A comparison of different failure assessment methodologies applied to the NESC-1 test

Predictions for a 75x205mm surface semi-elliptic defect in the NESC-1 spinning cylinder test have been made using BS PD 6493:1991, the R6 procedure, non-linear cracked body finite element analysis techniques and the local approach to fracture. All the techniques agree in predicting ductile tearing near the inner surface of the cylinder followed by cleavage initiation. However they differ in the amount of ductile tearing, and the exact location and time of any cleavage event. The amount of ductile tearing decreases with increasing sophistication in the analysis, due to the drop in peak crack driving force and more explicit consideration of constraint effects. The local approach predicts a high probability of cleavage in both HAZ and base material after 190s, while the other predictions suggest that cleavage is unlikely in the HAZ due to constraint loss, but likely in the underlying base material. The timing of this event varies from ∼150s for R6 predictions to ∼250-300s using non-linear cracked body analysis.

Comparison of the HSPF and HBV-INCA models: Crossing the Atlantic divide

Observation shows that the watershed-scale models in common use in the United States (US) differ from those used in the European Union (EU). The question arises whether the difference in model use is due to familiarity or necessity. Do conditions in each continent require the use of unique watershed-scale models, or are models sufficiently customizable that independent development of models that serve the same purpose (e.g., continuous/event- based, lumped/distributed, field-Awatershed-scale) is unnecessary? This paper explores this question through the application of two continuous, semi-distributed, watershed-scale models (HSPF and HBV-INCA) to a rural catchment in southern England. The Hydrological Simulation Program-Fortran (HSPF) model is in wide use in the United States. The Integrated Catchments (INCA) model has been used extensively in Europe, and particularly in England. The results of simulation from both models are presented herein. Both models performed adequately according to the criteria set for them. This suggests that there was not a necessity to have alternative, yet similar, models. This partially supports a general conclusion that resources should be devoted towards training in the use of existing models rather than development of new models that serve a similar purpose to existing models. A further comparison of water quality predictions from both models may alter this conclusion.