HSE

Health & Safety

Executive

Integrity of Repaired Welds (Phase 1)

- Deliverable 5 Summary Report

Prepared by Serco Assurance for the

Health and Safety Executive 2004

RESEARCH REPORT 191

 HSE
Health & Safety
Executive

Integrity of Repaired Welds (Phase 1)

- Deliverable 5 Summary Report

J K Sharples, L Gardner
S K Bate, R Charles
Serco Assurance
Birchwood Park
Warrington
Cheshire
WA3 6AT

J R Yates
The University of Sheffield
Sheffield
S1 3JD

M R Goldthorpe
M R Goldthorpe Associates
The Grange
2 Park Vale Road
Macclesfield
Cheshire
SK11 8AR
This report summarises work that has been undertaken by Serco Assurance (formerly AEA Technology
Consulting), The University of Sheffield and M R Goldthorpe Associates, on behalf of the Health and
Safety Executive. It describes Phase 1 of a proposed multi-stage project aimed at
(i) providing general guidance on when welded repairs may or may not be beneficial, and,
(ii) proposing a suitable engineering procedural method for assessing the integrity of repaired welds on
a case-bycase basis. Welds considered are appropriate to ferritic material.
This report and the work it describes were funded by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE). Its
contents, including any opinions and/or conclusions expressed, are those of the authors alone and do
not necessarily reflect HSE policy.

HSE BOOKS
 Crown copyright 2004

First published 2004

ISBN 0 7176 2800 0

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be

reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in

any form or by any means (electronic, mechanical,

photocopying, recording or otherwise) without the prior

written permission of the copyright owner.

Applications for reproduction should be made in writing to:

Licensing Division, Her Majesty's Stationery Office,

St Clements House, 2-16 Colegate, Norwich NR3 1BQ

or by e-mail to hmsolicensing@cabinet-office.x.gsi.gov.uk

ii

 CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY v

INTRODUCTION 1

TASK 1 REVIEW OF CURRENT INDUSTRIAL PRACTICES AND PREVIOUS

PROBLEMS AND ASSESSMENT OF INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE

LITERATURE 3

TASK 2 SCOPING CALCULATIONS TO ESTABLISH MATRIX OF CASES TO

CONSIDER 5

TASK 3 WELD/SPECIMEN MANUFACTURE 7

TASK 4 MATERIAL CHARACTERISATION TESTS 9

Tensile Tests 9

Fracture Tests 9

Fatigue Crack Growth Tests 10

Metallography And Hardness Testing 10

Microstructural Examination 10

TASK 5 RESIDUAL STRESS MEASUREMENTS 12

TASK 6 TESTS INVOLVING PHOTOELASTIC COATING AND THERMAL EMISSION

METHODS 13

TASK 7 DEVELOPMENT OF FINITE ELEMENT MODELS 16

Weld Modelling Technique 16

Material Properties 17

Results of Welding Simulations 18

Analyses of Defects In The Simulated Welds 19

TASK 8 APPLICATION OF FINITE ELEMENT MODELS TO MATRIX CASES 21

Edge Defects in the Welded Plate 21

Equatorial Defects in the Welded Sphere 24

Embedded Defects in the Welded Plate 25

TASK 9 ASSESSMENT BY ENGINEERING PROCEDURE METHODS 28

General Methodology 28

iii
 Edge Cracks 29

Embedded Cracks 36

TASK 10 PROVISIONAL GUIDANCE ON WELD REPAIRS

38

Practical Issues 38

Guidance Resulting From The Finite Element Calculations 39

TASK 11 PROVISIONAL GUIDANCE ON ENGINEERING PROCEDURE METHOD 41

Route for assessing the significance of a flaw in a weld (as-welded, PWHT or

repaired weld) 41

Route for assessing whether repairing a weld Is likely lo be beneficial 41

Critical Crack Size Evaluation 41

Crack Growth Evaluation 42

TASK 12 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE PHASES OF PROJECT 44

REFERENCES

FIGURES

APPENDIX 1 LITERATURE REVIEW

APPENDIX 2 MICROSTRUCTURAL EXAMINATION OF WELD SAMPLES

UNDERTAKEN BY SHEFFIELD UNIVERSITY METALS ADVISORY CENTRE (SUMAC)

iv

 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report summarises work that has been undertaken by Serco Assurance (formerly AEA
Technology Consulting), The University of Sheffield and M R Goldthorpe Associates, on behalf of
the Health and Safety Executive. It describes Phase 1 of a proposed multi-stage project aimed at (i)
providing general guidance on when welded repairs may or may not be beneficial, and, (ii) proposing
a suitable engineering procedural method for assessing the integrity of repaired welds on a case-by-
case basis. Welds considered are appropriate to ferritic material.

The project has centred on detailed finite element modelling of a matrix of relevant un-repaired and
repaired weld configurations. Development and validation of the finite element models have been
undertaken by way of mechanical testing; involving photoelastic coating and thermal emission
methods. A number of material characterisation tests have been performed and residual stress profiles
have been evaluated experimentally. Metallurgical examination has also has also been carried out in
order to examine the changes in microstructure resulting from the welding process.

The project has involved the following tasks:

Task 1 Review of current industrial practices and previous problems and assessment of

information contained in the literature.

Task 2 - Scoping calculations to establish a matrix of cases to consider.

Task 3 Weld/specimen manufacture.

Task 4 Material characterisation tests.

Task 5 Residual stress measurements.

Task 6 Tests involving photoelastic coating and thermal emission methods.

Task 7 Development of finite element models.

Task 8 Application of finite element models to matrix cases.

Task 9 Assessment by engineering procedure methods.

Task 10 Provisional guidance on weld repairs.

Task 11 Provisional guidance on engineering procedure method.

Task 12 Recommendations for future phases of project.

The report constitutes the final deliverable (Deliverable 5) of this phase 1 project. The main results of

Deliverables 1 to 4 are summarised and the outline of the work and results are presented for Tasks 9,
10, 11 and 12.

 1. INTRODUCTION

Repair welds are commonly carried out in industry on components where flaws or defects have been
found in weldments during in-service inspection. However, in some cases the process may actually
have a deleterious effect on the residual lifetime of a component. This can be due to metallurgical
changes in the component material in the vicinity of the repair and because of very high residual
stresses which can be introduced in the repaired region.

A Serco Assurance (formerly AEA Technology Consulting) led consortium involving (in addition to
Serco Assurance) The University of Sheffield and an independent consultant, M R Goldthorpe
Associates, has undertaken Phase 1 of a proposed multi-stage project aimed at (i) providing general
guidance on when welded repairs may or may not be beneficial, and, (ii) proposing a suitable
engineering procedural method for assessing the integrity of repaired welds on a case-by-case basis.
Welds considered are appropriate to ferritic material.

The project has centred on detailed finite element modelling of a matrix of relevant un-repaired and
repaired weld configurations. Development and validation of the finite element models have been
undertaken by way of mechanical testing; involving photoelastic coating and thermal emission
methods. A number of material characterisation tests have been perfiormed and residual stress
profiles have been evaluated experimentally. Metallurgical examination has also has also been
carried out in order to examine the changes in microstructure resulting from the welding process.

The project has involved the following tasks:

Task 1 Review of current industrial practices and previous problems and assessment of
information contained in the literature.

Task 2 - Scoping calculations to establish a matrix of cases to consider.

Task 3 Weld/specimen manufacture.

Task 4 Material characterisation tests.

Task 5 Residual stress measurements.

Task 6 Tests involving photoelastic coating and thermal emission methods.

Task 7 Development of finite element models.

Task 8 Application of finite element models to matrix cases.

Task 9 Assessment by engineering procedure methods.

Task 10 Provisional guidance on weld repairs.

Task 11 Provisional guidance on engineering procedure method.

Task 12 Recommendations for future phases of project.

1
The various components (i.e. Tasks) of the project, together with their dependencies, are contained in
the flow diagram of Figure 1.

Reports, constituting Deliverables 1 to 4, have previously been issued that outline the work and
results of Tasks 1 to 8.

This report constitutes the final deliverable (Deliverable 5) of this phase 1 project. The main results of
Deliverables 1 to 4 are summarised and the outline of the work and results are presented for
(i) asessment by engineering procedures (Task 9), (ii) provisional guidance on weld repairs (Task 10),
(iii) provisional guidance on weld procedures (Task 11) and, (iv) recommendations for future phases
of the project.

 2. TASK 1 REVIEW OF CURRENT INDUSTRIAL PRACTICES AND

PREVIOUS PROBLEMS AND ASSESSMENT OF INFORMATION
CONTAINED IN THE LITERATURE

A draft report of the literature review carried out under Task 1 has been previously issued. An
updated version of this report is included as Appendix 1.

The papers reviewed can be categorised as folllows:

Numerical analysis: These relate to the prediction of residual stresses in weldments.

Case Studies: These papers discuss the metallurgical examination of repair welds and the evaluation
of found defects.

Weld Repair Procedures and Techniques: These papers present weld repair techniques.

Performance of Repair Welds: An assessment of how various weld repairs have performed in service.

The review has indicated that defects in welded structures can occur during the fabrication process
due to workmanship or in-service due to working conditions. During fabrication, PD5500 states that
unacceptable imperfections shall be either repaired or deemed not to comply with this standard.
Repair welds have to be carried out to an approved procedure and subjected to the same acceptance
criteria as the original weld. Thus all welds have to satisfy the requirements of the design
specification before acceptance by the purchaser or inspecting authority.

For defects found in-service there are no standard guidelines available for utilities to use to make a
decision on the need to carry out a weld repair. An industrial survey carried out by EPRI for utilities
in the United States has shown that utilities will rely on the original manufacturer or outside vendors
to assist on this decision. However, it is not clear that the assessment procedures used are consistent
or are indeed reliable. In the UK, the repair of welds appears to rely on in-house experience in the
absence of guidelines to follow. However, this review showed that re-cracking of repair welds still
occurs due to lack of understanding on why original defects have occurred and how they should be
repaired.

Whilst the decision to repair a defect may be aided using an assessment procedure, the practical
considerations identified in a paper by Jones could also usefully be considered. These show that
repair welds should be considered on a case-by-case behaviour, therefore a definitive set of rules can
not be given. Instead, the guidelines need to be produced which provide good practice in assessing
defects in welds and the requirements for carrying out a safe repair.

A number of References were found illustrating the capabilities of performing a repair weld without
the need for PWHT. This was introduced by the half-bead technique defined in ASME XI primarily
for the nuclear industry. This has been superseded by other temperbead techniques, which are all
aimed at improving the properties within the weld HAZ, whilst saving time and costs by precluding
the time for post-weld heat treatment (PWHT). There is evidence that this method is employed by
other industries in the USA, but it is unclear on the use of this practice in the UK.

In the references associated with case studies and the performance of weld repairs, only a few of them
are related to residual stresses. These papers have indicated that the magnitude of residual stresses in

repair welds can be of yield magnitude. The most recent advances in welding simulation were
presented at an e IMechE conference in November 1999. The conference demonstrated the
developments that had been made, mainly in the use of finite element analysis to predict residual
stresses. Sufficient confidence in numerical analysis needs to be demonstrated by making comparison
with measurement methods.

When developing guidelines for the assessment of defects in repair welds, sufficient advice needs to
be given to the user as to when residual stresses need to be considered in the assessment. Advice also
needs to be provided on when the user should use simple approximations of the residual stress pattern,
e.g. upper bound profiles given in BS7910, or to use finite element analysis techniques to predict the
complex behaviour of the material during welding.

 3. TASK 2 SCOPING CALCULATIONS TO ESTABLISH MATRIX OF

CASES TO CONSIDER

A detailed section on this Task is included in the Deliverable D2 report previously issued (Reference
1).

That section outlines the matrix of analysis cases planned to be undertaken in Task 8. These cases
were developed to illustrate the effect, on fatigue life or load margin, of either leaving a weld defect
in place or repairing it in-situ. Only in-service repairs would be considered. Since such comparisons
were only possible by considering the behaviour of defects, it was assumed that a defect inadvertently
remains in the weld after repair. This may or may not grow by fatigue during subsequent service.

The double V-preparation weld in plate (Figure 2) used in the experimental work of the project would
be studied in Task 8. It is a relatively simple weld geometry, but this would enable a large range of
analysis cases to be considered and so illustrate to non-experts, the effects that different parameters
could have on the decision to repair a defective weld.

The repair procedure carried out on the test plate in Task 3 is shown in Figure 3. This procedure was
considered to be representative of an in-situ weld repair. The repair depth is 15 mm in order to
simulate the grinding out of the weld 2 mm beyond an assumed defect with a depth of 13 mm. There
was lower heat input than a shop repair, using no pre-heat and smaller electrodes. Strong-back plates
were used to simulate the restraint on the surrounding structure and no PWHT was carried out.

For Task 8, it was intended to carry out a variety of mainly two-dimensional, plane stress, finite
element analyses. Comparisons would be made between simulations of un-repaired and repaired
situations for a range of different parameters that affect fatigue life or margin on load. The intention
was to illustrate the transition from cases where the defects are best left in place, to cases where repair
is required. Since comparisons would be made between the un-repaired and repaired situations,
simplified, two-dimensional, plane stress analysis would be capable of illustrating the role of different
parameters in the repair decision.

The base case would be a 40 mm thick plate, with an alternative thickness of 20 mm.

For simplicity, defects would be considered to lie in a plane normal to the surface of the plate and
through the middle of the weld. The repair evacuation would be symmetrical with respect to the
middle of the weld.

The base case for the un-repaired condition would be a surface breaking defect in the weld root as
shown in Figure 4. The defect depth would be equal to one third of the plate thickness. Alternative
cases would consider surface breaking weld root defects with different depths, covering the range
from the minimum detectable by NDT (about 3 mm) to one half of the plate thickness.

