0
Research Papers: Design and Analysis

Comparison of Ductile Tearing Simulation With Complex Cracked Pipe Test Data

[+] Author and Article Information
Kyung-Dong Bae

Department of Mechanical Engineering,
Korea University,
Anam-Dong, Seongbuk-Ku,
Seoul 136-701, South Korea
e-mail: bae1703@korea.ac.kr

Ho-Wan Ryu

Department of Mechanical Engineering,
Korea University,
Anam-Dong, Seongbuk-Ku,
Seoul 136-701, South Korea
e-mail: ohyeahs@korea.ac.kr

Yun-Jae Kim

Department of Mechanical Engineering,
Korea University,
Anam-Dong, Seongbuk-Ku,
Seoul 136-701, South Korea
e-mail: kimy0308@korea.ac.kr

Jong-Sung Kim

Department of Nuclear Engineering,
SeJong University,
209 Neungdong-ro, Gwangjin-gu,
Seoul 05006, South Korea
e-mail: kimjbat@sejong.ac.kr

1Corresponding author.

Contributed by the Pressure Vessel and Piping Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF PRESSURE VESSEL TECHNOLOGY. Manuscript received December 14, 2015; final manuscript received May 1, 2016; published online August 5, 2016. Assoc. Editor: David L. Rudland.

J. Pressure Vessel Technol 139(1), 011203 (Aug 05, 2016) (11 pages) Paper No: PVT-15-1273; doi: 10.1115/1.4033771 History: Received December 14, 2015; Revised May 01, 2016

This paper presents numerical ductile tearing simulation results of four complex cracked pipes made of two materials, performed at Battelle, Columbus, OH. In ductile tearing simulation, stress-modified fracture strain model is used, which is determined from tensile test results and fracture toughness test data. Overall good agreement is found in comparing simulation results with experimental load, crack length, and crack mouth opening displacements versus load-line displacement (LLD) data. The effect of the complex crack on J–resistance curves is discussed.

Copyright © 2017 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Complex crack shape: (a) typical complex crack and (b) idealized complex crack [1]

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Engineering and true stress–strain curves: (a) A106 Gr. B and (b) SA376 TP304SS

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

J–resistance curves and power-law fits: (a) A106 Gr. B and (b) SA376 TP304SS

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

(a) FE mesh for tensile test simulation, (b) variation of the stress triaxiality with equivalent plastic strain, extracted in the center of tensile specimens, and (c) assumed multiaxial fracture strain loci

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

(a) C(T) mesh with Le = 0.2 mm and (b) local crack-tip meshes for Le = 0.4 mm and Le = 0.8 mm

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

(a) The effect of ωc on simulated J–R curves for A106 Gr. B, (b) and (c) comparison of experimental J–R curves with simulated results for different Le and ωc values for A106 Gr. B and SA376 TP304SS, and (d) variations of ωc with the element size Le

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Schematic of the cross-sectional view for A106 Gr. B complex cracked pipes: (a) 4113-5 and (b) 4113-6. The “x” points in the figures indicate the clip gauge location for the COD measurement.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Schematic of the cross-sectional view for SA376 TP304SS complex cracked pipes: (a) 4113-2 and (b) 4114-2. The “x” points in the figures indicate the clip gauge location for the COD measurement.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

(a) FE mesh to simulate the through-wall cracked (4113-5) pipe test, (b) simulated cracked configuration at the maximum load, and (c) comparison of experimentally measured crack growth patterns with simulated ones

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Comparison of LLD curves for the A106 Gr. B complex cracked pipe test with simulated ones: (a) the (4113-5) test and (b) the (4113-6) test

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Comparison of COD–LLD curves for the A106 Gr. B complex cracked pipe test with simulated ones: (a) the (4113-5) test and (b) the (4113-6) test

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Comparison of average crack growth–LLD curves for the A106 Gr. B complex cracked pipe test with simulated ones: (a) the (4113-5) test and (b) the (4113-6) test

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

Comparison of LLD curves for the TP304SS complex cracked pipe test with simulated ones: (a) the (4113-2) test and (b) the (4114-2) test

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

Comparison of COD–LLD curves for the TP304SS complex cracked pipe test with simulated ones: (a) the (4113-2) test and (b) the (4114-2) test

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 15

Comparison of average crack growth–LLD curves for the TP304SS complex cracked pipe test with simulated ones: (a) the (4113-2) test and (b) the (4114-2) test

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 16

(a) The effect of contour on J–resistance curves of complex cracked pipes, (b) through-thickness variations of J at three loads (before crack initiation), and (c) J–resistance curves at three different positions along the through-wall crack front and the averaged J–resistance curve

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 17

Comparison of calculated J–resistance curves for the complex cracked pipe with C(T) test: (a) A106 Gr. B and (b) SA376 TP304SS

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