International Journal of Steel Structures

, Volume 18, Issue 5, pp 1754–1760 | Cite as

Temperature Effects on Fracture Toughness Parameters for Pipeline Steels

  • Sourayon ChandaEmail author
  • C. Q. Ru


The present article showcases a temperature dependent cohesive zone model (CZM)-based finite element simulation of drop weight tear test (DWTT), to analyse fracture behavior of pipeline steel (PS) at different temperatures. By co-relating the key CZM parameters with known mechanical properties of PS at varying temperature, a temperature dependent CZM for PS is proposed. A modified form of Johnson and Cook model has been used for the true stress–strain behavior of PS. The numerical model, using Abaqus/CAE 6.13, has been validated by comparing the predicted results with load–displacement curves obtained from test data. During steady-state crack propagation, toughness parameters (such as CTOA and CTOD) were found to remain fairly constant at a given temperature. These toughness parameters, however, show an exponential increase with increase in temperature. The present paper offers a plausible approach to numerically analyze fracture behavior of PS at varying temperature using a temperature dependent CZM.


Dynamic fracture Pipeline steel Temperature effect Cohesive zone model Steady-state crack propagation Finite element 



The present research is supported by NSERC (Natural Science and Engineering Research Council) of Canada (CRD program CRDPJ 399497) and TransCanada Pipelines Ltd. The valuable suggestions of YJ Wang, University of Alberta are much appreciated.


  1. Amstutz, B. E., et al. (1997). Effects of mixed mode I/II loading and grain orientation on crack initiation and stable tearing in 2024-T3 aluminum. Fatigue and Fracture Mechanics, 27, 105–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Børvik, T., et al. (2001). A computational model of viscoplasticity and ductile damage for impact and penetration. European Journal of Mechanics-A/Solids, 20(5), 685–712.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Capelle, J., et al. (2013). Design based on ductile–brittle transition temperature for API 5L X65 steel used for dense CO 2 transport. Engineering Fracture Mechanics, 110, 270–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Capelle, J., et al. (2014). Role of constraint on the shift of ductile–brittle transition temperature of subsize Charpy specimens. Fatigue and Fracture of Engineering Materials and Structures, 37(12), 1367–1376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chanda, S. (2015). temperature effects on dynamic fracture of pipeline steel. M. Sc. Thesis, University of Alberta.Google Scholar
  6. Chanda, S. & Ru, C. Q. (2015a). Cohesive zone model for temperature dependent fracture analysis of pipeline steel. In Proceedings of 25th Canadian congress on applied mechanics (pp. 1–4). London, Ontario, Canada.Google Scholar
  7. Chanda, S. & Ru, C. Q. (2015b). FEA modeling of dynamic fracture of pipeline steel at low temperatures. In 9th European solid mechanics conference. Leganés-Madrid, Spain.Google Scholar
  8. Clausen, A. H., et al. (2004). Flow and fracture characteristics of aluminium alloy AA5083–H116 as function of strain rate, temperature and triaxiality. Materials Science and Engineering A, 364(1–2), 260–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Coseru, A., Capelle, J., & Pluvinage, G. (2013). On the use of Charpy transition temperature as reference temperature for the choice of a pipe steel. In 5th international conference on computational mechanics and virtual engineering (pp. 1–10). Brasov, Romania.Google Scholar
  10. Dunbar, A., et al. (2014). Simulation of ductile crack propagation and determination of CTOAs in pipeline steels using cohesive zone modelling. Fatigue and Fracture of Engineering Materials and Structures, 37(6), 592–602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ebrahimi, F., & Seo, H. K. (1996). Ductile crack initiation. Acta Metallurgica, 44(2), 831–843.Google Scholar
  12. Holmquist, T., & Johnson, G. (1991). Determination of constants and comparison of results for various constitutive models. Journal de Physique IV, 1(C3), 853–860.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Johnson, G., & Cook, W. (1985). Fracture characteristics of three metals subjected to various strains, strain rates, temperatures and pressures. Engineering Fracture Mechanics, 21(I), 31–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kang, K.-W., et al. (2009). Experimental investigation on static and fatigue behavior of welded sm490a steel under low temperature. International Journal of Steel Structures, 9(1), 85–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lam, P.-S., Kim, Y., & Chao, Y. J. (2005). Crack tip openinig displacement and angle for a growing crack in carbon steel. In ASME pressure vessels and piping division conference (pp. 1–8). Denver, Colorado, USA.Google Scholar
  16. Lee, D. H., et al. (2016). Seismic fragility analysis of a buried gas pipeline based on nonlinear time-history analysis. International Journal of Steel Structures, 16(1), 231–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Martínez-Palou, R., et al. (2011). Transportation of heavy and extra-heavy crude oil by pipeline: A review. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 75(3–4), 274–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Newman, J. C., James, M. A., & Zerbst, U. (2003). A review of the CTOA/CTOD fracture criterion. Engineering Fracture Mechanics, 70(3–4), 371–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Park, K., & Paulino, G. H. (2013). Cohesive zone models : A critical review of traction-separation relationships across fracture surfaces. Applied Mechanics Reviews, 64(2011), 20.Google Scholar
  20. Ren, Z. J., & Ru, C. Q. (2013). Numerical investigation of speed dependent dynamic fracture toughness of line pipe steels. Engineering Fracture Mechanics, 99, 214–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Salvini, P., Fonzo, A., & Mannucci, G. (2003). Identification of CTOA and fracture process parameters by drop weight test and finite element simulation. Engineering Fracture Mechanics, 70(3–4), 553–566.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Shim, D. J., Wilkowski, G., Duan, D. M., & Zhou, J. (2010). Effect of fracture speed on ductile fracture resistance—part 1: Experimental. In Proceedings of the 8th international pipeline conferencence. Calgary, Alberta, Canada.Google Scholar
  23. Sorem, W. A., Dodds, R. H., & Rolfe, S. T. (1991). Effects of crack depth on elastic plastic fracture toughness. International Journal of Fracture, 47(2), 105–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Wang, X., Roy, G., Xu, S., & Tyson, W. R. (2007). Numerical simulation of ductile crack growth in pipeline steels. In ASME pressure vessels and piping division (pp. 1–7). San Antonio, Texas, USA.Google Scholar
  25. Wang, Y. J. & Ru, C. Q. (2015). Determination of cohesive zone model’s parameters based on the uniaxial stress–strain curve. In Proceedings of the XIII international conference on mathematics and computational mechanics. Barcelona, Spain.Google Scholar
  26. Wang, Y. J., & Ru, C. Q. (2016). Determination of two key parameters of a cohesive zone model for pipeline steels based on uniaxial stress–strain curve. Engineering Fracture Mechanics, 163, 55–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Yu, P. S., & Ru, C. Q. (2015). Strain rate effects on dynamic fracture of pipeline steels: Finite element simulation. International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping, 126–127, 1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Korean Society of Steel Construction 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Mechanical EngineeringUniversity of AlbertaEdmontonCanada

Personalised recommendations