International Journal of Structural Integrity

Safety factors in structural integrity assessment of components with defects

Yury Matvienko
Article information:
To cite this document:
Yury Matvienko , (2013),"Safety factors in structural integrity assessment of components with defects",
International Journal of Structural Integrity, Vol. 4 Iss 4 pp. 457 - 476
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJSI-09-2012-0022
Downloaded on: 31 January 2016, At: 08:01 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 31 other documents.
Downloaded by Queen's University At 08:01 31 January 2016 (PT)

To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com

The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 145 times since 2013*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Julia Bierbaum, Peter Horst, (2013),"Finite element crack propagation analysis of shear loaded buckling
panels", International Journal of Structural Integrity, Vol. 4 Iss 4 pp. 446-456 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/
IJSI-08-2012-0018
Jeremy Doucet, Xiang Zhang, Philip Irving, (2013),"Fatigue modelling of aluminium plates reinforced with
bonded fibre metal laminates", International Journal of Structural Integrity, Vol. 4 Iss 4 pp. 416-428 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJSI-10-2012-0027
Dirk Schnubel, Manfred Horstmann, Norbert Huber, (2013),"Retardation of fatigue crack growth in aircraft
aluminium alloys via laser heating: Simulation-based design optimisation", International Journal of
Structural Integrity, Vol. 4 Iss 4 pp. 429-445 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJSI-08-2012-0020

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:382430 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for
Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines
are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as
providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee
on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/1757-9864.htm

Structural
Safety factors in structural integrity
integrity assessment of assessment
components with defects
457
Yury Matvienko
Mechanical Engineering Research Institute of the Russian Received 18 September 2012
Academy of Sciences, Strength, Survivability and Safety, Revised 20 November 2012
Moscow, Russian Federation Accepted 19 December 2012

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to develop basic principles of deterministic structural
Downloaded by Queen's University At 08:01 31 January 2016 (PT)

integrity assessment of a component with a crack- or notch-like defect by including safety factors
against fracture and plastic collapse in criteria equations of linear and nonlinear fracture mechanics.
Design/methodology/approach – The safety factors against fracture are calculated by demanding
that the applied critical stress should not be less than the yield stress of the material for a component
with a crack or a notch of the acceptable size. Structural integrity assessment of the engineering
components damaged by crack- or notch-like defects is discussed from view point of the failure
assessment diagram (FAD). The methodology of the FAD has been employed for the structural
integrity analysis and assessment of acceptable sizes of throw-thickness notch in a plate under tension
and surface longitudinal notch-like defects in a pressure vessel.
Findings – Basic equations have been presented to calculate the safety factor against fracture for critical
values of the stress intensity factor, crack tip opening displacement (CTOD), the J-integral and the FAD as
well as to estimate an acceptable (safe) region for an engineering component with a crack- or notch-like
defect of the acceptable size. It was shown that safety factors against fracture depend on both the safety
factor against plastic collapse and employed fracture mechanics criterion. The effect of crack/notch tip
constraint is incorporated into criteria equations for the calculation of safety factors against fracture.
Originality/value – The deterministic method of fracture mechanics is recommended for structural
integrity assessment of a component with a crack- or notch-like defect by including safety factors
against fracture and plastic collapse in criteria equations of linear and nonlinear fracture mechanics.
Keywords Biaxial loading, Constraint, Crack- and notch-like defects, Fracture mechanics criteria,
Safety factors, Structural integrity assessment
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
Structural integrity assessment methods play an important role in the industrial
realization of fracture mechanics applications. If the engineering component is
defect-free, the applied stresses are compared with a limit stress such as the yield stress
of the material. As long as the yield stress exceeds the applied stress, the component is
regarded as safe. If the component contains a crack- or notch-like defect, fracture
mechanics approach has to be employed. Therefore, the comparison between the
applied crack driving force and the fracture toughness of the material has to be carried
out on the basis of fracture mechanics parameters such as the stress intensity factor, International Journal of Structural
Integrity
Vol. 4 No. 4, 2013
The author acknowledges the support of the Russian Foundation of Basic Research (Grant pp. 457-476
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
No. 10-08-00393-a). Furthermore, the author appreciates the kind help from the reviewers, who 1757-9864
provided beneficial suggestions for improving the final version of the manuscript. DOI 10.1108/IJSI-09-2012-0022
 IJSI the J-integral, the crack tip opening displacement (CTOD) or, etc. Two types of
structural integrity assessment are made: a probabilistic assessment or a deterministic
4,4 assessment. It is obvious that the following parameters must be known when the
structure reliability is analyzed: load, crack length, the component geometry, fracture
toughness and yield stress of materials. The principles of establishing a probabilistic
approach have been considered in details by Wang et al. (1999), Tronskar et al. (2003),
458 Bullough et al. (2001) and Citarella and Apicella (2006). But, it should be noted that the
reliability analysis is more complex and costly compared with a deterministic analysis,
and is not convenient for common engineers to utilize it. Moreover, probabilistic
fracture mechanics is relatively new in the area of structural integrity and there are
often few data to have sufficient confidence in the results of the calculations to rely on
them for decisions on permission for engineering structures to operate. That is why the
deterministic method is assumed to be the basis of structural integrity assessment.
Therefore, in engineering, most assessment of component reliability are made
Downloaded by Queen's University At 08:01 31 January 2016 (PT)

deterministically so that failure is avoided by including safety factors on each of the

different equation inputs. In this case, safety factors against fracture and plastic
collapse have been considered (Matvienko and Makhutov, 1999; Brickstad et al., 2000;
Matvienko, 2009). The safety factors are set to unity for the evaluation of critical
conditions.
The purpose of this paper is to develop basic principles of deterministic structural
integrity assessment of a component with a crack- or notch-like defect by including
safety factors against fracture and plastic collapse in basic equations of linear and
nonlinear fracture mechanics.

