International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 77 (2000) 883±893

www.elsevier.com/locate/ijpvp

Engineering critical analyses to BS 7910 Ð the UK guide on methods for

assessing the acceptability of ¯aws in metallic structures
C.S. Wiesner a,*, S.J. Maddox a, W. Xu a, G.A. Webster b, F.M. Burdekin c,
R.M. Andrews d, J.D. Harrison a
a
TWI, Granta Park, Great Abington, Cambridge CB1 6AL, UK
b
Imperial College, Department of Mechanical Engineering, London SW7 2BX, UK
c
UMIST, Department of Civil & Structural Engineering, Manchester M60 1QD, UK
d
Advantica, Ashby Road, Loughborough LE11 3QU, UK
Received 6 June 2000; revised 17 October 2000; accepted 29 October 2000

Abstract
The well-known ®tness-for-purpose (FFP) standard PD 6493:1991 has been revised and is now published as the British Standards
Guide BS 7910. The revisions include modi®cations to the fracture and fatigue assessment clauses and many additional appendices
have been added to complete the guidance provided. The PD 6539:1994 procedures for high temperature assessment have been
incorporated as clause 9. This paper presents a brief historical review of the UK developments of FFP methods and outlines the
modi®cations to BS 7910. In addition, the new BS 7910 fracture assessment clause is validated using a series of wide plate tests.
q 2001 Published by Elsevier Science Ltd.
Keywords: Fitness-for-purpose; Stress; Crack tip opening displacement

1. Introduction 2. Historical development of engineering ®tness-for-

The fracture mechanics based ®tness-for-purpose
(FFP) approach, also referred to as Engineering Critical
Analysis (ECA), enables the signi®cance of ¯aws to be
assessed in terms of structural integrity. The ECA
concept has undergone extensive developments in the
past 30 years or so and the widely used PD6493 [1]
procedure has been produced in the UK. The document
has recently been revised and is now published as BS
7910 `Guide on methods for assessing the acceptability
of ¯aws in metallic structures' [2].
This paper provides a brief historical overview of
engineering critical assessment methods; outlines the
additions and changes which have been made to the
procedures; and presents wide plate validation results
of the BS 7910 fracture/plastic collapse clauses
compared with results obtained using PD6493:1991
procedures.
* Corresponding author. Tel.: 144-1223-891-162; fax: 144-1223-892-
588.
E-mail address: christoph.wiesner@twi.co.uk (C.S. Wiesner).
0308-0161/00/$ - see front matter q 2001 Published by Elsevier Science Ltd.
PII: S 0308-016 1(01)00011-4
service procedures and standards
2.1. 1960s to 1970s and PD6493:1980
In 1968 a paper was published [3] proposing that it was
possible, at that time, to write an acceptance standard for
weld imperfections based on FFP. Such a standard could, it
was argued, replace the arbitrary or `workmanship' stan-
dards contained in most design and fabrication codes.
Workmanship standards give maximum permissible levels
for imperfections based on the most widespread form of
non-destructive testing (NDT) used for inspecting new
fabrications Ð radiography. Unfortunately, whilst this
NDT method is good at ®nding relatively harmless volu-
metric ¯aws such as slag inclusions and porosity, it is not
always good at ®nding, and is even less satisfactory for
sizing, potentially more harmful planar ¯aws such as cracks,
lack of sidewall fusion, etc. Because workmanship stan-
dards lay down quite speci®c rules for permissible lengths
of slag inclusion and density of porosity, a large amount of
repair work is carried out for these relatively innocuous
¯aws. It has been estimated that such unnecessary repairs
may add as much as 10% to construction costs. Often these
884 C.S. Wiesner et al. / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 77 (2000) 883±893
added costs would be far outweighed by the consequential
costs of lost production. Furthermore, repair of innocuous
imperfections has been known to introduce more deleterious
defects, which have led to structural failure.
This was the background to the publication of Ref. [3].
Following its publication, the British Standards Institution
set up a committee to determine whether it was indeed
possible to draft a rational acceptance standard. Once it
had reported in the af®rmative, the work of drafting began
with the establishment of the British Standards Institution's
(BSI) WEE/37 Committee in 1970. The Committee deli-
berated for the next ten years. During this time much
research was undertaken throughout the world and early
experience was being gained in the application of the tech-
niques to industrial problems.
This research and experience increased the con®dence of
the Committee in its ability to produce a recommendation,
which would lead to structures, which were both safer and
more economical than those where the arbitrary acceptance
standards were rigorously imposed. In 1980, PD6493 [4]
was published. It gave methods, which could be adopted
