You are on page 1of 90

PHASE 2 STUDIES ON LOAD HISTORY EFFECTS ON CRACK

DRIVING FORCE
CONTRIBUTION TO EG2/EG3 RPV CASE STUDY

Report prepared by: R. Charles, A Toft
November 2011



NULIFE (11) 19 Page 2 of 90

Page intentionally left blank

NULIFE (11) 19 Page 4 of 90


Distribution List

NULIFE Members only









NULIFE (11) 19 Page 5 of 90

Foreword

This report describes Phase 2 developments in the study of load history effects arising from a
United Kingdom (UK) fracture mechanics research programme, and provides an update to work
previously reported (i.e. the Phase 1 developments) as part of the Network of Excellence for
Nuclear Plant Life Prediction (NULIFE) project EG2/EG3 Reactor Pressure Vessel (RPV) case
study.


NULIFE (11) 19 Page 6 of 90

Page intentionally left blank

NULIFE (11) 19 Page 7 of 90

Contents
1 Introduction 9
2 Outline of Studies Undertaken 10
2.1 Appendix 1 - Finite Element Analysis to Study the Effect of Prior Overload on
Defects 10
2.2 Appendix 2 - Experimental Test Programme to Compare Instantaneously
and Progressively Introduced Cracks 10
2.3 Appendix 3 - Finite Element Analysis in Support of Experimental Test
Programme 11
3 Results and Discussion 11
3.1 Effect of Prior Overload 11
3.2 Tests on Instantaneously versus Progressively Introduced Cracks 12
4 Conclusions 12
4.1 Effect of Prior Overload 12
4.2 Instantaneously versus Progressively Introduced Cracks 13
5 Recommendations 13
6 References 14

Appendix 1
Finite Element Analysis to Study the Effect of Prior
Overload on Defects
Appendix 2 Experimental Test Programme to Compare
Instantaneously and Progressively Introduced Cracks
Appendix 3 Finite Element Analysis in Support of Experimental
Test Programme

NULIFE (11) 19 Page 8 of 90

Page intentionally left blank


NULIFE (11) 19 Page 9 of 90

1 Introduction
The structural integrity of a nuclear power plant component containing a real or postulated defect,
is established by demonstrating that the so-called crack driving force (CDF) is less than a critical,
material-specific, value at which ductile fracture initiates (the fracture toughness). Usually, lower
bound values of material fracture toughness are measured using deeply-cracked bend or compact
tension specimens that impose high levels of plastic constraint at the crack tip. Such lower bound
values of fracture toughness, upper bound estimates of crack size and applied stresses, and lower-
bound estimates of yield stress ensure that assessments of structural integrity are conservative.
The value of the crack driving force can be determined using elastic-plastic finite element analysis
or by making use of the R6 assessment procedure as an estimation scheme [1]. The assessments
must take into account the combined effect of primary and secondary loads acting to open the
crack. For pressurised plant components, primary loads arise from the internal pressure and long-
range system and thermal stresses; secondary loads arise from weld residual stresses and short to
medium range thermal stresses.
The R6 procedure makes conservative, simplifying assumptions with regard to the creation of
crack-like defects within the field of influence of weld residual stresses, the subsequent estimation
of CDFs, and the validity of the assessment process. The aim of the present work is to provide
more accurate estimates of CDF:
a) where the component experiences a prior over-load that modifies the field of
residual stress in the vicinity of a defect, often referred to as shakedown, or
b) where a defect is introduced progressively into a pre-existing field of residual
stress.
With regard to a) above, recent numerical studies under a United kingdon (UK) Research and
Technology (R&T) programme [2] have demonstrated that the secondary crack driving force can be
reduced for defects introduced into a residual stress field in a component which has experienced a
prior overload. This can result in greater load or toughness margins. This phenomenon is further
investigated here. In Appendix 1 of this report, a finite element study is therefore undertaken of the
effects of prior overload on the resulting secondary and combined primary and secondary CDF.
With regard to b) above, numerical analyses and experimental tests conducted recently [2, 3] have
suggested that a crack introduced progressively into a field of residual stress (by means of fatigue
crack growth or stress corrosion cracking for example) results in a smaller secondary component of
CDF than that resulting from a crack introduced instantaneously. In Reference [4], it is suggested
that energy is dissipated along the entire length of a progressively opening crack in the form of a
plastic wake, while plastic deformation and energy dissipation is concentrated at the final crack tip
of an instantaneously or simultaneously opening crack. A lower CDF is therefore expected for the
progressive crack. Assessment procedures such as R6 usually calculate secondary CDF

NULIFE (11) 19 Page 10 of 90

consistent with the instantaneous crack. Therefore, there may be benefits in assessments that
account for defects that develop in a progressive manner: resulting in lower secondary CDFs and
so greater load or toughness margins. This phenomenon is investigated experimentally in the
present study. Appendix 2 describes the experimental test programme and its outcome. Supporting
finite element analysis studies are described in Appendix 3.
The overall aim of the experimental and numerical studies undertaken and reported here is to
provide improved guidance on accounting more accurately for the effect of residual stress in
assessments of defects in nuclear power plant components. The work contained in this report
constitutes Phase 2 of the study, Phase 1 of which was previously reported under NULIFE [5].
2 Outline of Studies Undertaken
2.1 Appendix 1 - Finite Element Analysis to Study the Effect of Prior Overload on
Defects
The objective of the numerical study presented in this Appendix is to examine the effect on crack
driving force, and so any benefit resulting in structural integrity assessments, where defects are
introduced into a residual stress field which has been modified or "shaken-down" by prior
overloading.
In this series of analyses, a residual stress field is first introduced into a large, thick plate. The
cutting of a test specimen out of the plate is next simulated. Following this, the specimen is
overloaded in order to modify the residual stress field. A crack is introduced into the modified
residual stress field, and a primary load is applied. Crack driving forces are calculated from the
elastic-plastic, cracked body FEA. Alternative estimates of CDF are also made using the R6
procedure.
2.2 Appendix 2 - Experimental Test Programme to Compare Instantaneously and
Progressively Introduced Cracks
Appendix 2 describes the experimental programme undertaken to study the difference between two
different methods of introducing a crack into a pre-existing field of residual stress. Specifically,
cracks are introduced either instantaneously or progressively, at room temperature into modified
single edge notch bend specimens SEN(B) of A533B steel containing essentially the same residual
stress field. These specimens are subsequently tested at 150
o
C, such that the secondary
component of CDF dominates at the point of cleavage failure. Any difference in secondary CDF
caused by the method of crack introduction is expected to result in a difference in the primary load
required to cause cleavage failure.
In the progressive specimen type, a residual stress field is imposed in the specimen by
means of a technique known as in-plane compression. A crack is then introduced by means of
an electro discharge machined (EDM) starter notch, followed by fatigue pre-cracking.

NULIFE (11) 19 Page 11 of 90

In the instantaneous specimen type, the crack is first introduced by means of the EDM starter
notch, followed by fatigue pre-cracking. The residual stress field is then imposed in the
specimen in the same way: the closure of the crack ensuring that there is essentially no crack
during this process. The crack opens in the residual stress field during the final stage of
relaxing the in-plane compression.
2.3 Appendix 3 - Finite Element Analysis in Support of Experimental Test
Programme
Appendix 3 presents the results of finite element analyses carried out in support of the
experimental programme described in Appendix 2. These analyses provide guidance on the
specimen geometry, loading configuration and loads required to appropriately address the
phenomenon of instantaneous versus progressive crack introduction.
3 Results and Discussion
3.1 Effect of Prior Overload
Appendix 1 presents a numerical study of the effect of prior overload on the resulting combined
primary and secondary crack driving forces for cracks subsequently introduced into a pre-existing
field of residual stress.
Uncracked stresses are reduced in magnitude by the overload, with a progressively larger effect of
overload magnitude. The most intense overload causes a significant reduction of uncracked
residual stress acting to open the potential crack.
The results of estimates of elastic-plastic CDF, K
J
, show that the various R6 Option estimates give
results greater in magnitude than those calculated using finite element analysis. As expected, the
R6 Option 1 failure assessment curve gives the highest values, with Option 3 the lowest and
Option 2 giving intermediate results.
The CDF for combined load progressively reduces with increasing intensity of overload, with the
reduction most apparent at the lowest magnitudes of primary load. The most accurate estimates of
CDF based on finite element calculations clearly show the diminishing effect of overload for primary
loads corresponding to values of the R6 parameter L
r
greater than one. Here, the primary load itself
gradually removes the secondary crack driving force, so the effect of overload is less significant.
Clearly, the treatment of combined loading in R6 at high L
r
does not seem to reduce the effect of
secondary stress as effectively as it should.
Estimates are made of margins on fracture toughness that would be gained by taking account of
the effect of overload. These show that large gains on toughness margins can be obtained for
degraded, low toughness materials. This is because a large intensity overload significantly reduces
the secondary contribution to the combined CDF. This benefits assessments of low toughness
materials where the secondary component of CDF is dominant.

NULIFE (11) 19 Page 12 of 90

3.2 Tests on Instantaneously versus Progressively Introduced Cracks
In the experimental programme described in Appendix 2, fracture toughness tests were undertaken
on test specimens containing fatigue cracks introduced progressively and instantaneously into a
simulated welding residual stress field. Limited spot measurements of residual stress show
reduced values in the progressive compared to the instantaneous specimen at the same position in
the specimen. This is probably because of the expected greater redistribution of residual stress
caused by the propagating crack.
However, the progressive specimens tend to fail at slightly lower loads than the instantaneous
ones. This suggests that the secondary crack driving force for a crack introduced progressively into
a residual stress field is not lower in magnitude than the instantaneous case. This is not consistent
with the limited results for residual stress noted above.
There is possibly some effect in either or both of the two types of specimen that has not been taken
into account. Possible reasons are:
There are insufficient tests to provide a representative sample of failure loads.
There is a warm pre-stress (WPS) effect that causes a larger increase in low temperature
toughness in the simultaneous than the progressive specimens.
The test procedure did not properly replicate the introduction of an instantaneous crack.
4 Conclusions
4.1 Effect of Prior Overload
The numerical study in Appendix 1 concludes the following:
Uncracked stresses are reduced in magnitude by the overload, with a progressively larger
effect of overload magnitude. The most intense overload causes a significant reduction of
uncracked residual stress acting to open the potential crack.
The results of estimates of elastic-plastic crack driving force show that the various R6
Option estimates give results greater in magnitude than those calculated using finite
element analysis. As expected, the R6 Option 1 failure assessment curve gives the highest
values, with Option 3 the lowest and Option 2 giving intermediate results.
For the cases considered, the use of the shaken down residual stress field in R6
assessments is therefore conservative compared with the most accurate finite element
assessments.
The CDF for combined load progressively reduces with increasing intensity of overload,
with the reduction most apparent at the lowest magnitudes of primary load.

NULIFE (11) 19 Page 13 of 90

The most accurate estimates of CDF based on finite element calculations clearly show the
diminishing effect of overload for primary loads corresponding to values of the R6
parameter Lr greater than one. Here, the primary load itself gradually removes the
secondary crack driving force, so the effect of overload is less significant. The treatment of
combined loading in R6 at high Lr does not seem to reduce the effect of secondary stress
as effectively as it should.
In assessing low toughness materials, taking account of overload can lead to large gains in
toughness margins.
4.2 Instantaneously versus Progressively Introduced Cracks
The experimental study described in Appendix 2 concludes:
Limited measurements of residual stress show reduced values in the progressive
compared to the instantaneous specimen at the same position in the specimen.
The progressive test specimens tend to fail at slightly lower loads than the instantaneous
ones, suggesting that the secondary crack driving force for a crack introduced
progressively into a residual stress field is not lower in magnitude than the instantaneous
case. This is not consistent with the limited results for residual stress noted above.
5 Recommendations
The work undertaken in this report has highlighted the need for more detailed finite element
analysis of the actual tests to be carried out in order to get a better understanding of the effects of
progressive and instantaneous crack growth, and how it ultimately affects the crack driving force
and the load carrying capacity. A more complete simulation of the introduction of the progressive
crack, and the application of the primary load, would be informative for both types of test. Some
account should be made of the maximum load applied during fatigue cycling. Accurate estimates
should be made of the resulting combined crack driving force. It is also recommended that a two
parameter J Q approach be applied to provide further detail in understanding this phenomenon.

NULIFE (11) 19 Page 14 of 90

6 References
1. R6: Assessment of the integrity of structures containing defects, British Energy Generation
Limited, Revision 4, 2007.
2. J K Sharples, M Jackson, P Budden, Overview of Fracture Mechanics Research Studies in
the UK, 20th International Conference on Structural Mechanics In Reactor Technology
(SMIRT), Espoo (Helsinki), Finland, August 9-14, 2009.
3. P J Bouchard, M R Goldthorpe and P Prottey. J-integral and Local Damage Fracture
Analyses for a Pump Casing Containing a Repair Weld. Int. J. Press. Vess. and Piping, Vol
78, 2001, pp. 295-305.
4. M C Smith, P J Bouchard, M R Goldthorpe and D Lawrjaniec. Fracture Mmargins for Growing
Cracks in Weld Repairs. Paper PVP 2005-71776, ASME Pressure Vessels and Piping
Conference 2005.
5. J Sharples, A Toft and D Beardsmore, Load History Effects on Crack Diving Force
Contribution to EG2/EG3 RPV Case Study NULIFE (08) 33, 19 December 2008.



