Technical Report

L
I
C
E
N
S
E D
M
A T
E
R
I
A
L
Materials Reliability Program:
PWR Internals Material Aging
Degradation Mechanism Screening
and Threshold Values (MRP-175)
Effective December 6, 2006, this report has been made publicly available
in accordance with Section 734.3(b)(3) and published in accordance with
Section 734.7 of the U.S. Export Administration Regulations. As a result of
this publication, this report is subject to only copyright protection and does
not require any license agreement from EPRI. This notice supersedes the
export control restrictions and any proprietary licensed material notices
embedded in the document prior to publication.

EPRI Project Manager
H.T. Tang
ELECTRIC POWER RESEARCH INSTITUTE
3420 Hillview Avenue, Palo Alto, California 94304-1395 PO Box 10412, Palo Alto, California 94303-0813 USA
800.313.3774 650.855.2121 [email protected] www.epri.com
Materials Reliability Program:
PWR Internals Material Aging
Degradation Mechanism Screening
and Threshold Values (MRP-175)

1012081
Topical Report, December 2005



DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTIES AND LIMITATION OF LIABILITIES
THIS DOCUMENT WAS PREPARED BY THE ORGANIZATION(S) NAMED BELOW AS AN
ACCOUNT OF WORK SPONSORED OR COSPONSORED BY THE ELECTRIC POWER RESEARCH
INSTITUTE, INC. (EPRI). NEITHER EPRI, ANY MEMBER OF EPRI, ANY COSPONSOR, THE
ORGANIZATION(S) BELOW, NOR ANY PERSON ACTING ON BEHALF OF ANY OF THEM:
(A) MAKES ANY WARRANTY OR REPRESENTATION WHATSOEVER, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, (I)
WITH RESPECT TO THE USE OF ANY INFORMATION, APPARATUS, METHOD, PROCESS, OR
SIMILAR ITEM DISCLOSED IN THIS DOCUMENT, INCLUDING MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS
FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, OR (II) THAT SUCH USE DOES NOT INFRINGE ON OR
INTERFERE WITH PRIVATELY OWNED RIGHTS, INCLUDING ANY PARTY'S INTELLECTUAL
PROPERTY, OR (III) THAT THIS DOCUMENT IS SUITABLE TO ANY PARTICULAR USER'S
CIRCUMSTANCE; OR
(B) ASSUMES RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY WHATSOEVER
(INCLUDING ANY CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, EVEN IF EPRI OR ANY EPRI REPRESENTATIVE
HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES) RESULTING FROM YOUR
SELECTION OR USE OF THIS DOCUMENT OR ANY INFORMATION, APPARATUS, METHOD,
PROCESS, OR SIMILAR ITEM DISCLOSED IN THIS DOCUMENT.
ORGANIZATION(S) THAT PREPARED THIS DOCUMENT
Framatome ANP, Inc.


NOTICE: THIS REPORT CONTAINS PROPRIETARY INFORMATION THAT IS THE
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY OF MRP UTILITY MEMBERS AND EPRI.
ACCORDINGLY, IT IS AVAILABLE ONLY UNDER LICENSE FROM EPRI AND
MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED OR DISCLOSED, WHOLLY OR IN PART, BY
ANY LICENSEE TO ANY OTHER PERSON OR ORGANIZATION.





NOTE
For further information about EPRI, call the EPRI Customer Assistance Center at 800.313.3774 or
e-mail [email protected].
Electric Power Research Institute and EPRI are registered service marks of the Electric Power
Research Institute, Inc.
Copyright 2005 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.


iii
CITATIONS
This report was prepared by
Framatome ANP, Inc.
3315 Old Forest Road
P.O. Box 10935
Lynchburg, VA 24506-0935
Principal Investigator
S. Fyfitch
Contributors
H. Xu
K. Moore
R. Gurdal

This report describes research sponsored by the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI).
The report is a corporate document that should be cited in the literature in the following manner:
Materials Reliability Program: PWR Internals Material Aging Degradation Mechanism
Screening and Threshold Values (MRP-175). EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: 2005. 1012081.



v
REPORT SUMMARY

This report provides screening criteria and their technical bases for age-related degradation
evaluation of Pressurized Water Reactor (PWR) internals component items. It is a key element in
an overall strategy that uses knowledge of internals design, materials, and material properties and
applies screening methodologies for known age-related degradation mechanisms to manage the
effects of aging in PWR internals.
Background
The framework for implementation of an aging management program for PWR internals
components and using inspections and flaw tolerance evaluations to manage degradation issues
has been developed and is documented in MRP-134 and MRP-153. The important elements of
this framework are:
Screening, categorizing, and ranking PWR internals components for susceptibility and
significance to the age-related degradation mechanisms
Performing functionality analyses and safety assessment of PWR internals components to
define a safe and cost-effective aging management in-service inspection and evaluation
method and strategy
This report describes screening criteria and the associated technical bases for categorization and
ranking of aged PWR internals components.
Objectives
To establish technically sound age-related degradation mechanism screening criteria for
management of aging effects in PWR internals.
Approach
The principal investigators reviewed in detail the potential and observed age-related degradation
mechanisms and effects in PWR internals due to aging, such as irradiation-assisted stress
corrosion cracking (IASCC), irradiation embrittlement, void swelling, stress relaxation, and
fatigue. Based on available data and results, the investigators defined degradation threshold
values where possible and developed screening parameters and criteria for degradation
screening.
Results
The report provides screening criteria for PWR internals materials for each age-related
degradation mechanism considered: Stress Corrosion Cracking, Irradiation-Assisted Stress
Corrosion Cracking, Wear, Fatigue, Thermal Aging Embrittlement, Irradiation Embrittlement,
Void Swelling, and Stress Relaxation/Irradiation Creep. For each age-related degradation

vi
mechanism, a screening criteria table displays material types; parameters such as stress, fluence,
temperature, stress, and ferrite content; and screening values. The screening criteria provide a
basis to either screen in or screen out a component item. For the screened in component items,
additional steps will be taken such as engineering judgment, bounding analysis, and
functionality, and/or safety evaluation for further categorization as per the MRP-134 outlined
strategy for appropriate inspection considerations.
EPRI Perspective
The EPRI MRP Reactor Internals Issue Task Group (RI-ITG) has been conducting studies to
develop technical bases to support aging management of PWR internals, with a particular
attention to utility License Renewal commitments. This Aging Degradation Mechanism
Screening and Threshold Values report is the second of a three-part document series on an
overall strategy for managing the effects of aging in PWR internals. The first document in the
series, Materials Reliability Program: Framework and Strategies for Managing Aging Effects in
PWR Internals (MRP-134) (EPRI report 1008203, June 2005), focuses on the overall framework
and strategy. The third document, Materials Reliability Program: Inspection and Flaw
Evaluation Strategies for Managing Aging Effects in PWR Internals (MRP-153) (EPRI report
1012082, December 2005), details inspection and flaw evaluation methodologies.
Currently, based on the strategies and the screening criteria developed, the RI-ITG focuses on
performing screening and functionality and safety evaluation of the effects of age-related
degradation in PWR internals components. In parallel, hot cell testing to quantify aged/irradiated
materials behavior and performance is continuing. These studies and results together with the
three-part document series on aging management strategy will provide a basis for developing
Inspection and Evaluation (I&E) Guidelines for utility applications.
Keywords
PWR internals
Aging management
License Renewal
Degradation mechanism
Threshold values
Screening Criteria


EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material
vii
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this report is to develop age-related degradation mechanism screening criteria
and document their technical bases for evaluation of PWR internals component items. Related
MRP documents include a Framework and Strategy for Managing Aging Effects in PWR
Internals (MRP-134) and Inspection and Flaw Evaluation Strategies for Managing Aging Effects
in PWR Internals (MRP-153).
The screening criteria developed in this report are to be used to categorize all PWR internals
component items in accordance with the strategy developed in Figure 4-1 of MRP-134
(reproduced as Figure 1-5 in this report). A general overview description of the various age-
related degradation mechanisms, observable thresholds, and the suggested screening criteria
applicable to PWR internals is contained in this report. The age-related degradation mechanisms
discussed in this report are as follows:
Stress Corrosion Cracking (SCC), which includes intergranular SCC (IGSCC), transgranular
SCC (TGSCC), primary water SCC (PWSCC), and low-temperature crack propagation
(LTCP)
Irradiation-assisted SCC (IASCC)
Wear
Fatigue, which includes high-cycle fatigue (HCF) and low-cycle fatigue (LCF)
Thermal aging embrittlement (TE)
Irradiation embrittlement (IE)
Void swelling (VS)
Irradiation-enhanced stress relaxation and creep (SR/IC)
In addition, this report contains a roadmap for tying aging effects to age-related degradation
mechanisms. Suggestions are included in the report for compiling and tabulating the screening
criteria parameters to be used in determining the potential significance of age-related degradation
effects on PWR internals component items. The screening criteria can be used to screen
component items on either a plant-specific or vendor design-specific (generic) basis.


EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material
ix
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The author would like to acknowledge the valuable input, review comments and report editing
from the following core members of the EPRI MRP RI-ITG Expert Panel:
P. Scott (Framatome ANP)
R. Shogan and R. Lott (Westinghouse)
F.A. Garner (PNNL)
The discussions, challenges and the consensus process leading to endorsement of the screening
criteria by the expert panel members is a rewarding experience.
Suggestions from S. Byrne (Westinghouse), especially the threshold and screening criteria
definitions, and editing suggestions from R. Gold (Westinghouse) are gratefully acknowledged.
The author would like to acknowledge the critical review and comments by the MRP RI-ITG
members led by its Chairman, C. Griffin, of Progress Energy.
Finally, the support and efforts of H.T. Tang (EPRI MRP RI-ITG Project Manager), W.R. Gray
(Framatome ANP RI-ITG Project Manager), C. Boggess (Westinghouse RI-ITG Functionality
Project Manager), and T. Meyer (Westinghouse RI-ITG Functionality Project Lead) are
acknowledged.


EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material
xi
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
Acronym/Abbreviation Definition
AEC Atomic Energy Commission
AGR Advanced Gas-Cooled Reactor
AIME American Institute of Mining, Metallurgical, and Petroleum
Engineers
AISI American Iron and Steel Institute
AMS Aerospace Materials Specification (Society of Automotive Engineers
International)
ANL Argonne National Laboratory
ASM American Society for Metals (currently known simply as ASM
International)
ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers
ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials
ATR Advanced Test Reactor
B&PV Boiler & Pressure Vessel Code
B&W Babcock & Wilcox (NSSS vendor)
BWR Boiling Water Reactor
CASS Cast Austenitic Stainless Steel
C&W Corrosion and Wear
CE Combustion Engineering (NSSS vendor)
CEA Control Element Assembly or French Atomic Energy Commission
(Commissariat l'nergie Atomique)
CEDM Control Element Drive Mechanism
CMTR Certified Material Test Report
CRDM Control Rod Drive Mechanism
EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material

xii
Acronym/Abbreviation Definition
CT Compact Tension (fracture toughness test specimen)
CUF Cumulative Usage Factor
CW Cold-Work
DBTT Ductile-to-Brittle Transition Temperature
DFR Dounreay Fast Reactor
DM Degradation Matrix
DPA Displacements Per Atom
EBR Experimental Breeder Reactor
ECP Electrochemical Potential
EDF Electricit de France (the French electric utility)
EFPY Effective Full Power Year
EPFM Elastic-Plastic Fracture Mechanics
EPRI Electric Power Research Institute: manages industry research and
development programs.
ETR Experimental Test Reactor
FA Fuel Assembly
FBR Fast Breeder Reactor
FAC Flow-Accelerated Corrosion
FANP Framatome ANP, Inc., an AREVA and Siemens company
FIV Flow-Induced Vibration
GALL Generic Aging Lessons Learned
FATT Fracture Appearance Transition Temperature
FCA Flux-Cored-Arc welding process
FFTF Fast Flux Test Facility
FN Ferrite Number
GMA Gas-Metal-Arc welding process
GTA Gas-Tungsten-Arc welding process
HRC Rockwell C Hardness value
EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material

xiii
Acronym/Abbreviation Definition
HTH High Temperature Heat-Treatment Condition
HAZ Heat-Affected Zone
HCF High-Cycle Fatigue
HFIR High Flux Isotope Reactor
IASCC Irradiation-Assisted Stress Corrosion Cracking
IC Irradiation-enhanced Creep
IE Irradiation Embrittlement or a generic bulletin issued by the NRC,
depending on context
IGSCC Intergranular Stress Corrosion Cracking
IMT Issue Management Table: provides brief summary statements on the
consequences of failure for specific pieces of equipment together
with comments on mitigation options, inspection and evaluation
guidance, repair/replacement options and overall priority.
IP Issue Program: various industry funded programs that support the
materials work.
I&E Inspection & Evaluation
JOBB Joint Owners Baffle Bolt Program
KAPL Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory
LCF Low-Cycle Fatigue
LEFM Linear-Elastic Fracture Mechanics
LTCP Low-Temperature Crack Propagation
LWR Light Water Reactor
MDA Materials Degradation Assessment
MEOG Materials Executive Oversight Group: provides executive oversight
for materials work, organized under NSIAC.
MMA Manual-Metal-Arc welding process
MPC Materials Property Council
MRP Materials Reliability Program
MTAG Materials Technology Advisory Group: provides technical oversight
for materials work, organized under NSIAC.
MTI Materials Technology Institute of the Chemical Process Industries,
I
EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material

xiv
Acronym/Abbreviation Definition
Inc.
NACE National Association of Corrosion Engineers
NEI Nuclear Energy Institute: is the policy organization of the nuclear
energy and technologies industry and participates in both the national
and global policy-making process. NEIs objective is to ensure the
formation of policies that promote the beneficial uses of nuclear
energy and technologies in the United States and around the world.
(Framatome ANP is a member.)
NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission
NRL Naval Research Laboratory
NSIAC (NEI) Nuclear Strategic Issues Advisory Committee
NSSS Nuclear Steam Supply System
NUREG Nuclear Regulatory Commission Technical Report Designation
OD Outside Diameter
ORR Oak Ridge Research Reactor
PH Precipitation-Hardenable
PNNL Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
PVP Pressure Vessel and Piping Division Conference, an annual
publication of ASME
PWSCC Primary Water Stress Corrosion Cracking
PWR Pressurized Water Reactor
RCS Reactor Coolant System
RI-ITG Reactor Internals-Issue Task Group
RIS Radiation-Induced Segregation
RiT Reduction in Toughness
RV Reactor Vessel
SA Solution-Annealed, Submerged-Arc (welding process), or ASME
Code specification prefix (e.g., SA-350) depending on context
SCC Stress Corrosion Cracking
SFE Stacking Fault Energy
SFEN Socit Franaise d'nergie Nuclaire
EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material

xv
Acronym/Abbreviation Definition
SMA Shielded-Metal Arc welding process
SR Stress Relaxation
SS Stainless Steel
TE Thermal Aging Embrittlement
TEM Transmission Electron Microscope
TGSCC Transgranular Stress Corrosion Cracking
TMS The Minerals, Metals, and Materials Society
TT Thermal Treatment
UNS Unified Numbering System
USE Upper Shelf Energy
VS Void Swelling
W Westinghouse (NSSS vendor)
WCAP Westinghouse Commercial Atomic Power (report designation issued
by Westinghouse Nuclear)
WOG Westinghouse Owners Group
WRC Welding Research Council (report designation issued by this
organization)
YS Yield Strength





EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material
xvii
CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. 1-1
1.1 Report Purpose ........................................................................................................... 1-1
1.2 Background................................................................................................................. 1-1
1.3 Threshold and Screening Definitions ........................................................................... 1-8
1.4 Materials and Age-Related Degradation Mechanisms ................................................. 1-9
1.5 Report Structure.........................................................................................................1-12
1.6 References.................................................................................................................1-12
2 SCREENING FOR AGE-RELATED DEGRADATION ......................................................... 2-1
2.1 Cracking...................................................................................................................... 2-1
2.2 Reduction of Fracture Toughness................................................................................ 2-5
2.3 Loss of Mechanical Closure Integrity ........................................................................... 2-9
2.4 Loss of Material ..........................................................................................................2-10
2.5 Changes in Dimension ...............................................................................................2-11
2.6 References.................................................................................................................2-12
3 COMPILING SCREENING PARAMETERS AND SAMPLE TEMPLATE............................. 3-1
3.1 Screening and Categorization for Significance ............................................................ 3-1
3.2 Screening Parameters for Age-Related Degradation................................................... 3-2
3.2.1 Material ................................................................................................................ 3-2
3.2.2 Dose (Neutron Exposure) .................................................................................... 3-4
3.2.3 Cold-Work............................................................................................................ 3-5
3.2.4 Multi-Pass Welds ................................................................................................. 3-5
3.2.5 Ferrite and Molybdenum Content ......................................................................... 3-5
3.2.6 Applied Stress...................................................................................................... 3-6
3.2.7 Operating Temperature........................................................................................ 3-6
3.2.8 Tempering Temperature ...................................................................................... 3-6
3.2.9 Wear Potential ..................................................................................................... 3-7
EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material

xviii
3.2.10 Fatigue Usage Factor......................................................................................... 3-7
3.3 Initial Screening Process ............................................................................................. 3-7
3.4 References.................................................................................................................3-10
A APPENDIX A: STRESS CORROSION CRACKING (EXCLUDING IRRADIATION
EFFECTS) .............................................................................................................................. A-1
A.1 General Description of Stress Corrosion Cracking ...................................................... A-1
A.1.1 Austenitic Stainless Steels................................................................................... A-4
A.1.2 Martensitic Stainless Steels................................................................................. A-9
A.1.3 Martensitic Precipitation-Hardenable Stainless Steels ....................................... A-10
A.1.4 Austenitic Precipitation-Hardenable Stainless Steels and Nickel-Base Alloys.... A-11
A.1.5 Cast Austenitic Stainless Steels ........................................................................ A-13
A.1.6 Austenitic Nickel-Base Alloys............................................................................. A-14
Low Temperature Crack Propagation...................................................................... A-15
A.2 Summary and Discussion.......................................................................................... A-16
A.3 SCC Threshold and Screening Criteria ..................................................................... A-17
Austenitic Stainless Steels ...................................................................................... A-17
Martensitic Stainless Steels .................................................................................... A-18
Martensitic Precipitation-Hardenable Stainless Steels............................................. A-18
Austenitic Precipitation-Hardenable Stainless Steels .............................................. A-18
Cast Austenitic Stainless Steels.............................................................................. A-18
Austenitic Nickel-Base Alloys .................................................................................. A-19
Austenitic Precipitation-Hardenable Nickel-Base Alloys .......................................... A-19
A.4 SCC References ....................................................................................................... A-19
B APPENDIX B: IRRADIATION-ASSISTED STRESS CORROSION CRACKING................. B-1
B.1 General Description of Irradiation-Assisted Stress Corrosion Cracking ....................... B-1
B.1.1 Annealed vs. Cold-Worked Materials................................................................... B-2
B.1.2 Austenitic Stainless Steels................................................................................... B-2
B.1.3 Martensitic and Martensitic Precipitation-Hardenable Stainless Steels ................ B-3
B.1.4 Austenitic Precipitation-Hardenable Stainless Steels........................................... B-4
B.1.5 Cast Austenitic Stainless Steels .......................................................................... B-4
B.1.6 Austenitic Nickel-Base Alloys............................................................................... B-4
B.1.7 Austenitic Precipitation-Hardenable Nickel-Base Alloys....................................... B-4
B.2 IASCC Summary and Discussion................................................................................ B-5
EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material

xix
B.3 IASCC Threshold and Screening Criteria.................................................................... B-5
B.4 IASCC References...................................................................................................... B-8
C APPENDIX C: WEAR ......................................................................................................... C-1
C.1 General Description of Wear ....................................................................................... C-1
C.2 PWR Internals Wear Events........................................................................................ C-4
C.2.1 Westinghouse Internals Designs ......................................................................... C-4
C.2.2 B&W Internals Design ......................................................................................... C-5
C.2.3 CE Internals Designs........................................................................................... C-5
C.3 Potential Long Term Issues ........................................................................................ C-6
C.4 Wear Threshold and Screening Criteria ...................................................................... C-6
C.5 Wear References........................................................................................................ C-7
D APPENDIX D: FATIGUE..................................................................................................... D-1
D.1 General Description of Fatigue.................................................................................... D-1
D.1.1 Low-Cycle Fatigue (LCF)..................................................................................... D-2
D.1.2 High-Cycle Fatigue (HCF) ................................................................................... D-2
D.1.3 Environmental or Corrosion Fatigue .................................................................... D-3
D.2 Application of ASME B&PV Code Rules ..................................................................... D-3
D.3 Fatigue Summary and Discussion............................................................................... D-4
D.4 Fatigue Threshold and Screening Criteria................................................................... D-4
D.5 Fatigue References..................................................................................................... D-5
E APPENDIX E: THERMAL AGING EMBRITTLEMENT........................................................ E-1
E.1 General Description of Thermal Aging Embrittlement.................................................. E-1
E.1.1 CASS .................................................................................................................. E-1
E.1.2 Austenitic Stainless Steel Welds.......................................................................... E-4
E.1.3 Martensitic Stainless Steel................................................................................... E-6
E.1.4 Martensitic Precipitation-Hardenable Stainless Steel ......................................... E-10
E.2 TE Summary and Discussion.................................................................................... E-13
E.3 TE Threshold and Screening Criteria ........................................................................ E-15
E.4 TE References.......................................................................................................... E-16
F APPENDIX F: IRRADIATION EMBRITTLEMENT............................................................... F-1
F.1 General Description of Irradiation Embrittlement ......................................................... F-1
EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material

xx
F.2 Fracture Toughness of Irradiated Austenitic Stainless Steels ...................................... F-2
F.2.1 Type 304 and Type 316 in Fast Reactors ............................................................ F-2
F.2.2 Type 347 and Type 348 in Fast Reactors ............................................................ F-3
F.2.3 Austenitic Stainless Steel Weld Metals in Fast Reactors...................................... F-3
F.2.4 Austenitic Stainless Steel and Weld Metals in PWRs and BWRs......................... F-5
F.3 Tensile Properties of Irradiated Austenitic Stainless Steels ......................................... F-7
F.4 IE Threshold and Screening Criteria............................................................................ F-7
F.5 IE References ........................................................................................................... F-11
G APPENDIX G: VOID SWELLING........................................................................................G-1
G.1 General Description of Void Swelling..........................................................................G-1
G.2 Descriptions of Void Swelling of Austenitic Stainless Steels Irradiated in EBR-II ........G-4
G.2.1 Earlier Published Equations ................................................................................G-4
G.2.2 New Type 304 Stainless Steel Equation..............................................................G-9
G.3 Void Swelling of Russian Stainless Steels in Other Fast Reactors............................G-14
G.3.1 Void Swelling Reported in BN-350, BOR-60 and BR-10....................................G-14
G.3.2 BN-350 Void Swelling Database Analyzed by Yilmaz et al. ...............................G-15
G.4 JOBB Void Swelling Data .........................................................................................G-17
G.4.1 JOBB BOR-60 Density Measurement ...............................................................G-17
G.4.2 JOBB TEM Measurement of EBR-II Specimens................................................G-19
G.5 Void Swelling in Removed PWR Baffle Bolts ............................................................G-21
G.6 Factors Affecting Void Swelling.................................................................................G-23
G.7 VS Threshold and Screening Criteria........................................................................G-26
G.8 VS References .........................................................................................................G-28
H APPENDIX H: STRESS RELAXATION AND IRRADIATION CREEP ................................ H-1
H.1 General Description of Stress Relaxation and Irradiation Creep.................................. H-1
H.1.1 Thermal Stress Relaxation .................................................................................. H-2
H.1.2 Irradiation-Enhanced Stress Relaxation and Creep............................................. H-3
H.2 SR/IC Summary and Discussion................................................................................. H-9
H.2.1 Summary of Thermal Stress Relaxation and Creep........................................... H-10
H.2.2 Summary of Irradiation-Enhanced Stress Relaxation and Creep....................... H-10
H.3 SR/IC Threshold and Screening Criteria ................................................................... H-10
H.4 SR/IC References..................................................................................................... H-12
EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material
xxi
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1-1 Framework for Implementation of Aging Management Using Screening,
Functionality Evaluations, and Inspections ...................................................................... 1-2
Figure 1-2 General Arrangement of Babcock & Wilcox Designed Internals............................. 1-4
Figure 1-3 General Arrangement of Combustion Engineering Designed Internals................... 1-5
Figure 1-4 General Arrangement of Westinghouse Designed Internals................................... 1-6
Figure 1-5 Process for Categorization of PWR Internals Components .................................... 1-7
Figure A-1 Synergistic Effects Required for Stress Corrosion in Metals .................................. A-2
Figure A-2 Crack Paths Describing Stress Corrosion Cracking in Metals................................ A-2
Figure A-3 Example of Intergranular Stress Corrosion Cracking ............................................. A-3
Figure A-4 Example of Transgranular Stress Corrosion Cracking ........................................... A-3
Figure A-5 Effect of Oxygen on Chloride SCC
[A-1]
..................................................................... A-5
Figure A-6 The Effects of Oxygen and Chloride on the SCC of 300 Series Stainless
Steels in High Temperature Water as Revealed by Slow Strain Rate Testing
[A-10]
............. A-6
Figure A-7 Cracking of Sensitized 304 Stainless Steel in Water Without Chlorides
[A-1]
............. A-7
Figure A-8 Effect of Yield Strength and Martensite on the Stress Corrosion Crack Growth
Rate on Austenitic Stainless Steel in a Simulated PWR Environment
[A-14]
......................... A-9
Figure A-9 Failure Trend Line for Alloy A-286 SCC
[A-39]
.......................................................... A-11
Figure A-10 Failure Trend Line for Alloy X-750 HTH SCC
[A-39
]................................................ A-12
Figure A-11 Stress Required to Produce SCC in Several CASS Alloys with Varying
Amounts of Ferrite
[A-48]
.................................................................................................... A-13
Figure A-12 Ferrite Pools Blocking the Propagation of SCC in a Cast Austenitic Stainless
Steel
[A-48]
......................................................................................................................... A-14
Figure B-1 Prediction of IASCC Time-to-Failure Versus Stress
[B-38]
......................................... B-6
Figure B-2 Neutron Fluence Effects on IASCC Susceptibility in BWR and PWR
Environments
[B-39]
.............................................................................................................. B-6
Figure B-3 Proposed Plot of Stress and Neutron Exposure Screening Criteria for
IASCC. ............................................................................................................................ B-8
Figure C-1 Abrasive Wear Example........................................................................................ C-2
Figure C-2 Adhesive Wear Example ....................................................................................... C-3
Figure C-3 Fretting Wear Example.......................................................................................... C-4
Figure D-1 Classical Fatigue Failure of a Bolt by Reverse Bending......................................... D-1
Figure E-1 Typical Microstructures Of Centrifugally Cast Austenitic Stainless Steel, With
Islands Of Ferrite In An Austenite Matrix
[E-35]
..................................................................... E-3
EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material

xxii
Figure E-2 Comparison Of J
IC
Of Unirradiated Stainless Steel Weld By Different
Processes
[E-19]
................................................................................................................... E-5
Figure E-3 Variation In Hardness As A Function Of Aging Time And Temperature For
13%Cr (Type 410), 13%Cr-1%Ni, And 16%Cr-4%Ni
[E-26]
.................................................. E-7
Figure E-4 Charpy V-Notch Impact Energy Transition Curves In The Unaged And Aged
Conditions Of 13%Cr (Type 410) And 13%Cr-1%Ni (Longitudinal Orientation)
[E-27]
........... E-8
Figure E-5 Typical Charpy V-Notch Transition Behavior of Unaged Type 410 Martensitic
Stainless Steel
[E-28]
............................................................................................................ E-9
Figure E-6 Izod Data for Unaged Type 410 after Quenching From 1800
o
F and
Tempering At 1150
o
F (HB 228)
[E-29]
................................................................................. E-10
Figure E-7 Type 17-4 PH (H-1100), Effect Of %Cr + %Si + %Cb On Exposure Time At
800
o
F To Cause A 50% Drop In Initial Room Temperature Charpy Impact Energy
[E-28]
... E-12
Figure E-8 Type 17-4 PH (H-1100), Effect Of %P + %S + 0.1%Cb + %N On The Initial
Room Temperature Charpy Impact Energy
[E-28]
.............................................................. E-12
Figure E-9 Effect Of Exposure On Charpy V-Notch Impact Properties At 800
o
F For Type
17-4 PH (H-1100)
[E-28]
..................................................................................................... E-13
Figure E-10 Predicted Embrittlement of Type 17-4 PH (H-110) FATT
50
-vs.-EFPYs and
USE-vs.-EFPYs as a Function of Exposure Time at 600
o
F
[E-3]
........................................ E-14
Figure F-1 Elevated Temperature Fracture Toughness K
jc
as a Function of dpa for Type
304 and Type 316 Irradiated in Fast Reactors (Based on Reference F-2) ....................... F-4
Figure F-2 Elevated Temperature Fracture Toughness K
Jc
of Austenitic Stainless Steels
and Welds Irradiated in BWRs or PWRs as a Function of dpa
[F-2]
..................................... F-6
Figure F-3 Elevated Temperature Total Elongation as a Function of dpa for Type 304,
Type 304L, and Type 347
[F-2]
............................................................................................ F-8
Figure F-4 Elevated Temperature Total Elongation as a Function of dpa for Type 316
[F-2]
........ F-9
Figure F-5 Elevated Temperature Total Elongation as a Function of dpa for Type 308
and 308L Weld, Type 304 HAZ, and Type CF-8 CASS
[F-2]
.............................................. F-10
Figure G-1 Swelling-vs.-dpa at Different Irradiation Temperatures for Several Empirical
Swelling Equations (Based on Austenitic Stainless Steel Swelling Data From EBR-
II, Except 1Cr18Ni10Ti(MTO) From BN-350 (The Bounding Swelling Line is Also
Indicated) ........................................................................................................................G-6
Figure G-2 Swelling Predictions versus DPA Using the Stress-Free Swelling Equation
Developed by Garner[G-34] [Note: F-F indicates predictions using the Foster-Flinn
Equation[G-31] for Comparison] ....................................................................................G-11
Figure G-3 Volumetric Change from Density Measurements of JOBB Tensile Specimens
Irradiated in BOR-60 at 320C (608F) ..........................................................................G-20
Figure H-1 Schematic Representation of Creep Curves Under Constant Load.
[H-3]
................... H-1
Figure H-2 Thermal Stress Relaxation (Without Irradiation) of a 10% Cold-Worked and
Solution-Annealed Type 304 Bar
[H-4]
................................................................................. H-4
Figure H-3 Thermal Stress Relaxation (Without Irradiation) of Mill Annealed,
Straightened, and 50% Cold-Worked & Solution-Annealed Type 304 Bar.
[H-4]
.................. H-5
Figure H-4 Thermal Stress Relaxation (Without Irradiation) of 10% Cold-Worked Type
304 Bar
[H-4]
........................................................................................................................ H-6
EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material

xxiii
Figure H-5 Thermal Stress Relaxation (Without Irradiation) of 20% Cold-Worked Type
304 Bar
[H-4]
........................................................................................................................ H-7
Figure H-6 Comparison of Thermal Creep and Irradiation-Enhanced Creep of a 20%
Cold-Worked Type 316 Stainless Steel Irradiated in EBR-II
[H-5]
........................................ H-8
Figure H-7 Trend Line for Screening Irradiation-Enhanced Stress Relaxation Based on
Available Test Data. ...................................................................................................... H-11




EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material
xxv
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1-1 Materials and Procurement Specifications Used for PWR Internals........................1-10
Table 2-1 Stress Corrosion Cracking Screening Criteria for PWR Internals Materials ............. 2-3
Table 2-2 Irradiation-Assisted Stress Corrosion Cracking Screening Criteria for PWR
Internals Materials........................................................................................................... 2-4
Table 2-3 Fatigue Screening Criteria for PWR Internals Materials........................................... 2-5
Table 2-4 Thermal Aging Embrittlement Screening Criteria for PWR Internals Materials......... 2-6
Table 2-5 Irradiation Embrittlement Screening Criteria for PWR Internals Materials................ 2-8
Table 2-6 Void Swelling Screening Criteria for PWR Internals Materials ................................. 2-9
Table 2-7 Thermal and Irradiation-Enhanced Stress Relaxation and Creep Screening
Criteria for PWR Internals Materials ...............................................................................2-10
Table 2-8 Wear Screening Criteria for PWR Internals Materials............................................2-11
Table 3-1 Example Tabulation of Screening Parameters ........................................................ 3-3
Table 3-2 PWR Internals Age-Related Degradation Mechanism Screening Criteria................ 3-8
Table 3-3 Example Template of Aging Degradation Screening ............................................... 3-9
Table E-1 Temperature Izod Impact Values of Type 17-4 PH (H-1100)
[E-24]
........................... E-11
Table F-1 Fracture Toughness of Type 347/348 Irradiated in Fast Reactors
[F-2]
....................... F-5
Table G-1 Irradiation Conditions for the Empirical Equations Plotted in Figure G-1.................G-5
Table G-2 Chemical Composition of Russian EI-847 Stainless Steel in BN-350
[G-35, G-36]
..........G-14
Table G-3 Swelling Parameters for Russian Stainless Steels by Yilmaz et al.
[G-43]
..................G-16
Table G-4 Chemical Composition of JOBB Specimens
[G-44]
....................................................G-18
Table G-5 Thermomechanical History of JOBB Specimens
[G-44]
............................................G-18
Table G-6 Swelling of JOBB Specimens Irradiated in EBR-II at 375C (707F)
[G-46]
................G-19
Table G-7 Plants with Baffle Bolts Removed and Inspected for Void Swelling
[G-47, G-48]
.............G-21
Table G-8 Void Swelling in PWR Baffle-to-Former Bolts .......................................................G-22


EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material
1-1
1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Report Purpose
The purpose of this report is to develop and provide the technical bases for screening criteria for
age-related degradation evaluation of Pressurized Water Reactor (PWR) internals component
items. This report was prepared under the direction and sponsorship of the EPRI Materials
Reliability Program (MRP) Reactor Internals Issue Task Group (RI-ITG). Valuable input and
review comments were received from many sources, in particular from the following RI-ITG
Expert Panel core members:
P. Scott and S. Fyfitch (Framatome ANP)
R. Shogan and R. Lott (Westinghouse)
F. Garner (PNNL)
This report is a key element in an overall strategy for managing the effects of aging in PWR
internals using knowledge of internals design, materials and material properties, and applying
screening methodologies for known aging degradation mechanisms. Related MRP documents
include a Framework and Strategy for Managing Aging Effects in PWR Internals
[1-1]
and
Inspection and Flaw Evaluation Strategies for Managing Aging Effects in PWR Internals.
[1-2]

1.2 Background
The framework for the implementation of a PWR internals aging management program
incorporating the degradation research results and using inspections and flaw tolerance
evaluations to manage the degradation issues is given in Figure 1-1. The important elements of
this framework are:
Screening of component items for susceptibility to the age-related degradation mechanisms,
performed by establishing a set of screening criteria for each relevant age-related degradation
mechanism,
Evaluating the most affected component items or regions of greatest impact for the aging
effects of cracking, reduction of fracture toughness, loss of mechanical closure integrity, loss
of material, or changes in dimensions, and
Performing functionality analyses and safety assessment of the critical component items that
exceed the screening criteria to determine the need for supplementary aging management.
EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material

Introduction
1-2

Figure 1-1
Framework for Implementation of Aging Management Using Screening, Functionality Evaluations, and Inspections
Establish Framework and Strategy for Aging
Management of PWR Reactor Vessel Internals
(MRP-134)
Gather Operating Information
and Materials Data
Obtain New Plant
Operating Data for
W, C-E, and B&W
Designs and New
Materials Research
Data
Develop Material
Constitutive Equations
(MRP-135)
Determine
Screening Criteria for IASCC,
Crack Initiation, Growth, Void
Swelling, Fracture Toughness,
and Stress Relaxation
(MRP-175)
Screen and
Categorize
Components
Perform Functionality
Analysis
Identify Lead
Components
Assign Inspection
Strategies
Utility-Specific Aging
Management Programs
Develop Interim Report on Using Inspections
and Flaw Tolerance Evaluations for Aging
Management of PWR Internals
(MRP-153)
Provide Guidance for Vendor
Owners Group Assessments
Issue PWR Internals
Inspection & Evaluations
Guidelines
EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material

Introduction
1-3
The reports discussed above provide a framework and strategy for management of these aging
effects using screening, inspection methods and flaw tolerance evaluations that can be applied to
the PWR internals component items. Figures 1-2, 1-3, and 1-4 generically illustrate the main
component items of the Babcock & Wilcox, Combustion Engineering, and Westinghouse
designed PWR internals, respectively. The screening criteria developed in this report will be
used to categorize all PWR internals component items in accordance with the strategy developed
in Figure 1-5 (Figure 4-1of MRP-134).
[1-1]
The categories defined therein are based on the
significance of the aging effects and will be related to the type of inspections to be used for
managing the effects:

Category A
Category A components are those for which aging effects are below the screening criteria, so that
aging degradation significance is minimal. Typically, only the required ASME B&PV Code
Section XI Examination Category B-N-3 ISI visual examinations (VT-3) will be performed on
these components to assess potential aging effects.
Category C
Category C PWR internals components are those lead components for which aging effects are
above screening levels, which have moderate or high susceptibility to degradation. Enhanced
inspections (e.g., Enhanced VT-1, UT, etc.) and/or surveillance sampling will typically be
warranted to assess aging effects and verify functionality of these components.
Category B
Category B includes those PWR internals components that are moderately susceptible to the
aging effects, such that the effects on function cannot easily be dispositioned by screening and
are not lead components. Category B components may require additional evaluations to be
shown tolerant of the aging effects with no loss of functionality (i.e., damage tolerant).
Category B'
Category B' components are those "lead components that can be shown to be tolerant of the
aging effects through a functionality assessment. These components are candidates for an
expanded inspection program.
This categorization depends on an initial screening for susceptibility and functionality of the
component items. This report provides a general overview of the materials age-related
degradation mechanisms and provides suggested screening criteria that can be used for an initial
categorization of the potentially susceptible, or non-susceptible, PWR internals component
items.
EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material

Introduction
1-4
C
o
r
e

S
u
p
p
o
r
t
S
h
i
e
l
d

A
s
s
e
m
b
l
y
C
o
r
e

B
a
r
r
e
l

A
s
s
e
m
b
l
y
L
o
w
e
r
I
n
t
e
r
n
a
l
s
A
s
s
e
m
b
l
y
C
o
r
e

S
u
p
p
o
r
t

A
s
s
e
m
b
l
y
Plenum
Assembly
Plenum Cover
Assembly
Vent Valve
Upper Grid Assembly
Lower Grid Assembly
Core Support Shield
Plenum Cylinder
Assembly
Cor e Bar rel
Thermal Shield
I MI Guide Tube

(Note: Typical configuration unique variations may exist for individual plant designs; some items rotated for clarity)
Figure 1-2
General Arrangement of Babcock & Wilcox Designed Internals
EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material

Introduction
1-5

(Typical configuration unique variations may exist for individual plant designs; some items rotated for clarity)
Figure 1-3
General Arrangement of Combustion Engineering Designed Internals
EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material

Introduction
1-6

(Typical configuration unique variations may exist for individual plant designs)
Figure 1-4
General Arrangement of Westinghouse Designed Internals
EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material

Introduction
1-7
Category A
Perform
Functionality
Assessment
Category C
YES
YES
Significant
Category B
Category B
Components
Screened Out?
YES
NO
No
Significant
Insignificant
Component
Categorization
Perform
Functionality
Assessment
Insignificant
Perform Functional
Assessment?
Candidate for Lead
Component, Highly
Susceptible?
Perform
Functional
Assessment?
NO
YES
NO

Figure 1-5
Process for Categorization of PWR Internals Components
A key step in this process is to apply screening criteria (such as material chemical composition,
neutron fluence, temperature history, and applied stress) to identify those PWR internals
component items for which the effects of age-related degradation on functionality during the
license renewal term are insignificant (i.e., Category A, as defined in MRP-134). For those
locations that do not exceed the screening criteria, no further actions would be required, other
than to continue existing plant inspection and maintenance programs.
The portion of the strategy that is covered by this report is identified in Figure 1-1. This includes
the determination of screening criteria for each of the materials age-related degradation
EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material

Introduction
1-8
mechanisms identified for PWR internals (e.g., irradiation-assisted stress corrosion cracking,
irradiation embrittlement, void swelling, and wear). These criteria for screening, based on an
understanding of age-related degradation mechanisms and engineering judgment, will be
instrumental in the evaluation and categorization of vendor-specific PWR internals component
items. A significant aspect of the overall strategy is the differentiation between thresholds for
susceptibility and screening criteria for potential loss of functionality (Section 1.3). In this
application, loss of functionality is the primary concern, and appropriate screening criteria will
be applied. Since all lead component items (i.e., Category C, as defined in MRP-134) will
undergo some inspection and other potentially susceptible component items (i.e., Categories B
and B) will be available for inspection as necessary, there is no need to include any additional
conservatism in the screening criteria to require augmented inspections for minimally susceptible
component items. Therefore, the screening criteria should be the best estimate criteria that will
identify potential component items for further evaluation of the effects of degradation on
functionality. Functionality evaluations may include expert opinions, engineering judgments, or
detailed stress evaluations.
The models used in future functionality evaluations for those component items that cannot be
screened out and construed as lead items will include irradiation-dependent material properties
data, behavior equations and models for stress-strain curves, creep equations, void swelling
equations, and irradiation-assisted stress corrosion cracking susceptibility and damage
formulation.
[1-3]
Parametric and special-effects studies, using these models (either simplified or
more detailed), will be carried out, to examine the effects of individual mechanisms and
phenomena on functionality. These might include such considerations as void swelling effects on
irradiation-enhanced creep and stress relaxation, stress concentration effects on bolt loading,
bolt-load relaxation and loss of pre-load, differential swelling, potential irradiation-assisted stress
corrosion cracking (IASCC) susceptibility considering statistical material variability, effects of
high doses at re-entrant corners, re-creation of residual stresses in welded joints and the effects of
irradiation-enhanced creep and stress relaxation on residual stresses and IASCC susceptibility of
welded joints.
From the results of the screening and subsequent analyses, a technical basis can be documented
for PWR internals inspection and flaw evaluation guidance applicable to plants throughout the
license renewal term.
1.3 Threshold and Screening Definitions
Understanding the mechanisms of aging degradation is important for managing the potential
aging effects in PWR internals. PWR internals aging management involves monitoring or
predicting the levels of degradation, evaluating mitigation and/or repair techniques, and using
inspections or some other type of surveillance to assure component integrity. An age-related
degradation mechanism is considered significant if it cannot be shown that the component would
maintain its function when the degradation mechanism is allowed to continue without additional
preventive or mitigative measures. Thus, there is a distinct difference between threshold values
for observing the onset of an aging effect and screening values for evaluating the significance of
age-related degradation mechanisms. The following are working definitions agreed upon by the
RI-ITG, which will be utilized in this report:
EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material