2. Safety factors against fracture in classical fracture mechanics

approaches
2.1 General aspects of safety factors
To determine structural integrity of the engineering component damaged by a
crack- or notch-like defect, the following method can be adopted. Since fracture
mechanics parameters can be varied due to both the applied stress and the crack size,
it would be reasonable to introduce safety factors differentiating these two cases
and establishing the connected (on the acceptable stresses and the crack sizes) region
of acceptable states (Matvienko and Makhutov, 1999; Brickstad et al., 2000;
Matvienko, 2009).
The determination of the region of acceptable states can be supported by the
consideration of the acceptable stress, obtained in advance by way of routine
calculation based, for example, on the certain theory of strength. In the present paper,
the acceptable applied stress sC is suggested to be not more than sY/SFY, i.e.:
sY
sC # ; ð1Þ
SF Y
where SFY is safety factor against plastic collapse and sY is the yield stress.
To find the region of acceptable sizes of cracks at the acceptable applied stress, the
fracture toughness in terms of the stress intensity factor, the J-integral, the CTOD or,
etc. should be also reduced by a safety factor against fracture.
Typical expressions for the calculation of safety factors against fracture in criteria
approaches of linear and non-linear fracture mechanics can be obtained by the
above-mentioned general principles.
 2.2 The energy J-integral for a power hardening material Structural
In this case of a crack-like defect, the energy J-integral for a power hardening material
can be described by the following equation (Matvienko, 1994):
integrity

1þn
assessment
n s
J ¼ 2p asY 1Y a ; ð2Þ
1þn sY
459
where 1Y ¼ s Y/E, E is Young’s modulus, a is the constant of solid and n is the strain
hardening exponent in the Ramberg-Osgood model of the material, s is the applied
stress, a is crack length.
The following condition should be fulfilled if detected or assumed crack-like defect
of a certain size should be assessed as acceptable (Matvienko, 2009):
J mat
J# ð3Þ
Downloaded by Queen's University At 08:01 31 January 2016 (PT)

SF J
where SFJ is safety factor against fracture and Jmat is the fracture toughness in terms of
the J-integral, respectively. The safety factor SFJ can be calculated by making an
assumption that the applied acceptable stress should be not less than the yield stress
sY (equation (1)) of material for an engineering component with a crack-like defect of
the acceptable size (Matvienko and Makhutov, 1999). In this case, the failure criterion
for a crack-like defect of the acceptable size on the boundary of fracture and plastic
collapse (at sC ¼ sY) can be given from equation (2) as follows:
n
2p asY 1Y a ¼ J mat : ð4Þ
1þn
The safety factor SFY against plastic collapse corresponding to equation (1) is
introduced in the failure criterion (3) (taking into account equation (2) at s ¼ sC) to
determine the acceptable crack size as:


n 1 1þn J mat
2p asY 1Y a ¼ : ð5Þ
1þn SF Y SF J
Combining equations (4) and (5), the safety factor SFJ against fracture can be
presented as:

SF J ¼ ðSF Y Þ1þn : ð6Þ

The safety factor against fracture for solids with cracks becomes dependent on the safety
factor against plastic collapse as well as the strain hardening exponent. The variation of
the safety factor against fracture SFJ in terms of the J-integral with the safety factor
against plastic collapse for various strain hardening exponents is summarized in
Figure 1.
The safety factor against fracture SFJ becomes strongly dependent on the safety
factor against plastic collapse with the increase of the strain hardening exponent.
Higher values of the strain hardening exponent give a higher safety factor against
fracture SFJ. Therefore, the effect of the strain hardening on the safety factor against
fracture in terms of the J-integral should be taken into account in structural integrity
assessment of component with cracks.
 IJSI 70
4,4

Safety Factor Against Fracture,SFJ

n=1
60
n=3
50 n=7

460 40

30

20
Figure 1.
The effect of the 10
strain hardening exponent
on the safety factor
Downloaded by Queen's University At 08:01 31 January 2016 (PT)

0
against fracture in terms 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2.0
of the J-integral
Safety Factor Against Plastic Collapse, SFY

It should be also noted that the proposed approach can be spread to structural integrity
assessment of the engineering component with notch-like defects considering a large
variability of the notch acuity 4 # a=r # 400 and employing the basic equation for the
J-integral (Berto et al., 2007).

2.3 The stress intensity factor

The stress intensity factor is a widely used parameter of linear elastic fracture
mechanics in structural integrity assessment of the component with a crack or crack-like
defect. For the special case of a linear elastic material (n ¼ 1) under mode I loading:
pffiffiffiffiffiffi
K I ¼ JE 0 : ð7Þ
Here, E 0 ¼ E for plane stress, E 0 ¼ E=ð1 2 n 2 Þ for plane strain and n is Poisson’s ratio.
In this case, the safety factor against fracture SFSIF in terms of the stress intensity factor
(SIF) follows from previous section and can be evaluated by means of the expression:
SF SIF ¼ SF Y : ð8Þ
It means that the safety factor against fracture SFSIF can be assumed to be the safety
factor against plastic collapse SFY.

2.4 Crack tip opening displacement

According to the definition, the CTOD d in a through crack in an infinite plate subjected
to a remote tensile stress is given by the well-known equation (Anderson, 1995):


8 sY a p s
d¼ ln sec : ð9Þ
pE 2 s0
Within the framework of the considered model of a solid, the local strength s0 (called the
cohesive strength in previous papers (Matvienko, 2003, 2005, 2009)) within the fracture
process zone ahead of the crack tip is assumed to be constant and treated according to
 von Mises yield criterion as a property of both the yield stress and the T-stress which is Structural
introduced into the criterion to quantify local constraint ahead of the crack (or notch) tip
for different geometries and type of loading. The local strength for finite geometries can
integrity
be rewritten as a function of the applied failure stress and the crack (or notch) tip assessment
constraint characterized by a dimensionless parameter b (so-called biaxiality ratio)
which depends on specimen geometry and loading mode (Matvienko, 2009):
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi 461



s0 b sC 1 bsC 2 ð1 þ n 2 2 nÞðbsC =sY Þ2 2 1
¼2 þ 2 ð10Þ
sY 2 sY 4 sY ð1 2 2nÞ2

for the case of plane strain and:

sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi



s0 b sC 3 bsC 2
¼2 þ 12 : ð11Þ
Downloaded by Queen's University At 08:01 31 January 2016 (PT)

sY 2 sY 4 sY
for the case of plane stress. The value of b(a/W) is the combination of two parameters,
namely, the non-singular term (the T-stress) in the Williams (1957) series solution and
the applied stress s :

