METAL 2002 14. 16. 5.

2002, Hradec nad Moravic

1
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND OF "LEAK-BEFORE-BREAK" AS A
CONCEPT IN PRESSURE VESSELS DESIGN
rka Pacholkov
a
Howard Taylor
b
a
V- NOV HU!, a.s., Vratimovsk 689, 707 02 Ostrava-Kun"ice, CZ,
E-mail: spacholkova@novahut.cz
b
DEPARTMENT OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY, Manchester Metropolitan
University, Chester Street, Manchester, M# 5GD, UK
, E-mail: h.taylor@mmu.ac.uk
Abstract
In pressure vessels, cracks can initiate from regions of high stress concentration or
from defects, which are already present in the vessels, usually in welds. There are generally
two possible modes of failure, depending on the load and the toughness of the material.
Either the crack grows steadily through the wall by fatigue to form a stable "through-crack",
or it becomes unstable before or after it has reached the rear surface and spreads rapidly over
a large portion of the vessel. In the former case, which is called "leak-before-break", there is
a chance for damage to be detected or for the internal pressure to be relieved before sudden
catastrophic failure of the vessel. Therefore, LBB behaviour is an important requirement for
the safe design and re-assessment of pressure vessels.
This paper reviews the principles of LBB and discusses the importance of crack shape
development and crack leakage rates in the implementation of LBB. The current role of LBB
as a tool in structural integrity safety cases and its place alongside other techniques such as
NDT is also discussed.
1. INTRODUCTION
As a result like fatigue, creep, or stress corrosion, a crack can be initiated and grow in
a structural part under relatively small stresses. In case of pressure vessels, such cracks are
usually formed at one surface and grow to the other. There are generally two possible modes
of failure, depending on the load (pressure) and the toughness of the material. Either the
crack grows steadily through the wall to form a stable "through-crack", or it becomes
unstable before or after it has reached the rear surface and spreads rapidly over a large
portion of the vessel. In the former case, which is called "leak-before-break" (LBB), there is a
chance for damage to be detected or for the internal pressure to be relieved before it comes to
a sudden catastrophic rupture of vessel. Therefore, LBB behaviour is an important
requirement for the safety of pressure-containing structures. LBB design gives sufficient
warning before leading to catastrophic failure of structures.
2. REVIEW OF WORK RELATED TO LBB
In LBB design, an initial crack is assumed to be present at highly probable location of
crack initiation site. The evolution of crack is predicted using fracture mechanics principles.
LBB design ensures that the crack grows through the thickness leading to detectable leakage
and demonstrates that the crack will stable under the maximum loading conditions between
the successive inspections. Many authors have investigated and experimentally demonstrated
LBB [1, 2]. Zhukov et al. [1] determined the criteria of leakage occurrence as applied to
pressure vessels. The criteria for rupture of the elastic plastic bridge ahead of the part through
crack were developed in their work. Poussard et al. [2] carried out high temperature LBB
experimental studies on austenitic stainless steel surface cracked plates. However at high
temperatures, deceleration in crack growth with increasing values of stress intensity factor
range was observed. Review of some LBB research activities undertaken by various research
organizations throughou the world at different time can be found in [3].
The concept of LBB is applied mainly to the design of nuclear power plants. Various
countries such as the USA, UK, Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Czech Republic, Russia and
J apan have changed or are in process of changing the regulatory procedures to accommodate
LBB for pressure vessels and pipework in nuclear design [4-8].
Experimental studies to characterise crack behaviour in relation to pressure vessels
integrity was extremely time consuming and costly. With the advent of computers, the use of
finite element modelling has enabled such characterisation to be easier and economically
viable [9].
3. GENERAL LEAK-BEFORE-BREAK CRITERION
A general leak-before-break criterion can be derived on the basis of accepted fracture
mechanics principles [10]. The fracture condition for a surface flaw is:
a
s
R p
M K
K ct

