NULIFE-08-32 - Improved Methods For Dealing With Combined Primary and 2ndary Stresses in Defect Assessments

Improved Methods for Dealing with
Combined Primary and Secondary

Stresses in Defect Assessments –
Contribution to EG2/EG3 RPV Case
Study
Report prepared by John Sharples, Adam Toft, Peter James

and Lorna Higham
December 2008
Page intentionally left blank
NULIFE (08) 32 Page 2 of 134

Distribution List
NULIFE Members only

Foreword
NULIFE EG2 (Integrity Assessment) and EG3 (Lifetime Evaluation) have jointly organised an
RPV Case Study. The overall objective is to establish understanding of how to model structural
features such as constraint, secondary and residual stresses, crack shape and position, etc.
The method of working is to review existing results of the NULIFE partners and by a process of
synthesis draw representative conclusions which reflect good practice and common
understanding.
The work presented in this report is a contribution to the EG2 and EG3 RPV Case Study in the
area of secondary and residual stress.
The report is associated with proposed new methodology in the R6 Defect Assessment
Procedure for dealing with combined primary and secondary stresses which is easier to
implement and leads to less conservative evaluations than with earlier methods. It is hoped that
this report will serve as a means of encouraging consideration of improved methodology in
relation to national defect assessment procedures. In addition, the report contains details of,
and results from, a number of finite element analyses involving combined primary and
secondary stress loading, which may be of use to NULIFE partners for further developing and
validating their own RPV defect assessment procedures. Overall, the document is aimed at
helping to promote common understanding and good (if not best) practice within the NULIFE
community in the important area of RPV fracture assessment.

Contents
1 Introduction 8
2 Background 9
3 Combined Reference Stress 11

3.1 R6 Method 11
3.2 Simplified Method without g() 12
3.3 Simplified Method Including g() 13
3.4 Ainsworth and Dean Method 14
4 Estimates of Secondary Reference Stress 14

4.1 Current R6 Method 15
4.2 Miller Equation Method 15
5 Characteristic Length ā 16
5.1 R6 16
5.2 Average ā 16
5.3 Reduction to Simplified Method 18
6 Finite Element Analyses 19

6.1 Previous Applicable Analyses 19
6.2 Current Analyses 19
7 Results 22
7.1 Pictorial Key 23
7.2 Failure Assessment Curves 23
7.3 Finite Element Results 23
7.4 R6 and Simplified Method with no Thermal Stress 23
7.5 R6 and Simplified Method for In Plane Primary Loads 24
7.6 R6 and Simplified Method for In and Out of Plane Primary Loads 24
7.7 R6 and Simplified Method for Out of Plane Primary Loads 24
7.8 Ainsworth and Dean Method 24
7.9 Miller Equation Method 25
8 Discussion 25
8.1 Failure Assessment Curves 25
8.2 Finite Element Results 26
8.3 Reference Stress Plots 26
8.4 R6 and Simplified Methods 27
8.5 Miller Equation 30
8.6 Characteristic Length ā 30

9 Conclusions 32
10 Recommendations 33
11 References 34
12 Tables 35
13 Figures 38
Appendix 1 Compendium of Results 65

1 Introduction
Aims and objectives
NULIFE EG2 (Integrity Assessment) and EG3 (Lifetime Evaluation) have jointly organised an
RPV Case Study. The overall objective is to establish understanding of how to model structural
features such as constraint, secondary and residual stresses, crack shape and position, etc.
The method of working is to review existing results of the NULIFE partners and by a process of
synthesis draw representative conclusions which reflect good practice and common
understanding.
The report is associated with proposed new methodology in the R6 Defect Assessment
Procedure for dealing with combined primary and secondary stresses which is easier to
implement and leads to less conservative evaluations than with earlier methods. It is hoped that
this report will serve as a means of encouraging consideration of improved methodology in
relation to national defect assessment procedures. In addition, the report contains details of,
and results from, a number of finite element analyses involving combined primary and
secondary stress loading, which may be of use to NULIFE partners for further developing and
validating their own RPV defect assessment procedures. Overall, the document is aimed at
helping to promote common understanding and good (if not best) practice within the NULIFE
community in the important area of RPV fracture assessment.
Context
Structural integrity justifications for nuclear power plant components frequently need to consider
the effects of both primary loading (e.g. pressure) and secondary loading (e.g. residual or
thermal stresses). The procedure within R6 has been shown to be overly conservative for a
range of loadings and geometries which may reduce the scope for satisfactory safety
justifications being developed. It is thus apparent that with further development, and
introduction of revised methods into accepted procedures such as R6 [1], a better
understanding of the behaviour of components subjected to combined loading can be
demonstrated. This then has the potential for cost saving in Safety Justification production,
manufacture and through life management.
The R6 procedure [1] provides methods to account for the interaction between primary and
secondary stresses. An Alternative Method for the definition of the K r parameter was
developed [2] based on the Time Dependent Failure Assessment Diagram (TDFAD) procedure
within R5 [3]. This method eliminates the need to use the look-up tables of the present
procedure [1]. In [2], finite element results from earlier work, covering various geometries and
loading, were compared with the crack driving force predictions from the Alternative Method.

The results of this comparison suggested that the Alternative Method could be non-conservative
in some cases for high values of the loading parameter Lr .
In a further study [4], finite element results, covering various geometries and loading, were
compared with the crack driving force predictions from the Simplified Method, derived from the
Alternative Method. Over the majority of cases the results were conservative (especially at low
Lr values). The Simplified Method also showed a faster reduction in the contribution from
secondary stress than used in the R6 procedure. To gain further confidence in the Simplified
Method further investigation was deemed necessary, with a greater range of loading
combinations.
A further parameter was introduced, which has been termed the g function, g() . g() describes
S
how the secondary reference stress, σ ref , is reduced through the introduction of plasticity, much
P
as the primary reference stress, σ ref , is reduced by the failure assessment curve, f () . g ()
was initially taken as an Option 2 failure assessment curve without small scale yielding. g ()
was also investigated through comparison with the ξ term found within the V method of
secondary stress interaction found within R6.
It has been highlighted that the effect of out of plane loading within either the current R6 or
Simplified Methods is not fully understood and an investigation was recommended. This has
led to the study detailed within this report focusing on a full range of in and out of plane primary
loading combinations. To also add value to the current work, three different geometries and six
magnitudes of secondary stress have been included so that a significant level of validation can
be included.
Section 2 of this report provides some background to the treatment of combined primary and
secondary stress in relation to this report. Section 3 discusses the different means of obtaining
the combined reference stress. Section 4 outlines the methods used to estimate the secondary
reference stress and Section 5 discusses the a term. Section 6 describes the finite element
analyses undertaken. Section 7 presents the results which are discussed in Section 8. Section
9 gives the conclusions that have arisen from the work to date and Section 10 provides
recommendations for future work.
Appendix 1 of this report provides a complete compilation of results for all load cases, whereas
the main section of the report only contains a selected range.
2 Background

A generalised procedure for including thermal and residual stresses within defect assessment
methods (such as R6) was first proposed by Ainsworth in 1986 [5]. This method, and the
subsequent R6 and R5 based methods of which it forms the basis, rely on a combined
reference stress, σ ref . This reference stress can then be used to determine an overall stress
intensity factor which includes both primary and secondary stresses.
The equation for the elastic and elastic-plastic stress intensity factors, K 1 and K J , in Equation
(1) and (2), in terms of the combined reference stress can be shown to be correct for all
methods.
K 1 = σ ref πa (1)
σ ref πa
KJ = (2)
(
f σ ref σ y )
Where a is a characteristic length that describes both the stress field and the geometry, σ y is
( )
the material yield stress and f σ ref σ y is the plasticity correction factor or failure assessment
curve.
Within Equation (1) there are three potential areas of investigation. These are:
• how to estimate the combined reference stress;
• how to find the secondary reference stress (when estimating the combined reference
stress);
• what to use for a .
The estimate of the combined reference stress has been discussed within work of previous
years. It is the means of obtaining σ ref that is the fundamental difference between the original
Ainsworth [5] procedure, the current R6 procedure and the Simplified Method (with and without
the g() term). This is discussed further in Section 3.
The method of estimating the secondary reference stress in the current R6 procedure is
dependent both on the value of a being taken from the primary stress and a value of K JS being
available. If K JS is approximated as K 1S , no out of plane secondary stresses are accounted for

in the estimation of secondary reference stress. Therefore a further means of including an out
of plane secondary stress when estimating the secondary reference stress, namely the Miller

Equation, has been included in this work. Details of these two methods for estimating the
secondary reference stress can be found in Section 4.
In the R6 method, the a term has been assumed to be constant and has been taken from the
primary stress contribution. Work performed has questioned this assumption and a means of
using an averaged a has been proposed. This is discussed further in Section 5.
3 Combined Reference Stress
The method outlined by Ainsworth [5] used a parameter ( ψ ) to account for secondary stress
interaction with primary stress. This work was further developed by Hooton and Budden in 1995
[6] to define a further plasticity correction factor, ρ , that incorporated ψ and ϕ , which can be
found within the most recent versions of R6 [1].
The Simplified Method was then derived from the Time Dependent Failure Assessment Diagram
(TDFAD) contained within R5 [3], via the Alternative Method, as shown within [2, 4]. Within the
Simplified Method a function that defines how the secondary stress is reduced with added
plasticity has been suggested and is referred to as g() . The Simplified Method both with and
without g() have been investigated.

A further method introduced by Ainsworth and Hooton [7] for use in R5 has also been
considered here. All of these methods provide means of estimating the combined reference
stress and are discussed further below:
3.1 R6 Method
The crack driving force in R6 can be described by the equation:
K IP + K Is
KJ =
( )
f (Lr ) − ψ + φ K Is / K Js − 1
(3)
Thus the required inputs for the evaluation of K J are: K Ip and K Is , the values of the linear
elastic stress intensity factor due to loads giving rise to primary and secondary stresses
respectively; K Js , the effective secondary crack driving force accounting for plasticity; and Lr ,
the measure of proximity to plastic collapse, with f (Lr ) , the failure assessment curve derived
from any of the three FAD options of R6.

