Approximate Methods for Fracture

Analysis of Tubular Members

F. W. Brust
Batelle Columbus Laboratories,
505 King Avenue,
Subjected to Combined Tensile
Columbus, OH 43201-2693
and Bending Loads
P. Gilles
Framatome,
This paper presents an analytical method for predicting the 3-integraI for tubular
Paris, France members subjected to combined tension and bending loads. The estimation method
is capable of predicting J in the entire range between elastic and fully plastic con-
ditions and is written in closed form. This makes it quite convenient for placing the
elastic-plastic fracture in a probabilistic framework. This has been done in another
publication. Finally, comparison is made between predictions using the current
method and experimental data.

Introduction
This paper presents a very simple method for predicting the that methods for the purely elastic problem have been around
crack growth and fracture behavior of through-wall cracked for some time now, as summarized in Forman et al. (1985).
ductile tubular members when subjected to combined tensile Discussions of the conditions for achieving /-dominance and
and bending load. The method is general in that it may be the suitability of / a s a fracture parameter for combined bend-
applied in the full range between elastic and fully plastic con- ing and tensile loadings have been presented by Shih (1985)
ditions. The method is essentially a /-estimation scheme tech- and Shih and Hutchinson (1986) by studying the single-edge
nique. Because it is based upon /-tearing theory, it is subject notch specimen.
to the usual limitations imposed upon this theory; i.e., pro- Additional studies based on finite element analyses of the
portional loading is assumed. This of course means that, in single-edge notch specimen subjected to combined tension and
the strict sense, only very small amounts of crack growth are bending have recently appeared (Kaiser, 1985; Sonnerlind and
permitted. However, from a practical point of view, this method Kaiser, 1986). An important result obtained by Kaiser and
gives good predictions for even large amounts of crack growth Sonnerlind (1986) indicates that the value of / is essentially
and errors tend to be in the conservative direction (Brust, 1987). independent of whether tension is applied, then bending; bend-
The new estimation scheme represents an extension of the ing then tension; or both tension and bending is applied pro-
methods presented earlier by the authors for pure bending portionally. This is not intuitively obvious since such loading
(Brust, 1987; Gilles and Brust, 1991; and Brust and Gilles, clearly violates the hypothesis (necessary for valid /-tearing
1993). theory) of proportional loading. This result is important for
For circumferentially through-wall cracked pipes, elastic- what follows.
plastic analysis techniques which do not require full three-
dimensional finite element analysis for combined tensile and
bending loads are scarce. Paris and Tada (1983) have presented
a method which interpolates between the known elastic and The New Method
rigid plastic solutions by using a pseudo-plastic zone correction We begin by making some general comments with regard to
to the elastic solution. /-estimation techniques for combined tension and bending of
Klecker et al. (1986) introduced a method which is very through-wall cracked pipes. Assume that the total load point
similar to Paris and Tada (1983) approach, except it accounts rotation, <j>, and axial displacement (or stretch), 5, may be
for material strain hardening in a rather empirical way. Both written as
of these techniques require numerical integration. Recently, ,NC
Kumar and German (1988) presented a method which is based > = <b- + ( (lfl)
upon interpolating between a compilation of finite element c
S=o + 5 A
(lb)
solutions. The British R-6 method is a method to predict failure
loads for pipes subjected to combined tension and bending. In Eq. (1), the c superscript refers to displacement "due to
However, displacements are not provided. It should be noted crack," while NC refers to "no crack." The contributions to
displacement due to no crack may easily be found from ele-
mentary theory. Further
Contributed by the OMAE Division for publication in the JOURNAL OF OFF-
SHORE MECHANICS AND ARCTIC ENGINEERING. Manuscript received by the OMAE 4>c=ti + 4>cP (2a)
Division 1993; revised manuscript received June 29, 1994. Associate Technical
c c c
Editor: H. Chong Rhee. 8 + 6 e+ 5p (2b)

