Você está na página 1de 1168

Materials Handbook for Nuclear Plant Pressure

Boundary Applications (2013)

2013 TECHNICAL REPORT


R I
A L

SED

LICE

M AT E
SED

R I
A L

LICE

M AT E

NOTICE: This report contains proprietary information that is the intellectual property of
EPRI. Accordingly, it is available only under license from EPRI and may not be reproduced
or disclosed, wholly or in part, by any licensee to any other person or organization.

Materials Handbook for Nuclear


Plant Pressure Boundary
Applications (2013)
3002000122
Final Report, March 2013

EPRI Project Manager


G. Ilevbare
This document does NOT meet the requirements of
10CFR50 Appendix B, 10CFR Part 21,
ANSI N45.2-1977 and/or the intent of ISO-9001 (1994)
ELECTRIC POWER RESEARCH INSTITUTE
3420 Hillview Avenue, Palo Alto, California 94304-1338 PO Box 10412, Palo Alto, California 94303-0813 USA
800.313.3774 650.855.2121 askepri@epri.com www.epri.com

DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTIES AND LIMITATION OF LIABILITIES


THIS DOCUMENT WAS PREPARED BY THE ORGANIZATION(S) NAMED BELOW AS AN
ACCOUNT OF WORK SPONSORED OR COSPONSORED BY THE ELECTRIC POWER RESEARCH
INSTITUTE, INC. (EPRI). NEITHER EPRI, ANY MEMBER OF EPRI, ANY COSPONSOR, THE
ORGANIZATION(S) BELOW, NOR ANY PERSON ACTING ON BEHALF OF ANY OF THEM:
(A) MAKES ANY WARRANTY OR REPRESENTATION WHATSOEVER, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, (I)
WITH RESPECT TO THE USE OF ANY INFORMATION, APPARATUS, METHOD, PROCESS, OR
SIMILAR ITEM DISCLOSED IN THIS DOCUMENT, INCLUDING MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS
FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, OR (II) THAT SUCH USE DOES NOT INFRINGE ON OR
INTERFERE WITH PRIVATELY OWNED RIGHTS, INCLUDING ANY PARTY'S INTELLECTUAL
PROPERTY, OR (III) THAT THIS DOCUMENT IS SUITABLE TO ANY PARTICULAR USER'S
CIRCUMSTANCE; OR
(B) ASSUMES RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY WHATSOEVER
(INCLUDING ANY CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, EVEN IF EPRI OR ANY EPRI REPRESENTATIVE
HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES) RESULTING FROM YOUR
SELECTION OR USE OF THIS DOCUMENT OR ANY INFORMATION, APPARATUS, METHOD,
PROCESS, OR SIMILAR ITEM DISCLOSED IN THIS DOCUMENT.
REFERENCE HEREIN TO ANY SPECIFIC COMMERCIAL PRODUCT, PROCESS, OR SERVICE BY
ITS TRADE NAME, TRADEMARK, MANUFACTURER, OR OTHERWISE, DOES NOT NECESSARILY
CONSTITUTE OR IMPLY ITS ENDORSEMENT, RECOMMENDATION, OR FAVORING BY EPRI.
THE FOLLOWING ORGANIZATION, UNDER CONTRACT TO EPRI, PREPARED THIS REPORT:
Dominion Engineering, Inc.

THE TECHNICAL CONTENTS OF THIS DOCUMENT WERE NOT PREPARED IN ACCORDANCE


WITH THE EPRI NUCLEAR QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAM MANUAL THAT FULFILLS THE
REQUIREMENTS OF 10 CFR 50, APPENDIX B AND 10 CFR PART 21, ANSI N45.2-1977 AND/OR
THE INTENT OF ISO-9001 (1994). USE OF THE CONTENTS OF THIS DOCUMENT IN NUCLEAR
SAFETY OR NUCLEAR QUALITY APPLICATIONS REQUIRES ADDITIONAL ACTIONS BY USER
PURSUANT TO THEIR INTERNAL PROCEDURES.

NOTE
For further information about EPRI, call the EPRI Customer Assistance Center at 800.313.3774 or
e-mail askepri@epri.com.
Electric Power Research Institute, EPRI, and TOGETHERSHAPING THE FUTURE OF ELECTRICITY
are registered service marks of the Electric Power Research Institute, Inc.
Copyright 2013 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The following organization, under contract to the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI),
prepared this report:
Dominion Engineering, Inc.
12100 Sunrise Valley Drive, Suite 220
Reston, VA 20191
Principal Investigators
J. Gorman
P. Krull
C. Marks
P. Loo
This report describes research sponsored by EPRI.

This publication is a corporate document that should be cited in the literature in the following
manner:
Materials Handbook for Nuclear Plant Pressure Boundary Applications (2013). EPRI,
Palo Alto, CA: 2013. 3002000122.
iii

PRODUCT DESCRIPTION
Utility engineers require accurate structural materials properties and performance data to make
decisions regarding the adequacy of materials for nuclear power applications. To meet this need,
the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) publishes the Materials Handbook for Nuclear
Plant Pressure Boundary Applications, which has been updated and revised since its initial
publication in 1998. The primary focus of the handbook is on pressure boundary materials such
as those used for piping and components, pressure boundary bolting, and heat exchanger tubing.
Additional information is included on materials used in related applications such as pump shafts,
springs, and non-pressure boundary bolting.
Background
As nuclear power plants age, structural components are being repaired or replaced due to
operational or environmental deterioration. Utility engineers need accurate mechanical and
physical properties data and updated service performance information on structural materials to
assist them in making informed failure analysis, repair, and replacement decisions.
Objectives
To provide accurate mechanical and physical properties data on structural materials used in
nuclear pressure boundary applications.

To provide a concise source of information on materials performance in light water reactor


service.

Approach
In developing the Materials Handbook, the authors focused on gathering and reviewing relevant
reports of the service experience of structural materials from EPRI reports, technical literature,
Institute of Nuclear Power Operations (INPO) databases, and U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) document databases. The data collected not only summarize materials
performance in service, but also include materials property data from sources such as vendor
brochures, industry handbooks, and the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME)
Code.
Results
Following is a summary of each section in the Materials Handbook for Nuclear Plant Pressure
Boundary Applications:

Section I, Base Materials for Piping and Pressure Vessel Pressure BoundariesThis
section includes chapters on carbon and low alloy steel piping; carbon and low alloy steel for
pressure vessels; stainless steel for piping, components, and pressure vessels; and nickel base
alloy for piping and pressure vessels. In this 2013 edition of the handbook, Chapters 1 and 2
of Section Icovering carbon and low alloy steels for pressure vessels, components, and
pipinghave been revised and updated.
v

Section II, High Strength Materials for Bolting, Valve Stems, Springs, etc.This section
provides information on precipitation hardened alloys, with emphasis on Alloys 17-4PH, X750, 718, and A-286. Also addressed are wrought high-strength austenitic stainless steels,
including cold-worked Types 304 and 316 and XM-19 in the cold-worked and annealed
conditions. Among the martensitic stainless steels represented are Types 403, 410, 414,
CA15, and CA6NM. Non-stainless fastener steels discussed include low alloy quenched
and tempered steels and maraging steels. Silicon bronze bolting alloys are covered in this
section as well. In this 2013 edition of the handbook, Chapter 3 of Section IIcovering
Alloy 718, a precipitation-hardened nickel-base alloyand Chapter 5 of Section II
covering high strength wrought austenitic stainless steels (non-precipitation hardened)have
been revised and updated.

Section III, Tubing AlloysThis section discusses copper tubing, titanium tubing,
stainless steel tubing, carbon and low alloy steel tubing, and nickel tubing alloys (not
including steam generator tubing). In this 2013 edition of the handbook, Chapter 5 of Section
IIIcovering carbon and low alloy steel tubinghas been revised and updated.

Section IV, Pump and Valve Trim MaterialsThis section contains information regarding
materials used in nuclear power plant pump and valve trim applications. The entire section
was updated in the 2010 edition of the handbook.

Section V, Nonmetallic MaterialsThis section includes information on impurity limits


for nonmetallic materials that can come into contact with pressure boundary materials. In this
2013 edition of the handbook, Section V has been updated.

Applications, Value, and Use


The intent of the Materials Handbook for Nuclear Plant Pressure Boundary Applications is to
provide utility engineers with information that is potentially vital to performing root-cause
evaluations and making run-replace decisions on important structural components. Although the
focus of this handbook is on pressure boundary components, materials used in other critical
applications are included. This handbook serves as an important resource for nuclear power plant
engineers as they evaluate structural components in their plants.
Keywords
Bolting alloys
Mechanical properties
Nonmetallic materials
Physical properties
Pressure boundary materials
Tubing

vi

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material

ABSTRACT
The intent of the Materials Handbook for Nuclear Plant Pressure Boundary Applications is to
provide utility engineers with a concise source for accessing materials information that is needed
when performing failure analyses or selecting replacement materials. The main focus of the
Materials Handbook is on pressure boundary materials such as the ones used for piping and
components, pressure boundary bolting, and heat exchanger tubing. However, information
regarding materials used in related applications such as pump shafts, springs, and non-pressure
boundary bolting is also included for materials that are important to nuclear plants.
The following types of information are included for each material covered in the Materials
Handbook:

General description and typical applications

Typical product forms and specifications

Main limitations

Material properties, including mechanical and physical properties

Weldability

Extent to which the material is allowed for use in American Society of Mechanical Engineers
(ASME) Code applications and applicable material property data from the ASME Code

Ordering information and practices

Service experience

Main results of research directed at nuclear applications of the material

References with more detailed information

vii

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Introduction
The intent of the Materials Handbook is to provide utility engineers with a concise source for the
materials information that is often needed in connection with performing failure analyses or
when selecting replacement materials. The main focus of the Materials Handbook is on pressure
boundary materials such as those used for piping and components, pressure boundary bolting,
and heat exchanger tubing. However, information regarding materials used in related
applications such as pump shafts, springs, and non pressure boundary bolting is also included for
materials that experience indicates are important to nuclear plants.
Development of each chapter of the Materials Handbook involves a significant effort. The
typical work performed for each chapter involves:

Gathering and reviewing relevant reports of service experience from Electric Power Research
Institute (EPRI) reports, technical articles, INPO databases, and information filed by
licensees with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).

Gathering and reviewing relevant research information from the published technical
literature.

Gathering material property data from sources such as vendor brochures, industry handbooks
and the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Code.

Drafting the chapter using the information gathered in the above reviews.

Checking questionable issues with relevant industry experts, including experts at utilities,
EPRI, nuclear steam supply systems (NSSSs), and other engineering organizations.

Reviewing each chapter by EPRI and utility experts.

Resolving comments and issuing the chapter in final form.

Base Materials for Piping and Pressure Vessel Boundaries


This section of the Materials Handbook covers the main base materials used for light water
reactor (LWR) plant pressure boundary applications, that is, carbon and low-alloy steels,
stainless steels, and nickel-base alloys.
Carbon and Low Alloy Steels for Pressure Vessels
Carbon and low alloy steels have been widely used for the main vessels of nuclear power plants,
such as reactor vessels, pressurizers, and steam generators. The reasons for use of carbon and
low alloy steels for these pressure vessels are their combination of relatively low cost, good
mechanical properties in thick sections, good weldability, and high resistance to stress corrosion
cracking (SCC). With regard to reactor vessels, the grades of low alloy steels that are used also
ix

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Executive Summary

have acceptably low rates of embrittlement when subjected to neutron flux for long periods of
time. In many reactor coolant applications, the pressure vessel steels have been clad on the inside
wetted surface with corrosion resistant materials such as austenitic stainless steels or nickel
alloys of the Alloy 600 type.
Experience with carbon and low alloy steels in nuclear power plant pressure vessel service has
generally been good, with relatively few service induced problems. In summary, experience has
been as follows:

Reactor vessel core belt line region: Steels in the core beltline region are subject to
embrittlement due to neutron irradiation. Embrittlement of the base materials of western
design LWRs has generally not been a serious problem. However, some welds in early
generation pressurized water reactors (PWRs) have been found to be especially sensitive to
embrittlement and have required significant programs to address the resulting embrittlement
concerns. A small lead plant, Yankee Rowe, was shut down because of issues related to
reactor vessel embrittlement, but this is judged unlikely to occur at any of the currently
operating plants.

A significant number of flaw indications have been detected in reactor vessels by ultrasonic
testing (UT) performed for baseline or inservice inspections. Most of these flaws have been
associated with welding or cladding, although a few have been due to laminations or
inclusions in the steel plates or forgings. The base material flaws have rarely if ever, required
repair. However, some of the weld and clad related flaws have led to repairs being made,
especially when the flaws were detected before operation. There appear to be no reported
cases of service induced growth of flaws present in the base plates or forgings, or of service
induced growth of weld flaws that were present since initial construction.

There have been significant service induced flaws at vessel nozzles associated with mixing of
lower temperature water with hot water. For example, thermal fatigue cracks developed in
boiling water reactor (BWR) reactor vessel feedwater nozzles and control rod drive return
line nozzles. Significant inspections and repairs were required in the late 1970s and early
1980s to address this problem. The design and procedure changes made at that time seem to
have been effective since there have been no further reported occurrences.

There have been a few cases of crack initiation and growth in PWR steam generator shells at
transition cone girth welds. These cracks appear to have been initiated as a result of weld
damage, thermal stress cycles, and the occasional presence of oxidizing conditions. No new
cases of this type of cracking have been reported since about 1991, and it appears that current
water chemistry controls minimize the likelihood of serious cracking of this type in the
future.

Significant numbers of cracks have developed in the cladding of BWR reactor vessel heads.
In some cases, the cracks have penetrated short distances into the alloy steel base material.
This cracking has required significant inspection and analysis to demonstrate the continued
safe condition of the affected parts. In a few cases, it has been concluded that the cladding
cracks may have penetrated into the base material as the result of service, but it appears more
likely that such penetration occurred during fabrication.

A large boric acid corrosion induced cavity developed in the reactor vessel head at the DavisBesse plant in 2002. The cavity was the result of leakage of primary coolant at a primary
water stress corrosion cracking (PWSCC) induced crack in an Alloy 600 control rod drive

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Executive Summary

mechanism nozzle. This incident resulted in many industry and regulatory actions to ensure
that appropriate inspections for boric acid corrosion are regularly performed and, more
generally, that material degradation issues are given appropriate management attention and
followup.
Carbon and Low Alloy Steel Piping
Carbon steel piping has been widely used in nuclear power plants, especially in the following
applications: reactor coolant system piping in PWRs, with internal cladding; reactor feeder
headers in pressurized heavy water reactors (PHWRs); nuclear auxiliary systems such as residual
heat removal and core spray piping in BWRs; conventional steam plant or balance of plant
(BOP) piping, including condensate, feedwater, steam and steam drain systems; closed cooling
water systems; service water systems; and condenser circulating water systems. The main
reasons for using carbon steel piping are its combination of low cost, good strength, acceptable
general corrosion resistance in many environments, and its relative freedom from SCC.
Low alloy steel materials have also been used for some types of nuclear power plant piping, for
example, steam exhaust, extraction, and drain lines. The main application is in portions of BOP
piping where flow-accelerated corrosion (FAC) (also known as erosion-corrosion and hereafter
called FAC/erosion-corrosion) has resulted in the need for replacement of carbon steel piping
with more resistant material.
Experience with carbon steel and low alloy steel piping in nuclear power plants has been as
follows:

Reactor coolant system piping: Reactor coolant piping in Combustion Engineering and
Babcock & Wilcox PWRs is made of carbon steel with internal stainless steel cladding.
There have been no significant problems with this type of piping.

Reactor feeder piping: This piping in PHWRs has generally performed well, but some
thinning of outlet piping has been experienced that has required chemistry adjustments to be
made, and there have been a few cases of inside diameter (ID) and outside diameter (OD)
cracking, attributed to oxygen driven intergranular stress corrosion cracking (IGSCC) and to
low temperature creep cracking (LTCC).

Steam piping: Essentially all steam piping is carbon steel, and it has performed well, with no
systematic serious problems.

Steam exhaust, extraction, and drain line piping: While many carbon steel steam exhaust,
extraction, and drain lines have performed acceptably, many other lines have experienced
wall thinning due to FAC/erosion-corrosion. This is generally attributed to the presence of
two phase flow with high velocities and water droplet impingement and sometimes to the
presence of abrasive magnetite particles. As a consequence of wall thinning problems, these
lines have been found to require frequent monitoring and, in selected areas, replacement with
more FAC/erosion-corrosion resistant materials, for example, low alloy steels or austenitic
stainless steels.

Condensate and feedwater piping: Most carbon steel piping in these systems, which have
single phase flow, has performed well. However, some serious cases of wall thinning due to
FAC/erosion-corrosion have occurred. As a result, periodic inspections have been found to
be necessary, and repair or replacement of excessively thinned areas has been required.
Replacement has generally been with low alloy or austenitic stainless steels.
xi

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Executive Summary

Closed cooling water system piping: The water in these systems is generally of controlled
purity and is treated to inhibit corrosion. As a result, most of this piping has performed
satisfactorily. However, some cases of SCC have occurred (possibly due to microbiologically
influenced corrosion [MIC]), resulting in the need for more frequent inspections and
increased attention to water chemistry control.

Service water system piping: The water in this piping is often untreated raw water. Numerous
problems of corrosion and clogging have occurred with this type of piping, especially where
the piping ID does not have a protective coating. A variety of remedial actions have been
taken, including more frequent inspections, monitoring and cleaning, coating the ID with
corrosion resistant materials, replacement with more corrosion resistant materials,
mechanical and/or chemical cleanings followed by increased use of biocides, and conversion
to recirculating closed systems. Buried portions of this piping were generally coated on the
OD before burial. However, some OD initiated corrosion has occurred, leading to increased
use of cathodic protection.

Condenser circulating water system piping: The water in this piping is often untreated raw
water. In cases where biological growths could be a problem, treatment with biocides is
sometimes used. Much of this piping is of large diameter, and it is often coated on both the
ID and OD surfaces. Much of it is buried. In general, this piping has performed well, but
some cases of OD corrosion damage have occurred, leading to case-specific remedial actions,
such as local repairs and application of cathodic protection. Some cases of ID coating
degradation have also occurred, but this has generally been detected and corrected before
significant ID initiated corrosion has occurred.

Most of the carbon and low alloy steel piping material used in power plants is in the wrought
or forged form. Both seamless and seam welded piping materials are covered by applicable
ASTM International and ASME specifications and the ASME Code, and both types are
widely used. Cast materials are also widely used, especially for fittings such as elbows and
flanges.

Stainless Steel for Piping, Components, and Pressure Vessels


This chapter covers stainless steels that are used for piping, components, and pressure vessels in
nuclear power plants. It does not address stainless steels used for BWR or PWR reactor vessel
internals, which are being addressed by the Boiling Water Reactor Vessel Internals Project for
BWRs and the PWR Materials Reliability Program for PWRs. The stainless steels used for
piping, components, and pressure vessels are of two main types. The first is wrought austenitic
stainless steel used for parts such as piping, forged valve bodies, and pressure vessel shells. The
second is austenitic cast stainless steel used for applications such as large diameter primary
coolant piping, cast pump casings, and cast valve bodies; the material is, in fact, a duplex
austenitic-ferritic material, usually with 10%25% ferrite. Welds in wrought material and in cast
material normally also have a duplex austenitic-ferritic structure, with a few percent ferrite.
Experience with stainless steels used for piping, components, and pressure vessels in nuclear
power plants can be summarized as follows.

xii

Stainless steel has been widely used in BWR reactor coolant systems and safety and auxiliary
systems. In these systems, it has been used for piping, valves, pumps, and other special
fittings and parts. In high temperature BWR applications such as the reactor coolant system,
these materials have been subject to IGSCC in areas where the material was sensitized during

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Executive Summary

fabrication, such as furnace sensitized safe ends and at weld joint heat affected zones
(HAZs). The term sensitized refers to a process of chromium carbide precipitation at
grain boundaries that can occur when the material is held in the temperature range of 800F
1600F (427C871C). The precipitation of chromium carbide reduces the chromium
concentration at the grain boundary and makes them susceptible to corrosive attack in BWR
reactor coolant environments with normal water chemistry (NWC). In this regard, BWR
reactor coolant with NWC has about 200 ppb oxygen, which raises the electrochemical
potential (ECP) and makes it aggressive toward sensitized material. Remedial actions have
been taken for all BWRs in the United States, and incidents of IGSCC in piping are now rare.
Nuclear grades of piping have been developed that are resistant to this type of attack and are
available for use in replacements and new applications.

Stainless steel has also been widely used in PWR reactor coolant systems and safety and
auxiliary systems. Stainless steels have provided relatively troublefree service in these PWR
applications. The absence of systematic IGSCC problems of the type that have affected
BWRs is attributed to the low oxygen content of PWR reactor coolant, which keeps the ECP
well below the zone in which IGSCC occurs in pure water environments. The relatively
limited number of problems that have occurred in stainless steel parts in PWRs are generally
due to either mechanical or thermal fatigue or, in a few cases, to the development in stagnant
areas of aggressive environments with chlorides, concentrated boric acid, and trapped
oxygen.

Cast austenitic stainless steels (CASSs) are subject to embrittlement as they age as a result of
metallurgical changes that occur in the ferrite phase. This can become an issue for reactor
coolant applications as plant service life increases. The factors that influence the degree of
embrittlement include: service time and temperature, ferrite content, molybdenum
concentration, and fabrication method. While this issue has not resulted in any reported
physical problems, it has been identified as an aging management issue that needs to be
addressed in license renewal. It appears that most, if not all, potential embrittlement problems
can be adequately addressed by susceptibility assessments, increased inspections, and
fracture mechanics analyses.

Stainless steel is sometimes used for service water systems and has generally performed
satisfactorily. However, austenitic stainless steels have been found to be susceptible to pitting
or crevice corrosion in freshwater service, especially under deposits. This type of under
deposit attack occurs when deposits build up due to accumulation of materials such as silt or
clay or biological growths. Prevention of such failures involves continuous attention to
keeping the stainless steel surfaces clean and free of biological growths, for example, by
preventing the entry of materials that can deposit and by the use of biocides. Stainless steels
have also experienced attack under layup conditions when the water was allowed to dry,
resulting in concentration of the impurities in the remaining water to aggressive levels.

The conventional grades of austenitic stainless steel, such as Types 304 and 316, were found
many years ago not to work well in seawater and brackish water, mainly because of pitting
and crevice corrosion. However, higher alloy stainless steels with 6% molybdenum, such as
AL-6XN, have worked acceptably in seawater and brackish water environments. These
grades also have increased resistance to the types of pitting attack in freshwater service
described above.

xiii

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Executive Summary

Both seam welded and seamless piping have been used, with seamless piping having been
used more extensively than seam welded piping in reactor system applications. No reports of
problems associated with use of seam welds were found during preparation of this chapter.

Nickel-Base Alloys for Pressure Vessels, Components, and Piping


This chapter covers nickel-base alloys that are used for pressure vessels, components, and piping
in nuclear power plants, exclusive of steam generator tubes. The base material alloys covered are
Alloys 600 and 690. These alloys are widely used in BWR applications such as reactor vessel
nozzle safe ends, core support structures, and shroud bolts. These alloys are also widely used in
PWRs for applications such as penetrations and nozzles in PWR reactor coolant system (RCS)
components, control rod drive mechanism (CRDM) and control element drive mechanism
(CEDM) nozzles in reactor vessel heads, and instrument nozzles in pressurizers and RCS piping.
Steam generator tubes are not covered in this chapter since they are adequately covered in other
specialized books, reports and guidelines (for example, the original and revised Steam Generator
Reference Book; EPRI guidelines for tube materials, inspections, and water chemistry; and
reports of numerous workshops covering primary side corrosion, secondary side corrosion, and
remedial measures).
The performance of Alloy 600 and 690 type weld metals is covered in this chapter, in addition to
Alloy 600 and 690 base materials. In this regard, Alloys 82 and 182 are the Alloy 600 type weld
metals for gas tungsten arc welding (GTAW) (also known as tungsten inert gas or TIG welding)
and shielded metal arc welding (SMAW), respectively, and Alloys 52 and 152 are the
corresponding Alloy 690 type weld metals. These materials are used to weld Alloys 600 and 690
to themselves, to austenitic stainless steels, and to carbon and low alloy steel parts. In addition,
these alloys are used as buttering and welds on carbon and low alloy parts, especially where
these materials are joined to stainless steel piping, such as at nozzles.
Experience with nickel-base alloys in pressure boundary service in nuclear power plants has
been good in some applications. However, in other applications, some nickel-base alloys have
experienced significant degradation. In summary, experience has been as follows:

Alloy 600 in some BWR applications has experienced intergranular stress corrosion cracking
(IGSCC), such as at crevice locations in reactor vessel nozzle safe ends and core support
structures. This IGSCC has generally occurred at welds and has been aggravated by the
sensitization and residual stresses associated with welds. Alloy 600 type weld metals in
BWRs have experienced cracking in locations such as nozzles and core support structures.
This cracking has sometimes, but not always, been associated with crevices.

Steam generator tubes made of Alloy 600 in the mill annealed (MA) condition have
experienced widespread corrosion problems, including primary water stress corrosion
cracking (PWSCC), secondary side intergranular attack and stress corrosion cracking
(IGA/SCC), and pitting. As discussed earlier, this experience is not addressed in this chapter
because it has been adequately covered in other EPRI documents.

Alloy 600 in PWR penetration and nozzle applications has exhibited an increasing amount of
PWSCC as PWRs have aged. This type of cracking was first experienced in pressurizer
nozzles, with the early cracking attributed to the high temperatures in pressurizers (about
650F [343C]). The problem later occurred in other lower temperature penetrations and
nozzles such as control rod drive mechanism (CRDM), and control element drive mechanism
(CEDM) penetrations, and reactor coolant loop instrument nozzles.

xiv

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Executive Summary

Starting about 2000, a number of cases of PWSCC have been observed in Alloy 600 type
weld metals in PWRs, for example, in reactor vessel outlet nozzles and at CRDM nozzle to
reactor vessel head welds. PWSCC has also been observed at welds in steam generator
divider plates in non-domestic PWRs.

High Strength Materials for Bolting, Valve Stems, Springs, Etc.


This section of the Materials Handbook includes chapters covering precipitation hardening
Alloys 17-4PH, X-750, 718, and A-286, high strength wrought austenitic stainless steels,
martensitic stainless steels, high strength non-stainless fastener steels, and silicon bronze bolting
alloys. With the exception of the non-stainless fastener steels and silicon bronze bolting alloys,
these alloys combine good corrosion resistance in high temperature environments with high
strength and are commonly used in nuclear power plants for applications such as bolting, springs,
valve stems, and pump shafts where such a combination is required. The most important points
regarding the use of these high strength corrosion resistant materials in these applications are
summarized below:
General

Despite their generally high corrosion resistance, none of the alloys can be considered to be
completely resistant to SCC in reactor coolant environments. Accordingly, it is important to
observe the stress, temperature, and processing limitations outlined in the chapters of this
Materials Handbook when using any of these materials.

All of the high strength corrosion resistant alloys are resistant to general corrosion due to
boric acid when used in external bolting applications of borated systems. In addition, except
for martensitic stainless steels in poorly controlled heat treatment conditions, there have been
no service failures of these materials in external bolting applications of borated systems due
to SCC. However, tests indicate that at moderately high temperature (482F [250C]) and
high boric acid concentrations (40%), all of these alloys except hot worked XM-19 are
susceptible to SCC.I, II While service experience indicates that any of these materials are
suitable for use in external bolting applications on borated systems, except for Alloy 17-4 PH
at temperatures over 482F (250C), tests indicate that there is some susceptibility to SCC in
hot concentrated borated solutions of these alloys, except for hot worked XM-19, which the
researchers involved indicate is a promising alloy but not yet fully qualified. Of the fully
qualified alloys, Alloy A-286 performed the best in the tests. Considering this situation, the
best choice for external bolting applications in high temperature borated water systems is
considered to be Alloy A-286.

Alloy 17-4 PH

Alloy 17-4 PH, when it has been age hardened at 1075F (579C) or higher, has satisfactory
corrosion resistance for use in external pressure boundary bolting and also in applications
involving exposure to reactor coolant. However, even with these high hardening
temperatures, it is still susceptible to SCC if exposed to adverse environments, for example,
concentrated chlorides.

J. M. Gras, et al., Corrosion par l acide borique concentr de materiaux pour boulangerie de composants
de circuit primaire, Proceedings of the International Symposium Fontevraud I, Contribution of Materials
Investigation to the Resolution of Problems Encountered in PWR Plants. pp. 178187, SFEN Sept. 1985.
II
B. Prieux and J. M. Gras, Corrosion of Bolting Stainless Steels in High Temperature Concentrated Boric Acid,
International Symposium Fontevraud II. Vol. 2, pp. 558567, SFEN Sep. 10-14, 1990.

xv

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Executive Summary

Alloy 17-4 PH is susceptible to SCC when it has been age hardened at temperatures below
about 1075F (579C), and is very susceptible in the 900F (482C) heat treatment condition.
For example, material in the 900F (482C) heat treatment condition can experience SCC
when exposed to aggressive chemistries at ambient temperatures, if highly stressed.
Tests and service experience have shown that 17-4 PH, even in the more resistant 1100F
(593C) condition, is susceptible to embrittlement at service temperatures of about 500F
(260C) and higher. This embrittlement increases its susceptibility to both brittle fracture
under impact loads and to SCC.
In summary, Alloy 17-4 PH can be used safely at service temperatures below 500F (260C)
if it was aged at 1075F (579C)or higher. For service temperatures above 500F (260C), it
is suggested that the allowable operating time be based on the guidance in the Alloy 17-4 PH
chapter.

Alloy X-750

Alloy X-750, when in the age hardened conditions commonly used during the 1970s (for
example, the two step aged condition known as the AH condition), has relatively high
susceptibility to SCC in reactor coolant environments.
Extensive testing indicates that Alloy X-750, when given a higher temperature solution
anneal followed by a single step aging treatment, has increased resistance to SCC. However,
it is not immune, and limitations on peak in-service stresses need to be observed. Guidance
for proper use of this material in PWRs is contained in an EPRI specification, which covers a
condition suitable for PWR reactor coolant service (Condition CIB or HTH). III For BWR
applications, the guidance of the latest issue of BWRVIP 84 is applicable. IV
Susceptibility of Alloy X-750 to SCC is higher in BWR reactor coolant environments than in
PWR environments. Accordingly, stress levels in BWR environments need to be lower than
in PWR environments, and there is increased incentive to use a lower strength more SCC
resistant material condition.
The susceptibility of Alloy X-750 to SCC has been found to be strongly dependent on its
surface condition. Surface damage from precipitation heat treatments can increase its
susceptibility, and final machining after heat treatment has been found to improve its
resistance to SCC. Guidance regarding proper treatment of Alloy X-750 during manufacture
IV
is contained in an EPRI report.

Alloy 718

III

Alloy 718 has had generally good service experience, but it has experienced a limited
number of cases of service induced SCC in nuclear plant applications, and some fatigue
initiated failures have been reported. In addition, testing indicates that Alloy 718 exhibits
relatively high SCC crack growth rates when in commercially available heat treatment
conditions. Thus, the good service experience probably indicates a relatively high resistance
to crack initiation.

Material Specification for Alloy X-750 for Use in LWR Internal Components (Revision 1). EPRI, Palo Alto, CA:
1990. NP-7032.
IV
BWRVIP-84, Revision 2: BWR Vessel and Internals Project, Guidelines for Selection and Use of Materials for
Repairs to BWR Internal Components. EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: 2012. 1026603.
IV
Design and Manufacturing Guidelines for High-Strength Components in LWRs Alloy X-750. EPRI, Palo Alto,
CA: 1991. NP-7338-L.

xvi

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Executive Summary

Tests supported by EPRI have shown that Alloy 718 in alternative heat treatment conditions
exhibits lower SCC crack growth rates. These specific alternative heat treatments are not
covered by the ASME Code. However, Code Case N-60-6 has recently been issued by the
ASME that covers use of a modified grade of Alloy 718 with a revised heat treatment
schedule that results in somewhat lower strengths and, based on tests, improved SCC
properties.

Tests indicate that Alloy 718 has better IASCC resistance than most other alloys.

Alloy A-286

Alloy A-286 has poor resistance to SCC in oxygenated BWR environments and is generally
not appropriate for use in applications involving exposure to BWR reactor coolant.

Tests and service experience indicate that Alloy A-286 in commercially available heat
treatments is susceptible to SCC in PWR reactor coolant environments if peak stresses are
at the yield level or higher. Applications with peak stress levels below the yield stress, taking
into account stress concentration factors and residual stresses, have not resulted in service
induced SCC in PWR reactor coolant environments.

Improved heat treatment conditions that increase Alloy A-286s resistance to SCC in reactor
coolant environments have not been systematically explored or identified.

Of the fully qualified corrosion resistant alloys that can be considered for use as external
bolting for borated reactor coolant systems, Alloy A-286 is indicated by tests in hot
concentrated boric acid as having the best resistance to SCC.

High Strength Wrought Austenitic Stainless Steels

Two types of high strength wrought austenitic stainless steels are used in nuclear
applications: cold worked materials, such as cold worked Type 304 and 316 stainless steels,
and nitrogen strengthened wrought Alloy XM-19, which may also be further strengthened by
cold or hot work.

Cold worked austenitic stainless steels have been found to be susceptible to SCC in BWR
environments and, as a result, are not widely used in BWRs.

Austenitic stainless steels that have been purposely cold worked to raise the yield strength
have not experienced SCC in normal flowing PWR reactor coolant environments except in
some cases where exposed to high neutron fluence. In this regard, cold worked Type 316L
bolting has experienced irradiation assisted SCC (IASCC) in French plants. However, no
plants in the United States have detected this condition, and cold worked normal grade Type
316 stainless steel bolting has been widely used in the United States in reactor internals
applications with no reported failures. Cold worked Type 316Ti has been used for a long
time in Siemens PWR reactor internals applications with some limited SCC detected.

While austenitic stainless steels that have been purposely cold worked to raise the yield
strength have generally not experienced PWSCC in normal flowing PWR coolant
environments (except for the 316L and 316Ti bolting discussed above), some cases of SCC
have been found where superficial cold work has occurred. This has mainly affected pressure
boundary base materials and not the bolting applications covered in this chapter; nevertheless
this indicates that care needs to be taken to avoid accidental cold work of high strength
austenitic stainless steel parts.
xvii

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Executive Summary

Despite the generally satisfactory performance of cold worked austenitic stainless steel in
PWRs, there are few published tests or qualification data for PWR environments (except for
service experience with Type 316Ti, which is documented). Thus, the specific types of
materials and ranges of stress and environment for which the materials are qualified are not
well documented.

Alloy XM-19 is being used in increasing amounts in both BWR and PWR environments.
Alloy XM-19 has mainly been used in the annealed condition, but has recently also been
used in BWRs in a higher strength hot rolled condition. It is not known whether Alloy XM19 has been used in the hot rolled or cold worked conditions in PWRs.

Martensitic Stainless Steels

Martensitic stainless steels are widely used in LWRs in applications such as turbine blades,
bolting, valve stems and hardware, and pump shafts and hardware. Martensitic stainless
steels have performed satisfactorily in many of these applications. However, there have been
some failures, often related to the use of material with improper heat treatment.

The most common problem experienced with martensitic stainless steels has been the use of
material with too low a tempering temperature, with a resultant high hardness and relatively
high susceptibility to SCC.

Temper embrittlement has also been a problem with martensitic stainless steels. This occurs
due to tempering in, or slow cooling through, the temperature range of about 750F1020F
(399C549C). In addition, other sequences of improper thermo-mechanical processing or
heat treatment can apparently result in material meeting specified mechanical properties but
nevertheless having poor corrosion resistance and/or low ductility.

The main protection against use of martensitic stainless steels with poor corrosion resistance
and/or low ductility is to assure via quality control that the material receives the specified
austenitizing, quenching, and tempering treatments. Performance of impact tests, micro
hardness tests, and metallographic examinations can also help assure that such conditions are
not present.

Some grades of martensitic stainless steel are subject to embrittlement caused by aging at
service temperatures. Tests indicate that 13% chromium steels such as Types 403, 410, 414,
and CA15 with about 1% nickel or less will not embrittle significantly due to time at
temperatures of about 575F (302C) for 300,000 hours, but that alloys with significant
amounts of nickel, such as Type 431 (16% chromium, 2% nickel) and CA6NM (13%
chromium, 4% nickel, 0.7% molybdenum) may be subject to embrittlement and increased
susceptibility to SCC for aging times of several hundred thousand hours or more,

depending on their composition and service temperature (the higher the temperature, the
more the embrittlement). V, VI

M. Tsubota, et al., Characterization of Long Term Aged Martensitic Stainless Steels, Proceedings of the Fifth
International Symposium on Environmental Degradation of Materials in Nuclear Power Systems Water
Reactors. ANS, pp. 305310, 1992.
VI
B. Yrieix and M. Guttmann, Aging Between 300 and 450C of Wrought Martensitic 13-17% Cr Stainless Steels,
Materials Science and Technology. V9, N2, pp. 125134, Feb. 1993.

xviii

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Executive Summary

While significant problems have been experienced with martensitic stainless steels, it is
considered that material with heat treatments, quenching practices, and hardness values of the
types required by ASME/ASTM specifications and suggested in this Materials Handbook
have reasonable resistance to SCC and can be used in applications where they have
demonstrated satisfactory performance.

High Strength Non Stainless Fastener Steels

These steels do not contain enough chromium to be corrosion resistant, or stainless; that is,
they have less than about 10.5% chromium. There are two main types of high strength nonstainless fastener steels that have been used in nuclear plants: (1) low alloy steels that are
quenched and tempered to achieve a balance of strength and toughness and (2) maraging
steels with very low carbon (0.03% or less) and high nickel (18%) that achieve their strength
through precipitation hardening (for example, 18 Ni maraging steels).

With certain exceptions, high strength non-stainless fastener steels have provided satisfactory
performance in U.S. LWRs. The main exceptions are as follows:
Degradation of reactor coolant pressure boundary bolting due to general borated water
corrosion (wastage or erosion/corrosion). Low alloy steels experience rapid general
corrosion when in contact with concentrated liquid boric acid solutions. Therefore, when
these steels are used for bolted closures in reactor coolant pressure boundaries, leaks can
give rise to rapid loss of material due to boric acid attack.
Degradation of pressure boundary bolting due to SCC. Some bolts in flanged joints have
failed due to SCC; generally these types of failures can be tied to leaking gaskets and
aggressive impurities from certain lubricants (particularly MoS2) or sealants. Fastener
materials with specified yield strengths as low as 105 ksi (724 MPa) have failed due to
SCC in reactor coolant pressure boundary applications. Out-of-specification material has
not been implicated as a cause for SCC of pressure boundary bolting failures.
Degradation of supports and embedment bolting due to SCC. These failures are attributed
to a combination of high stress, susceptible material condition, and a wet environment.
Materials that have failed generally fall into one of two categories: (1) those that are
specified with greater than 150 ksi (1034 MPa) (minimum yield strength, and (2) those
that are specified with less than 150 ksi (1034 MPa) minimum yield strength but that
have been supplied with a hardness higher than the specified allowable.

SCC failures of non-stainless fastener steels are currently not occurring in sufficient number
to be considered a general problem. The reduction in SCC failures has been achieved by
three methods: (1) elimination of MoS2 based lubricants and use of alternatives such as
nickel-base anti-seize and graphite-alcohol lubricants, (2) reduction in bolt preload, and (3)
use of lower strength material, particularly materials with yield strengths below 150 ksi
(1034 MPa).

Degradation of low alloy steel fasteners due to boric acid corrosion continues to be a general
concern because of the difficulty associated with eliminating leaks at reactor coolant pressure
boundary joints. The main approaches used by the industry to address this concern have been
to (1) minimize the occurrence of leaks through improved bolting procedures, for example,
use of higher, more precisely controlled, preloads, and (2) switch to corrosion resistant alloys
for applications where susceptibility to boric acid attack remains a concern.
xix

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Executive Summary

Silicon Bronze Bolting Alloys

Silicon bronze bolting alloys are mainly used in electrical equipment such as switchgear and
motor control centers. They are included in the Materials Handbook (even though they are
rarely if ever used for pressure boundary applications) because they have been subject to
stress corrosion failures in nuclear plants, and it is considered desirable to compile
information about this problem.

Silicon bronzes are copper-base alloys with small amounts of zinc and silicon levels ranging
from about 1% to 3%. Alloys with approximately 1% silicon are known as low silicon
bronze and alloys with about 3% silicon are known as high silicon bronze. The only
application of these alloys in nuclear plants covered in the NRCs Public Document Room
holdings and in individual utility experience reports is as bolting in electrical equipment. In
addition, some informal reports of service experience show that these alloys are also used in
electrical equipment for services such as leaf spring/terminal connectors.

Silicon bronze alloys are covered in the ASME Code for use in Class 3 bolting applications
and for low temperature (< 300F [< 149C]) Class 2 and 3 pressure boundary applications
and may have been used for these applications, although no reports of such use were located.

Significant SCC problems have been experienced with silicon bronze bolting in nuclear plant
electrical equipment, and these problems have led to replacement of the silicon bronze with
alternative alloys in several cases. However, it is possible that silicon bronze would perform
satisfactorily if manufacturing practices were controlled so as to limit residual stresses and if
controls were placed on installation practices to limit applied stresses.

The main limitation with regard to use of silicon bronze bolting alloys is that they have a
relatively high susceptibility to SCC. Susceptibility to SCC is especially acute in an
ammoniated environment, which can result from use of ammoniated cleaning solutions, but it
also is present in industrial and marine atmospheres. To protect against SCC, it is important
to prohibit use of ammoniated cleaning solutions on or near silicon bronze bolting, to control
torques and lubrication to ensure that applied stresses are not excessive, and to ensure that the
manufacturing process used does not result in high residual stresses.

There are no reports of SCC of bolts known to have been machined from bar stock; whereas
SCC has occurred fairly often with bolts formed by cold heading, especially carriage bolts.
For this reason, it appears that it would be prudent to approach the use of cold headed bolts
with caution, that is, use them only in cases where service experience has shown that SCC is
not a concern for the specific manufacturing method and application involved. In addition, it
is suggested that application of a thermal stress relief following cold heading be considered,
VII
for example, for 1 hour at 700F (371C).

Tubing Alloys
This section of the Materials Handbook includes chapters covering copper alloy tubing, titanium
tubing, stainless steel tubing, carbon steel tubing, and nickel-base alloy tubing. The most
important points regarding the use of these tubing alloys are summarized below:

VII

Metals Handbook, Ninth Edition, Volume 13, Corrosion. ASM International, p. 615, 1987.

xx

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Executive Summary

Copper Alloy Tubing

Copper alloy tubing has been widely used for many years in nuclear power plants, primarily
because it has good general corrosion resistance, high thermal conductivity, and good
resistance to biological fouling. Typical applications have been in condensers, feedwater
heaters, moisture separator reheaters, containment air coolers, and service water heat
exchangers. While copper alloy heat exchanger tubing is still providing acceptable service in
some plants, copper alloy tubing has been replaced in many of these applications at many
other plants, and is generally not being selected for most new secondary system component
applications in nuclear power plants. This is because of three main problems:
Copper alloys are susceptible to several types of corrosion such as erosion-corrosion and
sulfide induced attack, and this corrosion has led to corrosion induced leaks.
Copper carried by the secondary system to steam generators in PWRs has been found to
contribute to corrosion problems in the steam generators. Similarly, copper carried by the
condensate-feedwater system in BWRs has been implicated in fuel clad corrosion
problems.
The corrosion response of copper alloys to water chemistry variables such as pH and
oxygen concentration is quite different than that of ferrous alloys. For this reason, the
presence of copper alloys in a PWR secondary system results in use of chemistry
parameters that lead to higher iron corrosion product transport rates to the steam
generators than can be achieved in copper free systems.

Copper tubing is supplied in both seamless and seam welded forms, and both forms have
been used in the power industry. However, the large bulk of the material used in nuclear
plants has been seamless.

Titanium and Titanium Alloys

Titanium and titanium alloy tubing has been used in nuclear power plants for over 30 years.
This is primarily because titanium has excellent corrosion resistance. Titanium is used in
applications where copper alloys and stainless steels are not sufficiently resistant to
corrosion. There have been no reports of corrosion induced failures of titanium tubing in
condenser and service water applications. However, some hydriding failures have occurred
as a result of inappropriate voltages applied to cathodic protection systems in condensers.

Titaniums relatively low thermal conductivity and relatively high cost has limited its use in
conventional heat exchangers. However, using thinner wall tubes usually offsets the
conductivity issue. Titaniums low modulus of elasticity is also a consideration, especially
when used as a replacement tubing material in heat exchangers that have been designed for
other alloys. Lack of consideration of this property has occasionally resulted in serious
vibration problems and even tube failure.

Titanium tubing is supplied in both seamless and seam welded forms. However, the vast
majority of material used in power plants has been seam welded. In theory, the use of seam
welded tubes could raise concerns about the possible influence of the seam weld on defects
and corrosion behavior. However, to date, there have been no reports of any significant
problems associated with the use of seam welded tubing.

xxi

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Executive Summary

Stainless Steel Tubing

Austenitic stainless steel tubing has been widely used in freshwater cooling systems and in
condensate-feedwater systems and has generally performed well. However, the austenitic
stainless steels have been found to be susceptible to pitting or crevice corrosion in freshwater
service, especially under deposits. This type of under deposit attack occurs when deposits
build up on tube surfaces due to deposition of materials such as silt or clay, precipitation of
hardness salts, biological growths, etc. Prevention of such failures involves continuous
attention to keeping the stainless steel surfaces clean and free of biological growths, for
example, by using sponge ball cleaning and chlorination. The austenitic grades of stainless
steel have also experienced attack under layup conditions when the water in the tubes was
allowed to dry, resulting in concentration to aggressive levels of the impurities in the
remaining water.

The conventional grades of austenitic stainless steel such as Types 304 and 316 were found
many years ago not to work well in seawater and brackish water, mainly because of pitting
and crevice corrosion. However, higher alloy stainless steels of either the austenitic type,
such as AL-6XN and 904L, or the ferritic type, such as Sea-Cure, E-Brite and AL29-4C,
have worked acceptably in seawater environments, although a few corrosion induced failures
have been reported. These grades also have increased resistance to the types of pitting attack
in freshwater service described above.

Ferritic stainless steels, especially Type 439, have been widely used in moisture separator
reheater applications and have worked well, with very few failures reported. They have also
been used to a limited extent in feedwater heaters.

Both seam welded and seamless tubing have been used, with seam welded tubing being used
more extensively than seamless tubing. For the most part, the seam welds have not caused
problems. However, there have been cases where seam welds in non-solution annealed
austenitic stainless steel tubing have led to increased susceptibility to a pitting attack in
seawater service. Thus, some caution is appropriate when considering the use of seam
welded tubing, and it is prudent to use only seam welded tubing if the tubing is heat treated
after welding.

Carbon and Low Alloy Steel Tubing

Carbon and low alloy steel tubing has been widely used in two main applications in nuclear
power plants: feedwater heaters, especially high pressure feedwater heaters, and moisture
separator reheaters (MSRs). Carbon steel has also had limited use in service water
applications where the service water is fresh water.

A main reason for an increased use of carbon steel for feedwater heaters in the 1960s and
1970s was reluctance to use copper alloys because of concerns about the effects of copper on
boilers and turbines, especially in fossil plants. This fossil plant experience was carried over
to nuclear plants, especially PWRs. Other reasons for using carbon and low alloy steel for
feedwater heaters and MSRs, as opposed to more corrosion resistant alloys, are its low cost,
its good thermal conductivity, resistance to SCC, and the fact that its thermal coefficient of
expansion matches that of pressure vessel structural parts, thus simplifying design.

xxii

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Executive Summary

The main drawbacks of carbon and low alloy steels are their susceptibility to (1) general
corrosion and pitting, (2) erosion-corrosion or wall thinning in single phase flow regions
(also called flow accelerated corrosion (FAC)), and (3) steam impingement erosioncorrosion or cutting due to effects of high velocity water droplet impingement in regions of
two phase flow.

Experience with carbon steel and low alloy steel tubing in nuclear power plants can be
summarized as follows:
Carbon steel tubes have performed well in many high pressure feedwater applications and
carbon steel continues to be widely used for this application, especially in Europe.
However, some plants have had sufficient problems due to corrosion and erosioncorrosion that carbon steel tube bundles have been replaced with stainless steel bundles.
Finned carbon steel tubes are continuing to perform satisfactorily in MSRs in some
plants, but they have been replaced in a substantial number of MSRs with ferritic
stainless steel tubes as a result of erosion-corrosion problems, deposit buildup, and
corrosion caused bridging of the fins (which reduces heat transfer performance). Finned
low alloy steel MSR tubes have performed well in most plants. The low alloy steel used
is similar in composition to Cor-Ten, which is a copper bearing weathering steel
with improved atmospheric corrosion resistance.
In some service water applications, especially those with treated fresh water, carbon steel
tubes have performed satisfactorily. However, in other service water applications, carbon
steel tubes have been found to be susceptible to pitting and under deposit corrosion and
have had to be replaced.

Both seam welded and seamless carbon and low alloy steel tubing are covered by applicable
ASTM and ASME specifications and the ASME Code, and both types have been used.

Nickel Alloy Tubing

This chapter covers use of nickel alloy tubing for use in balance-of-plant (BOP) and other
non-steam generator heat exchanger applications in nuclear power plants (steam generator
tubing is covered in other EPRI documents such as the Steam Generator Reference Book,
Revision 1 (TR-103824), Guidelines for Procurement of Alloy 690 Steam Generator Tubing
(TR-016743-V2R1), the annual Steam Generator Progress Report in EPRIs Steam Generator
Degradation Database, and the PWR Secondary Water Chemistry Guidelines (1016555).

Nickel alloy tubing has had limited use in BOP and other non-steam generator applications in
nuclear plants, with these applications mainly being the use of Alloy 400 in a few early BWR
feedwater heaters and in moderator and shutdown heat exchangers in PHWRs. Nickel alloy
tubing (for example, Alloy 600) has also been used occasionally for services such as sample
coolers.

The Alloy 400 tubing used in early BWR feedwater heaters was replaced in the 1960s as part
of programs to remove copper alloys from the secondary system because of copper deposit
induced fuel failures. Alloy 400 used in auxiliary heat exchangers in PWHRs, for example,
for moderator and shutdown heat exchangers, has performed satisfactorily at some plants, but
has suffered rapid under deposit corrosion and has been replaced by other alloys at other
plants.
xxiii

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Executive Summary

Despite its rather limited use in non steam generator applications in nuclear power plants,
nickel alloy tubing has some attractive features, such as good corrosion resistance and
mechanical properties, and can be considered as a replacement alloy for some heat exchanger
applications.

Based on the published literature, only seamless nickel alloy tubing has been used in nuclear
plants. However, some applicable specifications allow use of seam welded tubing, and seam
welded tubing of stainless steel alloys has performed well in similar applications. Thus, it
seems reasonable to consider use of seam welded tubing for nuclear power plant heat
exchanger applications.

Pump and Valve Trim Materials

This chapter contains information regarding materials used in nuclear power plant pump and
valve trim applications. These trim materials generally are not part of the pressure boundary
and, therefore, are not within the original scope of the Materials Handbook for Nuclear
Pressure Boundary Applications, which, as its name implies, was limited to pressure
boundary materials. However, feedback from utility users of the Materials Handbook
indicated that information to aid in the selection and specification of materials for pump and
valve trim would be useful. Accordingly, this chapter has been included in the handbook.

The scope of the chapter covers materials for the following types of pump and valve trim
applications:
Pumps: shafts, impellers, diffusers, wear rings, mechanical seals, internal bolting and
hardware, etc.
Valves: shafts and stems, discs, cages, plugs, seats, internal bolting and hardware, disc
hinge pins, pressure seals, internal springs, etc.

In addition to identifying the materials used in different trim applications, the chapter covers
some general technical topics that affect trim materials, such as galling and wear.

The discussion of trim materials in this chapter covers:


Lists of materials that are known to have been used in each application in order to
provide assistance to engineers attempting to identify alternative materials.
Comments describing problems that have occurred with specific trim materials.
Discussion of the state of knowledge regarding several general topics important to trim,
such as wear and galling resistance.

Non-Metallic Materials

This chapter describes the results of an evaluation of requirements regarding impurities in


non-metallic materials for nuclear plant application. The reason for including a discussion of
non-metallic materials in the Materials Handbook is that impurities from non-metallic
materials can affect the integrity of pressure boundary materials. In this regard, it is necessary
to control the composition and quality of non-metallic materials to ensure that they do not
lead to corrosion problems in pressure boundary materials.

xxiv

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Executive Summary

The main conclusion reached by this evaluation of impurities in non-metallic materials is that
the limits on impurities imposed on non-metallic materials have no well defined technical
bases, but rather are largely historical in nature and appear to be mainly based on an as low
as reasonably achievable (ALARA) principle. It was further concluded that, since the
impurity limits are based on ALARA rather than defined technical considerations, they can
be modified using ALARA principles, that is, relaxed where meeting them is not reasonably
achievable, but retained where reasonably achievable.

It was found that high temperature gaskets and packing typically involve graphite materials,
and that such materials meeting nuclear grade impurity limits are readily available. However,
gaskets for lower temperature applications can involve non graphite materials such as
rubbers, and meeting impurity limits for such materials can be difficult. It appears likely that
higher impurity limits could be justified for such applications, but developing alternate
impurity limits would require significant effort on a case-by-case basis.

References for Executive Summary


References used in the Executive Summary are listed as footnotes. References for each chapter
are located at the end of each chapter.

xxv

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material

ACRONYMS
ABB-Atom

ASEA Brown Boveri (a European NSSS)

ABB/CE

ASEA Brown Boveri/Combustion Engineering (an NSSS)

AEC

Atomic Energy Commission

AECL

Atomic Energy of Canada Limited

ALARA

As low as reasonably achievable

AMS

Aerospace Material Specification

ANL

Argonne National Laboratory

ANSI

American National Standards Institute

ASM

American Society for Metals

ASME

American Society of Mechanical Engineers

ASTM

American Society for Testing and Materials

AVT

All volatile treatment

B&W

Babcock & Wilcox (a NSSS)

BOP

Balance of plant

BWR

Boiling water reactor

BWROG

BWR Owners Group

BWRVIP

BWR Vessels and Internals Project

CANDU

Canadian deuterium uranium (a type of reactor)

CEA

Commisariat lEnergie Atomique (French AEC)

CASS

Cast austenitic stainless steel

CEDM

Control element drive mechanism

CERT

Constant extension rate

CRD

Control rod drive

CRDM

Control rod drive mechanism

CRDRL

Control rod drive return line

CT

Compact tensile

CVCS

Chemical and volume control system

xxvii

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Acronyms

EAC

Environmentally assisted cracking

ECP

Electrochemical potential

ECT

Eddy current test

EDF

Electricit de France

EDM

Electrical discharge machining

EDS

Energy dispersive spectroscopy

EFPY

Effective full power year

EPR

Electrochemical potentiokinetic reactivation

EPRI

Electric Power Research Institute

FAC

Flow-accelerated corrosion

FWH

Feedwater heater

GALL

Generic aging lessons learned

GE

General Electric

GTAW

Gas tungsten arc welding

HAZ

Heat affected zone

HSW

Heat sink welding

HV

Hardness, Vickers

HWC

Hydrogen water chemistry

IAEA

International Atomic Energy Agency

IARDATA

Irradiation-Anneal-Reirradiation Database

IASCC

Irradiation accelerated stress corrosion cracking

ID

Inner diameter

IGA

Intergranular attack

IGSCC

Intergranular stress corrosion cracking

IHSI

Induction heating stress improvement

INPO

Institute of Nuclear Power Operations

KWU

Kraftwerk Union, a division of Siemens (a European NSSS)

LAS

Low alloy steel

LOCA

Loss of coolant accident

LPHSW

Last pass heat sink welding

LTCC

Low temperature creep cracking

LTS

Low temperature sensitization

LTSCC

Low temperature stress corrosion cracking

xxviii

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Acronyms

MSIP

Mechanical stress improvement process

MIC

Microbiologically influenced corrosion

MRP

Materials Reliability Program

MSR

Moisture separator reheater

NDE

Nondestructive examination

NDT

Nil ductility temperature

NG

Nuclear Grade

NMCA

Noble metal chemical addition

NPS

Nominal Pipe Size

NRC

Nuclear Reactor Commission

NSSS

Nuclear Steam System Supplier

NUMARC

Nuclear Management and Resources Council

NWC

Normal water chemistry

OD

Outer diameter

PHWR

Pressurized heavy water reactor

PORV

Pilot operated relief valve

PTS

Pressurized thermal shock

PWHT

Post weld heat treatment

PWR

Pressurized water reactor

PWSCC

Primary water stress corrosion cracking

Ratio of minimum to maximum, stress or stress intensity

RCS

Reactor coolant system

RG

Regulatory Guide

RT

Reference temperature or Radiographic test

SANS

Small angle neutron scattering

SCC

Stress corrosion cracking

SGOG

Steam Generator Owners Group

SHE

Standard hydrogen electrode

SICC

Strain induced corrosion cracking

SMAW

Shielded metal arc welding

SSRT

Slow strain rate test

STP

Standard temperature and pressure

SWAP

Service water assistance project (an EPRI project)


xxix

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Acronyms

TEM

Transmission electron microscopy or microscope

TIG

Tungsten inert gas

UNS

Unified Numbering System for materials

USE

Upper shelf energy

UT

Ultrasonic test

VCD

Vacuum carbon deoxidation


Chapter Preparation and Latest Revision Dates

Number

Name

First
Issued

Latest
Revision

(I)1

CARBON AND LOW ALLOY STEELS FOR PRESSURE VESSELS

2002

2011

(I)2

CARBON AND LOW ALLOY STEEL PIPING

2002

2011

(I)3

STAINLESS STEEL FOR PIPING, COMPONENTS AND PRESSURE


VESSELS

2002

2009

(I)4

NICKEL-BASE ALLOYS FOR PRESSURE VESSELS, COMPONENTS


AND PIPING

2002

2009

(II)1

17-4 PH PRECIPITATION HARDENING STAINLESS STEEL

1998

2006

(II)2

ALLOY X-750 PRECIPITATION HARDENING NICKEL-BASE ALLOY

1998

2008

(II)3

ALLOY 718 PRECIPITATION HARDENING NICKEL-BASE ALLOY

1998

2012

(II)4

ALLOY A-286 PRECIPITATION HARDENING AUSTENITIC


IRON-BASE ALLOY

1998

2010

(II)5

HIGH STRENGTH WROUGHT AUSTENITIC STAINLESS STEELS


(NONPRECIPITATION HARDENED)

1998

2012

(II)6

MARTENSITIC STAINLESS STEELS (NON-PRECIPITATION


HARDENED)

1998

2006

(II)7

HIGH STRENGTH NON-STAINLESS FASTENER STEELS


(2008 UPDATE)

1998

2008

(II)8

SILICON BRONZE BOLTING ALLOYS

1998

2008

(III)1

COPPER ALLOY TUBING

1999

2010

(III)2

TITANIUM AND TITANIUM ALLOYS

1999

2008

(III)3

STAINLESS STEEL TUBING

1999

2008

(III)4

NICKEL ALLOY TUBING

2002

2008

(III)5

CARBON AND LOW ALLOW STEEL TUBING

2002

2011

(IV)1

PUMP AND VALVE TRIM MATERIALS

2006

2010

(V)1

NON-METALLIC MATERIALS

2002

2012

xxx

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material

CONTENTS

SECTION I BASE MATERIALS FOR PIPING AND PRESSURE VESSEL


PRESSURE BOUNDARIES .........................................................................................................
1 CARBON AND LOW ALLOY STEELS FOR PRESSURE VESSELS.............................. (I) 1-1
1 General Description ..................................................................................................... (I) 1-1
2 Applications ................................................................................................................. (I) 1-2
3 Typical Product Forms and Specifications ................................................................... (I) 1-5
4 Main Limitations .......................................................................................................... (I) 1-5
5 Material Properties ...................................................................................................... (I) 1-6
5.1 Room Temperature Mechanical Properties .......................................................... (I) 1-6
5.2 Elevated Temperature Mechanical Properties...................................................... (I) 1-6
5.3 Physical Properties .............................................................................................. (I) 1-7
6 Welding and Heat Treatment ....................................................................................... (I) 1-8
7 Application Specific Comments ................................................................................... (I) 1-9
7.1 ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code Applications ......................................... (I) 1-9
7.2 Parts Immersed in Reactor Coolant ................................................................... (I) 1-14
7.3 Fracture Toughness Requirements .................................................................... (I) 1-14
7.3.1 Introduction to Fracture Toughness and Radiation Embrittlement .............. (I) 1-14
7.3.2 ASME Code Requirements ........................................................................ (I) 1-18
7.3.3 ASME Code Cases That Deal with Radiation Embrittlement Issues ........... (I) 1-23
7.3.4 NRC Requirements .................................................................................... (I) 1-23
8 Ordering Information and Practices ........................................................................... (I) 1-24
9 Service Experience.................................................................................................... (I) 1-24
9.1 Summary ........................................................................................................... (I) 1-25
9.2 Radiation Embrittlement ..................................................................................... (I) 1-26
9.3 Cracking of BWR Feedwater Nozzles ................................................................ (I) 1-28
9.4 Cracking of BWR Control Rod Drive Return Line (CRDRL) Nozzles .................. (I) 1-29
9.5 PWR Steam Generator Girth Weld Cracking...................................................... (I) 1-30

xxxi

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material

9.6 BWR Secondary Steam Generator Shell Cracks ............................................... (I) 1-34
9.7 Cracks in Sensitized Cladding in BWR Reactor Vessels with Possible Small
Penetration into the Base Material ........................................................................... (I) 1-36
9.8 Fabrication-Induced Base Material and Weld Joint Flaws Detected After
Installation or in Service ........................................................................................... (I) 1-36
9.9 Boric Acid Corrosion (BAC) of Pressure Vessel Shells ........................................... (I) 1-38
9.10 Flow Accelerated Corrosion (FAC) of Feedwater Heater and Moisture Separator
Reheater Shells/Pressure Vessels ............................................................................... (I) 1-38
10 Laboratory Investigations......................................................................................... (I) 1-39
10.1 Radiation Embrittlement ................................................................................... (I) 1-39
10.2 Stress Corrosion Cracking in BWR Environments ............................................ (I) 1-47
10.3 Stress Corrosion Cracking in PWR Environments ............................................ (I) 1-56
10.4 Corrosion Fatigue in LWR Environments ......................................................... (I) 1-60
10.5 Crack Growth Rate Model and Crack Tip Chemistry ........................................ (I) 1-80
10.6 Improved Initial Properties ............................................................................... (I) 1-80
10.7 Warm Prestressing .......................................................................................... (I) 1-81
10.8 Fracture Properties of Clad Material................................................................. (I) 1-81
10.9 Boric Acid Corrosion ........................................................................................ (I) 1-81
11 Alternative Materials ................................................................................................ (I) 1-81
12 References .............................................................................................................. (I) 1-82
2 CARBON AND LOW ALLOY STEEL PIPING ................................................................. (I) 2-1
1 General Description ..................................................................................................... (I) 2-1
2 Applications ................................................................................................................. (I) 2-7
3 Typical Product Forms and Specifications ................................................................... (I) 2-8
4 Main Limitations .......................................................................................................... (I) 2-9
5 Material Properties .................................................................................................... (I) 2-10
5.1 Room Temperature Mechanical Properties ........................................................ (I) 2-10
5.2 Elevated Temperature Mechanical Properties.................................................... (I) 2-10
5.3 Physical Properties ............................................................................................ (I) 2-10
6 Welding and Heat Treatment ..................................................................................... (I) 2-11
7 Application Specific Comments ................................................................................. (I) 2-11
7.1 ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code Applications ....................................... (I) 2-11
7.2 Parts Immersed in Reactor Coolant ................................................................... (I) 2-16
8 Ordering Information and Practices ........................................................................... (I) 2-16
9 Service Experience.................................................................................................... (I) 2-16

xxxii

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material

9.1 Summary ........................................................................................................... (I) 2-16


9.2 Flow-Accelerated Corrosion (FAC/Erosion-Corrosion) ....................................... (I) 2-17
9.3 Boric Acid Corrosion of Carbon and Low Alloys Steels ...................................... (I) 2-24
9.4 Thermal Stratification Induced Fatigue Failures of Feedwater Piping ................. (I) 2-24
9.5 Fatigue Failures ................................................................................................. (I) 2-26
9.6 Open System Service Water Piping ................................................................... (I) 2-27
9.7 SCC of Closed Cooling Water Piping ................................................................. (I) 2-29
9.8 OD Corrosion of Buried Piping ........................................................................... (I) 2-30
9.9 Strain-Induced Corrosion Cracking (SICC) ........................................................ (I) 2-30
9.10 Cracking of PHWR Outlet Feeder Pipes .......................................................... (I) 2-31
10 Laboratory Investigations......................................................................................... (I) 2-31
10.1 General Corrosion and Corrosion Product Release ......................................... (I) 2-31
10.2 Flow-Accelerated Corrosion and Erosion-Corrosion......................................... (I) 2-44
10.3 Pitting, Under Deposit Corrosion, and Crevice Corrosion ................................. (I) 2-50
10.4 Stress Corrosion Cracking ............................................................................... (I) 2-51
10.5 Crack Initiation Due to Fatigue/Corrosion Fatigue ............................................ (I) 2-60
10.6 Crack Propagation Due to Fatigue/Corrosion Fatigue ...................................... (I) 2-61
10.7 Hydrogen Water Chemistry Effects on Carbon and Low Alloy Steel Piping ...... (I) 2-65
10.8 Boric Acid Corrosion ........................................................................................ (I) 2-66
11 Alternative Materials ................................................................................................ (I) 2-67
12 References .............................................................................................................. (I) 2-67
3 STAINLESS STEEL FOR PIPING, COMPONENTS, AND PRESSURE VESSELS......... (I) 3-1
1 General Description ..................................................................................................... (I) 3-1
2 Applications ................................................................................................................. (I) 3-4
3 Typical Product Forms and Specifications ................................................................... (I) 3-5
4 Main Limitations .......................................................................................................... (I) 3-6
5 Material Properties ...................................................................................................... (I) 3-7
5.1 Room Temperature Mechanical Properties .......................................................... (I) 3-7
5.2 Elevated Temperature Mechanical Properties...................................................... (I) 3-7
5.3 Physical Properties .............................................................................................. (I) 3-8
6 Welding and Heat Treatment ....................................................................................... (I) 3-9
6.1 Welding and Post Weld Heat Treatment .............................................................. (I) 3-9
6.2 Stress Relief ........................................................................................................ (I) 3-9
7 Application Specific Comments ................................................................................... (I) 3-9

xxxiii

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material

7.1 ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code Applications ......................................... (I) 3-9
7.2 Parts Immersed in Reactor Coolant ................................................................... (I) 3-19
8 Ordering Information and Practices ........................................................................... (I) 3-20
9 Service Experience.................................................................................................... (I) 3-20
9.1 Summary ........................................................................................................... (I) 3-21
9.2 BWR Piping ID Initiated IGSCC of Sensitized Standard Austenitic Stainless
Steels ...................................................................................................................... (I) 3-22
9.3 SCC of PWR Stainless Steel at Surfaces Wetted by Reactor Coolant ............... (I) 3-27
9.4 Fatigue Failures of Small (<2) Diameter Piping ................................................. (I) 3-34
9.5 Thermal Fatigue Cracking of Piping and Components ....................................... (I) 3-35
9.6 SCC Initiating from the OD................................................................................. (I) 3-37
9.7 SCC of Cold Worked Stainless Steel in BWRs................................................... (I) 3-40
9.8 SCC of Stabilized Stainless Steel in BWR Type Environments .......................... (I) 3-40
9.9 IGSCC in BWRs of Nonsensitized Stainless Steel ............................................. (I) 3-41
9.10 MIC Attack of Stainless Steel Welds in Service Water Applications ................. (I) 3-42
9.11 Embrittlement of Cast Austenitic Stainless Steels ............................................ (I) 3-42
9.12 Cracking of Stainless Steel Due to Concentration of Chlorides During Dryout . (I) 3-42
10 Laboratory Investigations......................................................................................... (I) 3-42
10.1 General Corrosion............................................................................................ (I) 3-42
10.2 BWR Piping IGSCC Causes and Remedies..................................................... (I) 3-43
10.3 Stagnant Borated Water System IGSCC Causes and Remedies ..................... (I) 3-51
10.4 SCC of Stainless Steels in PWR Reactor Coolant Environments ..................... (I) 3-57
10.5 SCC of Stainless Steels in High Temperature Polluted PWR Type
Environments ........................................................................................................... (I) 3-60
10.6 General SCC Susceptibility of Stainless Steels ................................................ (I) 3-62
10.7 SCC Crack Growth Rates in BWR Environments ............................................. (I) 3-70
10.8 Corrosion Fatigue ............................................................................................ (I) 3-79
10.8.1 Discussion Corrosion Fatigue Crack Initiation........................................ (I) 3-79
10.9 Aging of Cast Stainless Steel and Duplex Weld Metal ..................................... (I) 3-84
10.10 Sensitization .................................................................................................. (I) 3-88
10.10.1 Sensitization Measurement Methods ...................................................... (I) 3-88
10.10.2 Factors Affecting Sensitization ............................................................... (I) 3-89
10.11 Development of Long Length Seamless Pipe Segments ................................ (I) 3-92
11 Alternative Materials ................................................................................................ (I) 3-92
12 References .............................................................................................................. (I) 3-92

xxxiv

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material

4 NICKEL-BASE ALLOYS FOR PRESSURE VESSELS, COMPONENTS AND PIPING .. (I) 4-1
1 General Description ..................................................................................................... (I) 4-1
2 Applications ................................................................................................................. (I) 4-2
3 Typical Product Forms and Specifications ................................................................... (I) 4-7
4 Main Limitations .......................................................................................................... (I) 4-7
5 Material Properties ...................................................................................................... (I) 4-8
5.1 Room Temperature Mechanical Properties .......................................................... (I) 4-8
5.2 Elevated Temperature Mechanical Properties...................................................... (I) 4-9
5.3 Physical Properties ............................................................................................ (I) 4-10
6 Welding and Heat Treatment ..................................................................................... (I) 4-11
7 Application Specific Comments ................................................................................. (I) 4-12
7.1 ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code Applications ....................................... (I) 4-12
7.2 Parts Immersed in Reactor Coolant ................................................................... (I) 4-16
8 Ordering Information and Practices ........................................................................... (I) 4-16
9 Service Experience.................................................................................................... (I) 4-17
9.1 Summary ........................................................................................................... (I) 4-17
9.2 IGSCC of Alloy 600 Base Material in BWR Environments .................................. (I) 4-17
9.3 IGSCC of Alloy 182 in BWR Environments ........................................................ (I) 4-21
9.4 PWSCC of Alloys 600, 182 and 82 in PWR Environments ................................. (I) 4-24
9.4.1 Background ................................................................................................ (I) 4-25
9.4.2 Examples of Significant Incidents ............................................................... (I) 4-28
10 Laboratory Investigations......................................................................................... (I) 4-31
10.1 IGSCC Initiation in BWR Reactor Coolant Environments ................................. (I) 4-32
10.2 Crack Growth Rates in Nickel-Base Alloys and Weld Metals in BWR Reactor
Coolant Environments.............................................................................................. (I) 4-54
10.3 PWSCC Initiation in PWR Reactor Coolant Environments ............................... (I) 4-77
10.3.1 Selection of Alloy 600 and Early History ................................................... (I) 4-79
10.3.2 Situation as of 2009 .................................................................................. (I) 4-81
10.3.2.1 General ............................................................................................. (I) 4-81
10.3.2.2 Applied Stress and Plastic Strain ...................................................... (I) 4-81
10.3.2.3 Alloy Type and Composition ............................................................. (I) 4-82
10.3.2.4 Processing History (Including Cold Work) ......................................... (I) 4-84
10.3.2.5 Microstructure ................................................................................... (I) 4-85
10.3.2.6 Strength ............................................................................................ (I) 4-88
10.3.2.7 Temperature ..................................................................................... (I) 4-88

xxxv

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material

10.3.2.8 Chemical Environment ...................................................................... (I) 4-90


10.3.2.9 Material Properties and Microstructure ............................................. (I) 4-90
10.3.2.10 Surface Damage and Condition ...................................................... (I) 4-90
10.3.2.11 Oxidation of Wetted Surfaces ......................................................... (I) 4-91
10.4 PWSCC Crack Growth Rates in PWR Reactor Coolant Environments............. (I) 4-91
10.4.1 Imposed Deformation ............................................................................... (I) 4-94
10.4.2 Material Type, Thickness, Microstructure, and Crack Orientation ............. (I) 4-96
10.4.3 Cold Work, Plastic Strain and Yield Strength .......................................... (I) 4-102
10.4.4 Stress Intensity Factor ............................................................................ (I) 4-106
10.4.5 Cyclic Loading and Test Duration ........................................................... (I) 4-113
10.4.6 Temperature and Activation Energy ....................................................... (I) 4-115
10.4.7 Chemistry Environment .......................................................................... (I) 4-117
10.5 Recent Investigations Related to Welds ......................................................... (I) 4-120
10.5.1 Plastic Strains at Welds .......................................................................... (I) 4-120
10.5.2 Susceptibility of Weld Metals to PWSCC ................................................ (I) 4-120
10.5.3 Factors Affecting Crack Propagation Rates in Welds ............................. (I) 4-122
10.5.4 Hot Cracks and Microfissures ................................................................. (I) 4-122
10.5.5 Effects of Weld Flaws and Other Flaws on SCC and LTCP Initiation ...... (I) 4-124
10.5.6 Effects of Stress Relief Heat Treatments on Susceptibility to SCC ......... (I) 4-125
10.5.7 Effects of Temperature on PWSCC Initiation in Welds ........................... (I) 4-125
10.5.8 Effects of Grain Boundary Type on SCC ................................................ (I) 4-126
10.5.9 Effects of Stabilizing Elements and Grain Boundary Depletion and
Segregants on SCC of Welds............................................................................ (I) 4-126
10.5.10 Cladding on BWR Vessels ................................................................... (I) 4-127
10.6 Fatigue Crack Initiation in Nickel-Base Alloys ................................................ (I) 4-127
10.7 Fatigue Crack Growth Rates of Nickel-Base Alloys ........................................ (I) 4-133
10.8 Low Temperature Crack Propagation............................................................. (I) 4-149
10.9 Ordering Reactions and Possible Effects on SCC .......................................... (I) 4-152
11 Alternative Materials .............................................................................................. (I) 4-152
12 References ............................................................................................................ (I) 4-152
SECTION II HIGH STRENGTH MATERIALS FOR BOLTING, VALVE STEMS,
SPRINGS, ETC.............................................................................................................................
1 17-4 PH PRECIPITATION HARDENING STAINLESS STEEL ....................................... (II) 1-1
1 General Description .................................................................................................... (II) 1-1

xxxvi

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material

2 Typical Applications .................................................................................................... (II) 1-3


3 Typical Product Forms and Specifications .................................................................. (II) 1-3
4 Main Limitations ......................................................................................................... (II) 1-3
5 Material Properties ..................................................................................................... (II) 1-4
5.1 Room Temperature Mechanical Properties ......................................................... (II) 1-4
5.2 Elevated Temperature Mechanical Properties..................................................... (II) 1-5
5.3 Physical Properties ............................................................................................. (II) 1-7
5.4 Dimensional Changes During Heat Treatment .................................................... (II) 1-7
6 Welding ...................................................................................................................... (II) 1-8
6.1 Tests of Welded 17-4 PH Material in Seawater ................................................... (II) 1-8
6.2 Tests of Welded 17-4 PH Material in Acidified Sodium Chloride Solution ............ (II) 1-8
6.3 Conclusions Regarding Welded 17-4 PH Stainless Steel .................................... (II) 1-9
7 Application Specific Comments .................................................................................. (II) 1-9
7.1 ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code Applications ........................................ (II) 1-9
7.2 Bolting in PWR Plants Exposed to Primary Coolant Leaks................................ (II) 1-13
7.3 Turbine Blades.................................................................................................. (II) 1-14
8 Ordering Information and Practices .......................................................................... (II) 1-14
9 Field Experience with 17-4 PH ................................................................................. (II) 1-15
9.1 Stress Corrosion Associated with Use of High Hardness Material..................... (II) 1-15
9.2 Embrittlement Associated with Improper Initial Heat Treatment ........................ (II) 1-15
9.3 Embrittlement Associated with High Service Temperatures .............................. (II) 1-16
10 Laboratory Investigations of 17-4 PH ...................................................................... (II) 1-17
10.1 Research Regarding Embrittlement Due to Time at Service Temperature ...... (II) 1-17
10.2 SCC Susceptibility in PWR Primary Coolant ................................................... (II) 1-28
10.3 SCC Due to Exposure to Aggressive Environments ........................................ (II) 1-28
11 Alternatives to 17-4 PH ........................................................................................... (II) 1-29
12 References ............................................................................................................. (II) 1-30
2 ALLOY X-750 PRECIPITATION HARDENING NICKEL-BASE ALLOY ...................... (II) 2-1
1 General Description .................................................................................................... (II) 2-1
2 Typical Applications .................................................................................................... (II) 2-3
3 Typical Product Forms and Specifications .................................................................. (II) 2-3
4 Main Limitations ......................................................................................................... (II) 2-7
5 Material Properties ..................................................................................................... (II) 2-8
5.1 Room Temperature Mechanical Properties ......................................................... (II) 2-8

xxxvii

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material

5.2 Elevated Temperature Mechanical Properties..................................................... (II) 2-9


5.3 Physical Properties ............................................................................................. (II) 2-9
5.4 Dimensional Changes During Heat Treatment .................................................. (II) 2-11
6 Welding .................................................................................................................... (II) 2-11
7 Application-Specific Comments ................................................................................ (II) 2-11
7.1 ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code Applications ...................................... (II) 2-11
7.2 Parts Immersed in Reactor Coolant .................................................................. (II) 2-13
7.3 External Bolting in PWR Plants Exposed to Primary Coolant Leaks .................. (II) 2-13
8 Ordering Information and Practices .......................................................................... (II) 2-14
9 Service Experience with Alloy X-750 ........................................................................ (II) 2-16
9.1 Stress Corrosion Failures of Control Rod Drive Guide Tube Support Pins ........ (II) 2-16
9.2 Stress Corrosion Failures of Jet Pump Beams .................................................. (II) 2-17
9.3 Fuel Assembly Hold-Down Springs ................................................................... (II) 2-18
9.4 SCC of Chooz A Core Hold-Down Bolts............................................................ (II) 2-19
9.5 Failures of Alloy X-750 in Kraftwerk Union (KWU) Design PWRs and BWRs .... (II) 2-19
9.6 Cracking of Alloy X-750 Core Shroud Tie Rod Parts ......................................... (II) 2-20
9.7 Cracking of Alloy X-750 Emergency Core Cooling System Brackets Associated
with Welds in a BWR .............................................................................................. (II) 2-20
9.8 Cracking of Alloy X-750 Core Shroud Tie Rod Upper Supports in a BWR ......... (II) 2-20
10 Laboratory Investigations of Alloy X-750................................................................. (II) 2-21
10.1 Effect of Heat Treatment and Material Processing on Microstructure and
Susceptibility to SCC .............................................................................................. (II) 2-21
10.2 Effect of Stress Level on Time to SCC ............................................................ (II) 2-22
10.3 Effect of Environmental Conditions on Susceptibility to SCC .......................... (II) 2-25
10.3.1 Temperature............................................................................................ (II) 2-25
10.3.2 Electrochemical Potential, Oxygen Concentration, and Hydrogen
Concentration ..................................................................................................... (II) 2-26
10.3.3 Impurities in Environment ........................................................................ (II) 2-27
10.3.4 pH ........................................................................................................... (II) 2-28
10.4 Crack Growth Rate Tests ................................................................................ (II) 2-28
10.5 Effect of Material Composition on SCC ........................................................... (II) 2-31
10.5.1 Sulfur....................................................................................................... (II) 2-31
10.5.2 Chromium................................................................................................ (II) 2-32
10.5.3 Boron ...................................................................................................... (II) 2-32
10.5.4 Phosphorous ........................................................................................... (II) 2-32

xxxviii

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material

10.6 Effects of Processing and Surface Condition on Susceptibility to SCC............ (II) 2-33
10.7 Effect of Pre-Strain on Susceptibility to SCC ................................................... (II) 2-34
10.8 Resistance to Irradiation Assisted Stress Corrosion Cracking (IASCC) ........... (II) 2-34
10.9 Hydrogen Embrittlement and Low Temperature SCC ..................................... (II) 2-36
10.10 Fatigue and Corrosion Fatigue ...................................................................... (II) 2-38
10.11 In-Plant Test and Comparison with A-286 ..................................................... (II) 2-38
11 Alternatives to Alloy X-750...................................................................................... (II) 2-39
12 References ............................................................................................................. (II) 2-40
13 Research Supplement for Alloy X-750 .................................................................... (II) 2-49
13.1 History and Background for Selection of Alloy X-750 Heat Treatments ........... (II) 2-49
13.2 Heat Treatment, Microstructure, and IGSCC Susceptibility ............................. (II) 2-51
13.2.1 Heat Treatment, Microstructure, and IGSCC Susceptibility1989 Report(II) 2-51
13.2.2 Heat Treatment, Microstructure, and IGSCC SusceptibilityAlternate
Heat Treatment Condition .................................................................................. (II) 2-55
13.2.3 Post-1989 Research on Heat Treatment, Microstructure, and IGSCC
Susceptibility ...................................................................................................... (II) 2-57
13.3 Deformation and Fracture Characteristics in Air Environments ....................... (II) 2-58
13.4 Effects of Hydrogen on Alloy X-750 ................................................................ (II) 2-59
13.5 SCC Mechanisms, Behavior, and Alternate Alloys .......................................... (II) 2-63
13.6 Effects of Radiation ......................................................................................... (II) 2-71
13.7 Corrosion Fatigue ........................................................................................... (II) 2-72
13.8 Summary ........................................................................................................ (II) 2-73
13.9 References for Research Supplement ............................................................ (II) 2-74
3 ALLOY 718 PRECIPITATION HARDENING NICKEL-BASE ALLOY ......................... (II) 3-1
1 General Description .................................................................................................... (II) 3-1
2 Typical Applications .................................................................................................... (II) 3-5
3 Typical Product Forms and Specifications .................................................................. (II) 3-5
4 Main Limitations ......................................................................................................... (II) 3-5
5 Material Properties ..................................................................................................... (II) 3-6
5.1 Room Temperature Mechanical Properties ......................................................... (II) 3-6
5.2 Elevated Temperature Mechanical Properties..................................................... (II) 3-6
5.3 Physical Properties ............................................................................................. (II) 3-7
6 Welding ...................................................................................................................... (II) 3-9
7 Application Specific Comments .................................................................................. (II) 3-9

xxxix

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material

7.1 ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code Applications ........................................ (II) 3-9
7.2 Parts Immersed in Reactor Coolant .................................................................. (II) 3-11
7.3 PWR Plant External Bolting Exposed to Primary Coolant Leaks ....................... (II) 3-12
8 Ordering Information and Practices .......................................................................... (II) 3-12
9 Service Experience................................................................................................... (II) 3-13
9.1 Fatigue Failure of Fuel Assembly Holddown Springs [17] ................................. (II) 3-13
9.2 Fatigue Failures of Component Holddown Springs [17] .................................... (II) 3-13
9.3 Binding of Terry Turbine Governor Valve Stems [18] ........................................ (II) 3-14
9.4 PWSCC of Fuel Assembly Top Nozzle Spring Screws [19, 20, 21, 22] ............. (II) 3-14
10 Laboratory Investigations........................................................................................ (II) 3-15
10.1 Effect of Heat Treatment and Material Processing on Microstructure and
Susceptibility to SCC .............................................................................................. (II) 3-15
10.2 Effect of Stress Level on Time to SCC ............................................................ (II) 3-17
10.3 Effect of Environmental Conditions on Susceptibility to SCC Initiation and on
Crack Growth Rates ............................................................................................... (II) 3-19
10.4 Effect of Material Composition on Susceptibility to SCC.................................. (II) 3-21
10.5 Effects of Processing and Surface Condition on Susceptibility to SCC............ (II) 3-21
10.6 Effects of Cold Work and the Performance of Spring Temper Materials .......... (II) 3-22
10.7 Resistance to Irradiation Assisted Stress Corrosion Cracking (IASCC) and to
Irradiation Accelerated Creep ................................................................................. (II) 3-22
10.8 Fatigue and Corrosion Fatigue ........................................................................ (II) 3-22
10.9 Hydrogen Embrittlement and Low Temperature SCC ..................................... (II) 3-23
10.10 Etch Test for SCC Susceptibility ................................................................... (II) 3-23
10.11 Manufacturing Practices to Increase Resistance of Alloy 718 Fasteners to
PWSCC [21, 22] ..................................................................................................... (II) 3-24
11 Alternative Materials ............................................................................................... (II) 3-25
12 References ............................................................................................................. (II) 3-25
4 ALLOY A-286 PRECIPITATION HARDENING AUSTENITIC IRON-BASE ALLOY.... (II) 4-1
1 General Description .................................................................................................... (II) 4-1
2 Typical Applications .................................................................................................... (II) 4-3
3 Typical Product Forms and Specifications .................................................................. (II) 4-3
4 Main Limitations ......................................................................................................... (II) 4-4
5 Material Properties ..................................................................................................... (II) 4-4
5.1 Room Temperature Mechanical Properties ......................................................... (II) 4-4
5.2 Elevated Temperature Mechanical Properties..................................................... (II) 4-5

xl

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material

5.3 Physical Properties ............................................................................................. (II) 4-5


5.4 Dimensional Changes During Heat Treatment and Machinability ........................ (II) 4-5
6 Welding ...................................................................................................................... (II) 4-6
7 Application Specific Comments .................................................................................. (II) 4-7
7.1 ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code Applications ........................................ (II) 4-7
7.2 Parts Immersed in Reactor Coolant .................................................................... (II) 4-8
7.3 PWR Plants External Bolting Exposed to Primary Coolant Leaks ....................... (II) 4-9
8 Ordering Information and Practices ............................................................................ (II) 4-9
9 Service Experience................................................................................................... (II) 4-10
9.1 Satisfactory Performance in External Reactor Coolant System Bolting
Applications ............................................................................................................ (II) 4-10
9.2 Stress Corrosion Failures of Reactor Internals Bolting in B&W Plants............... (II) 4-10
9.3 Stress Corrosion Failures of Top Guide Bolts in ABB-Atom BWRs [9, 11, 24]... (II) 4-11
9.4 Reactor Coolant Pump Shaft Cracking.............................................................. (II) 4-12
9.5 IGSCC of Reactor Coolant Pump Bolts ............................................................. (II) 4-12
10 Laboratory Investigations........................................................................................ (II) 4-13
10.1 Susceptibility to IGSCC in BWR Reactor Coolant Environments ..................... (II) 4-13
10.2 Susceptibility to IGSCC in PWR Reactor Coolant Environments ..................... (II) 4-15
10.3 Accelerated Corrosion Tests ........................................................................... (II) 4-18
10.4 Crack Growth Rate Tests ................................................................................ (II) 4-18
11 Alternative Materials ............................................................................................... (II) 4-20
12 References ............................................................................................................. (II) 4-20
5 HIGH STRENGTH WROUGHT AUSTENITIC STAINLESS STEELS (NONPRECIPITATION HARDENED) ......................................................................................... (II) 5-1
1 General Description .................................................................................................... (II) 5-1
2 Typical Applications .................................................................................................... (II) 5-6
3 Typical Product Forms and Specifications .................................................................. (II) 5-6
4 Main Limitations ......................................................................................................... (II) 5-7
5 Material Properties ..................................................................................................... (II) 5-9
5.1 Room Temperature Mechanical Properties ......................................................... (II) 5-9
5.2 Elevated Temperature Mechanical Properties................................................... (II) 5-11
5.3 Physical Properties ........................................................................................... (II) 5-11
6 Welding .................................................................................................................... (II) 5-13
7 Application Specific Comments ................................................................................ (II) 5-13

xli

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material

7.1 ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code Applications ...................................... (II) 5-13
7.2 Parts Immersed in Reactor Coolant .................................................................. (II) 5-18
7.3 PWR Plant External Bolting Exposed to Primary Coolant Leaks ....................... (II) 5-18
8 Ordering Information and Practices .......................................................................... (II) 5-19
9 Service Experience................................................................................................... (II) 5-19
9.1 Failures of Cold worked Parts in BWRs ............................................................ (II) 5-19
9.2 Failures of Cold Worked Parts in PWRs............................................................ (II) 5-21
9.3 SCC of Reactor Coolant Pump Internal Bolts in a PWR[17, 57 58] ................... (II) 5-22
9.4 IASCC of Core Baffle/Former Bolts in PWRs .................................................... (II) 5-22
9.5 Reactor Coolant Pump Shaft Cracking.............................................................. (II) 5-23
9.6 Galling of Nitronic Material ................................................................................ (II) 5-23
9.7 Cracking of Nitronic 60 (UNS21800) in BWRs .................................................. (II) 5-24
10 Laboratory Investigations........................................................................................ (II) 5-24
10.1 Effect of Cold Work on Susceptibility of Austenitic Stainless Steels to SCC in
BWR Reactor Coolant Environments ...................................................................... (II) 5-25
10.2 Effect of Cold Work on Susceptibility to SCC of Austenitic Stainless Steels in
PWR Reactor Coolant Environment ........................................................................ (II) 5-37
10.2.1 Effect of Cold Work on the Initiation of SCC of Austenitic Stainless
Steels in PWR Reactor Coolant Environment ..................................................... (II) 5-37
10.2.2 Effect of Cold Work on the Crack Growth Rate of SCC of Austenitic
Stainless Steels in PWR Reactor Coolant Environment ..................................... (II) 5-40
10.2.2.1 Effect of Loading Profile ................................................................... (II) 5-40
10.2.2.3 Effect of Cold Work Direction ........................................................... (II) 5-42
10.2.2.2 Effect of Temperature ...................................................................... (II) 5-43
10.2.2.4 Effect of Oxygenation....................................................................... (II) 5-44
10.2.2.5 Effect of Water Chemistry ................................................................ (II) 5-45
10.2.2.6 Effect of Sensitization ...................................................................... (II) 5-46
10.2.2.6 Summary ......................................................................................... (II) 5-46
10.3 Resistance of Annealed Alloy XM-19 to SCC in BWR Reactor Coolant
Environments .......................................................................................................... (II) 5-47
10.4 Crack Growth Rate of Cold Rolled Alloy XM-19 in BWR Reactor Coolant
Environments .......................................................................................................... (II) 5-49
10.5 Resistance of Hot Rolled Alloy XM-19 to SCC in BWR and PWR Reactor
Coolant Environments............................................................................................. (II) 5-50
10.6 IASCC Tests of High Strength Wrought Austenitic Stainless Steels ................ (II) 5-51
10.7 Stress Relaxation ............................................................................................ (II) 5-52
11 Alternative Materials ............................................................................................... (II) 5-54

xlii

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material

12 References ............................................................................................................. (II) 5-54


