1121

Use of bimetallic welds in nuclear reactors: associated

problems and structural integrity assessment issues
R Chhibber1
, N Arora1, S R Gupta1, and B K Dutta2
1
Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology, Roorkee, India
2
Computational Mechanics Section, Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, Mumbai, India

The manuscript was received on 25 July 2005 and was accepted after revision for publication on 6 March 2006.

DOI: 10.1243/09544062JMES135

Abstract: The bimetallic welds (BMWs) play a critical and indispensable role in the primary
heat transport piping system of nuclear reactors. The primary heat transport system in itself
is the critical part of a nuclear reactor. Any failure of this system can lead to grave consequences,
not only speaking of huge monetary losses resulting from non-utilization of the reactor setup,
but also immensely valuable and irreparable loss of human life. The present paper is an effort
towards identifying and understanding the problems affecting the BMWs and is as well an
attempt to highlight the current issues in the structural integrity assessment of structures
having these welds. The basic aim of this work is to provide a clear understanding of the current
structural safety issues and their importance in underpinning the use of BMWs in modern
nuclear reactors.

Keywords: bimetallic welds, weld mismatch, carbon migration, constraint effects, stress
triaxility, residual stresses

1 INTRODUCTION super heaters and reheaters, whereas in the primary

1.1 Need of bimetallic welds
For a long time now, bimetallic welds (BMWs) have
been a necessity within the pressurized water reactor
(PWR) and boiling water reactor (BWR) designs,
where the heavy section low alloy steel components
are usually connected to stainless steel (SS) primary
piping systems. For PWRs, the BMWs, which are of
particular interest, are those attaching the piping
system (Fig. 1) to the various nozzles of the reactor
pressure vessel (RPV), steam generators (SG) and
pressuriser.
BMWs between ferritic low alloy steels such as SA
508 and austenitic SSs such as AISI types 304, 316,
etc., as shown in (Fig. 2) are used widely in steam gen-
erators of the power plants. In these power plants,
austenitic SS tubes are used in high temperature sec-
tions, where increased creep strength and resistance
to oxidation are required, such as in final stages of


Corresponding author: Department of Mechanical and Industrial
Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology, Roorkee 247667,
Uttaranchal, India. email: rahul_chhibber@rediffmail.com
boiler and heat exchanger, where the temperatures
are lower, the use of tubes of more economical low
alloy ferritic steel is generally adopted.
The BMWs are usually made in two steps. First, at
least two (in some cases three) thin layers of butter-
ing material are applied to the end of the ferritic steel
vessel nozzles. The typical thickness of the buttering
is 5 –8 mm, and the Type 308/309 (SS) filler material
is generally used for buttering. The material for the
first layer of buttering is overalloyed with respect to
chromium and nickel content in order to compen-
sate the dilution resulting from the diffusion to the
base metal. The buttering is then post-weld heat
treated at a temperature depending on the ferritic
base material and the duration determined by the
thickness of the ferritic steel components.
2 PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WITH BMWs
2.1 Metallurgical problems
The BMWs (Fig. 3) represent regions (zones) with
metallurgical discontinuities. These zones are
immediately adjacent to each other and provide a

JMES135 # IMechE 2006 Proc. IMechE Vol. 220 Part C: J. Mechanical Engineering Science
1122 R Chhibber, N Arora, S R Gupta, and B K Dutta
Fig. 1 Typical combustion engineering surge nozzle at
the hot leg [9]
significant change in properties across a narrow
region, which tend to localize the strains. The
occurrence and severity of the metallurgical discon-
tinuity depends upon the phenomenon of carbon
migration. Carbon migration depends on the type
of filler metal used in the BMW and the use of
post-weld heat treatment.
The regions critical for the performance of the
BMW (Fig. 3) are the coarse grained heat affected
zone (CGHAZ), the fusion line and its immediate
vicinity, and the first buttering layer. Degradation
of fusion zone toughness has been ascribed to the
formation of coarse upper-bainitic CGHAZ micro-
structure, as well as a narrow martensitic layer as a
result of carbon migration from the ferritic steel
towards the austenitic material during welding as
suggested by Laukkanen et al. [1]. Furthermore, the
post-weld heat treatment (PWHT) typically carried
out subsequent to buttering (when using SS filler
metal) has been shown to promote the formation
of two additional zones of inhomogenity. These are
the carbon depleted zone (CDZ) and the fully auste-
nitic zone (FAZ) at the opposite sides immediately
adjacent to the fusion boundary. The CDZ forms
Fig. 2 BMW assembly [10]
Proc. IMechE Vol. 220 Part C: J. Mechanical Engineering Science
Fig. 3 Bimetallic austenite-ferrite weld configuration
with a buttering layer and different zones
due to the loss of carbon as it diffuses from the
HAZ towards the fusion boundary, leading to a
columnar ferrite microstructure. The FAZ, concomi-
tantly, appears because of the high local carbon
content and depletion of chromium. Meanwhile
Buckthorpe et al. [2] pointed out that carbon
migration in the BMWs takes place only at PWHT
temperature. It would not take place at lower operat-
ing temperatures. Hence, only those BMWs sub-
jected to PWHT are susceptible to have significant
metallurgical discontinuity.
2.2 Thermal fatigue of BMWs
In addition to the above mentioned metallurgical
discontinuities, the BMWs also represent geometri-
cal discontinuities that generally include inclusion
and fabrication defects. However, it should be
noted that the mere existence of a discontinuity
does not make a weldment defective or unsuitable
for a given application. Discontinuities are desig-
nated as defects only when their size, orientation,
and distribution exceed specification limits and
their presence affects the integrity of a component.
The presence of radially oriented root defects can
significantly reduce the fatigue strength of the weld.
Both the geometrical and metallurgical disconti-
nuities introduce high stress/strain concentrations
and reduce the fatigue resistance. It has been
observed that because of the geometrical discontinu-
ity, the weld geometry has an inherent built-in stress
concentration similar to a crack.
The usual heat-up and cool-down cycles further
impose thermal strain on the BMW having SS as
filler metal because the thermal expansion coeffi-
cients for SS is about 30 per cent higher than that
for ferritic steel. The carbon-depleted soft zone in
ferritic steel is restrained by the harder and stronger
carbon enriched zone in SS butter material that
could introduce a complex stress state at the
weld interface. Thus, the mismatch of the thermal
expansion coefficients and possibly carbon
JMES135 # IMechE 2006
 Bimetallic welds in nuclear reactors
migration are likely to shorten the fatigue life of a
BMW having SS as a filler metal.
The use of nickel-based alloy as a filler metal has a
less adverse effect on the fatigue life of a BMW
because of reduced carbon migration and signifi-
cantly smaller mismatch in the thermal expansion
coefficients between the filler metal and the vessel
nozzle material. Carbon migration in a nickel-based
weld metal has been found much smaller than that
in the SS weld metal. In addition, the coefficient of
thermal expansion for nickel-based alloy, which is
sometimes used for buttering, is about the same as
that for the ferritic steel. However, there is a signifi-
cant mismatch in the thermal expansion coefficients
between the nickel-based filler metal and the SS
piping.
2.3 Problems during arc welding of BMWs
It has been observed that during arc welding of two
dissimilar materials, as during making of BMWs
there are a number of aspects that should be
addressed, in addition to those associated with
welding similar materials.
From a practical point of view, it may not be possi-
ble to make a fusion weld if the melting points of the
two materials that are to be welded are too different,
as it is essential to have controlled melting on both
sides of the weld joint simultaneously. In addition
to that, even if this criterion is met, it may not be
possible to produce an adequate joint if there is a
metallurgical incompatibility between the two
materials.
The metallurgical incompatibility could result in
uncontrollable weld metal/HAZ cracking or a weld
metal microstructure that cannot provide adequate
mechanical or corrosion performance. Adjacent to
the fusion boundary there will be a band, typically
very narrow, over which there may be a steep com-
position and melting point gradient. This fusion
boundary region has a composition between that of
the parent metal and weld metal, and may contain
microstructures that are unacceptable for service.
During arc welding of dissimilar metals, ‘arc blow’
or uncontrollable deflection of the arc may occur due
to the flow of thermoelectric currents between the
hot and cold parts of the joint, in a similar way to
the operation of a thermocouple.
It has been observed that with the addition of
suitable filler metal may result in a satisfactory
weld between two materials which are metallurgi-
cally incompatible. This has been exemplified by
the use of the Schaeffler diagram, or a modification
of it, to select a filler metal that is resistant to
both solidification cracking and hydrogen cracking.
Frequently, when a welding consumable with
JMES135 # IMechE 2006
1123
composition similar to one of the steels is not
found appropriate, nickel-based filler is adopted.
However, care is to be taken to avoid the ferrous/
nickel ratios giving sensitivity to solidification
cracking.
2.4 Outer surface cracking
Recent international surveys on BMW behavior by
Busboom et al. [3] and Scott et al. [4] have shown
that there are several types of outer surface crack-
ing problems encountered in both PWRs and BWRs
that can be essentially grouped into the following
two categories:
(a) those related to fabrication;
(b) those caused by atmospheric surface corrosion.
At the same time, the occurrence in the literature
of cases dealing with analytical and/or experimental
aspects of such cracks in BMWs is very rare.
2.5 Residual stresses
Residual stresses are introduced in a weldment
because of the inability of the deposited molten
weld metal to shrink freely as it cools and solidifies.
The magnitude of the residual stresses depends on
several factors such as the size of the deposited
weld beads, weld sequence, total volume of deposi-
ted weld metal, weld geometry, strength of deposited
weld metal and of the adjoining base metal, and
cooling rate.
Residual stresses play a significant role in crack
initiation caused during high-cycle fatigue. For
high-cycle fatigue, the greater the residual stresses,
the greater the effect on lowering the fatigue life. As
the crack propagates, the residual stress will redistri-
bute. The magnitude and orientation of the residual
stresses play a part in determining the direction of
crack propagation and its rate. The mean stress will
change if the residual stresses relax during cyclic
loading. In contrast to the case in high-cycle fatigue,
residual stresses do not play a significant role in
crack initiation by low-cycle fatigue.
BMWs between ferritic and austenitic steels exhi-
bit a strong residual stress field, both as welded and
after PWHT. Austenitic steels do not undergo a
phase transformation on cooling from the welding
process, therefore, the weld residual stresses come
from incompatible strains caused by differential
thermal contraction. In contrast, ferritic steels
experience phase transformation during cooling
from welding which tends to counter the thermal
contraction and give residual stresses that are less
than those determined using thermal contraction
alone. For some ferritic steels mandatory PWHTs
relax residual stresses to relatively low levels.
Proc. IMechE Vol. 220 Part C: J. Mechanical Engineering Science
1124 R Chhibber, N Arora, S R Gupta, and B K Dutta

