International Journal of Fracture

, Volume 205, Issue 2, pp 169–188 | Cite as

Fracture resistance testing of dissimilar nickel–chromium girth welds for clad line pipes

  • Diego F. B. Sarzosa
  • Vitor S. Barbosa
  • Caio C. P. Santos
  • E. HippertJr.
  • C. Ruggieri
Original Paper

Abstract

This work presents an experimental investigation of the ductile tearing properties for the girth weld of a typical C–Mn pipe internally clad with ASTM UNS N06625 Alloy 625 using measured crack growth resistance curves (\(J{-}\Delta a\) and \(\mathrm {CTOD}{-}\Delta a\) curves). Here, the material of the external pipe is a typical API 5L Grade X65 pipeline steel whereas the inner clad layer is made of a nickel–chromium corrosion resistant alloy steel. Testing of the girth weld employed side-grooved, clamped SE(T) specimens with a weld centerline notch to determine the crack growth resistance curves based upon the unloading compliance method using a single specimen technique. This experimental characterization provides additional toughness data which serve to evaluate the effectiveness of current procedures in determining accurate experimentally measured R-curves for this class of material, including the effects of weld strength mismatch.

Keywords

Fracture resistance test J-integral CTOD Unloading compliance method SE(T) specimen Girth weld Clad line pipe 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This investigation is supported by the Brazilian Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq) through Grants 473975/2012-2 and 306193/2013-2. The second author (VSB) is supported by the CAPES Foundation and Brazilian Ministry of Education through a Ph.D. scholarship. The authors acknowledge Petrobras for providing additional support for the work described here and for making available the experimental data. The authors are also indebted to Professor Celso Pupo Pesce (University of São Paulo) for his assistance in implementing the digital image correlation (DIC) system. Helpful discussions with Dr. Rafael G. Savioli (University of São Paulo) are also acknowledged.

