International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 90-91 (2012) 61e68

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijpvp

Fracture assessment for a dissimilar metal weld of low alloy steel

and Ni-base alloy
Takuya Ogawa*, Masao Itatani, Toshiyuki Saito, Takahiro Hayashi, Chihiro Narazaki, Kentaro Tsuchihashi
Toshiba Corporation Power Systems Company, Power and Industrial Systems Research and Development Center, 8, Shinsugita-cho, Isogo-ku, Yokohama 235-8523, Japan

a b s t r a c t
Keywords:
Fracture assessment
Dissimilar metal weld
Elastic-plastic fracture toughness
Plastic collapse
Elastic-plastic fracture mechanics

Recently, instances of SCC in Ni-base alloy weld metal of light water reactor components have been
reported. Despite the possibility of propagation of SCC crack to the fusion line between low alloy steel
(LAS) of pressure vessel and Ni-base alloy of internal structure, a fracture assessment method of
dissimilar metal welded joint has not been established. The objective of this study is to investigate
a fracture mode of dissimilar metal weld of LAS and Ni-base alloy for development of a fracture
assessment method for dissimilar metal weld. Fracture tests were conducted using two types of
dissimilar metal weld test plates with semi-elliptical surface crack. In one of the test plates, the fusion
line lies around the surface points of the surface crack and the crack tips at the surface points have
intruded into LAS. Material ahead of the crack tip at the deepest point is Ni-base alloy. In the other, the
fusion line lies around the deepest point of the surface crack and the crack tip at the deepest point has
intruded into LAS. Material ahead of the crack tip at the deepest point is LAS. The results of fracture tests
using the former type of test plate reveal that the collapse load considering the proportion of ligament
area of each material gives a good estimation for fracture load. That is, fracture assessment based on
plastic collapse mode is applicable to the former type of test plate. It is also understood that a fracture
assessment method based on the elastic-plastic fracture mode is suitable for the latter type of test plate.
2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Recently, stress corrosion cracking (SCC) of Ni-base alloy weld
metal in light water reactor (LWR) power plants has raised great
concerns about the safety of operation [1e7]. It is considered that
SCC crack initiates in Ni-base alloy weld metal and has the possibility to propagate to the fusion line between low alloy steel (LAS)
of reactor pressure vessel (RPV) and Ni-base alloy in the structures
such as shroud supports of boiling water reactors (BWR) and
nozzles of pressurized water reactors (PWR). Fig. 1 shows schematic presentations of the dissimilar weld joint congurations and
SCC cracks in shroud support of BWR [8] and a nozzle of PWR [9]. In
the Rules on Fitness-for-Service for Nuclear Power Plants (JSME FFS
Code) [10] of the Japan Society of Mechanical Engineers Code,
a aw assessment method based on linear elastic fracture
mechanics is required for RPV. On the other hand, the applicability
of the elastic-plastic fracture mechanics evaluation method to RPV
has been currently investigated by the Board on Nuclear Codes and
Standards of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers.

* Corresponding author. Tel.: 81 45 770 2323; fax: 81 45 770 2211.

E-mail address: takuya4.ogawa@toshiba.co.jp (T. Ogawa).
0308-0161/$ e see front matter 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ijpvp.2011.10.012

However, the effect of Ni-base alloy on the fracture behavior of LAS

is unclear and the fracture assessment method of dissimilar metal
welded joint has not been established.
The objective of this study is to investigate a fracture mode of
dissimilar metal weld (DMW) of LAS
and Ni-base alloy for
development of a fracture assessment method applicable to DMW.
Fracture resistance characteristics (J
Da curve) and applicable
fracture assessment method have been studied using fracture test
specimens taken from DMW joints.

