ht. J. Pres. Vex.

& Piping 68 (1996) 181-201

@ 1996 Published by Elsevier Science Limited
Printed in Northern Ireland. All rights reserved
ELSEVIER 0308-0161(94)00052-6 0308-0161/%/$15.00

An examination of methods of assessing

interacting surface cracks by comparison with
experimental data
T. H. Leek & I. C. Howard
Department of Mechanical and Process..Engineering. The University of Sheffield, Mappin Street, Sl 3JD, Shefield, U.K.

(Received 15 June 1995)

Methods of assessingthe low cycle fatigue crack growth of interacting surface

cracks are discussed and evaluated by the comparison of crack growth
predictions with experimental data. The comparisons show that recently
proposed assessment methods are a significant improvement in safety and
accuracy over older techniques. In particular, the commonly used conditions
for the assessment of non-coelanar cracks are shown to be unsafe. Improved
conditions are proposed. *

NOTATION semi-width of a section

IK range of stress intensity factor
Y interaction factor, =K:/K,
a depth of a surface crack r uniform interaction factor
a average depth of two surface cracks a, tensile stress
amax. maximum crack depth Ub bending stress at the surface
b half length of a straight sided through
crack
C semi-surface length of a surface crack 1 INTRODUCTION
F average semi-surface length of two
surface cracks A safety assessment of an engineering
C Paris growth law constant component that contains two or more cracks in
distance between crack planes close proximity must take account of any crack
f finite width correction factor interaction. This work is an experimental
k mode I elastic stress intensity factor investigation into methods of accounting for
without the influence of interaction interaction in the particular problem of fatigue
K: Mode I elastic stress intensity factor crack growth of interacting surface cracks under
including the influence of interaction mode I load. Five different assessment methods
1 total surface distance between the are compared with experimental data and the
outer tips of surface cracks accuracy and applicability of each method
LEFM abbreviation for linear elastic fracture examined.
mechanics The regime under investigation is linear elastic
II Paris growth law exponent fracture mechanics, such that the elastic stress
R load ratio intensity factor (SIF), K, and the Paris fatigue
S separating distance between cracks crack growth law are applicable. Under such
SO initial separating distance between conditions interaction takes the general form of
cracks an increase (for non-overlapping cracks) in the
SIF abbreviation for stress intensity factor SIF values of the cracks over those which would
t thickness of a section occur if the cracks existed alone. Both coplanar
181
182 T. H. Leek. I. C. Howard
and non-coplanar cracks are examined under
both tension and bending load.
The recommendations made in the ASME
Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code (e.g. Section
XI, Articles IWA-3000 and IGA-3000, 1992)
and in the discussion document BSI PD64932 are
perhaps the most widely known methods of
assessing interacting surface cracks. However,
theoretical and practical examinations of these
methods suggest that they may be highly
unrealistic, yielding unnecessarily conservative or
perhaps unsafe crack growth predictions.345The
accuracy and justification of the methods are
unknown and, most tellingly, there is con-
siderable disagreement between the assessment
conditions proposed in each document. There is
therefore a need for the various assessment
methods to be studied and compared with
experimental data. The aim is to achieve
standardised and substantiated assessment meth-
ods and this provides the thrust behind the
present work.
The experimental data was obtained from a
total of 18 fatigue tests of plane surface cracked
plates under either tension or bending load.
Initial test pieces contained one surface crack and
confirmed the validity of the experimental
arrangement, the single crack assessment proce-
dure, and the material constants used in analysis.
Subsequent tests were of specimens containing
two parallel surface cracks in the same or
different planes.
2 SURFACE CRACKS
Surface cracks can, at least initially, be of
irregular shape and orientation. Standard prac-
tice, as recommended in both ASME and BSI
PD6493,2 is to characterise a surface crack
projecting it onto the plane normal to the
principal stress and to assume the crack to be
semi-elliptical, having the dimensions of the
rectangle that fully encloses the flaw. The
assumed crack is then uniquely defined by a
surface length, 2c, and a depth, a. Whilst there is
some discussion about whether a surface crack
does actually achieve a perfectly semi-elliptical
shape there is considerable evidence in the
literature demonstrating that the characterization
is reasonable.
Where two cracks exist, each is first recharac-
terized as above to obtain two parallel cracks.
The distance between the planes of the cracks is
taken to be the minimum distance normal to the
assumed cracks that exists between the actual
cracks. In this way the problem becomes two
semi-elliptical cracks that are either coplanar or
in two parallel planes (non-coplanar). Both
situations are considered in this work.
Recharacterization of surface cracks as described
results in a geometry that is sufficiently simple for
purposes of analysis. The validity of this initial
recharacterization is not part of the current
study. The crack geometry of interest is
illustrated in Fig. 1 which also shows the
notation employed to describe the cracks.
Although the semi-elliptical shape is reason-
ably straightforward, an exact solution for the
SIF values of a single surface crack under Mode I
load is not available (and hence is also not
available for interacting surface cracks). Since the
first approximation of Irwin, considerable effort
has been expended in the search for a single
crack SIF solution and many approximations
have been proposed taking the form of both
discrete values and continuous equations. These
are discussed fully by Leek. Due to their
acceptable accuracy, ease of use, and wide-
ranging applicability, the approximate expres-
sions developed by Newman & Raju8T9have
recently gained acceptance and are used thro-
ughout this work wherever SIF values for a single
surface crack are required. The suitability of the
expressions is demonstrated by their agreement
with results from the tests of specimens
containing a single crack.
Where interaction is quantified the single crack
SIF values calculated using Newman & Raju,
expressions are modified by interaction factors,
y, defined by
YE2
I
1d
Fig. 1. Two surface cracks shown in section and plan;
geometry and nomenclature.
 Examination of methods of assessing interface surface cracks
so that when two cracks are interacting the actual
SIF at a point on a crack is equal to the
interaction factor applicable to that point times
the SIF that would occur at that point in the
absence of the other crack. As would be
intuitively expected from the variation of SIF
values, and as illustrated, for example, by the
interaction factors for adjacent surface cracks
presented by Murakami et uL.,~* the value of an
interaction factor varies around a crack front.
3. INTERACTING SURFACE CRACKS
The five assessment methods examined are
referred to by number as follows:
(1) ASME
(2) BSI PD6493*
(3) Iida
(4) Leek & Howard5,6
(5) Leek & Howard3x5
Methods 1 and 2 are applicable to both coplanar
and non-coplanar cracks as is required whereas
the more recent methods, 3, 4, and 5, are
currently applicable to coplanar cracks only.
These later methods are extended to the
assessment of non-coplanar cracks by new
conditions developed herein. Full details of each
method are given after the following discussion
of their basis and of the other components
required in crack growth calculations.
3.1 Coplanar surface cracks
To assesscoplanar surface cracks methods 1 and
2 recommend that the cracks should be
recharacterized to an enveloping crack (defined
as a single semi-elliptical crack having the
dimensions of the rectangle that fully develops
the two individually cracks) when the following
relevant condition is satisfied. If the condition is
not satisfied the cracks are assumed to be
independent.
ASME s 52 X (maximum of {a,, a,})
(2)
BSI PD6493* s I2 X (minimum of {c,, c,))
Such an approach is designed to be straightfor-
ward and consistently conservative and, as a
result, some realism and the flexibility to account
for differing degrees of interaction in different
crack geometries are sacrificed. Furthermore, the
above conditions do not often agree and their
183
origins and justification are unknown to the
authors of this paper. Whilst safe crack
assessmentsmay be obtained the degree of safety
is unknown and a large and unrealistic
discontinuity is introduced into the crack growth
calculations. There is also the potential for
unnecessarily conservative predictions, particu-
larly for cracks under bending load with low a/t
or under tension load at any u/t. For such cracks
the large reduction in aspect ratio resulting from
the application of eqn (2) leads to a considerable
increase of SIF values and hence of predicted
growth, especially in the through thickness
direction. Since SIF values for a crack under
tension load increase with a/t and the predicted
growth is an exponential function of SIF, any
over-prediction in crack size will be rapidly
magnified. For cracks under bending load the
SIF at the maximum depth point reduces as a/t
increases and so, although over-prediction can
occur by an amount dependent upon a/t, it does
not become magnified. Where combined tension
and bending load occur any spiralling errors in
the growth predictions will be dependent upon
the ratio of tension to bending load and the
values of u/t.
The proposals of Method 3, designed to
enable straightforward and realistic crack growth
predictions, are to neglect interaction and, when
the cracks touch, assume immediate coalescence
to a semi-elliptical crack drawn through the outer
tips of the two coalescing cracks and through the
deepest point of the deeper crack. The
dimensions of this assumed crack are:
ceW= Cl + c* (3)
a eW = maximum of
1, 1 - (1 -
ai
(Cj/Cnew))2 I i=l,*
(4)
where ai and ci are the dimensions of the two
coalescing cracks. This approach has also been
used by Kishimoto et a!.,* Morgan,13McComb et
aZ.,14and Soboyejo et al., who examined a small
number of crack geometries using experimental
data or computer simulation. However instead of
eqn (4) as the depth condition for the coalesced
crack these latter practitioners used the less
conservative choice of an enveloping crack
(defined previously) which has dimensions given
by eqn (3) and where
a eW= maximum of {Ui}j=l,* (5)
184 T. H. Leek, I. C. Howard
Method 3 is simple to use and it has provided
realistic crack growth predictions in the examples
available in the literature. However, it is not
clear in these examples whether the method
safely accounts for interaction on its own or
whether safe assessments are obtained due to
other factors in the growth calculations such as
the SIF approximation or materal constants used.
For the method to safely account for interaction,
any unsafe errors introduced by neglecting
interaction must be cancelled out by the
conservative assumption of immediate transition
to a uniform crack. However, the evidence in
support of this being true for all of the potential
crack geometries, and thus for the method to be
used as a standard assessment procedure, is not
sufficient at present. Cracks in large sections have
smaller interaction factors than the same cracks
in small sections but, as for Methods 1 and 2,
