COMMITTEE CORRESPONDENCE
Committee: ASME SECTION XI WORKING GROUP
ON PIPE FLAW EVALUATION
Subject: Minutes of the February 28, 2005
Meeting in Birmingham, AL
Date: April 18, 2005
Address writer care of:
Dr. G. M. Wilkowski
Engineering Mechanics Corporation of Columbus
3518 Riverside Drive – Suite 202
Columbus, OH 43221
e-mail: gwilkowski@emc-sq.com
Phone: (614) 459-3200
Fax:
(614) 459-6800
Copy to: Membership and Attendees
Members present at the meeting were:
D. Scarth - Kinectrics, Chairman
S. Daftuar - Arizona Public Service
R. Cipolla – Aptech
K. Miyazaki – Hitachi
N. Cofie – Structural Integrity Assoc.
T. Bacon - Framatome ANP
G. Wilkowski – Emc2, Secretary
W. Bamford - Westinghouse Electric
K. Hasegawa –Hitachi
P. Rush - MPR Associates
K. Yoon - Framatome ANP
R. Ganta – Westinghouse
Members not present at the meeting were:
P. Hoang - Sargent and Lundy
D. Hopkins - Texas Utilities Elec.
J. Panesar - Consultant
J. Merkle – ORNL
E. Friedman
K. Kashima – CRIEPI
L. Goyette - PG&E
G. DeBoo – Exelon Nuclear
S. Yukawa - Consultant
V. Zilberstein - Jentek Sensors
H. Mehta – GE Nuclear
Non-members that were present at the meeting, and are on the mailing list for this meeting are:
D. Lee – BWX Technologies
K. Wichman – USNRC Consultant
M. J. Davis – Duke Energy
A. Hiser – NRC-RES
B. Carter - EPRI
T. Funada – JNES
M. Higuchi - IHI
K. Koyama – Mitsubishi Heavy Industry
C. Cueto-Felgueroso – Tecnatom (Spain)
R. McGill – Structural Integrity Assoc.
Non-members that are on the regular minutes mailing list are:
G. Park – Monticello Nuc. Generating Fac.
R. McGill – Structural Integrity Assoc.
S. Ranganath – XGEN
R. Tregoning – USNRC-RES
F. Hayes – Bechtel Plant Machinery, Inc
B. Montgomery, Callaway Plant
R. Gimple - Wolf Creek Nuclear Operations Corp.
S. Burke - ASME Codes and Standards
A. Deardorff - Structural Integrity Assoc.
W. Shack - Argonne National Labs
T. Griesbach - ATI Consulting
S. Bush - Review & Synthesis Assoc.
S. Gosselin - Battelle Northwest Labs
K. R. Rao - Entergy Operations Inc.
L. Rinaca - TVA
R. Keating – MPR Associates
B. Brickstad – SKI (Sweden)
C. Faidy – EDF
O. Hedden – Consultant
B. Gray – Entergy
R. Gurdal – Framatome ANP
CAUTION: These minutes are subject to approval and are for Committee use only. They are not to be duplicated
or quoted for other than Committee business.
Item 1.0 – Announcements, Approval of Minutes from Last Meeting
(Scarth)
The Working Group Chairman, D. Scarth, called the meeting to order at 8:30 a.m. on Monday, February 28, 2005 at
the Birmingham Conference Center. The list of attachments is given in Attachment 1. The attendance list is given
in Attachment 2. The list of future meetings is given in Attachment 3. The Working Group Secretary, G.
Wilkowski, was present only in the morning, so D. Scarth took the afternoon meeting minutes.
Next Meeting
The next meeting will be held on May 9, 2005 in Orlando, Florida at the Renaissance Orlando Resort Hotel, 6677
Sea Harbor Drive, Orlando, Florida 32821, Phone 1-407-351-5555. The room rate is $146 plus tax for a
single/double per night. The reservation deadline date is likely one month before the meeting.
