Application of A Fracture-Mechanics Approach To Gas Pipelines

World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology
International Journal of Mechanical and Mechatronics Engineering

Vol:5, No:1, 2011
Application of a Fracture-Mechanics Approach

to Gas Pipelines
Ľubomír Gajdoš and Martin Šperl
Fracture tests not only provide particular experimental proof

Abstract—This study offers a new simple method for assessing of the residual strength of pipelines containing cracks in the
an axial part-through crack in a pipe wall. The method utilizes simple pipeline wall, which are the most dangerous type of defects.
approximate expressions for determining the fracture parameters K, They also enable us to confront fracture theories directly with
J, and employs these parameters to determine critical dimensions of a
reality [9]. An evaluation of these fracture test results should
International Science Index, Mechanical and Mechatronics Engineering Vol:5, No:1, 2011 waset.org/Publication/10332
crack on the basis of equality between the J-integral and the J-based
fracture toughness of the pipe steel. The crack tip constraint is taken always lead to information on whether a prediction of the
into account by the so-called plastic constraint factor C, by which the fracture condition based on fracture criteria provides
uniaxial yield stress in the J-integral equation is multiplied. The conservative, i.e. safe, fracture parameter values, and whether
results of the prediction of the fracture condition are verified by burst the degree of conservativeness of the prediction is not
tests on test pipes. excessively high [10].
In this study a fracture-mechanics approach is used to
Keywords—Axial crack, Fracture-mechanics, J integral, Pipeline predict the fracture condition of linepipe steel pipes. The
wall.
approach utilizes simple approximate expressions for
determining fracture parameters K, J, concerning the axial part
I. INTRODUCTION
- through thickness cracks in a pipe wall, and it employs these
I N thin-walled gas pipelines, similarly as in other (especially

welded) structures, we should expect defects to occur.
Under certain conditions, the defects can grow and they will
parameters to determine the critical dimensions of a crack on
the basis of equality between the J integral and the J-based
fracture toughness of the pipe steel. The crack tip constraint is
gradually shorten the residual life of gas pipelines. Using accounted here by the so-called plastic constraint factor C, by
fracture mechanics we can assess the threat that such defects which the uniaxial yield stress in the equation for determining
can pose to the pipeline wall [1], [2], taking into account the J integral is multiplied. The results of the prediction of the
whether a brittle, quasi-brittle or ductile material is involved. fracture condition of the pipes are verified by burst tests on
A model description of crack-containing systems, based on test pipes.
the stress intensity factor (SIF), K, [3], [4] can be used for
brittle and quasi-brittle fracture, and in addition for subcritical II. A BRIEF BACKGROUND OF SOME FRACTURE – MECHANICS
fatigue growth, corrosion fatigue and stress corrosion. In these FORMULAE
cases, the surface crack is usually located in the field of one of
the membrane tensile stress components or in the field of A. SIF for an axial through crack
bending stress, or in a combination of these two stresses [5], The stress intensity factor can be determined by (1)
[6]. The extent of the plastic zone at the crack tip is small in
comparison with the dimensions of the crack and the cross
section of the pipeline.
K I = MT σϕ π c (1)
If the gas pipeline is made of a high toughness material, the where:
plastic strains become extensive before the crack reaches σ ϕ = pD / 2t is the hoop stress, and
instability. Hence, some elasto-plastic fracture mechanics
MT is the Folias correction factor, taking account of
methods, such as J-integral, crack opening displacement, the
curvature of a pipe.
two-criterion method or some other procedure, should be
employed to assess the fracture condition of the pipeline [7],
Several expressions for determining the Folias factor can be
[8].
found in various papers and compendia (e.g. [11], [12], [13]).
The results of fracture tests on test pipes are invaluable
One of the most widely used expressions is the following [14]:
when assessing the structural integrity of pressure pipelines.
Ľ. GAJDOŠ, Senior Scientist, and M. ŠPERL, Postdoctoral Fellow, are

