Nuclear Engineering and Design 229 (2004) 237246

Probabilistic fracture failure analysis of nuclear piping

containing defects using R6 method
Y.C. Lin, Y.J. Xie , X.H. Wang
School of Mechanical Engineering, Liaoning University of Petroleum & Chemical Technology,
Liaoning Fushun 113001, PR China
Received 9 May 2003; received in revised form 25 November 2003; accepted 5 December 2003

Abstract
Failure analysis of in-service nuclear piping containing defects is an important subject in the nuclear power plants. Considering
the uncertainties in various internal operating loadings and external forces, including earthquake and wind, flaw sizes, material
fracture toughness and flow stress, this paper presents a probabilistic assessment methodology for in-service nuclear piping
containing defects, which is especially designed for programming. A general sampling computation method of the stress intensity
factor (SIF), in the form of the relationship between the SIF and the axial force, bending moment and torsion, is adopted in
the probabilistic assessment methodology. This relationship has been successfully used in developing the software, Safety
Assessment System of In-service Pressure Piping Containing Flaws (SAPP-2003), based on a well-known engineering safety
assessment procedure R6. A numerical example is given to show the application of the SAPP-2003 software. The failure
probabilities of each defect and the whole piping can be obtained by this software.
2004 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
With the development of the nuclear power industry,
more and more pipelines are being used. The mechan-
ical integrity of the nuclear reactor piping is a matter
of great importance for both economical and safety
reasons. Flaws are inherent in many components ow-
ing to the processes by which they are manufactured
or fabricated. For example, in a welded joint defects
due to the porosity and lack of penetration or fusion
may exist prior to the application of any load. Fur-
thermore, many intergranular stress corrosion crack-
ing (IGSCC) problems have been observed in these
plants in areas, such as the primary coolant system
Corresponding author. Tel./fax: +86-413-6651160.
E-mail address: yjxie@mail.fsptt.ln.cn (Y.J. Xie).
and the core shroud, etc. Thus, the existence of flaws
in the nuclear piping is unavoidable.
There are benefits of a probabilistic approach as it
can be used to ensure that the main safety concerns are
addressed in an economic manner. The relative val-
ues of the failure probabilities of pressure piping may
be used as a guide to the most economic deployment
of resources on maintenance, inspection and repair.
The assessment results could be used, for example, to
concentrate ultrasonic inspection on the locations at
highest risk, thus gaining maximum benefit from the
inspection. The traditional approach of safety assess-
ment and design lies in a deterministic model. For the
deterministic method, when the random distributions
of variables are narrow, the safety margins will be
over large. When random distributions of variables are
wider, the results of the assessment should become un-

0029-5493/$ see front matter 2004 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.nucengdes.2003.12.007
238 Y.C. Lin et al. / Nuclear Engineering and Design 229 (2004) 237246

