See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/245161470

FITNET FFS procedure: A unified European procedure for structural integrity

assessment

Article  in  Engineering Failure Analysis · March 2009

DOI: 10.1016/j.engfailanal.2008.02.007

CITATIONS READS

25 126

2 authors:

Federico Gutiérrez-Solana Sergio Cicero

Universidad de Cantabria Universidad de Cantabria
207 PUBLICATIONS   719 CITATIONS    184 PUBLICATIONS   609 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Performance criteria for cold formed structural steels View project

Análisis del comportamiento en fractura de componentes estructurales con defectos en condiciones de bajo confinamiento tensional (MAT2014-58443-P) View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Sergio Cicero on 23 March 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

Engineering Failure Analysis 16 (2009) 559–577

www.elsevier.com/locate/engfailanal

FITNET FFS procedure: A unified European procedure

for structural integrity assessment
F. Gutiérrez-Solana *, S. Cicero
Departamento de Ciencia e Ingenierı́a del Terreno y de los Materiales, ETS Ingenieros de Caminos, Canales y Puertos,
Universidad de Cantabria, Av/Los Castros s/n, 39005 Santander, Spain

Available online 4 March 2008

Abstract

The recently completed European fitness for service network has developed a unified European procedure for the struc-
tural integrity assessment called FITNET fitness for service procedure, which covers the analysis of components and struc-
tures under the four main failure mechanisms: fracture-plastic collapse, fatigue, creep and corrosion. This procedure has
been submitted to the European Committee for Standardisation (CEN) for its adoption as a European Standard for struc-
tural integrity.
This paper describes the origins and the justification of the FITNET FFS procedure, as well as its contents and struc-
ture, in specific chapters devoted to the different failure mechanisms and all of the original aspects of this new assessment
procedure. The aim is to provide a clear and comprehensive view of the procedure and its potential both as an assessment
tool and in various other engineering applications.
Ó 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Structural integrity; Fracture; Fatigue; Creep; Corrosion

1. Introduction

At the dawn of the new millenium, the situation in Europe as regards structural integrity was somewhat
confused and chaotic. There were numerous assessment procedures of a clearly national nature, such as the
British BS7910 [1] or the French RCC-MR [2] and others whose application was restricted to a specific indus-
try, such as the R5 [3] and the R6 [4] of British Energy and the Swedish SAQ [5] in the nuclear sector. More-
over, each of these procedures tended to focus on one specific type of failure (R5 on creep, BS7910, R6 and
SAQ on fracture. . .), there being no procedure which allowed a component to be assessed for the various fail-
ure mechanisms. The SINTAP procedure [6], developed between 1996 and 1999, redressed the situation in the
fracture area, unifying criteria and resloving the traditional dichotomy between the use of failure assessment
diagrams (FAD) and crack drive force diagrams (CDFD), attesting full equivalence between the two
approaches.

*
Corresponding author. Tel.: +34 942 201 817; fax: +34 942 201 818.
E-mail address: gsolana@unican.es (F. Gutiérrez-Solana).

1350-6307/$ - see front matter Ó 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.engfailanal.2008.02.007
560 F. Gutiérrez-Solana, S. Cicero / Engineering Failure Analysis 16 (2009) 559–577

Fig. 1. Working structure of the European fitness for service network.

At the same time, some other industrial powers, such as USA and Japan had their own procedures for the
analysis of the various failure modes, offering a simpler, more clearly defined picture. Thus, American proce-
dures such as the API 579 [7] in the petrol sector and the ASME XI [8] in the nuclear industry or the Japanese
JSME procedure [9] were fully defined and widely used in industry.
This panorama in Europe, characterised by a lack of uniformity, an excessive variety, lack of global vision
and the delay with respect to other countries made it absolutely essential to develop a unified European pro-
cedure covering the main failure modes and offering European industry a tool with which to design, manufac-
ture and manage industrial components and installations in a safer, more efficient way.
To this end, as part of the V Framework Programme, from February 2002 to May 2006, the European fit-
ness for service network [10] devised the FITNET FFS procedure [11], a document which defines a structural
integrity assessment procedure for analysis against the four main failure modess: plastic fracture-collapse, fati-
gue, creep and corrosion. The matrix organisation of the project can be seen in Fig. 1, which shows the organ-
isations involved and the leaders of each of the working groups (WGs led by big companies and associated to
each of the associated failure types analysed) and work packages (WPs led by research centres and universities
and associated to specific support tasks). The final document has been sent to the committee for European
normalisation (CEN) in order to start the path towards its conversion into a future European standard for
the structural integrity assessment of components and structures.

