Failure Assessment Diagram versus Persian Curves

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.13512.55040

Abdolrasoul Ranjbaran1, Mohammad Ranjbaran2, Fatema Ranjbaran3

1Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Shiraz University, Shiraz, Iran

2Department of Chemical Engineering, Yasuj University, Yasuj, Iran
3Department of Mechanical Engineering, Shiraz University, Shiraz, Iran

Persian Curve The key points (Origin, Next, Middle &

Truncation) are defined in Eq. (1.5).
The Persian curve (PC) (Survive function SR &
Failure function FR) are defined in Eq. (1.1), and O ( 0, PO ) , N (N , PN ) , M ( 0.5, PM ) ,T (1, PT ) (1.5)
the Persian density function (PZ, derivative of
phenomenon functions, D(1) is derivative of D
with respect to ξ) is defined in Eq. (1.2), in which
(PO & PT) are end point ordinates, (D & O) are Real world data
state functions (destination & origin) and (aM & b)
are control parameters. A phenomenon is considered as the change of
state of the system along the lifetime. The state
POO b + PT aM D b variable (ξ  [0, 1]) is defined in terms of the life
PC =
O b + aM D b time (λ  [ λO, λT] (real world data), in Eq. (2.1)
where (λO & λT) are lifetime at (origin & truncation)
aM D b
FR = (1.1) points respectively.
O b + aM D b
 = (  − O ) ( T − O )
Ob
SR =  = (1 −  ) O + T
(2.1)
O b + aM D b
Extensive review of literature, regarding reliable
baM D b −1O b −1D ( )
1
PZ = (1.2) real-world data for failure of structures, led to the
(O + aM D b )
b 2 unified control parameters in Eq. (2.2), and the
unified Persian curves in Eq. (2.3).
The control parameters are defined in terms of the aM = 2 b = 1 (2.2)
key points ordinates in Eq. (1.3).
1 − 0.8D 2D ( )
1
P − PO PFU =
1.8D
PSU = PZU = (2.3)
aC = C ,C = N &M 1+ D 1+ D (1 + D )
2

PT − PC
(1.3)
Log ( aN aM ) The unified key point coordinates are defined in
b= Eq. (2.4).
Log ( D N ON )
PC O N M T
Where the state functions are defined in terms of  0.000 0.750 1.500 3.000
the state variable (ξ  [0, 1]) in Eq. (1.4).  0.000 0.250 0.500 1.000 (2.4)

D = 0.25 ( 2 − 1 + 6 2 − 4 3 − cos  )
PFU 0.000 0.237 0.600 0.900
PSU 1.000 0.763 0.400 0.100
(1.4)
O = 0.25 ( 2 + 1 − 6 + 4 + cos  )
2 3 PZU 0.000 1.686 1.364 0.000

1|Page
Persian Curve versus conventional Failure Address: aranjbaran@yahoo.com,
Assessment Diagram (FAD) ranjbarn@shirazu.ac.ir

The unified Persian curves are compared with the

conventional FAD selected from the literature as
follows.
The state variable is defined in terms of the load KPS PSU PZ TEST KI
ratio (Lr) in Eq. (3.1). KII KIII KIV KV
1

L r = 2.25 (3.1)
0.75

The following FAD functions are selected from the

PC
literature. 0.5

1
The ( K r ) (KI) in Eq. (3.2). 0.25

(
K r1 = (1 − 0.14L 2r ) 0.3 + 0.7 exp ( −0.65L6r ) ) (3.2) 0
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1
ξ
2
The ( K r ) (KII) in Eq. (3.3).
Fig. 1 Persian versus conventional FAD

K r2 =
( 0.3 + 0.7 exp ( −0.6L6r ) ) (3.3)
(1 + 0.5L ) 2
r

3
The ( K r ) (KIII) in Eq. (3.4). References
Ainsworth R. A. (1993). The use of a failure
K r3
= 0.238 + 0.762 exp ( −0.523L6r ) (3.4) assessment diagram for initiation and
1 − 0.056L r
2
propagation of defects at high temperature.
Fatigue & Fracture of Engineering Materials &
4
The ( K r ) (KIV) in Eq. (3.5). Structures, 16: 1091-1108.

