Nuclear Engineering and Design 239 (2009) 327337

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Nuclear Engineering and Design
j our nal homepage: www. el sevi er . com/ l ocat e/ nucengdes
Estimation of crack opening area for leak before break analysis
of nuclear reactor system
B. Ghosh

, S.K. Bandyopadhyay, H.G. Lele, A.K. Ghosh

Reactor Safety Division, Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, Mumbai 85, India
a r t i c l e i n f o
Article history:
Received 9 July 2007
Received in revised form 8 August 2008
Accepted 11 August 2008
a b s t r a c t
The crack opening area has been estimated by various models for leak before break analysis of nuclear
reactor systems. A number of linear elastic fracture mechanics models have been employed. A model has
been derived based on Forman et al. [Forman, R.G., Hickman, J.C., Shivakumar, V., 1985. Stress intensity
factors for circumferential through cracks in hollowcylinders subjected to combined tension and bending
loads. Eng. Frac. Mech. 21, 563571] model for stress intensity factors. The linear elastic fracture models
entail the use of plasticity corrections. The convergence behaviour of the iterative implementation for
plasticity correction has been studied. An elasto-plastic fracture mechanics model has also been adopted
for comparative study undertaken here. The range of applicability of the models has been reviewed.
2008 Published by Elsevier B.V.
Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 327
2. Crack opening area (COA) models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 328
2.1. Linear elastic COA models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 328
2.1.1. TadaParis (Paris and Tada, 1983) model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 329
2.1.2. Zahoor (1985) model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 330
2.1.3. Zahoor (1989) (LEFM) model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 331
2.1.4. Klecker et al. (1986) model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 331
2.1.5. Lacire et al. (1999) model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 332
2.1.6. Forman et al. (1985) (present) model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 332
2.2. Plasticity correction for elastic models. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 333
2.2.1. Irwin plastic zone correction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 333
2.2.2. Plastic zone size through Dugdale approach. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 333
2.3. Elasto-plastic COA models. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 334
2.3.1. Zahoor (1989) (EPFM) model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 334
3. Results and discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 337
References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 337
1. Introduction
In the initial stage of failure of a high pressure pipeline, a stable through-wall crack forms before it leads to criticality and consequent
catastrophic break down. The leak before break (LBB) methodology works on the feasibility of detection the leakage from stable through-
wall crackanddeployment of corrective engineering safeguardstrategy ontime toavoidsubsequent catastrophic break. This alsoeliminates
or reduces the requirements for pipe-whip restraint and jet impingement shields in piping systems of nuclear power plants.
The evaluationof the crack opening area (COA) plays a nodal role inthe demarcationof leakage size crack corresponding tothe detectable
leak ow rate from awed piping system. The simple single-parameter models for COA due to Kastner et al. (1981), Wuthrich (1983) and
Paris andTada (1983) suffer fromone or other types of geometrical or physical limitations intheir applicability. Inthe current study, COAhas

Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: brindaban.ghosh@irsn.fr, bghosh@gmail.com (B. Ghosh).
0029-5493/$ see front matter 2008 Published by Elsevier B.V.
doi:10.1016/j.nucengdes.2008.08.025
328 B. Ghosh et al. / Nuclear Engineering and Design 239 (2009) 327337
nowbeen estimated frommore generalized two-parameter models based on thin shell theory. Sanders (1960) derived a path independent
integral expression for energy release rate. Sanders derived analytical solutions of the energy release rate for long circumferential crack
under axial tension (Sanders, 1982) and combined tension and bending (Sanders, 1983). These transcendental expressions for energy
release rate were further simplied by Klecker et al. (1986) and Lacire et al. (1999) for convenience in use for evaluation of crack opening
area. Nicholson and Simmonds (1980) and Nicholson et al. (1983) have obtained the asymptotic expressions of energy release rates for
axial and circumferential through-wall short cracks, respectively. Subsequently, Forman et al. (1985) obtained a uniformly valid blended
model to get expression for stress intensity factors under axial tension and bending for circumferential cracks. In the present work, Forman
et al. (1985) transcendental model for stress intensity factor has been simplied in algebraic form. Consequently, the crack opening area
has been calculated based on Klecker et al. (1986), Lacire et al. (1999) and the present models of stress intensity factors for axial tension
and bending. For internal pressure Takahashi (2002) has suggested an equivalent axial load approach. This approach has been compared
with the Rooke and Cartwright (1976) model for stress intensity factor for internal pressure. Zahoors (1989) elasto-plastic model has been
implemented for this comparison exercise. The prediction of this model has been compared with those of linear elastic model mentioned
above with appropriate plasticity correction. The relative merits of different models have been assessed.
2. Crack opening area (COA) models
We will discuss about two types of models for COA calculations, (1) linear elastic models which require plasticity corrections and (2)
elasto-plastic models.
2.1. Linear elastic COA models
The estimates are based on methods of linear elastic fracture mechanics (LEFM), including the effect of shell correction, which require
knowledge of solutions of stress intensity factors (SIFs), K, for each problem.
For internal pressure loading, K solutions are readily available for both circumferential and longitudinal cracks as functions of a single
geometric parameter, = a/