by agreement between contracting parties whereby imper-
fections could be assessed on a FFP basis. PD6493:1980
was, in British Standards terminology, a Published Docu-
ment. This was in recognition of the fact that much research
was still on going. Published Documents have less force
than Standards or Guides.
PD6493:1980 concentrated on the assessment of imper-
fections with regard to their possible effects on failure by
brittle fracture and fatigue. The treatment for brittle fracture
was based on measurements of fracture toughness in terms
of KIc or CTOD (crack tip opening displacement) and
utilised the CTOD design curve proposed by Burdekin
and Dawes [5].
Failure by plastic collapse of the remaining net section
was treated only very brie¯y and as an entirely separate
failure mode from brittle fracture. General and simpli®ed
procedures were given for making fatigue assessments using
an integration of the Paris fatigue crack growth law to
predict whether the given imperfection would grow to fail-
ure within the design life. The simpli®ed procedure gave a
series of S±N curves representing `quality categories'. Flaw
sizes were given for each category, which would be accep-
table for a component, which was required to meet the asso-
ciated S±N curve as a fatigue design requirement. This
approach was recommended for the treatment of non-planar
¯aws (slag inclusions and porosity). Acceptable sizes of
planar ¯aw were also given and, for these, the Paris law
integration had been carried out for the user. Other failure
modes Ð leakage, corrosion fatigue, stress corrosion, buck-
ling and creep Ð were all treated very brie¯y.
The publication of PD6493:1980 was a milestone in that,
for the ®rst time, a standardised framework was laid out,
which could form the basis of agreement between contract-
ing parties and licensing bodies for assessing imperfections
found during fabrication.
In parallel with the development of PD6493:1980, the UK
Central Electricity Generating Board (CEGB) was develop-
ing its own approach to the assessment of imperfections
with regard to static ductile and brittle fracture. This was
being driven primarily by the need to demonstrate the integ-
rity of nuclear pressure vessels and of large rotor forgings.
These developments culminated in the publication, in 1976,
of Revision 1 of the so-called R6 procedure [6], now in its
third revision. The fourth revision is due to be published
in 2000. This combined the assessment of brittle and
ductile fracture by using the so-called `two parameter
approach'. It utilised a Failure Assessment Diagram
(FAD) in which the vertical and horizontal axes were
the ratios of the fracture driving force to the fracture
toughness and of the applied load to the plastic collapse
loads respectively. Failure was predicted when either of
these ratios exceeded unity. Interaction between brittle
behaviour and plastic collapse was allowed for by a curve
derived from a strip yield analysis. The advantage of this
approach over that in PD6493:1980 was that the two static
failure modes were treated explicitly in one operation. Also,
the FAD could be used to assess how the assessment point
approached the failure locus as stress or ¯aw size increased.
This is a useful feature, since it indicates the extent to which
failure would be dominated by brittle fracture or by ductile
instability.
R6 quickly gained international recognition in the power
generation industry, whilst PD6493:1980 was more widely
used in other industries Ð oil and gas in particular.
2.2. 1980s and PD6493:1991
The existence in Britain of standardised methods of ¯aw
assessment was very advantageous to industry. However,
the fact that there were two such methods available was a
possible source of confusion. During the 1980s, the BSI
WEE/37 Committee worked towards a harmonisation of
these approaches. As a result, PD6493 was reissued in
1991 [1].
The treatment of fatigue remained very similar to that in
the 1980 edition. An enhancement was that the Quality
Categories were related to the design S±N curves for parti-
cular weld details. Thus, it was possible to determine the
permissible levels of imperfection in a butt weld in a struc-
ture also containing ®llet welds subjected to the same cyclic
stress ranges, such that there would be an equal probability
of failure from the imperfect butt weld as from the (nomin-
ally sound) ®llet weld.
The treatment for ductile and brittle fracture was changed
in PD6493:1991. Three levels of assessment were given.
Level 1, termed the `Preliminary Assessment' method,
was similar to that in the 1980 edition, except that a failure
analysis diagram was used, so that the treatment for plastic
collapse was explicit rather than implicit, as in the 1980
edition. Level 2, the `Normal Assessment' method was
similar to the 1980 edition (Rev. 2) of the R6 method.
 C.S. Wiesner et al. / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 77 (2000) 883±893 885

