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

net/publication/326337449

BS 7910:2013 in brief

Article  in  International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping · July 2018

DOI: 10.1016/j.ijpvp.2018.07.010

CITATION READS

1 300

1 author:

Isabel Hadley
The Welding Institute
36 PUBLICATIONS   110 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

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

FITNET View project

Bs7910 View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Isabel Hadley on 23 May 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 BS 7910:2013 in brief

Isabel Hadley, TWI Ltd, Great Abington, Cambridge, UK, CB21 6AL (Isabel.hadley@twi.co.uk)

Published in International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping IJPVP), Volume 165, August 2018,
263-269, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpvp.2018.07.010

ABSTRACT

The UK standard BS 7910 (‘Guide to methods for assessing the acceptability of flaws in metallic
structures’) was revised in late 2013, in order to incorporate into the document a number of advances
in structural integrity assessment methods. The source documents included earlier versions of BS
7910 (and its predecessor documents, PD 6493 and PD 6539), the UK nuclear structural integrity
assessment procedures R5 and R6, and the European documents SINTAP and FITNET.

This paper summarises the structure and contents of the standard and outlines the process by which
it is developed and maintained. A comparison with other standards and procedures that address
structural integrity through fracture mechanics-based assessment is also given.

ABBREVIATIONS

CTOD: Crack Tip Opening Displacement (a measure of both crack driving force and fracture
toughness under elastic-plastic conditions)
ECA: Engineering Critical Assessment (flaw assessment based on fracture mechanics)
EEMUA: Engineering Equipment Manufacturers’ and Users’ Association
EPRG: European Pipeline Research Group
FAD: Failure Assessment Diagram
FAL: Failure Assessment Line
IIW: International Institute of Welding
LEFM: Linear Elastic Fracture Mechanics
LTA: Locally Thinned Area
NDE/NDT: Non-destructive Examination/Testing
PWHT: Post-weld Heat Treatment
PWR: Pressurised Water Reactor
SBA: Strain-Based Assessment
TOFD: Time of Flight Diffraction
UT: Ultrasonic Testing

1 NEED

In the 1960s and 1970s, the burgeoning UK offshore oil and gas industry faced unprecedented
challenges in the fabrication, installation and operation of offshore structures and equipment. The
combination of low ambient temperatures, heavy cyclic loading from wave action and short weather
windows for installation led to a need for new techniques in fabrication, inspection and installation
methods. The BSI document PD 6493 (1), first issued in 1980, was one response to this requirement.
It set out methods for assessing flaws in welded structures using a fracture mechanics approach
rather than rules based purely on workmanship. So, for example, a part of a welded structure that
experienced low or compressive stresses could tolerate larger flaws (or lower toughness) than an
area subjected to high static or cyclic loading. Limits on flaw size, toughness and the use of post-weld
heat-treatment (PWHT) could be based on tailored assessment rather than rigid rules.

The use of these techniques, based on fracture mechanics, has grown enormously since the first
publication of PD 6493, and is now embraced by a wide range of industry sectors. Terminology
(‘fitness for service assessment’, engineering critical assessment’, ‘structural integrity assessment’,
‘defect-tolerant design’) may vary depending on the sector and the objective of the user, but the
underlying methods are similar.

1
2 HISTORY

The latest revision of BS 7910 was published in 2013 (2) and amended (reprinted in full) in 2015. Two
corrigenda were issued in 2015 and 2016, so the current designation is ‘BS 7910:2013+A1:2015,
incorporating Corrigenda Nos. 1 and 2’. The current document has a long history, as shown in Figure
1. Three significant periods of growth of the document can be identified:

 In 1991, the procedure was expanded considerably (3) due to the influence of the UK nuclear
structural integrity procedure R6 (4). The use of a Failure Assessment Diagram (FAD) to illustrate
the relative influences of fracture and plastic collapse was adopted, as was the concept of a
hierarchy of fracture assessment levels (the use of more detailed input data and assessment
methods is ‘rewarded’ with higher calculated margins against failure).
 In 1999, it was ‘promoted’ from a PD (Published Document) to a British Standard guidance
document (5), absorbing in the process an earlier creep assessment document (PD 6539 (6)), a
corrosion assessment procedure, new K-solutions and reference stress solutions, plus a
compendium of welding residual stress distributions and a load history annex.
 In 2013, substantial additional material was added, originating mainly from R6 Revision 4 and the
European SINTAP/FITNET procedures (8)-(9). This included methods for incorporating welding
residual stress into fracture assessment, analysing the effects of weld strength overmatch and
constraint, assessing locally thinned areas (LTAs) due to corrosion, and considering the link
between NDT and assessment.