with the Institute of Theoretical and Applied Mechanics – Academy of
Sciences of the Czech Republic, v.v.i., Department of Thin-walled Structures,
Prosecka 25, Prague 9, 190 00, Czech Republic. Contact e-mail: gajdos@
itam.cas.cz, phone: 00420286882121.
International Scholarly and Scientific Research & Innovation 5(1) 2011 67 scholar.waset.org/1307-6892/10332
Vol:5, No:1, 2011
Fig. 1) and for the crack mouth on the surface of the cy-
c2 c4 lindrical shell (point B in Fig. 1).
M T = 1 + 1.255 − 0.0135 (2)
Rt R 2t 2 C. Estimating the J integral – the FC method
This method was proposed in Addendum A16 of the French
where: nuclear code RCC-MR [16]. It stems from the second option
R is the mean radius of the pipe, and of describing the transition state between the ideally elastic
t is the pipe wall thickness. behaviour and the fully plastic behaviour of a material, as
B. SIF for an axial part-through crack suggested in the R6 method [17]. Considering the Ramberg-
Osgood form of the stress-strain dependence (4) we can arrive
Various methods are used for analyzing the problem of
at (5):
axial semi-elliptical surface cracks in the wall of a cylindrical
shell (Fig. 1).
n
ε σ ⎛σ ⎞
= + α ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ (4)
ε0 σ 0 σ
⎝ 0⎠
K2 ⎡ 0.5(σ σ 0 )2 ⎤
J= ⎢A + ⎥ (5)
E ' ⎢⎣ A ⎥⎦
where :
σ0 is usually taken as the yield stress and ε0 = σ0 E
Fig. 1 An external longitudinal semi-elliptical crack in the wall of α, n are material constants
a cylindrical shell E´ = E for the plane stress
E
A very good estimate of the stress intensity factor for such a E' = for the plane strain
crack is given by (3). 1 −ν 2
ν is Poisson´s ratio
⎡ n
⎛ a ⎞ ⎤ σ ϕ πa
p
(
K I = ⎢ M F + E(k ) c a − M F ⎜ ⎟ ⎥ ) M TM (3) ⎛σ ⎞
A = 1 + α ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ .
⎢⎣ ⎝ t ⎠ ⎥⎦ E(k ) ⎝σ0 ⎠
This is an adjusted form of the Newman solution [15] for a The stress σ in the above equations is a nominal stress –
thin-walled shell. Here i.e. a stress acting in the plane where the crack occurs.
MF - a function depending on the crack geometry (on the Referring to the R6 method [17] this stress may be written as:
ratio a/c),
σϕ
π 2 2
c −a 2 σ= (6)
Ek = ∫ 1− 2
sin θ dθ - an elliptical integral of π ac
1−
0 c2 2t (t + 2 c )
the second kind. pD

p - the function depending on the crack geometry (on the In (6) σ ϕ = is the hoop stress.
ratio a/c ) and on the relative crack depth (on the ratio a/t) 2t
⎛ at ⎞ D.Estimating the J integral – the GS method

⎜⎜1 − ⎟⎟
MT The GS method was derived on the basis of the limit
M TM = ⎝ ⎠ - the correction factor for curvature of
transition of the J -integral, formally expressed for a semi-
1− a t circular notch, to a crack, with the variation of the strain
energy density along the notch circumference being
a cylindrical shell and for an increase in stress owing to radial approximated by the third power of the cosine function of the
strains in the vicinity of the crack tip. Functions MF and p polar angle [18]. If under these assumptions, the stress-strain
differ in form for the lowest point of the crack tip (point A in dependence is expressed by the Ramberg-Osgood relation (4)
we can arrive at (7):
Vol:5, No:1, 2011
n −1 loaded by internal pressure. The thickness direction stress σ2 is

