Engineering Fracture Mechanics 71 (2004) 173–191

www.elsevier.com/locate/engfracmech

Elastic–plastic fracture mechanics assessment of test data

for circumferential cracked pipes
Yun-Jae Kim, Do-Jun Shim, Nam-Su Huh, Young-Jin Kim *

SAFE Research Centre, School of Mechanical Engineering, Sungkyunkwan University, 300 Chunchun-dong,
Jangan-gu, Suwon, Kyonggi-do 440-746, South Korea
Received 5 February 2002; received in revised form 22 January 2003; accepted 25 February 2003

Abstract
This paper presents experimental validation of two reference stress based methods for circumferential cracked pipes.
One is the R6 method where the reference stress is defined by the plastic limit load. The other is the enhanced reference
stress method, recently proposed by the authors, where the reference stress is defined by the optimised reference load.
Using 38 published pipe test data, the predicted maximum instability loads according to both methods are compared
with the experimental ones for pipes with circumferential through-thickness cracks and with part circumferential
surface cracks. It is found that the R6 method gives conservative estimates of the maximum loads for all cases. Ratios of
the experimental maximum load to the predicted load range from 0.54 to 0.98. On the other hand, the proposed method
gives overall closer maximum loads than R6, compared to the experimental data. However, for part through-thickness
surface cracks, the estimated loads were slightly non-conservative for four cases, and possible reasons are fully dis-
cussed.

2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Circumferential through-thickness crack; Part circumferential internal surface crack; J -integral; Maximum instability load;
Reference stress; Failure assessment diagram; Pipe test data

1. Introduction

Elastic–plastic fracture mechanics analysis of piping is increasingly important in application of defect

assessment methods to structural integrity assessment and plant life extension. Significant efforts in de-
veloping fracture mechanics methodology have been made for the last three decades, together with vali-
dations against finite element (FE) results and experimental pipe test data. An extensive review for this
subject can be found in Refs. [1–4].
An essential part of elastic–plastic fracture mechanics analysis of piping is how to efficiently but accu-
rately estimate the elastic–plastic fracture mechanics parameter, J -integral, for cracked components. In this

*
Corresponding author. Tel.: +82-31-290-5274; fax: +82-31-290-5276.
E-mail address: yjkim@yurim.skku.ac.kr (Y.-J. Kim).

0013-7944/$ - see front matter
2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/S0013-7944(03)00095-X
174 Y.-J. Kim et al. / Engineering Fracture Mechanics 71 (2004) 173–191

Nomenclature

a crack depth
c half crack length, c ¼ Rm h
C constant in J –R curve, see Eq. (5)
E YoungÕs modulus
E0 ¼ E=ð1  m2 Þ for plane strain; ¼ E for plane stress
F shape factor for the elastic stress intensity factor
J J -integral
Je , Jp elastic and plastic components of J ; Je ¼ K 2 =E0
K linear elastic stress intensity factor
Kmat fracture toughness of material in terms of K
Kr proximity parameter for linear elastic fracture, see Eq. (4)
Lr proximity parameter for plastic collapse, see Eq. (3)
Lmax
r cut-off in Lr , see Eq. (2) for definition
m constant in J –R curve, see Eq. (5)
M, ML , MOR bending moment, limit moment and optimised reference moment on a pipe
Q, QL generalised load and its plastic limit load
QOR optimised reference load
Qref reference load to define Lr , see Eq. (3)
Ri , Rm , Ro inner, mean and outer radius of pipe
eref reference strain at the reference stress rref
Da amount of crack growth
m PoissonÕs ratio
h half of total crack angle
rref reference stress, see Eq. (7) for definition
ry yield (0.2% proof) strength
ru ultimate tensile strength

respect, the reference stress method, proposed by Ainsworth [5], provides a simple but powerful approxi-
mation for estimating J for cracked components. Due to its simplicity, this method is currently embedded
in a number of guidelines and procedures [6–9], including R6 [10]. Extensive validation of this method
against experimental data is also provided in R6 [10], showing that the reference stress method provides
overall conservative results. The simplicity of this method in fact results from the fact that the reference
stress is defined using the plastic limit load of the cracked component of interest. On the other hand, such a
definition can be ambiguous for part-through surface cracks where the plastic limit load can be defined
either based on the ligament (local) collapse or based on the net section (global) collapse.
To overcome the difficulty in the reference stress on how to define the reference stress for part-through
surface cracks and to enhance its accuracy, the authors [11–13] have recently proposed the enhanced ref-
erence stress method for circumferential through-thickness cracked cylinders. A modification has been
made simply in re-defining the reference stress using an optimised reference load, instead of a plastic limit
load. The optimised reference load was found to give the best estimates of J , based on selected FE results.
Such a modification provides an improvement in terms of accuracy in estimated J values. As the optimised
reference load is determined from selected FE results, this method essentially blends the essence of the GE/
EPRI method [4] and the reference stress method. The proposed method is then extended to more complex
problems such as to circumferential through-thickness cracked cylinders under combined loading [14].
 Y.-J. Kim et al. / Engineering Fracture Mechanics 71 (2004) 173–191 175

More recently, the authors have also proposed and validated the enhanced reference stress method for axial
through-thickness cracked cylinders [15]. The enhanced reference stress method for part circumferential
inner surface cracks under internal pressure and bending has been proposed in Ref. [16].
The present paper presents experimental validation of the reference stress method and the enhanced
reference stress method for circumferential cracked pipes. Using the pipe test data, given in Ref. [17],
predicted maximum instability loads according to reference stress based methods are compared with ex-
perimental ones for pipes with circumferential through-thickness cracks and with part circumferential
surface cracks. Section 2 summarises the failure assessment diagram approach, employed in the present
work for elastic–plastic fracture mechanics analysis. Descriptions of pipe test data and analysis for pipes
with circumferential through-thickness cracks are given in Section 3. Corresponding results for pipes
with part circumferential surface cracks are given in Section 4. The present work is then concluded in
Section 5.

2. Failure assessment diagram approach for elastic–plastic fracture mechanics analysis

In this paper, the failure assessment diagram (FAD) approach is used for elastic–plastic fracture me-
chanics analysis, i.e., to predict maximum instability loads of pipes with circumferential through-thickness
cracks and with part circumferential internal surface cracks. General information on how to estimate in-
stability loads based on the FAD approach can be found in Ref. [10]. This section briefly summarises the
required steps together with some relevant information.