3 CONTENT

The document consists of 10 clauses plus 21 annexes. The key clauses are those covering the main
failure/damage modes, namely fracture (clause 7), fatigue (clause 8), creep (clause 9) and ‘other
modes of failure’ (clause 10, which addresses corrosion, environmentally assisted corrosion, yielding
and buckling). Both the methods and the terminology used are kept consistent throughout the
document, so that a user can, assess, say, a flaw growing by fatigue and/or creep, and finally assess
whether failure (by plastic collapse or fracture) will occur under static loading.

Annexes M and P are of particular importance, as they provide compendia of stress intensity factors
and reference stress/limit load equations respectively; these are essential to almost all failure/damage
modes (subject to certain conditions, K-solutions are not needed for corrosion). Users start by
idealising their structure in the form of a simple geometry – for example, a plate, pipe, sphere or bar.
Similarly, they need to idealise any flaws found in the structure (or postulated to be present) in terms
of simple parameters – for example, length, through-wall height, depth below surface (for embedded
flaws) and orientation relative to the main stress axis. A series of parametric equations can then be
used to calculate the stress intensity factor and reference stress. For static loading, the result is then
plotted on a Failure Assessment Diagram (FAD) to assess whether the flaw is safe or potentially
unsafe. For flaws liable to propagate through fatigue and/or creep crack growth, equations are given
in clauses 8 and 9 to estimate the time-dependent flaw growth, and the FAD is used to determine the
safety of the structure at the end of life.

4 PRINCIPLES

The information provided in BS 7910 is intended to be technically sound, transparent, accurate, user-
friendly and free from commercial bias. In addition, it needs to be practically useful – a standard that
imposes high hidden safety factors and unnecessary cost on its users will eventually lose its
reputation. It should be recognised that a major appeal of the earlier revisions of BS 7910 and PD
6493 lay in the fact that they allowed users to go beyond simple rule-based standards for welded
structures, for example allowing larger flaws in areas of low stress, or allowing waiver of post-weld
heat-treatment requirements for thick-walled structures. This led to impressive cost savings with no
negative impact on safety performance. As fracture mechanics concepts become increasingly
embedded in standards for design and fabrication (see Table 2 for examples) and environmental
conditions increasingly challenging (for example, strain-controlled loading and sour service in the
offshore industry), so the emphasis of BS 7910 has changed subtly, towards demonstrating reliability
and building confidence in designs for novel environments (see Figure 2).

2
The general direction of travel has been towards more accurate and less conservative assessment
over time, retaining the general principle that, if the standard is used as recommended, the results are
conservative, ie failure of the structure will not occur if the assessment point lies inside the Failure
Assessment Line (FAL) on the FAD. This usually means that users do not need to re-assess their
historical calculations every time the standard is revised – if a structure was deemed safe using an
earlier revision, a later one would usually come to the same conclusion, albeit sometimes with a
higher safety margin because of the inclusion of more advanced techniques.

5 DEVELOPMENT PROCESS

The development and maintenance of BS 7910 is managed by BSI in conjunction with a committee of
experts from industry, academia and Research and Technology Organisations (RTOs). Members of
the committee (designated WEE/37) are typically nominated by trade or industry associations,
professional bodies, central and local government departments and agencies, consumer
organizations and user groups to ensure their independence from commercial interests, although
individuals can also be nominated on the basis of their particular expertise. Associated with the main
committee (comprising around 20 members) are 11 panels, as shown in Figure 3. These provide the
detailed input to the document, via the main committee. In all, some 60 experts are involved in the
committee process, with countless others contributing indirectly, eg through publications and
feedback to the committee.

