Research Papers: Materials and Fabrication

Remaining Fatigue Lives of Similar Surface Flaws in Accordance With Combination Rules

[+] Author and Article Information
Kai Lu

Japan Atomic Energy Agency,
2-4 Shirakata, Tokai-mura,
Ibaraki 319-1195, Japan
e-mail: lu.kai@jaea.go.jp

Yinsheng Li

Japan Atomic Energy Agency,
2-4 Shirakata, Tokai-mura,
Ibaraki 319-1195, Japan
e-mail: li.yinsheng@jaea.go.jp

Kunio Hasegawa

Center of Advanced Innovation Technologies,
VSB-Technical University of Ostrava,
17. Listopadu 15/2172,
Poruba, Ostrava 708 33, Czech Republic
e-mail: kunioh@kzh.biglobe.ne.jp

Valery Lacroix

Tractebel Engineering,
Avenue Ariane 7,
Brussels 1200, Belgium
e-mail: valery.lacroix@tractebel.engie.com

Contributed by the Pressure Vessel and Piping Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF PRESSURE VESSEL TECHNOLOGY. Manuscript received May 26, 2016; final manuscript received November 4, 2016; published online January 11, 2017. Assoc. Editor: David L. Rudland.

J. Pressure Vessel Technol 139(2), 021407 (Jan 11, 2017) (6 pages) Paper No: PVT-16-1086; doi: 10.1115/1.4035317 History: Received May 26, 2016; Revised November 04, 2016

When multiple flaws are detected in structural components, the remaining lives of the components are estimated by fatigue flaw growth calculations using combination rules in fitness-for-service (FFS) codes. Many FFS codes provide combination rules for multiple flaws; however, these rules differ significantly among the various codes. Fatigue flaw growths for two similar adjacent surface flaws in a flat plate subjected to a cyclic tensile stress were obtained by numerical calculations using these different combination rules. In addition, fatigue flaw growths taking into account the interaction effect between the two similar flaws were conducted by the extended finite-element method (X-FEM). The calculation results show that the fatigue lives calculated by the X-FEM are close to those obtained by the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Code. Finally, it is noted that the combination rule provided by the ASME Code is appropriate for fatigue flaw growth calculations.

Copyright © 2017 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.