Introduction
1-9
Threshold Value - The level of susceptibility when an aging effect is first observed or
quantifiable.
Screening Value - The level of susceptibility when an aging effect may be significant to
functionality or safety.
Quantification of the screening values, referred to here as criteria, will require knowledge of the
specific age-related degradation mechanisms, degradation effects, some engineering judgment,
and possibly empirical extrapolations where data may be lacking. The screening criteria provided
in this report will be used by those organizations performing the screening and categorization of
component items.
1.4 Materials and Age-Related Degradation Mechanisms
NEI 03-08
[1-4]
is a materials management guideline that became effective on January 2, 2004.
This document outlines the policy and practices that the industry has committed to follow in
managing materials aging issues. Two standing committees were established to assist the utilities
and the issue programs (IPs) they fund. The Materials Technology Advisory Group (MTAG)
provides technical oversight and the Materials Executive Oversight Group (MEOG) provides
executive oversight. Neither of these groups is directly involved in the technical work, which
resides in the IPs. (The degradation matrix and issue management table IPs discussed below are
being managed through EPRI.) For example, one of the current IPs that is governed by this
guideline is the EPRI MRP.
Recently, an industry Ad Hoc Committee was tasked by the MTAG to prepare a generic
Degradation Matrix (DM) applicable to all PWR internals designs.
[1-5]
Expert elicitation,
laboratory studies, and field experience were used to identify potential mechanisms by which
each of the PWR internals materials, among other materials and component items, might
degrade. The current DM groups the age-related degradation mechanisms into several broad
categories such as Stress Corrosion Cracking (SCC), Corrosion and Wear (C&W), Fatigue (Fat.)
and Reduction in Toughness (RiT). Each of these is comprised of various subcategories of
degradation. For example, the RiT category includes thermal aging embrittlement and void
swelling.
Screening criteria are included in this report for the various age-related degradation mechanisms
identified as potentially applicable to PWR internals from the DM effort. Age-related
degradation mechanisms may be removed or new ones may be added as a result of continuing
programs on aging of PWR internals. The currently identified age-related degradation
mechanisms discussed in this report are as follows:
1

Stress Corrosion Cracking (SCC), which includes
Intergranular SCC (IGSCC)
Transgranular SCC (TGSCC)

1
The more generally known acronyms provided in this list will be used throughout the remainder of this report, in
lieu of the acronyms defined in the industry DM.
EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material

Introduction
1-10
Primary water SCC (PWSCC)
Low-temperature crack propagation (LTCP)
Irradiation-assisted SCC (IASCC)
Wear
Fatigue, which includes
High-cycle fatigue (HCF)
Low-cycle fatigue (LCF)
Thermal aging embrittlement (TE)
Irradiation embrittlement (IE)
Void swelling (VS)
Irradiation-enhanced stress relaxation and creep (SR/IC)
The DM was used as input to a Materials Degradation Assessment / Issue Management Table
(MDA/IMT) Ad-Hoc Committee. This committee developed the IMTs for reactor coolant system
components, one of which was the PWR internals IMT.
[1-6]
The IMT is intended to be a living
document and will be updated as necessary. It is expected to be used by the industry to
document the state of the art, identify priority changes, map progress, determine conclusions, and
assess results on an on-going basis. The materials and procurement specifications utilized in
PWR internals for Babcock & Wilcox (B&W), Combustion Engineering (CE), and
Westinghouse (W) designs, as identified by the IMT effort, are provided in Table 1-1.
Table 1-1
Materials and Procurement Specifications Used for PWR Internals
Type of Material Procurement Specifications
1
Stainless Steels (SS)
Austenitic
(Types 304, 304L, 308,
308L, 316, 316L, 321,
347, 348, and Nitronic 60)
ASTM
A 167 (Plate), A 182 (Forging), A 193 (Rolled or Forged Bar), A 194 (Hot
Forged or Cold Punched), A 213 (Seamless Tubing), A 240 (Plate), A 249
(Welded Tubing), A 276 (Bar), A 312 (Seamless Pipe), A 336 (Forging), A
473 (Forging), A 479 (Bar)
ASME
SA-182 (Forging), SA-193 (Rolled or Forged Bar), SA-240 (Plate), SA-249
(Welded Tubing), SA-479 (Bar)
AISI
AISI (Bar), AISI (Plate)
Cast Austenitic
(Grades CF8 and CF3M)
ASTM
A 296 (Casting), A 351 (Casting)
EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material

Introduction
1-11
Type of Material Procurement Specifications
1
Austenitic Precipitation-
Hardenable
(Alloy A-286)
ASTM
A 453 Grade 660 Class A (Rolled, Forged, or Hot-Extruded Bar), A 638
Grade 660 Class A (Forging)
AMS
5735 (Bar, Forging, Tubing, or Ring), 5736 (Bar, Forging, Tubing, or Ring),
5737 (Bar, Forging, or Tubing)
Martensitic
(Types 403, 410, and 431)
ASTM
A 276 (Bar)
Martensitic Precipitation-
Hardenable
(Types 15-5 PH and 17-4
PH)
AMS
5658 Type 15-5 PH (Forging)
Nickel-Base Alloys
Austenitic
(Alloy 600)
ASME
SB-166 (Bar), SB-168 (Plate)
Military
MIL-N-23228 Cond. A UNS N06600 (Plate), MIL-N-23229 Cond. A UNS
N06600 (Bar)
Austenitic Precipitation-
Hardenable
(Alloys 718 and X-750)
ASTM
A 637 Grade 688 Type 2 (Bar or Forging)
AMS
5662 UNS N07718 (Bar), 5667 UNS N07750 (Bar)
ASME
SA/SB-637 Grade 718 (Bar), SB-637 UNS N07750 (Bar)
Other
Vendor Proprietary Specifications Alloy X-750 HTH (Bar)
Cobalt-Base Alloys
CoCrW
(Stellite #6)
ASTM
A 399 Class RCoCr-A (Hardfacing)
1
ASTM: American Society for Testing and Materials; ASME: American Society of Mechanical Engineers
(Boiler & Pressure Vessel Code, Section II); AISI: American Iron and Steel Institute; AMS: Aerospace
Materials Specification (Society of Automotive Engineers International); Military: Federal Military
Specifications
EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material

Introduction
1-12
1.5 Report Structure
A general overview description of the various age-related degradation mechanisms, observable
thresholds, and the suggested screening criteria for each is contained in the Appendices. Chapter
2 provides a roadmap for tying aging effects to age-related degradation mechanisms and
summarizes the thresholds and screening criteria developed in the Appendices, including discrete
screening tables for each mechanism and material combination. Chapter 3 provides a summary
listing of the screening criteria parameters and suggestions for their compilation and tabulation.
In addition, Chapter 3 also provides an example screening template. Included in Chapter 3 is a
simplified screening criteria table for use in performing the initial screening process.
1.6 References
1-1 Materials Reliability Program: Framework and Strategies for Managing Aging Effects in
PWR Reactor Vessel Internals (MRP-134), EPRI 1008203, 2005.
1-2 Materials Reliability Program: Inspection and Flaw Evaluation Strategies for Managing
Aging Effects in PWR Internals (MRP-153), EPRI 1012082, 2005.
1-3 Materials Reliability Program: Development of Material Constitutive Model for
Irradiated Austenitic Stainless Steels (MRP-135), EPRI 1011127, 2004.
1-4 NEI Document NEING0620033926, NEI 03-08, Guideline for the Management of
Materials Issues, May 2003.
1-5 Materials Degradation Matrix, Enclosure to NEI Letter from M.S. Fertel to Chief
Nuclear Officers, November 2, 2004.
1-6 Pressurized Water Reactor Issue Management Table, PWR-IMT Consequence of Failure
(MRP-156), EPRI 1012110, 2005.


EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material
2-1
2
SCREENING FOR AGE-RELATED DEGRADATION
The age-related degradation mechanisms described in Chapter 1 and discussed in detail in the
Appendices may lead to aging effects that could result in a loss of function or loss of structural
integrity of the PWR internals. Whether or not the age-related degradation mechanisms are
active depends on the material type and composition, manufacturing process, product form,
operational environment (i.e., neutron fluence, neutron flux, temperature, and water chemistry),
stress (operating and residual), etc. It then follows that the possibility of each mechanism must
be established using specific and quantifiable screening criteria (to the extent possible). Tables 2-
1 through 2-8 summarize the age-related degradation mechanism screening criteria developed in
the Appendices that are suggested for use by the RI-ITG for evaluating PWR internals
component items. The screening criteria are intended to be indicators of the level of degradation
that, degradation below the screening criteria, may clearly be tolerated without compromise of
the component functionality. Component items initially screened in by the screening criteria
require additional evaluation for proper categorization, as described in MRP-134.
[2-1]
Follow-on
evaluations, possibly including an assessment of functionality, will be performed.
The license renewal application process involves screening of component items for potential
significance of aging effects, and this has been recommended by the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) in the Generic Aging Lessons Learned (GALL) report.
[2-2]
The aging effects
that must be considered can be categorized for discussion into the following broad general
groups: (1) cracking (initiation and growth); (2) reduction of fracture toughness; (3) loss of
material; (4) change in dimension (including mechanical deformation, distortion, and/or
ratcheting); and (5) loss of mechanical closure integrity for bolted connections. The following
sections identify each of these and list suggested data to be tabulated in order to evaluate each of
the potential age-related degradation mechanisms.
2.1 Cracking
Age-related degradation mechanisms that may lead to cracking of the PWR internals items
include IASCC, PWSCC/LTCP, and fatigue. Cracking due to SCC is not expected to be a
significant aging mechanism for the PWR internals because of the rigorousness of the reactor
coolant chemistry controls, as required by plant Technical Specifications. However, some
component items (such as crimped locking devices and weld heat-affected zones) will initially be
screened in due to potentially high cold-work or weld shrinkage strains and possibly evaluated
for functionality concerns.
Examples of concern for cracking as a result of IASCC are the austenitic stainless steel alloy
component items (plates, bolts and welds) that will experience high fluence exposures due to
EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material

Screening for Age-Related Degradation
2-2
their proximity to the core. Cracking concerns from PWSCC/LTCP exist with the nickel-base
materials used in the PWR internals.
Environmental effects on fatigue are also one of the cracking concerns for license renewal.
The currently identified potential materials and age-related degradation mechanisms of concern
for cracking are addressed separately as follows:
SCC (Table 2-1)
Wrought austenitic stainless steels
Component items having high stress (operating and residual) and high cold-work from
fabrication (bending or grinding) or welded locations with potentially high heat-affected
zone (HAZ) weld shrinkage strains will be screened in as potentially susceptible to SCC.
Austenitic stainless steel welds
Highly stressed (operating and residual) and low ferrite welds will be screened in as
potentially susceptible to SCC. Long-term thermal aging embrittlement may also lead to
an SCC concern (Table 2-4).
Martensitic stainless steels and martensitic PH stainless steels
Component items having high stress (operating and residual) will be screened in as
rendering these materials potentially susceptible to SCC. Long-term thermal aging
embrittlement may also lead to an SCC concern (Table 2-4).
Austenitic PH stainless steels
Component items having high stress (operating and residual) and surface cold-work will
be screened in as rendering these materials potentially susceptible to SCC. In particular,
bolts fabricated with hot-heading or shot-peened in the head-to-shank area that meet the
stress criterion are to be evaluated for potential SCC susceptibility.
Cast Austenitic Stainless Steel (CASS)
Component items having high stress (operating and residual) and low ferrite contents will
be screened in as contributors to SCC susceptibility by analogy with austenitic stainless
steel welds. Long-term thermal aging embrittlement may also be a concern because the
effects of long-term aging on SCC resistance are unknown. However, thermal aging
embrittlement is a concern only for CASS materials that exceed the criteria in Table 2-4.
EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material

Screening for Age-Related Degradation
2-3
Table 2-1
Stress Corrosion Cracking Screening Criteria for PWR Internals Materials
Material
a
Parameter
b,c
Value
Austenitic Stainless
Steels
Stress
and
Material
> 30 ksi (207 MPa)
and
Cold-work >20% or Welded Locations
d

Austenitic Stainless
Steel Welds
e
Stress
and
Material
> 30 ksi (207 MPa)
and
Ferrite < 5%
Martensitic Stainless
Steels
f Stress > 88 ksi (607 MPa)
Martensitic PH
Stainless Steels
f Stress > 88 ksi (607 MPa)
Stress
and
Material
> 70 ksi (483 MPa)
and
Surface cold-work
Austenitic PH Stainless
Steels
Hot-headed or shot-peened bolting that meet the stress criterion are to be
evaluated for SCC.
CASS
e
Stress
and
Material
g
> 35 ksi (241 MPa)
and
Ferrite<5%
Austenitic Ni-base
Alloys
h

Stress > 30 ksi (207 MPa)
Austenitic Ni-base
Welds
h

Stress > 35 ksi (241 MPa)
Stress
i
> 100 ksi (689 MPa) Austenitic PH Ni-base
(Alloy X-750)
AH and BH condition considered more susceptible than HTH condition.
Austenitic PH Ni-base
(Alloy 718)
Stress
i
> 130 ksi (896 MPa)
Co-base Alloys Alloys not susceptible in PWR internals locations.
Notes:
a. The specific alloys applicable to these material categories are provided in Section 1 (Table 1-1) of this report.
Unless noted there is no quantifiable difference in screening values among low carbon (L-grades), cold-worked,
or solution-annealed materials.
b. Fluence or flux dependencies are accounted for in the IASCC table (Table 2-2).
c. Synergistic effects of identified stress and material are requirements where noted. Temperature of PWR internals
is sufficient, so no screening value is necessary. Stress is defined as peak stress, whether for an item (e.g.,
plate, pin, flange, etc.) or bolt.
d. Multi-pass full-penetration, partial-penetration, or fillet joint types are of concern due to potentially high weld
shrinkage strains in the heat-affected zone. Small weld joint types such as tack or plug welds are excluded.
e. A potential concern exists that SCC could affect austenitic stainless steel welds and CASS materials that meet or
exceed both the stress criterion and the thermal aging embrittlement criteria (Table 2-4).
f. Martensitic stainless steels not subject to gamma heating with tempers > 1125F (607C) and martensitic PH
stainless steels not subject to gamma heating with tempers > 1100F (593C) generally are not considered
susceptible to SCC. However, a potential concern exists that SCC could affect locations even where the
tempering temperature was above these values primarily because of the very slow kinetics of the thermal aging
embrittlement mechanism (Table 2-4), which could take several tens of years for embrittlement to become
significant, and its sensitivity to temperature in the range applicable to PWR internals.
g. Ferrite value chosen by analogy with austenitic stainless steel welds.
h. Specifically Alloys 600, 182 and 82.
i. Surface condition is critical to SCC susceptibility.
EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material

Screening for Age-Related Degradation
2-4
Austenitic Ni-base alloys
Component items having high stress (operating and residual) will be screened in as
potential contributors to PWSCC, particularly items where the annealing temperatures
were insufficient to ensure carbide precipitation on the grain boundaries.
Austenitic PH Ni-base alloys
Component items having high stress (operating and residual) will be screened in as
rendering these materials potentially susceptible to SCC.
IASCC (Table 2-2)
All applicable alloys
For component items beyond a lower limit screening dose of 3 dpa (2.0 X 10
21
n/cm
2
, E >
1.0 MeV), IASCC is a potential age-related degradation mechanism. Screening depends
on stress (operating and residual) level and expected dose (Appendix B, Figure B-3).
Table 2-2
Irradiation-Assisted Stress Corrosion Cracking Screening Criteria for PWR Internals
Materials
Material
a
Parameter
b
Value
c
See SCC criteria (Table 2-1)
[IASCC not considered applicable.]
and
< 2.0 X 10
21
n/cm
2
(E > 1.0 MeV) [ < 3
dpa]
> 89 ksi (616 MPa)
and
2.0 X 10
21
n/cm
2
(E > 1.0 MeV) [3 dpa]
> 62 ksi (425 MPa)
and
6.7 X 10
21
n/cm
2
(E > 1.0 MeV) [10 dpa]
> 46 ksi (315 MPa)
and
1.3 X 10
22
n/cm
2
(E > 1.0 MeV) [20 dpa]
All Alloys
Stress
and
Dose
> 30 ksi (205 MPa)
and
2.7 X 10
22
n/cm
2
(E > 1.0 MeV) [40 dpa]
Notes:
a. The specific applicable alloys are provided in Section 1 (Table 1-1) of this report. In general, only austenitic
stainless steel wrought materials and welds will receive sufficient doses for screening consideration. Unless
noted there is no quantifiable difference in screening values among low carbon (L-grades), cold-worked, or
solution-annealed materials.
b. Stress is defined as peak stress, whether for an item (e.g., plate, pin, flange, etc.) or bolt.
c. Example stress and dose values provided in table are from Appendix B, Figure B-3; values for other stresses
and doses can be obtained from this figure.
EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material

Screening for Age-Related Degradation
2-5

Fatigue (Table 2-3)
All applicable alloys
Currently, the industry has no clearly defined criteria, but a cumulative usage factor > 0.1
(calculated at the end of the original 40-year license) is suggested for screening
component items at this time. In some instances, fatigue was qualified through testing,
and these component items should initially be screened in for potential fatigue concerns
and evaluated further (e.g., for functionality). In addition, all bolted or spring items for
which SR/IC is screened as applicable may also be susceptible to fatigue and should be
screened in. In those cases of early plant designs for which fatigue analyses were not
performed, it may be necessary to invoke a process known as similitude using more
recent design analyses to estimate cumulative usage factors.
Table 2-3
Fatigue Screening Criteria for PWR Internals Materials
Criteria
Material
a

Parameter
b
Value
CUF
c
> 0.1
Bolted or spring items
Locations where SR/IC is screened as
applicable.
As material aging concerns with IE, SR/IC, etc. occur, LCF and/or HCF
may become an issue.
All Alloys
In some instances fatigue life was alternatively qualified through testing.
These component items should be initially screened in for potential
fatigue concerns and evaluated.
Notes:
a. The specific applicable alloys are provided in Section 1 (Table 1-1) of this report. Unless noted there is no
quantifiable difference in screening values among low carbon (L-grades), cold-worked, or solution-annealed
materials.
b. Fluence or flux dependencies are accounted for in the SR/IC table (Table 2-7).
c. Cumulative Usage Factor (CUF) is to be calculated at the end of original plant license (i.e., 40 years).
2.2 Reduction of Fracture Toughness
Age-related degradation mechanisms that may lead to a reduction of fracture toughness of the
PWR internals materials include thermal aging embrittlement (TE), irradiation embrittlement
(IE), and void swelling (VS). A consequence of reduced fracture toughness is a reduction in a
materials critical crack size. Aging management of items with reduced fracture toughness need to
rely upon observations of flaw length and the magnitude of stress/loading. Of particular concern
would be a case of VS exceeding approximately 10% where the material would be exceptionally
brittle after the reactor has cooled down and the material temperature is below about 392F
EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material

Screening for Age-Related Degradation
2-6
(200C). The currently identified potential materials and age-related degradation mechanisms of
concern for reduction of fracture toughness are addressed separately as follows:
TE (Table 2-4)
Only CASS, austenitic SS welds, martensitic SS, and martensitic PH SS materials are
potentially susceptible to TE.
CASS
Criteria for CASS materials are based on the type of casting (centrifugal vs. static), ferrite
content, and molybdenum content (for static castings only). Some CASS locations will be
screened in for further evaluation of a potential synergistic effect of flux or fluence on TE
proposed by the NRC based on the irradiation embrittlement screening criteria (Table 2-
5).
Austenitic SS welds
Criteria for austenitic SS welds are based on static CASS castings, due to similarity in
composition, and ferrite and molybdenum contents. Due to the range of procurement
specification ferrite contents (5-15 %) in the American Society of Mechanical Engineers
(ASME) Boiler and Pressure Vessel (B&PV) Code, austenitic stainless steel welds will
generally not be screened in as susceptible to thermal aging embrittlement. However,
some austenitic SS weld locations will be screened in for further evaluation of a potential
synergistic effect of flux or fluence on TE proposed by the NRC based on the irradiation
embrittlement screening criteria (Table 2-5).
Martensitic SS and martensitic PH SS
All martensitic SS and martensitic PH SS component items are considered potentially
susceptible to TE.
Table 2-4
Thermal Aging Embrittlement Screening Criteria for PWR Internals Materials
Criteria
Material
a,b

Parameter Value
Austenitic SS
Austenitic PH SS
Austenitic Ni-Base Alloys
Austenitic PH Ni-Base Alloys
Co-Base Alloys
TE is not applicable to these materials.
CASS
(Centrifugal Castings)
Ferrite > 20%
CASS
(Static Castings)
Molybdenum
and
Ferrite
< 0.50%
and
> 20%
EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material

Screening for Age-Related Degradation
2-7
Molybdenum
and
Ferrite
> 0.50%
and
> 14%
Molybdenum
and
Ferrite
< 0.50%
and
> 20%
Molybdenum
and
Ferrite
> 0.50%
and
> 14%
Austenitic SS Welds
c
TE is not anticipated as an issue due to
ASME Code procurement requirements for
low levels of ferrite (5-15%) and low Mo
levels.
Martensitic SS
d All component items considered susceptible
to TE.
Martensitic PH SS
d

All component items considered susceptible
to TE.
Notes:
a. The specific alloys applicable to these material categories are provided in Section 1 (Table 1-1) of this report.
Unless noted there is no quantifiable difference in screening values among low carbon (L-grades), cold-worked,
or solution-annealed materials.
b. Increased susceptibility to SCC expected due to TE of all susceptible materials. Also, see Table 2-1, note e.
c. The same criteria suggested for static castings have been applied to austenitic stainless steel welds.
d. Temperature of PWR internals is sufficient, so no screening value is necessary, particularly those locations
subject to significant gamma heating.

IE (Table 2-5)
IE is only relevant to materials that are used in relatively high fluence locations (e.g., austenitic
SS, austenitic SS welds, and CASS). If other materials are used in a location that exceeds the
austenitic stainless steel criterion, they also are considered potentially susceptible to IE.
Austenitic SS
Component items that achieve dose levels > 1.5 dpa (1.0 X 10
21
n/cm
2
, E > 1.0 MeV) will
be screened in for potential concern with IE.
Austenitic SS welds and CASS
Component items that achieve dose levels > 1 dpa (6.7 X 10
20
n/cm
2
, E > 1.0 MeV) will
be screened in for potential concern with IE. This lower value accounts for the large
initial variability in fracture toughness for these materials and potential synergistic effects
with thermal aging embrittlement.
EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material

Screening for Age-Related Degradation
2-8
Table 2-5
Irradiation Embrittlement Screening Criteria for PWR Internals Materials
Criteria
Material
a

Parameter

Value
Austenitic PH SS
Austenitic Ni-Base Alloys
Austenitic PH Ni-Base Alloys
Martensitic SS
Martensitic PH SS
Co-Base Alloys
These materials are used in relatively low fluence locations;
therefore, IE is not an applicable age-related degradation mechanism
for component items fabricated with these alloys.
b
Austenitic SS

Dose
> 1 X 10
21
n/cm
2
(E > 1.0 MeV)
[ > 1.5 dpa]
Dose
> 6.7 X 10
20
n/cm
2
(E > 1.0 MeV)
[ > 1 dpa]
Austenitic SS Welds
CASS
Lower screening value used is to account for large initial fracture
toughness variability with these materials and possible synergistic
effect on thermal aging embrittlement.
Notes:
a. The specific alloys applicable to these material categories are provided in Section 1 (Table 1-1) of this report.
Unless noted there is no quantifiable difference in screening values among low carbon (L-grades), cold-worked,
or solution-annealed materials.
b. If one of these materials is used in a location that exceeds the dose criterion for austenitic stainless steel, the
same criterion would apply for screening.

VS (Table 2-6)
Only austenitic SS and austenitic SS welds are typically used in locations where the combined
screening criteria for dose and temperature will be exceeded. If other materials are used in
locations that exceed the criteria, they also are potentially susceptible to VS.
Austenitic SS and welds
Component items that achieve temperatures > 608F (320C) and > 20 dpa (1.3 X 10
22

n/cm
2
, E > 1.0 MeV) will be screened in for potential concern with VS. Follow-on
functionality evaluations may be needed.
EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material

Screening for Age-Related Degradation
2-9
Table 2-6
Void Swelling Screening Criteria for PWR Internals Materials
Criteria
Material
a

Parameter Value
CASS
Austenitic PH SS
Austenitic Ni-Base Alloys
Austenitic PH Ni-Base Alloys
Martensitic SS
Martensitic PH SS
Co-Base Alloys
These materials are used in relatively lower temperature and
fluence locations; therefore, VS is not an applicable age-related
degradation mechanism for component items fabricated with these
alloys.
b
Austenitic SS
Austenitic SS Welds
Temperature

and

Dose
> 608F (320C)

and

> 1.3 X 10
22
n/cm
2
(E > 1.0 MeV)
[ > 20 dpa]
Notes:
a. The specific alloys applicable to these material categories are provided in Section 1 (Table 1-1) of this report.
Unless noted there is no quantifiable difference in screening values among low carbon (L-grades), cold-worked,
or solution-annealed materials.
b. If one of these materials is used in a location that exceeds the dose criterion for austenitic stainless steel, the
same criterion would apply for screening.
2.3 Loss of Mechanical Closure Integrity
Loss of mechanical closure integrity may result from stress relaxation / irradiation creep (SR/IC)
of those component items (i.e., bolting or springs) where maintaining a preload is important to
the structural integrity function of the PWR internals. Neutron fluence, temperature and the
degree of preloading are the key parameters. Thus the identified potential materials and age-
related degradation mechanisms of concern for loss of mechanical closure integrity are:
SR/IC (Table 2-7)
All applicable alloys used for bolts or springs
Thermal SR is a concern with all bolts or springs, particularly those that require
maintaining a preload for functionality. Irradiation-enhanced SR/IC is a concern with all
bolted or spring locations that achieve dose levels > 0.2 dpa (1.3 X 10
20
n/cm
2
, E > 1.0
MeV).
EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material

Screening for Age-Related Degradation
2-10
Table 2-7
Thermal and Irradiation-Enhanced Stress Relaxation and Creep Screening Criteria for PWR
Internals Materials
Criteria Material
a

Parameter Value
Thermal SR
Bolts or springs All locations

All Alloys
Applies to component items that require preload for functionality.
Irradiation-Enhanced SR and IC
Dose > 1.3 X 10
20
n/cm
2
(E > 1.0 MeV)
[> 0.2 dpa]
All Alloys

Applies to all bolted or spring locations. Complex interactions when
VS occurs.
Notes:
a. The specific applicable alloys are provided in Section 1 (Table 1-1) of this report. Unless noted there is no
quantifiable difference in screening values among low carbon (L-grades), cold-worked, or solution-annealed
materials.
2.4 Loss of Material
The only known aging degradation mechanism that results in significant loss of material is wear
due to mechanical abrasion in circumstances where items are physically in contact and able to
move in relation to each other, either by design or due to flow-induced vibration or loss of
preload. Plant operating conditions usually determine the severity of wear. Loss of material due
to wear is not considered a potential aging effect for bolted items provided the bolts continue to
maintain sufficient preload, as discussed in Appendix C, or do not sever as a result of cracking.
Therefore, the identified potential materials and age-related degradation mechanism of concern
for loss of material is:
Wear (Table 2-8)
All applicable alloys
Wear is influenced by a number of parameters and no clear screening values exist.
Screening is performed by evaluating locations where relative motion may occur, where
clamping force is required, and with bolted or spring locations where SR/IC is screened
as applicable.
EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material

Screening for Age-Related Degradation
2-11
Table 2-8
Wear Screening Criteria for PWR Internals Materials
Criteria
Material
a
Parameter
b
Value
Locations where this may occur between
component items.
Relative motion
Example: control rod guide tubes.
Locations where this is required.
Clamping force
Example: mating ledge between internals and RV.
Locations where SR/IC is screened as applicable.
All Alloys
Bolted or spring items
Example: baffle-to-former bolts.
Notes:
a. The specific applicable alloys are provided in Section 1 (Table 1-1) of this report. Unless noted there is no
quantifiable difference in screening values among low carbon (L-grades), cold-worked, or solution-annealed
materials.
b. Fluence or flux dependencies are accounted for in the SR/IC table (Table 2-7).
2.5 Changes in Dimension
Changes in dimension due to VS could lead to loss of component function if the required
clearances of the PWR internals items cannot be maintained for: 1) the orientation, guidance, and
protection of the control element assemblies, 2) distribution of the reactor coolant flow to the
reactor core, or 3) support, guidance, and protection of the in-vessel core instrumentation.
Differential VS could also introduce stresses in bolted joints that could lead to other
complications such as IASCC. If VS does occur in the PWR internals, it is most likely to be a
localized phenomenon in regions of peak temperature and neutron fluence. If sufficient amounts
of VS were to occur during the period of extended operation, the dimensional changes would
need to be managed. The currently identified potential materials and age-related degradation
mechanism of concern for change in dimension are as follows:
VS (Table 2-6)
Only austenitic SS and austenitic SS welds are typically used in locations where the
combined screening criteria for dose and temperature will be exceeded. If other materials are
used in locations that exceed the criteria, they also are potentially susceptible to VS.
EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material

Screening for Age-Related Degradation
2-12
Austenitic SS and austenitic SS welds
Component items that achieve temperatures > 608F (320C) and > 20 dpa (1.3 X 10
22

n/cm
2
, E > 1.0 MeV) will be screened in for potential concern with VS.
2.6 References
2-1 Materials Reliability Program: Framework and Strategies for Managing Aging Effects in
PWR Reactor Vessel Internals (MRP-134), EPRI 1008203, 2005.
2-2 Generic Aging Lessons Learned (GALL) Report, NUREG-1801, Rev. 1, Vol. 1, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, September 2005.


EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material
3-1
3
COMPILING SCREENING PARAMETERS AND SAMPLE
TEMPLATE
3.1 Screening and Categorization for Significance
A key aspect of the aging management strategy using periodic inspections is to identify the PWR
internals component items of greatest significance due to the effects of age-related degradation.
For the screening and categorization for significance, aging susceptibility factors are examined to
identify those conditions that could contribute to the effects listed in Chapter 2: (1) cracking, (2)
reduction of fracture toughness, (3) loss of mechanical closure integrity, (4) loss of material, and
(5) changes in dimension.
A prioritization of the significance of age-related degradation in PWR internals was provided in
MRP-134
[3-1]
for the screening process such that the significance is a combination of the
susceptibility to aging and potential for loss of function because of materials degradation. This
process is exemplified by the equation below.
Material *
e Temperatur *
Stress *
Results Fluence *
Assessment ity Functional Factors lity Susceptibi
x ce Significan
n Degradatio Materials With
Function of Loss for Potential
Factors lity Susceptibi on
Based Aging for Potential

As described in MRP-134, component items are to be placed into four categories: (1) Category
A, (2) Category B, (3) Category B, or (4) Category C. A component item is designated as
Category A if it can be shown to initially be below a screening limit for susceptibility or if the
age-related degradation has been shown to be insignificant through a functionality assessment. A
component item may be designated as Category B or Category B' if a functionality assessment
shows the component to be flaw tolerant with no loss of function. The remaining component
items with high significance are designated as Category C.
EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material

Compiling Screening Parameters and Sample Template
3-2
3.2 Screening Parameters for Age-Related Degradation
This section provides a listing of screening parameters for determining the potential significance
of age-related degradation effects on PWR internals component items. The use of a screening
matrix to screen out component items for which age-related degradation effects are not
significant was first proposed in the PWR License Renewal Industry Report for Vessel
Internals.
[3-2]
More recently, as the result of experience gained during the license renewal
application review process, screening of component items for potential significance of aging
effects is the accepted methodology given in the Generic Aging Lessons Learned (GALL)
report.
[3-3]

Based on the criteria established in the Appendices and Chapter 2, the following parameters
should be compiled prior to performing the screening and categorization of PWR internals (as
detailed in MRP-134):
Material
Dose (Neutron Exposure)
Cold-Work
Multi-Pass Welds
Ferrite Content (where applicable, including Molybdenum Content for CASS Static
Castings)
Applied Stress (Operating and Residual)
Operating Temperature (including Gamma Heating)
Tempering Temperature (where applicable)
Wear Potential
Fatigue Usage Factor
Table 3-1 provides an example of a screening template with the parameters listed for determining
the potential significance of age-related degradation effects on PWR internals component items.
A discussion of each of these is provided in the sections below.
3.2.1 Material
The materials of construction for PWR internals have recently been summarized by an MTAG
Ad-Hoc Committee, consisting of vendor and utility representatives.
[3-4]
This effort generically
provides a summary of PWR internals component items and materials for initial screening and
categorization. In some instances, plant-specific variations or material alternatives will exist; if
the information is readily available, it should be included.
EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material

Compiling Screening Parameters and Sample Template
3-3
Table 3-1
Example Tabulation of Screening Parameters

Item Material Spec.
Type,
Grade, or
Class
Product Form
Max.
Operating
Temp., F
Max. Fluence,
n/cm
2
, >1.0 MeV
Operating
Stress,
ksi
Cold-
Work
Multi-
Pass
Weld
CUF
@40
year
Wear
Potential
Lower Grid Assembly-
to-Core Barrel Bolts
Austenitic PH Ni-
base
(Alloy X-750)
--- HTH Bar
570 2-4 X 10
20

Peak=130
nom = 50
No No 0.4 Yes
Baffle-to-Baffle Bolts
Austenitic
SS
A 193 Grade B8
Rolled or
Forged Bar
555-620
0.2 60 X 10
21

Peak=50
nom = 30
No No 0.6 Yes
Former Plates
Austenitic
SS
A 240 Type 304 Plate
560-640 2-8 X 10
22
<10 No No <0.01 Yes
Locking Pins
Austenitic
SS
AISI Type 304 Bar
555-610
0.2 60 X 10
21
<5 No No <0.01 No
Spiders
(Ferrite 8-28%, Mo
unknown)
CASS A 351 Grade CF8
Static
Casting
555
< 1 X 10
18
<5 No Yes 0.03 Yes
Thermal Shield
Cylinders
Austenitic
SS
A 240 Type 304 Plate
555-610 2-9 X 10
21
<5 No Yes <0.01 No
Thermal Shield
Restraint Hardfacing
Co-base
(Stellite #6)
A 399-
56T
Class
RCoCr-A
Hardfacing
590 9 X 10
20
<5 No No <0.01 No
Retaining Ring
(Tempering Temp.
1100F)
Martensitic SS
AMS
5658
Type 15-5
PH
Forging
600 < 1 X 10
18
<20 No No <0.1 Yes
Notes:
1. Values listed are for 60 years (unless noted).
2. Table values are fictitious and not directly applicable to any design.
3. Shading indicates parameter exceeds screening criterion for one or more age-related degradation mechanisms.

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material

Compiling Screening Parameters and Sample Template
3-4
The suggested information to be compiled for each component item follows:
Material System
The materials used in PWR internals (as provided in Chapter 1) include: Austenitic stainless
steels, CASS, austenitic stainless steel welds, martensitic stainless steels, martensitic PH
stainless steels, austenitic nickel-base alloys, austenitic PH nickel-base alloys, and cobalt-
base alloys.
Material Specification
Specifications used in PWR internals include: ASTM, ASME, AMS, Mil-spec., etc.
Type, Grade, or Class
The various alloys used in PWR internals include examples such as: Type 304, Grade B8,
Type 17-4PH, Class RCoCr-A (Stellite #6), etc.
Product Form
The product forms used in PWR internals include: Bars, plates, forgings, etc.
3.2.2 Dose (Neutron Exposure)
Accumulated dose (neutron exposure) for PWR internals component items will be compiled.
Component items well removed from the core, where it is known that the accumulated dose will
be below the screening criteria, should be noted as such. The range of estimated fluence values
(resulting from best estimate fluence calculations) for each component item (through thickness or
along the length) should be summarized. The peak surface fluence value, and the fluence value at
the peak surface temperature and peak through thickness temperature locations for each of these
component items will eventually be identified. It is understood that dose rate varies both within
an operating cycle due to fuel burn-up and from cycle-to-cycle according to core design and
power generation requirements. Initial screening should be performed on the best available
values. Should additional calculations be needed to refine the dose estimates, these should be
performed during the follow-on functionality evaluation efforts. Dose estimates calculated for 32
EFPYs (effective full power years), representing 40 calendar years of operation, should be
linearly extrapolated to 60 calendar years of operation.
Dose should be provided in units of n/cm
2
(E > 1.0 MeV) and/or dpa, as the screening criteria are
expressed in both of these units. (Note that 10
22
n/cm
2
, E > 1.0 MeV is approximately equivalent
to 15 dpa for a PWR internals neutron spectrum.) Dose, in units of n/cm
2
(E > 0.1 MeV), may
also be needed for future functionality evaluations as lower energy levels are more relevant for
some age-related degradation mechanisms.
EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material

Compiling Screening Parameters and Sample Template
3-5
3.2.3 Cold-Work
Manufacturing records and practices, to the extent that these are recoverable, should be reviewed
to determine locations that may have been cold-worked during fabrication. Alternatively, this
information may be available through expert knowledge. Cold-work (giving rise to an elevation
of material yield strength) results from a number of things, including procurement in the cold-
worked condition (e.g., cold-worked bolting), intentional grinding or bending during fabrication,
and shrinkage strains associated with welded component items. The screening criterion applies to
anything that creates the equivalent of > 20% cold-work in an austenitic stainless steel
component item or weld. For austenitic PH stainless steel (Alloy A-286) material, hot-heading of
bolts, which can create a HAZ between the head and shank, is another known adverse factor.
Shot-peened bolts that are preloaded to high stress levels, where a stress reversal of the
compressively stresses layer might occur, are also of concern. Component items that fall into
these categories should be regarded as having potentially high residual tensile stresses for the
screening process.
3.2.4 Multi-Pass Welds
Manufacturing records and drawings should be reviewed to determine locations where welding
would have been performed. Multi-pass full-penetration, partial-penetration, or fillet joint weld
type locations are of a similar concern (as high cold-work noted in the previous section) due to
potentially high weld shrinkage strains in the HAZ. Small weld joint types such as tack or plug
welds are excluded. Weld shrinkage deformation and the resultant increase in yield strength due
to strain hardening, increase the residual stress that together with operational stresses could
potentially provide a driving force for crack initiation and growth. Therefore, all HAZs of
welded component items where high weld shrinkage strains are plausible should be compiled.
3.2.5 Ferrite and Molybdenum Content
The ferrite content of cast austenitic stainless steels and austenitic stainless steel welds is an
important parameter for screening of thermal aging embrittlement and perhaps stress corrosion
cracking. Ferrite contents (volume percentage) should be estimated based on known chemical
compositions, specifications, or taken from fabrication records where measured prior to service.
For example, ferrite contents required in ASME B&PV Code specifications for austenitic
stainless steel weld materials range from 5 to 15% and for cast austenitic stainless steels 15 to
25%.
For static castings, molybdenum content is also an important screening parameter that should be
tabulated. This, however, can only be found on component item-specific certified material test
reports (CMTRs). The recovery process for these records may hinder this tabulation. If this
information is not readily available for a particular component item and the remaining screening
criteria for the material is met, that component item should be screened in as potentially
susceptible to aging degradation.
EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material

Compiling Screening Parameters and Sample Template
3-6
3.2.6 Applied Stress
Applied stresses (normal operating and residual) acting on PWR internals component items are
typically very low; however some instances of high applied stresses do exist and must be
accounted for in the screening evaluation.
The total applied stresses of concern are tensile, and they will normally approach the yield
strength of the component item to be of concern. The total applied stress must not only consider
operating stresses, but residual stresses as well. Therefore, anytime a component item is cold-
worked (e.g., bent or straightened), the residual stress may, by definition, approach or exceed the
yield strength of the non-deformed material. Residual stress (in the heat-affected zone of a weld
from weld shrinkage, or from grinding, for example) must also be considered. In the case of
bolts, the area between the bolt head and shank represents a particular concern because the stress
concentration, which depends on the radius in this area, multiplies the local stress by several
times, resulting in a stress that may be well above the original as-recorded tensile yield strength.
Since operating stress values are most likely not calculated for every component item in the
PWR internals, engineering judgment and assumptions must be made from available stress
reports and fabrication knowledge. It is important that highly stressed component items be
screened in for further evaluation. Therefore, many component items can simply be compiled
with operational stresses listed as significantly below the criteria being evaluated (e.g., < 5 ksi, <
20 ksi, etc.) or simply less than the screening criterion. Residual stress should be indicated as
yes or no depending upon whether or not it has been welded, intentionally cold-worked
beyond the 20% criterion by being bent or ground, etc. during fabrication. For other locations,
such as bolts, both the peak stress due to the stress concentration factor and nominal shank stress
should be calculated or estimated and compiled.
3.2.7 Operating Temperature
Operating temperatures for the PWR internals component items need to be compiled. The range
of temperatures (resulting from best estimate, steady state calculations) for each component item
(through-thickness or along the length) should be summarized. Best estimate gamma heating
calculations, where applicable, should also be included with the operating temperature. It is
understood that temperature varies both within an operating fuel cycle and from cycle-to-cycle,
because gamma heating rates vary. Initial screening should be performed using best available
values. Should additional calculations be needed to refine the temperature estimates, this can be
performed during the follow-on functionality evaluation efforts.
3.2.8 Tempering Temperature
Knowledge of the tempering temperature is important for SCC screening of martensitic and
martensitic PH stainless steels. If this information is unavailable at this time, and the applied
stress meets the screening criterion, the component item should be screened in as potentially
susceptible to SCC.
EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material

Compiling Screening Parameters and Sample Template
3-7
3.2.9 Wear Potential
The parameters used in the criteria for wear are simply to identify three locations: 1) where
relative motion may occur between component items (e.g., control rod guide tubes), 2) where
clamping force is required for functionality (e.g., mating ledge between the internals and the
RV), and 3) bolts or springs where SR/IC is applicable (e.g., baffle-to-former bolts). Thus, the
wear index should be compiled as yes or no, depending on the above criteria.
3.2.10 Fatigue Usage Factor
Fatigue usage is typically evaluated by calculating a cumulative usage factor (CUF) for 40 years
of operation. The fatigue screening criterion utilizes this CUF value, which should be compiled.
Calculated CUF values will not be available for many locations, and engineering judgment and
assumptions must be made regarding an estimated CUF. Other locations may have been qualified
to 40 years of service by testing. In cases where a CUF or a reasonable estimate is unavailable, it
is suggested that the component item be initially screened in as potentially susceptible to fatigue
and evaluated further.
3.3 Initial Screening Process
The initial screening process, shown near the top of Figure 1-5, consists of using the screening
criteria to either screen in or screen out component items and age-related degradation
mechanisms. A simplified summary of the screening criteria developed in the Appendices and
tabulated in Chapter 2 is provided as Table 3-2 as a quick reference of the age-related
degradation mechanism screening criteria. Using Table 3-2, the initial screening process is to be
performed as follows:
A component item/degradation mechanism is screened in when the compiled parameter(s)
meet or exceed the screening criteria for the age-related degradation mechanism and
component item material being evaluated.
A component item/degradation mechanism is screened out when the compiled
parameters(s) do not meet the screening criteria for the age-related degradation mechanism
and component item material being evaluated.
Example component items where the age-related degradation mechanism screening criteria are
met or exceeded, therefore being screened in, are highlighted in Table 3-1. Using the
parameters in Table 3-1 and the screening criteria summarized in Table 3-2, a compilation of
component items and potential age-related degradation mechanisms can be prepared (e.g., in a
tabular form using an Excel spreadsheet). Table 3-3 is an example using the listed example
component items in Table 3-1. The yes signifies that a particular age-related degradation
mechanism has been screened in and a no signifies that a degradation mechanism has been
screened out. This process is performed for each component item in the PWR internals design
being evaluated.
EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material

Compiling Screening Parameters and Sample Template
3-8
Table 3-2
PWR Internals Age-Related Degradation Mechanism Screening Criteria
SCC IASCC Wear Fatigue
Thermal Aging
Embrittlement
Irradiation
Embrittlement
Void Swelling
Irradiation
Stress Relax.
and Creep
Austenitic stainless steel
(Types 304/304L,
316/316L, 321, 347, 348,
and Nitronic 60)
(stress 30 ksi and
cold-work
> 20%) or multi-pass
welds
Austenitic stainless steel
welds (Types 308/308L
and 316/316L)
stress 30 ksi and
ferrite < 5%
Martensitic stainless steel
(Types 403, 410, 431)
stress 88 ksi
Martensitic PH stainless
steels (Types 15-5PH and
17-4PH)
stress 88 ksi
Austenitic PH stainless
steels (Alloy A-286)
stress 70 ksi and
surface cold-work or
hot-headed or shot
peened bolts
CASS
(Types CF-8 and CF-3M)
stress 35 ksi and
ferrite < 5%
Austenitic Ni-base Alloys
(Alloy 600)
stress 30 ksi
Austenitic Ni-base Welds
(Alloys 182 and 82)
stress 35 ksi
Austenitic PH Ni-base
Alloys (Alloys 718 and X-
750)
stress 100 ksi (X-
750) or
130 ksi (718)
Co-base Alloys
(Stellite #6)
not susceptible in
internals locations
All alloys

For < 2E21
n/cm
2
, > 1MeV
[3 dpa], see
SCC criteria

For higher
fluence,
screening
stress (MPa) =
- 158.4 ln(dpa)
+789.65

All alloys

Relative motion
Example:
control rod
guide tubes

Or

Clamping force
Example:
mating ledge
between
internals and
RV

Or

Bolted or spring
items where
SR/IC is
applicable
Example:
baffle-to-former
bolts

All alloys

CUF 0.1
(@ 40-yrs)

Or

Bolted or spring
items where
SR/IC is
applicable
Example:
baffle-to-former
bolts

CASS &
Austenitic
Stainless Steel
Welds

Centrifugal
casting, >20%
ferrite

Or

Static
casting/SS
welds with
<0.50% Mo,
>20% ferrite;
with > 0.50%
Mo, >14%
ferrite

Or

3.3E20 n/cm
2
,
> 1MeV [0.5
dpa]
[to account for
potential
synergistic
effects]

Martensitic and
Martensitic PH
Stainless Steels

All locations
Austenitic
Stainless Steel

1.0E21 n/cm
2
,
E > 1.0 MeV
[1.5 dpa]



CASS &
Austenitic
Stainless Steel
Welds

> 6.7E20 n/cm
2
,
> 1MeV [1 dpa]

[Other alloys
exceeding
austenitic
stainless steel
criterion are to
be screened in
too.]
Austenitic
Stainless Steel
and Welds

Temperature
608F (320C)
and fluence
1.3E22 n/cm
2
,
E > 1.0 MeV
[20 dpa]

[Other alloys
exceeding the
criteria are to
be screened in
too.]
Thermal SR
only

Bolted or spring
locations
requiring
preload for
functionality

Irradiation-
enhanced
SR/IC

1.3E20 n/cm
2
,
> 1MeV [0.2
dpa]

Applies to all
bolted or spring
locations.

