0
Research Papers: Materials and Fabrication

Brittle Fracture Prevention Model for Pressure Based on Master Curve Approach

[+] Author and Article Information
QingFeng Cui

Institute of Process Equipment,
School of Mechanical Engineering,
East China University of Science
and Technology,
130 Meilong Street,
Shanghai 200237, China
e-mail: cqf_mail@163.com

Hu Hui

Institute of Process Equipment,
School of Mechanical Engineering,
East China University of Science
and Technology,
130 Meilong Street,
Shanghai 200237, China
e-mail: huihu@ecust.edu.cn

PeiNing Li

Institute of Process Equipment,
School of Mechanical Engineering,
East China University of Science
and Technology,
130 Meilong Street,
Shanghai 200237, China
e-mail: lpn_mail@163.com

Feng Wang

Institute of Process Equipment,
School of Mechanical Engineering,
East China University of Science and
Technology,
130 Meilong Street,
Shanghai 200237, China
e-mail: feng.wang1990@yahoo.com

1Corresponding author.

Contributed by the Pressure Vessel and Piping Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF PRESSURE VESSEL TECHNOLOGY. Manuscript received December 17, 2015; final manuscript received May 4, 2016; published online August 5, 2016. Assoc. Editor: David L. Rudland.

J. Pressure Vessel Technol 139(1), 011405 (Aug 05, 2016) (9 pages) Paper No: PVT-15-1275; doi: 10.1115/1.4033599 History: Received December 17, 2015; Revised May 04, 2016

