hr. .I. Pres. VET.

& Pipmg 74 (1997) 97-103

0 1998 Elsevier Science Limited. Printed All rights reserved in Nwthem Ireland 0308-0161/97/$17.00

ELSEVIER

PII:SO308-0161(97)00076-S

Linear elastic vs elastic-plastic fracture mechanics methods in nuclear vessel integrity assessments
Jo& Ricardo
Department of Materials Engineering,

Tarpani*

& Dirceu Spinelli

SiTo Carlos School of Engineering, University of Siio Paulo, Av. Dr. Carlos Botelho 1465, CEP 13560-250, SGo Carlos, SP, Brazil

(Received July 1997;accepted August 1997) 25 19

This paper compares analytical failure predictions for a flawed PWR vessel from linear elastic and elastic-plastic fracture mechanics, as currently permissible by

ASME code.The significantconservatism underupper-shelf conditions providedby

the first approach has been quantified in terms of internal pressure and wall-thickness strain gradient. Monotonic crack growth withstood by the assessed component has been evaluated through several elastic-plastic criteria, and leak-before-break and related crack-arrest events have been inferred to be likely the deeper the postulated pre-crackis. Research results indicatethat logarithmic J-R curve datafitting is more appropriate and conservative than the conventionally used power law in regard to extensive crack propagation. Conservative linear elastic and elastic-plastic predictions have also been confirmed by testing small-scale and/or deeply sidegrooved testpieces. 0 1998 Elsevier Science Limited. All rights reserved.

1 INTRODUCTION
The undue conservatism in the instability analysis of structural components operating under upper-shelf conditions provided by traditional linear elastic fracture mechanics (LEFM) concepts as compared to modern elastic-plastic fracture mechanics (EPFM) methodologies has always been generally recognized, although it has never been properly, i.e. quantitatively, appreciated. Specifically, the adoption of the latter approach in assessment plans of crack-like defects in PWR vesselshas only recently been formally accepted.1,2Therefore, it seemsrelevant to estimate the instability conditions for the system performing under fully ductile response following both approaches, with the purpose of verifying potential advantagesoffered by novel elastic-plastic methods, by meansof which significant extended nuclear plant life may be added to that originally stipulated in the operating plant license. In this paper, suchanalytical comparisonis accomplished by consideringseveral crack types located at the belt-line of an intermediate size PWR (pressurized light water cooled reactor) vessel.The numerical results are potentially useful
*To whom correspondence should be addressed
97

for hydrotesting purposes,and the comparative analysiscan be extended to in-service events, as far as the inherent environmental aggressiveness accounted for.3 is

2 MATERIAL, COMPONENT

TESTPIECES

AND STRUCTURAL

The nuclear grade steelASTM A508CL3A testedin the asreceived condition presentedyield strength, Sy, of 385 MPa and ultimate tensile strength, Su, of 520 MPa at a temperature of 175C. Charpy impact results indicated an uppershelf energy exceeding 300 J for this moderate-strength low-alloy steel. One- and two-inch thick proportional compact specimens for K and J toughnesstests (1T and 2TCT, W/B = 2) were machinedin the ST orientation from the mid-thickness of a thick-section forged plate steel. The cylindrical PWR vessel, with mean radius, R, of 950 mm and wall-thickness, t, of 130mm is shown schematically in Fig. 1, presentingfour elliptical embedded cracks with nil-eccentricity and four semi-elliptical surface cracks, individually consideredherein for analysis, which are fully submitted to hoop stresses.The component is

98 a=13.8 1= 165 a=13.8 1=275

J. R. Tarpani, D. Spinelli a=225 = 330 a=225 I = 550 a=225 I= 165 a=2%5 1 = 275 a=55 1 = 330 a = 5~5 i-z 5j;

Fig. 1. Eight axial radially propagating cracks in the PWR vessel wall. supposed to be slowly throughout hydrotesting. and isothermally pressurized after converting KIc values in their J equivalent counterpart [eqn (2)], the achievement of the vessel failure predictions upon linear elasticity. 3.2 Elastic-plastic fracture mechanics (EPFM)

3 EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES

AND ANALYTICAL

3.1 Linear elastic fracture

mechanics (LEFM)

