0
Research Papers: Materials and Fabrication

CFRP Reinforcement and Repair of Steel Pipe Elbows Subjected to Severe Cyclic Loading

[+] Author and Article Information
Ioannis Skarakis, Nicholas G. Tsouvalis

School of Naval Architecture and
Marine Engineering,
National Technical University of Athens,
Athens 15780, Greece

Giannoula Chatzopoulou, Aglaia E. Pournara

Department of Mechanical Engineering,
University of Thessaly,
Volos 383 34, Greece

Spyros A. Karamanos

Department of Mechanical Engineering,
University of Thessaly,
Volos 383 34, Greece;
School of Engineering,
Institute of Infrastructure and Environment,
The University of Edinburgh,
Edinburgh EH9 3FG, UK

Contributed by the Pressure Vessel and Piping Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF PRESSURE VESSEL TECHNOLOGY. Manuscript received March 9, 2017; final manuscript received June 29, 2017; published online August 2, 2017. Assoc. Editor: David L. Rudland.

J. Pressure Vessel Technol 139(5), 051403 (Aug 02, 2017) (14 pages) Paper No: PVT-17-1045; doi: 10.1115/1.4037198 History: Received March 09, 2017; Revised June 29, 2017

In order to ensure safe operation and structural integrity of pipelines and piping systems subjected to extreme loading conditions, it is often necessary to strengthen critical pipe components. One method to strengthen pipe components is the use of composite materials. The present study is aimed at investigating the mechanical response of pipe elbows, wrapped with carbon fiber-reinforced plastic (CFRP) material, and subjected to severe cyclic loading that leads to low-cycle fatigue (LCF). In the first part of the paper, a set of LCF experiments on reinforced and nonreinforced pipe bend specimens are described focusing on the effects of CFRP reinforcement on the number of cycles to failure. The experimental work is supported by finite element analysis presented in the second part of the paper, in an attempt to elucidate the failure mechanism. For describing the material nonlinearities of the steel pipe, an efficient cyclic-plasticity material model is employed, capable of describing both the initial yield plateau of the stress–strain curve and the Bauschinger effect characterizing reverse plastic loading conditions. The results from the numerical models are compared with the experimental data, showing an overall good comparison. Furthermore, a parametric numerical analysis is conducted to examine the effect of internal pressure on the structural behavior of nonreinforced and reinforced elbows, subjected to severe cyclic loading.