2.1. Construction of the FAD

The first step is to define the FAD in the Lr –Kr space, where Kr measures the proximity to fracture
whereas Lr to plastic collapse. The option 2 type FAD [10] was used in the present work, where true stress–
strain data for the material of interest are used:
8
1=2
< Eeref 1 L3r ry
Kr ¼ þ for 0 6 Lr 6 Lmax
r ð1Þ
: Lr ry 2 Eeref
0 for Lmax
r 6 L r

where E denotes YoungÕs modulus; ry is the 0.2% proof (yield) stress; eref is the strain at the stress
rref ¼ Lr ry , determined from true stress–strain data. Noting that Kr measures the proximity to fracture and
Lr to plastic collapse, Eq. (1) is the failure locus. Coordinates Lr and Kr are evaluated according to Sections
2.2 and 2.3, respectively. The cut-off Lmax r in Eq. (1) is defined by
 
ry þ ru
Lmax
r ¼ ð2Þ
2ry
where ru denotes the ultimate tensile stress of the material. Fig. 1 schematically illustrates a typical FAD
according to Eq. (1).

2.2. Calculation of Lr

Once the FAD is constructed, the load ratio Lr should be calculated, defined by
Q
Lr ¼ ð3Þ
Qref ðaj Þ
176 Y.-J. Kim et al. / Engineering Fracture Mechanics 71 (2004) 173–191

Kr
Q=Qmax

1.0 Tearing locus

Increasing load
Eq. (1)

Lr=Lrmax

Lr
Fig. 1. Schematic illustration for determination of an instability (maximum) load based on the failure assessment diagram approach.

where Q denotes the primary load and Qref is the reference normalising load. The notation of Qref ðaj Þ in Eq.
(3) denotes the value of Qref at crack length a ¼ aj . It should be noted that a central issue in the reference
stress approach is how to define Qref , which will be further discussed later in Section 2.5. A final note is that,
when the instability load is sought, multiple values of Qref should be calculated for a given load, at some
discrete values of aj .

2.3. Calculation of Kr

The next step is to calculate the ratio Kr , defined by

Kðaj Þ
Kr ¼ ð4Þ
Kmat ðaj Þ
where Kðaj Þ and Kmat ðaj Þ denote the elastic stress intensity factor and the fracture toughness at a ¼ aj ,
respectively. For estimating the instability load, multiple values of Kðaj Þ and Kmat ðaj Þ should be calculated
for a given load, at some discrete values of aj . Calculation of Kðaj Þ values requires stress intensity factor
solutions for cracked components of interest. Detailed expressions for Kðaj Þ will be given later. On the
other hand, calculation of Kmat ðaj Þ requires the J-resistance data for the material of interest, typically
approximated by
m
J ðDaÞ ¼ Jc þ CðDaÞ ð5Þ
where Jc denotes the value of J at crack initiation, Da is the amount of crack growth, and C and m are
material constants. Based on the J -resistance data, values of Kmat ðaj Þ can be calculated from
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
EJ ðDaÞ
Kmat ðaj Þ ¼ ð6Þ
ð1  m2 Þ
where m denotes PoissonÕs ratio.
 Y.-J. Kim et al. / Engineering Fracture Mechanics 71 (2004) 173–191 177

2.4. Prediction of instability loads

Fig. 1 schematically illustrates how to estimate an instability (maximum) load based on the FAD ap-
proach. Suppose that a point (Lr , Kr ), corresponding to an arbitrary given load, lies inside the FAD, as
illustrated in Fig. 1. As the load increases, the assessed point will move along the straight line, as shown in
Fig. 1. Tearing occurs for loads where (Lr , Kr ), at the initial crack size, lies outside the FAD. The tearing
locus is constructed for fixed load and with the crack size varying. When the tearing locus, consisting of
multiple points of (Lr , Kr ), tangentially meets the FAD, the corresponding load is the predicted maximum
instability load, as depicted in Fig. 1.

2.5. Notes on FAD and reference stress

It should be noted that the option 2 FAD, Eq. (1) together with Eqs. (3) and (4), is essentially equivalent
to the approximate J estimation based on the reference stress approach [5]:
J Eeref 1 L3r ry Q
¼ þ ; rref ¼ ry ð7Þ
Je Lr ry 2 Eeref Qref
where Je denotes the elastically calculated J :
K2
Je ¼ ð8Þ
E0
where E0 ¼ E for plane stress and E0 ¼ E=ð1  m2 Þ for plane strain. Thus Eq. (7) involves two mechanics
parameters, the stress intensity factor K and the reference normalising load Qref . Compared to the stress
intensity factor solutions, the choice of Qref in general affects J estimates significantly. Thus how to define
Qref is a central point in the reference stress based approach.
In the current reference stress approach (see for instance Ref. [10]), Qref is chosen as the plastic limit load
for the cracked component of interest, QL . Thus a problem can arise when the definition of QL is am-
biguous, for instance, for part through-thickness cracks, where it can be defined either based on local
(ligament) collapse or based on global (net section) collapse. Accordingly there can be a number of limit
load solutions available for a given geometry. To overcome this problem, the authors have recently pro-
posed the enhanced reference stress method, where the reference stress is defined using the optimised ref-
erence load QOR instead of QL . Thus a modification has been made by simply re-defining the reference
stress. The optimised reference load was found to give the best estimates of J , based on selected FE results.
This enhanced method offers a couple of advantages over the conventional reference stress method. Firstly,
it removes ambiguity in defining the limit load for part-through surface cracks. Secondly it improves the
accuracy of the estimated J . More detailed discussion on the choice of Qref will be given later in the related
sections, together with detailed expressions used in the present work.

