0
Journal of Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering | Volume 133 | Issue 3 | Materials Technology
Materials Technology

Effect of the Yield to Tensile Ratio on Structural Integrity of Line Pipes Subjected to Bending Loads

[+] 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

J. Offshore Mech. Arct. Eng 133(3), 031402 (Mar 29, 2011) (8 pages) doi:10.1115/1.2948944 History: Received October 07, 2005; Revised May 15, 2008; Published March 29, 2011; Online March 29, 2011
Article
References
Figures
Tables

This work studies the effect of the yield (Y) to tensile (T) ratio, Y∕T, on the structural integrity of line pipes with part through the thickness (PTT) circumferential defects subject to bend loading. A model based on elastic-plastic fracture mechanics and plasticity theory was developed for that purpose. The analysis handles situation with load or deformation control conditions. 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 different materials studied, cases with different Y∕T values were considered. Even for the lower limits of experimental data, i.e., larger Y∕T, the materials have adequate defect tolerance. A leak before break analysis of a PTT circumferential defect growing into a through the thickness defect growing circumferentially was performed.
Copyright © 2011 by American Society of Mechanical Engineers
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
+Tube subjected to bend loading with PTT circumferential surface defect
View Large  |  Save Figure  |  Download Slide (.ppt)
Tube subjected to bend loading with PTT circumferential surface defect
Figure 1

Tube subjected to bend loading with PTT circumferential surface defect

Grahic Jump Location
+Structural integrity assessment methodology
View Large  |  Save Figure  |  Download Slide (.ppt)
Structural integrity assessment methodology
Figure 2

Structural integrity assessment methodology

Grahic Jump Location
+Y∕T, BC, and best-fit curve versus Y. X60—tube ∅323.9×14.3mm2.
View Large  |  Save Figure  |  Download Slide (.ppt)
Y∕T, BC, and best-fit curve versus Y. X60—tube ∅323.9×14.3mm2.
Figure 3

Y∕T, BC, and best-fit curve versus Y. X60—tube ∅323.9×14.3mm2.

Grahic Jump Location
+T versus Y, acceptability limits, BC, best-fit curve, and Cases X60-∅323.9×14.3mm2
View Large  |  Save Figure  |  Download Slide (.ppt)
T versus Y, acceptability limits, BC, best-fit curve, and Cases X60-∅323.9×14.3mm2
Figure 4

T versus Y, acceptability limits, BC, best-fit curve, and Cases X60-∅323.9×14.3mm2

Grahic Jump Location
+Typical critical load versus crack depth/thickness curve
View Large  |  Save Figure  |  Download Slide (.ppt)
Typical critical load versus crack depth/thickness curve
Figure 5

Typical critical load versus crack depth/thickness curve

Grahic Jump Location
+Bending moment versus critical crack depth for a∕c=0.2—Cases A and B. X60-tube ∅323.9×14.3mm2
View Large  |  Save Figure  |  Download Slide (.ppt)
Bending moment versus critical crack depth for a∕c=0.2—Cases A and B. X60-tube ∅323.9×14.3mm2
Figure 6

Bending moment versus critical crack depth for a∕c=0.2—Cases A and B. X60-tube ∅323.9×14.3mm2

Grahic Jump Location
+Bending moment versus longitudinal deformation curves for the four cases. X60-tube ∅323.9×14.3mm2
View Large  |  Save Figure  |  Download Slide (.ppt)
Bending moment versus longitudinal deformation curves for the four cases. X60-tube ∅323.9×14.3mm2
Figure 7

Bending moment versus longitudinal deformation curves for the four cases. X60-tube ∅323.9×14.3mm2

Grahic Jump Location
+Longitudinal deformation versus critical crack depth for a∕c=0.2—Cases A and B. X60-tube ∅323.9×14.3mm2
View Large  |  Save Figure  |  Download Slide (.ppt)
Longitudinal deformation versus critical crack depth for a∕c=0.2—Cases A and B. X60-tube ∅323.9×14.3mm2
Figure 8

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

Grahic Jump Location
+Y∕T versus aSMYS∕t and a0.5%∕t. X60-tube ∅323.9×14.3mm2
View Large  |  Save Figure  |  Download Slide (.ppt)
Y∕T versus aSMYS∕t and a0.5%∕t. X60-tube ∅323.9×14.3mm2
Figure 9

Y∕T versus aSMYS∕t and a0.5%∕t. X60-tube ∅323.9×14.3mm2

Grahic Jump Location
+Crack evolving from superficial defect to through wall crack
View Large  |  Save Figure  |  Download Slide (.ppt)
Crack evolving from superficial defect to through wall crack
Figure 10

Crack evolving from superficial defect to through wall crack

Grahic Jump Location
+Bending moment versus crack depth, for a tube with different aspect (a∕c) ratios—Case A. X60-tube ∅323.9×14.3mm2
View Large  |  Save Figure  |  Download Slide (.ppt)
Bending moment versus crack depth, for a tube with different aspect (a∕c) ratios—Case A. X60-tube ∅323.9×14.3mm2
Figure 11

Bending moment versus crack depth, for a tube with different aspect (a∕c) ratios—Case A. X60-tube ∅323.9×14.3mm2

Grahic Jump Location
+Bending moment versus crack length, for a TTT defect—Growing circumferentially—Case A. X60-tube ∅323.9×14.3mm2
View Large  |  Save Figure  |  Download Slide (.ppt)
Bending moment versus crack length, for a TTT defect—Growing circumferentially—Case A. X60-tube ∅323.9×14.3mm2
Figure 12

Bending moment versus crack length, for a TTT defect—Growing circumferentially—Case A. X60-tube ∅323.9×14.3mm2

Grahic Jump Location
+Critical defect geometry, for an initial PIT defect—Case A. X60—Tube ∅323.9×14.3mm2
View Large  |  Save Figure  |  Download Slide (.ppt)
Critical defect geometry, for an initial PIT defect—Case A. X60—Tube ∅323.9×14.3mm2
Figure 13

Critical defect geometry, for an initial PIT defect—Case A. X60—Tube ∅323.9×14.3mm2

Grahic Jump Location
+Plastic collapse evaluation
View Large  |  Save Figure  |  Download Slide (.ppt)
Plastic collapse evaluation
Figure 14

Plastic collapse evaluation

Grahic Jump Location
+Stress-strain relationship determination
View Large  |  Save Figure  |  Download Slide (.ppt)
Stress-strain relationship determination
Figure 15

Stress-strain relationship determination

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
Subsection NB—Class 1 Components
Companion Guide to the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Volume 1, Fourth Edition> Chapter 6
Interface with Rotating Equipment
Pipe Stress Engineering> Chapter 9
Introduction and Definitions
Handbook on Stiffness & Damping in Mechanical Design> Chapter 1
Supporting Systems/Foundations
Handbook on Stiffness & Damping in Mechanical Design> Chapter 5
Openings
Guidebook for the Design of ASME Section VIII Pressure Vessels> Chapter 5
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