10 STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY PRACTICAL EXERCISES

SOLVED BY USING VINDIO 1.1

Authors:
Sergio Cicero Gonzlez
Roman Cicero Gonzlez
Roberto Lacalle Caldern

CONTENTS
1. SCOPE AND OBJECTIVES

2. INTRODUCTION TO VINDIO 1.1

2.1. Fracture-plastic collapse analyses by using VINDIO 1.1
2.1.1. MATERIAL DATA
2.1.1.1. Tensile data
2.1.1.2. Fracture data
2.1.2. COMPONENT AND CRACK GEOMETRIES
2.1.3. ACTING LOADS
2.2. Crack propagation analyses by using VINDIO 1.1

5
5
6
6
6
7
7
8

3. PRACTICAL EXERCISES
3.1. Exercise 1: Assessment of a pipe subjected to internal pressure
and containing an internal crack
3.2. Exercise 2: Critical tensile load in a steel plate containing an
elliptical surface crack
3.3. Exercise 3: Assessment of a steel plate containing a through
thickness crack
3.4. Exercise 4: Assessment of a cracked circular bar subjected
to known loads
3.5. Exercise 5: Determination of critical crack sizes in train axles
3.6. Exercise 6: Structural integrity assessment of a pipe subjected
to internal pressure and containing a through thickness
crack in the transverse section
3.7. Exercise 7: Determination of the critical tensile load in an
aluminium alloy Al7075-T6 plate containing an extended
surface crack
3.8. Exercise 8: Determination of the crack size in a circular bar after
750.000 bending cycles
3.9. Exercise 9: Determination of the time needed for a crack
to reach a size of 5 mm in a circular bar subjected to stress
corrosion cracking
3.10. Exercise 10: Estimation of the number of cycles until
fracture in a CT specimen

REFERENCES

79

8
18
28
35
42

47

55
61

70
74

1.

SCOPE AND OBJECTIVES

This document gathers 10 structural integrity practical exercises solved by using

VINDIO 1.1. Its aim is to familiarise the reader and/or the user of the program with
both structural integrity assessments of all types of components and the possibilities
that VINDIO 1.1 provides for the resolution of practical situations. The theoretical
concepts sustaining the structural integrity assessments performed with VINDIO 1.1
are not addressed in this document, but may be found in the literature (e.g, [1-5]).
2.

INTRODUCTION TO VINDIO 1.1

VINDIO 1.1 has 5 analysis routes. Three of them, named ASSESSMENT, SEARCH and
SCANNING, perform fracture-plastic collapse analyses; the other two routes, named
PROPAGATION and STRESS CORROSION CRACKING, perform crack propagation
analyses on components subjected to fatigue and stress corrosion cracking processes,
respectively. Below, the reader may find a brief overview of the working scheme
describing the analyses performed by VINDIO 1.1.
2.1. Fracture-plastic collapse analyses by using VINDIO 1.1
Performing fracture-plastic collapse assessments requires the user to enter data
concerning the mechanical properties of the material, the geometry of both the
component and the crack, and the loading conditions. In this context, the user may
follow three different assessment routes, named ASSESSMENT, SEARCH AND
SCANNING:
- ASSESSMENT: all the analysis variables are known (material, geometry and loads),
and then the result of the analysis is the determination of the component situations
against fracture-plastic collapse.
- SEARCH: in this case, it is not the objective to analyse a situation on which all the
variables are defined, but to determine, once two of the variables are known (e.g.,
material and geometry), the critical value of the third variable (e.g., the load).
- SCANNING: this type of analysis allows different values of a given variable to be
considered, the rest of the variables being fixed. More precisely, VINDIO 1.1 allows the
results to be obtained for a given number (up to 10) of crack sizes or applied loads.
The different possible situations are covered by the 10 practical exercised gathered in
this document.
Sections 2.1.1 to 2.1.3 describe the different possibilities provided by VINDIO 1.1
concerning the treatment of material data, geometry and acting loads (or stresses), all
of them being applicable to the above mentioned three analysis routes.

2.1.1 MATERIAL DATA

2.1.1.1. Tensile data
VINDIO 1.1 allows the tensile properties (Section 2.2) to be entered following three
different levels:
-

Level 1: this requires only the material yield stress (or proof stress, depending
on whether or not the tensile curve has a yield plateau) and the modulus of
elasticity (E) to be known. In those situations in which, together with the yield
(proof) stress, Charpy correlations are used for the estimation of the fracture
toughness, Level 1 of VINDIO 1.1 corresponds to FITNET FFS [1] Option 0. Level
1 should only be used when there is no more available data. When such
additional data are available, it is recommended to follow higher analysis levels
(Level 2 or Level 3).

Level 2: this requires the yield stress (or proof stress), the ultimate tensile
strength (u), and the modulus of elasticity to be known. In this level, the user
has a database with the tensile properties of common steels and metallic
alloys. It also uses material properties (yield or proof stress, and ultimate
tensile strength) that lead to a conservative estimation of the actual material
resistance, but in this case the resulting conservatism is lower than that
obtained through Level 1. In those cases where both the yield (or proof) stress
and the ultimate tensile strength are used together with fracture toughness
(Kmat) values, Level 2 in VINDIO 1.1 corresponds to FITNET FFS Procedure
Option 1.

Level 3: this requires the whole stress-strain curve. Thus, the analysis considers
the actual properties of the material, not conservative estimations (as occcurs
in levels 1 and 2), and the final assessment results are the most accurate.
Finally, in those situations where, together with the material stress-strain
curve, fracture toughness values are considered in the analysis, Level 3 in
VINDIO 1.1 coincides with FINTET FFS Procedure Option 3.

It should be noted that, generally, the greater the knowledge about the tensile
properties (that is, when going from Level 1 to Level 3), the higher the accuracy of the
analysis.
2.1.1.2. Fracture data
VINDIO 1.1 presents three different ways of entering the material fracture properties
and fracture-plastic collapse assessments. These ways, here called formats, depend on
the information available, and are the following:

Format 1: this correlates the Charpy energy (CV) with the fracture toughness
through the application of equations that depend on where the material is
regarding its ductile to brittle transition zone (Upper Shelf, Transition Zone,
Lower Shelf).

Format 2: this expresses the fracture resistance in terms of the stress intensity
factor, allowing fracture initiation analyses (not ductile tearing) to be
performed. In this format, it is possible to use a database containing the typical
fracture properties of a number of common materials.

Format 3: this requires the whole material J-a curve, allowing ductile tearing
analyses to be performed.

