Vindio 1.0 User's Manual PDF

1. INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
2. THEORETICAL-PRACTICAL FUNDAMENTALS
2.1. Fracture-plastic collapse analysis of cracked components................................................................................... 6
2.2. Material tensile properties used in fracture-plastic collapse analyses.......................................... 8
2.3. Material fracture properties used in fracture-plastic collapse analyses................................. 11
2.4. Failure assessment diagrams........................................................................................................................................................................................ 13
2.5. Fatigue crack propagation................................................................................................................................................................................................. 18
3. FRACTURE-PLASTIC COLLAPSE ANALYSIS FOLLOWING VINDIO

3.1. General overview. ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 22
3.2. Material data. ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 23
3.2.1. Tensile properties. ......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 23
3.2.1.1. Level 1........................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 23
3.2.1.2. Level 2........................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 25
3.2.1.3. Level 3........................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 27
3.2.2. Fracture properties..................................................................................................................................................................................................... 27
3.2.2.1. Format 1................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 28
3.2.2.2. Format 2................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 31
3.2.2.3. Format 3................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 32
3.3. Component and crack geometries.................................................................................................................................................................... 33
3.4. Acting loads. ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 42
4. CRACK PROPAGATION ANALYSIS FOLLOWING VINDIO................................................................................ 44
5. TUTORIALS................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 45
5.1. Tutorial 1: assessment of an in-service component......................................................................................................... 45
5.2. Tutorial 2: critical load search....................................................................................................................................................................................... 57
5.3. Tutorial 3: crack size scanning..................................................................................................................................................................................... 67
5.4. Tutorial 4: crack propagation analysis........................................................................................................................................................ 73
6. REFERENCES. ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 78
Annex I. Glossary of symbols and acronyms..................................................................................................................................................... 82

Annex II. ki and pl solutions............................................................................................................................................................................................................... 85
1. Introduction 5
VINDIO is a software that allows fracture-plastic collapse analysis on cracked components to

be made, as well as crack propagation calculations following the Paris law. In this manual,
the user, who is supposed to have certain minimum knowledge on Fracture Mechanics
and Plasticity, has a brief theoretical review about fracture-plastic collapse and fatigue
assessments of structural components containing cracks, about the material parameters
used in the analyses, and about the engineering tool used in VINDIO to determine if a given
component is working under safe or unsafe conditions, which are the Failure Assessment
Diagrams (FADs). Also, the different types of analyses that may be performed by using
VINDIO are gathered and, finally, several tutorials are proposed in order the user becomes
familiar with the capacities and the possibilities offered by the software.
Concerning the assessment procedure that supports the analyses, VINDIO is based on the
FITNET FFS Procedure [1-3], which is an European procedure developed by the European
Fitness-for-Service Network. Therefore, both the stress intensity factor solutions and the
plastic collapse load solutions, the FAD expressions or the correlations between Charpy
energy values and fracture toughness values (among others) have been mainly taken from
such procedure. In those situations where other sources of analytical solutions or empirical
correlations have been taken, it will explicitly be indicated in this manual.
Finally, it is important to notice that, given the FITNET FFS was developed for the assessment
of metallic structures, VINDIO can be generally applied to this type of materials only. Its
application to other kind of materials (possible in many cases) is left to the users judgment.
6
2. Theoretical-practical fundamentals
2.1. FRACTURE-PLASTIC COLLAPSE ANALYSIS OF CRACKED COMPONENTS
It is well known that the presence of a crack in a structural component subjected to loads
produces a stress concentration in the crack tip, something that may lead to the final failure
of the component. The different micromechanisms causing the failure depend on the
material and the plasticity level occurring at the crack tip. Despite it is not the intention of
this manual to describe the theoretical basis of the different situations that may occur in
practice (for this purpose the reader is submitted to specialised literature, such as [4,5]), it
is reminded here that, in a first approach, there are three possible mechanisms causing the
final failure of a cracked component:
Brittle fracture: associated to processes on which the plastic zone at the crack tip is small
if compared to any other significant dimension (e.g., component thickness, length of re-
manent ligament, etc). The analysis of this kind of situations is based on Linear Elastic
Fracture Mechanics (LEFM), which proposes the following equation to establish fracture
conditions (assuming Mode I of fracture [1,4,5]):

(1)
KI is the stress intensity factor, which defines the stress field at the crack tip under linear-
elastic conditions and depends on a geometric factor (Y), the applied stress () and the
crack size (a). Most of the analytical solutions of KI (or Y) used in the software have been
taken from [2]. KIc is the material fracture toughness [4,5].
Ductile fracture: in this case, fracture is caused by ductile processes occurring in the crack
tip and comprising the formation, growth and coalescence of microvoids in the plastic
zone, which has larger dimensions than that existing in brittle situations. Following Elas-
tic-Plastic Fracture Mechanics (EPFM), the stress field at the crack tip is defined by the J
integral [1,4,5], whose value increases with crack stable propagation (thus, arising the JR
or the J-a curve). Fracture require two simultaneous conditions:
(2)
2. THEORETICAL-PRACTICAL FUNDAMENTALS VINDIO USERS MANUAL 7
(3)
Jap is the applied J, which is a curve that depends on both the applied load and the
crack propagation considered, and JR (or J-a) is the material resistance curve, which
is fitted through two material constants (A y n). As seen below, in certain occasions, a
characteristic value (JIc) of the JR curve is considered, the fracture condition being:
(4)
In such case, the fracture analysis is analogous to that represented by equation (1),
although representing elastic-plastic conditions. Therefore, it is not possible to consider
the stable crack propagation occurring before the final fracture, the analysis being
limited to fracture initiation.
Moreover, the J integral is composed by an elastic component (Je) and a plastic component
(Jp). The former is related to KI following equation (5) [1,4,5]:

(5)
E being E in plane stress conditions and E/(1-2) in plane strain conditions (see Section
2.2). E and are, respectively, the Youngs modulus and the Poissons ratio.
Finally, there are situations in which the crack does not act as a stress riser, the reduction
of the load bearing capacity being associated to the reduction of the resistant section
[1,4]. In such cases, with generalised plasticity, failure takes place when the applied load
P equals the plastic collapse load PL:
(6)
8
VINDIO USERS MANUAL 2. THEORETICAL-PRACTICAL FUNDAMENTALS
Most of the analytical solutions used for PL in VINDIO have been taken from [2],
although in several occasions (explicitly indicated in Annex II) other sources have
been considered.
In practice, it is not simple to distinguish in which of the previous situations the user is and,
moreover, fracture and plastic collapse processes interact. Fortunately, the use of Failure
Assessment Diagrams allows the analyses to be performed regardless of the type of failure
taking place, which on the other hand is revealed by the location of the assessment point
within the FAD (see Section 2.4).
2.2. MATERIAL TENSILE PROPERTIES USED IN FRACTURE-PLASTIC COLLAPSE

ANALYSES
Material tensile properties constitute fundamental data for the fracture-plastic collapse
analysis of cracked components. These properties are obtained by testing material
specimens whose geometry and dimensions are defined following well known national
or international standards (e.g., [6-8]). The specimens are then subjected to tensile loads
until the final rupture. The testing machine used in a tensile test register the applied
load, whereas an extensometer is also used to register the length increment occurring
in the specimen.
Therefore, during the test there is continuous register of both the applied load on
the specimen (F) and the specimen length increment (l). Thus, it is obtained a load-
displacement curve (F-l) that it is converted into the corresponding stress-strain (-) curve
in engineering variables by using the following relations:
(7)

(8)
A0 are l0, respectively, the specimen initial cross section and the initial length (or the
extensometer initial gauge length).
There are two basic types of stress-strain curves in metals, depending on whether or not
they present a yield plateau. Figures 1 and 2 present both types, as well as the definition of
the main material tensile parameters, which are the following:
The elastic modulus (or Youngs modulus), E: corresponding to the slope of the initial
straight line of the stress-strain curve, which corresponds to the linear-elastic behaviour
of the material.
The yield stress, y: in case the yield plateau exists, or the proof stress, 0.2, in case there
is no such plateau (continuous stress-strain curve), which correspond to the stress level
causing a permanent strain of 0.2% (see Figure 2).

In those materials having yield plateau it is possible to distinguish between the
upper yield stress (yupp) and the lower yield stress (ylow), as shown in Figure 3. Gene-
rally, as it is done in both VINDIO 1.0 and FITNET FFS, the value taken for assessment
purposes is the lower yield stress, in order to take material properties that lead to
conservative results. In those cases where there is no information on whether the
available value represents the lower or the upper yield stress, it will be considered by
defect that it represents the upper yield stress, the lower yield stress being estimated
through equation (9):
(9)
The ultimate tensile strength, u: which is the maximum stress value of the stress-
strain curve.
Finally, from a tensile test, it is possible to obtain a third curve when both the stress and the
strain are represented in true variable (v-v), which differ from the engineering variables in
the fact that they consider the specimens dimensions (cross section and length) existing
10
at each moment, and not the initial ones. Their definition and their relation with the
engineering variables are gathered in the following expressions:
(10)
(11)
Figure 1. Stress-strain curve with yield plateau..
Figure 2. Continuous stress-strain curve (without yield plateau).

