BRITISH STANDARD Guide on methods for assessing the acceptability of flaws in fusion welded structures tos es2eau0 NO COPYING WITHOUT BSI PERMISSION EXCEPT AS PERMITTED BY COPYRIGHT LAW | BS 7910:1999BS 7910:1999 os ‘This British Standard, having been prepared under the direction of the Engineering ‘Sector Committe, was published ‘under the authority of the ‘Standards Committee and comes into effect on 15 December 1999 oBst 12.1909 ‘The following BSI referees relate to the work on this Siandard Commitie reference WEEST Draft for comment 977714054 DC ISBN 0580 33081 § Committees responsible for this British Standard ‘The preparation of this British Standard was entrusted to Technical Committee WEEV37, Acceptance levels for welds, upon which the following bodies were represented: Association of Consulting Engineers BG Technology British Constructional Steelwork Association Ltd. Electricity Association Energy Industries Council Engineering Equipment and Materials Users Association Health and Safety Executive {560200} Imperial College of Science and Technology Institution of Mechanical Engineers Lloyd's Register of Shipping Power Generation Contractors Association — PGCA (BEAMA) Safety Assessment Federation Ltd. UK Steel Association Welding Manufacturers Association (BEAMA Ltd.) The Welding Institute Amendments issued since publication Amd No. [Date ‘CommentsContents i i if Comunittees responsible Foreword Introduction Scope Normative references, Symbols and definitions ‘Types of flaw Modes of failure and material damage mechanisms Information required for assessment Assessment for fracture resistance Assessment for fatigue Assessment of flaws in plant operating at high temperatures 10__Assessment for other modes of failure ‘Annex A (normative) Evaluation under combined direct and shear stresses or mode I, Hand II loads Annex B (informative) Assessment procedures for tubular joints in offshore structures “Annex C Gafomative) Fracture assessment procedures for pressure vessels and pipelines Annex D (normative) Stress due to misalignment; Annex E (normative) Flaw re-characterization Annex F (informative) A procedure for leal-before-break assessment, Annex G (normative) The assessment of corrosion in pipes and pressure vessels 125 eerananwwe S882 @ B ISRBSERB www el’ Annex H (normative) Reporting of fracture, fatigue or creep assessments 195 Annex I (informative) The significance of weld strength mismatch on the fracture behaviour of welded joints 136 Annex J (informative) Use of the results of Charpy V-notch impact tests to indicate fracture toughness levels 138 Annex K (normative) Reliability, partial safety factors, number of tests and reserve factors 144 Annex L (normative) Fracture toughness determination for welds 164 Annex M (normative) Stress intensity factor solutions 187 Annex N (normative) Simplified procedures for determining the acceptability of ‘a known flaw or estimating the acceptable flaw size using Level 1 fracture procedures 206 Annex O (informative) Consideration of proof testing and warm prestressing 209 Annex P (normative) Calculation of reference stress 212 Annex Q (informative) Residual stress distributions in as-welded joints 219 Annex R (normative) Determination of plasticity interaction effects with combined primary and secondary loading 225 Annex S (normative) Approximate numerical integration methods for fatigue life estimation 230 Annex T (informative) Information for making high temperature crack growth assessments, 231 Annex U (informative) Worked example to demonstrate high temperature failure assessment procedure 242, Bibliography 250 © BS! 12.1999BS 7910:1999 : Page Figure 1 — Linearization of stress distributions 18 Figure 2 — Schematic representation of stress distribution across section 19 Figure 3 — Procedure for resolving flaws normal to principal stress 20 Figure 4 — Flow chart — General methods 2 Figure 5 — Flow chart — Level 1 23 Figure 6 — Flow chart — Level 2 24 Figure 7 — Flow chart — Level 3 5 Figure 8 — Flaw dimensions 26 ‘Figure 9 — Planar flaw interactions 27 Figure 10 —Level 1 FAD 32 Figure 11 — Level 2 FADS 35 Figure 12 — Level 3C FAD with assessment locus for a known flaw 40 Figure 13 — Example of non-unique solutions (schematic) 40 Figure 14 — Schematic crack growth relationships 46 Figure 15 — Recommended fatigue crack growth laws 47 Figure 16 — Quality category S-N curves for use in simplified fatigue assessments BL Figure 17 — Assessment