2.1.2. COMPONENT AND CRACK GEOMETRIES

VINDIO 1.1 comprises a wide variety of both crack and component geometries which
allow most of the practical situations to be covered.
Firstly, the user must select the type of component to be analysed from the following
options: round bars, pipes/cylinders, plates, spheres, and fracture toughness
specimens (CT and SENB). Once the component geometry has been selected, VINDIO
1.1 activates the tab corresponding to the crack geometry. Finally, once the crack type
has also been defined, it is possible to enter all the geometric dimensions (component
and crack) that are needed to complete the assessment.
2.1.3. ACTING LOADS
Once the material mechanical properties are known (both tensile and fracture
properties), and once the geometry of both the component and the crack has been
defined, the final data defining whether or not the cracked component is under safe or
unsafe conditions are the acting loads.
The type of loads depends on the type of component and crack. For example, the
assessment of a certain pipe may require the internal pressure to be defined, whereas
this type of load has no sense in a round bar. Moreover, in those situations
corresponding to complex stress fields, the user can introduce the stress profile in the
analysed section through the stress values existing at a number of points along this
section, or through polynomial expressions. In any case, following the FITNET FFS [1],
the stress state is reduced to a combination of membrane stress and bending stress.
The user is also required to distinguish between primary and secondary stresses. The
former are those that contribute to both fracture and plastic collapse; the latter are
those that do not contribute to plastic collapse and, therefore, only affect the fracture
process. One of the most typical examples of secondary stresses are the residual
stresses caused by welding processes.

2.2. Crack propagation analyses using VINDIO 1.1

VINDIO 1.1 has two additional routes of analysis, named PROPAGATION and STRESS
CORROSION CRACKING, which allow crack propagation analyses to be performed
following specific crack propagation laws. As an example, the PROPAGATION route
allows crack propagation analysis to be performed using the Paris law. The unknown in
the analysis will be, at the users election, the initial crack size, the final crack (critical
or not), or the applied fatigue cycles. Analogously, in the case of the STRESS
CORROSION CRACKING route, the unknown will be the initial crack size, the final crack
(critical or not), or the time to rupture, and the user may choose between constant
and potential crack propagation laws.
3.

PRACTICAL EXERCISES

3.1. Exercise 1: Assessment of a pipe subjected to internal pressure and containing

an internal crack
This first exercise analyses a pipe subjected to internal pressure and containing an
internal axial surface crack. The data are summarised in Table 1.
Table 1. Summary of the data. Excercise 1.
MATERIAL
GEOMETRY
y 350 MPa
u 550 MPa
Material without
yield plateau
E

207 GPa

KIC

55 MPam

Internal axial surface crack

(semielliptical)
Pipe

1/2

LOADS

Crack

Ri
B
2c
a

120 mm
12 mm
5 mm
2 mm

Internal
pressure

7.5
MPa

As shown above, all the implied variables in the analysis are known (material,
geometry and loads), so the assessment consists in determining the component
situation against fracture-plastic collapse. The initial screen of VINDIO 1.1 (Figure 1)
allows one of the five different routes (ASSESSMENT, SEARCH, SCANNING,
PROPAGATION and STRESS CORROSION CRACKING) to be selected. In this case, the
ASSESSMENT route has to be selected. After that, and already in the main screen, the
user must introduce the material data: tensile (first) and fracture (secondly). To do so,
the user must click on Tensile data (Figure 2).

Figure 1. Initial screen, where the analysis route must be selected.

Figure 2. Main screen in the ASSESSMENT route, where the process starts introducing
tensile data.
9

The tensile screen presents three alternative levels of analysis, depending on the
available tensile data. In this exercise both the yield stress (y) and the ultimate tensile
strength (u) are known, so Level 2 must be chosen. Once selected, the user can enter
the corresponding values, without any need for using the database (DDBB, Figure 3).
Also, it should be noted that there is no yield plateau.
After clicking on Accept in Figure 3, VINDIO 1.1 comes back to the main screen, in
which the fracture data tab (just below the tensile data tab) has been activated (see
Figure 2). It can also be observed (Figure 4) how the previously entered tensile data
appear on the main screen.
Moreover, by clicking on the upper icon in Figure 5, the corresponding Failure
Assessment Diagram (FAD) may be observed, given that its definition only requires the
tensile data of the material being analysed. The FAD is the assessment tool on which
VINDIO 1.1 bases its analyses [1-3].

Figure 3. Tensile data screen, and selection of Level 2.

10

Figure 4. Screen capture of the main screen showing the previously entered tensile
data.

Figure 5. Screen capture of the main screen showing the resulting FAD.
Now, clicking on Fracture data, the window shown in Figure 6 appears. In this
window, and given the data gathered in Table 1, Format 2 must be chosen (K mat
version). It can be observed how the corresponding value, 55 MPam1/2, has been
entered. By clicking on Accept VINDIO 1.1 comes back to the main screen, where the
fracture data are explicitly shown (Figure 7) and the next data block (Geometry, see
Figure 2) has been enabled.
The user must now click on Component geometry. Then, the window shown in
Figure 8 appears, and the Pipe/cylinder option must be selected. The chosen
geometry appears now in the main screen (Figure 9) and the tab Crack geometry is
automatically activated. By clicking on it, the window shown in Figure 10 appears and
the option Finite axial surface crack (internal) is selected. At that moment, VINDIO
1.1 comes back to the main screen, which now shows the geometry of both the
component and the crack (Figure 11).

11

Figure 6. Fracture data screen, and selection of Format 2.

Figure 7. Screen capture of the main screen showing the fracture data.

Figure 8. Component geometry screen, and selection of Pipe/cylinder.

12

Figure 9. Screen capture of the main screen showing the selected component
geometry. The tab Crack geometry is now activated.

Figure 10. Crack geometry screen for pipes/cylinders, and selection of Finite axial
surface crack (internal).

Figure 11. Screen capture of the main screen showing the selected component and
crack geometries.
The next step consists in entering the geometrical parameters of the component and
the crack. To do this, the user must click on Geometric parameters (main screen),
appearing in the window shown in Figure 12. This figure shows the different data once
they have been entered. It can be observed that the length of the pipe (W) is not
13

known, but a value of 10,000 mm has been entered in order to have a sufficiently long
straight stretch of the pipe where the stress formulation for straight pipes may be
used.
As in previous windows, once the data have been entered the user must click on
Accept and VINDIO 1.1 comes back to the main screen, which now gathers the
geometrical parameters (Figure 13).

Figure 12. Geometric parameters in exercise 1.

Figure 13. Screen capture of the main screen showing the component and crack
geometry, together with the specific values for the different parameters.
Once the material properties and the geometry have been defined, the user must now
define the acting loads. As shown in Figure 2, there are two tabs within the loads area
in the main screen: one corresponds to primary loads and the other one corresponds
to secondary loads. In this exercise there is only an internal pressure, which is a
primary load, so the user just has to click on the tab corresponding to primary loads.
After doing so, the window shown in Figure 14 appears. The introduction and
acceptance of the acting pressure (7.5 MPa) is straightforward, and once again the
entered pressure will appear on the main screen (Figure 15).
14

Figure 14. Acting pressure in the pipe.

