)

Ductile .[taw stability in nuclear pressure vessels

53

nuclear power reactor licensees to meet the requirements of 10 CFR 50,


Appendix G, with regard to the need to demonstrate adequate margins
for continued operation when the requirements of Section V.B. (of
Appendix G) cannot be satisfied.
First, all plants should establish J - T curves for all materials in the
RPV, either from experimental J - R curves or by correlation with the
lower bound J (at J / T = 5 0 ) = f ( U S E ) curve. Second, the USE at the
plant-specific end of life (EOL) should be established in accordance with
10 CFR 50 and ASME Code. If the EOL USE>50ft-lb, the RPV is
acceptable (other factors, detailed in 10 CFR and in the Code, remain in
force). I f the EOL USE<_50ft-lb, either an E P F M analysis should be
perjormed in accordance with the concepts and examples in the Appendices
to this report, or a thermal anneal should be performed to restore the R P V
material toughness.
If the EPFM analysis is performed, the safety factor should be
compared with the following recommendations to determine the RPV
acceptability. To determine the safety factor, failure conditions must be
calculated conservatively from the J and T values at the intersection of the
relevant [J=f(t)]matl curve and the loading line of slope: J/T=50. For
normal and upset conditions (Levels A and B), the margin between failure
and operating conditions must be equivalent to the margin now required by
Appendix G. For emergency and faulted conditions (Levels C and D), the
value of Tappl m u s t be no more than one-half the value of T at the abovenamed curve intersection. The evaluation must recognize flaw growth
at J>Jlc. If the safety margin for some operating conditions is
unacceptable, the licensee may opt to modify the plant system, plant
operations, or both, to ensure that potentially damaging conditions are
avoided.
The schedule for implementation of these actions for operating plants
will be established concurrently with the issuing of this NUREG report
in final form. With publication of NUREG-0744, the need to modify
Appendix G to 10 CFR 50 (and possibly, Appendix H) will be established.
The responsibility for these modifications and the timing of that task will
be established by NRC.