6 MARTENSITIC STAINLESS STEELS (NON-PRECIPITATION HARDENED) ............... (II) 6-1
1 General Description .................................................................................................... (II) 6-1
2 Typical Applications .................................................................................................... (II) 6-3
3 Typical Product Forms and Specifications .................................................................. (II) 6-3
4 Main Limitations ......................................................................................................... (II) 6-4
5 Material Properties ..................................................................................................... (II) 6-5
5.1 Room Temperature Mechanical Properties ......................................................... (II) 6-5
5.2 Elevated Temperature Mechanical Properties..................................................... (II) 6-6
5.3 Physical Properties ............................................................................................. (II) 6-7
6 Welding [23] ............................................................................................................... (II) 6-7
7 Application Specific Comments .................................................................................. (II) 6-8
7.1 ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code Applications ........................................ (II) 6-8
7.2 Parts Immersed in Reactor Coolant .................................................................. (II) 6-14
7.3 PWR Plant External Bolting Exposed to Primary Coolant Leaks ....................... (II) 6-15
8 Ordering Information and Practices .......................................................................... (II) 6-15
9 Service Experience................................................................................................... (II) 6-16
9.1 Failures of Type 403 Turbine Blades Due to Corrosion Fatigue and Related
Causes ................................................................................................................... (II) 6-16
9.2 SCC of Reactor Vessel Studs in the LaCrosse BWR [39] ................................. (II) 6-18
9.3 Failures Associated with Excessive Hardness .................................................. (II) 6-18
9.4 Failures Attributed to Temper Embrittlement ..................................................... (II) 6-21
9.5 SCC Failures Attributed Primarily to Environmental Factors ............................. (II) 6-22
9.6 Failures Attributed to Aging Induced Embrittlement........................................... (II) 6-23
9.7 Pump Shaft Fatigue Failures ............................................................................. (II) 6-23
9.8 Brittle Failures ................................................................................................... (II) 6-24
9.9 Corrosion of Nitrided Surfaces .......................................................................... (II) 6-24
9.10 SCC Associated with Weld Repairs and Flame Hardening ............................. (II) 6-24
10 Laboratory Investigations........................................................................................ (II) 6-25
10.1 Turbine Blade Alloys ....................................................................................... (II) 6-25
10.1.1 Summary of Results of Research on Martensitic Stainless Steel Turbine
Blade Alloys ....................................................................................................... (II) 6-26
10.1.2 Corrosion Fatigue of Type 403 Stainless Steel and Similar Alloys ........... (II) 6-26
10.1.3 Comparative Corrosion Fatigue Performance of Turbine Blade Alloys .... (II) 6-39

xliii

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material

10.1.4 Stress Corrosion Cracking ....................................................................... (II) 6-46


10.1.5 Pitting ...................................................................................................... (II) 6-49
10.2 Susceptibility of Martensitic Stainless Steels to SCC in Contaminated
Environments (Industrial, Marine, NaCl, Oil Well, Caustic, etc.) .............................. (II) 6-50
10.3 Susceptibility of Martensitic Stainless Steels to SCC in Pure Water
Environments .......................................................................................................... (II) 6-54
10.4 Effects of Aging on Martensitic Stainless Steels .............................................. (II) 6-57
10.5 Resistance of Martensitic Stainless Steels to Boric Acid ................................. (II) 6-63
10.6 Corrosion of Type 416 Stainless Steels .......................................................... (II) 6-64
10.7 General Properties of Martensitic Stainless Steels .......................................... (II) 6-65
11 Alternative Materials ............................................................................................... (II) 6-71
12 References ............................................................................................................. (II) 6-72
7 HIGH STRENGTH NON-STAINLESS FASTENER STEELS .......................................... (II) 7-1
1 General Description .................................................................................................... (II) 7-1
2 Typical Applications .................................................................................................... (II) 7-5
3 Typical Product Forms and Specifications .................................................................. (II) 7-5
4 Main Limitations ......................................................................................................... (II) 7-6
5 Material Properties ..................................................................................................... (II) 7-7
5.1 Room Temperature Mechanical Properties ......................................................... (II) 7-7
5.2 Elevated Temperature Mechanical Properties..................................................... (II) 7-8
5.3 Physical Properties ............................................................................................. (II) 7-9
6 Welding .................................................................................................................... (II) 7-10
7 Application-Specific Comments ................................................................................ (II) 7-11
7.1 ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code Applications ...................................... (II) 7-11
7.2 Class 1 Component Support Bolting ................................................................. (II) 7-15
7.3 PWR Plant External Bolting Exposed to Primary Coolant Leaks ....................... (II) 7-16
8 Ordering Information and Practices .......................................................................... (II) 7-16
9 Service Experience................................................................................................... (II) 7-17
9.1 Degradation or Failure of Pressure Boundary Bolting Due to General Borated
Water Corrosion (Wastage or Erosion/Corrosion) ................................................... (II) 7-17
9.2 Degradation or Failure of Pressure Boundary Bolting due to Stress Corrosion
Cracking ................................................................................................................. (II) 7-18
9.3 Degradation or Failure of Supports and Embedment Bolting Due to Stress
Corrosion Cracking ................................................................................................. (II) 7-20
9.4 Stress Corrosion Cracking in Other High Strength Non-Stainless Fastener
Applications ............................................................................................................ (II) 7-22

xliv

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material

10 Laboratory Investigations........................................................................................ (II) 7-23


10.1 Boric Acid Corrosion of Low Alloy Steel Fastener Materials ............................ (II) 7-23
10.1.1 Low Alloy Steel Studs Immersed in Aerated Borated Water [33] ............. (II) 7-23
10.1.2 Low Alloy Steel Studs Impinged with Borated Steam [10] ........................ (II) 7-24
10.1.3 Injection of Borated Water into Bolted Flange Mockup [11] ..................... (II) 7-26
10.1.4 Low Alloy Steel Studs Immersed in Partially Deaerated Boric Acid [1] ..... (II) 7-26
10.1.5 Borated Water Drip Tests of Low Alloy Steels [10] .................................. (II) 7-26
10.1.6 Summary: Boric Acid Corrosion of Low Alloy Steels ................................ (II) 7-27
10.2 SCC of Low Alloy Steel and Maraging Steel Fastener Materials ..................... (II) 7-27
10.2.1 SCC Resistance in Water vs. Yield Strength of Low Alloy Steel and
Maraging Steel [34] ............................................................................................ (II) 7-27
10.2.2 SCC of Low Alloy Steels Used in External Bolting on PWRs [35] ............ (II) 7-28
10.2.3 Effect of Nuclear Grade Lubricants on SCC of A540 B24 and A193 B7
Materials [28] ..................................................................................................... (II) 7-31
10.2.4 SCC Threshold Stress Intensity/Allowable Preload for Low Alloy and
Maraging Fastener Steels .................................................................................. (II) 7-32
10.2.5 SCC of SA-540 Grade B24 Class 3 Steel in the Presence of MoS2
Lubricants [2] ..................................................................................................... (II) 7-38
10.2.6 Summary: SCC of Low Alloy and Maraging Steels .................................. (II) 7-39
10.3 Aging Embrittlement of Low Alloy Steel Bolting ............................................... (II) 7-39
11 Alternative Materials ............................................................................................... (II) 7-39
12 References ............................................................................................................. (II) 7-40
8 SILICON BRONZE BOLTING ALLOYS ......................................................................... (II) 8-1
1 General Description .................................................................................................... (II) 8-1
2 Typical Applications .................................................................................................... (II) 8-2
3 Typical Product Forms and Specifications .................................................................. (II) 8-2
4 Main Limitations ......................................................................................................... (II) 8-2
5 Material Properties ..................................................................................................... (II) 8-3
5.1 Room Temperature Mechanical Properties ......................................................... (II) 8-3
5.2 Elevated Temperature Mechanical Properties..................................................... (II) 8-4
5.3 Physical Properties ............................................................................................. (II) 8-4
6 Welding and Brazing [3] ............................................................................................. (II) 8-4
7 Application-Specific Comments .................................................................................. (II) 8-5
7.1 ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code Applications ........................................ (II) 8-5
7.2 Parts Immersed in Reactor Coolant .................................................................... (II) 8-5

xlv

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material

7.3 PWR Plant External Bolting Exposed to Primary Coolant Leaks ......................... (II) 8-6
8 Ordering Information and Practices ............................................................................ (II) 8-6
9 Service Experience..................................................................................................... (II) 8-6
9.1 Cracking of Silicon Bronze Bolts in Motor Control Centers and Switchboards ..... (II) 8-6
9.2 Cracking of Silicon Bronze Bolts in Generator Breaker Disconnect Switches
[10] ........................................................................................................................... (II) 8-7
9.3 Cracking of Silicon Bronze Transformer Flex Link Bolts [11]................................ (II) 8-8
9.4 Cracking of Silicon Bronze Bolts in Motor Control Centers [12] ........................... (II) 8-9
9.5 Failures of Generator Airside Terminal Silicon Bronze Bolts [13] ......................... (II) 8-9
9.6 Failures of Circuit Breaker Leaf Spring/Terminal Strips [14] .............................. (II) 8-10
9.7 Failed Bolt on Electrical Connection of Generator Neutral Overcurrrent
Transformer [15] ..................................................................................................... (II) 8-10
9.8 Cracked Bolts on Main Generator Output Terminal Coupler [16]....................... (II) 8-10
9.9 Broken Reactor Protection System Neutral Bolt Results in RPS Bus Trip [17] .. (II) 8-11
10 Laboratory Investigations........................................................................................ (II) 8-11
11 Alternative Materials ............................................................................................... (II) 8-13
12 References ............................................................................................................. (II) 8-14
SECTION III TUBING ALLOYS................................................................................................
1 COPPER ALLOY TUBING ............................................................................................ (III) 1-1
1 General Description ................................................................................................... (III) 1-1
2 Typical Applications ................................................................................................... (III) 1-3
3 Typical Product Forms and Specifications ................................................................. (III) 1-4
4 Main Limitations ........................................................................................................ (III) 1-5
5 Material Properties .................................................................................................... (III) 1-6
5.1 Room Temperature Mechanical Properties ........................................................ (III) 1-6
5.2 Room Temperature Fatigue Properties .............................................................. (III) 1-7
5.3 Elevated Temperature Mechanical Properties.................................................... (III) 1-8
5.4 Physical Properties ............................................................................................ (III) 1-9
6 Welding and Brazing [19]........................................................................................... (III) 1-9
7 Application Specific Comments ............................................................................... (III) 1-10
7.1 ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code Applications ..................................... (III) 1-10
7.2 Parts Immersed in Reactor Coolant ................................................................. (III) 1-12
7.3 Parts in Condensate, Feedwater, and Moisture Separator Service .................. (III) 1-12
8 Ordering Information and Practices ......................................................................... (III) 1-12

xlvi

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material

9 Service Experience.................................................................................................. (III) 1-12


9.1 Corrosion Induced Failures of Copper Alloy Condenser Tubes ........................ (III) 1-13
9.1.1 Summary .................................................................................................. (III) 1-13
9.1.2 Discussion ................................................................................................ (III) 1-13
9.2 Performance of Copper Alloy Feedwater Heater Tubes ................................... (III) 1-18
9.2.1 Summary .................................................................................................. (III) 1-18
9.2.2 Discussion ................................................................................................ (III) 1-19
9.3 Performance of Copper Alloy Tubes in Moisture Separator Reheaters (MSRs) (III) 1-21
9.3.1 Summary [49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57] ............................................ (III) 1-21
9.3.2 Discussion ................................................................................................ (III) 1-22
9.4 Performance of Copper Alloy Tubes in Service Water Heat Exchangers ......... (III) 1-22
9.4.1 Summary .................................................................................................. (III) 1-22
9.4.2 Discussion ................................................................................................ (III) 1-22
10 Laboratory Investigations....................................................................................... (III) 1-25
10.1 General Corrosion and Release Rates of Copper Alloys ................................ (III) 1-25
10.1.1 Summary ................................................................................................ (III) 1-25
10.1.2 Discussion .............................................................................................. (III) 1-25
10.2 Erosion-Corrosion Resistance and Acceptable Flow Rates............................ (III) 1-33
10.2.1 Summary ................................................................................................ (III) 1-33
10.2.2 Discussion .............................................................................................. (III) 1-33
10.3 Resistance to Ammonia Attack ...................................................................... (III) 1-36
10.3.1 Summary ................................................................................................ (III) 1-36
10.3.2 Discussion .............................................................................................. (III) 1-37
10.4 Effects of Sulfides .......................................................................................... (III) 1-39
10.4.1 Summary ................................................................................................ (III) 1-39
10.4.2 Discussion .............................................................................................. (III) 1-39
10.5 Resistance to Biofouling................................................................................. (III) 1-41
10.6 Stress Corrosion Cracking ............................................................................. (III) 1-42
10.7 Pitting............................................................................................................. (III) 1-48
10.8 Corrosion Fatigue .......................................................................................... (III) 1-50
10.9 Leaching/Dealloying ....................................................................................... (III) 1-51
10.10 Aging Management Guidance ...................................................................... (III) 1-52
11 Alternative Materials .............................................................................................. (III) 1-52
12 References ............................................................................................................ (III) 1-52

xlvii

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material

2 TITANIUM AND TITANIUM ALLOYS ............................................................................ (III) 2-1


1 General Description ................................................................................................... (III) 2-1
1.1 Introduction to Titanium and Titanium Alloys ...................................................... (III) 2-1
1.2 Titanium and Titanium Alloy Types .................................................................... (III) 2-2
1.2.1 Pure Titanium and Alpha () Alloys ............................................................ (III) 2-2
1.2.2 Alpha + Beta ( + ) Alloys......................................................................... (III) 2-3
1.2.3 Beta () Alloys ............................................................................................ (III) 2-3
1.2.4 Commercially Pure (CP) Titanium with Minor Alloy Additions ..................... (III) 2-3
1.3 Current Titanium Technology ............................................................................. (III) 2-3
1.4 General Characteristics ..................................................................................... (III) 2-4
1.5 Titanium Tubing Characteristics ......................................................................... (III) 2-5
2 Applications ............................................................................................................... (III) 2-7
2.1 Typical Power Plant Applications ....................................................................... (III) 2-7
3 Typical Product Forms and Specifications ................................................................. (III) 2-7
4 Main Limitations ........................................................................................................ (III) 2-8
4.1 General Corrosion Characteristics ..................................................................... (III) 2-8
4.2 Hydrogen Embrittlement (HE) ............................................................................ (III) 2-9
4.3 Stress Corrosion Cracking (SCC) .................................................................... (III) 2-10
4.4 Crevice Corrosion ............................................................................................ (III) 2-11
4.5 Vibration Induced Wear and Fatigue ................................................................ (III) 2-12
4.6 Galvanic Corrosion .......................................................................................... (III) 2-12
4.7 Microbiologically Influenced Corrosion (MIC)/Bio-Fouling ................................ (III) 2-12
5 Material Properties .................................................................................................. (III) 2-12
5.1 Room Temperature Mechanical Properties ...................................................... (III) 2-13
5.2 Elevated Temperature Mechanical Properties.................................................. (III) 2-13
5.3 Physical Properties .......................................................................................... (III) 2-14
6 Welding ................................................................................................................... (III) 2-15
6.1 Heat Treatment ................................................................................................ (III) 2-15
6.2 Stress Relief Processes ................................................................................... (III) 2-15
7 Application Specific Comments ............................................................................... (III) 2-16
7.1 ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code Applications ..................................... (III) 2-16
7.2 Parts Immersed in Reactor Coolant ................................................................. (III) 2-17
7.3 Heat Exchanger Applications ........................................................................... (III) 2-17
8 Ordering Information and Practices ......................................................................... (III) 2-18

xlviii

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material

9 Service Experience.................................................................................................. (III) 2-19


9.1 Summary ......................................................................................................... (III) 2-19
9.2 Failure Statistics .............................................................................................. (III) 2-20
9.3 Experience with Welded Tubing ....................................................................... (III) 2-21
9.4 Galvanic Corrosion of Tube Sheets and Other Parts........................................ (III) 2-21
9.5 Effects of Cathodic Protection .......................................................................... (III) 2-22
9.6 Microbiologically Influenced Corrosion (MIC) ................................................... (III) 2-22
9.7 Vibration Induced Problems ............................................................................. (III) 2-22
9.8 Problems Due to Tool Damage ........................................................................ (III) 2-23
9.9 Manufacturing Defects ..................................................................................... (III) 2-23
9.10 Stress Corrosion Cracking (SCC) .................................................................. (III) 2-23
9.11 Erosion by Wet Steam ................................................................................... (III) 2-23
9.12 Mechanical Impact or Wear from the Steam Side .......................................... (III) 2-24
9.13 Mechanical Wear and Possible Erosion on Cooling Water Side ..................... (III) 2-24
10 Laboratory Investigations....................................................................................... (III) 2-24
10.1 General Corrosion.......................................................................................... (III) 2-24
10.2 Erosion Corrosion, Impingement Erosion and Wear ....................................... (III) 2-25
10.3 Creep-Corrosion Resistance .......................................................................... (III) 2-26
10.4 Biofouling/MIC ............................................................................................... (III) 2-26
10.5 Pitting/Crevice Corrosion ............................................................................... (III) 2-26
10.6 Fatigue........................................................................................................... (III) 2-27
10.7 Hydrogen Embrittlement ................................................................................ (III) 2-28
10.8 Susceptibility of Titanium to SCC [19, 24] ...................................................... (III) 2-31
10.9 Galvanic Effects ............................................................................................. (III) 2-31
10.10 Oxide Films [20] ........................................................................................... (III) 2-31
10.11 Heat Transfer ............................................................................................... (III) 2-32
10.12 Reduced-Wall Tubing................................................................................... (III) 2-34
11 Alternative Materials .............................................................................................. (III) 2-34
12 References ............................................................................................................ (III) 2-34
3 STAINLESS STEEL TUBING ........................................................................................ (III) 3-1
1 General Description ................................................................................................... (III) 3-1
2 Applications ............................................................................................................... (III) 3-5
3 Typical Product Forms and Specifications ................................................................. (III) 3-6
4 Main Limitations ........................................................................................................ (III) 3-6

xlix

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material

5 Material Properties .................................................................................................... (III) 3-9


5.1 Room Temperature Mechanical Properties ........................................................ (III) 3-9
5.2 Elevated Temperature Mechanical Properties.................................................... (III) 3-9
5.3 Physical Properties .......................................................................................... (III) 3-10
6 Welding and Heat Treatment ................................................................................... (III) 3-10
6.1 Welding and Post Weld Heat Treatment .......................................................... (III) 3-10
6.2 Stress Relief .................................................................................................... (III) 3-11
7 Application Specific Comments ............................................................................... (III) 3-11
7.1 ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code Applications ..................................... (III) 3-11
7.2 Parts Immersed in Reactor Coolant ................................................................. (III) 3-18
8 Ordering Information and Practices ......................................................................... (III) 3-18
9 Service Experience.................................................................................................. (III) 3-19
9.1 Summary ......................................................................................................... (III) 3-19
9.2 Failure Statistics .............................................................................................. (III) 3-20
9.3 Experience with Seam Welded Tubing............................................................. (III) 3-21
9.3.1 Summary .................................................................................................. (III) 3-21
9.3.2 Discussion ................................................................................................ (III) 3-21
9.4 Galvanic Corrosion of Tube Sheets and Other Parts........................................ (III) 3-21
9.4.1 Summary .................................................................................................. (III) 3-21
9.4.2 Discussion ................................................................................................ (III) 3-22
9.5 Effects of Cathodic Protection .......................................................................... (III) 3-22
9.5.1 Summary .................................................................................................. (III) 3-22
9.5.2 Discussion ................................................................................................ (III) 3-22
9.6 Microbiologically Influenced Corrosion (MIC) ................................................... (III) 3-23
9.6.1 Summary .................................................................................................. (III) 3-23
9.6.2 Discussion ................................................................................................ (III) 3-23
9.7 Vibration Induced Problems ............................................................................. (III) 3-24
9.7.1 Summary .................................................................................................. (III) 3-24
9.7.2 Discussion ................................................................................................ (III) 3-24
9.8 Manufacturing Defects ..................................................................................... (III) 3-25
9.9 Stress Corrosion Cracking (SCC) .................................................................... (III) 3-25
9.9.1 Summary .................................................................................................. (III) 3-25
9.9.2 Discussion ................................................................................................ (III) 3-25
9.10 Thermal Fatigue ............................................................................................. (III) 3-27

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material

9.11 Thermal Fatigue Plus TGSCC........................................................................ (III) 3-27


9.12 Crevice Corrosion and Pitting......................................................................... (III) 3-27
9.12.1 Summary ................................................................................................ (III) 3-27
9.12.2 Discussion .............................................................................................. (III) 3-28
9.13 Inspection Issues ........................................................................................... (III) 3-29
9.13.1 Summary ................................................................................................ (III) 3-29
9.14 Thermal Expansion Deformation .................................................................... (III) 3-29
9.14.1 Summary ................................................................................................ (III) 3-29
9.14.2 Discussion .............................................................................................. (III) 3-29
9.15 Steam Side Droplet Impingement Induced Erosion ........................................ (III) 3-30
9.15.1 Summary ................................................................................................ (III) 3-30
9.15.2 Discussion .............................................................................................. (III) 3-30
10 Laboratory Investigations....................................................................................... (III) 3-30
10.1 General Corrosion.......................................................................................... (III) 3-30
10.1.1 Summary ................................................................................................ (III) 3-30
10.1.2 Discussion .............................................................................................. (III) 3-30
10.2 Erosion Corrosion, Erosion Impingement and Wear ....................................... (III) 3-31
10.3 Biofouling/MIC ............................................................................................... (III) 3-32
10.3.1 Summary ................................................................................................ (III) 3-32
10.3.2 Discussion .............................................................................................. (III) 3-32
10.4 Pitting/Crevice Corrosion ............................................................................... (III) 3-33
10.4.1 Summary ................................................................................................ (III) 3-33
10.4.2 Discussion .............................................................................................. (III) 3-33
10.5 Fatigue........................................................................................................... (III) 3-42
10.5.1 Summary ................................................................................................ (III) 3-42
10.5.2 Discussion .............................................................................................. (III) 3-42
10.6 Hydrogen Embrittlement/Galvanic Effects ...................................................... (III) 3-42
10.6.1 Summary ................................................................................................ (III) 3-42
10.6.2 Discussion .............................................................................................. (III) 3-42
10.7 Susceptibility of Stainless Steel to SCC ......................................................... (III) 3-43
10.7.1 Summary ................................................................................................ (III) 3-43
10.7.2 Discussion .............................................................................................. (III) 3-43
10.8 Radiation Field Reduction and Corrosion Product Release Rates .................. (III) 3-46
10.8.1 Summary ................................................................................................ (III) 3-46

li

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material

10.8.2 Discussion .............................................................................................. (III) 3-46


10.9 Thermal Performance .................................................................................... (III) 3-48
10.9.1 Summary ................................................................................................ (III) 3-48
10.9.2 Discussion .............................................................................................. (III) 3-48
11 Alternative Materials .............................................................................................. (III) 3-48
12 References ............................................................................................................ (III) 3-48
4 NICKEL ALLOY TUBING .............................................................................................. (III) 4-1
1 General Description ................................................................................................... (III) 4-1
2 Applications ............................................................................................................... (III) 4-2
3 Typical Product Forms and Specifications ................................................................. (III) 4-3
4 Main Limitations ........................................................................................................ (III) 4-3
5 Material Properties .................................................................................................... (III) 4-4
5.1 Room Temperature Mechanical Properties ........................................................ (III) 4-4
5.2 Elevated Temperature Mechanical Properties.................................................... (III) 4-4
5.3 Physical Properties ............................................................................................ (III) 4-5
6 Welding ..................................................................................................................... (III) 4-6
7 Application Specific Comments ................................................................................. (III) 4-6
7.1 ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code Applications ....................................... (III) 4-6
7.2 Parts Immersed in Reactor Coolant ................................................................. (III) 4-10
8 Ordering Information and Practices ......................................................................... (III) 4-11
9 Service Experience.................................................................................................. (III) 4-11
9.1 Summary ......................................................................................................... (III) 4-11
9.2 Alloy 400 Tubing in BWR Feedwater Heaters .................................................. (III) 4-12
9.3 Alloy 400 Tubing in Fossil Plant Feedwater Heaters Possibly Relevant to
Nuclear Plant Applications of Alloy 400 .................................................................. (III) 4-12
9.4 Nickel Alloy Tubing Experience in CANDUs (Non-Steam Generator
Experience) Possible MIC Attack ........................................................................ (III) 4-14
9.5 Microbiologically Influenced Corrosion (MIC) of Nickel Alloys .......................... (III) 4-16
9.6 Intergranular Attack of Alloy 400 Tubing Experienced in CANDU Steam
Generators............................................................................................................. (III) 4-17
10 Laboratory Investigations....................................................................................... (III) 4-17
10.1 General Corrosion and Corrosion Product Release Rates ............................. (III) 4-17
10.2 Corrosion in High Ammonia Environments ..................................................... (III) 4-19
10.3 Intergranular Attack of Sensitized Alloy 600 ................................................... (III) 4-20
10.4 MIC Related Under Deposit Corrosion ........................................................... (III) 4-20

lii

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material

10.5 Pitting Corrosion ............................................................................................ (III) 4-23


10.6 Fatigue........................................................................................................... (III) 4-25
11 Alternative Materials .............................................................................................. (III) 4-26
12 References ............................................................................................................ (III) 4-27
5 CARBON AND LOW ALLOY STEEL TUBING ............................................................. (III) 5-1
1 General Description ................................................................................................... (III) 5-1
2 Applications ............................................................................................................... (III) 5-3
3 Typical Product Forms and Specifications ................................................................. (III) 5-4
4 Main Limitations ........................................................................................................ (III) 5-4
5 Material Properties .................................................................................................... (III) 5-5
5.1 Room Temperature Mechanical Properties ........................................................ (III) 5-5
5.2 Elevated Temperature Mechanical Properties.................................................... (III) 5-5
5.3 Physical Properties ............................................................................................ (III) 5-6
6 Welding and Heat Treatment ..................................................................................... (III) 5-6
6.1 Welding and Post Weld Heat Treatment ............................................................ (III) 5-6
6.2 Stress Relief ...................................................................................................... (III) 5-6
7 Application Specific Comments ................................................................................. (III) 5-7
7.1 ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code Applications ....................................... (III) 5-7
7.2 Parts Immersed in Reactor Coolant ................................................................. (III) 5-10
8 Ordering Information and Practices ......................................................................... (III) 5-11
9 Service Experience.................................................................................................. (III) 5-11
9.1 Summary ......................................................................................................... (III) 5-11
9.2 Fossil Plant Feedwater Heater Experience ...................................................... (III) 5-12
9.3 Nuclear Plant Feedwater Heater Experience ................................................... (III) 5-15
9.4 MSR Experience with Carbon and Low Alloy Steel Tubing .............................. (III) 5-17
9.5 Nuclear Plant Service Water Heat Exchanger Experience ............................... (III) 5-18
9.6 Failure of Carbon Steel Tubing Used for Non-Heat Exchanger Applications .... (III) 5-19
10 Laboratory Investigations....................................................................................... (III) 5-19
10.1

FAC/Erosion Corrosion ............................................................................. (III) 5-19

10.2

Development of NDE Methods for Carbon and Low Alloy Steel Tubing .... (III) 5-21

11 Alternative Materials .............................................................................................. (III) 5-24


12 References ............................................................................................................ (III) 5-24
SECTION IV PUMP AND VALVE TRIM MATERIALS ...............................................................

liii

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material

1 PUMP AND VALVE TRIM MATERIALS ........................................................................ (IV) 1-1


1 Introduction and Scope.............................................................................................. (IV) 1-1
2 Pump Trim Materials ................................................................................................. (IV) 1-1
2.1 Pump Shafts, Sleeves and Couplings ................................................................ (IV) 1-2
2.2 Pump Impellers .................................................................................................. (IV) 1-4
2.3 Pump Diffusers and Splitters .............................................................................. (IV) 1-5
2.4 Pump Water Lubricated Bearings ...................................................................... (IV) 1-5
2.5 Pump Wear Rings .............................................................................................. (IV) 1-6
2.6 Pump Mechanical Seals..................................................................................... (IV) 1-6
2.7 Pump Internal Bolting ......................................................................................... (IV) 1-8
3 Valve Trim Materials .................................................................................................. (IV) 1-9
3.1 Valve Shafts and Stems ................................................................................... (IV) 1-10
3.2 Valve Discs, Plugs and Cages ......................................................................... (IV) 1-11
3.3 Valve Seats...................................................................................................... (IV) 1-13
3.4 Valve Internal Screws, Bolting, Pins, Keys and Adjusting Rings....................... (IV) 1-14
3.5 Check Valve Disc Hinge Pins and Bushings .................................................... (IV) 1-15
3.6 Valve Pressure Seals ....................................................................................... (IV) 1-16
3.7 Valve Internal Springs ...................................................................................... (IV) 1-16
4 Review of Properties and Degradation Mechanisms Relevant to Selection of Pump
and Valve Trim Materials ............................................................................................ (IV) 1-17
5 Review of Properties and Degradation Mechanisms Relevant to Selection of Pump
and Valve Trim Materials ............................................................................................ (IV) 1-17
5.1 General Corrosion and Galvanic Corrosion ...................................................... (IV) 1-17
5.2 Stress Corrosion Cracking (SCC) .................................................................... (IV) 1-18
5.3 Fatigue and Corrosion Fatigue ......................................................................... (IV) 1-19
5.4 Cobalt Minimization.......................................................................................... (IV) 1-20
5.5 Galling and Wear ............................................................................................. (IV) 1-21
5.6 Erosion ............................................................................................................ (IV) 1-23
5.6.1 Abrasive Erosion ...................................................................................... (IV) 1-23
5.6.2 Flow Accelerated Corrosion (FAC) ........................................................... (IV) 1-24
5.6.3 Erosion-Corrosion .................................................................................... (IV) 1-24
5.6.4 Cavitation Erosion .................................................................................... (IV) 1-24
5.7 Avoiding of Cracks at Edges ............................................................................ (IV) 1-26
6 References .............................................................................................................. (IV) 1-27

liv

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material

SECTION V NON-METALLIC MATERIALS ..............................................................................


1 NON-METALLIC MATERIALS ....................................................................................... (V) 1-1
1 General Description .................................................................................................... (V) 1-1
2 Conclusions ................................................................................................................ (V) 1-1
3 Background ................................................................................................................ (V) 1-2
4 Current Requirements Placed on Non-metallic Materials ............................................ (V) 1-2
5 Bases for Limits on Non-metallic Materials ................................................................. (V) 1-3
6 Availability of Products Meeting Typical Nuclear Limits .............................................. (V) 1-4
7 Effects of Impurities on Corrosion of Nuclear Pressure Boundary, Fuel, and Core
Structural Materials ....................................................................................................... (V) 1-5
7.1 Anionic Impurities in BWR Coolant ..................................................................... (V) 1-5
7.2 Chlorides and Fluorides in PWR Reactor Coolant ............................................... (V) 1-7
7.3 Effects of Impurities in Concentration Areas of Gasket Joints and Valve Stems.. (V) 1-8
7.4 Summary Comments with Regard to Influence of Impurities in Non-metallic
Materials on SCC Mechanisms ................................................................................. (V) 1-9
8 Summary .................................................................................................................... (V) 1-9
9 References ................................................................................................................. (V) 1-9

lv

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1-1 ASME Code Data for Tensile and Yield Strength vs. Temperature for Several
Carbon and Low Alloy Steels....................................................................................... (I) 1-7
Figure 1-2 Comparison of V-notch and Precracked Charpy Data with a 5/8-in. (1.6 cm)
Dynamic Tear Data on A 533-B Steel [28] ................................................................. (I) 1-16
Figure 1-3 Comparison of Static, Dynamic, and Instrumented Precracked CVN Impact
Fracture Toughness as a Function of Temperature for A 533-B Steel [29] ................ (I) 1-17
Figure 1-4 Effect of Neutron Radiation on Transition Region (41 Joules or 30 Ft-Lb
Energy) and Fracture Toughness Properties [30] ...................................................... (I) 1-18
Figure 1-5 Generalized Fracture Analysis Diagram Indicating the Approximate Range of
Flaw Sizes Required for Fracture Initiation at Various Levels of Nominal Stress, as
Referenced by the NDT Temperature (ASTM E208-1) [31] ....................................... (I) 1-19
Figure 1-6 Reference Stress Intensity Factor (Fig. G-2210-1 and G-2210-1M from 2010
ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section III, Division I, Appendix G) [32]..... (I) 1-20
Figure 1-7 Lower Bound KIa and KIc Test Data for SA 533 Type B Class 1, SA 508 Class
2, and SA 508 Class 3 Steels (Fig. A-4200-1 and A-4200-1M from 2010 ASME
Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section XI, Appendix A) [33] ................................ (I) 1-22
Figure 1-8 Cross Section of Feedwater Nozzle with Cracking Location [43, 44] ................ (I) 1-29
Figure 1-9 Typical BWR CRD Hydraulic Return Line Nozzle (Does Not Show Thermal
Sleeve/Shroud) [42] ................................................................................................... (I) 1-30
Figure 1-10 General Features Upper Portion of a Westinghouse Model 44 Steam
Generator [48] ........................................................................................................... (I) 1-33
Figure 1-11 Cross-Section of Garigliano Secondary Steam Generator with Seam J
Shown in Inset [45] .................................................................................................... (I) 1-35
Figure 1-12 Section of Clad Plate Showing Cracks [57] .................................................... (I) 1-37
Figure 1-13 Illustration Showing the Position of Flaws Under the Cladding [59] ................ (I) 1-38
Figure 1-14 Comparison of Original KIc Data to Master Curve (Data Adjusted to 1T) [76] .. (I) 1-41
Figure 1-15 Transition Temperature Shift vs. Fast Fluence for Initial Irradiation and PostAnnealing Re-Irradiation (left side), and Transition Temperature Shift Recovery of
Irradiated Weld Metal vs. Annealing Temperature (right side) [91]............................. (I) 1-45
Figure 1-16 Chloride-Induced Acceleration of SCC Crack Growth [99].............................. (I) 1-49
Figure 1-17 Coincidence Between Temperature Dependence of SCC CGR and the Loss
in Ductility Due to DSA [99] ....................................................................................... (I) 1-50
Figure 1-18 SSRT Round Robin Results: Average SCC Velocity as a Function of
Electrochemical Potential [101] ................................................................................. (I) 1-52
Figure 1-19 Effect of Temperature and Deaeration on Constant Load Crack Growth
Rate, A 508-2 Low Alloy Steel, Nominal K = 42 ksiin. (46 MPam) [103] ................. (I) 1-53

lvii

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material

Figure 1-20 Relation Between Hardness and Average SCC Crack Depth [104] ................ (I) 1-54
Figure 1-21 Variation of Critical Cracking Potential with Sulfur Content in Steel and
Sulfate Concentration in the Environment [105] ......................................................... (I) 1-54
Figure 1-22 Stress Corrosion Crack Growth Curve of RPV Steel A 508 c1.II, Rp0.2=515
MPa (75 ksi), Exposed to 550F (288C) Water of Either 0.5S/cm Conductivity and
0.4 ppm Oxygen or 0.3S/cm Conductivity and +200 mVSHE Applied Potential. Each
Data Point Corresponds to a Single Specimen Which Showed a Clear Stress
Corrosion Crack Extension. [107] .............................................................................. (I) 1-55
Figure 1-23 Slow Strain Rate Test at 1.5 x 10-6 sec-1 in PWR Water (< 5ppb O2) [112] ...... (I) 1-57
Figure 1-24 The Influence of Oxygen and Temperature on Corrosion Potential of Low
Alloy Steels in High Temperature Water [111] ........................................................... (I) 1-58
Figure 1-25 Effects of Potential Upon the Reduction in Area to Fracture at Various
Temperatures in Slow Strain Rate Tests [111] .......................................................... (I) 1-59
Figure 1-26 Present ASME Section XI Cyclic Crack Growth Reference Lines and
Supporting Data [123]................................................................................................ (I) 1-63
Figure 1-27 The Effect of Sulfur on Crack Growth as Described by Amzallag [123] .......... (I) 1-64
Figure 1-28 EAC Susceptibility of Reactor Pressure Vessel Steels in PWR Water under
Different Flow Conditions with and without Sulfate Contamination [123] .................... (I) 1-64
Figure 1-29 Crack Growth Rate Data as a Function of Frequency for SA 533-B-1 Plate
with 0.25% Sulfur in 550F (288C) BWR Water [123] ............................................... (I) 1-65
Figure 1-30 Area Density of MnS Inclusions Versus Percent of Sulfur [125] ..................... (I) 1-66
Figure 1-31 Number of MnS Inclusions Versus Percent of Sulfur ...................................... (I) 1-67
Figure 1-32 Fatigue Data for Low Alloy Steels in High Temperature Pure Water
Environments from Higuchi and Iida [127] ................................................................. (I) 1-68
Figure 1-33 Fatigue Life Ratio Versus Strain Rate for Carbon Steel [127] ......................... (I) 1-69
Figure 1-34 Effect of Dissolved Oxygen Content on Fatigue Life Reduction Factor for
Carbon Steel [127] .................................................................................................... (I) 1-69
Figure 1-35 Fatigue Life Reduction Factor Versus Test Temperature for Carbon Steel
[127] .......................................................................................................................... (I) 1-70
Figure 1-36 Schematic Illustration of Three Stages Associated with the Effect of
Frequency on Corrosion Fatigue Crack Growth Rate in RPV Steels Exposed to
LWR Environment [130] ............................................................................................ (I) 1-71
Figure 1-37 The Effect of f on da/dN in High Sulfur Steels at High Temperatures [130] .... (I) 1-73
Figure 1-38 The Effect of f on da/dN in Low Sulfur Steel [130] .......................................... (I) 1-73
Figure 1-39 Crack Growth Data for Steam Generator Upstand Materials B1 and B2, in
Secondary Water at 464F and 482F (240C and 250C), at R=0.7 and 0.1, Over a
Range of Test Frequencies (AEAT and SHU Data) [131] .......................................... (I) 1-75
Figure 1-40 Temperature Dependence of Low Cycle Fatigue Life in Pure Water [132] ..... (I) 1-76
Figure 1-41 DO Dependence of LCF in Pure Water [132] ................................................. (I) 1-76
Figure 1-42 Load Drop for Tests Run in Different Water Chemistries. The Number in
Parentheses is the Slope of the Curve (B) [134]. ....................................................... (I) 1-78
Figure 1-43 Dependence of Fatigue Lives of (a) Carbon Steels and (b) Low-Alloy Steels
on Strain Rate [136] .................................................................................................. (I) 1-79

lviii

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material

Figure 2-1 ASME Code Data for Tensile and Yield Strength vs. Temperature for Several
Carbon and Low Alloy Steels..................................................................................... (I) 2-10
Figure 2-2 Effect of Oxygen Concentration on Corrosion of Mild Steel in Slowly Moving
Water Containing 165 ppm CaCl2, 48 hr Test, 77F (25C) [116] ............................... (I) 2-33
Figure 2-3 Effect of Oxygen Concentration on Corrosion of Mild Steel in Slowly Moving
Distilled Water, 48 hr Test, 77F (25C) [116] ............................................................ (I) 2-34
Figure 2-4 Effect of Temperature on Corrosion of Iron in Water Containing Dissolved
Oxygen [116] ............................................................................................................. (I) 2-34
Figure 2-5 Effect of pH on Corrosion of Iron in Aerated Soft Water, Room Temperature
[116] .......................................................................................................................... (I) 2-35
Figure 2-6 Corrosion of Iron by Water at 590F (310C) at Various Values of pH
Measured at 77F (25C) [119] .................................................................................. (I) 2-35
Figure 2-7 Effect of Velocity on Corrosion of Steel in Seawater [116]................................ (I) 2-36
Figure 2-8 Effect of Velocity on Corrosion of Mild Steel Tubes Containing Cambridge
Water, 70F (21C), 48 hr Tests [116] ....................................................................... (I) 2-36
Figure 2-9 Corrosion of Mild Steel (0.15% Carbon) as a Function of Dissolved CO2 and
O2 Concentration [118] .............................................................................................. (I) 2-37
Figure 2-10 Comparison of Instantaneous Corrosion Rates of Steels Containing up to 5
Percent Chromium [120]............................................................................................ (I) 2-39
Figure 2-11 Comparison of Iron-to-System Rate of Steels Containing up to 5 Percent
Chromium [120] ......................................................................................................... (I) 2-39
Figure 2-12 Metal Loss as a Function of Time for Carbon Steel Exposed in Water with
About 0.1 ppm Oxygen at 482F (250C) [121] ......................................................... (I) 2-40
Figure 2-13 Metal Loss as a Function of Time for Carbon Steel Exposed in Water with
About 0.1 ppm Oxygen at 50 68F (10 20C) [121] .............................................. (I) 2-41
Figure 2-14 Corrosion Loss of Carbon Steel in 200 hr Tests: Effect of Temperature at
Constant Oxygen Content [124] ................................................................................ (I) 2-43
Figure 2-15 Corrosion of Carbon Steel SA 333-6 in HWC and the Reference
Environment. After an Initial Increase in Weight Loss, the Steady State Corrosion
Rate Is Only Slightly Higher in HWC [126] ................................................................. (I) 2-44
Figure 2-16 Flowing Water Increases Material-loss Rate Exponentially with Flow
Velocity. Conditions: 580 psig (4 MPa), 356F (180C), pH = 7, O2 < 5 g/kg,
Exposure Time = 200 hr [127] ................................................................................... (I) 2-45
Figure 2-17 Temperature Dependence of Two-Phase FAC with a Stream Quality of 65%
and a Velocity of 185 ft/s (56.4 m/s) [33].................................................................... (I) 2-46
Figure 2-18 Temperature Dependence of Two-Phase FAC [33]........................................ (I) 2-46
Figure 2-19 Effect of Dissolved Oxygen on FAC [128] ...................................................... (I) 2-47
Figure 2-20 Relative FAC Rate (Ratio to FAC Rate without Hydrazine and Oxygen)
versus Hydrazine Concentration for Tubular Carbon Steel Specimens (0.009% Cr)
Exposed to a Single-Phase Flow at 180C (356F) Using Ammonia (pH25C=9.0) and
with Oxygen Maintained Less Than or Equal to 0.5 ppb [131] ................................... (I) 2-48
Figure 2-21 Effect of pH on the Rate of FAC for Geometry: Plant Specimens and a Pipe
Specimen [33] ........................................................................................................... (I) 2-49
Figure 2-22 Effect of Temperature on CERT Ductility of SA 333-Gr. 6 [136] ..................... (I) 2-52

lix

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material

Figure 2-23 CERT Data Showing Variation of Average Crack Propagation Rates with
Oxygen/Temperature Combinations for Carbon Steel SA 333-Gr. 6 and Sensitized
Type-304 Stainless Steel. Shot-Peened Surface. (=1.3-1.6x10-5/min-1). Asterisk
Denotes that Penetration is Due Primarily to Pitting Rather than Cracking [136] ....... (I) 2-53
Figure 2-24 Crack Growth Rate Under Static Loading Conditions [136] ............................ (I) 2-54
Figure 2-25 Effect of Temperature, Oxygen Content and Stress Intensity on the Growth
Rates of Stress Corrosion in Nuclear Reactor Pressure Vessel and Piping Steels
[137] .......................................................................................................................... (I) 2-55
Figure 2-26 Relation Between Hardness and Average SCC Crack Depth [139] ................ (I) 2-56
Figure 2-27 Ratio of SCC Area as a Function of DO Concentration for STS 42 Carbon
Steel Tested in Water at 482F (250C) and 554F (290C) [140] ............................. (I) 2-57
Figure 2-28 Fracture Surface Ratio Observed on SSRT Specimen as a Function of Test
Temperature [142] ..................................................................................................... (I) 2-58
Figure 2-29 Fatigue Crack Growth Rates vs. Applied Cyclic K for Steels of Varying
Sulfur Contents and a Load Ratio of 0.2, Tested in Low Flow Rate Environment.
Test Frequency was 17 mHz [160] ........................................................................... (I) 2-62
Figure 2-30 Fatigue Crack Growth Rate vs. Inverse Temperature at Fixed Applied Cyclic
Stress Intensity Range Factor for A 106 Gr. C Carbon Steel [161] ............................ (I) 2-63
Figure 2-31 Effect of ECP/Dissolved Oxygen Content and Loading Frequency on the
Cycle-Based CGR da/dNCF of High Sulfur Steels and Comparison to the
Corresponding ASME XI Reference Fatigue CGR for the Specified Loading
Conditions [169] ........................................................................................................ (I) 2-65
Figure 3-1 Capacity Factor Losses in U.S. BWRs Due to Corrosion [26]........................... (I) 3-25
Figure 3-2 Worldwide IGSCC Cracking Incidents vs. Pipe Diameter as of July 1979 [25] . (I) 3-25
Figure 3-3 Comparison of Repair Rates in Small and Large Pipe with All Systems
Lumped. Large Pipe Failure Mode is IGSCC, Small Pipe Includes All Failure
Modes. Failure = Repair. [27] .................................................................................... (I) 3-26
Figure 3-4 The Effects of Oxygen and Chloride on the SCC of Austenitic Stainless Steels
in High Temperature Water [54] ................................................................................ (I) 3-33
Figure 3-5 Time/Temperature/Sensitization Curves Determined by EPR Tests on Type
304 Stainless Steel Alloys of Variable Carbon Contents [112] ................................... (I) 3-45
Figure 3-6 Potential vs. Oxygen Concentration and Critical Potential for IGSCC [25] ........ (I) 3-46
Figure 3-7 Stress Dependence of Intergranular SCC of Sensitized Type 304 Stainless
Steel in 288-C (550-F) Water with 0.2 mg/l (ppm) O2 [19] ....................................... (I) 3-46
Figure 3-8 ID Weld Residual Stresses as Function of Pipe Diameter [25] ......................... (I) 3-47
Figure 3-9 Relationship Between Creviced Safe End Field Cracking Experience and
Plant Conductivity [117] ............................................................................................. (I) 3-48
Figure 3-10 Predicted and Observed SCC Growth Rates of Stainless Steel in 288 C
BWR Water as a Function of Water Purity, e.g., as Affected by Additions of
Chloride or Sulfate [133] ............................................................................................ (I) 3-49
Figure 3-11 Variation of IGSCC Susceptibility of Sensitized Type 304 Stainless Steel in
Pure Water for Various Oxygen/Temperature Combinations. Denotes No Cracking
Observed; (X) Denotes IGSCC Observed at an Average Crack Propagation Rate

lx

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material

Given by Subscript Number in cm/sx10-7. Hatched Area Denotes Uncertainty of


Exact Position of Boundary Line [129] ....................................................................... (I) 3-52
Figure 3-12 Effect of Potential on the Time to Failure of Sensitized (50 hour at 1200F).
Type 304 Stainless Steel in NaCl Solutions of Different Concentrations at 212F
[129] .......................................................................................................................... (I) 3-53
Figure 3-13 Nominal Stress vs. Elongation (and Time) for Sensitized Type 304SS in Air
Saturated Boric Acid Solution Containing Different Concentrations of Sodium
Thiosulfate at Room Temperature [129] .................................................................... (I) 3-54
Figure 3-14 SCC Test Results of Type 304 Stainless Steel; Double U-Bends in Water
with 1500 ppm B Added as H3BO3 and DO 8 ppm for 500h. Results: O: no SCC, X:
IGSCC [130] .............................................................................................................. (I) 3-55
Figure 3-15 SCC Test Results of Type 316 Stainless Steel; Double U-Bends in Water
with 1500 ppm B Added as H3BO3 and DO 8 ppm for 500h. Results: O: no SCC, X:
IGSCC [130] .............................................................................................................. (I) 3-55
Figure 3-16 Constant Load Test Results for Four Furnace Sensitized Type 304 Stainless
Steels in 90F Water with 15 ppm Impurity Additions of Chloride, Thiosulfate or
Fluoride Ions [131]..................................................................................................... (I) 3-56
Figure 3-17 The Effect of Impurity Concentration on the Stress Necessary to Promote
IGSCC in Furnace Sensitized, High Carbon Type 304 Stainless Steel [131] ............. (I) 3-56
Figure 3-18 Effect of Yield Strength on Crack Growth Rate in Low Potential
Environments [133] ................................................................................................... (I) 3-58
Figure 3-19 Comparison of Laboratory Results with Analyses of Solutions Samples from
Canopy Seals in France and USA [149] .................................................................... (I) 3-61
Figure 3-20 The Effect of SO4 Ions on SCC Propagation Rate at 513K (240C, 464F)
[150] .......................................................................................................................... (I) 3-62
Figure 3-21 Solid Solubility of Carbon in an Fe-18Cr-8Ni-Alloy [152, 153]......................... (I) 3-63
Figure 3-22 Effect of Nickel Content on SCC Susceptibility of Stainless Steel Wires
Containing 18 to 20% Cr in a Magnesium Chloride Solution Boiling at 154C
(309F) [152, 156] ..................................................................................................... (I) 3-64
Figure 3-23 Effect of Applied Stress on the Times to Failure of Various Alloys Tested in a
Magnesium Chloride Solution Boiling at 154C (309F) [152, 157] ............................ (I) 3-65
Figure 3-24 Effect of Stress Intensity on the Growth Rate of Stress Corrosion Cracks in
Type 304L Stainless Steel Exposed to Magnesium Chloride and Sodium Chloride
Solutions [152, 158] ................................................................................................... (I) 3-66
Figure 3-25 Effect of Ferrite Content on the Stress Required to Induce Chloride SSC in
Various Cast Stainless Steels. Materials Exposed for 8 Hours in Condensate from a
875 ppm Chloride Solution at 204C (400F) [152, 153] ............................................ (I) 3-66
Figure 3-26 Effect of Chloride Concentration on the SCC Susceptibility of Type 304
Exposed at 100C (212F) Under the Concentrating Conditions of the Wick Test
(the Concentration Values Shown are for the Solution Being Drawn into the Wick)
[152, 159] .................................................................................................................. (I) 3-67
Figure 3-27 Effect of Temperature on SCC Velocity for Austenitic Stainless Steels in
Concentrated Chloride Solutions [152, 154] .............................................................. (I) 3-68
Figure 3-28 Temperature and Concentration Limits for Caustic SCC of Types 304, 347,
316 and 321 [152, 160].............................................................................................. (I) 3-68

lxi

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material

Figure 3-29 Elongation to Failure vs. Potential for Sensitized Type 304SS in Deaerated
Boric Acid Solution Containing 0.01M Na2S2O3 at Room Temperature [129] .............. (I) 3-69
Figure 3-30 Crack Growth Rate vs. ECP for BWRVIP Model for Stainless Steels [162] .... (I) 3-70
Figure 3-31 Crack Growth Rate Data [24] ......................................................................... (I) 3-71
Figure 3-32 da vs. K for Intergranular Stress Corrosion Cracking [24]............................... (I) 3-72
Figure 3-33 Comparison of Observed vs. Predicted Crack Growth Rate as a Function of
Corrosion Potential for Sensitized Type 304 Stainless Steel at Constant Load. Data
points at Elevated Corrosion Potentials and Growth Rates Correspond to Irradiated
Water Chemistry Conditions in Test or Commercial Reactors [165, 165] ................... (I) 3-73
Figure 3-34 Comparison of Swedish Utility Estimated CGR for NWC with BWRVIPModel and PLEDGE-Model for 0,1 S/cm, 50 and 200 mVSHE [166] ........................... (I) 3-74
Figure 3-35 Comparison of Swedish Utility Estimated CGR for HWC with BWRVIPModel and PLEDGE-Model for 0,1 S/cm and 230 mVSHE [166] .............................. (I) 3-75
Figure 3-36 Correlation Between CGRs of HAZ and Hardness Around the SCC Crack.
Comparison of Welding Techniques and Shapes of Groove of Mock-Up PLR Pipe
Joints. Tested K Ranges: (a) 20 to 25 MPam, (b) 25 to 33 MPam [169] ................ (I) 3-76
Figure 3-37 SCC Growth Rate of Type 316L Stainless Steel as a Function of Stress
Intensity K in 550F Water Containing 0.2 ppm O2 and Conductivity of 0.5 and 0.1
S/cm [127] ............................................................................................................... (I) 3-77
Figure 3-38 SCC Crack Growth Rates in BWR Type Environments for Sensitized and
Unsensitized Stainless Steels [133] ........................................................................... (I) 3-78
Figure 3-39 Corrosion Fatigue Crack Growth Rates per NUREG/CR-6176 Models, for
Ratio of 0.7 [197] ....................................................................................................... (I) 3-81
Figure 3-40 Time-Based Plot of Evan-Mills-Wire Fatigue Crack Propagation Rate Data
Together with HWC Data and Air Data [180] ............................................................. (I) 3-82
Figure 3-41 Effect of Thermal Aging on the Room Temperature Impact Energy of CF-3, 8, and 8M Grades of Cast Stainless Steel. Represents the Ferrite Content [196] . (I) 3-86
Figure 3-42 Influence of Molybdenum on Charpy Impact Toughness of Cast Austenitic
Stainless Steel after 10,000 Hours Aging at 750F [197] ........................................... (I) 3-87
Figure 3-43 Correlation Between Single Loop and Double Loop EPR Tests on Type 304
SS [210] .................................................................................................................... (I) 3-89
Figure 3-44 Low Temperature Sensitization (LTS) Time-Temperature Dependence of
IGSCC [213] .............................................................................................................. (I) 3-90
Figure 3-45 The Influence of Grain Boundary Chromium Concentration on the %IGSCC
(a) and the Strain to Failure (b) During SSR Testing in Aerated 550F Water [216] (I) 3-91
Figure 4-1 Material Strength and Hardness Correlation for Nickel-Base Alloys [14] ............ (I) 4-8
Figure 4-2 High Temperature Tensile Properties of Annealed, 1600F/1 Hour, Hot-Rolled
Alloy 600 Plate [16] ..................................................................................................... (I) 4-9
Figure 4-3 High Temperature Tensile Properties of Annealed Alloy 690 [17] .................... (I) 4-10
Figure 4-4 Duane Arnold Recirculation Inlet Nozzle Safe End Configuration and IGSCC
[26] ............................................................................................................................ (I) 4-18
Figure 4-5 Typical Longitudinal Section Through Duane Arnold Recirculation Inlet Nozzle
Thermal Sleeve Attachment Area [27] ....................................................................... (I) 4-19

lxii

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material

Figure 4-6 Shroud Head Bolt IGSCC [29].......................................................................... (I) 4-20


Figure 4-7 Circumferential Cracks in Access Hole Covers [30] ......................................... (I) 4-20
Figure 4-8 Pilgrim Safe End Weld and Cracks [33] ........................................................... (I) 4-22
Figure 4-9 Schematic of Shroud Support Cracking Associated with an Older BWR-2
Reactor [31]............................................................................................................... (I) 4-23
Figure 4-10 Typical Crack Locations in Calvert Cliffs 2 Pressurizer Heater Sleeves [44] ... (I) 4-28
Figure 4-11 Locations and Orientations of Typical CRDM Nozzle PWSCC in B&W
Design Plants [44] ..................................................................................................... (I) 4-29
Figure 4-12 VC Summer Hot Leg Nozzle to Pipe Weld Cracks [44] .................................. (I) 4-30
Figure 4-13 Cavity in Reactor Vessel Head Caused by PWSCC at CRDM J-Groove
Weld [71] ................................................................................................................... (I) 4-31
Figure 4-14 Effect of Applied Stress on IGSCC of Uncreviced Alloy 600 Specimens
Tested Under Constant Load at 550F with 6.5 ppm Sulfuric Acid (55 S/cm
Conductivity) [86]....................................................................................................... (I) 4-39
Figure 4-15 Effect of Chromium Concentration and Welding Procedure on the SCC
Behavior of Alloy 600 Weldments [87] ....................................................................... (I) 4-42
Figure 4-16 Time to Cracking of Weldments in Aggressive BWR Environment as a
Function of Peak Fusion Line Region Hardness [89] ................................................. (I) 4-46
Figure 4-17 Design of Creviced Bent Beam (CBB) Test Fixture [97] ................................. (I) 4-51
Figure 4-18 Failure Times Versus Stress Corrosion Cracking Index (SCRI) for NickelBase Alloys in CBB and Constant Load Tests in 482F High Purity Water with 8
ppm Oxygen [102] ..................................................................................................... (I) 4-54
Figure 4-19 Average Crack Propagation Rate in SSRT of Alloy 600 Tested in 550F
Impure Water Containing 0.2 ppm Oxygen [86] ......................................................... (I) 4-56
Figure 4-20 Crack Growth Rate Data for Alloy 182 Weld Metal in the Sensitized
Condition (1150F for 24 hours) in BWR Environments [105] ................................... (I) 4-57
Figure 4-21 Effect of Heat Treatment on the Crack Growth Rate on Alloy 182 at 550F
for Various Test Conditions [105] .............................................................................. (I) 4-58
Figure 4-22 Comparison of Crack Propagation Rates in Alloys 600 and 182 in Clean
NWC When Tested at Constant Load [107] ............................................................... (I) 4-61
Figure 4-23 Comparison of Crack Propagation Rates in Type 304 (Furnace Sensitized),
Alloy 600 and Alloy 182 in NWC with 0.1 ppm H2SO4 When Tested at Constant
Load [107] ................................................................................................................. (I) 4-62
Figure 4-24 Comparison of the Predicted and Observed Crack Growth Rates vs. Stress
Intensity for Alloys 600 and 182 Tested at or Near Constant Load in 200 ppb 550F
Water [108]................................................................................................................ (I) 4-62
Figure 4-25 Overview of Crack Growth Rate Response vs. Corrosion Potential and Zinc
Addition [110] ............................................................................................................ (I) 4-65
Figure 4-26 Crack Growth Rate of Alloy 182 in 550F Water with 20 and 250 ppb
Oxygen and Conductivity of 0.1 S/cm [111] ............................................................. (I) 4-66
Figure 4-27 Crack Propagation Rates for Alloys 82 and 182 for Specimens in Operating
BWR with NWC [112] ................................................................................................ (I) 4-67
Figure 4-28 Effect of Silica on Crack Propagation Rate in Alloy 600 in NWC [98] ............. (I) 4-68

lxiii

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material

Figure 4-29 Effect of Silica on Crack Propagation Rate in Alloy 182 in NWC [98] ............. (I) 4-68
Figure 4-30 Effect of Sulfates on Crack Propagation Rate in Alloy 182 in NWC [98] ......... (I) 4-69
Figure 4-31 Crack Propagation Rates for Alloy 600, Alloy 182 and Sensitized Type 304
SS in Clean NWC [113] ............................................................................................. (I) 4-70
Figure 4-32 Crack Growth Rates for Alloy 182 as a Function of Potential and Sulfates in
550F Water [114] ..................................................................................................... (I) 4-70
Figure 4-33 Comparison of Crack Growth Rates of Alloy 600 in BWR Water at 550F
and in PWR Primary Water at 662F and 554F [117] ............................................... (I) 4-72
Figure 4-34 Effect of Yield Strength on Crack Growth Rate of Alloy 600 in BWR
Environments (the Two Lines Marked PWR are from Figure 4-33) [117] .................. (I) 4-72
Figure 4-35 Effect of Temperature on Crack Growth Rates in High-Oxygen High-Purity
Water [119]................................................................................................................ (I) 4-73
Figure 4-36 IGSCC Growth Rates for Alloy 690 in 300 ppb Oxygen Water at 554F [119] (I) 4-74
Figure 4-37 Effect of Crack Orientation on Crack Growth Rates in Alloy 182 in BWR
Environment [119] ..................................................................................................... (I) 4-74
Figure 4-38 IGSCC CGRs in Alloy 82 in BWR Normal Water Chemistry Data and
Suggested Disposition Curve. Actively Loaded Samples are Represented by Red
Triangles and Pink Squares, Whereas the Other Data Points Represent Bolt
Loaded Samples [128]............................................................................................... (I) 4-76
Figure 4-39 Effective Stress for PWSCC as Function of Applied Stress and Thickness of
Cold-Worked Layer (YS = 43.5 ksi, surface = 145 ksi) [158] ......................................... (I) 4-82
Figure 4-40 PWSCC Susceptibility of Hot Worked Annealed (HWA) Forgings and Cold
Worked Annealed (CWA) Tubing Test Data for Highly Stressed Specimens at or
Converted to 680F [173] ......................................................................................... (I) 4-84
Figure 4-41 Activation Energy for Crack Initiation in Alloy 600 U-Bends Exposed to Pure
Deoxygenated Water, as Function of Carbon Content (Weight Percent) [215] .......... (I) 4-89
Figure 4-42 Effect of Temperature on Crack Velocities in Alloy Determined Using CERT
in PWR Primary Coolant and AVT Environments [215].............................................. (I) 4-95
Figure 4-43 Crack Growth Rates for Alloy 600 Flat Tubes and Plates in Same
Environment (626F, 2 ppm Li, 1200 ppm Boron, Hydrogen 20 cc/kg) [217]............. (I) 4-96
Figure 4-44 Crack Growth Rate vs. Specimen Thickness, for Alloy 600 in PWR Primary
Environment [218] ..................................................................................................... (I) 4-97
Figure 4-45 Crack Growth Rate in PWR Primary Coolant vs. Room Temperature Yield
Strength for Five Alloy 600 Heats [221] ..................................................................... (I) 4-98
Figure 4-46 Terminology Used for Orientations of Cracks in Test Specimen with Respect
to Welds [191] ........................................................................................................... (I) 4-99
Figure 4-47 Effects of Crack Orientation on Crack Growth Rates in Alloy 182 in Primary
Coolant Environment at 617F [191] .......................................................................... (I) 4-99
Figure 4-48 Effects of Temperature on Crack Growth Rates of Alloy 182 in PWR Primary
Coolant Environment (K I = 20 24 ksiin.) [191]..................................................... (I) 4-100
Figure 4-49 Effect of Cold Reduction and Temperature on Crack Growth Rates from
CERT in PWR Primary Coolant Environment [215] ................................................. (I) 4-102
Figure 4-50 Average Crack Growth Rate vs. Cold Work by Bending for Mill Annealed
Alloy 600 in PWR Primary Environments at 626F and 662F [174] ........................ (I) 4-103

lxiv

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material

Figure 4-51 Crack Growth Rate vs. Yield Strength for Alloy 600 in 662F PWR Primary
Coolant (Yield Strength Increased by Cold Work) [174] .......................................... (I) 4-103
Figure 4-52 Effect of Cold Work on Stress Corrosion Crack Growth Rate in Alloy 600 in
Simulated PWR Primary Coolant [236] .................................................................... (I) 4-104
Figure 4-53 Effect of Yield Strength from Cold Work on Stress Corrosion Crack Growth
Rate in Alloy 600 in Simulated Primary Coolant [236] .............................................. (I) 4-105
Figure 4-54 Crack Growth Rate vs. Stress Intensity for Alloy 600 (The 7 ppm Li + 108
ppm B Solution was at 662F. All Other Solutions were at 626F. KISCC = 4.5 to 9
ksiin.) [232] ............................................................................................................ (I) 4-108
Figure 4-55 Crack Growth Rate Measurements in Simulated PWR Primary Coolant at
626F (1200 ppm Boron, 2.2 ppm Li, 30 cc/kg Hydrogen) [234] ............................. (I) 4-109
Figure 4-56 Effect of Stress Intensity and Temperature on Stress Corrosion Crack
Growth Rate in Simulated PWR Primary Coolant [236] .......................................... (I) 4-110
Figure 4-57 Comparison Between Field and Laboratory Data for Stress Corrosion Crack
Growth Rate in Alloy 600 in PWR Primary Coolant Environments (Laboratory Data
Adjusted to 554F Using Activation Energy of 31 kcal/mol) [241] ............................. (I) 4-111
Figure 4-58 Simulated Crack Growth Rate vs. Stress Intensity Factor for Initiation Stage
Cracks in Alloy 600 in Simulated PWR Primary Water at 662F [242] ..................... (I) 4-112
Figure 4-59 Crack Growth Rates in PWSCC Initiation Stage and Propagation Stage for
Alloy 600 in 682F Simulated Primary Water (500 ppm Boron, 2 ppm Li, 2.75 ppm
Hydrogen) [243]....................................................................................................... (I) 4-112
Figure 4-60 Crack Growth Rates in Alloy 182 vs. Hold Time in Simulated PWR primary
Coolant Environments [219] .................................................................................... (I) 4-113
Figure 4-61 Crack Growth Rate vs. Test Time for Samples 69-5 and 69-11 (Hold Time
was Increased for Specimen 69-5 and Decreased for Specimen 69-11 with Test
Time) [245] .............................................................................................................. (I) 4-114
Figure 4-62 Crack Growth Rate Results for Statically and Actively Loaded Specimens
Tested in Three Different PWR Primary Environments at 626F [234] .................... (I) 4-118
Figure 4-63 Crack Growth Rate Results for Actively Loaded Specimens Tested in pHT
7.4 PWR Primary Coolant [234]............................................................................... (I) 4-118
Figure 4-64 Alloy 600 Fatigue Lives in Air and in LWR Water Environments [280] ......... (I) 4-128
Figure 4-65 Fatigue Strength Test results for Alloy 600 to ASME SB-166 (Aging
Condition: 1600 Hours at 752F) [281] .................................................................... (I) 4-129
Figure 4-66 Effects of LWR Water Environments on Fatigue Life of Alloy 600 [282] ....... (I) 4-130
Figure 4-67 Plot of S/N Fatigue Properties of Welded-In Divider Plate (WIDP) Materials
[283] ........................................................................................................................ (I) 4-130
Figure 4-68 Fatigue N behavior for Alloy 600 and its Weld Alloys in Simulated BWR
Water at 289C [285] ............................................................................................. (I) 4-131
Figure 4-69 Fatigue N behavior for Alloys 600 and 690 and their Weld Alloys in
Simulated PWR Water at 315 or 325C [285] .......................................................... (I) 4-132
Figure 4-70 Dependence of Fatigue Lives of Alloys 690 and 600 and their Weld Alloys in
PWR Water at 325C and Alloy 600 in BWR Water at 289C [285] ......................... (I) 4-132
Figure 4-71 Summary of Alloy 600 Fatigue Crack Growth Data for Tests Conducted in
Air Saturated (7 ppm oxygen) Water at 550F [287] ............................................... (I) 4-134

lxv

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material

Figure 4-72 Summary of Alloy 600 Fatigue Crack Growth Data for Tests Conducted in
Deaerated (2 ppb oxygen) Water at 550F [287] .................................................... (I) 4-135
Figure 4-73 Fatigue Crack Propagation Behavior of Alloy 600 in An Aqueous
Environment at 470F [288] ..................................................................................... (I) 4-136
Figure 4-74 Fatigue Crack Propagation Behavior of Weld Deposited EN82H in an
Aqueous Environment at 470F [288] ...................................................................... (I) 4-136
Figure 4-75 Fatigue Crack Propagation Behavior of Alloys 600 and EN82H in a Low
Oxygen Aqueous Environment at 470F at a Cyclic Frequency of 0.002 Hertz [288](I) 4-137
Figure 4-76 Effect of Stress Ratio on Fatigue Crack Propagation Behavior of Alloy 600 in
a Low-Oxygen Aqueous Environment at 470F [288] ............................................. (I) 4-137
Figure 4-77 Dependence of Crack Growth Rates of Alloy 600 and 690 Specimens at
552 and 608F on Maximum Stress Intensity (Kmax) in High Purity Deoxygenated
Water at Load Ratios of (a) 0.2, (b) 0.6, and (c) 0.9, and (d) in Oxygenated High
Purity Water at Load Ratios of 0.2, 0.6 and 0.9 (Lines Indicate Dependence of
Crack Growth Rates of Austenitic SSs in Air on Kmax Predicted by ASME Code)
[289] ........................................................................................................................ (I) 4-138
Figure 4-78 Fatigue Crack Growth Properties for Alloy 82 and 52 Weld Metal in PWR
Primary Coolant Environments [283] ....................................................................... (I) 4-139
Figure 4-79 Fatigue Crack Growth Rate vs. KI for Ni-base Alloy 182 and Alloy 600 in
Simulated BWR Environments and in Air [290, 291] ................................................ (I) 4-140
Figure 4-80 Comparison of Calculated and Measured Corrosion Fatigue Crack Growth
Rates of Alloy 600 in High Temperature Water (Oxygen 4 ppm) [293] .................... (I) 4-141
Figure 4-81 da/dN vs. K, Alloy 600 Under Cyclic Loading in Oxygenated Pure Water
(OPW) [295] ............................................................................................................ (I) 4-141
Figure 4-82 da/dN vs. K, Alloy 600 Under Cyclic Loading in PWR Primary Side Water
[296] ........................................................................................................................ (I) 4-142
Figure 4-83 Variation of Fatigue Crack Growth Rate Function C for Alloy 600 with
Temperature [298] ................................................................................................... (I) 4-143
Figure 4-84 Variation of Fatigue Crack Growth Rate Function C for Alloy 690 with
Temperature [298] ................................................................................................... (I) 4-143
Figure 4-85 Corrosion Fatigue Data for Alloy 600 in High-Purity Water with (a) 300 ppb
Oxygen at 552F, (b) >6 ppm Oxygen at 552F, and (c) >6 ppm Oxygen at 608F
[298] ........................................................................................................................ (I) 4-144
Figure 4-86 Corrosion Fatigue Data for Alloy 600 in High-Purity Water with < 10 ppb
Oxygen at (a) 608F, (b) 552F, and (c) 464F [298] .............................................. (I) 4-145
Figure 4-87 Corrosion Fatigue Data for Alloy 690 in High-Purity Water with ~6000 or 300
ppb Oxygen at (a) 608F and (b) 552F [298] ......................................................... (I) 4-146
Figure 4-88 Corrosion Fatigue Data for Alloy 690 in High-Purity Water with < 10 ppb
Oxygen at (a) 608F, (b) 552F, and (c) 464F [298] .............................................. (I) 4-147
Figure 4-89 Corrosion Fatigue Data in Simulated PWR Water at 470 653F for (1)
Alloy 182, (b) and (c) Alloy 82, and (d) Alloy 52 [298] .............................................. (I) 4-148
Figure 4-90 Corrosion Fatigue Data for Alloy 182 in High Oxygen Water at 550F [299] . (I) 4-149
Figure 4-91 Fracture Toughness of EN82H Weld (Longitudinal Orientation) in Air and
Water (Values of T are Provided Beyond Each Bar) [302] ...................................... (I) 4-150

lxvi

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material

Figure 4-92 Fracture Toughness of EN52 Welds C1 and C2 in Water (Values of T are
Provided Beyond Each Bar) [302]............................................................................ (I) 4-150
Figure 1-1 Variation of Room Temperature Mechanical Properties with Aging
Temperature [6] .......................................................................................................... (II) 1-5
Figure 1-2 Effect of Service Aging on Selected Properties of a Typical Heat of 17-4 PH
(H1100 Condition) [7] ................................................................................................. (II) 1-6
Figure 1-3 Effect of Exposure at 800F (427C) on Transition Curves of 17-4PH (H1100
Condition) for Various Times [25] ............................................................................. (II) 1-18
Figure 1-4 Effect of Chromium Equivalent (%Cr + %Si + %Cb) of 17-4 PH (H1100
Condition) on Time of Exposure at 800F (427C) to Cause a Loss of One Half of
Initial Impact Energy [25] .......................................................................................... (II) 1-18
Figure 1-5 Nomograph for Estimating Time to 50% Loss of Room Temperature Impact
Energy (Worst Case) ............................................................................................... (II) 1-20
Figure 1-6 Nomograph for Estimating Time to 90% Loss of Room Temperature Impact
Energy (Worst Case) ............................................................................................... (II) 1-21
Figure 1-7 Nomograph for Estimating Time to 50% Loss of Room Temperature Impact
Energy (Best Estimate)............................................................................................ (II) 1-22
Figure 1-8 Nomograph for Estimating Time to 90% Loss of Room Temperature Impact
Energy (Best Estimate)............................................................................................ (II) 1-23
Figure 1-9 Relationship Between Transition Temperature Shift and Hardening of Steels
Studied in all Aging Conditions [7] ............................................................................ (II) 1-24
Figure 1-10 Relationship Between Decrease of Upper Shelf Energy and Hardening of
Steels Studied in all Aging Conditions [7] ................................................................. (II) 1-25
Figure 1-11 Evolution of Hardening HV30 as Function of Time and Temperature [7]*...... (II) 1-25
Figure 1-12 Carbon Factor to be Added to Clarkes Chromium Equivalent [4] .................. (II) 1-27
Figure 2-1 Applied Stress vs. Time to Failure of 50% of X-750 Specimens Deaerated
Water at 662F (350C) [77] ..................................................................................... (II) 2-22
Figure 2-2 Change in Time to SCC Failure in Uniaxial Constant Load Test of Alloy X-750
with Applied Stress [78] ........................................................................................... (II) 2-23
Figure 2-3 Uniaxial Constant Load Test Data at of Alloy X-750 (HTH Condition) in 288C
Water (8 ppm O2) [79] .............................................................................................. (II) 2-23
Figure 2-4 Statistical Evaluation of Alloy X-750 Time to SCC in BWR Environments [81] (II) 2-24
Figure 2-5 Crack Growth Rate vs 1/T for Initial KI = 55.1, 29.3, 14.0 ksiin. (60.5, 32.2,
15.4 MPam) in Hydrogenated Pure Water [82] ....................................................... (II) 2-25
Figure 2-6 Effects of Chlorides on Cracking of Alloy X-750 in Creviced Bent Beam Tests
[92] ........................................................................................................................... (II) 2-27
Figure 2-7 Crack Growth Rate vs. Applied Stress Intensity for Alloy X-750 as a Function
of Heat Treatment Condition and Yield Strength (ksi/MPa) [63] ................................ (II) 2-29
Figure 2-8 Comparison Between Actual and Electrical Potential Drop SCC Crack Growth
Rate vs. pH [93]....................................................................................................... (II) 2-30
Figure 2-9 SCC Growth vs. Corrosion Potential for Stainless Steels in Various
Conditions, 20% Cold Worked Alloy 600, and Precipitation Hardened Alloy X750
Tested in 550F (288C) High Purity Water Containing 2000 ppb O2 and 95 3000
ppb H2 [88] ................................................................................................................ (II) 2-31

lxvii

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material

Figure 2-10 Summary of High Temperature SCC in HTH X-750 at Various Kl Levels:
Exposure Time was 45 Days Except Where Noted by a Check; Fluences are
Represented by Fullness of Symbols [13]................................................................ (II) 2-35
Figure 2-11 Effect of Temperature on KPmax Values for (a) AH, (b) BH, and (c) HTH Heats
[112] ......................................................................................................................... (II) 2-37
Figure 2-12 Effect of Hydrogen Content of Water on the Minimum KPmax (or Arrest KI for
Heat A6) Observed Below 302F (150C) [113] ........................................................ (II) 2-37
Figure 2-13 Time-Temperature-Transformation Diagram for Alloy X-750, Solution
Annealed at 2100F (1150C) (from [8]) ................................................................... (II) 2-52
Figure 2-14 Influence of Heat Treatment and Stress on Time to SCC Failure for Alloy X750 [19] .................................................................................................................... (II) 2-55
Figure 2-15 SCC Tests of Tensile Specimens of Standard (~16% Cr) and Modified
(~19% Cr) Alloy X-750 in Pure Water with 25 50 cc/kg Hydrogen at 350C [41] ... (II) 2-64
Figure 2-16 Results of Modified Huey Tests on Two Heats of Alloy X-750 with Various
Solution Annealing and Aging Treatments [42] ......................................................... (II) 2-66
Figure 2-17 Effects of Aging Time and Temperature on Yield Strength, IGC, and SCC
Susceptibility for Alloy X-750 Solution Annealed at 2102F (1150C) [44] ................ (II) 2-67
Figure 2-18 Results of SSR Tests at 1.5 x 10-6 s-1 on HTA Alloy X-750 in 122 to 644F
(50 to 340C) PWR Primary Water with 50 cc/kg Hydrogen [47] ............................... (II) 2-70
Figure 3-1 High Temperature Properties of 1/2 in. (12.7 mm) Diameter Bar Hot-Rolled,
Annealed (1800F (982C)/1 hr) and Aged (1325F (718C)/8 hr, Furnace Cooled to
1150F (621C), Hold at 1150F (621C) for Total Aging Time of 18 hr) (reprinted
from [8]) ...................................................................................................................... (II) 3-6
Figure 3-2 B&W Fuel Assembly Holddown Spring and Upper Grillage [17] ...................... (II) 3-14
Figure 3-3 Hardness vs. Yield Strength for 718 [29] ......................................................... (II) 3-16
Figure 3-4 Stress vs. Time to Failure for Alloy 718 in BWR Reactor Coolant (reprinted
from [55]) .................................................................................................................. (II) 3-19
Figure 3-5 SCC Growth Rate vs. Corrosion Potential for Stainless Steels in Various
Conditions, 20% Cold Worked Alloy 600 and Precipitation Hardened Alloys X750
and 718 in 288C (550F) High Purity Water (reprinted from [57]) ............................ (II) 3-20
Figure 3-6 Effect of Test Temperature on Fatigue Crack Growth Rate of Alloy X-750 and
718. For Frequency of 10 Hz, R = 0.1 and K = 23 ksiin in High Purity Water [28] . (II) 3-23
Figure 3-7 Effect of Frequency on Fatigue Crack Growth Rate of Alloy X-750 and Alloy
718. For Temperature of 203F (95C) in High Purity Water, R = 0.1 and K = 23
ksiin [28] ................................................................................................................. (II) 3-24
Figure 4-1 Crack Growth Rate vs. Applied Stress Intensity (KI) for Alloy A-286 in 680F
Primary Water (Solution Annealed at 1650F and Age Hardened for 16 Hours at
1350F. Room Temperature Yield Strength 107 ksi) [12].......................................... (II) 4-17
Figure 4-2 Stress Intensity vs. Crack Growth Rate in Alloy A-286 Exposed to 550F
Deaerated Water [45] ............................................................................................... (II) 4-19
Figure 4-3 Comparison of Crack Growth Rate Curves for Several Materials [45] ............. (II) 4-19
Figure 5-1 Effect of Cold Working on the Mechanical Properties of Type 304 (INCO
1963) [20] ................................................................................................................. (II) 5-10

lxviii

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material

Figure 5-2 Effect of Cold Working on the Mechanical Properties of Type 316 (INCO
1963) [20] ................................................................................................................. (II) 5-10
Figure 5-3 Results of Tests of Cold Worked Type 304 Stainless Steel in 550F (288C)
Water as a Function of Cold Work, Stress, and Oxygen Content [69] ....................... (II) 5-26
Figure 5-4 The Relationship Between Cold Work and Vickers Hardness [76] .................. (II) 5-30
Figure 5-5 The Change of Martensite Amounts as a Function of Cold Work [76] ............. (II) 5-30
Figure 5-6 Maximum Crack Depth After Creviced Bent Beam Tests as a Function of
Cold Work [76].......................................................................................................... (II) 5-31
Figure 5-7 Maximum Crack Depth After Creviced Bent Beam Tests as a Function of
Vickers Hardness [76] .............................................................................................. (II) 5-31
Figure 5-8 Stress Corrosion Crack Growth Rates of Various Austenitic Stainless Steels
in 288C (550F) Water [77] ..................................................................................... (II) 5-32
Figure 5-9 Effect of Cold Work and Stress Intensity on the Stress Corrosion Crack
Growth Rates of Steel 1.4541 I (Type 321) [78] ........................................................ (II) 5-33
Figure 5-10 Effect of Cold Work on the Stress Corrosion Crack Growth Rates of Three
Stabilized Austenitic Stainless Steels [78]. The Numbers, e.g. 1.455x are German
Alloy Designations. ................................................................................................... (II) 5-33
Figure 5-11 Effect of Yield Strength on the Stress Corrosion Crack Growth Rates of
Annealed and Cold worked Austenitic Materials [78] ................................................ (II) 5-34
Figure 5-12 Effect of Hardness on the Stress Corrosion Crack Growth Rates of
Annealed and Cold Worked Austenitic Materials [78] ............................................... (II) 5-34
Figure 5-13 Crack Propagation Rates for Cold Worked Type 304 SS in BWR Reactor
Coolant with 0.2 ppm Oxygen [80] ............................................................................ (II) 5-35
Figure 5-14 Crack Propagation Rates for Cold Worked Type 316 NG Stainless Steel in
BWR Reactor Coolant with 0.2 ppm Oxygen [80] ..................................................... (II) 5-36
Figure 5-15 Dimensions of a Typical in ASME 0.5T CT (0.5 in [12.7 mm] thick) Specimen
[66] ........................................................................................................................... (II) 5-39
Figure 5-16 Schematic of AMSE Cracking Orientations in Uni-Directionally Rolled
Specimens [101]....................................................................................................... (II) 5-42
Figure 5-17 Schematic of AMSE Cracking Orientations in Bi-Directionally Rolled
Specimens [101]....................................................................................................... (II) 5-43
Figure 5-18 Comparative Time/Temperature/Sensitization Behavior of Alloy XM-19 and
Type 304 Stainless Steel as Measured in Modified A-262E Test [109] ..................... (II) 5-47
Figure 5-19 Time/Temperature Intergranular Stress Corrosion Plot for Alloy XM-19 as
Measured in CERT at 288C (550F) Air Saturated Water [109]............................... (II) 5-48
Figure 5-20 Characteristics of IASCC in Austenitic Stainless Steels [119]........................ (II) 5-52
Figure 5-21 Relaxation of Cold Worked Type 304 Stainless Steel as a Function of Initial
Stress (Data are for 100 Hours Expected to be Near the Saturation Limit)
(reprinted from [121]) ................................................................................................ (II) 5-53
Figure 6-1 Summary of the Effect of Various Marine Turbine Environments on the
Fatigue Crack Growth Rate Properties of Type 403 Stainless Steel [71] .................. (II) 6-28
Figure 6-2 Fatigue Crack Propagation Rate and Environmental Effects Blade Surface
Flow Specimens (Type 403 Stainless Steel) [73] ...................................................... (II) 6-29

lxix

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material

Figure 6-3 Fatigue Crack Growth Rates in pH 12 Caustic at 10 Hz and 212F (100C)
[74] ........................................................................................................................... (II) 6-30
Figure 6-4 Fatigue and Corrosion Fatigue Strengths at 108 Cycles of 12% Chromium
Steel. Deaerated Water Causes Only a Minor Reduction of the Fatigue Strength.
Aerated Concentrated Hot Chloride Solutions Lower the Corrosion Fatigue
Resistance Dramatically [76] .................................................................................... (II) 6-31
Figure 6-5 The Growth Rate of Fatigue Cracks in 12% Chromium Steels is Greatly
Enhanced by the Presence of Chloride Solutions at Low Cyclic Stress Intensities
and High Mean Loads [76] ....................................................................................... (II) 6-31
Figure 6-6 The Threshold Stress Intensity K0 (Defined as the Cyclic Stress Intensity
which Results in a Fatigue Crack Growth Rate of 4 x 10-10 in./cycle (1.0 x 10-11
m/cycle)) is Greatly Reduced by the Presence of Certain Environments and High
Stresses [76] ............................................................................................................ (II) 6-32
Figure 6-7 Effect of Chloride, Oxygen, and pH on Fatigue Strength of X20 Cr13 Steel
[77] ........................................................................................................................... (II) 6-33
Figure 6-8 Effects of Environment on Fatigue Crack Initiation in Z 19 CD 12-1 Steel
(12% Cr Martensitic Stainless Steel, UTS 123-134 ksi (848-924 MPa), YS 95-108
ksi (655-745 MPa)) [78] ........................................................................................... (II) 6-34
Figure 6-9 Near-Threshold Fatigue Crack Growth Rates of 403 Stainless Steel in Na2SO4
Solutions [5] ............................................................................................................. (II) 6-35
Figure 6-10 Stress-Cycles to Failures Curve for 403 Stainless Steel Tested in Air at
212F (10C): Failure Points at 65 ksi (450 MPa) in Deaerated NaOH and Na4SiO4
Solutions at 212F (100C) are also Shown [84] ....................................................... (II) 6-37
Figure 6-11 Ratio of the Corrosion Fatigue Strength of Alternate Turbine Alloys to the of
13% Cr Martensitic Stainless Steel [34] .................................................................... (II) 6-39
Figure 6-12 Comparison of the Environmental Fatigue Strengths of AISI 403, 17-4 PH,
Bimodal and Mill Annealed Ti6Al-4V in Variously Contaminated Liquid
Environments at 176F (80C) [86] ........................................................................... (II) 6-40
Figure 6-13 Combined Stress Fatigue Comparison of Shot-Peened Type 403, 17-4 PH,
and Ti-6Al-4V in 22% NaCl Solution at 176F (89C) [87]......................................... (II) 6-41
Figure 6-14 Effects of Various Test Environments on the 109 Fatigue Strength of Turbine
Blade Alloys [6]......................................................................................................... (II) 6-43
Figure 6-15 A Higher Chromium Martensitic Stainless Steel (17-4 PH) has Better Fatigue
Strength vs. 12% Cr and is an Alternative Blade Material. However, in Extremely
Aggressive Environments its Corrosion Fatigue Strength is almost as Low as that of
12% Chromium Steels [88] ....................................................................................... (II) 6-44
Figure 6-16 Titanium Alloys have been Used as Steam Turbine Blade Materials. Ti-6Al4V has a Remarkable Fatigue Resistance Particularly at Zero Mean Stress.
However, at Higher Mean Stresses, such as will Occur in Service, the Fatigue
Strength of this Alloy is Less than that of 12% Chromium Steel [88] ......................... (II) 6-45
Figure 6-17 A High-Chromium Stainless Steel with a Duplex Ferrite-Austenite
Microstructure has an Unusually High Corrosion-Fatigue Resistance [88] ................ (II) 6-46
Figure 6-18 Cathodic Stress Corrosion Cracking of 13% Cr-Steel X20Cr13 as a Function
of Tempering Temperature [90] ................................................................................ (II) 6-47

lxx

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material

Figure 6-19 12%-Chromium Steel. SCC in Pure Aerated Water has so Far Not Been
Observed After Proper Heat Treatment. Even so, NaOH, NaCl or H2S May Induce
Stress Corrosion Cracking [92] ................................................................................. (II) 6-48
Figure 6-20 Variation of %RA for Type 410 SS in NaCl, NaCl +5% Na2SO4, and NaCl +
10% NaOH Solutions at 194F (90C) [93] ............................................................... (II) 6-49
Figure 6-21 Effect of pH on %RA Values in 20% NaCl Solution at 194F (90C) [93]....... (II) 6-49
Figure 6-22 Effect of Chlorides, Oxygen, Specimen Geometry, and Experimental
Conditions on Occurrence of Pitting [94] .................................................................. (II) 6-50
Figure 6-23 Threshold Stress for SCC vs. Yield Strength Results of NACE Constant
Load Tension Tests [100] ......................................................................................... (II) 6-53
Figure 6-24 Effect of Tempering Temperatures on SCC Crack Depths of Alloys
Investigated. SCC Test was Conducted in High Temperature (550F (288C))
Water by Creviced Bent Beam Technique [106] ....................................................... (II) 6-56
Figure 6-25 Relation Between Hardness and SCC Crack Depth of the Specimens Tests
by Creviced Bent Beam Technique [106].................................................................. (II) 6-56
Figure 6-26 Effect of Chloride Concentration in High Temperature Water on SCC Crack
Depth by Creviced Bent Beam Test [106] ................................................................. (II) 6-56
Figure 6-27 Charpy V-notch Impact Energy Transition Curves in Unaged and Aged
Conditions (Longitudinal Orientation) [112] ............................................................... (II) 6-59
Figure 6-28 Prediction of Charpy Impact Energy of Alloy Aged at BWR Temperature
550F (t in hours, Q=38 kcal/mole, R=0.001103 kcal/mol R , T in R (R=0.001986
kcal/mol K, T in K) [113]......................................................................................... (II) 6-60
Figure 6-29 Prediction of Hardness Change of Alloys at 550F (288C) [113] .................. (II) 6-61
Figure 6-30 Relation Between Hardness and SCC Crack Depth of As-Tempered and AsAged Specimens [11] ............................................................................................... (II) 6-61
Figure 6-31 Evolution of Hardening HV30 as Function of Time-Temperature
Equivalence Parameter P(t,T) [12]* .......................................................................... (II) 6-63
Figure 6-32 Effects of Tempering on Hardness, Impact Strength, and Corrosion Rate in
10% HNO3 at 68F (20C) of Hardened 0.28C-13Cr Steel [119] ............................... (II) 6-66
Figure 6-33 Effect of Alloying-Element Additions to 0.12C-10.5-13.5Cr Steels on
Tempering Response After Hardening [119] ............................................................. (II) 6-67
Figure 6-34 Effect of Carbon Content on As-Transformed Hardness of 13% Cr Steel
[119] ......................................................................................................................... (II) 6-67
Figure 6-35 Time-to-Rupture v. Tempering-Temperature Plots for Three 13% Cr Steels;
Smooth Specimens Tested in 3% NaCl Solution at Ambient Temperature; Initial
Stresses 101 or 146 ksi (696 or 1007 MPa) as Indicated [119] ................................ (II) 6-68
Figure 7-1 Corrosion Rates in H3BO3 and H3BO3 + (LiOH or KOH) Solutions [33] ............. (II) 7-24
Figure 7-2 SCC Resistance of Low Alloy Steels and Maraging Steels of Various Yield
Strengths [34] .......................................................................................................... (II) 7-28
Figure 7-3 Crack Growth Kinetics for 4140 Steel in 208F (98C) Primary Water and
86F (30C) Salt Spray [35] (Copyright 1992 by the American Nuclear Socieity, La
Grange Park, Illinois) ................................................................................................ (II) 7-29
Figure 7-4 Crack Growth Kinetics for 4340 Steel in 208F (98C) Aerated Primary Water
[35] (Copyright 1992 by the American Nuclear Socieity, La Grange Park, Illinois) .... (II) 7-30

lxxi

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material

Figure 7-5 Crack Growth Kinetics for 4340 Steel in 86F (30C) Salt Spray and 86F
(30C) 100% Humid Air [35] (Copyright 1992 by the American Nuclear Socieity, La
Grange Park, Illinois) ................................................................................................ (II) 7-31
Figure 7-6 Kiscc vs. Yield Strength for SAE 4340 Steel Reported for Various
Environments Containing Water or Aqueous Chlorides [36] ..................................... (II) 7-33
Figure 7-7 Kiscc vs. Yield Strength for SAE 4130 and SAE 4140 Steels Reported for
Combined, Aqueous NaCl, and Distilled H2O Environments [36] ............................ (II) 7-34
Figure 7-8 Kiscc vs. Yield Strength for 18Ni-Maraging Steels Reported for Water, Air,
and Various Aqueous Chloride Environments [36].................................................... (II) 7-35
Figure 7-9 Preload vs. Yield Strength for AISI 4340 Steel ................................................ (II) 7-36
Figure 7-10 Preload vs. Yield Strength for AISI 4130/4140 Steels.................................... (II) 7-37
Figure 7-11 Preload vs. Yield Strength for 18 Ni Maraging Steel ...................................... (II) 7-38
Figure 8-1 Effects of Arsenic, Phosphorus, Antimony, and Silicon on SCC of Copper [19](II) 8-12
Figure 8-2 Influence of Engineering Stress on Time to Failure of 70-30 Brass Tested in
Tarnishing and Non-Tarnishing ~15 N Aqueous Ammonia Containing Dissolved
Copper [21] .............................................................................................................. (II) 8-13
Figure 1-1 Effect of Prior Exposure on Corrosion Product Release from Alloy 706 (Based
on [79]) .................................................................................................................... (III) 1-27
Figure 1-2 Effect of pH on Equilibrium Corrosion Product Release from Alloy 706 [80] ... (III) 1-28
Figure 1-3 Effect of Oxygen Concentration on Corrosion Product Release Rate of Alloy
706 [81] ................................................................................................................... (III) 1-29
Figure 1-4 Solubility of CuO in Oxygenated Solutions (1 atm Partial Pressure) as a
Function of pH, to 577F [82] ................................................................................... (III) 1-31
Figure 1-5 Thinning of Various Alloys Exposed for 10 Days in 100F Condensate with
1000 ppm Ammonia Shows Copper/Nickels Almost as Resistant as Stainless
Steels [36] ............................................................................................................... (III) 1-31
Figure 1-6 Corrosion Rates for Alloy C70600 for Long-Term Seawater Exposure [85] .... (III) 1-32
Figure 1-7 Corrosion Rates for Copper Alloys for up to 800-Day Seawater Exposure [85](III) 1-32
Figure 1-8 Effect of Seawater Velocity on the Erosion-Corrosion Rate of Various CopperBase Alloys in Seawater [24] ................................................................................... (III) 1-34
Figure 1-9 Velocity Limits of Alloys C70600 and C72200 as Determined in 56-day
Laboratory Jet Impingement Tests with Seawater [89] ............................................ (III) 1-35
Figure 1-10 Effect of Sand Content, Cathodic Projection and Ferrous Ion Injection on
Inlet Erosion Corrosion of Aluminum Brass, After Sato, et al. [39] ........................... (III) 1-36
Figure 1-11 Effects of Ammonia Concentration, and Test Type on Corrosion Rate of
Various Condenser Tube Materials [24] .................................................................. (III) 1-38
Figure 1-12 The Effect of Sulfide Concentration of Flowing Seawater (7.9 ft/s) on Pitting
of Copper-10 Nickel and Copper-30 Nickel [24] ....................................................... (III) 1-39
Figure 1-13 Effect of Ferrous Sulfate Treatment on the Pitting Corrosion of (a) Copper10 Nickel and (b) Copper-30 Nickel in Seawater Containing 0.2 ppm Sulfide [24] ... (III) 1-40
Figure 1-14 Failure Rate vs. Probability Curves for Copper-30 Nickel in Seawater with
(24 Tubesets) and without (33 Tubesets) FeSO4 Additions [39] ............................... (III) 1-41

lxxii

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material

Figure 1-15 Effect of Stress Intensity on the Stress Corrosion Crack Growth Rates of
Several Copper Base Alloys in a Concentrated Ammonia Atmosphere [98] ............ (III) 1-46
Figure 1-16 Effect of Temperature on Time to Failure of Copper-37 Zinc in 0.05M
CuSO4, 1M (NH4)2SO4, pH 6.5 [24] ........................................................................... (III) 1-47
Figure 1-17 Effect of pH of 0.05M CuSO4, 1M (NH4)2SO4 on Time to Failure of Copper-37
Zinc at Room Temperature [24] ............................................................................... (III) 1-48
Figure 1-18 Low-Cycle Fatigue on Nonferrous Alloys [85] ............................................... (III) 1-50
Figure 1-19 Fatigue Data of the Materials Investigated in Air and in MH4OH Solution
[102]Aluminum brass ........................................................................................... (III) 1-50
Figure 1-20 Fatigue Data of the Materials Investigated in Air and in MH4OH Solution
[102]Admirality Brass ........................................................................................... (III) 1-51
Figure 1-21 Fatigue Data of the Materials Investigated in Air and in MH4OH Solution
[102]Cupro-Nickel (70/30) .................................................................................... (III) 1-51
Figure 2-1 pH-Potential Diagram for the Titanium Water System at 77F (25C ). Note
the Wide Range of TiO2 Film Stability [16] ................................................................. (III) 2-9
Figure 2-2 Hydrogen Adsorption of Titanium in Synthetic Sea Water at Increasing
Cathodic Potential [18] ............................................................................................ (III) 2-10
Figure 2-3 Influence of Concentration, Temperature, and pH on Crevice and Pitting
Corrosion of Commercially Pure Titanium in Sea Water and NaCl Brines [18]......... (III) 2-11
Figure 2-4 Hydrogen Adsorption of Titanium Coupled with Dissimilar Metals in DeAerated 6% NaCl Solution at pH 6, 720 h [18] ......................................................... (III) 2-28
Figure 2-5 Effect of Potential on Hydrogen Content of the End Section of a Titanium
Tube where Inlet was Polarized for 3 Months in Flowing Seawater [34] .................. (III) 2-29
Figure 2-6 Hydrogen Content of Titanium Condenser Tubes in Five Units for 1 to 2.5
Years [34] ................................................................................................................ (III) 2-30
Figure 2-7 Galvanic Corrosion of Titanium Dissimilar Metal Couples at Different Area
Ratios in Static Sea Water [18] ................................................................................ (III) 2-32
Figure 2-8 Comparative Heat Transfer Rates, Clean Water Cooled 30 MW Condenser
[18] .......................................................................................................................... (III) 2-33
Figure 3-1 Average Corrosion Rates in Simulated Environment [49] ............................... (III) 3-31
Figure 3-2 Critical Crevice Temperature vs. PRE [5, 6] ................................................... (III) 3-34
Figure 3-3 Relation Between Composition and Crevice Attack of Stainless Steels in
Synthetic Seawater at 194F (90C) [70] ................................................................. (III) 3-36
Figure 3-4 Potentiostatic Study Results Comparing the Minimum Breakthrough
Potentials Required to Initiate Pitting Corrosion of Materials as Influenced by
Concentration Effects [71, 72] ................................................................................. (III) 3-37
Figure 3-5 Use of W Parameter to Predict Crevice Corrosion Resistance in Seawater
[74] .......................................................................................................................... (III) 3-39
Figure 3-6 Influence of Temperature and pH on Pitting Resistance of Alloy 800 in NaCl
Solution (20,000 ppm Cl-, 6 ppm N2H4, pH Adjusted with HCl or NaOH) [79] ........... (III) 3-40
Figure 3-7 Pitting Potential of Alloy 800 as a Function of Temperature and Chloride
Concentration [84] ................................................................................................... (III) 3-41
Figure 3-8 Pitting Potential of Alloy 800 as a Function of Chloride Activity and
Temperature [84] ..................................................................................................... (III) 3-41

lxxiii

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material

Figure 3-9 Time-to-Failure vs. Cathodic Potential for As-Welded AL29-4C Alloy in
Synthetic Seawater [15] ............................................................................................ (III) 3-43
Figure 3-10 Time Dependence of Cobalt Release [89] ..................................................... (III) 3-46
Figure 3-11 Temperature Dependence of Cobalt Release Rate [89] ............................... (III) 3-47
Figure 3-12 Flow Velocity Dependence of Cobalt Release Rate [89] ............................... (III) 3-47
Figure 4-1 Plot of Maximum Pit Depth with Time (Where there are Two Points for a
Given Time, this Represents the Range of Depth of Pits Observed) [6] ................... (III) 4-22
Figure 4-2 Plot of Breakdown Potential vs. Temperature for Inconel 600 in Buffered 0.1M
NaCl Solution. Flow Velocity = 0 cm/s. [39] .............................................................. (III) 4-24
Figure 4-3 Effect of Temperature on the Number Density of Pits on Alloy 600 Tubes
After 3 Day Test [41] ................................................................................................ (III) 4-24
Figure 4-4 Effect of Chloride Ion and Dissolved Oxygen on the Pit Initiation with CuO
Sludge (347F, pH 5) [41]......................................................................................... (III) 4-25
Figure 4-5 The FCG Rates of Alloy 600, f = 1 Hz, with Different Load Rations in Air and
0.1M NaCl Solution [42] ............................................................................................ (III) 4-26
Figure 5-1 ASME Code Data for Tensile and Yield Strength vs. Temperature for Three
Alloys ........................................................................................................................... (III) 5-5
Figure 5-2 Tube Inlet FAC/Erosion-Corrosion [25] ........................................................... (III) 5-13
Figure 5-3 Iron Concentration at Economizer Inlet Versus pH of Feedwater [25]............. (III) 5-13
Figure 5-4 Relationship of Corrosion-Erosion Losses to Water pH (Based on [50]) ......... (III) 5-20
Figure 5-5 Effect of pH on the Solubility of Magnetite (Fe3O4) at Different Temperatures
in Deoxygenated Water, Based on Data from Tremain et al. [2] ............................... (III) 5-22
Figure 5-6 Shell (Steam) -Side Fe Pickup as a Function of Economizer Inlet pH for Three
HP-Feedwater Heaters [2] ........................................................................................ (III) 5-23
Figure 1-1 Observed and Predicted Cracking Sensitivity of Sensitized Type 304
Stainless Steel to Water Chemistry. Data Obtained in 550F (288C), 200 ppb
Oxygenated Water, with Specimen under Constant Load (25 ksi in.) (reprinted
from [2]) ........................................................................................................................ (V) 1-6
Figure 1-2 Crack Growth Rate of Sensitized Type 304 SS in Deaerated 550F (288C)
-6
Water in SSRT Tests Performed at 10 /s (reprinted from [4])...................................... (V) 1-7
Figure 1-3 The Effects of Oxygen and Chloride on the Stress Corrosion Cracking of
Austenitic Stainless Steel in High Temperature Water [5]............................................ (V) 1-8

lxxiv

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1-1 Specified Compositions of Typical Carbon and Low Alloy Steels Used for
Pressure Vessels (wt %) ............................................................................................. (I) 1-3
Table 1-2 Specified Room Temperature Mechanical Properties for Typical Carbon and
Low Alloy Steels Used for Pressure Vessels ............................................................... (I) 1-4
Table 1-3 Carbon and Low Alloy Steel Specifications for Pressure Vessels ........................ (I) 1-5
Table 1-4 Physical Properties of Carbon and Low Alloy Steel Pressure Vessel Materials ... (I) 1-8
Table 1-5 Parameters That Affect EAC Growth Rates [99] ................................................ (I) 1-48
Table 1-6 Regions of No Environmental Effect [127] ......................................................... (I) 1-68
n
Table 1-7 Characterized Parameters of the Relationship of da/dN = C f in./cycle for
High Sulfur (0.013 0.018%) RPV Steels in LWR Environments at Temperatures
Ranging from 392F to 554F (200C to 290C) [130] ................................................ (I) 1-72
-n
Table 1-8 Characterized Parameters of the Relationship of da/dN = Cf in./cycle for Low
Sulfur (0.003%) RPV Steels in LWR Environments [130] .......................................... (I) 1-72