It is noteworthy that the value of K J as determined by Equation (3) is independent of the value
of K 1S if K JS is known, as the K 1S term is cancelled within φ . Although in many cases values of
K JS are not available and therefore K 1S is taken as an estimate of K JS . Hence, in these cases
the effect of out of plane secondary stresses is not included.
Values for φ and ψ are obtained from look up tables within R6 where the tables are dependent
on both Lr and Equation (4).
S
σ ref σy K JS Lr
=
( S
f σ ref σy ) K 1P
(4)
Within the R6 Method, the combined reference stress is included within the φ and ψ terms,
which when expanded within Equation (3) simplifies to Equation (2). Values of σ ref , for given φ
and ψ terms used in the R6 Method are available. Therefore when obtaining σ ref , as used in
the reference stress plot detailed below, such data have been interpolated.
A useful means to compare the methods is to show how the overall reference stress, σ ref ,
changes with different combinations of primary and secondary stress. This can be seen in
P
Figure 1 as a plot of σ ref σ y as a function of σ ref σ y for different magnitudes of secondary
stress for the combined reference stress derived from the R6 Method
3.2 Simplified Method without g()

The Simplified Method can be expressed as in Equation (5).
K IP
KJ = + K JS (5)
f ( Lr )
For the evaluation of K J the inputs are simply K Ip , K Js and Lr (PL ) , with f (Lr ) determined for
R6 FAD Options 1, 2 or 3.
If it is assumed that a is the same for all stresses and that K JS is provided by:
S
σ ref πa
K JS =
( S
f σ ref σy ) (6)

Then Equation (5) becomes,
p s
σ ref σ y σ ref / σy σ ref / σy
= +
(
f σ ref σ y ) ( p
f σ ref / σy ) f (σ s
ref / σy ) (7)
P
which can be solved for σ ref through the goal-seek function within Excel for a given σ ref and
S P
σ ref . Methods for obtaining σ ref can be found in R6 [1] and methods used to obtain σ Sref are
provided in Section 4.
The reference stress plot for the Simplified Method without the g() function can be seen in
Figure 2.
3.3 Simplified Method Including g()
The function g() has been included to allow a reduction in K JS from primary induced plasticity.
A function for g() has been derived from the ξ value specified when using the R6 V factor
method (which is equivalent to the R6 ρ factor method). It has been shown that ξ = g () by
comparison of methods when g() is consistent between stresses from a selection of finite
element results. The upper bound g() is therefore provided by:
g (Lr ) = 0.3 + 0.7 e− (0.2 Lr )

8
(8)
Including this g() in the Simplified Method results in the equation below:
K IP g()
KJ = + K JS (9)
f ( Lr ) f ( Lr )
the combined reference stress can be estimated from Equation (10). Again this can be solved
P S
for σ ref through the goal-seek function within Excel for a given σ ref and σ ref .
p s
σ ref σ y σ ref / σy σ ref / σy g()
= +
(
f σ ref σ y ) f ( p
σ ref / σy ) f( s
σ ref / σy f ) ( p
σ ref / σy ) (10)
The reference stress plot for the Simplified Method including the g() function can be seen in
Figure 3.

3.4 Ainsworth and Dean Method
The Ainsworth and Dean method [7] was included to provide a means of estimating σ ref which
was developed for use in R5 assessments. The form of the method shown here was achieved
through equating the R6 Method to the Option 2 failure assessment curve without small scale
yielding and rearranging for σ ref . This is summarised in Equations (11) through to (14) below.
The Option 2 failure assessment curve without small scale yielding is provided by:
−1
⎛ Eε ref ⎞ 2
f 2 (L r ) = ⎜ ⎟ (11)
⎜ σ ref ⎟
⎝ ⎠
Where E is Young’s Modulus and ε ref is the reference strain at the reference stress σ ref .
When equated to the Option 3 curve ( f 3 (Lr ) = (J e J )0.5 ), the conversion J e = K 12 E ′
implemented and Equation (1) used for K 1 , Equation (12) can be formed. Note that J and J e
are the elastic plastic and elastic J-Contour Integrals respectively and E ′ = E 1 − ν 2 , where ν( )
is Poisson’s ratio.
E
J = ε ref σ ref (πa ) (12)
E′
Through equating this to the R6 Method for secondary stress interaction within Equation (3),
and assuming that a can be defined as in Equation (13), the combined reference stress can be
obtained from:
K 1P = σ ref
P
πa (13)
σ ref ε ref =
1 ⎛⎜
P
σ ref (
1 + K 1S K 1P ) ⎞
⎟
(
E ⎜ f (Lr ) − ψ + φ K Is / K Js − 1
⎝ ) ⎟
⎠
(14)
Equation (14) therefore provides a means to estimate σ ref as ε ref is related to the reference
stress through the material stress strain curve. The combined reference stress can then be
applied in Equation (2), when using Equation (13) to define a , to estimate K J .
4 Estimates of Secondary Reference Stress

Inherent to the derivation of the combined reference stress is the estimation of the secondary
reference stress.
Two means of estimating the secondary reference stress have been currently used. These are
S
1) the methods used in the R6 procedure to obtain σ ref as in Equation (15), and 2) use of the
Miller Equation [8] as in Equation (16).
4.1 Current R6 Method

The R6 Method determines the secondary reference stress from Equation (15), which is used,
along with the primary reference stress to obtain φ and ψ .
S
σ ref =
(
K JS f σ ref
S
σy ) (15)
πa
However, in using the above equation, R6 assumes that the a term is consistent between both
primary and secondary loading. Within this work, the validity of this assumption has come into
question.
4.2 Miller Equation Method

The Miller Equation [8] provides a means of including any out of plane effects in the reference
stress. The Miller Equation was derived for a surface cracked plate, but the solution is assumed
to be equally applicable to a cylinder with an extended crack. The Miller Equation was originally
used under an R5 (high temperature) assessment, where the out of plane stresses were
significantly larger than the in plane stresses. In this assessment it was found that the Miller
Equation was required to predict a realistic value of secondary reference stress.
For use in the hand calculations, the Miller Equation has been adopted to define a secondary
reference stress, which is then used to define the combined reference stress and subsequently
K J through Equation (2). The Miller Equation is shown in Equation (16).
2
⎛ 12⎞
3σ h2 3Q 2 ⎜ 2 M ⎛⎜ 4 M 2 ⎛ σ h N ⎞ ⎞⎟ ⎟
2
σ ref 2 = + 2 +⎜ 2 + + ⎜⎜ − ⎟⎟ ⎟ (16)
4 b ⎜ b ⎜ b4 ⎝ 2 b⎠ ⎟ ⎟
⎝ ⎝ ⎠ ⎠
Where σ h is the out of plane stress, Q is the mode II shear force, b is the ligament thickness,
M is the moment per unit length and N is the tensile force per unit length. For the case of a

secondary bending stress, all terms but M , σ h and b are equal to zero. A biaxial bending
load was used in the cases being investigated. The secondary reference stress is thus given
when M = σ b t 2 6 and the out of plane stress, σ h , as 1 3σ b . This factor on the bending stress
was used because of the strain energy approach for determining hoop stress from a bending
stress distribution in R6 [1].
5 Characteristic Length ā
5.1 R6
Within Equation (1) and (2), the value of a is obtained from the elastic stress intensity factor for
primary loading alone, K 1P , within Equation (13).
K 1P
P
= πa (17)
σ ref
where the primary reference stress is taken from:
P P
σ ref = σy (18)
PL
This value of a is equally used in all subsequent calculations, even if the secondary stress is
dominant, as when estimating the secondary reference stress (see Equation (15)).
The present study has shown that making this assumption may in some cases result in a poor
estimation of σ ref . A further method has then been proposed, which has been shown to be
very closely related to the Simplified Method, and is outlined below.
5.2 Average ā
The easiest way to approximate the value of a for use in the reference stress methodology, so
that Equations (1) and (2) are still consistent, is to take a weighted average for a from primary
stress, a P as defined in Equation (19), and from secondary stress, a S as defined within
Equation (20), to generate an average, a ave .
K 1P = σ ref
P
πa P (19)
K 1S = σ ref
S
πa S (20)

where both the primary and secondary reference stresses need to be calculated separately.
The secondary reference stress can be estimated through reference stress solutions (such as
the Miller Equation), and should include the effect of any out of plane stresses.
In terms of a ave , K J can be rewritten as in Equation (21).
σ ref πa ave
KJ = (21)
(
f σ ref σ y )
To evaluate a ave , if an elastic material is initially assumed, K 1 is given by:
K 1 = K 1P + K 1S ≡ σ ref πa ave = σ ref

P
πa P + σ ref
S
πa S (22)
Which means that a ave is elastically given by:
2 2
⎛ σ ref
P ⎞ ⎛ S ⎞
a ave
=⎜ ⎟ a P + ⎜ σ ref ⎟ aS (23)
⎜ σ ref ⎟ ⎜ σ ref ⎟
⎝ ⎠ ⎝ ⎠
This means that a ave will tend towards a S at low values of σ ref
P
, but towards a P at low values
S
of σ ref . A further approximation can be seen in Equation (24), where a ave has included the g ()
term to account for the reduction in secondary stress from plasticity.
2 2
P ⎞
⎛ σ ref ⎛ S ⎞
a ave
=a P⎜ ⎟ + a S ⎜ σ ref g σ P , σ S
⎜ σ ref ⎟ ⎜ σ ref ref ref ( )⎟
⎟
(24)
⎝ ⎠ ⎝ ⎠
Then if the effect of plasticity effects from the primary and the combined reference stress are
included, a ave is given by:
ave
=a
⎛ P
P ⎜ σ ref
(
f σ ref σ y ⎞⎟
+
) 2
⎛ S
S ⎜ σ ref
( P S
)(
⎞
)
⎟
2
a
⎜ σ ref
⎝ ( P
f σ ref σ y ⎠⎟ )a
⎜ σ
⎝ ref
f σ ref σ y g σ ref ,σ ref
⎟
⎠
(25)
Equation (25) provides an a ave that, when the reference stress is approaching the secondary
reference stress, becomes more aligned to a S as required, but at larger values of σ ref
P
the a S
P S
term is removed through the g ( σ ref ,σ ref ) term.

