Engineering Fracture Mechanics 68 (2001) 1709±1722

www.elsevier.com/locate/engfracmech

E€ect of nozzle geometry on leak-before-break analysis of

pressurised piping
Nam-Su Huh a, Yun-Jae Kim a, Young-Jin Kim a,*, Young-Joon Yu b,
Chang-Ryul Pyo c
a
School of Mechanical Engineering, Sungkyunkwan University, 300 Chunchun-dong, Jangan-gu, Suwon Kyonggi-do 440-746,
South Korea
b
Agency for Defense Development (ADD), Daejeon 305-600, South Korea
c
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Induk Institute of Technology, 139-749 Seoul, South Korea
Received 30 October 2000; received in revised form 22 February 2001; accepted 15 March 2001

Abstract
This paper reports the e€ect of a through-wall crack at the thickness transition near the pipe±nozzle interfaces on the
leak-before-break (LBB) analysis. Two pipe±nozzle models are considered, a safety injection line and a pressurised
surge line. Based on detailed three-dimensional, elastic±plastic ®nite element analyses, the e€ect of the thickness
transition on the J-integral and the crack opening area (COA) is elucidated by comparing the results with those from a
straight pipe model. To investigate the overall e€ects of the thickness transition on the LBB analysis, piping evaluation
diagrams are constructed. Further analyses are performed to investigate the e€ect of the detailed nozzle geometries on
the COA, to provide guidance on simplifying the LBB analysis for the pipe±nozzle models.
It is found that the regions for feasibility of applying the LBB concept are 30±190% larger when the thickness
transition in the pipe±nozzle model are explicitly considered in the analysis, than when the straight pipe model is used.
Among the parameters related to the shape of the nozzle geometry, the thickness of the pipe±nozzle junction is the most
signi®cant parameter on the COA, but the length of the nozzle has a minimal e€ect. The signi®cance of the tapered
angle between the pipe and the nozzle is somewhat in between. Ó 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Finite element analysis; J-integral; Crack opening area; Leak-before-break; Pipe±nozzle interface

1. Introduction

The leak-before-break (LBB) concept [1,2] is important for design and integrity evaluation of nuclear
piping. The fundamental premise of the LBB concept is that the materials used in nuclear power plant
piping are suciently tough that even a large through-wall crack, which could result in coolant leaking
rates well in excess of those detectable by present leak detection systems, would remain stable and thus not
result in a double-ended guillotine break under a maximum loading condition. Thus, to apply the LBB

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

0013-7944/01/$ - see front matter Ó 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 0 1 3 - 7 9 4 4 ( 0 1 ) 0 0 0 4 4 - 3
1710 N.-S. Huh et al. / Engineering Fracture Mechanics 68 (2001) 1709±1722

Nomenclature

a half crack length

d1 thickness of the connecting section between pipe and nozzle, see Fig. 10
E Young's modulus
J J-integral
Japp applied J-integral
Jmat material resistance in terms of J-integral
l length of the nozzle, see Fig. 10
n strain hardening index (1 6 n < 1) for Ramberg±Osgood model, Eq. (1)
T temperature
Tapp applied tearing modulus
Tmat material tearing modulus
a coecient of Ramberg±Osgood model
b half of total crack angle
d crack opening displacement at centre of crack
e strain, general
e0 normalising strain in the Ramberg±Osgood model, Eq. (1)
h tapered angle of the connecting section between pipe and nozzle, see Fig. 10
ry yield strength
ru ultimate tensile strength

concept, a crack instability evaluation based on elastic±plastic fracture mechanics should be performed,
which often requires highly specialised knowledge in elastic±plastic fracture mechanics and lengthy period
of time. To make the LBB analysis tractable for the initial piping design stage, numerous LBB evaluation
diagrams have also been proposed recently [3±5].
The LBB analysis is typically performed at the highest stress locations and very often such locations
occur at the pipe±nozzle interface location at the terminal end, where the thickness transition occurs. In
practice, such a problem may be analysed by simplifying the problem to that of a cracked straight pipe, as
schematically illustrated in Fig. 1. However, an accurate elastic±plastic fracture analysis should incorporate
the e€ect of such thickness transition on the J-integral as well as the crack opening displacement (COD) or
the COA. Despite its signi®cance in practical problems, there is currently no engineering model to cope with
such thickness transition e€ect. An initial attempt was made by Rahman et al. [6] where the e€ects of

