Durability of High Level Waste

and Spent Fuel Disposal

Containers – an overview of
the combined effect of
chemical and mechanical
degradation mechanisms
Appendix D3: Failure Assessment Diagram Approach

D Sanderson, P Gardner

AMEC Report Reference 17697/TR/03

Partner Reference MMU298-P01-R-02-AppD.3, QRS-1589A-R1_AppD3
Client Name RWM
Issue Number Issue 2
Report Date December 2016

RWM 17697/TR/03 Page | 1

Appendix D3: FAD Approach
DOCUMENT ISSUE RECORD
Durability of High Level Waste and Spent Fuel Disposal Containers:
Document title
Appendix D3: Failure Assessment Diagram Approach
Project Reference 17697

Purpose of Issue External Publication

Security Class Official

Issue Description Author Checker Approver Date

Submitted for D Sanderson, G

Issue 1 S Watson 13/02/2013
Customer Review P Gardner Carpenter
Issue Updated following D Sanderson,
S Watson A Guida 05/09/2013
1.1 client review. P Gardner
Updated to reflect
Issue October
change to Durability S Watson
1.2 2015
report
Address final
December
Issue 2 comments from C S Watson F King
2016
Padovani

Previous issues of this document shall be destroyed or marked SUPERSEDED

©Amec Foster Wheeler Nuclear UK Limited 2016
This report was prepared exclusively for RWM by Amec Foster Wheeler Nuclear UK Limited. The quality of
information, conclusions and estimates contained herein is consistent with the level of effort involved in Amec
Foster Wheeler’s services and based on: i) information available at the time of preparation, ii) data supplied by
outside sources and iii) the assumptions, conditions and qualifications set forth in this report. This report is
intended to be used by RWM only, subject to the terms and conditions of its contract with Amec Foster Wheeler.
Any other use of, or reliance on, this report by any third party is at that party’s sole risk.

RWM 17697/TR/03 Page | 2

Appendix D3: FAD Approach
CONTENTS
D3.1 Overview ...................................................................................................................... 6
D3.2 FAD Description ........................................................................................................... 7
D3.3 Discussion .................................................................................................................. 14
D3.4 References ................................................................................................................. 16

RWM 17697/TR/03 Page | 3

Appendix D3: FAD Approach
FIGURES
Figure D3.1: Illustration of a ‘defective’ component, including a crack of length a and applied
stress of intensity σ. .............................................................................................................. 8
Figure D3.2: Failure mode I – plastic collapse. Stress in uncracked ligament is called the
reference stress, σref defined in this geometry by σref = σW/(W-a). ........................................ 8
Figure D3.3: Failure mode II – crack tip stress fields associated with crack tip propagation
(fracture) ............................................................................................................................... 9
Figure D3.4: Illustrating the competing failure modes of global yielding and crack
propagation in a defective component................................................................................. 10
Figure D3.5: Failure assessment diagram constructed using linear elastic fracture mechanics
– This FAD (as per BS PD 6493) is now superseded. ......................................................... 11
Figure D3.6: Failure assessment diagram – elastic / plastic fracture mechanics ................. 11
Figure D37: Failure loci – increasing load – both KI and Lr in this curve increase linearly with
applied load ........................................................................................................................ 12
Figure D3.8: Failure loci – increasing crack size. Note that the illustrated trajectory is a
typical example; the shape of the curve is a function of the defect, load type and defect size
relative to the component size............................................................................................. 13
Figure D3.9: Failure loci – change in fracture toughness – A change in fracture toughness
does not affect the value of Lr. ............................................................................................ 13
Figure D3.10 Summary of the failure assessment diagram method .................................... 15

RWM 17697/TR/03 Page | 4

Appendix D3: FAD Approach
GLOSSARY OF TERMS
Acronym Definition
FAD Failure Assessment Diagram
GDF Geological Disposal Facility
LEFM Linear Elastic Fracture Mechanics
SIF Stress Intensity Factor

