See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/328853899

Outline of the fracture clauses of BS 7910:2013

Article  in  International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping · November 2018

DOI: 10.1016/j.ijpvp.2018.11.004

CITATIONS READS

4 1,611

2 authors:

Isabel Hadley Yuebao Lei

The Welding Institute EDF Energy Nuclear Generation Ltd.
40 PUBLICATIONS   183 CITATIONS    69 PUBLICATIONS   861 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Bs7910 View project

FITNET View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Isabel Hadley on 23 May 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Outline of the fracture clauses of BS 7910:2013

Isabel Hadley* and Yuebao Lei**,

*TWI Ltd, Great Abington, Cambridge, UK, CB21 6AL ([email protected])
** EDF Energy Nuclear Generation Ltd, Gloucester, UK, GL4 3RS ([email protected])

Published in International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping (IJPVP), Volume 168, December
2018, 289–300, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpvp.2018.11.004

ABSTRACT

This paper summarises the main features of the fracture clauses of BS 7910:2013, with particular
emphasis on how and why the standard has changed relative to the earlier 2005 revision. The
background to the current annexes addressing K-solutions (Annex M), limit load/reference stress
solutions (Annex P) is also presented, along with details of how the fracture procedure has been
validated, and some pointers to changes for the next revision.

1. INTRODUCTION

The fracture assessment procedures of BS 7910 (1) are mostly concentrated in clause 7 and associated
annexes. They are fundamental to the standard as a whole, since fracture and/or plastic collapse
represent final failure modes for all flawed structures, whether statically loaded (clause 7), or subjected
in addition to fatigue loading (clause 8) and creep deformation (clause 9), or phenomena such as local
thinning (clause 10). Several papers have already been published (2)-(8) outlining the basis of the
fracture assessment clauses of BS 7910:2013, in particular those aspects of it that were new in the
2013 revision. Consequently, only the main features of fracture assessment are summarised here,
along with an explanation of the background to the annexes addressing K-solutions (Annex M) and limit
load/reference stress solutions (Annex P).

2. CHANGES TO FRACTURE CLAUSES BETWEEN THE 2005 AND 2013 REVISIONS

Clause 7 of BS 7910:2013 has its origins in earlier versions of BS 7910 (9) and its predecessor PD
6493 (10), plus the influence of the R6 (11) and SINTAP/FITNET procedures (12)-(13). It uses the
concept of a Failure Assessment Diagram (FAD), as shown in Figure 1, to describe the interaction
between failure by plastic collapse (plotted in terms of the parameter Lr, represented on the x-axis) and
failure by brittle or ductile fracture (the parameter Kr, represented on the y-axis). The interaction
between the two failure modes is indicated by a Failure Assessment Line (FAL), based on a simplified
J-estimation scheme that allows the use of Linear Elastic Fracture Mechanics (LEFM) parameters and
the elastic-plastic stress-strain relationship of the material to calculate crack driving force under elastic-
plastic conditions, and a cut-off line based on the flow stress of the material.

1
 Cut-off line

Figure 1 Example of a Failure Assessment Diagram (FAD)

The main features of the 2013 revision that are especially relevant to fracture assessment can be briefly
summarised as follows:

 The hierarchy of fracture assessment procedures, known as Levels 1-3 in earlier revisions of BS
7910, have been re-cast as Options 1-3. This is not just a change of terminology but a change of
classification, which is more consistent and logical than the system used in earlier revisions, and
also in line with the hierarchy used in the R6, SINTAP and FITNET approaches. Essentially, the
‘safe’ area of the FAD enlarges as the user moves from Option 1 (a generic FAL, for which the user
needs to know only the yield and ultimate strength of the material, and the likely behaviour around
the yield point) to Option 2 (for which the full stress-strain curve of the material is required) to Option
3 (which requires elastic-plastic finite element analysis (FEA) of the cracked body). The shape of
the FAL depends on the assumptions made regarding the type of yielding of the material
(continuous or discontinuous, as shown in Figure 1; further information is given in the companion
paper on materials properties (14).

 The materials properties clauses (7.1.3-7.1.5) have been expanded considerably, as described in
(14). More emphasis is now placed on tensile properties, whilst the characteristic materials
toughness, Kmat, can be derived from J-integral, CTOD or KIc tests. The option to express crack
driving force in terms of CTOD, ie , has been removed, not because it was unsafe but to remove
an anomaly in earlier revisions, whereby different safety margins were observed depending on
whether fracture toughness was expressed in terms of J-integral or CTOD.

 A new annex (Annex I) has been added to allow consideration of strength mismatch between the
parent metal and weld metal. It can also be used to analyse so-called bi-material joints, in which
the materials on one side of the bond line has tensile properties markedly different from that on the
other side. For the case of welded joints, Annex I defines mismatch in terms of M, the ratio of weld
metal yield strength 𝜎𝑌𝑊 to parent metal yield strength 𝜎𝑌𝑃 . Mismatch concepts would typically be
used in conjunction with an Option 1 FAD, assuming a constant value of M (in principle, they can
be used with an Option 2 FAD, but the calculation is considerably more complex). The user
calculates the tensile properties for an ‘equivalent’ material based on M and on the hardening
behaviour of the two constituents, and constructs a Failure Assessment Line (FAL) that represents

2
 a J-estimation scheme for a mismatched system. This is used in conjunction with selected limit load
solutions in Annex P, which allow for the influence of strength mismatch on plastic collapse to be
calculated. It should be noted, however, that the number of such limit load solutions is currently
quite limited; one-dimensional cracks such as through-thickness cracks in plates and fully
circumferential surface cracks in cylinders are considered, but general two-dimensional flaws such
as finite surface cracks in plates are not, since it has proved much harder to express these solutions
in parametric form. The treatment of strength mismatch in BS 7910:2013 has its origins mostly in
the R6 procedure (which in turn influenced SINTAP and FITNET).