NULIFE (11) 19 Page 15 of 90

Appendix 1

Finite Element Analysis to Study the Effect of
Prior Overload on Defects
Contents
A1.1 Introduction
A1.2 Geometry Considered
A1.3 Finite Element Model
A1.4 Material Properties
A1.5 Description of Specimen Analyses
A1.6 Determination of J-integrals
A1.7 Determination of Limit Load
A1.8 Determination of R6 Crack Driving Force
A1.9 Results and Discussion
A1.10 Conclusions
A1.11 References

NULIFE (11) 19 Page 16 of 90

A1.1 Introduction
Previous studies investigated whether the crack driving force (CDF) is reduced either by prior
overloading or by progressive introduction of the crack. These studies considered fully
circumferential surface cracks on the outside of an internally pressurised cylinder containing a
stress strain field representative of a weld residual stress. Crack driving forces and resulting load
margins were determined using elastic-plastic, cracked body finite element analyses (FEA) and R6
estimates of CDF.
The objective of the study presented in this appendix is to examine further the effect on crack
driving force, and so any benefit resulting in structural integrity assessments, where defects are
introduced into a residual stress field which has been modified or shaken-down by prior
overloading. The eventual aim is to provide guidance for taking proper account of this phenomenon
in assessments of nuclear power plant components.
In this series of analyses, a residual stress is first introduced into a large, thick plate. The cutting of
a test specimen out of the plate in next simulated. Following this, the specimen is overloaded in
order to modify the residual stress field. A crack in introduced into the modified residual stress field,
and a primary load is applied. Crack driving forces are calculated from the elastic-plastic, cracked
body FEA. Alternative estimates of CDF are also made using the R6 procedure. These estimates
of CDF give rise to increased margins on fracture toughness, particularly for degraded or low
toughness material.
A1.2 Geometry Considered
The geometry considered in this study is the three-point bend specimen shown in Figure A1.1,
which has been studied in recent work [A1.1]. The dimensions of the specimen considered here
are presented in Table A1.1. The finite element model of the specimen is first constrained to
behave as a long, un-cracked plate with a double-sided v-preparation weld see Figure A1.2. A
residual stress field is established in the plate by imposing a temperature change, in conjunction
with a spatial variation of thermal expansion coefficient. The constraints on the model are modified
to simulate extraction of the specimen from the long plate An overload is then applied to the
specimen as indicated in Figure A1.1. Following this, the constraints are further modified to
simulate the introduction of a crack into the residual stress field of the specimen. Finally, the
primary load, P, is incrementally applied.
A1.3 Finite Element Model
All of the finite element analyses undertaken as part of this study were carried out using the finite
element program ABAQUS [A1.2], Version 6.7.

NULIFE (11) 19 Page 17 of 90

The three-dimensional (3D) finite element model of the bend specimen is shown in Figure A1.3,
with a/W = 0.2. The model is constructed using C3D8R eight-noded first-order, reduced integration
elements. By making use of the plane of symmetry at mid-thickness and the plane of symmetry at
the position of the crack, only one quarter of the bend specimen needs to be modelled. There are
12 layers of elements through the modelled specimen half-thickness, with thinner elements used at
the far face, which represent the specimen free surface.
The inset in Figure A1.3 shows the fine, focussed arrangement of mesh surrounding the crack
front, the latter depicted as a broken white line. There are 32 elements in each ring, with a biasing
of the mesh to give smaller elements near the crack front. The elements adjacent to the crack front
have a side length of 0.009 mm, measured radially away from the crack front. The nodes, which
co-exist at each of the 13 through-thickness positions on the crack front, are tied together during
the analyses. Crack tip blunting and large deformations are therefore not modelled in this study.
Rigid surfaces represent the loading and restraint rollers that make contact with the specimen
surfaces.
A1.4 Material Properties
The material is modelled as elastic-plastic with Youngs Modulus, E, equal to 210000 MPa and
Poissons ratio equal to 0.29. Plastic deformation is modelled using incremental, isotropic
hardening plasticity using the *PLASTIC model provided in ABAQUS and the following Ramberg-
Osgood power-law hardening relationship between the equivalent stress,
eq
, and the equivalent
plastic strain,
p
eq
:
n
eq p
eq
|
|

\
|
=
0
002 . 0

(1)
where
0
= 350 MPa is the 0.2% yield stress of the material and n = 10. The hardening model is
applied by means of an ABAQUS UHARD User Subroutine [A1.2].
A set of spatially varying, anisotropic, coefficients of thermal expansion is applied throughout the
specimen by means of field variables using the ABAQUS UFIELD and UEXPAN User
Subroutines [A1.2]. The expansion coefficients vary according to 1+cos(2y/W), where y is the
vertical distance measured from the crack mouth (point A Figure A1.3) and W is the specimen
width. The expansion coefficients are therefore greatest at vertical positions corresponding to
points A and B; being symmetrical about the specimen mid-width.
The expansion coefficients also vary according to 1+cos(x/W), where x is the horizontal distance
measured from the crack plane; but are zero for x greater than W. The expansion coefficients are
therefore greatest close to the crack plane and zero at distances from the crack plane greater than
the specimen width.

NULIFE (11) 19 Page 18 of 90

These variations of expansion coefficient aim to establish a residual stress distribution
representative of a double-sided plate butt weld.
A1.5 Description of Specimen Analyses
Establishment of Residual Stress Distribution
A double-sided distribution of residual stress is established in the bend specimen, as noted earlier.
The procedure is described in more detail below.
Initially the crack is not present; so all of the nodes in the plane of the crack and ligament are
restrained from displacing normal to that plane (Figure A1.3). The specimen is restrained in the
through-thickness direction at mid-thickness and on the far face. The rigid surface representing the
upper right-hand roller in Figure A1.3 is restrained from any displacement to prevent rigid body
motion. The rigid surface representing the lower left-hand roller is free to move with the specimen
mesh. Since the restraint of specimen is effectively a through-thickness plane strain condition, the
model presently represents a long, un-cracked plate of finite width, as illustrated in Figure A1.2. A
uniform change in temperature is applied throughout the specimen in order to create the residual
stress field in the vicinity of the plane of a potential crack.
Simulated Machining of Bend Specimen from Plate
After establishing the distribution of residual stress, the cutting of the bend specimen from the
plate (Figure A1.2) is simulated. This is done by relaxation of the through-thickness constraint on
the far face of the finite element model. These constraints on all nodes on the far face are therefore
relaxed simultaneously in one step of the computational analysis.
Application of Overload
An overload is simulated by applying a uniform traction using
ov
at the end of the specimen in the
direction normal to the plane of the crack, as indicated in Figure A1.1.
Table A1.2 lists the 6 different analysis cases undertaken for the bend specimen representing a
double-sided plate butt weld, with a/W = 0.2. The study covers 6 differing magnitudes of applied
overload, ranging from no overload to an overload of yield magnitude, 350 MPa.
Introduction of Crack
The crack is introduced into the bend specimen containing the complete double-sided residual
stress distribution by simultaneous removal of the symmetry boundary conditions on all of the
nodes on the crack face. This is done in one step of the analysis. The creation of a plastic wake
due to progressive growth of the crack, by fatigue for example is therefore not modelled here.
Application of Primary Load

NULIFE (11) 19 Page 19 of 90

The primary load, P, is imposed on the bend specimen by displacing vertically upwards by 2mm,
the lower left rigid surface. This is done in one step of the analysis, taking at least 25 load
increments.
A1.6 Determination of J-integrals & FEA Results
for K
J

J-integrals are calculated using Version 1.1.4 of the JEDI post-processor [A1.1, A1.3]. The JEDI
post-processor uses an equivalent domain integral to properly determine J-integrals for cracks
associated with initial plastic strains. Crack tip J-integrals are obtained at all through-thickness
positions on the crack front; though only the value at the mid-thickness is used for the bend
specimen. The domain of integration is within the focussed region of mesh surrounding the crack
front. With the exception of the inner three or four domains surrounding the crack front, the results
are independent of the domain integration to within about 1%. Beardsmore [A1.1] gives more
examples of domain variation of ABAQUS and JEDI calculated J-integrals. J is reported at domain
number 40. The non-proportional loading option of JEDI is used in all calculations.
A1.7 Determination of Limit Load
The limit load, P
L
=50.9kN, is calculated according to R6 Rev.4, Section IV.1.5 using the plane
strain von Mises expression.
A1.8 Determination of R6 Crack Driving Forces
Crack driving forces (CDFs) are calculated according to R6 using the following equation:
( )
+
=
r
s
I
p
I
J
L f
K K
K (2)
Where L
r
= P/P
L
,
s
I
K is the elastic stress intensity factor due to residual stress only,
p
I
K is the
stress intensity factor due to primary load only, ( )
r
L f is the appropriate R6 failure assessment
curve and the factor is calculated using the detailed procedure in R6 Section II.6.
s
I
K is determined by applying both the original and modified (by overload) un-cracked residual
stress distributions as crack face pressures in elastic analyses of the cracked specimen (see
Figure A1.14).
p
I
K is determined from an elastic solution for primary load only. The Option 2
failure assessment curve, ( )
r
L f
2
is determined using the material properties and the strain
hardening relationship, Equation (1), in R6 equation I.6.4. The Option 3 failure assessment curve is
derived from an elastic-plastic analysis for primary load only as follows:

NULIFE (11) 19 Page 20 of 90

( )
p
J
p
I
r
K
K
L f =
3
(3)
In the determination of ,
s
J
K is taken to be equal to
s
I
K .
A1.9 Results and Discussion
Un-cracked Stresses
Figure A1.4to Figure A1.18 present the variation of components of un-cracked direct stress along
the line AB (see Figure A1.3), with Table A1.3 describing the orientations of the three direct
stresses
11
,
22
and
33
with respect to the long un-cracked plate and the subsequent cracked,
bend specimen. All stress results in Figure A1.4 to Figure A1.18 are normalised by the 0.2% proof
stress,
0
.
Firstly, Figure A1.4, Figure A1.5 and Figure A1.6 present the uncracked distribution of the
transverse stress
11
, the through thickness stress
22
, and the longitudinal stress
33
, respectively,
for the case ov0 where there is no overload. Each of these three Figures shows stress
distributions along AB as follows:
after the temperature change imposed to establish the residual stress distribution in the
long plate (red squares);
after the simulated machining of the bend specimen from the plate (brown circles).
Figure A1.4 shows that the residual stress acting normal to the plane of the potential crack (plate
transverse direction) has highly tensile values near the upper and lower surfaces of the bend
specimen, with a balancing region of compressive stress near the specimen mid-width. There is a
relatively small effect of simulated specimen removal. The direct stress in the specimen through-
width (plate through-thickness) direction, Figure A1.5, are compressive and of relatively small
magnitude along line AB at specimen mid-thickness after simulated plate welding. Specimen
removal causes more compressive values of stress at specimen mid-width, with tensile values near
point B. Figure A1.6shows that plate longitudinal stresses are highly tensile at the top and bottom
surfaces of the plate, with compression at the plate mid-thickness. However, the resulting through-
thickness stresses in the removed specimen are significantly reduced in magnitude.
Figure A1.7, Figure A1.8 and Figure A1.9 present the un-cracked distributions of stress for the
smallest magnitude overload, ov1. Here, results are also shown:
at the maximum magnitude of applied overload (orange diamonds), and
after the relaxation of the overload (green triangles).



NULIFE (11) 19 Page 21 of 90

A comparison of the green triangles with the brown circles therefore indicates the change in
residual stress caused by the overload. The magnitude of each stress component at each position
along AB is largely reduced by the overload.
The results for the most intense overload, ov5, are presented in Figure A1.10 to Figure A1.12.
There is a particularly marked reduction of stress
11
acting in the specimen crack opening
direction (Figure A1.10).
Figure A1.13 and Figure A1.14 show the stress
11
acting in the specimen crack direction,
comparing all overload cases. Figure A1.13 shows the situation at maximum magnitude of
overload; but of more interest, Figure A1.14 compares the different cases after relaxation of the
overload. There is obviously a progressively larger effect of overload magnitude, with ov5 causing
a significant reduction of un-cracked residual stress acting to open the potential crack in the vicinity
of point A.
Similarly, Figure A1.15 and Figure A1.16 compare overload cases for the stress
22
acting in the
specimen through-width direction. Of most interest, Figure A1.16 shows that increasing overload
causes a progressive reduction of both compressive stresses near the plate mid-width and tensile
stresses closer to point B.
Specimen though-thickness stress
33
shown in Figure A1.17 (and particularly) Figure A1.18 are
similarly reduced in magnitude by overloading.
Crack Driving Forces
Figure A1.19to Figure A1.28present results for various estimates of elastic-plastic crack driving
force (CDF), K
J
, versus L
r
=P/P
L
.
Firstly, Figure A1.19 compares the various estimates of CDF for the least intense overload ov1.
Here, four different sets of results are shown using elastic-plastic finite element analysis results
according to JEDI calculated J (FEA) and estimates according to R6 Option 1, 2 and 3. It is seen
that the various R6 Option estimates give results for K
J
greater in magnitude than those calculated
using JEDI. As expected, the R6 Option 1 are the highest values. A similar ranking is seen in
Figure A1.20, showing the results for the most intense overload, ov5.
Figure A1.21 compares R6 Option 1 estimates of CDF for the various overload cases. Obviously,
the CDF for combined load is progressively reduced with increasing intensity of overload. The
reduction is most apparent at the lower magnitudes of primary load, as seen in more detail in
Figure A1.22.
A similar picture emerges in Figure A1.23and Figure A1.24, where K
J
estimates are compared
using the more accurate Option 2 failure assessment curve. In the same vein, Figure A1.25and
Figure A1.26 compare R6 Option 3 estimates of K
J
for the various overload cases.