Within this definition g() will be affected both by primary stress and by secondary stress. It
would therefore mean that the definition of g() as given in Equation (8) might need expanding
as it only accounts for the effect from plasticity from primary stress.
5.3 Reduction to Simplified Method
K J can be defined as in Equation (26) by means of Equation (25) and Equation (21). This can
then be simplified to Equation (27).
KJ =
σ ref ⎛ P
P ⎜ σ ref
(
f σ ref σ y ⎞⎟ )
+
2
⎛ S
S ⎜ σ ref
( )(
P S
⎞
)
⎟
2
(26)
f ( σ ref / σ y )
πa
⎜ σ ref
⎝ ( P
f σ ref σ y ⎟⎠ ) π a
⎜ σ ref
⎝
f σ ref σ y g σ ref ,σ ref
⎟
⎠
KJ = P
K 1P
f ( σ ref / σy )
(
+ K 1S g σ ref
P S
,σ ref ) (27)
which, when it is realised that the second term is purely a further definition for changing K 1S to
K JS , is the Simplified Method. This shows that the Simplified Method proposed in Section 3.2
should account for variations between the in and out of plane stresses that can lead to
variations in a .
This form indicates that the Simplified Method and R6 might not be so accurate when the
secondary stress contribution from K JS is not reduced accurately at large values of Lr . This is
because a single value of K JS is adopted through all value of Lr , whereas in Equation (27), K JS
P S
is redefined at each value of Lr through the g ( σ ref ,σ ref ) term.
It must be noted however that a detailed value of g() for use in this method is not currently
available. It is therefore proposed that a further task be undertaken in order that a more
detailed formulation of g() be performed that includes both the effect of self induced plasticity
as well as that from primary stresses. This would also have the added benefit of enabling K JS
to be estimated from K 1S . In general terms, whilst bearing in mind the expected constraints
from using a constant K JS , the results presented for the Simplified Method can also be applied
to this approximation of a ave .

6 Finite Element Analyses
6.1 Previous Applicable Analyses
Previous work on the Alternative Method, the precursor to the Simplified Method, are shown in
the first two bullets below and work including the Simplified Method are shown in the remaining
two bullets:
• Finite element analyses of an internally cracked cylinder of material SA508 were performed.
The primary applied load was internal pressure and the secondary load consisted of a linear
thermal gradient across the wall thickness. The crack driving force, K J , computed from the
finite element analyses, was compared with calculations from both the R6 and Alternative
Methods.
• Finite element data were similarly compared with calculations from both the R6 and
Alternative Methods. The analyses consisted of a cylinder with a fully circumferential
external crack, shown in Figure 4, and an edge cracked plate, shown in Figure 5, both of
316L stainless steel.
• The same geometry as in the first bullet point was used to act as a check of the VALID
results and to investigate the Simplified Method. Some further work was also included to
determine the effect on crack driving force estimates when using the JEDI post processing
routine [9]. Finite element analyses were carried out using ABAQUS version 6.6-2 [10].
• The finite element results, for the externally circumferentially cracked cylinder and edge
cracked plate, were used to re-evaluate the Simplified Method whilst including the g () term
in Equation (8).
6.2 Current Analyses

6.2.1 Geometries
Three separate crack geometries were used in the current analyses. These were a
circumferentially surface cracked cylinder, an axially surface cracked cylinder and a centre
cracked plate. Finite element representations within ABAQUS 6.7 [11] of these geometries can
be seen in Figure 6, Figure 7 and Figure 8 respectively. For the circumferentially cracked
cylinder the geometry was reduced to two dimensions with axis-symmetry (ABAQUS type
CAX4) elements used to rotate the model into the required third dimension. The axially cracked
cylinder and centre cracked plate models both used 8 noded block elements (ABAQUS type
C3D8). In each model the crack was positioned upon a symmetry plane with the nodes forming

the crack removed from the symmetry boundary condition to create the crack length (or crack
surface). The symmetry boundary conditions placed upon the nodes can be seen in Figure 6,
Figure 7 and Figure 8 upon the close-up of the crack as blue and orange arrows.
6.2.2 Material
To remain consistent with previous work [2, 7] the same 316L stainless steel properties were
used within the models and calculations. A true stress vs. true strain plot for the 316L material
is shown in Figure 9 and further material properties (at 20ºC) can be found in Table 1.
6.2.3 Primary Loading
A range of primary loads were used to investigate the effects of different in and out of plane
loading combinations. In all cases the out of plane load was held at its nominal value for the
pressure loading applied and geometry. Therefore, for the circumferentially cracked cylinder,
the out of plane stress was the hoop stress governed by the thin cylinder relationship:
PRmean
σh = (28)
t
where σ h is the hoop stress, P is the internal pressure, Rmean is the mean radius and t is the
wall thickness. For the axially cracked cylinder, the out of plane stress was provided by the
axial stress relation for a thin cylinder with end caps as shown in Equation (29).
PRmean
σa = (29)
2t
The in plane stress was altered so that a magnification value was added. Therefore, for the
circumferentially cracked cylinder the axial stress was provided by:
PRmean
σa = m (30)
2t
where σ a is the axial stress and m is a magnification factor depicted by the load case. The
magnification factors used in the investigation were: 0, 0.2, 0.5, 1.0 and 1.5. A further case is
also included where the out of plane primary stress was completely removed. The same range
of magnification factors were applied to the axially cracked cylinder (where the magnification
factor was applied to the hoop stress in Equation (28)) and the centre cracked plate. Note that

for the centre cracked plate, the nominal in and out of plate stresses before the magnification
factors were applied are the same.
In all cases the pressure used in the above equations, and the required in and out of plane
stresses used in the plate model, where determined through elastic-perfectly-plastic analysis at
yield (0.2% stress). Through taking the pressure (or stress) at which the plastic zone extended
across the crack ligament the pressure (or stress) that represents Lr = 1 could be found. This
method is detailed in R6 and can be likened to a RIKS analysis, which agreed well for the axis-
symmetric circumferential cracked model, but not so well for the fully three dimensional axial
crack and centre cracked plate cases.
For all three geometries, with the six different in and out of plane loading combinations (from the
magnification factor applied to the in plane loading), the primary load was applied in increments
that correspond to Lr values of 0, 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4, 0.5, 0.6, 0.7, 0.8, 0.9, 1.0, 1.2 and 1.4.
6.2.4 Secondary Loading
To investigate the effect of secondary stress, a through wall, thermally induced, biaxial bending
stress was applied. A through wall temperature distribution was derived to create a linear
bending stress field from +σ y at the outer (cracked) surface to −σ y at the inner (un-cracked)
surface. This type of distribution provides a good approximation to a material externally cooled
and internally heated.
Six different magnitudes of bending stress were used. These have been labelled a through to f
and are shown below:
• a has no thermally induced secondary stress,
• b has a bending stress of 0.2σ y ,
• c has a bending stress of 0.4σ y ,
• d has a bending stress of 0.6 σ y ,
• e has a bending stress of 0.8σ y ,
• f is as described above (bending stress of σ y ).
A plot showing the different applied secondary stresses as a function of through wall thickness
of the un-cracked body can be seen in Figure 10. Note that as the bending stress was thermally
induced, an out of plane secondary stress was also established that had the same profile and
magnitude as the in plane stress.

A further summary of the different load cases, when combined with the different primary load
cases, can be seen in Table 2.
6.2.5 Current Finite Element Runs
Within the analysis, the crack was present from the start, the secondary stress was applied in
the first analysis step and the primary stress was applied in a second step. A short sensitivity
study was performed which showed that only minor differences were observed when changing
the order of loading. Values for the J contour were taken at a contour, defined on an individual
basis as when the J value had converged to a single value. This was considered more
appropriate than in previous work, which always used the seventh contour. However, in nearly
all cases, J had converged satisfactorily before the seventh contour.
The parameters used in the hand calculations were obtained from the finite element analysis.
This allowed the hand calculations to be compared directly by removing any uncertainty in
determining the input parameters. Where used, K JS has been found for each load case as
K JS = E ′J when no primary loading is present (i.e. Lr = 0). K 1S was determined the same way
as K JS but with plasticity removed. Further values such as K 1P have been found from a
selection of finite element runs where no secondary stresses were present. Note that when
determining K J or K 1 values, the relationship K J = E ′J has always been used.
7 Results
The following section outlines the results of the study. It is separated into discrete sections that
present the different failure assessment curves, finite element results, a range of R6 and
Simplified Method results (shown bulleted below), results from the Ainsworth and Dean Method
and the Results from the Miller Equation used to determine the secondary reference stress.
The results for the R6 and Simplified Methods are separated into the following subsections:
• No thermal stress present;
• Thermal stress and in plane primary stress;
• Thermal stresses and a combination of both in and out of plane primary stress;
• Thermal stress and out of plane primary stress.
Note that for both the R6 and Simplified Methods, the results are presented using the Option 3
curve for f (Lr ) . The relationship between these results and those when using the Option 1

curve can be inferred from the Failure Assessment Curve results, where the Option 1 curve is
almost always more conservative than the Option 3 curve.
7.1 Pictorial Key

For ease of determining the applied secondary stress, as well as the ratio of in and out of plane
loading, when viewing the results, the plots are accompanied by a pictorial key. An explanation
of the key is provided in Figure 11, where the colour denotes the relative strength of secondary
stress and the arrows denote the relative magnitude of the in and out of plane primary stress.
7.2 Failure Assessment Curves

The failure assessment curves for the three different geometries can be seen in Figure 12,
Figure 13 and Figure 14 for the circumferentially cracked cylinder, the axially cracked cylinder
and the centre cracked plate respectively. The curves were produced through taking the Option
3 failure assessment curve ( f 3 (Lr ) = (J e J )0.5 ) when only the primary stress was applied. Also
shown in the plots is the Option 1 curve for comparison.
As can be seen, the difference between the curves is more notable for the cases where the out
of plane stress is dominant. Where the in plane stress is higher, the curves fall to approximately
the same values. This helps to prove that the pressures used to obtain Lr are correct.
However it means that where the out of plane stresses are higher, the change of failure
assessment curve is a real effect, where it may be expected that for the same geometry and
material the failure assessment curves should be identical.
7.3 Finite Element Results
The finite element results for K 1S and K JS for the three different geometries can be seen in
Table 4 and the values of K1P and K JP in Table 5 and Table 6 respectively. Typical results for
K J can be found in Figure 15 and Figure 16, both for the circumferentially cracked cylinder.
The first plot is for the case with only out of plane primary stress and the second with only in
plane primary stress. All the other results can be found in Annex A.
7.4 R6 and Simplified Method with no Thermal Stress

The results for the circumferentially cracked cylinder (LC1a) are shown in Figure 17. As can be
seen, the hand calculation results match the finite element results exactly. This would be
expected as all the inputs to the hand calculations are obtained from the finite element results.
This exact match to the finite element can be seen for all other geometries and different primary
load combinations so they are not shown here, but can be seen in Appendix A.

