i An update to this article is included at the end

International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 82 (2005) 872–881

www.elsevier.com/locate/ijpvp

Analysis of the brittle fracture avoidance model for pressure

vessels in European standard
Rolf Sandsträma,*, Peter Langenbergb, Henrik Sieurina
a
Department of Materials Science and Engineering, Royal Institute of Technology (KTH), Brinellvagen 23, S-100 44 Stockholm, Sweden
b
IWT, Malmedyer Str. 30, D-52066 Aachen, Germany
Received 1 July 2004; revised 2 June 2005; accepted 2 June 2005

Abstract
A procedure for design against brittle failure based on a fracture mechanics model is available in the recent European pressure vessel
standard EN 13 445. In the present paper, this model is analysed in the light of more recent findings in fracture mechanics. In particular,
results from the SINTAP project and the Eurocode 3 procedure for selection of steel to avoid brittle fracture are considered.
Alternative models for the scatter in strength, fracture toughness—impact toughness correlations as well as their temperature dependence,
thickness dependence and strain rate dependence are compared. Different approaches for the handling of residual stresses are discussed.
When the effect of elasto-plastic corrections is taken into account both for primary and secondary stresses, the net effect is small. In relation to
more recent findings, the models used as a basis for EN 13 445 seem somewhat conservative, in particular for thinner gauges.
q 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Pressure vessel; Brittle failure; Steel; Design; Standard

