Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Components-I: R6 Method
Rohit Rastogi
Reactor Safety Division
Bhabha Atomic Research Center
Mumbai
R6 Method Page 1 of 27
1. Introduction 3
3. The R6 Method 9
3.1 Option 3 Curve and the assessed point 9
3.2 Option 2 Curve 11
3.3 Option 1 Curve 12
3.4 Unstable Crack Growth as Failure Criteria 13
3.5 Treatment of secondary stresses 14
3.6 Evaluation under Mode I, II, III loads 15
3.7 Flaw Characterization 15
3.8 Sensitivity Analysis 18
3.8 R6 Methodology 20
5 References 27
R6 Method Page 2 of 27
1. Introduction
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.
R6 Method Page 3 of 27
Cosham and Kirkwood [6] have arranged the dilemma faced by an operator on
detecting a flaw in his piping component.
Any engineer with a potential defect problem should question the need for a fitness-
for-purpose assessment as follows:
PHASE 1 – Appraisal
o Are the operating conditions able to create such a defect and can
operational conditions be controlled to prevent growth (e.g. corrosion
inhibition, re-coating)?
• Is it a defect?
o Do I know how the defect was formed, and how it may develop in the
future?
o What are the legal ramifications (e.g. professional liability), what are
the views of the regulatory body, and who would be responsible for the
structure, and any defect assessment relating to it?
R6 Method Page 4 of 27
PHASE 2 - Assessment
o What data exists, and how reliable is it? If the data is sparse, what
confidence is there in any engineering judgment, or are special tests
required?
o How should the safety factors be set, and would it be better to conduct
a probabilistic analysis?
PHASE 4 - Consequence
Different levels of defect assessment, ranging from simple screening methods to very
sophisticated three-dimensional elastic-plastic finite element stress analyses, are
available. The method used depends upon the type of defect detected, the loading
conditions, the objective of the assessment, and the type and quality of data that is
available. Figure 1 summarizes the differing levels of defect assessments, and the
required data.
The higher levels may require risk analyses. Risk is a function of the probability of
failure and the consequences of failure. Such analyses are becoming increasingly
popular, but are also very complicated.
R6 Method Page 5 of 27
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.
R6 Method Page 6 of 27
2. Assessment of a component with a crack
In the common design philosophy, the applied stresses are compared with a limit
stress such as the yield strength of the material. As long as the latter exceeds the
applied stresses, the component is regarded as safe. A failure function or the limit
state function can be defined by eq. (1).
g = σ y −σ
g > 0 : Safe
g ≤ 0 : Unsafe (1)
σ y = yield stress
σ = applied stress
g = K mat − K I
g = J mat − J
g = δ mat − δ
g > 0 : Safe (2)
g ≤ 0 : Unsafe
K mat , J mat , δ mat are material parameters
K , J , δ are applied parameters
Standardized solutions for the crack tip parameters are available for test specimens,
which are used for measuring the material's resistance to fracture. As long as the
deformation behavior of the structural component is linear elastic, then the relevant
applied parameter in the component is KI. Comprehensive compendia of KI factor
solutions exist in handbook format [7-9] and as computer programs. The linear elastic
handbook solutions are usually approximations of finite element solutions, which
have been generated for arrange of component and crack dimensions.
R6 Method Page 7 of 27
analyses have to be carried out. These analyses require a high level of experience
personnel, which is not always available. Fig. 1 gives an overview of the crack tip
parameters.
Due to the inherent uncertainties in the determination of the crack tip loading
parameter analytical flaw assessment methods are aimed at providing conservative
results. Consequently, an assessment leading to the result unsafe does not necessarily
mean that the component will fail.
The R6 defect assessment procedure has been continually developed since 1976. It is
currently at Revision 4. R6 has had a major influence on the development of other
codes and standards, including the new API 579 [2], BS guide BS7910:1999 [1] and
the SINTAP [3] procedure.
R6 Method Page 8 of 27
3. The R6 Method
R6 method uses two ratios Kr’ and Lr’. Kr’ is a measure of nearness to brittle fracture.
Kr’ is defined by eq. (3).
Jp/Jmat
SAFE
J/Jmat
UNSAFE
Je/Jmat
M/Ml 1
R6 Method Page 9 of 27
Je K
K r' = =
J mat K mat
J mat , K mat = fracture toughness (3)
K mat = J mat E and K = J e E
E = Young's Modulus
Lr’ is a measure of nearness to plastic collapse. Lr’ is defined by eq. (4).