Fig. 1. Typical idealisation of cracked pipe±nozzle model to the straight pipe model for the LBB analysis.
 N.-S. Huh et al. / Engineering Fracture Mechanics 68 (2001) 1709±1722 1711

thickness transition and geometric constraint on COD in carbon steel nozzle were investigated based on
three-dimensional (3D), elastic±plastic ®nite element (FE) analysis. However, their results are quite limited,
and moreover the e€ects were investigated only in terms of COD. Thus they failed to provide any signi®cant
guidance on incorporating the thickness-transition e€ect on the overall LBB analysis. Therefore, more
systematic analysis is needed to elucidate the e€ect of the thickness transition on the LBB analysis [7].
The objective of this paper is to investigate the e€ect of the thickness-transition in the pipe±nozzle in-
terface on the LBB analysis. Section 2 brie¯y describes two pipe±nozzle geometries considered in the
present work, and the corresponding FE models. Section 3 presents the results on the thickness-transition
e€ect on the detectable leakage crack (DLC) length and the J-integral. The e€ect of the thickness transition
on the LBB analysis is discussed in Section 4, by means of the piping evaluation diagram (PED). Section 4
further discusses the e€ect of the nozzle geometry on the J-integral and the COD. Section 5 concludes the
present work.

2. Finite element analysis

2.1. Geometries and materials

Two geometries for the pipe±nozzle interface were considered in the present work, the safety injection
line and the pressurised surge line in Korean pressurised water reactor (PWR) nuclear power plants [8±10].
Fig. 2 depicts these two geometries with relevant dimensions. For the safety injection line, the outer radius
and the thickness of the pipe are 178 and 36 mm, respectively, with the corresponding wall thickness
varying from 36 to 115 mm. On the other hand, for the pressurised surge line, the outer radius and the
thickness of the pipe are 162 and 33 mm, respectively, with the corresponding wall thickness varying from
33 to 119 mm, respectively.

Fig. 2. Two pipe±nozzle geometries considered in the present work: (a) safety injection line, and (b) pressurised surge line (unit: mm).
1712 N.-S. Huh et al. / Engineering Fracture Mechanics 68 (2001) 1709±1722

Table 1
Material properties (at 288°C) for the nozzle±pipe models considered in the present work
Piping system Material E (GPa) ry (MPa) ru (MPa) a n
Safety injection line SA312 TP316 190 159 466 0.65 5.98
SA508 Cl.1a 206 272 552 2.53 4.92
Pressurised surge SA312 TP347 174 113 400 1.27 3.74
line SA508 Cl.1a 189 158 474 0.45 5.40

These pipe±nozzle models consist of two di€erent materials, as indicated in Fig. 2. For both the safety
injection line and the pressurised surge line, the nozzle is made of a SA508 Class 1a carbon steel. The
material of the pipe for the safety injection line is a SA312 TP316 stainless steel, whereas that for the
pressurised surge line is a SA312 TP347 stainless steel. The weld metals between the nozzle and the pipe
were not explicitly considered in the present work, and were assumed to be the same as the nozzle materials.
The tensile properties of these materials at the temperature T ˆ 288°C are given in Table 1.
For both cases, a through-wall circumferential crack was assumed to be located on the safe-end that is a
junction of pipe and nozzle, as shown in Fig. 2. Near the crack, the thickness variation is quite complex, as
shown in Fig. 2, re¯ecting actual geometries for pipe±nozzle interfaces.

