Application Scope of Limit Load Criterion for Ductile Material Pipes With Circumferentially External Cracks

2020 ◽  
Vol 142 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Kunio Hasegawa ◽  
Yinsheng Li ◽  
Valery Lacroix ◽  
Vratislav Mares
Keyword(s):  
Pipe Wall ◽  
Internal Surface ◽  
Limit Load ◽  
Ductile Material ◽  
Plastic Collapse ◽  
Surface Cracks ◽  
Pipe Wall Thickness ◽  
Asme Code ◽  
Bending Capacity ◽  
New Equation

Abstract Bending stress at plastic collapse for a circumferentially cracked pipe is predicted by limit load criterion provided by the Appendix C of the ASME Code Section XI. The equation of the Appendix C is applicable for pipes with both external and internal surface cracks. On the other hand, the authors have developed a more precise equation taking into account the pipe mean radii at noncracked area and at cracked ligament area. From the comparison of Appendix C equation and the new equation, the plastic collapse stress estimated by the Appendix C equation gives about 20% less conservative bending capacity prediction for external cracked pipes with large crack angle and small Rm/t, where Rm is the pipe mean radius and t is the pipe wall thickness. This paper discusses the limitation scope to use the limit load criterion of the Appendix C equation.

Plastic Collapse Stresses for Thick Wall Pipes With External Cracks

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kunio Hasegawa ◽  
Yinsheng Li ◽  
Valery Lacroix ◽  
Vratislav Mares
Keyword(s):  
Pipe Wall ◽  
Internal Surface ◽  
Limit Load ◽  
Thick Wall ◽  
Plastic Collapse ◽  
Surface Cracks ◽  
Pipe Wall Thickness ◽  
Asme Code ◽  
Bending Capacity ◽  
New Equation

Abstract Bending stress at plastic collapse for a circumferentially cracked pipe is predicted by limit load equation provided by the Appendix C of the ASME Code Section XI. The equation of the Appendix C is applicable for pipes with both external and internal surface cracks. On the other hand, the authors have developed an equation taking into account the pipe mean radii at non-cracked area and at cracked ligament area. From the comparison of Appendix C equation and the new equation, the plastic collapse stress estimated by the Appendix C equation gives 20 to 30% less conservative bending capacity prediction for external cracked pipes with small Rm/t, where Rm is the pipe mean radius and t is the pipe wall thickness. This paper discusses the limitation of the use of Rm/t for the Appendix C equation.

Prediction of Fully Plastic Collapse Stresses for Pipes With Two Circumferential Flaws

2009 ◽  
Vol 131 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Kunio Hasegawa ◽  
Koichi Saito ◽  
Fuminori Iwamatsu ◽  
Katsumasa Miyazaki
Keyword(s):  
Evaluation Method ◽  
Limit Load ◽  
304 Stainless Steel ◽  
Plastic Collapse ◽  
Combination Rules ◽  
Steel Pipes ◽  
Asme Code ◽  
As Stress ◽  
Type 304 ◽  
Type 304 Stainless Steel

Fully plastic collapse stress for a single circumferential flaw on a pipe is evaluated by the limit load criteria in accordance with the JSME Code S NA-1-2004 and the ASME Code Section XI. However, multiple flaws such as stress corrosion cracking are frequently detected in the same circumferential cross section in a pipe. If the distance between adjacent flaws is short, the two flaws are combined as a single flaw in compliance with combination rules. If the two flaws separated by a large distance, it is not required to combine two flaws. However, there is no evaluation method for two separated flaws in a pipe in the JSME and ASME Codes. Plastic collapse stresses for pipes with two symmetrical circumferential flaws based on net-stress approach had been proposed by one of the authors. Bending tests were performed on Type 304 stainless steel pipes with two symmetrical circumferential flaws. Consequently, it was shown that the proposed method can predict well the plastic collapse stresses for pipes with two flaws. In addition, it is also shown that this method is appropriate to use in fitness-for-service procedures, and higher plastic collapse stresses are expected, compared with current prediction methods for pipes with two flaws.

Inclusion of Torsion With Bending and Pressure Loads for Pipes With Thin-Wall Regions

2011 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bostjan Bezensek ◽  
Yinsheng Li ◽  
Kunio Hasegawa ◽  
Phuong H. Hoang
Keyword(s):  
Pipe Wall ◽  
Plastic Collapse ◽  
Thin Wall ◽  
Finite Element Analyses ◽  
Pure Bending ◽  
Pipe Wall Thickness ◽  
Wall Thinning ◽  
Equivalent Load ◽  
Bending Loading ◽  
Local Wall Thinning

Piping installations may experience local wall thinning under predominant pressure and bending loading with a small amount of torsion loading. Assessment of the remaining pipe integrity must account for all loads and can benefit from resolving the multiaxial loads into an equivalent load. This paper presents results of the finite element analyses of straight pipes containing non-planar flaws (i.e. local wall thinning areas) subject to combination of pressure, bending and torsion. The pressure is 8 MPa and the torsion stresses are limited to 20% of the material’s flow stress. Flaws are introduced into a 4 inch OD pipe with an R/t of 6.64 and 9.36. The incipient plastic collapse moment at a given torsion moment is determined and compared with the plastic collapse moment of the pure bending case. The results show that for flaws with a depth less than 60% of the nominal pipe wall thickness the bending and torsion moments can be combined into an equivalent moment by vector summation (the Root of the Sum of Squares approach). For deeper flaws the effect of pipe and flaw geometry is observed.