−0.5 Ainsworth R. A., Hooton D. G. and Green D.

 8 L  (1999). Failure assessment diagrams for high
K = L r  2 Ln sec  r
4
 (3.5)

r
 2  temperature defect assessment. Engineering
Fracture Mechanics, 62: 95-109.
5
And the ( K r ) (KV) in Eq. (3.6). Ainsworth R., Gintalas M., Sahu M. K.,
Chattopadhyay J. & Dutta B. K. (2016).

K 5
=
(1 − 0.1L + 0.1L )
2
r
4
r Application of the failure assessment diagram

(1 + L )
r 4
(3.6)
r International Journal of Pressure Vessels and
The (FAD) as defined in Eq. (3.2) to Eq. (3.6),
are denoted by (KI, KII, KIII, KIV and KV)
respectively and the test data by (TEST), are shown
in Fig. 1. There is great difference between them.
That is because of presence of epistemic
uncertainty in their derivation and so are not
reliable. The validity of the unified Persian curves
are highlighted in this figure.
Conclusion: The (PSU) is logical and simple while
the others are uncertain and unreliable! Moreover,
the Persian Curve is shown to be the best tool for
fitting curves on real world data.
Question: Which curve do you prefer? Please give
your comments?
methods to cracked straight pipes and elbow.
Piping, 148: 26-45.
Alabi A. A. (2019). Mechanical behavior of high
strength structural steel under high loading
rates. PhD dissertation, Department of
Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering,
Brunel University, London, UK.
Amirian P, and Ranjbaran A. (2020). Studying the
effect of fundamental structural period on the
seismic fragility curves of two-span integral
concrete box girder bridges. Iran. J. Sci.
Technol., Trans. B: Eng. (2020), 44(Suppl 1):
S11-S26. DOI: 10.1007/s40996-019-00312-9

