International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 93 (2015) 136153

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Mechanical Sciences

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijmecsci

Ultimate creep load and safety assessment of P91 steel pipe

with local wall thinning at high temperature
Ji-Lin Xue, Chang-Yu Zhou n, Jian Peng
School of Mechanical and Power Engineering, Nanjing Tech University, Nanjing 211816, China

art ic l e i nf o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Safety assessment of pipe with local wall thinning (LWT) at high temperature is highly important in
Received 15 May 2014 power and nuclear engineering. Based on strain criterion and isochronous stressstrain curves at high
Received in revised form temperature, this paper studied the ultimate creep load of pipe with LWT under creep condition by
15 December 2014
orthogonal experimental design and nite element numerical simulation. Firstly, the inuence of LWT
Accepted 12 January 2015
Available online 20 January 2015
geometries was analyzed, which indicated that relative defect depth was the most signicant factor to
ultimate creep load. Secondly, the ultimate creep load formulas were regressed based on the ultimate
Keywords: creep loads of pipe with LWT at different creep times. And safety assessment curves for the pipe with
High temperature LWT at high temperature by different strain criteria were proposed. Finally, the engineering method of
Ultimate creep load
allowable load of pipe with LWT by different strain criteria was constructed. The research results try to
Local wall thinning
improve the safety assessment and structure integrity analysis of pipe with LWT at high temperature.
Isochronous stressstrain curve
Safety assessment & 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

P91 steel pipes are widely used in power plants and nuclear power plants at high temperature. LWT, as volumetric defect, is very
common, which may be induced by high temperature corrosion/erosion, mechanical damage (such as scratch, impact, etc.), crack ground
and repaired process [1,2]. The existence of LWT defect may cause stress redistribution of pipe, reduce load carrying capability of pipe and
increase failure possibility of pipe at high temperature in service.
In the past years, a lot of researches about pipe with LWT have been conducted. At room temperature the researches on pipe with LWT
focused on the stress analysis [37], limit load [814], fracture behavior [1520], safety assessment [21] and fatigue behavior [22,23].
Different pipe types (straight pipe [9,10], elbow pipe [8,11,12] and tee pipe [20]), different load types (internal pressure [4,8], bending load
[10,17] and combined loads [7,13,14]) and different defect numbers (single LWT [35,9,10] and multiple LWTs [21]) were considered by
different research methods (nite element method [3,7,12] and experimental method [8,9,17]). Many meaningful results have been
obtained. Based on the research achievements, many countries developed their national standards or codes [2426].
Many failure cases at high temperature have caused signicant loss of engineering and even threatened humans lives [27]. The
researches on pipe with defect at high temperature now were mainly concerned about the crack problems [28,29]. While the researches
on pipe with volume defect were not enough, which mainly focused on the stress analysis of pipe with LWT [3033] and limit load of pipe
with pit defect [34].
Creep failure is the main failure form of structures at high temperature. In order to describe the load carrying capability of structures
under creep condition at high temperature, the concept of ultimate creep load was proposed. This paper focused on the ultimate creep
load research of pipe with LWT. Using strain criterion and isochronous stressstrain curves, this paper proposed a method to estimate the
ultimate creep load of pipe with LWT at high temperature, calculated by using orthogonal experimental design and nite element
numerical simulation. Then, safety assessment curves of pipe with LWT at high temperature were plotted under combined internal
pressure and bending moment. Moreover, an engineering method for allowable operation load was proposed. At last, an engineering
example was given to show the safety assessment of pipe with LWT at high temperature proposed by this paper.

n
Corresponding author. Tel./fax: 86 25 58139951.
E-mail address: changyu_zhou@163.com (C.-Y. Zhou).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmecsci.2015.01.010
0020-7403/& 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 J.-L. Xue et al. / International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 93 (2015) 136153 137

2. Ultimate creep load and its determination criterion

In Section 1, the concept of ultimate creep load was proposed. In this part, the denition and determination criterion of ultimate creep
load will be introduced in detail.

2.1. Ultimate creep load at high temperature

It should be noted that the limit load of structures at high temperature is different with that at room temperature. When the failure of
the structures is creep failure at high temperature, the limit load under this situation is dened as ultimate creep load. Obviously, ultimate
creep load of structures at high temperature is related to creep behavior.
Ultimate creep load is referred to describe the load which leads to pure creep failure of structures. Ultimate creep load for structures
corresponds to the concept of creep limit strength of mechanical property. Creep limit strength is the maximum stress that will result in
an assigned creep strain during given period of time at high temperature. In other words, ultimate creep load is used to replace the creep
limit strength to establish the relation between load carrying capability of structures and creep time.
For the purpose of understanding the concept of ultimate creep load at high temperature better, an example is given bellow. A structure
is assumed to subject to load P and temperature Temp under creep condition. After a relatively long time tr, the creep failure of this
structure happens. So, tr is failure life. At this moment, P is regarded as the ultimate creep load of this structure.
Therefore, it is imperative to explore the load carrying capability of high temperature structures under creep condition, and it needs a
perspective view which is different from that at room temperature.

2.2. Comparison of ultimate creep load at high temperature and traditional plastic limit load at room temperature

As is well known that limit load is a parameter to reect the load carrying capability of structures. At room temperature, the limit load
of structures is usually plastic limit load. But creep is inevitable to happen at high temperature. Ultimate creep load is used to reect the
load carrying capability of structures under creep condition at high temperature.
The calculation procedure of nite element simulation for traditional plastic limit load at room temperature is shown in Fig. 1. The key
points are that elasticplastic constitutive relation is used to apply on the model for dening material property and based on the elastic-
plastic calculation results the plastic limit loads will be determined by plastic failure criterion.
Contrast with traditional plastic limit load at room temperature, the calculation procedure of nite element simulation for ultimate
creep load at high temperature is also shown in Fig. 1. Through comparison it is found that high temperature isochronous stressstrain
curves transformed from creep tensile curves are introduced to describe the material property under creep condition at high temperature
instead of elasticplastic constitutive relation at room temperature. Based on the isochronous stressstrain curves calculation results, the
ultimate creep load will be determined by creep failure criterion.

2.3. Isochronous stressstrain curve

Isochronous stressstrain curve is a constitutive relation to describe the material property at high temperature [35]. For a particular
time, the total strain at a stress level is given by the sum of elastic strain, plastic strain and creep strain:
t ; t e p c ; t 1

Fig. 1. Comparison between the calculation process of traditional plastic limit load at room temperature and ultimate creep load at high temperature.
138 J.-L. Xue et al. / International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 93 (2015) 136153

where e , p , c ; t and t ; t are the elastic strain, plastic strain, creep strain and total strain, respectively.
The elasticplastic stressstrain behavior is described by RambergOsgood equation, and it can be expressed by

1=n
e p 2
E K
where E, K and n are all material constants.
Garofalo equation [36] is a suitable creep model for P91 steel, given as follows:
c cr;I max ht _ cr; min t cr;I max 1  exp  t _ cr; min t 3
where cr;I max is the limiting magnitude of a transient creep strain, is a constant related to the rate of exhaustion of a transient creep,
_ cr; min is the secondary creep rate, and t is the creep time. The expressions cr;I max , and _ cr; min are only stress dependant:
cr;I max AeB 4

CD 5

_ cr; min FeG 6

where, A, B, C, D, F and G are all material constants.
All necessary material constants for P91 steel at 600 1C are shown in Table 1 [37]. So, isochronous stressstrain curves at any given time
can be calculated. Fig. 2 shows isochronous stressstrain curves of P91 steel from 1 h to 105 h at 600 1C.

2.4. Determination criterion for ultimate creep load at high temperature

Strength criterion and strain criterion are two common rules for determining the load carrying capacity of structures at high temperature.
Strength criterion is controlled by stress, while strain criterion is controlled by strain.
The criterion for limit load of structures at high temperature is different from that at room temperature. At room temperature the twice
elastic slope criterion (TESC) is usually used, as shown in Fig. 3. At high temperature, in ASME Boiler & Pressure Vessel Code Section III

Table 1
Material constants for P91 steel at 600 1C.

Parameters for RambergOsgood equations Parameters for Garofalo creep law

E/GPa K/MPa n A B C D F G

171.5 411.1 0.050 2.773  10  4 2.462  10  2 1.575  10  8 2.915 1.918  10  9 6.885  10  2

Fig. 2. Isochronous stress strain curves of P91 steel at 600 1C.

Fig. 3. Twice elastic slope criterion.

 J.-L. Xue et al. / International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 93 (2015) 136153 139

Fig. 4. Creep limit strength based on the isochronous stressstrain curve.

Fig. 5. Finite element model of pipe with LWT.

Division 1 Subsection NH-2007, limits for accumulated inelastic strain at three conditions are given: (a) strain averaged through the
thickness, 1%; (b) strain at the surface, due to an equivalent linear distribution of strain through the thickness, 2%; (c) local strains at any
points, 5%.
This paper's research object is the ultimate creep load of pipe with LWT under creep condition at high temperature. So, both 2% strain
criterion and 5% strain criterion are applied.
In this section, the method to determine the ultimate creep load of pipe under creep condition at high temperature is as followed. In
the gure of isochronous stressstrain curves, the stress versus to 2% strain or 5% strain will be dened as creep limit strength of materials
serving for corresponding creep time at high temperature (be called creep limit strength for short), as is shown in Fig. 4. In other words, if
the serving stress under a load condition is higher than creep limit strength, the life of materials will not reach corresponding creep time.
In contrary, if the serving stress under a load condition is lower than creep limit strength, the life of materials will exceed to corresponding
creep time. The load versus creep limit strength will be dened as ultimate creep load of structures serving for corresponding creep time
at high temperature (be called ultimate creep load for short). In the process of actual operation, ultimate creep load is determined directly
by 2% strain criterion and 5% strain criterion.

3. Finite element analyses

3.1. Finite element model

Three-dimensional elasticplastic nite element analysis is performed using ABAQUS code [38]. The pipe with LWT is modeled, as
shown in Fig. 5. The LWT defect locates at inner surface of pipe. The outside radius and inside radius of pipe are Ro and Ri, respectively. The
thickness of pipe is T; the half length of pipe is S; the half length of LWT is L; the half angle of LWT is ; and the depth of LWT is d. The pipe
dimensions are that: Ro 161.95mm, T 28.6 mm. The pipe length is set as S 1,000 mm, which is sufcient to ignore the boundary effect
on the end of pipe.
Symmetry condition of pipe is considered to improve computation efciency. For the pipe under monotonic internal pressure, a quarter of
full pipe is utilized, while for the pipe under monotonic bending moment and combined internal pressure and bending moment, a half of full
pipe is utilized. On the symmetry surface, symmetry boundary is applied. For the pipe under monotonic internal pressure, internal pressure
load is applied. In addition, an axial load, which is introduced by internal pressure, is applied to simulate a closed-end condition. In order to
prevent the model moving, a x support is employed on the end of the model. For the pipe under monotonic bending moment, bending
moment is applied by four-point bending load. On the both ends of pipe, the x supports are employed. For the pipe under combined
internal pressure and bending moment, internal pressure load, axial load and four-point bending load are applied.
The meshing of model is shown in Fig. 6. Element number is between 8,000 and 10,000, which is enough to ensure the accuracy of nite
element calculation. To avoid problems associated with incompressibility, the reduced integration element within ABAQUS (element type
C3D20R) is used. And in order to simulate large inelastic deformation, the nonlinear geometry option (NLGEOM) with ABAQUS is used for the
analysis procedure.
Isochronous stressstrain curves of P91 steel at 600 1C, which are related to creep time, are used as material properties in the nite
element calculation. So to calculate the ultimate creep load of pipe under different creep times, isochronous stressstrain curves under
different creep times are used.

3.2. Orthogonal experimental design

Orthogonal experimental design is an optimization method to discuss the problem of multi-factors and multi-levels. The main factors
that could affect the ultimate creep load of pipe with LWT are defect depth, defect angle and defect length. Here, these parameters should
140 J.-L. Xue et al. / International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 93 (2015) 136153

Fig. 6. Finite element mesh for pipe with LWT.

Table 2
LWT defect parameters and their levels.

Levels Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3

Relative depth Relative angle Relative length
d/T / L/(ROT)0.5

1 0.1 1/6 1
2 0.3 1/3 1.5
3 0.5 1/2 2
4 0.7 2/3 2.5

Table 3
Orthogonal experiment design scheme.

No. Factors

1 2 3

1 1 1 1
2 1 2 2
3 1 3 3
4 1 4 4
5 2 1 2
6 2 2 1
7 2 3 4
8 2 4 3
9 3 1 3
10 3 2 4
11 3 3 1
12 3 4 2
13 4 1 4
14 4 2 3
15 4 3 2
16 4 4 1

be dimensionless by three dimensionless parameters: relative defect depth d/T, relative defect angle / and relative defect length
L/(ROT)0.5. Four levels for each parameter are selected according to the possible region, as shown in Table 2.
Orthogonal tables L16(45) is the appropriate one for arranging three factors above with four levels for each, and orthogonal experiment
design scheme is shown in Table 3. The total number is 16. Since it is to investigate the effect of three factors on ultimate creep load, no
interaction among these factors is assumed here.

3.3. The calculation of ultimate creep load

According to the denition of ultimate creep load at high temperature, the ultimate creep load is depending on isochronous stress
strain curve. So, the ultimate creep load of pipe with LWT at high temperature is time dependent. Under different creep times, there are
different ultimate creep loads. Here, ve different times are chosen as creep time. The rst is 0 h, which is corresponding to traditional
plastic limit load without creep. This is because creep does not occur at calculated time 0 h. And the limit load is based on TESC. This paper
calls the limit loads of pipe with LWT at calculated time 0 h at high temperature as ultimate loads. The other four creep times are 100 h,
1,000 h, 10,000 h and 100,000 h respectively.
In order to illustrate the precision of the nite element method, the ultimate creep loads of pipe without defect under monotonic
internal pressure and monotonic bending moment were calculated at rst. The results were in Table 4.
 J.-L. Xue et al. / International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 93 (2015) 136153 141

Table 4
Comparison of ultimate creep load for pipe without defect at high temperature.

No. Creep time Ultimate internal pressure PL0/MPa Ultimate bending moment ML0/kN m

Numerical solution Analytical solution Numerical solution Analytical solution

t (h) 2% 5% 2% 5% 2% 5% 2% 5%

1 0 61.8 62.4 674.7 693.3

2 100 33.9 38.2 34.6 38.8 367.6 420.7 384.1 431.5
3 1,000 28.3 31.3 28.7 32.3 308.7 351.4 319.2 359.1
4 10,000 21.5 24.9 22.0 25.4 235.2 273.1 244.4 281.8
5 100,000 14.2 17.3 14.8 18.0 155.0 190.4 164.6 199.5

Table 5
Error of ultimate creep load for pipe without defect at high temperature.

No. Creep time (h) Ultimate internal pressure Ultimate bending moment

2% 5% 2% 5%

1 0 0.96 2.68
2 100 2.02 1.55 4.30 2.50
3 1,000 1.39 3.10 3.29 2.14
4 10,000 2.27 1.97 3.76 3.09
5 100,000 4.05 3.89 5.83 4.56

Table 6
Ultimate loads at t 0 h.

No. Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Ultimate load under monotonic load Ultimate moment under both P and M ML/(kN m)

d/T / L/(ROT)0.5 PL/MPa ML/kN m 0.25PL 0.5PL 0.75PL

1 1 1 1 56.9 616.4 581.7 527.7 467.8

2 1 2 2 57.0 623.0 587.9 536.3 478.9
3 1 3 3 57.1 620.2 579.3 548.2 475.8
4 1 4 4 56.4 619.8 579.5 536.1 477.7
5 2 1 2 48.8 489.8 446.9 396.8 317.4
6 2 2 1 50.1 457.0 408.9 360.4 300.7
7 2 3 4 46.1 467.8 424.7 379.4 329.2
8 2 4 3 45.7 461.1 416.4 374.5 321.4
9 3 1 3 33.9 387.0 334.7 293.3 229.7
10 3 2 4 32.8 344.7 320.1 284.2 245.1
11 3 3 1 38.0 344.6 309.9 256.9 231.2
12 3 4 2 36.0 333.0 310.3 270.5 226.0
13 4 1 4 21.7 367.0 283.4 252.3 220.6
14 4 2 3 24.8 309.8 236.0 204.7 171.4
15 4 3 2 26.4 291.2 218.4 183.5 147.1
16 4 4 1 27.2 287.0 221.2 193.6 164.3

The analytical formulas of ultimate creep load under monotonic internal pressure and monotonic bending moment are listed as
follows [25].
2 f Ro
P L0 p ln 7
3 Ri

where P L0 is ultimate internal pressure of pipe without defect, and f is ow stress.

M L0 4R2m T f 8

where M L0 is ultimate bending moment of pipe without defect, Rm is mean diameter.

The analytical results of ultimate creep loads of pipe without defect were also listed in Table 4. The comparison of ultimate creep loads
calculated by nite element method and analytical method was conducted, and listed in Table 5.
From Table 5, the maximum error of ultimate internal pressure obtained by nite element and analytical method at t0 h was 0.96%.
And the maximum error of ultimate bending moment at t 0 h was 2.68%. The maximum errors of ultimate internal pressure obtained by
nite element and analytical method according to 2% strain criterion and 5% strain criterion at the other creep times were up to 4.05% and
3.89%, respectively. And the average errors of ultimate internal pressure were 2.43% and 2.63%, respectively. The maximum errors of
ultimate bending moment obtained by nite element and analytical method according to 2% strain criterion and 5% strain criterion at the
other creep times were up to 5.83% and 4.56%, respectively. And the average errors of ultimate bending moment were 4.30% and 3.07%,
respectively. So, the nite element model used in this paper was effective and believable.
142 J.-L. Xue et al. / International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 93 (2015) 136153

Table 7
Ultimate creep loads at t 100 h.

No. Ultimate load under monotonic load Ultimate moment under both P and M ML/(kN m)

PL/MPa ML/kN m 0.25PL 0.5PL 0.75PL

2% 5% 2% 5% 2% 5% 2% 5% 2% 5%

1 28.9 36.4 358.8 445.3 333.9 414.4 298.8 370.8 237.5 294.7
2 28.5 35.7 349.8 431.7 329.4 406.5 296.5 365.9 243.2 300.1
3 28.1 35.1 349.6 429.7 330.1 405.7 298.1 366.4 245.2 301.4
4 27.8 34.6 353.0 431.7 332.1 406.2 299.9 366.8 247.2 302.3
5 22.6 27.6 307.1 372.2 286.8 347.6 258.2 312.9 165.4 200.5
6 23.6 28.6 284.0 341.7 259.3 311.9 221.3 266.2 116.3 139.9
7 20.8 25.1 283.1 339.4 265.4 318.2 237.2 284.4 142.6 171.0
8 21.0 25.3 279.3 333.8 257.7 308.0 226.3 270.4 128.6 153.7
9 18.3 21.4 268.4 313.8 247.5 289.3 209.7 245.1 164.6 192.4
10 17.0 19.7 240.0 277.9 220.0 254.8 182.2 211.0 136.5 158.1
11 22.2 26.0 216.0 253.4 189.5 222.3 137.7 161.5 84.3 98.9
12 19.8 23.1 215.6 251.2 191.1 222.6 137.9 160.7 81.5 94.9
13 9.2 10.4 243.2 276.3 232.0 263.6 209.7 238.2 193.4 219.7
14 10.1 11.5 190.0 216.4 187.2 213.2 156.6 178.4 110.0 125.3
15 11.5 13.1 162.2 185.4 154.3 176.4 112.8 128.9 64.3 73.5
16 11.4 13.1 153.1 175.6 128.6 147.5 68.4 78.5 26.2 30.1

Table 8
Ultimate creep loads at t 1,000 h.

No. Ultimate load under monotonic load Ultimate moment under both P and M ML/(kN m)

PL/MPa ML/kN m 0.25PL 0.5PL 0.75PL

2% 5% 2% 5% 2% 5% 2% 5% 2% 5%

1 23.7 29.7 294.2 362.8 273.8 337.6 245.0 302.1 194.8 240.1
2 23.3 29.3 286.0 350.6 269.3 330.2 242.4 297.2 198.8 243.8
3 23.1 28.9 287.4 350.9 271.4 331.3 245.1 299.2 201.6 246.1
4 22.6 28.1 287.0 348.7 270.0 328.0 243.8 296.2 201.0 244.2
5 18.2 22.5 247.3 297.8 231.0 278.1 207.9 250.3 133.2 160.4
6 19.5 23.9 234.7 282.8 214.3 258.2 182.9 220.3 96.1 115.8
7 17.8 21.7 242.3 291.0 227.1 272.8 203.0 243.8 122.0 146.6
8 18.1 21.8 240.7 288.2 222.1 265.9 195.0 233.5 110.8 132.7
9 16.5 19.3 242.0 283.4 223.2 261.3 189.1 221.4 148.4 173.8
10 15.1 17.5 213.2 247.3 195.4 226.7 161.8 187.7 121.2 140.6
11 18.3 21.5 178.1 209.2 156.2 183.5 113.5 133.4 69.5 81.7
12 17.8 20.8 193.8 226.2 171.8 200.5 124.0 144.7 73.3 85.5
13 8.3 9.5 219.4 249.9 209.3 238.4 189.2 215.5 174.5 198.7
14 9.2 10.6 173.1 198.2 170.5 195.2 142.6 163.3 100.2 114.7
15 10.1 11.7 142.5 164.0 135.5 156.0 99.1 114.0 56.5 65.0
16 9.8 11.4 131.6 152.3 110.6 127.9 58.8 68.0 22.5 26.1

Then, the ultimate creep loads of pipe with LWT were calculated. In this study, ve load conditions were considered: monotonic internal
pressure, monotonic bending moment, and three combined internal pressure and bending moment load conditions. The calculated ultimate
creep loads of pipe with LWT at different times, different load conditions and different LWT geometries were listed in Tables 610.
The stress contours of pipe with LWT at the defected zone under different loads were shown in Figs. 79. Under monotonic internal
pressure, the maximum stress was located at interface edge of LWT near the inner surface of pipe along axial direction. Under monotonic
bending moment, the maximum stress was located at the center of the bottom of LWT. Under combined internal pressure and bending
moment, the maximum stress moved to the interface edge of LWT near the inner surface of pipe along circular direction and the center of
LWT near the outside surface of the pipe.

4. Discussion

4.1. Analysis of variance

The analysis of variance method [39] was applied to analyze the effect signicance of LWT defect parameters to ultimate creep load of
pipe with LWT at high temperature. The variance method contains three parameters. SS is the sum of square of deviance, DOF is the degree
of freedom, and MS is the mean square deviation. According to the ultimate creep loads of pipe with LWT under monotonic internal
pressure and monotonic bending moment, SS, DOF and MS of each factor were calculated. Then, the F values were calculated. Compared to
these F values with the critical values of F-distribution, the effect signicance of the three factors could be obtained.
 J.-L. Xue et al. / International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 93 (2015) 136153 143

Table 9
Ultimate creep loads at t 10,000 h.

No. Ultimate load under monotonic load Ultimate moment under both P and M ML/(kN m)

PL/MPa ML/kN m 0.25PL 0.5PL 0.75PL

2% 5% 2% 5% 2% 5% 2% 5% 2% 5%

1 15.8 20.0 196.2 244.2 182.5 227.3 163.4 203.4 129.8 161.7
2 15.5 19.7 190.2 235.5 179.1 221.8 161.3 199.6 132.3 163.7
3 15.3 19.3 190.4 234.7 179.7 221.6 162.3 200.1 133.5 164.6
4 15.0 18.9 190.5 233.7 179.2 219.9 161.8 198.5 133.4 163.7
5 13.3 16.6 180.7 219.8 168.8 205.2 151.9 184.8 97.3 118.4
6 13.7 16.9 164.9 200.6 150.5 183.2 128.5 156.3 67.5 82.2
7 12.4 15.3 168.8 204.7 158.2 191.9 141.4 171.5 85.0 103.1
8 12.9 15.7 171.6 207.4 158.3 191.4 139.0 168.1 79.0 95.5
9 9.7 11.5 142.3 168.3 131.2 155.2 111.2 131.5 87.2 103.2
10 8.9 10.4 125.6 147.3 115.2 135.0 95.4 111.8 71.5 83.8
11 10.6 12.6 103.1 122.4 90.5 107.4 65.7 78.0 40.3 47.8
12 10.2 12.0 111.1 130.9 98.4 116.1 71.0 83.8 42.0 49.5
13 5.7 6.6 150.7 173.4 143.7 165.4 129.9 149.5 119.8 137.9
14 6.1 7.1 114.8 132.8 113.1 130.8 94.6 109.4 66.4 76.9
15 6.8 7.9 95.9 111.5 91.2 106.1 66.7 77.6 38.0 44.2
16 7.2 8.4 96.7 113.0 81.2 94.9 43.2 50.5 16.5 19.3

Table 10
Ultimate creep loads at t 100,000 h.

No. Ultimate load under monotonic load Ultimate moment under both P and M ML/(kN m)

PL/MPa ML/kN m 0.25PL 0.5PL 0.75PL

2% 5% 2% 5% 2% 5% 2% 5% 2% 5%

1 12.0 15.3 153.4 192.5 142.6 179.0 131.1 164.5 116.0 145.6
2 11.8 15.0 149.1 186.1 140.0 174.7 129.9 162.1 119.7 149.4
3 11.7 14.8 149.9 186.3 141.1 175.4 131.7 163.7 121.4 150.9
4 11.6 14.6 151.6 187.5 142.4 176.1 132.6 164.0 122.5 151.5
5 9.4 11.6 126.1 154.6 117.0 143.4 105.6 129.5 98.1 120.3
6 9.7 11.9 115.5 140.6 104.2 126.8 89.5 108.9 80.4 97.8
7 8.6 10.4 116.4 141.2 108.8 132.0 98.3 119.2 91.3 110.7
8 8.6 10.5 114.1 137.9 103.9 125.6 91.1 110.1 83.4 100.8
9 8.1 9.6 107.7 127.4 94.5 111.8 72.2 85.4 31.2 36.9
10 6.7 7.9 98.1 115.0 83.2 97.5 77.3 90.6 45.4 53.2
11 8.9 10.6 85.8 101.8 70.4 83.6 49.1 58.3 31.8 37.7
12 7.9 9.3 88.0 103.8 71.6 84.4 50.2 59.2 31.6 37.3
13 3.6 4.1 95.8 110.2 86.1 99.0 69.2 79.6 58.4 67.2
14 4.2 4.8 71.6 82.6 65.9 76.0 52.4 60.4 45.1 52.0
15 5.1 5.9 61.7 71.4 55.6 64.3 40.3 46.6 18.7 21.6
16 5.8 6.7 59.5 69.1 50.4 58.5 29.5 34.2 4.2 4.9

The results of analysis of variance were listed in Table 11, including the ultimate internal pressure and the ultimate bending moment at
different creep times. From these tables, relative defect depth was the most signicant effect factor for ultimate internal pressure of pipe
with LWT. The second signicant effect factor was relative defect length. The effect of relative defect angle was slight. And relative defect
depth was also the most signicant effect factor for ultimate bending moment of pipe with LWT. The second signicant effect factor was
relative defect angle. The effect of relative defect length was slight.

4.2. Regression formula for ultimate creep load

In order to obtain the relation of ultimate creep load and LWT defect parameters, regression formula of ultimate creep load was
obtained according to the calculated ultimate creep loads at different LWT defect parameters. The exponential equation form was used to
regress the formula of ultimate creep load, which was convenient to see the inuence of different defect parameters. Based on the
calculated results of ultimate loads at t 0 h by TESC, the formulas were regressed for ultimate loads of pipe with LWT at high temperature
subjecting to monotonic internal pressure or monotonic bending moment.

 1:037  0:015 !0:206

PL d L
p 1  0:782 p 9
P L0 T R0 T
144 J.-L. Xue et al. / International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 93 (2015) 136153

Fig. 7. Stress contours of pipe with LWT under monotonic internal pressure.

Fig. 8. Stress contours of pipe with LWT under monotonic bending moment.

 0:731  0:130 !0:012

ML d L
m 1  0:730 p 10
M L0 T R0 T

Based on the calculated results of ultimate creep loads at t 100 h to t100,000 h by 2% stain criterion, the formulas of ultimate
internal pressure and ultimate bending moment for pipe with LWT were regressed as follows.
!0:214
PL h 2 id0:625  0:012 L
p 1  0:001 log 10 t 1 708:786 p t 4 0 11
P L0 T R0 T
!0:058
ML h 2 id0:786  0:310 L
m 1  0:001 log 10 t 1 628:758 p t 4 0 12
M L0 T R0 T

Similarly, based on the calculated results of ultimate creep loads at t 100 h to t100,000 h by 5% stain criterion, the regression
formulas of ultimate internal pressure and ultimate bending moment for pipe with LWT were obtained.
!0:363
PL h 2 id1:338  0:084 L
p 1  0:001 log 10 t 1 822:577 p t 4 0 13
P L0 T R0 T
 J.-L. Xue et al. / International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 93 (2015) 136153 145

Fig. 9. Stress contours of pipe with LWT under combined internal pressure and bending moment.

Table 11
The results of analysis of variance for ultimate creep loads.

Creep time Factor Ultimate internal pressure Ultimate bending moment

F value Signicance F value Signicance

nnn nnn
t0 h Factor 1 593.4 362.9
n
Factor 2 1.3 6.1
n
Factor 3 8.8 2.1
nnn nnn
t 100 h Factor 1 366.4 192.4
n
Factor 2 1.2 15.6
n
Factor 3 10.7 5.7
nnn nnn
t 1,000 h Factor 1 549.8 102.4
n
Factor 2 1.5 12.1
n
Factor 3 11.0 8.2
nnn nnn
t 10,000 h Factor 1 3068.0 151.1
n
Factor 2 3.3 16.4
n
Factor 3 66.2 7.9
nnn nnn
t 100,000 h Factor 1 183.2 279.1
n
Factor 2 0.9 16.5
n
Factor 3 8.2 6.8

F0.01(3,6) 9.78 F0.05(3,6) 4.76 F0.1(3,6) 3.29

!0:005
ML h 2 id1:628  0:448 L
m 1  0:001 log 10 t 1 752:123 p t 4 0 14
M L0 T R0 T

From the regression formulas of pipe with LWT at high temperature, the index of every defect parameter can reect the inuence
degree to ultimate creep load. For ultimate internal pressure, the inuence factors of defect parameter from high to low were
relative defect depth, relative defect length and relative defect angle. While for ultimate bending moment, relative defect length and
relative defect angle changed their order. This showed a good agreement with the results of analysis of variance.
In order to evaluate the effectiveness of different regression formulas of ultimate creep load for pipe with LWT quantitatively,
the standard statistical parameters such as error (i ), mean error (), standard deviation of error (S) and correlation coefcient (R) were
employed. Mean error () and standard deviation (S) were used to calculate the error of the ultimate creep load predicted by the
regression formulas. It can be mathematically expressed as

P L FE  P L REG
i 15
P L FE

1 Xi N
i1
i 16
N
146 J.-L. Xue et al. / International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 93 (2015) 136153

Table 12
The standard statistical parameters of regression formulas.

Ultimate internal pressure Ultimate bending moment

TESC 2% 5% TESC 2% 5%

Mean error/% 0.04 1.14 2.45 0.63 0.67 4.73

Standard deviation 0.027 0.107 0.085 0.061 0.078 0.087
Correlation coefcient 0.997 0.953 0.973 0.982 0.953 0.929

Fig. 10. Ultimate load diagram of pipe with LWT at high temperature (t 0 h).

s
Xi N i  2
S 17
i1 N 1

Correlation coefcient (R) was a commonly used statistical parameter and provides information of relationship between the predicted
results by regression formulas and the nite element results. It can be mathematically expressed as
Pi N i   i  
i 1 P L FE  P L FE P L REG  P L REG
R qP

  2 Pi N   18
iN i i 2
i 1 P L FE  P L FE i 1 P L REG  P L REG

  P L FE and
where  P L REG were the ultimate loads obtained by nite element calculation and predicted by regression formulas respectively;
P L FE and P L REG were the mean values of P L FE and P L REG , respectively; N was the number of the statistical samples.
The standard statistical parameters of regression formulas were listed in Table 12. From this table, the maximums mean error was
4.73%, the maximum standard deviation was 0.107 and the minimum correlation coefcient was 0.929. So, the results of regression
formulas were effective and believable.

4.3. Safety assessment criteria for the pipe with LWT at high temperature

Ultimate creep loads of pipe under monotonic internal pressure or bending moment can be calculated by equation obtained above.
Ultimate creep loads of pipe under combined internal pressure and bending moment were affected by both internal pressure and bending
moment. In other words, P=P L and M=M L were also the effect factors. Where, P and M were loads on pipe, P L and M L were ultimate creep
loads calculated by above formulas subjecting to monotonic internal pressure or bending moment.
Fig. 10 shows ultimate load curve of pipe with LWT at t 0 h at high temperature by TESC. Figs. 1114 show ultimate creep load curves
of pipe with LWT at t 100 h, t 1,000 h, t 10,000 h and t 100,000 h at high temperature by 2% strain criterion, respectively. For the
purpose of safety, the envelope curve method was used to describe ultimate creep load of pipe with LWT under combined internal
pressure and bending moment. The ellipse functions of envelope of ultimate creep loads of pipe with LWT at different creep times by 2%
strain criterion were listed in Table 13. Similarly, ultimate creep load curves of pipe with LWT at different creep times by 5% strain criterion
can be plotted and the ellipse functions of envelope of ultimate creep loads of pipe with LWT at different creep times by 5% strain criterion
were also listed in Table 13.
From Table 13, the relation of long axis and short axis of ellipse function and creep time could be established by parabolic. So, the
ellipse function including the parameter of creep time was obtained by tting method. According to 2% strain criterion, the safety
assessment function of pipe with LWT was shown as follows:
0 0 12 12
@
P A @ M
 2 
 2  A 1 19
0:0074 log 10 t 1  0:0700log 10 t 1 0:82 P L  0:0018 log 10 t 1  0:0139log 10 t 1 0:73 M L
 J.-L. Xue et al. / International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 93 (2015) 136153 147

Fig. 11. Ultimate creep load diagram of pipe with LWT at high temperature (t 100 h).

Fig. 12. Ultimate creep load diagram of pipe with LWT at high temperature (t 1,000 h).

Fig. 13. Ultimate creep load diagram of pipe with LWT at high temperature (t 10,000 h).

Similarly, according to 5% strain criterion, the safety assessment function of pipe with LWT was shown as follows:
0 12 0 12
@
P A @ M A 1
 2 
 2  20
0:0025 log 10 t 1  0:0422log 10 t 1 0:82 P L 0:0023 log 10 t 1  0:0070log 10 t 1 0:73 M L

Fig. 15 shows the three dimensional safety assessment surface calculated by Eqs. (19) and (20). The safety assessment curve decreased
with creep time increasing. The safety assessment surface calculated by 5% strain criterion was higher than that calculated by 2% strain
criterion at the same creep time.

4.4. The engineering method for allowable operation load

A simple and direct method is needed in engineering. So the engineering method for allowable load of pipe with LWT at high
temperature was given, which was convenient to conduct for engineers.
148 J.-L. Xue et al. / International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 93 (2015) 136153

Fig. 14. Ultimate creep load diagram of pipe with LWT at high temperature (t 100,000 h).

Table 13
The functions of envelope of ultimate creep loads of pipe with LWT.

2% Strain criterion 5% Strain criterion

t 0 h
2
2
P
0:82P L M
0:73M L 1
t 100 h
2
2
2
2
P
0:70P L M
0:69M L 1 P
0:74P L M
0:71M L 1
t 1,000 h
2
2
2
2
P
0:68P L M
0:67M L 1 P
0:72P L M
0:69M L 1
t 10,000 h
2
2
2
2
P
0:66P L M
0:65M L 1 P
0:69P L M
0:66M L 1
t 100,000 h
2
2
2
2
P
0:65P L M
0:61M L 1 P
0:67P L M
0:64M L 1

According to above analysis, the engineering method of allowable load of pipe with LWT at high temperature could be obtained.

(a) The engineering method of allowable operation load of pipe at creep time 0 h
The safety assessment function of pipe with LWT at creep time 0 h was:
 2  2
P M
1 21
0:82P L 0:73M L

(i) When the pipe with LWT subject to monotonic internal pressure, M 0. So,
 2
P
1 22
0:82P L
while,
PL
p 23
P L0
therefore,
P 0:82pP L0 24
where p was calculated by Eq. (9) and P L0 was calculated by Eq. (7).
(ii) When the pipe with LWT subject to monotonic bending moment, P 0. So,
 2
M
1 25
0:73M L
while,
ML
m 26
M L0
therefore,
M 0:73mM L0 27
where m was calculated by Eq. (10) and M L0 was calculated by Eq. (8).
(iii) When the pipe with LWT subject to combined internal pressure and bending moment,
 2  2
P M
1 28
0:82P L 0:73M L
   2  2
Then, if the point P=P L ; M=M L was located at the zone P=0:82P L M=0:73M L r 1, the pipe with LWT was safe.
 J.-L. Xue et al. / International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 93 (2015) 136153 149

Fig. 15. Safety assessment surfaces of pipe with LWT calculated by 2% strain criterion and 5% strain criterion.

(b) The engineering method of allowable operation load of pipe at creep time t hours by 2% strain criterion
The safety assessment function of pipe with LWT at creep time t hours was described by Eq. (19).
(i) When the pipe with LWT subject to monotonic internal pressure, M0. So,
0 12
@
P
 2  A 1 29
0:0074 log 10 t 1  0:0700log 10 t 1 0:82 P L

therefore,

 2 
P 0:0074 log 10 t 1  0:0700log 10 t 1 0:82 pP L0 30

where p was calculated by Eq. (11) and P L0 was calculated by Eq. (7).
(ii) When the pipe with LWT subject to monotonic bending moment, P 0. So,
0 12
@
M
 2  A 1 31
 0:0018 log 10 t 1  0:0139log 10 t 1 0:73 M L

therefore,

 2 
M  0:0018 log 10 t 1  0:0139log 10 t 1 0:73 mM L0 32

where m was calculated by Eq. (12) and M L0 was calculated by Eq. (8).
(iii) When the pipe with LWT subject to combined internal pressure and bending moment, the safety assessment function of pipe with
LWT was Eq. (19).  
Then, if the point P=P L ; M=M L was located at the zone of
 2  2
 P   M  r 1, the pipe with LWT was safe.
0:0074log 10 t 1  0:0700log 10 t 1 0:82 P L  0:0018log 10 t 1  0:0139log 10 t 1 0:73 M L
2 2

(c) The engineering method of allowable operation load of pipe at creep time t hours by 5% strain criterion.
The safety assessment function of pipe with LWT at creep time t hours was described by Eq. (20).
(i) When the pipe with LWT subject to monotonic internal pressure, M0. So,
0 12
@
P
 2  A 1 33
0:0025 log 10 t 1  0:0422log 10 t 1 0:82 P L

therefore,

 2 
P 0:0025 log 10 t 1  0:0422log 10 t 1 0:82 pP L0 34

where p was calculated by Eq. (13) and P L0 was calculated by Eq. (7).
(ii) When the pipe with LWT subject to monotonic bending moment, P 0. So,
0 12
@
M
 2  A 1 35
 0:0023 log 10 t 1  0:0070log 10 t 1 0:73 M L
150 J.-L. Xue et al. / International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 93 (2015) 136153

therefore,

 2 
M  0:0023 log 10 t 1 0:0070log 10 t 1 0:73 mM L0 36

where, m was calculated by Eq. (14) and M L0 was calculated by Eq. (8).
(iii) When the pipe with LWT subject to combined internal pressure and bending moment, the safety assessment function of pipe with
LWT was Eq. (20).
 

Then, if the point P=P L ; M=M L waslocated 2  at the zone of 2
 P   M  r 1, the pipe with LWT was safe.
0:0025log 10 t 1  0:0422log 10 t 1 0:82 P L  0:0023log 10 t 1  0:0070log 10 t 1 0:73 M L
2 2

4.5. The comparison of ultimate load and safety assessment curve at calculated time 0 h at high temperature with plastic limit load at room
temperature

The most difference of ultimate load of pipe with LWT at calculated time 0 h at high temperature and plastic limit load at room
temperature is the effect of temperature. But creep does not occur at these two conditions. The same criterion can be conducted. So, the
ultimate load of pipe with LWT at calculated time 0 h at high temperature and plastic limit load at room temperature is comparable.
The plastic limit load of pipe with LWT at room temperature has been widely studied and many calculated formulas were given. Based
on Net-Section Criteria, Miller [40] gave the calculation formula for the ratio of limit bending moment of pipe with LWT to limit bending
moment of pipe without defect.
 
 
ML ML 1 1  sin 
m 2 cos  o or o 37
M L0 4Rm T f 2 2 1

 
 
ML ML  1 1  sin 
m 2 sin 4 or 4 38
M L0 4Rm T f 2 2 1

where 1  d=T.
Han [10] calculated the limit pressure of pipe with LWT by nite element method and gave the regression formula for the ratio of limit
internal pressure of pipe with LWT to limit internal pressure of pipe without defect.
PL 1  d=T
p 39
P L0 1  M t 1 d=T
q
where M t M a M c , M a 1 C 1 L2a =R0 T, C1 and Mc were function of d=T and , La was relative length of local wall thinning.
Using the same material data, the hot tensile curve in Fig. 2, the ultimate loads of pipe with LWT calculated at room temperature and
plastic limit loads of pipe with LWT at calculated time 0 h at high temperature were listed in Table 14. Most of the calculated plastic limit
loads at room temperature were higher than ultimate loads calculated at time 0 h at high temperature. The maximum error of ultimate
internal pressure and ultimate bending moment was up to 15.6%, 19.1% individually. And the average error of ultimate internal pressure
and ultimate bending moment was 4.7% and 10.5%. This was because the simplication method of defect parameter was different.
Based on the plastic limit loads of pipe with LWT at room temperature, the safety assessment curve of pipe with LWT was established
by using the limit load calculation formula at room temperature as follows.
 2  2
P M
1 40
0:80P L 0:70M L

Table 14
The comparison of plastic limit loads calculated at room temperature and ultimate loads at calculated time 0 h at
high temperature.

No. Ultimate load under monotonic load Error/%

PL/MPa ML/kN m PL ML

Room temp. t 0 h Room temp. t 0 h Room temp. t 0 h

1 59.0 57.9 614.9 604.2 1.8 1.7

2 58.2 57.5 602.7 597.6 1.2 0.9
3 57.7 57.2 597.4 593.6 0.9 0.6
4 57.4 56.9 600.2 590.7 0.9 1.6
5 48.8 47.3 581.7 496.6 3.1 14.6
6 51.2 48.4 541.2 478.0 5.5 11.7
7 46.8 45.4 518.9 472.3 3.0 9.0
8 47.5 46.1 518.1 463.5 3.1 10.5
9 36.1 35.2 506.7 409.8 2.4 19.1
10 35.1 33.6 472.8 387.4 4.0 18.1
11 41.3 38.4 425.2 365.7 6.9 14.0
12 37.9 36.2 409.8 357.6 4.2 12.7
13 21.3 22.1 409.9 332.8  3.7 18.8
14 22.0 23.5 357.8 300.4  6.9 16.1
15 22.9 25.5 317.1 278.5  11.4 12.2
16 24.5 28.3 277.6 260.3  15.6 6.2
 J.-L. Xue et al. / International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 93 (2015) 136153 151

The safety assessment curve of pipe with LWT at calculated time 0 h at high temperature was as follows.
 2  2
P M
1 41
0:82P L 0:73M L
Compared with Eqs. (40) and (41), the safety assessment curve of pipe with LWT at room temperature was very close with that at
calculated time 0 h at high temperature. This was shown to some extent that the ultimate load calculated method at high temperature was
relatively reasonable.
The safety assessment curve of pipe with LWT at room temperature in Chinese national standard GB/T 19624-2004 Safety assessment
for in-service pressure vessels containing defect is as follows.
 2  2
P M
1 42
0:66P L 0:66M L
This curve is lower than the above two curves. It is because that safety factor has been considered in safety assessment curve of pipe
with LWT at room temperature.

5. An engineering example

Take P91 steel pipe for an example. The service time lasted to 10,000 h. An irregular LWT defect was assumed. This defect could be
regulated to the follow parameters in Table 15.
Then, according to the engineering method, the allowable operation loads calculated by 2% strain criterion and 5% strain criterion were
listed in Table 16, together with the ultimate creep loads of pipe without defect, calculated by analyzing method.  
If the loads carried by pipe with LWT have been known, such as the internal pressure and the bending moment, the point P=P L ; M=M L
could be determined.
 Here, the internal pressure was assumed as 8.0 MPa. And the bending  moment 2 was
 assumed as 120.5 kN m. For
2
defect, the point P=P L ; M=ML calculated by 2% strain criterion was located at the zone of P=0:66P L  M=0:65M
2L  4 1, the pipe
2with
LWT was unsafe. But the point P=P L ; M=M L calculated by 5% strain criterion was located at the zone of P=0:69P L M=0:66M L o 1,

Table 15
Regulation of the WT defect parameters.

d/T / L/(ROT)0.5

Defect 0.1 1/6 1

Table 16
The calculated results of engineering calculated points.

Ultimate internal pressure Ultimate bending moment

p P/MPa PL/MPa P/PL m M/kN m ML/kN m M/ML

Pipe without defect 21.989 244.41

Defect 2% 0.83 8.0 18.24 0.44 0.89 120.5 218.67 0.55
5% 0.96 8.0 21.19 0.38 0.99 120.5 241.03 0.50

Fig. 16. Comparison of engineering calculated points and safety assessment curves.
152 J.-L. Xue et al. / International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 93 (2015) 136153

the pipe with LWT was safe, as shown in Fig. 16. From this example strain criterion obviously affected the assessment results, so it needed
a further verication.

6. Conclusions

In this paper, the ultimate creep loads of pipe with LWT at high temperature were calculated and the safety assessment curves of pipe
with LWT at high temperature were obtained. Some conclusions can be acquired as follows:

(1) Based on 2% strain criterion and 5% strain criterion, a new perspective was proposed to estimate the relation of ultimate creep load of
pipe with LWT and creep time at high temperature.
(2) The relative defect depth was the most signicant effect factor for ultimate creep load of pipe with LWT at high temperature. The
second signicant effect factor to ultimate internal pressure was relative defect length. The second signicant effect factor to ultimate
bending moment was relative defect angle.
(3) The regression formulas for ultimate creep load of pipe with LWT at high temperature at different creep times subjecting to monotonic
internal pressure or monotonic bending moment have been obtained. It was a simple and effective scheme to calculate the ultimate
creep load of pipe with LWT at different creep times.
(4) The safety assessment curves of pipe with LWT at high temperature have been obtained. At the same time, the engineering method of
allowable operation load of pipe with LWT at high temperature has been proposed.

Acknowledgments

The authors gratefully acknowledge the nancial support by Jiangsu Natural Science Funds (BK2008373) and Graduate Student
Scientic Innovation Project of Jiangsu Province (CX10B_164Z), China.

References

[1] Lu Y, Jing SD, Han LH, Liu CD. Review of assessment methods on local wall thinning (in Chinese). Chem Mach 1998;25(2):1125.
[2] Han LH, Liu CD, Wang YP, Chen J. Development on safety assessment of localized wall-thinning for pipeline (in Chinese). Petro-Chem Equip 1998;27(4):3842.
[3] Kim YJ, Son BG. Finite element based stress concentration factors for pipes with local wall thinning. Int J Press Vessels Pip 2004;81(12):897906.
[4] Kim YJ, Shim DJ, Lim H, Kim YJ. Reference stress based approach to predict failure strength of pipes with local wall thinning under single loading. ASME Trans J Press
Vessel Technol 2004;126:194201.
[5] Kim YJ, Oh CK, Park CY, Hasegawa K. Net-section limit load approach for failure strength estimates of pipes with local wall thinning. Int J Press Vessels Pip 2006;83
(7):54655.
[6] Ahn SH, Nam KW, Takahashi K, Ando K. Comparison of experimental and nite element analytical results for the strength and the deformation of pipes with local wall
thinning subjected to bending moment. Nucl Eng Des 2006;236(2):14055.
[7] Shim DJ, Kim YJ, Kim YJ. Reference stress based approach to predict failure strength of pipes with local wall thinning under combined loading. ASME Trans J Press Vessel
Technol 2005;127:7683.
[8] Kim JW, Lee SH, Park CY. Experimental evaluation of the effect of local wall thinning on the failure pressure of elbows. Nucl Eng Des 2009;239(12):273746.
[9] Hui H, Li PN. Plastic limit load analysis for steam generator tubes with local wall-thinning. Nucl Eng Des 2010;240(10):251220.
[10] Han LH, He SY, Wang YP, Liu CD. Limit moment of local wall thinning in pipe under bending. Int J Press Vessels Pip 1999;76(8):53942.
[11] Kim JW, Na MG, Park CY. Effect of local wall thinning on the collapse behavior of pipe elbows subjected to a combined internal pressure and in-plane bending load. Nucl
Eng Des 2008;238(6):127585.
[12] Kim YJ, Kim J, Ahn J, Hong SP, Park CY. Effects of local wall thinning on plastic limit loads of elbows using geometrically linear FE limit analyses. Eng Fract Mech 2008;75
(8):222545.
[13] Kim YJ, Lee KH, Oh CS, Yoo B, Park CY. Effect of bend angle on plastic loads of pipe bends under internal pressure and in-plane bending. Int J Mech Sci 2007;49:141324.
[14] Oh CK, Kim YJ, Park CY. Effects of local wall thinning on net-section limit loads for pipes under combined pressure and bending. Nucl Eng Des 2009;239(2):26173.
[15] Ahn SH, Nam KW, Yoo YS, Ando K, Ji SH, Ishiwata M, et al. Fracture behavior of straight pipe and elbow with local wall thinning. Nucl Eng Des 2002;211(23):91103.
[16] Miyazaki K, Kanno S, Ishiwata M, Hasegawa K, Ahn SH, Ando K. Fracture and general yield for carbon steel pipes with local wall thinning. Nucl Eng Des 2002;211
(1):618.
[17] Miyazaki K, Kanno S, Ishiwata M, Hasegawa K, Ahn SH, Ando K. Fracture behavior of carbon steel pipe with local wall thinning subjected to bending load. Nucl Eng Des
1999;191(2):195204.
[18] Miyazaki K, Nebu A, Ishiwata M, Hasegawa K. Fracture strength and behavior of carbon steel pipes with local wall thinning subjected to cyclic bending load. Nucl Eng
Des 2002;214(12):12736.
[19] Takahashi K, Ando K, Hisatsune M, Hasegawa K. Failure behavior of carbon steel pipe with local wall thinning near orice. Nucl Eng Des 2007;237(4):33541.
[20] Takahashi K, Kato A, Ando K, Hisatsune M, Hasegawa K. Fracture and deformation behaviors of tee pipe with local wall thinning. Nucl Eng Des 2007;237(2):13742.
[21] Peng J, Zhou CY, Xue JL, Dai Q, He XH. Safety assessment of pipes with multiple local wall thinning defects under pressure and bending moment. Nucl Eng Des 2011;241
(8):275865.
[22] Takahashi K, Tsunoi S, Hara T, Ueno T, Mikami A, Takada H, et al. Experimental study of low-cycle fatigue of pipe elbows with local wall thinning and life estimation
using nite element analysis. Int J Press Vessels Pip 2010;87(5):2119.
[23] Takahashi K, Watanabe S, Ando K, Urabe Y, Hidaka A, Hisatsune M, et al. Low cycle fatigue behaviors of elbow pipe with local wall thinning. Nucl Eng Des 2009;239
(12):271927.
[24] ANSI/ASME B31G. Manual for Determining the Remaining Strength of Corroded Pipelines. New York: ASME; 1991.
[25] GB/T19624. Safety assessment for in-service pressure vessels containing defects (in Chinese); 2004.
[26] BS 7910. Guide to methods of assessing the acceptability of aws in fusion welded structures. London; 1999.
[27] Jones DH. Creep failures of overheated boiler, superheater and reformer tubes. Eng Fail Anal 2004;11(6):87393.
[28] Drubay B, Moulin D, Faidy C, Bhandari S. Defect assessment procedure: a French approach. New York: ASME PVP266; 1993. p. 1138.
[29] R5. Assessment procedure for the high temperature response of structures, Procedure R5, Issue 2. Gloucester: Nuclear Electric Ltd.; 1997.
[30] Xue JL, Zhou CY, He XH, Sheng JW. Stress concentration factors for pipes with local wall thinning under creep condition based on nite element method. In: Proceedings
of the 12th international conference on press vessel and technology. Jeju Island, 9; 2009. p. 52937.
[31] Xue JL, Zhou CY, Peng J. Creep stress analyses affected by load properties on P91 pipe with local wall thinning under high temperature. Mater Sci Forum 2012;704
705:13049.
[32] Xue JL, Zhou CY, Peng J. Creep stress analyses affected by defect geometries on P91 pipe with local wall thinning under high temperature. In: Proceedings of the 18th
international conference on nuclear engineering, 5; 2010. p. 52328.
[33] Zhou CY, Xue JL, Zhang GD. Creep analysis of the pipe with local thinning defect under pressure and moment at high temperature. J Press Equip Syst 2008;6(1):414.
 J.-L. Xue et al. / International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 93 (2015) 136153 153

[34] Wang B. Zhou CY, He XH, Xue JL. The limit load and safety assessment of pressure pipe with an external pit defect at high temperature. In: Proceedings of the ASME 2011
press vessels and piping conference, 3; 2011. p. 14752.
[35] ASME BPVC Section III Division 1 Subsection NH; 2007.
[36] Garofalo F. Fundamentals of creep and creep-rupture in metals. New York: Macmillan; 1965.
[37] Theofel H. Investigations on matching P91 welds under creep loading. Final report, AIF project no. 9300; 1997.
[38] ABAQUS. ABAQUS Users Manual, Pawtucket, USA; 2001.
[39] Gromann H. Automating the analysis of variance of orthogonal designs. Comput Stat Data Anal 2014;70:118.
[40] Miller AG. Review of limit loads of structures containing defects. Int J Press Vessels Pip 1988;32:197327.