2. The FITNET FFS procedure

The procedure is organised in three volumes:

– Volume I: FITNET FFS procedure. Describes the assessment procedure itself, with chapters devoted to
each failure mode termed ‘modules’ and others outlining specific assessment techniques incorporating
the latest scientific and technological advances in the field of structural integrity (constraint analysis, Leak
Before Break, master curve, crack arrest, mixed mode, notch treatment. . .).
– Volume II: CASE STUDIES AND TUTORIALS. This document presents a number of cases of applica-
tion of the procedure to industrial problems and a total of twelve examples in which the FITNET FFS pro-
cedure is applied, step by step, to various problems of fracture, fatigue, creep, corrosion and combinations
of these.
– Volume III: ANNEX. This volume, which serves to further clarify the application of the procedure, is made
up of a total of eleven annexes listing solutions for stress intensity factors and plastic collapse loads for a
large number of geometries, residual stress profiles, geometric defect characterisation, constraint parameter
values, etc.
 F. Gutiérrez-Solana, S. Cicero / Engineering Failure Analysis 16 (2009) 559–577 561

Also, a training package [12] has been devised covering aspects from the basic theoretical concepts of frac-
ture mechanics to the application of the various modules of the procedure.

3. Procedure modules

The fundamental part of the procedure is that contained in Chapters 6–9 which correspond, respectively, to
the fracture, fatigue, creep and corrosion modules. Below, the main characteristics of each of these are
presented.

3.1. Fracture module

The fracture module of the FITNET procedure (Chapter 6) is based on the SINTAP procedure and incor-
porates the advances made in the field of structural integrity since the latter was published [13]. It is based on
the principles of fracture mechanics and is applicable to the assessment of metallic structures (welded or non-
welded) containing real or postulated cracks [11]. It is designed for application during the design, manufac-
ture, in-service assessment of components and failure analysis.

Fig. 2. Flow chart of fracture module [11].

562 F. Gutiérrez-Solana, S. Cicero / Engineering Failure Analysis 16 (2009) 559–577

Fracture analysis is governed by three parameters: fracture toughness of material, geometry of component
and defect and applied loads. These enable the component integrity assessment to be made on the basis of the
methodology gathered in the flowchart shown in Fig. 2.
The procedure allows the analysis to be carried out both with the FAD (failure assessment diagram) and
with the CDFD (crack driving force diagram) methodologies, obtaining identical results for the two methods
as demonstrated in SINTAP [14,15]. It also offers the possibility of performing an initiation or a tearing
analysis.
FITNET, like SINTAP, is a hierarchical procedure in which the analysis can be gradually refined as the
information on the mechanical properties of the material [6,16,17] increases, following the guidelines shown
in Fig. 3 [6,11]. Thus, six options are distinguished, associated to the same number of knowledge situations
for the material, as shown in Fig. 4.
The analyses corresponding to options 0–3 carry with them a certain degree of conservatism. This is due, in
part, to the underestimation of the material’s fracture toughness caused by the use of fracture toughness values
obtained from specimens with deep cracks and subjected to bending loads. These conditions guarantee a very
high degree of stress triaxiality (constraint) at the crack tip. In the situation analysed, the crack may not be
deep and/or the loads applied may be predominantly tensile, giving rise to a reduction in constraint and to
the development of a greater fracture resistance in the component. Option 5 of the FITNET FFS allows this
phenomenon to be taken into consideration.
More specifically, it proposes the use of biparametric fracture mechanics, in which a second parameter is
added introducing the effect of constraint into the analysis. This second parameter is the T stress in linear elas-
tic situations and the Q parameter in elastoplastic situations [18]. The effect of constraint can be represented in
two different ways, giving rise to procedures I (modification of the FAD, keeping fracture toughness invari-
able) and II (modification of fracture toughness, keeping the FAD invariable), as employed in procedures such
as SINTAP and the R6. The formulation associated to procedure I (failure assessment line, FAL, equation) is
k
K r ¼ f ðLr Þ  ð1 þ aðbLr Þ Þ Lr 6 Lr max ð1Þ
while the formulation associated to procedure II (fracture toughness value K cmat ) is:
K cmat ¼ K mat ; bLr > 0
ð2Þ
K cmat ¼ K mat ð1 þ aðbLr Þk Þ; bLr < 0
where a and k are parameters of the material and b is a structural constraint measure whose expressions, as a
function of T and Q, are

Fig. 3. FAD regions for the consideration of the refinement of the material’s toughness parameters [6,11].
 F. Gutiérrez-Solana, S. Cicero / Engineering Failure Analysis 16 (2009) 559–577 563

Fig. 4. Selection of analysis option using available tensile data [11].

