NUREG/CR-6651 

ORNL/TM- 1999/231

International Comparative 

Assessment Study of 

Pressurized Thermal 

Shock in Reactor 

Pressure Vessels 

Oak Ridge National Laboratory 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission REG" 

Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research 

Washington, DC 20555-0001
NRC publications in the NUREG series, NRC regu

lations, and Title 10, Energy, of the Code of Federal 

Regulations, may be purchased from one of the fol

lowing sources: 

1. The Superintendent of Documents 

U.S. Government Printing Office 

P.O. Box 37082 

Washington, DC 20402-9328 

<http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs> 

202-512-1800 

2. The National Technical Information Service 

Springfield, VA 22161 -0002 

<http://www.ntis.gov> 

1 -800-553-6847 or locally 703-605-6000 

The NUREG series comprises (1) brochures 

(NUREG/BR-XXXX), (2) proceedings of confer

ences (NUREG/CP-XXXX), (3) reports resulting 

from international agreements (NUREG/IA-XXXX), 

(4) technical and administrative reports and books 

[(NUREG-XXXX) or (NUREG/CR-XXXX)], and (5) 

compilations of legal decisions and orders of the 

Commission and Atomic and Safety Licensing 

Boards and of Office Directors' decisions under 

Section 2.206 of NRC's regulations (NUREG

XXXX). 

A single copy of each NRC draft report for com

ment is available free, to the extent of supply, upon 

written request as follows: 

Address: Office of the Chief Information Officer 

Reproduction and Distribution 

Services Section 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

Washington, DC 20555-0001 

E-mail: <DISTRIBUTION@nrc.gov> 

Facsimile: 301 -415-2289 

A portion of NRC regulatory and technical informa

tion is available at NRC's World Wide Web site:

<http://www.nrc.gov> 

After January 1, 2000, the public may electronically 

access NUREG-series publications and other NRC 

records in NRC's Agencywide Document Access 

and Management System (ADAMS), through the 

Public Electronic Reading Room (PERR), link 

<http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/ADAMS/index.html>. 

Publicly released documents include, to name a 

few, NUREG-series reports; Federal Register no

tices; applicant, licensee, and vendor documents 

and correspondence; NRC correspondence and 

internal memoranda; bulletins and information no

tices; inspection and investigation reports; licens

ee event reports; and Commission papers and 

their attachments. 

Documents available from public and special tech

nical libraries include all open literature items, such 

as books, journal articles, and transactions, Feder

al Register notices, Federal and State legislation, 

and congressional reports. Such documents as 

theses, dissertations, foreign reports and transla

tions, and non-NRC conference proceedings may 

be purchased from their sponsoring organization. 

Copies of industry codes and standards used in a 

substantive manner in the NRC regulatory process 

are maintained at the NRC Library, Two White Flint 

North, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 

20852-2738. These standards are available in the 

library for reference use by the public. Codes and 

standards are usually copyrighted and may be 

purchased from the originating organization or, if 

they are American National Standards, from

American National Standards Institute 

11 West 42nd Street 

New York, NY 10036-8002 

<http://wwwansi.org> 

212-642-4900

DISCLAIMER

This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United 

States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their em ployees, makes any warranty, expressed or implied, or assumes

any legal liability or responsibility for any third party's use, or the 

results of such use, of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed in this report, or represents that its use by such third party would not infringe privately owned rights.

AVAILABILITY NOTICE 

Availability of Reference Materials Cited in NRC Publications
NUREG/CR-6651 

ORNL/TM-1999/231 

International Comparative 

Assessment Study of 

Pressurized Thermal 

Shock in Reactor 

Pressure Vessels 

Manuscript Completed: November 1999 

Date Published: December 1999 

Prepared by 

B.R. Bass, C.E. Pugh, Oak Ridge National Laboratory 

J. Sievers, H. Schulz, Gesellschaft fMr Anlagen-und Reaktorsicherheit (GRS) 

Oak Ridge National Laboratory 

Managed by Lockheed Martin Energy Research Corporation 

Oak Ridge, TN 37831-6370 

Gesellschaft filr Anlagen-und Reaktorsicherheit (GRS) 

Koln, Germany 

C.G. Santos, NRC Project Manager 

Prepared for 

Division of Engineering Technology 

Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

Washington, DC 20555-0001 

NRC Job Code W6631
NUREG/CR-6651 has been 

reproduced from the best available copy.
ABSTRACT

A summary of the recently completed International Comparative Assessment Study of Pressurized

Thermal-Shock in Reactor Pressure Vessels (ICAS PTS RPV) is presented to record the results in 

actual and comparative fashions. The ICAS Project brought together an international group of 

experts from research, utility and regulatory organizations to perform a comparative evaluation of 

analysis methodologies employed in the assessment of RPV integrity under PTS loading conditions. 

The Project was sponsored jointly by Gesellschaft ftir Anlagen- und Reaktorsicherheit (GRS), Kbln, 

Germany, and Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL), with assistance from the Organization for 

Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)/Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA)/Committee on the 

Safety of Nuclear Installations (CSNI)/Principal Working Group (PWG) No. 3 (Integrity of 

Components and Structures). The ICAS Project grew out of a strong interest expressed by 

participants in the previous FALSIRE II Project to proceed with further evaluations of analysis 

methods used in RPV integrity assessment. Also, a Problem Statement was drafted to define a 

Western type four-loop RPV with cladding on the inner surface, and a detailed task matrix was 

defined that included a set of transient thermal-mechanical loading conditions postulated to result 

from loss-of-coolant accidents. The analytical assessment activities, which focused on the behavior of 

shallow cracks, were based on the Problem Statement and divided under three tasks: deterministic 

fracture mechanics (DFM), probabilistic fracture mechanics (PFM) and thermal-hydraulic mixing 

(THM). Researchers representing 25 organizations in 13 countries participated in ICAS, and 

approximately 145 comparative plots were generated from an electronic data base of results to focus 

on the predictive capabilities of the analysis methods applied to the different tasks. Selected plots are 

presented and discussed in this report. The results show that a best-estimate methodology for RPV 

integrity assessment can benefit from a reduction of the uncertainties in each phase of the process. 

ICAS participants drafted a list of topics where future work concerning further refinement of RPV 

integrity assessment methodology would be beneficial.

iii NUREG/CR-6651
CONTENTS 

Page 

A b stract ................................................................................................................................... iii 

List of Figures ......................................................................................................................... vii 

List of Tables ........................................................................................................................... x 

Executive Summ ary ................................................................................................................. xi 

Acknowledgm ents ................................................................................................................... xv 

S Introduction ................................................................................................................ 1 

2 Background of the ICAS Project .................................................................................. 3 

References ................................................................................................................... 5 

3 ICAS Problem Statement (Task M atrix) ....................................................................... 9 

3.1 Deterministic Fracture M echanics (Task Group DFM ) ........................................... 9 

3.2 Probabilistic Fracture M echanics (Task Group PFM ) ........................................... 15 

3.3 Therm al-Hydraulic M ixing (Task Group THM ) ................................................... 18 

3.4 Task M atrix ........................................................................................................... 24 

References ................................................................................................................... 24 

4 Computer Codes and Analysis Techniques .................................................................. 43 

5 Discussion of Analysis Results and Comparative Assessm ents ....................................... 47 

5.1 Comparison of Analysis Results - Task Group DFM ............................................. 47 

5.2 Comparison of Analysis Results - Task Group PFM ............................................. 53 

5.3 Comparison of Analysis Results - Task Group THM ............................................. 53 

6 Summ ary and Conclusions .......................................................................................... 107 

7 Bibliography: Recent ICAS-Related Publications ......................................................... 111 

Appendix A Special Requirements Concerning Comparative Analyses .................................... 115 

Appendix B Availability of Data ............................................................................................. 119

V NUREG/CR-6651
LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 3.1 Geometry of the RPV (4 loop PWR 1300 MW) ................................................ 

Figure 3.2 Pressure in the primary system (transient Ti) .................................................. 

Figure 3.3 Averaged fluid temperatures in the RPV downcomer near the ......................... 

inside RPV wall (transient Ti) 

Figure 3.4 Averaged heat transfer coefficient between the fluid in the downcomer ........... 

and the inside RPV wall (transient TI) 

Figure 3.5 Scheme of injection through two neighbouring nozzles ................................... 

Figure 3.6 Pressure in the primary circuit (transient T2) ................................................... 

Figure 3.7 Fluid temperatures in the RPV downcomer near the inside RPV wall ................ 

(transient T2) 

Figure 3.8 Water level in the RPV-downcomer (transient T2) ............................................ 

Figure 3.9 Cooling width in the RPV downcomer (transient T2) ....................................... 

Figure 3.10 Heat transfer coefficient inside the cooling region (transient T2) ..................... 

Figure 3.11 Heat transfer coefficient outside the cooling region (transient T2) ................... 

Figure 3.12 Pressure in the primary circuit (transient T3) ................................................... 

Figure 3.13 Fluid temperatures in the RPV downcomer near the inside RPV ....................... 

wall (transient T3)

Figure 3.14 

Figure 3.15 

Figure 3.16 

Figure 3.17 

Figure 3.18 

Figure 3.19 

Figure 3.20 

Figure 5.1.1 

Figure 5.1.2 

Figure 5.1.3 

Figure 5.1.4 

Figure 5.1.5 

Figure 5.1.6 

Figure 5.1.7

Water level in the RPV-downcomer (transient T3) ............................................ 

Cooling width in the RPV downcomer (transient T3) ....................................... 

Heat transfer coefficient inside the cooling region (transient T3) ..................... 

Heat transfer coefficient outside the cooling region (transient T3) ................... 

Typical distribution of residual stresses due to cladding after heat .................... 

treatment (12 h at 610 °C) 

UPTF test vessel and its internals, to be used for the geometry .......................... 

of the RPV internals, not to be used concerning the RPV-wall thickness 

Major dimensions of the UPTF -primary system ............................................. 

Time history of fluid temperatures for LOCA transients Ti, T2 and T3 ........... 

Time history of internal pressure for LOCA transients T1, T2 and T3 .............. 

Time history of heat transfer coefficients for LOCA transients TI, T2 and T3.. 

Task TI: Temperature distribution in the wall at time 2400 s .......................... 

Task TI: Axial stress across the wall without cracks at time 3600 s .................. 

Task TI: Axial'stress across the wall without cracks at time 3600 s .................. 

(region near the inner surface) 

Task TICI: Time history of crack mouth opening-.. .................. 

displacement (CMOD)

NUREG/CR-6651

Page 

29 

30 

30 

31 

32 

33 

33 

34 

34 

35 

35 

36 

36

37 

37 

38 

38 

39 

40 

41 

59 

60 

61 

62 

63 

64 

65

Vii
Figure 5.1.8 

Figure 5.1.9 

Figure 5.1.10 

Figure 5.1.11 

Figure 5.1.12 

Figure 5.1.13 

Figure 5.1.14 

Figure 5.1.15 

Figure 5.1.16 

Figure 5.1.17 

Figure 5.1.18 

Figure 5.1.19 

Figure 5.1.20 

Figure 5.1.21

Figure 

Figure

5.1.22 

5.1.23

Figure 5.1.24 

Figure 5.1.25 

Figure 5.1.26

Task T1CI: Stress intensity factor versus crack-tip ........................................... 

temperature (elastic and plastic calculation) 

Task TICI: Stress intensity factor versus crack-tip ........................................... 

temperature (plastic calculations) 

Task T1CI: Evaluation of the maximum allowable RTT based ....................... 

on tangent, ninety-percent, and maximum criteria. 

Task T1C2: Time history of crack mouth opening .......................................... 

displacement (CMOD) 

Task T1C2: Stress intensity factor versus crack-tip ........................................... 

temperature (elastic and plastic calculation) 

Task T1C2: Stress intensity factor versus crack-tip ........................................... 

temperature (plastic calculations) 

Task T1C2: Evaluation of the maximum allowable RTT (deepest ................... 

point) based on tangent, ninety-percent, and maximum criteria 

Task T2: Temperature distribution in the wall inside the .................................. 

cooling region at time 1500 s 

Task T2: Temperature distribution in the wall outside the ............................... 

cooling region at time 1500 s 

Task T2C2: Time history of crack mouth opening .......................................... 

displacement (CMOD) 

Task T2C2: Stress intensity factor versus crack-tip temperature at .................... 

the deepest point of the crack (elastic and plastic calculation) 

Task T2C2: Evaluation of the maximum allowable RT.D. (deepest ................... 

point) based on tangent, ninety-percent, and maximum criteria. 

Task T3: Temperature distribution in the wall inside ........................................ 

the cooling region at time 1600 s 

Task T3: Temperature distribution in the wall outside ...................................... 

the cooling region at time 1600 s 

Task T3C4: Time history of crack mouth opening displacement (CMOD) ...... 

Task T3C4: Stress intensity factor versus crack-tip temperature at the deepest.. 

point of the crack (elastic and plastic calculations) 

Task T3C4: Evaluation of the maximum allowable RTNDT (deepest ................... 

point) based on tangent, ninety-percent, and maximum criteria. 

Task PRS: Influence of residual stresses (RS) on the maximum ........................ 

stress intensity factor at the deepest point of the cracks 

Task PCT: Influence of the cladding thickness on the maximum ..................... 

stress intensity factor at the deepest point of the cracks

NUREG/CR-6651

66 

67 

68 

69 

70 

71 

72 

73 

74 

75 

76 

77 

78 

79 

80 

81 

82 

83 

84

viii
Figure 5.1.27 Task PCAR: Influence of the crack aspect ratio on the maximum ................... 85 

stress intensity factor at the deepest point of the cracks 

Figure 5.2.1 Task PFM-1: Conditional probability of crack initiation versus mean ............... 86 

surface RTNDT 

Figure 5.2.2 Task PFM-l: Conditional probability of vessel failure versus mean ................. 87 

surface RTNDT 

Figure 5.2.3 Task PFM-2: Conditional probability of crack initiation versus mean ............... 88 

surface RTrT 

Figure 5.2.4 Task PFM-2: Conditional probability of vessel failure versus mean ................. 89 

surface RTNDT 

Figure 5.2.5 Task PFM-3: Conditional probability of crack initiation versus mean .............. 90 

surface RTNDT 

Figure 5.2.6 Task PFM-3: Conditional probability of vessel failure versus mean .................. 91 

surface RTNDT 

Figure 5.2.7 Task PFM-4: Conditional probability of crack initiation versus mean ............... 92 

surface RTNDT 

Figure 5.2.8 Task PFM-4: Conditional probability of vessel failure versus mean ................. 93 

surface RTNT 

Figure 5.3.1 Task MIX: Global downcomer temperatures outside of the plumes ................ 94 

Figure 5.3.2 Task MIX: Downcomer stripe centerline temperatures, cold legs ...................... 95 

1/4, h=-lm 

Figure 5.3.3 Task MIX: Downcomer stripe centerline temperatures, cold legs ...................... 96 

1 / 4, h = -2 m 

Figure 5.3.4 Task MIX: Downcomer stripe centerline temperatures, cold legs ...................... 97 

2/3, h = -1 m 

Figure 5.3.5 Task MIX: Downcomer stripe centerline temperatures, cold legs ...................... 98 

2 / 3, h = -2 m 

Figure 5.3.6 Task MIX: Azimutal temperature distribution in downcomer .......................... 99 

h= -2 m, t = 900 s 

Figure 5.3.7 Task MIX: Global downcomer HTC outside of the plume ................................ 100 

Figure 5.3.8 Task MIX: Downcomer stripe centerline HTC, cold legs 2 / 3, h = -1 m ........... 101 

Figure 5.3.9 Task MIX: Downcomer stripe centerline HTC, cold legs 2/3, h = -2 m ............. 102 

Figure 5.3.10 Task MIX: Azimutal HTC distribution in downcomer, h = -2 m, t = 900 s ....... 103 

Figure 5.3.11 Task PINJ: Downcomer stripe centerline temperatures, cold legs 2 / 3, h = -2 m 104 

Figure 5.3.12 Task PINJ: Downcomer stripe centerline temperatures, cold legs 1 / 4, h = -2m 105 

Figure 5.3.13 Task PINJ: Downcomer stripe centerline HTC, cold legs 2 /3, h = -2 m ........... 106

ix NUREG/CR-6651
LIST OF TABLES

Table 

Table 

Table 

Table 

Table 

Table 

Table 

Table 

Table 

Table 

Table 

Table 

Table 

Table 

Table

NUREG/CR-6651

2.1 

2.2 

3.1 

3.2 

3.3 

3.4 

3.5 

3.6 

3.7 

4.1 

4.2 

4.3 

4.4 

4.5 

4.6

Organizations participating in the ICAS Project (Status November 1998) .......... 

Schedule of Events for RPV PTS ICAS ............................................................. 

Material properties of base metal (22 NiMoCr 37) and weld metal .................... 

M aterial properties of the austenitic cladding .................................................... 

Flaw distribution proposed for PFM task group ................................................. 

Embrittlement-related parameters for Tasks PFM 1-4 ........................................ 

Material properties of base metal (SA 508 Class 3) and weld metal .................... 

M aterial properties of the cladding 309L - 308L ............................................... 

T ask M atrix of R PV IC A S ................................................................................. 

Participants in RPV ICAS benchmark analyses , DFM-Task Group ................... 

Computer codes and approaches in RPV ICAS benchmark analyses .................. 

DFM-Task Group 

Participants in RPV ICAS benchmark analyses , PFM-Task Group .................... 

Computer codes and approaches in RPV ICAS benchmark analyses .................. 

PFM-Task Group 

Participants in RPV ICAS benchmark analyses , THMTask Group .................... 

Computer codes and approaches in RPV ICAS benchmark analyses .................. 

THM-Task Group 

DFM-Tasks TI: Evaluation of the maximum allowable RTNDT for ..................... 

the cracks C1,C2,C3,C4 and C5 (deepest point) based on tangent, ninety-percent, 

and maximum criteria on the K-T diagram 

DFM-Tasks T2: Evaluation of the maximum allowable RTNDT for ..................... 

the cracks C1,C2,C3,C4 and C5 (deepest point) based on tangent, ninety-percent, 

and maximum criteria on the K-T diagram 

DFM-Tasks T3: Evaluation of the maximum allowable RTNDT for ..................... 

the cracks C1,C2,C3,C4 and C5 (deepest point) based on tangent, ninety-percent, 

and maximum criteria on the K-T diagram 

Requested solution times for transients T1,T2,T3 ............................................... 

Data sets for Task groups DFM and PFM ..........................................................

6 

7 

25 

25 

26 

26 

27 

27 

28 

43 

44 

44 

45 

45 

45 

57 

58 

58 

116 

119

Table 5.1.1 

Table 5.1.2 

Table 5.1.3 

Table A. 1: 

Table B. 1:

X
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report summarizes the recently completed International Comparative Assessment Study of 

Pressurized-Thermal-Shock in Reactor Pressure Vessels (ICAS/RPV-PTS). The ICAS Project 

brought together an international group of experts from research, utility and regulatory 

organizations to perform a comparative evaluation of analysis methodologies employed in the 

assessment of RPV integrity under PTS loading conditions. The project was sponsored jointly by 

Gesellschaft fUr Anlagen- und Reaktorsicherheit (GRS), K61n, Germany, and Oak Ridge National 

Laboratory (ORNL), USA, with assistance from the Organization for Economic Co-operation and 

Development (OECD)/Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA)/Comunittee on the Safety of Nuclear 

Installations (CSNI)/Principal Working Group (PWG) No. 3 (Integrity of Components and 

Structures). The Organizing Committee (OC) for the ICAS Project consists of J. Sievers and H. 

Schulz, GRS, K61n, Germany; R. Bass and C. Pugh (ORNL); A. Miller represented the 

OECD/NEAICSNI and provided an important communications link between the OC and the ICAS 

participants. 

The ICAS Project grew out of a strong interest expressed by participants in the previous FALSIRE 

II Project to proceed with further evaluations of analysis methods used in RPV integrity 

assessment. Those assessments represent a multi-step process, involving the selection of transients, 

thermal-hydraulic calculations, postulation of defects, structural analyses, and fracture assessments 

based on specified material properties. A Call for Participation was issued jointly by GRS and 

ORNL in 1996 to an international group of experts to join in a comparative assessment study of 

RPV integrity under PTS loading, formally designated as the ICAS Project. The activity was 

originated in PWG No. 3 (Integrity of Components and Structures), with the co-operation of 

PWG No. 2 (Coolant System Behaviour). Emphasis in the project was placed on comparison of 

different approaches to RPV integrity assessment (including the determination of loading 

conditions) employed by the international nuclear technology community. 