Knowledge of the residual stress is an essential 2.7 Solidification cracking (hot cracking)
input to the structural integrity analysis of the joint,
There have been incidents recently where hot
particularly where there is a locally embrittled
cracking has been observed in the BMWs that join
region near the interface.
the hot leg pipes to the RPV nozzle. The hot leg
The European project VORSAC (Variation of
pipes are large diameter, thick wall pipes. Typically,
residual stresses in aged components) [5] issued the
an inconel weld metal is used to join the ferritic
better understanding and knowledge of the
pressure vessel steel to the SS pipe. The cracking,
evolution of residual stresses and related material
mainly confined to the inconel weld metal, is
phenomena in nuclear components during manufac-
ture and service life, as well as the development and enhanced by corrosion mechanisms. Tensile weld
residual stresses, in addition to service loads,
validation of improved methods for modelling and
contribute to crack growth.
measurement of residual stresses in ageing nuclear
Solidification cracks are normally readily distin-
components. The project revealed that there is suffi-
guished from other types of cracks due to the follow-
cient driving force for the creation of creep damage,
ing characteristic factors [8].
particularly when the welded components are
They occur only in the weld metal. They normally
operated at high temperature.
appear as straight lines along the centreline of the
weld bead, but may occasionally appear as trans-
2.6 Atmospheric corrosion verse cracking depending on the solidification struc-
ture. Solidification cracks in the final crater may have
In 1997, in France more than 1000 BMWs (using SS
a branching appearance as the cracks are ‘open’ that
buttering and ferritic-SS weld) were analysed by
are easily visible to the naked eye.
Cattant et al. [6] and 50 of them were found to be
On breaking open the weld, the crack surface in
affected by intergranular degradation on the outer
steel and nickel alloys may have a blue oxidized
surface (few millimetre deep) in the buttering and
appearance, showing that they were formed while
close to the ferritic to SS buttering interface. Different
the weld metal was still hot.
complementary investigations were done (replica,
The major cause of solidification cracking is that
optical surveillance, laboratory test). In many cases,
the weld bead in the final stage of solidification has
the degradations were in the austenitic zone of the
insufficient strength to withstand the contraction
first layer of the buttering, at the same time corro-
stresses generated as the weld pool solidifies. Factors
sion pitting were discovered in the same area in
that increase the risk of solidification cracking
the ferritic steel; further it was found that all the
include:
degradations were filled up by oxide layer. Labora-
tory tests confirmed the absence of hot cracking (a) insufficient weld bead size or shape;
and three other mechanisms were investigated by (b) welding under high restraint;
Cattant et al. [6]: high temperature oxidation, stress (c) material properties such as high impurity con-
corrosion cracking, and intercrystalline corrosion tent or a relatively large amount of shrinkage
(atmospheric type). Finally, the degradations were on solidification.
attributed to intercrystalline corrosion after repro-
These are the factors that must be taken care of when
duction of similar results in laboratory on small
during welding of bimetallic joints.
specimen with good representation of the major
parameters: metallurgical state, oxide environment,
and mechanical loads followed by high operating 3 STATUS REVIEW OF STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY
temperature.
ASSESSMENT OF DISSIMILAR WELDS
The European project DISWEC [7] (Evaluation
of techniques for assessing corrosion cracking in
An International survey [9] was carried out under
dissimilar metal welds) evaluated the suitability of
the structural mechanics cluster of Plant Life
various laboratory test methods to study the degree
Assessment Network, to produce a status review
of susceptibility of BMWs to an unacceptable envir-
addressing the following.
onmentally assisted cracking in service environ-
ments. It provided a number of recommendations. 1. The welding processes, current developments,
The availability of such recommendations is of damage mechanisms, and associated issues relat-
benefit both, to plant operators, as guidance on the ing to dissimilar metal welds (DMWs).
most cost-effective means of obtaining the data 2. The testing, measurement, and modeling tech-
necessary to validate plant components for service, niques required to characterize critical regions
and to regulatory authorities to aid their judgement within metallurgical structure of DMWs.
in the suitability of data underlying the plant safety 3. The priority areas for future European co-
cases. operative R&D work in the area of DMWs.

