0
Research Papers: Design and Analysis

Failure Prediction of Curved Wide Plates Using the Strain-Based Failure Assessment Diagram With Correction for Constraint and Notch Radius

[+] Author and Article Information
Anthony Horn

AMEC,
Risley,
Warrington WA3 6GB, UK
e-mail: anthony.horn@amec.com

Mikhail Trull

Swinden Technology Centre,
Tata Steel RD&T,
Moorgate, Rotherham,
South Yorkshire S60 3AR, UK
e-mail: michael.trull@tatasteel.com

Stijn Hertelé

Soete Laboratory,
Ghent University,
Technologiepark Zwijnaarde 903,
Zwijnaarde 9052, Belgium
e-mail: stijn.hertele@ugent.be

1Address at the time of performing this work: Tata Steel RD&T, South Yorkshire S60 3AR, UK.

Contributed by the Pressure Vessel and Piping Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF PRESSURE VESSEL TECHNOLOGY. Manuscript received August 26, 2013; final manuscript received September 8, 2014; published online November 21, 2014. Assoc. Editor: Xian-Kui Zhu.

J. Pressure Vessel Technol 137(2), 021208 (Apr 01, 2015) (10 pages) Paper No: PVT-13-1146; doi: 10.1115/1.4028560 History: Received August 26, 2013; Revised September 08, 2014; Online November 21, 2014

The strain-based failure assessment diagram (SB-FAD) has been developed for predicting failure from flaws in components subjected to high plastic strains. In this paper, a combined numerical and experimental approach is used to apply the SB-FAD to predict failure from a series of API 5L grades X80 and X100 curved wide plate (CWP) specimens with shallow notches machined into the pipe girth weld. For the CWP specimens tested in this work, the SB-FAD in its unmodified form resulted in over-conservative predictions of failure. This is attributed to the SB-FAD assuming high constraint conditions and the presence of a sharp fatigue crack, whereas the CWP specimens tested in this work were low constraint and contained a shallow machined notch without fatigue cracks. A modification of the SB-FAD is then proposed to account for nonsharp defects loaded to high plastic strains under conditions of low constraint. The resulting predictions of the modified SB-FAD show significantly reduced conservatism compared to the unmodified SB-FAD.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2015 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