M
L'r =
Ml
M = applied load (4)
M l = yield stress based limit load
R6 Method Page 10 of 27
Figure 4: FAD in R6 method
1. For each of these points, limit load Ml will remain same. Corresponding to
each value of Lr, applied load M, is determined.
2. Now for each M, The FAL is plotted as a ratio of the elastic J (Je) to the total J
at different loads corresponding to Lr values.
3. For the component to be analyzed, Kr’ and Lr’ are calculated, and plotted on
the FAD. This point is termed as the assessed point. If this point lies with in
the region enclosed by the axes and the FAL, the crack growth initiation does
not happen.
Since the plotting of FAL requires calculation of Je and Jp, this makes FAL, dependent
on the geometry and the material of the component being analyzed.
R6 Method Page 11 of 27
still dependent on the material of the component. This FAL is termed as Option 2
FAL in R6.
Eε L3
σ
−1
2
ref + r y for Lr ≤ Lmax
K r = Lrσ y 2 Eε ref r
0 for Lr > Lmax
r (7)
E = Young's modulus
σ y = Yield stress
ε ref = true strain at true stress = Lrσ y
Steps to plot R6 Option 2 FAD for a given cracked component:
2. For each of these points, reference stress σref is determined from Lrσy, and
corresponding true strain εref is read from the true-stress strain curve of the
material of the component.
3. Now for each chosen Lr point, The FAL is plotted using eq. (7).
4. For the component to be analyzed, Kr’ and Lr’ are calculated, and plotted on
the FAD. This point is termed as the assessed point. If this point lies with in
the region enclosed by the axes and the FAL, the crack growth initiation does
not happen. The safety margin on load is also obtained.
Since the plotting of FAL requires calculation of σref and εref, this makes FAL,
dependent on the stress- strain data of the material of the component being analyzed.
In order to plot this FAL, only the engineering values of lower yield or 0.2% proof
stress and the flow stress need to be known. This curve is reasonably conservative for
most materials. However in certain circumstances when initial rate of hardening in
stress-strain is high, the underestimation may be excessive. For the special case of
strain aging C-Mn(mild) steels, if Option 1 curve is to be used, and alternate equation
has been provided. A typical Option 1 curve is shown in fig. 5.
R6 Method Page 12 of 27
1.2
FAL
1
0.8 B
0.6
Lr
0.4
A
0.2
0
O
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6
Kr
The condition when the assessed point crosses the FAL can cause the crack growth
initiation. R6 also considers the unstable crack growth as failure criteria. In evaluating
the margin on unstable crack growth, J-Resistance curve is required. The J-Resistance
curve is converted into fracture toughness Kmat vs. crack extension a data. Once the
assessed point is outside the safe region, small increment to crack size a, is given.
This modifies the assessed point. Because of increase in crack size, K increases while
the limit load decreases. The main change is in the value of Kmat, which increases
appreciably. Hence the, assessed point has a lower Kr’ value and a marginally
increased Lr’ value. This process is repeated to check if the assessed point enters the
safe region. In such a case, the crack arrest takes place. If the assessed point fails to
enter the safe region, the unstable crack growth occurs. The unstable crack growth
load is the load at which the locus of the Lr’-Kr’ just touches the R6 FAL. This
analysis of unstable crack growth in R6 is termed as Category 3 analysis. The analysis
done for checking crack growth initiation is termed as Category 1 analysis.
Consider Fig. 6. The procedure for estimating load to cause unstable crack growth is
as follows.
3. On further increasing the load, crack growth initiation occurs. Consider point
L1. As the stable crack growth takes place, the assessed point is updated based
on increased crack size and increased Kmat. The locus followed is L1-L1’. The
R6 Method Page 13 of 27
assessed point re-enters the safe region and the crack is arrested. The amount
of crack extension done is decided by the availability of J-Resistance data.
4. Now consider the load L3. Here, after exhausting the J-Resistance, still the
assessed point is in the unsafe region. The unstable crack growth takes place at
this load.
5. The objective now is to find a load L2 such that the locus L2-L2’ is tangent to
the FAL. This is the limiting load for unstable crack growth.