RWM 17697/TR/03 Page | 5

Appendix D3: FAD Approach
D3.1 Overview
Failure assessment diagrams (FADs) provide a methodology, or framework, for
demonstrating the proximity to failure of components containing crack-like defects. This
Appendix is intended to provide an overview of the FAD approach to assessing the integrity
of defective components. It has been written for an audience with no prior knowledge of
fracture mechanics and, as such, aims to be less technical than other introductions to the
subject.
Most engineering components are designed to carry loads, which result in stresses in the
component. A design process is followed, usually applying codified approaches, such that
the components carry stresses that are well within those which would be expected to result
in failure of the materials of manufacture. The design criterion normally chosen is that the
total stress (residual and applied) is below the yield stress – the stress at which the material
starts to exhibit permanent deformation under load.
Sometimes components may fail as a result of being overloaded beyond the normal design
loads. Other times, the material properties may change, for example, if the temperature of
the material exceeds the expected operating range, e.g. fire exposure. In either case, the
actual component will fail due to yielding of the material. These scenarios are generally
accommodated through the use of safety factors on load or stress during the design phase.
Introducing a defect into a component complicates the assessment, requiring consideration
of fracture as a potential failure mode. The presence of a sharp crack-like defect in a
component results in a highly concentrated stress field close to the crack tip.
In very brittle materials (such as ceramics or glassy materials) the high stresses quickly
result in crack propagation along cleavage planes determined by the crystal microstructure
of the material. Such a fracture event happens very rapidly and is referred to as brittle, or
cleavage, fracture.
Less brittle – or ductile – materials exhibit a different type of fracture behaviour. The main
difference between brittle and ductile materials is that the microstructure of the ductile
material enables the material to flow under conditions of high stress. For polymers this may
be as a result of a flow process such as reptation, where long polymer chains ‘unwrap’ as
they are stressed. In metallic components, the existence of dislocations in the
microstructure allows for deformation – or flow – of the material.
The fracture properties of a material are also closely related to its yield stress. Thus,
assessing the performance of defective component may be characterised as assessing
competing, but inter-dependent, failure modes. During the second half of the 20th century,
great strides were made in studying this problem, particularly for metallic structures,
following well-known failures such as the Liberty ships (Mechanical Minutes, 2011) and the
Comet aircraft (BBC, 2008). This field of engineering is known as ‘fracture mechanics’.
The FAD approach was developed in order to bring together much of the research in fracture
mechanics into an approach simple enough to be used by engineers without the need for an
in-depth knowledge of the underlying research. The aim of these codes was to enable the
user to assess the integrity of a defective component using linear elastic fracture mechanics
(LEFM) and calculation of a reference stress. The approach is applicable to a wide range of
materials but is most commonly applied to metals.
A common software implementation of these design codes is the R6 code (EDF, 2011),
which was originally developed by the Central Electricity Generating Board. A range of other
codes have been developed that use FAD as the assessment method for failure (BSI, 2005;

RWM 17697/TR/03 Page | 6

Appendix D3: FAD Approach
Andersson et al., 1998; API, 2007). Most of these are closely related to R6 as development
in this field has been very collaborative over the decades.
R6 is currently used to underpin the integrity of components in the safety case of pressurised
primary and secondary circuits for the UK’s current civil nuclear power generating assets.
Similarly, the code is used to assure integrity of the UK’s nuclear powered submarines.
However, it would be a mistake to suppose that having being developed by the nuclear
industry that FADs are solely used by that industry. FAD methods are applicable to any
industry where the possibility of defects exists, particularly in metallic and welded
components. In this author’s own experience, the FAD approach has been applied to
demonstrate the integrity of components in the following:
• Offshore jacket structures;
• Coal Fired Power Plant;
• Turbine Blades;
• Aircraft Landing Gear;
• Rail Bogeys;
• Electricity Distribution (cable couplings);
• Process Pipework & Pressure Vessels (large range of industries);
• Long distance gas pipelines;
• Manufacturing (i.e. mechanical machinery);
• Dock gates;
• Dry dock pedestals (for supporting submarines in dry dock);
• Crane pedestals;
• Cofferdams;
• Marine structures (ships and semi-submersible platforms).