Figure 3. Definition of the lower yield stress and

the upper yield stress in those materials having yield plateau.
VINDIO allows the tensile data to be inserted by three different ways, depending on the
quality and detail of the materials property data available. This leads to the three analysis
levels (1, 2 and 3) described in Section 3.2.1.
2.3. MATERIAL FRACTURE PROPERTIES USED IN FRACTURE-PLASTIC

COLLAPSE ANALYSES.
Together with the tensile properties, the fracture properties constitute fundamental data in
fracture analyses.
As shown in Section 2.1, the fracture process may be caused by different micromechanisms
depending on the magnitude of the plastic phenomena occurring at the crack tip. This
makes that the fracture resistance data required for the analysis may be different: thus, in
linear-elastic conditions, in which the plastic zone size is very small if compared to other
relevant dimensions (e.g., component size, remanent ligament, etc), the fracture resistance
considered is the fracture toughness, KIc. The resulting fracture analyses are limited to
12
fracture initiation, given that these situations corresponds to physical processes on which
there is no stable crack propagation before the final fracture (or it is negligible).
In other occasions, associated to lager plastic zones, it is necessary to perform an elastic-

plastic analysis of the fracture process. In such cases, the fracture parameter generally used
is the J integral (also the CTOD, Crack Tip Opening Displacement) [1,4,5]. In the most general
situation the material fracture toughness in terms of the J integral is actually a curve, JR or
J-a, (Section 2.1), that allows the stable crack propagation occurring before the final failure
to be calculated. The resulting analysis considers the whole material resistance capacity,
providing more adjusted results than those obtained through elastic-plastic initiation
analysis, given that the latest do not consider the additional material resistance developed
during the stable crack propagation.
In certain occasions, the fracture test performed to determine the material JR curve do not develop
stable crack propagation before the final failure, and the resulting characterisation parameter
is a unique value named Jc. In other occasions, in which there is stable crack propagation, it is
possible to define, from the JR curve (J-a), parameters such as J0.2 or JIc, which is obtained in the
intersection between the JR curve and a straight line drawn at a a coordinate of 0.2 mm with
a given slope defined in the standards [9]. From both Jc and JIc it is possible to derive fracture
toughness parameters expressed in terms of stress intensity factor units:
(12)
(13)
In case of using K Jc or K JIc it is important to notice that, despite they are obtained from a
JR curve, the provide fracture initiation analyses (without the consideration of any stable
crack propagation).
In any case, the obtainment of any of these fracture parameters (whether linear-elastic
or elastic-plastic) must follow the conditions and procedures established in international
standards (e.g., [9-13]).
Finally, the Charpy energy (C) [4,14,15], despite it does not represent a fracture toughness
parameter, may be used to estimate the material fracture toughness. The resulting estimations
are generally very conservative and are expressed with stress intensity factor units (Kmat) and,
then, providing fracture initiation analyses. The Charpy-Kmat correlations used in VINDIO are
those gathered in the FITNET FFS Procedure, and are shown in Chapter 3, Section 3.2.2.
Exceptionally, in case the material works at temperatures corresponding to its fracture

toughness Upper Shelf (ductile behaviour), it is possible to correlate the material Charpy
energy with the material JR curve. The result, although conservative, allows ductile tearing
analyses (stable crack propagation) to be performed.
With all this, the software allows the material fracture resistance properties to be inserted
following three different formats (see Section 3.2.2).
2.4. FAILURE ASSESSMENT DIAGRAMS
In order to perform fracture-plastic collapse analyses, VINDIO uses Failure Assessment

Diagrams (FADs), which allow very diverse situations to be analysed, from brittle fracture to
plastic collapse, and represents the situation of the structural component being analysed
through a point with coordinates (Kr, Lr).
In a fracture initiation analysis (without any stable crack propagation), Kr represents the
situation of the structural component against fracture, and follows equation (14):
(14)

KI is the stress intensity factor and Kmat is the material fracture toughness, also expressed
with stress intensity factor units (KIc, K Jc, K JIc or Kmat estimations from Charpy values, C).
The former is automatically defined by VINDIO by using the analytical solutions proposed
in FITNET FFS [2] and once the user introduces the acting loads (or stresses) and defines
the geometry of both the component and the crack being analysed. In case of using
different solutions to those proposed by FITNET FFS, it will be explicitly commented
in the information provided for each geometry, and also in Annex II of this manual.
Concerning K mat, there are three different formats to introduce fracture toughness data
(see Section 3.2.2).
14
Lr, on the other hand, represents the situation of the structural component against plastic
collapse, and follows equation (15):
(15)
P being the applied load and PL being the yield limit load, which is also automatically
defined by VINDIO by using FITNET FFS [2] analytical solutions and once the user introduces
the material tensile properties and the geometry of both the component and the crack
being analysed. Also, in case of using different solutions to those proposed by FITNET FFS,
it is explicitly mentioned in the information provided for each geometry, and also in Annex
II of this manual.
In multiple occasions, the combination of component and crack being analysed presents
two solutions for the yield limit load: the global yield limit load, which is associated to the
overall yielding, and the local yield limit load, which corresponds to a local yielding of the
ligament at the crack. For example, assuming a pipe containing an internal circumferential
surface crack, the global limit load corresponds to the overall yielding of the section
containing the crack (shading area in Figure 4), whereas the local limit load corresponds to
that load causing the local yielding of the ligament at the circumferential crack (pointed in
blue in Figure 4), which need not correspond to overall yielding, as the pipe may be able to
sustain a load equal to the limit load with a fully penetrating defect.
Therefore, the global limit load, which considers larger amounts of yielded material,
generates higher limit load values that those generated by the local limit load (they could
be equal in limiting situations). Thus, the Lr values obtained through global solutions are
lower or, in other words, local solutions provide more conservative results.
Once the FAD coordinates of the component have been defined, the situation of the
resulting assessment point is analysed in relation to the Failure Assessment Line (FAL), which
is defined from the material tensile properties and follows the general expression gathered
in equation (16) [1]:
(16)
Generally, the higher the knowledge about the material stress-strain curve is, the lower is the
conservatism of the analysis through more adjusted Failure Assessment Lines. (Section 3.2.1).
Figure 4. Pipe section containing an internal circumferential surface crack. Shading area
related to global limit load, and pointed blue area related to local limit load.
When the assessment point, with coordinates (Kr,Lr), lies within the area defined by the FAL
and the coordinate axes (point A, Figure 5), the component is considered to be in acceptable
(safe) conditions, whereas if the component lies above the FAL (point C, Figure 5), the
component is in unacceptable (unsafe) conditions. Failure conditions correspond to those
situations on which the assessment point is located in the FAL (point B, Figure 5).
16
Figure 5. FAD assessment (initiation), showing the three possible situations in the
component: A, acceptable; B, limiting (failure); C, unacceptable.
In case of performing ductile tearing analysis (with stable crack propagation before final
failure), the FAL is identically defined, but the fracture (limiting) condition is defined through
the corresponding tangent Kr-Lr curve, which is obtained by considering different stable
crack propagation values. This is done, firstly, defining the Kmat(a) curve from the material JR
(J(a)) curve, considering the relation between the stress intensity factor K and the J integral
(equation (5)) [1,4,5]:
(17)
Secondly, different values of crack propagation are considered (a1, a2... an), leading to
different pairs of (Kr, Lr) values:
(18)
(19)
Finally, the resulting points are represented in the FAD, defining the corresponding
assessment line. If such line cuts the FAL, the situation of the component is considered to be
acceptable; if it does not cut the FAL, the situation is unacceptable. The limiting condition is
provided by the assessment line that is tangent to the FAL. Figure 6 [1] shows an example of
this type of assessment:
Figure 6. FAD assessment (ductile tearing) showing the three possible situations in
the component: A1, acceptable; B1, limiting (failure); C1, unacceptable.
Moreover, the tangent point corresponds to the stable crack propagations occurring before
the final fracture.
Finally, the position of the assessment point (or tangent point, in case of tearing analysis)
provides information about the predominant fracture mechanism. Following FITNET FFS [1],
failures represented by assessment points above the Kr/Lr = 1.1 line (or in the area defined by
Kr/Lr > 1.1) are fracture dominated, whereas failures represented by points located below the
Kr/Lr = 0.4 line (Kr/Lr < 0.4) are plastic collapse dominated. In intermediate situations (0.4 < Kr/
Lr <1.1) fracture and plastic collapse are competing failure mechanisms.
18
2.5. FATIGUE CRACK PROPAGATION
Fatigue is a phenomenon that comprises crack initiation and their subsequent subcritical
propagation till final fracture, and it is caused by the action of variable stresses. Therefore, it
may appear in those structures subjected to variable loading conditions.
Depending on the variable stress conditions, and also on the existence (or not) of previous
defects, there are different fatigue analysis situations, as shown in Figure 7.
High cycle fatigue