NULIFE (11) 19 Page 22 of 90

The most accurate estimates of CDF based on JEDI calculations are compared in Figure A1.27
and Figure A1.28. One feature seen clearly in Figure A1.27 is the diminishing effect of overload at
primary loads greater than L
r
=1. Here, the primary load itself is gradually removes the secondary
crack driving force, so the effect of overload is less significant. Clearly, the treatment of combined
loading in R6 at high L
r
( Figure A1.21, Figure A1.23 and Figure A1.25) does not seem to reduce
the effect of secondary stress as effectively as it should.
Implications for Toughness Margins
Increases in overload intensity reduce the secondary contribution to the combined CDF.
Figure A1.29 demonstrates the implications, of CDF reduction resulting from overload, in terms of
implied margins on fracture toughness. Here, the JEDI-derived results for K
J
, for no overload, are
divided by the reduced value resulting from overload. Plotting this ratio against the result for no
overload provides a plot of the margin on fracture toughness that would be gained by taking
account of the effect of overload, as a function of fracture toughness. This shows the large gains on
toughness margins that could be obtained for degraded, low toughness materials. This benefits
assessments of low toughness materials, where the secondary component of CDF is dominant.
For example, consider a margin of just unity on toughness of 80MPam, when assessed using the
un-relaxed residual stresses. An alternative assessment using the relaxed residual stresses
resulting from overload ov4 (purple squares in Figure A1.29) would imply a higher toughness
margin of about 1.8. Similarly, a margin of unity on toughness of 70MPam, assessed using the
un-relaxed residual stresses, would increase to 1.5 when assessed using the relaxed residual
stresses resulting from overload ov3 (green triangles).
A1.10 Conclusions
The conclusions from this study of applying varying magnitudes of overload in order to observe the
effect on the resulting residual stress distribution and also the resulting crack driving force, K
J
,
calculated using the R6 assessment procedure and from FEA are:
As the magnitude of over load increases, the un-cracked distribution of stress in all three
directions reduces. This reduction can be quite substantial, particularly in the case of the
stress in the crack opening direction, normal to the plane of the crack.
There is a reduction in the crack driving force as the magnitude of over load increases for
all R6 assessment procedures. This is also observed in the FEA results.
The R6 Option 1 assessment procedure produces the most conservative result of crack
driving force when compared to all calculational methods applied within this study.
At lower loads and lower values of Lr, the calculational methods are the same but diverge
with an increase in load and Lr.
In assessing low toughness materials, taking account of overload can lead to large gains in
toughness margins.
The use of the shaken down residual stress field in R6 assessments is conservative.

NULIFE (11) 19 Page 23 of 90

A1.11 References
A1.1 D W Beardsmore, JEDI: a code for the calculation of J for cracks inserted in initial strain
fields and the role of J and Q in the prediction of crack extension and fracture, Paper
PVP2008-61169, Proceedings of PVP2008, 2008 ASME Pressure Vessels and Piping
Conference, July 2008, Chicago, Illinois, U.S.A.
A1.2 ABAQUS Version 6.7-2, Simulia Inc., 2007.
A1.3 D W Beardsmore, A H Sherry, Allowance for residual stresses in material interfaces when
calculating J in and close to welded joints, ASME Pressure Vessels and Piping, Vol. 464,
pp. 11-21, 2003.

NULIFE (11) 19 Page 24 of 90


Table A1.1 Dimensions of bend specimen (see Fig. 1) / mm.
2H 2S B W a/W
127 101.6 25.4 25.4 0.2

Table A1.2 Analysis cases for the bend specimen.
Analysis Cases Applied Overload,
ov
MPa
beam2_ds_0.2_n10_ov0 No Overload*
beam2_ds_0.2_n10_ov1 0.3 x
0
= 105
beam2_ds_0.2_n10_ov2 0.5 x
0
= 175
beam2_ds_0.2_n10_ov3 0.7 x
0
= 245
beam2_ds_0.2_n10_ov4 0.9 x
0
= 315
beam2_ds_0.2_n10_ov5 1.0 x
0
= 350

0
equal to 350 MPa.
For all analysis case, a/W = 0.2
*No overload case, ov0

Table A1.3 Description of stress components.
Direct Stress Description in terms of the model Description in terms of a welded-plate
S11
Direct stress in the crack opening
direction, normal to the plane of the
crack.
Transverse stress
S22
Direct stress in the through-width
direction, in the plane of the crack,
normal to the crack front.
Through-thickness stress
S33
Direct stress in the through-
thickness direction, in the plane of
the crack, parallel to the crack front.
Longitudinal stress


NULIFE (11) 19 Page 25 of 90



Figure A1.1 Geometry of bend specimen.

Figure A1.2 Simulated machining of the bend specimen from the plate.

Thickness, B
W
a
2
2H
P/2 P/2
P

ov

ov


NULIFE (11) 19 Page 26 of 90


specimen mid-
thickness, plane
of symmetry
uncracked
ligament, plane
of symmetry
Crack, initially constrained
as plane of symmetry
B
A
far face of specimen, initially
constrained as plane of symmetry
specimen mid-
thickness, plane
of symmetry
uncracked
ligament, plane
of symmetry
Crack, initially constrained
as plane of symmetry
B
A
far face of specimen, initially
constrained as plane of symmetry

Figure A1.3 Finite element model of bend specimen, with a/W=0.2. Inset
shows focused mesh arrangement around the crack front, the latter shown as a
broken white line.
-1.6
-1.2
-0.8
-0.4
0.0
0.4
0.8
1.2
1.6
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
y/W

11
/
0
n=10.0, a/W=0.2, Overload OV0, Step 2, after temp. change
n=10.0, a/W=0.2, Overload OV0, Step 3, after 'machining'

Figure A1.4 Un-cracked distribution of 11 stress along line AB (Figure A1.3)
for double-sided residual stress profile with no overload (ov0).


NULIFE (11) 19 Page 27 of 90


-1.6
-1.2
-0.8
-0.4
0.0
0.4
0.8
1.2
1.6
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
y/W

22
/
0
n=10.0, a/W=0.2, Overload OV0, Step 2, after temp. change
n=10.0, a/W=0.2, Overload OV0, Step 3, after 'machining'

Figure A1.5 Un-cracked distribution of 22 stress along line AB (Figure A1.3)
for double-sided residual stress profile with no overload (ov0).
-1.6
-1.2
-0.8
-0.4
0.0
0.4
0.8
1.2
1.6
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
y/W

33
/
0
n=10.0, a/W=0.2, Overload OV0, Step 2, after temp. change
n=10.0, a/W=0.2, Overload OV0, Step 3, after 'machining'

Figure A1.6 Un-cracked distribution of 33 stress along line AB (Figure A1.3)
for double-sided residual stress profile with no overload (ov0).

NULIFE (11) 19 Page 28 of 90


-1.6
-1.2
-0.8
-0.4
0.0
0.4
0.8
1.2
1.6
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
y/W

11
/
0
n=10.0, a/W=0.2, Overload OV1, Step 2, after temp. change
n=10.0, a/W=0.2, Overload OV1, Step 3, after 'machining'
n=10.0, a/W=0.2, Overload OV1, Step 4, at max overload
n=10.0, a/W=0.2, Overload OV1, Step 5, after overload

Figure A1.7 Un-cracked distribution of 11 stress along line AB (Figure A1.3)
for double-sided residual stress profile with minimum overload (ov1).
-1.6
-1.2
-0.8
-0.4
0.0
0.4
0.8
1.2
1.6
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
y/W

22
/
0
n=10.0, a/W=0.2, Overload OV1, Step 2, after temp. change
n=10.0, a/W=0.2, Overload OV1, Step 3, after 'machining'
n=10.0, a/W=0.2, Overload OV1, Step 4, at max overload
n=10.0, a/W=0.2, Overload OV1, Step 5, after overload

Figure A1.8 Un-cracked distribution of 22 stress along line AB (Figure A1.3)
for double-sided residual stress profile with minimum overload (ov1).


NULIFE (11) 19 Page 29 of 90


-1.6
-1.2
-0.8
-0.4
0.0
0.4
0.8
1.2
1.6
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
y/W

33
/
0
n=10.0, a/W=0.2, Overload OV1, Step 2, after temp. change
n=10.0, a/W=0.2, Overload OV1, Step 3, after 'machining'
n=10.0, a/W=0.2, Overload OV1, Step 4, at max overload
n=10.0, a/W=0.2, Overload OV1, Step 5, after overload

Figure A1.9 Un-cracked distribution of 33 stress along line AB
(Figure A1.3) for double-sided residual stress profile with minimum overload (ov1).
-1.6
-1.2
-0.8
-0.4
0.0
0.4
0.8
1.2
1.6
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
y/W

11
/
0
n=10.0, a/W=0.2, Overload OV5, Step 2, after temp. change
n=10.0, a/W=0.2, Overload OV5, Step 3, after 'machining'
n=10.0, a/W=0.2, Overload OV5, Step 4, at max overload
n=10.0, a/W=0.2, Overload OV5, Step 5, after overload

Figure A1.10 Un-cracked distribution of 11 stress along line AB
(Figure A1.3) for double-sided residual stress profile with maximum overload
(ov5).


NULIFE (11) 19 Page 30 of 90


-1.6
-1.2
-0.8
-0.4
0.0
0.4
0.8
1.2
1.6
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
y/W

22
/
0
n=10.0, a/W=0.2, Overload OV5, Step 2, after temp. change
n=10.0, a/W=0.2, Overload OV5, Step 3, after 'machining'
n=10.0, a/W=0.2, Overload OV5, Step 4, at max overload
n=10.0, a/W=0.2, Overload OV5, Step 5, after overload

Figure A1.11 Un-cracked distribution of 22 stress along line AB
(Figure A1.3) for double-sided residual stress profile with maximum overload
(ov5).
-1.6
-1.2
-0.8
-0.4
0.0
0.4
0.8
1.2
1.6
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
y/W

33
/
0
n=10.0, a/W=0.2, Overload OV5, Step 2, after temp. change
n=10.0, a/W=0.2, Overload OV5, Step 3, after 'machining'
n=10.0, a/W=0.2, Overload OV5, Step 4, at max overload
n=10.0, a/W=0.2, Overload OV5, Step 5, after overload

Figure A1.12 Un-cracked distribution of 33 stress along line AB
(Figure A1.3) for double-sided residual stress case with maximum overload (ov5).


NULIFE (11) 19 Page 31 of 90


-1.6
-1.2
-0.8
-0.4
0
0.4
0.8
1.2
1.6
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
y/W

11
/
0
OV0
OV1
OV2
OV3
OV4
OV5

Figure A1.13 Un-cracked distribution of 11 stress, for all cases, along line
AB for double sided residual stress profile at maximum magnitude of applied over
load.
-1.6
-1.2
-0.8
-0.4
0
0.4
0.8
1.2
1.6
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
y/W

11
/
0
OV0
OV1
OV2
OV3
OV4
OV5

Figure A1.14 Un-cracked distribution of 11 stress, for all cases, along line
AB for double sided residual stress profile after relaxation of applied over load.


NULIFE (11) 19 Page 32 of 90


-0.4
-0.3
-0.2
-0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
y/W

22
/
0
OV0
OV1
OV2
OV3
OV4
OV5

Figure A1.15 Un-cracked distribution of 22 stress, for all cases, along line
AB for double sided residual stress profile at maximum magnitude of applied over
load.
-0.4
-0.3
-0.2
-0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
y/W

22
/
0
OV0
OV1
OV2
OV3
OV4
OV5

Figure A1.16 Un-cracked distribution of 22 stress, for all cases, along line
AB for double sided residual stress profile after relaxation of applied over load.


NULIFE (11) 19 Page 33 of 90


-0.8
-0.4
0
0.4
0.8
1.2
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
y/W

33
/
0
OV0
OV1
OV2
OV3
OV4
OV5

Figure A1.17 Un-cracked distribution of 33 stress, for all cases, along line
AB for double sided residual stress profile at maximum magnitude of applied
over load.
-0.8
-0.4
0
0.4
0.8
1.2
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
y/W

33
/
0
OV0
OV1
OV2
OV3
OV4
OV5

Figure A1.18 Un-cracked distribution of 33 stress, for all cases, along line
AB for double sided residual stress profile after relaxation of applied over load.