2. Strength characteristics of DMW

2.1. Tensile test
Materials used in this study are SQV2A and alloy 182, which are
designated as JIS G 3120 SQV2A and JIS Z 3224 DNiCrFe-3,
respectively. Mechanical properties of each material were obtained by tensile tests at room temperature (R.T.). Tensile specimens were machined from the same welded joint for CT specimen
shown in the next section. Mechanical properties of both materials
are shown in Table 1. RambergeOsgood parameters of both materials are shown in Table 2. Youngs moduli for the two materials

62

T. Ogawa et al. / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 90-91 (2012) 61e68

Fig. 1. Schematic presentations of the dissimilar weld joint congurations and SCC cracks in LWR.

were quoted from the Rules on Design and Construction for Nuclear
Power Plants (JSME D&C Code) [11] of the Japan Society of
Mechanical Engineers Code. Youngs modulus of NCF600 described
in JSME D&C Code was substituted as Youngs modulus of alloy 182.
2.2. Elastic-plastic fracture toughness test
As shown in Fig. 2, 1TCT specimens were taken from the groove
welded joint consisting of SQV2A and alloy 182 after post-weld
heat treatment (PWHT) at 615 C  24 h in order for crack to grow
Table 1
Mechanical properties of SQV2A and alloy 182.

sy, s0.2

su

sfa

(MPa)

(MPa)

f
(%)

(MPa)
JIS G 3120
TP No.1
TP No.2
Average

Min. 345
601
575
588

550e690
679
680
680

e
640
628
634

Min. 18
21
22
22

e
63
61
62

Alloy 182

JIS Z 3224
TP No.1
TP No.2
Average

Min. 245
478
452
465

Min. 550
751
725
738

e
615
589
602

Min. 30
35
34
35

e
50
40
45

sf (sy su)/2 for SQV2A, sf (s0.2 su)/2 for alloy 182.

s0 (MPa)

E (MPa) [8]

SQV2A
Alloy 182

5.627
3.589

10.481
8.268

588
465

206000
214000

from alloy 182 to SQV2A, and JIc tests were conducted at R.T. Three
types of CT specimens were prepared as shown in Fig. 3. Pre-crack
tips were in alloy 182 near the fusion line (DMW(182) specimen),
on the fusion line (DMW(fusion) specimen), and in the heat85

(%)

SQV2A

RambergeOsgood parameters, /0 s/s0 a(s/s0)n

Alloy 182

45

Specimen ID

Material

90

Material

Table 2
RambergeOsgood parameters of both materials.

75
150

A
SQV2A

210
A-A cross-section

Fig. 2. Groove welded joint and CT specimen preparation (dimensions are in mm).

T. Ogawa et al. / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 90-91 (2012) 61e68

63

62.5

25

50
20

25
Width of
SQV2A

Specimen type

60

37.5

2.5

Alloy 182 SQV2A

2- 12.5

45o

Width of SQV2A
(mm)

DMW(182)

18

DMW(fusion)

20

DMW(HAZ)

22

Detail of A

Fig. 3. Shape and dimensions of CT specimen (dimensions are in mm).

affected zone (DMW(HAZ) specimen). Width of SQV2A was

changed with respect to specimen type to keep pre-crack length
constant at approximately 30 mm. Side grooves were machined
after introduction of the pre-crack.
Two specimens were tested for each specimen type. Fig. 4 shows
J
Da data with tting curves of each type of DMW CT specimen.
Blunting, 0.2 mm offset and 0.15 mm and 1.5 mm exclusion lines in
Fig. 4 were based on sf of SQV2A. Note that J-integral of DMW CT
specimens has been evaluated based on ASTM E1820-08 [12]
generally used for homogeneous specimen, assuming material
constants of SQV2A, in this study. Compared with DMW(HAZ) and
DMW(fusion), DMW(182) is more scattered in the specimens, but
the reason for this scatter is not clear. Fig. 5 shows the macroscopic
observations of fracture surfaces of JIc test specimens. The locations
of pre-crack tips are veried for each specimen. In Fig. 5, arrows
show the locations of pre-crack tips.
Table 3 shows the results of JIc tests. In Table 3, JIc validity was
judged by the size requirement of both ASTM E1820-06 [13] and
E1820-08.

