Reliability Assessment of Piping With Cracks Using Advanced First-Order Second-Moment Method

Author(s):  
Shinji Yoshida ◽  
Hideo Machida

This paper describes applicability of the 2 parameter assessment method using a reference stress method from the viewpoint of reliability. The applicability of the reference stress method was examined comparing both the GE-EPRI method. As a result, J-integral and limit load at the time of fracture evaluated by the reference stress method is almost equivalent to that by the GE-EPRI method. Furthermore, the partial safety factor (PSF) evaluated by reliability assessment has little difference between two methods, and the required safety factor is enveloped by the safety factor for Service Level-A and B defined in fitness for service (FFS) codes. These results show that of the reference stress method is applicable for J-integral calculation in fracture assessment.

Author(s):  
Ikuo Kojima ◽  
Shinji Konosu

One of the features of HPIS Z101 Level2 method, which is to be published as a Japanese Fitness-For-Service (FFS) code for pressure equipment, is to use plural FADs (Fracture Assessment Diagrams) dependent on the materials. Regarding the FFS assessment methods for a crack-like flaw, Partial Safety Factor (PSF) is becoming a major approach in considering the effect of the variance of parameters for the assessment, such as applied load, material properties and detected dimensions of the flaws concerned. To apply this approach to the HPIS code, different PFSs for FADs dependent on materials should be prepared. PSFs with various conditions are calculated for the HPIS code, by the AFOSM (Advanced First-Order Second Moment) method. Comparison with PSFs in other preceding FFS codes, such as API 579-2000 and BS 7910-2005, is being conducted.


Author(s):  
Bruno Michel ◽  
Jean-Philippe Sermage ◽  
Philippe Gilles ◽  
Bruno Barthelet ◽  
Patrick Le Delliou

The RSE-M Code [1] provides rules and requirements for in-service inspection of French Pressurized Water Reactor power plant components. Non mandatory guidance is given in the Code for analytical flaw evaluation in a wide range of situations. In Appendix 5.4 of the Code, influence coefficients are provided to calculate stress intensity factors in pipes and shells containing semi-elliptical surface defects. The J assessment method is based on the reference stress concept with two options for reference loads evaluation: “CEP elastic plastic stress” and “CLC modified limit load”. In this paper recent advances concerning J assessment under mechanical loading for a crack located in a pipe-elbow junction are presented. Reference stress evaluation with “CLC” option is developed and mechanical foundations of the equation of large scale yielding under complex loading (pressure, in-plane and out-of-plane bending) are presented.


Author(s):  
Yuebao Lei ◽  
Peter Budden

Abstract In R6, the J-based failure assessment diagram (FAD) method is used in the fracture assessment, and is underpinned by the reference stress J scheme. Therefore, an assessment using the R6 FAD method is equivalent to a J prediction using the reference stress method. In this paper, the effect of global and local limit load solutions for defective elbows on the reference stress and hence the J predictions is investigated using published three dimensional elastic-plastic finite element (FE) J results, in order to create guidance for users to follow when performing structural integrity assessments of defective elbows using the R6 procedure. The results show that using the global limit load solutions recommended in this paper can lead to good and reasonably conservative J predictions. However, the availability of global limit load solutions is very limited. The results also show that using the local limit load evaluated from the local limit load model recommended in this paper can lead to conservative J predictions for most of the cases considered.


Author(s):  
Aurélien Pépin ◽  
Tomasz Tkaczyk ◽  
Noel O’Dowd ◽  
Kamran Nikbin ◽  
Suresh V. Chettiar

