MSc (MED) - Engineering Design 1 [MACE 61061] Fracture, Fatigue & Creep in Design - Dr M A Sheikh

Guide to methods for assessing the acceptability of flaws in metallic structures BS 7910:2005 (Summary) In many circumstances it is necessary to examine critically the integrity of new or existing structures by the use of NDT methods and establish the acceptance levels for the flaws revealed. The derivation of acceptance levels for flaws is based on the concept of 'fitness for purpose'. By this principle, a particular fabrication (or structure) is considered to be adequate for its purpose, provided the conditions to cause failure are not reached. Quality control levels are usually both arbitrary and conservative but are of considerable value in the monitoring and maintenance of quality during production. Flaws that are less severe than such quality control levels as given, for example, in current application standards, are acceptable without further consideration. If flaws more severe than the quality control levels are revealed, rejection is not necessarily automatic. Decisions on whether rejection and/or repairs are justified may be based on fitness for purpose, either in the light of previously documented experience with similar material, stress and environmental combinations or on the basis of an engineering critical assessment (ECA). BS 7910 document is concerned with ECA. The following stages in the assessment of flaws need to be followed. a) If the flaws do not exceed the quality control levels in the appropriate application standard, no further action is required. b) If acceptance limits have already been established on the basis of an ECA for the appropriate combination of materials, fabrication procedure, welding consumables, stress and environmental factors, flaws need to be assessed on that basis. c) If no relevant documented experience exists, then an ECA based on the guidance given in BS 7910 needs to be carried out. The document has 10 sections, 21 annexes, and numerous figures, graphs and tables. 1. Scope BS 7910 document outlines methods for assessing the acceptability of flaws in all types of structures and components. Although emphasis is placed on welded fabrications in ferritic and austenitic steels and aluminium alloys, the procedures developed can be used for analysing flaws in structures made from other metallic materials and in non-welded components or structures. The methods described can be applied at the design, fabrication and operational phases of a structures life. 2. Other codes (References) These include amongst many others: BS 7448 BS 7608 Fracture mechanics toughness tests Code of practice for fatigue design and assessment of steel structures

Others are related to Welded Structures, NDT, Corrosion, and Tensile Testing etc.

3. Symbols and Definitions As used by BS 7910. 4. Types of Flaw (a) (b) (c) Planar flaws such as cracks. Non-planar flaws such as cavities and inclusions. Shape imperfections such as misalignment

5. Modes of Failure and Material Damage Mechanisms 5.1 Failure modes/damage mechanisms Fracture Plastic collapse Fatigue Creep Corrosion and others.. 5.2 Sequence of operations (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) (vi) Identify flaw type Establish data Determine flaw size Assess possible damage mechanisms Determine limiting size for the final mode of failure Assess whether flaw would grow to this final size (within remaining life or inspection interval) (vii) Assess consequences of failure (viii) Carry out sensitivity analysis (ix) Determine acceptability (Factors of Safety) 5.3 Treatment of flaws This is carried out at three levels. The choice of level depends upon available material data and application. Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Simple, conservative Normal procedure (has many options) Advanced, includes the effects of ductile tearing, greater accuracy.

6. Information Required for Assessment 6.1 General

It is inevitable that the ECA will require assumptions to be made about input parameters. Therefore, if there is any likelihood that an ECA will be required during the life of a

structure, it is advisable to generate relevant material properties at the construction stage, or to retain appropriate materials for later testing. In particular, the desirability of having accurate fracture toughness data cannot be emphasized too strongly and tests on weld procedure test samples are advisable. Similarly, fatigue crack growth, creep and stress corrosion cracking data may be obtained from the actual materials of construction. Any such tests should be performed in accordance with the appropriate standards from the list in Section 2. 6.2 Essential data (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) (vi) (vii) Nature, position and orientation of flaw Structural, weld geometry Stresses Y (or 0.2), uts, E, / data Fatigue, S-N data, Fatigue crack propagation KIC, J, CTOD Creep rupture, propagation etc..

6.3

NDT Flaw - length, height, position, orientation, planar or non-planar etc. [Ultrasonic, Radiography, P.D method etc.]