3. Analysis of circumferential through-thickness cracked pipe test data and results

3.1. Description of pipe test data

Fig. 2a schematically depicts a pipe with a circumferential through-thickness crack. The outer radius,
mean radius and thickness of the pipe are denoted as Ro , Rm and t, respectively. The crack length is
characterised by the half angle h. Published pipe test data for such pipes were taken from the Pipe Fracture
Encyclopedia [17]. In all tests, a pure bending moment was applied through the four-point bending fixture,
as illustrated in Fig. 3a. Data can be classified broadly into two categories, depending on the loading
178 Y.-J. Kim et al. / Engineering Fracture Mechanics 71 (2004) 173–191

Fig. 2. Schematic illustration of (a) circumferential through-wall (thickness) cracked pipes and (b) constant depth surface cracked pipes
under pure bending.

condition. The first one is the data set for quasi-static monotonic loading, and the other for quasi-static
cyclic test data. Furthermore, the data set for quasi-static monotonic loading can be divided into two
categories, depending on the crack location. The first one is base metal test data resulting from testing pipes
made of homogeneous materials (Fig. 3b), and the second is weld metal test data resulting from testing
pipes with weldments (Fig. 3c). Test data in each category are summarised below.
For base metal test data under quasi-static monotonic bending, a total of 13 test data were considered, as
summarised in Table 1. Test conditions together with materials are also summarised in Table 1. Note that
two most important geometric variables affecting fracture behaviour are the ratio of the mean radius to the
thickness, Rm =t, and the normalised crack length h=p (see Fig. 2). Tests covered a wide range of Rm =t from
Rm =t ¼ 5 to  74, and of h=p from h=p ¼ 0:0625 to 0.39, although most tests were biased to deep cracks.
In terms of materials, two classes of materials were employed, carbon steels and austenitic stainless steels.
Tabulated stress–strain tensile data of the materials are also provided in the Pipe Fracture Encyclopedia
[17], and some relevant properties are summarised in Table 2, such as E, ry and ru . For fracture mechanics
analyses, fracture toughness data are also needed. Tabulated J -resistance curve data of the materials, to-
gether with the value at initiation are provided in the Pipe Fracture Encyclopedia [17]. The majority of these
data were obtained from fracture mechanics tests of 1T compact tension specimens. The provided J -
resistance data were fitted using Eq. (5), and resulting values of Jc , C and m are summarised in Table 2.
For weld metal test data under quasi-static monotonic bending, a total of five test data were considered,
as summarised in Table 3, together with welding types. For detailed conditions for welding, refer to the Pipe
Fracture Encyclopaedia [17]. For all tests, the pre-crack was placed in the centre of the weld metal (Fig. 2c).
Test conditions together with materials are also summarised in Table 3. Similarly to the base metal test
data, the values of Rm =t ranges from Rm =t ¼  5 to 11, and of h=p from h=p ¼ 0:0625 to 0.37. Tabulated
stress–strain tensile data of both base metals and weld metals, provided in the Pipe Fracture Encyclopedia
[17], are summarised in Table 4. It can be seen that the yield strengths of the weld metal are significantly
higher than those for the base metals for all cases. It should be noted that the base metal property is used to
 Y.-J. Kim et al. / Engineering Fracture Mechanics 71 (2004) 173–191 179

Fig. 3. (a) Pipe test apparatus for global bending, (b) base metal test and (c) weld metal test.

construct the FAD and to calculate Lr values, as such a procedure gives conservative J estimates (see for
instance Refs. [18,19]). On the other hand, when calculating Kmat , toughness data for the weld metal should
be used for conservative estimates. For weld metals, tabulated J -resistance curve data, provided in the Pipe
Fracture Encyclopedia [17], were fitted using Eq. (5), and resulting values of Jc , C and m are summarised in
Table 4.
The final data set is for base metal test data under quasi-static cyclic bending. A total of five test data
were considered, as summarised in Table 5, together with test conditions and materials. Note that some
tests are duplicate tests, so that test conditions are almost identical. In all tests, a quasi-static pure bending
moment was applied to the circumferential through-thickness cracked pipe in a cyclic manner between the
maximum load Qmax and the minimum Qmin . As can be seen in Table 5, the load ratio R, defined by
Qmin
R¼ ð9Þ
Qmax
varies from 0 to )1. The pipes were loaded at quasi-static rates under displacement control, and the loads at
the start of each cycle increase. Furthermore, during the tests, crack growth due to fatigue was believed to
180 Y.-J. Kim et al. / Engineering Fracture Mechanics 71 (2004) 173–191

Table 1
Summary of pipe test data of circumferential through-thickness cracked pipes under monotonic global bending load (base metal test
data)
Test I.D. Material Do ¼ 2Ro (mm) t (mm) Rm =t h=p Temperature
(C)
4111-2 A155 711 23.6 14.56 0.37 288
4111-4 API5L X65 1,067 15.9 33.05 0.37 )7
4131-7 SA333 Gr. 6 273.1 18.3 6.96 0.346 288
4.3-1 STS-49 763.52 38.18 9.50 0.166 300
1.1.1.21 A155 711 22.7 15.16 0.0625 288
3.3-1 STS-410 166 14.5 5.22 0.166 300
1.2-7 A106 168 14 5.5 0.36 288
4111-3 SA358 TP304 1,067 7.11 74.54 0.37 7
EPRI-6T SA312 TP304 60.3 6.0 4.53 0.229 22
EPRI-1T SA376 TP304 114.3 9.0 5.85 0.371 22
EPRI-8T SA358 TP304 414 26.2 7.40 0.368 22
4131-5 SA376 TP304 158.9 13.9 5.22 0.388 288
1.1.1.26 TP316L 106.2 8.3 5.90 0.244 21

Table 2
Summary of material data for pipe tests in Table 1
Test I.D. Tensile data Fracture toughness data
E (GPa) ry (MPa) ru (MPa) J at Initiation C m
(kJ/m2 )
4111-2 190.8 230.3 545.4 206.5 185.4 0.31
4111-4 207.6 425 567 399 528.3 0.49
4131-7 190.5 239 526 158 180.9 0.33
4.3-1 190.1 242 583 366 248.1 0.55
1.1.1.21 190.8 231 541.9 206.5 194.3 0.30
3.3-1 190.1 215.8 492.6 367.9 249.8 0.58
1.2-7 190.8 320 621 69 111.4 0.33
4111-3 206.8 224 681 610 354.4 0.39
EPRI-6T 205.9 246 657 502 1037.3 0.54
EPRI-1T 205.9 243 629 1800 333.2 0.39
EPRI-8T 205.9 295 744 2080 1019.3 0.75
4131-5 190.8 128 447 1090 248.7 0.09
1.1.1.26 206 258 527 680 1014.7 0.62

