The University of Manchester

MACE43001 Assignment: Design of Penstock Pipe for A Hydroelectric

Pumped Storage Station

Assigned by:
Dr. Andrey Jivkov

Author:
Shaun M. Pitchers

School of Mechanical, Aerospace and Civil Engineering

2014

Abstract
The task for this report is to choose between two candidate steels for the construction of pressure pipes
within a hydroelectric pumped storage power station. Fracture and Fatigue analysis were conducted on
the steels in order to make an appropriate choosing. The most optimum steel was found to be steel
B (BS1501 490 LT50) in light of the assessment. Having selected the steel, the wall thickness of the
pipe is specified given the internal pipe diameter, load history, design life and non-destructive inspection
limitations. This thickness is found to be 80mm. With the results from the fracture and fatigue analysis,
the optimum inspection intervals were determined and further design recommendations.

Contents
1 INTRODUCTION

2 STATIC DESIGN

3 FRACTURE ASSESSMENT
3.1 Determining Toughness Values
3.2 LEFM Critical Crack Sizes . .
3.3 FAD Assessment . . . . . . . .
3.4 Sensitivity Analysis . . . . . . .

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

5
5
5
6
8

4 FATIGUE ASSESSMENT
13
4.1 DESIGN IMPROVEMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
5 FINAL DECISION

17

REFERENCES

17

APPENDICES

18

A MATLAB Script Used To Calculate Critical Crack Zize

18

B Further Supplementary Graphs

19

C MATLAB Script Used To Calculate Fatigue Crack Propagation

20

List of Figures
1.1
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6
3.7
3.8
3.9
3.10
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
B.1
B.2

Material properties for the two candidate steels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Fracture toughness of QT445 measured on 40mm thick plate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Fracture assessment diagram for Steel A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Fracture assessment diagram for Steel B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Fracture assessment diagram for Steel A with crack depth decreased to 2mm . . . . . . . . .
Pressurised cylinder with semi-elliptical crack diagram . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Plot of geometry calibration function, Y , against the ratio a/c for a semi-elliptical crack . . .
Plot of plastic limit stress against c for steel A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Plot of plastic limit stress against c for steel B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Fracture assessment diagram for Steel A for various crack shapes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Fracture assessment diagram for Steel B for various crack shapes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Algorithm for estimating crack propagating life . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Fatigue crack growth in Steel B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Fracture assessment diagram for Steel B for the improved design with t = 80mm . . . . . . .
Fatigue crack growth for Steel B for the improved design with t = 80mm . . . . . . . . . . . .
Geometry calibration function for Semi-elliptical crack at various crack sizes and pipe thicknesss
Fatigue assessment graph for Steel A with af equal to the pipe thickness 17.5mm . . . . . . .

3
5
7
7
8
9
9
10
11
11
12
14
15
16
16
19
19

List of Tables
3.1

Minimum Charpy energies for plate less than 63mm thick, standard dimensions

. . . . . . .

INTRODUCTION

Electricity cannot be stored in large quantities, but the electricity supply companies must have a large and
quickly available reserve of power to meet sudden increases in demand on the national grid and to safeguard
the nations electricity supplies in the event of major failure of generating or transmission plant[4].
In the UK this immediate reserve is normally provided by operating coal and oil-fired power stations at
below their full economic capacity so that their output can be increased quickly to meet additional demand
when required. They are supported by gas turbine stations operating for short periods, while output from
bigger steam stations is increased. Pumped-storage schemes use water to store electrical energy. Electricity
is used to pump water to the high reservoir. Hydro-electric and pumped-storage stations can be brought
into operation much more quickly and reliably than other types of stations[4].
This report concerns the design of the steel pipes that deliver water from the reservoir to the turbines of a
Hydro-electric power station. More specifically, the intermediate penstocks. These pipes are not supported
by surrounding rock and concrete and consequently have to be able to withstand the full loading of the water
pressure throughout the design life of the system.
The report specifically analyses two separate steels as possible candidates for the penstocks material.Fracture
and Fatigue assessments are carried out on both steels in order to choose between the candidates. Once
the optimum steel is identified, a suitable thickness for the penstocks is to be chosen, suitable inspection
intervals and the guidance on at what crack sizes should be repaired[4].

