This paper presents the estimation of the reliability levels associated with a cracked pipe found acceptable as per the failure assessment diagram (FAD) based acceptance criteria of ASME Section XI, Appendix H. This acceptance criterion is built on the concepts of fracture mechanics. The parameters which enter the acceptance criteria are piping geometry, applied loading, crack size, and the material properties (tensile and fracture). Most of these parameters are known to exhibit uncertainty in their values. The FAD used also has an associated modeling bias. The code addresses these uncertainties by providing a factor of safety on the applied load. The use of a common factor of safety for a variety of pipe sizes, crack configuration, load combination, and materials may not ensure consistent level of safety associated with the piping component being evaluated. This level of safety can be evaluated by using structural reliability concepts. This paper analyzes the reliability level which is achieved if a cracked pipe passes the acceptance criteria prescribed by the code. The reliability is evaluated for a range of pipe and crack geometry, different load combination, and different materials using Monte Carlo method. The realistic assessment of reliability also requires the assessment of modeling bias associated with the FAD. This bias is also evaluated using the results from the published fracture experiments.

References

References
1.
Milne
,
I.
,
Anisworth
,
R. A.
,
Dowling
,
A. R.
, and
Stewart
,
A. T.
,
1986
, “
Assessment of the Integrity of Structures Containing Defects
,” Central Electricity Generating Board, Leatherhead, Surrey, UK, Report No. R/H/R6.
2.
ASME
,
2010
, “
Section XI: Rules for Inservice Inspection of Nuclear Power Plant Components
,”
The American Society of Mechanical Engineers
, New York.
3.
API
,
2007
, “
Fitness-For-Service
,” American Petroleum Institute Publishing Services, Washington, DC, Standard No.
API 579-1/ASME FFS-1
.https://www.asme.org/products/courses/api-5791asme-ffs1-fitness-service
4.
BSI
,
1988
, “
Guidance on Methods for Assessing the Acceptability of Flaws in Fusion Welded Structures
,” British Standards Institution, London, Standard No. BS 7910:1998.
5.
SINTAP
,
1999
, “
Structural Integrity Assessment Procedure for European Industry
,” British Steel, Rotherham, UK, Brite-Euram Project No. BE95-1426.
6.
Bloom
,
J. M.
,
1991
, “
Appendix J—The Deformation Plasticity Failure Assessment Diagram (DPFAD) Approach to Evaluation of Flaws in Ferritic Piping
,”
Defect Assessment in Components—Fundamentals and Applications (ESIS/EGF9)
, Mechanical Engineering Publications, London.
7.
Bloom
,
J. M.
,
1995
, “
Deformation Plasticity Failure Assessment Diagram (DPFAD) for Material With Non-Ramberg-Osgood Stress Strain Curves
,”
ASME J. Pressure Vessel Technol.
,
117
(
4
), pp.
346
356
.
8.
Avrithi
,
K.
, and
Ayyub
,
B. M.
,
2009
, “
Strength Model Uncertainties of Burst, Yielding, and Excessive Bending of Piping
,”
ASME J. Pressure Vessel Technol.
,
131
(
3
), p.
031207
.
9.
Gupta
,
A.
, and
Byounghoan
,
C.
,
2003
, “
Reliability-Based Load and Resistance Factor Design for Piping: An Exploratory Case Study
,”
Nucl. Eng. Des.
,
224
(
2
), pp.
161
178
.
10.
BEG
,
2001
, “
Assessment of the Integrity of Structures Containing Defects, R6 Rev. 4
,” British Energy Generation Ltd., Gloucester, UK.
11.
AFCEN
,
2002
, “
RCC-MR Design and Construction Rules for Mechanical Components of FBR Nuclear Islands
,” Tour Framatome, Paris La Défense Cedex, France.
12.
Zahoor
,
A.
,
1991
,
Ductile Fracture Handbook
,
Nootech and EPRI
,
Palo Alto, CA
.
13.
Harrison
,
R. P.
,
Loosemore
,
K.
, and
Milne
,
I.