Tp Ts
b¼ þ ð3Þ
Lr ry Lr ry
Q
b¼ ð4Þ
Lr
where ry is the elastic limit of the material, Lr is the rate between the load applied and the plastic collapse load
and Tp and Ts are, respectively, the stress value T associated to the primary and secondary stresses.
Once the FAL or fracture toughness has been modified, the assessment methodology continues as in ordin-
ary analyses.
In this respect, the greatest contribution of the FITNET FFS to the constraint analysis consists in the sim-
plification of this analysis since it makes it possible to obtain the a, k and b, which has always been the main
difficulty for the application of this type of assessment. Thus, in Annex K of Volume III, it provides solutions
of b for some of the most common geometries and values of a and k for a wide range of materials using the
material’s Beremin parameter, the hardening coefficient and the relation between the Young Module (E) and
the yield stress (ry) [19].
In Chapter 12 of the FITNET FFS, which provides additional information for the analysis, a procedure
[20] is described which proposes a global assessment model for constraint loss on the load application plane,
which adds on to the above-mentioned effects of the load type and the depth of the defect the loss of constraint
caused by the notch effect. More specifically, it proposes the combination of the notch correction used in mod-
els obtained from the critical average stress model (CASM) [21] or finite fracture mechanics (MFF) [22] with
the constraint correction provided by biparametric fracture mechanics as described in the fracture module of
the FITNET FFS. In this case, both procedure I (modification of the FAD) and procedure II (modification of
fracture toughness) can again be applied resulting, respectively, in the following formulations when CASM
notch correction is used [20,23–25]:
564 F. Gutiérrez-Solana, S. Cicero / Engineering Failure Analysis 16 (2009) 559–577
rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
k q
K line
r ¼ f ðLr Þð1 þ aðbLr Þ Þ  1 þ Lr 6 Lr max ð5Þ
2X ef
K cmat ¼ K mat ; bLr > 0 ð6Þ
rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
k q
K cmat ¼ K mat ð1 þ aðbLr Þ Þ 1 þ ; bLr < 0
2X ef
This methodology is based on the independence [20,23–25] between the constraint losses caused by the exis-
tence of shallow defects and predominantly tensile loads (taken into account by biparametric fracture mechan-
ics) and those caused by the notch effect (covered by notch correction).
The effect of these corrections is an extension of the validity zone in the FAD when procedure I is used
(Fig. 5) and a vertical shift in the point of assessment of the component when procedure II is used (Fig. 6).
Thus, components which are at first assessed as unsafe may be considered safe when diverse sources of con-
straint losses are taken into account. The inclusion of the notch effect in the analysis does not modify the full
equivalence between procedures I and II.
This model has been applied in [20] to the analysis of panels obtained from structural steel flanges in which
a central defect with different constraint conditions is introduced (crack, notch with tip radius q = 1.2 mm and
notch with tip radius q = 2.0 mm). These panels were subjected to tensile loads at various behaviour condi-
tions of the material (from brittle to ductile). The results obtained show a significant reduction in conservatism
and a closer approximation to the physical reality of the problem. Fig. 7 shows the analysis of three of the
specimens analysed with the various constraint corrections practised, arising from the combination of the
biparametric corrections (parametric and master curve) with the notch corrections (CASM and MFF).
It can be observed how successive constraint corrections cause vertical shifts in the assessment point. The
straight lines associated to Kr/Lr = 0.4 and Kr/Lr = 1.1 define different areas associated to different rupture
behaviours [6,11]. Thus, for Kr/Lr > 1.1, the rupture takes place mainly through brittle fracture and for Kr/
Lr < 0.4, the dominant mechanism is plastic collapse. For values between 0.4 and 1.1, a combination of the
two mechanisms occurs. On applying the corrections, there is not only a reduction in the safety factor (relation
between the segment which goes from the origin to the assessment point and the segment which goes from the
origin to the crossover point of the previous segment with the FAL), but also a variation in the predicted fail-
ure mechanism, going from brittle fractures to failures with the presence of ductile or totally ductile mecha-
nisms, which is in agreement with the experimental observations [20]. Hence, not only is the conservatism of
the analysis reduced but also the real fracture mechanism can be predicted.

2.0

1.8

1.6

1.4

1.2
Kr

1.0

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6
Lr
conventional FAD
FAD: loading type+crack shallow ness
FAD: loading type+crack shallow ness+notch ef fect
Component 1

Fig. 5. Procedure I for the global assessment of constraint loss and the change arising in the assessment of the component (from unsafe to
safe) [20].
 F. Gutiérrez-Solana, S. Cicero / Engineering Failure Analysis 16 (2009) 559–577 565

2.0
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2

Kr
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6
Lr
conventional FAD
Component: conventional assessment
Component: constraint correction (loading type+shallowness)
Component: constraint correction (loading type+shallowness+notch effect)

Fig. 6. Procedure II for the global assessment of constraint loss and the change arising in the assessment of the components (from unsafe
to safe) [20].

FAD
2.5

Notch Notch
2.0 =1.2 mm =2.0 mm
Crack

1.5
Kr

1.0

0.5

0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6
Lr
FAD X4M4A1 (no correction) X4M4A1 (parametric)

X4M4A2 (no correction) X4M4A2 (parametric) X4M4A2 (param.+notch)

X4M4A3 (no correction) X4M4A3 (parametric) X4M4A3 (param.+notch)

Kr/Lr=0.4 Kr/Lr=1.1

Fig. 7. Analysis of constraint effect (procedure II) of one cracked specimen (X4M4A1), one notched with q = 1.2 mm (X4M4A2) and
another notched with q = 2.0 mm (X4M4A3) [20].

