International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 79 (2002) 451464

www.elsevier.com/locate/ijpvp

Elasticplastic J and COD estimates for axial through-wall cracked pipes

Yun-Jae Kim, Nam-Su Huh, Young-Jae Park, Young-Jin Kim*
SAFE Research Centre, School of Mechanical Engineering, Sungkyunkwan University, 300 Chunchun-dong, Jangan-gu, Kyonggi-do, Suwon 440-746, South Korea Received 5 January 2002; revised 19 March 2002; accepted 19 March 2002

Abstract This paper proposes engineering estimation equations of elasticplastic J and crack opening displacement (COD) for axial through-wall cracked pipes under internal pressure. On the basis of detailed 3D nite element (FE) results using deformation plasticity, the plastic inuence functions for fully plastic J and COD solutions are tabulated as a function of the mean radius-to-thickness ratio, the normalised crack length, and the strain hardening. On the basis of these results, the GE/EPRI-type J and COD estimation equations are proposed and validated against 3D FE results based on deformation plasticity. For more general application to general stressstrain laws or to complex loading, the developed GE/EPRI-type solutions are re-formulated based on the reference stress (RS) concept. Such a re-formulation provides simpler equations for J and COD, which are then further extended to combined internal pressure and bending. The proposed RS based J and COD estimation equations are compared with elasticplastic 3D FE results using actual stressstrain data for Type 316 stainless steels. The FE results for both internal pressure cases and combined internal pressure and bending cases compare very well with the proposed J and COD estimates. q 2002 Published by Elsevier Science Ltd.
Keywords: Axial through-wall crack; Crack opening displacement; J-integral; Reference stress approach; Finite element; Plastic inuence functions

1. Introduction Leak-before-break (LBB) analysis is an important fracture mechanics concept for design and integrity evaluation of nuclear pressurised piping. In this respect, signicant efforts have been made over the last two decades on elastic plastic fracture mechanics methods for LBB analysis [13]. However, a majority of research activities have been focused on analyses of circumferential cracked pipes, but reports on axial cracked pipes are rare. For instance, noting that application of LBB analysis requires estimates of the Jintegral and the crack opening displacement (COD), there are currently a number of engineering methods available to estimate elasticplastic J and COD for circumferential through-wall cracked (TWC) pipes [411], whereas few methods are yet available for axial TWC pipes. In the GE/ EPRI handbook [12], the Dugdale model is given for estimating elasticplastic J of axial TWC pipes under pressure, and a small scale yielding model for estimating COD.
* Corresponding author. Tel.: 182-31-290-5274; fax: 182-31-290-5276. E-mail address: yjkim@yurim.skku.ac.kr (Y.-J. Kim). Abbreviations: COD, crack opening displacement; ERS, enhanced reference stress; FE, nite element; GE/EPRI, general electric/electric power research institute; LBB, leak-before-break; RO, RambergOsgood; TWC, through-wall cracked 0308-0161/02/$ - see front matter q 2002 Published by Elsevier Science Ltd. PII: S 0308-016 1(02)00030-3

Although this may be due to the fact that axial cracks in pipes would be less signicant than circumferential cracks, a reliable non-linear fracture mechanics method for the LBB analysis of axial cracked pipes is still desirable. The goal of this paper is to develop an elasticplastic fracture mechanics method to estimate J and COD for axial TWC pipes under internal and combined pressure and bending. To achieve this goal, 3D nite element (FE) analyses based on deformation plasticity are carried out to determine fully plastic components of J and COD for axial TWC pipes under internal pressure. These results are reformulated in the form of the reference stress (RS) approach, which is then validated against further elastic plastic 3D FE analyses using realistic stressstrain data. Finally, the extension of the proposed RS based J estimation method to combined pressure and bending and to estimate other non-linear fracture mechanics parameters, such as the C p-integral, is discussed. 2. Fully plastic J and COD solutions 2.1. FE analysis based on deformation plasticity Fig. 1 depicts an axial TWC pipe under internal pressure p, with relevant dimensions, considered in the present work.

