SCC pilot study RA3

NULIFE (08)23 April 2009

 Page intentionally left blank for double sided printing
(delete this if you wish)

NULIFE (08) 23 2
 Distribution List
Garcia Mariadelsol (CIEMAT)
Robert Gerard (Tractebel)
Frédéric Somville (Tractebel)
Johan Stjärnsäter (Studsvik Nuclear AB)
Hans-Peter Seifert (PSI)
Bastian Devrient (AREVA NP GmbH)
Renate Kilian (AREVA NP GmbH)
Thomas Erbacher (E.ON)
Damien Feron (CEA)
Thierry Payen (CEA)
Rik-Wouter Bosch (SCK•CEN)
Steven Van Dyck (SCK•CEN)
Rachid Chaouadi (SCK•CEN)
Leo Sannen (SCK•CEN)

All participants NULIFE network

NULIFE (08) 23 4
Table of contents

1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................6

2 PRINCIPLE OF THE DISPOSITION CURVE ............................................................................6

3 OVERVIEW OF DISPOSITION CURVES FOR INCONEL 600 AND ALLOY 182 .............10

3.1 BWR – NWC/HWC INCONEL 600...........................................................................................10

3.2 BWR – NWC/HWC ALLOY 182..............................................................................................11
3.3 PWR INCONEL 600 ..................................................................................................................13
3.4 PWR ALLOY 182 .....................................................................................................................15

4 OVERVIEW OF AVAILABLE DATA FROM NULIFE PARTICIPANTS.............................16

5 COMPARISON WITH EXISTING DISPOSITION CURVES..................................................17

6 CRITICAL ISSUES........................................................................................................................20

6.1 DATA AT LOW K VALUES .........................................................................................................20

6.2 CRACK INITIATION ...................................................................................................................21

7 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................23

8 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT..............................................................................................................23

9 REFERENCES................................................................................................................................24

10 APPENDIX A CRACK GROWTH RATE DATA .....................................................................26

NULIFE (08) 23 5
1 Introduction

The RA3-SCC pilot study on stress corrosion cracking is part of the NULIFE network. The
objective of this pilot project was threefold:
- Review of data on SCC propagation in alloy 600 and 182, according to the proposed
Guideline for testing. Data were provided in an appropriate excel sheet.
- Assessment of disposition curves used in the countries of origin of the participating
partners, using this "database".
- Review of integrity and life-time evaluation methods, as applied by the participating
partners (examples to be provided).

The last objective could not be fulfilled as the expertise of the participants was mainly related to
corrosion issues and there was not much experience available with integrity analysis.

The following activities have been carried out to fulfill this work:
• Organization of a workshop (2 July 2008 in Brussels).
• Collect crack growth rate data.

With the crack growth rate data it is possible to make a so-called disposition curve. To obtain a
reliable curve, it is necessary to have sufficient high quality data. There was not enough data to
set-up a new disposition curve. In addition there have been some recent efforts (mainly by
EPRI) to set-up disposition curves for the crack growth rate of Ni-based alloys in primary water.
Therefore we made a review of existing disposition curves and compared them with available
data from the NULIFE participants.

2 Principle of the disposition curve

The crack growth rate of a Ni-based alloy in the primary water of a LWR can be modeled using
a power law type relationship between the stress intensity factor and the crack growth rate. This
so-called disposition curve gives the crack growth rate as a function of K and can be used for

NULIFE (08) 23 6
deterministic evaluation of real or hypothetical flaws. The differences in temperature can be
accounted for by an activation energy (Arrhenius) model for thermally controlled processes.
The following equation is generally used for inconel 600 [1, 2].

⎛ Qg ⎛1 ⎞⎞
a& = exp⎜ − ⎜ − 1 ⎟ ⎟α (K − K th )β
⎜ R ⎜T T ⎟⎟
⎝ ⎝ ref ⎠⎠

Where:
a& = crack growth rate at temperature T in m/s (or in/yr)
Qg = thermal activation energy for crack growth = 130 kJ/mole
R = universal gas constant = 8.314×10-3 kJ/mole·K
T = absolute operating temperature at location of crack, in K
Tref = absolute reference temperature used to normalize data = 598.15 K (325 °C)
α = crack growth rate coefficient
= 2.67×10-12 at 325°C for a& in units of m/s and K in units of MPa √m
K = crack tip stress intensity factor, MPa √m (or ksi √in )
Kth = crack tip stress intensity factor threshold = 9 MPa √m
β = exponent = 1.16

When T=325°C this equations changes to,

a& = 2.67.10 −12 (K − 9 )

1.16

Most disposition curves that have been published follow this power law type of behaviour.
However, some of them have a plateau region at large K values, where the crack growth rate is
independent of K. Differences can be found in the crack growth rate coefficient α and
sometimes the exponent β. The activation energy is also a parameter that can change, but a
value of 130 kJ/mol is generally accepted. Figure 1 shows the disposition curves for various
temperatures.

NULIFE (08) 23 7
 1.00E-08

1.00E-09
Crack growth rate (m/s)

350 °C

325 °C
1.00E-10
300 °C

1.00E-11

1.00E-12
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
0.5
K (MPa.m )

Figure 1 Influence of temperature on the crack growth rate versus K for inconel 600

A similar approach can be followed for alloy 182 and 82. The following equation is generally
used [3, 4].

⎛ Qg ⎛1 ⎞⎞
a& = exp⎜ − ⎜ − 1 ⎟ ⎟αf alloy f orientation (K )β
⎜ R ⎜T T ⎟⎟
⎝ ⎝ ref ⎠⎠

Where:
a& = crack growth rate at temperature T in m/s (or in/yr)
Qg = thermal activation energy for crack growth = 130 kJ/mole
R = universal gas constant = 8.314×10-3 kJ/mole·K
T = absolute operating temperature at location of crack, K
Tref = absolute reference temperature used to normalize data = 598.15 K (325 °C)
α = crack growth rate coefficient
= 1.5×10-12 at 325°C for a& in units of m/s and K in units of MPa m
falloy=1.0 for Alloy 182 and 0.385 for Alloy 82

NULIFE (08) 23 8
 forientation=1.0 except for crack propagation that is clearly perpendicular to the dendrite
solidification direction, where forientation= 0.5.
K = crack tip stress intensity factor, MPa √m
β = exponent = 1.6

When T=325°C this equations changes to,

a& = 1.5.10 −12 (K )

1 .6

Notice that for this equation there is no threshold K. Figure 2 shows the disposition curves for
various temperatures.

1.00E-08

350 °C
1.00E-09
325 °C
Crack growth rate (m/s)

300 °C
1.00E-10

1.00E-11

1.00E-12
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
0.5
K (MPa.m )

Figure 2 Influence of temperature on the crack growth rate versus K for Alloy 182.

NULIFE (08) 23 9
3 Overview of disposition curves for Inconel
600 and Alloy 182

3.1 BWR – NWC/HWC Inconel 600

The following equations were collected from Morin [5]. Notice that more recent equations exist,
but these have not been published yet and so are not public available.

Crack growth rate for inconel 600, BWR – NWC (Normal Water Chemistry) [5]:

a& = 1.52.10 −15 (K ) ,

3.44
a& in m/s and K in MPa √m

Crack growth rate for inconel 600, BWR – HWC (Hydrogen Water Chemistry) [5]:

a& = 7.83.10 −17 (K ) ,

3.44
a& in m/s and K in MPa √m

Both curves are plotted in Figure 3. together with the crack growth rate line of 1 mm/year.

NULIFE (08) 23 10
 1.00E-08

NWC
1.00E-09
Crack growth rate, da/dt (m/s)

1.00E-10 HWC

1 mm/year
1.00E-11

1.00E-12

1.00E-13
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
0.5
Stress Intensity Factor K (MPa.m )

Figure 3 Disposition curve for inconel 600 BWR conditions [5].

At K=30 MPa.m0.5 the crack growth rate under NWC is 5.8 mm/year and under HWC the crack
growth rate is 0.3 mm/year. This is a difference of about 20 times.

3.2 BWR – NWC/HWC Alloy 182

The following equations were collected from EPRI, Morin, and JSME [5-7]. Notice that all the
equations were taken from public sources. In the case of BWRVIP130 only the mathematical
equations are available.