1. Introduction pre-calculated. In addition, in the Swedish work the

It is well documented that failure of pressure vessels can
have severe effects with respect to human safety as well as
to required efforts to restore a plant. Brittle failure in vessels
of ferritic steels operating at low temperatures has always
received special attention because of its catastrophic
consequences. During the past decades much effort has
been devoted to the development of national codes for
design against brittle failure.
In early developments, the codes were essentially
empirical in nature. However, in the 1980s, models based
on fracture mechanics appeared. Two of these [1,2] became
the basis of national codes in France (CODAP) [3] and in
Sweden (Swedish pressure vessel code) [4], respectively.
These codes made it possible to take into account the most
important factors which cover fracture in a quantitative way.
Now, the influence of thickness, service temperature,
toughness and strength of the steel on safety could be
* Corresponding author. Tel.: C46 8 7908321; fax: C46 8 203107.
E-mail address: rsand@kth.se (R. Sandsträm).
0308-0161/$ - see front matter q 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ijpvp.2005.06.004
difference in failure risk between parent metal, as-welded
material and post-weld heat treated material was taken into
account. The basic principles of [1,2] are similar although
the detailed modelling is different.
The model [2] was proposed as a part of the basis for the
European pressure vessel standard, which is now designated
EN 13 445. The development of this code took place
over about a period of 10 years within the Subgroup
‘Low Temperature’ of the Joint Working group Materials
(JWG-B) of the CEN TC 54 committee. For a review of this
development, see [5]. The design against brittle failure is
placed in Annex B of EN 13 445 in the form of nomograms,
which allow the selection of steels up to a yield strength of
460 MPa and thickness of 110 mm [6]. The close relation
between the original model and the present code will be
demonstrated below.
This paper presents work undertaken within the
European research project ECOPRESS.1 It was one aim of
this project to re-assess the existing design rules for fracture
avoidance and to combine them with recent fracture
mechanics concepts. In particular design rules for high
1
For more information see www.ecopress.org.
 R. Sandsträm et al. / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 82 (2005) 872–881
strength steels will be proposed on the basis of their true
properties and on the required safety level for pressure
vessels.
A number of important new fracture mechanics tools has
been developed towards practical application since the
model [2] was presented, such as the Master Curve concept
[7] and the Failure Assessment Diagram (FAD) [8].
Important results have also been generated in the European
project SINTAP [9]. The purpose of the present paper is to
analyse how some of these results can be integrated into the
model and how much the resulting minimum design
temperatures are affected. Comparisons will also be made
to the corresponding code for steel structures ‘Fracture
avoidance concept for steel structures’—in prEN 1993-2
(Eurocode 3) [10,11], which was developed in parallel to the
pressure vessel code and is also based on fracture
mechanics.
2. Basic assumptions and reltations to alternative
approaches
The model in [2] was proposed as a part of the basis for
EN 13 445 concerning design against brittle failure. The
assumptions in this model will be analysed in relation to
more recent findings.
2.1. The fracture mechanics model
Fracture mechanics based calculations generally use an
initial crack geometry of a certain geometrical size. This
represents an assumed crack size, which might not be seen
during non-destructive testing and is large enough to cover
possible ‘worst case’ scenarios that may occur during the
lifetime of a steel construction.
The stress intensity factor of a component of isotropic
material is calculated for linear elastic component behaviour
(Linear Elastic Fracture Mechanics, LEFW)
pffiffiffiffiffiffi
KI Z sappl paYða; 2c; tÞ (1)
where KI is the stress intensity factor, sappl the component
stress perpendicular to the crack, a crack depth of the design
crack, 2c crack length of the design crack, t the component
width and Y a geometrical correction factor, which is taken
from handbooks.
For EN 13 445, Eq. (1) is selected using a/tZ0.25, where a
is the crack depth and t is the gauge thickness. For the chosen
geometry of the assumed elliptical surface crack a/cZ0.4,
Newman–Raju gives a value of YZ1.00092, which can be
taken as 1 [12]. Newman–Raju’s solution is reproduced in
[13]. In comparison, the American ASME code [14] assumes
an a/c ratio of 0.33 which gives a Y-factor of 1.05.
Eurocode 3 contains fatigue design rules, which relate
typical constructional parts with a certain allowable stress
class. The most severe fatigue class, which occurs in
873
non-redundant components, like the main girders of bridges,
were selected for the fracture mechanics analysis. A semi-
elliptical failure geometry ahead of a significant construc-
tional part like a stiffener and perpendicular to the maximum
load with an a/c ratio of 0.4 was assumed to be the most
critical one. Such an initial defect with a thickness related
initial depth of a0Z0.5 ln(t/t0) (t0Z1 mm) with a0 in mm
was allowed to grow during 500,000 load cycles before it
becomes critical. This is a quarter of the assumed lifetime.
After this time bridges are regularly inspected and a crack
would be found (depending on the part the critical crack
depth is about aZ0.25–0.35t).
In a separate paper the selection of the initial crack size is
critically assessed [15].
2.2. Loading assumptions
2.2.1. Primary stresses
The calculation of KI to be used in material selection for the
avoidance of brittle fracture requires knowledge of the
maximum principal stress perpendicular to the assumed
crack. In the design recommendations it was necessary to
assume a stress level, which covers all loading situations that
might occur during the lifetime. In Eurocode 3, based on
typical loading for steel structures, three levels 0.25fy, 0.5fy
and 0.75fy (fyZcharacteristic value of the nominal yield
strength) were selected, representing different risk classes.
In practice only the nominal minimum yield strength ReL,
nom provided through the technical delivery condition is
known. This represents a lower bound for steel products.
Using this value for the load assumption would produce low
stress intensity factors and hence lead to unsafe predictions.
In [2], the nominal stress is therefore multiplied by a factor
fscatt of 1.4 to cover the typical range of yield strength values
in nominal production, which according to Sandström and
Ivarsson [16] lies between 1.2 and 1.6 for low strength
steels. An alternative is to have a shift sshift. The value of
sshift is often taken as 100 MPa. This value was used in the
case of the Eurocode-approach and covers both scatter and
remote stresses [11]. For high strength steels this value is
supported from studies of data from individual steel
producers. A common analysis of data from several
producers seems however to be lacking at the moment.
2.2.2. Secondary stresses, CEN-model
In EN 13 445 local residual stresses are fully taken into
account, whereas in Eurocode 3 only remote stresses are
considered as a constant of plus 100 MPa. The maximum
residual stresses are regularly—as a simple rule of
practice—assumed to have the same magnitude as the
yield strength across the full thickness.2 Consequently, for
2
In reality, the secondary stresses reach the yield strength only at certain
points. The distribution of stresses across the thickness or length is in
equilibrium, which means that also compressive stresses can be found.
Therefore, the proposed assumption is conservative.
874 R. Sandsträm et al. / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 82 (2005) 872–881
the as-welded (AW) condition, the maximum stress sappl,AW
will be the real (typical) yield strength of the material
sappl;AW Z fscatt ReL;nom C sshift
where either fscatt should be different from unity or sshift
different from zero. This holds also for the following
Eqs. (3)–(6).
In the case of post-weld heat treatment (PWHT), the
residual stresses are relieved to a certain extent. After
complete PWHT the residual stresses are typically of the
order of a quarter of the maximum, namely the typical yield-
strength [2]. Therefore, if the primary and secondary
stresses are added, the maximum stress sappl,PWHT on the
crack is obtained
sappl;PWHT Z ReL;nom =fs C ðfscatt ReL;nom C sshift Þ=4
where fs is a safety factor, which is chosen as 1.5 for
pressure vessels. The first term on the right hand side of
Eq. (3) is the maximum allowed design stress and the
second term an estimate of the maximum residual stress. For
non-welded components the last term in Eq. (3) should be
left out. The primary stress is the same in the as-welded case
and consequently the secondary stress is then
sres;AW Z ðfscatt K1=fs Þ=ReL;nom C sshift
A linear superposition of primary and secondary stresses
is assumed. Fig. 1 shows a comparison of the stress
assumption for different strength pressure vessel steels. It
becomes clear that the fscatt term punishes high strength steels
more than the sshift term in the AW-case. This effect is
becoming detrimental for yield strengths of 460 MPa and
higher. The fscatt of 1.4 is not justified from the steel
manufactures’ data and hence sshift is proposed alternatively.
2.2.3. Secondary stresses, R6 and BS 7910
In R6 [18] (and in BS PD6493:1991 [19] as well as in BS
7910:1999 [20]) procedures are given for the quantification
Fig. 1. Model applied stress versus nominal yield strength for common
unalloyed steels. Values are given for sshiftZ100 MPa or fscattZ1.4 in the
as-welded (AW) and post-weld heat treated (PWHT) condition.
of the role of residual stresses. Based on the actual
knowledge of residual stresses, several alternative
approaches are given. In the general design situation that
(2)
is considered here, the residual stresses are typically not
known. In that case if the expression in [19] is transferred to
the same form as Eq. (4) it can be written as
 
