Proceedings of the ASME 2015 Pressure Vessels and Piping Conference

PVP2015
July 19-23, 2015, Boston, Massachusetts, USA

PVP2015-45236

COMPARISON OF THE STRESS INTENSITY FACTOR INFLUENCE COEFFICIENTS

FOR AXIAL ID SURFACE CRACKS IN CYLINDERS OF RSE-M AND API 579-1

Patrick Le Delliou Stéphane Chapuliot

Electricité de France (EDF) AREVA NP
Research and Development Division 1, Place Jean Millier
77818 Moret-sur-Loing Cedex France 92400 Courbevoie France
Tel: 33-160736403 Email: [email protected]
Email: [email protected]

ABSTRACT NOMENCLATURE
Analytical evaluation procedures for determining the a Crack depth
acceptability of flaw detected during in-service inspection of Aj Coefficients of polynomial representation of stress
nuclear power plant components are provided in Appendix 5.4 distribution over crack depth
of the French RSE-M Code. Linear elastic fracture mechanics Bj Coefficients of polynomial representation of stress
based evaluation procedures require calculation of the stress distribution through the wall thickness
intensity factor (SIF). In Appendix 5.4 of the RSE-M Code, c One-half of the crack length
influence coefficients needed to compute the SIF are provided Gj Influence coefficients for the stress intensity factor
for a wide range of surface axial or circumferential flaws in ij Influence coefficients for the stress intensity factor
cylinders, the through-wall stress field being represented by a KI Stress intensity factor
cubic equation. On the other hand, Appendix C of API 579-1 Q Flaw shape parameter
FFS procedure provides also a very complete set of influence Ri Inner radius of a cylinder
coefficients. t Wall thickness
The paper presents the comparison of the influence (x) Actual stress distribution
coefficients from both documents, focused on axial ID semi- (x)A Polynomial representation of stress distribution over crack
elliptical surface flaws in cylinders. The cylinder and crack depth
geometries are represented by three ratios: Ri/t, a/t, and a/c, (x)B Polynomial representation of stress distribution through
where Ri, t, a, and c are respectively the inner radius, the wall wall thickness
thickness, the crack depth and one-half of the crack length. The
solutions for the coefficients G0 and G1 at the deepest point and INTRODUCTION
at the surface point are investigated.
At the deepest point, the agreement between the solutions is The influence coefficients given in Appendix 5.4 of the
good, the relative difference being lower than 2 %, except for RSE-M Code were developed at the end of the 1990’s thanks to
the plate (Ri/t = ) at a/c = 0.125 and 0.0625 and a/t = 0.8 a very large finite element computation grid. Appendix C of API
(around 5 %). At the surface point, the agreement between both 579-1 FFS procedure provides also a very complete set of
solutions is not so good. At this point, the relative differences influence coefficients, developed by Anderson for the Welding
depend strongly on the a/c ratio, being larger for elongated Research Committee.
cracks (with low a/c ratios). However, it must be recalled that The paper presents the comparison of the influence
the absolute values of the coefficients are low at the surface coefficients from both documents, focused on axial ID semi-
point for elongated cracks, and that for these cracks the critical elliptical surface cracks in cylinders (Fig. 1). The solutions at the
point regarding the stress intensity factor is the deepest point. deepest point and at the surface point are investigated. The
comparison is made directly on the influence coefficients, since

1 Copyright © 2015 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/conferences/asmep/86316/ on 03/24/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/abo

