Engineering Fraca~lureMechanics,

1969, Vol. 1, pp. 507-S 17.

Pergamon

Press.

Printed in Great Britain

APPLICATION
OF FRACTURE MECHANICS
IN DESIGN AND ANALYSIS OF PRESSURE VESSELS*
VICTOR

SINGER

Structural Engineer, Thiokol Chemical Corporation, Elkton Division, Elkton, Maryland

Abstract-The
extent to which-the nominal safety factor describes a pressure vessels strength is regarded as
depending upon how well the assumption of Sufficiently flawless composition describes the configuration. For
ve!sels where a leak-before-burst or leak-before-yield criterion cannot be satisfied, the nominal safety factor
is regarded as applicable to populations of vessels rather than to individuals. Criteria for control of fracture in
such vessels are proposed, on the basis that the sensitivity of the structure to the presence of flaws should be a
fixed percentage of local thickness at any location. Current capabilities of non-destructive inspection techniques are reviewed, with emphasis on how large a flaw may be missed, rather than how small a flaw can be
detected. Design implications of fracture considerations in regions experiencing flexure are examined.
Bases are established for determination of effective flexural stresses and for assessing the significance of
residual stresses. Finally, attention is drawn to often ignored brittle behavior possibilities in attachment
regions, and to techniques for their control in the design process.

NOTATION
plane stress plastic zone size
plane strain fracture toughness
u
stress
yield strength
Ft,
Fttl ultimate strength
t section thickness
crack depth
; shape factor
.U strain energy
6 deflection
L element length
P applied concentrated load
Poissons ratio
;
energy available for crack extension.

KZ
=2/P,

INTRODUCTION
FROM the classical philosophy
of structural safety has evolved the safety factor
concept, the ratio of the strength of a material to the level of stress it experiences under
service conditions. Design procedures using this concept have developed from much
experience with similar materials and similar service conditions, empirical demonstrations of how large a safety factor will assure a successful structure. In all but the
simplest structures experiencing the simplest kinds of load distributions, the nominal
safety factor is an indication that failure is highly improbable at service load level
rather than a definition of a precise level of failure loading. This is because quite often
structural behavior is so complex that it is intractable except through approximate
representations of its many aspects in the analytical model. For example, materials are
*Presented at the National Symposium
June 17-19,1968.

on Fracture
507

Mechanics,

Lehigh University,

Bethlehem,

Pa.,

508

VICTOR

SINGER

classically considered to be of sufficiently flawless composition to behave in tension

always according to the usual stress-strain curves. Vessels composed of materials
capable of resisting through-cracks, anywhere, with length equal to several multiples of
local thickness (a leak-before-burst or leak-before-yield criterion), are quite reasonably described by the classical approximation.
THE SHIFT FROM THE CLASSICAL SITUATION
In recent years, this approximation has become less universally applicable. On the
one hand, with the development of extreme high strength metals, the range of the
term sufficiently flawless composition must now include flaw sizes so small that their
occurrence is disturbingly frequent. In the high strength metals, these small flaws are
occasionally sufficient to cause structural failures at stress levels much below the
unflawed strength of the material. And on the other hand, with less exotic metals used
in cross-sections of ever larger minimum dimension at ever higher stress levels, flaws
large enough to control behavior may escape detection. Besides evaluating safety
factors on the classical basis, the designer must now treat the assumption of sufficiently
flawless composition.
In current pressure vessel practice, this treatment is represented by the proof test.
The proof test, however, does not assure the absence of significant flaws, but only that
nowhere is there present a flaw large enough to cause failure under the stress conditions
imposed on it by the proof load. The demonstrated (initial) factor of safety in such a
structure is therefore the minimum value of the ratio of stress imposed anywhere under
proof load to the stress imposed in the same location and direction under service
conditions. In vessels without leak-before-fracture
capability, no larger factor of safety
has any basis in fact, except perhaps statistically. Though a larger analytical value may
be obtained as the ratio of nominal strength to maximum service stress level, it is a
paper number applicable at best only to a large statistical sample of like structures if
the material is actually of relatively flawless composition. There is no reason to believe
that any individual structure does not represent the outlying data point with all the large
flaws in the lot; thus, it could have been at the verge of failure in the proof test.
Following this line of reasoning, primary attention must be given to the relationships among proof load level, service load level and the classical yield and ultimate load
levels. It is the designers dilemma to relate these load levels so that three conditions
are satisfied in spite of the finite probability of incidence of significant flaws in the asfabricated structure (flaws inherent to the nature of the material as well as flaws introduced in the fabrication process). First, there must be sufficient assurance against an
excessive number of proof test failures. Second, the margin between proof load level
and service load level must provide suitable assurance against failure in service. And
finally, the margin between service load level and the statistically applicable classical
yield or ultimate load levels must be small enough that the structure is not too gross to
be serviceable or producible. In short, the heart of the problem is to put the margins
where they buy the most real safety not only in the average structure described by the
classical-flawless
- safety factor, but in all the structures, even the statistical extreme
values.
THE ARGUMENT FOR A STANDARDIZED MINIMUM DESIGN FLAW SIZE
Investigation of many solid propellant rocket motor case designs leads to the
observation that .proof test failures resulting from previously undetected flaws have

