A

Proceedings of the ASME 2023

tte
Pressure Vessels & Piping Conference

nd
ee
PVP2023
July 16-21, 2023, Atlanta, Georgia

R
ea
d-
O
nl
PVP2023-106288

y
C
op
y
EVALUATION OF CRACK INITIATION PROBABILITY BY FERMAT CODE IN CONFORMITY
WITH THE PROCEDURE BY A JAPANESE INDUSTRIAL PFM GUIDELINE

Satoshi Miyashiro1, Takayuki Sakai1, Masaki Nagai1, Masato Yamamoto1

1
Central Research Institute of Electric Power Industry, Japan

ABSTRACT PI Probability of crack initiation

The implementation of probabilistic fracture mechanics
(PFM) on integrity assessment standards of reactor pressure
vessels (RPVs) is not yet actualized in Japan. The most recent
information on how PFM will be used in the near future is
provided by the guideline JEAG 4640-2018, which describes a
standard approach for evaluating the failure frequency of RPVs
based on PFM. Central Research Institute of Electric Power
Industry is creating a new PFM analysis code FERMAT
(Fracture mechanics Evaluation of RPV MATerials) for future
application of PFM in Japan. Our code is based on JEAG
4640-2018 and has a minimum design for practical usage in
RPV structural integrity assessments. With a graphical user
interface, all processes can be handled in a single piece of
code. In the present study, calculation results by FERMAT were
compared with another Japanese PFM code PASCAL4 with a
model case targeting Japanese RPV. The distribution of
temperature and stress evaluated by FERMAT and PASCAL4
were very similar. The stress intensity factor calculated by
FERMAT and PASCAL4 was well corresponding with each
other. Additionally, sampled values for reference temperature
for nil-ductile transition were confirmed. The probability and
the frequency of crack initiation were compared between
FERMAT and PASCAL4. The outcomes assessed using those
codes were closely related to one another.
Keywords: Probability/Probabilistic, Structural Integrity,
Pressure vessels, Reactor/Nuclear
NOMENCLATURE
CPI Conditional probability of crack initiation
EFPY Effective full power year
FCI Frequency of crack initiation
KI Stress intensity factor
KIc Fracture toughness
LBLOCA Large break loss of coolant accident
MBLOCA Medium break loss of coolant accident
MSLB Main steam line break
PFM Probabilistic fracture mechanics
PTS Pressurized thermal shock
𝛷𝐾𝐼𝑐 Cumulative probability
RPV Reactor pressure vessel
RTNDT Reference temperature for nil-ductile
transition
SBLOCA Small break loss of coolant accident
SOV Stuck open valve
TWCF Through-wall cracking frequency
1. INTRODUCTION
Integrity assessment for reactor pressure vessels (RPVs) of
light water reactors is specified mainly by JEAC 4206-2016 [1]
based on deterministic fracture mechanics in Japan. The major
focus of JEAC 4206-2015 is the evaluation of stress intensity
factor and fracture toughness for a crack with a certain under-
clad crack under a pressurized thermal shock event. Fracture
toughness is assessed with reference temperature for nil-ductile
transition (RTNDT) considering shift caused by radiation
embrittlement evaluated based on Japanese code JEAC 4201-
2007 (2013 addenda) [2] (hereinafter referred to as JEAC4201)
with fixed parameters. On the other side, the Japanese integrity
assessment of RPVs is attempting to incorporate probabilistic
fracture mechanics (PFM). Guideline JEAG 4640-2018 [3]
(hereinafter referred to as JEAG4640) was established as the
first step of standardization of PFM in Japan. The basic
framework for analyzing the failure frequency of RPVs based
on PFM is provided in JEAG4640.
FAVOR [4] developed in the United States is famous as
the PFM analysis code for RPV. However, FAVOR is difficult
to utilize for evaluating the integrity of Japanese RPV since it
does not incorporate Japanese evaluation techniques like the
JEAC4201 method. PASCAL [5] has already been created by
Japan Atomic Energy Agency (JAEA) for PFM analysis of
Japanese RPVs. As of January 2022, PASCAL version 4
(PASCAL4) has been made available. FAVOR code was used
to benchmark PASCAL4 [6]. PASCAL is confirmed
continuously by a working group consisting of universities,