ReL;nom
sres;AW Z fscatt K ReL;nom C sshift (5)
sf fs
where sf is the flow stress, which is often taken as the
average of the yield and tensile strengths. Eq. (5) gives a
slightly more conservative value than Eq. (4).
BS 7910:1999 [20] recommends that in structures that
have been fully post-weld heat treated, the axial residual
(3) stress component is a factor 4Z30% of the yield strength of
the material in which the defect is located for stresses
parallel to the weld and 4Z20% of the lesser yield strength
of the weld and parent material for stresses transverse to the
weld
sres;PWHT Z 4ðfscatt ReL;nom C sshift Þ (6)
As can be seen, these values are quite close to those in
Eq. (3) where 4Z25%. We can conclude that these British
(4) procedures are almost identical to those in the CEN-model.
2.2.4. Secondary stresses, SINTAP
In the Brite-Euram project SINTAP, an extensive study
on residual stresses and their significance in the design of
pressure vessels was carried out [21]. Existing experimental
and numerically predicted residual stress profiles were
collected, and some new profiles were generated. Attempts
were also made to standardise residual stress profiles.
In the SINTAP assessment of residual stress profiles, it
was found that in many of the investigated weldments, the
stresses reached the yield point at least at some position
although the variation between joints was quite large [21].
This can be considered as support for the assumptions
about the chosen stress levels in Eqs. (2)–(6). Those stress
levels will also be used in Eq. (7) when a direct
comparison is made between the CEN and the SINTAP
procedures.
In analysing the influence of the residual stresses, the
total stress intensity factor KI is given as a sum of a
contribution from the primary stresses, KIp , and a
contribution from the secondary stresses, KIs , in the
following way
KI Z KIp C VKIs (7)
V is applied to KIs to account for plasticity effects. In [21]
two options are given for estimating calculations of V. V is
approximated by V/V0 where V0 is the plasticity correction
factor to be applied to the secondary stress intensity factor
for zero primary stresses, see Fig. 2. The values of V/V0 are,
however, unexpectedly high since the ratio even exceeds
 R. Sandsträm et al. / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 82 (2005) 872–881
Fig. 2. Influence of loading ratio LR on the plasticity correction factor V/V0
for residual stresses.
unity at lower LR values, where LR is the loading ratio
sapplied
LR Z (8)
sgy
with sapplied being the applied stress across a crack and sgy
the general yield stress of the net section. This would give
very conservative results when applying Eq. (7). An
alternative way of computing V/V0 is to use the data in
[22], which are included in Fig. 2. Three different cases are
considered: over-matched, even-matched and under-
matched plates. To use these results a new simplified
expression for V/V0 has been derived
V=V0 Z 1 LR % 0:7
V=V0 Z 2:17K1:67LR 0:7% LR % 1 (9)
V=V0 Z 5:5K5LR 1% LR % 1:1
Eq. (9) is illustrated in Fig. 2. This is the expression that
is used in the present paper when different procedures are
compared. In this way the residual stresses can be
incorporated into the framework of fracture assessment
procedures based on the failure assessment diagram (FAD),
see below. V/V0 decreases with increasing applied stress
thus taking into account the reduction of residual stresses
when plasticity effects are present.
2.3. Relations between fracture toughness and impact
toughness
The application of fracture mechanics requires charac-
teristic values of the material resistance in terms of fracture
toughness. Usually, values are obtained using international
standards and testing specific laboratory specimens. This
testing is cost intensive in particular for structural steels
and not at all economically useful for regular design.
Therefore research has developed correlations between
875
fracture toughness and Charpy V toughness values. One of
the early correlations was presented by Barsom and Rolfe
[17] and was used in [2].
An alternative is to make use of a transition temperature
correlation between characteristic temperatures from
fracture and Charpy impact toughness curves [7]. One
such correlation between transition temperatures for
Charpy-V-tests and fracture mechanics tests was originally
proposed by Sanz [1]
TK100 Z 1:4T27 J (10)
where TK100 is the temperature, where the fracture
toughness KIc, is 100 MPa m1/2 and T27 J is the Charpy V
impact transition temperature for an impact energy of 27 J.
Wallin [23] proposed that this relation should be modified to
TK100 Z T27 J C C (11)
where C is a constant, which was suggested to be given the
value K17 8C after a fit to a larger set of data. Liessem, [24]
obtained the same value for C after analysing another set of
data. The SINTAP project also suggested the use of this
relation [9]. An example of such a correlation is illustrated
in Fig. 3, based on data from Wallin [23].
Although it is likely to be partially fortuitous, the values
derived in [2] from the Barsom–Rolfe correlation are
virtually identical to those of Wallin [23], see Fig. 3.
2.4. The temperature dependence of the fracture toughness
The calculation of the design temperature is the central
aspect of the brittle fracture avoidance concept. Sanz [1]
found the following temperature dependence of the fracture
toughness, and this temperature dependence was
implemented in [2]
Fig. 3. Correlation between the impact transition temperature TK27 J where
the impact energy is 27 J and the temperature TKIc100, where the fracture
toughness is 100 MPa m1/2. The correlation proposed by Wallin [23] is
