Robert E.

Nickell
Applied Science and Technology,
Poway, CA 92064

ASME Boiler & Pressure Vessel

Code Requirements for
Prevention of Brittle Fracture
DOI: 10.1115/1.1561452

Introduction
Ferritic materials used in the fabrication of both nuclear and
non-nuclear pressure vessels are required to be ductile and resistant to brittle fracture over the entire range of expected service
temperatures. One fundamental approach for ensuring such resistance is an implicit procedure based on two principles. First, ferritic materials are characterized by a transition from brittle behavior at relatively low temperatures i.e., the lower-shelf
temperature to ductile behavior at relatively high temperatures
i.e., the upper-shelf temperature. Second, experience has shown
that, generally, inexpensive tests e.g., Charpy V-notch or drop
weight tests can be used to establish that materials of construction have sufficient temperature margin between the lowest service temperature LST expected during vessel operation and a
reference temperature that guarantees ductile behavior during
service.
A second fundamental approach is an explicit procedure based
on fracture mechanics principles. In this case, the vessel designer
is required to have knowledge of the stress state from applied
service loads and perhaps fabrication residual stresses,
fabrication- or service-induced flaws that might be present in the
vessel, and material fracture toughness. For the explicit approach,
margin is required between the calculated linear elastic or elasticplastic stress intensity factor and the material fracture toughness.
ASME Boiler & Pressure Vessel Code construction rules for
ensuring against brittle fracture are based on both of these fundamental approaches. However, depending on the particular application, those rules can take quite different forms. In the following
development, the different formsboth implicit and explicitare
compared and are shown to be essentially equivalent when applied consistently.

Implicit Brittle Fracture Resistance Demonstration

The ASME Code rules provide at least three different examples
of the implicit approach to demonstration of brittle fracture resistance. Two of the examples are relatively similar and will be addressed in the same discussion. A third implicit approach is much
more conservative, and will be addressed separately.
The first example of the implicit approach is taken from the
ASME Code Section VIII Division 1 1. Figure UCS-66 see Fig.
1 shows impact test exemption curves for ferritic steels. The
minimum design metal temperature, in F, is plotted against the
nominal vessel wall thickness, in inches, for four classes of ferritic
steels, denoted by curves designated A, B, C, and D, with Class D
material being the ferritic material with superior low temperature
fracture toughness behavior.
Impact testing is required for any ferritic steel with a minimum
design metal temperature less than 55F 13C, and for ferritic
steels of the designated class below the curves. For example, a
Contributed by the Pressure Vessels and Piping Division and presented as the
Robert Wylie Lecture at ICPVT Conference, Sydney, Australia, April 914, 2000, of
THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERS. Manuscript received by
the PVP Division December 14, 2001; revised manuscript received January 24, 2003.
Associate Editor: C. Jaske.

Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology

vessel fabricated from a ferritic steel in Class A, with a nominal

wall thickness of 3 in. 76 mm, would require impact testing for
a minimum design metal temperature of 110F 43C, or less.
The wall thickness dependency of the impact testing requirements
extends down to 0.394 in. 10 mm for Classes A, B, and C, and
down to about 0.5 in. 13 mm for Class D ferritic material. The
upper limit of the curves is 5 in. 127 mm, or 4 in. 102 mm for
welded construction.
The second example of the implicit approach is taken from the
ASME Code Section III Division 1 2. Figure R-1200-1 see Fig.
2 from the nonmandatory Appendix R provides the permissible
lowest service metal temperature we will refer to LST as a function of nominal wall thickness. Appendix R applies to Class 2
Subsection NC and Class 3 Subsection ND ferritic steel
nuclear vessels, as well as ferritic steel containment structures
Subsection NE and ferritic steel component supports Subsection NF. Unlike Section VIII Division 1, Appendix R does not
directly specify the minimum temperature; instead, that minimum
temperature is referenced to a characteristic property of the ferritic
materialits nil-ductility transition NDT temperature, here
termed T NDT . The thickness dependency of the Appendix R reference curve extends from wall thicknesses of 2 1/2 in. 64 mm
out to wall thicknesses of 12 in. 305 mm.
The implicit brittle fracture resistance curves shown in Figs. 1
and 2 can be shown to be essentially equivalent over the wall
thickness range from 2 1/2 in. 64 mm to 5 in. 127 mm by
specifying that Curve A materials have a T NDT of about 70F
21C, Curve B materials have a T NDT of about 40F 4C,
Curve C materials have a T NDT of about 5F 15C, and Curve
D materials have a T NDT of about 25F 32C.