A Problem Statement for the ICAS Project was drafted following a Launch Meeting held at GRS

K651n, during June 1996 and defined a Western type four-loop RPV with cladding on the inner 

surface. The RPVs proposed in the Problem Statement incorporate country-specific concerns. A 

detailed task matrix defined a set of transient thermal-mechanical loading conditions that are 

postulated to result from loss-of-coolant accidents. Both asymmetric and axisymmetric cooling 

conditions were considered, and different cracks (circumferential and longitudinal orientations; 

infinite and semielliptical geometries; through-clad and subclad flaws) were assumed in the near

core weld. The primary focus of the analyses was on the behaviour of relatively shallow cracks 

under PTS loading conditions due to the postulated emergency cooling transients. Special 

emphasis was placed on the interdisciplinary aspects of determining RPV loading conditions due 

to loss-of-coolant accidents. The calculations of fluid temperature and heat transfer to the 

structure using thermal-hydraulic analysis techniques were studied, with consideration given to 

models of fluid-fluid mixing and steam condensation. 

The Problem Statement was divided into three tasks and a group of analysts addressed each task: 

"* Deterministic Fracture Mechanics (DFM), 

"* Probabilistic Fracture Mechanics (PFM), 

"* Thermal-Hydraulic Mixing (THM). 

In the DFM Task Group, an RPV was utilized that is typical of German design 

(Type 1300 MW). The cladding thickness was proposed to vary in the range of designs used in 

the U.S., France, Germany and Russia. The postulated loading transients refer to small-break lossXi NUREG/CR-6651
of-coolant accidents (LOCA) due to leaks of different sizes. One transient is appropriate for U.S. 

nuclear plants, and two other transients are appropriate for German plants. The three transients 

were specified as follows: axisymmetric small-break LOCA (transient T1), and two asymmetric 

(plume cooling) loading conditions due to hot leg breaks of 50 and 200 cm2 (transients T2 and 

T3, respectively). There were five postulated circumferential and axial surface and subclad 

cracks. Additional parametric studies were defined for various aspects of the problem, including 

the influence of clad thickness, clad and weld yield stresses, and crack aspect ratio. Furthermore, 

different residual stress distributions due to the cladding and the welding process were provided to 

allow participants to investigate the influence of these stresses on crack loading. Participants were 

asked to calculate the temperature and stress distributions through the wall and the loading along 

the postulated crack fronts. Fracture assessment of the postulated cracks required that the 

maximum allowable transition temperature (RTT) be determined for impending cleavage 

initiation using maximum, tangent and ninety-percent criteria. The fracture assessments for all 

cases utilized the fracture toughness curve from the ASME Code, Section XI, Appendix A. 

The objectives of the PFM Task Group were to compute the conditional probability of crack 

initiation and the probability of RPV failure for four subtasks using a PFM methodology. The 

probability is conditional in the sense that the transient is assumed to occur. Failure is interpreted 

here as propagation of the flaw through the thickness of the RPV wall. An RPV was proposed 

which is typical of U.S. construction. The four subtasks investigated conditional probabilities of 

crack initiation and vessel failure for circumferential and axial welds under two different 

transients, with a range of inside surface fluences, and a parametric study of the crack aspect ratio. 

The objective of the THM Task Group was to compare analytical models that estimate the effects 

of thermal mixing and steam condensation for the emergency cooling water in the cold leg and 

the RPV downcomer. The assumed plant type was a 1300 MW four-loop PWR. The internal 

measurements of the fictitious RPV and the cold legs corresponded to those of the Upper Plenum 

Test Facility in Mannheim, Germany. The assumed transient was due to a 200 cm 2 leak in a hot 

leg at time t = 0. Two parametric studies were proposed: the influence of variations of the water 

level in the downcomer; and influence of variations in the emergency cooling water injection rate 

per cold leg. 

An Intermediate Workshop was held at OECD/NEA-Paris during June 1997 for purposes of 

reviewing progress and discussing preliminary results for each task. Twenty-eight researchers 

representing 20 organizations in 13 countries participated in that Workshop. A final ICAS 

Workshop was held at Orlando, Florida, during February 24-27, 1998. A primary objective of the 

Orlando Workshop was to provide a forum for presentation of the full set of solutions to the ICAS 

Problem Statement submitted by participants; 34 researchers representing 20 organizations in 11 

countries participated in the Workshop. Representatives of GRS-K61n, were responsible for 

compiling and updating the electronic data base of analysis results to the ICAS Problem 

Statement. Staff from ORNL had responsibility for all U.S. arrangements regarding the ICAS 

Workshop. Final analysis results were provided by 25 organizations in 13 countries. 

Approximately 145 comparative plots were generated from the electronic data base to provide a 

focus for discussions about the predictive capabilities of the analysis methods applied by the 

participants to the different tasks. In the report selected plots are presented and discussed. As an 

outcome of the discussions held at the Workshops and of the additional communications by 

electronic media, the following main conclusions were drawn. 

DFM Task Group 

Twenty-one organizations from 13 countries participated in the DFM Task Group. According to 

the task matrix, 104 analyses were performed for the main tasks and 26 for the parametric studies. 

Because some organizations used more than one method, up to 22 sets of analysis results could be 

compared in some tasks. Where due account was taken of material properties and boundary 

conditions, reasonable agreement was obtained in linear-elastic, as well as in more complex elasticNUREG/CR-6651 xii
plastic thermal and stress analyses results. To derive consistent solutions, it was observed that 

particular attention should be paid to the following: 

"* Adequate representation of the thermal and pressure transients; 

"* Sufficient mesh refinement and choice of element type in critical regions; particularly 

within the cladding and across the clad-base interface. Quadratic elements (incorporating 

mid-side nodes) are recommended. 

"* Correct definition of material properties. Of particular note was the reference 

temperature definition for the thermal expansion coefficient (TEC) which is 

conventionally taken as 20'C. 

For analyses incorporating the above factors, crack driving forces computed from elastic analysis 

and J-estimation schemes were significantly higher than those calculated using 3-D elastic-plastic 

analyses. This was mainly due to: (i) the over-prediction of stress in the cladding by elastic 

analyses, (ii) inherent conservatism's within J-estimation schemes such as R6, (iii) the beneficial 

influence of the cladding on crack opening for under-clad cracks, and (iv) the influence of the 

nozzle in slightly reducing stresses at the defect location. Predictions of RTT showed less scatter 

than that observed in crack driving force calculations due to the fracture toughness curve used for 

fracture assessment in the transition region. Additional parametric studies provided consistent 

trends regarding the influence of residual stress, cladding thickness and defect aspect ratio on 

crack driving force. For surface-breaking defects, the presence of residual stresses, increased clad 

thickness or decreased defect aspect ratio (a/c) leads to an increase in the crack-driving force. For 

under-clad defects, different trends were generally observed. Comparison of solutions 

incorporating plasticity effects with those utilizing linear elastic approaches resulted in 

discrepancies among the analysis results. The latter discrepancies are similar to those that were 

observed in the earlier FALSIRE Project. Additional parametric studies showed that the scatter in 

the linear-elastic and the elastic-plastic DFM results could be traced mainly to a misinterpretation 

of the thermal expansion coefficient (TEC) data given in the ICAS Problem Statement for the 

cladding and base metal. Those TEC data were expressed in a conventional form that assumes a 

reference temperature of 20'C. Most structural analysis computer codes that use mean values of 

TEC data require conversion of the data, if the stress free reference temperature is different from 

20'C. That was not done in several cases. Furthermore, it was noted that differences in some of 

the analysis results could be a quality assurance problem related to procedures for approximating 

the loading data given in the Problem Statement. 

PFM Task Group 

In the PFM Task Group, seven organizations from four countries performed 25 analyses and 

three parametric studies. The calculated conditional probabilities of crack initiation had the 

largest scatter, especially for low values of RTT, differing by a factor of about 100. For the 

conditional probability of vessel failure, that factor ranges from approximately 20 to 50. The 

conditional probabilities for the linear-elastic solutions are larger than those for the elastic-plastic 

solutions by a factor of about 2 to 4. Some solutions which were produced by different 

participants using the same computer code showed differences that were apparently due to 

selection of different input parameters for simulating the margin term in the calculation of RTNT 

(i.e., standard deviations for initial value of RT,,, as well as for nickel and copper content).

xiii NUREG/CR-6651
THM Task Group

In the THM Task Group, eight organizations from five countries performed seven analyses and 

14 parametric studies. The methods used can be grouped into correlation-based approaches, 

system codes and computational-fluid-dynamics (CFD) codes. In the main task (MIX), the 

expected plumes/stripes under the cold legs were simulated in some correlation-based models. In 

these analyses, the temperature difference between the centreline of the plumes under cold legs 

2/3 and outside the plumes reached about 30'C. Large scatter in the results can be observed early 

in the transient when the water level is below the lower nozzle edge of the cold legs and the 

simulation of condensation effects plays an important role. Some of the models used to simulate 

condensation effects, especially those in the system codes, show a weakness in recognizing the 

flow-regime at the water-stripe discharge in the downcomer. This effect is more pronounced at 

heights closer to the lower nozzle edge. The solutions with the lowest temperatures seem to 

underestimate the condensation effects in the cold legs. The results of the correlation-based 

models are close together at times when the water level in the downcomer increases again due to 

low-pressure injection. Comparisons of computed results for heat-transfer coefficient (HTC) show 

a very large scatter inside the plumes/stripes, with values in the range between zero and about 

10,000 W/m2K. Such a large variation in HTC has important implications for structural mechanics 

assessments of the vessel. The differences between HTC values inside and outside the plumes 

produce thermal stresses and, consequently, an increase of the stress-intensity factors for 

postulated cracks. As a group, the participants computed lower HTC values for the region outside 

the plumes, but again with very large scatter. These results suggest that a more accurate 

representation of the HTC may be required from thermal-hydraulic researchers for input to the 

thermal/structurallfracture analyses, especially in the range from 1,000 to 8,000 W/m2K. For the 

task without condensation effects (PINJ), results from the correlation-based methods show a 

consistent trend, with differences in the fluid temperatures of less than 50'C and in the HTC values 

of less than 5,000 W/rn2K. Finally, the concept of symmetric plumes under the cold legs is not 

supported by the three-dimensional CFD solution. 

Future Work 

Results from the ICAS Project show that a best-estimate methodology for RPV integrity 

assessment can benefit from a reduction of the uncertainties in each phase of the process. Based 

on concluding discussion at the ICAS Workshop, participants proposed a list of future tasks that 

could contribute to further refinement of RPV integrity assessment methods: 

"* Selection of consensus reference solutions that could serve as benchmarks for future 

qualification of analytical methods. These would provide a valuable tool for the 

qualification of new analysts on the subject of RPV integrity assessment; 

"• Study of the implications of the observed scatter in the THM task on deterministic 

fracture mechanics assessments; 

"• Study of the significance of the heat transfer coefficient on fracture mechanics 

assessment; 

"* Assessment of the nozzle region of an RPV; 

"* Assessment of the significance of residual stresses upon RPV integrity; 

"• Study of crack arrest of a fast running crack in an RPV; 

* Study of micro-mechanical modelling of the crack-tip region; 

Furthermore a study of pressure-temperature (P-T) limits, with reference to the methodology for 

modelling the P-T process was proposed.

NUREG/CR-6651 xiv
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The ICAS Project was a round-robin type effort that was organized by Gesellschaft ftur 

Anlagen- und Reaktorsicherheit (GRS) and Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL). The 

work was supported by the German Minister for Education, Science, Research, and Technology 

(BMBF) and the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). The collaborative aspects of the 

project were under the auspices of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and 

Development (OECD)/Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA)/Committee on the Safety of Nuclear 

Installations (CSNI)/Principal Working Group (PWG) No. 3 (Integrity of Components and 

Structures). The authors express appreciation to each of these organizations for their technical 

and financial support. Further, the authors thank each participant listed in Table 2.1 for 

cooperation in performing analytical work and in making interpretive assessments. Their 

efforts made ICAS a highly valuable assessment endeavor.

XV NUREG/CR-6651
1 INTRODUCTION

The International Comparative Assessment Study (ICAS) of Pressurized-Thermal-Shock (PTS) in 

Reactor Pressure Vessels (RPVs) was organized in 1996 to bring together an international group of 

experts from research, utility and regulatory organizations in a comparative assessment study of 

integrity evaluation methods for nuclear RPVs under PTS loading. Final analyses were completed in 

1998 and comparative evaluations were recently finished. The Project was sponsored jointly by 

Gesellschaft fUr Anlagen- und Reaktorsicherheit (GRS), Kb5ln, Germany, and Oak Ridge National 

Laboratory (ORNL), USA, with assistance from the Organization for Economic Co-operation and 

Development (OECD)/Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA)/Committee on the Safety of Nuclear 

Installations (CSNI)/Principal Working Group (PWG) No. 3 (Integrity of Components and 

Structures). The Organizing Committee (OC) for the ICAS Project consists of J. Sievers and 

H. Schulz, GRS, K651n, Germany; R. Bass and C. Pugh (ORNL); A. Miller represented the 

OECD/NEA/CSNI and provided an important communications link between the OC and the ICAS 

participants. 

This report was prepared by the OC and gives an overview of the results from the ICAS Project. 

Chapter 2 provides background information, including the organizational aspects and performance 

steps that culminated in an ICAS Workshop held in Orlando, Florida, during February 1998. A 

detailed presentation of the ICAS Problem Statement is given in Chapter 3. A summary of analysis 

techniques and computer codes employed by the participants is included in Chapter 4. A 

comprehensive assessment and discussion of the analysis results submitted by the participating 

organizations for each Task Group module in the Problem Statement is presented in Chapter 5. 

Finally, some conclusions derived from these assessments are given in Chapter 6.

I NUREG/CR-6651
2 BACKGROUND OF THE ICAS PROJECT

The ICAS Project grew out of a strong interest expressed by participants in the recently completed 

Project for Fracture Analyses of Large Scale International Reference Experiments (FALSIRE) [1-2] 

to proceed with further evaluations of analysis methods used in RPV integrity assessment. The ICAS 

assessments were designated to include the entire multistep PTS analysis process for a full-scale RPV 

consistent with a western-designed pressurized water reactor (PWR). This involves the selection of 

transients, thermal-hydraulic calculations, postulation of defects, structural analyses, and fracture 

assessments based on specified material properties. A Call for Participation was issued jointly by GRS 

and ORNL in 1996 to an international group experts from research, utility and regulatory 

organizations to join in a comparative assessment study. The project was formally designated as the 

ICAS Project, and it was originated within NEA/CSNI's PWG No. 3 (Integrity of Components and 

Structures). Concurrently, PWG No. 2 (Coolant System Behaviour) was informed about this activity. 

The emphasis of the Project was placed on comparison of the different approaches to RPV integrity 

assessment, including determination of loading conditions, employed within the international nuclear 

technology community. 

A Problem Statement for the ICAS Project was drafted following a Launch Meeting held at GRS

Kbln, during June 1996. The Problem Statement (described in Chapter 3) defined the reference RPV 

as one from a Western type four-loop PWR with cladding on the inner surface. Country-specific 

concerns were addressed in the document. A detailed task matrix was established and defined a set of 

transient thermal-mechanical loading conditions postulated to result from loss-of-coolant accidents. 

Both asymmetric and axisymmetric cooling conditions were considered, and various types of cracks 

(circumferential and longitudinal orientations; infinite and semielliptical geometries; through-clad 

and subclad flaws) were assumed to be present in the near-core weld of the RPV. The primary focus 

of the analyses was on the behaviour of relatively shallow cracks under PTS loading conditions due to 

emergency cooling transients. Parametric studies were proposed for investigating the effects of 

cladding thickness, influence of residual stresses, sensitivity to the magnitude of the yield stress, and 

relative effects of elastic versus elastic-plastic material models. Further, probabilistic fracture 

mechanics tasks were included to analyze the conditional probability of crack initiation and vessel 

failure. 

Special emphasis was placed on the interdisciplinary aspects of determining RPV loading conditions 

due to loss-of-coolant accidents. The calculations of fluid temperature and heat transfer to the 

structure using thermal-hydraulic analysis techniques were studied, with consideration given to 

models of fluid-fluid mixing and steam condensation.

3 NUREG/CR-6651
The Problem Statement was divided into three modules and corresponding Task Groups were 

formed: 

"* Deterministic Fracture Mechanics (DFM), 

"* Probabilistic Fracture Mechanics (PFM), and 

"* Thermal-Hydraulic Mixing (THM). 

The activities of each Task Group were divided into several subtasks. Parametric studies were 

proposed to investigate the influence of certain parameters on the results of the subtasks. Input for 

defining the modules (Task Groups) was provided by GRS, Siemens, Electricit6 de France, and 

ORNL. The subtasks performed in each Task Group are described in Chapter 3. 

An Intermediate Workshop was held at OECD/NEA-Paris during June 1997 for purposes of reviewing 

progress and discussing preliminary results for each module. Twenty-eight researchers representing 

20 organizations in 13 countries participated in that Workshop. 

The final Workshop on ICAS was held at Orlando, Florida, during February 24-27, 1998, and its 

objectives were to: 

"* provide a forum for presentation of the full set of solutions to the ICAS Problem Statement 

submitted by participants; 

"* review and discuss comparisons of these results based on variables defined in the Special 

Requirements part of the Problem Statement; 

"* evaluate the overall progress of the analyses and comparative assessments; and 

"* make recommendations for future work. 

Thirty-four researchers from 20 organizations in 11 countries participated in the Workshop. 

Representatives of GRS-K6ln were responsible for compiling and updating an electronic data base of 

all the analysis provided by the participants. Staff from ORNL had responsibility for all 

arrangements regarding the ICAS Workshop. 

Table 2.1 lists the organizations that participated in the ICAS Project, along with the particular task 

groups (THM, DFM and PFM) to which each organization made contributions. The Schedule of 

Events for the ICAS Project is given in Table 2.2. 

Following the recommendations of the final Workshop, additional analyses were performed by 11 

organizations. The results of those additional analyses were compiled into the data base and are 

included in this report.

NUREG/CR-6651 4
References

[1] Bass, B. R., Pugh, C. E., Keeney, J., Schulz, H., and Sievers, J., "CSNI Project for Fracture Analyses 

of Large-Scale International Reference Experiments (Project FALSIRE)", NUREG/CR-5997 

(ORNL/TM-12307), Oak Ridge National Laboratory, December 1992, NEA/CSNI/R(94)12, GRS 

108, April 1994 

[2] Bass, B. R., Pugh, C. E., Keeney, J., Schulz, H., and Sievers, J., "CSNI Project for Fracture Analyses 

of Large-Scale International Reference Experiments (FALSIRE II)", NUREG/CR-6460 (ORNL/TM

13207), Oak Ridge National Laboratory, April 1996, NEA/CSNI/R (96) 1, GRS - 130, November 

1996

5 NUREG/CR-6651
Table 2.1 

(Status No

Organizations participating in the ICAS Project

vember 1998)

Country Organization Task Groups 

DFM1 PFM' THM" 

Czech Republic Nuclear Research Institute (NRI) X 

France Electricit6 de France (EdF) X 

Centre dEtudes Nucleaires de Saclay (CEA) X X 

Framatome X 

Germany GRS X X 

Siemens AG, KWU X X 

IWM Freiburg X 

Battelle Ing. Technik X 

Italy University of Pisa X X 

India BARC X X X 

Japan Japan Atomic Energy Research Institute X X 

Korea (Republic of) Korea Institute of Nuclear Safety (KINS) X 

KINS+SungKyunKwanUniversity X 

KAERI X X 

Russian Federation RRC "Kurchatov Institute" X 

CRISM "PROMETEY" X 

Slovak Republic VUJE Trnava X X 

Switzerland Paul Scherrer Institute (PSI) X 

Ukraine State Scientific & Technical Centre X 

United Kingdom AEA Technology X 

Nuclear Electric Ltd. X 

United States of America Oak Ridge National Laboratory X X 

U.S. NRC X X 

Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) X 

Brookhaven National Laboratory X 

Total number of organizations 21 7 8

25 Organizations from 13 countries 

1

DFM - deterministic fracture mechanics 

'PFM - probabilistic fracture mechanics 

'THM - thermohydraulic mixing

NUREG/CR-6651 6
Table 2.2 Schedule of Events for RPV PTS ICAS

June 1996

June - August 1996 

December 1996 

June 1997 

November 1997 

December 1997-January 1998 

February 1998 

May 1998 

September 1998 

August 1998 - June 1999

Launch meeting to define the objective, the task matrix and other

Launch meeting to define the objective, the task matrix and other 

details of ICAS, at GRS Koln 

Call for Participation 

Distribution of task-specific problem statements to participating 

analysts 

Interim Workshop to discuss present state of the analyses , at NEA 

Paris 

Submission of structural, fracture mechanics and thermal

hydraulic analysis results for ICAS/PTS by participating 

organizations 

Compilation of analysis results, construction of comparative plots 

and organization of the final Workshop 

Workshop with presentation and discussion of analysis results, at 

Orlando 

Submission of additional, and supplemental analysis results 

Compilation of the additional analysis results and 

construction of updated comparative plots 

Preparation and issuance of draft final report

7 NUREG/CR-6651
3 ICAS PROBLEM STATEMENT (TASK MATRIX)

The ICAS problem statement was divided into three task groups (deterministic, probabilistic and thermal

hydraulic) with several main tasks. Additionally, parametric studies were proposed to investigate the 

influence of certain parameters on the results of the main tasks. Input for these tasks was prepared by 

Siemens, ORNL, EdF and GRS. 