Level 3, the `Advanced Assessment' method was based on
revision 3 of R6 and allowed the user to take account
of the resistance to ductile crack extension. At all these
levels, the fracture toughness could be expressed in terms of
CTOD or Kmat.
Other changes in the 1991 edition were that the treat-
ments from some of the other failure modes (corrosion/
erosion, environmentally assisted cracking, buckling and
creep) were enhanced, although still much less detailed
than those for fracture and fatigue. The creep section gave
exemption criteria. If these were met, creep could be
ignored as a potential failure mode. However, the document
gave no direct guidance on how to deal with situations when
they were not met.
3. Outline of revisions to PD6493 leading to BS 7910
3.1. General
Following the publication of PD6493:1991 and continu-
ing throughout the 1990s, the WEE/37 Committee contin-
ued to work on improvements to the document and an
extensively revised edition has been ®rst published in
1999 as BS 7910. Following feedback from users in late
1999/early 2000, several typographical errors and technical
inconsistencies were corrected and an amended version
appeared in 2000 [2].
BS 7910 includes extensive modi®cations to the fracture
assessment procedures (Clause 7), together with modi®ca-
tions to the fatigue assessment procedures (Clause 8). A
completely new chapter (Clause 9) has also been added;
covering assessment of ¯aws in plant operating at high
temperature, see Fig. 1.
The document has been completely re-written to improve
clarity and usability, and to incorporate modern ¯aw assess-
ment technology, including a number of methods originally
published in revision 3 of the R6 procedure. Since feedback
from users of PD6493 indicated that the section dealing with
stresses caused confusion, in BS 7910 special attention was
paid to the description of the stresses to be determined and
how they are actually used in an assessment. The changes
include a new de®nition of peak stress, to mean the highest
stress at a structural discontinuity rather than the elevation
in stress it causes. The relevant parts of the fracture and
fatigue assessment clauses have also been revised to re¯ect
the changes introduced into BS 7910.
3.2. Fracture assessments
As in PD6493:1991, there are three assessment proce-
dures, or levels, available for a fracture assessment. Flow
diagrams have been included to guide users through them.
The Level 1 fracture assessment procedure in BS 7910 is
unchanged, but is renamed the `Simpli®ed Assessment'
procedure. The Level 1 procedure is based on a conservative
Failure
p Analysis Diagram (FAD). The Level p 1 FAD has Kr
(or dr †; Sr co-ordinates, where Kr (or dr † is the ratio of
applied crack driving force to fracture toughness and Sr the
ratio of applied stress to ¯ow strength (where ¯ow strength
is mean of yield and tensile strength hence incorporating
some plasticity). The graphical procedure (the CTOD design
curve approach, originally presented in PD6493:1980)
becomes Annex N in BS 7910.
Level 2 remains the `Normal Assessment' method for
cases where single-value measurements of fracture tough-
ness (e.g. KIc, d mat) are available. The PD6493:1991 Level 2
failure assessment method (strip yield model) is now super-
seded by Levels 2A and 2B; the choice between the two
depends on the type of stress±strain data available for the
material in which the ¯aw is situated. Level 2B is used if the
relevant full stress±strain curve is available. Guidance has
been included regarding the derivation of Level 2A FAD in
cases of discontinuous yielding developed in the recently
completed European project SINTAP [7] (Structural Integ-
rity Assessment Procedures for European Industry), as
follows:
For materials which exhibit a yield discontinuity (often