Membership
P. Rush had sent in all the required forms, but the approval process is going slow. Rush has not heard back from
Section XI yet. D. Scarth is still trying to J. Merkle reinstated. Scarth to get W. Bamford to push those
memberships to get approved at the Main Committee meeting. R. Ganta has applied to be a member of this
Working Group.
The new NRC member may be A. Hiser.
Other Announcements
D. Scarth discussed the two 2005 ASME PVP Conference papers from this Working Group. Due to work
commitments, we may have to drop the paper on Code Case N-513-2. Scarth submitted an abstract for a paper on
Code Case N-597-2, but this may be for presentation only and not a published paper.
Minutes of December 2004 Meeting
The minutes of the December 2004 meeting in San Francisco, CA were reviewed and approved with no corrections.
Item 2.0 – Review and Approval of Agenda
(Scarth)
The pre-meeting agenda is given in Attachment 4. The following item was added to the agenda:
8.4 - Recent Wall Thinning Troubles in Japan
(Hasegawa)
The agenda was then approved.
Item 3.0 – Administrative Items
3.1 – Schedule of Revisions to Pipe Flaw Evaluation Procedures
(Scarth)
D. Scarth presented the “Schedule for Revisions to Pipe Flaw Evaluation Procedures”, see Attachment 5. Scarth
reviewed these items. Any updates are noted in Attachment 5. Two items of note are:
- PFE-00-2: Austenitic Z-factor work for large diameter piping will be on indefinite hold unless W. Bamford
considers this item a priority.
- PFE-02-1: N. Cofie and D. Lee to take over for E. Friedman on revising the limit-load cutoff in Appendix H.
3.2 – Errata
(Goyette)
L. Goyette was not present at the meeting. K. Hasegawa gave a handout with three different errata items, see
Attachment 6. The first correction was on the missing “Y” in the last column of Table IWB-3512-1. This factor
“Y” is also missing in the 2001 Edition, so we may have to go back to the Edition where the “Y” was present to
justify this as an errata correction. Hasegawa also noted that in the Appendix C Nomenclature, the metric units for
2
J1mm and JIc have erroneous superscripted fonts. On page 370 a comma was missing. An additional item that was
identified was that the “C” on page 351 should have a negative sign in front of the exponent 3.3 for the metric units,
i.e. (MPa√m)-3.3. Other changes on page 351 were da/d should be da/dn, and K lc should be KIc.
Scarth pointed out an error in Note 3 to Tables IWB-3514-1 and IWB-3514-2, where the “in” should be corrected to
“is”. The errata for Tables IWB-3514-1 and IWB-3514-2 are also included in Attachment 6.
Scarth will bring forth the errata for Tables IWB-3512-1, IWB-3514-1 and IWB-3514-2. Scarth will have a review
of the entire Appendix C completed for errata before bringing forth the Appendix C errata from Hasegawa.
Item 4.0 – Update on Previously Approved Items
4.1 –BC03-235; PFE-01-3: Revised Safety Factors in N-494-3, Extend to Class 2 and 3 Piping (Cofie/Scarth)
D. Scarth remarked that the revisions to Code Case N-494-3 passed the Main Committee at the December 2005
meeting.
Item 5 – Task Group on Reference SCC Curves in Austenitic Materials
(Scarth/Cipolla)
There have been no meetings yet of the Task Group on Reference SCC Curves in Austenitic Materials, and the Task
Group Chairman G. DeBoo was not at the Code meetings this week. R. Cipolla will discuss with G. DeBoo if he
still has time to Chair the Task Group. Wilkowski is to contact Argonne National Lab about having a representative
as a member of the Task Group.
D. Scarth and R. Cipolla will discuss with W. Bamford whether this should be an official Section XI Task Group.
Item 6 – Code Case N-513-2
6.1 – Items for Future Revisions
(Cofie/McGill)
A presentation on future revisions to Code Case N-513-2 was given by B. McGill and N. Cofie, see Attachment 7.
