Skip to main content
Log in

On the Origin of the Anisotropic Damage of X100 Line Pipe Steel: Part I—In Situ Synchrotron Tomography Experiments

  • Thematic Section: 3D Materials Science
  • Published:
Integrating Materials and Manufacturing Innovation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this study, anisotropic ductility and associated damage mechanisms of a grade X100 line pipe steel previously studied at the macroscopic scale were investigated using in situ synchrotron radiation computed tomography of notched round bars. Line pipe materials have anisotropic mechanical properties, such as tensile strength, ductility and toughness. Specimens were tested for loading along both rolling (L) and transverse (T) directions. The in situ data collected allowed quantifying both specimen deformation (evolution of the cross section) and microscopic damage parameters such as porosity, void shape and void orientation. Nucleation at small particles (\({\hbox {CaS/TiO}}_2\)) aligned along the L direction was observed during plastic deformation. It was shown that only very few anisotropic particle clusters are present in the material. However, these clusters led to substantial early void growth for loading normal to the rolling direction, thereby explaining the toughness anisotropy in this material. Significant void growth was observed at the beginning of load decrease for a relatively limited diameter reduction (about 10%). Coalescence of voids within clusters along L direction (Necklace) clearly explained anisotropic rupture.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15
Fig. 16
Fig. 17
Fig. 18
Fig. 19
Fig. 20
Fig. 21
Fig. 22
Fig. 23
Fig. 24
Fig. 25

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The stock plate is subjected to cold working by a C-press, a U-press, an O-press, a seam welding and an expander in that order (see [16]).

References

  1. Morgeneyer TF, Besson J, Proudhon H, Starink M, Sinclair I (2009) Experimental and numerical analysis of toughness anisotropy in AA2139 Al-alloy sheet. Acta Mater 57:3902–3915

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Chen J, Madi Y, Morgeneyer T, Besson J (2011) Plastic flow and ductile rupture of a 2198 Al–Cu–Li aluminum alloy. Comput Mater Sci 50:1365–1371

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Kondori B, Madi Y, Besson J, Benzerga A (2018) Evolution of the 3D plastic anisotropy of HCP metals: experiments and modeling. Int J Plast 117:71–92

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Herrington JS, Madi Y, Besson J, Benzerga AA (2019) Modeling the 3D plastic anisotropy of a magnesium alloy processed using severe plastic deformation. In: Joshi VV, Jordon JB, Orlov D, Neelameggham NR (eds) Magnesium technology 2019. Springer, Cham, pp 283–287

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  5. Benzerga AA (2000) Rupture ductile des tôles anisotropes. Simulation de la propagation longitudinale dans un tube pressurisé. PhD thesis, Ecole des Mines de Paris, Thèse de doctorat dirigée par Pineau, André Physique. Science des matériaux. Rhéologie Paris, ENMP 200

  6. Shinohara Y, Madi Y, Besson J (2016) Anisotropic ductile failure of a high-strength line pipe steel. Int J Fract 197:127–145

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Bron F, Besson J (2004) A yield function for anisotropic materials. Application to aluminium alloys. Int J Plast 20:937–963

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Benzerga A, Besson J, Pineau A (2004) Anisotropic ductile fracture part I: experiments. Acta Mater 52:4623–4638

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Pardoen T (1998) Ductile fracture of cold-drawn copper bars: experimental investigation and micromechanical modelling. PhD thesis, Université catholique de Louvain, Belgium

  10. Maire E, Zhou S, Adrien J, Dimichiel M (2011) Damage quantification in aluminium alloys using in situ tensile tests in X-ray tomography. Eng Fract Mech 78:2679–2690

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Landron C, Maire E, Bouaziz O, Adrien J, Lecarme L, Bareggi A (2011) Validation of void growth models using X-ray microtomography characterization of damage in dual phase steels. Acta Mater 59:7564–7573

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Pommier H, Busso E, Morgeneyer T, Pineau A (2016) Intergranular damage during stress relaxation in AISI 316L-type austenitic stainless steels: effect of carbon, nitrogen and phosphorus contents. Acta Mater 103:893–908

