hr. .I. Pres. VET.

& Pipmg 74 (1997) 97-103

0 1998 Elsevier Science Limited. All rights reserved
Printed in Nwthem Ireland
PII:SO308-0161(97)00076-S 0308-0161/97/$17.00
ELSEVIER

Linear elastic vs elastic-plastic fracture

mechanics methods in nuclear vessel
integrity assessments
Jo& Ricardo Tarpani* & Dirceu Spinelli
Department of Materials Engineering, SiTo Carlos School of Engineering, University of Siio Paulo, Av. Dr. Carlos Botelho 1465,
CEP 13560-250, SGo Carlos, SP, Brazil

(Received25 July 1997;accepted19 August 1997)

This paper compares analytical failure predictions for a flawed PWR vessel from
linear elastic and elastic-plastic fracture mechanics, as currently permissible by
ASME code.The significantconservatism
underupper-shelfconditionsprovidedby
the first approach has been quantified in terms of internal pressure and wall-thickness
strain gradient. Monotonic crack growth withstood by the assessed component has
been evaluated through several elastic-plastic criteria, and leak-before-break and
related crack-arrest events have been inferred to be likely the deeper the postulated
pre-crackis. Researchresultsindicatethat logarithmicJ-R curve datafitting is more
appropriate and conservative than the conventionally used power law in regard
to extensive crack propagation. Conservative linear elastic and elastic-plastic
predictions have also been confirmed by testing small-scale and/or deeply side-
grooved testpieces. 0 1998 Elsevier Science Limited. All rights reserved.

1 INTRODUCTION for hydrotesting purposes,and the comparative analysiscan

be extended to in-service events, as far as the inherent
The undue conservatism in the instability analysis of struc- environmental aggressivenessis accounted for.3
tural components operating under upper-shelf conditions
provided by traditional linear elastic fracture mechanics
(LEFM) concepts as compared to modern elastic-plastic 2 MATERIAL, TESTPIECES AND STRUCTURAL
fracture mechanics (EPFM) methodologies has always COMPONENT
been generally recognized, although it has never been
properly, i.e. quantitatively, appreciated. Specifically, the The nuclear grade steelASTM A508CL3A testedin the as-
adoption of the latter approach in assessmentplans of received condition presentedyield strength, Sy, of 385 MPa
crack-like defects in PWR vesselshas only recently been and ultimate tensile strength, Su, of 520 MPa at a temper-
formally accepted.1,2Therefore, it seemsrelevant to esti- ature of 175°C. Charpy impact results indicated an upper-
mate the instability conditions for the system performing shelf energy exceeding 300 J for this moderate-strength
under fully ductile response following both approaches, low-alloy steel.
with the purpose of verifying potential advantagesoffered One- and two-inch thick proportional compact specimens
by novel elastic-plastic methods, by meansof which sig- for K and J toughnesstests (1T and 2TCT, W/B = 2) were
nificant extended nuclear plant life may be added to that machinedin the ST orientation from the mid-thickness of a
originally stipulated in the operating plant license. thick-section forged plate steel.
In this paper, suchanalytical comparisonis accomplished The cylindrical PWR vessel, with mean radius, R, of
by consideringseveral crack types located at the belt-line of 950 mm and wall-thickness, t, of 130mm is shown
an intermediate size PWR (pressurized light water cooled schematically in Fig. 1, presentingfour elliptical embedded
reactor) vessel.The numerical results are potentially useful cracks with nil-eccentricity and four semi-elliptical surface
cracks, individually consideredherein for analysis, which
*To whom correspondence should be addressed are fully submitted to hoop stresses.The component is
97
 98 J. R. Tarpani, D. Spinelli

a=13.8 a=13.8 a=225 a=225 a=225 a=2%5 a=55 a = 5~5

1= 165 1=275 = 330 I = 550 I= 165 1 = 275 1 = 330 i-z 5j;

Fig. 1. Eight axial radially propagating cracks in the PWR vessel wall.

supposed to be slowly and isothermally pressurized after converting KIc values in their J equivalent counterpart
throughout hydrotesting. [eqn (2)], the achievement of the vessel failure predictions
upon linear elasticity.