T ¼ bða=W Þs; ð12Þ

where a and W are the crack size and width of a component, respectively. Values of
b(a/W) can be considered as a normalized measure of the crack tip constraint and have
been tabulated for various geometries by Sham (1991), Leevers and Radon (1982) and
Sherry et al. (1995).
The local strength within the fracture process zone ahead of the defect tip can be
also rewritten from equations (1), (10) and (11) as follows:
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi


s0 b 1 b 2 ð1 þ n 2 2 nÞðb=SF Y Þ2 2 1
¼2 þ 2 ð13Þ
sY 2SF Y 4 SF Y ð1 2 2nÞ2

for plane strain and:

sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi


s0 b 3 b 2
¼2 þ 12 : ð14Þ
sY 2SF Y 4 SF Y

for plane stress.

The above-mentioned general principles of the calculation of safety factors against
fracture SFd in terms of the CTOD leads to the safety factor against fracture as follows:

ln secðp=2ÞðsY =s0 Þ
SF d ¼ : ð15Þ
ln secðp=2ÞðsY =ððSF Y Þs0 ÞÞ

The safety factor against fracture SFd depends on both the safety factor against plastic
collapse SFY and the biaxiality ratio b(a/W) (equations (13) and (14)) which
characterizes the crack tip constraint.
 IJSI 3. Structural integrity assessment based on the failure assessment diagram
4,4 Structural integrity assessment of the component with a crack- or notch-like defect in a
frame of deterministic fracture mechanics is also illustrated by the failure assessment
diagram (FAD). The basic failure curve of the FAD is described by the following
equation Kr ¼ f(Lr), where Kr ¼ K/Kmat is the ratio of the applied stress intensity factor
K to the fracture toughness Kmat and Lr is equal to the ratio of applied load P to plastic
462 collapse load PY. In our case, the FAD is based on the criterion of the average stress
ahead of the crack/notch tip and considered in terms of K/Kmat and sC/sY, where sC is
the applied failure stress and sY is the yield stress. To determine an acceptable (safe)
region, it should be reasonable to introduce safety factors (Matvienko and Makhutov,
1999; Brickstad et al., 2000; Matvienko, 2009) in the failure criterion describing the FAD.

3.1 The notch FAD

In recent years, there has been considerable effort to create a framework for including
Downloaded by Queen's University At 08:01 31 January 2016 (PT)

constraint effects in the FAD to explain the geometry and loading condition
dependencies of the fracture toughness of specimens and structures with cracks. It is
shown that constraint effects can be treated by modifications of the shape of the failure
assessment curve (Ainsworth and O’Dowd, 1995; Burdekin and Xu, 2003; Neimitz, 2004).
The different sources of change in constraint due to type of loading, crack size and
notch effect have been treated separately to modify the FAD. However, assessment
tools for the complex treatment of the loss of constraint due to type of loading, crack
size and specimen geometry as well as finite notch tip radius are limited in the
literature. The global treatment of the loss of constraint proposed by Cicero et al. (2008)
is successfully validated. It should be noted that the SINTAP procedure has also been
modified using the concept of a notch stress intensity factor and a notch-based failure
assessment diagram (NFAD) for a notch-like defect taking finite notch tip radius into
account (Adib et al., 2007). In this case, the fracture toughness or so-called notch
fracture toughness, which is applied to the NFAD, should be measured for a structural
component. It should be noted that the FITNET (2001) assessment has also employed
the FAD for notches using an expression for the notch fracture toughness. However,
these approaches require finite element analysis to obtain the effective distance
(Taylor, 2007; Adib et al., 2007; Cicero et al., 2008) for calculating the notch FAD, which
is too expensive and time-consuming to be used routinely in engineering calculations.
In the present paper, the methodology of the criterion of average stress in the facture
process zone ahead of the notch tip is employed to develop FADs for a solid with a
finite U-notch under mode I loading (Matvienko, 2009, 2011). In contrast to the
above-mentioned approaches, this simple methodology does not require finite element
analysis to obtain the effective distance for calculating the notch FAD.
The normal stress distribution at the notch tip is similar to that of a crack under
uniform remote tensile stress but shifted from the notch tip to a point of abscissa equal to
r/2, i.e. r $ r=2, where r is the notch tip radius. The stress distribution is simplified
considerably on the continuation of the U-notch (Creager and Paris, 1967). Averaging
these stresses over the fracture process zone ahead of the notch tip, the fracture criterion
leads to the notch FAD in the form (Matvienko, 2003, 2005, 2009, 2011):
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi"

2
2 #21=2
sC s0 1
K notch ¼ K mat 1 2 12 ; ð16Þ
s0 sC K 2t
 where Kmat is the fracture toughness, Kt is the elastic stress concentration factor, sC is Structural
the applied failure stress. The stress intensity factor at the notch tip is denoted as Knotch,
s0 is the local strength within the fracture process zone (equations (10) and (11)).
integrity
assessment
3.2 The constraint-dependent fracture toughness
The failure criterion (16), describing the notch FAD, suggests that the loss of
constraint due to a notch (by means of the elastic stress concentration factor) is 463
independent on the loss of constraint due to the T-stress which is introduced into the
local strength to quantify in-plane constraint in different specimen geometries and type
of loading. This statement is justified by Cicero et al. (2008). The right-hand side of
equation (16) can be interpreted as the constraint-dependent notch fracture toughness.
The constraint-dependent notch fracture toughness K cNmat is associated with different
sources of local in-plane constraint including the notch effect and can be represented in
the following form:
Downloaded by Queen's University At 08:01 31 January 2016 (PT)

sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi"