Allowable Cracks Related to Penetration for Part-Through Cracks in Pipes Subjected to Bending Stresses

2022 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kunio Hasegawa ◽  
Yinsheng Li ◽  
Bohumir Strnadel ◽  
Anees Udyawar
Keyword(s):  
Limit Load ◽  
Service Level ◽  
The Other ◽  
Plastic Collapse ◽  
Local Approach ◽  
Crack Penetration ◽  
Other Hand ◽  
Asme Code ◽  
Bending Stresses

Abstract Fully plastic collapse stresses for circumferentially part-through cracked pipes subjected to bending stresses are estimated by Limit Load Criteria provided by the ASME Code Section XI. Allowable crack depths were determined by using the Limit Load Criteria and that are tabulated in the ASME Code Section XI for different plant service level conditions. On the other hand, crack penetration bending stresses for part-through cracked pipes were estimated by using the Local Approach of Limit Load Criteria. By using these Criteria, the study presented in this paper obtained allowable crack depths at penetration for circumferentially part-through cracked pipes. Comparing the allowable crack depths obtained by both methods for each service level, it is evident that the allowable crack depths at penetration calculated by the Local Approach of Limit Load Criteria are almost always smaller than those at fully plastic collapse stresses calculated by the Limit Load Criteria. It was found that the allowable crack depths provided by the ASME Code Section XI are less conservative for crack penetrations.

A Global Limit Load Solution for Plates With Semi-Elliptical Surface Cracks Under Combined Tension and Bending

2004 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yuebao Lei
Keyword(s):  
Finite Element ◽  
Surface Crack ◽  
Crack Depth ◽  
Limit Load ◽  
Elliptical Crack ◽  
Surface Cracks ◽  
Rectangular Crack ◽  
Perfectly Plastic ◽  
Elastic Perfectly Plastic ◽  
New Equation

A new global limit load solution is developed in this paper for a precise semi-elliptical surface crack in a plate under combined tension and bending, based on the net-section collapse principle. The new global limit load solution is compared with finite element (FE) results for the semi-elliptical crack, and with the global limit load solution for the circumscribing rectangular crack. The predictions of the new equation are conservative and close to the elastic-perfectly-plastic FE results for shallow cracks. For narrow plates with deep cracks, however, no FE results for the global limit load are available. The differences between the limit load solutions for a semi-elliptical crack and a rectangular crack are negligible for very wide plates but significant for narrow plates, depending on the normalised crack depth and the ratio between the crack length and width of the plate.

Development of a mathematical model of the influence of wall thickness on the strain rate when profiling pipes by drawing

2020 ◽  
pp. 49-52
Author(s):  
R.A. Okulov ◽  
N.V. Semenova
Keyword(s):  
Mathematical Model ◽  
Strain Rate ◽  
Wall Thickness ◽  
Pipe Wall ◽  
Strain Intensity ◽  
Thickness Strain ◽  
Pipe Wall Thickness

The change in the intensity of the deformation of the pipe wall during profiling by drawing was studied. The dependence of the strain intensity on the wall thickness of the workpiece is obtained to predict the processing results in the production of shaped pipes with desired properties. Keywords drawing, profile pipe, wall thickness, strain rate. [email protected]

Fully Plastic Failure Stresses and Allowable Crack Sizes for Circumferentially Surface Cracked Pipes Subjected to Tensile Loading

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kunio Hasegawa ◽  
David Dvorak ◽  
Vratislav Mares ◽  
Bohumir Strnadel ◽  
Yinsheng Li
Keyword(s):  
Experimental Data ◽  
Bending Moment ◽  
Limit Load ◽  
Tensile Loading ◽  
Crack Size ◽  
Plastic Failure ◽  
Circumferential Crack ◽  
Asme Code ◽  
American Society ◽  
Better Than

Abstract Fully plastic failure stresses for circumferentially surface cracked pipes subjected to tensile loading can be estimated by means of limit load criteria based on the net-section stress approach. Limit load criteria of the first type (labelled LLC-1) were derived from the balance of uniaxial forces. Limit load criteria of the second type are given in Section XI of the ASME (American Society of Mechanical Engineering) Code, and were derived from the balance of bending moment and axial force. These are labelled LLC-2. Fully plastic failure stresses estimated by using LLC-1 and LLC-2 were compared. The stresses estimated by LLC-1 are always larger than those estimated by LLC-2. From the literature survey of experimental data, failure stresses obtained by both types of LLC were compared with the experimental data. It can be stated that failure stresses calculated by LLC-1 are better than those calculated by LLC-2 for shallow cracks. On the contrary, for deep cracks, LLC-2 predictions of failure stresses are fairly close to the experimental data. Furthermore, allowable circumferential crack sizes obtained by LLC-1 were compared with the sizes given in Section XI of the ASME Code. The allowable crack sizes obtained by LLC-1 are larger than those obtained by LLC-2. It can be stated that the allowable crack size for tensile stress depends on the condition of constraint of the pipe, and the allowable cracks given in Section XI of the ASME Code are conservative.