Appendix R Technical Basis

A description of the technical basis for the Appendix R reference curve was provided by Yukawa et al. 3, using a procedure
developed by Riccardella in ASME Code committee presentations
that was, in turn, derived from the Irwin thickness correction formula. As reference 3 states, the Irwin thickness correction
formula is
K c /K Ic 11.4 2 1/2

(1)

1/W K Ic / y 2

(2)

where

This formula is a relationship between the apparent fracture

toughness, K c , of ferritic material, when the fracture toughness
test specimen is too thin to have full plane strain constraint, and
the actual plane-strain static fracture toughness of the ferritic material, K Ic . In Eqs. 1 and 2, W is the thickness of the test
specimen and y is the material yield strength. Figure 3 illustrates
the effect of apparent fracture toughness as a function of fracture
toughness test specimen thickness.
Reference 3 describes the assumptions used by Riccardella,
such as the upper shelf toughness of 240 ksi in (264 MPa m) at a
wall thickness of 12 in. 305 mm and a flaw depth proportional to

Copyright 2003 by ASME

MAY 2003, Vol. 125 121

Downloaded From: http://pressurevesseltech.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 10/09/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

Fig. 1 Impact test exemption curves, ASME Code Section VIII, Division 1 Fig. UCS-66

Fig. 2 Permissible lowest service metal temperature for Class 2, Class 3, containment and support structure ferritic steels,
ASME Code Section III, Division 1 Fig. R-1200-1

122 Vol. 125, MAY 2003

Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://pressurevesseltech.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 10/09/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

Fig. 3 Irwin thickness correction curve

Fig. 4

K IR lower-bound reference fracture toughness curve, ASME Code Section III, Division 1, Appendix G Fig. G-2210-1

Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology

MAY 2003, Vol. 125 123

Downloaded From: http://pressurevesseltech.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 10/09/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

wall thickness, to generate the reference curve that is now in

Appendix R. In essence, reference curve values at wall thicknesses less than 12 in. 305 mm are equal to the 12-in. 305-mm
value times W.

The Third Implicit Brittle Fracture Resistance Demonstration Approach

For the past twenty years, the author has had the opportunity to
apply the principles of brittle fracture resistance to a class of
nuclear equipment that is related to nuclear pressure vessels
spent nuclear fuel transport containment boundaries. Because of
the need to transport spent nuclear fuel safely in all types of climatic conditions, these vessels have lowest service temperatures
that range down to 40F 40C. Such low service temperatures represent a severe challenge to many ferritic materials.
A third implicit method for demonstrating the resistance of
these materials to brittle fracture consists of meeting the fracture
toughness limits of various regulatory bodies, such as those of the
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission NRC. In particular, Regulatory Guides 7.11 4, for wall thicknesses up to 4 in. 102 mm,
and 7.12 5, for wall thicknesses from 4 in. 102 mm to 12 in.
305 mm, provide a very conservative T NDT basis for this demonstration. It will be shown here that these requirements are much
more conservative than those included in Appendix R of the
ASME Code Section III and in the ASME Code Section VIII.
In recent years, these very conservative requirements have been
incorporated into the ASME Code Section III, Division 3 6. The
only difference between the guidance in reference 5 and the
requirements in Table WB 2331.2-1 is that the ASME Code Section III Division 3 limits are expressed in terms of the temperature
difference between LST and RT NDT .

Because of the potentially excessive conservatism of the regulatory guidance, the ASME Code bodies also have developed two
alternatives for inclusion into Subsection WB, in the paragraphs in
the Division 3 rules that provide for acceptance of containment
boundary material on the basis of fracture toughness properties.
The two alternatives are less conservative, and involve measured
fracture toughness of the material at the LST, or a fracture mechanics design evaluation. Both of the alternatives represent explicit approaches for the demonstration of resistance to brittle
fracture.