Proc. IMechE Vol. 220 Part C: J. Mechanical Engineering Science JMES135 # IMechE 2006
 Bimetallic welds in nuclear reactors
The following main conclusions were drawn from
the survey.
1. Most activities in Europe on DMWs appear to
be on creep and environmentally assisted
corrosion EAC rather than low-cycle fatigue or
fracture.
2. There was a large consensus that the lack of
testing standards for these weldments was a
problem.
3. There is a need for an improved understanding of
the interfacial and near-interfacial properties of
DMW. Carbon migration across the interface
during fabrication, PWHT and in some cases, ser-
vice operation may occur and influence both
creep and EAC resistance.
4. There is a clear need for improved filler metals for
DMWs, as well as some interest in alternative
welding processes, e.g. graded joints and laser
welding.
5. There was no unanimity on assessment methods
for DMWs, even for a particular failure process.
4 AREAS OF CONCERN IN STRUCTURAL
INTEGRITY ASSESSMENT OF BMWs
BMWs provide a challenge to fracture mechanics
assessment procedures in determining the factors
surrounding fracture and also impose an uphill task
towards accurate materials characterization. The
use of several metallurgical design concepts can be
made to make sound welds and the quantitative
fracture mechanical properties can be related to
different procedures. Presently, the knowledge avail-
able regarding homogeneous weldments is being
used for design, and no detailed methods exist for
determining structural integrity of BMWs. Life man-
agement and structural integrity assessment of
BMWs in its current form relies on practical methods
derived on the basis of years of experience in oper-
ation and simplistic strength of materials analyses.
The complex conditions and properties of the
weldment, as resulting from the elaborate inter-
action of different microstructures with gradients in
material properties, have limited the ability of cur-
rently existing methods to construct the assessment
on the basis of actual failure mechanisms of BMWs.
Overall, it can be emphasized that the high gradi-
ents in mechanical and physical properties adjourn
the assessment process, and effects of local micro-
structures to the failure assessment remain unan-
swered. It has been found that the interaction
between under and overmatching local microstruc-
tures is one of the key elements prohibiting the
optimized estimation of integrity of bimetallic
components.
JMES135 # IMechE 2006
1125
4.1 Different failure modes and mismatch effect
Currently, the area of concern in the structural
integrity assessment of a weld is the microstructural
and mechanical heterogeneity of a weld. It is seen
that the variation of microstructure across a weld
leads to a variation of mechanical properties,
such as toughness and stress– strain properties.
Differences in strain hardening capacities of micro-
structural zones are found to severely affect the
toughness transitions of the weld and the associated
failure mode. Two prime failure types have been
noted, one for cracks located at outer HAZ resulting
in an unstable crack deflection towards the fusion
line and another type associated with cracks posi-
tioned near the fusion line, wherein a low-toughness
ductile fracture process results. These two are the
most commonly observed modes of failure in the
BMWs.
The occurrence of ‘low-toughness ductile fracture’
at the fusion boundary was associated with the
original notch locating closer to the weld interface
than was the case with unstable crack growth. The
nominally ductile failure, in place of unstable frac-
ture event, can be inferred from the level of driving
force at crack initiation and local material properties.
If the crack-tip is located in the CGHAZ, the (asym-
metric) plasticity before final unstable fracture will
give rise to a generally high level of driving force in
terms of e.g. the J-integral, producing an energy
supply leading to unstable failure after the crack
deflection to the interface due to its inherent low
ductility. If, however, the crack is located near or at
the fusion boundary (Fig. 4) and hence closer to the
interface, the failure can occur as ductile fracture
with a generally lower level of driving force.
Unstable rupture was associated with a propagat-
ing fracture, which initiated in a ductile manner in
the ferritic CGHAZ (where the crack-tip was
located) and deviated in a relatively sharp angle
towards the weld interface that was several milli-
metres aside from the original crack-tip. This
demonstrates a high driving force for crack
Fig. 4 Crack propagation mechanism associated with
low toughness stable rupture [1]
Proc. IMechE Vol. 220 Part C: J. Mechanical Engineering Science
1126 R Chhibber, N Arora, S R Gupta, and B K Dutta
propagation and final failure, as well as the critical-
ity of this ‘weak’ fracture path in the studied
bimetallic weldment. The high initiation toughness,
but otherwise unstable failure is attributed to the
fact that while the crack-tip is located at an adjacent
microstructure and the portion of brittle phase is
in macroscopic terms low, the initiation can be
interpreted directly as work performed at the
‘near-crack-tip’ regions (in softer microstructures)
without effectively growing the crack. Then, at a cer-
tain stage, the crack can propagate either through
the asymmetrically developed plastic zone (Fig. 5)
or via damage formation directly to the local brittle
microstructure transferred by the deforming micro-
structures. Numerous research papers have been
published during the past dealing with microstruc-
tural effects on toughness.
As mentioned by Schwalbe [10], the mismatch
effect has attracted attention more recently. Weld
metal strength mismatch is referred to as an inhomo-
geneous strength distribution across a welded joint
resulting from the use of weld metal of either
higher or lower strength than the base material.
The former is typically referred to as overmatched
and the latter undermatched. Over the last decade,
there has been an increased interest in understand-
ing the weld metal strength mismatch effects on frac-
ture behaviours of welded structures. As a result, a
large number of publications on this subject have
appeared in the open literature on weld strength
mismatch effects on fracture toughness testing
and fracture characterization parameters of welded
structures. Some of the representative work can be
found in references [11– 21].
The mismatch considers the influence of mecha-
nical heterogeneity on the crack driving force,
expressed in terms of either the J-integral or crack-
tip opening displacement (CTOD), The yield strength
mismatch between base plate and weld metal,
usually denoted by M can have dramatic effects on
J or CTOD under full plasticity conditions for the
component. Welding procedures in general are
designed to achieve overmatch that results in a
Fig. 5 Crack propagation mechanism associated with
unstable repture of CGHAZ [1]
Proc. IMechE Vol. 220 Part C: J. Mechanical Engineering Science
shielding effect to the weld metal. This is important
as the weld metal properties can be less well-
controlled than the base plate properties. Hence,