452

Y.-J. Kim et al. / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 79 (2002) 451464

Nomenclature c E h1, h2 J K n nI p pL poR Rm t a d 1 n r s s ref sy half crack length Young's modulus, E 0 E=1 2 n2 for plane strain; E for plane stress fully plastic inuence functions for the GE/ EPRI method J-integral linear elastic stress intensity factor strain hardening index 1 # n , 1 for RambergOsgood model, Eq. (2) strain hardening indices for the ERS-based COD estimation equation, Eq. (32) internal pressure plastic limit pressure assuming the limiting stress of s y optimised reference pressure mean radius of pipe pipe wall thickness coefcient of RambergOsgood model crack opening displacement at centre of crack strain, general Poisson's ratio p normalised crack length, c= R m t stress, general reference stress yield strength

suggests that important non-dimensional variables are the ratio of mean radius to the thickness, Rm =t; and the normalised crack length parameter r , dened by c r p 1 Rm t Elasticplastic analyses of the FE model for the axial TWC pipe (Fig. 1) were performed using the general-purpose FE program, ABAQUS [14]. The tensile properties for the FE analysis are assumed to follow the RambergOsgood (RO) relation: 2 3n 1 s s 1a 2 10 sy sy where 1 0, s y, a and n are constants, with E1 0 s y where E and s y are Young's modulus and the yield strength, respectively. The deformation plasticity option with a small geometry change continuum model was invoked. In the present FE calculations, specic values of the variables a , E and s y were used; a 1; E 190 GPa and s y 400 MPa: It should be noted, however, that such specic values do not affect fully plastic J and COD solutions based on deformation plasticity, which will be proposed in the present work, as plastic inuence functions do not depend on these variables (see Section 2.2 for details). For the strain hardening exponent n, on the other hand, three values were selected, n 1; 3 and 7. Note that the case of n 1 corresponds to the elastic case with Poisson's ratio of n 0:3: 1 Regarding other variables, two values of Rm =t were considered, Rm =t 5 and 20, and four values of r were considered, r 0:5; 1.0, 2.0 and 3.0. Thus a total of 24 calculations were performed in the present work. The number of elements and nodes in a typical FE mesh are 1440 elements/8485 nodes. Two elements were used through the thickness, which has been shown to provide the most reliable results for COD calculation [15,16]. Although the aspect ratio of the near-tip elements is quite high, it does not affect the present FE computations of J and COD, as the stress gradient through the wall is low for the present problem. For problems where the stress gradient through the wall is high, for instance when through-wall bending is applied or when welding residual stress is considered, more elements should be used through the thickness. Considering symmetry conditions, only one quarter of the pipe was modelled. Fig. 2 shows the FE mesh for r 1 and Rm =t 5: To avoid problems associated with incompressibility, reduced integration 20 node elements (element type C3D20R in ABAQUS) were used. Internal pressure was applied as a distributed load to the inner surface of the FE model, together with an axial tension equivalent to the internal pressure
1 The effect of n on J was found to be minor for the present problem. For instance, the value of J using n 0:5 differs within 3% from that using n 0:3 for all cases considered.

Some important dimensions for the pipe should be noted. The mean radius and the thickness of the pipe are denoted as Rm and t, respectively, and the half crack length is denoted by c. The plastic limit load solution (see e.g. Miller [13])

Fig. 1. Schematic illustration of axial TWC pipes under internal pressure p.

Y.-J. Kim et al. / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 79 (2002) 451464

453

Table 1 Values of the shape factor F for the stress intensity factor and the plastic inuence h1-functions for the plastic J-integral Rm =t 5

r
0.5 1 2 3 0.5 1 2 3

F 2.743 3.604 5.576 7.465 2.545 3.344 5.240 7.113

h1 n 1 3.859 3.740 3.409 3.055 3.897 3.779 3.533 3.255

h1 n 3 5.656 4.730 3.578 2.851 5.806 4.927 4.012 3.430

h1 n 7 6.710 4.367 2.866 2.270 6.901 4.648 3.606 3.324

20

Fig. 2. Typical nite element meshes for axial TWC pipe with Rm =t 5 and r 1:0:

applied at the end of the pipe to simulate the closed end. More importantly, 50% of the internal pressure was applied to the crack face to consider the effect of the crack face pressure. The J-integral values were extracted from the FE results using a domain integral, as a function of the applied internal pressure. The J values are averaged, whereas the COD values, were determined from the FE displacement results in the mean thickness of the centre of the crack. 2.2. FE based plastic inuence functions Elastic FE calculations (with n 1) gave the elastic J, Je, from which the shape factor F for the elastic stress intensity factor K was found: 2 Je K2 1 1 p 2 s pcF ; E E