1 Copyright © 2023 by ASME

manufacturers, and the Central Research Institute of Electric
Power Industry (CRIEPI) [7]. A wide range of evaluation
methods and parameter settings give PASCAL4 a great degree
of versatility. This feature was made possible by PASCAL4,
which was crucial in the development of JEAG4640. On the
other hand, in exchange of their flexibility, PFM analysis codes
tend to be complex to operate. Users' choices of options or
minor factors, as well as mistakes made by newcomers to the
PFM area, might lead to variations in outcomes. As a result, a
more straightforward PFM code is needed for PFM to be used
in Japan.
CRIEPI is developing a new PFM analysis code FERMAT
(Fracture mechanics Evaluation of RPV MATerials). The
concept of FERMAT is a minimal design for practical use in
the structural integrity assessment of RPVs based on
JEAG4640. In this study, the results of FERMAT were
compared with the results of PASCAL4 for the model case as a
part of validation.
2. EVALUATION OF CRACK INITIATION IN FERMAT
JEAG4640 contains basic framework to calculate
frequency of crack initiation (FCI) and through-wall crack
frequency (TWCF). FERMAT can assess FCI and TWCF based
on JEAG4640. Aleatory uncertainty of fracture toughness and
crack arrest toughness are considered in FERMAT. FERMAT
also considers uncertainty of neutron fluence, chemical
compositions, RTNDT, crack distribution, and occurrence
frequency of PTS transients as epistemic uncertainty by Monte
Carlo method.
In FERMAT, all processes, including pre- and post-
processes, may be managed using a single graphical user
interface. Figure 1 depicts an illustration of the graphical user
interface for FERMAT. There are tabs for general information,
plant information, transient, operation history, welding
information, crack distribution, chemical composition, radiation
condition, 𝑅𝑇𝑁𝐷𝑇 , fracture toughness, and post-processes.
FIGURE 1: EXAMPLE OF THE GRAPHICAL USER
INTERFACE OF FERMAT
Specifications study and verification for the crack arrest
model of FERMAT are carefully performed now since the
crack arrest model is complex. This paper primarily focuses on
crack initiation results and evaluation techniques. Three steps
2 Copyright © 2023 by ASME
make up the FERMAT evaluation process for crack initiation:
determining the stress intensity factor for each crack (described
in Section 2.1); calculating the conditional probability of crack
initiation (CPI) using the fracture toughness equation
(described in Section 2.2); and determining FCI (described in
Section 2.3). Below is a description of each step's specific
module procedures.
2.1 Evaluation of stress intensity factor
Evaluation processes of stress intensity factor consist of an
evaluation of the distribution of temperature and stress, crack
setting, and stress intensity factor evaluation.
The temperature distribution is evaluated by using user
input of material properties and transients of temperature and
heat transfer coefficient. By using those user inputs to solve the
transient heat conduction equation assuming an aximmetric
model, the time dependency of temperature distribution may be
determined. The evaluation of axial and hoop stress distribution
takes into account the primary stress induced by internal
pressure, the secondary stress caused by temperature
distribution, and the residual stress from welding. Using an
analytical solutions based on linear elastic theory, the primary
stress caused by internal pressure and the secondary stress
generated by temperature distribution is determined [8][9]. For
welding residual stress, a user input table is employed.
Through-clad surface cracks and embedded cracks in base
metal and weld metal are considered in FERMAT according to
JEAG4640. All surface cracks are regarded as circumferencial
cracks in accordance with the appendix's description in
JEAG4640. The proportion of surface cracks in weld metal
corresponds with the proportion of weld area in the whole
internal surface of RPV. The proportion of axial cracks and
circumferencial cracks is considered to be 1:1 for embedded
cracks in base metal. The direction of embedded cracks in weld
part is designed to coincide with the direction of the fusion line.
When distributing cracks, you can enter settings for different
methods of distribution or tables created by VFLAW [10],
which is code for generating cracks based on crack information
of canceled RPV in the United States.
The stress intensity factor is assessed by using the method
specified in the Japanese Fitness-for-Service code [11] in
FERMAT. The approach is based on the influence function
method, which uses coefficients obtained by a polynomial
approximation of the stress distribution as input. By using
JAEA's approach [12], the coefficient table for embedded
cracks was expanded. Stress distribution with the discontinuous
part on the interface of the base metal and clad part (described
in Section 3.2) cannot be accurately approximated by a
polynomial function. Therefore, stress distribution in clad part
is processed as shown in Figure 2 in FERMAT code. Offset in
stress distribution of clad part (the red area) is converted into
the first-degree polynomial equation with equivalent internal
force and 0 offset on outer surface (the green line). Processed
distribution (the blue line) can be obtained by adding the first-
degree polynominal equation for the extrapolated distribution
of stress in base metal (the red line). A polynomial function
may properly estimate the processed stress distribution since it 𝑐𝐾𝐼𝑐 = 4 (5)
lacks any discontinuous parts. The processed distribution is ∆𝑇𝑅𝐸𝐿𝐴𝑇𝐼𝑉𝐸 = 𝑇(𝑟, 𝜏) − 𝑅𝑇𝑁𝐷𝑇_𝐶 (6)
used for evaluation of stress intensity factor of cracks across
clad part and base metal, i.e. surface cracks. Where 𝑅𝑇𝑁𝐷𝑇_𝐶 is defined by the following equations [13, 14].