Figure 1.1: Material properties for the two candidate steels

The penstocks must last for 50 years and has a internal diameter of 2m. The penstocks will be subjected to
non-destructive ultrasonic testing (NDT) and it is given that the minimum detectable crack depth is 6mm[3].
The penstocks are loaded hydraulically and the largest possible transient pressure is due to a water hammer
effect which could occur under an unlikely coincidence of certain machine trip conditions. This fault will
hopefully never occur, but the penstocks must be designed to withstand such a pressure. It is given that
this pressure transient is equal to 750m head of water[3].
Changes in water pressure occur during the operation of the system. This change is caused from the penstocks operating in two modes. When the water is allowed to flow through the pipes, equalling to 525m head
of water[3]. When the water is emptied through the valves, the pressure in the penstocks drops to zero.
In addition, there are residual stresses in the pipe that arise from the localised heating and cooling during
welding. These are equal to 70M P a[3].

STATIC DESIGN

It is given that the maximum allowable design stress is equal to 0.6 times the yield stress. It is therefore
necessary to estimate what wall thickness will be needed in either steel in order to allow for safe operation under static conditions. The maximum possible hoop stress arises from the water hammer transient
pressure. Treating the penstocks as a thin walled cylinder gives:
h =

Pmax r
= 0.6y
t

(2.1)

where h represents the hoop stress, Pmax represents the maximum pressure due to the water hammer and
r and t represents the radius and thickness of the penstocks respectively.
It is possible to calculate Pmax using the maximum head of water, hmax :
Pmax = ghmax

(2.2)

where represents the density of the water and g the acceleration due to gravity.
Substituting equation 2.2 into equation 2.1 and rearranging for t gives:
t=

ghmax r
0.6y

(2.3)

It is now possible for one to calculate the thickness required for both steels A & B. From figure 1.1 the yield
stresses for steels A and B are, 700M P a and 350M P a respectively.

tA =

998 9.807 750 1

= 17.50mm
0.6 700 106

tB =

998 9.807 750 1

= 35.00mm
0.6 350 106

It can therefore be deduced that the minimum required thicknesss for steels A and B are 17.5mm and 35mm
respectively.
The material cost depends of the weight of steel used, which is a function of the wall thickness, t. Since the
diameter and length of the vessel are fixed, the weight depends only on the wall thickness used. Thus, the
relative cost is:
CA
tA A
0.0175 965
=
=
= 0.92
CB
tB B
0.035 525

(2.4)

Therefore the relative price of steel A is 92% of the relative price of steel B. This will factor into the final
decision, and keeping design costs down to a minimum is a desired design goal.

3
3.1

FRACTURE ASSESSMENT

Determining Toughness Values

Steel A
For steel A fracture toughness data is given for a 40mm thick plate. This is shown in figure 3.1.

Figure 3.1: Fracture toughness of QT445 measured on 40mm thick plate

At 0 C a fracture toughness of approximately between 100M N m3/2 & 120M N m3/2 would be a conservative choice. Figure 3.1 shows that the steel would need to be at roughly 50 C for 100M N m3/2 to be the
correct value. However since the operating temperature is not known and the thickness of steel A required
is much less than the 40mm test piece, the worst case scenario should be chosen. Therefore the analysis will
be carried out assuming a fracture toughness equal to 100M N m3/2 .
Steel B
Charpy test data is given for steel B. However, this data is very poor and could not lead to avery accurate value of fracture toughness. With the current SINTAP recommended equation KIc = 12 Cv , the
corresponding fracture toughness value is 89M N m3/2 . However this is not realistic. One would expect
steel B to have roughly equal to or a greater fracture toughness than steel A as indicated by the following data.
Unpublished tests on 40mm thick specimens of steel B indicate that the plate toughness is around 175M N m3/2
at room temperature. In the same test programme a toughness of 150M N m3/2 was measured for a submerged arc, multi-pass weld on the same 40mm thickness. Neither of these tests produced valid plane strain
fracture toughness results, according to BS7448. This data suggests that steel B is very tough.
Table 3.1: Minimum Charpy energies for plate less than 63mm thick, standard dimensions
Temperature
Charpy energy, J