in many localities, which give substantial contributions

Nomenclature to the stress intensity factor (SIF) for longitudinal and
half final flaw length angle circumferential cracks in the piping. In order to use
R mean radius of pipe a probabilistic method, it is necessary to derive the
t pipe wall thickness appropriate sampling distribution for the SIF related
T operating temperature to the axial force, bending moment and torsion, so that
P operating pressure the fracture parameter can be evaluated.
G gravity force of the piping and its In this paper, a fracture failure analysis methodol-
internal fluid ogy, which is especially designed for programming,
U installation error is discussed for assessing in-service pressure piping
Q seismic force containing defects, accounting for the uncertainties of
W wind force operating loadings, external forces, including earth-
a crack length quake and wind, flaw sizes, material flow stress and
p crack depth fracture toughness. Software, Safety Assessment Sys-
b crack height tem of In-service Pressure Piping Containing Flaws
N axial force (SAPP-2003), is developed, based on the British
M bending moment Energy document R6 procedure (Ainsworth et al.,
Tn torsion 2001). A numerical example is presented to illustrate
Kr the ratio of the stress intensity factor the application of this software in the failure analysis
to the material toughness of the nuclear piping containing defects. The failure
Lr measure of proximity to plastic yielding probability of separate defects and the whole pres-
Jc material fracture toughness sure piping can be calculated by the MonteCarlo
s secondary stress simulation method (Zhou et al., 1996). Additionally,
plastic correction for s stress it should be emphasized that the failure risks of the
Lmax
r plastic collapse cut-off nuclear piping are various and only one contributing
y yield strength or 0.2% proof stress factor, the failure probability from defects, is consid-
u material ultimate tensile stress ered in this program.
Pfi failure probability of the ith welded
joint containing defects
Pf1 lower bound of failure probability of 2. R6 procedure
the assessed nuclear piping
Pf2 upper bound of failure probability of Structures made from materials with sufficient
the assessed nuclear piping toughness may not be susceptible to brittle fracture,
Pa acceptable failure probability of the but they can fail by plastic collapse if they are over-
assessed nuclear piping loaded. Dowling and Townley (1975) and Harrison
Pf Failure probability of the assessed et al. (1976) introduced the concept of a two-criteria
nuclear piping Failure Assessment Diagram (FAD) to describe the
interaction between fracture and collapse. This simple
engineering assessment procedure for the evaluation
of structural integrity for defected structures was im-
safe. The probabilistic approach is obviously the best proved and is known as the R6 procedure. The R6
choice in practical applications when sufficient infor- defect assessment procedure has been continually de-
mation on the distribution of the random variables is veloped since 1976 (Milne et al., 1986, British Energy
known. Generation Ltd., 1999; Ainsworth et al., 2001). It is
As special structural components, pipelines often currently at Revision 4. The FAD is shown in Fig. 1.
undergo severe operating conditions, such as internal There are two basic failure modes assessed by R6:
pressure, operating temperature and gravity force, as plastic collapse and fast fracture. Plastic collapse is
well as external forces, including earthquake and wind controlled by overall plasticity in the defective section
 Y.C. Lin et al. / Nuclear Engineering and Design 229 (2004) 237246 239

1.2 Lr 1. This option curve needs only the yield and

Fracture-dominated region ultimate stress data.
1.0 2 0.5
f(Lr ) = (1 + 0.5Lr )

Kr=f(Lr)

0.8 (0.3 + 0.7 exp(0.6L6r )) for 0 < Lr < Lmax

r


Kr = 0 for Lr > Lmax
r
Kr

0.6
Plastic collapse (2)
"Safe" region cut-off
0.4
y + u
Lmax
r = (3)
2y
0.2
Lrmax
where y is the yield strength or 0.2% proof stress and
0.0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 u is the materials ultimate tensile stress.
Lr The Option 2 curve is defined by

Fig. 1. The Option 1 assessment curve of the R6 FAD.  0.5

f(L ) = Eref + Lr y
3
r for 0 < Lr < Lmax
r
and fast fracture by the local crack-tip stressstrain Lr y 2Eref


fields (Budden et al., 2000). In Fig. 1, the x-axis rep-
Kr = 0 for Lr > Lmax
r
resents the parameter Lr , which denotes nearness to
plastic collapse and the y-axis represents the parame- (4)
ter Kr , which measures the nearness to crack growth
initiation or normalized crack initiation. The FAD is where E is Youngs module and ref is the strain
bounded by these two axes, plastic collapse cut-off and at the reference stress ref = Lr y from the mean
the curve is called Failure Assessment Curve (FAC). uniaxial true stresstrue strain curve. The estimate
This curve divides the assessed area into a safe and of Lmax
r is given by Eq. (3). This curve is suitable
an unsafe region. If the assessment point (Lr , Kr ) lies for all materials but needs a detailed stressstrain
within the curve failure is avoided. If the point lies curve.
outside the curve, then the failure avoidance criterion The Option 3 curve is defined by
is violated and a more refined analysis or remedial ac-  0.5
tion should be performed. So, the basic R6 approach f(L ) = Jel (Lr )

for 0 < Lr < Lmax
r r
consists of evaluating parameters Kr and Lr , depen- J(Lr ) (5)


dent on the applied loads, material properties, and the Kr = 0 for Lr > Lmax
r
geometry, including crack size and shape. For primary
Mode I loading alone, Kr and Lr can be defined by where Jel is the elastic value of the J-integral at load

applied load Lr . This requires the evaluation of J-integral for the

Lr = yield stress based limit load cracked component. Thus, the FAD in this option is
(1) dependent on the material and the geometry. The es-

