You are on page 1of 14

TK P: Petrojarl 1 September 17th 2007

On the Assessment of Critical Crack Size page 1
0 SUMMARY

This memo describes an attempt to estimate the critical length of a transverse crack in the
bottom plating of "Petrojarl 1". The British standard BS 7910 level 2 procedure has been
used. There exist a number of different standards and procedures for this assessment,
however, they are believed to give more or less the same result and therefore not used.

Mild steel NV A quality is used in the bottom structure outside the turret area. There is no
fracture mechanics material data of this steel from the time of construction of the ship since
there was no requirement for it. Therefore a piece of a web plate in the bottom structure,
believed to be of the same material as bottom plates, was taken out for laboratory testing at
DNV. These test showed excellent material properties of the NV A plate in question, i.e.
CTOD = 0.67 mm and σF = 305 MPa.

The crack assessment is done using a load level of 122 MPa. This corresponds to a 100 year
wave induced stress including a load factor of 1.15, an assumption of zero still water bending
moment as well as zero bending stresses due to local water pressure. This load level is about
half of the DNV rule minimum yield stress of 235 MPa.

A good knowledge of residual weld stresses in the structure is essential for the result of the
critical crack size estimate. The BS 7910 standard states that residual stresses at the level of
the yield stress shall be assumed. However, such high residual stress will be relaxed after
some time in service due to varying loading conditions, wave loads, etc. A good estimate of
residual weld stress is very difficult and no reliable information exists for ship structures.

The following table shows calculated critical crack size for three cases with varying stress
levels:

Applied stress Yield stress Residual weld stress Critical crack length
[ MPa ] [ MPa ] [ MPa ] [ mm ]
235 0.0 1300
121.6 305 0.0 1750
235 235 123
121.6 305 305 117
235 155 215
121.6 305 225 184
235 235 314
0.0 305 305 242
235 155 755
0.0 305 225 460

Here applied stress is due to loading condition and wave loads, and yield stress corresponds to
minimum DNV requirement and material test value respectively. The residual stress is either
at yield level or the weld stress is relaxed by 1 year extreme wave load. The table shows
clearly that good knowledge of long term behaviour of weld stresses is essential.

In order to obtain better estimates of critical crack length, sophisticated nonlinear FEM
computations is necessary together with advanced elastic plastic fracture mechanics methods
and thorough investigation of residual weld stress behaviour. Such analyses are more research
work than application of existing structural design procedures.

C:\Documents and Settings\jff\My Documents\PJ 1 - Crack size assessment.doc
TK P: Petrojarl 1 September 17th 2007
On the Assessment of Critical Crack Size page 2

1 INTRODUCTION

At the delivery of the FPSO "Petrojarl 1" from the yard in 1986 the Classification societies'
construction rules did not specify any requirement with respect to fatigue. For the operation of
oil production units in the Norwegian Waters, the regulation of Norwegian Oil Directorate
specified that the unit shall have a fatigue life corresponding to its operational life, not
necessary equal to 20 years. More recently offshore vessels have been designed for 20 years
fatigue life, and some for a longer life.

The welds in steel structures contain micro-cracks in order of 0.05 - 0.1 mm. The cyclic wave
induced stresses will cause a growth of these cracks, and the extent of this growth is
accounted for by the fatigue life calculations. The fatigue life is not an exact criterion,
however, it is normally regarded as the elapsed time for the growth of a small crack in a weld
to a through plate thickness condition. A through thickness crack does not necessary mean
that the structure will collapse when exposed to its ULS design load. The growth of a through
thickness crack until a critical size must be analysed by fracture mechanics methodology.
Such analyses consist of two elements; one issue will be the estimation of the rate of the crack
growth while the other issue will be the determination of the critical crack size that may cause
the structure to collapse under extreme loading. As far as possible the assessment of the
critical crack size is to be carried out in accordance with some recognized standard. This
memo discusses the problems and conservatism in the normal approach for the estimation of
the critical crack size of welded marine structures.