At the last meeting, McGill and Cofie had proposed restructuring of Section 3 of the Code Case, as well as adding
flaw combination rules for nonplanar flaws from Code Case N-597-2.
B. McGill discussed clarification of the definition of an “outage” in the Code Case. The concern is that some
systems may be needed to be operational during an outage, but could be taken off line while the plant is operating.
It was tentatively decided to change the limit of the evaluation period from the next scheduled outage to 24 months.
This change will be kept consistent with the definition of an evaluation period in the proposed Moderate Energy
Class 2 and 3 Vessel and Tank Code Case under development in the Working Group on Flaw Evaluation. D. Scarth
will keep B. McGill informed of the definition of evaluation period for the Moderate Energy Class 2 and 3 Vessel
and Tank Code Case.
B. McGill remarked that there is no guidance in Code Case N-513-2 for EPFM evaluation of a through-wall axial
flaw in ferritic piping. D. Scarth recommended that the Code Case state that the user may either use LEFM instead,
or use a procedure that is justified.
At the last meeting McGill and Cofie also raised the issue as to whether the wall thickness tnom or tadj should be used
instead of tmin in the evaluation of a nonplanar flaw as planar. N. Cofie suggested having some worked examples for
the next meeting.
Another item is that use of Class 2 or 3 area reinforcement rules result in the value of t adj being independent of dadj,
which leads to an ambiguity. McGill and Cofie suggested using the Class 1 area reinforcement rules to remove this
ambiguity.
3
6.2 – Industry Experience with N-513-2 and Technical Basis Document
(Bamford/DeBoo)
This item is the proposed 2005 ASME PVP paper on Code Case N-513-2, which was already discussed under Item
1. Due to work commitments, we may have to drop the paper on Code Case N-513-2.
Item 7 – PFE-00-8: Improvements to Stress Intensity Factor Solutions for Flaws in Piping
7.1 – SIF Solutions for Circumferential Through-Wall Flaws
(Wilkowski/Yoon)
G. Wilkowski noted that the T. Anderson through-wall crack solutions are now in WRC Bulletin 478 “Stress Intensity
and Crack Growth Opening Area Solutions for Through-Wall Cracks in Cylinders and Spheres.” Wilkowski was to get
a copy of this document for P. Rush and K. Yoon to review.
7.2 – SIF Solutions for Part-Through-Wall Flaws
(Wilkowski/Yoon/Hasegawa)
G. Wilkowski presented results from finite element analyses his company did to assess the differences between semielliptical and constant depth surface crack K-solutions, see Attachment 8. They made 72 finite element meshes, half
with semi-elliptical and half with a constant depth surface crack (the constant depth surface crack had a slight curvature
at the corners as shown in Attachment 8). The first set of analyses were for pipes with D/t of 5, 10, 20 and 40. The
internal surface cracks were a/t of 0.25, 0.5, and 0.75, and a matrix of crack length to pipe circumference ratios of
0.125, 0.25, and 0.5.
The results showed that there is a much higher K value at the center of the crack for the constant depth crack than the
semi-elliptical crack than originally thought. The sensitivity results showed that the ratio of the semi-elliptical to
constant depth surface cracks was sensitive to the pipe D/t and the length of the crack, but not the crack a/t value. The
constant depth crack central K value could be 10% to over 100% higher than that for the semi-elliptical crack.
For the next meeting, Wilkowski will compare the absolute K values from the finite element semi-elliptical surface
crack to published results, such as from Anderson or Newman-Raju. Additionally, there were some finite element
results that need to be rechecked since the K-values did not smoothly change going along the crack front from the
center of the crack to the end (surface location) of the crack. If time permits, Wilkowski may also generate solutions
for a pipe under global bending.