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material

Compiling Screening Parameters and Sample Template
3-9
Table 3-3
Example Template of Aging Degradation Screening
Component Assembly / Item Material
Type or Grade /
Class
SCC IASCC Wear Fatigue
Thermal
Aging
Embrittle
Irradiation
Embrittle
Void
Swelling
Irradiation
Stress
Relax. and
Creep
Lower Grid Assembly-to-Core Barrel
Bolts
Austenitic
PH Ni-base
X-750 HTH Yes No Yes Yes No No No Yes
Baffle-to-Baffle Bolts
Austenitic
SS
Grade B8 No Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes
Former Plates
Austenitic
SS
Type 304 No Yes Yes No No Yes Yes No
Locking Pins
Austenitic
SS
Type 304 No Yes No No No Yes Yes No
Spiders
(Ferrite 8-28%, Mo unknown)
CASS Grade CF8
Yes
(weld HAZ)
No Yes No Yes No No No
Thermal Shield Cylinders
Austenitic
SS
Type 304
Yes
(weld HAZ)
No No No No Yes No No
Thermal Shield Restraint Hardfacing
Co-base
(Stellite #6)
Class RCoCr-A No No No No No No No No
Retaining Ring
(Tempering Temp. 1100F)
Martensitic
SS
Type 15-5 PH No No Yes No Yes No No No
Notes:
1. Table screening identifications are fictitious and not directly applicable to any design.
2. Shading indicates age-related degradation mechanism will be screened in because the parameters listed in Table 3-1 exceed the
screening criteria.


EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material

Compiling Screening Parameters and Sample Template
3-10
3.4 References
3-1 PWR Reactor Pressure Vessel Internals License Renewal Industry Report; Revision 1,
EPRI TR-103838s, 1994.
3-2 Generic Aging Lessons Learned (GALL) Report, NUREG-1801, Rev. 1, Vol. 1, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, September 2005.
3-3 Materials Reliability Program: Framework and Strategies for Managing Aging Effects in
PWR Reactor Vessel Internals (MRP-134), EPRI 1008203, 2005.
3-4 Pressurized Water Reactor Issue Management Table, PWR-IMT Consequence of Failure
(MRP-156), EPRI 1012110, 2005.







EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material
A-1
A
APPENDIX A: STRESS CORROSION CRACKING
(EXCLUDING IRRADIATION EFFECTS)
A.1 General Description of Stress Corrosion Cracking
As shown in Figure A-1, stress corrosion cracking (SCC) occurs when the following
synergistic conditions are present: 1) a tensile stress (both applied and/or residual stresses), 2) a
corrosive environment, and 3) a susceptible material. SCC will not occur if any one of these
three factors is out of the range of susceptibility. SCC can occur either as intergranular stress
corrosion cracking (IGSCC) or as transgranular stress corrosion cracking (TGSCC), depending
upon the environment/material combination (Figure A-2). (Note: irradiation as it affects SCC,
known as irradiation-assisted SCC, is discussed separately in Appendix B.) Low temperature
crack propagation (LTCP) refers to the propagation of intergranular stress corrosion cracking
at low temperatures (~ 130-170F) due probably to the embrittlement by hydrogen of the grain
boundaries ahead of an advancing crack; however, no information currently exists in the open
literature describing such an effect in alloy systems other than for nickel-base materials.
PWR internals items that have exhibited IGSCC are highly-stressed Alloy A-286 fasteners and
Alloy X-750 support pins. The Alloy X-750 IGSCC failures though are generally described as
primary water stress corrosion cracking (PWSCC), which is a term traditionally used for
IGSCC of nickel-base materials in PWR primary coolant systems.
IGSCC is characterized by cracks propagating along the grain boundaries of the material. An
example of IGSCC is shown in Figure A-3. It is often not clear why an intergranular path is
preferred over a transgranular one. One clear example of IGSCC is associated with sensitized
stainless steel in oxygenated water. In this case, preferential grain boundary precipitation of
carbides in austenitic stainless steels and nickel-base alloys leads to a localized depletion of
chromium in the vicinity of the grain boundary, which oxidizes (or corrodes) more quickly
than the grains. Sensitization is generally caused by slow cooling from elevated temperatures.
(Typically, the elevated temperature is from welding or other processing.)
Grain boundary segregation of impurities such as phosphorus, sulfur, and silicon is another
metallurgical phenomenon that promotes IGSCC. In many other material-environment
conditions, the reason for IGSCC is unclear. Alloy X-750 is a classical example.
EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material

Appendix A: Stress Corrosion Cracking (Excluding Irradiation Effects)
A-2

Figure A-1
Synergistic Effects Required for Stress Corrosion in Metals




Figure A-2
Crack Paths Describing Stress Corrosion Cracking in Metals
Transgranular Cracking Intergranular Cracking
EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material

Appendix A: Stress Corrosion Cracking (Excluding Irradiation Effects)
A-3

Figure A-3
Example of Intergranular Stress Corrosion Cracking

TGSCC is characterized by cracks that propagate through (or across) the grains of the material.
Numerous metallurgical factors, such as crystal structure, grain size and shape, dislocation
density and geometry, and phase composition, affect TGSCC. A notable example is austenitic
stainless steels exposed to chlorides and oxygenated environments. However, TGSCC has been
reported as occurring in sensitized material in the total absence of chlorides and low oxygen
environments at temperatures above about 120C (248F).
[A-1]
Figure A-4 shows a typical
example of TGSCC.

Figure A-4
Example of Transgranular Stress Corrosion Cracking
Despite years of research and testing, many mechanisms of SCC are not well understood. This
is mainly due to the complex interplay of the metal, interface, and environmental properties. As
a result, different combinations of aqueous environments and stresses are seldom comparable
EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material

Appendix A: Stress Corrosion Cracking (Excluding Irradiation Effects)
A-4
and the most reliable information is usually obtained from empirical experiments. One of the
results of improvements in experimental data quality and sensitivity is the conclusion that SCC
immunity and thresholds probably only rarely exist, if at all. Threshold values for various
alloys and environments that were once widely accepted have almost all been discredited in
recent years.
The following subsections provide a summary of available information on SCC conditions for
each of the alloys listed in Table 1-1. However, a separate section on cobalt--base alloys is not
provided since these materials are not known to be susceptible to SCC in applications in PWR
internals.
A.1.1 Austenitic Stainless Steels
Austenitic stainless steels are generally susceptible to SCC in elevated temperature
environments where impurities such as halogens (e.g., chlorides and fluorides) and/or
dissolved oxygen are significant (see below). As noted above, it is well known that sensitized
austenitic stainless steels are very susceptible to IGSCC in various levels of chloride and
oxygen environments, or in thiosulfate environments. Copious literature papers and reviews
exist on the effects of these environmental impurities, some of which are referenced herein.
[A-2
A-7]

The review performed by Williams in 1957 may be viewed as one of the earliest definitive
descriptions of the conditions necessary for TGSCC.
[A-8]
The author performed this work in
support of the Navys use of austenitic stainless steels in heat transfer equipment. He noted that
IGSCC can be controlled by the use of low carbon versions of stainless steels and careful
control of its heat treatment to avoid sensitization.
In 1980, the Materials Technology Institute of the Chemical Process Industries issued a manual
summarizing the combined effects of oxygen and chloride content on SCC of austenitic
stainless steels at high temperatures. Figure A-5 shows the results from this effort.
[A-1]

Gordons 1980 literature review not only included Williams efforts, but also collected and
evaluated all chloride-oxygen stress corrosion cracking mechanisms of austenitic chromium-
nickel steels in high purity water at 482F (250C) to 662F (350C).
[A-9]
Gordon concluded
that the oxygen content is the critical parameter for SCC in high temperature water. He further
noted that chloride SCC of austenitic stainless steels will propagate transgranularly unless the
material is sensitized. In the latter case, the cracking will be either intergranular or mixed
mode. (The experience in boiling water reactor (BWR) piping systems indicates
overwhelmingly that cracking has been predominantly intergranular occurring in weld heat-
affected zones.)
EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material

Appendix A: Stress Corrosion Cracking (Excluding Irradiation Effects)
A-5
Figure A-5
Effect of Oxygen on Chloride SCC
[A-1]

Gordons relationship, Figure A-6, was reproduced and used by the original authors of the
EPRI primary water guidelines
[A-10]
to illustrate that normal PWR water chemistry conditions
(dissolved oxygen and chloride levels) are well below any known IGSCC or TGSCC concerns.
However, more recent data indicate that sensitized austenitic stainless steel material may be
susceptible to TGSCC at high temperatures in low oxygen environments (Figure A-7).
[A-1]

While current EPRI PWR water chemistry guidelines
[A-11]
continue to limit dissolved
impurities (chlorides, fluorides, sulfates, and oxygen) to very low levels, and IGSCC has not
been observed in a significant database of test environments using such levels, some concern,
EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material

Appendix A: Stress Corrosion Cracking (Excluding Irradiation Effects)
A-6
albeit apparently with very low probability, still exists with the long-term potential for IGSCC
or TGSCC of austenitic stainless steels in PWR internals. This is particularly true if the cold-
working exceeds the current ASME B&PV Code limits (see below).

Figure A-6
The Effects of Oxygen and Chloride on the SCC of 300 Series Stainless Steels in High
Temperature Water as Revealed by Slow Strain Rate Testing
[A-10]
EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material

Appendix A: Stress Corrosion Cracking (Excluding Irradiation Effects)
A-7
Figure A-7
Cracking of Sensitized 304 Stainless Steel in Water Without Chlorides
[A-1]

The stress needed to promote SCC is more subtle. The total applied stresses of concern are
tensile, and must approach the proportional limit of the material to be of concern. The total
EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material

Appendix A: Stress Corrosion Cracking (Excluding Irradiation Effects)
A-8
applied stress must not only consider operating stresses, but residual stresses as well.
Therefore, whenever a component item is cold-worked (e.g., bent or straightened), the residual
stress may, by definition, approach or exceed the yield strength of the non-deformed material.
Residual stress (in the heat-affected zone of a weld, weld shrinkage, or from grinding, for
example) must also be considered. Elevation in yield strength has been shown to have a strong
adverse effect on SCC resistance and growth rates in all water chemistries.
[A-12]
Another
complicating factor for consideration is the presence of a pit or other sharp notches. This
multiplies the residual stress by several times, resulting in a local stress potentially far in
excess of the originally specified tensile yield strength.
Very limited testing of low and medium (< approximately 20%) cold-worked austenitic SS in
environments simulating PWR reactor coolant has been reported in the open literature. The
limited data
[A-13]
indicate that low and medium cold-worked SS is satisfactory for PWR
internals service, but detailed data on long-term testing are not available. Data on highly
(approximately 20%) cold-worked material from another EPRI program
[A-14]
indicate that
IGSCC or TGSCC may be possible for such highly cold-worked material in PWR internals
environments (Figure A-8). Although the ASME B&PV Code prohibits the intentional use of >
20% cold-worked materials, there still exists much controversy in the industry regarding the
SCC potential of highly cold-worked materials in PWR environments. Recent work shows that
cracking of these cold-worked materials in the absence of oxygen in acceptable purity water is
observed either in CERT or crack growth experiments, never at constant load.
[A-15 A-19]

Furthermore, one of these papers by Tice, et al., showed that crack growth of semi-elliptical
cracks occurred on the surface at about the same rates as observed in compact tension (CT)
specimens but almost no growth occurred in the depth direction. This suggests that there is a
problem with lack of constraint in laboratory testing that probably leads to unintentional
dynamic loading that has little relevance to component items in service.
Multi-pass full-penetration, partial-penetration, or fillet joint weld type locations are of a
similar concern (as high cold-work noted in the previous section) due to potentially high weld
shrinkage strains in the HAZ. Small weld joint types such as tack or plug welds are excluded.
During welding, the magnitude of the residual stress or strain is mainly dominated by the
cooling rate after welding, the heat input during each pass and the order for multi-pass welding
layers, the binding force of the welded joint, etc. The cooling rate after welding is dominated
by the heat input, inter-pass temperature, and the temperature, thickness and thermal
conductivity of the base material. The heat input during each welding pass is determined by the
electric current, voltage, and torch travel speed. The binding force of the welding joint is
affected by the thickness and groove shape of the base metal. In addition, the residual stress of
the weld metal can be significantly affected by subsequent repair welding of the joint, if
required to be carried out. Weld shrinkage deformation and the resultant increase in yield
strength due to strain hardening, increase the residual stress that together with operational
stresses could potentially provide a driving force for IGSCC or TGSCC crack initiation and
growth.
EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material

Appendix A: Stress Corrosion Cracking (Excluding Irradiation Effects)
A-9

Figure A-8
Effect of Yield Strength and Martensite on the Stress Corrosion Crack Growth Rate on
Austenitic Stainless Steel in a Simulated PWR Environment
[A-14]

Also, in 1973, Regulatory Guide 1.44
[A-20]
was issued to describe acceptable methods of
controlling processing of austenitic stainless steels to avoid sensitization. The position in this
Regulatory Guide is that austenitic stainless steels (excluding low-carbon or stabilized grades)
subjected to sensitizing temperatures (800 to 1500F [427 to 816C]) during fabrication could
result in SCC. Many PWR internals were fabricated prior to issuance of this Regulatory Guide
and therefore may have been subjected to such sensitizing temperatures.
Therefore, although no SCC has been observed to date in PWR internals fabricated with
austenitic stainless steel, a remote potential exists for IGSCC or TGSCC of PWR internals
component items fabricated with austenitic stainless steels that may have been severely cold-
worked (e.g., >20%) as a result of localized deformation (from bending or grinding) or high
shrinkage strains in HAZs from welding that are highly stressed (levels greater than the room
temperature material yield strength).
A.1.2 Martensitic Stainless Steels
Martensitic stainless steels contain enough chromium (> 11%) to be corrosion resistant and
also have chemical compositions that make them hardenable by a martensitic transformation.
The most common type of martensitic stainless steels used in PWR internals contains about
12% chromium and about 0.1% carbon, and are identified as Type 403 or Type 410 stainless
EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material

Appendix A: Stress Corrosion Cracking (Excluding Irradiation Effects)
A-10
steel. Type 431 stainless steel, also used in PWR internals, contains slightly higher chromium
and some nickel to improve the corrosion resistance and toughness.
Martensitic stainless steels are widely used in Light Water Reactors (LWRs), in applications
such as turbine blades, bolting, valve stems and hardware, and pump shafts and hardware.
These alloys have performed satisfactorily in many of these applications. However, there have
been some failures, often related to use of material with improper heat treatment for the
application involved. The most common problem has been use of material with too low a
tempering temperature, with a resultant high hardness and relatively high susceptibility to
SCC. Another related problem has been temper embrittlement. This occurs due to tempering
in, or slow cooling through, the temperature range of about 750 - 1020F (399-549C), which
results in embrittlement and poor corrosion resistance. The exact cause(s) of the embrittlement
are not clear, and may involve precipitation of second phases or ordered phases.
[A-21]
Other
sequences of improper thermo-mechanical processing or heat treatment also apparently can
result in material meeting specified mechanical properties but nevertheless having poor
corrosion resistance and/or low ductility.
The SCC susceptibility of martensitic stainless steels (mainly Type 410) has been extensively
studied in various temper conditions.
[A-22 A-24]
Samples tempered between 1125F (607C) and
1350F (732C) for four hours minimum with subsequent hardness levels of HRC <26 show
resistance to SCC after exposure to elevated temperatures in high purity water. Thermal aging
embrittlement (Appendix E) however, is also capable of decreasing the resistance of
martensitic stainless steel alloys to SCC.
A.1.3 Martensitic Precipitation-Hardenable Stainless Steels
Type 17-4 PH materials have experienced SCC in BWRs where there is a higher oxygenated
environment in the coolant than in PWRs. Applications in valves (bolts and stems) have also
failed in PWRs. In a number of instances, failed Type 410 valve parts were replaced with Type
17-4 PH material.
[A-25]
Thermal aging embrittlement (Appendix E) however, is also capable of
decreasing the resistance of precipitation-hardenable alloys to SCC.
[A-13, A-26, A-27]

Studies have shown that if Type 17-4 PH is aged (tempered) to the H1100 condition, it will be
very resistant to SCC at high levels of applied stress.
[A-28 A-33]

Type 15-5 PH is a delta-ferrite-free compositional modification of Alloy 17-4 PH, containing
less chromium and slightly higher nickel. No known data have been identified in the open
literature on SCC resistance of Type 15-5 PH material in PWR environments. However, the
corrosion resistance of Type 17-4 PH material is comparable and therefore the SCC resistance
would be expected comparable too.
EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material

Appendix A: Stress Corrosion Cracking (Excluding Irradiation Effects)
A-11
A.1.4 Austenitic Precipitation-Hardenable Stainless Steels and Nickel-Base
Alloys
In 1983, McIlree
[A-34]
reviewed the experience in LWRs with Alloys X-750, 718, and A-286.
He identified a number of failures with these materials, and concluded that each is susceptible
to IGSCC when fabricated with certain heat treatments and loaded to high operational stresses.
He also concluded that with proper heat treatment and control of the overall stress on the
component item, these materials will show improved IGSCC resistance. Since then, a number
of SCC test programs have been carried out with these materials.
[A-35 A-37]

The most notable PWR internals component items to have experienced degradation are thermal
shield bolts and split pins. The thermal shield bolts were fabricated from Alloy A-286 material
and the split pins were fabricated from Alloy X-750 material. Both have experienced
degradation due to IGSCC in the high-stressed regions.
Laboratory tests have shown that Alloy A-286 materials, when processed by cold-working
prior to heat treatment (cold reduction of 40-50%) or by hot heading during bolt fabrication,
are more susceptible to IGSCC.
[A-38, A-39]
The most recent testing performed for the industry,
which includes both in-reactor and autoclave test data, show that peak stress levels below 70-
80% of room temperature yield strength perform well in PWR environments. Figure A-9
shows an empirical lower bound line drawn that approximates the threshold between cracking
and acceptable performance.
[A-39, A-40]

0
50
100
150
200
250
100 1,000 10,000 100,000 1,000,000
Time, hours
A
p
p
l
i
e
d

P
e
a
k

S
t
r
e
s
s
,

k
s
i
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
A
p
p
l
i
e
d

P
e
a
k

S
t
r
e
s
s
,

M
P
a
B&W Original RV Internals Bolts IBSP Bolts
Lower Bound RCP Cap Screws
Powell & Hall ASEA-ATOM BWR Chemistry

Figure A-9
Failure Trend Line for Alloy A-286 SCC
[A-39]

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material

Appendix A: Stress Corrosion Cracking (Excluding Irradiation Effects)
A-12
Alloy 718 materials have been reported to be susceptible to IGSCC with heat treatments that
produce delta and Laves phases.
[A-41 A-44]
However, work by P. Scott has shown this to be
erroneous, the observation of delta phase, in particular, being entirely dependent on the
magnification used in microscopy.
[A-45]
In addition, the presence of surface defects is known to
initiate cracking in PWR environments. When given a high temperature anneal (~2000F)
followed by a two-step aging treatment (~1324F and 1150F), significantly better IGSCC
growth resistance from pre-cracks is achieved. In general, use of this material in PWR
environments has been excellent, even at stresses significantly exceeding the nominal yield
strength. The extremely low failure rates that have been observed were shown to be associated
with surface defects. Thus careful attention to manufacturing detail is required to maintain
SCC resistance.
High temperature annealing (~2000F) followed by aging at about 1300F (the HTH condition)
improves the SCC resistance of Alloy X-750 in PWR environments.
[A-39, A-40, A-46]
Another
study performed by Framatome and Electricit de France (EDF) showed that the sensitivity of
Alloy X-750 to crack initiation was strongly dependent upon the surface condition and surface
oxide layers.
[A-47]
Hence, service endurance is as much, if not more, related to manufacturing
procedures as it is to heat treatment.
Test data show that for Alloy X-750 HTH condition material, peak stress levels up to two times
the room temperature yield strength performed well in PWR environments; however,
maintaining peak stresses below yield strength would seem to be a prudent practice for long-
term use. Figure A-10 shows an empirical lower bound line drawn that approximates the
threshold between cracking and acceptable performance.
[A-39, A-40]

30
50
70
90
110
130
150
100 1,000 10,000 100,000 1,000,000
Time, hours
A
p
p
l
i
e
d

N
o
m
i
n
a
l

S
t
r
e
s
s
,

k
s
i
207
307
407
507
607
707
807
907
1007
A
p
p
l
i
e
d

N
o
m
i
n
a
l

S
t
r
e
s
s
,

M
P
a
Berge
B&WOG IBSP Data (no IGSCC)
Hattori
Benhamou and Poitrenaud
Tsubota 1994
McIlree
Hattori Lower Bound Line

Figure A-10
Failure Trend Line for Alloy X-750 HTH SCC
[A-39
]
EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material

Appendix A: Stress Corrosion Cracking (Excluding Irradiation Effects)
A-13
As noted below in Section A.1.6, LTCP is an issue with the nickel-base materials. It is
particularly an issue with Alloy X-750, regardless of the heat treatment. In the AH and BH heat
treatment conditions, Alloy X-750 is very susceptible to LTCP. However, testing of Alloy X-
750 HTH material seems to show somewhat less LTCP susceptibility.
A.1.5 Cast Austenitic Stainless Steels
SCC resistance of CASS has been investigated for a very limited number of environments, heat
treatments, and test conditions. In general, SCC resistance tends to improve as the composition
is adjusted (e.g., lower nickel content) to provide greater amounts of ferrite in the austenitic
matrix. This trend appears to continue to approximately 50% ferrite (Figure A-11). At low and
medium stress levels, the ferrite tends to block the propagation of SCC (Figure A-12).
However, as the stress level increases, the preferred crack propagation mode may change from
IGSCC to TGSCC.
[A-48]


Figure A-11
Stress Required to Produce SCC in Several CASS Alloys with Varying Amounts of
Ferrite
[A-48]


EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material

Appendix A: Stress Corrosion Cracking (Excluding Irradiation Effects)
A-14

Figure A-12
Ferrite Pools Blocking the Propagation of SCC in a Cast Austenitic Stainless Steel
[A-48]

Under normal PWR conditions, CASS materials and welded CASS materials have shown
excellent resistance to SCC. Generally, the ferrite contents are > 5%. However, if very low
levels of ferrite are present in any CASS weld, because of the filler materials or weld
procedures used, those welds could be susceptible to SCC, as seen in BWR conditions.
[A-38]

Therefore, low ferrite (< 5%) CASS material or CASS welds that are highly stressed (levels
greater than the room temperature material yield strength) may be of concern for SCC.
Additionally, an unresolved issue with CASS materials is the potential for reduced SCC
resistance in the thermally aged condition (Appendix E).
A.1.6 Austenitic Nickel-Base Alloys
In general, austenitic nickel-base alloys are much more resistant to SCC in the presence of
impurities and oxygenated water than austenitic stainless steel. However, austenitic nickel-base
alloys are susceptible to SCC (i.e., PWSCC) when exposed to high-purity deaerated,
hydrogenated, water at elevated temperatures. Many studies of Alloy 600 in PWR
environments
[A-49 A-55]
show that PWSCC occurs when high tensile stress, high temperature,
and a susceptible microstructure are simultaneously present. All failures of Alloy 600
component items reported in the field resulted from high residual tensile stresses introduced
during fabrication. Other factors that may possibly influence susceptibility include the
hydrogen concentration and possibly high lithium concentration, although the latter is a very
weak effect within the permissible range in PWR primary water. Recent industry experience
indicates that Alloy 82 and Alloy 182 weld metals are also susceptible to PWSCC.
EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material

Appendix A: Stress Corrosion Cracking (Excluding Irradiation Effects)
A-15
Considerable research efforts have been made to identify the mechanism responsible for
PWSCC of Alloy 600. These investigations, reviewed by Was,
[A-56]
have shown that PWSCC
is primarily dependent on the heat treatment received by the material. For instance, a heat
treatment after mill-annealing (MA) in the temperature range of 1200F to 1380F (649 to
749C) has been found to cause a drastic improvement of the resistance of Alloy 600 to
PWSCC. This has been termed thermal treatment (TT), the improvement being mainly
associated in the literature with an improved grain boundary decoration by carbides. Although
the exact mechanism of enhanced resistance to PWSCC is unclear and still under debate, there
is general agreement that the chemical composition and structure of grain boundaries are of
crucial importance. In this connection, chromium depletion, segregation of impurities to grain
boundaries, intergranular carbides and their mechanical effect on stress concentrations, and
grain boundary misorientation appear to be important for the PWSCC resistance of the
material.
Operating temperature appears to be an important parameter in determining the susceptibility
of nickel-base alloys to PWSCC.
[A-57]
PWSCC has occurred quite often at temperatures >
600F. However, some failures by PWSCC in nickel-base alloys have occurred when exposed
to temperatures < 600F (316C) and to reactor coolant chemistry conditions described in the
EPRI Water Chemistry Guidelines for the Reactor Coolant System (RCS).
[A-11]

Low Temperature Crack Propagation
The observation of low temperature crack propagation (LTCP) with austenitic nickel-base
alloy materials in PWRs has been described in several publications.
[A-58 A-62]
LTCP refers to
the propagation of intergranular stress corrosion cracking at low temperatures (~ 130-170F
[54-77C]) due to the embrittlement by hydrogen of the grain boundaries ahead of an
advancing crack. This is a potential issue for the Alloy 82 welds, and perhaps the Alloy 182
welds, although much less data is available for the latter. LTCP is characterized as a significant
degradation in fracture toughness in low temperature hydrogenated water at K-levels as low as
40 MPam (36 ksiin) for nickel-base material. This effect is attributed to a hydrogen-induced
intergranular cracking mechanism, and is considered to be a form of hydrogen embrittlement.
The literature data suggest that LTCP could be a potential concern with all nickel-base alloys;
however, testing of Alloy 600 wrought materials appear to indicate it to be relatively immune
to this mechanism. Alloy 600 materials demonstrate about a 30% drop in toughness in
hydrogenated low temperature water environments with sufficient fracture resistance
remaining. In addition, the operative cracking mechanism is ductile dimple rupture.
The available literature data suggest that four conditions must be satisfied simultaneously for
LTCP:
1. Relatively high concentrations of hydrogen must be present (in the environment and
therefore in the metal). The early work by Mills, et al., suggested the most significant
effects were observed at hydrogen concentrations 3 to 5 times the normal PWR operating
concentrations. Some of the more recent data suggests that, under lower hydrogen
concentrations, this degradation mechanism may also be seen.
EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material

Appendix A: Stress Corrosion Cracking (Excluding Irradiation Effects)
A-16
2. Low temperatures; typically in the range from 130 to 200F (54 to 93C).
3. The presence of a "sharp" crack tip.
4. The presence of sustained high loads the loads must be capable of creating stresses in the
metal which approach the yield stress.
A.2 Summary and Discussion
The literature data and field experience show that chloride-induced SCC in austenitic stainless
steels can only occur in the presence of oxygen, either as IGSCC or TGSCC. IGSCC failures in
BWR service have been associated with sensitized weld HAZs and cold-worked, solution-
annealed, stainless steels. All forms of 300 series austenitic stainless steels can experience SCC
in water containing chlorides, certain forms of sulfur (e.g., thiosulfate, which was previously
used in building spray systems) and oxygen. Tensile stress is required, which can be induced
by material manufacturing processes, grinding, welding (especially multiple weld repairs) and
cold-work in bending. The magnitude of these stresses need not be particularly high, depending
on the combined concentrations of oxygen and chloride.
During normal PWR operating conditions, radiolytic dissolved oxygen concentration in
primary water is maintained at <5 ppb by injecting externally-supplied hydrogen. The
hydrogen addition serves to suppress radiolysis and to shift the electrochemical potential (ECP)
into a regime in which cracking of stainless steels (whether sensitized or not) is not favored.
During refueling outages, however, the primary water system will by necessity be exposed to
oxygen when the reactor head is removed, and also briefly during cool-down, as described
below. The shift in environmental conditions during cool-down, from a highly reducing
environment (hydrogen) to oxidizing conditions, is used to oxidize and release corrosion
products (particularly Ni and Co-58) intentionally into the primary water system. The material
released into solution can then be removed by the letdown demineralizers. During plant cool-
down, hydrogen peroxide is added to the primary coolant at temperatures typically <180F
(<80C) to dissolve Co-58 and Ni out of the oxides. The temperature limitation on hydrogen
peroxide addition is two-fold, the primary reason being to limit exposure of the primary water
system to oxidizing conditions while at temperatures high enough to possibly crack sensitized
austenitic alloys. The secondary reason for the temperature limit is that peroxide is more stable
at lower temperature, allowing the plant to maintain a residual peroxide concentration
following the addition. At shutdown conditions, the primary coolant is exposed to air, which
maintains the coolant under mildly oxidizing conditions. However, shutdown periods are
relatively short and the temperatures are much lower compared with the time and temperatures
of normal operation when oxygen levels are negligible.
The above coolant chemistry controls (i.e., hydrogen injection during operation and limiting
oxygen exposure until Mode 5 during shutdown) have historically eliminated the potential for
SCC of austenitic SS PWR internals component items although continued surveillance should
be practiced. Highly cold-worked (> 20%) materials appear to be cause for particular
surveillance. Sensitized material may also be present in PWR internals due to welding and
post-weld stress relief operations. While sensitized material may potentially be susceptible to
EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material

Appendix A: Stress Corrosion Cracking (Excluding Irradiation Effects)
A-17
SCC, both service experience and extensive test data under normal PWR (hydrogenated)
primary operating conditions indicate that the probability is extremely low.
The literature data for precipitation-hardenable materials seems to indicate that high
temperature tempers (for martensitic SS alloys) or high temperature annealing and aging (for
austenitic SS and Ni-base alloys) and stress levels below the room temperature proportional
limit should perform well in PWR environments.
CASS stainless steels and austenitic stainless steel weld metals appear to be immune to SCC in
PWR environments (in the non-thermally aged condition) provided that ferrite levels are within
specified limits (i.e., > 5% and < ~25%). It is currently not known if thermal aging has an
effect on SCC susceptibility of CASS materials.
Austenitic Ni-base alloys are potentially susceptible to PWSCC in PWR environments,
particularly at temperatures seen in PWR internals and at stress levels near or above the room
temperature yield strength of the material. Metallurgical and manufacturing factors play a large
role in determining potential susceptibility. LTCP may be a mechanism of concern under
certain conditions for nickel-base alloys (with Alloy 600 apparently the least susceptible);
however, to date, no occurrences have been noted in service or in the literature at PWR-
relevant conditions.
A.3 SCC Threshold and Screening Criteria
As noted in Section A.1, no acceptable threshold values seem to exist for SCC and therefore,
no threshold criteria are proposed. The development of PWR internals screening criteria for
SCC (encompassing IGSCC, TGSCC, PWSCC, and LTCP) are based on the following
assumptions:
1. Water chemistry conditions, in accordance with EPRI guidelines,
[A-11]
are maintained.
2. Co-base alloys are not known to be susceptible to SCC in applications in PWR internals.
3. Neutron flux or fluence dependencies associated with SCC are accounted for in the IASCC
degradation mechanism described in Appendix B.
Screening criteria for parameters that produce potentially susceptible materials and the
necessary stress levels for SCC are identified below:
Austenitic Stainless Steels
Austenitic stainless steels are concluded to have a very high resistance to SCC in PWR primary
water conditions due to the absence of dissolved oxygen and the impurity limits placed by the
PWR primary water specification. The notable exceptions though are the remote potential for
IGSCC of severely cold-worked (> 20% from grinding, bending, etc.) or highly strained
material in HAZs from multi-pass welding. For material that is stressed near or beyond the
annealed room temperature yield strength, the probability increases for the occurrence of SCC.
EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material

Appendix A: Stress Corrosion Cracking (Excluding Irradiation Effects)
A-18
Thus, a screening criterion of > 30 ksi (207 MPa) is suggested for those component items in
operation in the severely cold-worked (equivalent to > 20%) or multi-pass welded conditions.
Austenitic stainless steel weld materials that contain low ferrite levels and are highly stressed
are potentially susceptible to SCC in the presence of oxygen based on BWR experience. Thus,
screening criteria of ferrite < 5% and yield strength stress levels of > 30 ksi (207 MPa) are
established here. [Note: A potential concern exists that SCC could affect austenitic stainless
steel welds that meet or exceed the above stress criterion and the thermal aging embrittlement
criteria (Appendix E).]
Martensitic Stainless Steels
Martensitic stainless steel material loaded beyond approx. 70% of the room temperature yield
strength (> 88 ksi/607 MPa) is potentially susceptible to IGSCC. However, martensitic
stainless steels not subject to gamma heating with tempers >1125F (607C) generally are not
considered susceptible to SCC. [Note: A potential concern exists that SCC could affect
martensitic stainless steel materials that meet or exceed the above stress criterion and the
thermal aging embrittlement criteria (Appendix E).]
Martensitic Precipitation-Hardenable Stainless Steels
Martensitic PH stainless steel material loaded beyond approx. 70% of the room temperature
yield strength (> 88 ksi/607 MPa) is susceptible to IGSCC. However, martensitic PH stainless
steels not subject to gamma heating with tempers >1100F (593C) generally are not
considered susceptible to SCC. [Note: A potential concern exists that SCC could affect
martensitic PH stainless steel materials that meet or exceed the above stress criterion and the
thermal aging embrittlement criteria (Appendix E).]
Austenitic Precipitation-Hardenable Stainless Steels
Surface cold work and tensile loading > 70% of room temperature yield strength (approx. > 70
ksi [483 MPa]) will promote IGSCC of austenitic PH SS materials. (Note: This is particularly
relevant for highly stressed bolts that were fabricated by a hot-heading process or that were
shot-peened.)
Cast Austenitic Stainless Steels
CASS materials that contain low ferrite levels and are highly stressed are potentially
susceptible to IGSCC or TGSCC. Thus, screening criteria of ferrite < 5% and yield strength
stress levels of > 35 ksi (241 MPa) are established. [Note: A potential concern exists that SCC
could affect CASS materials that meet or exceed the above stress criterion and the thermal
aging embrittlement criteria (Appendix E).]
EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material

Appendix A: Stress Corrosion Cracking (Excluding Irradiation Effects)
A-19
Low ferrite levels (< 5%) in CASS welds that are highly stressed will also potentially make
them susceptible to IGSCC.
Austenitic Nickel-Base Alloys
Austenitic Ni-base alloys are susceptible to PWSCC at stress levels near or exceeding the yield
strength (i.e., approximately > 30 ksi [207 MPa]).
Austenitic Ni-base alloy weld materials that are highly stressed are also potentially susceptible
to PWSCC. Thus, a screening criterion for stress levels near or exceeding the yield strength of
> 35 ksi (241 MPa) is established.
Austenitic Precipitation-Hardenable Nickel-Base Alloys
Austenitic PH Ni-base alloys are potentially susceptible to PWSCC at stress levels exceeding
the yield strength depending on heat treatment and manufacturing details. The surface
condition is also critical to PWSCC susceptibility. Therefore, for Alloy X-750 material the
suggested screening criterion is > 100 ksi [689 MPa]. For Alloy 718 material, which has been
shown both by testing and in-service experience to be very resistant to PWSCC, the suggested
screening criterion is > 130 ksi [896 MPa].
A.4 SCC References
A-1 McIntyre, D.R., Experience Survey of Stress Corrosion Cracking of Austenitic
Stainless Steels in Water, MTI publication No. 27, February 1987.
A-2 Component Life Estimation: LWR Structural Materials Degradation Mechanisms,
EPRI NP-5461, Project 2643-5, September 1987.
A-3 Jones, R. H., Stress-Corrosion Cracking, American Society for Metals International,
Copyright 1992.
A-4 Boursier, J.M., et al. Stress Corrosion Cracking of Austenitic Stainless Steels in PWR
Primary Water: An Update of Metallurgical Investigations Performed on French
Withdrawn Components, Fontevraud V, September 2002.
A-5 Herbsleb, G., Preventing Intergranular Stress Corrosion Cracking of Austenitic
Stainless Steels, Mannesmann Forschungsinstitut GmbH, Duisburg, 1984.
A-6 Kilian, R., et al. Parameters Influencing the Transgranular Stress Corrosion Cracking
Behaviour of Austenitic Stainless Steels in Systems Conveying Reactor Coolant,
Fontevraud V, September 2002P.
A-7 Berge, J.P., et al. Corrosion and Cracking of Stainless Steels and Cobalt Alloys in
Primary Circuit Piping of Light Water Reactors, Proceedings of the Fourth
EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material

Appendix A: Stress Corrosion Cracking (Excluding Irradiation Effects)
A-20
International Symposium on Environmental Degradation of Materials in Nuclear Power
Systems-Water Reactors, Jekyll Island, GA, August 1989, edited by D. Cubicciotti,
NACE, Houston, TX.
A-8 Williams, W.L., Chloride and Caustic Stress Corrosion of Austenitic Stainless Steel in
Hot Water and Steam, CorrosionNational Association of Corrosion, Engineers Vol.
13, August 1957.
A-9 Gordon, B. M., The Effect of Chloride and Oxygen on the Stress Corrosion Cracking
of Stainless Steels: Review of Literature, Materials Performance, Vol. 19, No. 4, April
1980.
A-10 PWR Primary Water Chemistry Guideline, EPRI NP-4762-SR, 1986.
A-11 PWR Primary Water Chemistry Guideline: Revision 4, EPRI TR-105714-V1R4,
March 1999.
A-12 Andresen, P.L., et al., Effects of PWR Primary Water Chemistry and Dearated Water
on SCC, Proceedings of the Twelfth International Symposium on Environmental
Degradation of Materials in Nuclear Power Systems-Water Reactors, August 2005 (to
be published).
A-13 Materials Handbook for Nuclear Plant Pressure Boundary Applications, TR-109668-
SA-R1, Final Report, Revision 1, EPRI, Palo Alto, CA, December 1998.
A-14 Stress Corrosion Crack Growth Behavior of Cold Worked 304L and 316L Stainless
Steels, EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: 2002. 1007379.
A-15 Guerre, C., Raquet, O., et al., SCC Crack Growth Behavior of Austenitic Alloys in
PWR Primary Water Conditions, 12
th
International Conference on Environmental
Degradation of Materials in Nuclear Power Systems Water Reactors, August 2005 [to
be published].
A-16 Tice, D.R., Platts, N., et al., Environmentally Assisted Crack Growth of Cold-Worked
Type 304 Stainless Steel in PWR Environments, 12
th
International Conference on
Environmental Degradation of Materials in Nuclear Power Systems Water Reactors,
August 2005 [to be published].
A-17 Herms, E., Couvant, T., et al., SCC of Cold-Worked Austenitic Stainless Steels in
Primary Water of PWRs, 12
th
International Conference on Environmental Degradation
of Materials in Nuclear Power Systems Water Reactors, August 2005 [to be
published].
A-18 Arioka, K., Chiba, G., et al., Influence of Orientation of Cold Work and Carbide
Precipitation on IGSCC Behaviors of SUS 316 in Hydrogenated High Temperature
EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material