Application of fracture mechanics

509

occurred most often in those designs where the depth of a surface flaw sufficient to
cause failure at or below proof stress levels-evaluated
according to linear elastic
fracture mechanics-has
been less than about 15 per cent of the wall thickness. This
does not suggest that such a flaw was observed in every premature failure; rather it is a
characterization
of pressure vessel capability in terms of the depth of flaw that could
have been present without interfering with behavior more-or-less consistent with the
usual stress-strain information. Successful experiences with vessels capable of withstanding larger flaws are probably due to the facts that larger flaws occur less frequently
than smaller ones, and that larger flatis ate more readily detected via non-destructive
inspection techniques.
Additional verification of a 15 per cent flaw dividing line may be obtained by reinterpretation of Thurstons compilation of pressure vessel burst tests [ 11 summarized
from many other sources. For many of the referenced vessels, apparently valid fracture
toughness information has been given and roll and weld fabrication practice has
not been used. Of this group, those vessels for which the depth of a flaw sufficient
to cause premature failure was greater than 15 per cent of thickness, seem to have
had no difficulty in achieving burst stress levels substantially in excess of uniaxial
strength values. More than Q of the vessels in which the corresponding critical flaw
size was smaller than 15 per cent of thickness failed considerably below the yield
stress level.
Bitter experiences with current non-destructive inspection techniques in the recent
past have shown that there is a large gap between capability to detect occasionally an
extremely small flaw advantageously disposed for detection, and capability to detect all
flaws of some much larger size which may be present, though disadvantageously
disposed for detection. The investigation of the burst of a recent large rocket motor
case[2] showed that though flaws with a dimension parallel to the thickness of the
inspected part of O-5 per cent of that thickness are sometimes found, flaws of depth
equal to 15 per cent of the thickness are sometimes missed, even with very careful
inspection. Thus, the size of flaw that will neoer escape detection is certainly not smaller
than 15 per cent of the thickness of the inspected part and may even be larger. Another
measure of current inspection techniques is obtained from approximately 1000 proof
tests of the MINUTEMAN
ICBM first stage motor case, in which three failures have
occurred from previously undetected flaws in the cylinder welds. The properties of
that case material are such that at proof pressure level, a long shallow surface flaw of
depth equal to at least 16 per cent of the wall thickness can be tolerated. Inspection
techniques therefore afford no better than O-997 probability of detecting flaws of depth
equal to 16 per cent of the thickness; since flaws of this dimension were unlikely to have
been present in very many of the 1000 cases, the actual probability must certainly be
substantially less than 0997.
In a study of present production capabilities of manual and automatic ultrasonic
techniques, radiographic techniques, magnetic particle, fluorescent penetrant, infrared,
and eddy current methods, [3] indicates conclusions which may be similarly interpreted.
Interesting rationales to explain a 15 per cent flaw dividing line for fracture behavior
may be developed in terms of thickness requirements for true plane strain behavior,
transitional effects between plane stress and plane strain, increasing significance of
through-thickness stresses in the presence of even minor flaws, and the like. However,
at this point in time, it is sufficient to recognize that the presence or absence of capability
to withstand a 15 per cent flaw may well be of physical significance, and that in any
EF.M.