The committee works in accordance with BS 0, a ‘standard for standards’. It is important to recognise
that the UK approach advocates voluntary compliance with standards in nearly all cases, including
that of BS 7910. The word ‘shall’ does not appear in BS 7910 at all – the advice is considered to
represent good practice, but users are free to use other methods if they can justify them. To quote BS
0:

 ‘standards are drafted in the expectation that those who use them will be appropriately
experienced, qualified and equipped to do so, that they will apply them conscientiously and,
where necessary, take sound advice by others qualified to provide it.’

 ‘Responsibility for interpreting a standard rests with its user, informed where necessary by
appropriate expert advice. Ultimately, the only body with the power to give a definitive
interpretation is a court of law.’

It should be noted that there is no formal procedure (eg Enquiry Case, Technical Query) for
interpretation of BS 7910, but user feedback is nonetheless welcomed and acted on. To quote BS 0
again:

 ‘To avoid undermining the basis for common expectations […], BSI does not offer individual
interpretations of standards. However, any ambiguities, inconsistencies or possible errors notified
to BSI will be referred for consideration by the committee responsible for the standard, as will any
proposals for changes or improvements. These notifications are actively encouraged as a
contribution to the maintenance of a document.’

6 QUALITY ASSURANCE

The editing of BS 7910 and drafting of new content is carried out through close collaboration between
committee/panel members and BSI content developers, in order to ensure appropriate style, layout
and language. After scrutiny by the panels and the main committee, the document is issued as a Draft
for Public Comment (DPC) for a period of at least two (often three) months. This is followed by a
comment resolution stage, then final scrutiny, approval and publication. Should minor errors be found
thereafter, a Corrigendum will be published; more extensive changes require a complete re-issue of
the standard, known as an Amendment.

3
7 USERS

Whilst initially the needs of the UK oil and gas industry provided the main driving force for the
development of BS 7910, the standard is now used internationally and by a wide range of users: the
oil and gas industry, the power sector (especially for fossil and renewable energy), construction
(bridges, buildings, cranes, excavators) and marine engineering to name a few.

Because the user group and user requirements are so variable, BS 7910 is written in the form of a
guidance document, ie it is flexible and non-prescriptive. It is recognised that some users will have
detailed stress information regarding the structure being analysed, along with comprehensive
materials property and inspection data. Others will have only vague information available from
design/construction records, in-situ materials testing and historical NDT records. The intention is to
accommodate the needs of both groups, whilst recognising that the output of the assessment is highly
dependent on the quality of the input data. As shown in Figure 4, a fracture assessment often consists
of several iterations; if the first proves unsatisfactory, then more advanced procedures can be brought
to bear on the problem. These could include: use of Options 2 or 3 (in place of Option 1), more
detailed treatment of residual stress (Annex Q), recharacterisation of the flaw (Annex E),
consideration of crack tip constraint (Annex N), incorporation of strength mismatch effects (Annex I),
implementation of warm prestress effects (Annex O), probabilistic assessment (Annex K) or use of
leak-before-break concepts (Annex F).

8 RELATIONSHIP TO EUROPEAN AND INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS

There have been several initiatives to develop fitness-for-service methods at European level. In the
late 1990s, a European collaborative project, SINTAP (Structural integrity assessment procedures for
European Industry’) produced a fracture assessment procedure (8) based on various concepts and
procedures available at the time, including BS 7910, R6 and the German ETM model. The
development of the procedure encouraged numerous publications, including a special issue of this
journal.

Subsequently, the CEN committee TC121 (‘Welding and allied processes’) produced a report (10)
‘Welding – methods for assessing imperfections in metallic structures’ dated 2005, which set the
scene regarding structural integrity methods available in Europe at that time, including BS 7910. The
report also refers to the European thematic network, FITNET, which was still running at the time of
publication. FITNET was set up with the specific aims of expanding the SINTAP procedure, adding
other failure/damage modes such as fatigue and creep, and producing the basis of a CEN document.
Ultimately, however, this did not happen (the maintenance of a complex procedure of this sort
requires the presence of a standing committee to correct errors and incorporate new material, whilst
FITNET was a time-limited project). The procedure was instead used, with the full approval of the
FITNET consortium, as one of the source documents for BS 7910:2013.

