Paper by Budden and Ainsworth

The shape of a strain-based failure assessment diagram
P.J. Budden
*
, R.A. Ainsworth
1
EDF Energy, Barnett Way, Barnwood, Gloucester GL4 3RS, UK
a r t i c l e i n f o
Article history:
Received 10 February 2011
Received in revised form
8 July 2011
Accepted 25 September 2011
Keywords:
Failure assessment diagram
Fracture
Defects
Strain-based
a b s t r a c t
There have been a number of recent developments of strain-based fracture assessment approaches,
including proposals by Budden [Engng Frac Mech 2006;73:537e52] for a strain-based failure assessment
diagram (FAD) related to the conventional stress-based FAD. However, recent comparisons with nite
element (FE) data have shown that this proposed strain-based FAD can be non-conservative in some
cases, particularly for deeper cracks and materials with little strain-hardening capacity. Therefore, this
paper re-examines the shape of the strain-based FAD, guided by these FE analyses and some theoretical
analysis. On this basis, modied proposals for the shape of the strain-based FAD are given, including
simplied and more detailed options in line with the options available for stress-based FADs in existing
tness-for-service procedures. The proposals are then illustrated by a worked example and by
comparison with FE data, which demonstrate that the new proposals are generally conservative.
2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Early developments of strain-based fracture assessment
methods for structures containing crack-like aws, for example
Burdekin and Dawes [1], have been largely superseded by stress-
based methods, see for example [2e5], as discussed by Zerbst
et al. [6]. The stress-based methods have been developed to address
a number of issues of practical importance such as constraint,
strength mismatch and the treatment of combined primary and
secondary stresses [6]. This has led to comprehensive assessment
procedures based on these methods [2e5]. However, a strain-based
approach may be more appropriate for some practical situations
where strain or displacement is the natural boundary conditions
and imposed plastic strains can be large; for example, pipe reeling
or laying operations in the pipeline industry, or generally cases
where applied displacements may be limited. The conservatism of
stress-based approaches based on elastic analysis of the uncracked
structure can sometimes be signicant in such cases.
Recently there has been a renewed interest in strain-based
fracture assessment methods driven by particular applications
[7e9], including the development of a strain-based failure assess-
ment diagram (FAD) [10] related to the FAD in the stress-based
methods [2e5]. This included proposals for both approximate
(Option 1) and detailed (Option 2) strain-based FADs similar to the
stress-based Option 1 and Option 2 FADs in R6 [2]. However, Bud-
den [11,12] has noted, from comparisons with detailed nite
element (FE) data, that the strain-based FADs proposed in [10] can
be non-conservative in some cases, particularly for higher values of
the material strain-hardening coefcient and for deeper cracks. The
non-conservatism typically corresponded to a factor of 2 on the
applied strain.
In this paper, the shape of the strain-based FAD is examined to
see if this non-conservatism can be removed. The discussion is in
the context of strains due to primary loads alone as used to
construct the FAD [2,10]; the inclusion of secondary strains is dis-
cussed in a companion paper [13]. First, Section 2 briey reviews
the stress-based and strain-based FAD approaches. Then, revised
proposals for the shape for the strain-based FAD, relative to those in
[10], are developed in Section 3. Finally, Section 4 provides
a worked example of the proposals and comparisons with FE
results in the format of the strain-based FAD.
2. Stress and strain-based FADs
2.1. Stress-based failure assessment diagram
In the stress-based FAD [2e6] approach, fracture is assessed
using two parameters L
r
and K
r
dened as follows:
L
r
P=P
L
_
a; s
y
_
s
p
ref
=s
y
(1)
* Corresponding author. Tel.: 44 1452 653824.
E-mail address: peter.budden@edf-energy.com (P.J. Budden).
1
Now at University of Manchester, Pariser Building, Sackville Street, Manchester
M13 9PL, UK.
Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect
International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping
j ournal homepage: www. el sevi er. com/ l ocat e/ i j pvp
0308-0161/$ e see front matter 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ijpvp.2011.09.004
International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping xxx (2011) 1e8
Please cite this article in press as: Budden PJ, Ainsworth RA, The shape of a strain-based failure assessment diagram, International Journal of
Pressure Vessels and Piping (2011), doi:10.1016/j.ijpvp.2011.09.004
K
r
K
p
=K
mat
(2)
where P is the applied primary loading; P
L
(a,s
y
) is the corre-
sponding limit load for the component with a crack of size a made
of rigid plastic material with yield stress equal to the 0.2% proof
stress, s
y
, the ratio P/P
L
in turn denes a primary reference stress,
s
ref
p
; K
p
is the stress intensity factor for the primary stresses and
K
mat
is fracture toughness. In equations (1) and (2), the superscript
p is used to denote primary loading. More generally, the
treatment of secondary stresses can be included in the FAD [2e6]
but this is not considered here as it does not affect the shape of
the FAD.
In the stress-based approach, L
r
and K
r
are evaluated for the
applied loads and failure is conceded when K
r
f(L
r
)or L
r
L
r
max
as
depicted in Fig. 1. Here L
r
max
is the ratio of a ow stress to the yield
stress and allows for strain hardening beyond yield. The failure
assessment curve may be described in a number of ways and two
particular curves are considered here for the subsequent devel-
opment of the strain-based FAD. The rst is that termed R6
Option 2 [2]:
f L
r