Crack growth rate for alloy 182, BWR – NWC from BWRVIP130 [6]:

a& = 1.6.10 −8 (K ) ,
2 .5
a& in in/h and K in ksi √in, K < 25 ksi √in

a& = 5.10 −5 , a& in in/h, K > 25 ksi √in

NULIFE (08) 23 11
These equations change to SI units with 1 ksi √in = 1.099 MPa √m and 1 in/h = 7.0556x10-6
m/s.

2 .5
−13 ⎛ K ⎞
a& = 1.129.10 ⎜ ⎟ , a& in m/s and K in MPa √m, K < 22.75 MPa √m
⎝ 1.099 ⎠
a& = 3.528.10 −10 , a& in m/s, K > 22.75 MPa √m

These equations were taken from the report BWRVIP130, which is freely available from the
EPRI website (www.epri.com). The original report BWRVIP-59 is confidential and has to be
purchased from EPRI.

Crack growth rate for alloy 182, BWR – NWC from JSME 2004 [7, 14]:

a& = 2 −12 , a& in m/s, K < 13.3 MPa √m

a& = 3.10 −18 (K ) ,
5.186
a& in m/s, 13.3 < K < 50.3
a& = 2.10 −9 , a& in m/s, K > 50.3 MPa √m

Crack growth rate for alloy 182, BWR – NWC from Morin [5]:

a& = 2.71.10 −20 (K ) ,

6.98
a& in m/s and K in MPa √m

Crack growth rate for alloy 182, BWR – HWC from BWRVIP130 [6]:

a& = 3.2.10 −10 (K ) ,

3
a& in in/h and K in ksi √in, K < 25 ksi √in
a& = 5.10 −6 , a& in in/h, K > 25 ksi √in

3
−15 ⎛ K ⎞
a& = 2.2578.10 ⎜ ⎟ , a& in m/s and K in MPa √m, K < 22.75 MPa √m
⎝ 1.099 ⎠
a& = 3.583.10 −11 , a& in m/s, K > 22.75 MPa √m

NULIFE (08) 23 12
Crack growth rate for alloy 182, BWR – HWC from Morin [5]:

a& = 2.001.10 −21 (K ) ,

6.98
a& in m/s and K in MPa

All the curves are plotted in Figure 4 together with the crack growth rate line of 1 mm/year.

1.00E-07

1.00E-08 Morin (NWC)

JSME 2004
Crack growth rate, da/dt (m/s)

1.00E-09
EPRI (NWC)

1.00E-10 Morin (HWC)

EPRI (HWC)
1 mm/year
1.00E-11

1.00E-12

1.00E-13
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
0.5
Stress Intensity Factor K (MPa.m )

Figure 4 Disposition curve for Alloy 182 BWR conditions.

There are still large differences between the different crack growth rate laws. HWC lowers the
crack growth rate significantly. A factor of 10 for the EPRI curve and a factor of 14 for the
Morin curve at a K of 30 MPa √m.

3.3 PWR Inconel 600

The following equations were collected from EPRI and EDF [1, 9-12]. All equations were taken
from the open literature. For example the MRP-55 and MRP-115 are reports that can be down
loaded from the EPRI website for free. The following equations are valid for normal PWR
primary water at 325°C.

NULIFE (08) 23 13
Crack growth rate for alloy 600, PWR from MRP-55 [1]:

a& = 2.67.10 −12 (K − 9 ) ,

1.16
a& in m/s and K in MPa √m

Crack growth rate for alloy 600, PWR from ASME XI, appendix O, 2004 [11]:

a& = 2.67.10 −12 (K − 9 ) ,

1.16
a& in m/s and K in MPa √m

Crack growth rate for alloy 600, PWR modified Scott curve [12]:

a& = 2.23.10 −12 (K − 9 ) ,

1.16
a& in m/s and K in MPa √m

Crack growth rate for alloy 600 (maximum crack growth rates at 320°C), PWR from EDF [10]:

a& = 7.10 −10 (K − 9 ) ,

0 .1
a& in m/s and K in MPa √m

1.00E-08

EDF
1.00E-09
Crack growth rate, da/dt (m/s)

EPRI - ASME XI

Modified Scott
1.00E-10

1 mm/year

1.00E-11

1.00E-12
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
0.5
Stress Intensity Factor K (MPa.m )

Figure 5 Disposition curve for Alloy 600 PWR conditions.

NULIFE (08) 23 14
3.4 PWR Alloy 182

The following equations were collected from EPRI, EDF, and Ringhals [3, 4, 8, 9]. All
equations were taken from the open literature. For example the MRP-55 and MRP-115 are
reports that can be downloaded from the EPRI website for free. The following graphs are valid
for normal PWR primary water at 325°C.

Crack growth rate for alloy 182, PWR from MRP-115 [3]:

a& = 1.5.10 −12 (K ) ,

1 .6
a& in m/s and K in MPa √m

Crack growth rate for alloy 182, PWR from Ringhals [8]:

a& = 7.22.10 −23 (K ) ,

9 .3
a& in m/s and K in MPa √m, K < 25 MPa √m
a& = 6.0.10 −10 , a& in m/s, K < 25 MPa √m

Crack growth rate for alloy 182, PWR from EDF [9, 10]:

a& = 0.51.10 −10 (K ) ,

0 .4
a& in m/s and K in MPa √m (75% of
cumulative distribution of crack growth rates)

a& = 0.5114.10 −10 (K − 9 ) ,

0.42
a& in m/s and K in MPa √m (maximum crack
growth rate)

NULIFE (08) 23 15
 1.00E-08

EPRI
1.00E-09
Ringhals
Crack growth rate, da/dt (m/s)

EDF

1.00E-10

1 mm/year

1.00E-11

1.00E-12
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
0.5
Stress Intensity Factor K (MPa.m )

Figure 6 Disposition curve for Alloy 182 PWR conditions.

4 Overview of available data from NULIFE

participants

The following table shows the NULIFE participants that have provided crack growth rate data.

Table 1 Crack growth rate data from NULIFE participants

Organisation BWR PWR
AREVA / E.ON Alloy 182
CEA Inconel 600
Studsvik Nuclear Alloy 182 Inconel 600, alloy 182
PSI Alloy 182
CIEMAT Inconel 600
SCK•CEN / Tractebel Inconel 600, alloy 182

NULIFE (08) 23 16
The data of all participants are summarized in Appendix A "Crack growth rate data".

5 Comparison with existing disposition curves

During the SCC workshop in Brussels (July 2008) the following critical issues were raised:
• A large scatter of the available data points K versus crack growth rates is always
present. In the testing guidelines (NULIFE (07)21) several reasons for this are
summarized among which: issues related to material orientation, material
inhomogeneity, especially for welds, control of experimental conditions and water
chemistry control. The latter was recognized as very important as impurities (chlorides,
sulfates) do have a large effect on the crack growth rates.
• To obtain a reliable crack growth rate measurement, the fracture surface of a CT
specimen should be analyzed afterwards. It is however a problem to obtain a reliable
crack length from the fracture surface. The crack front is, in most cases, not uniform i.e.
the morphology is so-called branched. How then should one obtain a reliable crack
growth rate? Probably a common procedure should be developed for this.
• The K-values used to obtain a disposition curve are in most cases in the range of 30 -45
MPa.m0.5. For low K-values, the curves are extrapolated according to a power law
equation. It is not clear from the existing data whether there exists a K threshold value
below which there is no crack growth. In fact it is believed that most probably at low K-
values still crack growth is possible. Therefore experimental data at low K-values
would be very valuable. These tests are however time consuming (test times up to a
year and longer) and so expensive and rarely done. It might be a good subject for an
European RTD project.
• Is further research to understand the mechanism necessary? It is believed that indeed
from a scientific point of view this is necessary, but that for practical application (life
time assessment) this is hardly the case.
• The influence of impurities and different water chemistry on the disposition curves was
discussed.

NULIFE (08) 23 17
How to use this for a common disposition curve

It was concluded that there are already a number of disposition curves available (from EPRI,
EDF, Sweden, …) and that it is not necessary to define another disposition curve. To finalize
this part of the RA3-SCC pilot study, a report has been made, which summarizes all the
disposition curves and compare these with the data that have been provided by all the partners.
It will be investigated which data have been used to set-up the disposition curve to make sure
that the data given by the partners is different. Graphs will be made where the different
disposition curves are plotted together with the data received from the participating
organizations. These graphs are shown in Figures 7, 8 and 9.