D3.2 FAD Description

Figure D3.1 shows a defective component which is subjected to a global stress, σ.
Figure D3.2 illustrates the failure mode of plastic collapse in a structure of thickness W
containing a defect of length a. The structure experiences a global stress, σ, which must be
transmitted by a reduced section (the section reduced by the presence of the defect).
Applying a load and reducing the area available to transmit the stress, due to the
introduction of a crack, results in an enhanced stress, which is characterised by a single
parameter denoted as the reference stress. In the illustrated case, reducing the cross
section results in a reference stress related to the global stress by a factor inversely
proportional to the fractional reduction in cross section area. Thus, the reference stress for
this example, σref is defined by σref = σW/(W-a).

RWM 17697/TR/03 Page | 7

Appendix D3: FAD Approach
 Figure D3.1: Illustration of a ‘defective’ component, including a crack of length a and applied
stress of intensity σ.

Figure D3.2: Failure mode I – plastic collapse. Stress in uncracked ligament is called the
reference stress, σref defined in this geometry by σref = σW/(W-a).
The stress field associated with the competing failure mode, namely crack tip propagation, is
illustrated in Figure D3.3. The study of the propensity for this failure mode is essentially the
field of fracture mechanics. For ductile materials, such as metals, much research has been
conducted into this problem. The stress field due to the defect was described by
Westergaard (1939) and a simple fracture criterion, based on the energy released by
growing a defect into the component, was developed by Griffiths (1920). This was the

RWM 17697/TR/03 Page | 8

Appendix D3: FAD Approach
foundation of the field of LEFM. LEFM ignores the effects of plasticity, or material flow, and
works on an energy release criterion which can also be presented in terms of ‘stress
intensity factor’ (SIF) which is generally denoted as KI. The SIF is defined as:
KI =Yσ(πa)0.5 (D3.1)
Where Y is a factor associated with the geometry of the component (dimensions, type of
stress distribution, defect size and orientation)1, σ is the global, remote stress and a is the
defect size.

Figure D3.3: Failure mode II – crack tip stress fields associated with crack tip propagation
(fracture)
The idea of plastic deformation and brittle fracture as competing failure modes is presented
in Figure D3.4. The stress intensity factor, reference stress and material properties, such as
the material toughness, Kmat, and the yield stress, σy, affect the integrity of structures
containing a defect.
In a brittle material, the high stresses due to the defect cannot dissipate by material flow
(plasticity). Thus, critical cleavage stresses can be reached resulting in cleavage failure,
characterised by a very rapid failure.
For ductile materials, the actual stresses ahead of the crack tip are limited because the
material will flow when it reaches these stresses. Instead of an extremely high stress field, a
plastic zone develops around the crack tip which limits the maximum stresses. The nature
of the plastic zone, and its effect on propensity to fracture, are highly dependent on the post-
yield material properties.

1
Y is dependent on geometry and load type and can be obtained for simple geometries from
handbook solutions. It is also available by conducting detailed analysis. Y typically takes on a value
between 0.5 and 2.

RWM 17697/TR/03 Page | 9

Appendix D3: FAD Approach
 Figure D3.4: Illustrating the competing failure modes of global yielding and crack
propagation in a defective component
This is a complex field of engineering and the failure assessment diagram approach
incorporates much underpinning research into a methodology that is simple to use
(employing LEFM and a reference stress) whilst taking into account the interaction of yield
properties with crack tip stress and strain fields. This interaction is implicitly represented in
the shape of the boundary curve of the FAD, which has been developed for certain
commonly used engineering materials (such as carbon steel) drawing on a considerable
body of research and validation.
As presented in Figure D3.5, for the simplest case of purely elastic conditions, the concept of
an FAD assessment is simple. The curve in the diagram represents the boundary between
safe and unsafe conditions. An assessment point is determined by calculating two
parameters, Kr and Lr.
• Kr is the proximity of the component / structure to brittle failure and is calculated
using LEFM (i.e. only elastic methods).
• Lr represents the proximity of the component to a stress criterion where the reference
stress exceeds a certain value pertinent to that material – often the material’s flow
stress (average of yield stress and ultimate tensile strength)2.