BS 7910

Fracture Fatigue Creep crack Other modes

growth
- Level 1 - Fracture -Corrosion
- Level 2 mechanics -Buckling
- Level 3 - Quality -Leakage
categories -Yielding
-Erosion
(Clause 7) (Clause 8) (Clause 9) (Clause 10, Annex G)

Annexes : partial safety factors, Cv-K correlations, pop-ins, misalignment,

stress intensity factor and reference stress solutions,
leak-before-break, mixed mode fracture assessment, etc.

Fig. 1. BS 7910 overall structure.

886 C.S. Wiesner et al. / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 77 (2000) 883±893

1.0

0.8 Level 2B

0.6

Kr Level 2A
0.4

0.2 Level 2A;

Level 2A; cut-off=1.0 Lüders plateau
estimation
0.0
0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50
L rmax
Lr

Fig. 2. BS7910 Level 2B, material-speci®c FAD.

referred to as LuÈders plateau) in the stress±strain curve (i.e.
any curve which is not monotonically increasing), or for
which it cannot be assumed with con®dence that no discon-
tinuities exist, either a cut-off value for Lr (the ratio of
applied stress to yield strength) of 1.0 should be applied
or Level 2B should be used. If it is impractical to determine
a Level 2B FAD, the Level 2A FAD at and beyond Lr ˆ 1:0
can be estimated [7] using:
p
dr …Lr ˆ 1†
or
Kr …Lr ˆ 1† ˆ {1 1 EeL =s Yu 1 1=‰2…1 1 EeL =s Yu †Š}20:5 ;
where eL ˆ 0:0375…1 2 s Yu =1000† is the estimated length of
the LuÈders plateau (this relation is restricted to
s Yu , 800 N=mm2 †, 1 s Yu is the upper yield strength (if this
is unavailable, it is conservative to use the yield or 0.2%
proof strength), and
p p
dr …Lr . 1† ˆ dr …Lr ˆ 1†Lr…N21†=2N
or
Kr …Lr . 1† ˆ Kr …Lr ˆ 1†Lr…N21†=2N ;
where N ˆ 0:3…1 2 s Y =s u † is the lower bound strain hard-
ening exponent estimated [7] from the yield to tensile
strength ratio, s Y =s u :
For continuous yielding, the failure assessment line is
similar to that used in PD6493:1991, Level 3. Lr is now
used in place of Sr for plastic collapse predictions at Level
2, see Fig. 2.
Level 3 of BS 7910 (ductile tearing instability assess-
1
Note: There is a typographical error in BS7910:1999 (Amendment 1)
which states a validity limit of 976 N/mm 2; users of BS7910 should correct
this limit to 800 N/mm 2.
ment) remains unchanged with respect to PD6493:1991,
with Level 3A and 3B dependent on the type of stress±strain
data available as for Level 2. A novelty of Level 3 options is
the addition of the R6 Option 3 method, which becomes
Level 3C in BS 7910. In this approach, the FAD and driving
force may be derived from elastic-plastic ®nite element
analysis to give more accurate predictions of structural
behaviour.
BS 7910 includes 21 Annexes, several of which originate
from the R6 procedure. Those, which are particularly rele-
vant to fracture assessments, include ¯aw re-characterisa-
tion rules, a leak-before-break analysis procedure, advice on
calculating reserve factors and performing sensitivity
analyses, and consideration of mixed mode loading. Others
provide a more extensive collection of reference stress
(limit load) and stress intensity factor solutions, including
solutions from 3D ®nite element analyses (FEA) for weld
toe cracks, guidance on the treatment of weld metal/parent
material strength mismatch and on the fracture toughness
testing of different areas of weldments. Pro®les of residual
stress distributions for common joint con®gurations are
given and new guidance has been written, again based on
work in SINTAP, on correlations between Charpy energy
and fracture toughness including incorporation of the
so-called Master Curve concept [8,9]. There is also
improved consideration of proof testing and warm pre-stres-
sing and guidance on reporting the results of ¯aw assess-
ments. The lengthwise ¯aw interaction criteria for fracture
assessment have been relaxed compared to PD6493:1991
based on the ®nding that there is almost no crack driving
force enhancement of adjacent ¯aws in this direction.
3.3. Fatigue assessments
For BS7910, the fatigue assessment clauses in
 C.S. Wiesner et al. / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 77 (2000) 883±893 887