stress intensity factor

Kr =
fracture toughness
The R6 gives three different options for drawing the
FAC referred to as Options 1, 2, 3 and additional ap-
proximate Option 2 curves, which require only limited
stressstrain data.
The Option 1 curve follows from Eq. (2), as shown
in Fig. 1. It is suitable for all materials when Lr <
1 and, for continuous yielding materials only, when
timate of Lmax is given by Eq. (3).
r
Additionally, there are two kinds of approximate
Option 2 curves for continuous and discontinuous
yielding material. The details of these two kinds of
approximate curves are not reported here. The choice
of curve depends on the amount of materials data
available, the accuracy of the analysis and whether
or not the material shows a discontinuous yield
point.
240 Y.C. Lin et al. / Nuclear Engineering and Design 229 (2004) 237246
3. Random variables and sampling
3.1. Uncertainties of main assessment parameters
The operating loadings applied on piping fluctuate
in most cases, especially for some particular operating
conditions, including internal pressure and tempera-
ture. These fluctuating loadings may lead to substan-
tial contributions to the axial force, bending moment
and torque moment at the locations of defects. Oc-
casionally, the external forces, including earthquake
and wind, in many localities also need consideration.
So, when the probabilistic analysis of nuclear piping
is performed, the operating loadings and the external
forces should be considered as stochastic variables.
In addition, defect size, fracture toughness and flow
stress always have uncertainties. Therefore, the vari-
ability of such parameters as defect size, operating
loads (internal pressure, operating temperature and in-
stallation error), the external forces, including earth-
quake and wind, fracture toughness and flow stress
(obtained from yield stress and ultimate tensile stress),
are taken into account in the SAPP-2003 application
software.
In the above-described random parameters, fracture
toughness, for example, is one of the most important
and sensitive parameters. However, accurate fracture
toughness data cannot be obtained from the current
materials of piping, and there are many uncertainties
during experiments. Therefore, it is necessary to sam-
ple these stochastic variables according to the appro-
priate distribution.
3.2. Distribution of main random parameters
The normal, log normal, exponential and Weibull
distributions are four different types of distribution
that have been used to describe the variations of the
above-mentioned random variables in this software.
The parameters defining these distributions should be
specified for normal operating and fault conditions
and for the initial loading and proof test as neces-
sary. The R6 procedure proposed that the log normal
and Weibull distributions are suitable for the fracture
toughness, yield stress and ultimate tensile stress. This
is because the use of a normal distribution for fracture
toughness and flow stress has the disadvantage that the
mathematical transformations carried out with these
distributions may result in negative values for random
variables. Operating loadings are also fitted by the nor-
mal, log normal and Weibull distributions. The defect
sizes given by non-destructive testing (NDT) can fol-
low a normal, log normal or exponential distribution.
3.3. Sampling method
The R6 procedure provides estimates of failure
probability, using detailed integration methods. This
complex integration is in terms of the probability
density functions (PDFs) of defect size, fracture
toughness and flow stress. The shortcomings of this
method are obvious. Firstly, it is necessary to consider
more actual uncertainties when calculating the fail-
ure probability of assessed pressure piping. Secondly,
this numerical integration method introduced in R6 is
unsuitable for programming.
In this paper, the MonteCarlo simulation method
is used to sample the stochastic variables. The
MonteCarlo simulation method is a simplification.
The only requirement of the method is that the phys-
ical (or mathematical) system should be described by
PDFs, i.e. by giving the PDFs of defect size, fracture
toughness, flow stress and operating loadings, respec-
tively. Then, the MonteCarlo simulation can proceed
by sampling from these PDFs, which necessitates a
fast and effective way to generate random numbers
uniformly distributed within the interval [0, 1]. In
this program, the mean value, the distribution type
and standard deviation of every random variable are
needed when performing the failure analysis of the
studied piping.
4. Calculating stress intensity factor
In many safety assessment codes, such as BS 7910
(British Standards Institution, 1999), R6 procedure,
the fracture assessment procedures are mainly defined
for Mode I loading. For mixed Mode II and Mode III
loadings, calculations of effective SIF are introduced
in the appendix of BS 7910 and the R6 procedure.
For the ductile tearing, it is recommended that the ap-
proach is restricted to initiation toughness (e.g. J0.2 ),
unless it is known that the tearing follows a clearly
defined path. Among the planar flaws of the pressure
piping, the main defects are circumferential and axial
 Y.C. Lin et al. / Nuclear Engineering and Design 229 (2004) 237246
M M
Tn N N Tn
Fig. 2. Circumferential internal surface cracked pipe.
cracks. For circumferential cracks, the axial forces,
bending moments and torsions imposed on the pipe
element where the defects exist, contribute to the SIF.
For axial cracks, the contribution to the SIF mainly
comes from the internal pressure. The magnitude
of the axial force, bending moment and torsion are
associated with the operating pressure, operating tem-
perature and installation error of the pressure piping.
When a probabilistic failure analysis of piping con-
taining defects is carried out, the uncertainties of these
random variables should be treated by one appropriate
sampling method. Furthermore, it is critical to com-
bine the calculating requirements of the MonteCarlo
method and the computing characteristics of the SIF,
and then give the proper sampling expression for the
SIF.
In this paper, a sampling expression of the SIF for
circumferential internal surface cracked pipe is intro-
duced (see Fig. 2). The following discussion is based
on Mode I loadings. Firstly, assume that the axial force
is N and bending moment is M. The Mode I linear
elastic SIF can be evaluated from
KI = KIN + KIM
where KIN and KIM represent the Mode I linear elastic
SIF components from the axial force N and bending
moment M, respectively, which can be determined as
KIN = N KIN (a, b)
KIM = M KIM (a, b)
where KIN and KIM are the non-dimensional SIF com-
ponents from the normalized axial force and the nor-
malized bending moment, respectively. They can be
calculated according to the methods introduced in the
Ductile Fracture Handbook (Zahoor, 1989) and the
proposals made by Xie (1998). Parameters, a and b,
represent the crack length and height of the studied
241
2q
R t
crack, respectively. Due to the uncertainties of oper-
ating pressure, operating temperature and installation
error, the axial force and bending moment in Eqs. (7)
and (8) are also uncertain. They can be calculated by
N = P NP + T NT + U NU + NG + QNQ + W NW
(9)
M = P MP + T MT + U MU + MG
+ QMQ + W MW (10)
where NP , NT , NU , NQ and NW are the axial forces
at the location of the crack for normalized loads (in-
cluding operating pressure, operating temperature,
installation error, seismic and wind force). NG is the
contribution from gravity of the piping and its internal
fluids. The following six parameters, MP , MT , MU ,
MQ , MG and MW , have similar meanings. For the
mixed Mode II and Mode III loadings, the torques in
the vicinity of defects, TP , TT , TU , TQ , TG , and TW ,
should also be considered and the meanings of these
six parameters are similar to those of NP , NT , NU ,
NQ , NG and NW . However, due to the installation
(6) complexity of the industry piping and the uncertain-
ties of the operating loadings and material properties,
it is often a complicated system or condition. In ad-
dition, the pressure piping is often subjected to the
combination of axial force, bending moment, torsion
and the difference in temperature of different parts of
(7)
the pipelines. So, performing the structural analysis
(8) of actual piping is not a simple and easy task. In
order to make the SAPP-2003 application software
easy to operate and obtain more accurate risk analysis
results, a structural analysis module for this software
has been developed, which is a secondary developed
product of ANSYS engineering analysis software. In
this module, the nuclear piping can be easily mod-
eled and be exactly analyzed, simulating the actual
operating condition. Therefore, the above-mentioned
242 Y.C. Lin et al. / Nuclear Engineering and Design 229 (2004) 237246

