Você está na página 1de 7

Proceedings of the 2012 9th International Pipeline Conference IPC2012 September 24-28, 2012, Calgary, Alberta, Canada

IPC2012-90592

PRESSURE CORRECTION FACTOR FOR STRAIN CAPACITY PREDICTIONS BASED ON CURVED WIDE PLATE TESTING
Matthias Verstraete Laboratory Soete, Ghent University Gent, Belgium Rudi Denys Laboratory Soete, Ghent University Gent, Belgium Wim De Waele Laboratory Soete, Ghent University Gent, Belgium Stijn Hertel Laboratory Soete, Ghent University Gent, Belgium

ABSTRACT Strain-based girth weld defect assessment procedures are essentially based on large scale testing. Ever since the 1980s curved wide plate testing has been widely applied to determine the tensile strain capacity of flawed girth welds. However, the effect of internal pressure is not captured in curved wide plate testing. Accordingly, unconservative predictions of strain capacity occur when straightforwardly transferred to pressurized pipes. To address this anomaly, this paper presents results of finite element simulations incorporating ductile crack growth. Simulations on homogeneous and girth welded specimens indicate that a correction factor of 0.5 allows to conservatively predict the strain capacity of a pressurized pipe through wide plate testing under the considered conditions. INTRODUCTION The experimental determination of the tensile strain capacity remains a vital aspect of strain-based assessment procedures, notwithstanding several analytical approaches are being developed [1]. This can be done through full scale tension testing of pressurized pipes (hereafter termed FSPP), which adequately represents the biaxial loading condition that originates from the combination of internal pressure and axial tension. However, such full scale tests require massive test capacities along with stringent safety measures. Another frequently used test for strain capacity determination of high diameter pipelines is the curved wide plate (CWP) tension test [2]. No internal pressure and thus no biaxial loading condition is obtained in this test. This is expected to influence the tensile strain capacity as the internal

pressure has shown to increase the crack driving force in pressurized pipes compared to unpressurized situation [3, 4]. Consequently, the strain capacity predicted through curved wide plate testing is expected to be higher than for a tension test on a pressurized pipe. To address the above concerns, this paper aims at identifying a relation between the strain capacity obtained through both test procedures. Therefore, a set of finite element simulations has been performed. The details of the model and test matrix are outlined in paragraph 2. Next, a comparison is made amongst homogeneous curved plate and pipe test specimens. In this case neither weld nor strength mismatch effects are accounted for. These results are discussed in paragraph 3. However, since weld strength mismatch is of primary importance to strain capacity, their effects have also been investigated. These results are discussed in paragraph 4. METHOD The comparison is based on an extensive set of finite element simulations. This section first provides an overview of the finite element models. Second, a description of the test matrix is given. Finite Element Model A thoroughly validated parametric script that creates finite element models has been used, allowing to simulate both curved wide plate specimens and full pipes with varying internal pressure levels. A detailed description of the finite element script is given in [5].

Copyright 2012 by ASME

In accordance with the strain-based design philosophy and to promote numerical convergence of the simulations, displacement boundary conditions have been applied to the free ends of the specimens. For pipes subjected to internal pressure, internal pressure levels corresponding with hoop stresses equal to 50%, 60%, 70% and 80% of the materials yield strength have been analyzed. It has been reported in literature that an increase of the internal pressure level not necessarily corresponds with a decrease of the strain capacity [4]. The minimum of these four strain capacities is considered for the comparison. All specimens have an initially blunted flaw with a root radius equal to 0.075 mm at the pipes inner diameter. The flaws have a constant depth bounded by circular arcs, as shown in Figure 1. Typically such model consists of 25000 linear brick elements with a spider web mesh applied around the flaw tip, as illustrated in Figure 2. It can furthermore be noted that a narrow gap weld bevel has been simulated; a bevel angle of 10 and root opening of 4 mm was selected. A slight geometrical overmatch is modeled by a weld cap of 1.0 mm. The defect is located along the weld metal centre line. Details are shown in Figure 2b. Heat affected zone softening, misalignment and base metal heterogeneity have not been accounted for.

gauge length of 200 mm placed at twice the pipes diameter from the cracked ligament. (a)