Explicit Brittle Fracture Evaluation

The two alternatives to the NRC regulatory guides follow the
general procedures used by designers of Class 1 nuclear reactor
pressure vessels and components in the ASME Code Section III,
Appendix G, and in the ASME Code Section XI, Appendix A 7.
Both Appendix G of Section III and Appendix A of Section XI are
based on linear elastic fracture mechanics LEFM, which means
that the applied fracture mechanics stress intensity factor, called
K Iappl , must be shown to be less than the material fracture toughness, called K Imat , with appropriate margin.
The Appendix G approach can be described as a reference flaw
procedure, since the flaw size against which the component must
be evaluated is prescribed. In this case, the reference flaw is required to have a depth equal to 25% of the wall thickness, for
vessels with a wall thickness less than 12 in. 305 mm, with the
depth limited to 3 in. 76 mm for a wall thickness greater than 12
in. 305 mm. The location of the flaw is assumed to be in the
worst location in the component, relative to calculated stresses,
and in the worst orientation, relative to the highest principal stress,
for Mode 1 crack initiation.

Fig. 5 Stress multipliers to obtain fracture mechanics applied stress intensity, ASME Code Section III, Division 1, Appendix G
Fig. G-2214-1

124 Vol. 125, MAY 2003

Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://pressurevesseltech.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 10/09/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

Table 1 Full Appendix G conservatism

Wall
thickness
in.

Mm
Fig. G-2214-1

K Im M m m a
(ksi in)

Temperature margin,b
LSTRT NDT , F

2.5
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
10.0
11.0
12.0
20.0

2.08
2.08
2.31
2.55
2.75
2.92
3.10
3.28
3.42
3.57
3.57

104.0 78.0
104.0 78.0
115.5 86.6
127.5 95.6
137.5 103.1
146.0 109.5
155.0 116.3
164.0 123.0
171.0 128.3
178.5 133.9
178.5 133.9

126 98
126 98
135 108
144 118
151 125
156 131
161 136
166 141
169 145
172 148
172 148

a
b

m y 50 ksi for SA-533, Grade B, Class 1 37.5 ksi for SA-350, LF3
K Im K IR 26.781.223 exp0.0145 (TRT NDT160)

The calculated applied stress intensity factor, with a factor of

safety of two applied to the membrane stress, is compared to an
allowable material fracture toughness given by the lower bound to
static, dynamic and crack arrest dataK IR . Figure G-2210-1
from Appendix G, shown here as Fig. 4, illustrates the lowerbound K IR curve, referenced to a particular form of T NDT called
RT NDT . This lower-bound curve is used as the material fracture
toughness, K Imat , in the Appendix G LEFM calculations. Also,
Fig. G-2214-1 from Appendix G, shown here as Fig. 5, illustrates
the conservatism that can accrue to the applied stresses if those
stresses are assumed to be equal to y . The uppermost curve
represents the multiplier on membrane stress when that membrane
stress is assumed to be equal to the yield stress. The other curves
shown are the multipliers for membrane stress equal to 70% of the
yield stress, 50% of the yield stress, and 10% of the yield stress.
Appendix A of Section XI is based on a variation on the reference flaw approach. Here the flaw depth requirement is reduced
substantially, to the actual size determined by inservice inspection,

and the actual location of the flaw is used in the evaluation, irrespective of the location of highest stress. However, the flaw
growth due to cyclic and time-dependent crack growth mechanisms must be considered in the evaluation. The limiting fracture
toughness is still K IR .

Comparison of Explicit and Implicit Procedures

In the following discussion, the relationships between the explicit fracture mechanics treatment required by the nonmandatory
Appendix G for Class 1 nuclear components and the implicit fracture mechanics treatments cited previously are developed. It is
shown that relaxing the various elements of conservatism in the
Appendix G requirements leads directly to these relationships.
The process of relaxing each of the conservative elements in turn
provides insight concerning the level of safety included in the
various implicit approaches. As each conservative requirement is
relaxed, Appendix R is used as a reference curve for comparison
of the results. The common basis for the comparison is the
thickness-dependent difference between T NDT and LST.
The Appendix G reference flaw procedure contains three conservative requirements. First, the flaw depth is extremely large
25% of the wall thickness in order to accommodate both for
uncertainty in preservice fabrication flaw detection and sizing, and
for service-induced flaw growth mechanisms that are not accounted for in conventional design practice. Second, the factor of
safety of two on the applied primary stress intensity accounts for
uncertainty in the calculation of stresses and possibly for some
amount of residual stress. Third, the K IR fracture toughness curve,
as referenced to the specific measured material RT NDT accounts
for the variability in fracture toughness and adds considerable
conservatism because of its bounding character.
Before relaxing any conservative elements, the Section III Appendix G explicit approach with full conservatism in reference
flaw depth, applied stress level, and material fracture toughness is
compared to the implicit approaches. The results from these calculations are shown in Table 1, and the results are plotted in Fig.