Table 2-1 Specified Compositions of Typical Carbon Steel Piping and Plates Used for
Piping (wt %) ............................................................................................................... (I) 2-3
Table 2-2 Specified Compositions of Typical Low Alloy Steel Piping and Plates Used for
Piping (wt %) .............................................................................................................. (I) 2-4
Table 2-3 Specified Room Temperature Mechanical Properties for Typical Carbon Steel
Piping and Plates Used for Piping ............................................................................... (I) 2-5
Table 2-4 Specified Room Temperature Mechanical Properties for Typical Low Alloy
Steel Piping and Plates Used for Piping ...................................................................... (I) 2-7
Table 2-5 Carbon Steel Piping and Plate Used for Piping Specifications............................. (I) 2-8
Table 2-6 Low Alloy Steel Piping and Plate Used for Piping Specifications ......................... (I) 2-9
Table 2-7 Physical Properties of Carbon and Low Alloy Steel Piping ................................ (I) 2-11
Table 2-8 Systems/Components Experiencing Pipe Wall Thinning ................................... (I) 2-20
Table 2-9 Effect of Velocity on the Corrosion Behavior of Carbon Steel in Neutral pH
Feedwater [122] ........................................................................................................ (I) 2-42
Table 2-10 Susceptibility Conditions for SCC of Carbon and Low Alloy Steels [147] ......... (I) 2-59
Table 3-1 Typical Specified Compositions of Typical Stainless Steels (wt %) [2, 3, 4, 5,
6] (Maximum Values Except Where Otherwise Indicated) .......................................... (I) 3-3
Table 3-2 Specified Room Temperature Mechanical Properties for Stainless Steels [2, 3,
4, 5, 6] ......................................................................................................................... (I) 3-4
Table 3-3 Stainless Steel Specifications for Piping, Component and Pressure Vessel
Applications ................................................................................................................. (I) 3-5

lxxv

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material

Table 3-4 Typical Mechanical Properties of Commercial Stainless Steels at Elevated


Temperatures [8] ......................................................................................................... (I) 3-7
Table 3-5 Physical Properties of Stainless Steels [3, 6, 8, 10, 11, 12] ................................. (I) 3-8
Table 3-6 ASME Code Designation for Stainless Steel Alloys ........................................... (I) 3-10
Table 3-7 Mitigation Status Summary [25]......................................................................... (I) 3-24
Table 3-8 Threshold Fluoride Concentration for IGSCC of Furnace Sensitized Type 304
Stainless Steel at 150F in Air Saturated Solutions [129]........................................... (I) 3-53
1

Table 3-9 Summary of Equations for Corrosion Fatigue in BWR and PWR Environments
[176] .......................................................................................................................... (I) 3-80
Table 3-10 Corrosion Fatigue Curves in BWR and PWR Environments in da/dN Form1
[176] .......................................................................................................................... (I) 3-81
Table 3-11 CASS Thermal Aging Susceptibility Screening Criteria [194]........................... (I) 3-85
Table 4-1 Specified Compositions of Nickel-Base Alloys Used in Pressure Boundary
Applications (wt %) ...................................................................................................... (I) 4-4
Table 4-2 Specified Room Temperature Mechanical Properties of Nickel-Base Alloys
Used in Pressure Boundary Applications ..................................................................... (I) 4-6
Table 4-3 Nickel-Base Alloy Specifications for Pressure Boundary Applications ................. (I) 4-7
Table 4-4 Approximate Conversions Between Hardness and Strength for Nickel-Base
Alloys [14, 15] .............................................................................................................. (I) 4-9
Table 4-5 Physical Properties of Alloys 600 and 690 [16, 17] ............................................ (I) 4-10
Table 4-6 Chronology of Key Events Relating to PWSCC of Alloy 600 Type Materials in
Non-Steam Generator Tubing PWR Plant Applications Up to Mid 2002 [44] ............. (I) 4-26
Table 4-7 Compositions of Some Nickel-Base Weld Alloys Investigated in SCC Tests ..... (I) 4-33
Table 4-8 Straining Electrode Test Results for Alloy 600 (552F) [80] ............................... (I) 4-35
Table 4-9 Hours to Failure of Alloy 690 Specimens in 552F High Purity Water
Containing 36 ppm O2 at Applied Stress = 75% of UTS [82] ...................................... (I) 4-36
Table 4-10 Material Compositions of Heats of Alloy 600 used in Double U-Bend SCC
Tests [83] .................................................................................................................. (I) 4-36
Table 4-11 Results of Exposure of Double U-Bends in pH 10 (NH3) Undeaerated Water
at 600F in the Annealed and Sensitized (A + L) Condition [83] ................................ (I) 4-37
Table 4-12 SCC of Notched(1) Straining Electrode Specimens in pH 2.5 H2SO4 at 552F,
0 V (SHE) [84] ........................................................................................................... (I) 4-37
Table 4-13 Chemical Composition of Weld Deposits Used in SCC Tests in Aggressive
BWR Environment [87] .............................................................................................. (I) 4-40
-7
Table 4-14 Test Data for Uncreviced SSRT at 550F at 2 x 10 /s, with 8 ppm Oxygen
[88] ............................................................................................................................ (I) 4-43

Table 4-15 Test Data for Creviced SSRT at 550F at 2 x 10-7/s, with 16 ppm Oxygen [88] (I) 4-44
Table 4-16 Results of Stress Corrosion Tests of Weldments in Aggressive BWR
Environment [89] ....................................................................................................... (I) 4-45
Table 4-17 Chemical Compositions of Base Materials Tested in BWR Environments [94] (I) 4-48
Table 4-18 Chemical Compositions of As-Deposited Weld Metals Tested in BWR
Environments [94] ..................................................................................................... (I) 4-48

lxxvi

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material

Table 4-19 Results of SSRT of Base Materials and Weldments Tested in BWR
Environments [94] ..................................................................................................... (I) 4-49
Table 4-20 Results of Sustained-Load Tests of Weldments Tested in BWR
Environments [94] ..................................................................................................... (I) 4-50
Table 4-21 Comparison of Crack Initiation in Alloy 600 and Alloy 182 Specimens with or
without Side Sheets and Filler Bodies (Crack Penetration Depths in Mils) [101] ........ (I) 4-53
Table 4-22 Crack Growth Rate Data for Alloys 600 and 690 for Resin Intrusion
Environment at 550F [91] ......................................................................................... (I) 4-56
Table 4-23 Crack Growth Rate Data Alloy 600, Alloy 690, and Weldments in Pure Water
and Resin Intrusion Environments [94] ...................................................................... (I) 4-59
Table 4-24 Susceptibility in SSRT and Crack Growth Rates for Alloys 600 and 690 and
Weld Metals fin Water with 7 ppm Oxygen and 1 ppm H2SO4 at 550F [93] ............... (I) 4-60
Table 4-25 Susceptibility in SSRT and Crack Growth Rates for Alloys 600, 690, 82 and
182 in Pure Water at 550F [93] ................................................................................ (I) 4-60
Table 4-26 Relative Upper Bound Crack Growth Rates for Various Alloys and BWR
Water Chemistries [109] ............................................................................................ (I) 4-63
Table 4-27 Stress Corrosion Threshold Values for Alloys 600, 182 and 82 in Different
Environments [109] ................................................................................................... (I) 4-64
Table 4-28 EDF Definition of Microstructure Classes and Sensitivity to PWSCC Ranking
[178] .......................................................................................................................... (I) 4-86
Table 4-29 Criteria Employed in Ranking the Ringhals Unit 2 Vessel Head Alloy 600
Penetrations [181] ..................................................................................................... (I) 4-87
Table 4-30 Results of Fatigue Crack Growth Rate Tests of Weld Metals in PWR Primary
Water [283].............................................................................................................. (I) 4-139
Table 1-1 Composition of 17-4 PH and 304 SS (wt %) ....................................................... (II) 1-1
Table 1-2 Typical Age Hardening Heat Treatments for 17-4 PH and Specified Minimum
Properties [2] .............................................................................................................. (II) 1-2
Table 1-3 Physical Properties of 17-4 PH [2, 8, 9] ............................................................. (II) 1-7
Table 1-4 Time to Failure (h) for U-Bends Exposed to 3.5% NaCl at pH = 2.0 ................... (II) 1-8
Table 1-5 Times at 600F (316C) to Indicated Loss of Initial Charpy V-notch Energy for
Chromium Equivalent of 16.9% ................................................................................ (II) 1-19
Table 1-6 Material Composition of Heats of 17-4 PH that Experienced Premature Failure(II) 1-26
Table 1-7 Results of Slow Strain Rate Tests of 17-4 PH (H1076) that had been Aged for
5000 Hours at 400C (752F) in Primary Water with 2 ppm Li and 1000 ppm B [30] (II) 1-28
Table 2-1 Composition of Alloys X-750 and 600 (wt %)...................................................... (II) 2-5
Table 2-2 Age Hardening Heat Treatments and Room Temperature Properties for Alloy
X-750 ......................................................................................................................... (II) 2-6
Table 2-3 ASTM/ASME Specification B/SB-637 and Code Case N-60-5 Room
Temperature Properties for Alloy X-750 ..................................................................... (II) 2-8
Table 2-4 ASME Code Case N-60-5 Designations for Alloy X-750 ..................................... (II) 2-9
Table 2-5 Physical Properties of Alloy X-750 [1]............................................................... (II) 2-10
Table 2-6 Suggested Stress/Strain Limits ........................................................................ (II) 2-15
Table 2-7 Results of CERT Experiments on Alloy X-750 at 550F [86]............................. (II) 2-28

lxxvii

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material

Table 2-8 Stress Corrosion Cracking Index Results of CERT Tests in Pressurized Water
[22] ........................................................................................................................... (II) 2-56
Table 2-9 Heat Treatment and Microstructural Features of Alloys Studied Using Creviced
Uniaxial Tensile Tests in 288C Water with 8 ppm Oxygen [40] ............................... (II) 2-69
Table 3-1 Composition of Alloys 718 and 600 (wt %) ......................................................... (II) 3-3
Table 3-2 Typical Age Hardening Heat Treatments and Room Temperature Properties
for Alloy 718 ............................................................................................................... (II) 3-4
Table 3-3 Physical Properties of Alloy 718 ......................................................................... (II) 3-8
Table 4-1 Composition of Alloy A-286 and Types 316 and 310 Stainless Steels (wt %) [1,
2, 3] ............................................................................................................................ (II) 4-2
Table 4-2 Typical Heat Treatments and Room Temperature Properties for Alloy A-286
[1, 2] ........................................................................................................................... (II) 4-3
Table 4-3 Typical Room Temperature Mechanical Properties for Alloy A-286 .................... (II) 4-5
Table 4-4 Typical Mechanical Properties at 600F (316C) for Alloy A-286 [2] ................... (II) 4-5
Table 4-5 Physical Properties of Alloy A-286 [1, 2] ............................................................. (II) 4-6
Table 4-6 Suggested Stress Limits for Alloy A-286 in Reactor Coolant Environments ........ (II) 4-9
Table 5-1 Composition of Types 304, 316, 316L, and 316Ti Stainless Steels (wt %) ......... (II) 5-3
Table 5-2 Composition of Alloy XM-19 and A Galling Resistant Stainless Steel (wt %) [7] . (II) 5-4
Table 5-3 Typical Specified Properties for High Strength Wrought Austenitic Stainless
Steels of 1 to 1 inch (25 to 32 mm) Diameter ........................................................... (II) 5-5
Table 5-4 Typical Room Temperature Mechanical Properties for High Strength Wrought
Austenitic Stainless Steels ......................................................................................... (II) 5-9
Table 5-5 Typical or Expected Mechanical Properties at 600F (316C) for High Strength
Wrought Austenitic Stainless Steels ......................................................................... (II) 5-11
Table 5-6 Physical Properties of Types 304, 316, and 316Ti, and Alloy XM-19 in
Annealed Form20 21, 24, 25, 26, 27] ....................................................................... (II) 5-12
Table 6-1 Compositions of Typical Wrought Martensitic Stainless Steels (wt %)* .............. (II) 6-2
Table 6-2 Compositions of Typical Cast Martensitic Stainless Steels (wt %)*..................... (II) 6-3
Table 6-3 Typical or Specified Mechanical Properties of Martensitic Stainless Steels ........ (II) 6-6
Table 6-4 Typical or Expected Mechanical Properties at 600F for Martensitic Stainless
Steels ......................................................................................................................... (II) 6-6
Table 6-5 Physical Properties of Martensitic Stainless Steels ............................................ (II) 6-7
Table 6-6 ASME Designations Used in this Chapter .......................................................... (II) 6-8
Table 6-7 Crack Growth Rate Constants for Type 403 in Various Environments,
inches/cycle (m/cycle)* [70] ...................................................................................... (II) 6-27
Table 6-8 Modes and Characteristics of Fatigue Crack Propagation in Type 403 SS in
(A)
Simulated Steam Cycle Environments [84] ............................................................ (II) 6-38
Table 6-9 Results of Corrosion Fatigue Screening Tests of Alternate Turbine Blade
Alloys [6]................................................................................................................... (II) 6-42
Table 6-10 Summary of Exposures and Stress Corrosion Cracking (SCC) Incidence in
Type 410 Stainless Steel C-Rings Exposed to Power Plant Waters with and without
Selected Contaminants (X = No Cracking) [99] ........................................................ (II) 6-52

lxxviii

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material

Table 6-11 Chemical Composition of Materials Shown on Figure 6-27 (Wt Pct) [111] ...... (II) 6-58
Table 6-12 Measured Hardness Values of Failed Parts ................................................... (II) 6-65
Table 6-13 Effects of Presence of Minor and Some Incidental Elements on Resistance to
Stress-Corrosion Cracking of a 13% Cr Steel* in an Industrial Atmosphere: Results
are Related to Performance of Similar Commercial Steel [119] ................................ (II) 6-69
Table 6-14 Effects of Presence of Minor and Some Incidental Elements on Resistance to
Stress-Corrosion Cracking of a 13% Cr Steel*; Notched Specimens were Stressed
While Immersed in 1% HCl at Room Temperature; Results are Related to
Performance of Similar Commercial Steels: Initial Stresses Calculated on Notch
Root Area [119] ........................................................................................................ (II) 6-70
Table 6-15 Stress-Corrosion Behaviour of USS 12Cr-Mo-V Stainless Steel in Various
Salt Solutions; Steel Tempered at 800F (427C), Yield Strength 207 ksi (1427
MPa) [119]................................................................................................................ (II) 6-71
Table 7-1 Composition of Typical High Strength Non-Stainless Fastener Steels (wt%) ...... (II) 7-3
Table 7-2 Typical Specified Properties for High Strength Non-Stainless Fastener Steels
[4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9] ........................................................................................................... (II) 7-4
Table 7-3 Typical Room Temperature Mechanical Properties for High Strength NonStainless Fastener Steels ........................................................................................... (II) 7-7
Table 7-4 Typical Mechanical Properties at 600F (316C) for High Strength NonStainless Fastener Steels ........................................................................................... (II) 7-9
Table 7-5 Physical Properties of Typical High Strength Non-Stainless Fastener Steels [9,
16, 17, 18] ................................................................................................................ (II) 7-10
Table 7-6 Corrosion of Low Alloy Steel Studs with Borated Steam Impingement [10] ...... (II) 7-25
Table 8-1 Compositions of Silicon Bronze Bolting Alloys (wt%) [5] ..................................... (II) 8-2
Table 8-2 Typical or Specified Mechanical Properties of Silicon Bronze Bolting Alloys ...... (II) 8-3
Table 8-3 Physical Properties of Silicon Bronze Bolting Alloys ........................................... (II) 8-4
Table 1-1 Nominal Compositions of Typical Copper Alloy Tubing Alloys (wt %) [1, 2] ....... (III) 1-2
Table 1-2 Typical Room Temperature Mechanical Properties of Copper Alloy Tubing [1,
7, 8] ........................................................................................................................... (III) 1-3
Table 1-3 Specified Minimum Mechanical Properties of Seamless Copper Alloy Tubing
[15] ............................................................................................................................ (III) 1-6
Table 1-4 Specified Mechanical Properties of Welded Copper Alloy Tubing ..................... (III) 1-7
Table 1-5 Maximum Metal Temperature for Tube Materials [17] ....................................... (III) 1-8
Table 1-6 Typical Mechanical Properties at Elevated Temperatures for Copper Alloy
Tubing ....................................................................................................................... (III) 1-8
Table 1-7 Physical Properties of Copper Alloy Tubing [1, 8, 18] ........................................ (III) 1-9
Table 1-8 Corrosion Mechanisms that have been a Problem in Power Plant Condensers
When Certain Environmental and Metallurgical Conditions were met [34] ............... (III) 1-14
Table 1-9 Tube Materials and their Typical Corrosion Resistance [44] ............................ (III) 1-18
Table 1-10 Corrosion Mechanisms that have been a Problem in Power Plant Feedwater
Heaters When Certain Environmental and Metallurgical Conditions were Met [34] .. (III) 1-21
Table 1-11 Corrosion of 70-30 Cupro-Nickel by High Purity Water [78] ........................... (III) 1-26

lxxix

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material

Table 1-12 Corrosion Product Release Rates for Alloys Exposed to High Purity Water
[82] .......................................................................................................................... (III) 1-30
Table 1-13 Maximum Service Velocity [87] ..................................................................... (III) 1-33
Table 1-14 Critical Shear Stress for Copper-base Alloys in Seawater [85] ...................... (III) 1-36
Table 1-15 Ammonia Fog Test* [91]................................................................................ (III) 1-37
Table 1-16 Relative Biofouling Resistances of Heat Exchanger Tube Materials (Based
on [95]) .................................................................................................................... (III) 1-42
Table 1-17 Ranking of Copper Base Alloys According to their Resistance to SCC in
Concentrated Ammonia Environment [24] ............................................................... (III) 1-43
Table 1-18 Stress Corrosion in Ammonical Environment (Based on [36]) ....................... (III) 1-43
Table 1-19 Results of SCC Tests Performed on Cu-Ni Alloys in Degassed and O2
Bearing Steam [82].................................................................................................. (III) 1-44
Table 1-20 Threshold Stresses for Copper Alloys in Various Environments [98] ............. (III) 1-45
Table 1-21 Summary of Long-Term Isothermal Corrosion Test Results* [101] ................ (III) 1-49
Table 1-22 Under-Deposit Pitting Depths for Various Alloys in Heat Transfer Tests* [101](III) 1-49
Table 2-1 Typical Commercially Pure Titanium Tubing Alloys and Their Applications ..... (III) 2-5
Table 2-2 Nominal Compositions of Typical Titanium Alloy Tubing (wt%) [4] .................... (III) 2-6
Table 2-3 Pure Titanium Corrosion Rates in Various Solutions [12] .................................. (III) 2-6
Table 2-4 Typical Room Temperature Minimum Mechanical Properties of Annealed
Titanium Alloy Tubing [12] ....................................................................................... (III) 2-13
Table 2-5 Typical Room Temperature Properties of Titanium Alloys [12] ......................... (III) 2-13
Table 2-6 Typical Mechanical Properties of Pure Titanium Grade 2 at Elevated
Temperatures (Figure 8 of [12]) .............................................................................. (III) 2-14
Table 2-7 Comparative Nominal Mechanical and Physical Properties of Condenser Tube
Materials [1]............................................................................................................. (III) 2-14
Table 2-8 Galvanic Series in Flowing Water (13 ft/s/4m/s at 75F/24C) [1] .................... (III) 2-18
Table 2-9 Corrosion Experienced by Heat Exchanger Materials General Performance
[23] .......................................................................................................................... (III) 2-19
Table 2-10 Results of General Corrosion Tests in Stagnant and Flowing Synthetic
Seawater (3% NaCl in river water) [54] ................................................................... (III) 2-25
Table 2-11 Results of Impingement Erosion-Corrosion Tests in Synthetic Seawater (3%
NaCl in River Water) [54]......................................................................................... (III) 2-26
Table 2-12 Critical Pitting and Crevice Corrosion Temperatures for Titanium Alloys in
Concentrated Seawater [24] .................................................................................... (III) 2-27
Table 2-13 Typical Fatigue Properties of CP Titanium and Two Stainless Steels [24] ..... (III) 2-27
Table 3-1 Nominal Compositions of Typical Stainless Steel Tubing Alloys (wt %) (the
Balance is Fe) [1, 2, 3, 4]........................................................................................... (III) 3-3
Table 3-2 Typical Room Temperature Mechanical Properties for Standard Austenitic
Stainless Steels [5] .................................................................................................... (III) 3-4
Table 3-3 Typical Room Temperature Mechanical Properties for Ferritic Stainless Steels
[5, 7, 8] ...................................................................................................................... (III) 3-4

lxxx

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material

Table 3-4 Typical Room Temperature Mechanical Properties for Specialty Austenitic
Stainless Steels [2] .................................................................................................... (III) 3-4
Table 3-5 Typical Room Temperature Mechanical Properties for High Chromium
Stainless Steels [2, 3, 5] ........................................................................................... (III) 3-5
Table 3-6 Relationship Between Structure, Typical Composition, Hardenability and
Magnetism of Stainless Steels................................................................................... (III) 3-5
Table 3-7 Stainless Steel Tube Specifications................................................................... (III) 3-7
Table 3-8 Galvanic Series in Flowing Water (13 ft/s/4 m/s at 75F/24C) .......................... (III) 3-8
Table 3-9 Typical Mechanical Properties of Stainless Steels at Elevated Temperatures
[16, 17] ...................................................................................................................... (III) 3-9
Table 3-10 Physical Properties of Stainless Steels [1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 18, 19, 20] ................... (III) 3-10
Table 3-11 Corrosion Experienced by Heat Exchanger Materials in Condensers ............ (III) 3-19
Table 3-12 Relative Resistance of Various Materials to Steam Impingement [30] ........... (III) 3-32
Table 3-13 Pitting Resistance Equivalent (PRE) Values of Several Stainless Steels ....... (III) 3-35
Table 3-14 30-Day Crevice Corrosion Tests (ASTM G-48) on Type 439 [72] .................. (III) 3-38
Table 3-15 Chloride Stress Corrosion Cracking Resistance Laboratory Test Data on Ubend Samples [71, 87]............................................................................................. (III) 3-44
Table 3-16 Summary of Results from SSRT in Oxygenated Water with 1000 ppm Cl- at
410F (210C) [49] .................................................................................................. (III) 3-44
Table 4-1 Nominal Compositions of Typical Nickel Alloy Tubing (wt %) [1, 2, 3, 4]............ (III) 4-2
Table 4-2 Typical Room Temperature Mechanical Properties for Standard Nickel Alloy
Tubing [1, 2, 3, 4] ..................................................................................................... (III) 4-2
Table 4-3 Nickel Alloy Tubing Specifications ..................................................................... (III) 4-3
Table 4-4 Typical Mechanical Properties of Nickel Alloys at Elevated Temperatures ........ (III) 4-5
Table 4-5 Physical Properties of Stainless Steels [1, 2, 3, 4] ............................................. (III) 4-5
Table 4-6 Results of Analysis of Inclusions Found in the Pickering A and B Tubes (wt
%) [27] ..................................................................................................................... (III) 4-15
Table 4-7 Major Pickering NGS Heat Exchangers Which Failed in Freshwater Service
[29] .......................................................................................................................... (III) 4-16
Table 4-8 Corrosion of Alloy 600 by High Purity Water [34] ............................................. (III) 4-18
Table 4-9 Corrosion of Alloy 400 by High Purity Water [34] ............................................. (III) 4-18
Table 4-10 Corrosion Product Release Rate [23] ............................................................ (III) 4-18
Table 4-11 Ammonia Fog Test* [35]................................................................................ (III) 4-19
Table 4-12 Summary of Long-Term Isothermal Corrosion Test Results* [37] .................. (III) 4-21
Table 4-13 Pitting Data Derived from Immersion Tests [6] .............................................. (III) 4-22
Table 5-1 Specified Compositions of Typical Carbon and Low Alloy Steel Tubing (wt %) . (III) 5-2
Table 5-2 Specified Room Temperature Mechanical Properties for Typical Carbon and
Low Alloy Steel Tubing .............................................................................................. (III) 5-3
Table 5-3 Carbon and Low Alloy Steel Tube Specifications .............................................. (III) 5-4
Table 5-4 Physical Properties of Carbon and Low Alloy Steel Tubing ............................... (III) 5-6
Table 5-5 Erosion-Corrosion Loss vs. pH at 210F (99C) in Deaerated Water ............... (III) 5-20

lxxxi

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material

Table 5-6 Mean Metal-to-System Release Behavior of Carbon Steel in Neutral pH


Feedwater Flowing at 6.6 fps (2 mps) [51] ............................................................... (III) 5-23
Table 1-1 Example Materials Used for Pump Shafts, Sleeves and Couplings ................... (IV) 1-2
Table 1-2 Example Materials Used for Pump Impellers ..................................................... (IV) 1-4
Table 1-3 Example Materials for Pump Diffusers and Splitters .......................................... (IV) 1-5
Table 1-4 Example Materials for Pump Water Lubricated Bearings................................... (IV) 1-5
Table 1-5 Example Materials for Pump Wear Rings .......................................................... (IV) 1-6
Table 1-6 Example Materials for Pump Mechanical Seals ................................................. (IV) 1-7
Table 1-7 Example Materials for Internal Bolting in Pumps ............................................... (IV) 1-8
Table 1-8 Example Materials for Valve Shafts and Stems ............................................... (IV) 1-10
Table 1-9 Example Materials for Valve Discs, Plugs and Cages ..................................... (IV) 1-12
Table 1-10 Example Materials for Valve Seats and Other Wearing Surfaces .................. (IV) 1-13
Table 1-11 Example Materials for Valve Internal Screws, Bolting, Pins, Keys, and
Adjusting Rings ....................................................................................................... (IV) 1-14
Table 1-12 Example Materials for Check Valve Disc Hinge Pins and Bushings .............. (IV) 1-15
Table 1-13 Example Materials for Valve Pressure Seals ................................................. (IV) 1-16
Table 1-14 Example Materials for Valve Internal Springs ................................................ (IV) 1-16
6
8
Table 1-15 Fatigue Strength in Room Temperature Air Environments for 10 and 10
Cycles (Alternating Stress, in ksi) ............................................................................ (IV) 1-20

Table 1-16 Chart of Wear and Galling Resistance of Material Combinations [41, 42] ...... (IV) 1-22
Table 1-17 Wear Tests Results Cobalt Base, Nickel; Base and Iron Base Results [43] (IV) 1-23
Table 1-18 Cavitation Erosion Test Results [47].............................................................. (IV) 1-25
Table 1-19 Cavitation Test Results [50] .......................................................................... (IV) 1-26

lxxxii

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material

SECTION I BASE MATERIALS FOR PIPING AND


PRESSURE VESSEL PRESSURE BOUNDARIES

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material

CARBON AND LOW ALLOY STEELS FOR PRESSURE


VESSELS

1 General Description
This chapter covers carbon and low alloy steels that are used for pressure vessels in nuclear
power plants. These steels have been widely used for the main vessels of nuclear power plants,
such as reactor vessels, pressurizers, and steam generators. The reasons for use of carbon and
low alloy steels for these pressure vessels are their combination of relatively low cost, good
mechanical properties in thick sections, good weldability, and high resistance to SCC. With
regard to reactor vessels, the grades of low alloy steels that are used also have acceptably low
rates of embrittlement when subjected to neutron flux for long periods of time. In many reactor
coolant applications, the pressure vessel steels have been clad on the inside wetted surface with
corrosion resistant materials such as austenitic stainless steels or nickel alloys of the Alloy 600
type.
Experience with carbon and low alloy steels in nuclear power plant pressure vessel service has
generally been good, with relatively few service induced problems. In summary, experience has
been as follows:

Reactor vessel core belt line region: Steels in the core beltline region are subject to
embrittlement due to neutron irradiation. Embrittlement of the base materials of western
design LWRs has generally not been a serious problem. However, some welds in early
generation PWRs have been found to be especially sensitive to embrittlement, and have
required significant programs to address the resulting embrittlement concerns. A small
lead plant, Yankee Rowe, was shut down because of issues related to reactor vessel
embrittlement, but this is judged unlikely to occur at any of the currently operating plants.

A significant number of flaw indications have been detected in reactor vessels by ultrasonic
test (UT) performed for baseline or inservice inspections. Most of these flaws have been
associated with welding or cladding, although a few have been due to laminations or
inclusions in the steel plates or forgings. The base material flaws have rarely if ever required
repair. However, some of the weld and clad related flaws have led to repairs being made,
especially when the flaws were detected before operation. There appear to be no reported
cases of service induced growth of flaws present in the base plates or forgings, or of service
induced growth of weld flaws that were present since initial construction.

The most significant service induced flaws have been cracks at nozzles associated with
mixing of lower temperature water with hot water. For example, thermal fatigue cracks
developed in BWR reactor vessel feedwater nozzles and control rod drive return line nozzles.
Significant inspections and repairs were required in the late 1970s and early 1980s to address
this problem. The design and procedure changes made at that time seem to have been
effective since there have been no further reported occurrences.
(I) 1-1

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Carbon and Low Alloy Steels for Pressure Vessels

There have been a few cases of crack initiation and growth in PWR steam generator shells at
transition cone girth welds. These cracks appear to have been initiated as a result of weld
damage, thermal stress cycles, and the occasional presence of oxidizing conditions. No new
cases of this type of cracking have been reported since about 1991, and it appears that current
water chemistry controls minimize the likelihood of serious cracking of this type in the
future.

Significant numbers of cracks have developed in the cladding of BWR reactor vessel heads.
In some cases, the cracks have penetrated short distances into the alloy steel base material.
This cracking has required significant inspection and analysis to demonstrate the continued
safe condition of the affected parts. In a few cases it has been concluded that the cladding
cracks may have penetrated into the base material as the result of service, but it appears more
likely that such penetration occurred during fabrication.

Most of the carbon and low alloy steel pressure vessel material used in power plants is in the
wrought or forged form, although cast material is occasionally used. The materials used are
covered by applicable ASME/ASTM specifications. The specified compositions of the carbon
and low alloy steels most commonly used for U.S. nuclear plant pressure vessels are shown in
Table 1-1. Specified mechanical properties are shown in Table 1-2.

2 Applications
Typical nuclear power plant applications of carbon and low alloy steel pressure vessel steels
include:

Reactor vessel plates, e.g., low alloy steel to SA 533 Type B Class 1, with internal cladding
except in some BWR applications

Reactor vessel forgings, e.g., low alloy steel to SA 508 Grade 2, Class 1 (formerly Class 2) or
Grade 3 Class 1 (formerly Class 3), with internal cladding except in some BWR applications

Steam generator shell plates, e.g., low alloy steel to SA 533 Type A, Class 1 or Class 2

Steam generator tube sheets (e.g., low alloy steel to SA 508 Grade 2 Class 1 (formerly Class
2), or SA 508 Grade 2 Class 2 (formerly Class 2a), with cladding on primary face

Steam generator channel heads, e.g., carbon steel to SA 216 Grade WCC, with internal
cladding

Pressurizer shell, e.g., carbon steel to SA 516 Grade 70, or low alloy steel to SA 533 Type B
Class 1, with internal cladding

Auxiliary vessel shells and heads, e.g., carbon steel to SA 537 Class 1

Auxiliary vessel flanges and nozzles, e.g., carbon steel to SA 350 Grade LF2 or low alloy
steel to SA 350 Grade LF3

(I) 1-2

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Carbon and Low Alloy Steels for Pressure Vessels
Table 1-1
Specified Compositions of Typical Carbon and Low Alloy Steels Used for Pressure
Vessels (wt %)
ASME/ASTM Spec.
Grade, UNS No.,Type
SA/A 105 [1]
K03504
CS Forgings
SA/A 216 [2]
Gr. WCC, J02503
CS Castings
SA/A 302 [3]
Gr. B, > 2, K12022
Pr. Vessel Plates, Mg-Mo
SA/A 350 [4]
Gr. LF2, K3011
CS & LAS Forgings
SA/A 350 [4]
Gr. LF3, K32025
CS & LAS Forgings
SA/A 508 [5]
(6)
Gr. 2-Cl. 1 & 2, K12766
CS & LAS Forgings
SA/A 508 [5]
(8)
Gr. 3-Cl. 1, K12042
CS & LAS Forgings
SA/A 516 [6]
Gr. 70, K02700
CS Plates
SA/A 533 [7]
Type A, Cl. 1 & 2, K12521
Pr. Vessel Plates
SA/A 533 [7]
Type B, Cl. 1, K12539
Pr. Vessel Plates
SA/A 537 [8]
Cl. 1, K12437
Pr. Vessel Plates

Mn

0.35
max

0.60
1.05

0.035
max

0.040
max

0.25
1.20
(2)
(2)
max
max

0.04
max

0.25
max

1.15
1.50

0.30
max

Cr

Mo

Nb

0.40
0.10 0.40
(1)
(1)
max
0.35 max

0.30
(1)
max

0.12
(1)
max

0.08
max

0.045
max

0.60
max

0.50
(3)
max

0.20
(3)
max

0.03
(3)
max

0.035
max

0.035
max

0.15
0.40

0.45
0.60

0.60
1.35

0.035
max

0.040
max

0.40
0.15 0.40
(4)
(1)
(1)
max
max
0.30

0.30
(1)
max

0.12
(1)
max

0.08
max

0.02
max

0.20
max

0.90
max

0.035
max

0.040
max

0.20 0.40
(5)
0.35 max

3.3
3.7

0.30
(5)
max

0.12
(5)
max

0.03
max

0.02
max

0.27
max

0.50
1.00

0.025
max

0.025
max

0.40
(7)
max

0.20
max

0.50
1.00

0.25
0.45

0.55
0.70

0.05
max

0.01
max

0.25
max

1.20
1.50

0.025
max

0.025
max

0.40
(7)
max

0.20
max

0.40
1.00

0.25
max

0.45
0.60

0.05
max

0.01
max

(9) (10)

0.85
1.20

0.035
max

0.035
max

0.15
0.40

0.25
max

1.15 0.035 0.035


(11)
(12)
(12)
max
max
1.50

0.15
0.40

(12)

0.45
0.60

(12)

0.25
max

1.15
1.50

0.035 0.035
(12)
(12)
max
max

0.15
0.40

(12)

0.40
0.70

0.45
0.60

(12)

0.24
max

(13) (14)

0.035
max

0.15
0.50

0.35
max

0.25
(14)
max

0.25
max

0.08
max

0.035
max

Si

Cu

Ni

0.30
0.50
(3)
(3)
max
max

1 inch = 25.4 mm
(1) The sum of Cu, Ni, Cr, and Mo shall not exceed 1.00%, and the sum of Cr and Mo shall not exceed 0.32%.
(2) For each reduction of 0.01% below the specified maximum carbon content, an increase of 0.04% manganese above the specified maximum
will be permitted to a maximum of 1.40%.
(3) The sum of these five elements shall not exceed 1.00%.
(4) When vacuum carbon-deoxidation is required, the maximum silicon content shall not exceed 0.12%.
(5) The sum of Cr and Mo shall not exceed 0.32%.
(6) Gr. 2, Class 1 was formerly known as Class 2.
(7) When required by the purchaser, a minimum silicon content of 0.15% shall apply.
(8) Gr. 3, Class 1 was formerly known as Class 3.
(9) Carbon max. varies with thickness: 0.5: 0.27% max, 0.52: 0.28% max, 2 4: 0.30% max, 4: 0.31% max.
(10) For each reduction of 0.01% below the specified maximum carbon content, an increase of 0.06% manganese above the specified maximum
will be permitted to a maximum of 1.50%.
(11) The maximum manganese content may be increased to 1.60% on heat analysis when Class 2 or 3 properties are specified and when
Supplementary Requirement S3 is specified with a total holding time of more than 1 h/in. (2.4 min/mm) of thickness.
(12) SA 533 suggests, for reactor core belt line applications, the following limits: Cu 0.10%, P 0.012%, S 0.015%, and V 0.05%.
(13) Manganese limits vary with thickness: 1.5: 0.70%1.35%, > 1.5: 1.00%1.60%.
(14) For thickness 1.5, manganese may exceed 1.35% up to 1.60% max, and nickel may exceed 0.25% up to 0.50% max, as long as CE is
0.57% with CE given by:

CE = C +

Mn Cr + Mo + V Ni + Cu
+
+
6
5
15

(I) 1-3

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Carbon and Low Alloy Steels for Pressure Vessels
Table 1-2
Specified Room Temperature Mechanical Properties for Typical Carbon and Low Alloy
Steels Used for Pressure Vessels
Min.
Tensile
Strength
ksi (MPa)

Min.
Yield
Strength
ksi (MPa)

70
(485)

36
(250)

22

(1)

30

187 HB

SA/A 216 [2]


Gr. WCC, J02503
CS Castings

7095
(485655)
minmax

40
(275)

22

(1)

35

SA/A 302 [3]


Gr. B, K12022
Pr. Vessel Plates, Mg-Mo

80100
(550690)
minmax

50
(345)

18

(1)

SA/A 350 [4]


Gr. LF2, K03011
CS & LAS Forgings

7095
(485655)
minmax

36
(250)

22

(1)

30

197 HB

15 (20)
at
-50F (-46C)

SA/A 350 [4]


Gr. LF3, K32025
CS & LAS Forgings

7095
(485655)
minmax

37.5
(260)

22

(1)

35

197 HB

15 (20)
at
-150F (-101C)

Cl1: 80105
(550725)
Cl2: 90115
(620795)
minmax

Cl1: 50
(345)
Cl2: 65
(450)

Cl1: 18
Cl2: 16

Cl1: 38
Cl2: 35

Cl1: 25 (34) at
40F (4.4C)
Cl2: 30 (41) at
70F (21C)
min max

SA/A 508 [5]


Gr. 3-Cl. 1, K12042
CS & LAS Forgings

80105
(550725)
minmax

50
(345)

18

38

25 (34)
at
40F (4.4C)

SA/A 516 [6]


Gr. 70, K02700
CS Plates

7090
(485620)
minmax

38
(260)

Cl1: 80100
(550690)
Cl2: 90115
(620795)
minmax

Cl1: 50
(345)
Cl2: 70
(485)

Cl1: 18
Cl2: 16

80100
(550690)
minmax

50
(345)

18

(3)

(4)

ASME/ASTM Spec.
Grade, UNS No. Type
SA/A 105 [1]
K03504
CS Forgings

SA/A 508 [5]


Gr. 2-Cl. 1 & 2, K12766
CS & LAS Forgings

SA/A 533 [7]


Type A, Cl. 1 or 2, K12521
Pr. Vessel Plates

SA/A 533 [7]


Type B, Cl.1, K12539
Pr. Vessel Plates
SA/A 537 [8]
Cl. 1, K12437
Pr. Vessel Plates
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)

(I) 1-4

Min.
Elong. in
2 (50 mm)
(%)

21

22

(1)

(5)

Reduction
in Area (%)

Ave. Min.
Charpy
V-Notch
ft-lb (J)

Max
Hardness

(2)

(2)

The referenced ASTM/ASME specification provides alternative rules for elongation that may be used.
This requirement is for a 10 by 10 mm (0.4 by 0.4) specimen. The referenced ASTM/ASME specification provides
requirements for other sizes.
7090 ksi (485620 MPa) for thickness 2.5 (65 mm), 6585 ksi (450585 MPa) for thickness > 2.5 (65 mm) and
4 (100 mm).
50 ksi (345 MPa) for thickness 2.5 (65 mm), 45 ksi (310 MPa) for thickness > 2.5 (65 mm) and 4 (100 mm).
This requirement is for a 4 (100-mm) sized specimen.

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Carbon and Low Alloy Steels for Pressure Vessels

3 Typical Product Forms and Specifications


Pressure vessel shells have often been fabricated using plates rolled to the correct curvature and
then welded. Flanges and nozzles typically are seamless forgings. The trend has been to
eliminate as many welds as possible by use of ring forgings for vessel shells and by use of
integrally forged nozzles. Cast material is also used, e.g., for channel heads. These materials are
generally supplied in accordance with the specifications listed in Table 1-3.
Table 1-3
Carbon and Low Alloy Steel Specifications for Pressure Vessels
Specification
ASTM
ASME

Description

A 105

SA 105

Carbon Steel Forgings for Piping Applications

A 216

SA 216

Steel Castings, Carbon, Suitable for Fusion Welding for HighTemperature Service

A 302

SA 302

Pressure Vessel Plates, Alloy Steel, Manganese-Molybdenum


and Manganese-Molybdenum-Nickel

A 350

SA 350

Forgings, Carbon and Low-Alloy Steel, Requiring Notch


Toughness Testing for Piping Components

A 508

SA 508

Quenched and Tempered Vacuum-Treated Carbon and Alloy


Steel Forgings for Pressure Vessels

A 516

SA 516

Pressure Vessel Plates, Carbon Steel, for Moderate- and LowerTemperature Service

A 533

SA 533

Pressure Vessel Plates, Alloy Steel, Quenched and Tempered,


Manganese-Molybdenum and Manganese-Molybdenum-Nickel

A 537

SA 537

Pressure Vessel Plates, Heat-Treated, Carbon-ManganeseSilicon Steel

4 Main Limitations
The main limitations with regard to use of carbon and low alloy steel pressure vessel materials
are as follows:

Radiation induced embrittlement of core beltline materials has been found to be sensitive to
the chemistry of the materials. This applies to both base materials and welds. Accordingly, it
is important to control the amounts of deleterious materials, especially copper, phosphorous
and nickel, in both the base materials and weld materials. The following guidance in NRC
Regulatory Guide 1.99, Revision 2, is applicable: For beltline materials in the reactor vessel
for a new plant, the content of residual elements such as copper, phosphorous, sulfur, and
vanadium should be controlled to low levels. (For more information, see the Appendix to
ASTM Standard Specification A 533.) The copper content should be such that the calculated
adjusted reference temperature at the 1/4T position in the vessel wall at the end of life is less
than 200F (93C). In selecting the optimum amount of nickel to be used, its deleterious
effect on radiation embrittlement should be balanced against its beneficial metallurgical
effects and its tendency to lower the initial RTNDT.
(I) 1-5

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Carbon and Low Alloy Steels for Pressure Vessels

Radiographic test (RT) is typically required by the ASME Code for acceptance of welds.
However, inservice inspections typically are performed using ultrasonic test (UT). It has been
found that UT detects some flaws that are not detected by RT, and this has led to the need to
evaluate many flaws detected by inservice UT, and sometimes to the need to repair vessels
after installation and service. To avoid this type of problem, it is suggested that welds that
will be UT inspected during inservice inspections be inspected during fabrication using
similar UT methods and acceptance standards as will be used for inservice inspections.

Significant numbers of alloy steel parts that were clad with stainless steel or nickel chromium
iron weld deposits experienced underclad cracking during original construction. The
underclad cracking developed as the result of two different mechanisms. The first mechanism
involved reheat cracking, and the second involved cold (hydrogen) cracking. These
experiences, and ways to prevent them, are covered in Section 9. In summary, preventive
measures include: (1) use of a grade of steel that is resistant to reheat cracking, such as SA
508 Grade 3 Class 1, vs. the more susceptible grade, SA 508 Grade 2 Class 1, (2) use of a
low heat input cladding process, and (3) use of relatively high preheat and post heat
temperatures and soak times for each weld pass (not just the first pass).

Austenitic stainless steel cladding is subject to sensitization during vessel heat treatment and
to IGSCC in service in BWRs. If IGSCC causes cracks do develop in the cladding, they can
penetrate into the base material, i.e., into the carbon or alloy steel plate or forging. This
experience and ways to prevent such cracking are covered in Section 9. In summary,
prevention of this problem involves use of cladding materials that are resistant to
sensitization, such as a low carbon grade, and that are resistant to IGSCC, e.g., have
sufficiently high ferrite content to impart resistance.

5 Material Properties
5.1 Room Temperature Mechanical Properties
Specified room temperature mechanical properties of common grades of carbon and low alloy
pressure vessel steels are shown in Table 1-2.
5.2 Elevated Temperature Mechanical Properties
Mechanical properties at elevated temperatures for typical carbon and low alloy steels used for
pressure vessels are given in the ASME Code data shown in Section 7. The ASME Code data
indicate that the materials do not decrease in tensile strength at temperatures up to 650F
(343C), but that they do show significant drops in yield strength, as shown in Figure 1-1 for
several of the steels.

(I) 1-6

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Carbon and Low Alloy Steels for Pressure Vessels
Temperature (C)
38

93

149

204

260

316

371

90

621

80

552

70

483

60

414

50

345

40

276

30

207

20

Strength (MPa)

Strength (ksi)

-18

138

10

SA 516-70 Yield

SA 516-70 Tensile

SA 537-1 Yield

SA 537-1 Tensile

SA 533-B-1 Yield

SA 533-B-1 Tensile

69

0
0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

Temperature (F)

Figure 1-1
ASME Code Data for Tensile and Yield Strength vs. Temperature for Several Carbon and
Low Alloy Steels

5.3 Physical Properties


Typical physical properties of some common carbon and low alloy steel piping materials are
listed in Table 1-4.

(I) 1-7

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Carbon and Low Alloy Steels for Pressure Vessels
Table 1-4
Physical Properties of Carbon and Low Alloy Steel Pressure Vessel Materials

Parameter

Density
[9]

Melting
Range
[10]

Mod. of
Elasticity
Relative
Poissons
Specific
6
x 10 at
Magnetic
Ratio
Heat
Perm.
70F
[9]
[13]
[12]
(25C)
[11]

Mean Coef. Thermal


of Th. Exp., Cond. at
70600F
70 F
(20350C)
(20C)
[14]
[15]
-6

Thermal Electrical
Cond. at Resistivity
600F
at 212F
(350C)
(100C)
[15]
[16]

lb/in.
3
(kg/m )

F
(C)

psi
(MPa)

Btu/lb-F
(J/kg-C)

x 10 /F
-6
(x 10 /C)

CS with
C ~ 0.2 0.30%
(SA 105,
SA 516-70,
SA 216-WCC,
SA 350-LF2,
SA 537-1)

0.280
(7750)

23702550
(13001400)

29.4
(0.202)

0.30

Ferromagnetic
(10200)

0.103
(431)

7.4
(13.6)

34.9
(60.4)

28.0
(51.4)

21.9
(8.62)

CS with
C ~ 0.3 0.35%
(SA 105)

0.280
(7750)

23702550
(13001400)

29.2
(0.201)

0.30

Ferromagnetic
(10200)

0.103
(431)

7.4
(13.6)

34.9
(60.4)

28.0
(51.4)

21.9
(8.62)

LAS with
1.0%Mn, 0.5%Mo
(SA 508-2-1&2,
SA 350-LF3)

0.280
(7750)

23702550
(13001400)

27.8
(0.191)

0.30

Ferromagnetic
(10200)

0.107
(446)

7.4
(13.6)

23.7
(41.0)

22.2
(39.5)

30.0
(1)
(11.8)

LAS with
Ni ~ 0.75 3.5%
(SA 533-A-1&2,
SA 533-B-1,
SA 302-B)

0.280
(7750)

23702550
(13001400)

29.0
(0.200)

0.30

Ferromagnetic
(10200)

0.107
(446)

7.8
(14.2)

23.7
(41.0)

22.2
(39.5)

30.0
(1)
(11.8)

Units

(1)

Btu/ft-h-F Btu/ft-h-F ohm-cm


(W/m-C) (W/m-C) ( ohm-in.)

Resistivity was measured at 50C (120F).

6 Welding and Heat Treatment


The carbon and low alloy pressure vessel steels covered in this chapter are readily weldable.
Standard procedures for carbon and low alloy steels can be used. ASME Code requirements need
to be observed with regard to preheat temperatures and post weld heat treatment. For many
applications, ASME Code fracture toughness requirements need to be met by both base materials
and weldments.
If weld repairs to vessel materials should become necessary, it is suggested that the following
reports be consulted, as appropriate:

The Weld Metal Metallurgical Handbook [17]

Welding Repair Technology Center: Welding Irradiated Material Technical Update [18]

Temperbead Welding Repair of Low Alloy Pressure Vessel Steels: Guidelines [19]

Repair Technology for Degraded Pressure Vessel and Heat Exchanger Shells: RRAC Task
91 [20]

Materials Handbook for Nuclear Repair Applications [21]

Repair and Replacement Applications Center: Temperbead Welding Applications [22]

RRAC Code Justification for the Removal of the 100 Square Inch Temper Bead Weld Repair
Limitation [23]

(I) 1-8

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Carbon and Low Alloy Steels for Pressure Vessels

The use of temperbead welding and weld overlay techniques to repair pressure vessels is covered
by some ASME Code Cases:

Case N-638-5, Similar and Dissimilar Metal Welding Using Ambient Temperature Machine
GTAW Temper Bead Technique, Section XI, Division 1

Case N-740-2, Full Structural Dissimilar Metal Weld Overlay for Repair or Mitigation of
Class 1, 2, and 3 Items, Section XI, Division 1

Case N-762, Temper Bead Procedure Qualification Requirements for Repair/Replacement


Activities Without Postweld Heat Treatment, Section XI, Division 1

7 Application Specific Comments


7.1 ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code Applications
Section II of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code (hereafter referred to as the ASME
Code) contains some useful material property data for parts within the jurisdiction of the ASME
Code. Some of the material property data in the ASME Code are also useful for design and
analysis of non-ASME Code parts and are reproduced below for reference purposes. Note that
the ASME Code is revised frequently and the data shown below are not necessarily those from
the applicable edition of the ASME Code for a given plant. Accordingly, it is suggested that data
taken directly from the ASME Code (and not from this handbook) be used when performing
designs or analyses of ASME Code items.

(I) 1-9

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Carbon and Low Alloy Steels for Pressure Vessels

Table U, Tensile Strength Values Su, for Ferrous and Nonferrous Materials, contains the
following information for the carbon and low alloy pressure vessel steel materials covered in
this chapter [24, 25].

Parameter

Tensile
Min.
Strength
Tensile
Value,
Strength, -20 to 100F
ksi
(-30 to 40C)
(MPa)
ksi
(MPa)

Tensile
Strength
Value,
200F
(100C)
ksi
(MPa)

Tensile
Strength
Value,
300F
(150C)
ksi
(MPa)

Tensile
Strength
Value,
400F
(200C)
ksi
(MPa)

Tensile
Strength
Value,
500F
(250C)
ksi
(MPa)

Tensile
Strength
Value,
600F
(300C)
ksi
(MPa)

Tensile
Strength
Value,
650F
(325C)
ksi
(MPa)

SA/A 105
CS Forgings

70
(485)

70.0
(483)

70.0
(483)

70.0
(483)

70.0
(483)

70.0
(483)

70.0
(483)

70.0
(483)

SA/A 216-WCC
CS Castings

70
(485)

70.0
(483)

70.0
(483)

70.0
(483)

70.0
(483)

70.0
(483)

70.0
(483)

70.0
(483)

SA/A 302-B
LAS Plate

80
(550)

80.0
(552)

80.0
(552)

80.0
(552)

80.0
(552)

80.0
(552)

80.0
(552)

80.0
(552)

SA/A 350-LF2
CS Forgings

70
(485)

70.0
(483)

70.0
(483)

70.0
(483)

70.0
(483)

70.0
(483)

70.0
(483)

70.0
(483)

SA/A 350-LF3
LAS Forgings

70
(485)

70.0
(483)

70.0
(483)

70.0
(483)

70.0
(483)

70.0
(483)

70.0
(483)

70.0
(483)

SA/A 508-2-1,
LAS Forgings

80
(550)

80.0
(552)

80.0
(552)

80.0
(552)

80.0
(552)

80.0
(552)

80.0
(552)

80.0
(552)

SA/A 508-2-2,
LAS Forgings

90
(620)

90.0
(621)

90.0
(621)

90.0
(621)

90.0
(621)

90.0
(621)

90.0
(621)

90.0
(621)

SA/A 508-3-1,
LAS Forgings

80
(550)

80.0
(552)

80.0
(552)

80.0
(552)

80.0
(552)

80.0
(552)

80.0
(552)

80.0
(552)

SA/A 516-70
CS Plate

70
(485)

70.0
(483)

70.0
(483)

70.0
(483)

70.0
(483)

70.0
(483)

70.0
(483)

70.0
(483)

SA/A 533-A-1
LAS Plate

80
(550)

80.0
(552)

80.0
(552)

80.0
(552)

80.0
(552)

80.0
(552)

80.0
(552)

80.0
(552)

SA/A 533-A-2
LAS Plate

90
(620)

90.0
(621)

90.0
(621)

90.0
(621)

90.0
(621)

90.0
(621)

90.0
(621)

90.0
(621)

SA/A 533-B-1
LAS Plate

80
(550)

80.0
(552)

80.0
(552)

80.0
(552)

80.0
(552)

80.0
(552)

80.0
(552)

80.0
(552)

SA/A 537-1 CS
Plate

65
(450)

65.0
(448)

65.0
(448)

65.0
(448)

65.0
(448)

65.0
(448)

65.0
(448)

65.0
(448)

(I) 1-10

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Carbon and Low Alloy Steels for Pressure Vessels

Table Y-1, Yield Strength Values Sy, for Ferrous and Nonferrous Materials, contains the
following information for the carbon and low alloy steel pressure vessel materials covered in
this chapter [25, 26].

Parameter

Yield
Yield
Yield
Yield
Yield
Yield
Yield
Min.
Min.
Strength
Strength Strength Strength Strength Strength Strength
Tensile
Yield
Value,
Value,
Value,
Value,
Value,
Value,
Value,
Strength, Strength, -20 to 100F
200F
300F
400F
500F
600F
650F
(150C)
ksi
ksi
(-30 to 40C) (100C)
(200C)
(250C) (300C) (325C)
(MPa)
(MPa)
ksi
ksi
ksi
ksi
ksi
ksi
ksi
(MPa)
(MPa)
(MPa)
(MPa)
(MPa)
(MPa)
(MPa)

SA/A 105
CS forgings

70
(485)

36
(250)

36.0
(248)

33.0
(227)

31.8
(219)

30.8
(213)

29.3
(204)

27.6
(194)

26.7
(188)

SA/A 216-WCC
CS Castings

70
(485)

40
(275)

40.0
(276)

36.6
(251)

35.4
(244)

34.2
(237)

32.6
(227)

30.7
(216)

29.6
(209)

SA/A 302-B
LAS Plate

80
(550)

50
(345)

50.0
(345)

47.0
(323)

45.5
(314)

44.2
(305)

43.2
(299)

42.1
(292)

41.5
(289)

SA/A 350-LF2
CS Forgings

70
(485)

36
(250)

36.0
(248)

33.0
(227)

31.8
(219)

30.8
(213)

29.3
(204)

27.6
(194)

26.7
(188)

SA/A 350-LF3
LAS Forgings

70
(485)

37.5
(260)

37.5
(259)

34.3
(235)

33.2
(229)

32.0
(221)

30.4
(212)

28.2
(199)

26.8
(191)

SA/A 508-2-1,
LAS Forgings

80
(550)

50
(345)

50.0
(345)

47.0
(323)

45.5
(314)

44.2
(305)

43.2
(299)

42.1
(292)

41.5
(289)

SA/A 508-2-2,
LAS Forgings

90
(620)

65
(450)

65.0
(448)

61.2
(420)

59.1
(407)

57.5
(397

56.1
(388)

54.7
(380)

53.9
(375)

SA/A 508-3-1,
LAS Forgings

80
(550)

50
(345)

50.0
(345)

47.0
(323)

45.5
(314)

44.2
(305)

43.2
(299)

42.1
(292)

41.5
(289)

SA/A 516-70
CS Plate

70
(485)

38
(260)

38.0
(262)

34.8
(239)

33.6
(232)

32.5
(225)

31.0
(216)

29.1
(204)

28.2
(199)

SA/A 533-A-1
LAS Plate

80
(550)

50
(345)

50.0
(345)

47.0
(323)

45.5
(314)

44.2
(305)

43.2
(299)

42.1
(292)

41.5
(289)

SA/A 533-A-2
LAS Plate

90
(620)

70
(485)

70.0
(483)

65.9
(452)

63.7
(439)

61.9
(428)

60.4
(418)

58.9
(409)

58.0
(404)

SA/A 533-B-1
LAS Plate

80
(550)

50
(345)

50.0
(345)

47.0
(323)

45.5
(314)

44.2
(305)

43.2
(299)

42.1
(292)

41.5
(289)

SA/A 537-1
CS Plate

65
(450)

45
(310)

45.0
(310)

40.2
(283)

39.8
(274)

38.4
(266)

36.7
(255)

34.5
(242)

33.4
(235)

(I) 1-11

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Carbon and Low Alloy Steels for Pressure Vessels

Table TCD, Nominal Coefficients of Thermal Conductivity (TC) and Thermal Diffusivity
(TD), provides the following data for thermal conductivity and diffusivity data for carbon
and low alloy steels covered in this chapter [15, 25].
Carbon Steel
Temp.,
F (C)
70
(20)
100
(50)
150
(75)
200
(100)
250
(125)
300
(150)
350
(175)
400
(200)
450
(225)
500
(250)
550
(275)
600
(300)
650
(325)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)

TC

(3)

(1)

TD

(4)

(2)

Low Alloy Steel


TC

(3)

TD

(4)

34.9
(60.4)
34.7
(59.8)
34.2
(58.9)
33.7
(58.0)
33.0
(57.0)
32.3
(55.9)
31.6
(54.7)
30.9
(53.6)
30.1
(52.5)

0.700
(18.10)
0.676
(17.03)
0.641
(16.27)
0.611
(15.60)
0.585
(15.00)
0.560
(14.43)
0.537
(13.90)
0.516
(13.40)
0.495
(12.90)

23.7
(41.0)
23.6
(40.8)
23.5
(40.7)
23.5
(40.6)
23.4
(40.5)
23.4
(40.4)
23.3
(40.3)
23.1
(40.1)
23.0
(39.8)

0.459
(11.87)
0.451
(11.47)
0.437
(11.16)
0.424
(10.88)
0.412
(10.60)
0.401
(10.33)
0.390
(10.08)
0.379
(9.82)
0.368
(9.57)

29.4
(51.4)

0.474
(12.42)

22.7
(39.5)

0.357
(9.32)

28.7
(50.3)
28.0
(49.2)
27.3
(48.1)

0.454
(11.95)
0.433
(11.48)
0.414
(11.01)

22.5
(39.1)
22.2
(38.7)
21.9
(38.3)

0.347
(9.07)
0.336
(8.82)
0.325
(8.57)

(e.g., SA 105, SA 216-WCC, SA 350-LF2, SA 516-70, SA 537-1)


(e.g., SA 302-B, SA 508-2-1&2, SA 508-3-1, SA 533-A-1&2, SA 533-B-1, SA 350-LF3)
Thermal Conductivity, Btu/hr-ft-F (W/m-C)
Thermal Diffusivity, ft2/hr (x 10-6 m2/sec)

(I) 1-12

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Carbon and Low Alloy Steels for Pressure Vessels

Table TE-1, Thermal Expansion for Ferrous Materials, provides the following data for the
carbon steels and low alloy steels covered in this chapter [14, 25].
Group 1 carbon steels: SA 105, SA 350-LF2, SA 516-70, SA 216-WCC and SA 537-1, and low alloy
steels to SA 350-LF3, SA 508-2-1&2, and SA 508-3-1.
70F
(20C)

100F
(50C)

150F
(75C)

200F
(100C)

250F
(125C)

300F
(150C)

350F
(175C)

400F
(200C)

6.4
(11.5)

6.6
(12.0)

6.8
(12.3)

7.0
(12.7)

7.2
(12.9)

7.3
(13.2)

7.5
(13.5)

7.7
(13.8)

6.4
(11.5)

6.5
(11.8)

6.6
(11.9)

6.7
(12.1)

6.8
(12.3)

6.9
(12.4)

7.0
(12.6)

7.1
(12.7)

0
(0)

0.2
(0.4)

0.6
(0.7)

1.0
(1.0)

1.5
(1.3)

1.9
(1.6)

2.4
(2.0)

2.8
(2.3)

450F
(225C)

500F
(250C)

550F
(275C)

600F
(300C)

650F
(325C)

7.8
(14.0)

8.0
(14.3)

8.2
(14.6)

8.3
(14.9)

8.5
(15.1)

7.2
(12.9)

7.3
(13.0)

7.3
(13.2)

7.4
(13.3)

7.5
(13.4)

3.3
(2.6)

3.7
(3.0)

4.2
(3.4)

4.7
(3.7)

5.2
(4.1)

Coef.

Coef.

Group 2 low alloy steels: SA 302-B, SA 533-A-1&2, and SA 533-B-1:


Coef.

70F
(20C)

100F
(50C)

150F
(75C)

200F
(100C)

250F
(125C)

300F
(150C)

350F
(175C)

400F
(200C)

7.0
(12.6)

7.1
(13.0)

7.3
(13.3)

7.5
(13.5)

7.6
(13.8)

7.8
(14.0)

7.9
(14.2)

8.0
(14.4)

7.0
(12.6)

7.1
(12.8)

7.2
(13.0)

7.3
(13.1)

7.3
(13.2)

7.4
(13.4)

7.5
(13.5)

7.6
(13.6)

0
(0)

0.3
(0.4)

0.7
(0.7)

1.1
(1.0)

1.6
(1.4)

2.0
(1.7)

2.5
(2.1)

3.0
(2.4)

Coef.

450F
(225C)

500F
(250C)

550F
(275C)

600F
(300C)

650F
(325C)

8.1
(14.6)

8.3
(14.8)

8.4
(15.0)

8.4
(15.1)

8.5
(15.3)

7.6
(13.7)

7.7
(13.8)

7.8
(13.9)

7.8
(14.0)

7.9
(14.1)

3.5
(2.8)

4.0
(3.2)

4.5
(3.6)

5.0
(3.9)

5.5
(4.3)

Notes to Table TE-1: Coefficient A is the instantaneous coefficient of thermal expansion with customary units of x 10-6
(in./in./F) or metric units of x 10-6 (mm/mm/C). Coefficient B is the mean coefficient of thermal expansion with customary units
of x 10-6 (in./in./F) or metric units of x 10-6 (mm/mm/C) in going from 70F (20C) to the indicated temperature. Coefficient C is
the linear thermal expansion with customary units of (in./100 ft) or metric units of (mm/m) in going from 70F (20C) to the
indicated temperature.

(I) 1-13

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Carbon and Low Alloy Steels for Pressure Vessels

Table TM-1, Moduli of Elasticity E of Ferrous Materials for Given Temperature, provides
the following data for the carbon and low alloy steels covered in this chapter [11, 25].
Moduli of Elasticity for Carbon Steel with C 0.30%: SA 216-WCC, SA 350-LF2, SA 516-70, and SA
537-1.
70F
200F
300F
400F
500F
600F
700F
Temp.
(25C)
(100C)
(150C)
(200C)
(250C)
(300C)
(350C)
6

27.3
(0.189)

26.5
(0.185)

25.5
(0.179)

Moduli of Elasticity for Carbon Steel with C > 0.30%: SA 105.


70F
200F
300F
400F
500F
Temp.
(25C)
(100C)
(150C)
(200C)
(250C)

600F
(300C)

700F
(350C)

26.4
(0.183)

25.3
(0.178)

x 10 psi
6
(x 10 MPa)

x 10 psi
6
(x 10 MPa)

29.4
(0.202)

29.2
(0.201)

28.8
(0.198)

28.6
(0.197)

28.3
(0.195)

28.1
(0.194)

27.9
(0.192)

27.7
(0.191)

27.1
(0.188)

Moduli of Elasticity for LAS with 1% Mn: SA 302-B, SA 533-A-1&2, and SA 533-B.
70F
200F
300F
400F
500F
600F
700F
Temp.
(25C)
(100C)
(150C)
(200C)
(250C)
(300C)
(350C)
6

x 10 psi
6
(x 10 MPa)

29.0
(0.200)

28.2
(0.196)

28.0
(0.193)

27.6
(0.190)

27.0
(0.187)

26.3
(0.183)

25.3
(0.177)

Moduli of Elasticity for CS with 0.753.5% Ni: 508-2-1&2, SA 508-3-1, and SA 350-LF3.
70F
200F
300F
400F
500F
600F
700F
Temp.
(25C)
(100C)
(150C)
(200C)
(250C)
(300C)
(350C)
6

x 10 psi
6
(x 10 MPa)

27.8
(0.191)

27.1
(0.187)

26.7
(0.184)

26.2
(0.181)

25.7
(0.178)

25.1
(0.174)

24.6
(0.171)

7.2 Parts Immersed in Reactor Coolant


In both PWRs and BWRs, the carbon and low alloy steels covered in this chapter are often used
as reactor coolant pressure boundary materials with an internal corrosion resistant cladding,
generally of austenitic stainless steel. They are also sometimes used in the unclad condition in
BWR reactor vessel heads and in connected Class 1 systems. For Class 1 applications, the
materials need to meet the requirements of the ASME Code for Class 1 materials (Article NB3000, Material, in Section III), such as for fracture toughness, certifications, and inspections.
Fracture toughness requirements are discussed in the following section.
7.3 Fracture Toughness Requirements
Federal regulations and the ASME Code provide requirements and guidance regarding protecting
against brittle fracture of Class 1 pressure vessels, with special requirements and guidance for the
core beltline region of reactor vessels. A summary of the requirements and guidance that apply to
pressure vessel steels is given below, together with a brief introduction to fracture toughness and
effects of embrittlement on fracture behavior.
7.3.1 Introduction to Fracture Toughness and Radiation Embrittlement
Carbon and low alloy steels behave in a ductile manner at high temperatures but can behave in a
brittle manner at low temperatures. The term ductile behavior indicates that propagation of
(I) 1-14

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Carbon and Low Alloy Steels for Pressure Vessels

cracks through the material consumes large amounts of energy and is characterized by plastic
deformation. Brittle behavior implies rapid crack propagation with low energy absorption and
little plastic deformation. It is important to understand that brittle behavior of steels is a function
of several variables, with some of the important trends being the following:

Steels tend to become more brittle as temperature decreases.

Steels tend to be embrittled by irradiation with fast neutrons.

Steels behave in a more brittle manner under dynamic loading than under slow strain rate
loading. Thus, measured fracture toughness properties are a function of the type of test, and
especially the strain rate involved in the test. Similarly, failures in service tend to be more
brittle if the applied loading is dynamic (e.g., due to impact) than for slowly applied loads.

Steels behave in a more brittle manner when the crack tip is constrained, with constraint
increasing as thickness increases. This type of constraint results in plane strain behavior for
thicker materials. This constraint effect can result in thin sheets behaving in a ductile manner
while thick plates with the same inherent fracture toughness properties fail in a brittle
manner. Another result of this factor is that tests using small specimens that do not provide
sufficient restraint can indicate unconservatively high fracture toughness values. Care needs
to be taken to use appropriate specimens and test methods to obtain valid fracture toughness
data.
Historically, the transition in fracture behavior of steels from the low temperature brittle
region to the high temperature ductile region has been measured using the standard Charpy
V-notch test. Results for a typical unirradiated reactor vessel steel are shown by the curve
marked CV in Figure 1-2 [27]. This figure illustrates the following:

As shown by the curve, the energy absorbed when breaking a Charpy specimen at low
temperature is low, e.g., 30 ft-lb/in.2 (63 kJ/m2), while at high temperature it is about 900 ftlb/in.2 (1900 kJ/m2). Since the cross sectional area of the Charpy specimen at the notch is
2
2
0.124 in. (0.8 cm ), these rates of energy absorption correspond to Charpy test energies of 4
ft-lb (5.4 J) in the low temperature fully brittle region, and 112 ft-lb (152 J) in the high
temperature fully ductile region.

A temperature is indicated as the NDT or nil-ductility temperature. This temperature is the


highest temperature at which plane strain behavior occurs under impact loading.

The figure shows the energy absorbed by two types of specimens in addition to the standard
Charpy specimen, i.e., precracked Charpy and dynamic tear specimens. These specimens are
designed to measure fracture toughness properties. The energy absorbed by these specimens
is considerably lower than for the standard Charpy specimen in the transition region, and the
temperature at which absorbed energy increases rapidly is significantly higher, about 60F
(16C). This illustrates that the standard Charpy test is not optimized for measuring fracture
toughness properties, especially because it does not contain a precrack.

Fracture toughness properties for the steel covered in Figure 1-2 are shown in Figure 1-3 [27].
This figure shows that the fracture toughness for crack initiation under slow loading rates, known
as the static fracture toughness, KIc, is significantly higher at a given temperature than the
fracture toughness for crack initiation under dynamic loading conditions, KId.

(I) 1-15

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Carbon and Low Alloy Steels for Pressure Vessels

Figure 1-2
Comparison of V-notch and Precracked Charpy Data with a 5/8-in. (1.6 cm) Dynamic Tear
Data on A 533-B Steel [28]

(I) 1-16

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Carbon and Low Alloy Steels for Pressure Vessels

Figure 1-3
Comparison of Static, Dynamic, and Instrumented Precracked CVN Impact Fracture
Toughness as a Function of Temperature for A 533-B Steel [29]

Typical effects of irradiation by fast neutrons on pressure vessel steels are illustrated in Figure
1-4 [30]. As shown on the figure, there are two main effects:

The temperature at which impact energy or fracture toughness increases sharply becomes
higher as irradiation increases. This means that, after irradiation, higher temperatures are
required to assure ductile behavior.

The Charpy upper shelf energy (USE), which is related to high temperature fracture
toughness of the material, decreases as irradiation increases. This means that the possibility
of unstable fast rupture at high temperature, in the ductile temperature region, could become
possible if the USE dropped sufficiently.

(I) 1-17

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Carbon and Low Alloy Steels for Pressure Vessels

Figure 1-4
Effect of Neutron Radiation on Transition Region (41 Joules or 30 Ft-Lb Energy) and
Fracture Toughness Properties [30]

7.3.2 ASME Code Requirements


New Vessels. Section NB-2300 of Section III of the ASME Code requires that pressure vessel
carbon and low alloy steel plate material over 5/8 in. (1.6 cm) thick be tested to ensure that it has
suitable fracture toughness properties, as follows:

Perform drop weight tests per ASTM E208 to determine a temperature TNDT that is at or
above the nil-ductility transition temperature. The importance of the NDT temperature is
illustrated by Figure 1-5 from ASTM E208. It shows that, at temperatures at the NDT or less,
small flaws can propagate in a brittle fashion at applied stresses at the yield level or higher.

Perform Charpy tests to show that at TNDT + 60F or TNDT + 33C the Charpy specimens
exhibit 35 mils (890 m) lateral expansion and 50 ft-lb (68 J) absorbed energy. If these
requirements are met, then RTNDT = TNDT. If these requirements are not met, perform
additional Charpy tests to determine the temperature TCV at which they are met. In this case,
RTNDT = TCV 60F or TCV 33C). In other words, RTNDT is the higher of TNDT or TCV 60F
or TCV 33C.

(I) 1-18

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Carbon and Low Alloy Steels for Pressure Vessels

Figure 1-5
Generalized Fracture Analysis Diagram Indicating the Approximate Range of Flaw Sizes
Required for Fracture Initiation at Various Levels of Nominal Stress, as Referenced by the
NDT Temperature (ASTM E208-1) [31]

The above requirements are applied to all of the vessel base materials and also to welds and heat
affected zones. Section NB-3211 of Section III of the ASME Code also requires that pressure
vessel materials meet requirements similar to those in non-mandatory Appendix G to Section III.
This appendix suggests that the vessel be shown to be resistant to brittle factor using the
conservative curve of fracture toughness, KIc, of Figure 1-6 keyed to the RTNDT of the actual
materials of the vessel, and assuming the presence of relatively large flaws (e.g., for 4 in. to 12
in. (10 cm to 31 cm) thick walls, 1/4 of the thickness in depth and a length of 1.5 times the
section thickness).
The ASME Code notes in Section NB-2160 of Section III that consideration of deterioration of
material caused by service is generally outside the scope of that subsection, and that it is the
responsibility of the owner to select material that is suitable for the intended service. However,
the Code also notes that attention needs to be paid to effects of irradiation on core beltline
materials, including weld materials.

(I) 1-19

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Carbon and Low Alloy Steels for Pressure Vessels

Figure 1-6
Reference Stress Intensity Factor (Fig. G-2210-1 and G-2210-1M from 2010 ASME Boiler
and Pressure Vessel Code, Section III, Division I, Appendix G) [32]

(I) 1-20

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Carbon and Low Alloy Steels for Pressure Vessels

Inservice Vessels. Section XI of the ASME Code contains requirements that address two main
issues for inservice pressure vessels: (1) setting operating pressure temperature limits that
assure that rapid fracture will not occur despite changes in material properties caused by
irradiation, and (2) ensuring that adequate margin exists against propagation of detected flaws in
an unstable manner. These two issues are dealt with as follows:

Pressure-Temperature Limits Based on Material Properties. Section IWB-3730 of Section


XI contains criteria for protection against failure due to rapidly propagating flaws:

Section IWB-3730 refers to non-mandatory Appendix G to Section XI for criteria to


protect against brittle fracture. Limits per Appendix G are based on keeping the applied
stress intensity factor at postulated flaws below the material's fracture toughness, where
the fracture toughness is as given in Figure 1-6 (the same figure is contained in Appendix
G to Section XI as in Appendix G to Section III). Since the fracture toughness is keyed to
RTNDT, it changes for a given temperature as irradiation causes RTNDT to change.
Section IWB-3730 refers to non-mandatory Appendix K in Section XI for evaluation of
service pressure and temperature loadings for vessels with upper shelf energies below 50
ft-lb (68 J). Appendix K utilizes elastic-plastic fracture mechanics and is based on
keeping the applied J-integral for postulated flaws below the J-integral fracture resistance
(J-R curve) of the limiting material, with specified margins. Appendix K indicates that
the J-R curve can be established by tests.

Flaw Evaluation. Sections IWB-2000 and IWB-3000 of Section XI contain requirements for
periodic inspection of inservice vessels and for disposition of flaws found by such
inspections. Section IWB-3611 indicates that flaws are acceptable if the final flaw size at the
end of the next inspection interval or at end of life is less than one tenth of the critical flaw
size under normal conditions, and less than one half of the critical flaw size under accident
conditions. (The critical flaw size is the minimum flaw size that calculations indicate will
propagate in a rapid unstable manner under the imposed loading.) Alternatively, Section
IWB-3612 indicates that flaws are acceptable if the final flaw size is such that the applied
stress intensity under normal conditions is less than the critical stress intensity factor, KIc,
divided by 10, and under accident conditions is less than the critical stress intensity factor,
KIc, divided by 2. Appendix A to Section XI provides suggested curves for the crack arrest
and crack initiation stress intensities (see Figure 1-7) and suggests that the crack initiation
stress intensity factor be used for normal conditions, but that both the initiation and arrest
stress intensity factors be used for accident conditions.

(I) 1-21

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Carbon and Low Alloy Steels for Pressure Vessels

Figure 1-7
Lower Bound KIa and KIc Test Data for SA 533 Type B Class 1, SA 508 Class 2, and SA 508
Class 3 Steels (Fig. A-4200-1 and A-4200-1M from 2010 ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel
Code, Section XI, Appendix A) [33]

(I) 1-22

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Carbon and Low Alloy Steels for Pressure Vessels

7.3.3 ASME Code Cases That Deal with Radiation Embrittlement Issues

Code Case N-610, Alternative Reference Stress Intensity Factor (KIR) Curve for Class
Components, permits use of an alternate reference stress intensity factor versus temperature
curve than that of Figure G-2210-1 of Appendix G of Section III.

Code Cases N-629 and N-631, Use of Fracture Toughness Test Data to Establish Reference
Temperature for Pressure Retaining Materials, permit use of fracture toughness data (rather
than conventional Charpy impact energy data) for establishing RTNDT. The fracture toughness
data are to be obtained in accordance with ASTM E 1921-97, Standard Test Method for the
Determination of Reference Temperature, To, for Ferritic Steels in the Transition Range. In
addition to use of fracture toughness tests to determine RTNDT, the method also involves use
of a specified confidence bound of a statistical distribution of fracture toughness around the
best estimate value, as opposed to a very conservative lower bound that envelops all the data.
Use of the code case method typically results in significantly improved fracture toughness
properties. The code case is not directly applicable to inservice materials since the test
methods of ASTM E 1921 involve use of compact tension specimens or bend bar specimens,
and do not explicitly cover use of Charpy specimens of the type normally used for reactor
vessel surveillance. However, efforts are continuing to validate the use of irradiated precracked Charpy specimens for establishing To and RTNDT [34].

7.3.4 NRC Requirements


The Code of Federal Regulations, 10CFR50, contains the main requirements summarized below:

Appendix A to 10CFR50 contains general design requirements that must be met. Criterion 31
of Appendix A requires that the reactor coolant system be designed to assure that brittle
failure will not occur and that the probability of a rapidly propagating failure is minimized.
This Appendix does not invoke any specific quantitative requirements that must be met, but
it sets the stage for the following quantitative requirements.

Section 50.60 of 10CFR50 requires that Appendix G of 10CFR50 be met, unless an


exemption is granted. Appendix G of 10CFR50 provides detailed quantitative requirements
for fracture toughness of reactor coolant system components, i.e., Class 1 components,
including Class 1 pressure vessels such as the reactor vessel, the pressurizer, and primary
parts of the steam generators. The two main requirements of Appendix G are summarized
below.

Appendix G to 10CFR50 requires that the temperature of the vessel be far enough above
the RTNDT to ensure non-brittle behavior. The specific limits that must be met are based on
limits calculated per methods specified in Appendix G to Section XI of the ASME Code,
together with additional margin. The limits can change with time since RTNDT of the core
beltline increases as it is irradiated.

Appendix G to 10CFR50 requires that the Charpy upper shelf energy be no less than 50
ft-lb (68 J). If this cannot be met as the upper shelf energy decreases due to irradiation,
Appendix G allows fracture mechanics analyses to be used to demonstrate that suitable
margins of safety are still maintained.