2|Page
Arafah D. Z. R. (2014). Fracture assessment of
cracked components under biaxial loading.
PhD Dissertation, Department of Mechanical
Engineering, Polytechnic of Milano, Italy.
Ayatollahi M. R. (1998). Geometry and constraint
effects in mixed mode fracture. PhD
Dissertation, Department of Mechanical
Engineering, University of Bristol, UK.
Bach M. (2008). Constraint-based fracture
mechanics analysis of cylinders with
circumferential cracks. PhD Dissertation,
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace
Engineering, Carleton University, Ontario,
Canada.
Baharvand A., and Ranjbaran A. (2020a). Seismic
fragility functions grounded on state-based
philosophy: application to low to midrise steel
frame buildings. KSCE Journal of Civil
Engineering. 24: 1787-1798 (2020).
DOI: 10.1007/s12205-020-0350-5.
Bloom J. M. (1995). Deformation plasticity failure
assessment diagram (DPFAD) for materials
with non-Romberg-Osgood stress strain
curves. Journal of Pressure Vessels
Technology, Transactions of the ASME, 17:
346-356.
Chell G. G., McClung R. C., Kuhlman C. J.,
Russel D. A., Garr K. and Donnelly B. (1997).
Guidelines for proof test analysis: final report.
Nasa George C. Marshall Space Flight Center,
USA.
Coelho G. C., Silva A. A., Santos M. A., Lima A.
G. B. and Santos N. C. (2019). Stress intensity
factor of semielliptical surface crack in
internally pressurized hollow cylinder- a
comparison between BS 7910 and API
579/ASME FSS-1 solutions.
Cronvall O. (2011). Structural lifetime, reliability
and risk analysis approaches for power plant
components and systems. VTT Technical
Research Center of Finland. ISBN 978-951-
38-7760-6.
Elsaadany M. S. (2012). Determination of
shakedown boundary and fitness assessment
diagrams of cracked pipe bends. MSc Thesis,
Department of Mechanical Engineering, the
American University in Cairo, Egypt.
Fuentes J. D., Cicero S., Ibanez-Gutierrez F. T.
and Procopio I. (2018). On the use of British
standard 7910 option 1 failure assessment
3|Page
diagram to non-metallic materials. Fatigue &
Fracture of Engineering Materials &
Structures, FFEMS, 41(1): 146-158.
Gibstein M. and Moe E. T. (1986). Brittle fracture
risks in tubular joints. Offshore Mechanics and
Arctic Engineering Conference, Huston,
Texas, USA.
Han G. (2018). A study on the failure analysis of
the neutron embrittled reactor pressure vessel
support using finite element analysis. MSc
Thesis, Lyles School of Civil Engineering,
Purdue University, USA.
Hoh H. J., Pang J. H. L. and Tsang K. S. (2018).
Failure assessment diagram (FAD) analysis of
fatigue results for X65 welded joints. MATEC
Web of Conferences, 165, 21011.
Hosseini S. A. (2010). Assessment of crack in
corrosion defects in natural gas transmission
pipelines. MSc Thesis, Department of
Mechanical Engineering, University of
Waterloo, Ontario, Canada.
Hosseini A., Cronin D. and Plumtree A. (2013).
Crack in corrosion defect assessment in
transmission pipelines. Journal of Pressure
Vessels Technology, Transactions of the
ASME, 135: 021701 (1-8).
Hosseini S. A. (2014). Crack in corrosion flaw
assessment in thin-walled pipe. PhD
Dissertation, Department of Mechanical
Engineering, University of Waterloo, Ontario,
Canada.
Kofiani K. N. (2013). Ductile fracture and
structural integrity of pipelines & risers. PhD
Dissertation, Department of Mechanical
Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of
Technology, MIT, USA.
Leeuw B. D. (2004). Analysis and assessment of
structural integrity monitoring. PhD
Dissertation, Department of Mechanical
Engineering, University College, London, UK.
Lie S. T. and Yang Z. M. (2009). BS7910:2005
failure assessment diagram (FAD) on cracked
circular hollow section (CHS) welded joints.
The Hong Kong Institute of Steel
Construction. Advanced Steel Construction,
5(4): 406-420.
Maclennan I. J. (1996). Two parameters
engineering fracture mechanics. PhD
 Dissertation, Department of Mechanical
Engineering, University of Glasgow, UK.
Mai A. Q. (2018). Updating failure probability of
welded joint considering monitoring and