 A new method for incorporating the influence of residual stress on fracture has been adopted in
Annex Q of BS 7910; full details are given in the companion paper on residual stress (15).

 A new annex describing methods for incorporating the effects of crack tip constraint on fracture is
given (Annex N), as described in a companion paper (16).

𝑝
 The interaction between primary and secondary stress intensity factors, 𝐾𝐼 and 𝐾𝐼𝑠 , considered in
Annex R of the procedure, can now be expressed in terms of either an additive factor  (as used in
earlier revisions of BS 7910) or a multiplying factor, V, on 𝐾𝐼𝑠 , making the procedure both more
logical and more consistent with the R6 approach. The ‘detailed procedure’ for the determination of
, previously used for cases in which secondary stresses dominate, was removed as part of the
2013 revision. The reason for this lay in a desire to limit the size and complexity of the document,
so BS 7910:2013 now refers out to R6 for cases in which the user wishes to adopt the detailed
procedure.

 Tearing-fatigue interaction is explicitly addressed, for situations in which the J-integral at maximum
load during fatigue cycling exceeds the value for initiation of stable tearing, J0.2BL.

 A new annex (Annex T) addresses the use of NDT in the context of ECA (17) and outlines the
different approaches required for assessment of a known flaw versus assessment of defect-
tolerance.

3. ORIGIN OF THE SOLUTIONS IN ANNEXES M (K-SOLUTIONS), P (REFERENCE STRESS/LIMIT

LOAD SOLUTIONS) AND N (CONSTRAINT)

Almost all assessments based on BS 7910 require as a minimum a stress intensity factor (SIF) solution
(K-solution) and a reference stress or limit load solution for the cracked body under consideration.
Compendia of solutions for various types of flaw in plates, pipes, spheres, bars and offshore tubular
joints are given in Annex M (K-solutions) and Annex P (reference stress/limit load solutions). In addition,
a compendium of constraint solutions is given in Annex N for selected geometries. A summary of the
geometries considered in these three inter-related annexes is given in Table 1 to Table 3, along with
an indication of the appropriate clause(s) and Figures in BS 7910. It is immediately apparent that not
all geometries are represented in all three annexes; for example, constraint solutions for laboratory test
specimens are given in Annex N, but there is no corresponding K-solution in Annex M. This is because
K-solutions for laboratory test specimens are given in the relevant test standards, so do not need to be
repeated in BS 7910. Similarly, for extended embedded flaws in a plate, Annex P offers a collapse
solution in clause P.6.3, but there is no corresponding K-solution. The reason for this discrepancy lies
in the fact that the solutions given in Annexes M, N and P have been collated from different sources at
various times in the development of BS 7910. There are consequently some gaps in the matrix of
solutions, but this was considered preferable to having no solutions at all for particular geometries,
because of the absence of just one.

It should also be noted that the limits of the equations (for example, validity limits on the ratio of flaw
height to section thickness, a/B) will not necessarily be the same for a given geometry between Annexes
M, N and Annex P. There are occasions when the user needs only a K-solution (for example, for fatigue-
dominated calculations) or only a collapse solution (e.g for corrosion-related calculations), and it was
judged preferable to present the equations in their original form rather than to limit them artificially
depending on which published solution was the more restrictive.

3
It is also apparent from Table 1 that nomenclature is not always consistent between annexes, a
discrepancy that will be resolved in the next revision (see ‘Future Developments’).

3.1 K-solutions (Annex M)

3.1.1 Origin and format of solutions

Solutions for around 40 different geometries are given in Annex M of the standard, as summarised in
Table 1 to Table 3. Most of these solutions are based on finite element analysis; they were not
generated specifically for BS 7910, but are taken from the literature, using minimal modifications so as
to fit them into the BS 7910 terminology. Most are presented in the form of either parametric solutions
or tables of stress intensity Magnification Factors (Mm and Mb) under membrane loading and through-
wall bending respectively, although a few are also presented graphically, as they were in much earlier
revisions of BS 7910/PD 6493. For the simplest case of primary loading only, the solution for combined
membrane and bending stress is given in the form:

𝐾𝐼 = (𝑀𝑚 𝑃𝑚 + 𝑀𝑏 𝑃𝑏 )√(𝜋𝑎) [1]

where

𝑃𝑚 and 𝑃𝑏 are the ‘gross’ values of primary membrane and primary bending stress (ie ignoring the
presence of the flaw),
𝑎 is the flaw size parameter (the height, half-height, length or half-length of the flaw, depending on the
geometry selected).

Additional factors to take account of gross stress concentrations, finite width effects, bulging effects in
pressurised shells, joint misalignment and the effects of flaws at a weld toe are outlined in Annex M and
Annex D (‘Stress due to misalignment’).

3.1.2 Calculation of KI for non-linear stress distributions

The precision of the K-solution (and of the underlying stress analysis) is key to accurate flaw
assessment in fracture-dominated assessments, and for situations such as fatigue crack growth, where
the crack growth rate depends on ∆𝐾 3 (∆𝐾 represents the stress intensity factor range applied during
the fatigue cycle). When the through-thickness stress distribution is approximately linear, the K-
solutions given in Annex M are adequate, but there are circumstances in which it is highly non-linear,
for example, when residual or thermal stresses are present. The user may need to linearise the stress
distribution in such a way as to ensure that the stress distribution across the area represented by the
crack is conservatively expressed. This can be done in two ways. For the most accurate K-solution
possible, the stress distribution can be linearised across the extent of the crack and resolved into a
membrane and bending component. However, this approach considers only the Kr-axis, and ignores
the possible contribution of the stress, when classified as primary, to plastic collapse. An alternative
approach is to linearise across the whole section; this allows both Lr and Kr to be calculated from the
same stress data. It is also useful in carrying out general defect-tolerance calculations (i.e. where the
exact location of the flaw is unknown) and to consider the effect of growing flaws.