Journal of Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering NOVEMBER 1994, Vol. 116 / 221

Copyright © 1994 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://offshoremechanics.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/29/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
 i / — Jo \ U n (2c)
where the e and p subscripts refer to elastic and plastic, re
spectively.
In particular R=mean radius
K) (K'j + Kf)2
e (3)
E~ E
e=R sin 8/Z
where K\ and Kf are the tensile and bending stress intensity
factors, where plane stress conditions are assumed. K,may be
found easily from a number of solutions which have been
compiled in recent years. For completeness, Appendix A gives
simple formulas K'r and Kf based on Sanders (1982, 1983)
solutions. Also, relationships between <j>ceand moment, M, and
Rigid plastic tensile
8ec and axial load, P, may easily be developed from Kf, see neutral axis
Brust (1987) for instance. These relationships have also been
provided in Appendix A.
The final ingredient which completes the estimation scheme
is to determine /„. and dL Referring to Fig. 1, a circum-
Fig. 1(a) Through-wall cracked pipe
ferential crack of size 20 is known. It is assumed that the tensile
load, P, is applied through O and the bending moment, M, is
applied about the axis, A. As shown in Fig. 1(b), we convert
this into an equivalent problem with P applied through O '
and an equivalent moment of M+Pe applied through the axis
r
C. As seen in Fig. 1(a), axes AandCare parallel and a distance
e apart. We assume P causes pure stretch. This is precisely
true for perfect plasticity, and, at worst, gives at least con-
servative results for strain-hardening materials. Thus, with this -*- M + Pe
assumption, one may write
! dM fpfdP
*"fl dA
where A is crack area in Eq. (4).
d4
kr 1 \<\dA %
(4)
Fig. 1(b) Combined tensile and bending analogy

In order to carry out the integration to find /,,, which once

done completes our solution, we need to estimate the rela-
tionship between Mand 4>p and P and 8p. Therefore, the essence 8CP = L (7)
of any estimation scheme is obtaining an estimate of the mo- °o.
ment-rotation and axial load-stretch relationship. This may be written as

8p = L, a (8)
Tension. Consider replacing the actual circumferentially
through-wall cracked pipe with a pipe with a reduced thickness
since 8ceis linear in stress. bce, the elastic displacement, is assumed
(where te refers to "effective reduced thickness") extending
to be a known linear function of stress. Thus, the only unknown
for a distance d at the center of the pipe (see Fig. 2). The
in Eq. (8) is L\, which is only a function of geometry and
reduced thickness section, which actually results in a material
material properties. It is L't which is estimated via our analogy
discontinuity, is an attempt to simulate the reduced system
compliance due to the presence of the crack. It is assumed that suggested in Fig. 2. The following approach was originally
deformation theory plasticity prevails; i.e., given (Brust, 1987; Gilles and Brust, 1991) for pure bending,
and resulted in a very simple and accurate estimation scheme.
e= ee+ep (5a) The stress intensity factor may be written
e o o KlI=a,Fl(d)^f:^Re (9)
— = — + «( — (5b)
e0 o0 \o, where the t sub and superscript refers to tension, and
P
(5c) a,- 2-KRt (10)

where e0 = a0/E, a and n are Ramberg-Osgood coefficients, R in Eqs. (9) and (10), and throughout this paper, is the mean
and a0 is an arbitrary reference stress. Although this form is radius. A relation between the elastic stretch due to the crack
inconvenient, we use it because of its popularity. Note that if and P may be written, after utilizing Castigliano's theorem
the reference stress is changed from a0 to au a is accordingly (see, Brust, 1987; and Gilles and Brust, 1991, for example)
changed as
%=- 1,(0) (11)
AirtE
«i = a 0 l —I (6)
F,(6) and 1,(6) are provided in Appendix A for completeness.
Note that S£ given by Eq. (11) gives the displacement at the
where ai corresponds to ou a0 to a0. pipe centerline (Fig. 1(a), point O) rather than the rotation
Ilyushins' theorem assures us that, for a cracked body (Fig. point for perfect plasticity (Fig. 1(a), point O'); hence we
1), a unique relationship exists between a generalized displace- obtain a conservative prediction.
ment and a generalized load. For pure stretch, with defor- Now we estimate L', of Eq. (8) using the reduced thickness
mation theory plasticity prevailing (Eq. 5(c)), Ilyushins' section analogy, Fig. 2. If a is sufficiently large and strains
theorem provides small

