Research Papers: Materials and Fabrication

Effect of Weld Residual Stress Fitting on Stress Intensity Factor for Circumferential Surface Cracks in Pipe

[+] Author and Article Information
Do-Jun Shim

Engineering Mechanics
Corporation of Columbus,
3518 Riverside Drive, Suite 202,
Columbus, OH 43221
e-mail: djshim@emc-sq.com

Steven Xu

Kinectrics Inc.
800 Kipling Ave., Unit 2,
Toronto, ON M8Z 5G5, Canada

Matthew Kerr

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research,
Washington, DC 20555

Piece-wise monotonic cubic interpolation can be achieved through enforcing monotonicity of Hermite cubic interpolation function within each interval [10].

1Corresponding author.

2Present address: Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory. Niskayuna, New York 12309

Contributed by the Pressure Vessel and Piping Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF PRESSURE VESSEL TECHNOLOGY. Manuscript received November 18, 2013; final manuscript received April 11, 2014; published online October 13, 2014. Assoc. Editor: Xian-Kui Zhu.

J. Pressure Vessel Technol 137(1), 011403 (Oct 13, 2014) (8 pages) Paper No: PVT-13-1194; doi: 10.1115/1.4027430 History: Received November 18, 2013; Revised April 11, 2014

Recent studies have shown that the crack growth of primary water stress corrosion cracking (PWSCC) is mainly driven by the weld residual stress (WRS) within the dissimilar metal weld. The existing stress intensity factor (K) solutions for surface cracks in pipe typically require a fourth order polynomial stress distribution through the pipe wall thickness. However, it is not always possible to accurately represent the through thickness WRS with a fourth order polynomial fit and it is necessary to investigate the effect of the WRS fitting on the calculated Ks. In this paper, two different methods were used to calculate the K for a semi-elliptical circumferential surface crack in a pipe under a given set of simulated WRS. The first method is the universal weight function method (UWFM) where the through thickness WRS distribution is represented as a piece-wise monotonic cubic fit. In the second method, the through thickness WRS profiles are represented as a fourth order polynomial curve fit (both using the entire wall thickness data and only using data up to the crack-tip). In addition, three-dimensional finite element (FE) analyses (using the simulated weld residual stress) were conducted to provide a reference solution. The results of this study demonstrate the potential sensitivity of Ks to fourth order polynomial fitting artifacts. The piece-wise WRS representations used in the UWFM were not sensitive to these fitting artifacts and the UWFM solutions were in good agreement with the FE results. In addition, in certain cases, it was demonstrated that more accurate crack growth calculations of PWSCC are made when the UWFM is used.

Copyright © 2015 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.



Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Circumferential semi-elliptical surface crack in a cylinder

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Piece-wise cubic interpolations of stress distribution between discrete data points

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Axial WRS after stainless steel weld (including measured results using iDHD)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Example of finite element model

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Comparison of WRS data, WRS obtained from DTE method and fourth order polynomial fit of DTE method for E-ISO

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Comparison of WRS data, WRS obtained from DTE method and fourth order polynomial fit of DTE method for I-ISO, H-ISO, D-KIN

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Example of K values calculated along the entire surface crack front using finite element analysis

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Example of piece-wise cubic stress interpolation for UWFM (using 51 data points through the thickness)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Fourth order polynomial fits up to various a/t values for E-ISO

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Example case for crack growth analysis

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Comparison of K values at deepest point as a function of time

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Comparison of K values at surface point as a function of time

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

Comparison of crack depth values as a function of time

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

Comparison of crack length values as a function of time




Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In