Nuclear Engineering and Design 138 (1992) 251-258 251

North-Holland

Analysis of leak and break behavior in a failure assessment

diagram for carbon steel pipes
Satoshi Kanno a, Kunio Hasegawa a, Tasuku Shimizu a, Takashi Saitoh b and Nobuho Gotoh b
" Mechanical Engineering Research Laboratory, Hitachi, Ltd., 1-1, 3 chorne, Saiwaicho, Hitachi-Shi, Ibaraki-Ken 317, Japan
b Hitachi Works, Hitachi, Ltd. 1-1, 3 chome, Saiwaicho, Hitachi-Shi, Ibaraki-Ken 317, Japan

Received 10 August 1991

The leak and break behavior of a cracked coolant pipe subjected to an internal pressure and a bending moment was
analyzed with a failure assessment diagram using the R6 approach. This paper examines the conditions of the detectable
coolant leakage without breakage.
A leakage assessment curve, a locus of assessment points for detectable coolant leakage, was defined in the failure
assessment diagram. The region between the leak assessment and failure assessment curves satisfies the condition of
detectable leakage without breakage. In this region, a crack can be safely inspected by a coolant leak detector.

1. Introduction

A failure assessment diagram (FAD) is proposed by the Central Electricity Generating Board (U.K.
CEGB, presently National Electric Co.) as the R6 approach [1]. This approach is based on the notion
that fracture is bounded by a linear elastic fracture at one extreme and a fully plastic fracture at the
other. This method can evaluate a wide range of elastic-to-plastic fracture mechanics situations.
Application of this approach for pipe flaw evaluation is discussed in the A S M E Boiler and Pressure
Vessel Code, Section XI [2].
A failure possibility of a cracked structure is shown in the diagram represented by the R6 approach.
However, when considering leak-before-break in coolant piping, it is necessary to consider both the
prediction of fracture and the coolant leak rate. It is important in plant safety to detect coolant leakage
before a double-ended pipe fracture. The relationship between the capability of leak detectors and leak
rates from through-wall pipe cracks should be determined to permit evaluation of leaks before breaks.
This paper describes the detectable coolant leakage without breakage on the failure assessment
diagram (FAD) of the R6 approach.

2. Analysis procedure for a cracked pipe

2.1. A n a l y s i s conditions

Type 304 stainless steel piping and JIS (Japan Industrial Standards) STS42 carbon steel piping are
analyzed for breakage and leakage. J1S STS42, corresponding to A S M E A333 Gr. 6, is called "Carbon
Steel Pipe for High Pressure Service" by JIS. Pipes with circumferential through-wall cracks are

Correspondence to." Dr. Satoshi Kanno, Mechanical Engineering Research Laboratory, Hitachi, Ltd., 1-1, 3 chome, Saiwaicho,
Hitachi-Shi, Ibaraki-Ken 317, Japan.

0029-5493/92/$05.00 © 1992 - Elsevier Science Publishers B.V. All rights reserved

252 S. Kanno et al. / Analysis or leak and break behaL~ior

Crack
Bending m o m e n t

Inner pressure :
70kgf/cm 2
(6.8 MPa)

Fig. 1. Circumferential through-wall cracked pipe subjected to inner pressure and bending moment.

subjected to an internal pressure and a bending moment, as shown in fig. 1. Internal pressure is held
constant at 70 k g f / c m 2 (6.9 MPa). Pipe sizes, from 4-inch diameter (4B) to 26-inch diameter (26B), are
analyzed and dimensions are listed in table 1. The material properties at 300°C are given in table 2. Yield
and tensile strength of 304 SS are referenced from the design strength values from ASME Code, Sec. III
[31.

2.2. Breakage analysis using the R6 approach

The failure of a structure is bounded by two extremes, a linear elastic fracture K r and a fully plastic
fracture Lr. The R6 approach, which combines K r and Lr, represents breakage on the failure
assessment diagram (FAD) as shown in fig. 2. The FAD assesses the integrity of the degraded piping.
When an assessment point of the cracked pipe is plotted below the failure assessment curve (FAC) in the
FAD, the pipe does not break. Conversely, when the point is located above the FAC, pipe breakage
occurs. Three FAC options are proposed by CEGB R6, Rev. 3 [1]. In the present study, the option 1
curve is used and is given as follows:
f , ( L r ) = (1 -0.14L2)[0.3 + 0.7 e x p ( - 0 . 6 5 L 6 ) ] . (1)

The FAC is cut off at L r = Lrmax, where L max represents the plastic collapse condition, crf/%, where ~rr is
the flow stress.
Breakage is determined by the location of the assessment point (L r, K r) on the FAD. The parameters
of the assessment point are given as follows:
K r = K/Kxc, L r = M/my, (2)

where K is the stress intensity factor; K~c is the fracture toughness; M is the bending moment, and My
is the collapse moment. The stress intensity factor, K, for a circumferential throughwall crack is given in
[4] as follows:

K = o3/~(RO ) F ( 0 ) , (3)