Embedded defects in the un-repaired condition (Figure 5) would also be considered. The base case
would be an embedded defect having a total height equal to one third of the plate thickness and
symmetrically positioned about the weld throat. Alternative cases would consider different defect
heights and position relative to the weld.

Figures 6 and 7 show the case of wide and narrow excavations that would be studied. These were
considered to bound the repair procedure specified in Figure 3.

Various defects remaining after the repair would be studied. Generally, these defects would be
smaller in height than those in the un-repaired condition. The base case for repaired weld defects
would be an embedded one caused by incomplete excavation, as indicated in Figures 6 or 7. Various
defect heights would be considered, ranging from a minimum of 3 mm to a maximum smaller than the
un-repaired size.

Alternative analysis cases for the repaired condition would consider different surface defects
remaining after improper repair of pre-existing surface defects (Figure 8) and embedded defects
resulting from improper repair of embedded defects (Figure 9). Although in practice the former are
likely to be weld toe cracks, the analyses would consider cracks situated in the middle of the weld.

Figures 10 to 12 show the different defect configurations it was intended to analyse for the 40 mm
thick plate, and Figures 13 to 15 show the defects for the 20 mm thick plate. Table 1 gives a summary
of the un-repaired and repaired defect sizes with a code for each case. The finite element
computations would actually consider a large range of defect sizes in order that calculations of fatigue
crack growth could be undertaken.

In addition to the geometrical parameters referred to above, the planned matrix of cases contained
variations in tensile properties, fracture toughness, residual stresses and service stresses (service
stresses would be simulated in the plate geometry by applying a tensile stress transverse to the weld).
The variations in these parameters are included in Table 1.

As will be seen in Section 9, the finite element analysis covered a good selection of the cases
described above that were proposed under Task 2.

 4. TASK 3 WELD/SPECIMEN MANUFACTURE

A detailed section on this Task is included in the Deliverable D2 report of Reference 1.

Motherwell Bridge Group was contracted to prepare a suitable welded steel plate using materials and
welding/repair processes typical of current industrial practice. They used available steel plate of
thickness 40mm to BS1501 490 LT50. The weld procedure qualification record is shown in Figure 2.
An asymmetric double V preparation was used with the weld root positioned 2/3 of the plate
thickness from the surface of side 1, which was filled first. Typical pre-heat and interpass
temperatures were used of 75C and 250C respectively. No PWHT was carried out. Visual
inspection, Magnetic Particle Inspection (MPI) and ultrasonic testing confirmed that there were no
detectable defects after welding.

The test plate is shown in Figure 16 and comprised two 40 mm thick plates, with length 4000 mm and
width 500 mm, welded together at the long edges. Half of the welded plate, (i.e. a 2000 mm length)
was cut into five sections as shown to provide as-welded material for the experimental work under
project Tasks 4 (material characterisation), 5 (residual stress measurements) and 6 (photoelastic and
thermal emission experiments), along with two blanks for manufacture of further test specimens in a
later phase of the project. Motherwell Bridge Group retained the remaining half of the test plate for
repair weld processing described below.

Strong back plates, made from the same material as the test plate, were used to restrain out of plane
bending during welding. The strong-back plates formed 40 mm thick ribs, 400 mm high, running
across the full 1000 mm width of the test plate on the opposite side to that being welded. Each
strong-back plate was attached to the test plate by fillet welds, which extended for 300 mm from each
end. A central 150 mm cut out was formed to accommodate pre-heaters in the case of the original
weld only. Eight strong-back plates were used for the original welding of the 4000 mm long test
plate, placed at 500mm intervals, commencing 250 mm from the end. The strong-back plates were
fixed to test plate side 2 whilst welding side 1 and vice versa.

The weld repair process carried out on the second 2000 mm length of test plate (Figure 16) was
designed to simulate the site repair of a central root defect in the original weld. This involved typical
grinding out from the narrower side of the weld (side 2) to a depth of 17 mm to ensure removal of a
defect in the original weld root at a depth of 13.5 mm. The weld procedure qualification record for
the repair weld is shown in Figure 3.

To simulate a repair process being applied to a structure on site, rather than under ideal workshop
conditions, some modifications were agreed to the weld procedure. Welding under more difficult
access conditions was simulated by use of smaller electrodes and more rapid passes with less weave
than was the case for the original weld. This process (known as stringer bead technique) resulted in
a lower heat input than for the original weld. This was exacerbated by the omission of pre-heat for
the repair, simulating a site situation where pre-heat could be difficult to apply effectively. Lower
heat input results in more rapid cooling of the weld metal, which can lead to changes in the material
properties. No PWHT was carried out following the repair welding. Visual inspection, MPI and
ultrasonic testing confirmed that there were no detectable defects after repair.

For the repair weld, four strong-back plates of the type used for the original weld were attached to
simulate structural restraint. These were set at 500 mm spacing on the 2000 mm long test plate, fixed
to side 1 only as the repair was single sided.

 5. TASK 4 MATERIAL CHARACTERISATION TESTS

A detailed section on this Task is included in the Deliverable D2 report of Reference 1. Initial
material characterisation tests, covered in Reference 1, were those to determine tensile, fracture and
fatigue crack growth properties. The results of metallography and hardness testing are also presented
in Reference 1. Narrow bands of high hardness were measured in the heat affected zone (HAZ) of the
samples (see below). To provide an understanding of the formation of these, it was decided to carry
out a more detailed microstructural examination of the welded regions in samples for both the as-
welded and weld repair specimens.

Results of all the material characterisation tests are summarised as follows:

5.1 TENSILE TESTS

Tensile properties of the weld material in both as-welded and repair-welded conditions at room
temperature were obtained from tests on 3.5 mm diameter round bar specimens.

The tensile test results are listed in Table 2. True stress/true strain data are given in Reference 1.

The results show that, in the as-welded state, the weld was overmatched by 46%, based on the 0.2%
proof stress (PS) values of approximately 512 MPa and 350 MPa for weld and parent plate
respectively. The parent material exhibited typical upper and lower yield point behaviour, which was
not present in the weld metal results. The ultimate tensile stress (UTS) for the weld was 18% higher
than that for the parent material, with average values of 622 MPa and 527 MPa respectively.

For the repair weld material, higher values of 0.2%PS were obtained compared to the as-welded
condition. The near surface average value for repair weld was 540 MPa compared to 512MPa for the
as-welded condition (5% increase), whilst the near root average value for repair weld was 580MPa
(13% increase). The UTS value obtained from near surface repair weld was similar to that for the as-
welded condition (628 MPa against 622 MPa respectively), whilst the value for near root repair weld
was 670 MPa (approximately 13% increase on as-welded). It should be noted that a spurious result
was obtained from repair weld specimen WI12, due to failure outside the gauge length, and this has
therefore been discounted.

5.2 FRACTURE TESTS

Fracture toughness J resistance curves at room temperature were obtained from single edge notch
bend (SENB), side grooved, unloading compliance specimens to BS 7448 Part 4 for the original weld
and the repair weld. Two specimens were tested in each condition. The specimen notch was aligned
centrally in the through-thickness direction. The specimen orientation was selected, and the initial
crack length, after fatigue pre-cracking, adjusted within the standard limits, to ensure that the crack tip
lay in original weld or repair weld, as desired.

The results are shown in the crack growth resistance curves of Figures 17 and 18, for as-welded and
repair-welded material respectively. The results showed that the fracture toughness behaviour was
similar in both the as-welded and repair-welded specimens, with initiation toughness J0.2 values of
approximately 105 kJm-2 and 102 kJm-2 respectively (allowing for blunting, J0.2BL of approximately
116kJm-2 and 119kJm-2 respectively).

5.3 FATIGUE CRACK GROWTH TESTS

Fatigue crack growth properties at room temperature were obtained for the original weld and the
repair weld using Compact Tension (CT) specimens in accordance with ASTM E647. The specimen
notch was aligned centrally in the weld in the through-thickness direction. The specimen orientation
was selected, and the initial crack length adjusted within the standard limits, to ensure that crack
growth was obtained in original weld or repair weld, as desired.

The results of the fatigue crack growth tests on weld metal are shown in the Paris Law plots of Figure
19. The data indicate that similar fatigue crack growth behaviour was obtained with both the as-
welded and repair-welded material. The slopes of the Paris Law plots are very similar, with some
offset giving slightly higher growth rates with the as-welded material. The valid region of stress
intensity factor range, DK, was from approximately 25 MPam to 60 MPam.

5.4 METALLOGRAPHY AND HARDNESS TESTING

Sections from the weld in the as-welded and repaired states were polished and etched to reveal the
welds, macro photographs taken and hardness testing carried out. In addition to examination of
transverse sections, the edges of the samples (i.e. the surface of the test plate) were also prepared by
polishing down to the level of the plate surface. Surface hardness measurements were taken to
compare with the sub-surface values obtained from the transverse sections. The Vickers Hardness
surveys (Hv 10kg load) of the parent materials, welds and HAZs were carried out according to BS EN
288-3.

The original welds had typical, well-defined runs, with HAZs in the order of 2-3mm wide. The area
of weld repair had a less well-defined weld run structure due to the larger number of smaller beads.

The Vickers Hardness survey according to BS EN 288-3 showed no significant hard spots in any of
the samples for the transverse sections. The hardness values in the unaffected parent material were in
the region of approximately Hv140 to Hv180. The highest hardness values were recorded in the
HAZ, as expected. The HAZ on the repair weld was slightly harder than the original weld, with
maximum recorded values of Hv331, and Hv268 respectively. These levels are below the maximum
permitted hardness value of Hv350 stated in BS EN 288-3 for this class of material.

The results for the surface measurements show a similar but less pronounced variation in hardness to
that recorded for the transverse sections. The maximum HAZ hardness values recorded were Hv258
and Hv284 for the as-welded and repair-welded conditions respectively. This gives some confidence
that increased hardness could be indicated by measurements on the accessible surface of a structure,
but suggests that small, isolated areas of peak hardness may not be detected since they may occur sub-
surface.

5.5 MICROSTRUCTURAL EXAMINATION

The more detailed microstructural examination was carried out by the Sheffield University Metals
Advisory Centre (SUMAC). The details of this are given in Appendix 2. The SUMAC work
consisted of examinations on both as-welded and repair-welded samples in terms of microstructural
observations, standard hardness tests, microhardness surveys and microanalysis using dispersive x-
rays.

It was shown that the HAZ microstructure followed the typical pattern of a multi-pass weld with a
zone of grain growth at the fusion line, backed by a band of recrystallization followed by a
spheroidized/tempered zone before the unaffected matrix. Each weld pass imposed a further HAZ on
the underlying weld (and its HAZ) leading to a refined microstructure at the overlap. The grain

10

growth and recrystallization zones had a microstructure of grain boundary and Widmanstatten ferrite
(the amount depending on the local austentising temperature and subsequent cooling rate) in a
transformed matrix. In carbon and low alloy steels of this type, the matrix can be a mixture of the
phases ferrite, pearlite bainite and martensite. The root run area was completely refined and tempered
and contained no hard spots. The macro and micro-hardness testing indicated that the HAZ of the
toe welds in weld 2 (the smallest weld on the side containing the repair weld) of both the as-welded
and repair-welded samples had higher hardness values than elsewhere. The microstructure, whilst not
exhibiting defined pools of hard phase, did show structural refinement and reductions in pro-
eutectoid ferrite that could explain the increased hardness.

The study concluded that both the as-welded and repair-welded samples passed the hardness
requirement and some potentially high hardness values obtained by microhardness should not detract
from this, particularly as they were in areas where this might be expected and were not found
elsewhere in the weld.

11

 6. TASK 5 RESIDUAL STRESS MEASUREMENTS

The destructive technique of block removal, splitting and layering was used to determine the through
thickness residual stress distribution in the as-welded and repair-welded specimens. Further details of
the procedure and the measured results are contained in Reference 1.

The residual stress results for the as-welded condition are shown in Figures 20 and 21 for the
Y direction (perpendicular to the weld) and X direction (parallel to the weld) respectively. The
stresses in the Y direction are self-balancing through the thickness, with tensile values near the
surfaces and compressive values in the central area. The stresses in the X direction are tensile
throughout the thickness. The distributions are asymmetric as expected, considering the asymmetric
weld preparation, with minimum values occurring at a depth of approximately 25 mm from weld side
1, which corresponds to the location of the weld root. Stress maximum values occur at depths of
approximately 5 mm and 35 mm. The peak tensile stress in the Y-direction (perpendicular to the
weld) is ~220-350 MPa, and in the X-direction (parallel to the weld) ~500-580 MPa.

The residual stress results for the repair-welded condition are shown in Figures 22 and 23 for the
Y direction (perpendicular to the weld) and X direction (parallel to the weld) respectively. The form
of the stress distributions is basically the same as for the as-welded condition (Figures 20 and 21).
The stress minimum values are of similar magnitude to the as-welded but occur closer to the centre of
the plate, corresponding to the location of the repair weld root. Also, the stress maximum values at
depth of 5 mm show a noticeable increase over the as-welded for both the Y and X directions, whilst
the maximum values at depth of 35mm remain at similar levels. The increase in peak tensile residual
stress therefore occurs on the side remote from the weld repair, rather than on the repaired side. The
peak tensile values at depth of 35 mm are 600 MPa and 750 MPa for Y and X directions respectively,
the latter being in excess of the weld metal yield stress measured in the tensile tests. The reason for
this high peak is not clear but the two sets of strain measurements taken in the X direction gave very
similar results, which suggests that it is not due to an experimental error or test equipment fault.

As a further check on the residual stress levels at the surfaces, measurements were made using the
shallow hole drilling technique. This technique involves using a trepanning air-abrasive jet drilling
technique, which has been shown to introduce practically no residual stresses into the component
under test. The technique involves the drilling of a small blind hole (typically 1.8 mm diameter x 1.8
mm deep) in the centre of a special three-element strain gauge rosette. Local strain relaxation is
related to the initial stress state in the specimen and calibration using a known (usually uniform) stress
field allows residual stresses to be calculated.