Table 3
Summary of pipe test data of circumferential through-thickness cracked pipes under monotonic global bending load (weld metal test
data)
Test I.D. Material Welding type Do ¼ 2Ro t (mm) Rm =t h=p Temperature
(mm) (C)
BCD/WJ-1 SA106 Gr.B SMAW 168.3 11.05 7.12 0.304 288
1.1.1.24 SA333 Gr. 6 SAW 612 31.3 9.28 0.079 288
4141-1 SA376 TP304 SAW 168.3 14.3 5.38 0.371 288
4141-3 SA358 TP304 SAW 413.5 26.2 7.39 0.367 288
1.1.1.23 SA240 SAW 711 30.2 11.27 0.0625 288
TP316L
 Y.-J. Kim et al. / Engineering Fracture Mechanics 71 (2004) 173–191 181

Table 4
Summary of material data for pipe tests in Table 3
Test I.D. Tensile data Fracture toughness data (Weld metal)
E (GPa) ry (MPa) ru (MPa) J at Initiation C m
(kJ/m2 )
BCD/WJ-1 Base 190.8 270 610 160 200.6 0.42
Weld 190.8 315 669
1.1.1.24 Base 190.8 234 521 53 103.2 0.48
Weld 190.8 415 575
4141-1 Base 190.8 134 451 100 183.8 0.37
Weld 190.8 325 466
4141-3 Base 190.8 174 456 100 183.8 0.37
Weld 190.8 325 466
1.1.1.23 Base 190.8 143 427 61 200.3 0.53
Weld 190.8 366 503

Table 5
Summary of pipe test data of circumferential through-thickness cracked pipes under quasi-static cyclic bending load
Test I.D. Material Do ¼ 2Ro t (mm) Rm =t h=p R Tempearture
(mm) (C)
1.2-2 A106 Gr. B 168 14 5.5 0.36 0 288
1.2-4 A106 Gr. B 168 14 5.5 0.36 )1 288
3.3-2 A106 Gr. B 167.8 13.7 5.6 0.369 )1 288
1.2-3 SA376 TP304 169 14 5.54 0.38 0 288
1.2-5 SA376 TP304 168.5 14.2 5.43 0.368 )1 288

Table 6
Summary of material data for pipe tests in Table 5
Test I.D. Tensile data Fracture toughness data
E (GPa) ry (MPa) ru (MPa) J at Initiation C m
(kJ/m2 )
1.2-2 190.8 320 621 69 111.4 0.33
1.2-4 190.8 320 621 69 111.4 0.33
3.3-2 190.8 320 621 69 111.4 0.33
1.2-3 190.8 128 447 1090 248.7 0.09
1.2-5 190.8 128 447 1090 248.7 0.09

be minor. More detailed information on these tests can be found in Ref. [17]. Values of Rm =t are around 5,
and those of h=p around 0.37. As loading was applied quasi-statically, tensile properties from quasi-static
tests, not from cyclic tests, are used to construct the FAD and to calculate Lr values. Some relevant
properties of tabulated stress–strain tensile data of the materials are summarised in Table 6. Similarly,
tabulated J -resistance curve data of the materials, resulting from quasi-static toughness tests, are fitted
using Eq. (5), and the resulting values of Jc , C and m are summarised in Table 6.

3.2. Stress intensity factor solution

For circumferential through-thickness cracked pipes under pure bending, the stress intensity factor K
can be found from Ref. [20]:
182 Y.-J. Kim et al. / Engineering Fracture Mechanics 71 (2004) 173–191

3 5
Zahoor Zahoor
GE/EPRI GE/EPRI
4
(a) Rm/t=5 (b) Rm/t=20
2
3
F

F
2
1

0 0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
q/p q/p

Fig. 4. Comparison of the elastic shape factor solutions F from Zahoor [20] with the FE results in Ref. [21] for circumferential through-
thickness cracked pipes under bending: (a) Rm =t ¼ 5 and (b) Rm =t ¼ 20.

M pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
K¼ pRm h  F ð10Þ
pR2m t
"
1:5
4:24 !#
h h
F ¼ 1 þ A 4:5967 þ 2:6422
p p

8
 0:25
>
> Rm Rm
>
< 0:125  0:25 for 5 6 6 10
t t
A¼ 
 0:25
>
> Rm Rm
>
: 0:4  3:0 for 10 6 6 20
t t
Fig. 4 compares the values of the shape factor F from Eq. (10) with the FE results given in the GE/EPRI
report [21] for Rm =t ¼ 5 and 20. It shows that the difference increases with h=p, and the maximum error is
about 6% for h=p ¼ 0:5. Note that in all tests the pipes failed under large plasticity conditions, and thus the
predicted maximum loads are rather insensitive to the precise values of Kr .

3.3. Reference load solutions, Qref

In the reference stress approach, the definition of the reference stress, i.e., the choice of the reference load
Qref , is very important in terms of accuracy in estimated J . The present work employs two different ex-
pressions for Qref . This point is quite important in the context of this work, and thus is worth explaining in
more detail. The first choice of Qref is the plastic limit load QL , as recommended in R6 [10] and other
procedures [6–9]. A plastic limit moment for circumferential through-thickness cracked pipes is given by
[22]

 
2 h sin h
ML ¼ 4Rm try cos  ð11Þ
2 2
which is a Tresca limit moment and thus is conservative (that means that the actual plastic limit loads
should be higher). Noting that h is related to the crack length c as c ¼ Rm h (Fig. 2a), the value of h should
be updated as the crack grows.
 Y.-J. Kim et al. / Engineering Fracture Mechanics 71 (2004) 173–191 183

The second choice is the optimised reference load QOR , providing best J estimates, recently proposed by
the authors [11–13]. It has been found that QOR solutions are in general expressed as the plastic limit load
solution multiplied with a dimensionless factor. For circumferential through-thickness cracked pipes under
bending, MOR is given by [11,12]

Qref ¼ MOR ¼ c  ML ð12Þ

where ML is from Eq. (11); and the dimensionless factor, c, is a function of h=p only:


2
h h
cðh=pÞ ¼ 0:82 þ 0:75 þ 0:42 for h=p 6 0:5 ð13Þ
p p

The value of c ranges from 0.8 to 1.3 for h=p from 0 to 0.5. It should be noted that introduction of the
optimised reference load is intended to improve the accuracy of the existing reference stress approach.