Vd. I No. 3-H

510

VICTOR SINGER

event, the 15 per cent flaw is more-or-less representative of a lower limit of reliable
detection capability through sophisticated non-destructive inspection methods.
In many design situations, the luxury of a leak-before-yield criterion cannot be
provided because of weight or other constraints, yet extremes of brittle behavior must
also be avoided. A reasonable design criterion for such vessels requires capacity to
withstand proof testing in spite of the presence in any location and with any orientation,
of a long shallow surface crack with depth equal to or greater than 20 per cent of the
vessel wall thickness at that location. The prediction of fracture behavior should be on
the basis of a value of plane strain fracture toughness K,, characteristic of the material,
even in the thinner regions where the material thickness may be insufficient for its
behavior to be completely characterized by the plane strain condition. The design of the
thinnest portion of the vessel would thus reflect a standardized flaw depth ratio shown
by previous experience to be fairly adequate. In thicker regions of the vessel, the 20
per cent design flaw would be entirely appropriate for design purposes as a recognition
of inspection capabilities, though it would be an overpenalization from the viewpoint of
probability of flaw incidence, since the population of flaws in a given sample must be an
inverse function of the flaw size. This is because in two samples, the first twice as large
as the second, it is unlikely that the probability of incidence of a flaw of size 2a in the
first sample would be as great as the probability of incidence of a flaw of size a in the
second sample.
The 20 per cent flaw criterion may be represented in rule-of-thumb format for
easy use in the design process as foliows: For a linearly elastic material containing a
surface crack of semi-elliptical cross-section oriented in a plane normal to a general
stress field of magnitude CT,the local situation along a projection of the cracks minor
half-axis is described by a stress intensity parameter K, such that[4]
KI= 1.1 crv(rra)[~2-0*212a2/a,,21-2.

(1)

The term +, a shape factor, has values between 1.08 and 1,051 for long shallow cracks
with length along the surface between 7.5 and 10 times the depth a. The term 0.212
cr2/a,2 is a correction for a small zone of plasticity at the crack tip; for levels of
applied stress %r (direct plus flexural) at proof test of 70-100 per cent of the uniaxial
yield strength, its value is between O*lOZand O-212. The entire range of shape factors
and stress levels is well represented by a value of unity for the bracketed term. Substituting for a condition of failure where K, forms KIc, the plane strain fracture toughness of the material, and where the depth a equals O-2 t, and rearranging, we obtain
maximum allowable stress = amax. = 1 15 KJt/(

t).

(2)

Where this value exceeds the yield strength, the 20 per cent flaw does not govern, i.e.,
a larger flaw can be tolerated. In contrast to this 20 per cent flaw criterion, the leakbefore-burst criterion may be represented as follows:

where the through-thickness crack is about twice the local thickness, and amax. is the
local stress at nominal ultimate pressure.

Application of fracture mechanics

511

EPFECTIVE STRESSES DUE TO FLEXUBE

As considered in MIL-HDBKJ
[5], flexural failure is regarded as occurring through
exceeding a modulus of rupture characteristic of the material and descriptive of its
plastic behavior. In the absence of test data, MIL-HDBK-5 allows the assumption that
the rupture modulus is 125 per cent of the tensile strength (Para. 2.10.1.1 and others); it
allows still higher values based on test data. An equivalent interpretation of the same
provision is to deal with effective flexural stresses of 80 per cent (or l/1*25) of the
extreme fiber values determined from straight line stress distribution. In effect, the 80
per cent factor amounts to the argument that tensile fracture will not occur due to
flexural tension within the 10 per cent of the element thickness closest to the extreme
fiber, but rather due to the situation at greater depth, a suggestion that there is some
characteristic of the conditions at fracture whereby the behavior of the material is
somehow related to proximity to a free surface.
A plausible explanation for such behavior develops from fracture mechanics. Even
in extremely brittle materials, sufficiently narrow regions experiencing post-yield
conditions can be resisted so long as there is insu~~ient restraint in one or more
transverse directions to prevent a process akin to necking. The state of stress of an
element near a free surface is very close to plane stress (biaxial stress, triaxial strain)
whereas at greater depth, the condition develops toward the plane strain (triaxial stress,
biaxial strain) extreme. And further, estimates may be made of the lower limit of the
depth of a band of material near the surface within which plane strain (most brittle
possible) behavior is impossible.
With increasing applied tension across a crack in a thick section, a small zone of
increasing size develops at the cracks leading edge within which stresses are beyond
the yield stress level. At the point of imminent failure, the size of the plastic zone is
shown in Fig. 1[6,7]. This determination develops from the assumption of completely
linear behavior below and beyond the yield point. Depending upon the true stressstrain behavior beyond yield, the actual plastic zone size may be as much as twice as
large as in Fig. 1. The essential features of the situation are: First, in a roughly triangular
region in the plane of the crack, extending parallel to the surface at least a distance r,
from the crack tip and normal to the side surface a distance at least as large, a post-yield
condition exists. Second, by virtue of the elastic stress singularity at the crack tip, the
elastic stress gradient, or actual strain gradient, ahead of the crack tip is extremely
steep. Third, the failure occurs due to the condition in the central region rather than
near the surface. if, in a flexural element, the yield condition near the extreme fiber
extends no deeper into the cross-section than r,, the situation is obviously less critical
than at the crack tip, and failure will not occur. Thus, the customary tests for Kfc
(plane strain fracture toughness) may be regarded as determinations of a lower limit of
depth of a band of material within which a post-yield condition is insu~cient to produce
failure.
On this basis, for conditions other than fully reversible cyclic loading, the e$ective
flexural stress may be taken equal to the magnitude which develops at a depth r, =
K,Y(27rcr,,2) from the extreme fiber. This implies that in cross-sections which are
quite thick compared with rp, the material may well be incapable of developing the full
theoretical plastic moment capacity of the section. Only a relatively small amount of
plasticity would have to be developed near the tensile extreme fiber before the material
could begin to regard the whole plastic region as a flaw. Further, it implies that in crosssections thinner than 2 r,, the material is incapable of fracture due to flexure; one