(I) 1-23

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Carbon and Low Alloy Steels for Pressure Vessels

Section 50.61 of 10CFR50 contains requirements applicable to PWRs directed at assuring


that brittle fracture will not occur under postulated pressurized thermal shock (PTS) events.
Section 50.61 requires that all beltline materials have projected RTPTS values that do not
exceed specified screening temperatures of 270F (132C) for plates, forgings and axial
welds, and 300F (149C) for circumferential welds, where RTPTS is the RTNDT evaluated for
the end of life fluence. Section 50.61 specifies how RTPTS is to be calculated, taking into
account unirradiated fracture toughness properties and the chemistry of the beltline materials.
If the projected value of RTPTS falls above the specified screening criteria, actions such as flux
reduction programs using redesigned cores are required to be taken. If, despite such actions,
the projected RTPTS falls above the screening criteria, detailed safety analyses have to be
performed and submitted to the NRC. In 2010, the NRC added an alternative method for
calculating RTPTS to 10CFR50: Section 50.61a, Alternate fracture toughness requirements
for protection against pressurized thermal shock events. This method is described as
complex but as possibly providing some useful margin [35].

8 Ordering Information and Practices


Carbon and low alloy steels are susceptible to corrosion during shipment and storage. Resistance
to this type of attack is affected by the final heat treated surface condition, and also to any
protective coatings used. It is suggested that agreement be reached with the supplier as to what
final surface condition and protective coating will be provided.
It is desirable that materials used for reactor vessel beltline regions have the minimum practical
number of welds, avoid use of longitudinal welds, if practical, and use base and weld materials
with compositions that minimize the potential for radiation embrittlement, e.g.:

SA 508 Gr. 3 Cl. 1 with restrictive chemistry per Supplementary Requirement S9.

SA 533 Type B with Appendix X1.1, Nuclear Beltline Considerations Residual Elements.

Specifications specifically covering weld materials for core beltline regions were not
identified during preparation or updating of this chapter. For this reason, it is suggested that
reactor vessel suppliers be requested to demonstrate that the weld materials they propose to
use for core beltline regions will result in satisfactory radiation embrittlement behavior.

It is suggested that consideration be given to imposing lower sulfur limits than those in the
ASME specifications (typically 0.015%) on materials for pressure vessels for which corrosion
fatigue or SCC may be a concern, since crack growth rates are strongly influenced by crack tip
sulfur concentrations which, in turn, are often controlled by sulfur pickup from sulfides in the
steel.

9 Service Experience
This section contains a brief review of service problems with carbon and low alloy steel pressure
vessel steels. The review is not meant to cover all reported problems, but rather to concentrate on
those that are most important from a lessons learned standpoint.

(I) 1-24

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Carbon and Low Alloy Steels for Pressure Vessels

9.1 Summary
Carbon and low alloy steel pressure vessel steels are widely used in nuclear power plants.
Service experience has generally been good. However, there have been some problems, as
summarized below.

Some welds in early generation PWRs have been found to be especially sensitive to radiation
embrittlement, and have required significant programs to address the resulting embrittlement
concerns. A small lead PWR, Yankee Rowe, was shut down because of issues related to
reactor vessel embrittlement. Shutdown for radiation embrittlement concerns is judged
unlikely to occur at any of the currently operating plants, but addressing radiation
embrittlement issues is likely to continue to require significant research efforts, especially for
plant life extension.

The most significant service induced flaws have been cracks at nozzles associated with
mixing of lower temperature water with hot water in a vessel, e.g., thermal fatigue cracks in
BWR reactor vessel feedwater nozzles and control rod drive return line nozzles. Significant
inspections and repairs were required in the late 1970s and early 1980s to address this
problem. The design and procedure changes made at that time seen to have been effective
since there have been no further reported occurrences.

There have been a few cases of crack initiation and growth in PWR steam generator shells at
transition cone girth welds. These cracks appear to have been initiated as a result of weld
damage, thermal stress cycles, and the occasional presence of oxidizing conditions. No new
cases of this type of cracking have been reported since about 1991, and it appears that current
secondary water chemistry controls, particularly during startup and shutdown, minimize the
likelihood of serious cracking of this type in the future.

A through-wall crack developed in the LAS wall of an early BWR (Garigliano) secondary
steam generator channel head. The crack appeared to have grown due to SCC and was
attributed to the presence of cracks in the Alloy 400 type cladding (Alloy 190 weld metal)
that acted as initiating sites for the SCC in the base material, combined with high residual
stresses due to an ineffective post weld heat treatment.

A significant number of flaw indications have been detected in reactor vessels by UT


performed for baseline or inservice inspections. Most of these flaws have been associated
with welding or cladding, although a few have been due to laminations or inclusions in the
steel plates or forgings. The base material flaws have rarely if ever required repair. However,
some of the weld and clad related flaws have led to repairs being made, especially when the
flaws were detected before operation. There appear to be no reported cases of service
induced growth of flaws present in the base plates or forgings, or of weld flaws present since
initial construction.

Cracks have occasionally been detected in the cladding of BWRs. These cracks are the result
of sensitization of the cladding caused by vessel post weld heat treatment, combined with
low ferrite numbers in the cladding and the oxidizing conditions at the outlet of the BWR
core. In a few cases it has been concluded that the cladding cracks may have penetrated into
the base material as the result of service, but it appears more likely that such penetrations
occurred during fabrication, i.e., are underclad reheat or hydrogen induced cracks and not
extensions of SCC in the cladding. The clad cracking, especially where penetration into the
base material has been noted, has required significant inspection and analysis to demonstrate
the continued safe condition of the affected parts.
(I) 1-25

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Carbon and Low Alloy Steels for Pressure Vessels

Wall thinning of carbon and low alloy steel pressure vessel materials has occasionally
occurred due to the impingement of leaking PWR primary coolant. The relatively rapid rate
of corrosion that has sometimes been observed is attributed to the effects of the boric acid
used in PWR primary coolant. In some cases, the thinning has been sufficient to pose serious
risks to pressure boundary integrity, with the most extreme case being at Davis-Besse in
2002, where a large hole was formed in a reactor vessel head at a leak in a control rod drive
mechanism nozzle. Concerns about this type of thinning have led to extensive efforts at
plants to minimize the occurrence of leaks and to detect them promptly when they occur, and
also to performance of research regarding factors that control the rate of thinning.

A significant number of cases of wall thinning of feedwater heater shells in PWRs have been
reported as having been detected in units as they age, for example, at units with 15 or more
years of service. At least one case of similar attack in an MSR has also been reported. This
type of FAC has mainly affected areas with two-phase flow.

9.2 Radiation Embrittlement


Summary. Radiation embrittlement occurs at the beltline regions of the reactor vessels of all
operational plants. However, the amount of embrittlement has been relatively small at many
plants. BWRs, with their larger vessels, have lower fluences and thus experience lower radiation
embrittlement than PWRs. With regard to PWRs, radiation embrittlement concerns led to the
early closure of Yankee Rowe, a small early unit. Radiation embrittlement concerns at other
PWRs have led to use of low leakage cores to reduce the flux levels in the beltline region, and to
extensive research to refine analytical methods to deal with embrittlement concerns. These
efforts have essentially resolved the low upper shelf energy (USE) issue by showing that units
with USE below the 50 ft-lb (68 J) threshold still retain satisfactory resistance to rapid ductile
fracture and will do so out to end of life extension. In addition, the use of the Master Curve
approach for treating the radiation induced shift in transition temperature promises to resolve the
temperature shift problem for all plants (the Master Curve approach is discussed in Section 10.1).
Discussion. It has been known since the early days of nuclear power that radiation embrittlement
of the steels used for reactor pressure vessels could occur in regions where the steels are
subjected to high fluences of high energy neutrons, e.g., fluence over 1017 n/cm2 (E > 1 MeV,
where E is the energy of the neutrons). In response to these concerns, government regulations
require that the fracture toughness of pressure vessel steels meet specified limits (10CFR50,
Appendix G, Fracture Toughness Requirements), and that the radiation embrittlement of core
belt line regions be monitored (10CFR50, Appendix H, Reactor Vessel Material Surveillance
Program Requirements). In addition, the ASME Code requires that pressure vessel materials
meet specified fracture toughness requirements (ASME Code, Section III, NB-2300, Fracture
Toughness Requirements for Materials).
The radiation embrittlement surveillance programs for reactor vessels require that samples of
core beltline region base and weld materials be irradiated and removed periodically for test.
Evaluation of these results, together with evaluation of materials irradiated in test reactors,
indicate that some of the materials used for plates and welds in early vessels have relatively
high susceptibility to radiation embrittlement. Under current regulations, this susceptibility is
measured by two parameters: (1) an increase or shift in the reference nil-ductility temperature,
RTNDT, and (2) a decrease in the USE of Charpy impact specimens. RTNDT shifts to higher
temperatures as fluence is accumulated, and this indicates that the steel will behave in a brittle
manner at higher temperatures as it is irradiated. A decrease in upper shelf energy with
(I) 1-26

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Carbon and Low Alloy Steels for Pressure Vessels

irradiation, if it occurs, indicates that the material has lower fracture toughness in the higher
temperature full toughness (ductile) region.
Some highlights of experience with regard to radiation embrittlement include:

As surveillance data were accumulated and evaluated in the 1960s, it became apparent that
some material compositions resulted in more rapid embrittlement than expected [36]. The
materials that increase the rate of embrittlement most significantly were found to be copper,
nickel and phosphorous. The most susceptible materials were found to be some weld metals
with high levels of copper. In response to these findings, grades of steel and weld metals with
controlled composition for use in reactor vessel beltline regions were developed, improved
surveillance programs were developed, and guidance for how to predict the effects of
composition on radiation embrittlement were developed [37, 38].

The Yankee Rowe plant, a relatively small lead PWR that started commercial operation in
1961, was shutdown in 1991, with a decision reached in 1992 to keep it permanently
shutdown, because of concerns about the ability of its radiation embrittled reactor vessel to
withstand a pressurized thermal shock (PTS) in the event of a small break loss of coolant
accident (LOCA) [39, 40]. A significant factor in this event was the fact that detailed
chemistry was not available for weld materials, which resulted in conservative assumptions
being made regarding their composition and thus to the amount of their embrittlement.

In 1992, the NRC issued Generic Letter 92-01 and then Revision 1 to Generic Letter 92-01
that required licensees to submit data regarding their reactor vessel surveillance programs
and their compliance with the fracture toughness and pressurized thermal shock requirements
of 10CFR50 (Sections 50.60 and 50.61, and Appendices G and H). After reviewing the data
submitted by licensees, the NRC determined in 1994 that only two plants, Beaver Valley 1
and Palisades, were projected to exceed RTPTS limits by the end of life. The NRC determined
that some plants would fall below the 50 ft-lb (68 J) USE limit, but concluded that all of the
plants would nevertheless have adequate upper shelf toughness throughout life. These
conclusions applied to original 40 year lifetimes, and not necessarily to the longer lifetimes
associated with license extensions.

Because of concerns related to reactor vessel embrittlement, the industry and NRC undertook
several initiatives. These included:

Several plants have used low leakage core designs to limit the fluence accumulated by the
reactor vessel beltline materials. These core designs involve changing fuel loading
patterns to result in higher flux levels in the core central regions and lower flux levels at
the core periphery. Such core designs significantly reduce flux levels at the reactor
vessel, but at the cost of higher power in the core central region, with possibly adverse
effects on problems such as axial offset anomaly.

The industry and NRC have developed analytical approaches to demonstrate that
operation with low upper shelf energies is satisfactory with regard to protecting against
ductile fracture. These include Appendix K to Section XI of the ASME Code, NRC
Regulatory Guide 1.161, and an EPRI report [41].

As discussed in Section 10, a Master Curve approach has been developed that aids in
dealing with the temperature shifts caused by radiation induced embrittlement. The
Master Curve approach significantly reduces uncertainties in fracture toughness
evaluations, and thus allows removal of unneeded conservatisms. It resolves most
(I) 1-27

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Carbon and Low Alloy Steels for Pressure Vessels

temperature shift concerns, even for the longer lifetimes associated with license
extension. Industry efforts to have the Master Curve approach adopted by the NRC are
under way [35].

The USE issue has essentially been resolved by NRC Regulatory Guide 1.161 and Appendix
K to Section XI of the ASME Code. The development of the Master Curve approach appears
likely to make the RTNDT shift issue not a controlling factor for plant lifetime. However,
detailed analytical reviews of these issues are required to confirm that they are satisfactory
for life extensions.

9.3 Cracking of BWR Feedwater Nozzles


Summary. In the 1970s many BWRs experienced corrosion fatigue cracking in their feedwater
nozzles, with maximum reported depths up to 1.5 inches (3.8 cm). The cause of crack initiation
was attributed to leakage of relatively cool feedwater into the space between the thermal sleeve
and the feedwater nozzle, which resulted in large numbers of thermal cycles at the nozzle blend
radius as the cooler feedwater mixed with hot reactor coolant in the vessel. This mechanism
developed cracks due to high cycle fatigue to a depth of about 0.25 inches (0.64 cm). Most of
this cracking was in stainless steel cladding, which had a thickness of about 0.25 inches (0.64
cm). Crack growth beyond a depth of about 0.25 inches (0.64 cm), into the LAS of the nozzle,
was attributed to low cycle corrosion fatigue associated with deep seated stresses caused by plant
startup and shutdown transients. Resolution of the problem included inspections of all
susceptible plants, grinding out detected cracks, installation of low leakage thermal sleeve
designs, removal of cladding on the inside of the nozzle at many plants, and some operational
changes.
Discussion [42, 43, 44, 45]. During 1974 1980, cracks were noted in the blend radius of
feedwater nozzles at 18 BWRs in the USA. The typical geometry of these nozzles and the
thermal sleeve installed in them at the time of the cracking is shown in Figure 1-8. A main cause
of the problem was that the slip joint between the thermal sleeve and the nozzle was not tight
enough to prevent leakage flow in the annulus between the nozzle and the thermal sleeve, as
shown schematically in the figure. Tests performed to investigate the problem showed that the
mixing of the colder feed water with the hot reactor coolant caused temperature cycles at
frequencies ranging between 0.1 and 1 Hz, and that the metal temperatures at the surface cycled
at approximately one half the amplitude of the fluid temperature range. The difference in
temperature between feedwater and reactor coolant is normally 100F to 200F (55C to 111C),
but can reach 400F (222C) during shutdown conditions. It was estimated that these conditions
could cause crack initiation within three years of operation.
The cracks initiated in the austenitic stainless steel cladding, which was about 0.25 inches (0.64
cm) thick. It was determined that the higher coefficient of thermal expansion and lower
conductivity of the austenitic stainless steel, as compared to the LAS base material, increased the
potential for crack initiation as a result of exposure to cyclic temperatures. It was also determined
that the high frequency temperature cycles would only drive cracks to a depth of about 0.25
inches (0.64 cm), i.e., through the cladding, but not significantly into the base material. However,
the nozzles are also subjected to smaller numbers of cyclic stresses associated with plant startup
and shutdown and other transients. The stresses associated with these other transients penetrate
deep into the nozzle and were able to drive the cracks, once initiated, into the nozzle base
material. The deepest cracks penetrated about 1.5 inches (3.8 cm) into the base material.
(I) 1-28

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Carbon and Low Alloy Steels for Pressure Vessels

Figure 1-8
Cross Section of Feedwater Nozzle with Cracking Location [43, 44]

A large scale investigation of the problem was carried out by GE, and developed ways to inspect,
repair and modify the nozzles. Inspection, repair and modification of all susceptible plants was
mandated by the NRC in November 1980 [46]. The repairs included grinding out of all crack
indications and, in many plants, removal of the cladding from the nozzle blend area. In this
regard, GE had determined that removal of cladding would not result in unacceptable corrosion
or release of corrosion products to the coolant. Modifications to prevent further cracking
included use of thermal sleeves with leak tight seals, and some system and operational changes
to reduce feedwater temperature transients.
9.4 Cracking of BWR Control Rod Drive Return Line (CRDRL) Nozzles
Summary. In the 1970s many BWRs experienced thermal fatigue cracking in their control rod
drive return line (CRDRL) nozzles, or in the reactor vessel walls below the nozzles, with
maximum reported depths up to 0.9 inches (2.3 cm). The cause of cracking was attributed to
thermal cycles and stresses caused by mixing of cool return water with hot reactor coolant. Most
of this cracking was in the stainless steel cladding, but some cracking penetrated into the vessel
base material. Resolution of the problem included inspections of susceptible plants, grinding out
detected cracks, and rerouting the flow into the system without using the CRDRL nozzle.
Discussion [47, 48]. During1973 1980, cracks were reported as having been noted in the
CRDRL nozzles of at least eight BWRs in the USA and of three overseas BWRs. The typical
geometry of these nozzles is shown in Figure 1-9. The nozzle shown is without a thermal sleeve;
some nozzles were supplied without thermal sleeves, but many had thermal sleeves. Some
(I) 1-29

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Carbon and Low Alloy Steels for Pressure Vessels

thermal sleeves had loose interference fits, while others were welded. Several types of cracks
were noted, including cracks in the blend radius, cracks down the vessel wall to about 8 inches
below the nozzle, and cracks in the thermal sleeves. Several units with welded thermal sleeves
did not detect cracking in the nozzle or vessel wall.
The main cause of the problem was determined to be thermal cycles and thermal fatigue
associated with the return of low temperature (50F 100F or 10C 38C) water to the hot
(550F or 288C) reactor vessel through the nozzle. The cracks in the vessel wall were mainly
circumferential, and were attributed to high cycle thermal stresses related to stratified flow of
cold water along the bottom of the nozzle and down the vessel wall as it mixed with the down
flow of reactor water. The maximum reported crack depth, including clad and base material, was
0.9 inches (2.3 cm).
The main long term solution to the problem was to change the system design to stop the
introduction of cold water into the hot nozzle, and to return the flow to the system by alternate
routes.

Figure 1-9
Typical BWR CRD Hydraulic Return Line Nozzle (Does Not Show Thermal Sleeve/Shroud)
[42]

9.5 PWR Steam Generator Girth Weld Cracking


Summary. During about 1982 to 1991, cracks at the transition cone to upper shell girth weld were
detected at six units with Westinghouse Model 44 or Model 51 steam generators. No further
cracking has been reported since the early 1990s. The cracking has occurred in Mn-Mo steel to
SA 302 Gr. B and SA 533 Type A Cl. 2. Most of the cracks have been shallow, but one crack at
Indian Point 3 was through-wall, i.e., had a depth of about 4 in (10 cm). This crack was detected
after about 3.2 EFPY operation, indicating a growth rate of about 1.25 in./EFPY (3.18
(I) 1-30

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Carbon and Low Alloy Steels for Pressure Vessels

cm/EFPY), assuming no time for crack initiation. Cracks at two plants, Indian Point 2 and 3,
were deep enough that they required weld repair followed by post weld heat treatment. Cracks at
the other four units have been repaired by grinding.
The cracks have been associated with pits, and have shown features that indicate that corrosion
fatigue is involved. Some evidence of SCC has also been reported. The cracks have mainly
occurred at welds, and in some cases may have been aggravated by too low an initial post weld
heat treatment. The relatively high stresses associated with the cone to cylinder transition may
have been a factor since most of the cracking occurred near this transition.
All of the cracking has been detected at older units that had relatively poor oxygen control during
early years of operation during startup and shutdown conditions. The presence of pitting at the
girth welds with cracks indicates that exposure to oxidizing condition had occurred. In addition
to cracks at the girth weld, shallow cracks have been detected at locations where other welds
were made, e.g., for temporary attachments, and at drilled holes in one plant. This implies that
material that has been hardened by welding without proper heat treatment or by cold work is
susceptible to crack initiation in areas exposed to thermal transients combined with oxidizing
conditions.
In summary, it is concluded that corrosion fatigue and/or SCC can occur in steam generator
shells if the materials are unusually hard due to welding without subsequent effective heat
treatment or due to cold work, and if the susceptible areas are exposed to cyclic stresses with
some exposure to oxidants. The absence of further reports of cracking since the early 1990s
implies that current water chemistry practices are minimizing the potential for this type of
cracking. However, since all plants probably have areas with hardened zones due to temporary
attachment welds or cold work from operations such as drilling, and all are occasionally exposed
to oxidants, there is a potential for some cracking to be detected in the future.
Discussion. Reports of steam generator girth weld cracking are summarized below. Much of the
information is taken from a survey report prepared for EPRI in 1993 [48].

In September 1982 the NRC notified the industry via Information Notice 82-37 of the
occurrence of cracking at PWR steam generator girth welds at Indian Point 3 [49]. In
response to detection of this cracking, a detailed investigation of the probable cause was
undertaken [50]. Relevant information regarding this cracking includes the following.

The cracking was detected as the result of a small through wall leak observed during a
shutdown. The leaking crack was located at the upper shell to transition cone weld
(see Figure 1-10). Inspections revealed that all four steam generators had numerous
circumferential cracks, with an average of about 170 cracks per steam generator. The
cracks were typically 3/4-inches (1.9 cm) deep by 4 to 6 inches (10 to 15 cm) long.
However, there was the one through wall leaking crack, about 4 inches (10 cm) deep, and
one crack was 117 inches (297 cm) long [51].

The shell material was A 302 Gr. B. About 40% of the cracks appeared to be in weld
metal. The girth weld had been locally post weld heat treated in the field. Hardness
measurements and reheat treatment tests indicated that the material probably had not been
heat treated at 1000F (540C) or higher, i.e., had not received the specified heat
treatment.

Crack initiation appeared to be associated with surface pitting. The cracks were
transgranular, and may have propagated by both corrosion fatigue and SCC.
(I) 1-31

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Carbon and Low Alloy Steels for Pressure Vessels

It was speculated that oxidizing conditions due to oxygen and/or copper ions in the
feedwater may have contributed to the cracking. In addition, it was speculated that
chloride ingress associated with a large condenser leak may have been a factor.

The cracks were removed by grinding and repaired by welding and post weld heat
treatment at 1150F (620C). Subsequent inspections did not detect any further cracking.

Cracks were detected in the transition cone to upper shell weld at Surry 2 in 1985. There
were numerous small circumferential cracks in all three steam generators associated with
pitting. The cracks were all less than 0.5 inches (1.3 cm) in depth and were removed by
grinding. No subsequent cracking has been reported.

Cracks were detected in the transition cone to upper shell welds of all three steam generators
at Surry 1 in 1986. The cracks were all less than 0.4 inches (1 cm) in depth and were
removed by grinding. One minor indication was found during a subsequent inspection in
1988, but no other indications have been reported.

There were several occurrences of cracking at Indian Point 2:

Cracks were detected in the transition cone to upper shell welds of all four steam
generators at Indian Point 2 in 1987. The cracks were removed by grinding to a
maximum depth of 1.07 inches (2.72 cm). Boat samples were removed and analyzed and
showed evidence of a corrosion fatigue mechanism.

In 1989, cracks were again observed at the girth weld in all four steam generators. The
maximum crack depth was 1.44 inches (3.66 cm). Three of the steam generators were
repaired by grinding, but one was repaired by grinding, weld buildup, and full
circumferential weld stress relief at 1100F (593C). Cracks were also noted at some
attachment weld locations and at inspection ports that had been drilled in the late 1970s.

In 1990 additional girth weld cracks were detected in all four steam generators. They
were repaired by grinding and temper or half bead welding, without post weld heat
treatment. Cracks were again noted at other attachment weld and inspection port
locations.

In 1991 additional girth weld cracks were detected in two of the four steam generators.
Extensive weld repairs were made to all four steam generators. The repair consisted of
removing a band of material at the girth weld that was six inches wide and 3/4 inches (1.9
cm) deep, rewelding using low sulfur material (< 0.010% sulfur), and post weld heat
treating for four hours at 1125F (607C). An inspection hole that had been bored out in
1989 from 1 in. (2.5 cm) to 2 in. (5.1 cm) because of a crack, was found to have cracked
again.

Westinghouse suggested that the cracking was probably the result of thermal cycling
combined with oxygen in the auxiliary feedwater and copper from the feedwater system.

In 1989-1990, cracks were detected at the girth welds of all four steam generators of both
Zion 1 and Zion 2. Crack lengths ranged up to 11 in. (28 cm), and depths were less than 5/8
in. (1.6 cm). The cracks were repaired by grinding. Re-inspection in 1991 found minor
indications in three of the four Zion 1 steam generators. It was concluded that re-inspection
of Zion 2 was not warranted.

(I) 1-32

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Carbon and Low Alloy Steels for Pressure Vessels

Figure 1-10
General Features Upper Portion of a Westinghouse Model 44 Steam Generator [48]

(I) 1-33

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Carbon and Low Alloy Steels for Pressure Vessels

9.6 BWR Secondary Steam Generator Shell Cracks


Summary. Through-wall cracking occurred at a weld in the 2.6 inch (6.6 cm) thick SA 302 Gr. B
steel primary head of a secondary steam generator at an early BWR, Garigliano. The cracks
occurred in normal BWR reactor coolant. Failure analysis indicates that the cracking was
probably SCC that propagated from cracks that had developed in the weld deposited Monel
cladding. A contributing factor was considered to be the presence of high residual stresses in the
steel resulting from local post weld heat treatment.
Discussion. Relevant information regarding the cracking detected in Garigliano secondary steam
generators includes the following [51, 52, 53]:

Garigliano was a 150-MWe BWR that started commercial operation in 1964 and was
permanently shutdown in 1982. The plant had a steam drum above the reactor vessel from
which steam was directed to the turbine. The separated reactor coolant liquid from the steam
drum was pumped through two secondary steam generators and then back to the reactor
vessel.

In 1978 a through-wall leaking crack was noted in the lower primary head of a secondary
steam generator (see Figure 1-11). The plant remained shut down until 1982, when it was
decided to permanently shut down the plant.

Failure analysis results were as follows:

Metallurgical examination showed that the Monel weld metal cladding (Alloy 190) in the
steam generator head had developed cracks. In one case, at weld J in Figure 1-11, the
cracks in the cladding had propagated into and through the 2.6 inch (6.6 cm) thick SA
302 Gr. B low alloy steel of the head.
It was determined that there were high residual stresses present as a result of the local
post weld heat treatment that had been performed of weld J.
It was considered likely that local acidity from sulfur released from manganese sulfides
in both the Monel weld metal and the SA 302 Gr. B steel was a factor in the cracking.
One EPRI report indicates that the environment at the cracking location involved water
with 20 ppm oxygen [54]. However, review of the system diagram, discussions with
knowledgeable BWR personnel, and review of several articles related to Garigliano
systems and chemistry indicate that the water passing through the secondary steam
generator primary side was normal BWR reactor coolant with about 200 ppb oxygen.

(I) 1-34

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Carbon and Low Alloy Steels for Pressure Vessels

Figure 1-11
Cross-Section of Garigliano Secondary Steam Generator with Seam J Shown in Inset [45]

(I) 1-35

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Carbon and Low Alloy Steels for Pressure Vessels

9.7 Cracks in Sensitized Cladding in BWR Reactor Vessels with Possible Small
Penetration into the Base Material
Summary. Cracks are sometimes observed in the cladding of BWRs, especially in the reactor
vessel head region. This cracking is attributed to IGSCC of sensitized austenitic stainless steel
cladding associated with exposure to oxidizing conditions in the core outlet region, and is
aggravated by factors such as grinding of the surface, and low ferrite values in the weld
deposited cladding material. There are no reports of significant penetration of the cladding cracks
into the low alloy base materials.
Discussion. Cracks were detected in sensitized austenitic stainless steel cladding of at least two
plants, Quad Cities 2 and Vermont Yankee [55, 56]. In the case of Quad Cities, the cracks were
only in the head, and were interpreted by the NRC as having penetrated a short distance into the
heat affected region of the low alloy steel base material. However, a later EPRI report indicates
that the base metal cracks were due to reheat cracking during manufacturing (probably during
stress relief heat treatment), and had not grown in service [54]. The Quad Cities cladding cracks
were noted as being associated with low ferrite numbers in the cladding and with the presence of
significant amounts of grinding, and as having occurred in a region with a relatively strong
oxidizing environment due to the presence of oxygen and hydrogen peroxide. In the case of
Vermont Yankee, cracks were observed in sensitized cladding in both head and reactor vessel
flange regions, and it was found that they had not penetrated into the low alloy steel base
material.
9.8 Fabrication-Induced Base Material and Weld Joint Flaws Detected After
Installation or in Service
Summary. There have been a relatively large number of flaws detected during preservice and
inservice inspections of vessels that have required disposition prior to continued plant operation.
These flaws have mainly been detected using ultrasonic techniques, which were not required to
be used during vessel fabrication. After analyses, often of the fracture mechanics crack growth
type, most of these flaws have been dispositioned as being acceptable without repair. However,
the dispositions have sometimes required that periodic inspections be performed in the future to
ensure that unanticipated growth has not occurred. In a few cases, immediate repairs have been
required. The main lessons learned from this experience are it is important that (1) fabrication
methods avoid conditions that develop flaws such as reheat cracks and underclad cracks, (2) the
grade of steel used be such that occurrence of underclad cracks is unlikely (e.g., use SA 508
Grade 3 material vs. Grade 2 material), and (3) vessel inspections during fabrication include the
same inspection methods and standards as those that will be used for preservice and inservice
inspections, i.e., it is important that inservice type ultrasonic inspections be performed as well as
the radiography normally used for acceptance of newly fabricated vessels.
Discussion. Several types of fabrication-induced flaws have been detected after vessel
installation or after start of service. Some typical examples are described below.

Underclad Cracks. Underclad cracking of two types has affected nuclear plant pressure
vessels:

The first type of underclad cracking is reheat cracking which occurs in locations of the
type illustrated in Figure 1-12 [57]. This type of cracking has mainly affected SA 508 Cl.
2 material (current designation is Grade 2, Class 1), and has not affected SA 533 Type B

(I) 1-36

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Carbon and Low Alloy Steels for Pressure Vessels

material [58]. The cracking was attributed to use of high heat input cladding practices
applied to SA 508 Cl. 2 material made to coarse grain practices, and was not observed in
material that was clad using a low heat input practice. The cracking occurred during post
weld heat treatment (PWHT). The main cause was attributed to the high heat input
cladding process that developed a microstructure and residual stress pattern under the
clad that made the material susceptible to cracking when subsequently post weld heat
treated. The cracks were typically about 0.12 in. (3 mm) deep and 0.12 in. (3 mm) long.
Many plants have such cracks in locations such as reactor vessel nozzles, and are
required to periodically monitor the cracks to ensure that they remain acceptable.

Figure 1-12
Section of Clad Plate Showing Cracks [57]

The second type of underclad cracking problem is cold cracking due to hydrogen which
occurs in the location shown in Figure 1-13 [59]. It occurred in steam generator tube
sheets and reactor vessel nozzles made of material similar to SA 508 Class 2 (now Grade
2 Class 1). The cracks in tube sheets were typically less than 0.3 in. (8 mm) deep and less
than 0.8 inches (2 cm) long, with a maximum depth of 0.5 in. (1 cm). The cracks in
reactor vessel nozzles were typically less than 0.2 in. (5 mm) deep and less than 0.5
inches (1 cm) long, with a maximum depth of 0.3 in. (8 mm). This cracking was
attributed to the lack of pre and post heat for the second pass of a two pass cladding
process, and the remedy was to require preheat and post heat for the second as well as the
first pass, and to increase the temperatures and soak times of the process. This type of
cracking was detected in many French plants, but was determined to be acceptable since
service induced growth is not anticipated [60]. It appears that this type of cold cracking
does not affect U.S. plants [61].

It was determined that the chromium in SA 508 Grade 2 material was a factor in the occurrence
of underclad cracks, and this led to the development of SA 508 Grade 3 with a lower chromium
limit [62].

(I) 1-37

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Carbon and Low Alloy Steels for Pressure Vessels

Figure 1-13
Illustration Showing the Position of Flaws Under the Cladding [59]

Subsurface Weld Flaws. There are many examples of subsurface weld flaws having been
detected. These in general have not required repair, but have sometimes required subsequent
inservice inspections. The listed references provide a sample of such flaws [63, 64, 65, 66].
In at least one case, for BWR recirculation nozzle welds at Hatch 1, the AEC required the
flaws detected during preservice inspections to be removed and the weld repaired [67].

9.9 Boric Acid Corrosion (BAC) of Pressure Vessel Shells


There have been a significant number of cases of corrosion of carbon steel and low alloy steel
pressure boundary parts as the result of contact with leaking PWR primary coolant. This type of
corrosion is normally called boric acid corrosion since it has been found that the boric acid in
the PWR primary coolant makes the leaking coolant very corrosive toward carbon and low alloy
steels. Service experience with this type of corrosion is not described in detail here since it is
thoroughly reviewed in the Boric Acid Corrosion Guidebook, Revision 1 [68] and since the most
significant event of this type, the corrosion of a large hole in the reactor vessel head of the Davis
Besse plant that was discovered in 2002, is described in the Nickel Alloy chapter of this
handbook.

9.10 Flow Accelerated Corrosion (FAC) of Feedwater Heater and Moisture


Separator Reheater Shells/Pressure Vessels
A number of cases of FAC-caused thinning of shells of feedwater heaters and moisture
separators in Western-design PWRs have been reported, as illustrated by the cases described
below. The thinning has generally occurred in areas with two-phase flow. Reported cases include
the following.

A 2003 EPRI survey report of piping failures indicates that two areas on a feedwater heater
shell of a U.S. PWR were found to be thinned by FAC and were subsequently replaced (item
13 in [69]).

FAC induced wall thinning required significant repairs to three low pressure heater shells at
Wolf Creek [70]. The FAC occurred at drain inlet nozzles at which there was two phase flow.

(I) 1-38

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Carbon and Low Alloy Steels for Pressure Vessels

The wall thinning at Wolf Creek was repaired using a patented PMCap method. It is
understood that similar thinning occurred at Callaway, a sister plant to Wolf Creek, where
repairs were made using weld overlays.

At a 2008 FAC conference, a representative of the World Association of Nuclear Operators


(WANO) reported on the results of a survey of FAC events [71]. A table in that presentation
covers recent FAC caused failures in vessels and indicates that shell side damage was
observed in two PWRs with operating lives of 17 and 18 years in low pressure and high
pressure heaters.

EDF has reported the occurrence of thinning at a moisture separator reheater shell and nozzle
area at a 1300-MWe PWR [72]. The thinning was reported to have reached 30% of the wall
thickness. It was repaired by weld buildup on the inside surface.

A 2010 EPRI manual on feedwater heater tube failures has several descriptions and photos of
heater shell areas that have experienced FAC damage [73]. The report indicates that the FAC
of heater shells is mostly due to two phase impingement attack and that it mainly affects low
pressure heaters at areas where drains from the next higher pressure heater enter and flash to
steam. The report describes the areas of heater shells that are commonly inspected to check
for FAC caused thinning. It indicates that pulsed eddy current is often used since it can be
performed without removal of insulation, but also says that caution needs to be used since it
can miss small thinned areas.

10 Laboratory Investigations
Laboratory investigations related to the use of carbon and low alloy steel pressure vessel steels in
nuclear power plant applications are summarized in this section. The emphasis in this section is
on research for thicker wall applications such as reactor vessels, pressurizers, and steam
generators. Information that may be of use in other applications, such as feedwater heater shells
and service water heat exchangers using carbon steel shells, can be found in the Carbon and Low
Alloy Steel Piping chapter (Section 1, Chapter 2), since the carbon steels used for such pressure
vessels are similar to those used for piping. This includes research related to flow accelerated
corrosion (FAC).
10.1 Radiation Embrittlement
Summary. Because of the importance of ensuring reactor vessel integrity, there has been
extensive work done to characterize the effects of irradiation on vessel steels and to develop
ways to assess the impact of irradiation induced changes on margins of safety against rapid
fracture. This work has developed approaches for addressing the two main concerns associated
with radiation embrittlement: (1) large shifts in the brittle to ductile transition temperature
indicating that the material might behave in a brittle manner at unacceptably high temperatures,
and (2) lowered upper shelf energy (USE) values indicating that resistance to ductile tearing
might be reduced below acceptable levels. The Master Curve approach, which uses fracture
toughness measurements to determine the temperature shift in toughness and to determine a
statistically based lower bound fracture toughness, promises to largely resolve the first concern.
Analytical methods using elastic plastic fracture mechanics appear to have resolved the low USE
concern.

(I) 1-39

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Carbon and Low Alloy Steels for Pressure Vessels

Research is continuing and is improving the level of understanding in topics such as the effects
of material composition, temperature and flux spectrum on embrittlement; the benefits of thermal
annealing; and the mechanisms and microstructures involved in radiation induced embrittlement.
Discussion. Some results of research on radiation embrittlement of pressure vessel steels are
summarized below. The intent is to focus on a few of the highlights that are most likely to be of
interest to the utility user, rather than to provide an exhaustive or detailed review.

Embrittlement Management Methods. In the early 1990s EPRI developed a nine volume
handbook and supporting software to aid utilities in managing reactor vessel embrittlement
issues [62]. In 2010, EPRI issued an updated report and also a training manual to aid utilities
in this area [34, 74].

Master Curve Approach. The Master Curve approach for evaluating fracture toughness
provides a more accurate method than the current RTNDT based methods required by the
ASME Code (except for a code case) and by the NRC in 10CFR50 [34, 75]. Because of its
increased accuracy, the Master Curve approach eliminates conservatisms associated with the
RTNDT approach, and can thus aid in addressing long term embrittlement issues. The current
ASME Code/NRC required approach for fracture toughness is based on use of lower bound
fracture toughness curves that are indexed to a parameter called RTNDT, which is determined
for unirradiated material using standard Charpy impact tests and drop weight tests, and for
irradiated material using standard Charpy impact tests (note that the standard Charpy impact
test is not a fracture toughness test since it uses a blunt notch rather than a sharp starting
crack). It has been found that this indexing parameter is, in many cases, overly conservative
relative to the real toughness. The Master Curve approach provides a more direct index and
measure of the fracture toughness that eliminates some of this unnecessary conservatism.
Some main features of the Master Curve approach include:

The Master Curve approach is based on the determination that the fracture toughness of
pressure vessel steels, including irradiated materials, follows a consistent pattern that can
be described by two factors (see Figure 1-14) [76].
1) The variation of the median value of fracture toughness versus temperature follows a
consistent pattern that only needs to be indexed to one temperature, T0, to describe it
fully. T0 is defined as the temperature at which the median fracture toughness for a
one inch (1T) fracture toughness specimen equals 100 MPAm (90.9 ksiin.). In
other words, it has been found that the median fracture toughness follows the same
curve relative to temperature when the median fracture toughness is plotted against T
T0, where T is the test temperature.
2) The spread of fracture toughness values around the median value at any temperature
follows a consistent statistical pattern that can be adequately described using a
Weibull three parameter equation. This pattern results in the spread of fracture
toughness values being the same for all pressure vessel steels at the same T T0
value.
The above points are illustrated by Figure 1-14 [76]. The figure shows the median
fracture toughness for 1T specimens, identified as the 50% line, and the spread of data
around the median, for various probabilities of fracture. Also shown on the figure are the
original fracture toughness data that were used to develop the lower bound fracture
toughness versus RTNDT curve used by the ASME Code and NRC.

(I) 1-40

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Carbon and Low Alloy Steels for Pressure Vessels

Figure 1-14
Comparison of Original KIc Data to Master Curve (Data Adjusted to 1T) [76]

The fracture toughness index, T0, is determined by tests of specimens per ASTM E192197 [77]. T0 is defined as the temperature at which the median fracture toughness for a 1T
fracture toughness specimen equals 100 MPAm (90.9 ksiin.) The specimens used per
ASTM E1921-97 are fatigue precracked single edge notched bend bars or compact
tension specimens. A 1T fracture toughness specimen is one inch thick. ASTM E1921-97
encourages tests of a range of thicknesses, and provides methods to correct to the 1T size.
ASTM E1921-97 allows use of precracked Charpy specimens, which normally will be
used for irradiated material.

The input data for these predictions for a given pressure vessel are the results of a set of
fracture toughness tests using material from the vessel. For irradiated material,
precracked Charpy specimens are used.

The Master Curve approach has been supported by extensive research, as discussed in the
previously referenced documents. Work is continuing to further support and extend it.

A main short term objective of the Master Curve approach is to replace the current RTNDT
indexing parameter with an indexing parameter based on T0, RTT0 = T0 + 35. This
approach has been allowed by the ASME, via ASME Code Case N-629 [78]. Since it is
based on directly measured fracture toughness, it removes a significant amount of the
uncertainty (and unnecessary conservatism) associated with use of the RTNDT method.

(I) 1-41

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Carbon and Low Alloy Steels for Pressure Vessels

In the longer term, it is intended to develop ASME Code methods that allow use of
statistically determined lower bound fracture toughness values determined using the
Master Curve and associated statistical distribution, without recourse to the lower bound
KIc curves currently indexed to RTNDT.
EPRI has published several reports that readers may wish to consult for further
background on the Master Curve approach [34, 74].

Evaluation of Upper Shelf Behavior. The NRC requires in Appendix G to 10CFR50 that the
Charpy USE remain above 50 ft-lb, unless it is demonstrated in a manner approved by the
NRC that lower levels of USE will provide margins of safety against fracture equivalent to
those required by Appendix G of Section XI of the ASME Code. NRC Regulatory Guide
1.161 provides detailed guidance for this type of evaluation of reactor vessels with low USE
[79]. Appendix K of Section XI of the ASME Code, titled Assessment of Reactor Vessels
with Low Upper Shelf Charpy Impact Energy Levels, also provides procedures for this type
of evaluation. These approaches use the J-integral resistance curve (J-R curve) approach for
evaluating resistance to ductile fracture considering the presence of postulated flaws of
various sizes, and require that the J-R curve used be conservatively chosen to bound the
expected as-irradiated material properties. Several EPRI reports provide data and analysis
methods and results for low USE materials [41, 80, 81].

Effects of Material Composition. Early in the nuclear power program it was recognized that
radiation embrittlement was strongly affected by the steels composition. As a result, grades
of steels with low levels of embrittling species were developed as discussed in earlier
sections of this chapter. However, the need to quantitatively account for material composition
effects on predicted embrittlement remains strong since there are reactor vessels of early
vintage that have compositions that make them susceptible to significant embrittlement and
since, as a result of license renewal, accumulated fluence levels are increasing. For these
reasons, work continues to confirm and refine models for predicting the effects of material
composition on radiation embrittlement. EPRI report, Materials Reliability Program:
Reactor Vessel Integrity Primer (MRP-278), A Primer on Theory and Applications, [34]
provides a 2010 review of the state of knowledge on this topic. Some recent items on this
topic include the following:

A 2007 report by Eason, et al., covers development of an improved embrittlement


correlation that is likely to be the basis for a revision to Regulatory Guide 1.99 [82]. The
revised correlation expands coverage to low-flux, low-copper, and long-time, highfluence exposures. It includes the variables copper, nickel, and fluence that are in RG
1.99 Rev. 2, but also includes effects of irradiation temperature, neutron flux,
phosphorus, and manganese.
A review by Nanstad, et al., in 2010 discusses effects of compositional variables on
embrittlement and notes that because of late blooming phases, there is evidence that
high nickel can lead to significant embrittlement at high doses (that is, at extended life
times), even if copper is very low [83].

(I) 1-42

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Carbon and Low Alloy Steels for Pressure Vessels

A review by Chaouadi et al. in 2010 of the currently used French and U.S, embrittlement
correlations, the French (FIM, FIS) and the U.S. (Reg. Guide 1.99 Rev. 2, ASTM E90002 and EONY) formulas, show that the French trend curves tend to overestimate the
actual irradiation hardening, while the U.S. curves underestimate it [84]. The authors note
that, within the perspective of extended lifetimes, both over- and underestimating are
undesirable; therefore, the trend curves need to be reassessed.
EPRI MRP slides presented at an NRC-industry meeting in January 2011 indicated that
work was under way on improving embrittlement correlations, and that they would be
reflected in Revisions 3 and 4 to Regulatory Guide 1.99 [85].

Effects of Temperature. It is known that the irradiation temperature can affect the rate of
radiation embrittlement. Because of this effect, NRC regulations, e.g., 10CFR50.61, Fracture
Toughness Requirements for Protection Against Pressurized Thermal Shock Events, specify
that the temperature of surveillance specimens must be within +25F of the vessel inner wall
temperature. An article by Grosse and Bhmert reviews the influence of temperature on
radiation induced damage and thermal recovery, and presents some results of irradiation at
two different temperatures, 140F (60C) and 518F (270C) [86]. The lower temperature
irradiation resulted in a greater number of point defects, while irradiation at higher
temperature resulted in a greater number of irradiation induced precipitates, and also resulted
in larger sizes of the precipitates. A report by Eason et al. in 2007 indicates that decreasing
the temperature of irradiation in the range around 290C (554F) results in an increase in the
amount of hardening and also an increase in the transition temperature shift [82].

Effects of Flux Spectrum. The neutron flux spectrum (e.g., the ratio of E>1 MeV to E>0.1 MeV,
-2 -1
where is the neutron flux in n cm s and E is the neutron energy) changes with location in
reactor vessels, for example as position changes from the surveillance capsule location, to the
vessel inner wall, to the vessel 1/4 wall location, etc. As a result, it is important to know what
measure of fluence is appropriate for use in characterizing the effect of neutron fluence on
radiation embrittlement. The NRC, for example in 10CFR50.61, Fracture Toughness
Requirements for Protection Against Pressurized Thermal Shock Events, specifies that the
measure of fluence to be used is E >1 MeV, and this has historically been used in the USA
and many other countries. An experimental evaluation in France investigated spectrum
effects, and confirmed that the best measure to use for fluence is E >1 MeV [87]. The French
study concluded that fluence for E > 0.1 MeV is not appropriate, and that use of a
displacement per atom (dpa) measure provides no improvement vs. the E >1 MeV measure.
In addition, the French study concluded that no spectrum effect on embrittlement needs to be
taken into account for comparisons between capsule, vessel inner surface, and 1/4 wall
locations.

Small Punch Test Method [88, 89]. In the 1990s and early 2000s, EPRI had a program to
develop ways to use the small punch test method to determine fracture toughness (KIc, JIc).
The intent was to show that the method could determine the fracture toughness of irradiated
reactor pressure vessel steels using small specimens taken from surveillance capsule
materials or even from the vessel itself. The technique involved measuring the load and
displacement of a 0.100 in. (2.54 mm) diameter hemispherical head that is pushed or
punched through a specimen that has a 0.250 in. (6.4 mm) diameter and is 0.020 in. (0.508
mm) thick. Measurements of KIc for irradiated materials using the small punch method have
shown reasonable agreement with those measured using large size fracture mechanics
specimens, with most data falling within a 25% error band. However, as of 2010, an EPRI
(I) 1-43

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Carbon and Low Alloy Steels for Pressure Vessels

report indicates that efforts to refine the technology through a joint EPRI-CEA research
project found that further technological enhancements would be needed in order to
effectively use the technique in nuclear applications (page 2-59 in Materials Reliability
Program: Reactor Vessel Integrity Primer (MRP-278), A Primer on Theory and Applications
[34]).

Thermal Annealing. NRC regulations in 10CFR50.66 allow the performance of thermal


annealing to restore reactor vessel fracture toughness properties, subject to submittal and
approval of a Thermal Annealing Report. NRC Regulatory Guide 1.162 (RG 1.162),
Format and Content of Report for Thermal annealing of Reactor Pressure Vessels, provides
requirements for the thermal annealing report. RG 1.162 provides a useful review of the
history and bases for thermal annealing. For example, it indicates that, while thermal
annealing has not been applied to a U.S. commercial power reactor, it has been successfully
applied to other reactors. The Armys SM-1A reactor was annealed in 1967, and the BR-3
reactor in Belgium was annealed in 1984. Both of these were carried out wet at 650F
(343C) using the reactor coolant pumps as the heat source. In addition, at least 12 Russiandesigned VVER-440 PWRs have been annealed at about 850F (454C) using dry air and
radiant heaters. RG 1.162 provides equations that can be used to determine the recovery in
transition temperature and USE as a function of the time and temperature of annealing, the
copper content of the material, the irradiation induced drop in USE, flux rate, and
temperature of irradiation. The bases for the equations are covered in a technical article [90].

Results of research regarding thermal annealing include:

A paper by Amaev, et al., in 1994 reports on the results of investigations of annealing and
post annealing re-irradiation embrittlement [91]. As shown on the right side of Figure
1-15, the recovery of the shift in transition temperature is a strong function of how much
higher the annealing temperature was than the irradiation temperature; the annealing
temperature has to be about 300F (167C) above the irradiation temperature for full
recovery. Their studies indicated that the rate of embrittlement after annealing followed
the same pattern as the initial irradiation. This trend is illustrated on the left side of Figure
1-15.

(I) 1-44

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Carbon and Low Alloy Steels for Pressure Vessels

Annealing Temperature, F
0

180

360

540

720

900

1080

100
irr + anneal at 420C (788F) + reirr
Tirr = 270C (518F), tann = 150 h

% of Full Shift

83

irr

66

49

32
Full Shift = 88C (190F)

15
-18

82

182

282

382

482

582

Fast Fluence, 1018 n/cm2 or Annealing Temperature, C


Figure 1-15
Transition Temperature Shift vs. Fast Fluence for Initial Irradiation and Post-Annealing ReIrradiation (left side), and Transition Temperature Shift Recovery of Irradiated Weld Metal
vs. Annealing Temperature (right side) [91]

EPRI report TR-104934, March 1995, discusses the results of a study directed at
determining if thermal annealing of the reactor vessels in Westinghouse 3 and 4 loop
plants is feasible [92]. The thermal annealing temperature evaluated was 850F (454C).
Based on thermal and stress analyses, it was determined that stress, temperature and
dimensions of the vessel and its associated components would remain within acceptable
limits during the annealing process. It was concluded that there are no major technical
impediments to thermal annealing a reactor vessel.

A paper by Sokolov, et al., in 1995 reports on the results of annealing tests of two U.S.
reactor vessel steels [93]. Annealing at 850F (454C) resulted in complete recovery of
the USE, and 75% or more recovery of the Charpy 30 ft-lb (41 J) transition temperature
shift, while annealing at 650F (343C) provided significantly less benefit. The recovery
of fracture toughness, as measured by the Master Curve technique, was similar to that of
the Charpy 30 ft-lb (41 J) value for annealing at 850F (454C), but was significantly less
for one steel for a 650F (343C) anneal.

EPRI report TR-106001, Dec. 1995 reports the results of some irradiation embrittlement
and re-annealing studies for Yankee Rowe related materials. Annealing at 850F (454C)
resulted in recovery of 80-100% of the transition temperature and 100% recovery of the
(I) 1-45

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Carbon and Low Alloy Steels for Pressure Vessels

USE. Annealing at 650F (343C) resulted in about a 40% recovery in transition


temperature.

A 1998 paper by Sokolov, et al., reports the results of annealing and re-irradiation tests
on U.S. and Russian reactor vessel steels [94]. The recovery of USE by annealing at
850F (454C) was complete, and the recovery of transition temperature shift was
substantial.

Re-irradiation embrittlement was found to be conservatively predicted by the lateral


shift method described in RG 1.162.

A 1998 paper by Nikolaev and Nikolaeva reports the results of annealing and reirradiation tests on Russian reactor vessel steels [95]. They report that the lateral shift
method of RG 1.162 for predicting re-irradiation embrittlement is conservative, and
provide an alternate method that they consider to be more accurate.

EPRI report TR-110123, Users guide to IARDATA: Irradiation-Anneal-Reirradiation


Database, Beta Version, April 1998, and accompanying software SW-110123, provide a
comprehensive database of irradiation-anneal-reirradiation data for reactor pressure
vessel materials that can be used when evaluating thermal annealing.

EPRI report TR-108316, Final Report of Marble Hill Reactor Vessel Thermal Annealing
Demonstration, March 1998, describes the results of a demonstration of thermal
annealing at a U.S. plant. It indicates that the project served to (i) verify the dimensional
stability of the RPV after an annealing treatment, (ii) validate thermal/stress models
developed to predict RPV response during an annealing treatment, and (iii) demonstrate
engineering procedures required for annealing of an irradiated RPV.

EPRI report 1003531, Microstructural Characterization of Reactor Pressure Vessel


Steels: Post-Irradiation Annealing Experiments: Joint EPRI-CRIEPI RPV Embrittlement
Studies (1999-2004), September 2004, reports on the results of examinations of material
that had been irradiated at low to moderate fluxes and fluences and then annealed.

Embrittlement Mechanisms, Resulting Microstructures, and Effects of Annealing on


Microstructures. In 2010, EPRI published a Reactor Vessel Integrity Primer that includes a
section that reviews embrittlement mechanisms [34] and can be consulted for more details on
this topic. Developing an improved understanding of the mechanisms and microstructures
involved in radiation embrittlement and recovery is being pursued by the industry with the
expectation that the insights provided will assist in improving selection of new steels,
embrittlement prediction methods, and annealing methods and evaluations. The embrittling
mechanisms involved, resulting microstructures, and effects of annealing on these
microstructures are being studied by an array of techniques, including use of small angle
neutron scattering (SANS), transmission electron microscopy (TEM), field emission gun
scanning TEM, field ion microscopy and 3D atom probe, positron annihilation line shape
analyses, thermoelectric power measurements, microhardness measurements, etc. Research
to date indicates that irradiation results in three main types of changes: (1) formation of
copper precipitates, (2) formation of matrix damage such as dislocation loops and
microvoids, and (3) enrichment of species such as phosphorous at grain boundaries. These
microstructural changes can result in hardening and also in reduction of the fracture strength,
although this latter effect has not been detected in U.S. steels (page 2-26 of [34]).

Effects of Through-Wall Attenuation on Radiation Embrittlement. The neutron flux decreases

(I) 1-46

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Carbon and Low Alloy Steels for Pressure Vessels

as it passes through the reactor vessel wall. In addition, the spectrum also changes as a result
of differences in the rate of attenuation for neutrons of different energies. These effects need
to be taken into account when calculating the effects of irradiation on the through thickness
properties of the vessel material. Reports issued in 2008 and 2010 discuss results of
experiments conducted in a test reactor regarding the effects of attenuation on fracture
toughness, Charpy impact energy, and hardness [96, 97]. The results indicated that current
methods do not accurately predict effects of through-wall attenuation, although they are
generally conservative.

Flaw Distributions in Welds. Flaw size distributions are assumed as part of pressurized
thermal shock analyses of radiation embrittled reactor vessels. To provide data for possible
use in such analyses, the flaw distribution near the inner surface of a reactor vessel, including
flaw sizes smaller than the acceptable flaw sizes of ASME Section XI, IWB-3500, were
documented [98]. This was accomplished by reanalyzing ultrasonic data from Beaver Valley
Unit 2 and included recording all detected flaws near the inner surface. Results from boat
samples were also obtained to provide a technical basis for the detection and sizing
capability.

10.2 Stress Corrosion Cracking in BWR Environments


Summary. In normal or hydrogen BWR water chemistry with low conductivity and low impurity
levels, it is difficult to sustain SCC in LAS. However, several conditions can increase the
likelihood of SCC, including higher potentials (such as due to higher oxygen levels or the
presence of copper ions), high levels of chlorides, higher sulfates and conductivity such as due to
resin ingress transients, low flow velocities, and cyclic stresses. Considering these factors and
service experience, SCC is unlikely in LAS parts in BWRs but could, under unusual
circumstances, possibly occur.
Discussion. As described below, an EPRI BWRVIP project summarized available information as
of 2009 regarding SCC of pressure vessel steels in BWR environments. Since the report of that
works provides the needed detailed review, the discussion here is limited to a summary of its
more important points, and to a brief review of some other related results from the technical
literature.
BWRVIP Results. A 2009 BWRVIP project produced a summary report that provides a thorough
up-to-date review of SCC of pressure vessel steels in BWR environments [99]. The purpose of
the report was to provide a methodology for assessment of SCC of LAS pressure vessel steel
components in BWR environments. The report evaluated laboratory research results from around
the world, results of crack growth measurements in the CAV systems of operating reactors, and
also service experience. One of the main purposes of the 2009 report was to suggest and provide
technical support to changes to crack growth rate (CGR) disposition lines that are in an earlier
2003 EPRI report [100]. However, since disposition lines are complex and subject to change,
disposition lines are not covered in this handbook, and readers are referred to EPRI reports
1019061 [99] and 1008871 [100] or subsequent updates for information on CGR disposition
lines. Some of the more important results covered in the 2009 report are discussed below [99].
Test data and field experience indicate that SCC growth is extremely low under steady state
loading and normal BWR environmental conditions (that is, in the absence of chemistry
transients that exceed EPRI BWR water chemistry guidelines). Review of the literature and test
data show that it is extremely difficult to initiate SCC cracking or maintain SCC crack extension
(I) 1-47

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Carbon and Low Alloy Steels for Pressure Vessels

in low alloy steel (LAS) under constant loading in normal BWR environments. In the absence of
high loads (K > 55 MPa m [50 ksiin.]) and off-normal water chemistry including transients
or load cycling, it is difficult to produce and/or maintain SCC extension in laboratory tests.
Much of the test data that forms the basis of the CGR disposition lines in prior reports reflect
results of a combination of load cycling and constant load conditions. Load cycling is often used
in tests to restart cracks after apparent crack arrest during constant load phases. This results in
overly conservative determinations of the CGR since load cycling in plants often occurs only
once every year or two. It is, therefore, important to separate crack growth under constant load
from the incremental crack growth that occurred during rising load phases of the test. The
resulting corrected and more realistic constant load data provide bases for revising earlier SCC
CGR disposition lines.
Cracks that initiate in Alloy 182 or in stainless steel cladding typical arrest at the LAS interface
or, at worst, penetrate only a short distance, for example, < 5 mm (< 0.2 in.). This behavior has
been observed in plants and in laboratory tests and confirms that propagation of SCC in LAS
under normal BWR conditions is highly unlikely.
The main factors that affect SCC in LAS in BWR environments are shown in Table 1-5.
Table 1-5
Parameters That Affect EAC Growth Rates [99]
Environmental Parameters

Material Parameters

Loading Parameters

ECP and dissolved oxygen

Sulfur content, distribution of


MnS

Frequency, loading rate, hold


time

Temperature, irradiation

Dynamic strain aging

K level, specimen validity

Water chemistry (conductivity sulfate, chloride)

Hardness/yield strength

Type of loading (for example,


constant load, cyclic load, ripple
load)

Flow rate

Residual stress

Discussion of the factors listed in Table 1-5 includes the following.

Environmental parameters:

ECP and dissolved oxygen. SCC CGRs at the ECP of about 50 to 100 mVSHE established
by BWR normal water chemistry (NWC) are very low and become still lower as the ECP
is decreased using hydrogen water chemistry and noble metal chemical addition.

Temperature. Tests show that SCC CGR increases with temperature, reaching a
maximum at around 250C (482F). The operating temperature inside BWR vessels is
around 288C (551F). Since most of the test data for SCC are from tests performed at
temperatures in the 240C288C (464F551F) range, these data are generally used
directly without adjustment for temperature.

Irradiation. The effect of irradiation is two-fold. There is a slight change in ECP due to
the oxidizing conditions from radiolysis (a flux effect), and there is a change in material

(I) 1-48

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Carbon and Low Alloy Steels for Pressure Vessels

properties as a result of irradiation, for example, an increase in yield strength and


reduction in toughness (fluence effects). Because of the low fluence in BWRs, effects of
irradiation on SCC of LAS are expected to be negligible.

Water chemistry. CGRs increase as conductivity increases and as concentrations of


chlorides and sulfates increase. The understanding that chlorides have a strong effect,
even at the 10 ppb level, is a change from earlier assessments, which were that sulfates
are the dominant anion involved in cracking of LAS. The effects of chlorides on SCC
CGR are illustrated in Figure 1-16.

Flow rate. It is generally accepted that high flow rates are beneficial (or at least benign)
in minimizing the effects of EAC in low alloy steels. Since most CGR testing is done in
quasi-stagnant conditions (low flow rates compared to plant conditions), the test results
are conservative when applied to the evaluation of field conditions.

Figure 1-16
Chloride-Induced Acceleration of SCC Crack Growth [99]

Material parameters:

Sulfur content, distribution of MnS. It has been found that crack growth rates of steels
with high sulfur content tend to be higher than those with low sulfur content. This is
attributed to sulfur in MnS inclusions in the steel dissolving and keeping a high anion
content at the crack tip. The size and distribution of MnS inclusions is considered to
affect this process.

Dynamic strain aging (DSA). DSA has a strong influence on SCC under some conditions.
DSA is a function of free interstitial N and C, which, in turn, depends on steel making or
welding processes, heat treatment, and chemical composition. The localized plastic
(I) 1-49

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Carbon and Low Alloy Steels for Pressure Vessels

strains in DSA susceptible steels may promote film rupture at the crack tip and result in
greater SCC effects. The most severe DSA effects are expected for materials in the aswelded conditions (for example, piping) without post-weld heat treatment (PWHT). With
regard to BWR reactor vessels that operate at temperatures around 288C (550F), DSA
is not significant. Furthermore DSA is less of a concern since pressure vessel components
are post-weld heat treated. Figure 1-17 shows the results of tests for CGR and reduction
of area and indicates that DSA has a strong effect at 250C (482F), but little effect at
288C (550F).

Hardness/yield strength. The CGR due to SCC of LAS starts to increase when hardness
exceeds 350 Hv, which corresponds to a yield strength of about 800 MPa (116 ksi).

Figure 1-17
Coincidence Between Temperature Dependence of SCC CGR and the Loss in Ductility Due
to DSA [99]

Loading parameters:

Frequency, loading rate, hold time. Crack growth rates due to environmentally assisted
cracking (EAC) increase as the frequency of cycling increases, but this is due to
corrosion fatigue and not SCC. Loading rate is indicated as affecting the CGR, but no
specific data are available. The CGR decreases in tests as the hold time increases; this is
attributed to averaging the accelerated CGR associated with loading over longer time
periods.

K level and specimen validity are also believed to affect crack growth rates.

Observations that there is no sustainable crack growth rate due to SCC in BWR environments
are challenged under the following conditions:

(I) 1-50

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Carbon and Low Alloy Steels for Pressure Vessels

High yield stress. Crack growth rates of LAS in BWR environments increase as yield
strength increases. At yield stresses above the normal range for BWR vessel steels,
sustained crack growth may occur under normal BWR operating conditions. This could
occur, for example, if proper post-weld heat treatments had not been applied.

Periodic or transient unloading. This type of loading can lead to crack growth.

Plain stress. Crack growth rates increase as the constraint condition at the crack tip
changes from plain strain to plain stress. This is a result of the increased ductility
associated with plane stress that leads to greater crack tip strains and more rapid
fracturing of the protective oxides at the crack tip.

High chlorides. High chlorides, for example, over 5 ppb, lead to significantly increased
CGRs.

High conductivity. Conductivity increases, for example, due to increases in sulfate


concentrations in the water, lead to increases in the CGR.

There are some aspects of crack growth in LAS in BWR environments that have not been
considered adequately in earlier reports. These include effects of chloride transients, memory
effects after restoration of water chemistry following chemistry transients, and irradiation
effects.

Other Results. Some other results of interest regarding SCC in BWR environments are
mentioned below.

Effects of Oxygen and Potential. Tests by Klemetti and Hnninen reported in 1986 showed
that, for SSRT with SA 508 Gr. 3 steel, no SCC occurred with oxygen below 10 ppb (ECP
< -500mVSHE) [101]. However, if the specimen was coupled to the autoclave such that the
ECP was raised by galvanic effects, SCC occurred. Thus, low oxygen by itself did not inhibit
SCC; the ECP also had to be lowered below a critical value. The ECP ranges where SCC was
observed are shown in Figure 1-18, and indicated that SCC under the severe conditions of an
SSRT can occur for ECP over -500mVSHE. Under the more realistic conditions of measuring
crack growth rate using precracked fracture mechanics specimens, results reported by Van
Der Sluys and Pathania in 1991 indicated that no sustained crack growth rate was observed
for SA 533-B steel at 550F (288C) with oxygen at 200 ppb and 8 ppm, and conductivity
0.1 S/cm, for stress intensities of 37 ksiin to 60 ksiin (41 MPam to 66 MPam) [102].

(I) 1-51

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Carbon and Low Alloy Steels for Pressure Vessels

Figure 1-18
SSRT Round Robin Results: Average SCC Velocity as a Function of Electrochemical
Potential [101]

Effects of Oxidizing Conditions During Startups. Results of crack growth rate tests at
different temperatures and oxygen levels are shown in Figure 1-19 [103]. These results
indicate that aerated conditions during startup tend to increase crack growth rates in LAS.

(I) 1-52

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Carbon and Low Alloy Steels for Pressure Vessels

Figure 1-19
Effect of Temperature and Deaeration on Constant Load Crack Growth Rate, A 508-2 Low
Alloy Steel, Nominal K = 42 ksiin. (46 MPam) [103]

Effects of Hardness. Tsubota reported the results of creviced bent beam (CBB) tests at 550F
(288C) in oxygenated pure water of steels of various hardnesses [104]. As shown in Figure
1-20, no SCC was observed for hardness below HV 300, which corresponded to a tensile
strength of about 125 ksi (862 MPa) for the steels tested.

(I) 1-53

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Carbon and Low Alloy Steels for Pressure Vessels

Figure 1-20
Relation Between Hardness and Average SCC Crack Depth [104]

Effects of Sulfates. Results of SSRT at 550F (288C) reported by Shoji in 1987 shown in
Figure 1-21 illustrate the interrelated effects of sulfates and ECP. While these data are for a
PWR chemistry with lithium and boric acid, they are consistent with the effects of sulfates
and potential in BWR environments. As shown in the figure, as sulfate concentration is
increased, lower potentials are required to inhibit SCC and, at a constant potential, the
likelihood of SCC increases as the sulfate concentration increases.

Figure 1-21
Variation of Critical Cracking Potential with Sulfur Content in Steel and Sulfate
Concentration in the Environment [105]

(I) 1-54

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Carbon and Low Alloy Steels for Pressure Vessels

Effects of Cyclic Stresses. As discussed later under corrosion fatigue, crack growth in LAS is
increased by application of cyclic stresses; i.e., the total crack growth for a given time with
imposed stress intensity is increased by periodic relaxation and re-application of the stress
intensity.

Effects of Flow Velocity. SSRT tests reported by Choi, et al., in 1983 showed that the
susceptibility of A 508 Cl. 2 (now Grade 2, Class 1) steels to SCC in oxygenated water at
550F (288C) increased as the flow velocity decreased, with stagnant conditions being the
most aggressive [106].

High Reported Growth Rates. Results reported by Speidel and Magdowski in 1997 indicate
that high crack growth rates are occasionally observed in tests [107]. As shown in Figure
1-22, crack growth rates up to 2.5 in./y (6.4 cm/y) were measured for SA 533 Type B steel in
BWR type water with conductivities of 0.3 S/cm 0.5 S/cm. The authors note that less
than 10% of the specimens exhibited crack growth. Later tests reported by Blind, et al., and
by Heldt and Seifert, in 550F (288C) water with somewhat lower conductivities, 0.2
S/cm, indicated that sustained crack growth did not occur in LAS in normal BWR
environments [108, 109]. Thus, it appears that the sporadic cracking reported by Speidel and
Magdowski may be associated with the somewhat higher conductivity used for their tests.

Figure 1-22
Stress Corrosion Crack Growth Curve of RPV Steel A 508 c1.II, Rp0.2=515 MPa (75 ksi),
Exposed to 550F (288C) Water of Either 0.5S/cm Conductivity and 0.4 ppm Oxygen or
0.3S/cm Conductivity and +200 mVSHE Applied Potential. Each Data Point Corresponds to
a Single Specimen Which Showed a Clear Stress Corrosion Crack Extension. [107]

(I) 1-55

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Carbon and Low Alloy Steels for Pressure Vessels

10.3 Stress Corrosion Cracking in PWR Environments


Summary. Tests indicate that SCC does not occur of pressure vessel steels under normal PWR
reactor coolant conditions, i.e., under conditions with normal PWR reactor coolant chemistry
characterized by fully deoxygenated conditions with low ECP (near the hydrogen line on a
Pourbaix diagram). However, a limited amount of testing indicates SCC could possibly occur of
weld HAZ materials under PWR operating conditions and high stress intensities.
Tests indicate that SCC of pressure vessel steels and weldments can occur if oxidizing conditions
develop. This result is considered to be supported by the observation of SCC that was a factor
(along with corrosion fatigue) in the PWR steam generator shell cracking discussed in Section 9.
This SCC is attributed to oxidizing conditions that were probably present in the feedwater inlet
areas of these older PWR steam generators during early years of operation, and to the presence
of hardened areas associated with poorly stress relieved welds. The possible occurrence of SCC
under oxidizing conditions is also supported by the BWR secondary steam generator shell
cracking observed in an early BWR, as also discussed in Section 9.
While tests indicate that SCC of reactor coolant wetted steels is unlikely in PWRs, the
probability of its occurrence would increase if oxidizing conditions were allowed to develop,
with the likelihood of SCC increasing as the oxidizing potential increases, and as the amount of
manganese sulfide inclusions in the steel increases.
Under the abnormal, somewhat oxidizing, conditions required for SCC of pressure vessel steels,
tests indicate that the following trends apply:

Susceptibility to SCC increases as the amount of sulfides in the steel increases.

Susceptibility is greater for steel strained in a direction perpendicular to the rolling direction,
and thus perpendicular to elongated sulfides.

Higher flow rates tend to decrease susceptibility.

Weld HAZs are the most susceptible areas.

Many of the above results are considered to be the result of manganese sulfide inclusions in the
steel having a strong influence on the SCC behavior. This is because the concentration of
dissolved sulfur species at the crack tip is considered to be a controlling factor in the rate of
SCC, with dissolution of manganese sulfides at the crack tip being an important source of sulfur
for the cracking process.
Discussion. Results of research related to occurrence of SCC in carbon and low alloy steels
under PWR conditions, i.e., under fully deoxygenated and mildly alkaline pH conditions, include
the following.

Tomkins and Hudson reviewed the SCC behavior of pressure vessel steels in 1983 [110].
They note that tests of base materials and weld metals in PWR water at 550F (288C) did
not result in SCC for periods of time over 40,000 hours, with stress intensities up to 100
ksiin (110 MPam). However, with high applied stress intensities, crack initiation was
observed in weld HAZ materials, with cracking continuing to occur down to stress intensities
of about 36 ksiin (40 MPam). Crack growth rates up to 12 in./y (30 cm/y) were observed
in the HAZ materials. It should be noted that these results were not supported by later work.
As discussed by Scott in 1987, it is possible that the aggressive cracking of HAZ materials in
these early tests was due to the inadvertent presence of significant amounts of oxygen or
some other oxidant [111].

(I) 1-56

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Carbon and Low Alloy Steels for Pressure Vessels

Results of SSRT tests of pressure vessel steels were reported by Hurst et al., in 1986 [112].
As shown in Figure 1-23, at the corrosion potentials expected in PWRs, no SCC was
observed, although SCC was observed at potentials of about -400 mVSHE and higher. This
paper also notes that flow rate has an important effect on occurrence of SCC, with higher
flow rates tending to decrease SCC, and that the size and orientation of manganese sulfides
has a strong effect on susceptibility, with susceptibility increasing as the density of inclusions
increases, and also increasing as the inclusions become more nearly perpendicular to the
tensile axis.

Figure 1-23
-6
-1
Slow Strain Rate Test at 1.5 x 10 sec in PWR Water (< 5ppb O2) [112]

Scott reviewed the SCC behavior of pressure vessel steels in 1987 [111]. Figure 1-24 from
his paper shows potential measurement data for low alloy steels in high temperature water.
As shown, for oxygen levels in the 1 to 5 ppb range, the potential is below -600 mVSHE; this
indicates that the potential of steels in properly controlled PWR primary and secondary
coolants is expected to be below -600 mVSHE. Figure 1-25 from the same review indicates
that, under SSRT test conditions, such low potentials result in fully ductile behavior, i.e.,
no SCC. Scott also notes that SCC initiation is inhibited by higher flow rates, and that the
influence of sulfates in the bulk fluid on initiation is not clear, with some tests indicating
that higher sulfates increase susceptibility while other tests do not.

(I) 1-57

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Carbon and Low Alloy Steels for Pressure Vessels

Figure 1-24
The Influence of Oxygen and Temperature on Corrosion Potential of Low Alloy Steels in
High Temperature Water [111]

(I) 1-58

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Carbon and Low Alloy Steels for Pressure Vessels

Figure 1-25
Effects of Potential Upon the Reduction in Area to Fracture at Various Temperatures in
Slow Strain Rate Tests [111]

Shoji, et al. presented the results of SCC tests in 1987 [105]. The results presented in that
paper confirm the results shown in Figure 1-24 that illustrate that SCC does not appear to
occur of pressure vessel steels at potentials typical of those in PWR primary or secondary
coolant. In addition, as shown in Figure 1-21, SCC in SSRT did not occur at the low
potentials characteristic of PWRs even with the addition of sulfates, until the sulfate
concentration reached 20 ppm.

An article in 1989 by Hnninen and Cullen reports the results of SSRT tests at a strain rate of
-7 -1
3.5 to 7.0 x 10 s of A 516-70 carbon steel in low oxygen PWR coolant conditions at 550F
(288C), with the following main results [113]:

In deoxygenated pure water and in deoxygenated primary coolant, specimens failed in a


ductile manner.

In MnS saturated PWR water, SCC occurred. This was attributed to the MnS raising the
potential from the low values that typically protect carbon steel from SCC in PWR
environments to a level where SCC could occur.

In 1993 Hnninen, et al., reported the results of long term SCC tests of A 508 Cl. 2 (now
Grade 2, Class 1) steels, including weld materials, in simulated PWR environments [114].
The tests were performed using bolt loaded specimens at a temperature of 550F (288C) and
stress intensities ranging between 36 ksiin (40 MPam) and 55 ksiin (60 MPam). After a
test duration of one year, no crack growth was observed in either a low sulfur (0.002%) steel
or a medium sulfur (0.009%) steel. However, in one specimen made using the medium sulfur
(I) 1-59

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Carbon and Low Alloy Steels for Pressure Vessels

content steel, minor local extension was found in a weld HAZ subjected to 55 ksiin. (60
MPam). This cracking was attributed to a chemistry transient associated with an
intermediate inspection in which the ECP was temporarily raised as the result of oxygen
ingress.

A 1997 paper by Zhou, et al., reports the results of SSRT with controlled potentials for a
range of steels, including a Cr-Mo and a Mn-Mo steel similar to typical nuclear plant
pressure vessel steels [115]. The tests were performed at strain rates of about 10-6 s-1 in pure
water doped with lithium hydroxide to a room temperature pH of 9.95 (estimated pH at
550F (288C) of 7.25). Some of the main results of this work were as follows:

The susceptibility to SCC was a function of the ECP, temperature and sulfide content.

No cracking of any of the steels was observed below about 300F (149C), nor at
potentials below about -600 mVSHE.

Eliminating sulfide inclusions limited the region of susceptibility to SCC to high


temperature high potential conditions.

The SCC cracks in LAS initiated at cracked or debonded MnS inclusions.

Reviews of environmentally assisted cracking (EAC) of carbon and low alloy steels were
presented by Seifert and Scott at workshops in 2008 and 2010 [116, 117]. These
presentations note that SCC crack growth in carbon and low alloy steels under constant load
conditions in PWR water chemistry conditions does not appear to occur, but that transient
strain and/or chemistry conditions can lead to crack initiation and growth due to straininduced corrosion cracking (SICC) and corrosion fatigue (CF). These presentations provide
data and insights into the unusual non-steady state conditions that can lead to crack initiation
and growth.

10.4 Corrosion Fatigue in LWR Environments


Summary. An extensive amount of work has been done over the past thirty or more years to
characterize both the crack initiation and crack propagation behavior of pressure vessel steels in
LWR environments. The main focus of this work has been to quantify the effects of variables
such as cyclic frequency (strain rate), stress and stress intensity factor, R ratio (the ratio of
minimum to maximum stress or stress intensity factor), water quality (oxygen and conductivity),
sulfur content of the steel, and temperature on crack initiation and growth rate. The results of the
work on crack propagation (crack growth rate) have been reflected in the crack growth rate
curves in Section XI of the ASME Code. However, the results of work on the effect of
environment on crack initiation (S N curves) are not covered in the Code as of 2011, although
several Code Cases are being worked on to address this issue. The NRC and Argonne National
Laboratory have issued several report that provides guidance on how to address such effects (for
example, [118]), and the NRC has mandated that this or similar approaches be used for license
renewals (Section 4.3, Metal Fatigue, of [119], and Section X.M1 of [120]).
A number of EPRI reports provide extensive information on corrosion fatigue and can be
consulted for more details [121]. For example, EPRI report TR-106696 (1997) provides a
summary of service experience and research results up to about 1997.
The main trends that have been identified by corrosion fatigue research regarding crack
initiation, i.e., fatigue life or S-N behavior, are as follows:
(I) 1-60

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Carbon and Low Alloy Steels for Pressure Vessels

Fatigue life tends to decrease as strain rate decreases, i.e., for a given number of cycles, the
cycles are more damaging if they occur at low frequencies with low strain rates.

Fatigue life decreases as temperature increases in the range from 150F (66C) to 610F
(321C), and is insensitive to temperature below 150F (66C).

Fatigue life decreases as oxygen increases above the 50 100 ppb range.

Fatigue life decreases as the sulfur content of the steel increases, up to about 0.015%, and is
insensitive to sulfur above that level.

The main trends that have been identified by corrosion fatigue research regarding crack growth
rates are as follows:

Crack growth rates in water environments are increased as compared to growth rates in air. In
general, the increase is moderate (median increase of about 1.7), and is no more than a factor
of three. However, under some circumstances, crack growth rates can be increased by a
factor of ten or more. This type of enhanced crack growth rate is known as environmentally
assisted cracking or EAC.

For a given stress intensity factor range, crack growth rates are increased by increased R
ratio.

Crack growth rates, in terms of crack growth per cycle, increase with decreasing strain rate,
increasing oxygen content, increasing conductivity, and increasing sulfur content of the steel.
Crack growth rates tend to decrease as the flow rate increases.

Crack growth rates at low stress intensity, e.g. 15 ksiin. (16 MPam), are higher at 350F
(177C) than at 550F (288C), and the stress intensity threshold for crack growth to occur is
lower at the lower temperature. However, peak crack growth rates, at high stress intensity,
are higher at 550F (288C) than at 350F (177C).

Discussion. Some key results regarding corrosion fatigue of pressure vessel steels in LWR
primary and secondary environments are presented below. Because of the large amount of work
that has been done in this area over the past thirty or more years, reviewing all of it in detail is
not practical. Rather, emphasis is placed on recent reviews and results.
The term environmentally assisted cracking (EAC) is frequently used in the technical literature
dealing with corrosion fatigue. It is the enhanced initiation and propagation rate of cracks in
aggressive environments as compared to rates in air environments. In water environments, EAC
of steels is considered to occur when crack growth rates are more than 3 times those observed in
air [122].
Crack growth rates are expressed in two different ways in the technical literature. The method
used in Section XI of the ASME Code (e.g., Figure A-4300-2, Reference Fatigue Crack Growth
Curves for Carbon and Low Alloy Ferritic Steels Exposed to Water Environments) is to express
crack growth rate in inches per cycle. An alternate approach is to express the crack growth rate in
inches per second. In this alternate approach, the fact that crack growth occurs only during the
rising load portion of the cycle is taken into account using the following formula [123]:
a =

da / dN
TR

Equation 1-1

(I) 1-61

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Carbon and Low Alloy Steels for Pressure Vessels

In the above formula, a is the crack growth rate per unit time, da/dN is the crack growth per
cycle, and TR is the rise time per cycle, typically taken as being equal to (2f)-1, where f is the
frequency.
Results of relatively recent work regarding corrosion fatigue are summarized below.

A 1989 paper by Van Der Sluys, et al., provides a review of corrosion fatigue crack growth
rate information available up through that time [123]. Some of the main points made in that
paper include:

There is a large amount of scatter in crack growth rate data, and some of the data exhibit
higher crack growth rates than provided for in the ASME Code of that time, as shown in
Figure 1-26.

Increasing sulfur content of the steel strongly increases crack growth rates in water
environments, as shown in Figure 1-27. The authors note that the influence of sulfur on
crack growth rate was first reported in 1981 by Slama and Rabbe [124].

Higher flow rates reduce susceptibility to EAC as a result of sulfur, as shown in Figure
1-28.

Crack growth rate increases as loading frequency decreases, as indicated in Figure 1-29.

Evaluations of crack growth rate data for 77F, 248F, 400F and 550F (25C, 120C,
204C and 288C) indicated that crack growth rate at 400F (204C) was higher than at
other temperatures, and that the lowest threshold stress intensity also occurred at 400F
(204C). (Crack growth was observed at stress intensities as low as 8 ksiin. (9 MPam)
at 400F or 204C.)

Crack growth rate data were segregated by environment (BWR, PWR with low flow
rates, PWR with high flow rates, and PWR with oxygen transients), and by the steels
sulfur content (low, medium and high). The data for each grouping were then analyzed.
Detailed results are too voluminous to present here, but some key results were that:
(1) higher sulfur content steels exhibited higher crack growth rates, especially in
oxygenated environments; (2) crack growth rates tended to be higher in normal BWR
than normal PWR environments; but (3) the most aggressive environment was the PWR
environment with oxygen upsets.

(I) 1-62

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Carbon and Low Alloy Steels for Pressure Vessels

Figure 1-26
Present ASME Section XI Cyclic Crack Growth Reference Lines and Supporting Data [123]

(I) 1-63

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Carbon and Low Alloy Steels for Pressure Vessels

Figure 1-27
The Effect of Sulfur on Crack Growth as Described by Amzallag [123]

Figure 1-28
EAC Susceptibility of Reactor Pressure Vessel Steels in PWR Water under Different Flow
Conditions with and without Sulfate Contamination [123]

(I) 1-64

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Carbon and Low Alloy Steels for Pressure Vessels

Figure 1-29
Crack Growth Rate Data as a Function of Frequency for SA 533-B-1 Plate with 0.25% Sulfur
in 550F (288C) BWR Water [123]

A paper in 1993 by Auten and Hayden reports on the effects of pH changes and oxygen
additions to crack growth rates under PWR reactor coolant conditions [122]. At 500F
(260C), a decrease in room temperature pH from 10.2 to 8.9 had only a minor effect on
crack growth rate, increasing it by a factor of 1.8, which was characterized as being
insignificant. During tests at 300F (149C), an increase in oxygen from about 5 ppb to 11
ppb or higher led to a large increase in potential, and an increase in crack growth rate by a
factor of 4.

A 1993 EPRI report by Eason and Nelson reviewed available crack growth data for LAS in
LWR environments [125]. Some of the main conclusions of the report were as follows:

The influence of high temperature water on crack growth rate was found to be relatively
small in low-sulfur materials, nominal water chemistry and high flow rate conditions.
Other conditions can produce enhanced crack growth rates.

The variables that influence the crack growth rate include the R-ratio, cyclic frequency or
rise time of the loading, flow velocity, chemistry of the water, temperature, sulfur content
of the material, and inclusion morphology. Some combinations of these variables can
increase crack growth rates by two orders of magnitude, while other combinations
produce rates that are less than a factor of two greater than rates in air.

(I) 1-65

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Carbon and Low Alloy Steels for Pressure Vessels

The greatest difference in crack growth behavior is exhibited between low sulfur and non
low sulfur steel, with low sulfur steel exhibiting crack growth rates no more than a factor
of two greater than those in air. The data presented in Figure 1-30 from the report
indicate that 0.004% sulfur is clearly low but that 0.013% sulfur steel can exhibit either
low or high sulfur crack growth rate, depending on inclusion morphology.

Figure 1-30
Area Density of MnS Inclusions Versus Percent of Sulfur [125]

A 1993 EPRI report by Van Der Sluys, et al., reports on the results of a ten year program
investigating environmental effects on crack growth rates of pressure vessel steels [126].
Some results of this work include:

Sulfur content and sulfur morphology are the most important variables affecting
susceptibility to EAC. With regard to sulfur content, EAC did not occur for a heat with
0.004% sulfur, while it did for all three heats with sulfur of 0.02% or more. For sulfur at
about the 0.013 0.015% level, one of three heats exhibited EAC. With regard to
inclusion morphology, it appears that large numbers of small inclusions leads to
enhanced susceptibility, as indicated in Figure 1-31.

The next most significant engineering variables are loading frequency and temperature.
With regard to loading frequency, the crack growth per cycle tends to increase with
decreasing frequency, for the range 10 Hz to 0.01 Hz. The behavior for still lower
frequencies is irregular. Crack growth rates were a maximum at about 400F (204C).

(I) 1-66

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Carbon and Low Alloy Steels for Pressure Vessels

Figure 1-31
Number of MnS Inclusions Versus Percent of Sulfur

In 1993, Van Der Sluys reviewed available date regarding fatigue crack initiation in LWR
environments [127]. He noted that under some conditions, environmental effects can strongly
affect properties and illustrates this using Figure 1-32. This figure shows that, at high strain
amplitudes, measured fatigue lives in a BWR reactor coolant environment can be lower than
the ASME design curve. On the other hand, under other situations, there can be little
environmental effect. In this regard, Table 1-5 taken from his paper lists regions where no
environmental effects on crack initiation have been observed. With regard to areas where
there are environmental effects, his main results are as follows:

As shown in Figure 1-33, the ratio of fatigue life in water to that in air decreases as the
strain rate decreases. This indicates that, for low cycle fatigue, where strain rates are low,
environmental effects can be especially significant.

(I) 1-67

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Carbon and Low Alloy Steels for Pressure Vessels

Figure 1-32
Fatigue Data for Low Alloy Steels in High Temperature Pure Water Environments from
Higuchi and Iida [127]
Table 1-6
Regions of No Environmental Effect [127]
Variable

Range in Variable

Comments

Strain amplitude

<0.1%

Strain rate

>0.1% per sec

Oxygen content

<0.1 ppm

Effect not well defended in the 0.1 to 0.8 ppm region.

Temperature

<150F (66C)

Little data in the 150F (66C) to 500F (260C) region.

Sulfur content

<0.003%

May be a function of the oxygen content of the environment.

Fluid velocity

>10 ft/sec (3 m/s)

Little data.

(I) 1-68

Appears to be a function of the sulfur content and the oxygen


content. May be as high as +0.4% under low oxygen and low
sulfur conditions.

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Carbon and Low Alloy Steels for Pressure Vessels

Figure 1-33
Fatigue Life Ratio Versus Strain Rate for Carbon Steel [127]

Figure 1-34 shows that dissolved oxygen contents over about 100 ppb reduce the fatigue
life, especially at high temperature.

Figure 1-34
Effect of Dissolved Oxygen Content on Fatigue Life Reduction Factor for Carbon Steel
[127]

(I) 1-69

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Carbon and Low Alloy Steels for Pressure Vessels

Figure 1-35 shows the effects of temperature. As shown, for low strain rates, temperature
has a strong effect on crack initiation, especially when combined with high oxygen
content, with higher temperatures leading to earlier crack initiation.

Figure 1-35
Fatigue Life Reduction Factor Versus Test Temperature for Carbon Steel [127]

Two 1993 papers deal with the effect of temperature on crack growth rate [128, 129]. The
data presented in these papers show that, at low stress intensities, crack growth rates at lower
temperature, e.g., 350F (177C), can be higher than at normal operating temperatures. These
data also indicate that the threshold stress intensity for crack growth is lower at 392F
(200C) than at 554F (290C). However, plateau crack growth rates, i.e., the maximum
crack growth rates that occur at high stress intensity, increase as temperature increases.

In a 1995 paper, Auten and Monter presented their own test results and reviewed earlier test
results regarding the temperature and oxygen dependence of EAC of LAS [122]. Some of
their main results were as follows:

Under PWR reactor coolant conditions, with room temperature pH of 10.2, conductivity
of 45 S/cm, and hydrogen content of 28 cc/kg at STP, no EAC occurred at 500F
(260C) of A 508 Gr. 2 forgings with sulfur contents between about 0.010% to 0.019%.
Under these non EAC conditions, crack growth rates are typically about 1.7 times those
in air.

The addition of oxygen of 35 ppb or more resulted in EAC at 500F (260F), and
increased crack growth rate to about 16 times that in air, or about 9 times the mean rate in
water for non EAC conditions.

(I) 1-70

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Carbon and Low Alloy Steels for Pressure Vessels

At lower temperatures of 330F, 250F, and 200F (166C, 121C, and 93C), EAC was
observed in deoxygenated conditions. This EAC was aggravated by oxygen
concentrations of 35 ppb or more.

The effect of loading frequency on corrosion fatigue crack growth rates in LWR reactor
coolant environments was reviewed in a 1997 paper by Atkinson, et al., [130]. Some of their
main results were as follows:

The typical effect of frequency on crack growth rates takes the pattern shown in Figure
1-36. As indicated, crack growth rate behavior occurs in three stages. Stage I: For
frequencies higher than some value f, there is little effect of frequency, and crack growth
rates are the same as in air. Stage II: For an intermediate range of frequencies, between f
and fcrit, crack growth in LWR environments increases as frequency decreases, and
follows an equation of the form:
da/dN = C f n

Equation 1-2

where da/dN is the crack growth rate in in./cycle, C is a coefficient, f is the frequency in Hz,
and n is an exponent. Stage III: For still lower frequencies, below fcrit, the growth rate tends to
decrease.

Figure 1-36
Schematic Illustration of Three Stages Associated with the Effect of Frequency on
Corrosion Fatigue Crack Growth Rate in RPV Steels Exposed to LWR Environment [130]

Typical values for the coefficient C, exponent n, and fcrit are given in Table 1-7 and Table
1-8. Both n and fcrit are temperature dependent.

It was noted that a statistical analysis of over 1000 data sets led to the following
relationship for reactor pressure vessel steels with sulfur over 0.005wt% at 554F
(290C) [123]:
da/dN = 7.83 x 10-7 f -0.691[1.1 x K/(2.88-R)]0.949

Equation 1-3

(I) 1-71

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Carbon and Low Alloy Steels for Pressure Vessels

where da/dN and f are as above, K is stress intensity range in ksiin., and R is the
load ratio, i.e., ratio of minimum K to maximum K. For constant K and R, this
equation has the form given earlier.