,
1976
, “
Assessment of the Integrity of Structures Containing Defects
,” Central Engineering Generating Board, London, CEGB Report No. R/H/6.
14.
Dugdale
,
D. S.
,
1960
, “
Yielding of Steel Sheets Containing Slits
,”
J. Mech. Phys. Solids
,
8
(
2
), pp.
100
104
.
15.
Bloom
,
J. M.
, and
Malik
,
S. N.
,
1982
, “
A Procedure for the Assessment of Integrity of Nuclear Pressure Vessels and Piping Containing Defects
,” Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA, EPRI Topical Report No. NP-2431, Research Project No. 1237-2.
16.
Bloom
,
J. M.
,
1996
, “
Technical Basis for the Extension of ASME Code Case N-494 for Assessment of Austenitic Piping
,”
ASME J. Pressure Vessel Technol.
,
118
(
4
), pp.
513
516
.
17.
RCP Consult GmbH
,
1991
2007
, “
COMREL and SYSREL, Componental and System Reliability Analysis, Users Manual
,” RCP Consult GmbH, Munich, Germany.
18.
Krishnaswamy
,
P.
,
Scott
,
P.
,
Mohan
,
R.
,
Rahman
,
S.
,
Choi
,
Y. H.
,
Brust
,
E.
,
Kilinski
,
T.
,
Francini
,
R.
,
Ghadiali
,
N.
,
Marschall
,
C.
, and
Wilkowski
,
G.
,
1995
, “
Fracture Behavior of Short Circumferentially SurfAce-Cracked Pipe
,” U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, Report No.
NUREG/CR-6298
.http://www.iaea.org/inis/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/27/031/27031852.pdf
19.
Wilkowski
,
G.
,
Schmidt
,
R.
,
Scott
,
P.
,
Olson
,
R.
,
Marschall
,
C.
,
Kramer
,
G.
, and
Paul
,
D.
,
1997
, “
International Piping Integrity Research Group (IPIRG) Program
,” Program Final Report, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, Report No.
NUREG/CR-6233
.https://inis.iaea.org/search/search.aspx?orig_q=RN:29006575
20.
Rahman
,
S.
,
Ghadiali
,
N.
,
Paul
,
D.
, and
Wilkowski
,
G.
,
1995
, “
Probabilistic Pipe Fracture Evaluations for Leak-Rate-Detection Applications
,” U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, Report No.
NUREG/CR-6004
.https://inis.iaea.org/search/search.aspx?orig_q=RN:26063653
21.
Rastogi
,
R.
,
Chattopadhyay
,
J.
,
Bhasin
,
V.
,
Vaze
,
K. K.
,
Kushwaha
,
H. S.
,
Lammert
,
R.
,
Wackenhut
,
G.
, and
Roos
,
E.
,
2011
, “
Estimation of Reliability Levels Associated With Fitness for Service Codes
,” Structural Mechanics in Reactor Technology (
SMiRT
), New Delhi, India, Nov. 6–11, Paper No. 587.https://repository.lib.ncsu.edu/bitstream/handle/1840.20/32627/p587.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
22.
ASME
,
2007
,
Research and Development Report Development of Reliability-Based Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) Methods for Piping
,
ASME
,
New York
.
23.
Khaleel
,
M. A.
, and
Simonen
,
F. A.
,
2009
, “
Evaluations of Structural Failure Probabilities and Candidate Inservice Inspection Programs
,” U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, Report No.
NUREG/CR-6986
https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML0916/ML091620307.pdf.
24.
Simonen
,
F. A.
,
Gosselin
,
S. R.
, and
Doctor
,
S. R.
,
2013
, “
Development of Flaw Size Distribution Tables Including Effects of Flaw Depth Sizing Errors for Draft 10CFR 50.61a (Alternate PTS Rule)
,” Task 4, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Washington, DC, No. JCN-N6398.
25.
Moles
,
M.
,
2004
, “
Defect Sizing in Pipeline Welds: What Can We Really Achieve?
,”
ASME
Paper No. PVP2004-2811.
You do not currently have access to this content.