You are on page 1of 27

Assessment for Fitness for Purpose of Cracked Piping

Components-I: R6 Method

Rohit Rastogi
Reactor Safety Division
Bhabha Atomic Research Center
Mumbai

Indian Nuclear Society

COURSE ON DESIGN OF COMPONENTS OPERATING AT HIGH


TEMPERATURE

July 25-29, 2005

R6 Method Page 1 of 27
1. Introduction 3

2. Assessment of a component with a crack 7

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

4 Sample Calculation [11] 20

5 References 27

R6 Method Page 2 of 27
1. Introduction

Defects in pressure vessels and piping components can be introduced during


manufacturing (e.g. laminations), transportation (e.g. fatigue cracking), fabrication
(e.g. weld defects) and installation (e.g. dents), and can occur both due to
deterioration (e.g. corrosion) and due to external interference (e.g. gouges and dents).
To ensure the integrity of these components, operators must be able to both detect and
assess the significance of pipeline defects. The past 45 years has seen the
development of 'fitness-for-purpose' methods for assessing the significance of these
defects.

A pressure retaining system must be operated safely and efficiently. There are four
key issues in the operation of these systems:

1. Safety - the system must pose an acceptably low risk to the surrounding population.

2. Security of Supply - the system must deliver its product in a continuous manner, to
satisfy the owners of the product (the 'shippers') and the shippers' customers (the 'end
users'), and have low risk of supply failure.

3. Cost Effectiveness - the system must deliver the product at an attractive market
price, and generate an acceptable rate of return on the investment.

4. Regulations - the operation of the system must satisfy all legislation and
regulations.

An operator must ensure that all risks associated with the pipeline are as low as is
reasonably practicable. Occasionally an operator will detect, or become aware, of
defects in their pipeline. In the past, this may have led to expensive shutdowns and
repairs. However, recent years have seen the increasing use of fitness-for-purpose
methods to assess these pipeline defects.

Detailed procedures for assessing the significance of defects in structures are given in
documents such as BS 7910: 1999 [1], API 579 [2], SINTAP [3], R6 [4], ASME [5]
and others. For many engineers, the decision of whether to use fitness-for-service
assessment procedures and which procedures to use can be difficult. While users and
regulators across industry now increasingly accept defects and damage in equipment
assessed as fit-for-service, the differences between the available procedures and the
implied safety margins are not so well understood. There can be uncertainty about the
data and technical skills required to make good assessments. As a result, the benefits
from fitness-for-service assessment may not have been as widespread as might have
been expected.

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.

CAN I APPLY, AND DO I NEED TO USE, FITNESS-FOR PURPOSE METHODS?

Any engineer with a potential defect problem should question the need for a fitness-
for-purpose assessment as follows:

PHASE 1 – Appraisal

• Is it really there, and can I readily dismiss it?

o Is it really a defect, or is it some feature of the inspection method?

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)?

o Is the defect within design and fabrication acceptance levels?

o What is industry experience of similar defects? For example, have


other companies faced this problem, and produced a solution that
concludes that the defect is acceptable?

• Is it a defect?

o Do I know how the defect was formed, and how it may develop in the
future?

o Is the defect indicative of poor practice during construction or


operation, and as such can be controlled by other methods?

• Who is competent to assess the defect?

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?

o Is current staff capable and experienced enough to apply fitness-for-


purpose methods?

• Is it worth the effort?

o Is it cheaper to repair than assess?

R6 Method Page 4 of 27
PHASE 2 - Assessment

• Can fitness-for-purpose methods provide an answer?


o Can fitness-for-purpose methods solve the problem? For example, are
the methods robust for the particular defect and loading?

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?

PHASE 3 - Safety Factors and Probabilistic Aspects

• What safety margins should be used?

o If fitness-for-purpose methods are applied, what safety factors should


be used?

o How should the safety factors be set, and would it be better to conduct
a probabilistic analysis?

PHASE 4 - Consequence

• What are the consequences of getting it wrong?

o Is a risk analysis required?

Having decided that a defect assessment can be conducted, it is now necessary to


determine the level of detail and complexity that is required.

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.

Generally, defect assessments are conducted up to stage 3. If defects still remained


‘unacceptable’ at this stage, a higher-level assessment, or repair would be necessary.
A sensible approach to adopt in any fitness for purpose assessment is to use the most
conservative data and assessment method to demonstrate that the defect is acceptable,
and apply more accurate (less conservative) methods only as required. More accurate
assessment methods generally require more data, and are more difficult to apply.

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.

Figure 1: Stages in Defect Assessment

A fitness-for-purpose assessment will usually involve a deterministic assessment of


the defects, to determine whether or not the defect is acceptable. Probabilistic
methods are useful when dealing with uncertainty over the data used in the
assessment or future conditions, such as corrosion rates. These methods can be used
as an aid to deciding future inspection and maintenance requirements. Underlying
such probabilistic analyses are fitness-for-purpose methods for assessing defects (i.e.
the limit states).

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

The implicit background assumption is that the component is defect-free. If a real or


assumed crack or crack-like flaw affects the load carrying capacity, fracture
mechanics has to be applied. Then the comparison between the applied and the
material side has to be carried out on the basis of crack tip parameters such as the
linear elastic stress intensity factor KI, the J integral or the crack tip opening
displacement . As a result, the fracture behavior of the component can be predicted
in terms of a critical applied load or a critical crack size. These critical load or crack
size values are obtained by comparing the applied crack tip parameter with the
material limit. Thus in presence of cracks the limit state function can be given by eq.
(2).

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.

If the component behaves in an elastic-plastic manner, the situation is much more


complex because the crack tip loading is additionally influenced by the deformation
pattern of the material as given by its stress-strain curve. This makes the generation of
handbook solutions an expensive task. To a limited extent this task has been realized
for a few component configurations, for example, in the Electric Power Research
Institute (EPRI) handbook [10]. More generally, however, individual finite element

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.

Figure 2: Principles of analytical determination of the crack tip loading.

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

3.1 Option 3 Curve and the assessed point

R6 method is basically a method developed to simplify the elastic plastic fracture


analysis. Calculation of the plastic part of the J integral is difficult. R6 methodology
helps in performing a detailed elastic plastic fracture analysis using the stress intensity
factor only. The method is double criteria approach. It simultaneously checks for
failure against plastic collapse too. Consider fig. 3, the x-axis represents a ratio
between the applied load M and the limit load Ml. The failure based on net section
collapse criteria is when this ratio exceeds 1. The y-axis represents the ratio between
the applied J and the fracture toughness Jc. The failure based on fracture mechanics
(crack growth initiation) will happen when this ratio is greater than 1. Thus the safe
and the unsafe region can be defined. It can be seen that the applied J has elastic and a
plastic part. The elastic part contribution to the J decreases as the load increases. R6
method envisages a failure assessment line (FAL), which joins all the points that
demarcates the elastic and the plastic part of the J integral. If such a line is obtained,
only the elastic part of the J may be evaluated and then a check for safe condition is
made such that the ratio Je/Jc is within the FAL at the given applied load.

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

Figure 3: Normalizing fracture and the collapse criteria

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

The basic equation of FAL can be written as in eq.(5)


 Je
 for Lr ≤ Lmax
r
Kr =  Je + J p

 0 for Lr > Lmax
r
(5)
J e = elastic part of J
J p = platic part of J
J = Je + J p
This is termed in the R6 document as Option 3 curve. This represents the basic
definition of FAL. The limit to plastic collapse is set by a ratio Lrmax, which is defined
by eq. (6).
σf
Lmax =
r
σy
σu +σ y
σf = (6)
2
σ f = flow stress
σ y = yield stress

A typical R6 diagram popularly known as “Failure Assessment Diagram” FAD is


shown in figure 4.

R6 Method Page 10 of 27
Figure 4: FAD in R6 method

Steps to plot R6 Option 3 FAD for a given cracked component:

A number of points are taken on the Lr axis in between 0 and Lrmax.

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.

4. The safety margin on load can be determined by the ration OB/OA.

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.

3.2 Option 2 Curve


To avoid calculation of the J integral, this FAL is modified by approximating the J
solutions given in the EPRI report by Kumar et.al. [10]. Approximations were made
on the conservative side to remove the geometry dependence of FAL. It was however

R6 Method Page 11 of 27
still dependent on the material of the component. This FAL is termed as Option 2
FAL in R6.

The FAL in Option 2 is defined by eq. (7).

 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:

1. A number of points are taken on the Lr axis in between 0 and Lrmax.

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.

3.3 Option 1 Curve


In many real engineering analyses, the full stress strain data is not available. For such
cases R6 has defined an Option 1 FAL. To obtain this curve, Option 2 equation was
applied to a number of materials to generate a material independent lower bound
curve, which is the more conservative. This lower bound curve is given in eq.(8).

(1 − 0.14 L2r )  0.3 + 0.7 exp ( −0.65L6r )  for Lr ≤ Lmax


Kr =    r
(8)
 0 for Lr > Lmax
r

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

Figure 5: R6 Option 1 Curve

3.4 Unstable Crack Growth as Failure Criteria

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.

1. The original assessed point is A.

2. The load is increased, the crack growth initiation occurs at point B.

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

Figure 6: Category 3 Analysis in R6

3.5 Treatment of secondary stresses


In presence of secondary stresses, R6 considers the interaction between the primary
and secondary stress levels. Secondary loads do not have any effect on FAL and Lr’
values. Kr’ is the only parameter that is affected.

The Kr’ in presence of secondary stress is defined as eq. (9).


K r' = K rp' + K rs' + ρ
K rp' = K r' because of primary stress
(9)
K rs' = K r' because of secondary stress
ρ = interaction parameter
The factor in eq. (9) takes account of plasticity corrections required to cover
interactions between the primary and secondary stresses. Value of depends on the
crack size and on the magnitude of primary stress. It is calculated using the eq. (10).

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.

3.6 Evaluation under Mode I, II, III loads


R6 advises only Category 1 analysis for mixed mode loading. However, not much
validation of the cases under mixed mode loading has been done in R6 method, hence
the formulation should be done with conservative data. The Kr’ calculation is given
by eq (11).

if K C σ y ≥ 0.2 m
1
( 2
)
K eff =  K I2 + K II2 + K III 1 −ν 
2

if K C σ y < 0.2 m (11)


no general definition available
 K eff   K eff 
K r' =   +  +ρ
 K mat  Pr imary  K mat  Seconadry

Formulations for limit load under mixed mode loading are available for selected
geometries in the literature.

3.7 Flaw Characterization


Flaw characterization is the name given to the process of modeling an existing crack
by a geometrically simpler one, more amenable for analysis. Characterization rules
have built in conservatism. ASME Pressure Vessel Code, Section XI and A16 guide
has published guidelines for flaw characterization. A postulated or an observed flaw
should be subjected to a recursive treatment before arriving at the final crack size.

Some sample characterization of flaws is given in following figures.

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

Figure 9: Characterizing Surface Defect a to larger of b or c in Brittle Mechanism

Figure 10: Characterizing Defects in ductile 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)

Figure 11: Planar Defect Interaction Criteria

3.8 Sensitivity Analysis

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:

The most significant reserve factor is the one on applied load.


load to cause limiting condition
FL = (12)
applied load in assessed condition

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.

Figure 12 Locus of Kmat, crack size and σy


In fig. 12, if the fracture toughness is decreased then the path followed is X-A. Thus
the reserve factor is the toughness at the assessed point X divided by the toughness
value at A. Similarly if crack size is increased, the path followed is X-B and the
reserve factor on crack is given as the crack size at B divided by the crack size at X.
Similarly reserve factor on yield stress can be obtained from the path X-C.

R6 Method Page 19 of 27
3.8 R6 Methodology
The step-by-step procedure to perform R6 analysis is given here.

1. Define and categorize all loads and stress.


2. Determine material tensile properties.
3. Define and select FAD (Option).
4. Characterize the shape of the flaw.
5. Select category of analysis.
6. Define fracture toughness parameters.
7. Define relevant crack size.
8. Calculate Lr.
9. Calculate Kr.
10. Plot all points on FAD.
11. Assess the significance of results and perform sensitivity analysis.

