1

FRACTURE ESTIMATION METHOD FOR PIPE WITH MULTIPLE

CIRCUMFERENTIAL SURFACE FLAWS



Yinsheng Li
Japan Nuclear Energy Safety Organization (JNES)
Toranomon 4-3-20, Minato-ku, Tokyo 105-0001, Japan
li-yinsheng@jnes.go.jp

Kunio Hasegawa
Japan Nuclear Energy Safety Organization (JNES)
Toranomon 3-17-1, Minato-ku, Tokyo 105-0001, Japan
hasegawa-kunio@jnes.go.jp

Kunio Onizawa
Japan Atomic Energy Agency (JAEA)
Tokai, Ibaraki, 319-1195, Japan
onizawa.kunio@jaea.go.jp

Masayoshi Shimomoto
Mizuho Information & Research Institute (MHIR)
Kanda-Nishikicho 2-3, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo 101-8443, Japan
masayoshi.shimomoto@mizuho-ir.co.jp




ABSTRACT

When a flaw is detected in a stainless steel piping system
of a nuclear power plant during in-service inspection, the
fracture estimation method provided in the codes such as the
ASME Code Section XI or the JSME S NA-1-2004 can be
applied to evaluate the integrity of the pipe. However, in these
current codes, the fracture estimation method is only provided
for the pipe containing a single flaw, although independent
multiple flaws such as stress corrosion cracks have actually been
detected in the same circumference of stainless steel piping
systems.
In this paper, a fracture estimation method is proposed by
formula for multiple independent circumferential flaws with any
number and arbitrary distribution in the same circumference of
the pipe. Using the proposed method, the numerical solutions
are compared with the experimental results to verify its validity,
and several numerical examples are provided to show its
effectiveness.

INTRODUCTION

Stress corrosion cracks have been discovered in stainless
steel piping systems of nuclear power plants. Stainless steels are
high toughness ductile materials and the failure mode is
expected to be plastic collapse. Collapse bending stress for a
ductile pipe containing a flaw is predicted by the net-section
stress approach [1]. The net-section stress approach was adopted
in the JSME (The Japan Society of Mechanical Engineers) Code
S NA-1-2004 [2] and Appendix C in the ASME (The American
Society of Mechanical Engineers) Code Section XI [3] as the
fracture estimation method. However, in these current codes, the
fracture estimation method is provided for a pipe containing
only a single flaw with constant depth, although a large number
of the detected stress corrosion cracks are independent multiple
flaws located in the same circumference of welded joints of
austenitic stainless steel pipes [4] and the flaw shapes are
generally complex.
The method to evaluate the failure bending moment and
stress for a pipe containing a symmetrical complex
circumferential flaw has been investigated by Rahman et al. [5]
by integrating the failure bending moment numerically and
summing many counterparts. The investigation has also been
carried out by several of our authors for a pipe containing a
circumferential flaw with any arbitrary shape [6].
For a pipe with multiple flaws, the fracture estimation
method has already been studied by one of our authors,
considering two and three symmetrical circumferential flaws [7],
and the bending experiments on 4-inch diameter Schedule 80
Type 304 stainless steel pipes have been performed to verify the
validity of the proposed method [8].
The objective of the present paper is to propose a fracture
estimation method by formula for a pipe containing multiple
independent circumferential flaws with any number and
arbitrary distribution in the same circumference. Using this
method, rational agreement is observed between the numerical
solutions and experimental results. Moreover, several numerical
examples are also provided to show the effectiveness of this
method.

Proceedings of PVP2009
2009 ASME Pressure Vessel and Piping Division Conference
July 26-30, 2009, Prague, Czech Republic
PVP2009-77061
Copyright 2009 by ASME
Proceedings of the ASME 2009 Pressure Vessels and Piping Division Conference
PVP2009
July 26-30, 2009, Prague, Czech Republic
PVP2009-77061
2
FRACTURE ESTIMATION METHOD PROVIDED IN THE
CURRENT CODES

According to the ASME Code Appendix C or the JSME
Code S NA-1-2004, the failure mode for a pipe with high
toughness ductile material is expected to be plastic collapse. The
fracture estimation method is provided for ductile pipe
containing a single flaw by the net-section stress approach. For
the stress distribution shown in Figure 1, the collapse bending
moment M
b
c
and stress o
b
c
provided in the current codes for a
single circumferential flaw are expressed as,