1.2
FAL L3
1
L1 L2
0.8 B
L3'
0.6
Lr
L1' L2'
0.4
A
0.2
0
O
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6
Kr
R6 Method Page 14 of 27
0.1x 0.714 − 0.007 x 2 + 0.00003x 5 , x ≤ 5.2
ρ1 =
0.5, x > 5.2
S
K Lr
x=
KP
ρ1 , Lr ≤ 0.8
ρ = 4 ρ1 (1.05 − Lr ) , 0.8 < Lr ≤ 1.05 (10)
0, 1.05<Lr
K S = Stress intensity factor for secondary load
K P = Stress intensity factor for primary load
The effect of secondary load is negligible in the plastic zone, i.e. the interaction
parameter is negative. However, R6 specifies a value of = 0 for Lr > 1.05 as a
conservative estimate.
if K C σ y ≥ 0.2 m
1
( 2
)
K eff = K I2 + K II2 + K III 1 −ν
2
Formulations for limit load under mixed mode loading are available for selected
geometries in the literature.
R6 Method Page 15 of 27
Figure 7: Flaw Sizing
R6 Method Page 16 of 27
Figure 8: Characterizing embedded defect a to larger of b or c in Brittle Mechanism
R6 Method Page 17 of 27
a = max(a1,a2)
l = l1 + l2 +b
a=a1 + a2 + b
l = max(l1, l2)
a = max(a1, a2)
l = l1 + l2 + b
a = a1 + a 2 + a 3
l = max(l1, l2)
R6 method suggests a detailed sensitivity analysis before the results could be used. It
defines the margins on different input parameters in terms of reserve factors. If the
assessed point lies on FAL, it is the limiting condition. The various reserve factors are
evaluated based on this condition.
R6 Method Page 18 of 27
Reserve Factors:
Similarly load factors for crack size (a), fracture toughness (K) and yield stress (σ)
can be expressed as:
crack to cause limiting condition
Fa =
crack in assessed condition
fracture toughness of the material being assessed
FK = (13)
fracture toughness to provide limiting condition
yield stress of the material being assessed
Fσ =
yield stress to provide limiting condition
The sensitivity analysis can be performed by plotting a reserve load factor against the
corresponding input parameter.
R6 Method Page 19 of 27
3.8 R6 Methodology
The step-by-step procedure to perform R6 analysis is given here.
The normal operating temperature of the vessel is above 20oC, where the material is
ductile. Proof pressure testing in works may be conducted at temperatures as cold as
5oC. Perform the analysis assumed level of residual stresses of magnitude 0.2σy.
Basic Data
Internal Radius ‘R’: 508mm
Wall thickness ‘t’: 77mm
Design Pressure: 30MPa
Normal Operating Pressure: 26MPa
Proof Pressure: 40MPa
Defect depth ‘a’: 17mm
Defect length ‘l’: 200mm
Material: Ferritic Steel
Tensile properties:
Parent Material σy = 390MPa σu = 590Mpa E = 210GPa
Weld Metal σy = 420MPa σu = 610MPa E = 210GPa
o o
Fracture properties: (same at 5 C and 20 C)
Weld Metal
R6 Method Page 20 of 27
Table 1: Fracture data
a (mm) Kmat (MPa√m)
0.2 178.3
1.0 228.7
2.0 254.5
2.45 262.7
3.0 271.0
4.0 283.3
4.4 287.5
R6 analysis:
The crack is in the longitudinal direction and the only load of interest is the internal
pressure. Hence the hoop stress caused by internal pressure is to be used for fracture
analysis. The analysis is performed for two levels of pressure, 26 MPa and 40 MPa.
Residual stresses of magnitude 0.2σy are also considered acting normal to the crack
plane.
The tensile properties of weld metal and parent material has been provided. For
conservative analysis, the tensile properties of parent material which are lower are
used in the analysis. Hence σy used is 390 MPa and σu used is 590 MPa.
Corresponding σf is (390+590)/2 = 490 MPa.
Since full stress strain curve is not known, Option 1 FAL is used to perform the
fracture analysis. The cut off value for plastic collapse (Lrmax) is given by 490/390 =
1.26
The flaw will be characterized as semi-elliptical surface flaw. This is shown in figure
13.
R6 Method Page 21 of 27
5. Select category of analysis.
The fracture data is defined in Table 1. The fracture toughness, Kmat is taken as 178.3
MPa√m.
8. Calculate Lr’.
(1 − a t )σ y
Py = t
(1 − a (mt )) R
(14)
l2
m = 1 + 1.05
2
4 Rt
The value of Lr’ is given by P/Py.
Table 2: Lr’ at Normal operating condition and proof test
P (MPa) Lr’
1. 26 0.46
2. 40 0.70
9. Calculate Kr’.
The K for this configuration is given by eq. (15). In this equation ‘c’ is half crack
length (l/2) and Ro is the outer radius.
