0
Materials Technology

Effect of the Yield to Tensile Ratio on Structural Integrity of Linepipes Subjected to Internal Pressure

[+] Author and Article Information
Hugo A. Ernst

 TENARIS, Center for Industrial Research, Simini 250, Campana, 2804 Buenos Aires, Argentinahernst@tenaris.com

Richard E. Bravo

 TENARIS, Center for Industrial Research, Simini 250, Campana, 2804 Buenos Aires, Argentinarbravo@tenaris.com

José A. Villasante

 TENARIS, Center for Industrial Research, Simini 250, Campana, 2804 Buenos Aires, Argentinajvillasante@tenaris.com

Alfonso Izquierdo

 TENARIS, TAMSA, Km 433.7 Carretera México, Veracruz Via Xalapa, Veracruz 91697, Méxicoaizquierdo@tamsa.ot

J. Offshore Mech. Arct. Eng 133(3), 031401 (Mar 04, 2011) (7 pages) doi:10.1115/1.2829857 History: Received October 06, 2005; Revised August 02, 2007; Published March 04, 2011; Online March 04, 2011

The effect of the yield (Y) to tensile (T) ratio YT on the structural integrity of linepipes with part through the thickness longitudinal defects subject to internal pressure was studied in this work. A model based on elastic-plastic fracture mechanics and plasticity theory was developed for that purpose. The analysis allows for load or deformation control situations. The results are shown in terms of curves of critical defect size versus the controlling variable, i.e., load or deformation. For each one of the several materials studied, different cases with different YT values were considered. Even for the lower limits of experimental data, i.e., larger YT, the materials have adequate defect tolerance.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2011 by American Society of Mechanical Engineers
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 1

Tube and defect geometry

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 2

Structural integrity assessment methodology

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 3

Y∕T B.C. and best-fit curve versus Y. X60-tube ∅323.9×14.3mm2.

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 4

T versus Y, acceptability limits, B.C., best-fit curve, and cases. X60-tube ∅323.9×14.3mm2.

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 5

Typical critical pressure versus crack depth/thickness curve

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 6

Pressure versus critical crack depth for a∕c=0.2—Cases A, B. X60—tube ∅323.9×14.3mm2.

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 7

Pressure versus radial deformation curves. X60-tube ∅323.9×14.3mm2.

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 8

Radial deformation versus critical crack depth for a∕c=0.2—Cases A, B. X60—tube ∅323.9×14.3mm2.

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 9

Radial deformation versus critical defect half length for a∕t=0.1 and 0.2—Cases A, B. X60—tube ∅323.9×14.3mm2.

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 10

Crack depth (a) versus crack length (2c) for 0.5% of radial deformation. X60-tube ∅323.9×14.3mm2.

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 11

Crack depth (a) versus crack length (2c) for 0.5% of radial deformation. X65-tube ∅406.4×28.6mm2.

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 12

Crack depth (a) versus crack length (2c) for 0.5% of radial deformation. X65-tube ∅273.1×20.6mm2.

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