_
_
E 3
p
ref
s
p
ref
1
=
2
_
s
p
ref
=s
y
_
2
E 3
p
ref
=s
p
ref
_
_
1
=
2
(3)
where 3
ref
p
is the strain on the material stressestrain curve at the
stress s
ref
p
(L
r
s
y
) and E is Youngs modulus. Equation (3) corre-
sponds to an approximate J-estimate approach [14] which can be
used with any description of the material stressestrain curve. The
second curve is termed Option 1 in R6 [2]:
f L
r

_
1 0:5L
2
r
_
1
=
2
_
0:3 0:7exp
_
0:6L
6
r
_
_
(4)
and the shape of this is independent of material.
2.2. Strain-based failure assessment diagram
In the strain-based failure assessment diagram approach,
equation (1) is replaced by a strain ratio, D
r
, dened by
D
r
3
p
ref
= 3
y
(5)
where 3
ref
p
is the imposed strain [10]. For small cracks which do not
affect the overall compliance of a component, 3
ref
p
may be taken as
the uncracked-body equivalent strain at the location of the crack
[9]. Secondary strains, such as residual strains following welding for
example, are not considered here but are considered in
a companion paper [13].
Thedenitionof K
r
inequation(2) is unchangedinthestrain-based
FADbut the stress intensity factor, K
p
, is deducedfroma stress dened
in terms of the imposed strain [10]. That is, K
p
is dened by
K
p
Fs
p
ref
pa
1
=
2 (6)
where s
ref
p
is obtained from the imposed strain 3
ref
p
as
s
p
ref
s
_
3
p
ref
_
(7)
where s( 3 ) represents the material stressestrain curve and F is the
dimensionless stress intensity factor function [10].
Nomenclature
a, c crack depth, crack half length
D
r
parameter in the strain-based FAD
E Youngs modulus
f stress-based failure assessment curve
f
*
strain-based failure assessment curve
F stress intensity factor function
FE nite element
FAD failure assessment diagram
h
1
normalised J value
h
3
normalised displacement
J elasticeplastic crack tip parameter
J
p
fully plastic value of J
J
el
elastically calculated value of J
K stress intensity factor
K
p
stress intensity factor for primary loads
K
r
ordinate on the FAD
K
mat
fracture toughness
L
r
abscissa in the stress-based FAD
L
r
max
ratio of ow stress to 0.2% proof stress
[
1
normalised length in J estimation
[
3
normalised length in displacement estimation
n constant in power-law stressestrain equation
P applied load
P
o
normalising load proportional to s
o
P
L
limit load
R
m
mean radius of cylinder
t thickness of cylinder or plate
U area under loadedisplacement curve
U
el
elastic area under loadedisplacement curve
W half width of plate
a constant in power-law stressestrain equation
D displacement
D
el
elastic displacement
3 strain
3
o
constant in power-law stressestrain equation
3
ref
p
applied strain
3
y
yield strain (s
y
/E)
s stress
s
u
ultimate stress
s
y
0.2% proof stress
s
o
constant in power-law stressestrain equation
s
ref
p
primary reference stress
Fig. 1. A schematic R6 stress-based failure assessment diagram; the function f(L
r
) can
be described by Option 1, 2 or 3 curves and the plastic collapse cut-off L
r
L
r
max
is also
shown [2].
P.J. Budden, R.A. Ainsworth / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping xxx (2011) 1e8 2
Having evaluated K
r
and D
r
, failure is conceded when
K
r
f
*
D
r
(8)
as depicted in Fig. 2. A number of options for dening f
*
(D
r
) are
proposed in Section 3.
3. Shape of the strain-based FAD
In this section, the shape of the strain-based FAD, i.e. f
*
(D
r
) in
equation (8), is examined rst for large-scale yielding in Section 3.1.
Then small-scale yielding corrections are added in Section 3.2,
enabling a number of options for the shape of the strain-based FAD
to be given in Sections 3.3e3.5. Similarities and differences from
the proposals of Budden [10] are highlighted.
3.1. Large-scale yielding
Ainsworth [14] showed that, for a given load, the plastic