B; b0 >25JQ =sf

E1820
06

(1)

B; b0 >10JQ =sf

E1820
08

(2)

When ASTM E1820-06 is applied, only DMW(HAZ) has invalid

JIc. On the other hand, all JQ become valid JIc when the validity is
judged by ASTM E1820-08.
Fig. 6 shows the summary of J
Da curves. In Fig. 6, J
Da curves
of each DMW specimen were compared with those of homogeneous specimens of SQV2A and alloy 182 [14]. Fitting curves are the
average of two specimens. Fitting curves of DMW specimens lie
between those of SQV2A and alloy 182. The J
Da curve of
DMW(HAZ) specimen is almost the same as that of SQV2A, whereas
the J
Da curve of DMW(182) specimen is close to that of alloy 182.
It is considered that effect of pre-crack tip material is dominant
with respect to the J
Da relationship. In DMW(fusion) specimen,
JDa curve had a similar characteristic to that of alloy 182 in the low
Da region, and the data points transited from the J
Da curve of

Fig. 4. J
Da plots and tting curves for each type of DMW specimen.

64

T. Ogawa et al. / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 90-91 (2012) 61e68

Fig. 5. Macroscopic observations of fracture surfaces of JIc test specimens.

Table 3
Results of JIc tests using DMW CT specimen.
Specimen ID

JQ (kJ/m2)

DMW(182)-1
DMW(182)-2
DMW(fusion)-1
DMW(fusion)-2
DMW(HAZ)-1
DMW(HAZ)-2

295
393
394
391
582
510

Validity for JIc

E1820-06

E1820-08

Valid
Valid
Valid
Valid
Invalid
Invalid

Valid
Valid
Valid
Valid
Valid
Valid

alloy 182 to that of SQV2A with the increase of Da since dominant

material at the ductile crack tip transited from alloy 182 to SQV2A.
3. Fracture test of DMW
Two types of DMW test plates were prepared from the groove
welded joints. Fig. 7 shows the preparation of one of the test plates.
The center region of the plate width is alloy 182 through the

thickness and both sides of the plate are SQV2A; it is named NDD
test plate. Fig. 8 shows the preparation of the other test plate. The
surface side of the test section in the test plate is alloy 182 and the
back side is SQV2A; it is named LDD test plate. PWHT at
615  C  24 h was applied to both welded joints before test plate
preparation.
Semi-elliptical surface aw was introduced at the center of plate
width and plate length by electrical discharge machining (EDM)
and fatigue crack was introduced from EDM notch. Macroscopic
photographs of cross-section of crack for each specimen taken after
fracture tests are shown in Fig. 9. In Fig. 9, broken lines show the
forefront of fatigue crack and chain lines show the fusion line
between SQV2A and alloy 182. The depth and length of fatigue
crack measured after the fracture tests are shown in Table 4. The
depth of fatigue crack is corrected since the plate thickness was
reduced after fracture test.
In NDD test plate, the fusion line lies around the surface points
of the surface crack. Fatigue crack tips at surface points have
considerably intruded into SQV2A in NDD-1 and NDD-2, whereas
they have slightly intruded into SQV2A in NDD-3 so that NDD-3 has
relatively large area of alloy 182. Width of alloy 182 on the surface
side of test section in NDD test plates is also shown in Table 4. In

30

320
300
35

15

(35)

60

190

60

50

Test plate

10
SQV2A
Fig. 6. Summary of J
Da curves and tting curves.

Alloy 182

Fig. 7. Groove welded joint and NDD test plate preparation (dimensions are in mm).

T. Ogawa et al. / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 90-91 (2012) 61e68

65

Table 4
Dimensions of fatigue crack measured after fracture tests and width of alloy 182 on
the surface side.

60

50

43

320
300

(42)

60

205

Test plate

Test plate
ID

Dimensions of fatigue crack

a (mm)

2c (mm)

a/c

NDD-1
NDD-2
NDD-3
LDD-1
LDD-2
LDD-3

7.8
6.1
6.3
9.6
6.5
7.3

17.7
21.9
21.9
18.0
24.2
25.2

0.88
0.56
0.58
1.07
0.54
0.58

Width of alloy
182 on the surface
side (mm)
13.3
11.4
21.8
e
e
e

SQV2A
Alloy 182

4. Fracture assessment

30

SQV2A

10

4.1. Assessment based on plastic collapse

Fig. 8. Groove welded joint and LDD test plate preparation (dimensions are in mm).

