Strength, Fracture and Complexity 7 (2011/2012) 309–314 309

DOI 10.3233/SFC-2012-0145
IOS Press

Plastic interaction factors on failure

Received 31 May 2011

Abstract. In order to evaluate a crack-like flaw, a two-parameter method (FAD: failure assessment diagram) will be widely
adopted. Ainsworth studied the plastic interaction between primary and secondary stresses, and proposed the plasticity interac-
tion factor on the FAD. As the plasticity interaction factors are intrinsically dependent on the Failure Assessment Curve (FAC),
this paper reveals the plasticity interaction factors for several FACs.
Keywords: Failure assessment diagram, plasticity interaction factor, crack-like flaw

Nomenclature

Kr : toughness ratio;
KIP : stress intensity factor due to primary stresses;
KIS : stress intensity factor due to secondary stresses;
KIC : material toughness;
σP
Lr = σrefys
: load ratio;
P S
σref = σref + σref : reference stress;
P
σref : reference stress based on primary stress;
S
σref : reference stress based on secondary stress;
KP KS
ψ = Kr (Lr ) − ( KICI + KICI ): plasticity interaction factor;
S
χ = σref /σys : ratio of secondary reference stress to yield stress.

1. Introduction

Carbon steels are the main constituent materials of pressure vessels, piping and tanks. Therefore
it is extremely important to establish a Failure Assessment Curve (FAC) for carbon steels. BS7910

*
Address for correspondence: Department of Mechanical Engineering, Ibaraki University, Nakanarusawa 4-12-1, Hitachi,
Ibaraki 316-8511, Japan. Tel.: +81 294 38 5030; E-mail: konosu@mx.ibaraki.ac.jp.

1567-2069/11/12/$27.50 © 2011/2012 – IOS Press and the authors. All rights reserved
310 S. Konosu / Plastic interaction factors on failure assessment diagram

Level 2A [1], API 579 Level 2 [2] and R6 Option 1 [3] have hitherto been proposing the general FAC for
carbon steels, together with alloy steels and austenitic stainless steels. However, carbon steel has char-
acteristics that are different from those of other ferritic steels, showing a marked plastic yield plateau in
the stress–strain relation.
Although R6 Option 2 & API 579 Level 3 and BS7910 Level 2B recommend deriving a material-
specific FAC related to the stress–strain relation, it will be useful from the engineering viewpoint if
a general FAC for carbon steels can be defined without requiring any individual stress–strain rela-
tion.
In this paper, the Dugdale model using an elastic–perfectly plastic material, which is suitable to carbon
steels showing a marked plastic yield plateau, is used to derive the plasticity interaction factors. By doing
so, it is possible to avoid the complexity whereby new plasticity interaction factors are necessary each
time there is any change in the strain hardening properties.

2. Failure assessment curve

The failure assessment diagram (FAD) approach has become the most widely used methodology
for the evaluation of crack-like flaws. The following failure assessment curves (FACs) have been pro-
posed [1–5].
⎧ 2 −1/2
⎪
⎪ (1 + 0.5Lr ) [0.3 + 0.7 exp(−0.6L6r )] (1)
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ (R6 Option 1 [1])
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ (1 − 0.14L2r )[0.3 + 0.7 exp(−0.65L6r )] (2)
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ (BS7910 Level 2A [2] & API 579 Level 2 [3])
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪  −1/2
⎪
⎪ 0.5L2r
⎪
⎪ 3.42
⎪
⎨ 1 + 6.7487Lr + 0.5776 + L2 (3)
r
Kr = f (Lr ) = (ASME N494-3 [4])
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ 2 −1/2
⎪ Lr [(8/π ) ln{sec(πLr /2)}]
⎪ (4)
⎪
⎪
⎪ (Dugdale model diagram [1,5])
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ 
⎪
⎪
⎪ Eεref L3r σys −1/2
⎪
⎪ + (5)
⎪
⎪ Lr σys 2Eεref
⎪
⎪
⎩ (R6 Option 2 [1] & API 579 Level 3 [3])

σP
with Kr = KKICI and Lr = σref
ys
.
Equation (5) of R6 Option 2 [1] is proposed for a material with any stress–strain relation. And FACs
obtained from Eqs (1)–(4) are shown in Fig. 1. The FAC of BS7910 Level 2A [2] & API 579 Level 2 [3]
is almost the same as that of R6 Option 1 [1].
Where Lr is smaller than 1, FAC of ASME N494-3 [4] gives the most conservative values for the
FACs of Eqs (1)–(4). However, from the stress–strain relation of carbon steels showing a marked plastic
yield plateau, it is conservatively thought that Kr of carbon steels varies with the increase of Lr along
the lines of the FAC derived from the Dugdale model.
 S. Konosu / Plastic interaction factors on failure assessment diagram 311

Fig. 1. Comparison of various proposed FACs. (Colors are visible in the online version of the article; http://dx.doi.org/10.3233/
SFC-2012-0145.)

3. Plasticity interaction factor

Ainsworth [6] studied the plastic interaction between primary and secondary stresses, and proposed
the plasticity interaction factor ψ by incorporating the effects of combined loading into a shift of Kr
parameter.

