0
Technology Review

Estimation of Constraint Factor on the Relationship Between J Integral and CTOD for Offshore Structural Steel Weldments

[+] Author and Article Information
Dong-Hyun Moon

Department of Naval Architecture and Ocean Engineering,
Pusan National University,
Busan 609-735, South Korea
e-mail: dhyun@pusan.ac.kr

Deok-Geun Kim

Department of Naval Architecture and Ocean Engineering,
Pusan National University,
Busan 609-735, South Korea
e-mail: dgkim@pusan.ac.kr

Jeong-Soo Lee

Technology Research Institute,
Total Marine Service Co., Ltd.,
Busan 600-814, South Korea
e-mail: leejs@tms2010.com

Jae-Myung Lee

Department of Naval Architecture and Ocean Engineering,
Pusan National University,
Busan 609-735, South Korea
e-mail: jaemlee@pusan.ac.kr

Myung-Hyun Kim

Department of Naval Architecture and Ocean Engineering,
Pusan National University,
Busan 609-735, South Korea
e-mail: kimm@pusan.ac.kr

1Corresponding author.

Contributed by the Ocean, Offshore, and Arctic Engineering Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF OFFSHORE MECHANICS AND ARCTIC ENGINEERING. Manuscript received June 17, 2013; final manuscript received September 3, 2015; published online October 15, 2015. Assoc. Editor: Lance Manuel.

J. Offshore Mech. Arct. Eng 137(6), 064001 (Oct 15, 2015) (6 pages) Paper No: OMAE-13-1055; doi: 10.1115/1.4031668 History: Received June 17, 2013; Revised September 03, 2015

Offshore structures are exposed to severe operating conditions because energy resource development has recently extended toward deeper seabed and lower temperature regions. Hence, fracture toughness evaluation for very thick and high strength steels is one of the most important parameters required for the structural integrity assessment of offshore structures. Fracture toughness is known as a property which describes the ability of a material containing a crack to resist unstable brittle fracture. Crack tip opening displacement (CTOD) and J integral are the most commonly employed parameters as fracture criteria in elastic plastic fracture mechanics (EPFM). There have been extensive research efforts to clarify the relationship between CTOD and J integral in elastic plastic regime. Plastic constraint factor (PCF) in the relationship between CTOD and J integral can serve as a parameter to characterize constraint effects in fracture involving plastic deformation. In this regard, the characteristics of the PCF are of significant importance in EPFM analysis. In this study, we evaluated fracture toughness of American Petroleum Institute (API) 2 W Gr. 50 steel in terms of CTOD in various temperatures using single edge notched bend (SENB) specimens. Test specimens are fabricated by submerged arc welding (SAW) and flux cored arc welding (FCAW). In addition, CTOD values are compared to absorbed impact energy with respect to the weld metal (WM) and heat affected zone (HAZ). Then, we investigated PCFs with respect to several regions of the weldment at various temperatures. Experimental values of PCFs were calculated and then compared against the predicted values according to the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) standard. CTOD values of WM by SAW is found to be about three times higher than that of FCAW at −10 °C, and CTOD values calculated by the ASTM standard are approximately 30% lower than the CTOD according to British Standard (BS). In addition, the maximum of 40% discrepancy is observed in PCFs obtained between the experiment and the predicted values according to the ASTM standard. This may lead to too conservative fracture toughness estimation for the welded joints of API 2 W Gr. 50 steel when using PCF by ASTM. Based on the accurate estimated PCF values obtained from this study, it is believed that rational fracture design of offshore structures is possible.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2015 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Schematic diagram of tensile test specimen

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Machined notch of fracture toughness test specimens

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Schematic diagram of facture toughness test specimen

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Three-point bending test setup

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Schematic diagram of Charpy impact test specimen

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Hardness profile with respect to welding process

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

The result of Charpy impact test with respect to various temperatures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Comparison of fracture toughness with respect to various temperatures (FCAW)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Comparison of fracture toughness with respect to various temperatures (SAW)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Comparison of CTOD with respect to ASTM and BS standards

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Variation of the PCFs for various temperatures (WM)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Variation of the PCFs for various temperatures (CGHAZ)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

Variation of the PCFs for various temperatures (SCHAZ)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

Variation of PCFs for WM and HAZs

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