 the stress intensity factors are directly proportional to these A good approximation of the flaw shape parameter Q is
coefficients, for a given crack size. given by the relation (valid for a/c ≤ 1):
1.65
a
METHOD OF CALCULATION OF STRESS INTENSITY Q  1  1.464   (5)
FACTORS FOR SURFACE FLAWS IN ASME SECTION c
XI, RSE-M APPENDIX 5.4 AND API-579
API-579 considers a through-wall fourth order polynomial
In accordance with Appendix A of ASME Section XI [1] stress distribution. In this case, the actual stress normal to the
and Appendix 5.4 of the RSE-M Code [2], a detected surface plane of the flaw is fitted to a polynomial representation over the
planar flaw is represented by a semi-ellipse. In engineering wall thickness, t, represented by:
evaluations, these planar flaws are treated as cracks, and the 2 3 4
x x x x
stress intensity factor (SIF) is calculated to assess their x B  B0  B1    B2    B3    B4   (6)
harmfulness. In the 2013 Edition of Article A-3000 of ASME  
t  
t  
t t
Section XI, the calculation of SIF for a surface crack is based on Accordingly, the SIF KI is calculated using the following
the representation of the actual stress field with a cubic equation relation:
and use of stress intensity factor influence coefficients [1]. The j
4
a a
influence coefficients are given only for the plate, and may be KI  Bj   G j (7)
overly conservative for flawed cylinders. j0  
t Q
The ASME Section XI Working Group on Flaw Evaluation It should be noted that despite the different definition of the
is currently working on major improvements of Article A-3000 stress field between (1) and (6), the values of the influence
of Appendix A [3]. One of the updates is to include the SIF coefficients G used to compute the stress intensity factors in (2)
influence coefficients for the cylinder geometry. The influence and (7) are strictly the same.
coefficients will come from API 579-1 procedure [4]. However,
in this procedure, the coefficients are given in a tabular form and ORIGIN AND DESCRIPTION OF THE INFLUENCE
an effort is currently made to develop closed-form relations in COEFFICIENTS FOR AXIAL ID SURFACE FLAWS IN
order to avoid multiple interpolations in the tables [5]. CYLINDER
API 579-1 solution
Method for calculating stress intensity factors
For semi-elliptical surface flaws on the ID surface of
When the actual stress normal to the plane of the flaw is
cylindrical geometries, API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 [4] covers a
fitted to a polynomial representation over the full crack depth,
the stress is represented by: Ri/t range of 1 to , an a/t range of 0 to 0.8, and an a/c range of
2 3
0.03125 to 2. The solutions were developed specifically for API
x x x
x A  A 0  A1    A 2    A 3   (1) 579-1 by Anderson et al [6].
a a a The values of G0 and G1 are given in Table C.10 (for cracks
where a, Aj, and (x)A are defined in the nomenclature. The with a/c = 0) and in Table C.12 (for cracks with a/c > 0) of API
parameter x represents the distance from the surface and moving 579-1. API 579-1 enables to compute K at any point along the
positive towards the tip of the surface crack (see Fig. 2). crack front (defined by the elliptic angle , see Fig. 3), and for
that reason seven coefficients noted A0 to A6 are tabulated for
The SIF KI is calculated using the following relation: each elementary case. At a current point defined by the angle ,
the coefficient Gi is obtained by the relation:
3
a
K I   A jG j (2) n
6
 2 
j0 Q Gi   An    (8)
where Gj is an influence coefficient relative to the exponent “j” n 0  
of the loading and Q is the flaw shape parameter. To take into At the surface point ( = 0°), Gi = A0 whereas at the deepest
account the effect of an inner pressure, this pressure should be 6
added to the stress component A0. point ( = /2), G i   An .
n 0

In the RSE-M Code, the SIF KI is calculated using a slightly More precisely, the following geometries are covered:
different relation: Ri/t ratios: 1, 3, 5, 10, 20, 60, 100, 
3 a/t ratios: 0, 0.2, 0.4, 0.6, 0.8
K I   A ji j a (3) a/c ratios: 0, 0.03125, 0.0625, 0.125, 0.25, 0.5, 1, 2
j0
where ij is an influence coefficient relative to the exponent “j” of The case of a/c = 0 corresponds to axially infinite ID
the loading. It is obvious that the two kinds of influence surface crack and the case of Ri/t =  to the plate.
coefficients are linked by the relation: Approximate higher order influence coefficients G2 to G4
Gj  ij Q (4) can be computed from G0 and G1 [7].

