Proceedings of the ASME 2018
Pressure Vessels and Piping Conference
FORMULA FOR ESTIMATION OF EFFECTIVE APPLIED LOAD AT CRACKED
SECTION CONSIDERING COMPLIANCE CHANGE
AND ITS APPLICATION UNDER DYNAMIC LOADING CONDITIONS
1
Yeji Kim
Korea Institute of Nuclear Safety
Daejeon, Republic of Korea
Yun-Jae Kim
Korea University
Seoul, Republic of Korea
ABSTRACT
The refinement of the piping integrity assessment methods
has emerged as a priority issue, in response to heightened
concerns about the beyond design basis accident following
several events. The compliance change in structures may have a
significant influence on the fracture estimation. For instance,
the deformation of a crack in the piping system may result in a
decrease of the applied moment at the cracked section. To
consider these effects, the authors have developed the general
formula for prediction of the effective applied moment at
circumferential cracked section based on the elastic beam
theory. Using the developed formula, one can evaluate the
extent of the load reduction at a crack position due to the
change in compliance. This paper aims to expand the
applicability of the formula for dynamic loading conditions. By
conducting the time history analysis using FE model
accompanying the comparisons with the piping system
experiment results, it was confirmed that the formula is also
available for dynamic loading conditions. It is expected that the
proposed formula can be implemented in sthe piping integrity
assessment to consider the restraint effect.
INTRODUCTION
After the occurrences of the several beyond design basis
earthquakes, it is required to verify the seismic capacity of the
1
The previous affiliation: Korea University, Seoul, Republic of Korea
1 Copyright © 2018 ASME
Downloaded From: https://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org on 03/28/2019 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
PVP2018
July 15-20, 2018, Prague, Czech Republic
PVP2018-84877
Young-Jin Oh
KEPCO Engineering and Construction
Gimcheon, Republic of Korea
Il-Soon Hwang
Seoul National University
Seoul, Republic of Korea
nuclear power plant for higher levels of external events than
assumed for design. To this end, the more accurate evaluation
methods of piping systems behavior including detailed analysis
are being developed [1-3]. The detailed elastic-plastic analysis
can produce more realistic results considering the reduced
response due to the plasticity. In addition to that, the local
compliance change due to the crack also can reduce the
response at the cracked section.
This effect was considered as an important element that
should be incorporated into the piping fracture evaluation in the
earlier studies [4]. In the current practice, the applied load
obtained from an uncracked pipe analysis is used in a fracture
analysis that has an assumption that the pipe ends are free to
rotate. The restrained boundary conditions, however, can reduce
the behavior of a crack. On this reason, there have been
extensive studies to quantify the impact of the restraint effects
on two key steps, including the calculation of crack opening
displacement(COD) and crack stability analysis [5-8].
Although the restraint effects were dealt on the calculation
of COD and crack stability analysis separately, these are
simultaneous phenomena caused by the decreases in the applied
moment at the cracked section due to the pipe restraint. In this
context, the authors have developed a unified formula of the
restraint coefficient to determine the effective applied moment
at a postulated cracked section considering the boundary
conditions that can be utilized to a balanced analysis of both
COD and flaw stability [9-12].
 One of the key conclusions was that using the proposed For convenience, the behavior of crack is separated from a
formula, one can evaluate the extent of the load reduction at a piping system. The change in system compliance due to a crack
crack position due to the change in compliance. This also means is reflected using the compliance of a crack(Gcrack) which is the
that a load calculated from an uncracked piping analysis results additional deformation due to a crack per unit moment (M) of
could be converted to a load at cracked section by using the axial force (P) (see Eq. (2))
formula.
This paper aims to expand the applicability of the formula    cracked pipe  uncracked pipe
by applying for dynamic loading conditions. The procedure to Gcrack , , M  
 M M (2)
evaluate the load reduction using the restraint coefficient is 
introduced. An example analysis is then conducted to validate G   cracked pipe  uncracked pipe

crack , , P  
the developed formulations under the seismic loading condition 
 P P
including the comparison with the experimental results.
where ψcracked pipe and ψuncracked pipe are the rotational
displacement of cracked and uncracked pipe, respectively.
EFFECTIVE APPLIED LOAD FORMULA [11,12] These can be obtained from FE analysis or analytical solutions.
Then the compliance matrix of the crack can be represented as
The authors have proposed the concept of effective applied follow;
moment(Meff,app) in the earlier paper, and developed the restraint
coefficient(see Eq. (1)) for straight pipe containing a 0 0 0 0 0 0 
circumferential crack [9,10].  
0 0 0 0 0 0  (3)
0 0 0 0 0 0 
M eff ,app G crack  
restraint coefficient  CRest   (1) 0 0 0 0 0 0 
M app 0 0 0 0 0 0 
 