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

References

Sobel, L. H. , and Newman, S. Z. , 1980, “ Comparison of Experimental and Simplified Analytical Results for the In-Plane Bending and Buckling of an Elbow,” ASME J. Pressure Vessel Technol., 102(4), pp. 400–409. [CrossRef]
Peters, F. E. , 1978, “ Results From a Buckling Test of a 16-Inch (406 mm) Diameter Piping Elbow,” Westinghouse Advanced Reactors Division, Madison, PA, Report No. WARD-HT-3045-35.
Gresnigt, A. M. , and Van Foeken, R. , 1995, “ Strength and Deformation Capacity of Bends in Pipelines,” Int. J. Offshore Polar Eng., 5, pp. 294–307. https://www.onepetro.org/journal-paper/ISOPE-95-05-4-294
Chattopadhyay, J. , Nathani, D. K. , Dutta, B. K. , and Kushwaha, H. S. , 2000, “ Closed-Form Collapse Moment Equations of Elbows Under Combined Internal Pressure and In-Plane Bending Moment,” ASME J. Pressure Vessel Technol., 122(4), pp. 431–436.
Yahiaoui, K. , Moffat, D. G. , and Moreton, D. N. , 1996, “ Response and Cyclic Strain Accumulation of Pressurized Piping Elbows Under Dynamic In-Plane Bending,” J. Strain Anal. Eng. Des., 31(2), pp. 135–151. [CrossRef]
Fujiwaka, T. , Endou, R. , Furukawa, S. , Ono, S. , and Oketani, K. , 1999, “ Study on Strength of Piping Components Under Elastic-Plastic Behavior Due to Seismic Loading,” ASME Pressure Vessels and Piping Conference, Boston, MA, Aug. 1–5.
Karamanos, S. A. , Giakoumatos, E. , and Gresnigt, A. M. , 2003, “ Nonlinear Response and Failure of Steel Elbows Under In-Plane Bending and Pressure,” ASME J. Pressure Vessel Technol., 125(4), pp. 393–402. [CrossRef]
Karamanos, S. A. , Tsouvalas, D. , and Gresnigt, A. M. , 2006, “ Ultimate Bending Capacity and Buckling of Pressurized 90 deg Steel Elbows,” ASME J. Pressure Vessel Technol., 128(3), pp. 135–151.
Pappa, P. , Tsouvalas, D. , Karamanos, S. A. , and Houliara, S. , 2008, “ Bending Behavior of Pressurized Induction Bends,” ASME Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering Conference, Lisbon, Portugal, June 15–20.
Takahashi, K. , Tsunoi, S. , Hara, T. , Ueno, T. , Mikami, A. , Takada, H. , Ando, K. , and Shiratori, M. , 2009, “ Experimental Study of Low Cycle Fatigue of Pipe Elbows With Local Wall Thinning and Life Estimation Using Finite Element Analysis,” Int. J. Pressure Vessels Piping, 87(5), pp. 211–219. [CrossRef]
Varelis, G. E. , Karamanos, S. A. , and Gresnigt, A. M. , 2013, “ Pipe Elbows Under Strong Cyclic Loading,” ASME J. Pressure Vessel Technol., 135(1), p. 011207. [CrossRef]
Varelis, G. E. , and Karamanos, S. A. , 2015, “ Low-Cycle Fatigue of Pressurized Steel Elbows Under In-Plane Bending,” ASME J. Pressure Vessel Technol., 137(1), p. 011401. [CrossRef]
Karamanos, S. A. , 2016, “ Mechanical Behavior of Steel Pipe Bends: An Overview,” ASME J. Pressure Vessel Technol., 138(4), p. 041203. [CrossRef]
Alexander, C. R. , 2006, “ Assesing the Use of Composite Materials in Repairing Mechanical Damage in Transmission Pipelines,” ASME Paper No. IPC2006-10482.
Alexander, C. R. , 2009, “ Recent Advances on the Evaluating Composite Repair Technology Used to Repair Transmission Pipelines,” Clarion Evaluation and Rehabilitation of Pipelines Conference, Pittsburgh, PA, Oct. 21–22.
Alexander, C. , and Bedoya, J. , 2010, “ Repair of Dents Subjected to Cyclic Pressure Service Using Composite Materials,” ASME Paper No. IPC2010-31524.
Alexander, C. , Kania, R. , Zhou, J. , Vyvial, B. , and Iver, A. , 2016, “ Reinforcing Large Diameter Elbows Using Composite Materials Subjected to Extreme Bending and Internal Pressure Loading,” ASME Paper No. IPC2016-64311.
Chan, P. H. , Tshai, K. Y. , Johnson, M. , and Li, S. , 2014, “ Finite Element Analysis of Combined Static Loadings on Offshore Pipe Riser Repaired With Fibre-Reinforced Composite Laminates,” J. Reinf. Plast. Compos., 33(6), pp. 514–525. [CrossRef]
Mokhtari, M. , and Alavi Nia, A. , 2015, “ The Influence of Using CFRP Wraps on Performance of Buried Steel Pipelines Under Permanent Ground Deformations,” J. Soil Dyn. Earthquake Eng., 73, pp. 29–41. [CrossRef]
Mokhtari, M. , and Alavi Nia, A. , 2016, “ The Application of CFRP to Strengthen Buried Steel Pipelines Against Subsurface Explosion,” J. Soil Dyn. Earthquake Eng., 87, pp. 52–62. [CrossRef]
Reich, A. , and Charest, J. , 2016, “ Carbon Fiber Reinforcement of a Water Storage Tank for Beyond Design Basic Loads,” ASME Paper No. PVP2016-63062.
Chatzopoulou, G. , Karamanos, S. A. , and Varelis, G. E. , 2016, “ Finite Element Analysis of UOE Manufacturing Process and Its Effect on Mechanical Behavior of Offshore Pipes,” Int. J. Solids Struct., 83, pp. 13–27. [CrossRef]