20 C
61

0 C
55

15 C
41

30 C
27

With all the data available taken into consideration, a fracture toughness value of 120M N m3/2 is chosen
for steel B.
Whence:
(KIc )A = 100M N m3/2
(KIc )B = 120M N m3/2

3.2

LEFM Critical Crack Sizes

The simplest case is to consider the growth of a long surface edge crack lying parallel to the axis of the pipe,
under the action of the hoop stress that is generated when the vessel is filled with water. The calibration

function for a similar geometry is given as an edge crack in a finite width plate in tension. A widely used
equation to determine the calibration function is:
Y = 1.12 0.231(a/t) + 10.55(a/t)2 21.72(a/t)3 + 30.39(a/t)4

(3.1)

Since the geometry calibration function varies with crack size, a, the critical crack size, ac is the solution to
the non-linear equation:

KIc = Y ac
(3.2)
The non-linear equation can be solved by using a simple iterative method like the Newton-Raphson technique[2].
First, equation 3.1 is substituted into equation 3.2 and rearranged in the form f (ac ) = 0. The next iteration
is calculated by the equation:
ai+1
=
c

f (aic )
aic
f 0 (aic )

(3.3)

This method is quick to converge, and is very stable for such problems. Initially a reasonable estimation
for the critical crack size is needed to initiate the solution. 1mm is a reasonable estimation. The MATLAB
package was used in order to carry out this calculation and the script used is included in the appendix for
readers to use.
It is found that the critical crack sizes are as follows:
(ac )A = 5.76mm
(ac )B = 16.26mm
It is evident that steel B provides much more stability. As the critical crack size needed to initiate catastrophic
crack growth is approximately 2.8 times larger than that of steel A. It is also worth noting that the critical
crack size for steel A is less than the minimum detectable crack size. This would result in catastrophic failure
and hence, this steel is not appropriate at the current thickness.

3.3

FAD Assessment

A fracture analysis diagram has been constructed for both steels in order to estimate the likely failure
mechanism for both steels. The geometry calibration factor is calculated using equation 3.1. This gives:
YA = 1.825
YB = 1.307
for steels A and B respectively. The Kr curve used in the diagrams is the currently accepted curve in the
R6 specification. It is given by the equation:
1

Kr = [(1 + 0.5L2r )] 2 [0.3 + 0.7exp(0.6L6r )]

(3.4)

Two assessment points are used in order to estimate the type of failure that will occur. The first point
uses the secondary stresses only, in which do not contribute to collapse, but are present in the vessel. The
secondary stress that is found in the vessel is the residual stress due to welding. This is present in the vessel
even when no primary stress (due to hoop stress) is applied. Thus it is plotted at Lr = 0. The second point
is uses both the secondary and primary stresses. The maximum primary stress is due to the water hammer,
as explained previously. A third point is included in the diagrams. This is the intersection of the assessment
line with the FAD curve, in order to estimate the nature of the failure, if it where to occur.
Whence:
P 1 = (0, Krs )
P 2 = (Lpr , Krs + Krp )
where:
Lpr =
Krp,s

p
Y (1 a/t)

Y p,s a
=
KIc

(3.5)

(3.6)