the overall concern about lower weld metal tough-
ness may lose its significance if a weld metal crack
experiences a driving force lower than that of a
crack in the base plate, which is the case for over-
match. The increasing application of high strength
steels can make overmatch unsuitable or even
impossible.
If the welds undermatch, then strain concentration
will occur in the weld metal and a higher level of
weld toughness will be required to prevent fracture
initiation from a pre-existing defect in the weld
metal. This strength mismatch effect is also con-
trolled by weld geometry, crack depth, bevelling
operation, and crack-tip position. The effect of mis-
match is to be considered for assessment when the
variation in strength of mismatch materials exceeds
10 per cent.
Starting from a few early publications, e.g. [22, 23],
the bulk of the work in this area has been performed
within the past decade. A large number of recent
publications, e.g. [24 –29], and two international
symposia [30, 31], dedicated to the effects of yield
strength mismatch on structural integrity, have
shown the importance of mismatch problem.
The previously existing structural integrity assess-
ment methods such as R6 [32] and the ETM [33] as
well as the recently released European method
SINTAP [34] have benefitted from these develop-
ments and have included specific mismatch options
in their respective procedures.
For the sake of simplicity and clarity, a mis-
matched welded joint is normally represented by
the bi-material model shown in Fig. 6. It has
been demonstrated that the mismatch effect is
not only dependent on the mismatch factor M; it
is also a function of geometrical parameters,
mainly of the slenderness of the remaining
ligament of a central weld metal crack and of the
distance of the crack from the nearest base
plate/weld metal interface.
It has been observed that for a number of geo-
metries, yield force solutions have been generated
and compiled in the procedures ETM-MM [33],
R6 [32], and SINTAP [34]. At about the time when
these procedures were under development, the EU
project BIMET [35] (Structural Integrity of Bi-Met-
allic Components) was carried out by nine research
groups under the Fourth Euratom Framework Pro-
gramme 1994 – 1998: Nuclear Fission Safety. The
project presented an excellent opportunity for vali-
dating various assessment methods. The project
was aimed at contributing to the development and
validation of methods for assessing the behaviour
of BMWs.
JMES135 # IMechE 2006
 Bimetallic welds in nuclear reactors
Fig. 6 Idealization of a welded joint by a plate with
a rectangular strip representing the weld
metal [10]
4.2 Mixed-mode loading conditions
There has been much interest in the analysis of
mixed-mode fracture over many years. Direction of
mixed-mode crack propagation model has been
characterized by many direction criteria such as maxi-
mum tensile stress [36], minimum strain energy den-
sity [37], maximum tangent stress and maximum
shear stress [38], and maximum principle stress [39].
These criteria were combined with fracture criteria
such as a stress intensity factor, CTOD or crack-tip
opening angle (CTOA), and J-Integral. However,
Waryznek [40] mentioned that none of these fracture
criteria and direction criteria could represent the
crack propagation behaviours. The combination of
fracture criteria with the appropriate direction
criteria is still under investigation.
The complexity in the assessment of structural
integrity of BMWs is further enhanced by the pre-
sence of mixed-mode loading conditions.
4.3 Role of residual stresses in structural
integrity assessment
It is known that welding residual stresses can play an
important role in the fracture behaviour of welded
structures. However, detailed studies on this subject
have been scarce in the open literature. This may
have been in part due to the fact that accurate
residual stress analyses require sophisticated
numerical tools that have only become available
over the last few years. Nonetheless, with prescribed
JMES135 # IMechE 2006
1127
residual stress distributions, Finch and Burdekin
[41, 42] conducted finite element (FE) computation
of J-integral without weld metal strength mismatch
effects. Their results indicated that residual stress
effects on J increase steadily as loading increases
through the linear elastic regime. Although intri-
guing, such results should be interpreted with cau-
tion as the computation of J-integral in its original
form no longer possesses the path-independence
property with the presence of weld residual stresses.
As a result, appropriate computational fracture
mechanics parameters should be identified or
rephrased in order to take into account the effects
of both weld strength mismatch and residual stress
as pointed out by Brust [43]. Under residual stress
dominant conditions, stress intensity factor solu-
tions have been used to characterize quasi-static
crack growth behaviour in multi-pass girth welds
[44, 45], where detailed residual stress states were
obtained based on advanced techniques [46 –49].
Any presence of weld metal strength mismatch
tends to introduce additional complexity in residual
stresses, for undermatched welds.
Knowledge of residual stresses and their treatment
has become increasingly important in strength cal-
culations particularly with respect to dealing with
assurance of containment and damage assessment
of structural parts where fatigue and fracture modes
have to be considered. The treatment of residual
stresses has received considerable attention too as
part of the fast reactor programme within the UK. A
method by Leggatt et al. [50] was developed for
butt and tee butt weldments of austenitic SSs based
on the measurements.
Residual stresses contribute to the overall stress
system in a component and its magnitude and distri-
bution needs to be taken into account in structural
evaluations. Residual stresses remain in a structure
after removal of all loads and they arise because of
the need for compatibility between the total strain
field and the displacement field. This compatibility
is achieved by additional elastic strains that result
in elastic stresses.
Origins of residual stress usually lie in the realm
of manufacture and fabrication, such as welding
where rapid cooling is involved but the residual
stresses are difficult to evaluate analytically because
of the lack of precise information on the stress
cycles imposed. Residual stresses in welds may in
some cases reach yield stress and can result in a
reduction in fatigue strength and premature failure
of a structural part.
Weldments are a major concern in structures
because of the following.
1. They are frequently the site of damage found in
plant.
Proc. IMechE Vol. 220 Part C: J. Mechanical Engineering Science
1128 R Chhibber, N Arora, S R Gupta, and B K Dutta
2. They are often associated with geometrical
discontinuities.
3. They can result in a ‘metallurgical notch’ or strain
concentration due to discontinuities in the prop-
erties of the weld.
4. At elevated temperature, SS welds often have a
lower creep ductility in comparison with the
parent steel.
5. They frequently have to be made without
