Research Papers: Materials and Fabrication

Estimation of Stress Corrosion Cracking Growth Behavior Under Weld Residual Stress in the Bottom of a Reactor Pressure Vessel by Finite Element Analysis

[+] Author and Article Information
Fuminori Iwamatsu

Hitachi Research Laboratory, Hitachi, Ltd.,
832-2, Horiguchi,
Hitachinaka, Ibaraki 312-0034, Japan
e-mail: fuminori.iwamatsu.vt@hitachi.com

Katsumasa Miyazaki

Hitachi Research Laboratory, Hitachi, Ltd.,
Ohmika 7-1-1,
Hitachi, Ibaraki 319-1292, Japan

Masahito Mochizuki

Division of Materials and Manufacturing Science,
Graduate School of Engineering,
Osaka University,
Yamadaoka 2-1,
Suita, Osaka 565-0871, Japan

Contributed by the Pressure Vessel and Piping Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF PRESSURE VESSEL TECHNOLOGY. Manuscript received April 25, 2013; final manuscript received November 21, 2014; published online February 20, 2015. Assoc. Editor: Wolf Reinhardt.

J. Pressure Vessel Technol 137(4), 041402 (Aug 01, 2015) (8 pages) Paper No: PVT-13-1073; doi: 10.1115/1.4029256 History: Received April 25, 2013; Revised November 21, 2014; Online February 20, 2015

A method for evaluating crack growth by repeatedly modeling and analyzing the transitional crack shapes is developed for a general computing environment in which a commercial finite element preprocessor and analysis code are used. The proposed method calculates stress intensity factors (SIFs) by finite element analysis (FEA) by directly distributing estimated weld residual stress obtained from noncracked components on the crack surface on the basis of the superposition principle. In present case, to specify a nonuniform residual stress distribution, a subroutine for a commercial FEA code (ABAQUS) was developed. Arbitrary crack shapes during the crack propagation were expressed by applying the submodeling technique which allowed arbitrary crack shapes to be meshed. The sequence of steps in the proposed method was designed to make it possible to consider complicated stress distributions, such as weld residual stress, and to express arbitrary crack shapes. The applicability of the proposed FEA based method was verified by comparing the result of a stress corrosion cracking (SCC) growth analysis results of a flat plate obtained with the proposed method and with the ASME code procedure. As an application example, the SCC growth behavior of a crack at the bottom of a nuclear reactor pressure vessel (RPV) involving a dissimilar metal weld and a unique geometry was evaluated by the proposed method. The evaluation results were compared with results obtained using a conventional method, i.e., the influence function method (IFM). Since both sets of results were in reasonable agreement, it was concluded that IFM can be applied to this case. Previously, it was difficult to assess the applicability of conventional methods, such as the code procedure and IFM, to a complicated problem because of the existence of complicated residual stress fields, dissimilar metals, and the complicated crack shapes involved. The proposed method using FEA allows the applicability of conventional methods to complicated crack growth evaluations to be assessed.

Copyright © 2015 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.


Okamura, Y., Sakashita, A., Fukuda, T., Yamashita, H., and Futami, T., 2003, “Latest SCC Issues of Core Shroud and Recirculation Piping in Japanese BWRs,” Transactions of the 17th International Conference on Structural Mechanics in Reactor Technology, WG01-1, Prague, Czech Republic.
The American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 2013, 2013 ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code Section XI, Rules for Inservice Inspection of Nuclear Power Plant Components.
Asada, S., Suzuki, H., Hirano, S., Sato, S., Matsumoto, K., and Dozaki, K., 2010, “Comparison of PWSCC Growth Analysis With Field Data of Japanese PWR Plants,” ASME Paper No. PVP2010-25526. [CrossRef]
Nuclear Regulation Authority, Japan, Cracks Found During the Periodic Inspection of Unit-1, JNES Incorporated Administrative Agency, http://www.nsr.go.jp/archive/jnes/atomdb/en/events-data/events-001259.html
Moës, N., Dolbow, J., and Belytschko, T., 1999, “A Finite Element Method for Crack Growth Without Remeshing,” Int. J. Numer. Meth. Eng., 46(1), pp. 131–150. [CrossRef]
Kikuchi, M., Wada, Y., Takahashi, M., and Li, Y., 2008, “Fatigue Crack Growth Simulation Using S-Version FEM,” Proceedings of PVP2008, Chicago, IL, No. PVP2008-61900.
Rudland, D., Csontos, A., and Shim, D.-J., 2010, “Stress Corrosion Crack Shape Development Using AFEA,” ASME J. Pressure Vessel Technol., 132(1), p. 011406. [CrossRef]
The Japan Society of Mechanical Engineers, 2012, “Rules on Fitness-for-Service for Nuclear Power Plants,” JSME S NA1-2012.
Iwamatsu, F., Aoike, S., Fukuda, Y., and Saitou, O., 2009, “SCC Test Verification of Effect of Moving Heat Source on FEM Evaluation for Weld Residual Stress of Butt-Weld Pipe,” ASME Paper No. PVP2009-77897. [CrossRef]
Yanagida, N., Ogawa, K., Saito, K., and Kingston, E., 2009, “Study on Residual-Stress Redistributions During the Process of Manufacture of a Vessel Penetration Set-On Joint,” ASME Paper No. PVP2009-77408. [CrossRef]
Ford, F. P., Horn, R. M., Hickling, J., Pathania, R., and Bruemmer, G., 1999, “Stress Corrosion Cracking of Low Alloy Steels Under BWR Conditions; Assessment of Crack Growth Rate Algorithms,” Proceeding of the Ninth International Symposium on Environmental Degradation of Materials in Nuclear Power Systems, Newport Beach, CA, pp. 855–864 [CrossRef].
Bhowmick, D., 2001, “V. C. Summer Experience,” SMiRT LBB Workshop, WG02-10, Washington, DC.
Rudland, D., Csontos, A., Brust, F., and Zhang, T., 2009, “Welding Residual Stress and Flaw Evaluation for Dissimilar Metal with Alloy 52 Inlays,” ASME Paper No. PVP2009-77167. [CrossRef]
Shiratori, M., Nagai, M., and Miura, N., 2011, “Development of Surface Crack Analysis Program and its Application to Some Practical Problems,” ASME Paper No. PVP2011-57115. [CrossRef]


Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Procedure of crack growth evaluation by FEA

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Finite element model: (a) global model and (b) submodel

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Crack growth evaluation: (a) conventional method and (b) developed method using FEA

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Definition of crack shape

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Schematic of analytical model: (a) surface crack in a flat plate model and (b) initial crack for SCC growth evaluation

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Comparison of SCC growth evaluation results: (a) transition of crack sizes and (b) transition of SIF at point 1

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Schematic of RPV structure: (a) bottom part of RPV and (b) cross section of H11 weld line

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Hoop stress contour of H11 weld line

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Assumed geometry for crack growth evaluation

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Crack growth rates [9,12]

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Stress distribution applied to IFM

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Evaluated crack growth behavior: (a) proposed evaluation using FEA and (b) IFM

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

Comparison of time transition of crack size: (a) comparison of crack depth and (b) comparison of crack length



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