K 2 ⎡⎢ 2α n ⎛ σ ⎞ ⎤⎥ equal to the circumferential stress σ1, and the axial stress σ3 is
J= 1+ ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ (7)
E ' ⎢⎣ (n + 1)⎝ σ 0 ⎠ ⎥⎦ a fraction of the circumferential stress, i.e. σ3 = x σ1. Then the
1
plastic constraint factor comes to C = . This means
where: 1− x
σ is the nominal stress given by (6). that in fracture analysis by (5) and (7) the value Cσ0 should be
used instead of the uniaxial yield stress σ0. It was found that if
the fraction x = σ3 / σ1 was taken to be 0.5 and subsequently
III. TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE CRACK TIP CONSTRAINT
the C factor to be 2, very good agreement was found between
The theory of single-parameter fracture mechanics assumes the predicted magnitude of the crack depth acr and the
that the fracture toughness values obtained on laboratory experimental magnitude for a particular axial crack in a DIA
specimens can be applied to a structural component. However, 1000/12 test pipe made of X70 steel.
two-parameter approaches, such as the J−Q theory, reveal that It should be noted that the actual fracture toughness for the
the specimen must be tested under the same constraint as that axial part-through crack geometry is greater than that obtained
of the body with a crack. In other words, the two geometries
on CT specimens, because of a lower constraint; the real C

must have the same J−Q value at the moment of fracture so factor is also lower, so that the J-a curve is steeper than that
that the corresponding critical J–integral values, Jcr, will be for a greater C factor. Due to this, the J integral for the axial
equal to each other. Since Jcr values are often widely scattered, part-through crack reaches the corresponding higher fracture
we cannot make a clear-cut prediction of this quantity. Only a toughness (for a lower constraint) for the same crack depth as
certain range of plausible Jcr values can be predicted for a the J integral with a higher C factor reaches lower fracture
given body or structure. It should also be noted that the J−Q toughness (determined on CT specimens). The situation is
approach is only descriptive, and not predictive. This implies illustrated in Fig.2.
that the J−Q parameter quantifies the constraint at the crack
tip without providing any indication of the particular influence
of the constraint on the fracture toughness. Two-parameter
theories cannot be strictly correct as far as their universality is
concerned, because they assume two degrees of freedom. A
study by Ainsworth and O’Dowd [19] on the influence of a
constraint at the crack tip on fracture toughness indicates that
geometries with a low constraint can in many cases be judged
by a two-parameter theory, and geometries with a high
constraint by a single-parameter theory.
A simple procedure based on the use of the so-called plastic
constraint factor C has been applied in this paper to determine
the fracture conditions in a thin-walled pressure pipeline. This
factor is given by the ratio of the maximum principal stress to
the HMH stress at the crack tip. When the HMH stress reaches
Fig. 2 Schematic representation of the J-a dependence for the
the yield stress, the maximum principal stress obtains a value constraint characteristic for (i) a CT specimen, and (ii) an axial part-
that is C times higher. This is in accordance with the through crack in a pipe
observation that at a multi-axial state of stress the material
behaves as if its yield stress were higher. This is to say that IV. BASIC MECHANICAL AND FRACTURE – MECHANICAL TESTS
e.g. in the direction that the maximum stress acts, a stress
The fracture condition of presure pipelines was investigated
higher than the yield stress should be applied to reach the
on three test pipes with five cracks in the wall, the cracks
beginning of plastic strains. Let us now consider the state of
being prepared by pressure cycling. The materials of the test
stress at the crack tip in a thick-walled body, where the stress
pipes were X52, X65 and X70 steels.
perpendicular to the crack plane, σ1, and the stress in the
The static tensile properties of these steels were obtained on
direction of the crack, σ2, are equal, and the stress in the
flat specimens. They were taken in a circumferential direction
direction of the thickness of the body, σ3, is governed by the
of the pipes and were straightened afterwards. The stress-
expression σ3 = ν(σ1 + σ2). Then, based on the HMH criterion
strain curves were analyzed and described by the Ramberg-
and the assumed elastic conditions ν ≈ 0.33, the plastic
Osgood dependence.
constraint factor C ≈ 3. If the stress in the thickness direction, The fracture toughness of the materials of the pipe sections
σ3, falls within 2ν σ1 and zero (a thin-walled body), the value was determined using the J-based R curve, obtained on CT
of the plastic constraint factor will range between C = 1 and C specimens with the starting notch being parallel with the axial
= 3. Let us now consider the state of stress at the crack tip of direction of the pipe. The value of the J integral which
an external axial part-through crack in the wall of a test pipe corresponds to the attainment of maximum force at the “force-
Vol:5, No:1, 2011
force point displacement” curve was taken as the critical that the fatigue increment of the size of the initiated crack, a/t,
value, since it corresponds to the crack instability point for should be greater than about 0.5 mm. In addition to working
load-controlled loading of a body. The results of mechanical starting slits there were also manufactured so-called check
and fracture-mechanical tests are presented in Table I. slits, which were of the same surface length as the working
slits but their depth was greater. These check slits functioned
TABLE I
MECHANICAL AND FRACTURE-MECHANICAL PROPERTIES OF TESTED STEELS
as a safety measure to prevent cracks that developed from the
Steel X52 X65 X70 working slits penetrating through the pipe wall.
σY (MPa) 395 496 536 Three test pipes, made of X52, X65 and X70 steels, were
σU (MPa) 502 582 643 provided with working slits and check slits. For illustration, a
Jcr (N/mm) 415 432 439 DN1000 test pipe is shown in Fig. 4.
σY: 0.2% proof stress; σU: ultimate tensile strength; Jcr: fracture toughness
V.TESTS ON THE TEST PIPES
A. Manufacture of the starting slits