Fig. 6 Comparison of Appendix R reference curve to fully conservative Appendix G fracture mechanics approach

Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology

MAY 2003, Vol. 125 125

Downloaded From: http://pressurevesseltech.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 10/09/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

Table 2 Appendix Grelaxed flaw conservatism

Wall
thickness
in.

Modified M m
Fig. G-2214-1

K Im M m m a
(ksi in)

Temperature marginb
LSTRT NDT , F

2.5
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
10.0
11.0
12.0
20.0

1.21
1.21
1.35
1.48
1.60
1.71
1.81
1.91
2.00
2.09
2.09

60.5
60.5
67.5
74.0
80.0
85.5
90.5
95.5
100.0
104.5
104.5

68.7
68.7
81.7
92.0
100.2
107.0
112.6
117.8
122.2
126.3
126.3

a
b

m y 50 ksi for SA-533, Grade B, Class 1

K Im K IR 26.781.223 exp0.0145 (TRT NDT160)

6. This figure shows two baseline curves. One is taken from Table
WB-2331.2-1 and Regulatory Guide 7.12, which provides the acceptable T NDT values for ferritic steels with an LST of 20F
29C. The other curve is taken from Appendix R of Section
III, which contains a thickness-dependent temperature difference
requirement, ALSTT NDT , for Class 2, Class 3, containment,
and component support nuclear components constructed of ferritic
steels.
Also shown in Fig. 6 are two curves derived from Table 1
showing the Appendix G requirements converted to the same basis of comparison. Two different Appendix G curves are plotted
one for a ferritic material with a minimum yield strength of 50 ksi
345 MPa and the other for a ferritic material with a minimum
yield strength of 37.5 ksi 260 MPa. The former is more conser-

vative than the latter because of the applied stresses are assumed
to be at the same level as the yield strength, i.e., 50 ksi 345 Mpa
for the former and 37.5 ksi 260 Mpa for the latter.
It is readily seen that the Appendix G reference flaw approach,
with the three sources of conservatism, provides a level of safety
even greater than the criteria contained in Table WB 2331.2-1 and
Regulatory Guide 7.12. Both the WB 2331.2-1/Regulatory Guide
7.12 and the Appendix G reference flaw approach are very much
more conservative than the Appendix R reference curve.

Relaxed Conservatism
Next, each of the elements of conservatism is relaxed, in turn,
and compared with the Appendix R and Table WB 2331.2-1
criteria.
Table 2 and Fig. 7 show the results when the flaw depth is
chosen to be 1/10 of the wall thickness, while retaining the remaining conservative assumptions on primary stress and lowerbound fracture toughness. This figure shows that relaxing the reference flaw depth from 25% of the wall thickness to 10% of the
wall thickness, while maintaining the conservatism on the applied
stress level and the material fracture toughness, moves the Appendix G approach very close to the Appendix R requirements.
Table 3 and Fig. 8 show the results when the curve of Fig.
G-2214-1 for primary membrane stress equal to 50% of the minimum yield stress is used, while retaining the 1/4-thickness flaw
and the K IR lower bound fracture toughness curve. This figure
shows that relaxing the conservatism on the applied stress level,
while maintaining the conservatism on the reference flaw depth
and the material fracture toughness, comes very close to moving
the explicit Appendix G approach to equivalence with the Appendix R requirements.

Fig. 7 Comparison of Appendix R reference curve to Appendix G fracture mechanics approach with relaxed flaw conservatism
flaw depth110 thickness

126 Vol. 125, MAY 2003

Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://pressurevesseltech.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 10/09/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

Table 3 Appendix Grelaxed stress conservatism

Wall
thickness
in.

Mm
Fig. G-2214-1

K Im M m m a
(ksi in)

Temperature margin,b
LSTRT NDT , F

2.5
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
10.0
11.0
12.0
20.0

1.94
1.94
2.16
2.35
2.54
2.72
2.86
3.06
3.20
3.32
3.32

48.5
48.5
54.0
58.8
63.5
68.0
71.5
76.5
80.0
83.0
83.0

38.4
38.4
54.0
65.1
74.6
82.6
88.2
95.5
100.2
104.0
104.0

a
b

m 0.5 y 25 ksi for SA-533, Grade B, Class 1

K Im K IR 26.781.223 exp0.0145 (TRT NDT160)

However, the most convincing argument is provided when the

conservatism on the material fracture toughness is relaxed, while
maintaining the conservatism on the reference flaw depth and the
applied stress level. Tables 4 and 5, and Fig. 9, show the results
when the K IR curve is abandoned in favor of a hyberbolic tangent
fit to representative dynamic fracture toughness data for SA533B-1 steel 8, while retaining the remaining conservative elements on primary stresses and flaw depth.
Two cases were examined relative to the latter. When the average material fracture toughness is used as opposed to the lower
bound K IR curve, a design curve even less conservative than the
Appendix R requirements is generated. When an approximately
2 bound is used, the design curve almost precisely matches the
Appendix R requirements.