The RPVs described herein incorporate some country-specific concerns. A vessel typical of German 

design was proposed for the deterministic task group. The cladding thickness was proposed to vary in the 

range of designs employed in the USA, France, Germany and Russia. The postulated loading transients 

refer to a small-break loss-of-coolant accident typical for US PWR plants and transients due to leaks with 

different size typical for German PWR plants. In the Probabilistic Task Group, a vessel typical of U.S. 

construction was loaded by specific PTS transients. In the thermal-hydraulic task group, a fictitious 

vessel is proposed with wall thickness typical of a German RPV, but with internal measurements of the 

Upper Plenum Test Facility (UPTF) vessel in Mannheim (Germany). 

3.1 Deterministic Fracture Mechanics (Task Group DFM) 

Summary of the DFM Problem Statement 

A four-loop RPV was defined with internal diameter of 5,000 imm, wall thickness of 243 mm, and clad 

thickness of 6 mm, along with detailed information on material properties. Three emergency cooling 

transients (Tn; n=1-3) due to assumed leaks and five postulated cracks (Cm; m=l-5) were defined for the 

RPV: 

" Transient TI is due to a small-break loss-of-coolant transient (leak size about 

20 cm 2) for which axisymmetric loading conditions are assumed. Time histories of pressure, 

temperature and heat transfer coefficient in the downcomer for this severe transient were generated 

from the RELAP-5 code. 

" Transients T2 and T3 represent asymmetric loading conditions (plume cooling) due to hot-leg leaks 

of sizes 50 cm 2 and 200 cm?, respectively. The cold leg injection is assumed into two neighboring 

legs, which subtend an angle of 45'. One plume, characterized by its width, is assumed to develop 

around the centerline between these neighboring cold legs.

9 9NUREG/CR-6651
Postulated cracks are positioned in the circumferential weld 2,263 mm below the lower edges of the 

nozzles. For the transients with asymmetric cooling conditions, the cracks are assumed in the centerline 

of the plume. The five postulated cracks were defined as: 

"* Crack 1 is a 3600 circumferential surface crack with depth 16 mm, including the clad thickness. 

"* Cracks 2 and 3 are circumferential and axial semielliptical surface cracks of depth a = 16 mm 

including clad thickness and aspect ratio a/c = 1/3. 

"* Cracks 4 and 5 are circumferential and axial semielliptical subclad cracks of depth a = 10 mm and 

aspect ratio a/c = 1/3. 

For the DFM Task Group, Task CmTn denotes the fracture assessment of Crack m subjected to Transient 

n, where m = 1-5 and n = 1-3. 

Additional parametric studies were defined for various aspects of the problem, including the influence of 

clad thickness, clad and weld yield stresses, and crack aspect ratio. Furthermore, different residual stress 

distributions due to the cladding and welding processes were provided to allow participants to investigate 

the influence of these stresses on crack loading. 

Detailed special requirements for the DFM analyses were provided to the participants with the objective 

of comparing the analysis results. These requirements included the following: 

"* Temperature and stress distributions in the vessel wall for the postulated transients analyzed. 

"* Loading along the crack front for the postulated cracks analyzed. 

" Fracture assessment of the postulated cracks to determine the maximum allowable transition 

temperature (RTNDT) that represents impending crack initiation according to three different criteria: 

(1) the maximum -, (2) the tangent - and (3) the 90 percent criteria. In the framework of the fracture 

assessment, the fracture toughness curve from the ASME Code, Section XI, Appendix A, was 

assumed for all cases. 

Detailed Presentation of the Problem Statement 

3.1.1 Definition of the RPV Geometry (cylindrical part) 

In the near-core region, the proposed four-loop RPV (see Fig. 3.1) has an internal diameter of 5,000 mmm, 

a wall thickness of 243 mm in the base/weld material and a 6 mm cladding thickness. Therefore, the

NUREG/CR-6651 10
outer diameter is 5,498 mm. Figure 3.1 also includes details of the nozzle geometry and the four support 

lugs between the nozzles. 

A parametric study (Task PCT) was proposed to investigate the influence of the cladding thickness by 

including thickness values of 4 mm and 9 mm. 

3.1.2 Material Properties 

The base material was assumed to be ferritic steel 22 NiMoCr 37 (German material number 1.6751). The 

austenitic stainless steel cladding has material number 1.4551. Properties for the respective materials are 

given in Tables 3.1 and 3.2. The density of the base/weld metal and the cladding was given as 7,800 

kg/m 3. 

A parametric study (Task PYS) was proposed to investigate separately the influence of differences in the 

yield stress for the cladding and base metal. An alternative value of 250 MPa was considered for the 

cladding. The base/weld metal yield stress for the given temperature region representing end-of-life 

conditions was changed to the value of 700 MPa. Furthermore, the differences between results for elastic 

and elastic-plastic constitutive models were investigated for the parametric cases. 

For the fracture assessment, the fracture toughness curve (Klc) was given in accordance with ASME Code 

(Section XI, Appendix A, 1995), and it reaches a maximum value of 195 MPaI1M-" 

KIc [M:Pa--I I = min {36.5 + 3.1 exp (0.036 (T - RTNDT + 55.5)) ; 195} 

where T and RTNDT are in 'C. 

3.1.3 Loading Conditions 

The RPV is loaded by emergency cooling transients (Tn, with n=l,2 and 3) due to assumed leaks. 

Transient TI is due to a small-break loss-of-coolant transient (leak size about 20 cm2). The primary 

pressure, the averaged fluid temperatures., as well as heat transfer coefficients in the downcomer are 

presented in Figs. 3.2, 3.3 and 3.4, respectively. The data sets were made available in an electronic form. 

For transient Ti, axisymmetric loading conditions with no change in axial position were assumed.

11 NUREG/CR-6651
Transients T2 and T3 are due to hot leg leaks of size 50 cm 2 and 200 cm 2, respectively. The cold leg 

injection is made into two neighboring legs, which subtend an angle of 450. The scheme of the injection 

and the assumptions concerning the loading conditions regarding the plume interaction are presented in 

Fig. 3.5. Therefore, a single plume was assumed in the centerline of the neighboring cold legs and 

characterized by the plume width. For transients T2 and T3, data describing internal pressure, fluid 

temperatures and heat transfer coefficients inside and outside the cooling region were given with respect 

to different axial positions in the downcomer. Also, the cooling width and water level were provided in 

plots and data sets. The following data are depicted in Figs. 3.6-3.11 for T2, and in Figs. 3.12-3.17 for 

T3: 

absolute internal pressure in the downcomer (Figs. 3.6 for T2 and 3.12 for T3); 

" Figures 3.7 and 3.13 show the asymmetric distribution of the fluid temperatures for transients T2 and 

T3, respectively. Inside the cooling region, the fluid temperatures Ts are given for different axial 

positions measured from the lower nozzle edge of the cold legs. Outside the cooling region, the fluid 

temperature Ta is described by the hot water temperature in regions below the water level (plume 

cooling) and by the saturation temperature in regions above the water level if it falls below the lower 

nozzle edge of the cold leg (stripe cooling). The water level is presented in Figs. 3.8 and 3.14 for 

transients T2 and T3, respectively. Negative values indicate the water level is below the lower edge of 

the nozzle; 

" The width of the plume or the stripe was given for different axial positions in Figs. 3.9 and 3.15 for 

transients T2 and T3, respectively. The water temperature distribution in the plume was assumed of 

Gaussian type (loading assumption LAG), i.e. the water temperature difference, AT(x,y) = Ta 

Ts(x,.y), is given by 

AT (x,y) = AT (x,y = 0) * exp( - (2 y / Bt(x)) 2

) 

where 

x axial position in the plume 

y horizontal coordinate in the plume, symmetry line at y = 0 

AT difference between the fluid temperature outside the plume and the fluid temperature at 

position (xy) in the plume.

NUREG/CR-6651 12
Bt(x) distance between two points lying symmetric to the symmetry line of the plume for which 

the maximum temperature difference is decreased to l/e of the maximum value [see Figs. 

3.9 (T2) and 3.15 (T3)]. 

With increasing distance from the injection nozzle, the width of the plume increased while the width of 

the stripe decreased. 

" The heat transfer coefficients (HTC) cs and axa between RPV wall and fluid inside and outside the 

cooling region are shown in Figs. 3.10, 3.11 (T2) and 3.16, 3.17 (T3). The HTC distribution inside 

the plume was assumed of Gaussian type by 

a• (x,y) = c.s (x,y = 0) * exp( - (2 y / Bt(x))2

). 

" The HTC values on the symmetry line are given in Figures 3.10 and 3.16 for transients T2 and T3, 

respectively. The HTC at the outside vessel wall was assumed to be 5 W/m2 K, which is similar to 

adiabatic conditions. 

Separately, a simplified loading assumption (LAS) was proposed with constant temperature (Figs. 3.7, 

3.13) and HTC distributions (Figs. 3.10, 3.16) in the plume. In case of stripe cooling, i.e. for the 

downcomer region between the lower nozzle edge and water level, constant distributions for fluid 

temperature and HTC in the stripe were assumed for both loading assumptions LAG and LAS. 

3.1.4 Postulated cracks 

The postulated cracks were positioned in the circumferential weld 2,263 mm below the lower edges of the 

nozzles. For the transients with asymmetric cooling conditions, the axial cracks were assumed in the 

centerline of the plume. 

"* Crack 1 is a 3600 circumferential surface crack with depth 16 mm including cladding thickness. 

"* Crack 2 and 3 were circumferential and axial semielliptic surface cracks, respectively, with (a x 2c) of 

depth a= 16 mm including cladding thickness and aspect ratio a/c = 1/3. 

"* Crack 4 and 5 were circumferential and axial semielliptic underclad cracks, respectively, with (a x 2c) 

of depth a= 10 mm and aspect ratio a/c = 1/3.

13 NUREG/CR-6651
A parametric study (Task PCAR) was proposed to investigate the influence of the aspect ratio, i.e. a/c = 

1/2 and 1/1 were also considered. 

3.1.5 Residual stresses 

The analyses of the main tasks were considered without residual stresses, i.e. stress free temperatures of 

288 'C for transient TI and 284 'C for transients T2 and T3 were proposed. Additionally, a parametric 

study (Task PRS) was proposed to investigate the influence of residual stress distributions separately and 

together. 

* Distribution 1 was related to residual stresses in the circumferential weld due to the welding process 

and is characterized by the formula: y(x)= yma, cos (2 7r . x x max 

with 

x > 0 radial coordinate measured from inner surface of the weld 

Xma = wall thickness 

= 56 MIPa 

Distribution 2 was related to the residual stresses (axial and hoop direction) due to the cladding 

process after heat treatment and is presented in Fig. 3.18. The given distribution was transferred to the 

dimensions of the RPV wall, i.e. 243-mm wall thickness and 6 mm cladding thickness. 

3.1.6 Special requirements for the analyses 

Within the DFM Task Group, analysis results of temperature and stress distributions in the vessel wall 

were performed according to the given material properties and the postulated transients. Furthermore, the 

loadings of the postulated cracks were analyzed along the crack front. For each crack, a fracture 

assessment was performed to determine a maximum allowable transition temperature RTNOT that 

represents impending crack initiation based on the fracture toughness curve given in Section 3.1.2. The 

special requirements for the DFM analyses are described in detail in the Appendix A.

NUREG/CR-6651 14
3.2 Probabilistic Fracture Mechanics (Task Group PFM)

Summary of the PFM Problem Statement 

Objectives of the Probabilistic Fracture Mechanics (PFM) Task Group were to compute the conditional 

probability of crack initiation and the probability of RPV failure for the following four subtasks using 

PFM methodology. The probability is conditional in the sense that the different transient loadings were 

assumed to occur. Failure means propagation of the flaw through the thickness of the RPV wall. The 

geometry of the RPV was characterized by an internal diameter of 4394 mm and a wall thickness of 219 

mm. The cladding thickness was prescribed to be 4.8 mm. The PFM analyses were performed using the 

Marshall flaw-depth distribution function, which evenly spaces 15 initial flaw depths in the first 5.1-cm (2 

in.) of the vessel wall. Material properties for the base metal, weld metal, and cladding were as shown in 

Tables 3.5 and 3.6. The stress-free temperature was assumed to be 288 'C. 

The four main tasks, denoted as PFM-n (n = 14), were defined as follows: 

" PFM-l: Compute the conditional probability of crack initiation and vessel failure for one axial weld 

containing one axially oriented infinite-length surface-breaking flaw subjected to a stylized 

exponentially decaying thermal transient and constant pressure of 6.9 MPa. 

" PFM-2: Compute the conditional probability of crack initiation and vessel failure for one 

circumferential weld containing one circumferentially oriented continuous 3600 surface breaking flaw 

subjected to the same transient as PFM-1. 

"* PFM-3: The same as problem 1 except the loading is due to the postulated small-break LOCA 

transient TI defined for the DFM Task Group. 

"* PFM-4: The same as problem 2 except the loading is due to the postulated small-break LOCA 

transient TI defined for the DFM Task Group. 

Analyses for various postulated times in the operating life of the vessel were performed, i.e., the 

conditional probabilities of crack initiation and vessel failure were determined for a range of mean inside 

surface fluences that vary from 0.3 to 3.5 x 1019 neutrons/cm 2 (E>1.0 MeV). 

A parametric study (PFL) was proposed to investigate the influence of cracks with finite length having 

aspect ratios of a/c = 1/6, 1/3, 1/1.

15 NUREG/CR-6651
Detailed Presentation of the Problem Statement

The geometry of the cylindrical part of the RPV was characterized by an internal diameter of 4,394 mm 

and a wall thickness of the base material of 219 mm. The cladding thickness was assumed to be 4.8 mm. 

The PFM analyses were performed using the Marshall flaw-depth distribution function specified in Table 

3.3 and which evenly spaces 15 initial flaw depths in the first 5.1 cm (2 in.) of the vessel wall. The 

interpretation and implementation of the flaw-size cumulative distribution function (see Table 3.3) is as 

follows: 

"* For each flaw, select a random number x, such that 0 < x < 1.0; 

"* If x is < CDF(1)= 0.418022823, then the flaw depth is 0.3386 cm (0.1333 in.); 

"* If CDF(1) < x < CDF(2), then the flaw depth is 0.5758 cm (0.2667 in.); 

"* In general if CDF(i) < x < CDF(i+1), then the flaw depth is a(i+1). 

In Task PFM-1 and -2, a single region of the RPV beltline containing a single flaw subjected to a 

simplified stylized thermal-hydraulic boundary condition was considered. In Task PFM-3 and -4, a 

postulated transient involving complex time histories (transient TI of Section 3.1.3) was considered. In 

the Tasks PFM-1 to -4, analyses for various times in the operating life of the vessel were performed, i.e. 

the conditional probability of crack initiation and vessel failure for the mean values of inside surface 

fluence, copper, nickel, and RTNDTo provided in Table 3.4 were determined. The material properties of 

the base metal SA 508 Class 3 and the cladding proposed for the PFM tasks are listed in Tables 3.5 and 

3.6. The stress-free temperature in the PFM analyses was assumed to be 288 'C. 

Task PFM-1: Compute the conditional probability of crack initiation and vessel failure for one axial 

weld containing exactly one axially oriented infinite length surface breaking flaw subjected to a 

simplified stylized transient. 

The simplified stylized transient is the one utilized in the US NRC / Electric Power Research Institute 

(EPRI) co-sponsored PTS benchmarking exercise [1]. Most of the PFM analyses were carried out using 

the methodology of ORNL, which is summarized in [2].

NUREG/CR-6651 16
The thermal transient is characterized by a stylized exponentially decaying coolant temperature which 

follows the formulation: 

T(t) = Tf +(Ti -Tf) exp (-Bt) 

where: 

t = time (minutes) 

T(t) = coolant temperature at time t 

Ti = coolant temperature at time t = 0 

Tf= final coolant temperature 

B = exponential decay constant (min- 1) 

The final coolant temperature was 66 'C (150 F), and 13 was 0.15 min-1. Additionally, the initial 

temperature was 288 'C (550 F), the pressure was constant and equal to 6.9 MPa (1 ksi), and the 

2 

convective heat transfer coefficient was constant and equal to 1700 W/m2K (300 BTU/hr-ft -F). The 

stress free reference temperature was assumed to be 288 'C (550 F). 

Task PFM-2: Compute the conditional probability of crack initiation and vessel failure for one 

circumferential weld containing exactly one circumferentially oriented continuous 360 degree surface 

breaking flaw subjected to the same transient defined in PFM-1. The stress free reference temperature 

was assumed to be 288 'C (550 F). 

Task PFM-3: The same as PFM-1 except the transient was a postulated small-break loss-of-coolant 

transient (Ti) generated by the RELAP 5 thermal-hydraulics computer code illustrated in Figs. 3.2, 3.3 

and 3.4. The RELAP 5 output data for convective heat transfer coefficient time history, fluid-temperature 

time history and for pressure-time history were made available. The stress-free reference temperature 

was assumed to be 288°C (550 F). 

Task PFM-4: Compute the conditional probability of crack initiation and vessel failure for one 

circumferential weld containing exactly one circumferentially oriented continuous 360 degree surface

breaking flaw subjected to the same transient defined in PFM-3. The stress-free reference temperature 

was assumed to be 288 'C (550 F). 

A parametric study (Task PFL) was proposed to investigate the influence of cracks with finite length. 

For that study, semielliptic cracks (2c x a) were proposed with aspect ratio a/c = 115, 1/3 and 1/i. Special 

requirements for the PFM analyses are described in the Appendix A.

17 NUREG/CR-6651
3.3 Task Group THM: Thermal-Hydraulic Mixing (Main Task Mix)

Summary of the THM Problem Statement 

The objective of the Task Group THM was to compare analytical models that estimate the effects of 

thermal mixing and steam condensation for the emergency cooling water in the cold leg and the RPV 

downcomer. The assumed plant type was a 1,300 MW four-loop PWR. The internal measurements of 

the fictitious RPV, and the cold legs correspond to those of the UPTF in Mannheim, Germany. The 

internal diameter was 4,870 rmm as measured in the test vessel, and the base-metal wall thickness in the 

cylindrical region was 243 mi with 6 mm cladding, representing the geometry of a real vessel, while the 

wall thickness of the UPTF test vessel was only 55 mm with 3 mm cladding. Detail drawings of the 

vessel internals and coolant system were available to participants upon request. 

The assumed transient was due to a 200 cm2 leak in a hot leg at time t = 0 s. A detailed description of the 

sequence of events related to the emergency cooling water injection during the transient is given in the 

following section. These include time histories of both the high-pressure and low-pressure injection rates 

for the emergency cooling water injection, as well as the time histories of the injection temperatures for 

the cold legs. The hot-leg injection was neglected because of the given primary absolute pressure and the 

hot-side leak position. 

In the first 300 s, the water level of the primary system was assumed to decrease to the level of the RPV 

nozzles. During this interval, the time histories of the global water temperature in the downcomer and the 

global HTC at the RPV wall were taken from systems analysis. Time histories of the primary pressure 

and water level in the downcomer were provided for the full transient. For times after 300 s, the 

downcomer fluid temperature and the HTC at the RPV wall were calculated by the participants with their 

analytical models (Task MIX). 

Two parametric studies were proposed to investigate the influence of variations of the water level in the 

downcomer (Task PMIX) and the influence of variations in the emergency cooling water injection rate 

per cold leg (Task PINJ).

NUREG/CR-6651 18
Detailed Presentation of the Problem Statement

The assumed plant type was: 1300 MW four-loop-PWR. The assumed transient was due to a 200 cm2 leak 

in a hot leg at time t = 0 s. For comparing directly the analytical results for condensation and for mixing, 

the time history for the global parameters of (1) absolute pressure in the RPV downcomer, (2) cooling 

water injection rate, and (3) level in the RPV downcomer, were given. 

After the running out of the main cooling pumps and the drop of the primary water level to the lower edge 

of the main cooling pipe nozzles due to a medium-sized leak in a hot leg of the main cooling pipes, the 

fluid temperature in the RPV downcomer almost exclusively is determined by the cold cooling water 

injection and the heat transfer from the walls of the cold legs, the downcomer and the lower plenum. 

Recent analyses show that the stress in the RPV wall due to primary pressure at medium-sized primary 

leaks can be much smaller than the stress in the RPV due to fluid temperature decrease. Of course, the 

time history of the calculated primary pressure and the injection rate is dependent on the analytical 

models in the transient code (e.g. leak rate and condensation models). 