Cracks are often reported in welded marine steel structures, and these are normally detected
by the routine inspections by operational personnel on board the unit or by the Classification
Society's regular inspection. Most cracks start in a local area with high stresses due to the
structural geometry with welds connecting structure elements. The growth of many of these
cracks stops after growth into areas with lower stresses, while some will continue to grow
under the cyclic stress. Ref. /15/ discusses a 600 mm long crack in a deck girder. ISSC 2006,
Ref. /14/ discusses longer cracks in the order of meters. One extreme case is a series of
transverse cracks in the amidships deck plating that had spread about 22 meters across the
main deck. This series of cracks had almost divided main deck of the 25.91 meters wide ship
into two, Ref. /16/. The 172.2 meters long product tanker survived three weeks in January
2001 off the Spanish Mediterranean coast with weather recorded as Force 8 and wave heights
in excess of 4 meters.

2 FRACTURE MECHANICS STANDARDS

DNV has issued two documents describing the methodology to calculate the fatigue life of
marine structures, Refs. /1-2/. This procedure is based on the stress-life high cycle fatigue
estimate using the S-N curve. There is no exact criterion on what is the end of the fatigue life,
however, often the fatigue life is considered to be the time elapsed until a through-thickness
crack appears in the structure. Ref. /1/ which considers fatigue of ship structures, does not
discuss any method for assessment of visible cracks that have occurred. Ref. /2/ is to be
applied to offshore structure intended to be used in the oil field industry. In order to assess the
growth and criticality of a through-thickness crack in such structures, Ref. /2/ refer to BS
7910, Ref. /4/.

C:\Documents and Settings\jff\My Documents\PJ 1 - Crack size assessment.doc
TK P: Petrojarl 1 September 17th 2007
On the Assessment of Critical Crack Size page 3

The NORSOK Standard N-004, Ref. /3/, describes fatigue life calculations of offshore
structures. The applied procedure is the stress-life high cycle S-N curve similar to Ref. /2/.
Further, a design procedure against unstable fracture is briefly described with a reference to
BS 7910, Ref. /4/, for guidance on the use of fracture mechanics.

As indicated above neither the DNV rules nor the NORSOK standard have any detailed
description on the use of fracture mechanics methods on large marine steel structures. These
two regulations regard the British standard BS 7910, Ref. /4/, as a basic document for the
assessment of cracks in marine steel structures either in welded or non-welded parts of the
structure.

In 1986 Sintef, Ref. /7/, carried out an estimate of critical crack size in the turret area of
"Petrojarl 1" using PD 5493, Ref. /4b/. This standard is an older issue of BS 7910, Ref /4/.
The Sintef result is believed to be approximately equal to a result that will be obtained by use
of the newer issue, Ref. /4/.

API 579, Ref. /6/, is another standard that have not been used so far. This standard describes
Fitness-For-Service assessments of structural integrity of pressurized equipment like pressure
vessels, piping and storage tanks. The standard is a voluminous document of 1128 pages, and
the application of this standard on ship hull structures is not described. However, it is believed
that this standard will not give significantly different answer than a use of BS 7910, Ref. /4/.

Another standard denoted "R6 procedure", Ref. /5/ is often used and described in the
literature. The procedure is roughly the same as BS 7910, Ref. /4/.

SINTAP (Structural Integrity Assessment Procedure for European Industry) is another
fracture assessment procedure that is developed in recent years. Its content and effect on
estimates of critical crack length has not been looked into.

FITNET is also another project aiming at a unified methodology for assessment of flaws e.g.
cracks, welding defects, corrosion damage) to an agreed European procedure that could be a
standard. The content of this work has not been looked into.