NULIFE (11) 19 Page 34 of 90


0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4
L
r
K
J
,

M
P
a

m
1
/
2
R6 Option 1
R6 Option 2
R6 Option 3
FEA

Figure A1.19 A comparison of KJ versus Lr, for minimum overload case (ov1),
for different calculation methods.
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4
L
r
K
J
,

M
P
a

m
1
/
2
R6 Option 1
R6 Option 2
R6 Option 3
FEA

Figure A1.20 A comparison of KJ versus Lr, for maximum overload case (ov5),
for different calculation methods.


NULIFE (11) 19 Page 35 of 90


0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
L
r
K
J
,

M
P
a
m
1
/
2
OV0
OV1
OV2
OV3
OV4
OV5

Figure A1.21 KJ versus Lr, for all cases, according to Option 1 of the R6
Assessment Procedure.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
L
r
K
J
,

M
P
a
m
1
/
2
OV0
OV1
OV2
OV3
OV4
OV5

Figure A1.22 KJ versus Lr, for all cases, according to Option 1 of the R6
Assessment Procedure (as above but focused on lower Lr values).


NULIFE (11) 19 Page 36 of 90


0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
L
r
K
J
,

M
P
a
m
1
/
2
OV0
OV1
OV2
OV3
OV4
OV5

Figure A1.23 KJ versus Lr, for all cases, according to Option 2 of the R6
Assessment Procedure.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
L
r
K
J
,

M
P
a
m
1
/
2
OV0
OV1
OV2
OV3
OV4
OV5

Figure A1.24 KJ versus Lr, for all cases, according to Option 2 of the R6
Assessment Procedure (as above but focused on lower Lr values).


NULIFE (11) 19 Page 37 of 90


0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
L
r
K
J
,

M
P
a
m
1
/
2
OV0
OV1
OV2
OV3
OV4
OV5

Figure A1.25 KJ versus Lr, for all cases, according to Option 3 of the R6
Assessment Procedure.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
L
r
K
J
,

M
P
a
m
1
/
2
OV0
OV1
OV2
OV3
OV4
OV5

Figure A1.26 KJ versus Lr, for all cases, according to Option 3 of the R6
Assessment Procedure (as above but focused on lower Lr values).


NULIFE (11) 19 Page 38 of 90


0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
L
r
K
J
,

M
P
a
m
1
/
2
OV0
OV1
OV2
OV3
OV4
OV5

Figure A1.27 KJ versus Lr, for all cases, calculated from FEA.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
L
r
K
J
,

M
P
a
m
1
/
2
OV0
OV1
OV2
OV3
OV4
OV5

Figure A1.28 KJ versus Lr, for all cases, calculated from FEA (as above but
focused on lower Lr values).


NULIFE (11) 19 Page 39 of 90


0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150
K
mat
, MPa m
1/2
I
m
p
l
i
e
d

F
r
a
c
t
u
r
e

T
o
u
g
h
n
e
s
s

M
a
r
g
i
n
Margin(n) = KJFEA(ov0)/KJFEA(ov1)
Margin(n) = KJFEA(ov0)/KJFEA(ov2)
Margin(n) = KJFEA(ov0)/KJFEA(ov3)
Margin(n) = KJFEA(ov0)/KJFEA(ov4)
Margin(n) = KJFEA(ov0)/KJFEA(ov5)

Figure A1.29 Implied toughness margins gained by taking account of each
overload case as a function of the material toughness KJ FEA(ov0)






NULIFE (11) 19 Page 40 of 90

Appendix 2

Experimental Test Programme to Compare
Instantaneously and Progressively Introduced
Cracks
Contents
A2.1 Introduction
A2.2 Experimental Test Programme
A2.3 Results
A2.4 Discussion and Conclusions
A2.5 References


NULIFE (11) 19 Page 41 of 90

A2.1 Introduction
Numerical analyses and experimental tests conducted recently, for example [A2.1, A2.2], indicate
that a crack introduced progressively into a field of residual stress (by means of fatigue crack
growth or stress corrosion cracking for example) causes a smaller secondary crack driving force
(CDF) than that resulting from a crack introduced instantaneously. Energy is dissipated along the
entire length of a progressively opening crack in the form of a plastic wake, while plastic
deformation and energy dissipation is concentrated at the final crack tip of an instantaneously or
simultaneously opening crack. A lower CDF is therefore expected for the progressive crack.
Assessment procedures usually calculate secondary CDF consistent with the instantaneous crack.
Therefore, there may be benefits in assessments that account for defects that develop in a
progressive manner: resulting in lower secondary CDFs and so greater load or toughness margins.
The purpose of this experimental programme was to investigate this phenomenon by
manufacturing two types of test specimen, both initially containing the same residual stress field
imposed at ambient temperature as follows.
In the progressive specimen type, a residual stress field was imposed in the specimen by
means of a technique known as in-plane compression. A crack was then introduced by means
of an electro discharge machined (EDM) starter notch, followed by fatigue pre-cracking.
In the instantaneous specimen type, the crack was first introduced by means of the EDM
starter notch, followed by fatigue pre-cracking. The residual stress field was then imposed in
the specimen in the same way: the closure of the crack ensuring that there is essentially no
crack during this process. The crack opens in the residual stress field during the final stage of
relaxing the in-plane compression.
Both types of specimen were then fracture tested at low temperature in three-point bending to
determine values of failure load and estimates of applied values primary stress intensity factor.
A2.2 Experimental Test Programme
Bristol University Tests
The experimental test programme was based upon work carried out by Mirzaee-Sisan et al [A2.4]
at Bristol University. The Bristol team undertook finite element modelling and fracture toughness
testing of SE(B) specimens manufactured from A533B-1 ferritic steel: either on specimens in the
as-received condition; or on specimens that had previously been subjected to an in-plane
compression procedure to introduce a residual stress field. The specimen contains a semi-circular
scallop notch that introduces a stress concentration factor during in-plane compression, causing
compressive yielding ahead of the notch, and so a distribution of tensile residual stress ahead of
the notch, balanced by compression elsewhere, when the in-plane compression is removed.

NULIFE (11) 19 Page 42 of 90

The dimensions of the Bristol specimens were:
Thickness (B) = 10mm
Width (W) = 50mm
Radius of scallop notch = 12.5mm
Total crack length, including scallop notch (a
0
) = 15mm
Span (S) = 192mm
The average fracture toughness for the as received specimens was measured as 78.8MPam,
whilst for the pre-strained specimens the average inferred toughness, neglecting residual stress
was 42.8MPam. Assuming elastic behaviour, the difference between these two values gives a
stress intensity due to the residual stress field of about 36MPam.
Outline of Current Test Programme
As noted above, the purpose of this experimental test programme was to investigate the
phenomenon of progressive versus instantaneous crack introduction by manufacturing two types of
the Bristol test specimen.
For the progressive specimen type, a residual stress field was imposed in the specimen by
means of in-plane compression. A crack was then introduced by cutting starter notch by EDM,
followed by fatigue pre-cracking.
For the instantaneous specimen type, the crack was first introduced by the EDM starter notch
and fatigue pre-cracking. The residual stress field was then imposed in the specimen in the
same way by in-plane compression: the closure of the crack ensuring that there is essentially
no crack during this process. During the final stage of relaxing the in-plane compression, the
whole of both faces of the crack open together (instantaneously or simultaneously) in the
presence of the residual stress field.
Both types of specimen were then fracture tested at low temperature in three-point bending to
determine the values of failure load for each specimen type.
Material and Test Specimens
An A533B-1 ferritic steel block, identification number MT726, from within the Serco TAS materials
store was used in this experimental programme. This material was of dimensions 230 x 230 x
520mm. A slice of material 60mm thick was removed from the end of this material to provide a
piece of material 230 x 230 x 60mm, from which the test specimens were machined.
A drawing for the manufacture of the test specimens, and a photograph showing the manufactured
test specimens, are shown in Figure A2.1and Figure A2.2respectively. Figure A2.3 shows the
sectioning drawing for the material.

NULIFE (11) 19 Page 43 of 90

The test specimens were given the specimen codes 1-17HZ. Table A2.1 list the specimens:
showing instantaneous, progressive and also specimens that were not notched or tested to failure;
but were used to measure residual stresses due to in-plane compression.
In-Plane Compression
All specimens were dimensionally inspected to determine accurate measurements of B and W prior
to performing the in-plane compression.
The in-plane compression procedure was performed at ambient temperature using an Instron
100kN uniaxial servo-electric test machine. The test machine was controlled via a desktop
computer interface utilising an Instron Fast Track test machine controller. The in-plane
compression load was applied to the specimens in cross head displacement control at a rate of
0.25mm/min. Once the required load was achieved the specimen was held under the compressive
load for 15 seconds and then unloaded at a rate of 0.25mm/min. The applied load was measured
using a calibrated load cell and the change in diameter of the scallop notch was measured using a
calibrated clip-gauge mounted on detachable razor blade knife-edges positioned 1.2mm above the
specimen surface.
It was initially proposed to apply in-plane compression at a load of 73kN. However after carrying
out the procedure on the first specimen (11HZ) it became apparent that this load was unobtainable:
the maximum load achieved was approximately 63kN. Beyond this load, the specimen started to
buckle with an associated reduction of load. This is clearly visible in Figure A2.9 where the
measured load verses clip-gauge displacement for in-plane compression is plotted against the FEA
prediction. Some plastic deformation of the material adjacent to the V grooves also occurred during
the in-plane compression of specimen 11HZ. As a result of the above, specimen 11HZ was
scrapped and a modification made to the in-plane compression procedure.
Firstly, packing blocks were manufactured and used in the remaining tests to distribute the load
adjacent to the V grooves. Secondly, it was decided to apply a maximum load consistent with a
permanent crack mouth closure predicted by the FEA of approximately 1.3mm. The remaining
specimens were therefore each loaded until approximately 1.7mm of clip-gauge displacement was
achieved. They were subsequently unloaded to leave a permanent crack mouth closure of 1.3mm.
A photograph of the test machine loading arrangement during the in-plane compression procedure
is shown in Figure A2.5.
Insertion of EDM Notch
In all specimens except those used to measure the initial residual stress, an EDM notch was
inserted either before in-plane compression (instantaneous cases) or after completion of the in-
plane compression (progressive cases). A drawing describing the insertion of the wire EDM notch
is shown in Figure A2.4.

NULIFE (11) 19 Page 44 of 90

Fatigue Pre-Cracking
Following insertion of the EDM notch, fatigue pre-cracking was carried out using an Amsler electro-
resonant Vibraphore, capable of applying cyclic loading at a frequency in excess of 100Hz. The
frequency used to insert the fatigue pre-crack was 105Hz. The ratio of the minimum to maximum
stress intensity factor (i.e. the R ratio) was 0.1.
The maximum stress intensity factor used to initiate the fatigue crack was initially 37MPam. This
was progressively reduced, in seven equal stages of crack growth, to give a final maximum stress
intensity factor K
f(max)
of 21MPam at the required fatigue crack length of 7mm.
The maximum and minimum loads and stress intensity factors utilised during each step of the pre-
cracking process is summarised in Table A2.2.
Although an a
0
/W ratio of 0.5 was required, a final a
0
/W ratio of 0.49 was used to scribe the load
shedding markers onto the specimens to take into account the curvature of the pre-crack through
the thickness of the specimen. The pre-crack usually propagates further in the centre of the
specimen therefore a reduced a
0
/W ratio is used at the specimen surface. This method usually
ensures that the required pre-crack length is obtained when the failed specimens are measured.
A photograph showing a test specimen located in the Vibraphore is shown in Figure A2.6.
Application of K
f(max)
to Instantaneous Specimens Prior to Fracture Testing
It was necessary to apply a tensile load of equal magnitude to each type of specimen prior to
fracture testing. This helped to ensure that any warm pre-stressing effects were consistent for each
specimen type. The instantaneous specimens, which had already been pre-cracked prior to in-
plane compression, were subjected to a one-off loading cycle to the same magnitude as that used
for the progressive specimens during the final stage of their pre-cracking. Accordingly, a load of
magnitude of 5.06kN was applied to the instantaneous specimens mounted in the Instron 100kN
test machine in a three point bend configuration. This load was applied to the specimens in cross
head displacement control at a rate of 0.10mm/min. Once the required load was achieved the
specimen was held under the compressive load for 15 seconds and then unloaded at a rate of
0.10mm/min. The maximum load of 5.06kN gave a stress intensity factor due to primary load of
21MPam.
The data recorded during this operation is shown in Figure A2.7. It can be seen that, upon
unloading, the specimens do not return down an elastic line: indicating that this process has
plastically deformed the specimens by means of re-opening the fatigue crack that would have
been subject to closure during the in-plane compression procedure.
Residual Stress Measurements
Measurements were made to provide a quantitative assessment of the residual stress field for the
uncracked specimen and after insertion of the fatigue crack for both the progressive and