𝑅𝑇𝑁𝐷𝑇_𝐶 = 𝑅𝑇𝑁𝐷𝑇(0) − ∆𝑅𝑇𝑒𝑝𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑚𝑖𝑐 + ∆𝑅𝑇𝑁𝐷𝑇 (7)

Original distribution
∆𝑅𝑇𝑒𝑝𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑚𝑖𝑐 = −15.6 + 67.56[− ln(1 − 𝑃𝑐 )]1⁄4.31 (8)
Extraporated distribution
Converted distribution Where 𝑅𝑇𝑁𝐷𝑇(0) [°C] is initial 𝑅𝑇𝑁𝐷𝑇 , ∆𝑅𝑇𝑒𝑝𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑚𝑖𝑐 [°C] is
Stress [MPa]

Processed distribution
Clad Base metal
Position [mm]
FIGURE 2: SCHEMATIC FIGURE OF PROCESSING METHOD
OF STRESS DISTRIBUTION IN CLAD PART
2.2 Evaluation of fracture toughness and CPI
A schematic figure of the calculation process for CPI is
shown in Figure 3. Fracture toughness 𝐾𝐼𝑐 [MPa√m] can be
calculated by following equations.
1⁄𝑐𝐾𝐼𝑐
𝐾𝐼𝑐 = 𝑎𝐾𝐼𝑐 + 𝑏𝐾𝐼𝑐 [− ln(1 − 𝛷𝐾𝐼𝑐 )]
Where, 𝛷𝐾𝐼𝑐 is the cumulative probability, 𝑎𝐾𝐼𝑐 、 𝑏𝐾𝐼𝑐 are
values defined as functions of ∆𝑇𝑅𝐸𝐿𝐴𝑇𝐼𝑉𝐸 , 𝑐𝐾𝐼𝑐 is constant, 𝑇
the term expressing epistemic uncertainty, ∆𝑅𝑇𝑁𝐷𝑇 [°C] is the
degree of 𝑅𝑇𝑁𝐷𝑇 shift caused by radiation embrittlement, 𝑃𝑐
is cumulative probability. 𝑅𝑇𝑁𝐷𝑇(0) is sampled based on user
input distribution. ∆𝑅𝑇𝑁𝐷𝑇 is basically calculated based on
JEAC4201 in FERMAT as specified in JEAG4640. In addition,
offset and variation of prediction method specified in
JEAC4201 is also considered in ∆𝑅𝑇𝑁𝐷𝑇 after calculation
based on JEAC4201. The value calculated based on JEAC4201
(hereinafter referred to as ∆𝑅𝑇𝑁𝐷𝑇_𝐽𝐸𝐴𝐶4201 ) is calculated from
flux, fluence, Cu contents, and Ni contents. Based on the
distribution of user input, those parameters are sampled. In
FERMAT, flux distribution versus the beltline region's
configuration and neutron attenuation up till the cracks' tips can
be taken into account.
150
KIc
(1) KI
100
Φ4
Φ5 Φ3
KI , KIc