[17,18] were obtained from detailed 3D FE analysis, excellent agreement between the present solutions and those in Refs. [17,18] gives condence in the present FE calculations. On the other hand, approximate solutions given in the GE/EPRI handbook slightly underestimate the COD. For RO materials, the plastic components of J and COD, Jp and d p, can be expressed as ! p n11 5 Jp as y 10 ch1 n pL

dp a10 ch2 n

p pL

!n

s1

pRi 2t

Note that the plane stress condition was assumed to calculate the values of F. 3 Resulting values of F are given in Table 1, and shown in Fig. 3. Fig. 3 also compares the present results with published results [12], showing good agreement. Similarly, the shape factor V, associated with the elastic COD, d e, can be found from

where pL denotes the plastic limit pressure for axial TWC pipes, of which the expression used in the present work is the solution based on detailed FE limit analyses [19]:   2 t 1 p pL p s y 7 Rm 3 1 1 0:34r 1 1:34r2 where r is dened in Eq. (1). Fig. 4 compares this solution with the limit pressure resulting from detailed 3D FE limit analyses [19], together with two published solutions. The rst one is the limit pressure solution due to Folias [20], which is given by pL s y t 1 p Rm 1 1 1:05r2 8

de

4 1 s cV E

Note again that the plane stress condition was assumed to calculate the values of V. Resulting values of V are given in Table 2, and shown in Fig. 3. Fig. 3 also compares the present results with those in the GE/EPRI handbook [12] and in Refs. [17,18]. Noting that the solutions in Refs.
The stress on the end of the pipe, s 1, in Eq. (3), is the thin-shell approximation. The thick-shell averaged stress is slightly different. However, for R m =t $ 5 considered, there is not much difference. When the correct expression for s 1 is used, the corresponding value of F can easily be found from Eq. (3). Thus the use of the correct expression of s 1 is not so important, and for clarity, the thin-shell approximation is used in the present work. 3 This plane stress assumption may not be valid for thick-walled pipes. However, the plane stress assumption does not affect the present solution, as the fully plastic solutions do not depend on elastic solutions.
2

Table 2 Values of the shape factor V for the elastic COD and the plastic inuence h2-functions for the plastic COD Rm =t 5

r
0.5 1 2 3 0.5 1 2 3

V 2.632 3.922 8.582 15.417 2.452 3.627 8.093 14.913

h2 n 1 4.460 4.980 6.723 8.540 4.500 4.989 6.868 8.949

h2 n 3 5.617 5.824 7.223 8.606 5.695 5.946 7.915 10.100

h2 n 7 6.388 5.460 6.334 7.656 6.407 5.611 7.649 10.744

20

454

Y.-J. Kim et al. / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 79 (2002) 451464

Fig. 3. Variations of the shape factors, F and V, for the stress intensity factor and the elastic COD with r : the F-solutions for (a) Rm =t 5 and (b) Rm =t 20; the V-solutions for (c) Rm =t 5 and (d) Rm =t 20: The present solutions are compared with Ref. [12] and Refs. [17,18].

The other solution is one due to Erdogan [21] t pL s y Rm 1 0:614 1 0:87542r 1 0:386 exp22:275r ! 9

values were calculated by subtracting their elastic component from the total FE J and d values:   1 pRi 2 FE FE Jp J 2 pcF 2 10 E 2t

Fig. 4 shows that Eq. (7) agrees very well with the FE results for all ranges of r , whereas agreement between the FE solutions and the above published solutions is excellent for r . 0:5; but not so good for 0 , r , 0:5: This is because in the limiting case of an uncracked cylinder r ! 0; the above two solutions converge to the Tresca solution p not to the Mises solution, and thus the factor 2= 3 is missing. Note that in Eqs. (5) and (6), the plastic inuence functions, h1 and h2, are functions of Rm =t; the normalised crack length r and the strain hardening exponent n. Values of h1 and h2 were calibrated from the present FE analysis as follows. Firstly, the plastic components of the FE J and d

dFE dFE 2 p

  4 pRi cV E 2t

11

Then the values of h1 and h2 were calibrated from Eqs. (5) and (6), respectively. Note that the calculated values of h1 and h2 depend on the load magnitude, as shown in Fig. 5. In the present work, the value was chosen as the (almost) asymptotic value at large loads. Resulting values of h1 and h2 are tabulated in Tables 1 and 2, respectively. 3. J and COD estimations based on GE/EPRI method The plastic inuence functions, reported in Section 2.2,

Y.-J. Kim et al. / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 79 (2002) 451464

455

Fig. 4. Comparison of the FE limit pressure solutions for axial TWC pipes under internal pressure with known solutions. The FE result for r 0 corresponds to that for uncracked pipes.