An example of the two methods of stress linearization is shown in Figure 2, which shows the transverse
residual stress distribution determined in a welded joint in the as-welded condition (18). Also shown is
the approximate upper bound residual stress distribution given in Annex Q for a joint of this type. The
stresses were determined using destructive techniques on one half of a welded plate; an artificial flaw
was machined into the other half and the resulting half-plate was tested to failure under uniaxial loading.

4
Figure 2 Example of stress linearization and use of polynomial stress distributions for the calculation
of KI

If the stress distribution is linearized across the flaw (a25mm) as shown, Qm=50N/mm2, Qb=320N/mm2.
The secondary stress intensity, 𝐾𝐼𝑠 , can then be calculated (𝐾𝐼𝑠 =82.1MPa√m). If the stresses are
linearized across the entire section, Qm=225N/mm2, Qb=30N/mm2 and 𝐾𝐼𝑠 is higher at 𝐾𝐼𝑠 =100.2MPa√m.

Other than recommending linearization, Clause 7 of BS 7910 does not explicitly address the issue of
how to derive K-solutions from non-linear stress distributions such as those arising from welding
residual stress and thermal stress. However, two special K-solutions (for a semi-elliptical flaw in a plate,
and for an extended surface flaw in a plate) are given in Annex Q (the residual stress annex), along
with advice on how to implement them. These are based on weight function/influence function methods;
although the way in which they are currently presented in BS 7910 suggests that they are intended for
use with welding residual stress distributions there is, of course, no reason why they should not equally
be applied to situations in which the primary stress distribution is highly variable.

Figure 3 and Figure 4 compare the ‘Annex M’ solution (due to Newman and Raju) with the ‘Annex Q’
solution (due to Fett, Munz and Neumann, as implemented in the R6 procedure) for the cases in which
a simple comparison can be made, ie under uniform tension and through-wall bending (19). The two
set of solutions produce very similar results. It has been proposed that, in the next revision of BS 7910,
these ‘special’ K-solutions should be transferred from Annex Q to Annex M to reflect their general
applicability to cases where the stress distribution is non-linear. For simple stress distributions such as
those supported by the K-solutions in the current revision of Annex M, the first term or two terms of the
polynomial distribution can be used. ‘Legacy’ calculations based on the current Annex M are thus
unlikely to change significantly if the ‘Annex Q’ equations are used.

5
Figure 3 Comparison of K-solutions for a semi-elliptical surface flaw in a plate under uniform tension;
deepest point of the flaw (from (19))

Figure 4 Comparison of K-solutions for a semi-elliptical surface flaw in a plate under uniform through-
wall bending; deepest point of the flaw (from (19))

Returning to the example given above and shown in Figure 2, use of the 5th order polynomial description
of the stress distribution (based on the upper bound solution given in Annex Q) yields a value of
𝐾𝐼𝑠 =78.0MPa√m, somewhat lower than the values calculated by linearization across the crack. The use

6
of a non-linear stress distribution in this case has reduced the calculated value of crack driving force,
as would be expected.

An optimal calculation using an 8th-order polynomial based on the actual stress distribution (rather than
the 5th-order upper bound curve given in Annex Q) is 𝐾𝐼𝑠 =53.2MPa√m. This method goes beyond the
scope of BS 7910, but does help illustrate how the use of more accurate estimates of stress intensity
factor can optimise the calculation, preventing excessive conservatism.

3.2 K-solutions for cylinders

Another aspect of Annex M that should be mentioned here is the fact that two different sets of K-
solutions are given for ‘cylinders’ (pipes and tubes) containing axial or circumferential flaws. The
solutions given in clause M.7 are based on cylindrical models, but are sometimes quite restrictive in
terms of their validity. For example, the K-solution for internal axial flaws is restricted to 0.1≤B/ri≤0.25,
where B is the section thickness and ri the internal radius (see Table 2). BS 7910 is very widely used
for the assessment of girth welds in high-pressure pipelines, for which the diameter/thickness (D/B)
ratio would typically be in the range 40-60, depending on the grade of steel used and the service
conditions (e.g. offshore or onshore use), i.e. 0.033≤B/ri≤0.05. For these situations, the solutions given
in clause M.6 can be used. They are based on flat plate solutions but, for the case of axial flaws under
internal pressure, modified by a bulging factor, M, where M≥1. For the case of circumferential surface
flaws, and embedded flaws of any orientation, M=1 and the solution reverts to that of a flat plate. A
comparison between the two sets of solutions (18) for the range 0.1≤B/ri≤0.25 has shown that, for finite
internal circumferential flaws (an important case to consider in the assessment of pipeline girth welds)
the two sets of solutions yield similar results, as shown in Figure 5.

Figure 5 Comparison of K-solutions for an internal circumferential flaw in a pipe (adapted from (18))

3.3 K-solutions for welded joints

Annex M (clause M.11) includes solutions for ‘welded joints’, the main emphasis being on flaw located
at weld toes (clause M.11.1), which are sites of stress concentration. The clause presents parametric
solutions for a parameter Mk, which is essentially the ratio of KI for a flaw at a weld toe to the KI for an
equivalent flaw in a plain material (typically a flat plate). For the case of a butt joint or a welded
attachment (see Table 3 for examples), the value of Mk depends mainly on the distance from the weld

7
toe (z), the length of the attachment (L), the section thickness (B) and the loading mode (membrane or
bending).