3.4. Analysis results

Fig. 5 shows examples of how maximum moments were determined in the FAD approach for one base
metal data (4111-3) and one weld metal data (4141-1). For predictions, two methods were used. One is the
‘‘R6 method’’ based on the reference stress defined by the plastic limit load, see Eq. (11). The other is the
‘‘proposed’’ enhanced reference stress method based on the reference stress defined by the optimised ref-
erence load, see Eq. (12). The resulting predictions are different, as shown in Fig. 5.
In Table 7, experimentally measured instability (maximum) loads for base metal test data under quasi-
static monotonic loading are compared with predicted ones according to the R6 method and the proposed
method. Similar results are tabulated in Tables 8 and 9 for weld metal test data under quasi-static
monotonic loading and for base metal test data under quasi-static cyclic loading, respectively. Tables 7–9
also include the ratios of the predicted instability load to experimental load. These ratios are shown in Fig.
6 as a function of Rm =t and h=p. The ratio being less than unity implies that the predicted load is smaller
than the experimental one and thus is conservative. The ratio closer to unity (but less than unity), on the

1.4 1.4
(a) 4111-3 (Base metal) (b) 4141-1 (Weld metal)
1.2 1.2 R6
R6
M=Mmax Proposed method Proposed method
1.0 1.0

0.8 0.8
M=Mmax
Kr

Kr

0.6 0.6
Increasing load
0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2
Increasing load
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0 2.4 0.0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0 2.4
Lr Lr

Fig. 5. Examples of determining instability moments using R6 method and the proposed method for circumferential through-thickness
cracked pipes under bending: (a) the test 4111-3 in Table 1, and (b) the test 4141-1 in Table 3.
184 Y.-J. Kim et al. / Engineering Fracture Mechanics 71 (2004) 173–191

Table 7
Comparison of predicted maximum moments according to the R6 method and the proposed method with experimental data for base
metal test data under monotonic bending load in Table 1
Test Experimental result Prediction (kN  m) Ratio (prediction/experimental)
(kN  m) R6 Proposed method R6 Proposed method
4111-2 1205.7 870 930 0.72 0.77
4111-4 2668.6 2150 2300 0.81 0.86
4131-7 154.84 106.2 117 0.69 0.76
4.3-1 6015.40 4000 3980 0.66 0.66
1.1.1.21 3016.30 2470 2300 0.82 0.76
3.3-1 92.76 75 75.5 0.81 0.81
1.2-7 51.33 38.50 41.50 .75 0.81
4111-3 915.6 550 600 0.60 0.66
EPRI-6T 4.88 4.5 4.65 0.92 0.95
EPRI-1T 17.35 14.2 15.7 0.82 0.90
EPRI-8T 784.55 570 640 0.73 0.82
4131-5 37.66 21 23.5 0.56 0.62
1.1.1.26 17.11 16.5 17 0.96 0.99

Table 8
Comparison of predicted maximum moments according to the R6 method and the proposed method with experimental data for weld
metal test data under monotonic bending load in Table 3
Test Experimental result Prediction (kN  m) Ratio (prediction/experimental)
(kN  m) R6 Proposed method R6 Proposed method
BCD/WJ-1 51.36 39 41.5 0.76 0.81
1.1.1.24 3416 2250 2110 0.66 0.62
4141-1 37.50 20.3 22.7 0.54 0.61
4141-3 377.14 265 295 0.70 0.78
1.1.1.23 3063.62 2200 2040 0.72 0.67

Table 9
Comparison of predicted maximum moments according to the R6 method and the proposed method with experimental data for base
metal test data under cyclic bending load in Table 5
Test Experimental result Prediction (kN  m) Ratio (prediction/experimental)
(kN  m) R6 Proposed method R6 Proposed method
1.2-2 48.19 38.50 41.50 0.80 0.86
1.2-4 42.71 38.50 41.50 0.90 0.97
3.3-2 40.05 36.50 39.40 0.91 0.98
1.2-3 34.60 24.60 26.80 0.71 0.77
1.2-5 33 25.40 28 0.77 0.85

other hand, implies that the predicted load is more accurate. The results show that the ratios for both R6
and the proposed method are less than unity for all cases, ranging from 0.54 to 0.99. Moreover, ratios for
the proposed method are closer to unity, compared to those for R6, except those cases corresponding to
shorter cracks (see Fig. 6b). This shows that the proposed method overall gives less conservative predictions
than the R6 method. For shorter crack lengths, on the other hand, the proposed method gives more
conservative results (Fig. 6b). As pointed out by Miller and Ainsworth [23], the use of the plastic limit load
in the existing reference stress method could provide non-conservative estimates of J for shorter crack
lengths.
 Y.-J. Kim et al. / Engineering Fracture Mechanics 71 (2004) 173–191 185

1.2 1.2
(a) (b)

R6 R6
1.0 Proposed method 1.0 Proposed method
Mpre./Mexp.

Mpre./Mexp.
0.8 0.8

0.6 0.6

0.4 0.4
1 10 100 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
Rm/t q/p
Fig. 6. Comparison of predicted maximum moment from the R6 method and the proposed method with experimental data for cir-
cumferential through-thickness cracked pipes as a function of (a) Rm =t and (b) h=p.