Rt, relating crack size to pipe geometry (see Rooke and Cartwright, 1976). Consequently, the crack opening
area formulas are also developed as function of this single parameter.
For the case of tension and bending of the pipe section containing axial and circumferential cracks, SIFs are expressed as
K
I
= F(, a
eff
)

a
eff
where the bulging or Folias factor, F, is a function of the thin shell parameter

2
=
_
12(1
2
)
a
2
eff
Rt
and a
eff
is the effective semi-crack length (see Section 2.2), which in turn depends on SIF.
Under tensile loading, the crack opening area, A
t
, is obtained by energy method (Castiglianos theorem) as follows:
A
t
=
1
t
U
t

t
= 2

_
0

t
_
K
2
t
E
_
Rd
where U
t
is the total strain energy in the cracked pipe.
Since
1
2Rt
U
t

= G =
K
2
t
E
, we obtain, U
t
= 2Rt

_
0
K
2
t
E
d
Thus, we can write,
A
t
= R
2

t
E
I
t
with I
t
() = 4

_
0
F
2
t
() d
COA and Grifth conguration: In the case of an innite at plate with a central crack of length 2a, the SIF is given by,
K
I
=

a
Using this relation, the crack opening area is given by,
A
o
= 4

E
_
a
0
x dx = 2

E
a
2
Taking into account the bulging effect for cracks in shallow shells through Folias factor, as discussed above, the COA for cracks on thin
shells can be expressed as
A = 4

E
_
a
0
F
2
()x dx = 4

E
a
2
1

2
_

0
M
2
(

= A
o
()
where is known as bulging factor for COA.
B. Ghosh et al. / Nuclear Engineering and Design 239 (2009) 327337 329
COA from COD: An alternative method to evaluate the COA, A, is to use crack opening displacement (COD) at the center of the crack and
to calculate COA assuming an elliptic crack opening prole by
A =

2
a
where a represents the semi-crack length and is COD at the center (mouth) of the crack (or CMOD). Thus for Grifth conguration the
CMOD is given by,
o
=4a/E.
2.1.1. TadaParis (Paris and Tada, 1983) model
For the case of tension and bending of a pipe section containing a circumferential crack, the SIFs are not formulated as functions of a
single parameter and no simple formula is readily available for the evaluation of SIFs.
Therefore, Paris and Tada (1983) have specically selected a typical value of the mean radius to thickness ratio, R/t =10 and formulated
SIFs based on this value. For smaller R/t ratios, the degree of overestimate would increase.
Under Tension and Bending: Under these loadings, the SIFs are expressed in the following forms
K
t
=
t
_
(R)F
t
() and K
b
=
b
_
(R)F
b
()
where subscripts t and b represent tension and bending, respectively.
The nominal stresses due to tension and bending are dened by

t
=
P
2Rt
and
b
=
M
R
2
t
where P and M are axial tensile force and bending moment
F
t
() and F
b
() which are nondimensional functions accounting for bulging effect of shells on SIF are calculated from Sanders (1982,
1983) approximate formulas for R/t =10 as
F
t
() = 1 +7.5
_