[°C] is the material temperature on the crack tip, 𝑅𝑇𝑁𝐷𝑇_𝐶 [°C] Φ6 K4 Φ2

50 K5 K3
is the reference temperature for nil-ductile transition. Equation Φ1
(1) is derived from the following equation [4]. K6 K2
Time evolution K1
𝐾𝐼𝑐 −𝑎𝐾𝐼𝑐 𝑐𝐾𝐼𝑐 0
𝛷𝐾𝐼𝑐 = 1 − exp [− ( ) ] (2) 0 100 200 300
𝑏𝐾𝐼𝑐
Temperature [°C]
𝛷𝐾𝐼𝑐 for 𝐾𝐼𝑐 curve crossing on cirtain evaluation point of FIGURE 3: SCHEMATIC FIGURE OF CPI EVALUATION
stress intensity factor 𝐾𝐼 is obtained by substituting 𝐾𝐼𝑐 = 𝐾𝐼
for equation (2). For example, 𝛷𝐾𝐼𝑐 = 𝛷5 is obtained by 2.3 Evaluation of FCI
substituting 𝐾𝐼𝑐 = 𝐾5 for equantion (2) for the condition shown Calculating the conditional probability of crack initiation
in Figure 3. 𝛷𝐾𝐼𝑐 corresponds with 𝐾𝐼𝑐 curve as indicated in for all cracks and all events using the aforementioned
this example. 𝛷𝐾𝐼𝑐 takes maximum value when 𝐾𝐼𝑐 curve techniques is the first step in the procedures to acquire FCI for
touches the curve of 𝐾𝐼 like Figure 3. 𝛷𝐾𝐼𝑐 in this case, is the entire RPV. The probability of crack initiation (𝑃𝐼) for each
occurrence is calculated in the second phase using the
equivalent to CPI. FERMAT calculates 𝛷𝐾𝐼𝑐 for all evaluation
following equations. [3]
points of 𝐾𝐼 , and determine CPI as the maximum value of
𝛷𝐾𝐼𝑐 . 𝑎𝐾𝐼𝑐 , 𝑏𝐾𝐼𝑐 and 𝑐𝐾𝐼𝑐 are input by users on the graphical 𝑃𝐼 = 1 − (1 − 𝐶𝑃𝐼1 ) × (1 − 𝐶𝑃𝐼2 ) × ⋯ × (1 − 𝐶𝑃𝐼𝑛 ) (9)
user interface in FERMAT. The analyses in this paper make use
of the following equations, which are stated in commentary Where 𝐶𝑃𝐼𝑖 is CPI for crack No. 𝑖, 𝑛 is the number of cracks
section of JEAG4640 as equations for Japanese RPV [3]. in the area to be assessed. FCI is determined by summing up
𝑃𝐼 multiplied by the average of occurence frequency of each
𝑎𝐾𝐼𝑐 = 13.18 + 6.71 ∙ exp[0.0337 ∙ ∆𝑇𝑅𝐸𝐿𝐴𝑇𝐼𝑉𝐸 ] (3) event sampled from cumulative probability deistribution for all
𝑏𝐾𝐼𝑐 = 15.88 + 42.21 ∙ exp[0.0121 ∙ ∆𝑇𝑅𝐸𝐿𝐴𝑇𝐼𝑉𝐸 ] (4) events.