4. Analysis of part circumferential surface cracked pipe test data and results

4.1. Description of pipe test

The geometry of a pipe with a part circumferential internal surface crack is schematically depicted in Fig.
2b. Note that in all tests, part circumferential surface cracks were placed inside pipes. Moreover, the crack
had an idealised rectangular shape, not a semi-elliptical shape, as depicted in Fig. 2b. The crack length and
depth are characterised by the half angle h and a, respectively. Published pipe test data for such pipe were
again taken from the Pipe Fracture Encyclopedia [17]. Note that in all cases, quasi-static monotonic
loading was applied to pipes, and the crack was placed in a base metal.
A total of 15 test data were considered, as summarised in Table 10, together with test conditions
and materials. Note that three geometric variables affecting fracture behaviours are Rm =t, h=p, and the

Table 10
Summary of pipe test data of part circumferential inner surface cracked pipes under monotonic bending load
Test I.D. Material Do ¼ 2Ro t (mm) a=t Rm =t h=p Temperature
(mm) (C)
4112-5 A106 169.3 7.44 0.631 10.88 0.508 288
4112-6 A106 167.5 14.8 0.68 5.16 0.503 288
4112-7 A106 168.2 21.5 0.633 3.41 0.526 288
4112-8 A106 402.6 26.4 0.662 7.125 0.532 288
4112-9 A106 404.9 12.7 0.662 15.44 0.535 288
4115-1 SA333 Gr.6 256.2 17.3 0.7 6.90 0.42 288
4115-2 SA333 Gr.6 272 17.1 0.71 7.45 0.43 288
4131-8 SA333 Gr.6 270.6 15.1 0.678 8.46 0.48 288
4112-1 TP316L 405.1 9.8 0.658 20.17 0.511 288
4112-3 SA376 TP304 168.6 13.6 0.659 5.70 0.518 288
4112-4 SA376 TP304 168.3 22.5 0.653 3.24 0.442 288
4115-4 SA376 TP304 168 14.9 0.49 5.14 0.52 288
4115-5 SA376 TP304 168.2 15.0 0.6 5.11 0.415 288
4131-6 SA376 TP304 158.9 14.3 0.69 5.06 0.535 288
13S SA358 TP304 406.4 28.3 0.66 6.68 0.475 22
186 Y.-J. Kim et al. / Engineering Fracture Mechanics 71 (2004) 173–191

Table 11
Summary of material data for pipe tests in Table 10
Test I.D. Tensile data Fracture toughness data
E (GPa) ry (MPa) ru (MPa) J at Initiation C m
(kJ/m2 )
4112-5 190.8 212 467 217 129.4 1.12
4112-6 190.8 320 621 101 97.4 0.87
4112-7 190.8 254 571 158 132.8 0.81
4112-8 190.8 234 601 111 150.9 0.47
4112-9 190.8 261 613 138 126.4 0.52
4115-1 190.8 239 526 155 250 0.53
4115-2 190.8 239 526 155 250 0.53
4131-8 190.8 239 526 155 250 0.53
4112-1 190.8 161 469 380 331.9 0.45
4112-3 190.8 128 447 1090 239.3 0.44
4112-4 190.8 151 470 570 548.2 0.43
4115-4 190.8 128 447 1090 239.3 0.44
4115-5 190.8 128 447 1090 239.3 0.44
4131-6 190.8 128 447 1090 239.3 0.44
13S 205.9 225 744 2080 1019.3 0.75

normalised crack depth a=t (see Fig. 2b). In tests, these variables were systematically varied: Rm =t from 3
to 20; h=p from 0.4 to 0.5; and a=t from 0.5 to 0.7. As for through-thickness cracked pipe test data,
two classes of materials were employed, carbon steels and austenitic stainless steels. Tabulated stress–strain
tensile data of the materials, given in the Pipe Fracture Encyclopedia [17], are summarised in Table 11.
Tabulated J -resistance curve data of the materials were fitted using Eq. (5), and resulting values of Jc , C and
m are given in Table 11.

4.2. Stress intensity factor solution

Although there exist stress intensity factor solutions for pipes with part circumferential internal surface
cracks under pure bending, finding an appropriate expression was not an easy task. Noting that the present
cases cover deep and long cracks (a=t ¼ 0:5 to 0.7 and h=p ¼ 0:4 to 0.5), recent solutions, given in
Refs. [6–10], do not cover the present cases. Even more recent work [24] provides the most comprehensive
solutions, but for bending the solutions are still limited for use in the present work. Although the closed
form solution given Ref. [20] claims to cover the present cases, when this solution was compared with the
detailed FE results, it was found to give very poor results. For instance, for a=t ¼ 0:5  0:75 and h=p ¼ 0:5,
it overestimates the FE K results by 26–29% for Rm =t ¼ 5, but underestimates by 7–17% for Rm =t ¼ 20. This
means that the error in elastic J can be as much as 90%. Even though some pipes failed with significant
plastic deformation (near plastic collapse conditions), such inaccuracy could result in significant errors in
estimated maximum loads.
In this context, it was decided to determine the relevant K solutions based on detailed 3-D FE results.
Noting that the interesting ranges of Rm =t, a=t and h=p are quite narrow (see Table 10), limited FE analysis
would be sufficient to derive accurate stress intensity factor solutions. Based on the FE results, the resulting
approximation is obtained

M pffiffiffiffiffiffi h a ih a

K¼ pa  F ; F ¼ A þB þC þD ð14Þ
pR2m t t p t
 Y.-J. Kim et al. / Engineering Fracture Mechanics 71 (2004) 173–191 187

3.0 3.0
(a) a/t =0.5
2.5 2.5 Rm/t =20
Rm/t =20

2.0 2.0 Rm/t =10

1.5 1.5 Rm/t =5

F

F
Rm/t =10 Rm/t =5 (b) a/t =0.75
1.0 1.0

0.5 Approximation 0.5 Approximation

FE results FE results
0.0 0.0
0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
q/p q/p

Fig. 7. Comparison of the elastic shape factor solutions F in Eq. (14) with the present FE results for part circumferential inner surface
cracked pipes under bending: (a) a=t ¼ 0:5 and (b) a=t ¼ 0:75.

2

Rm Rm
A ¼ 0:005  0:192 þ 3:809
t t

2

Rm Rm
B ¼ 0:006 þ 0:193  2:277
t t

2

Rm Rm
C ¼ 0:005 þ 0:286  1:480
t t

2

Rm Rm
D ¼ 0:0015  0:084 þ 1:828
t t

Eq. (14) is compared with the FE results in Fig. 7, showing good agreements with the FE results for the
ranges of Rm =t, a=t and h=p of interest.

