Fracture Toughness Testing of Pipeline Girth Welds

Shen, G.; Gianetto, J. A.; Bouchard, R.; Bowker, J. T.; Tyson, W. R.

doi:10.1115/ipc2004-0320

Cited by 11 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Fracture toughness is used in Engineering Critical Assessment (ECA) to assess the fitness‐for‐service of engineering structures with respect to avoidance of fracture . Differences in the values of fracture toughness measurements on the same specimen using different methods could result in a structure being considered safe or not.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Measurement and prediction of CTOD in austenitic stainless steel

Khor

Moore

Pisarski

et al. 2016

Fatigue Fract Eng Mat Struct

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A B S T R A C T Variation of Crack Tip Opening Displacement (CTOD) test values can have a significant effect on the Engineering Critical Assessment of a structure. This paper examines the development of CTOD with increasing load in an austenitic stainless steel. The silicone replication method giving variation of CTOD across the specimen thickness, and Digital Image Correlation (DIC) are compared to each other, and in turn to clip gauge measurements from tests. Results from Finite Element models are also presented. Estimations of CTOD from BS 7448-1, ISO 12135 and ASTM E1820, and a proposed modification from JWES are compared to the experimental data from the crack cast in silicone compound -assumed to be the actual CTOD. The DIC measurement showed consistency with crack replicas, and a formula is given to estimate CTOD using DIC. For high strain hardening austenitic stainless steel, both the JWES and ASTM E1820 estimations provide adequate accuracy for CTOD. N O M E N C L A T U R EA p = plastic area under P versus V p a 0 = initial crack length B = specimen thickness B 0 = remaining ligament, W À a 0 b = position on section as a ratio of B / 2 E = modulus of elasticity J = strain energy around the crack K = stress intensity factor K I = stress intensity factor in mode I loading m = plane strain function used in JWES m ASTM = function relating J to CTOD n = strain hardening exponent P = load r p = rotational factor for plastic hinge assumption V g = clip gauge opening displacement V p = plastic component of clip gauge opening displacement W = specimen width z = knife edge height δ = crack tip opening displacement (CTOD) δ 5 = direct CTOD measurement from two points at the specimen surface 5 mm apart, placed directly at the crack tip δ 5 DIC = δ 5 measured using the DIC technique δ SRC = CTOD measured on the silicone replicas δ FE = CTOD obtained from the FE model v = Poisson's ratio σ ys =0.2% proof strength at test temperature σ uts = ultimate tensile strength at test temperature σ y = flow stress at test temperature, (σ ys + σ uts ) / 2 ε = strain ɳ = geometrical based calibration function for J Correspondence: C. J. Brown.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Measurement and prediction of CTOD in austenitic stainless steel

Khor

Moore

Pisarski

et al. 2016

Fatigue Fract Eng Mat Struct

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The J-R curves used in this study are from six SE(B) specimens tested and reported by Shen et al 18 All the specimens were fabricated from the based metal of a pipe segment that is made of the API X80 steel with the minimum specified yield strength (SMYS) of 550 MPa. The mechanical properties of the steel were determined by Shen et al 18 using flattened coupons extracted along the longitudinal direction of the pipe segment. The average values of Young's modulus E, yield strength σ y and ultimate strength σ UTS were reported to be 207 GPa, 568 MPa, and 675 MPa, respectively.…”

Section: Materials Propertiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…). Chao and Zhu 9 as well as Zhu and Jang 10 developed the constraint-corrected J-R curve based on J-R curves experimentally determined from a set of SE(B), C(T) and SE(T) specimens tested by Joyce and Link, 16 whereas Zhu and Leis 7,17 developed the constraintcorrected J-R curve based on six SE(B) specimens with different crack lengths tested by Shen et al 18 Zhu and Jang 10 and Zhu and Leis 7 employed the constraint parameter Q to develop the constraint-corrected J-R curves, whereas Chao and Zhu, 9 Lam et al, 19 Zhu and Leis 17 and Wang et al 20 constructed the constraint-corrected J-R curves in terms of the constraint parameter A 2 .…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Constraint‐corrected J–R curve based on three‐dimensional finite element analyses

Huang

Zhou

Wang

2014

Fatigue Fract Eng Mat Struct

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Three‐dimensional (3D) finite element analyses are carried out on single‐edge bend [SE(B)] specimens for which the J‐integral resistance curves (J–R curves) have been experimentally determined to develop the constraint‐corrected J–R curves for the X80 grade pipe steel. The constraint parameters considered in this study include QHRR, QSSY, QSSY_m, QLM, QBM1, QBM2, A2, h and Tz. The constraint‐corrected J–R curves were developed on the basis of the constraint parameters obtained from finite element analysis and experimentally determined J–R curves associated with deeply cracked and medium‐cracked SE(B) specimens and validated against shallow‐cracked SE(B) specimens. The analysis results indicate that all the constraint parameters considered in this study except QHRR, QSSY, QSSY_m and QLM lead to reasonably accurate constraint‐corrected J–R curves if the crack extensions are relatively small (≤0.7 mm). For larger crack extensions (≤1.5 mm), the QBM1‐based constraint‐corrected J–R curve leads to the most accurate predictions of J among all the constraint parameters considered.

show abstract

“…This means that the parent steels often have fine grain size and high fracture toughness. There was no significant difference in CTOD for the weld metal, whereas for the HAZ higher CTOD values were found for the 6 o’clock position [ 2 ]. Thus, further post-test fractography and metallography are required to determine the precise microstructures [ 3 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Statistical Assessment of Fracture Toughness Results from the HAZ of X80 Pipeline FCAW Girth Weld

Chen

Feng²,

et al. 2022

Materials

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Due to the wide application of flux-cored arc welds (FCAW) susceptible to significant scatter in weld and Heat Affected Zone (HAZ) fracture toughness, there is an interest in methods for evaluating the reliability of welds containing defects. The mechanical properties of the FCAW girth weld of an X80 pipeline are tested and then analyzed. By obtaining fracture toughness results from a statistically significant number of SENB specimens, with notches positioned in different HAZ locations, the effect of variation within the results can be evaluated. The results of the fracture toughness tests were analyzed using statistical methods, to compare both the difference in behavior between HAZ microstructures and the variation when a similar microstructure has been sampled. The range of different characteristic toughness values was analyzed using a postulated ECA case to illustrate the sensitivity of the results to how toughness is defined. The analyses supported recommendations to be made on the optimum approach to characterizing HAZ fracture toughness for reliable pipeline assessments in multi-pass girth welds with complex HAZ microstructure distributions.

show abstract

Fracture Toughness Testing of Pipeline Girth Welds

Cited by 11 publications

References 0 publications

Measurement and prediction of CTOD in austenitic stainless steel

Measurement and prediction of CTOD in austenitic stainless steel

Constraint‐corrected J–R curve based on three‐dimensional finite element analyses

Statistical Assessment of Fracture Toughness Results from the HAZ of X80 Pipeline FCAW Girth Weld

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About