Crack growth rate data for high sulfur and low sulfur steels are shown in Figure 1-37 and
Figure 1-38. The data for high growth rates follow the pattern exhibited in Figure 1-36,
and are considerably higher than for the low sulfur steel.

Table 1-7
n
Characterized Parameters of the Relationship of da/dN = C f in./cycle for High Sulfur
(0.013 0.018%) RPV Steels in LWR Environments at Temperatures Ranging from 392F to

554 F (200C to 290C) [130]


Temp.,
F (C)

f Range (Hz)

554
(290)

0.01 2

5.32 x 10

0.001 0.01*

3.27 x 10

482
(250)

0.0007 1.5

3.50 x 10

392
(200)

0.0001 0.8

2.79 x 10

f crit. (Hz)

-6

0.693

0.9885

0.01

-2

-1.18

0.9913

0.01

-6

0.645

0.9988

0.0007

-6

0.541

0.9445

0.0001

*Data available for the characterization at the frequency below fcrit.

Table 1-8
-n
Characterized Parameters of the Relationship of da/dN = Cf in./cycle for Low Sulfur
(0.003%) RPV Steels in LWR Environments [130]
Temp.,
F (C)

f Range (Hz)

464
(240)

0.0167 1

2.44 x 10

392
(200)

0.0167 1

1.16 x 10

266
(130)

0.0167 0.1

1.12 x 10

0.1 1

4.72 x 10

(I) 1-72

-6

0.494

0.9631

-6

0.440

0.9769

-7

0.612

0.9454

-7

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Carbon and Low Alloy Steels for Pressure Vessels

Figure 1-37
The Effect of f on da/dN in High Sulfur Steels at High Temperatures [130]

Figure 1-38
The Effect of f on da/dN in Low Sulfur Steel [130]

(I) 1-73

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Carbon and Low Alloy Steels for Pressure Vessels

In 1997, Tice, et al., reported on the results of corrosion fatigue crack growth rate tests at
various temperatures of A 508 Gr. 3 steels in PWR primary and secondary environments
[131]. The steels all had low sulfur contents, of 0.004wt% or less. Some of their main results
were as follows:

At 554F (290C), there was little environmental enhancement of corrosion fatigue crack
growth rates in either primary or secondary environments. Almost all of the data could be
bounded by four times the ASME XI inert air line. Similar results were observed at
temperatures of 266F 302F (130C 150C).

Two of the four heats tested showed significant time dependent environmentally assisted
cracking at temperatures between 374F (190C) and 518F (270C), with the fastest
crack growth rates being measured between 464F 482F (240C 250C). The faster
crack growth rates were noted in the two heats that came from larger forgings, and are
shown in Figure 1-39.

The reasons for the differences in susceptibility between the larger and smaller forgings
at intermediate temperatures were not fully determined, but some evidence indicates that
they may be related to differences in inclusion size, morphology and composition that
were the result of different steel making processes.

Katada and Sato reported results of corrosion fatigue tests in 1997 that explored the effects of
temperature and oxygen concentration [132]. The temperature effect tests were performed
using strain control, with a stress ratio of -1, and a strain rate of 0.1%/s, with dissolved
oxygen contents of 10 and 1000 ppb. At 550F (288C), tests were performed over a range of
oxygen from 10 ppb to 10,000 ppb. The steel tested was equivalent to an A 533 Type B steel,
and had a sulfur content of 0.007%. Some results from this work include:
Figure 1-40 shows fatigue initiation, taken as the time when the load drops by 25% from
its initial value, as a function of temperature for the 10 ppb and 1000 ppb cases. As
indicated in the figure, above about 375F (191C), fatigue life decreases rapidly as
temperature increases, especially for the higher oxygen case. Up to a temperature of
375F (191C), there is little variation in fatigue life.

Figure 1-41 shows the effect of dissolved oxygen on fatigue life in 550F (288C) pure
water. As shown, dissolved oxygen up to about 200 ppb had little effect, but higher
values of oxygen caused a marked decrease in fatigue life.

(I) 1-74

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Carbon and Low Alloy Steels for Pressure Vessels

Figure 1-39
Crack Growth Data for Steam Generator Upstand Materials B1 and B2, in Secondary Water
at 464F and 482F (240C and 250C), at R=0.7 and 0.1, Over a Range of Test Frequencies
(AEAT and SHU Data) [131]

(I) 1-75

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Carbon and Low Alloy Steels for Pressure Vessels

Figure 1-40
Temperature Dependence of Low Cycle Fatigue Life in Pure Water [132]

Figure 1-41
DO Dependence of LCF in Pure Water [132]

(I) 1-76

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Carbon and Low Alloy Steels for Pressure Vessels

A 1997 EPRI report by Solomon, et al., reported on the results of fatigue crack initiation tests
using LAS [133]. Some results of this work include:

Adding oxygen to the water environment before heating to 350F (177C) resulted in the
formation of rust and pits, which reduced the fatigue life at 350F (177C) by about a
factor of five. If the water was acidified to raise the conductivity to 0.5 S/cm, the fatigue
life was reduced by a factor of about 15. If the sample was exposed to both the rust/pit
treatment and to acidified water, the total time to crack initiation was reduced by a factor
of twenty. However, if the specimen was first exposed to the rust/pit treatment but was
then tested in non acidified water (0.06 S/cm), the fatigue life was not reduced, even
with the oxygen level raised after reaching 350F (177C).

Cracks initiated in fewer cycles, with higher cyclic crack growth rates, when low loading
rates were employed.

Solomon, et al., reported in 1999 on the results of crack initiation tests in a BWR
environment [134]. The tests were performed using a load drop method, in which time to
test termination was determined by when the applied tensile load in a displacement
controlled test dropped by 25% from its initial value. This was determined to be when
engineering cracks, with lengths up to about 0.125 in. (3.18 mm) had developed. Tests
were run in air, and in water simulating normal BWR conditions (0.2 ppm oxygen and 0.06
S/cm conductivity) and startup conditions (8 ppm oxygen and 0.5 S/cm conductivity). The
tests were performed using German steel WB36, and at temperatures of 428F 450F
(220C 232C), and thus are not directly useable for U.S. BWR applications (by
specification, WB36 contains 0.1 0.17wt% C, 0.5 0.8wt% Cu, 1 1.3wt% Ni, 0.25
0.5wt%Mo, 0.015 0.045wt%Nb, and 0.3wt% maximum Cr. The specific heat tested had a
yield strength of 70 ksi (480 MPa) at 428F (220C).). Despite the material not being similar
to one used in U.S. design plants, some of the trends developed by the tests are of interest:

Fatigue life in air was the longest, fatigue life in the higher oxygen/conductivity case the
lowest, and fatigue life for the lower oxygen/conductivity case intermediate. This is
illustrated in Figure 1-42.

(I) 1-77

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Carbon and Low Alloy Steels for Pressure Vessels

Figure 1-42
Load Drop for Tests Run in Different Water Chemistries. The Number in Parentheses is the
Slope of the Curve (B) [134].

Pre-pitting decreased fatigue life. When the applied strain was 0.6% or less, the reduction
of fatigue life was more than a factor of ten.

Reducing the positive strain rate reduced the fatigue life. This is equivalent to using a
lower frequency for the cycling.

In 1999, 2000, and 2001, Chopra, et al., published reviews of the corrosion fatigue initiation
behavior of carbon and low alloy steels [135, 136, 137]. Some of the main points developed
by those reviews were as follows:

Fatigue life tends to decrease in water environments as the strain rate decreases. This is
illustrated by Figure 1-43.

Fatigue life decreases linearly with temperature in the range from 300F to 610F (149C
to 321C). Fatigue life is insensitive to temperatures below 300F (149C).

Fatigue life is insensitive to oxygen contents below about 50 ppb. Above 50 ppb, fatigue
life decreases as oxygen is raised, but this saturates at about 0.5 ppm.

Fatigue life decreases as the sulfur content of the steel increases up to about 0.015%
sulfur; over this value, the effect of sulfur seems to saturate.

(I) 1-78

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Carbon and Low Alloy Steels for Pressure Vessels

Figure 1-43
Dependence of Fatigue Lives of (a) Carbon Steels and (b) Low-Alloy Steels on Strain Rate
[136]

The NRC has sponsored a program over several years to quantify the effects of environment
on fatigue life. The 1999 report by Chopra, et al., referenced above is a recent report
describing that work. Some other relevant documents related to that program that include
mainly materials data are noted below. Reports covering application of fatigue data to
analysis (e.g., calculation of usage factors or core damage probabilities) have also been
prepared for this program, but are considered outside the scope of this chapter, and thus are
not covered.
(I) 1-79

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Carbon and Low Alloy Steels for Pressure Vessels

A 1993 report, NUREG/CR-5999, published interim fatigue design curves showing the
effects of LWR environments on fatigue life [138].

A 1998 report, NUREG/CR-6583, provides an updated set of fatigue design curves [139].

A 2007 report, NUREG/CR-6909, provides equations for determining environmental


adjustment factors relative to ASME air data that take into account the steels sulfur
content, the temperature, the oxygen content of the coolant, and the applied strain rate
[118]. The report also has curves that show the effects of different variables on fatigue
life vs. strain amplitude, for example, strain rate, hold time, temperature, oxygen
concentration, conductivity, sulfur content of the steel, surface finish, flow rate, and
material variability.

ASME Code Case N-643-2 (2004), Fatigue Crack Growth Rate Curves for Ferritic Steels in
PWR Water Environment, Section XI, Division 1, provides optional rules for determining
fatigue crack growth rates that can be used for PWRs. The procedures of the Code Case take
into account the steels sulfur content as well the R ratio and load rise time.

10.5 Crack Growth Rate Model and Crack Tip Chemistry


A significant amount of work has been done on the development of a model for crack growth in
stainless and carbon/low alloy steels that takes into account the effects of crack tip chemistry as
well as other variables, and on related investigations of conditions that develop in the crack tip
region. The crack tip model and crack tip chemistry evaluations have been found useful for
understanding and evaluating the effects of variables such as potential, oxygen content, water
conductivity, pH, flow rate, and steel sulfur content on crack growth rate. However, the crack
growth rate model and related crack tip experimental investigations are mainly directed at
understanding the development of environments and their influence, rather than on materials, and
thus are outside the scope of this chapter. It is suggested that the reader consult the listed
references for a description of the models and related investigations [140, 141, 142, 143, 144].
10.6 Improved Initial Properties
Research was performed at several organizations to develop improved materials for reactor
vessels and other vessels. This work was mainly concentrated on material to SA 508, Grade 3,
Class 1 or 2 (formerly Class 3 or 3A). Some of the most noteworthy results of this work include:

The trend in Japan is to use integral forgings for steam generator primary heads, steam drum
heads, and shell segments with no longitudinal welds and with integral nozzles and manways
[145]. The referenced article indicates that the trend is to use higher strength Class 2 material
(65 ksi or 450 MPa yield strength) rather than lower strength Class 1 material (50 ksi or 350
MPa yield strength), and to use low silicon with aluminum to improve impact properties.

A Korean supplier investigated three steel making practices for reactor vessel shell forgings
of SA 508 Grade 3 Class 1 (formerly Class 3) material, vacuum carbon deoxidation (VCD),
modified VCD with aluminum, and silicon killing [146]. They found that the modified VCD
and silicon killing processes provided a significant improvement in fracture toughness, as
compared to the plain VCD process.

(I) 1-80

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Carbon and Low Alloy Steels for Pressure Vessels

A U.S. company investigated the effects of composition and heat treatment on the toughness
of SA 508 Grade 3 Class 2 material for pressure vessels [147]. They found that additions of
both Al and N (relative to mid range values) provided the best strength/toughness
combination.

10.7 Warm Prestressing


A 1997 article by Macdonald, et al., reviews the state of knowledge regarding the warm
prestressing effect [148]. Experiments have shown that if a flaw is stressed at elevated
temperature and then loaded to fracture at a lower temperature, the apparent fracture toughness
will be higher than if no prestressing at the elevated temperature had taken place. The increased
plastic toughness is attributed to development of a plastic zone surrounding the border of the
flaw at higher temperatures that is locked in place due to elevation of strength at lower
temperatures. The article discusses how to best model the effects of warm prestressing. The
warm prestress data summarized in the article indicates that the fracture toughness increase
provided by the warm prestress effect is often significant, e.g., a factor of two or more increase
in fracture toughness can result.
10.8 Fracture Properties of Clad Material
As discussed in Section 9, some vessels have cracks under the cladding as a result of initial
fabrication. In addition, analyses of pressure vessels are required to postulate the existence of
shallow surface flaws. In response to this situation, research has been conducted to determine the
effects of underclad cracks on the fracture properties of the plates. Review of this research is
considered beyond the scope of this chapter; the following references provide a place to start
investigating this topic: [149, 150].
10.9 Boric Acid Corrosion
Since boric acid corrosion is a corrosion issue and not a materials issue, a detailed review of the
research on the topic is not covered in this handbook. However, references to some of the key
research are provided for the convenience of readers of the handbook.
Results of research up to about 2001 on boric acid corrosion of carbon and low alloy steels
wetted by leaking PWR reactor coolant are summarized in the Boric Acid Corrosion Guidebook,
Revision 1 [68]. Subsequent to the Davis Besse event in 2002 that is discussed in Section 9.9, an
extensive amount of work has been done by EPRI and other organizations to better understand
what controls the rate of corrosion associated with leaks of borated primary coolant. Much of this
work is reported in a number of EPRI reports [151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158]. Other
useful references related to this issue include [159, 160].

11 Alternative Materials
With regard to the main reactor coolant system pressure vessels such as reactor vessels, steam
generators, and pressurizers, the technical literature does not appear to discuss any alternates to
the standard low alloy steels commonly specified for these applications such as SA 533 Types A
and B and SA 508 Grade 2 Class 1 and Grade 3, Class 1 or Class 2. For thinner wall carbon and
low alloy steel vessels, austenitic stainless steels such as Types 304, 304L, 304N6, 316, 316L, or
316NG could be considered as alternates to carbon or low alloy steel.
(I) 1-81

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Carbon and Low Alloy Steels for Pressure Vessels

12 References
1.

Specification for Carbon Steel Forgings for Piping Applications, ASME/ASTM SA/A 105.

2.

Specification for Steel Castings, Carbon, Suitable for Fusion Welding for HighTemperature Service, ASME/ASTM SA/A 216.

3.

Specification for Pressure Vessel Plates, Alloy Steel, Manganese-Molybdenum and


Manganese-Molybdenum-Nickel, ASME/ASTM SA/A 302.

4.

Specification for Forgings, Carbon and Low-Alloy Steel, Requiring Notch Toughness
Testing for Piping components, ASME/ASTM SA/A 350.

5.

Specification for Quenched and Tempered Vacuum-Treated Carbon and Alloy Steel
Forgings for Pressure Vessels, ASME/ASTM SA/A 508.

6.

Specification for Pressure Vessel Plates, Carbon Steel, for Moderate- and LowerTemperature Service, ASME/ASTM SA/A 516.

7.

Specification for Pressure Vessel Plates, Alloy Steel, Quenched and Tempered,
Manganese-Molybdenum and Manganese-Molybdenum-Nickel, ASME/ASTM SA/A 533.

8.

Specification for Pressure Vessel Plates, Carbon Steel, Heat-Treated, Carbon-ManganeseSilicon Steel, ASME/ASTM SA/A 537.

9.

ASME Boiler Pressure Vessel Code 2010, Section II, Part D, Table PRD, ASME, 2010.

10.

Marks Mechanical Engineers Handbook, Sixth Edition, T. Baumeister, Ed., p4-5,


McGraw Hill, 1958.

11.

ASME Boiler Pressure Vessel Code 2010, Section II, Part D (Customary/Metric), Table
TM-1, for C 0.30%, C > 0.30%, and Material Groups A and B, ASME, 2010.

12.

Electromagnetic NDE Guide for Balance-of-Plant Heat Exchangers, Revision 2, p4.0-15.


EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: 1997. TR-101772-R2.

13.

Calculated from data in ASME Boiler Pressure Vessel Code 2010, Section II, Part D, Table
TCD, for Material Groups A and C and Table PRD, ASME, 2010.

14.

ASME Boiler Pressure Vessel Code 2010, Section II, Part D (Customary/Metric), Table
TE-1, for Group 1 and Group 2, ASME, 2010.

15.

ASME Boiler Pressure Vessel Code 2010, Section II, Part D (Customary/Metric), Table
TCD, for Material Groups A and C, ASME, 2010.

16.

Metals Handbook, Volume 1, Tenth Edition, Properties and Selection: Irons, Steels and
High-Performance Alloys, p199 for grades 1025 and 8625, ASM International, 1990.

17.

Weld Metal Metallurgical Handbook. EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: 2009. 1015816.

18.

Welding Repair Technology Center: Welding Irradiated Material Technical Update. EPRI,
Palo Alto, CA: 2010. 1021174.

19.

Temperbead Welding Repair of Low Alloy Pressure Vessel Steels: Guidelines. EPRI, Palo
Alto, CA: 1994. TR-103354.

20.

Repair Technology for Degraded Pressure Vessel and Heat Exchanger Shells: RRAC Task
91, 2002. 1003286.

(I) 1-82

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Carbon and Low Alloy Steels for Pressure Vessels

21.

Materials Handbook for Nuclear Repair Applications. EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: 2005.
1011648.

22.

Repair and Replacement Applications Center: Temperbead Welding Applications. EPRI,


Palo Alto, CA: 2006. 1013558.

23.

RRAC Code Justification for the Removal of the 100 Square Inch Temper Bead Weld
Repair Limitation. EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: 2005. 1011898.

24.

ASME Boiler Pressure Vessel Code 2010, Section II, Part D (Customary/Metric), Table U,
ASME, 2010.

25.

Reprinted from 2010 BPVC, Section II-D by permission of The American Society of
Mechanical Engineers. All rights reserved.

26.

ASME Boiler Pressure Vessel Code 2010, Section II, Part D (Customary/Metric), Table Y1, ASME, 2010.

27.

S. T. Rolfe and J. M. Barsom, Fracture and Fatigue Control in Structures. Applications of


Fracture Mechanics, ASTM, 1977.

28.

ibid., Figure 6.21, p191. Reprinted, with permission from Fracture and Fatigue Control in
Structures. Applications of Fracture Mechanics, copyright ASTM International, 100 Barr
Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken, PA 19428, www.astm.org.

29.

ibid., Figure 6.22, p192, Reprinted, with permission from Fracture and Fatigue Control in
Structures. Applications of Fracture Mechanics, copyright ASTM International, 100 Barr
Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken, PA 19428, www.astm.org.

30.

J. Strosnider, et al., Reactor Pressure Vessel Report, NUREG-1511, NRC, December 1994.

31.

Reprinted, with permission from Standard Test Method for Conducting Drop-Weight
Test to Determine Nil-Ductility Transition Temperature of Ferritic Steels, ASTM E208,
copyright ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken, PA 19428,
www.astm.org.

32.

Reprinted from 2010 BPVC, Section III-Appendices by permission of The American


Society of Mechanical Engineers. All rights reserved.

33.

Reprinted from 2010 BPVC, Section XI by permission of The American Society of


Mechanical Engineers. All rights reserved.

34.

Materials Reliability Program: Reactor Vessel Integrity Primer (MRP-278), A Primer on


Theory and Applications. EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: 2010. 1020854.

35.

Materials Reliability Program: Reactor Vessel Integrity Primer (MRP-278), A Primer on


Theory and Applications, Palo Alto, CA: 2010. 1020854.

36.

R. B. Jenkins, Chapter 7 The Utility Industry and Reactor Surveillance, Status of


USA Nuclear Reactor Pressure Vessel Surveillance for Radiation Effects, ASTM STP 784,
L. E. Steele, Ed., ASTM STP 784, 1983.

37.

Status of USA Nuclear Reactor Pressure Vessel Surveillance for Radiation Effects, ASTM
STP 784, L. E. Steele, Ed., ASTM STP 784, 1983.

38.

Radiation Embrittlement of Reactor Vessel Materials, NRC Regulatory Guide 1.99,


July 1975.
(I) 1-83

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Carbon and Low Alloy Steels for Pressure Vessels

39.

Yankee Rowe to be Permanently Shut Down, Nuclear Safety, v33, n3, p467, 1992.

40.

The NRC Reverses Earlier Decision, Orders Yankee Rowe to Shut Down, Nuclear
Safety, v33, n2, p276-280, 1992.

41.

Evaluation Procedure for Service Level C and D Upper Shelf Toughness - Criteria for
Linde 80 Weld Material. EPRI, October 1993. TR-102851.

42.

R. Snaider, BWR Feedwater Nozzle and Control Rod Drive Return Line Nozzle Cracking:
Resolution of Generic Technical Activity A-10 (Technical Report), NUREG-0619-REV-1,
Nov. 1980.

43.

B. M. Gordon and G. M. Gordon, Corrosion in Boiling Water Reactors, Metals


Handbook, Ninth Edition, Volume 13, Corrosion, p927-937, ASM International, 1987.

44.

ibid., Reprinted with permission of ASM International. All rights reserved.


www.asminternational.org.

45.

B. M. Gordon, D. E. Delwiche, and G. M. Gordon, Service Experience of BWR Pressure


Vessels, Performance and Evaluation of Light Water Reactor Pressure Vessels, PVPv119, p9-17, ASME, 1987.

46.

NRC letter dated Nov. 13, 1980, forwarding NUREG-0619-REV-1.

47.

Vol. BWR-2, III. Reactor Vessel, items 19, 20, 23, 25, 34, and 38, Nuclear Power
Experience, RCG/Hagler, Bailly, Boulder, Colorado, 1995.

48.

Review of Steam Generator Girth Weld Cracking. EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: 1993. TR-103498.

49.

NRC Information Notice No. 82-37, Cracking in the Upper Shell to Transition Cone Girth
Weld of a Steam Generator at An Operating Pressurized Water Reactor, NRC, September
16, 1982.

50.

C. J. Czajkowski, Evaluation of the Transgranular Cracking Phenomenon on the Indian


Point No. 3 Steam Generator Vessels, The International Journal of Pressure Vessels and
Piping, v26, p97-110, Jan. 1986.

51.

NRC Docket No. 50-286, Summary of April 8, 1983 Meeting with the Power Authority
of the State of New York (PASNY) to Discuss Steam Generator Girth Weld at Indian
Point 3, NRC, June 2, 1983.

52.

G. DAnna and G. F. Sica, Plans for Repair of Garigliano BWR, Proceedings: Seminar
on Countermeasures for Pipe Cracking in BWRs, Volume 4. EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: 1980.
WS-79-174.

53.

Nuclear Power Experience, Vol. BWR-1, Garigliano, A. Plant Description and History
of Operation, pages dated 1973 1985, RCG/Hagler, Bailly, Boulder, Colorado, 1995.

54.

Evaluation of Stress Corrosion Crack Growth in Low Alloy Steel Vessel Materials in the
BWR Environment (BWRVIP-60). EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: 1999. TR-108709.

55.

NRC Information Notice No. 90-29, Cracking o f Cladding and Its Heat-Affected Zone
in the Base Metal of a Reactor Vessel Head, NRC, April 30, 1990.

56.

Engineering Evaluation of Vermont Yankee Reactor Pressure Vessel Clad Indications


1992 Refueling Outage, forwarded by Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation letter
BVY 92-055 to NRC, dated April 5, 1992, NRC ACN 9204090344.

(I) 1-84

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Carbon and Low Alloy Steels for Pressure Vessels

57.

A. G. Vinckier and A. W. Pense, A Review of Underclad Cracking in Pressure-Vessel


Components, WRC Bulletin, No. 197, Welding Research Council, NY, NY, August 1974.

58.

USAEC Regulatory Guide 1.43, Control of Stainless Steel Weld Cladding of Low-Alloy
Steel Components, USAEC (now NRC), May 1973.

59.

F. Faure, et al., Underclad Cold Cracking of Tube Sheets of Steam Generators and
Nozzles of Reactor Vessels of PWRs, Proceedings of the International Symposium
Fontevraud I, Contribution of Materials Investigation to the Resolution of Problems
Encountered in PWR Plants, p115-125, SFEN Sept. 1985.

60.

E. Martin, et al., Report Regarding Ultrasonic Characterization of Flaws Under Cladding,


Proceedings of the International Symposium Fontevraud I, Contribution of Materials
Investigation to the Resolution of Problems Encountered in PWR Plants, p126-137, SFEN
Sept. 1985.

61.

H. R. Denton memorandum to NRC commissioners dated Oct. 24, 1979, Large Pipe
Leak at the TVO 1, Olkiluot, Finland and Cracks Caused by Faulty Fabrication Process
in France, attached to NRC meeting report Dated Dec. 12, 1979, Dockets 50-282 and
50-306, ACN 7912210008.

62.

Reactor Vessel Embrittlement Management Handbook: A Handbook for Managing Reactor


Vessel Embrittlement and Vessel Integrity, Volume 6, Vessel Design and Fabrication.
EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: 1993. TR-101975.

63.

NRC Information Notice No. 90-32, Supplement 1: Surface Crack and Subsurface
Indications in the Weld of a Reactor Vessel Head, NRC, June 19, 1990.

64.

NRC Safety Evaluation by the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Flaw Indication in
the Reactor Vessel Inlet Nozzle (N2B) Rochester Gas and Electric Company R. E. Ginna
Nuclear Power Plant Docket No. 50-244, ACN 8907130364, NRC July 7, 1989.

65.

NRC, Evaluation of the Structural Adequacy of the Pilgrim Unit No. 1 Reactor Vessel for
Continued Operation, NRC April 21, 1976, attached to NRC letter, Docket No. 50-293, to
Boston Edison dated May 14, 1976.

66.

NRC Safety Evaluation by the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Evaluation of the
Flaw Indication Detected in the Reactor Pressure Vessel Consolidated Edison Company
Indian Point Unit 2 Docket No. 50-247, ACN 8807190199, NRC July 12, 1988.

67.

Nuclear Power Experience, Vol. BWR-2, III. Reactor Vessel, item 28, RCG/Hagler, Bailly,
Boulder, Colorado, 1995.

68.

Boric Acid Corrosion Guidebook, Revision 1. EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: 2001. 1000975.

69.

Piping Failure Database Status Report. EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: 2003. 1008014.

70.

T. Bradley and P. S. Manzon, Use of Innovative PMCap (Patent Pending) Repair for LP
Feedwater Heater Shells at Wolf Creek, Eighth EPRI Balance-of-Plant Heat Exchanger
NDE Symposium, held June 21-23, 2004, Key West, Florida. EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: 2004.
1011122.

71.

P. Prudhon, Flow-Accelerated Corrosion, International Conference on Flow Accelerated


Corrosion (FAC 2008), Lyon, France, March 18-20, 2008, EDF, 2008.

(I) 1-85

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Carbon and Low Alloy Steels for Pressure Vessels

72.

M. Carnus, Development by EDF of filler metal and welding procedures for repairing
piping systems damaged by Flow Accelerated Corrosion in French Nuclear Power Plants,
presentation at FAC 2010 International Conference on Flow Accelerated Corrosion, Lyon,
France, May 2010, EDF 2011.

73.

Feedwater Heater Tube Failure Manual. EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: 2010. 1017622.

74.

Materials Reliability Program: Reactor Pressure Vessel Integrity Training Module (MRP286), Palo Alto, CA: 2010. 1021141.

75.

S. T. Rosinski and W. L. Server, Application of the Master Curve in the ASME Code,
International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping, v77n, p591-598, 2000.

76.

Application of the Master Curve Fracture Toughness Methodology for Ferritic Steels
(PWRMRP-01). EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: 1999. TR-108390-R1.

77.

Standard Test Method for Determination of Reference Temperature, T0, for Ferritic Steels
in the Transition Range, ASTM E 1921-97.

78.

Case N-629, Use of Fracture Toughness Test Data to Establish Reference Temperature for
Pressure Retaining Materials, Section XI, Division 1, Cases of ASME Boiler and Pressure
Vessel Code, approved May 7, 1999.

79.

Regulatory Guide 1.161 Evaluation of Reactor Pressure Vessels with Charpy Upper-Shelf
Energy Less than 50 Ft-Lb., NRC, June 1995.

80.

Evaluation of Upper-Shelf Toughness Requirements for Reactor Pressure Vessels. EPRI,


Palo Alto, CA: 1990. NP-6790-SL.

81.

Evaluation of the Toughness Properties and ASME Service Level A and B Upper Shelf
Toughness Criteria for A 302-B Vessel Steel. EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: 1994. TR-103434.

82.

E. Eason, et al., A Physically Based Correlation of Irradiation-Induced Transition


Temperature Shifts for RPV Steels, ORNL-TM-2006/530, published 2007, available from
NRC ADAMS database at accession no. ML081000630-1.

83.

R. K. Nanstad, et al., Ensuring the Performance of Nuclear Reactor Pressure Vessels for
Long-Term Service, Proceedings of the ASME 2010 Pressure Vessels & Piping Division /
K-PVP Conference PVP2010, July 18-22, 2010, Bellevue, Washington, USA, ASME, 2010.

84.

R. Chaouadi, et al., Assessment of the French and US embrittlement trend curves applied
to RPV materials irradiated in the BR2 materials test reactor, Fontevraud 7, Contribution
of Materials Investigations to Improve the Safety and Performance of LWRs, Avignon,
France 26-30 September 2010, paper 010-A105-T01, SFEN 2010.

85.

PWR Industry Reactor Vessel Roadmap. Presented by M. Dingler, EPRI TSC Chairman,
PWROG Vice Chairman, EPRI/PWROG/NRC Meeting, January 6, 2011, available on
NRC ADAMS website, accession no. ML110190415-2.

86.

M. Grosse and J. Bhmert, Irradiation Damage Structure in VVER-440 Steels after


Irradiation at Different Temperatures and Post-Irradiation Annealing, Effects of Radiation
on Materials: 19th International Symposium, ASTM STP 1366, p323-342, ASTM, 2000.

(I) 1-86

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Carbon and Low Alloy Steels for Pressure Vessels

87.

C. Pichon, et al., Neutron Spectrum Effect and Damage Analysis on Pressure Vessel Steel
Irradiation Behavior, Proceedings of the Eighth International Symposium on
Environmental Degradation of Materials in Nuclear Power Systems Water Reactors,
p865-870, ANS, 1997.

88.

S. T. Rosinski, et al., Application of the Small Punch Test to Reactor Pressure Vessel
Integrity, Proceedings of the International Symposium Fontevraud IV, Contribution of
Materials Investigation to the Resolution of Problems Encountered in Pressurized Water
Reactors, p135-146, SFEN 14-18 Sept. 1998.

89.

Small Punch Testing for Nuclear Reactor Vessel Steel Embrittlement. EPRI, Palo Alto, CA:
1998. TR-111116; Value of the Small Punch Test for Evaluating Fracture Toughness of
Nuclear Pressure Vessels. EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: 1998. TR-111142; Small Punch Testing
for Irradiation Embrittlement Experimental Requirements and Vision Enhancement
System. EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: 1996. TR-106638; Small Punch Testing for Irradiation
Embrittlement. EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: 1995. TR-105131; Small Punch Testing for Fracture
Toughness Measurement. EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: 1995. TR-105130.

90.

E. D. Eason, Embrittlement Recovery Due to Annealing of Reactor Pressure


Vessel Steels, Proceedings of the Seventh International Symposium on Environmental
Degradation of Materials in Nuclear Power Systems Water Reactors, p759-770, NACE,
1995.

91.

A. Amaev, et al., Mitigation of Irradiation Damage by Annealing, Proceedings of the


International Symposium Fontevraud III, Contribution of Materials Investigation to the
Resolution of Problems Encountered in Pressurized Water Reactors, p602-609, SFEN
12-16 Sept. 1994.

92.

Reactor Pressure Vessel Thermal Annealing Assessment for Two PWR Plant Designs.
EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: 1995. TR-104934.

93.

M. A. Sokolov, et al., Comparison of Fracture Toughness and Charpy Impact Properties


Recovery by Thermal annealing of Irradiated Reactor Pressure Vessel Steels, Proceedings
of the Seventh International Symposium on Environmental Degradation of Materials in
Nuclear Power Systems Water Reactors, p771-782, NACE, 1995.

94.

M. A. Sokolov, et al., Irradiation, Annealing, and Reirradiation Effects on American and


Russian Reactor Pressure Vessel Steels, Effects of Radiation on Materials: 19th
International Symposium, ASTM STP 1366, p415-434, ASTM 2000.

95.

Y. A. Nikolaev and A. V. Nikolaeva, Application of the Floating Curve Model for


Estimation of Re-Irradiation Embrittlement of VVER-440 RPV Steels, Effects of
Radiation on Materials: 19th International Symposium, ASTM STP 1366, p460-470,
ASTM, 2000.

96.

Materials Reliability Program: Testing and Evaluation of Reactor Pressure Vessel Steel
Plate Heat JRQ to Assess Through-Wall Attenuation of Radiation Embrittlement (MRP243), Palo Alto, CA: 2008. 1016601.

97.

Materials Reliability Program: Hardness Testing of Pressure Vessel Steels Irradiated to


Assess Through-Wall Attenuation of Radiation Embrittlement (MRP-277). EPRI, Palo Alto,
CA: 2010. 1020863.

(I) 1-87

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Carbon and Low Alloy Steels for Pressure Vessels

98.

Materials Reliability Program: Reanalysis of Reactor Vessel Examination Data from the
1996 Beaver Valley Unit 2 Vessel Examination (MRP-207), RPV Flaw Distribution. EPRI,
Palo Alto, CA: 2006. 1014548.

99.

BWRVIP-233: BWR Vessel and Internals Project Evaluation of Stress Corrosion Crack
Growth in Low Alloy Steel Vessel Materials in the BWR Environment: Technical Basis for
Revisions to BWRVIP-60-A. EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: 2009. 1019061.

100. BWRVIP-60-A: BWR Vessel and Internals Project, Evaluation of Stress Corrosion Crack
Growth in Low Alloy Steel Vessel Materials in the BWR Environment. EPRI, Palo Alto,
CA: 2003. 1008871.
101. K. Klemetti and H. Hanninen , Effect of electrochemical potential on stress corrosion
cracking of steel A508 in BWR environment, Proceedings of the Second International
Symposium on Environmental Degradation of Materials in Nuclear Power Systems
Water Reactors, p70-76, Figure 2, p72, ANS, Copyright 1986 by the American Nuclear
Society, La Grange Park, Illinois.
102. W. A. Van Der Sluys and R. Pathania, Studies of Stress Corrosion Cracking in Steels
Used for Reactor Pressure Vessels, Proceedings of the Fifth International Symposium
on Environmental Degradation of Materials in Nuclear Power Systems Water Reactors,
p571-578, ANS, 1992.
103. D. A. Hale, The Effect of BWR Startup Environments on Crack Growth in Structural
Alloys, Journal of Engineering Materials and Technology, v108, p44-49, January 1986.
104. M. Tsubota, et al., Intergranular Stress Corrosion Cracking of Low Alloy and Carbon
Steels in High Temperature Water, Proceedings of the Sixth International Symposium
on Environmental Degradation of Materials in Nuclear Power Systems Water Reactors,
p53-59, TMS, 1993.
105. T. Shoji, et al., Effects of Sulfate Contamination Sulfur in Steel and Stral Rate on
Critical Cracking Potential for SCC of Pressure Vessel Steels in Pressurized High
Temperature Waters, Proceedings of the Third International Symposium on
Environmental Degradation of Materials in Nuclear Power Systems Water Reactors,
p251-259, TMS 1988.
106. H. J. Choi, et al., The Effect of Flow Velocity on Pitting Corrosion and Stress
Corrosion Cracking of Reactor Materials, Proceedings of the International Symposium
on Environmental Degradation of Materials in Nuclear Power Systems Water Reactors,
Myrtle Beach, August 22-25, 1983, p532-570, NACE, 1984.
107. M. O. Speidel and R. Magdowski, Growth Rates of Stress Corrosion Cracks in Reactor
Pressure Vessel Steel Exposed to 288C Water, Proceedings of the Eighth International
Symposium on Environmental Degradation of Materials in Nuclear Power Systems Water
Reactors, p960-963, ANS, Copyright 1997 by the American Nuclear Society, La Grange
Park, Illinois.
108. D. Blind, et al., European Round Robin on Constant Load EAC Tests of Low Alloy Steel
Under BWR Conditions, Proceedings of the Ninth International Symposium on
Environmental Degradation of Materials in Nuclear Power Systems - Water Reactors,
Newport Beach, CA, Aug 1-5, 1999, p911-922, TMS, 1999.

(I) 1-88

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Carbon and Low Alloy Steels for Pressure Vessels

109. J. Heldt and H. P. Seifert, Stress Corrosion Cracking of Reactor Pressure Vessel Steels
Under Boiling Water Reactor Conditions, Proceedings of the Ninth International
Symposium on Environmental Degradation of Materials in Nuclear Power Systems - Water
Reactors, Newport Beach, CA, Aug 1-5, 1999, p901-910, TMS, 1999.
110. B. Tomkins and J. A. Hudson, Environmental Factors Influencing the Failure Properties
of Pressure Vessel Materials, Proceedings of the International Symposium on
Environmental Degradation of Materials in Nuclear Power Systems Water Reactors,
Myrtle Beach, August 22-25, 1983, p25-52, NACE, 1984.
111. P. M. Scott, A Review of Environmental Effects on Pressure Vessel Integrity,
Proceedings of the Third International Symposium on Environmental Degradation
of Materials in Nuclear Power Systems Water Reactors, p15-29, TMS, 1988.
112. P. Hurst, et al., Stress Corrosion Behavior of A533B and A508-III Steels and Weldments
in High Temperature Water Environments, Proceedings of the Second International
Symposium on Environmental Degradation of Materials in Nuclear Power Systems Water
Reactors, p645-655, Copyright 1986 by the American Nuclear Society, La Grange Park,
Illinois.
113. H. E. Hnninen and W. H. Cullen, Slow Strain Rate Testing of A Cyclically Stabilized
A 516 Gr. 70 Piping Steel in PWR Conditions, Proceedings of the Fourth International
Symposium on Environmental Degradation of Materials in Nuclear Power Systems Water
Reactors, p8-77 to 103, NACE 1990.
114. H. Hnninen, et al., Stress Corrosion Cracking of Low Alloy Steel Weldments in LWR
Environments, Proceedings of the Sixth International Symposium on Environmental
Degradation of Materials in Nuclear Power Systems Water Reactors, p43-52, TMS,
1993.
115. X. Zhou, et al., Stress Corrosion Cracking of Iron Base Alloys in High Temperature
Water, Proceedings of the Eighth International Symposium on Environmental
Degradation of Materials in Nuclear Power Systems Water Reactors, p953-959, ANS,
1997.
116. H. P. Seifert, et al., Crack Initiation Due to Environmentally-Assisted Cracking in Carbon
& Low-Alloy Steels Exposed to High-Temperature Water, Workshop on Detection,
Avoidance, Mechanisms, Modeling, and Prediction of Stress Corrosion Cracking Initiation
in Water-Cooled Nuclear Plants. EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: 2009. 1018908.
117. P. Scott, et al., EAC of Carbon & Low-Alloy Steels in High-Temperature Water,
Workshop Proceedings: Quantitative Micro-Nano (QMN-1) Approach to Predicting SCC
of Fe-Cr-Ni Alloys, June 13-18, 2010, Sun Valley Resort, Idaho, Staehle Consulting, 2011.
118. O. K. Chopra and W. J. Shack, Effect of LWR Coolant Environments on the Fatigue Life of
Reactor Materials, NUREG/CR-6909, NRC, Feb. 2007.
119. Standard Review Plan for Review of License Renewal Applications for Nuclear Power
Plants, NUREG-1800 Rev. 2, NRC, December 2010.
120. Generic Aging Lessons Learned (GALL) Report, NUREG-1801, Rev. 2, December 2010.

(I) 1-89

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Carbon and Low Alloy Steels for Pressure Vessels

121. EPRI reports regarding corrosion fatigue of pressure vessel steels include: Evaluation of
Environmental Fatigue Effects for a Westinghouse Nuclear Power Plant, TR-110043, April
1998; Environmentally-Assisted Fatigue Crack Initiation in Low Alloy Steels, TR-109051,
Nov. 1997; Corrosion Fatigue of Water-Touched Pressure Retaining Components in
Power Plants, TR-106696, Nov. 1997; An Environmental Factor Approach to Account for
Reactor Water Effects in Light Water Reactor Pressure Vessel and Piping Fatigue
Evaluations, TR-105759, Dec. 1995; Environmental Acceleration of Fatigue Crack Growth
in Reactor Pressure Vessel Materials: Volumes 1 and 2, TR-102796, Aug. 1993, and
Analysis of Fatigue Crack Growth Rate Data for A508 and A533B Steels in LWR
Environments, TR-102793, August 1993.
122. T. A. Auten and J. V. Monter, Temperature and Environmentally Assisted Cracking in
Low alloy Steels, Proceedings of the Seventh International Symposium on Environmental
Degradation of Materials in Nuclear Power Systems Water Reactors, p1145-1155,
NACE, 1995.
123. W. A. Van Der Sluys, et al., Environment-Sensitive Cracking of Pressure Vessel Steels,
Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium on Environmental Degradation of
Materials in Nuclear Power Systems Water Reactors, p1-37 to 1-62, NACE
International 1990.
124. G. Slama and P. Rabbe, French Approach and Results in Cyclic Crack Growth,
Proceedings, 5th SMIRT Post Conference Seminar, Paris, p311-325, August 1981.
125. Analysis of Fatigue Crack Growth Rate Data for A508 and A533B Steels in LWR
Environments. EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: 1993. TR-102793.
126. Environmental Acceleration of Fatigue Crack Growth in Reactor Pressure Vessel
Materials, Volumes 1 and 2. EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: 1993. TR-102796.
127. W. A. Van Der Sluys, Evaluation of the Available Data on the Effect of the Environment
on the Low cycle Fatigue Properties in Light Water Reactor Environments, Proceedings
of the Sixth International Symposium on Environmental Degradation of Materials in
Nuclear Power Systems Water Reactors, 91-7, TMS, 1993.
128. D. R. Tice, et al., Influence of Mean Stress and Temperature on Corrosion Fatigue
Crack Growth of Reactor Pressure Vessel Steels, Proceedings of the Sixth International
Symposium on Environmental Degradation of Materials in Nuclear Power Systems
Water Reactors, p19-27, TMS, 1993.
129. J. D. Atkinson and Z. Chen, The Effect of Temperature on Corrosion Fatigue Crack
Propagation in Reactor Pressure Vessel Steels, Proceedings of the Sixth International
Symposium on Environmental Degradation of Materials in Nuclear Power Systems
Water Reactors, p29-34, TMS, 1993.
130. J. D. Atkinson, et al., Characterization of the Effect of Loading Frequency on Corrosion
Fatigue Crack Growth Rate in RPV Steels, Proceedings of the Eighth International
Symposium on Environmental Degradation of Materials in Nuclear Power Systems Water
Reactors, p924-931, ANS, Copyright 1997 by the American Nuclear Society, La Grange
Park, Illinois.

(I) 1-90

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Carbon and Low Alloy Steels for Pressure Vessels

131. D. R. Tice, et al., Corrosion Fatigue Crack Propagation in Low Sulfur Pressure
Vessel Steels in PWR Primary and Secondary Environments, Proceedings of the Eighth
International Symposium on Environmental Degradation of Materials in Nuclear Power
Systems Water Reactors, p907-915, ANS, 1997.
132. Y. Katada and S. Sato, Effect of Temperature on/Corrosion Fatigue Behavior of Low
Alloy Pressure Vessel Steels, in High Temperature Water, Proceedings of the Eighth
International Symposium on Environmental Degradation of Materials in Nuclear Power
Systems Water Reactors, p916-923, ANS, Copyright 1997 by the American Nuclear
Society, La Grange Park, Illinois.
133. Environmentally-Assisted Fatigue Crack Growth Initiation in Low Alloy Steels. EPRI, Palo
Alto, CA: 1997. TR-109051.
134. H. D. Solomon, et al., LCF Crack Initiation in WB36 in High Temperature Water,
Proceedings of the Ninth International Symposium on Environmental Degradation
of Materials in Nuclear Power Systems Water Reactors, p865-874, TMS, 1999.
135. O. K. Chopra and W. J. Shack, Overview of Fatigue Crack Initiation in Carbon and LowAlloy Steels in Light Water Reactor Environments, Journal of Pressure Vessel
Technology, v121, p49-60, Feb. 1999.
136. O. K. Chopra, et al., Environmentally Assisted Cracking in Light Water Reactors,
NUREG/CR-4667, v29, NRC, Nov. 1999.
137. O. K. Chopra and W. J. Shack, Environmental Effects on Fatigue Crack Initiation in
Piping and Pressure Vessel Steels, NUREG/CR-6717, May 2001.
138. S. Majumdar, et al., Interim Fatigue Design Curves for Carbon, Low-Alloy, and Austenitic
Stainless Steels in LWR Environments, NUREG/CR-5999, NRC, April 1993.
139. O. K. Chopra and W. J. Shack, Effects of LWR Coolant Environments on Fatigue Design
Curves of Carbon and Low-Alloy Steels, NUREG? CR-6583, March 1998.
140. Corrosion-Assisted Cracking of Stainless and Low-Alloy Steels in LWR Environments.
EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: 1987. NP-5064M.
141. P. L. Andresen, Modeling of Water and Material chemistry Effects on the Crack Tip
Chemistry and Resulting Crack Growth Kinetics, Proceedings of the Third International
Symposium on Environmental Degradation of Materials in Nuclear Power Systems Water
Reactors, p301-312, TMS, 1988.
142. P. Combrade and M. Foucault, Crack Tip Conditions Related to Environmentally Assisted
Cracking in Pressure Vessel Steels: Effect of Temperature, Proceedings of the Fifth
International Symposium on Environmental Degradation of Materials in Nuclear Power
Systems Water Reactors, p554-560, ANS, 1992.
143. L. M. Young and P. Andresen, Crack Tip Microsampling and Growth Rate Measurements
in a 0.021%S Low alloy Steel in High Temperature Water, Proceedings of the Seventh
International Symposium on Environmental Degradation of Materials in Nuclear Power
Systems Water Reactors, p1193-1204, NACE, 1995.

(I) 1-91

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Carbon and Low Alloy Steels for Pressure Vessels

144. Y. Lee, et al., Evaluation of Crack Tip Solution Chemistry of Low Alloy Steel in
Oxygenated High Temperature Water, Proceedings of the Ninth International Symposium
on Environmental Degradation of Materials in Nuclear Power Systems Water Reactors,
p893-899, TMS, 1999.
145. H. Tsukada, et al., Current Forgings and Their Properties for Steam Generator of Nuclear
Plant, Steel Forgings, Second Volume, p56-64, ASTM STP 1259, 1997.
146. J. T. Kim, et al., Improved Mechanical Properties of the A 508 Class 3 Steel for Nuclear
Pressure Vessel Through Steelmaking, Steel Forgings, Second Volume, p18-32, ASTM
STP 1259, 1997.
147. M. Lin, et al, Effects of Composition and Heat Treatment on the Toughness of ASTM
A508 Grade 3 Class 1 Material for Pressure Vessels, Steel Forgings, Second Volume,
p33-55, ASTM STP 1259, 1997.
148. B. D. Macdonald, et al., Analysis of Warm Prestress Data, Fatigue and Fracture
Mechanics: 27th Volume, p243-263, ASTM STP 1296, 1997.
149. J. Keeney, et al., Fracture analysis of Full-thickness Clad Beam Specimens, Fatigue and
Fracture Mechanics: 27th Volume, p367-386, ASTM STP 1296, 1997.
150. D. Moinereau and Gilles Rousselier, The Analysis of Underclad Cracks in Large-Scale
Tests Using the Local Approach to Cleavage Fracture, Fatigue and Fracture Mechanics:
27th Volume, p387-405, ASTM STP 1296, 1997.
151. Materials Reliability Program: Reactor Vessel Head Boric Acid Corrosion Testing
(MRP-164, Rev 1) Task 2: Jet Impingement Studies. EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: 2006. 1013412.
152. Materials Reliability Program: Reactor Vessel Head Boric Acid Corrosion Testing
(MRP-165), Task 3 Separate Effects Testing. Palo Alto, CA: 2005. 1011807.
153. Materials Reliability Program: Safety Evaluation for Boric Acid Wastage of PWR Reactor
Vessel Bottom Heads Due to Bottom-Mounted Nozzle Leakage (MRP-167): Evaluations
Supporting the PWR Bottom-Mounted Nozzle Inspection Plan. EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: 2008.
1016591.
154. Materials Reliability Program: Reactor Vessel Head Boric Acid Corrosion Testing
(MRP-199) Task 4: Full-Scale Mockup Testing Phase 1: Design and Analysis Report.
EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: 2007. 1015006.
155. Materials Reliability Program: Reactor Vessel Head Boric Acid Corrosion Testing (MRP266) Task 4: Full-Scale Mockup Testing. EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: 2009. 1019085.
156. Materials Reliability Program: Reactor Vessel Bottom Mounted Nozzle Boric Acid
Corrosion Testing (MRP-268): Design and Analysis of Full-Scale BMN Mockups. EPRI,
Palo Alto, CA: 2010. 1020483.
157. Materials Reliability Program: Reactor Vessel Head Boric Acid Corrosion Testing
Inverted Control Rod Drive Mechanism Mock-Up Testing (MRP-284). EPRI, Palo Alto,
CA: 2010. 1021134.

(I) 1-92

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Carbon and Low Alloy Steels for Pressure Vessels

158. Materials Reliability Program: Reactor Vessel Bottom Head Boric Acid Corrosion
Testing: Bottom-Mounted Instrument Nozzle Mockup Testing (MRP-288). EPRI, Palo Alto,
CA: 2010. 1021015.
159. J. H. Park, et al, Boric Acid Corrosion of Light Water Reactor Pressure Vessel Materials,
NUREG/CR-6875, NRC, July 2005.
160. S. Fyfitch and H. Xu, Boric Acid Corrosion Laboratory Investigation of Carbon and
Low-Alloy Steels in PWR Systems, 13th International Conference on Environmental
Degradation of Materials in Nuclear Power Systems, Whistler, B.C., Canada, August
19-23, 2007, CNS, 2007.

(I) 1-93

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material

CARBON AND LOW ALLOY STEEL PIPING

1 General Description
This chapter covers carbon and low alloy steels that are used for piping in nuclear power plants.
Carbon steel piping has been widely used in nuclear power plants, especially in the following
applications: reactor coolant system piping in PWRs, with internal cladding; reactor feeder pipes
and headers in PHWRs; nuclear auxiliary systems such as residual heat removal and core spray
piping in BWRs; conventional steam plant or balance of plant (BOP) piping, including
condensate, feedwater, steam and steam drain systems; closed cooling water systems; service
water systems; and condenser circulating water systems. The main reasons for use of carbon
steel piping are its combination of low cost, good strength, acceptable general corrosion
resistance in many environments, and its relative freedom from stress corrosion cracking (SCC).
Low alloy steel materials have also been used for some types of nuclear power plant piping, e.g.,
steam exhaust, extraction and drain lines. The main application is in portions of BOP piping
where flow-accelerated corrosion (FAC) (also known as erosion-corrosion and hereafter called
FAC/erosion-corrosion) has resulted in the need for replacement of carbon steel piping with
more resistant material.
Experience with carbon steel and low alloy steel piping in nuclear power plants has been as
follows:

Reactor coolant system piping: Reactor coolant piping in ABB/CE and B&W PWRs is made
of carbon steel with internal stainless steel cladding. There have been no significant
problems with this type piping.

Reactor feeder piping: This piping in PHWRs has generally performed well, but some
thinning of outlet piping due to FAC/erosion-corrosion has been experienced that has
required chemistry adjustments to be made and, as the plants have aged, piping to be
replaced. In addition, at one unit, SCC and creep cracking have occurred at cold worked
bends in the outlet feeders.

Steam piping: Essentially all steam piping is carbon steel and it has performed well, with no
systematic serious problems.

Steam exhaust, extraction and drain line piping: While many carbon steel steam exhaust,
extraction and drain lines have performed acceptably, many other lines have experienced
wall thinning due to FAC/erosion-corrosion. This is generally attributed to the presence of
two phase flow with high velocities and water droplet impingement, and sometimes to the
presence of abrasive magnetite particles. As a consequence of wall thinning problems, these
lines have been found to require frequent monitoring and, in selected areas, replacement with
more FAC/erosion-corrosion resistant materials, e.g., low alloy steels or austenitic stainless
steels.
(I) 2-1

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Carbon and Low Alloy Steel Piping

Condensate and feedwater piping: Most carbon steel piping in these systems, which have
single phase flow, has performed well. However, some serious cases of wall thinning due to
FAC/erosion-corrosion have occurred. As a result, periodic inspections have been found to
be necessary, and repair or replacement of excessively thinned areas has been required.
Replacement has generally been with low alloy or austenitic stainless steels.

Closed cooling water system piping: The water in these systems is generally of controlled
purity and is treated to inhibit corrosion. As a result, most of this piping has performed
satisfactorily. However, some cases of SCC have occurred (possibly due to microbiologically
influenced corrosion (MIC)), resulting in the need for more frequent inspections and
increased attention to chemistry control.

Service water system piping: The water in this piping is often untreated raw water.
Numerous problems of corrosion and clogging have occurred with this type of piping,
especially where the piping ID does not have a protective coating. A variety of remedial
actions have been taken, including more frequent inspections, monitoring and cleaning,
coating the ID with corrosion resistant materials, replacement with more corrosion resistant
materials, mechanical and/or chemical cleanings followed by increased use of biocides, and
conversion to recirculating closed systems. Buried portions of this piping were generally
coated on the OD before burial. However, some OD initiated corrosion has occurred, leading
to increased use of cathodic protection.

Condenser circulating water system piping: The water in this piping is often untreated raw
water. In cases where biological growths could be a problem, treatment with biocides is
sometimes used. Much of this piping is of large diameter and it is often coated on both the ID
and OD surfaces. Much of it is buried. In general, this piping has performed well, but some
cases of OD corrosion damage have occurred, leading to case-specific remedial actions, such
as local repairs and application of cathodic protection. Some cases of ID coating degradation
have also occurred, but this has generally been detected and corrected before significant ID
initiated corrosion has occurred.

Most of the carbon and low alloy steel piping material used in power plants is in the wrought or
forged form. Both seamless and seam welded piping materials are covered by applicable ASTM
and ASME specifications and the ASME Code, and both types are widely used. Cast materials
are also widely used, especially for fittings such as elbows and flanges.
The specified compositions of the carbon and low alloy steels most commonly used for U.S.
nuclear plant piping are shown in Table 2-1 and Table 2-2. Typical or specified mechanical
properties are shown in Table 2-3 and Table 2-4.

(I) 2-2

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Carbon and Low Alloy Steel Piping
Table 2-1
Specified Compositions of Typical Carbon Steel Piping and Plates Used for Piping (wt %)
ASME/ASTM Spec.
Grade, UNS No., Type
SA/A 53 [1]
Gr. B, K03005
CS Galvanized Pipe
SA/A 105 [2]
K03504
CS Forgings
SA/A 106 [3]
Gr. B, K03006
Seamless CS Pipe
SA/A 106 [3]
Gr. C, K03501
Seamless CS Pipe
SA/A 134 [4],
SA/A 283 [5]
Gr. C, K02401
Seam welded CS Pipe
SA/A 216 [6]
Gr. WCB, J03002
Casting
SA/A 234 [7]
Gr. WPB, K03006 (2) (7) (8)
Sml/Wld Wrt CS Fittings
SA/A 234 [7]
Gr. WPC, K03501 (2) (8)
Sml/Wld Wrt CS Fittings
SA/A 333 [8]
Gr. 6, K03006
Sml/Wld Wrt CS Pipe
SA/A 420 [9]
Gr. WPL6,
No UNS No.
Sml/Wld Wrt CS Fittings
SA/A 515 [10]
Gr. 60, K02401
CS Plates
SA/A 516 [11]
Gr. 60, K02100
CS Plates
SA/A 516 [11]
Gr. 70, K02700 (15)
CS Plates
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
(12)
(13)
(14)
(15)
(16)

Mn

Si

Cu

Ni

Cr

Mo

Nb

0.30
max

1.20
max

0.05
max

0.045
max

0.40
max(1)

0.40
max(1)

0.40
max(1)

0.15
max(1)

0.08
max(1)

0.35
max

0.60
1.05

0.035
max

0.040
max

0.10
0.35

0.40
max(2)

0.40
max(2)

0.30
max(2)

0.12
max(2)

0.08
max

0.30
max(3)

0.29
1.06

0.035
max

0.035
max

0.10
min

0.40
max

0.40
max

0.40
max

0.15
max

0.08
max

0.35
max(3)

0.29
1.06

0.035
max

0.035
max

0.10
min

0.40
max(4)

0.40
max(4)

0.40
max(4)

0.15
max(4)

0.08
max(4)

0.24
max

0.90
max

0.035
max

0.04
max

(5)

0.20
min, if
spec.

0.30
max(6)

1.00
max(6)

0.04
max

0.045
max

0.60
max

0.30
max(1)

0.50
max(1)

0.50
max(1)

0.20
max(1)

0.03
max(1)

0.30
max(3)

0.29
1.06

0.050
max

0.058
max

0.10
min

0.40
max

0.40
max

0.40
max

0.15
max

0.08
max

0.35
max(3)

0.29
1.06

0.050
max

0.058
max

0.10
min

0.40
max

0.40
max

0.40
max

0.15
max

0.08
max

0.30
max(9)

0.29
1.06

0.025
max

0.025
max

0.10
min

0.30
max

0.50
1.035

0.035
max

0.040
max

0.15
0.40

0.040
max

0.040
max

0.030
max

0.12
max

0.08
max

0.02
max(10)

(11)

0.90
max

0.035
max

0.035
max

0.15
0.40

(12) (13)

(14)

0.035
max

0.035
max

0.15
0.40

(13) (16)

0.85
1.20

0.035
max

0.035
max

0.15
0.40

(4)

(4)

(4)

(4)

(4)

The sum of these five elements shall not exceed 1.00%.


The sum of Cu, Ni, Cr, and Mo shall not exceed 1.00%, and the sum of Cr and Mo shall not exceed 0.32%.
For each reduction of 0.01% below the specified maximum carbon content, an increase of 0.06% manganese above the specified
maximum will be permitted to a maximum of 1.35%.
These five elements combined shall not exceed 1%.
Silicon max. varies with thickness: 1.5: 0.40% max, >1.5: 0.15%0.40%.
For each reduction of 0.01% below the specified maximum carbon content, an increase of 0.04% manganese above the specified
maximum will be permitted to a maximum of 1.28%.
Fittings made from bar or plate may have 0.35% max carbon.
Fittings made from forgings may have 0.35% max carbon and 0.35% max with no minimum.
For each reduction of 0.01% below the specified maximum carbon content, an increase of 0.05% manganese above the specified
maximum will be permitted to a maximum of 1.35%.
By agreement, the limit may be increased up to 0.05%.
Carbon max. varies with thickness: 1: 0.24% max; 12: 0.27% max; 24: 0.29% max, 4: 0.31% max.
Carbon max. varies with thickness: 0.5: 0.21% max, 0.52: 0.23% max, 24: 0.25% max, 4: 0.27% max.
For each reduction of 0.01% below the specified maximum carbon content, an increase of 0.06% manganese above the specified
maximum will be permitted to a maximum of 1.50%.
Mn max. varies with thickness: 0.5: 0.60%0.90% (may have 0.85%1.20%), > 0.5: 0.85%1.20%.
SA/A 672 Cl22, Gr. C70 for welded pipe invokes SA/A 516.
Carbon max. varies with thickness: 0.5: 0.27% max, 0.52: 0.28% max, 24: 0.30% max, 4: 0.31% max.

(I) 2-3

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Carbon and Low Alloy Steel Piping
Table 2-2
Specified Compositions of Typical Low Alloy Steel Piping and Plates Used for Piping
(wt %)
ASME/ASTM Spec.
Grade, UNS No.
Type

Mn

Si

Cu

Ni

Cr

Mo

Cb

SA/A 182 [12]


Gr. F11-Cl. 1, K11597
1.25% Cr, 0.5% Mo
Forgings

0.05
0.15

0.30
0.60

0.030
max

0.030
max

0.50
1.00

1.00
1.50

0.44
0.65

SA/A 182 [12]


Gr. F22-Cl. 1, K21590
2.25% Cr, 1.0% Mo
Forgings

0.05
0.15

0.30
0.60

0.040
max

0.040
max

0.50
max

2.00
2.50

0.87
1.13

SA/A 234 [7]


Gr. WP 11-Cl. 1
1.25% Cr, 0.5% Mo Sml
or Wld Fittings

0.05
0.15

0.30
0.60

0.030
max

0.030
max

0.50
1.00

1.00
1.50

0.44
0.65

SA/A 335 [13]


Gr. P11, K11597
1.25% Cr, 0.5% Mo
Seamless Pipe

0.05
0.15

0.30
0.60

0.025
max

0.025
max

0.50
1.00

1.00
1.50

0.44
0.65

SA/A 335 [13]


Gr. P22, K21590
2.25% Cr, 1.0% Mo
Seamless Pipe

0.05
0.15

0.30
0.60

0.025
max

0.025
max

0.50
max

1.90
2.60

0.87
1.13

SA/A 508 [14]


(1)
Gr. 1, K13502
LAS Forgings

0.35
max

0.40
1.05

0.025
max

0.025
(2)
max

0.40
max

0.20
max

0.40
max

0.25
max

0.10
max

0.05
max

0.01
max

(1)

Designations have been changed; formerly Grade 1 was Class 1.

(2)

When required by the purchaser, a minimum silicon content of 0.15% shall apply.

(I) 2-4

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Carbon and Low Alloy Steel Piping
Table 2-3
Specified Room Temperature Mechanical Properties for Typical Carbon Steel Piping and
Plates Used for Piping
ASME/ASTM Spec.
Grade, UNS No.
Type
SA/A 53 [1]
Gr. B, K3005
CS Galvanized Pipe

Min.
Tensile
Strength,
ksi (MPa)
60
(415)

Min.
Min.
Reduction
Max
Yield
Elong. in
in Area
Hardness
Strength 2 (50 mm)
(%)
ksi (MPa)
(%)
(1)

35
(240)
(2)

SA/A 105 [2]


K03504
CS Forgings

70
(485)

36
(250)

SA/A 106 [3]


Gr. B, K03006
Seamless CS Pipe

60
(415)

35
(240)

30 long.
16.5 trans.

SA/A 106 [3]


Gr. C, K03501
Seamless CS Pipe

70
(485)

40
(275)

30 long.
16.5 trans.

SA/A 134 [4], SA/A 283 [5]


Gr. C, K02401
Seam welded CS Pipe

5575
(380515)
min max

30
(205)

25

SA/A 216 [6]


Gr. WCB, J03002
Casting
SA/A 234 [7]
Gr. WPB, K03006
Seamless or Welded
Wrought CS Fittings

7095
(485655)
minmax
6095
(415655)
minmax

36
(250)

22

35
(240)

SA/A 234 [7]


Gr. WPC, K03006
Seamless or Welded
Wrought CS Fittings

7095
(485655)
minmax

40
(275)

SA/A 333 [8]


Gr. 6, K03006
Seamless or Welded
CS Pipe

60
(415)

35
(240)

30 long.
16.5 trans.

6085
(415585)
minmax

35
(420)

30 long.
16.5 trans.

SA/A 420 [9]


Gr. WPL6, No UNS No.
Seamless or Welded
Wrought CS Fittings

Ave. Min.
Charpy
V-Notch
ft-lb (J)

30

187 HB

(2)

(2)

(2)

(2)

35

30 long.
20 trans.

(2)

197 HB

30 long.
20 trans.

(2)

197 HB

(2)

13 (18)
at
-50F (-45C)

(2)

13 (17.6)
at
-50F (-45C)

22

(3)

(3)

(I) 2-5

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Carbon and Low Alloy Steel Piping
Table 2-3
Specified Room Temperature Mechanical Properties for Typical Carbon Steel Piping and
Plates Used for Piping (Continued)
Min.
Min.
Reduction
Max
Yield
Elong. in
in Area
Hardness
Strength 2 (50 mm)
(%)
ksi (MPa)
(%)
(2)

32
25
(220)

SA/A 515 [10]


Gr. 60, K02401
CS Plates

Min.
Tensile
Strength,
ksi (MPa)
6080
(415550)
minmax

SA/A 516 [11]


Gr. 60, K02100
CS Plates

6080
(415550)
minmax

32
(220)

25

SA/A 516 [11]


Gr. 70, K02700
CS Plates

7090
(485620)
minmax

38
(260)

21

ASME/ASTM Spec.
Grade, UNS No.
Type

Ave. Min.
Charpy
V-Notch
ft-lb (J)

(2)

(2)

(1) e = 625,000 [1940] A0.2/U0.9, where U is the tensile strength in psi [MPa], and A is a parameter listed in Table
X4.1(customary units) or X4.2 (metric units) of SA/A 53 that depends on the pipe size, wall thickness, and grade.
(2) The referenced ASTM/ASME specification provides alternative rules for elongation that may be used.
(3) This requirement is for a 10 by 10 mm (0.4 by 0.4.) specimen. The referenced ASTM/ASME specification provides
requirements for other sizes.

(I) 2-6

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Carbon and Low Alloy Steel Piping
Table 2-4
Specified Room Temperature Mechanical Properties for Typical Low Alloy Steel Piping and
Plates Used for Piping
Min.
Tensile
Strength
ksi (MPa)

Min.
Yield
Strength
ksi (MPa)

Min.
Elong. in
2 (50 mm)
(%)

Reduction
in Area (%)

SA/A 182 [12]


Gr. F11-Cl. 1, K11597
1.25% Cr, 0.5% Mo
Forgings

60
(415)

30
(205)

20

45

121174
HB

SA/A 182 [12]


Gr. F22-Cl. 1, K21590
2.25% Cr, 1.0% Mo
Forgings

60
(415)

30
(205)

20

35

170 HB

SA/A 234 [7]


Gr. WP 11-Cl. 1
1.25% Cr, 0.5% Mo
Sml or Wld Fittings

6085
(415585)
minmax

30
(205)

30 long.
20 trans.

(1)

197 HB

SA/A 335 [13]


Gr. P11, K11597
1.25% Cr, 0.5% Mo
Seamless Pipe

60
(415)

30
(205)

30 long.
20 trans.

(1)

SA/A 335 [13]


Gr. P22, K21590
2.25% Cr, 1.0% Mo
Seamless Pipe

60
(415)

30
(205)

30 long.
20 trans.

(1)

7095
(485655)
minmax

36
(250)

20

38

10 (14)
at
40F (4.4C)

ASME/ASTM Spec.
Grade, UNS No.
Type

SA/A 508 [14]


(2)
Gr. 1 , K13502
LAS Forgings

Ave. Min.
Charpy
V-Notch
ft-lb (J)

Max.
Hardness

(1) The referenced ASTM/ASME specification provides alternative rules for elongation that may be used.
(2) Designations have been changed; formerly Grade 1 was Class 1.

2 Applications
Typical nuclear power plant applications of carbon and low alloy steel piping include:

Reactor coolant piping in PWRs (e.g., carbon steel to SA 516, Grade 70, with internal
cladding).

Reactor feeder piping in PHWRs (carbon steel to SA 105 and to SA 106, Grades B or C).

Steam, steam drain, condensate and feedwater piping (e.g., carbon steel to SA 105, and SA
106, Grades B or C).

Steam, steam drain, condensate and feedwater piping that has been replaced because of
FAC/erosion-corrosion (e.g., 1.25% Cr, 0.5% Mo or 2.25% Cr, 1% Mo low alloy steel to SA
182, SA 234 and SA 335).

Closed cooling water and raw service water piping (e.g., SA 106, Grade B).
(I) 2-7

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Carbon and Low Alloy Steel Piping

Circulating water piping (e.g., SA 134/SA 283 Grade C).

3 Typical Product Forms and Specifications


Wrought carbon and low alloy steel piping is used in both the seamless and seam welded forms.
Cast material is also used. These materials are generally supplied in accordance with the
specifications described in Table 2-5 and Table 2-6.
Table 2-5
Carbon Steel Piping and Plate Used for Piping Specifications
Specification
ASTM

ASME

Description

A 53

SA 53

Black and Hot-Dipped Galvanized Steel Pipe

A 105

SA 105

Carbon Steel Forgings for Piping Applications

A 106

SA 106

Seamless Carbon Steel Pipe for High-Temperature Service

A 134

SA 134

Pipe, Steel, Electric-Fusion (Arc)-Welded (Sizes NPS 16 and


Over)

A 216

SA 216

Steel Castings, Carbon, Suitable for Fusion Welding for


High-Temperature Service

A 234

SA 234

Piping Fittings of Wrought Carbon Steel and Alloy Steel for


Moderate and Elevated Temperatures

A 283

SA 283

Low and Intermediate Tensile Strength Carbon Steel Plates

A 333

SA 333

Seamless and Welded Steel Pipe for Low-Temperature


Service

A 420

SA 420

Piping Fittings of Wrought Carbon Steel and Alloy Steel for


Low-Temperature Service

A 515

SA 515

Pressure Vessel Plates, Carbon Steel, for Intermediate- and


Higher-Temperature Service

A 516

SA 516

Pressure Vessel Plates, Carbon Steel, for Moderate- and


Lower-Temperature Service

(I) 2-8

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Carbon and Low Alloy Steel Piping
Table 2-6
Low Alloy Steel Piping and Plate Used for Piping Specifications
Specification

Description

ASTM

ASME

A 182

SA 182

Forged or Rolled Alloy-Steel Pipe Flanges, forged Fittings, and


Valves and Parts for High-Temperature Service

A 234

SA 234

Piping Fittings of Wrought Carbon Steel and Alloy Steel for


Moderate and Elevated Temperatures

A 335

SA 335

Seamless Ferritic Alloy-Steel Pipe for High-Temperature Service

A 508

SA 508

Quenched and Tempered Vacuum-Treated Carbon and Alloy Steel


Forgings for Pressure Vessels

4 Main Limitations
The main limitations with regard to use of carbon and low alloy steel piping are as follows:

Carbon steel can have a low resistance to FAC/erosion-corrosion in both two phase flow
regimes and in single liquid phase flow conditions, especially if the steel is low in chromium.
In many steels, chromium is not a controlled element, and is present only as a tramp element.
In such steels, chromium can be very low, and the steel can be very susceptible to
FAC/erosion-corrosion. FAC/erosion-corrosion can result in wall thinning at locations where
droplets in two phase flow impinge on the wall, and at locations such as elbows and other
fitting where liquid at high velocity contacts the wall. Small amounts of chromium, copper
and molybdenum in the steel increase the resistance to FAC/erosion-corrosion, which helps
explain the generally good performance of the chrome moly grades of low alloy steels.

Carbon and low alloy steels are susceptible to general and pitting corrosion in uncontrolled
environments. For example, in fresh service water applications, these steels have experienced
severe pitting and general corrosion during uncontrolled storage or shutdown conditions, and
also during normal operation in some cases.

Release rates of iron to the coolant are larger for carbon and low alloy steels than for
corrosion resistant materials. This can be undesirable from a corrosion product transport
point of view, e.g., with respect to minimizing transport to the steam generators of PWRs or
to the reactor of BWRs.

Carbon steel piping, while generally quite resistant to SCC, has experienced SCC in closed
cooling water systems at several plants. The specific conditions (pH, potential, chemical
species, and temperatures) involved have not been clearly identified. However, industry
guidelines have been developed for control of chemistry in closed cooling water systems and
plant experience indicates that compliance with these guidelines minimizes occurrence of
SCC [15].

(I) 2-9

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Carbon and Low Alloy Steel Piping

5 Material Properties
5.1 Room Temperature Mechanical Properties
Specified room temperature mechanical properties of common grades of carbon and low alloy
steel piping are shown in Table 2-3 and Table 2-4 in Section 1.
5.2 Elevated Temperature Mechanical Properties
Mechanical properties at elevated temperatures for typical carbon and low alloy steels used for
piping are given in the ASME Code data shown in Section 7. The ASME Code data indicate that
the materials do not decrease in tensile strength at temperatures up to 650F (343C), but that
they do show significant drops in yield strength, as shown in Figure 2-1 for several of the steels.
Temperature (C)
38

93

149

204

260

316

371

90

621

80

552

70

483

60

414

50

345

40

276

30

207

20

138

10

SA 516-70 Yield

SA 516-70 Tensile

SA 106-B Yield

SA 106-B Tensile

SA 335-P22 Yield

SA 335-P2 Tensile

69

0
0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

Temperature (F)

Figure 2-1
ASME Code Data for Tensile and Yield Strength vs. Temperature for Several Carbon and
Low Alloy Steels

5.3 Physical Properties


Typical physical properties of some common carbon and low alloy steel piping materials are
listed in Table 2-7.

(I) 2-10

Strength (MPa)

Strength (ksi)

-18

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Carbon and Low Alloy Steel Piping
Table 2-7
Physical Properties of Carbon and Low Alloy Steel Piping

Parameter

Density
[16]

Melting
Range [17]

Units

lb/in.3
(kg/m3)

F
(C)

psi
(MPa)

0.280
(7750)

23702550
(13001400)

0.280
(7750)

CS with
C ~ 0.2 0.3%
(SA 53-B,
SA 106-B,
SA134/283-C,
SA 216-WCB,
SA 234-WPB,
SA 333-6,
SA 420-WPL6,
SA 515-60,
SA 516-60,
SA 516-70)
CS with
C ~ 0.3 0.35%
(SA 105,
SA 106-C,
SA 234-WPC)
LAS with
C ~ 0.3 0.35%
(SA 508-1)
LAS with
1.25%Cr,
0.5%Mo
(SA 182-F11-1,
SA 234-WP11-1,
SA 335-P11)
LAS with
2.25%Cr, 1%Mo
(SA 182-22-1,
SA 335-P22)
(1)

Mod. of
Mean Coef. Thermal
Elasticity
Relative
Specific of Th. Exp., Cond. at
Poissons
6
x 10 at
Magnetic
70600F
Heat
70 F
Ratio
70F
Perm.
(20350C)
[20]
(20C)
[16]
(25C)
[19]
[21]
[22]
[18]

Thermal Electrical
Cond. at Resistivity
600F
at 212F
(350C)
(100C)
[22]
[23]

Btu/ft-h-F Btu/ft-h-F ohm-cm


(W/m-C) (W/m-C) ( ohm-in.)

Btu/lb-F
(J/kg-C)

x 10-6/F
(x 10-6/C)

Ferromagnetic
(10200)

0.103
(431)

7.4
(13.6)

34.9
(60.4)

28.0
(51.4)

21.9
(8.62)

0.30

Ferromagnetic
(10200)

0.103
(431)

7.4
(13.6)

34.9
(60.4)

28.0
(51.4)

21.9
(8.62)

29.2
(0.201)

0.30

0.103
(431)

7.4
(13.6)

34.9
(60.4)

28.0
(51.4)

30.0
(11.8)(1)

23702550
(13001400)

29.6
(0.204)

0.30

Ferromagnetic
(10200)
Ferromagnetic
(10200)

0.107
(446)

7.4
(13.6)

23.7
(41.0)

22.2
(39.5)

30.0
(11.8) (1)

23702550
(13001400)

30.6
(0.210)

0.30

0.106
(445)

7.4
(13.6)

21.0
(36.3)

21.1
(37.1)

30.0
(11.8) (1)

29.4
(0.202)

0.30

23702550
(13001400)

29.2
(0.201)

0.280
(7750)

23702550
(13001400)

0.280
(7750)

0.280
(7750)

Ferromagnetic
(10200)

Resistivity was measured at 50C (120F)

6 Welding and Heat Treatment


The carbon and low alloy steel piping materials covered in this chapter are readily weldable.
Standard procedures for carbon and low alloy steels can be used. Code requirements need to be
observed with regard to preheat temperatures and post weld heat treatment.

7 Application Specific Comments


7.1 ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code Applications
Section II of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code (hereafter referred to as the ASME
Code) contains some useful material property data for parts within the jurisdiction of the ASME
Code. Some of the material property data in the ASME Code are also useful for design and
analysis of non-ASME Code parts and are reproduced below for reference purposes. Note that
the ASME Code is revised frequently and the data shown below are not necessarily those from
the applicable edition of the ASME Code for a given plant. Accordingly, it is suggested that data
taken directly from the ASME Code (and not from this handbook) be used when performing
designs or analyses of ASME Code items.
(I) 2-11

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Carbon and Low Alloy Steel Piping

Table U, Tensile Strength Values Su, for Ferrous and Nonferrous Materials, contains the
following information for the carbon and low alloy steel piping materials covered in this
chapter [24, 25].

Parameter

Tensile Tensile Tensile


Tensile
Min.
Strength Strength Strength Strength
Tensile
Value,
Value,
Value,
Value,
Strength, -20 to 100F 200F
300F
400F
ksi
(-30 to 40C) (100C) (150C) (200C)
(MPa)
ksi
ksi
ksi
ksi
(MPa)
(MPa)
(MPa)
(MPa)

Tensile
Strength
Value,
500F
(250C)
ksi
(MPa)

Tensile Tensile
Strength Strength
Value,
Value,
600F
650F
(300C) (325C)
ksi
ksi
(MPa)
(MPa)

SA 283-C,
plate

55
(380)

55.0
(379)

55.0
(379)

55.0
(379)

55.0
(379)

55.0
(379)

55.0
(379)

55.0
(379)

SA 515-60,
plate

60
(415)

60.0
(414)

60.0
(414)

60.0
(414)

60.0
(414)

60.0
(414)

60.0
(414)

60.0
(414)

S 53-B,
smls & wld pipe

60
(415)

60.0
(414)

60.0
(414)

60.0
(414)

60.0
(414)

60.0
(414)

60.0
(414)

60.0
(414)

SA 106-B,
smls pipe

60
(415)

60.0
(414)

60.0
(414)

60.0
(414)

60.0
(414)

60.0
(414)

60.0
(414)

60.0
(414)

SA 234-WPB,
smls & wld fittings

60
(415)

60.0
(414)

60.0
(414)

60.0
(414)

60.0
(414)

60.0
(414)

60.0
(414)

60.0
(414)

SA 333-6,
smls & weld pipe

60
(415)

60.0
(414)

60.0
(414)

60.0
(414)

60.0
(414)

60.0
(414)

60.0
(414)

60.0
(414)

SA 420-WPL6,
smls & wld fittings

60
(415)

60.0
(414)

60.0
(414)

60.0
(414)

60.0
(414)

60.0
(414)

60.0
(414)

60.0
(414)

SA 105,
forgings

70
(485)

70.0
(483)

70.0
(483)

70.0
(483)

70.0
(483)

70.0
(483)

70.0
(483)

70.0
(483)

SA 216-WCB,
castings

70
(485)

70.0
(483)

70.0
(483)

70.0
(483)

70.0
(483)

70.0
(483)

70.0
(483)

70.0
(483)

SA 508-1,
forgings

70
(485)

70.0
(483)

70.0
(483)

70.0
(483)

70.0
(483)

70.0
(483)

70.0
(483)

70.0
(483)

SA 516-60,
plate

60
(415)

60.0
(414)

60.0
(414)

60.0
(414)

60.0
(414)

60.0
(414)

60.0
(414)

60.0
(414)

SA 516-70,
plate

70
(485)

70.0
(483)

70.0
(483)

70.0
(483)

70.0
(483)

70.0
(483)

70.0
(483)

70.0
(483)

SA 106-C,
smls pipe

70
(485)

70.0
(483)

70.0
(483)

70.0
(483)

70.0
(483)

70.0
(483)

70.0
(483)

70.0
(483)

SA 234-WPC,
smls & wld fittings

70
(485)

70.0
(483)

70.0
(483)

70.0
(483)

70.0
(483)

70.0
(483)

70.0
(483)

70.0
(483)

SA 182-F11-1,
forgings

60
(415)

60.0
(414)

60.0
(414)

60.0
(414)

60.0
(414)

60.0
(414)

60.0
(414)

60.0
(414)

SA 234-WP11-1,
smls & wld fittings

60
(415)

60.0
(414)

60.0
(414)

60.0
(414)

60.0
(414)

60.0
(414)

60.0
(414)

60.0
(414)

SA 335-P11,
smls pipe

60
(415)

60.0
(414)

60.0
(414)

60.0
(414)

60.0
(414)

60.0
(414)

60.0
(414)

60.0
(414)

SA 182-F22-1,
forgings

60
(415)

60.0
(414)

59.9
(412)

58.2
(401)

58.2
(401)

58.2
(401)

58.2
(401)

58.2
(401)

SA 335-P22,
smls pipe

60
(415)

60.0
(414)

59.9
(412)

58.2
(401)

58.2
(401)

58.2
(401)

58.2
(401)

58.2
(401)

(I) 2-12

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Carbon and Low Alloy Steel Piping

Table Y-1, Yield Strength Values Sy, for Ferrous and Nonferrous Materials, contains the
following information for the carbon and low alloy steel piping materials covered in this
chapter [25, 26].

Parameter

SA 283-C,
plate
SA 515-60,
plate
SA 53-B,
smls & wld pipe
SA 106-B,
smls pipe
SA 234-WPB,
smls & wld fittings
SA 333-6,
smls & weld pipe
SA 420-WPL6,
smls & wld fittings
SA 105,
forgings
SA 216-WCB,
castings
SA 508-1,
forgings
SA 516-60,
plate
SA 516-70,
plate
SA 106-C,
smls pipe
SA 234-WPC,
smls & wld fittings
SA 182-F11-1,
forgings
SA 234 WP11-1,
smls & wld fittings
SA 335-P11,
smls pipe
SA 182-F22-1,
forgings
SA 335-P22,
smls pipe

Yield
Yield
Yield
Yield
Yield
Yield
Yield
Min.
Min.
Strength Strength Strength Strength Strength Strength Strength
Value,
Value,
Value,
Tensile
Value,
Value,
Yield
Value,
Value,
400F
650F
Strength, Strength, -20 to 100F 200F
300F
500F
600F
ksi
ksi
(-30 to 40C) (100C) (150C) (200C) (250C) (300C) (325C)
ksi
ksi
ksi
ksi
(MPa)
ksi
ksi
(MPa)
ksi
(MPa)
(MPa)
(MPa)
(MPa)
(MPa)
(MPa)
(MPa)
55
30
30.0
27.5
26.5
25.6
24.4
23.0
22.2
(380)
(205)
(207)
(189)
(183)
(177)
(170)
(161)
(157)
60
32
32.0
29.3
28.3
27.3
26.1
24.5
23.7
(415)
(220)
(221)
(201)
(195)
(189)
(182)
(172)
(167)
60
35
35.0
32.1
31.0
29.9
28.5
26.8
25.9
(415)
(240)
(241)
(220)
(214)
(207)
(198)
(188)
(183)
60
35
35.0
32.1
31.0
29.9
28.5
26.8
25.9
(415)
(240)
(241)
(220)
(214)
(207)
(198)
(188)
(183)
60
35
35.0
32.1
31.0
29.9
28.5
26.8
25.9
(415)
(240)
(241)
(220)
(214)
(207)
(198)
(188)
(183)
60
35
35.0
32.1
31.0
29.9
28.5
26.8
25.9
(415)
(240)
(241)
(220)
(214)
(207)
(198)
(188)
(183)
60
35
35.0
32.1
31.0
29.9
28.5
26.8
25.9
(415)
(240)
(241)
(220)
(214)
(207)
(198)
(188)
(183)
70
36
36.0
33.0
31.8
30.8
29.3
27.6
26.7
(485)
(250)
(248)
(227)
(219)
(213)
(204)
(194)
(188)
70
36
36.0
33.0
31.8
30.8
29.3
27.6
26.7
(485)
(250)
(248)
(227)
(219)
(213)
(204)
(194)
(188)
70
36
36.0
33.0
31.8
30.8
29.3
27.6
26.7
(485)
(250)
(248)
(227)
(219)
(213)
(204)
(194)
(188)
60
32
32.0
29.3
28.3
27.3
26.1
24.5
23.7
(415)
(220)
(221)
(201)
(195)
(189)
(182)
(172)
(167)
70
38
38.0
34.8
33.6
32.5
31.0
29.1
28.2
(485)
(260)
(262)
(239)
(232)
(225)
(216)
(204)
(199)
70
40
40.0
36.6
35.4
34.2
32.6
30.7
29.6
(485)
(275)
(276)
(251)
(244)
(237)
(227)
(216)
(209)
70
40
40.0
36.6
35.4
34.2
32.6
30.7
29.6
(485)
(275)
(276)
(251)
(244)
(237)
(227)
(216)
(209)
60
30
30.0
27.7
26.3
25.3
24.4
23.5
23.1
(415)
(205)
(207)
(190)
(181)
(175)
(169)
(164)
(161)
60
30
30.0
27.7
26.3
25.3
24.4
23.5
23.1
(415)
(205)
(207)
(190)
(181)
(175)
(169)
(164)
(161)
60
30
30.0
27.7
26.3
25.3
24.4
23.5
23.1
(415)
(205)
(207)
(190)
(181)
(175)
(169)
(164)
(161)
60
30
30.0
28.0
27.2
26.9
26.9
26.9
26.9
(415)
(205)
(207)
(192)
(187)
(185)
(185)
(185)
(185)
60
30
30.0
28.0
27.2
26.9
26.9
26.9
26.9
(415)
(205)
(207)
(192)
(187)
(185)
(185)
(185)
(185)

(I) 2-13

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Carbon and Low Alloy Steel Piping

Table TCD, Nominal Coefficients of Thermal Conductivity (TC) and Thermal Diffusivity
(TD), provides the following data for thermal conductivity and diffusivity data for carbon
and low alloy steels covered in this chapter [22, 25].
Carbon Steels/
(1)
Low Alloy Steel

1.25% Cr, 0.5% Mo

(2)

2.25% Cr, 1% Mo

(3)

Temp.,
F (C)

TC

70
(20)

34.9
(60.4)

0.700
(18.10)

23.7
(41.0)

0.459
(11.87)

21.0
(36.3)

0.408
(10.53)

100
(50)

34.7
(59.8)

0.676
(17.03)

23.6
(40.8)

0.451
(11.47)

21.0
(36.5)

0.401
(10.23)

150
(75)

34.2
(58.9)

0.641
(16.27)

23.5
(40.7)

0.437
(11.16)

21.2
(36.7)

0.392
(10.03)

200
(100)

33.7
(58.0)

0.611
(15.60)

23.5
(40.6)

0.424
(10.88)

21.3
(36.9)

0.384
(9.86)

250
(125)

33.0
(57.0)

0.585
(15.00)

23.4
(40.5)

0.412
(10.60)

21.4
(37.0)

0.377
(9.72)

300
(150)

32.3
(55.9)

0.560
(14.43)

23.4
(40.4)

0.401
(10.33)

21.5
(37.1)

0.371
(9.56)

350
(175)

31.6
(54.7)

0.537
(13.90)

23.3
(40.3)

0.390
(10.08)

21.5
(37.2)

0.364
(9.41)

400
(200)

30.9
(53.6)

0.516
(13.40)

23.1
(40.1)

0.379
(9.82)

21.5
(37.2)

0.357
(9.25)

450
(225)

30.1
(52.5)

0.495
(12.90)

23.0
(39.8)

0.368
(9.57)

21.5
(37.2)

0.350
(9.08)

500
(250)

29.4
(51.4)

0.474
(12.42)

22.7
(39.5)

0.357
(9.32)

21.4
(37.1)

0.342
(8.89)

550
(275)

28.7
(50.3)

0.454
(11.95)

22.5
(39.1)

0.347
(9.07)

21.3
(36.9)

0.333
(8.70)

600
(300)

28.0
(49.2)

0.433
(11.48)

22.2
(38.7)

0.336
(8.82)

21.1
(36.7)

0.324
(8.49)

650
(325)

27.3
(48.1)

0.414
(11.01)

21.9
(38.3)

0.325
(8..57)

20.9
(36.5)

0.314
(8.27)

(4)

TD

(5)

TC

(4)

TD

(5)

TC

(4)

TD

(5)

(1) (e.g., Carbon Steels: SA 53-B, SA 106-B, SA134/283-C, SA 216-WCB, SA 234-WPB, SA 333-6, SA 420-WPL6, SA 51560, SA 516-60, SA 516-70, SA 105, SA 106-C, SA 234-WPC; Low Alloy Steel: SA 508-1)
(2) (e.g., SA 182-F11-1, SA 234-WP11-1, SA 335-P11)
(3) (e.g., SA 182-22-1, SA 335-P22)
(4) Thermal Conductivity, Btu/hr-ft-F (W/m-C)
(5) Thermal Diffusivity, ft2/hr (x 10-6 m2/sec)

(I) 2-14

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Carbon and Low Alloy Steel Piping

Table TE-1, Thermal Expansion for Ferrous Materials, provides the following data for the
carbon and low alloy steels covered in this chapter [21, 25].
70F
(20C)

100F
(50C)

150F
(75C)

200F
(100C)

250F
(125C)

300F
(150C)

350F
(175C)

400F
(200C)

6.4
(11.5)

6.6
(12.0)

6.8
(12.3)

7.0
(12.7)

7.2
(12.9)

7.3
(13.2)

7.5
(13.5)

7.7
(13.8)

6.4
(11.5)

6.5
(11.8)

6.6
(11.9)

6.7
(12.1)

6.8
(12.3)

6.9
(12.4)

7.0
(12.6)

7.1
(12.7)

0
(0)

0.2
(0.4)

0.6
(0.7)

1.0
(1.0)

1.5
(1.3)

1.9
(1.6)

2.4
(2.0)

2.8
(2.3)

450F
(225C)

500F
(250C)

550F
(275C)

600F
(300C)

650F
(325C)

7.8
(14.0)

8.0
(14.3)

8.2
(14.6)

8.3
(14.9)

8.5
(15.1)

7.2
(12.9)

7.3
(13.0)

7.3
(13.2)

7.4
(13.3)

7.5
(13.4)

3.3
(2.6)

3.7
(3.0)

4.2
(3.4)

4.7
(3.7)

5.2
(4.1)

Coef.

Coef.