3 FRACTURE ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM - FAD

3.1 General

In order to quantify if a crack is of a critical size or not, the practise is to use a Fracture
Assessment Diagram, FAD diagram, as depicted in Figure 3.1 below. The FAD diagram is
divided into an upper part and a lower part by a FAD curve. This diagram represents a
procedure that is able to deal with the interaction of a widespread plastic collapse of a
structure and a collapse due to brittle fracture. This means that for the load ratio, Lr, less than
0.25 say, the failure will be unstable fracture while for Lr > 1.0 the remaining structure outside
the crack will fail by plastic yield. The relative load level, Lr, is the ratio between applied
service stress and the material yield stress. A point in the diagram is a function of Lr and the
relative crack tip stress intensity factor, Kr, alternatively relative CTOD expressed by δ r ,
due to an existing or hypothetical crack. If this point is above the FAD-curve, the crack is
considered unsafe. In the following we will describe the parameters that must be estimated in

C:\Documents and Settings\jff\My Documents\PJ 1 - Crack size assessment.doc
TK P: Petrojarl 1 September 17th 2007
On the Assessment of Critical Crack Size page 4
accordance with the FAD procedure in order to obtain a plot in the diagram and an assessment
of the criticality of a crack.

BS 7910 defines three approaches for the determination of relevant parameters, viz.:

Level -1
This is a simplified assessment route applicable where there is limited information on material
properties or applied stresses.

Level - 2
This is the normal assessment route for general application of crack assessment. The standard
states that no safety factors are inherent in the procedure. Safety factors must be applied on
loads and relate result of calculation to the Fad curve level. The Level-2 approach has so far
been used for the assessment of a hypothetical crack in the turret area and in the bottom plates
of "Petrojarl 1". Hence, we will discuss this approach in more detail.

Level- 3
There is also a more advance Level-3 described in BS 7910. This approach is a ductile tearing
assessment that is appropriate for ductile materials that exhibit stable tearing. This procedure
has not been considered so far.

In 1986 the main focus was on the turret area where the steel is high tensile NV36 quality.
Recently cracks have been observed in the bottom plating outside the turret area. The steel
used here is normal steel NV NS quality. DNV carried out a CTOD test of a web plate cut out
from the bottom structure and found out following data:

Table 1: Characteristic material data for NV NS steel on "Petrojarl 1"
Measured Requirement
DNV OS B101
Yield stress [ MPa ] 305 min. 235
Ultimate stress [ MPa ] 450 400 - 520
Elongation [ % ] 32 min. 22
Charpy V at 20°C [ Joule ] 73 - 82 - 71 27
(no requirement for NV NS)
δ mat = CTOD [ mm ] 0.67

The obtained data is regarded to be rather very good. The test piece has the same thickness as
the bottom plate, i.e. 14 mm, but was not cut directly out from the bottom plate. However, the
material quality is considered to also be representative for the bottom plate. A test piece taken
out from the bottom plate will introduce a risk for cracks in the repair weld that had to be
done while "Petrojarl 1" is in operation at the field. Further, the material characteristics in
HAZ of the weld might be different from the results of an un-welded test piece. Unless tests
are carried out in HAZ of welded test pieces, uncertainties will always remain. It turns out
from our calculations using BS 7910 Level 2 procedure, that the critical crack length is
proportional with the materials CTOD value.

3.2 FAD Level - 2 Analyses

C:\Documents and Settings\jff\My Documents\PJ 1 - Crack size assessment.doc
TK P: Petrojarl 1 September 17th 2007
On the Assessment of Critical Crack Size page 5
We will in the subsequent show the use of FAD Level 2 assessment on typical observed
transverse crack in the bottom plate of "Petrojarl 1" with data representative for the mild steel
plate used. First the general way to perform the analysis is described. Next we give three
examples that show the very sensitivity of the residual weld stresses on the estimated critical
crack length. It appears to us that the knowledge of residual weld stress level and its
relaxation during service is not well understood from an engineering point of view. Therefore
standards take a conservative approach which seems to be overly conservative when applied
to ships. One consequence of this conservative assumption is that far more sophisticated
nonlinear structural FEM computations must be carried out. And there is also a need for more
testing to determine fracture mechanics parameters, e.g. J-integral and resistance curves.