2.2. Finite element analysis

Detailed, 3D, elastic±plastic ®nite element analyses, modelling complex geometries shown in Fig. 2, were
carried out for the pipe±nozzle interface using the commercial ®nite element program, A B A Q U S [11]. The
FE mesh for the safety injection line, used in the present work, is shown in Fig. 3. Considering the sym-
metric condition, only one half of the pipe±nozzle interface was modelled using 20-nodes isoparametric
brick elements (the element type C3D20R in A B A Q U S ). To the thickness direction, two elements were used,
leading to the total number of 634 elements. The use of two elements through the thickness has been
justi®ed in the previous work [12], where the number of elements through the thickness direction have been
found not to a€ect the average FE J results and FE COD results. The subsequent work [13] compared the
maximum loads estimated from the FE J results with those from published test data, and suggested that the
FE results with two elements through the thickness gave the best results.
The plastic behaviour of the materials was represented by the Ramberg±Osgood (R±O) relation:
 n
e r r ry
ˆ ‡a with e0 ˆ 1†
e 0 ry ry E

Fig. 3. A typical three-dimensional mesh of the safety injection line.

 N.-S. Huh et al. / Engineering Fracture Mechanics 68 (2001) 1709±1722 1713

and the resulting R±O parameters, a and n, are given in Table 1. In Eq. (1), ry denotes the 0.2% proof stress
and E denotes Young's modulus. Within A B A Q U S , the deformation plasticity option was invoked with the
small geometry change option.
Combined internal pressure and bending moment was applied to the FE model in a non-proportional
manner. Firstly, the model was pressurised with an internal pressure of 15.5 MPa, corresponding to the
normal operating condition of the PWR nuclear power plant. Then the bending moment was applied to the
pressurised model. The detailed procedures of the FE analyses, including post-processing procedures, will
be described later in the relevant parts.

3. Results of ®nite element analysis

3.1. E€ect of nozzle on detectable leakage crack length

3.1.1. Finite element procedure

According to the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (USNRC) methodology of the LBB
analysis [1,2], the detectable leakage crack (DLC) length, producing the 10 gallon per minute (gpm) leak
rate, should be calculated. Then it should be shown that the pipe with such crack is still stable for normal
and faulty loading conditions, considering appropriate safety margins. For straight pipes, the PICEP code
[14], developed by Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), can be used to estimate the COD, the COA
and the DLC length for a given loading condition. For the pipe±nozzle problems, however, there is yet
no engineering method or code to estimate the DLC. Therefore, in practice, a pipe±nozzle problem would
be idealised by the corresponding straight pipe problem, as schematically illustrated in Fig. 1. Then the
question is whether such idealisation is acceptable for the LBB analysis.
To answer this question, the following steps were taken in the present work:
(1) Calculate the DLC length and the corresponding COA value for the straight pipe model using
PICEP, for a given load. The PICEP code assumes that the crack opening pro®le is elliptical, and thus the
crack opening area (COA) is estimated from the COD using 1

COD
COAPIPE ˆ pa 2†
2

where a denotes the crack length (Fig. 4). In this step, the straight pipe was assumed to be made of the
TP316 material for the safety injection line, and the TP347 for the pressurised surge line. Regarding the
loading conditions, the pipe model was subject to constant internal pressure with four di€erent magnitudes
of the bending moments, M ˆ 45:2, 113, 226, and 339 kN m. Note that the case of M ˆ 226 kN m corre-
sponds to the normal operating condition, and that the cases of M ˆ 45:2 kN m and M ˆ 339 kN m to the
lower bound condition and the upper bound condition, respectively [10].
(2) Find the crack length in the pipe±nozzle models, which produces the same COA value as that for the
straight pipe model. This crack length is the DLC length for the pipe±nozzle models. For the pipe±nozzle
model, the shape of the crack opening is asymmetric, as schematically shown in Fig. 5, and thus Eq. (2)
cannot be used. Therefore, in the present work, the COA for the pipe±nozzle models were calculated by
integrating the subareas using FE nodal displacements (see Fig. 5):