(b)

2c

Figure 2 - Mesh of a welded test specimen; global view (a) and detail of the weld metal (indicated in black) with crack located at the weld metal centre line (b)
OD = 508 mm

Figure 1 - Sketch of pipe dimensions

Two distinct failure modes resulting in a maximum strain have been considered. First, failure through unstable crack extension is evaluated by accounting for ductile crack extension in the simulations. Within the current framework, this has been incorporated using CTOD mapping in combination with the tangency approach [6, 7]. The CTOD values are determined using the 90 intercept method. Simulations have been performed for up to 3.0 mm crack extension, with intervals between the fixed crack sizes of 0.5 mm. The second failure mode considered is plastic collapse, indicated by a drop of the applied force. This mode covers both net section collapse where the cracked ligament starts to neck, and gross section collapse where necking occurs remote from the cracked ligament in the base material. The final strain capacity ( max ) corresponds with the minimum of the strain at unstable crack extension

The geometry of the CWP specimens is in accordance with the UGent guidelines [2]. The specimens have a width of 300 mm and a length-to-width ratio of three. Furthermore, the remote strain is measured using a virtual LVDT with a gauge length of 150 mm, placed 150 mm from the cracked plane. The full scale pipe specimens have an overall length of eight times the diameter. Although commonly reported that a length of four times the diameter is sufficient to represent the actual behavior of the pipe, this distance was doubled to avoid unintended influences by the boundary conditions. The remote strain was in this case measured using a virtual LVDT with a

t = 14 mm

( crack ) and plastic collapse ( collapse) [8]. This allows a fairly robust evaluation of the remote strain capacity with a numerical accuracy of 0.01%. Test Matrix A test matrix has been composed, covering a range of pipe and weld metal strenghts and defects most commonly evaluated within a strain-based context [9].

Copyright 2012 by ASME

In terms of geometry, previous studies have indicated that the pipes curvature is of lower importance. Accordingly, a fixed diameter has been selected (OD = 508 mm or 20). Next, the pipe wall thickness has been selected as a fixed parameter, t = 14 mm. The relative defect height, a/t, has often been selected as an important factor in strain-based design. Therefore, different defect depths have been investigated (a = 3.0 - 3.5 - 4.0 mm). Defect arc lengths, 2c, of 25 mm and 50 mm have been used for the comparison. Regarding the material properties, a yield strength of 555 MPa has been selected for all simulations, corresponding with the specified minimum of a grade API-5L X80 material [10]. Four different strain hardening behaviors have been analyzed. To this purpose, materials were defined using the UGent model describing double n behavior [11]. This allows defining a material based on its yield strength, uniform elongation (uEL) and yield-to-tensile (Y/T) ratio, which can be independently varied. In accordance with pipeline defect assessment guidelines, the Y/T-ratio of the base material has been limited to 0.90 [12]. A lower bound value of 0.85 has been selected. For each Y/T-ratio, two distinct uEL levels have been selected. To this end, a set of experimental tensile test results obtained from pipe material were analyzed, shown in Figure 3. Two distinct yet realistic uEL-values have been selected for each considered Y/T-ratio. Regarding the girth welded connections, a yield strength mismatch level of 10% as required by standards has been selected [13]. Subsequently, six different weld metals have been selected. These weld metals have Y/Tratios equal to 0.85, 0.90 and 0.95, each in combination with high and low uniform elongations determined. This reflects flow strength mismatch levels up to 13.4%. 15 high uEL value

curves have been analyzed. These resistance curves are characterized by two parameters and : (3) Appropriate values for these constants were selected aiming at covering a wide range of toughness levels [1]. The selected resistance curves are plotted in Figure 4. Note that this approach implicitly assumes that the resistance curves are not affected by any constraint difference between CWP specimen and (pressurized) pipes. This assumption has been verified through constraint analysis and an extensive literature review [17, 18].
3.0
= 2.0 / = 0.5

CTOD [mm]

2.0
= 1.5 / = 0.35

1.0
= 1.0 / = 0.2

0.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0

a [mm]
Figure 4 - Tearing resistance curves considered for determination of strain capacity

uEL [%]