component of the J-integral, J
p
, and the corresponding elastic value,
J
el
, are related under large-scale yielding conditions, by
J=J
el
yJ
p
=J
el
E 3
p
ref
=s
p
ref
(9)
where E is Youngs modulus. Equation (9) is essentially the R6
reference stress approximation for J of equation (3) without the
small-scale yielding correction.
For power-law materials in which strain is related to stress by
3 a 3
o
s=s
o
n
(10)
where a, s
o
, 3
o
, n are constants with a 3
o
/s
o
1/E, the fully plastic
value of J can be written
J as
o
3
o
h
1
n[
1
P=P
o
n1
(11)
where [
1
is a convenient normalising length, P
o
is a normalising
load proportional to s
o
and h
1
(n) is the normalised value of J which
generally depends on n, geometry and loading [15]. Equation (9) is
equivalent to equation (11) when P
o
is chosen so that h
1
(n) h
1
(1)
with s
ref
p
Ps
o
/P
o
[14].
For the stressestrain curve of equation (10), the displacement,
D, conjugate to the load P can be written in a similar form to
equation (11) as
D a 3
o
h
3
n[
3
P=P
o
n
(12)
where [
3
is a convenient length and h
3
is the normalised
displacement [15].
Now, it has been observed for a number of common test spec-
imens that J can be related simply to the area, U, under the
loadedeection curve by a constant which is independent of
material behaviour and load magnitude. Thus, for these geometries
J=J
el
U=U
el
(13)
where U
el
PD
el
(P)/2 with D
el
(P) the elastic displacement at load P,
and
U
_
P
0
P dD (14)
Inserting equation (12) into equation (14), integrating and
substituting equations (9) and (13) leads to
h
3
n=h
3
n 1 n 1=2n (15)
Thus the choice of P
o
, i.e. the choice of reference stress, which leads
to h
1
n h
1
n 1 and hence equation (9) as a J estimate, leads
to values of h
3
n which depend on n and are consistent with
a displacement estimate
D=D
el

n 1
2n
E 3
p
ref
s
p
ref
(16)
at least for geometries for which equation (13) holds. Thus the
reference stress estimate of J in equation (9) is consistent with
a modied reference stress estimate of displacement given by
equation (16). Conversely, if the reference strain, 3
p
ref
, is estimated
froma displacement assuming simple scaling with elastic response
(i.e. P
o
is chosen so that the factor (n 1)/2n does not appear in
equation (16)) then a modied reference stress estimate of J is
obtained as
J
J
el
2n
n 1
E 3
p
ref
s
p
ref
(17)
Thus, for large-scale yielding and low strain hardening (large n)
with D
r
dened by equation (5), then 2n=n 1y2 and equation
(8) for the strain-based FAD becomes
f
*
D
r

_
J
el
J
_
1=2
_
2E 3
p
ref
s
p
ref
_
1
=
2
(18)
This is the equivalent of equation (9) at large L
r
and is considered
more appropriate in the strain-based route where the remote
strain/displacement boundary conditions are known.
It has to be recognised that equation (13) only holds for certain
geometries and is not general. Therefore the factor of [2 n/(n 1)]
in eqn (17) is also not general. However, it is consistent with the
observations from [11,12] that the strain-based FAD proposed in
[10] can be non-conservative, particularly for high n, and typically
by a factor of 2 on strain. Therefore, pragmatically equation (18) is
used here to develop new proposals for strain-based FADs relative
to [10].
0
1
0 2 4 6 8 10
D
r
K
r
) D ( * f K
r r
Fig. 2. A schematic strain-based failure assessment diagram; the function f
*
(D
r
) can be
described by Option 1, 2 or 3 curves; a pragmatic strain limit on the D
r
axis is also
imposed in [10].
3.2. Small-scale yielding
For small-scale yielding, global response is essentially elastic so
that n 1 is appropriate in equation (17). However, corrections for
small-scale yielding are required as in the stress-based FAD of
equation (3) so that a strain-based FAD [10] given by
f
*
D
r