compared to the corresponding values used in [2]. Data from Wallin [23]
are also included in the graph.
876 R. Sandsträm et al. / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 82 (2005) 872–881
Fig. 4. Temperature dependence of KIc, for 25 mm specimen thickness.
Data given by Sedlacek et al. [10] are compared with two models developed
by Sanz [1] (lower curve) and Wallin [23].
KIC Z K0 C ðKIC0 KK0 Þexp½bðTD KTKI ÞKDTe 
where TD is the design temperature, TKI the Charpy test
temperature, K0Z25 MPa m1/2 a constant, KIC0 the fracture
toughness at the Charpy test temperature, bZ1/60 8C a
constant and DTe a thickness correction. In Fig. 4, Eq. (12) is
compared with experimental data [25,26] and to a model
suggested by Wallin [23]. As can be seen the agreement
between models and experimental data is good and this has
been substantiated with other data, see for example [23].
The Wallin-model was also implemented in the Eurocode
procedure.
2.5. Influence of thickness
An argument in fracture mechanics, which can be found
in any textbook on the subject is that a certain minimum
thickness must be used in order to obtain plane strain
conditions. To make a correction for this, Sanz introduced
the term DTe in Eq. (12), which is related to the assumption
that plane stain conditions exist above a plate thickness of
110 mm, but not below. Its influence on the apparent
fracture toughness is illustrated in Fig. 5. Sandström [2]
modified the expression for the correction DTe. This
modification takes into account the observation that higher
strength steels can have a minimum gauge for plane strain
conditions already at much lower plate thickness than
110 mm, and to apply a correction in such a situation would
be incorrect. Fig. 5 demonstrates the effect of this
modification.
In an approach introduced by Wallin [29], the thickness
dependence was taken into account based on Weibull
statistics of the occurrence of defects instead of satisfying
the plane strain condition. There is a higher probability of
finding a critically sized initial crack starter ahead of the
Fig. 5. The influence of material thickness on the apparent fracture
toughness according to Sanz [1], Wallin [7], Sandstrom [2] and interpolated
values used by Sandström [2] to derive code values.
(12)
crack front in a thick plate than in a thin one and
consequently the apparent fracture toughness is lower in
the former case. Eq. (13) presents the Wallin-model as it
was used for the calculation of the curve in Fig. 5
Kc Z20
     1=4
T KT100 25 1=4 1
C 11C77 exp D ln
52 Beff 1Kpf
(13)
TD is the design temperature, T100 is the fracture
toughness transition temperature at a K-value of
100 MPa m1/2 and is related to T27J by Eq. (11), Beff is the
effective thickness (Ztotal crack front length),3 and pf the
failure probability. Wallin refers to Eq. (13) as the Master
Curve concept [7]. The use of Eq. (13) is also recommended
within the SINTAP procedure [9]. It may be noted that
SINTAP imposes a limit to the thickness correction so that
unrealistic corrections are not obtained for extended defects
[9]. Although derived from quite different starting points,
the values according to Eq. (13) and those interpolated
values used by Sandström [2] to derive code values are not
very different, see Fig. 5.
2.6. Elasto-plastic corrections
When ferritic structural steels are loaded higher than
approximately 0.5 times the yield strength, they do not
behave linear-elastically in a fracture mechanics sense:
3
The effective thickness in the case of a through thickness crack is equal
to the plate thickness; in the case of a surface crack it is about 2c, the length
of the crack.
 R. Sandsträm et al. / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 82 (2005) 872–881
while the gross section still behaves globally elastic, local
plasticity develops ahead of the crack tip. An elasto-plastic
correction of the KI-value must be applied to take account
for this effect. Such a plasticity correction can be expressed
in a Failure Assessment Diagram (FAD), where two
relevant criteria strength and toughness are combined. The
correction function is derived from finite element calcu-
lations. The version used here is the Option 2 limit curve
from the British R6 approach [8]. The limit condition for
fracture in the formalism reads
KI
KR Z
KIc
KR Z ð1 C 0:5L2R ÞK0:5
where LR is given by Eq. (8). KR depends on LR and is 1 for
LRZ0 and 0.816 for LRZ1. Consequently, KI is increased
up to 19% due to the plastic correction. Further corrections
are introduced when residual stresses are accounted for with
the help of Eq. (7).
The relevance of the limit condition (14) was proven with
several large-scale tests for example by Dahl and his co-
workers during the past 20 years [27], see Fig. 6.
When elasto-plastic corrections are introduced, their
influence on the residual stresses should also be considered.
The effect of plasticity is to reduce the magnitude of the
residual stresses. This can be taken into account as in Eq. (7)
or in the following way
sappl Z sprimary C Vsres
where sappl is the relevant total stress, sprimary the primary
stress and sres the residual stress. sprimary and sres can be
obtained from Eqs. (2)–(6).
2.7. Strain rate correction
The strain rate influences the fracture toughness. This can
be expressed as a shift in the transition temperature for the
fracture toughness DTn [10,24,28]
Fig. 6. Comparison of experimental fracture load data from wide plate tests
on ferritic construction steels with theoretical calculated fracture loads
using CEGB R6, Option 2 [27].
877
(14)
(15)
Fig. 7. Shift of the transition temperature as a function of strain rate for
different yield strengths.
 