The surface stresses evaluated from the shallow hole drilling technique are as follows:

(1/3 weld side) (2/3 weld side)

As-Welded: Perpendicular Stress (MPa) -94 365 368
As-Welded: Parallel Stress (MPa) 225 138 181
Repair-Welded: Perpendicular Stress (MPa) 34 280 386
Repair-Welded: Parallel Stress (MPa) 181 -27 -162

These values have been included in the residual stress distribution plots of Figures 20 to 23. It can be
seen that the surface stresses obtained from the hole drilling method are generally consistent with the
near-surface stress distributions evaluated from the block removal, splitting and layering technique.

12
 7. TASK 6 TESTS INVOLVING PHOTOELASTIC COATING AND
THERMAL EMISSION METHODS

Detailed information on this Task is contained in Reference 2. The Task focused on (i) quantifying
the fatigue crack propagation rate in welded and repair welded steel plate, (ii) investigating the use of
a full field photoelasticity technique to measure residual stresses in the plates, and (iii) investigating
the use of a thermoelasticity technique to measure the true crack tip driving force (i.e. stress intensity
factor) in the two types of weld.

The specimens used for testing were obtained from the initial test plate as described in Section 4. The
specimens tested were identical for both original and repair welds. The geometry used for the study of
fatigue crack growth was a tension specimen, 41.5 mm wide (W) and 12 mm thick (t) with a 4 mm
initial edge notch (a) spark machined in the side of the original or repair weld, as appropriate
(Figure 24).

Stress intensity factors were calculated using the following equation:

DK I = YDs pa (1)
where
2 3 4
a a a a
Y = 1.12 - 0.231 + 10.55 - 21.72 + 30.39 (2)
W W W W

Such values are referred to as DKI Theory so as to distinguish them from values determined by
thermoelastic measurement.

The tests carried out consisted of analysing the crack growth for a tensile edge cracked specimen
using thermoelastic stress analysis. The machine used for this purpose was an ESH 100kN servo-
hydraulic machine which allows the application of a cyclic load to the specimen at the frequency and
load convenient for the thermoelastic test.

Seven fatigue tests were carried out for different load conditions, as detailed below:

Identifier Load range, R ratio Comments

kN
AEA1 32.4 0.13 Original weld
AEA2 40 0.1 Original weld, 30kN range at R=0.1 applied for 800000
cycles with no growth
AEA3 33.0 0.13 Repair weld
AEA4 39.6 0.1 Repair weld. Subsequently used for J test
AEA_F2 36.9 0.28 Repair weld. Test run to fracture of specimen.
AEA_F3 37.6 0.58 Original weld
AEA_F1 37.6 0.58 Repair weld

Images at different number of cycles during the tests were taken. At the same time, for every picture
captured, the number of cycles and the crack length were noted. A vernier microscope was used to
measure the rate at which the crack length had grown between different images.

13
A non-standard J test was carried out by loading in four-point bending one of the edge cracked tensile
specimen used for crack growth analysis. The results obtained were found to be similar to those
previously obtained that are presented in Figure 17. In addition, one of the fatigue tests was run until
failure. The loads at fracture were Pmin = 16.4 kN, Pmax = 51.6 kN, the final crack length being
34.93 mm, including the initial 4 mm slit. Failure occurred after 536770 cycles.

The stress intensity factor ranges were plotted against the crack length for different R values and for
different specimens (original and repair welds). An example is shown in Figure 25 for the R = 0.13
case of the repaired weld specimen, AEA3. RAT and FGD referred to in Figure 25 are the initials
of the two different operators who processed the results. In all cases, experimental results were
compared to the range of stress intensity factor calculated by Equations 1 and 2. It was observed that
all experimental data lay below the theoretical values when the crack length is long enough. This is
thought to be due primarily to the crack closure effect (see below), but other factors may also be
influential. In particular, the large displacement of the crack at high stress intensity factors may well
mean that the published stress intensity factor calibrations are erroneous at these levels.

At the same time using information from the tests, the crack growth rate against the stress intensity
factor was plotted for the different experiments. Figure 26 is an example of such a plot whereby the
Paris law is presented using experimental values for the stress intensity factor (identified as
Deltatherm data in the Figure) and values predicted from Equations 1 and 2 and the crack growth
rates obtained from experimental measurement. The AEAT growth equation curve included in
Figure 26 has been derived from the data presented in Figure 19.

Finally, an estimate of the closure level was made from the difference between the theoretical DKI and
the value measured using Deltatherm. The values are shown in Figure 27 plotted against the crack
length.

In considering crack closure effects, it has previously been observed that non-linear crack opening
behaviour results in a region of residual tensile deformation in the wake of a fatigue crack. The
resulting permanent contact between the two crack faces results in a lowering of the crack opening
displacement and consequently lower driving force for fatigue crack advancement.

A large amount of research has been carried out on this topic during the last few years and the
mechanisms involved have been described. These mechanisms suggest that several types of closure
affect the rate of fatigue crack advance. The possible sources of crack closure are the following:

- Plasticity induced crack closure, due to residual stress in the wake of the crack.
- Oxide induced crack closure, due to the oxide layers formed inside the fatigue crack.
- Roughness induced crack closure, due to the roughness of the fatigue fracture surface.
- Viscous induced crack closure, due to the penetration of viscous fluids inside of the crack.
- Transformation induced crack closure, due to phase deformations at the crack tip caused by stress
or strain.

In addition, the presence of non-uniform residual stresses in a structure will contribute to the crack tip
driving force in addition to primary loads. These complex stresses may increase the stress intensity
factor above that estimated from the external loading, or may decrease it, thereby having a similar
effect on crack closure.

Looking ahead to Figures 37 and 38, which present the finite element determined values of stress
intensity factor for the residual stress fields (refer to section 9.1), it is evident that the KI values are
positive for all crack sizes considered (crack depth, a, ranging from just over 2 mm to 20 mm). Crack

14

opening, as opposed to crack closure, would therefore be expected to occur from the residual stress
distribution.

Some tests were undertaken using reflection photoelasticity with the intention of measuring residual
stress in welds. Two different specimens were used from the original and the repair welds. The
photoelastic results confirmed the previous measurements referred to in Section 6, whereby very little
difference was observed between the residual stresses in the as-welded and repaired weld conditions.

15

 8. TASK 7 DEVELOPMENT OF FINITE ELEMENT MODELS

Detailed finite element modelling of a matrix of relevant un-repaired and repaired weld configurations
has formed a major part of the project. The work was mainly focussed on the modelling of a plate
geometry but a spherical vessel geometry was also considered. This work (covering Tasks 7 and 8) is
fully described in Reference 3 and summarised in the following sub-sections.

8.1 WELD MODELLING TECHNIQUE

In terms of the development of the finite element models, a weld bead lumping approach was used to
model weldments in which a small number of lumped beads was modelled in both original and repair
welds. A non-linear analysis of the welding process was carried out using a simplified ABAQUS
finite element model of the parent plate and weld. In this analysis, the original weld was built up by
the addition of each lumped weld bead in an incremental manner.

A thermal transient analysis was first conducted in order to establish the temperature history of each
point in the plate or sphere due to the addition of each weld bead. A subsequent elastic-plastic
analysis used an almost identical finite element model to simulate the addition of the weld beads.
This mechanical model was loaded by imposing, at each time increment, the temperature of each node
from the above thermal transient analysis. Like the thermal analysis, the mechanical model was
necessarily simplified, so the complex behaviour of the weld and parent metal near melting point was
not considered. However, approximate temperature dependent mechanical properties were used.
Low values of yield stress and perfectly plastic properties were used at temperatures near the melting
point to reduce the loading on adjacent material. However, this did incur the penalty of producing
unrealistically large plastic strains that cannot be annealed.

After adding the final lumped bead of the original weld, the current state of the mechanical model
(displacements, stresses, elastic and plastic strains etc.) was saved for subsequent restarts. Following
this, the elements in the repaired areas were removed, and the lumped beads of the repair were added.
The required state of the model was again saved for subsequent restarts.

Figure 28 shows a part of the finite element mesh used to model a though-thickness section of the
welded test plate in the region of the weld. For convenience, the mesh is shown rotated by 90o with
respect to Figures 2 and 3. The plate thickness was 40 mm measured in the horizontal direction in
Figure 28. The depth of the repair weld was 15 mm, this being slightly smaller than the 17 mm
actually excavated in the real plate weld. The original weld comprised nine lumped beads, and the
repair weld had four. The weld caps were not modelled. The plate width was measured in the vertical
direction in Figure 28. Due to symmetry about the centre of the weld, only one half of the 1000 mm
plate width was modelled.

To make allowance for later generalisation, the finite element mesh was actually three-dimensional,
but only a single element thickness was used in the plate height direction perpendicular to the plane of
Figure 28. The strong back plates used during the actual welding were modelled as beam elements,
with equivalent section modulus, running vertically along the appropriate side of the mesh in Figure
28.

A sphere was modelled with 40 mm thickness and 20 m diameter. The weld was considered to be a
fully equatorial one, with dimensions and bead lumping exactly as modelled in the plate weld. The
repair lay on the outside of the sphere. Figure 29 shows the axisymmetric finite element mesh used.
Again due to symmetry about the centre of the weld, only one half of the sphere was modelled. No

16

strong back restraints were used in the weld mechanical simulation. A further weld repair situation
was also considered for the sphere. This involved a shallow excavation, with removal of only that
material corresponding to repair weld beads 3 and 4 (see lower part of Figure 28) from the original
weld and its replacement by simulated welding. The repair depth in this case was 6.6 mm instead of
the standard 15 mm.

After the modelling of the original weld in both geometries, a creep analysis was carried out to
simulate a PWHT of four hours at 650oC. Here, the temperature of the model was raised from 20oC to
650oC in five hours at a uniform rate. The temperature was held at 650oC for four hours and then
reduced back to 20oC in six hours at a uniform rate. After the PWHT simulation, and also after the
subsequent repair, the state of mechanical model was saved for subsequent restarts. These are, in fact,
the welded plate and sphere states into which defects were inserted as discussed later.

8.2 MATERIAL PROPERTIES

The tensile properties of the parent plate and of the original and repair welds at ambient temperature
are reported in Reference 1. Figure 30 shows the measured results for the parent steel, and in the
centre of the original weld in terms of true stress versus true strain.

The measured results were modified in order to be suitable for the weld simulation analysis. Firstly,
the results were smoothed. Secondly, the Luders strain seen in the parent steel was removed since it
was considered to be a consequence of the tensile test specimen geometry, rather than a real material
phenomenon. The rate of strain hardening seen at the end of the tests, at about 3.5% strain, was
extrapolated to larger strains. Thirdly, trial simulations of the original weld showed that an average
equivalent plastic strain of about 12% remains in the weld. This strain could not be annealed within
the analysis. To take account of this prior welding strain, the weld values in Figure 30 had 12% added
to the plastic strain so that after the weld simulation, the stress versus additional strain followed the
smoothed, measured curve. In Figure 31, the solid blue curve shows the tensile properties at 20oC
used for parent plate in the weld simulation analyses. The solid red curve shows the properties of both
the original and repair weld at this temperature.

The resulting 0.2% and 1% proof stresses of the weld and parent materials are as follows:

0.2% Proof Stress (MPa) 1% Proof Stress (MPa)

Temperature (oC) Parent Weld Parent Weld
20 371 362 418 362
2000 5 5 5 5

Values at intermediate temperatures were obtained by interpolation. Despite the apparent weld under-
match (lower yield strength than parent) the plastic strain accumulated during the weld simulation
analysis raised the yield stress; resulting in behaviour like that measured in Figure 30.

The following Paris Law curve constants were used in the fatigue crack growth that were carried out:
da
= 1.2x10 -8 DK 2.77 (3)
dN
where DK is the stress intensity factor range during cyclic loading, measured in MPam, and da/dN is
in mm/cycle. It may be noted that Equation 3 represents the lower curve presented in Figure 19.

As can be seen from Figures 17 and 18, fracture toughness at ambient temperature corresponding to
0.2 mm of tearing, J0.2, was measured to be equal to 105 and 102 KJ/m2, respectively for original and
repair weld material. These values translate to a toughness of about 150 MPam in terms of KJ0.2. In

17

this study, values of toughness were considered that ranged from 160 MPam down to significantly
lower levels of about 30 MPam in the as-repaired condition. As discussed later, such low values of
fracture toughness can result in repair welds due to a variety of circumstances.

The properties used for the weld simulation thermal analysis and the creep properties used in the
simulation of the intermediate post-weld heat treatment are described in Reference 3.

8.3 RESULTS OF WELDING SIMULATIONS

Figures 32(a-b) compare the through-thickness stress distributions at the middle of the weld with the
measured results presented in Figures 20 to 23. It should be noted that, in these and subsequent
similar Figures, the through-thickness distance is always measured from the non-repaired side 1. The
experimental results are shown as solid lines and the predicted results are dashed lines. The stresses
produced by the original weld are shown in blue, those caused by the repair weld are in red. Predicted
results are in general agreement with the measurements, with tension near the plate surface and
compression at mid-thickness. However, the numerical simulation was unable to predict the precise
magnitudes and positions of stress peaks and troughs. This is not surprising, given the simplifications
and approximations involved. It should also be noted that the predictions and measurements agree that
a higher transverse stress occurs in the repaired weld, but on the un-repaired side 1. Both
measurements and predictions show a similar magnitude of peak transverse stress on the repaired side
2.