> 10.000 cycles to fracture.
Fatigue of uncracked components Stresses lower than yield stress.
There are no pre-existing cracks. Final
fracture is controlled by crack initiation.
Low cycle fatigue
Fatigue < 10.000 cycles to fracture.
Fatigue of cracked components Stresses higher than yield stress.
There are pre-existing cracks. Final
fracture is controlled by crack
propagation.
Figure 7. Categories of fatigue [16].
As shown in the figure, it is possible to distinguish between fatigue of uncracked components

and fatigue of cracked components.
Fatigue of Uncracked Components takes place in those situations where there are no
pre-existing cracks. Most of the life of the component is, therefore, occupied by the crack
initiation process. This category of fatigue may be divided into High Cycle Fatigue and
Low Cycle Fatigue.
In the former case, stresses are below the material yield stress. It is very common in rotary
equipment (wheels, axes, etc) and it is analysed through a stress approach. The first significant
approach was provided by Whler [17], who noticed that low stress variations could cause
the failure of structural components, and proposed a tool that it is still widely used: the S-N
curves. These curves provide a direct relation between the applied stress variation and the
number of cycles to failure.
In the latest case the applied stresses caused by variable loading are higher than the material
yield stress, with significant plasticity effects. It is typical in, for example, certain nuclear
components and it is usually analysed through a strain approach.
Finally, Fatigue of Cracked Components corresponds to those situations where there is a

pre-existing crack and, therefore, fatigue life is governed by the subcritical crack growth
preceding the final fracture. Fatigue analysis, in such situations, intends to predict the
crack evolution, determining (for example) the number of cycles before fracture, or the
maximum allowable stress variation in the component that ensures a certain number of
applied loading cycles. This type of fatigue is common in large structures (ships, bridges,
etc) and, specially, in those containing welds.
VINDIO analyses fatigue crack propagation processes (Fatigue of Cracked Components),

as explained in Chapter 4, and not fatigue crack initiation processes. Therefore, it does not
cover the Fatigue of Uncracked Components.
There are many situations on which after the inspection of a given structure or component,
or because of the anomalous behaviour observed on any of them, a crack (or several
cracks) is detected. In such cases the fatigue approach that must be followed is necessarily
different to the Fatigue of Uncracked Components. Because there is a pre-existing crack,
the life of the structure (or component) is governed by the crack propagations (initiation
has already occurred).
Large structures subjected to variable loads, and specially those containing welds
(bridges, nuclear components, ship hulls...), usually have cracks. However, such cracks do
not necessary jeopardise the structural integrity of the referred structures, which may
continue their operation in perfectly safe conditions. The analysis of these situations
requires considering not only the stress range, but also the crack size and the stress
intensity factor. Paris [18] observed experimentally that the crack propagation rate
20
depends on the stress intensity factor variation, K, and also on the material, following
the well-known Paris law:
(20)
C and m being material constants and K:
(21)
In this case, again, the fatigue process (and therefore constants C and m) depends on the
average applied stress (or the R parameter [19]), the material microstructure, the loading
frequency, the shape of the loading wave, the environment, and the temperature.
Figure 8 represents the propagation process of a given crack in a given component. Three
zones may be distinguished:
Zone A: Slow crack propagation zone, which is associated to the materials fatigue
crack propagation threshold, Kth. In case the applied stress intensity factor range
(K) is lower than such threshold, the crack does not propagate. This zone is mainly
influenced by the microstructure of the material, the environment and the applied
average stress.
Zone B: The crack propagation follows the Paris law. In case the axes are represented in
logarithmic scale, it results a straight line whose slope is, precisely, m. The influence of
microstructure and average stress is much lower than in Zone A.
Zone C: Accelerated crack propagation rate. Once the crack enters this zone, its growth
progressively accelerates until it reaches its critical size and failure takes place. This latest
moment is, actually, a fracture-plastic collapse problem.
Figure 8. Different zones in fatigue crack propagation behaviour.
Finally, it is important to notice that, given the Paris law is based on a linear-elastic parameter
(KI), its application is limited to those situations on which plasticity phenomena at the crack
tip have a limited size, that must necessarily be reduced when compared to other relevant
dimensions (crack size, grain size, component dimensions...). There are situations on which
the plastic zone size is comparable to other relevant dimensions (e.g., short cracks fatigue).
In such cases it is necessary to consider fatigue crack propagation laws that take into account
plasticity effects at the crack tip (e.g., using the J integral as the governing parameter). A
detailed explanation about these cases may be found in literature (e.g., [19-21]).
22
3. Fracture-plastic collapse analysis following VINDIO
3.
3.1. GENERAL OVERVIEW
Performing fracture-plastic collapse assessments requires the user to enter data concerning
the material mechanical properties, the geometry of both the component and the crack,
and the loading conditions. Thus, in a Failure Assessment Diagram (FAD), the component
is represented by an assessment point (or curve) whose situation on the proper FAD,
determines whether or not the component operates under acceptable (safe) conditions.
In this context, the user has three analysis routes for fracture-plastic collapse analyses
following VINDIO, 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 (following the procedure explained in Section 2.4). The user will
notice that the sequence followed for entering the data is, precisely, that mentioned
above: as long as the material data have not been introduced, it is not possible to enter
geometry data. Likewise, once the geometry has been introduced (both component and
crack), it is possible to enter the acting loads (or stresses).
SEARCH: in this case, it is not the objective to analyse a situation on which all the varia-
bles 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), that is, that one
providing an assessment point which lies exactly over the Failure Assessment Line (or,
in case of ductile tearing analysis, that one providing a Kr-Lr curve that is tangent to
the FAL).
SCANNING: this type of analysis allows different values of a given variable to be conside-
red, the rest of variables being fixed. More precisely, VINDIO 1.0 allows the results to be
obtained for a given number (up to 10) of crack sizes or applied loads.
The different situations arising from VINDIO are shown in the tutorials gathered in Chapter 5.
The software allows the user to choose the most convenient analysis route.
3. FRACTURE-PLASTIC COLLAPSE ANALYSIS FOLLOWING VINDIO VINDIO USERS MANUAL 23
Now, Section 3.2. describes the different possibilities provided by VINDIO concerning the
treatment of material data, geometry and acting loads (or stresses), all of them being
applicable to the above mentioned three analysis routes.
3.2. MATERIAL DATA
3.2.1. TENSILE PROPERTIES
VINDIO allows the tensile properties (Section 2.2) to be entered following three
different levels:
Level 1: it just requires to know 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).
Level 2: it requires to know the yield stress (or proof stress), the ultimate tensile strength
(u), and the modulus of elasticity. It this level, the user has a database with the tensile
properties of common steels and metallic alloys [1,2].
Level 3: it requires the whole stress-strain curve.
It is important to notice that, generally, the higher the knowledge about the tensile properties
(that is, when going from Level 1 to Level 3), the higher the accuracy of the analysis is.
3.2.1.1. Level 1
In this level the material properties considered in the analysis represent, due to the lack of
knowledge, a lower bound of the actual ones.
In those materials having yield plateau, the stress level at which the plateau takes place is
taken as the yield stress. In many occasions, it is possible to distinguish (within the yield
plateau) between the upper yield stress (yupp) and the lower yield stress (ylow), as shown in
Section 2.2, where it was stated that the value that must be entered in VINDIO is the latest
one in order to consider material parameters providing conservative results. Also, when the
nature of the available yield stress (upper or lower) is unknown, it will be considered by
24
VINDIO USERS MANUAL 3. FRACTURE-PLASTIC COLLAPSE ANALYSIS FOLLOWING VINDIO
default that it represents the upper yield stress, and the value entered in the software will
be an estimation of the lower yield stress provided by equation (9).
In those materials without yield plateau, the proof stress will be considered in the analysis,
as explained in Section 2.2.
Following the formulation provided by the FITNET FFS Procedure [1-3], the equations
defining the Level 1 Failure Assessment Line (FAL) in those materials exhibiting yield
plateau are:
(22)

(23)
In case there is no yield plateau, the formulae corresponding to Level 1 analysis are:
(24)
(25)
where
(26)
The situation of the analysed component, defined by the position of the assessment point
(with coordinates (Kr,Lr)) regarding the FAL, determines whether or not it is working under
acceptable (safe) conditions (see Section 2.4).
In those situations on which, together with the yield (proof ) stress, Charpy correlations
are used for the estimation of the fracture toughness, Level 1 of VINDIO 1.0 corresponds to
FITNET FFS [1] Option 0.
Level 1 should only be used when there are not more available data. When such additional
data are available, it is recommended to follow higher analysis levels (Level 2 or Level 3).
3.2.1.2. Level 2
It is the minimum recommended analysis level. 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.
Following FITNET FFS formulation, the equations defining the FAD for those materials
exhibiting yield plateau are:
(27)
(28)
(29)
(30)
where:
(31)
(32)
(33)
(34)
26
yupp is the upper yield stress, whereas ylow is the lower yield stress (see Section 2.2). As
explained above, in case only the upper yield stress is known, the corresponding lower yield
stress is estimated through equation (9).
For those materials that do not have yield plateau, the equations defining the FAD in Level 2 are:
(35)
(36)
(37)
where
(38)
(39)

(40)
In both cases (with and without yield plateau), the location of the assessment point
regarding the Failure Assessment Line (FAL) determines the component situation against
fracture-plastic collapse failure (see Section 2.4).
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 corresponds to FITNET FFS
Procedure Option 1. To that end, it is additionally necessary to obtain Kmat from, at least, three
toughness tests characterising fracture initiation (brittle or ductile, depending on the case).
In this level, it is possible to use a database containing the typical tensile properties of a
number of common materials.
3.2.1.3. Level 3
This level defines the FAD from the material stress-strain curve, which requires its detailed
definition including any significant detail (e.g., yield plateau). Thus, the analysis considers
the material actual properties, not conservative estimations (as it happens in levels 1 and 2),
and the final assessment results are the most accurate.
Following the formulation proposed in FITNET FFS, the FAD is defined through the following
equations:
(41)