1440KRp 3_ 1:5
DTn Z ln (17)
550 3_0
where 3_ is the strain rate, 3_0 Z 0:0001 sK1 , and Rp the yield
strength. The other two constants are given in MPa. As can
be seen from Fig. 7 as well as directly from Eq. (17) the
strain rate effect decreases with increasing yield strength.
The equation was derived with data for ferritic steels with
yield strength between 185 and 890 MPa [27]. In Fig. 7, also
(16)
a model by Barsom and Rolfe [17] is included. This model is
an empirical expression for the shift of the transition
temperature as a function of strain rate
DT Z ð83K0:08Rp Þð_30:17 K0:21Þ (18)
where DT is given in 8C, the mean yield strength Rp in MPa
and the strain rate, 3_, in 1/s. The temperature correction is small
for strain rates below 10K3. At strength levels between 377
and 622 MPa the two models (17) and (18) give comparable
results. However, at a higher strength of 942 MPa, Eq. (17) is
much closer to the data (not shown in the figure).
2.8. Relation between code and model values
Fig. 8 shows the minimum design temperature as a
function of impact transition temperature as given in EN 13
445 and the corresponding model values from [2]. The case
for yield strengths %460 MPa and an impact energy
requirement of 40 J is shown, which is the most stringent
situation covered by the code. For comparison the model
values are included. In Fig. 8, it can be seen that there is in
general close agreement between model and code values for
thicker gauges. For a thickness of 20 mm and above the
maximum deviation is less than 15 8C. That the values in the
code are not identical to those of the model is not surprising
878 R. Sandsträm et al. / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 82 (2005) 872–881
Fig. 8. (a) Minimum design temperature versus impact transition
temperature (ITT) in the as-welded condition (AW) and for a yield strength
of 460 MPa. ITT is the temperature where the impact toughness is CVZ
40 J. The code values from EN 13 445 are marked with dotted lines and the
model values [2] with full lines. Gauges between 10 and 35 mm are covered
in the order marked in the graph. (b) Minimum design temperature versus
impact transition temperature (ITT) in the post-weld heat treated condition
(PWHT) for a yield strength of 460 MPa. ITT is the temperature where the
impact toughness is CVZ40 J. The code values from EN 13 445 are marked
with dotted lines and the model values [2] with full lines. Gauges between
10 and 60 mm are covered in the order marked in the graph.
since the code values are taken as an average over several
conditions. For the thinnest gauges the code values are more
conservative than the model. In another paper it is shown
that this is justified [15].
3. Quantitative influence of model assumptions
3.1. Areas with small differences between alternative
assumptions
3.1.1. Crack geometry
Neither in Annex B [6] nor in part 1–10 [11] is a
specific failure geometry specified but it is implicitly
assumed that a flat plate with a semi-elliptical surface
crack is chosen with aZt/4 and a/cZ0.33–0.4. There
seems to be fair consensus that this is an acceptable
starting point. In another paper this assumption is further
analysed [15].
3.1.2. Relations between fracture toughness and impact
toughness
Three different approaches for the correlation between
the impact transition temperature and the temperature
giving 100 MPa m1/2 fracture toughness were given, namely
that of Barsom and Rolfe [17] applied in [2], that of Wallin
[23] and that of Liessem, [24]. The results are almost
identical, see Fig. 3.
3.1.3. Temperature dependence of KIc
Two different models have been applied for the
temperature dependence of the fracture toughness from
Sanz [1] and from Wallin [23]. These temperature
dependences are quite similar, see Fig. 4.
3.1.4. Strain rate correction
The strain rate dependence of the fracture toughness is
not used directly in either EN 13 445 or Eurocode 3.
However, in cases with impact loading it must be taken into
account. The model in [10,24,28] represents a good basis for
handling this aspect.
3.2. Residual stresses
The effect of the residual stresses can be seen by
comparing the AW and PWHT conditions in Fig. 8a and b.
The minimum design temperature is higher by 40, 30 and
27 8C in the AW in comparison to the PWHT condition for
10, 20 and 30 mm wall thickness, respectively. The
operating stress levels on the cracks are 1.4 Rp0.2 min and
1.02 Rp0.2 min in these two conditions.
3.3. Elasto-plastic corrections
Taking elasto-plastic corrections (FAD) into account
with the help of Eq. (15) raises the minimum design
temperature by 14–18 8C in the as-welded condition, see
Fig. 9. The corresponding increase in the PWHT condition
is 14–24 8C, the larger values appearing for the thinner
gauges. These effects are slightly larger at lower strength
levels and lower at higher strength levels. The results in
Fig. 9 are shown for impact toughness requirements at
K40 8C. For another transition temperature all curves are
moved by the change in this temperature. Thus, the
differences between the curves are independent of the
impact transition temperature.
3.3.1. Elasto-plastic correction and residual stresses
If the role of plasticity on residual stresses is taken into
account instead using Eq. (16), the effect of the residual
 R. Sandsträm et al. / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 82 (2005) 872–881 879