2
2 #21=2
s C s0 1
K cNmat ¼ K mat 1 2 12 : ð17Þ
s0 sC K 2t

Consideration of a crack as a special case of a notch (Kt ! 1) changes the notch FAD
(equation (16)) into the FAD for the component with the crack:
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi

2
sC
K ¼ K mat 1 2 ; ð18Þ
s0

and the notch fracture toughness K cNmat (equation (17)) leads to the
constraint-dependent fracture toughness for the crack:
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi

2
c sC
K mat ¼ K mat 1 2 : ð19Þ
s0

To demonstrate the validity of the proposed FAD and of the

constraint-dependent fracture toughness, the failure criterion is directly applied to a
number of experiments reported in the literature. It should be noted that reports
in the literature of full-scale experiments with information about the initiation or
the failure load (or stress) for specimens with cracks and notches under different
types of loading are limited (Drozdovsky et al., 1969; Calı̀ and Citarella, 2004;
Christopher et al., 2005).
The validation study is made on through-cracked plates made of different materials
at different temperatures. Fracture data of through-thickness centre-cracked tensile
specimens (having 1.6 mm thickness and 76.2 mm width) made of AA2014-T6
aluminium alloy at 20 K are presented by Christopher et al. (2005). The experimental
constraint-dependent fracture toughness K cmat is calculated for these cracked plates
subjected to a uniform failure tensile stress sC using the following well-known
equation for the stress intensity factor (Broek, 1974):
pffiffiffiffiffiffi
K ¼ s paY ð20Þ
 IJSI where:
rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
4,4 p paffi
Y¼ sec ;
4 W
a is half the crack length, and W is the width.
The fracture toughness Kmat in equation (19) is obtained by correlating the
464 experimental value of K cmat and the measured failure stress sC of through-thickness
centre-cracked tensile specimens. The local strength is calculated from equation (11) for
the case of plane stress, and the biaxiality ratio b is assumed to be 2 1 independently
on the crack aspect ratio a/W (Leevers and Radon, 1982).
Using the obtained fracture toughness Kmat as the average value for test specimen
sets in the failure criterion (18) and equation (20), fracture analysis has been carried out
for these specimens and compared with the test results. Figure 2(a) shows the
constraint-dependent fracture toughness of the material along with the fracture data
Downloaded by Queen's University At 08:01 31 January 2016 (PT)

(the experimental value of K cmat ) of through-thickness cracks of tensile specimens.

The predicted constraint-dependent fracture toughness is quantitatively consistent with
the measured fracture data. Equations (20), (18), (11) and the determined fracture
toughness Kmat have been employed to generate the failure stress. Figure 2(b) shows the
comparison of analytical calculation and the experimental data of the failure stress sC.
The analytical results are found to be within ^ 5 per cent of the test results. Table I gives
the details of fracture analysis results.
Crack growth initiation data of through-thickness centre-cracked tensile specimens
made of D16T-1 (sY ¼ 370 MPa) and V-95 (sY ¼ 500 MPa) aluminium alloys (having
0.8 mm thickness and different width) at 293 K is examined in Figure 3. The fracture
toughness Kmat was determined from equation (19) by correlating the corresponding
experimental data sC and K cmat at crack growth initiation for the case of plane stress.
The variation of K cmat with sC/sY determined from equation (19) and the fracture data
for different aluminium alloys is summarized in Figures 4 and 5, in which the results of
SINTAP values of K cmat are also included for comparison. The mathematical
expression of the SINTAP (1999) value of K cmat can be written as:

2 !21=2 "
6 ! #
c sC sC
K mat ¼ K mat 1 þ 0:5 0:3 þ 0:7 exp 2m ; sC = sY # 1
sY sY
ð21Þ
where m ¼ min[0.001(E/sY);0.6], and E is Young’s modulus. Here, to compare the
predicted results, the ratio of PC/PY is assumed to be sC/sY. Comparison between
the variation of the predicted constraint-dependent fracture toughness K cmat with the
failure stress, the results of the SINTAP procedure and the experimental results shows
good agreement for 0:8 # sC =sY . It can be also seen that the predicted FADs are
consistent with the experimental data (Figure 6). However, the SINTAP results are
slightly higher than the present results obtained using equation (18). It should be pointed
out that the large discrepancy between the predicted and experimental results is
probably mainly due to the large scatter in the test results (Figure 3). This large scatter in
the crack initiation load results from the difficulties in measuring the crack initiation
point during experiments, as a result, there is large scatter in the measured fracture
toughness, especially for brittle aluminium alloy V95.
 Structural
50
integrity
assessment
40
Kcmat, MPam1/2

30
465
20 AA2014-T6, Plane Stress
Equation (19), Kmat = 50.4 MPam1/2
10
SINTAP, Kmat = 48.3 MPam1/2
Experimental Results
0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Downloaded by Queen's University At 08:01 31 January 2016 (PT)

Normalized Failure Stress, σC/ σY

(a)

600

500 +5%

–5%
σc- analysis, MPa

400

300

200
Test Figure 2.
Comparison of predicted
100 and experimental
100 200 300 400 500 600
(Christopher et al., 2005)
σc- test, MPa results of fracture analysis
(b) for AA2014-T6 aluminium
Notes: The constraint-dependent fracture toughness (a); the alloy centre-cracked
tensile specimens at 20 K
failure stress (b)

3.3 The safety factor against fracture for the FAD

3.3.1 Basic equations. The following condition for the notch FAD should be fulfilled if
detected or assumed notch-like defect of a certain size should be assessed as acceptable
(Matvienko, 2009):
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi"

2
2 #21=2
K mat sC s0 1
K notch # 12 12 ð22Þ
SF FAD s0 sC K 2t

where SFFAD is safety factor against fracture for the FAD.