(

= u | o sin sin 2 2
2
t
a
t R M
f
c
b
(1)
(

= u |
t
o
o sin sin 2
2
t
a
f c
b
(2)

with

(
(

=
f
m
t
a
o
o
t u t |
2
1
(3)

where R is the mean radius of the pipe, t is the wall thickness, o
f

is the flow stress of the pipe material, a is the flaw depth, u is
the half angle of the flaw, | is the neutral angle of the pipe cross
section containing the flaw and o
m
is the membrane stress.
Equations (1) to (3) are for the situation that flaw is short
and u + | s t. The ASME Code also gives the fracture
estimation method for long flaw with u + | > t. They are
expressed as follows:

| o sin 2 2
2
(

=
t
a
t R M
f
c
b
(4)
|
t
o
o sin 2
2
(

=
t
a
f
c
b
(5)

a
x
t
z

m
R
t
M
b
c
y

b
c

Fig. 1 Nomenclature and stress distribution
of a pipe with a single surface flaw

where,

(
(

=
f
m
t
a
t
a
o
o
t
| 1
2
(6)

Moreover, the ASME Code also gives the equation to
evaluate the failure stress for the situation that the failure occurs
due to membrane stress. In Equation (2), when the membrane
stress exists only, the following relation can be obtained.

u | sin sin 2
t
a
= (7)

Also, Equation (3) can be rewritten for the membrane stress
as follows:


(

=
t
|
t
u
o o
2
1
t
a
f m
(8)

The equation for failure membrane stress provided in the
ASME Code can be obtained by replacing o
m
with o
m
c
, and
| with . It is shown as follows:


(

=
t

t
u
o o
2
1
t
a
f
c
m
(9)

with


(

= u sin
2
arcsin
t
a
(10)

As shown above, the fracture estimation method provided
in current codes can only be used for the pipe containing a
single flaw, although many flaws detected actually are multiple
flaws located in the same circumference of pipe. For the
multiple flaws located in the same circumference of pipe, if the
distance between the adjacent flaws is short, they will be
combined as a single flaw in accordance with the flaw
combination rules provided in the current codes. If the distance
between the adjacent flaws is long enough, however, it is not
necessary to combine these flaws because of less interaction
between each flaw. These flaws are treated as independent flaws
and each flaw will be evaluated individually.
By now, when multiple independent flaws were detected in
the same circumference of pipe in in-service inspection, the
collapse bending moment and stress were evaluated by defining
a virtual combined flaw, because the fracture estimation method
for pipes containing multiple flaws was not provided in the
current codes. The depth of the virtual combined flaw is the
maximum depth of the multiple flaws being considered, and its
angle is the summation of the total angle spanned by the
multiple flaws. However, this kind of evaluation may be overly
conservative depending on the number and the distribution of
multiple flaws.

Copyright 2009 by ASME
3
FRACTURE ESTIMATION METHOD FOR TWO OR
THREE SYMMETRICAL FLAWS

In order to evaluate the failure moment and stress for the
pipe with multiple independent flaws, one of our authors has
proposed the equations for predicting plastic collapse moment
and stress for the pipe with two or three symmetrical
circumferential flaws [7].
The proposed equations of plastic collapse moment and
stress for the pipe containing two symmetrical circumferential
independent flaws, as illustrated in Figure 2, can be shown as
follows:

R
t
2

1 a
1
x
y
z

m
R
2

1
a 1

b
c
M
b
c

R
t
2

1 a
1
x
y
z

m
R
2

1
a 1

b
c
M
b
c

Fig. 2 Nomenclature and stress distribution of a pipe with two
symmetrical independent flaws

j , ) , )
(

(
+ =
1 1 1
1 2
sin 2 sin sin 2 2 o u o | o
t
a
t R M
f
c
b
(11)
j , ) , )
(

(
+ =
1 1 1
1
sin 2 sin sin 2
2
o u o |
t
o
o
t
a
f
c
b
(12)

where,

(
(

=
f
m
t
a
o
o
t u t |
1
1
2
2
1
(13)