Appendix A: Stress Corrosion Cracking (Excluding Irradiation Effects)
A-21
Water, 12
th
International Conference on Environmental Degradation of Materials in
Nuclear Power Systems Water Reactors, August 2005 [to be published].
A-19 Couvant, T., Vaillant, F., et al., Stress Corrosion Cracking of 304L Stainless Steel in
PWR Environment, 12
th
International Conference on Environmental Degradation of
Materials in Nuclear Power Systems Water Reactors, August 2005 [to be published]..
A-20 Regulatory Guide 1.44, Control of the Use of Sensitized Stainless Steel, 1973,
available from U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
A-21 ASM Specialty Handbook, ASM International, 1994, p. 50-51.
A-22 Suss, H., A Discussion of the Susceptibility of AISI 410 to SCC, and a Means of
Eliminating the Stress Corrosion Problem, KAPL-2155, March 10, 1961.
A-23 Suss, H., Practicality of Establishing Threshold Values to Eliminate Stress Corrosion
Failures in metals and Alloys, Corrosion, NACE, Feb. 1951, Vol. 17, pp. 61t-66t.
A-24 Lillys, P., and Nehrenberg, A.E., Effect of Tempering Temperature on SCC and
Hydrogen Embrittlement of Martensitic Stainless Steels, Transactions of ASM, Vo.
48, 1955, pp. 327-355.
A-25 Jordan, E.L., Valve Stem Corrosion Failures, Information Notice 85-59, U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C., July 17, 1985.
A-26 Xu, H., and Fyfitch, S., Aging Embrittlement Modeling of Type 17-4 PH at LWR
Temperatures, Proceedings of the Tenth International Symposium on Environmental
Degradation of Materials in Nuclear Power Systems-Water Reactors, August 2001.
A-27 Xu, H., and Fyfitch, S. Fracture of Type 17-4 PH CRDM Leadscrew Male Coupling
Tangs, Proceedings of the Eleventh International Symposium on Environmental
Degradation of Materials in Nuclear Power Systems-Water Reactors, August 2003.
A-28 Rowland, M.C., and Smith, W.R., Jr., Precipitation-Hardening Stainless Steels in
Water-Cooled Reactors, NE, Jan. 1962, pp. 14-22.
A-29 Suss, H., Stress Corrosion and Hydrogen Embrittlement Properties of 17-4PH in
600F Waters, KAPL-M-6580, April 1967.
A-30 Boyd, W.K., and Peoples, R.S., Corrosion in Borated and Deionized Water at
Temperatures up to 500F, BMI-1047, October 14, 1955.
A-31 Jackson, R.P., Stress-Corrosion Cracking of 17-4PH Stainless Steel, DP-779, Sept.
1962.
EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material

Appendix A: Stress Corrosion Cracking (Excluding Irradiation Effects)
A-22
A-32 Williams, W.L., and Eckel, J.F., ed., Stress Corrosion, Corrosion and Wear
Handbook, AEC TID-7006, 1957, pp. 187-225.
A-33 Gras, J. M., et al., Corrosion by Concentrated Boric Acid of Materials for Bolting of
Components of the Primary Circuit, International Symposium, 2-6 September 1985,
Fontevraud, SFEN, pp. 178-187.
A-34 McIlree, A.R., Degradation of High Strength Austenitic Alloys X-750, 718, and A-286
in Nuclear Power Plants, Proceedings: International Conference on Environmental
Degradation of Materials in Nuclear Power Systems--Water Reactors, 1983, NACE.
A-35 Miglin, M. T., et al., Microstructure and Stress Corrosion Resistance of Alloys X-750,
718, and A-286 in LWR Environments, EPRI NP-6392-SD, June 1989.
A-36 Daret, J., CEA Experience on Alloy X-750 and Alternate Materials (Alloy 718 and A-
286) After 27,000 Hours Testing of Actual Pins and Tensile Specimens, Proceedings:
1986 Workshop on Advanced High-Strength Materials, Paper 16, EPRI NP-6363, May
1989.
A-37 Hall, J. F., Stress Corrosion Cracking of A-286 Stainless Steel, Proceedings: 1986
Workshop on Advanced High-Strength Materials, paper 22, EPRI NP-6363, May 1989.
A-38 Shah, V.N., and MacDonald, P.E., Eds., Aging and Life Extension of Major Light
Water Reactor Components, Elsevier, New York, 1993.
A-39 Material Reliability Program: Stress Corrosion Cracking of High Strength Reactor
Vessel Internals Bolting in PWRs (MRP 88), 1003206, EPRI, Palo Alto, CA, 2003.
1003206.
A-40 Hall, J.B., Fyfitch, S., and Moore, K.E., Laboratory and Operating Experience with
Alloy A-286 and Alloy X-750 RV Internals Bolting Stress Corrosion Cracking, 11th
International Conference on Environmental Degradation of Materials in Nuclear Power
Systems--Water Reactors, August 2003, NACE.
A-41 Miglin, B.P., et al., Stress Corrosion Cracking of Commercial-Grade Alloy 718 in
Pressurized-Water-Reactor Primary Water, Proceedings of the Fourth International
Symposium on Environmental Degradation of Materials in Nuclear Power Reactors,
1989.
A-42 Miglin, M.T., et al., Effect of Heat Treatment on Stress Corrosion of Alloy 718 in
Pressurized-Water-Reactor Primary Water, Proceedings of the Fifth International
Symposium on Environmental Degradation of Materials in Nuclear Power Reactors,
1991.
A-43 Miglin, M.T., et al., Stress Corrosion Cracking of Chemistry and Heat Treat Variants
of Alloy 718 Part 1: Stress Corrosion Test Results, Proceedings of the Sixth
EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material

Appendix A: Stress Corrosion Cracking (Excluding Irradiation Effects)
A-23
International Symposium on Environmental Degradation of Materials in Nuclear Power
Reactors, 1993.
A-44 Burke, M.G., et al., Stress Corrosion Cracking of Chemistry Variants of Alloy 718
Part 2: Microstructural Characterization, Proceedings of the Sixth International
Symposium on Environmental Degradation of Materials in Nuclear Power Systems
Water Reactors, 1993.
A-45 Scott, P.M., Stress Corrosion Cracking in Pressurized Water Reactors Interpretation,
Modeling, and Remedies, Corrosion, Vol. 56, pp. 771-782, 2000.
A-46 Hanninen, H. and Aho-Mantila, I., Environment-Sensitive Cracking of Reactor
Internals, Proceedings of the Third International Symposium on Environmental
Degradation of Materials in Nuclear Power Systems Water Reactors, American
Nuclear Society, La Grange Park, IL. 1987, p. 77.
A-47 Foucault, M., and Benhamou, C., Influence of the Surface Condition on the
Susceptibility of Alloy X-750 to Crack Initiation in PWR Primary Water, Proceedings
of the Sixth International Symposium on Environmental Degradation of Materials in
Nuclear Power Systems Water Reactors, TMS, 1993.
A-48 Monroe, R.W., and Pawel, S.J., Corrosion of Cast Steels, from Metals Handbook,
Vol. 13, Corrosion, 9
th
Editions, ASM International, Materials Park, OH, 1987.
A-49 Campbell, C.A., and Fyfitch, S., PWSCC Ranking Model for Alloy 600 Components,
Proceedings of the Sixth International Symposium on Degradation of Materials in
Nuclear Power Systems-Water-Reactors, San Diego, CA, August 1-5, 1993.
A-50 Stiller, K., et al., Structure, Chemistry, and Stress Corrosion Cracking of Grain
Boundaries in Alloys 600 and 690, Metallurgical and Materials Transactions A,
Volume 27A, February 1996, pp. 327-341.
A-51 Briant, C.L., et al., The Effect of Microstructure on the Corrosion and Stress Corrosion
Cracking of Alloy 600 in Acidic and Neutral Environments, Corrosion, Vol. 42, No. 1,
January 1986, pp. 15-27.
A-52 Hall, E.l., and Briant, C.L. The Microstructural Response of Mill-Annealed and
Solution-Annealed INCONEL 600 to Heat Treatment, Metallurgical Transactions A,
Vol. 16A, July 1985, pp. 1225-1236.
A-53 Specially Prepared Alloy 600 Tubing, EPRI NP-5072, Project S303-17, February
1987.
A-54 Norring, K., et al., Intergranular Stress Corrosion Cracking in Steam Generator
Tubing, Testing of Alloy 690 and Alloy 600 Tubes, Proceedings of the Third
EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material

Appendix A: Stress Corrosion Cracking (Excluding Irradiation Effects)
A-24
International Symposium on Environmental Degradation of Materials in Nuclear Power
Systems, National Association of Corrosion Engineers, 1987.
A-55 Bruemmer, S., et al., Microstructure and Microdeformation Effects on IGSCC of
Alloy 600 Steam Generator Tubing, Corrosion, November 1988, pp. 782-788.
A-56 Was, G.S., Grain-Boundary Chemistry and Intergranular Fracture in Austenitic
Nickel-base AlloysA Review, Corrosion, Vol. 46, 1990, pp. 319-330.
A-57 Bamford, W. and Hall, J., A Review of Alloy 600 Cracking in Operating Nuclear
Plants: Historical Experience and Future Trends, 11
th
Int. Conf. on Environmental
Degradation of Materials in Nuclear Systems Water Reactors, August 10-14, 2003.
A-58 Mullen, J.V., and Parrington, R.J., Stress Corrosion of Alloy 600 Weld Metal in
Primary Water, presentation F3, Proceedings: 1992 EPRI Workshop on PWSCC of
Alloy 600 in PWRs, EPRI TR-103345, December 1993.
A-59 Brown, C.M., and Mills, W.J., "Fracture Toughness, Tensile and Stress Corrosion
Cracking Properties of Alloy 600, Alloy 690, and Their Welds in Water," Paper 90,
Corrosion96, NACE, 1996.
A-60 Mills, W.J., and C.M. Brown, "Fracture Behavior of Nickel-based Alloys in Water,"
Ninth International Conference on Environmental Degradation of Materials in Nuclear
Power SystemsWater Reactors, August 1-5, 1999, Newport Beach, CA, TMS/NACE.
A-61 Mills, W.J., Brown, C.M., and Burke, M.G., Effect of Microstructure on Low
Temperature Cracking Behavior of EN82H Welds, Tenth International Conference on
Environmental Degradation of Materials in Nuclear Power SystemsWater Reactors,
August 2001, NACE.
A-62 Mills, W.J., Lebo, M.R., and Kearns, J.J., Hydrogen Embrittlement, Grain Boundary
Segregation and Stress Corrosion Cracking of Alloy X-750 in Low and High
Temperature Water, Metallurgical and Materials Transactions, Vol. 30A, 1999, pp.
1579-1596., ITG White Paper on LTCP.



EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material
B-1
B
APPENDIX B: IRRADIATION-ASSISTED STRESS
CORROSION CRACKING
B.1 General Description of Irradiation-Assisted Stress Corrosion Cracking
Irradiation-assisted stress corrosion cracking (IASCC) is an age-related degradation mechanism
where materials exposed to neutron radiation become more susceptible to SCC with increasing
fluence.
[B-1]
IASCC, like PWSCC, is a distinctive subset of SCC. Despite numerous
investigations and research efforts, details of the IASCC mechanism in PWR internals remain
hypothetical.
[B-2 B-9]
The current consensus is that IASCC results from a synergistic effect of
irradiation damage to the material, water environment with possible radiolysis effects, and stress
state. At present, interactions between these variables have not adequately been quantified and
no primary IASCC controlling mechanism has been identified.
There are three major ways that irradiation affects the structure of a PWR internals component
item:
1. Irradiation changes the dislocation population, leading to radiation-induced hardening and, at
very high neutron exposures, dislocation channeling with stress.
[B-10]

2. Irradiation changes the local alloy chemistry near point defect traps, especially around the
grain boundaries.
[B-11]

3. Irradiation produces transmutation products, including hydrogen and helium.
Irradiation can also lead to precipitation of new phases
[B-12]
or destabilization of the phases
already present.
[B-13]
However, these are generally considered secondary effects. Although the
exact mechanism of IASCC in PWRs is not yet known, both hardening and radiation-induced
segregation (RIS) could play a role.
[B-14]
Operating experience and irradiated material test results
suggest that IASCC may be of most concern in the later stages of PWR internals life.
Much of the existing IASCC knowledge comes from BWR experience and advanced gas-cooled
reactor (AGR) and fast breeder reactor (FBR) test programs, whose neutron spectra, flux and
fluence levels, radiation temperature, and environmental chemistry differ significantly from
those of PWRs. Systematic study of IASCC in the PWR environment has not been conducted in
the past, but the Joint Owners Baffle Bolt (JOBB) program, with participation by various
institutions in the U.S. and Europe, coordinated by the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI)
through the MRP RI-ITG, has recently completed such a program,
[B-15]
the results are discussed
herein. In addition, the MRP RI-ITG has been conducting tests in hot cell to study IASCC since
2001 to expand the JOBB investigation and findings.
[B-40 B-43]

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material

Appendix B: Irradiation-Assisted Stress Corrosion Cracking
B-2
Changes in tensile and yield strengths, ductility and fracture toughness results from changes in
the microstructure due to irradiation damage (see Appendix F). Many investigations
[B-2 B-5, B-16,
B-17, B-40 B-43]
have studied the evolution of mechanical properties and microstructure of austenitic
stainless steels with increasing neutron fluence. Irradiation-induced hardening, transmutation,
segregation, creep, and healing are among the factors suspected to have a significant impact on
IASCC, hence they are the most widely studied. A more thorough discussion of these is
contained in References B-9, B-18 and B-44.
IASCC was first observed in Type 304 SS fuel cladding in the early 1960s in both BWRs and
PWRs.
[B-4]
Since then, IASCC failures have been reported for a number of other reactor internals
component items made from various stainless steels and nickel-based alloys in various types of
reactors. More detailed historical reviews of intergranular cracking attributed to IASCC in the
BWRs and PWRs can be found in References B-3 and B-4. The most recent and potentially
significant IASCC events in PWRs are the observed cracking of baffle/former bolts and control
rod cladding in some early French built PWR units.
[B-3, B-4, B-15, B-19, B-20, B-21]
Both irradiated Type
304 and Type 316 stainless steel materials can show high sensitivity to cracking in the PWR
environment although strong heat-to-heat variability has been observed. As demonstrated in tests
on irradiated materials with constant loading, constant deformation, and slow strain rates, a
conservative threshold fluence of approximately 7 X 10
20
n/cm
2
(E > 1.0 MeV), or ~1 dpa, can
be considered as the lower limit for the PWR primary environment.
[B-22, B-23, B-24, B-25, B-40 B-43]
B.1.1 Annealed vs. Cold-Worked Materials
Cold-working (CW) produces a dislocation density in stainless steel many orders of magnitude
higher than that of solution-annealed (SA) material. This initial difference has a strong impact on
subsequent radiation-induced microstructural evolution. Cold work slows down the development
of irradiation damage and hardening, as explained later, but in this case the improvement in flow
localization suppression is due to a pre-existing dislocation network.
[B-26]
Studies have also
shown that prior CW also suppresses void nucleation and swelling during irradiation.
[B-27, B-28]

Cold-working introduces a higher dislocation density, which leads to an increase in the
nucleation density of helium bubbles, thus a decrease in the individual bubble growth rates.
[B-29]
Nevertheless, recent failure of baffle bolts and control rod cladding in the French PWRs were
made of CW 316 and SA 304 stainless steel, respectively.
[B-8]
It has therefore been suggested that
at significantly high fluence levels (> 10 to 20 dpa or 6.7 X 10
21
to 1.3 X 10
22
n/cm
2
[E > 1.0
MeV]), there is little difference in IASCC behavior between CW and SA stainless steels.
[B-6, B-15]

B.1.2 Austenitic Stainless Steels
Type 304 and Type 316 stainless steels are the most extensively used material in the fabrication
of baffle bolts and plates of PWR internals designs. Type 316 is generally regarded as superior to
Type 304 in IASCC resistance, at least for doses < 10 dpa.
[B-2, B-6, B-15]
Mechanical tests show
that, for a given dose, increases in yield strength, and decreases in uniform and total elongations
were greater for Type 304 than for Type 316.
[B-2, B-6, B-15]
Irradiation hardening is strongly
EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material

Appendix B: Irradiation-Assisted Stress Corrosion Cracking
B-3
believed to be directly linked to IASCC, though no unambiguous correlation has yet been
established.
[B-26]

The formation of martensite along a grain boundary may contribute toward IASCC in PWR
internals. Low austenite stability against martensite formation is facilitated by a low stacking
fault energy (SFE) and a high deformation-induced martensite formation temperature, M
d
. The
influence of composition on austenite stability can be seen from SFE values of ~20 mJ/m
2
for
Type 304 and ~80 mJ/m
2
for Type 316.
[B-9]
The Ni concentration of Type 316 is generally 3%
higher than Type 304 and Ni is a strong austenite stabilizer that depresses M
d
. New
investigations on the possibility of martensite formation at grain boundaries are reportedly in
progress.
[B-21]

New experiments to evaluate possible replacement materials have included some Ti and Nb
stabilized austenitic stainless steels.
[B-6, B-15]
Data collected from swelling capsule experiments
after exposure to two PWR fuel cycles gave a mixed result with only Type 348 (Nb stabilized)
material appearing to outperform Types 304 and 316.
[B-3]
A low level of undersized impurities
(Si, N, P), which reduces irradiation-induced dislocation loop sizes and increases loop density,
are cited as reasons for improvement. However, it has been shown that low levels of Si and P are
insufficient, as similar results were not reproduced by subsequent tests on high purity heats.
[B-30,
B-31, B-32, B-33]
Oversize solutes (like Ti and Nb) can serve as trapping sites for point defects. A
reduction in the availability of point defects reduces the diffusion rate to other trap sites such as
grain boundaries, thus diminishing RIS at grain boundaries. Hence, it is possible that they could
improve IASCC resistance by reducing RIS.
[B-32]
Based on fast breeder reactor experience, Type
316-Ti is being pursued as a possible candidate replacement material.
[B-6, B-15]

There is a paucity of IASCC-related studies of welding materials. Toughness tests of weld
materials (Type 308) removed from BWRs (~10 dpa or ~6.7 X 10
21
n/cm
2
[E > 1.0 MeV])
indicate a substantially lower toughness value of ~60 MPam compared to 130 MPam for
Type 304 stainless steel.
[B-34]
The same study also found the tearing modulus of the weld material
after irradiation to be very low, which could, upon crack initiation, lead to immediate failure
without stable crack growth. The above data correlate well with results obtained in other BWR
experiments.
[B-35]
When irradiated at 427C (801F) it has also been shown that the saturation
fracture toughness for the weld (Type 308) was below that for the wrought material (Types 316
and 304).
[B-36]
However, there is a lack of testing data related to weld metals at PWR operating
conditions. Recently, SSRT tests of 308 TIG weldments and 308 SAW specimens, irradiated in
the Bor-60 fast reactor to 10.4 dpa and 20 dpa, respectively, were performed in PWR waters.
[B-43]

The fracture surfaces of these specimens show very small amount of intergranularity.
B.1.3 Martensitic and Martensitic Precipitation-Hardenable Stainless Steels
No studies of martensitic PH stainless steel IASCC susceptibility have been identified in the
open literature.
EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material

Appendix B: Irradiation-Assisted Stress Corrosion Cracking
B-4
B.1.4 Austenitic Precipitation-Hardenable Stainless Steels
No studies of IASCC susceptibility for Alloy A-286 have been identified in the open literature.
B.1.5 Cast Austenitic Stainless Steels
The MRP RI-ITG tested statically cast 11 7/8 x 7 1/8 x 1 3/4 inch plates of CF8.
[B-43]
The ferrite
number of this material is 18. These plates first underwent three different thermal treatments: as
cast, aged 100 hours at 400C, and aged 950 hours at 400. Subsequently, they were irradiated
in the Bor-60 fast reactors to a level of ~10 dpa.
SSRT specimens fabricated from these plates tested in PWR waters showed varying fracture
morphologies. Despite some degree of indication of columnar structure in their fracture
morphology, as-cast CASS and fully aged CASS (950 hours at 400) showed zero or
negligible susceptibility to stress corrosion cracking, as their fracture faces were almost entirely
ductile.
[B-43]

B.1.6 Austenitic Nickel-Base Alloys
Many PWR reactor coolant system component items, fabricated from Alloy 600 (e.g., pressurizer
nozzles and control rod drive mechanism [CRDM] nozzles), have experienced PWSCC.
[B-37]

Appendix A contains additional discussion of PWSCC. However, radiation is not considered to
be a factor in these failures. No known IASCC-related studies have been reported in the open
literature.
B.1.7 Austenitic Precipitation-Hardenable Nickel-Base Alloys
There is a lack of IASCC data for Alloy X-750 at high neutron fluence level. Results obtained
from swelling capsule tests indicate that IASCC resistance of Alloy X-750 is approximately the
same as Types 304 and 316 stainless steel.
[B-3,B-4]
Some tensile test data of small scale Alloy X-
750, HTH Condition bolts irradiated in a PWR to 1.4 x10
19
n/cm
2
(E > 1.0 MeV) performed
without any failure up to 0.95% strain.
[B-45]
Simulated BWR testing demonstrated an irradiation-
enhanced IGSCC susceptibility of Alloy X-750 HTH Condition as a function of fluence and
boron content.
[B-46]
Fluence at 10
19

n/cm
2
versus 10
14

to

10
18

n/cm
2
(E > 1.0 MeV) showed an
increase in susceptibility.
Alloy 718 has an excellent record in PWR primary water applications often at operating stresses
close to or exceeding the yield point that can be approximately 145 to 160 ksi (1000 to 1100
MPa). In fuel applications, very high neutron fluxes are also experienced. The few failures that
have occurred have been attributed to a manufacturing defect that allowed components to enter
service with pre-existing intergranular defects. Alloy 718 is known to be highly resistant to crack
initiation but IGSCC will propagate rapidly in PWR primary water from pre-existing defects.
EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material

Appendix B: Irradiation-Assisted Stress Corrosion Cracking
B-5
B.2 IASCC Summary and Discussion
While IASCC susceptibility is recognized to be affected by bulk composition and microstructure,
no consistent or quantitative correlation has been established between the two. Experiments to
isolate individual contributions to IASCC are difficult with different heats and grades of
commercial purity in various thermal or cold-worked conditions. Efforts to address this issue
have been attempted and are ongoing.
[B-44]
To date, most data are pertinent to Type 304 and Type
316 austenitic stainless steels with variation in impurity levels and additions of a stabilizing
element. Few data are related to other PWR internals alloys. Studies of different alloys have
produced data too scattered to substantiate claims that one grade or thermal condition is superior
in IASCC resistance than another. Heat-to-heat variations in behavior for the same alloy have
been shown to be large.
While the mechanical properties, such as yield strength and fracture toughness appear to saturate
around 10 to 20 dpa of irradiation, laboratory test data indicates that IASCC susceptibility
appears to continue to increase. IASCC studies by Conermann and Shogan et al.
[B-38, B-41]
were
performed using a highly irradiated CW Type 316 flux thimble material removed from a
commercial PWR after ~23 years of operation. Based on the studies, a proposed plot of applied
stress versus time-to-failure was prepared from the results of O-ring crack initiation specimens
for the various neutron exposures examined. Data were then plotted on a curve showing time-to-
failure as a function of applied stress and fluence, which is provided as Figure B-1. From this
figure, IASCC susceptibility appears to increase with irradiation and the stress levels needed to
initiate IASCC decrease with neutron dose. It is noted, however, that this figure is based on a
limited data set for one heat of material.
The development of PWR internals threshold and screening criteria for IASCC are based on the
following assumptions:
1. Water chemistry conditions, in accordance with EPRI guidelines, are maintained.
2. No differences are assumed between CW and SA materials in screening.
3. Insufficient data are available to determine the variations in IASCC susceptibility of the
alloys or between heats of the same material used in PWR internals. Therefore, it is assumed
that the threshold and screening criteria presented below apply to all alloys.
B.3 IASCC Threshold and Screening Criteria
It is recognized that a certain neutron fluence level is a necessary precondition for the occurrence
of IASCC in LWRs. Approximate fluence levels for the observed occurrences of IASCC in both
BWRs and PWRs are plotted in Figure B-2.
[B-39]
Due to different water chemistry and operational
conditions, a neutron fluence threshold for IASCC in PWRs differs considerably from that in
BWRs. For austenitic stainless steels, a review of literature data indicates that a threshold value
of ~7 x 10
20
n/cm
2
(E > 1.0 MeV) or ~1 dpa exists for PWRs.

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material

Appendix B: Irradiation-Assisted Stress Corrosion Cracking
B-6
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
0 20 40 60 80
Neutron exposure, dpa
S
t
r
e
s
s
,

M
P
a
Short term
IASCC failure
possible
No IASCC
Long term
IASCC failure possible

Failure would be predicted after a significant time above the Long term curve and in a short time above the Short
time curve.
Figure B-1
Prediction of IASCC Time-to-Failure Versus Stress
[B-38]

10
20
10
21
10
22
10
23
0.1 1
10 100
Neutron Fluence, n/cm
2
(E>1 MeV)
Irradiation Dose, dpa
BWR Core
Component
Failures
(IASCC)
BWR End
of Life
PWR Control
Rod Failures
(IASCC)
PWR End
of Life
PWR Baffle
Bolt Failures
(IASCC)
Significant Changes
in Grain Boundary
Composition, Alloy
Strength & Ductility
Onset of Significant
Void Swelling
and Possible
Embrittlement
PWR Life
Extension

Figure B-2
Neutron Fluence Effects on IASCC Susceptibility in BWR and PWR Environments
[B-39]

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material

Appendix B: Irradiation-Assisted Stress Corrosion Cracking
B-7
The known IASCC incidents (failure of baffle bolts) observed in the European PWRs have
indicated an IASCC threshold level at ~2 x 10
21
n/cm
2
(E>1.0 MeV) or ~3 dpa.
[B-15]
It should be
pointed out that, since there is much variation in PWR internals design, material composition,
fabrication methods, and operating characteristics, an all encompassing threshold fluence level
may prove to be inadequate for different PWR internals component items of different PWR
designs. It should also be noted that full susceptibility to IASCC does not appear suddenly at a
threshold level. Instead, susceptibility begins at this threshold fluence level and increases with
increasing fluence over several tens of dpa.
IASCC can be forced in the laboratory by slow strain rate tensile tests at neutron exposures as
low as 1 dpa. This effect however, can only be seen after extremely high strains near 40%
reduction in area of the test specimens. Such conditions should not exist in actual component
items of PWR internals. A better measure of the threshold for initial concern would be the
fluence at which cracking can be initiated at above the yield stress of the material. Shogan
demonstrated that this level was about 3 dpa for various heats of cold-worked 316 stainless
steel.
[B-23, B-41]
This level corresponds to that found in the French Bugey plant, referenced above,
which has been found to be the most IASCC susceptible material tested to date.
No one, as of yet, has developed a sufficient understanding of IASCC to predict with certainty
the effects of thermo-mechanical history and the chemical composition of a material on the
threshold for IASCC, if any. Threshold values for IASCC in PWR internals materials are
expected to vary considerably with material, heat, temperature, and neutron spectrum.
Developing a single value for all materials and Nuclear Steam Supply System (NSSS) designs
can only be done in a fairly conservative manner. Therefore, it is suggested that a fluence
threshold of 2 X 10
21
(E > 1.0 MeV) [3 dpa] be utilized for highly stressed component items such
as bolts, springs, and multi-pass welds.
At the current time, the understanding of IASCC is not sufficiently advanced to suggest reliable
predictive rules for PWR internals materials. As shown in Figure B-1, IASCC appears to
correlate fairly well with stress and neutron dose for a given heat of material. This figure
indicates that a saturation in the stress vs. IASCC initiation curve of approximately 100 MPa (14
ksi) at neutron exposures greater than 80 dpa may exist.
Figure B-3 is a proposed screening curve for IASCC initiation of austenitic stainless steels. This
curve is based on a shifting of the Figure B-1 curve to account for the observed baffle bolt
failures in Europe. It is suggested that stress and dose levels from this curve be utilized as
screening criteria for IASCC at neutron doses > 2 X 10
21
(E > 1.0 MeV) [3 dpa].
EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material

Appendix B: Irradiation-Assisted Stress Corrosion Cracking
B-8
Stress = -158.4Ln(Neutron Exposure) + 789.65
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Neutron Exposure, dpa
S
t
r
e
s
s
,

M
P
a
Conermann et al. (Figure B-1)[Ref. B-38]
IASCC Screening

Figure B-3
Proposed Plot of Stress and Neutron Exposure Screening Criteria for IASCC.
B.4 IASCC References
B-1 McNeil, M.B., Irradiation Assisted Stress Corrosion Cracking, Nuclear Engineering
and Design, 181, 1998, pp. 55-60.
B-2 Scott, P., A Review of Irradiation Assisted Stress Corrosion Cracking of Austenitic
Materials for PWR Core Internals, Framatome, France, Eurocorr, Sept. 1996.
B-3 Scott, P., A Review of Irradiation Assisted Stress Corrosion Cracking, Jour. Of Nuclear
Materials, 211 (1994), pp. 101-122.
B-4 Andresen, P.L., Irradiation-Assisted Stress-Corrosion Cracking, in Stress Corrosion
Cracking - Materials Performance and Evaluation, ed. R.H. Jones (American Society for
Metals, Metals Park, OH, 1992), pp. 182-210.
B-5 Nelson, J.L., and Andresen, P.L., Review of Current Research and Understanding of
Irradiation-Assisted Stress Corrosion Cracking, Proc. 5th Int. Symp. on Environmental
Degradation of Materials in Nuclear Power Systems - Water Reactors, Monterey
California, August, 1991, NACE, pp. 10-26.
EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material

Appendix B: Irradiation-Assisted Stress Corrosion Cracking
B-9
B-6 Meeting Notes of the JOBB Task Team With EDF on Baffle/Former Bolts, April 3-4,
1997, Moret-Sur-Loing, France, EPRI.
B-7 Andresen, P.L., Ford, F.P., Murphy, S.M., and Perks, J.M., State of Knowledge of
Radiation Effects on Environmental Cracking in Light Water Reactor Core Materials,
Proc. 4th Int. Symp. on Environmental Degradation of Materials in Nuclear Power
Systems - Water Reactors, Jekyll Island, Georgia, August, 1989, NACE, pp. 1-83 - 1-
121.
B-8 Hanninen, H., and Aho-Mantilla, I., Environmental-Sensitive Cracking of Reactor
Internals, Proc. 3rd Int. Symp. on Environmental Degradation of Materials in Nuclear
Power Systems - Water Reactors, Traverse City, Michigan, August 30 - September 3,
1987, AIME, pp. 77-92.
B-9 Bruemmer, S.M., et al., Reviews for the Understanding and Evaluation of Irradiation-
Assisted Stress Corrosion Cracking, Critical Issue Reviews for the Understanding and
Evaluation of Irradiation-Assisted Stress Corrosion Cracking, EPRI TR-107159, 4068,
Final Report, November, 1996.
B-10 Cole, J.I., et al., Deformation Temperature, Strain Rate, and irradiation Microstructure
Effects on Localized Plasticity in 304L SS, Proc. 7
th
Int. Symp. On Environmental
Degradation of Materials in Nuclear Power Systems Water Reactors, NACE, 1995.
B-11 Simonen, E.P., and Bruemmer, S.M., Kinetic Evaluation of Intergranular Fracture in
Austenitic Stainless Steels, Proc. 7
th
Int. Symp. On Environmental Degradation of
Materials in Nuclear Power Systems Water Reactors, NACE, 1995.
B-12 Garner, F.A., Irradiation Performance of Cladding and Structural steels in Liquid Metal
Reactors, Materials Science and Technology, Vol. 10A, VCH, Weinheim, 1994, pp.
422-543.
B-13 Yang, W.J.S., Grain boundary segregation in Solution-Treated Nimonic PE16 During
Irradiation, J. Nucl. Mater., 108-109, 1982, pp. 339-346.
B-14 Critical Issue Reviews for the Understanding and Evaluation of Irradiation-Assisted
Stress Corrosion Cracking, EPRI TR-107159, November 1996.
B-15 Joint Owners Baffle Bolt Program, JOBB-CD, Version 05.12, EPRI 1012083, 2005.
B-16 Jacobs, A.J., Wozadlo, G.P., Nakata, K., Yoshida, T., and Masaoka, I., Radiation Effects
on The Stress Corrosion and Other Selected Properties of Type-316 Stainless Steels,
Proc. 3rd Int. Symp. on Environmental Degradation of Materials in Nuclear Power
Systems - Water Reactors, Traverse City, Michigan, August 30 - September 3, 1987,
AIME, pp. 673-681.
EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material

Appendix B: Irradiation-Assisted Stress Corrosion Cracking
B-10
B-17 Lucas, G.E., The Evolution of Mechanical Property Change in Irradiated Austenitic
Stainless Steels, Journal of Nuclear Materials, Vol. 206 (1993), pp. 287-305.
B-18 Xu, H., Current Understanding of the Irradiation-Assisted Stress Corrosion Cracking
Potential for PWRs, BAW-2314, FANP, November 1997.
B-19 Cauvin, R., et al., Damage to Lower Internals Structures Subject to Heavy Fluence:
Expert Evaluations, Contribution of Materials Investigation to the Resolution of
Problems Encountered in Pressurized Water Reactors, Vol. 1, Sept. 12-16, 1994, France.
B-20 Cauvin, R., Rouillon, Y., Meylogan, T., and Goltrant, O., Intergranular Cracking of
Irradiated Austenitic Stainless Steels Core Materials in PWR, Effects of Radiation on
Materials: 18th International Symposium, ASTM, STP 1325, R.K. Nanstad, M.L.
Hamilton, F.A. Garner, and A.S. Kumar, Eds., ASTM, 1997.
B-21 Bourgoin, J., et. al., Contribution a la Connaissance du Comportement Sous Irradiation
des Crayons de Grappes de Commande, Contribution of Materials Investigation to the
Resolution of Problems Encountered in Pressurized Water Reactors, Fontevraud III,
Volume 2, 1994.
B-22 Scott, P., Deydier, D., Trenty, A., Analysis of Baffle/Former Bolt Cracking in French
PWRs, ASTM-1401, R.D. Kane, Ed., 2000.
B-23 Shogan, R.P., and Mager, T.R., Susceptibility of Type 316 Stainless Steel to Irradiation
Assisted Stress corrosion Cracking in a PWR Environment, Proc. 10th Int.Conference
on Environmental Degradation of Materials in Nuclear Power Systems - Water Reactors,
2002.
B-24 Kanasaki, H., et al., Fatigue and Stress Corrosion Cracking Behaviors of Irradiated
Stainless steels in PWR Primary Water, Proceedings of ICON 5: 5
th
International
Conference on Nuclear Engineering, 1997.
B-25 Fukuya, K., et al., IASCC Susceptibility and Slow Tensile Properties of Highly-
Irradiated 316 Stainless Steels, Journal of Nuclear Science and Technology, Vol. 41,
No. 6, p. 673-681, June 2004.
B-26 Lucas, G.E., and Hamilton, M.L., Small Specimen Testing For Irradiated Austenitic
Stainless Steels, Critical Issue Reviews for the Understanding and Evaluation of
Irradiation-Assisted Stress Corrosion Cracking, EPRI TR-107159, 4068, Final Report,
November, 1996.
B-27 Eyre, B.L., and Matthews, J.R., Technological Impact of Microstructural Evolution
During Irradiation, Journal of Nuclear Materials, 205 (1993), pp. 1-15.
EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material

Appendix B: Irradiation-Assisted Stress Corrosion Cracking
B-11
B-28 Garner, F.A., Black, C.A., and Edwards, D.J., Factors Which Control the Swelling of
Fe-Cr-Ni Ternary Austenitic Alloys, Journal of Nuclear Materials, 245 (1997), pp.124-
130.
B-29 Wang, Y.S., et al., The Study of Bubble Formation in 316L Stainless Steel Irradiated
With Helium Ions at 873 K, Journal of Nuclear Materials, 240 (1996), pp. 70-74.
B-30 Hide, K., Onchi, T., Oyamada, R., Kayano, H., Mechanical Response of Irradiated
Thermally-Sensitized Type 304 Stainless Steels, Journal of Nuclear Materials, 232
(1996), pp. 30-43.
B-31 Garzarolli, F., Deves, P., Hahn, R., and Nelson, J.L., Deformability of High-Purity
Stainless Steels and Ni-Based Alloys in the Core of A PWR, Proc. 6th Int. Symp. on
Environmental Degradation of Materials in Nuclear Power Systems - Water Reactors,
San Diego, California, August, 1993, AIME, pp. 607-613.
B-32 Tsukada, T., Miwa, Y., Nakajima, H., Stress Corrosion Cracking of Neutron Irradiated
Type 304 Stainless Steels, Proc. 7th Int. Symp. on Environmental Degradation of
Materials in Nuclear Power Systems - Water Reactors, Breckenridge, Colorado, August,
1995, NACE, pp. 1009-1019.
B-33 Kasahara, S., et al. The Effects of Minor Elements on IASCC Susceptibility in
Austenitic Stainless Steels Irradiated with Neutrons, Proc. 6th Int. Symp. on
Environmental Degradation of Materials in Nuclear Power Systems - Water Reactors,
San Diego, California, August, 1993, AIME, pp. 615-623.
B-34 Pettersson, K., and Simonen, E.P., Radiation Effects on Deformation of Austenitic
Alloys in Light Water Reactors, Critical Issue Reviews for the Understanding and
Evaluation of Irradiation-Assisted Stress Corrosion Cracking, EPRI TR-107159, 4068,
Final Report, November, 1996.
B-35 PWR Reactor Pressure Vessel Internals, License Renewal Industry Report; Revision 1,
TR-103838, Research Project 2643-32, Final Report, July 1994.
B-36 Mills, W,J,. Fracture toughness of Irradiated Stainless Steel Alloys, Westinghouse
Hanford Company, P.O. Box 1970, Richland, Washington, 99352.
B-37 The 4
th
EPRI Workshop on PWSCC of Alloy 600 in PWRs, February, 1997, Daytona,
Florida.
B-38 Conermann, J., et al., Irradiation Effects in a Highly Irradiated Cold Worked Stainless
Steel Removed from a Commercial PWR, Proc. of the 12
th
Int. Symp. on Environmental
Degradation of Materials in Nuclear Power Systems - Water Reactors, TMS, August
2005 (to be published).
B-39 Bruemmer, S.M., et al., J. Nuclear Materials, Vol. 274, 1999, pp. 299-314.
EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material

Appendix B: Irradiation-Assisted Stress Corrosion Cracking
B-12
B-40 Materials Reliability Program: Hot Cell Testing of Baffle/Former Bolts Removed From
Two Lead Plants (MRP-51), EPRI Report 1003069, 2001.
B-41 Materials Reliability Program: Characterization of Type 316 Cold-Worked Stainless
Steel Highly Irradiated Under PWR Operating Conditions (MRP-73), EPRI Report
1003525, 2002.
B-42 Materials Reliability Program: Characterization of Decommissioned PWR Vessel
Internals Material Samples - Tensile and SSRT Testing (MRP-129), EPRI Report
1008205, 2004.
B-43 Materials Reliability Program: Crack Initiation Testing and Slow Strain Rate Tensile
(SSRT) Testing of Boris-60 Irradiated Materials, and Effect of Hydrogen on IASCC
Susceptibility (MRP-159), EPRI Report 1010096, 2005.
B-44 Materials Reliability Program: A Review of the Cooperative Irradiation Assisted Stress
Corrosion Cracking Research Program (MRP-98), EPRI Report 1002807, 2003.
B-45 Materials Reliability Program: Stress Corrosion Cracking of High Strength Reactor
Vessel Internals Bolting in PWRs (MRP-88), EPRI Report 1003206, 2003.
B-46 R. Bajaj, W. J. Mills, M. R. Lebo, B. Z. Hyatt, and M. G. Burke Irradiation-Assisted
Stress Corrosion Cracking of HTH Alloy X-750 and Alloy 625, Proceedings of Seventh
International Symposium on Environmental Degradation of Materials in Nuclear Power
SystemsWater Reactors, American Nuclear Society, 1997.


EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material
C-1
C
APPENDIX C: WEAR
C.1 General Description of Wear
Wear in metals is the localized damage and material loss that results from the relative motion
between two surfaces in contact.
2
Abrasive wear, fretting wear, or mechanical wear are names
for different types (or processes) of wear. Wear may occur in one or a combination of the
following interactions between two materials (materials couple): 1) contact between surface
asperities where the weaker material would suffer local yielding and ultimately asperity failure
(microscopic level); 2) shearing of surface oxides; 3) local welding (due to friction) and
subsequent separation of the weld zone (like galling in a bolted joint) or by; 4) local work
hardening of two materials with the same or similar mechanical properties (e.g., a couple
consisting of Type 304 materials, typical of many PWR internals situations).
[C-1]
The forces of
interest in assessing the potential for wear in PWR internals are generally due to sliding
(momentary such as during installation) or excitations due to flow-induced vibration (FIV).
These forces produce wear as described in either 1 or 4 above. (Note: weldingor galling
referred to here is not a common occurrence.) Examples of wear are provided in Figures C-1
through C-3. Classic examples of a form of wear in a PWR are between steam generator tubes
and tube support plates and fuel cladding and fuel cladding assembly grid spacers. This
particular form of wear is referred to as fretting; the result of oscillatory relative motion between
the tubes (i.e., FIV), in each case, and the mating part.
[C-2]

Generally, (as noted here and in referenced license renewal reports
[C-3,C-4]
the main component
items, in the various PWR internals designs, subject to damage are austenitic stainless steels
(e.g., Types 304 and 316). However, component items fabricated from other materials have also
been affected. It is worth noting that a rather complete data set on the wear rates of various
material couples typically used in light water reactor applications can be found in Reference C-1.
The environment is virtually the same in all designs as well with the exception of the neutron
fluence (or, dpa) achieved in each design. Despite the similarities in materials, environment and
basic design configurations, there are some significant features in each PWR internals design that
end up being far more important in identifying wear susceptible locations. The next subsection
provides examples of wear induced failures and notes some of the changes made to avoid future
problems.