222 / Vol. 116, NOVEMBER 1994 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://offshoremechanics.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/29/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 t*^ Section
3
Lin® of Symmetry

Fig. 2 Pipe geometry used to estimate the load versus displacement relationship

in the cracked pipe to equal the limit load for the reduced cross
8Z=e„l — (12) section pipe, where ay-is the flow stress; whereupon
te = iP(6) (18)
&c ae Here,
^ °\i (13)

Hence, P(0)=1 — (19)

7T

(14) which results if one calculates the rigid plastic limit load with
~a\on} U P applied through O ' in Fig. 1(a). Alternatively, a more con-
The c superscript in Eqs. (12) through (14) refer to the dis- servative estimate for t. is
placement which occurs due to the presence of the reduced e 2
thickness section pipe via the analogy of a cracked section of P(0)=1- -sin I (20)
pipe. 2
By comparing Eq. (14) to Eq. (8), it is obvious that which is the limit load for P applied through O. For the pre-
n-l dictions which follow, Eq. (20) is used.
L,= (15) Bending. Again, assuming a deformation theory plasticity
material law (Eq. 5(c)), that beam theory applies, and en-
for pure stretch. Thus, L', is estimated from the simple analogy forcing compatibility, it is shown (Brust, 1987; Gilles and Brust,
and used in Eq. (8), while the 8ce term in Eq. (8) is from the 1991) that the moment curvature relationship may be written
actual cracked pipe. For bending alone, this type of analogy as
gives an excellent estimate of the moment-rotation due to crack
relationship (Brust, 1987; Gilles and Brust, 1991). The value IB(0)
M" (21)
used for te will be discussed shortly. *P~LB{EO"0- (irR2t)"
To evaluate the tensile component of Jp, the second term with
of Eq. (4) is used. Placing (10) in (8), inverting, and integrating
Eq. (14), one obtains 7T
(22)
U =
1 irR 4k
4- Ea"-1 n+l 2
°HrL, .1,(6)
2wRt
(16) In Eq. (21), I (6) is a function of half-crack angle, 6, and is
B
provided in Appendix B, and R always refers to mean radius.
where For combined bending and pressure, the moment here equals
48Ff(6) J _ bLt_ M+Pe. Also,
H,(n,d) = + (17)
1,(0) Li

All other terms in Eq. (16) have been previously defined. Hence, K=- (23)
we have a simple closed-form relationship of the component
of Jp caused by pure stretch.
To evaluate L,, we force the rigid plastic tensile limit load where T represents the Gamma function. For our purposes

Journal of Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering NOVEMBER 1994, Vol. 116 / 223

Downloaded From: http://offshoremechanics.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/29/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 here, the Gamma function is very accurately represented by
Stirling's formula as
x v (.Y-.5>
T(x)- e "x
, 1 1 139 571
X 1+ + —z- (24)
\2x 288x2 51840xJ 2488320A:'
te in Eq. (22) is the effective pipe thicknesses for bending,
which is different from te for pure stretch (Eq. (18)). We define
te such that the rigid plastic limit moment for the actual cracked
pipe (Fig. 1) equals the limit moment for the reduced pipe
section; i.e.,
1 \ 4 Current Method (LBB.ENG2)
cos-- --sin0
2
•-
I ir
(25) GE/EPRI Method
Experimental Data