_
_
E 3
p
ref
s
p
ref
1
=
2
_
s
p
ref
=s
y
_
2
E 3
p
ref
=s
p
ref
_
_
1
=
2
(19)
is again expected to hold. Budden [10] developed an Option 1
strain-based FAD by writing the R6 Option 2 stress-based FAD of
equation (3) as
f
2
L
r
D
r
=L
r
1
=
2
L
3
r
=D
r
(20)
and solved this to relate D
r
to L
r
and f(L
r
) by
D
r

_
L
r
=2f
2
L
r
_
_
_
1
_
1 2L
2
r
f
4
L
r
_
1
=
2
_
_
(21)
Budden then used the stress-based Option 1 FAD of equation (4) to
derive D
r
from equation (21) and hence develop a strain-based
Option 1 FAD dened by
f
*
D
r

_
1 1
=
2
D
2
r
_
1
=
2
; D
r
< 1 (22a)
with the continuation for D
r
>1 given by equation (23), below.
However, the choice of f(L
r
) clearly affects D
r
through equation (21). A
conservative strain-basedFADis developedby underestimating D
r
for
agivenL
r
. As D
r
!L
r
foranelasticeplastic material, ingeneral, it is then
conservative to set D
r
L
r
in equations (20) or (21). This corresponds
to elastic behaviour up to yield and leads to f L
r
1 1
=
2
L
2
r
1
=
2,
that is the R6 Option 2 curve with only the small-scale yielding
correction, and hence to equation (22a). This small-scale yielding
curve is an upper bound to the Option 2 curve for L
r
<1.
Having estimated D
r
for a given L
r
, it is conversely conservative
to take a lower bound f(L
r
) to derive f
*
(D
r
). Such a conservative
function is the R6 Option 1 FAD of equation (4). This may be
somewhat over conservative as an upper bound f(L
r
) has been used
to derive D
r
and a lower bound f(L
r
) has been used to derive f
*
.
Accepting this conservatismwith D
r
L
r
then immediately leads to
f
*
D
r

_
11
=
2
D
2
r
_
1
=
2
_
0:30:7exp
_
0:6D
6
r
__
; D
r
<1
(22b)
3.3. Option 1 strain-based FAD
Budden [10] noted that it is conservative at large D
r
to take
f
*
fD
1
=
2
r
. The factor of 2 in equation (18) does not affect this
argument. Therefore, it is proposed that equation (22b) is
continued for D
r
>1 by
f
*
D
r
f
*
1D
1
=
2
r
(23)
which is identical to the proposal in [10], except that f
*
1 is now
evaluated from equation (22b) rather than equation (22a). The
combination of equations (22b) and (23) is proposed here as the
Option 1 strain-based FAD.
Instead of equation (22b), equation (22a) was used in [10]. At
small D
r
, equations (22a) and (22b) are similar and both are
consistent with the FE data examined in [11,12]. The current
proposal however, leads to a lower value of f
*
at D
r
1 (0.559
instead of 0.816) and consequently a lower value for all D
r
> 1 from
equation (23). In [11,12], it was noted that a factor of 2 on D
r
in
conjunction with the proposals in [10] led to a pragmatically
conservative approach compared to some FE data. Applying this
factor of 2 to equations (22a)e(23) [10] leads to
f
*
D
r
0:8162D
r
1
=
2 0:577D
1
=
2
r
; D
r
! 1 (24)
whereas equations (22b) and (23) lead to
f
*
D
r
0:559D
r
1
=
2; D
r
! 1 (25)
The ratio of equation (25) to equation (24) is 0.97 for all D
r
! 1.
Thus, equations (22b) and (23) are consistent with the FE data
[11,12], at least at larger D
r
. Comparisons with FE data will be dis-
cussed further in Section 4.
An Option 2 strain-based FAD has been developed for large D
r
in
equation (18) with the corresponding result for small D
r
given by
equation (19). These two equations clearly differ, with equation (18)
producing a lower value at D
r
1, for example (noting that s
p
ref
will
generally be close to s
y
for D
r
1). However in [11] it was observed
that for some loading cases there is a sharp change in the strain-
based FAD in the region of D
r
1. Therefore, it is proposed here
that the Option 2 curve is simply dened by equations (18) and (19),
for D
r
>1 and D
r
<1 respectively, with a material-dependent
discontinuity at D
r
1. This discontinuity is similar to that which
occurs in Option 2 stress-based FADs for materials with a Lders
strain. In summary, the Option 2 strain-based FAD is described by
f
*
D
r

