Nuclear Graphite Components

Advanced Reactor Technologies

Idaho National Laboratory

Richard Wright, Emeritus Laboratory Fellow

Will Windes, ART Graphite R&D Technical Lead

NRC HTGR Training July 16-17, 2019

Graphite Outline
• Functions and Requirements
§ Normal and off-normal component functions
§ Key safety requirements of core components
• Graphite Manufacture
§ Unique material properties of graphite
§ Ideal unirradiated material properties – it’s not metal
• Environmental effects on nuclear graphite
§ Effects of oxidation
• It doesn’t burn!
§ Effects of irradiation of graphite
• No Wigner (stored) energy if operated above 300°C
• Physical, thermal, and mechanical properties
• Turnaround and creep significance explained
• ASME Code for Graphite Core Components
§ New ASME code: probabilistic (ceramics) vs. deterministic (metals)
§ How environmental effects are accounted for in design requirements
• Operating considerations (prismatic vs. pebble vs. molten salt)
§ Differences between different graphite core designs 2
Critical Safety Requirements
• Maintain core geometry and structural integrity
§ Maintain fuel configuration during all operations (normal and off-normal)
§ Maintain undisturbed access for the insertion of reactivity control material
§ Maintain proper core coolant configuration
• No blockage of coolant pathway
• No gaps between graphite components

• Protection of fuel
§ Compacts within the prismatic fuel elements
§ Pebbles within the core center

• Passively remove core heat during off-normal events

§ Rapidly absorb large thermal transients
§ Primarily by radial conduction from the fuel to the core barrel
• During off-normal events when forced cooling is not available

• How does it do this?

§ Graphite does NOT melt or burn
§ Graphite DOES have high thermal conductivity and thermal stability
§ Relatively strong in compression, weak in tension.
3
Graphite Manufacture
• All graphite grades are proprietary. Only
limited/general fabrication data is known
• Unique manufacturing processes for graphite
must be understood to appreciate graphite
behavior
§ Graphite is a porous material (15-20%) - By
design!
§ Porosity provides thermal and irradiation
stability
• Graphite is manufactured from calcined coke
and a pitch binder.
§ Multiple pitch impregnations to increase density
• Green forming technique influences the final
microstructure
§ Desire isotropic (or near isotropic) material
response
• Properties and performance of graphite are
significantly influenced by both raw materials
and processing
§ Nuclear graphite undergoes further purification
steps
4
 Graphite Material Properties of Interest
Property Nominal Range Performance Attributes

Density 1.7 - 1.9 g/cm3 Neutron efficiency, Structural integrity, Thermal efficiency

Thermal Conductivity (at Room > 90 W/m/K

Heat transport
Temperature)
Reduced component activity levels during replacement and/or disposal
Purity (Total Ash Content) < 300 ppm
Reduced graphite oxidation under normal and accident conditions.

Tensile Strength > 15 MPa Structural integrity

Compressive Strength > 45 MPa Structural integrity

Flexural Strength > 20 MPa Structural integrity

High value is indication of isotropy = dimensional stability under
CTE (20°C to 500°C) 3.5 to 5.5 x 10-6 K-1 irradiation
Lower value potentially beneficial in terms of thermal stress
Irradiation dimensional stability
CTE Isotropy Ratio < 1.10
Structural integrity
Structural integrity
Dynamic Elastic Modulus 8 – 15 GPa
Irradiation creep
Minimal shrinkage
Dimensional Changes with
Minimal differences in with-grain and Structural integrity (lower internal stresses)
Irradiation
against-grain directions

From ASTM D7219 : Standard Specification for Isotropic and • CTE (Coefficient of Thermal Expansion)
Near-isotropic Nuclear Graphites § Indicates isotropy and needed for gas gap analysis
• Density
• Purity
§ Higher = Stronger
§ Requires additional heat treatment
§ Lower = Better irradiation performance
• Dimensional changes
• Conductivity
§ Affects structural integrity
§ Nearly a 70% drop almost immediately after reactor
startup § If internal stress exceeds inherent strength of 5
graphite = cracks
Graphite “Burning” and dust “Explosions”
• Graphite can not burn – just physically can not sustain self oxidation
§ Fire needs Heat, fuel, and oxygen
§ Fuel (carbon) is restricted to only the edges. Oxygen is restricted by the crystallography.
§ Self-sustained oxidation (better definition than simple burning) can not be sustained.