Two sets of solutions are given in Annex M: one based on 2D FEA (clause M.11.12) and the other on
3D FEA (clause M.11.1.3). Whilst the 3D solutions are more accurate and can take account of other
variables such as weld toe angle and radius, they are also more restricted in their application, e.g. the
validity range on flaw aspect ratio. Consequently, BS 7910:2013 cites both.

The Mk factor is particularly important in modelling fatigue crack growth from naturally-occurring weld
toe intrusions. These are not flaws as such, being typically only a fraction of a millimetre deep, but they
influence the fatigue life of welded joints and help explain the so-called thickness effect in fatigue. In
terms of fracture, high values of Mk are typically associated with shallow flaws at the toe of welds in
thick-section plates (low a/B ratio) and flaws at the toes of long welded attachments (high L/B ratios).

3.4 Reference Stress/Limit Load Solutions (Annex P)

The Lr axis describes the proximity of the flaw to plastic collapse, expressed as the ratio of reference
stress to yield strength (ref/Y) or equivalently as the ratio of the applied primary load to the limit load
of the cracked structure (Papp/Plim). Lr can also be expressed in terms of the applied bending moment to
the limiting bending moment, applied pressure to limit pressure etc.

It should be recognised that the Lr axis performs two functions. First, it defines the point, Lr,max at which
plastic collapse of a cracked structure of indefinitely high toughness would occur. This is typically given
by the ratio of the flow strength to the yield strength of the material ( f/Y), an approximation intended
to allow for multiaxial loading. Second, it scales the permitted value of Kr given in the Failure
Assessment Line (FAL). The FAL effectively represents a J-estimation scheme and so the reference
stress/limit load solutions should not be viewed as just for “plastic collapse” but in conjunction with J
estimation for the crack tip via an appropriate FAL.

Historically, BS 7910 is based on the first concept, ie that of of avoiding plastic collapse by ensuring
that Lr< Lr,max (20). It recognises three different categories of collapse:

1. ‘Gross’ section collapse refers to collapse of an uncracked section, or collapse that is unaffected
by the presence of a flaw. It is therefore strictly speaking outside the remit of BS 7910, although it
is cited in Annex P and should be considered as part of the overall integrity management process.
Two specific examples of gross section collapse are:
 Consider the case of a welded joint with a high level of strength overmatch and a flaw
contained entirely in the weld metal. Yielding of the uncracked parent metal might occur
before any collapse related to the flaw in the weld metal.
 A cylindrical pressure vessel operates under biaxial loading conditions, with hoop stress
double that of the longitudinal stress. In the event that circumferential surface-breaking
flaws are present (but no axial flaw), collapse of the vessel might nevertheless be
dominated by the hoop stress for small flaws, preceding collapse of the flawed section
containing the circumferential flaw (19).
2. ‘Global’ or ‘net section’ collapse refers to the collapse of the section containing the flaw and can be
determined using limit load analysis.
3. ‘Local’ collapse denotes collapse of the ligament adjacent to a part-wall (embedded or surface-
breaking) flaw, and thus occurs at a lower load than does global collapse. It is particularly relevant
in elastic-plastic structures, in which gross plasticity in the ligament could occur long before the
global collapse is reached. [In this context, it should be noted that, whilst BS 7910 does not currently
cover strain-controlled or displacement-controlled loading explicitly, it is often used for this purpose
in conjunction with certain modifications based on experimental and modelling evidence.]

Annex P of BS 7910 contains a mixture of global and local limit loads, as shown in Table 1 and Table
2. These are currently being reviewed and validated against experimental data and numerical models
by both the BS 7910 and R6 committees as discussed below. One issue of concern is that, whilst the
global collapse solutions often provide a more accurate description of collapse conditions, they are not
always conservative when used in conjunction with Option 1/Option 2 FALs for assessment of flaw
initiation.

8
Historically, the solutions given in Annex P of BS 7910 have been presented in terms of the reference
stress, ref, and Lr is expressed as the ratio ref/Y. This definition of Lr has been retained in the 2013
revision in the interests of continuity with earlier versions of the standard, and the solutions are intended
for use with homogeneous cracked bodies, i.e. assuming a single value of Y. For cases in which the
flaw lies, say, in undermatched or overmatched weld metal, a conservative solution can be obtained by
assuming the value of Y to be that of the weaker component (weld metal or parent metal). This would
automatically circumvent the occurrence of gross section collapse as described above.

A decision was made when compiling Annex P of BS 7910:2013 to introduce several new limit load
solutions that would allow the user to take advantage of strength mismatch for selected geometries.
These were taken directly from the R6/SINTAP/FITNET compendia, where they are presented in terms
𝑀 𝑃 𝑀 𝑃
of 𝑃𝑙𝑖𝑚𝑖𝑡 ⁄𝑃𝑙𝑖𝑚𝑡 , where 𝑃𝑙𝑖𝑚𝑖𝑡 represents the limit load considering the mismatch effect and 𝑃𝑙𝑖𝑚𝑖𝑡 is the
limit load for the homogeneous structure made of the parent material. Consequently, Annex P contains
a mixture of solutions; some for homogeneous bodies (sections P.5-P.14), given in terms of ref/Y in
the interests of familiarity/continuity and others for mismatched and clad structures (sections P.15-
𝑀 𝑃
P.16), given in terms of 𝑃𝑙𝑖𝑚𝑖𝑡 ⁄𝑃𝑙𝑖𝑚𝑡 in the interests of greater versatility, and conformity with other
procedures. The solutions do not always converge for the case M=1, i.e. when the tensile properties of
weld metal and parent metal match. The reason for this lies in the fact that the underlying solutions are
not necessarily identical. As an example, let us consider the case of a fully circumferential internal flaw
in a pipe. Section P.10.3 describes a solution for a homogeneous body ‘under combined tension,
bending and pressure’ and cites a number of sources, including Kastner et al (21), for its derivation. For
axial tension only, this solution reduces to a Tresca based net-section collapse limit tension load. For
the equivalent mismatched structure, P.15.5 cites Schwalbe et al (22), where the underlying
homogeneous limit load is also a net-section collapse limit load but based on the Mises yield criterion.
Ultimately it is left to the user to decide which, if any, of the available plastic collapse models is most
suitable, but it would be useful to include some improved advice in future revisions of the document.