Comparison of CGR data Inconel 182 BWR-NWC

1.00E-08
Morin (NWC)
JSME 2004

1.00E-09
Crack growth rate, da/dt (m/s)

EPRI (NWC)

1.00E-10
1 mm/year

1.00E-11
AREVA

1.00E-12 PSI

Studsvik

1.00E-13
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
0.5
Stress Intensity Factor K (MPa.m )

Figure 7 Comparison of crack growth rate data of alloy 182 BWR-NWC

NULIFE (08) 23 18
 Comparison of CGR data Inconel 600 at 325°C, PWR conditions
1.00E-08

EDF
Crack growth rate, da/dt (m/s)

1.00E-09

EPRI - ASME XI

Modified Scott
1.00E-10
1 mm/year

SCK•CEN (ICG RR)

1.00E-11 Studsvik
CEA
CIEMAT (ICG-RR)
CIEMAT (Heat 746301)
1.00E-12
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
0.5
Stress Intensity Factor K (MPa.m )

Figure 8 Comparison of crack growth rate data of inconel 600 PWR

Comparison of CGR data alloy 182 at 325°C, PWR conditions

1.00E-08

EPRI
Crack growth rate, da/dt (m/s)

1.00E-09
Ringhals

EDF

1.00E-10

1 mm/year
1.00E-11 SCK•CEN alloy 182 (ICG RR)

SCK•CEN alloy 182 (TS) Lemoniz

Studsvik
1.00E-12
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
0.5
Stress Intensity Factor K (MPa.m )

Figure 9 Comparison of crack growth rate data of alloy 182 PWR

NULIFE (08) 23 19
6 Critical issues

6.1 Data at low K values

The disposition curves tend to deviate more from each other at low K values. Figure 10 shows a
part of the disposition curves for alloy 182 under PWR conditions at low K values (0-30 MPa
√m). The differences are large at these values. Some curves show a threshold K value (KISCC)
below which no crack growth rate will occur. Other curves do not show this. Major reason for
this is the long test time and so the tests are expensive. These data are however, valuable and it
seems a good topic for a European RTD project as data sharing in this case is essential.

Comparison of CGR data alloy 182 at 325°C, PWR conditions

1.00E-09
Crack growth rate, da/dt (m/s)

1.00E-10

1 mm/year

1.00E-11 EPRI EDF Ringhals

1.00E-12
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
0.5
Stress Intensity Factor K (MPa.m )

Figure 10 Disposition curves for alloy 182 in PWR primary water 325°C at K values
between 0 and 30 MPa √m.

NULIFE (08) 23 20
6.2 Crack initiation

The crack growth rates of Ni-based alloys are quite high. This is illustrated in Figure 11 were
the crack growth rate of alloy 182 and inconel 600 are compared.

Comparison of crack growth rates at 325°C, PWR conditions

1.00E-08

alloy 182
1.00E-09
Crack growth rate, da/dt (m/s)

10 mm/year
inconel 600

1.00E-10

1 mm/year

1.00E-11

1.00E-12
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
0.5
Stress Intensity Factor K (MPa.m )

Figure 11 Disposition curves for alloy 182 and inconel 600 in PWR primary water 325°C.

Already at a K value of 30 MPa √m, the estimated crack growth rate is 10 mm per year. In
Table 2 a few selected cases have been calculated.

Table 2 Crack growth rates for alloy 182 at different temperatures

Temperature (°C)
K (MPa √m) 300 320 340
30 3.49 mm/year 8.76 mm/year 20.71 mm/year
60 10.58 mm/year 26.56 mm/year 62.78 mm/year

NULIFE (08) 23 21
Again, it is clear that the crack growth rate can be so high that no crack can be allowed. In such
cases, the time-to-failure of a component is mainly determined by the time to crack initiation.
This is illustrated in Figure 12. The time-to-failure of a component is plotted as the crack depth
versus time. Three stages can be distinguished. (1) the incubation period were there is no
degradation of the material, (2) initiation time were cracks and/or pits can be formed an (3) the
period in which crack growth will take place. This last period (sustained load fracture) consists
itself of 3 regions, the first is K dependent crack growth rate, the second is K-independent crack
growth typical for SCC and the third is a period with very high crack growth rates resulting in
final fracture.
Pit + crack depth

Figure 12 Crack depth as a function of time representing different SCC mechanisms

For high crack growth rates the life time of a component is mainly determined by the incubation
and initiation periods. Therefore, it seems that the investigation of crack initiation is more
important for Ni-based alloys in high temperature water than crack growth rate testing.

NULIFE (08) 23 22
7 Conclusions and recommendations

• It is concluded that a number of reliable disposition curves (=crack growth rate as a

function of K) for inconel 600 and alloy 182 are already available and so it is not
necessary to define other disposition curves. In addition the data provided by the
partners were plotted together with these curves for comparison. Generally there was
good agreement with the provided data and the existing disposition curves.
• In all disposition curves, there is a lack of crack growth rate data at low K values. Major
reason for this is the long test time and so these tests are expensive. These data are
however, valuable and it seems a good topic for a European RTD project as data sharing
in this case is essential.
• The crack growth rates of Ni-based alloys are quite high. Therefore, the life time of a
component is mainly determined by the time to crack initiation i.e. the moment a crack
is formed means end of life. If it is desirable to continue the RA3-SCC pilot study on
stress corrosion, crack initiation is a relevant topic to work on.
• Data sharing is a critical issue. Partners who provide experimental data are only willing
to do so if the others partners do this as well. For the pilot study this means that there
are not enough data to set-up a new or modified disposition curve.

8 Acknowledgement

AREVA, E.ON, CEA, Studsvik Nuclear, the Swedish nuclear power utilities (FKA, OKG and
Ringhals) PSI, CIEMAT, SCK•CEN and Tractebel are acknowledge for providing crack growth
rate data for this report.

NULIFE (08) 23 23
9 References

1. Materials Reliability Program (MRP) Crack Growth Rates for Evaluating Primary
Water Stress Corrosion Cracking (PWSCC) of Thick-Wall Alloy 600 Materials (MRP-
55) Revision 1, EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: 2002. 1006695.
2. G. A. White, , J. Hickling, L.K. Mathews, Crack growth rates for evaluating PWSCC of
thick-wall alloy 600 material, Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on
Environmental Degradation of Materials in Nuclear Power System – Water Reactors –
Stevenson, 2003
3. Materials Reliability Program Crack Growthe Rates for Evaluating Primary Water
Stress Corrosion Cracking (PWSCC) of Alloy 82, 182 and 132 Welds (MRP-115),
EPRI, Palo Alto, CA:2004. 1006696.
4. G. A. White, N. S. Nordmann, J. Hickling, C. D. Harrington, DEVELOPMENT OF
CRACK GROWTH RATE DISPOSITION CURVES FOR PRIMARY WATER
STRESS CORROSION CRACKING (PWSCC) OF ALLOY 82, 182, AND 132
WELDMENTS, Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Environmental
Degradation of Materials in Nuclear Power System – Water Reactors – Edited by T.R.
Allen, P.J. King, and L. Nelson TMS (The Minerals, Metals & Materials Society), 2005
5. U. Morin, C. Jansson, B. Bengtsson, Crack growth rates for Ni-base alloys with the
application to an operating BWR, Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on
Environmental Degradation of Materials in Nuclear Power System, 1993.
6. BWRVIP-130: BWR Vessel and Internals Project, BWR Water Chemistry Guidelines –
2004, Revision, EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: 2004. 1008192.
7. Codes for Nuclear Power Generation Facilities-Rules on Fitness-for Service for Nuclear
Power Plants, JSME S NA1-2004.
8. P. Efsing, C. Jansson, Screening of Crack Growth Data and the Relevance from an End-
User Perspective, Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Environmental
Degradation of Materials in Nuclear Power System – Water Reactors – Stevenson,
2003.
9. F. Vaillant, J-M. Boursier, C. Amzallag, C. Bibollet, S. Pons, Environmental Behaviour
and weldability of Ni-base weld in PWRs, RGN Nr. 6, Novenbre-Decembre 2007.