Method 3 includes no measure of the a/t effect.
There is also disagreement as to which of eqns
(4) or (5) should be used.
The remaining type of assessment procedure
for two coplanar surface cracks considered in this
work is where interaction is quantified in some
manner and incorporated into the SIF and
fatigue crack growth calculations. This is the
approach taken in Methods 4 and 5. In Method 4,
intended to be as realistic as possible with no
deliberate conservatism, a continuous method of
approximating the interaction factors of the
cracks is used and the factors are constantly
recalculated as part of the crack growth
calculations. When the cracks are predicted to
touch an enveloping crack is immediately
assumed. This procedure is somewhat complex
and so a derivative, method 5, was developed as
a compromise intended to be more straightfor-
ward in application, consistently conservative,
and having an acceptable amount of realism. In
Method 5, a constant interaction factor, with a
fixed value dependent upon the initial crack
geometry only, is applied uniformly to all SIF
values of the two cracks; when the cracks are
predicted to touch a crack with dimensions given
by equations 3 and 4 is immediately assumed.
Methods 4 and 5 have a realistic basis, in
taking measure of the whole crack geometry, and
theoretical evidence in their support has been
presented in their formulation; for example,
comparison with finite element stress analyses
and comparison between theoretical fatigue crack
growth calculations. Both methods are recently
developed and, as for the alternative methods
above, require comparison with experimental
data.
There are significant differences between the
methods, partly explained by their different
degrees of safety, realism and complexity.
Comparison amongst the methods and with
experimental data will indicate to what extent the
various aims of the assessmentmethods are met.
3.2 The meeting of the crack tips
When two coplanar cracks grow towards each
other then, at some point before the cracks
meet, either the SIF at the tips of closest
proximity will reach the fracture toughness of the
material leading to failure of the ligament
between the cracks and perhaps of the
component, or the plastic zones around the crack
tips will come together invalidating elastic
analysis. In the former circumstance failure of
the component could be predicted according to
the demands of certain safety considerations and
factors of safety required, perhaps taking into
account the possibility of a significant decrease
of SIF values as the cracks coalesce and the
concave crack front becomes convex. Where
failure of the component is not predicted the
priority is that the crack growth prediction must
continue through the coalescence of the cracks
without significant errors being introduced.
The problem of cracks meeting has been
investigated by Melin16 who showed analytically
that it is energetically unfavourable for adjacent
coplanar cracks under Mode I load to meet
directly. Cracks will tend to deviate past each
other and either meet sub-surface or by tearing
of the plastic ligament between the crack tips.
This has been observed in experiments involving
the fatigue crack growth of coplanar surface
cracks reported by MorganI and Soboyejo et
a1.15 who noted that the crack tip deviation was
small and that any localised plasticity made
negligible difference to overall crack develop-
ment. For these reasons, for simplicity, and since
other errors in an analysis are likely to be more
significant, no special provision is made in the
crack growth predictions performed herein for
either localised plasticity or crack tip deviation
when the cracks are close, pure linear elastic
behaviour and direct meeting of crack tips are
assumed. Comparison of crack growth predic-
tions with the experimental data will show the
 Examination of methods of assessing interface surface cracks
suitability of these assumptions. Since safety is
often the primary consideration it is worthwhile
noting that ignoring any retardation of crack
growth that plasticity induces makes for a more
conservative assessment.
3.3 Parallel surface cracks in different planes
The experimental results of Iida, also considered
by Iida & Kawahara,17 show that when two
parallel and adjacent surface cracks grow by
fatigue they can curve to meet directly at the
surface (from a macroscopic viewpoint), or grow
past each other and curve to meet under the
surface, or, because of finite specimen size, grow
past each other without meeting before specimen
failure. The curvature occurs due to interaction
not only affecting K,, but also causing Mode II
SIF values, K,,, to arise on the crack fronts.
If the ratio of K1 and K,, is known then the
direction in which a crack will propagate can be
estimated using, for example, the maximum
energy release rate criterion of Griffith.*
However, there are no suitably wide-ranging K,
or Kff values presently available for surface
cracks in different planes, and complex analysis
would be necessary for their calculation.
Furthermore, both the KI and K,, values and the
curvature of the cracks will vary around the crack
fronts and change as the cracks grow. This
complexity makes it impractical at present to
attempt to formulate assessmentprocedures that
include explicit consideration of mixed mode SIF
values and/or prediction of crack curvature.
Consequently, we use a simpler approximation
which, although less realistic, satisfies the more
important requirement of enabling structural
integrity assessment.In this, what is required are
acceptably accurate predictions of the size of the
crack or crack combination normal to the
principal stress and of the maximum SIF value.
These are achieved by calculating only the crack
growth that occurs normal to the principal stress
as in the approach recommended in ASME and
BSI PD6493.
The ASME and BSI PD 6493 methods assume
the cracks to be coplanar, and assess them as
such, if
ASME d 5 12.7 mm (6)
BSI PD6493 d I $(a, + a*)
(7)
and otherwise assume them to be independent.
185
These conditions raise concerns similar to those
about the conditions for coplanar cracks, eqn (2),
in that they will not often agree and their origins
are unknown.
In conjunction with the assumption of an
enveloping crack, eqns (6) and (7) are intended
to safely account for the effect that cracks have
upon each other. Different conditions have been
proposed by Iida & Kawahara17 and by Iida as
methods of predicting coalescence. This different
emphasis means these conditions are not
necessarily safe. Iida & Kawahara17 proposed
that for parallel surface cracks in adjacent planes
to be considered as a coalesced crack
s10 and dla (8)
whereas Iida concluded that coalescence or
imaginary coalescence (rapid curving of a crack
path towards an adjacent crack) will occur if the
following applicable condition is satisfied:
dl5mm for ss10mm
(9)
ds0-5s for s>lOmm
Iida also suggestedthat the conditions of ASME
and BSI PD6493 given above are unnecessarily
conservative. Note that the condition for s in eqn
(8) is similar to the suggestion for coplanar cracks
discussed earlier, in that interaction is neglected
until s = 0. Presumably, to err on the safe side,
the a in eqn (8) refers to the maximum depth of
the two cracks under consideration.
The work of Iida and Iida & Kawahara17
raises doubts about the conditions of ASME and
BSI PD6493. There is disagreement between
conditions, a lack of supporting evidence, and, in
particular, those conditions that are dependent
upon a fixed size cannot be universally applicable
within elastic analysis. The interaction between
cracks depends upon crack separation, section
geometry, the crack shapes and sizes, and the
type of loading (tension, bending, or combined
tension and bending). The above conditions for
the treatment of cracks in adjacent planes
contain few of these variables. Improved
assessmentmethods are required.
Due to the complexities of quantifying the
variation of interaction with distance between
crack planes, the new assessment procedure
proposed here retains the method of considering
the cracks to be only either coplanar or
independent, depending upon certain conditions.
186 T. H. Leek, I. C. Howard
The conditions are chosen such that cracks are
considered coplanar if the interaction factor
pertaining to the maximum Mode I SIF of the
cracks, Y(K,,~=~.),is greater than or equal to 1.05.
Consider two surface cracks as shown in Fig. 1.
Interaction varies with both s and d and there
exists, for any pair of cracks, a value of d* such
that if d z d* then Y(K~,~~~.)I 1.05 for all s. Thus
the crack assessment conditions are, for any
value of s:
If d I d* the cracks should be assumed
to be coplanar and if d > d* the cracks
(10)
should be assumed to be independent.
When s is large y(Kl,max.) tends towards 1.0 for
any d, and similarly when cracks are completely
overlapped Y (&,,,,. ) tends to be rl for any d.
Condition (10) is therefore most conservative at
these two extremes. However, over-conservative
assessmentsare avoided since a large s would be
sensibly accounted for within the coplanar part of
the assessment, and assuming completely over-
lapping cracks to be coplanar results in the safe
assumption of the largest crack existing alone.
Condition (10) requires knowledge of d* for
the particular crack geometry under examination
and there have previously been no documented
values available. We define s* in, a similar
manner to d*, such that
ifs Is* then ~(l(,,,,~~.)I l-05 (11)
for all d. We also propose that
d*zs*
(12)
We assume that the interaction between cracks is
greatest when the cracks are coplanar. Then s*,
and hence d*, are given directly by Leek &
Howard3v5 who developed conditions to deter-
mine when Y(K,,,,~~.) 5 l-05 for coplanar surface
cracks under tension, bending, or combined
tension and bending load. Equations (10) and
(12) and the said conditions from Leek &
Howard give the following. The cracks are
independent if:
when a/t > O-8: d > 0.5C
when a/t 5 0% d > 16lF
or d > 7.725
or d2 > 5.95aC
when aft 2 O-5: d > 1.41C
or d > 2.49ii
or d2 > 163aC
(13)
Otherwise the cracks are assumed to be coplanar.
These conditions are valid when O-1I a/c I 2.0,
c/w 5 0.31, and for cracks under tension,
bending, or combined tension and bending load.
In these expressions, Z and F are the average
depth and semi-surface length respectively of the
two cracks. The condition for a/t > 0.8 was
developed from the consideration of through
cracks, and the less exacting conditions for cracks
with smaller values of a/t reflect the reduced
interaction factors which then occur. Note that in
some instances the conditions in eqn (13) will be
harsher than the ASME or BSI PD6493
conditions in eqns (6) and (7).
When the interaction factors for coplanar
surface cracks are close to l-05 then, as
illustrated by Leek & Howard,3T6they are not
especially sensitive to s. Consequently eqn (11)
can be satisfied to sufficient accuracy without
particularly accurate values of s*. It is reasonable
to assume that the same applies to d* so that the
estimation d* = s* need only be realistic rather
than precise.
The accuracy of eqn (12) can be assessedby
examination of data for through cracks which,
being surface cracks with infinite depth, can be
used as an indication of the behaviour of surface
cracks. The solutions for interaction factors of
through cracks by Erdogan and Yokobori et
al. give, for two identical through cracks of
length 2b, the data shown in Fig. 2. In this figure
1.25
2.3 :
E) 3
0.75 I I x
-2 -1 Odd 2 3
Fig. 2. Variation of the maximum interaction factor for two
identical through-cracks.
 Examination of methods of assessing interface surface cracks 187