(42)

where r is the strain corresponding to a given stress, r, which is equal to Lrylow, in case
the material does have yield plateau, or Lr0.2 in case the material does not have any yield
plateau. In both cases, stresses and strains are defined in true variables (not engineering
variables). As in previous levels, the location of the assessment point regarding the FAL,
defines the situation of the component against failure (Section 2.4).
Finally in those situations where, together with the material stress-strain curve, fracture
toughness values are considered in the analysis, Level 3 in VINDIO coincides with FITNET
FFS Procedure Option 3. To that end, it is additionally necessary to obtain Kmat from, at
least, three toughness tests characterising fracture initiation (brittle or ductile, depending
on the case).
3.2.2. FRACTURE PROPERTIES
VINDIO presents three different ways for the entering of the material fracture properties
and fracture-plastic collapse assessments. These ways, here called formats, depend on the
available information, and are the following:
28
Format 1: it correlates the Charpy energy (C) 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 ) (see Section 3.2.2.1).
Format 2: it expresses the fracture resistance in terms of stress intensity factor, allowing
fracture initiation analyses (not ductile tearing) to be performed. In this format, it is pos-
sible to use a database containing the typical fracture properties of a number of common
materials [1,2].
Format 3: it requires knowing the whole material J-a curve, allowing ductile tearing
analyses to be performed.
3.2.2.1. Format 1
In those situations where there are no data about the material fracture toughness, but there
are data about the corresponding Charpy energy (C) value at the assessment temperature,
it is possible to establish correlations between such energy and the fracture toughness. The
correlation that must be used on each case depends on where the material is being used
(brittle zone - Lower Shelf-, Transition Zone or, finally, ductile zone Upper Shelf-) [1,4].
Many materials exhibit a fracture behaviour that depends on the working temperature: at
low temperatures they are brittle, at high temperature they are ductile, and at intermediate
temperatures they present a ductile-to-brittle transition behaviour. Charpy tests do not
provide toughness values, but they can reproduce such transition behaviour, in such a way
that if Charpy values are represented against temperature, the results would be similar to
those shown in Figure 9.
Following the FITNET FFS Procedure, the brittle behaviour zone is defined as that one where
ductile fracture represents less that 20% of the total fracture surface, and also where the
Charpy energy is lower than 27 J; the ductile zone is that one where the 100% of the fracture
surface is ductile; finally, the zone located between brittle and ductile zones is known as the
Transition Zone.
The user will be able to perform fracture assessments through the correlations between
Charpy values and the fracture toughness, following the formulae proposed in FITNET FFS
[1]. Thus, in the brittle zone, the correlation between the Charpy energy (C) and the fracture
toughness (Kmat) is:
(43)
where B is the thickness of the component being analysed (in mm). This expression is
suitable for a wide variety of steels [1].
Figure 9. Charpy energy against test temperature graph, showing the fracture
surfaces at the Lower Shelf (brittle) and the Upper Shelf (ductile).
In the Transition Zone, the toughness may be estimated by using equation (44):
(44)
30
T being the working temperature (in C), T27J being the temperature at which the Charpy
energy is 27 J (in C), and measured in a standard 10 mm x 10 mm Charpy V specimen), and
Pf being the probability of fracture toughness being lower than Kmat. This latest datum (Pf )
must be defined by the user in order to account for the high scatter existing in the ductile-
to-brittle transition zone for both C and Kmat values.
Finally, the correlation used in the ductile behaviour zone is the following:
(45)
where E is the elastic modulus and Poissons ratio. The applicability of equation (45) is
limited to yield stress values between 170 and 1000 MPa and Upper Shelf energies (C)
between 20 and 300 J [1]. The resulting assessment corresponds to an initiation analysis
(not ductile tearing).
Once Kmat has been defined, it is possible to define the Kr coordinate to be used in the FAD,
following the methodology outlined in Section 2.4.
The Charpy energy in the Upper Shelf also allows ductile tearing analyses to be performed
by using the following correlation [1]:
(46)
where T is the working temperature (in C) and y is the corresponding yield stress. The
correlation has been proved to provide conservative estimate of the mean J-a curve for
materials with yield stresses between 171 and 985 MPa, and C values in the range 20-300 J,
corresponding to an overall probability level of 5%, and is applicable at temperatures from
-100 to 300 C [1]. Once the JR curve (J-a) has been estimated, a ductile tearing analysis can
be performed following the methodology gathered in Section 2.4.
3.2.2.2. Format 2
Format 2 requires fracture resistance data obtained from fracture toughness tests, and
allows fracture initiation analysis to be performed.
In those cases where linear-elastic fracture mechanics conditions are fulfilled, as well as
plane strain conditions, the fracture resistance is KIc; when the fracture toughness expressed
in stress intensity factor units is obtained from the J integral (elastic-plastic parameter), the
fracture resistance is named K Jc or K JIc, whose expressions have been previously gathered in
equations (12) and (13), respectively (Section 2.3).
Moreover, VINDIO allows the fracture toughness within the ductile-to-brittle transition
zone to be obtained through the Master Curve methodology, which requires the material
transition temperature (T0) to be known. This temperature corresponds to a median
toughness of 100 MPam1/2 for 25 mm thick specimens [1]:
(47)
where B is the component thickness (in mm), Pf is the probability of fracture toughness
being lower than Kmat, and T is the working temperature (in C).
In this format, it is possible to use a database containing the typical fracture properties of a
number of common materials [1,2].
Analogously to Format 1, once Kmat has been defined, Kr coordinate can be defined following
the methodology outlined in Section 2.
3.2.2.3. Format 3
It requires the whole material JR curve (J-a) to be known, which is defined through the
material constants A and n, following equation (48) (Section 2.1):
(48)
32
The resulting analysis is a ductile tearing analysis that allows the stable crack propagation
occurring before the final failure to be determined, following the methodology gathered in
Section 2.4.
3.3. COMPONENT AND CRACK GEOMETRIES
VINDIO 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 between the following
options: round bars, pipes/cylinders, plates, spheres, and fracture toughness specimens
(CT and SENB). Once the component geometry has been selected, VINDIO 1.0 activates
the button 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
necessary to complete the assessment.
The whole list of geometries considered in VINDIO (34 combinations) is gathered in Table 1.
1. ROUND BARS
1.1. Straight fronted crack 1.2. Fully circumferential crack

34
1. ROUND BARS (continued)
1.3. Semicircular surface crack 1.4. Embedded crack
2. PIPES OR CYLINDERS
2.1. Through thickness axial crack. 2.2. Finite axial surface crack (internal)
2. PIPES OR CYLINDERS (continued)
2.3. Extended axial surface crack (internal) 2.4. Finite axial surface crack (external)
2.5. Extended axial surface crack (external) 2.6. Finite axial crack (embedded)
36
2.7. Extended axial crack (embedded) 2.8. Through-thickness circumferential

crack
2.9. Finite circumferential surface crack 2.10. Extended circumferential surface

(internal) crack (internal)

(external) crack (external)
2.13. Finite circumferential crack 2.14. Extended circumferential crack

(embedded) (embedded)
38
2.15. Circumferential compound (through thickness + extended) crack
3. PLATES
3.1. Central through-thickness crack 3.2. Surface finite crack

3. FRACTURE-PLASTIC COLLAPSE ANALYSIS FOLLOWING VINDIO VINDIO USERS MANUAL 1.0 39
3. PLATES (continued)
3.3. Surface extended crack 3.4. Embedded finite crack
3.5. Embedded extended crack 3.6. Edge crack
3.7. Double edge crack 3.8. Corner crack

40
3.9. Corner crack at a hole (symmetric) 3.10. Corner crack at a hole (single)
4. SPHERES
4.1. Through-thickness equatorial crack 4.2. Surface finite crack (internal)

4. SPHERES (continued)
4.3. Surface finite crack (external)
5. FRACTURE TOUGHNESS SPECIMENS
5.1. CT specimen 5.2. SENB specimen
Tabla 1. List of geometries (component and crack) considered in VINDIO

Cracks with * are available under request.
42
3.4. 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 last 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 in a number of points along such 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 by using equations
(49) and (50):
(49)
(50)
m being the membrane stress, b being the bending stress, is the stress distribution along
the analysed section, and t is the thickness of such section.
The user is also required to distinguish between primary and secondary stresses. The former
are those that contribute to both fracture and plastic collapse and, therefore, they must be
considered when calculating both Kr and Lr (see Section 2.4); the latest are those that do not
contribute to plastic collapse and, therefore, they only affect the fracture process (and then,
Kr). One of the most typical example of secondary stresses are the residual stresses caused
by welding processes.
In FAD analysis, secondary stresses must be considered in the definition of Kr, but not in the
definition of Lr, which is only affected by primary stresses. Thus, in case both primary and
secondary stresses exist, Kr is defined by equation (51):
(51)
KIp being the stress intensity factor corresponding to the primary stresses, KIs being the
stress intensity factor associated to the secondary stresses, K being the material fracture
toughness, and being a parameter that takes into account the plasticity correction due
to the interaction between primary and secondary stresses, which is calculated following
the methodology proposed in the FITNET FFS [1] and gathered in [22-24]. Equation (51)
is, therefore, a particularisation of equation (14) to those situations on which stresses of
different nature do coexist.
The distinction between primary and secondary stresses is a matter of some judgement [1].
The primary stresses are generated by applied external loads such as pressure, deadweight
or interaction from other components. Secondary stresses are generally generated as a result
of internal mismatch caused by, for example, thermal gradients and welding processes.
These stresses will be self-equilibrating (i.e., the net force and bending moment will be zero)
[1]. In case the user is not sure about the nature (primary vs. secondary) of the stresses, it is
recommended to consider them as primary stresses.
Although in general thermal and residual stresses are self-equilibrating and therefore
classed as secondary stresses, there are situations where they can act as primary stresses.
In this sense, the user is suggested to check the guidance and recommendations gathered
in structural integrity assessments such as the FITNET FFS [1], with the aim of establishing
adequate criteria for the classification of the different acting stresses.
44
VINDIO USERS MANUAL 4. CRACK PROPAGATION ANALYSIS FOLLOWING VINDIO
4. CRACK PROPAGATION ANALYSIS FOLLOWING VINDIO
VINDIO has a fourth analysis route, this time related to fatigue, which is named PROPAGATION
and which completes the analysis routes gathered in VINDIO (together with ASSESSMENT,
SEARCH and SCANNING). This route allows crack propagation analysis by using the Paris law
to be performed. 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.
The methodology of the analysis is simple, presents an analogous environment to that