NULIFE (08) 23 24
 10. F. Vaillant, C. Amzallag, Crack growth rate measurements of alloy 600 vessel head
penetrations, Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Environmental
Degradation of Materials in Nuclear Power System, 1997.
11. ASME Boiler and Oressure Code XI, Article O-3000 Analysis, 2004 edition, p. 446.
12. W. H. Bamford, J. P. Foster, Crack Growth and Microstructural Characterization of
Alloy 600 PWR Vessel Head Penetration Materials, EPRI report TR-109136, 1997, p.
1-1.
13. O. K. Chopra, W. K. Soppet, and W. J. Shack, Effects of Alloy Chemistry, Cold Work,
and Water Chemistry on Corrosion Fatigue and Stress Corrosion Cracking of Nickel
Alloys and Welds, Argonne National Laboratory, NUREG/CR-6721, ANL-01/07, 2001.
14. M. Ozawa, Y. Yamamoto, K. Nakata, M. Itow, N. Tanaka, M. Kikuchi, M. Koshiishi, J.
Kuniya, Evaluation of SCC crack growth rate in alloy 600 and its weld metals in
simulated BWR environments, Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on
Environmental Degradation of Materials in Nuclear Power System – Water Reactors –
Edited by T.R. Allen, P.J. King, and L. Nelson TMS (The Minerals, Metals & Materials
Society), 2005

NULIFE (08) 23 25
10 Appendix A Crack growth rate data

0.1 mm/year 3.17x10-12 m/s

1 mm/year 3.17x10-11 m/s
10 mm/year 3.17x10-10 m/s

SCK•CEN, PWR inconel 600

Material Conductivity Li H2 da/dt
Loading B (ppm) T (°C) K (MPa√m) Remarks
condition (µS/cm) (ppm) (cc/kg) (m/s)
0.001 Hz
trapezoidal – 30% CW 22 1000 2 325 22 30.5 6.1x10-11 From ICG-RR
9000 s hold
0.001 Hz
trapezoidal – 30% CW 22 1000 2 325 22 30.6 3.0x10-11 From ICG-RR
9000 s hold
0.001 Hz
trapezoidal – 30% CW 22 1000 2 325 22 32.7 5.9x10-10 From ICG-RR
9000 s hold
0.001 Hz
trapezoidal – 30% CW 22 1000 2 325 22 35.6 2.95x10-9 From ICG-RR
9000 s hold
Constant load 30% CW 22 1000 2 325 22 40.9 8.8x10-10 From ICG-RR
0.001 Hz
trapezoidal – 30% CW 22 1000 2 288 22 40.0 1.1x10-10 From ICG-RR
9000 s hold
Constant load 30% CW 22 1000 2 288 22 42.4 2.0x10-11 From ICG-RR

NULIFE (08) 23 26
SCK•CEN, PWR alloy 182
Material Conductivity Li H2 da/dt
Loading B (ppm) T (°C) K (MPa√m) Remarks
condition (µS/cm) (ppm) (cc/kg) (m/s)
0.001 Hz
trapezoidal – 28 1000 2 325 22 29.3 9.6x10-11 From ICG-RR
9000 s hold
Constant load 28 1000 2 325 22 28.9 3.4x10-11 From ICG-RR
0.001 Hz
trapezoidal – 28 1000 2 288 22 29 4.7x10-11 From ICG-RR
9000 s hold
Constant load 28 1000 2 288 22 29 --- From ICG-RR
0.001 Hz
trapezoidal – 21.3 1000 2 325 22 31.7 3.75x10-10 Lemoniz –sample 8A (TS)
9000 s hold
Constant load 21.3 1000 2 325 22 32.2 2.35x10-10 Lemoniz –sample 8A (TS)
0.001 Hz
trapezoidal – 21.3 1000 2 340 22 32.9 8.14x10-11 Lemoniz –sample 8A (TS)
9000 s hold
Constant load 21.3 1000 2 340 22 33.6 7.82x10-10 Lemoniz –sample 8A (TS)
0.001 Hz
trapezoidal – 21.3 1000 2 325 22 27-34 --- Lemoniz –sample 5A (LT)
9000 s hold
Constant load 21.3 1000 2 325 22 27-34 --- Lemoniz –sample 5A (LT)
0.001 Hz
trapezoidal – 21.3 1000 2 325 22 29.3 3.0x10-10 Lemoniz –sample 8D (TS)
9000 s hold
Constant load 21.3 1000 2 325 22 29.4 2.0x10-10 Lemoniz –sample 8D (TS)

NULIFE (08) 23 27
CEA, PWR inconel 600 (representative of Pressure Vessel Head Penetration (PVHP))
Material Conductivity B Li H2 da/dt da/dt
Loading T (°C) K (MPa√m) Remarks
condition (µS/cm) (ppm) (ppm) (cc/kg) (um/h) (m/s)
1000 2 330 2±1 15.3 nil 0
1000 2 330 2±1 15.8 nil 0
1000 2 330 2±1 30.1 0.04 1.1x10-11
1000 2 330 2±1 30.1 0.07 1.9x10-11
1000 2 330 2±1 30 0.06 1.7x10-11
1000 2 330 2±1 40.2 0.06 1.7x10-11
1000 2 330 30±2 10.4 0.01 2.8x10-11
Wrought alloy,
1000 2 330 30±2 10.4 0.01 2.81x10-11
incomplete
1000 2 330 30±2 15.4 0.25 6.9x10-11
coverage of
1000 2 330 30±2 15.3 0.24 6.7x10-11
GBs
1000 2 330 30±2 15.4 0.22 6.1x10-11
1000 2 330 46±5 15.4 0.23 6.4x10-11
1000 2 330 30±2 20.2 0.32 8.9x10-11
1000 2 330 30±2 19.4 0.16 4.4x10-11
1000 2 330 30±2 30.2 0.76 2.1x10-10
1000 2 330 30±2 30.3 0.89 2.5x10-10
1000 2 330 30±2 30.2 0.76 2.1x10-10

NULIFE (08) 23 28
 Material Conductivity B Li H2 da/dt da/dt
Loading T (°C) K (MPa√m) Remarks
condition (µS/cm) (ppm) (ppm) (cc/kg) (um/h) (m/s)
Wrought alloy, 1000 2 330 39±18 30.6 0.54 1.5x10-10
incomplete 1000 2 330 39±18 30.6 0.42 1.2x10-10
coverage of 1000 2 330 30±2 38.8 0.59 1.6x10-10
GBs 1000 2 330 260±30 10.2 nil 0
1000 2 330 260±30 10.2 nil 0
1000 2 330 260±30 15.3 nil 0
1000 2 330 260±30 15.3 nil 0
1000 2 330 260±30 19.6 nil 0
1000 2 330 260±30 20 nil 0
1000 2 330 260±30 30 nil 0
1000 2 330 260±30 30 nil 0
1000 2 330 260±30 39.9 nil 0
1000 2 330 260±30 40 nil 0
1000 2 310 30±2 15.4 0.12 3.3x10-11
1000 2 310 30±2 15.4 0.11 3.1x10-11
1000 2 310 30±2 30 0.3 8.3x10-11
1000 2 310 30±2 29.4 0.32 8.9x10-11
1000 2 290 2±1 30 0.02 5.6x10-12
290 2±1 30 0.03 8.3x10-12

NULIFE (08) 23 29
 290 30±2 30.3 0.12 3.3x10-11
290 30±2 27.1 0.07 1.9x10-11
290 260±30 30 0 0
290 260±30 30 0 0