• Graphite dust can not explode

§ It does rapidly react but it self-suppresses. Similar mechanisms for “burning”
§ Initial flare up of surface layer on dust particles – but then nothing.
• No chain reaction 6
Graphite “Burning” and dust “Explosions”
Corn

Graphite

Acheson

White hot graphite from furnace

CornGraphite
(Maize) Dust
7
Graphite Oxidation and “Burning”
• Graphite can and does oxidize – high temperatures
• Needs continuous oxygen and temperatures above
200°C – 300°C
§ Temperatures > 400°C needed for more rapid acute
oxidation (accidents)
§ Temperatures < 400°C can still oxidize but at very slow
rates (chronic oxidation)
• Oxidation still restricted to edges of crystallites with
porosity dictating oxygen transport into component

• Oxidation rates of different grades

can be compared using ASTM
D7542 standard, “Air Oxidation of
Manufactured Carbon and Increasing grain size
Graphite in Kinetic Regime”
§ Grain size dependent
§ Oxidation of small grain grade >>
than large grain size
8
Irradiation Effects on Graphite Properties
• Irradiation induced changes must be considered in design
• Significant changes occur during normal operation in:
§ Component dimensions
• Components actually shrink …
• Until Turnaround when they begin to expand until failure
§ Density
• Components become more dense …
• After Turnaround dose they decrease in density
§ Strength and modulus
• Graphite gets stronger with irradiation …
• Until Turnaround dose is achieved. It then decreases
§ Thermal conductivity
• Decreases almost immediately to ~30% of unirradiated values
§ Coefficient of thermal expansion
• Initially increases but then reduces after Turnaround until saturation
• Significant changes do not typically occur in the following properties:
§ Oxidation rate, neutron moderation, specific heat capacity, emissivity

• No Wigner energy release if components irradiated above 300°C.

9
 Irradiation-Induced Dimensional Changes
14
12 1100 C
10 900 C

8 700 C
∆L/L [%] 500 C
6
300 C
4
2
0
-2
-4
0 5 10 15 20 25
dose, dpa

• Under neutron irradiation graphite components shrink (densify) – stop at

Turnaround – then begin to expand (crack formation)
§ Change is dose dependent: Higher doses = larger change
§ Rate of change is highly temperature dependent
§ Rate and amount of change is grade specific
• Results in tremendous internal stresses formed within graphite
§ Crack formation and component failure – usually after Turnaround
§ Isotropic response is desired to assist in prediction of stresses and dimensional changes 10
 Irradiation-Induced Strength/Modulus Changes
2.5

Tensile strength, σ/σo

• Changes in strength and modulus
somewhat parallel dimensional 1.5
changes
1 400 C
• Strength/modulus initially increase
500 C
§ Maximum value is reached at 0.5 700 C
approximately the Turnaround dose 900 C
1100 C
0
0 5 10 15 20 25
dose, dpa

• After Turnaround pores start to form

in microstructure
§ As porosity forms, strength and modulus
fall at increasing rate
• As with dimensional changes, strong
dependence on irradiation temperature
11
Irradiation-Induced Thermal Conductivity Changes
160

140 Non-irradiated

120
Ti=950, 6 dpa

Conductivity, W/m-K
100

80

60

40

20

0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Temperature, C

• Initial steep drop in conductivity followed by a saturation level

§ Point defects interrupt thermal diffusivity/conductance
§ Efficiency of recombination rate of point defects is dependent upon irradiation
temperature = saturation
§ Further degradation of conductivity due to larger microstructure defects
• Pore generation after turnaround
• At high operating temperatures irradiated and non-irradiated thermal diffusivity
differences are small 12
Irradiation-Induced CTE Changes

1.4
300 C
1.3 • Overall, graphite CTE is low
500 C
compared to other structural
1.2 700 C
materials, e.g., metals
1.1
900 C § Implies excellent shock
1100 C
resistance
1 • Along with dimensional
changes, must be accounted
CTE/CTEo

0.9
for in the design
0.8 • Initial increase with dose as
manufacturing-related
0.7
microcracks are closed
0.6
§ Limited dependence on
Turnaround
0.5 • Subsequent reduction of
CTE at increased dose rate
0.4
0 5 10 15 20 25
dose, dpa