For the pipe containing three symmetrical circumferential
independent flaws, as illustrated in Figure 3, the proposed
equations of plastic collapse moment and stress can be shown as
follows:

=
0
0 2
sin sin 2 2 u | o
t
a
t R M
f
c
b

, ) , ) , )
(

(
+ + +
1 0 1 1 0
1
2 sin 2 2 sin o u u o u
t
a
(14)
, ) , ) , )
(

(
+ + +

=
1 0 1 1 0
1
0
0
2 sin 2 2 sin
sin sin 2
2
o u u o u
u |
t
o
o
t
a
t
a
f c
b
(15)

where,

(
(

=
f
m
t
a
t
a
o
o
t u u t |
1
1
0
0
2
2
1
(16)

R
t
2

1
a
1 x
y
z

m
R
2

1
2
1
2
1

b
c
a
1
a
0
2
0
M
b
c

R
t
2

1
a
1 x
y
z

m
R
2

1
2
1
2
1

b
c
a
1
a
0
2
0
M
b
c

Fig. 3 Nomenclature and stress distribution of a pipe with
three symmetrical independent flaws

The validity of the proposed equations have been verified
by comparison with the experimental results conducted on
4-inch diameter Schedule 80 Type 304 stainless steel pipes [8].

FRACTURE ESTIMATION METHOD FOR MULTIPLE
FLAWS WITH ARBITRARY NUMBER AND
DISTRIBUTION

Many flaws detected during the in-service inspection are
multiple flaws located in the same circumference in weld joint
of the pipe, such as stress corrosion cracks in the stainless steel
piping systems. Moreover, the number of multiple flaws in the
same circumference of pipe is different case by case, and the
distribution of these flaws along the circumferential direction is
complicated. The fracture estimation method for multiple flaws
located in the same circumference of pipes with any number and
arbitrary distribution is necessary, in order to evaluate the
integrity of the pipe. The presuppositions to derive the failure
bending moment and stress are the same with that used
previously [ 1-3] , such as characterizing the flaw shape to a
sector with constant depth, disregarding the pressure on the flaw
surface, disregarding the change of mean radius and section
modulus of pipe due to the occurrence of flaw.

Method to Evaluate the Failure Bending Stress
The nomenclature and stress distribution of a pipe
containing multiple independent dissimilar surface flaws with a
number of n are shown in Figure 4, where u
i
, a
i
and
i
are the
half angle, the depth and the angle from the positive direction of
the y-axis of the i-th independent flaw, and |
n
, M
bn
c
and o
bn
c

are the neutral angle, the failure bending moment and the failure
bending stress of the pipe, respectively.
The stress shown in Figure 4 has to be in equilibrium with
the applied load. The equilibrium of axial force is given as
follows:

Copyright 2009 by ASME
4

f

m

n
R
t
2

i
a
i
x
y
z

f

m
R
2

j
a
j

bn
c
M
bn
c

f

m

n
R
t
2

i
a
i
x
y
z

f

m
R
2

j
a
j

bn
c
M
bn
c

Fig. 4 Nomenclature and stress distribution of a pipe with
multiple independent dissimilar surface flaws

, )
f
n
i
i i f n
Ra Rt o u o | t
_
=

1
2 2
Rt Rt
m f n
to o | 2 2 = (17)

Then the neutral angle can be rewritten as,

(
(

=
_
= f
m
n
i
i
i
n
t
a
o
o
t u t |
1
2
1
(18)

The external bending moment at incipient plastic collapse
can be solved as follows:

j
, ) , ) j
(
(

=
(
(

(
+
=
(
(

+ =
_
_
_
}
} }
=
=
=
+

n
i
i i
i
n f
n
i
i i i i
i
n f
n
i
i
f Bn
t
a
t R
t
a
t R
d
t
a
d d t R M
i i
i i
n n
1
2
1
2
1
0 0
2
sin cos sin 2 2
sin sin
2
sin 2 2
cos
2
1
cos cos 2
u | o
u u
| o
e e
e e | | o
u
u
| t |
(19)

where | and e are the angles for the integration.
From Equation (19), the failure bending stress can be
obtained as,

j
n
f
c
bn
|
t
o
o sin 2
2
=
, ) , ) j
(
(

(
+
_
=
n
i
i i i i
i
t
a
1
sin sin
2
u u
(
(

=
_
=
n
i
i i
i
n
f
t
a
1
sin cos sin 2
2
u |
t
o
(20)