_
3/2
15
_

_
5/2
+33
_

_
7/2
and F
b
() = 1 +6.8
_

_
3/2
13.6
_

_
5/2
+20
_

_
7/2
From the denition of I
t
(see Section 2.1), we get
I
t
() = 2
2
_
1+
_

_
1.5
_
8.613.3
_

_
+24
_

_
2
_
+
_

_
3
_
22.5 75
_

_
+205.7
_

_
2
247.5
_

_
3
+242
_

_
4
__
Similar to the relation between A
t
and I
t
, the cracking opening area due to bending stress is expressed as
A
b
= R
2

b
E
I
b
()
The crack opening area for bending, A
b
, however cannot be obtained as readily because the crack absent stress distribution is not
uniform along the crack (direct application of energy method is difcult). For this case of bending stress which varies from
b
to
b
cos ,
I
b
is approximated as
I
b
() =
3 +cos
4
I
t
()
Then, the crack opening area can be taken as the sum of individual areas due to tensile and bending loadings as
A = A
t
+A
b
where A
t
and A
b
are the crack opening areas due to tensile and bending loads, respectively.
Note that, once the normal stresses due to axial tension and bending moment are given, here, the crack opening area is independent of
shell thickness.
Under internal pressure: For the internal pressure loading, SIF solutions are readily available for both circumferential and longitudinal
cracks as functions of a single geometric parameter, = a/

Rt, relating crack size and pipe geometry. In this case, the SIF is expressed as
K
p
=
p

aF
p
(), where =
a

Rt
=
_
R
t
Contrary to the cases of axial tension and bending loads, the geometric factor F
p
() for this case is a nondimensional function of single
parameter as mentioned earlier.
In the case of circumferential cracks, for a pipe subjected to internal pressure, p, the membrane stress,
p
, is estimated by

p
=
R
2t
p
In this case, the following formula approximates the curve of F
p
() presented in Rooke and Cartwright (1976).
F
p
() =
_
(1 +0.3225
2
)
1/2
0 1
0.9 +0.25 1 5
Accuracy of the formula is within a few percent over the range specied above.
330 B. Ghosh et al. / Nuclear Engineering and Design 239 (2009) 327337
The crack opening area, A
p
, can be obtained by the method in the previous discussion,
A
p
= 2

_
0

p
_
K
2
p
E
_
Rd = 2Rt

p
E
I
p
where
I
p
() =
_

2
(1 +0.16125
2
) 0 1
0.02 +
2
(0.81 +0.30 +0.03125
2
) 1 5
and
p
=
_
1 +0.16125
2
for0 1
0.02

2
+0.81 +0.30 +0.03125
2
for1 5
In case of longitudinal cracks, for a pipe subjected to internal pressure, p, the hoop stress,
h
, is estimated by

h
=
R
t
p
The crack opening area, A
h
, can be obtained by the method in the previous discussion,
A
h
= 2Rt

h
E
I
h
()
where = a/

Rt
I
h
() =
_

2
(1 +0.625
2
) 0 1
0.14 +
2
(0.36 +0.72 +0.405
2
) 1 5
and
h
=
1

2
I
h
() =
_
1 +0.625
2
0 1
0.14

2
+0.36 +0.72 +0.405
2
1 5
2.1.2. Zahoor (1985) model
Zahoor (1985) gives SIF relations for circumferential through-wall cracks under various loading conditions.
Dening a quantity k that depends only on the pipe geometry
k =

_
1
8
R
t

1
4
_
1/4
for 5
R
t
10
_
2
5
R
t
3
_
1/4
for 10
R
t
20
Axial tension: The K
I
for remotely applied load, P, may be expressed as
K
t
=

a
t
F
t
_
R
t
,

_
with F
t
= 1 +k
_
5.3303
_

_
1.5
+18.773
_

_
4.24
_
Remotely applied bending moment: K
I
for remotely applied bending moment, M, may be expressed as
K
b
=

a
b
F
b
_
R
t
,

_
with F
b
= 1 +k
_
4.5967
_

_
1.5
+2.6422
_

_
4.24
_
Internal pressure: The K
I
solution for a circumferential through crack in a pipe subjected to internal pressure, p, was taken from Rooke
and Cartwright (1976) and curve tted, giving
K
p
=

a
p
F
p
() with F
p
=
_
1 +0.1501
3/2
for 2
0.8875 +0.2625 for 2 5
and =
a

Rt
where
p
is the membrane stress in the axial direction.
The pressure loading K
I
expression is estimated to have better than 1% accuracy for R/t =10.
In order to calculate the crack opening areas as in the case of TadaParis method, that is,
A
t
= R
2

t
E
I
t
where
I
t
() = 4

_
0
F
2
t
() d
from Zahoor (1986) relation for SIF under tension, we obtain
I
t
= 2
2
_
1 +4k
_
1.523
_

