Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
ROHIT RASTOGI
REACTOR SAFETY DIVISION
BHABHA ATOMIC RESEARCH CENTRE
MUMBAI
rrastogi@barc.gov.in
1. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................ 3
2. BS 7910 .................................................................................................................................. 7
4. REFERENCES.......................................................................................................................... 14
1. Introduction
Defects in pressure vessels and piping components can be introduced during manufacturing
(e.g. laminations), transportation (e.g. fatigue cracking), fabrication (e.g. weld defects) and
installation (e.g. dents), and can occur both due to deterioration (e.g. corrosion) and due to
external interference (e.g. gouges and dents). To ensure the integrity of these components,
operators must be able to both detect and assess the significance of pipeline defects. The past
45 years has seen the development of ’fitness-for-purpose’ methods for assessing the
significance of these defects.
A pressure retaining system must be operated safely and efficiently. There are four key issues
in the operation of these systems:
1. Safety - the system must pose an acceptably low risk to the surrounding population.
2. Security of Supply - the system must deliver its product in a continuous manner, to satisfy
the owners of the product (the ’shippers’) and the shippers’ customers (the ’end users’), and
have low risk of supply failure.
3. Cost Effectiveness - the system must deliver the product at an attractive market price, and
generate an acceptable rate of return on the investment.
4. Regulations - the operation of the system must satisfy all legislation and regulations.
An operator must ensure that all risks associated with the pipeline are as low as is reasonably
practicable. Occasionally an operator will detect, or become aware, of defects in their
pipeline. In the past, this may have led to expensive shutdowns and repairs. However, recent
years have seen the increasing use of fitness-for-purpose methods to assess these pipeline
defects.
Detailed procedures for assessing the significance of defects in structures are given in
documents such as BS 7910: 1999 [1], API 579 [2], SINTAP [3], R6 [4], ASME [5] and
others. For many engineers, the decision of whether to use fitness-for-service assessment
procedures and which procedures to use can be difficult. While users and regulators across
industry now increasingly accept defects and damage in equipment assessed as fit-for-service,
the differences between the available procedures and the implied safety margins are not so
well understood. There can be uncertainty about the data and technical skills required to
make good assessments. As a result, the benefits from fitness-for-service assessment may not
have been as widespread as might have been expected.
Any engineer with a potential defect problem should question the need for a fitness-
for-purpose assessment as follows:
PHASE 1 – Appraisal
o Are the operating conditions able to create such a defect and can
operational conditions be controlled to prevent growth (e.g. corrosion
inhibition, re-coating)?
• Is it a defect?
o Do I know how the defect was formed, and how it may develop in the
future?
o What are the legal ramifications (e.g. professional liability), what are
the views of the regulatory body, and who would be responsible for the
structure, and any defect assessment relating to it?
o What data exists, and how reliable is it? If the data is sparse, what
confidence is there in any engineering judgment, or are special tests
required?
o How should the safety factors be set, and would it be better to conduct
a probabilistic analysis?
PHASE 4 - Consequence
The higher levels may require risk analyses. Risk is a function of the probability of
failure and the consequences of failure. Such analyses are becoming increasingly
popular, but are also very complicated.
BS 7910 gives procedures for assessing fatigue crack growth based on quality
factors and crack growth calculation. A single procedure is given for assessing flaws
at high temperature and corrosion, with advice given on further assessment if initial
results are not favorable. There are three levels for the assessment of fracture based
around the failure assessment diagram concept.
In general, qualified engineers trained in fracture mechanics intend BS 7910 for use,
and significant computation of stresses and fracture parameters is often necessary.
Because BS 7910 is intended to apply to equipment manufactured to different design
codes and materials, (unlike API 579 which is based around ASME design and
materials), specific stress and materials data is required even for level 1 fracture
assessment. As a result, use of BS 7910 generally requires personnel experienced
in FFS assessment with access to appropriate data and/or testing facilities.