Steel A

Figure 3.2: Fracture assessment diagram for Steel A

Figure 3.2 shows a line of best fit through the two assessment points. This line is extrapolated in order
to give an insight into the nature of failure in which is expected to occur. It can be seen that the line
crosses the boundaries of the Kr failure curve at around (0.62,0.89). This indicates an elastic-plastic failure.
Therefore the failure could be of either nature, or both. However the assessment point for the vessel under
the maximum allowable hoop stress is not bounded by the predicted failure curve given by equation 3.4.
Therefore the vessel will likely fail under these conditions. Steel A is therefore not a viable option under the
current conditions. This was to be expected, since it was previously shown that the critical crack size is less
than the detectable crack size.
Steel B

Figure 3.3: Fracture assessment diagram for Steel B

Figure 3.3 shows a line of best fit through the two assessment points also. This line is extrapolated as in
figure 3.2. It can be seen that the line crosses the boundaries of the Kr failure curve at around (1.01,0.54).
7

This indicates a plastic failure. Therefore the failure is highly likely to be due to steel deforming plastically,
and less likely to fail in a brittle manner due to unstable crack propagation. Unlike steel A, the assessment
points are bounded by the failure curve. Therefore the vessel is not predicted to fail under these conditions
and is a far better choice of material. Despite the increase in cost (shown in section 2).
From this it can be deduced that steel B is highly favourable in light of the FAD assessment. The steel is
much less likely to fail catastrophically without any warning signs. It was also shown previously that steel
B has a much higher critical crack length. This is a major factor as to why it is less likely to fail in a brittle
and unstable way.

3.4

Sensitivity Analysis

Accuracy of the NDT methods

It is given that the minimum detectable crack depth is 6mm. This is the smallest detectable crack
in which
can be treated during the lifetime of the vessel. The stress intensity factor, K, is proportional to a. Given
equation 3.5 it can be seen that Lr also increases with crack size. Therefore the assessment point moves closer
to the failure curve of the material as crack size is increased. From this it can be said that increasing the accuracy of the NDT methods will decrease the chance of failure. This is best shown graphically. This is shown in
figure 3.4, where the accuracy of the NDT methods have increased and the detectable crack size is now 2mm.

Figure 3.4: Fracture assessment diagram for Steel A with crack depth decreased to 2mm
Comparing figures 3.2 and 3.4 shows that the calculated assessment point is now bounded by the predicted
failure line for steel A, where as for 6mm detection it was not. Hence it can be seen that increasing the
accuracy of the NDT methods is crucial in avoiding failure.

Assumption of a 70MPa Residual Stress

The assumption of a 70M P a residual stress has big implications in the FAD analysis. It is therefore essential that this value is accurate and not under-estimated. Theresidual stress value is used explicitly to
calculate the stress intensity factor, K, by the equation K = Y r a. Therefore a change to the magnitude
of the residual stress moves the assessment points up and down the y-axis of the FAD. The residual stress
is also constantly applied to vessel and does not contribute to the yielding of the vessels material. It is
therefore concluded that an under-estimate of the stress could indicate that the vessel is indeed safe from a
brittle and sudden fracture due to crack propagation, where in reality it is more likely to do so. Therefore
it is vital that the residual stresses be accurately estimated, or treated appropriately in order to reduce them.

Shape of the defect

Up until now the shape of the crack has assumed to be that of a simple edge crack, not taking into consideration the crack width. A more accurate approach is to assume a shallow semi-elliptical crack laying parallel
to the axis of the pipe. This allows one to analyse the effects of various crack shapes on the fracture analysis.

Figure 3.5: Pressurised cylinder with semi-elliptical crack diagram

The crack shape and dimensions have an impact on the geometry calibration function, Y , and the internal
collapse pressure, Pc . Figure 3.5 shows the semi-elliptical crack and its dimensions. The dependent ratios
for the geometry calibration function are:
a/t
a/c
The vessel thickness, t, and the crack depth, a, are known. The only unknown is the crack width, c. Using
the following ratios:
a
6mm
= 0.343
=
tA
17.5mm
a
6mm
= 0.1713
=
tB
35mm
It is possible to obtain various values of Y for various values of c. A published graph of such data is attached
in the appendix. Reading from said graph at all possible values of a/c gives the following graph shown in
figure 3.6.