= 1 12 , 1 (1)
in which K
ct
is the fracture toughness of the material for crack propagation in the thickness
direction, p is the internal pressure, R is the radius of vessel, s is the wall thickness, M
K
is the
Kobayashiho stress intensity magnification factor [11] accounting for the proximity of the
front free surface. The dependenceof the M
K
on a shape of defect
a
c 2
is shown in Figure 1.
is an elliptical integral of the second kind, given by

d
c
a c
2
1
2 /
0
2
2
2 2
sin 1

= (2)
where a is the depth and c the length of a crack. It is possible to develop a series expansion
for :

|
|

\
|

= ...
64
3
4
1
1
2
2
2
2 2
2
2 2
c
a c
c
a c
. (3)
Even for a ratio a/c approaching zero the third term can be neglected, then by taking
= +
3
8 8
2
2
a
c
and using eq (1), the pressure p
#
for unstable propagation of the surface flaw
is:
METAL 2002 14. 16. 5. 2002, Hradec nad Moravic
3
Figure 1. Kobayashi stress intensity magnification factor [11].
a
s
R
M
K
c
a
p
K
ct

+
=
1 12 , 1
3
8
2
2
1
(4)
The surface flaw will develop into a through crack of size 2c. The stress intensity factor for a
through-the-thickness crack of length 2c is given by:
( ) c M K
F c
= , (5)
where M
F
() is the Folias correction for bulging [12], is the hoop stress, =
pR
s
, K
c
is the
fracture toughness for crack growth in the axial direction. According to eq (5), the pressure
p
2
, causing unstable propagation of the through crack, given by
( ) c
s
R
M
K
p
F
c

=
2
(6)
The crack arrest may occur if the pressure to propagate the through crack of length 2c is
larger than the pressure for instability of a flaw with depth a. Hence, the leak-before-break
criterion follows from p
2
>p
#
, or by using eqs (4) and (6):
( )
c
a
s
R
M
S
R
M
c
a
K
K
K
F
ct
c

+
>
1 12 , 1
3
8
2
2

(7)
For thin walled pressure vessels the R/s ratio is large and surface flaws are usually in the
order of a few times the plate thickness. The resulting through crack has the same size, and
since R/s is large, the Folias correction is still approximately M
F
#. Then eq (7) can be
simplified to:
2
1
2
2
3
9

+ >
c
a
c
a
M K
K
K ct
c

(8)
There is a general agreement in the literature that LBB requires the through-the-thickness
crack to remain stable as soon as it is created from the deep surface crack. This leads to the
condition that the stress intensity factor of the newly formed through-crack must be smaller
than the critical one [13], which is usually ascertained by means of the corresponding
condition of linear elastic fracture mechanics. However, by this simple approach some
important aspects are not adequately accounted for, since the transition process from a
surface crack to a through-crack, which is crucial for the LBB behaviour, involves some
theoretical difficulties: the crack is in general loaded beyond the critical crack driving force,
the ligament is in a state of full plastic yielding, and its geometry is rather complex and
significantly changing with crack growth.
3. OTHER FACTORS INFLUENCING LBB BEHAVIOUR
According to Smith [14], two generally recognized key elements for LBB case are:
The size of through-wall crack that is unstable under accident conditions.
The size of through-wall crack that gives detectable leak under normal operating
conditions.
One more key element, which is thought to be important according to Xie [15] is
The density, e.g. crack number per unit length, unit area, or unit volume, of initial
cracks in component vulnerable zone such as a weld or seam.
The significance of this element is due to the fact that surface cracks found in structures or
components are usually not a single crack but multiple cracks. These cracks grow by the
procedure of initiation, growth and coalescence up to facture and, in many situations, crack
coalescence occurs quite frequently. Several effects of multiple cracks on the LBB case, as
well as the effect of characteristic crack size on the leak-before-break case of pressure vessels
and piping with multiple cracks have been investigated by Xie [15, 16]
As is shown theoretically and validated by experimental data by Schindler [17], the
failure of a pre-cracked pressure vessel is often not controlled by the initiation of crack
growth, but by its tearing stability. This explains several experimental phenomena
concerning the fracture behaviour of notched pressure vessels, e.g. why the failure behaviour
of cylinders is often found to be almost independent of the sharpness of the notch or crack
and why many systems are flow stress rather than toughness dependent. Schindlers analysis
of LBB behaviour is based on the consideration of the tearing stability of a deep surface
crack. If there is tearing stability throughout the complete wall thickness and constant loading
conditions, the crack is not likely to become unstable in any phase of crack growth, including
METAL 2002 14. 16. 5. 2002, Hradec nad Moravic
5
the transition phase from a surface crack to a through-crack, regardless of whether the
considered crack was originally formed by a machined notch or by naturally grown fatigue or
stress corrosion crack. For these reasons LBB behaviour is strongly related to the tearing
stability of a crack in shell. From a solution for the burst stress, a new LBB criterion could be
derived, where LBB requires the following two conditions to be met [17]:

+

c
s E COA
f
f appl

. .
283 , 2
2
1 (9) and

appl
r c
F
K K
M c

( )
(10)
where
appl
is the applied or principal stress due to sustained load or maximum of a cyclic
load with constant amplitude, E is Youngs modulus,
f
is flow stress, K
r
is factor on K
I
as
introduced in the CGEB-R6 procedure.
4. LEAK BEFORE BREAK PROCEDURE
The various stages in the development of a LBB argument may be explained with the
aid of the diagram shown in Figure 2. The diagram has axes of crack depth, a, and length c,
normalized to the pressure vessel wall thickness, s. An initial part-through crack is
represented by a point on the diagram. The crack may grow by fatigue, tearing or any other
process [5, 6, 9, 17-19] until it reaches some critical height at which the remaining ligament
ahead of the crack may break through the wall. The crack then continues growing in surface
length until there is sufficient opening [20, 21] to cause a detectable leak or until the crack
becomes unstable. A LBB argument is aimed at demonstrating that leakage of fluid through
crack in the wall of a pressure vessel can be detected prior to the crack attaining conditions of
instability at which rapid crack extension occurs. In safety critical applications there must
also be ample margin between the detectable limit and the critical crack size.
Figure 2. The leak-before-break diagram [23].
The procedure for leak-before-break assessment can be summarised as a series steps below.
More detailed guidance on carrying out each of the steps are given in R6-procedure or BS
7910, respectively [22, 23].
1) Characterize the flaw
To use LBB procedure the defect must be characterized as a surface defect. The extended,
irregular defects where a narrow ligament exists over only a small fraction of the overall
defect length the characterisation may be based on that part of the defect where the narrow
ligament exists. Embedded defects must first be re-characterized as surface defects.
2) Determine limiting length of the through-wall flaw
The limiting length at which a through-wall defect at the position of the initial surface defect
would become unstable should be determined for the most onerous loading condition using
lower-bound values for materials properties. It may be appropriate to apply relevant factors
of safety to the size of critical through-wall defect.
3) Estimate flaw length at breakthrough
To determine the length at breakthrough:
a) calculate the flaw length at which ligament failure is predicted to occur
b) re-characterize the flaw for which ligament failure is predicted to occur as a
through-wall flaw
The defect length at breakthrough is given by length of the through-wall defect resulting
from this recharacterisation. Ligament failure should be assessed under normal operating
conditions unless some other loading conditions could result in a larger defect length at
breakthrough. Where sub-critical defect growth as a result of fatigue or environmentally-
assisted cracking mechanisms can occur prior to breakthrough then this must be allowed for
when calculating the failure defect size.
4) Calculate crack-opening area (COA) of flaw
The COA of a potential through-wall flaw is required to estimate leakage flow rate. The
COA depends primarily on the crack geometry, the component geometry, the loading and
material properties [23]. In addition, if operating at high temperature, the COA changes with
time owing to creep.
5) Calculate leak rate from flaw
Several computer codes are available to predict leakage rates for single and two-phase flows
through a wide range of through-wall cracks [24, 25, 26]. An alternative means of estimating
the leakage rate would be to use relevant experimental data if these are available. Factors
affecting the leakage rate which need to be considered are the path length, the nominal
opening and the surface roughness of the crack flanks. Surface roughness can be difficult to
estimate and may will require a detailed knowledge of the cracking mechanism and typical
roughnesses which are associated with the surfaces produced. Experimental verification of
leakage rates may be the most appropriate method where reliable estimates cannot be made.
6) Estimate time to detect leak from flaw
The leak detection system should be selected with due regard to the nature of the leaking
fluid and the calculated leak rate. In order to estimate the time required to detect the leak the
sensitivity of the proposed leak detection system must be compared with the calculated leak
rate from the defect. The time for detection and the execution of the subsequently required
actions should be less than that required for the crack to grow to the limiting length. Various
techniques may be employed to detect leakage, depending upon the leaking fluid, such as
interspace gas/fluid detection or pressure hold tests.
7) Calculate time to grow to limiting length
METAL 2002 14. 16. 5. 2002, Hradec nad Moravic
7
If the through-wall crack can continue to grow in length as a result of fatigue or other
mechanisms then the time required for flaw to grow to a limiting length should be calculated
by integrating growth law for any applicable sub-critical growth mechanism.
8) Assess results
LBB case has been made provided that the calculations carried out in the preceding steps
show that:
a) The defect length at breakthrough is less than the limiting length of a
through-wall defect.
b) The time to detect the leak is less than the time for the defect to grow to a
limiting length.
Only if the above two conditions can be satisfied with adequate margins throughout the range
of variations likely to occur in the input data can a satisfactory leak-before break case be
claimed. It should be noted that an initial failure to demonstrate that the flaw length at
breakthrough is less than the limiting length, that the leak will be detectable before the flaw
could grow to a limiting length, or that adequate margins exist, does not necessarily mean a
LBB case cannot be made. It may be possible to refine either the margins or the calculations
of limiting crack length, flaw length at breakthrough, crack-opening area, leak rate or leak
detection system and as a result make a satisfactory LBB case. Typically in pressure hold
tests the leak detection can be improved by extending the time over which a pressure drop is
expected
CONCLUSIONS
Leak Before Break is widely recognised as a very important methodology for
supporting structural integrity safety cases. Such cases can be made both for new designs and
reassessments of existing pressure vessels and pipework. LBB complements other
methodologies such as tearing/arrest or NDT based assessments. LBB requires very careful
consideration of all the parameters used in the assessment to ensure conservatism at all times.
LBB can potentially be applied to any case where stable crack growth occurs up to break
through and measurable leakage. The margin between the smallest detectable crack and the
minimum critical crack size must be adequate to support LBB. Reliable leak detection
methods must be employed to ensure the ultimate success of the technique in preventing
catastrophic failure.
REFERENCES
[1] ZHUKOV, V. V. et al. Criteria of leakage occurrence and pressure vessels failure as applied
to reactors. Trans. ASME, J. Pres. Ves. Technology. 1992, 114, 378-380.
[2] POUSSARD, C. Trans. of The #4
th
International Conference on Structural Mechanics in
Reactor Technology (SMiRT #4), G13/5, 1997, Lyon, France.