It is important to recognise, when looking at BS 7910 through 21st-century eyes, that the original
procedures (eg PD 6493:1980) were developed in the 1970s in a bid to make a case for safe avoidance
of repair of welded structures that did not meet the workmanship standards of the day. Some of the
solutions adopted were lower-bound rather than best-estimate solutions, the idea being that the user
could implement a set of equations and come to a decision as to whether or not the structure was safe,
without having to include an explicit safety margin. Now that the same procedure is being routinely used
in other ways, for example to define a failure limit state as the basis of probabilistic calculations, or
calculations of ‘critical’ flaw size, there is an understandable wish to reduce the ‘inherent conservatism’
in certain aspects of the procedure.

For example, Figure 6 shows the solution given in section P.6.1 of BS 7910 for reference stress
associated with a surface-breaking flaw in a plate due to Willoughby and Davey (23) along with some
of the experimental data used to validate their solution. It can be seen that the solution is a lower bound
rather than a best fit – consequently, it is conservative and safe, but could introduce excessive
conservatism under certain circumstances, in particular when using the procedure to define ‘critical’
flaw sizes and for probabilistic calculations. As discussed elsewhere (24), the fact that BS 7910 is
written as a guide for assessment of flaws can introduce difficulties when it is used instead as a guide
to design of defect-tolerant structures, and it may be necessary to explain the distinction more clearly
in the next revision of BS 7910.

9
Figure 6 Plastic collapse solutions for a surface-breaking flaw in a plate; BS 7910 local collapse
solutions, compared with experimental data

Paradoxically, the safety factor (of around 1.2) associated with the use of the flat plate solution seen in
Figure 6 is also seen in the BS 7910 solution for axial surface-breaking flaws in a pressurised shell
(section P.9).

2𝑃𝑏 [2]
𝜎𝑟𝑒𝑓 = 1.2𝑀𝑠 𝑃𝑚 +
3(1 − 𝛼 ′′ )2

where:

𝑀𝑠 is defined as 𝑀𝑠 = [1 − (𝑎⁄𝐵 )⁄𝑀𝑇 ]⁄(1 − 𝑎⁄𝐵 ),

𝑀𝑇 is the ‘Folias factor’ for a surface flaw (a dimensionless function of flaw size, section thickness and
pipe radius,
𝑃𝑚 is the hoop stress,
𝑃𝑏 is the through-wall bending stress,
𝛼 ′′ is a flaw size parameter (a dimensionless function of flaw size and section thickness).

It appears that the safety factor was deliberately introduced when the solution was added to the 1999
revision of BS 7910, in order to ensure consistency (in terms of safety factor) with Willoughby and
Davey’s solution. The explanation was given in a footnote in the 1999 revision (‘Equation […] is based
on the original Folias solution for thin-walled cylinders […]. The multiplier of 1.2 is introduced to give
similar levels of conservatism to those for flat plates in […]’). This seems more convincing than the
explanation given in the more recent (2005 and 2013) revisions, namely (‘Equation […] is based on the
original Folias solution for thin-walled cylinders […]. The multiplier of 1.2 is an empirical multiplication
factor introduced in this British Standard based on experimental experience gained from large-scale
pipe tests.’)

At the time of writing, a validation exercise is underway to re-examine the results of hundreds of large-
scale test data (including wide plate specimens, pipe and pressure vessel tests and real engineering
failures) available in the public domain in terms of the BS 7910:2013 procedures. To date, all results
relating to failure conditions for pressurised pipes containing axial flaws fall outside the Failure

10
Assessment Line (FAL), regardless of whether a safety factor of 1 or 1.2 is used in equation [2], suggest
that the equation could safely be reformulated without the factor of 1.2.

Validation against experimental data is an important aspect of development of a standard, but inevitably
produces only a ‘snapshot’ – a small part of the broader picture of how solutions compare. Further
information is shown in Figure 7 and Figure 8, which compare the BS 7910, R6 and ASPI/ASME plastic
collapse solutions for the case of an external axial flaw in a cylinder with a diameter/thickness (D/B)
ratio of 22 under internal pressure, intended to be representative of an offshore pipeline. Two different
flaw shapes (a/2c=0.1 and a/2c =0.25, see Figures 7 and 8, respectively) are considered. The original
BS 7910 and a modified version (labelled ‘mod BS’) are shown, along with multiple solutions from the
R6 and API/ASME procedure. The current BS 7910 procedure gives the highest value of Lr across the
flaw size range considered, whilst the ‘modified’ BS 7910 solution lies below those of the API/ASME
procedure for shallow flaws, and above it for deeper flaws.