Kc tests were conducted according to the ASTM E399 standard4 in the temperature range of - 196 to - 60C in order to obtain maximum valid KIc results for both specimen sizes. The stress intensity K for outside surface cracks with depth a, and 2a for embedded cracks, axially sited in the belt-line of an internally and isothermally pressurized cylindrical vessel, is given by: KIM = SM.MM (1)

J crack-resistance curves were determined in accordance with ASTM E11.526 by testing 8% and 21% side-grooved specimens at 175C through the linear normalization technique,7 which has been shown to be conservative with respect to unloading compliance method when power law J-R data fitting is employed. J-Au data points were adjusted by conventionally used power law and, conversely, a logarithmic fit was attempted. According to the methodology of J-T diagrams, where T is the tearing modulus, J-TMAT curves were derived, where TM,, is the increase rate on the material cracking resistance. The loading curves for the flawed structure, J-TApp, where TAP, is the increase rate on the crack driving force, were achieved by:
JAPP -=TAPP &a E

where KIM points out mode I crack loading, Slvr is the engineering hoop membrane stress, as remotely developed from the crack tip, and MM and Q are crack shape factors. In the elastic regime, K is related to the J-integral through the Griffith energy criterion, G, by? J=G= K2 El where E E (plane - stress) i E/l - y2 (plane - strain) (2)

(4)

At the intersection between J-TMAT and J--T,QP curves, that is, when TM, equals TApp in a constant J analysis:9.0
dl,AT -dAa E .g = Y TM~~ = TAPP = dl,PP -E

da Sy

(5)

E and u are material constants. From eqns (1) and (2) and using the material yield strength, SY, the crack driving force applied by internal pressurization of the flawed vessel is obtained in J terms as follows:

J MAT

= JAPP

(6)

where the symbols { } and [ ] are, respectively, stress and geometric correction terms. JApp is directly related to the internal pressure, P, in eqn (3) via SM, the maximum stress peak attained at the inside surface of the vessel wall, by the Tresca relation. The gradient of nominal membrane strain, eM(MAx) and eM(MIN), respectively, the maximum and minimum strain peaks reached in the wall, derives from the thick-walled components theory and Ramberg-Osgood relationships. JApp X P X eM diagrams thus enabled,

the J value for the vessel instability, JINST, was determined. Taking this procedure further, the so-called JSOvalue, suggested as a convenient approximation of JINST, was obtained from a loading curve given by lo J/TApp = 8.8 kJ/m* (50 lb/in). Also the Ji value of ductile crack initiation was achieved from the 0.2 mm off-set criterion. I1 The instability estimations according to J50 and JINsr were defined as intervals, with the upper limit set by a power law J-TMAT curve extrapolated from the maximum crack growth level attained on a J-R test and the lower limit defined by a J-TMAT curve linearly extrapolated from the original limit of validity of Deformation-J (o = 5 for CTISll,*). J APP values [eqn (3)] on the plastic domain were

Analytical

failure

predictions

99

calculated by considering an intermediate condition between plane-stressand plane-strain for the stresscorrection term,13.14 while the ASME code supplied the corresponding geometrical solutions fully corrected for the crack-tip plastic zone. As for LEFM analysis, JAppX P X eMdiagramsfurnished the vesselfailure predictions in terms of internal pressureand wall-through strain gradient for all possible combinations among elastic-plastic criteria and crack types.

4 RESULTS

AND DISCUSSION

Fig. 2(a) presentsthe fracture toughness versustemperature resultsasobtained for the A508 steel. In the same diagram, a KIC curve is drawn according to the ASME code relating to the reference temperature of nil-ductility transition, RTndt, for a Charpy specimen lateral expansion of 0.9 mm. This key curve is shown to be significantly conservative in regard

to the valid result of the 2TCT specimen,but on the other hand, it makes a close estimate of the less massive 1TCT specimenresults.Fig. 2(b) displays the graphical procedure used to obtain the critical conditions for the vessel failure upon KIC, considering a particular pre-existing crack in the vesselwall. The J-R curves for 1T and 2TCT side-grooved specimens are shown in Fig. 3(a). Experimental J-Au data points were obtained upto crack growth levels within the extended limit of validity of Deformation-J (J&l5 almost 50% of the specimeninitial ligament, which is far beyond those originally established in terms of w criterion and ductile crack extension Aa.6, 1,12,16 As can be inferred from Fig. 2(a) and Fig. 3(a), 2T specimensproduce, for both LEFM andEPFM, non-conservative results ascomparedto lessmassive1T testpieces,thus confirming the highly desiredsafety margin in periodical plant inspection programs by testing small-scale specimens. Additionally, taking into considerationthe fair dimensional

t
p o 7 ~~...r

R 1TCT valid m ZTCTvalid

-200
04
20

j? I
0

-160

-120 -80 TEMPERATURE

-40 (C)

10 CRACK

15

20

25

30 (mm)

DUCTILE

GROWTH,

Aa

5 10 J-INTEGRAL.