Notes to Table TE-1: Coefficient A is the instantaneous coefficient of thermal expansion with customary units of x 10-6
(in./in./F) or metric units of x 10-6 (mm/mm/C). Coefficient B is the mean coefficient of thermal expansion with customary units
of x 10-6 (in./in./F) or metric units of x 10-6 (mm/mm/C) in going from 70F (20C) to the indicated temperature. Coefficient C is
the linear thermal expansion with customary units of (in./100 ft) or metric units of (mm/m) in going from 70F (20C) to the
indicated temperature.

Table TM-1, Moduli of Elasticity E of Ferrous Materials for Given Temperature, provides
the following data for the carbon and low alloy steels covered in this chapter [18, 25].
Moduli of Elasticity for Carbon Steel with C 0.30%: SA 53-B, SA 106-B, SA 134/283-C, SA 216WCB, SA 234-WPB, SA 333-6, SA 420-WPL6, SA 515-60, and SA 516-60&70.
Temp.
6

x 10 psi
6
(x 10 MPa)

70F
(25C)

200F
(100C)

300F
(150C)

400F
(200C)

500F
(250C)

600F
(300C)

700F
(350C)

29.4
(0.202)

28.8
(0.198)

28.3
(0.195)

27.9
(0.192)

27.3
(0.189)

26.5
(0.185)

25.5
(0.179)

Moduli of Elasticity for Carbon Steel and Low Alloy Steels with C > 0.30%: SA 105, SA 106-C, SA
234-WPC, and SA 508-1.
70F
200F
300F
400F
500F
600F
700F
Temp.
(25C)
(100C)
(150C)
(200C)
(250C)
(300C)
(350C)
6

x 10 psi
6
(x 10 MPa)

29.2
(0.201)

28.6
(0.197)

28.1
(0.194)

27.7
(0.191)

27.1
(0.188)

26.4
(0.183)

25.3
(0.178)

(I) 2-15

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Carbon and Low Alloy Steel Piping
Moduli of Elasticity for 1.25% Cr, 0.5% Mo Low Alloy Steels: SA 182-F11-1, SA 234-WP11-1, and SA
335-P11.
Temp.
6

x 10 psi
6
(x 10 MPa)

70F
(25C)

200F
(100C)

300F
(150C)

400F
(200C)

500F
(250C)

600F
(300C)

700F
(350C)

29.6
(0.204)

29.0
(0.200)

28.5
(0.197)

28.0
(0.193)

27.4
(0.190)

26.9
(0.186)

26.2
(0.183)

Moduli of Elasticity for 2.25% Cr, 1% Mo Low Alloy Steel: SA 182-22-1 and SA 335-P22.
Temp.
6

x 10 psi
6
(x 10 MPa)

70F
(25C)

200F
(100C)

300F
(150C)

400F
(200C)

500F
(250C)

600F
(300C)

700F
(350C)

30.6
(0.210)

29.9
(0.206)

29.4
(0.202)

28.8
(0.199)

28.3
(0.196)

27.7
(0.192)

27.0
(0.188)

7.2 Parts Immersed in Reactor Coolant


Except in PHWRs, the carbon and low alloy steels covered in this chapter are not generally used
in applications that involve immersion in reactor coolant that flows to the reactor core during
power operation. However, they are sometimes used in connected Class 1 systems in BWRs. In
addition, in PWRs they are used as reactor coolant pressure boundary materials with an internal
corrosion resistant cladding, generally of stainless steel. For Class 1 applications, the materials
need to meet the requirements of the ASME Code for Class 1 materials (Article NB-3000,
Material, in Section III), such as for fracture toughness, certifications, and inspections.

8 Ordering Information and Practices


Carbon and low alloy steels are susceptible to corrosion during shipment and storage. The
resistance to this type of attack is affected by the final heat treated surface condition, and also to
any protective coatings used. It is suggested that agreement be reached with the supplier as to
what final surface condition and protective coating will be provided.

9 Service Experience
This section contains a brief review of service problems with carbon and low alloy steel piping.
The review is not meant to cover all reported failures, but rather to concentrate on those that are
most important from a lessons learned standpoint.
9.1 Summary
Carbon and low alloy steel piping is widely used in nuclear power plants. Surveys of experience
and of aging concerns have identified FAC/erosion-corrosion as the major problem that has
affected carbon steel piping in steam drain, condensate and feedwater systems and in the outlet
feeder system of PHWRs, and general corrosion, pitting, under deposit corrosion, and
microbiologically influenced corrosion as being significant problems in service water systems
[27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32]. Corrosion fatigue has been identified as a potential concern, but in
practice has not been a serious problem except at feedwater connections to some PWR steam
generators and at some German BWR feedwater nozzles. Low alloy steel has mainly been used
in locations where FAC/erosion-corrosion has either occurred or been expected to occur in
carbon steel piping, and has generally been problem free. SCC and low-temperature creep
(I) 2-16

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Carbon and Low Alloy Steel Piping

cracking have occurred at tight radius bends in outlet feeder pipes of one PHWR and appear to
be related to the presence of high levels (~30%) of cold work in the bends. SCC has affected
some closed cooling water systems.
9.2 Flow-Accelerated Corrosion (FAC/Erosion-Corrosion)
Note. This problem is identified as FAC/erosion-corrosion rather than using flow-accelerated
corrosion (FAC) alone since many of the original reports describing this problem used the terms
erosion-corrosion, erosion/corrosion, or corrosion-erosion, and since some of the thinning has
been attributed to oxide removal by abrasive magnetite particles, and also to the mechanical
effects of water droplet impingement, e.g., at localized areas exposed to flashing steam.
Summary. Wall thinning as a result of FAC/erosion-corrosion has been a significant problem
affecting carbon steel piping and fittings in both BWRs and PWRs. Thinning due to
FAC/erosion-corrosion was recognized as an industry problem in the late 1970s, with the main
parts of the plants known to be affected at that time being lines with two phase flow, e.g., steam
drain and extraction lines. However, in 1986 a serious failure occurred in a single phase
feedwater line at Surry. Since that time, inspection programs have been expanded to cover both
two phase and single phase parts of the BOP. Many areas with wall thinning have been detected,
and significant corrective actions have been taken. These have included:

Research to better identify the factors controlling the rate of thinning.

Development and use of predictive codes such as CHECWORKS to help identify locations
susceptible to thinning and thus warranting attention during inspections, coupled with repairs
or replacements as required based on the inspections.

Replacement of affected and/or susceptible piping with more resistant piping, e.g., low alloy
steels with chromium or austenitic stainless steels.

Changes to water chemistry to reduce the rate of thinning, e.g., increasing secondary system
pH by use of advanced amines or higher concentrations of ammonia, and increasing oxygen
levels in the condensate and feedwater systems sufficiently to stabilize the protective
hematite phase in the oxide coating.

Experience indicates that FAC does not occur in lines with lots of oxygen, such as service water,
circulating water, and BWR main steam lines. However, mechanical erosion-corrosion can occur
in these systems, e.g., due to particulates entrained in the flow stream. FAC occurs at low rates
for temperatures below 200F (93C). A comprehensive overview of industry experience is
provided in EPRI report TR-106611-R1 (hereafter called the FAC Handbook) and can be
referred to for detailed information [33].
Discussion. Experience with FAC/erosion-corrosion in plants is described in the following
paragraphs.

A review article in 1980 indicated that FAC/erosion-corrosion problems were relatively wide
spread in the two phase portions of many types of nuclear power plants and in many types of
equipment, e.g., heat exchanger tubes, turbines, and piping [34]. It indicated that, in PWRs,
damage had been frequently observed in wet turbines and the associated pipework.

A review article in 1981 by an EDF researcher indicated that FAC/erosion-corrosion had


been relatively severe in piping from turbines to MSRs and other steam and extraction lines
at Chooz A, Tihange 1, Doel 1 and 2, and Fessenheim 2 [35]. The EDF article indicated that
Fessenheim 1, which had operated using morpholine for secondary system pH control for
(I) 2-17

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Carbon and Low Alloy Steel Piping

most of the time, had experienced much less FAC/erosion-corrosion than its sister unit,
Fessenheim 2 that had used ammonia. Some test coupons of several materials had been
placed in the wet steam pipes between the high pressure turbines and MSRs. The article
indicated that low alloy steels with chromium of 2% or more were immune to FAC/erosioncorrosion, and that low alloy steels with 1% chromium and of the Cor-Ten type (0.5% Cu,
0.75% Cr, 0.6% Ni) appeared to be at the limit of occurrence of FAC/erosion-corrosion, and
exhibited only minor attack under severe conditions. The article indicated that, to reduce
FAC/erosion-corrosion rates, secondary side pH conditioning had been switched from
ammonia to morpholine at Chooz and Tihange.

In response to the FAC/erosion-corrosion experienced in French plants, in 1982 EDF held an


international meeting in Paris on the subject. A paper from that meeting provides a review of
the FAC/erosion-corrosion situation at that time [36]. It notes that:
At Tihange 1, the first two cycles used a hydrazine ammonia water treatment with pH 9
9.2. Severe FAC/erosion-corrosion was experienced in the high pressure turbine, the
MSRs, and connecting piping. In later cycles, morpholine conditioning was adopted and
resulted in decreases by a factor of three in the iron concentrations in the feedwater and
blowdown. Rates of wall thinning of carbon steel decreased from as high as 4.6 mm (0.2
in.) in 17,500 hours to about 0.2 0.4 mm (8 16 mils) per cycle. Piping with 1%
chromium did not experience any thinning.

At Fessenheim 1, morpholine was used during the first cycle and very little FAC/erosioncorrosion occurred. After the first cycle, piping between the high pressure turbine and the
MSRs was replaced with Type 304L stainless steel and water treatment was changed to
ammonia hydrazine. Some FAC/erosion-corrosion problems were subsequently
observed in the MSRs, and were dealt with by installing protective stainless steel shields.

Bugey 2 operated on ammonia hydrazine water treatment for its first cycle with pH
about 9.2, and experienced significant FAC/erosion-corrosion in the high pressure
turbine, piping between the high pressure turbine and the MSRs and in the MSRs. Some
lines were changed to stainless steel. A dryer was installed in the turbine to MSR piping,
and this completely stopped FAC/erosion-corrosion in downstream piping.

NRC Information Notice No. 82-22 described a rupture in a 24 inch (61 cm) diameter elbow
in a feedwater heater extraction line [37]. It was attributed to steam erosion. The information
notice reported that INPO records indicated that there had been four similar failures of steam
lines that had caused plant shutdowns, two at BWRs and two at PWRs.

1984 and 1985 review articles by EDF described their experience up to that time [38, 39].
These articles noted that early plants using ammonia-hydrazine water chemistry had
experienced significant FAC/erosion-corrosion, e.g., in piping connecting turbines and
MSRs, in feedwater heaters where steam entered, and in low pressure turbines. Remedial
measures included switching to morpholine water chemistry, weld repairs in turbines,
installation of stainless steel shields in heat exchangers, replacement of selected piping with
stainless steel, redesign of feedwater heater systems to reduce wet steam impingement
problems, and installation of high velocity separators in extraction steam lines.

(I) 2-18

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Carbon and Low Alloy Steel Piping

A 1985 EPRI report discusses the results of a workshop held in September 1984 in Charlotte,
North Carolina concerning FAC/erosion-corrosion in wet steam piping systems [40]. The
report indicates that the contributing factors to FAC/erosion-corrosion were percent moisture
in the steam, material composition, pH, temperature, oxygen, flow path, and geometry. The
report provides a suggested set of inspection program guidelines based on these factors.

In 1986, a major rupture occurred in a feedwater line at Surry 2 [41]. The failure occurred in
an 18 inch (46 cm) diameter feedwater pump suction line made of A 106-B carbon steel. The
wall had been thinned from its nominal value of 0.5 inches to about 0.25 inches (1.3 to 0.6
cm), with localized areas thinned to 1/16 inch (1.6 mm). The causes of the failure were
attributed to: (1) high bulk flow velocity (17 ft/sec or 5.2 m/s average) coupled with an
elbow-tee arrangement that resulted in direct flow impingement on the thinned area, (2)
temperature near the range of highest erosion-corrosion (374F (190C) actual, vs. peak
range of 250 340F (121 171C), (3) unusually low level of chromium (less than 0.02%),
(4) pH in a non protective range (8.8 9.2), and (5) oxygen at low levels (about 4 ppb). In
response to this event, in July 1987 NRC Bulletin No. 87-01 requested all utilities to review
their carbon steel piping systems, to describe results of inspections for wall thickness, and to
describe future plans for inspection [42]. Subsequent to that time, large scale inspections
have been performed throughout the industry of carbon steel piping with both single and two
phase flow.

In August 1987, the NRC issued Information Notice No. 87-36 [43]. This information notice
advised that inspections had shown pipe wall thinning in some straight length areas where it
was not expected based on industry inspection guidance. Some of the areas with wall
thinning were in safety-related piping in containment. The affected piping was carbon steel
to A 106-B.

In April 1988, the NRC reported on the response by the industry to NRC Bulletin 87-01 [44].
Supporting information is contained in a NUREG report [45]. In summary, the situation at
that time was as follows:
87 of 110 nuclear units had established inspection programs for checking wall thickness
in single phase systems.

The required frequency of inspections was being established based on a combination of


predicted and measured FAC/erosion-corrosion rates to ensure that required wall
thickness was maintained.

The primary method of checking wall thickness was ultrasonic.

Six BWRs and 27 PWRs were reported as having detected FAC/erosion-corrosion in the
feedwater system.

The systems and components experiencing wall thinning were as shown in Table 2-8.

An event was described where, at a BWR, through wall FAC/erosion-corrosion had


occurred downstream of a turbine driven feedwater pump minimum flow control valve.
The leak occurred in an elbow made of 5% chrome, 1/2% molybdenum steel. The cause
was determined to be water droplet impingement in a two phase flow region downstream
of the control valve.

(I) 2-19

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Carbon and Low Alloy Steel Piping
Table 2-8
Systems/Components Experiencing Pipe Wall Thinning
Single-Phase Line

Two-Phase Line

Main feedwater lines, straight runs, fittings

Main steam line

Main feedwater recirculation to condenser, straight


runs, fittings

Turbine cross-over piping

Feedwater pump suction line, straight runs, fittings

Turbine cross-under piping

Feedwater pump discharge line, straight runs,


fittings

Extraction steam lines

Condensate booster pump recirculation line fittings

Moisture separator reheater

Steam generator letdown lines, straight runs,


fittings

Feedwater heater drain piping

In July 1988, a review by GE indicated that FAC/erosion-corrosion mainly affected two


phase systems, but that it had been detected in single phase feedwater lines in two BWRs
[46]. It was noted that FAC/erosion-corrosion had been observed in areas with flow rates as
low as 2 m/s (6.6 fps), and always was associated with flow discontinuities such as elbows or
valves.

In November 1988, a supplement to NRC Information Notice No. 86-106 noted that higher
than expected FAC/erosion-corrosion rates had been observed in replacement carbon steel
piping installed at Surry after the December 1986 feedwater line rupture [47]. The causes of
the increased FAC/erosion-corrosion rate were still being investigated.

In May 1989, the NRC issued Generic Letter 89-08 that required all licensees to provide
assurances that a program consisting of systematic measures to ensure that FAC/erosioncorrosion does not lead to degradation of single phase and two phases high energy carbon
steel systems had been implemented [48]. The bulletin further required licensees to indicate
whether they were using a program in accordance with NUMARC guidelines contained in an
appendix to NUREG-1344, which was distributed with the generic letter [49].

In June 1989, the NRC issued Information Notice No. 89-53 describing a rupture in an
extraction steam line [50]. The failure occurred in a straight run of piping adjacent to an
elbow that had recently been replaced because of thinning. The straight piping had not been
included in the thinning inspection program. The cause of the thinning was not firmly
established, but may have been the result of flow turbulence caused by a change in wall
thickness of adjacent parts, leading to a change in the ID.

An EDF article in August 1989 reviewed their FAC/erosion-corrosion experience in PWRs


[51]. This experience was summarized as follows:

When first detected, FAC/erosion-corrosion was observed in a feedwater pump casing


and in an MSR.

The next detection was in steam generator J tubes (which had to be changed from carbon
steel to Alloy 600), and in the high pressure turbine to MSR line, which had to be
changed to stainless steel or Alloy 600.

(I) 2-20

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Carbon and Low Alloy Steel Piping

After 30,000 hours of operation, FAC/erosion-corrosion was observed in extraction steam


lines, feedwater heaters, flashing drain piping, and vent piping.

Following the above experiences, remedial measures were taken such as piping
replacement, drying of wet steam piping upstream of heaters, and changes to water
chemistry (high pH and use of morpholine). The new water chemistry was indicated as
preventing damage to feedwater piping. However, some thinning was still observed in the
steam generator feedwater distribution header and in the vent pipe (atmospheric dump
valve line).

In 1990, EPRI summarized the industrys response to the Surry feedwater pipe rupture event
[52]. EPRI indicated that the response included issue of industry inspection guidelines by
NUMARC, and EPRIs development of the CHEC computer code to help utilities assess
FAC/erosion-corrosion susceptibility and plan efficient inspection programs.

In 1991 and 1992, the NRC issued a series of Information Notices regarding additional
occurrences of FAC/erosion-corrosion [53]. These notices indicated that, despite
establishment of inspection programs, piping failures continued to occur. Failures occurred
in two phase and single phase areas, including in PWR steam generator feedwater
distribution rings and in BWR feedwater piping inside containment that was unisolable from
the reactor coolant system.

In 1993, the NRC issued Information Notice No. 93-21 to advise utilities of problems being
observed in FAC/erosion-corrosion inspection programs [54]. These problems included
making errors in using predictive codes and failures to use predictive codes, errors in
interpreting ultrasonic inspection results, etc. The picture developed is that implementation
of a thorough FAC/erosion-corrosion inspection program is a complex process that is subject
to significant problems and, as a result, needs careful supervision and checking. In response
to this situation, the NRC sponsored a workshop to foster exchange of ideas related to
monitoring programs, inspection methods, and evaluation of data [55]. The lead utility
representatives at the workshop indicated that the following were needed: greater
information exchange, improved predictive tools, simpler inspection methods, better
guidance on material selection, and better guidance for making temporary repairs.

In 1995, the NRC issued an information notice describing an FAC/erosion-corrosion failure


at a flow metering device [56]. The important point about this failure was that it had not
previously been identified as a location for accelerated wall thinning in the CHECMATE
code.

In 1997, the NRC issued an information notice describing a rupture in an extraction steam
line [57]. In 1999, there was a rupture in a steam line from a reheater drain tank to a high
pressure feedwater heater [58]. These events show that occasional failures still occur as a
result of FAC/erosion-corrosion, despite remedial measures such as water chemistry changes,
replacement of piping, and implementation of monitoring programs.

In 1998, an evaluation of steam extraction line piping from the Indian Point 2 plant indicated
that thinning had been caused by mechanical abrasion due to magnetite particles, as opposed
to flow accelerated corrosion [59]. This indicates that monitoring programs need to keep in
mind that thinning can be due to mechanical erosion in addition to FAC, and that this might
affect the rate and/or the location of the thinning.

(I) 2-21

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Carbon and Low Alloy Steel Piping

In 1998, the Canadians reported that they had observed FAC in primary carbon steel feeder
piping in CANDU reactors [60]. The material involved is carbon steel to A 106-B, the
temperature is about 305 to 310C (581 to 590F), the velocity varies between 8 18 m/s (26
59 fps), and the water chemistry includes hydrogen at about 6 ml/cc with lithium hydroxide
additions to keep the pH at room temperature between 10.2 and 10.8. The observed wall
thinning rate was low, up to about 100 m/year (4 mils/year), but sufficient to cause long
term concern. Detailed evaluations indicate that thinning rates can be reduced in existing
units by keeping pH at the lower end of the range (close to 10.2), or use of even a lower
value. For future units, the chromium content of the steel will be kept at 0.20 wt%.

A 2003 EPRI report notes that investigations of plant experience with regard to thinning in
secondary systems subject to FAC have shown that, in a significant number of cases, welds
have experienced increased rates of thinning as compared to adjacent base material [61]. A
survey of all domestic plants indicated that 22 of them had detected such preferential attack,
that it was more common in BWRs than PWRs, that it mostly affected two phase flow
regions, but that it also had been detected in single phase regions. The specific causes of the
preferential attack had not been firmly identified at the time that the report was prepared, but
galvanic effects and FAC were considered to be possible factors.

In 2004, a large rupture occurred in the condensate piping at Mihama 3, a Japanese PWR,
that resulted in five fatalities and several additional injuries [62]. The piping was 55.9 cm (22
in.) OD carbon steel and had been thinned from an original thickness of about 10 mm (0.39
in.) to 0.4 mm (0.02 in.). The region where the rupture occurred was between a fourth stage
feedwater heater and the deaerator and was exposed to single phase flow (not two phase
flow). The pipe was designed for a maximum service temperature of 195C (383F) and a
maximum service pressure of 1.27 MPa (184 psi). At the time of the pipe rupture, the flow
3
rate through the pipe was 1700 m /h (7485 gpm) with a temperature of 140C (284F) and a
pressure 0.93 MPa (135 psi). It was concluded that the affected region had been omitted from
the initial inspection plan that had been established in about 1990 and that the plan had not
been appropriately updated over the years to reflect new data. This incident resulted in
significant reviews and upgrading of FAC inspection programs around the world.

A 2007 paper by Nopper and Zander describes FAC in a small diameter main steam drain
line [63]. The authors describe the type of FAC observed in this line as commonly occurring,
as not posing significant safety risks, but as posing risks of causing forced plant shutdowns.
In the case they describe, the thinning rate was about 2 mm/y (80 mils/y) and led to a leak in
13,500 hours of operation. The failure occurred at an elbow downstream of a throttling valve
and was attributed to (1) a low water pH of about 9.0 caused by partitioning of ammonia
mainly to the steam phase (the main steam, when condensed, had a pH of 9.8), (2) high flow
velocities as a result of throttling in the valve, and (3) water droplet impingement.

In 2007, Calonne-Chatale et al. reported on the occurrence of FAC at welds in secondary


systems [64]. It was found that welds can have enhanced susceptibility as compared to
adjacent base materials, primarily as the result of lower chromium concentrations in the
welds. This is a result of the typical use of low chromium levels in weld rods. The flow
turbulence caused by the weld can also increase thinning in adjacent base material. Increased
rates of thinning of carbon steel have also been observed close to welds between stainless
steel and carbon steel pipes, both when the carbon steel is downstream and when it is
upstream. In both situations, the turbulence associated with the weld is considered to increase

(I) 2-22

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Carbon and Low Alloy Steel Piping

rates of FAC. In addition, when the carbon steel is downstream, the relatively low iron
concentration in the water coming from the stainless steel section is considered to accelerate
the diffusion of iron from the water near the carbon steel to the bulk water, thus increasing
the rate of FAC. The paper notes that this French experience is consistent with international
experience (including U.S. experience), that is, that welds are sometimes susceptible to
increased rates of FAC.

EDF sponsored international symposia on FAC/erosion-corrosion in 2008 and 2010 [65, 66].
The proceedings of these two symposia provide a useful review on emerging issues related to
the occurrence of FAC/erosion-corrosion, as well as reviews of some of the major events
discussed above. Some of the new developments discussed in the symposia include the
following:

A 2008 paper by Horowitz and Crockett discusses observations of FAC in low


temperature systems in U.S. PWRs [67]. This FAC has occurred in piping and resin traps
downstream of condensate polishers and blowdown demineralizers. It is attributed to the
pH being reduced to about neutral in these regions, resulting in relatively high FAC rates
(for example, 0.20.3 mm/y (812 mils/y) despite the temperature being about 50C
(122F), which is below the 90C230C (194F446F) temperature range where FAC
is typically considered to be a concern. A 2007 EPRI report provides more details
regarding this topic [68].

Another 2008 paper by Horowitz and Crockett discusses observations of FAC attributed
to an entrance effect [69]. This effect refers to accelerated attack downstream of a joint
between an FAC resistant material and an FAC susceptible material, such as a butt weld
with low chromium content. It is caused by the low iron concentration in the water
leaving the FAC-resistant region, which results in a larger driving force (the iron
concentration gradient from the metal surface to the bulk water) in the region of
susceptible material that is located just downstream of the FAC resistant material. The
paper describes several cases where the entrance effect has been observed in plants and
also provides some general guidance on determining where such effects should be
considered as possibly occurring. An EPRI report provides more details regarding this
topic [70].

A 2010 paper by Postler et al. discusses a case where it appeared that FAC had caused
thinning in a main feedwater pipe, but where metallographic examination of the removed
elbow showed that the apparent thinning was the result of disc shaped manganese sulfide
inclusions rather than real thinning [71]. Metallurgical examination indicated that the
inclusions were aligned with the pipe wall such that they had little structural impact, and
it was concluded that the pipe was structurally sound.

A 2010 presentation by Clark et al. discussed the occurrence of FAC in small bore piping
(piping fabricated with socket welds and/or 2 inches (5.08 cm) or less in diameter) [72].
The presentation notes that FAC in small bore lines is quite common and can impact
personnel safety, plant safety, and equipment reliability. The presentation shows a few
examples of FAC in small bore piping and contains recommendations regarding how to
deal with the problem.

(I) 2-23

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Carbon and Low Alloy Steel Piping

A 2010 paper by Chung describes the occurrence of thinning due to FAC in the outlet
feeder pipes of a Korean PHWR [73]. This type of thinning has affected many PHWRs
and has resulted in the replacement of the feeder pipes during refurbishment outages of
the units after about 25 effective full power years (EFPYs) of service. The affected piping
is carbon steel to A 106 Grade B and operates at about 310C (590F).

9.3 Boric Acid Corrosion of Carbon and Low Alloys Steels


There have been a significant number of occurrences where carbon and low alloy steels have
experienced serious corrosion from the OD as the result of exposure to hot boric acid under
aerated conditions, i.e., due to leakage of borated reactor coolant in PWRs. Typical cases are
corrosion of bolting and flanges at leaking flange joints, corrosion of valve parts due to packing
leakage, corrosion of nozzle and vessel parts near mechanical Conoseal joints and O-rings, and
corrosion of vessel material associated with leaks at welds in thin parts such as heater sleeves.
This experience showed that leaking borated reactor coolant could lead to rapid wastage type
corrosion of carbon and low alloys steels. In response to the occurrences of serious corrosion, in
1982 the NRC issued IE Bulletin 82-02 and in 1988 issued Generic Letter 88-05 [74, 75]. These
documents required all PWRs to establish programs to improve maintenance procedures for
threaded fasteners, to inspect for reactor coolant system leaks, and to take appropriate corrective
action for any observed leaks and corrosion damage. To aid in such programs, EPRI issued the
Boric Acid Corrosion Guidebook in 1995, and updated it in Revision 1 in 2001 [76, 77].
In 2002, a severe case of boric acid corrosion was detected in the reactor vessel head at DavisBesse, as discussed in the Carbon and Low Alloy Steel for Pressure Vessels and Nickel-Base
Alloys for Pressure Vessels, Components, and Piping chapters of this handbook. Subsequent to
that event, based on a review of industry experience documented in a 2008 EPRI report [78] and
based on a search in July 2011 of Licensee Event Reports (LERs) filed in the NRCs ADAMS
document database, it appears that there have been no reports to the NRC of significant wastage
of PWR primary coolant pressure boundary materials due to boric acid, although there have been
detections of boric acid leakage. However, there have been several operating experience reports
to INPO of the detection of wastage of reactor coolant pump studs and of other bolting, for
example, at a RHR heat exchanger flange and at a boric acid tank valve flange. In addition, there
have been reports of wastage at a reactor vessel flange due to leakage through an O-ring. The
absence of reported incidents of boric acid corrosion in the NRC document database for the
period subsequent to 2002 indicates that utility programs put in place to check for leakage and
corrosion caused by primary coolant leakage have been quite effective at detecting and
correcting problems before wastage becomes significant. However, the occasional detection of
wastage of studs and flanges indicates that continued vigilance is important.
9.4 Thermal Stratification Induced Fatigue Failures of Feedwater Piping
Summary. Starting in 1979, cracking has been occasionally detected at U.S. PWR steam
generator feedwater nozzle connections, and has several times led to through wall leaks. Similar
cracking has occurred in German BWRs, but has not been reported for U.S. BWRs (U.S. BWRs
have experienced cracking in the reactor vessel nozzle itself, rather than in the attached piping).
The main cause of the cracking in PWRs and German BWRs is considered to be thermal
stratification induced stresses that occur during times with low flow rates, where the lower part
of horizontal pipes and nozzles can be exposed to cold water while the upper part is exposed to
hotter water. Crack initiation seems to be affected by corrosion aspects, such as pitting, but the
(I) 2-24

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Carbon and Low Alloy Steel Piping

growth of deeper cracks appears to be mainly a cyclic stress driven process. This problem has
been addressed by changes to feedwater flow control, by periodic inspections of susceptible
areas, and by repairs of cracks when detected.
Discussion. Reports of thermal stratification induced cracking are summarized below.

In May 1979 the NRC notified the industry via Generic Letter 79-020 of the occurrence of
cracking at PWR steam generator feedwater nozzles, and requested all PWR licensees to
provide information regarding the designs, materials and inspections of their feedwater lines
to steam generator spargers within containment [79]. In August 1979 the NRC issued IE
Bulletin No. 79-13 that required operating PWRs to inspect their steam generator feedwater
nozzles. These actions were based on the discovery, via leakage, of through wall cracks at
Cook 2 and the subsequent detection by NDE of cracks at several other Westinghouse units.
Investigation of the cracks indicated that their characteristics were as follows [80, 81]:
The affected piping was A 106-B and A 106-C carbon steel. The material was
characterized as being normal.

The cracks were circumferentially oriented and occurred all around the pipe
circumference. The deepest cracks occurred at different circumferential positions in
different plants.

Crack initiation appeared to be associated with surface pitting.

There was evidence of arrest marks and striations indicating that the cracks grew by a
fatigue mechanism.

The evidence indicated that that crack initiation was influenced by corrosion, but that
crack growth was mainly stress driven.

Analyses as of 1981 were not successful at explaining the rapid crack growth, and further
analyses were planned to better define the failure mechanism.

Review articles in 1981 and 1984 discussed the occurrence of cracking in German BWR
reactor vessel feedwater nozzles and PWR steam generator feedwater nozzles, [82, 83] and
this problem was reviewed in a 1997 EPRI report [84]. The cracks in the German BWRs and
PWRs were similar to those described above for U.S. PWRs. The articles attributed the
cracking to high stresses developed by flow stratification in the feedwater piping that can
occur at flows less than about 5% of full power flow. This situation can result in ambient
temperature water on the bottom four fifths of the pipe and 392F (200C) water on the top
one fifth, leading to high stresses and strains. Strains of over 1% were measured in a plant.

In 1993 the NRC notified the industry that some additional cases of PWR feedwater nozzle
cracking had been detected [85]. The cracking was attributed to thermal stratification
induced stresses during cold, low-flow, feedwater injections. Other factors involved were
identified as being high oxygen content, counterbore weld preparation geometry, and thermal
conditions during heatup, hot standby, and low power operation. It was noted that corrosion
appeared to have played a part in crack initiation and growth as evidenced by pits on the
fracture surface and in the cracks [86].

(I) 2-25

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Carbon and Low Alloy Steel Piping

Reviews in July 2011 of the NRCs ADAMS document database and of INPOs operating
experience database for the period January 2000July 2011 did not locate any reports of
occurrences of thermal stratification induced cracking of PWR steam generator feedwater
nozzles nor of occurrences of thermal stratification induced cracking of any other carbon or
low alloy steel components in BWRs or PWRs.

9.5 Fatigue Failures


Summary. Many fatigue failures have been experienced with small diameter carbon steel lines.
Most of these failures appear to be mechanically driven, with corrosion often a relatively minor
contributor to the problem. When corrosion is involved, it is mainly in the initiation of cracks,
which often is associated with ID pits.
Discussion. There are numerous reports of the failure of small lines in both BWRs and PWRs
that have been attributed to fatigue [87]. In some cases, other contributing factors have also been
identified, such as incomplete weld joint penetration, incorrect support arrangements, excessive
pump vibration, etc. This type of failure appears to affect stainless lines to about the same extent
as carbon steel lines, i.e., the failures are mainly a result of design and installation problems
rather than due to the choice of material. In a limited number of cases, technical articles or
information notices have been prepared describing fatigue failures of carbon steel piping, as
follows:

In 1993, EDF reported on experience with corrosion damage affecting carbon steel materials
in their plants [88]. This review described a corrosion fatigue failure of a main steam
instrument tap that occurred a little less than an inch from where the small diameter line
joined the main line. The crack initiation area exhibited some corrosion pitting. There was
also evidence of chlorides and fluorides, but the source of these impurities was not known.

A 1997 article describes the failure analysis of ID axial cracks noted in the steam generator
blowdown piping of a German PWR [89]. Some pitting was observed, but the main cause of
the cracks was attributed to ovalization of the piping due to in-plane bending overload,
possibly associated with condensation hammers during startups. The immediate remedial
measures taken included changing the pipe support arrangement and replacing the affected
elbows with thicker wall parts. The intended final remedial measure was to replace the whole
pipework.

A 1998 review by Kansai Electric Power describes two cases of fatigue failure of carbon
steel pipe [90]. One of the failures was of an A 106-B main steam vent line where a vibration
driven fatigue crack occurred due to failure to fill the fillet weld of a socket weld joint all the
way to the root, resulting in a low throat thickness. The second carbon steel piping failure
was of an A 106-B feedwater drain line. This failure also occurred due to mechanical fatigue,
but was a combination of low cycle high strain fatigue plus vibration induced high cycle
fatigue. The low cycle high strain fatigue occurred as the result of an interference developing
due to a valve change that prevented free thermal expansion and caused high stresses to
occur during plant heatup and cooldown.

The NRC notified the industry of leaks in emergency diesel generator lubricating oil and
jacket cooling water piping in 1998 [91]. The main cause of the problems was indicated as
being use of partial penetration welds. Remedial measures included replacement of piping
using full penetration welds. Some support improvements were also made.

(I) 2-26

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Carbon and Low Alloy Steel Piping

A search in July 2011 of Licensee Event Reports (LERs) filed in the NRCs ADAMS database
and of operating experiences filed with INPO indicated that only two LERs in the 2000-2011
time period involved high cycle fatigue of small diameter carbon steel lines, but that there were
about eight other reports of high cycle fatigue failures of small diameter carbon steel lines. Weld
defects were identified in several cases as contributing to the failures. The main remedial
measures, in addition to replacing or repairing the cracked parts, were to improve supports so as
to minimize vibration amplitudes and to improve weld quality. This often involved the use of
2 to1 fillets for socket welds.
9.6 Open System Service Water Piping
Summary. Carbon steel open system service water piping has experienced a number of corrosion
problems, including: (1) pitting and under deposit corrosion that occurred while the was pipe laid
up during plant construction and startup periods; (2) erosion-corrosion at high velocity locations
in cases where particulates are entrained; (3) pitting and under deposit corrosion during service,
especially in stagnant and infrequently operated lines, (4) clogging of small diameter lines and
heat exchangers as the result of the buildup of corrosion products coupled with biological
growths and silt accumulations, (5) microbiologically influenced corrosion (MIC), and (6) OD
corrosion of buried lines at locations where the OD coating has degraded. These problems are all
influenced by the susceptibility of carbon steel to corrosion in aqueous environments.
Various remedial measures have been developed to cope with these problems, including:
(1) performance of periodic inspections and tests to monitor the condition of the carbon steel
lines such that degradation is detected and corrected before it becomes too severe; (2) use of
biocides and other chemical treatments to reduce fouling and MIC; (3) application of cathodic
protection to buried piping to minimize OD corrosion; (4) cleaning and coating the ID of
affected piping; and (5) replacement of piping with more corrosion resistant materials such as
6% molybdenum stainless steels, titanium, duplex stainless steels, or high density polyethylene.
Discussion. Carbon steel is widely used for service water piping. Some large diameter service
water piping is coated on the ID, e.g., with cement or coal tar epoxy, but most carbon steel
service water piping, especially that used in smaller diameter lines, is not coated on the ID and is
thus exposed to the service water. Some service water piping is buried. In such cases, the piping
normally is coated on the OD and, in many cases, is protected using a cathodic protection
system.
The large number of problems with service water piping precludes covering them in more detail
than described in the above Summary section. For details regarding service water problems, it is
suggested that readers review the large number of EPRI reports related to this topic and contact
EPRI Service Water Assistance Project (SWAP) personnel in Charlotte, NC [92]. In this regard,
the EPRI SWAP program has held service water piping seminars on an approximately annual
basis for many years, and the presentations at the seminars provide useful insights into the
problems that can affect carbon steel service water piping and the remedial methods that have
been developed to address them.
Some of the more important historical documents related to service water piping corrosion and a
sampling of a few EPRI and NRC documents released in the 20002011 time period related to
carbon steel service water piping are given below. Many of the later documents are in response
to increasing industry concerns regarding maintaining the integrity of buried piping, for example,
to ensure that radioactive water does enter the environment. While many of the later documents
(I) 2-27

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Carbon and Low Alloy Steel Piping

focus on buried piping (piping that is buried in contact with soil on the OD), the corrosion issues
and solutions are generally the same for underground (below grade but not in contact with soil)
and aboveground service water piping.

In 1989 the NRC issued Generic Letter 89-13 that required all plants to institute
comprehensive inspection, test, and maintenance programs for safety related service water
systems [93]. These programs include performance of periodic inspections of carbon steel
piping to check for corrosion and erosion, as well as other actions directed at control of
fouling and other possible problems. Subsequent to issuance of Generic Letter 89-13, the
NRC held a series of workshops. Supplement 1 to Generic Letter 89-13 discusses some the
questions and answers developed during these workshops [94].

In 1990 the NRC notified the industry of some additional service water problems [95]. These
problems included clogging of lines and components as a result of the accumulation of silt
and corrosion products, and corrosion due to acidic well water and also due to MIC.

In 1993, EPRI published the Service Water System Corrosion and Deposition Sourcebook
[96]. Section 13 of the Sourcebook describes many case histories of corrosion problems
with carbon steel service water piping, and the remedial actions taken. The problems
described include MIC, general corrosion, under deposit corrosion and pitting, with general
corrosion rates as high as 30 mils/year (0.76 mm/year) and pitting rates up to 100 mils/year
(2.54 mm/year) having been experienced. The Sourcebook provides guidance on how to
remediate these problems.

In 1994 the NRC notified the industry about MIC problems with emergency diesel generator
service water piping [97]. It was concluded that stagnant or intermittent flow conditions are
conducive to MIC, and that areas with crevices, such as partial penetration welds, are
especially susceptible. The information notice indicates that mechanical or chemical cleaning
followed by continuing water treatment and maintenance are possible remedial approaches,
and that maintaining continuous flow is also helpful. However, it further indicates that in
some cases such measures are not successful, and that replacement of the carbon steel piping
using standard stainless steels, AL6XN, nickel base alloys, titanium, or non metallic
materials may be necessary.

In 2005 EPRI issued the Service Water Piping Guideline [98]. This report provides a
thorough review of the types and causes of the degradation observed in service water systems
and provides guidance for monitoring and remediating the degradation.

A 2006 NRC document contains the results of a task force study of leaks of water with
radioactive tritium from underground piping and components [99]. The report describes the
sources of leaks at a number of plants, some of which involved leaks from buried piping
similar to service water piping. Concerns about such leaks resulted in the NRCs buried
piping activities and industry actions mentioned below.

Two 2010 EPRI reports provide guidance directed at maintaining the integrity of buried and
underground piping and tanks [100, 101].

As of July 2011, a page titled Buried Piping Activities on the NRC website contained links
to a series of documents related to industry-NRC meetings and activities on buried piping
integrity [102]. The documents that can be accessed via these links describe the NRCs
concerns and objectives and also describe the initiatives that the industry has taken and is

(I) 2-28

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Carbon and Low Alloy Steel Piping

continuing to pursue to ensure the integrity of buried piping. As noted in these documents, in
2009 the NRC staff was directed to review programs regarding buried piping as a result of
several cases of leakage of radioactive tritium-containing water from buried piping. As also
noted in these documents, the industry has taken steps to address these issues, such as issuing
guidance regarding inspections and assessments and monitoring the efforts of utilities at
implementing the guidance.
A review of NRC and INPO databases in July 2011 indicated that corrosion problems continue
to affect service water piping at a regular rate and that leaks in service water piping occasionally
result in forced plant shutdowns. The most common problem is development of pinhole leaks
associated with under deposit corrosion and erosion-corrosion. Clogging by corrosion products
or biological growths also occasionally occurs.
9.7 SCC of Closed Cooling Water Piping
Summary. The water in closed cooling water systems is high purity demineralized water that is
often chemically treated to inhibit corrosion and biological growth, and to which an oxygen
scavenger may be added. Carbon steel piping in closed cooling water (CCW) systems has
experienced relatively few corrosion problems. However, SCC has been experienced in this
piping and associated heat exchanger shells at a number of plants. This SCC has, in some cases,
been attributed to biological activity. EPRI has issued water chemistry guidelines for closed
cooling water systems to help control such problems [103]; these guidelines, as of late 2011,
were in the process of being revised.
Discussion. The main corrosion problem that has affected closed cooling water systems has been
the occurrence of SCC at welds in piping and in heat exchanger shells. In 2004, the results of an
extensive survey of experience in the United States and internationally were reported, with the
main results as summarized below [104].

The survey gathered data from a total of 143 PWRs and BWRs. Of these, 13 PWRs and 1
BWR reported the occurrence of SCC; that is, 10% of the units surveyed reported the
occurrence of SCC in the CCW carbon steel piping.

All of the SCC occurred at non-stress-relieved welds (welds were stress relieved at only a
small fraction of the plants, 3 of the 143 surveyed). The SCC is believed to be associated
with high residual stresses present in non-stress-relieved welds and also in some cases with
stress concentration effects associated with the use of socket welds. In cases where failure
analyses were performed, the cracking was not associated with anomalies in material
properties; that is, the SCC occurred in carbon steel that met normal base and weld metal
specification requirements.

The main environmental factors that correlated with the cracking were the following:
Temperature: The average maximum temperature in units with leaks was 150F (66C),
as compared to only 122F (50C) in units without leaks.

Oxygen control: All of the units reporting SCC used aerated systems, while none of the
units with deaerated systems reported leaks.

Chemical treatment: Some of the units using inhibitors such as nitrites, molybdates,
tolyltriazole, and/or benzotriazole reported occurrence of SCC. In contrast, none of the 58
EDF units using a high pH trisodium phosphate treatment reported detection of SCC nor
did units using hydrazine or chromates.
(I) 2-29

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Carbon and Low Alloy Steel Piping

Biological activity: Eleven out of 12 units that reported on this item reported that
biological activity, that is, MIC, was involved in the SCC.

Crevices: Nine out of 12 units that reported on the presence of backing rings indicated
that backing rings were involved in the SCC.

The engineering recommendations developed as result of this study were to: (1) perform
more research regarding the chemical factors involved in the SCC; (2) consider switching
water chemistries to deaerated phosphate, chromate, or pure water; (3) stringently control
microbiological activity; and (4) reduce the maximum closed cooling water operating
temperature to below 130F (54C).

In response to the survey discussed above, additional research regarding causes and remediation
actions for SCC of carbon steel piping in closed cooling water systems is underway, as described
in Section 10.
A review of NRC and INPO databases in July 2011 did not locate any documents dated
subsequent to the 2004 survey report discussed above that reported detection of SCC in carbon
steel piping or heat exchanger shells in closed cooling water systems. However, one additional
case that occurred in 2005 is documented in an EPRI report [105].
9.8 OD Corrosion of Buried Piping
Summary. Buried carbon steel piping used at nuclear power plants generally was coated before
burial, and often is protected by cathodic protection systems. Despite these protective measures,
occasional cases of OD initiated corrosion occur in pipes. The corrosion is generally attributed to
the coating having been damaged in a local area, e.g., during pipe installation, and either the lack
of cathodic protection, or to the existing cathodic protection system being ineffective. In
addition, coating breakdown due to aging (e.g., water osmosis through the coating) has been
identified as a long term problem. Remedial actions that have been considered include either
applying cathodic protection if none was previously in place, or upgrading the system if one was
in place at the time of the corrosion.
Starting about 2007, increased industry and NRC attention has been placed on ensuring the
integrity of buried piping, partly as the result of tritium leaks [106, 107, 108]. EPRI has issued
several documents that address maintaining the integrity of buried piping, including ensuring the
effectiveness of cathodic protection systems and performing inspections of OD coatings [for
example, 100].
9.9 Strain-Induced Corrosion Cracking (SICC)
Summary. Several cases of cracking of piping in German BWRs and PWRs have been attributed
to strain-induced stress corrosion cracking (SICC) [84, 109, 110]. This cracking mode is
distinguished from SCC in that it requires an active plastic strain, as opposed to static stresses,
and is akin to the cracking exhibited in slow strain rate tests in which a specimen is slowly
strained to failure in the test environment. Cyclic stresses apparently are not required, but
aggravate the cracking. The circumferential cracking in piping at feedwater nozzles in German
BWRs and PWRs covered in Section 9.4 that is attributed to thermal stratification stress induced
fatigue cracking can also be considered as due to SICC. Other examples of SICC include:

(I) 2-30

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Carbon and Low Alloy Steel Piping

Cracks have been noted at circumferential welds in steam lines of BWRs with little or no
flow during normal operation (auxiliary steam lines, pressure relief lines, warm up lines,
etc.). These lines had all been fabricated from low alloy steel 17 MnMoV 64 (C < 0.19%, Si
0. 0.5%, Mn 1.4 1.7%, P 0.035%, S 0.035%, Ni 0.5 1.0%, Mo 0.2 0.5%, V 0.1
0.19%, N < 0.020%), which has a room temperature yield strength of 62.3 ksi (430 MPa)
and a relatively high yield stress at 572F (300C) of 51.5 ksi (430 MPa). The lines had been
designed to take advantage of the high strength of the material and to have relatively thin
wall thicknesses. The welds were not post weld heat treated, as permitted by the German
code applicable at the time of fabrication. The cracking was attributed to SICC due to
localized strains at weld joints caused by thermal stratification and system bending loads.

Relatively long (7 in. and 14 in. or 18 cm and 36 cm) axial cracks were discovered in two
90 pipe bends in a BWR cleanup line. The cracking was attributed to SICC due to localized
strains caused by ovalization associated with pipe bending.

A 9 in. (23 cm) long axial crack was discovered in a BWR line in the emergency core
cooling system. The failure was attributed to SICC associated with strains caused by thermal
stresses and unfavorable design of pipe-whip restraints.

The main factors involved in the above cases of SICC have been identified as being:
(1) unusually high loading leading to plastic strains at or above the elastic limit, (2) relatively
high oxygen content (e.g., condensate in BWR steam lines), (3) temperatures in the range of 350
540F (177 282C), and (4) use of a high strength, thin wall design that led to increased
strains.
9.10 Cracking of PHWR Outlet Feeder Pipes
A number of cracks have occurred in the outlet feeder pipes of one PHWR unit [111]. The
material involved was carbon steel to ASTM A 106 Grade B that had been highly cold worked to
about 30%. The bends operated at about 310C (590F). Intergranular cracks initiated both from
the ID surface and from the OD surface. The ID cracks are considered mostly likely to be the
result of oxidant driven stress corrosion cracking, while the OD cracks are considered to be the
result of a low temperature creep cracking phenomenon. Significant rates of FAC had occurred
at the bends, and the release of hydrogen into the metal associated with the FAC is considered a
likely factor in the cracking.

10 Laboratory Investigations
Laboratory investigations related to the use of carbon and low alloy steel piping in nuclear power
plant applications are summarized in this section.
10.1 General Corrosion and Corrosion Product Release
Summary. General corrosion of carbon and low alloy steels is covered in two contexts in this
chapter: (1) aqueous corrosion of service water systems, which often are exposed to high
conductivity water with a variety of impurities, and (2) aqueous corrosion of primary and
secondary coolant systems that are generally exposed to high purity water with carefully
controlled chemistry. The subject of atmospheric corrosion of OD surfaces is of limited
importance to nuclear pressure boundary applications and thus is not covered. Similarly, the
(I) 2-31

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Carbon and Low Alloy Steel Piping

aqueous general corrosion of OD surfaces is rarely of interest for nuclear power plant
applications, and is not covered.
General corrosion of carbon steels in normal service water type environments with high
conductivity and with oxygen and carbon dioxide from the atmosphere has been well
documented in texts and handbooks, and exhibits well understood trends. The general corrosion
rates of carbon steels exposed to these environments are typically in the neighborhood of a few
mils per year. These rates increase with increasing oxygen content, carbon dioxide content,
temperature, and flow velocity. As discussed in a later section, the rates of corrosion can be
increased by galvanic effects, such as at welds, as a result of microbiologically assisted corrosion
(MIC), as a result of erosion by particulates, etc.
General corrosion rates and corrosion product release rates of carbon and low alloy steel in the
controlled conditions of primary and secondary coolant systems have been extensively studied.
This work has shown that there are two effective chemistry approaches for limiting the rates of
general corrosion and corrosion product release (assuming material, temperature, flow rate, etc.
are held fixed): (1) maintaining the oxygen concentration over about 15 20 ppb, and
(2) maintaining a high pH. Maintaining oxygen over about 30 ppb is the strategy adopted by
BWRs, as discussed in the BWR Water Chemistry Guidelines and many supporting documents
[112]. Maintaining high pH is the strategy adopted by PWRs for both primary and secondary
systems, as discussed in the PWR Primary and Secondary Water Chemistry Guidelines and many
supporting documents [113, 114].
Discussion Environmental Effects on Corrosion of Carbon and Low Alloy Steels in Service
System Waters. The general effects of environmental parameters on corrosion of carbon steel in
service system waters (generally water with high conductivity, and often exposed to the
atmosphere) are summarized below, based on information from standard corrosion texts [115,
117].

The chemical composition of steels within the usual commercial limits for carbon and low
alloy steels has little effect on the rate of corrosion in natural waters or soils. Only when the
steel has chromium in the stainless steel range (over about 11%) is the rate of corrosion in
these environments appreciably reduced.

At ambient temperatures, typical rates of corrosion of uncoated carbon and low alloy steels
are about 3.5 mils/year (0.09 mm/year) in distilled water, 5 mils/year (0.13 mm/year) in
seawater, and 2 mils/year (0.05 mm/year) to over 12 mils/year (0.30 mm/year) in soils.

Figure 2-2 illustrates that, in high conductivity water, the corrosion rate of carbon steel increases
steadily as oxygen concentration increases. This tendency applies, for example, to most open
service water systems.

(I) 2-32

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Carbon and Low Alloy Steel Piping

Figure 2-2
Effect of Oxygen Concentration on Corrosion of Mild Steel in Slowly Moving Water
Containing 165 ppm CaCl2, 48 hr Test, 77F (25C) [116]

Figure 2-3 indicates that, for distilled water, higher oxygen levels decrease the corrosion rate.
(As discussed in later sections, in the controlled chemistries of nuclear power plant primary
and secondary waters, oxygen as low as a few ppb can reduce corrosion rates, as compared to
rates with essentially no oxygen.)

(I) 2-33

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Carbon and Low Alloy Steel Piping

Figure 2-3
Effect of Oxygen Concentration on Corrosion of Mild Steel in Slowly Moving Distilled
Water, 48 hr Test, 77F (25C) [116]

The effect of temperature on corrosion of carbon steel in oxygenated water is shown in


Figure 2-4. As shown, in a closed system where oxygen cannot escape, the corrosion rate
increases steadily with temperature. On the other hand, in an open system, where the oxygen
concentration decreases as temperature approaches the boiling point, the corrosion rate also
decreases as the boiling point is approached.

Figure 2-4
Effect of Temperature on Corrosion of Iron in Water Containing Dissolved Oxygen [116]

The effect of pH on the corrosion of iron at room temperature is shown in Figure 2-5, and its
effect at high temperature is shown in Figure 2-6.

(I) 2-34

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Carbon and Low Alloy Steel Piping

Figure 2-5
Effect of pH on Corrosion of Iron in Aerated Soft Water, Room Temperature [116]

Figure 2-6
Corrosion of Iron by Water at 590F (310C) at Various Values of pH Measured at 77F
(25C) [119]

(I) 2-35

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Carbon and Low Alloy Steel Piping

The effect of flow velocity on the rate of corrosion of carbon steel in seawater is shown in
Figure 2-7. The general tendency shown in the figure, i.e., increasing rate of thinning as
velocity increases, is applicable to many environments, although the specific rates of
thinning vary depending on the environment. The effect of velocity in relatively pure fresh
water up to 6 or 7 fps (1.8 or 2.1 m/s) is shown in Figure 2-8; the corrosion rate initially
increases, but decreases for velocities over about 0.2 to 0.5 fps (0.06 to 0.15 m/s). The
decrease in corrosion rate for higher velocities is attributed to sufficient access of oxygen
leading to partial passivation (formation of a protective oxide film). For significantly higher
velocities, increased rates of corrosion would be expected, as discussed later for
FAC/erosion-corrosion.

Figure 2-7
Effect of Velocity on Corrosion of Steel in Seawater [116]

Figure 2-8
Effect of Velocity on Corrosion of Mild Steel Tubes Containing Cambridge Water, 70F
(21C), 48 hr Tests [116]

(I) 2-36

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Carbon and Low Alloy Steel Piping

The effects of temperature, oxygen concentration and carbon dioxide concentration on the
corrosion rate of carbon steel are shown in Figure 2-9. The results are for short term (5 hour)
tests, and thus are not appropriate for use for long term quantitative estimates. However, they
show useful trend information: increasing corrosion rate with increases in temperature,
oxygen concentration and carbon dioxide concentration. For reference purposes, the
concentrations of oxygen and carbon dioxide in room temperature water exposed to the
atmosphere are about 8 ppm (6 mL/L) and 0.5 ppm, respectively. The reason that Figure 2-9
shows data for higher carbon dioxide concentrations is that carbon dioxide levels in service
water can be, and often are, increased by biological activity and by breakdown of alkalinity
(carbonates and bicarbonates).

Figure 2-9
Corrosion of Mild Steel (0.15% Carbon) as a Function of Dissolved CO2 and O2
Concentration [118]

(I) 2-37

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Carbon and Low Alloy Steel Piping

Discussion Results of Research Regarding General Corrosion and Corrosion Product Release
in Primary and Secondary Coolant Systems. Results of tests of the general corrosion rate and the
iron release rate in controlled environments are discussed below. Note that discussion of the
related topic of wall thinning in PWR secondary systems is covered in a later section on
FAC/erosion-corrosion. The following discussion is mostly relevant to BWRs, although it also
provides some insights and background for PWR corrosion issues.

Test results of Vreeland, et al., published in 1961 are illustrated in Figure 2-10 and Figure
2-11 [120]. The tests were performed using high purity neutral water with the oxygen to
hydrogen weight ratio at 8 to 1, consistent with that expected in BWRs. The test apparatus
simulated a boiling water reactor, with water pumped through and boiled in a heater region,
and then separated in a steam drum into a saturated water path and a steam path. Test
coupons were exposed in three regions: a two phase region downstream of heaters, in the
saturated water downstream of the steam drum, and in the steam. The oxygen content in the
saturated water simulated that in BWRs, and ranged up to about 300 ppb. The test
temperature was 546F (286C) and pressure was 1000 psig (6.89 MPa). Velocities ranged
between 6 and 11 fps (1.8 and 3.4 m/s). For comparative purposes, the figures show results
for corrosion product release rates from the published literature for PWR conditions with
little oxygen and hydrogen added. As shown in the figures, corrosion and release rates
decrease with time in oxygenated systems, and are lower in oxygenated systems than in low
oxygen systems, even at high pH. It was noted that there was little difference in results
among the mixed steam-water, saturated water, and steam environments. Also, there was not
much difference among alloys with varying amounts of chromium up to 5%, although
corrosion rates of stainless steels were significantly lower. A main conclusion of this work
was that oxygen seemed to reduce the corrosion rate of carbon and low alloy steel.

(I) 2-38

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Carbon and Low Alloy Steel Piping

Figure 2-10
Comparison of Instantaneous Corrosion Rates of Steels Containing up to 5 Percent
Chromium [120]

Figure 2-11
Comparison of Iron-to-System Rate of Steels Containing up to 5 Percent Chromium [120]

(I) 2-39

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Carbon and Low Alloy Steel Piping

A 1968 report by Hornsveld describes results of tests of carbon steel in a boiling out-of-pile
loop at 482F (250C)with about 100 ppb oxygen [121]. Tests at about 50 68F (10
20C) were also performed. The chromium content of the carbon steel was not reported.
Flow in the loop was due to natural circulation, and flow velocities were not reported. Some
test results are shown in Figure 2-12 and Figure 2-13, and were summarized as follows:

The corrosion rate of carbon steel in boiling 482F (250C) water was about 25
mg/dm2/mo (0.0125 mils/month) after 3000 hours and about 10 mg/dm2/mo (0.005
mils/month) after 9000 hours. Release rates were about one half of these values.

The corrosion rate at 50 68F (10 20C) was linear with time, i.e., did not decrease
2
with time, and was about 45 mg/dm /mo (0.023 mils/month). Nearly all of this corrosion
was released to the water.
0.16
0.14

Metal Loss (mils)

0.12
0.1
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0
0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

10000

Time (hrs)
Figure 2-12
Metal Loss as a Function of Time for Carbon Steel Exposed in Water with About 0.1 ppm
Oxygen at 482F (250C) [121]

(I) 2-40

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Carbon and Low Alloy Steel Piping

0.16
0.14

Metal Loss (mils)

0.12
0.1
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0
0

1000

2000

3000

4000

6000

5000

Time (hrs)
Figure 2-13
Metal Loss as a Function of Time for Carbon Steel Exposed in Water with About 0.1 ppm
Oxygen at 50 68F (10 20C) [121]

In 1969 and 1970, GE published results of tests directed at determining the corrosion
rates and release rates of carbon steel in neutral pure water between 100F (38C) and
400F (204C) as a function of oxygen and hydrogen content and as a function of
velocity [122, 123]. Some main results of this work include:

The effects of oxygen and velocity are illustrated by Table 2-9. As shown, the corrosion
and release rates are much lower with oxygen at 200 ppb than in the <10 ppb range.
Velocity has a strong effect at 100F (38C) ( with oxygen <10 ppb, but did not have a
strong effect under the other conditions, i.e., 200 ppb oxygen kept corrosion rates low at
both 100 and 400F (38 and 204C) and with velocities up to 24 fps (7.3 m/s).

(I) 2-41

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Carbon and Low Alloy Steel Piping
Table 2-9
Effect of Velocity on the Corrosion Behavior of Carbon Steel in Neutral pH Feedwater [122]

Temperature,
F
(C)

100
(38)

400
(204)

Velocity,
ft/s
(m/s)

< 10 ppb Oxygen


100 200 ppb Hydrogen

200 ppb Oxygen


25 ppb Hydrogen

Corrosion
Rate kld ,
mils/yr
(mm/yr)

Release
Rate klr ,
mils/yr
(mm/yr)

Corrosion
Rate* kld ,
mils/yr
(mm/yr)

Release
Rate klr ,
mils/yr
(mm/yr)

6
(1.8)

10.4
(0.264)

10.2
(0.259)

0.4
(0.010)

1.0
(0.025)

12
(3.7)

13.3
(0.338)

13.2
(0.335)

0.5
(0.013)

24
(7.3)

18.3
(0.465)

18.0
(0.457)

0.1
(0.0025)

1.1
(0.028)

6
(1.8)

8.3
(0.211)

8.2
(0.208)

0.6
(0.015)

0.6
(0.015)

12
(3.7)

13.9
(0.353)

13.7
(0.348)

< 0.05
(< 0.0013)

0.1
(0.0025)

24
(7.3)

9.3
(0.236)

9.2
(0.234)

0.5
(0.013)

0.8
(0.20)

* Data are considered semiquantitative because of limited number of specimens available.

Hydrogen is not needed to obtain the inhibitive effects of oxygen on reducing corrosion
rates of carbon steel.

Ohio State reported results of tests of carbon steel in pure water as a function of temperature
and oxygen content [124]. The results of general corrosion tests are shown in Figure 2-14. As
shown on the tests, the corrosion rate for 1 and 8 ppm oxygen peaked at intermediate
temperatures of about 300 350F (149 177C). The high corrosion rates in the 300
350F (149 177C) range were related to the presence of pitting. At high temperature,
corrosion rates were all low for the three oxygen contents tested (0.15, 1 and 8 ppm).

(I) 2-42

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Carbon and Low Alloy Steel Piping

Figure 2-14
Corrosion Loss of Carbon Steel in 200 hr Tests: Effect of Temperature at Constant Oxygen
Content [124]

A 1985 paper by GE discusses tests of the effects of HWC on the general corrosion of carbon
and low alloy steels, as compared to NWC [125]. The results are shown in Figure 2-15. As
shown, the initial general corrosion rates are significantly higher in the HWC environment,
but steady state corrosion rates are not significantly different.

(I) 2-43

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Carbon and Low Alloy Steel Piping

Figure 2-15
Corrosion of Carbon Steel SA 333-6 in HWC and the Reference Environment. After an
Initial Increase in Weight Loss, the Steady State Corrosion Rate Is Only Slightly Higher in
HWC [126]

10.2 Flow-Accelerated Corrosion and Erosion-Corrosion


Summary. In response to the seriousness of the problems affecting plants, there has been
extensive research performed regarding FAC/erosion-corrosion. This research has been directed
at understanding the factors controlling the rate of wall thinning to aid in developing ways to
predict it and to ameliorate it. EPRI has developed the CHECWORKS code that reflects the
results of this research and that is used to predict the occurrence and rate of thinning, and to help
in planning inspections and repairs.
Discussion. This subject is thoroughly covered in EPRI report TR-106611-R1 (hereafter called
the FAC Handbook) which can be referred to for detailed information [33]. The treatment given
below is limited to providing information that illustrates qualitatively the effects of the main
system, environmental, and material variables on the rate of thinning, and is intended to help
orient plant materials and system engineers with regard to these main tendencies.

Phase. Thinning is not generally a problem in single phase dry steam, unless abrasive
corrosion products are entrained. Thinning is typically most severe in two phase systems
where water droplets impinge on metal surfaces due to changes in flow path direction.
Thinning is less severe, but can still be substantial, in single phase liquid systems [33].

Velocity. The effect of flow velocity in single phase water is shown in Figure 2-16 [127]. As
can be seen, thinning rates increase with velocity. As can also be seen, the effect is strongest
on carbon steel, and decreases as the alloying content increases.

(I) 2-44

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Carbon and Low Alloy Steel Piping

Figure 2-16
Flowing Water Increases Material-loss Rate Exponentially with Flow Velocity. Conditions:
580 psig (4 MPa), 356F (180C), pH = 7, O2 < 5 g/kg, Exposure Time = 200 hr [127]

Geometry. Geometries that lead to higher flow rates close to metal surfaces cause increased
rates of thinning. This effect has been extensively studied, and empirical factors to account
for geometrical effects are tabulated in Table 3-1 of the FAC Handbook (e.g., straight pipe =
1.0, 90 elbow = 3.7, Tee = 5.0).

Temperature. The effects of temperature on single phase and two phase erosioncorrosion/FAC are shown in Figure 2-17 and Figure 2-18 from the FAC Handbook. As can
be seen, thinning rates increase with temperature to about 300F to 365F (149C to 185C),
and then decrease. Thinning rates at temperatures below 200F (93C) are typically very
low. However, as documented in a 2007 EPRI report, there are a number of cases where high
FAC rates (for example, 10 mils/year or 0.25 mm/year) have occurred in low temperature
parts of plants [68]. These cases all seem to be associated with areas with near neutral pH
and low oxygen, such as downstream of condensate or blowdown ion exchangers.

(I) 2-45

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Carbon and Low Alloy Steel Piping

Figure 2-17
Temperature Dependence of Two-Phase FAC with a Stream Quality of 65% and a Velocity
of 185 ft/s (56.4 m/s) [33]

Figure 2-18
Temperature Dependence of Two-Phase FAC [33]

Oxygen. The effect of oxygen content on thinning due to FAC/erosion-corrosion in BWR


environments is illustrated in Figure 2-19 [128]. As shown, the rate of thinning decreases as
oxygen is increased above about 7 ppb. Research on FAC/erosion-corrosion in environments
similar to those of PWR secondary systems indicates that the rate of thinning is strongly
decreased when there is sufficient oxygen present to stabilize hematite in the oxide film, and
that this requires the presence of a few ppb of oxygen [129]. This same research shows that
the ability of oxygen to inhibit FAC/erosion-corrosion is true even if hydrogen or hydrazine
are present in relatively high concentrations, until these species reduce the oxygen content to

(I) 2-46

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Carbon and Low Alloy Steel Piping

the few ppb level or less. These results are consistent with some reports of plant experience,
which show that a few ppb oxygen in the condensate are necessary to prevent high
concentrations of iron [130]. However, the beneficial effect of oxygen is only true in high
purity water; as shown in the previous section; if there are high concentrations of dissolved
salts in the water, high oxygen can accelerate the rate of thinning.

Figure 2-19
Effect of Dissolved Oxygen on FAC [128]

Hydrazine. As discussed in the above bullet, hydrazine can increase FAC/erosion-corrosion


rates strongly if the hydrazine results in the oxygen being decreased to below a few ppb.
However, except for this oxygen-level effect, hydrazine itself has been found to have little
effect on the rate of FAC except for its effect on increasing pH, which mildly reduces the rate
of FAC, as indicated by the data shown in Figure 2-20 [131]. A study performed under
similar conditions by KAERI largely confirmed the trends shown in Figure 2-20, except that
it measured a minimum FAC rate at 150 ppb hydrazine [132].

(I) 2-47

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Carbon and Low Alloy Steel Piping

Figure 2-20
Relative FAC Rate (Ratio to FAC Rate without Hydrazine and Oxygen) versus Hydrazine
Concentration for Tubular Carbon Steel Specimens (0.009% Cr) Exposed to a Single-Phase
Flow at 180C (356F) Using Ammonia (pH25C=9.0) and with Oxygen Maintained Less Than
or Equal to 0.5 ppb [131]

pH. Increases in pH above about a pH40C of about 9 strongly decrease FAC/erosion-corrosion


rates, as illustrated in Figure 2-21.

(I) 2-48

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Carbon and Low Alloy Steel Piping

Figure 2-21
Effect of pH on the Rate of FAC for Geometry: Plant Specimens and a Pipe Specimen [33]

Material Composition. The effects of material composition are thoroughly reviewed in the
FAC Handbook, e.g., pages 3-31 through 3-36 [33]. The presence of even fairly low levels of
some common alloying elements can provide significant benefits. The main alloying
elements that decrease the rate of thinning appear to be chromium, copper and molybdenum.
Chromium levels as low as 0.1% provide significant benefits, and levels of 1% provide a
very strong benefit.

Galvanic Effects at Welds. Research into the causes of preferential attack of welds that has
been observed at a significant number of plants indicates that galvanic effects may be a
causative factor, as well as FAC [133]. The research indicates that such galvanic effects are
only likely to be significant in secondary system conditions if the oxygen level is relatively
high.

(I) 2-49

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Carbon and Low Alloy Steel Piping

10.3 Pitting, Under Deposit Corrosion, and Crevice Corrosion


Summary. Pitting, under deposit corrosion and crevice corrosion have caused serious problems in
service water piping in many plants, especially in small diameter lines that are more susceptible
than large lines to both clogging and wall penetration. As noted in Section 9, many of these
problems have been associated with biological growths.
Pitting, under deposit corrosion, and crevice corrosion are forms of localized corrosion and are
mainly driven by differential aeration cell corrosion where local areas with restricted access to
oxygen act as anodes and corrode, while the bulk of the material that is more exposed to oxygen
acts as a cathode and does not corrode significantly. The localized corrosion generally starts
under deposits formed by silt or biological growths, or at built-in crevices such as socket welds,
backing rings, or weld flaws. Increasing concentrations of anions such as chlorides and sulfates
increase the rate of these modes of corrosion, as do increasing concentrations of oxygen and
increasing temperature.
Discussion. The limited amount of research that was located regarding pitting, under deposit
corrosion, and crevice corrosion of carbon and low alloy steels is summarized below.

Tests of pitting of A 106-B and A 333-Gr. 6 steel were performed for 200 hours in pure
water as a function of temperature and oxygen content [134]. The main results were as
follows:

With oxygen concentrations of 0.02 and 0.15 ppm, no pitting was observed over the
tested temperature range of 212F to 550F (100C to 288C).

With an oxygen concentration of 1 ppm, pits were observed in samples tested at 212F
(100C) and 347F (175C). No pits were observed at 482F (250C) and 550F (288C).

With an oxygen concentration of 8 ppm, pits were observed at 212F, 347F, and 482F
(100C, 175C, and 250C). No pits were observed at 550F (288C).

Tests were performed at a nuclear plant using a test loop supplied with the plants normal
fresh service water with about 500 ppm chlorides and 300 ppm sulfates [135]. Test
specimens and piping components of various materials were tested for up to four years. The
main findings for carbon steel were as follows:

In stagnant loops, measurements indicated that the initial 8 ppm oxygen content in the
water was reduced to below 10 ppb in about 300 hours. Low corrosion rates, including
for pitting and under deposit corrosion, in stagnant and intermittent flow lines were
attributed in part to this oxygen depletion, as well as to the low corrosivity of the water.

After 70 weeks of testing in continuously flowing 4 6 fps (1.2 1.8 m/s) service water,
the general corrosion rate was about 3.5 mils/year (0.09 mm/year). Corrosion rates in
intermittent and stagnant loops were lower, with the stagnant loop rate being about 0.3
mils/year (0.008 mm/year).

Pitting was only detected in connection with MIC attack and with crevice corrosion. The
pitting was described as being broad and shallow.

(I) 2-50

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Carbon and Low Alloy Steel Piping

Crevice corrosion occurred at several weld joint specimens, and was described as being
severe in a number of cases. However, it was also noted that the crevice attack only
occurred in the shielded metal arc weld (SMAW) portions of the specimens, and not at
the gas tungsten arc weld (GTAW) root areas. Since pipe welds at that plant have GTAW
roots at all welds (i.e., the SMAW parts of the welds are not exposed to the service
water), it was concluded that crevice corrosion was not a concern for that plant. However,
this experience indicates that systems with SMAW welds exposed to service water could
experience crevice corrosion at these welds.

10.4 Stress Corrosion Cracking


Summary. Stress corrosion cracking has rarely been detected in carbon and low alloy steel piping
in nuclear power plants (except in closed cooling water systems as discussed in Section 9.7), and
has never been reported as occurring in the main primary or secondary coolant system piping.
However, SCC of carbon and low alloy steels in reactor coolant environments has been
extensively studied since the industry has wanted to confirm and quantify the margins against
SCC. This research has shown that SCC, while not likely to occur in reactor coolant
environments, is possible in oxygenated BWR coolant at high stress levels, and that it also might
be possible in PWR environments as a result of sulfide inclusions in the steel. Factors that tend to
increase the likelihood of SCC include high stress and stress intensity levels, increases in oxygen
concentration or other species that increase the potential, increases in temperature, increases in
chloride levels in the environment, and increases in MnS inclusion content.
SCC has been observed at a few plants in closed cooling water systems. Failure analyses indicate
that this SCC has occurred at welds and has often involved biological activity. Service
experience and tests indicate that the SCC is aggravated by higher temperatures, for example,
over 130F (54C); by exposure to oxygenated conditions; and with use of certain water
chemistries and not others.
Discussion. Research regarding SCC in carbon and low alloy steels in environments that could
occur in reactor coolant system piping is reviewed in the preceding vessel chapter of this
handbook, and it is suggested that the vessel chapter be consulted for in-depth information. Some
additional results of specific relevance to piping are summarized in the following paragraphs.

In 1982, GE described results of pipe, CERT and crack growth rate tests of A 533-Gr. 6
carbon steel in high purity water as a function of oxygen content and temperature, with the
following main results [136]:

Figure 2-22 shows results of CERT tests in 0.2 ppm oxygen water as a function of
temperature. It indicates that ductility decreased at some temperatures, especially at about
450F (232C). Specimens exhibited some amount of TGSCC, especially when lower
strain rates were used, such as 6x10-5 min-1.

(I) 2-51

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Carbon and Low Alloy Steel Piping

Figure 2-22
Effect of Temperature on CERT Ductility of SA 333-Gr. 6 [136]

(I) 2-52

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Carbon and Low Alloy Steel Piping

Figure 2-23 summarizes crack growth rate data from CERT tests for both carbon steel
and a sensitized Type 304 stainless steel. As can be seen, cracking of carbon steel can
occur under BWR conditions, but the crack growth rates for carbon steel are lower than
for sensitized Type 304 stainless steel.

Figure 2-23
CERT Data Showing Variation of Average Crack Propagation Rates with
Oxygen/Temperature Combinations for Carbon Steel SA 333-Gr. 6 and Sensitized Type-304
-5
-1
Stainless Steel. Shot-Peened Surface. (=1.3-1.6x10 /min ). Asterisk Denotes that
Penetration is Due Primarily to Pitting Rather than Cracking [136]

(I) 2-53

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Carbon and Low Alloy Steel Piping

Figure 2-24 shows crack growth rate data for a fracture mechanics type specimen in air
saturated (8 ppm oxygen) water. Crack growth occurred for stress intensities of 32 ksiin
(57 MPam) or more.

Figure 2-24
Crack Growth Rate Under Static Loading Conditions [136]

In 1983, results were reported of CERT tests of A 106-B, A 533-Gr. 6, and A 508-Cl. 2
steels in high purity water as a function of oxygen content and temperature [124, 134].
TGSCC was observed to occur in these steels above 275F (135C) with 1 and 8 ppm
oxygen, at high stress (close to ultimate tensile strength). The susceptibility increased as
temperature increased. In 0.16 ppm oxygen water, TGSCC occurred only in the temperature

(I) 2-54

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Carbon and Low Alloy Steel Piping

range of 347F 500F (175 260C). Susceptibility to SCC was found to decrease as flow
velocity increased.

An article in 1988 by Speidel and Magdowski reviewed the state of knowledge regarding
SCC in carbon and low alloy steel in nuclear power plant type environments, and also
presented some new test results [137]. A compendium of data from that paper is shown in
Figure 2-25. The authors concluded that SCC of carbon and low alloy steels can be a concern
under some circumstances, and that further research is desirable to better quantify the effects
of oxygen content, potential, conductivity, specific ion concentrations, temperature, flow
rate, sulfur in the steel, etc. on crack growth rates.

Figure 2-25
Effect of Temperature, Oxygen Content and Stress Intensity on the Growth Rates of Stress
Corrosion in Nuclear Reactor Pressure Vessel and Piping Steels [137]

(I) 2-55

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Carbon and Low Alloy Steel Piping

An article in 1989 reports the results of SSRT tests at a strain rate of 3.5 to 7.0 x 10-7 s-1 of
A 516-70 carbon steel in low oxygen PWR coolant conditions at 550F (288C), with the
following main results [138]:

In deoxygenated pure water and in deoxygenated primary coolant, specimens failed in a


ductile manner.

In MnS saturated PWR water, SCC occurred. This was attributed to the MnS raising the
potential from the low values that typically protect carbon steel from SCC in PWR
environments to a level where SCC could occur.

Creviced bent beam test results were reported in 1993 for tests performed at 550F (288C)
in pure water with oxygen at about 8 ppm [139]. The materials tested included a carbon steel
SGV480, similar to A 516-Gr. 70, A 508-Cl. 2, and SNCM630, a bolting steel. The materials
were tested in various hardness conditions to simulate the effects of welding and various post
weld heat treatments. As shown on Figure 2-26, materials with a hardness of about 350 Hv or
higher were susceptible to SCC. This was interpreted as meaning that stress relief is required
for welded carbon and low alloy steels to ensure that they are not susceptible to SCC in high
temperature environments.

Figure 2-26
Relation Between Hardness and Average SCC Crack Depth [139]

Nagata in 1994 reported results of CERT tests in pure water as a function of oxygen content,
strain rate and temperature [140]. As shown on Figure 2-27, no cracking occurred for oxygen
contents below about 0.1 ppm, cracking was more severe at 554F (290C) than at 482F
(250C), and was more severe at a strain rate of 8.3 x 10-7 s-1 than at 4.2 x 10-6 s-1.

(I) 2-56

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Carbon and Low Alloy Steel Piping

Figure 2-27
Ratio of SCC Area as a Function of DO Concentration for STS 42 Carbon Steel Tested in
Water at 482F (250C) and 554F (290C) [140]

Nakanishi, et al., reported in 1994 on results of SCC tests of carbon steel in 482F (250C)
pure water with 8 ppm oxygen [141]. The tests involved a uniaxial load with periodic
unloading every 1.5 hours. Some specimens included welds and some included artificial
crevices made by covering the gauge section using graphite wool. Statistical analysis was
performed of multiple tests. In plain specimens of SA 333-Gr. 6 steel without crevices, fits to
the data indicated that cracking started at about 500 hours at a stress of 45 ksi (310 MPa). For
welded specimens with artificial crevices, cracking started at about 50 to 100 hours.

Nakayama and Akashi reported in 1997 on the results of SSRT and creviced bent beam tests
in pure water with 8 ppm oxygen of specimens made of a 0.19 C carbon steel with a weld
bead [142]. The results of the SSRT tests at 8.3 x 10-8 s-1 are shown in Figure 2-28 and show
that the amount of SCC increased as temperature increased. Creviced bent beam tests showed
that the deepest cracks occurred at or close to the line of fusion, and that the frequency and
severity of cracking increased with hardness, with the threshold below which no cracking
was observed being about 165 Hv.

(I) 2-57

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Carbon and Low Alloy Steel Piping

Figure 2-28
Fracture Surface Ratio Observed on SSRT Specimen as a Function of Test Temperature
[142]

Zhou, et al., reported in 1997 on a study of the SCC susceptibility of a range of irons and
steels in PWR environments [143]. The tests were performed using SSRT at a strain rate of
-6 -1
about 10 s in LiOH doped water with oxygen < 5 ppb. The materials tested included irons,
a carbon steel, and several low alloy steels. They found that the susceptibility of the steels to
SCC was a function of electrode potential, temperature and sulfide content. The SCC
initiated at sulfide inclusions. Chromium in the steel tended to counter the effects of sulfides.

In the 20052011 time period, a number of reviews of environmentally assisted cracking


(EAC) of carbon and low alloy steels in reactor plant environments were published [144,
145, 146, 147, 148]. These reviews covered strain induced corrosion cracking (SICC) and
corrosion fatigue (CF) as well as SCC. With regard to SCC, some of the more important
points are as follows:

Updated SCC crack growth rate disposition curves for BWR water chemistry conditions
are contained in a 2009 EPRI report [144]. These are discussed in the preceding vessel
chapter of this handbook and are not discussed here.

While crack initiation and growth due to static loads, that is, due to SCC, is very difficult
to achieve in high temperature reactor coolant and secondary system water environments,
it becomes easier under dynamic strain and cyclic stress/strain conditions as the ECP is
raised, as stresses increase, as temperatures increase, as material hardness increases, and
as the sulfur content of the steel increases. The presence of chlorides in the environment
also increases susceptibility. Dynamic strain aging (DSA) can also be a factor and can
lead to increased susceptibility at temperatures below reactor operating temperatures.

Probably the most important observation of these recent reviews is that propagation of
SCC in carbon and low alloy steels in high temperature water environments occurs only
when all of the following conditions are present: (1) total stress at the wetted surface is
over the yield stress, (2) the strain rate is above zero (this can be the result of creep),

(I) 2-58

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Carbon and Low Alloy Steel Piping

(3) water velocities are nearly stagnant, and (4) the oxygen concentration of the water is
0.2 ppm or more. More details regarding conditions under which SCC initiation and
propagation can occur are shown in Table 2-10. In the table, the term HT means high
temperature.
Table 2-10
Susceptibility Conditions for SCC of Carbon and Low Alloy Steels [147]

Research has been performed related to evaluating water chemistry effects on SCC of carbon
steel at the relatively low temperatures found in closed cooling water systems [105]. The test
matrix included three different aerated molybdate + tolyltriazole (TTA) water chemistries, an
aerated trisodium phosphate water chemistry, two test temperatures (140F/60C,
200F/93C), and base and weld metal specimens as well as welded specimens. The
molybdate chemistries were included because plants in the United States that use this
chemistry have experienced SCC. The trisodium phosphate chemistry was included since it is
used in 58 French units with no reports of SCC. The tests included SSRT, cyclic
potentiodynamic polarization, and tapered tensile specimen tests. The main results and
conclusions of this SCC testing include:

At the higher test temperature (200F/93C), no cracking occurred in the phosphate water
chemistry, while cracking occurred in the three molybdate-TTA chemistries that were
tested.

At the lower test temperature (140F/60C), cracking occurred in two of the three
molybdate + TTA chemistries and also in the phosphate chemistry. It was speculated that
the reason for the increased susceptibility to cracking in the phosphate environment at the
lower temperature was that the duration of exposure in the low temperature test was too
short to result in effective passivation in the phosphate environment.
(I) 2-59

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Carbon and Low Alloy Steel Piping

Of the tested environments, the environment that provided the best resistance to SCC was
judged to be the trisodium phosphate chemistry.

10.5 Crack Initiation Due to Fatigue/Corrosion Fatigue


Summary: For many years the ASME Code has prescribed analysis methods and provided curves
of stress vs. allowed number of cycles (S-N curves) for use in demonstrating resistance of parts
to initiation of fatigue cracks. The S-N curves initially used were based on data developed by
fatigue tests in air environments. However, over the years, increasing amounts of test data have
shown that S-N curves based on air data can be non-conservative for water environments, that is,
that crack initiation tends to occur at fewer numbers of cycles in some water environments than
in air environments and that the decreased resistance to crack initiation is affected by many
factors, including the dissolved oxygen content or ECP, temperature, flow rates, impurities in the
water, impurities in the metal, surface condition, etc. As a result of plant life extension and
license renewal, increased attention has been paid to this issue. The NRC, EPRI, and the
international community have developed improved understanding and improved guidance with
regard to how to address these environmental effects.
Discussion: Documents that provide up-to-date results regarding the effects of environment on
fatigue crack initiation in water environments include those provided by the NRC [for example,
149, 150, 151, and X.M1 Fatigue Monitoring in 152], EPRI [for example, 153], and
internationally [for example, 154, 155]. The main environmental effects that are addressed in
these documents are as follows [150]:

Threshold conditions: Fatigue data in LWR environments indicate a significant decrease in


fatigue life of carbon and low alloy steels when four key threshold conditions are satisfied
simultaneously: applied strain range, temperature, dissolved oxygen above minimum
threshold values, and the loading strain rate below a threshold value. For environmental
effects to occur, all of these threshold conditions need to be met or exceeded; otherwise,
there is no environmental effect on fatigue life.

Temperature: In air, an increase in temperature from room temperature to 300C (572F)


results in a small (~1.5) reduction in fatigue life. In oxygenated water environments, fatigue
life decreases strongly as temperature is raised above about 150C (302F).

Strain rate: At very high strain rates there is no environmental effect. As the strain rate
decreases, the effects of the environment become stronger in oxidizing high temperature
water environments.

Strain amplitude: At very low strain amplitudes, there is no environmental effect. At higher
strain amplitudes and temperatures, there is an environmental effect in oxidizing water
environments.

Dissolved oxygen: Dissolved oxygen above 0.04 ppm causes a decrease in fatigue life when
the other threshold conditions are met.

Sulfur content in steel: Environmental effects on fatigue increase as the sulfur content
increases from about 0.003% to 0.019%.

The approach required by the NRC for reflecting the effects of environment on fatigue crack
initiation is to apply environmental factors called FEN to the ASME air S-N curves. An alternate
approach has been pursued by the ASME in which revised S-N curves were developed that
(I) 2-60

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Carbon and Low Alloy Steel Piping

directly reflect environmental effects [156]. This approach was adopted by the ASME in 2010
via Code Case M-761 [157].
10.6 Crack Propagation Due to Fatigue/Corrosion Fatigue
Summary. An extensive amount of testing and data evaluation have been performed to quantify
the crack growth behavior of carbon and low alloy steels in air and water environments.
Highlights from this work are covered in the following discussion section. A major thrust of the
research has been to quantify crack growth rates in high temperature air and aqueous
environments to improve the accuracy and ensure the conservatism of ASME Code guidance for
evaluating flaw growth. This testing has shown that the effects of the LWR environment (e.g.,
the oxygen content in normal BWR chemistry), material (e.g., high sulfur content) or applied
cycles (e.g., low frequency) sometimes make the original ASME approach non conservative, and
that current ASME guidance still (as of 2011) has areas where improvement appears warranted.
Discussion. Research regarding corrosion fatigue crack growth in carbon and low alloy steels in
environments that could occur in nuclear power plant piping is summarized in the following
paragraphs.

In 1979 GE published the results of crack growth rate tests in simulated BWR reactor coolant
environments (550F (288C) pure water with 100 300 ppb oxygen) as a function of cyclic
frequency and R ratio (ratio of minimum load to maximum load) [158]. It was found that
crack growth rates for carbon and low alloy steels, in terms of crack growth per cycle,
increased as cyclic frequency decreased and as the R ratio increased (from 0.05 to 0.73) for a
given range of stress intensity (given KI), and that the crack growth rates exceeded the
limits in the ASME Code at that time (the Code has subsequently been changed to reflect this
type of behavior). Note that KImax was greater for the higher R ratio tests, and that this may be
a factor in the higher crack growth rates observed for the high R ratio tests.

During the 1984 1988 time period the NRC sponsored a series of research projects at
Materials Engineering Associates (MEA) on fatigue strength and crack growth rate in
carbon, low alloy and stainless steels. Some of the main results of this work that are
applicable to carbon and low alloy steels used for piping are as follows:

The tests showed that crack growth rates increased with R ratio (over the range from
0.125 to 0.7) and with decreasing test frequency [159]. (Some of the variability may be
due to differences in KImax, as opposed to differences in R ratio.) For A 516-Gr. 70 steel,
the tests also showed that crack growth rate depended strongly on orientation, probably as
a result of manganese sulfide inclusions, and can in some cases be unusually high as a
result of the inclusions.

The effects of the steels sulfur content are illustrated in Figure 2-29 [160]. As shown,
crack growth rate increased as the sulfur content of the steel increased. While these data
are for a pressure vessel steel, the effect of sulfur is expected to be the same for piping
steels.

Crack growth rate data for A 106-C piping steel are shown in Figure 2-30 [161]. As
shown, for this steel, crack growth decreased as temperature increased.

Fatigue tests of carbon steel in PWR environments indicated that the PWR environment
had essentially no effect on crack initiation of smooth specimens [162]. On the other
hand, the fatigue life of notched specimens was strongly reduced. This was attributed to
(I) 2-61

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Carbon and Low Alloy Steel Piping

the following: (1) cracks initiate very early in notched specimens, and (2) the growth rate
of cracks is accelerated by the PWR environment. It was concluded that the margin in the
ASME Code was almost entirely used up by this effect.

Crack growth rate tests in air environments indicate that crack growth rates for piping and
pressure vessel steels are similar [163].

Figure 2-29
Fatigue Crack Growth Rates vs. Applied Cyclic K for Steels of Varying Sulfur Contents
and a Load Ratio of 0.2, Tested in Low Flow Rate Environment. Test Frequency was
17 mHz [160]

(I) 2-62

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Carbon and Low Alloy Steel Piping

Figure 2-30
Fatigue Crack Growth Rate vs. Inverse Temperature at Fixed Applied Cyclic Stress
Intensity Range Factor for A 106 Gr. C Carbon Steel [161]

In the 19871999 time period, the Japanese reported the results of several investigations
regarding crack growth rates in piping carbon steels under BWR conditions [164, 165, 166,
167]. Some main results of this work are as follows:

Most, but not all, crack growth results were bounded by the R 0.65 water curve in the
ASME Code at that time. Growth rates in 8 ppm oxygen water at a low frequency,
2 x 103 Hz for an R of 0.5 exceeded the ASME Code curve. Similarly, crack growth rates
for tests with long rise times (2500 seconds) also exceeded the ASME Code curve.

Crack growth rates in steam environments were lower than in water environments.

Crack growth rates were higher for a high sulfur (0.021%) steel than for a low sulfur
(0.007%) steel.

Surface crack growth rates often exceed the growth rate of deep cracks with comparable
stress intensities, e.g., by a factor of 2 or more.

A 1997 EPRI report reviewed the occurrence of corrosion fatigue in power plants, and
included a review of the results of related research [84]. It noted that SSRT, while originally
regarded as an accelerated test for SCC, can also be considered as a limiting case of very low
cycle corrosion fatigue. The report noted that the main conclusions of some German work
(I) 2-63

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Carbon and Low Alloy Steel Piping

using SSRT were that significant corrosion cracking (including SCC, corrosion fatigue and
strain induced corrosion cracking) of carbon steel only occurs at:

strain rates below 10-4/s in the plastic range, together with

electrochemical potential above about -0.2 VSHE (which occurs at or above about 50 ppb
oxygen in pure water) and

temperatures above 356F (180C).

A 2005 paper by Roth et al. reviewed the results of an extensive European research program
directed at evaluating crack growth behavior in low alloy steels in BWRs with normal water
chemistry and in Russian design VVER reactors [168]. Some main results of this research
that are applicable to corrosion fatigue crack growth in BWRs and western style PWRs are as
follows:

Crack growth can occur under transient loading conditions, but stops under static loading
conditions.

Weld heat affected zones have higher susceptibility to enhanced crack growth rates than
base materials.

The prediction curves in the ASME Code as of 2005 for da/dN assessment of assumed or
detected flaws in low alloy steels may not always be conservative under specific
conditions, for example, low loading frequencies.

All data obtained in simulated VVER water, even with increased oxygen content, are
covered by the curves provided in ASME Code Case 643 for PWR environments. (It is
judged that since VVER coolant is similar to western PWR reactor coolant in that it is
low potential and moderately alkaline, these results appear to provide support for use of
Code Case 643 for U.S. PWRs.)

A 2008 paper by Seifert and Ritter reviewed the results of an extensive research program in
which the cracking behavior of low alloy steel in normal and hydrogen BWR water
chemistries was evaluated [169]. Some main conclusions from this research include:

Under BWR conditions, environmental acceleration of fatigue crack growth was


observed in all materials at loading frequencies below 0.1 to 1 Hz. Below this upper
critical frequency, the environmental acceleration of fatigue crack growth was increased
with decreasing loading frequency and increasing temperature from 150C to 288C
(302F to 550F) with a maximum/plateau at/above 250C (482F). The environmental
acceleration dropped to moderate values or even completely disappeared at very low
loading frequencies or K-values.