10

An overview of the performed simulations can be found in the tables below. Table 1 covers the performed simulations for the case of homogeneous materials. Note that the crack depths are not reported in these tables, as crack depths ranging from 3.0 to 6.0 mm have been simulated. This set of simulations allows analyzing initial crack depths between 3.0 and 4.0 mm.
Table 1 - Overview of performed simulations for homogeneous test specimens

Sim. nr.
low uEL value
0 0.7 0.8 0.9 Y/T-ratio [-] 1.0

2c 25 mm 25 mm 25 mm 25 mm 50 mm 50 mm 50 mm 50 mm

Y/T-ratio 0.85 0.85 0.90 0.90 0.85 0.85 0.90 0.90

uEL 6.45% 10.45% 4.85% 8.85% 6.45% 10.45% 4.85% 8.85%

H1 H2 H3 H4 H5 H6 H7 H8

Figure 3 - Relation between uniform elongation and yield to tensile ratio obtained from uniaxial tensile tests. Data taken from [14, 15]

Next to the materials tensile properties, the tearing resistance is of utmost importance in determining the strain capacity [16]. Accordingly, materials with different resistance

Copyright 2012 by ASME

Table 2 summarizes the simulation matrix of weld mismatched configurations. This table only displays the weld metal properties assuming a yield strength mismatch ratio of 10%. For the accompanying crack sizes and base material properties, the reader is referred to the specifications listed in Table 1. Remark that, for computational reasons, not all cases have been expanded to weld mismatched situations. Nevertheless, it is to the authors believe that a representative set of weld mismatched situations has been performed. Table 2 - Overview of performed simulations for weld mismatched specimens

Sim. nr. W1 W2 W3 W4 W5 W6

Ref. Case H1,H3,H6,H8 H1,H3,H6,H8 H1,H3,H6,H8 H1,H3,H6,H8 H1,H3,H6,H8 H1,H3,H6,H8

Y/T-ratio 0.85 0.85 0.90 0.90 0.95 0.95

uEL 6.45% 10.45% 4.85% 8.85% 3.25% 7.25%

RESULTS Non-welded specimens This paragraph compares the strain capacities measured from plain curved wide plate and full scale pipe specimens, i.e. no weld is present. It is observed that both crack size and tearing resistance of the material largely affect the strain capacity (e.g. Figure 5 for CWP specimens). It is obvious that larger cracks decrease the strain capacity, also does a decreasing tearing resistance.
5.0
4.0
Strain Capacity [%]

Next, a comparison is made between unpressurized pipes (FSUP) and curved wide plates. It is observed for these configurations that curved wide plates unambiguously yield conservative strain capacity predictions (Figure 6). The above observation is clearly understood when the crack driving force for the different configurations is evaluated. This crack driving force plays a crucial role, as unstable fracture is the dominant failure mode for non-welded (thus evenmatching) specimens. In Figure 7 a characteristic set of crack driving force curves is plotted for a steady crack. It is observed that the crack driving force remains approximately identical for strain levels up to roughly half the uniform elongation. Beyond this level, the curved wide plate shows a clearly increased crack driving force. This is most probably caused by interaction between the shear bands originating from the defect tip and the edges of the wide plate specimen. This effect is not present in pipe testing. Also indicated on Figure 7 are the strain levels corresponding to maximum force. These points indicate the occurrence of plastic collapse. It is concluded that the plastic collapse limit for both specimens corresponds well, indicating that the conservativeness of curved wide plate results is limited when it comes to plastic collapse limit states. Note furthermore that the conservativeness of the curved wide plate test results increases for larger flaw sizes. This relates to the increased interaction of the plastic zones with the edges of the CWP specimen.
1 .0 0

m a x ;FSU P uEL[-] /

0 .7 5
1.01 .0

0 .5 0
max;up / uEL [-] [ m a x ;up/ uEL -]

