Acta Mechanica Solida Sinica

, Volume 31, Issue 3, pp 357–368

# Finite Element Simulations of Dynamic Fracture of Full-Scale Gas Transmission Pipelines

• Peishi Yu
• Jinjie Lv
• Junhua Zhao
Article

## Abstract

The dynamic crack growth in a full-scale gas pipeline of API X80 steel is analyzed using the finite element method with the cohesive zone model. Based on the simulation, it is revealed that for the moderate steady-state crack growth, the crack-tip-opening angle strongly depends on the crack growth speed. In addition, the threshold initial crack sizes under different internal pressures are analyzed, which show a significant three-dimensional effect due to the wall thickness of the pipeline. The presented model offers a feasible way to study some details of the dynamic fracture of full-scale pipelines when tests are difficult or expensive.

## Keywords

Dynamic fracture Finite element Full-scale pipeline Cohesive zone model

## List of symbols

BTCM

Battelle two-curve model, see Eq. (1)

CTOA

Crack-tip-opening angle

CVN

Charpy vee-notched

CZM

Cohesive zone model

DWTT

Drop-weight tear test

FE

Finite element

TSL

Traction–separation law

$$V_{f}$$

The fracture velocity, see Eq. (1)

$$\alpha$$

Exponent in traction–separation law, see Eq. (2)

$$\beta$$

Power exponent, see Eq. (2)

$$\eta$$

The coefficient, see Eq. (2)

$$\sigma _{\mathrm{y}}$$

Tensile yielding stress

$$\delta$$

Separation in cohesive zone, see Eq. (1)

$$\delta _{\mathrm{0}}$$, $$\delta _{\mathrm{max}}$$

Separation corresponding to the maximum traction and the maximum damage, see Eq. (2)

$${\dot{\delta }}$$

The separation rate, see Eq. (2)

$${\dot{\delta }}_{\mathrm{r}}$$

A reference value of separation rate in the dimension of m/s, see Eq. (2)

$$\bar{{\sigma }}$$

The equivalent stress, see Eq. (3)

$$\bar{{\varepsilon }}^{\mathrm{p}}$$

The equivalent plastic strain, see Eq. (3)

$$\bar{{\varepsilon }}_{\mathrm{r}}$$

The reference strain, see Eq. (3)

$$\dot{\bar{{\varepsilon }}}^{\mathrm{p}}$$

The equivalent plastic strain rate, see Eq. (3)

$$\dot{\bar{{\varepsilon }}}_{\mathrm{r}}$$

The reference strain rate, see Eq. (3)

## Notes

### Acknowledgements

We gratefully acknowledge support from the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No.11302067, 11572140, 11302084), the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (Grant Nos. JUSRP115A09, JUSRP115A10), the Programs of Innovation and Entrepreneurship of Jiangsu Province, Primary Research & Developement Plan of Jiangsu Province (Grant No. BE2017069), Science and Technology Plan Project of Wuxi, the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (Grant Nos. JUSRP11529 and JG2015059), Postgraduate Research & Practice Innovation Program of Jiangsu Province (Grant No. KYCX17_1473), the Undergraduate Innovation Training Program of Jiangnan University of China (Grant No. 2015151Y), the Undergraduate Innovation and Entrepreneurship Training Program of China (201610295057), the Research Fund of State Key Laboratory of Mechanics and Control of Mechanical Structures (NUAA) (Grant No. MCMS-0416G01), “Project of Jiangsu provincial Six Talent Peaks” in Jiangsu Province and “Thousand Youth Talents Plan.”

