BS 7910: the UK guide on

methods for assessing the

acceptability of flaws in
metallic structures

Rohit Rastogi
Introduction
 Significance of flaws in terms of
structural integrity
 PD6493
 BS 7910 “Guide on methods for
assessing the acceptability of flaws in
metallic structures”
 Provides methods for:
 Fracture assessment procedures
 Fatigue assessment procedures
 Assessment of flaws operating at high
temperatures
Fracture Assessment
 Based on CEGB-R6 method
 The basic assumption is that the flawed body
could fail by one of two extreme failure modes -
fracture or plastic collapse (overload).

 3 Levels of assessment
 Level 1: “Simplified assessment”
 Level 2: “Normal Assessment”
 Level 3: “Ductile Tearing Instability”
Sequence of Operation
 Identify the flaw type
 Establish the essential data
 Determine the size of the flaw
 Assess possible material damage
mechanisms and damage rate
 Determine limiting size of the flaw
 Based on the damage rate, assess
whether the flaw will grow to this final
size within the remaining life of the
structure or in-service inspection
interval, by sub-critical flaw growth
Sequence of operation
 Assess the consequence of failure
 Carry out sensitivity analysis
 If the flaw could not grow to the
limiting size, including appropriate
factor of safety, it is acceptable.
Ideally, the safety factors should take
account of both the confidence in the
assessment and the consequence of
failure
Essential Data
 Nature, position of the flaw
 Structural and weld geometry,
fabrication procedure
 Stresses (pressure, thermal, residual,
transients)
 Tensile properties
 Fatigue and corrosion data
 Fracture toughness
 Creep data
 Stress corrosion cracking data
Information from NDE
 Flaw length
 Flaw height
 Flaw position
 Flaw orientation
 Planar or non-planar cross-section
Assessment of fracture
 Level 1: Simple, used when limited
information is available on material
properties
 Level 2: Normal assessment route
 Level 3: Tearing analysis permitted
for ductile materials
 In general, the analysis is first
performed using the Level 1 analysis. If
the flaw is unacceptable then the
analysis is done using higher levels.
 Failure Assessment Diagram
K r  f  Lr 
KI
K 
'
r
K mat
 ref
L 
'

 ys
r
Advantages of FAD
 Double criteria approach:
 Fracture
 LEFM
 EPFM

 Collapse
 Elasto-Plastic Fracture Mechanics:
 J-Integral calculation not required
Other features
 Flaw re-characterization rules
 LBB Procedures
 Calculation of reserve factors
 Sensitivity analysis
 Step 1: Define Stresses
 Primary and Secondary
 Guidance for residual stresses due to welding
 Level 1 Assessment
 PWHT:
 30% room temperature σy , parallel to the weld
 20% room temperature σy , transverse to the weld
 No PWHT: residual stress = σy at room temperature
 Level 2 and 3 Assessment
 Annex Q gives residual stress profiles
Residual stress profiles
Step 2: Define Fracture
toughness
 Level 1 and 2
 Kmat is required
 Can be estimated from Charpy energy
 Level 3
 Ductile tearing curve is necessary
Step 3: Define tensile properties
 Level 1: Yield stress required
 Level 2 and 3: Analysis based on
 Yield stress and Ultimate Stress only
 Stress strain curve
Step 4: Characterize flaw
 Flaw from inspection
 Semi-elliptical (surface flaw)
 Elliptical (embedded flaw)
 Rectangular (through thickness flaw)
 In planes normal to max. principal stresses
 Worst combination to be chosen
Step 5: Nearness to collapse
 Level 1:  ref
S 
'

 flow
r

 Level 2 and 3  ref

L 
'

 ys
r

 σref is the stress at the cracked section that will

lead to plastic collapse
 Formulations for a variety of cracked
configurations are listed in the Annexure P of the
code
 Secondary stresses not considered
Step 6: Nearness to fracture
 All levels K 
' KI
r
K mat