3 EXPERIMENTAL AND ANALYTICAL 3.2 Elastic-plastic fracture mechanics (EPFM)

PROCEDURES
J crack-resistance curves were determined in accordance
3.1 Linear elastic fracture mechanics (LEFM) with ASTM E11.526 by testing 8% and 21% side-grooved
specimens at 175°C through the linear normalization tech-
Kc tests were conducted according to the ASTM E399 nique,7 which has been shown to be conservative with
standard4 in the temperature range of - 196 to - 60°C respect to unloading compliance method when power law
in order to obtain maximum valid KIc results for both speci- J-R data fitting is employed.’ J-Au data points were
men sizes. The stress intensity K for outside surface cracks adjusted by conventionally used power law and, conversely,
with depth a, and 2a for embedded cracks, axially sited in a logarithmic fit was attempted. According to the method-
the belt-line of an internally and isothermally pressurized ology of J-T diagrams,’ where T is the tearing modulus,
cylindrical vessel, is given by:’ J-TMAT curves were derived, where TM,, is the increase rate
on the material cracking resistance. The loading curves for
KIM = SM.MM (1) the flawed structure, J-TApp, where TAP, is the increase rate
on the crack driving force, were achieved by:”
where KIM points out mode I crack loading, Slvr is the engi-
JAPP &a
neering hoop membrane stress, as remotely developed from -=-
(4)
the crack tip, and MM and Q are crack shape factors. In the TAPP E

elastic regime, K is related to the J-integral through the At the intersection between J-TMAT and J--T,QP curves, that
Griffith energy criterion, G, by? is, when TM, equals TApp in a constant J analysis:9.‘0

K2 E (plane - stress) --dl,AT E --dl,PP E

(5)
dAa .g = TM~~ = TAPP =
J=G= El’ where E’ (2) Y da S’y
i E/l - y2 (plane - strain)
E and u are material constants. From eqns (1) and (2) and
J MAT = JAPP (6)
using the material yield strength, SY, the crack driving force
applied by internal pressurization of the flawed vessel is the J value for the vessel instability, JINST, was determined.
obtained in J terms as follows: Taking this procedure further, the so-called JSOvalue, sug-
gested as a convenient approximation of JINST, was
obtained from a loading curve given by lo J/TApp =
8.8 kJ/m* (50 lb/in). Also the Ji value of ductile crack
where the symbols { } and [ ] are, respectively, stress and initiation was achieved from the 0.2 mm off-set criterion. I1
geometric correction terms. JApp is directly related to the The instability estimations according to J50 and JINsr were
internal pressure, P, in eqn (3) via SM, the maximum stress defined as intervals, with the upper limit set by a power law
peak attained at the inside surface of the vessel wall, by the J-TMAT curve extrapolated from the maximum crack
Tresca relation. The gradient of nominal membrane strain, growth level attained on a J-R test and the lower limit
eM(MAx) and eM(MIN), respectively, the maximum and mini- defined by a J-TMAT curve linearly extrapolated from the
mum strain peaks reached in the wall, derives from the original limit of validity of Deformation-J (o = 5 for
thick-walled components theory and Ramberg-Osgood CTISll’,‘*).
relationships. JApp X P X eM diagrams thus enabled, J APP values [eqn (3)] on the plastic domain were
 Analytical failure predictions 99

calculated by considering an intermediate condition to the valid result of the 2TCT specimen,but on the other
between plane-stressand plane-strain for the stresscorrec- hand, it makes a close estimate of the less massive 1TCT
tion term,13.14while the ASME code’ supplied the corre- specimenresults.Fig. 2(b) displays the graphical procedure
sponding geometrical solutions fully corrected for the used to obtain the critical conditions for the vessel failure
crack-tip plastic zone. As for LEFM analysis, JAppX P X upon KIC, considering a particular pre-existing crack in the
eMdiagramsfurnished the vesselfailure predictions in terms vesselwall.
of internal pressureand wall-through strain gradient for all The J-R curves for 1T and 2TCT side-grooved speci-
possible combinations among elastic-plastic criteria and mens are shown in Fig. 3(a). Experimental J-Au data
crack types. points were obtained up’to crack growth levels within the
extended limit of validity of Deformation-J (J&l5 almost
50% of the specimeninitial ligament, which is far beyond
4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION those originally established in terms of w criterion and
ductile crack extension Aa.6,’ 1,12,16
Fig. 2(a) presentsthe fracture toughnessversustemperature As can be inferred from Fig. 2(a) and Fig. 3(a), 2T speci-
resultsasobtained for the A508 steel. In the samediagram, a mensproduce, for both LEFM andEPFM, non-conservative
KIC curve is drawn according to the ASME code’ relating to results ascomparedto lessmassive1T testpieces,thus con-
the reference temperature of nil-ductility transition, RTndt, firming the highly desiredsafety margin in periodical plant
for a Charpy specimen lateral expansion of 0.9 mm. This inspection programs by testing small-scale specimens.
key curve is shown to be significantly conservative in regard Additionally, taking into considerationthe fair dimensional

