0
Research Papers: Codes and Standards

Study on Flaw-to-Surface Proximity Rule for Transforming Subsurface Flaws to Surface Flaws Based on Fatigue Crack Growth Experiments

[+] Author and Article Information
Kunio Hasegawa, Yinsheng Li

Japan Atomic Energy Agency (JAEA),
Tokai-mura,
Naka-gun, Ibaraki-ken 319-1195, Japan

Koichi Saito

Hitachi Works,
Hitachi-GE Nuclear Energy Ltd.,
Omika-cho,
Hitachi-shi, Ibaraki-ken 319-1221, Japan

Contributed by the Pressure Vessel and Piping Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF PRESSURE VESSEL TECHNOLOGY. Manuscript received June 20, 2014; final manuscript received August 15, 2014; published online February 20, 2015. Assoc. Editor: David L. Rudland.

J. Pressure Vessel Technol 137(4), 041101 (Aug 01, 2015) (7 pages) Paper No: PVT-14-1092; doi: 10.1115/1.4028423 History: Received June 20, 2014; Revised August 15, 2014; Online February 20, 2015

If a subsurface flaw is located very near a component surface, the subsurface flaw is categorized as a surface flaw. The boundary of the subsurface and surface flaws is required for flaw evaluation. The subsurface flaw is transformed to a surface flaw in accordance with a flaw-to-surface proximity rule. The recharacterization process from subsurface to surface flaw is adopted in all fitness-for-service (FFS) codes. However, the specific criteria of the recharacterizations are different among the FFS codes. Cyclic tensile experiment was conducted on a carbon steel flat plate with a subsurface flaw at ambient temperature. The objective of the paper is to compare the experiment and calculation of fatigue crack growth behavior for a subsurface flaw and the transformed surface flaw, and to check the validity of the flaw-to-surface proximity rule defined by ASME Code Section XI, JSME S NA1 Code and other codes.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2015 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Hasegawa, K., and Kikuchi, M., 2008, “Rules on Transforming Embedded Flaws to Surface Flaws,” ASME PVP Conference, Chicago IL, July 27–31, ASME Paper No. PVP2008-61007. [CrossRef]
Hasegawa, K., and Li, Y., 2010, “Assessment of Fatigue Crack Growths for Transformed Surface Flaws Using FFS Codes,” ASME PVP Conference, Bellevue, WA, July 18–22, ASME Paper No. PVP2010-25247. [CrossRef]
Mutoh, Y., Sakamoto, I., Inoue, M., and Saito, C., 1984, “Fracture Toughness Tests of Embedded Crack Specimens Produced by Diffusion Welding Method,” J. Mater., 33(372), pp. 1153–1159.
Mutoh, Y., Sakamoto, I., Inoue, M., and Iwamoto, T., 1985, “Study on an Assessment of Defects for Embedded Cracks Near Surface,” J. Mater., 34(384), pp.1031–1036.
ASME B&PV Code Section XI, 2007, Rules for In-service Inspection of Nuclear Power Plant Components, ASME, NY.
The Japan Society of Mechanical Engineers, JSME S NA1, 2004, Rules on Fitness-for-Service for Nuclear Power Plants (in Japanese), Japan Society of Mechanical Engineers, Tokyo, Japan.
EDF Energy Nuclear Generation Ltd., 2000, R6 Revision 4, Assessment of Integrity of Structures Containing Defects, Paris, France.
British Standard Institution, BS 7910, 2005, Guide to Method for Assessing the Acceptability of Flaws in Metallic Structure, British Standard Institution, London, UK.
Kocak, M., Hadley, I., Szavai, S., Tkach, T., and Taylor, N., 2008, FITNET Fitness-for-Service Procedures, Vol. II, GKSS Research Centre, Geesthacht, Germany.
Forschungskuratorium Maschinenbau, FKM Guideline, 2004, Fracture Mechanics Proof of Strength for Engineering Components, 2nd Revised ed., Forschungskuratorium Maschinenbau, Frankfurt, Germany.
AFCEN, 2010, French Association for Design, Construction and In-Service Inspection Rules for Nuclear Island Components, RSE-M, Paris, France.
Chinese Standard Committee, GB/T 19624-2004, 2004, Safety Assessment for In-Service Pressure Vessels Containing Defects (in Chinese), Chinese Standard Committee, China.
High Pressure Institute of Japan, HPIS Z 101, 2008, Assessment Procedure for Crack Like Flaws in Pressure Equipment (in Japanese), High Pressure Institute of Japan, Tokyo, Japan.
Swedish Radiation Safety Authority (SSM), 2008, A Combined Deterministic and Probabilistic Procedure for Safety Assessment of Components With Cracks—Handbook, Swedish Radiation Safety Authority, Stockholm, Sweden.
Commission of Energy Atomic, A16, 1995, Guide for Defect Assessment and Leak Before Break Analysis, Commission of Energy Atomic, Paris, France.
The Japan Welding Engineering Society, WES 2805, 1997, Method of Assessment for Flaws in Fusion Welded Joints With Respect to Brittle Fracture and Fatigue Crack Growth (in Japanese), Japan Welding Engineering Society, Tokyo, Japan.
Association of Mechanical Engineers, Section IV, 2005, Calculation of Residual Life of Equipment and Piping in Nuclear Power Plants (VERLIFE), Association of Mechanical Engineers, Prague, Czech Republic.
American Petroleum Institute, API 579-1/ASME FFS-1, 2007, Recommended Practice for Fitness-for-Service, 2nd ed., American Petroleum Institute, Washington, DC.
ASTM E647, 1996, Standard Test Method for Measurement of Fatigue Crack Growth Rates, ASTM, West Conshohocken, PA.
Paris, P. C., and Erdogan, F. A., 1963, “A Critical Analysis of Crack Propagation Laws,” ASME Trans. J. Basic Eng., Ser. D, 85(4), pp. 528–533. [CrossRef]
Miyazaki, K., Iwamatsu, F., Nakanishi, S., and Shiratori, M., 2006, “Stress Intensity Factor Solution for Subsurface Flaw Estimated by Influence Function Method,” ASME Pressure Vessels and Piping/ICPVT-11 Conference, Vancouver, BC, Canada, July 23–27, ASME Paper No. PVP2006-ICPVT-11-93138. [CrossRef]

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Subsurface and surface flaws transformed from subsurface flaw

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Flat plate block with a surface notch

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Definition of subsurface and surface flaws

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Fracture surface of flat plate specimen

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Proximity factor Y (=S/a) obtained by experiments

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Fatigue crack growth of specimen FE 50-2

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Fatigue crack growth of specimen FE 40-2

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Fatigue crack growth of specimen FE 25-2

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Fatigue crack growth of specimen FE 10-2

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Fatigue crack growth of specimen FE 10-1

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In