You are on page 1of 6

International Journal of Research in Advanced Technology IJORAT

Vol 1, Issue 9, NOVEMBER 2016

PROBABILISTIC FAILURE ANALYSIS


OF NUCLEAR PIPING CONTAINING
DEFECT
Mr.S.SHEIK SULAIMAN1, Mr.K.KRISHNA MOORTHY2*, Mr.L.SHUNMUGARAJ3*
Assistant Professor/Mechanical Engineering, Francis Xavier Engineering College, Tirunelveli, India1
Assistant Professor/Mechanical Engineering, Francis Xavier Engineering College, Tirunelveli, India2
Assistant Professor/Mechanical Engineering, Francis Xavier Engineering College, Tirunelveli, India3
Abstract
Failure analysis of in-service nuclear piping containing defects is an important subject in the nuclear
power plants. The mechanical integrity of the nuclear reactor piping is a matter of great importance for both
economical and safety reasons. In this paper, an attempt has been made to compute the failure probabilities
of a piping component against defect with time by using Monte Carlo simulation (MCS) technique. An
attempt has been made to study the stochastic propagation of cracks with time, using MCS technique. The
failure probabilities are computed by using R6 approach (using R6-option 1 curve as the failure assessment
diagram).R6 is a well-known engineering assessment procedure for the evaluation the structural integrity of
flawed structure.
Keywords: nuclear piping, fracture, failure

1. Introduction
With the development of the nuclear
power industry, more and more pipelines are being
used. The mechanical integrity of the nuclear reactor
piping is a matter of great importance for both
economical and safety reasons. Flaws are inherent in
many components owing to the processes by which
they are manufactured or fabricated. Depending on
the environment, material composition, operating
conditions, and location, piping components in
nuclear power plants are subjected to different types
of degradation mechanisms. 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 values 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
assessment and design lies in a deterministic model.
For the deterministic method, when the random

All Rights Reserved 2016 IJORAT

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-safe. The probabilistic
approach is obviously the best choice in practical
applications when sufficient information on the
distribution of the random variables is known.
In this paper, a piping component made of
AISI 304 stainless steel is considered for the analysis.
In this project, an attempt has been made to compute
the failure probabilities of a piping component
against defects with time using Monte Carlo
simulation (MCS) technique.

2. Probabilistic Fracture Mechanics (PFM)


The field of probabilistic fracture
mechanics is an important and growing research
field. The ability to account for uncertainties in
loading, material parameters, initial crack size,
fatigue crack growth parameters, probability of
detection, welding effects, etc.., in a systematic,
theoretically sound manner is essential to structural
design and analysis. In recent years, probabilistic
fracture mechanics (PFM) is becoming increasingly
popular for realistic evaluation of fracture response
and reliability of cracked structures. Using PFM, one
can incorporate statistical uncertainties in engineering

56

International Journal of Research in Advanced Technology IJORAT


Vol 1, Issue 9, NOVEMBER 2016

design and evaluation - a need, which has long been


recognized. The theory of fracture mechanics
provides a mechanistic relationship between the
maximum permissible load acting on a structural
component to the size and location of a crack either
real or postulated in that component. The theory of
probability determines how uncertainties in crack
size, load, and material properties, if modeled
accurately, affect the integrity of cracked structures.
PFM, which blends these two theories,
accounts for both mechanistic and statistical aspects
of a fracture problem, and hence, provides a more
rational way of describing the actual behavior and
reliability of structures than the traditional
deterministic models. Probabilistic models have also
been developed to estimate various response statistics
and reliability. While the development is still
ongoing, significant progress has been made in the
deterministic modeling of both linear-elastic fracture
mechanics (LEFM) and elastic-plastic fracture
mechanics (EPFM). Currently, there are many
application of PFM in the field of oil and gas,
nuclear, automotive, naval, aerospace, and other
industries. Nearly all of these methods have been
developed strictly based on LEFM models.

account for residual stresses. The FAD diagram is


also be used for ductile tearing analysis

4.1. Original Concept


Dowling and Townley and Harrison
introduced the concept of a two-criterion FAD to
describe the interaction between brittle fracture and
fully ductile rupture. The first FAD was derived from
a modified version of the strip-yield model.

FAD is probably the most widely used the


methodology for Elastic Plastic Fracture Mechanics
(EPFM) analysis of structural components. Its
approach is a highly non linear problem (Elastic
Plastic Fracture) is solved in terms of two parameters
that vary linearly with applied load. The FAD method
is appropriate for welded components because it can

All Rights Reserved 2016 IJORAT

(1)

( )

(2)

As a final step, we can define stress ratio Lr


and the K ratio Kr follows:

3. Probabilistic Analysis

4. Failure Assessment Diagram (FAD)

This equation can be modified for real structures by


replacing ys with the collapse stress c for the
structure. The next step in driving a failure
assessment diagram from the strip-yield model
entails dividing the effective stress intensity by linear
elastic K.