R 1TCT valid
t m ZTCTvalid
j?
p o ‘7 ~~...r
I
-200 -160 -120 -80 -40 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
TEMPERATURE (‘C) DUCTILE CRACK GROWTH, Aa (mm)

04
20

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 0 150 300 450 600

J-INTEGRAL. Jnpp and Jrnnr (kJ/m2) TEARING MODULUS, Gpp and &AT

Fig. 2. (a) Fracturetoughness

results(valid Kl,-, non-valid for KQ) Fig. 3. (a) Linear-normalizedJ crack-resistance
curvesfor the
the A508-CL3A steel;(b) vesselfailure predictionsin termsof A508-CL3A steelat 175°C;(b) J-T diagrammethodology(type
pressureandstrains,uponKlc criterion (type VIII crack). VIII crack).
 100 J. R. Tarpani, D. Spinelli

compatibility between the 2T specimen widths and the

vessel wall-thickness, it can be stated that this testpiece
provides more realistic failure predictions than does 1T
specimens, particularly as concerns axial cracks growing
in the radial direction of the cylindrical component, as
assessed herein. Only 2TCT results were therefore used in
quantifying linear elastic and elastic-plastic instability con-
ditions of the pressure vessel. Specifically in regard to the
elastic-plastic analysis, 2 1% side-grooving of J specimen’s
gross-thickness produced straight crack fronts (in fact, a
slightly inverted tunnelling was noticed) and almost imper-
ceptible dimension changes along specimen thickness,
resembling the fracture behavior of highly constrained
bulky cracked components.‘3.17 Accordingly, only 21%
side-grooved 2TCT specimen results were applied to the 0 3 6 9 12 15
EPFM approaches. RELATIVE NOMINAL STRAIN (e, @,)
Fig. 3(a) shows logarithmic adjustment of J-R curves,
which can be seen to be much more suitable than the cur- (W
rently widely used power law fit”,‘5,17-‘3 on advanced
crack growth stages, where Jn-saturation takes
place 10,‘7,21,24-26and tearing instability is the main concern.
In Fig. 3(b), on J-T space for crack stability analysis,
J-TM*~ (non-linear dotted line for J-R logarithmic fit) and
J--T*PP curves (straight dotted lines) refer to the 2TCT
deeply side-grooved testpiece and J50 and JANETcriteria,
respectively. J5,, and JINsT values, whose upper limits are
designated B and D, respectively, are also indicated for a
particular postulated pre-existent crack.
The extended elasto-plastic stress correction term and the
Ramberg-Osgood stress-strain relation for the A.508 steel
at 175°C are presented in Fig. 4(a). Fig. 4(b) shows the
graphical procedure used to estimate the vessel failure con- 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
ditions according to elastic-plastic criteria and related J-INTEGRAL, Jnpp and JMAT (kJ/m*)
ranges, as expressed in Fig. 3(a) and (b). All the vessel
Fig. 4. (a) Ramberg-Osgood stress-strain relation and elasto-
failure predictions upon LEFM and EPFM approaches are plastic stress correction (plane-strain, plane-stress and the
presented in Table 1. intermediate condition) for the A508-CL3A steel at 175°C; (b)
Back to Fig. 3(a), and based on the J-R curve referring to vessel failure predictions in terms of pressure and strains, upon
the 2TCT 21% side-grooved testpiece, it was possible to EPFM criteria (type VIII crack).
achieve the ductile crack growth levels, Aa, preceding the
vessel failure according to EPFM criteria, as specified in pressure and strains are notably similar due, basically, to
Table 2. the low strain-hardening exhibited by the A508 steel at
In view of the upper-shelf conditions assumed in this 175X, as evidenced by its low Su/SY ratio at this temper-
study, the results show that Ktc, the least conservative ature. The relevance of J50 as a safe design and service
failure criterion adopted in outdated ASME codes,’ is exces- criterion is then ratified for internally pressurized nuclear
sively pessimistic in assessing flawed vessels as compared components.
to more realistic EPFM criteria, as incorporated into the The failure predictions ranges given in Tables 1 and 2 in
current ASME code.2 terms of pressure, P, strains, eM, and ductile crack growth,
Among the EPFM approaches, the failure predictions Aa, respectively, derived from JINsT are too extensive as
from crack initiation Ji are very conservative, despite the compared to those obtained from J50, which reaffirms the
excessive crack extension connected to it (0.7 mm) due to latter’s advantage over J,NST as a consistent criterion in
the significant J-R curve inclination at its intersection with designing structural components and assessing their
the 0.2 mm off-set line. On the other hand, J50 predictions integrity. The narrow ranges from Jso reproduce the
are excellent (slightly conservative) when compared to unexpected similarity between the opposing procedures of
results from JINsT, which define analytically the ductile linear and non-linear J-TM~T extrapolation from Jn-control-
instability event, as verified particularly for shallow surface ling crack growth by w = 5 criterion, with this approxima-
cracks and embedded cracks in general. In spite of the very tion occurring particularly, and again, for shallow surface
high JINST/J5,, ratios, their failure predictions in terms of cracks and every-size embedded cracks. Large differences
 Analytical failure predictions 101