Meanwhile, the API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 procedure (11) has developed considerably, since its
inception as API 579 in 2000. The API/ASME procedure covers a wide range of damage types,
including general and local corrosion, and intersects with BS 7910 mainly in the area covered by Part
9 of the procedure, namely ‘Assessment of crack-like flaws’. The so-called ‘Level 3’ assessments are
aimed at specialist structural integrity engineers (Levels 1 and 2 are simplified procedures, aimed at
plant inspectors/ engineers) and therefore assume similar levels of user experience as do the BS
7910 procedures.

The UK nuclear industry’s flaw assessment procedure R6, whilst not a national standard, has been
very influential in the development of BS 7910, as noted above. The committees have several
members in common and exchange information freely; they even share one of the sub-committees
(on residual stress).

9 LINKS TO OTHER STANDARDS AND GUIDELINE DOCUMENTS

As mentioned above, BS 7910 is closely linked to several other current and superseded flaw
assessment procedures; the underlying technology is common to all of them, but development and

4
editing are managed by separate committees in order to meet the needs of the particular user group.
Other flaw assessment procedures (national, industry-specific and structure-specific) are summarised
in
Table 1, whilst Table 2 shows details of a number of standards and procedures that either cite BS
7910 explicitly or are based on fracture mechanics principles. It is important for the WEE/37
committee to liaise with the relevant committees elsewhere to ensure harmonisation between
standards and iron out any anomalies.

Table 1 Fitness for service standards and procedures (listed alphabetically)

Short title Full title Scope Date/status Comment

(failure
mode(s),
main user
group)
API 1104 Welding of pipelines and related Pipeline girth 21st Edition, Appendix A is an ECA
facilities. welds September method for pipeline
2013, as girth welds. New
amended annexes are planned
for reeling installation
and operation.
API/ American Petroleum Institute, 2016. Generic 2016 Part 9 addresses
ASME API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 2016, Fitness- assessment of crack-
For-Service. New York, N.Y., USA: like flaws
American Society of Mechanical
Engineers & Washington, D.C., USA:
API Publishing Services.
ASME Manual for Determining the Remaining LTAs in 2012
B31G Strength of Corroded Pipelines pipelines
ASME ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Nuclear 2017 Non-mandatory
BPV.XI Code – Rules for inservice inspection of plant Appendix G ‘Fracture
nuclear power plant components toughness criteria for
protection against
failure’ cites use of
LEFM methods
DNVGL- Corroded pipelines LTAs in May 2017
RP-101 pipelines
DNVGL- Assessment of flaws in pipeline and Fatigue and October 2017 Uses modified BS
RP-F108 riser girth welds fracture in 7910 methods
pipeline/riser
girth welds
under stress-
and strain-
based
loading
EFAM Engineering Flaw Assessment Method; Analytical Early 2000s Effectively superseded
includes ETM (Engineering Treatment methods for by SINTAP and
Method) and ETM-MM (for treatment of fracture and FITNET
strength mismatch). creep
assessment
EPRG Andrews, R.M., Denys, R.M., Knauf, G. Pipeline girth 2014 Aimed at onshore
guidelines and Zarea, M., 2015. EPRG guidelines welds pipelines – focuses on
on the assessment of defects in avoidance of plastic
transmission pipeline girth welds – collapse
Revision 2014. In The Journal of
Pipeline Engineering. 14(1): 9-21.
FITNET Koçak, M., Webster, S., Janosch, J.J., Generic flaw Out of print; Effectively superseded
Ainsworth, R.A. and Koers, R., 2008. assessment not maintained by BS 7910:2013
FITNET Fitness-for-Service (FFS) method
Procedure. Vol. I. Geesthacht,
Germany: GKSS Research Centre.

