0
Expert View

Recharacterization of Subsurface Flaw to Surface Flaw Based on Equivalent Fatigue Crack Growth Rate

[+] Author and Article Information
Valery Lacroix

Mem. ASME
Tractebel Engineering,
Avenue Ariane 7,
Brussels 1200, Belgium
e-mail: valery.lacroix@gdfsuez.com

Yinsheng Li

Mem. ASME
Japan Atomic Energy Agency (JAEA),
Tokai-mura, Naka-gun,
Ibaraki-ken 319-1195, Japan
e-mail: li.yinsheng @jaea.go.jp

Bohumir Strnadel

Center of Advanced Innovation Technologies,
VSB-Technical University of Ostrava,
17. Listopadu 15, Poruba,
Ostrava 70800, Czech Republic
e-mail: bohumir.strnadel@vsb.cz

Kunio Hasegawa

Fellow ASME
Center of Advanced Innovation Technologies,
VSB-Technical University of Ostrava,
17. Listopadu 15, Poruba,
Ostrava 70800, Czech Republic
e-mail: kunioh@kzh.biglobe.ne.jp

Contributed by the Pressure Vessel and Piping Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF PRESSURE VESSEL TECHNOLOGY. Manuscript received April 21, 2015; final manuscript received September 28, 2015; published online November 19, 2015. Assoc. Editor: David L. Rudland.

J. Pressure Vessel Technol 138(2), 024701 (Nov 19, 2015) (6 pages) Paper No: PVT-15-1073; doi: 10.1115/1.4031723 History: Received April 21, 2015; Revised September 28, 2015

A subsurface flaw located near a component surface 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 criteria of the recharacterizations are different among the FFS codes. In addition, the proximity factors in the rules are generally defined by constant values, irrespective of flaw aspect ratios. This paper describes the stress intensity factor interaction between the subsurface flaw and component free surface and proposes a proximity factor from the point of view of fatigue crack growth rates.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2016 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 Paper No. PVP2008-61007.
Hasegawa, K. , and Li, Y. , 2010, “ Assessment of Fatigue Crack Growths for Transformed Surface Flaws Using FFS Codes,” ASME Paper No. PVP2010-25247.
Hasegawa, K. , and Li, Y. , 2011, “ Flaw-to-Surface Proximity Rules and Fatigue Crack Growth Behavior for Transformed Surface Flaws, Structural Integrity in Nuclear Engineering,” ISSI 2011, Hefei, China, Oct. 27–30.
Hasegawa, K. , Li, Y. , Miyazaki, K. , and Saito, K. , 2012, “ Comparison on Experiment and Calculation on Fatigue Crack Growth for Transformed Surface Flaw,” ASME Paper No. PVP2012-78688.
EDF Energy Nuclear Generation, 2012, “ R6 Revision 4, Assessment of Integrity of Structures Containing Defects,” EDF Energy Nuclear Generation Ltd., Gloucester, UK.
BSI, 2005, “ Guide to Method for Assessing the Acceptability of Flaws in Metallic Structure,” British Standard Institution, London, Standard No. BS 7910:2005.
Koçak, M. , Hadley, I. , Szavai, S. , Tkach, T. , and Taylor, N. , 2008, FITNET Fitness-For-Service Procedures, Vol. II, European Thematic Network FITNET, Geesthacht, Germany.
FKM, 2009, “ FKM Guideline, Fracture Mechanics Proof of Strength for Engineering Components,” 2nd ed., Forschungskuratorium Maschinenbau e.V., Frankfurt, Germany.
AFCEN, 2010, “ Design, Construction and In-Service Inspection Rules for Nuclear Island Components,” RSE-M, 2010 ed., AFCEN, Lyon, France.
Chinese Standard Committee, 2004, “ Safety Assessment for In-Service Pressure Vessels Containing Defects,” Paper No. GB/T 19624-2004 (in Chinese).
HPI, of Japan, 2008, “ Assessment Procedure for Crack Like Flaws in Pressure Equipment,” (in Japanese), High Pressure Institute of Japan, Tokyo, Standard No. HPIS Z 101.
ASME, 2013, Rules for In-Service Inspection of Nuclear Power Plant Components, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York, B&PV Code Section XI.
JSME, 2012, “ Rules on Fitness-For-Service for Nuclear Power Plants,” (in Japanese), Japanese Society of Mechanical Engineers, Tokyo, Standard No. JSME S NA1.
SSM, 2008, “ A Combined Deterministic and Probabilistic Procedure for Safety Assessment of Components With Cracks—Handbook,” Swedish Radiation Safety Authority, Stockholm.
Commission of Energy Atomic, 2010, “ Guide for Defect Assessment and Leak Before Break Analysis,” French Alternative Energies and Atomic Energy Commission, Paris.
JWES, 2007, “ Method of Assessment for Flaws in Fusion Welded Joints With Respect to Brittle Fracture and Fatigue Crack Growth,” (in Japanese), The Japan Welding Engineering Society, Tokyo, Standard No. WES 2805.
Association of Mechanical Engineers, 2008, “Calculation of Residual Life of Equipment and Piping in Nuclear Power Plants (VERLIFE),” Association of Mechanical Engineers, Prague, Czech Republic, Section IV.
API, 2007, “Recommended Practice for Fitness-for-Service,” 2nd ed., American Petroleum Institute, Washington, DC, Standard No. API 579-1/ASME FFS-1.
Hasegawa, K. , Li, Y. , and Saito, K. , 2015, “ Study on Flaw-To-Surface Proximity Rule of Transformed Surface Flaws Based on Fatigue Crack Growth Experiments,” ASME J. Pressure Vessel Technol., 137(4), p. 041101. [CrossRef]
Hasegawa, K. , Li, Y. , Serizawa, R. , Kikuchi, M. , and Lacroix, V. , 2016, “ Proximity Factor on Transformation From Subsurface to Surface Flaw,” Procedia Mater. Sci. (in press).

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Transformation of a subsurface flaw (flaw A) near component free surface and a similar subsurface flaw (flaw B) in the center of a plate

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Fracture surface of flat plate specimen

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Beach marks to determine proximity factor

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

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

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Mesh at cross section for centered subsurface flaw in flat plate

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Stress intensity factor interaction for subsurface flaws

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Ratio of fatigue crack growth rates for subsurface flaws near free surface and in the center of the plate

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Distance from free surface under equivalent stress intensity factor interaction

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Proximity factor under equivalent stress intensity factor interaction

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Proposal of proximity factor Y

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