6.4

Stresses Consider actual stresses without flaw. Primary [Membrane (Pm), Bending (Pb)] Secondary [Q (Qm & Qb): Thermal, Residual etc.] Stresses at discontinuities (welds, holes, notches etc) - SCF

7. Assessment of Fracture Resistance 7.1 7.1.1 Background General Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Simplified, used when material data is limited. (Section 7.2) Normal (Section 7.3) Advanced, more accurate, conservative, suitable for ductile materials, includes ductile tearing. (Section 7.4)

The choice of level depends upon material data, input data, and required accuracy. Figures 4, 5, 6 & 7 give the flowcharts for the general methods, Level 1, Level 2, and Level 3 respectively.

FAD: Assessment is generally made by means of a failure assessment diagram (FAD) based on the principles of fracture mechanics. The vertical axis of the FAD is a ratio (Kr) of the applied conditions, in fracture mechanics terms, to the conditions required to cause fracture, measured in the same terms. The horizontal axis is the ratio (Lr) of the applied load to that required to cause plastic collapse. An assessment line is plotted on the diagram. Calculations for a flaw provide either the co-ordinates of an assessment point or points. The positions of these are compared with the assessment line to determine the acceptability of the flaw Kr UNSAFE 1.0 SAFE

Assessment Point

1.0 = Flaw Dimensions & Interactions

Lr

= 7.1.2

Planar flaws should be characterized by the height and length of their containment rectangles. These dimensions are as follows: 2a for through thickness flaws; a and 2c for surface flaws; and 2a and 2c for embedded flaws. Multiple flaws on the same cross-section may lead to an interaction and to more severe effects than single flaws alone. Simple criteria for interaction is given to obtain the dimensions of the effective flaws after interaction. 7.1.3 Tensile data Y (or 0.2), uts, E are required at the appropriate temperature. HAZ data for welds is also required if softening is present. [BS EN10002-1 & BS EN10002-5] 7.1.4 SIF (K) & CTOD () FAD: The ordinate of FAD (fracture ratio) is either K or - thereby giving two routes for the assessment at each level.

K-route requires:

KIC from Plane Strain Fracture Toughness test, or Kmat obtained from Charpy V-notch impact test data, or conversion from Jmat using the following equation:
=

KIC, J, - BS 7448 7.1.8 Sr and Lr The parameter for plastic collapse appears as the abscissa on the FAD. In Level 1, it is Sr and is the reference stress divided by the flow strength (arithmetic mean of Y and uts, up to a maximum of 1.2Y). In Levels 2 and 3, it is Lr and is the reference stress divided by yield strength. The reason for the difference is that the assessment line for Level 1 is based on the assumption of an elastic-perfectly plastic stress-strain curve with no strain hardening. This is conservative and to compensate for this conservatism, it is permissible to use in the denominator of Sr the flow strength rather than the yield strength. Levels 2 and 3 allow more accurately for the actual shape of the material stress-strain curve and so no such concession can be made. 7.2 Level 1 - Simplified Assessment This is a simplified assessment route applicable where there is limited information on material properties or applied stresses. It contains two methods, Levels 1A and 1B. Level 1A: A single FAD (see Fig. 10) is used with Kr or r < 0.707 and Sr < 0.8 If the assessment point lies in the area within the assessment line, the flaw is acceptable; if it lies on or outside the line, the flaw is not acceptable. Level 1B: Maximum Stress: The stress used is the maximum tensile stress, max, which is taken to be equal to the sum of the values of the stress components. If only nominal membrane stresses, Snom, are known, max = kt Snom + (km 1) Snom + Q. Q : Secondary stresses If membrane and bending components are known, max = ktm Pm + ktb [Pb + (km 1) Pm] + Q Pb : Primary bending stress Pm : Primary membrane stress kt : SCF due to discontinuity km: SCF due to misalignment Manual estimation - does not involve FAD (Annex N)

Fracture Ratio:

; = () ; =

for all steels and aluminium alloys when and all ratios of (

) for other materials.