The Effects of Classification of Misalignment-Induced Stresses in Engineering Critical Assessments of Welded Joints With Some Misalignment

2010 ◽  
Author(s):  
Liwu Wei
Keyword(s):  
Welded Joints ◽  
Driving Force ◽  
Limit Load ◽  
Surface Cracks ◽  
Plastic Limit ◽  
Secondary Stress ◽  
Butt Weld ◽  
Crack Driving Force ◽  
Plastic Limit Load

In the ECA of a structure or component such as a pipeline girth weld, the bending stress component arising from misalignment across the weld is often classified as primary, partly because standards such as BS 7910 and API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 do not give definitive guidance on this subject. This approach may be over-conservative as the σmis is localised. In order to obtain a more realistic assessment of the structural integrity of structures containing misalignment, it is necessary to understand the conservatism or non-conservatism in an ECA associated with the classification of σmis. To address the above concerns, systematic investigations were carried out of surface cracks in a plate butt-weld including some misalignment, external circumferential surface cracks and external fully circumferential cracks in a misaligned pipe connection. FEA of these cracked welded joints with some misalignment (typically from 1mm to 2mm) was performed to calculate crack driving force and plastic limit load. The results from FEA were compared with the existing solutions of KI and σref in BS 7910 generated by assuming three options of treating the σmis. The three options were: (1) classification of σmis wholly as primary stress; (2) 15% of σmis as primary and 85% of σmis as secondary stress; and (3) classification of σmis wholly as secondary stress. Variations in parameters (eg misalignment, crack size, loading, weld overmatch and base material properties) were taken into account in order to determine the effects of these parameters on plastic limit load and crack driving force. The implication of different classifications of σmis in terms of ECAs of misaligned welded joints was revealed by conducting BS 7910 Level 2B assessments with the use of a FAD. It was found in this work that for the cases examined, use of the σmis as entirely primary bending in an ECA was over-conservative, and even treatment of σmis as entirely secondary bending was generally shown to be still conservative, when compared with the assessments based on FEA solutions. Furthermore, caution should be exercised in using the solutions of KI and σref given in the existing BS 7910 for crack-containing structures subjected to a bi-axial or tri-axial stress state. A non-conservative estimate may result from the use of these solutions which have been derived based on a uniaxial stress condition.

Development of Z-Factor for Circumferential Part-Through Surface Cracks in Dissimilar Metal Welds

2008 ◽  
Author(s):  
D.-J. Shim ◽  
G. M. Wilkowski ◽  
D. L. Rudland ◽  
F. W. Brust ◽  
Kazuo Ogawa
Keyword(s):  
Correction Factor ◽  
Carrying Capacity ◽  
Limit Load ◽  
Maximum Load ◽  
Load Carrying Capacity ◽  
Surface Cracks ◽  
Crack Driving Force ◽  
Dissimilar Metal ◽  
Load Carrying ◽  
J Estimation

Section XI of the ASME Code allows the users to conduct flaw evaluation analyses by using limit-load equations with a simple correction factor to account elastic-plastic fracture conditions. This correction factor is called a Z-factor, and is simply the ratio of the limit-load to elastic-plastic fracture mechanics (EPFM) maximum-load predictions for a flaw in a pipe. The past ASME Section XI Z-factors were based on a circumferential through-wall crack in a pipe rather than a surface crack. Past analyses and pipe tests with circumferential through-wall cracks in monolithic welds showed that the simplified EPFM analyses (called J-estimation schemes) could give good predictions by using the toughness, i.e., J-R curve, of the weld metal and the strength of the base metal. The determination of the Z-factor for a dissimilar metal weld (DMW) is more complicated because of the different strength base metals on either side of the weld. This strength difference can affect the maximum load-carrying capacity of the flawed pipe by more than the weld toughness. Recent work by the authors for circumferential through-wall cracks in DMWs has shown that an equivalent stress-strain curve is needed in order for the typical J-estimation schemes to correctly predict the load carrying capacity in a cracked DMW. In this paper, the Z-factors for circumferential surface cracks in DMW were determined. For this purpose, a material property correction factor was determined by comparing the crack driving force calculated from the J-estimation schemes to detailed finite element (FE) analyses. The effect of crack size and pipe geometry on the material correction factor was investigated. Using the determined crack-driving force and the appropriate toughness of the weld metal, the Z-factors were calculated for various crack sizes and pipe geometries. In these calculations, a ‘reference’ limit-load was determined by using the lower strength base metal flow stress. Furthermore, the effect of J-R curve on the Z-factor was investigated. Finally, the Z-factors developed in the present work were compared to those developed earlier for through-wall cracks in DMWs.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document