Having estimated the relationship between bending moment

and load point rotation due to crack, the next step is to place
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.20
Eq. (21) into the first term on the right-hand side of Eq. (4) Axial Displacement, inch
and integrate. This results in the very simple closed form
Fig. 3 6-in. pipe, pressure versus axial displacement, 304 stainless steel
1 •KR M at 550°F
•HB.LB-IB(6)>
M+ l 2 itR2t
(26)
where
46Fl n-\ Fj{6)
HB(6,n) = (27)
-sine
2 2

Fj(6) = s i n - + cos(? (28)

FB is provided in Appendix A; i.e.,

Kf=uFB^R6

Brust (1987) and Gilles and Brust (1991) provide many more
details of these developments. It is sufficient to say that the
only assumption made with this method is the reduced thick- 3 4 5
ness section analogy represented by Fig. 2. This entire devel- Displacement, inch
opment is completely consistent with Illushins' theorem, except
Fig. 4 6-in. pipe, four-point bending load versus displacement; 304
we have reduced the complex three-dimensional problem to a stainles steel at 550°F <
one-dimensional problem, which results in a very simple closed-
form solution. This method was compared to finite element
results and experimental data (Brust, 1987; Gilles and Brust,
1991; Brust and Gilles, 1995) for a large number of cracked
nuclear pipes (including welded cracked pipes), and was found
to give very good predictions of crack initiation and maximum
moment, and very good moment-rotation predictions.
Combined Tension Plus Bending. J is evaluated as the sum
of Je plus Jp. Je is given by Eq. (3) where accurate values of
K'i, Kf are provided from the Sanders solution, and are given
in Appendix A. Jp is determined from the sum of Eqs. (16)
and (26), where the moment includes the Pe term. All dis-
Current Method (LBB.ENG2)
placements and rotations may also be calculated from the Paris/Tada Method
equations provided. Hence, we see that we have a very simple Klecker Method
./-estimation scheme for combined bending and pressure which Experimental Data

did not require numerical solution. The next section shows

that, despite the simplicity of the method, very accurate crack 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

growth predictions are made using this method. Load-line Displacement, inch

Fig. 5 6-in. pipe, pressure and four-point bending load versus displace-
ment; 304 stainless steel at 550° F
Results
Figures 3,4, and 5 shows predicted load versus displacements in all respects, except for the method of loading, one can
compared to experimental results for a 6-in. pipe for pressure, compare the load interaction.
bending, and combined pressure plus bending, respectively. In Fig. 3, the displacement is axial and measured or predicted
All pipes are 304 stainless steel and were tested at 550°F. at the pipe centerline. Figure 4 represents loading applied via
Material properties along with experimental data are from four-point bending and displacement represents that at the load
Wilkowski et al. (1985-1988) and are listed in Appendix C. point (total load). The results presented in Fig. 5 are for a
All pipes had initial crack sizes of about 37 to 38 percent of pipe, originally loaded via internal pressure of 2.5 ksi, and
the pipe circumference. Because these pipes are nearly identical then loaded in four-point bending using displacement control.