Figure 7 Plastic collapse solutions for a surface-breaking external axial flaw in a pressurised shell BS
7910, API/ASME and R6; a/2c=0.1

11
Figure 8 Plastic collapse solutions for a surface-breaking external axial flaw in a pressurised shell BS
7910, API/ASME and R6; a/2c=0.25

3.5 Constraint solutions (Annex N)

The geometries for which constraint solutions (Annex N) are available are included in Table 1 for
completeness; further details are given in the companion paper on constraint (16). It should be noted
here that the constraint solutions are closely linked to the reference stress solutions, i.e. a particular
solution (as listed in Annex N) was used to derive the constraint parameter. Consequently, any changes
made to Annex P may also affect Annex N.

4. VALIDATION OF BS 7910:2013 FRACTURE PROCEDURES

The fracture assessment procedures of BS 7910 include several components, each of which may be
calculated in isolation but which need to be combined when assessing the overall integrity of a structure.
For example, the assessment of a simple scenario, such as a known flaw in a flat plate or a pressurised
shell, will typically require the following components: a K-solution, a reference stress/limit load solution,
a Failure Assessment Line, assumptions about the residual stress distribution, a primary/secondary
stress interaction parameter, a convention for extracting characteristic materials properties from raw
data. If the structure does not comply with one of the idealised geometries portrayed in BS 7910,
additional assumptions will have to be made. Validation of the procedure against experimental evidence
is therefore a vital component of a standard such as BS 7910. It helps to build confidence in the
assessment procedure, addressing issues such as scatter in materials properties, choice of solutions
and user interpretation of certain clauses.

All the major flaw assessment procedures include validation against experimental data and/or numerical
models, but because the details of the underlying solutions (K-solution, reference stress, residual stress
distribution etc.) vary between procedures, the evidence of validation can only be transferred from one
procedure to another by re-analysing every aspect of the test. A major re-validation exercise is currently
being carried out on the fracture clauses of BS 7910:2013, to supplement the knowledge gained in the
previous experience with the 1999 and 2005 revisions. Where possible, test data used to validate other
procedures (R6, API/ASME, SINTAP etc.) will also be re-analysed using BS 7910:2013 to allow a
comparison for particular scenarios.

12
5. FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS

The future revision of BS 7910:2013 is currently under discussion by the relevant BSI committee,
including the fracture panel and a series of Working Groups that have been set up to consider specific
aspects of the fracture-related clauses, including K-solutions, reference stress/limit load solutions, flaw
characterisation, leak-before-break, strength mismatch, plasticity interaction, constraint. The following
aspects of the fracture clauses are currently under discussion:

 Correction of minor errors uncovered since publication of the current revision (note that many errors
have already been corrected through publication of Amendment 1 and Corrigenda 1-2).
 Improvement of the K-solutions in order to support non-linear stress distributions; solutions of this
type are already in place in Annex Q for selected geometries, and are intended for use with
secondary stresses. As mentioned earlier, there is no reason why they should not be adopted for
primary stresses too, so selected solutions will be moved from Annex Q to Annex M.
 A review of both K-solutions and reference stress/limit load solutions to ensure that the geometries
of most interest to users are covered.
 A more detailed explanation of the background to specific reference stress/limit load solutions.
 Rationalisation of the terminology and order of appearance of the geometries addressed by
Annexes M, N and P so that any missing solutions are either cited or cross-referenced.
 Removal of the safety factor of 1.2 on the collapse solution for longitudinal flaws in pressurised
pipes.
 A better explanation of the use of BS 7910 in design, and how this differs from it use in assessment.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The contribution of all members of the BSI fracture panel is gratefully acknowledged, as is the financial
support provided to standards-related work by the industrial members of TWI.

13
Table 1 Summary of solutions available in Annexes M, N and P of BS 7910:2013 (flat plates and test specimens)

Annex M Alternative name Picture Loading Figure Annex Annex N Annex P Annex Comment
designation (in BS M (ref) P (limit
7910) load)
Through- CCP (centre-cracked uniaxial M.1, P.8 M.3.1 N.3.2.2.1 P.5.1, P.15.2
thickness flaw plate) tension and global
in a plate) through-wall
bending
biaxial Refers - N.3.2.2.2 - -
tension to M.1

Edge flaw in a ECP (edge-crack uniaxial M.2, M.3.2, N.3.2.2.4 P.5.2, P.15.4 Same as an
plate plate) or SENT (single tension and M.7 M.4.2 global extended
edge-notched through-wall surface flaw in a
tension) if used as a bending plate when
test specimen rotated

Extended - Uniaxial M.7 M.4.2 - P.6.2, - Same as a

surface flaw in tension and global SENT when
a plate through-wall rotated
bending

- DENT (double edge- tension P.1, P.9 - N.3.2.3.3 P.5.3 P.15.3

notched tension) (global,
von Mises)

14
Annex M Alternative name Picture Loading Figure Annex Annex N Annex P Annex Comment
designation (in BS M (ref) P (limit
7910) load)
Surface flaw in SCP (surface-cracked Uniaxial M.3 M.4.1 N.3.2.2.7 P.6.1 - -
a plate plate) tension and and (approx.
through-wall N.3.2.2.8 local
bending solution)

Embedded - Uniaxial M.8 M.4.3 - P.6.3 -

flaw in a plate tension and
through-wall
bending

- Extended embedded Uniaxial P.2 - - P.6.4 -

flaw in a plate tension and
through-wall
bending
Corner flaw in Uniaxial M.11 M.5.1 - P.7.1 -
a plate tension and
through-wall
bending

- SENB (single edge- In-plane - - N.3.2.2.6 - - Typically used

notched bend) bending; 3- as a test
point bend specimen only
- SE(P)B (single edge- In-plane P.10 - N.3.2.2.5 - P.15.4
notched bend) bending;
pure bending