In order to produce part-through cracks in the pipe wall,

starting slits were manufactured on the surface of the pipe.
They functioned as initiation notches for the development of
Fig. 4 Test pipe DN1000 with marking the starting slits
cracks during subsequent cyclic pressurization of the test pipe.
Starting slits can generally be made in several ways, one of
The outside diameter of this test pipe is D = 1 018 mm, and
which uses a thin grinding wheel. Such a grinding wheel was
the wall thickness is t = 12 mm. It is made of thermo-
used in this study. The thickness of the wheel was 1.2 mm and
mechanically treated X70 steel according to API specification
the corresponding width of the slits made with it was
and is spirally welded, the weld being inclined at an angle of φ
approximately 1.5 mm. The starting slits were provided in the
=62° to the pipe axis. It is provided with starting slits (see
base material, the transition region and/or the weld metal, and
Table II for dimensions) oriented either axially or in the
their orientation was axial, circumferential or along the spiral
direction of the strip axis (i.e. in the direction of the spiral)
weld.
and then along or inside the spiral weld. The slits differ in
The analysis showed that the physical depth of an initiated
length (2c=115mm or 230mm) and depth (a=5, 6.5, 7, and
fatigue crack must be at least 0.5 mm along the whole
7.5mm).
perimeter of the slit tip so that the slit with the initiated crack TABLE II
at its tip can be considered as a crack after the test pipe has DIMENSIONS OF THE STARTING SLITS
been subjected to cycling. This value follows from [20]. If
Nominal dimensions Actual dimensions
such a crack at in size finds itself in a notch root defined by Defect - designation
2c(mm) x a(mm) 2c(mm) x a(mm)
depth av and radius of roundness ρ (see Fig. 3), this A-base material 115 x 6.5 116 x 6.7
configuration can be regarded as a surface crack ae in depth, A´ - base material 115 x 6.5 118 x 6.2
where B - base material 230 x 5.0 232 x 5.3
B´ - base material 230 x 5.0 255 x 4.9
AK - base material 115 x 7.5 117 x 8.0
⎛ a ⎞ AK´ - base material 115 x 7.5 118 x 8.0
ae = ⎜⎜1 + 7.69 v ⎟⎟at ........ at < 0.13 av ρ BK - base material 230 x 6.5 230 x 6.5
⎝ ρ ⎠ (8) BK´ - base material 230 x 6.5 228 x 6.7
P - base material 230 x 7.0 230 x 6.3
ae = av + at ......... at ≥ 0.13 av ρ P´ - base material 230 x 7.0 230 x 7.3
S - weld metal 230 x 5.0 230 x 5.0
S´ - weld metal 230 x 5.0 230 x 6.0
PZ - transition region 230 x 5.0 230 x 4.6
PZ´-transition region 230 x 5.0 230 x 5.0
Efforts were made in the fracture tests to keep the