-2
10 -2
10

Rate of crack g rowth, da/dN mm/cycle

Rate of crack g rowth, da/dN mm/cycle -1100mV
cathodic
-3
10 -3 protection
10 (R≥0.5)
Simplified law for
welded aluminium alloys
-850mV
-4 -4 cathodic
10 10 protection
Simplified law for (R≥0.5)
free corrosion
-5 -5
10 10
Welded 2-stage law
austenitic for free corrosion
steels (R≥0.5)
-6 -6
10 10
Simplified law for
welded steels
-7 -7
10 10
2-stage law for With cathodic protection
welded steels (R≥0.5) (-850 or -1100mV) (R≥0.5)
-8 -8
10 10
10 20 50 100 200 500 1000 2000 10 20 50 100 200 500 1000 2000

Stress intensity factor range, ∆K Nmm -3/2 Stress intensity factor range, ∆K Nmm-3/2

Fig. 3. Recommended fatigue crack growth laws in BS7910.

PD6493:1991 were reviewed in the light of new information mended for steels in freely corroding seawater. However,
and experience gained from their use in practice. The main it is now strongly recommended that crack growth rate and
change was the introduction of new fatigue crack growth threshold values for high R values are used when assessing a
laws, based on an extensive review and analysis of ¯aw in a welded structure, to allow for the in¯uence of high
published data for steels [10]. These include more precise tensile residual stresses.
two-branch Paris laws and allowance for applied stress ratio, Advice on the derivation of fatigue crack growth laws
R (the ratio of minimum to maximum applied stress during and threshold values for non-ferrous metals is also given,
fatigue loading). More attention is paid to environmental using correlations based on relative Young's modulus
in¯uences and the new recommendations cover marine values.
corrosion, with and without cathodic protection, and fatigue Allowance has been made for the extensive evidence now
crack growth at elevated temperature. The speci®c cases available which indicates that there is no need to impose the
covered include ferritic steels in air freely corroding in ¯aw interaction criteria in PD6493:1991 in a fatigue assess-
seawater and in seawater with cathodic protection (2850 ment. Thus, multiple ¯aws are assessed separately without
and 21100 mV Ag/AgC1), see Fig. 3. any consideration of ¯aw interaction [11,12].
New, simpli®ed conservative (upper bound) single- The fatigue assessment method referred to in
branch Paris laws are also provided, for convenience. PD6493:1991 as the `Simpli®ed Procedure', which relates
They relate to high R-values (R > 0:5) in order to give the required and actual fatigue performance of a ¯aw to a
conservative estimates of fatigue crack growth in welded grid of quality category (stress versus endurance) S±N
structures. As in fatigue design, these are assumed to curves, is retained, but it is now referred to as `Assessment
contain high tensile residual stressses and hence to experi- Using Quality Categories'. For consistency with Eurocode
ence a high effective R under any fatigue loading. The basic design S±N curves, the reference stress range associated
law for ferritic steels in air gives slightly higher crack with each quality category curve now corresponds to N ˆ
growth rates than the corresponding law in PD6493:1991, 2 £ 106 ; rather than 10 5, cycles. New graphs for assessing
based on more recent experimental data obtained at planar ¯aws using the simpli®ed fracture mechanics method
R ˆ 0:5. Apart from air, the recommended laws also have been introduced, based on the new upper bound
cover ferritic steels in seawater and at elevated temperature. Paris fatigue crack growth law. The acceptance levels
Austenitic steels can be treated using the simpli®ed law for non-planar ¯aws (slag inclusions, porosity and undercut)
for ferritic steels in air, but no advice is given for other are still consistent with available experimental data, and,
environments. New data did not justify any changes to the apart from extending the thickness range over which the
recommended stress intensity factor threshold values in undercut acceptance limits apply, they are unchanged in
PD6493:1991, except that a value of zero is now recom- BS 7910.
888 C.S. Wiesner et al. / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 77 (2000) 883±893
3.4. Procedures for the assessment of ¯aws in high
temperature plant
The high temperature ¯aw assessment procedure [13] is
described in Clause 9 of BS 7910 with further information
included in Annex T on how to make the calculations and a
worked example in Annex U. Both failure by net section
creep rupture and creep crack growth are considered. The
procedures are based on PD6539:1994 [14] guidance which
has been updated for BS 7910.
The BS 7910 calculation procedure follows a similar
format to that used for making fracture and fatigue assess-
ments. The plant operating conditions and material proper-
ties are determined. Any ¯aws present are characterised and
evaluated for fatigue and fracture. If the ¯aw is acceptable
with respect to these failure modes, the creep damage in the
uncracked ligament is assessed via a ductility exhaustion
criterion using the appropriate reference stress values. In
addition, the amount of creep crack growth is calculated
for the conditions of concern. The whole process is repeated
for successive time steps until the failure condition is
reached or the desired lifetime is achieved.
Calculations can be carried out at the initial design stage
for postulated defects or after a defect has been found during
an inspection to determine the remaining lifetime. It is
recommended that a sensitivity study is performed to give
added con®dence in the predictions. The step-by-step details
are given in Annex T and a worked example, showing how
secondary stresses and combined creep and fatigue are dealt
with, in Annex U. Protection against creep rupture is
achieved by limiting the ductility exhaustion in the
uncracked ligament to a suitable fraction and prevention
of fracture by restricting the amount of cracking allowed.
3.5. Partial safety factors in BS 7910
3.5.1. Background
For general structural assessment purposes, a comparison
of load and resistance is used to predict failure. When there
are uncertainties in the input variables, or scatter in the
materials data, reliability analysis methods can be employed
to determine the probability of failure, i.e. the probability
that the load effects will exceed the resistance effects. Partial
safety factors (PSFs) can be applied to individual input
variables to give a target reliability without having to
carry out probabilistic calculations. The values of partial
safety factors depend on the target reliability, the coef®cients
of variation (COV) and the number of standard deviations
from the mean taken to represent the load and resistance
distributions.
3.5.2. Existing partial safety factor speci®cations
The ®rst published document giving recommendations
for partial safety factors in connection with fracture
mechanics-based structural integrity assessments was
PD6493:1991. The recommendations were derived as part
of work by Glasgow University/UMIST [15] on defect
assessment methodology for offshore structures in the late
1980s and were included as part of an optional appendix in
PD6493. The procedure in use at the time involved the then
Level 2 assessment curve based on the ¯ow strength para-
meter Sr, applied to results of wide plate tests. In view of
changes to the PD6493 fracture assessment clause and also
because of developments in structural Eurocodes it was
appropriate that a reassessment of partial safety factors
should be carried out.
There is a general target reliability index value adopted in
Eurocodes for ultimate limit state conditions in structures
for which failure would have major consequences which
corresponds to a failure probability of about 7 £ 1025 :
Since this value has been derived to deal with the appro-
priate uncertainties in loading for plastic collapse failure,
