BS 7910: the UK guide on

methods for assessing the

acceptability of flaws in
metallic structures

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

3 Levels of assessment
Level 1: Simplified assessment
Level 2: Normal Assessment
Level 3: Ductile Tearing Instability
Sequence of Operation
Identify the flaw type
Establish the essential data
Determine the size of the flaw
Assess possible material damage
mechanisms and damage rate
Determine limiting size of the flaw
Based on the damage rate, assess whether
the flaw will grow to this final size within the
remaining life of the structure or in-service
inspection interval, by sub-critical flaw
growth
Sequence of operation
Assess the consequence of failure
Carry out sensitivity analysis
If the flaw could not grow to the limiting
size, including appropriate factor of safety, it
is acceptable. Ideally, the safety factors
should take account of both the confidence
in the assessment and the consequence of
failure
Essential Data
Nature, position of the flaw
Structural and weld geometry, fabrication
procedure
Stresses (pressure, thermal, residual,
transients)
Tensile properties
Fatigue and corrosion data
Fracture toughness
Creep data
Stress corrosion cracking data
Information from NDE
Flaw length
Flaw height
Flaw position
Flaw orientation
Planar or non-planar cross-section
Assessment of fracture
Level 1: Simple, used when limited
information is available on material
properties
Level 2: Normal assessment route
Level 3: Tearing analysis permitted for
ductile materials
In general, the analysis is first performed
using the Level 1 analysis. If the flaw is
unacceptable then the analysis is done using
higher levels.
Failure Assessment Diagram
'
ref
r
ys
L
o
o
=
'
I
r
mat
K
K
K
=
( )
r r
K f L =
Advantages of FAD
Double criteria approach:
Fracture
LEFM
EPFM
Collapse
Elasto-Plastic Fracture Mechanics:
J-Integral calculation not required
Other features
Flaw re-characterization rules
LBB Procedures
Calculation of reserve factors
Sensitivity analysis

Step 1: Define Stresses
Primary and Secondary
Guidance for residual stresses due to welding
Level 1 Assessment
PWHT:
30% room temperature o
y
, parallel to the weld
20% room temperature o
y
, transverse to the weld
No PWHT: residual stress = o
y
at room temperature
Level 2 and 3 Assessment
Annex Q gives residual stress profiles
Residual stress profiles
Step 2: Define Fracture
toughness
Level 1 and 2
K
mat
is required
Can be estimated from Charpy energy
Level 3
Ductile tearing curve is necessary
Step 3: Define tensile properties
Level 1: Yield stress required
Level 2 and 3: Analysis based on
Yield stress and Ultimate Stress only
Stress strain curve
Step 4: Characterize flaw
Flaw from inspection
Semi-elliptical (surface flaw)
Elliptical (embedded flaw)
Rectangular (through thickness flaw)
In planes normal to max. principal stresses
Worst combination to be chosen
Step 5: Nearness to collapse
Level 1:

Level 2 and 3

o
ref
is the stress at the cracked section that will
lead to plastic collapse
Formulations for a variety of cracked
configurations are listed in the Annexure P of the
code
Secondary stresses not considered
'
ref
r
flow
S
o
o
=
'
ref
r
ys
L
o
o
=
Step 6: Nearness to fracture
All levels

Secondary Stresses also considered
K
I
due to primary and secondary stresses

'
I
r
mat
K
K
K
=
Level 1 Assessment
Based on Conservative failure assessment
diagram
Kr : ratio of applied crack driving force to
fracture toughness
Sr : ratio of applied stress to flow strength
Single-point value of fracture toughness
(sometimes Charpy energy)
FAD is a rectangle: Sr_max = 0.8, Kr_max = 0.7

Step 7: Construct FAD
Level 1
K
r
< 0.707 and S
r
< 0.8
0
0.5
1
0 0.5 1
Sr
K
r
SAFE
UNSAFE
Level 2 Assessment
2 types: Level 2A and 2B
Depends on the type of stress-strain data
2A: Full curve not available
2B: Full curve available
Lr is used in place of Sr in FAD
Guidance for materials with discontinuous yield
point
Single point value of Fracture toughness is
required
Step 7: Construct FAD
Level 2A FAD: Only o
ys
and o
uts
is known
( )( )
2 6
(max)
(max)
1 0.14 0.3 0.7exp 0.65 for
= 0 for
r r r r r
r r
K L L L L
L L
( = + s

>
( )
(max)
2
ys uts
r
ys
L
o o
o
+
=
Step 7: Construct FAD
Level 2B FAD: Full Stress curve known





The Level 3 definition for FAD is similar to
Level 2 FAD, but it permits increased margins by
using unstable crack growth as failure mode.
1 2
3
(max)
(max)
for 0.0
2
= 0 for
ref r ys
r r r
r ys ref
r r
E L
K L L
L E
L L
c o
o c

| |
= + < s
|
|
\ .
>
c
ref
is the true strain corresponding to true stress L
r
.o
ys

Constructing Level 2B FAD
A number of points are taken on the L
r
axis
in between 0 and L
r
max
.
For each L
r
reference stress o
ref
is
determined from L
r
o
y

Corresponding true strain c
ref
is read from the
true-stress strain curve of the material of the
component.
Now for each chosen L
r
point, The FAL is
plotted using equation
1 2
3
(max)
(max)
for 0.0
2
= 0 for
ref r ys
r r r
r ys ref
r r
E L
K L L
L E
L L
c o
o c

| |
= + < s
|
|
\ .
>
Level 3 Assessment
3 types: Level 3A, 3B and 3C
Depends on the type of stress-strain data
3A: Full curve not available
3B: Full curve available
3C: Detailed J-Integral calculations
Level 3 analysis
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
0
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6
K
r

A
B
O
L2
L3
L1
L1'
L2'
FAL
L3'
Lr
Factor of Safety
Level 1 FAD: 2 on crack size
Level 2 and 3 FAD: Use partial safety factors on:
Applied stress
Flaw size
Toughness
Yield stress
These correspond to probability of failure of
2.3x10
-1
1.0x10
-3
7.0x10
-5
1.0x10
-5

Step 8: Assess the component
If the assessed point is in the safe
region the flaw is acceptable.
The code recommends a sensitivity
analysis on the results with respect to
the flaw sizes, loads and material
properties before the decision is made.

API 579 vs. BS 7910
API 579 is intended for equipment designed using the
ASME code and materials and gives results consistent
with the original ASME design safety margins.
API 579 may be used for equipment designed to other
codes but users should be prepared to interpret the
procedures in an appropriate manner.
BS 7910 is applicable to all metallic structures and
materials and is written in a more generalized manner
without reference to a particular industry, design code
or material thereby allowing users to decide safety
margins.
API 579 vs. BS 7910
API 579 covers a wide range of damage types typically found
in refining and petrochemicals application, and gives
procedures for different types of metal loss, physical damage,
low and high temperatures, and crack like defects.
BS 7910 deals comprehensively with fatigue and fracture of
defects in and around welded joints and gives annexes
covering advanced aspects such as mismatch, mixed mode
loading , residual stress effects and leak before break.
API 579 is designed at level 1 for use by plant inspectors and
plant engineering personnel with the minimum amount of
information from inspection and about the component.
API 579 vs. BS 7910
BS 7910 requires some technical expertise in
fracture mechanics and access to fracture
parameter solutions and toughness data at all
levels.
API 579 is supported by a number of
organizations based in the USA where most
experience resides.
BS 7910 was developed in the UK where TWI is
the main source of expertise, training and
software.
Thank you