During quantification of the influence of this model dependence on the RPV loading, however, it is to be 

considered that after a relatively short period of time the leak rate reaches the emergency cooling water 

injection rate. Thus, the primary pressure level at given leak size focuses only on the employed leak rate 

model and on the net injection marking line of the post cooling pumps. 

Simplifying Assumption 

The emergency cooling water injection in the hot legs does not affect the fluid temperature in the RPV 

downcomer. Therefore, during calculation of the fluid temperature and the HTC in the downcomer, the 

hot leg injection could be neglected because of the given primary absolute pressure. 

To simplify analysis methods, the stripes of colder water that form below the cold legs with ECC-water 

injection due to a decreased downcomer water level were assumed to flow down the RPV-wall, 

independent of the ECC-water injection rate per leg. Detachment from the RPV-wall and downflow along 

the core barrel at higher injection rates was not taken into account. This assumption, which is not in 

agreement with the UPTF data; was chosen to enable an easy comparison of the calculated water stripe 

temperatures. If a multidimensional code was used, this assumption should have been ignored and the 

differences should have been demonstrated.

19 NUREG/CR-6651
3.3.1 Geometry

The internal measurements of the fictitious RPV and the cold legs corresponded to the internal 

measurements of the UPTF test vessel (see Figs. 3.19-3.20). The internal diameter of the UPTF test 

vessel was 4,870 mm. In the cylindrical part of the fictitious RPV, the wall thickness of the base material 

(22NiMoCr37, Material No. 1.6751) was 243 mm. The thickness of the austenitic cladding (Material No. 

1.4551) was 6 mm everywhere. Therefore, the external diameter of the fictitious RPV was of 4,870mm + 

2 * 6+243)mm = 5,368 mm. The RPV external diameter in the cylindrical part was assumed constant 

between the nozzles of the main cooling lines and the lower plenum. The wall thickness of the 2,075-mm 

tall lower plenum was 150 mm (without cladding). 

The internal diameter of the main cooling line was of 750 mm with a wall thickness of 50 mm, the 

internal diameter of the injection nozzle was 222.5 mm. The pump housing also had a wall thickness of 

50 mm. The cold legs as well as the pump shells were from austenitic material No. 1.4541. The 

measurements of the relevant RPV internals could be taken directly from the UPTF drawings. 

3.3.2 Emergency Cooling Water Injection 

Lateral injection in the cold leg 

The centerline of the injection nozzle fonns an angle of 600 with the centerline of the main cooling line 

and both are in a horizontal plane (lateral injection). The length of the cold leg is 9.52 m and the distance 

between the injection nozzle and the RPV inlet is 5.796 m. 

Two of the four cold-injecting high-pressure (HP) pumps are considered as non-available; the remaining 

two HP pumps take in water from the storage tanks with a temperature of 15'C and inject in two 

neighboring cold legs. The HP injection starts 100 s after beginning of the incident and ends when the 

available water volume is used up (2,800 s). 

The four accumulators which inject into the cold legs are available, but they are turned off 500 s after the 

beginning of the incident. At that moment, the primary pressure is still beyond the pressure of 26 bar at 

which the accumulators can start to inject. Therefore, they do not inject. As a consequence, no nitrogen 

saturated water can get from the accumulators into the cold legs.

NUREG/CR-6651 20
All four low-pressure (LP) injection pumps are available. Every LP pump injects into both the cold and 

the hot legs of the main cooling lines. Injection is possible below the pressure level of 10.4 bar. 

At 300 s after beginning of the incident, the bends of the pumps are filled with water as a result of the 

inflow of water from the steam generator pipes. After this period of time, the bends of the pumps remain 

filled with fluid but, as a result of the stagnation and the pressure decrease, steam bubbles appear for the 

time interval 300 s to 700 s in the bends of the pumps. 

The height of the lower edge of the main coolant pump diffusor is on the same level as the overflow edge 

in the UPTF pump simulator, 690 mm above the lower edge of the cold leg. The stroke of the UJPTF 

pumps simulator is 120 mm, corresponding to a pressure loss value of 14.6 bar at streaming through the 

standing main coolant pumps in the ordinary stream direction (relating to the internal diameter of the 

main coolant line of 750 mm). 

Rate of emergency cooling water injection 

The beginning of the incident is at time t = 0. The time history of the HP inject rate (MHp) for each cold 

leg is given as follows: 

Time [s] 0 0 99 100 200 400 600 800 2800 2801 50001 

Mjp [kg/s] 0 0 31.6 34.4 43.7 60.7 68.6 68.6 0 01 

The time history of the LP injection rate (MLp) for each cold leg is given as follows: 

Time [s] 0 750 8001 5000 

I MLp [kgls] 0 0 60 601 

Injection in: 

cold leg I =MLp

cold leg 2 = Mtp + MLp 

cold leg 3 = M~p + MLp 

cold leg 4 = MLp 

Angle between cold leg 1 and 4: 45' 

Angle between cold leg 2 and 3: 450

21 NUREG/CR-6651
Temperature of emergency cooling water injection

The minimum water temperature in the storage tanks is 15'C. The water taken in from the storage tanks 

or from the reactor sump for the LP pumps runs through coolers. The back-feed operation where the LP 

pumps get water from the reactor sump starts 2800 s after beginning of the incident because no further 

water is available from the storage tanks. The minimum injection temperature is 4.7°C when the water 

comes from the storage tanks and 12.5°C when the water comes from the reactor sump. The output of 

each LP pump is 120 kg/s (60 kg/s into cold leg and 60 kg/s into hot leg). The injection temperatures 

result from the ideal mixing of HP and LP water in the injection leg with these data. 

The time history of the injection temperature is given as follows. 

Cold leg 1 as well as cold leg 4: 

Time [s] 1 0 750 28001 28011 5000o 

1T [TC] 1 4.7 4.7 4.7 12.5 12.51 

Cold leg 2 as well as cold leg 3: 

1Time [s] 0 1001 750 800 2800 2801 5000 

T [°C] 15 15 15 10.2 10.2 12.5 12.51 

3.3.3 Global Thermal-hydraulic Parameters 

In the first 300 s after beginning of the incident, the water level of the primary system decreases to the 

level of the RPV nozzles. For this phase, the relevant thermal-hydraulic parameters, e.g., fluid 

temperature and HTC in the downcomer, were taken from the system analysis. For the time after 300 s, 

the downcomer fluid temperature and the HTC between RPV wall and fluid were calculated by the 

participants with their analytical models. 

Time history of the primary pressure in the RPV downcomer 

The time history of the primary pressure is given as follows: 

Time [s] 01 0.51 21 5.1 10 300 625 700 800 5000 

Pressure [bar] 160 140 110 100 85 75 25 10 8.9 8.91

NUREG/CR-6651 22
After 720 s, the primary pressure was determined by the equality of the emergency cooling water 

injection rate and the leak rate. 

Time history of the global water temperature in the RPV downcomer in the first 300s 

The time history of the global water temperature is given as follows:

Time [s] 

Twater [°C]

0 

297

50 

297

120 

293

170 300 

288 261

Time history of the global heat transfer coefficient between RPV wall and fluid in the first 300 s 

The global HTC cx (in kW/m°2K) in the downcomer is given as follows: 

ITime[s] l 01 101 301 401 501 60 731 1101 1651 3001 

cla[kW/m 2

K 1 191 19 11 9 31 1.4 0.8 3 5 5 

Time history of the water level in the RPV downcomer 

Height position H = 0 corresponds to the cold leg lower nozzle edge (which is 375 mm below the 

centerline of the cold leg). A negative H value means the water level falls below the nozzle edge. 

H = 2 m indicates a completely water-filled RPV downcomer. 

The time history of the water level is given as follows:

01 2001 3001 400 

1.5251 o1.5 2 1.51 1.5 01 4-.5 50-.

8001 

-1.51

9001 50001 

1.525 1.5251

In a real plant, the water level reduction below the lower nozzle edge of the cold leg is not so deep. This 

time history was chosen to make it possible for participants to apply and compare models for 

condensation at water stripes. 

Additionally, a parametric study was proposed to investigate the influence of the results on variations of 

the minimum water level (Task PMIX). For that study, values of -2.5 m and 0 m were considered at 400 

- 800 s. In addition, for a minimum water level of 0.5 m, the following time history of the downcomer 

water level was taken into account:

NUREG/CR-6651

Time [s] 

H [m] +

23
ITime [s] 01 2001 3001 4001 8001 9001 50001 

H [m] 1.525 1.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 1.525 1.5251 

Furthermore, a parametric study was proposed to investigate the influence of variations in the emergency 

cooling water injection rate per cold leg in a water filled sytem. For that study, only 20 percent of the 

specified cold side HP and LP injection rates was assumed together with a downcomer water level of 

1.525 m throughout the transient (Task PINJ). Task PINJ was the only task which allows a direct 

comparison of the fluid-fluid mixing results, because the downcomer global water temperature was not 

modified by condensation phenomena. Special requirements for the THM analyses are described in the 

Appendix A. 

3.4 Task Matrix 

The tasks of RPV ICAS are summarized in Table 3.7. 

References 

[1] "Documentation of Probabilistic Fracture Mechanics Codes used for Reactor Pressure Vessels 

Subjected to Pressurized Thermal Shock Loading ", EPRI TR-105001, 1995 

[2] Dickson T. L., "An Overview of FAVOR: A Fracture Analysis Code for Nuclear Reactor Pressure 

Vessels", Transactions of the 13th International Conference on Structural Mechanics in Reactor 

Technology (SMiRT 13), Volume IV, pp 701-706, Porto Alegre, Brazil, 1995.

NUREG/CR-665 1 24
Table 3.1 Material properties of base metal (22 NiMoCr 37) and weld metal 

Temperature [°C] 20 100 200 300 350 

Modulus of elasticity 206000 199000 190000 181000 172000 

E [MPa] 

Poisson's ratio 1) 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 

Thermal conductivity 44.4 44.4 43.2 41.8 39.4 

[W/m K] 

Specific heat capacity 0.45 0.49 0.52 0.56 0.61 

Cp [J/g K] 

Mean thermal expansion coef. 10.3 11.1 12.1 12.9 13.5 

X X 106 [I/K] 

Yield strength R0 2 [MPa] 450 431 412 392 -

Tangent modulus E-r [MPa] 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 

Table 3.2 Material properties of the austenitic cladding 

Temperature [°C] 20 100 200 300 400 

Modulus of elasticity 200 000 194 000 186 000 179 000 172 000 

E [MPa] 

Poisson's ratio i 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 

Thermal conductivity 16.0 16.0 17.0 17.0 18.0 

[W/m K] 

Specific heat capacity 0.5 0.5 0.54 0.54 0.59 

Cp [J/g K] 

Mean thermal expansion coef. 15.0 16.0 17.0 19.0 21.0 

( x 106 [l/K] 

Yield strength R.02 [MPa] 320 320 320 320 -

Tangent modulus Er [MPa] 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000

25 NUREG/CR-6651
Table 3.3 Flaw distribution proposed for PFM task group

*

Flaw number flaw depth (a) cumulative distribution 

[inches]* function CDF(a) 

1 0.1333 0.41802823 

2 0.2667 0.66130886 

3 0.4000 0.80289131 

4 0.5333 0.88528831 

5 0.6667 0.93324103 

6 0.8000 0.96114817 

7 0.9333 0.97738933 

8 1.0667 0.98684123 

9 1.2000 0.99234197 

10 1.3333 0.99554324 

11 1.4667 0.99740629 

12 1.6000 0.99849054 

13 1.7333 0.99912153 

14 1.8667 0.99948876 

15 2.0000 1.00000000 

1 inch =25.4mm

Table 3.4 Embrittlement-related parameters for Tasks PFM 1-4

Mean fluence* Mean RTNDT(°F) ** 

0.3 166 

0.5 195 

1.0 237 

1.5 262 

2.0 278 

2.5 291 

3.0 300 

3.5 308

* Neutron fluences are expressed in 1019 neutrons / cm2 (E > 1.0 MeV) at the inside vessel surface 

"**Calculated by U.S. NRC RG 1.99 Rev 2, using values of mean copper and nickel of 0.30 percent and 

0.75 percent, respectively, and a mean value of RTNDTo = 20 'F. 

[T(F) = 1.8 T (°C) + 32]

NUREG/CR-6651 26
Table 3.5 Material properties of base metal (SA 508 Class 3) and weld metal) 

Temperature [°C] 20 100 200 300 

Modulus of elasticity E [MPa] 204 000 200 000 193 000 185 000 

Poisson's ratio 1) 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 

Thermal conductivity 37.7 39.9 40.5 39.5 

[W/m °C] 

Density * Specific Heat capacity 3.488 3.775 4.087 4.423 

p * Cp [106 J/m3 0C] 

Mean thermal expansion coef. 11.22 11.79 12.47 13.08 

(X X 106 [1/K] 

Yield strength Rp02 [MPa] 350 350 350 350 

Tangent modulus EET [MPa] 2000 2000 2000 2000 

Table 3.6 Material properties of the cladding (types 309L - 308L stainless steel) 

Temperature [°C] 20 100 200 300 

Modulus of elasticity 197 000 191 500 184 000 176 500 

E [MPa] 

Poisson's ratio u 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 

Thermal conductivity 14.0 15.2 16.6 17.9 

X [W/m °C] 

Density * Specific Heat capacity 3.559 3.907 4.160 4.293 

p* Cp [106 Jim3 °C] 

Mean thermal expansion coef. 15.54 16 16.60 17.10 

ax X 106 [l/K] 

Yield strength Rp02 [MPa] 350 350 350 350 

Tangent modulus E1r [MPa] 2000 2000 2000 2000

27 NUREG/CR-6651
Table 3.7 Task Matrix of RPV PTS ICAS

C) 

LJ 

00

Task Group Task Parametric Study 

DFM Deterministic Structure CmTn Fracture Assessment of crack Cm loaded by PCT Influence of the cladding thickness 

and Fracture Mechanics transient Tn (m=1-5; n=-1-3) PCAR Influence of the cracks aspect ratio 

For the asymmetric loading transients T2 and PYS Influence of cladding and weld yield stress as 

T3 different loading conditions were assumed well as elastic and elastoplastic approaches 

(LAG, LAS). PRS Influence of residual stresses 

PFM Probabilistic Fracture PFMn Conditional probability of crack initiation and PFL Influence of cracks with finite length 

Mechanics vessel failure for two assumed crack (semielliptic, different aspect ratio) 

orientations loaded by two transients 

(n=l-4) 

THM Thermohydraulic Mixing MIXn Distribution of the fluid temperature and heat PMIX Influence of different minimum water levels 

transfer coefficient (HTC) in the downcomer PINJ Influence of reduced emergency cooling 

due to fluid-fluid-mixing and steam water injection rate 

condensation for a medium size leak
Detail A

Detail B

Figure 3.1 Geometry of the RPV (4 loop PWR 1300 MW)

k)

&I 

CN ('

99006X21
pressure-time history

postulated small break loss of coolant accident 

data generated by RELAP 5 thermal hydraulics computer code

i 

so i 

100

1 

150 200

transient time (minutes)

Figure 3.2 Pressure in the primary system (transient TI) 

fluid temperature time history

50 100 150 200

transient time (minutes)

Figure 3.3 Averaged fluid temperatures in the RPV downcomer near the inside RPV wall (transient Ti)

NUREG/CR-6651

18 

16

14

12 

10 -

8 

6

2 

C4

2

0

0 250

350 

300 

250 

200 

150 

100 -

'U 

E

postulated small break loss of coolant accident 

data generated by RELAP 5 thermal hydraulics computer code

I I II

50 -

0

0 250

30
convective heat transfer coefficient time history

;UUUU I

25000

20000 

15000 

10000 

5000 -

U

0

postulated small break loss of coolant accident 

lata generated by RELAP 5 thermal hydraulics computer code

50 100 150 200 250

transient time (minutes) 

Figure 3.4 Averaged heat transfer coefficient between the fluid in the downcomer and the inside RPV 

wall (transient TI)

NUREG/CR-6651

4-a

31

• i I !

I
circumferential weld near core mid-height (distance = 2.263 m) 

bue 

€ladding 

99006x19 

Figure 3.5 Scheme of injection through two neighbored nozzles 

NUREG/CR-6651 32
4-LOOP PWR 1300 MW 

50 cm 2 leak in a hot leg 

200 

150! 

100

50

ID . ...

29006x01

Outside cooling region 

* = saturated temperature 

x = hotwater temperature 

Inside cooling region 

Axial positions measured 

from lower nozzle edge 

D= 0.000 m 

o = 0.620 m 

A = 1.350 m 

+ = 1.600 m 

x = 2.263 m 

o = 2.433 m

'ime (s)

Figure 3.6 Pressure in the primary circuit (transient T2)

4-LOOP PWR 1300 MW 

50 cm2 leak in a hot leg

5000 4000 54000

!;O9x003 Time (s)

Figure 3.7 Fluid temperatures in the RPV downcomer near the inside RPV wall (transient T2)

NUREG/CR-6651

C. 

a. 

IV

0 1UUU

300" 

200-

E

0

0 1000 2000

aM• •UW VVL O0 WUUU

4000 5

33
4-LOOP PWR 1300 MW 

50 cm2 leak in a hot leg

-4.-. - - - - --- - -

2000 3000

- upper edge 

- lower edge 

of main cooling line

4000 6000

Time (s)

Figure 3.8 Water level in the RPV-downcomer (transient T2)

4-LOOP PWR 1300 MW 

50 cm2 leak in a hot leg

Axial positions measured 

from lower nozzle edge 

a= 0.000 m 

o = 0.620m 

a= 1.350m 

+ = 1.600 m 

x= 2.263 m 

o = 2.433 m

"Time (s) 

Figure 3.9 Cooling width in the RPV downcomer (transient T2)

2..41 I Y Y

0.8E 

0" 

--nI R

S-1.8 

-2.4 .9 .9 I .9

I- .9 .9

0 1000

99006xO4

8 

0"

NUREG/CR-6651

99006x07

34

1 8 1 

I T - T

-f 

Z
Axial positions measured 

from lower nozzle edge 

o = 0.000 m 

o = 0.620m 

A= 1.350 m 

+ = 1.600 m 

x = 2-263 m 

* = 2.433 m 

99006x09

Figure 3.10 Heat transfer coefficient inside the cooling region (transient T2)

4-LOOP PWR 1300 MW 

50 cm2 leak in a hot leg

I 

i .. ....

800 1600 2400 3200 4000 4600

Time (s)

Axial positions measured 

from lower nozzle edge 

C = 0.000 m 

O = 0.620 m 

a= 1.350m 

+ = 1.600 m 

x= 2.263 m 

o = 2.433 m 

9900601

Figure 3.11 Heat transfer coefficient outside the cooling region (transient T2)

NUREG/CR-6651

4-LOOP PWR 1300 MW 

50 cm2 leak in a hot leg

E 

4E 0 

C 0

"0-

Time (s)

C4 

E 

o 

0 

VE 

ID 

0

)..=

35
4-LOOP PWR 1300 MW 

200 cm2 leak in a hot leg 

80 

40 

.20

99006x02 "Time (s)

Figure 3.12 Pressure in the primary circuit (transient T3)

4-LOOP PWR 1300 MW 

200 cm2 leak in a hot leg 

100

o1

0

rime (s)

Outside cooling region 

0 = saturated temperature 

X = hotwater temperature 

Inside cooling region 

Axial positions measured 

from lower nozzle edge 

a = 0.000 m 

o= 0.620 m 

&= 1.350 m 

+ = 1.600 m 

x = 2.263 m 

o = 2.433 m

9900O05

Figure 3.13 Fluid temperatures in the RPV downcomer near the inside RPV wall (transient T3)

NUREG/CR-6651

0 

.2. 2 

2 

0

2 

0 

E 

12

2000O 4wvv 0 1000

00 •V•V 1UUW

36
4-LOOP PWR 1300 MW 

200 cm2 leak in a hot leg

Time (S)

- upper edge 

- lower edge 

of main cooling line 

990O6x06

Figure 3.14 Water level in the RPV-downcomer (transient T3)

4-LOOP PWR 1300 MW 

200 cm2 leak in a hot leg

Time (s)

Axial positions measured 

from lower nozzle edge 

o = 0.000 m 

a = 0.620 m 

S= 1.350 m 

+ = 1.600 m 

x = 2.263 m 

o= 2.433 m 

99O0&x08

Figure 3.15 Cooling width in the RPV downcomer (transient T3)

NUREG/CR-6651

0 

0

(

0 

0

37
4-LOOP PWR 1300 MW 

200 cm2 leak in a hot leg

Axial positions meastred 

from lower nozzle edge 

a = 0.000 m 

O = 0.620 m 

& = 1.350 m 

+ = 1.600 m 

x = 2.263 m 

o = 2.433 m 

9900WO10

Figure 3.16 Heat transfer coefficient inside the cooling region (transient T3)

4-LOOP PWR 1300 MW 

200 cm2 leak in a hot leg

Axial positions measured 

from lower nozzle edge 

13 = 0.000 m 

o = 0.620 m 

A = 1.350 m 

+ = 1.600 m 

x= 2.263 m 

o = 2.433 m 

99006x12

Figure 3.17 Heat transfer coefficient outside the cooling region (transient T3)

NUREG/CR-6651

0 

21 

0Y 

0 

0 

"-E 

Q 

b

"Time (s)

E 

"(D C 

M 

ci 

0o 

r

-1

Time (s)

38
601

P. . -

a, t , E E 30 

S40 

n200 

100/ 

C'i 14 19 22 .26 30 

Distance from the surface (ram) 

a a 

-100 

0 cladding base metal 

99006X20 

Figure 3.18 Typical distribution of residual stresses due to cladding after heat treatment (12h at 610'C)

39 NUREG/CR-6651
[- -~ Test Vessel 

Cover 

Test Vessel 

Flange 

Vent Valve J - Vent Valve 

A L " -'Upper Plenum 

Internals 

0¢750 Upper Core 

Support Plate 

•-- •.'4 End Box 

10 -- Dummy 

Fuel Assembly 

3489 Core Simulator 

Zone Wall 

i i= (perforated) 

250 •_ • Core Bypass 

-04870Structure 

Resistance Plate 

Test Vessel 

(lower part) 

- 4990"6x13 

Figure 3.19 LTPTF test vessel and its internals, to be used for the geometry of the RPV internals, not to 

be used concerning the RPV-wall thickness.

