Modelling Crack Propagation and Arrest in Gas Pipes Using CTOA Criterion

Conference paper
First Online:
Part of the Lecture Notes in Mechanical Engineering book series (LNME)

Abstract

In this paper, the resistance to ductile crack extension is discussed in terms of Charpy or DWTT energy, R curve and CTOA. Methods used in numerical simulations of ductile crack extension are presented including the cohesive zone model, a critical damage with the Gurson–Tvergaard–Needleman model, critical damage given by SRDD model or a critical crack opening angle (CTOA). Selection of CTOA is based on the reduced number of parameters and the low sensitivity to pipe geometry. Numerical simulations of crack propagation and arrest based on CTOA, use the node release technique, which is described. Results on a pipe made in steel API L X65 are presented. The influence of geometrical and material parameters on crack arrest and velocity using this technique are presented. Finally, an arrest pressure equation similar to the BTCM’s equation but including critical CTOA is introduced. For the same decompression wave pressure, the crack propagation velocity is inversely proportional to the resistance to crack extension of the material, which is the dominant parameter. The crack velocity versus decompression is expressed by a CTOAc function of resistance to crack extension.

Keywords

Service life Power plants Micro-alloyed steel 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. 1.
    Andersson H (1973) A finite element representation of stable crack growth. J Mech Phys Solids 21:337–356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ben Amara M, Capelle J, Azari Z, Pluvinage G (2015) Prediction of arrest pressure in pipe based on CTOA. J Pipe Eng 14(4)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chapuliotb S, Marieb S, Kayserb I (2006) Derivation of J-resistance curve for through wall cracked pipes from crack mouth opening displacement. Int J Press Vessels Pip 83:686–699CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cen C (2013) Characterization and calculation of fracture toughness for high grade pipes. PhD thesis, University of AlbertaGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cotterell B, Reddel JK (1977) The essential work of plane stress fracture”. Int J Fract 13:267–277Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Demofonti G, Buzzichelli G, Venzi S, Kanninen M (1995) Step by step procedure for the two specimen CTOA test. In: Denys R (ed) Pipeline technology, vol II. Elsevier, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Demofonti G, Mannucci G, Hillenbrand HG, Harris D (2004) Evaluation of X100 steel pipes for high pressure gas transportation pipelines by full scale tests. In: International pipeline conference, Calgary, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Eiber RJ (1969) “Fracture propagation”. Paper I. In: Proceedings of the 4th symposium on line pipe research. AGA catalogue no. L30075Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Eiber R, Bubenik T, Maxey W (1993) GASDECOM, computer code for the calculation of gas decompression speed that is included in fracture control technology for natural gas pipelines. NG-18 Report 208, American Gas Association CatalogGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gullerud AS, Dodds RH, Hampton RW, Dawicke DS (1999) Three-dimensional modeling of ductile crack growth in thin sheet metals: computational aspects and validation. Eng Fract Mech 63(4):347–374CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Higuchi R, Makino H, Takeuchi I (2009) New concept and test method on running ductile fracturearrest for high pressure gas pipeline. In: 24th world gas conference, WGC 2009, vol 4. International Gas Union, Buenos Aires, Argentina pp 2730–2737Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kiefner JF, Eiber RJ, Duffy AR (1972) Ductile fracture initiation, propagation and arrest in cylindrical vessels. ASTM STP 514:70–81Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Maxey WA (1974) 5th symposium on line pipe research, PRCI Catalog No. L30174, Paper J, p 16Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Maxey WA (1981) Dynamic crack propagation in line pipe. In: Sih GC, Mirabile M (eds) Analytical and experimental, fracture mechanics, Sijthoff and Noordhoff, pp 109–123Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Oikonomidis F, Shterenlikht A, Truman CE (2013) Prediction of crack propagation and arrest in X100 natural gas transmission pipelines with the strain rate dependent damage model. Part 1: a novel specimen for the measurement of high strain rate fracture properties and validation of the SRDD model parameters. Int J Press Vessels Pip 105:60–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Scheider I, Schödel M, Brocks W, Schönfeld W (2006) “Crack propagation analyses with CTOA and cohesive model”: comparison and experimental validation. Eng Fract Mech 73(2):252–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sugie E, Matsuoka M, Akiyama H, Mimura T, Kawaguchi Y (1982) A study of shear crack-propagation in gas-pressurized pipelines. J Press Vessels Technol ASME 104(4):338–343CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. Ben amara
    • 1
  • Guy Pluvinage
    • 2
  • J. Capelle
    • 1
  • Z. Azari
    • 1
  1. 1.LaBPS – ENIMMetzFrance
  2. 2.FM.CSilly Sur-NiedFrance

Personalised recommendations