The transition from strong (factor of 10 to 100 or even higher) to minor (<factor of 5)
environmental acceleration, which appeared at critical frequencies and K-values, was
shifted to lower values with increasing ECP (or dissolved oxygen contents). Under highly
oxidizing BWR/NWC conditions (ECP > 0 mVSHE), fast CF crack growth could be
sustained down to very low frequencies of 3E-6 Hz and small K values of 2 MPa m1/2.

The corrosion potential (or dissolved oxygen concentration), loading frequency, and
temperature seem to be the most important factors affecting corrosion fatigue crack
growth rate. Material parameters, on the other hand, played a less pronounced role, in
particular under highly oxidizing BWR/NWC conditions.

(I) 2-64

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Carbon and Low Alloy Steel Piping

The low corrosion potential achieved with hydrogen water chemistry reduces
susceptibility to enhanced corrosion fatigue growth rates, but high growth rates can occur
under specific conditions, such as for high sulfur steel at specific loading frequencies, as
indicated in Figure 2-31.

The Ford-Andresen model [170, 171] for cracking of carbon and low alloy steels
provides a rather good correlation at 288C (550F) and observed cracking behavior over
a wide range of parameters.

Figure 2-31
Effect of ECP/Dissolved Oxygen Content and Loading Frequency on the Cycle-Based CGR
da/dNCF of High Sulfur Steels and Comparison to the Corresponding ASME XI Reference
Fatigue CGR for the Specified Loading Conditions [169]

10.7 Hydrogen Water Chemistry Effects on Carbon and Low Alloy Steel Piping
Summary. Hydrogen water chemistry (HWC) is being used in lieu of normal water chemistry
(NWC) at many BWRs as a counter measure against IGSCC of stainless steel piping and
internals. Tests of the effects of HWC on the structural behavior of carbon and low alloy steel
indicate that HWC increases margins against fatigue and SCC of these materials. However, the
reduction in the oxygen concentration associated with HWC can increase the rate of
FAC/erosion-corrosion in some parts of the plant. This concern, and approaches for dealing with

(I) 2-65

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Carbon and Low Alloy Steel Piping

it (such as the use of noble metal chemical addition to reduce required levels of hydrogen), are
covered in the BWR Water Chemistry Guidelines [112].
Discussion. A 1992 study pulled together pertinent information regarding the effects of HWC on
low alloy and carbon steels [172]. Results from the 1992 study for carbon and low alloy steels
include the following:

HWC increases margins against the occurrence of SCC of both carbon and low alloy steel. In
fact, no SCC caused crack growth occurred under HWC conditions.

Corrosion fatigue crack growth rates are lower for both carbon and low alloy steel in HWC
environments than in NWC environments.

General corrosion of low alloy steels (SA 533-Gr. B and SA 508-Cl. 2) is not affected by a
change from NWC to HWC. However, as shown on Figure 2-14, corrosion rates for carbon
steel appear to initially increase after converting to HWC, but then fall to the same rates as
for NWC after about 7 months. The absolute rates of corrosion in either HWC or NWC were
described as being extremely low.

Results of an extensive research project published in 2005 related to EAC of carbon and low
alloy steels showed that use of HWC increased margins against occurrence of SCC and
significantly reduced susceptibility to enhanced corrosion fatigue crack growth rates, as
discussed in the previous section [110].
10.8 Boric Acid Corrosion
Summary. Tests confirm plant experience that corrosion rates of carbon and low alloy steels can
be high, up to 10 inches/year, if exposed to concentrated boric acid under certain specific
conditions. Extensive research was performed on this topic in response to the wastage event that
affected the Davis Besse reactor vessel head in 2002 (this event is described in the preceding
Vessel chapter and in the Nickel Alloy chapter in this handbook).
Discussion. Reports that cover the results of investigations of the effects of boric acid solutions
on the corrosion of carbon and low alloy steel are listed in Section 10.9 of the preceding vessel
chapter. Some key points with regard to these investigations include the following:

When carbon and low alloy steels are immersed in dilute near neutral boric acid solutions in
the temperature range from room temperature up to 590F (310C), corrosion rates are less
than 1 mil/year for cases where the oxygen level is low for long periods of time, and in the
range of 6 17 mils/year (0.15 0.43 mm/year) for cases where oxygen is present at the start
of a 70 hour or longer test, but no new oxygen is added during the test.

Exposure to concentrated boric acid can result in corrosion rates up to a high of about 10
in/year. There are several situations of interest:
Leaking borated water at ambient temperature on to a steel part at 70F 100F (21C
38C). In this case, the corrosion rate ranges between 2 and 7 mils/year (0.05 and 0.18
mm/year).

Leakage of borated water (e.g., drips) on to moderate temperature steel parts that are not
so hot that the metal stays dry, and which thus allow the leakage to become concentrated
low pH boric acid. Maximum corrosion rates occur for parts at about 200 220F (93
104C), which can corrode at rates up to 10 in./year (25 cm/year).

(I) 2-66

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Carbon and Low Alloy Steel Piping

Leakage of borated water into tight crevices. In this situation predicting the corrosion rate
is difficult as a result of the complexity of the situation, with rates varying strongly
depending on factors such as flow rates and temperatures. The reports listed in Section
10.9 of the preceding vessel chapter can be consulted for information on this topic.

11 Alternative Materials
When FAC/erosion-corrosion is involved, the main alternative materials to carbon steel are the
standard low alloy steels with increased amounts of chromium, such as the 1.25% Cr, 0.5% Mo
or 2.25% Cr, 1% Mo steels, or standard austenitic stainless steels such as Types 304 or 316. The
main alternates to low alloy steels are the standard stainless steels such as Types 304 and 316.
With regard to service water applications, the main alternates to carbon steel that can be
considered are the standard stainless steels such as Types 304 or 316, 6% molybdenum stainless
steels, duplex stainless steels, Alloy 625, or high density polyethylene. The reason for
considering use of alloys other than the standard stainless steels is that MIC corrosion at welds
has been a problem in some service water applications of the standard stainless steels. The
specialty stainless alloys, Alloy 625, and titanium are discussed in the Stainless Steel, Nickel
Base Alloy, and Titanium chapters of this handbook.
Carbon steel with an internal corrosion resistant lining, e.g., of Types 316L, AL-6XN or Alloy
625, has been used in some cases as a replacement for plain carbon steel that has experienced
either FAC/erosion-corrosion or excessive corrosion in service water applications [173, 174].
There have been some initial applications of high density polyethylene piping for service water
piping, including for safety related service water applications. Such applications are addressed by
ASME Code Case N-755 [175].

12 References
1.

Specification for Pipe, Steel, Black and Hot-Dipped, Zinc-Coated, Welded and Seamless,
ASME/ASTM SA/A 53.

2.

Specification for Carbon Steel Forgings for Piping Applications, ASME/ASTM SA/A 105.

3.

Specification for Seamless Carbon Steel Pipe for High-Temperature Service, ASME SA
106.

4.

Specification for Pipe, Steel, Electric-Fusion (Arc)-Welded (Sizes NPS 16 and Over),
ASME SA 134.

5.

Specification for Low and Intermediate Tensile Strength Carbon Steel Plates,
ASME/ASTM SA/A 283.

6.

Specification for Steel Castings, Carbon, Suitable for Fusion Welding for HighTemperature Service, ASME/ASTM SA/A 216.

7.

Specification for Piping Fittings of Wrought Carbon Steel and Alloy Steel for Moderate
and Elevated Temperatures, ASME/ASTM SA/A 234.

8.

Specification for Seamless and Welded Steel Pipe for Low-Temperature Service,
ASME/ASTM SA/A 333.

(I) 2-67

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Carbon and Low Alloy Steel Piping

9.

Specification for Piping Fittings of Wrought Carbon Steel and Alloy Steel for LowTemperature Service, ASME/ASTM SA/A 420.

10.

Specification for Pressure Vessel Plates, Carbon Steel, for Intermediate- and HigherTemperature Service, ASME/ASTM SA/A 515.

11.

Specification for Pressure Vessel Plates, Carbon Steel, for Moderate- and LowerTemperature Service, ASME/ASTM SA/A 516.

12.

Specification for Forged or Rolled Alloy-Steel Pipe Flanges, Forged Fittings, and Valves
and Parts for High-Temperature Service, ASME SA 182.

13.

Specification for Seamless Ferritic Alloy-Steel Pipe for High-Temperature Service,


ASME/ASTM SA/A 335.

14.

Specification for Quenched and Tempered Vacuum-Treated Carbon and Alloy Steel
Forgings for Pressure Vessels, ASME/ASTM SA/A 508.

15.

Closed Cooling Water Chemistry Guideline, Revision 1, Revision 1 to TR-107396, Closed


Cooling Water Chemistry Guideline. EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: 2004. 1007820.

16.

ASME Boiler Pressure Vessel Code 2010, Section II, Part D, Table PRD, ASME, 2010.

17.

Marks Mechanical Engineers Handbook, Sixth Edition, T. Baumeister, Ed., p4-5,


McGraw Hill, 1958.

18.

ASME Boiler Pressure Vessel Code 2010, Section II, Part D, Table TM-1, for C 0.30%,
C > 0.30%, and Material Groups C and D, ASME, 2010.

19.

Electromagnetic NDE Guide for Balance-of-Plant Heat Exchangers, Revision 2, p4.0-15.


EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: 1997. TR-101772-R2.

20.

Calculated from data in ASME Boiler Pressure Vessel Code 2010, Section II, Part D, Table
TCD, for Material Groups A, C and D and Table PRD, ASME, 2010.

21.

ASME Boiler Pressure Vessel Code 2010, Section II, Part D, Table TE-1, for Group 1,
ASME, 2010.

22.

ASME Boiler Pressure Vessel Code 2010, Section II, Part D, Table TCD, for Material
Groups A, C and D, ASME, 2010.

23.

Metals Handbook Volume 1, Tenth Edition, Properties and Selection: Irons, Steels and
High-Performance Alloys, p199 for grades 1025 and 8625, ASM International, 1990.

24.

ASME Boiler Pressure Vessel Code 2010, Section II, Part D (Customary/Metric), Table U,
ASME, 2010.

25.

Reprinted from 2010 BPVC, Section II-D by permission of The American Society of
Mechanical Engineers. All rights reserved.

26.

ASME Boiler Pressure Vessel Code 2010, Section II, Part D (Customary/Metric), Table Y1, ASME, 2010.

27.

W. J. Shack, An Overview of Environmental Degradation of Materials in Nuclear Power


Plant Piping Systems, Proceedings of the Third International Symposium on
Environmental Degradation of Materials in Nuclear Power Systems Water Reactors,
TMS, p55-64, 1988.

(I) 2-68

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Carbon and Low Alloy Steel Piping

28.

B. J. Buescher, Technical Safety Issues Associated with Aging and License Renewal of
BWR Piping, Proceedings of the Topical Meeting on Nuclear Plant Life Extension, p618624, ANS, 1988.

29.

A. G. Ware, et al., Aging Degradation of BWR (Boiling Water Reactor) Feedwater and
Main Steam Lines, Report No. EGG-M-88303, NTIS Accession Number DE89009646,
NTIS, 1989.

30.

R. L. Jones, et al., Environmental Degradation of Materials in Boiling Water Reactors,


Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium on Environmental Degradation of
Materials in Nuclear Power Systems Water Reactors, p1-1 to 1-10, NACE, 1990.

31.

Ph. Berge and F. de Keroulas, The Present Situation Regarding Environmental


Degradation of Components in Pressurized Water Reactors, Proceedings of the Fourth
International Symposium on Environmental Degradation of Materials in Nuclear Power
Systems Water Reactors, p1-11 to 1-26, NACE, 1990.

32.

R. L. Jones, Critical Corrosion Issues and Mitigation Strategies Impacting the Operability
of LWRs, Corrosion 96, Paper No. 103, NACE, 1996.

33.

Flow-Accelerated Corrosion in Power Plants. EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: 1998. TR-106611-R1.

34.

G. J. Bignold, et al., Erosion-Corrosion in Nuclear Steam Generators, Water Chemistry


of Nuclear Reactor Systems 2, Proceedings of an International Conference Organized by
the British Nuclear Energy Society and Co-Sponsored by the Royal Society of Chemistry,
Bournemouth, 14-17 October, 1980, p5-18, BNES, 1981.

35.

L. Lacaille, Summary of Erosion-Corrosion Observations Made in Power Stations on Wet


Steam Circuits, English translation of an article published in La Houille Blanche, No. 4/5,
p291-295, 1981, by CEGB, London, 1981.

36.

P. Talleu, An Investigation Concerning the Corrosion-Erosion Phenomena in the


Secondary Circuit of Pressurized Water Reactors, Corrosion Erosion of Steels in High
Temperature Water and Wet Steam, EDF, 1982.

37.

IE Information Notice No. 82-22: Failures in Turbine Exhaust Lines, NRC, July 9, 1982.

38.

J. Marceau, et al., Corrosion-Erosion in French Secondary Cycles, American Power


Conference, v46, p667-673, APC, 1984.

39.

Ph. Berge, et al., Corrosion-Erosion dans les Circuits Secondaires Investigations et


Remedes Apportes, Proceedings of the International Symposium Fontevraud I,
Contribution of Materials Investigation to the Resolution of Problems Encountered in PWR
Plants, p323-333, SFEN, September 1985.

40.

Erosion/Corrosion in Nuclear Plant Steam Piping: Causes and Inspection Program


Guidelines. EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: 1985. NP-3944.

41.

NRC Information Notice No. 86-106: Feedwater Line Break, NRC, December 16, 1986;
NRC Information Notice No. 86-106, Supplement 1: Feedwater Line Break, February 13,
1987; NRC Information Notice No. 86-106, Supplement 2: Feedwater Line Break, March
18, 1987; G. A. Murphy, Feedwater Line Break at Surry Unit 2, Nuclear Safety, v28, n2,
p240-242, April-June 1987.

42.

NRC Bulletin No. 87-01: Thinning of Pipe Walls in Nuclear Power Plants, NRC, July 9,
1987.
(I) 2-69

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Carbon and Low Alloy Steel Piping

43.

NRC Information Notice No. 87-36: Significant Unexpected Erosion of Feedwater Lines,
NRC, August 4, 1987.

44.

C. E. McCracken and P. C. S. Wu, Erosion/Corrosion Experience in U.S. LWRs,


American Power Conference, v50, p982-984, APC, 1988; NRC Information Notice No. 8817: Summary of Responses to NRC Bulletin 87-01, Thinning of Pipe Walls in Nuclear
Power Plants, NRC, April 22, 1988.

45.

O. Jonas, Erosion-Corrosion of PWR Feedwater Piping Survey of Experience, Design,


Water Chemistry, and Materials, NUREG/CR-5149, NTIS Accession Number ERA-13048549, June 1988.

46.

B. M. Gordon, Corrosion Issues in the BWR and Their Mitigation for Plant Life
Extension, Proceedings of the Topical Meeting on Nuclear Power Plant Life Extension,
Snowbird Utah, 31 July 3 August 1988, p180-187, ANS, 1988.

47.

NRC Information Notice 86-106 Supplement 3, Feedwater Line Break, Nov. 10, 1988.

48.

NRC Generic Letter 89-08, Erosion/Corrosion-Induced Pipe Wall Thinning, NRC, May
2, 1989.

49.

P. C. Wu, Erosion/Corrosion-Induced Pipe Wall Thinning in U.S. Nuclear Power Plants,


NUREG-1344, April 1989.

50.

NRC Information Notice No. 89-53: Rupture of Extraction Steam Line on High Pressure
Turbine, NRC, June 13, 1989.

51.

F. N. Remy and M. Bouchacourt, Flow Assisted Corrosion: The Different Ways to Avoid
Damage, SMIRT 10, p123-128, SMIRT, 1989.

52.

V. K. Chexal, et al., U.S. Industry Response to Surry Corrosion Event, Proceedings of


the International Symposium Fontevraud II, Contribution of Materials Investigation to the
Resolution of Problems Encountered in PWR Plants, v2, p526-534, SFEN, September
1990.

53.

NRC Information Notice No. 91-18: High Energy Piping Failures Caused by Wall
Thinning, March 12, 1991; NRC Information Notice No. 91-19: Steam Generator
Feedwater Distribution Piping Damage, March 12, 1991; NRC Information Notice No. 9118, Supplement 1: High Energy Piping Failures Caused by Wall Thinning, December 18,
1991; NRC Information Notice No. 92-07: Rapid Flow-Induced Erosion/Corrosion of
Feedwater Pipe, January 9, 1992; NRC Information Notice No. 92-35: Higher Than
Predicted Erosion/Corrosion in Unisolable Reactor Coolant Pressure Boundary Piping
Inside Containment at a Boiling Water Reactor, May 6, 1992.

54.

NRC Information Notice No. 93-21: Summary of NRC Staff Observations Compiled
During Engineering Audits or Inspections of Licensee Erosion/Corrosion Programs, March
25, 1993.

55.

NRC letter report, 1993 E/C Workshop Summary Report, mailed April 27, 1993, NRC
ACN 9308100051 930427.

56.

NRC Information Notice 95-11: Failure of Condensate Piping Because of


Erosion/Corrosion at a Flow-Straightening Device, February 24, 1995.

57.

NRC Information Notice 97-84: Rupture in Extraction Steam Piping as a Result of Flow
Accelerated Corrosion, December 11, 1997.

(I) 2-70

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Carbon and Low Alloy Steel Piping

58.

Examination of Callaway Steam Line Failure, AmerenUE Laboratory Services


Metallurgical Report, Failure Analysis, Report No. 99080245, 8/13/99.

59.

M. U. Gmurczyk, et al., Identification of Corrosion Modes in Steam Pipes from the


Secondary System at Indian Point 2, Corrosion 98, Paper No. 130, NACE, April 1998.

60.

E. V. Murphy, et al., Resolving Wall Loss in CANDU Outlet Feeder Pipes, Proceedings
of the International Symposium Fontevraud IV, Contribution of Materials Investigation to
the Resolution of Problems Encountered in Pressurized Water Reactors, p1037-1048,
SFEN 14-18 September 1998.

61.

Investigations into Preferential Attack of Welds in Carbon Steel Piping and Vessels:
Volume 1: Utility Industry Survey and Preliminary Investigations. EPRI. Palo Alto, CA:
2003. 1007772, v1.

62.

NRC Information Notice 2006-08: Secondary Piping Rupture at the Mihama Power Station
in Japan, March 16, 2006.

63.

H. Nopper and A. Zander, Lifetime Evaluation of Plant Components Affected by FAC


with the COMSY Code, Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on
Environmental Degradation of Materials in Nuclear Power Systems, paper 0154, CNS,
2007.

64.

V. Calonne-Chatale, et al., Field Experience on Weld Assemblies Behaviour Toward


Flow Accelerated Corrosion in French Nuclear Power Plants (NPP), Proceedings of the
13th International Conference on Environmental Degradation of Materials in Nuclear
Power Systems, paper 0037, CNS, 2007.

65.

Proceedings, International Conference on Flow Accelerated Corrosion (FAC 2008),


March 18-20, 2008, Lyon, France, EDF, 2008.

66.

Proceedings, International Conference on Flow Accelerated Corrosion (FAC 2010), May


4-7, 2010, Lyon, France, EDF, 2011.

67.

H. M. Crockett and J. S. Horowitz, Low Temperature FAC, Proceedings, International


Conference on Flow Accelerated Corrosion (FAC 2008), March 18-20, 2008, Lyon,
France, EDF 2008.

68.

Investigation into Flow-Accelerated Corrosion at Low Temperatures. EPRI, Palo Alto,


CA: 2007. 1015170.

69.

H. M. Crockett and J. S. Horowitz, Entrance Effect, Proceedings, International


Conference on Flow Accelerated Corrosion (FAC 2008), March 18-20, 2008, Lyon,
France, EDF 2008.

70.

Flow-Accelerated Corrosion The Entrance Effect. EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: 2007. 1015072.

71.

M. Postler, et al., Irregular results of the thickness measurements on the low pressure
regeneration piping of NPP Dukovany, Proceedings, Conference on Flow Accelerated
Corrosion (FAC 2010), May 4-7, 2010, Lyon, France, EDF 2011.

72.

B. Clark, et al., Small Bore Programs in the United States, Proceedings, Conference on
Flow Accelerated Corrosion (FAC 2010), May 4-7, 2010, Lyon, France, EDF 2011.

(I) 2-71

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Carbon and Low Alloy Steel Piping

73.

H. Chung, Assessment of Feeder Wall Thinning of Wolsong Nuclear Power Plants,


Transactions of the Korean Nuclear Society Autumn Meeting, PyeongChang, Korea, May
27-28, 2010, KNS, 2010.

74.

NRC Information Bulletin No. 82-02: Degradation of Threaded Fasteners in the Reactor
Coolant Pressure Boundary of PWR Plants, NRC, June 2, 1982.

75.

NRC Generic Letter 88-05: Boric Acid Corrosion of Carbon Steel Reactor Pressure
Boundary Components in PWR Plants, NRC, March 17, 1988.

76.

Boric Acid Corrosion Guidebook. EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: 1995. TR-102748.

77.

Boric Acid Corrosion Guidebook, Revision 1 Managing Boric Acid Corrosion Issues at
PWR Power Stations. EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: 2001. 1000975.

78.

Materials Reliability Program: Safety Evaluation for Boric Acid Wastage of PWR Reactor
Vessel Bottom Heads Due to Bottom-Mounted Nozzle Leakage (MRP-167) Evaluations
Supporting the PWR Bottom-Mounted Nozzle Inspection Plan. EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: 2008.
1016591.

79.

NRC Generic Letter 79-020, Cracking in Feedwater Lines, NRC, May 25, 1979.

80.

A. Goldberg, et al., Evaluation of Cracking in Feedwater Piping Adjacent to the Steam


Generators in Nine Pressurized Water Reactor Plants, NUREG/CR-1603, June 25, 1980.

81.

J. F. Enrietto, et al., Preliminary Investigation of PWR Feedwater Line Cracking, The


International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping, v9, n6, p421-443, Nov. 1981.

82.

K. Kussmal, et al., Cracking in Ferritic Feedwater Piping Systems of Boiling Water


Reactors, International Seminar on NDE in Relation to Structural Integrity, Paris,
France, 24 Aug 1981, p151-166, Applied Science Publishers, Ltd, Barking, England, 1982.

83.

K. Kussmal, et al., Formation and Growth of Cracking in Feed Water Pipes and RPV
Nozzles, Nuclear Engineering and Design, n81, p105-119, August 1984.

84.

Corrosion Fatigue of Water-Touched Pressure Retaining Components in Power Plants.


EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: 1997. TR-106696.

85.

NRC Information Notice 93-20: Thermal Fatigue Cracking of Feedwater Piping to Steam
Generators, NRC, March 24, 1993.

86.

C. J. Czajkowski, Cracking in a Reducing Pipe from a Pressurized Water Reactor,


Handbook of Case Histories in Failure Analysis, p163-167, ASM International, 1993.

87.

Nuclear Power Experience, Volume BWR 2, Book 1, Experiences, Section VI, Turb. Cycle
Syst., E. Cond. & Feedwater, entries 30, 38, 41, 45, 111, etc., and Nuclear Power
Experience, Volume PWR 2, Book 1, Experiences, Section VI, Turb. Cycle Syst., D. Steam,
entry 139, and E. Cond. & FW, entry 109, Hagler Bailly, Boulder, CO, 1996.

88.

L. Millet, et al., Exemples de dgradations par corrosion et fragilization affectant les


matriels en acier au carbone des centrales nuclaires eau pressurise, La Revue de
Mtallurgie-CIT, v90, n9, p1173, September 1993.

89.

J. Jansky and M. Langenstein, Integrity of the Blowdown Piping Systems in a Nuclear


Power Plant Findings and Consequences, Nuclear Engineering and Design, v178, p195209, December 1997.

(I) 2-72

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Carbon and Low Alloy Steel Piping

90.

Y. Tsujikura, Fatigue Failures of Small Diameter Pipe Welds in PWR Plants, Welding in
the World, v41, n1, p10-19, January-February 1998.

91.

NRC Information Notice 98-43: Leaks in Emergency Diesel Generator Lubricating Oil and
Jacket Cooling Water Piping, December 4, 1998.

92.

EPRI website information related to the Service Water Assistance Program (SWAP), e.g.,
at http://mydocs.epri.com/docs/Portfolio/PDF/2012_41-05-02.pdf.

93.

NRC Generic Letter 89-13: Service Water System Problems Affecting Safety-Related
Equipment, NRC, July 18, 1989.

94.

NRC Generic Letter 89-13, Supplement 1: Service Water System Problems Affecting
Safety-Related Equipment, NRC, April 4, 1990.

95.

NRC Information Notice 90-39: Recent Problems with Service Water Systems, NRC, June
1, 1990.

96.

Service Water System Corrosion and Deposition Sourcebook. EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: 1993.
TR-103403.

97.

NRC Information Notice 94-79: Microbiologically Influenced Corrosion of Emergency


Diesel Generator Service Water Piping, NRC November 23, 1994.

98.
99.

Service Water Piping Guideline. EPRI, Palo Alto, CA. 2005. 1010059.
Liquid Radioactive Release Lessons Learned Task Force Final Report, Sept. 1, 2006, NRC,
available at http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML0626/ML062650312.pdf.

100. Recommendations for an Effective Program to Control the Degradation of Buried and
Underground Piping and Tanks (1016456, Revision 1). EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: 2010.
1021175.
101. Balance of Plant CorrosionThe Buried Pipe Reference Guide. EPRI, Palo Alto, CA:
2010. 1021470.
102. Page on NRC website titled Buried Piping Activities, at,
http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/ops-experience/buried-piping-activities.html.
103. Closed Cooling Water Chemistry Guideline, Revision 1. EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: 2004.
1007820.
104. Stress Corrosion Cracking in PWR and BWR Closed Cooling Water Systems. EPRI, Palo
Alto, CA: 2004. 1009721.
105. Repair and Replacement Applications Center: Stress Corrosion Cracking in PWR and
BWR Closed Cooling Water SystemsPhase II. EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: 2009. 1019169.
106. An Assessment of Industry Needs for Control of Degradation in Buried Piping. EPRI, Palo
Alto, CA: 2008. 1016276.
107. NRR Action Plan, Revision 1, September 14, 2010, Buried Piping, TAC NO. ME3939,
NRC, http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML1025/ML102590171.pdf.
108. Industrys Buried Piping Integrity Initiative Regulatory Information Conference, Jim
Riley, NEI, NEI presentation available at, http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/conferencesymposia/ric/slides/th22rileyjpv.pdf.
(I) 2-73

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Carbon and Low Alloy Steel Piping

109. J. Hickling and D. Blind, Strain-Induced Corrosion Cracking of Low-Alloy Steels in LWR
Systems Case Histories and Identification of Conditions Leading to Susceptibility,
Nuclear Engineering and Design, v91, p305-330, February 1986.
110. H.-P. Seifert and S. Ritter, Research and Service Experience with EnvironmentallyAssisted Cracking in Carbon and Low-Alloy Steels in High-Temperature Water, SKI
Report 2005:60. Available at,
http://www.iaea.org/inis/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/37/064/37064940.pdf.
111. J. Slade and T. Gendron, Flow Accelerated Corrosion and Cracking of Carbon Steel
Piping in Primary Water - Operating Experience at the Point Lepreau Generating Station,
12th International Conference on Environmental Degradation of Materials in Nuclear
Power Systems - Water Reactors, paper 773, TMS, 2005.
112. BWRVIP-190: BWR Vessel and Internals Project BWR Water Chemistry Guidelines2008
Revision. EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: 2008. 1016579.
113. Pressurized Water Reactor Primary Water Chemistry Guidelines, Revision 6. EPRI, Palo
Alto, CA: 2007. 1014986.
114. Pressurized Water Reactor Secondary Water Chemistry Guidelines Revision 7. EPRI,
Palo Alto, CA: 2009. 1016555.
115. H. H. Uhlig and R. W. Revie, Corrosion and Corrosion Control: An Introduction to
Corrosion Science and Engineering, 3rd Edition, Copyright 1985, John Wiley & Sons.
116. ibid., Reproduced with permission of John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
117. H. H. Uhlig, Iron and Steel, The Corrosion Handbook, H. H. Uhlig, Ed., The
Electrochemical Society, NY, 1948.
118. ibid., Figure on p128. Reproduced with Permission of The Electrochemical Society.
119. H.A. Grabowski and H.A. Klein, Corrosion and Hydrogen Damage in High Pressure
Boilers, in Second Annual Educational forum on Corrosion, NACE International 1964.
120. D. C. Vreeland, et al., Corrosion of Carbon and Low-Alloy Steels in Out-of-Pile BoilingWater Reactor Environments, Corrosion, v17, p269t-276t, NACE International 1961.
121. E. M. Hornsveld, Corrosion of Carbon Steel, NTIS Accession Number PB180519, Institute
for Energy Technology (Institute for Atomenergi, Kjeller Research Establishment), 1968.
122. E. G. Brush and W. L. Pearl, Corrosion and Corrosion Product Release Behavior of
Carbon Steel in Neutral Feedwater, American Power Conference, v31, p699-705, APC,
1969.
123. E. G. Brush and W. L. Pearl, Corrosion and Corrosion Product Release Behavior of
Carbon Steel in Neutral Feedwater: Part 2, American Power Conference, v32, p751-756,
APC, 1970.
124. T. Mizuno, et al., Corrosion and Stress Corrosion Cracking of Carbon Steel in
Oxygenated, High-Purity Water at Elevated Temperatures, Proceedings of the
International Symposium on Environmental Degradation of Materials in Nuclear Power
Systems Water Reactors, p395-422, NACE International 1984.

(I) 2-74

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Carbon and Low Alloy Steel Piping

125. B. M. Gordon, et al., Environmentally Assisted Cracking Resistance of BWR Structural


Materials in Hydrogen Water Chemistry, Proceedings of the Second International
Symposium on Environmental Degradation of Materials in Nuclear Power Systems Water
Reactors, p583-592, ANS, 1986.
126. Hydrogen Water Chemistry for BWRs. EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: 1985. NP-3959M.
127. O. Jonas, Control Erosion/Corrosion of Steels in Wet Steam, Power, p102-103, March
1985.
128. BWR Water Chemistry Guidelines 2000 Revision. EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: 2000. TR103515-R2.
129. I. S. Woolsey, et al., The Influence of Oxygen and Hydrazine on the Erosion-Corrosion
Behaviour and Electrochemical Potentials of Carbon Steel Under Boiler Feedwater
Conditions, Water Chemistry of Nuclear Reactor Systems 4, Bournemouth (UK) 1986,
Paper No. 96, BNES, 1986.
130. R. Litman, Condensate Oxygen Control at Seabrook Station, presented at PWR Plant
Chemistry Meeting, Huntington Beach, California, September 1-3, 1998.
131. Effect of Redox Conditions on Flow Accelerated Corrosion: Influence of Hydrazine and
Oxygen, Interim Report. EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: 2002. 1002768.
132. W. S. Ki, et al., Hydrazine-Dependency of Low-Alloy Steel in a Deoxygenated Solution
at 250C, Advanced Materials Research Vols. 26-28 (2007) pp 1133-1136, Online
available since 2007/Oct/02 at www.scientific.net (2007) Trans Tech Publications,
Switzerland, doi:10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMR.26-28.1133.
133. Investigations into Preferential Attack of Welds in Carbon Steel Piping and Vessels:
Volume 2: Laboratory Analysis of the Galvanic Effects in Preferentially Degraded Carbon
Steel. EPRI. Palo Alto, CA: 2003. 1007772, v2.
134. The General and Localized Corrosion of Carbon and Low-Alloy Steels in Oxygenated
High-Temperature Water. EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: 1983. NP-2853.
135. Corrosion Evaluation of Service Water System Materials. EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: 1994. TR103500.
136. BWR Environmental Cracking Margins for Carbon Steel Piping. EPRI, Palo Alto, CA:
1982. NP-2406.
137. M. O. Speidel and R. M. Magdowski, Stress Corrosion Cracking of Nuclear Pressure
Vessel and Piping Steels, The International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping, v34,
p119-142, 1988.
138. H. E. Hanninen and W. H. Cullen, Slow Strain Rate Testing of A Cyclically Stabilized A
516 Gr. 70 Piping Steel in PWR Conditions, Proceedings of the Fourth International
Symposium on Environmental Degradation of Materials in Nuclear Power Systems Water
Reactors, p8-77 to 103, NACE 1990.
139. M. Tsubota, et al., Intergranular Stress Corrosion Cracking of Low Alloy and Carbon
Steels in High Temperature Pure Water, Proceedings of the Sixth International
Symposium on Environmental Degradation of Materials in Nuclear Power Systems Water
Reactors, p53-59, TMS, 1993.
(I) 2-75

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Carbon and Low Alloy Steel Piping

140. N. Nagata, Environmentally Assisted Cracking of Structural Materials for Light Water
Reactors, NRIM Special Report 94-01, 1994.
141. K. Nakanishi, et al., Stress-Corrosion Crack Initiation Behavior of Carbon Steel in
Simulated BWR Environment, Corrosion 94, Paper No. 156, NACE, 1994.
142. G. Nakayama and M. Akashi, Effects of Test Temperature and Hardness of Material on
the Intergranular Stress-Corrosion Cracking Behavior of Carbon Steel in Simulated BWR
Environment, Proceedings of the Eighth International Symposium on Environmental
Degradation of Materials in Nuclear Power Systems Water Reactors, p947-952, ANS,
Copyright 1997 by the American Nuclear Society, La Grange Park, Illinois.
143. X. Zhou, et al., Stress Corrosion Cracking of Iron Base Alloys in High Temperature
Water, Proceedings of the Eighth International Symposium on Environmental
Degradation of Materials in Nuclear Power Systems Water Reactors, p953-959, NACE,
1995.
144. BWRVIP-233: BWR Vessel and Internals Project Evaluation of Stress Corrosion Crack
Growth in Low Alloy Steel Vessel Materials in the BWR Environment: Technical Basis for
Revisions to BWRVIP-60-A, Palo Alto, CA: 2009. 1019061.
145. Status Review of Initiation of Environmentally Assisted Cracking and Short Crack Growth.
EPRI. Palo Alto, CA: 2005. 1011788.
146. H.-P. Seifert and S. Ritter, Research and Service Experience with Environmentally-Assisted
Cracking in Carbon and Low-Alloy Steels in High-Temperature Water, SKI Report
2005:60, SKI, November 2005.
147. H.-P. Seifert, J. Hickling and A. Roth, Crack Initiation Due to Environmentally-Assisted
Cracking in Carbon & Low-Alloy Steels Exposed to High-Temperature Water, Part 1:
Overview of Results from Laboratory Tests, Workshop on Detection, Avoidance,
Mechanisms, Modeling, and Prediction of Stress Corrosion Cracking Initiation in WaterCooled Nuclear Plants, proceedings of a workshop held in Beaune, France, Sep 7-12,
2008. EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: 2009. 1018908.
148. H.-P. Seifert, S. Ritter, and P. Scott, EAC of Carbon & Low-Alloy Steels in HighTemperature Water, Workshop Proceedings: Quantitative Micro-Nano (QMN-1)
Approach to Predicting SCC of Fe-Cr-Ni Alloys, June 13-18, 2010, Sun Valley Resort,
Idaho, Staehle Consulting, 2011.
149. O. K. Chopra and W. J. Shack, Effects of LWR Coolant Environments on Fatigue Design
Curves of Carbon and Low-Alloy Steels, NUREG/CR-6583, NRC, February 1998.
150. O. K. Chopra and W. J. Shack, Effect of LWR Coolant Environments on the Fatigue Life of
Reactor Materials, NUREG/CR-6909, NRC, Feb. 2007.
151. Regulatory Guide 1.207, Guidelines for Evaluating Fatigue Analyses Incorporating the
Life Reduction of Metal Components Due to the Effects of Light-Water Reactor
Environment for New Reactors, NRC, March 2007.
152. Generic Aging Lessons Learned (GALL) Report, Revision 2, NUREG 1801 Rev 2, NRC,
Dec. 2010.

(I) 2-76

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Carbon and Low Alloy Steel Piping

153. Materials Reliability Program: Guidelines for Addressing Fatigue Environmental Effects
in a License Renewal Application (MRP-47 Revision 1). EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: 2005.
1012017.
154. M. Higuchi, et al., Updated Knowledge Implemented to the Revision of Environmental
Fatigue Evaluation Method for Nuclear Power Plants in JSME Code, Proceedings of the
ASME 2009 Pressure Vessels and Piping Division Conference, PVP2009, July 26-30,
2009, Prague, Czech Republic, paper PVP2009-77077, ASME, 2009.
155. J. Strmbro and M. Dahlberg, Evaluation of the Technical Basis for New Proposals of
Fatigue Design of Nuclear Components, SSM Report number: 2011:04 ISSN: 2000-0456,
January 2011. Available at, http://www.stralsakerhetsmyndigheten.se.
156. W. J. ODonnell, et al., Proposed New Fatigue Design Curves for Carbon and Low-Alloy
Steels in High Temperature Water, Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology, v131, n2,
p024003-1 to 10, ASME April 2009.
157. Case N-761 Fatigue Design Curves for Light Water Reactor (LWR) Environments, Section
III, Division 1, Approved September 20, 2010.
158. D. A. Hale, et al., Fatigue Growth in Piping and RPV Steels in Simulated BWR Water
Environment, NUREG/CR-0390, GEAP-24098, NTIS Accession Number PB-293 651,
NTIS, March 1979.
159. W. H. Cullen, Fatigue Crack Growth Rates of Low-Carbon and Stainless Piping Steels in
PWR Environment, NUREG/CR-3945, MEA-2055, February 1985.
160. W. H. Cullen, et al., The Effects of Sulfur Chemistry and Flow Rate on Fatigue Crack
Growth Rates in LWR Environments, NUREG/CR-4121, MEA-2053, February 1985.
161. W. H. Cullen, Fatigue Crack Growth Rates Pressure Vessel and Piping Steels in LWR
(Light Water Reactor) Environments, NUREG/CR-4724, MEA-2175, March 1987.
162. J. B. Terrell, Fatigue Strength of Smooth and Notched Specimens of ASME SA 106-B Steel
in PWR Environments, NUREG/CR-5136, MEA-2289, September 1988.
163. W. H. Cullen and M. R. Jolles, Fatigue Crack Growth of Part-Through Cracks in Pressure
Vessel and Piping Steels: Air Environment Results, NUREG/CR-4828, MEA-2198,
October 1988.
164. N. Takeda, et al., Crack growth study on carbon steel in simulated BWR environments,
SMIRT 9, Vol. F, LWR Pressure Components, p161-165, SMIRT, 1987.
165. K. Hasegawa, et al., Surface crack growth behavior for carbon steel piping in BWR water
environment, SMIRT 9, Vol. D, Experience with Structures and Components in Operating
Reactors, p85-90, SMIRT, 1987.
166. Y. Asada, et al., Evaluation of Fatigue Crack Growth for Japanese Carbon Steel in Water
at High Temperature, 22,MPA Seminar Safety and Reliability of Plant Technology:
Components of Nuclear and Conventional Power Plants Basis for Evaluation and
Operating Experience, v1, Paper No. 25, FIZ Karlsruhe, 1996.
167. M. Otaka, et al., Evaluation of Surface Crack Propagation of Carbon Steel Pipe in
Simulated BWR Water Environment, PVP-Vol. 386, Probabilistic and Environmental
Aspects of Fracture and Fatigue, p255-263, ASME, 1999.
(I) 2-77

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Carbon and Low Alloy Steel Piping

168. A. Roth, et al., The Effect of Transients on the Crack Growth Behavior of Low Alloy
Steels for Pressure Boundary Components Under Light Water Reactor Operating
Conditions, Proceedings, 12th International Conference on Environmental Degradation
of Materials in Nuclear Power Systems - Water Reactors, Salt Lake City, Nevada, August
10-14, 2005, TMS, 2005.
169. Materials Reliability Program: Third International Conference on Fatigue in Reactor
Components (MRP-151). EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: 2005. 1011958.
170. Environmentally-assisted cracking of low-alloy steels. EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: 1992. NP7473-L.
171. F. P. Ford and P. L. Andresen, Corrosion Fatigue of A533B/A508 Pressure Vessel Steels
in 288C Water, Third International IAEA Specialists Meeting on Subcritical Crack
Growth, vol. 1, NUREG/CP-0112, Moscow, USSR, May 1417, 1990, p105124.
172. Hydrogen Water Chemistry for BWRs: Materials Behavior. EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: 1992.
TR-100304.
173. J. Kowalewski and B. Chakravarti, Application of CORRONIX Clad Piping for
Nuclear Plant Service Water Systems, Chapter 47, Electric Utility Service Water System
Reliability Improvement. EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: 1993. TR-101541.
174. B. Chakravarti, Clad Piping A Novel Approach for Solving Nuclear Plant Service Water
and Erosion-Corrosion Problems, Proceedings of the Fifth International Symposium on
Environmental Degradation of Materials in Nuclear Power Systems Water Reactors,
p436-441, ANS, 1992.
175. Repair of High Density Polyethylene Pipe. EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: 2009. 1019172.

(I) 2-78

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material

STAINLESS STEEL FOR PIPING, COMPONENTS, AND


PRESSURE VESSELS

1 General Description
This chapter covers stainless steels that are used for piping, components and pressure vessels
in nuclear power plants. It does not address materials for BWR or PWR reactor vessel internals,
which are being addressed by the BWRVIP for BWRs and by the PWR MRP for PWRs. The
stainless steels used for piping, components and pressure vessels are of two main types. The
first is wrought austenitic stainless steel used for parts such as piping, forged valve bodies, and
pressure vessel shells. The second is austenitic cast stainless steel used for applications such
as large diameter primary coolant piping, cast pump casings, and cast valve bodies; the material
is in fact a duplex austenitic-ferritic material, usually with 10 to 25% ferrite. Welds in wrought
material and in cast material normally also have a duplex austenitic-ferritic structure, with a few
percent ferrite.
Stainless steel has been widely used in BWR reactor coolant systems and safety and auxiliary
systems. In these systems it has been used for piping, valves, pumps and other special fittings
and parts. In high temperature BWR applications such as the reactor coolant system these
materials have been subject to IGSCC in areas where the material was sensitized during
fabrication, such as furnace sensitized safe ends and at weld joint heat affected zones (HAZs).
The term sensitized refers to a process of chromium carbide precipitation at grain boundaries
that can occur when the material is held in the temperature range of 800F 1600F (427C
871C). The precipitation of chromium carbide reduces the chromium concentration adjacent
to the grain boundary and makes them susceptible to corrosive attack in BWR reactor coolant
environments with normal water chemistry (NWC). In this regard, BWR reactor coolant with
NWC has about 200 ppb oxygen, which raises the electrochemical potential (ECP) and makes
it aggressive towards sensitized material. Remedial actions have been taken for all BWRs in the
USA and incidents of IGSCC in piping are now rare. Nuclear grades of piping with lower carbon
(C) and higher nitrogen (N) have been developed that are more resistant to this type of attack and
are available for use in replacements and new applications. In addition, water chemistry changes
have been made that reduce the ECP and make the environment less aggressive towards
sensitized material.
Stainless steel has also been widely used in PWR reactor coolant systems and safety and
auxiliary systems. Stainless steels have provided relatively trouble free service in these PWR
applications. The absence of systematic IGSCC problems of the type that have affected BWRs
is attributed to the low oxygen content of PWR reactor coolant, which keeps the ECP well below
the range in which IGSCC occurs in pure water environments. The relatively limited number of
problems that have occurred in stainless steel parts in PWRs have generally been due to
either mechanical or thermal fatigue or, in a few cases, to the development in stagnant areas
of aggressive environments with chlorides, concentrated boric acid and trapped oxygen.
(I) 3-1

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Stainless Steel for Piping, Components, and Pressure Vessels

Cast austenitic stainless steels can be subject to embrittlement as they age as a result of
metallurgical changes that occur in the ferrite phase. This can become an issue for reactor
coolant applications as plant service life increases. The factors that influence the degree of
embrittlement include: service time and temperature, ferrite content, molybdenum concentration,
and fabrication method. While this issue has not resulted in any reported physical problems, it
has been identified as an aging management issue that needs to be addressed in license renewal.
It appears that most, if not all, potential embrittlement problems can be adequately addressed by
susceptibility assessments, increased inspections, and fracture mechanics analyses.
Stainless steel is sometimes used for service water systems, and has generally performed
satisfactorily. However, austenitic stainless steels have been found to be susceptible to pitting
or crevice corrosion in freshwater service, especially under deposits. This type of under deposit
attack occurs when deposits build up due to accumulation of materials such as silt or clay or
biological growths. Prevention of such failures involves continuous attention to keeping the
stainless steel surfaces clean and free of deposits and biological growths, e.g., by preventing the
entry of materials that can deposit and by use of biocides. Stainless steels have also experienced
attack under layup conditions when the water was allowed to evaporate, resulting in
concentration to aggressive levels of the impurities in the remaining water. Higher grades of
austenitic stainless steel, such as AL-6XN, have been used in some cases to replace normal
grades that have experienced corrosion problems in fresh service water systems. In addition,
recently, with the passage of ASME Code Case N-741, duplex stainless UNS S32760 has
also been used in fresh service water systems [1].
The conventional grades of austenitic stainless steel such as Types 304 and 316 were found
many years ago not to work well in seawater and brackish water, mainly because of pitting and
crevice corrosion. However, higher alloy stainless steels with 6% molybdenum such as AL-6XN
have worked acceptably in seawater and brackish water environments. These grades also have
increased resistance to the types of pitting attack in freshwater service described above.
Both seam welded and seamless piping have been used, with seamless piping having been
used more extensively than seam welded piping in reactor system applications. No reports of
problems associated with use of seam welds were found during preparation or update of this
chapter.
The compositions of the stainless steels most commonly used for nuclear plant piping,
component and pressure vessel service are shown in Table 3-1. Typical specified mechanical
properties are shown in Table 3-2.
Note that several types of stainless steel with an NG designation are listed in the tables, i.e.,
Types 304NG, 316NG, and 347NG. The requirements for these grades were developed by the
BWR Owners Group and EPRI for use in BWRs [2]. The chemical compositions of these grades
are tighter than, but nevertheless meet, those of the normal types (Types 304, 316, and 347
respectively). The mechanical properties also meet those of the normal grades. In other words,
the nuclear grade materials are bought and designed to normal Type 304, 316, and 347
requirements and, in addition, meet the tighter chemistry requirements of the nuclear grade
specification, as well as intentional inclusions of N in some grades, in order to provide additional
strengthening lost with the decreased carbon content.
(I) 3-2

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Stainless Steel for Piping, Components, and Pressure Vessels
Table 3-1
Typical Specified Compositions of Typical Stainless Steels (wt %) [2, 3, 4, 5, 6]
(Maximum Values Except Where Otherwise Indicated)
Name,
UNS No.
Type 304,
S30400
Type 304L,
S30403
Type 304NG

Mn

Si

Cr

Ni

Mo

Cu

Other

0.08

2.0

1.00

0.03

2.0

1.00

0.045

0.03

0.020

2.00

0.75

0.030

0.005

0.5

(1)

2.0

1.00

0.045

0.03

0.045

0.03

0.030

0.005

(1)

0.03

0.0600.10

0.045

2.03.0
2.03.0
2.003.00

0.0600.10

0.50

0.08

8.010.5
8.012.0
8.0011.00
10.014.0
10.014.0
11.0014.00
9.013.0
9.0012.00
23.5025.50

0.045

0.03

18.020.0
18.020.0
18.0020.00
16.018.0
16.018.0
16.0018.00
17.019.0
17.0019.00
20.022.0

Nb10xC

0.035

0.020

0.040

0.030

6.007.00

0.180.25

0.2 Co,
Nb10xC

18.021.0
18.021.0
17.021.0
17.021.0

8.011.0
9.012.0
8.012.0
9.013.0

0.040

0.040

0.50

0.040

0.040

0.040

0.040

2.03.0
0.50

0.040

0.040

2.03.0

17.0021.00
18.0021.00
17.0021.00
18.0021.00
22.4

8.0012.00
8.0011.00
9.0013.00
9.0012.00
5.8

0.040

0.040

0.040

0.040

0.040

0.040

0.040

0.040

.025

.001

0.15

Type 316,
S31600
Type 316L,
S31603
Type 316NG

0.03

2.0

1.00

0.020

2.00

0.75

Type 347

0.08

2.0

1.0

Type 347NG

0.030

2.00

1.0

Type AL6XN,
N08367
Type CF8,
Type CF8A
Type CF8M

0.030

2.00

1.00

0.08

1.50

2.00

0.08

1.50

1.50

Type CF3,
Type CF3A
Type CF3M,
Type
CF3MA
Type CPF3A

0.03

1.50

2.00

0.03

1.50

1.50

0.03

1.50

2.00

Type CPF8A

0.08

1.50

2.00

Type
0.03
CPF3M
Type
0.08
CPF8M
UNS S32760 0.020
Duplex SS

1.50

1.50

1.50

1.50

0.70

0.40

2.003.00
2.003.00
3.3

(1) Co max 0.25, Ta + Nb max 0.05, B max 0.001, Al max 0.04, V max 0.1, Bi + Sn + As + Pb + Sb + Se max 0.02.

(I) 3-3

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Stainless Steel for Piping, Components, and Pressure Vessels

Table 3-2
Specified Room Temperature Mechanical Properties for Stainless Steels [2, 3, 4, 5, 6]
Grade

Thermo-Mechanical
Treatment

Tensile Strength Yield Strength


min., ksi (MPa) min., ksi (MPa)

Elong.
min (%)

Hardness
RB max

Type 304

annealed

75 (517)

30 (207)

40

92

Type 304L

annealed

70 (483)

25 (172)

40

88

Type 304NG

annealed

75 (517)

30 (207)

40

92

Type 316

annealed

75 (517)

30 (207)

40

95

Type 316L

annealed

70 (483)

25 (172)

40

95

Type 316NG

annealed

75 (517)

30 (207)

40

92

Type 347

annealed

75 (517)

30 (207)

40

92

Type 347NG

annealed

75 (517)

30 (207)

40

92

Type CF8

annealed

70 (483)

30 (207)

35

Type CF8A

annealed

77 (531)

35 (241)

35

Type CF8M

annealed

70 (483)

30 (207)

30

Type CF3

annealed

70 (483)

30 (207)

35

Type CF3A

annealed

77 (531)

35 (241)

35

Type CF3M

annealed

70 (483)

30 (207)

30

Type CF3MA

annealed

80 (556)

37 (255)

30

Type CPF8A

annealed

77 (531)

35 (241)

35

Type CPF8M

annealed

70 (483)

30 (207)

30

Type CPF3A

annealed

77 (531)

35 (241)

35

Type CPF3M

annealed

70 (483)

30 (207)

30

Type AL-6XN

welded, solution treated,


and annealed

104 (717)

46 (317)

30

UNS S32205

annealed

65 (448)

95 (655)

25

31 RC

2 Applications
Typical nuclear power plant applications of stainless steels for piping, components, and pressure
vessels include:

Reactor coolant and auxiliary system piping (e.g., Types 304, 304L, 304NG, 316, 316L,
316NG, 347NG, CF8A, CF8M, CPF3M)

Reactor coolant pump casings (e.g., Types CF8, CF8A, CF8M)

Reactor coolant valve bodies and fittings (e.g., Types 304, 304L, 304NG, 316, 316L, 316NG,
CF8A, CF8M)

Auxiliary system tank and heat exchanger shell plates and heads (e.g., Types 304, 304L, 316,
316L)

Forged parts for auxiliary system tanks and heat exchangers (e.g., Types 304, 304L, 316,
316L)

Service water piping (Types 304, 304L, 316, 316L, AL-6XN, UNS S32205)

(I) 3-4

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Stainless Steel for Piping, Components, and Pressure Vessels

3 Typical Product Forms and Specifications


Stainless steel pipe, fittings, components, and pressure vessels for reactor plant applications
have generally been supplied in accordance with the specifications described in Table 3-3. Most
forged material has been in the seamless form, although some use has also been made of material
in the seam welded form. No reports of problems associated with the use of seam welded pipe or
fittings were noted during preparation or update of this chapter. Accordingly, it is considered that
both seamless and seam welded materials may be considered for use, although the possible need
for additional inservice inspections associated with seam welds is another factor for
consideration when evaluating the possible use of seam welded material.
Table 3-3
Stainless Steel Specifications for Piping, Component and Pressure Vessel Applications
Specification

Description

ASTM

ASME

A 182

SA 182

Forged or Rolled Alloy-Steel Pipe Flanges, Forged Fittings,


and Valves and Parts for High-Temperature Service

A 240

SA 240

Heat-Resisting Chromium and Chromium-Nickel Stainless


Steel Plate, Sheet, and Strip for Pressure Vessels

A 312

SA 312

Seamless and Welded Austenitic Stainless Steel Pipes

A 351

SA 351

Castings, Austenitic, Austenitic-Ferritic (Duplex), for


Pressure-Containing Parts

A 358

SA 358

Electric-Fusion-Welded Austenitic Chromium-Nickel Alloy


Steel Pipe for High-Temperature Service

A 376

SA 376

Seamless Austenitic Steel Pipe for High-Temperature


Central-Station Service

A 403

SA 403

Wrought Austenitic Stainless Steel Piping Fittings

A 451

SA 451

Centrifugally Cast Austenitic Steel Pipe for High-Temperature


Service

A 790

SA 790

Seamless and Welded Ferritic/Austenitic Stainless Steel Pipe

A 815

SA 815

Standard Specification For Wrought Ferritic,


Ferritic/Austenitic, and Martensitic Stainless Steel Piping
Fittings

B 462

SB 462

Forged or Rolled UNS N08020, UNS N08024, UNS08026,


and UNS N08367 Alloy Pipe Flanges, Forged Fittings, and
Valves and Parts for Corrosive High-Temperature Service

B 675

SB 675

UNS N08366 and UNS N08367 Welded Pipe

B 690

SB 690

Iron-Nickel-Chromium-Molybdenum Alloys (UNS N08366 and


UNS N08367) Seamless Pipe and Tube

B 804

SB 804

UNS N08367 and UNS N08926 Welded Pipe

Nuclear Grade Stainless Steel Procurement, Manufacturing,


and Fabrication Guidelines, Volumes I and II, Document Nos.
84-MG-18 and 88-MG-18, 1988

(I) 3-5

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Stainless Steel for Piping, Components, and Pressure Vessels

4 Main Limitations
The main limitations with regard to use of austenitic stainless steel for piping, component and
pressure vessel applications are as follows:

The main vulnerabilities to service induced problems with the types of stainless steel
covered in this chapter are associated with their susceptibility to SCC when sensitized
and when exposed to chlorides. Sensitization occurs when the material is heated within
the range of 800F 1600F (427C 871C), and becomes more significant as the time
in this temperature range increases and as the carbon content of the material increases
(above 0.030 wt.%). Sensitization has resulted in major problems in BWR applications,
and preventing or dealing with such problems involves strict control of the selection of
materials, manufacturing and fabrication, as well as careful control of water chemistry during
plant operation. Sensitization has generally not been found to be a problem in PWR reactor
coolant applications; this is considered to be the result of low oxygen levels and potentials in
PWR conditions. Chloride induced SCC, which can occur with or without sensitization, has
caused occasional problems in BWRs and PWRs in non reactor coolant applications, e.g.,
SCC of the OD surface of parts where chloride containing water or cleaning solution(s) has
concentrated under insulation and/or tubing clamps.

As noted above, stainless steel in BWR reactor coolant and auxiliary system applications
is susceptible to IGSCC in areas where the material was sensitized by welding or other
fabrication or manufacturing processes. For these reasons, materials resistant to weld induced
sensitization are preferable, such as 304NG or 316NG, as are the use of manufacturing and
fabrication processes that do not develop deleterious levels of sensitization or cold work.
In this regard, guidelines prepared by the BWR Owners Group and EPRI for procurement,
manufacturing and fabrication are available [7]. Recent experience in Japan has shown
that even non-sensitized stainless steels can be susceptible to IGSCC in BWR coolant
applications, although this has not been a significant problem in the U.S.; this topic is
the focus of intensive research as discussed in Sections 9 and 10 of this chapter.

Stainless steel in BWR reactor coolant and auxiliary system applications is susceptible
to IGSCC in areas where it is cold worked. For this reason, it is preferable to avoid cold
working of stainless steels that will be used in BWR reactor coolant applications. For
background information on the effects of cold work, reference can be made to Section II,
Chapter 5, of this handbook, High-Strength Wrought Austenitic Stainless Steels. Recently,
some cases of SCC of cold worked stainless steels in PWRs have also been detected, as
discussed in Sections 9 and 10 of this chapter. Minimizing susceptibility to this problem
involves minimizing the introduction of unintentional cold work on surfaces of stainless
steel that are exposed to reactor coolant.

Cast and welded stainless steel typically has a duplex austenitic-ferritic structure that is
susceptible to embrittlement as a result of long times at high temperatures. This is not
known to have resulted in any fractures in service, but has resulted in the perceived need for
increased inspections and analyses for some cast components. For this reason, it is generally
prudent to limit embrittlement factors in new applications of cast stainless steel, e.g., by
limiting the ferrite content and molybdenum content.

(I) 3-6

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Stainless Steel for Piping, Components, and Pressure Vessels

Stainless steels used in service water applications can be subject to microbiologically


influenced corrosion (MIC), which leads to pitting and crevice corrosion, especially at welds.
If biological growths cannot be prevented (e.g., by water treatment and frequent cleaning),
consideration can be given to use of a higher alloy stainless steel such as AL-6XN or to use
of a duplex stainless steel such as S32205 or even nickel-based alloys.

Stainless steels have relatively high susceptibility to chloride induced SCC, with
susceptibility increasing as the stress, temperature, dissolved oxygen concentration, chloride
concentration, and level of sensitization increase. For this reason, care needs to be taken not
to use chloride containing materials for insulation, and to prevent the use of chloride
containing markers, tapes, etc. on stainless steel materials.

Stainless steels can be attacked by pitting and SCC at dry out zones during dry layup of
systems if the residual water in the system has impurities that become aggressive as their
concentration is increased by the evaporation. Protection against this type of problem can
be provided by lay up procedures including steps to clean up and dry the system under
controlled conditions.

5 Material Properties
5.1 Room Temperature Mechanical Properties
Typical specified room temperature mechanical properties of common grades of stainless steel
alloys are shown in Table 3-2 in Section 1.
5.2 Elevated Temperature Mechanical Properties
Typical or expected mechanical properties for several grades of stainless steels from the
technical literature at temperatures up to 600F (316C) are shown in Table 3-4. Additional data
from the ASME Code are given in Section 7.
Table 3-4
Typical Mechanical Properties of Commercial Stainless Steels at Elevated Temperatures
[8]
Alloy
Type 304

Type 316

Condition
Annealed

Annealed

Temp. F
(C)

Typical Tensile
Strength, ksi (MPa)

Typical Yield
Strength, ksi (MPa)

70 (21)

85 (586)

35 (241)

200 (93)

78 (538)

33 (228)

400 (204)

69 (476)

28 (193)

600 (316)

64 (441)

24 (165)

70 (21)

85 (586)

38.5 (266)

200 (93)

84 (579)

38 (262)

400 (204)

82 (565)

36 (248)

600 (316)

77 (531)

34 (234)

(I) 3-7

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Stainless Steel for Piping, Components, and Pressure Vessels

5.3 Physical Properties


Typical physical properties of some common stainless steel grades are listed in Table 3-5.
Table 3-5
Physical Properties of Stainless Steels [3, 6, 8, 10, 11, 12]
Linear
Linear
Thermal
Modulus Poissons
Relative
Coef. of Th. Coef. of Th.
Cond. at
Ratio at
Specific
Melting
of
Exp.,
Parameter Density
Magnetic
Exp.,
212F
75F
Heat
Range Elasticity
32-212F
32-1000F
Perm.
(100C)
(24C)
x 106
(0-100C)
(0-538C)

Thermal
Cond. at Electrical
932F Resistivity
(500C)

Btu/lb-F
(kJ/kgK)

F-1
(C-1)

F-1
(C-1)

1.008

0.12
(0.50)

9.6
(17.3)

10.2
(18.4)

9.4
(0.0163)

12.4
(0.0214)

70 (28)

0.29

1.008

0.12
(0.50)

9.6
(17.3)

10.2
(18.4)

9.4
(0.016)3

12.4
(0.0214)

70 (28)

28
(0.193)

0.29

1.008

0.12
(0.50)

8.9
(16.0)

9.7
(17.5)

9.4
(0.0163)

12.4
(0.0214)

74 (29)

28
(0.193)

0.29

1.008

0.12
(0.50)

8.9
(16.0)

9.7
(17.5)

9.4
(0.0163)

12.4
(0.0214)

74 (29)

0.28
(7750)

0.12
(0.50)

9.0 (1)
(16.2)

10.0 (1)
(18.0)

9.2
(0.0159)

12.1 (2)
(0.0209)

76.2 (30)

CF3M

0.28
(7750)

0.12
(0.50)

8.9 (1)
(16.0)

9.7 (1)
(17.5)

9.4
(0.0163)

12.3 (2)
(0.0213)

82.0 (32)

CF8

0.28
(7750)

28
(0.193)

1.0-1.3

0.12
(0.50)

9.0 (1)
(16.2)

10.0 (1)
(18.0)

9.2
(0.0159)

12.1 (2)
(0.0209)

76.2 (30)

CF8M

0.28
(7750)

28
(0.193)

1.5-2.5

0.12
(0.50)

8.9 (1)
(16.0)

9.7 (1)
(17.5)

9.4
(0.0163)

12.3 (2)
(0.0213)

82.0 (32)

AL-6XN

0.28
(7750)

27.0
(0.186)

UNS
S32205

0.28
(7750)

9.2 (1)
(16.5)

10.1 (1)
(18.2)

8.4
(0.0146)

Units

lb/cu in. F (C)


(kg cu
m)

psi
(MPa)

Type 304

0.29
(8027)

25502650
(13991454)

28
(0.193)

0.29

Type 304L

0.29
(8027)

25502650
(13991454)

28
(0.193)

Type 316

0.29
(8027)

25002550
(13711399)

Type 316L

0.29
(8027)

25002550
(13711399)

CF3

25252625
(13851440)

29
(0.200)

0.3

(1) Data for 70F to 212F or 1000F (21C to 100C or 538C)


(2) Thermal conductivity at 1000F (538C)

(I) 3-8

Btu-ft/ft2-h- Btu-ft/ft2-h- microhmF


F
cm
(kW/m-K) (kW/m-K) (microhmin.)

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Stainless Steel for Piping, Components, and Pressure Vessels

6 Welding and Heat Treatment


6.1 Welding and Post Weld Heat Treatment
The austenitic stainless steel materials covered in this chapter are readily weldable using
conventional welding processes.
The requirements of NRC Regulatory Guides 1.31 (RG 1.31), Control of Ferrite Content in
Stainless Steel Weld Metal, Revision 3, April 1978, and 1.44, (RG 1.44), Control of the Use
of Sensitized Stainless Steel, May 1973, are generally applicable when making welds in safetyrelated systems. RG 1.31 requires that welds have a minimum level of ferrite in order to decrease
their susceptibility to hot cracking. RG 1.43 places limitations on applications where weld
sensitized material may be used, and includes requirements for material controls and tests
to ensure that unacceptable sensitization is not present.
For welds in parts exposed to BWR reactor coolant, the requirements of NRC Generic Letter
88-01, NRC Position on IGSCC in BWR Austenitic Stainless Steel Piping, January 25, 1988,
are applicable. This generic letter indicates that low carbon weld metal such as 308L, 316L and
309L should be used, and that the minimum level of ferrite should be 7.5%, or the minimum
ferrite number should be 7.5.
6.2 Stress Relief
Stress relief of normal carbon grades of austenitic stainless steels is generally not performed
since it can lead to sensitization of the material. However, low carbon and stabilized grades
generally can be stress relieved without excessive sensitization. Guidance regarding appropriate
stress relief treatments for low carbon and stabilized grades is contained in industry documents
such as the ASM Metals Handbook [13]. Fully effective stress relief requires temperatures well
over 1200F (649C), e.g., up to 1600F (871C), and thus may involve problems such as
distortion.

7 Application Specific Comments


7.1 ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code Applications
Section II of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code (hereafter referred to as the ASME
Code) contains some useful material property data for parts within the jurisdiction of the ASME
Code. The designations used by the ASME for the stainless steel alloys covered in this chapter
are as follows:

(I) 3-9

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Stainless Steel for Piping, Components, and Pressure Vessels
Table 3-6
ASME Code Designation for Stainless Steel Alloys
Type or Grade

UNS. Number

304

S30400

304L

S30403

316

S31600

316L

S31603

347

S34700

CF3, CF3A, CPF3A

J92500

CF8, CF8A, CPF8A

J92600

CF3M, CPF3M

J92800

CF8M, CPF8M

J92900

AL-6XN

N08367

S32205 Duplex SS

S32205

Some of the material property data in the ASME Code are also useful for design and analysis
of non-ASME Code parts and are reproduced below for reference purposes. Note that the
ASME Code is revised frequently and the data shown below are not necessarily those from the
applicable edition of the ASME Code for a given plant. Accordingly, it is suggested that data
taken directly from the ASME Code (and not from this handbook) be used when performing
designs or analyses of ASME Code items.

(I) 3-10

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Stainless Steel for Piping, Components, and Pressure Vessels

Table U, Tensile Strength Values Su, for Ferrous and Nonferrous Materials, contains the
following data for the austenitic stainless steel piping, components, and pressure vessel
materials covered in this chapter.
Parameter

SA/A 182
Forgings, > 5,
S30400
SA/A 182
Forgings, < 5,
S30400
SA/A 182
Forgings, >5,
S30403
SA/A 182
Forgings, <5,
S30403
SA/A 182
Forgings, >5,
S31600
SA/A 182
Forgings, <5,
S31600
SA/A 182
Forgings, >5,
S31603
SA/A 182
Forgings, <5,
S31603
SA/A 182
Forgings, >5,
S34700
SA/A 182
Forgings, <5,
S34700
SA/A 240
Pr. Vessel
Plates, S30400
SA/A 240
Pr. Vessel
Plates, S30403
SA/A 240
Pr. Vessel
Plates, S31600
SA/A 240
Pr. Vessel
Plates, S31603

Min.
Tensile
Strength,
ksi (MPa)
70
(483)

Tensile
Tensile
Tensile
Tensile
Tensile
Tensile
Tensile
Strength
Strength Strength Strength Strength Strength Strength
Value, ksi Value, ksi Value, ksi Value, ksi Value, ksi Value, ksi Value, ksi
(MPa),
(MPa),
(MPa),
(MPa),
(MPa),
(MPa),
(MPa),
-20 to 100F
200F
300F
400F
500F
600F
650F
70.0
66.2
61.5
60.0
59.3
59.3
59.3
(483)
(457)
(424)
(414)
(409)
(409)
(409)

75
(517)

75.0
(517)

71.0
(490)

66.0
(455)

64.4
(444)

63.5
(438)

63.5
(438)

63.5
(438)

65
(448)

65.0
(448)

61.5
(424)

56.5
(390)

54.5
(376)

53.6
(370)

53.0
(366)

52.6
(363)

70
(483)

70.0
(483)

66.2
(457)

60.9
(420)

58.5
(403)

57.8
(399)

57.0
(393)

56.6
(390)

70
(483)

70.0
(483)

70.0
(483)

68.5
(472)

67.0
(462)

67.0
(462)

67.0
(462)

67.0
(462)

75
(517)

75.0
(517)

75.0
(517)

73.4
(507)

71.8
(495)

71.8
(495)

71.8
(495)

71.8
(495)

65
(448)

65.0
(448)

63.0
(434)

59.3
(409)

57.9
(399)

57.2
(394)

57.2
(394)

57.2
(394)

70
(483)

70.0
(483)

67.8
(468)

63.9
(441)

62.4
(430)

61.6
(425)

61.6
(425)

61.6
(425)

70
(483)

70.0
(483)

67.0
(462)

61.5
(424)

57.8
(398)

56.2
(388)

55.4
(382)

55.0
(379)

75
(517)

75.0
(517)

71.8
(495)

66.0
(455)

62.0
(428)

60.3
(416)

59.4
(410)

59.0
(407)

75
(517)

75.0
(517)

71.0
(490)

66.0
(455)

64.4
(444)

63.5
(438)

63.5
(438)

63.5
(438)

70
(483)

70.0
(483)

66.2
(457)

60.9
(420)

58.5
(403)

57.8
(399)

57.0
(393)

56.6
(390)

75
(517)

75.0
(517)

75.0
(517)

73.4
(506)

71.8
(495)

71.8
(495)

71.8
(495)

71.8
(495)

70
(483)

70.0
(483)

67.8
(468)

63.9
(441)

62.4
(430)

61.6
(424)

61.6
(424)

61.6
(424)

(I) 3-11

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Stainless Steel for Piping, Components, and Pressure Vessels

Table U, Tensile Strength Values Su, for Ferrous and Nonferrous Materials (Continued).
Parameter

SA/A 240
Pr. Vessel
Plates,
S34700
SA/A 312
Seamless and
Welded Pipe,
S30400
SA/A 312
Seamless and
Welded Pipe,
S30403
SA/A 312
Seamless and
Welded Pipe,
S31600
SA/A 312
Seamless and
Welded Pipe,
S31603
SA/A 312
Seamless and
Welded Pipe,
S34700
SA/A 351
Castings, Type
CF3
SA/A 351
Castings, Type
CF3A
SA/A 351
Castings, Type
CF8
SA/A 351
Castings, Type
CF8A
SA/A 351
Castings, Type
CF3M
SA/A 351
Castings, Type
CF8M
SA/A 358
Welded Pipe,
S30400, Cl. 1
SA/A 358
Welded Pipe,
S30403, Cl. 1

(I) 3-12

Min.
Tensile
Strength,
ksi (MPa)
75
(517)

Tensile
Tensile
Tensile
Tensile
Tensile
Tensile
Tensile
Strength
Strength Strength Strength Strength Strength Strength
Value, ksi Value, ksi Value, ksi Value, ksi Value, ksi Value, ksi Value, ksi
(MPa),
(MPa),
(MPa),
(MPa),
(MPa),
(MPa),
(MPa),
-20 to 100F
200F
300F
400F
500F
600F
650F
75.0
71.8
66.0
62.0
60.3
59.4
59.0
(517)
(495)
(455)
(428)
(416)
(410)
(407)

75
(517)

75.0
(517)

71.0
(490)

66.0
(455)

64.4
(444)

63.5
(438)

63.5
(438)

63.5
(438)

70
(483)

70.0
(483)

66.2
(457)

60.9
(420)

58.5
(403)

57.8
(399)

57.0
(393)

56.6
(390)

75
(517)

75.0
(517)

75.0
(517)

73.4
(506)

71.8
(495)

71.8
(495)

71.8
(495)

71.8
(495)

70
(483)

70.0
(483)

67.8
(468)

63.9
(441)

62.4
(430)

61.6
(425)

61.6
(425)

61.6
(425)

75
(517)

75.0
(517)

71.8
(495)

66.0
(455)

62.0
(428)

60.3
(416)

59.4
(410)

59.0
(407)

70
(483)

70.0
(483)

66.2
(457)

61.5
(424)

60.0
(414)

59.3
(409)

59.3
(409)

59.3
(409)

77
(531)

77.0
(531)

72.8
(502)

67.8
(468)

66.1
(456)

65.2
(450)

65.2
(450)

65.2
(450)

70
(483)

70.0
(483)

66.2
(457)

61.5
(424)

60.0
(414)

59.3
(409)

59.3
(409)

59.3
(409)

77
(531)

77.0
(531)

72.8
(502)

67.8
(468)

66.1
(456)

65.2
(450)

65.2
(450)

65.2
(450)

70
(483)

70.0
(483)

70.0
(483)

68.5
(472)

67.0
(462)

67.0
(462)

67.0
(462)

67.0
(462)

70
(483)

70.0
(483)

70.0
(483)

68.5
(472)

67.0
(462)

67.0
(462)

67.0
(462)

67.0
(462)

75
(517)

75.0
(517)

71.0
(490)

66.0
(455)

64.4
(444)

63.5
(438)

63.5
(438)

63.5
(438)

70
(483)

70.0
(483)

66.2
(457)

60.9
(420)

58.5
(406)

57.8
(399)

57.0
(393)

56.6
(390)

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Stainless Steel for Piping, Components, and Pressure Vessels

Table U, Tensile Strength Values Su, for Ferrous and Nonferrous Materials (Continued).
Parameter

SA/A 358
Welded Pipe,
S31600, Cl. 1
SA/A 358
Welded Pipe,
S31603, Cl. 1
SA/A 358
Welded Pipe,
S34700, Cl. 1
SA/A 376
Central Station
Pipe, S30400*
SA/A 376
Central Station
Pipe, S31600
SA/A 376
Central Station
Pipe, S34700
SA/A 403
Wrought Pipe
Fittings,
S30400
SA/A 403
Wrought Pipe
Fittings,
S30403
SA/A 403
Wrought Pipe
Fittings,
S31600
SA/A 403
Wrought Pipe
Fittings,
S31603
SA/A 403
Wrought Pipe
Fittings,
S34700
SA/A 451
Cast Pipe,
Type CPF3A
SA/A 451
Cast Pipe,
Type CPF8A
SA/A 451
Cast Pipe,
Type CPF8M

Min.
Tensile
Strength,
ksi (MPa)
75
(517)

Tensile
Tensile
Tensile
Tensile
Tensile
Tensile
Tensile
Strength
Strength Strength Strength Strength Strength Strength
Value, ksi Value, ksi Value, ksi Value, ksi Value, ksi Value, ksi Value, ksi
(MPa),
(MPa),
(MPa),
(MPa),
(MPa),
(MPa),
(MPa),
-20 to 100F
200F
300F
400F
500F
600F
650F
75.0
75.0
73.4
71.8
71.8
71.8
71.8
(517)
(517)
(506)
(495)
(495)
(495)
(495)

70
(483)

70.0
(483)

67.8
(468)

63.9
(441)

62.4
(430)

61.6
(425)

61.6
(425)

61.6
(425)

75
(517)

75.0
(517)

71.8
(495)

66.0
(455)

62.0
(428)

60.3
(416)

59.4
(410)

59.0
(407)

70
(483)

70.0
(483)

66.2
(457)

61.5
(424)

60.0
(414)

59.3
(409)

59.3
(409)

59.3
(409)

75
(517)

75.0
(517)

75.0
(517)

73.4
(506)

71.8
(495)

71.8
(495)

71.8
(495)

71.8
(495)

75
(517)

75.0
(517)

71.8
(495)

66.0
(455)

62.0
(428)

60.3
(416)

59.4
(410)

59.0
(407)

75
(517)

75.0
(517)

71.0
(490)

66.0
(455)

64.4
(444)

63.5
(438)

63.5
(438)

63.5
(438)

70
(483)

70.0
(483)

66.2
(457)

60.9
(420)

58.5
(403)

57.8
(399)

57.0
(393)

56.6
(390)

75
(517)

75.0
(517)

75.0
(517)

73.4
(506)

71.8
(495)

71.8
(495)

71.8
(495)

71.8
(495)

70
(483)

70.0
(483)

67.8
(468)

63.9
(441)

62.4
(430)

61.6
(425)

61.6
(425)

61.6
(425)

75
(517)

75.0
(517)

71.8
(495)

66.0
(455)

62.0
(428)

60.3
(416)

59.4
(410)

59.0
(407)

77
(531)

77.0
(531)

72.8
(502)

67.8
(468)

66.1
(456)

65.2
(450)

65.2
(450)

65.2
(450)

77
(531)

77.0
(531)

72.8
(502)

67.8
(468)

66.1
(456)

65.2
(450)

65.2
(450)

65.2
(450)

70
(483)

70.0
(483)

70.0
(483)

68.5
(472)

67.0
(462)

67.0
(462)

67.0
(462)

67.0
(462)

(I) 3-13

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Stainless Steel for Piping, Components, and Pressure Vessels

Table U, Tensile Strength Values Su, for Ferrous and Nonferrous Materials (Continued).
Tensile
Tensile
Tensile
Tensile
Tensile
Tensile
Tensile
Strength
Strength Strength Strength Strength Strength Strength
Value, ksi Value, ksi Value, ksi Value, ksi Value, ksi Value, ksi Value, ksi
(MPa),
(MPa),
(MPa),
(MPa),
(MPa),
(MPa),
(MPa),
-20 to 100F
200F
300F
400F
500F
600F
650F

Parameter

Min.
Tensile
Strength,
ksi (MPa)

SB/B 462,*
Forgings,
N08367

95
(655)

95.0
(655)

95.0
(655)

89.8
(619)

85.9
(592)

83.3
(574)

81.5
(562)

80.8
(557)

SB/B 675,*
Welded Pipe,
N08367

104
(717)

104.0
(717)

104.0
(717)

98.3
(647)

94.1
(649)

91.2
(629)

89.2
(615)

88.5
(610)

SB/B 690,*
Seamless
Pipe, N08367

104
(717)

104.0
(717)

104.0
(717)

98.3
(647)

94.1
(649)

91.2
(629)

89.2
(615)

88.5
(610)

SB/B 804,*
Welded Pipe,
N08367

95
(655)

95.0
(655)

95.0
(655)

89.8
(619)

85.9
(592)

83.3
(574)

81.5
(562)

80.8
(557)

* Data from the current ASME Code (through the 1999 Addenda).
General Note:
The tabulated values of tensile strength are those which the Committee believes are suitable for use in design calculations
required by Section III. At temperatures above room temperature, the values of tensile strength tend toward an average or
expected value which may be as much as 10% above the tensile strength trend curve adjusted to the minimum specified room
temperature tensile strength. The tensile strength values do not correspond exactly to average as this term is applied to a
homogeneous set of data. Neither the ASME Material Specifications nor the rules of Section III require elevated temperature
testing for tensile strengths of production material for use in Code components. It is not intended that results of such tests, if
performed, be compared with these tabulated tensile strength values for ASME Code acceptance/rejection purposes for
materials. If some elevated temperature test results on production material appear lower than the tabulated values by a large
amount (more than the typical variability of material and suggesting the possibility of some error), further investigation by retest
or other means should be considered.

(I) 3-14

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Stainless Steel for Piping, Components, and Pressure Vessels

Table Y-1, Yield Strength Values Sy, for Ferrous and Nonferrous Materials, contains the
following information for the austenitic stainless steel piping, components, and pressure
vessel materials covered in this chapter.

Parameter

Yield
Max.
Yield
Yield
Yield
Yield
Yield
Yield
Strength
Temp.
Strength Strength Strength Strength Strength Strength
Min.
Max.
Min.
Value,
Value,
Value,
Value,
Yield
Temp. Limit, F
Tensile
Value,
Value,
Value,
ksi
ksi
ksi
ksi
Strength, Strength, Limit, F, (C),
ksi
ksi
ksi
(MPa),
(MPa),
(MPa),
(MPa),
ksi (MPa) ksi (MPa) Sec. III Sec. VIII
(MPa),
(MPa), (MPa),
-20 to
Div 2
200F
650F
300F
400F
500F
600F
100F

SA/A 182
Forgings, S30400

30
(207)

NP

1000
(1832)

30.0
(207)

25.1
(173)

22.5
(155)

20.8
(143)

19.4
(134)

18.3
(126)

18.0
(124)

SA/A 182
Forgings, S30403

25
(172)

NP

1000
(1832)

25.0
(172)

21.4
(118)

19.2
(132)

17.5
(121)

16.4
(113)

15.5
(107)

15.2
(105)

SA/A 182
Forgings, S31600

30
(207)

NP

1000
(1832)

30.0
(207)

25.9
(179)

23.4
(161)

21.4
(148)

20.0
(138)

18.9
(130)

18.5
(128)

SA/A 182
Forgings, S31603

25
(172)

NP

1000
(1832)

25.0
(172)

21.1
(146)

19.0
(131)

17.5
(121)

16.4
(113)

15.6
(108)

15.3
(106)

SA/A 182
Forgings, S34700

30
(207)

NP

1000
(1832)

30.0
(207)

27.6
(190)

25.7
(177)

24.0
(166)

22.5
(155)

21.5
(148)

21.1
(146)

SA/A 240
Pr. Vessel Plates,
S30400

30
(207)

1000

NP

30.0
(207)

25.0
(172)

22.5
(155)

20.7
(143)

19.4
(134)

18.2
(126)

17.9
(123)

SA/A 240
Pr. Vessel Plates,
S30403

25
(172)

NP

1000
(1832)

25.0
(172)

21.4
(118)

19.2
(132)

17.5
(121)

16.4
(113)

15.5
(107)

15.2
(105)

SA/A 240
Pr. Vessel Plates,
S31600

30
(207)

NP

1000
(1832)

30.0
(207)

25.9
(179)

23.4
(161)

21.4
(148)

20.0
(138)

18.9
(130)

18.5
(128)

SA/A 240
Pr. Vessel Plates,
S31603

25
(172)

NP

1000
(1832)

25.0
(172)

21.1
(146)

19.0
(131)

17.5
(121)

16.4
(113)

15.6
(108)

15.3
(106)

SA/A 240
Pr. Vessel Plates,
S34700

30
(207)

NP

1000
(1832)

30.0
(207)

27.6
(190)

25.7
(177)

24.0
(166)

22.5
(155)

21.5
(148)

21.1
(146)

SA/A 312
Seamless and
Welded Pipe,
S30400

30
(207)

1000

NP

30.0
(207)

25.0
(172)

22.5
(155)

20.7
(143)

19.4
(134)

18.2
(126)

17.9
(123)

SA/A 312
Seamless and
Welded Pipe,
S30403

25
(172)

NP

1000
(1832)

25.0
(172)

21.4
(148)

19.2
(132)

17.5
(121)

16.4
(113)

15.5
(107)

15.2
(105)

SA/A 312
Seamless and
Welded Pipe,
S31600

30
(207)

NP

1000
(1832)

30.0
(207)

25.9
(179)

23.4
(161)

21.4
(148)

20.0
(138)

18.9
(130)

18.5
(128)

SA/A 312
Seamless and
Welded Pipe,
S31603

25
(172)

NP

1000
(1832)

25.0
(172)

21.1
(146)

19.0
(131)

17.5
(121)

16.4
(113)

15.6
(108)

15.3
(106)

(I) 3-15

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Stainless Steel for Piping, Components, and Pressure Vessels

Table Y-1, Yield Strength Values Sy, for Ferrous and Nonferrous Materials (Continued)

Parameter

Yield
Yield
Yield
Yield
Yield
Yield
Yield
Max.
Max.
Strength
Min.
Min.
Strength Strength Strength Strength Strength Strength
Temp.
Temp.
Value,
Value,
Value,
Value,
Value,
Limit, F
Yield
Value,
Value,
Tensile
Limit,
ksi
ksi
ksi
ksi
ksi
(C),
ksi
ksi
Strength, Strength,
F, Sec.
(MPa),
(MPa),
(MPa),
(MPa),
(MPa),
Sec. VIII
(MPa),
(MPa),
ksi (MPa) ksi (MPa)
III
-20 to
200F
300F
500F
650F
Div 2
400F
600F
100F

SA/A 312
Seamless and
Welded Pipe,
S34700

30
(207)

NP

1000
(1832)

30.0
(207)

27.6
(190)

25.7
(177)

24.0
(166)

22.5
(155)

21.5
(148)

21.1
(146)

SA/A 351
Castings, Type
CF3

30
(207)

1000

1000
(1832)

30.0
(207)

25.0
(172)

22.5
(155)

20.7
(143)

19.4
(134)

18.2
(126)

17.9
(123)

SA/A 351
Castings, Type
CF3A

35
(241)

700

NP

35.0
(241)

29.1
(201)

26.3
(181)

24.2
(167)

22.8
(157)

21.4
(148)

21.0
(145)

SA/A 351
Castings, Type
CF8

30
(207)

1000

1000
(1832)

30.0
(207)

25.0
(172)

22.5
(155)

20.7
(143)

19.4
(134)

18.2
(126)

17.9
(123)

SA/A 351
Castings, Type
CF8A

35
(241)

700

NP

35.0
(241)

29.1
(201)

26.3
(181)

24.2
(1667)

22.8
(157)

21.4
(148)

21.0
(145)

SA/A 351
Castings, Type
CF3M

30
(207)

1000

NP

30.0
(207)

25.8
(178)

23.3
(161)

21.4
(148)

19.9
(137)

18.8
(130)

18.5
(128)

SA/A 351
Castings, Type
CF8M

30
(207)

1000

1000
(1832)

30.0
(207)

25.8
(178)

23.3
(161)

21.4
(148)

19.9
(137)

18.8
(130)

18.5
(128)

SA/A 358
Welded Pipe,
S30400, Cl. 1

30
(207)

1000

NP

30.0
(207)

25.0
(172)

22.5
(155)

20.7
(143)

19.4
(134)

18.2
(126)

17.9
(123)

SA/A 358
Welded Pipe,
S30403, Cl. 1

25
(172)

1000

NP

25.0
(172)

21.3
(147)

19.1
(132)

17.5
(121)

16.3
(112)

15.5
(107)

15.2
(105)

SA/A 358
Welded Pipe,
S31600, Cl. 1

30
(207)

1000

NP

30.0
(207)

25.8
(178)

23.3
(161)

21.4
(148)

19.9
(137)

18.8
(130)

18.5
(128)

SA/A 358
Welded Pipe,
S31603, Cl. 1

70

25
(172)

1000

NP

25.0
(172)

21.1
(146)

18.9
(130)

17.2
(119)

14.9
(103)

15.0
(103)

14.6
(101)

SA/A 358
Welded Pipe,
S34700, Cl. 1

30
(207)

1000

NP

30.0
(207)

27.5
(190)

25.6
(177)

23.9
(165)

22.5
(155)

21.4
(148)

21.0
(145)

SA/A 376
Seamless Pipe,
S30400

30
(207)

1000

NP

30.0
(207)

25.0
(172)

22.5
(155)

20.7
(143)

19.4
(134)

18.2
(126)

17.9
(123)

SA/A 376
Seamless Pipe,
S31600

30
(207)

NP

1000
(1832)

30.0
(207)

25.9
(179)

23.4
(161)

21.4
(148)

20.0
(138)

18.9
(130)

18.5
(128)

(I) 3-16

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Stainless Steel for Piping, Components, and Pressure Vessels

Table Y-1, Yield Strength Values Sy, for Ferrous and Nonferrous Materials (Continued)

Parameter

Min.
Min.
Yield
Tensile
Strength, Strength,
ksi (MPa) ksi (MPa)

Max.
Temp.
Limit,
F,
Sec. III

Yield
Yield
Yield
Yield
Yield
Yield
Yield
Max.
Strength
Strength Strength Strength Strength Strength Strength
Temp.
Value,
Value,
Value,
Value,
Value,
Limit, F
Value,
Value,
ksi
ksi
ksi
ksi
ksi
(C),
ksi
ksi
(MPa),
(MPa),
(MPa),
(MPa),
(MPa),
Sec. VIII
(MPa),
(MPa),
-20 to
200F
300F
500F
650F
Div 2
400F
600F
100F

SA/A 376
Seamless Pipe,
S34700

30
(207)

NP

1000
(1832)

30.0
(207)

27.6
(190)

25.7
(177)

24.0
(166)

22.5
(155)

21.5
(148)

21.1
(146)

SA/A 403
Wrought Pipe
Fittings, S30400

30
(207)

1000

NP

30.0
(207)

25.0
(172)

22.5
(155)

20.7
(143)

19.4
(134)

18.2
(126)

17.9
(123)

SA/A 403
Wrought Pipe
Fittings, S30403

25
(172)

1000

NP

25.0
(172)

21.3
(147)

19.1
(131)

17.5
(121)

16.3
(112)

15.5
(107)

15.2
(105)

SA/A 403
Wrought Pipe
Fittings, S31600

30
(207)

1000

NP

30.0
(207)

25.8
(178)

23.3
(161)

21.4
(148)

19.9
(137)

18.8
(130)

18.5
(128)

SA/A 403
Wrought Pipe
Fittings, S31603

25
(172)

1000

NP

25.0
(172)

21.1
(146)

18.9
(130)

17.2
(119)

15.9
(110)

15.0
(103)

14.6
(101)

SA/A 403
Wrought Pipe
Fittings, S34700

30
(207)

1000

NP

30.0
(207)

27.5
(190)

25.6
(177)

23.9
(165)

22.5
(155)

21.4
(148)

21.0
(145)

SA/A 451
Cast Pipe, Type
CPF3A

77
(531)

35
(241)

700

NP

35.0
(241)

29.1
(201)

26.3
(181)

24.2
(167)

22.8
(157)

21.4
(148)

21.0
(145)

SA/A 451
Cast Pipe, Type
CPF8A

77
(531)

35
(241)

700

NP

35.0
(241)

29.1
(201)

26.3
(181)

24.2
(167)

22.8
(157)

21.4
(148)

21.0
(145)

SA/A 451
Cast Pipe, Type
CPF3M

30
(207)

1000

NP

30.0
(207)

25.8
(178)

23.3
(161)

21.4
(148)

19.9
(137)

18.8
(130)

18.5
(128)

SA/A 451
Cast Pipe, Type
CPF8M

30
(207)

1000

NP

30.0
(207)

25.8
(178)

23.3
(161)

21.4
(148)

19.9
(137)

18.8
(130)

18.5
(128)

SB/B 462,*
Forgings, N08367

95
(655)

45
(310)

45.0
(310)

39.3
(271)

35.7
(246)

32.9
(227)

30.8
(212)

29.1
(201)

28.5
(197)

SB/B 675,*
Welded Pipe,
N08367

104
(717)

46
(317)

46.0
(317)

40.1
(277)

36.5
(251)

33.7
(232)

31.5
(217)

29.8
(206)

29.1
(201)

SB/B 690,*
Seamless Pipe,
N08367

104
(717)

46
(317)

46.0
(317)

40.1
(277)

36.5
(251)

33.7
(232)

31.5
(217)

29.8
(206)

29.1
(201)

SB/B 804,* Welded


Pipe, N08367

95
(655)

45
(310)

45.0
(310)

39.3
(271)

35.7
(246)

32.9
(227)

30.8
(212)

29.1
(201)

28.5
(197)

*Data listed from the current ASME Code (current through the 1999 Addenda).