3 x 25 mm 4 x 25 mm
3 x 50 mm

0 .2 5 0 .5 0.5

3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0

0 .0 0 0 .0 0
0.00 .0 0.00 .0 Series1

0 .2 5

0 .5 0

0 .7 5

1 .0 0
1.0 1 .0

m a x ;C WP uEL[-] /

0.5 Series5 0 .5 3 x 25 4 x 50 max;CWP;/CuELuEL -] m a x WP [-] [ / mm mm Series2 Series6 Series1 Series1Series5 2.0 Series5 = = 0.50

0.0

1.0 0.20

1.0 2.0 1.5 tearing data 0.35

2.0 0.50

3.0

= Series2 Series2Series6 1.5 Series6 Series3 Series7 = Series3 Series3Series7 1.0 Series7

= 0.35 = 0.20

Figure 5 - Influence of tearing resistance on strain capacity for different crack sizes in CWP specimens

Figure 6 - Strain capacity in unpressurized pipe specimens relative to uEL versus strain capacity of curved wide plate specimens relative to uEL, both for non-welded specimens

Copyright 2012 by ASME

pipe - no pressure pipe - int. pres. Curved Wide Plate max Force 3.0

CTOD [mm]

2.0

FSUP FSPP Curved Wide Plate

Finally, the strain capacity of homogeneous pressurized pipes and curved wide plates is compared, illustrated in Figure 9. It is observed that the strain limit of full scale pressurized pipes can conservatively be determined by halving the strain capacity determined through curved wide plate testing. This observation leads to the definition of a pressure correction factor (Pc) equal to 0.5 for curved wide plate tests. (4) It can be noted that some scatter appears in the results. However, a fairly constant variation is observed, indicated by the red lines in Figure 9. Regarding this variation, it can again be noted that the conservatism increases for larger crack sizes. It can furthermore be noted that this trend is somewhat contradicting the reported experimental results published in literature [19-21]. This difference is attributed to scatter in the material data and notch location. On the other hand, effects such as misalignment and HAZ softening are expected to furthermore deteriorate the tensile strain capacity. This is part of future research.

1.0

Plastic Collapse

0.0 0.000

Figure 7 - Comparison of crack driving force between examined test configurations for simulation H5 and steady crack (a = 4mm) 1.0

Following, a comparison is made between the strain capacities of pressurized and unpressurized pipes, shown in Figure 8. As expected, the pressure significantly decreases the 0.0 strain capacity. It is observed that the strain capacity of the 0.000 0.050 pressurized pipe at least equals half the 0.025 capacity of the strain unpressurized pipe. Remote strain [-]

CTOD [mm]

0.025 0.050 2.0 strain [-] Remote

uEL

3.0

0.075

uEL

0.075

1 .0 0

1 .0 0

0 .7 5
1.01 .0

m a x ;FSPP uEL[-] /

0 .7 5
1.01 .0

m a x ;FSPP uEL[-] /

0 .5 0
max;up / uEL [-] [ m a x ;up/ uEL -]

0 .5 0

0 .2 5 0 .5 0.5

0 .2 5 0 .5 0.5

max;up / uEL [-] [ m a x ;up/ uEL -]

0 .0 0 0 .0 0
0.00 .0 0.00 .0

0 .2 5

0 .5 0
0.5 0 .5

0 .7 5

1 .0 0
1.0 1 .0

m a x ;C WP uEL[-] /

0 .0 0 0 .0 0
0.00 .0 0.00 .0 Series1

0 .2 5

0 .5 0

0 .7 5

1 .0 0
1.0 1 .0

m a x ;FSU P uEL[-] /

3 x 25 4 Series1 x 50 Series5 m a x WP [-] [ / mm mm max;CWP;/CuELuEL -] Series1 Series1Series5 2.0 Series5 = Series2 Series6 = 0.50
Series2 Series2 = Series6 Series3 Series6 1.5 Series7

Series5 0.5 0 .5 3 x 25 4 x 50 m a x WP [-] [ / mm mm max;CWP;/CuELuEL -] Series2 Series6 2.0 Series1 Series1Series5 Series5 = = 0.50

= 0.35 = 0.20

= Series3 Series3Series7 1.0 Series7

= Series2 Series2Series6 Series6 Series3 Series7 1.5 = Series3 Series3Series7 1.0 Series7