Kr =
Lr =

(3)

(4)

Where,
K is the stress intensity factor at any time,
KIC the material fracture toughness, the applied
stress, and c the flow stress of the material.
1.2
UNSAFE

1
0.8
0.6

FAILURE ASSESMENT
LINE

SAFE

Kr

In traditional deterministic analyses,


uncertainties are either ignored or accounted for by
applying conservative assumptions. Uncertainties are
typically ignored if the analyst knows for certain that
the input parameter has no effect on the behavior of
the component under investigation. In this case, only
the mean values or some nominal values are used in
the analysis. However, in some situations the
influence of uncertainties exists but is still neglected.
Probabilistic analysis allows us to determine the
extent to which uncertainties in the model affect the
results of a finite element analysis. Here, statistical
distribution functions such as the Gaussian or normal
distribution, the lognormal distribution, etc. describe
uncertain parameters.

Keff = ys [ ln sec ( )]

0.4
A(Lr, Kr )

Option 1 curve

0.2
0
0

Lr
Figure 1.Failure Assessment Diagram

5. Failure criteria

57

International Journal of Research in Advanced Technology IJORAT


Vol 1, Issue 9, NOVEMBER 2016

The failure criteria are used in this study for


determining the failure probabilities of the piping
component against defect is R6 method.

5.1. R6 procedure
R6 procedure is a failure assessment
method that takes into account both the elastic and
plastic modes of failure. Structures made from
materials with sufficient toughness may not be
susceptible to brittle fracture, but they can fail by
plastic collapse if they are overloaded. Dowling,
Townley and Harrison, introduced the concept of
two-criteria 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 improved and is known as the
R6 procedure. There are two basic failure modes
assessed by R6: plastic collapse and fast fracture.
Plastic collapse is controlled by overall plasticity in
the defective section and fast fracture by the local
crack-tip stressstrain fields.

options for drawing the FAD referred to as Options 1,


2, 3 .The Option 1 curve is suitable for all materials
when Lr < 1 and, for continuous yielding materials
only, when Lr 1. This option curve needs only the
yield and ultimate stress data. According to the R6
failure criterion, if the assessment point A (in Fig. 2)
falls inside the failure assessment line, it is
considered as safe. If the point lies outside the curve,
it is considered as a failure. The option 1 curve is
described by
= . . + . (. (5)
The safety margin corresponding to A (LAr , KAr) is
given by,
= ( ) + ( )

(6)

Where,
LAr and KAr are the co-ordinates of the
assessment point A and r is the distance OB as shown
in Fig. 2. The values of LAr and KAr are determined as
=
=

(7)
(8)

Where,
KI is the stress intensity factor at any time, K IC
the material fracture toughness, the applied stress,
and f the flow stress of the material.

5.2. Simulation
In this study, the stochastic evolution
of cracks due to defect in 304 austenitic stainless
steel is simulated using MCS technique. The details
regarding the random variables and pipe properties
considered in this study are given in Tables 1 and 2.
Table 1.Details of random variables considered.

Figure 2. Schematic representation of R6

Variable

Distribu
tion

Parameters

Applied
stress

Normal

Mean,
1.05102Mpa

Cov,
0.20

Flow
stress

Normal

1.51102Mpa

0.10

procedure
In this study, R6-option 1 curve shown in
Fig. 2 is used as the failure assessment line because
this is the general curve The R6 gives three different

All Rights Reserved 2016 IJORAT

58

International Journal of Research in Advanced Technology IJORAT


Vol 1, Issue 9, NOVEMBER 2016

Table 2. Pipe geometry,


environmental conditions.

material,

and

Pipe wall thickness(m)

9.9110-3

Inside diameter(m)

3.6410-1

Pipe material

AISI 304 stainless steel

Material
fracture
toughness(Mpam)

40.0

Fifty values of Lr are calculated, which


represent the 50 pipes considered, using 50 values of
and f generated.
After each time step, the failure criterion, in
section 5.1 is checked. Failure probability P f is
calculated as,

()

Where,
Nf is the number of failure cases and N is the
total number of simulations (i.e. 50).

6. Computation of stress intensity factors


Stress intensity factors of the cracks are
computed using ASM recommendations. The
expression for the stress intensity factor for a partthrough crack in a hollow cylinder is given by

directions separately using the tables given in ASM


Handbook.