circumferential fracture stress below the yield stress, because
the operating stress in gas pipelines is virtually around one
Fig. 3 Substitution of the notch with a crack by the equivalent half of the yield stress (and does not exceed two thirds of the
crack yield stress even in intrastate high-pressure gas transmission
pipelines). Calculations reveal that in order to comply with
It is evident that for at ≥ 0.13√( av ρ ) a slit with a crack this, the depth of the axial semi-elliptical cracks should be
along the perimeter of the slit tip can be taken as a crack greater than one half of the wall thickness. Oblique cracks
av + at in depth. For slit width 2ρ = 1.5 − 2.0 mm and notch should be even deeper, as the normal stress component
depth av = 6 − 10 mm (in relation to wall thickness) we find opening these cracks is smaller. If the crack depth is to have a
Vol:5, No:1, 2011
certain magnitude before the fracture test is begun, the depth briefly described for the DN1000 pipe shown in Fig.3. As the
of the starting slit should be smaller than this magnitude by figure suggests, slits A, A´, B and B´ were oriented along the
the fatigue extension of the crack along the perimeter of the axis of the pipe. Referring to Table II, we find that the
slit tip. At the same time, we should bear in mind that the nominal length of notches B, B´ had twice the length of
higher the fatigue extension of the crack, the better the notches A, A´, but that they were shallower.
agreement with a real crack. As mentioned above, cracks at the slit tips were extended
by fluctuating water pressure, and this proceeded until the
B. Cycling of cracks
cracks from the check slits (BK, BK´) grew through the wall
After the starting slits were made, the test pipes were and a water leak developed. Then the damaged parts of the
subjected to water pressure cycling to produce fatigue cracks shell were cut out, patches were welded in their place, and the
in the tips of the starting slits. The cycling was carried out in a test pipe was monotonically loaded to fracture at the location
pressurizing system, which included a high-pressure water of crack B or B´. The burst of the test pipe at crack B is shown
pump, a collecting tank, a regulator designed to control the in Figs. 6 and 7 (in detail).
amount of water that was supplied and, consequently, the rate
at which the pressure is increased in the pipe section. This was
effected by opening by-pass valves. A scheme of the

pressurizing system is shown in Fig.5.
Fig. 6 Burst initiated on the slit B with a fatigue crack
Fig. 5 Pressurizing system
In cycling the cracks, the water pressure fluctuated between

pmin = 1.5 MPa and pmax = 5.3 MPa, and the number of
pressure cycles was between 3 000 and 4 000. The period of a Fig. 7 Burst initiated on the slit B - detail
cycle was approximately 150 seconds.
The cycling went on until a crack initiated in one of the
check slits became a through crack. This moment was easy to A part of the fracture surface is shown in Fig. 8.
detect, because it was accompanied by a water leak. By
choosing an appropriate difference between the depths of the
working slits and the check slits it was possible to obtain a
working crack depth (= starting slit depth + fatigue crack
extension) approximately of the required size. To run a test for
a fracture, however, it was necessary to remove the check slit
which had penetrated through the wall of the test pipe from
the body shell and to repair the shell, e.g. by welding a patch
in it.
C. Fracture tests
After removing the check slit which penetrated through the
Fig. 8 A part of the fracture surface of the crack B
wall, and repairing the shell of the test pipe, the pipe was
loaded by increasing water pressure to burst. The test
Evidently, at the instant of fracture the crack spread not only
procedure, which was common to all test pipes, will now be
Vol:5, No:1, 2011
through the remaining ligament, but also lengthwise. After

removing the part of the pipe shell with crack B, a patch was The most important fracture test results from the viewpoint
welded in and the second burst test followed. Table III lists of fracture conditions are the magnitudes of the fracture
the numerical values of the geometrical parameters, the J- pressure, pf, and the fracture depth, af, for a given crack 2c in
integral fracture values, the Ramberg-Osgood constants, the length. It follows from these tables that pf = 9.55 MPa and af =
fracture pressure and the fracture depth for cracks B and B´, 7.1 mm for crack B and pf = 9.86 MPa and af = 6.7 mm for
respectively. Summary results are presented in Table IV. It crack B´. These values are shown in the last two columns of
should be noted that the tables include the Ramberg-Osgood Table IV.
constants for the circumferential direction of the test pipe, Now let us predict the fracture conditions according to
with the crack oriented axially in the pipe. This is because the engineering approaches, and compare the prediction results
stress-strain properties perpendicular to the crack plane are with real fracture parameter values (pressure, crack depth).
crucial in determining the J-integral for an axial crack. The The procedure for verifying the engineering methods for
stress-strain dependence in the circumferential direction predictions involves determining either the fracture stress for a
should therefore be taken into account where an axial given (fracture) crack depth or the fracture crack depth for a
orientation of the crack is concerned. given (fracture) pressure.
TABLE III
FRACTURE PARAMETERS OF CRACK B AND B'
Dimensions: DIA 1018 x 12 Material: X70
Location Geometrical parameters
CRACK – designation: B
t (mm) c (mm) a0 (mm) Δa (mm)