Figure 3.6: Plot of geometry calibration function, Y , against the ratio a/c for a semi-elliptical crack
9

It can be seen that as c tends to infinity that the geometry becomes similar to the simplified assumption
of a single edge-crack under tension. The resulting geometry calibration functions are very similar. Being
approximately 1.87 for steel A and 1.3 for steel B.
It is now necessary to calculate the internal collapse pressure and/or the collapse hoop stress for various
crack widths. The internal collapse pressure can be calculated from the following theoretical equation[1]:
Pc =

Y t
1

(1

1+1.052

(3.7)

)r

where
=

ta
t

(3.8)

and
=

c2
rt

(3.9)

It is now possible to calculate the collapse hoop stress using the following expression:
c =

Pc r
t

(3.10)

Figures 3.7 and 3.8 show the relationship between crack width and collapse hoop stress for the given crack
depth of 6mm, for both steel A & B respectively.

Figure 3.7: Plot of plastic limit stress against c for steel A

10

Figure 3.8: Plot of plastic limit stress against c for steel B

The graphs shown in figures 3.7 and 3.8 are asymptotic. As c tends to infinity, c tends towards Y . These
values are 460M P a and 290M P a for steels A and B respectively.
It is now possible to plot various assessment points on fracture assessment diagrams in order to assess the
effect of the crack shape/width on failure likelihood.

Figure 3.9: Fracture assessment diagram for Steel A for various crack shapes

11

Figure 3.10: Fracture assessment diagram for Steel B for various crack shapes
As explained previously, the assessment points for a/c = 0 are the same as in the simplified edge-crack geometry assumption. This is shown in figures 3.6 and 3.10. It is also shown that as the crack width decreases,
the Lr value tends to the ratio /Y . This is to be expected as when c = 0 the crack will be non-existent
and the plastic deformation will be caused completely by the yielding of the steel. As c decreases it is also
shown that the ratio Kr decreases. Again, as expected, since the smaller the crack, the lower the stress
concentration.
It can be concluded that the shape of the defect has massive effects on the FAD analysis. It can be seen from
figure 3.9 that different shapes of cracks will give completely different predictions. For example, initially
for a single-edge crack, steel A is predicted to fail under the maximum stress. However, when the shape
is changed to a more realistic value (shallow semi-elliptical crack) the vessel is not predicted to fail at the
same hoop stress. This being said, the conclusions are the same. Steel B far outperforms steel A and gives
a much greater safety margin.

12

FATIGUE ASSESSMENT

It has been shown that steel B is a more appropriate choice for the penstocks. Being much less likely to
fracture due to unstable crack propagation and being generally tougher than steel A. Fatigue crack growth
will now be analysed and the likely lifetime of the penstocks approximated. Only steel Bs fatigue assessment
is presented, for reasons already exhausted. For the fatigue assessment results of steel A at 17.5mm the
reader should refer to the appendix.
The crack propagation method will be used. This method first involves using LEFM assumptions to estimate
crack growth rate. Then the relation between the stress intensity range (K) vs crack growth rate (Paris
Law) to estimate the crack propagation life.
The stress cycles arise from the pressure change from 0m to 525m head of water within the vessel. From
this one can calculate the hoop stress range:
= max min =

P525 r
ghr
998 9.807 525 1
P525 r
0=
=
=
= 146.8M P a
t
t
t
0.035

(4.1)

where P525 is the pressure caused by the 525m head of water.

From the stress range, it is possible to calculate the stress intensity range, K:

K = Y a

(4.2)

The next logical step in the solution is to calculate the change in crack size, a, with respect to the number
of cycles, N , formally known as the Paris Law:
da
= C(K)m
dN

(4.3)

where C and m are material constants and are experimentally determined. It is given that C = 1011 and
m = 3 for the given steels.
The solution can be solved by numerical integration in an iterative manner using an appropriately small
step-size (a). An appropriate algorithm for the solution is given below in figure 4.1.
The initial crack size, ai , is equal to the detectable crack size 6mm. The final crack size, af is equal to or
greater than the critical crack size of the steel (ac ), which was shown earlier.