It can be seen that the Equation (20) is consistent with the
Equation (2) when there is only one flaw, with the Equation (12)
when there are two symmetrical flaws, with the Equation (15)
when there are three symmetrical flaws in the same
circumference of pipe, respectively. However, the equations
proposed in this paper can be applied for any number of flaws.
When the Equations (18) to (20) are used to evaluate the
failure bending moment and stress for the pipe with multiple
flaws, the following points should be noticed.
(a) If multiple flaws have symmetry, the positions of the
coordinate axes can be easily decided with respect to the
bending plane of the pipe. However, if the flaws are
non-symmetrical, the positions of the coordinate axes have
to be established in order to make the failure bending
moment and stress become the minimum for conservative
estimation.
(b) A flaw located on the compressive stress area side should
be excluded from the fracture estimation because the load
can be supported by this flaw.
(c) If a flaw straddles over the neutral angle of the pipe, that
means part of this flaw is located on the compressive stress
area side while another part of it is located on the tensile
stress area side, the part located on the compressive stress
area side should be excluded from the fracture estimation
because the load can be supported by this compressive part.
Regarding the notices (a) and (b), the method to decide the
positions of the coordinate axes for flaws without symmetry can
be illustrated by Figure 5. When the coordinate axes are
clockwise rotated with angle as shown in Figure 5, the
collapse bending moment and the stress can be described as
functions of . Then the positions of the coordinate axes can be
obtained from the candidates that the differential calculus of the
collapse moment and the stress considering become equal to
zero.

n
R
t
a
i
x'
y'

j
2

j
aj
2

x
y

n
R
t
a
i
x'
y'

j
2

j
aj
2

x
y

Fig. 5 Nomenclature of a pipe with multiple dissimilar
surface flaws

In Figure 5, if the total number of flaws on the right side of
y-axis, excluding that located on the compressive stress area
side, is n
i
, and the total number of flaws on the left side of
y-axis, excluding that located on the compressive stress area
side, is n
j
, Equation (20) can be rewritten as follows:
Copyright 2009 by ASME
5
j , )
_
=
=
i
n
i
i i
i
n
f
c
bn
t
a
1
sin cos sin 2
2
u |
t
o
o
, )
(
(

(
+
_
=
j
n
j
j j
j
t
a
1
sin cos u (21)

The positions of the coordinate axes, where the failure
bending stress becomes the minimum, satisfy following
condition:

0 =
c
c

o
c
bn
(22)

From Equations (21) and (22), the rotation angle can be
solved as,

_
_ _
=
= =

=
t
j
i
n
i
i i i
n
j
j j j
n
i
i i i
a
a a
1
1 1
sin cos
sin sin sin sin
tan
u
u u
(23)

where, n
t
is the total number of flaws excluding those located on
the side of the compressive stress area, and n
t
= n
i
+ n
j
.
After the rotation angle of the coordinate axes is obtained
and the positions of the coordinate axes are determined, the
failure bending stress can be obtained using Equation (20)
easily.
For the case that the number of multiple flaws is 1, 2 or 3,
and the positions of the coordinate axes and the stress
distribution are shown in Figure 1, Figure 2 or Figure 3, it can
be found easily that angle is 0 from Equation (23). It means
the positions of the coordinate axes shown in Figure 1, Figure 2
or Figure 3 are indeed the positions that the failure bending
stress becomes the minimum.
The Equation (21) can be used for general situation for the
multiple flaws with arbitrary distribution. The only exceptions
are the cases where one or two flaws straddle over the neutral
angles of one side or both sides of y-axis, as described in notice
(c). The situation that two flaws straddle over the neutral angle
of both sides of y-axis is illustrated in Figure 6. In these
situations, the neutral angle |
n
will also be the function of the
rotation angle . In Figure 6, a
l
, u
l
and
l
are the depth, the half
angle and the angle from the positive y-axis direction of the left
side flaw, and a
r
, u
r
and
r
are the depth, the half angle and the
angle from the positive y-axis direction of the right side flaw. As
described previously, part of the flaws located on the
compressive stress area side should be excluded from the
fracture estimation. The half angle u' and the angle from the
positive y-axis direction ', for part of the flaws on the tensile
stress area side can be expressed as follows:

j
l l n l
u | t u + =
2
1
'
j
l l n l
u | t + + =
2
1
'
j
r r n r
u | t u + + =
2
1
' (24)
j
r r n r
u | t + =
2
1
'