15 20 25 30 Jnpp and Jrnnr (kJ/m2)

35

150 TEARING

300 MODULUS,

Gpp

450 and

600 &AT

Fig. 2. (a) Fracturetoughness results (valid Kl,-, non-valid for the A508-CL3A steel;(b) vesselfailure predictionsin termsof pressure strains, and uponKlc criterion (type VIII crack).

KQ)

Fig. 3. (a) Linear-normalized crack-resistance J curvesfor the A508-CL3A steelat 175C;(b) J-T diagram methodology (type VIII crack).

100

J. R. Tarpani, D. Spinelli

compatibility between the 2T specimen widths and the vessel wall-thickness, it can be stated that this testpiece provides more realistic failure predictions than does 1T specimens, particularly as concerns axial cracks growing in the radial direction of the cylindrical component, as assessed herein. Only 2TCT results were therefore used in quantifying linear elastic and elastic-plastic instability conditions of the pressure vessel. Specifically in regard to the elastic-plastic analysis, 2 1% side-grooving of J specimens gross-thickness produced straight crack fronts (in fact, a slightly inverted tunnelling was noticed) and almost imperceptible dimension changes along specimen thickness, resembling the fracture behavior of highly constrained bulky cracked components.3.17 Accordingly, only 21% side-grooved 2TCT specimen results were applied to the EPFM approaches. Fig. 3(a) shows logarithmic adjustment of J-R curves, which can be seen to be much more suitable than the currently widely used power law fit,5,17-3 on advanced crack growth stages, where Jn-saturation takes place 10,7,21,24-26 tearing instability is the main concern. and In Fig. 3(b), on J-T space for crack stability analysis, J-TM*~ (non-linear dotted line for J-R logarithmic fit) and J--T*PP curves (straight dotted lines) refer to the 2TCT deeply side-grooved testpiece and J50 and JANETcriteria, respectively. J5,, and JINsT values, whose upper limits are designated B and D, respectively, are also indicated for a particular postulated pre-existent crack. The extended elasto-plastic stress correction term and the Ramberg-Osgood stress-strain relation for the A.508 steel at 175C are presented in Fig. 4(a). Fig. 4(b) shows the graphical procedure used to estimate the vessel failure conditions according to elastic-plastic criteria and related ranges, as expressed in Fig. 3(a) and (b). All the vessel failure predictions upon LEFM and EPFM approaches are presented in Table 1. Back to Fig. 3(a), and based on the J-R curve referring to the 2TCT 21% side-grooved testpiece, it was possible to achieve the ductile crack growth levels, Aa, preceding the vessel failure according to EPFM criteria, as specified in Table 2. In view of the upper-shelf conditions assumed in this study, the results show that Ktc, the least conservative failure criterion adopted in outdated ASME codes, is excessively pessimistic in assessing flawed vessels as compared to more realistic EPFM criteria, as incorporated into the current ASME code.2 Among the EPFM approaches, the failure predictions from crack initiation Ji are very conservative, despite the excessive crack extension connected to it (0.7 mm) due to the significant J-R curve inclination at its intersection with the 0.2 mm off-set line. On the other hand, J50 predictions are excellent (slightly conservative) when compared to results from JINsT, which define analytically the ductile instability event, as verified particularly for shallow surface cracks and embedded cracks in general. In spite of the very high JINST/J5,, ratios, their failure predictions in terms of

0 3 6 RELATIVE NOMINAL

9 STRAIN

12 15 (e, @,)

(W

1000 J-INTEGRAL,

2000

3000

4000

5000

Jnpp and JMAT (kJ/m*)