4.3. Reference load solutions, Qref

As for through-thickness cracks, two different definitions of Qref are used in the present work; one based
on the global limit load and the other on the optimised reference load (the proposed method). For the limit
load, the choice of Qref is more complicated for surface cracks than that for through-thickness cracks. This
is mainly because the definition of the limit load can be ambiguous for surface cracks. For through-
thickness cracks, the limit load is defined as the load corresponding to net section collapse. However, for
surface cracks, it can be defined either as the load corresponding to ligament collapse (termed to as the local
limit load) or as that corresponding to net section collapse (termed to as the global limit load). Conse-
quently there can be a number of different solutions for a given geometry and loading. In the present work,
the global limit load solution, given in Chapter IV of R6 Revision 4, is chosen for Qref . The plastic limit
moment for pipes with part circumferential internal surface cracks is given by [10,22]

  
a h a sin h
Qref ¼ ML ¼ 4R2m try cos    ð15Þ
t 2 t 2
188 Y.-J. Kim et al. / Engineering Fracture Mechanics 71 (2004) 173–191

1.4 1.4
(a) 4112-8 (b) 4112-3
1.2 1.2
R6 R6
Proposed method Proposed method
1.0 1.0

0.8 M=Mmax 0.8

Kr
Kr

0.6 0.6

0.4 Increasing load 0.4

M=Mmax
0.2 0.2
Increasing load
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0 2.4 0.0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0 2.4
Lr Lr

Fig. 8. Examples of determining instability moments using R6 method and the proposed method for pipes with part circumferential
surface cracks under bending: (a) the test 4112-8 and (b) the test 4112-3 in Table 10.

Table 12
Comparison of predicted maximum moments according to the R6 method and the proposed method with experimental data for part
circumferential surface cracked pipes in Table 10
Test I.D. Experimental result Prediction (kN  m) Ratio (prediction/experimental)
(kN  m) R6 Proposed method R6 Proposed method
4112-5 38.85 37a 41.5a 0.95a 1.06a
4112-6 82.18 68 79 0.83 0.96
4112-7 121.40 96.5a 108.7 0.79a 0.89
4112-8 748.52 587 667 0.78 0.89
4112-9 365.62 311 350 0.85 0.96
4115-1 221.37 176 188 0.80 0.85
4115-2 234.03 190 205 0.81 0.88
4131-8 195.12 170 183 0.87 0.94
4112-1 230.44 215 240 0.93 1.04
4112-3 63.03 50a 60a 0.79a 0.95a
4112-4 112.27 84a 91.5 0.75a 0.82
4115-4 71.35 68a 72a 0.95a 1.01a
4115-5 65.24 64.3a 69.5a 0.98a 1.06a
4131-6 55.24 42.5a 53a 0.77a 0.96a
13S 1259.34 1045a 1158 0.83a 0.92
a
Maximum loads were found under plastic collapse conditions.

Regarding the optimised reference load, the solution recently proposed by the authors [16] is used in the
present work. For bending,
Qref ¼ MOR ¼ c  ML
2
c ¼ h1 ða=tÞ þ h2 ða=tÞ þ 1:04
2
ð16Þ
h1 ¼ 4:26ðh=pÞ  1:35ðh=pÞ þ 0:80
2
h2 ¼ 2:30ðh=pÞ þ 1:57ðh=pÞ  0:77

where ML is given by Eq. (15).

 Y.-J. Kim et al. / Engineering Fracture Mechanics 71 (2004) 173–191 189

4.4. Analysis results

Fig. 8 shows examples of how maximum moments were determined in the FAD approach for two data
(cases of 4112-8 and 4112-3 in Table 10). For predictions, two methods were used. One is the ‘‘R6 method’’
based on the reference stress defined by the plastic limit load, see Eq. (15). The other is the ‘‘proposed’’
enhanced reference stress method based on the reference stress defined by the optimised reference load, see
Eq. (16). Note that for part circumferential surface crack cases, maximum loads were found under plastic
collapse conditions for some cases, as shown in Fig. 8b, in contrast to circumferential through-thickness
cracks where maximum loads were found under elastic-plastic fracture conditions in all cases (see Fig. 5).
Comparison of experimental instability loads with predicted ones according to the R6 method and the
proposed method are summarised in Table 12, together with the ratios of the predicted instability load to
experimental load. Note that the cases where maximum loads were found under plastic collapse conditions
are indicated in Table 12. The resulting data are shown in Fig. 9, as a function of Rm =t, h=p and a=t. For the
R6 method, the ratios are less than unity for all cases, ranging from 0.75 to 0.98. These values are higher
than those for circumferential through-thickness cracks, which ranged from 0.54 to 0.96. A possible reason

1.2 1.2

1.0 1.0
Mpre./Mexp.
Mpre./Mexp.

0.8 0.8

(a) (b)
0.6 0.6
R6 R6
Proposed method Proposed method
0.4 0.4
1 10 100 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
Rm/t q/p
1.2

1.0
Mpre./Mexp.

0.8

(c)
0.6
R6
Proposed method

0.4
0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
a/t
Fig. 9. Comparison of predicted maximum moment from the R6 method and the proposed method with experimental data for cir-
cumferential surface cracked pipes as a function of (a) Rm =t, (b) h=p and (c) a=t.
190 Y.-J. Kim et al. / Engineering Fracture Mechanics 71 (2004) 173–191

for this might be the constraint condition. The constraint condition for part circumferential surface cracked
pipes under bending is higher than that for circumferential through-thickness cracked pipes under bending.
Thus the use of fracture toughness data from bend specimens gives more conservative results for cir-
cumferential through-thickness cracked pipes under bending.
For the proposed method, on the other hand, the ratios are higher than those for the R6 method,
ranging from 0.82 to 1.06. For 4 cases out of 15 cases, the ratios are greater than unity, implying that the
proposed method is slightly non-conservative (see Table 12). At this point, it is worth discussing possible
sources of such non-conservatism. The first candidate might be possible non-conservative J estimates in the
proposed method. Comparisons with extensive elastic–plastic J results for part circumferential surface
cracked pipes under global bending, however, showed that the proposed J estimates are quite accurate for a
wide range of a=t, h=p and Rm =t (see Ref. [16]). Thus this source can be excluded. The second candidate
might be the effect of the surface crack shape. In all tests, the crack had an idealised rectangular shape, not a
semi-elliptical shape, see Fig. 2b. It has been shown in Ref. [21] that the crack shape affects the J -integral
and in fact the J values for the rectangular crack are higher than those for the semi-elliptical crack, for the
same crack depth. Noting that the proposed method is for the semi-elliptical crack, the estimated J could be
slightly non-conservative, which in turn could affect the estimated maximum load. On the other hand, it can
be argued that the crack shape in realistic situations is more likely to be characterised as the semi-elliptical
shape, rather than the rectangular one. The final candidate might be uncertainties in tests and variability in
material properties, particularly in fracture toughness. As tensile and fracture toughness properties were
taken from one or two test pieces, they might not include variability. In fact, if fracture toughness data,
given in Table 11, are carefully looked at, there exist a large scatter for the given material.