Then the neutral angle |
n
can be obtained as,

, ) , )
(

|
.
|

+
(

(
+ + +

=
(
(

=
_ _
_ _

=
t
a
t
a
t
a
t
a
t
a
t
a
t
a
t
a
t
a
t
a
r l
r r
r
l l
l
n
i
n
j
j
j
i
i
f
m
r
r
l
l
n
i
n
j
j
j
i
i
f
m
n
i
j
i
j
4
1
1
2 2
2
1
' '
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
u t u t
u u
o
o
t t
u u u u
o
o
t t |
(25)

x'
y'
a
l
a
r

a
i
aj
2

j
2
i

r
'
r
'
l

'
l
2
2
l
2

r
2

'
r
n

l
x
y
x'
y'
a
l
a
r

a
i
aj
2

j
2

j
2
i
2
i

r
'
r
'
r
'
l

'
l

'
l
2
'
l
2
2
l
2
l
2

r 2

r
2

'
r 2

'
r
n

l
x
y

Fig. 6 Nomenclature of a flaw crossing over the neutral axis

The failure bending stress can be rewritten as,

j
, ) , )
(

(

+
=
_ _

=

=
r r
r
l l
l
n
j
j j
j
n
i
i i
i
n
f c
bn
t
a
t
a
t
a
t
a
j
i
' sin ' cos ' sin ' cos
sin cos sin cos
sin 2
2
1
1
1
1
u u
u u
|
t
o
o
(26)

Copyright 2009 by ASME
6
Then the differential calculus of the collapse stress can be
expressedas,

|
.
|

\
|
=
c
c
n
r l
f
c
bn
t
a
t
a
|
t
o

o
cos
2
1
2
( ) ( )


=

=
+ +
1
1
1
1
sin sin sin sin
j
i
n
j
j j
j
n
i
i i
i
t
a
t
a
u u (27)
( ) ( )
(

(
+ +
r r
r
l l
l
t
a
t
a
u u cos
2
cos
2
Fromabove equations, it can be observed that since the
integrationof Equation(19) iscarriedout inclosed-forminstead
of numerically, the differential calculus of moment or stress
considering becomes possible, and equations proposed inthis
paper can be applied for the pipes containing multiple flaws
withbothsymmetrical andnon-symmetrical distributions.
Method to Evaluate Failure Membrane Stress
Thefailuremembranestress for apipewithmultipleflaws
can beevaluatedwiththesimilar approach to theASME Code.
In Equation (20), when the membrane stress exists only, the
followingrelationcanbeobtained.

=
=
n
i
i i
i
n
t
a
1
sin cos sin 2 u | (28)
Also, Equation (18) can be rewritten for the membrane
stressasfollows:
(
(

=

=
n
i
n i i
f m
t
a
1
2
1
t
|
t
u
o o (29)
Theequationfor failuremembranestresscanbederivedby
replacing o
m
with o
mn
c
, and |
n
with
n
. Thefailuremembrane
stresso
mn
c
isexpressedas,
(
(

=

=
n
i
n i i
f
c
mn
t
a
1
2
1
t

t
u
o o (30)
with
(
(

=

=
n
i
i i
i
n
t
a
1
sin cos
2
arcsin u (31)
COMPARISON BETWEEN ANALYTICAL AND
EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
In order to verify the validity of the fracture estimation
method proposed in this paper, the analytical solutions are
comparedwiththereportedexperimental results.
The bending experiments considering two symmetrical
flaws have been conducted by one of our authors on 4-inch
diameter Schedule80 pipes [8]. Theouter diameter of thepipe
is 114.8 mmand thewall thickness is 8.6 mm. Thematerial of
the specimen is Type 304 stainless steel, and the flow stress is
491 MPa. The flaws are fabricated by electric discharge
machine. Thedepthof theflawsisa/t =0.74. Thehalf angleof
theflaws is u =60
o
, and theangles 2o between two flaws are
from0
o
to 60
o
. The bending experiments are carried out on a
four-point bending system without pressure. Additional
information about the experimental detail is provided in
reference8.
Theanalyses arecarried out in thesameconditions as the
experiments. The comparison of the results between analyses
andexperimentsareshowninFigure7.
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
0 20 40 60 80 100
Anglebetweenflaws, 2

deg.