the data for d/b = 0 is a continuous solution where the suffixes A and F are used to refer to
(Erdogan) and the data for d/b > 0 (Yokobori position on the cracks as shown in Fig. 1. For a
et ~1.) is for discrete values of s/b. The single crack, or where the cracks are assumed to
following approximate relationships are be independent, YA~~F.= 1. When ya is different
discernible: from ye then growth at point A is different from
s* d growth at point B and the crack becomes two
--2.3, --2.1 (14) quarter ellipses; similarly for crack 2. To enable
b b
the calculation of SIF values the crack is
giving d* = 0*91s* (15) recharacterized as semi-elliptical at each iteration
in the growth calculations.
This condition for through cracks supports the Equations (16) must be solved numerically.
approximation for surface cracks given in eqn Growth was calculated as a summation of
(12)- .,.I. increments, 6g, where
The data in Fig. 2 indicate that the coplanar
condition (d = 0) for through cracks is not always Sg = 6N x C(yAK) (17)
the worst case since, as d increases from zero, the
interaction increases by a small amount before and K and y are recalculated for each increment.
decreasing. If the same is true for surface cracks 6N was set to the minimum necessary for one of
then the assumption made in the formation of the the crack dimensions to increase by a factor of
assessment method that maximum interaction 1.005 during that growth increment. This allows
occurs when the cracks are coplanar is not strictly sensitivity to high interaction factors and SIF
correct. But the deviation is very small, the values whilst minimizing the computing
maximum amount being within the spread of requirements.
error normally associated with numerical work in Newman & Raju and Jolles & Tortoriello
engineering. The possibility of the coplanar have suggested the use of different growth law
condition being not quite the worst case is, constants, Cc, C,, for the calculation of growth in
therefore, ignored. This leaves us with the the surface and depth directions respectively,
considerable simplification of a straightforward these being given by
coplanar or independent method of assessment.
This assumption is consistent with others made in cc = 09c* (18)
idealising real cracks, for example, the recharac- where C, and y1are obtained from standardized
terization of curved cracks to straight and parallel tests such as that in ASTM E647-88.22 The
ones. correction was originally proposed by Newman &
Raju because it improved predictions of the
shape development of small (a/t < 1) semi-
4 CALCULATING CRACK GROWTH
circular cracks. More fundamentally, any need
for correction may result from the surface layer
The Paris fatigue crack growth law was used in effect where a crack meets a free surface as
all crack growth calculations. Growth of both described by Benthem. It is possible that such a
crack depth and surface length was calculated phenomenon has a different effect upon overall
simultaneously by coupled depth and length crack growth and shape depending upon the size
fatigue crack growth equations. of the crack, perhaps being significant only when
The relations used to calculate the growth of a/t is very small.
two cracks, allowing for full interaction, are as Compared with the alternative of C,. = C, eqn
follows: (18) leads to a reduction in the predicted growth
da, da2 along the surface, higher aspect ratios (a/c) and
z = C(r&Q, s = C(y&W an overall less conservative crack growth
prediction, and these effects are dependent upon
dc, the original crack geometry and the load type. It
= C(ycA&) WI is possible to achieve similar crack growth
r-1
dN c
predictions by using eqn (18) and by using
dc, slightly different values of C, and n with C, = C,.
= C(yd-GJ
1-ldN D Paris law constants are approximations and the
188 T. H. Leek, I. C. Howard

difference in crack growth predictions between
C, = 0.9C, and C, = C, may be similar to the calculations:
natural error bounds of C, and n. Furthermore YE
and hence the correction of eqn (18) is material
dependent. This is perhaps why there is currently
no clear agreement in the literature on whether
any correction should be used universally. For
example, in the comparisons of crack growth
predictions with experimental data made by
Hosseini & Mahmoud24*25the assumption C, =
09Ca provided the most accurate prediction for
a crack under tension load whilst the assumption
C, = C, was the best for a crack under bending
load. Such comparisons are made difficult by
their reliance upon the SIF approximation that is
used and the accuracy of C,, ~1, and the
experimental data. Since the present work is
concerned with safety, the more conservative
assumption of C, = C, (=C) is employed in the
crack growth calculations. This choice is con-
sidered further in the light of experimental
results.
The following are common to all growth
(1) The surface cracks are assumed semi-
elliptical and plane.
(2) Single crack SIF values are calculated using
the approximation of Newman & Raju.8,9
(3) Growth is calculated by eqns (16) and (17).
(4) cc = c,.
(5) Purely linear elastic behaviour is assumed.
5.1 Method 1: ASME conditions
The cracks are assumed to be independent until
or unless the following conditions are satisfied. If
d I 12.7 mm (19
the cracks are treated as being coplanar. For
coplanar cracks if
S % 2 X (maximum Of {Uj}i=l,z) (20)

a single enveloping crack is assumed, having

dimensions
5 THE ASSESSMENT METHODS USED
a = maximum Of {Ui}i=l,z, C = Cl + C2 + S/2 (21)
The various possibilities for fatigue crack growth
predictions of interacting surface cracks have If non-coplanar cracks are already overlapped,
been outlined. The specific details of each that is s <O, when they are assumed to be
method used in this work are given here. The coplanar, then
predictions depend upon: ceW=c1 +c,+s (22)
(1) the SIF approximation used, together with
any restrictions or assumptions imposed upon
crack shape development; 5.2 Method 2: BSI PD6493 conditions
(2) the conditions, e.g. stress, type of load;
(3) the material constants and crack growth law;
The cracks are assumed to be independent until
(4) the method of accounting for interaction.
or unless the following conditions are satisfied. If
It is the principal intention of this work to study
current proposals for item 4, and, as far as d 5 $(a, + a,) (23)
possible, determine their effectiveness indepen-
dently of the other factors in the growth the cracks are treated as being coplanar. For
prediction. To this end, the choices made for coplanar cracks, if
items 1 to 3, and used consistently throughout
this work, are as accurate as currently possible. S 5 2 X (minimum Of {Ci}i= 1,2) (24)
Some assessment procedures have employed or
propose the use of particular conditions under a single enveloping crack is assumed, having
item 1 (detailed in Leek), for example the crack dimensions given by eqn (21) and condition (22).
shape restrictions suggested by ASME or the
SIF approximations used by Iida. These are not 5.3 Method 3: Neglecting interaction, Iida
the most accurate choice and their examination is
outside the scope of this work. Details of the
various options under item 1 are therefore not The cracks are assumed to be coplanar or not by
included. the conditions given in eqn (13). No measure of
 Examination of methods of assessing interface surface cracks 189

interaction is included in the calculations, that is whether as a result of growth of the cracks or by
YAtoF = 1. When the cracks are predicted to their original dimensions, a uniform interaction
touch, a single crack is immediately assumed with factor, 7, is determined from Table 1 and used in
dimensions the fatigue crack growth calculations. This value
of 7 is applied to all points on the cracks, i.e.
CeW= Cl + c2,
YA~OF= 7, and once determined from Table 1
a new= maximum of
1, 1 - (1 -
ai