3.2. Fatigue module

The main novelty of the fatigue module (Chapter 7, Volume I) of the FITNET FFS procedure is that it
provides clear and definite guidelines for carrying out the various types of existing fatigue analyses according
to the varying knowledge of the state of the defects. Fig. 8 shows the 5 resulting routes with their various basic
stages.
It can be observed that the procedure distinguishes five different routes. The first selection criterion is
whether the component is to be analysed in the presence of an established crack (detected or postulated). If
negative, Routes 1–3 are followed (fatigue damage assessment, FDA) and if positive, Routes 4 (fatigue crack
growth assessment) and 5 (non-planar flaw assessment) depending on whether the defect is plane or not. The
main characteristics of these routes are as follows:
566 F. Gutiérrez-Solana, S. Cicero / Engineering Failure Analysis 16 (2009) 559–577

Fig. 8. Fatigue analysis routes of the FITNET FFS and their basic stages [11].

– Route 1: FDA using nominal stresses:

This route considers the nominal elastic stress values in the location of interest.
In welded components, the fatigue life is determined using a set of S–N curves (Fig. 9) classified according
to different levels of fatigue resistance for 2  106 cycles or FAT classes (depending on the geometry and the
material) provided in Annex G of the procedure [11]. The S–N curve of the component is a straight line
which passes through the point corresponding to the FAT value and to 2  106 cycles with a slope of 3
(5 for tangential stresses) and becomes constant, with an endurance value, when this straight line reaches
5  106 cycles (108 in the case of tangential stresses). The FAT of the component is corrected according to
the relation between the minimum and maximum load (R) and the component’s thickness. The local geom-
etry effects of the microstructural and welding details and of the residual stresses is included in the curves.
In the case of variable load amplitudes, Palmgren–Miner [26,27] is applied. Fig. 10 shows as an example the
corresponding working scheme.In non-welded components, the endurance is modified to take into account

Fig. 9. S–N curves for normal and steel stresses [11].

 F. Gutiérrez-Solana, S. Cicero / Engineering Failure Analysis 16 (2009) 559–577 567

Fig. 10. Route 1 of fatigue analysis in welded components [11].

factors such as the geometrical discontinuities, section thickness, roughness of the surface and average
stress.From this analysis, a nominal stress permissible for the component’s life is derived, which is com-
pared with the stress applied to it.
– Route 2: FDA using either structural hot spot stress or notch stress:
This route, appropriate for components with stress concentrators, analyses fatigue using two different
approaches:
(a) Calculation of the hot spot stress [28] and application of specific S–N curves (included in the proce-
dure for a good number of cases) using the methodology described above.
(b) Calculation of the notch stress using stress concentration factors such as Kt or Kf [29] and use of spe-
cific S–N curves. In the case of variable load amplitudes, Palmgren–Miner is applied.
Fig. 11 shows the definition of the stresses used in this assessment route and Fig. 12 shows the assessment
scheme for the case of welded components.
The hot spot stress can be obtained analytically from the stresses obtained using finite element techniques at
certain reference points (located at a certain distance from the stress concentration which is a function of the
thickness). Following [28], the hot spot stress is obtained by multiplying by one stress concentration factor
(SCFHS) the nominal stress value (Fig. 11). FITNET provides SCFHS expressions for different stress gradient
situations.

Fig. 11. Hot spot stress (or structural stress) and notch stress in a welded joint [11].
568 F. Gutiérrez-Solana, S. Cicero / Engineering Failure Analysis 16 (2009) 559–577

Fig. 12. Route 2 of fatigue analysis in welded components [11].

At the same time, the notch stress can be calculated directly by finite elements using linear elastic theory or
analytically by multiplying the SCFHS by a new stress concentration factor which is a function of the type
of geometry of the weld and can easily be obtained from the tabulated values listed in the procedure.
– Route 3: FDA using local stress–strain approach
This route is applicable mainly in non-welded components and uses a direct calculation of the stresses at a
critical point, making use of the elastoplastic behaviour of the material. The fatigue life is calculated using
the curve that relates the amplitude of the strain and the cycles for its initiation, or from relations such as
Coffin-Manson’s law [30,31]. From this point on, the analysis can be continued following Route 4 (prop-
agation analysis). Fig. 13 shows the schema of this route.
– Route 4: fatigue crack growth assessment:
This route allows a detected or postulated plane flaw to be analysed. The basic methodology proposed for
propagation analysis is the Paris law but a more sophisticated approach is proposed, based on the Forman–
Mettu equation[32], which predicts the fatigue behaviour of the material from stress variations typical of
the propagation threshold up to those close to fracture.

Fig. 13. Route 3 of fatigue analysis in welded components [11].