Koçak, M., Hadley, I., Szavai, S.,

Tkach, Y. and Taylor, N., 2008. FITNET

5
Short title Full title Scope Date/status Comment
(failure
mode(s),
main user
group)
Fitness-for-Service (FFS) Annex. Vol.
II. Geesthacht, Germany: GKSS
Research Centre.
FKM Fracture Mechanics Proof of Strength Generic flaw 2009 Available in German
guideline for Engineering Components assessment and English
method
IIW IIW (International Institute of Welding) Generic flaw IIW commission X
guidance on assessment of the fitness assessment plan to compile an
for purpose of welded structures (Draft method updated version
for development IIW/IIS-SST-1157-90)
JWES Method of Assessment for Flaws in Generic flaw 2011 In Japanese and
2805 Fusion Welded Joints with Respect to assessment English
Brittle Fracture and Fatigue Crack method
Growth (4 parts)
JWES Method of assessing brittle fracture in Flaw 2017 In Japanese and
2808 steel weldments subjected to large assessment English
cyclic and dynamic strain (6 parts) under
seismic
conditions
PD 6493: Guidance on methods for assessing the Fracture/ Withdrawn; BSI published
1991 acceptability of flaws in fusion welded fatigue superseded by document
structures assessment BS 7910
method
PD 6539: Guide to methods for the assessment Creep crack Withdrawn; BSI published
1994 of the influence of crack growth on the growth only superseded by document
significance of defects in components BS 7910
operating at high temperatures
R5 R5, Assessment procedure for the high Creep and Issue 3, Rev. Regularly amended
temperature response of structures creep/ 2, 2014
fatigue
R6 R6 Panel, 2001. R6: Assessment of the Nuclear Amendment Regularly amended
integrity of structures containing plant; mainly 11 dated
defects. Revision 4. Gloucester, UK: fracture/ March 2015
British Energy Generation Ltd. fatigue
RSE-M ‘Règles de Surveillance en Exploitation PWR 2016 Includes analytical
des matérials Méchaniques des îlots (Pressurised flaw assessment
Nucléaires REP’ (‘In-Service Inspection Water methods
Rules for Mechanical Components of Reactor)
PWR Nuclear Islands’)
SINTAP Structural integrity assessment Generic; Issued Nov. Effectively superseded
procedures for European Industry fracture 1999, but not by FITNET and then
(http://www.eurofitnet.org/sintap_Proce assessment maintained BS 7910:2013
dure_version_1a.pdf) only
SKI 99:49/ SKI (Swedish Nuclear Power Nuclear 1999 3rd edition of a
SAQ/FoU Inspectorate): A Procedure for Safety plant procedure published in
96/08 Assessment of Components with 1990 and 1991.
Cracks - handbook
SSM Strål säkerhets myndigheten (Swedish Nuclear 2008 Further development
Radiation Safety Authority): ‘A plant of SKI 99:49
combined deterministic and
probabilistic procedure for safety
assessment of components with cracks
- handbook