R
a
t
i
o
o
f
c
o
l
l
a
p
s
e
s
t
r
e
s
s
,

b
n
c
/

b
s
c
n = 2
a/t =0.74
=60

m
/
f
=0.0
n = 2
a/t =0.74
=60

m
/
f
=0.0
n = 2
a/t =0.74
=60

m
/
f
=0.0
:Experiment
:Calculation
Fig. 7 Comparisontheresultsbetweenanalysesand
experimentsfor specimenswithtwosymmetrical flaws
In Figure 7, o
bn
c
is the collapse bending stress obtained
using the method proposed herein for multiple flaws. At first,
the positions of the axes of coordinates are determined by
Equation (23). Then the failure bending stresses are calculated
by Equation(20). Inaddition, o
bs
c
isthecollapsebendingstress
of the single virtual combined flaw which has been used to
obtain the collapse bending stress conservatively so far. The
depthof thevirtual combinedflawisthemaximumdepthof the
objective multiple flaws, and its angle is the summation of the
total angleof objectivemultipleflaws.
As shown in Figure7, rational agreement canbeobserved
betweentheresultsof analysesandexperiments.
Copyright 2009 by ASME
7
ANALYTICAL INVESTIGATIONANDDISCUSSION
As mentioned above, the fracture estimation method
proposed herein can be used for a pipe containing any number
of flaws and arbitrary distribution in the same circumference.
Here, several numerical examples are provided to show the
effectivenessof theproposedfractureestimationmethod.
Numerical Analyses for Symmetrical Multiple Flaws
In order to investigate the effectiveness of the method
giveninthis paper, somenumerical analyses arecarriedout for
symmetrical multiple flaws. The flaws for the analyses are
illustratedinFigure8. Figure8(a) isthecasewherethenumber
of multipleflaws is evenandFigure8(b) is thecasewherethe
number of multipleflawsisodd.

n
R
t
a
x
y
a
2

R
t
x
y
a
2

R
t
x
y
a
2
Number of
flaws: n
n
n
u
u
2
=
(a) Thecasewheren iseven

R
t
x
y
a
2

R
t
x
y
a
2
R
t
a
x
y

n
2 2
a
a

n
Number of
flaws: n
n
n
u
u
2
=
(b) Thecasewheren isodd
Fig. 8 Multipleindependent surfaceflawsandthe
correspondingcombinedflawinapipe
In Figures 8(a) and (b), the left sides show multiple
independent surface flaws and the right sides show the virtual
combinedflaws correspondingto left sideflaws. Thedepth, the
flaw angle, and the interval angle between two adjacent flaws
are the same for every multiple flaws being considered. The
depthof thecombinedflawis a, andtheangleof thecombined
flawis 2u. It is notedthat theangleof thecombinedflawis the
same for any number of multiple flaws, meaning the angle of
each multipleflawwiththenumber n is u
n
=2u/n, as illustrated
inFigure8.
Whenthenumber of multipleflawsisn =4, themembrane
stress ratio is o
m
/o
f
=0.15, theflawdepth ratio is a/t =0.75,
the solutions of o
bn
c
/o
bs
c
are shown in Figure 9 for different
flaw angles and the interval angles between adjacent flaws.
When the number of multiple flaws is n =4, the membrane
stress ratio is o
m
/o
f
=0.15, the flaw angle is 2u=120
o
, the
solutions of o
bn
c
/o
bs
c
areshowninFigure10for different flaw
depths and the interval angles between adjacent flaws. In
Figures9and10, o
bn
c
isthecollapsebendingstressobtainedby
using analysis model shown on the left side of Figure 8, and
Equation (20) for multiple flaws. Meanwhile, o
bs
c
is the
collapse bending stress obtained by using the analysis model
shown on the right side of Figure 8, and Equation (2) for the
singlecombinedflaw.
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
0 10 20 30 40 50
Anglebetweenflaws, 2 deg.
R
a
t
i
o
o
f
c
o
l
l
a
p
s
e
s
t
r
e
s
s
,