512

CRACK

VICTOR SINGER

TIP

016rp(

PLANE

$&PLANE
YP

STRESS)

Fig. 1.Plastic zone at a crack front, with failure imminent, based on completely linear elasticity.

should expect to be able almost to fold such a thin section like paper, without structural
difficulties. Vessels with shells thinner than 2 r, may be designed as pure membranes,
without regard to flexural stresses; fracture behavior in such shells is controlled solely
by the membr~e
forces. Those who contemplate design on this basis, however,
should perform sharp bend tests or otherwise closely examine material behavior within
the range of strains anticipated. It should not be necessary to point out the crucial
importance of using valid plane strain fracture toughness information for candidate
materials before proceeding with design on the basis above outlined. The complexity
of structural integrity analyses of pressure vessels is not really decreased by these
considerations; high surface strains due to flexure at severe discontinuities may not be
sufficient to cause failure of themselves, but the coincident thickness changes and the
resulting increases in direct stresses can be quite important. In addition, discontinuity
analyses of vessels where substantial regions may exhibit non-linearly elastic flexural
behavior is a formidable task unto itself.

It is pertinent here to inquire as to the possible existence of regions of the structure

which may not experience in the proof test a stress field of greater severity than in
service, even with test procedures carefully arranged for similitude. Suspect regions for
such inquiry are those where load distribution is influenced by fit between mating parts,
i.e. threads, Ortman ring or snap ring interconnections,
etc. It is easily visualized that
the actual distribution of bearing force per circumferential inch in such joints is controlled entirely by tolerances for parallelism between the bearing surfaces of internal
and external parts, tolerances on pitch of threads. tolerances for width of Ortman or

Application of fracture mechanics

513

snap rings, and tolerances for local curvature of Ortman or snap rings. This is so
because the deflections of the bearing points are likely to be smaller by orders of magnitude than the differences between extremes of the tolerance ranges. This establishes
two possible failure conditions. A brittle failure may occur as a local effect prior to the
redistribution of the localized initial load application through yielding in shear and/or
flexure to a more-or-less axisymmetric system; or on the other hand, a ductile failure
may occur as a general effect after redistribution, under axisymmetric loading, by shear
or by direct stresses. The customary analytical procedure for such joints, which presupposes the axisymmetric distribution, is meaningless except in terms of margin-onultimate, since the very nature of the pre-supposition requires yielding to occur to
iron out tolerance effects. Moreover, the dependence on the pre-supposition forces a
determination of whether or not, in fact, it is possible for brittle failure to occur prior to
local yielding.
It is appropriate to observe in addition that in regions controlled to such an extent
by tolerances, two successive assembly operations of the very same parts may bring
about local differences sufficient to cause entirely dissimilar local load distribution
under pressure. Assurances of safety cannot be obtained by proof test alone in such a
situation, since the requirement of similitude cannot with certainty be fulfilled. Complementary analytical demonstrations of high margins against brittle failure, i.e., assurance
that yielding must occur long before brittle failure becomes possible, are indispensable
in the use of such joints in flaw-sensitive materials.
Such a complementary analysis may be prepared on the basis of mathematical exaggeration of the pertinent features of the keyway or thread root region to the extent that
the model becomes amenable to effective treatment via fracture mechanics techniques
rather than on the basis of theoretical stress concentration factors. Fracture mechanics
has consistently demonstrated excellent correlation with experimental behavior, while
examples are common of behavior broadly divergent from expectations based on
theoretical notch factors [8].
Assurance that shear yield must occur prior to brittle failure at the root of a keyway
or buttress thread may be obtained through relatively simple treatment of the structure
as a cantilever beam and through treatment of the root as an infinite stress concentration
or singularity. In the unit width cantilever configuration in Fig. 2, neglecting the normal
component of applied load, the strain energy v in the element, in terms of the deflection
S under the load P, is

