Professional Documents
Culture Documents
An Introduction To BS 7910 2006
An Introduction To BS 7910 2006
ROHIT RASTOGI
rrastogi@barc.gov.in
Lecture number 19 b, 1 of 15
INDEX
1. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................ 3
2. BS 7910 .................................................................................................................................. 7
3. ASSESSMENT FOR FRACTURE RESISTANCE ................................................................................. 9
4. REFERENCES.......................................................................................................................... 14
Lecture number 19 b, 2 of 15
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.
Lecture number 19 b, 3 of 15
Cosham and Kirkwood [6] have arranged the dilemma faced by an operator on
detecting a flaw in his piping component.
Is it a defect?
o Do I know how the defect was formed, and how it may develop in the
future?
o Is the defect indicative of poor practice during construction or
operation, and as such can be controlled by other methods?
Lecture number 19 b, 4 of 15
PHASE 2 - Assessment
PHASE 4 - Consequence
Lecture number 19 b, 5 of 15
A fitness-for-purpose analysis of defects does not entail a risk analysis, although due
account of the consequences of failure will be taken in a qualitative manner, and the
recommended safety factor will reflect this.
Lecture number 19 b, 6 of 15
2. BS 7910
The fracture mechanics based fitness-for-purpose (FFP) approach, also referred to
as Engineering Critical Analysis (ECA), enables the significance of flaws 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 [7] 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 flaws in
metallic structures [1].
BS 7910 comprises 10 sections and 15 annexes. Sections 1 to 6 describe the
information required for assessment in terms of defect characteristics and
dimensions, stresses and material properties. Section 7 to 10 gives the procedures
for assessment of fracture, fatigue, flaws under creep conditions and other modes of
failure. The annexes contain normative procedures for dealing with certain situations
(e.g. combined direct and shear stresses, determination of fracture toughness from
variable materials data) and informative data (e.g. residual stress distributions for aswelded joints, weld strength mismatch, and proof testing and warm pre-stressing).
This information is maintained at a state of the art level and is one of the most useful
features of BS 7910
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.
o Level 1 is a screening procedure and the most conservative.
o Level 2 is material specific and estimates the interaction between
fracture and plasticity.
o Level 3 involves a direct calculation of plasticity effects.
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
The modes of failure considered are
Lecture number 19 b, 7 of 15
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Non-destructive testing
The information desired from NDE is
o
o
o
o
o
Flaw length
Flaw height
Flaw position
Flaw orientation
Planar or non-planar cross-section
Lecture number 19 b, 8 of 15
The FAD based assessment is valid for planar flaws. For non-planar flaws different
methodology is suggested.
Lecture number 19 b, 9 of 15
The basic methodology for assessment in each of the levels can be given as:
1. Define stresses: the stresses need to be distinguished between primary and
secondary stresses. Guidance has been provided for treatment of the residual
stresses due to welding.
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
30% room temperature yield strength, parallel to the weld
20% room temperature yield strength, transverse to the weld
Level 2 and 3 analysis:
Annex Q of BS 7910 gives residual stress profiles for common welds. One
such profile is presented in figure 3.
Lecture number 19 b, 10 of 15
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.
Lecture number 19 b, 11 of 15
S r = ref
flow
ref is the stress at the cracked section that will lead to plastic collapse of the
component. Formulations for a variety of cracked configurations are listed in
the Annexure P of the code.
In Level 2 and 3 the nearness to collapse is described by a parameter Lr. It is
defined as the ratio of the reference stress ref to the yield stress of the
material ys.
Lr = ref
ys
The secondary stresses are not considered for the calculation of Sr.
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:
Level 2B FAD:
=0
E ref
L3 ys
r
Kr =
+
L
2 E ref
r ys
=0
1 2
Lecture number 19 b, 12 of 15
In the curve for Level 2B FAD, ref is the true strain corresponding to true
stress Lr.ys. E is the Youngs modulus. The Lr(max) is defined as
Lr (max) =
ys
+ uts )
2 ys
Kr
Level 1 FAD
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
UNSAFE
SAFE
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
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.
Factor of safety in Level 2 and 3 analysis
Lecture number 19 b, 13 of 15
The data (crack size, material properties, load) used for the assessment
exhibit considerable uncertainty or scatter. One way to address this scatter is
by taking very conservative values. An alternative approach is to use
structural reliability methods to estimate probability of failure of the structures.
This approach is finding increasing usage nowadays. The reliability analysis
of cracked components is an involved exercise. Use of partial safety factors
(PSF) is an easy way to assess the safety of cracked components.
In this approach factor of safety is applied individually to each of the
parameters exhibiting scatter such that the assessment results in a targeted
probability of failure. Higher is the uncertainty in a particular variable, higher is
the PSF applied to that parameter. The PSF are generated by a reliability
assessment for a target probability of failure. The acceptable probability of
failure is a function of the severity of the consequence of failure.
BS 7910 has listed partial safety factors in Annex K, for the following input
parameters.
o
o
o
o
Applied stress
Flaw size
Toughness
Yield stress
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.
2. API. Recommended practice for fitness-for-service. API 579. Washington, DC:
American Petroleum Institute, 2000.
3. SINTAP. Structural integrity assessment procedure for European industry. Final
Procedure, 1999. Brite-Euram Project No. BE95- 1426, British Steel.
Lecture number 19 b, 14 of 15
4. Milne I, Ainsworth RA, Dowling AR, Stewart AT. Assessment of the integrity of
structures containing defects. CEGB Report R/H/R6-Revision 3. Latest ed. 1986;
latest ed. British Energy, 1999.
5. ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, 1998 Edition. Section XI Rules for Inservice Inspection of Nuclear Power Plant Components
6. Andrew Cosham and Mike Kirkwood, Best practice in pipeline defect
assessment, Proceedings of IPC 2000: International Pipeline Conference October
2000; Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Also, www.penspenintegrity.com
7. BS. Guidance on methods for assessing the acceptability of flaws in fusion
welded structures. PD6493: 1991: British Standards Institution, London, 1991.
Lecture number 19 b, 15 of 15