(I) 3-17

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Stainless Steel for Piping, Components, and Pressure Vessels

Table TCD, Nominal Coefficients of Thermal Conductivity (TC) and Thermal Diffusivity
(TD), provides the following data for austenitic stainless steel piping, components, and
pressure vessel materials covered in this chapter.
18Cr-8Ni Stainless
Steels (1)

18Cr-10Ni-Cb
Stainless Steels (2)

16Cr-12Ni-2Mo
Stainless Steels (3)

Temp., F

TC (4)

TD (5)

TC (4)

TD (5)

TC (4)

TD (5)

70

8.6

0.151

8.1

0.143

7.7

0.134

100

8.7

0.152

8.4

0.145

7.9

0.136

150

9.0

0.154

8.6

0.147

8.2

0.138

200

9.3

0.156

8.8

0.149

8.4

0.141

250

9.6

0.158

9.1

0.151

8.7

0.143

300

9.8

0.160

9.4

0.153

9.0

0.145

350

10.1

0.162

9.6

0.156

9.2

0.148

400

10.4

0.165

9.9

0.158

9.5

0.151

450

10.6

0.167

10.1

0.160

9.8

0.153

500

10.9

0.170

10.4

0.163

10.0

0.156

550

11.1

0.172

10.6

0.166

10.3

0.159

600

11.3

0.174

10.9

0.168

10.5

0.162

650

11.6

0.177

11.1

0.170

10.7

0.164

(1) (e.g., Types 304, 304L, CF3, CF8, CF3A, CF8A, CPF3A, and CPF8A)
(2) (e.g., Type 347) Note also that Cb (Columbium) is also known as Nb (Niobium)
(3) (e.g., Types 316, 316L, CF3M, CF8M, CPF3M, and CPF8M)
(4) Thermal Conductivity, Btu/hr-ft-F
(5) Thermal Diffusivity, ft2/hr

Table TE-1, Thermal Expansion for Ferrous Materials, provides the following for austenitic
stainless steel piping, components, and pressure vessel materials covered in this chapter:
18Cr-8Ni Stainless Steels
(e.g., Types 304, 304L, CF3, CF8, CF3A, CF8A, CPF3A, and CPF8A)
Coef.

70F

100F

150F

200F

250F

300F

350F

400F

8.46

8.63

8.87

9.08

9.27

9.46

9.64

9.80

8.55

8.67

8.79

8.90

9.00

9.10

9.19

0.0031

0.0083

0.0137

0.0192

0.0248

0.0306

0.0364

Coef.

450F

500F

550F

600F

650F

9.95

10.10

10.25

10.38

10.50

9.28

9.37

9.45

9.53

9.61

0.0423

0.0483

0.0544

0.0606

0.0669

(I) 3-18

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Stainless Steel for Piping, Components, and Pressure Vessels

Table TE-1, Thermal Expansion for Ferrous Materials (Continued).


18Cr-10Ni-Cb Stainless Steels
(e.g., Type 347)
Coef.

70F

100F

150F

200F

250F

300F

350F

400F

8.53

8.70

9.00

9.29

9.55

9.78

9.98

10.16

8.62

8.75

8.92

9.07

9.22

9.32

9.45

0.0031

0.0084

0.0139

0.0196

0.0254

0.0313

0.0374

Coef.

450F

500F

550F

600F

650F

10.30

10.44

10.55

10.66

10.76

9.55

9.65

9.75

9.83

9.90

0.0435

0.0498

0.0562

0.0625

0.0689

16Cr-12Ni-2Mo Stainless Steels


(e.g., Types 316, 316L, CF3M, CF8M, CPF3M, and CPF8M)
Coef.

70F

100F

150F

200F

250F

300F

350F

400F

8.42

8.59

8.84

9.09

9.33

9.56

9.76

9.95

8.54

8.64

8.76

8.88

8.97

9.11

9.21

0.0031

0.0083

0.0137

0.0192

0.0248

0.0306

0.0365

Coef.

450F

500F

550F

600F

650F

10.10

10.25

10.38

10.51

10.64

9.32

9.42

9.50

9.60

9.69/

0.0425

0.0486

0.0547

0.0611

0.0674

Notes to Table TE-1: Coefficient A is the instantaneous coefficient of thermal expansion x 10-6 (in./in./F). Coefficient B is the
mean coefficient of thermal expansion x 10-6 (in./in./F) in going from 70F to the indicated temperature. Coefficient C is the
linear thermal expansion (in./ft) in going from 70F to the indicated temperature.

Table TM-1, Moduli of Elasticity E of Ferrous Materials for Given Temperature, provides
the following data for austenitic stainless steel piping, components, and pressure vessel
materials covered in this chapter:
Temp.

70F

200F

300F

400F

500F

600F

700F

psi, x 10-6

28.3

27.6

27.0

26.5

25.8

25.3

24.8

7.2 Parts Immersed in Reactor Coolant


The stainless steels covered in this chapter are often used in reactor coolant service and in
connected auxiliary systems. The limitations covered in Section 4 apply to such applications.

(I) 3-19

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Stainless Steel for Piping, Components, and Pressure Vessels

8 Ordering Information and Practices


For BWR reactor coolant applications, the BWROG/EPRI guidelines for procurement,
manufacture and fabrication of replacement piping are applicable [7]. The intent of these
guidelines is to ensure that the piping has high resistance to sensitization at weld joints and to
IGSCC. The guidance of BWRVIP-84, while nominally applicable only to repairs of reactor
internals, has useful information and can also be consulted for pressure boundary components
[9].
It is suggested that specifications prohibit significant levels of cold work of stainless steels for
service in environments wetted by BWR reactor coolant service. In this regard, cold work of
20% has been shown to lead to IGSCC, and the threshold for IGSCC seems to be about 10%, as
discussed in Chapter II.5, High Strength Wrought Austenitic Stainless Steels, in this Materials
Handbook. Thus, limiting intentional cold work to low levels (e.g., to 2.5% maximum as
suggested in Section A.9.3.4 of the BWRVIP-84 guidelines [9, 93]) appears to be prudent.
For safety related applications, depending on plant specific licensing commitments,
specifications for materials and repair work may need to require compliance with NRC
Regulatory Guide 1.31, Control of Ferrite Content in Stainless Steel Weld Metal, Revision 3,
April 1978, and Regulatory Guide 1.44, Control of the Use of Sensitized Stainless Steel,
May 1973.
Because stainless steels are susceptible to chloride induced SCC, specifications for materials and
repair work normally specify that high levels of cleanliness be met and that water that contacts
stainless steel surfaces be of suitable cleanliness, e.g., meet the water quality requirements of the
BWROG/EPRI guidelines for procurement, manufacture and fabrication of replacement piping
[7]. For convenience, these water quality requirements are summarized below:

Water coming in contact with stainless steel surfaces at temperatures in excess of 200F
(93C) shall meet one of the following requirements:

A. Demineralized water with pH 5.5 8, chloride, fluoride and sulfide all < 1 ppm,
conductivity < 3 S/cm, silica < 0.05 ppm, and turbidity < 1 Jackson Unit

B. Filtered water with chloride < 100 ppm, fluoride < 50 ppm, and a minimum of 500
ppm technical grade trisodium phosphate

Water used for cleaning or testing stainless steel parts at a temperature below 200F (93C)
shall meet the requirements of either A or B above.

9 Service Experience
This section contains a brief review of service problems with stainless steels used for piping,
components and pressure vessels. The review is not meant to cover all reported failures, but
rather to concentrate on those that are most important from a lessons learned standpoint.

(I) 3-20

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Stainless Steel for Piping, Components, and Pressure Vessels

9.1 Summary
Experience with stainless steels in BWR and PWR reactor coolant service can be summarized as
follows.

In normal BWR reactor coolant, service experience has shown that normal carbon grade
(> 0.03 wt.%) wrought austenitic stainless steel (Types 304 and 316) is susceptible to IGSCC
in locations where it has been sensitized or cold worked. The time required for IGSCC to
develop to detectable levels is a function of the degree of sensitization, the level of stress,
the amount of cold work, and the specific environment. Over the years, essentially all normal
carbon grade wrought stainless steel piping used in high temperature applications has had to
be remediated to address this susceptibility. At the present time, for plants in the U.S., this
program of remediation has resulted in very infrequent new cases of IGSCC being detected
in stainless steel piping that is exposed to BWR reactor coolant. However, recent experience
in Japan is that low carbon grades of stainless steel (Type 316L) that are not sensitized
have experienced SCC at welds in both piping and internals service. This SCC seems to be
associated with local cold work and plastic strains rather than sensitization. The reasons have
not been firmly identified why BWRs in the U.S. are largely unaffected by SCC of nonsensitized material while Japanese plants are significantly affected, but may be related to
differences in fabrication practices that affect local cold work and residual stresses and to
differences in application of water chemistry remedies.

Sensitized and non-sensitized stainless steels have performed well in PWR reactor coolant
service, with only limited cases of environmentally assisted cracking (EAC). This EAC has
generally been associated with SCC initiated at local areas with high cold work, or with
corrosion fatigue at areas exposed to cyclic thermal or mechanical stresses.

While stainless steel piping in PWR reactor coolant service has performed with very few
corrosion induced problems, it has exhibited more frequent ID corrosion problems in other
PWR applications, including IGSCC at weld joints in stagnant borated water systems, TGSCC
in control rod drive mechanism and control element drive mechanism applications where high
levels of oxygen are trapped during filling of the RCS, and IGSCC and fatigue cracking in dead
legs off of the RCS. These problems have required remedial actions to prevent recurrence,
such as tighter water chemistry control for stagnant systems, use of vacuum filling to minimize
oxygen in CRDM and CEDM high points, and avoidance of two phase conditions in dead legs.
There have been many fatigue failures of small diameter ( 2 inch nominal pipe size) stainless
steel piping in both BWRs and PWRs. These failures are not considered to be caused by the
material, but rather to be due to mechanical factors such as high imposed vibratory stresses.
Remedial actions have included provision of improved supports, and elimination of sources
of vibration. Remediation seems to have been largely successful, based on a current (2009)
low rate of reporting of such problems.
Thermal fatigue cracking has been a problem in both BWRs and PWRs at locations where colder
water is introduced into locations with hotter water. In BWRs, the problem has mainly affected
low alloy steel vessels, e.g., at feedwater nozzles and control rod drive return nozzles. At PWRs,
it has affected stainless steel nozzles at locations where auxiliary systems connect to the RCS.
These problems are considered to be thermo-hydraulic in origin, and not to be indicative of
problems with the materials used.
(I) 3-21

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Stainless Steel for Piping, Components, and Pressure Vessels

In both BWRs and PWRs, stainless steel piping has occasionally experienced ODSCC,
generally at locations where the piping has been contaminated by chlorides. This problem has
been addressed by preventing contaminants and leaks from contacting stainless steel piping.
Normal grades of stainless steel (Types 304 and 316) in service water applications have been
subject to MIC at welds. This has resulted in some utilities stopping their planned conversions
of small bore service water piping from carbon steel to normal grade austenitic stainless steel.
Higher molybdenum grades, such as AL-6XN, and duplex grades (S32205) appear to have
provided satisfactory service in such service water applications.
9.2 BWR Piping ID Initiated IGSCC of Sensitized Standard Austenitic Stainless
Steels
Summary. This section deals primarily with the IGSCC of standard grades (> 0.03wt% C) of
austenitic stainless steels, i.e., Types 304 and 316, that has occurred in BWR environments and
that has been mainly associated with sensitization. Sections 9.8 and 9.9 deal with the closely
related problems of IGSCC of stabilized and non-sensitized austenitic stainless steels
respectively; these two problems have mainly affected non-domestic plants.
IGSCC of standard austenitic non-stabilized stainless steel piping (i.e., normal grades of Types
304 and 316) in applications involving exposure to BWR reactor coolant was first detected in
1965 and became a large scale problem in the mid 1970s. At first, only smaller diameter pipes
appeared to be affected. However, in the late 1970s and early 1980s cracks in larger diameter
lines were detected and showed that pipes of all diameters were susceptible. Large scale research
and development efforts were performed during the 1970s and 1980s to identify the causes of
the IGSCC and to develop remedies. This work identified sensitization at welds and due to heat
treatments as being a major factor. Based on this research, remedial measures were developed
and applied at all operating domestic BWRs during the 1980s. By the mid 1980s, application of
these remedial measures had reduced the impact of IGSCC in BWR piping to low levels, where
it remains today for domestic BWRs.
Discussion. Several detailed reviews have been published describing the IGSCC experienced
by BWR piping in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s, the research and development carried out to
investigate the problem and to develop remedies, and the resulting application of remedies and
their effects [14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20]. Since these reviews are available to readers desiring detailed
information, the discussion below is limited to a relatively cursory survey. Some of the main
highlights of BWR piping IGSCC experience are described below; review of the research into
causes and remedial measures is covered in Section 10.2.

A review by Bush and Dillon in 1973 noted that IGSCC had occurred at the heat affected
zone (HAZ) of a six inch (15.2 cm) pipe at Dresden 1 in 1965, and that several additional
cases had subsequently occurred [21]. It was noted that the cracking was all in the HAZ, that
grinding and sensitization were involved, and that stagnant BWR water with a finite level
of oxygen was found to be sufficient to induce IGSCC.

(I) 3-22

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Stainless Steel for Piping, Components, and Pressure Vessels

In 1974 and 1975, several BWRs reported the occurrence of IGSCC in the bypass pipes
around the main recirculation pump discharge valves, and then in core spray piping [14].
In response to these occurrences, the NRC required operating BWRs to first examine their
bypass lines, and then their core spray lines (NRC Bulletins 74-10, 74-10A, 75-01, 75-01A).
Several plants detected cracks in the bypass lines and one detected cracks in the core spray
line. All of this piping was Type 304 stainless steel, with diameters of 8 inches (20.3 cm) or
less. Several foreign plants detected similar cracks.

In 1979, the NRC reported that IGSCC at weld sensitized regions had been detected in
recirculation bypass, core spray lines, reactor water cleanup lines, control rod drive return
lines, and 12 in. (30.5 cm) diameter reactor coolant recirculation lines [22]. Table 2.1 of
the referenced NRC report indicates that up to July 1975 there had been 64 reported cases
of IGSCC in the USA, and that between that time and January 1979 there were 69 additional
cases. The NRC report also indicates that experience in foreign BWRs was similar, except
that cracking in a large diameter pipe had been detected in a German plant.

In 1981, the NRC issued Generic Letter 81-03 invoking NUREG-0313, Rev. 1, and thereby
required BWRs to implement remedial measures to reduce the risk of IGSCC or to perform
augmented inservice inspections [23].

In 1982, as the result of leaks noted during a hydrostatic test, cracking was discovered in
28 inch (71.1 cm) diameter piping at Nine Mile Point 2 [24]. This alerted the domestic
industry to the fact that large diameter piping was not immune to IGSCC and to the fact
that inspection methods for such piping were not adequate. The NRC required extensive
inspections to be performed (IE Bulletin 82-03, Rev. 1, IE Bulletin 83-02, NRC Orders
issued to individual plants dated August 26, 1983, and Generic Letter dated April 19, 1984),
including augmented inspections on a frequent continuing basis for IGSCC sensitive welds.
Results of inspections varied widely, with some plants reporting little to no detected cracking
and others reporting significant cracking in recirculation, residual heat removal and reactor
water cleanup lines.

During the mid 1980s, IGSCC was detected at large numbers of welds at many BWRs, and
many remedial actions were taken. In addition to large scale inspections, the main remedies
used included:

Material remedies, especially replacement of affected piping using IGSCC resistant


nuclear grades of stainless steel or solution annealed piping with corrosion resistant
ID surface cladding at field welds.

Stress remedies, such as Induction Heating Stress Improvement (IHSI), to reduce the
stresses causing the IGSCC.

An ECP remedy, involving use of hydrogen water chemistry (HWC), to reduce the
electrochemical driving force for the IGSCC.

The status of remedial actions as of March 1988 is shown in Table 3-7 from a review by Danko
published in 1991 [25]. The extensive inspections and remedial work led to high losses of
capacity in the mid 1980s but, as shown in Figure 3-1 from a 1996 review by Jones, capacity
losses were much lower by the later 1980s [26].

(I) 3-23

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Stainless Steel for Piping, Components, and Pressure Vessels

Table 3-7
Mitigation Status Summary [25]
Fleet Large Dia. Resd Heat Core Spray Rx Wtr Cntr Rod Recirc by
Recirc
Pass
Rmvl
(LP&HP)
Cln Up Drv Rtrn
Totals

Category

Head
Spry

Isolation
Condenser

LPCI

Total Original Welds

10056

4222

1189

1248

1019

353

671

776

408

170

Originally IGSCC Susceptible

7053

3613

661

715

717

307

448

188

313

91

1. Replaced with Resistant


Matl

2057

1010

130

352

325

52

37

150

2. Stress Improvement

2155

1762

265

45

76

3. Solution Heat Treated

518

491

12

4. Corrosion Resistant Clad

227

214

6. Line Removed or Rerouted

695

16

237

292

134

14

7. HWC Protected

962

441

38

183

81

19

40

87

31

42

Remaining Susceptible Welds

1645

431

249

294

265

64

80

87

120

55

Non-Susceptible Welds

8411

3791

940

954

754

289

591

689

288

115

84

90

79

76

74

82

88

89

71

68

8. Weld Overlay Repair

279

197

30

10

24

Susceptible Welds, Excluding


Weld Overlay Repairs

1366

234

219

285

256

64

70

87

96

55

Non-Susceptible Welds,
Including Weld Overlay
Repairs

8690

3988

970

963

763

289

601

689

312

115

86

94

82

77

75

82

90

89

76

68

Remedies:

5. Heat Sink Welded

%
1

All U.S. operating BWRs results from 37 plants.

Welds > 4.0 diameter and >200F during power operation.

Preliminary results 3/8/88.

(I) 3-24

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Stainless Steel for Piping, Components, and Pressure Vessels

Figure 3-1
Capacity Factor Losses in U.S. BWRs Due to Corrosion [26]

Experience in the 1970s and early 1980s was that detectable cracking occurred more frequently
in smaller diameter lines than in larger diameter lines. This is illustrated in Figure 3-2 taken from
a 1991 review by Danko. However, a 1986 analysis by Eason and Shusto of plant data indicate
that larger lines, on a fraction of total welds affected basis, experience failure more frequently
than smaller diameter lines, as indicated in Figure 3-3 [27].

Figure 3-2
Worldwide IGSCC Cracking Incidents vs. Pipe Diameter as of July 1979 [25]

(I) 3-25

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Stainless Steel for Piping, Components, and Pressure Vessels

Figure 3-3
Comparison of Repair Rates in Small and Large Pipe with All Systems Lumped. Large Pipe
Failure Mode is IGSCC, Small Pipe Includes All Failure Modes. Failure = Repair. [27]

Most of the IGSCC in BWR piping has been reported for systems that operate at high
temperature. However, at least one case of relatively low temperature cracking has been
reported, in the condensate piping of the Oyster Creek isolation condenser [28]. The piping
is Type 316 stainless steel and experienced significant amounts of IGSCC at welds. The
system normally is at 200F (93C) or lower temperatures, but may have had some higher
temperature operation early in life. The system is normally stagnant, and had operated about
33 to 36 times during the 1969 1979 time period. The areas with IGSCC were found to be
heavily sensitized. Because of the stagnant conditions, oxygen levels and impurity levels may
have been higher than those for normal reactor coolant.

Starting in about 1992, a number of cases of IGSCC were detected in auxiliary piping
handling reactor coolant at 288C (550F) in German BWRs (German BWRs do not have
external recirculation loops [29, 30]. The piping involved was a titanium stabilized stainless
steel similar to Type 321, and thus is not discussed in detail in this section that is limited to
IGSCC of non-stabilized stainless steels (see Section 9.8 for discussion of IGSCC of
stabilized stainless steels in BWR environments).

(I) 3-26

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Stainless Steel for Piping, Components, and Pressure Vessels

Subsequent to about 2000, numerous cases of SCC at pipe welds in 316L recirculation loop
piping (RLP) have been reported as having been detected in Japan. Investigations into the
causes of the cracking indicate that the cracking is not related to sensitization. Accordingly,
it is not discussed here but rather is covered in Section 9.9.

9.3 SCC of PWR Stainless Steel at Surfaces Wetted by Reactor Coolant


Summary. The general performance of stainless steel parts exposed to PWR reactor coolant
has been excellent. However, a number of cases of SCC have occurred in stainless steel parts
exposed to PWR reactor coolant that indicate that under some conditions SCC can initiate in
this material-environment combination. In this regard, a 2007 EPRI report described the results
of a study of the occurrence of SCC of stainless steel in high temperature PWR reactor coolant
environments [31]. The main points made in that report are summarized below:

At the time the report was written, there had been a total of 144 events of SCC having
occurred of stainless steel exposed to high temperature PWR reactor coolant. 86% of these
events had occurred in occluded regions where off normal water chemistry conditions could
develop, and 14% had occurred in regions exposed to freely flowing reactor coolant. This
indicates that conditions in occluded areas can be more aggressive than those in the freely
flowing coolant, e.g., as the result of the presence of oxygen and/or contaminants such as
chlorides and sulfur species. In this regard, the presence of aggressive species had been
identified in many of the cases of SCC in occluded areas.

Cold work was the most significant contributor to initiation of SCC, and was involved in
over 50% of the reported cases. It was important to initiation of SCC in areas exposed to
flowing reactor coolant and also to initiation in occluded areas.

Sensitization was an important factor in the initiation of SCC in many cases where the SCC
occurred in occluded areas; this is attributed to the development of oxidizing conditions in
such areas. However, sensitization was not involved in initiation of SCC in areas exposed to
normal high temperature deaerated flowing reactor coolant.

A few cases of SCC have occurred of cold worked stainless steel exposed to flowing high
temperature PWR reactor coolant. Failure analysis of these cases did not identify the
presence of aggressive species, i.e., the cracking appears to have occurred in a normal high
temperature flowing PWR primary coolant environment. In all of these cases, the hardness
was quite high, HV 300 or more (HV 300 corresponds to a tensile strength of about 140 ksi
(965 MPa) and yield strength of about 130 ksi (896 MPa) indicative of extreme cold work).

The conditions necessary for the continued propagation of SCC in flowing high temperature
PWR reactor coolant environments are not well known and will be the subject of further
research.

Subsequent to the report described above, a first case of SCC being detected in a thick wall
stainless steel reactor coolant pipe has been reported [32]. This SCC was reported in 2008 as
having occurred in Mihama 2 in a 316L stainless steel safe end at a steam generator inlet nozzle.
The SCC involved a circumferentially oriented network of shallow ID cracks in the HAZ of the
316 safe end with a total length of about 7 mm (0.3 in.) and a maximum depth of about 0.9 mm
(0.035 in.). The SCC was correlated with the presence of a cold worked surface layer. Based on
its shallow depth, it is not clear whether the crack was still propagating.
(I) 3-27

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Stainless Steel for Piping, Components, and Pressure Vessels

The situations where SCC in PWR reactor coolant environments has occurred can be roughly
categorized as described below. Note that the following list includes low temperature cases of
SCC in addition to the high temperature cases described in [31].
1. Low Temperature Stagnant Borated Systems. Several cases of IGSCC of low temperature
stagnant borated water systems have occurred. The material involved was Type 304 stainless
steel that was sensitized by welding or by post weld heat treatment. Failure analysis of failed
parts did not identify specific impurities as being involved. However, related research
showed that thiosulfate, chlorides or fluorides could cause such IGSCC. Remedial actions
included replacement or repair of affected piping and imposition of tighter water chemistry
controls. The lack of recently reported incidents implies that this problem is under control,
probably as the result of tighter water chemistry controls at plants.
2. Cracking in Dead Legs. EDF has reported that TGSCC has occurred several times in
French plants in dead legs of attached systems where they connect to the RCS. One case
of similar cracking has been reported in the USA, although in this case it was IGSCC in
a weld sensitized area. The dead legs occur in the space between the two isolation valves
used to separate systems such as safety injection and residual heat removal from the RCS.
The cracking in France often occurred along a vapor to liquid interface that developed in
the dead leg. The cracking in France was generally TGSCC and was attributed to SCC of
Type 304 or 316 stainless steel in moderate temperature oxygenated boric acid containing
water. The remedies being pursued in France were to ensure complete deaeration of the
coolant in the dead legs and to avoid development of two phase conditions.
3. Cracking in Valve Leak Off Lines. EDF has reported that they have experienced several
instances of SCC in valve packing leak off lines. The cracking is attributed to the
concentration of impurities picked up from the packing as the leaking water evaporates,
the presence of oxygen in the lines, and high stresses from welding and pipe clamping.
4. SCC of CRDM-CEDM Parts. Stainless steel parts in CRDMs and CEDMs, specifically
CEDM housings and CRDM canopy seal welds, have experienced TGSCC in a number
of plants. The TGSCC is attributed mainly to the presence of high levels of oxygen that
can develop in the housings when the RCS is filled and the remaining air is compressed.
The presence of contaminants such as chlorides or sulfates has been suspected as being
involved in the SCC, but has not been conclusively identified. The main preventive remedies
that have been pursued for canopy seal welds are to minimize oxygen entrapment in the
housings by venting during filling and by use of vacuum filling of the RCS. For CEDM
housings, remedies include ensuring that residual stresses are minimized.
5. SCC of Pressurizer Parts. Pressurizers have the highest temperature in the reactor
coolant system (typically 650F (343C)), which increases the risk of SCC of pressurizer
components. There have been several failures of pressurizer heaters and similar parts. Some
of these have occurred at occluded areas, i.e., in support crevices, but others have occurred in
free span areas. A possible factor in these failures is the development of aggressively alkaline
conditions during end of cycle periods with very low boron, when boiling on heated surfaces
could concentrate lithium to high levels. A detailed evaluation by EDF indicated that
development of alkaline conditions coupled with high hardness and strain localization
at metal folds were involved in some failures of pressurizer heaters [33].

(I) 3-28

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Stainless Steel for Piping, Components, and Pressure Vessels

6. SCC of Accumulator Nozzles. At least three cases have occurred of IGSCC of furnace
sensitized material in nozzles in safety injection system accumulators. In one case, high
stresses were present due to poor fit up of a socket weld. In a second case, the stresses
involved appeared to be associated with a full penetration double V groove butt weld.
The environment involved is reactor coolant pressurized with nitrogen, and thus is
expected to be not oxygenated.
7. SCC of Main reactor coolant piping. As of mid 2009, there is one known case of SCC
affecting main reactor coolant loop stainless steel piping. This case was reported in 2008
as having occurred at Mihama 2 in a 316 stainless steel safe end at a steam generator inlet
nozzle. The SCC involved a short length of circumferentially oriented network of shallow ID
cracks in the HAZ of the 316 safe end. The SCC was associated with the presence of a cold
worked surface layer and with weld residual stresses.
Discussion. Cracking in Low Temperature Stagnant Borated Water Systems. During the
late 1970s and early 1980s, several plants experienced through wall cracks and leaks in low
temperature oxygenated borated water systems that were often stagnant [34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39,
40, 41]. The systems involved included:

Borated water storage tank to residual heat removal suction

Boric acid pump suction

Boron injection

Containment/reactor building spray

Decay heat removal

Makeup and purification

Reactor building spray

Refueling water pump suction

Safety injection

Spent fuel cooling

Cracks were found in piping with sizes ranging up to 10 inches (25.4 cm) in diameter with
Schedule 10 or 40 wall thicknesses. The cracking was only reported for normal carbon grade
(> 0.03wt.% C)Type 304 stainless steel. Failure analyses indicated that the cracks were due to
IGSCC and occurred in weld sensitized regions. Based on the research work described in Section
10, it was concluded that the cracking did not occur in pure boric acid solutions, but rather was
associated with the presence of impurities such as thiosulfate, chloride, and fluoride. The
remedial approaches suggested at the time of the cracking (late 1970s and early 1980s) were to
use low carbon (< 0.03wt.% C) grade stainless steel for replacements, to tighten water chemistry
limits on sulfate, chloride and fluoride, and to periodically circulate the systems. At one plant,
it was found that all through-wall cracks occurred in heats of material with 0.07% or higher
carbon, and only in stagnant systems; systems that were recirculated once per month or more
often were not attacked [42]. Repairs at this plant involved use of low carbon grade stainless
steel, with internal weld cladding applied to the existing piping where new spools were attached.
It was noted that the lower allowable stresses for the low carbon grades had to be taken into
account in the revised design (this could be avoided by use of nuclear grade material).
(I) 3-29

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Stainless Steel for Piping, Components, and Pressure Vessels

In 1994, a through wall leak was detected at Palisades in a cast CF8M check valve body [43].
The check valve is a 24 in. (61.0 cm) valve located between the containment sump and the
suction piping for one train of the Engineered Safeguard Systems pumps. Investigation revealed
that the leak was due to IGSCC of material that had been sensitized by multiple weld repairs and
installation welding.
Discussion. Cracking in High Temperature Dead Legs. There have been several reports of
cracking in piping system dead legs attached to the reactor coolant piping of PWRs, as discussed
below.

In 1985, Campani and Lunven described cracks discovered in a safety injection line of
an EDF unit [44]. The cracks occurred in a six inch diameter, 0.7 in. (1.8 cm) thick wall,
Type 316 stainless steel elbow that was located on a horizontal run of piping about 10 feet
(3.0 m) away from the reactor coolant pipe, and joined the horizontal run to an incoming
vertical run coming from below. (The material is identified in Reference [44] as being to
Z2 CND 17-12 which corresponds to both 316 and 316L since the carbon level is not
specified it is assumed to be that corresponding to the standard grade). The affected piping
was isolated from the reactor coolant pipe by a check valve located about 27 inches (68.6
cm) from the reactor coolant pipe. The pipe normally was filled with a water-vapor mixture
at 428F (220C) and 550 psi (3.8 MPa). One of the cracks that had leaked and led to
detection of the problem, had a length of 3.5 in. (8.9 cm), and was circumferential and
located at the elbow to vertical pipe weld. The second crack was longitudinal and located at
the extrados of the elbow, along the weld joint between the two halves of the elbow. The
cracking was mainly transgranular. Based on detailed metallurgical evaluation, it was
concluded that the cracking was initiated by sulfur containing resin degradation products
associated with a resin ingress event that had occurred a few years previously. Crack
propagation was associated with a fatigue mechanism, probably related to stresses caused
by thermal transients.

EDF has reported several times on the occurrence of SCC in dead legs of their PWRs,
which they indicate has occurred many times [45, 46, 47]. The SCC occurs between the
two isolation valves installed on lines of systems such as the safety injection system and
the residual heat removal system. Between the two valves, either single phase or two phase
conditions can be present, temperatures can be as high as 464F (240C), and thermal
stratification up to 250F (121C) can occur. Oxygen levels in the stagnant borated water
in the dead lead can be quite high, varying from more than 360 ppm to less than 0.1 ppm.
Corrosion often occurs along a line corresponding to a water steam interface, and is often
severe in Satellite disks. In the stainless steel piping, the corrosion is of the same type as
discussed in the previous bullet, i.e., a mixture of SCC and thermal or corrosion fatigue.
The remedies being pursued were indicated as including ensuring complete deaeration
and avoiding the development of two phase conditions.

A somewhat similar case of SCC in a domestic plant was reported in 1998 by Rao and in
an NRC Information Notice [48, 49]. The crack occurred in a 10 in. (25.4 cm) diameter
Schedule 140 safety injection system pipe on the upstream side of the final check valve
between the injection line and the reactor coolant system. The SCC was intergranular
(i.e., was IGSCC) and occurred in sensitized Type 316 stainless steel at the end of a weld
counterbore, at the pipe to valve weld. The crack was detected by UT, was circumferential,
had a maximum length of about 5.4 in. (13.7 cm), and had nearly penetrated through-wall.

(I) 3-30

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Stainless Steel for Piping, Components, and Pressure Vessels

No evidence of deleterious contaminants was found. It was concluded that the IGSCC was
the result of exposure to oxygenated stagnant borated water. It was noted that multiple weld
repairs had led to extensive sensitization and high residual stresses, and that the high carbon
content of the standard grade stainless steel (0.077%) contributed to its high level of
sensitization.
Discussion. SCC of Valve Leak Off Lines. EDF reports that there have been several cases of
SCC occurring in the packing leak off lines from valves in the residual heat removal system
[46]. The SCC has been transgranular and is attributed to the concentration of impurities picked
up from the packing as the leaking water in the lines evaporates. The temperature of the leaking
water has ranged between 150 and 328C (302 and 622F). The presence of oxygen in the lines
and presence of high stresses from welding and pipe clamping are additional factors.
Discussion. SCC of Stainless Steel Housings and Canopy Seals in CRDMs and CEDMs. There
have been several occurrences of SCC of stainless steel parts in control rod drive mechanisms
(CRDM) and control element drive mechanisms (CEDMs), as discussed below.

CEDM Housings. Several cases of TGSCC being observed in CEDM housings have been
reported. These have affected standard grade Type 304, 347 and 348 stainless steels.

During the 1986-1988 time period, several control rod drive seal housings at Palisades
were found to have experienced SCC [50]. The cracking was first discovered as the result
of a through wall leak. The housings were made of Type 304 stainless steel. Metallurgical
examination revealed the presence of circumferential and axial TGSCC initiating from
the ID. It was concluded that the SCC was due to some non-identified contaminant.
All of the housings were later replaced with housings made of Type 347 stainless steel.

A 1993 article by Lisowyj described the occurrence of SCC in Type 348 stainless steel
housings in a CEDM housing at Fort Calhoun [51]. The SCC occurred in the two spare
CEDM housings that had not been vented during the 17 years of operation of the plant.
No SCC was noted in operating housings, which are vented when filling after each
refueling. The SCC was discovered as the result of a leak. Failure analysis indicated
that the cracking had initiated on the ID, was axial, transgranular, and showed marks
indicating periodic growth cycles. Stresses were estimated as being about 10 ksi (69
MPa) due to pressure plus 10 ksi (69 MPa) due to residual stresses from an ID weld
overlay that was designed to act as a guide for control rods. The SCC was attributed to
the presence of high levels of oxygen in the unvented housings, which were estimated
as being between 300 and 1300 ppm, together with low levels of chlorides (not
quantified). The operating temperature was about 400F (204C). It was concluded that
the SCC was due to the susceptibility of non sensitized austenitic stainless steels to
transgranular SCC in the presence of tensile stress in oxygenated chloride containing
environments, with the amount of chloride needed reduced by the very high oxygen
levels. Remedial actions were not discussed.

(I) 3-31

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Stainless Steel for Piping, Components, and Pressure Vessels

A Licensee Event Report in 1999 reported on the occurrence of extensive cracking


of control rod drive seal housings at Palisades [52]. An earlier report described the
occurrence of similar cracking in a single housing [53]. Circumferential cracks were
noted in 30 of the 45 seal housings, and axial cracks were found in three. The housing
material was standard grade Type 347 austenitic stainless steel. The housings were
replacements for the standard grade Type 304 stainless steel housings that had failed
earlier, as discussed above. Failure evaluation indicated that the stresses causing the
cracks were probably residual stresses associated with a J groove housing-to-flange
weld that had not been effectively stress relieved, and residual stresses developed by the
induction heating stress relief procedure used. The operating temperature was estimated
as being about 230F (110C). The chloride levels inside the housing could not be
quantified, but it was assumed that they increased with time from the reactor coolant
level of about 5 ppb as the result of leaching from metal surfaces and gaskets. Oxygen
levels were considered as likely being very high as the result of trapping of air during
filling of the reactor coolant system. The cracking was attributed to TGSCC associated
with high residual stresses in a moderately aggressive environment formed by high
oxygen levels and low chloride levels.

Canopy Seal Welds. A 1989 article by Pezze and Wilson described the occurrence of SCC in
CRDM housing canopy seals [54]. They noted that at least five plants had experienced leaks
in the canopies. The cracks occurred in both weld metal and in base metal, and did not appear
to be caused by weld defects. Metallurgical examination indicated that the cracks were
transgranular SCC, and did not detect high levels of aggressive species. However, trapped
water removed from the space inside the canopies was, in two cases, higher in chloride
concentration than expected for normal reactor coolant (about 270 to 360 ppm). It was
concluded that the transgranular SCC occurred as the result of weld residual stresses coupled
with susceptibility of stainless steel to SCC in high temperature oxygenated water with
chlorides present; the temperature of the canopies was not specified in the article. The source
of the oxygen was attributed to oxygen being trapped in the dead end cavity formed by the
canopy. It was noted that the SCC data summarized in Figure 3-4, based on a 1980 paper by
Gordon, [55] show that TGSCC occurs in such environments. A report by Diercks in 1993
describes the results of a failure analysis of similar cracking at another plant, with similar
conclusions [56]. Documents filed with the NRC in 2000 indicate that failures of canopies
continue to occur, and that a current repair approach is to apply an Inconel 625 weld overlay
over the crack [57, 58]. Presentations at recent (2006-2009) conferences indicate that failures
of canopies continue to occur; for example, Efsing reported in 2006 on failures observed at
Ringhals that were attributed to a combination of heavily sensitized stainless steel base
material, a local oxidizing environment in the beginning of each fuel cycle, and thermal
stresses that arises from control rod movement [59].

(I) 3-32

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Stainless Steel for Piping, Components, and Pressure Vessels

Figure 3-4
The Effects of Oxygen and Chloride on the SCC of Austenitic Stainless Steels in High
Temperature Water [54]

Discussion. IGSCC of Pressurizer Heaters and Heater Sleeves. There have been 10 failures
of 316L stainless steel pressurizer heaters and one failure of a 316 pressurizer heater sleeve
[31, 33, 60, 61]. The heater failures included four in free span areas, and six at supports.
A possible factor in this cracking is that at the end of fuel cycles boron can be reduced to close
to zero while lithium remains at about 0.3 ppm; under such end of cycle conditions boiling at
pressurizer heaters can concentrate lithium to high levels without substantial buffering by boric
acid, leading to high pH and increased risk of SCC. The Westinghouse report of the heater sleeve
failure indicates that the material in the case they examined was sensitized and subjected to high
weld induced residual stresses, and also may be exposed to oxidizing conditions for short periods
following outages. The EDF failures occurred in non-sensitized material and involved high
hardness and strain localization at metal folds.
Discussion. IGSCC of Sensitized Stainless Steel Nozzles in Safety Injection Systems Accumulator
Nozzles. In 1991, NRC reported via Information Notice 91-05 on the occurrence of IGSCC in
safety injection accumulator nozzles [62]. The accumulators contain borated water under about
600 psi (4.1 MPa) nitrogen pressure. The information notice advised that IGSCC had been
detected as the result of leaks at two plants. Similar cracks had been detected in 1985 1987 at
another plant [64]. The nozzles were made of Type 304 stainless steel that had been sensitized as
the result of post weld heat treatment of the vessel. Weld residual stresses were involved. In one
case, weld residual stresses were unusually high as the result of there not being the proper gap
between the pipe and its seat in the nozzle. Water impurities were not reported as being a factor
in the IGSCC in two of the cases, but were considered to be important in the third.
(I) 3-33

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Stainless Steel for Piping, Components, and Pressure Vessels

Discussion. IGSCC of 316 Safe End at Steam Generator Inlet Nozzle. A 2008 report by Kansai
Electric Power indicates that shallow IGSCC was detected at a steam generator inlet nozzle in
Mihama 2 during inspections in 2008 [32, 63]. Only limited information is available regarding
this cracking. The cracking consisted of a net work of cracks on the ID surface of the safe end in
the HAZ next to a nickel-base alloy weld. A sketch shown in [32] indicates that the total length
of the network of cracks was about 7 mm (0.28 in.) and that the maximum depth was about 0.9
mm (0.035 in.), while the later reference [63] based on more complete metallurgical examination
indicates that the length was about 30 mm (1.2 in.) and maximum depth was about 1.8 mm
(0.071 in.). The crack was reported to be associated with a cold worked surface layer and
welding residual stresses. This cracking appears to be the first report of SCC affecting PWR
main reactor coolant loop piping pressure boundary stainless steel material in a region exposed
to normal flowing hot or cold leg reactor coolant.
9.4 Fatigue Failures of Small (<2) Diameter Piping
Summary. Many fatigue induced failures were reported of small diameter stainless steel lines
in the 1970s and early 1980s. The failures were generally attributed to high levels of vibration
induced cyclic stresses, generally due to inadequate support, and most commonly associated with
pump-induced vibration. Poor weld joint geometry and the presence of weld defects that led to
stress concentrations were frequently cited as contributing factors. High residual stresses caused
by welding and support arrangements were also cited as factors. In general, neither inadequate
material properties nor corrosion were considered to be important to the failures. In recent years,
the frequency of fatigue induced cracking has been low, indicating that corrective measures, such
as provision of additional pipe supports in areas subject to high vibration, have generally been
effective. Nevertheless, occasional failures continue to be reported.
Discussion. An NRC report published in 1980 reviewed cracking occurrences in both BWRs and
PWRs up to that time, and a second 1980 NRC report reviewed experience at PWRs [41, 65].
The results of these reviews were as follows:

In BWRs, vibration induced cracks dominated small-line cracking and occurred in


instrument, vent, and drain lines in socket welds at tees and nipples in the 3/4 inch to 1-1/2
inch (1.9 cm to 3.8 cm) size range. In most cases, detection was made through observed
leakage during routine plant surveillance.

In PWRs, cracks were predominately in the 3/4 inch to 2 inch (1.9 cm to 5.1 cm) diameter
pipe size range in vent, drain, and instrument lines. Cracks were principally located near
pumps where vibrations were present. The mode of failure was identified as fatigue due
to vibration.

Corrective measures typically involved replacement or repair of affected piping, and


provision of additional pipe supports or vibration dampers.

A 1994 review article by Cauvin indicates that vibration induced failures of small diameter
piping have occurred in a similar manner in France as in the USA, due to similar causes [66].

(I) 3-34

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Stainless Steel for Piping, Components, and Pressure Vessels

In preparation of this chapter in July 2001, several searches were made of licensee event reports
in the NRCs Public Document Room. These searches indicated that the frequency of small bore
pipe fatigue failures was lower at that time than in the 1980 time frame, although occasional
fatigue failures were still reported. For example, NRC Information Notice 98-45 described the
occurrence of some fatigue failures in chemical and volume control system (CVCS) piping [67].
In this case, the vibrations that caused the failures were attributed to cavitation induced erosion
of the letdown orifice that led to increased flow turbulence that induced excessive vibration.
During update of this chapter in 2009, data in the NRC website was reviewed. The numbers of
reported fatigue failures of safety related small bore pipe failures reported by Licensee Event
Reports (LERs) was four in each of 2004 and 2005, one in 2006, and three in each of 2007 and
2008, for an average of three failures per year. The occurrence of continued small numbers of
fatigue failures of small bore stainless steel piping is consistent with a 2008 review performed
for the NRC that indicates that failure rates of small bore piping for both PWRs and BWRs
has decreased as the plants have aged (Appendix D in [68]). It is also consistent with a review
done for EPRI for plants in the U.S. [69], and with reviews of experience in France and Korea
[70, 71].
9.5 Thermal Fatigue Cracking of Piping and Components
Summary. There have been several types of cracking problems related to the temperature
differences between connected systems. The more important of these are the following:

Cracking of thermal sleeves and nozzles has occurred at locations where colder water
is injected into hotter systems, e.g., PWR high pressure injection nozzles in RCS piping.
This type of cracking has generally been attributed to thermal fatigue due to fluctuating
temperatures associated with mixing of the colder water with the hotter water. It has not
been attributed to material problems, and remedial actions have involved changes to the
mechanical designs directed at reducing the imposed thermal cycles, e.g., achieving tighter
fits between the thermal sleeve and nozzle to prevent leakage of cold water into the annulus
between the thermal sleeve and the nozzle, and extension of the thermal sleeve further into
the nozzle to ensure that eddies of cold water do not impinge on the nozzle blend radius.

Cracking has occurred in non-isolable lines attached to the RCS as the result of turbulence
penetration and thermal stratification, and fluctuations in the thermal stratification. This type
of cracking has affected safety injection, residual heat removal, and drain line connections
to the RCS. In some cases, the cracking has been associated with, or aggravated by, leakage
into or out of the RCS. Because of the safety concerns raised by non-isolable leaks this
problem has received significant industry attention, such as more detailed monitoring of
temperatures at locations where auxiliary systems connect to the RCS, elimination of leakage
flows, and changes to insulation.

The above thermal fatigue problems have been generally attributed to thermo-hydraulic
conditions and not to problems with the materials. However, the relatively high coefficient
of thermal expansion of stainless steel, coupled with its low conductivity, can increase
susceptibility to thermal fatigue in some situations, as compared to similar design configurations
in carbon or low alloy steels.

(I) 3-35

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Stainless Steel for Piping, Components, and Pressure Vessels

Discussion. The main types of thermal fatigue problems that have affected stainless steel
pressure boundary parts are described below in a discussion that was prepared for the 2002
issue of this chapter. The 2002 discussion is considered as of 2009 to adequately cover the main
issues. Readers desiring more up to date reviews of the thermal fatigue issue can consult several
relatively more recent reviews in [69, 72].

Early Plant Makeup Nozzle and Pipe Cracking. In 1970, cracks were discovered at Indian
Point 1 in a 4 in. (10.2 cm) makeup nozzle thermal sleeve and in the main reactor coolant
pipe (20 in. (50.8 cm) ID, 24 in. (61.0 cm) OD) downstream of the nozzle [74]. The problem
was discovered as the result of pieces of the thermal sleeve found in a steam generator. The
cracks in the main pipe, which was made of Type 304 stainless steel, had a maximum depth
of 1/4 in. (0.6 cm) and a maximum length of 1-3/8 in. (3.5 cm). The cracking of the thermal
sleeve was attributed to thermal fatigue due to periodic injection of cold water. The thermal
sleeve design was modified and operating practices revised to reduce cyclic thermal stresses.

HPI Nozzle Cracking in B&W Plants. NRC Information Notice No. 82-09 described the
occurrence of problems with thermal sleeves and cracks in piping and a valve in the high
pressure injection/makeup lines at the location where cold water is injected into the RCS
[75]. The problem was first discovered as the result of a leak in an isolation check valve
body just upstream of the RCS nozzle (i.e., a non-isolable leak). The problem was reported
as affecting three B&W PWRs, and was evidenced by cracks in the valve body, by cracks
in the nozzle safe end, and by loose and cracked thermal sleeves. NRC Generic Letter 85-20
indicated that inspections at other B&W plants had shown that the problem was a generic
one [76]. The Generic Letter indicated that design changes were being made to tighten the
thermal sleeve to nozzle joint by re-rolling, and that augmented inspections were being
performed of not yet modified nozzles.

NRC Information Notice 97-46 reported that an April 1997 leak at an Oconee 2 HPI nozzle led
to a forced outage [77]. The information notice indicated that an important factor in the cracking
appeared to be loosening of the thermal sleeve in the nozzle that had not been detected during
periodic inservice inspections. In addition, the information notice stated that appropriate
inspections of all of the susceptible parts of the nozzle assembly had not been performed.
It further noted that, because of the difficulty of identifying cracks that occur due to thermal
stresses, there is a need for enhanced UT of these areas, as discussed in NRC Bulletin 88-08,
and Supplements 1, 2 and 3 to Bulletin 88-08 [78].

Thermal Sleeve Cracking in Westinghouse Plants. In 1982, radiographic inspections revealed


that thermal sleeves in coolant charging and safety injection lines were missing in North
Anna 1 [79]. A cracked thermal sleeve was detected in North Anna 2. It appeared that the
problem was generic in nature. However, no cracking of pipe base material was reported.

Cracking of Non-Isolable Piping. NRC Bulletin No. 88-08, and Supplements 1, 2 and 3 to
that bulletin, describe cracking incidents in the USA, Belgium and Japan related to thermal
fatigue cracking of non-isolable piping in auxiliary systems where they attach to the RCS
[78]. A paper by de Keroulas and Thomeret in 1994 describes the same occurrences [80].
The cracking affected Type 304 and 316 stainless steel. In all three cases, the cracking was
attributed to thermal fatigue, with the cracks initiating at the inner surface. The thermal
fatigue stresses were due to thermal stratification, and variations in the thermal stratification,
associated with leakage of water through the isolation valve in the auxiliary system. In two
cases the leakage was of cold higher pressure auxiliary system water through the valve into

(I) 3-36

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Stainless Steel for Piping, Components, and Pressure Vessels

the non-isolable piping attached to the RCS. In the third case, the leakage was of hot water
from the RCS through one disc of the valve and out a leaking gland seal into leakoff piping.
An article in 1998 by Thebault, et al., describes the occurrence of an additional case of thermal
fatigue cracking in non-isolable piping attached to the RCS [81] The cracking was transgranular
and initiated from the inner surface. It was attributed to the presence of high residual tensile
stresses coupled with cyclic thermal stresses from inleakage of cold water from the attached
systems. The short term remedial measure was to increase inspections of this piping, and longer
term measures included system changes to minimize inleakage of cold water, together with
further research to better understand the problem.
An EPRI report issued in 2000 reviewed worldwide experience with cracking of PWR nonisolable piping [82]. Fourteen cases of cracking were identified, three of which are HPI nozzle
cracks in B&W plants as discussed above, and four of which are the non-isolable cracks
discussed in the previous two paragraphs. The remaining seven cases affected CVCS
connections, drain lines, and auxiliary pressurizer spray lines. The main causes of the cracking
were identified as (1) turbulent mixing of cold and hot water leading to rapid thermal cycling,
(2) turbulent penetration of attached piping leading to thermal stratification, which could
change as plant conditions changed, (3) small leaks into or out of the RCS leading to thermal
stratification in attached piping that changed as plant conditions changed, and (4) thermal
stratification in attached piping resulting from its layout and insulation condition.

Reactor Coolant Pump Thermal Barrier Cracking. An article by Cauvin, et al., in 1994,
NRC Information Notice 97-31, and an article by Cleurennec, et al. in 1998 describe thermal
fatigue cracking of cast stainless steel thermal barriers in PWR reactor coolant pumps
[83, 84, 85]. The cracking has affected pumps in many EDF 900 MWe plants. The material
is similar to Grades CF3 and CF8 to ASME/ASTM A351. It appears that the cracking is
associated with high residual stresses combined with cyclic thermal stresses in areas
where cold and hot water mix. Some intergranular cracking was detected associated with
metallurgical faults (excessive grain size and intergranular precipitation), but most of the
cracking was transgranular and attributed to thermal fatigue. The thermal barriers were to
be replaced with an improved design.

Heat Exchanger Interconnecting Pipe Cracking. A 2001 article by Higuchi describes the
occurrence of thermal fatigue cracking of a connecting pipe between two stages of a letdown
cooler [86]. The material was not identified but is presumed to be stainless steel. Detailed
metallurgical examination showed that there were many longitudinal and circumferential
cracks in the pipe and also in the inner surface of the middle stage heat exchanger shell.
The cracking was described as being due to high cycle thermal fatigue. Detailed
investigation, including mockup testing to determine flow patterns, indicated that the
cracking occurred as the result of thermal stresses associated with mixing of hot and
cold water.

9.6 SCC Initiating from the OD


Summary. Over the years there have been a number of cases of outer diameter SCC (ODSCC).
Most of the cracking has been transgranular and has not been at welds, indicating that weld
induced sensitization or residual stresses are not necessary for the cracking to occur. However,
(I) 3-37

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Stainless Steel for Piping, Components, and Pressure Vessels

some of the ODSCC has been intergranular and has affected sensitized regions at welds or
furnace sensitized material. Most of the ODSCC has been the result of chloride contamination,
but at least one case was the result of caustic due to concentration of lithium hydroxide
containing primary coolant (with no boric acid). With regard to chloride induced ODSCC, the
sources of chlorides have been varied, and have included chlorides from sea coast atmosphere,
tapes, marking fluids, threaded joint compounds, and insulation. Industry experience with
ODSCC demonstrates that austenitic stainless steels have high susceptibility to chloride induced
SCC, even if not sensitized, and that even parts at near ambient temperature and with low applied
stress are susceptible. For these reasons, it is important to avoid contact of stainless steel piping
and components with chloride containing substances, and to minimize chances of drying out on
stainless steel surfaces of liquids from leaks, condensation, or other sources, since such dryout
can concentrate chlorides and other contaminants to aggressive levels.
Discussion. There have been several cases where SCC from the OD has been reported as having
affected stainless steel piping, as discussed below.

A 1973 review article by Bush and Dillon indicates that ODSCC of stainless steel had
occurred several times in early reactor applications, as follows [21]:

ODSCC occurred of Type 304 stainless steel pipes at the Savannah River Plant.
The pipes operated at temperatures between 120F and 212F (49C and 100C). The
cracking was attributed to chlorides from sources such as insulation, plastic identification
bands, painted labels, and sealing materials. The tapes and labels were usually polyvinyl
chloride which decomposed in the gamma radiation field present at the failure locations.

A reactor loop at Chalk River had a Type 316 stainless steel strainer plug blow out due to
SCC. The thread surface of the plug had fluoride contents over 3000 ppm, presumably
from a chloro-fluoro-organic thread lubricant. A similar failure also occurred of a valve
bonnet, where a similar chloro-fluoro-organic thread lubricant was used. In both cases,
the cracking was transgranular.

A tape was used to retain plastic sheeting as a shroud on a heat exchanger at the
Plutonium Recycle Test Reactor. After six months a leak was detected, and it was found
that the tape was high in chlorides.

Stainless steel piping in the vicinity of the LaCrosse BWR relief valves cracked,
apparently due to chloride contamination (120 ppm) from the insulation.

A valve made of Type 316 stainless steel failed after one month of operation with pH 10
water controlled with lithium hydroxide in a Hanford in-reactor loop. The valve leaked,
allowing concentrated lithium hydroxide to form, resulting in severe TGSCC.

A 1978 report in Nuclear Power Experience indicates that chloride induced ODSCC occurred
of CVCS piping at a plant [87]. It was speculated that service water dripped onto the hot
insulated piping and caused the cracking.

A 1979 report in Nuclear Power Experience indicates that chloride induced ODSCC and/or
caustic pitting occurred in heat traced boric acid piping [88]. The problem was localized, and
attributed to local contamination.

(I) 3-38

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Stainless Steel for Piping, Components, and Pressure Vessels

A 1980 NRC report describes two cases of ODSCC, both at San Onofre 1 [89]. In 1977 leaks
occurred in a 6-inch (15.2 cm) Schedule 10 Type 304 stainless steel pipe in the refueling
water discharge line of the core spray system. Cracking initiated on the OD away from any
weld, and was attributed to chloride contamination. The cracking was intergranular. The pipe
section that experienced the IGSCC had been sensitized during manufacture. The sensitized
piping was replaced with non-sensitized piping. In 1979, two leaks and four cracks were
found in the refueling water suction piping. These occurred at the OD at weld heat affected
zones. The cracking was attributed to chlorides from the coastal atmosphere.

In a 1984 article Czajkowski reported on the results of a failure investigation of ODSCC


of Type 304 stainless steel core spray piping at Nine Mile Point 1 [28]. The cracks were
discovered during periodic dye penetrant inspections. The cracking was not associated with
a weld, but was circumferentially oriented. The cracks had a maximum depth of 0.4 in. (1.0
cm). The material was not sensitized, and the cracking was transgranular. Based on EDS data
that showed high chloride peaks and the transgranular morphology, it was concluded that the
cracking was probably the result of a low temperature chloride SCC mechanism.

A 1995 report in Nuclear Power Experience describes the occurrence of ODSCC on heat
traced boric acid piping of the CVCS system at a plant [90]. Indications were detected on
two tees during a plant modification. Metallurgical examination showed them to be due to
ODSCC, and expanded inspections were performed. Additional indications were found
on other areas of the heat traced piping. The affected piping was replaced, and use of heat
tracing was discontinued based on lower boric acid concentrations being used.

In a 1998 article, Rao describes the occurrence of ODSCC of Type 304 stainless steel
regenerative heat exchanger piping at Beaver Valley 1 [91]. The piping is normally covered
by insulation, and the cracking was detected while the insulation was being changed.
The cracking was axially oriented, transgranular, and penetrated up to a maximum of 70%
through-wall. Some pitting was also observed on the OD surface. The cracking was located
in small patches. The service temperature and pressure were reported as being 400F (204C)
and 600 psig (4.1 MPa). Based on chemical analysis of the OD surface and of the insulation,
and on the morphology of the attack, it was concluded that the cracking was not due to
contaminants from the insulation, but rather was likely due to contamination (most likely
chlorides) that occurred during fabrication or installation operations that took place before
installation of the insulation.

A 2002 article by Basson and Wicker describes extensive ODSCC attack of 304L stainless
steel piping, tanks and valves at Koeberg 1 and 2 [92]. The attack has affected many
components and systems including seam welded piping of safety related systems, refueling
water storage tanks, and cast valves of both units. The systems typically operate at
temperatures below 50C (122F). The attack has been determined to be TGSCC that
initiated from pits on the OD. It is attributed to the combined effects of chlorides from
the coastal atmosphere, high stresses resulting from component fabrication (cold forming,
welding and casting shrinkage), and the susceptibility of 304L stainless steel to chloride
attack. The problem presented a challenge in that a large number of components were
affected by SCC, and because the cracking was mainly subsurface (with only pits visible at
the surface), such that the inspection method had to include grinding of surfaces to allow use
of dye penetrant testing to reveal the cracks. Extensive inspections and repairs were being
performed to deal with the cracking.
(I) 3-39

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Stainless Steel for Piping, Components, and Pressure Vessels

9.7 SCC of Cold Worked Stainless Steel in BWRs


The effect of cold work on susceptibility to SCC of stainless steel in BWRs is covered in
Chapter II.5, High Strength Wrought Austenitic Stainless Steels, in this Materials Handbook
and thus is not covered in detail in this chapter. In summary, cold work can make unsensitized
austenitic stainless steel susceptible to SCC in BWR reactor coolant environments. The threshold
level of cold work which, if exceeded, leads to problems is not well defined, but appears to be
less than about 10%. In this regard, Section A.9.3.4 of the BWRVIP-84 guidelines for repairs
to BWR internals limit intentional low temperature plastic straining, i.e., cold work, to 2.5% [9].
It is understood that this has been a limit used by GE for many years [93].
9.8 SCC of Stabilized Stainless Steel in BWR Type Environments
Summary. Experience in German plants and in Russian RBMK plants indicates that IGSCC
of stabilized stainless steels can occur in normal BWR type environments, especially if the
material chemistry and fabrication sequence result in sensitization of weld heat affected zones.
These problems can be prevented by careful control of material chemistry (use of low carbon
concentrations and high ratios of stabilizing elements to carbon), control of post weld heat
treatments to avoid sensitization, and use of sensitive methods (e.g., EPR) to confirm that
sensitization has not occurred.
Discussion. There have been a few cases of SCC being reported of stabilized stainless steels
in BWR environments and similar RBMK environments, as follows:

Articles by Kilian in 1997, 2005 and 2006 discuss the occurrence of IGSCC at HAZs
of welds in titanium stabilized stainless steel (similar to Type 321) in German BWRs
[94, 95, 96]. This cracking was detected in several BWRs starting in 1992. Detailed
evaluation indicated that in some cases sensitization had occurred even though the material
was stabilized. However, in 21 out of 79 cracked welds, no sensitization was detected
by oxalic acid tests, electrochemical potentiokinetic reactivation (EPR) tests, or TEM
examinations. It was found that poor root conditions and heavy cold work were involved
in the IGSCC. It was concluded that niobium stabilized stainless steel (similar to Type 347)
with lower carbon levels and higher stabilizing element to carbon ratio would be used for
replacement piping based on tests that indicated it was less susceptible to sensitization than
the higher carbon titanium stabilized steel used in the 1960s and 1970s for the affected
BWRs.

A 1994 article by Wachter, et al., describes the occurrence of IGSCC in core internals of
a German BWR made of stabilized Type 347 stainless steel [97]. The IGSCC in the core
internals occurred at sensitized areas near welds. It was concluded that the sensitization
occurred as the result of (1) dissolution of niobium carbides in base metal near the weld
as the result of high temperatures during welding, and (2) chromium carbide precipitation
(causing sensitization) occurring during a subsequent stress relief heat treatment.
Contributing factors were considered to be a relatively high carbon concentration in the
material (about 0.08%), and a low Nb/C stabilization ratio (as low as 3.9, vs. a minimum
ratio of 10 in ASME specifications).

(I) 3-40

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Stainless Steel for Piping, Components, and Pressure Vessels

Starting in the late 1990s, IGSCC has been detected in the reactor coolant piping of many
Russian type RBMK reactors [98, 99]. These reactors are channel type boiling water reactors
that use graphite moderation. The reactor coolant piping is made of 08Kh18N10T titanium
stabilized austenitic stainless steel, similar to Type 321. The nominal diameter of the piping
that is most affected is 300 mm (11.8 in.) (actual OD of 326 mm (12.8 in.) and wall thickness
of 16 mm (0.63 in.)). Large numbers of welds have been found to have cracks in the HAZs
of weld joints, with the cracks initiating from the ID and propagating in the HAZ close to
the line of fusion. None of the cracks are deeper than about 2/3 of the wall thickness, but
some have grown quite long in the circumferential direction. The factors considered most
important to the cracking are some level of sensitization, high levels of residual stress, strain
and deformation, and an oxidizing environment with relatively high levels of sulfates and
chlorides. Mitigation of the cracking includes periodic inspections and repairs as needed
using improved materials and processes, and improved water chemistry with lower
conductivity.

9.9 IGSCC in BWRs of Nonsensitized Stainless Steel


Summary: NRC Information Notice No. 84-89 reported that nonsensitized 12 in. (30.5 cm)
diameter jet pump inlet riser safe ends made of Type 316L stainless steel had experienced
cracking in a BWR [100]. The cracks were detected on both the crevice side and on the non
creviced side of the thermal sleeve to safe end attachment weld. Metallurgical examinations
indicated that the material had a low carbon content and was nonsensitized, and that the cracks
were intergranular. In addition, the cracking on the non-creviced side was associated with
material that had been upset or cold worked. The NRC noted that this was the first field report
of cracking in a low carbon grade austenitic stainless steel, but that tests have shown that cracks
could occur at creviced or cold worked locations in low carbon grades.
As discussed in Section 9.2, the occurrence of IGSCC of austenitic stainless steel piping of
domestic BWRs has been reduced to a low level. However, it has presented a serious problem
in Japan where many cases of IGSCC have been detected in 2000 and following years in
recirculation loop piping and in shrouds in the reactor internals [101, 102, 103, 104, 105].
These recent cases have affected 316L stainless steel materials that are resistant to sensitization
and were expected to be not affected by IGSCC. The lack of sensitization has been confirmed.
However, cracking has initiated at weld joints, generally initiating as TGSCC at cold worked
surfaces and then propagating as IGSCC in the bulk material close to the line of fusion. An
evaluation reported in 2007 using ATEM indicated that, although no single result could be linked
to the root causes for the IGSCC in the non-sensitized BWR components, potential contributing
factors were the strain hardening of the material during fabrication, the presence of minor
impurities (S and Si) in some cracks, and Mo segregation at grain boundaries [106]. The reasons
why this type of attack of non-sensitized stainless steel has affected Japanese BWRs but has not
significantly affected domestic BWRs are not known with certainty, but may be related to
differences in fabrication procedures such as less surface cold work by grinding and/or different
welding practices, or to differences in the timing and quality of implementation of improved
water chemistry practices such as higher water purity and use of hydrogen water chemistry.

(I) 3-41

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Stainless Steel for Piping, Components, and Pressure Vessels

9.10 MIC Attack of Stainless Steel Welds in Service Water Applications


Summary. The occurrence of microbiologically influenced corrosion (MIC) in stainless steel
systems, and the remedial actions taken in response to these occurrences, are covered in several
EPRI workshops and sourcebooks on MIC [107, 108, 109, 110] and thus are not covered in
detail in this chapter. In summary, MIC attack of welds in austenitic stainless steel piping and
tanks in raw (once-through) service water service has occurred on many occasions. Stainless
steel base materials are generally not subject to this attack, i.e., weld joints are the main areas
attacked. Remedial actions to prevent MIC attack at weld joints include avoiding stagnant
conditions, using biocides, performance of frequent cleaning, use of modified welding practices,
and replacement with more resistant alloys such as AL-6XN or duplex stainless S32205.
9.11 Embrittlement of Cast Austenitic Stainless Steels
Summary. Embrittlement of cast austenitic stainless steels has been identified as a potential
problem as plants age. However, to date, it has not resulted in any reported failures. Accordingly,
this potential problem is covered in Section 10 as a research topic.
9.12 Cracking of Stainless Steel Due to Concentration of Chlorides During Dryout
Summary. It is well known that austenitic stainless steels are susceptible to chloride induced
stress corrosion, starting at temperatures that are only a little above ambient, as described in
Section 10.4. This type of attack can occur whenever water, even of relatively high purity, is
allowed to dry out at low points. The risk of this type of attack increases as the temperature
during dryout increases and as the concentration of impurities in the water increases.
Discussion. NRC Information Notice No. 85-34 reported the occurrence of chloride induced
cracking of small diameter stainless steel lines in which water had dried out as the result of use
of heat tracing. The cracking occurred in 1 in. (2.5 cm) diameter Type 304 stainless steel piping
used for gas sampling that was installed horizontally and was heat traced, with temperature set at
270F (132C) to prevent condensation in the lines. During installation the piping was filled with
clean water several times, and was then blown dry and heated by the heat tracing. Cracking
occurred at sag locations where remaining water collected and dried out. The cracking was
attributed to chloride induced SCC due to high chlorides caused by concentration during
evaporation combined with moderate temperatures caused by the heat tracing.

10 Laboratory Investigations
Laboratory investigations related to the use of stainless steel in nuclear plant pressure boundary
applications are summarized in this section, exclusive of heat exchanger tubing, which is covered
in another chapter.
10.1 General Corrosion
Summary. General corrosion of stainless steels in normal nuclear power plant applications is
so low that it is not a concern from a structural standpoint. However, corrosion product release
(I) 3-42

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Stainless Steel for Piping, Components, and Pressure Vessels

is a concern in reactor coolant applications, and is addressed in EPRIs BWR and PWR water
chemistry guidelines. While general corrosion is not a concern in service water applications,
pitting and MIC are problems, with the problems being more severe in seawater service than
in fresh water service.
Discussion. General corrosion in the different environments encountered in nuclear power plants
is discussed in the following paragraphs.

High Temperature and Purity Water. General corrosion rates of stainless steels in the types
of environments encountered in high temperature reactor coolant and steam plant piping
system applications are typically very low and do not need to be considered from a structural
standpoint. However, while general corrosion from a structural standpoint is not significant
in these environments, corrosion product release is important, especially for reactor coolant
systems. This is because the corrosion products accumulate in the reactor core and can
cause problems with heat transfer there, and also they become activated and can later be
transported around the reactor coolant system, resulting in after shutdown dose rates. The
science and technology for predicting and controlling corrosion product release are well
described in the BWR and PWR water chemistry guidelines, and therefore are not covered
here.

Fresh Water Service. General corrosion rates of stainless steel in fresh service water service
are very low and do not need to be considered from a structural standpoint. However, pitting
under deposits and MIC attack at welds can occur, such that successful use in fresh water
service generally involves use of practices such as constant circulation, biocides, removal
of deposits, etc., to prevent occurrence of pitting and MIC problems. Because of localized
corrosion problems in freshwater service, some plants have switched to use of higher
molybdenum grades, such as Type AL-6XN or to use of duplex stainless steel grade S32205,
which are reported to have provided satisfactory service.

Seawater Service. Several grades of stainless steel have been shown to have good corrosion
performance in flowing seawater in the absence of crevices, but localized corrosion,
especially pitting, crevice corrosion, and MIC at welds, is always a concern in seawater, and
is more of a risk than in freshwater service. Type 316 stainless steel, because of its higher
molybdenum content, is more resistant to pitting than Type 304 stainless steel. The higher
molybdenum grades, such as Type AL-6XN, are still more resistant and appear to give
satisfactory service.

10.2 BWR Piping IGSCC Causes and Remedies


Summary. Because IGSCC of BWR piping was an early and wide spread problem, a large
amount of research has been performed by the industry to understand the problem and to develop
remedies. In summary, the main causes of this first large scale IGSCC problem were determined
to be (1) susceptibility of normal carbon grade stainless steels at weld joint HAZs to IGSCC
in BWR reactor coolant due to sensitization caused by welding, (2) the high residual stresses at
weld joints caused by welding, and (3) the relatively oxidizing environment of normal chemistry
BWR water. The presence of high residual stresses and surface damage due to grinding were
found to be aggravating factors.

(I) 3-43

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Stainless Steel for Piping, Components, and Pressure Vessels

Based on the research performed from about 1975 to 1988, remedial measures were
developed and applied at all operating domestic BWRs. The remedial measures have included:
(1) replacement of piping using materials with greater resistance to IGSCC, and using fabrication
methods that result in low susceptibility to IGSCC, (2) repairs of existing piping by means such
as induction heating stress improvement (IHSI), weld overlays, mechanical stress improvement
process (MSIP), and last pass heat sink welding, (3) achieving tighter controls on water purity.
(4) reducing the electrochemical potential (ECP) at susceptible weld locations by use of
hydrogen water chemistry (HWC) and noble metal chemical addition (NMCA).
A related situation has been the occurrence of IGSCC in stabilized stainless steels in German
BWRs first detected in about 1992 and in Russian design RBMKs since about 1998, as discussed
in Section 9.8. Research into the causes of this IGSCC indicate that much of it is the result of
inadvertent sensitization of the material in HAZs of weld joints despite the use of stabilized
material, but that a substantial fraction of it in German BWRs has occurred in weld HAZs with
no detectable sensitization. Research regarding the causes of IGSCC of the stabilized materials
indicates that sensitization can occur in titanium stabilized material during welding if carbon is
relatively high, the titanium to carbon ratio is relatively low, and less than optimum welding
procedures are used. In the case of the German BWRs it was determined that IGSCC could
occur even without sensitization if there was high cold work and poor root conditions.
A more recent problem, starting in about 2002, has been the relatively wide spread occurrence
of IGSCC in non-sensitized 316L stainless steel in piping and shrouds of Japanese BWRs, as
discussed in Section 9.9. A large amount of research has been performed subsequent to about
2002 to address this problem. The main conclusion of this research is that the IGSCC initiates in
cold worked layers, often as TGSCC, and then propagates as IGSCC in high stress high plastic
strain paths close to the fusion lines of welds. The reasons why this type of attack has affected
Japanese BWRs but has not significantly affected domestic BWRs are not firmly known, but
may be related to differences in fabrication procedures such as less surface cold work by
grinding and/or different welding practices, or to differences in the timing and quality of
implementation of improved water chemistry practices such as improved water purity
and use of hydrogen water chemistry.
Discussion. The review articles referenced in Sections 9.2, 9.8 and 9.9 also review the results of
research into causes of IGSCC in BWR piping and regarding development of remedial measures,
and can be consulted for additional details on these topics. Highlights of the research into causes
and remedies are summarized below.

Detailed investigation into the causes of the IGSCC of normal grade austenitic stainless
steels (Types 304 and 316) indicated that the following were the major factors causing and
aggravating the IGSCC [18, 25]:

Sensitization. The intergranular corrosion that occurs at grain boundaries in the weld
HAZ occurs because of the presence of low chromium concentrations at the grain
boundaries. These low chromium concentrations are the result of a phenomenon
called sensitization. Sensitization is the result of chromium carbide precipitation
at grain boundaries that occurs when austenitic stainless steel with normal concentrations
of carbon (e.g., 0.04 0.08 wt%) is held in the 800F to 1600F (427C to 871C)
temperature range. Sensitization of normal carbon grade stainless steels can occur in
HAZs as a result of welding. The degree of sensitization, and hence the susceptibility of

(I) 3-44

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Stainless Steel for Piping, Components, and Pressure Vessels

the welded part to IGSCC, typically increases as the materials carbon content increases,
and as the time in the sensitizing temperature range increases (this later factor is strongly
affected by weld process details). The effects of time, temperature and carbon content are
illustrated in Figure 3-5, which shows the conditions required to achieve sensitization
as measured by an electrochemical potentiokinetic reactivation (EPR) test [111].
Sensitization also is affected by factors such as prior cold work which can increase the
degree of sensitization that occurs for a given time-temperature history. It was found that
duplex austenitic-ferritic weld and cast material, with ferrite contents of a few percent or
more, are relatively resistant to sensitization and IGSCC.

Figure 3-5
Time/Temperature/Sensitization Curves Determined by EPR Tests on Type 304 Stainless
Steel Alloys of Variable Carbon Contents [112]

Electrochemical Potential (ECP) or Oxidizing Environment. The corrosion process is


driven by an oxidizing environment, and tends to increase as the oxygen level, and hence
the ECP, increases. Experience showed that the ECP of stainless steels in BWR reactor
coolant environments with normal water chemistry (oxygen of about 200 ppb) was
sufficiently high to cause the IGSCC process to occur. The correlation between oxygen
content and ECP, and the critical potential for IGSCC, are shown in Figure 3-6 [25].

Stresses. The presence of tensile stress is necessary for the IGSCC process to occur.
Experience has shown that the residual stresses associated with normal pipe welding are
sufficient to cause the IGSCC process to occur for welds in normal carbon grade stainless
steels in BWR reactor coolant with normal water chemistry. Tests indicate that the time
to cracking of sensitized Type 304 stainless steel decreases as stress levels increase, as
shown in Figure 3-7 [18]. As shown in Figure 3-8, weld residual stresses at the pipe ID
surface tend to be lower as pipe diameter increases, and it was concluded that this factor
accounted for the lower detected incidence of IGSCC in larger diameter pipe welds.
Residual stresses can be increased by other fabrication operations, such as grinding.
It was concluded that primary (pressure) induced stresses and secondary (thermally
induced) stresses during operation add to the residual stresses and contribute to the
cracking.

(I) 3-45

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Stainless Steel for Piping, Components, and Pressure Vessels

Figure 3-6
Potential vs. Oxygen Concentration and Critical Potential for IGSCC [25]

Figure 3-7
Stress Dependence of Intergranular SCC of Sensitized Type 304 Stainless Steel in 288-C
(550-F) Water with 0.2 mg/l (ppm) O2 [19]

(I) 3-46

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Stainless Steel for Piping, Components, and Pressure Vessels

Figure 3-8
ID Weld Residual Stresses as Function of Pipe Diameter [25]

Fabrication Factors. Failure analysis and related research showed that grinding of
weld joints strongly accelerates IGSCC. This apparently is the result of several factors.
First, the grinding develops high surface residual stresses, apparently because the surface
is heated enough to yield in compression during the grinding process, which results in
tensile stresses when the surface material cools. Second, the cold work induced by the
grinding causes transformation of austenite to martensite, which increases susceptibility
to subsequent low temperature sensitization during operation. In addition, research
into the effects of cold work has continued, and indicates that cold work can induce
susceptibility to TGSCC and IGSCC in the absence of sensitization, and that it increases
susceptibility to IGSCC when the cold work is applied after sensitization [112, 114].
The adverse effects of cold work on susceptibility to IGSCC in BWRs, and to the
occurrence of SCC in other material-environment systems, has been studied intensively
starting in the early 2000s, and was discussed in depth at two recent workshops
(workshop presentations can be consulted for more information on this topic) [115, 116].

(I) 3-47

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Stainless Steel for Piping, Components, and Pressure Vessels

Additional Water Chemistry Factors. Experience and related research led to the
conclusion that IGSCC is aggravated by high impurity levels and conductivity, such as
can occur during resin intrusion incidents, as illustrated in Figure 3-9 [117]. The figure
shows that IGSCC in both sensitized and non sensitized stainless steel in safe end crevice
areas is aggravated by high coolant conductivity. Crack growth rate tests show that
increased conductivity strongly increases the growth rate, as illustrated in Figure 3-10
[133]. It also appears that high oxidizing potentials during startups can aggravate IGSCC
and, for this reason, the BWR Water Chemistry Guidelines impose tight limits on water
chemistry during such periods.

Figure 3-9
Relationship Between Creviced Safe End Field Cracking Experience and Plant
Conductivity [117]

(I) 3-48

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Stainless Steel for Piping, Components, and Pressure Vessels

Figure 3-10
Predicted and Observed SCC Growth Rates of Stainless Steel in 288 C BWR Water
as a Function of Water Purity, e.g., as Affected by Additions of Chloride or Sulfate [133]

(I) 3-49

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Stainless Steel for Piping, Components, and Pressure Vessels

Remedies to IGSCC were developed based on the causes identified above. These remedies
included:

Material Remedies. IGSCC resistant grades of stainless steel were developed and used,
such as 304NG, 316NG, and 347NG, with 316NG being the most widely used [118].
The main reason for the IGSCC resistance of the 304NG and 316NG grades is their low
(< 0.02wt.%) carbon content, which essentially eliminates sensitization during welding.
Small amounts of nitrogen are added to increase the strength of the low carbon material,
to compensate for the decreased carbon. Type 347NG also uses columbium (niobium) to
tie up carbon, and thereby reduces sensitization. Another material remedy developed was
to use solution annealing of pipe spools at temperatures of 1900F (1038C) or higher to
eliminate sensitization of shop made intermediate welds, coupled with use of corrosion
resistant cladding (application of IGSCC resistant duplex weld material at field weld
locations) which could be field welded without causing sensitization [119].

Stress Remedies. These remedies gain their effectiveness by eliminating, or at least


strongly reducing, the tensile residual stresses at the weld root. The main methods
used up to about 2007 include Induction Heating Stress Improvement (IHSI), [120]
Mechanical Stress Improvement Process (MSIP), [121] and Last Pass Heat Sink Welding
(LPHSW) [122]. Recently, GE has developed the RenewTM method, which is described as
being based on use of a highly flexible, abrasive-filled, motorized abrasive media, similar
to those designed for conventional cleaning and de-burring of metals [123]. It is reported
to remove damaged surface layers, develop compressive stresses in the surface layer, and
provide a smooth surface finish. It is also reported to have been qualified by extensive
testing, including SCC testing.

ECP Remedies. The main remedial method developed in this category was hydrogen
water chemistry (HWC), which reduces the ECP in reactor coolant piping below
the level that is required to sustain IGSCC [124]. Noble metal chemical addition
(NMCA) has also been developed; it involves applying an atomic thickness layer of
rhodium and platinum on reactor coolant system wetted surfaces to enhance the reaction
of hydrogen with oxygen, and thus lower the ECP with less hydrogen [125]. NMCA
is mainly directed at protecting reactor vessel internals, but is also applied to piping.
Reports as of 2007 indicate that on line application of NMCA has been developed and
appears to be working satisfactorily [126].

Water Chemistry Remedies. Research has shown that both crack initiation and crack
growth rate are sensitive to impurities in the water [101]. In response to this finding,
water chemistry guidelines recommend that tight limits be placed on impurities and
conductivity. Research reported by Sudo and Itow reinforces the idea that control of
impurities is beneficial [127]. They report that crack growth rates in non-sensitized 316L
are a factor of ten lower than for sensitized 316 in 0.5 S/cm water, and that the crack
growth of the non sensitized 316L ceases if the conductivity is decreased to 0.1 S/cm.

Analytical Remedies. It was found that, by use of appropriate analyses and applicable
crack growth rate data, cracks could often be left in place for one or more cycles until
repair or replacement could be performed in a more cost effective manner [128].

(I) 3-50

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Stainless Steel for Piping, Components, and Pressure Vessels

10.3 Stagnant Borated Water System IGSCC Causes and Remedies


Summary. Tests indicate that austenitic stainless steels can be susceptible to IGSCC in aerated
borated water systems at near ambient temperatures, with susceptibility increasing as a function
of (1) increasing sensitization, (2) increasing temperature, (3) increasing stress, (4) increasing
impurity content, with thiosulfates and fluorides having the strongest effect, but with chlorides
also being aggressive, and (5) decreasing pH. Plant experience has been that careful control of
impurities and use of periodic recirculation to avoid long term stagnant conditions seem to
prevent or at least strongly minimize the problem.
Discussion. In response to the detection of significant amounts of IGSCC observed in stagnant
borated water systems in PWRs in the late 1970s, research was carried out to determine the
causes and aggravating factors associated with this cracking, and to identify possible remedial
approaches. Some of the main results of the resulting research are summarized below.

A 1982 EPRI report described results of literature reviews and tests regarding susceptibility
of stainless steels to IGSCC in low temperature borated solutions [129]. Some of the main
results of these tests were as follows:

As shown in Figure 3-11 in pure water, sensitized Type 304 stainless steel is susceptible
to IGSCC at room temperature and higher temperatures when oxygen concentrations
are in the range of about 1 to 10 ppm, i.e., when at or close to the room temperature air
saturated value of 8 ppm. This susceptibility is for slow strain rate tests, which is a severe
test, but nevertheless indicates that sensitized stainless steel can experience IGSCC in
pure water at room temperature.

(I) 3-51

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Stainless Steel for Piping, Components, and Pressure Vessels

Figure 3-11
Variation of IGSCC Susceptibility of Sensitized Type 304 Stainless Steel in Pure Water for
Various Oxygen/Temperature Combinations. Denotes No Cracking Observed; (X)
Denotes IGSCC Observed at an Average Crack Propagation Rate Given by Subscript
-7
Number in cm/sx10 . Hatched Area Denotes Uncertainty of Exact Position of Boundary
Line [129]

Results of constant load tests in pure water environments at 212F (100C) with
chloride contamination are shown in Figure 3-12. The oxygen values shown on this
figure were added based on values from another figure in the same report. The test results
indicate that, at 212F (100C), crack initiation in static tests is unlikely with chloride
concentrations of 10-4 M (6 ppm) since the potential developed by air saturated water

(I) 3-52

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Stainless Steel for Piping, Components, and Pressure Vessels

(8 ppm oxygen) is below the potential at which cracking occurred. However, for chloride
concentrations of 10-3M (60 ppm) and higher, cracking occurred at potentials developed
with normal oxygen concentrations. Thus, SCC becomes a concern in low temperature
air saturated water at chloride concentrations over a few ppm.

Figure 3-12
Effect of Potential on the Time to Failure of Sensitized (50 hour at 1200F). Type 304
Stainless Steel in NaCl Solutions of Different Concentrations at 212F [129]

Fluorides at low concentrations can also lead to IGSCC of heavily sensitized stainless
steel at low temperature. Susceptibility to IGSCC in air saturated fluoride solutions
increases as pH decreases. For an air saturated solution at 150F (66C), test data
indicated the following:

Table 3-8
Threshold Fluoride Concentration for IGSCC of Furnace Sensitized Type 304 Stainless
Steel at 150F in Air Saturated Solutions [129]
pHRT

Threshold Fluoride Concentration, ppm

0.7

80

(I) 3-53

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Stainless Steel for Piping, Components, and Pressure Vessels

Results of tests at room temperature in air saturated 13,000 ppm boric acid solutions
at room temperature with sodium thiosulfate contamination are shown in Figure 3-13.
These tests indicate that even minor amounts of reduced sulfur species such as sodium
thiosulfate can lead to IGSCC. The tests indicate that 10-7 M sodium thiosulfate (0.016
ppm) had no effect, but that 10-6 M (0.16 ppm) had a significant effect, with the severity
of IGSCC increasing as the concentration of sodium thiosulfate increased further.
Other tests from the same report indicate that cracking in thiosulfates is most severe at
potentials expected with oxygen levels caused by exposure to the atmosphere, but that
IGSCC can be inhibited by low potentials corresponding to essentially complete
deaeration.

Figure 3-13
Nominal Stress vs. Elongation (and Time) for Sensitized Type 304SS in Air Saturated Boric
Acid Solution Containing Different Concentrations of Sodium Thiosulfate at Room
Temperature [129]

A 1983 paper by Tsuge, et al., reported on the results of double U-bend tests in low
temperature borated water [130]. Figure 3-14 and Figure 3-15 show results of double U-bend
tests in 1500 ppm boron (8600 ppm boric acid), air saturated solutions for Types 304 and 316
stainless steel. The double U-bends form crevices, which result in low pH levels developing
in the creviced area, and thus aggravate IGSCC. The results show that, for highly sensitized
materials, IGSCC occurred down to temperatures of about 300F for borated water, and
390F in pure water. It was concluded that carbon contents below about 0.05% provide
protection against low temperature IGSCC of furnace sensitized stainless steel in borated
solutions (without contaminants such as reduced sulfur species or chlorides).

Bruemmer and Johnson reported on the results of constant load SCC tests at 90F (32C) and
pHRT of 5.5 6 in pure water with small additions of thiosulfate, chloride and fluoride [131].
All of the specimens were furnace sensitized for 24 hours at 1160F (627C), but had carbon
contents of 0.016, 0.046, 0.062, and 0.072%, and thus had different levels of sensitization.
Results of tests for materials with different levels of sensitization and for 15 ppm additions
of different impurities in the test solution are shown in Figure 3-16. This figure indicates that

(I) 3-54

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Stainless Steel for Piping, Components, and Pressure Vessels

only the more heavily sensitized materials (0.062% and 0.072% carbon) were susceptible to
IGSCC in chloride and thiosulfate environments, but that only the least sensitized (0.016%
carbon) was resistant in fluorides. Results for heavily sensitized material as a function of
impurity concentration are shown in Figure 3-17. As shown in the figure even very low
concentrations of fluoride and thiosulfate, about 0.3 ppm, can cause IGSCC, and the
threshold for chlorides is about 2 ppm.

Figure 3-14
SCC Test Results of Type 304 Stainless Steel; Double U-Bends in Water with 1500 ppm B
Added as H3BO3 and DO 8 ppm for 500h. Results: O: no SCC, X: IGSCC [130]

Figure 3-15
SCC Test Results of Type 316 Stainless Steel; Double U-Bends in Water with 1500 ppm B
Added as H3BO3 and DO 8 ppm for 500h. Results: O: no SCC, X: IGSCC [130]

(I) 3-55

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Stainless Steel for Piping, Components, and Pressure Vessels

Figure 3-16
Constant Load Test Results for Four Furnace Sensitized Type 304 Stainless Steels in 90F
Water with 15 ppm Impurity Additions of Chloride, Thiosulfate or Fluoride Ions [131]

Figure 3-17
The Effect of Impurity Concentration on the Stress Necessary to Promote IGSCC in
Furnace Sensitized, High Carbon Type 304 Stainless Steel [131]

A 1983 EPRI report described results of additional research regarding the SCC of stainless
steel in low temperature borated water systems [132]. The work indicated that low
concentrations of chlorides, fluorides and thiosulfates in borated solutions led to SCC,
especially as oxygen levels increased, but that this could be inhibited by increases in pH
(e.g., by lithium). Thiosulfate was the most aggressive of the impurities tested.

(I) 3-56

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Stainless Steel for Piping, Components, and Pressure Vessels

10.4 SCC of Stainless Steels in PWR Reactor Coolant Environments


Summary. In response to an increasing number of cases of SCC of stainless steels detected in
PWR reactor coolant environments, additional research has been conducted to determine the
conditions under which it can occur, and the rate at which the SCC can grow. With regard to
initiation, the main conclusions from the work performed to date are that initiation of SCC in
non-cold worked stainless steel in flowing reactor coolant is very difficult and rarely occurs,
but that the presence of surface cold work and strain localization increases the risk of initiation.
With regard to crack growth rates, it has been found that they are difficult to sustain in solution
annealed material but are increased significantly by cold work.
Discussion.

In 2009 Andresen prepared a document that summarizes the results of the extensive series of
tests that he has performed over many years to evaluate the susceptibility of stainless steels
and nickel-base alloys to SCC in LWR environments [133]. Some highlights from this work
related to SCC of stainless steels in PWR environments include:

No changes in CGR are observed when boron and lithium are added to low potential
water, or when the concentrations of these additives are varied. However, at high
potential, these additives lead to increased CGR, perhaps by a factor of ten. Thus, the
presence of high potentials (oxidizing conditions) should be minimized in PWR reactor
coolant systems.

Changes in the hydrogen concentration of PWR reactor coolant do not significantly affect
the CGR of SCC in stainless steels, contrary to the large effects that they have on CGRs
of Alloy 600 and other nickel-base alloys.

In the 288 343C (550 650F) range, temperature increases the CGR, with an
activation energy in the 80 100 kJ/mol range.

In low potential (e.g., PWR) water, the CGR of sensitized material tends to be lower than
that of non-sensitized material.

CGRs increase as yield strength increases, as illustrated in Figure 3-18. This holds true
for material that has been strengthened by cold work as well as by other mechanisms
such as irradiation. It also applies to regions with high plastic strain close to the fusion
line of welds, where cracks tend to initiate and grow in situations where cracking is not
controlled by sensitization.

Developing realistic dependencies for the CGR on the stress intensity factor is difficult
for many reasons that are too complex to discuss here. No evidence of crack arrest occurs
down to at least a KISCC of ~5 MPam (4.5 ksiin.).

Crack initiation is often associated with local cold work and surface damage, e.g., as the
result of grinding.

(I) 3-57

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Stainless Steel for Piping, Components, and Pressure Vessels

Figure 3-18
Effect of Yield Strength on Crack Growth Rate in Low Potential Environments [133]

A series of papers by Arioka and colleagues in the 2003-2007 period report the results of
tests of the IGSCC susceptibility of 316 stainless steel in PWR reactor coolant environments
[134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139]. These tests were performed using CERTs of v-shaped
specimens, which are considered to mainly measure effects of initiation rather than
propagation, although both processes are involved, and also using precracked CT specimens,
which measure effects of propagation. Some of the main results of these tests include:

Susceptibility to IGSCC initiation decreased as boric acid concentration increased.


However, changes in boric acid concentration did not affect crack growth rates.

Susceptibility to IGSCC initiation increased a small amount as the lithium concentration


in the water increased. However, changes in lithium concentration did not affect crack
growth rates.

Susceptibility to IGSCC initiation increased as the hydrogen concentration in the water


increased. However, changes in hydrogen concentration did not affect crack growth rates.

Sensitization essentially eliminated susceptibility under the test conditions.


The activation energy for IGSCC initiation was about 90 kJ/mol, and about 100 kJ/mol
for crack growth.
Crack growth rate increased with cold work, was much faster in the plane of rolling
than in other orientations, decreased as chromium concentration increased, and
(for non-sensitized material) decreased as the ECP decreased.
(I) 3-58

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material


Stainless Steel for Piping, Components, and Pressure Vessels

A number