3 Copyright © 2023 by ASME

3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION TABLE 1: Main analysis conditions
Results of FERMAT and PASCAL4 were compared for Category Item Value
model cases targeting Japanese RPV. Comparisons were made Inner radius (to base metal) 2000 mm
for FCI and the methods used to obtain it, such as deterministic
analyses. Temperature distribution, stress distribution, and RPV Clad thickness 5.5 mm
stress intensity factor are evaluated as deterministic analyses. geometry Base metal wall thickness 200 mm
Comparison of findings with other codes is one of techniques Height 4000 mm
used for validation in the PFM field [15].
SBLOCA TH003, TH114
3.1 Analysis conditions MBLOCA TH007
Analysis conditions used in analyses in this study were LBLOCA TH056
demonstrated in Table 1. The geometry of RPV, material
MSLB TH103
properties, residual stress, radiation condition, chemical Transient
composition, and initial 𝑅𝑇𝑁𝐷𝑇 were determined based on the TH60, TH71, TH94,
example of analysis conditions written in the appendix of TH97, TH123,
JEAG4640 [3]. To determine the specific analytical conditions, SOV
TH126, TH129,
JAEA’s data for the Japanese model plant [14] was also
consulted. Each transient number is related to the identification TH130
number of thermal-hydraulic analyses performed in the United Orientation Circumferencial
States [16]. Distribution for depth and aspect ratio of cracks Surface
Depth 6.5 mm
were basically determined by VFLAW data. Based on data cracks
from a Japanese model, the depth of the surface crack was fixed Aspect ratio 2, 6, 10, 100
at 6.5mm [14]. Flux and fluence depicted in Table 1 are values Circumferencial
on inner surface of RPV. Consideration is given to neutron Orientation
and Axial
attenuation before they reach the crack tip. Although FERMAT
Initial Determined by
can take into account warm pre-stress and the flux distribution Depth
against the configuration of the beltline region, they are not cracks VFLAW data
Embedded
taken into account in the analyses in this study. Mean values of 1.125, 1.375, 1.75,
offset (−1.1°C) and standard deviation (8.9°C) in prediction cracks
Aspect ratio 2.5, 3.5, 4.5, 5.5, 7, 9,
method of radiation embrittlement based on JEAC4201[2] are
considered in analyses. 12.5, 20
Latin hypercube sampling is adopted in PASCAL4. This Inner 3/8 of base
method helps PASCAL4 to converge FCI and TWCF with the Position
metal thickness
small number of RPV samples. 1000 was chosen as the number
of RPV samples by JAEA, which is developer of PASCAL4 Neutron Mean value 7×1019 n/cm2
[14]. For FERMAT, dependence of FCI on the number of RPV fluence
samples was investigated and shown in Figure 4. Result in Radiation Std. deviation 13.1% of mean value
(E>1MeV)
Figure 4 suggests that 1000 is not enough for the numer of RPV condition
samples for FERMAT to converge results sufficiently. The Neutron flux(E>1MeV) 4.62×1010 n/cm2/s
difference in required number of RPV samples can be Radiation temperature 288 °C
explained by difference between Latin hypercube sampling and
Mean value 0.16 wt%
Monte Carlo method, which is adopted in FERMAT. This Base metal
paper shows resuls with 1000 and 10000 samples for FERMAT Cu Std. deviation 0.01 wt%
and results with 1000 samples for PASCAL4. content Mean value 0.14 wt%
Table 2 displays the analysis parameters used for Weld metal
Std. deviation 0.01 wt%
deterministic analyses. Deterministic evaluations for the small
break loss of coolant accident (SBLOCA) transient, including Mean value 0.61 wt%
Base metal
assessments of temperature distribution, stress distribution, and Ni Std. deviation 0.02 wt%
stress intensity factor, were performed. Figures 5, 6, and 7 content Mean value 0.80 wt%
illustrate, respectively, the transients of temperature, heat Weld metal
transfer coefficient between coolant and internal wall of RPV, Std. deviation 0.02 wt%
and pressure for SBLOCA [16]. A surface crack in base metal Mean value -5.0 °C
and an embedded crack in weld metal were chosen as examples Base metal
Initial Std. deviation 9.4 °C
for deterministic analyses as shown in Table 2.
RTNDT Mean value -50.0 °C
Weld metal
Std. deviation 9.4 °C

4 Copyright © 2023 by ASME

TABLE 2: Analysis conditions for deterministic

Heat transfer coefficient [W/(m2·K)]

30000
analyses

Category Item Value

20000
Transient SBLOCA TH003
Location Base metal
Surface Direction Circumferencial 10000
cracks Depth 6.5mm
Aspect ratio 6
0
Location Weld metal
0 5000 10000 15000
Initial Direction Axial Time [sec]
cracks 5% of the RPV wall FIGURE 6: TIME HISTORY OF HEAT TRANSFER
Depth COEFFICIENT BETWEEN COOLANT AND INTERNAL WALL
Embedded thickness
OF RPV IN SBLOCA TRANSIENT
cracks Aspect ratio 2.5
0.1 mm from the 20

Position interface of clad and

base metal
Pressure [MPa]
1.0E-4 10
FCI [/ry]

1.0E-5 0
0 5000 10000 15000
Time [sec]
FIGURE 7: TIME HISTORY OF INTERNAL PRESSURE IN
SBLOCA TRANSIENT
1.0E-6
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 3.2 Results of deterministic analysis
The number of RPV samples The distribution of temperature, axial stress, and hoop
FIGURE 4: DEPENDENCE OF FCI ON THE NUMBER OF RPV stress evaluated by FERMAT and PASCAL4 were shown in
SAMPLES FOR FERMAT Figure 8, Figure 9, and Figure 10, respectively. Those
distributions were evaluated for 60sec, 3000sec, and 15000sec
300 from event occurence. The result of temperature distribution by
FERMAT and PASCAL4 in Figure 8 are well corresponding
with each other for all evaluation times. Stress distribution
evaluated by FERMAT using analytical solution based on
Temperature [°C]