NUREG/CR-6651

1

40
Figure 3.20 Major dimensions of the UPTF-primary system

('. 

ON 

C7\..

55

99006x14
4 COMPUTER CODES AND ANALYSIS TECHNIQUES

Organizations that provided analysis results for the various ICAS tasks are identified only by an 

alphanumeric code in the tables and comparative plots included in Chapters 4 and 5. This 

identification approach preserves anonymity of the contributing organizations regarding analysis 

results and continues a policy that was adopted in the previous FALSIRE projects. 

Task Group DFM 

The distribution of solutions contributed by the participating organizations among the DFM tasks is 

given in Table 4.1. The computer codes and approaches employed are summarized in Table 4.2. 

The latter approaches are subdivided into structural and fracture mechanic categories. 

Task Group PFM 

The distribution of solutions contributed by the participating organizations among the PFM tasks is 

given in Table 4.3. The computer codes and approaches employed by the participants are 

summarized in Table 4.4. 

Task Group THM 

The distribution of solutions contributed by the participating organizations among the THM tasks is 

given in Table 4.5. The computer codes and approaches employed by the participants are 

summarized in Table 4.6. 

Table 4.1 Participants in RPV ICAS benchmark analyses, DFM1-Task Group 

(21 organizations from 13 countries performed 104 analyses and 26 parametric studies )

Code TI T2 

Al Cl-C5 Cl-C5 

A2 C5 

A3 C2, C3 

A4 C1, C2, C4 C2, C4 

A5 C4 

A6 C1, C2, C4 C4 

A8 CL,C2,C3 

A9 C1-C5 (1,2) C1-C5 (1) 

A10 C2,C3 

All Cl-C5 

A12 C1,C2,C3 

A13 C2, C4 C2, C4 

A14 Cl 

A15 C2-C5 C2-C5 

A17 Cl 

A18 Cl-C5 

A19 C1- C5 

A20 C1,C2,C3 C1,C2,C3 

A24 C4 

A25 Cl-C5 

A26 Cl - C5 

'DFM - deterministic fracture mechanics

DFM-Tasks 

T3 

C4 

C2 

C4 

Cl-C5 (1) 

C2-C5

Param. Study 

PCT 

PCAR 

PYSPCAR 

PCTPCARPRS 

PRS,PCAR 

PCAR,PRS 

PCT, PYS, PRS 

PCTPYS,PRS 

PCT,PCAR,PRS 

PRS 

PRS 

PCT,PCAR 

PCT, PCAR

43 NUREG/CR-6651
Computer codes and approaches in RPV ICAS benchmark analyses, 

DFM'-Task Group.

'DFM - deterministic fracture mechanics 

VCE - Virtual Crack Extension 

EDIA - Equivalent Domain Integral Approach 

Table 4.3 Participants in RPV ICAS benchmark analyses, PFM'-Task Group 

(7 organizations from 4 countries performed 25 analyses and 3 parametric studies) 

PFM-Tasks 

Code PFM1 PFM2 PFM3 PFM4 PFL 

A3 X 

A9_1, -2 X X X X 

A10 X X X X X 

A12 X X X X 

A20 X X X X X 

A21 X X X X 

A22 X X X X X

1

PFM - probabilistic fracture mechanics

NUREG/CR-6651

Table 4.2

Code Computer codes, approaches 

STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS 

Al COSMOS/M 1.75, 3D, FE-code, elastic 

A2 ASTER, 3D, Fe-code, elastic-plastic 

A3 CASTEM 2000, 3D, FE-code, elastic-plastic 

A4 ADINA 6.1.6, 3D, FE-code, elastic-plastic 

A5 ABAQUS 5.6, 3D, FE-code, elastic-plastic 

A6 ADINA 6.1.6, 3D, FE-code, elastic-plastic 

A8 Analytical, axisymmetric, elastic-plastic 

A9_1 WELT3D, VENUS, CSMOS/M, 3D, FE-code, elastic 

A9_2 2D axisymmetric, FE-code, elastic 

A10 ADINAT, ADINA 7.1, 3D, FE-code, elastic-plastic 

All Analytical method 

A12 ABAQUS, 2D axisymmetric, FE-code, elastic-plastic 

A13 TEMPO1, UZORI, 3D, FE-code, elastic-plastic 

A14 2D axisymmetric, FE-code, elastic-plastic 

A15 PMD II, 3D, FE-code, elastic 

A17 ADINA, 2D axisymmetric, FE-code, elastic-plastic 

A18 Analytical, axisymmetric, elastic 

A19 ABAQUS, 2D axisymmetric, FE-code, elastic-plastic 

A20 FAVOR, FE 

A24 ABAQUS, 3D, FE-code, elastic-plastic 

A25 ABAQUS, 3D, FE-code 

A26 CALORI, TADA Handbook, analytical, elastic

Computer codes, approaches 

FRACTURE ANALYSIS 

Estimation scheme 

ASTER, VCE 

CASTEM 2000, VCE 

ADINA 6.1.6, VCE 

ABAQUS 5.6, EDIA 

Weight function 

Estimation scheme 

R6 

Influence functions 

ADINA 7.1, VCE 

ASME 

Estimation scheme 

UZOR1, EDIA 

FE-code, J-integral 

Influence function 

ADINA, VCE 

Influence function 

Weight function R6, R6 app.4 

FAVOR, Influence coefficient 

ABAQUS, EDIA 

ABAQUS, EDIA 

CALORI, TADA Handbook, Influence 

functions

44
Table 4.4 Computer codes and approaches in RPV ICAS benchmark 

analyses, PFM-Task Group

Code Computer codes, approaches 

A3 Quadrature rules & CASTEM 2000 

A9 1 Monte Carlo, PARISH 

A9_2 Monte Carlo 

A 10 Monte Carlo, PASCAL 

A12 Monte Carlo & ANSYS 

A20 Monte Carlo, FAVOR 

A21 Monte Carlo, FAVOR 

A22 Monte Carlo, FAVOR

Table 4.5 Participants in RPV ICAS benchmark analyses, THM Task Group 

(8 organizations from 5 countries performed 7 analyses and 13 parametric studies)

THM-Tasks 

Code MIX PMIX PINJ 

A41,-2 X X X 

A5 X X X 

A7 X 

A8 X X 

A9 X X X 

A15 X X 

A21 X X X 

A23 X X X

'THM - thermohydraulic mixing

Computer codes and approaches in 

analyses, THM'-Task Group

RPV ICAS benchmark

Code Computer codes, approaches 

A4_ 1 Correlation mainly based on large scale experiments at UPTF and HDR 

A4_2 CFD code CFX-TASCflow 

A5 Correlation mainly based on large scale experiments at UJPTF and HDR 

A7 Correlation mainly based on large scale experiments at UPTF and HDR 

A8 System code RELAP5 mod3.2 

A9 code TFSPTS based on REMIX 

A15 code MIXEBO based on REMIX/NEWMIX 

A21 system code TRAC-P 

A23 physically based zonal approach 

'THM - thermohydraulic mixing

NUREG/CR-6651

Table 4.6

45
5 DISCUSSION OF ANALYSIS RESULTS AND COMPARATIVE 

ASSESSMENTS 

As part of the detailed comparison of analysis results a number of discrepancies were noted regarding 

the analytical methods and the input parameters referenced. These discrepancies serve to increase the 

scatter in results above what might otherwise have been expected, and highlight the need for careful 

quality assurance and good engineering judgement in undertaking structural integrity assessments. 

Where due diligence has been paid to select the analysis methodology and to correctly represent the 

geometry, material properties and boundary conditions in the analyses, there is generally good 

agreement between results. 

5.1 Comparison of Analysis Results - Task Group DFM 

In the DFM Task Group, 21 organizations from 13 countries participated. According to the task 

matrix included in the problem statements, 104 analyses were performed for the main tasks and 26 

parametric studies (see Table 4.1). Comparative plots of the DFM results of the participating 

organizations are presented in this chapter. For tasks CmTn, m = 1-5, n = 1-3, in the DFM module, 

analysis results were compared for selected variables defined in the Special Requirements (see 

Appendix A). Based on the information given in Section 3.1, the time histories of fluid temperature, 

internal pressure and HTC for transients Ti, T2 and T3 are depicted in Figs. 5.1.1 through 5.1.3 in a 

comparative manner, respectively. Some organizations provided updated results after the final 

Workshop (February 1998). In the comparative plots, these results are labelled with the index 'new'. 

Transient T1 

" The plots of temperature distributions in the wall show that 15 of the 20 computed distributions 

agree very well. Discrepancies are indicated in five calculations. At time 2400 s, the scatter in 

temperature at the inner wall ranged from 160 - 190 'C (see Fig. 5.1.4). In some cases 

either an over-simplified representation of the thermal transient, inadequate mesh refinement 

close to the inner surface of the vessel or poor choice of element type may have led to erroneous 

results. 

" The plots of axial stresses across the wall (without crack) at time t = 3600 s (Figs. 5.1.5 and 5.1.6) 

indicate that within the cladding and 10 mm into the base material, elastic solutions lie 

significantly above the elastic-plastic solutions, 425 to 645 MPa compared with 305 to 345 MPa 

respectively. While a significant amount of scatter in results is observed, a careful study of the 

methodologies used to derive these solutions indicates that consistent results are obtained when 

particular attention is paid to the following:

47 NUREG/CR-6651
@ Adequate representation of the pressure transient,

" Sufficient mesh refinement and choice of element type in critical regions; particularly 

within the cladding and across the clad-base metal interface. Quadratic elements 

(incorporating mid-side nodes) are recommended, 

" Correct definition of material properties. Of particular note were the cladding yield stress 

and the reference temperature definition for the thermal expansion coefficient (TEC). 

With respect to this latter point, within the ICAS problem statement, TEC values were given as 

usual according to the reference temperature of 20'C. In some codes, the input of these values is 

transferred correctly to a different stress-free reference temperature. On the other hand, some 

codes require the user to transfer the TEC values to a different reference temperature. A study 

undertaken by NRI indicated that incorrect TEC input data produces an underestimation of the 

elastic axial stress in the cladding of approximately 22 percent. This would result in a non

conservative prediction of crack driving force. Participants A12 (nonlinear) and A20 (nonlinear) 

have clearly used the cladding yield stress appropriate to the PFM task (350MPa) rather than that 

specified for the DFM task (320MPa). Some analysts provided updated analysis results in cases 

where misinterpretation of the data given in the ICAS problem statements had originally been 

made. Since the stresses are dominated by the thermal component of the loading, a study by AEA 

showed that in considered cases the presence of the cold-leg nozzle has only a small influence on 

the stresses in the belt-line weld. 

Case T1C1 

" A comparison of the calculated crack-mouth-opening displacement (CMOD) is shown in Fig. 

5.1.7. A related study by GRS indicated that the incorrect use of the TEC in an elastic-plastic 

calculation produced an underestimation of the CMOD by about 18 percent. 

" The range of calculated SIF versus crack-tip temperature is given in Fig. 5.1.8. In general, 

elastic analyses and J-estimation schemes provide higher predictions of SIF when compared 

to the more complex 3D FEA. The maximum predicted SIFs range from 65 to 95 MPa'lm. 

For elastic-plastic calculations this range is reduced to 65 to 80 MPaim (see Fig. 5.1.9). The 

GRS study demonstrated that an incorrect TEC reference temperature of 288°C rather than 

20'C leads to a reduction in predicted maximum SIF of approximately 15 percent. The 

treatment and interpretation of the TEC input to the codes appears to be a major contributor 

to the scatter in the analysis results. Due to the uncertainties shown in the temperature 

calculation described above, the scatter of the load paths on the lowest temperatures reached is 

approximately 35 to 55°C.

NUREG/CR-6651 48
The objective of the analyses was to derive maximum allowable RT", temperatures for the 

defects under consideration. The derived values thus provide an indication of the severity of 

the defect and loading conditions. Comparisons of critical RTNDT values indicate that 13 out of 

17 analysts calculated values in the range 120 to 140'C based on the maximum criterion, 

while the tangent and 90-percent criteria gave values of 70 to 95°C (see Fig. 5.1.10). The 

predicted scatter of the calculated maximum allowable RTT values is less than that observed 

in the calculation of maximum SIF. This arises due to the shape of the fracture toughness 

curve in the transition region sampled by the predicted loading paths. 

Case T1C2 

" The seven calculated curves of CMOD time history include elastic as well as elastic-plastic 

solutions (see Fig. 5.1.11). A scatter of about 20 percent in the region where the maximum 

value is observed. 

" Similar to results for Case TICl, elastic and elastic-plastic calculations of SIF versus 

temperature at the deepest point exhibited a scatter of about 40 percent near the maximum 

level (see Fig. 5.1.12). The scatter is reduced to about 27 percent for the plastic calculations, 

which are generally below the elastic analysis and estimation scheme results (see Fig. 5.1.13). 

The maximum criterion provided estimates of critical RTvT in the range of 100-160'C (see 

Fig. 5.1.14). Within that scatter the position of individual analyses is different from the 

position in the scatter of the maximum SIFs due to the shape of the fracture toughness curve 

used for the determination of maximum allowable RTNIT. 

" More significant uncertainties in the analysis results were observed in SEF versus crack-tip 

temperature at the near clad-base material interface location. This arose from local errors in 

numerical solutions at the material interface due to inadequate mesh refinement and the 

assumptions made regarding the most appropriate location to establish the SIF. For the 12 

results from estimation schemes (7) and finite element methods (5), the scatter is about 80 

percent in the region of the maximum. The scatter for the four elastic-plastic FE solutions is 

significantly reduced to about 20 percent. 

Case T1C3 

* This through-clad defect is of the same dimension as defect C2, but it is oriented axially, 

rather than circumferentially. Since the PTS loading is dominated by the thermal component, 

it is almost equi-biaxial, and the predicted stresses, SIFs and calculated RTT are similar to 

those estimated for defect C2. Scatter in the results is also similar to those for Case T1C2.

49 NUREG/CR-6651
Case T lC4

The scatter in SIF versus crack-tip temperature at the deepest point of the underclad crack 

produced by the three elastic-plastic FE results ranges about 20 percent, and that of the 11 ES 

results ranges about 60 percent. Most of the ES methodologies are found to be very 

conservative. However, the ES results are not consistent with an elastic FE calculation, in which 

case they could be non-conservative. 

Case T1C5 

* The scatter in SIF versus crack-tip temperature at the deepest point of the underclad crack 

produced by the two elastic-plastic FE results ranges about 30 percent and that of the nine ES 

results ranges about 40 percent. 

The objective of the work was to derive maximum allowable values of RTNDT for the five defects. The 

value of maximum allowable RT•T is an indicator of the severity of the defect and PTS transient. 

Critical RTN-DT values calculated for all of the main TI tasks are summarised in Table 5.1.1. These 

results show that scatter in the critical values of RTNTT is relatively modest when compared with the 

scatter in SIF. This modest degree of scatter arises from the shape of the fracture toughness curve in 

the transition region used for assessment of the loading paths. The predicted values of maximum 

allowable RTDT for the through-clad semielliptical defects C2 and C3 are broadly similar and 

generally higher than those for Cl. Where calculated, the values of RTrD for the sub-clad defects C4 

and C5 are higher than those for defects Cl to C3. 

Transient T2 

" The temperature distribution through the wall inside and outside the cooling region at time 1,500 

s indicate very good agreement for the seven submitted solutions, i.e., scatter within four percent 

(see Figs. 5.1.15 and 5.1.16). In contrast, the temperature results of transient TI show larger 

scatter (see Fig. 5.1.4). The main difference in the tasks is that for transient TI many more data 

values were provided so that data selection was necessary. Therefore, some of the TI analyses 

could have experienced a quality assurance problem, especially concerning the approximation of 

the fluid temperature and HTC data. 

" Hoop and axial stresses through the wall (without crack) at time t = 1000 s exhibited scatter of 

about 20 percent in the base/weld material near the interface to the cladding. Differences 

between elastic and elastic-plastic solutions are observed only in the cladding.

NUREG/CR-6651 50
Case T2C1

Calculations of SIF versus crack-tip temperature exhibited approximately 20 percent scatter. 

Case T2C2 

"* Time histories of CMOD were in good agreement for the three submitted solutions (see Fig. 

5.1.17). 

" Plots of SIF versus crack-tip temperature show load paths with two maxima. Two of the three 

plastic solutions (A4 and A20) agree well (see Fig. 5.1.18). The elastic solution of A20 

overestimates the first maximum of SIF by about 17 percent. The lower temperature limit in 

Fig. 5.1.18 shows low scatter due to the good coincidence in the temperature results. 

Consequently, the critical values of RT,,T for three different criteria exhibited the scatter 

given in Fig. 5.1.19. 

Case T2C3 

0 The three elastic and two elastic-plastic calculations of SIF versus crack-tip temperature at the 

deepest point exhibited a scatter of about 20 percent in the first maximum of the SIF, which 

can be traced to the consideration of plasticity effects. 

Case T2C4 

The SIF versus crack-tip temperature curves for the underclad crack are very flat at low levels 

of K,. Therefore, the determination of critical values of RT.T is very sensitive to the scatter in 

SIF level. These values are very different if determined from maximum or tangent criteria. 

Critical RTN-T values calculated for all of the main T2 tasks are given in Table 5.1.2. These show a 

similar trend to those derived for transient T1, with defect C5 providing the highest values of RT,-T 

and Cl the lowest. A greater difference in RTNT for defects C2 and C3 is observed for transient T2 

when compared to Ti. This arises due to the orientation of the defects within the cooling plume. 

Transient T3 

* Temperature distributions through the wall inside and outside the cooling region for the five sets 

of results agree very well (see Fig. 5.1.20 and 5.1.21).

51 NUREG/CR-6651
Case T3C4

" The comparison of the calculated CMOD values is shown in Fig. 5.1.22. The curves for SIF 

versus crack-tip temperature are shown in Fig. 5.1.23. The main reason for the discrepancies 

between A5 and the other curves seems to be the different treatment of the TEC input values 

in the various codes as already described in the section devoted to transient TI. A parametric 

study performed by GRS showed that incorrect use of the TEC in an elastic-plastic calculation 

can lead to an underestimation of the maximum SIF by about 20 percent. 

" The critical values of RTT calculated for three different criteria are compared in Fig. 5.1.24 

and Table 5.1.3. The observation made regarding predicted maximum allowable RT•T 

values for transients T1 and T2 are supported by these results. 

Critical RTND- values calculated for all of the main T3 tasks are given in Table 5.1.3. 

Parametric Studies 

Residual Stress (PRS) 

Nine participants did studies on residual stresses for transient TI. The results show consistent 

trends indicating that residual stresses due to cladding, as well as welding, enhance the maximum 

SIFs at the deepest points of the considered cracks. For the surface crack Cl, the increase in K m" 

is about 50 to 100 percent, for C3 about 50 percent and for the underclad crack C4 there is no 

significant effect (see Fig. 5.1.25). 

Clad Thickness (PCT) 

For the surface cracks Cl, C2 and C3 in Task TI, the maximum SIF at the deepest point of the 

flaw increased with increasing clad thickness, while for the underclad crack C4 the trend is 

opposite (see Fig. 5.1.26). 

