Recent development in low-constraint fracture toughness testing for structural integrity assessment of pipelines

doi:10.1007/s11465-018-0501-2

Front. Mech. Eng.

2018, Vol. 13

Issue (4) : 546-553 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11465-018-0501-2

REVIEW ARTICLE

Recent development in low-constraint fracture toughness testing for structural integrity assessment of pipelines

Jidong KANG(

), James A. GIANETTO, William R. TYSON

CanmetMATERIALS, Hamilton L8P 0A5, Canada

Download: PDF(353 KB) HTML
Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks

Abstract

Fracture toughness measurement is an integral part of structural integrity assessment of pipelines. Traditionally, a single-edge-notched bend (SE(B)) specimen with a deep crack is recommended in many existing pipeline structural integrity assessment procedures. Such a test provides high constraint and therefore conservative fracture toughness results. However, for girth welds in service, defects are usually subjected to primarily tensile loading where the constraint is usually much lower than in the three-point bend case. Moreover, there is increasing use of strain-based design of pipelines that allows applied strains above yield. Low-constraint toughness tests represent more realistic loading conditions for girth weld defects, and the corresponding increased toughness can minimize unnecessary conservatism in assessments. In this review, we present recent developments in low-constraint fracture toughness testing, specifically using single-edge-notched tension specimens, SENT or SE(T). We focus our review on the test procedure development and automation, round-robin test results and some common concerns such as the effect of crack tip, crack size monitoring techniques, and testing at low temperatures. Examples are also given of the integration of fracture toughness data from SE(T) tests into structural integrity assessment.

Keywords fracture toughness constraint effect single-edge-notched tension test pipeline structural integrity assessment

Corresponding Author(s): Jidong KANG

Just Accepted Date: 19 January 2018 Online First Date: 15 March 2018 Issue Date: 31 July 2018

Cite this article:

Jidong KANG,James A. GIANETTO,William R. TYSON. Recent development in low-constraint fracture toughness testing for structural integrity assessment of pipelines[J]. Front. Mech. Eng., 2018, 13(4): 546-553.

URL:

https://academic.hep.com.cn/fme/EN/10.1007/s11465-018-0501-2
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fme/EN/Y2018/V13/I4/546

Fig.1 Schematic illustration of the influence of constraint and specimen geometry on the fracture toughness. Note FST, CWPT, SE(T), SE(B) and C(T) represents full-scale pipe test, curved-wide plate test, single-edge-notched tension test, single-edge-notched bend test and compact tension test, respectively

Fig.2 Crack-tip opening stress for (a) an external axisymmetric crack in a pipe (2-D), a/t=0.5 where a is crack length and t is wall thickness, and H/D=10 where H is distance between loading points and D is pipe internal diameter; (b) an SE(T) clamped sample, a/W=0.5, H/W=10 [¹⁷]

Fig.3 SE(T) specimen under load [¹⁵]

Fig.4 CTOD R-curves for SE(T) and full scale pipe tests using the double clip-gauge method; figure adapted from Cheng et al. [²²] with permission. Red and blue lines are added here as trend lines with power law fitting to guide reading only

Fig.5 Load-CMOD curves for an X100 pipe steel using CANMET SE(T) tests with control software based on MTS TestSuite Multipurpose Elite [²⁴] for shallow and deep cracks/notches produced by fatigue precracking and fine EDM

Fig.6 Comparison of J-R curves from EDM notched and fatigue precracked SE(T) specimens. Here, “shallow” means a/W=0.20 and “deep” means a/W=0.50 [²⁴]

Fig.7 J-R curves from all nine labs involved in the round-robin testing of an X100 pipe steel following the draft SE(T) test procedure developed by CanmetMATERIALS [³¹]

Fig.8 A comparison of flaw sizes for different applied strains (0.5%: Filled symbols with solid lines and 1.5%: Open symbols with dashed lines) using the CRES and ExxonMobil procedures. Note the validity range for CRES (large light yellow rectangle) and smaller range for the ExxonMobil procedure (blue rectangle). Adapted from Gordon et al. [³⁶]