1
Note that this relationship holds only for elliptical symmetric crack opening pro®les, and thus for through-wall cracks in straight
pipes. It is not valid for the crack in the pipe±nozzle interface where the crack opening pro®le is not symmetric.
1714 N.-S. Huh et al. / Engineering Fracture Mechanics 68 (2001) 1709±1722

Fig. 4. De®nition of the COA used in LBB analysis.

Fig. 5. Schematic illustration for calculating the COA for the pipe±nozzle models using FE nodal displacements.

X1
COANOZZLE ˆ D1 D2 sin a
 2  3†
x3 x1 † x4 x2 † ‡ y3 y1 † y4 y2 †
a ˆ cos 1
D1 D2

where xi , yi (i ˆ 1±4) denotes the nodes coordinate and displacement, respectively (Fig. 5). As schematically
shown in Fig. 5, the right-hand side term in Eq. (3) represent the projection area of the hatched part in Fig.
5 using nodal displacements xi and yi . The total COA was obtained by simply adding all projected subarea
of FE nodal displacements associated with the crack face.

3.1.2. Results
Fig. 6 shows the ratio of the DLC length for the pipe±nozzle models to that for the straight pipe model,
for the safety injection line and the pressurised surge line. It shows the similar tendency, namely, that the
ratio increases as the applied moment increases in both pipe±nozzle models. However, for the pressurised
surge line, the ratio is greater than unity (which means that the DLC length for the pipe±nozzle model is
greater than that for the straight pipe model), whereas for the safety injection line, the ratio is always less
than unity. Such di€erence is believed to result from the e€ect of the taper angle for the pipe±nozzle model
and the resulting stress distributions near the crack location. Fig. 7 shows the crack opening stress dis-
tributions, obtained from uncracked body FE analysis (the safety injection line and the pressurised surge
line without the crack). The results showed that for the safety injection line, the maximum stress occurred at
the crack location, whereas for the pressurised surge line, about half of the maximum stress value at the
crack location. Such higher stress for the safety injection line results in larger plastic zone size and larger
COD (and COA) value for a given crack length. Thus, the crack lengths producing the same amount of
leakage should be smaller for the safety injection line than those for the pressurised surge line or for the pipe
model.
 N.-S. Huh et al. / Engineering Fracture Mechanics 68 (2001) 1709±1722 1715

Fig. 6. Ratios of the DLC lengths for the pipe±nozzle models to those for the pipe model.

Fig. 7. Crack opening stress distributions, determined from elastic±plastic FE uncracked body analyses for (a) the safety injection line
model, and (b) the pressurised surge line model.

3.2. E€ect of nozzle on the J-integral

3.2.1. Finite element procedure

In order to evaluate the e€ect of the nozzle on the J-integral due to applied load, the FE analyses for the
pipe±nozzle models and the straight pipe model with the equal crack length were performed. Regarding
1716 N.-S. Huh et al. / Engineering Fracture Mechanics 68 (2001) 1709±1722

loading conditions, the FE model was subject to constant internal pressure of 15.5 MPa, while the bending
moment was increased monotonically. The resulting J-integral values were obtained directly from the
A B A Q U S , using a domain integral method. For the safety injection line, only one crack length was assumed,
2b ˆ 35°, whereas for the pressurised surge line, four di€erent values of crack lengths were assumed,
2b ˆ 30°, 38°, 64° and 72°.