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Hannard F, Simar A, Maire E, Pardoen T (2018) Quantitative assessment of the impact of second phase particle arrangement on damage and fracture anisotropy. Acta Mater 148:456–466

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Buljac A, Shakoor M, Neggers J, Bernacki M, Bouchard PO, Helfen L, Morgeneyer TF, Hild F (2017) Numerical validation framework for micromechanical simulations based on synchrotron 3D imaging. Comput Mech 59:419–441

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Tanguy B, Luu T, Perrin G, Pineau A, Besson J (2008) Plastic and damage behavior of a high strength X100 pipeline steel: experiments and modelling. Int J Press Vessels Pip 85:322–335

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Tsuru E, Nagata Y, Shinohara Y, Agata J, Shirakami S (2013) Forming and buckling simulation on high-strength UOE pipe with plastic anisotropy. Technical report, Nippon Steel Technical Report No. 102 January 2013

  17. Shinohara Y (2014) Prestrain effect on anisotropic ductile damage. PhD thesis, Mines ParisTech

  18. Di Michiel M, Merino JM, Fernandez-Carreiras D, Buslaps T, Honkimäki V, Falus P, Martins T, Svensson O (2005) Fast microtomography using high energy synchrotron radiation. Rev Sci Instrum 76:043702

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Madi Y, Garcia JM, Proudhon H, Lukas H, Shinohara Y, Besson J, Morgeneyer T (2019) A dataset for in-situ synchrotron tomography experiments to investigate anisotropic damage of line pipe steel. Dataset Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3528199

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Buffière J-Y, Maire E, Adrien J, Masse J-P, Boller E (2010) In situ experiments with X-ray tomography: an attractive tool for experimental mechanics. Exp Mech 50:289–305

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Jones E, Oliphant T, Peterson P et al (2001) SciPy: open source scientific tools for Python (online)

  22. Landron C, Maire E, Adrien J, Bouaziz O, Di Michiel M, Cloetens P, Suhonen H (2012) Resolution effect on the study of ductile damage using synchrotron X-ray tomography. Nucl Instrum Methods Phys Res Sect B Beam Interact Mater Atoms 284:15–18

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Walton WH (1948) Feret’s statistical diameter as a measure of particle size. Nature 162:329–330

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Merkus HG (2009) Particle size measurements: fundamentals, practice, quality (Particle technology series book 17). Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  25. Denis EP, Barat C, Jeulin D, Ducottet C (2008) 3D complex shape characterization by statistical analysis: application to aluminium alloys. Mater Charact 59:338–343

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Borbély A, Csikor F, Zabler S, Cloetens P, Biermann H (2004) Three-dimensional characterization of the microstructure of a metal–matrix composite by holotomography. Mater Sci Eng A 367:40–50

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Morgeneyer TF, Taillandier-Thomas T, Buljac A, Helfen L, Hild F (2016) On strain and damage interactions during tearing: 3D in situ measurements and simulations for a ductile alloy. J Phys Mech Solids 96:550–571

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Roth CC, Morgeneyer TF, Cheng Y, Helfen L, Mohr D (2018) Ductile damage mechanism under shear-dominated loading: in-situ tomography experiments on dual phase steel and localization analysis. Int J Plast 109:169–192

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Maire E, Bouaziz O, Di Michiel M, Verdu C (2008) Initiation and growth of damage in a dual-phase steel observed by X-ray microtomography. Acta Mater 56:4954–4964

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors gratefully acknowledge Nippon Steel Corporation for supporting, M. Dimichiel for help in the use of the beamline at the ESRF (experiment ma1932) and Mateis team from INSA-Lyon University for the use of in situ test machine.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Y. Madi.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.

Appendices

Appendix 1: 2D Sections for the Measurement of the Ellipse of the Minimal Cross Section

See Figs. 26 and 27.