 IJSI
Predicted failure
4,4 Calculated Kmat
pffiffiffiffi stress, sC
Crack length, 2a Measured failure stress, sC K cmat
Measuredpffiffiffiffi (MPa m) (MPa)
(mm) (MPa) (MPa m) (equation (19)) (equation (18))

7.04 408.9 38.3 50.3 409.4

466 7.06 405.4 38.0 49.6 408.9
14.15 320.6 43.3 50.0 322.4
19.68 288.9 46.9 52.6 279.2
21.49 272.4 46.6 51.6 267
26.21 235.8 45.8 49.3 240.4
Table I. 30.15 222.0 47.5 50.7 221.1
Fracture analysis results 30.58 217.2 46.9 50.0 218.8
for AA2014-T6 35.53 195.8 47.5 50.0 197.2
aluminium alloy 36.37 189.6 46.9 49.2 193.9
centre-cracked tensile
Downloaded by Queen's University At 08:01 31 January 2016 (PT)

pffiffiffiffi
specimens at 20 K Notes: Yield strength sY ¼ 554 MPa; average material’s fracture toughness Kmat ¼ 50.4 MPa m

The safety factor SFFAD can be calculated by making an assumption that the applied
acceptable stress should be not less than the yield stress sY (equation (1)) of material
for an engineering component with a notch-like defect of the acceptable size
(Matvienko and Makhutov, 1999). In this case, the failure criterion for a notch-like
defect of the acceptable size on the boundary of fracture and plastic collapse can be
given by:
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi"

2
2 #21=2
1 pffiffiffiffiffiffi sY s0 1
prsY K t ¼ K mat 1 2 12 ; ð23Þ
2 s0 sY K 2t

where r is the notch tip radius. Here, the stress intensity factor at the notch-like defect
tip is assumed to be as given by the relationship:
1 pffiffiffiffiffiffi
K notch ¼ prsK t : ð24Þ
2
The safety factor SFY against plastic collapse corresponding to equation (1) is
introduced in the failure criterion (22) to determine the acceptable defect as:
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi"


2 #21=2
1 pffiffiffiffiffiffi sY K mat sY =SF Y 2 s0 1
pr Kt ¼ 12 12 : ð25Þ
2 SF Y SF FAD s0 sY =SF Y K 2t

Combining equations (23) and (25), the safety factor SFFAD against fracture can be
presented as:
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiqffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
1 2 ððsY =SF Y Þ=s0 Þ2 1 2 ðs0 =sY Þ2 1=K 2t
SF FAD ¼ SF Y qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiqffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi : ð26Þ
1 2 ðsY =s0 Þ2 1 2 ðs0 =ðsY =SF Y ÞÞ2 1=K 2t

Thus, the right-hand side of equation (22) defines the acceptable region in the notch
FAD. If the assessment point falls within this region, the component with a notch-like
 Structural
D16T-1, σY = 372 MPa integrity
Crack Growth Initiation Stress, MPa
300
W = 100 mm assessment
270 W = 200 mm

240 467
210

180

150
Downloaded by Queen's University At 08:01 31 January 2016 (PT)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Crack Length, mm
(a)

V-95, σY = 500 MPa

Crack Growth Initiation Stress, MPa

320
W = 100 mm
W = 200 mm
280

240

200

Figure 3.
160
Experimental results
(Drozdovsky et al., 1969)
120 for D16T-1 (a) and V-95
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 (b) tensile plates having
Crack Length, mm through thickness cracks
2a at 293 K
(b)

defect is acceptable, i.e. it fulfils the required safety demands. For the special case of a
crack (Kt ! 1) the notch FADs are transferred to the FAD for component with a sharp
crack (Matvienko, 2003, 2005, 2009, 2011), and the safety factor (26) becomes the safety
factor against fracture of cracked component:
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
1 2 ððsY =SF Y Þ=s0 Þ2
SF FAD ¼ SF Y qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi : ð27Þ
1 2 ð sY = s 0 Þ 2

3.3.2 The effect of biaxial loading on the safety factor against fracture. It can be seen
from equation (26), taking into account equations (13) and (14), that the safety factor
 IJSI
4,4 40

30

Kcmat, MPam1/2
468
20

D16T-1, W = 100 mm, Plane Stress

10 Equation (19), Kmat = 38.3 MPam1/2

SINTAP, Kmat = 37.3 MPam1/2

Experimental Results
Downloaded by Queen's University At 08:01 31 January 2016 (PT)

0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Normalized Crack Growth Initiation Stress, σC/ σY
(a)

50

40
Kcmat, MPam1/2

30

20
D16T-1, W = 200 mm, Plane Stress

Figure 4. Equation (19), Kmat = 47.4 MPam1/2

Comparison of predicted 10 SINTAP, Kmat = 45.2 MPam1/2

and experimental
Experimental Results
(Drozdovsky et al., 1969)
constraint-dependent 0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
fracture toughness of
AA2014-T6 aluminium Normalized Crack Growth Initiation Stress, σC/ σY
alloy centre-cracked (b)
tensile specimens at 20 K
Notes: W = 100 mm (a) and W = 200 mm (b)

against fracture for a component with a notch-like defect is a function of the safety
factor against plastic collapse as well as the elastic stress concentration factor and the
biaxiality ratio b(a/W).
The following result is an illustration of the estimation of SFFAD versus the elastic
stress concentration factor for the through-thickness center-notched plate under
uniaxial and biaxial remote loading (with the stress biaxial parameter k ¼ s1 1
xx =syy ).
Generally, the biaxiality ratio b(a/W) is also a function of crack size for certain
geometry. Therefore, to apply equations (13) and (14) for calculation of the normalized
local strength in the case of finite geometries, it is necessary to provide dependency of
 Structural
50
integrity
assessment
40
Kcmat, MPam1/2

30 469

20
V-95, W = 100 mm, Plane Stress
Equation (19), Kmat = 43 MPam1/2

10 SINTAP, Kmat = 41.2 MPam1/2

Experimental Results
Downloaded by Queen's University At 08:01 31 January 2016 (PT)

0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Normalized Crack Growth Initiation Stress, σC/ σY
(a)