can be used to estimate J and COD for axial TWC pipes, based on the GE/EPRI approach (see for instance Refs. [4,12]). For instance, the J-integral can be estimated from !2  n11 1 pRi p p pce Fce 1as y 10 ch1 n J 12 E 2t pL where the effective crack length ce is estimated from c e c 1 wr y ; 32  2 1 1 n21 K w ; ry 2p n 1 1 sy 1 1 p=pL 2 On the other hand, the COD can be estimated from !   4 pRi p n d ce Vce 1 a10 ch2 n E 2t pL 13

where the values of h1(n) and h2(n) can be determined using the data given in Tables 1 and 2 with appropriate interpolation/extrapolation. Fig. 6 compares estimated J, according to Eq. (12), with the FE results for four cases of a and n (Note that for all cases, s y is xed to s y 400 MPa). Fig. 7, on the other hand, compares the estimated COD, according to Eq. (14), with the FE results. They show that the proposed GE/EPRI-type J and COD estimations are quite good. It is worth noting, however, that the FE results shown in Figs. 6 and 7 are based on the idealised stressstrain data according to the RO relation, see Eq. (2).The GE/EPRI-type J and COD estimation equations, given above, have some inherent problems. First of all, this method requires the RO idealisation of the tensile data, and there can be inaccuracy associated with this process. The RO idealisation is known to be a poor approximation to tensile data for typical materials, which consequently can produce inaccuracy in the estimated J and COD. Readers can refer to other published papers (e.g. Refs. [5,6,9,10,22,23]). The second problem is that it is difcult to generalise this method to more complex problems, such as to combined loading cases. To provide relevant solutions for combined loading, in principle more extensive FE calculations have to be performed. To overcome these problems, the GE/EPRI-type J and COD estimation results, given in this section, are re-formulated in the form of the RS approach [24] in Section 4.

4. J and COD estimations based on reference stress concept 4.1. Reference stress formulation For the elastic case n 1; the elastic component of J and COD, Je and d e, in Eqs. (3) and (4) can be re-written as 14 p Je as y 10 ch1 n 1 pL !2 15

Fig. 5. Variation of the FE results for h1 and h2 with the load magnitude for Rm =t 5 and r 0:5:

456

Y.-J. Kim et al. / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 79 (2002) 451464

Fig. 6. (ad): Comparison of FE J results for axial TWC pipes under internal pressure with the GE/EPRI estimates. Note that the FE results are based on RambergOsgood materials with deformation plasticity.

de a10 ch2 n 1

p pL

! 16

where h1 n 1 and h2 n 1 denote the values of h1 and h2 for elastic materials, respectively. Comparing Eq. (15) with Eq. (3) gives the values of h1 n 1; which are tabulated in Table 1. Normalising Eq. (5) with respect to Eq. (15) gives ! Jp h1 n p n21 a 17 h1 n 1 pL Je Variations of h1 n=h1 n 1 with n are shown in Fig. 8 for Rm =t 5 and 20. Similarly, comparing Eq. (16) with Eq. (4) gives the values of h2 n 1; which are tabulated in Table 2. Normalising Eq. (6) with respect to Eq. (16) gives ! dp h2 n p n21 a 18 h2 n 1 pL de Variations of h2 n=h2 n 1 with n are also shown in Fig. 8 for Rm =t 5 and 20. The results in Fig. 8 show that the values of h1 n=h1 n 1 and h2 n=h2 n 1 are rather

sensitive to strain hardening n, that is ranges from ,0.7 to ,1.8 for n ranging from 1 to 7. Introducing another normalising (reference) pressure pref, and re-phrasing Eqs. (17) and (18) gives & ! ' ! Jp h1 n pref n21 p n21 a 19 h1 n 1 pL pref Je & ! ' ! dp h2 n pref n21 p n21 a h2 n 1 pL pref de 20

Noting that h1 n=h1 n 1; h2 n=h2 n 1 and pref =pL are non-dimensional variables, Eqs. (19) and (20) can be written as ! Jp p n21 aH 1 21 pref Je

dp p aH2 pref de

!n21

22

where non-dimensional functions, H1 and H2, presumably depend on Rm =t; r and n. An important underlying idea of

Y.-J. Kim et al. / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 79 (2002) 451464

457

Fig. 7. (ad): Comparison of FE COD results for axial TWC pipes under internal pressure with the GE/EPRI estimates. Note that the FE results are based on RambergOsgood materials with deformation plasticity.