The brittle fracture prevention model is of great importance to the safety of pressure vessels. Compared to the semi-empirical approach adopted in various pressure vessel standards, a model based on Master Curve technique is developed in this paper. Referring to ASME nuclear code, the safety features including the lower bound fracture toughness and a margin factor equal to 2 for the stress intensity factor produced by primary stress are adopted in the new model. The technical background of the brittle fracture model in ASME VIII-2 has been analyzed and discussed, and then its inappropriate items have been modified in the new model. Minimum design temperature curves, impact toughness requirements, and temperature adjustment for low stress condition are established on the basis of new model. The comparison with the relevant curves in ASME VIII-2 is also made. The applicability of the new model is verified by the measured fracture toughness and impact toughness data of several kinds of pressure vessel steels. The results suggest that the minimum design temperature and the impact test requirements derived by the new model are compatible with each other. More testing data of different steels to check this model is necessary for further engineering application.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2017 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Wiesner, C. S. , Sandström, R. , Garwood, S. J. , Street, D. M. , and Coulson, K. J. , 2001, “ Background to Requirements for the Prevention of Brittle Fracture in the European Standards for Pressure Vessels (prEN 13445) and Metallic Industrial Piping (prEN 13480),” Int. J. Press. Vessels Pip., 78(6), pp. 391–399. [CrossRef]
Nickell, R. E. , 2003, “ ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code Requirements for Prevention of Brittle Fracture,” ASME J. Pressure Vessel Technol., 125(2), pp. 121–130. [CrossRef]
Selz, A. , 1988, “ New Toughness Rules in Section VIII, Division 1 of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Code,” ASME Paper No. 88-PVP-8.
Prager, M. , Osage, D. A. , Staats, J. , and Macejko, B. , 2010, “ Development of Material Fracture Toughness Rules for the ASME B&PV Code,” The Welding Research Council, New York, Section VIII, Division 2, WRC Bulletin, Vol. 528.
Oldfield, W. , Server, W. L. , Wullaert, R. A. , Wullaert, R. A. , and Stahlkopf, K. E. , 1978, “ Development of a Statistical Lower Bound Fracture Toughness Curve,” Int. J. Press. Vessels Pip., 6(3), pp. 203–222. [CrossRef]
Osage, D. A. , and Prager, M. , 2012, “ Technical Basis of Material Toughness Requirements in the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section VIII, Division 2,” ASME J. Pressure Vessel Technol., 134(3), p. 031001. [CrossRef]
Barsom, J. M. , and Rolfe, S. T. , 1999, Fracture and Fatigue Control in Structures: Application of the Fracture Mechanics, 3rd ed., ASTM Press, West Conshohocken, PA, p. 87.
Barsom, J. M. , and Rolfe, S. T. , 1977, Fracture and Fatigue Control in Structures: Application of the Fracture Mechanics, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, pp. 89–99.
Sandström, R. , Langenberg, P. , and Sieurin, H. , 2005, “ Analysis of the Brittle Fracture Avoidance Model for Pressure Vessels in European Standard,” Int. J. Press. Vessels Pip., 82(11), pp. 872–881. [CrossRef]
Sandström, R. , Langenberg, P. , and Sieurin, H. , 2004, “ New Brittle Fracture Model for the European Pressure Vessel Standard,” Int. J. Press. Vessels Pip., 8, pp. 837–845. [CrossRef]
Sanz, G. , 1980, “ Attempts to Introduce a Quantitative Method of Choosing Steel Quality With Reference to the Risk of Brittle Fracture,” Rev. Metall. CIT, 77, pp. 621–642.
Wallin, K. , Saario, T. , Törrönen, K. , and Forsten, J. , 1984, “ Mechanism-Based Statistical Evaluation of the ASME Reference Fracture Toughness Curve,” 5th International Conference on Pressure Vessel Technology, San Francisco, CA, Sept. 9–14, pp. 966–974.
Wallin, K. , 1984, “ The Scatter in KIC Results,” Eng. Fract. Mech., 19(6), pp. 1085–1093. [CrossRef]
Wallin, K. , 1985, “ The Size Effect in KIC Results,” Eng. Fract. Mech., 22(1), pp. 149–163. [CrossRef]
Wallin, K. , Nevasmaa, P. , Planman, T. , and Valo, M. , 2002, “ Evolution of the Charpy-V Test From a Quality Control Test to a Materials Evaluation Tool for Structural Integrity Assessment,” From Charpy to Present Impact Testing, Elsevier Science, Oxford, UK, pp. 57–68.
Qingfeng, C. , Hu, H. , and Peining, L. , 2015, “ Applicability of the ASME Exemption Curve for Chinese Pressure Vessel Steel Q345R,” ASME J. Pressure Vessel Technol., 137, p. 061602.
Raju, I. S. , and Newman, J. C. J. , 1981, “ An Empirical Stress-Intensity Factor Equation for the Surface Crack,” Eng. Fract. Mech., 15(1–2), pp. 185–192.
Abson, D. J. , Tkach, Y. , Hadely, I. , and Burdekin, F. M. , 2006, “ Accessing Toughness Levels for Steels to Determine the Need for PWHT,” J. Weld., 85, pp. 29–35.