found in fracture-plastic collapse analyses, and it is based on both the Paris law (equation
(20)) and the use of the same stress intensity factor and limit load solutions used in the
analysis routes gathered in Section 3.
In order the PROPAGATION analysis to be performed, the user must first identify the
unknown, which is necessarily one of the three variables appearing during the Paris law
integration: the number of fatigue cycles, the initial crack size and the final crack (which may
be the critical one or not).
Once the unknown has been defined, the following step consists on the definition of the
material mechanical properties, this time also including the material constants (C and m) of
the corresponding Paris law and the material fatigue threshold, Kth. Concerning tensile and
fracture properties, the user may choose between levels 1 to 3 (in case of tensile properties), and
between formats 1 and 2 (in case of fracture properties), analogously to the indications given
in Chapter 3. Here, it is important to notice that in case the fatigue process does not lead to the
final fracture, it is not necessary to enter neither the tensile properties nor the fracture properties.
Therefore, the user must define two of the integration variables, the third one being the
unknown of the analysis to be determined by the software. For example, once the initial
crack and the critical crack are defined, VINDIO provides the number of cycles to fracture;
analogously, once the final crack size and the number of applied cycles have been defined,
VINDIO provides the initial crack size. Concerning the final crack size, in many practical
situations it does coincide with the critical crack size (when fatigue leads to final failure).
The user may indicate this circumstance directly, and then the software automatically
determines such critical size through a SEARCH-type analysis (and then, by using the FAD
methodology), without any further considerations provided by the user.
5. Tutorials 45
This chapter presents four tutorials whose objective is to familiarise the user with VINDIO en-
vironment, as well as to the different possibilities offered by the software when performing
the different types of analysis.
As shown above, VINDIO presents three analysis routes related to fracture-plastic collapse
(ASSESSMENT, SEARCH and SCANNING) and one route related to fatigue (PROPAGATION).
Each tutorial corresponds to one of these four routes.
5.1. TUTORIAL 1: ASSESSMENT OF AN IN-SERVICE COMPONENT
In this first tutorial a pipe containing an internal axial surface crack is going to be assessed.
The initial data are gathered in Table 2.
MATERIAL GEOMETRY LOADS
y 300 MPa
Pipe containing an internal axial

u 500 MPa
surface crack
Material with yield
plateau
Ri 100 mm
Internal
8.2 MPa
pressure
E 200 GPa Pipe B 8.5 mm
W 2000 mm
2c 4 mm
KIC 50 MPam1/2 Crack
a 2 mm
Table 2. Initial data for Tutorial 1.

46
VINDIO USERS MANUAL 5. TUTORIALS
It can be noticed that all the variables implied in the analysis are known, so the analysis
consists on the assessment of the component against fracture-plastic collapse.
The first screen the user sees in VINDIO is shown in Figure 10, and allows choosing one
of the different analysis routes provided by the software (ASSESSMENT, SEARCH, SCAN-
NING, AND PROPAGATION). In this tutorial, the ASSESSMENT route must be chosen. After
that, material data must be entered, firstly the tensile data and, secondly, fracture data.
To do so, it is necessary to click on the button Tensile data (Figure 11).
Figure 10. Main (first) screen in VINDIO, whe-

re the type of analysis must be selected.
Figure 11. ASSESSMENT analysis route main

screen, where it is first necessary to enter the
tensile data.
5. TUTORIALS VINDIO USERS MANUAL 47
A new screen appears then, and the user may check that there are three possible analysis
levels, depending on the available tensile data (see Section 3.2.1). In this tutorial, both the
yield stress and the ultimate tensile strength are known, so Level 2 is the most adequate. The
user must click on Level 2 and introduce the corresponding data, as shown in Figure 12, and
without any need of using the database. Also, it must be indicated that the material does
have a yield plateau.
Now the user must click on Accept (Figure 12) and VINDIO comes back to the ASSESSMENT
route main screen, where the button Fracture data (see Figure 11) has automatically been
activated. It can also be noticed that tensile data, which have been previously entered, do
appear on the screen (Figure 13).
Moreover, the user may click on the top-right icon in Figure 14, and the FAD appears on the
graph, given that its definition just requires the tensile data to be known.
Figure 12. Tensile data screen, where Level 2

has been selected.
48
Figure 13. Capture of the ASSESSMENT route main screen, where the tensile data appear
once they have been previously entered.
Figure 14. Capture of the ASSESSMENT route main screen,

showing the resulting FAD in Tutorial 1.
The user may click on the button Fracture data, and the screen shown in Figure 15 appears.
It can be noticed that the user has to choose between three different formats. Because in
this tutorial the fracture resistance is provided in terms of plain strain fracture toughness, KIc,
Format 2 must be selected. In Figure 15 it can be checked that the corresponding fracture
toughness value (50 MPam1/2) has been entered.
Now, the Accept button must be clicked, and VINDIO comes back to the ASSESSMENT
route main screen. Analogously to what happened with the tensile data, the user may noti-
ce that the previously entered fracture toughness value is now shown on the screen (Figure
16), and also that the button Component geometry has been activated.
Figure 15. Fracture data screen, where Format 2 has been selected.
Figure 16. Capture of the ASSESSMENT route main screen, showing the fracture data.
The button Component geometry must now be clicked, and the screen shown in Figure
17 appears. The user must choose the pipe, and the software automatically comes back to
the ASSESSMENT main screen, where the component geometry is now shown (see Figure
18) and where the button Crack geometry has been activated. When clicking this button, it
appears the screen shown in Figure 19, where the user must choose the option Finite axial
50
surface crack (internal) and, automatically, the software comes back to the ASSESSMENT
main screen, where now the selected crack geometry does appear (Figure 20).
Figure 17. Component geometry screen, where the pipe has been chosen.
Figure 18. Caption of the ASSESSMENT main screen, showing

the selected component geometry, and where the button Crack geometry is active.
Figure 19. Crack geometry screen for pipes, where the option
Finite axial surface crack (internal) has been chosen.
Figure 20. Caption of the ASSESSMENT main screen,

showing both the component and the crack geometries.
The user may notice that the button Geometric parameters (see Figure 11) is now active
in the ASSESSMENT main screen. Therefore, this button must be clicked and the correspon-
ding parameters must be entered in the screen shown in Figure 21 (which automatically
appears when clicking the mentioned button).
52
Figure 21. Geometric parameters entered in Tutorial 1.
Once the different values have been entered, the button Accept must be clicked, and the
software comes back to the ASSESSMENT main screen, where, as usually, the entered data
do appear (Figure 22).
Figure 22. Caption of ASSESSMENT main screen, showing the entered geometric parameters.
All the data related to the material and geometry has been entered. The last set of data to be
entered is that related to the acting loads. The user may notice that the ASSESSMENT main
screen present two tabs for this purpose (see Section 11). One of them corresponds to the
primary loads; the other corresponds to the secondary loads. In this tutorial, the only acting
load is the internal pressure, which is a primary load (see Section 3.4), so only the button
Primary loads must be clicked. When clicking in such button, it appears the screen shown
in Figure 23. The user can now enter the internal pressure (8.2 MPa) and click the button
Accept, coming back to the ASSESSMENT main screen, where the acting load is now shown
(see Figure 24).
Figure 23. Screen showing how the acting pressure is entered in the software.
Figure 24. Caption of ASSESSMENT main screen, showing the acting load (pressure, primary load).
At this point, all the data required to perform an ASSESSMENT analysis have been entered
and, therefore, it is possible to determine the component situation against failure in a FAD.
To do so, the user just needs to click on the corresponding icon, which is a calculator placed
at the right of the ASSESSMENT main screen (Figure 11), that it is activated once the material,
geometry and loading data are known.
When clicking on the calculator icon, a new screen appears (Figure 25) allowing the as-
sessment to be better described or refined. More precisely, the user may indicate on which
point of the crack front is the assessment performed (point A vs. point B), which limit load
must be chosen (global vs. local, as explained in Section 2.4), and whether or not the internal
pressure acts on the crack surfaces.
54
In this tutorial, point A, global limit load and the pressure acting on the crack surfaces have been
selected (Figure 25). Here, it is important to notice that in all these cases, both options may be
selected, the FAD presenting a specific assessment point for each resulting combination.
Figure 25. Assessment refinement.
When clicking on Accept in Figure 25, the FAD appears (Figure 26) and the component situa-
tion against failure can be checked. In this case, the assessment point (green) lies within the safe
area. Also, the software provides the corresponding Reserve Factor (RF), which is defined by the
following relation (see Figure 26) [23]:
(52)
Once the ASSESSMENT has been finished, the user may now check what would happen in
case the acting pressure increases to 40 MPa. To do so, it is enough to click on the button
Primary loads and enter the new acting internal pressure. Once done, the user must click
on Accept and the software comes back to the ASSESSMENT main screen, where the new
pressure does appear (Figure 27) and where the user must click on the calculator icon, kee-
ping the same conditions of the previous assessment (point A, global limit load and the
pressure acting on the crack surfaces point). The assessment point (red) is now located wi-
thin the unsafe area, as shown in Figure 28.
Figure 26. FAD result of the component being analysed (green point),
which is in acceptable (safe) conditions.
56
Figure 27. Caption of ASSESSMENT main screen, showing the new acting pressure.
Figure 28. FAD assessment of the component being analysed when the pressure increases to 40 MPa.
The assessment point (red) lies within the unacceptable (unsafe) area.
57
5.2. TUTORIAL 2: CRITICAL LOAD SEARCH
This second tutorial shows how to calculate the critical load in a plate containing a surface
finite crack (SEARCH route). The initial data are shown in Table 3:
y 450 MPa
u 700 MPa Plate containing a surface finite crack
Material without yield plateau
W 150 mm Tensile ?
E 200 GPa Plate
B 25 mm
A= 2 2c 80 mm
J n= 0.65
J units = KN/m Crack a 10 mm
a/2c 0.125
As done in Tutorial 1, the user must first select the analysis route to be followed. In this case
it is intended to determine a critical parameter (critical load), so the route to be selected is
SEARCH (Figure 29).
Figure 29. Main (first) screen in VINDIO, where the

type of analysis (SEARCH) must be selected
58
Then, the user must choose the critical parameter to be determined. In this case, it is the
critical load, so the corresponding button (Loads) must be clicked (Figure 30).
Figure 30. Selection of the critical parameter.
Once the parameter to be determined has been defined, the SEARCH main screen does
appear. It may be notice that it is equal to that used in the ASSESSMENT route. Therefore, the
user must first introduce the tensile data by clicking on the corresponding button. Figure 31
shows the data to be entered (in agreement with Table 3), following Format 2. Once finished
this action, the user must click on Accept and the software comes back to the main screen.
Figure 31.Tensile data screen, where Level 2 has been selected.