20–24 8C in the as-welded condition and by 15–23 8C in

the PWHT condition, see Fig. 9. Taking the influence on
both primary and secondary stresses into account the result
is identical to that from Eq. (16) both in the AW and the
PWHT conditions, see Fig. 9. Again the net effect is thus
quite small.
The elasto-plastic corrections discussed in this section
are quoted for a yield strength of 460 MPa. All effects
become slightly larger at lower strengths and even lower at
higher yield strengths. The influence of material thickness is
modest. Typically slightly larger values are found at thin
gauges in comparison to thicker ones.

3.4. Thickness correction

Replacing Sandström’s interpolated thickness correction

[2] by that of Wallin [29] by using the plate thickness in the
Wallin correction formula, Eq. (13), is illustrated in Fig. 10.

Fig. 9. (a) Minimum design temperature versus thickness in the as-welded

(AW) condition for an impact toughness of 40 J at K40 8C. CEN model
according to [2] is used as a reference. FAD and residual stress
modifications to the CEN model are shown; (i) failure assessment diagram
(FAD), Eq. (5) is taken into account, (ii) FAD secondary, residual stresses
according to Eq. (16), (iii) FAD secondary, FAD, Eq. (15) and residual
stresses according to Eq. (16), (iv) SINTAP secondary, residual stresses
according to Eq. (7), (v) SINTAP FAD and secondary, FAD, Eq. (15) and
residual stresses according to Eq. (7). (b) Same as (a) for post-weld heat
treated condition (PWHT).

