The probabilistic structural integrity assessment of reactor pressure vessels under pressurized thermal shock loading

• The methodology and the case study of the FAVOR software were shown.
• The over-conservative parameters in the DFM were shown.
• The differences between the PFM and the DFM were discussed.
• The limits in the current FAVOR were studied.

The pressurized thermal shock (PTS) event poses a potentially significant challenge to the structural integrity of the reactor pressure vessel (RPV) during the long time operation (LTO). In the USA, the “screening criteria” for maximum allowable embrittlement of RPV material, which forms part of the USA regulations, is based on the probabilistic fracture mechanics (PFM). The FAVOR software developed by Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) is used to establish the regulation. As the technical basis of FAVOR is not the most widely-used and codified methodologies, such as the ASME and RCC-M codes, in most countries (with exception of the USA), proving RPV integrity under the PTS load is still based on the deterministic fracture mechanics (DFM). As the maximum nil-ductility-transition temperature (RTNDT) of the beltline material for the 54 French RPVs after 40 years operation is higher than the critical values in the IAEA-TECDOC-1627 and European NEA/CSNI/R(99)3 reports (while still obviously lower than the “screening criteria” of the USA), it may conclude that the RPV will not be able to run in the LTO based on the DFM. In the FAVOR, the newest developments of fracture mechanics are applied, such as the warm pre-stress (WPS) effect, more accurate estimation of the flaw information and less conservation of the toughness (such as the three-parameter Weibull distribution of the fracture toughness). In this paper, the FAVOR software is first applied to show both the methodology and the results of the PFM, and then the limits in the current FAVOR software (Version 6.1, which represents the baseline for re-assessing the regulation of 10 CFR 50.61), lack of the impact of the constraint effect, ductile–tearing initiation failure analysis, elastic–plastic fracture mechanics analysis, safety assessment of the crack front interface points and interaction among multiple cracks, are also discussed.