7.5 R6 and Simplified Method for In Plane Primary Loads
Figure 18 through to Figure 23 show the results from an in plane primary load and secondary
stress are normalised to the finite element results. A normalised value greater than one
therefore indicates the calculation is conservative compared with the finite element, as it
predicts a higher crack driving force. Figure 18 and Figure 19 show the results for the
circumferentially cracked cylinder with a secondary bending stress of 0.2σ y and σ y
respectively. Similarly Figure 20 and Figure 21 show the results for the axially cracked cylinder
and Figure 22 and Figure 23 show the results for the centre cracked plate.
7.6 R6 and Simplified Method for In and Out of Plane Primary Loads
The results for the R6 and Simplified Methods, for the cases where both in and out of plane
primary loads are present, can be seen from Figure 24 to Figure 35 normalised against the finite
element results. The plots show, for each geometry, both the lowest (whilst still including an in
plane stress) and highest in plane primary stress cases, each with the maximum and minimum
(whilst still maintaining a secondary stress) applied secondary stress. Namely the cases shown
are 1b, 1f, 4b, 4f, 5b, 5f, 8b, 8f, 9b, 9f, 12b and 12f. Section 7.3 presents the cases where the
applied secondary stress is zero. All results can be found in Appendix A.
A comparison can be seen in Figure 36 where the value for K JS has been taken as K 1S for the
circumferentially cracked cylinder with the highest thermal stress but different in and out of
plane primary stress ratios when using the Simplified Method without g() . The same plot, but
when using the R6 Method, can be seen in Figure 37.
7.7 R6 and Simplified Method for Out of Plane Primary Loads

Figure 38 through to Figure 43 show the plots where there is no in plane primary load. Note
that in these cases, only the secondary stress will contribute to the K 1 value, but the out of
plane loading will contribute to the plasticity and will therefore effect K J . Figure 38 and Figure
39 show the results for the circumferentially cracked cylinder with a secondary bending stress of
0.2σ y and σ y respectively. Similarly Figure 40 and Figure 41 show the results for the axially
cracked cylinder and Figure 42 and Figure 43 show the results for the centre cracked plate.
7.8 Ainsworth and Dean Method

The results for the Ainsworth and Dean Method are shown in Figure 44 and Figure 45 as plots
of increasing Lr against the normalised results. Figure 44 shows the results for the
circumferentially cracked cylinder with only the 20% in plane loading (LC1) and Figure 45 shows
the 150% in plane loading (LC4). For each plot the results for each thermal gradient are plotted

on the same graph, so that the effect of the increasing secondary stress can be seen. The
results for the other geometries and loading can be found in Appendix A.
As the result for the Ainsworth and Dean Method are generally very variable, with little evidence
that the results are any better than the R6 or Simplified Method, even for the cases where there
is a higher out of plane stress where it was considered potentially useful, it has not been
considered further.
7.9 Miller Equation Method

A comparison of the secondary reference stresses obtained when using the R6 and Miller
Equations can be seen between Table 7 and Table 8. In Table 7 the hand calculated values
from the Miller Equation (Equation (16)) are shown with and without the out of plane thermal
bending stress and an equivalent (Tresca) solution in R6. Table 8 shows the different
secondary reference stresses obtained from Equation (15), but with the a term recalculated for
each load case, which all have different in and out of plane stresses.
Two graphs are presented for estimates of K J found when using the Miller Equation in Figure
46 and Figure 47. These are for the Miller Equation results, normalised against the finite
element results, for the circumferentially cracked cylinder with 20% and 150% in plane loading
respectively. The different curves represent the differing magnitudes of secondary stress
(cases b to f). In deriving these results, the Option 1 failure assessment curve has been used
and the Simplified Method has been used in deriving σ ref as described in Equation (7), when
S
using σ ref derived from the Miller Equation.
8 Discussion
8.1 Failure Assessment Curves
Figure 12, Figure 13 and Figure 14 show the Option 3 failure assessment curves for the three
geometries shown against an Option 1 curve. The Option 1 curve is a generalised equation that
forms a lower bound to multiple curves for different geometries and materials. The Option 3
curve however has been defined as an individual case based upon both the material and
geometry. However, within each plot, variations are still observed. This might indicate that the
loading mechanisms and orientations could also affect the failure assessment curve.
As already noted, the difference between the curves is more notable for the cases where the out
of plane stress is dominant, and that where the in plane stresses is higher, the curves fall to
approximately the same value. This would indicate that when the out of plane stress needs to
be considered in obtaining the curves and guidance would need to be provided.

From Figure 12, Figure 13 and Figure 14, it can also be seen that the largest differences occur
at values of Lr at around 0.8, after which all failure assessment curves collapse to one line. As
the different lines within each plot represent different levels of in and out of plane stress, the
difference between the curves can be explained by the effect of the out of plane stress. Where
the out of plane stress is significantly higher, the crack tip is constrained to be closed,
preventing localised yielding. This would mean that the only plasticity to affect the crack tip
would be from global plasticity (i.e. when Lr → 1 ).
Through constraining the crack tip, the failure assessment curve K r value will remain closer to
1 for longer, but once full scale plasticity occurs, the failure assessment curves will become
more like an Option 1 curve. Obviously, as the in plane stress starts to dominate, the curves will
be closer to an Option 1 curve through all values of Lr . This trend can clearly be seen when
examining the range of failure assessment curves shown. It is also worth noting that the
estimation of a failure assessment curve from the finite element is unobtainable for the cases
where there is no in plane loading as K 1P can’t be defined.
8.2 Finite Element Results

The finite element results shown in Figure 15 and Figure 16 are indicative of the results for all
geometries. What can be seen through these results is that when globally induced plasticity
occurs, the secondary stress starts to be removed as it is displacement controlled, bringing the
K J values for different magnitudes of secondary stress closer together.
When comparing Figure 15 and Figure 16, the difference between the plots is because the
overall K J will converge to K JP at higher values of L r . Therefore, if the value of K JP is lower
than K JS , K J will decrease with increasing primary load, as can be seen in Figure 15 for the
case where there is no in plane load. However, if K JP is higher than K JS , K J will increase with
increasing primary load, as can be seen in Figure 16 for the case where there is only in plane
load present.
8.3 Reference Stress Plots

Through comparing the reference stress plots in Figure 1, Figure 2 and Figure 3 it is clear how
the secondary stress is reduced by increasing plasticity through comparing the rate at which the
P
curve approaches the 1:1 line; where the 1:1 line is where σ ref σ y is equal to σ ref σ y because
no secondary stress is present. The observed reduction in secondary stress is a result of the

displacement dominated stress being removed through the introduction of plasticity. The rate at
which this reduction happens is the main difference between the methods.
It is clear from these plots that the secondary stress is virtually removed in most cases by the
time that large scale plasticity occurs. It is also clear that the Simplified Method without g ()
would be expected to be the least conservative and the R6 Method the most conservative. The
Simplified Method with g() can be seen to add conservatism to the Simplified Method without
g() . When comparing the Simplified Method with g() to the R6 Method it is less conservative
with lower values of secondary stress but is potentially more conservative at higher values of
secondary stress. This might imply that the value for g () used might need revising. It also
indicates that changing g() would allow the level of conservatism in the Simplified Method to be
changed.
8.4 R6 and Simplified Methods

For the cases where there is no secondary stress, as in Figure 17, the inputs to the hand
calculations are taken from the finite element results. This effectively means that the value of
the hand calculated K J has been taken from the finite element results and should be identical,
as can be shown in Equation (31), where the Option 3 curve has been used for f (Lr ) .
K1P K PK P
KJ = = 1 P J = K JP (31)
f (Lr ) K1
However simple this may seem, it is important to show that the inputs to the hand calculations
are consistent with the finite element results. This therefore helps to show that any difference
between the finite element results and the hand calculations are a result of the methodology
and assumptions adopted.
When including secondary stress, the results are seen to vary considerably. In most cases it is
apparent that the Simplified Method reduces the added conservatism in K J , the inclusion of the
g() function appears to increase the level of conservatism when compared to the Simplified
Method without g () , but still remains less conservative than the R6 Method. It is also clear that
the reduction in conservatism between the R6 Method and the Simplified Method without g ()
can be considerable. In some cases this reduction in K J appears to approach 40%, even for
low values of Lr (see Figure 25).