Now its time to enter the fracture properties, by clicking on the button Fracture data. In
this tutorial the whole JR curve is provided (ductile tearing analysis), so Format 3 must be
followed (Figure 32). Once the corresponding button has been clicked, the screen shown in
Figure 33 does appear, and coefficients A and n (see Section 3.2.2) can be entered. It can also
be observed that both plane strain conditions and a Poisson ratio of 0.3 (standard value for
steels) have been entered.
Figure 32. Fracture data screen, where

Format 3 has been selected.
Figure 33. Definition of JR cur-

ve through A and n coefficients.
60
Now, if the user clicks on Calculate (once A and n have been introduced), both the JR curve
(J-a) and the K-a curve appear on the right side of the screen (see Figure 33). By clicking
on Accept the software returns to the SEARCH main screen.
Analogously to Tutorial 1, the next step consists on the introduction of both the component
and the crack geometry. In this case, it is a plate containing a surface finite crack, the corres-
ponding captures being shown in figures 34 and 35.
Once the type of component and crack have been selected, the screen shows in Figure 36
does appear, on which the different dimensions associated to this tutorial (see Table 3) can
be directly entered.
After clicking in Accept the software returns to the main screen, whose aspect at that mo-
ment is shown in Figure 37.
The last variables to be defined are the loads. To do so, the button Primary loads must be
clicked, and a new screen asks the user to define the unknown load (within those available
for the geometry being analysed). In this case, the load F must be selected, given that it is
the unknown in Tutorial 2 (see Figure 38).
Figure 34. Component geometry screen, where the plate has been chosen.
Figure 35. Crack geometry screen for plates, where the option Surface finite crack has been chosen.

62
Figure 37. SEARCH route main screen.
Figure 38. Selection of the unknown load. Here, it must be chosen between the tensile load
and the bending moment (the pressure not being available for this geometry).
After selecting the unknown, another screen appears on which the user may enter the rest
of the loads acting in the component (which must be known). In this case, there is no need
to enter any additional load, so the user must click on Accept (Figure 39).
Figure 39. Additional loads input (if any).
At this moment, the calculator icon is activated, given that the problem being analysed is
completely defined (see Figure 40). By clicking on such icon, VINDIO requires the user to
define both the point on which the assessment must be performed (point A, in this case)
and the type of limit load to be considered (local limit load, in this case, as a conservative
assumption), as shown in Figure 41.
Figure 40. SEARCH main screen, with the calculator icon being active.
64
Figure 41. Definition of the assessment point and the type of limit load.
By clicking in Continue, it may be observed how VINDIO proceeds to determine the critical
load through an iterative process. When the iteration finishes, the critical load is defined (as
long as the iteration is occurring, the load appears in red, whereas it appears in grey once
the iteration is complete). Figure 42 shows the final result, which provides a critical load of
519.1 kN, with a corresponding stable crack propagation of 2.25 mm before the final failure.
Figure 42. Final solution of the SEARCH performed in Tutorial 2.
In case the user does not know which the worst combination is, it is possible to perform
simultaneously the resulting four analyses (points A and B, combined with global and lo-
cal limit loads). To do so, it is necessary to click on Both in the selection process shown in
Figure 43, and the corresponding FAD will present the four searches (Figure 44), only one
of them (the critical one) being tangent to the FAL. It can be noticed that in this case the
critical situation corresponds to the combination of point B and local limit load, leading
to a critical load of 330.44 kN. The colour code shown in the screen allows the four combi-
nations to be identified.
66
Figure 43. Simultaneous selection of the four combinations.
Figure 44. Result of the simultaneous analysis of points A and B,

combined with local and global limit loads.
5.3. TUTORIAL 3: CRACK SIZE SCANNING
This third tutorial presents an example of the SCANNING analysis route on which the results
obtained for different crack sizes (from 4 mm up to 20 mm) are presented. The initial data
are gathered in Table 4.
y 500 MPa
Round bar containing a fully
circumferential crack Tensile (N) 125000
Material without yield
plateau
Bending
E 210 GPa Bar R 40 mm
(Nmm) 5175000
C 6J Crack a 4 mm-20 mm
As done in previous tutorials, the user must first select the analysis route to be followed. In
this case it is intended to determine the situation of the component when it contains a crack
with variable length, so it a SCANNING analysis route must be chosen, as shown in Figure 45.
Figure 45. Main (first) screen in VINDIO, where

the type of analysis must be selected (SCAN-
NING).
68
Once the SCANNING route has been selected the screen shown in Figure 46 does appear,
where the user must select the variable on which the SCANNING process is going to be per-
formed. In this case, the button Crack size must be clicked.
Figure 46. Selection of the type of variable on which the SCANNING process is performed
Once the variable has been selected, the software shows the SCANNING main screen, which is
totally analogous to that shown in ASSESSMENT and SEARCH analysis routes. As done in pre-
vious tutorials, the user must first click on Tensile data, and such data are introduced as shown
in Figure 47. A similar process must be followed for fracture data (Figure 48). Given the initial
data, Level 1 (in tensile data) and Format 1 (in fracture data) must be selected. Also, given that
the material has a low Charpy energy (6 J), the material has a significantly brittle behaviour, so
the corresponding Toughness-Charpy correlation must be selected.
Figure 47. Tensile data screen, where Level 1 has

been selected.
Figure 48. Fracture data screen, where Format 1 (Lower Shelf ) has been selected.
The user must now click on Accept and the software comes back to the SCANNING main
screen, where the fracture toughness estimation obtained through the Charpy-toughness
correlation is now shown on it (Figure 49).
Figure 49. Caption of SCANNING main screen, showing the fracture toughness estimation.
In the next step, the geometry must be defined. To do so, the user must, firstly, select the
geometry of the component (round bar), as shown in Figure 50, and secondly, select the
geometry of the crack (Figure 51). Finally, the different geometric parameters are entered
as shown in Figure 52.
70
Figure 50. Component geometry screen, where the round bar has been chosen.
Figure 51. Crack geometry screen for round bars, where the option Fully
circumferential crack has been chosen.
In order to complete the definition of the problem being analysed, once the software is
again on the SCANNING main screen, the user must define the acting loads. Therefore, the
button Primary loads must be clicked, and the screen shown in Figure 53 does appear,
where the corresponding data have already been entered.
Figure 53. Screen showing the acting loads in Tutorial 3.

72
The user may finish now the analysis by clicking on the corresponding icon (calculator), and
the results shown in Figure 54 appear on the screen (both graphically and tabulated). It can
be noticed that the solution comprises ten assessment points, and also that the critical situa-
tion corresponds to a 9.2 mm crack.
Figure 54. Results of the SCANNING analysis performed in Tutorial 3.

5.4. TUTORIAL 4: CRACK PROPAGATION ANALYSIS
This fourth and last tutorial presents a crack PROPAGATION analysis, whose main data are
gathered in Table 5. As shown in the table, it is intended to determine the final crack size
after the application of 106 load cycles.
MATERIAL GEOMETRY Loads
y 500 MPa
u -- Round bar containing a

semicircular surface crack
Material without yield
plateau
E 200 GPa Bar r 100 mm
KIC 50 MPa m ainitial 12.5 mm Bending

Crack stress +/- 110 MPa
Paris law: afinal ?
da/dN m/cycle
Kth 9 MPa m
C 1.21e-12
m 3.46
N 1000000
Firstly, as shown in Figure 55, it is necessary to select the PROPAGATION analysis route.
74
Figure 55. Main (first) screen in VINDIO 1.0, where the type of analysis
must be selected (PROPAGATION).
Then, the screen shown in Figure 56 does appear, on which it is necessary to define the pa-
rameter to be calculated (the unknown). There are different options: a) Number of cycles
until a certain crack size is reached (such crack size being, or not, the critical one); b) Crack
size after the application of a certain number of cycles, and; c) Initial crack size that has
lead to a given final crack size (critical or not) after the application of a certain number of
cycles. In this tutorial, the user must select the second option (Figure 56).
Figure 56. Selection of the unknown in Tutorial 4.
Once the unknown has been selected, the user must click on Accept and VINDIO comes
back to the PROPAGATION main screen shown in Figure 57.
Figure 57. PROPAGATION analysis route main screen.