R6, 2013, Assessment of the Integrity of Structures Containing Defects, Revision 4, EDF Energy Nuclear Generation Limited, Gloucester, UK.
BS7910:2005, 2005, Guide on the Methods for Assessing the Acceptability of Flaws in Metallic Structures, British Standards Institution, London, UK.
SINTAP, 1999, “Structural Integrity Assessment Procedure,” Final Revision, Brite-Euram Programme, Report No. EU-Project BE 95-1462.
API 579-1:2007/ASME FFS-1:2007, 2007, Fitness for Service, 2nd ed., American Petroleum Institute and American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Washington, DC.
Koçak, M., Webster, S., Janosch, J. J., Ainsworth, R. A., and Koers, R., eds., 2008, FITNET Fitness-for-Service (FFS)–MK8: Procedure, Vol. 1, GKSS Research Centre, Geesthacht, Germany.
Budden, P. J., 2006, “Failure Assessment Diagram Methods for Strain-Based Fracture,” Eng. Fract. Mech., 73(5), pp. 537–552. [CrossRef]
Budden, P. J., and Ainsworth, R. A., 2012, “The Shape of a Strain-Based Failure Assessment Diagram,” Int. J. Press. Vess. Pip., 89(1), pp. 59–66. [CrossRef]
Linkens, D., Formby, C. L., and Ainsworth, R. A., 2000, “A Strain-Based Approach to Fracture Assessment—Example Applications,” Proceedings of the. International Conference of the Engineering Integrity Assessment, Cambridge, UK, Apr. 10–12, pp. 45–52.
BS7448-2, 1997, “Fracture Mechanics Toughness Tests. Method for Determination of KIC, Critical CTOD and Critical J Values of Welds in Metallic Materials,” BSI, London, UK.
Denys, R., Andrews, R., Zarea, M., and Knauf, G., 2010, “EPRG Tier 2 Guidelines for the Assessment of Defects in Transmission Pipeline Girth Welds,” ASME Paper No. IPC2010-31640. [CrossRef]
Hertelé, S., De Waele, W., Denys, R., Verstraete, M., Van Minnebruggen, K., and Horn, A., 2013, “Weld Strength Mismatch in Strain Based Flaw Assessment: Which Definition to Use?,” ASME J. Pressure Vessel Technol., 135(6), p. 061402. [CrossRef]
Rice, J. R., 1968, “A Path Independent Integral and the Approximate Analysis of Strain Concentration by Notches and Cracks,” ASME J. Appl. Mech., 35(2), pp. 379–386. [CrossRef]
Wang, W. Q., Li, A. J., Li, P. N., and Ju, D. Y., 1994, “An Engineering Approach for Notch Elastic-Plastic Fracture Analysis,” Int. J. Pressure Vessels Piping, 60(1), pp. 1–16. [CrossRef]
Horn, A. J., and Sherry, A. H., 2012, “An Engineering Assessment Methodology for Non-Sharp Defects in Steel Structures–Part I: Procedure Development,” Int. J. Pressure Vessels Piping, 89(1), pp. 137–150. [CrossRef]
Horn, A. J., and Sherry, A. H., 2012, “An Engineering Assessment Methodology for Non-Sharp Defects in Steel Structures–Part II: Procedure Validation and Constraint Analysis,” Int. J. Pressure Vessels Piping, 89(1), pp. 151–161. [CrossRef]
Chen, Y. H., and Lu, T. J., 2004, “On the Path Dependence of the J-Integral in Notch Problems,” Int. J. Solids Struct., 41(3,4), pp. 607–618. [CrossRef]
Hertelé, S., De Waele, W., Denys, R., and Verstraete, M., 2012, “Full-Range Stress–Strain Behaviour of Contemporary Pipeline Steels: Part I. Model Description,” Int. J. Pressure Vessels Piping, 92, pp. 34–40. [CrossRef]
Ramberg, W., and Osgood, W. R., 1943, “Description of Stress–Strain Curves by Three Parameters,” National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics, Washington, DC, Technical Note Nr. 902.
Sherry, A. H., Wilkes, M. A., Beardsmore, D. W., and Lidbury, D. P. G., 2005, “Material Constraint Parameters for the Assessment of Shallow Defects in Structural Components—Part I: Parameter Solutions,” Eng. Fract. Mech., 72(15), pp. 2373–2395. [CrossRef]
. Mohr, W., 2003, “Strain-Based Design of Pipelines,” Edison Welding Institute, Columbus, OH, Project Report No. 45892GTH.
Pisarski, H. G., and Goldthorpe, M. R., 1995, “Implications of Weld Metal Mis-Match on Defect Assessment Procedures to BS PD 6493:1991,” Proceedings of ASME International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, Copenhagen, Denmark, Vol. 3, pp. 75–85.
Fairchild, D. P., Macia, M. L., Kibey, S., Wang, X., Krishnan, V. R., Bardi, F., Tang, H., and Cheng, W., 2011, “A Multi-Tiered Procedure for Engineering Critical Assessment of Strain-Based Pipelines,” Proceedings of 21st International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference, Maui, HI, June 19–24, pp. 698–705.
Brocks, W., and Scheider, I., 2001, “Numerical Aspects of the Path-Dependence of the J-Integral in Incremental Plasticity,” GKSS Forschungszentrum, Geesthacht, Germany, Technical Report No. GKSS/WMS/01/08.
ESIS P2-92, 1992, ESIS Procedure for Determining the Fracture Behaviour of Materials, European Structural Integrity Society.
Sherry, A. H., Hooton, D. G., Beardsmore, D. W., and Lidbury, D. P. G., 2005, “Material Constraint Parameters for the Assessment of Shallow Defects in Structural Components—Part II: Constraint-Based Assessment of Shallow Defects,” Eng. Fract. Mech., 72(15), pp. 2396–2415. [CrossRef]
Cicero, S., and Ainsworth, R. A., 2005, “The Treatment of Constraint Effects in Integrity Evaluations,” ASME Paper No. OMAE2005-67567. [CrossRef]
Cicero, S., Gutiérrez-Solana, F., and Álvarez, J. A., 2008, “Structural Integrity Assessment of Components Subject to Low Constraint Conditions,” Eng. Fract. Mech., 75(10), pp. 3038–3059. [CrossRef]
Williams, M. L., 1957, “On the Stress Distribution at the Base of a Stationary Crack,” ASME J. Appl. Mech., 24(1), pp. 109–114. Available at: http://resolver.caltech.edu/CaltechAUTHORS:20140729-122058948
Betegon, C., and Hancock, J. W., 1991, “Two Parameter Characterization of Elastic–Plastic Crack Tip Fields,” ASME J. Appl. Mech., 58(1), pp. 104–110. [CrossRef]

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

CWP geometry and instrumentation used at Tata Steel. (a) Schematic. (b) Photo showing specimen (without cooling panels).

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

All five CWP results tested at Tata Steel. All tests at −20 °C unless otherwise stated.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

FE model of the CWP test showing (a) overall model, (b) mesh near the notch mouth, and (c) notch tip mesh

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Example of a stress–strain curve used as input to FE analysis

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Validation of FE results against CWP test data (load versus global LVDT strain). All tests were performed at −20 °C.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Validation of FE results against CWP test data (CMOD versus global LVDT strain). All tests were performed at −20 °C.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Comparison of CTOD and CMOD from FE model and calculated from clip gage displacements using Eq. (4) (X80AC test data)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Options 1–3 failure assessment loci for the X80 and X100 CWPs

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Failure prediction of Tata Steel CWP tests using Option 3 SB-FAD in its unmodified form (Kmat defined at Pf = 50%)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Failure prediction of Tata Steel CWP test results using modified SB-FAD approach (Kmat defined at Pf = 50%). In each graph, the lower curve represents the loading line, whereas the upper curve represents the failure locus.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

All CWP results assessed using modified SB-FAD approach (Kmat defined at Pf = 50%)

Tables

Errata

Discussions

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