This observed reduction is because of the Simplified Method providing a more rapid reduction in
the relative contribution of the secondary stress with increasing primary stress [3], as shown by
comparison of Figure 1 and Figure 2. The inclusion of the g () function to the Simplified Method
provides a means to tailor the level of conservatism in a means similar to the Option 1, 2 and 3
failure assessment curves. Therefore it is not surprising that the equation will increase the level
of conservatism in the results, as is implied by comparing Figure 3 with Figure 1 and Figure 2.
In fact, it appears, from comparing these figures that the inclusion of g () may become more
S
conservative than the R6 Method at higher values of Lr and σ ref . Therefore it would be
appropriate to reconsider the formation of the g () function.
For the lowest in plane stress and the nominal out of plane stress for all geometries the general
trends observed were:
• With the smallest secondary stress present, all methods appear to be within 5% of the
finite element results;
• With the largest secondary stress, the R6 method becomes considerably more
conservative whilst the Simplified Method, both with and without the g () function,
remains consistent to the finite element results until global yielding occurs. Once
yielding occurs the reduction in secondary stress is not accounted for correctly in either
the R6 or Simplified Methods and the results all become considerably more
conservative.
For the cases with the highest in plane primary stress and a nominal out of plane stress the
observed trends were;
• With the smallest secondary stress present, both the circumferentially cracked cylinder
and the plate appear to follow the finite element results closely, but the axially cracked
cylinder appears to be slightly non-conservative (see Figure 30);
• With the largest secondary stress, for the circumferentially cracked cylinder and the
plate, the R6 method becomes considerably more conservative whilst the Simplified
Method, both with and without the g () function, remains consistent to the finite element
results until large scale yielding occurs. This appears to be consistent with the results
for a low in plane primary stress. However, the axially cracked cylinder appears to
become more non-conservative with the additional secondary stress.
The trend described in the above bullets can also be made for the cases where there is no out
of plane loading. In general the R6 and Simplified Methods approximate to the finite element
S P S
results at low values of σ ref and σ ref . At high values of σ ref the R6 method starts to become
overly conservative, whereas the Simplified Method does not. It is also clear that better results

are observed for the R6 Method when the in plane primary stress is higher. The simplified
Method remains consistently closer to the finite element results for all cases, thus indicating that
the approximation when using a ave appears to work. The deviation from the finite element
P S
results from both methods at high values of σ ref indicates that either the reduction in σ ref or
P
σ ref is not high enough, meaning the resulting σ ref is too high.
It may be that, with a low secondary stress, the results are close because the hand calculations
are mainly elastic. The effects of taking the various in and out of plane loadings will have a
larger effect when larger secondary stresses are used. Therefore it may not be a surprise that it
is with larger secondary stresses that the R6 method tends to be overly conservative.
The relative non-conservatisms that occur in the results are mainly in the axially cracked
cylinder. The methods used on the axially cracked cylinder were identical to those adopted for
the other geometries. It is therefore somewhat surprising that there should be this discrepancy,
especially as the failure assessment curves appear more consistent between the cases than for
any other geometry. It may be that there is a geometric effect upon one of the component
stresses (most likely secondary stress) that has not been accounted for correctly in the finite
element analysis. It might also be a result of the refinement of the finite element mesh through
thickness not allowing an accurate enough thermal gradient to be established. However it
should be noted that there is no reason to disprove the observations made and the potential
suitability of the Methods. It should also be emphasised that apparent non conservative results
do not necessarily represent absolute non-conservatism of the method which has been
discussed further in [3].
The effect of using K JS = K1S has been considered within Figure 36 and Figure 37 for the
Simplified Method and the R6 Method respectively. Figure 36 shows that using K 1S causes the
results to become slightly non conservative. When comparing Table 4 it is clear that this is
because of the difference in the elastic and elastic plastic estimates for the secondary crack
driving force. Further comparisons are not made for the Simplified Method as the difference in
the plots can be estimated from the difference between K 1S and K JS in Table 4. When
comparing the R6 Method it can be seen that the results still remain conservative, but less so
than when using K JS . The reason that they remain conservative is mainly due to the added
level of conservatism seen in the R6 Method when using K JS . Comparing the estimates when
using K 1S and K JS does however show that, when including an out of plane secondary stress,
K JS is larger that K 1S and, as such, K JS should be used if possible.

8.5 Miller Equation
The comparison of the secondary reference stresses compared between Table 7 and Table 8
shows that the R6 estimates vary considerably even though they are the result of the same
secondary stress. This shows that the R6 estimate does not work accurately when there is
variations in the in and out of plane primary stresses. The reason for this is the a term used in
Equation (32) being obtained from the primary stress. This would indicate that the a term is not
independent of the stress type and orientation.
From looking at Table 7, the out of plane secondary stress is also seen to have an effect on the
secondary reference stress, and as such should always be included if present. This however is
only achievable through a limited number of methods, of which the R6 method is not one. This
would become very significant for the cases where the out of plane stress is dominant, as has
been observed in some recent high temperature work.
However, it is worth noting that the closest agreement between the R6 and Miller Solution for
the secondary reference stress is LC11, the case where the centre cracked plate in plane to out
of plane primary stress ratio is at 1:1, in Table 8. This case offers the best agreement as both
the primary and the secondary stresses are equi-biaxial, and as such, provide a similar value for
a in the plate geometry.
From comparisons of K J from using the Miller Equation within both Figure 46 and Figure 47, it
can be seen that the estimated K J , at low values of Lr , are different depending on the degree
of secondary stress. This is somewhat surprising because as Lr → 0 , K J → K JS , where K JS
has been taken from the finite element results. Therefore the ratio of the hand calculated K J to
that from the finite element should be 1. What can also be seen when comparing the Figure 46
and Figure 47 is that when the in plane stress is dominant (Figure 47), the results are
“conservative”, and when the in plane stress is weaker (Figure 46), the results are “non-
conservative”.
8.6 Characteristic Length ā
To investigate this difference in the initial position of these plots K J , from the finite element
results, were compared; an example of which is shown in Figure 48 for all the circumferentially
cracked cylinder cases with a maximum secondary stress (LC1f, LC2f, LC3f, LC4f). These plots
showed that the value for K J should be a single value at Lr = 0 . This, of course, would be
expected as, with no primary load applied, there is no difference between load cases 1 to 4 and
at Lr = 0 , K J = K JS .

To investigate this discrepancy, σ ref was calculated directly from the finite element results as
outlined in Equation (32), which has been obtained from Equation (12). In Equation (32), the
value of ε ref is related to σ ref via the stress strain curve and, as such, a goal seek function or
similar can be used to find a value of σ ref that satisfies the below relationship.
2
K J2 ⎛ σ ref
p ⎞
⎜ ⎟ =ε σ (32)
E ⎜ KP ⎟ ref ref
⎝ 1 ⎠
The results for σ ref , for the same range of cases as presented in Figure 48, can be seen in
Figure 49. It is obvious from Figure 49 that the reference stress does not approach a single
value at low values of Lr . Given that the same primary reference stress and same secondary
reference stress has been used in Figure 49 it may be expected that all lines collapse to one.
P
Within Equation (32), the only parameters that are not material specific are K J and σ ref(K 1P . )
The results for K J have been shown to converge at low values of Lr in Figure 48. This
(P
therefore leaves only σ ref )
K 1P , which when using Equation (13), is equal to πa . Figure 49
therefore indicates that a is not the same between different load cases and therefore can not
be consistent between different categories of stress.
A difference between values of a for different variations of primary loading and secondary
loading perhaps should not be a surprise. The a is a geometric parameter that helps to
describe the stress field around the crack tip. Therefore, where there is a situation where either
the primary or secondary stress is significantly higher than the other stress, the two stress fields
are not going to be similar. It may also be noted that, when there is a significant out of plane
stress and at (for example) Lr = 1 , the relationship within Equation (13) shows that a will be
different than when the primary stress is all in plane. Using a ave helps to alleviate some of
these concerns.
The plots shown in Figure 46 and Figure 47 helped show that the a term might need to be
redefined. These figures are re-plotted using the a ave definition in Figure 50 and Figure 51.
These plots show that the predicted K J is considerably improved when using a ave . In these
two plots the Miller Equation was used to define the secondary reference stress, which was then
used in Equation (7) to obtain the combined reference stress, before being used in Equation
(21) to obtain K J . It is worth noting that no function for g() has been used in these plots. If
g() were to be used an improvement would be expected; bringing the results very close to

those seen for the Simplified Method at low values of L r . This helps to show that the a ave term
and the use of the Simplified Method are suitable to different in and out of plane loadings which
contribute to the observed differences in a .
9 Conclusions
This report has built upon previous work intended to provide an improved and easier to apply
technique for the treatment of combined primary and secondary stresses in the R6 defect
assessment procedure. Finite element analyses were compared to hand calculated results from
the Simplified Method derived in [2, 4]. These comparisons between the FE and Simplified
Method showed good agreement of crack driving force predictions. It has also been shown in
[4] that the Simplified Method reduces the conservatism in the current R6 procedure. This is a
result of the Simplified Method providing a more rapid reduction in the relative contribution of the
secondary stress with increasing primary stress.
The analyses provided within this report aim to further the understanding of the Simplified
Method and provide the necessary verification so that it may be included within procedures such
as R6 [1]. Also included within this report is the effect of different combinations of in and out of
plane stress, as well as a range of magnitudes of secondary stress. These were included to
assess how the current R6 Method, as well as the Simplified Method, cope with situations
where the out of plane stress dominates. The conclusions drawn from the investigation are:
• Failure Assessment Curves – Where the out of plane stress dominates, the failure
assessment curve is seen to differ from where the in plane primary stress dominates. It
has been seen that for every case where the in plane primary stress dominated, the
curves collapsed to one as would be expected for the same geometry and material.
However, where the in plane stress is small this is not true, as exemplified by not being
able to provide a curve where the in plane stress is negligible or non existent.
• Non Conservatism – Some relative non-conservatisms occur in the results (mainly for
the axially cracked cylinder), although it should be emphasised that these do not
necessarily represent absolute non-conservatism of the method.
• Simplified Method – The Simplified Method is seen to be less conservative (up to 40%)
than the R6 Method as has been highlighted previously. It can be seen that the
Simplified Method remains consistent with the finite element results far longer than the
R6 Method.
• Plasticity – The effect of plasticity is not accounted for correctly in the Simplified Method
as it is presented in Section 3.2. This can be seen in the results where the Simplified

Method becomes increasingly conservative at values of L r above 0.8 where global
plasticity occurs. This means that the g () function should be included to account for the
reduction in Secondary stress with plasticity. Given that the g() function derived in [6]
has the effect of increasing the level of conservatism at high values of L r , it is likely that
the definition of g() needs reviewing. However it must be emphasised that for the
operational ranges of loading the results for the Simplified Method appear very accurate.
• Characteristic Length a – It has become evident that the assumption that a remains
constant independent on the type and magnitude of loading can lead to poor predictions
of K J under some circumstances. This means that some of the assumptions used in
deriving the R6 procedure require reviewing, although it must be highlighted that the R6
procedure remains a valid procedure as it is conservative in nearly all cases. A potential
way of redefining the a term as a weighted average of the primary and secondary
derived a terms results has been demonstrated to be the Simplified Method, but with
(
K JS = K 1S g σ ref
P
) S
, σ ref . Results have also indicated that the Simplified Method is
inherently prepared to cope with variations in a from different stress categories and
different in and out of plane ratios. This therefore provides further beneficial evidence to
the use of the Simplified Method.
The report evaluates proposed new methodology in the R6 Defect Assessment Procedure for
dealing with combined primary and secondary stresses which is easier to implement and leads
to less conservative evaluations than with earlier methods. It is hoped that this report will serve
as a means of encouraging consideration of improved methodology in relation to national defect
assessment procedures. In addition, the report contains details of, and results from, a number of
finite element analyses involving combined primary and secondary stress loading, which may be
of use to NULIFE partners for further developing and validating their own RPV defect
assessment procedures. Overall, the document is aimed at helping to promote common
understanding and good (if not best) practice within the NULIFE community in the important
area of RPV fracture assessment.
10 Recommendations
This work has provided evidence of the benefits and possible use of Simplified Methods to
address the effects of combined primary and secondary loading for the purpose of RPV fracture
assessments. It is recommended that these methods be considered further by EG2 (Integrity
Assessment) and EG3 (Lifetime Evaluation) as part of the overall effort of NULIFE in promoting
common understanding and harmonisation of best practice methods of integrity assessment.