FAD level 2 procedure
1.20

1.00

0.80
δ r)
Kr or root(δ

0.60 FAD

0.40

0.20

0.00
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4
Lr

Figure 3.1 FAD Level 2 according to BS 7910, Ref. /4/ Section 7.3.2
Lr is relative load level, Kr is relative crack tip stress intensity
root(δr) = δ r and δr is relative CTOD

Figure 3.1 shows a typical fracture assessment diagram based on BS 7910 Level 2 approach.
The abscissa represents a relative applied load level, Lr, and the ordinate represents the elastic
force to the resistance force ratio. Here one can either use Kr, denoted relative applied crack
tip stress intensity, or applied relative CTOD, δ r . This FAD curve Level 2 is given by:

σY +σu
δ r FAD = (1 − 0.14 L2r ) 0.3 + 0.7e −0.65 L 
6
r
for Lr ≤ Lr max =
  2σ Y
σ Y is the yield stress and σ u is the ultimate stress. For the measured data in Table 3.1 we find
Lrmax equal to:

C:\Documents and Settings\jff\My Documents\PJ 1 - Crack size assessment.doc
TK P: Petrojarl 1 September 17th 2007
On the Assessment of Critical Crack Size page 6
Table 3.1 Maximum load ratio
DNV Rule minimum Test July 2007
σ y [MPa] σ u [MPa] Lrmax σ y [MPa] σ u [MPa] Lrmax
235 400 1.35 305 450 1.24

It is shown below that we operate well below Lrmax.

Stresses

The tensile membrane stress in the bottom plate is assumed composed of wave induced stress
plus still water stress plus residual stress due to welding. In the following we assume that the
ship is operating in a loading condition with near zero hull girder still water bending stress in
the bottom plate.

According to Ref. /7/ the amidships wave induced stress in bottom is

Mw(100) = 2.5⋅105 tm
Zbottom = 2.32⋅1010 mm3
σw(100) = 105.7 MPa
σw(100)⋅1.15 = 121.6 MPa

The amidships wave induced stress (without load factor of 1.15) for different probability
levels can be determined from:

1/ 0.927
 years 8.7 
σ max = 4.16706  ln( ⋅10 ) 
 100 

The BS 7910 standard states that the residual weld stress is assumed to be at yield level and
the effect of through thickness variation is negligible for a 14 mm thick plate.

In Section 3.4.2, Ref. /7/, the effect of residual weld stress relaxation due to in service stress is
taken into account by assuming that the still water and wave induced stresses will cause
yielding in the weld zone and a reduction in the residual stress. Using assumptions in Ref./7/
the maximum stress in the midship area related to crack size assessment is determined from:

σ max = SCF ⋅ (σ w + σ s ) + σ R

Still water stress, σ s , is set equal to zero and it is assumed that the weld stress σR is initially
at yield level and that it is relaxed by the 1 year maximum wave induced stress. Thus the
residual stress is:

 235 − 80 = 155 MPa for σ y = 235 MPa
σ R = σ y − σ w,1 year = 
 305 − 80 = 225 MPa for σ y = 305 MPa

In a recent paper by Li and Moan, Ref. /18/, the residual stress can be determined from:

C:\Documents and Settings\jff\My Documents\PJ 1 - Crack size assessment.doc
TK P: Petrojarl 1 September 17th 2007
On the Assessment of Critical Crack Size page 7
σ R = σ R ,in for σ R ,in + σ app < σ y
σ + σ app
σ R = (2.1 − 1.1 ⋅ R ,in ) ⋅ σ R ,in for σ y < σ R ,in + σ app < 1.9 ⋅ σ y
σy
σR = 0 for σ R ,in + σ app > 1.9 ⋅ σ y

Here σ R ,in is initial residual stress and σ app is the applied stress, e.g. wave induced stress.
Using this expression we can construct following Table 3.2

Table 3.2 Residual stress after Li and Moan, Ref. /18/
σR σR
Years σ app = σ max σ R ,in = σ y = 235 MPa σ R ,in = σ y = 305 MPa
0 0 235.0 305.0
1 79.7 147.3 226.3
5 88.8 137.3 219.1
10 92.7 133.0 215.8
20 96.6 128.7 212.5
100 105.7 118.7 204.7

It is seen that the original assumption in 1986 on residual stress relaxation is approximately
equal to recent knowledge assuming 1 year return period on applied stress level.