13

Initialize Solution: a0 = ai , N 0 = 0

Input: C, m, t, , a

Calculate Y: Y = 1.12 0.231(a/t) + 10.55(a/t)2 21.72(a/t)3 + 30.39(a/t)4

Calculate K: K = Y a

Calculate da/dN : a/N = C(K)m

Calculate N : N =

a
a/N

Set N i+1 = N i + N i+1

Set ai+1 = ai + ai+1

No

ai+1 = af ?

Proceed to next step

Yes
Solution Complete
Figure 4.1: Algorithm for estimating crack propagating life

14

Using the algorithm outlined in figure 4.1 the crack propagation life can now be calculated for steel B with the
minimum required thickness of 35mm. It is necessary first to convert the number of cycles into a reasonable
time frame. It is given that the penstocks are subjected to this pressure change approximately 7500 times a
year. Thus one can use this data to estimate the crack propagation life in years. This is given in figure 4.2.

Figure 4.2: Fatigue crack growth in Steel B

It can be seen that the detected cracks will propagate to the critical crack size after approximately 2 years.
This is considerably lower than the time between repainting of the inside wall, and much much less than the
service life of 50 years. With this data, it is clear that design changes need to be made to the penstocks. In
order to ensure a safe and durable life.

4.1

DESIGN IMPROVEMENTS

It was previously shown that design changes need to be made to the penstocks in order to reach the desired
service life of 50 years. An appropriate design change is to increase the thickness of the vessel. An appropriate increase would be approximately 80mm. This increases the critical crack size to 28.78mm. Using the
same script shown previously in section 3.2.
Figure 4.3 shows the fracture assessment diagram for the increased vessel thickness. It can be seen that
the increased thickness substantially reduced the experienced hoop stress and thus reduces the chance of
fracture and yielding greatly. This shows a great safety margin.
Figure 4.4 shows the crack propagation life for the increased vessel thickness. It shows that it would take
approximately 60 years for the detectable cracks to increase to the critical crack size. This gives a good
safety cushion of approximately 10 years for any undetected cracks of a comparable size. This will allow for
a safe service life with the addition of appropriate and cyclical safety checks. Increasing the thickness of the
pipe any more than 80mm will not give any measurable benefits to safety, however will increase design and
operational costs.

15

Figure 4.3: Fracture assessment diagram for Steel B for the improved design with t = 80mm

Figure 4.4: Fatigue crack growth for Steel B for the improved design with t = 80mm

16

FINAL DECISION

It is clear from the analysis that steel B serves as a much better option. Despite being slightly more expensive
per unit, it provides much greater engineering properties and is much tougher than steel A. This allows a
smaller pipe thickness to be chosen, thus actually being a cheaper and safer option than steel A.
It has been shown that an appropriate thickness for the penstocks are 80mm. Increasing the thickness any
more is unnecessary and will increase the design costs. Figures 4.3 and 4.4 shows that this thickness provides
a great safety margin for the penstocks and should ensure a safe service life of 50-60 years.
It would be appropriate for the penstocks to be inspected for defects every 5 years. This is more than enough
time to catch even large defects of approximately equal to 15mm, before they become a risk of failure. This
is almost three times the current detectable crack size. Increasing the frequency of inspection beyond 5 years
increases the operational costs considerably without adding any measurable benefits to failure prevention.
Cracks should be repaired when they are approximately equal to 15mm. This still gives approximately 12
years before risk of failure. Repairing cracks smaller than this will not provide any increased safety benefit,
however will increase the operational cost by a substantial amount.
As explained previously in the sensitivity analysis, improving the accuracy of the NDT methods will decrease
the risk of failure. Therefore the crack detection should be improved to 2mm. This will allow the cracks to
be monitored more thoroughly and there propagation estimated more accurately. For example, if a crack
propagates from 2mm to 6mm much faster than anticipated, one could repair such a crack before failure
could occur unexpectedly in the future.