_
1.5
+3.0085
_

_
4.24
_
+2k
2
_
5.682
_

_
2.25
+33.63
_

_
8.48
+25.857
_

_
5.74
__
B. Ghosh et al. / Nuclear Engineering and Design 239 (2009) 327337 331
2.1.3. Zahoor (1989) (LEFM) model
Solutions for crack mouth opening displacement (CMOD), , under elastic loading have been obtained for various geometrical congu-
rations and loading conditions. The following equations were derived by Zahoor (1989) based on the nite element analysis by Kumar and
German (1988).
=
4
E
(
t

t
+
b

b
)R
m

where
t
and
b
are geometrical factors for CMOD and are approximated by

t
= 1 +k
_
4.55
_

_
1.5
+47
_

_
3
_
and
b
= 1 +k
_
6.071
_

_
1.5
+24.15
_

_
2.94
_
with a common coefcient, k, expressing the dependence on R
m
/t, given by
k =

_
0.125
R
m
t
0.25
_
0.25
for 5
R
m
t
10
_
0.4
R
m
t
3
_
0.25
for 10
R
m
t
20
Assuming elliptic crack,
A =

2
(R
m
) =
2
E
(R
m
)
2
(
t

t
+
b

b
)(R
m
)
2
=

E
R
2
m
(
t
I
t
+
b
I
b
)
thus, I
t
=2
2

t
and I
b
=2
2

b
and
t
and
b
are actually obtained from the relations,
F
2
t
=
1
4
dI
t
d
= 1 +k
_
7.9625
_

_
1.5
+117.5
_

_
3
_
and F
2
b
=
1
4
dI
b
d
= 1 +k
_
10.62425
_

_
1.5
+59.6505
_

_
2.94
_
Applicability: 0</0.55 and 5R
m
/t 20.
2.1.4. Klecker et al. (1986) model
Klecker et al. (1986) extended the TadaParis model by including the effect of R
m
/t for the range between 5 and 15. The resulting
geometrical factors for SIF, obtained by them, for a circumferential crack is given by,
F
t
= 1 +A
t
_

_
1.5
+B
t
_

_
2.5
+C
t
_

_
3.5
and F
b
= 1 +A
b
_

_
1.5
+B
b
_

_
2.5
+C
b
_

_
3.5
These are applicable for the range of: 5<R
m
/t <15 and 0</<0.611.
The coefcients of these polynomials are given as
A
t
= 2.02917 +1.67763
_
R
m
t
_
0.07987
_
R
m
t
_
2
+0.00176
_
R
m
t
_
3
B
t
= 7.09987 4.42394
_
R
m
t
_
+0.21036
_
R
m
t
_
2
0.00463
_
R
m
t
_
3
C
t
= 7.79661 +5.16676
_
R
m
t
_
0.24577
_
R
m
t
_
2
+0.00541
_
R
m
t
_
3
A
B
= 3.26543 +1.52784
_
R
m
t
_
0.072698
_
R
m
t
_
2
+0.0016011
_
R
m
t
_
3
B
b
= 11.36322 3.91412
_
R
m
t
_
+0.18619
_
R
m
t
_
2
0.004099
_
R
m
t
_
3
C
b
= 3.18609 +3.84763
_
R
m
t
_
0.18304
_
R
m
t
_
2
+0.00403
_
R
m
t
_
3
Paris and Tada (1983) utilized the SIF solutions of Sanders (1982) to obtain a polynomial equation for COA; Bhandari et al. (1992)
proposed an extension to this solution to include the effect of R
m
/t. This can be obtained by the following formula with the coefcients (A
t
,
B
t
and C
t
) given by Klecker et al. (1986) as a functions of R
m
/t.

t
= 1 +
_

_
3/2
_
8
7
A
t
+
8
9
B
t
_

_
+
8
11
C
t
_

_
2
_
+
_

_
3
_
2
5
A
2
t
+
2
3
A
t
B
t
_

_
+
2
7
(B
2
t
+2A
t
C
t
)
_

_
2
+
1
2
B
t
C
t
_

_
3
+
2
9
C
2
t
_

_
4
_
332 B. Ghosh et al. / Nuclear Engineering and Design 239 (2009) 327337
2.1.5. Lacire et al. (1999) model
Lacire et al. (1999) analyzed circumferential through-wall cracks on pipes with nite element method using shell elements for this
cylinders (R
m
/t >10) and solid elements for thicker cylinders. The geometrical factors for SIF obtained by them are given by,
F
t
= A
t
+B
t
_