11 References
[1] R6 Revision 4: Assessment of the Integrity of Structures Containing Defects, British
Energy Generation Ltd., 2007.
[2] D G Hooton, J K Sharples, S F Yellowlees and C T Watson, 2006, “An Alternative
Method to that of the R6 Procedure for the Treatment of Combined Primary and
Secondary Loading”, ASME PVP Conference 2006, ASME PVP2006-ICPVTII-93559.
[3] R5, Issue 3: Assessment Procedure for the High Temperature Response of Structures,
British Energy Generation Ltd., 2003.
[4] P M James, D G Hooton, L A Higham, C J Madew, J K Sharples and C T Watson,
Continuing Development of a Simplified Method to Account for the Interaction of
Primary and Secondary Stresses”, ASME PVP Conference 2008, PVP2008-61040.
[5] R A Ainsworth, “The Treatment of Thermal and Residual Stresses in Fracture
Assessments”, Engineering Fracture Mechanics Vol. 24, No1, pp. 65-76, 1986.
[6] D G Hooton and P J Budden, “R6 Developments in the Treatment of Secondary
Stresses”, PVP-Vol 304, Fatigue and Fracture Mechanics in Pressure Vesells and
Piping, pp. 503-509.
[7] R A Ainsworth, D G Hooton, “R6 and R5 Procedures: The Way Forward”, International
Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 85 (2008), 175-182.
[8] A G Miller, “Review of Limit Loads of Structures Containing Defects”, International
Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 32 (1988), pp. 197-327.
[9] D W Beardsmore and A H Sherry, "Allowance for Residual Stresses and Material
Interfaces when Calculating J in and close to Welded Joints", ASME Pressure Vessels
and Piping, Vol. 464, pp. 11-21, 2003.
[10] ABAQUS Version 6.6, ABAQUS Inc. 2006.
[11] ABAQUS Version 6.7, ABAQUS inc. 2007.

12 Tables
Temperature Coefficient of Poisson’s Young’s Limit of 0.2% proof
(°C ) thermal expansion, ratio, υ modulus, E proportionality, stress, σ 0.2
α °C −1 ( ) (MPa) σ y (MPa ) (MPa )
20 14.56×10-6 0.296 196000 240 290.4
Table 1 – 316L Material Properties
% In-Plane % Out-of-Plane Bending Stress (% of Yield)

Geometry
Loading Loading 0 20 40 60 80 100
0 100 IPa IPb IPc IPd IPe IPf
Crack in Cylinder
Circumferencial
20 100 LC1a LC1b LC1c LC1d LC1e LC1f

100 0 OofPa OofPb OofPc OofPd OofPe OofPf
Axial Crack in

Cylinder

Centre Crack in

Plate

Table 2 – Summary of Load Cases
Case a b C d e f
S
σ ref σy 0 0.288 0.577 0.865 1.153 1.442
Table 3 – Applied Secondary Reference Stresses
Strength of Secondary Stress a b c d e f

K 1S 0.00 299.34 598.60 898.02 1197.38 1496.86
Circumferentially Cracked Cylinder
KJS 0.00 299.62 602.00 909.43 1243.07 1584.70
K1S 0.00 359.20 718.33 1077.55 1436.74 1795.68
Axially Cracked Cylinder
KJS 0.00 360.06 728.28 1116.52 1629.48 2223.78
K1S 0.00 133.12 266.25 399.35 532.51 665.55
Centre Cracked Plate
KJS 0.00 133.12 266.38 401.58 541.31 688.56
Table 4 – Finite Element K 1S and K JS Values

Circumferentially Cracked Cylinder Axially Cracked Cylinder Centre Cracked Plate
Lr LC1 LC2 LC3 LC4 Plane LC5 LC6 LC7 LC8 In Plane LC9 LC10 LC11 LC12 In Plane
0.10 23.55 61.47 122.95 156.77 169.22 106.51 177.24 179.69 179.69 174.59 23.39 61.69 105.48 118.56 107.31
0.20 47.09 122.95 245.91 313.53 338.51 213.00 354.47 359.40 359.39 349.22 46.78 123.38 210.98 237.11 214.61
0.30 70.63 184.41 368.85 470.39 507.73 319.52 531.70 539.06 539.06 523.83 70.16 185.05 316.43 355.68 321.95
0.40 94.18 245.91 491.82 627.00 677.07 426.03 708.95 718.78 718.78 698.47 93.55 246.78 421.90 474.26 428.27
0.50 117.72 307.37 614.71 783.83 846.30 532.51 886.18 898.50 898.50 873.03 116.94 308.46 527.44 592.83 536.53
0.60 141.27 368.85 737.66 940.55 1015.45 639.04 1063.40 1078.18 1078.18 1047.66 140.33 370.15 632.79 711.27 643.90
0.70 164.78 430.32 860.64 1097.30 1184.76 745.53 1240.67 1257.90 1257.90 1222.27 163.74 431.84 738.39 829.89 751.22
0.80 188.38 491.82 983.54 1254.08 1353.99 852.07 1417.88 1437.56 1437.59 1396.86 187.13 493.57 843.88 948.40 832.60
0.90 211.89 553.28 1106.56 1410.86 1523.18 958.57 1595.06 1617.35 1617.35 1571.54 210.47 555.22 949.30 1067.03 965.79
1.00 235.47 614.71 1229.51 1567.66 1692.21 1065.05 1772.40 1796.88 1796.88 1745.94 233.87 616.98 1054.78 1185.57 1073.15
1.20 282.54 737.66 1475.18 1880.99 2030.91 1278.09 2127.00 2156.43 2156.43 2095.29 280.67 740.28 1265.76 1422.69 1287.80
1.40 329.63 860.64 1721.16 2194.61 2369.69 1491.11 2481.29 2515.82 2515.82 2444.51 327.44 863.63 1476.63 1659.52 1502.59
Table 5 – Finite Element K 1P Values
Circumferentially Cracked Cylinder Axially Cracked Cylinder Centre Cracked plate

Lr LC1 LC2 LC3 LC4 In LC5 LC6 LC7 LC8 In Plane LC9 LC10 LC11 LC12 In Plane
0.10 23.55 61.47 122.95 156.77 169.28 106.51 177.28 179.75 179.77 174.66 23.39 61.69 105.48 118.56 107.19
0.20 47.09 122.95 246.13 314.25 339.61 213.17 356.00 361.06 361.09 350.79 46.78 123.38 210.98 237.11 214.36
0.30 70.63 184.47 370.21 473.80 512.78 320.46 538.46 546.38 546.45 530.82 70.16 185.05 316.67 356.13 321.98
0.40 94.18 246.13 495.74 636.85 690.74 428.96 727.84 739.50 739.99 718.58 93.55 246.78 422.89 476.06 430.57
0.50 117.72 308.04 624.08 805.59 875.74 539.19 929.18 945.64 946.89 919.53 116.94 308.70 530.08 597.52 541.31
0.60 141.28 370.30 756.64 985.61 1075.65 652.63 1153.98 1177.12 1180.24 1146.73 140.33 370.96 639.04 721.61 656.13
0.70 164.85 433.23 899.93 1193.52 1295.61 771.58 1432.00 1462.06 1469.10 1427.72 163.74 434.07 751.37 851.61 781.22
0.80 189.18 500.27 1103.65 1474.45 1564.92 912.77 1797.08 1835.32 1844.47 1786.29 188.73 501.55 875.49 1000.96 894.31
0.90 266.42 725.92 1609.58 1942.23 1906.51 1262.39 2311.41 2355.14 2372.26 2286.18 287.96 715.49 1229.51 1448.28 1509.01
1.00 361.85 980.25 2212.64 2844.33 2462.60 1708.84 3005.54 3063.47 3086.64 2948.05 401.53 977.40 1668.56 1965.32 2127.00
1.20 764.12 2074.86 4699.33 5621.41 4794.36 3565.95 5899.25 5646.20 5762.32 5781.55 848.07 2073.30 3513.35 4134.67 4620.73
1.40 1310.78 3582.98 8127.59 10085.54 8509.78 6161.09 10154.18 10166.86 10194.29 9690.13 1433.07 3564.35 6155.86 7223.59 7810.85
Table 6 – Finite Element K JP Values

Secondary Stress Miller Including Miller Only In R6 Limit Load
%σy Bending Out of Plane Plane Solution (Tresca)
0 0.00 0.00 0.00
20 91.69 83.74 83.74
40 183.38 167.47 167.47
60 275.07 251.21 251.21
80 366.76 334.95 334.95
100 458.45 418.69 418.69
Table 7 – Miller Calculated Secondary Reference Stresses
R6 Estimate R6 Estimate R6 Estimate R6 Estimate R6 Estimate R6 Estimate

- LC1 - LC2 - LC3 - LC4 - LC5 - LC6
a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
b 369.20 141.40 70.71 55.45 81.62 49.04
c 738.31 282.77 141.40 110.89 163.21 98.08
d 1107.61 424.22 212.12 166.35 244.85 147.14
e 1476.84 565.63 282.84 221.81 326.48 196.19
f 1846.21 707.10 353.58 277.28 408.13 245.25
R6 Estimate R6 Estimate R6 Estimate R6 Estimate R6 Estimate R6 Estimate

- LC7 - LC8 - LC9 - LC10 - LC11 - LC12
a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
b 48.38 48.38 371.68 140.91 82.41 73.32
c 96.74 96.74 743.27 281.78 164.81 146.63
d 145.13 145.13 1115.06 422.73 247.24 219.97
e 193.51 193.51 1486.77 563.65 329.66 293.30
f 241.91 241.91 1858.63 704.62 412.11 366.65
Table 8 – R6 Calculated Secondary Reference Stresses