Crack Aspect Ratio (PCAR) 

Seven participants did studies on crack aspect ratio for transient TI. The results show consistent 

trends. For the semielliptic surface cracks C2 and C3 as well as the underclad cracks C4 and C5, the 

maximum SIF at the deepest points increased with decreasing crack aspect ratio a/c = 1/1, 1/2, 1/3 (see 

Fig. 5.1.27).

NUREG/CR-6651 52
5.2 Comparison of Analysis Results - Task Group PFM

In the PFM Task Group, seven organizations from four countries participated. According to the task 

matrix included in the problem statements, 25 analyses were performed for the main tasks and three 

parametric studies (see Table 4.3). For tasks PFM-n, n = 1-4, in the PFM module, analysis results 

were compared for conditional probabilities of initiation and vessel failure versus mean surface RT,•T 

(see Figs. 5.2.1 - 5.2.8). The approaches employed by the participants in generating solutions to 

these tasks are noted in Table 4.4. After the final Workshop, one organization provided updated 

results and one organization joined the task group. In the comparative plots these results are labelled 

with the index 'new'. 

" For all tasks, significant differences were observed between the A20 and A22 solutions, although 

both organizations utilized the same computer code. The latter result is illustrated for task PFM-1 

in the plot of the conditional probability of crack initiation versus mean surface RT,,,T given in 

Fig. 5.2.1. The differences in these solutions were apparently due to selection of different input 

parameters. It was determined that A20 used the procedures given in USNRC Regulatory Guide 

199, Rev. 2 for simulating the margin term in the calculation of RTN.T, while A22 used numbers 

(i.e., standard deviations for initial value of RT•T as well as for nickel and copper content) 

obtained from another source. 

"* Participant A20 determined that the conditional probabilities of the elastic solutions are larger 

than the values of the plastic solutions by a factor of 2 to 4. 

"* The elastic-plastic results of A3 shown in Fig 5.2.1 are close to the elastic results of A20. 

" The calculated conditional probabilities of crack initiation, especially for low values of RT~T, 

have the largest scatter, i.e. about a factor of 100. For the conditional probability of vessel 

failure, this factor ranges from 20 to 50. 

" For task PFM-4, the level of conditional probability of vessel failure is much smaller than in task 

PFM-i. ORNL reported that the relatively low probabilities computed for the PFM-4 task 

necessitated that a large number of vessels (at least 100 million!) be analyzed in order to get 

convergent results. 

5.3 Comparison of Analysis Results - Task Group THM 

In the THM Task Group, eight organizations from five countries participated. According to the task 

matrix included in the ICAS problem statements, seven analyses were performed for the main task

53 NUREG/CR-6651
and 14 for parametric studies (see Table 4.5). For the Tasks MIX and PINJ in the THM4 module, 

analysis results of eight organizations with approaches summarized in Table 4.6 were compared for 

selected variables defined in the Special Requirements (see Appendix A). Some organizations 

provided updated results after the final Workshop. In the comparative plots, these results are labelled 

with the index 'new'. 

Task MIX, global downcomer temperature outside of plumes 

The six sets of results agree quite well and show maximum discrepancies concerning the global 

cooling in the downcomer in the range of about 40'C (see Fig. 5.3.1). This uniform result can 

be traced back mainly to the data describing the system pressure. The time history of the 

pressure was given for this task, and as partly saturation conditions in the downcomer were 

reached, global temperatures followed partly the saturation temperature. 

Task MIX. downcomer temperatures inside the plumes/stripes 

" Figures 5.3.2 - 5.3.5 show the fluid temperatures in the centrelines of the plumes at a location 1 

and 2 m below the cold legs 1/4 and 2/3 calculated by the participants. Large scatter in the results 

can be observed below cold legs 2/3 in the time interval 400 to 800 s when the water level is 1.5 m 

below the lower nozzle edge of the cold legs and the simulation of the condensation effects plays 

an important role (see Figs 5.3.4 and 5.3.5). Some of the models used to simulate the 

condensation effects show a weakness in the recognition of the flow-regime at the water stripe 

discharge in the downcomer. This effect is more pronounced at heights closer to the lower 

nozzle edge. It seems that the solutions with the lowest temperatures in that time interval 

underestimate the condensation effects in the cold legs. 

" At times greater than 800 s, when the water level in the downcomer increases again due to low

pressure injection, the results of the correlation-based models (A4_1, A5, A23) are close together. 

Significant differences could be observed in the period that is influenced by the condensation 

effects. 

" Figure 5.3.6 shows the azimutal temperature distribution in the downcomer at the location 2 m 

below the lower nozzle edge, at time t = 900 s after start of the transient. The expected plumes 

under the cold legs are simulated only in A5 and A4_1. In these analyses, the temperature 

difference between the centerline of the plumes under CL 2/3 and outside the plumes reaches 

about 30 'C.

NUREG/CR-6651 54
Task MIX, heat transfer coefficients (HTC) inside and outside the plumes/stripes

The comparison of the HTC results of the analyses shows a significant degree of scatter, with values 

in the range between zero and about 10,000 W/m2K. This variation in HTC may have relevance for 

structure mechanics analyses (see Figs. 5.3.7 to 5.3.10). It is recommended that this aspect be 

addressed in future work. 

" As a group, the participants determined lower HTC values, mostly far below 7,000 W/m2K for the 

region outside the plumes (see Fig.5.3.7). For structure mechanics analyses, the region below 

7000 W/m2K is sensitive. Differences between the HTC values inside and outside the plumes may 

produce additional thermal stresses, which are likely to influence the stress intensity factors. 

" When the water level is lowered (between 400 s and 800 s), condensation and thermal mixing 

determine the fluid temperature, as well as the HTC value. The scatter in the calculated HTC 

values is very pronounced in that time interval. 

"* The system codes RELAP5 (A 8) and TRAC-P (A21) have problems with the estimation of the 

condensation. These codes determine non-uniform trends. 

" The behavior of the correlation-based models (A 4-1, A 5) is similar except during the phase 

with condensation. During that phase, they differ in the value by a factor of 2, but they are 

similar in trend (see Fig. 5.3.9). In contrast to the model used in A 5, the model used in A 4_1 

assumes reduced condensation. It tries to consider uncertainties, which can result from a nitrogen 

release in a reactor coolant system. By this means, the water-jet enters into the water pool with a 

lower temperature than in model used in A 5. As a consequence, the entrained water plume sinks 

comparatively faster and induces a higher HTC value. After finishing of the operating mode with 

lowered water level, the differences conditioned by condensation are compensated. The trend 

produced by both models is equal. 

" For times greater than 900 s, A 23 gives the highest values which stay stable for this operating 

mode. All other models give results in opposition to this, i.e., a decrease of the HTC values (see 

Fig. 5.3.9). 

" During the phase with lowered water level and also after this phase, the HTC values determined by 

A 4_1 and A 23 outside the plumes are nearly constant at a level of about 1,500 W/m2 K. After 

the downcomer is refilled, a decrease of the HTC values is determined by the other participants 

(see Fig. 5.3.7).

55 NUREG/CR-6651
Task PINJ, downcomer temperatures inside the plumes

"* For this task without condensation effects, Figures 5.3.11 and 5.3.12 show that the results of the 

correlation-based methods (A4-1, A 5, A 15 and A 23) give a consistent trend, with differences in 

the fluid temperature of less than 50 'C. 

"* In the CFD application (A 4_2), the slope of the temperature decrease in the plumes under cold 

legs 1/4 is comparable with the other results, but it starts at a later time (see Fig. 5.3.12). The 

concept of symmetric plumes under the cold legs is not supported by the three-dimensional 

solution. 

"* Lowest temperatures are calculated by the approaches of A 9 and A 21. 

Task PINJ. heat transfer coefficient inside the plumes 

Figure 5.3.13 shows the calculated HTC values under cold legs 2/3. 

"* The correlation-based methods (A4_1, A 5 and A 15) show a consistent trend with differences in 

the HTC values of up to 5,000 W/m2K. 

"* Solutions A23 and A4_2 show nearly constant HTC values during the transient, while A9 and 

A21 show rapid decreases to a level lower than 1,000 W/m2K.

NUREG/CR-6651 56
Table 5.1.1 DFM-Tasks TI: Evaluation of the maximum allowable RTNDT for the cracks C1,C2,C3,C4 and 

C5 (deepest point) based on tangent, ninety-percent, and maximum criteria on the K-T diagram. 

C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 

PARTICIPANT tang. 90% max tang. 90% max tang. 90% max tang. 90% max tang. 90% max 

Al, new 79 79 121 94 94 141 91 93 140 154 - 184 140 141 170 

A2 190 - 215 

A3 (elastic) 80 130 110 155 

A3 (plastic) 98 145 150 180 

A4 83 84 123 97 97 135 unlim unlim unlimr 

A6 78 80 130 

A6 (epl) 130 

A6 (ep2) 83 

A8 (elastic), new 75 77 124 85 86 137 83 89 133 

A8 (plastic), new 83 84 134 92 93 142 90 99 141 1 

A9_1, new 80,4 82,1 126,5 89,35 95,9 122,3 125 127 150 unlim unlim unlim unlim unlim unlim 

A9_2, new 68 76 87 85 88 98 83 86 127 160 186 145 155 167 

A10 104 141 104 138 

Al1 66 95 86 111 81 111 unlim unlirn 200 203 

A12 68 69 136 91 93 153 110 116 158 

A13 108 118 152 unlim unlim unlim 

A14 69 126 

A15 111 159 106 152 unlim unlim unlim unlim 

A17 90,5 98,3 137,5 

A18 (meth. 1) 87,1 104,5 101,5 unlim 249,6 

A18 (meth. 2) 82,9 101,6 97,9 1_1_1 

A19 (elastic) 82 90 136 96 102 145 93 99,5 143 153 158,5 185 143 145,5 170 

A19 (R6 J) 78 86 133 90 98 142 88 95,5 140 140 142 175 132,5 137,5 165 

A19 (R6 ap.4) 86 93,5 137 99 105 147 95 104 142 140 142 174 131 137 163 

A20 (elastic) 73,6 81,4 79,4 

A20 (plastic) 81,9 92,3 89 

A25 64,7 109,2 101,7 152,3 99,6- 144,61 unlim unlim 

A26 70 110 80 120 80 120 160 190 135 175

Ch 

(h,
z 

ON 

ON 

(J

Table 5.1.3 DFM-Tasks T3: Evaluation of the maximum allowable RTNDT for the cracks C1,C2,C3,C4 and 

C5 (deepest point) based on tangent, ninety-percent, and maximum criteria on the K-T 

diagram. 

C1 C2 C3 ..... C4 C5 

PARTICIPANT tang. 90% max tang. 90% max tang. 90% max tang. 90% max tang. 90% max 

A4, new 46 49 55 

A3, new 76 84 

A5 1 1 63 65 68 

A9_1, new 38,2 38,1 48,8 41,4 42,1 51,3 50 57 65 83,4 92 92 100 103 

A15 44 46 59 64 80 80 154 154

Table 5.1.2 DFM-Tasks T2: Evaluation of the maximum allowable RTNDT for the cracks C1,C2,C3,C4 and 

C5 (deepest point) based on tangent, ninety-percent, and maximum criteria on the K-T 

diagram. 

C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 

PARTICIPANI tang. 90% max tang. 90% max tang. 90% max tang. 90% max tang. 90% max 

Al, new 21 31 103 36 43 112 52 61 127 65 68 136 92 129 155 

A4, new 39 52 115 190 190 190 

A5 74 84 131 

A6 .... _150 165 195 

A9_1, new 29,7 36,4 60,1 35,5 41,2 108,6 50 52 120 114 168,8 165 185 

A13 81,6 128 149 196 197 203 

A15 55 124 77 130 161 174 207 218 

A20 (elastic) 24 30,7 50,4 

A20 (plastic) 34,4 38,3 60,9
300

250 --a-T2 (cooling region, 0.6 m below nozzle) 

--A-T2 (cooling region, 2.2 mn below nozzle) 

0_ ,. -o--T2 (outside of cooling region) a 200 x* T3 (cooling region, 0.6 m below nozzle) 

4-=---T3 (cooling region, 2.2 m below nozzle) 

i5 S 150 ' ---- T3 (outside of cooling region) 

E 

"5 100 : • .' m......... . 

50 

0 

' 

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 

Time [s] 

Z 

4Fiore 5i ~11 Ti et historv of fluid te -rntnt~~rps fnr T lC'A trntnc~i-nfc T I TI~ ,nn TI~
16 

S 14 -u-T1 ON 

." -o-T2 

12 T3 

U,8 10 

C 6 

a) 

2 

0 

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 

Time [s]

Figure 5.1.2 Time history of internal pressure for LOCA transients TI, T2, and T3
14 .. . . . 

-u-Ti 

29 12 -o--T2 (cooling region, 0.6 m below nozzle) 

N---T2 (cooling region, 2.2 m below nozzle) E .-- T2 (outside of cooling region) 

10 -9--T3 -- (cooling region, 0.6 m below nozzle) 

"-•T3 (cooling region, 2.2 m below nozzle) 

(1D -&---T3 (outside of cooling region) S1. 

S8 

0 

C/) 

CZ S. . 

g4 

2 

0 

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 

Time [s] 

ON 

1A

r igure 5.1.3 1 irme nistory of neat transter coefiicients tor LUtLA transients 1 1, I2, and 13
300 

n 280 

A 260 

240 

220 

200 

L1 180 

160 

140 

120 

H100 

80 

60 

40 ___ 

20 

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 

Wall thickness [mm]

Figure 5.1.4 Task TI: Temperature distribution in the wall at time 2400s
650

600 

550 

500 

450 

400 

,., 350 

a

2- 300 

S250 

(n 200 

'a 

S,• 

150 AN 

100 

50 

0 . 

-501 20 40 60 80 100 

-100 

-150 

Wall thickness [mm] 

ON

o A19 (nonlinear) 

o A3 (linear) ---- A3 (nonlinear) 

-& A9-1 (linear) 

* A9_2 (linear) 

* A2 (nonlinear) 

--+-- A13 (nonlinear) 

•---A1 (linear), new 

-A18 (linear) 

-e-- A4 (nonlinear), new - A17 (nonlinear), new 

.&A14 (nonlinear) 

--- A 12 (nonlinear) 

-A24 (nonlinear,3000s) - A8 (nonlinear), new -- a--A20 (linear) 

---*-- A20 (nonlinear) 

-- - A 15 (linear,3000s) -- o--A10 (nonlinear) 

- --A25 (linear) 

- --- A26 (linear) ... a..- A8 (linear), new

r Igure 5.1.5 •s LIKI: AmaPkX~l SLress aIcross the• wanl WILIIOUL cracks aL HIMn JDUUS

S4./.- ..... |I ... ;4'1t..•..4 .... I.• •d. 4;.--• "]JENi*'II_
C) 

ONa 

ON 

Cu 

C

(n

650 

600 

550 

500 

450 

400 

350 

300 

250 

200 

150

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24

Wall thickness [mm]

Figure 5.1.6 Task TI: Axial stress across the wall without cracks at time 3600s (region near the inner surface)
0.24

0.22 

0.20 

0.18 

0.16 

0.14 

a 0.12 

0 

0 0.10 U1 

0 .0 8 " 4. -. . , 

0.06 

0.04 

0.02 

0.00 1 

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000 12000

Time [s]

Figure 5.1.7 Task TICI: Time history of crack mouth opening displacement (CMOD)

A9_1 (elastic) 

--- A4 (plastic) 

- A17 (plastic) 

A A14 (plastic) 

--- A25 (elastic) 

-- .. A8 (elastic), new 

*-.•-.. A8 (plastic), new
E 

0 

4) 

U) 

17)

. .............. .............. i ............... i .............. F i .............. .............. .............. i ......... I. ........... I .............. 4 ............... I .............. 1 .............. F .............. I 

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 

Crack tip temperature [°C]

Figure 5.1.8 Task TICI: Stress intensity factor versus crack-tip temperature (elastic and plastic calcuation)

100 z

90 .

80 4-

X -X-) ( 

X..• •' 0- - . 

$1 -..

70 -

60-1.

FE - finite element 

calculation 

ES - estimation scheme 

calculation

50 .4.

404

30

204.

10 1.

0

--- A19 (elasticES) 

-- a-- A19 (R6 J, elastic,ES) 

-- a.-A19 (R6 ap.4, plastic,ES) * A9_1 (plastic,FE) 

* A9_2 (elastic,ES), new -- All (elastic,ES) 

- Al (elastic,ES), new 

-a---A18 (elastic,ES1) 

--u,-- A18 (elasticES2) 

-- A4 (plastic,FE) 

S-A6 (plastic,ES) 

--+--A17 (plastic,FE) 

& A14 (plastic,FE) 

S- A12 (plastic,ES) - A20 (elastic,ES) - -A20 (plastic,ES) 

--*--A25 (elastic,FE) 

----. A26 (elastic,ES) 

.. A8 (elastic,ES), new 

-- - A8 (plastic,ES), new
FE - finite element 

calculation 

ES - estimation scheme 

calculation

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 

Crack tip temperature [

0C]

4 

C)

Figure 5.1.9 Task T1CI: Stress intensity factor versus crack-tip temperature (plastic calculations)

100 

90 

80

--- 4 

a. 

0 

C

U)

70 

60 

50 

40 

30

-- A-A19 (R6 ap.4, plastic,ES 

-. A9_1 (plastic,FE) 

-..- A4 (plastic,FE) 

--- A6 (plastic,ES) 

AA17 (plasticFE) 

A A14 (plastic,FE) 

- A12 (plastic, ES) 

-- - A20 (plastic,ES) 

..... A8 (plastic,ES), new

20 

10 

0
~uuc ~iantuxptu puii'luozcuod-klouiu 'luout'i uo post~q ''j.,>j oqt luwnuiixtrnx 03JO uoiflhnIAg :I)D )jIs4 01--59101

luedpi~ited

Cr Cc E E 

<) 0 ) c c N- to 0) N

)

i,

ItI1 1

0) 

C 

cI '-0 I

0

C: C: 

0) - _-z - -U 

,Y- (.. 0) i)0n0 0 

0) ~ C c CL c ~ ~ 0 .5 9c 

< < < < (D

4<

U C.) :U) U) OS CU 

to o 0 N N N 

<

cc

0/606xe a

0

- cw? 00

- 09

-I 

0

- OL

It

C-) 0t' I. 

09 L

I I

........................................................................ I I ..........................................................................................................

I ....... I ...

I I
-o--A3 (elastic) 

(plastic) 

-A9-1 (elastic) 

-+--A13 (plastic) ---A4 (plastic), nelh 

-,-Al10 (plastic) 

-w- A25 (elastic)

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000 12000 

Time [s]

Figure 5.1.11 Task TIC2: Time history of crack mouth opening displacement (CMOD)

0.20 

0.18 

0.16 

0.14 

0.12 

0.10 

0.08 

0.06 

0.04 

0.02 

0.00

0I 

C,.) ON ",,D

n 

ON 

ON 

Lu
Sn

80 

70

" 60O

50 +

40 +.

30+

... ... ................. ................ ................ t ................ ................ ................ ................ } .............. . ............... ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ 

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 

Crack tip temperature [°C]

FE - finite element calculation 

ES - estimation scheme 

calculation

Figure 5.1.12 Task T1C2: Stress intensity factor versus crack-tip temperature (elastic and plastic calculations)

E 

Cu 

0. 

I. 

0m 

--- 4

0 

.4

am

20 

10 

0

--- o---A19 (R6 J,elastic,ES) 

-. . - Al9 (R6 ap.4,plastic,ES) 

o- A3 (elastic,FE) 

_o- - A3 (plasticFE) --A., A9_11 (plastic,FE) 

--- A9_2(elastic,ES), new 

-All (elastic,ES) 

-------A13 (plastic,FE) 

•----Al (elastic,ES), new 

.----- A18 (elastic,ESl) 

-- a--A18 (elastic,ES2) 

-- A4 (plastic,FE), new 

-- A6 (plastic,ES) 

* A12 (plastic,ES) 

)K A20 (elastic,ES) 

--*--A20 (plastic,E S) 

-- A1S (elastic,ES) 

-- o- - A10 (plastic, FE) 

-- X - A25 (elastic,FE) 

- --- A26 (elastic,ES) 

-.. o-.. A8 (elastic,ES), new 

-. A8 (plasticES), new
80

70 oK- - r- . ' - -,1 

.-- +--A13 (plastic, FE) 

9AA4 (plastlc,FE), new 

60 ._,, 1",- A6 (plastic, ES) 

-Ir 60--A12 (plastic. ES) 

0E .. D - -A8 (plastic, ES), new 

Cn -X - A20 (plastic, ES) 

.. -- 0- A0(plastic, A50 0., FE) 

00 

U) 

C) £ 

1 0 •F,.,I . . .. . •'FE- finite element calculation I ES -estimation scheme 

calculation 

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320 

crack tip temperature [°C] 

C) 

('I

rigurez .1.13 IaSK I ICLL: 3tress intensity iactor versus cracK-tip temperature kplastic calculations)

- -- - A19 (R6 ap.4,plastic, ES) 

-4 - A3 (plastic, FE) 

-•-A9 1 folastlc.FE•
E

1 1 P 1

-I- Iii 

I !I 

I III 

- -------- L

..