2
Erosion, erosion-corrosion, and flow-accelerated corrosion (FAC) are not anticipated to be of concern for the
materials used in PWR internals.
EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material

Appendix C: Wear
C-2



Figure C-1
Abrasive Wear Example
EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material

Appendix C: Wear
C-3


Figure C-2
Adhesive Wear Example
EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material

Appendix C: Wear
C-4


Figure C-3
Fretting Wear Example
C.2 PWR Internals Wear Events
C.2.1 Westinghouse Internals Designs
The flux thimble and guide tubes, part of the in-core neutron monitors in Westinghouse designed
PWR internals, have experienced thinning and leaks due to wear. The wear was identified as
fretting wear produced by FIV excitations (IE Information Notice No. 87-44).
[C-5]
The thimble
tubes extend from the seal table (~100 feet from the bottom of the reactor vessel), through
EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material

Appendix C: Wear
C-5
stainless steel piping and then through nozzles in the bottom of the reactor vessel up through the
lower PWR internals and into the bottom of selected fuel assemblies. The portion of the guide
tube between the bottom of these fuel assemblies and the top of the lower core plate is
subjected to FIV forces (refer to Figure 1-4 in the main text of this report). This is the location
where fretting damage has been observed. Various measures have been taken in response to IE
Bulletin 88-09 resulting in plant-specific changes.
[C-5, C-6]
Basically, eddy current methods have
been used to monitor the extent of thinning. The problem with this situation, currently being
managed through inspection strategies, is that a leak could become a breach in the pressure
boundary that requires closing a valve manually.
C.2.2 B&W Internals Design
The B&W designed 177-FA(fuel assembly) PWR internals also use incore instrumentation in a
configuration similar to the Westinghouse design.
[C-3]
However, to this point, no significant
wear-induced damage has been observed.
Vent valves are located in the upper plenum in the B&W 177-FA plant design (refer to Figure 1-
2 in the main text of this report). During the 1978-1980 time period, routine visual inspections
revealed signs of wear in the jacking screw locking cup in a few cases. The source of the wear
was FIV in the locking cup, which consists of a spring and cup arrangement. The locking cup,
fabricated from Type 304 SS, was subsequently modified on the affected vent valves. No further
significant wear has been detected in either the original or modified configurations.
During the 1972-1973 time period, the initial design of the RV Surveillance Program holder
tubes suffered significant FIV-induced wear. This resulted in complete re-design of the holder
tubes and the reactor vessel materials surveillance program.
[C-7]

C.2.3 CE Internals Designs
The CE designed PWR internals use incore instrumentation that is inserted through the RV
closure head with exception of 1 or 2 plants. No problems have been reported.
The CE designed units have, however, experienced excessive wear due to FIV early in life in the
Type 304 SS holddown ring used to provide clamping forces of the PWR internals at the RV
flange. The material in the holddown ring was changed to Type 403 SS to provide additional
spring force; this has corrected the problem.
[C-8]
Other areas of potential concern were identified in License Renewal Reports covering the
various designs supplied by Westinghouse, Combustion Engineering and, Babcock and Wilcox
including control rod guide tubes, supports pads located on the outside diameter (OD) of the
upper grid assembly, clevises, guide blocks (radial support blocks) and mating surfaces in the
junction formed by the core support assembly, the reactor vessel flange and closure head.
EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material

Appendix C: Wear
C-6
C.3 Potential Long Term Issues
Wear in the PWR internals may occur during installation and subsequent inspection operations
where there is sliding motion, and potential impact of adjacent parts may occur. These particular
situations are monitored through periodic inspections either by utility inspection instituted plans
or Section XI of the ASME B&PV Code.
[C-9]
The consequences of the localized fit-up type of
wear has the potential of leading to more serious forms of damage should the localized metal loss
exceed design allowances. The same could be asserted for the other materials aging degradation
mechanisms discussed in other portions of this document. While FIV damage can accumulate
quickly (e.g., during hot functional testing), bolted joints present particular areas of concern. For
example, if sufficient irradiation-induced stress relaxation were to occur and result in gaps,
hydrodynamic forces from FIV could produce significant damage in a short period of time after
many years of trouble-free operation. Some of the PWR internals are subjected to neutron
fluence levels for which stress relaxation of bolted joints is a concern (Appendix H). This could
lead to significant wear in portions of the core support assembly and structural instability.
However, the more likely failure mechanism would be expected to be fatigue.
General corrosion, induced from localized environmental conditions in a crevice (e.g., a bolted
connection), is not an issue in oxygen-free environments and so has no potential to result in
metal loss of significance in the structures response to FIV. Similarly, flow-accelerated
corrosion (FAC) of stainless alloys is unknown in LWR coolants and so cannot influence FIV
response. One potentially important source of unusually high FIV loadings can be changes in the
manner in which a plant is operated, i.e., pump operation, uprate, etc. Distortions produced in the
PWR internals resulting from localized irradiation-induced swelling and growth (Appendix G)
could also alter structural response to FIV loadings.
C.4 Wear Threshold and Screening Criteria
The development of PWR internals threshold and screening criteria for wear are based on the
following assumptions:
1. There are no flux or fluence dependencies associated with wear, per se. [Note however that
SR/IC, covered in Appendix H, could affect wear rates in bolted connections, for example.]
2. Wear is affected by the mechanical properties of the surfaces in contact. Wear rates could
change with the local temperature and degree of IE, but neither is quantifiable at this time.
3. Wear (from erosion, erosion-corrosion, and FAC) is not a concern for PWR internals
materials.
It is known that wear is influenced by a variety of parameters. These parameters, in general,
include the following:
Material parameters include composition, grain size, modulus, thermal conductivity, degree
of work hardening, hardness, etc.
Design parameters include shape, loading, type of motion, roughness, vibration, cycle time,
etc.
EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material

Appendix C: Wear
C-7
Environmental parameters include temperature, humidity, atmosphere, contamination,
corrosion potential, etc.
Lubrication parameters include type of lubricant, lubricant stability, type of fluid lubrication,
etc.
Presence or absence of wear-in (or break-in).
It is therefore concluded that no clearly defined threshold values can be developed for PWR
internals materials.
There also are no quantitative screening criteria that can be identified for wear concerns.
Therefore, it is concluded that for screening purposes, PWR internals locations be identified
where wear is likely to occur, based on the following criteria:
1. Locations where relative motion may occur between component items (such as control rod
guide tubes)
2. Locations where clamping force is required (such as the mating ledge between the internals
and the RV).
3. All bolted or spring locations where irradiation-enhanced stress relaxation/creep has been
screened as applicable.
C.5 Wear References
C-1 D.J. DePaul, Corrosion and Wear Handbook, TID 7006, March 1957.
C-2 AuYang, M.K., Flow-Induced Vibration of Power and Process Plant Components, ASME
Press, 2001, NewYork.
C-3 Clark, R.W., and Gregory, FM., Demonstration of the Management of Aging Effects for
the Reactor Vessel Internals, Framatome ANP Document BAW-2248A, March 2000.
C-4 Forsyth, D.R., et al., License Renewal Evaluation: Aging Management for Reactor
Internals, WCAP-14577, Revision 1-A, October 2000.
C-5 Nuclear Regulatory Commission Information Notice No. 87-44: Thimble Tube Thinning
in Westinghouse Reactors, September 16, 1987.
C-6 Nuclear Regulatory Commission Bulletin No. 88-09, Thimble Tube Thinning in
Westinghouse Reactors, July 26, 1988.
C-7 Lowe, A.L., et al., Integrated Reactor Vessel Material Surveillance Program for
Babcock & Wilcox 177-FA Plants, Effects of Radiation on Materials, Twelfth
International Symposium, American Society for Testing and Materials, Volume II,
ASTM STP 870, 1985.
EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material

Appendix C: Wear
C-8
C-8 Luk, K.H., Pressurized-Water Reactor Internals Aging Degradation Study,
NUREG/CR-6048, September 1993.
C-9 ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section XI, Rules for Inservice Inspection of
Nuclear Power Plant Components, 2004 Edition, American Society of Mechanical
Engineers.


EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material
D-1
D
APPENDIX D: FATIGUE
D.1 General Description of Fatigue
Fatigue of metals is a metallurgical degradation process involving the evolution of persistent slip
bands at the surface and subsequent crack formation and propagation during exposure to cyclic
stresses. Fatigue failures may occur in structures due to exposure to cyclic stresses with
magnitudes well below the monotonic tensile fracture stress. The forms of fatigue that can
(generally) occur include low-cycle fatigue (LCF) associated with significant plastic strains, and
high-cycle fatigue (HCF) that occurs at stresses below the elastic limit (cyclic lives > 10
5
or 10
6

cycles, depending on the material). Figure D-1 provides a classic example of a bolting HCF
failure. Also, for both cases, the environment can have an impact on the final fatigue results. This
is known as environmentally-enhanced or corrosion fatigue.

(Arrows denote the fatigue initiation sites)
Figure D-1
Classical Fatigue Failure of a Bolt by Reverse Bending
The source of cyclic stresses may arise from one or more of a combination of mechanical,
thermal or flow-induced sources. The process is often described as occurring in four stages:
1. Nucleation of localized plastic damage (formation of persistent slip bands)
EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material

Appendix D: Fatigue
D-2
2. The growth of micro-cracks with sizes typically of the same order as the material grain size
3. The formation and growth of micro-cracks to one or more cracks of critical size, and
4. The subsequent growth of a macro-crack, which is often expressed in terms of the Paris
equation, da/dN = CK
n
.
The percentage of total fatigue life varies among the forms of fatigue, e.g., in HCF, stages 1, 2
and 3 can occupy from 70% to 90% of the total fatigue life. In LCF, the formation of a detectable
crack may occur much earlier in life, and its growth in general predicted using fracture
mechanics. The theories of fatigue in metals are well documented in countless periodicals and
text books.
[D-1]
LCF and HCF are briefly described below in terms of how they might occur (or
have occurred in LWR component items). Of potential importance with regard to the PWR
internals is environmentally-enhanced fatigue that can significantly affect fatigue lives in either
the low or high cycle regimes.
D.1.1 Low-Cycle Fatigue (LCF)
LCF is due to relatively high stress range cycling where the number of cycles to failure is less
than about 10
4
to 10
5
. To induce cracking at this number of cycles, the stress/strain range causes
plastic strains that exceed the yield strength of the material. The cycling causes local plasticity
concentration in persistent slip bands leading to rapid material fatigue degradation. The stress
cycling that contributes to LCF is generally due to the combined effects of pressure and
temperature changes that result from normal operation particularly during plant heat-up and cool-
down cycles and for which the design procedures of Section III of the ASME B&PV Code have
to date been very successful in avoiding failures due to this cause. Generally, as noted above,
cracks are initiated early in the fatigue life (approx. 10% of life) and propagate to critical size
over the remaining life (approx. 90% of life).
D.1.2 High-Cycle Fatigue (HCF)
HCF may be:
Mechanical in nature, i.e., vibration or pressure pulsation or due to FIV. FIV can induce HCF
in otherwise normally passive component items merely through the interaction of flow
adjacent to the component item or within the system, establishing a cyclic resonant stress
response in the component item. Thus, attention has to be directed to bolted connections
subject to relaxation, particularly by irradiation-enhanced creep. Additionally, power uprates
are also of concern as an increase in flow may change the acoustical characteristics of the
system and excite an HCF mode where a resonant frequency is achieved.
Thermally-induced due to mixing of cold and hot fluids where local instabilities of mixing
lead to low-amplitude, high-cycle thermal stresses at the component item surfaces exposed to
the fluid; this is generally referred to as thermal striping. Often, the damage (cracking) is self
limiting in depth due to the attenuation of the local temperature variations at a short distance
below the surface.
EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material

Appendix D: Fatigue
D-3
D.1.3 Environmental or Corrosion Fatigue
The terms environmental fatigue or corrosion fatigue refer to the reduction in fatigue life
in an aqueous or gaseous environment compared to the air environment. Environmental fatigue is
potentially an issue for LWR Owners, the NRC and stakeholders and has been the subject of
considerable research and rules making activities throughout the world for over 20 years.
Environmental fatigue, in the context of these activities, involves two primary elements: (1) the
effects of a PWR environment on the overall fatigue life (as represented by either multiplying the
fatigue usage factor by a penalty factor to account for environment or use of an environment-
adjusted fatigue design curve), and (2) the potential accelerated growth of an identified defect
due to the PWR environment. Environmental acceleration of fatigue crack growth is important in
dispositioning detected/postulated flaws in a component item to permit continued operation. Of
course the environment present for the PWR internals also involves consideration of the effects
of neutron irradiation. The work of several researchers suggest that neutron irradiation does not
result in a further reduction in fatigue properties and in some cases suggest an improvement.
[D.2
D-4]
However, minimal data on the combined effects of the PWR water chemistry and neutron
fluence currently exist in the literature.
The current industry situation and evolving consensus process involves the adoption of specific
rules for addressing environmental fatigue in the materials used in the PWR internals. Basically,
the rules to address operating plants, either during the current license or license renewal, or for
new plants are in the formative stage and agreements are evolving among the affected
organizations. There are many key references in this regard including References D-5 through D-
11.
D.2 Application of ASME B&PV Code Rules
At the time most PWR internals were designed, no specific fatigue design rules existed in the
ASME B&PV Code. Later, the ASME B&PV Code began work on Subsection NG, Core
Support Structures and a draft version was available for guidance in some cases. Subsection NG
was first issued in the Winter 1973 Addenda to the 1971 Edition of the ASME B&PV Code.
[D-12]

As a result, the methodologies employed by the designers varied in assessing fatigue on PWR
internals. In the case of the B&W-designed plants, calculated cyclic stress levels were compared
with endurance limit values from projections (extrapolations) of the then existing in air
fatigue data to 10
12
cycles for 40 years of operation.
[D-13]
These calculations, to determine fatigue
usage factors (a.k.a., cumulative usage factors [CUFs]), were then reassessed in terms of actual
plant transients for license renewal purposes. The original calculations were determined to be
very conservative. The other NSSS designers used various approaches to basically make similar
conclusions regarding the conservative nature of the original calculations. In the various license
renewal submittals, the PWR internals designers identified the component items with the most
significant usage factors.
[D-14,D-15]
Significant usage factors were calculated in some cases,
including baffle-to-former and other forms of bolting. The challenge in the future will be to
apply any fatigue reduction environmental factors to establish revised fatigue usage factors if
such an approach is adopted.
EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material

Appendix D: Fatigue
D-4
D.3 Fatigue Summary and Discussion
The understanding of environmental fatigue is still evolving and is under considerable discussion
in the technical community,
[B-15]
Code bodies, and regulatory agencies. Laboratory data indicate
that the fatigue resistance of austenitic stainless steels and nickel-base alloys is lower in
deoxygenated primary water environments dependent on the cyclic frequency or rising load
strain rate than in room-temperature air. Code safety factors may not bound this difference in all
cases in the LCF region.
The PWR internals are also exposed to neutron irradiation of very low to extremely high values.
Limited results suggest that these exposures do not result in a further reduction in fatigue
properties and in some cases an improvement is suggested. The HCF life should be expected to
increase by irradiation due to the increase in the yield strength of the material. For LCF,
however, since the stresses are high, if the time at stress is sufficiently long it is expected that
IASCC will initiate and reduce the fatigue life.
[D-16]
However, the combined effects of the PWR
coolant and neutron fluence are not documented.

Difficulty often arises in evaluating fatigue when the total comprises both HCF and LCF. In
theory, a particular CUF calculation can be expressed as a summation of LCF and HCF
component items. However, a simple summation is not always appropriate. A component item
that is subject to LCF prior to being subject to HCF is not equivalent to the reverse order of
fatigue loading. Therefore, for component items subjected to both LCF and HCF, transient
tracking may not be appropriate to monitor damage due to fatigue.
A number of parameters are important to the fatigue of a material. These include stress
amplitude, mean and maximum stress, surface roughness, and temperature. As each of these
increases in magnitude, the number of cycles required for failure decreases. Geometry also
affects fatigue because of stress concentrations. It has been dealt with pragmatically and
apparently successfully to date by the current ASME B&PV Code Section II design rules. In
addition, the occurrence of other degradation mechanisms may affect fatigue life. For instance,
SCC may initiate a flaw and HCF may propagate it to failure rather rapidly.
D.4 Fatigue Threshold and Screening Criteria
The development of PWR internals threshold and screening criteria for fatigue are based on the
following assumptions:
1. Water chemistry conditions, in accordance with EPRI guidelines, are maintained.
2. Fatigue can occur within all PWR materials, subjected to cycling (mechanical or thermal).
3. Fatigue can occur at all PWR internals temperatures. However, temperature gradients are of
concern (e.g., those occurring during transients).
The threshold values for fatigue depend on the HCF usage factors and cyclic stresses for LCF.
As material aging concerns with IE, IASCC, etc. occur, LCF and/or HCF may become an issue.
It will most likely be required to consider each load or stress pair in terms of yet to be formalized
EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material

Appendix D: Fatigue
D-5
threshold values. The current industry thinking on appropriate threshold values (for the
environmental effects on fatigue) are contained in Reference D-11. This document includes the
following threshold values for 300-series stainless steel for license renewal (but not limited to):
Strain range 0.20 %
Strain rate 0.4 %/second
Temperature 356
o
F (180
o
C)
Dissolved Oxygen no threshold
In case any one of these thresholds is met, the fatigue penalty factor F(en) is equal to 1.0 for that
particular load or stress pair. This means that the particular load or stress pair is not impacted by
the environmental effects on fatigue.
The threshold values listed above can also be found in the latest Welding Research Council
(WRC) Bulletin on the subject of the environmental effects on fatigue. They are listed in the
Article X-2000 of Section 7.0 (Code Implementation) of WRC Bulletin 487, dated December
2003.
[D-6]
Other threshold values under evaluation include the R value and hold time while in tension.
There are currently differences between the industry and the NRC on the magnitude of the
threshold environmental factors to consider (this subject must be addressed at a later date).
Therefore, no clear threshold criteria can be developed at this time.
For screening purposes, in lieu of clear codified guidelines regarding the effects of
environmentally-enhanced fatigue (including irradiation effects), the following criteria are
suggested:
1. All bolted connections or springs where irradiation-enhanced stress relaxation/creep is
screened as applicable.
2. Locations where the CUF values are > 0.10 (calculated for a 40-year life) should be
identified.
3

Follow-on evaluations for functionality may include engineering judgment or the use of the
currently NRC-accepted methods described in Reference D-8; however, as noted above, there is
currently no clear industry consensus for addressing environmental fatigue concerns.
D.5 Fatigue References
D-1 American Society of Metals Handbook, Fatigue and Fracture, Volume 19, 1996.

3
In some instances fatigue life was alternatively qualified through testing. These component items should be
initially screened in for potential fatigue concerns and evaluated.
EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material

Appendix D: Fatigue
D-6
D-2 Shahinian, P., Fatigue Crack Propagation in Fast Neutron Irradiated Stainless Steels and
Welds, Properties of Reactor Structural Alloys After Neutron or Particle Irradiation,
ASTM STP 570, American Society for Testing and Materials, 1975.
D-3 Michel, D.J., Irradiation Effects on Fatigue Crack Propagation in Austenitic Stainless
Steels, NRL Memorandum Report 3610, September 1977.
D-4 Shahinian, P., Effect of Neutron Irradiation on Fatigue Crack Propagation in Types 304
and 316 Stainless Steels at High Temperature, NRL Report 7446, July, 1972.
D-5 Guidelines for Environmental Fatigue Evaluation for LWR Components, Thermal and
Nuclear Power Engineering Society (TENPES), June 2002 (Translated into English in
November 2002).
D-6 Van der Sluys, W.A., PVRCs Position on Environmental Effects on Fatigue Life in
LWR Applications, Welding Research Council, Inc. Bulletin No. 487, 2003.
D-7 NUREG/CR-5999 (ANL-93/3), Interim Fatigue Design Curves for Carbon, Low-Alloy,
and Austenitic Stainless Steels in LWR Environments, April 1993.
D-8 NUREG/CR-6260 (INEL-95/0045), Application of NUREG/CR-5999 Interim Fatigue
Curves to Selected Nuclear Power Plant Components, March 1995.
D-9 NUREG/CR-5704 (ANL-98/31), Effects of LWR Coolant Environments on Fatigue
Design Curves of Austenitic Stainless Steels, April 1999.
D-10 Stevens, G.L., and Davis, J.M., Guidelines for Addressing Fatigue Environmental
Effects in a License Renewal Application (MRP-47 Revision 1), Industry Guidance
Document, TR-1012017, May 18, 2005 Draft 1G.
D-11 Mehta, H.S., An Update on the Consideration of Reactor Water Effects in Code Fatigue
Initiation Evaluations for Pressure Vessels and Piping, PVP-Volume 410-2, American
Society of Mechanical Engineers, 2000.
D-12 Winter 1973 Addenda, 1971 Edition of Subsection NG of the ASME B&PV Code.
D-13 Fyfitch, S., et al., Oconee Nuclear Power Station Unit 1 Reactor Vessel Internals Life
Extension Project, BAW-2060, October 1988.
D-14 Clark, R.W., and Gregory, FM., Demonstration of the Management of Aging Effects for
the Reactor Vessel Internals, Framatome ANP Document BAW-2248A, March 2000.
D-15 Forsyth, D.R., et al., License Renewal Evaluation: Aging Management for Reactor
Internals, WCAP-14577, Revision 1-A, March 2001.
EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material

Appendix D: Fatigue
D-7
D-16 Conermann, J., et al., Irradiation Effects in a Highly Irradiated Cold Worked Stainless
Steel Removed from a Commercial PWR, Proc. of the 12
th
Int. Symp. on Environmental
Degradation of Materials in Nuclear Power Systems - Water Reactors, TMS, August
2005 (to be published).


EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material
E-1
E
APPENDIX E: THERMAL AGING EMBRITTLEMENT
E.1 General Description of Thermal Aging Embrittlement
Thermal aging embrittlement (TE), sometimes simply known as thermal embrittlement, is a time
and temperature dependent process whereby a material undergoes microstructural changes
leading to decreased ductility, and degradation of toughness and impact properties. MRP-80
[E-1]

is a document that was prepared for the MRP to summarize the available TE data for materials
utilized in PWRs and to identify those materials potentially susceptible to TE. Much of the
information utilized in this section is contained in that summary report.
This phenomenon is usually accompanied by an increase in yield strength, ultimate tensile
strength, and hardness. Wrought austenitic stainless steels and nickel-base alloys are not subject
to TE at PWR operating temperatures.
[E-2]
For the PWR internals, the only materials that are
potentially susceptible to TE are cast austenitic stainless steels (CASS), austenitic stainless steel
welds, martensitic stainless steels, and martensitic precipitation-hardenable (PH) stainless
steels.
[E-3, E-4]
CASS and PH materials are typically embrittled in the temperature range of 700 to
1000F (371 to 538C) within a short time.
[E-5]
For example, Charpy impact test data show that
CASS TE reaches saturation after 2,600 hours at 752F (400C).
[E-6]
In addition for Type 17-
4PH, Charpy impact test data show severe TE after 250 hours at 427C (800F).
[E-7]

There are no known published studies of the stress corrosion resistance of CASS, welded CASS,
or austenitic stainless steel weld materials in the thermally aged and embrittled condition when
exposed to primary coolant although there are some instances of SCC propagating into stainless
steel weld metals in BWRs, apparently along the delta-ferrite, after long periods of service.
However, a number of studies have shown that martensitic PH stainless steels (e.g., Type 17-4
PH) become more susceptible to SCC in the embrittled condition (e.g., Reference E-8). There are
also no known published studies of the influence of the primary water environment compared to
air on fracture resistance.
E.1.1 CASS
The most commonly used CASS materials in PWR internals are ASME SA-351 or ASTM A 296
Grades CF-3M and CF-8. They have a duplex microstructure consisting of austenite (gamma
phase) and ferrite (delta phase). The delta-ferrite phase is susceptible to TE at long times at
reactor internal temperatures. The volume fraction of ferrite is typically 10 to 20%, but may
attain 25%.
EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material

Appendix E: Thermal Aging Embrittlement
E-2
The mechanisms of TE that cause embrittlement in CASS have been reviewed and evaluated
extensively by Chopra and Chung
[E-9 E-16]
of Argonne National Laboratory (ANL).
Embrittlement or loss of toughness in CASS during elevated-temperature exposure is related to
(1) the formation of the Cr-rich alpha-prime phase and the Ni-rich and Ti-rich silicide (G phase)
in the delta-ferrite, and (2) the precipitation of carbides at the austenite-ferrite phase boundaries.
The phase-boundary carbides play a significant role in embrittlement for exposure at
temperatures > 400C (752F), but have less effect on the embrittlement at exposure
temperatures < 400C (752F).
Different heats of CASS may exhibit different degrees of property degradation depending on the
amount, size, and distribution of ferrite in the duplex austenitic/ferrite structure and the presence
of carbides at the grain boundaries.
[E-3]
When the ferrite tends to be interconnected (rather than
being present as isolated islands), the potential loss of toughness is increased.
[E-17]
Low ferrite
CASS alloys typically exhibit isolated islands of ferrite and therefore show less thermal aging
susceptibility.
[E-18]
Figure E-1 shows examples of two ferrite levels.
For typical PWR internals temperatures [< 350C (662F)], the formation of the alpha-prime
phase and the G phase in the ferrite are the primary factors involved in embrittlement. Also,
Chopra and Chung report that the kinetics of the formation of these phases appears to be
different at temperatures < 400C (752F). Because of these differences in formation and
precipitation behavior, the results of tests on material subjected to accelerated aging at
temperatures > 400C (752F) are recommended not to be extrapolated to the lower
temperatures.
The alpha-prime phase typically forms by the process of spinodal decomposition. Spinodal
decomposition refers to the reaction whereby two phases of the same crystal lattice type, but
different compositions and properties, form because a miscibility gap exists in the alloy system.
In the iron-chromium system, these immiscible phases are known as the iron-rich alpha phase
and the chromium-rich alpha-prime phase. This phase separation process occurs at a very fine
scale (on the order of only a few nanometers) in the ferrite regions of cast stainless steel, and use
of an atom probe field ion microscope is required to resolve the presence of the alpha-prime
phase.
[E-19]
After long-term aging at PWR internals temperatures, there are indications that alpha-
prime phase also can form by means of a nucleation and growth process (in addition to spinodal
decomposition).
[E-12]
Whether one or both of these mechanisms occurs seems to depend on the
composition of the ferrite and the exposure temperature.
G phase forms in the ferrite by a nucleation and growth process. Its rate of formation is enhanced
by increased levels of carbon and molybdenum.
[E-12]
When the G phase is present, it appears to
mitigate the degree of embrittlement caused by the alpha-prime phase. A CF-8 stainless steel
pump cover material was found to be embrittled (with a room temperature Charpy impact energy
of 131 J/cm
2
[77 ft-lbs]) after 8 years of service at a temperature of 284C (543F) in a BWR.
[E-
16]
Annealing for one hour at 550C (1022F) dissolved the alpha-prime phase and restored the
Charpy impact resistance to the level expected for unaged material (232 J/cm
2
[137 ft-lbs]), but
had no effect on the G phase that was present. Thus, the G phase had no significant effect on the
degree of embrittlement, and the alpha-prime embrittlement was easily reversed by a short heat
treatment at a moderate temperature. This annealing treatment was used in the laboratory to
EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material

Appendix E: Thermal Aging Embrittlement
E-3
verify that embrittlement was primarily caused by the alpha-prime, but it would not be practical
to apply it to component items in the field.

Figure E-1
Typical Microstructures Of Centrifugally Cast Austenitic Stainless Steel, With Islands Of
Ferrite In An Austenite Matrix
[E-35]

Because only the ferrite phase is embrittled by long-term service at operating temperature, the
overall TE of a CASS component item depends on the amount and morphology of the ferrite that
is present. In addition, molybdenum, being influential in the amount of ferrite and G phase
EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material

Appendix E: Thermal Aging Embrittlement
E-4
formed, is considered the most important chemical element to TE. Therefore threshold and
screening criteria can be developed based on temperature, molybdenum content, and ferrite
levels. In the case of a CASS component item that is welded, evidence has been shown that the
heat-affected zone (HAZ) is potentially more susceptible to TE.
[E-20]

CASS materials are not normally subjected to high neutron fluence, although some CASS
component items located at the edge of the reactor core may reach fluence levels on the order of
10
20
n/cm
2
(E > 1.0 MeV). The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Staff has proposed the
existence of a potential synergistic
4
effect of neutron irradiation on TE. There are currently no
data to prove or disprove this proposal. The Westinghouse Owners Group (WOG) Materials
Subcommittee (in collaboration with the MRP RI-ITG) is sponsoring tests to obtain PWR and
test reactor irradiated material fracture toughness data from CASS component item materials and
austenitic SS welds with different amounts of TE. These material samples will yield data in the
near future that will shed light on the postulated synergistic effect.
E.1.2 Austenitic Stainless Steel Welds
The austenitic stainless steel weld deposits used in PWR internals, typically Types 308 or 308L,
have a similar duplex microstructure to CASS material, but with a lower volume fraction of
delta-ferrite (in the range of 5 to 15%, by ASME B&PV Code specifications but typically 5 to
10%) and notably lower chromium contents. The ferrite content is beneficial in preventing hot
cracking and stress corrosion cracking, but it is a potential source of TE for austenitic stainless
steel weldments.
The TE of austenitic stainless steel welds has been investigated by several researchers and the
results are summarized in MRP-80.
[E-1]
Fracture toughness of austenitic stainless steel welds is
found to be dependent on the weld process, but insensitive to filler metal.
[E-21]
Figure E-2 shows
the room temperature J
Ic
of several commonly used stainless steel welds by five different weld
processes including gas-tungsten- arc (GTA), shielded metal-arc (SMA), submerged-arc (SA),
gas-metal-arc (GMA) and flux-cored-arc (FCA).
[E-22]
Welds produced by the GTA process
obtain the highest toughness values while welds produced by the SA process consistently have
the lowest toughness values. This is mainly due to the fact that GTA welds have the lowest
inclusion density due to the inert gas protecting the molten pool from oxygen and to the absence
of a flux. No statistical difference is found between J-R curves for SA and SMA welds. The J
Ic

fracture toughness data for GMA and SMA weld processes are intermediate.

4
The word synergistic, in this case, refers to the possibility that the effects of neutron irradiation and thermal aging
could be greater than the sum of the effects from each mechanism considered individually.
EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material

Appendix E: Thermal Aging Embrittlement
E-5

Figure E-2
Comparison Of J
IC
Of Unirradiated Stainless Steel Weld By Different Processes
[E-19]

Mills
[E-23]
performed a study where he investigated the TE of Type 308 welds fabricated using
the GTA welding process. The ferrite content of the weld metal was about 10 ferrite number
(FN).
5
Mills results indicate that the fracture toughness of the welds was not affected by aging at
427C (800F) for 10,000 hours. However, other research results show that thermal aging may
cause a reduction in both the impact energy and fracture toughness of SMA welds. Hale and
Garwood
[E-24]
investigated the thermal aging of Type 19-9-L austenitic welds made by a manual-
metal-arc (MMA) welding process. The ferrite content of the weld metal was in the rage of 5 to 9

5
Ferrite number (FN) is the currently accepted designation for ferrite measurement and refers to a magnetically
determined scale of ferrite measurement. It is related to ferrite volume (%) as shown in the constitution diagram
relating nickel equivalent and chromium equivalent values (see ASME Code, Section III). A FN of 10 is
approximately 9.2% ferrite by volume.
EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material

Appendix E: Thermal Aging Embrittlement
E-6
FN. Their results show that aging at 400C (730F) for 10,000 to 20,000 hours had little effect
on the room temperature tensile properties and Charpy impact energy of these welds, but resulted
in a significant increase in the ductile-to-brittle transition temperature measured at the 27-J
energy level, which was increased from -158 to -75C (-252 to -103F), an increase of 83C
(150F). The results also show that TE at 400C (752F) for up to 10,000 hours reduces the J-R
fracture toughness of the weld metal. The lower bound fracture toughness, J
IC
, measured at
300C (572F) was reduced from 67 to 32 kJ/m
2
. Most of this reduction in fracture toughness
took place in the first 1,000 hours.
Alexander et al.
[E-25]
also investigated the TE of Type 308 weld material fabricated using the
SMA welding process. The ferrite content of these welds was 12% (by volume). Their results
also show that aging of these welds at 343C (650F) for 20,000 hours resulted in a minimal
effect on the room temperature tensile properties but caused a significant increase in the ductile-
to-brittle transition temperature measured at the 68-J energy level, an increase from -25 to 60C
(572F) or 85C (153F). However, ODonnell et al.
[E-22]
have argued that a significant reduction
in fracture toughness is likely when the ferrite volume fraction exceeds 10%. It appears that there
may be a synergistic interaction between the embrittled ferrite phase and inclusions in the SMA
welds. Further investigation is needed of the thermal aging behavior of SMA welds having a
ferrite content representative of that in production welds.
Some austenitic stainless steel weldments located close to the reactor core may reach relatively
high fluence levels on the order of several dpa. As noted above, the WOG Materials
Subcommittee (in collaboration with the MRP RI-ITG) is sponsoring tests to obtain PWR and
test reactor irradiated material fracture toughness data from CASS component item materials and
austenitic SS welds with different amounts of TE. These material samples will yield data in the
near future that will shed light on the NRC Staff postulated synergistic effect.
In summary, although no significant TE is anticipated for the typical delta-ferrite levels (5-10%)
in austenitic stainless steel weld deposits, a significant reduction in fracture toughness is likely if
the ferrite volume fraction exceeds a threshold of ~10%. However, because of the potential
concern with a synergistic effect between neutron dose and TE, TE may become significant for
some austenitic stainless steel weld locations.
E.1.3 Martensitic Stainless Steel
Martensitic stainless steels (Types 403 and 410) have mainly been used for component items in
PWR internals and control rod drive mechanisms, and for valve stems and pump shafts.
Martensitic stainless steels are most commonly used in the quenched and tempered (950-1250F
[510-677C]) condition. Available embrittlement data are mostly related to Type 410 material.
TE of Type 403 is expected to be similar to or bounded by Type 410.
It is interesting to note that TE of Type 410 during service was not investigated or even
suspected as a possible cause for past failures in PWRs. This may be due to the fact that
embrittlement of martensitic stainless steels is less pronounced than CASS and martensitic PH
stainless steels and, in part, due to the misconception that thermal aging embrittlement is always
accompanied by a hardness increase. Meyzaud and Wagner, et al.,
[E-26, E-27]
investigated thermal
EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material

Appendix E: Thermal Aging Embrittlement
E-7
aging embrittlement of both martensitic stainless steels and martensitic PH stainless steels. The
materials were austenitized at 1805
o
F (985C) for 1 hour followed by oil-quenching, and
tempering at 1112
o
F (600C) for 4 hours and then air cooled. These heats were aged at 572, 662,
752, and 842
o
F (or 300, 350, 400, and 450
o
C, respectively) from 1000 hours up to 10,000 hours.
As shown in Figure E-3, there is no significant effect from aging on the measured hardness of the
13%Cr (Type 410) and the 13%Cr-1%Ni, except some softening at 842
o
F (450C) for 10,000
hours.
[E-26]

Figure E-3
Variation In Hardness As A Function Of Aging Time And Temperature For 13%Cr (Type
410), 13%Cr-1%Ni, And 16%Cr-4%Ni
[E-26]
EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material

Appendix E: Thermal Aging Embrittlement
E-8
Despite a lack of hardening, aging has produced noticeable embrittlement in the tempered Type
410 stainless steel. Wagner, et al., performed Charpy impact tests on the un-aged and aged
materials at 752
o
F (400
o
C) for 5000 and 10,000 hours.
[E-27]
As shown in Figure E-4, aging
produced a noticeable embrittlement effect on the 13%Cr material, where the ductile-brittle
transition temperature (DBTT) shifted toward a significantly higher temperature. The
embrittlement effect is more pronounced for the 13%Cr-1%Ni material, where the DBTT shifted
by ~135
o
F (75
o
C) after 10,000 hours at 752
o
F (400
o
C). The upper-shelf and lower-shelf are not
greatly affected by aging. Figure E-5 shows typical Charpy impact energy curves of unaged
Type 410 tempered at 1100, 1225, and 1450
o
F (593, 663, and 788
o
C).
[E-28]
Figure E-6 shows the
Izod impact data of Type 410 quenched from 1800
o
F and tempered at 1150
o
F (621
o
C) to a
hardness of HB 228.
[E-29]
The measured DBTTs range from 100 to 200
o
F (-73 to 93
o
C).
Because the DBTT of un-aged Type 410 is near room temperature, the room temperature
fracture toughness can potentially be sensitive to TE. Wagner, et al. performed fracture
toughness tests at room temperature for materials aged at 752
o
F (400
o
C) for 5,000 hours. For the
13%Cr, J
Ic
decreased from ~265 to ~230 kJ/m
2
and dJ/da from ~400 to ~250. No valid values
were obtained for the 13%Cr-1%Ni alloy due to brittle fracture of the test specimens.

Figure E-4
Charpy V-Notch Impact Energy Transition Curves In The Unaged And Aged Conditions Of
13%Cr (Type 410) And 13%Cr-1%Ni (Longitudinal Orientation)
[E-27]
EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material

Appendix E: Thermal Aging Embrittlement
E-9

A is tempered at 1450
o
F with final hardness 95 HRB;
B is tempered at 1225
o
F with final hardness 24 HRC
C is tempered at 1100
o
F with final hardness 30 HRC.
Figure E-5
Typical Charpy V-Notch Transition Behavior of Unaged Type 410 Martensitic Stainless
Steel
[E-28]

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material

Appendix E: Thermal Aging Embrittlement
E-10

Figure E-6
Izod Data for Unaged Type 410 after Quenching From 1800
o
F and Tempering At 1150
o
F (HB
228)
[E-29]
Although TE is believed to be due to grain boundary segregation of impurities such as antimony,
phosphorous, tin, arsenic to the prior austenite grain boundaries (which occurs during temper
embrittlement of these alloys), a literature review has not revealed any definitive underlying
causes of the TE of martensitic stainless steels. The TE of martensitic stainless steel is likely
linked to grain boundary segregation of impurities while hardness is controlled by the post-
quench heat treatment temperature. Aging at PWR internals temperatures for long periods of
time could cause significant grain boundary segregation of impurities. Even a minor increase in
the DBTT can result in a drastic deterioration of the room temperature impact energy because the
initial un-aged DBTT of martensitic stainless steel material is near room temperature.
E.1.4 Martensitic Precipitation-Hardenable Stainless Steel
Type 17-4 PH material is the most commonly used martensitic precipitation-hardenable stainless
steel used in LWRs. As noted in Appendix A, Type 15-5 PH is used in some PWR internals
designs, and it is a delta-ferrite-free compositional modification of the Type 17-4 PH alloy.
Long-term exposure to temperatures between about 600-900F (288-482C) is known to result in
reduced toughness in martensitic precipitation-hardenable stainless steels through a secondary
aging process. Although no known studies of TE with Type 15-5 PH material have been found in
the open literature, what is known about Type 17-4 PH material is assumed to be directly
applicable and is detailed below.
The secondary thermal aging (or TE) of martensitic PH stainless steels (such as Type 17-4 PH
and Type 15-5 PH) at temperatures above 600
o
F was recognized by Armco Steel Corporation
EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material

Appendix E: Thermal Aging Embrittlement
E-11
(Armco), the original developer of these alloys. For the Type 17-4 PH material aged to the H-
1100 condition, Armco reported values of room temperature Izod impact (ft-lb.) after being aged
at 700, 800 and 900
o
F for 1000 or 2000 hours as listed in Table 2.5-1.
[E-30]
This indicates that, for
the three temperatures investigated, the TE kinetics for Type 17-4 PH (H-1100) are the fastest
around 800
o
F. This was reflected in Armcos recommendation for parts requiring corrosion
resistance and high strength at service temperatures not higher than 600
o
F. As the aging rate has
an inverse exponential dependency on temperature, the time required to achieve significant TE
would take longer than a few thousand hours. Hence, these short-term low temperature aging
data could not settle the question of the long-term aging effect of Type 17-4 PH (H-1100) at or
below 600
o
F. The 1989 ASME B&PV Code Section III mentioned that Type 17-4 PH in the H-
1100 condition has reduced toughness at room temperature after exposure for about 5000 hours
(~7 months) at 600
o
F and after shorter exposure above 650
o
F.
[E-31]
All these observations and test
results indicate the significant loss of ductility and impact strength of Type 17-4 PH (H-1100)
from relatively short-term exposure at 600
o
F.
Table E-1
Temperature Izod Impact Values of Type 17-4 PH (H-1100)
[E-24]

The initial room temperature Izod impact value is 56 ft-lbs
Aging
Temperature
1000 hours
Exposure time
2000 hours
Exposure time
700
o
F 7 ft-lb. 4 ft-lb.
800
o
F 3 ft-lb. 2 ft-lb.
900
o
F 6 ft-lb. 11 ft-lb.

The potential TE of Type 17-4 PH (H-1100) for BWR applications at 550
o
F was a concern in the
early 1960s.
[E-32]
The metallurgical basis of TE of Type 17-4 PH (H-1100) was also studied in
the early 1960s.
[E-33]
The TE at 800
o
F was accompanied by increases in hardness and tensile
strengths. The low temperature TE and hardening was a surprise at the time from the following
three considerations: (1) little additional decrease in copper solubility below 1100
o
F to allow
additional precipitation hardening; (2) diminishing precipitation hardening from continued
overaging of copper precipitates; and (3) continued tempering of the martensitic matrix. Hence,
it was reasoned that the TE of Type 17-4 PH (H-1100) must be caused by precipitation of a
second phase, not related to the primary Cu-rich precipitates. Due to their similar embrittlement
characteristics, the TE of Type 17-4 PH (H-1100) was linked to the 885
o
F embrittlement of
ferritic stainless steels. The generally accepted mechanism for the 885
o
F embrittlement of ferritic
stainless steels is associated with the precipitation of an alpha-prime phase, which is a very fine,
coherent, chromium-rich body centered cubic phase. With X-ray diffraction and X-ray
fluorescence analysis, Antony identified the existence of alpha-prime in aged Type 17-4 PH (H-
1100).
[E-33]
The alpha-prime precipitation cause of TE of Type 17-4 PH is also supported by
studies of TE of CASS in a similar temperature range (Section E.1.2) Clarke later showed that
variation in Type 17-4 PH chemical composition has a significant influence on the initial room
EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material

Appendix E: Thermal Aging Embrittlement
E-12
temperature Charpy impact properties and the embrittlement kinetics (see Figure E-7 and Figure
E-8).
[E-34]
Compared to the martensitic stainless steels such as Type 403 and 410 (Section E.1.3), Type 17-
4 PH is more susceptible to TE due to its higher content of chromium and other alloying
elements. The degree of TE with Type 15-5 PH material may be similar to the martensitic
stainless steels, but data are unavailable to confirm this presumption. The effect of thermal aging
on Charpy impact properties is shown in Figure E-9.
[E-34]
The DBTT of unaged Type 17-4 PH
(H-1100) is similar to unaged Type 410 martensitic stainless steel, i.e., around room
temperature.
[E-29]
The transition temperature of aged Type 17-4 PH (H-1100) can approach
~500
o
F as compared to 75-200
o
F for Type 410 from comparable exposure to elevated
temperature.
[E-26]
In addition, TE of Type 17-4 PH (H-1100) is accompanied by a severe decrease
in upper shelf energy (USE), unlike Type 410 steel whose USE is only moderately decreased by
aging at similar temperatures.