Crack example

To illustrate the use of FAD a model of a transverse through-thickness crack in the bottom
plate is depicted in Figure 3.2 below. Here W is the width of the plate, which is near infinite
relative to the crack width 2a. The plane membrane stress far away from the crack is σ ∞ .

C:\Documents and Settings\jff\My Documents\PJ 1 - Crack size assessment.doc
TK P: Petrojarl 1 September 17th 2007
On the Assessment of Critical Crack Size page 8
W
2a
σ∞ →0
W

2a

σ∞
Figure 3.2 Infinite wide plate with 2a wide crack transverse to far field stress σ ∞

Example 1
As a first example on the use of BS 7910 crack assessment we will discuss the application to
the case of a through-thickness crack in an infinite wide plate as shown in Figure 3.2.

In the FAD procedure Level 2 the relative load ratio, Lr, is given by:
σ ref
Lr =
σY
Here σ ref is a stress resultant that is a combination of bending and in plane membrane stresses
in the plate. Taking into account the load factor 1.15, then σ ref equals σ ∞ = 121.6 MPa in
Figure 3.2 for the case that bending stress is zero, and we will assume zero residual weld
stress in this example 1. Note that Lr represents the stress level in the plate without the crack
relative to yield, i.e. relative to a plastic collapse of the plate. In general Lr ≤ 1 , but, if we
account for strain hardening, Lr ≤ Lr max . Thus, for the normal steel quality used:
121.6
 235 = 0.517 for σ y = 235 MPa
Lr = 
121.6 = 0.399 for σ = 305 MPa
 305 y

0.954 for σ y = 235 MPa
δ r FAD = 
0.976 for σ y = 305 MPa

C:\Documents and Settings\jff\My Documents\PJ 1 - Crack size assessment.doc
TK P: Petrojarl 1 September 17th 2007
On the Assessment of Critical Crack Size page 9
The applied relative crack tip stress intensity or ratio of applied force to force resistance on
the ordinate is defined by either using the applied crack tip stress intensity factor KI or CTOD
δ I , and calculation the ratio of these parameters with similar material property according to:

KI δI
Kr = +ρ or δr = +ρ
K mat δ mat

Here Kmat and δ mat are parameters characterising the materials resistance against unstable
crack growth. We will use δ mat that have been obtained by the CTOD test, see Table 3.1. ρ is a
correction factor accounting for secondary stresses, e.g. weld residual stresses that will be
discussed in the subsequent Example 2.

A relationship between KI and δ I have been shown to exist for the case of small scale
yielding of the crack tip, see Eq. (3.20) Ref. /8/ or Ref. /4/. For the plane stress case, i.e. in
thin plates, the relationship is:

K I2
δI =
σY E

From linear elastic fracture theory, the applied crack tip stress intensity factor KI can be
expressed by:

K I = Y ⋅σ ∞ π a

Here Y is a geometry factor that for our case can be set equal to 1. We can now calculate δr
for different crack lengths until it equals δ r FAD . The result is shown in Table 3.3:

Table 3.3 Critical crack width for 100 year wave stress and zero residual weld stress
σ ref σR σy δ r FAD crack width KI δI δr
-3/2
MPa MPa MPa 2a [mm] Nmm mm
235 0.954 1300 5495 0.61 0.956
121.6 0 305 0.976 1750 6394 0.64 0.976

Hence, we have found that a critical crack is respectively about 1.3 meter and 1.8 meter wide
for a case with zero residual stresses and the minimum rule yield stress and measured yield
stress.