13 Figures
2 σref/σy
s
1.5 σ ref
/σ
y
1.2
1.0
1 0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.5
0
σpref/σy
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6
Figure 1 – Original Plot of σ ref σ y within the Ainsworth Paper [7]
σref/σy
1.5
σSref/σy
1.2
1.0
1 0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.5
σPref/σy
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8
Figure 2 – Plot of σ ref σ y Developed from the Simplified Method

2
σref/σy
1.5
σSref /σy
1.2
1.0
1 0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.5
0.0
σPref/σy
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6
Figure 3 – Plot of σ ref σ y Developed from the Simplified Method Including g()
Figure 4 – Externally Cracked Cylinder Model
Figure 5 – Edge Cracked Plate Model

Figure 6 – Circumferentially Cracked Cylinder Model with Close-Up of Crack Showing
Symmetry Conditions
Figure 7 – Axially Cracked Cylinder Model with Close-Up of Crack Showing Symmetry
Conditions
Figure 8 – Plate Model with Close-Up of Crack Showing Symmetry Conditions

800
600
400
σ
200
0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16
εTotal
Figure 9 – Stress-Strain Data for 316L Material
300
Case B - 20% Case C - 40% Case D - 60%

Thermally Induced Stress Opening the Crack (MPa)
Case E - 80% Case F - 100%

200
100
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
-100
-200
-300
Normalised Distance from Outer Surface (mm)
Figure 10 – Normalised Through Thickness Secondary Stress

Primary Stress: No Arrows - No in plane stress but
nominal out of plane stress.
Secondary Stress: Red - Thermal Bending Stress at
Maximum ( σ y ).
Primary Stress: Small Arrows - 20% of nominal in

plane stress and nominal out of plane stress.
Secondary Stress: Orange - Thermal Bending Stress
at 80% (0.8* σ y ).
Primary Stress: Medium Arrows - 50% of nominal in

Secondary Stress: Yellow - Thermal Bending Stress
at 60% (0.6* σ y ).
Primary Stress: Large Arrows - 100% of nominal in

Secondary Stress: Green - Thermal Bending Stress
at 40% (0.4* σ y ).
Primary Stress: Red Large Arrows - 150% of nominal

in plane stress and nominal out of plane stress.
Secondary Stress: Light Blue - Thermal Bending
Stress at 20% (0.2* σ y ).
Primary Stress: Only In Plane Arrows - 100% of

nominal in plane stress but no out of plane stress.
Secondary Stress: Dark Blue - No Thermal Stress.
Figure 11 – Explanation to Key Used in Figures

1.2
0.8
f()
0.6
LC1
LC2
LC3
0.4
LC4
Option 1
0.2
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Lr
Figure 12 – Failure Assessment Curves for Load Case 1 through to Load Case 4.
1.2
0.8
f()
0.6
LC5
LC6
0.4
LC7
LC8
Option 1
0.2
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Lr

1.2
0.8
f()
0.6
LC9
LC10
0.4
LC11
LC12
Option 1
0.2
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Lr
2000
a b c d e f
1800
1600
1400
KJ (MPa.mm0.5)
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Lr
Figure 15 – K J .Results for the Circumferentially Cracked Cylinder with Out of Plane
Primary Stress.

10000
9000
a b c d e f
8000
7000
KJ (MPa.mm0.5)
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Lr
Figure 16 – K J .Results for the Circumferentially Cracked Cylinder with In Plane Primary
Stress.
1.5
1.4
1.3
KJ (Calculated) / KJ (FE)
1.2
1.1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6 Std R6 Method Simplified Method without g(Lr) Simplified Method with g(Lr)
0.5
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Lr
Figure 17 – Plot Showing R6 Method, Simplified Method with g() and Simplified Method
without g() for the Circumferentially Cracked Cylinder with no thermal Loading.

1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
Std R6 Method Simplified Method without g(Lr) Simplified Method with g(Lr)
0.5
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Lr
without g() for the Circumferentially Cracked Cylinder with In Plane Primary and
Minimum Secondary Loading.
1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Lr
without g() for the Circumferentially Cracked Cylinder with In Plane Primary and
Maximum Secondary Loading.

1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Lr
without g() for the Axially Cracked Cylinder with In Plane Primary and Minimum
Secondary Loading.
1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Lr
without g() for the Axially Cracked Cylinder with In Plane Primary and Maximum
Secondary Loading.

1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.5
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Lr
without g() for the Centre Cracked Plate with In Plane Primary and Minimum Secondary
Loading.
1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Lr
without g() for the Centre Cracked Plate with In Plane Primary and Maximum Secondary
Loading.

1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.5
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Lr
without g() for Load Case 1b.
1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.5
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Lr
without g() for Load Case 1f.

1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.5
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Lr
1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.5
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Lr

1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Lr
1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.5
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Lr

1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Lr
1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Lr

1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Lr
1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Lr

1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.5
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Lr
1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Lr

1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
0.9
0.8
0.7
LC1 LC2 LC3 LC4
0.6
0.5
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6
Lr
Figure 36 – Simplified Method without g() for Load Case 1 to 4 with the Maximum Thermal
Stress when Using KJS = K1S
1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
0.9
0.8
0.7
LC1 LC2 LC3 LC4
0.6
0.5
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6
Lr
Figure 37 – R6 Method for Load Case 1 to 4 with the Maximum Thermal Stress when
Using KJS = K1S

10
8
Std R6 Method
4
Simplified Method without
3 g(Lr)
Simplified Method with g(Lr)
2
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Lr
without g() for the Circumferentially Cracked Cylinder with Only Out of Plane Primary
Stress Present and Minimum Secondary Stress.
10
8
Std R6 Method
4
Simplified Method without g(Lr)
3
2
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Lr
without g() for the Circumferentially Cracked Cylinder with Only Out of Plane Primary
Stress Present and Maximum Secondary Stress.

5
4.5
4
3.5
2.5 Std R6 Method
2 Simplified Method without g(Lr)

1.5
0.5
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Lr
without g() for the Axially Cracked Cylinder with Only Out of Plane Primary Stress
Present and Minimum Secondary Stress.
4.5
4
3.5
Std R6 Method
2.5
2 Simplified Method with g(Lr)
1.5
0.5
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Lr
without g() for the Axially Cracked Cylinder with Only Out of Plane Primary Stress
Present and Maximum Secondary Stress.

1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Lr
without g() for the Plate Cracked Cylinder with Only Out of Plane Primary Stress Present
and Minimum Secondary Stress.
1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Lr
without g() for the Plate Cracked Cylinder with Only Out of Plane Primary Stress Present
and Maximum Secondary Stress.

2
1.8
1.6
Hand Calc KJ / FE KJ
1.4
1.2
0.8
LC1a LC1b LC1c LC1d LC1e LC1f
0.6
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6
Lr
Figure 44 – Ainsworth and Dean Results Normalised Against the Finite Element Results
for the Circumferentially Cracked Cylinder with 20% in Plane Primary Loading (LC1).
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
0.8 LC4a LC4b LC4c LC4d LC4e LC4f
0.6
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6
Lr
Figure 45 – Ainsworth and Dean Results Normalised Against the Finite Element Results
for the Circumferentially Cracked Cylinder with 150% in Plane Primary Loading (LC4).

2.5
2
Miller KJ / FE KJ
1.5
0.5
LC1b LC1c LC1d LC1e LC1f

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Lr
Figure 46 – Miller Results Normalised Against the Finite Element for the Circumferentially
Cracked Cylinder with 20% in Plane Primary Loading (LC1).
6
Miller KJ / FE KJ
LC4b LC4c LC4d LC4e LC4f

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Lr
Figure 47 – Miller Results Normalised Against the Finite Element for the Circumferentially
Cracked Cylinder with 150% in Plane Primary Loading (LC4).

12,000
10,000
8,000
KJ (MPavmm)
LC1f LC2f LC3f LC4f

6,000
4,000
2,000
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Lr
Figure 48 – Comparison of Finite Element K J for the Circumferentially Cracked Cylinder

with the Highest Magnitude Secondary Stress.
500
400
σref
300
LC1f LC2f LC3f LC4f
200
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Lr
Figure 49 – Comparison of Finite Element Predicted Reference Stress for the

Circumferentially Cracked Cylinder with the Highest Magnitude Secondary Stress.

1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Lr
Figure 50 – Comparison Results for Load Case 1 when using the Average ā Method and
the Simplified Method for Estimating Reference Stress and Miller Equation for Estimating
the Secondary Reference Stress.
1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Lr
Figure 51 – Comparison Results for Load Case 4 when using the Average ā Method and
the Simplified Method for Estimating Reference Stress and Miller Equation for Estimating
the Secondary Reference Stress.

This page is intentionally blank

APPENDIX 1 COMPENDIUM OF RESULTS
CONTENTS
A1 R6 and Simplified Method Results

A2 Ainsworth and Dean Method Results
A3 Finite Element Results

A1 R6 and Simplified Method Results
A1.1 - Circumferentially Cracked Cylinder
A1.1.1 – In Plane Primary Loading
1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Lr
Figure A 1– Plot Showing R6 Method, Simplified Method with g() and Simplified Method
without g() for In Plane Loading and 0% Yield Bending Secondary Stress.
1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Lr
Figure A 2 – Plot Showing R6 Method, Simplified Method with g() and Simplified Method

1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Lr
1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Lr

1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Lr
1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Lr

A1.1.2 – LC1
1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.5
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Lr
without g() for LC1a.
1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.5
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Lr
without g() for LC1b.

1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
0.9
0.8
0.7
Std R6 Method Simplified Method without g(Lr)
0.6 Simplified Method with g(Lr)
0.5
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Lr
without g() for LC1c.
1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.5
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Lr
without g() for LC1d.

1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Lr
without g() for LC1e.
1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.5
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Lr
without g() for LC1f.