 F. Gutiérrez-Solana, S. Cicero / Engineering Failure Analysis 16 (2009) 559–577 569

– Route 5: non-planar flaw assessment:

Non-plane defects can be assessed as plane flaws following Route 4, obtaining conservative results. There
are cases in which they can be assessed following Routes 1 and 2 using the S–N curves for welded joints
provided that the size of the defects is not greater than certain limits specified in the procedure.
Finally, regarding the fatigue assessment of components, the FITNET FFS covers aspects such as the
description of methodologies that improve fatigue life (Burr Grinding, Hammer Peening . . .), special analysis
options (Dang Van criterion), multiaxial analysis, rolling contact fatigue. . ., interactions of fatigue with
other failure processes such as creep and corrosion and the fatigue analysis of short cracks.
In short, the fatigue module of the FITNET FFS provides a clearly defined assessment scheme through a
series of specific routes and completes it with methods of analysis for specific cases which are of great
importance in industry.

3.3. Creep module

This module is presented in Chapter 8 (Volume I) of the procedure and proposes the assessment of cracked
components subjected to high temperatures. It is based on a methodology proposed in procedure R5 and
divides the assessment into the following stages (Figs. 14 and 15):

(1) Establish cause of crack and characterise initial defect.

(2) Define working conditions of component.
(3) Determine toughness characteristics of material.
(4) Perform stress analysis of component.
(5) Verify stability with respect to time-independent loads.
(6) Verify effects of creep and fatigue.
(7) Calculate time to fracture on the basis of the initial effect.
(8) Calculate initiation time.
(9) Calculate crack size after growth.
(10) Recalculate time to fracture after crack growth.
(11) Verify stability with respect to time-independent loads after crack growth.
(12) Evaluate significance of results obtained.
(13) Draw up report on results.

Stages 7–11 are iterative as a result of the division of the life of the component in small enough time
periods. Their development is illustrated in two flowcharts, one for a significant fatigue effect and the other
for an insignificant one. Fig. 15 shows the flowchart for the last of these cases, when fatigue must be
considered.
For this, the FITNET FFS proposes adding up the propagation rates induced by both phenomena, creep
and fatigue, after correction of the fatigue propagation rate caused by the effect of the damage accumulated
through creep.
The procedure also describes new assessment methodologies for components subjected to creep which have
appeared in recent years, such as time dependent FAD and the two criteria diagram (2CD) [33], as well as the
rd approach for the calculation of the initiation time.

3.4. Corrosion module

This Module is outlined in Chapter 9 of the FITNET FFS procedure and is divided into two main parts. The
first is aimed at analysing environmental assisted cracking (EAC) and corrosion-fatigue processes and the sec-
ond at the assessment of sections with loss of thickness.
Fig. 16 shows the assessment scheme for cases of EAC and Fig. 17 shows the FAD used in these cases,
which introduces the KISCC parameter into the FAD methodology [34,35]. The analysis of EAC is performed
in a series of steps, based in Figs. 16 and 17 [34]:
570 F. Gutiérrez-Solana, S. Cicero / Engineering Failure Analysis 16 (2009) 559–577

Fig. 14. Schema of assessment of creep module of the FITNET FFS procedure [11].

(1) Carry out fracture characterisation for the initial crack size, based on the detected value or on a max-
imum value, postulated as conservative according to the sensitivity of the method of measurement; or
determine an equivalent initial defect associated to the processing of the component [36]. If it is demon-
strated that the component is acceptable, that is, it is located in the internal part of the FAD of Fig. 17
but in the zone susceptible to crack growth (subcritical crack growth), corrective actions must be taken to
avoid this growth. These must be aimed at stopping the growth, so that K < KISCC, either through stress
reduction or by modifying the environmental conditions or repairs.
(2) If the corrective actions cannot be applied or are not functional but a slow subcritical crack growth can
be tolerated, then a complete characterisation must be made of the nature of the crack and the working
conditions in which it is produced, which define its growth rate. For the material, environment and ser-
vice conditions considered, an analysis of growth to fracture or to the ultimate conditions such as Leak
Before Break, which determine the existence of a maximum acceptable crack size, should be made.
 F. Gutiérrez-Solana, S. Cicero / Engineering Failure Analysis 16 (2009) 559–577 571

Fig. 15. Component assessment against creep for cases in which the influence of fatigue is significant [11].

(3) Calculate the stress state at flaw location, including any dynamic component and based on the foresee-
able service conditions. In these calculations, all working conditions must be taken into account, includ-
ing normal service, start up, extreme conditions and shutdown.
(4) Determine the evolution of the crack depth or profile based on the previous defect size, the value of K or
DK and crack growth laws. For corrosion-fatigue cracks, a cycle by cycle numerical calculation of the
crack length is required, considering the load frequency, stress rate and closure effects.
(5) Determine the time or number of stress cycles it takes the detected or postulated initial crack size to
reach the critical defect size established by the FAD or LBB criteria.
572 F. Gutiérrez-Solana, S. Cicero / Engineering Failure Analysis 16 (2009) 559–577

Fig. 16. Component assessment against EAC [11].