The statistical analysis of the material fracture toughness data is

discussed in the following.

Fracture Toughness Variability

Characteristic toughness data were statistically analyzed in reference 8. The most conservative representation of SA-533B1
data was used. In this case, the hyperbolic tangent curve fit to
pre-cracked Charpy data from nine heats of SA 533B-1 ferritic
steel was given by
K ID145.75110.22 tanh T49.27 /44.82

(3)

where the units of toughness are in ksiin and the temperatures

are in F. The hyperbolic tangent fit involves four parameters, as
shown in Fig. 10. A o 145.75 represents the average fracture
toughness, in ksiin, and B o represents the fracture toughness
range between the lower shelf and upper shelf, also in ksiin. The
parameter C o represents a characteristic width for the transition
region between the lower shelf and the upper shelf, in F. The
total width is essentially 2C o , as seen in Fig. 10. The parameter
T o represents the approximate mid-point of the transition region.
It has been found that the parameters B o , C o , and T o are
relatively insensitive to the statistical analysis of fracture toughness data 8. The only significant change from the mean toughness curve is the change in the average toughness, A o . For this set
of data, the average toughness changes from 145.75 ksiin. to
92 ksiin. to form a 2 bounding curve; and to 72 ksiin. to form
a 3 bounding curve. For all of the bounding cases, a lower shelf
limit is imposed to avoid negative toughness calculations at low
temperatures, and is not relevant to this study.
Selecting only the mean fracture toughness and the 2 bounding curve, while maintaining yield level membrane stresses and
the 1/4-thickness flaw, two additional thickness-dependent tem-

Fig. 8 Comparison of Appendix R reference curve to Appendix G fracture mechanics approach with relaxed stress conservatism

Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology

MAY 2003, Vol. 125 127

Downloaded From: http://pressurevesseltech.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 10/09/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

Table 4 Appendix Grelaxed fracture toughness conservatism

Wall
thickness
in.

Applied stress
intensity, K Im a
(ksi in)

Temperature
marginb
LSTRT NDT F

Temperature
margin
LSTRT NDT F

Temperature
margin
LSTRT NDT
F

2.5
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
10.0
11.0
12.0
20.0

104.0
104.0
115.5
127.5
137.5
146.0
155.0
164.0
171.0
178.5
178.5

0.378788
0.378788
0.274451
0.165578
0.074850
0.002268
0.083923
0.165578
0.229087
0.297133
0.297133

0.39865
0.39865
0.28167
0.16712
0.07499
0.002268
0.084122
0.167120
0.233228
0.30638
0.30638

31.4
31.4
36.6
41.8
45.9
49.4
53.0
56.8
59.7
63.0
63.0

a
b

m y 50 ksi for SA-533, Grade B, Class 1; 1/4t flaw

K Im K I 145.75110.22 tanh(T49.27)/44.82

Table 5 Appendix Grelaxed fracture toughness conservatism

Wall
thickness
in.

Applied stress
intensity, K Im a
(ksi in)

Tanh x

Temperature marginb
LSTRT NDT

2.5
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
10.0
11.0
12.0
20.0

104.0
104.0
115.5
127.5
137.5
146.0
155.0
164.0
171.0
178.5
178.5

0.108873
0.108873
0.21321
0.322083
0.412811
0.489929
0.571584
0.653239
0.716748
0.784794
0.784794

0.109305
0.109305
0.216534
0.333977
0.439004
0.535978
0.649873
0.780057
0.90093
1.05775
1.05775

54.2
54.2
59.0
64.2
68.9
73.3
78.4
84.2
89.6
96.7
96.7

a
b

m y 50 ksi for SA-533, Grade B, Class 1; 1/4t flaw

K Im K I (95,95)92.0110.22 tanh(T49.27)/44.82

Fig. 9 Comparison of Appendix R reference curve to Appendix G fracture mechanics approach with relaxed fracture toughness
conservatism

128 Vol. 125, MAY 2003

Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://pressurevesseltech.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 10/09/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

