0
Research Papers: Design and Analysis

Residual Stress Characterization in a Dissimilar Metal Weld Nuclear Reactor Piping System Mock Up

[+] Author and Article Information
Matthew Kerr

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research,
Washington, DC 20555
e-mail: matthew.kerr.contractor@unnpp.gov

Michael Steinzig

W-13, Los Alamos National Lab,
Los Alamos, NM 87545

Thomas Sisneros

Los Alamos Neutron Science Center,
Los Alamos Nation Lab,
Los Alamos, NM 87545

1Present address: Knolls Atomic Power Lab.

2The views expressed herein are those of the authors and do not represent an official position of the U.S. NRC or Los Alamos National Lab.

3Corresponding author.

Contributed by the Pressure Vessel and Piping Division of ASME for publication in the Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology. Manuscript received June 24, 2012; final manuscript received December 19, 2012; published online June 11, 2013. Assoc. Editor: Kunio Hasegawa.

J. Pressure Vessel Technol 135(4), 041205 (Jun 11, 2013) (8 pages) Paper No: PVT-12-1086; doi: 10.1115/1.4024446 History: Received June 24, 2012; Revised December 19, 2012

Time-of-flight neutron diffraction, contour method, and surface hole drilling residual stress measurements were conducted at Los Alamos National Lab (LANL) on a lab sized plate specimen (P4) from phase 1 of the joint U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and Electric Power Research Institute Weld Residual Stress (NRC/EPRI WRS) program. The specimen was fabricated from a 304L stainless steel plate containing a seven pass alloy 82 groove weld, restrained during welding and removed from the restraint for residual stress characterization. This paper presents neutron diffraction and contour method results, and compares these experimental stress measurements to a WRS finite element (FE) model. Finally, details are provided on the procedure used to calculate the residual stress distribution in the restrained or as welded condition in order to allow comparison to other residual stress data collected as part of phase 1 of the WRS program.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2013 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Schematic of the P4 plate specimen and restraining clamp (a) drafting showing axis convention used and (b) measurement location and neutron scattering geometry for the longitudinal/normal strain components

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Comparison of longitudinal stresses in the restrained or as welded condition (a) neutron diffraction with black diamonds indicating the measurement location, (b) contour method, and (c) WRS FE model results using isotropic hardening. Plate perimeter as measured in the contour method is plotted as a point of reference.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Results from WRS FE thermal model (a) comparison of the fusion zone to weld macrograph, (b)–(d) TC data versus WRS FE thermal model. TC data was not collected below ∼350 K, explaining the gaps visible in the TC data.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

(a) Calculated correction factors along the indicated line (y = 6 mm), transverse correction is the most significant and (b) correction over corrects the transverse residual stress data relative to the FE calculations

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Comparison of unrestrained plate perimeter (solid line) as measured from the contour method profilometry to (a) 2D and (b) 3D WRS FE model (diamonds)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Comparison of longitudinal stresses at (a) midplane (y = 0 mm) and (b) parallel to the midplane (y = 6 mm)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Comparison of transverse and normal stress components at midplane

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Comparison of longitudinal stress components along centerline, (a) x = 0 mm, (b) x =−3.5 mm, (c) x = −7 mm, and (d) x = −10.5 mm. Same grayscale convention as Fig. 6 is followed, grey line in (a) results from a WRS FE model using the mixed hardening law from the British Energy work package [18].

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Peak intensity as a function of weld position, showing that point-to-point intensity variation is greater in the weld than in the base metal

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In