KIP KS σP
+ ψ + I = f ref ,
KIC KIC σys
 S 
f (σref /σys ) P σref
S
ψ(σref P
/σys , σref P
/σys ) = f (σref /σys ) − σref + S , (6)
σref f (σref /σys )
KIP f (σref /σys ) P KIS f (σref /σys ) S
σref
= σref , = S .
KIC σref KIC σref f (σref /σys )

Plasticity interaction factors ψ are not defined for the Dugdale model given by Eq. (4) as well as the
FAC given by Eq. (3) in the Code Case N494-3 [4].
Conforming to the method of Ainsworth [6], if the plasticity interaction factors ψ are sought for
Eqs (2)–(4) by using Eq. (6), Figs 2–4 are obtained.
Shown concurrently in Fig. 2 are the plasticity interaction factors ψ of R6 and Ainsworth’s original
results for Eq. (2). The present results coincide with these results.
Figures 3 and 4 show the plasticity interaction factors ψ for Eqs (3) and (4), respectively. As shown
in Fig. 3 for the FAC of Code Case N494-3 [4], the maximum value of plasticity interaction factors ψ is
larger than that for the FAC of BS7910 Level 2A [2] & API 579 Level 2 [3]. The plasticity interaction
factors ψ for the FAC of the Dugdale model [5] are shown in Fig. 4 and are tabulated in Table 1.
Compared to the results of Figs 2–4, the maximum value of plasticity interaction factors for the FAC
of the Dugdale model is smaller than those for BS7910 Level 2A & API 579 Level 2 and Code Case
N494-3.
312 S. Konosu / Plastic interaction factors on failure assessment diagram

Fig. 2. Effect of Lr on plasticity interaction factor in R6 and BS7910 Level 2A & API 579 Level 2 with various values of
S
χ = σref /σys . (Colors are visible in the online version of the article; http://dx.doi.org/10.3233/SFC-2012-0145.)

S
Fig. 3. Effect of Lr on plasticity interaction factor for FAC adopted by Code Case N494-3 with various values of χ = σref /σys .
(Colors are visible in the online version of the article; http://dx.doi.org/10.3233/SFC-2012-0145.)
 S. Konosu / Plastic interaction factors on failure assessment diagram 313

S
Fig. 4. Effect of Lr on plasticity interaction factor for FAC of Dugdale model with various values of χ = σref /σys . (Colors are
visible in the online version of the article; http://dx.doi.org/10.3233/SFC-2012-0145.)
Table 1
Plasticity interaction factors for FAC of Dugdale model
S
Lr χ (= σref /σys )
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
0.00 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
0.01 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.002 0.006 0.013 0.022 0.030 0.029 0.017
0.01 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.002 0.006 0.014 0.023 0.031 0.031 0.019
0.02 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.002 0.002 0.007 0.015 0.025 0.034 0.034 0.023
0.03 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.008 0.017 0.027 0.036 0.037 0.026
0.04 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.002 0.002 0.003 0.009 0.018 0.029 0.038 0.039 0.028
0.06 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.011 0.021 0.032 0.041 0.041 0.030
0.08 0.000 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.005 0.013 0.023 0.035 0.044 0.043 0.031
0.10 0.000 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.006 0.014 0.026 0.038 0.045 0.043 0.031
0.15 0.000 0.001 0.003 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.018 0.031 0.042 0.047 0.041 0.027
0.20 0.000 0.002 0.004 0.005 0.008 0.010 0.022 0.035 0.044 0.045 0.036 0.021
0.25 0.000 0.002 0.004 0.007 0.009 0.012 0.025 0.037 0.043 0.040 0.029 0.015
0.30 0.000 0.003 0.005 0.008 0.011 0.013 0.027 0.037 0.040 0.034 0.022 0.009
0.35 0.000 0.003 0.006 0.009 0.012 0.015 0.028 0.036 0.035 0.027 0.015 0.005
0.40 0.000 0.003 0.006 0.010 0.013 0.016 0.028 0.032 0.029 0.019 0.008 0.003
0.45 0.000 0.003 0.007 0.010 0.013 0.016 0.026 0.028 0.022 0.012 0.004 0.0
314 S. Konosu / Plastic interaction factors on failure assessment diagram

Table 1
(Continued)
S
Lr χ (= σref /σys )
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
0.50 0.000 0.004 0.007 0.010 0.013 0.015 0.023 0.022 0.015 0.006 0.002 0.0
0.55 0.000 0.004 0.007 0.010 0.012 0.014 0.019 0.016 0.009 0.003 0.0 0.0
0.60 0.000 0.003 0.006 0.009 0.010 0.012 0.014 0.010 0.005 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.65 0.000 0.003 0.005 0.007 0.008 0.009 0.010 0.007 0.005 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.70 0.000 0.002 0.004 0.005 0.006 0.007 0.007 0.006 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.71 0.000 0.002 0.004 0.005 0.006 0.006 0.006 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.72 0.000 0.002 0.003 0.005 0.005 0.006 0.006 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.75 0.000 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.004 0.005 0.006 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.76 0.000 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.004 0.005 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.78 0.000 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.004 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.80 0.000 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

4. Conclusions

It is necessary to include thermal and residual stresses in failure assessment such as two parameter
failure assessment diagram (FAD) approach. As the plasticity interaction factors are dependent on a
change in shape of the failure assessment curve (FAC), the plasticity interaction factors for several FACs
were determined.
It was clarified that the maximum value of the plasticity interaction factors for FAC of the Dugdale
model, which is most pertinent to carbon steels possessing a marked yield point plateau in the stress–
strain relation, is smaller than those for BS7910 Level 2A & API 579 Level 2 and Code Case N494-3.

References

[1] R6 revision 4, Assessment of integrity of structures containing defects, British Energy Generation Ltd, 2004.
[2] BSI BS 7910, Guide to methods for assessing the acceptability of flaws in metallic structures, 2005.
[3] API579-1/ASME FFS-1, Fitness For Service, 2007.
[4] ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, 2001, Sec. XI Code Case N-494-3.
[5] D.S. Dugdale, Yielding of steel sheets containing slits, J. Mech. Phys. Solids 8 (1960), 100–108.
[6] R.A. Ainsworth, The treatment of thermal and residual stresses in fracture assessments, Engineering Fracture Mechanics
24(1) (1986), 65–76.