normalized parameters, NP , NT , NU , NG , NW , NQ ,
MP , MT , MU , MG , MQ and MW , can be easily
calculated using this structural analysis module.
From Eqs. (6)(10), the following expression can
be derived
KI = [(P NP + T NT + U NU + NG
+ QNQ + W NW )]KIN (a, b)
+ [(P MP + T MT + U MU + MG
+ QMQ + W MW )]KIM (a, b) (11)
As shown in Eq. (11), a, b, P, T, U, Q and W are ran-
dom variables. If these stochastic variables are sam-
pled according to the given standard deviations and
distributions, Eq. (11) will be the desired sampling
expression for the Mode I linear elastic SIF. If the re-
mated as the quotient of the failure counts to the num-
ber of simulations, i.e.
n
Pfi = (13)
m
When the MonteCarlo algorithm is used to eval-
uate the structural reliability of nuclear components
with very low failure probabilities, a very large number
of simulations have to be taken in order to achieve high
computational accuracy. This can be accomplished
with the developing computer technology.
For the Mode I loading, the flow chart to compute
the failure probability of a separate defect is shown
in Fig. 3. The processes to perform the probabilistic
Start

sultant total SIF calculated is negative, the value used

in assessments should be taken as zero.
For an axial crack, the contribution to the SIF
mainly comes from the operating pressure. Then, the
SIF is given by
p
KI = P KI (a, b)
Input parameters needed in risk
analysis of nuclear piping
Perform the structural analysis and determine N p , N T , N U , N G ,
M p , M T , MU , M G for pressure piping under the normalized loads using the
(12) module based on the secondary-developed ANSYS

p
where KI (a, b) represents the non-dimensional SIF Draw the sample of random
variables by the Monte Carlo
resulting from the operating pressure. method
It is noted that if an embedded crack is considered, Repeat m times
Characterize the defect (the
the depth of the crack, p, should be also included in compound cracks and interaction
Eqs. (7), (8), (11) and (12). defects need recharacterisation)

5. Computing the failure probability Calculate K r and r Calculate L r

Under many engineering conditions, the failure Plot assessment point on the
probability and a more accurate description of in- failure assessment diagram(FAD)

tegrity status for nuclear pressure piping containing

defects need to be known. The development of prob- If the assessment result is
unsafe, n=n+1
abilistic fracture mechanics together with the R6
procedure provides the technological and theoretical
Calculate the failure probability
support for the SAPP-2003 software. In the present
of separate defect Pfi =n/m
paper, the fracture failure analysis methodology used
in SAPP-2003 mainly consists of the following two
steps. Save the failure probability of
all defects to the database