NULIFE (08) 23 30
CIEMAT, PWR inconel 600
Material Conductivity Li H2 da/dt
Loading B (ppm) T (°C) K (MPa√m) Remarks
condition (µS/cm) (ppm) (cc/kg) (m/s)
Constant load Tube 385 2 325 33 34.2 5.39x10-11 Heat 746301 cold worked
Constant load Tube 385 2 325 33 31.7 4.44x10-11 Heat 746301 cold worked
Constant load Tube 385 2 325 33 37.1 9.46x10 -11
Heat 746301 cold worked
Constant load Tube 385 2 325 33 38.4 5.16x10-11 Heat 746301 cold worked
Constant load Tube 385 2 325 33 38.2 4.52x10 -11
Heat 746301 cold worked
Constant load Tube 385 2 325 33 33 3.58x10-11 Heat 746301 cold worked
Constant load Tube 385 2 325 33 35.8 4.52x10 -11
Heat 746301 cold worked
Constant load Tube 385 2 325 33 31.3 7.45x10-11 Heat 746301 cold worked
Constant load Tube 385 2 325 33 32.1 3.01x10 -11
Heat 746301 cold worked
Constant load Tube 385 2 325 33 32.5 2.29x10-11 Heat 746301 cold worked
Constant load Tube 385 2 325 33 35.4 2.58x10-11 Heat 746301 cold worked
Constant load Tube 385 2 325 33 32.1 2.52x10 -11
Heat 746301 cold worked
Constant load Tube 385 2 325 33 29.3 2.62x10-11 Heat 746301 cold worked
Constant load Tube 385 2 325 33 39.6 7.85x10 -11
Heat 746301 cold worked
Constant load Tube 385 2 325 33 34.8 5.98x10-11 Heat 746301 cold worked
Constant load Tube 385 2 290 33 34.5 4.88x10 -12
Heat 746301 cold worked
Constant load Tube 385 2 290 33 40.9 1.18x10-11 Heat 746301 cold worked

NULIFE (08) 23 31
 Constant load Tube 385 2 290 33 36.7 9.26x10-12 Heat 746301 cold worked
Constant load Tube 385 2 290 33 43 7.37x10-12 Heat 746301 cold worked
Constant load Tube 385 2 290 33 31.9 1.13x10 -11
Heat 746301 cold worked
Constant load Tube 385 2 290 33 35.5 1.25x10-11 Heat 746301 cold worked
Constant load Tube 385 2 290 33 35.5 1.04x10 -11
Heat 746301 cold worked
Constant load Tube 385 2 290 33 37.9 1.19x10-11 Heat 746301 cold worked
Constant load Tube 385 2 290 33 43.7 1.35x10-11 Heat 746301 cold worked
Constant load Tube 385 2 290 33 48.8 8.96x10 -12
Heat 746301 cold worked
Constant load Tube 385 2 290 33 34.1 6.92x10-12 Heat 746301 cold worked
Constant load Tube 385 2 330 33 44.3 9.80x10 -12
Heat NX8168G warm worked
Constant load Tube 385 2 330 33 49.7 2.68x10-11 Heat NX8168G warm worked
Constant load Forged bar 385 2 330 33 44.6 6.48x10 -11
Heat WA327 forged bar
Constant load Forged bar 385 2 330 33 41.3 8.75x10-11 Heat WA327 forged bar
Constant load Forged bar 385 2 330 33 41.3 3.80x10 -11
Heat HRH6503 forged bar
Constant load Forged bar 385 2 330 33 35.9 2.60x10 -11
Heat HRH6503 forged bar
Constant load Forged bar 385 2 330 33 41.6 7.10x10-11 Heat HRH6503 forged bar
Constant load Plate 385 2 330 33 39.3 7.00x10 -11
Heat NX 8664 plate
Constant load Plate 385 2 330 33 44.5 9.54x10-11 Heat NX 8664 plate
Constant load Plate 385 2 330 33 31.9 5.65x10 -11
Heat NX 8664 plate
Constant load Plate 385 2 330 33 34.3 7.04x10-11 Heat NX 8664 plate
Constant load Plate 385 2 330 33 36 8.09x10 -11
Heat NX 8664 plate

NULIFE (08) 23 32
 Constant load Plate 385 2 330 33 40.6 1.39x10-10 Heat NX 8664 plate
Constant load Plate 385 2 290 33 36.9 1.52x10-11 Heat NX 8664 plate
Constant load Plate 385 2 290 33 33.8 1.01x10 -11
Heat NX 8664 plate

NULIFE (08) 23 33
AREVA, BWR alloy 182
da/dt
Material Conductivity ECP O2 Impurity
Loading T (°C) K (MPa√m) (m/cycle) Remarks
condition (µS/cm) (mV SHE)) (ppb) (ppb SO42-)
(m/s)
1000 Hz,
0.06 100 2000 288 -- 8.9 1.4x10-9 ICG Round Robin
R=0.7
Constant
0.06 100 2000 288 -- 29.7 5x10-13 ICG Round Robin
load
1000 Hz,
0.06 100 2000 288 -- 8.8 2.1x10-9 ICG Round Robin
R=0.7
Constant
0.06 100 2000 288 -- 29.4 6.7x10-13 ICG Round Robin
load
1000 Hz,
0.28 190 2000 288 24 9 1.4x10-7 ICG Round Robin
R=0.7
Constant
0.28 190 2000 288 24 34.5 9.1x10-11 ICG Round Robin
load
1000 Hz,
0.28 185 2000 288 24 8.9 1.3x10-7 ICG Round Robin
R=0.7
Constant
0.28 185 2000 288 24 38.6 1.4x10-10 ICG Round Robin
load

NULIFE (08) 23 34
PSI, BWR alloy 182
da/dt
Material Conductivity ECP O2 impurity impurity
Loading T (°C) K (MPa√m) (m/cycle) Remarks
condition (µS/cm) (mV SHE)) (ppb) (ppb SO42-) (ppb Cl-)
(m/s)
Pinning, local da/dtmax is a
PPU MN 0.055 180 2000 288 <1 <1 34.7 5.46E-11 factor of 3 higher
Pinning, local da/dtmax is a
PPU W 0.055 175 2000 288 <1 <1 35.5 6.55E-11 factor of 3 higher
Pinning, local da/dtmax is a
CL MN 0.055 180 2000 288 <1 <1 34.9 1.01E-11 factor of 3 higher
Pinning, local da/dtmax is a
CL W 0.055 175 2000 288 <1 <1 35.8 1.97E-11 factor of 3 higher
Pinning, local da/dtmax is a
PPU MN 0.055 180 2000 288 <1 <1 34.9 1.44E-01 factor of 3 higher
Pinning, local da/dtmax is a
PPU W 0.055 175 2000 288 <1 <1 35.9 1.44E-11 factor of 3 higher
Pinning, local da/dtmax is a
CL MN 0.055 180 2000 288 <1 <1 35 4.61E-12 factor of 3 higher
Pinning, local da/dtmax is a
CL W 0.055 175 2000 288 <1 <1 36 4.42E-12 factor of 3 higher
PPU W 0.276 160 2000 288 30 <1 37.2 1.70E-09
CL W 0.276 160 2000 288 30 <1 40.7 9.30E-10
PPU W 0.276 160 2000 288 30 <1 43.9 1.60E-09

NULIFE (08) 23 35
 CL W 0.276 160 2000 288 30 <1 45 8.40E-10
PPU MN 0.276 155 2000 288 30 <1 29.3 1.20E-10 Pinning
CL MN 0.276 155 2000 288 30 <1 29.5 3.90E-11 Pinning
PPU MN 0.276 155 2000 288 30 <1 29.5 6.60E-11 Pinning
CL MN 0.276 155 2000 288 30 <1 29.6 9.50E-12 Pinning
PPU MN 0.137 145 2000 288 30 <1 20.1 2.94E-10
PPU MN 0.137 150 2000 288 30 <1 20.5 5.44E-10
PPU MN 0.137 150 2000 288 30 <1 40.5 4.67E-10
PPU MN 0.137 150 2000 288 30 <1 41.1 3.58E-10
PPU MN 0.137 150 2000 288 30 <1 41.7 2.59E-10
CL MN 0.233 155 2000 288 <1 50 43.4 3.67E-10
PPU MN 0.233 150 2000 288 <1 50 26.3 3.73E-09 Fusion line region of DMW
PPU MN 0.233 120 400 288 <1 50 41.5 3.13E-09
CL MN 0.233 120 400 288 <1 50 44.1 1.95E-09
CL MN 0.055 140 400 288 <1 <1 48.6 1.44E-10
CL MN 0.233 140 2000 288 <1 50 26.3 3.73E-09
PPU MN 0.055 150 400 288 <1 <1 28.2 2.25E-10
CL MN 0.055 150 400 288 <1 <1 28.5 1.30E-10
PPU MN 0.273 130 400 288 30 <1 28.6 5.39E-10
PPU MN 0.273 130 400 288 30 <1 32.4 6.14E-10
PPU MN 0.273 130 400 288 30 <1 36.3 5.31E-10
NearCL MN 0.055 70 200 288 <1 <1 33.7 1.03E-10
NearCL MN 0.055 70 200 288 <1 <1 34.2 7.80E-11