Fig. 10 The four hyperbolic tangent parameters

perature difference curves were generated, as shown in Tables 4

and 5, and in Fig. 9. The mean fracture toughness curve is shown
to be less conservative than the Appendix R requirements, while
the 2 bounding curve gives a level of conservatism that is essentially equivalent to the Appendix R curve.
These results provide dramatic evidence that the most important
of the Appendix G conservative elements is the choice of the
lower-bound material fracture toughness. If the K IR curve is used,
the choice of more realistic smaller flaw depths or more realistic
lower stresses has a pronounced, but not overwhelming, effect.
An Appendix G calculation with relaxed conservative assumptions on stress and flaw size does not differ significantly from the
very conservative crack arrest method adopted in Table WB2331.2-1 and Regulatory Guide 7.12. Based upon this analysis, it
can be concluded that many more ferritic materials could be
shown to be acceptable if measured fracture toughness was the
criterion for acceptance, rather than drop weight NDT testing for
the purposes of referencing to a lower-bound fracture toughness
curve.

This rational reference flaw material acceptance alternative is

supported by the above calculations, and consists of the following
three elements:
A reference flaw is selected with a sufficient degree of conservatism to preclude the need to perform crack growth calculations for load cycling or environmental considerations. The reference flaw depth would be identical to that prescribed in Appendix
G of Section III25% of the wall thickness, up to a wall thickness of 12 inches 305 mm, and 3 in. 76 mm deep for all wall
thicknesses beyond 12 in. 305 mm.
The stresses may be assumed to be primary membrane
stresses at yield strength levels for conservatism or, if the stresses
are known accurately, the calculated stresses may be used for the
purpose of computing the applied fracture mechanics stress intensity factor.
The allowable stress intensity would be based on a 2 or 3
bound on the actual fracture toughness data, rather than on the
lower bound K IR curve.

References
Conclusions and Recommendations
From these calculations, it can be concluded that a material
acceptance approach based upon statistical analysis of fracture
toughness test results should provide the same level of conservatism, or greater, than that implied by the Appendix R thicknessdependent temperature difference requirements. In fact, such an
approach has been used in the brittle fracture resistance evaluation
of ductile cast iron spent nuclear fuel transport casks 9.
Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology

1 ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Rules for Construction of Unfired
Pressure Vessels, Section VIII, Division 1, American Society of Mechanical
Engineers, New York, 1998.
2 ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Rules of Construction of Nuclear
Power Plant Components, Section III, Division 1, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York, 1998.
3 Yukawa, S., Doty, W. D., and Landerman, E. I., 1990, Basis and Development of Toughness Requirements for Class 2, Class 3, Containment and Component Support Materials in Section III of the ASME Code, ASME J. Pressure
Vessel Technol., 1123, pp. 193198.

MAY 2003, Vol. 125 129

Downloaded From: http://pressurevesseltech.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 10/09/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

4 Regulatory Guide 7.11, Fracture Toughness Criteria for Ferritic Steel Shipping Cask Containment Vessels with a Maximum Wall Thickness of Four
Inches 0.1 m, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, June
1991.
5 Regulatory Guide 7.12, Fracture Toughness Criteria of Base Material for
Ferritic Steel Shipping Cask Containment Vessels With A Wall Thickness
Greater Than 4 Inches (0.1 m) But Not Exceeding 12 Inches (0.3 m), U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, June 1991.
6 ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Rules of Construction of Nuclear
Power Plant Components, Section III, Division 3, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York, 1998.

130 Vol. 125, MAY 2003

7 ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Rules for Inservice Inspection of
Nuclear Power Plant Components, Section XI, Division 1, American Society
of Mechanical Engineers, New York, 1995.
8 Wullaert, R., Oldfield, W., and Server, W., Fracture Toughness Data for
Ferritic Pressure Vessel Materials, EPRI Report No. NP-121, Effects Technology, Inc., Santa Barbara, CA, Apr. 1976.
9 Arai, T., Saegusa, T., Yagawa, G., Urabe, N., and Nickell, R., Determination
of Lower-Bound Fracture Toughness for Heavy-Section Ductile Cast Iron
(DCI) and Estimations by Small Specimen Test, Fracture Mechanics:
Twenty-Fourth Symposium, ASTM STP 1207, eds., J. D. Landes, D. E.
McCabe, and J. A. M. Boulet, ASTM, Philadelphia, pp. 355368, 1994.

Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://pressurevesseltech.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 10/09/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms