Original Article

Proc IMechE Part L:

J Materials: Design and Applications
Development and validation of a leak 0(0) 1–12
! IMechE 2015
before break criterion for cylindrical Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav

pressure vessels DOI: 10.1177/1464420715595538

pil.sagepub.com

P Kannan1, KS Amirthagadeswaran2 and T Christopher3

Abstract
Leak before break is a fail–safe design concept for application in pressure vessels and piping of power and process plants.
A quantitative maximum allowable flaw size is required to establish to set acceptance/rejection limit to predict whether
the specific cracked pipe will leak or break. A new modification and its boundary based on Modified Two Parameter
Fracture Criterion is capable of separating the leak and break cases distinctly in order to predict the behavior of cracked
cylinders, pipelines and pressure vessels in advance for taking necessary precautions by the plant operator and also very
much handy for the designers. For the given operating pressure under the observed crack dimensions, whether the crack
will leak or break can be assessed from the boundary generated for the material concerned using Modified Two
Parameter fracture assessment procedure.

Keywords
Leak before break, modified two-parameter fracture criterion, cylindrical vessels

Date received: 22 February 2015; accepted: 20 June 2015

for the internal pressure to be relieved before sudden

Introduction
Fracture can occur in pipelines, pressure vessels, ship
hulls, and aircraft structures even at stresses below the
yield strength of the structural materials. Such failures
have often come as a surprise to both user and
designer who followed the concepts of conventional
strength of materials. Conventional design theories
basically account for stress, material strength, and
stress concentrations at fillets, corners and holes, but
they do not consider the crack-like defects inherent in
all materials. Ductile materials and most of the steels
under stress will deform plastically around the tips of
these cracks and absorb local overloads. The
increased use of modern high strength materials,
while producing lighter products, tend to be less for-
giving of defects than the traditional ductile materials.
The need for methods that quantify the presence of
cracks and the effects on material performance has led
to the evolution and development of fracture
mechanics.
Depending on the load and the toughness of the
material, the crack in a pipeline or pressure vessel
either 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
(LBB)’’, there is a chance for damage to be detected or
catastrophic failure of the vessel. Therefore, LBB
behavior is an important requirement for the safe
design and re-assessment of pressure vessels.1 The
LBB behavior of structural component under high
and low fatigue load is an important problem in
nuclear power plant, liquid nitrogen tankers and
chemical plants. The LBB design philosophy used
for high pressure vessel and related energy plant
equipment has been attracting much interest from a
safety and economic point of view.2 Kawaguchi et al.3
reported that LBB is one of the three fracture modes
concerning burst behavior of notched gas pipelines.
LBB concept is part of break preclusion (BP) concept
in Germany.4 This work is intended to verify applic-
ability of a modified two parameter fracture criterion
(MTPFC) in making assessments on whether a par-
ticular cracked pipe would leak or break. This newly
1
Ramagundam Super Thermal Power Station, NTPC Ltd, Jyothinagar,
India
2
Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Government College of Technology,
Coimbatore, India
3
Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Government College of
Engineering, Tirunelveli, India
Corresponding author:
P Kannan, Ramagundam Super Thermal Power Station, NTPC Ltd,
Jyothinagar 505215, India.
Email: ponntpc@rediffmail.com; kanntpc@gmail.com

Downloaded from pil.sagepub.com at Middle East Technical Univ on February 10, 2016
2 Proc IMechE Part L: J Materials: Design and Applications 0(0)
developed procedure is capable of separating the leak
and break cases distinctly in order to predict the
behavior of cracked cylinders in advance for taking
necessary precautions by the plant operator.
Literature survey
Zhou et al.5 highlighted that the concept of LBB was
first put forward by Irwin. Irwin and Hood developed
an analogous method, but both of these were very
simple methods and gave conservative results. Irwin
used Linear Elastic Fracture Mechanics (LEFM) to
show that the crack-driving force would be greater in
the radial direction than in the axial direction as long
as the axial crack length was less than twice the cylin-
der thickness.6 Figure 1 shows the conceptual view of
a cylindrical pressure vessel with axial surface crack.
Accordingly, LBB was postulated to occur if the
length of the flaw was less than twice the thickness of
the cylinder.
rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
 ffi
KIC 5ys  t þ rp
2
 a
where rp ¼ 2 2 is Irwin’s plasticity correction with
ys
half crack length c ¼ t and  ¼ ys .
Rana7 mentioned that the condition which satisfied
LBB was that the surface crack whose length was
equal to four times the thickness of cylinder must be
stable under the highest circular stress, because this
kind of crack was most typical. Its criterion of stabil-
ity is that the stress intensity factor is less than the
fracture toughness. The paper analyses LBB and plas-
tic fracture mode performance. However, their predic-
tion is stated to be 4–25% higher than the
experimentally determined value for LBB perform-
ance. Moreover, analysis is based on plane strain
Figure 1. Cylindrical pressure vessel with axial surface crack.
Downloaded from pil.sagepub.com at Middle East Technical Univ on February 10, 2016
fracture toughness and hence it is a conservative cri-
terion, and it is only suitable under some conditions of
loads and materials.
Toughry8 has presented in the final report of The
Nondestructive Testing Information Analysis Center
(NTIAC) a sound technical basis for developing quan-
titative maximum allowable flaw sizes and for setting
acceptance/rejection limit for the cylinder at the time of
retesting. Using traditional methods of re-testing, the
cylinders were rejected due to leaking, bursting, exces-
sive volumetric expansion or excessively large surface
flaws detected by visual examination.
Sharples et al.9 developed a structural integrity dia-
gram, a plot of crack depth against crack length that
can be used to investigate a wide range of safety argu-
ments for flawed pressure vessels including LBB. It
enables clear margins to be shown for defects which
might exist in the vessels and indicates crack sizes and
loadings where the LBB case is valid. The use of this
diagram requires a model of crack shape development
as a crack grows through the wall of the vessel up to
the stage at which the deepest part of the crack breaks
ð1Þ through the wall.
Yun-Jae10 has proposed an approach for non-linear
fracture mechanics analyses (elastic-plastic and creep
fracture mechanics) based on reference stress of cir-
cumferential and axial through-wall cracked pipes
under various loading conditions for LBB analysis.
Kim et al.11 presented a method to estimate elastic
plastic J-integral for circumferential through-wall
cracked pipes for the LBB analysis of pressurized
piping. However, the aforesaid approaches involve
complicated computations for J-integral and require
stress–strain data of material concerned.
Both K-based and CTOD-based assessment routes
of BS7910 produced conservative predictions. API
579 is mainly targeted at the assessment of ageing
Kannan et al.
plants.12 SINTAP procedure draws on the experience
gained in assessment procedures like R6 and BS
7910.13 Zerbst et al.14 applied the European flaw
assessment procedure structural integrity assessment
procedures for European industry (SINTAP) to the
published fracture data on steel pipes having
through-wall and surface cracks subjected to internal
pressure. The SINTAP procedure offers a crack driv-
ing force (CDF) and a Failure Assessment Diagram
(FAD) route. Both are complementary and give iden-
tical results. In the CDF route, the determination of
the crack tip loading in the component and its com-
parison with the fracture resistance of the material are
two separate steps. In contrast to this philosophy, in
the FAD route a failure line is constructed by normal-
izing the crack tip loading by the materials fracture
resistance. The assessment of the component is then
based on the relative location of an assessment point
with respect to this failure line. The predicted failure
pressures were checked against a set of published
experimental data. The differences from the experi-
mental failure pressures were found to vary between
20% and 70%. They reported that the reason for this
spread is due to their lower bound estimations of frac-
ture toughness of the material from the Charpy
energy values through empirical relations. They have
applied different analysis levels of SINTAP by con-
sidering another set of fracture data and claimed that
the real load-carrying capacity was under estimated
by about 20% or less for the higher analysis levels
which demand high quality of the stress–strain
curves of the material in the yield range.
Present Ultrasonic test methods permit the quanti-
tative determination of the size of any flaws that
are present in cylinders. However, in order to use
this information, it is required that a quantitative
maximum allowable flaw sizes to be established to
set acceptance/rejection limit for the cylinders at the
time of re-testing or to predict whether the specific
cracked pipe will leak or break. The implementation
of the LBB concept may be impossible in some cases
due to the pessimism in the assessment route.15
Rana et al.16 who carried out various sets of experi-
ments on LBB have not followed fracture mechanics
approach due to the complication in evaluation of JIC.
Christopher et al.17,18 validated successfully a
Modified Two Parameter Criterion (MTPFC) in the
failure assessment of fracture specimens and pressure
vessels. Application of well-established fracture mech-
anics approach to the experiments on LBB conducted
by Rana et al. would be useful in predicting the leak
or break in pipelines, pressure vessels of power and
process industries. Motivated to facilitate the
plant operator in predicting the behavior of cracked
pipes in advance for taking necessary precautions, it is
an attempt to verify the validity of the simple and
reliable Modified Two Parameter Criterion
(MTPFC) fracture criterion in the assessment of
LBB condition.
Downloaded from pil.sagepub.com at Middle East Technical Univ on February 10, 2016
3
A failure assessment procedure
Christopher et al.19 discuss that the values of KIC seem
to be relevant in heavy sections like forgings or thick
plates. It is evident from the study of effect of thick-
ness on fracture toughness that a design based on KIC
will be unreasonably conservative in thin pipes or
pressure vessels that fail in ductile fracture mode. In
such circumstances, it is necessary to carry out what is
called KC tests corresponding to the thickness of
members in the intended structural application. The
value of KC can be determined from the point of tan-
gency between the crack-growth-resistance curve
(R-curve) and the crack-driving force curve appropri-
ate for the loading geometry. For part-through
cracked configurations, fracture strength estimations
are not possible directly from the R-curve of the
material because the part-through crack has two
dimensions, namely crack length and its depth. In
such situations, development of a relationship
between the failure stress (f ) and the stress intensity
factor (Kmax) at failure will be useful for fracture
strength evaluation of cracked configurations.
Christopher et al.17–19 have validated an efficient elas-
tic-plastic fracture criterion for the life expectation of
flawed structural configurations considering a good
amount of fracture data on various metallic materials
and different cracked configurations. This fracture cri-
terion was developed by Nageswara Rao et al.20 but
never utilized for assessment of LBB. For cracked
configurations, a relation between the stress intensity
factor (Kmax) and the corresponding stress at failure
(f ) is suggested in the form17–19
    p 
f f
Kmax ¼ KF 1m  ð1  mÞ ð2Þ
u u
For the pressurized cylinders, f is the hoop stress at
the failure pressure of the flawed cylinder, and u is
the hoop stress at the failure pressure of an unflawed
cylinder. To establish an empirical relationship
between Kmax and f , the three fracture parameters
(KF, m and p) are to be determined from the fracture
data of the intended material. It may be noted that KF
has the unit as of fracture toughness, but its value
cannot be compared with fracture toughness.
In fact, equation (2) developed by Nageswara Rao
et al.20 is based on the experimental observations
during fracture toughness testing of compact tension
specimens as well as surface-crack tension specimens
of maraging steel, and following the basic concepts of
the Newman’s21 two-parameter fracture criterion
(TPFC). The TPFC equation is
  
f
Kmax ¼ KF 1m ð3Þ
u
This empirical relation (3) requires that one needs to
evaluate only KF and m in equation utilizing the
4 Proc IMechE Part L: J Materials: Design and Applications 0(0)

fracture strength and corresponding stress intensity Here, a is crack depth, M and  are correction
factor of two fractured specimens of relevant config- factors based on thickness t, crack length 2c and
uration, where fracture strength is nominal net section crack depth a. Detailed equations can be referred
stress corresponding to the failure load of specimen from the original literature. Using equations (2) and
containing crack and corresponding stress intensity (6), one can set up the following fracture strength
factor at failure is computed using well-established equation to determine the nominal failure stress (f )
solutions. for a specified crack size of a flawed cylinder under
The additional parameter p in equation (2) can be internal pressure.
obtained from17–19  p
f
" ð1  m Þ
 u
1 1 1   
p ¼ 1
ln 1  pffiffiffi ð1 þ Þ u ð aÞ1=2 M f
ln 2 ð1 þ Þ ð1  m Þ 2 2 þ mþ 1¼0 ð8Þ
  #  KF u
1 pffiffiffi 
 þ 21 m ð4Þ Using the Newton–Raphson iterative method, the

non-linear equation (8) is solved for f . Failure pres-
sure of cylindrical vessel having an axial surface or
where through-thickness crack is obtained from equation (7).

4
¼ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi : ð5Þ Results and discussion
3 þ 9  8m
Rana and Selines23 conducted tests on cylinders fab-
The limiting values of KF and m and detailed pro- ricated with the material 4134 steel (see Table 1) and
cedure of evaluation can be found in Christopher 3AA 4130X (see Table 2). The cylinders were rated for
et al.17 The solution for stress intensity factor Kmax 31 MPa service pressure. Mean diameter and wall
in equations (2) and (3) for cylindrical vessels with thickness were 229 mm and 7.6 mm, respectively.
an axial surface crack as obtained from the finite Sharp, semi-elliptical flaws having 0.076 mm
element solutions by Newman22 is tip radiuses were introduced using the EDM
(electro-discharge-machining) process. The flaws
Kmax ¼ f ðaÞ1=2 M= ð6Þ were machined on the outside cylinder surface, and
the flaw’s major axis was parallel to the longitudinal
where axis of the cylinder. The flaw length varied from
25.4 mm to 76.2 mm, and the flaw depth to wall thick-
pbf Ri ness ratio (a/t) varied from 0.6 to 0.9. The cylinders
f ¼ ð7Þ
t were pressurized monotonically with water or nitro-
gen gas to failure. Using the procedure outlined in

Table 1. Test results23 of high-strength flawed cylinders manufactured from 4134 steel (sys ¼ 1097.1 MPa, sult ¼ 1179.9 MPa).

Failure mode

Test No. Do (mm) Thickness (mm) a (mm) 2c (mm) Pbf (MPa) Test23 Present analysis

71103 237.0 7.6 5.7 50.8 55.5 Break Break

71106 237.0 7.0 4.3 25.4 64.2 Break Break
71116 236.7 7.4 4.6 50.8 57.5 Break Break
71117 236.7 7.5 5.2 50.8 52.3 Break Break
71118 237.2 7.6 6.2 50.8 49.3 Leak Leak
71119 236.5 7.4 5.1 76.2 47.3 Break Break
71120 237.0 7.7 5.5 76.2 45.1 Break Break
71124 236.5 7.1 6.1 76.2 28.8 Leak Leak
71125 236.7 7.8 6.5 25.4 68.5 Leak Leak
71126 236.5 7.4 5.4 25.4 70.3 Break Break
71132 237.2 7.1 6.1 69.9 34.8 Leak Leak
71133 236.5 7.4 6.7 69.9 33.0 Leak Leak
71137 236.2 7.5 5.2 69.9 48.4 Break Break
71138 236.7 7.4 6.3 69.9 35.6 Leak Leak
71139 236.5 7.4 7.2 69.9 32.6 Leak Leak

Downloaded from pil.sagepub.com at Middle East Technical Univ on February 10, 2016
Kannan et al. 5

Table 2. Test results23 of DOT 3AA 4130X flawed cylinders (sys ¼ 646.53 MPa; sult ¼ 783.15 MPa).

Failure mode

Test No. Do (mm) Thickness (mm) a (mm) 2c (mm) Pbf (MPa) Test23 Present analysis

30747 236.2 7.4 4.9 25.4 41.5 Break Break

30835 236.2 6.8 5.2 25.4 37.1 Break Break
30933 236.2 7.3 6.2 25.4 38.3 Leak Leak
38444 236.2 7.2 4.8 50.8 33.2 Break Break
42934 236.2 6.9 4.6 68.6 27.9 Break Break
45491 236.2 7.4 6.4 50.8 29.5 Leak Leak
55172 236.2 7.2 5.5 50.8 35.7 Break Break
56792 236.2 7.6 5.1 76.2 32.7 Break Break
65284 236.2 7.2 5.5 76.2 24.6 Break Break
82915 236.2 7.4 6.3 76.2 21.4 Leak Leak
83905 236.2 7.2 6.1 68.6 26.2 Leak Leak
84065 236.2 7.1 5.4 68.6 25.2 Break Break

Figure 2. Break–leak boundary for the test data23 of high-strength flawed cylinders manufactured from 4134 steel.

Section 3, the fracture parameters for the data in
Table 1 were found as KF ¼ 405 MPaˇm,
m ¼ 0.7193 and; p ¼ 26.0635. The fracture parameters
for the data in Table 2 were found as
KF ¼ 246 MPaˇm, m ¼ 0.705 and p ¼ 25.15. Tables
1 and 2 show the test results23 of high-strength
flawed cylinders manufactured from 4134 steel. It
can be noted that few cylinders leaked where as
others ruptured. On observations, the leak cases are
mostly with a/t > 0.8. Hence, an attempt was made to
plot both leak and break cases in a plane f vs 2C a.
Using the fracture parameters (KF, m and p) found
as earlier and solving equation (8) for at ¼ 0:8, a failure
boundary has been developed. This boundary
separates leak and break cases almost distinctly.
Figures 2 and 3 show the leak–break boundary gen-
erated and the test results.23 It can also be seen in
Tables 1 and 2 that 100% of analyzed data comply
with the test results.
Tables 3 and 4 show test results16 of Materials B
and C, respectively, referred as material having the
strength of 724–860 MPa and 930–1100 MPa. Few
cylinders were tested with EDM flaws with semi-
elliptical shape and the remaining were tested with
flaws made by CVN cutter. Flaws were made at exter-
nal surface in the longitudinal direction. The cylinders
were tested monotonically with water at room tem-
perature until LBB or fracture occurred. Fracture

Downloaded from pil.sagepub.com at Middle East Technical Univ on February 10, 2016
6 Proc IMechE Part L: J Materials: Design and Applications 0(0)

Figure 3. Break–leak boundary for the test data23 of high-strength flawed cylinders manufactured from DOT 3AA 4130X steel.

Table 3. Test results16 of DOT 3AA 4130X – Material B flawed cylinders.

Failure mode

Do (mm) Thickness (mm) a (mm) 2C (mm) Pbf (MPa) sys (MPa) sult (MPa) Test13 Present analysis

236.0 7.5 5.0 26 38 580 745 Break Leak

236.0 6.8 5.2 25 35 642 794 Break Leak
236.0 7.5 6.3 25 36 607 752 Leak Leak
236.0 7.2 4.8 50 31 538 704 Break Break
236.0 7.2 5.5 50 34 690 814 Break Break
236.0 7.3 6.4 50 28 598 745 Leak Leak
236.0 6.9 4.6 68 27 738 869 Break Break
236.0 7.1 5.4 68 24 697 780 Break Leak
236.0 6.9 6.2 68 25 696 821 Leak Leak
236.0 7.6 5.1 76 34 669 800 Break Break
236.0 7.2 5.5 76 27 602 787 Break Break
236.0 6.6 6.4 76 20 640 787 Leak Leak
230.0 6.6 5.8 95 21 683 847 Leak Leak
230.0 6.8 4.8 88 28 683 847 Break Break
230.0 7.2 4.3 94 31 683 847 Break Break
230.0 7.0 5.5 95 25 683 847 Leak Break
230.0 6.9 4.9 90 23 890 949 Break Break
230.0 7.6 5.5 99 26 890 949 Break Break
230.0 6.8 5.7 99 22 890 949 Leak Leak
230.0 7.4 5.7 95 20 890 949 Leak Leak
230.0 7.4 6.1 100 22 890 949 Leak Leak
230.0 7.5 6.5 101 18 890 949 Leak Leak
230.0 6.8 5.1 68 26 655 778 Break Break
230.0 7.5 5.3 66 24 657 788 Leak Break
230.0 6.8 5.9 104 14 755 870 Leak Leak
230.0 6.9 5.0 63 22 577 743 Leak Leak
(continued)

Downloaded from pil.sagepub.com at Middle East Technical Univ on February 10, 2016
Kannan et al. 7

Table 3. Continued

Failure mode

Do (mm) Thickness (mm) a (mm) 2C (mm) Pbf (MPa) sys (MPa) sult (MPa) Test13 Present analysis

230.0 6.5 5.9 55 27 635 748 Leak Leak

230.0 6.7 4.7 101 19 650 731 Break Break
236.0 6.6 7.4 92 28 640 786 Leak Leak
236.0 9.7 7.3 97 27 648 786 Break Leak
238.0 6.6 7.9 99 24 648 786 Leak Leak
238.0 6.8 12.7 159 46 669 807 Leak Leak
238.0 6.8 11.9 159 44 669 807 Leak Leak
238.0 6.8 11.3 162 53 669 807 Leak Leak
178.0 5.4 2.7 41 33 570 776 Break Break
178.0 5.5 3.2 41 33 577 774 Break Break
178.0 5.6 4.0 42 32 684 817 Break Break
178.0 5.8 4.6 43 29 625 783 Break Leak
178.0 6.4 4.7 39 25 623 797 Leak Leak
178.0 5.1 2.6 44 31 687 762 Break Break
178.0 5.4 3.2 45 31 563 808 Break Break
178.0 5.5 3.9 47 30 577 800 Break Break
178.0 5.3 4.2 46 28 635 811 Break Break
178.0 6.7 4.7 45 23 604 825 Leak Leak
178.0 5.5 2.8 56 32 541 826 Break Break
178.0 5.4 3.7 53 29 536 736 Break Break
178.0 5.3 3.8 54 27 582 802 Break Break
178.0 5.3 4.2 52 25 560 811 Break Break
178.0 6.7 4.8 53 21 630 832 Leak Leak
178.0 5.3 2.6 65 27 670 815 Break Break
178.0 5.0 3.1 66 25 599 808 Break Break
178.0 4.9 3.4 61 21 595 796 Break Break
178.0 5.4 4.2 65 20 643 829 Break Leak
178.0 6.0 4.9 64 15 557 838 Leak Leak
178.0 6.6 4.3 81 16 615 823 Leak Leak
178.0 5.0 3.0 81 22 619 831 Break Break
178.0 5.1 3.5 74 19 603 787 Break Break
178.0 6.3 4.1 76 17 665 843 Leak Leak
178.0 6.7 4.9 82 10 623 811 Leak Leak
232.0 6.8 5.5 65 19 748 875 Leak Leak
232.0 7.8 5.2 62 22 713 824 Leak Leak
232.0 7.8 5.5 66 23 763 872 Leak Leak

parameters evaluated using fractured data as
KF ¼ 289 MPaˇ m, m ¼ 0.8792, and p ¼ 50.1227 for
material B and KF ¼ 283 MPaˇ m; m ¼ 0.5486;
p ¼ 18.8425 for material C. Figures 4 and 5 show
the break–leak boundary and the test data.16 It can
also be seen in Tables 3 and 4 that 85% of analyzed
data comply with the test results.16 However, scatter
in test results can be dealt only with statistical
analysis.
Rana7 conducted pressure test on DOT 3AA
(Manufactured from modified AISI 4130 steel) high
pressure gas cylinders with nominal wall thickness of
7.6 mm and a diameter of 229 mm. The cylinders were
reheated to obtain yield strengths in the neighborhood
of 1102.4 MPa to conduct test. Since it was not pos-
sible to produce high strength cylinders with the
required low toughness range of 414–483 MPaˇm
at 1102.4 MPa yield strength level, cylinders having
identical physical size and tensile properties of high
strength cylinder were used for testing purpose.
Sharp, semi-elliptical shaped, EDM flaws of varying
lengths of 25–76 mm and varying depths (a/t of
0.5–0.9) were machined on the outside surface of the
reheat treated test cylinders. Four flawed cylinders
were subjected to fatigue loading by pressurization
with water to failure. These cylinders were subjected

Downloaded from pil.sagepub.com at Middle East Technical Univ on February 10, 2016
8 Proc IMechE Part L: J Materials: Design and Applications 0(0)

Table 4. Test results16 of DOT 3AA 4130X – Material C flawed cylinders.