stresses is reduced by 18–26 8C in the as-welded condition

and by 12–24 8C in the PWHT condition, see Fig. 9. The
total effect of the elasto-plastic corrections by combining
the influence on the primary and the secondary stresses is
that the minimum design temperature is reduced by 3–5 8C
in the as-welded condition and in the PWHT condition
the design temperature is raised by 3–6 8C. In conclusion,
the total elasto-plastic corrections are quite small.
In the SINTAP report (21] another way of taking residual
stresses into account is proposed by explicitly considering Fig. 10. (a) Minimum design temperature versus thickness in the as-welded
the contribution to the stress intensity factor, see Eq. (7). If (AW) condition for an impact toughness of 40 J at K40 8C. CEN model
according to [2] is used as a reference. Two modifications in the CEN
the same analysis for the effect on the role of the residual model are shown: (i) sshiftZ100 MPa instead of fscattZ1.4, cf. Eq. (2). (ii)
stresses is made through the stress intensity factors, there is Thickness correction according to Eq. (13). (b) Same as (a) for post-weld
a reduction in the minimum design temperatures by heat treated condition (PWHT).
880 R. Sandsträm et al. / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 82 (2005) 872–881
The same changes are obtained for the minimum design
temperature in the AW and PWHT conditions, namely a
change of the minimum design temperature by 5, 0, and
K13 8C for a thickness of 60, 30, and 10 mm respectively,
see Fig. 10. These values can also be found from Fig. 5. The
values are independent of the yield strength.
3.5. Scatter factor for the yield strength
The consequence of changing the scatter factor from 1.4
to a scatter term of 100 MPa in Eqs. (2)–(6) is shown in
Fig. 10. This change reduces the minimum design
temperature by 11–16 8C in the as-welded condition and
by 4–7 8C in the post-weld heat treated condition. The
changes are slightly larger for thinner than for thicker
gauges. This effect increases slightly with increasing yield
strength.
Fig. 11. (a) Minimum design temperature versus thickness in the as-welded
(AW) condition for an impact toughness of 40 J at K40 8C. CEN model
according to [2] is used as a reference. Two modifications in the CEN
model are shown: (i) Eurocode, sshiftZ100 MPa, thickness correction, Eq.
(13), FAD, Eq. (15), (ii) Summary, same as in (i) but also the residual stress
correction in Eq. (15). (b) Same as (a) for post-weld heat treated condition
(PWHT).
4. Discussion
The total effect of the proposed modifications 3.3–3.5 is
illustrated as ‘summary’ in Fig. 11. In the as-welded (AW)
condition the change, is between K9 and K29 8C, and in
the PWHT condition between 5 and K15 8C. The main part
of this effect is due to the modified thickness correction.
At other yield strengths these values are shifted but not more
than 5 8C for strengths up 640 MPa. In conclusion, the
summary model is less conservative than the CEN-model in
the AW conditions and gives about the same values in the
PWHT condition.
If the same assumptions are made as in Eurocode, slightly
higher minimum design temperatures are obtained. In the AW
condition the values are higher than the summary values by
15–25 8C and in the PWHT condition by 8–20 8C. The reason
is that the elasto-plastic effect on the residual stresses is not
taken into account. This should not be considered as a direct
comparison with Eurocode, since the role of the residual
stresses is only included to a limited extent there.
5. Conclusions
The model given in [2], which was the basis for design
against brittle failure in EN 13 445 has been analysed. In
particular, the impact of newer findings in fracture
mechanics and applications in other areas of welded steel
construction such as Eurocode 3 have been studied:
† Fracture mechanics based calculations generally use an
initial crack with a certain specified type of geometry.
The common assumption in most design procedures is to
use a semi-elliptical surface crack.
† The relation between the minimum and typical yield
strength is assumed to be taken into account by a scatter
factor of 1.4 in the CEN model. This factor is well
supported for low strength steels but is probably too
large at higher strength. Instead it is recommended that a
scatter term of 100 MPa is added. This change reduces
the minimum design temperature by up to 16 8C in the
as-welded condition and up to 7 8C in the post-weld heat
treated condition.
† Welds in the as-welded and post-weld heat treated
conditions are associated with different residual stresses.
In the CEN model, R6 and BS 7910:1999 the primary
and secondary stresses are essentially directly added. In
the general design case where the residual stresses are
not known a priori, the assumed magnitudes of the
residual stresses both before and after heat treatment are
handled quite similarly in these sources.
† Relations between fracture- and Charpy-impact tough-
ness are by now well established. Published relations for
example in the SINTAP project are virtually identical to
those used for the CEN model and are also used in
Eurocode 3.
 R. Sandsträm et al. / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 82 (2005) 872–881
† A modified and interpolated Sanz’ model for the
temperature dependence of the fracture toughness was
used for the CEN model. The values are almost
identical to those of Wallin’s Master Curve approach,
which is applied in Eurocode 3 and the SINTAP
approach.
† For the thickness dependence of fracture toughness, a
modified and interpolated model of Sanz was used for
the CEN work. Nowadays Wallin’s Master Curve is
often used. This gives a 5 8C higher minimum design
temperatures at large gauges (60 mm) and 13 8C lower
values at thinner gauges (10 mm).
† Elasto-plastic corrections to the fracture toughness are
applied in Eurocode 3, the SINTAP approach and R6
but not in the CEN model. If elasto-plastic corrections
also take account of the residual stresses, the change in
the minimum design temperatures is reduced and
increased of the order 5 8C in the AW and PWHT
conditions, respectively.
† In the SINTAP approach the elasto-plastic corrections for
the residual stresses are taken into account by introducing