_
+C
t
_

_
2
+D
t
_

_
3
+E
t
_

_
4
and
F
b
1 +(t/2R
m
)
=
_
A
b
+B
b
_

_
+C
b
_

_
2
+D
b
_

_
3
+E
b
_

_
4
_
These are applicable for the range of: 1.5<R
m
/t <80.5 and 0</<0.611.
The coefcients of these polynomials are given as
A
t
= 1 A
b
= 0.65133 0.5774 0.3427
2
0.0681
3
B
t
= 1.040 3.1831 4.83
2
+2.369
3
B
b
= 1.879 +4.7951 +2.343
2
0.6197
3
C
t
= 16.71 +23.10 +50.82
2
+18.02
3
C
b
= 9.779 38.14 6.611
2
+3.972
3
D
t
= 25.82 12.051 87.24
2
30.39
3
D
b
= 34.56 +129.9 +50.55
2
+3.374
3
E
t
= 24.70 54.18 +18.09
2
+6.745
3
E
b
= 30.82 147.6 78.38
2
15.54
3
with = log(t/R
m
)
Takahashi (2002) has used SIF solutions by Lacire et al. (1999) to estimate COA for a wide range of R
m
/t values. Based on their model, an
alternative equation with a larger range of applicability can be derived by,

t
= A
2
t
+
4A
t
B
t
3
_

_
+
B
2
t
+2A
t
C
t
2
_

_
2
+
4A
t
D
t
+4B
t
C
t
5
_

_
3
+
C
2
t
+2A
t
E
t
+2B
t
D
t
3
_

_
3
+
4B
t
E
t
+4C
t
D
t
7
_

_
5
+
D
2
t
+2C
t
E
t
4
_

_
6
+
4D
t
E
t
9
_

_
7
+
E
2
t
5
_

_
8
For a situation where uncracked body stress is not uniformas in the case of a pipe subjected to a bending moment, no exact relationship
between the SIF and COA is available. For circumferential cracks under a bending moment, however, Paris and Tada (1983) proposed the
following equation derived using engineering judgment

b
=
3 +cos
4

t
This equation can be used to extend the expressions for the tensile case to the bending case.
2.1.6. Forman et al. (1985) (present) model
The present model is based Forman et al. (1985) models for F
t
and F
b
. Due to Forman et al. (1985)
F
t
=
_
H
t
(2)
and F
b
=
_
H
b
(2)
where
H
t
=

2

_
g() +

C
2
2

2
_
and H
b
=

2

_
2

2
_
sin

()
_
2
+

C
2
2

2
_
with

2
=
t
R
1
_
12(1
2
)
, =

2
=
1
2
R

Rt
4
_
12(1
2
)
C =

1 +

16

2
0.0293
3
for 1
_
2

_
1/2
+
_
0.179

_
0.885
for 1
() = 1 +
1
2
+ cot
2
cot

2cot
_
( )/

2
_
+2cot
and g() = 2

2
_
1 +
1

2
1 cot
cot
_
( )/

2
_
+

2cot
_
2
Considering their limiting values as 0, F
t
and F
b
can be represented as
F
2
t
=
1
2

2C
2
2

2 +2

2
_
1 +
1

2
1 cot
cot
_
( )/

2
_
+

2cot
_
2

and F
2
b
=
1
2
_
h() +2C
2
2

B. Ghosh et al. / Nuclear Engineering and Design 239 (2009) 327337 333
where
h() = 2

2
_
sin

()
_
2
= 2

2
_
sin

2
4
sin +cos
_
cot 1
_
cot
_
( )/

2
_
+

2cot
_
2
The functions, g and h, can be redened to put F
t
and F
b
in similar functional form as
F
2
t
=
1
2
_
2

2(g
2
1) +2C
2

and F
2
b
=
1
2
_
2

2(h
2
1) +2C
2

and modied functions g and h are:

g() = 1 +
1

2
1 cot
cot
_
( )/

2
_
+

2cot
and h() =
sin

+
1
2
sin +cos ( cot 1)

2cot
_
( )/

2
_
+2cot
To facilitate the easy determination of COA, the polynomial approximation for C, g and h are given by:
C =