NULIFE (11) 19 Page 45 of 90

instantaneous cases. Residual stress measurements were undertaken at ambient temperature on
three of the specimens using the target strain gauge/hole drilling method. These specimens were:
Specimen 3HZ, un-cracked specimen after insertion of mechanically induced residual
stress field;
Specimen 13HZ, cracked specimen (progressive) after insertion of residual stress field,
EDM notch and fatigue crack;
Specimen 8HZ, cracked specimen (instantaneous) after insertion of EDM notch, fatigue
crack and residual stress field.
The measurements were made a distance of 2mm away from the scallop notch for the un-cracked
specimen (i.e. the closest the strain gauge can be bonded to the scallop notch) and 2mm away
from the fatigue crack tip for the progressive and instantaneous specimens (i.e. 9.5mm from the tip
of the scallop notch).
Fracture Toughness Tests
The fracture toughness tests were performed on a 250kN Schenck-Trebel uniaxial servo-electric
test machine, controlled via a desktop computer interface utilising an Instron Fast Track test
machine controller.
Tests were carried out in an environmental chamber cooled by gaseous nitrogen. The specimen
temperature was measured using a calibrated T-type thermocouple attached to the specimen
surface close to the crack tip. The tests were performed at a temperature of -150C controlled to
2C, as per the requirements of ASTM E 1820-08.
The load was applied during the fracture test in cross head displacement control at a rate of
0.20mm/min. The applied load was measured using a calibrated load cell and the crack mouth
opening was measured using a calibrated clip-gauge mounted on detachable razor blade knife-
edges positioned 1.2mm above the specimen surface. A photograph showing the loading
arrangement during the fracture tests is shown in Figure A2.8.
The crack mouth displacement was measured above the crack mouth, with the clip-gauge being
attached to the specimen using razor blade knife-edges positioned 1.2mm above the crack mouth.
This displacement was corrected in all tests to take into account the distance of the knife-edge
measurement position above the specimen surface. This was done using similar triangles and
assuming a point of rotation halfway between the crack tip and the bottom of the specimen. This
procedure is consistent with previous test work undertaken by Serco [A2.8].
After testing, each specimen was placed in methylated spirits and warmed to prevent
environmental corrosion of the fracture surface.
Upon completion of the tests, the fracture surface of each specimen was measured using a CNC
controlled travelling microscope. The distance from the front face of the specimen to the end of the
fatigue pre-crack was measured at nine equally spaced points across the thickness of the

NULIFE (11) 19 Page 46 of 90

specimen. The outer points (i.e. the points nearest to the specimen surface) were taken a distance
1% B from the specimen surface.
Fracture toughness calculations were carried out based on ASTM E1820-2008. However, the
values of fracture toughness do not fully meet the requirements of the standard, since a non-
standard specimen geometry was utilised. This is not of concern, since the results of interest are
the failure loads of the two specimen types.
A2.3 Results
In-plane compression
Figure A2.9 shows the measured load verses clip-gauge displacement for in-plane compression of
the first specimen 11HZ versus the FEA prediction. As noted earlier, specimen 11HZ was scrapped
and a modification made to the in-plane compression procedure.
Figure A2.10 shows the load verses clip-gauge displacement for the load-unload sequence in all
the remaining specimens. Non-linear behaviour is apparent when the specimens are nearly fully
unloaded. This is due to the crack opening in the instantaneous cases. There may also be a
Bauschinger effect.
Residual stress measurements
As noted earlier, ambient temperature residual stress measurements were undertaken on an un-
cracked specimen (3HZ), a progressively cracked specimen (13HZ) and an instantaneously
cracked specimen (8HZ).
The results for the direct stress acting in the direction normal to the ensuing fatigue crack are
tabulated in Table A2.9 and shown graphically in Figure A2.15 as a function of drilling depth. The
cracked specimens show generally smaller stresses than the uncracked. Furthermore, the stresses
for a given depth are generally lower for the progressive specimen than the instantaneous one.
Figure A2.16 compares the average residual stress measurement for the uncracked specimen with
the FEA predicted residual stress distribution through the ligament below the notch. The predicted
stresses just ahead of the notch are somewhat lower in magnitude than the measured result. This
may be the result of a Bauschinger effect in the material that is not taken into account in the FEA.
Figure A2.17 compares the average residual stress measurement for the instantaneous crack
specimen with the FEA predicted residual stress distribution through the ligament below the notch.
There is reasonable agreement. No FEA was undertaken of progressive crack introduction for this
specimen geometry.
Fatigue pre-cracking
A summary of the number of cycles required for the fatigue crack to propagate through each of the
steps is shown in Table A2.3

NULIFE (11) 19 Page 47 of 90

A hand calculation of the loads required for Step 7 (i.e. the final step of pre-cracking) was
performed for one specimen to verify the calculations performed within the Excel spreadsheet (see
Table A2.2)
|

\
|


=
W
a
f S
W B K
F
Max
Max
0
2
3

Where:
K
Max
= 21MPam
B = 10mm
W = 50mm
S = 180mm
a
0
= 24.5mm (a
0
/W ratio of 0.49 used to account for curvature of pre-crack)
2
3
0 0
2
0 0 0 0
2
1
0
1 2 1 2
7 . 2 93 . 3 15 . 2 1 99 . 1 3
|

\
|
|

\
|
+
(
(

|
|

\
|
|

\
|
+ |

\
|
|

\
|
|

\
|
|

\
|
= |

\
|
W
a
W
a
W
a
W
a
W
a
W
a
W
a
W
a
f
o

2
3
2 2
1
05 . 0
0245 . 0
1
05 . 0
0245 . 0
2 1 2
05 . 0
0245 . 0
7 . 2
05 . 0
0245 . 0
93 . 3 15 . 2
05 . 0
0245 . 0
1
05 . 0
0245 . 0
99 . 1
05 . 0
0245 . 0
3
|

\
|
|

\
|
+
(
(

|
|

\
|
|

\
|
+ |

\
|
|

\
|
|

\
|
|

\
|
= |

\
|
W
a
f
o
58 . 2 = |

\
|
W
a
f
o

( )
58 . 2 18 . 0
05 . 0 01 . 0 10 21
2
3
6


=
Max
F = 5.06 kN
Max Min
F R F =
Where:
R = 0.1
06 . 5 1 . 0 =
Min
F = 0.506 kN
Therefore the hand calculations agree with the Excel spreadsheet.

NULIFE (11) 19 Page 48 of 90

Low temperature test failure loads
All specimens failed by cleavage fracture with no crack extension prior to fracture. Figure A2.14
shows load verses CMOD traces for all tests. They show slightly non-linear behaviour.
The failure loads are tabulated in Table A2.7, with Table A2.8 giving the mean, maximum and
minimum for each type of test. Figure A2.12 compares the failure loads for each specimen type:
showing that the instantaneous specimens tend to fail at slightly higher loads than progressive
ones.
Estimates of fracture toughness neglecting residual stress effects
In this section of the Appendix the tests are analysed according to ASTM E 1820-08, and estimates
of fracture toughness are made according to the standard. However, it must be emphasised that
this neglects the residual stress in the specimen. Accordingly, these results are better considered
as estimates of the primary crack driving force required, in addition to the secondary CDF, to cause
cleavage failure.
Crack Front Checks
ASTM E 1820-08 states that for a narrow notch (max width 0.01W = 0.5mm) the minimum crack
length must be greater than 0025B = 0.25mm. Therefore all specimens pass this check.
ASTM E 1820-08 also states that None of the nine physical measurements of initial crack size
shall differ by more than 0.05B from the average a
0

For specimen 6HZ,
a
Max
= 24.879 mm (from Table A2.6)
a
Min
= 24.356 mm (from Table A2.6)
B = 9.95 mm (from Table A2.5)
0.05B = 0.4975 mm
a
0
= 24.688 mm
Max allowable a = 24.688 + 0.4975 = 25.186 mm
Min allowable a = 24.688 - 0.4975 = 24.191 mm
Therefore since a
Max
is less than Max allowable a, and a
Min
is greater than Min allowable a
specimen 6HZ passes the crack front straightness check.
A summary of the crack front straightness checks for all specimens is shown in Table A2.7.
Therefore all but two specimens pass the crack front straightness criteria.
Estimates of Remaining Fracture Toughness (Primary Stress Intensity Factor)

NULIFE (11) 19 Page 49 of 90

All fracture toughness calculations were performed using an Excel spreadsheet. However a hand
calculation for one specimen with some plasticity, (6HZ) i.e. where the J
(Plastic)
part of the calculation
is not equal to zero, was performed to check the integrity of the spreadsheet.
The crack front measurements for specimen 6HZ are shown in Table A2.4.
The original crack length, a
0
was calculated from the following equation:
8
2
8 7 6 5 4 3 2
9 1
0
a a a a a a a
a a
a
+ + + + + + + |

\
| +
=
Where a
1
a
9
are the nine measurements across the fracture surface.
8
596 . 24 709 . 24 811 . 24 878 . 24 879 . 24 715 . 24 538 . 24
2
399 . 24 356 . 24
0
+ + + + + + + |

\
| +
= a
a
0
= 24.688 mm
The load verses CMOD trace for specimen 6HZ is shown in Figure A2.11.
The total area under the load CMOD trace was calculated using KaleidaGraph [A2.9] software.
KaleidaGraph has a function that enables the user to integrate the area under the curve.
From KaleidaGraph the total area under the curve U = 0.5162 J.
The elastic area under the curve was then calculated by determining the failure load (F) multiplied
by the CMOD at the intersection of a continuation of the elastic line and a line drawn horizontally
across from the failure load. This was then divided by two (see Figure A2.11).
2
sec tion Inter
e
CMOD F
U

=
From Figure A2.11,
2
1117 . 0 4533 . 8
=
e
U = 0.4721 J
Plastic area (U
p
) under the load CMOD trace
U
p
= U U
e

U
p
= 0.5162 0.4721 = 0.0441 J
K
e
was then determined from:
|

\
|
(
(

=
W
a
f
W B
S F
K
e
0
2
3


NULIFE (11) 19 Page 50 of 90

Where:
2
3
0 0
2
0 0 0 0
2
1
0
1 2 1 2
7 . 2 93 . 3 15 . 2 1 99 . 1 3
|

\
|
|

\
|
+
(
(

|
|

\
|
|

\
|
+ |

\
|
|

\
|
|

\
|
|

\
|
= |

\
|
W
a
W
a
W
a
W
a
W
a
W
a
W
a
W
a
f
o

F = 8.4533 kN
S = 180 mm
B = 9.95 mm
W = 50.07 mm
a
0
= 24.688 mm
a
0
/W = 0.493
( ) ( )( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) [ ]
( ) ( )( )
2
3
2
2
1
493 . 0 1 493 . 0 2 1 2
493 . 0 7 . 2 493 . 0 93 . 3 15 . 2 493 . 0 1 493 . 0 99 . 1 493 . 0 3
+
+
= |

\
|
W
a
f
o

( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) [ ]
( )( ) 361 . 0 986 . 1 2
656 . 0 937 . 1 15 . 2 250 . 0 99 . 1 106 . 2 +
= |

\
|
W
a
f
o

( )[ ]
( )( ) 361 . 0 986 . 1 2
773 . 1 106 . 2
= |

\
|
W
a
f
o
= 2.60 (2dp)
Excel value calculated as 2.6049. This will be carried forward as hand calculation has some
rounding errors
( )
6049 . 2
05007 . 0 00995 . 0
18 . 0 10 4533 . 8
2
3
3

(
(


=
e
K = 35.55 MPam
J
e
was then determined from
( )
E
K
J
e
e
2 2
1
=
Where the elastic modulus was estimated from a formula based on test temperature (T) in C, i.e.
( ) T E = 0.0571 2 . 207 GPa
( ) 150 0.0571 2 . 207 = E = 215.765 GPa

NULIFE (11) 19 Page 51 of 90

( ) ( )
9
2
2
6
10 765 . 215
3 . 0 1 10 55 . 35


=
e
J
J
e
= 5330.152 Jm
-2

The plastic component J
p
was then calculated from:
( )
0
a W B
U
J
p
p


Where:
=
2
0 0
018 . 2 101 . 3 785 . 3 |

\
|
+ |

\
|

W
a
W
a

= ( ) ( )
2
493 . 0 018 . 2 493 . 0 101 . 3 785 . 3 +
= 4905 . 0 5288 . 1 785 . 3 + = 2.747
( ) 24688 0 . 0 05007 . 0 00995 . 0
0441 . 0 747 . 2

=
p
J = 479.676 Jm
-2

p e c
J J J + =
676 . 479 5330.152 + =
c
J = 5809.828 Jm
-2

2
1
=
E J
K
c
Jc

( )
2
9
3 . 0 1
10 215.765 828 . 5809


=
Jc
K = 37.1 MPam
K
Jc
values were checked to determine whether they were within the limiting toughness level
K
Jc(limit)
is defined by:
K
Jc(limit)

( )
2
0
1 30

=
YS
T
Eb

A nominal value of 25mm will be used for the specimen ligament (b
0
) and a yield strength (
T
YS
) of
510MPa will be used, i.e. the yield strength of the material at the test temperature of -150C. This
value of yield strength at the test temperature was taken from the material characterisation report
[A2.5].

