STRUCTURAL COLLAPSE, THE FAILURE ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM AND “OFF‐THE‐SHELF” OPERATION

Abstract

Abstract— The criteria for determining whether ferritic material exhibits fully ductile behaviour are generally based on the fracture toughness vs temperature relationship determined from standard laboratory test pieces (e.g. Charpy V Impact tests or fracture toughness specimens). This relationship defines a ductile‐brittle transition region. When fully ductile, microvoid coalescence behaviour is experienced, and fracture toughness is described as being on the “upper shelf”. At “off the shelf” temperatures brittle, cleavage fracture is experienced. On the lower shelf the material is entirely brittle, exhibiting 100% crystallinity on the fracture face. As the temperature increases, initiation of tearing by microvoid coalescence occurs and some stable tearing can occur prior to the cleavage event. Material toughness increases with temperature until the upper shelf condition is achieved.The characteristics of fracture toughness tests in terms of the toughness level exhibited and the extent of ductile tearing experienced have been used as a guide to whether the structural application (e.g. a pressure vessel) will behave in a brittle or a ductile manner. This paper reports on a feasibility study where various worked examples have been performed to examine the concept of using a “cut off” on the failure assessment diagram, determined from the conditions required to cause plastic collapse of a pressure vessel, as a criterion for defining effective “ductile” operation. Fracture assessment procedures (R6 revisions 2 and 3 and PD6493 levels 2 and 3) have been utilised to determine the influence on pressure vessel performance of the behaviour of fracture toughness test specimens.The procedure of plotting a structural collapse “cut off” on a failure assessment diagram enables the assessment of whether a particular flaw geometry would result in gross deformation of the structure at failure. The use of this procedure provides an unambiguous demarcation between “fracture dominated” and “collapse controlled” conditions. This procedure facilitates judgements on the level of toughness necessary to ensure ductile operation and whether a “tearing plus toughness” requirement is necessary.It is recommended that consideration be given to including structural collapse into fracture assessment procedures carried out using R6 revision 3 or PD 6493:1991 procedures in order to determine the conditions when enhanced toughness no longer influences structural performance (i.e. when effective “upper shelf” conditions are attained).