0
Research Papers: Design and Analysis

Applicability of Net-Section Collapse Load Approach to Multiple-Cracked Pipe Assessment: Numerical Study

[+] Author and Article Information
Myeong-Woo Lee

Mechanical Engineering,
Korea University,
Anam-Dong, Sungbuk-Ku,
Seoul 136-701, Korea
e-mail: lee-mw@korea.ac.kr

So-Dam Lee

Mechanical Engineering,
Korea University,
Anam-Dong, Sungbuk-Ku,
Seoul 136-701, Korea
e-mail: faireunshow@korea.ac.kr

Yun-Jae Kim

Mechanical Engineering,
Korea University,
Anam-Dong, Sungbuk-Ku,
Seoul 136-701, Korea
e-mail: kimy0308@korea.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 October 12, 2016; final manuscript received April 26, 2017; published online May 26, 2017. Assoc. Editor: Haofeng Chen.

J. Pressure Vessel Technol 139(4), 041208 (May 26, 2017) (9 pages) Paper No: PVT-16-1192; doi: 10.1115/1.4036656 History: Received October 12, 2016; Revised April 26, 2017

In this paper, applicability of net-section collapse load approach to circumferential multiple-cracked pipe assessment is investigated using finite element (FE) damage analysis. The FE damage analysis based on the stress-modified fracture strain model is validated against limited fracture test data of two circumferential surface-cracked pipes. Then, the systematic parametric study is performed using the FE damage analysis for symmetrical and asymmetrical surface-cracked pipes. It is found that predictions using the net-section collapse load approach tend to be more accurate with increasing the distance between two symmetrical cracks. For asymmetrical cracks, it is found that the deeper crack plays a more important role and that the existing net-section collapse load expression can be potentially nonconservative. Idealization to symmetrical cracks based on the deeper crack is proposed.

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

References

ASME, 2011, “ ASME B&PV Code Section XI: Rules for Inservice Inspection of Nuclear Power Plant Components,” American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York, Standard No. ASME BPVC-XI-2010.
JSME, 2008, “ Rules on Fitness-for-Service for Nuclear Power Plants,” Japan Society of Mechanical Engineers, Tokyo, Japan, Standard No. JSME S NA1-2008.
Kanninen, M. F. , Broek, D. , Marschall, C. W. , Rybicki, E. F. , Sampath, S. G. , Simonen, F. A. , and Wilkowski, G. M. , 1976, “ Mechanical Fracture Predictions for Sensitized Stainless Steel Piping With Circumferential Cracks,” Battelle, Columbus, OH, Report No. EPRI NP-192.
Rahman, S. , and Wilkowski, G. , 1998, “ Net-Section-Collapse Analysis of Circumferentially Cracked Cylinders—Part I: Arbitrary-Shaped Cracks and Generalized Equations,” Eng. Fract. Mech., 61(2), pp. 191–211. [CrossRef]
Hasegawa, K. , Saito, K. , Iwamatsu, F. , and Miyazaki, K. , 2007, “ Prediction of Fully Plastic Failure Stresses for Pipes With Multiple Circumferential Flaws,” ASME Paper No. PVP2007-26011.
Li, Y. , Hasegawa, K. , Onizawa, K. , and Masayoshi, S. , 2009, “ Fracture Estimation Method for Pipe With Multiple Circumferential Surface Flaws,” ASME Paper No. PVP2009-77061.
Hasegawa, K. , Miyazaki, K. , Saito, K. , and Bezensek, B. , 2009, “ Evaluation of Alignment Rules Using Stainless Steel Pipes With Non-Aligned Flaws,” ASME Paper No. PVP2009-77068.
Oh, C. K. , Kim, Y. J. , Beak, J. H. , Kim, Y. P. , and Kim, W. S. , 2007, “ A Phenomenological Model of Ductile Fracture for API X65 Steel,” Int. J. Mech. Sci., 49(12), pp. 1399–1412. [CrossRef]
Oh, C. S. , Kim, N. H. , Kim, Y. J. , Baek, J. H. , Kim, Y. P. , and Kim, W. S. , 2011, “ A Finite Element Ductile Failure Simulation Method Using Stress-Modified Fracture Strain Model,” Eng. Fract. Mech., 78(1), pp. 124–137. [CrossRef]
Kim, N. H. , Oh, C. S. , and Kim, Y. J. , 2011, “ A Numerical Method to Simulate Ductile Failure of Tensile Plates With Interacting Through-Wall Cracks,” Fatigue Fract. Eng. Mater. Struct., 34(3), pp. 215–226. [CrossRef]
Kim, N. H. , Oh, C. S. , Kim, Y. J. , Yoon, K. B. , and Ma, Y. H. , 2011, “ Comparison of Fracture Strain Based Ductile Failure Simulation With Experimental Results,” Int. J. Pressure Vessels Piping, 88(10), pp. 434–447. [CrossRef]
Rice, J. R. , and Tracey, D. M. , 1969, “ On the Ductile Enlargement of Voids in Triaxial Stress Fields,” J. Mech. Phys. Solids, 17(3), pp. 201–217. [CrossRef]
McClintock, F. A. , 1968, “ A Criterion for Ductile Fracture by the Growth of Holes,” ASME J. Appl. Mech., 35(2), pp. 363–371. [CrossRef]
Hancock, J. W. , and Brown, D. K. , 1983, “ On the Role of Strain and Stress State in Ductile Failure,” J. Mech. Phys. Solids, 31(1), pp. 1–24. [CrossRef]
Kim, J. H. , Kim, N. H. , Kim, Y. J. , Hasegawa, K. , and Miyazaki, K. , 2013, “ Ductile Fracture Simulation of 304 Stainless Steel Pipes With Two Circumferential Surface Cracks,” Fatigue Fract. Eng. Mater. Struct., 36(10), pp. 1067–1080. [CrossRef]
Dassault Systèmes, 2013, “ ABAQUS Version 6.13 User's Manual,” Dassault Systemes Simulia Corp., Providence, RI.
Nam, H. S. , Oh, Y. R. , Kim, Y. J. , Kim, J. S. , and Miura, N. , 2016, “ Application of Engineering Ductile Tearing Simulation Method to CRIEPI Pipe Test,” Eng. Fract. Mech., 153, pp. 128–142. [CrossRef]
Ryu, H. W. , Bae, K. D. , Han, J. J. , Kim, Y. J. , Kim, J. S. , and Budden, P. J. , 2016, “ Ductile Tearing Simulation of Battelle Pipe Test Using Simplified Stress-Modified Fracture Strain Concept,” Fatigue Fract. Eng. Mater. Struct., 39(11), pp. 1391–1406. [CrossRef]
Bae, K. D. , Ryu, H. W. , Kim, Y. J. , and Kim, J. S. , 2017, “ Comparison of Ductile Tearing Simulation With Complex Cracked Pipe Test Data,” ASME J. Pressure Vessel Technol., 139(1), p. 011203. [CrossRef]