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Steel elbow specimens

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Implementation of the CFRP patch on the pipe elbow

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Experimental setup for (a) nonreinforced elbow, (b) reinforced pipe elbow and (c) LVDT and strain gauge locations

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

(a) Crack configuration at crown area in nonreinforced pipe elbow specimens and (b) loss of containment because of through-thickness crack development in nonreinforced specimen 5

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

(a) Crack failure of CFRP-reinforced specimen at the elbow intrados and (b) loss of containment in reinforced pipe elbow specimen

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Fatigue crack at the vicinity of girth weld between the elbow and the pipe, in reinforced pipe elbow-specimen no. 6

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

De-bonding of the CFRP from the pipe elbow surface

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Force (kN) versus displacement (mm) for ΔL equal to ±20 mm, ±25 mm, and ±30 mm; experimental results

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Hoop strains evolution for different displacement ranges

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Repair of cracked nonreinforced specimens, with CFRP/GFRP wrapping

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Burst and loss of containment in CFRP-repaired specimens due to burst (specimen 4)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

Model of a reinforced pipe elbow with CFRP patch

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

(a) Finite element model of reinforced pipe elbow with the CFRP patch and (b) partition of CFRP patch in eight sectors

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 15

Location of strip specimens extracted from the elbows

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 16

Stress–strain curve from monotonic tests of P235 elbow material

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 17

Stress–strain curve of cyclic tests of P235 steel elbows material; strain ranges are: (1) ±0.8%, (2) ±1.0%, and (3) ±1.2%

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 18

Force (kN) versus displacement (mm) for ΔL equal to ±20 mm, ±25 mm, and ±30 mm; nonreinforced elbow specimens

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 19

Force (kN) versus displacement (mm) for ΔL equal to ±20 mm, ±25 mm, and ±30 mm; reinforced elbow specimens

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 20

Hoop strain evolution for ΔL equal to ±20 mm; nonreinforced elbow specimens

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 21

Hoop strain evolution for ΔL equal ±25 mm; nonreinforced elbow specimens

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 22

Hoop strain evolution for ΔL equal ±30 mm; nonreinforced elbow specimens

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 23

Hoop strain evolution for ΔL equal to ±30 mm; nonreinforced and reinforced elbows

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 24

Evolution of ovalization in nonreinforced and reinforced elbows for ΔL equal to ±30 mm

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 25

Axial strain evolution in nonreinforced and reinforced elbows for ΔL equal to ±30 mm

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 26

Distribution of strains in nonreinforced elbows for ΔL equal to ±30 mm: (a) hoop strains, (b) axial strains, and (c) equivalent plastic strains

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 27

Distribution of strains in reinforced elbows for ΔL equal to ±30 mm: (a) hoop strains, (b) axial strains, and (c) equivalent plastic strains

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 28

Force (kN) versus displacement (mm) for ΔL equal to ±25 mm for different levels of internal pressure; nonreinforced elbow specimen

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 29

Hoop strain evolution for ΔL equal to ±25 mm for different levels of internal pressure as a percent (%) of yield pressure; nonreinforced elbow specimen

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 30

Force (kN) versus displacement (mm) for ΔL = ±25 mm for different levels of internal pressure; reinforced elbow specimen

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 31

Hoop strain evolution for ΔL equal to ±25 mm for different levels of internal pressure; reinforced elbow specimens

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 32

Axial strain evolution for ΔL equal to ±25 mm for different levels of internal pressure; reinforced elbow specimens

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