- - :7..: 727':* :...:--:'J.v'. *A:.**X< "'N-" 

I I ___ I _____________________

-r T I

o 0 0 0 0 

to[ Cj 0 1 "> L 

1301 ±aINj1b

0 0 

':0

NUREG/CR-6651

0

72

A26 

A25 

A20 (plastic) 

A20 (elastic) 

A19 (R6 ap.4) 

A19 (R6 J) 

A19 (elastic) 

Al 8 (meth. 2) 

A18 (meth. 1) 

Al 7 

A15 

A14 

A13 

A12 

Al1 

A10 

A9_2, new 

A9__1, new 

A8 (plastic), new 

A8 (elastic), new 

A6 (ep2) 

AG (epl) 

A6 

A4, new 

A3 (plastic) 

A3 (elastic) 

A2 

Al, new

CL 

CL

I I

Z 

E 

X 

x 

Ez 

C1 

0 

C1 

©0 

0 

I..)

|
300 

280 

260 

240 

220 

200 

0) 180 

160 

(. 140 

E E 120 1

100 

80 

60 

40 

20 

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 

Wall thickness [mm] 

ON 

4 . C1- CL ,Jl rpA 41 1 , 1

r'"RuII: ,. .IL J aabl . v , . IIIIJUIa~LlI;UIU MIIU.ILII Ion LII u ¢Ydl n -- LII e coo , I•V: ng re IU on L LJIJ e U S.J .
300 

280 

260 

"- 240 

220 

200 

E 180 

160 

. 140 

"-- E 

2 120 

100 

80 

60 

40 

20 

0

Figure 5.1.16 Task T2: Temperature distribution in the wall outside the cooling region at time 1500s.

--- A9_1 

-+--A13 

-, A5 

-e-A4 

-aA20

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 

Wall thickness [mm]
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 

Time [s]

3000 3500 4000 4500 5000

Figure 5.1.17 Task T2C2: Time history of crack mouth opening displacement (CMOD)

0.30 

0.28 

0.26 

0.24 

0.22 

0.20 

0.18 

0.16 

0.14 

0.12 

0.10 

0.08 

0.06 

0.04 

0.02 

0.00

- A9_1 (linear) 

-i--A13 (nonlinear) 

A4 (nonlinear), new

0

C) 

C) 

LI,
E 

C. 0. 

I

Cu

U) 

C

S % FE - finite element 

calculation 

ES - estimation 

scheme calculation 

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 

Crack tip temperature [°C] 

Figure 5.1.18 Task T2C2: Stress intensity factor versus crack-tip temperature at the deepest point of the crack (elastic and plastic 

calculations)

100 

90 

80 

70 

60 

50 

40 

30

20 

10 

0

SA9_1 (plastic,FE) 

.A1 (elastic,ES), new 

-f--A13 (plastic,FE) 

-e-A4 (plastic,FE), new 

-u-A20 (elastic,ES) 

SA20 (plastic,ES) 

-A15 (elastic,ES)
1 6 0 .. ....... ............................................................. ................................................................................................................................................................................ 

140 

120 

100 

0 

80 - tang. 

z 090% I,-

"c N [ max 60 

-.,. 

40. 

20 -i 

0 

00 C3 •,0 0 

Participant

pigul-e 5.1.17 1 as:lk I 4C74: E-valuaLt)ion0 Lne t namnui aI.IUI :[IloWab.[31 A -L NDT kLIu1epeSL POIll) bsd•SL oni tan~lgel, nInIItLy-peI eIII, and.I lalim:lllull crLerI-IaI
LD M 

ON 

LJC 

00 

E 

I-

-A9_1 

--,-A5 

-A3, new 

-- A4 

--=-A15

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 

Wall thickness [mm]

160 180 200 220 240

Figure 5.1.20 Task T3: Temperature distribution in the wall inside the cooling region at time 1600s.

300 

280 

260 

240 

220 

200 

180 

160 

140 

120 

100 

80 

60 

40 

20 

0
---* A9_1 

*- A5 

-A3, new 

-e-A4

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 

Wall thickness [mnm]

Q 

ON 

ON

Figure 5.1.21 Task T3: Temperature distribution in the wall outside the cooling region at time 1600s.

300 

280 

260 

240 

220 

200 

5 180 

- 160 

• 140 

E 120 

100 

80 

60 

40 

20 

0
0.050 

A• A9_1 (linear) 

0.045 

x- A5 (nonlinear) 

0.040 - A3 (nonlinear), new 

0.035 

0.030 

0 

L 0.020 

0.015 

0.010 

0.005 

0 .000. . . . .. . . . .. . . . . . . . . .

Figure 5.1.22 Task T3C4: Time history of crack mouth opening displacement (CMOD)

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400 2600 2800 3000 

Time [s]
80 

75 

70 

65 

d 60 

E 55 

I 50 

1 45 0 

,40 

35 

0 _ 30 

25 

""20 

15 

10 

5 

0 

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 

Crack tip temperature [°C] 

Cc) 

C) w 

Ulm

s U q %,3 1 1-10y %d, Ul I-3. v Wiku rIJu -AL Lu1I pIeaLUre~ at L~l eUIA4JL puiiit 01 Lt e craIS. Ia1LL c and plSL c ca1lculations)
4. CO 

ctco

Participant 

Figure 5.1.24 Task T3C4: Evaluation of the maximum allowable RTND'r (deepest point) based on tangent, 

ninety-percent, and maximum criteria.

z 

ON 

ON 

J1

I00 t'.)

100 

90 

80 

70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0

El tang. 

S 90% 

N max
TIC1

180 

160 

140

E 120 

0. CL

100 

E 80 

E 

00 60 

40 

20 

0

N) I• Ir I. Ir I' ro D 4 OD 0 -. D ( 

03 C

T1C3 T1C4

0 Without RS 

Ol With RS due to 

cladding 

* With RS due to 

welding 

U With RS due to 

cladding and 

welding

D o i • • • it . I t% ) CO 0) C0 to CO (D A ) ...L No ._, 'N) ..., 1 

Participant

Figure 5.1.25 Task PRS: Influence of residual stresses (RS) on the maximum stress intensity factor 

at the deepest point of the cracks.
TIC1

110 

100

90 

80 

E 70 4C 

S60 

E 50 

E 00 *X 40 

30 

20 

10 

0

T1C2

Vb /'

l?

Participant 

Figure 5.1.26 Task PCT: Influence of the cladding thickness on the maximum stress intensity 

factor at the deepest point of the cracks

z 

ON 

ON 

(Il

T1C3 T1C4

04mm 

96mm 

*9mm
80 

70 

60 

E 50 Cu m 

I

~40 

E 

2 

00 30 

20 

10 

0

Ln CO CO nD 

CD( -C :3' 

Participant 

Figure 5.1.27 Task PCAR: Influence of the crack aspect ratio on the maximum stress intensity factor at 

the deepest point of the cracks

'4 

(-m

O a/c=1:3 

0 a/c=1:2 

*a/c=1:1
z 

O", 

ON

1.OOE+O0

S1.O0E-01 

C 

0 

1.OOE-02 CL 

0 

~' 1.00E-03 

00

-+--A9_1 

--- A9-2, new 

A22 

-- A3 

*A20 (elastic) 

-- A20 (plastic) 

-+--A21 

-.- A12 

Al40, new

Figure 5.2.1 Task PFM-1: Conditional probability of crack initiation versus mean surface RTNDT

1.00E-04 . . . . ............. .. .. ... .... ... .... .. .. .. .. .. .. . ................ 

16 170 180 190 200 210 220 230 240 250 260 270 280 290 300 310 320 

T71 0C RTNDT [TF] f154 0C
1.OOE+00 

S1.00E-011 

ZN" 

1.OOE-02 I 

0 

"Z 1.OOE-02 

L) 

.0 

0 

.11 0_. 

.4-. 

• 1.00E-03 

n 

a. 

1.0E-0

- A9_1 

--- A9_2, new 

-e--A22 

---A3 

x A20 (elastic) A A20 (plastic) 

---- A21 

-- A12 

---- A10, new

Figure 5.2.2 Task PFM-1: Conditional probability of vessel failure versus mean surface RTNDTr

I . i. .. I, I I II I .I. I I. , I .j I I . I I . l . . j. 1 , 

170 180 190 200 210 220 230 240 250 260 270 280 290 300 a10 320 

71 °C RTN DT ['F] |154 °C
n 

CY. 

0 

C.O 

0

.0 0. "0 

'4 

C

1.OOE+0O 

1 .OOE-01 

1 .OOE-02 

1 .OOE-03 

1 .OOE-04 

1.OOE-05 

1.00E-06 , 

160

* A9_1 

* A9_2, new 

-e- A22 

x A20 (elastic) 

A A20 (plastic) 

-.- A21 

• ---A12 

--# A10, new

Figure 5.2.3 Task PFM-2: Conditional probability of crack initiation versus mean surface RTNDT

170 180 190 200 210 220 230 240 250 260 270 280 290 300 310 320 

RTNDT [°F]

. . . . . .i .i . .. i i iI . . . . . . . . . . . .l i . .l . .i .l ..l l .' .l . .l .ll ~ l ..
I,.,,i p,,mIh.. ttiB*p..p I.,.pp

---•-A9__1 

- A92, new 

-- A22 

SA20 (elastic) 

A A20 (plastic) 

-- A21 

-- A12 

- A10, new

Q 

C-) 

ON 

ON 

tJl

Figure 5.2.4 Task PFM-2: Conditional probability of vessel failure versus mean surface RTNDT

1.00E+00 

1.OOE-01

_= 

1o 

o. 

a

1.OOE-02 

1.OOE-03 

1.OOE-04 

1.00E-05

1.00E-0O

160 170 180 190 200 210 220 230 240 250 260 270 280 290 300 310 320 

RTNDT [TF]
1.OOE+00

.2 1.00E-01 

*a 

0

CU 

r

1.OOE-03 

Cu 

.0

-- A9 1 

-- A9-2, new 

-e-A22 

- A20 (elastic) 

-A- A20 (plastic) -+A21 

-- A12 

-- A10, new

Figure 5.2.5 Task PFM-3: Conditional probability of crack initiation versus mean surface RTNDT

14 ON 

ON

1.00E-04 .. . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . .............. .. ....................... - .... 

160 170 180 190 200 210 220 230 240 250 260 270 280 290 300 310 320 

RTNDT ['F]
1 .OOE+00 

1 .OOE-01

1 .0 0 E -0 6 I . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. I '. . . , I, , , ,, 1 , .. . . a .. . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . 

160 170 180 190 200 210 220 230 240 250 260 270 280 290 300 310 320 

RTNDT ['F]

Figure 5.2.6 Task PFM-3: Conditional probability of vessel failure versus mean surface RTNDT

.& A9_1 

-E- A9_2, new 

-e-A22 

* A20 (elastic) 

* A20 (plastic) 

-+-A21 

--- A12 

- A10, new

CO 

hO 

O. 

0

1.00E-02 

1.00E-03 

1.00E-04 

1.OOE-05

z 

C) 

ON 

ON 

Cji
SA9_1 

SA9_2, new 

-e-A22 

x A20 (elastic) A A20 (plastic) -+A21 

A12 

-.- A1O, new

E 

Z 

cc ON 

0 

00 

0 

L

4.B 

.9

0 

.0 

2 

t'.) 

(

O 

"0 

C 

0 0

1.OOE-06 I -'. . . .. .. 

160 170 180 190 200 210 220 230 240 250 

RTNDT ['F]

260 270 280 290 300 310 320

Figure 5.2.7 Task PFM-4: Conditional probability of crack initiation versus mean surface RTNDT

1.OOE+00 

1.OOE-01 

1.OOE-02 

1.OOE-03 

1.OOE-04 

1.OOE-05

F S. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D I

IIIQglllllllllllllllllllll I . . . . . . . . . .I . .l .I . I . . . . . .
1.OOE+00 

1.OOE-01

C. 

0 

,.5 

.5 

0) 

0 

t._ 

0. 

4-' 

0 

C.) 

C) 

f-I

Figure 5.2.8 Task PFM-4: Conditional probability of vesel failure versus mean surface RTND-r

a---A9_2, new 

.-- A22 

---x A20 (elastic) 

SA20 (plastic) 

-+-A21 

•--e• A12 

-+-AA10, new 

A9_1: Pf < 10-4

1.OOE-02 

1.OOE-03 

1.001E-04 

1.001E-05

1.OOE -06 I - .................. ....... ...................... ................... ... 

160 170 180 190 200 210 220 230 240 250 260 270 280 290 300 310 320 

RTNDT [°F]
300 -4A5 (h= -2m) 

-0-A4_1

-- A21 (h= -2m) 

L• A23 

-250 A9 

A~ A8 

200 

0 

a) 

E 0) 

100 

1 0 0 ... ... ... ... 

50

Figure 5.3.1 Task MIX: Global downcomer temperatures outside of the plumes

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 

Time [s]
-- A5 

-e- A4_1 

-a- A21 

-A- A23 

-A8 (CL1), new 

-+-A8 (CL4), new 

-x- A9, new

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 

Time [s]

Figure 5.3.2 Task MIX: Downcomer stripe centerline temperatures, cold legs 1 / 4, h = -lm

320 

300 

280 

260 

240 

220 

200 

180 

160 

140 

120 

100 

80 

60 

40 

20 

0

0 

o. 

I

4_ 

E 

0~

Q 

C-) 

ON 

ON 

U,
-.- A5 

-e-A4_1 

-g-A21 

-i-A23 

-A8 (CLU), new 

-+-A8 (CL4), new 

--X-A9, new

100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 

Time [s]

Figure 5.3.3 Task MIX: Downcomer stripe centerline temperatures, cold legs 1 / 4, h = -2m

C0 

(J,

E 

FT

110 

ON

300 

280 

260 

240 

220 

200 

180 

160 

140 

120 

100 

80 

60 

40 

20 

0

0

ai-
100

-A5 

-A4_1 

-A21 

SA23 

-A8 (CL2), new 

-+-A8 (CL3), new 

-u- A7 

-*A9, new

200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 

Time [s]

Q C) 

ON 

ON

Figure 5.3.4 Task MIX: Downcorner stripe centerline temperatures, cold legs 2 / 3, h = -Im

300

280 

260 

240 

220 

200 

0 180 

S160 

a 140 

120 

100 

80 

60 

40 

20 

0

0

Lx,
- A5 

-e-A4_1 

-- -A21 

--i-A23 

-A8 (CL2), new 

-+-A8 (CL3), new 

.... A7 

- A9, new

100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 

Time [s]

1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100

Figure 5.3.5 Task MIX: Downcomer stripe centerline temperatures, cold legs 2 / 3, h = -2m

6z 

W 

ON 

0 

0 

E

320 

300 

280 

260 

240 

220 

200 

180 

160 

140 

120 

100 

80 

60 

40 

20 

0

0

I E=-\ 

W d W i l vI l l I [IN I ILIiIlII I II IIII LII
200 

190 

180 

170 

160 

150 

140 

130 

(0 120 

0) 110 

* 100 

S E ~80., 

I'-" 

70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20. 

10 

0 , , , i 

-12 -11 -10 -9 

4

-8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 

Azimutal Position [ m ], 0 corresponds to CL 3

-4A5 

S-e-A4_1 

-- A21 

-&- A23 

-&--A8, new

2 3 4 5 6

I igure u .3.6 Task MIX: Azimutal temperature distribution in downcomer, h = -2m, t = 900s
Q 

(-I 

(J

8000 

7000

i 5000 

% 0 4000 

C 3000 

2000 

0

SA5 (h= -2m) 

-G-A4_1 

-- A21 (h= -2m) 

- A23 

--- A8, new 

- A9, new 

A9 Is shown without 

connecting the markers

Figure 5.3.7 Task MIX: Global downcorner HTC outside of the plume

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 

Time [s]
20000 - - -

---- A5 

18000 -B-A21 

-&-A23 

16000 -- ----- A(CL12),new AB 

--- A8 (CL3), new 

__ -*-A9, new cQ 14000 --- "--' 

P 

0 10000 __ - _ 

0 

o 8000 

6000-- -- , --- -. .-

2000 ' ' I 

C31 

0 

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 100011001200130014001500160017001800190020002100 

Time [s] 

C) 

tJ'l

grei~¢ao.3o ias ii• V A.LL /U:jWno erripeUIII•I tID• •gllcollllls . UU1 -1 8•/ • il --- -11
-- -A5 

-e-A4 1 

-- A21 

A* A23 

-A8 (CL2), new 

-'--A8 (CL3), new 

- A9, new

Figure 5.3.9 Task MIX: Downcomer stripe centerline HTC, cold legs 2 / 3, h = -2m

C" 

J14 

E 

U) 

C.) 

0) 

-.-

20000 

18000

16000 

14000 

12000 

10000 

8000 

6000 

4000 

2000 

0

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 

Time [s]
15000 

14000 

13000 

12000 

11000 

10000 

9000 

8000 

7000 

6000 

5000 

4000 

3000 

2000 

1000 

0

/ , I A . I ll., II I' 

A- x, ~' l 

9S. , .

iC C L3 .x i i J | i i i i a i J m * * I I Ih I * * • * . . .

-8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 

Azimutal Position [ m ], 0 corresponds to CL 3

2 3 4

•A5 

-e-A4_1 

3--A21 

-4- A23 

.--A- A8, now

5 6

C-) 

ON 

0'

(11

Figure 5.3.10 Task MIX: Azirnutal HTC distribution in downcomer, h = -2m, t = 900s

-11 -10 -9

0 

0) 

-I12
320 

300 

280 

260 

240 

220 

200 

E 180 

S160 

o 140 

E 

S120 

100 

80 

60 

40 

20 

0

0 400 800

.................... † †...

1200 1600

A5 

-e-A4_1 

SA4_2 

-a-A21 

-•A23 

A15 

-x---A9, new

2000 2400 2800 3200 3600 4000 4400 

Time [s]

Figure 5.3.11 Task PINJ: Downcomer stripe centerline temperatures, cold legs 2 / 3, h = -2m

AN. . ...
---A5 

-e-- A4_1 

-A4_2 

-- A21 

SA23 

-- A9, new

4000

Figure 5.3.12 Task PINJ: Downcomer stripe centerline temperatures, cold legs 1 / 4, h = -2m

0 

I-e 

- E o 0. 

(-I

320 

300 

280 

260 

240 

220 

200 

180 

160 

140 

120 

100 

80 

60 

40 

20 

0

I". 

S98M

0 400 800 1200 1600

C-) 

ON 

ON 

(Jt

2000 

Time [s]

2400 2800 3200 3600
z 15000 

14000 

13000 

12000 

11000 

10000 

9000 

8000 

0 0 7000 

4

u)• 6000 o 

"" 5000 

• 4000 

3000 

2000 

1000 

0

-A5 

-e---A4_1 

-A4_2 

-E-- A21 

• J-A23 

-A15 

--x-A9, new

0 400 800 1200 1600 2000 2400 2800 3200 3600 4000 4400 

Time [s]

Figure 5.3.13 Task PINJ: Downcomer stripe centerline HTC, cold legs 2 / 3, h = -2m
6 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Final analysis results for the ICAS Project were provided by 25 organizations in 13 countries (see 

Table 2.1). The analysis results submitted by the participants were compiled in a data base, and about 

145 comparative plots were generated as a basis for discussions about the predictive capabilities of the 

analysis methods applied by the participants to the different tasks. In the report selected plots are 

presented and discussed. As an outcome of the discussions held on the Workshops and the additional 

communications by phone and electronic media, the following main conclusions were drawn: 

DFM Task Group 

In the DFM Task Group, 21 organizations from 13 countries participated. According to the task 

matrix, 104 analyses were performed for the main tasks and 26 parametric studies. Some 

organizations used various methods. Therefore, in some tasks up to 22 sets of analysis results could 

be compared. 

As part of the detailed comparison of analysis results, a number of discrepancies were noted 

regarding input parameters referenced. These discrepancies served to increase the scatter in results 

above that which might otherwise have been expected, and highlight the need for careful quality 

assurance and good engineering judgement in undertaking structural integrity assessments. Where 

due account was taken of material properties and boundary conditions, reasonable agreement was 

obtained in linear-elastic as well as in more complex elastic-plastic thermal and stress analyses results. 

To derive consistent solutions, it was observed that particular attention should be paid to: (i) adequate 

representation of the thermal and pressure transients, (ii) sufficient mesh refinement and choice of 

element type in critical regions; particularly within the cladding and across the clad-base interface, 

(iii) quadratic elements (incorporating mid-side nodes) are recommended, (iv) correct representation 

of material properties. Of particular note was the reference temperature definition for the thermal 

expansion coefficient (TEC) and the differences concerning use of the TEC input. Most of the 

codes, which use mean TEC as input, need a conversion of the data, if the stress-free reference 

temperature is different from 20°C. 