3.2.2. Results
Fig. 8 shows the ratio of the J-integral value obtained from the pipe±nozzle model (denoted as JNOZZLE )
to that from the pipe model (denoted as JPIPE ). The results show that the values of JNOZZLE =JPIPE are always
less than unity for both the safety injection line (Fig. 8a) and the pressurised surge line (Fig. 8b), implying
that the thickness transition in the nozzle provides the shielding e€ect on the J-integral. As the moment
increases, the ratio generally decreases, implying that the shielding e€ect is more signi®cant for the higher
bending moment. For a given moment, the shielding e€ect is more signi®cant in the pressurised surge line
than that in the safety injection line.

Fig. 8. Ratios of the J-integrals for the pipe±nozzle models to those for the straight pipe model: (a) the safety injection line model and
(b) the pressurised surge line model.
 N.-S. Huh et al. / Engineering Fracture Mechanics 68 (2001) 1709±1722 1717

4. Discussions

4.1. E€ect of nozzle on the leak-before-break analysis

In the previous section, the e€ect of the nozzle on the DLC length (or equivalently, on the COA) and the
J-integral has been investigated for two types of the pipe±nozzle models, the safety injection line and
the pressurised surge line. For the safety injection line, it was found that J values due to applied load for the
pipe±nozzle model were less than those for the straight pipe model, for a given crack size. Moreover, the
DLC lengths for the pipe±nozzle model were smaller than those for the pipe model. Thus, decrease both in
the J-integral and in the DLC length will increase a safety margin for the LBB application. On the other
hand, for the pressurised surge line, it was found that J values due to applied load for the pipe±nozzle
model were less than those for the straight pipe model, for a given crack size. However, the DLC lengths for
the pipe±nozzle model were larger than those for the pipe model. Although decrease in J-integral will in-
crease a safety margin for LBB application, increase in leakage crack length will decrease a safety margin.
To elucidate the overall e€ect of the nozzle on the LBB analysis, the LBB evaluating diagrams are con-
structed both for the straight pipe model and for the pipe±nozzle models, and compared, as described
below.

4.1.1. Construction of piping evaluation diagram (PED)

The PEDs are constructed for the safety injection line and the pressurised surge line, shown in Fig. 2. To
investigate the e€ect of nozzle geometry on LBB analysis, the results from the pipe±nozzle analysis are
compared with those from the straight pipe analysis. For pipe±nozzle analyses, the J-integral values were
estimated from detailed FE analyses using tensile properties of the nozzle and the pipe, described in the
previous sections. For the straight pipe analyses, on the other hand, the nozzle parts were neglected, and
the through-wall crack was assumed to locate in the pipe under symmetric conditions (see Fig. 1b). Thus for
the safety injection line, the J-integral values were estimated using the tensile properties of the SA312 TP316
base metal (Fig. 2a), whereas for the pressurised surge line, using the tensile properties of the SA312 TP347
base metal (Fig. 2b). According to the general methodology and criteria for developing the PED, based on
NUREG 1061, vol. 3 [1] and SRP 3.6.3 [2], the crack stability evaluation should be performed, which
requires the J±resistance (J±R) properties. In the present work, the toughness properties of the weld metal
were used for both pipe±nozzle and straight pipe analyses, namely, the J±R properties of the SA312 TP316
weld metal for the safety injection line, and those of the SA312 TP347 weld metal for the pressurised surge
line. The material properties for the construction of the PEDs were obtained from the database for do-
mestic LBB test results [15], from which the lower bound tensile and toughness properties were taken. The
minimum and the maximum normal operating (NOP) load magnitudes were set as wide as possible, based
on the actual load observed from the currently operating nuclear power plants.
To construct the PED, two steps were taken; one is to calculate the DLC length and the second to check
the crack stability. Firstly, for a given NOP load level, the DLC length producing the 10 gpm leak rate was
calculated. For the straight pipe model, this was done using the PICEP code [14] which also provides the
corresponding COA value. For the pipe±nozzle model, three-dimensional elastic±plastic FE analyses for
the detailed pipe±nozzle models were performed to ®nd the crack length producing the same COA value as
that determined from the straight pipe model. This crack length was taken as the DLC length for the pipe±
nozzle model.
The second step is to assess the crack stability. To consider appropriate margins, the stability was
checked at two points. One is to assess the stability of the crack of the length equal to twice the DLC length,
under the NOP plus safety shutdown earthquake (SSE) load. The psecond
 one is to assess the stability of the
crack of the length equal to the DLC length, but under the 2 (NOP ‡ SSE) load. The SSE load for
construction of the PED was calculated in accordance with NUREG 1061, vol. 3 [1]. For the crack stability
1718 N.-S. Huh et al. / Engineering Fracture Mechanics 68 (2001) 1709±1722