References

  1. American Petroleum Institute (2007a) Fitness-for-service, API RP-579-1/ASME FFS-1Google Scholar
  2. American Petroleum Institute (2007b) Specification for line pipe, API 5LGoogle Scholar
  3. American Society for Testing and Materials (2009) Standard specification for nickel–chromium-molybdenum–columbium alloy (UNS N06625) and nickel–chromium–mlybdenum–slicon alloy (UNS N06219) plate, sheet, and strip, ASTM B443-00Google Scholar
  4. American Society for Testing and Materials (2011a) Standard specification for nickel–chromium-molybdenum–columbium alloys (UNS N06625 and UNS N06852) and nickel–chromium–molybdenum–silicon alloy (UNS N06219) pipe and tube, ASTM B444-06Google Scholar
  5. American Society for Testing and Materials (2011b) Standard test method for measurement of fracture toughness, ASTM E1820-2011Google Scholar
  6. American Society for Testing and Materials (2011c) Standard test methods for tension testing of metallic materials, ASTM E8-11Google Scholar
  7. American Society for Testing and Materials (2015) Standard test method for measurement of fracture toughness, ASTM E1820-2015Google Scholar
  8. Anderson TL (2005) Fracture mechanics: fundaments and applications, 3rd edn. CRC Press, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  9. British Institution (2014) Method of test for determination of fracture toughness in metallic materials using single edge notched tension (SENT) specimens, BS 8571Google Scholar
  10. Cravero S, Ruggieri C (2005) Correlation of fracture behavior in high pressure pipelines with axial flaws using constraint designed test specimens–part I: plane-strain analyses. Eng Fract Mech 72:1344–1360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cravero S, Ruggieri C (2007a) Estimation procedure of J-resistance curves for SE(T) fracture specimens using unloading compliance. Eng Fract Mech 74:2735–2757CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cravero S, Ruggieri C (2007b) Further developments in J evaluation procedure for growing cracks based on LLD and CMOD data. Int J Fract 148:387–400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Det Norske Veritas (2013) Submarine pipeline systems, Offshore Standard OS-F101Google Scholar
  14. Drexler E, Wang Y-Y, Sowards JW, Dvorak MD (2010) SE(T) testing of pipeline welds. In: 8th international pipeline conference (IPC), Calgary, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  15. Healy B, Gullerud A, Koppenhoefer K, Roy A, RoyChowdhury S, Petti J, Walters M, Bichon B, Cochran K, Carlyle A, Sobotka J, Messner M, Dodds RH (2014) WARP3D: 3-D nonlinear finite element analysis of solids for fracture and fatigue processes, technical report, University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign. http://code.google.com/p/warp3d
  16. Huang Y, Zhou W (2014) J-CTOD relationship for clamped SE(T) specimens based on three-dimensional finite element analyses. Eng Fract Mech 131:643–655CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hutchinson JW (1983) Fundamentals of the phenomenological theory of nonlinear fracture mechanics. J Appl Mech 50:1042–1051CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Joyce JA, Hackett EM, Roe C (1993) Effects of crack depth and mode loading on the J–R curve behavior of a high strength steel. In: Underwood JH, Schwalbe K-H, Dodds RH (eds) Constraint effects in fracture, ASTM STP 1171. American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, pp 239–263Google Scholar
  19. Joyce JA, Link RE (1995) Effects of constraint on upper shelf fracture toughness. In: Reuter WG, Underwood JH, Newman J (eds) Fracture mechanics, ASTM STP 1256. American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, pp 142–177Google Scholar
  20. Kanninen MF, Popelar CH (1985) Advanced fracture mechanics. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  21. Kirk MT, Dodds RH (1992) Effect of weld strength mismatch on elastic–plastic fracture parameters, structural research series (SRS 570) UILU-ENG-92-2008. University of Illinois at Urbana–ChampaignGoogle Scholar
  22. Kirk MT, Dodds RH (1993) J and CTOD estimation equations for shallow cracks in single edge notch bend specimens. J Test Eval 21:228–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kirk MT, Wang Y-Y (1995) Wide range CTOD estimation formulae for SE(B) specimens. In: Reuter WG, Underwood JH, Newman J (eds) Fracture mechanics, ASTM STP 1256. American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, pp 126–141Google Scholar
  24. Kudari SK, Kodancha KG (2008) On the relationship between \(J\)-integral and CTOD for CT and SENB specimens. Frattura ed Integrità Struttturale 6:3–10Google Scholar
  25. Mathias LLS, Sarzosa DFB, Ruggieri C (2013) Effects of specimen geometry and loading mode on crack growth resistance curves of a high-strength pipeline girth weld. Int J Press Vessels Pip 111–112:106–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Nyhus B, Polanco M, Ørjasæter O, (2003) SENT specimens as an alternative to SENB specimens for fracture mechanics testing of pipelines. In: 22nd international conference on ocean, offshore and arctic engineering (OMAE), Vancouver, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  27. Paredes M, Ruggieri C (2012) Further results in J and CTOD estimation procedures for SE(T) fracture specimens—part II: weld centerline cracks. Eng Fract Mech 89:24–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Pussegoda N, Tiku S, Tyson W (2014) Measurements of crack-tip opening displacement (CTOD) and \(J\)-fracture resistance curves using single-edge notched tension (SENT) specimens, technical report 30166-001-R01, BMT Fleet TechnologyGoogle Scholar
  29. Ruggieri C (2012) Further results in J and CTOD estimation procedures for SE(T) fracture specimens—part I: homogeneous materials. Eng Fract Mech 79:245–265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Ruggieri C, Hippert E (2015) Test procedure for fracture resistance characterization of pipeline steels and pipeline girth welds using single-edge notched tension (SENT) specimens. University of São Paulo, technical reportGoogle Scholar
  31. Sarzosa DFB, Ruggieri C (2014) Relationship between \(J\) and CTOD in SE(T) and SE(B) specimens for stationary and growing cracks. In: 10th international pipeline conference (IPC 2014), Calgary, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  32. Sarzosa DFB, Souza RF, Ruggieri C (2015) \(J\)-CTOD relations in clamped SE(T) fracture specimens including 3-D stationary and growth analysis. Eng Fract Mech 147:331–354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Shen G, Tyson WR (2009) Crack size evaluation using unloading compliance in single-specimen single-edge notched tension fracture toughness testing. J Test Eval 37(4):347–357Google Scholar
  34. Shen G, Bouchard R, Gianetto JA, Tyson WR (2008) Fracture toughness evaluation of high-strength steel pipe. In: ASME PVP 2008 pressure vessel and piping division conference, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Chicago, ILGoogle Scholar
  35. Shih CF (1981) Relationship between the J-integral and the crack opening displacement for stationary and extending cracks. J Mech Phys Solids 29:305–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Silva LAL, Cravero S, Ruggieri C (2006) Correlation of fracture behavior in high pressure pipelines with axial flaws using constraint designed test specimens—part II: 3-D effects on constraint. Eng Fract Mech 76:2123–2138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Souza RF, Ruggieri C (2016) Revised wide range compliance solutions for selected standard and non-standard fracture test specimens based on crack mouth opening displacement. Eng Fract Mech (Submitted for Publication) Google Scholar
  38. Sutton MA, Orteu JJ, Schreier H (2009) Image correlation for shape, motion and deformation measurements. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  39. Upstream ExxonMobil (2010) Measurements of crack-tip opening displacement. (CTOD) fracture resistance curves using single-edge notched tension (SENT) specimens, technical reportGoogle Scholar
  40. Zhu XK, Joyce JA (2012) Review of fracture toughness (G, K, J, CTOD, CTOA) testing and standardization. Eng Fract Mech 86:1–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Zhu XK, McGaughy T (2014) A review of fracture toughness testing and evaluation using sent specimens. In: 10th international pipeline conference (IPC), Calgary, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  42. Zhu XK, Leis BN, Joyce JA (2008) Experimental estimation of J–R curves from load-CMOD record for SE(B) specimens. J ASTM Int 5(5):1–15Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Naval Architecture and Ocean EngineeringUniversity of São PauloSão PauloBrazil
  2. 2.Department of Mechanical EngineeringUniversity of São PauloSão PauloBrazil
  3. 3.Petrobras Development and Research Center (TMEC-CENPES)Rio de JaneiroBrazil

Personalised recommendations