Figure 15. Screen capture of the main screen showing the acting loads (pressure,
primary load).
At this moment the user has entered all the data that are necessary to perform the
analysis. Therefore, it is already possible to assess the pipe against fracture-plastic
collapse in a FAD.
With this purpose, the user must click on the calculation icon (calculator) in the upper
right area of the main screen (Figure 2), which is activated once all the data have been
entered. When clicking on this icon, the window shown in Figure 16 appears, which
allows the final solution to be further specified: the user will be able to choose the
point in the crack front where the assessment is performed (point A vs. point B), the
type of limit load solution (local vs. global), and whether or not the internal pressure
acts on the crack surfaces.
The global limit load is associated to the yielding of the whole remaining section,
whereas the local limit load considers that yielding occurs only on the remaining
ligament. In the pipe considered in this exercise, and in a first approach, the global
limit load would consider the yielding of the whole longitudinal section on which the
crack is located, whereas the local limit load would assume yielding in the remaining
ligament between the crack and the outer surface. Thus, the global limit load is
generally higher than the local limit load, given that it considers higher amounts of
yielded material, and provides lower values of the Lr parameter in the FAD. In other
words, the local limit load provides more conservative assessments.
In this exercise, point A, global limit load and pressure acting on the crack surface will
be chosen (Figure 16), although the user could choose all the options in the three
cases: in such a case, any combination of the three questions would lead to a specific
assessment point in the FAD.
15

Figure 16. Selection of the specific solution for exercise 1.

When clicking on Accept, the corresponding FAD appears with the component
situation against failure (Figure 17). In this case, the assessment point (green colour) is
located within the area between the failure assessment line and the coordinate axes,
so the component is working under safe (acceptable) conditions. Moreover, the main
screen also provides the reserve factor (4.57), which is defined by the following ratio
(Figure 17):

Reservefactor RF

OA
OB

Once the assessment has been completed, it is now possible to check how, for
example, the results may change when the internal pressure increases up to 40 MPa.
To do so, the user just has to click again on Primary loads and enter the new
pressure condition, which would appear in the main screen as shown in Figure 18.
Next, the result is obtained by clicking on the calculation icon and after selecting the
options shown in Figure 16.

16

Figure 10 shows the corresponding result. The assessment point (this time red colour)
is located above the failure assessment line, which means that the operating
conditions are not safe (unacceptable), the reserve factor being lower than 1.0.

A
B

Figure 17. Result of the FAD assessment for the component being analysed. The
assessment point (green colour) is located within the safe area.

Figure 18. Screen capture of the main screen showing the new operating conditions
(40 MPa pressure as the only primary load).

17

Figure 19. Result of the FAD assessment when the pressure is increased up to 40 MPa.
The assessment point (red colour) is located within the unsafe area.
3.2. Exercise 2: Critical tensile load in a steel plate containing an elliptical surface
crack
The aim of this second exercise is to determine the critical tensile load in a steel plate
that contains an elliptical surface crack, assuming that there are no other (bending)
loads. The data are gathered in Table 2.
Table 2. Summary of the data. Exercise 2.
MATERIAL
GEOMETRY
y 360 MPa
u 555 MPa
Material without yield
plateau

Elliptical surface crack

205 GPa

Plate

a in mm
J in MN/m

Crack

W
B
2c
a

200 mm
30 mm
30 mm
10 mm

LOADS

Tensile

As in the previous exercise, the first step consists in selecting the analysis route. In this
case it is intended to determine (or search for) a critical parameter (the critical load)
with the rest of the variables being known (material and geometry). Therefore, the
SEARCH route must be chosen by the user (Figure 20).

18

Figure 20. Selection of the analysis route (SEARCH).

Then, it will be necessary to define the critical parameter that VINDIO is searching for.
In this case (Figure 21), this parameter is the critical load, so the user must click on the
tab Loads in the window shown in Figure 21.

Figure 21. Selection of the (critical) parameter to be determined.

Immediately, the analysis continues on the main screen, where the process continues
by clicking on Tensile data and entering the corresponding values, as shown in Figure
22. In this case Level 2 must be chosen, given that both the yield stress and the
ultimate tensile strength are known. Also, the user must indicate that there is no yield
plateau, as indicated in Table 2. Once the data have been entered, these are accepted
and the analysis comes back to the main screen, where the user can now click on
Fracture data: the window shown in Figure 23 appears and, given that this exercise
provides the JR curve of the material (ductile tearing), Format 3 must be chosen.

19

Figure 22. Introduction of tensile data.

Figure 23. Selection of Format 3 for fracture data.

20

After selecting Format 3 and clicking on J-a curve, the window shown in Figure 24
appears. In this window, the user must choose the way to enter the data. In this
exercise, this is done through the coefficients A and n, as shown in Figure 24. At this
point, it is very important that the units used for the definition of the JR curve are the
same as those presented in Table 2: by default, the initial units appearing in VINDIO for
the J parameter are kN/m, whereas the JR curve has been provided with J expressed in
MN/m. Thus, it is necessary to change the units of J by clicking on the corresponding
tab (as shown in Figure 24) or to enter the A coefficient corresponding to a J R curve
expressed in the units used by default in VINDIO 1.1 (in such a case, A would be 1.8
when J is expressed in kN/m). It can also be observed that plane strain conditions have
been chosen, together with a Poissons ratio of 0.3 (typical value for steels).
Once the coefficients of the JR curve have been entered, the user must click on
Calculate and, instantaneously, VINDIO provides graphical and tabular values of both
the JR (J-a) and the K-a curves (Figure 24). Finally, by clicking on Accept the
analysis comes back to the main screen.

Figure 24. Definition of the JR curve through coefficients A and n.

In the next step of the process, the geometry of both the component and the crack will
be defined. To do so, the user must choose Plate and Surface finite crack as shown
in figures 25 and 25, respectively. Finally, regarding the geometry, the geometric
parameters are entered by clicking on the corresponding tab and completing the
process shown in Figure 27. Concerning the crack dimensions, it will be considered that
the crack grows keeping constant the a/2c ratio (here, equal to 10/30), something that
needs to be explicitly pointed out in the window shown in Figure 27 and which is taken
by VINDIO 1.1 as the default option. If this option is not selected, VINDIO 1.1 fixes the
initial value of 2c (30 mm) and increases the crack depth (a) until the failure condition
is reached.

21

Figure 25. Component geometry screen, and selection of Plate.

Figure 26. Crack geometry screen for plates, and selection of Surface finite crack.

22

Figure 27. Geometric parameters in exercise 2.

After clicking on Accept, VINDIO 1.1 comes back to the main screen, which gathers
the whole definition of the geometry involved in the exercise being analysed (Figure
28).

Figure 28. Screen capture of the main screen showing the geometry of both the
component and the crack.
Now it is time to define the acting loads. To do so, the user must click on Primary
loads and select Axial load (F) as the unknown in the window shown in Figure 29.
After that, a new window appears allowing the rest of the acting loads to be defined
(Figure 30). Here there are no more loads, so the user must click directly on Accept.

23

Figure 29. Selection of the unknown (in plates, the user can choose between axial load
and bending moment).

Figure 30. Definition of the rest of the loads (if any).