inspection. PhD Dissertation, Faculty of
Applied Science, University of Liege,
Belgium.
Mattar Neto M. (2008). On the structural integrity
assessment of cracked piping of PWR nuclear
reactors primary systems. Progress in Nuclear
Energy, 50: 800-817.
May P. S. (2001). The effect of welding residual
stresses on the fracture resistance of ductile
steels. PhD Dissertation, Department of
Mechanical Engineering, Imperial College of
Science, Technology and Medicine, London,
UK.
Meek C. (2017). The influence of biaxial loading
on the assessment of structures with defect.
PhD dissertation, School of Mechanical,
Aerospace and Civil Engineering, University
of Manchester, UK.
Milne I., Ainsworth R. A., Dowling A. R. and
Stewart A. T. (1988). Assessment of the
integrity of structures containing defects.
International Journal of Pressure Vessels &
Piping, 32: 3-104.
Mirzaee Sisan A. (2005). The influence of prior
thermal and mechanical loading on fracture.
PhD Dissertation, Department of Mechanical
Engineering, University of Bristol, UK.
Montassir S., Yakoubi K., Mostabchir H., Elkhalfi
A., Rajak D. K. and Pruncu C. I. (2020).
Analysis of crack behavior in pipeline system
using FAD diagram based on numerical
simulation under XFEM. Applied Sciences,
10: 6129.
Ocejo J.R., Gutierrez-Solana F. and Gorrochategui
I (1997). Failure assessment diagram.
Report/SINTAP/UC/05. University Cantabria,
Spain.
Orrock P. J. (2017). An investigation into the
effects of scaling on structural integrity
assessment. PhD Dissertation, Department of
Mechanical Engineering, University of Bristol,
UK.
Pillai V. S., Kolios A. and Lie S. T. (2019).
Failure assessment of cracked uni-planar
square hollow section T-, Y- and K-joints
4|Page
using the new BS 7910:2013+A1:2015.
Archives of Applied Mechanics, 89: 835-845.
Qu Q. (2013). Development of fitness for service
assessment method based on reliability. MSc
Thesis, Sakai-Izumi Laboratory, University of
Tokyo, Japan.
Ranjbaran, A., Hashemi, S., Ghaffarian, A.R.
(2008), A new approach for buckling and
vibration analysis of cracked column.
International Journal of Engineering,
Transactions A: Basics. 21(3), 225-230.
Ranjbaran A. (2010). Analysis of cracked
members: The governing equations and exact
solutions. Iran. J. Sci. Technol., Trans. B:
Eng. 34(4):407-417.
Ranjbaran A, Shokrzadeh AR, and Khosravi S.
(2011). A new finite element analysis of free
axial vibration of cracked bars. Int. J. Numer.
Methods. Biomed. Eng. 27(10):1611-1621.
Ranjbaran A. (2012a). Analysis of cracked
members: free vibration, buckling, dynamic
stability. Lap Lambert Academic Publishing
Saarbrucken Germany.
Ranjbaran A. (2012b). The dynamic stability
analysis application to beam like structures.
Lap Lambert Academic Publishing
Saarbrucken Germany.
Ranjbaran A. (2013). The finite element method
for research: interesting and innovative ideas.
Lap Lambert Academic Publishing
Saarbrucken Germany.
Ranjbaran A, and Rousta H. (2013a) Interaction
diagram for dynamic stability by Laplace
transform. NED University Journal of
Research, 2013; 10(1):31-38.
Ranjbaran A, and Rousta H. (2013b). Finite
element analysis of cracked beams innovative
weak form equations. NED University Journal
of Research 10(1): 39-46.
Ranjbaran A, Rousta H, Ranjbaran M, and
Ranjbaran M. (2013a). Dynamic stability of
cracked columns; the stiffness reduction
method. Scientia Iranica, 2013; 20(1):57-64.
Ranjbaran A, Rousta H, Ranjbaran Mo, Ranjbaran
Ma, Hashemi M, and Moravej MT. (2013b). A
necessary modification for the finite element
analysis of cracked members: detection,
construction, and justification. Arch. Appl.
Mech. 83:1087-1096.
Ranjbaran A., Ranjbaran M. (2014). New finite-
element formulation for buckling analysis of
cracked structures. J. Eng. Mech. 140(5):
04014014(1-10), ASCE, DOI:
10.1061/(ASCE) EM.1943-7889.0000734.
Ranjbaran A. (2014). Free-vibration analysis of
stiffened frames. J. Eng. Mech. 140(9):
04014071(1-9), ASCE, DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)
EM.1943-7889.0000783.
Ranjbaran A. (2015). Buckling analysis of