NULIFE (11) 19 Page 52 of 90

K
Jc(limit)

( ) ( )
( )
2
6 9
3 . 0 1 30
10 510 025 . 0 10 215.765


= = 317.4 MPam
The maximum permissible final stress intensity factor K
f(max)
during the final stage of pre-cracking
was determined from the following formula:
( ) Jc
YS
T
YS
f
f
K K

6 . 0
max
=
Where:

f
YS
= Yield strength of material at temperature of pre-cracking = 455MPa (from [A2.5])

T
YS
= Yield strength of material at temperature of fracture testing = 510MPa (from [A2.5])
K
Jc
= Measured value of fracture toughness
For specimen 6HZ,
( )
( )
6
6
6
max
10 1 . 37
10 510
10 455
6 . 0
|
|

\
|

=
f
K = 20 MPam
Therefore the maximum stress intensity factor during the final stage of pre-cracking is slightly too
large since K
f(max)
= 21 MPam.
For all specimens to be valid the value of K
f(max)
would have to meet the requirements of this
formula for the specimen that failed with the lowest toughness, i.e. specimen 1HZ K
Jc
=
25.3MPam.
Therefore,
( )
( )
6
6
6
10 3 . 25
10 510
10 455
6 . 0
|
|

\
|

=
Max f
K = 14 MPam
The fatigue crack probably wouldnt even propagate at this level of K
f(Max)
. Meeting all the
requirements of the testing standard was not absolutely critical in this investigation as it was any
differences that may exist between the two specimen types that was of importance, not the
magnitude of the measured fracture toughness. Reducing the loads further than those used may
have caused problems with crack front straightness and also would significantly increase the time
required to pre-crack the test specimens
.

A summary of the fracture toughness calculations and the crack measurement data are shown in
Table A2.5 to Table A2.8. A plot showing K
Jc
against the two specimen types is shown in
Figure A2.13.


NULIFE (11) 19 Page 53 of 90

A2.4 Discussion and Conclusions
Two different specimen types containing residual stress have been tested as follows. In the
progressive specimen type, a residual stress field was imposed in the specimen by means of in-
plane compression. A crack was then introduced by machining an EDM starter notch, followed by
fatigue pre-cracking. In the instantaneous specimen type, the crack was first introduced by the
EDM starter notch and fatigue pre-cracking. The residual stress field was then imposed in the
specimen in the same way, with the crack remaining closed throughout the majority of this process.
Both types of specimen were then tested at low temperature in three-point bending to determine
the loads required to cause cleavage failure. The progressive specimens tend to fail at slightly
lower loads than the instantaneous ones. This indicates that the secondary crack driving force for
the progressive specimen is larger than for the instantaneous one.
Ambient temperature residual stress measurements have also been made on an un-cracked test
specimen, a progressively cracked specimen and an instantaneously cracked specimen. These
measurements gave a mean stress of 202MPa in the instantaneous specimen and 172MPa in the
progressive one. This limited comparison between the two specimen types, suggesting a smaller
secondary crack driving force for the progressive crack, is not consistent with the results from the
low temperature fracture tests.

NULIFE (11) 19 Page 54 of 90

A2.5 References
A2.1 J K Sharples, M Jackson, P Budden, Overview of Fracture Mechanics Research Studies
in the UK, 20th International Conference on Structural Mechanics In Reactor Technology
(SMIRT), Espoo (Helsinki), Finland, August 9-14, 2009
A2.2 Charles R, Teng H, Beardsmore D W, Serco Technical and Assurance Services, C T
Watson, Rolls Royce plc. Load History Effects on Crack Driving Force for Cracks in
Residual Stress Fields. 2008 ASME Pressure Vessels and Piping Division Conference,
July 27-31 2008, Chicago, Illinois, USA, PVP2008-61376
A2.3 Ainsworth R A, Sharples J K, Smith S D. Effects of residual stresses on fracture behaviour
experimental results and assessment methods. J Strain Anal 2000;35(4):307-16
A2.4 A Mirzaee-Sisan, C E Truman, D J Smith, M C Smith, Interaction of a residual stress with
mechanical loading in a ferritic steel, Engineering Fracture Mechanics 74 (2007) 2864-
2880.
A2.5 Ingham T, Knee N, Milne I, Morland E. Fracture toughness in the transition regime for
A533B-1 steel: Prediction of large specimen results from specimen tests, Report ND-R-
1354(R), Risley Nuclear Power Development Laboratories, 1987
A2.6 Birkett R P, Hutchinson P, May S. Development and testing of SENT fracture specimens
with CT specimen inserts. Serco report SA/SIT/19415/R01 Issue 1, 2007
A2.7 ASTM E 1820-08, Standard Test Method for Measurement of Fracture Toughness,
American Society for Testing and Materials. Philadelphia, 2008
A2.8 Birkett R P, Hutchinson P, R O Howells. Fracture toughness and ancillary testing of S355
J2G3 structural steel reference plate. Serco report SA/SIT/17092/R502/R503/1 Issue 1,
2006
A2.9 KaleidaGraph Version 2005, Synergy Software, 2005


NULIFE (11) 19 Page 55 of 90


Table A2.1 Specimen Listing


NULIFE (11) 19 Page 56 of 90



Table A2.2 Summary of Loads and Stress Intensity Factors used during Pre-Cracking.
Step No.

Total Crack Length
(mm)
Start End
Pre-
Crack
Length
(mm)
a/W

K
Max

(MPam)
K
Min

(MPam)
F
Max

(kN)
F
Min

(kN)
F
Mean

(kN)
F
(kN)
1 18.000 18.929 0.929 0.379 37.0 3.70 12.30 1.23 6.76 5.53
2 18.929 19.857 1.857 0.397 34.3 3.43 10.85 1.08 5.97 4.88
3 19.857 20.786 2.786 0.416 31.7 3.17 9.50 0.95 5.22 4.27
4 20.786 21.714 3.714 0.434 29.0 2.90 8.25 0.83 4.54 3.71
5 21.714 22.643 4.643 0.453 26.3 2.63 7.10 0.71 3.90 3.19
6 22.643 23.571 5.571 0.471 23.7 2.37 6.03 0.60 3.32 2.71
7 23.571 24.500 6.500 0.490 21.0 2.10 5.06 0.51 2.78 2.28

NULIFE (11) 19 Page 57 of 90

Table A2.3 Number of Cycles Required to Fatigue Pre-Crack Specimens.
Number of Cycles (x100)
Specimen ID
Specimen
Type Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5 Step 6 Step 7 Total Average (x100)
1HZ Progressive 961 883 811 517 524 769 2010 6475 6414
4HZ Progressive 990 434 533 618 663 1128 1105 5471
6HZ Progressive 955 439 268 507 517 698 937 4321
9HZ Progressive 854 575 396 817 1102 1450 1225 6419
13HZ Progressive 1201 584 382 327 573 831 1320 5218
14HZ Progressive 1138 466 594 527 573 1489 1161 5948
16HZ Progressive 2413 831 968 1060 990 1607 1826 9695
17HZ Progressive 1556 707 706 988 940 1386 1483 7766
2HZ Instantaneous 2053 615 968 901 731 1036 496 6800 7559
5HZ Instantaneous 1493 834 492 605 798 1351 1508 7081
7HZ Instantaneous 1764 689 642 762 1042 1745 1708 8352
8HZ Instantaneous 1444 623 683 715 1142 1652 1658 7917
10HZ Instantaneous 1852 455 616 589 849 1298 1616 7275
12HZ Instantaneous 1530 552 382 671 1071 1518 2274 7998
15HZ Instantaneous 1406 578 568 649 1059 1617 1614 7491

NULIFE (11) 19 Page 58 of 90


Table A2.4 Crack Front Measurements for Specimen 6HZ.
Initial Crack Measurements (mm)
Specimen
Code
Specimen
Type a
1
a
2
a
3
a
4
a
5
a
6
a
7
a
8
a
9

Crack
Length
(a
o
)
6HZ Progressive 24.356 24.538 24.715 24.879 24.878 24.811 24.709 24.596 24.399 24.688

NULIFE (11) 19 Page 59 of 90


Table A2.5 Fracture Toughness Calculations.
Specimen
ID

Specimen
Type

Thickness
B
(mm)
Width
W
(mm)
Area
(Plastic)
U
p
(J)
Failure
Load
F (kN)



Elastic
Modulus
E (GPa)
Crack
Length
a
o

(mm)
a/W


f(a/W)


K
Elastic



J
Elastic


(kJm
-
2
)
J
Plastic


(kJm
-2
)
J

(kJm
-
2
)
K
Jc


(MPam)
1HZ Progressive 10.03 50.06 0.00 6.13 2.750 215.77 24.523 0.490 2.579 25.34 2.71 0.0 2.7 25.3
4HZ Progressive 10.00 50.06 0.04 8.74 2.745 215.77 24.764 0.495 2.618 36.76 5.70 0.4 6.1 38.0
6HZ Progressive 9.95 50.07 0.04 8.45 2.747 215.77 24.688 0.493 2.605 35.55 5.33 0.5 5.8 37.1
9HZ Progressive 10.01 50.05 0.05 10.49 2.750 215.77 24.514 0.490 2.578 43.44 7.96 0.5 8.5 44.9
14HZ Progressive 10.09 50.02 0.04 8.95 2.749 215.77 24.546 0.491 2.586 36.90 5.74 0.4 6.1 38.1
16HZ Progressive 10.05 50.01 0.00 8.28 2.748 215.77 24.590 0.492 2.594 34.39 4.99 0.0 5.0 34.4
17HZ Progressive 10.01 50.07 0.00 7.72 2.745 215.77 24.743 0.494 2.614 32.39 4.42 0.0 4.4 32.4
2HZ Instantaneous 9.97 50.07 0.00 9.37 2.744 215.77 24.796 0.495 2.623 39.60 6.61 0.0 6.6 39.6
5HZ Instantaneous 10.09 50.04 0.07 10.32 2.748 215.77 24.614 0.492 2.595 42.69 7.69 0.7 8.4 44.7
7HZ Instantaneous 10.02 50.07 0.00 7.54 2.747 215.77 24.690 0.493 2.605 31.51 4.19 0.0 4.2 31.5
10HZ Instantaneous 10.04 50.09 0.00 9.57 2.746 215.77 24.741 0.494 2.612 39.97 6.74 0.0 6.7 40.0
12HZ Instantaneous 10.04 50.07 0.00 7.95 2.745 215.77 24.770 0.495 2.618 33.30 4.68 0.0 4.7 33.3
15HZ Instantaneous 10.05 50.10 0.08 10.81 2.749 215.77 24.609 0.491 2.590 44.73 8.44 0.9 9.3 47.0

NULIFE (11) 19 Page 60 of 90


Table A2.6 Crack Measurement Data.
Initial Crack Measurements (mm)
Specimen
Code
Specimen
Type a
1
a
2
a
3
a
4
a
5
a
6
a
7
a
8
a
9

Crack
Length
(a
o
)
1HZ Progressive 24.354 24.531 24.560 24.567 24.584 24.603 24.564 24.458 24.280 24.523
4HZ Progressive 24.113 24.403 24.610 24.839 25.147 25.094 24.949 24.767 24.486 24.764
6HZ Progressive 24.356 24.538 24.715 24.879 24.878 24.811 24.709 24.596 24.399 24.688
9HZ Progressive 24.524 24.682 24.618 24.705 24.609 24.509 24.403 24.300 24.046 24.514
14HZ Progressive 24.393 24.581 24.707 24.693 24.655 24.554 24.536 24.355 24.173 24.546
16HZ Progressive 24.465 24.539 24.634 24.722 24.709 24.743 24.583 24.432 24.249 24.590
17HZ Progressive 24.277 24.440 24.644 24.759 24.865 24.883 24.901 24.912 24.802 24.743
2HZ Instantaneous 25.118 25.305 25.236 25.085 24.907 24.695 24.443 24.189 23.897 24.796
5HZ Instantaneous 24.514 24.675 24.709 24.652 24.638 24.645 24.604 24.568 24.332 24.614
7HZ Instantaneous 24.687 24.797 24.793 24.793 24.799 24.686 24.611 24.519 24.360 24.690
10HZ Instantaneous 24.657 24.816 24.865 24.879 24.860 24.789 24.688 24.517 24.365 24.741
12HZ Instantaneous 24.515 24.669 24.825 24.895 24.891 24.885 24.801 24.733 24.413 24.770
15HZ Instantaneous 24.252 24.358 24.477 24.543 24.664 24.750 24.801 24.789 24.733 24.609


NULIFE (11) 19 Page 61 of 90

Table A2.7 Summary of Failure Loads and KJc from Fracture Tests.
Specimen
ID

Specimen
Type

Failure
Load
(kN)
K
Jc


(MPam)
1HZ Progressive 6.13 25.3
4HZ Progressive 8.74 38.0
6HZ Progressive 8.45 37.1
9HZ Progressive 10.49 44.9
14HZ Progressive 8.95 38.1
16HZ Progressive 8.28 34.4
17HZ Progressive 7.72 32.4
2HZ Instantaneous 9.37 39.6
5HZ Instantaneous 10.32 44.7
7HZ Instantaneous 7.54 31.5
10HZ Instantaneous 9.57 40.0
12HZ Instantaneous 7.95 33.3
15HZ Instantaneous 10.81 47.0


NULIFE (11) 19 Page 62 of 90


Table A2.8 Summary of Mean, maximum and Minimum Failure Loads and KJc from Fracture Tests.
Progressive Instantaneous
Mean Failure Load (kN) 8.39 9.26
Maximum Failure Load (kN) 10.49 10.81
Minimum Failure Load (kN) 6.13 7.54
Mean Failure K
Jc
(MPam) 35.76 39.34
Maximum Failure K
Jc
(MPam) 44.90 46.95
Minimum Failure K
Jc
(MPam) 25.34 31.51

NULIFE (11) 19 Page 63 of 90


Table A2.9 Residual Stress Data in Crack Opening Direction.
Crack Opening Residual Stress (MPa)
Drilling
Depth
(m)
3HZ
Un-
cracked
13HZ
Progressive
8HZ
Instantaneous
16 504 289 372
48 327 155 232
80 308 165 196
112 240 148 172
160 220 124 143
224 208 93 86
288 232 131 132
352 251 167 178
448 272 213 239
512 283 236 270
Average 285 172 202


NULIFE (11) 19 Page 64 of 90


Figure A2.1 Test Specimen.