_
_
D
r
s
p
ref
=s
y
1
=
2
_
s
p
ref
=s
y
_
3
D
r
_
_
1
=
2
; D
r
< 1 (26)
f
*
D
r

_
2D
r
s
p
ref
=s
y
_
1
=
2
; D
r
>1 (27)
with f
*
(D
r
) being a vertical line at D
r
1 joining the values from
equations (26) and (27). In these equations, s
ref
p
is again the stress
on the stressestrain curve at the strain D
r
3
y
.
At large D
r
, the use of equation (27) is equivalent to the factor of
2 on D
r
compared to the continued use of equation (26) which is
one of the proposals in [10]. Thus the current proposals are likely to
be consistent with the FE data for low strain-hardening materials.
For higher strain-hardening materials, it might be possible to
reduce conservatism by adjusting the factor of 2 in equation (27) to
a value 2n/(n 1) if the strain-hardening exponent n can be esti-
mated or by adjusting the factor to enforce continuity in f
*
(D
r
) at
D
r
1. However, the accuracy of these adjustments has not been
examined in detail and therefore equation (27) is retained here to
ensure conservatism.
In [10], it was noted that an Option 3 strain-based FAD can be
deduced directly from FE data by plotting f
*
D
r
J
el
=J
1=2
as
a function of D
r
. This is fully consistent with the Option 3 stress-
based FAD in R6 [2] and is not discussed further here.
4. Worked example and validation using nite element
results
Three cases are considered to illustrate the strain-based FAD
approach developed in Section 3:
i. A thin-walled cylinder under tension with a semi-elliptical
external surface crack [16];
ii. A thin-walled cylinder under bending with a semi-elliptical,
external surface crack at the position of maximum bending
stress [16];
iii. A plate under tension with a semi-elliptical surface crack [17].
The rst case is set out in some detail to serve as a worked
example. The other cases are set out more briey.
4.1. Cylinder under tension
4.1.1. Dene geometry
The cylinder [16] has mean radius, R
m
, and wall thickness, t,
equal to 221.1 mm and 15 mm, respectively, so that t/R
m
0.0678.
4.1.2. Dene defect
Semi-elliptical, external part-circumferential surface cracks are
considered, each with a normalised crack depth, a, of a/t 0.2. Four
different total crack lengths, 2c 25 mm, 50 mm, 75 mm and
100 mm, are analysed.
4.1.3. Dene material tensile properties
The material has a pure linear region up to the limit of pro-
portionality of 450 MPa, followed by plastic straining up to the nal
point on the stressestrain curve, which is taken as the ultimate
tensile strength, s
u
588.5 MPa (see Fig. 3) corresponding to
a plastic collapse limit on the R6 stress-based FAD of
L
max
r
hs
u
s
y
=2s
y
1:13. The strain-hardening coefcient, n, is
estimated fromthe 0.2% proof stress, s
y
, and s
u
using methods in R6
[1] and is n 16.1. Hence the material has relatively low strain-
hardening capacity and there is little conservatism introduced by
replacing 2n/(n 1) by 2 in equation (18).
4.1.4. Calculate D
r
D
r
is dened by the ratio of remote axial surface strain from the
FE analysis to the yield strain. There is no redistribution of stress or
strain due to plasticity along the uncracked cylinder, so that the
stress and strain at the crack surface position can be taken as the
remote values.
4.1.5. Calculate K
r
The rst value of load in the FE analyses of [16] equates to
a maximum L
r
in equation (1) of close to 0.1. From the Option 1 R6
stress-based failure assessment curve of equation (4), J/J
e
is
approximately 1.005 at that initial load point and hence the cor-
responding J value at the mid-point of the surface crack is essen-
tially elastic. This, therefore denes K
p
in equation (2) for the rst
value of strain. For other values of applied strain, K
p
is obtained by
scaling this rst value of K
p
by the ratio of the stress in Fig. 3 cor-
responding to the applied strain to the stress corresponding to the
rst value of strain.
In these assessments, K
mat
is equation (2) at any applied strain is
taken as the K-equivalent of the FE value of J. Thus, each assessment
point (D
r
, K
r
) should correspond to failure and the locus of assess-
ment points with increasing strain denes the failure assessment
curve.
4.1.6. Failure assessment
The FE data of [16] are plotted as described above on the strain-
based FAD in Fig. 4 and these are the Option 3 curves of Section 3.5.
Fig. 4 also plots the Option 1 and Option 2 curves of equations (22b),
(23) and (26), (27), respectively, and the earlier Option 1 curve [10],
equations (22a)e(23). Note that the new Option 2 curve lies above
the corresponding Option 1 curve, with both inside the earlier
Option 1 line [10]. It can be seen that the Option 3 curves lie inside
the Option 1 curve of equations (22a)e(23) but that the curve for the
shortest crack length, 2c 25 mm, is close to the Option 1 strain-
based FAD. The amount of non-conservatism increases with
increasing crack length, 2c. The newly proposed Option 1 strain-
based FAD of equations (22b) and (23) effectively removes the
non-conservatism for all crack lengths, with only the curve for the
longest crack, 2c 100 mm, very slightly non-conservative. The new
Option 2 curve of equations (26) and (27) is very close to the Option
3 curve for the shortest crack but is slightly non-conservative for the
longer cracks.
4.2. Cylinder under bending
The cylinder geometry, defect sizes and tensile properties for
the cylinder under bending are identical to those described in
Section 4.1. The calculation of D
r
uses the computed surface strain
values and follows the same method as described above for tension.
The calculation of K
r
also follows the approach of Section 4.1 but for
the elastic J, J
e
, it is assumed that the stress prole is linear with
distance fromthe bending axis with the peak surface value given by
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03 0.035 0.04 0.045 0.05
Strain (Absolute)
S
t
r
e
s
s