Example 2
Next we will consider a transverse crack in the HAZ of weld between a transverse frame and
the bottom plate. In order to account for residual stress due to the weld, the BS 7910 states
that the crack tip stress intensity factor shall be estimated in our case according to, (see Ref.
/4/ Section 7.3.5 Eq. (15)):

K I =  (Y ⋅ σ ∞ ) Primary + (Y ⋅ σ ∞ )Secondary  π a

C:\Documents and Settings\jff\My Documents\PJ 1 - Crack size assessment.doc
TK P: Petrojarl 1 September 17th 2007
On the Assessment of Critical Crack Size page 10
K I2
δI =
σY E

In lack of an exact knowledge of the residual weld stress BS 7910 states that one shall assume
that the secondary residual stress equals the yield stress. If the plate is thick, the standard
describes in Annex Q expressions for the weld stress variation through the plate thickness.
However, for the 14 mm plate in our case this stress profile has a minor variation of the stress
level

In the elastic range the stress intensity due to secondary stresses, K IS , can be simply added to
the stress intensity due to primary stresses, K IP , as done above. Due to plastic effects in the
crack tip, a direct use of δ r in the FAD assessment will be an underestimate of the effect of
the higher stress level near the crack tip. Therefore a correction factor, ρ, has been introduced
in the procedure, i.e.:

δI
δr = +ρ
δ mat

where
ρ = 0.1χ 0.714 − 0.007 χ 2 + 0.00003χ 5
K Is Yσ R π a σ ∞ σ R
χ= p
Lr = =
KI Yσ ∞ π a σ Y σ Y
Here σ R is the residual stress.
Table 3.4 Critical crack width for 100 year wave stress and residual weld stress
σ ref σR σy δ r FAD crack width KI -3/2 δI ρ δr + ρ
2a [mm] Nmm
MPa MPa MPa mm
σy 235 0.954 123 4957 0.50 0.093 0.955
σy 305 0.976 117 5783 0.52 0.093 0.976
121.6
155 235 0.954 215 5083 0.52 0.071 0.955
225 305 0.976 184 5893 0.54 0.077 0.976

It is seen from Table 3 that the effect of residual weld stress, which is larger than the 100 year
wave induced stress, have a major impact on the determination of the critical crack size.
Using the BS 7910 standard the critical crack length is about 120 mm. However, if we
account for weld stress relaxation, the critical crack length is in order of 200 mm.

Example 3
In the third example we will estimate the critical size for the case of only residual weld stress
in the plate. The calculations are similar to Example 2 above, and the result is given in Table
3.5 below.

C:\Documents and Settings\jff\My Documents\PJ 1 - Crack size assessment.doc
TK P: Petrojarl 1 September 17th 2007
On the Assessment of Critical Crack Size page 11
Table 3.5 Critical crack width for residual weld stress and zero wave stress
σ ref σR σy δ r FAD crack width KI -3/2 δI ρ δr + ρ
2a [mm] Nmm
MPa MPa MPa mm
σy 235 1.0 314 5219 0.55 0.093 1.00
σy 305 1.0 242 5947 0.55 0.093 1.00
0
155 235 1.0 755 5338 0.58 0.065 1.00
225 305 1.0 460 6048 0.57 0.072 1.00

Table 3.5 should correspond to the ship being in sheltered waters or harbour conditions. From
this we see that a critical crack is in the order of 250 - 300 mm for a new built vessel, while
the critical length is increases to 450 - 750 mm if we take into account so called shake down
of residual weld stresses after some time in service.

Summary on the above FAD Level 2 assessment.

The above crack assessment is done using an applied load level of 122 MPa. This corresponds
to a 100 year wave induced stress including a load factor of 1.15, an assumption of zero still
water bending moment as well as zero bending stresses due to local water pressure. This load
level is about half of the DNV rule minimum yield stress of 235 MPa. In addition to this
stress there will be residual stresses due to the welding during fabrication. The critical length
of a transverse crack in the bottom plating has been assessed for three different cases where
the applied and residual stress levels have been varied.

Example 1. If there is only wave induced membrane stress of 122 MPa and zero residual
stress, the critical crack length is estimated to respectively 1.3 meter and 1.8 meter for a yield
stress of 235 MPa respectively 305 MPa. These two yield stresses represents the DNV
minimum requirement and a test result for NV-NS steel on board "Petrojarl 1".

Example 2. When we introduce a residual weld stress in addition to the wave induced
membrane stress of 122 MPa, we find that the critical crack length is dramatically reduced.
Assuming a residual stress at yield level in accordance with the BS 7910 standard, the critical
crack length is about 120 mm. However, if we take into account a reduced residual stress due
to in service weld stress relaxation, the critical crack length is in the order of 200 mm.