At this moment the calculation icon is enabled (Figure 31), given that all the data
required for the analysis have been defined by the user. After clicking on this icon,
VINDIO 1.1 requires the user to define the assessment point in the crack front (B, in
this case) and the type of limit load to be considered (here the more conservative local
solution has been selected), as shown in Figure 32.

24

Figure 31. Calculation icon.

Figure 32. Definition of the point of analysis and the limit load solution.
After clicking on Accept in the window shown in Figure 32, VINDIO 1.1 starts the
search for the solution through an iterative process. When this process finishes,
VINDIO 1.1 provides the corresponding solution of the critical load. Figure 33 shows

25

the final result, which is a tensile load slightly higher than 983 kN, together with a
stable crack propagation of 5.85 mm prior to failure.

Figure 33. Solution of exercise 2 (SEARCH).

The user has the possibility of performing the simultaneous assessment of the
different conditions available in the window shown in Figure 32, in order (for example)
to check which one is the most critical. There are four possible assessments, derived
from the combination of two possible points (A and B) and two limit loads (local and
global). In order to analyse all of them, all that is required is to click on Both in the
two cases shown in Figure 34. In this case, VINDIO 1.1 will provide four assessment
curves (Figure 35), just one of them being tangent to the failure assessment line. This
curve corresponds to the critical situation.
It can be observed how the critical situation corresponds to the previously analysed
case (that is, point B and local limit load), providing a critical load of 983,047 kN. The
code of colours shown in the screen allows the four assessments to be identified, the
critical situation being red coloured.

26

Figure 34. Simultaneous selection of the four assessments.

Figure 35. Results of the simultaneous assessment in points A and B, considering both
the local and the global limit loads.

27

3.3. Exercise 3: Assessment of a steel plate containing a through thickness crack

This exercise analyses a steel plate in a ship hull containing a through thickness crack.
Considering the data gathered in Table 3, it is intended to determine whether or not
the plate is working under safe conditions.
Table 3. Summary of the data. Exercise 3.
MATERIAL
GEOMETRY

LOADS

Plate, though thickness

crack
A36 steel

Thickness

20 mm

Crack size

150 mm

Tensile (MPa)

140

It can be observed that, explicitly or implicitly, all the data required for the assessment
are known. Concerning the material, its tensile and fracture data are not directly
provided, but it has been identified as steel A36. In this kind of situations the user may
use databases, which provide characteristic resistance parameters for a wide range of
materials. Here, as shown below, the databases provided by VINDIO 1.1 will be used.
Given that all the data are known, the user may select the ASSESSMENT route on the
initial screen of VINDIO 1.1 (see Figure 1). Once on the main screen, the process starts
by clicking on Tensile data (Figure 2), selecting Level 2 and clicking on the databases
(DDBB), as shown in Figure 36. VINDIO 1.1 databases provide values of yield stress,
ultimate tensile strength and elastic modulus for a wide variety of metals. Therefore,
their use is associated to the Level 2 of analysis.
VINDIO 1.1 databases allow different filters to be applied: the user may work with
particular specifications (ASTM, AISI, etc), material types (tool steels, aluminium alloys,
titanium alloys, etc) (Figure 37), or by limiting the value of the yield stress, the ultimate
tensile strength and/or the elastic modulus (Figure 38). In this exercise steel A36
(which follows ASTM specification) appears in the first rows of the database, so there
is no need to apply any filter (it could be possible, however, to filter the search by
selecting the ASTM specification). Therefore, steel A36 is selected directly (plate option
Plt) and accepted (Accept, Figure 38). Then, VINDIO 1.1 comes back to the tensile
data screen, which already includes the tensile properties of the steel (Figure 39). By
clicking on Accept, the analysis comes back to the main screen.

28

Figure 36. Selection of Level 2 and access to VINDIO 1.1 databases.

Figure 37. Application of filters by material specification or material type.

29

Figure 38. Selection of the material being analysed (steel A36). It can be observed in
the upper part of the window that the user may narrow the search by limiting the
values of the yield stress, the ultimate tensile strength and/or the elastic modulus.

Figure 39. Tensile data screen showing the tensile properties of steel A36 (Level 2).

30

The next step consists in defining the material fracture properties. To do so, the user
must click on Fracture data and the window shown in Figure 40 appears. It can be
observed that this window already includes a value of Kmat (77 MPam1/2, Format 2).
This is the value gathered in VINDIO 1.1 databases. However, the user could modify
this value in case there is additional information about it. In this exercise, the value
provided by VINDIO 1.1 will be accepted by clicking on Accept.

Figure 40. Fracture data screen showing the fracture toughness value provided by the
DDBB (Format 2).
The material properties are now known, so it is time to define the geometry. With this
aim, firstly, the user must select the geometry of the component (plate, as shown in
Figure 25); secondly, the crack geometry must be defined (Central through thickness
crack, as shown in Figure 41); finally, the values of the different geometric parameters
are entered (Figure 42).
It can be observed that it is necessary to enter a value for the plate width, which is not
known. However, given that the plate is part of a ship hull, it will to be considered here
that the plate has great dimensions compared to the crack size (something that in
fracture mechanics is known as an infinite plate). Therefore, all that is required is to
enter a sufficiently high value (e.g., 10000 mm). The user could easily check that the
final result of the assessment does not change provided the value of W entered in
VINDIO 1.1 is high.

31

Figure 41. Selection of the crack type being analysed.

Figure 42. Introduction of the values of the different geometric parameters.

At this point of the analysis it is time to define the acting loads. In this exercise, there is
only one tensile stress acting across the section of the plate, so the user must click on
Primary loads and enter the corresponding value (140 MPa, as shown in Figure 43).
32

Figure 43. Definition of the acting loads.

On accepting the acting loads, the calculation icon is enabled. By clicking on it (Figure
44) VINDIO 1.1 calculates the solution of exercise 3.

Figure 44. Result of the assessment in exercise 3.

It can be observed how the assessment point is located within the safe area (between
the failure assessment line and the coordinate axes), although the resulting reserve
factor is 1.062, which is quite close to 1.0. This means that, although the plate is
33

working under safe conditions, any small change in the applied load or the crack size
could cause the failure of this component.
Once the assessment is completed, as in any other analysis performed using VINDIO
1.1, it is possible to obtain automatically a report gathering the data and the
corresponding solution. The user has only to click on the Save report icon (Figure 45),
provide a name for the file (Figure 46) and save the generated pdf file in the
corresponding folder (here, the folder is named vindio and it is located in the
desktop, Figure 47). Figure 48 provides a general view of the one-page report, which
includes the initial data (inputs), the result of the assessment and the relevant
references.

Figure 45. Save report icon.

Figure 46. Name of the file associated to exercise 3.

34

Figure 47. Location of the generated report.

Figure 48. Report associated to exercise 3.