REFERENCES
[1] Fracture Training Associates. Course k & collapse handbook, 2013.
[2] P. Deuflhard. Newton Methods for Nonlinear Problems: Affine Invariance and Adaptive Algorithms.
Springer Series in Computational Mathematics. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2011.
[3] A. Jivkov. Allocation of parameters for MACE43001/61057 coursework. University of Manchester, 2014.
[4] A. Jivkov. MACE43001 and MACE61057 Assignment 2014 - Design of penstock pipe for a hydroelectric
pumped storage station. University of Manchester, 2014.

17

APPENDICES
A

MATLAB Script Used To Calculate Critical Crack Size

clear
clc
% This script finds the solution to the non-linear crack size equation.
% Using the Newton-Raphson Method.
n=10; %number of iterations
K1c=[100*10^6;120*10^6]; %Critical Fracture Toughness for mode 1 failure: SteelA:SteelB
sigmah=[420*10^6;210*10^6]; %Maximum allowable hoop stress (0.6 yield stress): SteelA:SteelB
t=[0.0175;0.0350]; %Vessel Thickness: SteelA:SteelB
a=[0.001;0.001]; %Initial Guess: SteelA:SteelB
%iteration Loop
% ac_i+1 = f(ac_i)/f(ac_i) - ac_i
for i=1:n
f=((1.12.*a.^0.5-(0.231.*(a.^1.5).*(t.^(-1)))+(10.55.*(a.^2.5).*(t.^(-2)))(21.72.*(a.^3.5).*(t.^(-3)))+(30.39.*(a.^4.5).*(t.^(-4)))).*(pi^0.5).*sigmah)-K1c;
difff=((0.56.*a.^-0.5-(0.3465.*(a.^0.5).*(t.^(-1)))+(26.375.*(a.^1.5).*(t.^(-2)))
-(76.02.*(a.^2.5).*(t.^(-3)))+(136.755.*(a.^3.5).*(t.^(-4)))).*(pi^0.5).*sigmah);
a1=a-(f./difff);
a=a1;
end
%Final output a is the critical crack size in mm. SteelA:SteelB.
%convert a to millimeters by multilying by 1000.
a=a*1000
a =
5.7623
16.2628

18

Further Supplementary Graphs

Figure B.1: Geometry calibration function for Semi-elliptical crack at various crack sizes and pipe thicknesss

Figure B.2: Fatigue assessment graph for Steel A with af equal to the pipe thickness 17.5mm

19

MATLAB Script Used To Calculate Fatigue Crack Propagation

clear
clc
%Input known variables
h=525; %Maximum head of water
r=1;
%Radius of the pipe
C=10^-11;
%Material Constant
m=3;
%Material Constant
af=0.01750; %Final crack size
ai=0.006;
%Initial Crack size
t=0.01750; %Pipe thickness
dsigma=(h*r*998*9.807)/(t*10^6); %Calculate stress range

Na=5000; %Input number of iterations

da=(af-ai)/Na; %Calculate crack resolution (step-size)

%Initialize the solution

a=ai;
N=0;
year(1)=0;

%Calculation Loop - Algorithm Shown in Figure 4.1

for i=1:Na-1
G=(a/t);
Y=1.12-(0.231*G)+(10.55*G^2)-(21.72*G^3)+(30.39*G^4);
dk=Y*dsigma*((pi*a)^0.5);
dadn=C*(dk^m);
dN=da/dadn;
N=N+dN;
year(i+1)=N/7500;
a=a+da;
end
%Change a into millimeters
a=1000*linspace(ai,af,Na);
%Plot
plot(year,a)
grid on
xlabel(Years)
ylabel(Crack Length (mm))

20