In Figures 33(a-b), comparisons are made for through-thickness distributions of transverse and
longitudinal stress across the middle of the weld between the four different numerical simulations.
These cases are:

(i) as originally welded (blue diamonds),

(ii) as originally welded followed by post-weld heat treatment (green diamonds),

(iii) as originally welded, followed by partial weld removal and repair welding (red circles),

(iv) as originally welded, followed by post-weld heat treatment, partial weld removal and finally
repair welding (orange circles),

In case (ii), the effect of heat treating the original weld is apparent, with a large reduction of both
components of stress compared with the as-welded case (i). In Figure 33(a) it is seen that the through-
thickness transverse stresses in the weld for the two repair cases (iii) and (iv) are similar. The repair
of the PWHT weld thus re-establishes a pattern of stress as if the original PHWT had not been carried
out. Furthermore, close to the surface of the un-repaired side 1, the repair causes an increase in
transverse stress to a higher peak level than the un-heat treated original weld (compare the orange
with blue curves). Figure 33(b) shows that the longitudinal stress is affected by repair mainly on the
repaired side 2 itself.

Figures 34(a-b) compare the predicted residual stress results for the four simulation cases carried out
on the sphere. The general pattern of results is similar to that of the plate in Figures 33(a-b).

Figure 35(a) compares transverse stresses for cases (ii) and (iv) between the plate (open symbols) and
sphere (filled symbols). For case (ii), the original PWHT weld shown in green, the peak transverse
tensile stresses predicted in the sphere are about half those in the plate on the last welded side 2. This
situation is reversed on the first welded side 1. The sphere therefore appears to have a component of
through-wall bending stress. For case (iv), repaired stresses shown in orange, the sphere has higher

18

values than the plate at the un-repaired side. Figure 35(b), showing longitudinal stresses, also
illustrates slightly lower predictions in the sphere than the plate in respect of the PWHT original weld,
case (ii).

Comparisons of residual stresses for deep and shallow repairs in the sphere are shown in Figures
36(a-b). These graphs show results for the original PWHT weld, the standard simulated repair of
depth 15 mm and also for the shallower repair with a depth of 6.6 mm. On the repaired side of the
weld, the shallow repair promotes peak values of transverse and longitudinal stress similar to the
deeper repair. On the un-repaired side of the weld, the shallow repair gives peak stresses lying
between the un-repaired PWHT cases and the deep repair case. Thus, shallow weld repairs can
promote high local residual stresses if the component is not heat treated.

8.4 ANALYSES OF DEFECTS IN THE SIMULATED WELDS

Crack-like defects were inserted into the plate and sphere weld cases (ii) and (iv) of the previous
section. Additional loads were applied to the models to give stresses on the defective section
typically experienced by engineering structures, and crack driving forces (CDFs) were calculated.
These parameters were then used to determine limiting or critical defect sizes for various values of
weld fracture toughness in the two welded states. Comparisons were made between limiting defect
sizes for defects in these heat treated and as-repaired situations.

Using the CDFs, fatigue crack growth calculations were also carried out to determine the number of
loading cycles required to reach the limiting condition for a range of initial defect sizes. Comparisons
were made between fatigue lives of defects in the heat treated and as-repaired states for a range of
initial defect sizes and fracture toughness.

Some modelling simplifications were made in these analyses of defects in welds and these are
explained in Reference 3.

Defects were inserted into the plate model on the plane through the middle of the weld. The two
configurations considered in the welded plate are actually those shown in Figures 4 and 5. In Figure 4,
a surface defect of depth a is shown in the weld. In some cases, the tip reaches into the original weld
(for the weld repair cases). In Figure 5, an embedded or internal defect is considered in the weld. In
some of the weld repair cases, this also reached into the original weld. As for the surface defect, this
defect was also considered as fully extended along the whole length of the weld. The defect is
characterised by its depth, 2a, and the distance of its nearest tip from the repaired surface, p.

In the welded sphere, surface defects were considered in the middle of the repair weld, like Figure 4.
Since the repair was considered to lie on the outside of the sphere (Figure 29) and the finite element
model was axisymmetric, this corresponds to a fully extended outer surface defect of depth a along an
equatorial weld.

Modelling of the defects was accomplished by removing the symmetry boundary conditions along the
line of the defect. These restraints were replaced by equivalent forces that were reduced to zero in
several subsequent elastic-plastic increments of the analysis. The created defect usually opened
under the influence of the residual stress field. In some circumstances however, the defect closed over
at least part of its depth due to a predominantly compressive residual stress. In such cases, the contact
of the opposing faces of the defect was not modelled, so the defect was allowed to over-close.
Simultaneous introduction of the entire crack surface is mechanistically different to the modelling of
slow, sub-critical crack growth where the crack is introduced progressively. In the former, a zone of
plastic deformation appears at the crack tip(s) only. In the latter, a wake of plastic deformation
develops on the crack flanks as (each) crack tip moves forward.

19

In terms of the primary loading, a remote, uniformly distributed, tensile load was applied to the top of
the modelled plate, 500 mm away from the defect plane. This represents loading in the weld
transverse direction normal to the plane of the defect; causing it to open further, or to open if closed in
the residual stress field acting alone. Various magnitudes of remote membrane load were applied,
with a maximum of 225 MPa. This load was considered to be the occasional overload condition for
which the possibility of ductile crack initiation or cleavage fracture was assessed. A remote load of
180 MPa was considered to be the cyclic operating load that causes fatigue crack growth. This value
of nominal stress is about 50% of the 0.2% proof stress and 34% of the UTS of the parent plate, and
so is typical of an engineering structure.

An internal pressure was applied to the sphere. This results in an equi-biaxial stress in the spherical
shell that acts to open the defect. Various magnitudes of pressure were applied, with a maximum of
1.8 MPa corresponding to a meridional stress of 225 MPa according to thin shell theory. Again, this
was considered as the overload condition. The operating condition was a repeatedly applied pressure
of 1.44 MPa, causing a nominal stress of 180 MPa in the shell.

Crack driving force was evaluated in terms of stress intensity factor. This parameter was evaluated
both elastically (designated K) and from an elastic-plastic analysis (designated KJ). Because of the
complexity of the finite element analyses, the conventional J-contour integral option with ABAQUS
could not be accurately employed to evaluate K and KJ. The primary reason for this is that the
contour integral calculation of J requires that significant unloading of the material does not take place.
This was not the case in the present finite element analyses that simulated welding, heat treatment,
material removal and repair welding. An alternative calibration approach, based on the crack opening
displacements at the node immediately behind the crack tip, was therefore used as a proxy for J. Full
details of this calibration procedure are contained in Reference 3. It may be noted that J was
converted to K by the usual equation, K = [(EJ)/(1-n2)] 0.5 where E is Youngs modulus (taken as 200
GPa and n is Poissons ratio (taken as 0.3).

20

 9. TASK 8 APPLICATION OF FINITE ELEMENT MODELS TO

MATRIX CASES

This Task is associated with applying the finite element models and methodology referred to in
Section 8 above to a matrix of cases. It should be noted that because of previously unforeseen
complexities of the analyses (e.g. the requirement to develop the calibration method used to evaluate
crack driving force), it was not possible to include all the cases that had originally been suggested
under Task 2 (Section 3). A good selection of the cases was included in the analyses however.

9.1 EDGE DEFECTS IN THE WELDED PLATE

Figures 37(a-b) show results for elastic stress intensity factor K for various defect depths and levels of
primary load in the welded plate in the un-repaired heat treated and the as-repaired states,
respectively. The magnitude of primary load is indicated in the legends. 0 MPa corresponds to
residual stress only. The stress intensity factors for the defect in the repaired weld are obviously larger
than in the un-repaired PWHT case. The two curves for residual stress only show a tendency to rise
with increasing defect depth and then gradually fall, reaching a maximum K for about 11 mm defect
depth. This is a consequence of the residual stress fields presented in Figure 33(a) whereby the
stresses are shown to start decreasing in magnitude after reaching tensile peak values at a distance of
about 10 mm from the appropriate side of the plate. The other curves simply show that the additional
stress intensity factor is proportional to the primary load applied.

Figures 38(a-b) show results for KJ calculated from J obtained from elastic-plastic analyses. The
curves for zero primary load are unchanged from Figures 37(a-b). With increasing crack depth and
load, the value of KJ becomes larger than the corresponding value of K in Figure 37 due to plasticity
effects. The KJ results in the as-repaired state are higher than in the PWHT state, particularly for
intermediate defect depths and loads. For deeper defects and higher loads, the residual thermal strains
arising from welding are reduced by the mechanical plastic strains, and so the difference in CDFs
between the two welded states is reduced.

Repeated loading and unloading between zero and 180 MPa was considered. Fatigue crack growth
predictions are made using the Paris law, Equation 3, but with the more representative parameter
DKJ=KJmax-KJmin used in preference to DK. Here KJmin is the crack driving force for the appropriate
residual stress acting alone and KJmax is the total CDF for combined residual stress plus 180 MPa
applied stress. Both these parameters are available in Figures 38(a-b). For each updated crack depth
the value of KJ for an occasional 225 MPa applied stress was also available. This KJ was required to
assess when the critical crack size had been reached during the fatigue crack growth calculations (i.e.
fatigue crack growth was based on an applied stress range of 180 MPa and critical crack size was
based on an overload stress of 225 MPa).

Results of fatigue crack growth predictions are illustrated in Figures 39(a-b). These graphs show
crack depth, a, as a function of the number of loading cycles, N, between zero and 180 MPa for the
different initial defect depths indicated in the legends. Defects in the as-repaired weld, Figure 39(b),
need fewer cycles to grow to a given depth compared with the PWHT state, Figure 39(a), since the
value of DKJ is generally lower for the PWHT state (Figure 38).

Ductile crack initiation, or cleavage failure in the ductile-to-brittle transition region of ferritic steels,
is considered to occur when KJ is equal to a given fracture toughness KJc. No differentiation is drawn
between these types of failure and the term limiting condition is used hereafter. In Figures 40(a-b)

21

results are presented for fracture toughness, KJc, versus the number of 0-180 MPa loading cycles, Nf,
required to cause the limiting condition due to an occasional 225 MPa overload. Curves are shown for
different initial defect depths. A comparison of the two graphs shows that for a given fracture
toughness and initial defect, fewer cycles are required to grow to the limiting condition in the as-
repaired weld.

Figure 41 shows the relationship between critical defect depth, ac, at the limiting condition and
fracture toughness in the two weld states. For a given toughness, the critical defect depth is smaller in
the as-repaired weld. The difference in critical defect depth between the two welds depends on
toughness. For example, for a weld toughness of 160 MPam, the critical defect depth is about 17.5
mm in the PWHT weld and 16.7 mm in the as-repaired case. This difference in depth is not
significant. However, for a lower fracture toughness of 100 MPam, the respective critical defect
sizes are about 13.5 mm and 9.5 mm. This difference is more significant.

Figure 42 shows curves of the ratio of the number of loading cycles to the limiting condition for a
defect in the repair, Nf(repaired), to the number of cycles in the un-repaired PWHT state, Nf(un-
repaired). These curves assume the same initial defect depth in both weld states. Each curve
represents a different fracture toughness that is also assumed to be the same in both welds. So in this
graph, a comparison is made of the fatigue life of the same size defect and same fracture toughness in
the repaired and un-repaired welds. Values less than unity imply a worse life for the repair. Of course,
in the majority of cases, this is the case due to the higher repair residual stresses. Some results are
greater than unity for initial defects between 8 mm and 14 mm deep for high toughness. This occurs
because of high values of KJ at zero load in the as-repaired state, Figure 38(b), giving lower values of
DKJ in the as-repaired weld compared with un-repaired and so reduced fatigue crack growth rates.

The series of graphs in Figures 43(a-e) also illustrate the ratio of operating cycles required to reach
the limiting condition for repaired and un-repaired cases. These take account of different initial defect
depths and fracture toughness in the two weld states. The scenarios are either: an edge defect is left in
the (un-repaired) weld, or a repair is carried out that leaves the same size or shallower edge defect
located in material with the same or reduced local fracture toughness. The trade-off is thus explored
between introducing the same or shallower defect in the repair and higher levels of residual stress and
lower fracture toughness in that weld.

Firstly, Figure 43(a) shows comparisons between leaving un-repaired a 5 mm deep edge defect and
inadvertently introducing either 5 mm, 4.2 mm or 3.3 mm deep defects in the as-repaired weld. Curves
are shown of the ratio of operating cycles to reach the limiting condition in the repaired and un-
repaired weld versus the percentage reduction in repaired fracture toughness from the original PHWT
value. Each curve represents a combination of repair defect depth and original toughness. The highest
values of PWHT fracture toughness are represented by blue curves, and the lowest by red. For
example, the blue squares show the effect of leaving in the repair the same size 5 mm deep defect for
an original PWHT fracture toughness of 160 MPam; slightly greater than the initiation toughness of
the plate test welds. The operating life of the repair is always lower than the un-repaired life (ratio of
cycles to the limiting condition is less than unity). Repair life gets comparatively worse as the
repaired toughness reduces. So, a 40% reduction of the repaired toughness, compared with the
original PWHT value, leads to a halving of the repaired life compared with the life if left un-repaired.

The open blue diamonds show the effect of introducing into the repair a 4.2 mm defect compared with
leaving un-repaired the PWHT weld containing a 5 mm defect. The repaired life slightly exceeds the
un-repaired life by only a small margin, though if the repaired toughness drops more than 20% below
the original 160 MPam, the life of the repair becomes less than the un-repaired life. The blue
triangles show the comparison between having a 3.3 mm defect in the repair and leaving un-repaired

22

the 5 mm defect. The repaired exceeds the un-repaired life until the repaired toughness drops below
about 43% of the PWHT level.