stress relief, thus containing significant residual
stress.
Fracture mechanics assessment of welds in
pressure vessel and piping components often
requires knowledge of weld residual stress distri-
butions. In most of currently available codes and rec-
ommended practices such as API RP-579 [51] and
others [52], simplified and conservative distributions
are often assumed. For instance, welding-induced
residual stresses are often assumed to be tensile,
of yield magnitude (or a specified percentage, if
PWHT applies), and uniform through the thickness.
However, over the recent years, there has been a
major progress in a better understanding of weld
residual stresses, in part, due to the availability of
advanced weld residual stress modelling tools as
can be observed from references [53, 54]. It has been
demonstrated that the current fitness-for-service
procedures can significantly over-estimate the
residual stress effects in most cases seen in refer-
ences [3, 4, 6] and underestimate their effects in
others as can also be seen in references [53 –55].
A technique for assessing levels of residual stress
due to welding was developed by the UK Welding
Institute in conjunction with NNC Ltd to support
the design phase of the UK Commercial Demon-
stration Fast Reactor (CDFR) in the 1980s. The pro-
cedure was subsequently incorporated in both
R6 procedures [32] and fast reactor LBB procedures
[56]. Although the method was developed for
austenitic steels, it can equally be applied to ferritic
steel and other joints provided appropriate values
of limiting stress are used. The method recom-
mends that for subsequent fracture calculations
some smoothed distributions are adopted. Also the
approach requires separation of the stress distri-
bution into linear and self-balancing components
to assess their contribution to the stress intensity
factor. It was realized after a number of sensitivity
calculations that a polynomial fit as used in R6
cannot meet all of the skeleton point and stress
gradient conditions. Alternatives were investigated
that could also provide stress distribution functions
suitable for subsequent use with available stress
intensity functions and which would avoid the need
to separate out the component parts.
Proc. IMechE Vol. 220 Part C: J. Mechanical Engineering Science
4.4 Transferability problem
The ‘transferability problem’ is a major driver for
current advances in structural integrity assessment
procedures. At present, there is a disparity between
the characteristics measured on nuclear reactor
components and test specimens, in particular, in
the pattern of crack-tip stresses and strains causing
plastic flow and fracture (this is called constraint
effect). Crack-tip constraint in components is
generally lower than in test specimens and effective
toughness is correspondingly higher. The toughness
measured on standard test specimens is therefore
likely to underestimate that exhibited by cracks
in components. The purpose of the VOCALIST
project (validation of constraint-based assessment
methodology in structural integrity) was to develop
and validate, by an iterative process of experiment
and analysis, innovative procedures for assessing
possible states of crack-tip constraint in ageing
nuclear pressure boundary components.
A simplification in methodology for dealing with
aspects of the transferability problem is beginning
to emerge in certain areas. This is a development
that has largely been driven by the numerous
analytical insights [57 – 60] that have resulted from
comparing the predictions and outcomes of well-
conceived structural features tests.
5 USE OF ADVANCE FRACTURE MECHANICS
AND MICROMECHANICAL MODELLING IN
STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY ASSESSMENT
As can be seen that some of the major problems
the structural engineers have to cope up with the
structural integrity assessment are: material charac-
terization (i.e. generation of adequate data from
specimen testing) and the transferring of fracture
mechanics material data to the structural analysis
of components. The transferring of fracture mecha-
nics data to real industrial components may
become questionable, especially if complex situ-
ations are involved like presence of heterogeneous
materials, residual stresses, different states of stress
triaxiality at the crack-tip, constraint effects, etc. As
components having BMWs may possess all the
above mentioned complexities, the fracture mecha-
nics assessment of these components becomes
more complicated. Another important phenomenon
that further complicates the process of structural
integrity assessment of these components is the
existence of geometry effects on fracture characteri-
stics measurements especially when the material
has high ductility and fracture toughness. These geo-
metry effects on cracked specimens are clearly
observed for numerous materials for which the
JMES135 # IMechE 2006
 Bimetallic welds in nuclear reactors
single parameter fracture mechanics approach is not
sufficient to characterize the near fully yielded crack
tip states. To overcome these difficulties, several
approaches have been developed. In these
approaches the fracture is predicted from purely
mechanical point of view and is treated in terms of
two-parameter criteria i.e. J-T, J-Q, J-q etc. Where
the first parameter is J-integral that quantifies the
amount of loading and the second parameter
quantifies the degree of constraint ahead of the
crack-tip, to characterize the crack-tip conditions.
The J-T approach was proposed by Betegeon and
Hancock [61]. Williams [62] showed that the crack-
tip stress fields in an isotropic elastic material can
be expressed as an infinite power series, where the
first term exhibits a 1/r 0.5 singularity, where r is the
distance from the crack-tip, the second term is a con-
stant with respect to r, the third term is proportional
to r 0.5, and so on. It was found that the second term
(constant T-stress) has a profound effect on the
plastic zone shape and the stresses deep inside the
plastic zone. This constant T-stress was identified
as constraint indexing parameter by Betegeon and
Hancock [61].
The J-q approach by Brocks et al. [63] and Kordisch
et al. [64] highlights the use of one of the most widely
used constraint indexing parameter, the triaxiality
factor (q), defined as the ratio of the hydrostatic or
mean stress (sm) that does not cause any plastic
deformation, to the von-Mises equivalent stress
(seq) that is being responsible for the plastic flow.
q ¼ sm =seq
where
sm ¼ (s1 þ s2 þ s3 )=3:0
0
seq ¼ ½(s1  s2 )2 þ (s2  s3 )2 þ (s3  s1 )2 1=2
s1, s2, s3 are the principal stress.
The physical meaning of this ratio was sub-
stantiated by the investigation of Rice and Tracey
[65] and McClintock [66] who found out that the
growth rate of cavities in perfectly plastic materials
is proportional to e1.5q. High constraint is associated
with high value of q. It was found out that slopes of
the J-R curve decreases with the increase in stress
triaxiality.
In J-Q theory proposed by O’Dowd and Shih
[67, 68], Q is used as constraint indexing parameter.
As per this theory, the laboratory specimen must
match the constraint of the structure i.e. two geo-