the same PSFs were included for fracture/plastic collapse
failure to ensure consistency with existing procedures.
3.5.3. Derivation of BS 7910 partial safety factors
Recommendations were produced to cover different
requirements for target reliability and different degrees of
variability of the input data. The target reliability levels
corresponded to those used previously in PD6493 with the
addition of the standard level adopted in Eurocode 3,
namely failure probabilities of 2:3 £ 1021 ; 1023 ; 7 £ 1025
and 10 25.
The input variables considered for these assessments
were stress, ¯aw size, fracture toughness and yield strength.
The recommendations are intended to cover the assessment
of a single ¯aw rather than a full distribution of ¯aw sizes.
For the purposes of determining partial safety factors the
results are derived in terms of different COVs.
It is important to recognise that there is no unique solu-
tion for partial safety factors and even when a preliminary
separation is made into load and resistance groups, there are
still many alternative combinations of factors which could
be applied to the separate input variables to give the same
required target reliability. The most appropriate solutions
are those for which the partial safety factors remain approxi-
mately constant over a wide range of input values. For each
of the data groups, values of partial safety factors have been
selected for each target reliability and COV to cover for all
the other cases.
The partial safety factors in PD6493 for fracture tough-
ness and ¯aw size are signi®cantly lower than those recom-
mended in BS 7910 for target reliabilities of 10 23 and 10 25.
On the other hand, PSFs on stress in PD6493 are some-
what higher than those in BS 7910. An important differ-
ences is that the calculations for the BS 7910 factors
have been carried out assuming that `failure' occurs in
accordance with the FAD, whereas in practice it is often
found that the diagram gives safe predictions rather than
critical ones. In contrast, the original PD6493 PSFs were
calibrated against wide plate test results, rather than the
 C.S. Wiesner et al. / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 77 (2000) 883±893
failure assessment curve and this explains some of the
differences.
3.5.4. Concluding remarks
New recommendations have been produced for BS 7910
partial safety factors for use in structural integrity assess-
ments where the primary modes of failure are fracture and
plastic collapse. The recommendations are more com-
prehensive and have been designed to be compatible with
relevant codes for the design of steel structures. The new
factors are higher for fracture toughness and ¯aw size than
PD6493 values, but this is compensated to some extent
by the new values being lower for stress levels. A more
detailed description and discussion of the development
of BS 7910 partial safety factors has been given by
Burdekin et al. [16].
3.6. Assessment of general corrosion in pipes and pipelines
3.6.1. Introductory remarks
General corrosion damage in pipelines reduces wall
thickness, either locally or globally, resulting in a reduction
of load bearing capacity and/or stiffness of the pipeline
structure compared with the design conditions. The
presence of corrosion damage has therefore safety and
cost implications with respect to the operation of high pres-
sure transportation and storage systems.
Whilst there are a number of established engineering
methods which are suitable for the assessment of corroded
pipes, pipelines and cylindrical vessels, signi®cant develop-
ments in the areas of ¯aw detection and FFP assessment
techniques have been made which enable pipeline compa-
nies to determine the remaining strength of corroded pipe-
lines more accurately and with higher con®dence. More
speci®cally, a large group sponsored project has been mana-
ged by BG Technology, the results of which have been
incorporated in BS 7910 Annex G.
3.6.2. Corrosion assessment method
3.6.2.1. Procedure development. The project combined an
extensive programme of full-scale burst tests on pipe
samples containing machined corrosion models, with
numerical modelling methods incorporating 3D non-linear
®nite element analysis (FEA).
Isolated, grouped (interacting) and combined (complex-
shaped) corrosion defect models were considered. Defect
shapes included pits, grooves (corrosion bands) and patches
(general corrosion) with defect depths ranging from 20% to
80% of wall thickness. The pipe grades tested ranged from
Grade X52 to X65. Various pipe diameters from 203 mm
(8 in.) to 914 mm (36 in.) and diameter/thickness ratios
from 8 to 64 were included. The pipe materials and pipe
sizes considered in this programme are complementary to
the existing AGA (American Gas Association) database. In
total, 81 full-scale pipe burst tests and 52 ring expansion
889
tests were completed in the experimental programme; these
included six burst test results and 16 ring expansion test
results.
The results from the guidance development studies were
incorporated in BS 7910 Annex G, prepared in a suitable
format, following feedback by practising pipeline engineers.
3.6.2.2. Outline of BS 7910 Annex G procedure.
3.6.2.2.1. General procedure. The general methodology
for assessing corroded pipeline is illustrated by a ¯ow chart,
as shown in Fig. 4. The methods recommended in this
procedure are classi®ed into three levels of assessment,
depending on required accuracy of the assessment and the
level of information available. Limitations of the methods
and safety factors recommended are included in Annex G of
BS 7910.
3.6.2.2.2. Level 1 Corrosion assessment. A set of rules
identifying longitudinal and circumferential ¯aw interaction
is used for grouping corrosion ¯aws.
The ¯aw groups are then treated as single isolated ¯aws
and are assessed using a simple equation, which only
requires limited information on materials properties and
defect sizes. A relation is presented in Annex G to determine
safe working pressures using actual or speci®ed minimum
tensile strength values for the pipe material and the total
projected axial length and maximum depth of the ¯aw.
This relation is based a large parametric database of failure
pressures, predicted using non-linear various pipe sizes,
pipe grades, defect con®gurations and defect sizes, and vali-
dated against over 100 full-scale burst tests. The estimated
safe working pressure is correct only if there is no ¯aw
interaction.
3.6.2.2.3. Level 2 Corrosion assessment. Two engineering
methods have been developed for the Level 2 assessment
dealing with corrosion interaction (Level 2a) and with
complex-shaped defects (Level 2b). As further validation of
Level 2b is required, it has not been included in BS 7910
Annex G.
With respect to Level 2a, a ¯aw group may include a
number of separate but adjacent corroded areas which inter-
act. The failure pressure is higher than that for a single ¯aw
con®guration of the same dimensions.
A safe working pressure is determined by the lowest
pressure value predicted from assessments of all combina-
tions of adjacent ¯aws. Each of the assessments assumes the
total length of the defect group but an equivalent depth. This
assessment requires additional information on ¯aw spacing.
The method has been validated against a large number of
failure predictions (using FEA) for equally sized, axially-
separated ¯aw groups and some pipe burst tests.
3.6.2.2.4. Level 3 Corrosion assessment. As the most
advanced method, included in BS 7910 Annex G, non-
linear FEA together with a validated criterion is
recommended for detailed assessment if full material
information and ¯aw con®guration are available. The
failure pressure of a corrosion model is deemed to have
890 C.S. Wiesner et al. / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 77 (2000) 883±893