13
 Irradiation Creep – Life Limiting Mechanism

• Reduces internal stresses

resulting from dimensional
Irradiation Irradiation changes
Dimensional Creep • Creep strain rate generally
(Residual stress
Change increases with temperature
remover)
• The net effect is positive in that
stresses associated with
dimensional changes and
differential thermal expansion
under irradiation are reduced
• As the total fluence (dose) is
increased, this effect becomes
increasingly important in
attaining acceptable design
lifetimes.
Dose, dpa

14
 ASME Code for Graphite Core Components

• ASME Code for Graphite Core approved by ASME

BNCS in early-2010
§ Developed by Section III Subgroup on Graphite Core
Components
§ First published in 2012 under Section III, Division 5
(High-Temperature Reactors)
• Key features:
§ Applies to fuel, reflector and shielding blocks, plus
interconnecting dowels and keys;
• Excludes fuel compacts and pebbles
§ Rules apply to both individual components and
assemblies
§ Applies probabilistic design methods
§ Design must account for statistical variations in graphite
properties within billets and for different production runs
§ Design must account for irradiation effects on graphite
properties
§ Allowance of cracks in graphite components, provided
that safety functions are retained
15
 ASME Code for Graphite Core Components
Three methods are provided for assessing structural
integrity
Structural Maximum
1. Deterministic Reliability Probability
§ Simplified conservative method based on ultimate strength Class of Failure
derived from Weibull statistics
SRC-1 1.00E-04
2. Full Analysis Method SRC-2 1.00E-02
§ Detailed structural analysis taking into account SRC-3 1.00E-01
loads, temperatures and irradiation history
§ Weibull statistics used to predict probability
of failure
§ Maximum allowable probability of failure defined
for three Structural Reliability Classes (SRCs), which relate
to safety function
3. Qualification by Testing
§ Full-scale testing to demonstrate that failure probabilities
meet criteria of full-analysis method

All methods must consider changes from irradiation and

oxidation

16
 ASME Code for Graphite Core Components

• New grades (third generation) are consistent

and ready for codification
§ Lack of quantitative data on graphite behavior at
higher temperature and dose applications
§ Test data is needed to define how precursor
material changes, fabrication, and
microstructure changes will affect performance
• Probablistic verses deterministic design
approach
§ Deterministic is too limiting for a brittle material
§ A distribution of possible strengths in a material
is needed for quasi-brittle materials (i.e., flaw
From Dr. Mark Mitchell – PBMR Inc. size for graphite)

• Some amount of failure (i.e., a crack) is certain – graphite is

porous
§ The core needs to be designed to accept some amount of
failure
§ Probability of failure based upon overlap of applied stresses and
graphite strength
• Irradiation and oxidation effects must be addressed
17
Operational Considerations – Operational Life
When do you replace the graphite?

Dose
Most
Conservative
Dose Level

∆V/V
More Risk but
some Rx do
operate here

Highest Risk

18
Operational Lifetime Considerations
Pebble Bed Prismatic
• Highest component lifetime dose • Lower component lifetime dose
§ What is expected lifetime dose? § Still need expected lifetime dose
§ Turnaround dose? After Turnaround? • Periodic shutdown
• Continuous operation § Much easier to inspect components
§ Inspection of components is problematic § Components in high-fluence regions can be
replaced or shuffled
§ Component replacement is difficult
• Finer grain grades required
• Components in high-fluence regions
§ Webbing between fuel/coolant channels
should be designed for replacement requires smaller grain size
§ Will require shutdown and de-fueling of § Slightly lower Turnaround dose
pebbles from core § Higher oxidation rate
• Large grain grades are possible • Still requires irradiated test data to
§ Higher Turnaround dose than fine grain validate operational models
§ Lower oxidation rates than fine grain § Currently only limited irradiation data for
• Irradiated test data validating models newer nuclear grades
will be required § Design life to be appropriately adjusted
as data become available
§ Currently only limited irradiation data for
newer nuclear grades
§ Design life to be appropriately adjusted
as data become available.
• Dust?