2 Copyright © 2015 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/conferences/asmep/86316/ on 03/24/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/abo

 RSE-M Appendix 5.4 solution The largest relative differences are listed in Table 1, for
For semi-elliptical surface flaws on the ID surface of each Ri/t ratio and each influence coefficient. At the deepest
cylindrical geometries, Appendix 5.4 of the RSE-M Code [2] point, the agreement between the solutions is good, the relative
covers a Ri/t range of 1 to , an a/t range of 0 to 0.8, and an a/c difference being lower than 2 %, except for the plate (R i/t = )
range of 0.0625 to 1. The solutions were developed specifically at a/c = 0.125 and 0.0625 and a/t = 0.8 (around 5 %).
for RSE-M Appendix 5.4 by Chapuliot [8].
At the surface point, the agreement between both solutions
is not so good. At this point, the differences depend strongly on
The values of i0 to i3 at the deepest point and at the surface
the a/c ratio. They are generally below 5 % for a/c = 1, 0.5 and
point are given in Table VII.2.3.1.2 (TUB-LDSI case) of
0.25, close to 10 % for a/c = 0.125 and close to 20 % for
Appendix 5.4. a/c = 0.0625. Moreover, the RSE-M values at a/t = 0 are
constantly higher than the API ones, particularly for G1. The
More precisely, the following geometries are covered: maximum relative difference (-32 %) is observed for
Ri/t ratios: 1, 2, 5, 10, 20, 40, 80,  a/c = 0.0625 (0.014 against 0.020), and is not depending on the
a/t ratios: 0, 0.1, 0.2, 0.4, 0.6, 0.8 Ri/t ratio. Once again, this relative difference on the coefficients
a/c ratios: 0, 0.0625, 0.125, 0.25, 0.5, 1 will not be critical for elongated crack because the coefficient at
the surface point is much lower than at the deepest point, so the
From the viewpoint of the applicability to wide range of deepest point will be most critical point regarding the stress
parameters and fineness of matrices, Miura [9] recommended intensity factor value.
the use of Chapuliot’s solution (compared to other solutions
available at this time). To understand the reason of this difference at the surface
point, a finite element computation was conducted on a
COMPARISON OF THE SOLUTIONS particular case (Ri/t = 5 – a/t =0.4 – a/c = 0.125) to compute the
elastic J integral along the crack front, for unitary pressure
When comparing the geometries covered by both sets of loading applied to the crack face. The corresponding mesh is
solutions, it appears that the following geometries can be presented on Fig. 24. The stress intensity factor is derived from J
compared without any interpolation or extrapolation: by the following equation, assuming a plane strain condition:
Ri/t ratios: 1, 5, 10, 20, 
JE
a/t ratios: 0, 0.2, 0.4, 0.6, 0.8 KI  (10)
a/c ratios: 0, 0.0625, 0.125, 0.25, 0.5, 1 1  2

For each Ri/t ratio selected, the coefficients G0 and G1 at the where E and  are respectively the Young’s modulus and
deepest point and at the surface point are compared graphically the Poisson’s ratio (200,000 MPa and 0.3).
on Fig. 4 to Fig. 23, as a function of the a/t ratio. One can The evolution of the coefficients G0 and G1 along the crack
observe that at the deepest point, the values are very close front is presented in Fig. 25 and Fig. 26. One can see that the
between API and RSE-M. At the surface point, some differences agreement between API-579 (equation (8)) and the FE solution
are evident between API and RSE-M solutions: is very good all along the crack front, except near the surface
point for the G0 coefficient. The sixth order polynomial fit used
 for a/c = 0.0625, the RSE-M values are above the API
by API-579 cannot handle precisely the evolution of G0 near the
ones, whereas for a/c = 1 the RSE-M values are below
surface.
the API ones,
CONCLUSIONS
 for the Ri/t ratios of 10, 20 and , and a/c = 1, the API
values show an irregular variation. The influence coefficients G0 and G1 for axial ID semi-
elliptical surface cracks in cylinders from API 579-1 and RSE-M
However, it should be recalled first that the computation of
Code Appendix 5.4 have been compared.
the stress intensity factor (and hence the computation of the
influence coefficient) at the surface point is not easy and At the deepest point, the agreement between the solutions is
accurate and second, that the values of G0 and G1 at this point good, the relative difference being lower than 2 %, except for
are generally lower than at the deepest point, particularly for G 1 the plate (Ri/t = ) at a/c = 0.125 and 0.0625 and a/t = 0.8
(always lower than 0.3). The plane strain condition that prevails (around 5 %).
along the crack front far from the free surface vanishes as the
At the surface point, the agreement between both solutions
point of the crack front comes closer to this surface [10].
is not so good. At this point, the differences depend strongly on
More precisely, the relative difference between the two the a/c ratio. They are generally below 5 % for a/c = 1, 0.5 and
solutions was evaluated by: 0.25, close to 10 % for a/c = 0.125 and close to 20 % for
a/c = 0.0625. The maximum relative difference (-32 %) is
 G API  observed for a/c = 0.0625 (0.014 against 0.020). However, it
Re lative difference (%)    1 x 100 (9)
 G RSEM  must be recalled that the absolute values of the coefficients are
low at the surface point for elongated cracks, and that for these