200 linear elastic theory is well corresponding with stress

distribution evaluated by PASCAL4 using finite element
analysis in Figure 9 and Figure 10.
The discontinuous part of stress distribution on the
100
interface of the base metal and clad part mentioned in Section
2.1 are observed in both axial stress in Figure 9 and hoop stress
in Figure 10.
0
0 5000 10000 15000
Time [sec]
FIGURE 5: TIME HISTORY OF COOLANT TEMPERATURE IN
SBLOCA TRANSIENT

5 Copyright © 2023 by ASME

 400 Japanese Fitness-for-Service code solution [11] is employed in
FERMAT (60sec) PASCAL4 (60sec) FERMAT. Using the technique described in Section 2.1, stress
FERMAT (3000sec) PASCAL4 (3000sec)
FERMAT (15000sec) PASCAL4 (15000sec) distribution in the clad component is taken into account for
300
Temperature [°C]

surface cracks. On the other hand, the solution of CEA [17]

based on the existence of clad parts is adopted in PASCAL4 for
surface cracks. As a result, FERMAT's method for taking into
200
account clad parts and solution to the stress intensity factor
differ from PASCAL4's addressing surface cracks. However,
100 the differences in the stress intensity factor of surface cracks
derived by those two codes were not as substantial. Stress
Clad Base metal intensity factor for embedded cracks shown in Figure 12 was
0 also well corresponding with each other.
-50 0 50 100 150 200 250
Position [mm] 80

]
FIGURE 8: DISTRIBUTION OF TEMPERATURE FERMAT
70
PASCAL4
60
400

Stress intensity factor [

FERMAT (60sec) 50
FERMAT (3000sec)
300
FERMAT (15000sec) 40
Axial stress [MPa]

PASCAL4 (60sec)
200 PASCAL4 (3000sec) 30
PASCAL4 (15000sec)
20
100
10
0
0
0 5000 10000 15000
-100
Clad Base metal Time [sec]
-200 FIGURE 11: TIME HISTORY OF STRESS INTENSITY FACTOR
-50 0 50 100 150 200 250 FOR A SURFACE CRACK
Position [mm]
FIGURE 9: DISTRIBUTION OF AXIAL STRESS 50
]

FERMAT
400 40 PASCAL4
FERMAT (60sec)
FERMAT (3000sec)
Stress intensity factor [

300 30
FERMAT (15000sec)
Hoop stress [MPa]

PASCAL4 (60sec)
200 PASCAL4 (3000sec)
PASCAL4 (15000sec) 20
100
10
0

0
-100
Clad Base metal 0 5000 10000 15000
-200 Time [sec]
-50 0 50 100 150 200 250 FIGURE 12: TIME HISTORY OF STRESS INTENSITY FACTOR
Position [mm] FOR AN EMBEDDED CRACK
FIGURE 10: DISTRIBUTION OF HOOP STRESS
3.3 Results of probabilistic analysis
The stress intensity factor of a surface crack in base metal Variation of 𝑅𝑇𝑁𝐷𝑇_𝐶 derived by equation (7) consists of 2
and an embedded crack in weld metal for SBLOCA was types of variations. One is a variation of ∆𝑅𝑇𝑁𝐷𝑇_𝐽𝐸𝐴𝐶4201
evaluated by FERMAT and PASCAL4 with analysis conditions calculated based on JEAC4201 brought on by crack tip
of Table 2. Evaluated stress intensity factors are illustrated in placement, radiation circumstances, and chemical composition
Figure 11 and Figure 12 for a surface crack and an embedded (Cu and Ni contents). The other is variation of 𝑅𝑇𝑁𝐷𝑇_𝐶 −
crack respectively. In evaluation by both codes, the same ∆𝑅𝑇𝑁𝐷𝑇_𝐽𝐸𝐴𝐶4201 , which is caused by variation of 𝑅𝑇𝑁𝐷𝑇(0) ,
residual stress distribution was taken into account. For ∆𝑅𝑇𝑒𝑝𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑚𝑖𝑐 and variation of ∆𝑅𝑇𝑁𝐷𝑇 considered after
determining the stress intensity factor for surface cracks, the