Table 1. PWR vessel failure predictions, in terms of pressure and strains, in line with LEFM and EPFM analyses

Crack type Criterion P (MPa) eM(MAX) @) %(MliV (%)

I KIC 55.4 040 0.30

Ji 57.5 1.19 0.35
Jso 63.7-65.7 2.42-3.02 0.68-0.84
JINST 63.9-65.8 2.50-3.15 0.70-0.89
II KIC 54.2 0.69 0.27
Ji 57.1 1.16 0.34
J50 63.5-65.5 2.38-2.96 0.65-0.82
JINST 63.8-65.7 2.43-3.05 0.69-0.87
III KlC 36.0 0.14 0.12
Ji 51.5 0.61 0.26
J50 58.3-59.4 1.35-1.52 0.47-0.5 1
JIM 59.7-62.6 1.56-2.18 0.52-0.65
IV KIC 35.3 0.13 0.11
Ji 51.3 0.60 0.25
J50 58.2-59.3 1.30-1.47 0.46-0.50
JINST 59.5-62.5 1.51-2.12 0.51-0.64
V KIC 37.4 0.14 0.12
Ji 52.9 0.65 0.27
Jso 59.7-60.5 1.49- 1.65 0.49-0.54
JINST 61.1-63.4 1.73-2.39 0.56-0.68
VI KIC 34.0 0.12 0.105
Ji 50.9 0.55 0.23
J5o 57.6-58.7 1.21-1.35 0.42-0.46
JINST 59.2-61.7 1.42-1.97 0.47-0.61
VII KIC 22.6 0.09 0.07
Ji 46.0 0.32 0.21
J50 52.9-54.0 0.66-0.74 0.3 l-0.33
JINST 54.8-60.3 0.80- 1.35 0.34-0.46
VIII KIC 18.5 0.065 0.06
Ji 43.6 0.22 0.17
J50 50.7-5 1.8 0.48-0.5 1 0.25-0.27
JINST 52.7-58.5 0.55-0.87 0.28-0.37

betweenupper limits of crack extension predictions from J50 As can be inferred from the most unconservative crack
and Jr~sr criteria are shown in Table 2, deriving from the growth predictions in Table 2, the probability of leak-
high JINS-r/J50ratios associatedwith the intrinsic downwards before-ductile instability is proportional to the depth of
concavity of J resistancecurves. the pre-existing crack, regardless of its position in the
From the data it can be statedthat, for well-defined depth vessel wall. In this sense,deeper cracks may by-pass the
and length, 1, surface cracks are much more harmful than instability by arresting owing to vesseldepressurization,or
through-cracks. Also, it is verified that crack depth has at least be prematurely identified owing to leakage. On the
much more influence on failure predictions, for both other hand, shallow cracks may suddenly become unstable
LEFM and EPFM, than doescrack length. In fact, in dealing without giving prior signs.This reasoningis schematically
with shallow embeddedcracks, crack length haspractically illustrated in Fig. 5. It must be remarked that this
no effect on the results. mechanismof tearing instability, where the crack advance
For the less damaging cracks, the shallow embedded preceding the component failure is proportional to the pre-
ones,the trend of LEFM and EPFM estimationsto approach existent crack-depth, is indeedcontrary to its counterpart, as
eachother hasbeenverified. In thesecases,spreadplasticity predicted by linear elasticity-by considering sub-critical
effects are anticipated, which are quite beyond the linear crack growth and constant instability stress,which is based
elasticity premises.So, LEFM results shouldbe considered on the well-known concept of critical crack depth.
completely inconsistent. Finally, Figs. 3(a), 3(b) and 4(b) confirm the healthy