11.7 115 4.7 2.4
FRACTURE VALUES OF J-INTEGRAL Jin (N/mm) Jcr (N/mm)
Longitudinal direction 357 439
RAMBERG-OSGOOD CHARACTERISTICS
Characteristic α n σ0 (MPa)
Circumferential direction 5.92 9.62 536
FRACTURE PRESSURE (MPa)
Under monotonic load 9.55
FRACTURE DEPTH OF CRACK (mm) 7.1
CRACK – designation: B'
t (mm) c (mm) a0 (mm) Δa (mm)

11.7 127 4.7 2.0
FRACTURE VALUES OF J-INTEGRAL Jin (N/mm) Jcr (N/mm)
Longitudinal direction 357 439
RAMBERG-OSGOOD CHARACTERISTICS
Characteristic α n σ0 (MPa)
Circumferential direction 5.92 9.62 536
FRACTURE PRESSURE (MPa)
Under monotonic load 9.86
FRACTURE DEPTH OF CRACK (mm) 6.7
Vol:5, No:1, 2011
TABLE IV
SUMMARY OF DATA CONCERNING THE ASSESSMENT OF THE FRACTURE
BEHAVIOUR OF TEST PIPES 750
Material X 52 X 65 X 65 X 70 X 70 700
D (mm) 820 820 820 1018 1018
650
t (mm) 10.2 10.7 10.6 11.7 11.7 Crack B´
c (mm) 50 100 100 127 115 600
a (mm) 7.0 7.7 7.0 6.7 7.1 550
a/t 0.686 0.720 0.660 0.573 0.607 500
a/c 0.14 0.077 0.07 0.053 0.062 Jcr = 439 N/mm
450
p (MPa) 9.36 9.71 9.86 9.86 9.55
J (N/mm)
p/p0.2 0.95 0.750 0.769 0.800 0.775 400
σ0 (MPa) 395 496 496 536 536 350
α 5.87 5.34 5.34 5.92 5.92 300
n 8.24 8.45 8.45 9.62 9.62
250
C 2.2 2.4 2.3 2.07 2.0 FC method
Jcr (N/mm) 415 432 432 439 439 200
GS method
150
To illustrate this, we select the latter case – i.e. determining 100
the fracture depth of a crack for a given (fracture) pressure. 50

Fig. 9 shows the J-integral vs. crack B depth dependences 0
determined according to the FC and GS predictions for the 4 4,5 5 5,5 6 6,5 7 7,5 8
fracture hoop stress given by the measured fracture pressure. a (mm)
In determining equations (5), (6), and (7), the following
parameters were used for the calculation: D = 1018 mm; t = Fig. 10 Prediction of the fracture depth of the crack B´ for the
11.7 mm ; p = pf = 9.55 MPa; c = 115 mm; α = 5.92; n = 9.62; pressure 9.86 MPa by the FC and GS methods
σ0 = 2×536 = 1072 MPa (i.e. C = 2).
As is evident from Fig. 9, the intersection of the straight line J
750
= Jcr = 439 N/mm with the two J − a curves gives the value acr
700
≈ 7.05 mm, which is well consistent with the crack depth B
650 acr = 7.1 mm established experimentally. Similarly, the
Crack B
600 intersection of the straight line J = Jcr = 439 N/mm with the
550 J−a curves according to the FC and GS procedures in Fig. 10
500 shows the fracture crack depth acr to be virtually identical to
450
Jcr = 439 N/mm
the experimentally found fracture depth af = 6.7 mm. For other
test pipes, namely DIA 820/10.7, made of X65 steel and DIA
J (N/mm)
400
350 820/10.2 made of X52 steel, various magnitudes of the plastic
300
constraint factor C were obtained to achieve good agreement
of the geometric parameters at fracture with the experimental
250
FC method parameters. As expected, the magnitudes of the C factor
200
GS method depended on crack depth acr , as is illustrated in Fig. 11.
150
100
2,6
50 X65
2,4
Pipes: X65
0 X52 - 820/10.2
2,2
4 4,5 5 5,5 6 6,5 7 7,5 8 X65 - 820/10.7
plastic constraint factor C
X70 - 1018/11.7 X70 X52