Fig. 4. (a) Ramberg-Osgood stress-strain relation and elastoplastic stress correction (plane-strain, plane-stress and the intermediate condition) for the A508-CL3A steel at 175C; (b) vessel failure predictions in terms of pressure and strains, upon EPFM criteria (type VIII crack). pressure and strains are notably similar due, basically, to the low strain-hardening exhibited by the A508 steel at 175X, as evidenced by its low Su/SY ratio at this temperature. The relevance of J50 as a safe design and service criterion is then ratified for internally pressurized nuclear components. The failure predictions ranges given in Tables 1 and 2 in terms of pressure, P, strains, eM, and ductile crack growth, Aa, respectively, derived from JINsT are too extensive as compared to those obtained from J50, which reaffirms the latters advantage over J,NST as a consistent criterion in designing structural components and assessing their integrity. The narrow ranges from Jso reproduce the unexpected similarity between the opposing procedures of linear and non-linear J-TM~T extrapolation from Jn-controlling crack growth by w = 5 criterion, with this approximation occurring particularly, and again, for shallow surface cracks and every-size embedded cracks. Large differences

Analytical Table 1. PWR vessel failure predictions,

failure

predictions and EPFM analyses

(%)

101

in terms of pressure and strains, in line with LEFM P (MPa) 55.4 57.5 63.7-65.7 63.9-65.8 54.2 57.1 63.5-65.5 63.8-65.7 36.0 51.5 58.3-59.4 59.7-62.6 35.3 51.3 58.2-59.3 59.5-62.5 37.4 52.9 59.7-60.5 61.1-63.4 34.0 50.9 57.6-58.7 59.2-61.7 22.6 46.0 52.9-54.0 54.8-60.3
eM(MAX) @)

Crack type
I

Criterion
KIC

%(MliV

Ji Jso
JINST

II

KIC

Ji
J50
JINST

III

KlC

Ji
J50 JIM

IV

KIC

Ji
J50
JINST

040 1.19 2.42-3.02 2.50-3.15 0.69 1.16 2.38-2.96 2.43-3.05 0.14 0.61 1.35-1.52 1.56-2.18 0.13 0.60

0.30 0.35 0.68-0.84 0.70-0.89 0.27 0.34 0.65-0.82 0.69-0.87 0.12 0.26 0.47-0.5 1 0.52-0.65

0.11
0.25 0.46-0.50

1.30-1.47 1.51-2.12
0.14 0.65

0.51-0.64
0.12 0.27 0.49-0.54 0.56-0.68 0.105 0.23 0.42-0.46 0.47-0.61 0.07 0.21 0.3 l-0.33 0.34-0.46 0.06 0.17 0.25-0.27 0.28-0.37

KIC

Ji Jso
JINST

1.49- 1.65 1.73-2.39

0.12 0.55

VI

KIC

Ji J5o
JINST

1.21-1.35
1.42-1.97 0.09 0.32 0.66-0.74

VII

KIC

Ji
J50
JINST

0.80- 1.35
0.065 0.22 0.48-0.5 1 0.55-0.87

VIII

KIC

18.5
43.6 50.7-5 1.8 52.7-58.5

Ji
J50
JINST

betweenupper limits of crack extension predictions from J50 and Jr~sr criteria are shown in Table 2, deriving from the high JINS-r/J50 ratios associated with the intrinsic downwards concavity of J resistancecurves. From the data it can be statedthat, for well-defined depth and length, 1, surface cracks are much more harmful than through-cracks. Also, it is verified that crack depth has much more influence on failure predictions, for both LEFM and EPFM, than doescrack length. In fact, in dealing with shallow embeddedcracks, crack length haspractically no effect on the results. For the less damaging cracks, the shallow embedded ones,the trend of LEFM and EPFM estimationsto approach eachother hasbeenverified. In thesecases, spreadplasticity effects are anticipated, which are quite beyond the linear elasticity premises.So, LEFM results shouldbe considered completely inconsistent.
Table 2. Ductile crack propagation (in millimeters,