(CilCnew))2
Condition (22) also applies.
5.4 Method 4: Interaction factor method, Leek
& Howard
The cracks are assumed to be coplanar or
independent by the conditions given in eqn 13.
For cracks treated as coplanar, interaction factors
are calculated using the approximate
YAIOF
method developed by Leek & Howard5,6 and
incorporated into fatigue calculations. The
interaction factors are recalculated after each
increment of growth. When the cracks are
predicted to touch, a single enveloping crack is
immediately assumed having dimensions
a = maximum of {ai}i,l,z, c = cl + c2 (26)
with the condition given in eqn (22).
5.5 Method 5: Simple interaction method, Leek
& Howard
The cracks are assumed to be coplanar or
independent by the conditions given in eqn (13).
For cracks treated as coplanar the conditions
developed by Leek & Howard3s5and given in
Table 1 are used. The procedure being, when
(s/C) x (s/ii) > 3.38 and s/Z? 2.49 (27)
the cracks are assumed to be independent. When
either of these conditions are not satisfied,
Table 1. Conditions giving the value of the
uniform interaction factor to be used in fat-
igue crack growth calculations by method 5,
Leek & Howard
s/cx slii s/a
>3.38 ~2.49
~3.38 ~2.49
249>s/ar1.40
1.40 > s/a P 0.55
0.55 >slaz0.20
0~2o>s/az-0~15
0~15>s/n~0~00
I i=1,2
the value of 7 is fixed throughout the crack
growth calculations until the cracks touch. When
(25) the cracks are predicted to touch, a single crack is
immediately assumed with dimensions given by
eqns (25) and condition (22).
6 EXPERIMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
The experimental programme consisted of
fatigue tests in air of plane plates containing
either a single surface crack, two coplanar surface
cracks, or two (initially) parallel surface cracks in
different planes. The plates were subjected to
sinusoidally varying positive stressesunder either
pure tension or pure bending load using a
servo-hydraulic testing machine with a maximum
dynamic load capacity of &200 kN, and a
maximum actuator speed of 1 ms- at maximum
load. Five mild steel and thirteen A508 Class 3
steel specimens were tested, both steels being
used in the as-supplied condition. The mild steel
specimens were used to establish the experimen-
tal procedure whilst A508 was chosen for the
majority of the tests as it represents a typical high
quality pressure vessel steel. The A.508
specimens were cut from a 3 m diameter pressure
vessel forging.
The test parameters were as follows:
Specimens dimensions (tension): 20 mm thick X
100mm wide
Specimen dimensions (bending): 40 mm thick X
200 mm wide
Applied stress (tension) (all specimens): (T~.,,~~,=
100 MNme2
Applied stress (bending) (mild steel): u~.,,~~,=
200 MNm-
Applied stress (bending) (A508 steel): (T~.,,~~. =
225 MNm-
r R (minimum load/maximum load): 0.2
Loading frequency: 10 Hz or 1 Hz
-
1.05
Initial flaw size (part circular 0 31.75 mm):
1.10 a = 3-O mm, c = 9.3 mm
1.20 Initial flaw size: (part circular 0 38.1 mm):
1.30 a = 5.7 mm, c = 13.6mm
1.40
1.00 The specimen size, the magnitude of ;lppIic~l
stresses, the maximum loading fl-~clntin~:\
190 T. H. Leek, I. C. Howard