NULIFE (08) 23 36
 NearCL MN 0.055 70 200 288 <1 <1 34.7 1.20E-10
PPU MN 0.055 160 2000 288 <1 <1 34.7 1.75E-10

MN=PWHT 620°C, 24 h, W=no PWHT

NULIFE (08) 23 37
Studsvik Nuclear, BWR alloy 182
Table 1 Data collection from Studsviks publications regarding Alloy 182 in BWR environment. Some data are collected from diagrams in
papers resulting in an uncertainty in crack growth rates and stress intensity. In figure 1 all da/dt data is plotted as function of stress intensity, no
concern is taken for “bad data”.
Ref. Load Specimen Material Conductivity ECP O2 T Impurity Kaverage da/dt Comments
Condition1 [µS/cm] [mV [ppb] [°C] added (MPa√m) (mm/s)
SHE]
1 Bolt 25 mm PWHT, Ñ=7.63 0.06-0.45 - 150-610 270-275 - 37 1.3x10-7 Crack growth only
modified CT2, PWHT, 0.06-0.45 - 150-610 270-275 - 29 3.1x10-8 measured annually
3
5% SG on Ñ=14.5 on the surface on
each side. PWHT, 0.06-0.45 - 150-610 270-275 - 38 4.8x10-8 both sides of the
Crack Ñ=14.53 specimens.
propagation AW, Ñ=143 0.06-0.45 - 150-610 270-275 - 19 4.5x10-8 Tested in an actual
perpendicular AW, Ñ=143 0.06-0.45 - 150-610 270-275 - 23 5.5x10-8 plant.
to the weld AW, Ñ=143 0.06-0.45 - 150-610 270-275 - 26 7.0x10-8 CGR Data and
passes AW, Ñ=143 0.06-0.45 - 150-610 270-275 - 36 7.5x10-8 stress intensity
AW, Ñ=7.53 0.06-0.45 - 150-610 270-275 - 20 1.0x10-8 estimated from
AW, Ñ=7.53 0.06-0.45 - 150-610 270-275 - 22 1.0x10-7 diagrams in the
AW, Ñ=7.53 0.06-0.45 - 150-610 270-275 - 26 8.0x10-8 paper only.
3
AW, Ñ=7.5 0.06-0.45 - 150-610 270-275 - 32 1.8x10-7

5 Const 25 mm CT, AW 0.2 12 500 287 - 40 1.3x10-7 The test started

ant 5% SG on AW 0.2 46 500 287 - 41 1.4x10-7 with gentle cycling,
stress each side. AW 0.2 55 500 287 - 20 6.9x10-8 i.e periodic
intensi Crack AW 0.2 67 500 287 - 20 6.2x10-8 unloading with
ty propagation SR 0.2 24 500 287 - 36 4.2x10-8 increasing hold
parallel to the SR 0.2 51 500 287 - 37 9.4x10-8 times at maximum
dendrites SR 0.2 25 500 287 - 34 9.1x10-9 load (R=0.7).
SR 0.2 50 500 287 - 34 1.6x10-8 However, the test
AW 0.2 69 500 287 - 37 1.1x10-7 time is only for the
AW 0.2 76 500 287 - 38 1.8x10-7 step with constant
stress intensity.
AW 0.2 76 500 287 - 20 5.2x10-8

NULIFE (08) 23 38
Ref. Load Specimen Material Conductivity ECP O2 T Impurity Kaverage da/dt Comments
Condition1 [µS/cm] [mV [ppb] [°C] added (MPa√m) (mm/s)
SHE]
AW 0.2 80 500 287 - 20 4.1x10-8
SR 0.2 37 500 287 - 20 8.7x10-9
SR 0.2 62 500 287 - 20 3.2x10-8
SR 0.2 29 500 287 - 20 1.7x10-8
SR 0.2 59 500 287 - 20 5.3x10-8
6 Period 25 mm CT, AW <0.16 - 500 288 - 20 3.9x10-8 In this test the effect
ic 5% SG on <0.16 - 500 288 - 20 4.8x10-8 of different levels of
unloa each side. <0.16 - 500 288 - 28 6.6x10-8 impurities on CGR
-7
ding Crack <0.16 - 500 288 - 28 1.3x10 was studied. The
with a propagation - - 500 288 5 ppb SO42- 20 5.7x10-8 test should partly be
hold parallel to the - - 500 288 5 ppb SO42- 20 6.6x10-8 considered as a
time dendrites - - 500 288 5 ppb SO42- 28 1.0x10-7 parameter study.
of - - 500 288 5 ppb SO42- 28 1.7x10-7
10000 - - 500 288 30 ppb SO42- 20 4.6x10-8
s at - - 500 288 30 ppb SO42- 20 6.2x10-8
maxim
- - 500 288 30 ppb SO42- 28 8.9x10-8
um
- - 500 288 30 ppb SO42- 28 2.0x10-7
load.
Const - - 500 288 100 ppb 20 5.8x10-8
2-
ant K. SO4
- - 500 288 100 ppb 20 7.9x10-8
SO42-
- - 500 288 100 ppb 28 1.3x10-7
SO42-
- - 500 288 100 ppb 28 2.9x10-7
2-
SO4
<0.16 - 2-8 288 - 20 1.3x10-7
<0.16 - 2-8 288 - 20 1.8x10-8
<0.16 - 2-8 288 - 28 2.8x10-8
<0.16 - 2-8 288 - 28 5.4x10-8
- - 2-8 288 5 ppb SO42- 20 2.1x10-8
- - 2-8 288 5 ppb SO42- 20 2.9x10-8
2-
- - 2-8 288 5 ppb SO4 28 4.2x10-8

NULIFE (08) 23 39
Ref. Load Specimen Material Conductivity ECP O2 T Impurity Kaverage da/dt Comments
Condition1 [µS/cm] [mV [ppb] [°C] added (MPa√m) (mm/s)
SHE]
- - 2-8 288 5 ppb SO42- 28 6.6x10-8
- - 2-8 288 30 ppb SO42- 20 2.0x10-8
- - 2-8 288 30 ppb SO42- 20 3.5x10-8
- - 2-8 288 30 ppb SO42- 28 5.2x10-8
- - 2-8 288 30 ppb SO42- 28 7.6x10-8
- - 2-8 288 100 ppb 20 1.9x10-8
2-
SO4
- - 2-8 288 100 ppb 20 2.9x10-8
SO42-
- - 2-8 288 100 ppb 28 3.9x10-8
2-
SO4
- - 2-8 288 100 ppb 28 7.5x10-8
2-
SO4
<0.16 - 500 288 - 20 4.7x10-8
<0.16 - 500 288 - 20 4.4x10-8
<0.16 - 500 288 - 28 6.7x10-8
<0.16 - 500 288 - 28 4.7x10-8
6 Period 25 mm CT, AW - - 500 288 5 ppb Cl- 20 8.3x10-8
Cont´ ic 5% SG on - - 500 288 5 ppb Cl- 20 8.4x10-8
d unloa each side. - - 500 288 5 ppb Cl- 28 1.2x10-7
ding Crack - - 500 288 5 ppb Cl- 28 7.4x10-8
with a propagation - - 500 288 30 ppb Cl- 20 8.8x10-8
hold parallel to the - - 500 288 30 ppb Cl- 20 1.3x10-7
time dendrites - - 500 288 30 ppb Cl- 28 1.5x10-7
of - - 500 288 30 ppb Cl- 28 1.0x10-7
10000 - - 500 288 76 ppb Cl- 20 1.6x10-7
s at
- - 500 288 76 ppb Cl- 20 1.8x10-7
maxi
- - 500 288 76 ppb Cl- 28 2.5x10-7
mum
- - 500 288 76 ppb Cl- 28 1.1x10-7
load.
Const - - 500 288 76 ppb Cl- 20 1.9x10-7
ant K. - - 500 288 100 ppb Cl- 20 1.9x10-7
-
- - 500 288 100 ppb Cl 28 2.5x10-7

