skip to main content
OSTI.GOV title logo U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Scientific and Technical Information

Title: Experimental and analytical assessment of circumferentially surface-cracked pipes under bending

Technical Report ·
OSTI ID:6556560

This study was performed to assess the validity of various techniques to predict maximum loads for circumferentially surface-cracked pipes under bending. Experimental data were developed for both carbon steel and stainless steel pipes. Predictions of maximum loads were made using the net-section-collapse method, the IWB-3640 analysis procedures, and a newly developed finite-length surface-cracked pipe J-estimation method. The net-section-collapse method gave good maximum-load predictions for certain types of pipe. However, for pipes with large radius to thickness (R/sub m//t) ratios and/or low toughness this analysis method tended to overpredict the experimental maximum load. A plastic-zone screening criterion was developed to show when this method was valid and when elastic-plastic fracture mechanics should be used. The limit-load procedures embodied in IWB-3640 provide the desired underprediction of the failure stress. The average failure stress for the nine stainless steel base metal experiments was 61% higher than predicted by Table IWB-3641-1 and 23% higher than predicted by the Source Equations. For the three stainless steel flux weld experiments the predicted failure stresses were adjusted by a stress multiplier to account for the lower toughness of the flux welds. The average failure stress for the flux weld experiments was 78% higher than predicted by Table IWB-3641-5 and 39% higher than predicted by the Source Equations. Predictions from two versions of the new finite-length surface-cracked pipe J-estimation method were compared to experimental results. One version is for pipes with large R/sub m//t ratios (SC.TNP) while the other is a more general approach (SC.TKP) where the large R/sub m//t ratio restriction is relaxed. The results show that the SC.TNP method tends to overestimate the maximum loads by 15% on the average whereas the SC.TKP method tends to underpredict the maximum loads, as desired, by 32%.

Research Organization:
Battelle Columbus Div., OH (USA); Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC (USA). Div. of Engineering Safety
OSTI ID:
6556560
Report Number(s):
NUREG/CR-4872; BMI-2149; ON: TI87900678
Country of Publication:
United States
Language:
English