5.1. Computing the failure probability of a separate

defect by the MonteCarlo method The end

In a MonteCarlo simulation, based on a selected Fig. 3. The flow chart to compute failure probability of separate
failure criterion, the failure probability can be esti- defect.
 Y.C. Lin et al. / Nuclear Engineering and Design 229 (2004) 237246
fracture failure analysis of nuclear piping using SAPP-
2003 are briefly described as follows. Firstly, the
parameters, including the detail geometry and the ma-
terial property parameters of the studied pipe, should
be input in the interface of the secondary developed
ANSYS module so as to model the actual piping and
perform the structural analysis. Secondly, output the
axial force, bending moment and torque induced by
normalized loads at the location of the assessed defects
from structural analysis module. Thirdly, back to the
main interface of the SAPP-2003 software and input
the pipes material property parameters, the defects
and welding lines characteristic parameters, which
include the category, sizes and locations of defects,
material types and directions of welding lines. The
software will automatically save all data to the system
database. Then, define the simulation number and the
R6 options used in the analysis. Finally, perform the
safety assessment and review the analysis results.
5.2. Computing the failure probability of a whole
piping by the MonteCarlo method
The absolute values of failure probability can be
used as a part of an overall piping safety analysis, to
make a case for a new piping, or continued operation
of the old piping. Similarly, the results can be used in
the piping design or modification studies to investigate
the effect of changing the various design parameters
and thereby optimize the design.
However, the structure of piping is very complex
in most cases. Huang (1990) and Zhou et al. (1998a)
proposed that the physical chart of the assessed sys-
tem should be changed into a logical chart before the
reliability analysis of the system is performed. Here,
a physical chart means the practical structure of the
assessed system, and a logical chart implies the rela-
tionship between the failure event of the system and
the failure events of every component. So, to carry out
the fracture risk analysis of pressure piping, the first
step is to change the complex structure chart into a
logical chart for the fracture risk analysis, and then the
correlation among failure events of every welded joint
should be considered. Through NDT, most defects of
assessed piping can be found in some welded joints.
Therefore, the failure of the whole nuclear pressure
piping will occur only if any one of the welded joints
containing defects fails.
243
In actual nuclear piping, the failure events of
welded joints containing defects are often correlated
to each other because the random variables of one
certain welded joint containing defects may be cor-
related with those of another welded joint containing
defects. These random variables are the operating
pressure, operating temperature, installation error,
and earthquake and wind (Zhou et al., 1998b). So,
the axial force, bending moment and torque of one
weld joint are correlated with those of another weld
joint. Because each welded joint containing defects
is series connected in the logical chart of pressure
piping containing defects, the lower bound (Pf1 ) and
the upper bound (Pf2 ) of failure probability of the as-
sessed piping can be obtained by Eqs. (14) and (15),
respectively.
Pf1 = max(Pfi ) for i = 1, 2, . . . , n (14)
n
Pf2 = 1 (1 P fi ) for i = 1, 2, . . . , n (15)
i=1
where Pfi is the failure probability of the ith welded
joint containing defects and n is the number of all
weld joints in the assessed piping. The upper bound,
Pf2 , is calculated under the condition that the failure
event of every welded joint containing defects is in-
dependent of each other, based on the weakest link
model (Dai et al., 1987). So, if the Pf2 of the pressure
piping is smaller than its acceptable failure probabil-
ity Pa , the assessed piping is reliable and can be used
continuously; while if Pf1 of the pressure piping is
greater than the acceptable failure probability Pa , the
assessed piping is unreliable and should be discarded
or repaired; if
Pf1 < Pa < Pf2 (16)