0.5, 0.5,

For all steels and aluminium alloys when =

0.25

Load Ratio:

ref is defined in Annex P, = 7.3

1.2 .

Level 2 - Normal Assessment It has two methods; 2A, and 2B. Each method has an assessment line given by the equation of a curve and a cut-off. If the assessment point lies within the area bounded by the axes and the assessment line, the flaw is acceptable; if it lies on or outside the line, the flaw is unacceptable. The cut-off is to prevent localized plastic collapse and it is set at the point at which Lr = Lrmax where: =

Level 2A - generalized FAD, not requiring stress/strain data The equations describing the assessment line are: For Lr Lrmax ,
= (1 0.14 )0.3 + 0.7exp (0.65 )

For Lr > Lrmax , = 0 [See Figure 11a with different cut-offs for different materials]

Level 2B - material specific curve This method is suitable for parent material and weld metal of all types. It will generally give more accurate results than Level 2A but requires significantly more data. A typical FAD and the associated stress-strain curve are shown in Figure 11b and 11c respectively. Stress Components: The assessments take account of the actual distributions of stress in the vicinity of the flaws, where they are known. The stresses required are the membrane and bending components of the primary and secondary stresses, i.e. Pm, Pb, Qm and Qb. They should be multiplied by the appropriate partial safety factors, if required. Fracture Ratio: For levels 2 & 3, KI has the general form, = () where (Y) is given by: (Y) = (Y)p + (Y)s where (Y)p and (Y)s represents contributions from primary and secondary stresses, respectively. (Y)p = M fw [ ktm Mkm Mm Pm + ktb Mkb Mb {Pb + (km 1) Pm}] (Y)s = Mm Qm + Mb Qb In the above equations, expressions for M, fw, Mm and Mb are given in Tables M.2a to M.4 and Table M.6 for different types of flaw in different configurations. Mkm and Mkb apply when the flaw or crack is in a region of local stress concentration and are given in section M.5. For ktm, ktb and km, reference should be made to section 6.4 and Annex D. Kr is calculated from the equation: =

Where secondary stresses are present, a plasticity correction factor, , is necessary to allow for interaction of the primary (Y)p and secondary (Y)s stress contributions, such that: = + [ is defined in Annex R]

Load Ratio: For levels 2 & 3, the load ratio is calculated from the equation: =

where ref is obtained from an appropriate reference stress solution as outlined in Annex P, with partial safety factors applied as appropriate.

Level 3 - Ductile Tearing Assessment This is appropriate for ductile materials that exhibit stable tearing (e.g. austenitic steels and ferritic steels on the upper shelf). There are three assessment methods: Levels 3A, 3B and 3C. Each method uses a different assessment line and applies a ductile tearing analysis. The analysis results in a plot of either a single assessment point or a locus of assessment points. If either the point or any part of the locus lies within the area bounded by the axes and the assessment line, the flaw is acceptable; if it does not, the flaw is not acceptable. For the ductile tearing analysis, the fracture toughness is required in the form of a J resistance curve. Level 3A: generalized FAD of Level 2A (not requiring stress-strain data) The FAD (Figure 12) is the same as that for Level 2A described by the same equations. Level 3B: material-specific curve The material-specific FAD is derived as for Level 2B. Level 3C: J-integral A FAD specific to a particular material and geometry is obtained by determining the J integral using both elastic and elastic-plastic analyses of the flawed structure under the loads of interest. Determination of the respective values, Je and J, for a range of loads (i.e. a range of values of Lr) leads to the assessment line being described by the following equations: Kr = (Je/J) Kr = 0 for for Lr Lrmax Lr > Lrmax

where Je and J are values corresponding to the same load (same Lr) and Kr is plotted as a function of Lr. All analyses to determine Je or J should be performed using validated computer codes. An accurate description of the true uniaxial stress-strain curve should be used in the analysis. 8. Assessment of Fatigue In this section, procedures are given for assessing the acceptability of flaws found in service in relation to their effects on fatigue strength, both in welded or unwelded parts, or for the estimation of tolerable flaw sizes based on fitness for purpose. Planar and non planar flaws are considered in a fatigue assessment. Fracture mechanics principles are used to describe the behaviour of planar flaws whilst the assessment of non-planar flaws is based on experimental S-N data.