the approximate initial flaw sizes were deter- were initiated from these slits by fatigue loading.
mined from consideration of material supply, The conditions given in ASTM E647-8Sz2 were
testing machine capacity, the size of the surface used to establish when a crack had grown out of
cracks examined in the literature, and estimates the influence of the finite width of its starter slit.
of the time required for each test. These conditions were designed for straight-
All specimens were of uniform thickness along fronted cracks but there are no available
their length, the bending specimens being alternatives for surface cracks. Application of
400 mm long and the tension specimens 580 mm the conditions meant that the start of each test
long including the gripped portion at either end. was defined as when the fatigue crack had
For bending tests, the maximum stress given in initiated and grown by at least 1.0 mm all around
the above list is that at the specimen surface and the starting slit or slits. Using the notation shown
four-point loading was used so that the shear in Fig. 1, the configuration of the fatigue cracks
stress in the central section where the cracks at the start of each test is given in Table 2 which
were located was zero. The tension specimens also shows the convention used to name the
had a smooth reduction in width from 200 mm at specimens, that is the letter T or B followed by
the gripped portions to 100mm along the the number i indicates the ith tension or bending
working section to ensure a uniform tensile specimen respectively, and MS or A508 indicates
stress. The tensile grips included a flexible joint mild steel or A508 Class 3 material respectively.
to accommodate any slight misalignment in the Two methods were employed to monitor the
load chain and prevent any bending stresses growth of the cracks. The growth along the
being introduced. Static loading of comprehen- surface was measured during a test using a
sively strain gauged untracked specimens indi- travelling microscope and to facilitate this the
cated that both sets of grips performed surfaces of the specimens in the region of the
satisfactorily. In specimen production, the final cracks were polished prior to a test. The positions
machining operation was a careful grinding to of the rest of the crack fronts were marked by the
produce a smooth finish and any residual stresses benchmarking method whereby the appearance
were considered to be negligible compared to of the fracture surface is deliberately changed by
those applied. a change in test conditions. On breaking open the
The initial flaws in the specimens were specimen at the end of the test a record of the
introduced using slit saws and were thereby part position of the crack fronts each time the test
circular and approximately O-2mm wide. Cracks conditions were changed can be seen on the
fracture surface. The viable options for bench-
marking are changing the load ratio, R, or
Table 2. Geometry of cracks at the start of test, all dim- changing the cyclic frequency of the load. The
ensions in mm: refer to Fig. 1 for explanation of notation
latter was chosen as it has an insignificant effect
Test no. a, c, uz c2 S d upon the rate of crack growth in steels (tested in
air) and so does not complicate the crack growth
TlMS* 10.0 17.13 - - - -
BlMS* 9.5 17.52 - - - - predictions. Initial tests indicated the frequency
B2MS* 7.5 11.53 - - - - change necessary to achieve visible benchmarks
T2MS 7.2 15.28 8.5 14.73 10.0 -0.23 for the value of R and materials used. (R was
T3MS 11.0 16.63 8.2 15.43 8.0 12.91 constant throughout all tests except BlMS.)
T4A508 9.3 14.8 9.7 14.73 10.9 4.84 The end of a test was defined as when no more
TSA508 8.8 14.51 8.9 14.74 9.18 0.01
T6A508 9.5 14.68 9.7 15.02 9.06 9.71
useful data could be obtained. In reality this was
T7A508 9.4 1464 9.2 14.73 9.3 17.93 generally when ductile failure began to occur as
B3A508 8.3 15.33 8.5 14.96 9.5 12.4 the cracks approached the side or back face of
B4A508 8.3 15.05 8.2 14.98 21.6 11-89 the specimens. The test was therefore automati-
B5A508 5.6 10.65 9.7 16.55 8.7 12-13 cally stopped if a significant increase in the
B6A508
B7A508 ;:; 14-l
10.65 7.2
9.4 11.25
13.93 17.65
3.4 11.94
6.35
displacement of the actuator occurred. Strain
B8A508 9.3 16.15 5.6 10.43 9.2 2.87 gauges were also attached to the back face of
B9A508 5.1 10.3 5.1 10.53 18.75 20.14 each specimen and periodically checked for any
BlOA508 6.0 10.5 5.5 10.81 18.5 -0.03 plastic deformation of the ligament between the
BllA508 5.5 10.35 5.6 10.45 10.85 5.9
crack(s) and the back face. At the end of a test
* denotes a single crack test. the specimens were cooled in a bath of
 Examination
methylated spirits and solid carbon dioxide
pellets (approximately 200 K) and broken open
in a brittle manner by rapid loading. This
prevented any undesirable ductile deformation of
the fatigue surfaces. The benchmarks on the
fracture surfaces were measured using an SIP
Universal Measuring Apparatus machine.
6.1 Paris law constants
Mild steel Two independent Paris law re-
lationships for mild steel in air were found in the
literature reviewed,26,27
$ = 2.427 x 10-2(AK)3.3
g = 4.246 x 10~3(AK)3~82
where crack growth rate is in metres per cycle
and SIF is measured in MNme3*. The two
relationships are in close agreement over the
range of crack growth rates encountered in this
work and either can be used without significant
differences. The relationship of ESDU,2 eqn
(29), was chosen. The validity of these Paris Law
constants is considered in examination of the
experimental results.
A508 class 3 steel The fatigue characteristics
of ferritic medium strength low alloy steels such
as A508 are very similar. Torronen & Cullen,**
Bamford,29 and Paris et aL30 all indicate that
steels of this type that are equivalent grades
have the same fatigue behaviour (to the accuracy
of the Paris law). Material constants for the A508
10 20 40 80
AK (MNm*)
Fig. 3. Paris law relationships applicable to A508
obtained from the literature.
of methods of assessing interface surface cracks 191
Class 3 steel used were therefore obtained from
consideration of those for A508 Class 2 and 3,
and A533B Class 1 steel.
Crack growth rate data obtained from the
literature are shown in Fig. 3 where the data
from ASME is an upper bound. The ESDU*
data is a general relationship for low alloy steels
with a yield stress lying in a particular range and
consists of different values of C and n for growth
rates above and below 1 X lo-m/cycle which
yields the discontinuity shown in Fig. 3. It is
stated in ESDU that a crack growth rate slightly
lower than that shown in Fig. 3 occurs in steels
that have a high yield stress within the range
quoted. This is applicable to A508 class 3 steel.
This and the close agreement shown in Fig. 3 of
the independently obtained data of Iida &
Kawahara, Paris et al., and Mowbray et aL3
suggest that any one of these three relationships
are suitable. The value of R used in this work was
0.2. Since the data of Iida & Kawahara, Paris et
al., and Mowbray et al. were obtained at R = O-0
or 0.1, and increased R usually corresponds with
increased crack growth rate, an upper bound of
the three relationships was used. This gives the
following Paris law constants:
C = 3.318 x lo-*
(30)
n = 3.056
for crack growth rate in metres per cycle and SIF
measured in MNmp3*.
7 EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
The crack geometry at the start of each test is
given in Table 2. As expected each of the cracks
rapidly adopted a uniform semi-elliptical shape
after initiation from their starter notch. Examples
of the experimental data collected from each
specimen are given in appendix A using the
YC2J :ya, %P
80100 tya, crack2
f% pj 1d
crack1
Fig. 4. The system and nomenclature used to document the
experimental data.
192
nomenclature shown in Fig. 4. (A full set of data
is available from the authors on request.)
Examples of the shape development of the cracks
as defined by the benchmarks on the fracture
surface, and of the routes of the cracks along the
specimen surface as monitored by the travelling
microscope, are shown in Figs 5 to 11. Figure 12
shows the fracture surface of specimen BllA508.
Experimental and predicted crack growth data
for specimen B2MS, one of the single crack tests,
is compared in Fig. 13 which shows the good
agreement between experiment and theory in this
test. All three single crack tests suggested that
the relationship for Paris law constants of
C, = C,, as against the alternative C, = 09C,
discussed earlier, is the most appropriate.
Furthermore the evidence indicated that the
combination of Newman & RajuV9 SIF
approximation, the Paris law, and the general
testing arrangement, was of suitable accuracy so
that progression on to tests of specimens with
two cracks was sensible.
Three tests of coplanar cracks were performed.
In each test the cracks grew to coalesce and form
a uniform single crack as shown in the examples
given in Figs. 5 and 10. In agreement with
Melin I6 the cracks did not meet tip to tip but
instead deviated slightly and met either sub-
surface or by a small tear at the surface. The
former is a small scale version of what happens
when the crack planes are further apart.
Examples of specimens containing two surface
cracks in different planes are shown in Figs. 6 to
9 and 11. Prior to overlapping there was no
significant curving of the cracks. Once over-
lapped, the cracks curved towards each other
and the growth rate of the overlapped portion of
the crack fronts slowed down. These events are
linked and are dependent upon the separation of
the crack planes. This behaviour gave the
distorted crack shapes shown in Figs. 7, 8 and 11,
0 20 40 60 80 loo
widn (mm)
Fig. 5. Crack shape development and surface growth,
T5A508.
T. H. Leek, I. C. Howard
270 -
0 20 40 00 00 1w
Mdth (mm)
Fig. 6. Crack shape development and surface growth,
T7A508.
and explains the smaller amount of distortion
shown in Figs. 5 and 9 where larger values of d
exist. As overlapped cracks continued to grow,
the outer profile of the total cracked area tended
towards a single uniform enveloping crack. When
cracks did meet, it was sub-surface and the
uniform shape was achieved, Figs 8 and 11.
The curving of the crack fronts towards each
other isolates a piece of material between the
cracks. This region of material has the shape of a
flattened cone with its tip at the point where the
cracks meet and can be seen still attached to the
bottom fracture surface of the pair shown in Fig.
12.
8 COMPARISON OF EXPERIMENTAL
DATA WITH PREDICTIONS
Comparisons between crack growth predictions
and experimental data for the double cracked
specimens were made in the form of plots of the
dimensionless crack size parameters 1/2w, a,,,Jt
and s/s,,, versus loading cycles where a coalesced
crack is indicated by a constant value of s/s, = 0.
Examples are shown in Figs 14 to 20 which
correspond with Figs 5 to 11. Each parameter is
220, I
Fig. 7. Crack shape development and surface growth,
B5A508.
 Examination of methods of assessing interface surface cracks 193

0 20 40 60 60 100 120 140 160 160 m 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 164 160 200

width (ml, mdth (mm)

Fig. 8. Crack shape development and surface growth, Fig. 10. Crack shape development and surface growth,
B8A508. BlOA508.

plotted for the five assessment methods under The examples in Figs 5 and 6 and the
consideration, and, where data appears to be corresponding Figures 14 and 15 show, for cracks
missing, it is coincident with other data, All five under tension load, the two extremes of coplanar
assessmentmethods are the same until one of the cracks and cracks with a large value of d, and
conditions is reached within a method which illustrate the importance of the inter-plane
leads to the cracks being assumed coplanar. distance to an assessment. Considering the
The predictions are considerably more wide- ASME and BSI PD6493* conditions, one sees
spread for cracks under tension load, Figs 14 and that when d is small enough that the cracks are
15, than for cracks under bending load, Figs 16 to considered coplanar then these methods give
20. For the former, once an overestimate of crack very conservative predictions; when d is large so
size occurs, particularly by using the ASME or that the cracks are considered independent
BSIPD6493 conditions (methods 1 or 2), larger unsafe crack growth predictions are obtained.
and larger errors occur, whilst for the latter The results for intermediate values of d conform
overestimates tend to remain of a similar with the expected trend between the two
magnitude throughout the crack growth calcula- extremes. The harsher and newly proposed
tion. This is a result of the phenomena described conditions for d included in assessment methods
earlier of SIF values increasing as a/t increases 3,4 and 5 deal satisfactorily with the larger d
for cracks under tension load and, at the values.
maximum depth point, decreasing for cracks For cracks under tension load method 3,
under bending load due to the reducing stress neglecting interaction, yielded increasingly unsafe
through thickness. In situations of combined predictions the smaller the value of d, that is,
tension and bending load the overestimation the larger the actual interaction. For coplanar
effect will correspond to the proportions of the cracks, as expected if the interaction factors are
two load types. There will also be a dependence reasonably well approximated, the interaction
upon a/t since the lower the value of a/t the factor method gave very good agreement
more a bending load is like a tension load. between actual and predicted crack growth. For

220, 7

- 30
B
; 20
ae 10
0
0 20 40 60 60 100 120 140 180 180 2m 0 20 40 60 60 100 120 140 160 160 200
width (mm) wml (mm)

Fig. 9. Crack shape development and surface growth, Fig. 11. Crack shape development and surface growth,
B9A508. BllA508.
194 T. H. Leek, I. C. Howard

1.0 /
I
0.9 - ! .
0.8 - /I
sz ,

I
1.0

0.8

0.8

P 0.4

0.2
\
\
0.0
I I I I I I I

0 50 loo 150 290 250 300 350 400 450

loading cydes (thousands)

0 expefimmltaldela ~ - ASME ~~-- 8SIPDS4W

--- Methcd3 -Method4 Method5
(ASME and BSIPD64SZ m&hods am coincibmt)

Fig. 14. Experimental and predicted crack growth, TSA508.