A1.1.3 – LC2
2.5
2
1.5
0.5
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Lr
1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.5
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Lr

1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.5
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Lr
1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Lr

1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Lr
1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Lr

A1.1.4 – LC3
1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Lr
1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Lr

1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Lr
1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.5
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Lr

1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Lr
1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.5
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Lr

A1.1.5 – LC4
1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.5
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Lr
1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.5
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Lr

1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.5
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Lr
1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Lr

1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Lr
1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.5
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Lr

A1.1.6 – Out of Plane
10
8
Std R6 Method
4
Simplified Method without
3 g(Lr)
2
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Lr
without g() for Out of Plane Loading and 20% Bend Secondary Stress.
10
8
4 Std R6 Method

3
2
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Lr

10
8
5
Std R6 Method
4
3
2
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Lr
10
8
4
Std R6 Method
3
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Lr

10
8
Std R6 Method
4
3
2
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Lr
without g() for Out of Plane Loading and 100% Bend Secondary Stress
A1.2 - Axially Cracked Cylinder

1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Lr

1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Lr
1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Lr

1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Lr
1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Lr

1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Lr
A1.2.2 – LC5
1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.5
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Lr
without g() for LC5a

1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Lr
without g() for LC5b
1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Lr
without g() for LC5c

1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.5
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Lr
without g() for LC5d
1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.5
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Lr
without g() for LC5e

1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.5
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Lr
without g() for LC5f
A1.2.3 – LC6
1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6 Std R6 Method Simplified Method without g(Lr)

0.5
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Lr

1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.5
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Lr
1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.5
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Lr

1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.5
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Lr
1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Lr

1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.5
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Lr
A1.2.4 – LC7
1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.5
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Lr

1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.5
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Lr
1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Lr

1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.5
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Lr
1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Lr

1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.5
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Lr
A1.2.5 – LC8
1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.5
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Lr

1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Lr
1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Lr

1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6 Std R6 Method Alt Method without g(Lr) Alt Method with g(Lr)
0.5
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Lr
1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Lr

1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Lr
4.5
4
3.5
2.5 Std R6 Method

1.5
0.5
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Lr
without g() for Out of Plane loading with 20% Yield Bending Secondary Stress

5
4.5
4
3.5
2.5
Std R6 Method
1.5
0.5
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Lr
4.5
4
3.5
2.5
Std R6 Method
1.5
0.5
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Lr

5
4.5
4
3.5
2.5 Std R6 Method

2
1.5
0.5
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Lr
4.5
4
3.5
Std R6 Method
2.5
1.5
0.5
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Lr

A1.3 - Centre Cracked Plate
1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.5
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Lr
1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.5
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Lr

1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.5
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Lr
1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.5
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Lr

1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.5
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Lr
1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Lr

A1.3.2 – LC9
1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.5
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Lr
1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Lr

1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.5
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Lr
1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.5
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Lr

1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.5
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Lr
1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Lr

A1.3.3 – LC10
1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Lr
1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Lr

1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.5
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Lr
1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.5
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Lr

1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Lr
1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.5
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Lr

A1.3.4 – LC11
1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Lr
1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.5
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Lr

1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.5
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Lr
1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Lr

1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6 Std R6 Method Simplified Method without g(Lr)

0.5
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Lr
1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.5
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Lr

A1.3.5 – LC12
1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.5
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Lr
1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.5
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Lr

1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.5
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Lr
1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.5
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Lr

1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.5
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Lr
1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Lr
Figure A 100 – Plot Showing R6 Method, Simplified Method with g() and Simplified
Method without g() for LC12f.

1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Lr
Method without g() for Out of Plane Primary Loading with 20% Bending Secondary
Stress.
1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Lr
Stress.

1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Lr
Stress.
1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Lr
Stress.

1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Lr
Stress.

A2 Ainsworth and Dean Method Results
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
0.8
ipa ipb ipc ipd ipe ipf
0.6
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6
Lr
Figure A 106 – Ainsworth and Dean Results for the Circumferential Crack with In Plane
Primary Loading
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
0.8
0.6
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6
Lr
Figure A 107 – Ainsworth and Dean Results for LC1

2
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
0.8
0.6
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6
Lr
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
0.8
0.6
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6
Lr

2
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
0.8
0.6
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6
Lr
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
0.8
0.6
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6
Lr
Figure A 111 – Ainsworth and Dean Results for the Axially Cracked Cylinder with In Plane
Loading

2
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
0.8
0.6
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6
Lr
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
0.8
0.6
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6
Lr

2
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
0.8
0.6
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6
Lr
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
0.8
0.6
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6
Lr

2
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
0.8
0.6
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6
Lr
Figure A 116 – Ainsworth and Dean Results for the Centre Cracked Cylinder with In Plane
Loading
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
0.8
0.6
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6
Lr

2
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
0.8
0.6
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6
Lr
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
0.8
0.6
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6
Lr

2
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
0.8
0.6
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6
Lr

A3 Finite Element Results
2000
a b c d e f
1800
1600
1400
KJ (MPa.mm0.5)
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Lr
Figure A 121 – Finite Element Results for Circumferentially Cracked Cylinder with Out of
Plane Loading
3000
2500 a b c d e f
2000
KJ (MPa.mm0.5)
1500
1000
500
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Lr
Figure A 122 – Finite Element Results for LC1

4500
4000
a b c d e f
3500
3000
KJ (MPa.mm0.5)
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Lr
9000
8000
a b c d e f
7000
6000
KJ (MPa.mm0.5)
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Lr

12000
10000
a b c d e f
8000
KJ (MPa.mm0.5)
6000
4000
2000
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Lr
10000
9000
a b c d e f
8000
7000
KJ (MPa.mm0.5)
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Lr
Figure A 126 – Finite Element Results for Circumferentially Cracked Cylinder with In
Plane Loading

3000
a b c d e f
2500
2000
KJ (MPa.mm0.5)
1500
1000
500
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Lr
Figure A 127 – Finite Element Results for Axially Cracked Cylinder with Out of Plane
Loading
8000
7000
a b c d e f
6000
5000
KJ (MPa.mm0.5)
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Lr

12000
10000 a b c d e f
8000
KJ (MPa.mm )
0.5
6000
4000
2000
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Lr
14000
12000
a b c d e f
10000
KJ (MPa.mm )
0.5
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Lr

14000
12000
a b c d e f
10000
KJ (MPa.mm0.5)
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Lr
14000
12000
a b c d e f
10000
KJ (MPa.mm0.5)
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Lr
Figure A 132 – Finite Element Results for Axially Cracked Cylinder with In Plane Loading

900
800 a b c d e f
700
600
KJ (MPa.mm0.5)
500
400
300
200
100
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Lr
Figure A 133 – Finite Element Results for Centre Cracked Plate with Out of Plane Loading
1800
1600
a b c d e f
1400
1200
KJ (MPa.mm )
0.5
1000
800
600
400
200
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Lr

4000
3500
a b c d e f
3000
2500
KJ (MPa.mm )
0.5
2000
1500
1000
500
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Lr
7000
6000
a b c d e f
5000
KJ (MPa.mm )
0.5
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Lr

8000
7000
a b c d e f
6000
5000
KJ (MPa.mm )
0.5
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Lr
8000
7000
a b c d e f
6000
5000
KJ (MPa.mm0.5)
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Lr
Figure A 138 – Finite Element Results for Axially Cracked Cylinder with In Plane Loading

NULIFE-08-32 - Improved Methods For Dealing With Combined Primary and 2ndary Stresses in Defect Assessments

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

NULIFE-08-32 - Improved Methods For Dealing With Combined Primary and 2ndary Stresses in Defect Assessments

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Improved Methods for Dealing with

Combined Primary and Secondary

Report prepared by John Sharples, Adam Toft, Peter James

NULIFE (08) 32 Page 2 of 134

NULIFE (08) 32 Page 4 of 134

NULIFE (08) 32 Page 5 of 134

3 Combined Reference Stress 11

4 Estimates of Secondary Reference Stress 14

6 Finite Element Analyses 19

NULIFE (08) 32 Page 6 of 134

Appendix 1 Compendium of Results 65

NULIFE (08) 32 Page 7 of 134

NULIFE (08) 32 Page 8 of 134

NULIFE (08) 32 Page 9 of 134

intensity factor which includes both primary and secondary stresses.

available. If K JS is approximated as K 1S , no out of plane secondary stresses are accounted for

NULIFE (08) 32 Page 10 of 134

3 Combined Reference Stress

without g() have been investigated.

NULIFE (08) 32 Page 11 of 134

of K 1S if K JS is known, as the K 1S term is cancelled within φ . Although in many cases values of

on both Lr and Equation (4).

3.2 Simplified Method without g()

NULIFE (08) 32 Page 12 of 134

3.3 Simplified Method Including g()

element results. The upper bound g() is therefore provided by:

g (Lr ) = 0.3 + 0.7 e− (0.2 Lr )

NULIFE (08) 32 Page 13 of 134

When equated to the Option 3 curve ( f 3 (Lr ) = (J e J )0.5 ), the conversion J e = K 12 E ′

4 Estimates of Secondary Reference Stress

NULIFE (08) 32 Page 14 of 134

Miller Equation [8] as in Equation (16).

4.1 Current R6 Method

4.2 Miller Equation Method

NULIFE (08) 32 Page 15 of 134

primary loading alone, K 1P , within Equation (13).

where the primary reference stress is taken from:

very closely related to the Simplified Method, and is outlined below.

Equation (20), to generate an average, a ave .

NULIFE (08) 32 Page 16 of 134

To evaluate a ave , if an elastic material is initially assumed, K 1 is given by:

K 1 = K 1P + K 1S ≡ σ ref πa ave = σ ref

Which means that a ave is elastically given by:

term to account for the reduction in secondary stress from plasticity.

NULIFE (08) 32 Page 17 of 134

5.3 Reduction to Simplified Method

then be simplified to Equation (27).

to this approximation of a ave .

NULIFE (08) 32 Page 18 of 134

6.2 Current Analyses

NULIFE (08) 32 Page 19 of 134

6.2.3 Primary Loading

NULIFE (08) 32 Page 20 of 134

6.2.4 Secondary Loading

• a has no thermally induced secondary stress,

• b has a bending stress of 0.2σ y ,

• c has a bending stress of 0.4σ y ,

• d has a bending stress of 0.6 σ y ,

• e has a bending stress of 0.8σ y ,

• f is as described above (bending stress of σ y ).

NULIFE (08) 32 Page 21 of 134

6.2.5 Current Finite Element Runs

determining K J or K 1 values, the relationship K J = E ′J has always been used.