6
Table 2 Other standards using or referring to fitness for service concepts (listed alphabetically)

Short Full title Scope Date/status Comment

title
AS Pipelines—Gas and liquid pipelines 2012 Cross-references BS 7910
2885-1 petroleum. Part 1: Design and for fatigue calculations and
construction converting actual defects
into equivalent through-wall
flaws
AS Pipelines—Gas and liquid pipelines 2016 Cites use of BS 7910 for
2885-2 petroleum. Part 2: Welding ECA
ASME Process Piping Pressure 2016 Rules for waiver of PWHT
B31.3 piping may in future be based on a
fracture mechanics
argument
BS 4515 Specification for welding of steel Pipelines 2009 Cites BS 7910 for
pipelines on land and offshore. acceptance based on ECA
BS 7608 Guide to fatigue design and Steel products 2014, amended Fatigue design method, but
assessment of steel products subjected to 2015 cites BS 7910 for fracture
cyclic loading mechanics-based
assessment methods
CSA Oil and gas pipeline systems Pipelines 7th Edition, Annex K presents a method
Z662 January 1, 2015 for assessment of girth
welds based on fracture
mechanics (cites BS 7910)
EEMUA Chemical plant and petroleum Process 1995, amended Currently inactive, but a
153 refinery piping; supplement to piping 19966 replacement is now under
ASME B31.3 consideration; cites
Appendix D of BS 5500
(now PD 5500)
EN Unfired pressure vessels (Parts Pressure 2014, amended Annex B cites ‘Method 3’
13445-2 1-8) vessels 2016 (fracture mechanics
analysis) as a method for
setting toughness
requirements
EN Metallic industrial piping (Parts 1- Pressure 2017 Annex B cites ‘Method 3’
13480-2 8) piping (fracture mechanics
analysis) as a method for
setting toughness
requirements
ISO BS ISO 27306:2016: ‘Metallic General 2016 Cites BS 7910
27306 materials. Method of constraint method for
loss correction of CTOD fracture constraint
toughness for fracture correction
assessment of steel
components’
PD Specification for unfired fusion Pressure January 2018 Appendix U cites BS 7910
5500 welded pressure vessels vessels for acceptance criteria
based on ECA
PD Pipeline systems. Steel pipelines pipelines 2015+A1:2016 Refers to BS 7910 for ECA
8010-1 on land. Code of practice
PD Pipeline systems. Subsea pipelines 2015+A1:2016 Refers to BS 7910 for ECA
8010-2 pipelines. Code of practice

10 FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS

The committee is currently planning the next revision of BS 7910, due to be published towards the
end of 2019. The document will be re-structured, dividing it into self-contained clauses and annexes,
in order to make the document more ‘agile’ and user-friendly as it grows in size and scope. A new
annex addressing strain-based assessment is under preparation, and substantial revisions are
expected elsewhere in the standard as a result of a comprehensive re-examination of the stress
intensity and reference stress solutions.

7
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The contribution made by all members of the committee and panels is gratefully acknowledged, as is
the financial support provided by TWI Ltd, on behalf of its industrial members, to standardisation work.

REFERENCES

1. PD 6493:1980: ‘Guidance on some methods for the derivationof acceptance levels for defects in
fusion welded joints’, BSI (superseded, withdrawn)
2. BS 7910:2013+A1:2015 incorporating Amendment 1 and Corrigenda 1-2: ‘Guide to methods for
assessing the acceptability of flaws in metallic structures’
3. PD 6493: 1991: Guidance on methods for assessing the acceptability of flaws in fusion welded
structures’, BSI, 1991 (superseded, withdrawn)
4. R6 Revision 4: ‘Assessment of the Integrity of Structures containing Defects’, 2001, as amended
5. BS 7910:1999+A1:2000: Guide on methods for assessing the acceptability of flaws in metallic
structures, BSI, 2000 (superseded, withdrawn)
6. PD 6539:1994: ‘Guide to methods for the assessment of the influence of crack growth on the
significance of defects in components operating at high temperatures’, BSI, 1994
7. BS 7910:2005+A1:2007: ‘Guide to methods for assessing the acceptability of flaws in metallic
structures’, BSI, 2007 (superseded, withdrawn)
8. SINTAP: see http://www.eurofitnet.org/sintap_index.html (accessed May 2018). [Note that this
procedure has been superseded by FITNET and BS 7910:2013]
9. FITNET: see http://www.eurofitnet.org/ (accessed May 2018). [Note that this procedure is out of
print and has effectively been superseded by BS 7910:2013]
10. PD CEN/TR 15235:2005: ‘Welding: Methods for assessing imperfections in metallic structures’,
BSI, 2005
11. American Petroleum Institute, 2016. API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 2016, ‘Fitness-For-Service’. New
York, N.Y., USA: American Society of Mechanical Engineers & Washington, D.C., USA: API
Publishing Services.

8
Figure 1 Evolution of BS 7910 (1)-(3), (5), (7)

Figure 2 History of BS 7910

9
Figure 3 Committee/panel structure

10
 NOTE Advanced procedure could include consideration of weld strength mismatch, crack tip constraint, leak-
before-break, etc.

Figure 4 Flow chart for fracture assessment of a known flaw (from BS 7910:2013)

11

View publication stats