Fig. 12. The fracture surface of BllA508.

with no intermediate conditions and suggeststhat
perhaps the interaction factors applied to the
larger values of d this method became more assumed coplanar cracks should be reduced in
conservative. This is because non-coplanar cracks some way in proportion to the d of the actual
are assumed to be either independent or coplanar cracks. Method 5, the simple interaction method,
was developed to be a little more conservative
than the interaction factor method and conforms
O .- I to this model. It provided consistently safe
. expedmentaldata 1
90- __ c,=c, I i predictions and is an improvement over the
*o _ ---- c,=o.ac, ASME or BSI PD6493 methods.
Other than being less widespread, as men-
70-mhafwidth
5P 80-
n expedmentaldata
-----.
--- c,=c, /Y / /I
tioned above, the predictions for cracks under
0 c,=o.9q
bending load, Figs 7 to 11 and 14 to 20, followed
similar trends to those for cracks under tension
load. The ASME and BSI PD6493 conditions
again proved unsatisfactory at large values of d
whilst the newly proposed conditions for d used
in methods 3, 4 and 5 were acceptable.
Specimens with the biggest difference in crack
sizes, B5A508 and B8A508, did not give any
011,. I. (.,~,~,.,.,.I
evidence against the use of average crack
0 12 3 4 5 8 7 8 9 dimensions in the new d conditions and in
loadin cydes (/l OOOOO) determining the uniform interaction factor used
Fig. W. Comparison of predicted and experimental crack in the simple interaction method. The interaction
growth for the single crack specimen B2MS. factor method, method 4, again gave good
 Examination of methods of assessing interface surface cracks 195

0.4 r
1.0

/
0.9 - Y

, l ,/
6 0.8 - _ &.-

0.6 - r I I
1.0 4

'\
0.0 - I ',
l -._ I ,. -0.5 - S-J
p -0.5 - , 1
. \ I w -1.0 -
\ e
-1.0 - x3 -1.5 - a
-1.5 - \ -2.0 - B
. \ -2.5 - 0
-2.0 I I I I I
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

loading cyzies (thousands) loading cycles (thousands)

. experimentaldata --AWE' ---- Bslpo84932 e exqrimEmta1data -- AWE' .-~~ BSIPlHs3~

--- Method3 -M&hod4 M&cd5 -~~ hkllkd3 -Mahod MewlDd5

Fig. 16. Experimental and predicted crack growth, B5A508.

Fig. 15. Experimental and predicted crack growth, T7A508.

predictions for coplanar cracks and became the purposes of analysis, be assumed to be
slightly more conservative for larger d. Since coplanar. These latter conditions are referred to
interaction between cracks under bending load is as d conditions.
smaller than under tension load, and differences The use of Newman & Rajus8*9 SIF ap-
in crack growth predictions are not magnified, proximation, of C, = C,, and of the general
neglecting interaction, method 3, gave similar experimental conditions, was verified in the
results to method 4. This suggeststhat for cracks single crack tests, as were the Paris law constants
under bending load the use of Iidas depth used for the mild steel.
condition, eqn (25), adequately compensates for As shown in Fig. 3, there is little difference
neglecting interaction in the geometries ex- between the independently obtained Paris law
amined. The simple interaction method data applicable to A508 and there is no reason to
remained slightly more conservative than the suspect that the steel used in this work deviates
interaction factor method, and so was always from such. There is also an expectation that the
safe, but was not necessarily an improvement in interaction factor approximation for coplanar
accuracy over the use of ASME or BSI PD6493 surface cracks used in this work is of good
conditions. accuracy since in its formulation Leek &
Howard5,6 showed it to be accurate to &5% in
comparison with values calculated by finite
9 DISCUSSION element analysis and those in the literature.
Evidence in support of these two presumptions is
Five different methods of predicting the fatigue provided by the good agreement between growth
growth of interacting surface cracks have been predictions and experimental data for coplanar
discussed and compared with experimental data. cracks in A508 specimens, shown in Figs 14 and
Each method consists of a method of assessing 19, when the interaction factor method and the
coplanar cracks together with conditions to aforementioned Paris law data are used. Thus it
determine when non-coplanar cracks should, for is likely that the Paris law constants used for
196 T. H. Leek, I. C. Howard

0.7

0.6

c 0.5

c! 0.4

0.6 , I
// ,j
0.8 -
/ , ,,
0.7 - ,,.,,; I

.,.,
\
.
g0.0\
a\
l---
1.0

0.5

I 3
ui=
-I-
"" 1
0
-\ e
-0.5 - e -2 - ',e I/
B
e ~,I
0 -3 1,
-1.0 I / I I I I I I
0 50 loo 150 200 250 300 350 400 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
loading cycles (thousands) loading cycles (thousands)

0 experinwnlaldata -- ASME ~--- BsIPLx493* e e*mentaI data - - ASME ~--- BSIPceew

p--Metlw83 --4 -Mewmds --- MemOd --4 Melhoa5
(AWE md BSIPDS4W methoda are oMcidml) (mlhoda3md5an,mincidml)

Fig. 17. Experimental and predicted crack growth, B8A508. Fig. 18. Experimental and predicted crack growth, B9A508.

A508 steel and the interaction factor approxima- still a substantial distance apart. Such an
tion are realistic. assumption has a considerable effect upon crack
Since the SIF calculation, experimental condi- size and upon the SIF values of the cracks
tions (stress, etc.), and the material (Paris law) particularly when a tension component of load is
constants used in this work have been shown to present. The combination of two uncompromis-
be acceptably accurate, then a rigorous test of the ing conditions, coplanar or independent cracks,
method of accounting for interaction has been and enveloping crack or independent cracks,
achieved. means that ASME or BSI PD6493 type of
The ASME and BSI PD6493 assessment assessment will always be subject to significant
methods, designed to be safe rather than inaccuracies.
necessarily realistic, provided both unsafe and The assessment of non-coplanar cracks by
overly conservative crack growth predictions; assuming them to be either coplanar or
acceptable predictions were only obtained when independent is an approximation. However this
d was small and the load was pure bending. The method is retained because of its simplicity and
unsafe predictions occurred when the crack the current absence of straightforward alterna-
planes were some distance apart and the cracks tives. To improve the reliability of the ap-
were incorrectly assumed to be independent proximation new d conditions have been
indicating that the d conditions in the ASME and proposed which, as required, are more severe
BSI PD6493 assessments are inadequate and than the inadequate ASME and BSI PD6493
should be replaced. The over-conservative conditions. These new d conditions have proved
predictions obtained using the ASME and BSI suitable in the tests performed in this work.
PD6493 methods arose from the conditions Although the choice of Y(K,,,,~~.)2 1.05 as the
applied once the cracks are assumed coplanar, foundation for the conditions is arbitrary there is,
that is, the physically unrepresentative assump- for the first time, some constructive and reasoned
tion of an enveloping crack when the cracks are basis for the d conditions. If required, less
 Examination of methods of assessing interface surface cracks 197

0.8
.
0.7 r, ,I

0.1 T 1

0.8

0.7
1 0.8 -

g 0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3
1.0

0.8

0.6
cn
33
0.4

0.2

0.0
O 100 200 300 400 500
0 100 200 300 400 500
loading cycks (thwsmds) loading cycles (thousands)

0) e~mantal data -- - GM -~~- 8SlPM @ experimental data - - ASME ---- 8SIPO64W

~-- Mathad -- Mathod -Methods ---Method3 - Method4 mulads
Fig. 19. Experimental and predicted crack growth, Fig. 20. Experimental and predicted crack growth,
BlOA508.
BllA508.