There are more interesting consequences for lower PWHT fracture toughness. Consider a toughness
of 100 MPam in the PWHT state; the three sets of orange curves and symbols in Figure 43(a). A
defect in the repair having a depth of either 5 mm or 4.2 mm always has a shorter operating life than
the 5 mm deep defect in the PWHT weld. A 3.3 mm deep repair defect, shown by orange triangles,
gives a slightly longer life than the un-repaired 5 mm case for no reduction of toughness. However, a
mere 10% or so reduction of toughness due to the repair results in a shorter operating life. For the
lowest 80 MPam PWHT toughness (red curves and symbols), all repaired defects from 3.3 mm to 5
mm depth imply an inferior fatigue life even if the repaired toughness does not change. These results
therefore demonstrate that repairing a shallow surface defect by re-welding is likely to result in a
shorter operating life if it leaves a defect and reduces the fracture toughness. This is particularly
apparent for materials with low original toughness. Although the repair surface defects considered
here could be detected visually or by Magnetic Particle Inspection, it is considered that a defect about
3 mm deep cannot be sized accurately by Ultrasonic Techniques.

Figure 43(b) shows similar sets of predictions for a 6.7 mm deep original defect. Here a defect of
depth 6.7 mm, 5 mm or 3.3 mm is considered left in the repair. The trend of the predictions is similar
to the 5 mm case discussed above, but a larger reduction of toughness is needed to obtain a shorter life
in the repaired situation. For example, the orange triangles show that for 100 MPam toughness in the
PWHT weld, a 45% reduction due to repair is required to give a shorter life for a 3.3 mm deep repair
defect.

Figures 43(c-e) however provide more support for repairing deeper surface defects. Figure 43(c)
compares an un-repaired 9.2 mm defect with repaired defects of 6.7 mm, 5 mm or 3.3 mm. Note that
not all symbols in the legend are seen on the graph because some initial defect/toughness
combinations considered meet the limiting condition and so imply zero operating life (see Figure 41)
or the repair life exceeds twice the un-repaired. The steeper angle of the curves suggests that, for these
deeper initial defects, the effect of toughness reductions due to repair can be more severe. For
example, the red diamonds compare the un-repaired 9.2 mm defect with 5 mm in the repair for a low
PWHT toughness of 80 MPam. If the toughness reduces by up to 10%, the life of the repair is still
over twice the life if un-repaired. However, a toughness reduction of 30% due to repair causes the
repaired life to drop drastically to about one quarter of that if the weld was left un-repaired.

Figure 43(d) shows a comparison of the 10.8 mm deep un-repaired defect with 9.2 mm, 6.7 mm or 5
mm defects in the repair. Since it is unlikely that a 9.2 mm defect is left in a repaired weld, the
shallower depths are perhaps more feasible. Considering 160 MPam PWHT toughness and a 5 mm
defect in the repair (blue triangles) then a 60% toughness reduction due to repair (down to about 64
MPam) is required to obtain a shorter fatigue life in the repair. If the PWHT weld has a lower 80
MPam toughness (red triangles) then only a 30% reduction down to about 56 MPam will give a
worse or even no repair life.

Finally, Figure 43(e) compares the un-repaired 13.3 mm deep defect with 9.2 mm 6.7 mm or 5 mm in
the repair. Many of the ratios are zero or unreported because there is no un-repaired or repaired life:
the initial defect is at or beyond the limiting condition. Obviously, this original 13.3 mm defect is
more likely to warrant repair than the shallow ones discussed above. However, onerous welding
conditions, giving the likelihood of poor toughness and a remaining defect, can result is a worse life.
Leaving a mere 5 mm deep defect, and reducing an original toughness of 100 MPam (orange dotted
curve) by 45%, will lead to little or no life of the repair. It will reach the limiting condition on first
overload. As seen in Figure 41, a 5 mm deep defect with a toughness of about 60 MPam is near the
limiting condition in the repair weld.

23

9.2 EQUATORIAL DEFECTS IN THE WELDED SPHERE

The stress intensity factors for primary load alone are in good agreement with standard results for
extended edge defects in spheres. Figures 44(a-b) give the results for the parameter KJ from the
welded sphere simulations. It is apparent that the crack driving forces are lower in this geometry than
previously seen for the plate. Due to algebraically more compressive residual stress at the defective
side 2 of the PWHT sphere weld (Figure 35a) the crack driving forces are negative for the shallowest
and also for the deepest defects in the absence of primary load, as seen in Figure 44(a).

Repeated loading and unloading between nominal biaxial stresses of zero and 180 MPa was again
considered, with fatigue crack growth predictions made using Equation 3 and DKJ=KJmax-KJmin. Only
the range over which KJmin is positive contributes to fatigue since the crack is actually closed if KJmin is
negative according to Figure 44(b). The value of KJ was calculated for an assumed overloading to a
nominal stress of 225 MPa at each crack depth and associated number of cycles. Fatigue crack growth
predictions are shown in Figures 45(a-b). As seen in the welded plate case earlier, defects in the as-
repaired state need fewer cycles to grow to a given depth compared with the PWHT state.

Figures 46(a-b) show results for fracture toughness versus the number of loading cycles required to
cause the limiting condition at the 225 MPa load. As with the welded plate, fewer cycles are required
in the as-repaired sphere weld to grow the defect to the limiting condition. Note that the range of
toughness is shifted to lower values compared with the welded plate because of the lower crack
driving forces in the sphere.

Figure 47 plots critical defect depth at the limiting condition as a function of fracture toughness in the
two weld states. Again for a given toughness, the critical defect depth is smaller in the as-repaired
weld. However, the difference between the two cases is more significant due to the generally lower
levels of toughness illustrated. For example, for a weld toughness of 100 MPam, the critical defect
depth is about 19 mm in the PWHT weld and 10.5 mm in the as-repaired case. The respective critical
depths for the welded plate (Figure 41) are about 13.5 mm and 9.5 mm. Thus the difference between
critical depths in the welded sphere is clearly more significant than for the plate. The green curve in
Figure 47 suggests that for PWHT toughness close to 60 MPam there is a large change in critical
crack depth. This is due to the flat or falling CDF in Figure 44(a) arising from compressive PWHT
residual stress at distances from side 2 greater than about 10 mm, see Figure 35(a).

Figure 48 compares the fatigue life of the same initial size defect and fracture toughness in the
repaired and un-repaired welds. Results are always less than unity; implying a worse life for defects in
the repair.

Figures 49(a-e) illustrate, for edge defects in the welded sphere, the trade-off between introducing the
same or shallower defect in the repair and higher residual stress and lower toughness there. These
graphs are similar to Figures 43(a-e) for the welded plate discussed earlier, with the exception that the
maximum toughness examined here is lower due to smaller crack driving forces in the sphere.

Figure 49(a) contrasts leaving un-repaired a 5 mm deep defect with introducing either 5 mm, 4.2 mm
or 3.3 mm deep defects in the as-repaired weld. With few exceptions, the operating life of the repair is
always lower than the un-repaired life for PWHT fracture toughness up to 110 MPam. Repairing a
long 5 mm deep surface defect in this weld geometry by re-welding without heat treatment is not
beneficial if it is likely that a mere 3 mm or so deep surface defect can remain undetected after repair.
The probability that the toughness will be reduced by a non-heat treated repair reinforces this
conclusion.

24

Figure 49(b) shows comparisons between leaving un-repaired a 6.7 mm deep defect and introducing
6.7 mm, 5 mm or 3.3 mm deep defects in the repair. For the highest PWHT toughness of 110 MPam
and the smallest repair defect of 3.3 mm (blue triangles), the defective repair has a longer life unless
the repair causes a toughness reduction of about 35% to 72 MPam. For the lowest PWHT toughness
examined of 70 MPam, a mere 12% toughness reduction will give a lower life for a 3.3 mm deep
defect in the repair (red triangles).

Looking ahead to Figure 49(d), compares leaving un-repaired a 10.8 mm deep defect in the PWHT
weld with having 9.2 mm, 6.7 mm or 5 mm defects in the as-repaired state. For 110 MPam PWHT
toughness and leaving the 5 mm defect after repair (blue triangles), a lower life is achieved by the
repair should the toughness fall by more than 35% to about 72 MPam. For the lowest considered
PWHT toughness of 70 MPam, only a 12% or so reduction in toughness will give a lower fatigue
life for the 5 mm repair defect (red triangles).

Finally, Figure 49(e) compares a 13.3 mm un-repaired defect with 9.2 mm, 6.7 mm and 5 mm defects
in the repair. For 110 MPam PWHT toughness and a 5 mm defect in the repair (blue triangles) then
about 43% toughness reduction, to 63 MPa m. is required to obtain a shorter life in the repair.

9.3 EMBEDDED DEFECTS IN THE WELDED PLATE

This section explores the behaviour of embedded defects in both the un-repaired and repaired weld in
the plate. Two initial types of defect configuration were considered. In the first, labelled p+2a=16.7
mm, the upper defect tip closest to side 1 (see Figure 5) lies at a depth of 16.7 mm from the repaired
side 2 of the plate. Various initial defect heights 2a were examined. In the second configuration,
p+2a=10.8 mm, the upper defect tip is 10.8 mm from side 2. Again, various initial defect heights
were studied. In all cases examined here, only the lower tip of the defect closest to repaired side 2
was considered. This necessary simplification meant that fatigue crack growth was not considered at
the upper tip closest to side 1. This is not as approximate as it might at first appear, particularly for
p+2a=16.7 mm, since the upper tip lies far from side 1 and generally experiences lower crack driving
forces (and ranges) than the lower tip of the defect. Given the power law dependence of the Paris law,
Equation 3, this leads to much lower rates of fatigue crack growth than experienced by the lower tip.

Figures 50(a-b) gives some KJ crack driving force results for increasing height of an embedded defect
in the un-repaired and repaired weld. These relate to the case p+2a=16.7 mm. A comparison of
Figures 50(a-b) and Figures 38(a-b) shows that, for the same defect height/depth, the CDFs for the
embedded cases are comparable to the edge cases, particularly for higher/deeper defects. At first
sight, this appears to be inconsistent with what is generally understood: that edge cracks have higher
CDFs than embedded cracks of the same depth. However, the embedded defect tip is developing
towards the repaired surface and so experiencing an increasing tensile nominal stress field. By
contrast, the edge defect results relate to the (only) tip of the defect in the deep position which
develops towards a more compressive stress field at plate mid-thickness. Should the 2a=14 mm high
embedded defect break through the 2.7 mm remaining ligament to the repaired surface, it is re-
characterised as a 16.7 mm edge defect. In both PWHT and as-repaired welds, the CDF will increase
at the 220 MPa maximum applied load plotted: compare Figures 38(a-b) for a=16.7 mm with Figures
50(a-b) for 2a=14 mm.

Figures 51(a-b) plot fracture toughness versus number of loading cycles to the limiting condition for
the case p+2a=16.7 mm. As expected, for the same toughness fewer cycles are achieved in the as-
repaired weld. Figures 52 and 53 compare critical crack depths for un-repaired PWHT and as-repaired
welds for the two embedded cases p+2a=16.7 mm and p+2a=10.8 mm, respectively. A lower range
of toughness is displayed in these cases compared with the edge defects (Figure 41) consistent with
the generally smaller crack driving forces obtained. The rapid change of critical defect height with

25

toughness in Figure 53 compared with Figure 52 is due to the defect tip in question being closer to,
and so more sensitive to, the tensile part of the residual stress field near the plate surface.

Figure 54 plots the ratio of cycles to limiting condition in the as-repaired weld to cycles in the un-
repaired condition as a function of toughness and initial defect height for the case p+2a=16.7 mm.
This shows that, for the same initial defect size and toughness in both welds, a shorter life is generally
obtained in the repair. A longer repair life is however seen for the very short initial defects examined.
This behaviour is due to the defect tip of interest lying in the compressive part of the repair residual
stress field, resulting in low rates of fatigue crack growth compared to the un-repaired case. Results
for the case p+2a=10.8 mm are seen in Figure 55. There is a more restricted range of toughness to
show here due to the low CDFs for this shorter defect.

Figure 56(a) contrasts leaving un-repaired a 5 mm high defect with introducing either 5 mm, 4.2 mm
or 3.3 mm high defects in the as-repaired weld for p+2a=16.7 mm. The squares show the effect of
having the same size 5mm deep defect in the repair. Obviously the repaired life is always lower than
the un-repaired life, and gets comparatively worse as the repaired toughness reduces. If the repaired
defect is 4.2 mm high (diamonds), a reduction in toughness is needed to get a worse life out of the
repair. The triangular symbols for the shallow 3 mm high defect in the repair are well over unity due
to a large life of that repair. This is due to the defect tip in question lying well inside the compressive
region of the repair residual stress field, giving low initial crack growth rates. However, the fatigue
lives are generally very long for this un-repaired defect (see rightmost curve in Figure 51(a). Leaving
un-repaired small height defects near the middle of the plate is therefore likely to be a reasonable
course of action.

Results comparing a 6.7mm high defect in the un-repaired weld with 6.7 mm, 5 mm or 4.2 mm high in
the repair are illustrated in Figure 56(b). The diamonds show that introducing a smaller 5 mm defect
in the repair always gives a shorter life. The triangles start to appear, showing the smallest repaired
defect of 4.17 mm where the fatigue life ratios remain well above unity.

Figure 56(c) compares the 9.2 mm high un-repaired defect with 9.2 mm, 6.7 mm or 5 mm in the
repair. The diamonds have moved up slightly compared with the previous graph, but the squares have
shifted downwards. This is an interaction between tip position and the associated residual stress field.
The defect tip is growing towards the repaired surface, so initially higher (longer) defects experience
more strongly the tensile region of the residual stress near the repair surface.

In Figure 56(d), a 10.8 mm high un-repaired defect is compared with smaller 9.2 mm, 6.7 mm or 5
mm defects in the repair. Leaving the same size in the repair (squares) always gives a shorter
operating life, particularly for lower toughness. The 6.7 mm repair defect (diamonds) needs a large
reduction in toughness to give shorter life than the un-repaired 10.8 mm defect.