 Gcrack , F 0 0 0 0 Gcrack , M z 
 x

where Mapp is the moment at a crack position calculated from

uncracked piping system analysis. Through subsequent studies, Determine the compliance matrices of the pipe
this concept was expanded the complex piping system based on
the compliance approach [11,12]. Then the general formula
which can be applicable regardless of the geometries of piping
system was developed. In this section, the procedures to
evaluate the effective applied load using the formula are
introduced.

Determine Mapp and Papp

Figure 2 Depict of procedure for calculating pipe
y compliance [11,12]

x Crack position The next step is to determine the compliances matrices of

piping on both sides of the crack. To calculate Gpipe,1, exclude
z
boundary conditions of region 2. Then impose the unit forces
(Fx, Fy, Fz) and moments (Mx, My, Mz) on the crack position and
calculate the deformation (x, y, z, θ, ϕ, ψ) to produce the
Figure 1 An arbitrary piping system[11,12] compliance matrix as Eq.(4) (see Figure 2).

Figure 1 represents a generalized three-dimensional piping  Gxi Fx Gxi Fy Gxi Fz Gxi M x Gxi M y Gxi M z 
system. First step is to calculate the anticipated load at a  
postulated cracked section (bending moment and axial force)  G yi Fx Gyi Fy Gyi Fz Gyi M x Gyi M y Gyi M z 
  (4)
based on the general piping analysis without the consideration  Gzi Fx Gzi Fy Gzi Fz Gzi M x Gzi M y Gzi M z 

Gi M z 
of crack. G pipe,i
 Gi Fx Gi Fy Gi Fz Gi M x Gi M y
G Gi Fy Gi Fz Gi M x Gi M y Gi M z 
Define a compliance matrix of a crack  i Fx 
 G F G i Fy G i Fz G i M x G i M y G i M z 
 ix 

2 Copyright © 2018 ASME

Downloaded From: https://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org on 03/28/2019 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 The subscript i represents the region index (1 or 2) of the The results of the simulated seismic pipe system
pipe, and Gpipe,i is the pipe compliance matrix of region i. For a experiment (Experiment 1-1) of the second international piping
case of region 2, repeat vice versa and determine Gpipe,2. integrity research group (IPIRG-2) program [13-15] are utilized
for verification. The main purpose of Experiment 1-1 was to
Determine the restraint coefficient investigate the behavior of piping system containing a
circumferential surface crack under simulated seismic loading
Using the compliance of crack and pipe obtained from condition. Figure 3 shows the diagram of the piping system
previous steps, the restraint coefficient can be determined as used in the experiment. The straight pipe was fabricated from
follow: ASTM A710, Grade A, Class 3 pipe (sch. 100) and
interconnected elbows were of the type WPHY-65 (sch. 100 and
  Papp  M 6,6 160).
CRest , M  1   Gcrack , , M  Gcrack , , P  
  M app  det  A 

  M app  M 6,1
 CRest , P  1   Gcrack , M  P  Gcrack , , P   det A
  app   
A  G pipe,1,crack  G pipe,2,crack  G crack (5)

M 6,6 , M 6,1  minor of matrix A

where Mi,j is the minor of the matrix A that is the determinant of

the smaller matrix formed by eliminating the i-th row and the j-
th column from the matrix A.