2
If flow stress is used as a criterion for failure, it must be noted that this does allow for a degree of
global plasticity, albeit at low levels of plastic strain.

RWM 17697/TR/03 Page | 10

Appendix D3: FAD Approach
 Figure D3.5: Failure assessment diagram constructed using linear elastic fracture
mechanics – This FAD (as per BS PD 6493, BSI, 1991) is now superseded.
A schematic of a typical FAD for a metallic material (exhibiting plastic deformation) is shown
in Figure D3.6. The curve in the FAD was developed to incorporate the effects of plasticity
on the propensity to fracture. In essence, the FAD provides an easy alternative to estimating
the elastic-plastic crack tip growth energy release rate (J) by taking advantage of the
research done in this area. Calculating a value for J for a given scenario is often a very
complex task. The FAD incorporates much prior knowledge of analysis and testing for a
given material and provides a means of taking into account non-linear effects whilst using
linear methods.

Figure D3.6: Failure assessment diagram – elastic / plastic fracture mechanics

In the FAD approach, failure of the component is considered possible if the assessment
point lies outside the envelope defined for brittle failure and plastic collapse. Conversely,

RWM 17697/TR/03 Page | 11

Appendix D3: FAD Approach
failure is considered highly unlikely if the assessment point lies within the FAD boundary
curve. If the assessment point for the component (Lr, Kr) lies inside the FAD boundary
curve, the component is considered safe (i.e. it won’t fail) whereas if the assessment point
lies outside the FAD boundary curve it is deemed unsafe (i.e. it may fail). Thus the time at
which the assessment point crosses the FAD curve should be interpreted as the minimum
time to failure, not the time at which the component actually fails. Conversely, as long as the
assessment point does not cross the FAD curve, there can be high confidence in the
integrity of the component. Once the assessment point has crossed the FAD curve, there is
increasing uncertainty about whether or not the container will have failed.
In waste disposal, the definition of container failure may be different at the different stages in
the container service life. The use of the FAD approach can be used to help guide thinking
and to rationalise the definition of failure criteria.
Figure D3.7 to Figure D3.9 illustrate qualitatively how the assessment point and, therefore,
the potential for fracture can change by varying parameters such as the load, the crack size
or material properties (which themselves may depend on other external factors such as
temperature or hydrogen absorption). The FAD can be used to describe the integrity (i.e.
the proximity to failure) of a structural component (in this case a disposal container) over its
lifetime due to a change in such conditions.

Figure D3.7: Failure loci – increasing load – both KI and Lr in this curve increase linearly
with applied load

RWM 17697/TR/03 Page | 12

Appendix D3: FAD Approach
 Figure D3.8: Failure loci – increasing crack size. Note that the illustrated trajectory is a
typical example; the shape of the curve is a function of the defect, load type and defect size
relative to the component size.

Figure D3.9: Failure loci – change in fracture toughness – A change in fracture toughness
does not affect the value of Lr.