26

The final graphs, Figures 57(a-b) show similar comparisons for the embedded cases in which
p+2a=10.8 mm. There is a more restricted range of defect heights and toughness to consider and so
fewer points are plotted than in Figure 56. Also, the growing defect tip of interest lies at a
comparatively shallow depth in the repair, so it tends to experience more tensile repair residual
stresses and so has a comparatively shorter fatigue life. In Figure 57(a) the life ratio of many of the
triangular symbols is below unity, indicating that repairing the 5 mm high defect but leaving a 3.3 mm
one gives a shorter life. The highest 60 MPam PWHT toughness considered needs only 16%
reduction in the repair to give a shorter life. As noted earlier, the defect tip considered is now shifted
towards the tensile part of the repair residual stress, so the repair has a relatively shorter life. In fact,
for a large range of toughness the initial repair is at a limiting condition with respect to the overload
considered, so the repair life is zero cycles. Figure 57(b) compares a 6.7 mm high un-repaired defect
with 6.7 mm, 5 mm or 4.2 mm repaired. Many repaired cases have no life for the range of toughness
considered. The triangles show that having a 4.2 mm defect in the repair gives a lower life than the
un-repaired 6.7 mm defect if repair causes a modest reduction in toughness.

27

 10. TASK 9 ASSESSMENT BY ENGINEERING PROCEDURE

METHODS

10.1 GENERAL METHODOLOGY

British Standard BS 7910:1999, "Guide on Methods for Assessing the Acceptability of Flaws in
Metallic Structures" (Reference 4), contains three levels for the assessment of fracture resistance.
The materials involved, the input data available and the conservatism required are the factors which
determine the chosen level. For the purpose of the calculations carried out in this task, Level 2, the
normal assessment route was applied. This involves values of the plastic collapse parameter, Lr and
fracture mechanics parameter, Kr to be evaluated and plotted on the appropriate fracture assessment
diagram (FAD).

Three residual stress conditions were assumed. They were (i) as-welded, (ii) as-welded followed by
post weld heat treatment (PWHT) and (iii) weld repair. In case (i), the transverse residual stress
distribution shown in Figure Q.1(a) of BS 7910 was considered. It was judged that this distribution
could be approximately represented by a through-wall bending stress equal to the material yield stress.
Case (ii) assumed the residual stresses to be a membrane stress equal to 20 % of the yield stress
(Section 7.2.4.2 of BS 7910). In case (iii), the transverse residual stress distribution shown in Figure
Q.1(d) of BS 7910 was considered. It was judged that this distribution could be approximately
represented by a membrane stress equal to the material yield stress. In these calculations, the yield
stress was taken as the lowest value of 0.2% proof stress given in Table 2 (i.e. 345 MPa). To
summarise therefore, the residual stress conditions assumed were:

(i) As-welded condition through-wall bending stress (+ 345 MPa at the surfaces).
(ii) As-welded followed by PWHT condition membrane stress of 69 MPa.
(iii) Weld repair condition membrane stress of 345 MPa.

The term r is included in the evaluation of Kr in order to cover interaction between the primary and
secondary stress systems. The procedure used to determine r was as detailed in Annex R.2 of BS
7910 as follows:

a) etermine KIs, the linear elastic stress intensity factor for the flaw size of interest, using the
D
elastically-calculated secondary stresses. KIs is positive when it tends to open the crack.

If KIs is negative or zero, then r is set to zero and the remainder of this procedure does not
apply.

b) Determine the ratio KIp/Lr.

c) etermine KIs /(KIp/Lr) from the result of a) and b). If KIs/(KIp/Lr) > 4 then Annex R.3 of BS
D
7910 should be used to evaluate r. This is a more detailed procedure for calculating r and the
steps involved are:

i. Calculate the parameters KIs and Kps. Advice on determining the effective (elastic-
plastic) stress intensity factor Kps is given in Annex R.4 of BS 7910. In these
calculations, Kps, was evaluated by the route given in Annex R.4.3 of BS 7910 which is
based on the small-scale yielding correction to KIs.

28

 ii. Determine the ratio Kps/(KIp/Lr) where KIp and Lr are calculated as in Sections 7.3 and
7.4 of BS 7910.

iii. Obtain the parameter y from the table in Annex R.1 of BS 7910 in terms of Lr and the
parameter Kps/(KIp/Lr) calculated in step (II). Linear interpolation should be used for
values not given in the table. If Kps = KIs, then r is set equal to y and the remainder of
this annex does not apply.

iv. Obtain the parameter j from the table in Annex R.2 of BS 7910 in terms of Lr and the
parameter Kps/(KIp/Lr) from step (II). Linear interpolation should be used for values not
given in the table.

v. Determine r from the following equation.

K Is
r = Y - j s -
1

K P

If this results in a negative value for r, then r is re-defined to be zero.

The detailed procedure, described above, for the determination of r was automated in the
calculation if KIs/(KIp/Lr) > 4. A visual basic program was used to search two tables to find
appropriate values of y and j as functions of Kps/(KIp/Lr) and Lr, where Kps is as described in
Annex R4.3 of the procedures. If KIs/(KIp/Lr) < 4, r was evaluated following the simplistic
route of steps d) and e) below.

a) Determine r1 from Figure R.1 of BS 7910.

b) Determine r.

r = r1 Lr <= 0.8
r = 4r1(1.05 - Lr) 0.8 < Lr < 1.05
r=0 1.05 <= Lr

10.2 EDGE CRACKS

10.2.1 Available Solutions

In the case of an edge crack, two possible solutions are available in BS 7910 for the calculation of KI
and sReference. Figures M.6 and M.10 of BS 7910 show a long surface flaw and an edge flaw geometry
respectively. The solutions described for the long surface flaw geometry, Figure M.6 of BS 7910,
were used rather than those for the edge crack flaw geometry. The reason for this is that the axis of
the plane of bending (as required for the residual stress case (i) ) is not correct in the case of the edge
flaw geometry.

However, two KI solutions were calculated to compare the difference between the two crack
geometries for just membrane loading. This clearly showed that there was a negligible difference
between the two solutions.

The stress intensity factor solution (Eq. M.1 of BS 7910) is:

29
K I = (Ys ) pa

where, for Level 2 assessments

Ys = (Ys ) p + (Ys )s (Eq. M.4 of BS 7910)

where (Ys ) p and (Ys )s represent contributions from primary and secondary stresses respectively.
They are calculated as follows:

(Ys ) p = Mf w [k tm M km M m Pm + k tb M kb M b {Pb + (k m - 1)Pm }] (Eq. M.5 of BS 7910)

(Ys )s = M m Qm + M b Qb (Eq. M.6 of BS 7910)

where, for the case under consideration, M, ktm, Mkm, ktb, Mkb, fw = 1, and Mm and Mb are given below
for a/B <= 0.6 (Section M3.3 of BS 7910):

Mm = 1.12 - 0.23(a/B) + 10.6(a/B)2 - 21.7(a/B)3 + 30.4(a/B)4

Mb = 1.12 - 1.39(a/B) + 7.32(a/B)2 - 13.1(a/B)3 + 14(a/B)4

The reference stress for a long surface flaw in flat plates is as follows (Section P.3.2 of BS 7910
assuming normal bending restraint):

s ref =
[
Pb + Pb2 + 9Pm2 (1 - a ' ') ]
2 0.5

3(1 - a ' ')

2

where a'' = a/B

10.2.2 Results

Figure 58 contains values of crack depth versus number of fatigue cycles for initial crack depths of
3.33 mm, 10 mm and 16.67 mm in the plate subjected to 180 MPa cyclic primary stress for the un-
repaired PWHT case. The calculated values using the BS 7910 K solutions are compared to the FE
solutions of Figure 39(a). As has been explained previously, the FE calculations were carried out in
terms of the elastic-plastic DKJ as opposed to the elastic DK. Since the BS 7910 calculations were
evaluated in terms of DK, such evaluations have also been carried out based on the FE K solutions
(using the data given in Figure 37) and the results of these have been included in Figure 58. It should
be noted that since Kmin in the DK calculations is based on the weld residual stress alone and Kmax is
based on the primary stress plus the residual stress, then the actual value of the residual stress is not
sensitive to such calculations. It can be seen from Figure 58 that the BS 7910 based crack depth vs
cycles results are very similar to those based on the FE elastic solutions. This implies of course that
the BS 7910 K values were very similar to those of the elastic FE K values. This aspect is considered
further in section 10.2.3 below.

Figure 59 contains the same type of information as for Figure 58 but for the as-repaired condition.
Again, the BS 7910 based crack depth vs cycles results are shown to be very similar to those based on
the FE elastic solutions.

30

Figure 60 contains fracture toughness vs critical crack depth curve evaluated by BS 7910 for the
weldment material states (i.e. residual stresses) (i), (ii) and (iii). The calculations have been carried
out for a 225 MPa overload stress along with the various residual stress assumptions. As would be
expected, the PWHT state results in the largest critical crack depth sizes (the residual stress being 69
MPa membrane), the as-welded state results in the second largest values (the residual stress being 345
MPa through-wall bending) and the PWHT state results in the lowest values (the residual stress being
345 MPa membrane).

Figure 61 shows comparisons of the BS7910 evaluated and FE calculated values of critical crack
depth for the un-repaired PWHT condition. It can be seen that the critical crack depths based on the
BS 7910 calculations are somewhat lower than those obtained by the FE analysis. This aspect is
considered further in section 10.2.3 below.

Figure 62 contains the same type of information as for Figure 61 but for the as-repaired condition.
For this state, the critical crack depths based on the BS 7910 calculations are seen to be significantly
lower than those obtained by the FE analysis. Again, this is further considered in section 10.2.3.

10.2.3 Refined Calculations

In the previous sub-section, with reference to Figures 61 and 62, it was shown that the critical crack
sizes based on the BS 7910 calculations were lower than those obtained by the FE analysis. It was
considered that the differences in residual stress distributions between those of the BS 7910 document
and those evaluated by finite elements was likely to be the main reason for these differences in critical
crack sizes. The residual stress distributions evaluated by the finite element techniques were
therefore considered in refined BS 7910 calculations. Since the residual stress fields are of a
sinusoidal nature and since no solutions are available in BS 7910 for evaluating stress intensity factor
(KI) solutions for such stress distributions, alternative K solutions were employed as follows.

KI, for an edge crack in a plate or a cylinder can be represented (Reference 5) as:

KI = (pa)0.5 [F0A0 + 2(a/t)/p F1A1 + (a/t)2/2 F2A2 + 4(a/t)3/(3p) F3A3] (4)

where, a is crack depth and t is wall thickness.

A0 to A3 are constants in the cubic polynomial equation representing the through-wall stress
distribution, s, over the depth (a) of the crack (but prior to the presence of the crack), i.e.:

s = A0 + A1(x/t) + A2(x/t)2 + A3(x/t)3

x is the distance into the plate thickness

For a flat plate, the Fn functions are given by:

F0 = [1.148 0.9913 a/t + 3.076(a/t)2] / [1 a/t]

F1 = [1.077 0.8345 a/t + 1.543(a/t)2] / [1 a/t]

F2 = [1.007 0.7007 a/t + 0.781(a/t)2] / [1 a/t]

F3 = [1.015 0.7296 a/t + 0.446(a/t)2] / [1 a/t]

Solutions for Fn at the deepest point of the crack are also available for cylinders.

It is evident that for applied membrane loading, only the first term in Equation 4 will be required
since s = A0.

31

For through-wall bending, the first two terms in Equation 4 are required since s=A0+A1a/t where A1=-
2A0 with A0 being the stress at the surface.

The above equations were used to evaluate values of KI for the various residual stress distributions
modelled in the finite element analyses of Tasks 7 and 8. In preliminary calculations, the true finite
element calculated distributions were considered. However, since these generally consisted of
compressive stresses at the surface of the plate where the crack was situated, the calculational route
described above resulted in compressive values of KI, i.e. crack closure, for all lengths of crack. A
study of all the residual stress distributions (a. As-welded, b. As-welded and Repair, c. As-welded and
PWHT, d. As-welded and PWHT and Repair) indicated that the peak tensile stress occurred at a
distance of approximately 7.1 mm from the surface. As a compromise in modelling the residual stress
distributions to evaluate KI, it was assumed that the peak tensile stress occurred over the first 7.1 mm
of the plate. These modified residual stress distributions are shown in Figure 63 over approximately
one half of the plate, i.e. for distances of up to approximately 20 mm from one side of the plate.

When evaluating KI for these stress distributions, different cubic polynomial equations were fitted for
different crack sizes since it was not possible for one equation to accurately represent all crack sizes
in the range being considered (i.e. 0 to 20 mm). Once values of KI had been evaluated for the
different crack sizes, a cubic polynomial equation was fitted for each of the four residual stress cases,
represented by the equation:

KI = C0 + C1a + C2 a2 + C3 a3

where a is crack depth (in mm) and KI is in MPam.

For completeness, values of KI were also obtained for a sinusoidal distribution (tensile at both
surfaces and compression in the middle region of the plate) and for membrane and bending (tensile
stress on one side of the plate and compressive stress on the other). Values for C0 to C3 for the
different stress cases considered are as follows:

32

Stress Case C0 C1 C2 C3
As-Welded 4.9282 11.388 -0.5382 0.008
(Stress = 312.5 MPa for a = 0 to 7.1 mm)
As-Welded then Repair 4.5909 11.788 -0.5944 0.013
(Stress = 316.2 MPa for a = 0 to 7.1 mm)
As-Welded then PWHT 3.3661 3.495 -0.1406 0.0012
(Stress = 110.3 MPa for a = 0 to 7.1 mm)
As-Welded then PWHT then Repair 9.7278 10.043 -0.4285 0.0085
(Stress = 317.6 MPa for a = 0 to 7.1 mm)
Sinusoidal Distribution 1.9775 4.0770 -0.3384 0.00773
(Stress peaks at 110.3 MPa at Surfaces)
Sinusoidal Distribution 5.6939 11.740 -0.9744 0.02226
(Stress peaks at 317.6 MPa at Surfaces)
Bending 2.2364 3.5034 -0.2544 0.009
(Stress = 110.3 MPa to 110.3 MPa)
Bending 6.4394 10.0877 -0.7327 0.0259
(Stress = 317.6 MPa to 317.6 MPa)
Membrane 1.8927 4.0597 -0.2658 0.0128
(Stress = 110.3 MPa)
Membrane 5.4498 11.6897 -0.7655 0.0368
(Stress = 317.6 MPa)

Values of KI plotted against crack depth are presented in Figures 64 to 66.