Abstract Engineering Critical Assessment (ECA) is commonly undertaken to derive the acceptance criteria for girth weld flaws in rigid pipelines deployed subsea by low-strain installation methods, such as S-Lay or J-Lay, or high-strain installation methods, such as Reel-Lay. The ECA generally considers the whole load history seen by the pipeline from fabrication to the end of service, and involves fracture and fatigue assessments. Fracture, which is the main focus of this paper, is deemed to have initiated when either (i) the crack driving force, expressed in terms of the J-integral or the Crack Tip Opening Displacement (CTOD), δ, is greater than the materials resistance, or (ii) the applied load exceeds the bearing capacity of the ligament of a cracked structure, also referred to as the plastic collapse or limit load. The robustness of the ECA procedure relies on the accuracy of the assessment solutions. Most flaws in pipeline girth welds are embedded. Unlike surface breaking flaws, embedded flaws are typically not directly assessed in a high-strain fracture ECA because the available assessment solutions are too conservative. A work-around approach is often followed, where the maximum acceptable surface breaking flaw sizes are also considered acceptable below the surface if the embedment depth is equal to or greater than half of the flaw height. Otherwise, an embedded flaw must be reclassified as a surface breaking flaw with a height equal to the sum of the embedded flaw height and embedment depth. To enable the direct fracture assessment of embedded flaws, the authors undertook in a previous work a parametric finite-element (FE) study on the effect of the embedment depth, the crack height and the crack length on the plastic collapse load of the shorter ligament of embedded flaws. Subsequently, a new limit load solution was proposed for the fracture assessment of embedded flaws in evenmatch pipeline girth welds subjected to tension and/or bending. This closed-form solution was shown to be significantly more accurate for estimating the crack driving force and the ligament plastic collapse load than other solutions available in the literature. For some geometries, however, the predicted limit load still needs to be significantly adjusted (increased) to correctly evaluate the J-integral, in a combined tearing and collapse assessment. This suggests that further enhancement of the solution is possible. This paper describes small-scale fracture tests which were undertaken to determine the load required to collapse a smaller ligament of embedded flaws in a modified middle crack tension (MMCT) specimen. A closed-form solution, which can also be used as a flaw reclassification criterion, is fitted to the test results and then compared to the FE-based solution. Finally, recommendations are made for the direct fracture assessment of embedded flaws in evenmatch pipeline girth welds subjected to load or displacement-controlled conditions.


Author(s):  
Şefika Elvin Eren ◽  
Tyler London ◽  
Yang Yang ◽  
Isabel Hadley

The British Standard, BS 7910 Guide to Methods for Assessing the Acceptability of Flaws in Metallic Structures is currently under revision [1]. Major changes have been undertaken, especially in the fracture assessment routes, and this paper specifically addresses the assessment of proximity to plastic collapse, usually expressed as the parameter Lr via either a reference stress or limit load approach. In the new edition of BS 7910, the reference stress approach has been retained for the assessment of many geometries, mainly for reasons of continuity. However, new limit load solutions (originating in the R6 procedure) are given for use in the assessments of strength mismatched structures or clad plates. In general, a reference stress solution and a limit load solution for the same geometry should deliver the same value of Lr. However, recent comparative studies have shown differences in the assessment of plastic collapse depending on whether the reference stress solutions in BS 7910:2013 or the limit load solutions in R6 are used for the calculation of Lr. In this paper, the extent of the difference in the assessment results with respect to the choice of solutions and boundary conditions are discussed. The results of the assessments in accordance with BS 7910 and R6 are compared with the results of numerical assessments obtained via Finite Element Analysis (FEA). The collapse loads observed in various wide plate tests conducted in the last 20 years are also compared with the collapse loads predicted by BS 910:2013, R6 and FEA. Finally, observations regarding the accuracy of different Codes and FEA are discussed.


2010 ◽  
Vol 132 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Eduard Marenić ◽  
Ivica Skozrit ◽  
Zdenko Tonković

In the present paper, calculations of the stress intensity factor (SIF) in the linear-elastic range and the J-integral in the elastoplastic domain of cracked structural components are performed by using the shell-to-solid submodeling technique to improve both the computational efficiency and accuracy. In order to validate the submodeling technique, several numerical examples are analyzed. The influence of the choice of the submodel size on the SIF and the J-integral results is investigated. Detailed finite element solutions for elastic and fully plastic J-integral values are obtained for an axially cracked thick-walled pipe under internal pressure. These values are then combined, using the General Electric/Electric Power Research Institute method and the reference stress method, to obtain approximate values of the J-integral at all load levels up to the limit load. The newly developed analytical approximation of the reference pressure for thick-walled pipes with external axial surface cracks is applicable to a wide range of crack dimensions.