NULIFE (11) 19 Page 65 of 90


Figure A2.2 Photograph of Test Specimen.


NULIFE (11) 19 Page 66 of 90


Figure A2.3 Sectioning of Material.


NULIFE (11) 19 Page 67 of 90


Figure A2.4 Wire EDM of Starter Notches.

NULIFE (11) 19 Page 68 of 90



Figure A2.5 Loading Arrangement during the In-Plane Compression.


NULIFE (11) 19 Page 69 of 90


Figure A2.6 Test Specimen Located in the Virbraphore.
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14
Clip Gauge Displacement (mm)
L
o
a
d

(
k
N
)
5HZ
12HZ
2HZ
7HZ
8HZ
10HZ
15HZ

Figure A2.7 Load versus Clip Gauge Displacement recorded during
the Loading of the Instantaneous specimens to the Kf(max) used for the
Progressive Specimens.


NULIFE (11) 19 Page 70 of 90


Figure A2.8 Loading Arrangement During the Fracture Tests.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
Clip Gauge Displacement (mm)
L
o
a
d

(
k
N
)
FE Prediction
Specimen 11HZ
Point of onset of
buckling

Figure A2.9 Load versus Clip Gauge Displacement for the In-Plane
Compression of Specimen 11HZ Plotted Against the FEA Prediction.


NULIFE (11) 19 Page 71 of 90


Figure A2.10 Load versus Clip Gauge Displacement for the In-Plane
Compression of all Specimens Except 11HZ.

Figure A2.11 Load versus CMOD Trace for Specimen 6HZ.


NULIFE (11) 19 Page 72 of 90

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
0
Specimen Type
M
a
x

L
o
a
d

(
k
N
)
Progressive Instantaneous

Figure A2.12 Failure Load plotted against Specimen Type.
25
30
35
40
45
50
0
Specimen Type
K
J
c

(
M
P
a
m
1
/
2
)
Progressive Instantaneous

Figure A2.13 K
Jc
at Failure plotted against Specimen Type.


NULIFE (11) 19 Page 73 of 90

0
2
4
6
8
10
12
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.2
Crack Mouth Opening Displacement (mm)
L
o
a
d

(
k
N
)
15HZ Instantaneous
9HZ Progressive
2HZ Instantaneous
17HZ Progressive
5HZ Instantaneous
16HZ Progressive
10HZ Instantaneous
14HZ Progressive
6HZ Progressive
12HZ Instantaneous
4HZ Progressive
1HZ Progressive
7HZ Instantaneous

Figure A2.14 Load versus Crack Mouth Opening Displacement for all
Specimens.
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
550
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550
Drilling Depth (m)
R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l

S
t
r
e
s
s

i
n

C
r
a
c
k

O
p
e
n
i
n
g

D
i
r
e
c
t
i
o
n

(
M
P
a
)
3HZ Un-Cracked
13HZ Progressive
8HZ Instantaneous

Figure A2.15 Residual Stresses in the Crack Opening Direction.


NULIFE (11) 19 Page 74 of 90

-700
-600
-500
-400
-300
-200
-100
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Distance ahead of Notch Tip (mm)
R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l

S
t
r
e
s
s

(
M
P
a

)

FE Prediction (Un-cracked)
Residual Stress Measurement, 3HZ (Un-Cracked)

Figure A2.16 FEA Predicted Residual Stress Field Plotted Against
Residual Stress Measurement for and un-Cracked Specimen.
-1000
-800
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Distance ahead of Notch Tip (mm)
R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l

s
t
r
e
s
s

(
M
P
a
)


Cracked then Loaded, FE Prediction (Instantaneous)
Residual Stress Measurement, 8HZ (Instantaneous)

Figure A2.17 FEA Predicted Residual Stress Field Plotted Against
Residual Stress Measurement for an Instantaneously Cracked Specimen.

NULIFE (11) 19 Page 75 of 90


Appendix 3

Finite Element Analysis in Support of
Experimental Test Programme
Contents
A3.1 Introduction and Background
A3.2 Geometry and test procedure
A3.3 Finite Element Analyses
A3.4 Results and Discussion
A3.5 References



NULIFE (11) 19 Page 76 of 90

A3.1 Introduction and Background
Numerical analyses and experimental tests conducted recently [A3.1, A3.2, A3.3, A3.4] have
suggested that a crack introduced progressively into a field of residual stress (by means of fatigue
crack growth or stress corrosion cracking for example) causes a smaller secondary crack driving
force (CDF) than that resulting from a crack introduced instantaneously. In Reference [A3.2], it is
suggested that energy is dissipated along the entire length of a progressively opening crack in the
form of a plastic wake, while plastic deformation and energy dissipation is concentrated at the final
crack tip of an instantaneously or simultaneously opening crack. A lower CDF is therefore expected
for the progressive crack. Assessment procedures usually calculate secondary CDF consistent with
the instantaneous crack. Therefore, there may be benefits in assessments that account for defects
that develop in a progressive manner: resulting in lower secondary CDFs and so greater load or
toughness margins.
As part of this Task, an experimental programme was undertaken to study the difference between
these two different methods of introducing a crack into a pre-existing field of residual stress.
Specifically, cracks are introduced either instantaneously or progressively, at room temperature
into modified single edge notch bend specimens SEN(B) of A533B steel containing a residual
stress field. These specimens are subsequently tested at a low temperature, such that the
secondary component of CDF dominates at the point of cleavage failure. Any difference in
secondary CDF caused by the method of crack introduction is expected to result in a difference in
the primary load required to cause cleavage failure.
This Appendix presents the results of finite element analyses carried out in support of the
experimental programme. These analyses provide guidance on the specimen geometry, loading
configuration and loads required to appropriately address the phenomenon of instantaneous versus
progressive crack introduction. The effect of pre-loading is only considered here; no modelling of
primary loads is undertaken.
A3.2 Geometry and Test Procedure
The specimen geometry used in this work is based upon a modified SEN(B) (Figure A3.1) which
has been tested in previous studies reported by Mirzaee-Sisan et. al. [A3.5]. The specimens tested
in [A3.5] were 250mm in length, 50mm in depth and 10mm thick. Each specimen contained a
shallow notch of 12.5mm radius at mid-length and contained two V grooved notches at the ends of
the specimens in order to apply a pre-load. The specimen tested in the present study is described
in more detail in Appendix 2.
A residual stress field is introduced into the specimen at room temperature by means of in-plane
compression. Here pre-loading of the specimen, by means of the loads indicated in Figure A3.1

NULIFE (11) 19 Page 77 of 90

(see arrows), causes a combination of compression and bending on the plane ahead of the notch.
This causes compressive yielding immediately ahead of the notch but tensile stresses nearer the
back face of the specimen (middle of top surface in Figure A3.1). Relaxing the pre-loads causes a
highly tensile residual stress in the region immediately ahead of the notch.
As indicated in Figure A3.1, a crack is machined adjacent to the notch in the plane of minimum
section at room temperature. The specimen is subsequently cooled to a temperature of 150
o
C,
and subjected to loading by three-point bending until failure occurs by cleavage fracture across the
notched section.
Notches of radius 17.5 mm were machined in the specimens tested in the present experimental
study, this value being decided following the finite element analysis results described in the present
Appendix. This larger notch radius enables a deeper crack to be tested: thus helping to enhance
the progressive versus instantaneous effect as will be seen later in this Appendix. Furthermore, a
deeper crack in a larger radius notch promotes a higher degree of crack tip plastic constraint,
helping to prevent the reduction of residual stresses by plastic strains caused by primary loading.
A3.3 Finite Element Analyses
All of the finite element analyses undertaken as part of this study are carried out using the finite
element program ABAQUS [A3.6], Version 6.7.
Finite Element Model
The plane strain, two-dimensional (2D) finite element model of the bend specimen is shown in
Figure A3.2. The model is constructed using type CPE8R elements, which are eight-node
quadratic, with reduced integration. By making use of the plane of symmetry at the position of the
crack, only one half of the bend specimen is modelled.
In order to introduce a residual stress profile through the thickness of the model, by way of a
compressive pre-load, a loading pin is modelled as a rigid surface, which makes contact with the
upper surface of the specimen. This is shown as a semi-circle above the top edge of the model in
Figure A3.2.
Elastic-plastic analyses studied the following cases:
a) a notched specimen containing no crack,
b) a notched specimen containing a 7.5 mm deep crack(emanating from the notch) , but also
incorporating an associated rigid surface that prevents crack overclosure during the pre-
load.
Case a) is required to find the uncracked distribution of residual stress although, after relaxation of
the pre-load, a 7.5 mm deep crack is introduced instantaneously for comparison purposes. Case
b) is a more accurate representation of the experimental pre-loading of the specimens with
instantaneous cracks: where the crack is present during pre-loading but is closed under

NULIFE (11) 19 Page 78 of 90

compression during the pre-load. Relaxing the pre-load introduces the residual stress field and
allows the crack to open under its influence.
In a series of elastic analyses, a crack is present ahead of the notch (to the right of the notch in
Figure A3.2). The cracks depths considered ranged from 3 mm to 9 mm. The uncracked body
residual stresses on the crack flanks of Case a) above are applied as distributed loads to the crack
faces, thus applying the superposition method to evaluate stress intensity factors. The elastic
stress intensity factor is determined from the elastic J-integral.
Material Properties
The material used in this study is A533B low alloy steel plate, which has been extensively
characterized in Reference [A3.7] and was used in the tests in Reference [A3.5]. The room
temperature Youngs Modulus, E, is equal to 208920 MPa and Poissons ratio, , equal to 0.3. The
room temperature 0.2% yield stress of the material,
0
is 455 MPa. Isotropic strain-hardening is
modelled and is shown in Figure A3.3.
The analyses that determine elastic stress intensity factors uses only elastic material properties.
Boundary Conditions and Loads
In elastic-plastic Case a) models, symmetry boundary conditions are imposed on the bottom edge
(Figure A3.2).
In elastic-plastic Case b) models that incorporate the crack, symmetry boundary conditions extend
only from the tip of the crack to the bottom right-hand corner of the model (Figure A3.2). A rigid
contact surface below the bottom edge of the model prevents the crack from over-closing: thus
modelling the contact between the crack faces that actually occurs during the pre-loading of the
actual test specimens.
In both elastic-plastic Cases a) and b), a downwards displacement of the rigid circular body
adjacent to the top edge of the model (Figure A3.2) imposes the pre-load of approximately 70kN.
The pre-load is then partially relaxed by reducing this downwards displacement to 1.75 mm. This
prescribed displacement of the rigid body is then set equal to zero and the rigid body contact
condition is removed.
Following the pre-loading in Case a), a crack of depth 7.5 mm ahead of the notch is introduced
simultaneously.
In the elastic analyses, symmetry boundary conditions extend only from the tip of the crack to the
bottom right-hand corner of the model (Figure A3.2). A distribution of pressure is applied to the
crack face. In each element on the crack face, this applied pressure is algebraically equal to the
component of residual stress, acting in the vertical (crack opening) direction, at the centroid of the

NULIFE (11) 19 Page 79 of 90

same element. This distribution of residual stress is taken from elastic-plastic Case a) after
relaxation of the pre-load, but before the crack is introduced (Figure A3.8 and Figure A3.7).
A3.4 Results and Discussion
Comparison with Analyses of Mirzaee-Sisan et al
Finite element analyses of an un-cracked specimen containing a 12.5 mm radius notch are carried
out in an attempt to reproduce the residual stress profile obtained by Mirzaee-Sisan et. al. [A3.5].
Here, in-plane compression is simulated using the same material properties, specimen geometry
and loads. Figure A3.4 shows that the results are in good agreement.
Load versus Reduction of Notch Diameter
Figure A3.5 shows the present results for pin load applied to the specimen versus reduction of
diameter of the initially 17.5 mm radius notch. Here, a load pin displacement of 2 mm gives a
maximum load of about 72 kN. In Figure A3.5, the orange triangles refer to elastic-plastic Case a),
where there is no crack present during pre-loading and unloading. The green diamonds refer to
elastic-plastic Case b), where a 7.5 mm crack is present ahead of the notch throughout the pre-
loading and unloading. It is seen that the crack starts to open when the pre-load has relaxed to
about 30 kN: giving non-linear behaviour, which may also be enhanced as a small plastic zone is
established at the crack tip.
1

Stress Distribution at Maximum Preload
Figure A3.6 shows the distribution of stress acting normal to the notched section at the point of
maximum pre-load. This shows that for both 12.5 mm and 17.5 mm notches the stress is
compressive for a considerable distance ahead of the notch. This provides further assurance that
any pre-existing instantaneous crack (Case b) remains in compression during pre-loading.
Residual Stress Distribution after Preloading
Figure A3.7 and Figure A3.8 show distributions of stress acting normal to the notched section after
relaxation of pre-loading. These figures show results for variants of uncracked elastic-plastic Case
a), where 12.5 mm and 17.5 mm radius notches were considered, along with several different
values of loading pin displacement. Each case shows a large magnitude tensile stress immediately
adjacent to the notch, with the 17.5 mm radius notch (filled symbols) showing a generally larger
magnitude residual stress than 12.5 mm radius (open symbols). The stress changes to

1
The curves in Figure 5 terminate before the end of load relaxation because, as the prescribed
displacement boundary condition is removed from the rigid body representing the loading pin, the
reaction force is not reported.