15
Table 2 Summary of solutions available in Annexes M, N and P of BS 7910:2013 (cylinders and spheres)

Annex M Alternative name Picture Loading Figure Annex Annex N Annex Annex Comment
designation (in BS M P (ref) P (limit
7910) load)
Internal surface Internal axial flaw Internal - M.6 - P.9.2 - Uses the equivalent
flaw oriented pressure solution for a flat plate,
axially but with a bulging
Internal surface correction factor, M.
flaw oriented For axial surface and
axially through-thickness
flaws, M≥1
Internal M.14 M.7.2.2 - P.9.2, P.9.6 0.1≤B/ri≤0.25 for K-
pressure and local solution
mechanical
loading
Extended internal Extended internal Internal - M.6 - P.9.5 - Uses the equivalent
flaw oriented axial flaw pressure solution for a flat plate,
axially but with a bulging
correction factor, M.
For axial surface and
through-thickness
flaws, M≥1
Internal M.15 M.7.2.3 - P.9.3, P.9.6 0.001≤B/ri≤0.333 for K-
pressure and global solution
mechanical
loading
External surface External axial flaw Internal - M.6 - P.9.2 - Uses the equivalent
flaw oriented pressure solution for a flat plate,
axially but with a bulging
correction factor, M.
For axial surface and
through-thickness
flaws, M≥1
Internal M.16 M.7.2.4 - P.9.4, P.9.7, 0.1≤B/ri≤0.25 for K-
pressure and local. P.9.8 solution
mechanical P.9.6,
loading local
Extended external Extended external Internal - M.6 - P.9.5 - Uses the equivalent
surface flaw axial flaw pressure solution for a flat plate,
oriented axially but with a bulging

16
Annex M Alternative name Picture Loading Figure Annex Annex N Annex Annex Comment
designation (in BS M P (ref) P (limit
7910) load)
correction factor, M.
For axial surface and
through-thickness
flaws, M≥1
Internal M.17 M.7.2.5 - P.9.5, P.9.7, 0.001≤B/ri≤0.333
pressure and global P.9.8
mechanical
loading
Curved shell Embedded axial Internal - P.6.3 - Uses the equivalent
flaw pressure solution for a flat plate,
but with a bulging
correction factor, M.
For embedded and
circumferential flaws,
M=1.

Through- Internal M.18 M.7.3.1 - P.10.1 -

thickness flaw pressure and
oriented mechanical
circumferentially loading
Internal - M.6 - P.10.1 -
pressure

Internal surface CISSCCT/ Internal M.19, M.7.3.2 N.3.2.3.3 P.10.2 P.11

flaw oriented CISSCCBT pressure and P.3a) (tension or
circumferentially (Annex N mechanical internal
terminology) loading pressure)
Internal - M.6 - P.10.2
pressure

CISLCCT (Annex Internal M.20, M.7.3.3 N.3.2.3.1 P.10.3

N terminology) pressure and P.11 (tension)

17
Annex M Alternative name Picture Loading Figure Annex Annex N Annex Annex Comment
designation (in BS M P (ref) P (limit
7910) load)
Extended internal mechanical
surface oriented loading
circumferentially Internal - M.6 - P.10.3 -
pressure

External surface Internal P.3b) M.7.3.4 - P.10.4 P.11

flaw oriented pressure and
circumferentially mechanical
loading
Internal - M.6 - P.10.4 -
pressure

Extended external Internal M.21 M.7.3.5 - P.10.5 -

surface oriented pressure and
circumferentially mechanical
loading
Internal - M.6 - P.10.5 -
pressure

Embedded flaw Embedded flaw Internal - M.6 - P.10.6 -

(M.4.7.3.6) oriented pressure
circumferentially
(M.4.7.3.6)

18
Annex M Alternative name Picture Loading Figure Annex Annex N Annex Annex Comment
designation (in BS M P (ref) P (limit
7910) load)
Through- Uniform M.22 M.8 - P.12 -
thickness flaw in membrane
a spherical shell stress and
through-wall
bending
stress

19
Table 3 Summary of solutions available in Annexes M, N and P of BS 7910:2013 (tubular joints, corner flaws, welded joints, round bars)

Annex M Alternative Picture Loading Figure Annex M Annex Annex P Annex P Comment
designation name (in BS N (ref) (limit
7910) load)
Tubular joints - - - P.4-P.6 M.9 - P.14 - M.9 refers to
(offshore) Annex B.
P.14 gives
equations for
collapse load for
the uncracked
body
Single corner flaw Uniaxial M.12 M.5.2, - P.7.3 -
at hole tension and M.5.3
bending

Corner flaws at Uniaxial M.12 M.5.2 - P.7.2 -

hole tension and
bending

Welded joint T-butt weld Membrane and M.25 M.11.1 - See - Plate or cylinder
geometry through-wall comment solution, as
bending appropriate

Butt weld

20
Annex M Alternative Picture Loading Figure Annex M Annex Annex P Annex P Comment
designation name (in BS N (ref) (limit
7910) load)
Transverse load- Weld root flaw Transverse to M.26 M.11.2 - P.5.1 - Straight-fronted
carrying cruciform flaw crack
joint

Transverse load- Weld toe flaw Transverse to M.26 M.11.1/ - P.6.1 -

carrying cruciform flaw M.4.1
joint

Straight-fronted Membrane and M.23a) M.10.1 - P.13.1 -

flaw in round bar bending

Semi-circular Membrane and M.23a) M.10.2 - P.13.1 -

surface flaw in bending
round bar

21
Annex M Alternative Picture Loading Figure Annex M Annex Annex P Annex P Comment
designation name (in BS N (ref) (limit
7910) load)
Semi-elliptical Membrane and M.23b) M.10.3 - P.13.1 - Definition of 2c
surface flaw in bending needs to change in
round bar next revision

