Probabilistic Procedure to Evaluate Integrity of Degraded Pipes
The determination of critical crack sizes or permissible/allowable loading levels in pipes with degraded pipe sections (circumferential cracks) for the assurance of component integrity is usually based on deterministic approaches. Therefore along with numerical calculation methods (finite element (FE) analyses) limit load calculations, such as e.g. the “Plastic limit load concept” and the “Flow stress concept” as well as fracture mechanics approximation methods as e.g. the R-curve method or the “Ductile fracture handbook” and the R6-Method are currently used for practical application. Numerous experimental tests on both ferritic and austenitic pipes with different pipe dimensions were investigated at MPA Stuttgart. The geometries of the pipes were comparable to actual piping systems in Power Plants. Different crack geometries and dimensions were considered. A new post-calculation of the above mentioned tests was performed using probabilistic approaches to assure the component integrity of degraded piping systems. As a result the calculated probability of failure was compared to experimental behaviour during the pipe test. The influence of the performance of non-destructive tests on the probability of failure was also taken into account. Different reliability techniques were used for the verification of the probabilistic approaches.
KeywordsCrack Initiation Weld Metal Component Integrity Crack Angle Circumferential Crack
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.K. Kussmaul, German Basis Safety Concept Rules Out Possibility of Catastrophic Failure, Nuclear Engineering International 12 (1984),.Google Scholar
- 2.Guidelines of the German Reactor Safety Commission (RSK-Guidelines) for Pressurised Water Reactors; 3rd Edition, October 14, 1981; Revised Section 21.1 of 03/1984 and Section 21.2 of 12/1982; associated general specification “Basis Safety of Pressurised Components; Editor: Gesellschaft für Reaktorsicherheit (GRS)Google Scholar
- 3.G.M. Wilkowski, R. J. Olson and P. M. Scott, State-of-the-Art Report on Piping Fracture Mechanics, NUREG/CR-6540, BMI-2196, January 1998Google Scholar
- 4.Roos, E., K.-H. Herter, F. Otremba, K.-J. Metzner, General concept for the integrity of pressurized components, Transactions of the SMiRT-16 Conference, August 12-17 2001, Washington, DC, USA, Paper No. 1725, Elsevier Science Publishers B.V.Google Scholar
- 5.Kanninen, M. F. et al., Mechanical fracture predictions for sensitized stainless steel piping with circumferential cracks, EPRI NP-192, September 1976Google Scholar
- 7.Zahoor, A., Ductile Fracture Handbook, Vol. 2, October 1990Google Scholar
- 8.Milne, I., The R6 Method. The assessment of cracked components by fracture mechanics, EGF4, Mechanical Engineering Publications, London, pp. 233/261, 1989Google Scholar
- 9.Survey of European Leak-Before-Break Procedures and Requirements related to the Structural Integrity of Nuclear Power Plant Components, Comparative Analyses for Harmonisation Purposes, Contract with the European Commission, DG IX, Final Report (Rev. 2), April 2000, Gesellschaft für Anlagen-und Reaktorsicherheit (GRS) mbH, CologneGoogle Scholar
- 11.Roos, E., Grundlagen und notwendige Voraussetzungen zur Anwendung der Risswiderstandskurve in der Sicherheitsanalyse angerissener Bauteile, Fortschrittsberichte VDI, Reihe 18, Nr. 122, VDI-Verlag Düsseldorf, 1993Google Scholar
- 12.Schuler, X., XPiPE® Version 2.1 — calculation modules for deterministic fracture mechanics analysis of flawed piping components, INTECS Engineering Services GmbH, Stuttgart, 2002Google Scholar
- 13.Rastogi, Bhasin, H. S. Kushwaha, Comparison of safety margins for leak-before-break assessment of 500MWe PHWR straight pipes using contemporary technologies, Report Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC) Trombay, Mumbai, India, BARC/1998/E004Google Scholar
- 15.Mardia, K. V., J. T. Kent, J. M. Bibby, Multivariate analysi, London, Acad. Press, 1997Google Scholar