224 / Vol. 116, NOVEMBER 1994 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://offshoremechanics.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/29/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 Kaiser, S., 1985, "An Extension of Tearing Instability Theory to Multiple
Paris/Tada Method Loading Parameters," International Journal of Fracture, Vol. 29, pp. 85-99.
Klecker, R., Brust, F. W., and Wilkowski, G., 1986, "NCR Leak-Before-
Klecker Method Break (LBB.NRC) Analysis Method for Circumferentially Through-Wall Cracked
Pipes Under Axial Plus Bending Loads," NUREG/CR-4572, May.
Current Method
Kumar, V., and German, M. D., 1988, "Elastic-Plastic Fracture Analysis of
Experimental Data
Through-Wall and Surface Flaws in Cylinders," EPRI Topical Report, EPRI
NP-5596, Jan.
Milne, I., Ainsworth, R. A., Dowling, A. R., and Stewart, A. T., 1986,
"Assessment of the Integrity of Structures Containing Defects," CEGB Report
R/H/R6, Rev. 3.
' Paris, P. C . a n d T a d a , H., 1983, "The Application of Fracture Proof Design
Methods Using Tearing Instability Theory to Nuclear Piping Postulating Cir-
cumferential Through-Wall Cracks," NUREG/CR-3464, Sept.
Sanders, J. L., 1982, "Circumferential Through-Cracks in Cylindrical Shells
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 Under Tension," ASME Journal of Applied Mechanics, Vol. 49/103, Mar.
Load Line Displacement, inch
Sanders, J. L., 1983, "Circumferential Through-Crack in a Cylindrical Shell
Fig. 6 10-in. pipe pressure to four-point bending load versus displace- Under Combined Bending and Tension," ASME Journal of Applied Mechanics,
ment; SA-333 Grade 6 carbon steel at 550° F Vol. 50/221, Mar.
Shih, C. F., 1985, "/-Dominance Under Plane Strain Fully Plastic Conditions:
The Edge Crack Panel Subject to Combined Tension and Bending," Interna-
Hence, the displacement represents that at the load point. tional Journal of Fracture, Vol. 29, pp. 73-84.
Shih, C. F., and Hutchinson, J. W., 1986, "Combined Loading of a Fully
These figures show that the new method presented here gives Plastic Ligament Ahead of an Edge Crack," ASME Journal of Applied Me-
reasonable predictions of loads and displacements. chanics, Vol. 53/271, June.
Figure 6 provides a prediction of a carbon steel pipe pres- Sonnerlind, H., and Kaiser, S., 1986, "The ./-Integral for a SEN Specimen
surized to 1.8 ksi, and then loaded in four-point bending. The Under Nonproportionally Applied Bending and Tension," Engineering Fracture
Mechanics, Vol. 24, No. 5, pp. 637-646.
test temperature again was 550°F. The Paris and Klecker meth- Wilkowski, G. M., et al., 1985-1988, "Degraded Piping Program—Phase
ods overpredicted the maximum load by about 6 to 8 percent, II," Vols. 1-8.
while the current method slightly underpredicted the experi-
mental maximum load. For the two cases which compare pre-
dictions for combined pressure and bending (Figs. 5 and 6),
the initial response of the experimental results is softer com-
pared to the predicted values. The precise reason for this is
not known. However, the four-point bending loads were ap-
plied experimentally using wire ropes. It is suspected that these
ropes may slip somewhat during loading, which results in an
overestimate of the experimental displacements (see Wil- APPENDIX A
kowski, 1985-1988).
Linear Elastic F-Functions for Through-Wall Cracks in
Conclusions Pipes
Herein, a new general method for predicting the loads and The F-function is an analytical relation which correlates the
displacements of through-wall cracked pipes subjected to com- linear-elastic stress-intensity factor (K) of a cracked sheet to
bined bending and pressure loads to failure has been presented. that for the same size of crack in an infinite flat plate; see Eq.
The method is based upon 7-tearing theory, and hence, is (29)
limited to the usual restrictions imposed upon /-theory. It was K= oF4™ (29)
shown that the new method gives better predictions than other
methods, while at the same time, it is much simpler to use where
because the equations are solved in closed form. Kj = stress intensity
Because of its simplicity, this technique may be embedded F= function of crack size
into a large-scale finite element program as a super "cracked a = half-crack length = R6
spring element." This may be utilized to predict the overall
piping system response when a leak crack develops in one of R throughout implies mean radius.
the pipe sections. This method is especially convenient for Sanders (1982, 1983) recently developed solutions using an
combined loading problems compared to any other available energy integral technique. This was done for circumferentially
techniques. cracked pipes under pure tension (Sanders, 1982) and global
Brust (1987) and Gilles and Brust (1991) have shown this bending (Sanders, 1983). This analysis was used to develop an
technique to be very accurate for a bending problem where F-function for pipes in tension and bending. The F-function
numerous comparisons to experimental data were made. How- may be expressed in the following forms:
ever, for the combined loading or pressure-only problems, Ft=l+A,(d/iT)l-5 + l3t(e/Tr)2-s + C,(d/Tr)3-s (30)
more work is necessary to further substantiate the method,
and lead to model improvements, if needed. for tension, and
Fi=l+yl 6 (0/7r) 1/5 + 56(f5/7r)2-5 + C6(6»/ir)3-5 (31)
References for bending.
Brust, F. W., 1987, "Approximate Methods for Fracture Analyses of Through- . Here the constants A, B, and C, were determined by curve
Wall Cracked Pipes," NUREG/CR-4853, Topical Report, Feb. fitting so that there was good agreement with Sanders' solution
Brust, F. W., and Gilles, P., 1995, "An Equivalence Method for Estimating for long crack length. Nuclear piping typically has R/t values
Energy Release Rates With Application to Cracked Cylinders," to appear in
ASME Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology.
from 5 to 15. The reliability of Sanders' or other thin-shell
Forman, R. G., Hickman, J. C , and Shivakumar, V., 1985, "Stress Intensity analyses at the lower R/t ratios, is a point of concern. This is
Factors for Circumferential Through Cracks in Hollow Cylinders Subjected to not addressed here.
Combined Tension and Bending Loads," Engineering Fracture Mechanics, Vol. The foregoing constants have been curve fit, and are ex-
21, No. 3, pp. 563-571.
Gilles, P., and Brust, F. W., 1991, "Approximate Methods for Fracture Anal-
pressed in the following. This form (i.e., equations) are quite
ysis of Through-Wall Cracked Pipes Subjected to Bending—Part I: Theory," convenient for computer-based solution of the circumferential
Nuclear Engineering and Design, Vol. 127, pp. 1-17. cracked pipe problem.