6 Copyright © 2023 by ASME

calculation of ∆𝑅𝑇𝑁𝐷𝑇_𝐽𝐸𝐴𝐶4201 . The variation of 𝑅𝑇𝑁𝐷𝑇_𝐶 − 1.0E+0
∆𝑅𝑇𝑁𝐷𝑇_𝐽𝐸𝐴𝐶4201 is depicted for base metal and weld metal in FERMAT (10000 samples) VS PASCAL4 (1000 samples)
Figure 13 and Figure 14 respectively. Mean values of FERMAT (1000 samples) VS PASCAL4 (1000 samples)

Probability of crack initiation (FERMAT)

𝑅𝑇𝑁𝐷𝑇(0) , ∆𝑅𝑇𝑒𝑝𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑚𝑖𝑐 and offset in the prediction method of 1.0E-1
JEAC4201 are also considered in the horizontal axes of Figure
13 and Figure 14. Although histogram for FERMAT with
10000 samples are smoother than that with 1000 samples,
distribution is sufficiently expressed with 1000 samples. 1.0E-2
Significant difference depending used code was not found in
the results with 1000 samples in Figure 13 and Figure 14.
1.0E-3
0.05
FERMAT (10000 samples)
0.04 FERMAT (1000 samples)
PASCAL4 (1000samples) 1.0E-4
Frequency

0.03

1.0E-5
0.02
1.0E-5 1.0E-4 1.0E-3 1.0E-2 1.0E-1 1.0E+0
Probability of crack initiation (PASCAL4)
0.01
FIGURE 15: COMPARISON OF PROBABILITY OF CRACK
INITIATION
0.00
-200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 FCI evaluated by FERMAT and PASCAL 4 is shown in
RTNDT_C - ΔRTNDT_JEAC4201 [°C] Figure 16. Since FCI is generated for every EFPY by a single
FIGURE 13: VARIATION OF RTNDT_C FOR BASE METAL execution of FERMAT, FCI for each EFPY are plotted for
FERMAT in Figure 16. PASCAL4 assessed FCI for 8, 16, 32,
0.05 and 48 EFPY. For every EFPY depicted in Figure 16,
FERMAT (10000 samples) FERMAT’s results were lower than PASCAL4’s. However,
0.04 FERMAT (1000 samples) they barely differed from one another. FCI for 48 EFPY was
PASCAL4 (1000 samples) slightly changed by the number of samples as shown in Figure
4. However, results of FERMAT with 10000 samples
Frequency

0.03
overlapped with those with 1000 samples except quite low
EFPY. In other words, the tendency of FCI was not
0.02
significantly changed depending on the number of RPV
samples.
0.01

1.0E-4
0.00
-200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100
1.0E-5
RTNDT_C - ΔRTNDT_JEAC4201 [°C]
FIGURE 14: VARIATION OF RTNDT_C FOR WELD METAL 1.0E-6
FCI [/ry]

Figure 15 shows a visualization of the probability of crack

1.0E-7
initiation on 48 EFPY for each transient after FERMAT and
PASCAL4 evaluations. Results of FERMAT with 10000 FERMAT (10000 samples)
samples overlapped with those with 1000 samples, and 1.0E-8 FERMAT (1000 samples)
significant difference was not observed depending on the PASCAL4 (1000 samples)
number of samples. When compared to PASCAL4, FERMAT's 1.0E-9
estimate of the probability of crack initiation was a tiny bit 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
lower in Figure 15. However, their tendency for each transient Effective full power year [EFPY]
was systematically corresponding with each other. These FIGURE 16: COMPARISON OF FCI
variations may result from variations in the stress intensity
factors indicated in Figures 11 and 12. However, There was 4. CONCLUSION
very little difference between the results of the two codes A new PFM analysis code FERMAT is developed aiming
illustrated in Figure 15. actual application of PFM for the integrity assessment of RPVs