50

40
Kcmat, MPam1/2

30

20
V-95, W = 200 mm, Plane Stress
1/2
Equation (19), Kmat = 40 MPam Figure 5.
10 SINTAP, Kmat = 38.8 MPam 1/2
Comparison of predicted
Experimental Results and experimental
(Drozdovsky et al., 1969)
0 constraint-dependent
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
fracture toughness of V-95
Normalized Crack Growth Initiation Stress, σC/ σY aluminium alloy
(b) centre-cracked tensile
specimens at 20 K
Notes: W = 100 mm (a) and W = 200 mm (b)

the biaxiality ratio on crack size for specific crack configurations and loading modes.
It was shown by Leevers and Radon (1982) that finite-width effects do not drastically
modify the value of b(a/W) for uniaxially loaded plate (k ¼ 0), which remains about 2 1
over the whole domain of crack lengths a/W. However, for high values of k, crack tip
conditions are by no means constant during crack extension. For example, for k ¼ 0.5
the value of b(a/W) varies from 20.5 to 2 0.75 for crack lengths a/W from 0 to
0.7 (Leevers and Radon, 1982). For a conservative estimation of trends in the safety
factor against fracture for biaxially loaded plate, the biaxiality ratio b is assumed to
be 20.5 for the value of k ¼ 0.5 independently on a/W.
 IJSI Calculation of the safety factor against fracture (equation (26)) as a function of the
elastic stress concentration factor leads to the following dependence for plane strain and
4,4 plane stress (Figure 7).The safety factor against fracture SFFAD is, in general, dependent
on the elastic stress concentration factor and the biaxiality ratio as well as out-of-plane
conditions (plane strain or plane stress), as shown in Figure 7. It should be pointed out,
however, that the effect of out-of-plane conditions on the value of SFFAD is significant,
470 while the safety factor against fracture SFFAD is only weakly dependent on the biaxiality
ratio (k ¼ 0 and 0.5) for plane stress. It can be also seen that the value of SFFAD shows no
significant differentiation among the two biaxiality ratios for plane strain.
A crack-like defect is transferred in a sharp crack at Kt ! / . In this case, the
safety factor against fracture tends to its minimum value (equation (27)), i.e. typical
value for a sharp crack.

3.4 Structural integrity assessment based on the FAD

Downloaded by Queen's University At 08:01 31 January 2016 (PT)

3.4.1 Acceptable notch-like defect in a plate. To demonstrate the structural integrity

assessment procedure, an infinite plate with a notch-like defect under uniform remote
tensile stress has been considered. Equation (25) gives the approximate relation for a
notch-like defect of the acceptable size [a ] as follows (Matvienko, 2009):
"
2 #

1 K 2mat SF 2Y sY r s0 SF Y 2
½a
¼ 12 þ : ð28Þ
p SF 2FAD sY2 s0 SF Y 4 sY

The elastic stress concentration factor ffi is assumed to be equal to the acceptable

pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
factor [Kt], i.e. K t ¼ ½K t
< 2 ½a
=r. The following mechanical properties of the
material and thepsafety
ffiffiffiffi factor against plastic collapse for plane strain were used:
K mat ¼ 102 MPa m, sY ¼ 340 MPa, b ¼ 2 1, v ¼ 0.3, SFY ¼ 1.5. Calculation of the
safety factor against fracture from equation (27) gives SFFAD ¼ 1.59. It is seen that the
acceptable size of a notch-like defect decreases with the increase of the elastic stress
concentration factor tending to its limiting value, i.e. the acceptable size of a sharp
crack (Figure 8).

1.2

1.0
K1/Kmat, Kcmat/Kmat

0.8

Figure 6. 0.6
Comparison of predicted Equation (19) SINTAP
and experimental 0.4 Experimental Results, plane stress
(Drozdovsky et al., 1969) D16T-1 at 293 K, W = 100 mm, Kmat = 38.3 MPam1/2
results of the FAD at crack D16T-1 at 293 K, W = 200 mm, Kmat = 47.4 MPam1/2
growth initiation for 0.2 AKCH-1 at 293 K, W = 200 mm, Kmat = 50.9 MPam1/2
V-95 at 293 K, W = 100 mm, Kmat = 43 MPam1/2
D16T, AKCH-1 and V-95
V-95 at 293 K, W = 200 mm, Kmat = 40 MPam1/2
aluminium alloy
0.0
centre-cracked tensile 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
specimens at 293 K Normalized Crack Growth Initiation Stress, σC/ σY
 Structural
Safety Factor Against Fracture, SFFAD
4.0
Plane Strain (Notch), k = 0 integrity
3.6 Plane Strain (Notch), k = 0.5
Plane Strain (Crack), k = 0
assessment
3.2 Plane Strain (Crack), k = 0.5

2.8
471
2.4

2.0

1.6

1.2
Downloaded by Queen's University At 08:01 31 January 2016 (PT)

2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Elastic Stress Concentration Factor, Kt
(a)
Safety Factor Against Fracture, SFFAD

4.0 Plane Stress (Notch), k = 0

Plane Stress (Notch), k = 0.5

3.6 Plane Stress (Crack), k = 0

Plane Stress (Crack), k = 0.5

3.2

2.8

2.4

2.0 Figure 7.
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 The effect of biaxial
Elastic Stress Concentration Factor, Kt loading on the safety
(b) factor against fracture
(SFY ¼ 1.5, v ¼ 0.3)

An acceptable (safe) region for an engineering component with a notch-like defect of the
acceptable size can be represented from equation (22) by Figure 9. It can be seen that the
safe region trends to infinite for low values of the applied stress. It means that failure of
the notched component (characterized by the certain elastic stress concentration factor)
cannot occur under low applied stresses. This general result is consistent with the
results predicted by Smith (1999).
3.4.2 Acceptable notch-like defect in a pressure vessel. An assessment of the acceptable
surface longitudinal notch-like defects in a pressure vessel is based on the notch FAD
described by equation (25). Substituting equation (26) into equation (25), the acceptable
elastic stress concentration factor [Kt] can be written as follows:
 IJSI 34
4,4 Notch-like defect
32