3 Copyright © 2015 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/conferences/asmep/86316/ on 03/24/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/abo

 cracks the critical point regarding the stress intensity factor is
the deepest point.
On the overall, the agreement between both solutions is
satisfactory, taking into account that for elongated defects, the
deepest point is the most critical point regarding the stress
intensity factor value.
A FE computation of a particular case has shown that the
difference at the surface point comes from the sixth order
polynomial fit used by API-579 to compute the influence
coefficient all along the crack front. This fit cannot handle
properly the evolution of the influence coefficient near the
surface. Some additional FE checks should be conducted for
elongated defects to clarify this point.

REFERENCES
1. “Rules for In-service Inspection of Nuclear Power Plant
Components”, Section XI, Division 1, ASME Boiler and
Pressure Vessel Code, 2013 Edition
2. “Rules for In-service Inspection of Nuclear Power Plant
Components”, 2010 Edition and 2013 Addendum, AFCEN,
Paris
3. “Proposed Change and Rewrite of K I Calculation Procedure
in Appendix A”, ASME Section XI Working Group on
Flaw Evaluation, February 11, 2014
4. Fitness-for-Service, API 579 Second Edition, API 579-
1/ASME FFS-1, June 5, 1997
5. Xu, S.X., Darrell, D.R., et al, 2014, “Closed-form relations
for stress intensity factor influence coefficients for axial ID
surface flaws in cylinders for Appendix A of ASME Section
XI”, Proceedings of ASME 2014 PV&P Conference, paper
PVP#2014-28222
6. Anderson, T.L. et al, “Development of stress intensity factor
solutions for surface and embedded cracks in API 579”,
WRC Bulletin 471, Welding Research Council, Inc. New
York, NY, May 2002
7. Cipolla, R.C., and Lee, D.R., 2004, “Technical basis for
equations for stress intensity factor coefficients in ASME
Section XI Appendix A”, Proceedings of ASME 2004
PV&P Conference, Vol. 480, paper PVP#2004-2708, pp.
301-312
8. Chapuliot, S., 2000, “Formulaire de KI pour les tubes
comportant un défaut de surface semi-elliptique longitudinal
ou circonférentiel, interne ou externe”, Commissariat à
l’Energie Atomique, Internal Report CEA-R-5900
9. Miura, N. et al, 2008, “Comparison of stress intensity factor
solutions for axial and circumferential cracks”, Nuclear
Engineering and Design, Vol. 238, pp. 423-434
10. Pook, L.P., “Crack profiles and corner point singularities”,
2000, Fatigue and Fracture of Engineering Materials and
Structures, Vol. 23, pp. 141-150

4 Copyright © 2015 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/conferences/asmep/86316/ on 03/24/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/abo