conservative conditions, corresponding to such as to a greater or lesser extent, when the ratio of
YWLmax.)2 1.10 or 1.20 and based on the same crack sizes and/or the aspect ratios of the cracks
assumption of d* = s*, can be obtained directly are different from those tested. On the other
from Leek & Howard.3,5 hand, cracks in proportionally larger sections
One of the advantages of the new d conditions than were tested in this work have lower
is their sensitivity to the crack geometry, a interaction factors, and neglecting interaction
reasonable requirement of any measure of crack becomes safer. Nevertheless, the method cannot
interaction. There are virtually limitless pos- be guaranteed safe so it cannot be recommended
sibilities for alternative conditions or for the for inclusion in assessmentcodes where safety is
improvement of those proposed. For example it of paramount importance.
is possible -that The evidence supports the expected accuracy
- the use of average crack
dimensions, a, c, is unnecessarily conservative of the interaction factor approximation and the
when there is a large difference in crack size. The use of this and the associated coalescence
use of G and a may be better in those condition provided the most consistently accurate
circumstances. crack growth predictions in the comparisons
Three methods for the assessmentof coplanar made. A known safety factor can be employed to
surface cracks (or surface cracks that have been achieve a conservative crack growth prediction.
assumed to be coplanar as part of the The method is appropriate for inclusion in an
assessment) have been investigated as alterna- assessmentcode where the required safety factor
tives to the ASME and BSI PD6493 conditions. might also be specified. As well as the accuracy a
The neglecting interaction method gave, as it is further distinct advantage of this method is its
designed to do, good approximations of crack flexibility in dealing with different loading.
growth. However, some of these predictions were Different interaction factors are calculated
unsafe, particularly for crack geometries with depending upon whether the load is tension or
small d under tension load. This may also occur, bending or on the proportion of tension and
198 T. H. Leek, I. C. Howard
bending. Although somewhat complicated in
comparison with other methods the interaction
factor method does not present any programming
difficulties.
The objectives of the simple interaction
assessmentmethod, to be safe and easy to use in
comparison with the interaction factor method,
are achieved at the expense of some accuracy. It
is perhaps over-safe in some circumstances. To
minimize the number of conditions in the method
the compromise of using the same conditions for
cracks under either tension or bending load is
made. Furthermore, the conditions were devised
to be safe for all crack geometries, not only the
comparably narrow range of geometries tested
here. This explains some of the conservativeness
of the method. The safety in this method makes
it appropriate for use in assessmentcodes, and, in
spite of the compromises, it is a considerable
improvement over an ASME or BSI PD6493
type of assessmentfor cracks under tension load.
To improve the simple interaction method it
may be appropriate to use the less conservative
eqn (26), rather than eqn (25), for the dimensions
of the uniform crack assumed when the cracks
are predicted to meet. The use of eqn (25) can
sometimes account adequately for the effects of
interaction on its own, as shown by the
predictions made by neglecting interaction, so it
is unlikely to be necessary when a conservative
measure of interaction is also used. Eqn (25) was
chosen in the formulation of the simple
interaction method for safety and because the
actual behaviour of coalescing cracks is unknown.
The practical evidence in this work indicates that
eqn (26) would be a better choice.
Further effort towards improving crack growth
predictions is probably best concentrated on
introducing some flexibility into the coplanar or
independent assumption for non-coplanar cracks.
This might be achieved in the interaction factor
and the simple interaction assessment methods
discussed by reducing the interaction factors the
larger the value of d. This is supported by the
fact that at present both of these assessment
methods become more conservative the larger d
is.
In the comparisons between predicted and
experimental crack growth made in this work it is
evident that accounting for interaction when a
tension load is present is more important than
when the load is pure bending. In considering the
accuracy and applicability of assessment tech-
niques a full investigation must examine evidence
from both bending tests and tension tests.
This work has intentionally studied the period
of interaction between two growing cracks. In
practical circumstances it is possible that the
period of interaction may be small compared
with the overall growth of the cracks. Other
considerations may then be more important than
the method of accounting for interaction. Even
large errors in accounting for interaction may be
negligible and the attention to detail given in this
work would be unnecessary.
10 CONCLUSIONS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
The following conclusions are made for the
assessment of crack growth for interacting
surface cracks.
(1) The conditions given in ASME and BSI
PD64932 for non-coplanar cracks can give
unsafe crack growth predictions.
(2) The conditions given in ASME and BSI
PD6493 for coplanar cracks can give overly
conservative predictions.
(3) For non-coplanar surface cracks the new
conditions, given in eqn (13) for determining
whether the cracks should be assumed to be
coplanar should be used.
(4) Neglecting interaction can provide realistic
crack growth predictions but is not
necessarily safe.
(5) Conditions and methods for the assessment
of interacting surface cracks must be tested
for cracks under tension load and under
bending load.
Due to the relatively small range of crack
geometries tested the following can only be
recommendations. These are for the assessment
of crack growth for interacting surface cracks.
(a) The ASME and BSI PD6493 conditions
should not be used.
(b) For a straightforward approximation of crack
growth the neglecting interaction method can
be used. This is, however, not necessarily
safe.
(c) For realistic and safe crack growth predic-
tions the interaction factor assessment
method, Leek & Howard,5,6 should be used.
The method is suitable for use in assessment
codes where a known safety factor can be
added as appropriate.
 Examination of methods of assessing interface surface cracks
(d) For straightforward and consistently safe
crack growth predictions the simple interac-
tion method, Leek & Howard,3*5 should be
used. This should be modified to use eqn (26)
as a replacement for eqn (25).
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We are grateful for the support of the Central
Electricity Generating Board while this work was
undertaken. The work was also supported by the
SERC.
REFERENCES
1. The American Society of Mechanical Engineers. ASME
Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section XI, (1992)
Rules for inservice inspection of nuclear power plant
components; Appendix A, Analysis of flaws. Article
IWA-3000, Standards for examination evaluation, and
Article IGA-3000, Acceptance standards for flaw
indications.
2. British Standards Institution, PD 6493 (1991) Guidance
on methods for assessing the acceptability of flaws in
fusion welded joints, Section 8 and Figure 6.
3. Leek, T. H. & Howard, I. C., Rules for the assessment
of interacting surface cracks under mode 1 loading, Znt.
J. Pres. Ves. and Piping, 60 (1994) 323-339.
4. Iida, K., 1983, Shapes and coalescence of surface fatigue
cracks, Proceedings of I. C. F. International Symposium
on Fracture Mechanics, Beijing, China, 22-25 Novem-
ber, (1983) 679-693. (Available as document X111-1126-
84, International Institute of Welding.)
5. Leek, T. H., The interaction and growth of two surface
cracks under fatigue loading, Ph.D. Thesis, (1990)
University of Sheffield, UK.
6. Leek, T. H. & Howard, I. C., Estimating the elastic
interaction factors of two coplanar surface cracks under
mode I load, Znt. J. Pres. Ves. and Piping, 60 (1994)
307-321.
7. Irwin, G. R., Crack extension force for a part through
crack in a plate, J. App. Mechanics, Trans. of AS. M. E.,
Series E, (1962) 29,651-654.
8. Newman, J. C. & Raju, I. S., Analyses of surface cracks
in finite plates under tension or bending loads, NASA
Technical Paper 1578, USA.
9. Newman, J. C. & Raju, I. S., An empirical stress
intensity factor equation for the surface crack, Eng.
Fract. Mech., (1981) 15, 185-192.
10. Murakami, Y. & Nemat-Nasser, S., Interacting dissimi-
lar semi-elliptical surface flaws under tension and
bending, Eng. Fract. Mech., 16 (1982) 373-386.
11. Murakami, Y. & Nisitani, H., Stress intensity factors for
interacting two equal semi-elliptical surface cracks in
tension, Trans. Japan Sot. Mech. Engrs., Ser. A, 41, No.
415, (1981) 295-303.
12. Kishimoto, K.,Soboyejo, W. O., Smith, R. A. & Knott,
J. F., A numerical investigation of the interaction and
coalescence of twin coplanar semi-elliptical fatigue
cracks, Znt. J. Fatigue, 11 (1989) 91-96.
13. Morgan, H. G., Fatigue crack shape development in
199
cracked plates and welded joints, Znt. Conf on Fatigue
and Crack Growth in Offshore 7-8 April
Structures,
1986, Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng.
14. McComb, T. H., Pope, J. E. & Grandt, A. F. (Jr.),
Growth and coalescence of multiple fatigue cracks in
polycarbonate test specimens, Eng. Fract. Mech., 24
(1986) 601-608.
15. Soboyejo, W. O., Kishimoto, K., Smith, R. A. & Knott,
J. F., A study of the interaction and coalescence of two
coplanar fatigue cracks in bending, Fatigue & Fract.
Engng. Mater. & Struct., 12 (1989) 167-174.
16. Melin, S., Why do cracks avoid each other, Znt. J. Fract.,
23 (1983) 37-45.
17. Iida, K. & Kawahara, M., Propagation and coalescence
of fatigue cracks initiated from collinear or parallel
adjacent surface flaws, Proc. Fourth Znt. Conf Pressure
Vessel Technology, Part 1, Materials, Fracture and
Fatigue, (1980) 257-263.
18. Griffith, A. A., The phenomenon of rupture and flow in
solids, Proc. Zst. Znt. Congr. Appl. Mech. (1924).
19. Erdogan, F., On the stress distribution in plates with
collinear cuts under arbitrary loads, Proc. 4th U.S. Nat.
Cong. Appl. Mech. (1962) 547-553.
20. Yokobori, T., Uozumi, M. 8c Ichikawa, M., Interaction
between non-coplanar parallel staggered elastic cracks,
Reports of the Research Znstitute for Strength and
Fracture of Materials, Tohoku University, (1971) 7
25-47.
21. Jolles, M. & Tortoriello, V., Geometry variation during
fatigue growth of surface flaws, ASTM STP 791,
Fracture Mechanics (Ed. J. Lewis, G. Sines), I (1983)
I-297 to I-307.
22. ASTM E647-88, Standard test methods for measure-
ments of fatigue crack growth rates, American Society
for Testing and Materials Standards, 03.01 (1988)
636-654.
23. Benthem, J. P., State of stress at the vertex of a quarter
infinite crack in a half space, Znt. J. of Solids &
Structures, 13 (1977) 479-492.
24. Hosseini, A. & Mahmoud, M. A., Evaluation of
stress intensity factor and fatigue growth of surface
cracks in tension plates, Eng. Fract. Mech., 22 (1985)
957-974.
25. Mahmoud, M. A. & Hosseini, A., Assessment of stress
intensity factor and aspect ratio variability of surface
cracks in bending plates, Eng. Fract. Mech., 24 (1986)
207-221.
26. Pook, L. P., Fatigue crack growth data for various
materials deduced from the fatigue lives of precracked
plates, ASTM STP 513, Proc. of the 1971 National
Symposium on Fracture Mechanics, part 1, Stress
analysis and growth of cracks, (1972) 106-124.
27. Engineering Sciences Data Unit, Item 81011, Vol. 7,
ESDU, London.
28. Torronen, K. & Cullen, W. H. (Jr.), Effect of light water
reactor environments on fatigue crack growth rate in
reactor pressure vessel steels, ASTM STP 770, Low
Cycle Fatigue and Life Prediction, (1982) 460-481.
29. Bamford, W. H., Technical basis for revised reference
crack growth rate curves for pressure boundary steels in
LWR environment, J. Pressure Vessel Technology, 102
(1980) 433-442.
30. Paris, P. C., Bucci, R. J., Wessel, E. T., Clark, W. G. &
Mager, T. R., Extensive study of low fatigue crack
growth rates in AS33 and A508 steels, ASTM STP 513,
Stress analysis and the growth of cracks, in Proceedings
of the 1971 National Symposium on Fracture Mechanics,
part 1, (1971) 141-176.
31. Mowbray, D. F., Andrews, W. R. & Brothers, A. J.,
200 T. H. Leek, I. C. Howard