metries must have the same Q-value at failure in
order to have same Jc values. The non-dimensional
parameter Q is basically the deviation in hoop
stress with respect to a reference stress divided by
JMES135 # IMechE 2006
1129
the yield stress.
Q ¼ ½suu  (suu ref=sy  at u 4 908, r ¼ 2J=sy
Where r and u are polar co-ordinates with the origin
at the crack-tip suu is the existing stress field ahead of
the crack-tip of the geometry and s(uu) ref is the refer-
ence solution obtained from the standard plane
strain small scale yielding solution.
A negative (positive) Q value means that the hydro-
static stress is lower (higher) than the reference field
(Q ¼ 0 state). Geometries with negative Q value
shows low stress triaxiality ahead of crack-tip (low
constraint) and loss of J dependence, whereas geo-
metries with Q50 show high triaxility ahead of
crack-tip (high constraint). Thus Q value provides a
framework for quantifying the evolution of con-
straint as plastic flow progresses small scale yielding
to fully yielding conditions.
In J-A2 approach proposed by Chao and Ji [69], the
J-integral represents the level of loading and A2
quantifies the level of crack-tip constraint. The
stress field ahead of crack-tip is represented by the
following three term analytical expression.
 1=ðnþ1Þ
suu J
¼
sy a1 0 sy I n L
 S  r S2  S3 
r 1 2 r
 suu ðuÞ þ A2 suu ðuÞ þ A2 suu ðuÞ
L L L
where, suu is the hoop stress, sy is the yield stress,
J is the applied J-integral, a is the Ramberg Osgood
coefficient, 10 ¼ sy =E, where E is the Young’s mod-
ulus of elasticity, In is the integration constant, L is
the crack length, n is the strain hardening coefficient,
a is the Ramberg – Osgood coefficient r and u are the
polar co-ordinates with the origin at the crack-tip.
Referring to the above equation it can be noted
that A2 directly determines the amount of departure
of stress from the Hutchinson – Rice – Rosengren
stress. A2 is determined by point matching technique
i.e. the stress value sij (r, u) determined from FE
analysis at a point (r, u) near the crack-tip is set
equal to the three term analytical expression to
yield A2.
In contrast, local approaches provide an alterna-
tive methodology for fracture analysis of material
taking into account the microstructure damage
mechanics. It has also been observed that like the
global parameters such as the J-integral [70], the
more recently introduced two-parameter approach
J-Q [67, 68] is even unable to capture the experimen-
tally observed geometry effects. On the other hand,
the ‘local approach to fracture’ [71, 72] is thought
to be able to deal with those problems as it is
based on a micromechanical description of the
Proc. IMechE Vol. 220 Part C: J. Mechanical Engineering Science
1130 R Chhibber, N Arora, S R Gupta, and B K Dutta
mechanisms involved in the fracture process [73,
74]. Local approach is based on the FE simulation
of stress and strain fields which are then used to
derive a fracture criterion.
Local approach is based on the use of uncoupled
or coupled FE models [75]. ‘Uncoupled’ models
[72] are based on a post-processing treatment of
elastoplastic calculations. They can be used to derive
crack initiation criteria.
‘Coupled’ models are based on continuum
damage mechanics and account for the softening
effect induced by cavity growth (ductile fracture)
using yield potentials integrating damage such as
those proposed by Gurson [76], Tvergaard [77],
and Rousselier [78]. These models can be used to
simulate crack initiation and propagation.
6 CONCLUSION
It is clearly evident that a comprehensive analysis
of the problems surrounding the BMWs is required.
The current level of knowledge in this particular
area is insufficient to undertake the task of fully
resolving the accompanying structural integrity
assessment issues.
The development of two-parameter approaches
and the use of micromechanical modelling is an
effort towards resolving these issues but still gaps
exist like transferability of experimental results from
specimen level to real component level, issues like
residual stresses, mixed-mode loading conditions,
mismatch effects etc., which all need to be overcome
to develop a standardized procedure for structural
integrity assessment of structures containing these
complex welds.
As on date, no standardized and well-documented
single method or procedure exists to predict the
structural integrity of such components. Though
efforts have been made towards developing such
procedure through the European BIMET project,
which was aimed at contributing to the development
and validation of methods for assessing the beha-
viour of external circumferential cracks in BMWs,
but the problem of single unified procedure still
largely persists and requires much more effort and
thought in this direction from the current scientific
community.
REFERENCES
1 Laukkanen, A., Nevasmaa, P., Ehrnstén, U., and
Rintamaa, R. Mapping of characteristic features of
bimetallic welds from the standpoint of engineering
critical analysis, Transactions SMiRT 16, paper 1566,
Washington DC, August 2001.
Proc. IMechE Vol. 220 Part C: J. Mechanical Engineering Science
2 Buckthorpe, D., Escaravage, C., Neri, P.,
Pierantozzi, P., and Schmidt, D. CSC-WGCS/AG2,
Study contract on bi-metallic weldments (ETNU-CT94-
0133UK). Final report, document no. C9731/TR/002,
Issue V02.NNC Ltd, 1997.
3 Busboom, H. and Ring. P. J. Dissimilar-weld failure
analysis and development – comparative behavior of
similar and dissimilar welds, EPRI report CS64666,
July 1986.
4 Scott, P., Francini, R., Rahman, S., Rosenfield, A.,
and Wilkoski, G. Fracture evaluations of fusion line
cracks in nuclear pipe bimetallic welds, NUREG
report/CR-6297, April 1995.
5 Leggatt, R. H. and Olden, E. J. Variation of residual
stresses in aged components (VORSAC), final report,
TWI report 88291/15/01, August 2001.
6 Cattant, F., De Bouvier, O., Economou, J., Teissier, A.,
and Yriex, B. Examens et Études Métallurgiques de
Liaisons, Bimétalliques de Circuit Primaire Principal,
Contribution des expertises sur matériaux à la résol-
ution des problèmesrencontrés dans les réacteurs à
eau pressurisée. Colloque International Fontevraud III,
Fontevraud, France, September 1994.
7 Heys, G. B. Evaluation of techniques for assessing
corrosion cracking in dissimilar metal welds (DISWEC),
final report, AEAT-4313, October 2000.
8 Defects –solidification cracking, TWI Job knowledge for
welders 44, November 1999, TWI connect No. 103.
9 Assessment and management of ageing of major
nuclear power plant components important to safety
in primary piping in PWRs, IAEA report, TECDOC-
1361, July 2003, Engineering Safety Section, IAEA
Vienna, ISBN 92-0-1080003-4.
10 Schwalbe, K. H., Cornec, A., and Lidbury, D. Fracture
mechanics analysis of the BIMET welded pipe tests.
Int. J. Pres. Ves. Pip., 2004, 81, 251 – 277.
11 Dawes, M. G., Squirrell, S. J., and Pisarski, H. G. KIC,
CTOD and J-tests on weldments. In Nonlinear fracture
mechanics – elastic – plastic fracture, 1979, pp. 486 – 497.
(ASTM STP995 American Society for Testing and
Materials, Philadelphia).
12 Cray, M. J., Luxmore, A. R., and Sumpter, J. D. G. The
effect of weld metal mismatch on J and CTOD. Proceed-
