Transition Reference Temperature for 20MnMoNi55 RPV Steel at Different Loading Rates

  • Swagatam PaulEmail author
  • Sanjib Kumar Acharyya
  • Prasanta Sahoo
  • Jayanta Chattopadhyay
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes on Multidisciplinary Industrial Engineering book series (LNMUINEN)


Fracture toughness is the main designing criterion of nuclear power plant. Due to neutron embrittlement, fracture toughness of reactor pressure vessel steel becomes low. This type of phenomenon can also be observed in cryogenic temperature. But in between a certain subzero temperature range, values of fracture toughness of ferritic steel are scatter in nature. This scatter is modelled by a methodology named master curve. Master curve can be governed by a single parameter which is called reference temperature (T0). T0 is defined as a measurement of embrittlement. Crack length, thickness and loading rate have influence on fracture toughness of RPV steel. The influence of loading rate over T0 has been studied on different materials in several researches. Kim Wallin established an empirical relation between loading rate and reference temperature with the help of huge data set of different RPV steels. Sreenivasan has also proposed an empirical relation to compute quasi-static T0 from dynamic T0. In the present study, 1T-CT fracture experiments are conducted at subzero temperature (−100 °C) with varying loading rates ranging from 0.625 MPa√m/s to 417.3 MPa√m/s for 20MnMoNi55 reactor pressure vessel (RPV) steel. Master curve methodology (ASTM E1921-09a) is then used for determination of T0 for each loading rates. T0 is also estimated from Wallin’s empirical relationship and compared with experimental results for this particular material. Quasi-static T0 has also been estimated from T0 at different higher loading rates using empirical relationship proposed by Sreenivasan.


RPV steel Dynamic fracture toughness Master curve Reference temperature 



Length of crack (mm)


Initial notch length (mm)


Length of uncracked ligament (mm)


Thickness of specimen (mm)


Young’s modulus (GPa)


Stress intensity factor (MPa√m)


Plain strain fracture toughness (MPa√m)


Test temperature (°C)


Probability of failure


Width of specimen (mm)


Yield strength (MPa)


Ultimate tensile strength (MPa)


Poisson’s ratio


Yield stress (MPa)


  1. 1.
    Kim, S.H., Park, Y.W., Lee, J.H., Kang, S.S.: Estimation of fracture toughness in the transition region using CVN data. In: 15th International Conference on Structural Mechanics in Reactor Technology (SMiRT 15), Seoul, Korea, August, 15–20 (1999)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    ASTM E208-06: Standard Test Method for Conducting Drop-Weight Test to Determine Nil-Ductility Transition Temperature of Ferritic Steels (2012)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Application of Master Curve Method Fracture Toughness Methodology for Ferritic Steel. EPRI Technical Report (1998)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Nanstad, R.K., Keeney, J.A., McCabe, D.E.: Prepared for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research under Interagency Agreement No. 18986-80 1 1-93Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Wallin, K.: Master curve analysis of the “Euro” fracture toughness dataset. Eng. Fract. Mech. 69, 451–481 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Wallin, K.: Use of the Master Curve methodology for real three dimensional cracks. Nucl. Eng. Des. 237, 1388–1394 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    International Atomic Energy Agency: Guidelines for Application of the Master Curve Approach to Reactor Pressure Vessel Integrity in Nuclear Power Plants, Technical Reports Series No. 429, IAEA, Vienna (2005)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kim, S.H., Park, Y.W., Kang, S.S., Chung, H.D.: Estimation of fracture toughness transition curves of RPV steels from Charpy impact test data. Nucl. Eng. Des. 212, 49–57 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    McAfee, W.J., Williams, P.T., Bass, B.R., McCabe, D.E.: An Investigation of Shallow-Flaw Effects on the Master Curve Indexing Parameter (To) in RPV Material. Division of Engineering Technology Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research U. S. Nuclear Regulatory CommissionGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Rathbun, H.J., Odette, G.R., Yamamoto, T., He, M.Y., Lucas, G.E.: Statistical and constraint loss size effects on cleavage fracture-implications to measuring toughness in the transition. J. Press. Vessel Technol. 128(3), 305 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Henry, B.S., Luxmoore, A.R.: The stress triaxiality constraint and the Qvalue as a ductile fracture parameter. Eng. Fract. Mech. 57(4), 375–390 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Johnson, G.R., Cook, W.H.: A constitutive model and data for metals subjected to large strains, high strain rates and high temperatures. In: The 7th International Symposium on Ballistic, p. 541 (1983)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rusinek, A., Zaera, R.,. Klepaczko, J.R.: Constitutive relations in 3-D for a wide range of strain rates and temperatures—application to mild steels. Int. J. Solids Struct. 44, 5611–5634 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Zerilli, F.J., Armstrong, R.W.: Dislocation-mechanics-based constitutive relations for material dynamics calculations. J. Appl. Phys. 61(5), 1816–1825 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Venzi, S., Priest, A.H., May, M.J.: Influence of inertial load in instrumented impact tests, impact testing of metals, ASTM STP 466. American Society for Testing and Materials, pp. 165–180 (1970)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    International Atomic Energy Agency: Master Curve Approach to Monitor Fracture toughness of Reactor Pressure Vessels in Nuclear Power Plants. IAEA-TECDOC-1631, Vienna (2009b)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Server, W.L., Scheckerd, J.W., Wullaert, R.A.: Fracture Toughness Data for Ferritic Nuclear Pressure Vessel Materials, EPRINP-119, Final Report (1976)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Witt, F.J.: Equivalent Energy Procedures for Predicting Gross Plastic Fracture, USAEC Report ORNL-TM 3172Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Rice, J.R., Paris, P.C., Merkle, J.G.: Some Further Results of J-Integral Analysis and Estimates. In: Progress in Flaw Growth and Fracture Toughness Testing, ASTM STP 563, ASTM, pp. 231–245 (1973)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kalthoff, J.F., Winkler, S., Bohme, W.: A Novel Procedure for Measuring the Impact Fracture Toughness Kld with Precracked Charpy Specimens. Journal de Physique, Colloque C5, Supplement au n°8, Tome 46, aout (1985)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Bohme, W.: Dynamic key-curves for brittle fracture impact tests and establishment of a transition time. Presented at the 21st ASTM National Symposium on Fracture Mechanics, Annapolis, Maryland, June 28–30 (1988)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lucon, E.: Dynamic toughness testing of pre-cracked charpy V-notch specimens, convection ELECTRABEL – SCK.CEN, Mol, Belgium (1999)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Wallin, K.: Summary of the IAEA/CRP3 Fracture Mechanical Results. In: Proceedings IAEA Specialists Meeting, IAEA working material, Espoo (1999)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
  25. 25.
    Sreenivasan, P.R.: Inverse of Wallin’s relation for the effect of strain rate on the ASTM E-1921 reference temperature and its application to reference temperature estimation from Charpy tests. Nucl. Eng. Des. 241, 67–81 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Blagoeva, D.T., Debarberis, L., Jong, M., ten Pierick, P.: Stability of ferritic steel to higher doses: survey of reactor pressure vessel steel data and comparison with candidate materials for future nuclear systems. Int. J. Press. Vessels Pip. 122, 1–5 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Swagatam Paul
    • 1
    Email author
  • Sanjib Kumar Acharyya
    • 1
  • Prasanta Sahoo
    • 1
  • Jayanta Chattopadhyay
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Mechanical EngineeringJadavpur UniversityKolkataIndia
  2. 2.Reactor Safety DivisionBhaba Atomic Research CentreMumbaiIndia

Personalised recommendations