19
Conclusions
• All graphite nuclear grades are proprietary
§ Graphite is porous – by design
§ Compressive applications only (σc >> σt)
• Irradiation behavior is required for design
§ Dimensional change and creep is life limiting mechanism
§ Strength/internal stress is dose dependent
• Degradation/Oxidation of graphite
§ Graphite does not burn (but it does oxidize at high temperatures)
§ Oxidation limited to 10% mass loss. Then replace the component
• In-service Inspection
§ Easy for Prismatic designs. More difficult for Pebble designs
• Visual and physical inspection of accessible areas during refueling or maintenance
• In-situ Measurements (primarily interest to pebble reactors)
• ASME Code
§ Probabilistic design calculations
• Some amount of failure (i.e., a crack) is nearly certain over time
• Operational considerations – Pebble and prismatic
§ What is the lifetime dose of component?
• Is this after Turnaround dose?
§ Can core be inspected? How are components to be replaced if required?
§ Oxidation rates of graphite (small versus larger grain grade) 20
Suggested Reading
• Manufacturing
§ ASTM D7219, Standard Specification for Isotropic and Near-isotropic Nuclear Graphites.
§ Kelly, B. T., 1981, Physics of Graphite, Applied Sciences Publishers LTD, London U.K. and New Jersey USA, 1981.
§ R.E. Nightingale, 1962, Nuclear Graphite, Academic Press, ISBN: 978-1-4832-2854-9.

• Oxidation
§ International Atomic Energy Agency, 1992, INSAG 7, “The Chernobyl Accident: Updating of INSAG 1, International
Nuclear Safety Advisory Group, IAEA, Safety Series No. 75 INSAG 7, (ISBN: 9201046928), 1992.
§ Cristian I. Contescu, Robert W Mee, Yoonjo (Jo Jo) Lee, Jose D Arregui-Mena, Nidia C Gallego, Timothy D Burchell,
Joshua J Kane, William E Windes, “Beyond the Classical Kinetic Model for Chronic Graphite Oxidation by Moisture in
High Temperature Gas-Cooled Reactors”, Carbon, 127 (2018) 158-169.
§ Joshua J. Kane, Cristian I. Contescu, Rebecca E. Smith, Gerhard Strydom, and William E. Windes, “Understanding
the Reaction of Nuclear Graphite with Molecular Oxygen: Kinetics, Transport, and Structural Evolution", Journal of
Nuclear Materials, Volume 493, September 2017, Pages 343–367.
§ Windes, W., G. Strydom, R. Smith, and J. Kane, 2014, “Role of Nuclear Grade Graphite in Controlling Oxidation in
Modular HTGRs,” INL/EXT-14-31720, Rev. 0, November 2014.
§ Laine, N. R., Vastola, F. J., and Walker Jr., P.L., 1963, “The importance of active surface area in the carbon oxygen
reaction,” J Phys Chem, Vol. 67, pp. 2030–2034.
§ Walker Jr., P. L., Rusinko, F., and Austin, L. G., 1958, “Gas Reactions of Carbon,” Advances in Catalysis, Vol. 11, pp.
133–221.
§ Bradbury, D., Wickham, A., Graphite Decommissioning: Options for graphite treatment, recycling, or disposal,
including a discussion of safety related issues, EPRI Technical Report 1013091, March 2006.
§ Walker Jr., P. L., 1990, “Carbon: An old but new material revisited,” Carbon, Vol. 28, pp. 261–279.
§ Walker Jr., P. L., Taylor, T. L., and Ranish, J. M., 1991, “An update on the graphite-oxygen reaction,” Carbon, Vol. 29,
pp. 411–421.
21
Suggested Reading (cont.)
• Dust
§ Bradbury, D., Wickham, A., Graphite Decommissioning: Options for graphite treatment, recycling, or disposal, including a
discussion of safety related issues, EPRI Technical Report 1013091, March 2006.
§ P. W. Humrickhouse, HTGR Dust Safety Issues and Needs for Research and Development, INL/EXT-11-21097, June 2011.
§ A. Bentaib & J. Vendel, ITER Project: Dust Mobilization and Explosion, Introductory Meeting on the Planned PSI Research
Project on HTR Graphite Dust Issues, PSI, Villigen, 26-27 November 2009.