= 0.35 = 0.20

Figure 9 - Strain capacity measured in pressurized pipe specimens relative to curved wide plate specimens for non-welded specimens

Figure 8 - Strain capacity measured in unpressurized pipes relative to the uEL versus strain capacity of pressurized pipes specimens relative to the uEL, both for non-welded specimens

Copyright 2012 by ASME

Welded specimens Flow strength mismatch has a clear influence on the strain capacity of pressurized pipes (Figure 10, see also [22]). It should be noted that this graph also displays the results of simulations with a yield strength mismatch level of 30% in order to clearly indicate the collapse limit state. When the strain capacity of the pressurized pipes is compared to the strain capacity of the curved wide plates, a Pc of 0.5 again conservatively predicts strain capacity. The results are shown in Figure 11. Significantly higher scatter is observed compared to the results obtained from non-welded specimens. This is attributed to the occurrence of collapse at higher tearing resistance levels. In case of collapse, the strain limit of pressurized pipes is higher than half the uniform elongation; whereas the uEL can be assumed to match the strain level at collapse of unpressurized pipes (see also Figure 10).
0.075

Focusing on the plastic collapse failure mode, it follows from the crack driving force curves shown in the previous paragraph that the required tearing resistance for collapse is significantly higher for pressurized pipes than for curved wide plates. On the other hand, the required tearing resistance to obtain failure through collapse is only marginally higher for curved wide plates than for unpressurized pipes. This observation implies that, if failure through plastic collapse is observed in wide plate testing, this would also be the case for unpressurized pipes. In contrast, failure through collapse in pressurized pipes is not necessarily observed when collapse occurs in curved wide plate testing. Shown in Figure 12 is the failure strain relative to the collapse strain. Indeed, in a number of cases collapse is predicted ( in curved wide plate specimens whereas this is not the case for the pressurized pipes.
1.00 FSUP

max / collapse pipe [-]

0.050

max [-]

0.75

FSPP

0.025

0.50

FSUP
0.000 0

FSPP

0.25

10 20 30 FS Mismatch Level [%]

40

Figure 10 - Influence of tensile strength mismatch level on strain capacity of (un)pressurized pipelines for simulations H3 and a0 = 3 mm

0.00 0.00

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

max / collapse CWP [-]


Figure 12 Strain capacity relative to collapse strain at final crack length for curved wide plate versus (pressurized) pipe in weld mismatched configurations W1-6 and reference case H3

1.00
Pc = 0.5

max;FSPP / max;CWP [-]

0.75

0.50
Series3 = 1.0 0.25 Series2 = 1.5

= 0.20 = 0.35 = 0.50


20

= 2.0 Series1
0.00

10 FS Mismatch Level [%]

CONCLUSIONS A finite element study on both homogeneous and mismatched specimens has indicated that: - A pressure correction factor (Pc) of 0.5 allows conservatively estimating the strain capacity of a pressurized pipe based on curved wide plate test results. - Curved wide plates yield conservative strain estimates of unpressurized pipes. - Failure through collapse in curved wide plate testing implies collapse in the unpressurized pipe. - Failure through collapse in the curved wide plate does not necessarily imply failure through collapse in a pressurized pipe specimen. Ongoing research focuses on the effect of higher mismatch levels and the potential detrimental influences of misalignment.

Figure 11 - Comparison of strain capacity of pressurized pipes relative to CWP testing for different flow strength mismatch levels