START

Analyse all Corrosion Damage

Sites as Isolated Single Flaws

No Interaction
Check for Possible Interaction s
Between Sites

Interaction

Analyse Damage Sites as a

Colony of Interacting Flaws

YES
Are Failure Pressures
Acceptable?

NO

Continue operation at current Revise safe working pressure or

Safe working pressure reassess using finite element
Analysis or full scale testing

Fig. 4. BS7910 Annex G assessment procedure for assessment of corroded pipe and pipelines.

been reached at the load where the von Mises equivalent
stress value throughout the remaining ligament reaches the
tensile strength of a material. This failure criterion has been
well validated. Such analyses generally give accurate failure
predictions (within ^5%).
3.6.3. Concluding remarks
New guidelines have been developed by a BG Technol-
ogy-led group sponsored project enabling pipeline
engineers to indicate more accurate and less over-conserva-
tive assessments of pipeline corrosion, particularly for
complex-shaped and interacting groups of corrosion. The
guidelines have been incorporated in BS 7910 Annex G
and have the potential to signi®cantly reduce the costs asso-
ciated with continued operation or repair of pipelines in
which in-service corrosion is found. More details of the
corrosion assessment procedures have been given by Fu
and Andrews [17].
3.7. Summary of changes in BS 7910
The principal changes are as follows:
² The procedures now have the enhanced status of a
`Guide'. This unfortunately, means that the well known
numbering `PD6493' will change to `BS 7910'. The title
has been changed to `Guide on methods for assessing
¯aws in metallic structures'. This is because the
committee considered that the methods were as applic-
able to ¯aws in castings, forgings, etc, as to ¯aws in
welds.
² The scope now formalises existing practice so that the
document can be used not only to assess initial fabrica-
tion ¯aws, but also for those found as a result of
in-service inspection. Thus a major application of the
document will be to enable decisions to be made on
life extension of ageing plant.
 C.S. Wiesner et al. / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 77 (2000) 883±893 891

² The treatment for fracture has been even more closely
aligned with the R6 approach.
² In 1994, another BS Published Document was issued,
PD6539[14], giving methods for assessing ¯aws in
high temperature plant. This has now been integrated
into BS 7910, so that creep crack growth can now be
assessed.
² A number of annexes (twenty-one in total) have been
added, providing state-of-the-art methods for engineering
critical analysis and increasing the scope of the
document.
² Guidance on the assessment of generalised corrosion in
pipelines and vessels has been introduced in Annex G.
4. Validation of BS 7910 fracture assessment procedures
using TWI wide plate data
Validation of the BS 7910 fracture and collapse assess-
ment procedures has been carried out against TWI experi-
mental data of large-scale wide plate fracture tests. Relevant
small-scale fracture toughness specimens were used to
provide appropriate input data. Eighty-two wide plate
specimens have been assessed at Level 2A. The TWI soft-
ware Crackwise 3 which automates the BS 7910 assessment
procedures has been used to carry out the appraisal. The
wide plate tests cover a wide range of materials, ¯aw
type/location, load con®gurations and test temperatures.

BS 7910 Level 2A FAD

3 .5 T W I d a ta : K b a s e d

2 .5
Kr

1 .5

0 .5

0
0 0 .5 1 1 .5 2 2 .5

Lr

a)