Table 2. Ductile crack propagation (in millimeters, for each crack leading edge) preceding the failure of the pressure vessel
according to EPFM criteria
Criterion Crack type
I II III IV V VI VII VIII
Ji 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9
J50 4.3-6.9 4.3-6.9 5.3-6.9 5.3-6.9 5.3-6.9 5.3-6.9 5.3-6.9 5.3-6.9
JINST 4.8-7.6 4.8-7.6 7.2-15 7.2-15 7.2-15 7.2-15 8.5-30 8.5-30
102 J. R. Tarpani, D. Spinelli

- 11
Fig. 5. Ductile crack growth levels at the threshold of vessei instability.

conservatismof failure predictions from logarithmic against cracks may grow catastrophically without any prior
power law J-R data fitting (respectively, D’ againstD), and, notice.
on this basisit is proposedas a safe alternative adjustment 5. Logarithmic fit is more suitable than the traditionally
practice, particularly for J-R and J-T extrapolation pro- usedpower law in adjusting J-R curve data points for
cedures, when conservative approaches are favored as large relative crack extension levels. The con-
long as crack growth levels are outside any JD limits of servatism of the failure predictions supplied by this
validity. proposed practice qualities it as a safe-fit method to
be applied, particularly when extrapolation pro-
ceduresin both J-R and J-T spacesare needed, as
5 CONCLUSIONS typically employed in integrity assessmentsof
massiveductile structural components.

1. In assessingthe integrity of flawed PWR vessels

operating under upper-shelf conditions, linear elastic ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
fracture mechanics,being the only approach allowed
by outdated ASME code guidelines, is unduly pessi- The authors are grateful to FAPESP-Funda@o para o
mistic when compared to modern elastic-plastic Amparo a Pesquisado Estado de Sao Paulo-for financial
methodologies as currently incorporated into that support (Processes91/3925-4 and 91/5010-3) and Eletro-
code. The excessive conservatism provided by the metal S/A Metais Especiaisfor the provision of the A508-
first approach has been quantified in terms of CL3A steel.
operational parametersof nuclear PWR vessels.
2. Ductile crack initiation Ji is an overly conservative
approach to elastic-plastic fracture mechanics. On REFERENCES
the other hand, JSO produces excellent (slightly con-
servative) estimationsof the real failure conditions of 1. ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Rules for Inservice
structural components.Therefore, J.jO is ratified as a Inspection of Nuclear Power Plant Components, Section XI,
Appendix A (Analysis of Flaws) and G (Fracture Toughness
consistentelastic-plastic criterion for safe designand Criteria for Protection Against Failure). American Society
service in the nuclear power industry. On such a basis, of Mechanical Engineers, New York, 1992; currently: ASME
crack propagation and, particularly, internal pressure Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Rules for Inservice
and wall-strain monitoring are quite worthy para- Inspection of Nuclear Power Plant Components, Section
XI, Division I, NMA A (Analysis of Flaws) and NMA G
metersin characterizing vesselinstability by a ductile
(Fracture Toughness Criteria for Protection Against Failure).
tearing mechanism. American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York, 1996.
3. Linear elastic and elastic-plastic fracture mechanics 2. ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Rules for Inservice
methodologies are surprisingly insensitive to crack Inspection of Nuclear Power Plant Components, Section XI,
length changes in dealing with shallow surface Division I, NMA K (Assessment of Reactor Vessels With Low
Upper Shelf Charpy Energy Levels). American Society of
cracks and embedded cracks in general. In these
Mechanical Engineers, New York, 1996.
situations, the former being the most prone to develop 3. Tarpani, J.R., Crack stability assessment on structural com-
between two consecutive power plant inspection pro- ponents through elastic-plastic fracture toughness J-integral
grams, J50 produces more consistent and realistic and comparison with results from linear elastic fracture
results. mechanics. DSc. thesis, Sao Carlos School of Engineering,
University of Slo Paulo, Sao Carlos, Brazil, 1995 (in
4. The probability of leak-before-ductile instability is
Portuguese).
proportional to the pre-existing crack depth. In this 4. Standard Test Method for Plane-Strain Fracture Toughness
sensedeeper cracks may by-pass the vessel instability of Metallic Materials, KIc. ASTM Standard E399, Section 3,
by arresting owing to depressurization, while shallow Vol. 03.01, 1995.
 Analytical failure predictiom 103