(4)
2P3L3
=F+

PZL( 1+ V)
Et

For the idealization of the root configuration, in which a stress singularity occurs at the
root, the energy 9 available to produce an increment of crack extension[9] is
9 =

p-$2.$

(5)

The first term on the right of the equality is the work done by the force P in the incremental translation due to lengthening of the beam, while the second term is the in-

VICTOR SlNGER
BUTTRESS
THREAD
CONFIGURATION

t,

AT

LIP

PITCH

DIAMETER

THREAD
OR
CONFIGUR~ION
IDEALIZED

t=

MEAN
DEPTH
OF THREAD
LENGTH
t OR SHEAR
LiP

AT

OVER
DEPTH

CONFIGURATION
ROOT

Fig. 2. Shear lip or buttress thread configurations.

crement of strain energy in the beam. After d~~ere~tiat~on and conversion to the
equivalent stress field approach, the severity of the singularity, measured by the stress
intensity parameter Kr (assuming plane strain) is obtained:

(6)
The maximum possible value is obtained when P is sufficiently large to cause shear
yield of the thread (at P = t,, X O-577 ore) or of the shear lip (at P = t x O-577 otlp). The
brittle failure condition has not been attained if KI is less than the critical value for the
material; no problem is anticipated if
I& > KI = 0.577 a,?,
Other thread forms are amenable
occasionally becomes gross.

6L2+t2(1+v)
t3(1-9)

to similar treatment,

112

(7)

though the approximation

ASSOCXATED PROBES
WITH BOLTS
In the use of bolted pressure vessel connections, particularly in rocket vessels
where flange dimensions are intentionally minimized for inert weight control, bolts are
often subjected not only to direct tension due to the separation loads on connected
parts and the prying action between flanges, but also to flexure resulting from head
or nut rotations consistent with the deflections of the connected parts. Though bolt
capacities are customarily catalogued in terms of force rather than stress, the effect of
the added flexure is always difficult to assess using classical methods. It is dealt with
quite easily using the ideas above described.
Considering, for example, a design proportioned for bolts with a minor diameter
= d = O-15 in., where the direct tensile load amounts to 1.50 ksi, and the head rotation is
sufficient to produce extreme fiber flexural stresses (linear determination) of + 150 ksi,
the problem is to select a bolt. The parameters of the problem are given in Table I.
For this application, the best bolt is clearly bolt # 3 with the lowest strength; no
difficulty could be anticipated through its use. On the other hand, the strongest bolt
would probably fail, and the intermediate strength bolt appears unsuitable, though it

515

Application of fracture mechanics

Table 1. Effective stress in a bolt with O-15in. minor diameter d subjected to 150 ksi tension and
f 150 ksi extreme fiber flexural stress

Bolt # 1
Bolt # 2
Bolt # 3

muIJ
(ksi)

(ksi (in.)*)

(in.)