(
M
P
a
)
Fig. 3. Stressestrain curve for cylinder FE analyses [16].
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
D
r
K
r
Fig. 4. Strain-based FAD for the cracked cylinder under tension.
the stress corresponding to the applied strain. The FE data for global
bending [16] are plotted on the strain-based FAD in Fig. 5. Similar
observations hold as for the tension case. The previous Option 1
strain-based FAD [10] of equations (22a)e(23) is generally non-
conservative with respect to the FE (Option 3) curves for strains
in excess of yield, the non-conservatism increasing with crack
length. However, in each case, the Option 1 and Option 3 curves
become close for large strain levels. The Option 1 strain-based FAD
of equations (22b) and (23) proposed in this paper is conservative
or accurate for all crack lengths. The revised Option 2 curve of
equations (26) and (27) is slightly non-conservative.
4.3. Plate under tension
Lei [17] analysed a surface-cracked semi-elliptical crack in
a plate of total width Wand thickness t under remote tension load.
The crack half surface length, c, was xed in the FE analyses at
30 mm, the plate half width W4c, and the plate half length was
16c. Three ratios of crack depth to plate thickness ratio, a/t 0.2,
0.5, 0.8 were considered and also three ratios of crack depth to half
surface length, a/c 0.2, 0.6, 1.0. The plate material was described
by the Ramberg-Osgood expression:
3
3
y
s
s
y
a
_
s
s
y
_
n
(28)
where the strain-hardening index was taken as n 5 or 10 and,
without loss of generality, a 1, E 500 MPa and s
y
1 MPa.
Hence, the normalising strain 3
y
s
y
/E 0.002.
For tension loading [17], as in the case of the cylinder, stresses in
the uncracked plate do not redistribute due to plasticity and the
strain corresponding to any particular stress level follows simply
from the stressestrain law of equation (28). The maximum values
of J at the deepest point of the crack are used to plot Option 3
curves.
The results are shown in Figs. 6 and 7. Fig. 6(aed) rst shows the
results for the 3 different values of a/t for xed ratios of a/c 0.2
and 1.0 (the results for a/c 0.6 are similar), for the cases n 5 and
n 10. Fig. 7(a,b) then plots the data for the shallowest crack, a/
t 0.2, for the different values of a/c and n. In each case, calculation
of the abscissa, D
r
, uses the strain from equation (28) at the applied
stress level. It can be seen that the FE data are generally accurately
or conservatively represented by the Option 1 original strain-based
FAD [10] for the shallow crack, a/t 0.2. However, for the deeper
cracks, a/t 0.5 and a/t 0.8, the results are non-conservative. The
non-conservatismincreases with increasing a/t or strain-hardening
exponent, n. Using the new Option 1 curve of equations (22b) and
(23), it can be seen that the Option 1 curve is consistently conser-
vative when n 5 (Fig. 6a, c). However, for n 10, equations (22b)
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
D
r
K
r
Fig. 5. Strain-based FAD for the cracked cylinder under global bending.
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
0 2 4 6 8 10
D
r
K
r
FE (a/t=0.2)
Option 1 (Eqns 22a, 23)
FE (a/t=0.5)
FE (a/t=0.8)
Option 1 (Eqns 22b, 23)
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Dr
K
r
FE (a/t=0.2)
FE (a/t=0.5)
FE (a/t=0.8)
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
0 2 4 6 8 10
D
r
K
r
FE (a/t=0.2)
Option 1 (Eqns (22a, 23)
FE (a/t=0.5)
FE (a/t=0.8)
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
D
r
K
r
FE (a/t=0.2)
FE (a/t=0.5)
FE (a/t=0.8)
a b
c d