1 +

64
2

0.0036875

3

3
for 2
_
2

_
1/2
+
_
0.358

_
0.885
for 2
g = 1.00133 0.10977
_

_
+3.18598
_

_
2
4.67544
_

_
3
+11.97015
_

_
4
and h = 1.00071 0.05984
_

_
+0.85086
_

_
2
1.41999
_

_
3
+5.4903
_

_
4
2.2. Plasticity correction for elastic models
Inglis (1913) showed that the stresses at the crack tips are so large that they cause anelastic deformation in the front of the crack tip.
The anelastic deformation such as plastic ow in metals, is mostly irreversible and if the stresses are released the body will not recuperate
its original conguration near the crack tip. The energy that causes the anelastic behaviour is eventually converted into heat energy and is
lost to the surrounding. Thus, the anelastic deformation dissipates mechanical energy into heat energy. Quite often, the ow of material
makes the crack tip blunt which in turn decreases the magnitude of stress components. Thus many potential catastrophic failures may be
avoided just by local plastic deformation at the crack tip. In metals, plastic deformation occurs which is generally caused by nucleation and
motion of dislocations. Flow of materials near the crack tip is also facilitated by the formation of voids under tensile eld.
Stress eld in the vicinity of a crack tip are determined assuming that the body remains elastic even at the crack tip. Knowing the stress
eld, we may invoke one of the two universally accepted yield criteria, von Mises or Tresca, for evaluating the size and shape of the plastic
zone. Rigorous analysis is prohibitively complex because two sets of constitutive relations should be used, one for plastic deformation
inside the plastic zone and another for elastic deformation outside the zone. To complicate the situation further, the surface that separates
the two zones is not known a priori and the analysis may require iterative solutions. Therefore, approximate methods of analysis would be
adopted as follows.
2.2.1. Irwin plastic zone correction
Irwin (1958) suggested a solution for the plastic zone size through a model which accounts for absence of high stresses within the yield
zone. Consider a plane stress problem. The plastic zone size extends beyond the tip of the actual crack The tip of the effective crack is
located somewhere inside the plastic zone. Note that the material beyond the tip of the effective crack will not be able to sustain stress
beyond yield stress. Moreover the crack faces of the effective crack are not actually separated between points actual and effective crack
tips, and therefore tensile stress equal to yield stress acts over the span between actual and effective crack tips for elastic-perfectly plastic
material. Irwin proposed that the distance between actual and effective crack tips should be chosen such that loads not taken beyond point
of effective crack tip is equal to load sustained over the distance between actual and effective crack tips.
Thus, the effect of yielding near the crack tip may be incorporated through the effective (plastic zone corrected) crack size which is
calculated from the iterative relation
a
eff
= a +
K
I
2
2
y
Since K
I
also depends on a
eff
(see Section 2.1), the correction needs to be implemented in an iterative manner. The procedure here is
same as recommended in Paris and Tada (1983).
2.2.2. Plastic zone size through Dugdale approach
Dugdale (1960) determined the plastic zone size in front of the crack tip through a different approach. He considered effective crack to
be of length a +r
p0
, where r
p0
is plastic zone size.
334 B. Ghosh et al. / Nuclear Engineering and Design 239 (2009) 327337
Table 1
Geometric parameters for test cases.
Test cases OD (cm) t (cm) Rm (cm) Rm/t
1 40.64 3.096 18.770 6.063
2 16.83 1.097 7.866 7.171
3 21.91 1.27 10.320 8.126
4 21.91 1.509 10.200 6.760
5 27.30 1.824 12.738 6.984
6 21.91 1.031 10.939 10.611
7 35.56 1.509 17.025 11.283
8 50.80 2.062 24.369 11.818
9 71.12 2.062 34,029 16.503
In Dugdale approach singularity at the tip of effective crack is nullied by a uniform pressure equal to yield stress (for plane stress)
over the plastic zone. In fact, to determine r
p0
the criterion employed is that r
p0
is the length on which pressure
y
exactly nullies the
singularity in elastic stress eld distribution.
2.3. Elasto-plastic COA models
The only model we will discuss about in this category is Zahoor (1989) Elasto-Plastic Fracture Mechanic (EPFM) model.
2.3.1. Zahoor (1989) (EPFM) model
Based on nite-element analysis by Kumar and German (1988), Zahoor (1989) has recommended the following model for the case with
combined tension and bending, in which the crack opening is correlated as:
= 4R
m