ings of the European Symposium on Elastic-plastic
fracture mechanics: elements of defect assessment,
Freiburg, FRG, 1989.
13 Zhang, J. X. Studies on the fracture mechanics par-
ameters of weldment with mechanical heterogeneity.
Eng. Fract. Mech., 1990, 34, 1041 – 1050.
14 Kocak, M., Knaack, J., and Schwalbe, K. H. Fracture
behavior of undermatched weld joints. In Proceedings
of International Conference on Offshore mechanics and
arctic engineering, Houston, USA, 1990, pp. 453–459.
15 Dong, P. and Gordon, J. R. An investigation to
determine the effect of under/overmatching on the
accuracy of fracture prediction models. In Proceedings
of Sixth Annual North American Welding Research
Conference on Design and fitness for service of welded
structures, on Columbus, Ohio, USA, 8 – 10 October
1990, pp. 41 – 65.
16 Dong, P. and Gordon, J. R. The effect of weld metal
mismatch on the fracture behavior of center-cracked
JMES135 # IMechE 2006
 Bimetallic welds in nuclear reactors
panels. In Proceedings of ASME Pressure Vessels and
Piping Conference on Fatigue, fracture and risk, New
Orleans, Louisiana, USA, 21–25 June, 1992, ASME PVP,
vol. 241, pp. 59–67.
17 Dong, P. and Gordon, J. R. The effect of under
and overmatching on fracture prediction models.
Welding-90: technology, materials, fracture (Ed. M.
Kocak), i. i. t. t. International, Geesthaet, Germany,
pp. 363 –370, ISBN 2-907-669-15-x.
18 Wang, Y. Y. and Kirk, M. T. A structural integrity
assessment procedure for welded structures with weld
metal strength mismatch. In Proceedings of ASME
Pressure Vessels and Piping Conference on Fatigue
and fracture, Montreal, Quebec, Canada (Eds
H. S. Mehta, S. Bhandari, D. Jones, S. Rahman,
G. Wilkowski, and K. K. Yoon), July, 1996, vol. 324, pp.
133 – 141, ISBN 0791817709.
19 Scott, P., Rudland, D., Francini, R., Rahman, S., and
Wilkowski, G. Fracture evaluations of fusion line cracks
in bimetallic welds. In Proceedings of ASME Pressure
Vessels and Piping Conference on Fatigue and fracture,
Montreal, Quebec, Canada (Eds H. S. Mehta, S. Bhandari,
D. Jones, S. Rahman, G. Wilkowski, and K. K. Yoon), July
1996, vol. 323, pp. 39–50, ISBN 0791817709.
20 Kim, Y. J., Lin, G., Cornec, A., and Schwalbe, K.-H.
Effect of elastic and plastic mis-matching on interfacial
crack tip fields in contained yielding. In Mis-matching
of interfaces and welds (Eds K.-H. Schwalbe and
M. Koçak), 1997, pp. 135 –148 (GKSS Research Centre
Publications, Germany).
21 Ganti, S., Parks, D. M., and McClintock, F. A. Analysis
of strength mis-matched interfacial cracks in SSY.
In Mis-matching of interfaces and welds (Eds K.-H.
Schwalbe and M. Koçak), 1997, pp. 3 –16 (GKSS
Research Centre Publications, Germany).
22 Lian, B., Denys, R. M., and Walle van de, L. An
experimental assessment of the effect of weld metal
yield strength overmatching in pipeline girth welds,
3rd International Conference on Welding and perform-
ance of pipelines, London, UK, 18 – 20 November 1986.
23 Denys, R. M. In the fracture mechanics of welds (Eds
J. G. Blauel and K.-H. Schwalbe), 1987 (Mechanical
Engineering Publications, Bury St Edmunds and London).
24 Wäppling, D., Gunnars, J., and Stähle, P. Crack growth
across a strength mismatched bimaterial interface.
Int. J. Fracture, 1998, 89, 223– 243.
25 Burstowm, M. C., Howard, I. C., and Ainsworth, R. A.
The influence of constraint on crack tip stress fields
in strength mismatched welded joints. J. Mech. Phys.
Solids, 1998, 46(5), 845 – 872.
26 Ranestad, Q., Zhang, Z. L., and Thaulow, C. Quantifi-
cation of geometry and material mismatch constraint
in steel weldments with fusion line cracks. Int.
J. Fracture, 1999, 99, 211 – 237.
27 Kim, Y. J., Kocak, M., Ainsworth, R. A., and Zerbst, U.
SINTAP defect assessment procedure for strength
mismatched structures. Eng. Fract. Mech., 2000, 67,
529 – 546.
28 Kim, Y.-J., Schwalbe, K.-H., and Ainsworth, R. A.
Simplified J-estimations based on the engineering
treatment model for homogeneous and mismatched
structures. Eng. Fract. Mech., 2000, 68, 9– 28.
JMES135 # IMechE 2006
1131
29 Lee, H. and Kim, Y. J. Interfacial crack-tip constraints
and J-integrals in plastically mismatched bi-materials.
Eng. Fract. Mech., 2001, 68, 1013 – 1031.
30 Schwalbe, K.-H. and Kocak, M. Mis-Matching
of Welds, ESIS 17, 1994 (Mechanical Engineering
Publications, Bury St Edmunds and London).
31 Schwalbe, K.-H. and Kocak, M. Eds Mis-matching of
interfaces and welds, 1997 (GKSS-Forschungszentrum,
Geesthacht).
32 R6: assessment of the integrity of structures containing
defects, British energy generation report R/H/R6,
revision 4, 2001, British Energy Ltd, Gloucester, UK.
33 Schwalbe, K.-H. and Zerbst, U. The engineering
treatment model. Int. J. Pres. Ves. Pip., 2000, 77,
905 – 918.
34 SINTAP. Structural assessment procedures for European
industry, final procedure, project BE95-1426. British
Steel Report, Rotherham 1999.
35 Faidy, C., Chas, G., Bhandari, S., Valeta, M. P.,
Hurst, R., Youtsas, A., Nevasmaa, P., Brocks, W.,
Lidbury, D., and Weisner, C. Structural integrity of
Bi-metallic components BIMET, Brite – Euram final
project report, 2001.
36 Erdogan, F. and Shih, G. C. On the crack extension
path in the plates under loading and transverse shear.
J. Basic Eng., 1963, 85, 519 – 527.
37 Shih, G. C. Minimum strain energy density. Int.
J. Fracture, 1974, 10, 305 – 321.
38 Dsekmann, P., Pawliska, P., and Richard, H. A. Elastic
plastic crack analysis under mixed mode loading
conditions. Int. J. Fracture, 1992, 57, 249 – 252.
39 Smith, R. N. L. Maximum principle stress. Eng. Fract.
Mech., 1987, 26, 463 – 469.
40 Waryznek, P. A two-dimensional crack propagation
simulator. Int. J. Fracture, 1991, 6, 281 – 304.
41 Finch, D. M. and Burdekin, F. M. Effects of welding
residual stresses on significance of defects in various
types of welded joint. Eng. Fract. Mech., 1992, 41(5),
pp. 721 –735.
42 Finch, D. M. Effects of welding residual stresses on
significance of defects in various types of welded
joint – II. Eng. Fract. Mech., 1992, 42(3), 479 – 500.
43 Brust, F. W. Classical and emerging fracture mechanics
parameters for history dependent fracture with appli-
cation to weld fracture. Proceedings of ASME Pressure
vessels and piping conference, Fracture Fatigue and
Weld Residual Stresses (Ed. J. Pan), ASME PVP-vol.
393, August 1999, ISBN 0791816273.
44 Zhang, J., Dong, P., Brust, F. W., and Shack, W.
Analysis of residual stresses in a girth weld of a reactor
shroud. Proceedings of ASME Pressure Vessels and
Piping Conference, Approximate Methods in the
Design and Analysis of Pressure Vessels and Piping
Components, Orlando, Florida (Ed. S. Rahman), 27 –
31 July 1997, ASME PVP-vol. 347, pp. 141– 156.
45 Brust, F. W., Dong, P., Zhang, J., and Shack, W. Crack
growth behavior in residual stress fields of a girth weld
in reactor shroud structures. Proceedings of ASME
Pressure vessels and piping conference, Fatigue and
Fracture, Orlando, Florida (Ed. S. Rahman), July
1997, ASME PVP-vol. 350, pp. 391 – 406, ISBN
0791815625.
Proc. IMechE Vol. 220 Part C: J. Mechanical Engineering Science
1132 R Chhibber, N Arora, S R Gupta, and B K Dutta
46 Brust, F. W., Dong, P., and Zhang, J. A constitutive
model for welding process simulation using finite