and Pf1 and Pf2 are of the same order of magnitude,
it is suggested that the assessed pressure piping is
unreliable and should be discarded or repaired (this is
safe and convenient); while if Eq. (16) is satisfied and
Pf1 and Pf2 are not of the same order of magnitude,
the failure probability of the assessed piping must
be known in order to make a reliability assessment.
So, theoretical analysis of the correlation among fail-
ure events of the welded joints containing defects
must be carried out, and a corresponding method of
computing the failure probability of a piping contain-
ing defects, Pf , should be set up. Because the other
244 Y.C. Lin et al. / Nuclear Engineering and Design 229 (2004) 237246
stochastic variables (material properties, defect sizes
etc) of defected welded joints are independent of each
other in the assessed nuclear piping, it is critical to
consider the contribution from the operating pressure,
operating temperature, installation error, earthquake
and wind. For Mode I loading, for example, the linear
elastic SIF can be obtained by Eq. (17)
KI = [N(i, P) + N(i, T) + N(i, U) + NG + N(i, Q)
+ N(i, W)]KIN (a, b) + [M(i, P) + M(i, T)
+ M(i, U)+MG +M(i, Q)+M(i, W)]KIM (a, b)
(17)
where NG is the contribution of the gravity of the
studied piping and its internal fluids. N(i, P), N(i, T),
N(i, U), N(i, Q) and N(i, W) are functions express-
ing the relationship between the axial forces of the
ith welded joint, which are induced by the operating
pressure, operating temperature, installation error,
earthquake and wind, respectively, and corresponding
loadings. These functions can be obtained by the finite
element analysis and probability theory (Zhou et al.,
1998b). The physical meanings of M(i, P), M(i, T),
M(i, U), M(i, Q) and M(i, W) are similar to those of
N(i, P), N(i, T), N(i, U), N(i, Q) and N(i, W). For
the Mode I loading, the procedure of calculating the
failure probability of a whole piping is:
(1) Input parameters needed in fracture failure analy-
sis of the studied pressure piping.
(2) Perform finite element analysis and fit the func-
tions of N(i, P), N(i, T), N(i, U), N(i, Q), N(i, W)
and M(i, P), M(i, T), M(i, U), M(i, Q) and
M(i, W), i = 1 n.
(3) Generate uniform random numbers between [0,
1] and draw the samples of random variables by
the MonteCarlo method. Then, if Pk , Tk , Uk , Qk
and Wk are the kth sampled value of P, T, U, Q
and W, the value of N(i, Pk ), N(i, Tk ), N(i, Uk ),
N(i, Qk ) and N(i, Wk ) can be considered as the kth
sampled value of N(i, P), N(i, T), N(i, U), N(i, Q)
and N(i, W), i = 1 n. In the same way, the
value of M(i, Pk ), M(i, Tk ), M(i, Uk ), M(i, Qk )
and M(i, Wk ) can be obtained.
(4) Characterize all the defects and calculate Kr and
Lr of the kth weld joints. Then, plot the assessment
point (Lr , Kr ) in the Failure Assessment Diagram.
(5) Repeat step 4, n times to assess all other weld
joints. If the assessment result is unsafe, increment
the failure counter nn by 1.
(6) Repeat steps 35, mm times. Calculate the failure
probability of the assessed piping, Pf = nn/mm
and save it to the system database.
6. Engineering application
6.1. Case description
A numerical example is given to show the appli-
cation of SAPP-2003 software in risk analysis of
in-service nuclear pressure piping containing defects.
Assume three cracks are found in the studied nuclear
piping of one reactor recirculation loop shown in
Fig. 4. These cracks may be induced by the inexpe-
rienced operation during manufacture or fabrication
process or certain intergranular stress corrosion. The
first and third crack, and , lie in the welds that
connect the bypass pipe to the main pipe of the re-
actor recirculation loop, which can be considered as
the compound defects. The bypass pipe has an inner
diameter of 305 mm, and the main pipe has an inner
diameter of 458 mm and thickness of 31.37 mm. The
second crack, , exists in the circumferential welding
line of elbow A. Through NDT, the detail sizes of
three cracks are obtained, as shown in Table 1. These
pipes and elbows are made of SA333 GR6 type ma-
terial. The Youngs modulus of this metal is 188 GPa.
Its tensile and fracture properties and other parameters
Fig. 4. Three cracks at this reactor recirculation loop.
 Y.C. Lin et al. / Nuclear Engineering and Design 229 (2004) 237246 245