 TABLE 1 LARGEST VALUES OF THE RELATIVE
DIFFERENCES ON G0 AN G1

Ri/t Coefficient Relative a/c a/t

difference (%)
G0d 1.5 1 0.4
G1d 1.5 0.25 0
1
G0s -23.6 0.0625 0.6
G1s -31.9 0.0625 0
G0d 1.4 0.0625 0.4
G1d 2.4 0.0625 0.8
5
G0s -21.6 0.0625 0.6
G1s -31.9 0.0625 0
G0d 1.4 1 0.2
G1d 1.7 0.0625 0.6
10
G0s -21.5 0.0625 0.6
G1s -31.9 0.0625 0 FIG. 2 STRESS DISTRIBUTION ACTING OVER THE CRACK
DEPTH, NORMALLY TO THE CRACK PLANE
G0d 1.3 1 0.2
G1d 1.8 1 0.6
20
G0s -21.4 0.0625 0.6
G1s -31.9 0.0625 0
G0d 5.1 0.125 0.8
G1d 4.3 0.0625 0.8

G0s -21.0 0.0625 0.4
FIG. 3 DEFINITION OF THE ELLIPTIC ANGLE  AT A GIVEN
G1s -31.9 0.0625 0 POSITION ALONG THE CRACK FRONT
Axial ID surface flaws in cylinders - Ri/t = 1 - G0 - deepest point
2,0

API a/c = 1
RSE-M a/c = 1
1,8
API a/c = 0.5
RSE-M a/c = 0.5
API a/c = 0.25
1,6 RSE-M a/c = 0.25
G0 - deepest point

API a/c = 0
RSE-M a/c = 0
1,4

1,2

1,0

0,8
0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6 0,7 0,8 0,9
a/t

FIG. 1 AN AXIAL ID SEMI-ELLIPTICAL SURFACE FLAW IN A FIG. 4 CYLINDER WITH Ri/t = 1. COMPARISON OF THE
CYLINDER COEFFICIENT G0 AT THE DEEPEST POINT

5 Copyright © 2015 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/conferences/asmep/86316/ on 03/24/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/abo

 Axial ID surface flaws in cylinders - Ri/t = 1 - G1 - deepest point Axial ID surface flaws in cylinders - Ri/t = 5 - G0 - deepest point
1,10 4,0

1,05 API a/c = 1 API a/c = 1

RSE-M a/c = 1 RSE-M a/c = 1
3,5
1,00 API a/c = 0.5 API a/c = 0.5
RSE-M a/c = 0.5 RSE-M a/c = 0.5
0,95 API a/c = 0.25 API a/c = 0.25
RSE-M a/c = 0.25 3,0
RSE-M a/c = 0.25
G1 - deepest point

G0 - deepest point
0,90 API a/c = 0
API a/c = 0.0625
RSE-M a/c = 0
RSE-M a/c = 0.0625
0,85 2,5
API a/c = 0

0,80 RSE-M a/c = 0

2,0
0,75

0,70
1,5
0,65

0,60 1,0
0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6 0,7 0,8 0,9 0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6 0,7 0,8 0,9
a/t a/t

FIG. 5 CYLINDER WITH Ri/t = 1. COMPARISON OF THE FIG. 8 CYLINDER WITH Ri/t = 5. COMPARISON OF THE
COEFFICIENT G1 AT THE DEEPEST POINT COEFFICIENT G0 AT THE DEEPEST POINT
Axial ID surface flaws in cylinders - Ri/t = 1 - G0 - surface point Axial ID surface flaws in cylinders - Ri/t = 5 - G1 - deepest point
1,4 1,8

API a/c = 1
1,2 RSE-M a/c = 1
1,6
API a/c = 0.5
RSE-M a/c = 0.5
1,0 API a/c = 0.25
1,4
RSE-M a/c = 0.25

G1 - deepest point
G0 - surface point

API a/c = 1 API a/c = 0.0625

0,8
RSE-M a/c = 1 RSE-M a/c = 0.0625
1,2 API a/c = 0
API a/c = 0.5
0,6 RSE-M a/c = 0
RSE-M a/c = 0.5
API a/c = 0.25 1,0
0,4 RSE-M a/c = 0.25
API a/c = 0.0625
0,8
0,2 RSE-M a/c = 0.0625