 Secondary Stresses also considered

 KI due to primary and secondary stresses
Level 1 Assessment
 Based on Conservative failure assessment
diagram
 Kr : ratio of applied crack driving force to
fracture toughness
 Sr : ratio of applied stress to flow strength
 Single-point value of fracture toughness
(sometimes Charpy energy)
 FAD is a rectangle: Sr_max = 0.8, Kr_max = 0.7
Step 7: Construct FAD
 Level 1
 Kr < 0.707 and Sr < 0.8
1 UNSAFE
Kr

0.5
SAFE
0
0 0.5 1
Sr
Level 2 Assessment
 2 types: Level 2A and 2B
 Depends on the type of stress-strain data
 2A: Full curve not available
 2B: Full curve available
 Lr is used in place of Sr in FAD
 Guidance for materials with discontinuous yield
point
 Single point value of Fracture toughness is
required
Step 7: Construct FAD
 Level 2A FAD: Only σys and σuts is known

K r   1  0.14 L2r  0.3  0.7 exp  0.65 L6r   for L r  Lr (max)
=0 for Lr  Lr (max)

Lr (max) 
  ys   uts 
2 ys
 Step 7: Construct FAD
 Level 2B FAD: Full Stress curve known
1 2
 E ref L  ys 
3
r
Kr    for 0.0  Lr  Lr (max)
 Lr ys 2 E ref 

 
=0 for Lr  Lr (max)

εref is the true strain corresponding to true stress Lr.

σys The Level 3 definition for FAD is similar to
Level 2 FAD, but it permits increased margins by
using unstable crack growth as failure mode.
 Constructing Level 2B FAD
 A number of points are taken on the Lr axis
in between 0 and Lrmax.
 For each Lr reference stress σref is
determined from Lrσy
 Corresponding true strain εref is read from the
true-stress strain curve of the material of the
component.
 Now for each chosen Lr point, The FAL is
1 2
plotted using
 E refequation
Lr ys 
3

Kr    for 0.0  Lr  Lr (max)

 Lr ys 2 E ref 

 
=0 for Lr  Lr (max)
Level 3 Assessment
 3 types: Level 3A, 3B and 3C
 Depends on the type of stress-strain data
 3A: Full curve not available
 3B: Full curve available
 3C: Detailed J-Integral calculations
 Level 3 analysis
1.2

FAL L3
1
L1 L2

0.8 B

L3'
Kr

0.6
L1' L2'
0.4

A
0.2

0O
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6
Lr
Factor of Safety
 Level 1 FAD: 2 on crack size
 Level 2 and 3 FAD: Use partial safety factors on:
 Applied stress
 Flaw size
 Toughness
 Yield stress
 These correspond to probability of failure of
 2.3x10-1
 1.0x10-3
 7.0x10-5
 1.0x10-5
Step 8: Assess the component
 If the assessed point is in the safe
region the flaw is acceptable.
 The code recommends a sensitivity
analysis on the results with respect to
the flaw sizes, loads and material
properties before the decision is made.
 API 579 vs. BS 7910
 API 579 is intended for equipment designed using the
ASME code and materials and gives results consistent
with the original ASME design safety margins.
 API 579 may be used for equipment designed to other
codes but users should be prepared to interpret the
procedures in an appropriate manner.
 BS 7910 is applicable to all metallic structures and
materials and is written in a more generalized manner
without reference to a particular industry, design code
or material thereby allowing users to decide safety
margins.
 API 579 vs. BS 7910
 API 579 covers a wide range of damage types typically found
in refining and petrochemicals application, and gives
procedures for different types of metal loss, physical damage,
low and high temperatures, and crack like defects.
 BS 7910 deals comprehensively with fatigue and fracture of
defects in and around welded joints and gives annexes
covering advanced aspects such as mismatch, mixed mode
loading , residual stress effects and leak before break.
 API 579 is designed at level 1 for use by plant inspectors and
plant engineering personnel with the minimum amount of
information from inspection and about the component.
API 579 vs. BS 7910
 BS 7910 requires some technical expertise in
fracture mechanics and access to fracture
parameter solutions and toughness data at all
levels.
 API 579 is supported by a number of
organizations based in the USA where most
experience resides.
 BS 7910 was developed in the UK where TWI is
the main source of expertise, training and
software.
Thank you