Japan Atomic Power Company, 1999, “ Causes of the Primary Coolant Water Leakage Accident at the Tsuruga Power Station Unit 2 in Japan,” The Japan Atomic Power Company, Tokyo, Japan (in Japanese).
Isida, M. , 1970, “ Analysis of Stress Intensity Factors for Plates Containing Random Array of Cracks,” Bull. Jpn. Soc. Mech. Eng., 13(59), pp. 635–642. [CrossRef]
Murakami, Y. , and Nemat-Nasser, S. , 1982, “ Interacting Dissimilar Semi-Elliptical Surface Flaws Under Tension and Bending,” Eng. Fract. Mech., 16(3), pp. 373–386. [CrossRef]
Murakami, Y. , and Nemat-Nasser, S. , 1983, “ Growth and Stability of Interacting Surface Flaws of Arbitrary Shape,” Eng. Fract. Mech., 17(3), pp. 193–210. [CrossRef]
Iida, K. , 1983, “ Shapes and Coalescence of Surface Fatigue Cracks,” ICF International Symposium on Fracture Mechanics, Beijing, China, Nov. 22–24, pp. 679–693.
Iida, K. , and Kuwahara, M. , 1978, “ An Assessment of Fatigue Crack Growth From Adjacent Multiple Surface Flaws,” Third International Symposium of Japan Welding Society, Tokyo, Japan, p. 325.
American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 2015, “ ASME B&PV Code Section XI, Rules for In-Service Inspection of Nuclear Power Plant Components,” ASME, New York, Standard No. ASME BPVC. XI-2015.
British Standard Institution, 2005, “ BS 7910, Guide to Method for Assessing the Acceptability of Flaws in Metallic Structure,” BSI, London, UK, Standard No. BS 7910: 2005.
Kocak, M. , Hadley, I. , Szavai, S. , Tkach, T. , and Taylor, N. , 2008, “ FITNET Fitness-for-Service Procedures,” Vol. 2, Joint Research Centre, GKSS Research Centre, Geesthacht, Germany.
Forschungskuratorium Maschinenbau, 2009, “ Fracture Mechanics Proof of Strength for Engineering Components,” 2nd revised ed., FKM Guideline, Frankfurt, Germany.
Dillstroem, P. , Bergman, M. , Brickstad, B. , Weilin, Z. , Sattari-Far, I. , Andersson, P. , Sund, G. , Dahlberg, L. , and Nilsson, Fred , 2008, “ A Combined Deterministic and Probabilistic Procedure for Safety Assessment of Components With Cracks-Handbook,” Swedish Radiation Safety Authority (SSM), Stockholm, Sweden.
CSC, 2004, “ Safety Assessment for In-Service Pressure Vessels Containing Defects,” Chinese Standard Committee, Beijing, China, Standard No. GB/T19624 (in Chinese).
API, 2007, “ Fitness-for-Service,” American Petroleum Institute, Washington, D.C., Standard No. API 579-1/ASME FFS-1.
HPI, 2008, “ Assessment Procedure for Crack-Like Flaws in Pressure Equipment,” High Pressure Institute of Japan, Tokyo, Japan, Standard No. HPIS Z 101 (in Japanese).
AFCEN, 2010, “ Guide for Defect Assessment and Leak Before Break Analysis,” AFCEN, Paris, France, Standard No. A16, RCC-MRx.
Katsumata, G. , Li, Y. , Hasegawa, K. , and Lacroix, V. , 2015, “ Fatigue Crack Growth Calculations for Pipes Considering Subsurface to Surface Flaw Proximity Rules,” ASME Paper No. PVP2015-45880.
Cenaero, 2014, “ Morfeo 2.3.0 User Manual,” Cenaero/GeonX, Gosselies, Belgium.
Hasegawa, K. , Miyazaki, K. , and Kanno, S. , 2001, “ Interaction Criteria for Multiple Flaws on the Basis of Stress Intensity Factors,” ASME Paper No. PVP-Vol.422.
Shibata, K. , Yokohama, N. , Ohba, T. , Kawamura, T. , and Miyazono, S. , 1984, “ Fatigue Test Results of Flat Plate and Pipe Specimens Containing Multiple Surface Flaws and Comparison With Some Predicted Crack Growth Behavior,” Japan Atomic Energy Research Institute, Report No. JAERI-M 84-037 (in Japanese).


Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Two semi-elliptical surface flaws with a similar size

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Two surface flaws characterized in accordance with the ASME Code [7]

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Fatigue flaw growth for adjacent two flaws using X-FEM

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

X-FEM model used for fatigue flaw growth calculations and location of flaws at the midheight cross section

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Cross section in the plane of the adjacent surface flaws (example for a1/ ℓ1  = a2/ ℓ2  = 0.15, and S0 = 1 mm)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Fatigue flaw growths in accordance with code procedures: (a) ASME Code and (b) Other FFS codes

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Fatigue flaw growth results for the case of a/ℓ = 0.05 and S0 = 0.5 mm

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Fatigue flaw growth results for the case of a/ℓ = 0.05 and S0 = 1.0 mm

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Fatigue flaw growth results for the case of a/ℓ = 0.15 and S0 = 0.5 mm

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Fatigue flaw growth results for the case of a/ℓ = 0.15 and S0 = 1.0 mm

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Fatigue flaw growth results for the case of a/ℓ = 0.5 and S0 = 0.5 mm

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Fatigue flaw growth results for the case of a/ℓ = 0.5 and S0 = 1.0 mm



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