evaluation, the J-integral/tearing modulus (J =T ) method was used, which is brie¯y summarised here. The
instability point may be found by plotting Japp versus Tapp and Jmat versus Tmat on a single ®gure. The
material J±R curves can be obtained as:
C2
Jmat ˆ C1 Da† 4†
And di€erentiating Eq. (4) with the crack length gives Tmat as
dJmat C 1
ˆ Tmat ˆ C1 C2 Da† 2 5†
da
Expressing J in [kJ/m2 ] and Da in [mm], the lower bound toughness properties from the database for
Korean LBB test results [15] are C1 ˆ 1007:1 and C2 ˆ 0:34 for the SA312 TP316 weld metal; C1 ˆ 233:9
and C2 ˆ 0:60 for the SA312 TP347 weld metal. The applied tearing modulus, Tapp , was calculated as
follows. Firstly, using thep
FE analysis, the values of the J-integral for crack lengths of a Da, a, and a ‡ Da
were determined for the 2 (NOP ‡ SSE) load. The crack length increment, Da, was set to one-tenth of
crack length, Da ˆ 0:1a. Noting that three values of J, corresponding to three di€erent crack lengths are
available, the following equation for J was postulated as a function of crack length, a:
Japp ˆ c1 a2 ‡ c2 a ‡ c3 6†
Di€erentiating Eq. (6) with a gives Tapp as
dJapp
ˆ Tapp ˆ 2c1 a ‡ c2 7†
da
The crack is stable if Tapp < Tmat , and thus the instability point was found from the condition, Tapp ˆ Tmat .
This process was repeated under the (NOP ‡ SSE) load for the three crack lengths of 2a Da, a, and
2a ‡ Da, to check the crack stability at the other point. It should be noted that, to calculate the applied J
values, three-dimensional, elastic±plastic FE analyses were performed for both the straight pipe model and
the pipe±nozzle models.

4.1.2. Results
Fig. 9 shows the resulting PEDs for the safety injection line model and pressurised surge line model
(denoted as ``NOZZLE''), compared with those for the straight pipe model (denoted as ``PIPE''). In the
®gure, ``A'' indicates the result from the crack stability analysis for the DLC length, as discussed in the
previous sub-section. On the other hand, ``2A'' indicates the result from the crack stability analysis for
twice the DLC length. The results show that, for the safety injection line model, the allowable SSE loads are
70±190% larger than those for the pipe model. For the pressurised surge line model, on the other hand, the
allowable SSE loads are still 30±60% larger than those for the pipe model. These results suggest that, if the
LBB analysis for the pipe±nozzle model is carried out assuming the straight pipe model, the results will be
conservative. Moreover, if the thickness transitions in the nozzle parts are explicitly considered, the region
for feasibility of applying the LBB concept can increase signi®cantly.