• Irradiation Effects
§ J. H. W. Simmons, Radiation Damage in Graphite: International Series of Monographs in Nuclear Energy, Elsevier publications,
2013, ISBN: 1483186490
§ Kelly, B. T., 1981, Physics of Graphite, Applied Sciences Publishers LTD, London U.K. and New Jersey, USA, 1981.
§ R.E. Nightingale, 1962, Nuclear Graphite, Academic Press, ISBN: 978-1-4832-2854-9.
§ Idaho National Laboratory, NGNP High Temperature Materials White Paper, INL/EXT-09-17187 R1, August 2012.
§ N. C. Gallego and T. D. Burchell, A Review of Stored Energy Release of Irradiated Graphite, ORNL/TM-2011/378, September
2011.

• ASME Code and Licensing

§ 2017 ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code: An International Code, SECTION III: Rules for Construction of Nuclear Facility
Components, Division 5: High Temperature Reactors, ASME BPVC.III.5-2017.
§ G. Longoni, R.O. Gates, B.K. Mcdowell, High Temperature Gas Reactors: Assessment of Applicable Codes and Standards,
PNNL-20869 Rev. 1, October 2015.
§ Mitch Plummer and Andrea Mack, Graphite Characterization: Baseline Variability Analysis Report, INL/EXT 18 45315, June
2018.
§ Timothy D Burchell, Rob Bratton, Barry Marsden, Makuteswara Srinivasan, Scott Penfield, Mark Mitchell, Will Windes, Next
Generation Nuclear Plant Phenomena Identification and Ranking Tables (PIRTs) Volume 5: Graphite PIRTs, NUREG/CR-6944,
Vol. 5, 2007, Washington, DC USA.
§ AB Hull, S. Malik, M. Srinivasan, and R. Tregoning, Survey of NRC’s Materials Research Associated with Advanced Reactors,
Proceedings from Corrosion 2012 Research Topical Symposium on Corrosion Degradation of Materials in Nuclear Power
Reactors – Lessons Learned and Future Challenges, Salt Lake City, Utah, March 11-15, 2012. 22
Suggested Reading (cont.)
• ASME Code and Licensing
§ Noel N. Nemetha and Robert L. Bratton, Overview of statistical models of fracture for nonirradiated nuclear-graphite
component, Nuclear Engineering and Design, 2010, Vol 240, pp. 1-29.
§ S.F. Duffy and A. Parikh, Quality Control Using Inferential Statistics in Weibull-Based Reliability Analysis, ASTM
International Technical Papers: Graphite Testing for Nuclear Applications, STP 1578, pp. 105-122.
§ M. Srinivasan, The Use of Small Graphite Specimen Test Data for Large Core Components for HTGR, ASTM
International Technical Papers: Graphite Testing for Nuclear Applications, STP 1578, pp. 30-64.
§ Xiang Fang, Haitao Wang, and Suyuan Yu, The Stress and Reliability Analysis of HTR’s Graphite Component,
Science and Technology of Nuclear Installations, Volume 2014, http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2014/964848.
§ D. Kanse, I. A. Khan, V. Bhasin, and R. K. Singh, Interpretation of ASME Code Rules for Assessment of Graphite
Components, SMiRT-23 Division II Paper ID 346, Manchester, United Kingdom - August 10-14, 2015.

23
 Source-dependence on graphite properties
• There is no generic “nuclear grade” graphite that can be made by all vendors
§ All nuclear graphite grades are proprietary. How they are made is secret to the
individual vendor
• Completely different than metals. There is no fabrication information available for any grade.
§ Graphite users must select the grades that match their specific requirements
§ And no, vendors wont give up their recipes. There is no customer base asking for it
• As discussed in fabrication slide the unique graphite manufacturing processes
dictate the graphite behavior – both unirradiated and irradiated
§ Main fabrication parameters are:
• coke source: petroleum or coal-based coke source
• grain size: coke particles (grains) range in size from 1800 μm to 15 μm
• fabrication method: iso-static molded, vibration molded, or extruded fabrication
• Grain-binder ratio: the amount of carbonaceous binder added to the grain particles
§ Modifying these parameters can dramatically alter the unirradiated material
properties and irradiation performance
Parameter Unirradiated Behavior Irradiated Behavior
Increased Density Increased strength and modulus A general decrease in Turnaround dose
Higher fracture strength • Shorter component lifetime
Isostatic fabrication Higher isotropy (than extruded) Better, more predictable, irradiation
Higher cost material performance.
Smaller grain size More uniform, finer microstructure Super-fine grades may have lower Turnaround
• Especially when isostatic molded dose
Higher oxidation rate than larger grained 24
 Minimal effects to graphite from irradiation
• No significant changes occur in:
§ Neutron moderation – Carbon atoms not removed
§ Specific heat capacity – Crystal structure remains intact
§ Oxidation rate - Minimal changes if any due to densification during irradiation.
§ Molten salt interaction – Graphite behavior (unirr. and irr.) similar to gas-cooled
• Physical damage possible from salt intrusion into pores in graphite components
§ Emissivity:
• Unaffected by irradiation but oxidation
may leave impurity oxides on outer
surface.
Rate of stored energy release, ds/dT, J/g·°C