76
Now the user must enter the tensile data (Figure 58), as it was done in previous tutorials,
selecting Level 1.
Figure 58. Tensile data screen, where Level 1 has been selected.
After clicking on Accept and coming back to the PROPAGATION main screen, the fracture
data must be entered. In case of PROPAGATION analysis, fracture data include the material
constants defining the Paris law. Figure 59 shows the corresponding screen.
Figure 59. Fracture (Format 2) and fatigue data entered in Tutorial 4.
Figures 60 to 62 show how the geometric data (component and crack) must be entered.
Figure 60. Component geometry screen, where the round bar has been chosen.
78
Figure 61. Crack geometry screen for round bars, where the option
Semi-circular surface crack has been chosen.
Finally, it is necessary to enter the acting loads (Figure 63). In this case, the acting loads are
provided as bending stresses varying from + 110MPa to -110 MPa.
Figure 63. Acting loads entered in Tutorial 4.
Once almost all the data that are needed to define the propagation process have been en-
tered, the user may click on the calculation icon (Figure 64). At that moment, the software
requires the user to enter the last datum: the number of applied cycles, as shown in Figure
65. After clicking in Accept, the software performs the corresponding calculations until the
solution is found, as shown in Figure 66. The figure shows both the crack size evolution and
the corresponding final value.
80
Figure 64. PROPAGATION route main screen and calculator icon.
Figure 65. Number of applied cycles entered in Tutorial 4.

Figure 66. Final result obtained in the PROPAGATION analysis.

82
6. References
[1] FITNET Fitness-for-Service (FFS) Procedure - Volume I, Editors: M. Kocak, S. Webster, J.J. Jano-
sch, R.A. Ainsworth, R. Koers, ISBN 978-3-940923-00-4, GKSS Research Centre, Geesthacht, Ale-
mania, 2008.
[2] FITNET Fitness-for-Service (FFS) Annex - Volume II, Editors: M. Kocak, I. Hadley, S. Szavai, Y.
Tkach, N. Taylor, ISBN 978-3-940923-01-1, GKSS Research Centre, Geesthacht, Alemania, 2008
[3] FITNET Fitness-for-Service (FFS) Case Studies and Tutorials Volume III, Editors: M. Kocak, A.
Laukkanen, F. Gutirrez-Solana, S. Cicero, I. Hadley, ISBN 978-3-940923-02-8, en imprenta.
[4] Anderson T. L., Fracture Mechanics: Fundamentals and Applications, 2nd Edition, CRC Press,
Boca Raton, 1995.
[5] Broek, D., Elementary Engineering Fracture Mechanics, 3rd Edition, Martinus Nijhoff, The
Hague, 1982.
[6] UNE-EN 10002-1:2002, Materiales metlicos. Ensayos de traccin. Parte 1: Mtodo de ensayo
a temperatura ambiente, AENOR, 2002.
[7] ASTM E8/E8M-08, Standard Test Methods for Tension Testing of Metallic Materials, ASTM In-
ternational, 2008.
[8] ASTM D638-08, Standard Test Method for Tensile Properties of Plastics, ASTM International,
2008.
[9] ASTM E1820-08a, Standard Test Method for Measurement of Fracture Toughness, ASTM In-
ternational, 2008.
[10] ASTM E399-09, Standard Test Method for Linear-Elastic Plane-Strain Fracture Toughness KIc
of Metallic Materials, ASTM International, 2009.
[11] ASTM E1737-96, Test Method for J-Integral Characterization of Fracture Toughness, ASTM
International, 1996.
6. REFERENCES VINDIO USERS MANUAL 83
[12] ASTM E1290-08, Standard Test Method for Crack-Tip Opening Displacement (CTOD) Frac-
ture Toughness Measurement, ASTM International, 2008.
[13] ESIS P1-92: ESIS Recommendation for Determining the Fracture Resistance of Ductile Mate-
rials, European Structural Integrity Society, 1992.
[14] ISO 148-1: 2006, Metallic materials - Charpy pendulum impact test - Part 1: Test method,
2006.
[15] ASTM E23 - 07ae1, Standard Test Methods for Notched Bar Impact Testing of Metallic Materi-
als, 2007.
[16] Ashby, MF., Jones, DRH., Engineering Materials 1: An Introduction to their Properties and
Applications, 2nd Edition, Ed. Butterworth Heinemann, 1996
[17] Whler, A., Zeitschrift Fr Bauwesen, Vol. 10, 1860, p. 583
[18] Paris, PC., Gomez, MP., Anderson, WP., The Trend in Engineering, Vol. 13, 1961, pp. 9-13
[19] Suresh, S., Fatigue of Materials, 2nd Edition, Cambridge Solid State Science Series, Cam-
bridge University Press, 2006
[20] Bannantine, JA., Fundamentals of Metal Fatigue Analysis, Prentice Hall, 1989
[21] Stephens, RI. et al., Metal Fatigue in Engineering, Wiley-Interscience, 2000
[22] SINTAP: Structural Integrity Assessment Procedure for European Industry. SINTAP BRITE-
EURAM Project BRPR-CT 95-0024, 1999
[23] BS7910: 2005, Guide on Methods for Assessing the Acceptability of Flaws in Metallic Struc-
tures, BSi, London, 2005
[24] R6: Assessment of the Integrity of Structures Containing Defects. British Energy Generation,
Report R6, Revision 4, 2009
84
VINDIO USERS MANUAL 6. REFERENCES
[25] Thomson, K.D., Sheppard, S.D., Stress Intensity Factors of Shafts Subjected to Torsion and
Axial Loading, Engineering Fracture Mechanics, Vol. 42, 1992, pp. 1019-1034
[26] Daoud, O.E.K., Cartwright, D.J., Strain Energy Release Rates for Straight Fronted Edge Crack in
a Circular Bar Subjected to Bending, Engineering Fracture Mechanics, Vol. 19, 1984, pp. 7011-707
[27] Akhurst, K.N., Ewing, D.J.F., The Failure Assessment of a Shaft Containing a Chordal Crack,
TPRD/L/MT0010/M82, 1982
[28] Zahoor, A., Closed Form Expressions for Fracture Mechanics Analysis of Cracked Pipes, ASME-
J, Pressure Vessel Technology, Vol. 107, 1985, pp. 203-205
[29] Kastner, W., Rhrich, E., Schmitt, W., Steinbuch, R., Critical Crack Sizes in Ductile Piping, Inter-
national Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping, Vol. 9, 1981, pp. 197-219
[30] Zahor, A., Ductile Fracture Mechanics Methodology for Complex Cracks in Nuclear Piping,
Nuclear Engineering and Design, Vol. 106, 1988, pp. 243-256
[31] Willoughby, A.A., Davey, T.G., Plastic Collapse at Part Wall Flaws in Plates, In: R.P.Wei, ed.
Fracture Mechanics: Perspectives and Directions, Proceedings 20th National Symposium (ISBN
0803112505), Bethlehem, PA, 1987. ASTM. STP 1020, pp. 390-409, 1987
Annex I. Glossary of symbols and acronyms 85
This annex gathers a brief definition of the different symbols and acronyms used in both this
users manual and VINDIO:
a Crack size.
A Resistant section.
A Material constant in JR curve (equation (48)).
A0 Initial section in a tensile specimen.
B Specimen thickness, used in equations (43), (44) and (47).
c Half crack length for surface or embedded cracks.
C Material constant in Paris law (equation (20)).
C Charpy energy.
E Youngs (elastic) modulus.
E Elastic modulus corrected for constraint conditions: E=E for plane stress; E= E/
(1-2) for plane strain
f(Lr) Function of Lr defining the FAL in a FAD (equation (16)).
F Applied load in a tensile test.
J J integral, a parameter defining the stress state in a crack tip under elastic-plastic
conditions.
Jap Applied J in a cracked component when it is subjected to a certain load.

86
VINDIO USERS MANUAL ANNEX I. GLOSSARY OF SYMBOLS AND ACRONYMS
Jc Material fracture toughness in terms of J integral, used in initiation analysis. This term
only applies where stable crack propagation is lower than 0.2 mm.
Je Elastic component of J integral (equation (5)).
JR Characteristic toughness in units of J for ductile tearing analysis.
JIc IInitiation of ductile crack extension for quasi-static loading rates (kN/m2).
J0.2 Resistance to crack extension expressed in terms of J at 0.2 mm crack extension

offset to the blunting line.
J-a Idem to JR.
KI Stress intensity factor, a parameter defining the stress state in a crack tip under
linear-elastic conditions
KIC Plane strain fracture toughness.
KIp Stress intensity factor due to primary stresses.
KIs Stress intensity factor due to secondary stresses.
K Jc Stress intensity factor (MPam1/2) calculated from Jc (equation (12)).
K JIc Stress intensity factor (MPam1/2) calculated from JIc (equation (13)).
Kmat Material toughness measured by stress intensity factor. It may be KIc, K Jc, K JIc or
values obtained from Charpy-toughness correlations (equations (43), (44) or (45),
depending on the case).
Kmat(a) Characteristic toughness in units of stress intensity factor for ductile tearing analy-
sis. It is obtained from JR (J-a) (equation (17)).
ANNEX I. GLOSSARY OF SYMBOLS AND ACRONYMS VINDIO USERS MANUAL 87
Kr Fracture ratio of applied elastic KI to Kmat (equation (14)).
Kr(ai) Fracture ratio of applied elastic KI(a0+ai)) to Kmat(ai), used in a ductile tearing
FAD analysis.
l Length measured by an extensometer in a tensile test .
l0 Initial length measured by an extensometer in a tensile test .
Lr Load ratio of applied load, P, to limit load PL (equation (15)).
Lrmax Maximum permitted value of Lr (equations (26), (34) or (40), depending o the case).
Lr(ai) Load ratio of applied load (P) to limit load (PL(a0+ai)), used in a ductile tearing FAD
analysis (equation (19)).
m Material constant in Paris law (equation (20)).
n Material constant in the JR curve (equation (48)).
N Strain hardening exponent, estimated from equations (33) or (39), depending on

the case.
P Applied load.
Pf Probability of Kmat being less than estimated (equations (44) and (47)).
PL Limit load.
t Thickness of structural section.
T Temperature.
T0 Reference Temperature (C), corresponding to a median toughness of 100