Fig. 6. Strain-based FAD for the cracked plate under tension (a) a/c 0.2, n 5; (b) a/c 0.2, n 10; (c) a/c 1, n 5; (d) a/c 1, n 10.
and (23) are conservative when a/t 0.2, 0.5 but are slightly non-
conservative when a/t 0.8 (Fig. 6b, d). The conservatism of
equations (22b) and (23) for the shallowest crack, a/t 0.2, can be
seen from Fig. 7 to be greater than that from the original formu-
lation of equations (22a) and (23) [10].
5. Discussion
The revised proposals for the shape of a strain-based FAD
presented in this paper represent increased conservatism relative
to earlier proposals by Budden [10]. This increased conservatism
has been shown in Section 4 to lead to generally conservative
assessments compared to FE data for surface cracks in cylinders
under tension or bending and plates under tension. However,
even with the increased conservatism, the new proposals do not
bound the nite element data for deep cracks. This is not
surprising as the input to the strain-based FAD has been based on
the remote strain in the uncracked structure. The new Option 1
strain-based FAD is generally more conservative than Option 2
and bounds more of the FE data; appropriate sensitivity studies
should be considered when performing assessments using
Option 2.
For practical assessments using the strain-based FAD, the FE
data suggest that the crack depth should be limited to about 20% of
the wall thickness, that is a/t <0.2, when basing the denition of
reference strain on the response of the uncracked body. For deeper
cracks, the effect of the defect on the compliance of the structure
will be signicant and methods for treating this case on the strain-
based FAD have not been considered here. The new strain-based
approach tends to be in closer agreement with the FE data for
the cylinder compared with that for the plate, where the new
approach is generally more conservative. It is considered that this
is due to the lower strain-hardening capacity of the cylinder
material.
Another limitation of the approach presented here is that
secondary strains, such as those due to the welding process, have
not been considered. This is addressed in a companion paper [13]
where it is shown that the current methods used in stress-based
FADs [2] can be extended to the strain-based FADs developed in
this paper for the combined loading case. It is expected that other
issues such as loss of constraint and weld mismatch could also be
addressed to formulate comprehensive strain-based failure
assessment diagram methods but such developments are not
considered here.
6. Conclusions
Guided by some theoretical analysis and results from FE anal-
ysis, this paper has developed proposals for the shape of a strain-
based failure assessment diagram. The proposals represent
increased conservatism compared to earlier proposals of Budden
[10]. The new proposals have been compared to FE data for surface
cracks in plates and cylinders and shown to be generally conser-
vative. As the inputs to the strain-based FAD are based on the
strains in the uncracked body, it is suggested that practical appli-
cations of the methods proposed here should be limited to aw
sizes no greater than 20% of the wall thickness.
Acknowledgements
This paper is published by permission of EDF Energy. The
authors gratefully acknowledge the provision of detailed nite
element data by W. Xu, W. He (TWI) and Y. Lei (EDF Energy). The
work developed here was the subject of a review by a TAGSI (The
UK Technical Advisory Group on the Structural Integrity of High
Integrity Plant) sub-group chaired by Prof J.W. Hancock; the input