Calculate the effective applied loads

W E
Calculate the effective applied moment and force by
multiplying the restraint coefficient on Mapp or Papp using Eq. =0.383
(6).
Figure 3 Schematic diagram of piping in the experiment 1-1
 M eff ,app  CRest , M  M app of IPIRG-2 [15]
 (6)
 Peff ,app  CRest , P  Papp
Determine Mapp using time history analysis for
uncraked piping system
APPLICATION OF FORUMLA FOR DYNAMIC
To determine Mapp, a time history analysis using FE model
LOADING CONDITION
was conducted. The straight pipe and elbow were simulated
using PIPE31 which is one of the beam element of the finite
In the earlier studies, the formula for effective applied load
element computer code ABAQUS [16]. The mass of the valve
was verified against the finite element(FE) analysis under static
(1950kg) and restraint device (320kg) in the cracked section
loading conditions including internal pressure, thermal load,
were represented as the point mass and distributed mass
relative displacement, and dead weight. It was also found that
respectively. The detail information about pipe configurations
the more accurate value of COD and crack stability can be
are described in the reports [15], and Table 1 summarizes the
estimated [9,10]. In this section, an example analysis was
material properties applied to the analysis referred from ASME
conducted to validate the developed formulations under the
Code [17].
dynamic loading condition. The effective applied moment
The detailed dynamic analysis proceeded according to the
predicted using the restraint coefficient was compared with the
procedure developed in previous research [18]. From the mode
experimental measurements of the experiment 1-1 of IPIRG-2
analysis, important modes were selected considering the
and dynamic analysis results.
direction of the dominant behavior (1st-4.60 Hz and 9th-43.51
Hz). The Rayleigh damping coefficients then were calculated as
Piping system experiment for simulated seismic
α=2.354257 and β=0.000298 using the measured damping ratio
loading
(4.5%).
Then time history analysis for an uncracked pipe was
conducted. The calculated applied moment at the crack position

3 Copyright © 2018 ASME

Downloaded From: https://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org on 03/28/2019 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 is shown in Figure 7. The maximum value of 699.87 kN∙m was Define the compliances of the pipes
determined as Mapp.
To calculate the compliance matrices, the piping system
Table 1 Material properties applied to the FE analysis was separated into region 1 (from anchor 1 to crack) and region
2 (from crack to anchor 2). Based on the linear elastic FE
Elastic Thermal Expansion
Density Poisson’s analysis using beam model in Figure 6, the compliance matrices
(288 °C) Modulus Instantaneous Mean were derived as follows;
ratio
[MPa] [m/m/C] [m/m/C] [ton/mm3] Actuator Valve
A710 185469.0 14.76 13.14 7.76E-09 0.3
WPHY pipe1
185469.0 14.76 13.14 7.76E-09 0.3
65
TP304
176505.8 19.08 17.64 8.03E-09 0.31 Crack
(crack) Hanger
pipe2
Define a compliance of crack, Gcrack Anchor1

The test specimen including the surface crack of IPIRG-2

piping system experienced the plastic behavior. Thus, the N
W
compliance of the crack was determined based on the elastic- Hanger
plastic finite element analysis using the reduced integration 20- S E

noded continuum elements which is depicted in Figure 4. The Anchor2

rotation due to only a bending moment was considered because
the effect of axial force was negligible in the experiment. The Figure 6 FE model for determining compliance of pipe
rotational compliance of crack was represented as a function of
 5.93E-04 6.56E-04 5.82E-06 -6.89E-10 -9.46E-10 1.71E-07 
applied bending moment as shown in Figure 5.  
 6.56E-04 1.30E-03 2.82E-06 -3.02E-10 -4.72E-10 3.33E-07 
 5.82E-06 2.82E-06 2.03E-03 -1.14E-07 -4.16E-07 9.77E-10 
G pipe,1   
 -6.89E-10 -3.02E-10 -1.14E-07 8.61E-11 1.33E-11 -1.04E-13 
 -9.46E-10 -4.72E-10 -4.16E-07 1.33E-11 1.04E-10 -1.63E-13 
 
 1.71E-07 3.33E-07 9.77E-10 -1.04E-13 -1.63E-13 1.00E-10 

 3.00E-03 8.99E-04 6.96E-05 0.00E+0 3.51E-08 -4.54E-07 

 
 8.99E-04 3.68E-04 1.59E-05 4.63E-10 7.61E-09 -1.89E-07 
 6.96E-05 1.59E-06 6.15E-04 4.71E-08 2.75E-07 -7.61E-09 
G pipe,2  
 0.00E+0 4.63E-10 4.71E-08 5.20E-11 -5.32E-13 0.00E+0 
 3.51E-08 7.61E-09 2.75E-07 -5.32E-13 1.48E-10 -3.84E-12 
 