NULIFE (08) 23 40
Ref. Load Specimen Material Conductivity ECP O2 T Impurity Kaverage da/dt Comments
Condition1 [µS/cm] [mV [ppb] [°C] added (MPa√m) (mm/s)
SHE]
- - 500 288 100 ppb Cl- 28 1.6x10-7
<0.16 - 2-8 288 - 20 2.8x10-8
<0.16 - 2-8 288 - 20 2.2x10-8
<0.16 - 2-8 288 - 28 4.0x10-8
<0.16 - 2-8 288 - 28 2.9x10-8
- - 2-8 288 5 ppb Cl- 20 2.3x10-8
- - 2-8 288 5 ppb Cl- 20 3.2x10-8
- - 2-8 288 5 ppb Cl- 28 4.2x10-8
- -8
- - 2-8 288 5 ppb Cl 28 2.5x10
- - 2-8 288 30 ppb Cl- 20 4.0x10-8
- - 2-8 288 30 ppb Cl- 20 4.1x10-8
- - 2-8 288 30 ppb Cl- 28 4.0x10-8
- - 2-8 288 30 ppb Cl- 28 3.0x10-8
- - 2-8 288 100 ppb Cl- 20 2.9x10-8
- - 2-8 288 100 ppb Cl- 20 6.4x10-8
- - 2-8 288 100 ppb Cl- 28 6.9x10-8
- - 2-8 288 100 ppb Cl- 28 1.4x10-8
1 PWHT=Post welded heat treatment, AW=As welded, SR=stress relieved at 600 C for 2h, AR= As received, MA=Mill annealed
2 Modified compact tension, W≈B*2,6
Nb + 2Ti
3 Carbide stabilization parameter: Ñ = 0,13
C

NULIFE (08) 23 41
 1.0E-05
Swedish disposition line for Alloy 182 NWC
Reference 1
Reference 5
Reference 6
1.0E-06
CGR (mm/s)

1.0E-07

1.0E-08

1.0E-09
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Stress intensity (MPa√m)
Figure 1
All CGR data from table 1 plotted together with the Swedish disposition line for Alloy 182 in BWR NWC.

NULIFE (08) 23 42
 Studsvik Nuclear, PWR alloy 182
Table 2 Data collection from Studsviks publications regarding Alloy 182 in PWR environment. In figure 2 all da/dt data is plotted as function
of stress intensity, no concern is taken for “bad data”.

Ref. Loading Specimen Material Conductivity B Li T H2 Kaverage da/dt Imp. Comments

Conditi [µS/cm] [ppm] [ppm] [°C] [cc] [MPa√m] [mm/s] added
1
on
4, 7 Constant 25 mm CT, 5% AW 19.9 1297 2.3 319 30 19 6.3x10-8 - CGR measured on
diplacement SG on each 19.9 1297 2.3 319 30 23 1.5x10-7 - fracture surface. Crack
side. 19.9 1297 2.3 319 30 31 2.2x10-7 - growth was monitored
Crack 19.9 1297 2.3 319 30 36 7.0x10-8 - by a decreasing load
propagation 19.9 1297 2.3 319 30 42 2.0x10-7 - on the Specimen.
parallel to the 19.9 1297 2.3 319 30 43 1.8x10-7 - The effect of
dendrites 19.9 1297 2.3 319 30 49 2.2x10-7 - temperature and
19.9 1297 2.3 319 30 56 1.9x10-7 - stress intensity on
CGR was studied.
7 Constant 25 mm CT, 5% AW 21.2 1199 2.2 305 25 32.4 1.4x10-7 -
displacement SG on each 21.2 1199 2.2 305 25 33.0 1.0x10-7 -
side. 21.2 1199 2.2 320 26 33.7 2.4x10-7 -
Crack 21.2 1199 2.2 320 26 34.3 3.1x10-7 -
propagation 21.2 1199 2.2 340 25 39.1 7.5x10-7 -
parallel to the 21.2 1199 2.2 340 25 34.1 4.0x10-7 -
dendrites 21.2 1199 2.2 290 27 33.6 7.7x10-8 -
-8
21.2 1199 2.2 290 27 33.4 6.1x10 -
-7
10 f=0.05 Hz, 25 mm CT, AW 20 1070 2.1 344.5 31 45 3.2x10 - The effect of
thold=1000 s 10% SG on temperature, hold
f=0.05 Hz, each side. 20 1070 2.1 344.5 31 48 1.3x10-6 - time, and stress
thold=1000 s Crack intensity was studied.
f=0.05 Hz, propagation 20 1070 2.1 320 31 42 6.7x10-7 -
thold=1000 s parallel to the
-7
f=0.05 Hz, dendrites 20 1070 2.1 344.5 31 49 7.5x10 -
thold=100000 s

NULIFE (08) 23 43
Ref. Loading Specimen Material Conductivity B Li T H2 Kaverage da/dt Imp. Comments
Conditi [µS/cm] [ppm] [ppm] [°C] [cc] [MPa√m] [mm/s] added
1
on
-7
f=0.05 Hz, 20 1070 2.1 320 31 45 2.4x10 -
thold=100000 s
f=0.05 Hz, 20 1100 2.0 344.5 28 32 3.7x10-7 -
thold=1000 s
-7
f=0.05 Hz, 20 1100 2.0 344.5 28 38 5.5x10 -
thold=1000 s
-7
f=0.05 Hz, 20 1100 2.0 344.5 28 31 6.8x10 -
thold=100000 s
f=0.05 Hz, 20 1100 2.0 344.5 28 41 8.7x10-7 -
thold=100000 s
f=0.05 Hz, 20 1240 2.0 344.5 34 40 1.4x10-6 -
thold=1000 s
-7
f=0.05 Hz, 20 1240 2.0 344.5 34 43 7.4x10 -
thold=100000 s
f=0.05 Hz, 20 1240 2.0 344.5 34 45 1.0x10-6 -
thold=100000 s
1 PWHT=Post welded heat treatment, AW=As welded, SR=stress relieved at 600°C for 2h, AR= As received, MA=Mill annealed

NULIFE (08) 23 44
 1.0E-05
Ringhals curve for Alloy 182 PWR
Reference 4 and 7
Reference 7
Reference 10
1.0E-06
CGR (mm/s)

1.0E-07

1.0E-08

1.0E-09
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
Stress intensity (MPa√m)
Figure 2
All CGR data from table 2 plotted together with Ringhals disposition line for Alloy 182 in primary water.

NULIFE (08) 23 45
 Studsvik Nuclear, PWR alloy 600
Table 3 Data collection from Studsviks publications regarding Alloy 600 in PWR environment. In figure 3 all da/dt data is plotted as
function of stress intensity, no concern is taken for “bad data”.
Ref. Loading Specimen Material Conductivity B Li T H2 Kaverage da/dt Imp. Comments
1
Condition [µS/cm] [ppm] [ppm] [°C] [cc] [MPa√m] [mm/s] added
8 Constan 12.5 mm, 5% MA AR 20.5 1218 2.0 331 25.4 26.5 9.8x10-8 - The effect of
t stress SG on each 20.5 1218 2.0 331 25.4 24.7 5.2x10-8 - hydrogen in the
intensity. side 19.5 1115 2.0 330 15.6 27.6 2.5x10-7 - vicinity of Ni/NiO
Cyclic 19.5 1115 2.0 330 15.6 25.0 1.1x10-7 - transition. The
loading -8 different hydrogen
20.4 1110 2.0 330 4.7 26.8 3.0x10 -
with a 20.4 1110 2.0 330 4.7 25.1 4.5x10-8 - levels were all
1000s 20.7 1122 2.0 331 2.5 26.9 7x10-9 - studied on 2
hold 20.7 1122 2.0 331 2.5 25.4 1.2x10-8 - specimens
time at 20.7 1137 2.0 332 15.6 26.9 5.2x10-8 - simultaneously.
max
20.7 1137 2.0 332 15.6 25.5 4.6x10-8 -
load
20.7 1156 2.0 332 18.2 27.1 1.1x10-7 -
20.7 1156 2.0 332 18.2 25.4 2.9x10-8 -