PD 6493 Level 2
3.5
TWI data : K-Based

2.5
Kr

1.5

0.5

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
b) Sr

Fig. 5. Fracture assessment of TWI wide plate data results based on K or Jfracture toughness values: (a) to BS7910 Level 2A; (b) to PD6493 Level 2.
892 C.S. Wiesner et al. / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 77 (2000) 883±893
Materials used were pressure vessel steels, C±Mn structural
steels, pipeline steels, aluminium alloys and type 316 stain-
less steels and their weldments. Flaw types included through
thickness cracks, semi-elliptical surface cracks, extended
long surface cracks. The ¯aw location was in parent mate-
rial, weld and HAZ. Applied loads included externally
applied tension, bending or combined tension and bending
and welding residual stresses. The test temperatures covered
the entire transition range from the lower to the upper
shelf.
The failure points of all eighty-two wide plate speci-
mens were predicted correctly by BS 7910 Level 2A
assessment procedures, and both K-based and CTOD
based assessment routes produced conservative predic-
tions. The K-based results by BS 7910 are presented
graphically in Fig. 5a. In comparison, assessments to
PD6493 Level 2 led to some non-conservative failure
predictions, see Fig. 5b. It was well known that the PD6493
Level 2 FAD can result in marginal failure predictions in the
`knee' region of the FAD for high work hardening materials.
This was one of the reasons to discontinue its use in
BS 7910.
Fig. 5a shows that the degree of conservatism in the
BS 7910 fracture assessment procedure varies and can be
quite small. This implies that to ensure a safe deterministic
fracture assessment, conservative approaches must be
adopted. The current assessment results have been obtained
under the following conditions: fracture toughness data
were obtained from high-constraint SENB specimens;
the minimum value of three tests or the second lowest
value of six tests were employed. If the population of
fracture toughness tests is large enough to enable a statisti-
cal analysis, the mean minus one standard deviation value
was used. Caution is advised when using maximum
load fracture toughness data for high work hardening
materials; rather, it is recommended to apply Level 3 tearing
assessments.
In the as-welded condition, residual stresses must be
considered not only for cracks located in weld metal and
HAZ, but also for cracks close to the weld. The reduction of
welding residual stresses after proof tests should be accord-
ing to BS 7910 Annex O. As recommended in BS 7910 for
cracks in the weld metal, a conservative approach is to use
the lower properties of parent and weld metals for calcu-
lating the collapse parameter Lr, even if the weld metal
over-matches the parent material as recommended in BS
7910 Annex I. It is recommended to use only validated
and well-established stress intensity factor and collapse
load solutions, and to be aware of the validity range of
solutions for unusual geometries given in BS 7910 Annex
M and P.
5. Outlook
The British Standards Institution has recently submitted
BS 7910 to the European Committee for Standardisation
(CEN). Because of differences in the methods of treating
fracture in various European countries, the CEN committee
(TC121/WG14) responsible for this topic at present consid-
ers that it would not be possible to publish a universally
acceptable standard immediately. It was therefore decided
to issue BS 7910 as a CEN Technical Report with a view to
commence drafting a CEN Standard in the near future.
In the meantime, the major three-year European colla-
borative research project, Structural Integrity Assessment
Procedures for European Industry (SINTAP), has been
completed. The project consortium consists of seventeen
partners from nine different European countries. The project
aimed at resolving national differences in fracture assess-
ment methods and at arriving at a consensus approach.
Another large European collaborative project to resolve
national differences in assessment methods for High
Temperature Defect Assessment (HIDA) is also nearing
completion.
Important developments are also taking place in the
United States. The American Petroleum Institute has just
published a document, API RP579, giving recommenda-
tions for FFP evaluation of pressurised equipment in the
re®nery and chemical industry. FFP is de®ned as the ability
to demonstrate the structural integrity of a component
containing a ¯aw. API 579 is mainly targeted at the assess-
ment of ageing plant, a subject of increasing importance.
Some of the methods are similar to those contained in BS
7910. However, API 579 devotes more attention to speci®c
situations which arise in ageing petrochemical plant.
Examples are: general metal loss and locally thinned
areas, blisters and laminations and ®re damage. Valuable
guidance is also given on the possible remedial measures
to be taken for each of the ¯aw types and failure mechan-
isms covered by the document. In addition, the American
Society of Mechanical Engineers is working on a document
dealing with post-construction inspection. Details of this are
not yet available.
The outcome of the European collaborative projects
mentioned above will be combined with input from the
mentioned international procedures and the existing BS
7910 methods to begin drafting of a CEN or international
procedure in due course.
References
[1] PD6493:1991: Guidance on methods for assessing the acceptability of
¯aws in fusion welded structures. British Standards Institution,
London, 1991.
[2] BS 7910:1999: (incorporating Amendment No.1) Guide on methods
for assessing the acceptability of ¯aws in metallic structures. British
Standards Institution, London, 2000.
[3] Harrison JD, Burdekin FM, Young, JG. A proposed acceptance
standard for weld defects based upon suitability for service. In:
Proceedings of the Second Conference on the Signi®cance of Defects
in Welds, London, May 1968. Abington, Cambs: The Welding Insti-
tute. Paper 1, p. 65±79.
 C.S. Wiesner et al. / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 77 (2000) 883±893
[4] British Standards Institution. PD 6493: Guidance on methods for
assessing the acceptability of ¯aws in fusion welded structures. 1st
ed. London: British Standards Institution, 1980.
[5] Burdekin FM, Dawes MG. Practical use of yielding and linear elastic
fracture mechanics with particular reference to pressure vessels. Confer-
ence on Practical Applications of Fracture Mechanics to Pressure Vessel
Technology, London, May 1971. Mechanical Engineering Publications.
[6] Milne I, Ainsworth RA, Dowling AR, Stewart AT. Assessment of the
integrity of structures containing defects. CEGB report R/H/R6±
Rev. 3. Barnwood, Glos: British Energy Generation Ltd, 1987.
[7] BRITE EURAM Project. Structural Integrity Assessment Procedure
for European Industry ± SINTAP, Procedure Document, British Steel
(now Corus Group) Swinden Technology Centre, Rotherham, UK,
November 1999.
[8] Wallin K. A simple theoretical Charpy V 2 KIC correlation for irra-
diation embrittlement. In: Marriot DL, Mager TR, Bamford WH
(eds). Proc Conf ASME PVP 1989. American Society for Mechanical
Engineers, 1989.
[9] Wallin K. Fracture toughness transition curve shape for ferritic
structural steels. Proc Conf Fracture of Engineering Materials and
Structures. Elsevier Applied Science, 1991:61±79.
[10] King R. A review of fatigue crack growth rates in air and seawater.
HSE Report OTH 511. London: Health and Safety Executive Books,
1998.
893
[11] Morgan HG. Interaction of multiple fracture cracks. Proc Conf
Fatigue of Welded Structures, TWI, Cambridge, UK, 1987.
[12] Soboyejo WO. On the prediction of the fatigue propagation of semi-
elliptical defects. ASTM STP 1122, Advances in Fatigue Life Predic-
tion Techniques. American Society of Testing and Materials, 1997.
[13] Webster GA, Ainsworth RA. High temperature component life
assessment. London: Chapman and Hall, 1994.
[14] PD6539:1994: Guide on methods for the assessment of the in¯uence
of crack growth on the signi®cance of defects in components
operating at high temperatures. London: British Standards Institution,
1994.
[15] Plane CA, Cowling MJ, Nwegbu VK, Burdekin FM. The determina-
tion of safety factors for defect assessment using reliability analysis
methods. Third International Symposium on Integrity of Offshore
Structures, September 1987.
[16] Burdekin FM, Hamour W, Pisarski HG, Muhammed A. Derivation of
partial safety factors for BS 7910. In: Proc Conf IMechE seminar:
Flaw assessment in pressure equipment and weld structures ± PD6493
to BS 7910. London, UK: IMechE Publications, 2000.
[17] Fu BF, Andrews RM. Assessment of general corrosion in pipes and
pipelines. In: Proc Conf IMechE seminar: Flaw assessment in pres-
sure equipment and weld structures ± PD6493 to BS 7910. London,
UK: IMechE Publications, 2000.