a (mm) 2
X70
Fig. 9 Prediction of the fracture depth of the crack B for the pressure 1,8
9.55 MPa by the FC and GS methods C = 0.64 + 2.39x(a/t)
1,6
Fig. 10 shows similar dependences for crack B´. The same 1,4
computational parameters as those employed in the case of 1,2
crack B were used in the equations to determine the J-integral 1

according to the FC and GS methods, with the exception of 0,3 0,35 0,4 0,45 0,5 0,55 0,6 0,65 0,7 0,75 0,8
relative crack depth a/t
the fracture pressure (pf = 9.86 MPa ), the crack half-length (c
= 127 mm) and C factor ( C = 2.07). Fig. 11 Plastic constraint factor C, as affected by relative crack depth
a/t
Vol:5, No:1, 2011
VI. CONCLUSIONS [14] E.S. Folias, “On the Theory of Fracture of Curved Sheets,” in
Engineering Fracture Mechanics, No.2, Vol.2, 1970, pp. 151-164
On the basis of both experimental work and a fracture- [15] J.C. Newman, “Fracture Analysis of Surface and Through-Cracked
mechanical evaluation of experimental results, an engineering Sheets and Plates,” in Engineering Fracture Mechanics, Vol.5, No.3,
1973, pp. 667-689
method has been worked out for assessing the geometrical
[16] RCC-MR: Design and Construction Rules for Mechanical Components
parameters of critical axial crack-like defects in a high- of FBR Nuclear Island. First Edition (AFCEN - 3-5 Av. De Friedeland
pressure gas pipeline wall for a given internal pressure of a Paris 8), 1985
gas.The method makes use of simple approximate expressions [17] I. Milne, R.A. Ainsworth, A.R. Dowling, and A.T. Stewart,
“Assessment of the Integrity of Structures Containing Defects,” in
for determining fracture parameters K, J, and it accommodates CEGB Report No. R/H/R6 - Rev.3, Central Electricity Generating Board,
the crack tip constraint effects by means of the so-called London, United Kingdom, 1986.
plastic constraint factor.Two independent approximate [18] L. Gajdoš and M. Srnec, “An Approximate Method for J Integral
Determination,” in Acta Technica CSAV, Vol.39, No.2, 1994, pp.151-
equations for determining the J-integral provided very close 171
assessments of the critical geometrical dimensions of part- [19] R.A. Ainsworth and N.P. O´Dowd, “Constraint in the Failure
through axial cracks.With the use of our crack assessment Assessment Diagram Approach for Fracture Assessment, Trans.
ASME,” in Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology, Vol.117, 1995, pp.
method, the critical gas pressure in a pipeline can also be 260-267
determined for a given crack geometry.
[20] R.A. Smith and K.J. Miller, “Fatigue Cracks at Notches,” in