25 mm CT, 5% AR 22.0 1092 2.1 332 23.2 23.0 7.1x10-8 - 16 specimens, 4

SG on each 22.0 1092 2.1 332 23.2 21.7 9.3x10-7 - specimen for each
side 22.0 1092 2.1 332 23.2 29.4 1.1x10-7 - hydrogen level, i.e.
22.0 1092 2.1 332 23.2 33.5 1.8x10-7 - only one H2-level on
22.7 1128 2.1 332 49.2 23.2 4,8x10-8 - each specimen.
22.7 1128 2.1 332 49.2 23.7 5.9x10-8 -
22.7 1128 2.1 332 49.2 30.1 7.5x10-8 -
22.7 1128 2.1 332 49.2 28.8 8.3x10-8 -
22.5 1248 2.3 330 9.5 23.8 5.6x10-8 -
22.5 1248 2.3 330 9.5 25.4 6.6x10-8 -
22.5 1248 2.3 330 9.5 30.1 7.5x10-8 -
22.5 1248 2.3 330 9.5 31.2 1.1x10-8 -
23.0 1269 2.2 329 5.1 25.2 3.8x10-8 -
23.0 1269 2.2 329 5.1 24.9 4.9x10-8 -
23.0 1269 2.2 329 5.1 31.7 5.7x10-8 -

NULIFE (08) 23 46
Ref. Loading Specimen Material Conductivity B Li T H2 Kaverage da/dt Imp. Comments
1
Condition [µS/cm] [ppm] [ppm] [°C] [cc] [MPa√m] [mm/s] added
23.0 1269 2.2 329 5.1 31.6 4.7x10-8 -

NULIFE (08) 23 47
Ref. Loading Specimen Material Conductivity B Li Temp H2 Kaverage da/dt Imp. added Comments
Condition1 [µS/cm] [ppm] [ppm] [°C] [cc] [MPa√m] [mm/s]
9 Constant K 12.5 mm, AR - 350 2.0 330 8 26.0 2.9x10-7 0 ppm K A multivariable
Cyclic 10% SG on - 350 3.5 330 8 26.9 1.6x10-7 8.5 ppm K analysis was
loading each side - 1200 2.0 330 8 27.6 5.9x10-8 8.5 ppm K performed to
with a - 1200 3.5 330 8 27.8 7.4x10-8 0 ppm K investigate the
1000s hold - 350 2.0 330 25 28.1 2.2x10-8 8.5 ppm K effect of
time at - 350 3.5 330 25 30.4 2.0x10-7 0 ppm K environment on
max load, - 1200 2.0 330 25 31.2 5.4x10-7 0 ppm K CGR. K was
f=0.05 Hz - 1200 3.5 330 25 32.2 7.3x10-7 8.5 ppm K added as KOH to
- 350 2.0 330 25 29.9 1.0x10-7 0 ppm K study the effect of
- 350 3.5 330 8 24.6 1.9x10-7 0 ppm K pH.
- 1200 2.0 330 8 24.6 3.3x10-8 0 ppm K
- 350 2.0 330 8 25.0 7.2x10-8 8.5 ppm K
- 1200 3.5 330 8 25.0 2.9x10-7 8.5 ppm K
- 1200 3.5 330 25 25.5 7.5x10-8 0 ppm K
- 350 3.5 330 25 24.8 3.3x10-8 8.5 ppm K
-8
- 1200 2.0 330 25 24.8 3.3x10 8.5 ppm K
1 PWHT=Post welded heat treatment, AW=As welded, SR=stress relieved at 600 C for 2h, AR= As received, MA=Mill annealed

NULIFE (08) 23 48
 1.0E-05
Ringhals curve for Alloy 182 PWR
Reference 8
Reference 9

1.0E-06
CGR (mm/s)

1.0E-07

1.0E-08

1.0E-09
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
Stress intensity (MPa√m)
Figure 3
All CGR data from table 3 plotted together with Ringhals disposition line for Alloy 182 in primary water.

NULIFE (08) 23 49
Studsvik Nuclear, BWR alloy 600
Table 4 Data collection from Studsviks publications regarding Alloy 600 in BWR environment.

Ref. Loading Specimen Material Conductivity ECP Oxygen Temp Impurity Test Kaverag da/dt Comments
1 3
Condition added time e
2 Constant Cylindrical HT1, HT2, 0,06-0,45 - 150-610 270-275 - 17000- - - Tested in an actual plant.
tension test HT3 100000 Not susceptible to
specimens cracking in this test

NULIFE (08) 23 50
References
1. Jenssen, A, Bengtsson, B, Morin, U and Jansson, C. Crack propagation in stainless steels and Nickel base Alloys in a Commercial operating BWR, 7th Int`l Symp. On
Environmental Degradation of Materials in Nuclear Power Systems – Water reactors, Breckenridge, CO, August 6-10, 1995.
2. Jenssen, A, Jansson, C, Morin, U and Bengtsson, B. Constant load Test of high and low Strength Nickel base Alloys in BWR Environment, Eurocorr `96, Nice,
France, September 24-26, 1996.
3. Jenssen, A, Norrgård, K, Lagerström, J, Embring, G, Jansson, C and Efsing P. Structural Assessment of Defected Nozzle to Safe-End Welds in Ringhals 3 and 4,
Proc. Int`l Symp. on Contribution of Materials Investigation to the Resolution of Problems Encountered in Pressurized Water Reactors, Fontevraud 5, September
2002, SFEN, Paris, France.
4. Jenssen, A, Jansson, C, Efsing, P, Norring K and König , M. A Swedish perspective on PWSCC of Alloy 182. EPRI 2005 Int´l PWSCC of Alloy 600 Conference and
Exhibit Show, Tamya resort, NM, March 7-10, 2005.
5. Jenssen, A, Sundberg, J and Efsing, P. The Effect of Weld Residual Stress on the Crack Growth Rate of Alloy 182 in BWR Environment. Proc. Int`l Symp. on
Contribution of Materials Investigation to the Resolution of Problems Encountered in Pressurized Water Reactors, Fontevraud 6, September 2006, SFEN, Paris,
France.
6. M. König, C. Jansson, B. Bengtsson and K. Gott (2004). Effect of Sulphate and Chloride on Environmentally Assisted Cracking of Alloy 182 and Type 304 Stainless
Steel in Simulated BWR Environments, San Francisco 2004.
7. Norring, K, König, M, Lagerström, J. Stress intensity and temperature dependence for crack growth rate in weld metal Alloy 182 in primary PWR environment. 12th
International Symposium in Environmentally assisted Degradation of Materials in Nuclear Power Systems – Water Reactors, Salt Lake City, UT, USA, 2005.
8. M. König, K. Norring, K. Gott, T. Glas (2006). The Influence of Hydrogen Concentration on the PWSCC Susceptibility in Alloy 600 in Simulated Primary Water at
330 °C. Inter Symp on Contribution of Materials Investigations to Improve the Safety and Performance of LWRs, Fontevraud IV. SFEN
9. M. König, P. Lidar, J. Engström & K. Gott (2002). Effect of Water Chemistry on Environmentally Assisted Cracking of Alloy 600 in Simulated Primary Side PWR
Environments. Int’l Conf. on Water Chemistry in Nuclear Reactor Systems – Operation Optimisation and New Developments, SFEN, France, 2002.
10. R. Lindström, P. Lidar, J. Lagerström (1997). Crack Growth of Alloy 182 in a Simulated Primary Side PWR Environment. 8th Int`l Symp. On Environmental
Degradation of Materials in Nuclear Power Systems – Water reactors, Amelia Island, August 10-14, 1997.
11. Morin, U, Jansson, C and Bengtsson, B. Crack growth rates for Ni-base alloys with the application to an operating BWR. 6th Int`l Symp. On Environmental
Degradation of Materials in Nuclear Power Systems – Water reactors, San Diego, August 1-5, 1993.
12. Efsing, P and Jansson, C. Screening of Crack Growth Data and the Relevance from an End-User Perspective. 11th International Symposium in Environmentally
assisted Degradation of Materials in Nuclear Power Systems – Water Reactors, Stevenson Washington, USA, 2003.

NULIFE (08) 23 51