## References

1. 1.
Guo W, Dong H, Lu M, Zhao X. The coupled effects of thickness and delamination on cracking resistance of X70 pipeline steel. Int J Press Vessel Pip. 2002;79:403–12.
2. 2.
Shin SY, Hwang B, Lee S, Kim NJ, Ahn SS. Correlation of microstructure and charpy impact properties in API X70 and X80 line-pipe steels. Mater Sci Eng A. 2007;458:281–9.
3. 3.
Chen Y, Zheng S, Zhou J, Wang P, Chen L, Qi Y. Influence of H2S interaction with prestrain on the mechanical properties of high-strength X80 steel. Int J Hydrog Energy. 2016;41:10412–20.
4. 4.
Zhu X-K, Joyce JA. Review of fracture toughness (G, K, J, CTOD, CTOA) testing and standardization. Eng Fract Mech. 2012;85:1–46.
5. 5.
Wilkowski GM, Maxey WA, Eiber RJ. Use of the DWTT energy for predicting ductile fracture behavior in controlled-rolled steel line pipes. Can Metall Q. 1980;19:59–77.
6. 6.
Fonzo A, Salvini P, Di Biagio M. Fracture propagation in DWT back slotted specimens. Int J Fract. 2004;128:159–69.
7. 7.
Shim D-J, Wilkowski G, Duan D-M, Zhou J. Effect of fracture speed on ductile fracture resistance—Part I: Experimental. In: Proceedings of the 8th international pipeline conference IPC2010. 2010.Google Scholar
8. 8.
Shim D-J, Uddin M, Wilkowski G, Duan D-M, Ferguson J. Comparison between standard and modified back-slotted DWTT specimens. In: 2014 10th international pipeline conference: American Society of Mechanical Engineers. 2014. p. V003T07A46-VT07A46.Google Scholar
9. 9.
Duffy A. Full-scale studies. Third Symposium on Line Pipe Research: American Gas Association, Catalog. 1965. p. 43–82.Google Scholar
10. 10.
Fearnehough GD JD, Weiner RT. The arrest of brittle fractures in pipelines. In: Proceedings of the conference on practical application of fracture mechanics to pressure vessel technology. 1971.Google Scholar
11. 11.
Maxey W, Kiefner J, Eiber R, Duffy A. Ductile fracture initiation, propagation, and arrest in cylindrical vessels. Fracture toughness: Part II: ASTM international. 1972.Google Scholar
12. 12.
Wilkowski G, Hioe Y, Shim D. Methodology for brittle fracture control in modern line pipe steels. In: Proceedings of the 6th international pipeline technology conference 2013.Google Scholar
13. 13.
Eiber R, Bubenik T, Maxey W. Fracture control technology for natural gas pipelines. NG-18 Report No. 208. Project PR-3-9113, American Gas Association. 1993.Google Scholar
14. 14.
Leis BN, Eiber RJ, Carlson L, Gilroy-Scott A. Relationship between apparent(total) Charpy vee-notch toughness and the corresponding dynamic crack-propagation resistance. In: The 1998 international pipeline conference, IPC Part 2(of 2). 1998. p. 723–31.Google Scholar
15. 15.
Wolodko J, Stephens M. Applicability of existing models for predicting ductile fracture arrest in high pressure pipelines. In: 2006 International pipeline conference: American Society of Mechanical Engineers. 2006. p. 115–23.Google Scholar
16. 16.
Zhu X-K, Leis BNCVN. DWTT energy methods for determining fracture arrest toughness of high strength pipeline steels. In: 2012 9th International pipeline conference: American Society of Mechanical Engineers. 2012. p. 565–73.Google Scholar
17. 17.
Ren ZJ, Ru CQ. Numerical investigation of speed dependent dynamic fracture toughness of line pipe steels. Eng Fract Mech. 2013;99:214–22.
18. 18.
Yu PS, Ru CQ. Strain rate effects on dynamic fracture of pipeline steels: finite element simulation. Int J Press Vessel Pip. 2015;126–127:1–7.
19. 19.
Yu PS, Ru CQ. Analysis of energy absorptions in drop-weight tear tests of pipeline steel. Eng Fract Mech. 2016;160:138–46.
20. 20.
Shim D-J, Wilkowski G, Rudland D, Rothwell B, Merritt J. Numerical simulation of dynamic ductile fracture propagation using cohesive zone modeling. In: 2008 7th International pipeline conference: American Society of Mechanical Engineers. 2008. p. 21–8.Google Scholar
21. 21.
Ben amara M, Pluvinage G, Capelle J, Azari Z. Modelling Crack Propagation and Arrest in Gas Pipes Using CTOA Criterion. In: Pluvinage G, Milovic L, editors. Fracture at all Scales. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2017. p. 171-94.Google Scholar
22. 22.
Nonn A, Kalwa C. Simulation of ductile crack propagation in high-strength pipeline steel using damage models. In: 2012 9th International pipeline conference: American Society of Mechanical Engineers. 2012. p. 597–603.Google Scholar
23. 23.
Xu XP, Needleman A. Numerical simulations of fast crack growth in brittle solids. J Mech Phys Solids. 1994;42:1397–434.
24. 24.
Chen CR, Kolednik O, Heerens J, Fischer FD. Three-dimensional modeling of ductile crack growth: Cohesive zone parameters and crack tip triaxiality. Eng Fract Mech. 2005;72:2072–94.
25. 25.
Needleman A. A continuum model for void nucleation by inclusion debonding. J Appl Mech. 1987;54:525–31.
26. 26.
Zhou F, Molinari J-F, Shioya T. A rate-dependent cohesive model for simulating dynamic crack propagation in brittle materials. Eng Fract Mech. 2005;72:1383–410.
27. 27.
Dugdale DS. Yielding of steel sheets containing slits. J Mech Phys Solids. 1960;8:100–4.
28. 28.
Barenblatt G. The mathematical theory of equilibrium cracks in brittle fracture. Adv Appl Mech. 1962;7:55–129.
29. 29.
Zhu X-K. State-of-the-art review of fracture control technology for modern and vintage gas transmission pipelines. Eng Fract Mech. 2015;148:260–80.
30. 30.
Wang YJ, Ru CQ. Determination of two key parameters of a cohesive zone model for pipeline steels based on uniaxial stress-strain curve. Eng Fract Mech. 2016;163:55–65.
31. 31.
Pan J, Saje M, Needleman A. Localization of deformation in rate sensitive porous plastic solids. Int J Fract. 1983;21:261–78.
32. 32.
Miao Y, Drugan WJ. Asymptotic analysis of growing crack stress/deformation fields in porous ductile metals and implications for stable crack growth. Int J Fract. 1985;72:69–96.
33. 33.
Xia L, Shih CF. Ductile crack growth–II. Void nucleation and geometry effects on macroscopic fracture behavior. J Mech Phys Solids. 1995;43:1953–81.
34. 34.
Uenishi A, Yoshida H, Yonemura S, Hiwatashi S, Hirose S, Suzuki N. High Strain rate properties of high strength steel sheets. Int J Autom Eng. 2011;2:109–13.Google Scholar
35. 35.
Horsley DJ. Background to the use of CTOA for prediction of dynamic ductile fracture arrest in pipelines. Eng Fract Mech. 2003;70:547–52.
36. 36.
Newman JC Jr, James MA, Zerbst U. A review of the CTOA/CTOD fracture criterion. Eng Fract Mech. 2003;70:371–85.
37. 37.
Rudland DL, Wilkowski GM, Feng Z, Wang YY, Horsley D, Glover A. Experimental investigation of CTOA in linepipe steels. Eng Fract Mech. 2003;70:567–77.
38. 38.
Rudland DL, Wang Y-Y, Wilkowski G, Horsley DJ. Characterizing dynamic fracture toughness of linepipe steels using the pressed-notch drop-weight-tear test specimen. Eng Fract Mech. 2004;71:2533–49.