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Schematic diagram of a circumferential cracked pipe with: (a) two asymmetrical surface cracks, (b) two symmetrical surface cracks, and (c) single surface crack

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

(a) True and engineering stress–strain curve and (b) comparison of experimental collapse moments with predicted ones using Eq. (3)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

(a) Determined multi-axial fractures strain locus for 304 stainless steel and (b) the effect of the element size on the critical damage ωc

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Comparison of experimentally measured maximum moments with FE predicted ones

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Typical FE meshes to simulate pipe test with: (a) a single crack and two symmetrical surface cracks and (b) two asymmetrical cracks

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

(a) FE moment–rotation curves for single surface crack cases from FE damage analysis (θ = 60 deg) and (b) comparison of FE maximum moments with predicted ones using Eq. (4)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Fracture surface from FE damage analysis at the maximum moment: (a) and (b) θ = 45 deg with a/t = 0.3 and 0.73; and (c) and (d) θ = 60 deg with a/t = 0.3 and a/t = 0.73. Ductile tearing regions are shown in black.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Outside of cracked surface at the maximum moment: (a) θ = 45 deg with a/t = 0.3 and (b) θ = 60 deg with a/t = 0.73. Cracked and necked regions are shown in black.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

FE moment–rotation curves for two symmetrical crack cases from FE damage analysis: (a)α = 15 deg and (b) α = 30 deg at θ = 60 deg

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Fracture surface from FE damage analysis at the maximum moment: (a) θ = 45 deg, a/t = 0.3 and α = 15 deg or α = 30 deg and (b) θ = 60 deg, α = 15 deg and a/t = 0.3 or 0.73. Ductile tearing regions are shown in black.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Outside of cracked surface at the maximum moment: (a) θ = 45 deg, a/t = 0.3 and α = 15 deg and (b) θ = 45 deg, a/t = 0.3 and α = 30 deg. Cracked and necked regions are shown in black.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Comparison of FE maximum moments with predicted ones using Eq. (3) for two symmetrical crack cases: (a) a/t = 0.3, (b) a/t = 0.5, and (c) a/t = 0.73

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

FE moment–rotation curves for two asymmetrical crack cases: (a) case 1 and 2 at α = 30 deg, (b) case 3 and 4 at α = 15 deg, and (c) case 5 and 6 at α = 5 deg

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

Fracture surface from FE damage analysis at the maximum moment: (a) case 1 at α = 15 deg, (b) case 2 at α = 30 deg, (c) case 3 at α = 15 deg, (d) case 4 at α = 30 deg, (e) case 5 at α = 5 deg, and (f) case 6 at α = 30 deg. Ductile tearing regions are shown in black.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 15

Comparison of FE maximum moments with predicted ones for two asymmetrical crack cases: (a) case 1 and 2, (b) case 3 and 4, and (c) case 5 and 6 using Eq. (1) and (d) case 3–6 using Eq. (3)

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