K I = σ h (π a)0.5 F
σ h = p( Ro2 + R 2 ) /( Ro2 − R 2 )
F = 0.25 +
( 0.4759α + 0.1262α ) 2
(15)
0.1
Ri
0.102 t − 0.02
α = (a t ) (a c)
0.58
R6 Method Page 22 of 27
1. 26 0.28 0.12 0.03 0.43
2. 40 0.44 0.12 0.03 0.59
To estimate the load to cause crack growth initiation, the values of Lr’ and Kr’ were
plotted for increasing applied pressures. These are listed in Table 4.
R6 Method Page 23 of 27
Table 17.4: Lr’ and Kr’ for increased load
Pressure MPa Lr’ Krp’ Krs’ Kr’
40 0.70 0.44 0.12 0.03 0.59
41 0.72 0.45 0.12 0.03 0.60
42 0.74 0.46 0.12 0.03 0.61
43 0.75 0.47 0.12 0.03 0.62
44 0.77 0.48 0.12 0.03 0.63
45 0.79 0.49 0.12 0.03 0.64
46 0.81 0.50 0.12 0.03 0.65
47 0.82 0.51 0.12 0.03 0.66
48 0.84 0.52 0.12 0.03 0.67
49 0.86 0.54 0.12 0.02 0.68
50 0.88 0.55 0.12 0.02 0.69
51 0.89 0.56 0.12 0.02 0.70
52 0.91 0.57 0.12 0.02 0.70
53 0.93 0.58 0.12 0.01 0.71
54 0.95 0.59 0.12 0.01 0.72
55 0.96 0.60 0.12 0.01 0.73
56 0.98 0.61 0.12 0.01 0.74
57 1.00 0.62 0.12 0.01 0.75
58 1.02 0.63 0.12 0.00 0.76
59 1.03 0.64 0.12 0.00 0.77
60 1.05 0.66 0.12 0.00 0.78
Figure 14 gives the R6 FAD in the absence of residual stresses. The initiation point
corresponds to an internal pressure of 56 MPa. Hence the reserve factor is 56/26 =
2.15 on operating load and 56/40 = 1.4 on proof pressure.
The FAD in presence of residual stress is shown in fig. 15. The initiation point
corresponds to an internal pressure of 52 MPa. Hence the reserve factor on load is
52/26 = 2 on operating load and 52/40 = 1.3 on proof pressure.
R6 Method Page 24 of 27
1
0.9
0.8
INITIATION POINT
0.7
0.6 (0.98,0.61)
PROOF
0.5
Kr
TEST
0.4
(0.70, 0.44)
NOC Lrmax
0.3
(0.46,0.28)
0.2
0.1
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Lr
0.8
INITIATION POINT
0.7
PROOF TEST
0.6 (0.9,0.7)
0.5 NOC (0.70, 0.59)
Kr
0.4 (0.45,0.43)
max
0.3 Lr
0.2
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Lr
The flawed structure has a reserve margin on normal operating load equal to 2 against
crack growth initiation. The calculations for margin against unstable crack growth
using Category 3 analysis of R6, is shown in Table 5
In these calculations, for loads in the unsafe region, tearing analysis is applied by
increasing the crack depth. The points for each load are plotted on the FAD (Fig. 16).
R6 Method Page 25 of 27
It is seen that for pressure value greater than 59 MPa, crack arrest does not take place.
Thus the margin on load against unstable crack growth is 59/26 = 2.27.
0.9
P = 59
0.8
0.7
PROOF TEST
0.6 P = 60
0.5
Kr
NOC P = 52
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Lr
R6 Method Page 26 of 27
d. It is observed that with increased ∆a for tearing analysis, the assessed
points on the FAD are close together. Hence, further extension will not
result is increased safety margins.
5 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.
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 In-
service Inspection of Nuclear Power Plant Components
7. Zahoor, A., 1989. Ductile Fracture Handbook. Electric Power Research Institute,
Palo Alto, EPRI NP6301-D, Vol 1-3.
8. A16, 1995. Guide for Defect Assessment and leak before break analysis, Rapport
DMT 96.096, EPAC 5450, Fiche Cooperative 4557.
9. Raju, I.S., Newman, J.C., 1982. Stress intensity factors for internal and external
surface cracks in cylindrical vessels. Transactions of ASME Journal of Pressure
Vessel Technology 104, 293–298.
10. Kumar V, German MD, Shih CF. An engineering approach for elastic-plastic
fracture analysis. EPRI-Report NP-1931, EPRI, Palo Alto, 1981.
R6 Method Page 27 of 27