1
E
(
t
f
t
+
b
f
b
) +
o
R
m

_
P
P

o
_
n
h
where

t
=
P
2R
m
t
and
b
=
4

R
m
M
R
4
o
R
4
i
P

o
=
1
2

R
m
P
2
o
M
o
+
_
_

R
m
P
2
o
M
o
_
2
+4P
2
o
_
1/2

with load ratio, =M/R

m
P
The reference limit load for axial tension and bending moment are given by,
P
o
= 2
o
R
m
t
_
2sin
1
_
sin
2
__
and M
o
= 4
o
R
2
m
t
_
cos

2

1
2
sin
_
, n,
o
and
o
are constants in the RambergOsgood (1943) stressstrain relation,

o
=

o
+
_

o
_
n
The
o
and
o
are reference stress and reference strain, respectively, and are related to each other by the relation

o
= E
where
o
is 0.2% offset yield strength.
The f
t
and f
b
are dened as follows:
f
t
= f

_
1 +k
_
4.55
_
f

_
1.5
+47
_
f

_
3
__
and f
b
= f

_
1 +k
_
6.071
_
f

_
1.5
+24.15
_
f

_
2.94
__
Table 2
Loadings and mechanical properties.
p (bar) 50
M (Nm) 2.6210
5
E (GPa) 1.88
y (MPa) 1.0
u (MPa) 2.27
B. Ghosh et al. / Nuclear Engineering and Design 239 (2009) 327337 335
Fig. 1. (af) Comparison of linear elastic COA models.
336 B. Ghosh et al. / Nuclear Engineering and Design 239 (2009) 327337
Fig. 2. (af) Comparison of linear elasto-plastic COA models.
B. Ghosh et al. / Nuclear Engineering and Design 239 (2009) 327337 337
with a common coefcient, k expressing the dependence on R
m
/t given by
k =

_
0.125
R
m
t
0.25
_
0.25
for 5
R
m
t
10
_
0.4
R
m
t
3
_
0.25
for 10
R
m
t
20
and f

= 1 +
1

n 1
n +1
(
t
F
t
+
b
F
b
)
2

2
o
_
1 +(P/P

o
)
2
_
with F
t
and F
b
are same as those of Zahoor (1985).
Graphical representation and tabulated values of h(n, , (/), (R/t) =10) has been provided by Zahoor (1989). Linear interpolation is
permissible as prescribed by him.
Applicability: R/t =10, 0.0625/0.5.
3. Results and discussion
The crack opening areas have been calculated for range of pipe sizes of the secondary side of an Indian PHWRs. Table 1 furnishes a list
of the of the relevant geometric parameters and Table 2 presents the representative loading conditions.
Fig. 1af shows the COA predictions by different LEFMmodels due to Paris and Tada (1983), Zahoor (1985), Klecker et al. (1986), Lacire et
al. (1999) and the present model developed from Forman et al. (1985). Fig. 2af presents the predictions of some of the above models with
plasticity correctionas suggestedby Paris andTada (1983) andZahoors (1989) LEPFMmodel. Fig. 1af reveals that TadaParis overestimates
COAfor R
m
/t <10 and under-estimates for R
m
/t >10. Zahoor-LEFM(1989) always overpredicts the COA, whereas Klecker et al. (1986) predicts
lowest value of COA in almost all cases. Judging fromthe point of viewof lawof mean, Zahoor (1985), Lacire et al. (1999) and present model
based on Forman et al. (1985) yield reasonable estimates.
TadaParis model has been derived for R/t ratio equal to 10 and for 0< <100