As can be inferred from the most unconservative crack growth predictions in Table 2, the probability of leakbefore-ductile instability is proportional to the depth of the pre-existing crack, regardless of its position in the vessel wall. In this sense,deeper cracks may by-pass the instability by arresting owing to vesseldepressurization,or at least be prematurely identified owing to leakage. On the other hand, shallow cracks may suddenly become unstable without giving prior signs.This reasoningis schematically illustrated in Fig. 5. It must be remarked that this mechanismof tearing instability, where the crack advance preceding the component failure is proportional to the preexistent crack-depth, is indeedcontrary to its counterpart, as predicted by linear elasticity-by considering sub-critical crack growth and constant instability stress,which is based on the well-known concept of critical crack depth. Finally, Figs. 3(a), 3(b) and 4(b) confirm the healthy
the failure of the pressure vessel

for each crack leading edge) preceding according to EPFM criteria

Criterion I II
0.9 4.3-6.9 4.8-7.6

Crack type III

0.9 5.3-6.9 7.2-15

IV
0.9 5.3-6.9 7.2-15

V
0.9 5.3-6.9 7.2-15

VI
0.9 5.3-6.9 7.2-15

VII
0.9 5.3-6.9 8.5-30

VIII
0.9 5.3-6.9 8.5-30

Ji
J50
JINST

0.9 4.3-6.9 4.8-7.6

102

J. R. Tarpani,

D. Spinelli

- 11
Fig. 5. Ductile crack growth levels at the threshold of vessei instability. conservatismof failure predictions from logarithmic against power law J-R data fitting (respectively, D againstD), and, on this basisit is proposedas a safe alternative adjustment practice, particularly for J-R and J-T extrapolation procedures, when conservative approaches are favored as long as crack growth levels are outside any JD limits of validity. cracks may grow catastrophically without any prior notice. 5. Logarithmic fit is more suitable than the traditionally usedpower law in adjusting J-R curve data points for large relative crack extension levels. The conservatism of the failure predictions supplied by this proposed practice qualities it as a safe-fit method to be applied, particularly when extrapolation proceduresin both J-R and J-T spacesare needed, as typically employed in integrity assessmentsof massiveductile structural components.

5 CONCLUSIONS

1. In assessingthe integrity of flawed PWR vessels operating under upper-shelf conditions, linear elastic fracture mechanics,being the only approach allowed by outdated ASME code guidelines, is unduly pessimistic when compared to modern elastic-plastic methodologies as currently incorporated into that code. The excessive conservatism provided by the first approach has been quantified in terms of operational parametersof nuclear PWR vessels. 2. Ductile crack initiation Ji is an overly conservative approach to elastic-plastic fracture mechanics. On the other hand, JSO produces excellent (slightly conservative) estimationsof the real failure conditions of structural components.Therefore, J.jO is ratified as a consistentelastic-plastic criterion for safe designand service in the nuclear power industry. On such a basis, crack propagation and, particularly, internal pressure and wall-strain monitoring are quite worthy parametersin characterizing vesselinstability by a ductile tearing mechanism. 3. Linear elastic and elastic-plastic fracture mechanics methodologies are surprisingly insensitive to crack length changes in dealing with shallow surface cracks and embedded cracks in general. In these situations, the former being the most prone to develop between two consecutive power plant inspection programs, J50 produces more consistent and realistic results. 4. The probability of leak-before-ductile instability is proportional to the pre-existing crack depth. In this sense deeper cracks may by-pass the vessel instability
by arresting owing to depressurization, while shallow

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors are grateful to FAPESP-Funda@o para o Amparo a Pesquisa Estado de Sao Paulo-for financial do support (Processes 91/3925-4 and 91/5010-3) and Eletrometal S/A Metais Especiaisfor the provision of the A508CL3A steel.

REFERENCES
1. ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Rules for Inservice Inspection of Nuclear Power Plant Components, Section XI, Appendix A (Analysis of Flaws) and G (Fracture Toughness Criteria for Protection Against Failure). American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York, 1992; currently: ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Rules for Inservice Inspection of Nuclear Power Plant Components, Section XI, Division I, NMA A (Analysis of Flaws) and NMA G (Fracture Toughness Criteria for Protection Against Failure). American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York, 1996. 2. ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Rules for Inservice Inspection of Nuclear Power Plant Components, Section XI, Division I, NMA K (Assessment of Reactor Vessels With Low Upper Shelf Charpy Energy Levels). American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York, 1996. 3. Tarpani, J.R., Crack stability assessment on structural components through elastic-plastic fracture toughness J-integral and comparison with results from linear elastic fracture mechanics. DSc. thesis, Sao Carlos School of Engineering, University of Slo Paulo, Sao Carlos, Brazil, 1995 (in Portuguese). 4. Standard Test Method for Plane-Strain Fracture Toughness of Metallic Materials, KIc. ASTM Standard E399, Section 3, Vol. 03.01, 1995.