35

3.4. Exercise 4: Assessment of a cracked circular bar subjected to known loads

This fourth exercise analyses a circular bar that contains a circumferential surface crack
and is subjected to both bending and tensile stresses. The magnitude of the stresses is
known, but the crack size is unknown. The initial data are summarised in Table 4.
Table 4. Summary of the data. Exercise 2.
MATERIAL
GEOMETRY
y

400 MPa

Material without
yield plateau
E

200 GPa

Cv

7J

Circular bar, Circumferential

surface crack

Bar

25 mm

LOADS
Tensile (kN)

140

Bending moment
(kNm)

2.9

As shown in previous exercises, the first step consists in selecting the analysis route. In
this exercise, a fracture-plastic collapse assessment is required and not all the variables
are known, given that the crack size has not been defined. With all this, the user could
select the SEARCH route, which would provide the critical size analogously to the
analysis performed in exercise 2, or the SCANNING route, which would assess the
component structural integrity for a range of previously defined crack sizes. Here, this
second option will be chosen, as shown in Figure 49.

Figure 49. Selection of the analysis route (SCANNING)

36

Once the analysis route has been selected, the window shown in Figure 50 appears. In
this window the user must select the variable for scanning, with two options: crack size
and loads. Given that the loads are known and fixed, the scanning will be performed
on the crack size.

Figure 50. Selection of the variable for scanning.

Thereafter VINDIO 1.1 shows the main screen, where the user must click on Tensile
data. The introduction of these data is shown in Figure 51, similarly to the
introduction of the fracture data shown in Figure 52.

Figure 51. Introduction of tensile data.

37

Figure 52. Introduction of fracture data.

Given the initial data provided in Table 4, the first case (Figure 51) requires selecting
Level 1 of analysis, given that only the yield stress and the elastic modulus are known.
It is also assumed that there is no yield plateau. In the second case (Figure 52) Format
1 must be chosen (Charpy-toughness correlations). Because of the materials low
Charpy value (7 J), its fracture behaviour will be brittle, so the Lower Shelf Charpy
correlation must be selected. Moreover, the thickness of the component must be
entered, which in this case coincides with the bar diameter. After clicking on Accept,
VINDIO 1.1 comes back to the main screen, which shows the corresponding estimation
of the material fracture toughness (Figure 53).

Figure 53. Screen capture of the main screen showing the estimation of the fracture
toughness value.
The next step consists in defining the geometry: firstly the component geometry (see
Figure 54), secondly the crack geometry (Figure 55), and finally the corresponding
values of the geometric parameters (Figure 56). This last action requires the range of
crack sizes over which the scanning process is to be performed. 1 mm has been chosen
as the lower bound and 15 mm as the upper bound.

38

Figure 54. Component geometry screen, and selection of Bar.

Figure 55. Selection of the crack type being analysed.

39

Figure 56. Introduction of the values of the different geometric parameters.

In order to complete the input process, the user must define the acting loads. To do so,
it is necessary only to click on Primary loads and enter the corresponding values as
shown in Figure 57.

Figure 57. Definition of the acting loads.

Here it should be noted that the units used in Table 4 for the definition of the acting
loads do not coincide with the default units used by VINDIO. This requires changing the
units used by VINDIO, as has been done for the case of the axial load (N have been
40

substituted by kN), or converting the data into the default units used by the software,
as has been done for the case of the bending moment (the bending moment has been
converted into Nm).
Once the acting loads are defined, the input process is completed, so the user can
complete the assessment by clicking on the calculation icon. The results are shown in
Figure 58, both graphically and tabularly, for the ten stretches on which VINDIO 1.1
divides the range of crack sizes defined above. This ten stretches are also used in any
other kind of analysis performed following the SCANNING route. It can be observed
how the component situation is critical for crack sizes of 2.4 mm and above, with just
one situation providing safe conditions (crack size of 1 mm, with an associated reserve
factor of 1.264).

Figure 58. Result of the SCANNING analysis in exercise 4.

The user can also see a detail of the assessment near the failure assessment line: it is
necessary only to include the area within a rectangular area by using the left button of
the mouse. The result may be observed in Figure 59.

41

Figure 59. Screen capture of the main screen showing a detail of the assessment near
the failure assessment line.
3.5. Exercise 5: Determination of critical crack sizes in train axles
The axles of a train ( 200 mm) have been inspected and some of them have
presented surface cracks with straight front. The owner of the trains wants to know
which of the axles may jeopardise the safety of the transport, so the critical size must
be determined. The analysis will be performed considering two distinct conditions:
without safety factor, and with a safety factor of 1.15. The yield stress and the ultimate
tensile strength of the material (ferritic-pearlitic steel) are known, the minimum
working temperature being -20 C.
Table 5 gathers the initial data of this exercise.
Table 5. Summary of the data. Exercise 5.
MATERIAL
GEOMETRY
y
380 MPa
u
530 MPa
Material without yield
plateau
T27J

LOADS

Surface crack with straight

front in a circular section axle
Bending stress, b
Axle

100 mm

Crack

180 MPa

0C

It can be observed that not all the variables are known in this exercise, given that the
crack size is not known. Its critical value is, precisely, the unknown of the problem
being analysed. Thus, the user must select the SEARCH route among the three routes
available in VINDIO for fracture-plastic collapse assessments. Once selected, Crack
42

size must be chosen as the unknown (Figure 60) and, already on the main screen, the
tensile data are entered (Level 2) by following an analogous process as those shown in
previous exercises. In this case the elastic modulus is not explicitly known, and any
sufficiently justified value could be taken. As an example, here, an estimation for
ferritic-pearlitic steels provided by FITNET FFS Procedure [1] will be considered:
E (MPa) = 207000 -54T
where T is the working temperature (C), which here is equal to -20C. The axles will
be assessed at this temperature because it is the most critical (the lowest) for fracture
processes. It can easily be verified that the resulting value of the elastic modulus is
208,08 GPa.

Figure 60. Selection of the unknown.

The process continues by entering the fracture data. Here Format 1 must be selected,
given that fracture data have been provided through the Charpy 27J transition
temperature (T27J). It can be observed that the working temperature (-20C) is lower
than T27J (0C), but both temperatures are relatively close to each other. Therefore, it
can be considered that the material is working within its ductile-to-brittle transition
zone. With all this, the Transition zone button must be activated, and the
corresponding values of T27J, working temperature, component thickness (here, the
diameter of the axle) and probability of failure are entered. This last value is required
because of the high scatter of the Charpy energy within the ductile-to-brittle transition
zone of ferritic-pearlitic steels, which requires a statistical treatment of this material
property. In this exercise a value of 5% has been chosen, as shown in Figure 61.
Once again on the main screen, the user may observe all the resulting material
properties, including the fracture toughness estimation obtained from the Charpy data
and considering the working temperature and the selected probability of failure
(Figure 62) [1].

43

Figure 61. Introduction of the material fracture properties.

Figure 62. Screen capture of the main screen showing the resulting material
properties.
Now it is time to define the geometry and the loads of the problem being analysed.
The user must first click on Component geometry and select Bar, and secondly on
Crack geometry and select Straight-fronted crack, as shown in Figure 63. Finally,
both the values of the geometric parameters and the acting loads are entered, as
shown in Figures 64 and 65, respectively.
With all this, the corresponding critical value can be obtained by clicking on the
calculation icon, providing a critical crack size of 21.77 mm (Figure 66).