separate stress intensity factors for the primary and the
secondary stresses. In its original published form this
exaggerates the influence of the secondary stresses.
Starting from other data also taken from the SINTAP
project, a modified procedure was proposed, which gives
an improved description of the influence of plasticity on
the secondary stresses. The net effect on the minimum
design temperatures in this case in relation to that in the
CEN model is however quite limited.
† The total effect of these modifications is K9 to K29 8C in
the AW condition and 5 to K15 8C in the PWHT
condition. The largest effects appear for thinner gauges.
Acknowledgements
Financial support from the EU Growth project ECO-
PRESS is gratefully acknowledged.
References
[1] Sanz G. Attempts to introduce a quantitative method of choosing steel
quality with reference to the risk of brittle fracture. Rev Metall CIT
1980;77:621–42.
[2] Sandström R. Minimum usage temperature for ferritic steels. Scand
J Metall 1987;16:242–52.
[3] CODAP: French Code for the construction of unfired pressure vessels.
Part M. Appendix MAZ; 1984.
[4] Swedish pressure vessel code. Stockholm: Swedish pressure vessel
commission; 1987.
[5] Wiesner CS, Sandström R, Garwood SJ, Street DM, Coulson KJ.
Background to requirements for the prevention of brittle fracture in
the European standards for pressure vessels (prEN 13445) and
metallic industrial piping (prEN 13480)). Int J Pres Ves Pip 2001;78:
391–9.
881
[6] EN 13445-2. Unfired pressure vessels—part 2—materials. Brussels:
CEN; 2002.
[7] Wallin K. Master curve method: a new concept for brittle fracture. Int
J Mater Prod Technol (Switzerland) 1999;14:342–54.
[8] Milne I, Ainsworth RA, Dowling AR, Stewart AT. Background to and
validation of CEGB report R/H/R6—revision 3. Int J Pres Ves Pip
1988;32:105–96.
[9] Structural Integrity Assessment Procedure (SINTAP). Final Revision,
EU-project BE 95-1462. Brite-Euram programme; 1999.
[10] Sedlacek G, Dahl W, Stötzel G, Liessem A. Improvement of the
method given in Eurocode 3, Annex C for the choice of material to
avoid brittle fracture, International Institute of Welding document
IIW-DOC-X-1274-93; 1993.
[11] EUROCODE 3, Design of steel structures (part 1) pr ENV 1993-1,
1998 and Design of steel bridges pr ENV 1993-2; 1999.
[12] Raju IS, Newman JCJ. Stress-intensity factors for internal and
external surface cracks in cylindrical vessels. J Pres Ves Technol
(Trans ASME) 1982;104:293–8.
[13] Metals handbook. 10th ed., vol. 19. Metals Park: ASM; 1996. p. 989.
[14] ASME Boiler and Vessel Code. Section XI, rules for in-service
inspection of nuclear power plant components. American Society for
Mechanical Engineering, Articles A-3000, method of KI-determi-
nation; 1998.
[15] Sandström R, Langenberg P, Sieurin H. New brittle fracture model for
the European pressure vessel standard. Int J Pres Ves Pip 2004;81:
837–45.
[16] Sandström R, Ivarsson B. Influence of scatter in yield stresses on
design stresses at elevated temperatures. Mater Des 1986;7:95–100.
[17] Barsom JM, Rolfe ST. Correlations between KIc and Charpy V-notch
test results in the transition-temperature range American Society for
Testing and Materials STP 466 1970 p. 281–302.
[18] Assessment of the integrity of structures containing defects. Barnwood,
Gloucester: British Energy Generation Ltd; 2001 R6-Revision 4.
[19] Guidance on methods for assessing the acceptability of flaws in fusion
welded structures. London: British Standards Institution, BS PD6493;
1991.
[20] Guide on methods for assessing the acceptability of flaws in fusion
welded structures. London: British Standards Institution, BS 7910;
1999.
[21] Stacey A, Barthelemy JY, Leggatt RH, Ainsworth RA. Incorporation
of residual stresses into the SINTAP defect assessment procedure.
Eng Fract Mech 2000;67:573–611.
[22] Smith SD. Comparison of the PD6493:1991 rho (p) factor with FEA
results. TWI report SINTAP/TWI/1-2; 1997.
[23] Wallin K. Methodology for selecting Charpy toughness criteria for
thin high strength steels Jernkontorets forskning, report from working
group 4013/89 1990.
[24] Liessem A. Bruchmechanische Sicherheitsanalysen von Stahlbauten
aus hoch-festen niedriglegierten Stählen.: Shaker Verlag; 1996 [Band
3/96].
[25] Sedlacek G, Stranghöner N, Stötzel G, Dahl W, Langenberg P,
Liessem PA. Die Tragsicherkeit, die Ermüdungssicherheit und das
Sprödbruchproblem. Stahlbau 1996;65:407–14.
[26] Stranghoner N, Sedlacek G, Stotzel G, Dahl W, Langenberg P. The
choice of steel material for steel bridges to avoid brittle fracture.
J Constr Steel Res (UK) 1998;46:56.
[27] Langenberg P, Sedlacek G, Dahl W, Feldmann M. Einsatz
bruchmechanischer Sicherheitskonzepte für Sonderfälle des Stahlbaus
im Bereich geschweißter Konstruktionen, AK Bruch 2002: For-
tschritte in der Bruch- und Schädigungsmechanik. DVM Berichtsband
234. S. 223–34.
[28] Falk J. Untersuchungen zum Einfluss der Belastungsgeschwindigkeit
auf das Verformungs- und Bruchverhalten an Stählen unterschiedli-
cher Festigkeit. PhD Thesis, Institut für Eisenhüttenkunde, RWTH
Aachen; 1993.
[29] Wallin K. The size effect in KIc results. Eng Fract Mech 1985;22:
149–63.
 Update
International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping
Volume 82, Issue 12, December 2005, Page 941

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpvp.2005.09.001
 International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 82 (2005) 941
www.elsevier.com/locate/ijpvp
Erratum
Erratum to “Analysis of the brittle fracture avoidance model
for pressure vessels in European standard” [Int J Pressure Vessels
and Piping 82 (2005) 872–881]*
Rolf Sandström a,*, Peter Langenberg b, Henrik Sieurin a
a
Department of Materials Science and Engineering, Royal Institute of Technology (KTH), Brinellvagen 23, S-100 44 Stockholm, Sweden
b
IWT, Malmedyer Str. 30, D-52066 Aachen, Germany

The publisher regrets that in the above article the first author’s surname was printed incorrectly. It is now reproduced correctly,
above.

*
DOI of original article: 10.1016/j.ijpvp.2005.06.004
* Corresponding author. Tel.:C46 8 7908321; fax: C46 8 203107.
E-mail address: rsand@kth.se (R. Sandström).

0308-0161/$ - see front matter q 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ijpvp.2005.09.001