the RS based J and COD estimation approach is that a proper denition of pref can minimise the dependence of H1 and H2 on Rm =t; r and n in Eqs. (21) and (22) [8,10,24]. Suppose such a load has been found, which will be termed `optimised reference pressure', poR. On the basis of the present FE results, the following expressions are proposed for poR: poR crp L @ 23 for r , 1:5 for r $ 1:5 24

Noting that the values of both H1 and H2 are now closer to unity, Eqs. (21) and (22) can be approximated as ! Jp p n21 <a 25 poR Je

dp p <a poR de

!n21

26

c r

20:06r 2 1 0:21r 1 0:82 1

where the expression for pL is found from Eq. (7). Note that for r ! 0; cr ! 0:82; whereas for r $ 1:5; cr 1: Introducing these expressions for p ref poR into Eqs. (21) and (22) gives the values of H1 and H2. Variations of the resulting H1 and H2 values with n are shown in Fig. 9. The results in Fig. 9 rstly show that the sensitivity in h1 n=h1 n 1 and h2 n=h2 n 1 is reduced in H1 and H2. For instance, for the range of 1 # n # 7; the values of h1 n=h1 n 1 and h2 n=h2 n 1 range from ,0.7 to ,1.8, whereas those for H1 and H2 from ,0.8 to ,1.2.

Noting that for the RO materials, the plastic strain is related to the stress as 2 3n21 s s 1p a 27 E sy Eqs. (25) and (26) can be written explicitly in terms of the RS, s ref, and the reference strain, 1 ref, as Jp E1ref ; Je s ref

s ref s ref

p s poR y p s poR y

28 29

dp E1ref ; de s ref

In Eqs. (28) and (29), s y denotes the 0.2% proof stress, and

458

Y.-J. Kim et al. / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 79 (2002) 451464

Fig. 8. Variations of h1 n=h1 n 1 for the J-integral with n for (a) Rm =t 5 and (b) Rm =t 20; variations of h2 n=h2 n 1 for the COD with n for (c) Rm =t 5 and (d) Rm =t 20:

1 ref is the true strain at s s ref ; determined from the true stressstrain data.
4.2. Proposed reference stress based J and COD estimation Eq. (28) gives the estimate of the plastic J-integral, and the total J-integral can be estimated by adding the elastic component with a plasticity correction [25]: 2 32 J E1ref 1 s ref s ref p 1 ; s ref s 30 Je 2 sy poR y s ref E1ref where poR is given in Eq. (23). The COD can be estimated from Refs. [811] V 2 32 b E1ref 1 s ref s ref b b b 1 for 0 # s ref , s y b s ` ref 2 sy E1ref d 3n 21 b  2 de b d s ref 1 b b b for s y # s ref X d sy e 1 31 In Eq. (31), (d /d e)1 denotes the value of (d /d e) at s ref =s y 1;

calculated from the rst equation in Eq. (31), so that Eq. (31) is continuous at s ref s y : The strain hardening index n1 in Eq. (31) should be estimated from n1 ln1u;t 2 s u;t =E=0:002 lns u;t =s y 32

where s u,t and 1 u,t denote the true ultimate tensile stress and percentage uniform elongation at s s u ; respectively. These are obtained from the corresponding engineering values using

s u;t 1 1 1u s u ;
4.3. FE validation

1u;t ln1 1 1u

33

To validate the proposed RS based J and COD estimation equations for axial TWC pipes under internal pressure, additional elasticplastic 3D FE analyses were performed. The main difference between these calculations and the previous ones in Sections 2 and 3 is the material properties. The previous cases considered idealised RO materials with deformation plasticity, whereas the present cases used

Y.-J. Kim et al. / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 79 (2002) 451464

459

Fig. 9. Variations of H1 for the J-integral with n for (a) Rm =t 5 and (b) Rm =t 20; variations of H2 for the COD with n for (c) Rm =t 5 and (d) Rm =t 20:

actual experimental uni-axial stressstrain data of Type 316 stainless steel at the temperature, T 288 8C; with incremental plasticity option. Stressstrain curves for the material are shown in Fig. 10, and the relevant data are summarised in Table 3. Two values of Rm =t and r were considered, Rm =t 5 and 20, and r 0:5 and 2.0, giving a total of four cases. Elasticplastic analyses of this FE model were performed using ABAQUS [14]. The experimental true stressplastic strain data were directly given in the FE analysis. Materials were modelled as isotropic elasticplastic materials that obey the incremental plasticity theory, and a small geometry change continuum FE model was employed. Detailed information on the FE model is in Section 2.1. Fig. 11 compares the FE J and COD results for Rm =t 5 with the predictions based on the proposed RS method, denoted as the `enhanced reference stress (ERS)' method. In Fig. 11, the J values are normalised with respect to s y and c, while the COD (d ) values with respect to c. The load, internal pressure, is normalised with respect to the optimised reference pressure, poR. (see Eq. (23)). The results are also compared with two other methods: the GE/EPRI method and the RS method. Noting that the GE/EPRI J and