International Journal of Mechanical Sciences, Vol.19, 1977, pp.11-22.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This work was supported by grant projects P105/10/2052
(GACR), P105/10/P555 (GACR), FT-TA5/076 (MPO), and
by research plan AV0Z 20710524.
REFERENCES
[1] S. Cravero and C. Ruggieri, “Structural Integrity Analysis of Axially
Cracked Pipelines Using Conventional and Constraint - Modified
Failure Assessment Diagrams,” in Int. Journal of Pressure Vessels and
Piping 83, 2006, pp. 607 – 617.
[2] S. Saxena and D.S. Ramachandra Murthy, “Elastic - Plastic Fracture
Mechanics Based Prediction of Crack Initiation Load in Through - Wall
Cracked Pipes,” in Engineering Structures 26, 2004, pp. 1165 - 1172.
[3] J. Zemankova, “Instability of Surface Defects in a Thin-Walled Linepipe
(in Czech),” in Research Report V-KMtr-157/84, CTU Prague, 1984
[4] M.R. Ayatollahi and H. Khoramishad, “Stress Intensity Factors for an
Axially Oriented Internal Crack Embedded in a Buried Pipe,” in Int.
Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 87, 2010, pp. 165 – 169
[5] X. Wang and S.B. Lambert, “On the Calculation of Stress Intensity
Factors for Surface Cracks in Welded Pipe-Plate and Tubular Joints,” in
Int. Journal of Fatigue 25, 2003, pp. 89 - 96
[6] X. Wang and S.B. Lambert, “Stress Intensity Factors and Weight
Functions for Longitudinal Semi-Elliptical Surface Cracks in Thin
Pipes,” in Int. Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 65, 1996, pp. 75 -
87
[7] T.L. Anderson, Fracture Mechanics: Fundamentals and Applications.
3rd Edition. New York: CRC Press; 2005
[8] C. Betegon and J.W Hancock, “Two-Parameter Characterization of
Elastic-Plastic Crack-Tip Fields,” in Journal of Applied Mechanics 58,
1991, pp. 104 – 110
[9] F. Wallner, F.M. Oberhauser, and H. Mildner, “Evaluation of the
Behaviour of Large Pressure Vessels by Means of Fracture Mechanics
Tests,” in International Conference: Fracture Toughness Testing –
Methods, Interpretation and Application, The Welding Institute, London
9-10 June 1982
[10] S. Cravero and C. Ruggieri, “Correlation of Fracture Behavior in High
Pressure Pipelines with Axial Flaws Using Constraint Designed Test
Specimens - Part I: Plane – Strain Analyses,” in Engineering Fracture
Mechanics 72, 2005, pp. 1344 – 1360
[11] I.S. Raju and J.C. Newman, Jr., “Stress Intensity Factors for Internal and
External Surface Cracks in Cylindrical Vessels,” in Journal of Pressure
Vessel Technology 104, 1982, pp. 293 – 298
[12] J.C Newman and I.S. Raju, “An Empirical Stress Intensity Factor
Equation for the Surface Crack,” in Engineering Fracture Mechanics 15,
1981, pp. 185 – 192
[13] Y. Murakami, Stress Intensity Factors Handbook. The Society of
Materials Science, Japan, Pergamon Press, Oxford, 1987

Application of A Fracture-Mechanics Approach To Gas Pipelines

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Application of A Fracture-Mechanics Approach To Gas Pipelines

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Application of A Fracture-Mechanics Approach To Gas Pipelines

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology

International Journal of Mechanical and Mechatronics Engineering

Application of a Fracture-Mechanics Approach

Fracture tests not only provide particular experimental proof

I N thin-walled gas pipelines, similarly as in other (especially

Ľ. GAJDOŠ, Senior Scientist, and M. ŠPERL, Postdoctoral Fellow, are

the second kind. pD

⎛ at ⎞ D.Estimating the J integral – the GS method

n −1 loaded by internal pressure. The thickness direction stress σ2 is

on CT specimens, because of a lower constraint; the real C

V.TESTS ON THE TEST PIPES

A. Manufacture of the starting slits

In order to produce part-through cracks in the pipe wall,

Efforts were made in the fracture tests to keep the

effected by opening by-pass valves. A scheme of the

Fig. 6 Burst initiated on the slit B with a fatigue crack

Fig. 5 Pressurizing system

In cycling the cracks, the water pressure fluctuated between

through the remaining ligament, but also lengthwise. After

Dimensions: DIA 1018 x 12 Material: X70

Location Geometrical parameters

t (mm) c (mm) a0 (mm) Δa (mm)

t (mm) c (mm) a0 (mm) Δa (mm)

To illustrate this, we select the latter case – i.e. determining 100

the fracture depth of a crack for a given (fracture) pressure. 50

X70 - 1018/11.7 X70 X52

computational parameters as those employed in the case of 1,2

crack B were used in the equations to determine the J-integral 1

[20] R.A. Smith and K.J. Miller, “Fatigue Cracks at Notches,” in

You might also like