stiffened frames. NED University Journal of
Research 12(1): 29-43.
Ranjbaran A. (2016). New generalized weight
function for stress intensity factor. NED
University Journal of Research 13(1): 33-42.
Ranjbaran, A., and Ranjbaran, M. (2016). State
functions the milestone of fracture. Archive of
Applied Mechanics. 86(7): 1311-1324.
Ranjbaran, A., and Ranjbaran, M. (2017a). State
based buckling analysis of beam-like
structures. Archive of Applied Mechanics.
87(9): 1555-1565 DOI 10.1007/s00419-017-
1273-6.
Ranjbaran, A., Ranjbaran, M., (2017b) State based
damage mechanics. NED University Journal of
Research 14(1), 13-26.
Ranjbaran, A., and Ranjbaran, M. (2017c).
Innovative theory for the compliance
computation in rotors. Scientia Iranica A
24(4): 1779-1788.
Ranjbaran, A., Ranjbaran, M., (2018) State based
method for ultimate strength analysis of
stiffened panels. NED University Journal of
Research 15(1): 39-50.
Ranjbaran, A., Ranjbaran, M., Baharvand A.
(2020a). A step toward development of generic
fragility curve. NED University Journal of
Research 17(1): 1-24.
Ranjbaran A., Ranjbaran M. and Ranjbaran F.
(2020b). Change of state philosophy & Persian
curves. LAP LAMBERT Academic
Publishing, Germany, 2020, p. 225. ISBN:
978-620-2-68228-2.
Ranjbaran A., Ranjbaran M. and Ranjbaran F.
(2020c). Building probability functions by
Persian curves. International Journal of
Structural Glass and Advanced Materials
Research, 2020; 4(1): 225-232.
5|Page
Ranjbaran A., Ranjbaran M. and Ranjbaran F.
(2020d). A reliable fracture mechanics.
International Journal of Reliability, Risk &
Safety Theory and Application, 2020; 3(1): 1-
15.
Ranjbaran A., Ranjbaran M. and Ranjbaran F.
(2020e). A reliable method of analysis for
geotechnical data. International Journal of
Structural Glass and Advanced Materials
Research, 2020; 4(1): 276-293.
Ranjbaran A., Ranjbaran M. and Ranjbaran F.
(2021). Building design rule for glass
structures by Persian curve. International
Journal of Structural Glass and Advanced
Materials Research, 2020; 5(1): 1-13.
Rivera W. V. (2014). An evaluation of the
structural integrity of HSLA steels exposed in
simulated flue-gases under dynamic conditions
for anthropogenic CO2 transport. PhD
Dissertation, School of Energy, Environment
and Agrifood, Cranfield University, UK.
Sahu M. K., Chattopadhyay J. and Dutta B. K.
(2015). Determination of fracture toughness
curve using R6 failure assessment method.
Transactions SMIRT-23, Division II, 679,
Manchester, UK.
Shabakhty N. (2004). Durable reliability of jack-
up platforms. PhD Dissertation, Department of
Mechanical Engineering, Technical University
of Delft, Netherlands.
Shetty N. (1992). System reliability of fixed
offshore structures under fatigue deterioration.
PhD Dissertation, Department of Civil
Engineering, Imperial College of Science,
Technology and Medicine, London, UK.
Sumesh C. S. and Arun Narayanan P. J. (2018).
Influence of notch depth-to-width ratio on J-
integral and critical failure load of single-edge
notched tensile aluminium 8011 alloy
specimens. Journal of Solid Mechanics, 10(1):
86-97.
Talei-Faz B. (2003). Fatigue and fracture of
tubulars containing large cracks. PhD
Dissertation, Department of Mechanical
Engineering, University College, London, UK.
Uraga E. A. (2009). Reliability-based assessment
of deteriorating ship-shaped offshore
structures. PhD Dissertation, Department of
Marine Technology, Norwegian University of
Science and Technology, NTNU, Norway.
Zhang Y. (2015). Failure analysis and damage
prevention on offshore pipelines under
extreme loadings. PhD Dissertation,
Interdisciplinary Graduate School, Nanyang
Technological University, Singapore.

Yusof F. (2006). Three-dimensional constraint-

based fracture mechanics. PhD Dissertation,
Department of Mechanical Engineering,
University of Glasgow, UK.

Zhao W. (1989). Reliability analysis of fatigue

and fracture under random loading. PhD
Dissertation, Department of Civil Engineering,
Imperial College of Science, Technology and
Medicine, London, UK.

6|Page