Table 1 It is known that the material fracture toughness is

The sizes of three cracks
Crack number
Assessment height (mm) 7.50 6.78
Assessment length (mm) 76.50 68.63
needed in the analysis are given in Table 2 (Rastogi
et al., 2002). In this example, there were 10,000,000
simulations and the assessment method used is the
Option 1 curve of R6 approach. Additionally, the
earthquake and wind is very small in this locality, so
the effect on the studied piping from these external
forces can be ignored.
6.2. Probabilistic fracture failure analysis results
Using the SAPP-2003 software, the fracture failure
probabilities can be obtained as shown in Table 3.
During the probabilistic fracture failure analysis, the
variability of such random parameters as defect sizes,
operating loadings, fracture toughness and flow stress
are taken into account.
one of the most important and sensitive parameters in
the probabilistic failure analysis of nuclear piping. So,
the fracture toughness data employed should wher-
ever possibly come from the materials of in-service
4.5
30.80
pipeline. However, this is often not feasible. The alter-
native option is to use the data for the same materials in
some handbooks. Therefore, the different fracture fail-
ure probabilities of the assessed piping are obtained by
changing the standard deviation of fracture toughness
in the analyses. It is obvious that the fracture tough-
ness influences the failure probability of assessed
piping greatly from Table 3. With increasing the stan-
dard deviation of fracture toughness, the failure prob-
ability of each defect and the whole piping increases
greatly.
In addition, the deterministic assessment can also
be performed in this application software. In this
probabilistic assessment program, the uncertainties of
operating loadings, defects sizes and material proper-
ties are considered instead of the partial safety factors.
While in the deterministic assessment, the uncertain-
ties of various random variables are considered by
some partial safety factors. So, zeroes are input as

Table 2
Main parameters needed in the analysis
Parameters Mean Distribution Standard deviation

Operating temperature, T ( C) 250 Normal 25.00

Installation error, U (mm) 1.0 Normal 0.100
Operating pressure, P (MPa) 9.81 Normal 0.981
Material yield stress, y (MPa) 240 Weibull 12.00
Material ultimate tensile stress, u (MPa) 458 Weibull 22.90
Material fracture toughness, Jc (kJ m2 ) 412 Weibull

Table 3
Analysis results of three cracks and the studied piping
Fracture toughness Failure probability The piping
deviation (kJ m2 )
The first crack The second crack The third crack Lower bound Upper bound Failure probability