The code outlines methods for assessing the acceptability of flaws in all types of
structures and components. The types of flaws, which can be assessed by this
document, are:
o Planar flaws
o Non-Planar flaws
o Shape imperfections
Essential data
Non-destructive testing
o Flaw length
o Flaw height
o Flaw position
o Flaw orientation
o Planar or non-planar cross-section
There are three levels of fracture assessment in this code. Similar methods are used
in each of the levels. The three levels are as follows
In general, the analysis is first performed using the Level 1 analysis. If the flaw is
unacceptable then the analysis is done using higher levels. The complexity of the
analysis increases with each level and the analysis progressively becomes more
realistic and less conservative.
Assessment is done using a failure assessment diagram (FAD) (figure 2). The
vertical axis of the FAD represents nearness to the brittle fracture. The horizontal
axis is a measure of nearness to the plastic collapse. The FAD defines a safe zone
enclosed by a failure assessment line (FAL). The fracture assessment is done using
this diagram.
The FAD based assessment is valid for planar flaws. For non-planar flaws different
methodology is suggested.
Level 1 Analysis:
In the case of components where post weld heat treatment (PWHT) has not
been done, secondary stress of the magnitude of the yield stress of the
material at room temperature must be considered.
For components, which have been subjected to PWHT, the residual stresses
should be taken equal to
Annex Q of BS 7910 gives residual stress profiles for common welds. One
such profile is presented in figure 3.
2. Evaluate fracture toughness data: For Level 1 and 2 fracture toughness “Kmat”
is required. It can be conservatively estimated from Charpy energy. For Level
3, ductile tearing curve is necessary.
3. Obtain material tensile properties: For Level 1 and 2, yield stress is only
required. In Level 2 and 3, a detailed analysis using stress strain curve can be
performed.
4. Characterize flaw: the flaw obtained from the inspection data needs to be
characterize into a semi-elliptical (surface flaw), elliptical (embedded flaw) or
rectangular (through thickness flaw). The flaw should be considered in planes
normal to principal stresses. The worst combination needs to be considered
for analysis.
6. Calculate the nearness to brittle fracture: This measure in all levels is given as
Kr. It is defined as the ratio of the applied stress intensity factor KI to the
fracture toughness Kmat of the material.
K
Kr = I
K mat
The secondary stresses are also considered while calculating this ratio.
7. Construct the FAD: The points Lr and Kr (assessed points) are plotted on a
failure assessment diagram (FAD). The FAD is safe and unsafe regions
defined. Here mode of failure is crack initiation. The basic difference between
the Levels of analysis lies in the definition of FAD.
Level 1 FAD
The assessed flaw is acceptable if Kr < 0.707 and Sr < 0.8. This FAD (Figure
4) contains an in-built safety factor (approximately 2 on flaw size)
Level 2 FAD
There are 2 FAD definitions given in Level 2. Level 2A is given for the cases
in which full stress strain curve is not known. Level 2B is given for cases
where full stress strain curve is known (Figure 5).
Level 2A FAD:
( )
K r = (1 − 0.14 L2r ) 0.3 + 0.7 exp −0.65 L6r for Lr ≤ Lr (max)
=0 for Lr > Lr (max)
−1 2
Eε ref L3rσ ys
Kr = + for 0.0 < Lr ≤ Lr (max)
Lσ
Level 2B FAD: r ys 2 Eε ref
=0 for Lr > Lr (max)
Lr (max) =
(σ ys + σ uts )
2σ ys
Level 1 FAD
0.8 UNSAFE
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4 SAFE
Kr
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Sr
The Level 3 definition for FAD is similar to Level 2 FAD, but it permits
increased margins by using unstable crack growth as failure mode.
BS 7910 has listed partial safety factors in Annex K, for the following input
parameters.
o Applied stress
o Flaw size
o Toughness
o Yield stress
Thus these variables are modified based on the selected cov and target p(F)
before the are used for calculating Kr and Lr in the analysis.
8. Assess the significance of results: If the assessed point is in the safe region
the flaw is acceptable. The code recommends a sensitivity analysis on the
results with respect to the flaw sizes, loads and material properties before the
decision is made.
4. References
1. BS. “Guide on methods for assessing the acceptability of flaws in fusion welded
structures”. BS 7910 : 1999, British Standards Institute, London, UK, 1999.
5. ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, 1998 Edition. Section XI – Rules for In-
service Inspection of Nuclear Power Plant Components