44

Figure 63. Selection of the crack geometry.

Figure 64. Introduction of the values of the geometric parameters.

45

Figure 65. Introduction of the acting loads in the axle being analysed.

Figure 66. Main screen showing the result of exercise 5.

46

If it is now intended to repeat the assessment ensuring a safety factor of 1.15, the
easiest way to solve this is to consider different values of the crack size and analyse the
corresponding reserve factor, which will here be considered as the safety factor.
Moreover, once the crack size is fixed all the variables in the analysis (material,
geometry and loads) are known, so that the ASSESSMENT route must be chosen. After
some attempts, Figure 67 shows how a crack size of 14.5 mm provides a reserve factor
of 1.152.

Figure 67. Reserve factor of 1.152 obtained for a crack size of 14.5 mm.
3.6. Exercise 6: Structural integrity assessment of a pipe subjected to internal
pressure and containing a through thickness crack in the transverse section
Tables 6 and 7 gather the initial data of this exercise. It should be noted that the stressstrain curve is provided in engineering variables (s-e) [1,2,5]. It is also known that the
working temperature is -25 C.
The process starts selecting ASSESSMENT as the route of analysis, given that all the
variables are known: material properties, component and crack geometry, and acting
loads.

47

Table 6. Summary of the data. Exercise 6.

MATERIAL
GEOMETRY
Stress-strain curve
gathered in Table 7

LOADS

Pipe containing a through thickness

crack in the transverse section
Internal pressure

T0

Pipe

-35 C

Crack

Inner radius
Thickness
Length

20.3 MPa

150 mm
12 mm
45 mm

Table 7. Stress-strain curve expressed in engineering variables.

e
0.000

s (MPa)
0

0.001

207

0.002

414

0.003

413

0.005

415

0.010

412

0.020

414

0.034

430

0.044

452

0.055

464

0.100

512

0.150

521

0.200

510

Once in the main screen, the user must click on Tensile data and enter the
corresponding tensile parameters. The whole stress-strain curve is known, so the
maximum level of analysis (Level 3) must be chosen (see Figure 68). However, when
defining the failure assessment line, the stress-strain curve must be entered in true
variables (-), whereas Table 7 presents this curve in engineering variables (s-e). The
conversion from one to another is made by using the following equations [1,2,5]:
s1 e
ln1 e)

Moreover, the strains are expressed per unit (/1), so this option must be selected in
the tensile curve window (Figure 69). The curve, in true variables, may be entered by
stress-strain pairs, by copying and pasting Table 7, or by importing a file, which
requires placing the mouse on the area reserved for the stress-strain data, clicking on
the right button of the mouse and opening the corresponding file.

48

Figure 68. Selection of Level 3 of analysis.

Figure 69. Change of the mode of expressing the strains, from percentage (/100),
which is the default option, to per unit (/1).

49

Figure 70 shows the entered data, in true variables, together with the corresponding
stress-strain curve, which appears automatically. The shape of this curve reveals that
there is a yield plateau, so the user must indicate in the upper left area of the window
that there is discontinuous yielding (Figure 70).

Figure 70. Table gathering the stress-strain pairs (true variables), and graph showing
the corresponding stress-strain curve. It is also indicated that there is discontinuous
yielding.
Once the curve has been entered, the user must click on Calculate values (Figure 70)
and the window gathered in Figure 71 appears. This window shows the yield plateau
detected by VINDIO 1.1, whose extreme points are represented by solid circles that
may be displaced with the mouse if the user wants to redefine the plateau. In the case
being analysed, the plateau detected by VINDIO is reasonably well defined, so the user
may directly click on Confirm, obtaining the corresponding tensile parameters *1+,
which are shown in the upper right area of the screen (Figure 72).
Below the resulting tensile parameters there is a tab (Modify) that allows the user to
change any of such parameters in case it is judged that VINDIO 1.1 has not provided
sufficient accuracy. In the case being analysed, the parameters provided by VINDIO will
be considered to be correct by clicking on Accept.

50

Figure 71. Definition of the material yield plateau.

Figure 72. Tensile parameters of the material, and identification of some of them
(higher and lower yield stresses) within the yield plateau.
In order to define the fracture data, the user must click on Fracture data (main
screen) and, once in the Fracture data screen, Format 2 and Master Curve approach
must be selected, as shown in Figure 73. The reason for these selections is that the
fracture toughness has been provided through the material reference temperature
(T0), which represents the temperature at which the median value of the fracture
toughness is 100 MPam1/2 and constitutes a characteristic temperature within the
material ductile-to-brittle transition zone. The Master Curve, which is applicable to
ferritic-pearlitic steels, may be used to determine the material fracture toughness at
51

temperatures of T0 50C: in the case being analysed the most pessimistic working
temperature is 10 C higher than T0, so the Master Curve may be applied. Figure 73
shows the entered inputs, including the component thickness along the crack
propagation direction (which coincides with the thickness of the pipe), and the
selected probability of failure (5%).

Figure 73. Introduction of the necessary inputs for the estimation of the fracture
toughness when following the Master Curve approach.
The entered values are accepted and, again on the main screen, VINDIO 1.1 provides
the estimation of the fracture toughness obtained using the Master Curve formulation
[1,3], as shown in Figure 74.

Figure 74. Screen capture of the main screen showing the estimated value of the
fracture toughness, derived from the Master Curve methodology.
Finally, both the geometry (component and crack) and the acting loads are defined, as
shown in figures 75 to 77. With all this, all the inputs that are necessary for the
assessment are defined and, by clicking on the calculation icon, VINDIO provides the
corresponding solution (Figure 78). It can be observed that the cracked pipe is working

52

under safe conditions from a structural integrity point of view, the reserve factor being
2.061.

Figure 75. Selection of crack geometry.

Figure 76. Introduction of the values of the different geometric parameters.

53

Figure 77. Introduction of the working pressure in the pipe.

Figure 78. Result of exercise 6.

54

3.7. Exercise 7: Determination of the critical tensile load in an aluminium alloy

Al7075-T6 plate containing an extended surface crack
Table 8. Summary of the data. Exercise 7.
MATERIAL
GEOMETRY
Plate containing a surface extended
crack
Plate

Width
Thickness

LOADS
Tensile

120 mm
20 mm
150-300(x/t)

Al7005-T6

Crack

Depth

4 mm

Thermal
stresses
(MPa)

t, plate
thickness
x, distance
along t

As shown in Table 8, the main novelty of this exercise is that there are thermal stresses
acting on the component being analysed. This kind of stress, and others such as the
residual stresses caused by welding processes, is usually treated as a secondary stress.
Moreover, the material analysed in this exercise is an aluminium alloy, whereas
previous exercises, explicitly or implicitly, have dealt with steels.
The analysis starts by choosing SEARCH in the initial screen, given that it is intended to
determine the critical tensile load, and selecting Loads in the window shown in
Figure 79.

Figure 79. Selection of Loads as the unknown.