LDD test plate, the fusion line lies around the deepest point of the
surface crack. Crack tip at the deepest point has considerably
intruded into SQV2A in LDD-1, whereas it has slightly intruded into
SQV2A in LDD-2 and LDD-3. NDD-1 and LDD-1 have relatively deep
surface crack whose aspect ratio is almost 1.0.
Fracture tests were conducted using 300 kN universal materials
testing machine at R.T. Relationships between load and displacement of crosshead are shown in Fig. 10. After the maximum load
(Pmax), load has decreased with increase of displacement, and
fracture has occurred.

Applicability of the fracture assessment method based on plastic

collapse was evaluated by comparison of experimental maximum
load with collapse load as shown in Fig. 11. Collapse load was
evaluated in consideration of the proportion of ligament area of
each material by Eq. (3). sf obtained by tensile tests and 2.7Sm of
each material was used as s0, respectively.

Pc s0;SQV2A  ASQV 2A s0;182  A182

(3)

Plastic collapse load analyses for NDD test plates and LDD test
plates with semi-elliptical surface crack were conducted by the
nite element method (FEM). Relationships between true stress
and true strain of SQV2A and alloy 182 obtained by tensile tests
were used in the analyses. Collapse load obtained by the twice

Fig. 9. Macroscopic photographs of cross-section of crack for NDD and LDD test plates.

66

T. Ogawa et al. / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 90-91 (2012) 61e68
300

250
NDD test plate, R.T.

LDD-1
LDD-2
LDD-3

200

200

Load (kN)

Load (kN)

LDD test plate, R.T.

NDD-1
NDD-2
NDD-3

250

150

150
100

100
50

50
0

4
6
8
Displacement (mm)

10

12

10

Displacement (mm)

Fig. 10. Relationships between load and displacement of crosshead.

400

200

100

Pmax
Pc by f
Pc by 2.7Sm
Pc by TES method

300
P max , P c (kN)

P max , P c (kN)

300

400
Pmax
Pc by f
Pc by 2.7Sm
Pc by TES method

200

100

NDD-1

NDD-2

NDD-3

LDD-1

LDD-2

LDD-3

Fig. 11. Results of comparison of the experimental maximum load with collapse load for NDD and LDD test plates.

elastic slope (TES) method [11,15] was also used for fracture
assessment.
In NDD test plate, it is found that almost all collapse loads give
conservative evaluation. Particularly, collapse load using sf of each
material gives good estimation for Pmax.
In LDD test plate, although collapse load using 2.7Sm of each
material gives conservative evaluation, other collapse loads are
higher than Pmax. It is considered that the fracture assessment
method based on plastic collapse is not applicable to LDD test plate.

for homogeneous specimen, assuming material constants (n, E, sy,

a and n) of SQV2A, since the deepest point of surface crack was in
SQV2A for all LDD test plates. Stress intensity factor (K) of the
deepest point of surface crack used in Eq. (4) was calculated by the
equation of Raju-Newman [18].

4.2. Assessment based on Elastic-plastic fracture mechanics

F E

Fracture assessment based on elastic-plastic fracture mechanics

(EPFM) was conducted for LDD test plate to which plastic collapse
evaluation was not applicable. Fracture load was evaluated using Jintegral of the deepest point of surface crack by two methods. Jintegral of the deepest point of surface crack was calculated by
reference stress method as shown by Eq. (4) [16,17] generally used

J FK 2

sm
P
ac
; sm
; 2
;
2W$t
tc t
1
2

n 

sref
sy sref
a
sy
E sy

1500
Japp of LDD-2
Japp of LDD-3
Jmat of DMW(HAZ)

J -integral (kJ/m )

J -integral (kJ/m )

; sref

In one method in which ductile crack extension is not considered, it was assumed that the fracture occurs when J-integral of the
deepest point of surface crack exceeds JQ of SQV2A. In the other

Japp of LDD-2
Japp of LDD-3
Jmat of SQV2A
1000

500

ref

sref

(4)

ref

1500

1
n2
E

1000

500

0
0

0.5

1.5

2.5

0.5

Assessment using J-a curve of SQV2A.

1.5

2.5

Crack extension (mm)

Crack extension (mm)

Assessment using J-a curve of DMW(HAZ).

Fig. 12. Japp of LDD-2 and LDD-3 and Jmat.