0,0 0,6
0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6 0,7 0,8 0,9 0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6 0,7 0,8 0,9
a/t a/t

FIG. 6 CYLINDER WITH Ri/t = 1. COMPARISON OF THE FIG. 9 CYLINDER WITH Ri/t = 5. COMPARISON OF THE
COEFFICIENT G0 AT THE SURFACE POINT COEFFICIENT G1 AT THE DEEPEST POINT
Axial ID surface flaws in cylinders - Ri/t = 1 - G1 - surface point Axial ID surface flaws in cylinders - Ri/t = 5 - G0 - surface point
0,30 1,6

1,4
0,25

1,2

0,20
1,0
G1 - surface point

G0 - surface point

API a/c = 1
API a/c = 1
RSE-M a/c = 1
0,15 0,8 RSE-M a/c = 1
API a/c = 0.5
API a/c = 0.5
RSE-M a/c = 0.5 0,6
RSE-M a/c = 0.5
0,10
API a/c = 0.25
API a/c = 0.25
RSE-M a/c = 0.25 0,4
RSE-M a/c = 0.25
0,05 API a/c = 0.0625
API a/c = 0.0625
0,2
RSE-M a/c = 0.0625
RSE-M a/c = 0.0625

0,00 0,0
0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6 0,7 0,8 0,9 0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6 0,7 0,8 0,9
a/t a/t

FIG. 7 CYLINDER WITH Ri/t = 1. COMPARISON OF THE FIG. 10 CYLINDER WITH Ri/t = 5. COMPARISON OF THE
COEFFICIENT G1 AT THE SURFACE POINT COEFFICIENT G0 AT THE SURFACE POINT

6 Copyright © 2015 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/conferences/asmep/86316/ on 03/24/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/abo

 Axial ID surface flaws in cylinders - Ri/t = 5 - G1 - surface point Axial ID surface flaws in cylinders - Ri/t = 10 - G0 - surface point
0,30 1,6

1,4
0,25

1,2

0,20
1,0 API a/c = 1
G1 - surface point

G0 - surface point
API a/c = 1
RSE-M a/c = 1
RSE-M a/c = 1
0,15 0,8 API a/c = 0.5
API a/c = 0.5
RSE-M a/c = 0.5
RSE-M a/c = 0.5 0,6
API a/c = 0.25
0,10
API a/c = 0.25
RSE-M a/c = 0.25
RSE-M a/c = 0.25 0,4
API a/c = 0.0625
0,05 API a/c = 0.0625
0,2 RSE-M a/c = 0.0625
RSE-M a/c = 0.0625

0,00 0,0
0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6 0,7 0,8 0,9 0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6 0,7 0,8 0,9
a/t a/t

FIG. 11 CYLINDER WITH Ri/t = 5. COMPARISON OF THE FIG. 14 CYLINDER WITH Ri/t = 10. COMPARISON OF THE
COEFFICIENT G1 AT THE SURFACE POINT COEFFICIENT G0 AT THE SURFACE POINT
Axial ID surface flaws in cylinders - Ri/t = 10 - G0 - deepest point Axial ID surface flaws in cylinders - Ri/t = 10 - G1 - surface point
6,0 0,30

5,5 API a/c = 1

RSE-M a/c = 1
0,25
5,0 API a/c = 0.5
RSE-M a/c = 0.5
4,5
API a/c = 0.25
0,20
RSE-M a/c = 0.25
G0 - deepest point

G1 - surface point
4,0 API a/c = 1
API a/c = 0.0625
RSE-M a/c = 0.0625 RSE-M a/c = 1
3,5 0,15
API a/c = 0 API a/c = 0.5
3,0 RSE-M a/c = 0 RSE-M a/c = 0.5
0,10 API a/c = 0.25
2,5
RSE-M a/c = 0.25
2,0 API a/c = 0.0625
0,05
RSE-M a/c = 0.0625
1,5

