Structural integrity of components containing fluids is critical for economic, environmental and safety issues. Any risk of catastrophic failure, in the form of either brittle or ductile manner, is not acceptable across the industries. Consequently, many efforts have been invested in the structural integrity aspect to improve the assessment methodologies. One of the ways to aid the decision whether or not to live with the defect is through the demonstration of Leak-Before-Break (LBB). LBB which is a well-established practice in the nuclear industry, albeit as a defence-in-depth argument or to justify the elimination of pipe whip restraints, also finds its applicability in other industries. A review of the available procedures, their associated limitations and the research carried out in the last thirty years is presented in this paper. Application of this concept within non-nuclear industries is also discussed. Leak- AbstractStructural integrity of components containing fluids is critical for economic, environmental and safety issues. Any risk of catastrophic failure, in the form of either brittle or ductile manner, is not acceptable across the industries. Consequently, many efforts have been invested in the structural integrity aspect to improve the assessment methodologies. One of the ways to aid the decision whether or not to live with the defect is through the demonstration of Leak-Before-Break (LBB). LBB which is a well-established practice in the nuclear industry, albeit as a defence-in-depth argument or to justify the elimination of pipe whip restraints, also finds its applicability in other industries. A review of the available procedures, their associated limitations and the research carried out in the last thirty years is presented in this paper. Application of this concept within non-nuclear industries is also discussed.
One of the ways to aid the decision whether or not to live with defects in pressurised component is through the demonstration of Leak-Before-Break (LBB). In this paper, three of the main solutions to carry out the LBB assessment, namely Stress Intensity Factor (SIF), Reference Stress (RS) and Crack Opening Area (COA) have been evaluated and compared for both BS 7910 and API 579/ASME FFS-1 standards. Differences with respect to the choice of solutions and boundary conditions are illustrated and discussed. Same applied loads and material properties have been used when applying each procedure. Different geometries for potential pressurised components which are of interest with regards to LBB have been considered for each solution. Focus is made on cylinders where axially and circumferentially oriented through-wall and surface cracks were analysed. While SIF solutions produce similar results for both standard, reference stress solutions show higher differences in results. However, in LBB assessments it is the reference stress solution which is more relevant, since most LBB assessments pre-suppose the material to be ductile. Here there are significant differences between the different assumptions. In terms of COA, solutions are not given at the same location however they seems to agree well within the common range of applicability. Differences in the assessment route between the standards is also discussed. Experimental data from literature has been also been compared to the different standard predictions, to illustrate the accuracy of the solutions for axially oriented surface cracks. Aptitude of solutions to predict the boundary between leak and break is discussed, in relation to how this shows the level of conservatism.
Surface cracks are one of common forms of flaws in thin-walled structures such as pressure vessels, oil, and gas pipelines. Accurate evaluation of the growth driving force of such surface cracks is important for integrity analyses of these structures. In this study, the combined effect of the depth and the length of a given surface crack under tension was analyzed using combined elastoplastic finite element analysis (EPFEA) and crack propagation experiments with selected crack shapes. Based on the consideration of the distribution profile of the J integral as the crack growth driving force along crack front, the crack growth stability with different crack shapes was analyzed.Finite element analysis (FEA) results showed that the growth from partial to through-wall penetration is affected by the shape of the initial crack. As shown by the distribution profile of the J integral along the crack front, the location(s) of the maximum J, that is, the highest crack driving force, is (are) found to vary with the crack shape and development.crack growth, elastoplastic finite element analysis (EPFEA), J integral, surface crack | INTRODUCTIONPressurized components for storage or transportation of static or circulating fluids are commonly used in the industry, such as the nuclear, chemical, oil, and gas sector. 1 These critical components are sometimes utilized up to their design capacity during services. Operators may also look into potentials to extend the service life of ageing installations. The structural integrity assessment of these components is thus required to ensure adequate safety margins can be maintained at all time.
Based on detailed 3D finite element (FE) analyses, idealized and non-idealized axial through-wall flaws were evaluated in a cylinder under internal pressure. The key parameters (Stress Intensity Factor, Reference stress, and Crack Opening Area) from widely accepted structural integrity assessment procedures (BS 7910 and API 579-1/ASME FFS-1) were explored and compared between idealized (perpendicular straight-sided flaw) and non-idealized geometry. The effect of crack shape on the evolution of stress intensity factors and crack opening areas along the crack front were also investigated. Non-idealized crack shapes have been modelled assuming a straight crack front with different internal and external crack lengths. The influence of crack shape has been evaluated by varying the crack front location and lengths ratios. The current findings highlight the significance of assessing a more realistic crack shape and should be considered in a leak-before-break (LBB) analysis. A non-idealized crack has a significantly smaller crack opening area than the equivalent idealized through-wall crack. Therefore the leakage rate at this stage of crack growth will be lower than predicted by standard solutions. Stress intensity factor solutions should also take the crack shape variation into account with regards to fatigue crack growth as a surface flaw propagates through-thickness.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.