COD estimations are developed in the present work (see Section 3), the resulting J and COD are also compared with the FE results. Application of the GE/EPRI method rstly requires that the material's tensile data should be

Fig. 10. Stressstrain curve for SA312 Type 316 (288 8C) and the resulting RambergOsgood t.

460

Y.-J. Kim et al. / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 79 (2002) 451464

Table 3 Summary of tensile properties for SA312 Type 316 stainless steel at 288 8C, used in the present FE analysis Material E (GPa)

s y (MPa)

s u (MPa)

RO Parameters

ERS Parameters n 2.92

a
SA312 Type 316 (288 8C) 190 165 455 8.42

1u
0.3

n1 3.82

Fig. 11. (ad) Comparison of FE J and COD results for axial TWC pipes with Rm =t 5 under internal pressure with the engineering estimates: (i) the proposed enhanced reference stress (ERS) method, (ii) the GE/EPRI solutions, developed in the present work (Present GE/EPRI), and (iii) the reference stress (RS) method.

tted using the RO relation, see Eq. (2). In the present work, the entire true stressstrain data up to the ultimate tensile strength were tted 4 using the ROFIT program [26], developed by Battelle. The resulting RO parameters, a and n, are listed in Table 3, and the resulting RO ts are compared with the experimental tensile data in Fig. 10. Once the RO parameters, a and n, are determined, then J and COD can be estimated using Eqs. (12)(14) in Section
4 There are other ways to t the tensile data using the RO relation. Typical ways include to t the data only up 5% strain and to t the data from 0.1% strain to 0.8 1 u,t, where 1 u,t denotes the true ultimate strain.

3, with the values of h1(n) and h2(n) obtained by interpolating the present FE results (tabulated in Tables 1 and 2). The resulting values of J and COD are denoted as `Present GE/ EPRI' in Fig. 11. The RS method is similar to the ERS method, except that the RS is dened using the limit pressure, Eq. (7), instead of the optimised reference pressure, Eq. (23). For r 2; the optimised reference pressure is the same as the limit pressure, and thus the ERS-based predictions are same as those based on the RS method. The comparisons in Fig. 11 show that the proposed ERS-based J and COD estimates are in overall good agreements with the FE results. On the other hand, the GE/EPRI J and COD

Y.-J. Kim et al. / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 79 (2002) 451464

461

Fig. 12. (ad) Comparison of FE J and COD results for axial TWC pipes with Rm =t 20 under internal pressure with the engineering estimates: (i) the proposed enhanced reference stress (ERS) method, (ii) the GE/EPRI solutions, developed in the present work (Present GE/EPRI), and (iii) the reference stress (RS) method.

estimates are not so accurate, compared to the FE results. Such results are consistent with our earlier nding [10,22] and such inaccuracy is associated with the RO t. In fact, if different ways of tting the RO equation are performed, accuracy can be improved, but no guidance on the best RO t can be given since it depends on material [22]. The J and COD estimates based on the RS method are good but less accurate than those based on the ERS method. Fig. 12 repeats the results for R m =t 20: It can be seen that the effect of Rm =t on estimated J and COD is minimal, and thus the same conclusions as those for Rm =t 5 can be drawn. 5. Discussion In this paper, engineering J and COD estimation equations for axial TWC pipes under internal pressure are developed. On the basis of detailed 3D FE results with deformation plasticity, fully plastic components of J and COD estimation equations for RO materials are given, which lead to the GE/

EPRI-type estimation equations. The developed solutions are re-formulated based on the RS concept, to overcome problems associated with the RO tting. Comparison with elasticplastic 3D FE results using actual stressstrain data for Type 316 stainless steels with the proposed J and COD estimates shows excellent agreement. The present work considers internal pressure only. However, typical pressurised piping components are subject to combined internal pressure and global bending. It has been found that a bending loading has only a slight effect on plastic limit load for axial TWC pipes [13]. Noting that the denition of the RS in the proposed enhanced RS approach is related to the plastic limit load, it can be argued that the proposed J and COD estimation equations for internal pressure can be equally applied to combined pressure and global bending loading. 5 To verify our proposal, the proposed J and COD estimates for internal pressure, Eqs. (30)(33), are compared with the FE results for axial
5 This statement is true not only for the proposed enhanced RS based J and COD estimations but also for the GE/EPRI and RS based estimations.

