Journal of Failure Analysis and Prevention

, Volume 17, Issue 1, pp 144–153 | Cite as

Assessment of Pipe Defects Using a Constraint-Modified Failure Assessment Diagram

Technical Article---Peer-Reviewed

Abstract

In this study, the failure assessment diagram (FAD) is constraint modified using the assumption that the constraint T stress is proportional to the non-dimensional loading. The constraint-modified FAD has been used to compute safety factors associated with spherical and elliptic defects and a long notch. The results were compared to the classical approach, indicating the possibility of a reduction of conservatism. In addition, the use of domain constraint-modified FAD indicates that in some cases, increases in fracture toughness due to the loss of constraint lead to the use of limit analysis rather than an elasto-plastic fracture mechanics approach.

Keywords

FAD T stress Pipe defect Safety factor 

References

  1. 1.
    A.R. Dowling, C.H.A. Townley, The effects of defects on structural failure: a two-criteria approach. Int J Pressure Vessels Piping 3, 77–107 (1975)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    S. Jallouf, G. Pluvinage G, K. Casavola, C. Pappalettere, A probabilistic fatigue assessment diagram to get a guaranteed lifetime with a low probability of failure. Procedia Structural Integrity 2, 2447–2455 (2016)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    S. Jallouf, C. Schmitt, G.A. Pluvinage, Probabilistic safety factor for defect assessment of water pipes subjected to water hammer. J. Strain Anal. Eng. Des. 46(1), 14–26 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Y.J. Chao, X. Zhang, Constraint effect in brittle fracture, ed by R.S. Piascik, J.C. Newman, Jr, D.E. Dowling. 27th National Symposium on Fatigue and Fracture, ASTM STP 1296 (American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, 1997), pp. 41–60Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    M.R. Ayatollahi, M.J. Pavier, D.J. Smith, Mode I cracks subjected to large T-stresses. Int. J. Fract. 117(2), 159–174 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Y.J. Chao, X. Zhang, Constraint effect in brittle fracture, ed by R.S. Piascik, J.C. Newman, Jr., D.E. Dowling. 27th National Symposium on Fatigue and Fracture, ASTM STP 1296 (American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, 1997) pp. 41–60Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    S.G. Larsson, A.J. Carlsson, Influence of non-singular stress terms and specimen geometry on small-scale yielding at crack tips in elastic-plastic materials. J. Mech. Phys. Solids 21, 263–278 (1973)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    A. Elazzizi, M. Hadj Meliani, A. Khelil, G. Pluvinage, Y.G. Matvienko, The master failure curve of pipe steels and crack paths in connection with hydrogen embrittlement. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 40(5), 2295–2302 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    R.A. Ainsworth, A constraint-based failure assessment diagram for fracture assessment. Int. J. Press. Vessels Pip. 64, 271–285 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    S. Cravero, C. Ruggieri, Structural integrity analysis of axially cracked pipelines using conventional and constraint-modified failure assessment diagrams. Int. J. Press. Vessels Pip. 83, 607–617 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    M. Mouwakeh, G. Pluvinage, S. Masri, Failure of water pipes containing surface cracks using limit analysis notions. Res. J. Aleppo Univ. Eng. Sci. Ser. 63, 79 (2011)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    B.S. Henry, A.R. Luxmore, The stress triaxiality constraint and the Q-value as a ductile fracture parameter. Eng. Fract. Mech. 57, 375–390 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Z. Chlup, I. Dlouhy, Micromechanical aspects of constraint effect at brittle fracture initiation, ed by I. Dlouhy. Transferability of fracture mechanical characteristics, vol 78, 65–78 (2002)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    M.H. Meliani, Y.G. Matvienko, G. Pluvinage, Two-parameter fracture criterion (Kρ, χ-Tef, c) based on notch fracture mechanics. Int. J. Fract. 167, 173–182 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    G.P. Nikishkov, An algorithm and computer program for the three-term asymptotic expansion of elastic–plastic crack tip stress and displacement field. Eng. Frac. Mech. 50, 65–83 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    S.G. Larsson, A.J. Carlsson, Influence of non-singular stress terms and specimen geometry on small-scale yielding at crack tips in elastic–plastic materials. J. Mech. Phys. Solids. 1(21), 263–277 (1973)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    G. Pluvinage, Notch effects in fatigue and Fracture (Editeur Kluwer, Paris, 2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    B. Yang, K. Ravichandar, Evaluation of T stress by stress difference method. Eng. Fract Mech. 64, 589–605 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    American National Standard Institute (ANSI)/American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME). Manual for determining strength of corroded pipelines, ASME B31G (1984)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    M.J. Maleski, M.S. Kirugulige, H.V. Tippur, A method for measuring mode I crack tip constraint under static and dynamic loading conditions. Soc. Exp. Mech. 44(5) 522–532 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    SINTAP: Structural Integrity Assessment Procedure, Final Report EU project BE95-1462 Brite Euram Programme Brussels (1999)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    H. Adib-Ramezani, J. Jeong, G. Pluvinage, Structural integrity evaluation of X52 gas pipes subjected to external corrosion defects using the SINTAP procedure. Int. J. Press. Vessels Pip. 1–13 (2006)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    R. Dodds, C. Ruggieri, K. Koppenhefer, 3D Constraint effects on models for transferability of cleavage fracture toughness. ASTM 1321, 179–197 (1997)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    N.P. O’Dowd, C.F. Shih, Family of crack-tip fields characterized by a triaxiality parameter: Part I. Structure of Fields. J. Mech. Phys. Solids 39, 989–1015 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© ASM International 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.LPTPMHassiba BenBouali University of ChlefChlefAlgeria
  2. 2.LaBPS-ENIMIPaul Verlaine University of MetzMetzFrance

Personalised recommendations