The component is acceptable for continuing operating if:

– The time or number of cycles required to reach the critical defect size, including a suitable safety margin, is
greater than the predicted operating time.
– The crack growth is monitored whenever possible on line or during the shutdowns made at time intervals
appropriate for the acceptable growth, using a validated technique.
 F. Gutiérrez-Solana, S. Cicero / Engineering Failure Analysis 16 (2009) 559–577 573

Fig. 17. Use of FAD methodology in assessment of components subjected to EAC [11,34,35].

– The observed crack growth rate is lower than that used in the prediction of the remaining lifespan, accord-
ing to the results of an on line inspection or one made during shutdowns.
– The foreseeable extreme load or environmental severity conditions, if not avoidable, are considered in the
analysis.

In each compulsory inspection, the propagation rate of the real crack will be established and the new con-
ditions of the defect will be reassessed for the procedures of this section. Alternatively, the component will be
repaired or replaced or mitigating measures will be applied.
Fig. 18 shows an analysis of this type, corresponding to a component subjected to two different load states
occurring alternately. The initial situation (a = a0, point 1) is located at a value of KI lower than KISCC, so that
as well as being a safe situation (assessment point inside the FAD), there is no subcritical growth. On passing
on to the second load state (point 2) the KISCC threshold is surpassed and subcritical propagation takes place
up to point 3 (a = a1). On returning to the initial lower load state, the subcritical propagation stops (point 4).
Again, on the appearance of the second load state, point 5 is reached, propagation again arising up to point 6
(a = a2). The process described above is repeated (points 7 and 8) until the subcritical propagation leads to the
critical crack size (ac, point 9, or that determined as through wall if the LBB criteria are fulfilled). Thus, if the

Kr

FAD

a = ac 9 a = a2
6,8 a = a1

3,5 a = a0

2 Kr(KI=KISCC)
7
4
1
Lr

Fig. 18. Example of assessment vı́a FAD of environment-induced cracking.

574 F. Gutiérrez-Solana, S. Cicero / Engineering Failure Analysis 16 (2009) 559–577

Fig. 19. Assessment of components with thickness loss [11].

subcritical propagation rate and the time that each load state lasts are known, the time to fracture from the
initial state can be determined.
In the case of thickness loss assessment, the methodology proposed (Fig. 19) is simple and consists in com-
paring, using specific formulations for each type of component (elbows, cylindrical bodies, spheres. . .), the
stress applied with the maximum stress admissible, which can be obtained using specific safety factors pro-
vided by the procedure.

4. Advanced methodologies

The FITNET FFS outlines the most significant advances made in the field of structural integrity in recent
years. As well as those included in the above modules, Chapters 11 and 12 describe, respectively, alternative
methodologies of component assessment against fracture and additional information for performing various
types of analysis, making the procedure a real, up-to-date state-of-the-art approach for the assessment of com-
ponents and structures with defects.
Chapter 11 focuses on Leak Before Break assessment methodologies (following the SINTAP schema), crack
arrest (as described in the R6), mixed mode (also following the R6), the master curve [37]. . . with all of the
advances made in these fields in recent years.
Chapter 12 introduces assessment methodologies which in some cases have never before been included in
any other procedure, such as the master curve for non-homogenous materials (bi-modal master curve) [38,39]
and notch-type component assessment using the FAD methodology, as has been explained in Section 3.1.

5. Case studies and tutorials

Volume II of the procedure presents 23 case studies of the application of the different modules of the FIT-
NET FFS, in which the applicability of the procedure is demonstrated for a wide range of industrial problems.
It also includes a total of 12 tutorials in which the procedure is applied step by step in order to initiate the
user in the use of the procedure. The document includes tutorials for the different modules, two of these being
‘crossed’ tutorials, that is, exercises in which more than one of the modules are jointly applied.
 F. Gutiérrez-Solana, S. Cicero / Engineering Failure Analysis 16 (2009) 559–577 575

6. Annexes

Volume III of the procedure has a series of annexes which clarify considerably the assessment process, mak-
ing it unnecessary, in many cases, to recur to other references to obtain the inputs for the analysis, which is one
of the main advantages of the FITNET FFS. The annexes are as follows:

– Annex A: Stress intensity factor (SIF) solutions.

– Annex B: Limit load solutions.
– Annex C: Residual stress profiles.
– Annex D: NDE methods.
– Annex E: Flaw idealization and flaw re-characterization.
– Annex F: Interaction of multiple planar flaws: alignment and combination rules.
– Annex G: FAT classes.
– Annex H: Probability and reliability principles.
– Annex I: Weld misalignment.
– Annex K: Input for constraint analysis.
– Annex L: Reference sources for material property data.

7. Other activities of FITNET

In parallel with the elaboration of the FITNET FFS procedure, several other important activities have been
developed, completing the work carried out in the framework of the FITNET project. Of particular interest is
the work on training and standardisation.