The process continues entering the tensile data, which in this case have not been
directly provided. However the material is known and the databases provided by
VINDIO 1.1 may be used (corresponding to Level 2 of analysis). Within the DDBB, the
filters can be applied in order to visualise only the aluminium series 5000, 6000 and
7000 (Figure 80), something that makes it easier to locate aluminium alloy 7005-T6.
Once the material is located (Figure 81), it is selected and accepted (material L-T
orientation has been assumed here).

55

Figure 80. Databases, and use of the filters to optimise the search for Al7005-T6.

Figure 81. Selection of Al7005-T6 (L-T orientation).

The next step consists in entering the fracture data. It can be observed (Figure 82) that
the corresponding fracture data screen already gathers a fracture toughness value
(Format 2), which is that one provided by the databases of VINDIO 1.1. The user could
change this value if there were some more precise data, but here the value shown on
the screen will be accepted (by clicking on Accept). VINDIO 1.1 comes back then to
the main screen.

56

Figure 82. Fracture data screen and corresponding value of the fracture toughness
(provided by de DDBB).
The analysis continues now with the definition of the geometry. Plate geometry is
selected in the component geometry screen, while Surface extended crack is
selected in the crack geometry screen (Figure 83). Figure 84 shows the corresponding
values of the geometric parameters.

Figure 83. Selection of the crack geometry in the plate being analysed.
57

Figure 84. Introduction of the values of the geometric parameters.

Again on the main screen, it is time to define the acting loads. By clicking on Primary
loads, the window shown in Figure 85 appears. Axial load must be chosen as the
unknown, and the rest of the primary loads (if any) are defined in the window shown
in Figure 86. In this case there are no more primary loads, so the user may directly click
on Accept and VINDIO 1.1 comes back to the main screen.

Figure 85. Selection of the unknown.

58

Figure 86. Introduction of the rest of primary loads.

In order to finish with the introduction of the inputs, this exercise requires entering the
thermal stresses gathered in Table 8. As mentioned above, these stresses will be
considered as secondary stresses. Thus, the user must click on Secondary loads and
the window shown in Figure 87 appears. Secondary stresses may be entered as a
combination of membrane stresses (which are constant along the section being
analysed) and bending stresses (which vary linearly and have a null average value). On
this occasion, however, thermal stresses have been provided as a first order
polynomial function, so the user must select the option Stress distribution along
thickness and click on Enter stress distribution (Figure 87). The window shown in
Figure 88 appears then, providing two alternative ways to define the stress
distribution: pairs of values or polynomial coefficients. The second option is selected
here, also indicating that it is a first order polynomial, and the corresponding
coefficients are entered in the upper right table of the window. The u coordinate of
Figure 88 is exactly the same as the normalised distance x/t in Table 8, so the
definition of the coefficients is straightforward. Finally the stress distribution is
previewed and the user clicks on Calculate, after which VINDIO 1.1 provides the
membrane (Qm) and bending (Qb) components of the stress distribution. These two
components are used by VINDIO 1.1 to calculate the applied stress intensity factor.
After clicking on Accept, the assessment returns to the main screen, where the
calculation icon can now be clicked. The solution of the assessment is shown in Figure
89, with a critical tensile load slightly higher than 361 kN.
Concerning the stress distributions, it should be noted that when they are linear their
substitution by the corresponding membrane and bending components provides
adequate analyses. However, when the stress distribution is arbitrary such a
substitution may be non-conservative (unsafe). Thus, the user is recommended to
follow the recommendations/guidance provided in [1,2] when linearising stress
distributions, so that the substitution by statically equivalent membrane and bending
stresses provides safe assessments.
59

Figure 87. Selection of the manner to enter the secondary loads.

Figure 88. Introduction of the secondary stresses distribution, and calculation of the
corresponding membrane and bending statically equivalent stresses.

60

Figure 89. Solution of exercise 7.

3.8. Exercise 8: Determination of the crack size in a circular bar after 750.000 bending
cycles
The data of this exercise are gathered in Table 9. It can be observed that the objective
of the analysis is to determine the crack size in a circular bar after the application of
7.5105 bending cycles, the stress varying between +120 MPa (tensile) and -120 MPa
(compression). It is also known that the initial crack size is 10 mm.
Table 9. Summary of the data. Exercise 8.
MATERIAL
GEOMETRY
y
830 MPa
u
-Material with yield
plateau
E
207 GPa
1/2
Kmat
28 MPam
Paris law:
da/dN mm/cycle
1/2
Kth
12 MPam
C
1.1E-9
m
3.46
N
750000

LOADS

Circular bar containing a

surface semicircular crack
Bar
Crack

r
ainitial
afinal

55 mm
10 mm
?

Bending

+/- 120 MPa

As shown in Figure 90, the first step consists in selecting PROPAGATION as the analysis
route, given that the analysed phenomenon is a fatigue process.
61

Figure 90. Selection of the analysis route (PROPAGATION)

Once PROPAGATION has been selected, the window shown in Figure 91 appears,
which requires selecting the unknown in the problem being analysed. There are
several options: a) the number of cycles required to achieve a certain crack size (critical
or not); b) the crack size after applying a given number of fatigue cycles, and; c) the
required initial crack size in order to achieve a defined final crack size (critical or not)
after applying a given number of cycles. Here, the second option must be chosen
(Figure 91).
After clicking on Accept, VINDIO displays the main screen shown in Figure 92. As in
previous exercises, the process starts introducing the tensile data. Given the data
shown in Table 9 (yield stress and elastic modulus) Level 1 must be selected (Figure
93). Also, it must be indicated that the material has a yield plateau.

62

Figure 91. Selection of the unknown.

Figure 92. Main screen of the PROPAGATION route.

63

Figure 93. Introduction of the material tensile properties (Level 1).

After clicking on Accept VINDIO 1.1 returns to the main screen. It is time now to
enter the fracture data which, in this case, are accompanied by the fatigue data (Paris
law). Figure 94 shows the corresponding window. Here, it is important to pay attention
to the units: it can be observed that the default units for the Paris law are m/cycle (for
da/dN) and MPam1/2 (for K). Thus, and given that the Paris law gathered in Table 9
has been provided in mm/cycle, it is necessary to modify the units in the fracture and
fatigue data window, as shown in Figure 94. Another option could be to keep the
default units used by VINDIO and enter the corresponding modified constants of the
Paris law: in this case, when da/dN is expressed in m/cycle, the C constant would be
1.1E-12, whereas m remains constant at 3.46.

64

Figure 94. Introduction of fracture and fatigue data.

Figures 95 to 97 show how to define the geometry and the geometric parameters in
this exercise.

Figure 95. Selection of the component geometry.

65

Figure 96. Selection of the crack geometry in the bar being analysed.

Figure 97. Introduction of the values of the different geometric parameters.

Finally, the acting loads are defined (Figure 98). In this case, it is necessary only to
enter the bending stresses acting on the component analysed (the maximum being +
120MPa and the minimum being -120 MPa).
66

Figure 98. Introduction of the acting loads.