5. Conclusions

This paper presents experimental validation of the reference stress based methods for circumferential
cracked pipes. Two reference stress based methods were considered. One is the conventional method where
the reference stress is defined by the plastic limit load. For this method, specific recommendations in R6 [10]
are followed. The other is the enhanced reference stress method, recently proposed by authors, where the
reference stress is defined by the optimised reference load. Using a total of 38 published pipe test data, the
predicted maximum instability loads according to both reference stress based methods are compared with
experimental ones for pipes with circumferential through-thickness cracks and with part circumferential
surface cracks, under global bending. The following conclusions are drawn.

• The R6 method gives conservative estimates of the maximum loads for all cases. For through-thickness
cracks, the ratios of the experimental maximum load to the predicted load range from 0.54 to 0.96.
For part through-thickness surface cracks, values are higher, ranging from 0.75 to 0.98, possibly due
to higher crack tip constraint.
• The proposed method gives overall closer maximum loads than R6, compared to the experimental data.
For through-thickness cracks, the ratios of the experimental maximum load to the predicted load range
from 0.61 to 0.99. For part through-thickness surface cracks, on the other hand, values range from 0.82
to 1.06, and the estimated loads were slightly non-conservative for 4 cases out of 15 cases. It is believed
that such non-conservatism arises due to the surface crack shape (either rectangular or semi-elliptical)
and uncertainty in test conditions and material data.

One important by-product of this work is to realise that the existing stress intensity factor solutions for
part circumferential surface cracked pipes under global bending are still limited. Solutions are given only
for limited ranges of pipe and crack geometries, and thus extended solutions are desirable.
 Y.-J. Kim et al. / Engineering Fracture Mechanics 71 (2004) 173–191 191

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful for the support provided by a grant from Safety and Structural Integrity Re-
search Centre at Sungkyunkwan University.

References

[1] Hopper A, Wilkowski G, Scott P, Olson R, Rudland D, Kilinski T, et al. The second international piping integrity research group
(IPIRG-2) program––final report. NUREG/CR-6452, USNRC, 1997.
[2] Rahman S, Brust F, Ghadiali N, Wilkowski G. Crack-opening-area analyses for circumferential through-wall cracks in pipes-part
I: analytical models. Int J Pressure Vessels Piping 1998;75:357–73.
[3] Rahman S, Brust F, Ghadiali N, Wilkowski G. Crack-opening-area analyses for circumferential through-wall cracks in pipes-part
II-model validation. Int J Pressure Vessels Piping 1998;75:375–96.
[4] Kumar V, German D, Shih CF. An engineering approach for elastic–plastic fracture analysis. EPRI Final Report NP 1931, 1981.
[5] Ainsworth RA. The assessment of defects in structures of strain hardening materials. Engng Fract Mech 1984;19:633–42.
[6] API. API RP579––recommended practice for fitness-for-service. American Petroleum Institute, 2000.
[7] Bergman M, Brickstad B, Dahlberg L, Nilsson F, Sattari-Far I. A procedure for safety assessment of components with cracks––
handbook. SA/FoU Report 91/01, ABSvensk Anl€aggningsprovning, Swedish Plant Inspection Ltd., 1991.
[8] BS 7910. Guide on methods for assessing the acceptability of flaws in fusion welded structures. London, British Standards
Institution, 1999.
[9] SINTAP. Final procedure: SINTAP (structural integrity assessment procedures for European industry). Brite-Euram Project,
BE95-1426, 1999.
[10] British Energy. R6: Assessment of the integrity of structures containing defects. Revision 4, 2001.
[11] Kim YJ, Budden PJ. Reference stress approximations for J and COD of circumferential through-wall cracked pipes. Int J Fract
2002;116:195–218.
[12] Kim YJ, Huh NS, Kim YJ. Enhanced reference stress-based J and crack opening displacement estimation method for leak-before-
break analysis and comparison with GE/EPRI method. Fatigue Fract Engng Mater Struct 2001;24:243–54.
[13] Kim YJ, Huh NS, Kim YJ. Quantification of pressure-induced hoop stress effect on fracture analysis of circumferential through-
wall cracked pipes. Engng Fract Mech 2002;69:1249–67.
[14] Kim YJ, Huh NS, Kim YJ. Reference stress based elastic–plastic fracture analysis for circumferential through-wall cracked pipes
under combined tension and bending. Engng Fract Mech 2002;69:367–88.
[15] Kim YJ, Huh NS, Park YJ, Kim YJ. Elastic–plastic J and COD estimations for axial through-wall cracked pipes. Int J Pressure
Vessels Piping 2002;79:451–64.
[16] Kim YJ, Kim JS, Kim YJ. Fracture analyses of circumferential surface cracked pipes. Int J Fract 2002;116:347–75.
[17] Pipe Fracture Encyclopedia. Battelle, 1997.
[18] Kim YJ, Schwalbe KH. Mismatch effect on plastic yield loads in idealised weldments: part I––weld metal cracks. Engng Fract
Mech 2001;682:163–82.
[19] Kim YJ, Kocßak M, Ainsworth RA, Zerbst U. SINTAP defect assessment procedure for strength mis-matched structures. Engng
Fract Mech 2000;67.6:529–46.
[20] Zahoor A. Ductile fracture handbook. Novetech Corp., 1991.
[21] Kumar V, German MD. Elastic-plastic fracture analysis of through-wall and surface flaws in cylinders. EPRI report NP-5596,
1988.
[22] Miller AG. Review of limit loads of structures containing defects. Int J Pressure Vessels Piping 1998;32:191–327.
[23] Miller AG, Ainsworth RA. Consistency of numerical results for power-law hardening materials and the accuracy of the reference
stress approximation. Engng Fract Mech 1989;32:237–47.
[24] Chapuliot S. K formula for pipes with a semi-elliptical longitudinal or circumferential, internal or external surface crack. Report
CEA-R-5900, CEA/Saclay, France, 2000.