5. Rolfe, T.S. Use of fracture mechanics in design. Znter- crack initiation and stable crack growth. ASTM STP 668,
national Metallurgical Reviews, 1974, 19, 183- 198. 1979, pp. 65-120.
6. Standard Test Method for Determining J-R Curves. ASTM 17. LOSS, F.J., Menke, B.H., Hiser, A.L. and Watson, H.E., J-R
Standard El 152, Section 3, Vol. 03.01, 1995. curves characterization of irradiated low-shelf nuclear vessel
7. Reese, E.D. and Schwalbe, K.-H. The linear normalization steels. ASTM STP 803, Vol. 2, 1983, pp. 177-795.
technique-An alternative procedure for determining J-R 18. Inghan, T., The interpretation and analysis of upper shelf
curves from single specimen test record based on Landes’ toughness data. ASTM STP 856, 1985, pp. 47-67.
normalization method. Fatigue and Fracture of Engineering 19. Schwalbe, K.-H., Hellman, D., Heerens, J., Knaack, J. and
Materials and Structures, 1993, 16, 27 l-280. Muller-Roos, J., Measurement of stable crack growth includ-
8. Tarpani, J.R. and Spinelli, D., Evaluating the linear normal- ing detection of initiation of growth using the DC potential
ization technique for the development of J-R curves. First drop and the partial unloading methods. ASTM STP 856,
Seminar on Fracture Mechanics. Brazilian Society for 1985, pp. 338-362.
Metallurgy and Materials, Brazil, 1995, pp. 89-105 (in 20. Wilson, A.D. and Donald, J.K., Evaluating steel toughness
Portuguese). using various elastic-plastic fracture toughness parameters.
9. Paris, P.C., Tada, H., Zahoor, A. and Ernst, H.A., The theory ASTM STP 995, Vol. 2, 1989, pp. 144-168.
of instability of tearing mode of elastic-plastic crack growth. 21. Wilkowiski, G.M., Marschall, C.W. and Landow, M.P.,
ASTM STP 668, 1979, pp. 5-36. Extrapolation of C[T] specimen J-R curves. ASTM STP
IO. Paris, P.C. and Johnson, R.E., A method of application of 1074, 1990, pp. 56-84.
elastic-plastic fracture mechanics to nuclear vessels analysis. 22. Joyce, J.A., Davis, D.A., Hackett, E.M. and Hays, R.A.,
ASTM STP 803, Vol. 2, 1983, pp. 5-40. Application of J-integral and modified J-integral to cases
11. Standard Test Method for Jtc, A Measure of Fracture Tough- of large crack extension. ASTM STP 1074, 1990, pp. 85-105.
ness. ASTM Standard E813, Section 3, Vol. 03.01, 1995. 23. Neale, B.K. On the best fit curve through crack growth frac-
12. Hutchinson, J.W. and Paris, P.C., Stability analysis of J- ture resistance data. Fatigue and Fracture of Engineering
controlled crack growth. ASTM STP 668, 1979, pp. 37-64. Materials and Structures, 1993, 16, 465-472.
13. Tang, S.S., Riccardella, PC. and Huet, R., Verification of 24. Davis, D.A., Vassilaros, M.G. and Gudas, J.P., Specimen
tearing modulus methodology for application to reactor geometry and extended crack growth effects on J,-R curve
pressure vessel with low-shelf toughness. ASTM STP 803, characteristics for HY-130 and ASTM A533B steels. ASTM
Vol. 2, 1983, pp. 156-178. STP 803, Vol. 2, 1983, pp. 582-610.
14. Tada, H. and Paris, P.C., Tearing instability analysis 25. Cayard, MS. and Bradley, W.L. A comparison of several
handbook formulas and curves. NUREGKR1221. Nuclear analytical techniques for calculating J-R curves from load-
Regulatory Commission, Washington DC, 1980. displacement data and their relation to specimen geometry.
15. Hackett, E.M. and Joyce, J.A. Use of J-R curves in assessing Engineering Fracture Mechanics, 1989, 33, 121- 132.
the fracture behaviour of low upper shelf toughness 26. Kramer, G.S. and Papaspyropoulos, V., A study of the
materials. Nuclear Engineering and Design, 1992, 134, initiation and growth of complex cracks in nuclear piping
217-226. under pure bending. ASTM STP 995, Vol. 2, 1989, pp.
16. Shih, CF., de Lorenzi, H.G. and Andrews, W.R., Studies on 433-453.