Failure mode

Present
Do (mm) Thickness (mm) a (mm) 2c (mm) Pbf (MPa) sys (MPa) sult (MPa) Test13 analysis

229.0 6.8 4.8 68 37 878 996 Break Break

229.0 6.8 4.8 68 37 878 996 Break Break
229.0 6.7 4.7 67 37 878 996 Break Break
229.0 6.8 5.1 68 35 878 996 Leak Break
229.0 6.7 5.0 67 33 878 996 Leak Leak
229.0 6.8 4.9 68 36 878 996 Break Break
229.0 6.8 4.4 68 38 878 996 Break Break
229.0 6.8 4.8 68 37 878 996 Break Break
229.0 6.8 5.1 68 34 878 989 Leak Leak
229.0 6.7 5.0 67 34 887 982 Leak Break
229.0 6.9 5.5 69 32 867 961 Leak Leak
229.0 6.6 5.3 66 30 855 996 Leak Leak
229.0 6.6 5.1 66 32 878 996 Leak Leak
203.0 6.7 5.0 67 37 878 964 Leak Leak
203.0 6.7 5.0 67 37 852 964 Leak Leak
203.0 6.7 5.0 67 35 852 964 Leak Leak
203.0 6.7 5.4 67 35 852 964 Leak Leak
203.0 6.5 5.2 65 34 852 964 Leak Leak
203.0 6.5 5.1 65 35 852 964 Leak Leak
203.0 6.6 4.6 66 38 852 964 Break Break
203.0 6.7 4.4 67 40 852 964 Break Break
203.0 6.4 4.8 64 33 852 964 Leak Leak
203.0 6.5 4.9 65 36 852 964 Leak Break
203.0 6.4 4.5 64 39 852 964 Break Break
203.0 6.2 4.3 62 39 852 964 Break Break
203.0 6.4 4.6 64 39 852 964 Break Leak
230.0 7.5 5.5 75 20 898 1000 Break Break
230.0 7.5 5.5 75 20 898 1000 Break Leak
230.0 6.9 5.3 69 17 898 1000 Leak Leak
230.0 7.1 5.7 71 25 898 1000 Leak Leak
230.0 6.5 5.1 65 27 898 1000 Leak Leak
230.0 7.1 5.5 71 19 850 950 Leak Leak
230.0 7.4 5.7 74 19 850 950 Leak Leak
230.0 7.5 5.3 75 21 850 950 Break Leak
230.0 7.3 5.7 73 27 922 1000 Break Leak
230.0 6.9 5.5 69 23 922 1000 Break Leak
230.0 6.6 5.0 66 27 835 966 Leak Leak
230.0 6.6 5.0 66 27 835 966 Leak Leak
230.0 7.0 5.6 70 31 835 966 Leak Leak
230.0 6.8 5.1 68 33 835 966 Break Break
230.0 7.4 5.2 74 34 835 966 Break Break
230.0 7.4 5.2 74 36 835 966 Break Break
230.0 7.5 5.6 75 32 835 966 Leak Leak
230.0 7.5 5.6 75 33 835 966 Leak Leak
203.0 6.8 5.0 68 33 850 960 Leak Leak
203.0 6.9 4.8 69 37 850 960 Break Break
203.0 6.5 4.6 65 38 850 960 Leak Leak
203.0 6.6 5.0 66 36 850 960 Leak Leak
203.0 6.6 4.4 66 41 850 960 Break Break
(continued)

Downloaded from pil.sagepub.com at Middle East Technical Univ on February 10, 2016
Kannan et al. 9

Table 4. Continued

Failure mode

Present
Do (mm) Thickness (mm) a (mm) 2c (mm) Pbf (MPa) sys (MPa) sult (MPa) Test13 analysis