Item 8 – Code Case N-597-2 for Pipe Wall Thinning
8.1 – PFE-98-16: Code Implementation of N-597-2
(Hasegawa/Goyette)
Revision 11 of the proposed nonmandatory Appendix X is still the current version. K. Hasegawa remarked that we
still need to include equations for pressure blowout protection for Class 1 piping items. D. Scarth remarked that he
had reviewed the derivation of the equations for pressure blowout protection for Class2 and 3 piping items, and that
we may be able to adapt these equations for Class 1. Scarth will work on equations for pressure blowout protection
for Class 1.
8.2 – PFE-04-1: Technical Basis Document to Address NRC Issues
(Goyette/Hasegawa)
As described under Item 1, Scarth had submitted an abstract for a 2005 ASME PVP paper on Code Case N-597-2 to
address NRC issues. However, although K. Hasegawa has provided his contribution to the paper, the other authors
L. Goyette, A. Deardorff and D. Scarth have not had time to work on the paper. The 2005 ASME PVP paper may
be a presentation only. We will continue to work on a written technical basis document to address NRC issues.
8.3 –Update on Proposal on FAC Discussions with NRC
P. Rush will approach his contacts at the NRC for proposed discussions on Code Case N-597-2.
4
(Rush/Goyette)
8.4 - Recent Wall Thinning Troubles in Japan
(Hasegawa)
K. Hasegawa presented “Recent Wall Thinning Troubles in Japan”, see Attachment 9. Several cases of wall
thinning have been found in Japan since the Mihama 3 pipe rupture in August 2004. A pipe blowout occurred in a
fossil plant. The other cases were in nuclear plants. In some cases the wall thickness was less than tmin, and in other
cases leakage occurred. One case involved a stainless steel pipe.
Item 9 – Review of Applicability of Pipe Flaw Evaluation Procedures to Pipe Diameters with NPS less than 4
(Cipolla/Merkle/Hasegawa)
P. Hoang was actioned to work on example problems for pipe NPS less than 4. Hoang was not present at the
meeting, and there was no report.
Item 10 – Treatment of Torsional Stress and Local Secondary Stress in Pipe Flaw Evaluations
(Cofie/Mehta/Daftuar)
R. Cipolla remarked that in piping design, torsion is typically RSS’d with bending moments. However, there is no
explicit guidance for torsion in the Section XI pipe flaw evaluation procedures. Cipolla suggested that words could
be added that permit the user to either RSS the torsion with the bending moments, or treat torsion separate from the
moments.
G. Wilkowski suggested that we should consider including torsion in the beginning of the analysis approaches, but
show how it could be neglected using the results of NUREG/CR-62991. For example, if the ratio of
Moment/Torsion is greater than 3, then the torsional stresses can be neglected. If the Moment/Torsion is less than 3,
then one should combine the torsional stress with the bending stress using a Von Mises combination (SRSS) and use
that effective stress as a bending stress in the analyses.
After some discussion, S. Daftuar was actioned to propose a change to Appendices C and H, and Code Cases N-5132 and N-597-2 to either RSS the torsion with the bending moments, or treat torsion separate from the moments.
There was some discussion on the need to include local thermal stresses, i.e., thermal expansion differences in
dissimilar welds. W. Bamford noted that these thermal stresses were not calculated for most older plants. There
was a long discussion that these stresses probably do not affect limit load or EPFM. Wilkowski noted a bimetallic
weld pipe test with the crack on the fusion line, and there did not seem to be any unusual effect from the thermal
expansion differences in the pipe test. These results were in “Fracture Evaluations of Fusion-Line Cracks in Nuclear
Pipe Bimetallic Welds,” NUREG/CR-6297, April 1995, by Scott, P., Francini, R., Rahman, S., Rosenfield, A. and
Wilkowski, G.
Item 11 – Review of Application of Appendix C to Alloy 600/Alloy 82 with Information on Proposed Change
to Code Case N-504
(Mehta)
H. Mehta was not present at the meeting. R. Cipolla remarked that he has investigated structural factors for Alloy
600 steam generator tubes as part of an activity outside of the Code. As an example, Cipolla has developed a
structural factor for Service Level D for Alloy 600 of 1.2, which is lower than the structural factor for Service Level
D of 1.4 for piping in Section XI.