Table 1
Pipe sizes
Nominal Outer Thickness
diameter diameter (mm)
(ram)
4B 114.3 8.6
12B 318.5 17.4
26B 660.4 34.0
 S. Kanno et al. /Analysis a f loak and hmak behavior 253

Table 2
Material properties of stainless steel and carbon steel
Material Yield Tensile Dosign Fracture Elastic
strength strength stress Sm toughness modulus
(MPa) (MPa) (MPa) Jlc (kJ/m2) (GPa)
304 S/S 127 391 118 444 176.4
STS42 235 568 123 152 178.4

where o- is the applied stress, R is the mean radius of the pipe, 0 is the half crack angle and F(O) is a
function of 0.
For an axial tensile load application, o-t and Ft(0) are given by:

P
o',- 2rrRt' F,(0) = 1 + 7.5 - 15t-~) +33

For a bending moment application, % and F~(O) are given by:

M
crb = rrRZt '
Fb(0 ) = 1 + 6.8
(o)3. (o),.+ -- 13,6 20

where t is the wall thickness. The fracture toughness, K m, is calculated from Jlc by equation (4):
K, c = J , c E / ( 1 _ p2), (4)
where E is the elastic modulus and u is Poisson's ratio, 0.3 in this analysis. The axial tensile load and
bending moment are given by:
P = "n'R2pr, M = O'b'/rR2t, (5)

where Pr is the internal pressure. The expression for the collapse moment, My, is given in [5] as:
My = 2%RZt(2 sin fiB-- sin 0), (6)

C rack-7
Failure assessment curve
~ Option 1)

x£
tr .£/ \ \
d-/.,
..e 5

i i II I I I I I I I
1 2
M
Lr=--
My
Fig. 2. Failure assessment diagram (FAD) for R6 approach.
254 S. Kanno et al. / Analysis of leak and break behavior

where
zr-O rrRPr
fib =
2 4 tG

In the FAD, the locus of failure assessment points exhibits linear behavior with increasing applied
load and non-linear behavior with increasing crack angle, as shown in fig. 2. The crack opening area
increases as the applied load and/or crack angle increases, and leakage attain a detectable value (i.e. 5
gpm (19 l/rain)). If the assessment point for detectable leakage is located below the FAC, the crack is
detected by the leak detector without breakage.
Unstable fractures can also be predicted by the R6 approach using ductile crack growth resistance
data. The details are described in [1].

2.3. Analysis of leakage

Prediction of the crack opening area and the leak rate are necessary for evaluating the coolant
leakage. An expression for the crack opening area of a circumferential through-wall crack is estimated
from [4]:

2~rTr(R0eff) 2
A I ( 0eft ) . (7)
E
For an axial tensile load application, It(0) is given by:

't(0)=l+(O) 18.6-13.3(O)+24(O121

For a bending moment application, Ib(0) is given by:

]3/2[
lb(0)=l+(°) 18.2--12.7(O)+19.3(O)2]

+t°)3[ 04 68(°)+ 165.2(°)' 1872(°)'+1467(°)41

where 0~ff is the half crack angle corrected by the plastic zone size.
The flow rate of saturated water is calculated from a two-phase flow model developed by Moody [6].
The leak rate per unit area G c is a function of Ft/D h and is expressed as:

Gc =f(Ft/Dh) (8)
with

F=
[
2 loglo
D h
+ 1.7
`.2

,
A
D h ~ --
C
 S. Kanno et al. / Analysis of leak and break behavior 255

Table 3
Relationship between Gc and F t / D h for saturated water
Ft/D h 0 5 10 50 100
G~ (Ib/s-ft ~) 7830 3960 3380 1500 970
(kg/s-m 2) 38.4× 103 19.4× 103 16.6× 103 7.4× 103 4.8× 105

where F is the Fanning friction factor; D h is the hydraulic diameter; c is the crack length, and • is the
crack surface roughness. The relationship between G c and F t / D h for saturated water is shown in table
3.

3. Analysis results

The loci of assessment points under constant applied bending stresses were obtained for 26-inch
diameter carbon steel pipe (JIS STS42) as shown in fig. 3. The constant bending stress values ranged
from 0.5 Sm to 3.0 Sm, where Sm is the design stress intensity defined by ASME Code Sec. III [3].
The assessment point falls on the L~ axis at 20 = 0 °, and moves nonlinearly toward the FAC with
increasing crack angle. The loci, which is shown as a dotted line in fig. 3, comprise the "crack increasing
line". The crack increasing line moves toward L max when the applied moment increases. The failure
assessment points and crack angles of 5 gpm leakage are illustrated on the crack increasing lines. When
the applied bending stresses are greater than 2.5 Sm, the assessment points are located above the FAC.
Under these conditions, pipes are predicted to fail before the cracks are detected by the leak detectors.
Conversely, when applied bending stresses are less than 1.5 Sin, the assessment points are located below
the FAC. Hence, cracks can be detected at 5 gpm leakage without pipe breakage. The design stress for
bending as defined by ASME Code Sec. III is less than 1.5 Sm. Therefore, under this condition for a
26-inch carbon steel pipe, pipe integrity is maintained during normal operation.
A "leak assessment curve" is constructed by connecting the assessment points of 5 gpm leakage in fig.
3. These 5 gpm leakage curves for carbon and stainless steel pipes are shown in figs. 4 and 5, respectively.
In the region below the 5 gpm leakage curve, cracks can not be detected by leak detectors because
leakage is small amount. The region between the 5 gpm leakage curve and the FAC is related to the
integrity of the pipe, because cracks can be detected by leakage without pipe failure. Therefore, the 5