T. Ogawa et al. / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 90-91 (2012) 61e68

400
Pmax
PJ not considering crack extension
PJ considering crack extension using J- a curve of SQV2A
PJ considering crack extension using J- a curve of DMW(HAZ)

P max , P J (kN)

300

200

100

LDD-1

LDD-2

LDD-3

Fig. 13. Results of comparison of the experimental maximum load with estimated
fracture load for LDD test plates.

67

(2) When pre-crack tip is on the fusion line, J
Da relation of DMW

specimen transits from J
Da curve of alloy 182 to that of
homogeneous SQV2A by crack extension.
(3) When crack tip is near the fusion line and material ahead of the
deepest point of surface crack is alloy 182, collapse load
considering the proportion of ligament area of each material
using sf gives accurate evaluation. Further, conservative evaluation is possible by collapse load considering the proportion of
ligament area of each material using 2.7Sm. It is considered that
fracture assessment based on plastic collapse mode is applicable
and a good estimation is possible by the simple equation
considering the proportion of ligament area of each material.
(4) When crack tip is near the fusion line and material ahead of the
deepest point of surface crack is SQV2A, the fracture assessment method based on elastic-plastic fracture mode is suitable.
It is possible to evaluate fracture load conservatively by
considering ductile crack extension.
Nomenclature

method in which ductile crack extension is considered, criteria for

fracture assessment are shown in Eq. (5). Japp is J-integral of the
deepest point of surface crack by Eq. (4). J-Da curves of homogeneous SQV2A CT specimen and DMW(HAZ) CT specimen were used
as the Jmat, respectively. The latter method was not applied to LDD1 since LDD-1 did not have enough ligament through-thickness.
Fig. 12 shows Japp and Jmat. In this case, fracture occurs at

Japp Jmat ;

vJapp
dJmat

va
da

(5)

Fig. 13 shows the comparison of the experimental maximum

load with estimated fracture load based on EPFM. It is found that
the conservative evaluation is possible by the method considering
ductile crack extension and the accurate evaluation is possible by
the method without considering ductile crack extension. It is
considered that fracture assessment based on EPFM is suitable for
LDD test plate.
4.3. Discussion
As a result of the fracture assessment, it was found that
assessment based on plastic collapse was applicable to NDD test
plate and assessment based on EPFM was applicable to LDD test
plate, respectively. It was considered that the fracture behavior of
the material in depth direction is one of the dominant factors for
fracture of DMW test plate. It has been reported that the fracture
tests of Ni-base alloy weld metal showed plastic collapse behavior
for various sizes of the test specimens [19e21]. On the other hand,
the applicability of aw acceptance criteria based on EPFM to LAS is
under investigation [21].
5. Conclusions
Elastic-plastic fracture toughness tests using CT specimen and
fracture tests using plate specimen taken from DMW joint consisting of SQV2A and alloy 182 were conducted in order to develop
a fracture assessment method applicable to the case that crack
initiated in Ni-base alloy and propagated to near the fusion line
between low alloy steel and Ni-base alloy. The following results
were obtained.
(1) When pre-crack tip is in the heat-affected zone, J
Da curve of
DMW specimen is almost the same as that of homogeneous
SQV2A. When pre-crack is in alloy 182 near the fusion line,
J
Da curve of DMW specimen is close to that of alloy 182.

sy
s0.2
su
sf
s0

Yield stress
0.2% proof stress
Ultimate tensile stress
Flow stress from tensile test
Effective yield stress
Elongation
f
f
Reduction of area
a
RambergeOsgood parameter
n
RambergeOsgood parameter
E
Youngs modulus
n
Poissons ratio
Candidate value of JIc
JQ
JIc
Elastic-plastic fracture toughness
B
Thickness of CT specimen
Initial ligament length of CT specimen
b0
Da
Amount of ductile crack extension in JIc test
a
Depth of semi-elliptical surface aw
2c
Length of semi-elliptical surface aw
a/c
Aspect ratio
2W
Width of DMW test plate
t
Thickness of DMW test plate
P
Load
Maximum load in fracture test
Pmax
Collapse load
Pc
Fracture load estimated based on EPFM
PJ
Design stress intensity in design and construction rule
Sm
K
Stress intensity factor at the deepest point
J
J-integral at the deepest point
s0, SQV2A Effective yield stress of SQV2A
s0, 182 Effective yield stress of alloy 182
ASQV2A Ligament area of SQV2A
Ligament area of alloy 182
A182
Applied J-integral
Japp
Fracture resistance
Jmat
References
[1] Bamford WH, FosterJ, Hsu KR, Tunon-Sanjur L, McIlree A. 2001. Alloy 182
weld crack growth, and its impact on service-induced cracking in operating
PWR plant piping. 10th international conference on environmental degradation of materials in nuclear systems - water reactors.
[2] Moffat G, Bamford WH, Hsu KR, Tunon-Sanjur L, Seeger D, Bhommick DC.
Development of the technical basis for plant startup for the V.C. summer
nuclear plant. ASME PVP 2001;427.
[3] Bamford W, Hall J. 2003. "A review of alloy 600 cracking in operating nuclear
plants: historical experience and future trends". 11th International