Figure 64 contains the evaluated KI distributions for the As-welded, As-welded-Repair, As-welded-
PWHT and As-welded-PWHT-Repair cases. As would be expected by consideration of the stress
distributions given in Figure 63, the As-welded-PWHT-Repair case gives the highest KI values and
the As-welded-PWHT case gives the lowest.

Figure 65 contains the evaluated KI distributions for the As-welded-PWHT case together with the
evaluated KI distributions for the sinusoidal stress distribution case (the stress peaking at 110.3 MPa
at the surface), the bending stress distribution case (stress = 110.3 MPa on one surface and 110.3
MPa on the other surface) and the membrane stress case (=110.3 MPa). As would be expected by
consideration of the respective stress distributions, the KI distribution for the As-welded-PWHT case
is similar to that for the membrane case for crack depths of up to approximately 7 mm after which the
KI values for the latter increase significantly. It may be noted that for the BS 7910 calculations
covered in section 10.2.2, the stress distribution for the As-welded-PWHT case was taken to be 69
MPa membrane. The KI vs crack depth curve for this distribution would therefore lie some 40%
lower than the membrane curve shown in Figure 65 (see below with reference to Figure 68).

Figure 66 contains the evaluated KI distributions for the As-welded-PWHT-Repair case together with
the evaluated KI distributions for the sinusoidal stress distribution case (the stress peaking at 317.6
MPa at the surface), the bending stress distribution case (stress = 317.6 MPa on one surface and
317.6 MPa on the other surface) and the membrane stress case (=317.6 MPa). Again, as would be
expected by consideration of the respective stress distributions, the KI distribution for the As-welded-
PWHT-Repair case is similar to that for the membrane case for crack depths of up to approximately 7
mm after which the KI values for the latter increase significantly. For the BS 7910 calculations
covered in section 10.2.2, the stress distribution for the As-welded-PWHT-Repair case was taken to
be 345 MPa membrane. The KI vs crack depth curve for this distribution would therefore lie just
about 10% above the membrane curve shown in Figure 66 (see below with reference to Figure 69).

33

Figure 67 contains a comparison of the various KI solutions considered in this work for an edge
cracked plate subjected to a membrane stress of 220 MPa. The handbook solutions of Rooke and
Cartwright (Reference 6) for both restrained and un-restrained bending have also been included. It
can be seen that the values obtained from the BS 7910, finite element, Sharples et. al. solutions
(Reference 5) described above and the Rooke and Cartwright un-restrained bending solutions are all
very similar to one another, with the FE values lying slightly below the others. The Rooke and
Cartwright restrained bending solution values lie significantly below those of the other solutions.
This confirms that the solutions considered in this work are relevant to the un-restrained bending case.
Such conditions are relevant for application to the applied membrane stress case. However, since
residual stresses arise from a displacement control mechanism, restrained bending conditions may be
more appropriate when evaluating values of KI for such stresses. The use of the BS 7910 and
Sharples et. al. solutions may therefore result in over-estimates of KI values for residual stresses.

Figure 68 contains a comparison of the KI values evaluated from the various solutions for the As-
welded-PWHT residual stress case. The BS 7910 and Rooke and Cartwright values are for a
membrane stress of 69 MPa. For completeness, the Rooke and Cartwright restrained bending values
have been included. Again, the BS 7910 and Rooke and Cartwright un-restrained bending values are
identical to one another. As suggested above with reference to Figure 65, the Sharples et. al. solution
values are somewhat higher than the BS 7910 (and Rooke and Cartwright un-restrained bending)
solution values up to a crack depth of just under 15 mm. The finite element solution values are fairly
close to the BS 7910 values up to a crack depth of approximately 10 mm after which they start to
diverge and become considerably lower.

Values of critical crack depth obtained by using the Sharples et. al. residual stress KI solutions have
been included in Figure 61 (referred to as BS 7910 refined). It can be seen that the critical crack
depth values for this case are actually lower than those of the original BS 7910 calculations. This of
course can be explained by the difference shown in Figure 68 between the BS 7910 and Sharples et.
al. values of KI for the residual stress. Although such calculations have not been performed, it is
evident from Figure 68 that critical crack depth values closer to those obtained from the finite element
analysis may be obtained by using the Rooke and Cartwright restrained bending solutions for
modelling the residual stress field as 69 MPa membrane.

Figure 69 contains a comparison of the KI values evaluated from the various solutions for the As-
welded-PWHT-Repaired residual stress case. The BS 7910 and Rooke and Cartwright values are for
a membrane stress of 345 MPa. Again for completeness, the Rooke and Cartwright restrained
bending values have been included. The BS 7910 and Rooke and Cartwright un-restrained bending
values are of course identical to one another. As suggested above with reference to Figure 66, the
Sharples et. al. solution values are higher than the BS 7910 (and Rooke and Cartwright un-restrained
bending) solution values. It is also interesting to note that the Sharples et. al. solution values are very
similar to those of the Rooke and Cartwright restrained bending solution. The finite element solution
values are significantly lower than the other values.

Values of critical crack depth obtained by using the Sharples et. al. residual stress KI solutions have
been included in Figure 62 (referred to as BS 7910 refined). It can be seen that the critical crack
depth values for this case are slightly higher than those of the original BS 7910 calculations. This of
course can be explained by the difference shown in Figure 69 between the BS 7910 and Sharples et.
al. values of KI for the residual stress. This time, it is evident that even using the Rooke and
Cartwright restrained bending solutions for modelling the residual stress field as 345 MPa membrane
would not result in critical crack depth values closer to those obtained from the finite element
analysis.

34

The significance of the BS 7910 calculation results in terms of the fatigue life for the repaired
condition compared to the fatigue life for the un-repaired (i.e. as-welded-PWHT state) condition can
be understood from the information presented in Table 3. This table gives values of Nrepaired/Nun-repaired
for initial crack depths (in both the repaired and un-repaired conditions) of 3.33 mm, 10 mm and
16.67 mm for fracture toughness values (KIC) ranging from 60 to 160 MPam. The values in the table
have been compiled from the crack depth versus number of cycles, N, data presented in Figures 58
and 59 and from the fracture toughness versus critical crack depth data of Figures 60 and 61. The
finite element values based on KJ, given in Table 3, are of course those plotted in Figure 48. An
explanation of the values shown in brackets in Table 3 is given in the next paragraph. With the
exception of four cases, It can be seen that the finite element Nrepaired/Nun-repaired values based on elastic
K are somewhat higher than those based on elastic-plastic KJ. It can also be seen that the BS 7910
refined calculation values are somewhat higher than the BS 7910 original calculation values. It is also
noticeable that for the lower fracture toughness values of 100 and 120 MPam, the BS 7910
Nrepaired/Nun-repaired values are considerably lower than the finite element values. However for the higher
fracture toughness values of 140 and 160 MPam, the BS 7910 Nrepaired/Nun-repaired values are closer to
the finite element values. Where direct comparisons between the BS 7910 and the finite element
results are available within Table 3, the same trends are shown for both methods, i.e. that the fatigue
life for the repaired state is lower than that for the un-repaired state. It is shown however, that the
finite element margins of Nrepaired/Nun-repaired are not produced by the BS 7910 calculations.

The values contained in brackets in Table 3 have been derived as follows:

The Paris Law equation, as in Equation 3 is of the form:

da dN = CDK m (5)

Rearranging this equation gives the incremental cycle, dN , as

da
dN = (6)
CDK m

da
or dN (7)
DK m

DK Ds(pa)
0.5
Now (8)

and since in the work being considered here, Ds for the repaired case is taken to be the same as that
for the un-repaired case then:

DK a 0.5 (9)

For the increment cycle being considered in these calculations, crack depth a, grows from the initial
size, aI, to the limiting size, aL. It is reasonable to assume therefore, that the average value of a
(i.e. (aI+aL)/2) can be used in Equation 9. Therefore:

0.5
a +a
DK i L (10)
2

Setting da to (aL-aI) and the value of m to 2.77 (Equation 3) and substituting Equation 10 into
Equation 7, results in:

35

 aL - ai
dN (11)
(ai + a L )1.385

dN repaired (aL - ai )repaired (ai + aL )1unrepaired

.385

or = (12)
dN unrepaired (aL - ai )unrepaired (ai + aL )1repaired
.385

The values in brackets in Table 3 were therefore obtained from Equation 12.

It can be seen from Table 3 that these values are very close to those (without the brackets) obtained
from the detailed fatigue crack growth calculations for when the elastic Ks are used in the
calculations. As may have been expected, the values are not as close to those when the inelastic Ks
(i.e. KJs) are used in the calculations.

Based on the elastic route therefore, Equation 12 seems to be a reliable and relatively easy route for
determining values of Nrepaired/Nun-repaired values once the critical or limiting crack length, aL, has been
evaluated for both the repaired and un-repaired cases.

10.3 EMBEDDED CRACKS

10.3.1 Available Solutions

In the case of an embedded crack, a solution is available appropriate to Figure M.1 of BS 7910 for the
calculation of KI and sReference. The geometry for this solution again presented problems in that the axis
of the plane of bending is not appropriate for this particular case and it assumes that the crack is in the
centre of a flat plate.

Another solution, appropriate to Figure M.7 of BS 7910, was then considered. In this case the crack
geometry does not satisfy conditions set. The geometry is not identical to the embedded crack case in
that Figure M.7 has an elliptical crack of length 2c whereas the problem has a crack length of the
same magnitude as the width of the specimen, W. Therefore, 2c/W > 0.5 and not < 0.5 as specified in
the conditions.

After considering the two representations as described above, It was decided that the geometry in
Figure M.1 and associated KI (section M.3.1 of BS 7910) and sReference (section P.3.1 of BS 7910)
solutions should be used, even though it was not exactly like the embedded through-wall crack case in
question.

Membrane stress could be represented in the normal way.

Bending stress (actually not used in the current calculations) could be represented by specifying a
relevant component of membrane stress and a relevant component of bending stress to allow for the
fact that the crack is not in the centre of the plate specimen.

10.3.2 Results

Some comparisons were made between the BS 7910 calculated stress intensity factor values and those
obtained from the finite element analyses. These comparisons are presented in Figures 70 to 72 (for
the position of the crack, p+2a, being 16.7 mm).

36

Figure 70 compares the KI values for an applied membrane stress of 220 MPa. Values obtained from
the appropriate Rooke and Cartwright (Reference 6) solutions have also been included as a check.
These solutions are shown to be almost identical to those of BS 7910. The finite element values are
shown to be very close to those of the BS 7910 calculations up to a crack depth (2a) of approximately
8 mm. For crack depths greater than 8 mm, the FE values then increasingly become higher than the
BS 7910 values. Fatigue crack growth calculations have not been performed using the BS 7910 KI
solutions for the embedded crack cases. However the KI comparisons of Figure 70 tend to suggest
that fatigue crack growth evaluations for the BS 7910 KI solutions would be identical to those of the
FE solutions up to a crack depth of 8 mm after which the former solutions would show a reduced
crack growth rate. Based on just these considerations therefore, the comparisons would tend to
suggest that the BS 7910 KI solutions may be non-conservative for fatigue crack growth for the
particular case being considered.

Figure 71 compares the BS 7910 and FE KI values for the As-welded-PWHT residual stress case. As
well as the elastic FE values (denoted K), the elastic-plastic FE values (denoted KJ) have also been
included in the figure. It can be seen that there is practically no difference between the elastic and
elastic-plastic FE values. The BS 7910 values (based on a membrane stress of 69 MPa) are shown to
be higher than the FE values up to a crack depth of approximately 11 mm, after which the opposite is
true. Critical crack calculations have not been performed using the BS 7910 KI solutions for the
embedded crack cases. However, the information contained in Figures 70 and 71 suggests that the
critical crack sizes (for different fracture toughness value assumptions) for the as-welded-PWHT case
would be underestimated (compared to the FE calculated values) for crack depths up to approximately
8 mm. For higher crack depths, the critical crack sizes may be overestimated which is non-
conservative. The BS 7910 critical crack height curve could therefore be on the right of the
corresponding FE curve presented in Figure 52.

Figure 72 compares the BS 7910 and FE KI values for the As-welded-PWHT-Repair residual stress
case. This time the elastic-plastic FE values start to diverge from the elastic FE values at a crack
depth of approximately 8 mm. The BS 7910 values (based on a membrane stress of 345 MPa) are
shown to be higher than the FE elastic values by margins greater than 20 MPam. The information
contained in Figures 70 and 72 suggests that the critical crack sizes (for different fracture toughness
value assumptions) for the As-welded-PWHT-Repair case would be underestimated (compared to the
FE calculated values) for all crack depths considered, with the possible exception of the largest cracks
(i.e. possibly overestimated for 2a = 12 mm to 14 mm say). The BS 7910 critical crack height curve
would therefore likely be on the left (for crack sizes up to approximately 12 mm) of the corresponding
FE curve presented in Figure 52.

37

 11. TASK 10 PROVISIONAL GUIDANCE ON WELD REPAIRS

Under this Task, provisional guidance on weld repairs has been developed. The resulting guidance
firstly focuses on practical issues that have been highlighted from the review carried out under Task 1
and from other relevant information. Secondly, guidance resulting from the finite element
calculations of the matrix of cases considered is presented.

