In 1990, the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code for Nuclear Components approved Code Case N-494 as an alternative procedure for evaluating flaws in light water reactor (LWR) ferritic piping. The approach is an alternate to Appendix H of the ASME Code and allows the user to remove some unnecessary conservatism in the existing procedure by allowing the use of pipe specific material properties. The Code case is an implementation of the methodology of the deformation plasticity failure assessment diagram (DPFAD). The key ingredient in the application of DPFAD is that the material stress-strain curve must be in the format of a simple power law hardening stress-strain curve such as the Ramberg-Osgood (R-O) model. Ferritic materials can be accurately fit by the R-O model and, therefore, it was natural to use the DPFAD methodology for the assessment of LWR ferritic piping. An extension of Code Case N-494 to austenitic piping required a modification of the existing DPFAD methodology. Such an extension was made and presented at the ASME Pressure Vessel and Piping (PVP) Conference in Minneapolis (1994). The modified DPFAD approach, coined piecewise failure assessment diagram (PWFAD), extended an approximate engineering approach proposed by Ainsworth in order to consider materials whose stress-strain behavior cannot be fit to the R-O model. The Code Case N-494 approach was revised using the PWFAD procedure in the same manner as in the development of the original N-494 approach for ferritic materials. A lower-bound stress-strain curve (with yield stress comparable to ASME Code specified minimum) was used to generate a PWFAD curve for the geometry of a part-through wall circumferential flaw in a cylinder under tension and bending. Earlier work demonstrated that a cylinder under axial tension with a 50-percent flaw depth, 90 deg in circumference, and radius to thickness of 10, produced a lower-bound FAD curve. Validation of the new proposed Code case procedure for austenitic piping was performed using actual pipe test data. Using the lower-bound PWFAD curve, pipe test results were conservatively predicted (failure stresses were predicted to be 31.5 percent lower than actual on the average). The conservative predictions were attributed to constraint effects where the toughness values used in the predictions were obtained from highly constrained compact test specimens. The resultant development of the PWFAD curve for austenitic piping led to a revision of Code Case N-494 to include a procedure for assessment of flaws in austenitic piping.

1.
ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, 1983, Addenda, Section XI Rules for Inservice Inspection of Nuclear Power Plant Components, Appendix C, Evaluation of Flaws in Austenitic Piping, American Society of Mechanical Engineers.
2.
ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, 1991, (and Addenda), Case N-494, approval date—December 3, 1990, American Society of Mechanical Engineers.
3.
ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, 1995, Section XI Rules for Inservice Inspection of Nuclear Power Plant Components, IWB-3646, Evaluation Procedures and Acceptance Criteria for Austenitic Piping, American Society of Mechanical Engineers.
4.
ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, 1995, (and Addenda); Section XI Rules for Inservice Inspection of Nuclear Power Plant Components, Appendix H, Evaluation of Flaws in Ferritic Piping, American Society of Mechanical Engineers.
5.
Ainsworth, R. A., 1984, “The Assessment of Defects in Structures of Strain Hardening Material,” Engineering Fracture Mechanics, Vol. 19.
6.
Akhurst, K. N., and Milne, I., 1983, “Failure Assessment Diagrams and J Estimates: Validation for An Austenitic Steel,” International Journal Pressure Vessel & Piping, Vol. 13.
7.
Bloom, J. M., and Malik, S. N., 1982, “A Procedure for the Assessment of Integrity of Structures Containing Defects,” EPRI Topical Report NP-2431, Palo Alto, CA.
8.
Bloom, J. M., 1983, “Validation of a Deformation Plasticity Failure Assessment Diagram Approach to Flaw Evaluation,” Elastic Plastic Fracture: Second Symposium, Volume II—Fracture Resistance Curves and Engineering Applications, ASTM STP 803.
9.
Bloom, J. M., and Hechmer, J. L., 1984, “Limits of Linear Elastic Fracture Mechanics,” ASME JOURNAL OF PRESSURE VESSEL TECHNOLOGY, Vol. 106.
10.
Bloom, J. M., 1985, “Deformation Plasticity Failure Assessment Diagram,” Elastic Plastic Fracture Mechanics Technology, ASTM STP 896.
11.
Bloom, J. M., 1991, “Appendix J—The Deformation Plasticity Failure Assessment Diagram (DPFAD) Approach to Evaluation of Flaws in Ferritic Piping,” Defect Assessment in Components—Fundamentals and Applications, ESIS/EGF9, Mechanical Engineering Publications, London, U.K.
12.
Bloom, J. M., 1992, “Simplification of Code Case N-494 for Axial Flaws,” Meeting Minutes of ASME Section XI Working Group on Pipe Flaw Evaluation.
13.
Bloom, J. M., 1995, “Deformation Plasticity Failure Assessment Diagram (DPFAD) for Materials with Non-Ramberg-Osgood Stress-Strain Curves,” presented at the 1994 PVP Conference, Minneapolis, Minnesota; also, ASME JOURNAL OF PRESSURE VESSEL TECHNOLOGY, Vol. 117.
14.
Kumar, V., German, M. D., and Shih, C. F., 1981, “An Engineering Approach for Elastic-Plastic Fracture Analysis,” EPRI Topical Report NP-1931, Palo Alto, CA.
15.
Wilkowski, G. M., et al., 1988, “Degraded Piping Program—Phase II,” US NRC Report NUREG/CR-4082, BMI-2120, Vol. 6, Sixth Program Report, Oct. 1986–Sept. 1987.
This content is only available via PDF.
You do not currently have access to this content.