0
Research Papers: Design and Analysis

Development of Stress Intensity Factors for Subsurface Flaws in Plates Subjected to Polynomial Stress Distributions

[+] Author and Article Information
Kai Lu

Nuclear Safety Research Center,
Japan Atomic Energy Agency,
2-4 Shirakata, Naka-gun,
Tokai-mura 319-1195, Ibaraki, Japan
e-mail: lu.kai@jaea.go.jp

Mano Akihiro

Nuclear Safety Research Center,
Japan Atomic Energy Agency,
2-4 Shirakata, Naka-gun,
Tokai-mura 319-1195, Ibaraki, Japan
e-mail: mano.akihiro@jaea.go.jp

Jinya Katsuyama

Nuclear Safety Research Center,
Japan Atomic Energy Agency,
2-4 Shirakata, Naka-gun,
Tokai-mura 319-1195, Ibaraki, Japan
e-mail: katsuyama.jinya@jaea.go.jp

Yinsheng Li

Nuclear Safety Research Center,
Japan Atomic Energy Agency,
2-4 Shirakata, Naka-gun,
Tokai-mura 319-1195, Ibaraki, Japan
e-mail: li.yinsheng@jaea.go.jp

Fuminori Iwamatsu

Research and Development Group,
Hitachi, Ltd.,
7-1-1 Omikacho,
Hitachi 319-1292, Ibaraki, Japan
e-mail: fuminori.iwamatsu.vt@hitachi.com

Contributed by the Pressure Vessel and Piping Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF PRESSURE VESSEL TECHNOLOGY. Manuscript received May 22, 2017; final manuscript received December 17, 2017; published online April 18, 2018. Assoc. Editor: Yun-Jae Kim.

J. Pressure Vessel Technol 140(3), 031201 (Apr 18, 2018) (11 pages) Paper No: PVT-17-1095; doi: 10.1115/1.4039125 History: Received May 22, 2017; Revised December 17, 2017