7.1. Training and education

The WP6 of the FITNET project has carried out some important work on training, covering from the most
basic concepts of fracture mechanics, fatigue, creep and corrosion to the most advanced applications of these
in the procedure itself [40,41]. The aim is to achieve the maximum possible transfer of knowledge to industry
to enable engineers to put into practice the FITNET FFS assessment methodology.
This work has been realised through three main tools:

– FITNET training seminars: A total of three international seminars have been held (Santander, Maribor
and Miskolc) in which sessions have focused on fracture, fatigue, creep and corrosion, covering theoret-
ical aspects, an introduction to assessment procedures and practical exercises, as well as laboratory
sessions.
– FITNET training package [12]: A publication of more than 500 pages has been drawn up in powerpoint
format covering fracture, fatigue, creep and corrosion and environment-induced cracking, from basic con-
cepts to practical exercises, via a global vision of the assessment procedures in each field and a detailed
explanation of the treatment given by the FITNET to each of these problems.
– FITNET tutorials: described above, are included in Volume II of the procedure.

7.2. Standardisation

The FITNET FFS procedure has high hopes of becoming a European Standard in structural integrity. Once
the procedure has been completed, through work carried out by the FITNET WP7, the document has been
delivered to the European Standards Committee. Here, the CEN Workshop Agreement 22 has been initiated,
and once this is favourably completed, the document will be allowed to bear the CEN ‘‘stamp”, the first step to
its adoption as a European Standard.
576 F. Gutiérrez-Solana, S. Cicero / Engineering Failure Analysis 16 (2009) 559–577

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank all of the members of the FITNET project (EU’s Framework 5, Proposal
No. GTC1-2001-43049, Contract No. G1RT-CT-2001-05071) for their collaboration, especially to FITNET
coordinator Dr. Mustafa Kocak (GKSS) and Working Group leaders Dr. Stephen Webser (Corus Ltd.)
and Dr. R.A. Ainsworth (British Energy).

References

[1] British Standard BS 7910. Guide on methods for assessing the acceptability of flaws in metallic structures. London: BSi; 2000.
[2] RCC-MR. Règles de Conception et de Construction des matériels mécaniques des ı̂lots nucléaires RNR. AFCEN; 2002.
[3] R5. Assessment procedure for the high temperature response of structures. Procedure R5 Issue 3, British Energy, Gloucester, UK;
2003.
[4] R6. Assessment of the integrity of structures containing defects. British energy generation, report R/H/R6, Revision 4; 2001.
[5] Bergman M, Brickstad B, Dahlberg L. A procedure for safety assessment of components with cracks-handbook. SAQ/FoU report,
91/01, AB Svensk Anläggningsprovning, Swedish Plant Inspection Ltd.; 1991.
[6] SINTAP. Structural integrity assessment procedure for European industry. SINTAP BRITE-EURAM Project BRPR-CT95-0024;
1999.
[7] API 579. Recommended practice for fitness for service. Draft Issue 4, American Petroleum Institute; 1996.
[8] ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code. Section XI, Rules for in-service inspection of nuclear power plant components. The
American Society of Mechanical Engineers; 1995.
[9] JSME. Codes for nuclear power generation facilities – rules on design and construction for nuclear power plants. JSME S NC1; 2001.
[10] FITNET. European fitness-for-service network. EU’s Framework 5, Proposal No. GTC1-2001-43049, Contract No. G1RT-CT-2001-
05071.
[11] FITNET FFS Procedure. Final Draft MK7, Prepared by European Fitness-for-Service Network-FITNET; 2006.
[12] Gutiérrez-Solana F, Cicero S, Álvarez JA, Lacalle R. FITNET training package. Universidad de Cantabria; 2006.
[13] . Eng Fract Mechan 2000;67(6):481–668.
[14] Gutiérrez-Solana F, Ruiz J, Ainsworth RA, Kim J.-Y, Zerbst U. Driving force and failure assessment diagram methods for defect
assessment. In: Proceedings of 17th international conference on offshore mechanics and arctic engineering (OMAE 1998); 1998.
[15] Ruiz Ocejo J, Gutiérrez-Solana F, González-Posada MA, Gorrochategui I, Failure assessment diagram-crack driving force diagram
compatibility, SINTAP Task 5, Report SINTAP/UC/05; 1997.
[16] Ainsworth RA, Gutierrez-Solana F, Ruiz Ocejo J. Analysis levels within the SINTAP defect assessment procedures. Eng Fract
Mechan 2000;67(6):515–27.
[17] Kim Y.-J. Comparison: various levels of the SINTAP procedure for homogeneous structures, SINTAP task 1, report SINTAP/
GKSS/17; 1998.
[18] Anderson TL. Fracture mechanics: fundamentals and applications. 2nd ed. Boca Raton: CRC Press; 1995.
[19] VOCALIST. Validation of constraint based assessment methodology in structural integrity, FIKS CT-2000-00090. In: Fifth
framework of the European atomic energy community (EURATOM); 2000.
[20] Cicero S. Evaluación de la Integridad Estructural de Components Sometidos a Condiciones de Bajo Confinamiento. Tesis Doctoral.
Universidad de Cantabria; 2007.
[21] Kim JH, Kim DH, Moon SI. Evaluation of static and dynamic fracture toughness using apparent fracture toughness of notched
specimens. Mater Sci Eng A 2004;387–389:381–4.
[22] Taylor D, Cornetti P, Pugno N. The fracture mechanics of finite crack extension. Eng Fract Mechan 2005;72(7):1021–38.
[23] Cicero S, Ainsworth RA. The treatment of constraint effects in integrity evaluations. In: Proceedings of 24th international conference
on offshore mechanics and arctic engineering (OMAE 2005), Halkidiki, Grecia; 2005.
[24] Cicero S, Ainsworth RA, Gutiérrez-Solana F, Álvarez J. A El Tratamiento del Confinamiento en las Evaluaciones de Integridad
Estructural, Anales de Mecánica de la Fractura. In: XXIII Congreso Anual del Grupo Español de Fractura, vol. 23, Albarracı́n; 2006.
[25] Cicero S, Ainsworth RA, Tkach Y. The treatment of constraint in FITNET FFS procedure. In: Proceedings of international
conference on fitness for service FITNET 2006, Amsterdam, Holanda; 2006.
[26] Palmgren A. Die Lebensdauer von Kugellagern. Zeitschrift des Vereins Deutscher Ingenieure 1924;68:339–41.
[27] Miner MA. Cumulative damage in fatigue. J Appl Mechan 1945;12:159–64.
[28] IIW Structural hot-spot stress approach to fatigue analysis of welded components—doc XIII-1819-00; 2004.
[29] Bureau Veritas rules for steel ships classification – fatigue check of structural details – Part B. Section 4, Edition May; 2003 [chapter
7].
[30] Coffin Jr LF. A study of the effects of cyclic thermal stresses on a ductile metal. Trans ASME 1954;76:931–50.
[31] Manson SS. Fatigue, a complex subject: some simple approximations. Exp Mech 1965;5:193–226.
[32] Forman RG, Mettu SR. Behaviour of surface and corner cracks subjected to tensile and bending loads in a Ti–6Al–4 V alloy. In:
Ernst, HA, Saxena, A, McDowell, DL (Eds.), Fracture mechanics 22th symposium 1 American society for testing and materials,
Philadalphia, ASTP STP 1131; 1992. pp. 519–646.
 F. Gutiérrez-Solana, S. Cicero / Engineering Failure Analysis 16 (2009) 559–577 577