462

Y.-J. Kim et al. / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 79 (2002) 451464

Fig. 13. (ad) Comparison of FE J and COD results for axial TWC pipes with Rm =t 5 under combined internal pressure and bending with the engineering estimates: (i) the proposed enhanced reference stress (ERS) method, (ii) the GE/EPRI solutions, developed in the present work (Present GE/EPRI), and (iii) the reference stress (RS) method.

TWC pipes under combined pressure and global bending. The load proportionality factor l for combined loading is dened as

M pR2 pRm i

34

In the FE analysis, internal pressure and bending moment are increased in a proportional manner. For the proportionality factor, only one value of l was considered, l 0:5: The axial crack was located at the position of the maximum tensile stress due to global bending. The resulting FE J and COD results are compared with the proposed ERS method, the GE/EPRI method and the RS method in Fig. 13 for Rm =t 5 and in Fig. 14 for Rm =t 20: See Section 4.3 for detailed descriptions on presentation of results. It can be seen that the bending moment in fact has a minimal effect on estimated J and COD and thus those proposed for internal pressure can be used for combined pressure and global bending. Although the results for one value of l were given here, it would be sufcient to show that the proposed J and COD estimates can be used for combined pressure and global bending.

When the cracked pipe is operated at elevated temperatures, assessment should be carried out against creep crack growth, which in turn requires estimation of the C p-integral and the COD due to creep [27]. On the basis of the analogy between plasticity and creep, the present estimation equations can be _ used to estimate the C p-integral and the COD rate, d c ; due to creep [28]   2 E K 1c _ Cp 35 0 E s ref _ dc 1c _ de s ref =E with

dc t 0 0

36

where 1 c is the creep strain rate at the RS s s ref ; determined _ from the actual creep-deformation data. Validation of these estimation equations will be given in a separate paper [29]. 6. Conclusions This paper proposes engineering estimation equations of elasticplastic J and COD for axial TWC pipes under internal pressure. On the basis of detailed 3D FE results using

Y.-J. Kim et al. / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 79 (2002) 451464

463

Fig. 14. (ad) Comparison of FE J and COD results for axial TWC pipes with Rm =t 20 under combined internal pressure and bending with the engineering estimates: (i) the proposed enhanced reference stress (ERS) method, (ii) the GE/EPRI solutions, developed in the present work (Present GE/EPRI), and (iii) the reference stress (RS) method.

deformation plasticity, the plastic inuence functions for fully plastic J and COD solutions are tabulated as a function of the mean radius-to-thickness ratio, the normalised crack length and the strain hardening index. On the basis of these results, GE/EPRI-type J and COD estimation equations are proposed and validated against the 3D FE results based on deformation plasticity. For more general application to general stressstrain laws or to complex loading, the developed GE/ EPRI-type solutions are re-formulated based on the RS concept. Such a re-formulation provides simpler equations for J and COD, which are then further extended to combined internal pressure and bending. The proposed RS based J and COD estimation equations are compared with elasticplastic 3D FE results using actual stressstrain data for Type 316 stainless steels. The FE results for both internal pressure cases and combined internal pressure and bending cases compare very well with the proposed J and COD estimations. Acknowledgements The authors are grateful for the support provided by a

grant from Safety and Structural Integrity Research Centre at Sungkyunkwan University.

References
[1] Wilkowski G, Ahmad J, Brust F, Ghadiali N, Krishnaswamy P, Landow M, Marschall C, Scott P, Vieth P. Short cracks in piping and piping welds. NUREG/CR-4599, USNRC; 1991. [2] Wilkowski G, Schmidt R, Scott P, Olson R, Marschall C, Kramer G, Paul D. International piping integrity research group (IPIRG) programnal report. NUREG/CR-6233, USNRC; 1997. [3] Hopper A, Wilkowski G, Scott P, Olson R, Rudland D, Kilinski T, Mohan R, Ghadiali N, Paul D. The second international piping integrity research group (IPIRG-2) programnal report. NUREG/CR6452, USNRC; 1997. [4] Kumar V, German MD. Elasticplastic fracture analysis of throughwall and surface aws in cylinders. EPRI Report, NP-5596; 1988. [5] Rahman S, Brust F, Ghadiali N, Wilkowski G. Crack-opening-area analyses for circumferential through-wall cracks in pipes-part I: analytical models. Int J Pressure Vessels Piping 1998;75:35773. [6] Rahman S, Brust F, Ghadiali N, Wilkowski G. Crack-opening-area analyses for circumferential through-wall cracks in pipespart II model validation. Int J Pressure Vessels Piping 1998;75:37596. [7] Rahman S, Brust F, Ghadiali N, Wilkowski G. Crack-opening-area