1,0 0,00
0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6 0,7 0,8 0,9 0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6 0,7 0,8 0,9
a/t a/t

FIG. 12 CYLINDER WITH Ri/t = 10. COMPARISON OF THE FIG. 15 CYLINDER WITH Ri/t = 10. COMPARISON OF THE
COEFFICIENT G0 AT THE DEEPEST POINT COEFFICIENT G1 AT THE SURFACE POINT
Axial ID surface flaws in cylinders - Ri/t = 10 - G1 - deepest point Axial ID surface flaws in cylinders - Ri/t = 20 - G0 - deepest point
2,4 8

API a/c = 1 API a/c = 1

2,2
RSE-M a/c = 1 7 RSE-M a/c = 1

API a/c = 0.5 API a/c = 0.5

2,0
RSE-M a/c = 0.5 RSE-M a/c = 0.5
6
API a/c = 0.25 API a/c = 0.25
1,8
RSE-M a/c = 0.25
G0 - deepest point
G1 - deepest point

RSE-M a/c = 0.25

API a/c = 0.0625 5 API a/c = 0.0625
1,6
RSE-M a/c = 0.0625
RSE-M a/c = 0.0625
API a/c = 0
1,4 API a/c = 0 4
RSE-M a/c = 0
RSE-M a/c = 0
1,2
3

1,0

2
0,8

0,6 1
0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6 0,7 0,8 0,9 0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6 0,7 0,8 0,9

a/t a/t

FIG. 16 CYLINDER WITH Ri/t = 20. COMPARISON OF THE

FIG. 13 CYLINDER WITH Ri/t = 10. COMPARISON OF THE COEFFICIENT G0 AT THE DEEPEST POINT
COEFFICIENT G1 AT THE DEEPEST POINT

7 Copyright © 2015 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/conferences/asmep/86316/ on 03/24/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/abo

 Axial ID surface flaws in cylinders - Ri/t = 20 - G1 - deepest point Axial ID surface flaws in cylinders - Ri/t =  - G0 - deepest point
3,1 13

API a/c = 1 API a/c = 1

RSE-M a/c = 1 RSE-M a/c = 1
11
2,6 API a/c = 0.5 API a/c = 0.5

RSE-M a/c = 0.5 RSE-M a/c = 0.5

API a/c = 0.25 API a/c = 0.25

9
RSE-M a/c = 0.25
G1 - deepest point

G0 - deepest point
RSE-M a/c = 0.25
2,1
API a/c = 0.0625
API a/c = 0.0625
RSE-M a/c = 0.0625
RSE-M a/c = 0.0625 7
API a/c = 0
API a/c = 0
RSE-M a/c = 0
1,6 RSE-M a/c = 0
5

1,1
3

0,6 1
0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6 0,7 0,8 0,9 0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6 0,7 0,8 0,9
a/t a/t

FIG. 20 CYLINDER WITH Ri/t =  (PLATE). COMPARISON OF

FIG. 17 CYLINDER WITH Ri/t = 20. COMPARISON OF THE
THE COEFFICIENT G0 AT THE DEEPEST POINT
COEFFICIENT G1 AT THE DEEPEST POINT
Axial ID surface flaws in cylinders - Ri/t = 10 - G1 - deepest point
Axial ID surface flaws in cylinders - Ri/t = 20 - G0 - surface point 5,1
1,6
API a/c = 1
4,6
1,4 RSE-M a/c = 1

4,1 API a/c = 0.5

RSE-M a/c = 0.5
1,2
3,6 API a/c = 0.25

G1 - deepest point
RSE-M a/c = 0.25
1,0
G0 - surface point

3,1 API a/c = 0.0625

API a/c = 1
RSE-M a/c = 0.0625
0,8 RSE-M a/c = 1
2,6 API a/c = 0
API a/c = 0.5 RSE-M a/c = 0
0,6 RSE-M a/c = 0.5 2,1
API a/c = 0.25