240
195
165

25
75
120

040172
0.0235
04841

&C

rp

O*Sd-r,
0.5d
(%)
97.7
68.65
0

Effective
flexural
stress
(ksi)

Total
effective
stress
(ksi)

146
103
0

2%
253
150

could be shown to be suitable through more refined techniques. Bolt # 3 would yield at
the extreme fiber, i.e. it would be permanently bent in use, but it would hold the load.
RESIDUAL SIIWSSES AND INITIAL SET
All discussion thus far has been limited to consideration of the application of
stresses resulting from a loading environment to a zero initial stress regime. Since the
ever present flaw sees only total stress, and does not distinguish between stresses due
to load and stresses initially present, it is pertinent to examine the assumption.
Surveys of residual stress after heat treatment[ 101 or machining operations [l 11
usually show that where significantly large residuals exist, they are surface conditions
only. If at depth r, from the surface, the residuals have all but disappeared, or if the
section thickness is less than 2 r,, the presence or absence even of large residuals
should not materially affect fracture behavior, except marginally from the point of
view of stress corrosion. In the intermediate region, there is no substitute for experimental verification of design assumptions, either with the specific design in question, or
through much experience with the particular material in comparable configurations and
with comparable processing parameters.
From the idea that in any individual vessel of material capable of brittle behavior,
the only real safety in service is what has been demonstrated by the proof test, it
follows that the interests of economy and structural efficiency are best served by
minimizing reliance upon paper-only safety beyond the proof test pressure. For a
given design, the highest practicable proof pressure level will be just below that which
would produce unacceptable geometry changes. Permanent extensional deformations
of O-2 per cent offset will not usually exceed acceptable diametral tolerance ranges,
while permanent inextensional - flexural - deformations considerably larger may not be
excessive in discontinuity regions. In instances where during proof testing, the maximum effective stress (at rp from the extreme fiber) is equal to the yield, the only causes
for concern are the post-test effect of the resulting residual stress or possible stress
corrosion during the test. The residual stresses are easily evaluated by routine methods,
and will be compressive on the surface which has experienced tensile yielding. Low
level tension will exist on the opposite surface. The effects of the residuals, as well as
the situation during the test, may be characterized via stress corrosion techniques [ 121.
Upon repressurization at a service pressure level lower than proof, no further yielding
occurs; the behavior is linearly elastic all the way up to the proof pressure, even at the
tensile extreme fiber, because of the presence of the residual compression.
CONCLUSION
Criteria are proposed for the control of fracture in highly stressed pressure vessels
through design to accommodate in every region of the vessel, flaws with depths of 20

516

VICTOR

SINGER

per cent (or more) of local thickness during the proof test. In discontinuity regions of
vessels thus proportioned,
stresses of any magnitude within a distance r, = KIc2/
(277@, ) from the extreme fiber may be disregarded, since they cannot cause fracture.
During proof test, an allowable level of total effective stress (membrane+effective
flexural + residual where applicable) at r, from the extreme fiber is established as the
lesser of the following:
urnax. =

a,;

or

1 1.15 K&(t).

These considerations are made with some sacrifice of mathematical rigor, in

servative direction, in order to obtain relationships easily applied in the design
Finally, attention is drawn to the characteristics of certain types of attachment
for which the proof test is inconclusive, and to design techniques for such
through which dangerous situations may be avoided.

the conprocess.
systems
regions,

REFERENCES
[ 1] R. C. A. Thurston, The notch toughness of ultra-high strength steels in relation to design consideration.
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[lo]
[ll]

[12]

Proc., Tripartite Technical Cooperative Program (TTCP) Symp., Washington, D.C. 26-28 October
1964; DMIC Rep. No. 2 10 (1964).
J. E. Srawley and J. B. Esgar, Investigation of hydrotest failure of 260-in. motor case. National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Rep. No. TM-X- 1194 (1966).
C. F. Tiffany, J. N. Masters and R. E. Regan, Large motor case technology evaluation. Air Force
Materials Laboratory, Wright-Patterson
Air Force Base, Ohio, Tech. Rep. No. AFML-TR-67-190
(1967).
The slow growth and rapid propagation of cracks. 2nd Report of ASTM Committee on Fracture Testing
of High Strength Metallic Materials; Mater. Res. Stand. 389 (1961).
MIL-HDBK-5
Metallic materials and elements for flight vehicle structures. Department of Defense,
Washington, D.C. (1962).
G. R. I&n, Plastic zone near a crack and fracture toughness. Proc. 7th Sagamore Ordnance Mater.
Res. Conf. (1960). Svracuse Universitv Press MET. E. 661-61 l/F. (1960).
W. F. Brown, Jr. and J. E. Srawley; Plane strain crack toughness testing of high strength metallic
materials. Am. Sot. Test. Mater. Spec. Tech. Publ. No. 410 (1966).
J. G. Kaufman, Role of theoretical stress-concentration
factor in evaluating notch toughness. ASTM
Mater. Res. Stand. (1967).
P. C. Paris and G. C. Sih, Stress analysis of cracks. Fracture toughness testing and its applications.
Am. Sot. Test. Mater. Spec. Tech. Publ. No. 381, pp. 30-81 (1965).
The Boeing Company, Large motor case technology evaluation. First Year Summary Progr. Rep.,
Vol. l,AFMLContractAF33(615)-1623
(1965).
M. Field and J. F. Kahles, Surface integrity of machined and ground high strength steels. Proc. Triportite Technical Cooperative Program (TTCP) Symp., Washington, D.C. 26-28 October 1964; DMIC
Rep.No.210(1964).
C. F. Tiffany and J. N. Masters, Applied fracture mechanics. Fracture toughness testing and its applications. Am. Sot. Test. Mater. Spec. Tech. Publ. No. 38 1, pp. 249-277 (1965).
(Received 25 January 1968)