Fully Extended Membrane and M.24 M.10.5 - P.13.2 -

circumferential surface flaw in bending
surface flaw in a round bar
round bar

Semi-elliptical flaw Membrane and M.23c) M.10.4.1 - P.13.1 -

in a bolt bending

22
 REFERENCES

1. BS 7910:2013+A1:2015 incorporating Amendment 1 and Corrigenda 1-2: ‘Guide to methods for

assessing the acceptability of flaws in metallic structures’.
2. Isabel Hadley: ‘BS 7910: history and future developments’, PVP2009-78057, ASME PVP,
Prague, Czech Republic, 26-30 July 2009.
3. Isabel Hadley, Bob Ainsworth, Peter Budden, John Sharples: ‘The Future of the BS 7910 Flaw
Assessment Procedures’, ASME PVP2010-25582.
4. Isabel Hadley: ‘Progress Towards the Revision of BS 7910’ PVP2011-57307: ASME Pressure
Vessels and Piping Division Conference, Baltimore, Maryland, USA, July 2011.
5. Sefika Elvin Eren Isabel Hadley, and Kamran Nikbin: ‘Differences in the Assessment of Plastic
collapse in BS 7910:2005 and R6/Fitnet FFS Procedures’, PVP2011-57255: ASME Pressure
Vessels and Piping Division Conference, Baltimore, Maryland, USA, July 2011.
6. Bostjan Besensek John Sharples, Isabel Hadley, Henryk Pisarski: ‘The History of BS 7910 Flaw
Interaction Criteria’ PVP2011-58857: ASME Pressure Vessels and Piping Division Conference,
Baltimore, Maryland, USA, July 2011.
7. SE Eren, Y Yang, T London and I Hadley: ‘Validation of plastic collapse assessments using BS
7910:2013 and R6 procedures’, PVP2013-97513, Proceedings of the ASME 2013 Pressure
Vessels and Piping Conference, July 14-18, Paris, France.
8. Isabel Hadley and Henryk G Pisarski: ‘Overview of BS 7910:2013’, ESIA12, 12th International
Conference on Engineering Structural Integrity Assessment, 28 and 29 May 2013, Manchester, UK.
9. BS 7910:2005+A1:2007: ‘Guide to methods for assessing the acceptability of flaws in metallic
structures’, BSI, 2007.
10. PD 6493: 1991: Guidance on methods for assessing the acceptability of flaws in fusion welded
structures’, BSI, 1991.
11. R6 Revision 4: ‘Assessment of the Integrity of Structures containing Defects’, 2001, as amended
12. SINTAP: see http://www.eurofitnet.org/sintap_index.html (accessed November 2018). [Note
that this procedure has been superseded by FITNET and BS 7910:2013].
13. FITNET: see http://www.eurofitnet.org/ (accessed November 2018). [Note that this procedure is
out of print and has effectively been superseded by BS 7910:2013].
14. Isabel Hadley and Henryk Pisarski: Materials properties for Engineering Critical Assessment:
background to the advice given in BS 7910:2013, International Journal of Pressure Vessels and
Piping, Volume 168, December 2018, Pages 191-199.
15. John Sharples and Isabel Hadley: Treatment of Residual Stress in fracture assessment:
background to the advice given in BS 7910:2013, submitted to IPVP_2018_155.
16. Isabel Hadley and Anthony Horn: Treatment of constraint in BS 7910:2013, ISO 27306 and DNVGL-
RP-F108, submitted to IPVP_2018_157.
17. Charles Schneider, Alan Smith, Colin Bird and Martin Wall: Use of Non-destructive Testing for
Engineering Critical Assessment: background to the advice given in BS 7910:2013, submitted to
IPVP_2018_347
18. Isabel Hadley: ‘Effects of warm prestress on residual stress and fracture in uniaxially loaded
welded joints’, TWI industrial members’ report 1093/2017 (30169/1-1/16), available on request.
19. I Hadley, M Goldthorpe and L Wei, ‘Compilation of K-solutions for fitness-for-service procedures’,
TWI industrial members’ report 849/2006, available on request.
20. SJ Garwood and R Phaal: ‘Developments and revisions to BS PD 6493:1991’, Institute of Materials
2nd Griffith Conference, 13-15 Sept 1995, Sheffield, UK.
21. KASTNER, W., ROHRICH, E., SCHMITT, W. and STEINBUCH, R. Critical crack sizes in ductile
piping. In: International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping, 1981, 9(3): 197–219. ISSN:
03080161.
22. SCHWALBE, K.H., KIM, Y.J., HAO, S., CORNEC, A. and KOÇAK, M. EFAM ETMMM, The ETM
method for assessing the significance of cracklike defects in joints with mechanical heterogeneity
(strength mismatch). GKSS Report GKSS/97/E/9. Geesthacht, Germany: GKSS, 1997.
23. WILLOUGHBY, A.A. and DAVEY, T.G. 1989. Plastic collapse at part wall flaws in plates. In: R.P.
WEI, ed. Fracture mechanics: perspectives and directions. Proc. 20th national symposium. STP
1020. Bethlehem, PA, June 23–25 1987. Philadelphia: ASTM: 390–409. ISBN 0803112505.
24. NO Larrosa, RA Ainsworth, R Akid, PJ Budden, CM Davies, I Hadley, DR Tice, A Turnbull and S
Zhou: ‘‘Mind the gap’ in fitness-for-service assessment’, IJPVP, 158 (2017), 1-19.

23

View publication stats