1	OSAGE D A. API 579: Fitness for Service. Washington: American Petroleum Institute, 2007
2	CAN/CSA-Z662-15. Oil and Gas Pipeline Systems. CSA Group, 2015
3	ASTM-E399-12e3. Standard Test Method for Linear-Elastic Plane Strain Fracture Toughness KIC of Metallic Materials. West Conshohocken: ASTM International, 2013
4	ASTM E1820-13e1. Standard Test Method for Measurement of Fracture Toughness. West Conshohocken: ASTM International, 2013
5	BS 7448-1. Fracture Mechanics Toughness Tests Part 1: Method for Determination of KIC, Critical CTOD and Critical J Values of Metallic Materials. London: British Standards Institution, 1991
6	BS 7448-2. Fracture Mechanics Toughness Tests Part 2: Method for Determination of KIC, Critical CTOD and Critical J Values of Welds in Metallic Materials. London: British Standards Institution, 1997
7	BS 7448-4. Fracture Mechanics Toughness Tests Part 4: Method for Determination of Fracture Resistance Curves and Initiation Values for Stable Crack Extension in Metallic Materials. London: British Standards Institution, 1997
8	ISO 12135. Metallic Materials Unified Method of Test for the Determination of Quasistatic Fracture Toughness. Vernier: International Organization of Standardization, 2014
9	O’Dowd N P, Shih C F. Family of crack-tip fields characterized by a triaxiality parameter—I. Structure of fields. Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids, 1991, 39(8): 989–1015 https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-5096(91)90049-T
10	Chiesa M, Nyhus B, Skallerud B, et al. Efficient fracture assessment of pipelines. A constraint corrected SENT specimen approach. Engineering Fracture Mechanics, 2001, 68(5): 527–547 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0013-7944(00)00129-6
11	DNV Recommended practice DNV-RP-F108. Fracture Control for Pipeline Installation Methods Introducing Cyclic Plastic Strain. Oslo: Det Norske Veritas, 2006
12	Shen G, Gianetto J A, Tyson W R. Measurement of J-R curves using single-specimen technique on clamped SE(T) specimens. In: Proceedings of the Nineteenth International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference. Osaka, 2009, ISOPE TPC-139
13	Shen G, Tyson W R. Crack size evaluation using unloading compliance in single-specimen single-edge-notched tension fracture toughness testing. Journal of Testing and Evaluation, 2009, 37(4): 347–357 https://doi.org/10.1520/JTE102368
14	Tang H, Macia M, Minaar K, et al. Development of the SENT test for strain-based design of welded pipelines. In: Proceedings of the 8th International Pipeline Conference (IPC2010). Calgary: ASME, 2010
15	Tyson W R, Shen G, Park D Y, et al. Low constraint toughness testing. Journal of Pipeline Engineering, 2013, 12(3): 157–163
16	Zhu X K. Review of fracture toughness test methods for ductile materials in low-constraint conditions. International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping, 2016, 139–140: 173–183 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpvp.2016.02.006
17	Shen G, Bouchard R, Gianetto J A, et al. Fracture toughness evaluation of high-strength steel pipe. In: Proceedings of ASME PVP 2008 Conference. Chicago: ASME, 2008
18	Tyson W R, Shen G, Gianetto J A, et al. Development of a low-constraint SE(T) toughness test. Key Engineering Materials, 2012, 488–489: 126–129 https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/KEM.488-489.126
19	Cravero S, Ruggieri C. Correlation of fracture behavior in high pressure pipelines with axial flaws using constraint designed test specimens—Part I: Plane strain analyses. Engineering Fracture Mechanics, 2005, 72(9): 1344–1360 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engfracmech.2004.10.010
20	Cravero S, Bravo R E, Ernst H A. Constraint evaluation and effects on J-R curves for pipes under combined load conditions. International Society of Offshore and Polar Engineers, 2008, ISOPE-I-08-435
21	Paredes M, Ruggieri C. Further results in J and CTOD estimation procedures for SE(T) fracture specimens—Part II: Weld centerline cracks. Engineering Fracture Mechanics, 2012, 89: 24–39 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engfracmech.2012.03.010