Figure E-7
Type 17-4 PH (H-1100), Effect Of %Cr + %Si + %Cb On Exposure Time At 800
o
F To Cause A
50% Drop In Initial Room Temperature Charpy Impact Energy
[E-28]


Figure E-8
Type 17-4 PH (H-1100), Effect Of %P + %S + 0.1%Cb + %N On The Initial Room
Temperature Charpy Impact Energy
[E-28]

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material

Appendix E: Thermal Aging Embrittlement
E-13

Figure E-9
Effect Of Exposure On Charpy V-Notch Impact Properties At 800
o
F For Type 17-4 PH (H-
1100)
[E-28]

Because TE of CASS and martensitic PH stainless steels is accompanied by an increase in
hardness, embrittlement is often characterized by the hardness increase. Yrieix et al. found that
the decline in Charpy impact properties is linearly correlated with hardening.
[E-35]
Empirical
correlations were also made to link the hardness increase with exposure temperature and time
based experimental test results.
[E-35, E-36]
Based on these studies, an embrittlement model for Type
17-4 PH (H-1100) in PWRs has been developed by Xu and Fyfitch.
[E-4]
The hardness increase of
Type 17-4 PH (H-1100) component items removed from service was found to be in good
agreement with the model. Based on the model, Figure E-10 shows the increase in the fracture
appearance transition temperature (FATT
50
) and decrease in USE as a function of exposure time
at 600
o
F. The increase in DBTT and loss of USE is in agreement with studies by Clarke,
Meyzaud and Cozar, and Wagner, et al. Although the embrittlement kinetics are sensitive to
heat-to-heat differences in composition, severe thermal hardening and embrittlement would be
reached for Type 17-4 PH (H-1100) near 600
o
F during a 60-year PWR internals lifetime.
E.2 TE Summary and Discussion
Thermal aging embrittlement is an aging degradation mechanism that is dependent upon time
and temperature. TE manifests itself by an increase in a materials yield strength, ultimate tensile
strength, and hardness along with decreased ductility and degradation of toughness and impact
properties. [Note: However, depending upon the specific material, each of these material
properties is not always affected, as is the case noted above for martensitic SS.]

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material

Appendix E: Thermal Aging Embrittlement
E-14
0
50
100
150
200
0 10 20 30 40 50
EFPYs
U
S
E

(
f
t
-
l
b
)
Mean Value
+18.5 ft-lb
-18.5 ft-lb

-100
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
0 10 20 30 40 50
EFPYs
F
A
T
T
5
0

(
o
F
)

Figure E-10
Predicted Embrittlement of Type 17-4 PH (H-110) FATT
50
-vs.-EFPYs and USE-vs.-EFPYs as
a Function of Exposure Time at 600
o
F
[E-3]

Materials in the PWR internals that are potentially susceptible to TE include CASS, martensitic
stainless steels, martensitic PH stainless steels, and austenitic stainless steel weldments. The
following have been identified as the major parameters for developing threshold and screening
criteria:
The ferrite phase in CASS materials becomes embrittled by long-term service at PWR
internals operating temperatures. Threshold and screening criteria can be developed based on
the type of casting, the material composition (particularly molybdenum content), and ferrite
level.
Data exist showing martensitic stainless steels to be susceptible to TE. However, inadequate
data exist to develop threshold or screening criteria; therefore, all martensitic stainless steels
are considered susceptible to TE.
EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material

Appendix E: Thermal Aging Embrittlement
E-15
Martensitic PH stainless steels are well known to be susceptible to TE. Threshold and
screening criteria can be developed based on temperature. Material composition appears to
have an effect on the degree of TE, but inadequate data are available for developing criteria
for screening purposes.
Austenitic stainless steel weld materials show a wide range of tensile and fracture toughness
properties in the as-welded and un-aged condition. Their microstructure and aging
susceptibility are superior to static stainless steel castings with low molybdenum contents
because of their lower Cr and delta-ferrite content. Thus, utilizing the same screening criteria
as suggested for statically-cast CASS materials, no weld metal will fall above the ferrite
screening level (i.e., >20%) due to the lower ferrite content.
As noted above, CASS materials are not normally subjected to high neutron fluence, although
some CASS component items located at the edge of the reactor core may reach fluence levels on
the order of 10
20
n/cm
2
(E > 1.0 MeV). There are currently no data to prove or disprove the
existence of a potential synergistic effect of neutron irradiation on TE. However, samples from
CASS component items and austenitic SS welds with different amounts of TE are currently in a
test program designed to shed light on the postulated synergistic effect.
E.3 TE Threshold and Screening Criteria
Temperature and time at temperature are the overriding parameters controlling TE. Significant
TE during the PWR operating life is possible for some materials (e.g., Type 17-4 PH material at
temperature above approximately 500F (260C).
[E-37]
Therefore, a reasonable threshold
temperature for all TE susceptible materials is ~ 500F (260C).
Since the ferrite content is one of the major parameters for TE of CASS and austenitic stainless
steel weld materials, a reasonable threshold criterion for CASS and austenitic stainless steel
welds is suggested as ferrite volume contents > 10%.
All martensitic and martensitic PH stainless steel materials are considered potentially susceptible
to TE. Therefore, no screening criteria have been developed.
Based on recognized industry efforts, the following CASS alloys have been determined to be
susceptible to loss of toughness and are suggested to be screened for TE:
[E-38, E-39]

Centrifugal castings with > 20% ferrite
Static castings with molybdenum content < 0.50% and ferrite > 20%
Static castings with molybdenum content > 0.50% and ferrite >14%
Also, it is suggested that a screening criterion of > 6.7 X 10
20
n/cm
2
(E > 1.0 MeV) [> 1 dpa],
which is the screening criterion for IE (Appendix F) be utilized for those CASS materials located
at the edge of the reactor core that may potentially be susceptible to a synergistic effect between
accumulated dose and TE.
EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material

Appendix E: Thermal Aging Embrittlement
E-16
In addition, austenitic stainless steel welds (e.g., Types 308 and 308L) are similar to statically-
cast CASS with low molybdenum contents and it is suggested that the same screening criteria be
used. Provided that the levels of ferrite and molybdenum contents are low in these welds, it is
expected that the effects of TE will be insignificant.
E.4 TE References
E-1 Materials Reliability Program: A Review of Thermal Aging Embrittlement in Pressurized
Water Reactors (MRP-80), EPRI 1003523, 2003.
E-2 Yukawa, S., Review and Evaluation of the Toughness of Austenitic Steels and Nickel
Alloys After Long-Term Elevated Temperature Exposures, WRC Bulletin 378, Welding
Research Council, New York, January 1993.
E-3 Chopra, O.K., Estimation of Fracture Toughness of Cast Stainless Steels During
Thermal Aging in LWR Systems, NUREG/CR-4513, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, D.C., June 1991.
E-4 Xu, H. and Fyfitch, S., Aging Embrittlement Modeling of Type 17-4 PH at LWR
Temperatures, The 10th International Conference on Environmental Degradation of
Materials in Nuclear Power Systems Water Reactors, NACE International, Houston,
Texas (2001).
E-5 Peckner, D., and Bernstein, I. M., Eds., Handbook of Stainless Steels, McGraw-Hill, New
York, 1977.
E-6 Chopra, O.K. and Chung, H.M., Aging Degradation of Cast Stainless Steels: Effects on
Mechanical Properties, The 3rd International Conference on Environmental Degradation
of Materials in Nuclear Power Systems Water Reactors, TMS 1987.
E-7 Clarke, Jr., W. C., A Study of Embrittlement of a Precipitation Hardening Stainless
Steel and Some Related Materials, Transactions of the Metallurgical Society of AIME,
245, 2135-2140, (October 1969).
E-8 Suss, H., Stress Corrosion and Hydrogen Embrittlement Properties of 17-4 PH in 600F
Waters. KAPL-M-6580, April, 1967.
E-9 Chopra, O.K., and Chung, H.M., Aging of Cast Duplex Stainless Steels in LWR
Systems, Nuclear Engineering and Design, Vol. 89, 1985, pp. 305-318.
E-10 Chopra, O.K., and Chung, H.M., Aging of Cast Stainless Steel, Thirteenth Water
Reactor Safety Research Information Meeting, Vol. 2, NUREG/CP-0072, February,
1986, pp. 387-407.
EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material

Appendix E: Thermal Aging Embrittlement
E-17
E-11 Chopra, O.K., and Chung, H.M., Long-Term Embrittlement of Cast Duplex Stainless
Steels in LWR Systems: Semiannual Report October 1985-March 1986, NUREG/CR-
4744 Vol. 1, No. 1, ANL-86-54, September, 1986.
E-12 Chopra, O.K., and Chung, H.M., Long-Term Embrittlement of Cast Duplex Stainless
Steels in LWR Systems: Semiannual Report April-September 1986, NUREG/CR-4744
Vol. 1, No. 2, ANL-87-16, March, 1987.
E-13 Chung, H.M., and Chopra, O.K., Long-Term Aging Embrittlement of Cast Austenitic
Stainless Steels Mechanism and Kinetics, Properties of Stainless Steels in Elevated
Temperature Service, MPC-Vol. 26, PVP-Vol. 132, The American Society of Mechanical
Engineers, New York, 1987, pp. 17-34.
E-14 Chopra, O.K., and Chung, H.M., Effect of Low-Temperature Aging on the Mechanical
Properties of Cast Stainless Steels, Properties of Stainless Steels in Elevated
Temperature Service, MPC-Vol. 26, PVP-Vol. 132, The American Society of Mechanical
Engineers, New York, 1987, pp. 79-105.
E-15 Chopra, O.K., and Chung, H.M., Initial Assessment of the Processes and Significance of
Thermal Aging in Cast Stainless Steels, Presented at 16
th
Water Reactor Safety
Information Meeting, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD,
October 24-27, 1988.
E-16 Chopra, O.K., and Shack, W.J., Mechanical Properties of Thermally Aged Cast
Stainless Steels from Shippingport Reactor Components, NUREG/CR-6275, ANL-
94/37, April 1995.
E-17 Cast Stainless Steels, M. Blair, Metals Handbook, Vol. 1, Selection of Iron and Steel,
10
th
Edition, ASM International, Materials Park, OH, 1990.
E-18 Shah, V.N., and Macdonald, P.E., editors, Aging and Life Extension of Major Light
Water Reactor Components, Chapter 5, Figure 5-8, Elsevier, 1993, p. 164.
E-19 Sassen, J.M., et al., Kinetics of Spinodal Decomposition in the Ferrite Phase of a Duplex
Stainless Steel, Properties of Stainless Steels in Elevated Temperature Service, MPC-
Vol. 26, PVP-Vol. 132, the American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York,
1987, pp. 65-78.
E-20 Mimura, H., et al., Thermal Embrittlement of Simulated Heat-Affects Zone in Cast
Austenitic Stainless Steels, Welding Research Supplement, August 1998, pp. 350-s
360-s.
E-21 Effects of Thermal Aging on Fracture Toughness and Charpy-Impact Strength of
Stainless steel Pipe Welds, NUREG/CR-6428, Argonne National Laboratory for U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 1996.
EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material

Appendix E: Thermal Aging Embrittlement
E-18
E-22 ODonnell, I.J., Huthmann, H., and Tavassoli, A.A., The Fracture Toughness Behavior
of Austenitic Steels and Weld Metal Including the Effects of Thermal Ageing and
Irradiation, International Proceedings of Vessel & Piping 65, 1996, pp. 209-220.
E-23 Mills, W.J., Fracture Toughness of Type 304 and 316 Stainless Steels and Their Welds,
International Materials Reviews, 1997, Vol. 42, No. 2, pp. 45-82.
E-24 Hale, G.E., and Garwood, S.J., Effect of Aging on Fracture Behavior of Cast Stainless
and Weldments, Material Science and Technology, 6, March 1990, pp. 230-235.
E-25 Alexander, K.B., et al., Microscopical Evaluation of Low Temperature Aging of Type
308 Stainless Steel Weldments, Materials Science and Technology, 6, March 1990, pp.
314-320.)
E-26 Y. Meyzaud and R. Cozar, Design of Aging-Resistant Martensitic Stainless Steels for
Pressurized Water Reactors, Proceedings of Topical Conference on Ferritic Alloys for
Use in Nuclear Energy Technologies, Snowbird, Utah, June 19-23, 1984.
E-27 Wagner, D., Chavaillard, J-P., Meyzaud, Y. et. al, Toughness and Fatigue Properties of
Martensitic Stainless Steels for Nuclear Applications, 1984 ASM International
Conference on New Developments in Stainless Steel Technology, Detroit, Michigan,
September, 1984.
E-28 Properties and Selection: Iron, Steels, and High Performance Alloys, Metals
Handbook, Vol. 1, Tenth Edition, ASM International, p. 859.
E-29 R. A. Lula, Stainless Steel, 1986, American Society for Metals, Metals Park, OH.
E-30 Armco 17-4 PH Stainless Steel Bar and Wire, 1969, Armco Product Literature, Armco
Steel Corporation, Middletown, OH.
E-31 ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section III, Rules for Construction of Nuclear
Power Plant Components, Division I Appendices, Table I-1.1, p. 20, 1989, The
American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York, NY.
E-32 S. Naymark, Materials for Dresden and Other Boiling Water Reactors, Nuclear
Metallurgy, Vol. III, American Institute of Mining, Metallurgical, and Petroleum
Engineers, Inc., 1962.
E-33 K. C. Antony, Aging Reactions in Precipitation Hardenable Stainless Steel, Journal of
Metals, December, 1963.
E-34 W. C. Clarke, Jr. A Study of Embrittlement of a Precipitation Hardening Stainless Steel
and Some Related Materials, Transactions of the Metallurgical Society of AIME, Vol.
245, October 1969, pp. 2135-2140.
EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material

Appendix E: Thermal Aging Embrittlement
E-19
E-35 B. Yrieix and M. Guttmann, Aging Between 300 and 450
o
C of Wrought Martensitic 13-
17 wt-% Cr Stainless Steels, Materials Science and Technology, Vol. 9, pp. 125-134,
Feb. 1993
E-36 C. E. Jaske and V. N. Shah, Life Assessment Procedure for LWR Cast Stainless Steel
Components, Proc. 4th Int. Symp. on Environmental Degradation of Materials in the
Nuclear Power Systems Water Reactors, August 6-10, 2001, Jekyll Island, Georgia.
E-37 Materials Handbook for Nuclear Plant Pressure Boundary Applications, TR-109668-
S1-R1, Electric Power Research Institute, December 1998.
E-38 PWR Reactor Coolant System License Renewal Industry Report, Project RP-2643-32,
Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, California, May 1992.
E-39 License Renewal Issue No. 98-0030, Thermal Aging Embrittlement of Cast Austenitic
Stainless Steel Components, Letter from C.I. Grimes (NRC) to D.J. Walters (NEI),
May 19, 2000.




EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material
F-1
F
APPENDIX F: IRRADIATION EMBRITTLEMENT
F.1 General Description of Irradiation Embrittlement
Irradiation embrittlement (IE) refers to the phenomenon of loss of ductility and fracture
toughness from exposure to high-energy neutrons (E > 1.0 MeV). The loss of ductility and
fracture toughness is usually accompanied by marked increases in yield and ultimate tensile
strength. Mechanistically, irradiation embrittlement results from lattice defects from neutron
bombardment. High-energy neutrons displace atoms from their normal lattice positions and
create point defects. Although most point defects (called interstitials and vacancies) are
annihilated by recombination, surviving point defects form various irradiated microstructures
consisting of dislocations, precipitates, and cavities. Cavities, which are three-dimensional
clusters of vacancies, gas atoms (bubbles), or a combination of the two, can be associated with
other microstructural features such as precipitates, dislocations, and grain boundaries. These
defects and precipitates from irradiation are obstacles to dislocation movement and result in an
increased yield and tensile strengths and decreased work hardening capacity and ductility, and
loss of fracture toughness.
The detrimental effect of irradiation embrittlement (also called radiation embrittlement) has long
been recognized for the low alloy steel PWR and BWR reactor pressure vessel materials.
However, until recently, irradiation embrittlement had not been considered to be a concern for
PWR internals. This is partly because the PWR internals are constructed of austenitic stainless
steels, which possess high levels of ductility and fracture toughness even after neutron exposure
levels that would have caused significant embrittlement in low alloy steel reactor vessels.
However, the proximity to the core means that the neutron flux for many lower PWR internals
component items is one to three orders of magnitude higher than for the low alloy steel PWR
reactor vessel. A large reduction in fracture toughness of stainless steels due to neutron
irradiation can significantly increase the sensitivity to flaws that are either pre-existing during
PWR construction or flaws developed during service due to SCC, IASCC, or fatigue. Decreasing
toughness values correlate to decreasing critical crack lengths that can be tolerated by the
structure. This affects inspection requirements and procedures.
In September 1999, EPRI published TR-112718
[F-1]
Evaluation of Neutron Irradiation
Embrittlement for PWR Stainless Steel Internal Component Supports, to provide a generic
evaluation of the effects of reduced ductility and fracture toughness due to neutron irradiation for
austenitic stainless steel PWR internals. However, the PWR reactor vessel internal supports
evaluated in TR-112718 are based on a fracture toughness value to a moderate fluence level of 8
EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material

Appendix F: Irradiation Embrittlement
F-2
x 10
20
n/cm
2
, E>1.0 MeV (~1.2 dpa
6
). In September 2004, EPRI published MRP-79 Revision 1,
A Review of Radiation Embrittlement of Stainless Steels for PWRs,
[F-2]
that reviewed the
fracture toughness value of austenitic stainless steels irradiated up to ~80 dpa, which is
approximately the maximum expected fluence level of highly irradiated PWR internal
component items during a PWR lifetime including life extension up to 60 years (~100 dpa). In
September 2005, EPRI published MRP-160 that documented fracture toughness data of 304 SS
baffle plate and former plate samples harvested from a decommissioned PWR.
[F-6]
These samples
experienced radiation up to about 13 dpa. Also reported therein are fracture toughness data of
highly irradiated 316 SS thimble tube up to 65 dpa. Recently, in parallel with the preparation of
this report, a synthesis of fracture toughness testing in the JOBB program has also been
documented.
[B-15]

In the present discussion of irradiation embrittlement, the affected materials are limited to
wrought austenitic stainless steels, austenitic stainless steel welds, and cast austenitic stainless
steel (CASS). This is because all lower PWR internals next to the core, where degradation due to
irradiation embrittlement is considered, are fabricated from these materials. Other PWR internals
component items that are made of martensitic stainless steels, austenitic or martensitic
precipitation-hardenable stainless steels, austenitic nickel-base alloys, austenitic precipitation-
hardenable nickel-base alloys, and cobalt-base alloys usually do not reach significant neutron
exposures during the PWR lifetime to be a concern for irradiation embrittlement.
F.2 Fracture Toughness of Irradiated Austenitic Stainless Steels
Conventional design criteria for engineering structures are based on tensile strength, yield
strength, and buckling stress. However, for a structure containing pre-existing flaws or
developing cracks during operation, failure could occur at stresses below the highest design
service stress. To prevent unexpected and often catastrophic failures of engineering structures,
fracture mechanics has been increasingly used to provide a methodology for design basis,
material testing, service inspection, and safety analysis. The two most commonly used
methodologies in fracture mechanics are linear elastic fracture mechanics (LEFM) and elastic-
plastic fracture mechanics (EPFM) using appropriate fracture toughness values taking into
account in-service degradation where necessary. Fracture toughness is a measure of a materials
ability to resist crack extension. Therefore, the most useful measure of irradiation embrittlement
in austenitic stainless steels is the reduction in fracture toughness.
F.2.1 Type 304 and Type 316 in Fast Reactors
The EPRI MRP-79 report
[F-2]
reviewed literature data on the fracture toughness of highly
irradiated austenitic stainless steels in fast reactors up to 80 dpa and in light water reactors
(LWRs) up to 18 dpa, excluding the most recent MRP-160 304 SS fracture toughness data and
the flux thimble data up to 65 dpa reported therein. The fracture toughness data of irradiated
stainless steels and welds from various fast reactors indicate that the effect of irradiation at 370-

6
The dpa conversion used in this report is based on an estimated conversion factor for PWRs of 10
22
n/cm
2
, E > 1.0
MeV = 15 dpa. Note however that this factor will vary with fuel design, vendor design, and location within the
PWR internals.
[F-3]

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material

Appendix F: Irradiation Embrittlement
F-3
430C (698-806F) can be divided into three regions (0 to 80 dpa): a threshold neutron exposure
between 0 and 0.5 dpa below which there is no significant loss in fracture toughness,
intermediate exposures between 0.5 and 10 dpa where toughness decreases rapidly with neutron
dose, and a saturation exposure (10 to 40 dpa) above which increasing irradiation damage
produces little additional reduction in fracture toughness provided swelling does not occur. The
rapid initial decrease in fracture toughness corresponds to a transition in fracture mechanism
from dimpled rupture to channel fracture. The convergence of fracture toughness reflects the
saturation of irradiation defect microstructure, which is observed to be largely independent of the
starting conditions of austenitic stainless steels. The saturation of fracture toughness with
increasing fluence is due to the saturation of the irradiation defect microstructure.
Figure F-1 is a summary of the elevated temperature fracture toughness K
Jc
for Type 304, Type
304L, and Type 316 austenitic stainless steel irradiated in fast reactors. It shows that the
reduction in fracture toughness occurs mostly between 0.5 and 10 dpa. No statistically significant
difference in toughness has been observed between highly irradiated solution-annealed (SA)
Type 304 and cold-worked (CW) Type 316 stainless steels. The minimum K
Jc
fracture toughness
in Figure F-1 is estimated to be 71 MPam (65 Ksiin).
F.2.2 Type 347 and Type 348 in Fast Reactors
The MRP-79
[F-2]
report has found some studies indicating a lower fracture toughness value for
highly irradiated Type 347 and Type 348 austenitic stainless steels in fast reactors. In addition,
the fracture toughness of Type 347 and Type 348 was further reduced by irradiation creep. The
fracture toughness results of Type 347 and Type 348 irradiated at 260399C (500750F) are
summarized in Table F-1. The reported K
Jc
is about 60 MPam (55 Ksiin). The minimum K
Jc

fracture toughness was 38 MPam (35 Ksiin) after 89 dpa with 0.6% irradiation creep. No
embrittlement mechanism by irradiation creep was postulated by the studies. To date, there have
been no other studies linking irradiation creep and fracture toughness of austenitic stainless steels
or their weldments.
F.2.3 Austenitic Stainless Steel Weld Metals in Fast Reactors
The MRP-79
[F-2]
report has reviewed Types 308 and 316 austenitic stainless weld metals
irradiated in fast reactors. The irradiation embrittlement of weld metals is similar to that for
wrought austenitic stainless steels, i.e., fracture toughness deteriorates rapidly with the first few
dpa of exposure and then gradually levels off. Fracture toughness is seen to saturate after 10 dpa;
however, the maximum fluence for the weld metal data points is limited to about 15 dpa. The
minimum elevated temperature K
Jc
fracture toughness is estimated to be 40 MPam (36 Ksiin),
which is lower than the minimum fracture toughness for highly irradiated wrought austenitic
stainless steels in fast reactors.
EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material

Appendix F: Irradiation Embrittlement
F-4
0
100
200
300
400
500
0 20 40 60 80 100
dpa
K
J
c
,

M
P
a

m
Michel & Gray, 1987
Van Osch et al., 1997
Dufresne et al., 1979
Mills et al., 1985
Mills, 1988
Bernard & Verzeletti, 1985
Picker et al., 1983
Ould et al., 1988
Upper Scatter Line-fast reactors
Lower Scatter Line-fast reactors
CT-SA304L-EBRII-707F-JOBB 2001
Hamilton et al-316CW-EBRII 1987

Irradiation temperature 350450C (662842F)
Test temperature 205 427C (401801F)
Figure F-1
Elevated Temperature Fracture Toughness K
jc
as a Function of dpa for Type 304 and Type
316 Irradiated in Fast Reactors (Based on Reference F-2)

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material

Appendix F: Irradiation Embrittlement
F-5
Table F-1
Fracture Toughness of Type 347/348 Irradiated in Fast Reactors
[F-2]

Tested at 427C (801F)
J
Ic
K
Ic

Type Irradiation Temp
Fluence
10
22
n/cm
2

E > 1.0
MeV

dpa
(1)
In Reactor
Creep, %
kJ/m
2
MPam
3.4

65 0.0 19.51 56.82
3.4 65 0.0 22.13 60.52 Type 348
EBR-II
399C
(750F)

3.4 65 0.0 19.48 56.77
4.608 88 0.6 11.70 43.99
4.691 89 0.6 8.77 38.09 Type 347
ETR and ATR
288C and 260

C
(550F and
500F)
4.474 85 0.6 8.94 38.46
2.35 45 1.1 16.35 52.02
2.35 45 1.1 14.34 48.72
2.28 43 1.1 15.49 50.63
ATR
327C
(621F)
2.28 43 1.1 22.05 60.41
3.20 61 1.8 9.04 38.67
Type 348
ATR
353C
(667F)
3.08 59 1.8 11.78 44.14

F.2.4 Austenitic Stainless Steel and Weld Metals in PWRs and BWRs
The MRP-79 report
[F-2]
provided elevated temperature fracture toughness data of austenitic
stainless steels and welds irradiated in BWRs or PWRs. The results are summarized in Figure F-
2. The reduction of fracture toughness with increasing neutron dose in BWRs and PWRs is
consistent with that observed in fast reactors. However, a significant number of data points seem
to fall below the scatter band for stainless steels irradiated in fast reactors. Figure F-2 includes
the only PWR fracture toughness data points from baffle bolts. It should be noted that the baffle
bolt test specimen was not a standard ASTM fracture toughness specimen. The MRP-160 304 SS
fracture toughness data and the flux thimble data up to 65 dpa reported therein published
subsequent to MRP-79 are enveloped by the lower bound curve shown in Figure F-2.
[F-6]
These
LWR results suggest that the minimum fracture toughness of stainless steels irradiated in BWRs
and PWRs may be lower than the minimum fracture toughness shown in Figure F-1 from fast
reactors. Recent BWR data suggest that a minimum of ~ 55 MPam (50 Ksiin) should be
adopted for LWR spectrum irradiated materials.
[F-4]
There are good grounds for believing that the
EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material

Appendix F: Irradiation Embrittlement
F-6
difference may be linked to the formation of large numbers of nanometer size gas bubbles (due
to the insolubility of helium in metals) during LWR neutron irradiation, which occurs to a much
lesser extent in Fast Reactors.
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
0 5 10 15 20 25
dpa
K
J
c
,

M
P
a

m
CNSR-BWR-304-Clarke, 550F
CNSR-BWR-304-Herrera, 550F
CT-BWR-304-Herrea, 550F
SE(B)-BWR-304-Herrera, 550F
CT-BWR-304-GE Unpublished, 550F
SE(B)-BWR-304SA-VTT, 390F, 480F
SE(B)-BWR-308Lweld-VTT, 302-498F
SE(B)-BWR-304L-VTT, 302F, 498F
CT-BWR-304SA-Chopra, 550F
CT-BWR-316SA-Chopra, 550F
Proposed BWRVIP Lifetime criterion, 55 MPam
Baf f le Bolt-PWR-316CW-MRP, 620F
Baf f le Bolt-PWR-347SA-MRP, 620F
Upper Scatter Line-f ast reactors, 662-800F
Lower Scatter Line-f ast reactors, 662-800F
Lower Bound f or PWR

The test temperature is indicated.
Dashed lines represent the fast reactor scatter band in Figure F-1.
The lower bound for PWR (thick solid line) is per Eq. F.1.
Figure F-2
Elevated Temperature Fracture Toughness K
Jc
of Austenitic Stainless Steels and Welds
Irradiated in BWRs or PWRs as a Function of dpa
[F-2]

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material

Appendix F: Irradiation Embrittlement
F-7
F.3 Tensile Properties of Irradiated Austenitic Stainless Steels
The MRP-79 report
[F-2]
has reviewed the tensile properties

of highly irradiated austenitic stainless
steels in fast reactors and light water reactors in the literature, excluding the 304 SS baffle plate
and former plate data published after the publication of MRP-79. These data documented in
MRP-129 came from testing samples harvested from a decommissioned PWR.
[F-7]
The fast
reactor data show that the dependence of tensile properties on fluence parallels that of fracture
toughness shown in Figure F-1. Such an irradiation embrittlement dependence on neutron
exposure has been confirmed by the tensile data from the Joint Owners Baffle Bolt (JOBB)
Program,
[F-8]
which is specifically designed to represent the neutron doses encountered in PWR
internals, and the decommissioned 304 data.
[F-7]
The JOBB program includes testing of irradiated
tensile specimens fabricated from stainless steels and welds representative of internals materials
used in the French and U.S. PWRs. The reduction of total elongation of JOBB materials with
increasing neutron exposure at elevated temperature is summarized in Figure F-3, Figure F-4,
and Figure F-5. The total elongation is seen to decrease rapidly in the first 10 dpa and gradually
levels off at ~8% at high dpa while the uniform elongation is typically less than 1%. The weld
metals and castings have a larger scatter than the wrought products due to greater variability in
welds and castings.
F.4 IE Threshold and Screening Criteria
Significant scatter is observed in the loss of fracture toughness between 0 and 0.5 dpa for
austenitic stainless steels, austenitic stainless steel welds, and cast austenitic stainless steels.
This scatter in the initial onset of irradiation embrittlement, reflecting the differences in initial
thermomechanical conditions and heat-to-heat variations, makes it difficult to define a threshold
for IE. Therefore, it is concluded that no threshold neutron exposure for irradiation embrittlement
can be established.
Fracture toughness decreases rapidly with increasing neutron dose for neutron exposures
between 0 and 10 dpa as shown in Figure F-1. The following equation has been developed to
bound all available fracture toughness data from fast reactors, BWRs, and PWRs. This lower
bound fracture toughness line is included in a plot of all the available data in Figure F-2.
( ) ( ) [ ] dpa = exp 1 * 142 180 m MPa K Bound Lower
Jc
(F-1)
No statistically significant difference between solution-annealed Type 304 and cold-worked
Type 316 materials appears to exist. Even though some studies suggest that the stabilized Type
347 and Type 348 stainless steels may have lower fracture toughness, Table F-1 and Figure F-2
show that the fracture toughness of highly irradiated Type 347 and Type 348 is also bounded by
Eq. F-1.
EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material

Appendix F: Irradiation Embrittlement
F-8
1
10
100
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
dpa
T
o
t
a
l

E
l
o
n
g
a
t
i
o
n
,

%
304L-1 (A), SA; Bor-60 at 608F, tested at 626F
304L-1 (A), SA; Samara at 572F, tested at 626F
304L-1 (A), SA; Boris + Samara, tested at 626F
304L-2 (CB), SA; Bor-60 at 608F, tested at 626F
304-3 (FD), SA; Bor-60 at 608F, tested at 626F
304 (EH or J7), SA; Bor-60 at 608F, tested at 626F
304-J3 (EH), 10%CW; Bor-60 at 608F, tested at 626F
347-2 (EC) SA; Bor-60 at 608F, tested at 626F
304L-SA & 308 weld (<10% f errite) at 626F, Eq. 3-4
304-SA, PWR (Farley 1) locking bar at 541 to 568F, tested at 608F
347-SA, PWR (PB2) baf f le bolt, tested at 608F
304-SA, BWR (Oskarshamn) Riser Pipe at 536F, tested at 518F
304L-SA, BWR (Oskarshamn) Control Rod at 536F, tested at 552-563F

Figure F-3
Elevated Temperature Total Elongation as a Function of dpa for Type 304, Type 304L, and
Type 347
[F-2]

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material

Appendix F: Irradiation Embrittlement
F-9
1
10
100
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
dpa
T
o
t
a
l

E
l
o
n
g
a
t
i
o
n
,

%
316-1 (B), 15%CW; Bor-60 at 608F, tested at 626F
316-1 (B), 15%CW; Samara at 572F, tested at 626F
316-1 (B), 15%CW; Samara at 572F, tested at 716F
316-1 (B), 15%CW; Bor-60+Samara, tested at 626F
316-2 (DB=J6), 15%CW; Bor-60 at 608F, tested at 626F
316-3 (DA), 11%CW; Bor-60 at 608F, tested at 626F
316-4 (DC), CW; Bor-60 at 608F, tested at 626F
316-L1 (EA), CW; Bor-60 at 608F, tested at 626F
316-L2 (EB), CW; Bor-60 at 608F, tested at 626F
316-H1 (J5), CW; Bor-60 at 608F, tested at 626F
316-1 (C), SA; Bor-60 at 608F, tested at 626F
316-CW at 626F, Eq. 3-8
316-CW; PWR (Farley 1) at 577 to 675F, tested at 608F

Figure F-4
Elevated Temperature Total Elongation as a Function of dpa for Type 316
[F-2]

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material

Appendix F: Irradiation Embrittlement
F-10
1.0
10.0
100.0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
dpa
T
o
t
a
l

E
l
o
n
g
a
t
i
o
n
,

%
308-1 (SA); Bor-60 at 626F, tested at 626F
308-2 (SB); Bor-60 at 626F, tested at 626F
308-3 (FE); Bor-60 at 626F, tested at 626F
308-4 (J1); Bor-60 at 626F, tested at 626F
HAZ Base (SB5-SB6), 304-SA; Bor-60 at 626F, tested at 626F
HAZ Base (J2), 304-CW; Bor-60 at 626F, tested at 626F
304L-SA & 308 weld (<10% f errite) at 626F, Eq. 3-4
CF-8, unaged (J4); Bor-60 at 626F, tested at 626F
CF-8, aged 752F/100hour (J8); Bor-60 at 626F, tested at 626F
CF-8, aged 752C/950hour (J9); Bor-60 at 626F, tested at 626F
308L, BWR (Oskarshamn) Weld at 536F, tested at 518F
308L, BWR (Oskarshamn) Weld at 536F, tested at 567F

Figure F-5
Elevated Temperature Total Elongation as a Function of dpa for Type 308 and 308L Weld,
Type 304 HAZ, and Type CF-8 CASS
[F-2]
References F-4 and F-5, also confirmed by References and F-6 and F-9, indicate that for
austenitic stainless steel component items with neutron exposures > 3 X 10
21
n/cm
2
(E > 1.0
MeV) [> 4.5 dpa] LEFM (in place of EPFM) should be considered for design and operational
analyses. In addition, a number of material properties (e.g., yield strength and tensile strength)
plateau when exposed to doses in the range of 5-10 dpa. Thus, based on equation F-1 and Figure
F-2, at 5 dpa (3.3 x 10
21
n/cm
2
, E > 1.0 MeV) the corresponding lower bound fracture toughness
EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material

Appendix F: Irradiation Embrittlement
F-11
is about 40 MPam (36 Ksiin), which should be adequate toughness for functionality. Also, as
shown in Figure F-2, there is a reasonable database available to establish this minimum value.
However, for added assurance in performing the screening, 30% of the 5 dpa value (or 1.5 dpa)
is suggested. Therefore, for wrought austenitic stainless steel, a screening neutron exposure for
irradiation embrittlement is conservatively established to be > 1.5 dpa, or 1 x 10
21
n/cm
2
, E > 1.0
MeV.
Because the austenitic stainless steel weld metals and CASS show much greater variability in
initial values, their screening neutron exposure is conservatively established to be somewhat
lower at > 1 dpa or 6.7 x 10
20
n/cm
2
, E > 1.0 MeV. In addition, this screening criterion is
suggested for use in evaluation of the potential synergistic effect of dose on thermal aging
embrittlement (Appendix E).
F.5 IE References
F-1 Evaluation of Neutron Irradiation Embrittlement for PWR Stainless Steel Internal
Component Supports, EPRI TR-112718, 1999.
F-2 Materials Reliability Program: A Review of Radiation Embrittlement of Stainless Steels
for PWRs (MRP-79) Revision 1, EPRI Report 1008204, 2004.
F-3 Garner, F.A., Greenwood, L.R., and Reid, B.D., An Assessment of the Possible Role of
Transmutation on Development of Irradiation-Assisted Stress Corrosion Cracking in
Light Water Reactors, EPRI TR-107159, Critical Issue Reviews for the Understanding
and Evaluation of Irradiation Assisted Stress Corrosion Cracking, Final Report,
November 1996.
F-4 Carter, R.G., and Gamble, R.N., Assessment of the Fracture Toughness of Irradiated
Stainless Steel for BWR Core Shrouds, Contribution of Materials Investigation to the
Resolution of Problems Encountered in Pressurized Water Reactors, Fontevraud 5,
September 2002.
F-5 Mills, W.J., Fracture Toughness of Type 304 and 316 Stainless Steels and Their Welds,
International Materials Reviews, 1997, Vol. 42, No. 2, pp. 45-82.
F-6 Materials Reliability Program: Fracture Toughness Testing of Decommissioned PWR
Core Internals Samples (MR-160), EPRI 1012079, 2005.
F-7 Materials Reliability Program: Characterization of Decommissioned PWR Vessel
Internals Material Samples Tensile and SSRT Testing (MR-129), EPRI 1008205, 2004.
F-8 Joint Owners Baffle Bolt Program, JOBB-CD, Version 05.12, EPRI 1012083, 2005.
F-9 Materials Reliability Program: Inspection and Flaw Evaluation Strategies for Managing
Aging Effects in PWR Internals (MRP-153), EPRI 1012082, 2005.
EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material
G-1
G
APPENDIX G: VOID SWELLING
G.1 General Description of Void Swelling
Irradiation-induced void swelling, hereafter called void swelling (VS), occurs under some
conditions in all structural alloys used in various reactor types, but is especially prevalent in
austenitic stainless steels and nickel-base alloys. The common feature of these alloys is their
face-centered cubic crystal structure, which is more prone to swelling earlier and at an eventually
higher rate than that of body-centered cubic and hexagonal close-packed crystal structured
metals.
[G-1]
Void swelling is a potential concern for PWRs and other reactor types operating at elevated
temperatures in that it produces volume and thus dimensional changes, and when acting in
concert with irradiation creep, it produces distortions of structural components.
[G-2]
However, if
swelling passes ~5% an additional concern begins to develop. Whereas the radiation-induced
changes in mechanical properties typically saturate at relatively low neutron exposures, a new
form of embrittlement associated with void swelling arises with increasing swelling. Based on
fast reactor data available to date, when ~10% volume change is exceeded, the tearing modulus
at PWR operating temperatures of 300-series stainless steels is dramatically reduced and falls to
zero at room temperature, producing severe embrittlement with little energy required to
propagate any crack.
[G-3]
Swelling arises during neutron or charged particle bombardment of metals at elevated
temperatures, leading to a pronounced evolution of the dislocation and precipitate microstructure
in response to radiation-induced displacement of atoms from their lattice sites. Exposure doses
are best quoted in displacements per atom (dpa) in order to divorce the data from differences in
their flux-spectral origins.
[G-4]
Depending on the reactor type and the threshold energy chosen to count the neutrons, the
conversion factor for dpa per neutron fluence can vary significantly. A typical value for stainless
steel in the metal-fueled EBR-II core is ~5 dpa per 10
22
n/cm
2
(E>0.1 MeV) or actually 4.8 to 5.2
over the usable core volume. Outside the core the conversion factor is significantly lower. The
conversion values are significantly lower in oxide-fueled cores of Fast Flux Test Facility (FFTF)
and various other reactors in Russia, England, Japan and France.
EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material

Appendix G: Void Swelling
G-2
While frequently used for light water reactor applications, a threshold energy of E>1.0 MeV is
not used for fast reactor cores. For typical PWR and BWR spectra the conversion values are ~7
and ~15 dpa per 10
22
n/cm
2
for E>0.1 and E>1.0 MeV,
7
respectively.
[G-4, G-5]
During this displacement-induced evolution, small cavities called voids can appear under some
conditions of temperature and dose rates due to the migration and condensation of vacancies to
form high densities of void embryos, the nucleation of which can be stabilized by residual (N, O)
or transmuted gas atoms (H, He). Eventually these embryos grow to larger sizes that do not
require additional gas, and then develop crystallographically-faceted faces. The macroscopic
consequence of these microscopic voids is an increase in material volume.
The volume changes associated with void swelling are normally isotropically distributed in three
dimensions if there are no physical restraints that resist swelling in a given direction. In general,
however, there are external restraints associated with interaction of swelling component items
with neighboring component items and there are also internal restraints associated with swelling
gradients within a component item. Such restraints generate stress fields that activate irradiation
creep and direct the swelling toward unrestrained directions, producing anisotropic swelling and
much lower stress levels than those that would develop in the absence of irradiation creep. In
situations where two component items interact via differential swelling, such as bolts and the
plates in which they are embedded, the stress state can be driven by rather low levels of
swelling.
[G-6]
Void swelling was first observed using transmission electron microscopy (TEM) by Cawthorne
and Fulton at relatively low levels (<1%) in irradiated fuel cladding removed from the Dounreay
Fast Reactor (DFR) in 1967.
[G-7]
Subsequent examination of Type 304 stainless steel ducts from
the EBR-II fast reactor showed that swelling levels of 5 to 10 % were possible at ~50 dpa.
[G-8]

Later studies showed that at very high doses and temperatures that swelling of austenitic alloys
in a fast reactor environment did not saturate, and that swelling could approach levels as high as
100% and possibly more under some conditions.
[G-2, G-9]
While the majority of void swelling studies were conducted in sodium-cooled fast reactors in the
USA, France, England, Japan and several former Soviet states, other studies conducted by these
same countries in water-moderated reactors showed that void swelling was not confined to fast
neutron spectra. In order to compile swelling data from various neutron spectra of different types
of reactors it is traditional to specify the neutron exposure in displacements per atom or dpa, as
mentioned above. This practice is valid as long as there are no large differences in transmutation
resulting from the differing spectra, which is a suitable assumption for austenitic alloys as long
as differences in helium and hydrogen generation rates are taken into account. Although there are
other differences with respect to burn-out of Mn and formation of V, these differences appear to
have no large impact on void swelling.
[G-10, G-11]
Swelling is known to exhibit a strong sensitivity to irradiation temperature, which in fast reactors
usually spans a much higher range than found in PWRs. While the water temperature in PWRs
does not exceed 345C (653F), gamma heating of thick near-core component items can drive

7
Note however that these factors will vary with fuel design, vendor design, and location within the PWR internals.
EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material

Appendix G: Void Swelling
G-3
local internal temperatures higher, sometimes exceeding 400C (752F), and into a temperature
regime where void swelling occurs more easily.
[G-12]
In the limited number of internal components extracted from PWRs, significant void swelling
has not been detected in austenitic stainless steels to date, with the largest documented swelling
of ~0.2%.
[G-13]
Similar low swelling levels have been observed in internal component items
removed from Russian PWRs, called VVERs.
[G-14]
In some cases, very high densities of very
small cavities, thought to be helium gas bubbles, have been observed, but the associated volume
change is again < 0.1%.
Voids and/or helium bubbles are not generally observed below an irradiation temperature of
300C (572F), although two Russian steels irradiated in the BN-350 fast reactor have clearly
developed voids at ~280C (536F).
[G-15]

Fine dispersions of helium bubbles (2-3 nm diameter or less) have been detected in austenitic
stainless steels in various light water reactor (LWR) component items operating at 300-340C
(572-644F) after 7-56 dpa.
[G-16, G-17 ]
More recent studies on PWR thimble tubes at ~70 dpa have
shown that bubble densities can increase significantly, but may also contain hydrogen as well as
helium.
[G-18, G-19]
None of these bubble distributions involves a significant amount of volume
increase, however.
A potentially important aspect of swelling in PWRs arises from transmutation to produce helium
and hydrogen at much higher levels than generated in fast reactors. While most previous studies
focused on helium, more recent studies focus on both hydrogen and helium.
Helium is chemically inert and virtually insoluble in metals and is essentially immobile at PWR-
relevant temperatures of 290-400C (554-752F). For austenitic stainless steels in LWRs, helium
arises from transmutation by several routes. One is the
10
B (n, )
7
Li reaction at low (primarily
thermal) neutron energies, arising from small trace amounts of boron found in most austenitic
stainless steels although it is often localized on grain boundaries. After a relatively low neutron
exposure (~10
21
n/cm
2
thermal), almost all
10
B (20% of natural boron) will have been converted
to helium and lithium.
The second source of helium arises from high energy threshold-type (n, ) reactions, primarily
with the various isotopes of nickel, with smaller contributions from iron and chromium. This
type of neutron reaction occurs only above a threshold energy of ~6 MeV and the helium
production rate is almost in direct proportion to the nickel content.
[G-5]