Example 3. In this case the critical crack length has been estimated for the ship being in
sheltered waters, i.e. there is no wave induced stresses and no still water stress induced by the
loading condition. For a new built ship, the critical crack length is in the order of 250 - 300
mm. After a 1 year service period the weld stress relaxation will have the effect of increasing
the estimated the critical crack length to 450 - 750 mm depending on the material yields
stress.

For the results obtained above, it should be noted that the measured CTOD of 0.67 mm, i.e.
δ mat = 0.67 mm, is regarded to be high and the mild steel NV A material used is considered to
have a very good quality. The in service stress level of 122 MPa relative to the yield stress of
235 MPa is not especially high. Therefore the criticality of the crack size estimated above can
be regarded to be at an upper level for any seagoing ship, not only for an FPSO. Considering
all the cracks reported on board ships and which have been successfully repaired some time
after its discovery, it should be clear that the BS 7910 Level 2 crack size assessment is overly

C:\Documents and Settings\jff\My Documents\PJ 1 - Crack size assessment.doc
TK P: Petrojarl 1 September 17th 2007
On the Assessment of Critical Crack Size page 12
conservative and cannot be applied to ship's hull structure before more refinements are done
to the calculations and probably to the assessment procedure. Especially the effect of residual
weld stresses and their long term behaviour is considered to have a major impact on the
results.

4 RESIDUAL STRESSES

In addition to the calm water hull girder stress, dependant on the ship's loading condition, and
the wave induced stresses; there are several sources to additional stresses in the hull structure.
Important sources are the residual stresses due to welding and assembly of hull sections
during the construction period and also repair welding, as well as temperature stresses due to
cargo and structure environment, e.g. air and sea temperature, and sunshine heating. A
relaxation of the residual weld stresses during service is a very complex process. Both still
water and wave induced stresses as well as local load effects will cause relaxation of initial
weld stresses being at yield level. In addition temperature stresses may cause further
relaxation of the weld stress. On the other hand temperature stresses may induce stresses in
the structure that vary from day to day.

A number of studies of residual weld stresses have been carried out; see for example Westby,
Ref. /9/ and Masubushi, Ref. /10/. A more recent work is a Danish Ph.D. dissertation, Ref.
/11/. These references describes methods for the computation of weld induced stresses and
examples of the stress levels. One notable figure in Refs. /10/ and /11/ indicates that the
residual stress in parallel direction of a butt weld is locally at yield level while the transverse
stress is 20% of yield stress. BS 7910, Ref. /4/, has an Annex Q which describes a method to
estimate residual weld stress. However, it appears that the method in this standard is rather
conservative. Our use of this standard ends up with a transverse stress level equal to the yield
stress in our case of 14 mm plate thickness. The Brite-Euram SINTAP project, Ref. /19/, has
developed a compendium of residual stress profiles. This document has not been studied so
far, and it is unclear if it includes procedures for estimating shakedown of weld stresses.

The effect of residual stress on crack propagation has been discussed in numerous papers. One
reference is a Danish Ph.D. dissertation, Ref. /12/. A recent paper is Ref. /18/

Since it is assumed that the weld induced stress is at level of yield just after the fabrication of
the ship hull structure, it may also be assumed that in service induced stresses (due to loading
condition, waves and temperatures) will cause additional yield in HAZ of the weld. Hence
there will be a shakedown of the residual stress and an assumption of secondary stress at yield
level will be too conservative for ship's structure. The shake-down of residual stresses will be
more important for old ships and for ships operating in the rough North Sea. The effect of
shake down of stresses in ship structures is not much described in the literature. ISSC 2006,
ref. /14/, refers to a Ph.D. dissertation from Chalmers in 1996, Ref. /13/. A recent paper is
given by Li and Moan, Ref, /18/.