[3] UKADGAONKER, V. G., BABU, R. S. Review of work related to leak-before-break
assessment. Int. J. Pres. ves. Piping. 1996, 69, 135-148.
[4] ZDAREK, J ., PECINKA, L., KADECKA, P. Leak-before-break criterion applied to VVER
440/230 unit. Int. Pres Ves Piping.1995, 23, 117-123.
[5] BERGMAN, M., BRICKSTAD, B. A procedure for analysis of leak before break in pipes
subjected to fatigue or IGSCC accounting for complex crack shapes. Fatigue Fract. Engng.
Mater. Struct. 1995, 18, (10), 1173-1188.
[6] BERGMAN, M., BRICKSTAD, B. A procedure for analysis of leak before break in pipes
subjected to fatigue or IGSCC. Welding in the World. 1997, 39, (1), 16-27.
[7] ARZHAEV, A. I., et al. Leak-before-break criteria and strength monitoring implementation
impact on in-service inspection of RBMK primary circuit components. Int. J. Pres. Ves.
Piping. 1996, 66, 359-365.
[8] BARTHOLOM, G., WELLEIN, R. Leak-before-break behaviour of nuclear piping
systems. Int. J. Pres. Ves. Piping. 1995, 23, 145-149.
[9] BURANDE, S., SETHURAMAN, R. Computational simulation of fatigue crack growth and
demonstration of leak before break criterion. Int. J. Pres. Ves. Piping. 1999, 76, 331-338.
[10] BROEK. D. Elementary Engineering Fracture Mechanics. 3rd revised edition. Hague:
Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1983.
[11] KOBAYASHI, A. S., ZIV, M., HALL, L. R. Approximate stress intensity factor for an
embedded elliptical crack near two parallel free surfaces. Int. J. Fract. Mech. 1965, 1, 81-95.
[12] FOLIAS, E. S. An axial crack in a pressurized cylindrical shell. Int. J. Fract. Mech.
1965, 1, 104-113.
[13] ROLFE, S: T. and BARSOUM, J . M. Fracture and Fatigue Control in Structures.Prentice-
Hall, NJ , 1977.
[14] SMITH, E. The effect of crack-system compliance on the leakage area for a
circumferentially cracked pipe subjected to combined axial and bending loading. Int. J.Pres.
Ves. Piping. 1997, 72, 57-62.
[15] XIE, L. The effect of multiple crack on the leak-before-break case of pipe. Int. J.
Pres. Ves. Piping. 1998, 75, 249-254.
[16] XIE, L. The effect of characteristic crack size on the leak-before-break case of pressure
vessels and piping with multiple cracks. Int. Pres. Ves. Piping. 1999, 76, 435-439.
[17] SCHINDLER, H. J . A CTOA-based approach to burst and leak-before-break behaviour. Int.
J. Pres. Ves. & Piping, 1996, 69, 125-134.
[18] NAM, K. W., et al. Fatigue life and penetration behaviour of surface-cracked plate under
combined tension and bending. Fatigue Fract. Engng. Mater. Struct. 1994, 17, (8), 873-882.
[19] NAM, K. W. Leak-before-break conditions of plates and pipes under high fatigue stresses.
Fatigue Fract. Engng. Mater. Struct. 1992, 15, (8), 809-824.
[20] WUTHRICH, C. Crack opening areas in pressure vessels and pipes. Engng. Fract. Mech.
1983, 18, (5), 1049-1057.
[21] KNOWLES, J . A., KEMP, S. Crack opening areas for longitudinal and part-circumferential
through-wall cracks in cylinders. Report AEA/RS/4498. Abingdon, Oxon: AEA
Technology, 1994.
[22] Central Electricity Generating Board, Assessment of the Integrity of Structures Containing
Defects. CEGB Document No. R/H/R6-Rev. 3, April 1994.
[23] BS 7910: 1999. Guidance on Methods for Assessing the Acceptability of Flaws in Metallic
Structures. British Standards Institution, UK.
[24] EWING, D. J . F. Simple Methods for Predicting Gas Leakage Flows Through Cracks. Paper
C376/047 In: Poc. of Int. Conf. on Pipework Engineering and Operation, I. Mech.E.,
February 1989, London.
[25] NORRIS, D. M., CHEXAL, B. PICEP: Pipe Crack Evaluation Program (Revision#). EPRI
Report NP-3596-SR, Revision 1 (1987).
[26] PAUL, D. D., et al. Evaluation and Refinement of Leak-rate Estimates Models: Topicat
Report, NUREG/CR-5128 (Draft Report, March 1988).