Once all the inputs have been entered, the user must click on the calculation icon
(Figure 99). At this moment, VINDIO asks for the last datum that it is necessary to
complete the assessment: the number of applied fatigue cycles. Figure 100 shows the
corresponding window

Figure 99. Main screen and calculation icon.

67

Figure 100. Introducion of the applied number of cycles.

After clicking on accept, VINDIO 1.1 performs the corresponding calculations and
provides the solution shown in Figure 101. The main screen gathers both the evolution
of the crack size with applied cycles and the final crack size (20,9 mm).
Should the user need to generate a report on this analysis, it is necessary only to click
on Save report (Figure 101), provide a name for it (Figure 102) and save the
generated pdf file in the corresponding folder (here a folder named vindio located in
the desktop, Figure 103). Figure 104 provides a general view of the report which, as
shown in exercise 3, includes the different inputs, the final result and the relevant
references.

Figure 101. Result of exercise 8 and Save report icon.

68

Figure 102. Name of the file being generated.

Figure 103. Location of the generated file.

Figure 104. Report of exercise 8.

69

3.9. Exercise 9: Determination of the time needed for a crack to reach a size of 5mm
in a circular bar subjected to stress corrosion cracking
The initial data of this exercise are gathered in Table 10. The objective is to determine
the time needed for a crack to grow from 2 mm up to 5 mm when subjected to a stress
corrosion cracking process.
Table 10. Summary of the data. Exercise 9.
MATERIAL
GEOMETRY
y
430 MPa
u
580 MPa
Material without yield
plateau
E
207 GPa
Kmat
70 MPam
Crack propagation law:
da/dt = D
da/dt
mm/s
-5
D
1.2310
1/2
KISCC
12 MPam

LOADS

Circular bar containing a

circumferential surface crack
Bar
Crack

r
ainitial

25 mm
2 mm

afinal

5 mm

Tensile
stress

85 MPa

In the initial screen the user must select the STRESS CORROSION CRACKING route
(Figure 105), and the unknown shown in Figure 106 (Time to failure, final crack size
not critical). Here, time to failure does not mean physical failure. Then, VINDIO 1.1
shows the main screen where, as the main novelty here, the user does not have to
enter the material tensile properties. The reason for this is that the analysis is not
considering any critical situation, so there is no need to perform any FAD analysis.
Moreover, the second tab in the material zone is not Fracture data, but Corrosion
data. When clicking on it, the window shown in Figure 107 appears and the user must
enter the corresponding data, with special attention to the units: here, it must be
indicated that the crack propagation law is given in mm/s.
When accepting in the corrosion data screen, VINDIO 1.1 displays the main screen. The
analysis continues by defining the geometry: firstly, the component geometry;
secondly, the crack geometry (Fully circumferential crack, Figure 108), and; finally,
the value of the geometric parameters (Figure 109).
The definition of the inputs finishes by entering the acting loads. In this case, the
applied tensile stresses are introduced as primary loads (Figure 110).

70

Figure 105. Selection of STRESS CORROSION CRACKING route.

Figure 106. Selection of the unknown in exercise 9.

71

Figure 107. Introduction of the corrosion properties.

Figure 108. Selection of the crack geometry.

72

Figure 109. Introduction of the value of the geometric parameters.

Figure 110. Introduction of the acting loads.

Now it is possible to complete the analysis by clicking on the calculation icon. At this
moment, the window shown in Figure 111 appears. It explains that the analysed crack
73

does not propagate when subjected to the loading conditions specified in this exercise,
given that the applied stress intensity factor is lower than the material stress corrosion
cracking threshold. The table located in the lower right area of the main screen also
indicates that the time required for the crack to grow up to the specified 5 mm is
infinite (Figure 112).

Figure 111. Warning message of VINDIO 1.1 indicating that there is no propagation
(KI<KISCC)

Figure 112. Main screen showing the solution of exercise 9.

3.10. Exercise 10: Estimation of the number of cycles until fracture in a CT specimen
Table 11 gathers the initial data of this tenth and last exercise. It is intended to
estimate, by using material data taken from literature, the number of cycles till rupture
in a fatigue test performed on a CT specimen. This would also allow the operating time
of the testing machine to be estimated.

74

Table 11. Summary of the data. Exercise 10.

MATERIAL
GEOMETRY
LOADS
y
450 MPa
u
620 MPa
Material with yield
plateau
E
207 GPa
Kmat
97 MPam
Paris law:
da/dN m/cycle
Kth
14 MPa m
C
2.3E-12
m
3.1
N
?

CT specimen
B
W
ainitial

25 mm
50 mm
25 mm

Pmin= 2 kN
Pmax = 20kN

First of all, the PROPAGATION route must be selected on the initial screen. Then, the
window shown in Figure 113 automatically appears and the user must specify the
unknown of the exercise being analysed which, in this case, is the number of cycles.
Moreover, given that the fatigue test finishes when the specimen fails, it must be
specified that the final crack size is the critical one.

Figure 113. Selection of the unknown.

The next steps consist in entering both tensile and fracture-fatigue data, selecting the
component geometry (Figure 114) and the type of specimen (Figure 115), and entering
the values of the corresponding geometric parameters (Figure 116).

75

Figure 114. Selection of the component geometry.

Figure 115. Selection of the type of specimen.

76

Figure 116. Introduction of the values of the geometric parameters.

Finally, the loading conditions are defined in the window shown in Figure 117 (primary
loads).

Figure 117. Introduction of the acting loads.

Once the loads have been defined, it is possible to calculate the solution of this
exercise by clicking on the calculation icon. At that moment the window shown in
Figure 118 appears, and the user is required to define whether the specimen is
working under plane stress or plane strain conditions (both options could be selected).
In this case, plane strain conditions are assumed. After clicking on Accept VINDIO
provides the solution of this exercise (Figure 119), which is 42,710 cycles. If a loading
frequency of 10 Hz is assumed, the operating time of the testing machine would be
one hour and eleven minutes, approximately.

77

Figure 118. Selection of plain strain conditions.

Figure 119. Main screen showing the evolution of the crack size and the number of
cycles until rupture.

78

REFERENCES
[1] FITNET Fitness-for-Service (FFS) Procedure - Volume I, Editors: M. Kocak, S.
Webster, J.J. Janosch, R.A. Ainsworth, R. Koers, ISBN 978-3-940923-00-4, GKSS
Research Centre, Geesthacht, Alemania, 2008.
[2] BS7910: 2005, Guide on Methods for Assessing the Acceptability of Flaws in
Metallic Structures, BSi, London, 2005
[3] Anderson T. L., Fracture Mechanics: Fundamentals and Applications, 3rd Edition,
CRC Press, Boca Raton, 2004.
[4] Suresh, S., Fatigue of Materials, 2nd Edition, Cambridge Solid State Science Series,
Cambridge University Press, 2006
[5] Ashby, MF., Jones, DRH., Engineering Materials 1: An Introduction to their
Properties and Applications, 2nd Edition, Ed. Butterworth Heinemann, 1996

79

80