The third and predominant source of helium in LWR spectra arises from the two-step reaction
sequence
58
Ni (n, )
59
Ni (n, )
56
Fe with thermal neutrons.
[G-20]
The
59
Ni isotope does not occur
naturally. The helium generation rate is directly proportional to the
59
Ni content and the thermal
neutron flux. The generation rate therefore increases strongly with time as the
59
Ni is
accumulated. This reaction sequence is only a small contribution to the helium production in fast
reactor spectra.
EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material

Appendix G: Void Swelling
G-4
Hydrogen likewise arises primarily from the various isotopes of nickel via two major reactions,
high energy (n, p) reactions with threshold energy on the order of 1 MeV and the two-step
reaction sequence
58
Ni (n, )
59
Ni (n, p)
59
Co with thermal neutrons.
[G-21]
More importantly,
however, hydrogen arises from many non-transmutation sources in water moderated reactors.
These sources are radiolytic decomposition of water, corrosion, hydrogen overpressure
maintained on the water and recoil injection from neutron collisions with hydrogen of the water
molecule.
Hydrogen is rather mobile in austenitic stainless steels at PWR-relevant temperatures and
therefore would not be expected to accumulate like helium. However, recent studies show that
significant amounts of hydrogen are being stored when cavities develop in the microstructure.
The only reasonable explanation can be an increase in trap density and trap effectiveness, rather
than an increase in hydrogen fugacity. It appears that these increased traps are helium-nucleated
bubbles and voids.
[G-22, G-23]
G.2 Descriptions of Void Swelling of Austenitic Stainless Steels Irradiated
in EBR-II
G.2.1 Earlier Published Equations
Void swelling data (>1%) of irradiated austenitic stainless steels relevant to US PWRs is limited
to studies from fast breeder reactors such as EBR-II and FFTF or in mixed spectrum reactors
such as ORR (Oak Ridge Research Reactor) and HFIR. Essentially all of the data for annealed
Type 304 stainless steel were developed in EBR-II, however. After early studies showed that
Type 304 swelled much more than cold-worked Type 316 stainless steel, all irradiation programs
shifted to Type 316 in both EBR-II and FFTF. The early studies clearly showed that Type 304
swelled faster than Type 316, and that cold-working led to a reduction in swelling for both steels
while preserving the relative swelling vs. composition behavior.
[G-2, G-24, G-25]
Over the years, there have been a number of published empirical equations proposed from
regression fitting of void swelling data generated in such reactors. The predominant empirical
swelling equations based on fast reactor data have the following power-law form.

n
dpa A
V
V
) ( %
0
=

(G-1)
Where:
A = temperature dependent parameter
n = temperature dependent or independent parameter.
This equation form is particularly appropriate for annealed austenitic alloys that swell rather
easily, especially for annealed Type 304. These materials exhibit continuous curvature in
swelling rate as they rise toward the terminal swelling rate of 1%/dpa.
[G-25]
Later equations for
EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material

Appendix G: Void Swelling
G-5
cold-worked Type 316 steels adopted a linear-after-incubation format that was consistent with
the long incubation transient characteristic of cold-worked 316.
[G-26]
For PWR purposes the
power law description appears to be more appropriate, especially for the bulk of the baffle-
former assembly which is comprised primarily of annealed Type 304 material.
Six published empirical swelling equations from References G-8 and G-27 to G-32 have been
reviewed. The form of the temperature dependence of A or n is usually in the form of a
polynomial expression. Table G-1 lists the temperature and dpa range of the underlying void
swelling data for each equation evaluated. The parameters A and n for these models have
been calculated from 300C (572F) to 400C (752F) in 20C (36F) increments. It should be
emphasized that the database for validating these proposed equations at the lower temperature,
lower neutron flux and mixed spectrum conditions of PWRs for the austenitic stainless steels of
interest here is extremely limited. The predicted swelling as a function of dpa is plotted in Figure
G-1. The following considerations pertaining to the swelling predictions plotted in Figure G-1
should be noted:
Table G-1
Irradiation Conditions for the Empirical Equations Plotted in Figure G-1
Equation
Code
Equation Author(s) and
Reference
Material
Temp.
Range
dpa
Range
a
C-B-F
T.T. Claudson, R.W. Barker, and
R.L. Fish in Ref. G-27.
304 SA & 316 SA Not stated Not stated
Claudson T.T. Claudson in Ref. G-28. 316 CW20% Not stated Not stated
B-S-H-B
H.R. Brager, J.L. Straalsund, J.J.
Holmes and J.F. Bates in Ref. G-
29.
304 SA & 316 SA 370-600C 18-32.5
B-S
J. F. Bates and J. L. Straalsund in
Ref. G-8 and Ref. G-30.
304 SA 370-580C Up to 34
F-F
J.P. Foster and J.E. Flinn in Ref.
G-31.
304L SA 388-542C Up to 42
A-C
T.R. Allen and J.I. Cole in Ref. G-
32.
316 CW12% 372-386C 9-47
Yilmaz

Yilmaz et al, Russian stainless
steel irradiated in BN-350, See
Section G.3.2.
1Cr18Ni10Ti
(MTO) and
08Cr16Ni11Mo3
(MTO) in BN-350
See Section G.3.2
Notes:
a. Based on a conversion factor of 10
22
n/cm
2
, E > 0.1 MeV = 4.5 dpa for EBR-II.
[G-5]
EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material

Appendix G: Void Swelling
G-6
0
1
2
3
4
5
0 20 40 60 80 100
dpa, 300C (572F)
%

s
w
e
l
l
i
n
g
C-B-F, SA304 & SA316
Claudson, 20%CW136
F-F, SA304L
Yilmaz, 1Cr18Ni10Ti (MTO)
Swelling Upper Bound

0
1
2
3
4
5
0 20 40 60 80 100
dpa, 320C (608F)
%

s
w
e
l
l
i
n
g
C-B-F, SA304 & SA316
Claudson, 20%CW136
F-F, SA304L
Yilmaz, 1Cr18Ni10Ti (MTO)
Swelling Upper Bound

Figure G-1
Swelling-vs.-dpa at Different Irradiation Temperatures for Several Empirical Swelling
Equations (Based on Austenitic Stainless Steel Swelling Data From EBR-II, Except
1Cr18Ni10Ti(MTO) From BN-350 (The Bounding Swelling Line is Also Indicated)
EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material

Appendix G: Void Swelling
G-7
0
1
2
3
4
5
0 20 40 60 80 100
dpa, 340C (644F)
%

s
w
e
l
l
i
n
g
C-B-F, SA304 & SA316
Claudson, 20%CW136
F-F, SA304L
Yilmaz, 1Cr18Ni10Ti (MTO)
Swelling Upper Bound

0
5
10
15
20
0 20 40 60 80 100
dpa, 360C (680F)
%

s
w
e
l
l
i
n
g
C-B-F, SA304 & SA316
Claudson, 20%CW136
B-S, SA304
F-F, SA304L
Yilmaz, 1Cr18Ni10Ti (MTO)
Swelling Upper Bound

Figure G-1 (continued)

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material

Appendix G: Void Swelling
G-8
0
5
10
15
20
0 20 40 60 80 100
dpa, 380C (716F)
%

s
w
e
l
l
i
n
g
C-B-F, SA304 & SA316
Claudson, 20%CW136
B-S-H-B, SA304 & SA316
B-S, SA304
F-F, SA304L
A-C, 12%CW316, 376-386C
Yilmaz, 1Cr18Ni10Ti (MTO)
Swelling Upper Bound
0
5
10
15
20
0 20 40 60 80 100
dpa, 400C (752F)
%

s
w
e
l
l
i
n
g
C-B-F, SA304 & SA316
Claudson, 20%CW136
B-S-H-B, SA304 & SA316
B-S, SA304
F-F, SA304L
Yilmaz, 1Cr18Ni10Ti (MTO)
Swelling Upper Bound

Figure G-1 (continued)

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material

Appendix G: Void Swelling
G-9
1. The empirical void swelling equations developed from EBR-II are based on data collected
only above 370C (698F), which is the EBR-II core inlet temperature. The EBR-II core is
also rather small with significant gradients in neutron flux-spectra across both the core axial
and radial directions. However, most of the volume of PWR internals experience
temperatures that are significantly below 370C (698F). Extrapolation of these equations to
temperatures below 370C (698F) is therefore very problematic for several reasons. First,
the potential flux dependence of swelling (see next subsection) was ignored during equation
development and thus inadvertently folded into the temperature dependence. Second, and
most importantly, there are insufficient PWR data to validate extrapolation of these equations
not only to lower temperatures and lower dpa rates characteristic of PWRs, but also to the
significantly higher helium and hydrogen generation rates characteristic of LWR spectra.
2. The maximum temperature plotted in Figure G-1 is 400C (752F), which is expected to
approximately bound the highest irradiation temperature locations anticipated in the PWR
internals; for example, the hot spots in the former plates behind the re-entrant corners of
baffle plates.
[G-33]
The lowest temperature plotted is 300C (572F), below which swelling
has not yet been observed in PWR irradiated components.
3. The maximum fluence plotted is 100 dpa, which is approximately the highest 60-year
lifetime dose anticipated in the internals of some PWRs for the re-entrant corners of the
baffle-former assembly. It should be emphasized that 100 dpa is well beyond the dose limits
of the currently available swelling database. Therefore, even greater uncertainties are
expected in the extrapolated swelling at >50 dpa. Furthermore, the highest temperature
location and the highest fluence (flux) location on the baffle and former plates in the PWR
internals do not coincide, but are offset by several centimeters, which moves the peak
swelling away from the highest dose position and into the assembly.
[G-33]

4. These equations do not incorporate the effect of applied stresses, which after temperature and
displacement rate is one of the most important environmental variables. It is the shear
components of any applied stress state that accelerate the onset of void swelling, but for
PWR applications the applied stresses are relatively low, except for the preloading of bolts.
The possibility that large shear strains might develop under the heads of bolts as baffle plates
accumulate swelling is still an open question.
5. The action of internal stresses arising from swelling gradients will be to reduce the steepness
of the predicted swelling gradient and thereby spreading the swelling profile to larger areas
than predicted by stress-free swelling equations.
To accommodate the above-listed uncertainties, a bounding swelling curve is also shown in
Figure G-1, which is based on a factor of two times the highest swelling predicted by the EBR-II
empirical equations at any given temperature and dpa level. This bounding curve can be used for
rough scoping studies to determine whether swelling should be considered as an issue to address
for a particular component location and exposure history.
G.2.2 New Type 304 Stainless Steel Equation
Based on a soon-to-be published experiment conducted in EBR-II,

a new stress-free swelling
equation has been developed for annealed Type 304.
[G-34]
This equation explicitly addresses the
EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material

Appendix G: Void Swelling
G-10
strong flux dependence of swelling observed in the experiment, which covered the full range of
PWR-relevant dpa rates. However, the experiment did not overcome the earlier-cited limitation
of 370C (698F) as the lower temperature limit in EBR-II. By decoupling the flux and
temperature dependencies, it is expected that extrapolation to lower PWR-relevant temperatures
might be more appropriate for the major portions of the baffle-former assembly experiencing
temperatures below 370C (698F). In the hot spots expected behind re-entrant corners, the
swelling prediction should be more correct. However, it is important to note that regardless of
the equation being used, the underlying assumption is that the differences in helium and
hydrogen generation rate can be ignored; this is an assumption that requires testing as more data
become available from PWRs.
The annealed Type 304 equation developed for PWR use has the following form:
%V/V
0
= A (dpa rate/10
-7
)
-0.731
(dpa)
2
(G-2)
Where A
304
= EXP (22.106-(18558/(TC+273.15))).
While the A-coefficient was explicitly derived from Type 304 data, coefficients for cold-worked
Type 316 are more difficult to specify due to the well-known strong sensitivity of swelling of
cold-worked Type 316 to every environmental and material parameter.
[G-2]

In Reference G-6 an equation for cold-worked Type 316 was developed to assist in analysis of
bolt-plate interactions. This equation was chosen to retain the same form as that of Type 304 and
to fit the few available cold-worked Type 316 data, unfortunately from various heats of material.
The cold-worked Type 316 equation was designed primarily to reflect the fact that the smaller
volumes of this material in bolts will experience substantially less swelling and therefore did not
require extensive and unjustified separate correlation development for the problem being
addressed, especially from such a limited and divergent database. Nevertheless, the uncertainty
in this and any cold-worked Type 316 equation is substantially larger than that of the Type 304
equation, even though the absolute swelling values will be much smaller. For the development of
screening criteria it does not appear to be feasible to confidently develop an improved equation
to describe the swelling of cold-worked Type 316 stainless steel.
Figure G-2 compares predicted swelling values as a function of dpa using Eq. G-2 for several
dpa rates (fluxes) relevant to the baffle-former region of a PWR internals design (1.4E-7 to 1.4E-
8 dpa/sec). Included in Figure G-2 are predictions using the correlation developed by Foster-
Flinn.
[G-31]

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material

Appendix G: Void Swelling
G-11
Temperature = 300C
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
0 50 100 150
dpa/second
S
w
e
l
l
i
n
g

%
dpa/s=1.4E-8
dpa/s=4.55E-8
dpa/s=7.7E-8
dpa/s=1.085E-7
dpa/s=1.4E-7
F-F

Temperature = 320C
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
dpa
S
w
e
l
l
i
n
g

%
dpa/s=1.4E-8
dpa/s=4.55E-8
dpa/s=7.7E-8
dpa/s=1.085E-7
dpa/s=1.4E-7
F-F

Figure G-2
Swelling Predictions versus DPA Using the Stress-Free Swelling Equation Developed by
Garner[G-34] [Note: F-F indicates predictions using the Foster-Flinn Equation[G-31] for
Comparison]
EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material

Appendix G: Void Swelling
G-12
Temperature = 340C
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
dpa
S
w
e
l
l
i
n
g

%
dpa/s=1.4E-8
dpa/s=4.55E-8
dpa/s=7.7E-8
dpa/s=1.085E-7
dpa/s=1.4E-7
F-F

Temperature = 360C
0.00
4.00
8.00
12.00
16.00
20.00
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
dpa
S
w
e
l
l
i
n
g

%
dpa/s=1.4E-8
dpa/s=4.55E-8
dpa/s=7.7E-8
dpa/s=1.085E-7
dpa/s=1.4E-7
F-F

Figure G-2 (continued)
EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material

Appendix G: Void Swelling
G-13
Temperature = 380C
0.00
4.00
8.00
12.00
16.00
20.00
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
dpa
S
w
e
l
l
i
n
g

%
dpa/s=1.4E-8
dpa/s=4.55E-8
dpa/s=7.7E-8
dpa/s=1.085E-7
dpa/s=1.4E-7
F-F

Temperature = 400C
0.00
4.00
8.00
12.00
16.00
20.00
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
dpa
S
w
e
l
l
i
n
g

%
dpa/s=1.4E-8
dpa/s=4.55E-8
dpa/s=7.7E-8
dpa/s=1.085E-7
dpa/s=1.4E-7
F-F

Figure G-2 (continued)
There are several effects resulting from this equation compared to use of the dpa-rate insensitive
equations of the previous section. First, in general the predicted swelling is higher at the lower
dpa rates characteristic of PWRS when compared to that of rate-insensitive equations. Second,
predicted swelling gradients arising from dpa gradients are not be as steep as predicted by rate-
insensitive equations, as declining dpa rates tend to counteract the effects of declining dpa
exposure. This will have an impact on the interaction of swelling and irradiation creep, and the
resultant swelling-driven distortion. It should be noted that no effect of stress on swelling has
been incorporated in any of the published equations or this new unpublished equation. This will
EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material

Appendix G: Void Swelling
G-14
tend to lead to some degree of under-prediction, but it is anticipated to not be very large for most
PWR applications.
G.3 Void Swelling of Russian Stainless Steels in Other Fast Reactors
Void swelling is known to be sensitive to elemental composition and thermal-mechanical starting
state, but most overall trends of void swelling have been shown to be exceptionally generic to the
austenitic stainless steels.
[G-2]
The swelling behavior of one stainless steel usually is
representative of all steels and conditions, with the primary variation expressed only in the
duration of the transient regime of swelling.
Therefore, it is instructive to review the results of studies on various Russian austenitic stainless
steels irradiated in fast reactors located in Russia and Kazakhstan, especially those reactors
having lower inlet temperatures of ~280C (536F).
G.3.1 Void Swelling Reported in BN-350, BOR-60 and BR-10
Void swelling was not considered to be a potential concern for the major portion of PWR
internals operating at relatively low temperature. However, the recent reports of void swelling of
Russian stainless steels irradiated in BN-350 show significant swelling under low temperature
conditions. This now-decommissioned, sodium-cooled fast reactor was located on the Caspian
Sea at Aktau, Kazakhstan, which was part of the former Soviet Union. The swelling observations
fell into two major categories: 1) high swelling at high dose and PWR-relevant temperatures and
2) extension of the swelling regime to lower PWR-relevant temperatures and also to earlier
swelling as the dpa rate decreased.
In 1998, Garner et al. reported >10% void swelling and resultant severe void-induced
embrittlement of a Russian stainless steel at PWR-relevant operating temperatures in BN-350.
[G-
35, G-36]
The EI-847 niobium-stabilized stainless steel (16Cr-15Ni-3Mo-Nb, used by Russians for
applications where Type 316 would be used in the West) tubes were irradiated in the BN-350 to
73-82 dpa at 335-365C (635-689F). The composition of this alloy is listed in Table G-2.
Table G-2
Chemical Composition of Russian EI-847 Stainless Steel in BN-350
[G-35, G-36]
Wt% C Si Mn S P Cr Ni Mo Nb B N
Solution-annealed 0.050 0.29 0.78 0.009 0.011 15.74 15.32 2.95 0.54 0.001 0.035
18% Cold-worked 0.060 0.20 0.73 0.004 0.012 15.61 14.90 2.96 0.59 0.001 0.022

Some of the stainless steel tubes in this experiment were pressurized by argon to produce hoop
stresses up to 196 MPa (28.4 ksi). The total irradiation time was 14,400 hours (600 days),
corresponding to dpa rates of 1.41 and 1.58 x 10
-6
dpa/s, rates typical of in-core regions of fast
EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material

Appendix G: Void Swelling
G-15
reactors. For 18% cold-worked EI-847 irradiated to 82 dpa at 365C (689F), the reported
swelling was 10.3-15.5% by density measurement and 11.7-14.5% from TEM observations. For
stress-free solution-annealed tubes irradiated to 73 dpa at 335C (635F), the reported swelling
was ~6.2%.
So far, this is the only known report of significantly large swelling of austenitic stainless steel at
335-365C (635-689F) irradiated in a fast reactor. Such high swelling in an austenitic stainless
steel at the reported temperature range was very surprising in view of the current understanding
of void swelling developed from the many studies in Western fast reactors, but it must be
recognized that the lower inlet temperature (280C) (536F) of BN-350 allows measurements at
doses and temperatures that could never be made in Western fast reactors that operate at >370C
(698F). This observation demonstrates the difficulty of extrapolating downward in temperature
even in the absence of differences in neutron flux-spectra.
In 1999, Garner et al. reported swelling measurement of yet another Russian stainless steel
12X18H10T (Fe-18.5Cr-9.5Ni-1.5Mn-0.7Si-0.65Ti-<0.12C), which is the Russian equivalent of
Type 321 and is used for applications where Type 304 would be used in the West. This alloy was
also irradiated in the BN-350 fast reactor.
[G-37]
This solution-annealed austenitic stainless steel
was irradiated up to 56 dpa at 280-332C (536-630F) in the BN-350. Irradiation at 321C
(610F) and 332C (630F) and 4x10
-8
dpa/s produced 0.17 and 0.28% swelling after ~15 dpa,
respectively. The data showed that 56 dpa (at 10
-7
dpa/s) at 310C (590F) produced less than
0.1% swelling from TEM observations. A later update by Garner
[G-38]
indicated even higher
swelling than previously reported in Reference G-37, with the swelling at a given temperature
and dose increasing strongly with lower dose rate.
In a number of recent studies conducted in BN-350, BR-10 and BOR-60, Garner and various
Russian and Kazakh coworkers have shown that the onset of swelling in the various Russian
stainless steels is indeed accelerated at lower dpa rates,
[G-38, G-39, G-40, G-41, G-42]
and that the lower
temperature limit of swelling moves to temperatures as low as 280C (536F).
[G-15]
One
comparison of swelling of the 12X18H10T material in BR-10 and BN-350 showed clearly that
earlier perceptions of the lower temperature limit of swelling were dictated by the inlet
temperature of the reactor and the flux gradient near the bottom of the core, and not the inherent
swelling behavior of the stainless steel.
[G-40]
G.3.2 BN-350 Void Swelling Database Analyzed by Yilmaz et al.
In 2003, Yilmaz et al. published a study that analyzed the swelling database of Russian stainless
steels irradiated as hexagonal ducts in BN-350.
[G-43]
Details of the void swelling database were
not provided but review of the original publications in Russian showed that these ducts were
irradiated in-core at typical fast reactor dpa rates.
The study led to the following empirical swelling expression:

n
incub
dpa dpa A
V
V
) ( %
0
=

(G-3)
EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material

Appendix G: Void Swelling
G-16
Where

(

|
|
.
|

\
|
=

m
T T
p k A
1 1
cosh
1
(G-4)
The power law form of Eq. G-3 adopted by Yilmaz et al. is identical to Eq. G-1, except for the
inclusion of an abruptly ending incubation period. Such an equation form is only valid for
austenitic stainless steels that initially resist swelling strongly, especially cold-worked austenitic
stainless steels, and will not replicate the gradual onset of swelling toward the end of the
transient regime.
The reported data fitting parameters for Eq. G-3 and Eq. G-4 are listed in Table G-3. Based on
Eq. G-3 and Eq. G-4, the swelling curve for the Russian 1Cr18Ni10Ti (MTO) material is plotted
as a function of dpa between 300 and 400C (572 and 752F) in Figure G-1 for comparison with
the U.S. stainless steels from EBR-II.
Table G-3
Swelling Parameters for Russian Stainless Steels by Yilmaz et al.
[G-43]

Russian Designation
a
Closest AISI
b
k n p T
m
(K)
c
dpa
incub
1Cr18Ni10Ti (MTO)
Type 321
or Type 304Ti
6.1x10
-3
2.00.2 1.918x10
4
743 0
08Cr16Ni11Mo3 (MTO) Type 316 5.5x10
-4
2.40.4 9.0x10
3
723 20
(a) MTO stands for 20% cold work followed by annealing at 800C (1472F) for 1 hour.
(b) Closest AISI equivalent based on chemical composition.
(c) Tm (K) indicates the peak swelling temperature in Kelvin.
Figure G-1 shows that swelling of the Russian stainless steel 1Cr18Ni10Ti in BN-350 is actually
lower than the swelling of the U.S. stainless steels in EBR-II, reflecting the known effect of
titanium addition to reduce swelling at some higher temperatures. Swelling of the Russian
stainless steel 08Cr16Ni11Mo3 was also evaluated but was not plotted in Figure G-1. The
swelling of this latter alloy was lower than that of the 1Cr18Ni10Ti (MTO) material, reflecting
primarily the well-known effect of nickel content on swelling.
Based on the chemical composition, it is evident that the 1Cr18Ni10Ti (MTO) material listed in
Table G-3 is the same type Russian stainless steel reported by Garner et al. as 12X18H10T in
Section G.3.1. However, Figure G-1 shows that the swelling of the 1Cr18Ni10Ti (MTO)
material was within the band of the results from materials irradiated in EBR-II. Yilmazs study
was conducted on much earlier data produced in Kazakhstan and published only in Russian.
Therefore it did not mention the newer work on Russian niobium-stabilized stainless steel EI-
847, which showed ~10% swelling at higher exposure reported by Garner et al. in Section G.3.1.
This latter work was conducted not in Kazakhstan but in Russia at a different institute (i.e.,
Institute of Physics and Power Engineering in Obninsk).
EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material

Appendix G: Void Swelling
G-17
The only significant PWR-relevant conclusion to draw from the study of Yilmaz is that the
generic behavior of Russian stainless steels is not significantly different in their swelling
behavior compared to those of comparable Western stainless steels.
G.4 JOBB Void Swelling Data
G.4.1 JOBB BOR-60 Density Measurement
The JOBB (Joint Owners Baffle Bolt) program was initiated during the 1990s after baffle bolts
in EDFs (Electricit de France) CP0 plants were found to have cracked with symptoms
characteristic of irradiation-assisted stress corrosion cracking (IASCC).
Specimens of typical French and U.S. PWR austenitic stainless steels with and without welds, as
well as candidate replacement materials, were irradiated in both the BOR-60 fast and SM-2
thermal reactors located in Russia. As part of the JOBB program, density measurements were
performed on some tensile specimens irradiated at 320C (608F) up to 125 dpa at high, in-core
dpa rates in the BOR-60 fast breeder reactor in Russia.
[G-44]
Density measurements were made on
two French heats of solution-annealed Type 304L and two heats of cold-worked Type 316. The
chemical compositions and thermal-mechanical starting state are listed in Tables G-4 and G-5.
The measured volumetric changes of the tensile specimens are plotted in Figure G-3 against dpa.
A significant amount of scatter in density measurements is seen in Figure G-3. The scatter was
attributed to inadequate wetting of the density specimens by the immersion fluid. For example,
the density of the four unirradiated specimens was measured three times each. The difference
between the maximum and minimum measured value for the same specimen ranges from 0.30%
to 0.89%. For the solution-annealed Type 304, the volumetric change ranged from -0.9% to
1.3%, with negative values indicating densification strains as being dominant.
Non-wetting of the fluid usually means that there were tiny air bubbles or thin air films adhering
to the specimens. This in general causes the density increase to be overestimated. Thus the
higher swelling values should be discounted somewhat in favor of the lower values. This
conclusion needs to be confirmed by microscopy examination, however, since the onset of
swelling, especially for cold-worked Type 316, is notoriously heterogeneous on both the
microscopic and macroscopic level. There is also some heterogeneity associated with the
densification process.
EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material

Appendix G: Void Swelling
G-18
Table G-4
Chemical Composition of JOBB Specimens
[G-44]
Type Heat C S P Si Mn Ni Cr Mo Cu Co Nb-Ta B (ppm) O (ppm) N (ppm) Ti
316-1 (B), 15%CW 32867 0.054 0.022 0.027 0.68 1.12 10.60 16.60 2.25 0.24 0.12 0.01 5 41 230 <0.01
316-2 (DB=J6), 15%CW 14114 0.049 0.010 0.022 0.76 1.16 10.45 16.56 2.36 0.13 0.19 - - - - -
304L-1 (A), SA 11922 0.022 0.0007 0.032 0.36 1.79 9.86 18.61 - 0.25 0.06 - 9 - 610 -
304-2 (CB), SA 12607 0.025 0.001 0.026 0.49 1.70 9.11 19.12 - 0.17 0.06 - 7 - 680 -

Table G-5
Thermomechanical History of JOBB Specimens
[G-44]

Type Heat Manufacturer Form Condition Specimen Direction Ferrite % ASTM Grain Size
316-1 (B), 15%CW 32867 Ugine Rod, 25mm dia. 1050C/30min + 15%CW to rolling direction <0.1 5-8
316-2 (DB=J6), 15%CW 14114 Ugine Rod, 25mm dia. 1050C/1hour+ 15%CW to rolling direction 0 7-8
304L-1 (A), SA 11922 Creusot-Loire Plate, 30mm 1050C/30min Rolling direction 1.3 6-7
304-2 (CB), SA 12607 Creusot-Loire Plate, 65mm 1050C/67min Rolling direction 1.3 5

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material

Appendix G: Void Swelling
G-19
The negative density change numbers indicate that densification has occurred that is attributable
to lattice parameter changes accompanying precipitation of carbides during the early stage of
neutron irradiation.
[G-2, G-44, G-45]
For the cold-worked Type 316, densification (up to 1.2%)
dominated the early irradiation period in BOR-60. With increasing fluence, swelling gradually
started to offset the initial densification effect. After 125 dpa, swelling gradually overcomes the
densification effect due to precipitation. This densification will generally obscure the early
development of void swelling. No evidence of voids was found in the TEM specimens irradiated
to 40 dpa in BOR-60.
However, the JOBB density data as plotted appear to show swelling in progress at ~60 dpa. TEM
observation for specimens irradiated up to 125 dpa should be performed in the future to
overcome uncertainties associated with data scatter and densification.
It should be noted that while densification is controlled primarily by time-at-temperature with
some possible effect of radiation to accelerate or homogenize the precipitation, the swelling will
probably be strongly influenced by the high dpa rate of the BOR-60 experiment as has been
observed in a number of studies cited earlier. Therefore the swelling measured in this BOR-60
experiment may be an underestimate of swelling compared to that which would occur at PWR-
relevant displacement rates.
G.4.2 JOBB TEM Measurement of EBR-II Specimens
As a part of the JOBB program, specimens from various heats of austenitic stainless steels,
including one heat of solution-annealed Type 304L (304L-1) and one heat of cold-worked Type
316 (316-1), were irradiated at 375C (707F) in EBR-II at relatively high dpa rates in 1994. The
maximum dose achieved in EBR-II was 10 dpa just prior to permanent shutdown of the reactor
in September 1994. These are some of the same heats of Type 304L and Type 316 irradiated in
BOR-60 (see Table G-5 and Table G-6).
TEM specimens were taken from the head of the tensile specimens. The void size and density are
listed in Reference G-46 (Table 7). The estimated swelling is only 0.02% for the solution-
annealed Type 304L. No voids were observed for the cold-worked Type 316 after 10 dpa, a
behavior consistent with the known relative swelling behavior of these two stainless steel alloys
(Table G-6). Because the estimated swelling does not take into account the densification due to
carbide precipitations, the overall change in volume could be near-zero or more likely, slightly
negative.
Table G-6
Swelling of JOBB Specimens Irradiated in EBR-II at 375C (707F)
[G-46]

Materials Dose Cavity Diameter Cavity Density Swelling
304L-1, SA 10.2 dpa 5.4 nm 2.3 x 10
21
0.02%
316-1, CW 10 dpa few ~0

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material

Appendix G: Void Swelling
G-20
-1.50%
-1.00%
-0.50%
0.00%
0.50%
1.00%
1.50%
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
dpa at 608F in Bor-60
V
o
l
u
m
e
t
r
i
c

C
h
a
n
g
e
,

0
/

-
1
Type 304L-1, SA
Type 304L-2, SA
-1.50%
-1.00%
-0.50%
0.00%
0.50%
1.00%
1.50%
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
dpa at 608F in Bor-60
V
o
l
u
m
e
t
r
i
c

C
h
a
n
g
e
,

0
/

-
1
Type 316-1, CW
Type 316-2, CW

Figure G-3
Volumetric Change from Density Measurements of JOBB Tensile Specimens Irradiated in
BOR-60 at 320C (608F)
EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material

Appendix G: Void Swelling
G-21
G.5 Void Swelling in Removed PWR Baffle Bolts
To date, the only PWR void swelling data comes from the baffle-to-former bolts removed due to
IASCC concerns. Minor void concentrations were observed with TEM in some baffle bolts
removed from Point Beach Unit 1, Farley Unit 1, and Tihange 1. Table G-7 is a summary of the
operating parameters of these three plants.
[G-47, G-48]

Table G-7
Plants with Baffle Bolts Removed and Inspected for Void Swelling
[G-47, G-48]
Plant Type Capacity
Initial
Operation
Accu.
EFPYs
a

Up/Down Flow
Inlet
Temp
Exit Temp
Point Beach 2,
Westinghouse 2-loop
510 MWt 10/1972 20.7
Converted to
upflow in mid
1980s
543.5F 606.4F
Farley 1,
Westinghouse 3-loop
850 MWt 12/1977 16.5
Converted to
upflow in 2000
545F 613.7F
Tihange 1 (Belgian
plant same as French
CP0 series plants) 3
Loop
900 MWt 1975
Not
reported
Converted to
upflow in 1986
547F N/A
(a) Accumulated EFPYs at the time of baffle bolt removal.
Fluence and temperature gradients exist along the length of these bolts, with the bolt heads
experiencing the highest fluence due to being closer to the core. The highest calculated
temperature was usually in the shank or threads arising from gamma heating and heat transfer
considerations. The amount of void swelling in each case was estimated from the void size
distribution and density in the TEM specimens.
The locations with observable void swelling coincided with the position having the highest
irradiation temperature. The void swelling results and the local irradiation conditions are
summarized in Table G-8, where a maximum calculated swelling value of 0.24% is noted for a
bolt from Tihange 1.
The U.S. bolts examined experienced a deliberate operational change in temperature during
irradiation. The high temperature period specified in Table G-8 corresponds to the period
involving a high leakage core and/or a down-flow configuration, i.e., before conversion to a low
leakage core and/or an up-flow configuration. These conditions may have a bearing on swelling
measured in these bolts.
The baffle bolt swelling data derived from TEM evaluations shows a very minor amount of void
swelling (0.24% or less) at 340-363C (644-685F) after ~20 EFPYs of plant operation.
Considering the densification effect arising from carbide precipitation, the actual overall
volumetric swelling was likely somewhat lower or even slightly negative.
EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material

Appendix G: Void Swelling
G-22
Table G-8
Void Swelling in PWR Baffle-to-Former Bolts
Point Beach 2 and Farley 1: Reference G-73
Tihange 1: References G-38 & G-74
High Temp Period
a
Plant TEM I.D. Position
Temp dpa
Low Temp.
Period
Temp

Total dpa Voids
Just below the
bolt head
299-314C
(570-597F)
4-5
289-307C
(552-585F)
17-19 Not present
Baffle Bolt
G96
(316 CW)
Near the
bottom of the
thread end
359-401C
(678-754F)
2-3
311-351C
(592-664F)
9-11
6.0 +/-2.2 nm
0.93 x 10
21
/m
3

0.011% Vol.
Farley 1
1998
Lock Bar
(304 SS)
for G130
On top of the
bolt head
287-298C
(549-568F)
20-22
283-296C
(541-565F)
20-22 Not present
Just below the
bolt head
306-336C
(583-637F)
7-8
301-333C
(574-631F)
14-16 Not present
Baffle Bolt
4522
(347 SA)
Near the
bottom of the
thread end
359-401C
(678-754F)
3-4
302-341C
(576-646F)
7-8
7.0 +/-1.8 nm
1.6 x 10
21
/m
3

0.029% Vol.
Baffle Bolt
4116
(347 SA)
Near crack
(under bolt
head)
313-348C
(595-658F)
7-8
303-334C
(577-633F)
14-16 Not present
Point Beach 2
1998
Lock
washer for
Bolt 3324
(304 SA)
On top of the
bolt head
292-304C
(558-579F)
23-26
282-294C
(540-561F)
23-26 Not present
Bolt head
320C
(608
o
F)
--
320C
(608F)
26.8 Not present
Baffle Bolt
1L15R2
(removed
in 1992)
40 mm from
bolt head
373C
(703
o
F)
--
363C
(685F)
12.05
~10 nm
2.3 x 10
21
/m
3

0.12% Vol.
1 mm from bolt
head
320C
(608
o
F)
17
320C
(608F)
19.5
2-3 nm
< 10
20
/m
3

<0.01% Vol.
25 mm from
bolt head
343C
(649F)
10
342C
(645F)
11.9
8.6 nm
6.1 x 10
21
/m
3

0.2% Vol.
Tihange 1
20%CW 316
Baffle Bolt
2K1R5
(removed
in 1995)
57 mm from
bolt head
333C
(631F)
6
330C
(626F)
7
7.7 nm
10 x 10
21
/m
3

0.24% Vol.
(a) The high temperature period corresponds to the high leakage core and/or down flow configuration.
(b) It is important to recognize that significant uncertainties existed in the estimated swelling by counting void
density and size with TEM. Considering the densification effect arising from carbides precipitation, the actual
overall volumetric swelling was likely lower or could be even slightly negative.

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material

Appendix G: Void Swelling
G-23
It is also important to note that voids were observed at their highest levels in the shanks of the
bolts, regions which were under stress and therefore likely to have experienced stress-
enhancement of swelling.
G.6 Factors Affecting Void Swelling
From the above discussion, it is evident that swelling of any particular austenitic stainless steel is
rather sensitive to temperature and dpa rate. Other factors have also been reported to affect void
swelling, some of which have been mentioned above. An expanded summary is given in the
following paragraphs to guide the establishment of screening criteria.
1. Solution-Annealed vs. Cold-Worked
Swelling data from EBR-II and other reactors demonstrate that cold-work is effective in
prolonging the swelling incubation period for austenitic stainless steel. The temporary
suppression effect of cold-work is usually attributed to the elevated dislocation density,
which provides additional recombination sites for interstitials and vacancies. This reduces
the vacancy supersaturation, delaying void nucleation, and also interferes with diffusion
of minor solutes thereby influencing the various precipitation processes that occur
thermally or that are stimulated by radiation.
2. Major Differences in Chemical Composition
The duration of the transient regime of swelling is known to be strongly sensitive to the
nickel and chromium content.
[G-49, G-50]
These elements strongly change the effective
vacancy diffusivity and therefore the vacancy supersaturation, affecting the duration of
the transient regime
[G-51]
but not the steady state swelling rate.
On this basis alone, Type 304 always swells more than Type 316 in the same thermal-
mechanical starting state. The combined effect of cold-work and alloy composition insure
that the incubation period for solution-annealed Type 304 is significantly shorter than that
of cold-worked Type 316 in fast reactors at the same irradiation temperature and dpa rate.
It is assumed, but not yet conclusively demonstrated, that this relationship will be
preserved under PWR-relevant temperature conditions.
3. Minor Differences in Chemical Composition
In 1974, Bates presented results of a comprehensive study aimed at determining how
minor changes in alloying constituents would affect the swelling behavior of Type 316
stainless steel.
[G-52]
Later, more comprehensive studies by Brager and Garner confirmed
and extended the results of Bates. These studies showed that, atom-for-atom, phosphorus,
silicon, titanium and carbon in solid solution, in that order, were most effective in
delaying the onset of swelling.
[G-50, G-53, G-54, G-55]
However the influence of carbon with
elements such as titanium, niobium, and zirconium, which determine the distribution and
precipitation of carbides, often is reversed with temperature, sometimes increasing
swelling.
EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material

Appendix G: Void Swelling
G-24
Phosphorus and silicon strongly change the effective vacancy diffusivity and therefore
the vacancy supersaturation, affecting the duration of the transient regime but not the
steady state swelling rate.
[G-56]
It is important to note that minor heat-to-heat differences are usually expressed in the
minor compositional elements, especially phosphorus, both in their concentration and
microscopic distribution as a result of differences in thermal-mechanical treatment during
production. Thus, essentially identical heats of stainless steel material can sometimes
exhibit large differences in swelling behavior as a result of relatively small differences in
thermal-mechanical preparation.
[G-57]
4. Stress and Stress History
Stress is generally regarded as a factor that accelerates swelling.
[G-2, G-58]
Much of the
swelling data used to generate the empirical correlations in Section G.2 were derived
from various thimbles in the EBR-II with only a minor pressure difference across the tube
wall. In general there will be stresses imposed by gradients in temperature and swelling,
but these are quickly relaxed by irradiation creep during irradiation. If the temperature
gradient is very large, such as across the thin cladding of high power fuel pins, then the
initial stresses are large enough to strongly accelerate swelling of the cladding,
[G-59, G-60]

but such situations are not expected in PWR internals.
Interestingly, it is the shear components of the stress state that accelerate swelling, not the
hydrostatic components. Therefore the sign of the stress state is not relevant.
[G-61, G-62]

Another facet of stress-enhanced swelling is that swelling gradients will generate short-
lived stresses on adjacent lower swelling volumes, forcing them to try to catch up with
adjacent faster-growing volumes. Thus predictions of stress-free swelling will project
steeper swelling gradients than will actually develop and swelling footprints of hot spots
behind reentrant corners will be wider than predicted using stress-free swelling equations.
As mentioned earlier, swelling can be anisotropic in the presence of both external and
internal constraints. For the hot corner in the former plate behind the reentrant baffle
plate corner, significant internal constraints will occur. One consequence will be that the
swelling will tend to be redirected vertically, producing a bulge in the plate, most likely
with no deleterious consequences for continued functionality.
Stresses are often very time-dependent in their development, decreasing via stress
relaxation or increasing as components swell and interact. The cumulative effect of such
histories has only been examined for fast reactor fuel pins, which are not relevant to the
PWR internals situation. The changing stress state associated with baffle bolts was
addressed in an earlier report.
[G-6]
In such case, the stress state is driven by stress-
relaxation via irradiation creep and by differential swelling.
EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material

Appendix G: Void Swelling
G-25
5. Displacement Rate
Garner and various coworkers have compiled a number of data from fast reactors
suggesting that a dpa rate effect on void swelling will occur in the PWR-relevant
temperature range, i.e., the lower dpa rate in PWR internals would result in higher
swelling than in fast reactors when irradiated to the same dpa at the same temperature.
[G-
40, G-41, G-42, G-63, G-64]
The dpa rate effect on PWR-induced swelling is still not completely
defined, however, with a few studies
[G-33, G-65]
not observing a strong effect. The
implication of such a dpa rate effect on void swelling, if it indeed exists, would make a
PWR void swelling prediction based on high-flux fast reactor swelling data non-
conservative.
6. Temperature History
A number of studies have shown that austenitic stainless steels, especially those that
resist swelling, are particularly prone to accelerated swelling as a result of certain
temperature histories inherent in fast reactor operation.
[G-66, G-67]
These temperature
histories involve prolonged persistent decreases in temperature during irradiation and are
not thought to be relevant to PWR operation.
PWRs do experience one form of temperature history that is atypical of any fast reactor
situation. This history is associated with gamma heating variations arising from the
burnout of the boron in the primary coolant and the periodic refreshment of the boron.
[G-4,
G-33]
This induces a periodic saw-tooth variation in the thermal neutron population, local
gamma heating rates and finally the temperature history in the internals. The oscillations
are only on the order of 15-20C (27-36F), but since this oscillation occurs in the
temperature range where the boundary of the lower temperature limit of void swelling
occurs there may be some significant impact on the onset of void nucleation and
subsequent swelling. The potential, but unknown, influence of such history on void
nucleation and growth adds to the uncertainty associated with prediction of swelling in
PWR internals.
As mentioned earlier there were sometimes major operational changes in temperature
arising from changes to a low leakage core and/or to up-flow cooling. There are no data
to assess the impact of such variations on void swelling, especially for PWR-relevant
temperatures.
7. Helium Production
Some studies have shown
[G-68, G-69]
that a very high helium content or production rate can
prolong the incubation period of void swelling under certain conditions, especially during
ion bombardment conditions at very high dpa rates. For neutron irradiation this situation
is not so clearly manifested, with various studies giving conflicting results.
In this proposed scenario, the presence of a large number of helium gas bubbles early in
life is thought to increase the vacancy sink density and the point defect recombination
EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material

