Professional Documents
Culture Documents
m.kocak@gedik.com , bdgenckan@gedik.com.tr
Abstract
Material tensile and fracture toughness properties are
essential data for assessment of structural integrity of
welded structures. Both base metal (BM) and weld metal
(WM) properties should be available for complete and
non conservative design and structural integrity
assessment of the modern structures. This paper presents,
firstly an overview of the structure of the procedure and
then specifically provides the weld flaw fracture
assessment procedure. Furthermore, this paper also aims
to provide information on the use of the material and
weld metal properties in the fitness for service (FFS)
procedure FITNET.
Keywords: FFS, weld metal, fracture toughness, tensile
properties
fatigue,
S-N
and
crack
1. Introduction
The Fitness for Service (FFS) Procedures (e.g. FITNET,
BS 7910) can be used for the design of a new
component, for support of the fabrication or quality
control process and for assessing the structural
significance of fabrication cracks, or crack like-flaws,
that are detected. Obviously, the FFS procedures also
apply to the clarification of the failure case of a
component. All three application areas require
assessment routes with respective sets of input
parameters which enable FFS analysis to be conducted
with certain accuracy depending on the quality of the
input information.
Therefore, it is advisable to generate relevant material
properties of a component at the fabrication stage, or
retain appropriate materials, especially welds, for later
testing. In particular, the desirability of having accurate
fracture toughness data cannot be emphasized too
strongly and careful tests on weld samples by experts are
advisable. Similarly, fatigue crack growth, creep and
stress corrosion cracking data may be obtained from the
actual materials/welds of the component. The
information required should take account of the material
strain and thermal history and the appropriate
environment.
is
Where
Y ( RT )
105
189 MPa
491 1.8 T
(2)
temperature of interest in C.
The strength parameters yield strength, tensile strength
and flow strength tend to increase with increasing
loading rate in the absence of dynamic strain aging
effects. In cases of dynamic loading, the use of quasistatic tensile properties will ensure conservatism in the
fracture assessment procedure; although the user should
be aware that fracture toughness may fall with increasing
loading rate.
1 2R
r
Where
r
ln 1
2R
(5)
Modulus of elasticity
0.05
Yield strength
0.07
0.05
0.10
and
0.3 1-
(6)
Rm
/ Rm
(3)
(4)
However, since they are based on the assumption of a
homogeneous strain distribution along the gauge length
of the tensile specimen, these equations are applicable
only to the onset of necking. Beyond the maximum load
the true stress should be determined from measurements
of the actual cross section diameter in the necking region.
In addition, since the neck - which by its nature is a mild
notch introduces a complex triaxial stress state further
correction is needed. The so-called Bridgman
correction provides an estimate of the uniaxial stress
that would exist if no necking took place:
Process Route
As-Rolled
350
Normalised
Controlled Rolled
Composition Aspects
Assume Yield
Plateau
NA
Yes
NA
(No)
Conventional normalising
Yes
Conventional normalising
Yes
EN 10113 compositions
Yes
Controlled Rolled
EN 10113 compositions
500
Quenched &
Tempered
400)
Yes
(Yes)
Heavy tempering
(Yes)
Light tempering
(No)
(No)
Quenched &
1050
(Yes)
Yes
400)
Y 690
No
Yes
Tempering to
Tempered
Tempering to Y 690
(No)
As-Quenched
All compositions
NA
No
(7)
This relation was obtained empirically, but is assumed to
be conservative since the Lders strain is known to be
smaller or even disappear in large-scale tests, in
particular in the presence of bending stress components.
Fracture toughness
In metallurgical terms, materials can fail by one of two
mechanisms: ductile or brittle. The brittle mechanism is
J .E /(1
(8)
mRe .E /(1
to K are
is Poissons ratio
(9)
Ki
K25
20 ( K B 20)( B / 25)0.25
(10)
AWST-11/112
Charpy impact energy - fracture toughness
correlations
If the appropriate fracture toughness data for use in
structural integrity assessments is not available, the use
of correlations between Charpy-V impact energy and
fracture toughness can provide the fracture toughness
value to be used in the assessment.
For the application of the respective correlations, three
different regimes of material behaviour are identified as
follows. Lower shelf is then defined as the temperature
region where the shear fracture appearance (SFA) is
20% and the impact energy is less than 27J. Upper shelf
is the temperature region where SFA = 100% of th
ligament. The range in-between is considered as the
ductile-to-brittle transition region.
A lower bound correlation that can be used in the lower
shelf for a wide range of steels is given by equation (11):
K mat
12 CV
20
25
B
0.25
(11)
20
20 MPa m
(12)
25
B
0.25
0.25
1
ln
1 Pf
(13)
(14)
USE .
34 C
with
USE
35.1 14.3
Y
(15)
(16)
where CVus is the upper shelf energy (J), E is Youngs
Modulus (MPa) and
is Poissons ratio. Other amounts
of crack extension than 0.2 mm can be substituted into
above equation, if desired. A more user friendly form of
equation;
Kmat
(17)
4. Conclusions
Fitness for Service procedures require special form of
material input data. Correct generation and full
availability of this data is important for the outcome of
the fitness for service analysis of welded structures. This
paper has intended to provide short information on this
matter.
OverOver-Match (OM)
UnderUnder-Match (UM)
B
B
Homogeneous
Base Metal
2H
YSW
YSB < YSW
Over-Matched
Plastic Zone
YSW
M=
YSB
Mis-Match Factor
Under-Matched
B
YSW
YSW
Yield Strength of
Base Metal
Figure 4. Schematic description of crack tip plasticity due to weld strength mis-match.
LBW: Laser Beam Welding, FSW: Friction Stir Welding.
References
This paper has given short summary of the use of
material data in FITNET FFS Procedures and hence
below listed publications are giving wider information on
the subject.
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
Seib E., Uz V. M., and Koak M., Fracture analysis of thinwalled laser beam and friction stir welded Al-alloys using the
FITNET procedure, FITNET 06-019, Proceedings of the
International Conference on Fitness-for-service (FITNET 2006):
17-19 May, Shell Global Solutions, Amsterdam, The
Netherlands (ISBN 978-3-00-021084-6).
[7]
[8]
Hadley I., Validation of the European FITNET fitness-forservice procedure: incorporation of weld strength mismatch into
fracture assessment (Options 2 and 3). TWI Industrial
Members report 890/2007.
[9]
Koak M., Webster S., Janosch J.J., Ainsworth R.A. and Koers
R., Fitness for Service Analysis of Structures using FITNET
Procedure: An overview, Proc. of the 9 th Int. Conf on
Engineering Structural Integrity: Research, Development and
Application, 15-19 Oct. 2007, Beijing, EMAS Publishing, Vol.
I, pp. 161-179, 2007.
[10] Hadley I., Validation of the European FITNET fitness-forservice procedure: Use of fracture assessment Option 4, TWI
Industrial Members report 893/2008.
[11] Koak M., Webster S., Janosch J.J., Ainsworth R.A., Koers R.,
FITNET Fitness-for-Service (FFS) Procedure (Vol. 1), ISBN:
978-3-940923-00-4., 2008.
[12] Koak M., Hadley I., Szavai S., Tkach Y., Taylor N., FITNET
Fitness-for-Service (FFS) Annex (Vol. 2), ISBN: 978-3940923-01-1., 2008.