Sin:Design s t r e s s intensity C/S 26B

( ):20
0.5 Sm 1.5 Sm 2.5 Sm

~' "-.~/# ' X •(8 °)

/ , ~J//-~ 5gD

i I i iI i I
0 0.5 1.0 1.5 Lr max 2.0
Lr
Fig. 3. Leak rate of 5 gpm illustrated on the loci of assessment points with increasing crack angle for 26B carbon steel pipe.
25~ S. Kanno et al. / Analysis of leak and break behal,ior

Carbon steel

1£

0.5 1.0 1.5 L r max 2.0

Lr
Fig. 4.5 gpm leakage curve for carbon steel pipe from 4B to 26B.

gpm leakage curve or the "leak assessment curve" is useful in assessing leakage and breakage behavior of
cracked pipes.
The 5 gpm leakage curve is situated at lower values of K r for a decrease in pipe size as shown in figs.
4 and 5. The 5 gpm leakage curves for stainless steel pipe are lower than these for carbon steel. The
fracture toughness of stainless steel is greater than that of carbon steel. Hence, the region between the
leak assessment and failure assessment curves is enlarged by an increase in material toughness.
An unstable fracture analysis at Level C is conducted on pipe with diameters from 4B to 26B as shown
in fig. 6. Level C denotes emergency conditions, and the pipe is subjected to a bending stress of 2.25 Sin,
according to ASME Code Sec. III. The dotted curve in fig. 6 is the ductile crack growth resistance curve
in the FAD. When this curve coincides with FAC, unstable fracture is believed to occur. The critical
crack angles are 50 ° for 26B, 52 ° for 12B and 60 ° for 4B-pipe when each pipe is subjected to bending
stress of 2.25 Sm. If cracks are smaller than a critical length, unstable fractures can be avoided, In
general, the pipe is considered to be subjected to bending stress of 0.5 Sm under normal operation. The
assessment points for a pipe with critical crack angles under the applied load of 0.5 Sm are shown in fig.
6. These points are located above the detectable leakage curve of 5 gpm for 26B and 12B pipes. Thus,
cracks can be detected before the crack sizes reach the critical value. However, the assessment point
corresponding to a load of 0.5 Sm for 4B pipe is located below the 5 gpm curve. In this case, the crack
can not be detected by a leak detector. Pipes as small as 4B have the potential for fracture when the

Stain[ess steel

O\\ om crvo

I I I i i I I I I
0 1
Lr
Fig, 5.5 gpm leakage curve for stainless steel pipe from 4B to 26B.
 S. Kanno et al. /Analysis of leak and break behavior 257

!i:20 225s~ [c/s26B

;(500)
r
i

1.o ~ iUnst"ble
o.5 ,j~
0.5 Sr, ~
~,,,!
!
0 I I I I
I C/S 12B
1.0 ~ ~ 2.25Srn
,/ ; (52°)

~ 0.5 / ' ~ !Unstable

0 4B
1.11

2.25Sm
~" 0.5 ~'"~'{5°°)
o
0.51.0 1.5 2.0
Lr
Fig. 6. Unstab]e fracture analysis at Level C for carbon steel pipe.

assessment point is located in the region above the load increasing line, shown as a dotted line, and
below the 5 gpm curve.

4. Conclusion

The leakage and breakage behavior of cracked coolant pipes subjected to internal pressure and
bending moment are analyzed in the FAD of the R6 approach. Results are as follows:
(1) A leak assessment curve, the locus of assessment points for detectable coolant leakage, can be
defined in the FAD. The region between the leak assessment and the failure assessment curves
shows that cracks can be detected by leak detectors.
(2) The region of detectable leakage for stainless steel pipe in FAD is wider than for carbon steel.
Therefore, the concept of leak-before-break is more applicable for stainless steel pipe than for
carbon steel.
(3) For carbon steel pipe, sizes as small as 4B have the potential for fracturing when the pipe contains a
critical crack size at Level C.
258 S. Kanno et aL /Analysis of leak and break behavior

References

[1] I. Milne, R.A. Ainsworth, A.R. Dowling and A.T. Stewart, CEGB Report R/H/R6-Revision 3 (1985).
[2] ASME, Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, See. XI IWB-3650 (1987).
[3] ASME, Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Sec. III (1974).
[4] H. Tada, P. Paris and G. Irwin, The Stress Analysis of Cracks Handbook (2nd edition, 1985).
[5] M.F. Kanninen et al., EPRI NP-192 (1976).
[6] F.J. Moody, Journal of Heat Transfer, Trans. ASME (1965).