Acceptable Length, mm
Crack

30
472
28

26

Figure 8.
Acceptable defect length 24
in an infinite plate as a
Downloaded by Queen's University At 08:01 31 January 2016 (PT)

function of the elastic 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

stress concentration factor
Elastic Stress Concentration Factor, Kt

FAD
2.5 FAD including safety factors

2.0
Critical Region
Knotch/Kmat

1.5

1.0

Acceptable Region
0.5

Figure 9. Non-critical Region

Notch FAD including 0.0
safety factors against 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2
fracture and plastic σ/σY
collapse Notes: SFK = 1.59; SFY = 1.5; Kt = 8

vffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
"
u
u 4 K2
2 #
2
sY s0
½K t
¼ t mat
12 þ : ð29Þ
pr s2Y s0 sY

Thus, acceptable state of the damaged pressure vessel has been presented by the following
criterion:
K t # ½K t
; ð30Þ
where Kt is the elastic stress concentration factor for the surface notch-like defect under
consideration.
The pressure vessel geometry is described by the wall thickness t, vessel outer
diameter D, longitudinal surface defect depth l, and defect tip radius r. In the analysis
 presented below a wall thickness of 30 mm and a diameter of 1,200 mm are applied. Structural
The notch-like defect length is assumed to be an infinite value. To determine the elastic integrity
stress concentration factor for the surface external defect, the 2D finite element
simulations of steel pressure vessels were carried out using the ANSYS code assessment
(Figure 10).

473
Downloaded by Queen's University At 08:01 31 January 2016 (PT)

(a)

Figure 10.
Geometrical model of
pressure vessel with the
surface external
longitudinal notch (a) and
a fragment of finite
element model in the
vicinity of the notch tip (b)
(b)
 IJSI It was shown (Matvienko, 2009) that the elastic stress concentration factor can be given
4,4 by the following equation (Figure 11):
sffiffiffi

l l
Kt ¼ 2 Y ; ð31Þ
r t
474 where Y(l/t) is a geometrical correction factor for the stress intensity factor in the case
of the SENT specimen.
The following mechanical properties of the steel and the safety factor against plastic
pffiffiffiffi
collapse for plane strain were used: K mat ¼ 100 MPa m, sY ¼ 285 MPa, v ¼ 0.3,
SFY ¼ 1.5. For a conservative estimation of the normalized local strength, the
biaxiality ratio b is assumed to be 2 0.5. In this case, the acceptable depth of a surface
notch-like defect with acceptable defect tip radius [r ] ¼ 0.4 mm in the pressure vessel
amounts to 10.23 mm.
Downloaded by Queen's University At 08:01 31 January 2016 (PT)

4. Conclusions
The deterministic method of structural integrity assessment is recommended to be
based on including safety factors against fracture and plastic collapse in criteria
equations of linear and nonlinear fracture mechanics. Structural integrity assessment
of the engineering components damaged by crack- or notch-like defects is discussed
from view point of the FAD.
The safety factors against fracture are calculated by demanding that the applied
critical stress should not be less than the yield stress of material for a component with a
crack or a notch of the acceptable size. Basic equations have been presented to calculate
the safety factor against fracture for critical values of the stress intensity factor, CTOD,
the J-integral and the notch FAD as well as to estimate an acceptable (safe) region for
an engineering component with a crack- or notch-like defect of the acceptable size.
It was shown that safety factors against fracture depends on both the safety factor
against plastic collapse and employed fracture mechanics criterion. For notch-like

90

80

70

60

50
Kt

40
l = 3.5 mm, 0.025 < ρ < 3 (mm)
30 l = 7.5 mm, 0.025 < ρ < 3 (mm)
Figure 11. l = 10.5 mm, 0.025 < ρ < 3 (mm)
The results of calculation 20 l = 3.5 mm, ρ = 0.035 mm)
of the elastic stress l = 7.5 mm, ρ = 0.075 mm)
concentration factor for 10 l = 10.5 mm, ρ = 0.105 mm)
surface longitudinal
notch-like defects by the 0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
FEM and equation (31)
l/ρ
 defects, the safety factor becomes a function of the elastic stress concentration factor. Structural
Moreover, the effect of crack/notch tip constraint has been expressed by biaxiality ratio integrity
and it is incorporated into criteria equations for the calculation of safety factors against
fracture. assessment
The methodology of the FAD has been employed for the structural integrity
analysis and assessment of acceptable sizes of through-thickness notch in a plate under
tension and surface longitudinal notch-like defects in a pressure vessel. 475
References
Adib, H., Jallouf, S., Schmitt, C., Carmasol, A. and Pluvinage, G. (2007), “Evaluation of the effect
of corrosion defects on the structural integrity of X52 gas pipelines using the SINTAP
procedure and notch theory”, International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping, Vol. 84,
pp. 123-131.
Ainsworth, R.A. and O’Dowd, N.P. (1995), “Constraint in the failure assessment diagram
Downloaded by Queen's University At 08:01 31 January 2016 (PT)