203.0 6.8 4.6 68 38 850 960 Break Break

235.0 6.8 5.8 68 22 850 1000 Leak Leak
235.0 6.8 5.8 68 22 896 1000 Leak Leak
235.0 6.4 5.4 64 23 862 972 Leak Leak
235.0 6.7 5.4 67 29 828 938 Leak Leak
235.0 6.7 4.7 67 30 896 938 Break Break
235.0 6.0 5.1 60 23 938 1027 Leak Leak
235.0 6.6 5.6 66 25 793 862 Leak Leak
235.0 6.3 4.7 63 27 979 1048 LBB Break
235.0 6.7 4.7 67 28 952 1041 Break Break
235.0 6.8 5.1 68 28 952 1041 Break Break
238.0 7.8 5.9 62 41 1003 1069 Break Break
238.0 7.8 5.9 62 41 1003 1069 Break Break
238.0 7.3 6.2 59 35 1003 1069 Leak Leak
238.0 7.7 6.2 62 36 1003 1069 Leak Leak
238.0 6.6 5.3 53 43 1003 1069 Break Break
238.0 6.8 5.8 55 43 1003 1069 Break Break
238.0 6.8 6.1 55 41 1003 1069 Leak Break
191.0 6.5 5.5 65 33 842 962 Leak Leak
191.0 6.5 5.5 65 33 842 962 Leak Leak
191.0 6.3 5.4 63 35 969 1067 Leak Leak
232.0 4.7 4.1 47 26 999 1072 Leak Break
232.0 4.8 3.9 48 23 921 985 Leak Leak
232.0 4.9 4.2 49 20 921 985 Leak Leak
232.0 4.7 4.0 47 19 921 985 Leak Leak
232.0 4.7 4.0 47 19 921 985 Leak Leak

Figure 4. Break–leak boundary for the test data16 of DOT 3AA 4130X – Material B flawed cylinders.

Downloaded from pil.sagepub.com at Middle East Technical Univ on February 10, 2016
10 Proc IMechE Part L: J Materials: Design and Applications 0(0)

Table 5. Test results7 of DOT3AA (manufactured from modified AISI 4130 steel) material (sys 1104 MPa and sult ¼ 1207.5 MPa).

Failure mode

Test No. Do (mm) Thickness (mm) a (mm) 2c (mm) Pbf (MPa) Test7 Present analysis

358129 228.6 7.3 2.5 25.4 34.8 Leak Leak

356916 228.6 7.2 2.5 25.4 34.1 Leak Leak
199689 228.6 7.5 5.7 25.4 47.3 Break Break
159915 228.6 7.2 6.1 25.4 39.4 Break Break
358124 228.6 7.7 2.8 30.5 36.5 Leak Leak
322740 228.6 7.3 2.9 30.5 35.3 Leak Leak
136886 228.6 7.2 5.4 50.8 28.6 Leak Leak
155790 228.6 7.8 6.8 50.8 30.5 Leak Leak
328008 228.6 7.8 6.0 76.2 26.5 Break Break
317199 228.6 7.4 6.3 76.2 22.3 Break Break

Figure 5. Break–leak boundary for the test data16 of DOT 3AA 4130X – Material C flawed cylinders.

to stresses that were lower by approximately 6% com-
pared to the stress level of 537.4 MPa of a high
strength cylinder. In addition, six flawed cylinders
were monotonically pressurized with water to failure.
The failure mode is defined as either LBB or fracture.
All ruptured cylinders exhibited flat fracture with
fairly large size shear lips, indicating plane stress
(elastic-plastic) fracture mode. Table 5 shows these
test results.7 Fracture parameters evaluated using
the fractured cases are KF ¼ 210 MPaˇ m,
m ¼ 0.8911 and p ¼ 54.74. Figure 6 shows the break–
leak boundary and the test data.7 It can also be seen in
Table 5 that 90% of analyzed data comply with the
test results.7 It is observed that mostly the leak cases
are of lower toughness as compared to fracture cases,
in which crack grow gradually and leak. Leak cases
demand initiation stresses that permit a little crack
growth leading to a through crack. Fractured cases
are of higher toughness and after reaching instability
load, the fracture occurs before the crack growth is
able to reach the outer surface. Modified Two
Parameter Fracture Criterion that has been
validated successfully for fracture assessment is now
validated here for making a boundary between leak
and break.
Conclusions
The leak before break (LBB) concept could be applied
for the protective design against pipe break. A simple
and reliable modified two parameter fracture criterion
(MTPFC) has been found to clearly differentiate leak
and break cases. This new approach does not require
crack growth analysis. The fracture parameters neces-
sary for the fracture strength equation of the criterion
can be evaluated from the test data on simple fracture
specimens. For the given operating pressure under the
observed crack dimensions, whether the crack will
leak or break can be assessed from the boundary gen-
erated for the material concerned using Modified Two