b
n
c
/

b
s
c
n =4
a/t =0.75

m
/
f
=0.15
n =4
a/t =0.75

m
/
f
=0.15
n =4
a/t =0.75

m
/
f
=0.15
2=120
2=90
2=60
2=30
Fig. 9 Relationbetweenratioof collapsestressand
Interval anglebetweenadjacent flawsfor different flawangles
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
0 10 20 30 40
Anglebetweenflaws, 2 deg.
R
a
t
i
o
o
f
c
o
l
l
a
p
s
e
s
t
r
e
s
s
,

b
n
c
/

b
s
c
n =4
=60

m
/
f
=0.15
n =4
=60

m
/
f
=0.15
n =4
=60

m
/
f
=0.15
a /t =0.75
a /t =0.50
a /t =0.25
a /t =0.05
Fig. 10 Relationbetweenratioof collapsestressesandinterval
anglebetweenadjacent flawsfor different flawdepths
Copyright 2009 by ASME
8
AsshowninFigures9and10, theratioof collapsestresses
increases with increasing the depth, the angle, and the interval
angle of multiple flaws. The ratio of collapse stresses reaches
1.5, when 2o, a/t and 2u are large. It means that the previous
evaluating method to obtain the failure stress using the virtual
combined flaw gives a significantly lower load-carrying
capacityfor thepipecontainingmultipleflaws.
Thecollapsestresses arecalculated for a24-inch diameter
Schedule 80 pipe containing different number of symmetrical
multipleflaws. Theouter diameter of thepipeis 609.6mmand
thewall thickness is 30.9mm. Thematerial of thepipeis Type
316L stainlesssteel, anditsflowstressis257MPa. For thecase
of the membrane stress ratio is o
m
/o
f
=0.15, the flaw depth
ratioisa/t =0.5, theinterval anglebetweenadjacent flawsis2o
=30
o
, thesolutionsof collapsestressareshowninFigure11for
thenumber of multipleflawsfromn =1ton =6.
In Figure 11, it can beobserved that if the total angles of
themultipleflaws arethesame, thecollapsestress will become
greater with theincrement of thenumber of flaws and theflaw
angle.
150
200
250
300
350
0 30 60 90 120 150 180
Flawangle, 2 deg.
C
o
l
l
a
p
s
e
s
t
r
e
s
s
,

b
n
c

M
P
a

a/t =0.5
2=30

m
/
f
=0.15
a/t =0.5
2=30

m
/
f
=0.15
a/t =0.5
2=30

m
/
f
=0.15
5
n =6
4
3
2
1
Fig. 11 Relationbetweencollapsestressesandflaw
anglesfor different flawnumbers
Numerical Analyses for Non-Symmetrical Multiple
Flaws
The numerical examples are also given for
non-symmetrical multiple flaws. The analysis objective is
depicted in Figure 12, where the situation of the number of
multipleflawsisn =2.
Inthisanalysis, thematerial andthesizeof thepipearethe
same with the conditions used in Figure 11. The membrane
stressratioiso
m
/o
f
=0.15, theanglebetweentwoflawsis 2o =
30
o
. Theflawangleis thesamefor bothflaws, that isu
1
=u
2
=
u. Thedepth ratio of theright sideflaw shown in Figure12 is
a
1
/t =0.5, andisassumedtobeconstant. Therotationanglesof
coordinates and the collapse stresses are obtained by using
Equations (23) and (21) when the depth of the left side flaw
shown in Figure12is changed froma
2
=a
1
to a
2
=0, and the
solutionsareshowninFigures13and14.
t
a
1
x
y'
a
2
2
1
2
2

R
2
x'
y
t
a
1
x
y'
a
2
2
1
2
2

R
2
x'
y
Fig. 12 Nomenclatureof apipewithtwonon-symmetrical
flaws
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Ratioof flawdepth, a
2
/a
1
R
o
t
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
g
l
e
o
f
t
h
e
c
o
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
e
s
,

d
e
g
.