Analytical

failure

predictiom

103

5. Rolfe, T.S. Use of fracture mechanics in design. Znternational Metallurgical Reviews, 1974, 19, 183- 198. 6. Standard Test Method for Determining J-R Curves. ASTM Standard El 152, Section 3, Vol. 03.01, 1995. 7. Reese, E.D. and Schwalbe, K.-H. The linear normalization technique-An alternative procedure for determining J-R curves from single specimen test record based on Landes normalization method. Fatigue and Fracture of Engineering Materials and Structures, 1993, 16, 27 l-280. 8. Tarpani, J.R. and Spinelli, D., Evaluating the linear normalization technique for the development of J-R curves. First Seminar on Fracture Mechanics. Brazilian Society for Metallurgy and Materials, Brazil, 1995, pp. 89-105 (in Portuguese). 9. Paris, P.C., Tada, H., Zahoor, A. and Ernst, H.A., The theory of instability of tearing mode of elastic-plastic crack growth. ASTM STP 668, 1979, pp. 5-36. IO. Paris, P.C. and Johnson, R.E., A method of application of elastic-plastic fracture mechanics to nuclear vessels analysis. ASTM STP 803, Vol. 2, 1983, pp. 5-40. 11. Standard Test Method for Jtc, A Measure of Fracture Toughness. ASTM Standard E813, Section 3, Vol. 03.01, 1995. 12. Hutchinson, J.W. and Paris, P.C., Stability analysis of Jcontrolled crack growth. ASTM STP 668, 1979, pp. 37-64. 13. Tang, S.S., Riccardella, PC. and Huet, R., Verification of tearing modulus methodology for application to reactor pressure vessel with low-shelf toughness. ASTM STP 803, Vol. 2, 1983, pp. 156-178. 14. Tada, H. and Paris, P.C., Tearing instability analysis handbook formulas and curves. NUREGKR1221. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC, 1980. 15. Hackett, E.M. and Joyce, J.A. Use of J-R curves in assessing the fracture behaviour of low upper shelf toughness materials. Nuclear Engineering and Design, 1992, 134, 217-226. 16. Shih, CF., de Lorenzi, H.G. and Andrews, W.R., Studies on

17. 18. 19.

20. 21. 22. 23. 24.

25.

26.

crack initiation and stable crack growth. ASTM STP 668, 1979, pp. 65-120. LOSS, F.J., Menke, B.H., Hiser, A.L. and Watson, H.E., J-R curves characterization of irradiated low-shelf nuclear vessel steels. ASTM STP 803, Vol. 2, 1983, pp. 177-795. Inghan, T., The interpretation and analysis of upper shelf toughness data. ASTM STP 856, 1985, pp. 47-67. Schwalbe, K.-H., Hellman, D., Heerens, J., Knaack, J. and Muller-Roos, J., Measurement of stable crack growth including detection of initiation of growth using the DC potential drop and the partial unloading methods. ASTM STP 856, 1985, pp. 338-362. Wilson, A.D. and Donald, J.K., Evaluating steel toughness using various elastic-plastic fracture toughness parameters. ASTM STP 995, Vol. 2, 1989, pp. 144-168. Wilkowiski, G.M., Marschall, C.W. and Landow, M.P., Extrapolation of C[T] specimen J-R curves. ASTM STP 1074, 1990, pp. 56-84. Joyce, J.A., Davis, D.A., Hackett, E.M. and Hays, R.A., Application of J-integral and modified J-integral to cases of large crack extension. ASTM STP 1074, 1990, pp. 85-105. Neale, B.K. On the best fit curve through crack growth fracture resistance data. Fatigue and Fracture of Engineering Materials and Structures, 1993, 16, 465-472. Davis, D.A., Vassilaros, M.G. and Gudas, J.P., Specimen geometry and extended crack growth effects on J,-R curve characteristics for HY-130 and ASTM A533B steels. ASTM STP 803, Vol. 2, 1983, pp. 582-610. Cayard, MS. and Bradley, W.L. A comparison of several analytical techniques for calculating J-R curves from loaddisplacement data and their relation to specimen geometry. Engineering Fracture Mechanics, 1989, 33, 121- 132. Kramer, G.S. and Papaspyropoulos, V., A study of the initiation and growth of complex cracks in nuclear piping under pure bending. ASTM STP 995, Vol. 2, 1989, pp. 433-453.