Fig. 26
figure 26

Extraction of 2D sections from the 3D volume for a few L loading steps. The minimum cross section is represented by an ellipse whose main axes are oriented in directions T and S for specimen L, in directions L and S for specimen T. The diameter reduction in these directions is deduced from the measurement of the main axes of the ellipse

Fig. 27
figure 27

Extraction of 2D sections from the 3D volume for a few T loading steps. The minimum cross section is represented by an ellipse whose main axes are oriented in directions T and S for specimen L, in directions L and S for specimen T. The diameter reduction in these directions is deduced from the measurement of the main axes of the ellipse

Appendix 2: Statistical Analysis of All Porosities

See Figs. 2829 and 30.

Fig. 28
figure 28

Evolution of Feret’s shape factor with respect to the volume size for L loading direction, all porosities, steps number: 1, 5, 10, 13

Fig. 29
figure 29

Evolution of Feret’s shape factor with respect to the volume size for L loading direction, all porosities, steps number: 1, 3, 5, 8

Fig. 30
figure 30

Histograms of the equivalent spherical diameter \(D_{{\mathrm{eq}}}=\root 3 \of {\frac{6V}{\pi }}\) and the Feret’s shape factor, all porosities: for L loading direction, steps number: 1, 5, 10, 13 and for T loading direction, steps number: 1, 3, 5, 8

Appendix 3: Void Shape and Void Orientation Analysis—Complementary Results

See Figs. 313233 and 34.

Fig. 31
figure 31

L specimen (step 05): a 3D visualization and \(\gamma \) angle orientation (with respect to the principal axis of the equivalent ellipsoid and the material L direction, \(\gamma =0\) therefore corresponds to a cavity oriented along the L direction), b shape characterization (Adimensional principal moments of inertia \(\lambda _2\) vs. \(\lambda _1\)) evolution during the in situ test for the 50 largest individual particles. c Polar, d histogram plots are used to represent each \(\gamma \) angle distribution wherein (for polar plot) radial component represents the distance from the center of the minimal cross section of the sample (the marker size is related to the volume size of the cavity)

Fig. 32
figure 32

L specimen (step 13): a 3D visualization and \(\gamma \) angle orientation (with respect to the principal axis of the equivalent ellipsoid and the material L direction, \(\gamma =0\) therefore corresponds to a cavity oriented along the L direction), b shape characterization (Adimensional principal moments of inertia \(\lambda _2\) vs. \(\lambda _1\)) evolution during the in situ test for the 50 largest individual particles. c Polar, d histogram plots are used to represent each \(\gamma \) angle distribution wherein (for polar plot) radial component represents the distance from the center of the minimal cross section of the sample (the marker size is related to the volume size of the cavity)

Fig. 33
figure 33

L specimen (step 03): a 3D visualization and \(\gamma \) angle orientation (with respect to the principal axis of the equivalent ellipsoid and the material L direction, \(\gamma =0\) therefore corresponds to a cavity oriented along the L direction), b shape characterization (Adimensional principal moments of inertia \(\lambda _2\) vs. \(\lambda _1\)) evolution during the in situ test for the 50 largest individual particles. c Polar, d histogram plots are used to represent each \(\gamma \) angle distribution wherein (for polar plot) radial component represents the distance from the center of the minimal cross section of the sample (the marker size is related to the volume size of the cavity)

Fig. 34
figure 34

L specimen (step 08): a 3D visualization and \(\gamma \) angle orientation (with respect to the principal axis of the equivalent ellipsoid and the material L direction, \(\gamma =0\) therefore corresponds to a cavity oriented along the L direction), b shape characterization (Adimensional principal moments of inertia \(\lambda _2\) vs. \(\lambda _1\)) evolution during the in situ test for the 50 largest individual particles. c Polar, d histogram plots are used to represent each \(\gamma \) angle distribution wherein (for polar plot) radial component represents the distance from the center of the minimal cross section of the sample (the marker size is related to the volume size of the cavity)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Madi, Y., Garcia, JM., Proudhon, H. et al. On the Origin of the Anisotropic Damage of X100 Line Pipe Steel: Part I—In Situ Synchrotron Tomography Experiments. Integr Mater Manuf Innov 8, 570–596 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40192-019-00165-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40192-019-00165-0

Keywords

Navigation