approach for fracture assessment”, Journal of Pressure Vessels Technology, Vol. 117,
pp. 260-267.
Anderson, T.L. (1995), Fracture Mechanics: Fundamentals and Application, CRC Press,
Boca Raton, FL.
Berto, F., Lazzarin, P. and Matvienko, Yu.G. (2007), “J-integral evaluation for U- and V-blunt
notches under mode I loading and materials obeying a power hardening law”,
International Journal of Fracture, Vol. 146, pp. 33-51.
Brickstad, B., Bergman, M., Andersson, P., Dahlberg, L., Sattari-Far, I. and Nilsson, F. (2000),
“Procedures used in Sweden for safety assessment of components with cracks”,
International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping, Vol. 77, pp. 877-881.
Broek, D. (1974), Elementary Engineering Fracture Mechanics, Noordhoff International
Publishing, Leyden, MA.
Bullough, R., Burdekin, F.M., Chapman, O.J.V., Green, V.R., Lidbury, D.P.G., Swingler, J.N. and
Wilson, R. (2001), “The demonstration of incredibility of failure in structural integrity
safety cases”, International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping, Vol. 78, pp. 539-552.
Burdekin, F.M. and Xu, W.G. (2003), “Effects of biaxial loading and residual stresses on
constraint”, International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping, Vol. 80, pp. 755-773.
Calı̀, C. and Citarella, R. (2004), “Residual strength assessment for a butt joint in MSD condition”,
Advances in Engineering Software, Vol. 35, pp. 373-382.
Christopher, T., Sankaranarayanasamy, K. and Nageswara Rao, B. (2005), “Correlating cryogenic
fracture strength using a modified two-parameter method”, Engineering Fracture
Mechanics, Vol. 72, pp. 475-490.
Cicero, S., Gutiérrez-Solana, F. and Álvarez, J.A. (2008), “Structural integrity assessment of
components subjected to low constraint conditions”, Engineering Fracture Mechanics,
Vol. 75, pp. 3038-3059.
Citarella, R. and Apicella, A. (2006), “Advanced design concepts and maintenance by integrated
risk evaluation for aerostructures”, Structural Durability & Health Monitoring, Vol. 2 No. 3,
pp. 183-196.
Creager, M. and Paris, P.C. (1967), “Elastic field equations for blunt cracks with reference to
stress corrosion cracking”, International Journal of Fracture, Vol. 3, pp. 247-252.
Drozdovsky, B.A., Markochev, V.M. and Goltzev, V.Y. (1969), “Fracture diagrams of sheet
materials”, Deformation and Fracture Under Thermal and Mechanical Loading, Vol. 3,
pp. 101-114 (in Russian).
 IJSI FITNET (2001), European Fitnet for Service Network, EU’s Framework 5, Proposal No.
GTC-2001-43049, Contract No. G1RT-CT-2001-05071.
4,4 Leevers, P.S. and Radon, J.C. (1982), “Inherent stress biaxiality in various fracture specimens”,
International Journal of Fracture, Vol. 19, pp. 311-325.
Matvienko, Y.G. (1994), “J-estimation formulas for nonlinear crack problems”, International
Journal of Fracture, Vol. 68, pp. R15-R18.
476 Matvienko, Y.G. (2003), “Local fracture criterion to describe failure assessment diagrams for a
body with a crack/notch”, International Journal of Fracture, Vol. 124, pp. 107-112.
Matvienko, Y.G. (2005), “Erratum: local fracture criterion to describe failure assessment
diagrams for a body with a crack/notch”, International Journal of Fracture, Vol. 131, p. 309.
Matvienko, Y.G. (2009), “Failure assessment diagrams in structural integrity analysis”,
in Boukharouba, T., Elboujdaini, M. and Pluvinage, G. (Eds), Damage and Fracture
Mechanics, Springer, Dordrecht, pp. 173-182.
Matvienko, Y.G. (2011), “Development of models and criteria of notch fracture mechanics”,
Downloaded by Queen's University At 08:01 31 January 2016 (PT)

Structural Integrity and Life, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 3-7.

Matvienko, Y.G. and Makhutov, N.A. (1999), “Strength and survivability analysis in engineering
safety for structures damaged by cracks”, International Journal of Pressure Vessels and
Piping, Vol. 76, pp. 441-444.
Neimitz, A. (2004), “Modification of Dugdale model to include the work hardening and in- and
out-of-plane constraints”, Engineering Fracture Mechanics, Vol. 71, pp. 1585-1600.
Sham, T.-L. (1991), “The determination of the elastic T-term using higher order weight
functions”, International Journal of Fracture, Vol. 48, pp. 81-102.
Sherry, A.H., France, C.C. and Goldthorpe, M.R. (1995), “Compendium of T-stress solution for two
and three dimensional cracked geometries”, Fatigue and Fracture of Engineering Materials
and Structures, Vol. 18, pp. 141-155.
SINTAP (1999), Structural Integrity Assessment Procedure for European Industry,
Project BE95-1426, Final Procedure, British Steel Report, Rotherham.
Smith, E. (1999), “Fracture initiation at the root of a blunt flaw: description in terms of Kr-Lr
failure assessment curves”, International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping, Vol. 76,
pp. 799-800.
Taylor, D. (2007), The Theory of Critical Distance: A New Perspective in Fracture Mechanics,
Elsevier, Oxford.
Tronskar, J.P., Mannan, M.A., Lai, M.O., Sigurdsson, G. and Halsen, K.O. (2003), “Crack tip
constraint correction applied to probabilistic fracture mechanics analyses of floating
production, storage and off-loading vessels”, Engineering Fracture Mechanics, Vol. 70,
pp. 1415-1446.
Wang, W.Q., Liu, C.J. and Zhou, S.J. (1999), “On the probabilistic failure assessment diagram”,
International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping, Vol. 76, pp. 653-662.
Williams, M.L. (1957), “On the stress distribution at the base of a stationary crack”, Journal of
Applied Mechanics, Vol. 24, pp. 109-114.

Corresponding author
Yury Matvienko can be contacted at: ygmatvienko@gmail.com

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
 This article has been cited by:

1. Yu.G. Matvienko. 2015. The effect of out-of-plane constraint in terms of the T-stress in connection with
specimen thickness. Theoretical and Applied Fracture Mechanics . [CrossRef]
2. S. A. Krishnan, A. Moitra, G. Sasikala, S.K. Albert, A.K. Bhaduri. 2015. Coupled FEM and experimental
analysis to characterize initial crack growth regime in AISI 316L(N) stainless steel. International Journal
of Structural Integrity 6:3, 390-401. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
3. Yu. G. Matvienko. 2014. Modeling and fracture criteria in current problems of strength, survivability and
machine safety. Journal of Machinery Manufacture and Reliability 43, 242-249. [CrossRef]
Downloaded by Queen's University At 08:01 31 January 2016 (PT)