22	Cheng W, Tang H, Gioielli P C, et al. Test methods for characterization of strain capacity: Comparison of R-curves from SENT/CWP/FS tests. In: Proceedings of 5th Pipeline Technology Conference. Ostend, 2009, 1–13
23	Kang J, Shen G, Liang J, et al. Evaluation of fracture toughness test methods for linepipe steels. In: ASTM STP 1571. Application of Automation Technology in Fatigue and Fracture Testing and Analysis. West Conshohocken: ASTM International, 2014, 101–115 https://doi.org/10.1520/STP157120130074
24	Kang J, Shen G, Liang J, et al. Influence of constraint on J-resistance curves for an X100 pipe steel. Procedia Materials Science, 2014, 3: 239–244 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mspro.2014.06.042
25	Liang J. Development of test control software for measuring CTOD and J resistance curves using SENT specimens. 2017 (unpublished research)
26	Moore P. The effect of notch sharpness on the fracture toughness determined from SENT specimens. In: Proceedings of the ASME 2014 33rd International Conference on Ocean, Offshore and Arctic Engineering OMAE2014. San Francisco: ASME, 2014 https://doi.org/10.1115/OMAE2014-24663
27	Drexler E, Wang Y Y, Sowards J W, et al. SE(T) testing of pipeline welds. In: Proceedings of 2010 8th International Pipeline Conference. Calgary: ASME, 2010, 149–158
28	Akselsen O M, Østby E, Nyhus B. Low temperature fracture toughness of X80 girth welds. In: Proceedings of the Twenty-second International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference. Rhodes: ISOPE, 2012, ISOPE-I-12-584
29	Moore P L, Crintea A M. Single edge notched tension (SENT) testing at low temperature. In: Proceedings of the 11th International Pipeline Conference (IPC2016). Calgary: ASME, 2016
30	Verstraete M A, Denys R M, Van Minnebruggen K, et al.Determination of CTOD resistance curves in side-grooved single-edge notched tensile specimens using full field deformation measurements. Engineering Fracture Mechanics, 2013, 110: 12–22 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engfracmech.2013.07.015
31	Tyson W R, Gianetto J A. Low-constraint toughness testing: Results of a round robin on a draft SE(T) test procedure. In: Proceedings of the ASME Pressure Vessels & Piping Division Conference (PVP2013). Paris: ASME, 2013
32	Tiku S, Pussegoda N, Ghovanlou M, et al. Standardization of SENT (or SE(T)) fracture toughness measurement: Results of a round robin on a draft test procedure. In: Proceedings of the 11th International Pipeline Conference (IPC2016). Calgary: ASME, 2016
33	Pisarski H. Assessment of flaws in pipeline girth welds—A critical review. Welding in the World, 2013, 57(6): 933–945 https://doi.org/10.1007/s40194-013-0057-z
34	Wang Y Y, Liu M, Song Y, et al. Tensile strain models for strain-based design of pipelines. In: Proceedings of 31st International Conference on Ocean, Offshore and Arctic Engineering. Rio de Janeiro: ASME, 2012
35	Wang X, Kibey S, Tang H, et al. Strain-based design—Advances in prediction methods of tensile strain capacity. International Journal of Offshore and Polar Engineering, 2011, 21(1): 1–7
36	Gordon J R, Keith G, Gordon N C. Defect and strain tolerance of girth welds in high strength pipelines. In: Proceedings of CBMM-TMS International Seminar. Araxa: CBMM-TMS, 2011, 365–394

[1]	Ye GAO, Wei SUN. Inverse identification of the mechanical parameters of a pipeline hoop and analysis of the effect of preload[J]. Front. Mech. Eng., 2019, 14(3): 358-368.
[2]	Pengwan CHEN, Zhongbin ZHOU, Shaopeng MA, Qinwei MA, Fenglei HUANG. Measurement of dynamic fracture toughness and failure behavior for explosive mock materials[J]. Front Mech Eng, 2011, 6(3): 292-295.
[3]	Yongqing SU, Yikuan SONG, Jiguang YUE. Analysis and experiment of controllability of magnetorheological fluids based on micro-pipeline[J]. Front Mech Eng Chin, 2009, 4(3): 339-344.
[4]	WANG Bangfeng, CHEN Renwen. Leakage location system for oil pipeline on basis of stress wave detection[J]. Front. Mech. Eng., 2008, 3(3): 307-312.
[5]	JIAO Jing-pin, FEI Ren-yuan, HE Cun-fu, WU Bin. Modal analysis of acoustic leak signal in pipelines using time-frequency analysis[J]. Front. Mech. Eng., 2006, 1(2): 146-150.

Viewed

Full text

Abstract

Cited

Shared

Discussed