7. Result and Discussion


With pessimistic input data, coordinates (Lr,
Kr) of the assessment point are calculated. Many
factors (such as thermal and residual stresses, failure
criteria and FAD) can be taken into consideration in
the calculation.
After plotting the assessment point in a
relevant FAD, the structural integrity can be judged
through the relative position of the point within the
FAD. The structure is said to have integrity (or to be
safe) if the point lies within the safe area of the FAD.
Otherwise, it is unsafe (not to be shown as a safe
state).It is this safe/unsafe feature in judgement that
leaves a gap between the result of deterministic R6
and the real problems. In reality any item in the world
will fail at the same time. The only difference among
them is the probabilities with which they fail. So, it is
more meaningful to express structural integrity in
terms of failure probability, i.e., in a quantitative
manner rather than the safe/unsafe style.

1.2

Failure Assessment Line

Assessment Point

1
0.8

Kr
0.6
0.4
0.2

Figure 3.Part through crack on the


circumferential plane in a hollow cylinder
= ( )
(10)
Where
is the tensile or bending stress (assumed to be
the value of applied stress in the study), F is a
function of a/b, R/h, and a/h, where a is the crack
depth, b is half the crack length, R is the inner radius
of the cylinder, and h is the wall thickness. The
values of F are calculated for length and depth

All Rights Reserved 2016 IJORAT

0
0

Lr

Figure 4. FAD for Deterministic approach

In case of probabilistic R6 method, we


can quantify the amount of probability of failure; it is
more meaningful to express structural integrity in
terms of failure probability. Simulation is done by
using MATLAB software.

59

International Journal of Research in Advanced Technology IJORAT


Vol 1, Issue 9, NOVEMBER 2016

1.2

0.045

Failure Assessment Line

R6 METHOD

0.04

Assessment Point

0.035
0.03
Probability of Failure(%)

0.8

Kr
0.6

0.4

0.2

0.025
0.02
0.015
0.01
0.005
0
0

0
0

Lr

The probability of failure is calculated by


using Monte Carlo Simulation at time 5, 10 and 15
years.
Table.3.Probability of failure using MCS
Geometry

Probability of failure

(inch)
5

a=0.5

(%)
0

b=0.8
10

a=1

0.02

a=1.5

15

20

Time(years)

with time obtained using R6 method.

8. Conclusion
In this paper an attempt has been made to study
the stochastic propagation of part through cracks with
time using MCS technique. The trend of the
distribution of crack depths at the initial stages is
found to be in satisfactory agreement with the
relevant experimental observations reported in the
literature. The variation in failure probabilities with
time determined using the R6 approach show similar
trends.

9. Future Scope

b=2
15

10

Figure 6.Variation of probabilities against defect

Figure 5 FAD for probabilistic approach

Year

0.04

Finding stress intensity factor by using


ANSYS software.

b=4
The failure probabilities calculated at
different times using R6 failure criteria are shown in
Fig.5. From the figure, it is noted that the failure
probabilities remain zero till 5 year. After 5 years, the
failure probabilities increase gradually. At the end of
15 years, the failure probability is 0.40.

All Rights Reserved 2016 IJORAT

10. References
[1] Y.C. Lin, Y.J. Xie, X.H. Wang Probabilistic
fracture failure analysis of nuclear piping containing
defects using R6 method. Nuclear Engineering and
Design 229 (2004) 237246
[2] C Priya, K B Rao1, M B Anoop, N
Lakshmanan, V Gopika, H S Kushwaha, and R K
Saraf
Probabilistic failure analysis of austenitic nuclear
pipelines against stress corrosion cracking. Journal
of Mechanical Engineering Science 2005 219:607.

60

International Journal of Research in Advanced Technology IJORAT


Vol 1, Issue 9, NOVEMBER 2016

[3] Jang-Shyong You, Wen-Fang Wu Probabilistic


failure analysis of nuclear piping with empirical
study of Taiwans BWR plants. International
Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 79 (2002)
483492.
[4] Kuen Ting The evaluation of inter granular
stress corrosion cracking problems of stainless steel
piping in Taiwan BWR-6 nuclear power plant.
Nuclear Engineering and Design 191 (1999) 245
254
[5] M.B. Anoop, K. Balaji Rao, N. Lakshmanan
Safety assessment of austenitic steel nuclear power
plant pipelines against stress corrosion cracking in
the presence of hybrid uncertainties. International
Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 85 (2008)
238247
[6] H. S. Wu, Q. P. Zhong
Probabilistic approach to applications of the R6
structural integrity assessment method.011. J. Pres.
Ves. &Piping68 (1996) 39-43
[7] American Society of Materials. ASM
Handbook Fatigue and Fracture, 1996 (Materials
Information Society International, USA).

All Rights Reserved 2016 IJORAT

61

You might also like