Appendix G: Void Swelling
G-26
rate. This decreases the vacancy supersaturation level, and hence, increases the critical
cavity size for the biased void growth, delaying the onset of rapid swelling. Once the
steady state swelling condition has been reached, it appears that high bubble densities
generated in LWRS can coexist with voids without decreasing the steady state swelling
rate.
[G-70]

The presence of bubbles reflects gas production, especially that of helium. Helium
production is higher in Type 316 than in Type 304 due to a roughly 50% higher Ni
content, but the difference is insufficient in itself to cause either a prolongation or
shortening of incubation via changes in vacancy supersaturation. The higher nickel
content of Type 316 is by itself sufficient to drop the vacancy supersaturation by a much
larger amount.
[G-51]
As discussed earlier, the recently rediscovered issue of helium and hydrogen
cogeneration in LWR environments and the subsequent storage of hydrogen in voids and
bubbles add an additional level of uncertainty to swelling prediction.
In summary, void swelling is a complex phenomenon that is highly dependent on the material
(chemical composition and thermal-mechanical treatment) and on the irradiation conditions
(temperature history, flux-spectrum, dpa rate and gas production). These factors are often highly
interactive and synergistic in determining the path taken by the swelling phenomenon. All of
these contribute to the difficulty of confidently forecasting the level and distribution of void
swelling and its associated strains in PWR internals. However, there are sufficient data and
insight developed from fast reactor experience to provide a path forward to establishing initial
screening criteria.
G.7 VS Threshold and Screening Criteria
To date, there have been no reports of PWR internals component items showing significant
distortion or failures as a direct or contributing consequence of void swelling. However, in
practice, this may be a poor indicator because of the lengthy incubation period that is often
observed prior to the onset of steady state swelling. On the other hand, if swelling does manifest
itself in PWR internals component items, it is highly likely that significant swelling will be
localized in relatively small and isolated volumes due to the factors cited above. Since there are
few data available derived from irradiation conditions in PWRs in the temperature range where
the risk of void swelling is greatest, the possibility of swelling-induced problems requires
attention.
Based on the above discussion, void swelling depends primarily on temperature, flux, stress and
many other factors, although stress is thought not to be as important for most PWR applications.
Other factors such as minor heat-to-heat differences are probably secondary for stainless steel
materials compared to temperature and flux but more importantly, these variables cannot be
quantified separately based on the current swelling database. As discussed earlier it appears that
a swelling-based screening criterion for cold-worked Type 316 may not be necessary based on
the anticipated much lower swelling of this material.
EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material

Appendix G: Void Swelling
G-27
Therefore, at this point the suggested threshold and screening criteria for austenitic stainless steel
materials (wrought and weld) should depend primarily upon the temperature, accumulated dpa
and dpa rate that the PWR internals component item will experience during operation. However,
the screening criteria should focus not on the irradiation conditions themselves, but on well-
defined potential consequences. For swelling, the consequences are: a) volume and dimensional
changes, and b) swelling-induced embrittlement.
Since the onset of void-induced embrittlement is ~5% swelling, it is deemed to be prudent that
swelling of one half that level should trigger examination. Since the swelling rate will never
exceed 1%/dpa this gives a minimum of 2.5 years and probably much longer to clear the 5%
criterion, allowing time for analysis and examination. Total embrittlement occurs at ~10%
swelling, allowing even more time to assess consequences and initiate examination, remediation
or replacement.
Isotropic swelling of 2.5% swelling implies maximum linear strains of ~0.8%, a number
comparable to uncertainties in production tolerances of most in-core components and probably
not observable during inspection. Even for completely anisotropic swelling, which is quite
improbable in PWR application, linear strains of 2.5% are most probably within the envelope of
continued component functionality. Certainly by ~4% isotropic swelling or 2.5% anisotropic
swelling there will be measurable strains possibly observable upon inspection or measurement
via non-destructive ultrasonic or electro-resistivity techniques.
[G-71, G-72]
As documented in earlier sections all swelling predictions for PWR-relevant conditions will be
very uncertain, but some estimate can be made based on data derived from fast reactor
irradiation.
Therefore it is suggested that the best currently available predictive swelling equation (based on
Type 304 stainless steel) be used to calculate the predicted potential for void swelling. If the
predicted swelling approaches 2%, then some evaluation of the specific stainless steel material
and estimate of the stress state should be made to ascertain whether the 2.5% criterion will be
reached, triggering a requirement for further assessment.
It is important to note that the largest predicted swelling will most probably occur in regions that
are not easily accessed, such as the hot spots within the former plates behind reentrant baffle
plate corners. When these locations exceed 2.5%, the overwhelming remainder of the baffle-
former assembly will be very much below even 1%. This statement will probably remain valid
even when the hot spot regions exceed the 10% criterion.
It should also be noted that component items such as baffle bolts will have their behavior
determined by lesser amounts of swelling, primarily via differential swelling with the plates in
which they are embedded. Establishment of a screening criterion is harder for such situations and
requires further data and discussion.
Given the demonstrated sensitivity of void swelling to dpa rate, it is recommended that the new
flux-dependent equation presented in Section G.2.2 be employed. It will most certainly predict
EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material

Appendix G: Void Swelling
G-28
the largest conservative swelling for most situations. As additional data accumulate the equation
should be updated and the consequences reassessed.
In summary, based on currently available PWR data it appears that for austenitic stainless steel
alloy and austenitic stainless steel weld metal locations below 320C (608F ) and less than 20
dpa (1.3 X 10
22
, E> 1.0 MeV) no significant swelling is expected. Therefore no screening is
required. It is also concluded that austenitic stainless steel alloy and austenitic stainless steel
weld metal locations achieving temperatures >320C (608F) and neutron exposure >20 dpa (1.3
X 10
22
, E> 1.0 MeV) are to be initially screened in for further evaluation.
A procedure for follow-on evaluations might use the following logic sequence:
Locations with temperatures <320C (608F) and neutron exposure < 20 dpa (1.3 X 10
22
,
E> 1.0 MeV) are below the screening criteria and no calculations or further evaluation is
needed.
For locations with temperatures >320C (608F) and neutron exposure >20 dpa (1.3 X
10
22
, E> 1.0 MeV), estimate the void swelling using the best currently available
predictive equation (e.g., Eq. G-2). If void swelling predictions are <2.5%, no further
evaluation is required.
For locations with temperatures >320C (608F) and neutron exposure >20 dpa (1.3 X
10
22
, E> 1.0 MeV), estimate the void swelling using the best currently available
predictive equation (e.g., Eq. G-2). If void swelling predictions are >2.5%, further
functionality evaluations are necessary.
G.8 VS References
G-1 Sniegowski, J. J., and Wolfer, W. G., Proceedings of Topical Conference on Ferritic
Alloys for Use in Nuclear Energy Technologies, Edited by J. W. Davis and D. J. Michel,
TMS-AIME, 1983, pp. 579-586.
G-2 Garner, F. A., Chapter 6: "Irradiation Performance of Cladding and Structural Steels in
Liquid Metal Reactors," Vol. 10A of Materials Science and Technology, A
Comprehensive Treatment, VCH Publishers, 1994, pp. 419-543.
G-3 Hamilton, M. L, Huang, F. H., Yang, W. J. S., and Garner, F. A., "Mechanical Properties
and Fracture Behavior of 20% Cold-Worked 316 Stainless Steel Irradiated to Very High
Exposures," Effects of Radiation on Materials: Thirteenth International Symposium (Part
II) Influence of Radiation on Material Properties, ASTM STP 956, F. A. Garner, N. Igata
and C. H. Henager, Jr., Eds., ASTM Philadelphia, PA, 1987, pp. 245-270.
G-4 Garner, F. A., and Greenwood, L.R., Survey of Recent Developments Concerning the
Understanding of Radiation Effects on Stainless Steels Used in the LWR Power
Industry, 10th International Conference on Environmental Degradation of Materials in
Nuclear Power Systems Water Reactors, 2003, pp. 887-909.
EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material

Appendix G: Void Swelling
G-29
G-5 Garner, F.A., Greenwood, L.R., and Reid, B.D., An Assessment of the Possible Role of
Transmutation on Development of Irradiation-Assisted Stress Corrosion Cracking in
Light Water Reactors, EPRI TR-107159, Critical Issue Reviews for the Understanding
and Evaluation of Irradiation Assisted Stress Corrosion Cracking, Final Report,
November, 1996, Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), Palo Alto, CA.
G-6 Simonen, E. P., Garner, F. A, Klymyshym, N. A. and Toloczko, M. B., "Response of
PWR Baffle-Former Bolt Loading to Swelling, Irradiation Creep and Bolt Replacement
As Revealed Using Finite Element Modeling", Proc. 12th International Conference on
Environmental Degradation of Materials in Nuclear Systems-Water Reactors, 2005,
issued in CD format with no page numbers.
G-7 Cawthorne, C. and Fulton, J. E., Nature 216, 515-517.
G-8 Fish, R.L., Straalsund, J.L., Hunter, C.W., and Holmes, J.J., Swelling and Tensile
Property Evaluations of High-Fluence EBR-II Thimbles, Effects of Radiation on
Substructure and Mechanical Properties of Metals and Alloys, ASTM STP 529,
American Society for Testing and Materials 1973, pp. 149-164.
G-9 Garner, F. A., and Gelles, D. S., "Neutron-Induced Swelling of Commercial Alloys at
Very High Exposures," Proceedings of Symposium on Effects of Radiation on Materials:
14th International Symposium, ASTM STP 1046, N. H. Packan, R. E. Stoller and A.S.
Kumar, eds., American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, 1990, Vol. II, pp.
673-683.
G-10 Bates, J. F., Garner, F. A., and Mann, F. M., "The Effects of Solid Transmutation
Products on Swelling in AISI 316 Stainless Steel," Journal of Nuclear Materials, 103 and
104 (1981), p. 999.
G-11 Garner, F. A., Heinisch, H. L., Simons, R. L. and Mann, F. M., "Implications of Neutron
Spectrum and Flux Differences on Fission-Fusion Correlations at High Neutron Fluence,"
Radiation Effects and Defects in Solids, 113, 1990, 229-239.
G-12 Garner, F. A., Greenwood, L. R. and Harrod, D. L., "Potential High Fluence Response of
Pressure Vessel Internals Constructed from Austenitic Stainless Steels", Proc. Sixth
International Symposium on Environmental Degradation of Materials in Nuclear Power
Systems - Water Reactors, San Diego, CA. August 1-5, 1993, pp. 783-790.
G-13 Edwards, D. J., Simonen, E. P., Garner, F. A., Oliver B. M. and Bruemmer, S. M.,
Sensitivity of Microstructural Evolution Due to Temperature and Dose Gradients in
Neutron-Irradiated 316SS, Journal of Nuclear Materials 317 (2003) 32-45.
G-14 Neustroev, V. N., Dvoretzky, V. G., Ostrovsky, Z. E., Shamardin, V. K. and Shimansky,
G. A., Investigation of the Microstructure and Mechanical Properties of 18Cr-10Ni-Ti
Steel Irradiated in the Core of VVER-1000 Reactor, Effects of Radiation on Materials,
21st International Symposium, ASTM STP 1447, 2004, pp. 32-45.
EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material

Appendix G: Void Swelling
G-30
G-15 Maksimkin, O. P., Tsai, K. V., L. G. Turubarova, L. G. , Doronina, T. and Garner, F. A.,
Characterization of 08Cr16Ni11Mo3 Stainless Steel Irradiated in the BN-350 Reactor,
Journal of Nuclear Materials, 329-333 (2004) 625-629. Also Void Swelling of AISI 321
Analog Stainless Steel Irradiated at Low dpa Rates in the BN-350 Reactor, Submitted
for Publication in Journal of Nuclear Materials as proceedings of ICFRM-12.
G-16 Maziasz, P.J., Overview of Microstructural Evolution In Neutron-Irradiated Austenitic
Stainless Steels, Journal of Nuclear Materials, 205 (1993), 118-145.
G-17 Foster, J.P., Porter, D.L., Harrod, D.L., Mager, T.R., Burke, and M.G., 316 Stainless
Steel Cavity Swelling in a PWR, Journal of Nuclear Materials 224 (1995) 207-215.
G-18 Fujimoto, K., Yonezawa, T., Wachi, E., Yamaguchi, Y., Nakano, M., Shogan, R. P.,
Massoud, J. P. and Mager, T. R., Effect of Accelerated Irradiation and Nuclear
Transmuted Gas on IASCC Characteristics for Highly Irradiated Austenitic Stainless
Steels, 12th International Conference on Environmental Degradation of Materials in
Nuclear Systems Water Reactors, in press.
G-19 Edwards, D. J., Bruemmer S. M. and Efsing, P., Microstructural Evolution in Neutron-
Irradiated Stainless Steels: Comparison of LWR and Fast-Reactor Irradiations, 12th
International Conference on Environmental Degradation of Materials in Nuclear Systems
Water Reactors, in press.
G-20 Garner, F. A., Hamilton, M. L. , Greenwood, L. R., Stubbins, J. F. and Oliver, B. M. ,
"Isotopic Tailoring with 59Ni to Study the Effect of Helium on Microstructural Evolution
and Mechanical Properties of Neutron Irradiated Fe-Cr-Ni Alloys", Proceedings of 16th
ASTM International Symposium on Effects of Radiation on Materials, ASTM STP 1175,
Denver, CO, June 22-24, 1992, pp. 921-939.
G-21 Greenwood L. R., and Garner, F. A., "Hydrogen Generation Arising from the 59Ni (n , p)
Reaction and its Impact on Fission-Fusion Correlations", Journal of Nuclear Materials,
233-237 (1996) 1530-1534.
G-22 Garner, F. A., Simonen, E. P., Oliver, B. M., Greenwood, L. R., Grossbeck, M. L.,
Wolfer, W. G. and Scott, P. M., Retention of Hydrogen in FCC Metals Irradiated at
Temperatures Leading to High Densities of Bubbles or Voids, with Implications for
Accelerator Driven Systems, accepted for publication in Journal of Nuclear Materials as
part of proceedings of IWSMT-7.
G-23 Tolstolutskaya, G. D., Ruzhytskiy, V. V., Kopanets, I. E., Karpov, S. A., Bryk, V. V.,
Voyevodin, V. N. and Garner, F. A., Displacement and Helium-induced Enhancement
of Hydrogen and Deuterium Retention in Ion-Irradiated 18Cr10NiTi Stainless Steel,
accepted for publication in Journal of Nuclear Materials as part of proceedings of
IWSMT-7.
EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material

Appendix G: Void Swelling
G-31
G-24 Garner, F. A. and Porter, D. L., "A Reassessment of the Swelling Behavior of AISI 304L
Stainless Steel," Proceedings International Conference on Dimensional Stability and
Mechanical Behavior of Irradiated Metals and Alloys, April 11-13, 1983, Brighton,
England, Vol. II, pp. 41-44.
G-25 Garner, F. A., "Recent Insights on the Swelling and Creep of Irradiated Austenitic
Alloys," Invited Paper, Journal of Nuclear Materials, 122 and 123, (1984), pp. 459-471.
G-26 Garner, F. A., Laidler J. J. and Guthrie, G. L., "Development and Evaluation of a Stress-
Free Swelling Correlation for 20% Cold-Worked 316 Stainless Steel," in "Irradiation
Effect on the Microstructure and Properties of Metals," ASTM STP 611, (1976) pp. 208-
276.
G-27 Bement, A.L. Void Formation In Irradiated Austenitic Stainless Steels, Advances in
Nuclear Science and Technology, Vol. 7, edited by E.J. Henley and J. Lewis, 1973,
pp.14-17 Academic Press, Inc., New York.
G-28 Claudson, T.T., Irradiation Induced Swelling and Creep In Fast Reactor Materials,
Proc. Karlsruhe Conf. Fast Reactor Fuel and Fuel Elements, 1970, pp. 637-670.
G-29 Brager, H.R., Straalsund, J.L., Holmes, J.J. and Bates, J.F., Irradiation-Produced Defects
In Austenitic Stainless Steel, Metallurgical Transactions, 1971, pp. 1893-1904.
G-30 Bates, J. F. and Straalsund, J. L., An Empirical Representation of Irradiation-Induced
Swelling of Solution Treated Type 304 Stainless Steel, Nuclear Technology 14, 1972,
pp. 292-298.
G-31 Foster, J.P. and Flinn, J.E., Residual Stress Behavior in Fast Neutron Irradiated SA AISI
304L Stainless Steel Cylindrical Tubing, Journal of Nuclear Materials 89 (1980) 99-112.
G-32 Allen, T.R., Cole, J.I., The Effect of Low Dose Rate Irradiation on the Swelling of 12%
Cold-Worked 316 Stainless Steel, Proc. 9th International Symposium on Environmental
Degradation of Materials in Nuclear Power Systems Water Reactors, TMS, 1999, pp.
1035-1042.
G-33 Tang, H. T. and Gilreath, J. D, Aging Research and Management of PWR Vessel
Internals, Proceedings Fontevraud 5, Contribution of Materials Investigation to the
Resolution of Problems Encountered in Pressurized Water Reactors, 23-27 September,
2002, paper #19, on CD format, no page numbers.
G-34 Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories Letter from Garner, F.A., to Tang, H.T., New
Swelling Equation for Annealed 304 Stainless Steel, November 11, 2005.
G-35 Porollo, S.I., Vorobjev, A.N., Konobeev, Yu.V., Dvoriashin, A.M., Krigan, V.M.,
Budylkin, N.I., Mironova, E.G., and Garner, F.A., Swelling and Void-Induced
EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material

Appendix G: Void Swelling
G-32
Embrittlement Of Austenitic Stainless Steel Irradiated to 73-82 dpa at 335-365C,
Journal of Nuclear Materials 258-263 (1998) pp. 1613-1617.
G-36 Porollo, S.I., Dvoriashin, A.M., Vorobjev, A.N., Krigan, V.M., Konobeev, Yu.V.,
Garner, F.A., Budylkin, N.I., and Mironova, E.G., Neutron-Induced Swelling And
Embrittlement Behavior of Two Russian Stainless Steels at PWR-Relevant Temperatures
and 65-85 dpa, Proc. Ninth International Symposium on Environmental Degradation of
Materials in Nuclear Power Systems Water Reactors, The Minerals, Metals, and
Materials Society (TMS), 1999, pp. 1060-1067.
G-37 Garner, F.A., Porollo, S.I., Vorobjev, A.N., Konobeev, Yu.V., and Dvoriashin, A.M.,
Void Swelling At Low Displacement Rates In Annealed X18H10T Stainless Steel at 30-
56 dpa and 280-332
o
C, Proc. Ninth International Symposium on Environmental
Degradation of Materials in Nuclear Power Systems Water Reactors, The Minerals,
Metals, and Materials Society (TMS), 1999, pp. 1051-1058.
G-38 Determination of the Lower Temperature Limit of Void Swelling of Stainless Steels at
PWR-Relevant Displacement Rates, by Porollo, S.I. et al., RI-ITG/JOBB Meeting
Minutes, Baltimore, Maryland, May 20-22, 2002, available from the Electric Power
Research Institute (EPRI), Palo Alto, California.
G-39 Porollo, S. I., Dvoriashin, A. M., Konobeev, Yu. V., Ivanov, A. A. and Shulepin, S. V.
and Garner, F. A., Microstructure and Mechanical Properties of Austenitic Stainless
Steel 12X18H9T after Neutron Irradiation in the Pressure Vessel of BR-10 Fast Reactor
at Very Low Dose Rates, submitted to Journal of Nuclear Materials and published in
Fusion Reactor Materials Semiannual Progress report, 2005.
G-40 Garner, F. A., Budylkin, N. I., Konobeev, Yu. V., Porollo, S. I., Neustroev, V. S.
Shamardin, ,V. K. and Kozlov, A. V., The Influence of DPA rate on Void Swelling of
Russian Austenitic Stainless Steels, 10th International Conference on Environmental
Degradation of Materials in Nuclear Power Systems Water Reactors, 2003, pp. 647-
656.
G-41 Budylkin, N. I., Bulanova, T. M., Mironova, E. G., Mitrofanova, N. M., Porollo, S. I. ,
Chenov, V. M., Shamardin, V. K. and Garner, F. A., The Strong Influence of
Displacement Rate on Void Swelling in Variants of Fe-!6Cr-15Ni-3Mo Austenitic
Stainless Steel in BN-350 and BOR-60, Journal of Nuclear Materials, 329-333 (2004)
621-624.
G-42 Neustroev, V. S., Shamardin, V. K., Ostrovsky, Z. E., Pecherin, A. M. and Garner, F. A.,
"Temperature-Shift of Void Swelling Observed at PWR-Relevant Temperatures in
Annealed Fe-18Cr-10Ni-Ti Stainless Steel Irradiated in the Reflector Region of BOR-
60", Effects of Radiation on Materials: 19th International Symposium, ASTM STP 1366,
M. L. Hamilton, A. S. Kumar, S. T. Rosinski and M. L. Grossbeck, Eds., American
Society for Testing and Materials, 2000, pp. 792-800.
EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material

Appendix G: Void Swelling
G-33
G-43 Yilmaz, F., Hassan, Y.A., Porter, D.L., Romanenko, O., Swelling and Mechanical
Property Changes in Russian and American Austenitic Steels in EBR-II and BN350,
Nuclear Technology, Vol. 144, December 2003. pp 369-378.
G-44 Massoud, J-P., and Dubuisson, PH., Irradiation in Bor-60 Reactor, Results of Post
Irradiation Tests and Investigations, Draft Report EDF HT-27/03/018/A, August 2003,
JOBB-CD, Version 03.12, available from the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI),
Palo Alto, California.
G-45 Garner, F. A., Cummings, W. V., Bates, J. F. and Gilbert, E. R., "Densification-Induced
Strains in 20% Cold-Worked 316 Stainless Steel During Neutron Irradiation," Hanford
Engineering Development Laboratory, HEDL-TME-78-9, June 1978.
G-46 Pokor, C., Dubuisson, PH., and Massoud, J-P., Task B4: EBR-II Irradiation, Task B5:
Characterization of Irradiated Materials, Progress Report on the Idaho TEM
Observations, Progress Report, JOBB-CD, Version 03.12, available from the Electric
Power Research Institute (EPRI), Palo Alto, California.
G-47 Inspection and Replacement of Baffle to Former Bolts at Point Beach-2 and Ginna,
Processes, Equipment Design, and Equipment Qualification, TR-114779, Final Report,
February 2000, EPRI, Palo Alto, CA.
G-48 Materials Reliability Program, Determination of Operating Parameters of Extracted
Bolts (MRP-52), 1003076, Final Report, October 2001, EPRI, Palo Alto, CA.
G-49 Garner, F. A. and Brager, H. R., "Swelling of Austenitic Fe-Cr-Ni Ternary Alloys During
Fast Neutron Irradiation," Effects of Radiation on Materials: Twelfth International
Symposium, ASTM STP 870, F. A. Garner and J. S. Perrin, Eds., ASTM, Philadelphia,
PA, 1985, pp. 187-201.
G-50 Garner, F. A. and Kumar, A. S., "The Influence of Both Major and Minor Element
Composition on Void Swelling on Simple Austenitic Steels," Effects of Radiation on
Materials: Thirteenth International Symposium (Part 1) Radiation-Induced Changes in
Microstructure, ASTM STP 955, F. A. Garner, N. H. Packan and A.S. Kumar, Eds.,
ASTM, Philadelphia, PA, 1987, pp. 289-314.
G-51 Coghlan, W. A. and Garner, F. A., "Effect of Nickel Content on the Minimum Critical
Void Radius in Ternary Austenitic Alloys," Effects of Radiation on Materials: Thirteenth
International Symposium (Part 1) Radiation-Induced Changes in Microstructure, ASTM
STP 955, F. A. Garner, N. H. Packan and A.S. Kumar, Eds., ASTM, Philadelphia, PA,
1987, pp. 315-327.
G-52 Bates, J.F., Irradiation-Induced Swelling Variations Resulting from Compositional
Modifications of Type 316 Stainless Steel, Properties of Reactor Structural Alloys after
Neutron or Particle Irradiation, ASTM STP 570, American Society for Testing and
Materials, 1974, pp. 369-387.
EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material

Appendix G: Void Swelling
G-34
G-53 Garner, F. A. and Brager, H. R., "The Role of Phosphorus in the Swelling and Creep of
Austenitic Alloys," Journal of Nuclear Materials, 133 & 134, (1985), pp. 511-514.
G-54 Garner, F. A., Brager, H. R. and Puigh, R. J., "Swelling Behavior of Titanium-Modified
AISI 316 Alloys," Journal of Nuclear Materials, 133 & 134, (1985), pp. 535-539.
G-55 Garner, F. A. and Brager, H. R., "The Influence of Mo, Si, P, C, Ti, Cr, Zr and Various
Trace Elements on the Neutron-Induced Swelling of AISI 316 Stainless Steel," Journal of
Nuclear Materials, 155-157 (1988), pp. 833-837.
G-56 Esmailzadeh, B., Kumar, A. S. and Garner, F. A., "The Influence of Silicon on Void
Nucleation in Irradiated Alloys," Journal of Nuclear Materials, 133 & 134, (1985), pp.
590-593.
G-57 Garner, F. A., Bates, J. F. and Mitchell, M. A., "The Strong Influence of Temper
Annealing Conditions on the Neutron-Induced Swelling of Cold Worked Austenitic
Steels", Journal of Nuclear Materials, 189 (1992), pp. 201-209.
G-58 Garner, F. A., Gilbert, E. R. and Porter, D. L., "Stress-Enhanced Swelling of Metals
During Irradiation," in Proceedings, ASTM 10th International Symposium on Effects of
Radiation on Materials, ASTM STP 725, Savannah, GA, (June 3-5, 1980), pp. 680-697.
G-59 Seran, J. L., Touron, H., Maillard, A., Dubuisson, P., Hugot, J. P., Le Boulbin, E.,
Blanchard, P. and Pelletier, M., The Swelling Behavior of Titanium-Stabilized
Austenitic Stainless Steels Used as Structural Materials of Fissile Assemblies in Phenix,
Effects of Radiation on Materials:14th International Symposium (Vol. II), 1990, pp. 739-
752.
G-60 Akasaka, N., Yamagata, I. and Ukai, S., Effect of Temperature Gradients on Void
Formation in Modified 316 Stainless Steel Cladding, Journal of Nuclear Materials, 283-
287 (2000)169-173.
G-61 Sahu, H. K. and Jung, P., Void Swelling and Irradiation Creep in Stainless Steel Under
Compressive and Tensile Stress,Journal of Nuclear Materials, 136 (1985) 154-158.
G-62 Lauritzen, T., Vaidyanathan, S., Bell, W. L. and Yang, W. J. S., Irradiation-Induced
Swelling in AISI 316 Steel: Effect of Tensile and Compressive Stresses, !3th
International Symposium on Radiation-Induced Changes in Microstructure, ASTM STP
955, 1987, pp.101-113.
G-63 Garner, F.A. and Toloczko, M.B., Irradiation Creep And Void Swelling Of Austenitic
Stainless Steels At Low Displacement Rates In Light Water Energy Systems, Journal of
Nuclear Materials, 251 (1997) pp. 252-261.
G-64 Bond, G.M., Spencer, B.H., Garner, F.A., Hamilton, M.L., Allen, T.R., and Porter, D.L.,
Void Swelling Of Annealed 304 Stainless Steel at ~370-385
o
C and PWR-Relevant
EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material

Appendix G: Void Swelling
G-35
Displacement Rates, Proc. Ninth International Symposium on Environmental
Degradation of Materials in Nuclear Power Systems Water Reactors, The Minerals,
Metals, and Materials Society (TMS), 1999, pp. 1045-1050.
G-65 Makenas, B.J., Bates, J.F., and Jost, J.W., The Swelling Behavior of 20% Cold Worked
Stainless Steel Cladding Irradiated With And Without Adjacent Fuel, Effects of
Radiation on Materials, 11th conference, ASTM 782, American Society for Testing and
Materials, 1982, pp. 17-29.
G-66 Garner, F. A., Gilbert, E. R., Gelles, D. S. and Foster, J. P., "The Effect of Temperature
Changes on Swelling and Creep of AISI 316," in Proceedings, ASTM 10th International
Symposium on Effects of Radiation on Materials, ASTM STP 725, Savannah, GA, (June
3-5, 1980),pp. 698-712.
G-67 Yang, W. J. S. and Garner, F. A., "Relationship Between Phase Development and
Swelling of AISI 316 During Temperature Changes, "Effects of Radiation on Materials:
Eleventh Conference, ASTM STP 782, H. R. Brager and J.S. Perrin, Eds., American
Society for Testing and Materials, 1982, pp. 186-206.
G-68 Agarwal, S. C., Ayrault, G., Potter, D. I., Taylor, A. and Nolfi, F. V., Jr., J. Nuclear
Materials, 85-86 (1979) 653.
G-69 Kohyama, A., Loomis, B. A., Ayrault, G. and Igata, N., in "Effects of Radiation on
Materials: Twelfth International Symposium, ASTM STP 870, F. A. Garner and J. S.
Perrin, Eds, 1985, pp. 277-296.
G-70 Brager, H. R. and Garner, F. A., "Microstructural and Microchemical Comparisons of
AISI 316 Irradiated in HFIR and EBR-II," Journal of Nuclear Materials, 117, (1983), pp.
159-176.
G-71 Balachov, I. I., Garner, F. A., Isobe, Y., Sagisaka, M. and Tang, H. T., NDT
Measurements of Irradiation Induced Void Swelling, 10th International Conference on
Environmental Degradation of Materials in Nuclear Power Systems Water Reactors,
2003, pp. 640-646.
G-72 Balachov, I. I., Shcherbakov, E. N., A. V. Kozlov, A. V., Portnykh, I. A. and Garner, F.
A., Influence of Irradiation-Induced Voids and Bubbles on Physical Properties of
Austenitic Structural alloys, Journal of Nuclear Materials, 329-333 (2004) 617-620.
G-73 Materials Reliability Program, Hot Cell Testing of Baffle/Former Bolts Removed from
Two Lead PWR Plants (MRP-51), 1003069, Final Report, November 2001, EPRI, Palo
Alto, CA.
G-74 Characterization of Neutron-Irradiated 300-Series Stainless Steels to Assess
Mechanisms of Corrosion Cracking, Volume 2: Core Components, 1001497, Final
Report, August 2001, EPRI.
EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material
H-1
H
APPENDIX H: STRESS RELAXATION AND
IRRADIATION CREEP
H.1 General Description of Stress Relaxation and Irradiation Creep
The general mechanisms of stress relaxation (SR) and creep are discussed in this section. Both of
these mechanisms are affected by temperature and neutron irradiation. Much of the confusion in
discussion of stress relaxation and creep phenomena comes from overlapping use of
mechanisms, behavior, and terminology. For instance, most engineers are familiar with the terms
primary, secondary, and tertiary creep. These terms do not refer to mechanisms or even different
types of deformation; they are more properly described as regions of a creep curve, and then only
under constant load conditions (Figure H-1). The mechanisms operative during secondary creep
are also operative during primary creep, but not vice versa.

(A and B denote the elastic strain on loading; C denotes transition from primary-to-secondary
creep; D denotes transition from secondary-to-tertiary creep)
Figure H-1
Schematic Representation of Creep Curves Under Constant Load.
[H-3]

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material

Appendix H: Stress Relaxation and Irradiation Creep
H-2
Some authors go further in narrowing the definition of creep to that of a constant load test where
a steady stage deformation rate (secondary creep) is attained. This is usually at temperatures
above half the absolute melting point (> 0.5 T
m
); thus, materials creep above 0.5 T
m
, and relax
below 0.5 T
m
. It becomes exasperating when one learns that relaxation is in reality primary creep
at a temperature where, by definition, creep does not exist. Excellent discussions of these
phenomena are contained in References H-1 and H-2.
The real issue is permanent deformation of the material below the yield point. Thus, stress
relaxation refers to any plastic deformation under constant strain that occurs below the yield
point of a material, and creep is any time-dependent plastic deformation that occurs below the
yield point of a material under constant load.
A flux of high energy neutrons strongly accelerates the microscopic deformation of metal under
stress much like that resulting from thermal creep at elevated temperatures. Irradiation-enhanced
creep, usually referred to as irradiation creep, will also act to relax any loads resulting from
either externally applied loads or from internal stresses arising from gradients in void swelling.
Of particular importance is that the irradiation creep rate accelerates in direct proportion to the
local swelling rate, thereby limiting the local stress to be well below the yield stress and also
significantly flattening local stress gradients.
Of importance to aging degradation of PWR internals, especially for bolting and springs where
maintenance of load is required for functionality, is the stress relaxation process arising from the
action of either thermal stress relaxation (primary creep) or irradiation creep.
The RI-ITG sponsored a project in 2001 to evaluate the available data on these two creep
relaxation processes. This effort is compiled in an MRP technical basis document (MRP-50)
[H-3]

and only a brief review of the data are reproduced herein.
MRP-50 includes thermal effects and irradiation effects, as well as the interrelationship between
thermal and irradiation-enhanced stress relaxation and creep. It includes available data for the
following materials:
Wrought austenitic stainless steels Type 304/304L and Type 316/316L; including cold-
worked versus solution-annealed material
Age-hardenable alloys Alloy X-750
Data are provided to the extent available for use in the assessment of temperature (and
temperature history), dose rate, applied stress or strain, material orientation, material chemical
composition, and irradiation hardening.
H.1.1 Thermal Stress Relaxation
For PWR internals, concern over thermal stress relaxation (primary creep) has been associated
with bolted joints, coil and leaf springs. Pertinent data are presented and discussed in MRP-50.
Only a few thermal stress relaxation tests were identified in the literature for austenitic stainless
steels at PWR internals temperatures. Of these, Manjoines 1973 stress relaxation test data of
EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material

Appendix H: Stress Relaxation and Irradiation Creep
H-3
Type 304 stainless steel are the most detailed and relevant results.
[H-4]
Stress relaxation results of
this study are shown in Figures H-2 through H-5 for solution-annealed, 10% cold-worked, and
20% cold-worked materials tested at temperatures between 500 and 775F (260 and 413C).
Based on these short-term (< 1000 hours) test data, the following general conclusions can be
made about thermal SR for austenitic stainless steels:
The percentage of stress relaxation increases with increasing initial load and levels off at
about 30 ksi (207 MPa).
Under monotonic loading at operating temperatures characteristic of PWR internals, stress
relaxation saturates within 100 hours with a maximum reduction of 10 to 20% of initial
preload stress depending on the materials thermal-mechanical history.
The thermal stress relaxation of coil springs in general appears to relax to a much larger
extent and is believed to be dependent on the coil design geometry.
However, as noted above, this degree of thermal stress relaxation is deduced from short-term
(< 1000 hours) tests. These tests have not taken into account the accumulated steady-state creep
strain over long operating lives (nor the effects of cyclic loading) of the PWR internals.
Extrapolation based on deformation-mechanism maps indicates that even a very small steady-
state strain rate could accumulate a significant creep strain over many years. If this is the case,
there could be additional thermal stress relaxation above the saturation level observed from
short-term tests.
H.1.2 Irradiation-Enhanced Stress Relaxation and Creep
Irradiation creep manifests itself in two roles that impact PWR component functionality. In the
first case, irradiation creep operates to mitigate potential problems caused by void swelling;
especially problems that might be caused by gradients in swelling within a given component
item. In the second case, however, it is important to note that creep exists even in the absence of
void swelling and can have potential consequences arising primarily from relaxation of
preloaded components or from sustained pressure differences across a component such as a plate.
Irradiation creep, especially when compared to thermal creep, is an inherently non-damaging
process on the microstructural level, and its deleterious effects arise primarily from component
distortions that might interfere with fluid flow or heat transfer.
In the absence of neutron irradiation, the steady-state region of thermal creep does not occur at
temperatures of PWR internals for austenitic stainless steels and nickel-base alloys. Neutron
irradiation, however, greatly increases the rate of the primary and steady-state creep regions at
temperatures below 0.5 T
m
.
Figure H-6 shows a comparison of thermal creep and irradiation-enhanced creep of a 20% cold-
worked Type 316 stainless steel under a constant uniaxial tensile stress of 138 MPa (20 ksi) at
454C (850F), with neutron irradiation occurring in the EBR-II fast reactor.
[H-5]
Under this
irradiation condition void swelling has not yet occurred.
EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material

Appendix H: Stress Relaxation and Irradiation Creep
H-4
10
15
20
0.0 0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0 1000.0
Hours
R
e
m
a
i
n
i
n
g

S
t
r
e
s
s
,

k
s
i
4.1A-1, 304CW10%+SA at 1850F, Test Temp. 500F
4.1A-2, 304CW10%+SA at 1850F, Test Temp. 600F
4.1A-3, 304CW10%+SA at 1850F, Test Temp. 700F
4.1A-4, 304CW10%+SA at 1850F, Test Temp. 700F
80%
85%
90%
95%
100%
0.0 0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0 1000.0
Hours
R
e
m
a
i
n
i
n
g

S
t
r
e
s
s
,

%
4.1A-1, 304CW10%+SA at 1850F, Test Temp. 500F
4.1A-2, 304CW10%+SA at 1850F, Test Temp. 600F
4.1A-3, 304CW10%+SA at 1850F, Test Temp. 700F
4.1A-4, 304CW10%+SA at 1850F, Test Temp. 700F

Figure H-2
Thermal Stress Relaxation (Without Irradiation) of a 10% Cold-Worked and Solution-
Annealed Type 304 Bar
[H-4]

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material

Appendix H: Stress Relaxation and Irradiation Creep
H-5
20
25
30
35
40
0.0 0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0 1000.0
Hours
R
e
m
a
i
n
i
n
g

S
t
r
e
s
s
,

k
s
i
1-1, 304 mill annealed & straightened, Test Temp. 775F
4.5A-1, 304CW50%+SA at 1850F, Test Temp. 500F
4.5A-4, 304CW50%+SA at 1850F, Test Temp. 700F
4.5A-3, 304CW50%+SA at 1850F, Test Temp. 600F
4.5A-4, 304CW50%+SA at 1850F, Test Temp. 700F
80%
85%
90%
95%
100%
0.0 0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0 1000.0
Hours
R
e
m
a
i
n
i
n
g

S
t
r
e
s
s
,

%
1-1, 304 mill annealed & straightened, Test Temp. 775F
4.5A-1, 304CW50%+SA at 1850F, Test Temp. 500F
4.5A-2, 304CW50%+SA at 1850F, Test Temp. 500F
4.5A-3, 304CW50%+SA at 1850F, Test Temp. 600F
4.5A-4, 304CW50%+SA at 1850F, Test Temp. 700F

Figure H-3
Thermal Stress Relaxation (Without Irradiation) of Mill Annealed, Straightened, and 50%
Cold-Worked & Solution-Annealed Type 304 Bar.
[H-4]

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material

Appendix H: Stress Relaxation and Irradiation Creep
H-6
20
25
30
35
40
45
0.0 0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0 1000.0
Hours
R
e
m
a
i
n
i
n
g

S
t
r
e
s
s
,

k
s
i
3.1-1, 304CW10%, Test Temp. 500F
3.1-2, 304CW10%, Test Temp. 500F
3.1-3, 304CW10%, Test Temp. 600F
3.1-4, 304CW10%, Test Temp. 600F
3.1-5, 304CW10%, Test Temp. 700F
80%
85%
90%
95%
100%
0.0 0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0 1000.0
Hours
R
e
m
a
i
n
i
n
g

S
t
r
e
s
s
,

%
3.1-1, 304CW10%, Test Temp. 500F
3.1-2, 304CW10%, Test Temp. 500F
3.1-3, 304CW10%, Test Temp. 600F
3.1-4, 304CW10%, Test Temp. 600F
3.1-5, 304CW10%, Test Temp. 700F

Figure H-4
Thermal Stress Relaxation (Without Irradiation) of 10% Cold-Worked Type 304 Bar
[H-4]

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material

Appendix H: Stress Relaxation and Irradiation Creep
H-7
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
0.0 0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0 1000.0
Hours
R
e
m
a
i
n
i
n
g

S
t
r
e
s
s
,

k
s
i
3.2-1, 304CW20%, Test Temp. 500F
3.2-2, 304CW20%, Test Temp. 500F
3.2-3, 304CW20%, Test Temp. 600F
3.2-4, 304CW20%, Test Temp. 600F
3.2-5, 304CW20%, Test Temp. 700F
3.2-6, 304CW20%, Test Temp. 700F
80%
85%
90%
95%
100%
0.0 0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0 1000.0
Hours
R
e
m
a
i
n
i
n
g

S
t
r
e
s
s
,

%
3.2-1, 304CW20%, Test Temp. 500F
3.2-2, 304CW20%, Test Temp. 500F
3.2-3, 304CW20%, Test Temp. 600F
3.2-4, 304CW20%, Test Temp. 600F
3.2-5, 304CW20%, Test Temp. 700F
3.2-6, 304CW20%, Test Temp. 700F

Figure H-5
Thermal Stress Relaxation (Without Irradiation) of 20% Cold-Worked Type 304 Bar
[H-4]

EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material

Appendix H: Stress Relaxation and Irradiation Creep
H-8
138MPa (20ksi)
454C (850F)
-2.0
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
Hour
S
t
r
a
i
n
,

1
0
-
4
Irradiation-enhanced creep
Thermal exposure only

Figure H-6
Comparison of Thermal Creep and Irradiation-Enhanced Creep of a 20% Cold-Worked
Type 316 Stainless Steel Irradiated in EBR-II
[H-5]

Note that thermal creep was nearly imperceptible at this temperature and stress level, with
slightly negative strains developing initially that arise from densification associated with carbide
precipitation. In contrast, irradiation-enhanced creep exhibited a short but significant transient
creep region, followed by the steady-state creep regime that persists until void swelling begins.
The important general aspects of irradiation creep in constant load tests are that both the
magnitude of the transient and the steady-state creep rate are directly proportional to the
equivalent stress level. The transient is usually complete in one dpa or less. While the magnitude
of the transient is highly dependent on the fabrication history, material texture, orientation of the
texture to the applied stress level, irradiation temperature, etc., the steady-state creep rate appears
to be independent of these variables.
[H-6]

These characteristics are also exhibited (but are somewhat harder to observe) in stress relaxation
tests where the stress level is constantly relaxing at a rate proportional to the current stress level.
The data scatter observed in stress relaxation tests is usually larger than seen in constant load
tests, especially as the relaxation progresses toward the lowest levels of retained stress. This
EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material

Appendix H: Stress Relaxation and Irradiation Creep
H-9
scatter reflects the action of various interference processes associated with test fixture constraints
and grain-to-grain interactions.
Studies of irradiation-enhanced stress relaxation of 300-series stainless steels have been
performed in fast reactors.
[H-7 H-10]
Empirical equations were derived by regression fitting to the
observed stress relaxation results as a function of initial stress and irradiation dose. The
regression coefficients are usually dependant on dose rate, stress state, and material type and
condition.
The general form of these stress relaxation equations is shown below in Eq. H-1.
[ ]} )) exp( 1 ( exp{
3 2 1
0
f A f A A E + =