8.1

Fracture Mechanics Analysis of Planar Flaws: Paris Law: = )(

where A and m are constants which depend on the material and the applied conditions, including environment and cyclic frequency.

Ko is the threshold stress intensity factor range below which crack growth is
insignificant. For K < Ko, da/dN is assumed to be zero. The stress intensity factor range, K, is a function of structural geometry, stress range and instantaneous crack size and is calculated from the following equation:

K = Y() (a)1/2
Procedure: Select A, m, Ko Calculate K for , flaw height, shape. Calculate a (and c) for one cycle. Calculate (a + a) ... and continue until design life is reached. [See Tables 4, 5, 6 and Figures 14, 15] 8.5 Procedures for assessing flaws using quality 'Categories' The quality categories refer to particular fatigue design requirements or the actual fatigue strengths of flaws and are defined in terms of the ten S-N curves (Figure 16) labelled Q1 to Q10. These are described by the following equation: ()3 N = constant Values of the constant are given in Table 7. It is convenient to characterize each curve in terms of the stress range, S, corresponding to a particular fatigue life and Table 7 includes values of S corresponding to a life of 2 106 cycles. Procedure for establishing the Quality Category: (i) Specify max to which fatigue crack growth is permitted [Figures N1and N2, Annex N]

(ii) (iii) (iv) (v)

Obtain i - effective initial flaw parameter [Use Figs. 17a - 21a] Use max for given B - Read off Sm Figures 17b - 21b Use i for given B - Read off Si Calculate S = (Si3 + Sm3)1/3

Quality Category is the next below 'S' in Table 7. If this is the same as or higher than the required quality category, the flaw is acceptable. 9. Assessment of Flaws under Creep Conditions 9.1 General

The information required for making creep assessments is described in Annex T. A worked example which takes the user through the procedure step by step, is provided in Annex U. This clause provides a method of assessing the significance of flaws when time dependent creep effects have to be taken into account. It is based on the 'R5 Procedure' developed at Nuclear Electric, but simplified where appropriate. It is intended for use when assessing components made in ferritic and austenitic steels since most information is available on these materials. The same principles are applicable to other metallic components, provided the user can obtain the relevant materials data. The assessment procedure may be applied at the design stage to components containing planar flaws. It may be applied, subject to some restrictions, to hypothetical flaws, in order to set inspection sensitivity or to check that a proposed component is tolerant to flaws. In the design assessment of components that may be allowed to enter service with permissible preexisting flaws, it may be appropriate to allow for any creep crack incubation time in the determination of flaw tolerance. The procedure may also be applied, subject to the same restrictions to flaws that are actually discovered during pre-service or in-service inspection. The objective is to decide whether the flaw is innocuous and will never affect the integrity of the plant, whether remedial action can be deferred until some time in the future or whether repairs are needed immediately. It would normally be inappropriate to allow for a creep crack incubation time when determining the tolerance of flaws discovered during in-service inspection. 9.2 Creep Exemption Criteria (a) T < Tc For materials with uniaxial creep rupture ductility > 10% in the time/temperature rgime of interest, Tc is the temperature at which 0.2% creep strain is accumulated at a stress level equal to the proof strength over the period of operation of the component (see Figure 22). [Example values of Tc given in Table 13] (b) The total operating period/temperature history of the component satisfies the life-fraction rule based inequality: <1
()

where t(T) for materials with creep rupture ductility > 10 %, is the time required, at a constant temperature, T, to achieve an accumulated creep strain of 0.2% at a stress level equal to the proof strength (see Figure 23). The time, t(T), should be derived using relevant creep rupture properties for the material, and published data may be considered suitable for this purpose. 9.5 Assessment Procedures [Figure 26, P 91] Summary: Establish stresses Characterise flaws Establish material data Check on fatigue Perform flaw assessment Sensitivity analysis Remedial action Worked Example: Annex U