MPam1/2 for 25 mm specimens (equation (47))
88
T27J Temperature (C) for energies of 27 J measured in a standard 10 mm x 10 mm

Charpy V specimen(equation 44)).
Y Geometric factor used in the stress intensity factor (equation (1)).
a Crack extension.
l Length increment measured by an extensometer in a tensile test.
K Stress intensity factor range.
Kth Fatigue threshold, value of K below which it is considered there is no fatigue

crack propagation.
Lower yield or Lders strain (equation (32)).
Engineering strain, obtained as the ratio of length increment to the initial length
(equation (8)).
max Strain under maximum load in a tensile test.
r True strain corresponding to a given true stress, r, which is equal to Lrylow, in

case the material does have yield plateau, or Lr0.2 in case the material does not
have any yield plateau.
R Strain at rupture in a tensile test.
v True strain, obtained as the ratio between the length increment l to the actual
length, l (equation (11)).
Parameter used in the FAD definition, following Level 2 and in those materials with
yield plateau (equation (31)).
Parameter used in the FAD definition, following Level 2 and in those materials
without yield plateau (equation (38)).
ANNEX I. GLOSSARY OF SYMBOLS AND ACRONYMS VINDIO USERS MANUAL 89
Poissons ratio.
Plasticity correction factor (equation (51)).
Engineering stress, obtained as the ratio between the applied load F and the initial
section A0 (equation (7)).
Acting stress.
b Linearized bending stress (equation (50)).
m Linearized membrane stress (equation (49)).
r Reference stress (Lryinf or Lr0.2, depending on the case), which is associated to a

reference strain r in the stress-strain curve.
u Ultimate tensile strength.
v True stress, obtained as the ratio between the applied load F and the actual section
A (equation (10)).
y Yield stress.
ylow Lower yield stress.
ysup Upper yield stress.
0.2 0.2% proof strength.
CT Compact Tension specimen.
CTOD Crack Tip Opening Displacement.
FAD Failure Assessment Diagram.

90
FAL Failure Assessment Line .
FFS Fitness-for-Service.
RF Reserve Factor (equation (52)).
LEFM Linear-Elastic Fracture Mechanics.
EPFM Elastic-Plastic Fracture Mechanics.
SENB Single Edge Notched Bending specimen.

Annex II. Ki and pl solutions 91
This annex gathers, for each combination of component and crack geometry, the sources
consulted for KI and PL solutions. As it may be noticed, most of the solutions have been taken
from FITNET FFS Procedure [2], although there are several ones that have been obtained
from other documents.
1. ROUND BARS
1.1. Straight fronted crack 1.2. Fully circumferential crack
KI: [25,26] KI: [2]
PL: [27] PL: [23]

92
VINDIO USERS MANUAL ANNEX II. KI AND PL SOLUTIONS
1. ROUND BARS (continued)
1.3. Semicircular surface crack 1.4. Embedded crack
KI: Obtained by numerical simulation

KI: [2]
by Inesco Ingenieros
PL: Obtained by numerical simulation

PL: [23]
2. PIPES OR CYLINDERS
2.1. Through thickness axial crack 2.2. Finite axial surface crack (internal)
KI: [2] KI: [2]
PL: [2] PL: [2]

ANNEX II. KI AND PL SOLUTIONS VINDIO USERS MANUAL 93
2.3. Extended axial surface crack (internal) 2.4. Finite axial surface crack (external)
KI: [2] KI: [2]
PL: [2] PL: [2]
2.5. Extended axial surface crack (external) 2.6. Finite axial crack (embedded)

KI: [2]

PL: [2]
94
2.7. Extended axial crack (embedded) 2.8. Through-thickness circumferential

crack

KI: [28]

PL: [29]

(internal) crack (internal)
KI: [2] KI: [2]
PL: [23] PL: [23]


(external) crack (external)
KI: [2] KI: [2]
PL: [30] PL: [23]
2.13. Finite circumferential crack 2.14. Extended circumferential crack

(embedded) (embedded)
KI: Obtained by numerical simulation KI: Obtained by numerical simulation

by Inesco Ingenieros by Inesco Ingenieros
PL: Obtained by numerical simulation PL: Obtained by numerical simulation

by Inesco Ingenieros by Inesco Ingenieros
96
2.15. Circumferential compound (through thickness + extended) crack
KI: [30]
PL: [30]
3. PLATES
3.1. Central through-thickness crack 3.2. Surface finite crack
KI: [2] KI: [2]
PL: [23] PL: [2]

3.3. Surface extended crack 3.4. Embedded finite crack
KI: [2] KI: [2]
PL: [2] PL: [2]
3.5. Embedded extended crack 3.6. Edge crack
KI: [2] KI: [2]
PL: [2] PL: [23]

98
3.7. Double edge crack 3.8. Corner crack
KI: [2] KI: [2]
PL: [2] PL: [23,31]
3.9. Corner crack at a hole (symmetric) 3.10. Corner crack at a hole (single)
KI: [2] KI: [2]
PL: [23,31] PL: [23,31]

4. SPHERES
4.1.Through-thickness equatorial crack 4.2. Surface finite crack (internal)
KI: Obtained by numerical simulation by

KI: [2]
Inesco Ingenieros
PL: Obtained by numerical simulation by

PL: [2]
Inesco Ingenieros
4.3. Surface finite crack (external)
KI: Obtained by numerical simulation by Inesco Ingenieros
PL: Obtained by numerical simulation by Inesco Ingenieros

100
5. FRACTURE TOUGHNESS SPECIMENS
5.1. CT specimen 5.2. SENB specimen
KI: [10]
PL: [4]

Vindio 1.0 User's Manual PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Vindio 1.0 User's Manual PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1. INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

3. FRACTURE-PLASTIC COLLAPSE ANALYSIS FOLLOWING VINDIO

Annex I. Glossary of symbols and acronyms..................................................................................................................................................... 82

VINDIO is a software that allows fracture-plastic collapse analysis on cracked components to

2.1. FRACTURE-PLASTIC COLLAPSE ANALYSIS OF CRACKED COMPONENTS

2.2. MATERIAL TENSILE PROPERTIES USED IN FRACTURE-PLASTIC COLLAPSE

Figure 1. Stress-strain curve with yield plateau..

Figure 2. Continuous stress-strain curve (without yield plateau).

Figure 3. Definition of the lower yield stress and

2.3. MATERIAL FRACTURE PROPERTIES USED IN FRACTURE-PLASTIC

In other occasions, associated to lager plastic zones, it is necessary to perform an elastic-

Exceptionally, in case the material works at temperatures corresponding to its fracture

2.4. FAILURE ASSESSMENT DIAGRAMS

In order to perform fracture-plastic collapse analyses, VINDIO uses Failure Assessment

2.5. FATIGUE CRACK PROPAGATION

High cycle fatigue

Figure 7. Categories of fatigue [16].

As shown in the figure, it is possible to distinguish between fatigue of uncracked components

Finally, Fatigue of Cracked Components corresponds to those situations where there is a

VINDIO analyses fatigue crack propagation processes (Fatigue of Cracked Components),

C and m being material constants and K:

Figure 8. Different zones in fatigue crack propagation behaviour.

3.2. MATERIAL DATA

3.2.1. TENSILE PROPERTIES

Level 3: it requires the whole stress-strain curve.

3.2.2. FRACTURE PROPERTIES

3.3. COMPONENT AND CRACK GEOMETRIES

1.1. Straight fronted crack 1.2. Fully circumferential crack

1. ROUND BARS (continued)

1.3. Semicircular surface crack 1.4. Embedded crack

2. PIPES OR CYLINDERS (continued)

2. PIPES OR CYLINDERS (continued)

2.7. Extended axial crack (embedded) 2.8. Through-thickness circumferential

2.9. Finite circumferential surface crack 2.10. Extended circumferential surface

2. PIPES OR CYLINDERS (continued)

2.11. Finite circumferential surface crack 2.12. Extended circumferential surface

2.13. Finite circumferential crack 2.14. Extended circumferential crack

2. PIPES OR CYLINDERS (continued)

2.15. Circumferential compound (through thickness + extended) crack

3.1. Central through-thickness crack 3.2. Surface finite crack

3.3. Surface extended crack 3.4. Embedded finite crack

3.5. Embedded extended crack 3.6. Edge crack

3.7. Double edge crack 3.8. Corner crack

4.1. Through-thickness equatorial crack 4.2. Surface finite crack (internal)

4.3. Surface finite crack (external)

5. FRACTURE TOUGHNESS SPECIMENS

5.1. CT specimen 5.2. SENB specimen

Tabla 1. List of geometries (component and crack) considered in VINDIO

3.4. ACTING LOADS

4. CRACK PROPAGATION ANALYSIS FOLLOWING VINDIO

The methodology of the analysis is simple, presents an analogous environment to that

5.1. TUTORIAL 1: ASSESSMENT OF AN IN-SERVICE COMPONENT

MATERIAL GEOMETRY LOADS

Pipe containing an internal axial

Table 2. Initial data for Tutorial 1.

Figure 10. Main (first) screen in VINDIO, whe-

Figure 11. ASSESSMENT analysis route main

Figure 12. Tensile data screen, where Level 2

Figure 14. Capture of the ASSESSMENT route main screen,

Figure 18. Caption of the ASSESSMENT main screen, showing

Figure 20. Caption of the ASSESSMENT main screen,

Figure 21. Geometric parameters entered in Tutorial 1.

Figure 25. Assessment refinement.