Journal of Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering NOVEMBER 1994, Vol. 116 / 225

Downloaded From: http://offshoremechanics.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/29/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 A,= -2.02911+ 1.61163(R/t)-0.01981 (R/t)2+ 0.00n6(R/t)3
2
B, = 7.09987- 4.42394 (R/t) + 0.21036 (R/t) - 0.00463 (R/t)}
C, = 1.1966l + 5.l6616(R/t)-0.24511(R/t)2 + 0.0054\(R/t)3
2
Ab= -3.26543 + 1.52784 (R/t)- 0.72698 (R/t) + 0.001601 l(R/t)3
Bb=\l.36322-3.914l2(R/t)+0A86l9(R/t)2-0.004099(R/t)3
Cb = 3.l8609 + 3.84163(R/t)-0.l8304(R/t)2 + 0.00403(R/t)3
The relations between elastic load point rotation due to the
crack, <f>ce, and bending moment is
z
For pure bending
EirRy2<
M= (32)
IB(6) ' ' Ib(6) = 4 6F2b(d)dd (42)
where IB(6) is given in Appendix B.
For pure stretch, the relations between axial load, P, and can be obtained by replacing A,, B,, and C, with Ab, Bb, and
elastic stretch due to the crack, 8ce, is Cb in the foregoing equations. Then
4itEt „„
P (33) 7i + (43)
' W '~7 9U / llV^r
where 1,(6) is given in Appendix B.
T A\ AbBb(d\ (2AbCb + Bl)fd^4
Ib + + (44)
i-2~5 TTU 3.5
BbCb(6\ Cb 16
A P P E N D I X B h3 = - (45)
4.5 \TT
and
Compliance Functions
For h(6) = 267 1 + 8 /*.+ (h-, + h,) (46)