Ti = 150°C
• Minimal Wigner energy release if
components irradiated above 300°C.
§ Annealing of point defects in graphite is
Ti = 200°C
rapid above 250°C
§ Minimal accumulation of stored energy
Ti = 250°C • Need high dose & low Ti
§ Low dose/low Ti components have
reduced risk 25
 Graphite Component Failure
• What do we mean by structural integrity
§ U.K.’s AGR bricks – Now past Turnaround dose
• Example of graphite component failure.
§ Both axial as well as radial cracking in components
• Lifetime is completely dependent upon graphite
core now
§ Not fuel design/performance, metallic internals, or
secondary systems

AGR Core components

360

26
 Graphite Component Failure
• CAUTION!
§ U.K. AGR uses CO2 for coolant
§ Radiolytic oxidation exacerbates all strength changes
• Inert gas cooled designs will be more robust
§ Component strength, internal stresses, and POF will
be much different than CO2 cooled AGRs

AGR Core components

From: J. Reed, Summary of Recent Inspection Data at
UK Advanced Gas Cooled Reactors with Implications
for Assessment of Graphite Component Integrity,
INGSM-17, 4–8 September 2016, IAEA, Vienna, Austria

360

27
 Component inspection (NDE techniques)
• Visual inspection, Eddy current, Ultrasonic, and X-ray inspection is possible
§ Thick graphite components are difficult to inspect
• Flaw size resolution (i.e., cracks) are difficult to resolve in thick components
§ Visual, Eddy current, and small sample trepanning are current methods used
• U.K.’s AGR inspection program
• No good technique exists. Destructive analysis (trepanning) yields most information
Eddy Currents Induction Coil
AC Magnetic Field

Electrically Conductive Test Piece

Measure Induction Coil Impedance to Detect Defects
Detection of flaws (drilled holes) from X-ray method
Transmit Receive

• ASTM D8093 Standard Guide for

Nondestructive Evaluation of Nuclear
Grade Graphite
§ Guideline on how to use various Non-
Destructive Examination (NDE)
Test Sample
techniques to graphite core
components. 28
Ultrasonic method to detect defects
 ASME code methodology for graphite - 1
• Two key points to keep in mind:
1. All nuclear graphite is proprietary – Specific fabrication recipes are unknown
• The properties for each grade are highly dependent on the recipe and are optimized
(altered) to suit each users requirements
2. Graphite is brittle (quasi-brittle)
• Metals are ductile giving them the ability to fail in a predictable manner
• Graphite fails much like ceramic – probability of failure (POF) due to flaw size distributions
• Weibull analysis historically used to predict the probability of failure and characteristic
strength of brittle and flaw dependent materials
• Consequently, there are no “standard” specifications such as metals have
§ ASTM D7219 specifies impurity levels only. Other properties are desired ranges
§ It’s like specifying “Stainless steel” for a component (not 304, 316, or 316L)
• The selected grade is then fabricated to the specific requirements of component
• However, not much variation over all the grades. Not like metals
• KIc ~ 0.5 – 1.5 Pa∙√m, σt = 15-30 MPa, 4.5 – 5.5 x 10-6, etc.