RWM 17697/TR/03 Page | 13

Appendix D3: FAD Approach
D3.3 Discussion
It is recognised that even this short explanation of FAD is relatively complex. The following
points seek to summarise the advantages of an FAD approach.
• In a competing failure mode, the FAD removes the need to understand, in detail, how
one failure mode affects the other, being implicit in the shape of the FAD curve for a
given material.
• The assessment point is calculated using simple methods (LEFM for KI and
handbook solutions for reference stress).
• For commonly used materials, such as stainless steels and many grades of carbon
steel, the approach takes advantage of the large body of research and data
available.
• The approach provides high confidence in integrity of components, particularly in
conditions where simultaneous brittle and plastic failure is approached.
Some important limitations should also be noted.
• For materials not commonly used as structural materials (e.g. copper), a material-
specific FAD must be developed.
• LEFM and reference stress solutions exist only for a range of idealised geometries
and defect sizes or orientations. Beyond these scenarios, finite element analysis is
required. However, the standard geometries and scenarios are generally sufficient
for standard shaped objects such as disposal containers.
The main advantage of the FAD approach is that it uses a simplified method to conduct what
is essentially a complex, non-linear analysis. The way in which these ‘simple’ methods are
combined into a failure assessment is illustrated in Figure D3.10.
The approach requires the calculation of two parameters; Kr and Lr. Figure D3.10 illustrates
the inputs required to determine these parameters for simple geometries.

• Calculating Kr requires the stress intensity factor KI to be determined. KI is a function

of the stress acting on a crack and the geometry of the cracked body. Handbook
solutions exist for these factors for simple geometries for some common materials.
The other requirement to calculate Kr is Kmat, the fracture toughness of the material.
• Determining Lr requires the calculation of a reference stress which may be thought of
as an indicative level of stress in the uncracked part of the component (ligament).
The reference stress may be calculated in different ways, but an advantage of the
FAD method is that, for simple geometries and load conditions, handbook solutions
exist for reference stress. Lr is simply the ratio of the reference stress to the flow
stress, which is determined by testing.

Figure D3.10 shows the simplicity of the FAD approach where handbook solutions exist.
This is a great advantage because conducting an elasto-plastic fracture mechanics
assessment is a highly non-linear, complex problem. The complexities are handled
implicitly by the FAD, which is developed for a specific material. The FAD shows how
increasing levels of plasticity affect the crack driving force. So long as an FAD is
available, the user does not need to understand this aspect. FADs are available for the
materials commonly used in systems such as the cooling systems for reactors.

RWM 17697/TR/03 Page | 14

Appendix D3: FAD Approach
Figure D3.10 Summary of the failure assessment diagram method

Sanderson et al (2015) describes the application of the FAD approach to a carbon steel SF
container design developed in the UK (Arup, 2014) in a specific disposal scenario. As
carbon steel is a common structural material, a significant amount of characterisation data
exists. Hence, the validated failure assessment diagram in BS 7910 is applicable to most
grades of carbon steel, particularly below the yield stresses (Lr = 1). The same curve,
however, cannot necessarily be translated to all grades of carbon steel above the yield
stresses, particularly for cases where yield discontinuity is expected. In the absence of
stress strain data for the material grade considered in the Arup (2014) design, Sanderson et
al (2015) applied the FAD presented in BS7910 (BSI, 2005) with a cut-off of Lr = 1.0. Had
that work been other than an illustration of the potential for using the FAD approach to
assess the integrity, and had there been a desire to take credit for the integrity at stresses
greater than the yield stress (cut-off Lr greater than 1), it would have been necessary to use
stress strain curves derived for the specific grade of carbon steel considered in the design of
disposal containers, rather than the more general carbon steel curve used in that study.
Failure assessment diagrams can be, and have been, used for other materials. Where a
FAD has not previously been developed for a given material, a procedure exists, within both
BS7910 (BSI, 2005) and R6 (EDF, 2011), for developing a material-specific failure
assessment diagram. Indeed, given the nature of waste containers, it is likely that the
specific alloy selected may not be in widespread use. It would therefore be necessary to
carry out some testing to either develop the material-specific FAD or to confirm the validity of
an existing one for final detailed application in the context of a geological disposal facility
(GDF).