Abson, D. J. , Tkach, Y. , Hadely, I. , and Burdekin, F. M. , 2006, “ A Review of Post Weld Heat Treatment Code Exemptions,” J. Weld., 85, pp. 63–69.
Ricardella, P. C. , and Yukawa, S. , 1991, “ Twenty Years of Fracture Mechanics and Flaw Evaluation Applications in the ASME Nuclear Code,” ASME J. Pressure Vessel Technol., 113(2), pp. 145–153. [CrossRef]
Yukawa, S. , and Merkle, J. G. , 1984, “ Development of the Present Reference Fracture Toughness Curves in the ASME Nuclear Code,” Reference Fracture Toughness Procedures Applied to Pressure Vessel Materials, T. R. Mager , ed., Vol. MPC-24, ASME, San Antonio, TX.
Wallin, K. , 1999, “ Statistical Re-Evaluation of the ASME KIC and KIR Fracture Toughness Reference Curves,” Nucl. Eng. Des., 193(3), pp. 317–326. [CrossRef]
Wang, Z. X. , Shi, H.-J. , and Lu, J. , 2008, “ Size Effects on the Ductile/Brittle Fracture Properties of the Pressure Vessel Steel 20 g,” Theor. Appl. Fract. Mech., 50(2), pp. 124–131 [CrossRef]
Joyce, J. A. , and Tregoning, R. L. , 2001, “ Development of the T0 Reference Temperature From Precracked Charpy Specimens,” Eng. Fract. Mech., 68(7), pp. 861–894. [CrossRef]
Rathbun, H. J. , Odette, G. R. , Yamamoto, T. , and Lucas, G. E. , 2006, “ Influence of Statistical and Constraint Loss Size Effects on Cleavage Fracture Toughness in the Transition—A Single Variable Experiment and Database,” Eng. Fract. Mech., 73(1), pp. 134–158. [CrossRef]
Toth, L. , Rossmanith, H. P. , and Siewert, T. A. , 2002, “ Historical Background and Development of the Charpy Test,” From Charpy to Present Impact Testing, Elsevier Science, Oxford, UK, pp. 3–19.
Sailors, R. H. , and Corten, T. H. , 1972, “ Relationship Between Material Fracture Toughness Using Fracture Mechanics and Transition Temperature Tests,” National Symposium Fracture Mechanics, American Society for Testing and Materials, No. ASTM STP 514, pp. 164–191.
Barsom, J. M. , and Rolfe, S. T. , 1970, “ Correlations Between KIC and Charpy V-Notch Test Results in the Transition-Temperature Range,” American Society for Testing and Materials, West Conshohocken, PA, Impact Testing of Metals: STP 466, pp. 281–302.
Mehta, H. S. , Griesbach, T. J. , and Stevens, G. L. , 2008, “ Suggested Improvements to Appendix G of ASME Section XI Code,” ASME Paper No. PVP2008-61624, pp. 365–375.
Viehrig, H.-W. , Altstadt, E. , Houska, M. , and Valo, M. , 2012, “ Fracture Mechanics Characterisation of the Beltline Welding Seam of the Decommissioned WWER-440 Reactor Pressure Vessel of Nuclear Power Plant Greifswald Unit 4,” Int. J. Press. Vessels Pip., 89, pp. 129–136. [CrossRef]
Bhowmika, S. , Chattopadhyaya, A. , and Bosea, T. , 2011, “ Estimation of Fracture Toughness of 20MnMoNi55 Steel in the Ductile to Brittle Transition Region Using Master Curve Method,” Nucl. Eng. Des., 241(8), pp. 2831–2838. [CrossRef]
Heerens, J. , and Hellmann, D. , 2002, “ Development of the Euro Fracture Toughness Dataset,” Eng. Fract. Mech., 69(4), pp. 421–449. [CrossRef]
Lucon, E. , 2008, “ Influence of Striking Edge Radius (2 mm versus 8 mm) on Instrumented Charpy Data and Absorbed Energies,” Belgian Nuclear Research Centre (SCK·CEN), Mol, Belgium, Open Report No. BLG-1057.

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Impact test exemption curves in ASME VIII-1 UCS66

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Assumed model with crack

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Fracture toughness requirements for the AW condition

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Fracture toughness requirements for the PWHT condition

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

The minimum design temperature of Q345R for the AW condition

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

The minimum design temperature of Q345R for the PWHT condition

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Fracture toughness and impact energy of Q345R

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Prediction effect comparison of empirical correlations for Q345R

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Impact test requirements for the AW condition

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Impact test requirements for the PWHT condition

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Comparison of the measured CVN data and the requirements for Q345R (heat1 and heat 2), 22NiMoCr37 and 20MnMoNi5. The fitting curve of measured value is marked by solid line, the AW requirement by dotted line, and the PWHT requirement by dashed line. (a) Q345R heat 1, (b) Q345R heat 2, (c) 22NiMoCr37, and (d) 20MnMoNi5.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Temperature adjustment for the low stress condition (parts in the AW condition)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

Temperature adjustment for the low stress condition (parts in the PWHT condition)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

Minimum design temperature under different Rts for the AW condition

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