Fl(8) = l+A,l- + B
+ C, (34)
'(*
A P P E N D I X C
Fb(d) = l+Ab + Bb -) +C„ - (35)
Pipe Dimensions and Material Properties for Example
with At through Cb given in Appendix A in functional form. Cases
Then
(1) Pressure Loading. This case represents a through-wall
6Ff (6) = ir\-+I- (2A,)+(2B,)[-J+(2C,)i- cracked pipe subjected to monotonic pressure to failure. A
bladder was placed over the crack to prevent leakage. This was
a nuclear Grade 304 stainless steel tested at 550°F.
+ | - 1 [A2 + (2A,Bt) I - ) + (2A,C, + B2]
The Pipe Dimensions:
Outer diameter 6.62 in.
+ (25,0 - +Ct (36)
\ir/ \7r Thickness 0.507 in.
1
1,(6) = 4 0F,2 (6)d6 Crack size ( - ] 0.386

2 The Tensile Properties (see Eq. (5)):

2
/ / ( e ) = 4 7 r j - | - ) + -(Z4 r + {2B ao = 20.1 ksi
9 '%
e0 = ^ = . 00077
+
TT(2C<H; V < U +62A'B\-, E

+
>>c€ H c 'l;
1 a = 4.87
+ -(2A,C, + B1,) (37)
« = 3.88
Let The /-Resistance Curve:
2A, (2Bt)/e\ (2C,)/e J=Jlc+C(Aa)m
7 + + (38)
"-^r ~9~Uj ^rU Jlc = 8.1l k/in.
i- - (>*?) , ( 2 ^ A ) / e \ , (2Alc,+B2)(e C= 14.17 w = 0.6176
(39)
(2) Bending Load. This case represents a through-wall
(2B,Ct) 6\ C,2 6 cracked pipe subjected to four-point bending to failure. With
'o = - (40) four-point bending, the center section with the crack is sub-
4.5 \TT
jected to a constant bending moment. The load in Fig. 4 rep-
Then resents total applied load. This was a nuclear Grade 304 stainless
steel tested at 550°F.
1,(6) =262 1 + 4 | - '«,+ (Ih+Ih (41)
' See Fig. 1 for definitions.

226 / Vol. 116, NOVEMBER 1994 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://offshoremechanics.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/29/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 The Pipe Dimensions:
Crack size (— 0.37
Outer diameter 6.254 in.
Thickness 0.549 in. Internal pressure 2.5 ksi
Length between outer loading points 128 in. The tensile properties and /-resistance curve are identical to
those listed in 1.
Length between inner loading points 48 in.
(b) Combined Pressure and Bending—Carbon Steel
Crack size 0.388
The Pipe Dimensions:
The tensile properties and /-resistance curve are identical to Outer diameter 10.793 in.
those listed in 1. Thickness 0.736 in.
(3) Combined Pressure Plus Bending Load. There are Length between outer loading points 312 in.
two cases represented here. One, with results presented in Fig. Length between inner loading points 132 in.
5, represents a 304 stainless steel pressurized first, and then
loaded in four-point bending to failure (while maintaining a Crack size 0.37
constant pressure). The second, with results shown in Fig. 6,
represents an SA-333 Grade 6 nuclear grade carbon steel loaded Internal pressure 1.806 ksi
as described in the foregoing. For both cases, the test tem- The Tensile Properties:
perature was 550°F. The internal pressure was applied using
oil. The entire test procedure and more details are provided ksi CT0 = 34.7
in Wilkowski (1985-1988). The load in Figs. 5 and 6 represent e0 = a0/E= 0.00124
total applied load.
a = 2.884
(a) Combined Pressure and Bending—304 Stainless Steel « = 4.979
The Pipe Dimensions: The /-Resistance Curve:
Outer diameter 6.553 in. J=JIC + C(Aa)m
Thickness 0.528 in. / / c = 0.9k/in.
Length between outer loading points 126 in. C= 3.862
Length between inner loading points 48 in. m = 0.492

Journal of Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering NOVEMBER 1994, Vol. 116 / 227

Downloaded From: http://offshoremechanics.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/29/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use