. Estimation of the formula is expected to yield a slightly

over estimate results for R/t near 10. For smaller R/t ratio, the degree of over estimate would increase. Maricchiolo and Milella (1989) have
observed that, for larger crack length, the discrepancy between experimental and calculated areas increases even when R/t is near 10.
In Zahoor (1985) model, (1) K
I
expressions for tension and bending are recommended for use between 0</<0.55; (2) K
I
for cases are
slightly conservative relative to the solution due to Sanders (1983); (3) for R/t =10, the accuracy relative to Sanders (1983) is better than
2%; for R/t 5, the relative accuracy is up to 4%; (3) the results for R/t between 15 and 20 are estimated to be conservative by as much as
10% for large crack lengths.
Zahoor (1989) LEPM model has (1) better than 3% accuracy for R/t =10 as compared to the results in Kumar and German (1988), (2)
solution conservative by as much as 7% for R/t near 5 and as much as 10% for />0.4 and R/t between 15 and 20.
With plasticity correction the effective values of semi-crack angle does not converge for any value of individual loadings and their
combination as expiated by Giles and Brust (1991). To aid convergence in all cases discussed in Fig. 2af, we have lowered the bending
moment by an order of magnitude. As revealed by Fig. 2af, with plasticity correction, the relative prediction of TadaParis model is similar
among the LEFM models. Klecker et al. (1986) model behaves in reverse fashion in this case with respect to TadaParis model. Lacire et al.
(1999) and Zahoor (1989) gives tenable prediction.
References
Bhandari, S., Faidy, C., Acker, D., 1992. Computation of leak areas of circumferential cracks in piping for application in demonstrating the leak before break behavior. Nucl.
Eng. Des. 135, 141149.
Dugdale, D.S., 1960. Yielding of steel sheets containing slits. J. Mech. Phys. Solids 8, 100108.
Forman, R.G., Hickman, J.C., Shivakumar, V., 1985. Stress intensity factors for circumferential through cracks in hollow cylinders subjected to combined tension and bending
loads. Eng. Frac. Mech. 21, 563571.
Giles, P., Brust, F.W., 1991. Approximate fracture methods for pipes. Part I. Theory. Nucl. Eng. Des. 127, 117.
Inglis, C.E., 1913. Stress in a plate due to the presence of cracks and sharp corners. Trans. Inst. Naval Architects 55, 219241.
Irwin, G.R., 1958. Fracture. In: Flugge, S. (Ed.), Handbuch der Physik, vol. VI. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp. 551590.
Kastner, W., Rohrich, E., Schmitt, W., Steinbuch, R., 1981. Critical crack sizes in ductile piping. Int. J. PVP 9, 197219.
Klecker, R., Brust, F.W., Wilkowski, G., 1986. NRC Leak-Before-Break (LBB.NRC) Analysis Method for Circumferentially Through-Wall Cracked Pipes under Axial plus Bending
Loads, NUREG/CR-4572.
Kumar, V., German, M., 1988. Elasto-Plastic Fracture Analysis of Through-Wall and Surface Flaws in Cylinders, EPRI NP-5596.
Lacire, M.H., Chapuliot, S., Marie, S., 1999. Stress intensity factors of through wall cracks in plates and tubes with circumferential cracks. ASME PVP 388, 1321.
Maricchiolo, C., Milella, P.P., 1989. Prediction of leak areas and experimental verication on carbon and stainless steel pipes. Nucl. Eng. Des. 111, 4754.
Nicholson, J.W., Simmonds, J.G., 1980. Sanders energy-release rate integral for arbitrarily loaded shallow shells and its asymptotic evaluation for a cracked cylinder. J. Appl.
Mech. 47, 363369.
Nicholson, J.W., et al., 1983. Sanders energy-release rate integral for a circumferentially cracked cylindrical shell. J. Appl. Mech. 50, 373378.
Paris, P.C., Tada, H., 1983. The Application of Fracture Proof Design Methodology using Tearing Instability Theory to Nuclear Piping Postulating Circumferential throughwall
Crack, NUREG/CR-3464, Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Ramberg, W., Osgood, W.R., 1943. Description of stress-strain curves by three parameters. NACA TN-902.
Rooke, D.P., Cartwright, D.J., 1976. Compendium of Stress Intensity Factors. Her Majestys Stationaries Ofce, London.
Sanders Jr., J.L., 1960. On the Grifth-Erwin fracture theory. J. Appl. Mech. 27, 352353.
Sanders Jr., J.L., 1982. Circumferential through-wall cracks in cylindrical shells under tension. J. Appl. Mech. 49, 103107.
Sanders Jr., J.L., 1983. Circumferential through-wall cracks in a cylindrical shell under combined bending and tension. J. Appl. Mech. 50, 221.
Takahashi, Y., 2002. Evaluation of leak-before-break assessment methodology for pipes with a circumferential through-wall crack. Part I. Stress intensity factor and limit load
solutions. Int. J. PVP 79, 385392.
Wuthrich, C., 1983. Crack opening areas in pressure vessels and pipes. Eng. Frac. Mech. 18, 10491057.
Zahoor, A., 1985. Closed form expression for fracture mechanics analysis of cracked pipes. Trans. ASME J. Pres. Ves. Technol. 107, 203205.
Zahoor, A., 1986. Fracture of Circumferentially Cracked Pipes. Trans. ASME J. Pres. Ves. Technol. 108, 529531.
Zahoor, A., 1989. Ductile Fracture Handbook, EPRI NP-6301.