Crack driving forces derived from 3-D elastic-plastic analyses were generally significantly lower than 

those calculated using elastic analysis and J-estimation schemes. Predictions of maximum allowable 

RT,,- showed less scatter than that observed in crack driving force calculations. The latter result was 

due to the shape of the fracture toughness curve used for fracture assessment in the transition region. 

Additional parametric studies provided consistent trends regarding the influence of residual stress, 

cladding thickness and crack aspect ratio (a/c) on crack driving force. For surface-breaking defects, 

the presence of residual stresses, increased clad thickness or decreased crack aspect ratio (a/c) leads to

107 NUREGICR-6651
an increase in the crack-driving force. For under-clad defects, different trends were generally 

observed. 

PFM Task Group 

In the PFM Task Group, seven organizations from four countries performed 25 analyses and three 

parametric studies. The calculated conditional probabilities of crack initiation, especially for small 

values of RTNT, have the largest scatter, i.e., about a factor of 100. For the conditional probability of 

vessel failure, this factor ranges from 20 to 50. The conditional probabilities of elastic solutions are 

larger than the values for plastic solutions by a factor of 2 to 4. 

Some solutions which were produced with the same computer code showed differences that were 

apparently due to selection of different input parameters for simulating the margin term in the 

calculation of RTT (i.e., standard deviations for initial value of RTT as well as for nickel and 

copper content). 

THM Task Group 

In the THM Task Group, eight organizations from five countries performed seven analyses and 14 

parametric studies. The methods used can be grouped into correlation-based approaches, system 

codes and CFD codes. 

In the main task (MIX), the expected plumes / stripes under the cold legs are simulated in some 

correlation-based models. In these analyses, the temperature difference between the centerline of the 

plumes under CL 2/3 and outside the plumes is about 30'C. Large scatter in the results were 

observed early in the transient when the water level is below the lower nozzle edge of the cold legs 

and simulation of the condensation effects play an important role. Some of the models, especially 

those in system codes used to simulate the condensation effects, show a weakness in the recognition 

of the flow-regime at the water stripe discharge in the downcomer. This effect is more pronounced at 

heights closer to the lower nozzle edge. The solutions with the lowest temperatures seem to 

underestimate the condensation effects in the cold legs. The results of the correlation-based models 

are more closely grouped at times when the water level in the downcomer increases again due to low

pressure injection. 

Comparison of the HTC results shows a significant degree of scatter inside the plumes/stripes, with 

values in the range between zero and about 10,000 W/m2K. This scatter may have important 

implications for structure mechanics analyses. The differences between the HTC values inside and 

outside the plumes may produce additional thermal stresses and, consequently, a likely increase of the

NUREG/CR-6651 108
stress intensity factors for postulated cracks. As a group, the participants determined lower HTC 

values for the region outside the plumes, but again with significant scatter. Therefore, a more 

accurate representation of the HTC, especially in the range of about 1,000 to 8,000 W/m2K, is needed 

from thermal-hydraulic researchers for input to the thermal/structurallfracture analyses. 

For the task without condensation effects (PINJ), the results of the correlation-based methods show a 

consistent trend, with differences in the fluid temperature of less than 50 'C and in the HTC values of 

up to 5,000 W/m2K. The concept of symmetric plumes under the cold legs is not supported by the 

three-dimensional CFD solution. 

Future Work 

Based on concluding discussions at the ICAS Workshop, participants proposed a list of future tasks 

that could contribute to further refinement of RPV integrity assessment methods: 

"* Selection of consensus reference solutions that could serve as benchmarks for future 

qualification of analytical methods. These would provide a valuable tool for the 

qualification of new analysts on the subject of RPV integrity assessment; 

"* Study of the implications of the observed scatter in the THM task on deterministic fracture 

mechanics assessments; 

"* Assessment of the nozzle region of an RPV; 

"* Assessment of the significance of residual stresses upon RPV integrity; 

"* Study of crack arrest of a fast running crack in an RPV; 

"* Study of micro-mechanical modelling of the crack-tip region; 

Furthermore, a study of pressure-temperature (P-T) limits, with reference to the methodology for 

modelling the P-T process was proposed. 

A bibliography of recent ICAS-related publications is given in the following section.

109 NUREG/CR-6651
7 BIBLIOGRAPHY: RECENT ICAS-RELATED PUBLICATIONS 

Cappariello A., D'Auria F., Vigni P., "On the Use of Thermal-hydraulic Codes to Evaluate PTS 

Situations", Proc. 16th Conf. of Italian Society of Heat Transport - Siena (I), June 18-19, 1998. 

Cappariello A., D'Auria F., Galassi G.M., "Application of the RelapS/mod3.2 to the Analysis of the 

Reactor Pressure Vessel PTS - International Comparative Assessment Study", University of Pisa 

Report, DCMN - NT 320(97), Pisa (I), 1997. 

Dickson T. L., B. R. Bass, "Solutions to Reactor Pressure Vessel Pressurized Thermal Shock 

International Comparative Assessment Study", Oak Ridge National Laboratory, ORNL/NRC/LTR

98/5, 1998. 

Jhung M. J., Y. W. Park, "Deterministic Structural and Fracture Mechanics Analyses of Reactor 

Pressure Vessel for Pressurized Thermal Shock," KINS/AR-656, Korea Institute of Nuclear Safety, 

February 1999. 

Jhung M. J., Y. W. Park, "Deterministic Structural and Fracture Mechanics Analyses of Reactor 

Pressure Vessel for Pressurized Thermal Shock," Structural Engineering and Mechanics, Vol.8, No. 1, 

1999. 

Jung J. W., Y. S. Bang, K. W. Seul,H. J. Kim, J. I. Lee, "Thermal Hydraulic Mixing Analysis on 

Presuurized Thermal Shock International Comparative Assessment Study", KINS/AR-593, 1998. 

Kato D., Y. Li and K. Shibata, "Development of a PV Reliability Analysis Code Based on 

Probabilistic Fracture Methodology Part(2) Analysis Methodology Verification and Sensitivity 

Analysis", Proc. 1998 Fall Meeting of the Atomic Energy Society of Japan. 

Keim E., A. Sch•ipper, S. Fricke, "Fracture Mechanics Assessment of Surface and Sub-Surface Cracks 

in the RPV Under Non-symmetric PTS Loading", Proc. IAEA Specialists Meeting on Methodology 

for Pressurized Thermal Shock Evaluation, Esztergom, Hungary, 1997. 

Li Y., D. Kato, K. Shibata, "Sensitivity Analysis of Failure Probability on PTS Benchmark Problems 

of Pressure Vessel using a Probabilistic Fracture Mechanics Analysis Code", 7' ICONE, paper 7266, 

Tokyo, 1999.

III NUREG/CR-6651
Niffenegger M., K.Reichlin, "The Proper Use of Thermal Expansion Coefficients in Finite Element 

Calculations", PSI TM-49-98-15, 1998. 

OECD/NEA/CSNI PWG 3, "Summary Record of the Intermediate Workshop on PWG 3 International 

Comparative Assessment Study on Reactor Pressure Vessel Pressurized Thermal Shock (RPV PTS 

ICAS) in Paris", NEA/SEN/SIN/WG3(97)9, 1997. 

OECD/NEA/CSNI PWG 3, "Summary Record of the Workshop on PWG 3 International Comparative 

Assessment Study on Reactor Pressure Vessel Pressurized Thermal Shock (RPV PTS ICAS) in 

Orlando", NEA/SEN/SIN/WG3(98)1 1, 1998. 

Schimpfke T. and J. Sievers, "Reactor Pressure Vessel - International Comparative Assessment Study: 

Analyses on Deterministic Fracture Mechanics (DFM) Tasks - Technical Note", GRS Technical Note, 

December 1997. 

Schimpfke T., J. Sievers, "Vergleichsanalysen zur bruchmechanischen Bewertung unterstellter Risse 

in einem Reaktordruckbehiilter mit internationaler Beteiligung (RPV-PTS-ICAS) ", 24. MPA Seminar, 

Stuttgart, 1998. 

Sherry A., T. Richardson, R. Sillitoe and F. Trusty, "Analysis of Benchmark PTS Problem: 

Comparison of R6 and 3D-Finite Element Results", Proc. ASME Pressure Vessel and Piping 

Conference, Boston, 1999. 

Shibata K., D. Kato and Y. Li, "Development of a PV Reliability Analysis Code Based on 

Probabilistic Fracture Methodology Part (1) Outline of the Code", Proc. 1998 Fall Meeting of the 

Atomic Energy Society of Japan. 

Shibata, K., D. Kato and Y. Li, "Development of PFM Code for Evaluating Reliability of Pressure 

Components subjected to transient Loading", to be presented at SMIRT-15, Seoul, 1999. 

Sievers J., T. Schimpfke, "Verifikation bruchmechanischer Methoden durch Vergleichsanalysen mit 

internationaler Beteiligung (FALSIRE, NESC, RPV PTS ICAS)", 21. GRS-Fachgesprach, MUnchen, 

1997. 

Sievers J., R. Bass, A. G. Miller, "Activities of the OECD Nuclear Energy Agency in the Area of RPV 

PTS Fracture Mechanics Analysis", paper G2-A2-FR of SMIRT - 15, Seoul, 1999.

NUREG/CR-6651 112
APPENDIXES

113 NUREG/CR-6651
APPENDIX A: SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS CONCERNING 

COMPARATIVE ANALYSES 

* Task Group DFM (Main Tasks CmTn, m=1-5,n=1-3, parametric studies PCT, 

PCAR, PYS, PRS) 

In the framework of the deterministic task group, analyses of the temperature and stress distribution 

in the vessel wall should be performed according to the material properties and the postulated 

transients (Tn, n=1-3) given in the problem statements. Furthermore the crack loading of the 

postulated cracks (Cm, m=1-5) should be analyzed along the crack front. For each crack, a fracture 

assessment should be performed concerning crack initiation based on the fracture toughness curve 

given in chapter 1.2 of the problem statement, in the sense that a maximum allowable RTNT should be 

determined. Detailed results are required for: 

- Temperature distribution in the wall at the position of the cracks for the times given in Table 

A.1. In the case of asymmetric loading conditions (transient T2 and T3) temperature 

distributions should be given also outside the cooling region (1800 distance from the crack) 

- Time history of crack mouth opening displacement (CMOD). For the surface cracks, CMOD 

should be evaluated at the half length position on the inner surface. For the underclad 

cracks, CMOD should be evaluated at the position of half length and half depth. 

- Axial, hoop and effective stresses across the wall thickness should be evaluated at the position 

of the cracks but without influence of the cracks for the times in Table A. 1. 

- Stress intensity factor versus crack tip temperature (KT-Diagram) at the deepest point and at 

the interface between cladding and weld material. 

- Evaluation of the maximum allowable RT,,,T based on tangent, 90 percent and maximum 

criterion in the KT-Diagram. 

- Constraint / stress triaxiality parameters on the ligament of the cracks deepest point and the 

crack position at the interface between cladding and weld material for the times in Table 

A. 1; the parameters Q and h are recommended and should be evaluated on the ligament in a 

range of about 10 mm from the crack tip position.

115 NUREG/CR-6651
Table A.I: Requested solution times for transients T1,T2,T3 

Task (m=1-5) Requested solution times 

CmTl 0', 300, 1200, 2400, 3600, 6000, 9000, 12000 s 

CmT2 0', 500, 1000, 1500, 2500, 3500, 5000 s 

CmT3 0', 400, 800, 1200, 1600, 2000, 3000 s

I only mechanical loading 

- In the framework of parametric studies, the influence of changes in the cladding thickness 

(PCT), in the cracks aspect ratio (PCAR), in the cladding/weld yield stress, as well as in 

consideration of plasticity effects (PYS), and in assumptions about residual stresses (PRS), 

on the results of the main tasks should be demonstrated especially in the KT-Diagram. 

Task Group PFM (Main Tasks PFn, n=1-4, Parametric Study PFL) 

- PFM1 - Conditional probability of crack initiation P(IIE) and vessel failure P(FIE) versus 

mean surface RTNDT for axially oriented infinite length surface breaking flaw subjected to 

simplified stylized transient described in problem statement. 

- PFM2 - Conditional probability of crack initiation P(IJE) and vessel failure P(FIE) versus 

mean surface RTNDT for circumferentially oriented continuous 360 degree surface 

breaking flaw subjected to simplified stylized transient described in problem statement. 

- PFM3 - same as PFM1 except the transient is a complex transient as described in the 

problem statement. 

- PFM4 - same as PFM2 except the transient is the same complex transient specified for PFM3 

as described in the problem statement. 

- PFL - Conditional probability of crack initiation P(IIE) and vessel failure P(FIE) versus 

mean surface RTNDT for semielliptic surface breaking flaws having aspect ratios a/c = 0.2. 

0.33, and 1.0. Results for finite-length flaws should be compared with those for infinite 

length flaws obtained in PFMn.

NUREG/CR-6651 116
The PFM analyses to determine P(IJE) and P(FJE) for each of the above cases should be performed at 

various levels of embrittlement representative of various times in the operating life of the vessel as 

represented in Table 3.4 of the problem statements. 

* Task Group THM (Main Tasks MIX) 

The task THM comprises the main task named MIX and the parametric studies PMIX and PINJ. The 

main task MIX requires the prediction of the following parameters inside the downcomer region for 

the transient period from 0 s to 2000 s: 

- The time history of the global downcomer temperature outside the plume region is required. 

- If a multidimensional code is used as the predictive tool, the global downcomer temperature 

outside the plume may be vertically resolved. Temperature values at four elevations (0 m, 1 

m, 2 m and 3 m below the lower edge of the cold leg) in the downcomer may be presented 

by the participant instead of one global temperature value. 

- The time history of the temperature in the centre of the plume (stripe, respectively) at four 

elevations below the lower edge of the cold leg in the downcomer (0 m, 1 m, 2 m and 3 m) is 

required. These plume (stripe, respectively) temperatures are to be calculated for the plumes 

developing below the cold legs 2 and 3. And from 800 s transient time onward temperatures 

are to be evaluated for the developing plumes below the cold legs 1 and 4. 

- The time history of the heat transfer coefficient inside the plume at four elevations 

(0 m, 1 m, 2 m and 3 m below the lower edge of the cold legs 2 and 3) as well as the global 

heat transfer coefficient outside the plume are required. 

- If a multidimensional code is used as the predictive tool, the global heat transfer coefficient 

outside the plume may be vertically resolved. Heat transfer coefficients at four elevations (0 

m, I m, 2 m and 3 m below the lower edge of the cold leg) in the downcomer may be 

presented by the participant instead of one global heat transfer coefficient. 

- The time history of the plume width (stripe width, respectively) at four elevations 

(0 m, 1 m, 2 m and 3 m below the lower edge of the cold leg 2 and 3) is required. The 

plume width requested here is defined by the distance between two points lying 

symmetric to the symmetry line of the plume for which the temperature difference between 

the fluid temperature outside the plume and in the centre of the plume is decreased to 1/e 

(see Chapter 3.1.3 of the problem statement). In case of the utilization of a multidimensional 

code, an adequate procedure has to be taken for identifying the plume width. 

- The azimuthal temperature distribution in the downcomer for the transient time of 

900 s and at an elevation of 2 m below the lower edge of the cold leg is required.

117 NUREG/CR-6651
- The azimuthal heat transfer distribution in the downcomer for the transient time of 

900 s and at an elevation of 2 m below the lower edge of the cold leg is required. 

In the parametric study PMIX, the influence of variations of the minimum water level in the 

downcomer on the results of the main task is investigated. The different assumptions concerning the 

minimum water level are -2.5 m, 0. m and +0.5 m (related to the lower edge of the cold leg) 

respectively. The same set of parameters which has been requested under the task MIX is requested 

for the task PMIX. Only the azimuthal distributions can be omitted for this task. 

In the parametric study PINJ, a transient with a reduced emergency core cooling injection rate in 

combination with a completely water filled downcomer volume is considered. The flow rate is 

reduced to 20 percent. The same set of parameters which has been requested under the task PMIX is 

requested for the task PINJ. But the transient time to be covered by the prediction for the task PINJ 

reaches from 0 s to 4000 s.

NUREG/CR-6651 118
APPENDIX B: AVAILABILITY OF DATA

The following data sets were made available to the ICAS participants in the Task groups DFM and 

PFM. 

Table B.1: Data sets for Task Group DFM and PFM 

Data set name Type of data Content of the data set 

psieml.xls MS-EXCEL loading conditions for the transients T2 and T3 with 50 cm' 

and 200 cm 2 leak (Task Group DFM) 

prob-dat.txt ASCII loading conditions for small-break LOCA transient TI (Task 

Groups DFM and PFM) 

Probsub.txt ASCII subroutines useful for PFM analyses 

For the participants in the Task Group THM a special data set of about 100 pages with details about 

the vessel internals, the cold legs and pump shells including the volume calculation was made 

available on request. 

Furthermore, data of figures in chapter 5 of the report can be made available to ICAS participants on 

request to one of the authors of the report.

119 NUREG/CR-6651
NRC FORM 338 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 1. REPORT NUMBER 

(2.89) (Assigned by NRC. Add Vol., Supp.. Rev., 

NRCM B GD A and Addendum Numbers, if any.) 3MC. 3=0 13BUIBIGRAPHIC DATA SHEET 

3201,3202 

(See insfuctions o niam) NUREG/CR-6651 

2. TITLE AND SUBTITLE ORNL/TM-1999/231 

International Comparative Assessment Study of Pressurized 3. DATE REPORT PUBLUSHED 

Thermal Shock in Reactor Pressure Vessels 

Decem ber 1999 

4. FIN OR GRANT NUMVBER 

W6631 

5. AUTHOR(S) 6. TYPE OF REPORT 

B.R. Bass, C.E. Pugh, Oak Ridge National Laboratory Technical 

J. Sievers, H. Schulz, Geselischaft fur Anlagen-und Reaktorsicherheit (GRS) 

7. PERIOD COVERED (anclusive Dabs) 

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION - NAME AND ADDRESS (1f NRC, provide Division, Ofsce c Region, U.S. NucAear Regulatory Commission, and mailing address; if conactor, 

provide name and mailing address) 

Oak Ridge National Laboratory Gesellschaft fur Anlagen-und Reaktorsicherheit (GRS) 

Managed by Lockheed Martin Energy Research Corporation Koln, Germany 

Oak Ridge, TN 37831-6370

9. SPONSORING ORGANIZATION - NAME AND ADDRESS (If NRC, type 'Same as above' if ,coractcs provide NRC Division, Office or Region, U.S Nuclear Regutoory nommisson, 

and mading address.)

Division of Engineering Technology 

Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

Washington, DC 20555-0001

10. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

11. ABSTRACT (200 words or less)

A summary of the recently completed International Comparative Assessment Study of Pressurized-Thermal-Shock in Reactor 

Pressure Vessels (ICAS PTS RPV) is presented to record the results in actual and comparative fashions. The ICAS Project 

brought together an international group of experts from research, utility, and regulatory organizations to perform a comparative 

evaluation of analysis methodologies employed in the assessment of RPV integrity under PTS loading conditions. The Project was 

sponsored jointly by Gesellschaft fur Anlagen- und Reaktorsicherheit (GRS), Koln, Germany, and Oak Ridge National Laboratory 

(ORNL), with assistance from the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)/Nuclear Energy Agency 

(NEA)/Committee on the Safety of Nuclear Installations (CSNI)/Pdncipal Working Group (PWG) No. 3 (integrity of Components 

and Structures).

12. KEY WORDS/DESCRIPTORS (List wods or pthses that will assist reseachers in klcating the report.) 13. AVAILABILITY STATEMENT 

unlimited 

Reactor Pressure Vesselunite RectrPressurized Theral S14. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION Pressurized Thermal Shock 

Fracture Mechnaics (This Page) 

Thermal Hydraulics unclassified 

Probabilistic Fracture Mechanics (his Report) 

Integrity Analysis unclassified 

International 15. NUMBER OF PAGES 

Comparative 

16. PRICE

NRC FORM 335 (2-89)

1" t-- Q + KIDI" 0 ar4 KAnna er
Federal Recycling Program
NUREG/CR-6651 INTERNATIONAL COMPARATIVE ASSESSMENT STUDY OF PRESSURIZED THERMAL 

SHOCK IN REACTOR PRESSURE VESSELS

DECEMBER 1999

UNITED STATES 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

WASHINGTON, DC 20555-0001

SPECIAL STANDARD MAIL 

POSTAGE AND FEES PAID 

USNRC 

PERMIT NO. G-67

OFFICIAL BUSINESS 

PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE, $300