0,4 RSE-M a/c = 0.25 1,6

API a/c = 0.0625

1,1
0,2 RSE-M a/c = 0.0625

0,6
0,0 0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6 0,7 0,8 0,9
0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6 0,7 0,8 0,9
a/t
a/t

FIG. 21 CYLINDER WITH Ri/t =  (PLATE). COMPARISON OF

FIG. 18 CYLINDER WITH Ri/t = 20. COMPARISON OF THE
THE COEFFICIENT G1 AT THE DEEPEST POINT
COEFFICIENT G0 AT THE SURFACE POINT
Axial ID surface flaws in cylinders - Ri/t = 10 - G0 - surface point
Axial ID surface flaws in cylinders - Ri/t = 20 - G1 - surface point
1,6
0,30

1,4

0,25
1,2

0,20 1,0
G0 - surface point
G1 - surface point

API a/c = 1
API a/c = 1
RSE-M a/c = 1
RSE-M a/c = 1 0,8
0,15 API a/c = 0.5
API a/c = 0.5
0,6 RSE-M a/c = 0.5
RSE-M a/c = 0.5
0,10 API a/c = 0.25
API a/c = 0.25
0,4 RSE-M a/c = 0.25
RSE-M a/c = 0.25
API a/c = 0.0625
API a/c = 0.0625
0,05 0,2
RSE-M a/c = 0.0625 RSE-M a/c = 0.0625

0,0
0,00 0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6 0,7 0,8 0,9
0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6 0,7 0,8 0,9
a/t
a/t

FIG. 19 CYLINDER WITH Ri/t = 20. COMPARISON OF THE FIG. 22 CYLINDER WITH Ri/t =  (PLATE). COMPARISON OF
COEFFICIENT G1 AT THE SURFACE POINT THE COEFFICIENT G0 AT THE SURFACE POINT

8 Copyright © 2015 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/conferences/asmep/86316/ on 03/24/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/abo

 Axial ID surface flaw in cylinder t/Ri = 0.2 - a/t = 0.4 - a/c = 0.125
G0 coefficient

Axial ID surface flaws in cylinders - Ri/t = 10 - G1 - surface point 1,6

0,30
1,4

0,25 1,2 FE
API-579
RSE-M
1,0
0,20

G0 coefficient
G1 - surface point

0,8
API a/c = 1
0,15
RSE-M a/c = 1 0,6
API a/c = 0.5

0,10 RSE-M a/c = 0.5 0,4

API a/c = 0.25

RSE-M a/c = 0.25 0,2

0,05
API a/c = 0.0625
0,0
RSE-M a/c = 0.0625
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
0,00 Elliptic angle - surface point towards deepest point (°)
0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6 0,7 0,8 0,9
a/t
FIG. 25 CYLINDER CONTAINING AN ID SURFACE CRACK
FIG. 23 CYLINDER WITH Ri/t =  (PLATE). COMPARISON OF WITH Ri/t = 5 – a/t = 0.4 – a/c = 0.125 – EVOLUTION OF
THE COEFFICIENT G1 AT THE SURFACE POINT THE COEFFICIENT G0 ALONG
Axial ID surface flaw in cylinder
THE CRACK FRONT
t/Ri = 0.2 - a/t = 0.4 - a/c = 0.125
G1 coefficient
0,9

0,8

0,7

0,6

G1 Coefficient
0,5

EF
0,4 API-579
RSE-M
0,3

0,2

0,1

0,0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Elliptic angle - surface point towards deepest point (°)

FIG. 26 CYLINDER CONTAINING AN ID SURFACE CRACK

WITH Ri/t = 5 – a/t = 0.4 – a/c = 0.125 – EVOLUTION OF
THE COEFFICIENT G1 ALONG THE CRACK FRONT

FIG. 24 MESH OF A CYLINDER CONTAINING AN ID

SURFACE CRACK WITH Ri/t = 5 – a/t = 0.4 – a/c = 0.125

9 Copyright © 2015 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/conferences/asmep/86316/ on 03/24/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/abo