Author(s):  
Tae-Song Han ◽  
Nam-Su Huh ◽  
Do-Jun Shim

In order to assess a structural integrity of cracked components made of highly ductile material based on fully plastic fracture mechanics concept, an accurate plastic limit load of components of interest is crucial element. Such a plastic limit load can also be applied to estimate elastic-plastic J-integral based on the reference stress concept. In this context, during last several decades, many efforts have been made to suggest plastic limit load solutions of cracked cylinder. Recent works for evaluating rupture probabilities of nuclear piping indicate that the only use of idealized circumferential through-wall crack leads to very conservative results which in turn gives higher rupture probabilities of nuclear piping, thus the considerations of more realistic crack shape during crack growth due to primary water stress corrosion cracking (PWSCC) and fatigue and axial through-wall crack were recommended to come up with more realistic rupture probabilities of nuclear piping. Then, the needs of fracture mechanics parameters of non-idealized through-wall cracks both in axial and circumferential directions have been raised. In the present work, the plastic limit loads of thick-walled cylinder with non-idealized axial and circumferential through-wall cracks are proposed based on detailed 3-dimensional finite element analyses. The present results can be applied either to assess structural integrity of thick-walled nuclear piping with non-idealized through-wall cracks or to calculate elastic-plastic J-integral using the reference stress concept.


Author(s):  
Liwu Wei ◽  
Isabel Hadley

Fracture assessment diagram (FAD) based fracture assessment procedures are universally adopted by standards/documents including BS7910, R6, API579-1/ASME FFS-1 and FITNET. In the use of a FAD for structural integrity assessment, one important consideration is to determine the load ratio (Lr) which is defined by two equivalent definitions: Lr is either defined as the ratio of reference stress (σref) to yield strength (σY) as in BS7910, or as the ratio of applied load to plastic limit load as in R6. The solutions of reference stress or limit load are given in the assessment procedures for commonly encountered flawed structures such as a plate containing a surface crack and a cylinder containing an external surface crack. Although the solutions given in the various standards are not all the same, they were invariably derived on the basis of analysis of the force and moment equilibrium with regard to a flawed section and none of them has taken into account the effects of bi-axial stressing on a flawed section, thus leading to the likelihood of an overly conservative assessment. In this work, finite element analysis (FEA) of various flawed geometries (plate and cylinder containing surface cracks) was performed to compute plastic limit load, with the focus on understanding the effects of bi-axial stressing on plastic limit load. The geometries assessed include a plate with a surface crack subjected to both uni-axial and bi-axial loading, and a cylinder with circumferentially internal and external surface cracks sustaining a combination of axial loading and internal pressure. The investigation of these cases has demonstrated a significant increase in plastic limit load arising from bi-axial stressing. Comparison of the results of plastic limit load obtained from FEA with those derived from BS 7910 reference stress solutions was carried out to assess the extent of conservatism when the standard solutions are used in the applications containing bi-axial stresses. The implication for structural integrity assessment due to bi-axial stressing was also addressed. A comparison between BS 7910 Level 2B (material-specific FAD) and Level 3C (based on a FAD generated with FEA) procedures was also made and it was shown that whether the Level 3C procedure can reduce the conservatism in an assessment is dependent on individual cases.


Author(s):  
S¸efika Elvin Eren ◽  
Isabel Hadley ◽  
Kamran Nikbin

At present within the fracture assessment routes of different codes and standards, two different options for the assessment of plastic collapse, Lr, are available, namely reference stress and limit load approaches. Recent comparative studies have shown significant differences in the assessment of plastic collapse depending on whether the reference stress solutions in BS 7910:2005 or the limit load solutions in R6/FITNET are used for the calculation of Lr. In this paper, differences with respect to the choice of solutions and boundary conditions will be illustrated and observations regarding the route that the Codes should take with respect to a unified assessment will be discussed.


Author(s):  
Tiecheng Yang ◽  
Xuedong Chen ◽  
Zhichao Fan

For the fracture assessment method internationally used in different structural integrity assessment procedures, such as R6, BS 7910, FITNET API 579 and GB/T 19624, this paper gives the results of analytical comparisons in combination with specific calculation examples by comparing different assessment options or levels, the partial safety factors (PSFs), limit load solutions, stress intensity factor solutions, residual stress distribution and treatment methods, secondary stresses and ρ factor solutions etc., which provide a basis for improvement of fracture assessment methods.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document