from that group is gratefully acknowledged.
References
[1] Burdekin FM, Dawes MG. Practical use of linear elastic and yielding fracture
mechanics with particular reference to pressure vessels. In: Conference on the
practical application of fracture mechanics to pressure vessel technology.
London: I Mech E; 1971. p. 28e37.
[2] R6Revision4, Assessment of the integrity of structures containing defects, British
Energy, 2001, with Amendments to March 2010, British Energy, Gloucester.
[3] BS7910:2005. Guide to methods for assessing the acceptability of aws in
metallic structures, incorporating amendment 1. London: British Standards
Institution; 2007.
[4] Koak M, Webster S, Janosch JJ, Ainsworth RA, Koers R, editors. FITNET tness
for service procedure. Geesthacht, Germany: GKSS; 2008.
[5] API 579-1/ASME FFS-1. Fitness-for-service. Washington, DC: American
Petroleum Institute/ASME; 2007.
[6] Zerbst U, Schdel M, Webster S, Ainsworth RA. Fitness-for-service fracture
assessment of structures containing cracks, a workbook based on the Euro-
pean SINTAP/FITNET procedure. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 2007.
[7] stby E, Jayadevan KR, Thaulow C. Fracture response of pipelines subject
to large plastic deformation under bending. Int J Pres Ves Piping 2005;
82:201e15.
[8] Wang Y-Y, Rudland D, Denys R, Horsley D. A preliminary strain-based design
criterion for pipeline girth welds. In: Proc 4th int. pipeline conference IPC02,
Calgary. New York: ASME; 2002.
[9] Linkens D, Formby CL, Ainsworth RA. A strain-based approach to fracture
assessment e example applications. In: Proc conf engng structural assess-
ment. Cambridge: EMAS; 2000.
[10] Budden PJ. Failure assessment diagram methods for strain-based fracture.
Engng Fract Mech 2006;73:537e52.
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 2 4 6 8 10
D
r
K
r
a/c=0.2
Option 1 (Eqns (22a,23)
a/c=0.6
a/c=1
Option 1 (Eqns (22b,23)
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
D
r
K
r
a/c=0.2
Option 1 (Eqns 22a,23)
a/c=0.6
a/c=1
Option 1 (Eqns 22b,23)
a
b
Fig. 7. Strain-based FAD for the cracked plate under tension (a) a/t 0.2, n 5; (b) a/
t 0.2, n 10.
[11] Budden PJ. Validation of the new R6 strain-based failure assessment diagram
approach using nite element data. British Energy Report E/REP/BBGB/0044/
GEN/08 Revision 001. Gloucester: British Energy; 2009.
[12] Budden PJ, Smith MC. Numerical validation of a strain-based failure assess-
ment diagram approach to fracture. In: Proc ASME PVP2009, PVP2009-77377,
Prague, July 26e30, 2009.
[13] Ainsworth RA, Budden PJ, Oh C-Y, Kim Y-J. The treatment of secondary strains
within a strain-based failure assessment diagram, submitted for publication.
[14] Ainsworth RA. The assessment of defects in structures of strain hardening
material. Engng Fract Mech 1984;19:633e42.
[15] Kumar V, German MD, Shih CF. An engineering approach for elasticeplastic
fracture analysis. EPRI Report NP-1931. Palo Alto: EPRI; 1981.
[16] Xu W, He W. Strain-based engineering critical assessment of pipeline girth
welds. TWI Report 16772.01/2007/1297.2. Cambridge: TWI; 2007.
[17] Lei Y. J-integral and limit load analysis of semi-elliptical surface cracks in
plates under tension. Int J Pres Vessels Piping 2004;81:21e30.

Paper by Budden and Ainsworth

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Исходное описание:

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Paper by Budden and Ainsworth

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

The shape of a strain-based failure assessment diagram

Вам также может понравиться