0 0.0000024 0.0000014 0.0000012 0.0000021 0.0000044 0.0000032

10 0.0000119 0.0000071 0.0000051 0.0000122 0.0000243 0.0000181
20 0.0000284 0.0000087 0.0000079 0.0000287 0.0000461 0.0000322
30 0.0000486 0.0000178 0.0000141 0.0000484 0.0000792 0.0000574
40 0.0001089 0.0000216 0.0000195 0.0001091 0.0001491 0.0001352
50 0.0003591 0.0000985 0.0000967 0.0003592 0.0005538 0.0004511
60 0.0008792 0.0002834 0.0001889 0.0008792 0.0013514 0.0012104
70 0.0014785 0.0006855 0.0003972 0.0014784 0.0025582 0.0021229
80 0.0034787 0.0015971 0.0008261 0.0034788 0.0058921 0.0045778
246 Y.C. Lin et al. / Nuclear Engineering and Design 229 (2004) 237246
the values of the random variables standard devia-
tions and the partial safety factors need to be given
when performing the deterministic assessment using
this program. For the above example, the determin-
istic assessment results are the failure probabilities
of three cracks, 0, and the failure probability of the
whole piping, 0.
For the engineering application, the probabilistic as-
sessment method can generally provide a more accu-
rate description of in-service pressure piping integrity
status, which leads to full utilization of the existing
structures especially those containing defects. Uncer-
tainties in defining the distributions and deviations of
material properties, operating loadings and particu-
larly defects sizes mean that the calculations may be
more beneficial in producing relative failure probabili-
ties for ranking assessment locations and for the exam-
ination of operating conditions. Relative results may
be used as a guide to the most economic deployment
of resources on analysis, maintenance, inspection and
repair. But, most traditional approaches to safety as-
sessment lie in a deterministic model that invariably
involves a large safety factor usually assigned from
heuristic and somewhat arbitrary decisions.
7. Conclusions
As special structural components, piping is subject
to many kinds of load, such as the internal pressure,
operating temperature and gravity force, which give
substantial contributions to the SIF in piping. In many
places, the external forces, including earthquake and
wind, are also very important. In the present paper, a
general sampling expression of the SIF, in the form
of the relationship between the SIF and the axial
force, bending moment and torsion, is proposed. This
expression provides a critical basis for the developed
software, SAPP-2003. The normalized axial force,
bending moment, torsion in the location of flaws,
which are needed in the general sampling expression
of the SIF, can be easily obtained from the struc-
tural analysis module of SAPP-2003 software. The
failure probabilities of piping are determined by the
MonteCarlo method, considering the uncertainties
of operating loading, defect sizes, material fracture
toughness and flow stress. A numerical example is
given in the present paper to show SAPP-2003s ap-
plication in risk analysis of in-service nuclear pressure
piping containing defects.
Acknowledgements
This research project was funded by CNPC. The
authors would like to express appreciation for their
supporting the researchs (Project No.99081414).
References
Ainsworth, R.A., et al., 2001. Assessment of the Integrity of
Structures Containing Defects. British Energy Generation Ltd,
UK, R6-Revision 4.
British Energy Generation Ltd, 1999. Assessment of the integrity
of structures containing defects. R6-Revision 3, Amendment
10.
British Standards Institution, 1999. Guide on the Method for
Assessing the Acceptability of Flaws in Fusion Welded Struc-
tures. London, BS 7910.
Budden, P.J., Shaples, J.K., Dowling, A.R., 2000. The R6
procedure: recent developments and comparison with alternative
approaches. Int. J. Pres. Ves. Pip. 77, 895903.
Dai, S.H., et al., 1987. Reliability Engineering and its Applications
in Chemical Equipment (Chinese). Beijing.
Dowling, A.R., Townley, C.H.A., 1975. The effects of defects on
structural failure: a two criteria approach. Int. J. Pres. Ves. Pip.
3, 77137.
Harrison, R.P., Loosemore, K., Milne, I., 1976. Assessment of
the Integrity of Structures Containing Defects. CEGB Report,
Central Electricity Generating Board, UK, R/4/R6.
Huang, X.R., 1990. Reliability Engineering (Chinese). Beijing.
Milne, I., Ainsworth, R.A., Dowling, A.R., Stewart, A.J., 1986.
Assessment of the Integrity of Structures Containing Defects.
CEGB Report, Central Electricity Generating Board, UK,
R/H/R6-Rev3.
Rastogi, R., Bhasin, V., et al., 2002. Assessment of integrity of
components in piping of 500 MWe PHWR: using R-6 method.
Nucl. Eng. Des. 212, 109114.
Xie, Y.J., 1998. A theory on cracked pipe. Int. J. Pres. Ves. Pip.
75, 865869.
Zahoor, A., 1989. Ductile Fracture Handbook, vols.13. Electric
Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, EPRI NP6301-D,
London.
Zhou, Z.G., et al., 1996. The Application of Probability Fracture
Mechanics in the Pressure Vessels (Chinese). Beijing.
Zhou, J., et al., 1998a. The Reliability Assessment of System in
Engineering-principle and Method (Chinese). Chang Qin.
Zhou, J.Q., et al., 1998b. A study on reliability assessment metho-
dology for pressure piping containing circumferential defects I
& II. Int. J. Pres. Ves. Pip. 75, 679691.