The stress intensity factor (SIF) solutions for subsurface flaws near the free surfaces of components, which are known to be important in engineering applications, have not been provided yet. Thus, in this paper, SIF solutions for subsurface flaws near the free surfaces in flat plates were numerically investigated based on the finite element analyses. The flaws with aspect ratios a/ℓ = 0.0, 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4, and 0.5, the normalized ratios a/d = 0.0, 0.1, 0.2, 0.4, 0.6, and 0.8, and d/t = 0.01 and 0.10 were taken into account, where a is the half flaw depth, ℓ is the flaw length, d is the distance from the center of the subsurface flaw to the nearest free surface, and t is the wall thickness. Fourth-order polynomial stress distribution in the thickness direction was considered. In addition, the developed SIF solutions were incorporated into a Japanese probabilistic fracture mechanics (PFM) code, and PFM analyses were performed for a Japanese reactor pressure vessel (RPV) containing a subsurface flaw near the inner surface. The PFM analysis results indicate that the obtained SIF solutions are effective in engineering applications.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2018 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Newman, J. C. , and Raju, I. S. , 1983, “ Stress-Intensity Factor Equations for Cracks in Three-Dimensional Finite Bodies,” Fracture Mechanics: Fourteenth Symposium—Volume I: Theory and Analysis, Los Angeles, CA, June 30–July 2, Paper No. ASTM STP 791.
Isida, M. , and Noguchi, H. , 1984, “ Tension of a Plate Containing an Embedded Elliptical Crack,” Eng. Fract. Mech., 20(3), pp. 387–408. [CrossRef]
Shiratori, M. , Ogawa, T. , and Nishijima, A. , 1992, “ Analysis of Stress Intensity Factor for Embedded Crack Subjected to Arbitrarily Distributed Surface Stresses: Analysis and Application of Influence Coefficients for Flat Plates With an Embedded Elliptical Crack,” Trans. Jpn. Soc. Mech. Eng. Ser. A, 58(545), pp. 48–52. [CrossRef]
Miyazaki, K. , Iwamatsu, F. , Nakanishi, S. , and Shiratori, M. , 2006, “ Stress Intensity Factor Solution for Subsurface Flaw Estimated by Influence Function Method,” ASME Paper No. PVP2006-ICPVT-11-93138.
ASME, 2015, “ ASME B&PV Code Section XI, Rules for in-Service Inspection of Nuclear Power Plant Components,” American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York, Standard No. ASME BPVC XI-2015.
JSME, 2012, “ Codes for Nuclear Power Generation Facilities—Rules on Fitness-for-Service for Nuclear Power Plants,” Japan Society of Mechanical Engineers, Tokyo, Japan, Standard No. JSME S NA1-2012.
Williams, P. T. , Dickson, T. L. , and Yin, S. , 2012, “ Fracture Analysis of Vessels-Oak Ridge FAVOR, v12.1, Computer Code: Theory and Implementation of Algorithms, Methods, and Correlations,” Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN, Report No. ORNL/TM-2012/567.
Masaki, K. , Nishikawa, H. , Osakabe, K. , and Onizawa, K. , 2011, “ User's Manual and Analysis Methodology of Probabilistic Fracture Mechanics Analysis Code Pascal3 for Reactor Pressure Vessel (Contract Research),” Japan Atomic Energy Agency, Ibaraki, Japan, Report No. JAEA-Data/Code 2010-033 (in Japanese).
Doi, H. , Nakamura, H. , Gu, W. , Shim, D. , and Wilkowski, G. , 2014, “ Verification Analyses for Newly Developed Automatic 3D Finite Element Crack Propagation System,” ASME Paper No. PVP2014-28602.
Dassault Systèmes Simulia Corp., 2012, ABACUS/CAE User's Manual, Version 6.12, Dassault Systèmes Simulia Corp, Providence, RI.
Dassault Systèmes Simulia Corp., 2012, ABACUS User's Manual, Version 6.12, Dassault Systèmes Simulia Corp, Providence, RI.
Lu, K. , Katsuyama, J. , Uno, S. , and Li, Y. , 2017, “ Probabilistic Fracture Mechanics Analysis Models for Japanese Reactor Pressure Vessels,” ASME Paper No. PVP2017-66003.
JAPEIC, 1992, “ Investigation Report of Reliability Verification Test for Weld Heat-Affected Zone,” Japan Power Engineering and Inspection Corporation, Tokyo, Japan, Report No. JPEIC-1992 (in Japanese).
Katsuyama, J. , Nishikawa, H. , Udagawa, M. , Nakamura, M. , and Onizawa, K. , 2013, “ Assessment of Residual Stress Due to Overlay-Welded Cladding and Structural Integrity of a Reactor Pressure Vessel,” ASME J. Pressure Vessel Technol., 135(5), p. 051402. [CrossRef]
JEA, 2007, “ Method of Surveillance Tests for Structural Materials of Nuclear Reactors,” Japan Electric Association, Tokyo, Japan, Report No. JEAC4201-2007 (sup. 2013), (in Japanese).
Katsuyama, J. , Katsumata, G. , Onizawa, K. , Osakabe, K. , and Yoshimoto, K. , 2015, “ Development of Probabilistic Evaluation Models of Fracture Toughness KIc and KIa for Japanese RPV Steels,” ASME Paper No. PVP2015-45915.

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Subsurface flaw in a flat plate: (a) general model and (b) configuration of a subsurface flaw

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Applicable range of SIF solutions for subsurface flaws in current codes [5,6]

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Example of the three-dimensional FEA model for a case of a/ℓ = 0.1, a/d = 0.1, and d/t = 0.1

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Example of the two-dimensional FEA model for a case of a/ℓ = 0, a/d = 0.1, and d/t = 0.1

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Polynomial stress distributions applied on the flaw plane

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Comparison of the present G0 to G4 coefficients with the existing solutions provided in ASME Code [5] for the cases of d/t = 0.2 with a/ℓ = 0.1, and a/d = 0.1, 0.4, and 0.8

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

G0 to G4 coefficients for the case of a/ℓ = 0.1 and a/d = 0.4

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Time histories of temperature and inner pressure during SB-LOCA [13]

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Through-thickness stress distributions for an RPV: (a) circumferential stress due to SB-LOCA and (b) residual stress due to overlay-welding [14]

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Conditional probability of failure results for an example subsurface flaw (2a/t = 3%, ℓ/a = 4 and d/t = 0.1)

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