Export file:


  • RIS(for EndNote,Reference Manager,ProCite)
  • BibTex
  • Text


  • Citation Only
  • Citation and Abstract

Fatigue crack growth calculations for two adjacent surface cracks using combination rules in fitness-for-service codes

Nuclear Safety Research Center, Japan Atomic Energy Agency, 2-4 Shirakata, Tokai-mura, Naka-gun, Ibaraki 319-1195, Japan

Special Issues: Interaction of Multiple Cracks in Metallic Components-Volume 2

If multiple discrete cracks are detected in structural components, the combination rules provided in fitness-for-service (FFS) codes are employed to estimate the remaining lives of the components by fatigue crack growth (FCG) calculations. However, the specific criteria for combination rules prescribed by various FFS codes are different. This paper presents FCG calculations for two adjacent surface cracks in a flat plate using different combination criteria. Three different crack aspect ratios of 0.05, 0.15 and 0.5, and a nominal distance of 5 mm between the two cracks are investigated in the calculations. The results show that the FCG behaviors obtained by various codes are significantly different. In addition, the combination process of the two cracks is found to affect the crack shape development remarkably.
  Article Metrics

Keywords fatigue crack growth; combination rule; two surface cracks; fitness-for-service code

Citation: Kai Lu, Yinsheng Li. Fatigue crack growth calculations for two adjacent surface cracks using combination rules in fitness-for-service codes. AIMS Materials Science, 2017, 4(2): 439-451. doi: 10.3934/matersci.2017.2.439


  • 1. Kamaya M, Miyokawa E, Kikuchi M (2011) Crack Growth Prediction Method Considering Interaction between Multiple Cracks. Bull Jpn Soc Mech Eng 77: 552–563.
  • 2. Isida M (1970) Analysis of Stress Intensity Factors for Plates Containing Random Array of Cracks. Bull Jpn Soc Mech Eng 13: 635–642.
  • 3. Murakami Y, Nemat-Nasser S (1982) Interacting Dissimilar Semi-Elliptical Surface Flaws under Tension and Bending. Eng Fract Mech 16: 373–386.    
  • 4. Murakami Y, Nemat-Nasser S (1983) Growth and Stability of Interacting Surface Flaws of Arbitrary Shape. Eng Fract Mech 17: 193–210.    
  • 5. Iida K (1983) Shapes and Coalescence of Surface Fatigue Cracks. Proceedings of ICF International Symposium on Fracture Mechanics, Beijing, China.
  • 6. Iida K, Kuwahara M (1978) An Assessment of Fatigue Crack Growth from Adjacent Multiple Surface Flaws. Third International Symposium of Japan Welding Society, Tokyo, 325.
  • 7. Soboyejo WO, Kishimoto K, Smith RA, et al. (1989) A Study of the Interaction and Coalescence of Two Coplanar Fatigue Cracks in Bending. Fatigue Fract Eng M 12: 167–174.    
  • 8. Kishimoto K, Soboyejo WO, Smith RA, et al. (1989) A Numerical Investigation of the Interaction and Coalescence of Twin Coplanar Semi-Elliptical Fatigue Cracks. Int J Fatigue 11: 91–96.    
  • 9. Bezensek B, Hancock JW (2004) The Re-Characterization of Complex Defects Part I: Fatigue and Ductile Tearing. Eng Fract Mech 71: 981–1000.    
  • 10. Bezensek B, Hancock JW (2004) The Re-Characterization of Complex Defects Part II: Cleavage. Eng Fract Mech 71: 1001–1019.    
  • 11. American Society of Mechanical Engineers (2015) ASME B&PV Code Section XI, Rules for In-service Inspection of Nuclear Power Plant Components, ASME, New York, USA.
  • 12. British Standard Institution (2005) BS 7910, Guide to Method for Assessing the Acceptability of Flaws in Metallic Structure, BSI, London, UK.
  • 13. Kocak M, Hadley I, Szavai S, et al. (2008) FITNET fitness-for-service procedures, Vol. II., Joint Research Centre, GKSS Research Centre, Geesthacht, Germany.
  • 14. Berger C, Maschinenbau FF (2009) Fracture Mechanics Proof of Strength for Engineering Components, FKM Guideline, 2nd Revised Edition.
  • 15. Swedish Radiation Safety Authority (2008) A Combined Deterministic and Probabilistic Procedure for Safety Assessment of Components with Cracks-Handbook, SSM, Stockholm, Sweden.
  • 16. Chinese Standard Committee (2004) GB/T 19624, Safety Assessment for In-Service Pressure Vessels Containing Defects, Beijing (in Chinese).
  • 17. American Petroleum Institute (2007) Fitness-for-Service, API 579-1/ASME FFS-1.
  • 18. High Pressure Institute of Japan (2008) Assessment Procedure for Crack-Like Flaws in Pressure Equipment, HPIS Z 101, Tokyo (in Japanese).
  • 19. AFCEN (2010) Guide for Defect Assessment and Leak Before Break Analysis, A16, RCC-MRx, France.
  • 20. Katsumata G, Li Y, Hasegawa K, et al. (2015) Fatigue Crack Growth Calculations for Pipes Considering Subsurface to Surface Flaw Proximity Rules. Proceedings of ASME 2015 Pressure Vessel and Piping Division Conference, American Society of Mechanical Engineers.
  • 21. Lu K, Li Y, Hasegawa K, et al. (2017) Remaining Fatigue Lives of Similar Surface Flaws in Accordance with Combination Rules. J Pressure Vessel Technol 139: 021407.    
  • 22. Soboyejo WO, Knott JF (1991) The Propagation of Non-Coplanar Semi-Elliptical Fatigue Cracks. Fatigue Fract Eng M 14: 37–49.    
  • 23. Tu ST, Dai SH (1994) An Engineering Assessment of Fatigue Crack Growth of Irregularly Oriented Multiple Cracks. Fatigue Fract Eng M 17: 1235–1246.    


Reader Comments

your name: *   your email: *  

Copyright Info: 2017, Kai Lu, et al., licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licese (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)

Download full text in PDF

Export Citation

Copyright © AIMS Press All Rights Reserved