7 Copyright © 2023 by ASME

by CRIEPI in Japan. In this study, the evaluation procedure and [12] K. Lu, J. Katsuyama, Y. Li, “Stress Intensity Factor
outcomes for FCI were compared to those for PASCAL4. Solutions for Subsurface Flaws in Plates Subjected to
The distribution of temperature and stress evaluated by Polynomial Stress Distributions”, ASME Pressure Vessels
FERMAT was well corresponding with those evaluated by and Piping Conference, PVP2016-63479, (2016).
PASCAL4. Stress intensity factor calculated by those two [13] J. Katsuyama, K. Osakabe, S. Uno, Y. Li, S. Yoshimura,
codes was well corresponding with each other. The significant “Guideline on Probabilistic Fracture Mechanics Analysis
difference was not observed in sampled parameters related to for Japanese Reactor Pressure Vessels”, ASME Pressure
𝑅𝑇𝑁𝐷𝑇 . The probability of crack initiation and FCI assessed by Vessels and Piping Conference, PVP2017-65921, (2017).
FERMAT and PASCAL4 were well corresponding each other. [14] Japan Atomic Energy Agency, “Sophistication of Ageing
Those results indicate that FERMAT and PASCAL4 provide Management Technical Evaluation on Nuclear Power
equivalent results for assessment of crack initiation in RPV. Stations, Sophistication of Methods for Integrity
Assessment of Primary Components of Nuclear Reactors”,
REFERENCES Nuclear Regulatory Authority, 291203, (2018).
[1] Japan Electric Association Code, “Verification Method of [15] L. Hund, J. Lewis, N. Martin, M. Sarr, D. Brooks, A.
Fracture Toughness for In-Service Reactor Pressure Zhang, R. Dingrecille, A. Eckert, J. Mullins, P. Raynaud,
Vessel”, JEAC 4206-2016, (2016). D. Rudland, D. Dijamco, S. Cumblidge, “Technical Basis
[2] Japan Electric Association Code, “Method of Surveillance for the use of Probabilistic Fracture Mechanics in
Tests for Structural Materials of Nuclear Reactors”, JEAC Regulatory Applications” NUREG/CR-7278, U.S. Nuclear
4201-2007, (2013 addenda), (2013) Regulatory Commission, (2022).
[3] Japan Electric Association Guide, “Guideline for [16] W.C. Arcieri, R.M. Beaton, C.D. Fletcher, D.E. Bessette,
Calculating Failure Frequency of Reactor Pressure Vessel “RELAP5 Thermal Hydraulic Analysis to Support PTS
Based on Probabilistic Fracture Mechanics”, JEAG 4640- Evaluations for the Oconee-1, Beaver Valley-1, and
2018, (2018). Palisades Nuclear Power Plants”, NUREG/CR-6858, U.S.
[4] T. Dickson, M. Smith, A. Dyszel, "Fracture Analysis of Nuclear Regulatory Commission, (2004).
Vessels – Oak Ridge FAVOR v20.1.12 Theory and [17] S. Marie, S. Chapuliot, “Improvement of the Calculation
Implementation of Algorithms, Methods, and Correlations", of the Stress Intensity Factors for Underclad and Through-
Technical Letter Report, TLR-RES/DE/REB-2021-03, clad Defects in a Reactor Pressure Vessel Subjected to a
(2021) Pressurized Thermal Shock”, International Journal of
[5] J. Katsuyama, K. Masaki, Y. Miyamoto, Y. Li, “User’s Pressure Vessels and Piping, 85, 517-531, (2008).
Manual and Analysis Methodology of Probabilistic Fracture
Mechanics Analysis Code PASCAL4 for Reactor Pressure
Vessel”, JAEA-Data/Code 2017-015, (2018).
[6] Y. Li, S. Uno, M. Koichi, J. Katsuyama, T. Dickson, M.
Kirk, “Verification of Probabilistic Fracture Mechanics
Analysis Code through Benchmark Analyses”, ASME
Pressure Vessels and Piping Conference, PVP2018-84963,
(2018).
[7] Y. Li, G. Katsumata, K. Masaki, S. Hayashi, Y. Itabashi, M.
Nagai, M. Suzuki, Y. Kanto, “Verification of Probabilistic
Fracture Mechanics Analysis Code for Reactor Pressure
Vessel”, Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology, 143,
041501, (2021).
[8] S. Timoshenko, J.N. Goodier, “Theory of Elasticity. 2nd.
Ed.”, (1951).
[9] Stephane Marie, “Analytical Expression of the Thermal
Stresses in a Vessel or Pipe with Cladding Submitted to
Any Thermal Transient”, International Journal of Pressure
Vessels and Piping 81, 303–312, (2004).
[10] S.R. Simonen, S.R. Doctor, G.J. Schuster, P.G. Heasler.,
“A Generalized Procedure for Generating Flaw Related
Inputs for the FAVOR Code,” NUREG/CR-6817,
Revision 1, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, (2013).
[11] The Japan Society of Mechanical Engineers, “Rules on
Fitness-for-Service for Nuclear Power Plants”, JSME S
NA1-2012, The Japan Society of Mechanical Engineers,
(2012).

8 Copyright © 2023 by ASME