“Effects of Toughness Anisotropy and Combined Loading on Fracture Behavior of Ferritic Nuclear Pipe,”
NUREG/CR-6299, April 1995.
1
5
Item 12 – PFE-99-1: Acceptance Standards for Class 2 and 3 Piping
12.1 – Flaw Size Calculations for Acceptance Standards
(Hasegawa/Miyazaki/Kashima/Wilkowski)
K. Miyazaki presented development of Acceptance Standards for subsurface flaws, see Attachment 10. Miyazaki
and his colleagues used a local limit load analysis to ensure that the limit membrane stress for a subsurface flaw is
the same as for a surface flaw. The allowable a/t for a subsurface flaw was related to the allowable a/t for a surface
flaw, where the relationship is a function of a/l. For a/l = 0, the allowable a/t for a subsurface flaw is 0.5 times the
allowable a/t for a surface flaw. For a/l > 0, the allowable a/t for a subsurface flaw is 0.7 times the allowable a/t for
a surface flaw. The total depth of a subsurface flaw is 2 times a/t. Miyazaki proposed a table of allowable a/t for
surface and subsurface flaws. The table contains the Y factor raised to various exponents to handle the transition
from a subsurface flaw to a surface flaw. R. Ganta and S. Daftuar will perform a QA check of the proposed
allowable a/t values in the table for surface flaws. B. McGill will check the proposed allowable a/t values for
subsurface flaws.
K. Miyazaki then made a presentation on Acceptance Standards for pre-service inspection versus in-service
inspection, see Attachment 11. Miyazaki proposed to use the same Acceptance Standards in terms of allowable a/t
for both pre-service inspection and in-service inspection. In the current Code, the in-service inspection allowable a/t
values for austenitic piping are 1.25 times the allowable a/t for pre-service inspection, and the in-service inspection
allowable a/t values for ferritic piping are 1.5 times the allowable a/t for pre-service inspection. W. Bamford will be
consulted on this item. As well, the Subgroup on NDE will also be consulted.
Item 13 – Proposed Revisions to Appendix H
13.1 – PFE-02-1: Revise Limit-Load Cutoff in Appendix H
(Friedman)
N. Cofie and D. Lee will work on the revised limit-load cutoff for Appendix H. No action was assigned at this
meeting.
Item 14 – Improvements to EPFM Procedures/Z-Factors
14.1 – PFE-99-5: Revision to Axial Flaw EPFM Procedure for Ferritic Piping
(Hasegawa/Kashima/Hoang/Wilkowski)
K. Hasegawa presented a proposed change to Appendix C to incorporate the Battelle/CVN-based and J/T-based
EPFM procedures for axial flaws in ferritic piping, see Attachment 12. The current Tables C-6410-1 and C-6401-2
would be replaced with a Z-factor based procedure using the existing limit load Tables C-5410-1 and C-5410-2 or
the limit load equations. Hasegawa marked corrections on the viewgraphs, and will incorporate these corrections
into the master copy for the next meeting. D. Scarth remarked that we should include validity limits in the
procedures. Hasegawa will also check on the applicability of the Z-factor procedures to through-wall axial flaws in
ferritic piping.
K. Hasegawa and P. Hoang will provide technical basis write-ups for this item to proceed.
14.2 – PFE-00-2: Improved Austenitic Z-Factors for Large Diameter Piping
(Bamford/Wilkowski)
This item will be taken off the Agenda, unless W. Bamford considers this item a priority. G. Wilkowski noted that he
showed pipe test results in the past that showed that the austenitic Z-factor approach was reasonable. It was more
important to use the actual material properties rather than Code minimum properties in analyzing those tests.
Wilkowski also noted that the ferritic Z-factor approach was very conservative.