 -4.54E-07 -1.89E-07 -7.61E-09 0.00E+0 -3.84E-12 1.04E-10 

Figure 4 FE model for determining compliance of crack

Determine the restraint coefficient and calculate the
effective applied moment
3.00E-011
When the plastic behavior is considered, the compliance
depends on the magnitude of applied load. Thus an iterative
GCrack,PE [rad/N-m]

2.00E-011 calculation should be performed to obtain the effective applied

moment using Eq. (7).

M eff ,app  CRest , M  M eff ,app   M app

1.00E-011

 M 
0.00E+000 Equivalent Crack length ()  1  Gcrack , , M z  M eff , app   6,6   M app
0.383  det A 
(7)
where M 6,6  minor of matrix A
8 8 8 8
0.0 2.0x10 4.0x10 6.0x10 8.0x10
Applied Moment [N-m]
Figure 5 Compliance of crack obtained from FE analysis A  G pipe,1  G pipe,2  Gcrack

4 Copyright © 2018 ASME

Downloaded From: https://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org on 03/28/2019 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 Mi Applied bending moment (i=x, y, z)
Using compliance matrices and Mapp of 699.87 kN∙m which Mapp Applied moment at a cracked section calculated
are given above, CRest,M and Meff,app were determined as 0.8511 from uncracked pipe analysis
and 595.69 kN∙m, respectively.
Mi,j Minor of a matrix (Determinant of smaller
matrix formed by eliminating i-th row and j-th
Evaluation results
column from a matrix)
It was found that the prediction based on the developed Meff,app Effective applied moment at a cracked section
procedure (595.69 kN∙m) has good agreement with both the considering the effects of pipe restraint
experimental data (597.66 kN∙m), and time history analysis with
xi, yi, zi Displacement of pipe of region i (i=1, 2)
cracked pipe model was performed in previous study as well
(600.01 kN∙m) [18]. Therefore, the concept of effective applied θi, ϕi, ψi Rotation of pipe of region i (i=1, 2)
moment can be utilized for the pipe integrity assessment under
transient operating conditions. REFERENCES

[1] Kasahara, N., Sato, T., “Difference of Strength Evaluation

Approach Between for DBE and for BDBE”, Proceedings
CONCLUSIONS of ASME 2017 PVP Conference, Hawaii, US, 2017.
[2] Morishita. M., Otani, A., Watakabe, T., Nakamura. I.,
In this paper, the applicability of the formula for effective Shibutani. T., Shiratori. M., “Seismic Qualification of
applied load is verified under dynamic loading conditions. By Piping Systems by Detailed Inelastic Response Analysis
conducting the time history analysis using FE model Part 1-A Code Case for Piping Seismic Evaluation Based
accompanying the comparisons with the piping system on Detailed Inelastic Response Analysis”, Proceedings of
experiment results, it was confirmed that the formula is also ASME 2017 PVP Conference, Hawaii, US, 2017.
available for dynamic loading conditions. [3] Nakamura, I., Otani, A., Morishita, M., Shiratori, M.,
When it comes to the practical perspective regarding the Watakabe, T., Shibutani, T., “Seismic Qualification of
restraint coefficient, two aspects can be inferred from the Piping Systems by Detailed Inelastic Response Analysis
evaluation results. First, the implementing of the formula into Part 3-Variation in Elastic-Plastic Analysis Results on
the current practice of pipe fracture analysis gives more Carbon Steel Pipes from the Benchmark Analyses and the
accurate results of cracked pipe behavior. Furthermore, this can Parametric Analysis”, Proceedings of ASME 2017 PVP
be used to secure the margin of the existing pipe analysis Conference, Hawaii, US, 2017.
results. [4] Wilkowski, G. M., Richard J. Olson, and P. M. Scott.,
Second, the time history analysis of the piping system for “State-of-the-art report on piping fracture mechanics”, No.
various crack length can be replaced with a single uncracked NUREG/CR-6540, Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
pipe system analysis using the restraint coefficient for various Battelle, 1998.
crack lengths. It may help to improve the efficiency in case of [5] Rahman, S., Brust, F., Ghadiali, N., Choi, Y.,
that requires a significant number of calculations. Krishnaswamy, P., Moberg, F., Brickstad, B., Wilkowski,
G., “Refinement and evaluation of crack-opening-area
analyses for circumferential through-wall cracks in pipes”,
NOMENCLATURE NUREG/CR-6300, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
1995.
COD Crack opening displacement [6] Miura, N., “Evaluation of Crack Opening Behavior for
IPIRG International Piping Integrity Research Group Cracked Pipes-Effect of Restraint on Crack Opening”,
ASME-PUBLICATIONS-PVP, Vol.423, 2001, pp. 135-
CRest,F Force restraint coefficient
143.
CRest,M Moment restraint coefficient [7] Kim, J.-W., “A practical application of an evaluation
Papp Applied axial force at a cracked section model for the restraint effect of pressure-induced bending
calculated from uncracked pipe analysis on a plastic crack opening”, International Journal of
Peff,app Effective applied axial force at a cracked section Pressure Vessels and Piping 85, 2008, pp. 557-568.
considering the effects of pipe restraint [8] B.A. Young, R.J. Olson, “System Stiffness and Restraint
Effects on Circumferential Crack Opening Displacements:
Fi Applied force (i=x, y, z) A Rotational Stiffness Approach”, Proceedings of ASME
Gcrack Compliance matrix of a crack 2015 PVP Conference, Boston, Massachusetts, US, 2015.
Gpipe,i Compliance matrix of a pipe (i=1 or 2) [9] Kim, Y., Oh, Y. J., and Park, H. B., “Effect of Pipe
Restraint on the Conservatism of Leak-Before-Break