5 FURTHER WORK

In any further work on assessing the length of critical cracks one should resort to sophisticated
nonlinear fracture mechanics methods and nonlinear FEM calculations. Material plasticity
plays and important element in such calculations. Therefore, full understanding of material
plasticity is a must, not only carrying nonlinear FEM computations and finding some material
parameters that are required by the FEM program input. Next, it is necessary to study residual

C:\Documents and Settings\jff\My Documents\PJ 1 - Crack size assessment.doc
TK P: Petrojarl 1 September 17th 2007
On the Assessment of Critical Crack Size page 13
stresses due to welding and the shakedown of these stresses during service. The shakedown
should be studied both for an intact weld as well as for a weld containing a crack. After
having good knowledge of these two issues, i.e. plasticity and residual stresses, nonlinear
fracture mechanics calculations can be carried out. An issue in such calculations is the criteria
for unstable fracture. The so called J-integral, which expresses the plastic energy dissipation
in the crack tip zone, is a parameter that should be considered. The computed values of this
parameter should be related to the materials characteristic resistance JR curve. Such curves
must be obtained by material testing which also has to be carried out.

The work above is rather a research project than just using an industry standard to obtain
some restraint on the operation of a ship. Such a work should be performed in cooperation
between involved companies and research institutions.

REFERENCES

/1/ DNV Class Note 30.7

/2/ DNV Recommended Practice RP C203

/3/ NORSOK Standard N-004, Rev. 2, October 2004, Chapter 6.8

/4/ British Standard BS7910:1999
"Guide on Methods for Assessing the Acceptability of Flaws in Metallic Structures

/4b/ "Guidance on some methods for the derivation of acceptance levels for defects in
welded joints", PD 5493: 1980, British Standard Institution

/5/ Milne, I., Ainsworth, R.A., Dowling, A.R., Stewart, A.T.; "Assessment of Integrity of
Structures Containing Defects". CEGB (Central Electric Generating Board, U.K.)
Report R/H/-R6 Revision 3 (1986)

/6/ API 579

/7/ Moan, Yao, Engesvik; "Collapse and fatigue strength of the PTS Petrojarl ".
SINTEF Rep. No. STF 71 F86019. 1986-04-01

/8/ M. Jannssen, J. Zuidema, R. Wanhill; "Fracture Mechanics"

/9/ O. Westby; "Anvendelse av Elementmetoder på Sveisedeformasjoner og
Egenspenninger", NTNU 1968.

/10/ Masubuchi, K.; Analysis of Welded Structures. Residual Stresses, Distortion,
and Their Consequences. Oxford: Pergamon Press 1980

/11/ Birk-Sørensen, M.; "Simulation of Welding Distortions in Ship Section". 1999
Department of Naval Architecture and Offshore Engineering. Technical University of
Denmark.

/12/ Andersen, M.R.; "Fatigue Crack Initiation and Growth in Ship Structures". 1998

C:\Documents and Settings\jff\My Documents\PJ 1 - Crack size assessment.doc
TK P: Petrojarl 1 September 17th 2007
On the Assessment of Critical Crack Size page 14
Department of Naval Architecture and Offshore Engineering. Technical University of
Denmark

/13/ Eckerlid, J., Ulfvarson, A.; "Redistribution of initial residual stresses in ship structure
details and its effect on fatigue". Marine Structures, 8 No 4, 1994

/14/ ISSC 2006, Technical Committee Reports, III.2 "Fatigue and Fracture"

/15/ Bjørheim, L.G.; "Failure Assessment of Long Through Thickness Fatigue Cracks in
Ship Hulls". Docoral Thesis at NTNU, 2006

/16/ "Investigation into the Damage Sustained by the M.V. "Castor" on 30 December 2000.
ABS Technical Report, 17 October 2001

/17/ Fatigue Strength of the PTS "Petrojarl". Maritime Engineering 1986

/18/ Li, L. and Moan, T.; "Residual Stress Shakedown in Typical Weld Joints and its Effect
on Fatigue of FPSOs" OMAE2007 - 29285

/19/ SINTAP, "Structural Integrity Assessment Procedures for European Industry"

C:\Documents and Settings\jff\My Documents\PJ 1 - Crack size assessment.doc