4.2. E€ect of nozzle geometry on crack opening displacement

Analyses in the previous sections modelled detailed geometries in the pipe±nozzle models, which would
be dicult in practice. In this context, the e€ect of the detailed shape of the nozzle on the J-integral and the
COA is worth investigating. In this subsection, the results for the e€ect of the nozzle shape on the COA are
reported. To investigate the e€ect of the nozzle shape, the safety injection line model (see Fig. 2a) was taken.
The following parameters related to the shape of the nozzle are varied systematically; the nozzle length (l),
the thickness of the connecting section between pipe and nozzle (d1 ), and the tapered angle of connecting
 N.-S. Huh et al. / Engineering Fracture Mechanics 68 (2001) 1709±1722 1719

Fig. 9. Comparison of allowable SSE load regions for the pipe model and the pipe±nozzle models based on the piping evaluation
diagram: (a) the safety injection line, and (b) the pressurised surge line.

section between pipe and nozzle (h), as depicted in Fig. 10. All other dimensions were ®xed as the original
values of the safety injection line model, as shown in Fig. 2a.
Three-dimensional, elastic±plastic FE analyses were performed using A B A Q U S . The FE matrices for the
present sensitivity analysis are summarised in Table 2, giving a total of 13 runs. In the FE analysis, the FE
model was ®rstly pressurised with an internal pressure of 15.5 MPa. Then the bending moment of 45.2
kN m (which corresponds to the minimum NOP load) was applied to the pressurised model. Only one crack
length was assumed for all calculations, 2b ˆ 72°. The COA values were determined from the FE results,
using Eq. (3).
Fig. 11 shows resulting variations of the COA. The results in Fig. 11a show that the nozzle length, l, has
minimal e€ect on the COA, which suggests that detailed modelling of the nozzle length is not necessary for
the LBB analysis. Fig. 11b shows variation of the COA with the thickness of the connecting section between
pipe and nozzle (d1 ), which shows a signi®cant e€ect. The value of d1 a€ects the resulting COA signi®cantly
1720 N.-S. Huh et al. / Engineering Fracture Mechanics 68 (2001) 1709±1722

Fig. 10. Parameters related to the shape of the pipe±nozzle interface in the safety injection line for the present sensitivity analysis (all
other dimensions are ®xed, and can be referred to Fig. 2a).

Table 2
Summary of FE matrices for investigating the e€ect of nozzle geometries for the safety injection line on the COA
Case h (deg) d1 (mm) d2 (mm) l (mm)
1 14.6 43.7 115 140, 390, 580, 780
2 14.6 55, 80, 110, 170 115 152
3 13, 15, 25, 50, 70 43.7 Vary with h 152

Fig. 11. E€ect of the parameters related to the shape of the pipe±nozzle interface on COA: (a) the e€ect of l=d2 , (b) the e€ect of d1 , and
(c) the e€ect of h.
 N.-S. Huh et al. / Engineering Fracture Mechanics 68 (2001) 1709±1722 1721

when it is small. As it increases, the e€ect becomes smaller. This indicates that the thickness of the pipe±
nozzle junction region has a signi®cant impact on feasibility of application of LBB concept, suggesting that
it should be modelled in detail. The e€ect of the tapered angle, h, on the COA is shown in Fig. 11c, which
shows the similar tendency to that of d1 . There is a signi®cant change in crack opening area when the angle
is small, while there is not any change when the angle is large (usually when h is equal or greater than
approximately 20°). It also explains the di€erence of the DLC length for the safety injection line and the
pressurised surge line (see Fig. 6). That is, leakage crack length has been reduced by increase in COA of
nozzle in the safety injection line model with a smaller angle of nozzle (h ˆ 14:6°) compared to that of in the
pressurised surge line model (h ˆ 27°).

5. Conclusions

This paper reports the e€ect of the through-wall crack at the thickness transition near the pipe±nozzle
interfaces on the LBB analysis. Two pipe±nozzle models are considered, the safety injection line and the
pressurised surge line. Based on detailed three-dimensional, elastic±plastic FE analyses, the e€ect of the
thickness transition on the J-integral and the COA is elucidated by comparing the results with those from
the straight pipe model. To investigate overall e€ects of the thickness transition on the LBB analysis, the
piping evaluation diagrams are constructed. Further analyses are performed to investigate the e€ect of the
detailed nozzle geometries on the COA, to provide guidance on simplifying the LBB analysis for the pipe±
nozzle models.
The following conclusions are obtained from the present investigation.