of surface flaws in axially-loaded material for simplified procedure 65 Figure 18 — Assessment of surface flaws in flat material (no weld toe or other stress raiser) in bending for simplified procedure 67 Figure 19 — Assessment of embedded flaws in axiallyoaded joints for simplified procedure 59 Figure 20 — Assessment of weld toe flaws in axially-loaded joints for simplified procedure 6 Figure 21 — Assessment of weld toe flaws in joints loaded in bending for ‘simplified procedure 67 Figure 22 — Determination of the temperature J. at which 6.2% creep strain is, accumulated at a stress level equal to the proof strength ™ Figure 23 — Determination of the time ((7) to achieve an accumulated creep strain of 0.2% at a stress level equal to the proof strength ® Figure 24 — Schematic behaviour of crack subjected to steady loading at elevated temperature 76 Figure 25 — Schematic representation of crack propagation and failure conditions 16 Figure 26a) — Flow chart for overall creep assessment B Figure 26b) — Detailed flaw assessment procedure 9 Figure 27 — Schematic diagrams of typical relationships between crack velocity and stress intensity factor during stress corrosion cracking au Figure 28 — Types of corrosion fatigue crack growth behaviour & Figure B.1 — Assessment; methodology for fatigue crack growth in tubular Joints ” Figure C.1 — Alogorithm for pressure vessel flaw assessment % Figure B.1 — Re-characterization of flaws for ligament failure by ductile 7 mechanisms under dynamic loading 103 Figure F1 — The leak-before-break diagram 105 Figure F2a) — Flow chart assuming a though-wall flaw 107 Figure F2b) — Flow chart for fall leak-before-break procedure 109 Figure F3 — Detailed lealcbefore-break diagram. sth ii © BSI 12-1000BS 7910:1999 © Bs! 121999 Figure Fd — Example characterization of a complex flaw Figure F5 — Schematic crack profiles at breakthrough Figure 6 — Recommended re-characterization of flaws at breakthrough for predominantly tensile loading Figure F7 — Recommended re-characterization of flaws at breakthrough for predominantly through-wall bend Figure F8 — Unstable crack growth before creep rupture Figure F9 — Rupture before unstable crack growth Figure G.1 — Flow chart of assessment procedure Figure G.2 — Single flaw dimensions Figure G.3 — Interacting flaw dimensions Figure G4 — Corrosion depth adjustment for flaws with background corrosion. Figure 6.5 — Projection of circumferentially interacting flaws Figure G6 — Projection of overlapping sites onto a single projection line Figure G.7 — Combining interacting flaws Figure G.8 — Example of the grouping of adjacent flaws for interaction to find the grouping which gives the lowest estimated failure pressure Figure G.9 — Locally thinned area geometry on spherical shell Figure J.1 — Flow chart for selection of appropriate correlation Figure J2 — Kina, plotted against Charpy V impact energy for lower shetf and ‘transitional behaviour Figure J3 — Kina: plotted against Charpy V impact energy for upper shelf behaviour Figure J.4 — Kings plotted as a function of the difference between the operating temperature and the temperature for a Charpy V impact energy of 27 J Figure J.5 — Curve showing the decrease in the 27.J transition temperature which would be measured in a full thickness Charpy specimen compared to that measured with a sub-size specimen ‘ Figure K.1 — Evaluation of F+ for a single primary stress Figure K2 — Evaluation of Fin the presence of 0° loads Figure 3 — Typical load factor variation graphs Figure K4 — Load factor variation with flaw size Level 3 analysis Figure K.5 — Preferred sensitivity curves Figure M.1 — Through-thickness flaw geometry Figure M2 — Surface flaw Figure M8 — Elliptical integral as a function of a/2c used for the calculation of Kj for surface and embedded flaws Figure M4 — Stress intensity magnification factor My for surface flaws in tension Figure M5 — Stress intensity magnification factor My for surface flaws in bending Figure M6 — Long surface flaw geometry Figure M.7 — Embedded flaw Figure M8 — Stress intensity magnification factor Mm, for embedded flaws in tension (at point nearest material surface) Figure M9 — Stress intensity magnification factor My for embedded flaws in bending Figure M.10 — Edge flaw geometry Figure M.11 — Comer flaw geometry Page 12 13 15 6 123 17 17 129 129 130 130 131 131 133, 139 40 14 we 143 148 49 150 151 153 158 159 161 162 105 167 168, 169 7 172. 173 iti