Fatigue crack growth rate studies of low alloy pressure are also shown graphically in Figs 5 to 20. All
vessel steels, Transactions of ASME series B, Journal of
Engineering for Industry, 90 (1968) 648-655. dimensions are in millimetres.
7 denotes a semi-coalesced crack where the two
individual cracks have met either at the
APPENDIX surface or subsurface forming a concave crack
This appendix contains examples of the data front.
collected from the fatigue tests in Tables Al to $ denotes a coalesced crack where the two cracks
A4. Figure 4 shows the notation used to describe have met and formed a uniform single crack
crack development. Examples of crack size data shape.

Table Al: Specimen number: T5A508, initial value of d = Table A2: Specimen number: T6A508, initial value of d =
O-01mm 9-71 mm

crack 1 aI Cl.0 YCLCI C1.i YC1.i s crack 1 aI yai Cl.0 YCl.0 C1.i Y1.i s
loading cycles loading cycles

0 9.5 0.0 14.68 0.0 14.68 0-O 9.06

7002 8-8
9.4 14.55
14.92 0.0
o-0 14.55
15.01 0.0 9.18
7.93 80000 9.8 0.0 15.01 -0*05 15.09 -0.03 8.05
140000 10-l 15.99 0.0 15.74 -0.03 6.55 160000 10.7 0.03 15.73 -044 15.86 -0.01 6.89
210 000 11.0 16.27 0.0 16.71 0.03 4.35 240 000 11.8 0.03 1666 -0.02 17.15 0.13 3.83
261000 11.7 17.14 O-O 18.36 -0.03 1.15 320 000 13.0 0.07 18.25 0.0 18.94 0.48 064
310 ooot 12.8 19.02 -0.12 19.12 0.30 0.00 395 ooo 14.9 0.16 21.58 -0.45 21.83 1.73 -5.85
355 ooO$ 17.8 45.73 -1.38 - - - 438 610 16.6 O-30 27.47 -1.40 25.59 5.02 -13.25

crack 2 a2 c2.i YC2.i c2.0 YC2.0 s cracking 2 a2 ya2 C2.I Yc2.i c2.0 YC2.0 s

loading cycles loading cycles

8.9 14.74 0.0 14.74 O-O 9.18 0 9.7 O-O 15.02 0.0 15.02 0.0 9%
9.6 15.36 0.0 15.19 0.0 7.93 80000 10.1 O-01 1544 -0.05 15.16 0.13 8.05
140 000 10.4 15.99 0.03 15.89 -0.05 6.55 160000 10.9 0.02 16.39 -0.05 16.04 04!G 6.89
210 000 11.0 17.23 O-O 16.73 -0.05 4.35 240 000 12.0 001 17.70 -0.20 17.15 04J!4 3.83
261000 11.8 18.78 0.08 17.58 q-0.08 1.15 320 000 13.3 -0.05 19.50 -046 18.71 -0.10 064
310 ooot 13.0 19.29 0.23 19.25 -0.09 0.00 395 ooo 15.2 -0-12 22,64 -1.10 22.08 -0.37 -5.85
355 ooo$ 17.8 - - 45.73 0.95 - 438 610 16.6 -0.23 26.70 -4.17 26.80 -0.97 -13.25

Table A3 Specimen number: BSA508, initial value of d = 2.87 mm

crack 1 yal Cl.0 YCl.0 cl.i YC1.l s

loading cycles

0 9.3 o-0 16.15 0.0 16.15 0.0 9.20

70 000 11.3 0.02 19.03 -0.25 19.33 -040 4.00
120 000 13.0 0.08 22.05 -0.50 23.00 -0.05 -2.75
170 000 15.1 0.13 26.10 -0.90 24.10 0.90 -5.00
220 ooo 17.6 0.24 32.03 -1.60 24.83 1.35 -6.25
270 000 20.5 044 39.50 -2.50 25.30 1.45 -7.10
320 0007 23.4 0.64 50.83 -4xlO 25.98 1.65 -8.05
370 ooo$ 30.5 O-84 >89.13 ~-10.20 26.73 1.85 -10.35

crack 2 a2 ya2 C2.i YC2.I c2.0 YC2.0 s

loading cycles

0 5.6 0.0 10.43 0.0 10.43 o-o 9.20

70 000 8.0 0.02 12.40 0.20 12.25 -0.10 4.00
120 000 9.7 -0.03 15.45 -0.15 14.00 0.00 -2.75
170000 12.3 -0.04 16.55 -1.05 17.30 0.30 -5.00
220 ooo 15.5 -0.15 17.15 -1.40 22.65 1.05 -6.25
270 000 19-o -0.31 17.50 -1.60 29.75 2@0 -7.10
320 OOOt 22.9 -0.47 17-77 -1-85 40.59 3.40 -8.05
370 ooO$ 30.5 -04 19.33 -2.10 >89.13 >7.45 -10.35
Examination of methods of assessing interface surface cracks 201

Table A4 Specimen number: BllASO8, initial value of d=

540 mm

crack 1 aI Cl.0 YCl.0 Cl., YC1.i s

loading cycles

0 5.5 10.35 0.0 10.35 0.0 10.85

820 000 7.2 11.78 0.15 11.88 0.0 7.65
162 000 9.5 14.13 0.40 14.48 0.30 2.40
234 050 11.5 17.25 0.70 17.55 0.65 -3.75
282 000 13.8 20.30 1.10 18.85 1.25 -6.30
332 000 15.6 24.65 1.55 19.95 1.80 -8.45
382 000 18-7 31.28 2.30 20-83 2.30 -10.20
432 000 21.0 39.38 3.45 21.93 2.80 - 12.05
482 000 24.4 51.33 4.90 22.48 3.10 - 13.75
532 OOOt 29.4 75.03 9.20 24.23 3.75 -17.10
534 7OOt 29.4 >lOOT)O ~10.90 24.23 3.75 -17.10

crack 2 4 C2.I YCZJ c2.0 YC2.0 s

loading cycles

0 5.6 10.45 0.0 10.45 0.0 10.85

820 000 7.3 12.10 0.10 11.90 0.05 7.65
162000 9.4 14.73 0.10 14.18 -0.10 2.40
234 050 11.6 17.80 -1.10 17.55 -0.45 -3.75
282 ooo 13.7 18.98 -1.70 20.53 0.85 -6.30
332 000 15.7 20.25 -2.25 25.15 -1.20 -8.45
382 000 18.7 21-15 -2.65 31.80 -1.80 -10.20
432 000 21.2 21.90 -2.95 40.15 -3.10 -12.05
482 000 24.3 23.05 -3.25 53.85 -4.55 -13.75
532 OOOt 29.5 24.58 -3.75 79.18 -9.55 -17.10
534 7oot 29.5 24.58 -3.75 >10OX10 c-10.85 -17.10