R&sum&On considere que la portee du facteur nominal de sbcurite d6crivant la resistance dun recipient B
pression depend de la manibre dont est d&rite la configuration en supposartt une compositon suffisamment
sans dbfaut. Pour des &ipients ou il est impossible de satisfaire au critbre de fuite avant rupture ou fuite
avant deformation plastique le facteur nominal de sCcuritC est considtre comme applicable aux groupes de
recipients plutBt quaux ticipients pris individuellement. On propose des criteres pour le contr6le de la rupture darts de tels recipients en se basant sur le fait que la senbilite de la structure a la presence de dkfauts,
devrait etre un nourcentaae fixe de Itpaisseur locale en nimporte quel point. On revoit les possibilites
courantes de techniques d%spection non destructives, en sappuyant sur le plus grand defaut quil est possible de manquer pluti3t que le plus petit d6faut quil est possible de dttecter. On examine les implications de
modeles de considerations de rupture darts les zones de flexion. On examine les sujetions de forme, dans les

Application of fracture mechanics

517

zones en flexion, entrainees par des conside ration de resistance a la fracture. On Ctablit des bases pour la
determination des efforts de flexion effectifs et pour Cvaluer Iimportance des efforts residueIs. Finalement.
on attire Iattention sur la possibilite, souvent ignorees, dun comportement fragile darts les zones dattache
et sur les techniques pour en tenir compte au tours du projet.
Zusammenfassung- Es wird angenommen, dass das Ausmass, in welchem der Nennsicherheitsbeiwert
die
Festigkeit eines Druckbehalters zum Ausdruck bringt, davon abhiingt, wie weit die Voraussetzung gentigend
fehlerfreier Zusammensetzung zutrifft. Bei Druckbehaltern wo das Kriterium Leckverlustvor-Bersten
oder
Leckverlust-vor-Fliessen
nicht erfiillt werden kann, wird der Nennsicherheitsbeiwert
als lediglich auf eine
grossere Zahl von Behiiltem und nicht etwa auf Einzelbehiilter, anwendbar erachtet. Es werden Kriterien
fur die Bruchverhtitung solcher Behalter vorgeschlagen, und zwar auf der Grundlage, dass die Empfindlichkeit derartiger Behalter gegentiber dem Vorhandensein van Rissen ein fester Prozentsatz der drtlichen
Wanddicke an einer beliebigen Stelle sein soll. Es wird ein Uberblick iiber die Brauchbarkeit der gegenwlrtigen zerstiirungsfreien
Prtifmethoden gegeben und zwar mit der Betonung auf der Rissgrosse, die
mijglicherweise unbemerkt bleiben kann, und weniger darauf, wie klein ein Riss sein kann, urn noch entdeckt zu werden. Femerhin wird das Problem untersucht, wie die Bruchgefiihrdung biegebeanspruchter
Zonen beim Entwurf beriicksichtigt werden kann. Es wird eine Grundlage fur die Ermittlung wirksamer
Biegespannungen und fur die Abschltzung der Bedeutung von Eigenspannungen geschatfen. Schliesslich
wird auf die oft unbeachtet bleibend
Moglichkeit des Auftretens von Sprddigkeit an Anschlusstellen
hingewiesen, sowie auf Methoden zur Berticksichtigung derselben in der Konstruktionsphase.