Copyright 2012 by ASME

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors would like to acknowledge the financial support of the IWT (Agency for innovation by science and technology grants nrs. SB-091512 and SB-093512) and the FWO (Research Foundation Flanders grants nrs. 1.1.880.09.N.00 and 1.1.880.11.N.01). REFERENCES 1. Fairchild, D.P., Macia, M.L., Kibey, S., Wang, X., Krishnan, V.R., Bardi, F., Tang, H. and Cheng, W., A Multi-Tiered procedure for engineering critical assessment of strain-based pipelines, in International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference. 2011: Maui, Hawaii, USA. Denys, R. and Lefevre, T.L., UGent guidelines for Curved Wide Plate testing, in Pipeline Technology Conference. 2009: Ostend, Belgium. Ostby, E. and Hellesvik, A.O., Large-scale experimental investigation of the effect of biaxial loading on the deformation capacity of pipes with defects. International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping, 2008. 85: p. 814-824. Gordon, J.R., Zettlemoyer, N. and Mohr, W.C., Crack Driving Force in Pipelines Subjected to Large Strain and Biaxial Stress Conditions, in International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference. 2007: Lisbon, Portugal. Hertel, S., De Waele, W., Denys, R., Verstraete, M. and Van Wittenberghe, J., Parametric finite element model for large scale tension tests on flawed pipeline girth welds. Advances in Engineering Software, 2012. 47(1): p. 24-34. Anderson, T.L., Fracture mechanics: fundamentals and applications. 2nd ed. 1995: C. Press. Hertel, S., De Waele, W., Denys, R. and Verstraete, M., Justification of the mapping approach for finite element modelling of ductile tearing. Journal of Sustainable Construction and Design, 2012. Kibey, S., Minnaar, K., Cheng, W. and Wang, X., Development of a Physics-based approach for the prediction of strain capacity of welded pipelines, in International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference. 2009: Osaka, Japan. Denys, R., Hertel, S., Verstraete, M. and De Waele, W., Strain capacity prediction for strain-based pipeline designs, in International Workshop on Welding of High Strength Pipeline Steels. 2011: Arax, Brazil. API-5L: Specification for Line Pipe. 2007, American Petrolium Institute. Hertele, S., De Waele, W. and Denys, R., A generic stress-strain model for metallic materials with two-

12.

13.

14.

15.

2.

3.

16.

4.

17.

18.

5.

19.

6. 7.

20.

8.

21.

9.

22.

10. 11.

stage strain hardening behaviour. International Journal of Non-Linear Mechanics, 2011. 46(3): p. 519-531. Denys, R., Andrews, R., Zarea, M. and Knauf, G., EPRG Tier 2 guidelines for the assessment of defects in transmission pipeline girth welds, in International Pipeline Conference. 2010: Calgary, Alberta, Canada. EN 12732 - Gas supply systems - Welding steel pipeworks - functional requirements. 2000, European Committee for Standardization. Denys, R.M. and De Waele, W., Comparison of API 1104 - Appendix A Option 1 and EPRG-Tier 2 defect acceptance limits, in Pipeline Technology Conference. 2009: Ostend, Belgium. Denys, R.M., Hertel, S., De Waele, W. and Lefevre, A.A., Estimate of Y/T-ratio and uniform elongation capacity of pipeline steels from yield strength, in Pipeline Technology Conference. 2009: Ostend, Belgium. Fairchild, D.P., Crawford, M.D., Cheng, W., Macia, M.L., Nissley, N.E., Ford, S.J., Lillig, D.B. and Sleigh, J., Girth Welds for Strain-based design pipelines, in International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference. 2008: Vancouver, Canada. Verstraete, M., De Waele, W., Hertel, S. and Denys, R., Influence and evaluation of constraint on fracture toughness in pipeline research. Journal of Sustainable Construction and Design, 2012. Verstraete, M., De Waele, W., Hertel, S. and Denys, R., Constraint analysis of curved wide plate specimens, in European Conference on Fracture. 2012 (submitted for publication). Gioielli, P.C., Minnaar, K., Macia, M.L. and Kan, W.C., Large-scale testing methodology to measure the influence of pressure on tensile strain capacity of a pipeline, in International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference. 2007: Lisbon, Portugal. Wang, Y.Y., Stephens, M. and Horsley, D., Preliminary Analysis of Tensile Strain Capacity of Full Scale Pipe Test with Internal Pressure, in International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference. 2008: Vancouver, Canada. Stephens, M., Petersen, R., Wang, Y.Y., Gordon, J.R. and Horsley, D., Large scale experimental data for improved strain-based design models, in International Pipeline Conference. 2010: Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Hertel, S., De Waele, W., Denys, R., Verstraete, M. and Horn, A., Weld strength mismatch in strain based flaw assessment: which definition to use?, in Pressure Vessels and Piping Conference. 2012: Toronto, Canada.

Copyright 2012 by ASME