RWM 17697/TR/03 Page | 15

Appendix D3: FAD Approach
A material-specific FAD is developed from stress-strain data obtained on elongation tests for
that material at temperatures of interest. Obtaining such test data is not particularly onerous.
It involves small scale tests on a sufficient number of test coupons from the correct grade of
material, with appropriate quality controls. Test specimens need not be full scale. Full
engineering stress strain curves are then obtained, and there are many small scale testing
laboratories capable of producing such data according to standards such as ASTM E83.
For example, to carry out an FAD assessment on a copper alloy, a failure assessment
diagram would need to be generated from stress-strain tests conducted according to a
suitable test standard on that alloy across a range of appropriate temperatures. Once the
failure assessment diagram has been developed from the experimentally generated stress-
strain data, however, the assessment methodology would be the same as presented by
Sanderson et al (2015) for C-steel.
A further, more detailed, method is available for developing an FAD, using finite element
analysis to calculate the elastic and elasto-plastic strain energy release rate (J). In this case
the FAD is both material and geometry specific. To achieve this, a cracked-body finite
element analysis is conducted on the component to be assessed using actual material
properties. J integrals are then extracted for a range of loads, up to and beyond where
failure would be expected. The FAD is then defined by taking the square root of the ratio of
the elastic and elasto-plastic J integrals across the range of loads4. Such an approach is
highly sophisticated, requiring material stress strain tests and complex finite element
analysis to be performed. It is also only applicable for a given material, geometry and
defect, and is not often used. Such an approach is unlikely to offer significant benefits in the
context of assessing the performance of disposal containers in a GDF.

D3.4 References
Andersson P, Bergman M, Bricks B, Dahlberg L, Nilsson F, Sattari-Far I, 1998, A procedure
for safety assessment of components with cracks-handbook, SAQ/FoU Report 96/08,
Stockholm: SAQ Kontrol Lab.
American Petroleum Industry (API) 2007, API Standard 579-1/ASME FFS-1 Fitness-For-
Service, June 2007
Arup 2014. Disposal container for HLW and spent fuel. Conceptual design report. Ove Arp
& Partners Ltd. Report for UK NDA, 218762-01-03, Issue 4.
BBC 2008, On This Day – 1950 – 2000; 1954: ‘Metal Fatigue’ Caused Comet Crashes;
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/october/19/newsid_3112000/3112466.stm,
accessed October 2015.
BSI 1991, BS PD 6493:1991; Guidance on Methods for Assessing the Acceptability of Flaws
in Fusion Welded Structures
BSI (British Standards Institute) 2005. BS 7910:2005 - Guide to methods for assessing the
acceptability of flaws in metallic structures. ISBN: 9780580601088.
EDF Energy Nuclear Generation Ltd, 2011, Assessment of the Integrity of Structures
Containing Defects, R6 – Revision 4.
Griffith, A. A. 1920, "The phenomena of rupture and flow in solids", Philosophical
Transactions of the Royal Society of London, A 221, pp. 163–198.

3
ASTM E8 / E8M - 11 Standard Test Methods for Tension Testing of Metallic Materials
4
An FAD is essentially a J estimation scheme. This approach explicitly calculates J for a range of
loads from which the J integral is derived.

RWM 17697/TR/03 Page | 16

Appendix D3: FAD Approach
Metallurgical Minutes; Spring 2011; Brittle Fracture: Elasticity, Toughness and Liberty Ships;
http://metassoc.com/site/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/MAI-Minutes-Spring-2011.pdf,
accessed October 2015.
Sanderson D, Gardner P and King F, Watson S. 2015. The use of failure assessment
diagrams to evaluate the durability of HLW and spent fuel waste containers. AMEC report to
NDA RWMD 17697/TR/05 (MMI report MMU298-P01-R-02, Quintessa report QRS-1589A-
R1.2), Issue 2.1.
Westergaard, H.M. 1939, Bearing Pressures and Cracks, Journal of Applied Mechanics, Vol.
6 pp. 49-53.

RWM 17697/TR/03 Page | 17

Appendix D3: FAD Approach