11.1 PRACTICAL ISSUES

Types of Defect

Weld defects can be categorised as follows:

Category 1 - cracks or crack-like defects (planar discontinuities) such as incomplete fusion or

penetration.

Category 2 - geometric defects, including undercut, misalignment and incorrect weld profile.

Category 3 - slag and porosity, they are the most innocuous type of weld defect but the most
frequently repaired
Causes of Defects

During fabrication, defects may arise due to problems with the fabrication procedure which must be
addressed quickly. Poor joint design and weld misalignment are frequent causes of fabrication
defects. During service, the cause and nature of the cracking must be investigated and action must be
taken to prevent recurrence. Otherwise, the same type of defect may develop. Incorrect joint design
and unforeseen service conditions are commonly cited causes of defect development.

Significance of Defects

Many repairs can be unnecessary and sometimes reduce the integrity of the structure. This is because
there is a gap between the high integrity resulting from the weld quality associated with workmanship
standards and the often much lower level of quality required to satisfy a fitness-for purpose
assessment.

Necessity of Repair Welding

Repair welding is not always necessary, particularly for shallow defects that may be removed by an
alternative method, for example by grinding out.

Problems Associated with Repair Welding

There are several problems associated with repair welding which may lead to a reduction of the
structural integrity of a weld compared with its original defective condition. These include:

inadequate removal of the original defect; for example incomplete excavation of a crack,

introduction of new defects; hydrogen cracking is a likely source of new defects in repair welds,

38
 unfavourable site conditions for re-welding including: poor access, the inability to apply
sufficient preheat and poor weld positioning,

unfavourable conditions for inspection and testing of the repaired weld,

repairs of restrained welds in structures may have a higher risk increased residual stress or
distortion,

post-weld heat treatment of a site repair is often unfeasible, giving a higher probability of
increased residual stress and lower toughness.
In this regard, repairing a weld can lead to inferior or inappropriate properties of the repair due to a
degraded microstructure. Poor fracture toughness is of particular concern. Inappropriate properties
can arise from a number of different reasons including:

- inappropriate welding consumables,

- insufficient pre-heat,

- inappropriate (usually too low) heat input since a different welding process may be used in the
repair compared with the original fabrication site (repair welds are invariably made manually but
the original fabrication weld may have been an automatic process),

- inappropriate composition and weldability of the local parent material if a repair is being carried
out in a previously unwelded region of a component.
In terms of fracture toughness, there is strong evidence to suggest that too high or too low heat input
can have a deleterious effect on toughness. Reductions of CTOD toughness in Heat Affected Zones
(HAZ) by a factor of between 5 and 8 have been reported for carbon and carbon-manganese steel
welds (corresponding to reductions in KJ toughness by factors of approximately 2.2 and 2.8). On the
other hand, high preheat and inter-pass temperatures and post-weld heat treatment help to increase
HAZ toughness. These latter improvements are unlikely to be obtained in difficult on-site working
conditions however. For carbon-manganese steel welds, lower bound CTOD toughness of the HAZ
can be increased by PWHT by a factor of 10 compared with as-welded toughness. Mean CTOD
toughness of the HAZ can increase by a factor of 5. It should be noted though that in some modern
thermo mechanically rolled or TMCP steel, HAZ toughness may not improve or actually reduce due
to PWHT. To summarise, In standard carbon and carbon-manganese steels PWHT obviously
improves the toughness of HAZ in particular. This, combined with the benefit derived from using
proper pre-heat, correct heat input, a satisfactory welding position and other factors, must mean that
on-site repairs are likely to be produce lower values of fracture toughness than original shop welds.

11.2 GUIDANCE RESULTING FROM THE FINITE ELEMENT CALCULATIONS

In this study of crack-like defects in welds, comparisons have been made between the behaviour of
various sizes of defects in a heat treated weld and in a non-heat treated repaired weld. The main
parameters considered are those that are quantifiable and can be used within a fracture mechanics
framework. These are: weld residual stress pattern; defect depth or height and local fracture
toughness. The initial defects in the two weld cases are assumed to grow by fatigue due to a cyclic
operating load. Occasional overloads at each resulting defect depth or height are assessed to see
whether this causes a limiting condition for given values of fracture toughness. Of course, it seems
rather pessimistic to consider that a defect always remains after repair, and it is difficult to place

39

limits on its possible size. However, limits of sizing in ultrasonic testing provide a useful lower bound
to the repair defect position and height.

The main findings are as follows:

For a given fracture toughness the critical defect depth at the limiting condition is smaller in the
as-repaired weld than the PWHT weld. As the fracture toughness reduces the relative difference
in critical defect size between the two cases becomes more significant. This phenomenon is
particularly apparent for the welded sphere studied.

Predictions of fatigue crack growth in both the plate and the sphere show more rapid rates of
crack growth in the repair compared with the original PWHT weld. Fewer loading cycles are
required in the repair to cause a limiting condition for the same initial defect size and fracture
toughness.

A graphical framework is presented to compare fatigue lives of defects in original heat treated
welds with the same or shallower defects in as-repaired welds (Figures 42, 43, 48, 49, 54, 55 and
56). From this information, it can be concluded that:

- Weld repairing shallow defects and low toughness parent or weld materials is more likely to
give a shorter fatigue life than leaving the weld un-repaired.

- A relatively shorter fatigue life of the weld repair compared with leaving un-repaired is more
likely in the sphere than the plate. The welded sphere geometry is more sensitive to reductions
in fracture toughness in both PWHT and conditions.

- For embedded defects in double V preparation butt welds, the case for whether to repair or
not depends on the depth and height of the defect.

- Short embedded defects near the middle of the plate are likely to experience low or
compressive levels of compressive stress and so low crack driving forces and relatively long
fatigue lives. The best course of action is likely to be to leave these defects in place.

40

 12. TASK 11 PROVISIONAL GUIDANCE ON ENGINEERING

PROCEDURE METHOD

Section 10 above has reported on Task 9 of the project dealing with assessment by engineering
methods. This task has focused on the BS 7910 methodology. From the experience gained in
undertaking Task 9, provisional recommendations are now made on the use of this methodology to
firstly assess the significance of flaws in weldments (as-welded, PWHT or repaired weld) on a case-
by-case basis, and secondly, to assess as to whether repairing a weld is likely to be beneficial or not.
These provisional recommendations are derived from the work relating to the edge-cracked plate
configuration considered in this study. However, many of the aspects given below may be applied in
a generic sense.

12.1 ROUTE FOR ASSESSING THE SIGNIFICANCE OF A FLAW IN A WELD (AS-

WELDED, PWHT OR REPAIRED WELD)

The significance of a flaw known or postulated to occur in a weldment (or indeed in parent material)
can be evaluated from the following three steps:

1. Evaluate the critical crack size.

2. Evaluate the operating time or cycles to grow (e.g. by fatigue) the flaw to the critical crack
size.
3. Use the information obtained from 2 to decide as to whether continued operation in the
current state is possible, what the future inspection frequency should be or plan for repair or
replacement.

12.2 ROUTE FOR ASSESSING WHETHER REPAIRING A WELD IS LIKELY TO BE

BENEFICIAL

Assessing whether repairing a weld is likely to be beneficial or not can be evaluated from the
following four routes:

1. Evaluate the critical crack sizes for the un-repaired weld and for the repaired weld states.
2. For the un-repaired weld state, evaluate the operating time or cycles for the known flaw to
grow (e.g. by fatigue) to the critical crack size.
3. For the repaired weld, evaluate the operating time or cycles for the maximum size of flaw
that could be missed by the relevant detection techniques to grow (e.g. by fatigue) to the
critical crack size.
4. Compare the results of 2 and 3 to conclude as to whether it is likely to be beneficial or
detrimental to go ahead with the weld repair.

12.3 CRITICAL CRACK SIZE EVALUATION

It is recommended that critical crack size should be evaluated by following the Level 2 procedures of
BS 7910 section 7 (Assessment for Fracture Resistance).

For the edge crack plate configuration under consideration here, the stress intensity factor (KI) and
reference stress (sref) for the primary Stress (membrane) should be evaluated from BS 7910 with
reference to Figures M.6 and M.10 of that BS.

41

For the secondary residual stresses, ideally, elastic FE solutions for KI of the appropriate residual
stress profile should be obtained (as for the FE calculations presented above). In practice though,
such solutions are usually not available and the time and effort required to produce them is likely to
be restrictive. The guidance given in BS7910 is therefore likely to produce conservative (i.e. under-
estimates) values of critical crack size (Figures 61 and 62) whereby residual stress for the various
conditions can be represented as follows:

As-welded - + 0.2% proof stress, Through-wall Bending

PWHT - 20% of 0.2% proof stress, Membrane
Weld Repair - 0.2% proof stress, Membrane

KI solutions for the membrane residual stress assumptions can be evaluated with reference to Figure
M.6 and M.10 BS 7910. KI solutions for the residual stress assumption of through-wall bending can
be evaluated with reference to Figure M.6 of the BS.

(Note: the refined calculations referred to in section 10.2.3 for evaluating KI from a simplified
distribution of the FE residual stress profiles were shown to produce only a marginal benefit from
those of the BS 7910 route as described above.)

It is important that the tensile and fracture toughness materials properties relevant to the appropriate
weld state are taken into account in the calculations. This is particularly true in calculations for
assessing whether repairing a weldment may be beneficial since the fracture toughness in the repaired
state may be significantly different from that in the un-repaired state due to different heat treatments
being evident between the two cases.

12.4 CRACK GROWTH EVALUATION

If fatigue crack growth is the relevant mechanism, then the procedures of BS 7910 section 8
(Assessment for Fatigue) should be employed. It may be noted that other likely crack growth
mechanisms are corrosion fatigue (covered to a certain extent in section 8 of BS7910), creep (covered
in section 9 of BS7910), stress corrosion cracking (mentioned in section 10 of BS7910 but essentially
a specialist topic) and creep/fatigue (combined procedures of sections 8 and 9 of BS7910 but
essentially a specialist topic).

In the simplified fatigue crack growth route considered here, the R ratio (defined in BS7910 as
minimum stress/maximum stress but in reality is minimum KI/maximum KI) has not been taken into
account and therefore only the primary stress needs to be considered in the fatigue crack growth
calculations. More accurate fatigue crack growth calculations can be obtained by taking the R ratio
into account in the Paris Law relationship as outlined in BS7910 together with threshold
considerations. The use of the R ratio would necessitate the residual stresses to be taken into account.
Furthermore, in line with R5 procedures (Reference 7), inelastic values of K (i.e. KJ), instead of
elastic values, should really be used for evaluating DK as was done in the calculations reported in
section 9 above.

For assessing whether repairing a weld is likely to be beneficial for a flawed component subjected to
fatigue loading, the route described in the relevant sub-section above, together with the considerations
described in the paragraph above, should ideally be pursued.

However, as has been shown in section 10.2.3 above, the use of equation 12, i.e.

42
 dN repaired (aL - ai )repaired (ai + aL )1unrepaired
.385

=
dN unrepaired (aL - ai )unrepaired (ai + aL )1repaired
.385

is a reasonable approximation to establish whether repairing a defect is beneficial or not in terms of

improved fatigue life. It may be noted that the verification of this equation has been undertaken
(Table 3) by considering initial defect size (ai) to be the same in both the un-repaired and repaired
states. However, there is no reason why the relationship should not be equally valid when aI for the
repaired state is different (usually smaller) than for the un-repaired state.

43

 13. TASK 12 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE PHASES OF

PROJECT

Recommendations for work to undertake in future phases of this project are given below:

1. epair Length. This first phase of the project has focussed on a weld repair configuration
R
extending along the full width of the plate (i.e. the original wide plate used for the experimental
programme) and the geometry has been simplified to a two-dimensional situation (i.e. an edge-
cracked or through-cracked plate). In reality though, the length of a defective weld, and hence
the subsequent repair weld, is likely to be more limited. It is therefore important to study the
influence on repair length on the residual stress distribution, as well as depth. At the same time,
it is necessary to consider realistic semi-elliptical surface or elliptical embedded cracks as
opposed to the simpler edge or through-wall cracks considered here.

2. Defect Position in Weld. For simplicity, the flaws in this initial study have been assumed to
occur at the centre of the weld. In reality however, it is common for flaws to occur in the HAZ.
Further phases of the programme should therefore address HAZ flaws and their subsequent
repair.

3. Development of Defect. In this study fatigue crack growth has been simulated as a post-
processing operation; that is, gradual growth of the crack tip is not explicitly simulated in the FE
models. Other studies have concluded that crack driving forces can be reduced due to the build-
up of the plastic wake behind of the growing crack. This is an effect that has been examined
experimentally in Task 6. It could also be usefully explored in future numerical models.

4. Residual stress relief due to mechanical loading (either operation or proof testing) has not been
taken into account in the present study, but it could be incorporated in future developments.

5. F
atigue Simulation. The load-unload-reload sequence is likely to be predominantly elastic. That
is, due to strain hardening there is unlikely to be an effect of reverse plastic straining in real
defective structures. Thus, crack driving force ranges may be over-estimated in the calculation
of fatigue crack growth rates. This aspect could usefully be investigated further.

6. Other Sub-Critical Crack Growth Mechanisms. Alternative forms of crack growth could be
considered using the crack driving forces obtained in this work. Stress corrosion cracking is a
common sub-critical mechanism that can be strongly affected by welding residual stress. Given
material properties, it would be a relatively simple task to make alternative predictions of
operating life in un-repaired and repaired situations.

7. Effect of Weld Process Control on Fracture Toughness. Guidance is required on how the various
welding parameters (e.g. heat input) effect the material fracture toughness.

8. Residual Stress Distributions. Improvements need to be made on providing more realistic

residual stress distributions for as-welded, PWHT and repaired conditions.

44