4 Sample Calculation [11]


On insetting the cylindrical section of a pressure vessel after post weld heat treatment
a number of indications of defects were observed in a longitudinal seam weld. The
largest string of these were parallel to the weld within a depth of 17 mm of the outer
surface over a length of 200 mm, and though it was concluded that they were not
crack like defects and did not impair the integrity of the vessel, a fracture mechanics
analysis was required to demonstrate that the margin on pressure against failure is
high.

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:

1. Define and categorize all loads and stress.

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.

2. Determine material tensile properties.

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.

3. Define and select FAD (Option).

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

4. Characterize the shape of the flaw.

The flaw will be characterized as semi-elliptical surface flaw. This is shown in figure
13.

Figure 13: Characterization of the flaw

R6 Method Page 21 of 27
5. Select category of analysis.

A category 3 analysis is performed as the full J-Resistance curve is available.

6. Define fracture toughness parameters.

The fracture data is defined in Table 1. The fracture toughness, Kmat is taken as 178.3
MPa√m.

7. Define relevant crack size.

The crack configuration defined in fig. 13 is used. The Category 3 analysis is


performed for a crack extension of 4.4 mm.

8. Calculate Lr’.

The limit load for the geometry defined is given by eq.(14).

(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

The Kr’ = (Krp’+ Krs’+ )

Table 3: Kr’ at Normal operating condition and proof test


P Krp’ Krs’ Kr’

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

10. Plot all points on FAD.

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

Figure 14: Failure assessment diagram, without secondary load

0.9 Lr = 0.8 Lr = 1.05

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

0.1 Krs = 0.12

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Lr

Figure 15: Failure assessment diagram, with secondary load

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.

Table 17.5: Calculation for unstable crack growth


Pressure 52 MPa 60 MPa 59 MPa
a mm Kmat MPa√m Lr’ Kr’ Lr’ Kr’ Lr’ Kr’
17.20 178.3 0.91 0.71 1.05 0.78 1.03 0.77
18.00 228.7 0.91 0.56 1.05 0.62 1.03 0.61
19.00 254.5 0.91 0.52 1.05 0.56 1.03 0.56
19.45 262.7 0.91 0.51 1.05 0.55 1.04 0.54
20.00 271 0.91 0.49 1.05 0.54 1.04 0.53
21.00 283.3 0.92 0.48 1.06 0.52 1.04 0.52
21.40 287.5 0.92 0.48 1.06 0.52 1.04 0.51

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

Figure 16: Calculation of load for unstable crack growth

11. Assess the significance of results and perform sensitivity analysis.

Based on the analysis performed following observations can be made.


a. If residual stress is ignored, a reserve margin of 2.14 is obtained on the
operating pressure and a margin of 1.4 on proof pressure.

b. If residual stress is considered, these margins fall to 2 and 1.3. Thus a


residual stress of magnitude 0.2 σy results in 7% decrease in margins.
If exact value of residual stresses is not know, a variation of these
safety margins with respect to different stress value can be performed
to assess their significance.
c. Unstable crack growth occurs at a load of 59 MPa. Giving a margin of
2.27 on operating pressure compared to 2 in Category 1.

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.

2. API. “Recommended practice for fitness-for-service”. API 579. Washington, DC:


American Petroleum Institute, 2000.

3. SINTAP. “Structural integrity assessment procedure for European industry”. Final


Procedure, 1999. Brite-Euram Project No. BE95- 1426, British Steel.

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

6. Andrew Cosham and Mike Kirkwood, “Best practice in pipeline defect


assessment”, Proceedings of IPC 2000: International Pipeline Conference October
2000; Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Also, www.penspenintegrity.com

7. 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.

11. Milne I, “Problems on the use of R6”, in Assessment of Cracked Components by


Fracture Mechanics, EGF4 (ed. LH Larsson), 1989, Mechanical Engineering
Publications, London, pp 263-265, 457-472.

R6 Method Page 27 of 27

You might also like