NULIFE (11) 19 Page 80 of 90

compression over a short distance further away from the notch. For the 12.5 mm radius notch, this
compressive stress peaks about 8 mm to 10 mm away from the notch, with the stress magnitude
gradually declining towards the back face. For the 17.5 mm radius notch, the peak compressive
stress is seen about 15 mm to 17 mm away from the notch. A rapid reversal to tension occurs over
the next few mm, with the magnitude of the (second) tensile maximum occurring about 20 mm to
22 mm away from the notch. Between there and the back face the tensile stress gradually declines.
This difference between the specimens with 12.5 mm and 17.5 mm radius notches arises because
the latter geometry causes a much larger bending contribution to the pre-loading.
Effect of Sequence of Crack Introduction
Figure A3.9 illustrates the effect of the sequence of instantaneous crack introduction, which shows
the stress distribution acting normal to the plane of a 7.5 mm deep crack adjacent to the 17.5 mm
radius notch. Results from two analyses are shown. The first analysis is a continuation of elastic
Case a), where the crack is introduced instantaneously following the relaxation of the pre-load.
The second analysis is the end of elastic Case b), where the pre-load is applied and relaxed in the
presence of the crack. It is clear that the stress distributions are identical. This gives confidence
that the test procedure of applying in-plane compression to the pre-cracked plate, gives the same
outcome as the theoretical (though impractical to replicate) process of introducing the flanks of a
crack simultaneously into a pre-existing residual stress field. Figure A3.9 suggests that the
secondary CDFs for the two cases should be similar in magnitude.
Elastic Estimates of Secondary Crack Driving Force
In the elastic analyses with crack face pressure loads, elastic estimates of secondary crack driving
force,
s
I
K , are determined by means of the superposition principle. This procedure uses ABAQUS
results for the elastic J-integral, J
e
, in the following plane strain expression for
s
I
K
2
) 1 /( = E J K
e
s
I
(1)
Figure A3.10 shows estimates of the secondary CDF for a notch radius of both 12.5 mm and a
17.5mm for cracks emanating from the notch with depths ranging from 3 mm to 9 mm. Since yield
stress rises as temperature drops, the residual stress distribution and thus the secondary CDF
acting in a particular test specimen should not change. Accordingly, the secondary CDF results in
Figure A3.10 should apply at 150
o
C. A 7.5 mm deep crack adjacent to a 17.5 radius notch gives a
value of
s
I
K equal to about 50 MPam.
Mirzaee-Sisan et. al. [A3.5] report fracture toughness results averaging 78.8 MPam, at a test
temperature of -150C, for as-received A533B plate in the test specimens having 12.5 mm radius
notches and 2.5 mm deep cracks. Since the present specimens have 17.5 mm notches with 7.5
mm deep cracks, the plastic constraint imposed by them should be greater than that imposed by

NULIFE (11) 19 Page 81 of 90

the specimens in [A3.5]. Thus 78.8 MPam is likely to be an upper bound average fracture
toughness of the A533B plate at 150
o
C. Therefore, the secondary component of the crack driving
force is likely to be greater than half the fracture toughness; at least according to the present
results for residual stress and secondary crack driving force.
Implications of a Bauschinger Effect in A533B
Experimental and numerical studies by Lee et. al. [A3.8] have demonstrated that A533B plate
exhibits a Bauschinger effect when it is pre-loaded to cause yield in compression and then re-
loaded in tension. This phenomenon tends to reduce the residual stress compared to the current
assumption that the material hardening is isotropic [A3.8]. This effect is seen in the present
experimental work (see Appendix 2) where residual stress assessments were carried out using the
target gauge/centre hole drilling method. Measured residual stress in the crack opening direction
tends to be lower than those predicted by the present finite element analyses of pre-loading.
Accordingly, the actual secondary CDFs in the instantaneous specimen tests will be reduced
somewhat below the values indicated by the filled diamonds in Figure A3.10.
Accounting for Warm Pre-Stressing
Concern has been raised that warm pre-stressing (WPS) may occur in the progressively cracked
specimens because of the tension-tension fatigue loading that is used to introduce the crack. The
concern is that the K
max
part of the final fatigue cycles could establish a plastic zone ahead of the
crack, which in turn could give rise to an increase in effective fracture toughness at the lower test
temperature. To account for this, the obvious solution is to subject the instantaneous crack
specimens to a limited number of fatigue cycles in order to subject them to the same K
max
, which
also sharpens the crack.
In calculating the required maximum primary crack driving force to apply during fatigue crack
growth, it is assumed that the secondary K due to residual stress alone is the same in both the
progressive and instantaneous crack specimens. However, if the phenomenon under study is
true (the secondary crack driving force for the progressively grown crack is smaller than for
instantaneous) then K
max
applied in the fatigue loading will be smaller for the progressive case,
giving a smaller compressive crack tip plastic zone. This in turn would lead to a smaller effective
low temperature toughness of the progressive cases compared with the instantaneous due to WPS
effects. Other things being equal then, the WPS effect due to fatigue K
max
would require a smaller
primary load to cause failure of the progressive specimens at 150
o
C. The tests have been carried
out to determine whether secondary crack driving force is reduced by progressive crack
introduction. To demonstrate this phenomenon requires larger failure loads for the progressively
cracked specimens at 150
o
C. This is summarised as follows:
WPS alone requires a smaller primary K for progressively cracked specimens, than for
instantaneously cracked specimens

NULIFE (11) 19 Page 82 of 90

The progressive effect alone requires a larger primary K for progressively cracked
specimens, than for instantaneously cracked specimens.
So if the progressively cracked specimens are found to fail at larger loads than the instantaneously
cracked specimens, it will be due to the mode of crack insertion and will not be a consequence of
WPS effects.

NULIFE (11) 19 Page 83 of 90

A3.5 References
A3.1 P J Bouchard, M R Goldthorpe and P Prottey. J-integral and local damage fracture analyses for a
pump casing containing a repair weld. Int. J. Press. Vess. and Piping, Vol 78, 2001, pp. 295-305.
A3.2 M C Smith, P J Bouchard, M R Goldthorpe and D Lawrjaniec. Fracture margins for growing cracks
in weld repairs. Paper PVP 2005-71776, ASME Pressure Vessels and Piping Conference 2005.
A3.3 A H Sherry, J Quinta da Fonseca, M R Goldthorpe and K L Taylor. Measurement and modelling of
residual stress effects on cracks. Fatigue Fract Engng Mater Struct., 30, 2006, 243-257.
A3.4 J K Sharples, M Jackson, P Budden, Overview of Fracture Mechanics Research Studies in the
UK, 20th International Conference on Structural Mechanics In Reactor Technology (SMIRT),
Espoo (Helsinki), Finland, August 9-14, 2009
A3.5 A Mirzaee-Sisan, C E Truman, D J Smith, M C Smith.Interaction of a residual stress with
mechanical loading in a ferritic steel. Engineering Fracture Mechanics 74 (2007) 2864-2880.
A3.6 ABAQUS Version 6.7-2, Simulia Inc., 2007.
A3.7 T Ingham, N Knee, I Milne, E Moorland, fracture toughness in the transition regime for A533B-1
steel: Prediction of large specimen results from specimen tests, Report ND-R-1354, Risley
Nuclear Power Development Laboratories, July 1987.
A3.8 K S Lee, A H Sherry, M R Goldthorpe, Residual stress and constraint effects on fracture in the
transition temperature regime, Proceedings of the ASME Pressure Vesels and Piping Division
Conference, July 27-31, 2008, Chicago, Illinois, USA, PVP2008-61475.

NULIFE (11) 19 Page 84 of 90




Figure A3.1 Modified bend specimen, showing pre-loading arrangement,
reproduced from [A3.5].


NULIFE (11) 19 Page 85 of 90


crack tip
in some
models
deepest
point of
notch
crack tip
in some
models
deepest
point of
notch

Figure A3.2 Finite element model of modified bend specimen. Inset shows
boundary conditions for a crack either present from the start
or introduced during the analysis.


NULIFE (11) 19 Page 86 of 90


0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.10 0.11 0.12
Plastic Strain
T
r
u
e

S
t
r
e
s
s
,

M
P
a

Figure A3.3

Isotropic strain-hardening behaviour used in the finite
element analyses in terms of true stress versus equivalent
plastic strain.
-700
-600
-500
-400
-300
-200
-100
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Distance ahead of notch tip, mm
R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l

s
t
r
e
s
s
,

M
P
a


R=12.5mm, Displacement=2.0mm
Mirzaee-Sisan Data

Figure A3.4 Comparison between the present results and results of
Mirzaee-Sisan et. al. [A3.5] for the distribution of residual
stress acting normal to the notched section after relaxation
of pre-loading for 12.5 mm radius notch.

NULIFE (11) 19 Page 87 of 90


0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8
Clip gauge displacement, mm
P
i
n

L
o
a
d
,

k
N
R=17.5mm, Pin Displacement=2.0mm, Uncracked
R=17.5mm, Pin Displacement=2.0mm, 7.5mm cracked, Pre/Unload

Figure A3.5 Predicted load versus notch diameter reduction for 17.5 mm
radius notch with 2 mm pin displacement applied.
-900
-800
-700
-600
-500
-400
-300
-200
-100
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Distance ahead of notch tip, mm
S
t
r
e
s
s
,

M
P
a
R=17.5mm, Displacement=2.0mm
R=12.5mm, Displacement=2.0mm

Figure A3.6 Residual stress distribution in a modified SEN(B) specimen at
maximum pre-load for 12.5mm and 17.5mm radius notches.

NULIFE (11) 19 Page 88 of 90


-700
-600
-500
-400
-300
-200
-100
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Distance ahead of notch tip, mm
R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l

s
t
r
e
s
s
,

M
P
a


R=17.5mm, Displacement=4.0mm
R=17.5mm, Displacement=3.0mm
R=17.5mm, Displacement=2.0mm
R=17.5mm, Displacement=1.5mm
R=12.5mm, Displacement=2.0mm
R=12.5mm, Displacement=1.5mm

Figure A3.7 Residual stress distribution in a modified SEN(B) specimen
following the unloading of different magnitudes of in-plane
compression for 12.5mm and 17.5mm radius notches.
-400
-300
-200
-100
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Distance ahead of notch tip, mm
R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l

s
t
r
e
s
s
,

M
P
a
R=17.5mm, Displacement=4.0mm
R=17.5mm, Displacement=3.0mm
R=17.5mm, Displacement=2.0mm
R=17.5mm, Displacement=1.5mm
R=12.5mm, Displacement=2.0mm
R=12.5mm, Displacement=1.5mm

Figure A3.8 Residual stress distributions in a modified , un-cracked
SEN(B) specimen following the unloading of different
amounts of in-plane compression for 12.5mm and 17.5mm
radius notches (as in Figure 7, but nearer the notch).

NULIFE (11) 19 Page 89 of 90


-1000
-800
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Distance ahead of notch tip, mm
R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l

s
t
r
e
s
s
,

M
P
a


Loaded - Cracked
Cracked - Loaded

Figure A3.9 Comparison of residual stress profile of opening stress prior
to fracture testing for two different sequences of
instantaneous crack introduction.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Crack depth ahead of notch tip, mm
K
I
s
,

M
P
a

m
0
.
5
R=17.5mm, Displacement=2.0mm
R=12.5mm, Displacement=2.0mm

Figure A3.10. Elastic estimates of secondary crack driving force for various
crack depths adjacent to 12.5mm and 17.5mm radius notches.

NULIFE (11) 19 Page 90 of 90

You might also like