Downloaded from pil.sagepub.com at Middle East Technical Univ on February 10, 2016
Kannan et al.
Figure 6. Break–leak boundary for the test data7 of DOT3AA (manufactured from modified AISI 4130 steel) material.
Parameter fracture assessment procedure. The fact
that whether it would be safe or break/leak will be
easily evident.
Funding
This research received no specific grant from any funding
agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
References
1. Pacholkova S and Taylor H. Theoretical background of
‘‘leak-before-break’’ as a concept in pressure vessels
design. Metal 2002; 14–16.5: 1–8.
2. Nam K-W and Abn S-H. Crack opening behavior of
penetrated crack under fatigue load. KSME Int J 2002;
16: 24–31.
3. Kawaguchi S, Hagiwara N, Masuda T, et al. Evaluation
of leak-before-break (LBB) behavior for axially notched
X65 and X80 line pipes. J Offshore Mech Arct Eng 2004;
126: 350–357.
4. Drubaya B, Mariea S, Chapuliota S, et al. A16: guide for
defect assessment at elevated temperature. Int J Pres Ves
Piping 2003; 80: 499–516.
5. Zhou J-Q and Shen S-M. Development of the leak-
before-break assessment method to reduce some short-
comings. Int J Pres Ves Piping 1996; 69: 75–77.
6. Wilkowski G. Leak-before-break: what does it really
mean? J Pressure Vessel Technol 2000; 122: 267–272.
7. Rana MD. Experimental Verification of Fracture
Toughness requirement for LBB performance of 150–
175 Ksi strength level gas cylinder. J Pressure Vessel
Technol 1987; 109: 435–439.
8. Toughry M. Development of accept reject criteria for
requalification of high pressure steel and aluminium
cylinders. Non-destructive Testing Information
Analysis Center (NTIAC), Austin, Final Report 2002.
Downloaded from pil.sagepub.com at Middle East Technical Univ on February 10, 2016
11
9. Sharples JK and Clayton AM. A leak-before-break
assessment method for pressure vessels and some cur-
rent unresolved issues. Int J Pres Ves Piping 1990; 43:
317–327.
10. Kim Y-J, Huh NS and Kim YJ. Engineering J-estima-
tion methods for LBB analysis of nuclear piping. JSME
Int J Series A 2005; 48: No.1.
11. Kim Y-J. Non-linear fracture mechanics analysis of
through-wall cracked pipes for leak-before-break ana-
lysis. J Pressure Equipment Syst 2004; 2: 71–78.
12. Andrewsd RM, Harrisona JD, Wiesnera CS, et al.
Engineering critical analysis to BS 7910-the UK guide
on methods for assessing the acceptability of flaws in
metallic structures. Int J Pressure Vessels Piping 2000;
77: 883–893.
13. Structural Integrity Assessment Procedure for
European Industry – SINTAP, Final Report, Swinden
Technology Centre, Rotherham, UK, November 1999.
14. Zerbst U, Hamann R and Wohlschlegel A.
Application of the European flaw assessment procedure
SINTAP to pipes. Int J Pressure Vessels Piping 2000;
77: 697–702.
15. Darlaston BJL. Some aspects of leak before break; their
quantification and application. Nucl Eng Des 1985; 84:
225–232.
16. Rana MD, Smith JH and Tribolet RO. Technical basis
for flawed cylinder test specification to assure adequate
fracture resistance of ISO high-strength steel cylinder.
J Pressure. Vessel Technol 1997; 119: 475–480.
17. Christopher T, Sankaranarayanasamy K and
Nageswara Rao B. Correlating cryogenic fracture
strength using a modified two-parameter method.
J Engng Fract Mech 2005; 72: 475–490.
18. Christopher T, Sankarnarayanasamy K and Nageswara
Rao B. Fracture strength of flawed cylindrical pressure
vessels under cryogenic temperatures. Cryogenics 2002;
42: 661–673.
12 Proc IMechE Part L: J Materials: Design and Applications 0(0)

19. Christopher T, Sankaranarayanasamy K and KF, m, p three fracture parameters in

Nageswara Rao B. Fracture behaviour of maraging equation (2)
steel tensile specimens and pressurized cylindrical ves- KIC critical stress intensity factor
sels. Fatigue Fract Engng Mater Struct 2004; 27: Kmax stress intensity factor at failure
177–186.
Pbf failure pressure of flawed cylindrical
20. Nageswara Rao B and Acharya AR. Fracture analysis
vessel
of a surface cracked plate under tension. Eng Fract
Mech 1989; 32: 551–559. Ri inner radius of cylinder
21. Newman Jr JC. An Evaluation of Fracture Analysis rp Irwin’s plasticity correction
Methods. Elastic-Plastic Fracture Mechanics Technology, t thickness of cylinder
ASTM STP 896, Philadelphia 1985, pp.5–96. s stress
22. Newman Jr JC. Fracture analysis of surface and through ys yield strength or 0.2% proof stress
cracks in cylindrical pressure vessels. Technical Note, f maximum hoop stress in flawed
NASA, Hampton, VA, Langley Research Center, cylinder
TND-8325, pp.1–33. 1976. u hoop stress at the failure pressure of an
23. Rana MD and Selines RJ. Structural integrity assur- unflawed cylinder
ance of high-strength steel gas cylinders using fracture
sult ultimate tensile strength
mechanics. Engng Fract Mech 1988; 30: 877–894.
, M correction factors
 variable defined for evaluation of p

Appendix
Notation
a crack depth
c half the crack length
Do outer diameter of cylindrical vessel

Downloaded from pil.sagepub.com at Middle East Technical Univ on February 10, 2016