5 Copyright © 2018 ASME

Downloaded From: https://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org on 03/28/2019 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 Design of Nuclear Power Plant”, Proceedings of ASME
2015 PVP Conference, Boston, Massachusetts, US, 2015.
[10] Kim, Y., Hwang, I. S., Oh, Y. J., “Effective applied
moment in circumferential through-wall cracked pipes for
leak-before-break evaluation considering pipe restraint
effects”, Nuclear Engineering and Design, 301, 2016, pp.
175-182.
[11] Kim, Y., “Development of Effective Applied Moment
Formulations for Integrity Assessment of Nuclear Piping
Systems under Static and Dynamic Loading Conditions”,
Ph.D. Thesis, Seoul National University, 2017.
[12] Kim, Y., Hwang, I. S., Oh, Y. J., “A Unified Formula for
Evaluating Load Reduction by Change in Stiffness of
Circumferential Crack considering General Piping
Systems”, International journal of Pressure Vessels and
Piping, Manuscript submitted for publication.
[13] Hopper, A. et al., “The Second International Piping
Integrity Research Group (IPIRG-2) Program”,
NUREG/CR-6452, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
1997.
[14] Scott, P. et al., “IPIRG-2 Task 1 - Pipe System
Experiments with Circumferential Cracks in Straight-Pipe
Locations”, NUREG/CR-6839, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, 1997.

[15] Scott, P.M., Olson, R.J., and Wilkowski, G.M., “Data

record book entry 1.2.8.8 For IPIRG-2 Experiment 1-1”,
Battelle, 1995.
[16] ABAQUS Version 6.16, Analysis User’s Manual, Dassault
Systems Simulia Corp. 2016.
[17] ASME B&PV Code Committee, ASME B&PV Code Sec.
II, Part D. Properties, 2010.
[18] Kim, Y., Oh, Y. J., and Park, H. B., “The Conservatism of
Leak Before Break Analysis in terms of the Applied
moment at Cracked Section”, Proceedings of the ASME
2016 PVP conference, Vancouver, British Columbia,
Canada, 2016.

800
Applied Moment at Cracked Section [kN-m]

600

400

200

-200

-400

-600

-800 Mapp = 699.887 kN-m Uncracked pipe

-1000
0 5 10 15
time [sec]
Figure 7 The results of time history analysis of Experiment 1-1 of IPIRG-2 without consideration of crack

6 Copyright © 2018 ASME

Downloaded From: https://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org on 03/28/2019 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use