14.3 – PFE-98-7: Smooth Transition Z-Factors from EPFM to Limit-Load for Circumferential Flaws
(Wilkowski)
There was no report by G. Wilkowski on this item.
6
14.4 – PFE-98-8: LEFM to EPFM Screening Criterion
(Wilkowski)
G. Wilkowski noted that he has a 2005 ASME PVP paper on the results he had shown at prior meetings.
14.5 – Effect of Secondary Stress on Pipe Fracture
(Wilkowski/Hoang)
G. Wilkowski noted that he has a 2005 ASME PVP paper on the results he had shown at prior meetings. Wilkowski
remarked that for large flaw sizes, secondary stress can behave more like a primary stress, due to elastic follow-up.
This item will be discussed at the next meeting.
Item 15 – PFE-00-7: Development of Flaw Interaction Rules for Ductile Behavior
(Miyazaki/Hasegawa/Ranganath/Wilkowski)
K. Hasegawa presented a comparison of flaw combination rules in the ASME, JSME and European Codes, see
Attachment 13. Hasegawa pointed out that the different Codes have different flaw combination rules. Hasegawa
compared the flaw combination rules from each Code against the results from flaw interaction experiments on flaws
in ductile carbon steel plates. Experiments were performed on both parallel flaws that were not co-planar, and on
co-planar flaws. The ASME Section XI criterion is that flaws must be separated by a distance of at least 0.5 in. for
the flaw to be evaluated independently. However, in the experiments flaw interaction occurred at a separation
distance of 0.67 in.
S. Ranganath provided a verbal presentation on work he is performing to investigate interaction of flaws that are not
co-planar. Ranganath remarked that for limit load, the ASME Section XI criterion of a separation distance of 0.5 in.
may not be conservative, since this would allow several circumferential flaws around the pipe circumference in the
same weld, and which are not co-planar, to be evaluated independently. The combined effect of the flaws would be
to reduce the net-section collapse limit load below that as calculated for a single flaw. To be conservative, the Code
should require that all of the flaws at the weld be evaluated in the same plane. Ranganath described results from
elastic-perfectly plastic finite element limit load analyses of pipes with multiple circumferential flaws that are not
co-planar. Based on the finite element results, for circumferential flaws to be evaluated independently, the axial
separation distance between the flaws must be at least 4 times the wall thickness.
Hasegawa and Ranganath will further investigate the issue of the required axial separation distance for
circumferential flaws to be evaluated independently. Cipolla remarked that there may be a need to re-evaluate flaw
interaction after flaw growth has been predicted.
Item 16 – BC01-617: PFE-01-2: Revise IWB/C/D-3600, and Appendices C, E, H and K to Replace Term
“Safety Factor” with Appropriate Alternate Term
(Hayes/Ranganath)
S. Ranganath presented marked-up pages of Section XI to replace the terms “safety factor”, “safety margin”, etc.
with “structural factor”, see Attachment 14. D. Scarth remarked that some of the proposed changes may need to be
clarified. Scarth will discuss with Ranganath after the meeting. Scarth called for a straw vote to accept the changes
to Section XI that were proposed by Ranganath. The proposed changes were approved unanimously.
Item 17 – Other Business
There was no other business.
7
Item 18 – Adjourn
The meeting was adjourned at 5:30 p.m.
Minutes by:
G. Wilkowski and D. Scarth
Secretary and Chairman
Working Group on Pipe Flaw Evaluation
Section XI
8
Attachment 1
List of Attachments
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
List of Attachments
Attendance List
Future Section XI Meetings
Pre-Meeting Agenda
“Schedule for Revisions to Pipe Flaw Evaluation Procedures,” by D.A. Scarth – Kinectrics
“Errata for Tables IWB-3512-1, IWB-3514-1, IWB-3514-2 and Appendix C,” by K. Hasegawa – Hitachi
Ltd. and D.A. Scarth – Kinectrics
“Items for Future Revision of Code Case N-513-2,” by R.O. McGill and N.G. Cofie – Structural Integrity
Associates
“Effect of Crack Shape on K-Solutions,” by Y. Chen and G.M. Wilkowski – Emc2
“Wall Thinning Troubles in Japan,” by K. Hasegawa – Hitachi Ltd.