464

Y.-J. Kim et al. / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 79 (2002) 451464 analyses for circumferential through-wall cracks in pipes part III off-center cracks, restraint of bending, thickness transition and weld residual stresses. Int J Pressure Vessels Piping 1998;75:397415. Kim YJ, Budden PJ. Reference stress approximations for J and COD of circumferential through-wall cracked pipes. Int J Fract 2002, in press. Kim YJ, Huh NS, Kim YJ. Reference stress based elasticplastic fracture analysis for circumferential through-wall cracked pipes under combined tension and bending. Engng Fract Mech 2002; 69:36788. Kim YJ, Huh NS, Kim YJ. Quantication of pressure-induced hoop stress effect on fracture analysis of circumferential through-wall cracked pipes. Engng Fract Mech 2002;69:124967. Kim YJ, Huh NS, Kim YJ. Crack opening analysis of complex cracked pipes. Int J Fract 2001;111:7186. Zahoor A. Axial through-wall crack, Ductile fracture handbook, vol. 2. Novetech Corporation, Gaithersburg, MD, USA. 1991. Chapter 6. Miller AG. Review of limit loads of structures containing defects. Int J Pressure Vessels Piping 1988;32:197327. ABAQUS Version 5.8. User's manual. Hibbitt, Karlsson & Sorensen Inc., RI; 1999. Yang JS, Kim BN, Park CY, Park YS, Yoon KS. A simple method for estimating effective J-integral in LBB application to nuclear power plant piping system. Trans 15th Int Conf Struct Mech Reactor Technol 1999;V:32734. Kim YJ, Lee YZ, Huh NS, Pyo CR, Yang JS. Development of modied piping evaluation diagram for leak-before-break application to Korean next generation reactor. Nucl Engng Des 1999;191:13545. France CC, Green D, Sharple JK, Chivers TC. New stress intensity factor and crack opening area solutions for through-wall cracks in pipes and cylinders. Fatigue Fract 1997;350 ASME PVP. [18] France CC. Crack opening areas and stress intensity factors for axial and part-circumferential through-wall cracks in cylinderssummary report. AEAT-0643, AEA Technology; 1997. [19] Kim YJ, Shim DJ, Huh NS, Kim YJ. Plastic limit pressures for cracked pipes using nite element limit analyses. Int J Pressure Vessels Piping 2002;79:32130. [20] Folias ES. On the fracture of nuclear reactor tubes, SMiRT III London, Paper C4/5; 1975 [21] Erdogan F. Ductile failure theories for pressurised pipes and containers. Int J Pressure Vessels Piping 1976;4:25383. [22] Kim YJ, Huh NS, Kim YJ. Enhanced reference stress-based J and crack opening displacement estimation method for leak-before-break analysis and comparison with GE/EPRI method. Fatigue Fract Engng Mater Struct 2001;24:24354. [23] Rahman S, Brust F, Ghadiali N, Choi YH, Krishnaswamy P, Moberg F, Brickstad B, Wilkowski G. Renement and evaluation of crackopening-area analyses for circumferential through-wall cracks in pipes. NUREG/CR-6300, USNRC; 1995. [24] Ainsworth RA. The assessment of defects in structures of strain hardening materials. Engng Fract Mech 1984;19:63342. [25] R6: Assessment of the integrity of structures containing defects, revision 4. British Energy Generation Ltd; 2002. [26] Pipe Fracture Encyclopedia. Computer program to calculate RambergOsgood parameters for a stressstrain curve, vol. 3, Battelle; 1997. [27] Webster GA, Ainsworth RA. High temperature component life assessment. London: Chapman & Hall, 1994. [28] R5: Assessment procedure for the high temperature response of structures, Issue 2. British Energy Generation Ltd; 1998. [29] Kim YJ, Huh NS, Kim YJ. Estimations of creep fracture mechanics parameters for through-thickness cracked cylinders and FE validation. Submitted for publication.

[8] [9]

[10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15]

[16] [17]