· The ratios of the DLC lengths for the pipe±nozzle models to those for the pipe model, DLCNOZZLE =
DLCPIPE , increase with the applied load. However, for the safety injection line, the ratios are less than
unity, whereas for the pressurised surge line, they are greater than unity.
· The ratios of the J-integrals for the pipe±nozzle models to those for the pipe model are less than unity for
both safety injection line and pressurised surge line models.
· The piping evaluation diagrams, using typical properties for PWR nuclear pipings, show that the regions
for feasibility of applying the LBB concept are 30±190% larger when the thickness transitions in the
pipe±nozzle model are explicitly considered in the analysis, than when a simple straight pipe model is
used. This also means that if the LBB analysis for the pipe±nozzle model is carried out assuming the
straight pipe model, the results will be conservative.
· Among the parameters related to the shape of the nozzle geometry, the thickness of pipe±nozzle junction
is the most signi®cant parameter on the COA, but the length of the nozzle has a minimal e€ect. The sig-
ni®cance of the tapered angle between the pipe and the nozzle is somewhat in between.

Acknowledgements

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

References

[1] Evaluation of potential for pipe break. NUREG 1061, vol. 3, 1984.
[2] Leak Before Break evaluation procedure. SRP 3.6.3, 1987.
1722 N.-S. Huh et al. / Engineering Fracture Mechanics 68 (2001) 1709±1722

[3] Nana AD, Yoon KK. Leak-before-break allowable load windows approach. Trans ASME Pressure Vessels Piping Conf
1994;287:35±41.
[4] Fabi RJ, Peck DA. Leak-before-break piping evaluation diagram. Trans ASME Pressure Vessels Piping Conf 1994;283:111±5.
[5] Swamy SA, Mandava PR, Bhowmick DC, Prager DE. LBB considerations for a new plant design. NEA-CSNI/R (95)
1996;18.1:199±205.
[6] Rahman S, Ghadiali N, Wilkowski GM, Moberg F, Brickstad B. Crack-opening-area analyses for circumferential through-wall
cracks in pipes ± Part III: O€-center cracks, restraint of bending, thickness transition and weld residual stresses. Int J Pressure
Vessels Piping 1998;75:397±415.
[7] Lee JB, Choi YH. Application of LBB to high energy pipings of a pressurized water reactor in Korea. Nucl Engng Des
1999;190:191±5.
[8] Huh NS, Lee CH, Kim YJ, Seok CS, Pyo CR. Development of a simpli®ed design method for LBB application to nuclear piping.
J Korea Inst Ind Safety 1999;142:32±41.
[9] Kim YJ, Lee YZ, Huh NS, Pyo CR, Yang JS. Development of modi®ed piping evaluation diagram for leak-before-break
application to Korean next generation reactor. Nucl Engng Des 1999;191:135±45.
[10] Final safety analysis report (YGN 3/4). Technical Report, KOPEC, 1993.
[11] A B A Q U S User's manual. Hibbitt, Karlson & Sorensen, 1999.
[12] Yang JS, Kim BN, Park CY, Park YS, Yoon KS. A simple method for estimating e€ective J-integral in LBB application to
nuclear power plant piping system. Trans 15th Int Conf Struct Mech Reactor Technol V, 1999. p. 327±34.
[13] Huh NS, Kim YJ, Pyo CR, Yu YJ. E€ect of ®nite element model on the integrity evaluation of nuclear piping. J Korea Inst Ind
Safety 2000;15.2:51±8.
[14] Norris DM, Chexal B. PICEP: pipe crack evaluation program. EPRI NP 3596-SR, 1987.
[15] Kim YJ, Suh MW, Jun HK, Park YW, Choi YH. Development of expert system for nuclear piping integrity. Nucl Engng Des
1997;174:69±78.