[33] Ewald J, Sheng S, Klenk A, Schellenberg G. Engineering guide to assessment of creep crack initiation on components by two-criteria-
diagram. Int J Pres Ves Pip 2001;78:937–49.
[34] Álvarez JA, Gutiérrez-Solana F, Cicero S. Evaluación de la Integridad Estructural de Components Frente a Procesos de Fisuración
Inducida por Ambiente, Anales de Mecánica de la Fractura. In: XXIII Congreso Anual del Grupo Español de Fracture, vol. 23,
Albarracı́n; 2006.
[35] Turnbull A, Koers RWJ, Gutiérrez-Solana F, Alvarez JA. Environment induced cracking – a fitness for service perspective. In:
Proceedings of 24th international conference on offshore mechanics and arctic engineering (OMAE 2005), Halkidiki, Grecia; 2005.
[36] Performance Criteria for Cold Formed Structural Steels, Corus, Universidad de Cantabria, IEHK-RWTH, Labein, Contract No.
7210-PR/246, European Commission; 2003.
[37] Wallin K. The scatter in KIC results. Eng Fract Mechan 1984;19:1085–93.
[38] Wallin K, Nevasmaa P, Laukkanen A, Planman T. Master curve analysis of Inhomogeneous ferritic steels. Eng Fract Mechan
2004;71:2329–46.
[39] Nevasmaa P, Laukkanen A, Planman T, Wallin K. A novel method for fracture toughness assessment of inhomogeneous ferritic steel
weldments using bimodal master curve analysis. In: Proceedings of the 11th international conference on fracture (ICF XI), Turin;
2005. pp. 20–5.
[40] Cicero S, Gutiérrez-Solana F, Álvarez JA. The education and training content of FITNET. In: Proceedings of international
conference on fitness for service FITNET 2006, Amsterdam, Holanda; 2006.
[41] Cicero S, Gutiérrez-Solana F, Álvarez JA. Una Experiencia Educativa dentro del V Programa Marco: el Work Package 6 (Training
and Education) del Proyecto FITNET, Anales de Mecánica de la Fracture. XXIV Congreso Anual del Grupo Español de Fracture,
vol. 24, Burgos; 2007.

View publication stats