element methods. In Advances in Computational
Engineering Science, (Eds S. N. Atluri and G. Yagawa).
Proceedings of ICES Conference, San Jose, Costa Rica,
1997, pp. 51 – 56.
47 Zhang, J., Dong, P., and Brust, F. W. A 3D composite
shell element model for residual stress analysis of
multi-pass welds in pressure vessels and pipes. In
Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on
Structural mechanics in reactor technology (SMiRT 14),
Lyon, France (Ed. K. Kussmaul), August 1997,
pp. 335–344.
48 Dong, P., Hong, J. K., and Roger, P. Analysis of residual
stresses in Al – Li alloy repair welds and mitigation tech-
niques. Welding J., 1998, 17(11), 439s – 445s.
49 Dong, P., Hong, J. K., Zhang, J., Roger, P., Bynum, J.,
and Shah, S. Effects of repair weld residual stresses
on wide-panel specimens loaded in tension. J. Pres.
Ves. Technol., 1998, 120(2), 122 – 128.
50 Leggatt, R. H. and Hooton, D. G. The treatment of
residual stress in defect assessments of austenitic fast
reactor structures. ASME PVP, 1988, vol. 135, 71 – 75.
51 API RP-579, Recommended practices for fitness-for-
service, 1st edition, 2000, American Petroleum Institute,
Washington, DC, USA.
52 PD6493: 1991, Guidance on Methods for Assessing the
Acceptability of Flaws in Fusion Welded Structures,
British Standards Institute, London, UK.
53 Dong, P. and Brust, F. W. Welding residual stresses
and effects on fracture in pressure vessel and piping
components: a millennium review and beyond, the mil-
lennium issue. ASME Trans. J. Pres. Vessel Technol.,
2000, 122 (3), August, 329– 328.
54 Dong, P. and Hong, J. K. Consistent treatment of residual
stresses in fracture assessment solutions. Proceedings of
2002 ASME Pressure Vessel and Piping Conference, Com-
putational weld mechanics, constraint, and weld fracture,
Vancouver, Canada (Ed. F. W. Brust), August 2002, ASME
PVP-vol. 434, pp. 89–100, ISBN 0791819450.
55 Bouchard, J. and Bradford, C. Validated axial residual
stress profiles for fracture assessment of austenitic
stainless steel pipe girth welds. Proceedings of ASME
PVP Conference, Fracture and fitness, Atlanta,
Georgia, USA, July 2001, PVP vol. 422.
56 Riou, B., Hooton, D. G., Rathjen, P., and Sperandio, M.
Leak before break procedure for sodium boundary
components, 12th SMiRT Conference, Stuttgart, paper
F07/1, 1993.
57 Naumenko, V. P. and Kolednik, O. Load biaxiality
effects on the fracture resistance of thin steel
plates. In Structural integrity, experiments-models-
application, Proceedings of ECF10, (Eds C. Berger,
K.-H. Schwalbe) (EMAS U.K). 1994, vol. II, pp. 911 – 921.
58 O’Dowd, N. P., Kolednik, O., and Naumenko, V. P.
Elastic-plastic analysis of biaxially loaded centre-
cracked plates. Int. J. Solids Structures, 1999, 36 (36),
5639 – 5661.
59 Naumenko, V. P., Structural integrity assessment via
the unified theory of fracture in tension and/or com-
pression. In Mechanisms and mechanics of damage
and failure, Proceedings of the Eleventh European
Proc. IMechE Vol. 220 Part C: J. Mechanical Engineering Science
Conference on Fracture (ECF 11), (Ed. J. Petit),
(EMAS, U.K) 1996, vol. III, pp. 2151 – 2156.
60 Naumenko, V. P., Kolednik, O., O’Dowd, N. P.,
Volko, G. S., and Semenets, A. I. Transferability of
plane-stress R-curves: effects of specimen size and crack
length, Submitted to: ECF12 - Fracture from Defects: The
Conference Proceedings (Eds. M. W. Brown, K. J. Miller,
E. R. de los Rios) (EMAS U.K) 1998, vol. 11, pp. 631–636.
61 Betegeon, C. and Hancock. Two parameter characteri-
stics of elastic-plastic crack-tip fields. J. Appl. Mech.,
1991, 58, 104 – 110.
62 Williams, M. L. On the stress distribution at the base of
the stationary crack, J. Appl. Mech., 1957, 24, 109 – 114.
63 Brocks, W., Kunecke, G., Noack, H. D., and Veith, H.
On the transferability of fracture mechanics to
structures using FEM. Nuclear Eng. Design, 1989,
112, 1 – 14.
64 Kordisch, H., Somme, Er., and Schemitt, W. The
influence of triaxiality on stable crack growth. Nucl.
Eng. Design, 1989, 112, 27 – 35.
65 Rice, J. R. and Tracey, D. M. On the ductile enlarge-
ment of voids in triaxial stress fields. J. Mech. Phys.
Solids, 1969, 16, 201 –217.
66 McClintock, F. A. A Criterion for Ductile Fracture by
the Growth of Holes. J. Appl. Mech., 1968, 35, 363 – 371.
67 O’Dowd, N. P. and Shih, C. F. Family of crack tip fields
characterized by a triaxiality parameter-I: structure of
fields. J. Mech. Phys. Solids, 1991, 39, 989 – 1015.
68 O’Dowd, N. P. and Shih, C. F. Family of crack tip fields
characterized by a triaxiality parameter-II: fracture
applications. J. Mech. Phys. Solids, 1992, 40, 939 – 963.
69 Chao, Y. J. and Ji, W. Cleavage fracture quantified by
J and A2. Constraint effects in fracture theory and appli-
cations, ASTM STP 1244, vol. II, Philadephia, 1995,
pp. 3– 20.
70 Rice, J. R. A path independent integral and the approxi-
mate analysis of strain concentration by notched and
cracks. J. Appl. Mech., 1968, 35, 379.
71 Beremin, F. M. Cavity formation from inclusions in
ductile fracture of A508 steel. Metall. Trans., 1981,
12A, 723– 731.
72 Beremin, F. M. A local criterion for cleavage fracture of
a nuclear pressure vessel steel. Metall. Trans., 1983,
14A, 2277– 2287.
73 Pineau, A. Global and local approaches to fracture
transferability of laboratory test results to components.
In Topics in fracture and fatigue (Ed. Argon AS), 1992,
pp. 197 –234 (Springer, New York).
74 Xia, L., Shih, C. F., and Hutchinson, J. W. A compu-
tational approach to ductile crack growth under large
scale yielding conditions. J. Mech. Phys. Solids, 1995,
43(3), 389– 413.
75 Decamp, K., Bauvineau, L., Besson, J., and Pineau, A.
Size and geometry effects on ductile rupture of notched
bars in a C-Mn steel: experiments and modelling.
Int. J. Fracture, 1998, 88(1), 1 – 18.
76 Gurson, A. L. Continuum theory of ductile rupture by
void nucleation and growth. Part I: yield criteria
and flow rules for porous ductile media. J. Eng. Mater.
Technol., 1977, 99, 2– 15.
77 Tvergaard, V. Material failure by void growth to
coalescence. Adv. Appl. Mech., 1990, 27, 83– 151.
JMES135 # IMechE 2006
 Bimetallic welds in nuclear reactors 1133

78 Rousselier, G. Ductile fracture models and their

10 yield strain
potential in local approach of fracture. Nucl. Eng.
Des., 1987, 105, 97 – 111. u polar angle co-ordinate with the
origin at the crack-tip
seq Von-Mises equivalent stress
APPENDIX sij (r,u) stress value determined from
finite element analysis at a point
Notation (r, u)
sm hydrostatic or mean stress
A2 crack-tip constraint quantifier
sy yield stress
E Young’s modulus of elasticity
s1, s2 and s3 three principle stresses
In integration constant
suu existing hoop-stress ahead of the
J J-integral
crack-tip
Jc critical J-integral
(suu)ref stress obtained from the standard
L crack length
plane strain small scale yielding
n strain hardening coefficient
solution
q triaxiality factor
CTOD crack tip opening displacement
Q constraint indexing parameter
DMW dissimilar metal weld
r radial distance from crack-tip
EAC environmentally assisted
T constant T-stress
corrosion
HRR Hutchinson-Rice-Rosengren
a Ramberg –Osgood coefficient

JMES135 # IMechE 2006 Proc. IMechE Vol. 220 Part C: J. Mechanical Engineering Science