• Thus, graphite code is a “process” vs just picking a preapproved material

§ The reactor applicant must demonstrate the graphite grade selected will consistently
meet the component requirements
• Requires property testing and analysis of the material properties before is durability as a
nuclear component is analyzed
• Achieved through the “Material Data Sheets” required in Code
• Weibull parameters from strength tests used to predict the probability of failure of graphite
• Data used in both “simple” (deterministic) and “full” (probabilistic) determination
29
 ASME code methodology for graphite -2
• Fundamental material properties change with irradiation/oxidation
§ Code must assess changes to design of component due to these changes
• Irradiation: changes to density, strength, dimension, CTE, thermal conductivity
• Oxidation: changes in density, strength, CTE, and thermal conductivity
§ Code must also address these changes to in service and inspection
• NDE and ISI are still outstanding issues that need to be addressed for graphite
• Material testing and analysis must be performed to determine changes
§ Property changes and irradiation creep to maximum expected dose levels
§ Oxidation rates, property changes, and strength assessment to maximum expected
oxidation levels
• Expected degradation during off-normal events with high temperatures and oxygen ingress

• Behavior and performance prediction models based upon irradiation and

oxidation experimental results
§ Property degradation due to oxidation, irradiation, and dimensional stress buildup.
§ Fracture behavior and structural integrity = Primary 30
 Summary of Simplified Graphite Assessment
Simple Assessment: 2 parameter Weibull (Deterministic Analysis)
Using m* and Sc* Using m95% and Sc95%
Estimate the scale and determine the determine the “design Calculate the
shape of a 2 parameter Weibull parameters allowable stress” as a ratio of
Weibull using a linear fit corresponding to a function of POF = 10-4, flexural to
to measured property 95% confidence 10-3, 10-2 and 5x10-2 tensile
data interval from SRCs strength
m* and Sc* Sg(P)
m95% and Sc95% Rtf
(ref. HHA-II-3100 pg. 414) (Ref.HHA-II-2000
(ref. eq.6 and eq.7 pg. 417) (ref. HHA-II-3300 pg. 418) pg. 412)

Sg(P) , Rtf

Evaluate the acceptability of

Perform a stress Cm = Combined Membrane Stress the design
analysis of the Cb = Combined Bending Stress - Cm < Sg(P)
graphite F = Peak Stress
- Cm + Cb + F < Rtf *
component Rtf = ratio of flexural to tensile strength
Sg(P)
(ref. HHA-3215 pg. 392 and HHA-3216 pg. 393)
(ref. HHA-3220 pg. 394)
 Summary of Full Graphite Assessment
Full Assessment: 3 parameter Weibull (Probabilistic Analysis)
Define the “Material Calculate the POF of the
Reliability Curve” by fitting a Estimate 3 parameter graphite core component
3 parameter Weibull model Weibull parameters using using the “Material Reliability
to the measurement data. MLE’s . Curve” and stress distribution
(So, m095% and Sc095%) in the component.

(ref. HHA-II-3200 pg. 417) (ref. HHA-3217 pg. 393)

POFcomponent

Determine the allowable Evaluate the acceptability of

POF from the Structural the design
Reliability Class (SRC), and POFallowable ≤ 10-2 and ≥ 10-4
Service Level Design
POFcomponent < POFallowable
Loading.
(ref. HHA-3230 thru HHA-3237 pg. 397) 32
 ASME Code modifications (Roadmap)
• Corrosion rate variability within a nuclear grade
§ Oxidation test specimens should require testing specimen be selected at different
locations within a billet, over multiple billets, and over multiple batches
• This will provide the oxidation rate variability across the entire specific grade
§ Currently the oxidation mass loss for a component is limited to 10 wt%
• After 10 wt% the component is recommended to be replaced
• Code needs to provide guidance on how the oxidation mass loss is applied
• Averaged over entire core? Only in central core region? Or only for select components?

• High temperature mechanical testing isn’t really necessary for graphite

§ As noted mechanical strength and modulus increase with increasing temperature
§ Room temperature results are conservative for graphite
§ No elevated temperature testing standards exist to support this current requirement
• (i.e., no ASTM standards)
§ How is elevated temperature testing of irradiated material to be conducted?
• Testing temperatures at (or above) Tirr will anneal out irradiation effects
• Mechanical testing of irradiated material is unnecessary up to Turnaround
§ As noted mechanical strength and modulus increase with increasing dose – until
Turnaround dose has been reached
§ Room Temperature/unirradiated mechanical testing is conservative until Turnaround
dose has been achieved
§ If components will be used to dose levels above Turnaround (i.e., high dose levels)
extensive testing will be required 33