68

[4]

[5]
[6]

[7]
[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

T. Ogawa et al. / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 90-91 (2012) 61e68
Conference on Environmental Degradation of Materials in Nuclear Systems.
Stevenson: WA. pp. 1071e1081.
Bamford W, Hall J. 2005. Cracking of alloy 600 nozzles and welds in PWRs:
review of cracking events and repair service experience. 12th International
Conference on Environmental Degradation of Materials in Nuclear Power
System e Water reactors. pp. 959e966.
Ito H, Kameyama M. Maintenology 2005;4e1:13e7.
Aoki T, Hattori S, Anzai H, Sumimoto H. Stress corrosion cracking in Nibase alloy used for a long time in a BWR. Maintenology 2005;4e1:
34e41.
Matsunaga T, Matsunaga K. Stress corrosion cracking of CRD stub tube joint
and repair at Hamaoka unit 1. Tokyo: ICONE-36056; 2003.
Ogawa K, Okuda, Y, Saito T, Hayashi T, Sumiya R. 2008. Welding residual stress
analysis using axisymmetric modeling for shroud support structure.
Proceedings of ASME PVP Conference. PVP2008e61456.
Fukuda T, Tamura M, Tongu Y, Kono W, Yoda M, Obata M, et al. Development
of temper bead welding by underwater laser welding. 7th Conference of Japan
Society of Maintenology; 2010. A-5e2.
The Japan Society of Mechanical Engineers. Codes for nuclear power generation facilities - rules on tness-for-service for nuclear power plants; 2008.
JSME S NA1e2008.
The Japan Society of Mechanical Engineers. Codes for nuclear power generation facilities - rules on design and construction for nuclear power plants;
2008. JSME S NC1e2008.

[12] ASTM International. Standard test method for measurement of fracture

toughness; 2007. E1820e08.
[13] ASTM International. Standard test method for measurement of fracture
toughness; 2008. E1820e06.
[14] Itatani M, Saito T, Hayashi T, Narazaki C, Ogawa K, Kikuchi M. 2009 Evaluation
of fracture characteristics of Ni-base weld metal for BWR components.
Proceedings of ASME PVP Conference. PVP2009e77720.
[15] American Society of Mechanical Engineers. Boiler and pressure vessel code;
2007. Sec. III, Division 1, NB.
[16] Miura N, Shimakawa T, Nakayama Y, Takahashi Y. The Society of materials
Science, Japan 2000;49e8:845e50.
[17] Shimakawa T, Miura N, Nakayama Y, Takahashi Y. The Society of Materials
Science, Japan 2000;49e8:851e6.
[18] Newman Jr JC, Raju IS. Stress-intensity factor equations for cracks in threedimensional nite bodies subjected to tension and bending loads. 85793,
NASA. NASA Technical Memorandum.; 1984.
[19] Miyazaki K, Saito K. 2010. Ductile fracture strength of Ni-based alloy with an
inch thickness. Proceedings of ASME PVP Conference. PVP2010e26120.
[20] Itatani M, Ogawa T, Saito T, Narazaki C, Ogawa K. 2010: Fracture assessment
for Butt welded plate of Ni-base alloy. Proceedings of ASME PVP Conference.
PVP2010e25645.
[21] Gustin HL, Cipolla RC, Scarth DA. 2010. Alternate aw acceptance criteria for
aws in ferritic steel vessels operating in the upper shelf range. Proceedings of
ASME PVP Conference. PVP2010e25741.