a
1
/t =0.5
2=30

m
/
f
=0.15
a
1
/t =0.5
2=30

m
/
f
=0.15
a
1
/t =0.5
2=30

m
/
f
=0.15
2=20
40
60
=+
=0

1
=
2
=
Fig. 13 Solutionsof rotationangleof thecoordinates
for different ratiosof flawdepthandflawangles
When a
2
=a
1
, this is the situation that the two flaws are
symmetrical flaws, the rotation angles of coordinates obtained
fromEquation(23) arealways =0 for different flawangles,
as shown in Figure13, and thecollapsestresses obtained from
Equation (20) always coincide with the values obtained from
Equation(12) for twosymmetrical flaws, asshowninFigure14.
Whena
2
=0, thisisthesituationthat theflawontheleft sidein
Figure12disappears andonly asingleflawontheright sidein
Figure12isleft, it canbeobservedthat for different flawangles,
the rotation angles of coordinates obtained fromEquation (23)
arealways =u +o as showninFigure13, andthecollapse
stresses obtained fromEquation (20) always coincide with the
values obtainedfromEquation(2) for singleflaws, as shownin
Copyright 2009 by ASME
9
Figure14.
Fromthe solutions shown in Figures 13 and 14, it can be
seen that theequations proposed hereareeffectivefor multiple
flawswithbothsymmetrical andnon-symmetrical distributions.
200
250
300
350
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Ratioof flawdepth, a
2
/a
1
C
o
l
l
a
p
s
e
s
t
r
e
s
s
,

b
n
c
(
M
P
a
)
a
1
/t =0.5
2=30

m
/
f
=0.15
a
1
/t =0.5
2=30

m
/
f
=0.15
a
1
/t =0.5
2=30

m
/
f
=0.15
SolutionsusingEquation(2)
2=20
40
60
SolutionsusingEquation(12)

1
=
2
=
Fig. 14 Solutionsof thecollapsestress
for different ratiosof flawdepthandflawangles
SUMMARYANDCONCLUSIONS
Equations for evaluatingthecollapsebending moment and
stress considering multiple independent flaws are not provided
in the current codes such as the J SME Code and the ASME
CodeAppendix C, although multipleflaws havebeen found in
manyactual pipingsystems.
In this paper, a fracture estimation method is proposed by
formula based on net-section stress approach, for the pipe
containing multiple independent flaws with any number and
arbitrary distribution in thesamecircumference. Theanalytical
resultsareingoodagreement withtheexperimental results. It is
concluded that the load carrying capacity for a pipe with any
independent multiple flaws can be estimated by the proposed
method, and the benefits of the multiple independent flaws are
demonstratedfromseveral numerical examples.
REFERENCES
1. Kanninen, M. F., et al., Mechanical FracturePredictions for
Sensitized Stainless Steel Piping with Circumferential
Cracks, EPRI NP-192, Sept., 1976.
2. The J apan Society of Mechanical Engineers, Rules on
Fitness-for-Service for Nuclear Power Plants, J SME S
NA1-2004, December 2004.
3. ASME B&PV Code Section XI, Rules for Inservice
Inspectionof Nuclear Power Plant Components, 2007.
4. Nuclear andIndustry Safety Agency, InterimReport, J une4,
2003(inJ apanese).
5. Rahman, S., Wilkowski, G., Net-section-collapse Analysis
of Circumferential CrackedCylinders, EngineeringFracture
Mechanics, Vol.61, No.2, (1998), pp.191-211.
6. Li, Y., Hasegawa, K., Shibuya, A., Prediction of Failure
Bending Moment for a Pipe with an Arbitrary-shaped
Circumferential Flaw, ASME PVP2009-77062, (2009).
7. Hasegawa, K. andKobayashi, H., FailureStressesfor Pipes
with Multiple Circumferential Flaws, ASME
PVP2004-2712, (2004).
8. Hasegawa, K., Saito, K., Iwamatsu, F. and Miyazaki K.,
Prediction of Fully Plastic Failure Stresses for Pipes with
Multiple Circumferential Flaws, ASME PVP2007-26011,
(2007).
Copyright 2009 by ASME