“Acceptance Standards for Class 1, 2 and 3 Piping - Discussion for Subsurface Flaw,” by K. Miyazaki and
K. Hasegawa – Hitachi Ltd., N. Miura and K. Kashima – CRIEPI, and D.A. Scarth – Kinectrics
“Acceptance Standards for Class 1, 2 and 3 Piping - Discussion of Flaw Depth for PSI and ISI,” by K.
Miyazaki and K. Hasegawa – Hitachi Ltd., N. Miura and K. Kashima – CRIEPI, and D.A. Scarth –
Kinectrics
“Code Change on Z-Factor for Axial Flaw EPFM Procedures,” by K. Hasegawa – Hitachi Ltd. and P.
Hoang – Sargent and Lundy
“Interaction Criteria for Offset Flaws among ASME, JSME and European Codes,” by K. Hasegawa, K.
Saito and K. Miyazaki – Hitachi Ltd.
“Proposed Revisions to IWB/C/D-3600, and Appendices C, E, H and K to Replace Term Safety Factor
with Structural Factor,” by S. Ranganath – XGEN
9
Attachment 2
Attendance List
10
Attachment 3
Future Section XI Meetings
2005
May 9 – 13, 2005 – Orlando, FL – Renaissance Orlando Resort
August 8-12, 2005 – Los Angeles, CA – Wilshire Grand Hotel
October 31 – November 3, 2005 – Greensboro, NC – Sheraton
2006
May 15-19, 2006 – Phoenix, AZ – Marriott Desert Ridge Resort
11
Attachment 4
Pre-meeting Agenda
12
Attachment 5
“Schedule for Revisions to Pipe Flaw Evaluation Procedures”
by
D.A. Scarth – Kinectrics
13
Attachment 6
“Errata for Tables IWB-3512-1, IWB-3514-1, IWB-3514-2 and Appendix C”
by
K. Hasegawa – Hitachi Ltd. and D.A. Scarth – Kinectrics
14
Attachment 7
“Items for Future Revision of Code Case N-513-2”
by
R.O. McGill and N.G. Cofie – Structural Integrity Associates
15
Attachment 8
“Effect of Crack Shape on K-Solutions”
by
Y. Chen and G.M. Wilkowski – Emc2
16
Attachment 9
“Wall Thinning Troubles in Japan”
by
K. Hasegawa – Hitachi Ltd.
17
Attachment 10
“Acceptance Standards for Class 1, 2 and 3 Piping
- Discussion for Subsurface Flaw”
by
K. Miyazaki and K. Hasegawa – Hitachi Ltd.,
N. Miura and K. Kashima – CRIEPI, and D.A. Scarth – Kinectrics
18
Attachment 11
“Acceptance Standards for Class 1, 2 and 3 Piping
- Discussion of Flaw Depth for PSI and ISI”
by
K. Miyazaki and K. Hasegawa – Hitachi Ltd.,
N. Miura and K. Kashima – CRIEPI, and D.A. Scarth – Kinectrics
19
Attachment 12
“Code Change on Z-Factor for Axial Flaw EPFM Procedures”
by
K. Hasegawa – Hitachi Ltd. and P. Hoang – Sargent and Lundy
20
Attachment 13
“Interaction Criteria for Offset Flaws among
ASME, JSME and European Codes”
by
K. Hasegawa, K. Saito and K. Miyazaki – Hitachi Ltd.
21
Attachment 14
“Proposed Revisions to IWB/C/D-3600, and Appendices C, E, H and K
to Replace Term Safety Factor with Structural Factor”
by
S. Ranganath  XGEN
22