Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 11

Proceedings of the 2012 9th International Pipeline Conference

IPC2012

September 24-28, 2012, Calgary, Alberta, Canada

IPC2012-90659

MULTI-TIER TENSILE STRAIN MODELS FOR STRAIN-BASED DESIGN PART 2 DEVELOPMENT AND FORMULATION OF TENSILE STRAIN CAPACITY MODELS

Ming Liu, Yong-Yi Wang, and Yaxin Song

Center for Reliable Energy Systems Dublin, OH, USA

David Horsley

BP Calgary, Alberta, Canada

Steve Nanney

PHMSA, US DOT Houston, TX, USA

ABSTRACT

This is the second paper in a three-paper series related to

the development of tensile strain models. The fundamental basis of the models [1] and evaluation of the models against experiment data [2] are presented in two companion papers. This paper presents the structure and formulation of the models. The philosophy and development of the multi-tier tensile strain models are described. The tensile strain models are applicable for linepipe grades from X65 to X100 and two welding processes, i.e., mechanized GMAW and FCAW/SMAW. The tensile strain capacity (TSC) is given as a function of key material properties and weld and flaw geometric parameters, including pipe wall thickness, girth weld high-low misalignment, pipe strain hardening (Y/T ratio), weld strength mismatch, girth weld flaw size, toughness, and internal pressure. Two essential parts of the tensile strain models are the crack driving force and material’s toughness. This paper covers principally the crack driving force. The significance and

determination of material’s toughness are covered in the

companion papers [1,2].

KEYWORDS

Strain-based design, tensile strain capacity, tensile strain models, crack driving force, crack tip opening displacement (CTOD)

INTRODUCTION

The applications of strain-based design under a variety of ground movement hazard conditions are described by Wang, et al. in a companion paper [1]. Tensile strain models at varying level of maturity are briefly reviewed. The TSC of a pipeline is controlled by its girth welds, due to the possible existence of

weld defects and often deteriorative metallurgical and/or mechanical property changes from welding thermal cycles. Consequently, TSC is an integral part of girth weld procedure specification and field welding flaw acceptance criteria.

The most recognized procedures for TSC design are DNV OS F101 and DNV RP F108 for offshore and CSA Z662 Annex C for onshore applications. In the Annex C of CSA Z662 2007 Edition [3], TSC is given in a set of parametric equations which incorporate the influence of material properties and girth flaw size. The initiation toughness, alternatively termed apparent toughness is used as to represent the material’s toughness under low crack-tip constraint conditions [4,5,6,7,8,9].

Some factors which were later found to have a strong impact on TSC were not explicitly considered in the Annex C of CSA Z662. These factors include internal pressure [10,11,12], girth weld high-low misalignment [13,14,15], HAZ softening [16], and weld strength mismatch. The effects of internal pressure effect were implicitly considered by setting a hard limit on the maximum allowable apparent toughness (0.3 mm) to prevent non-conservative TSC prediction. Girth weld strength overmatch was required to use the parametric equations of Annex C.

A joint US government (Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, or PHMSA of US DOT) and industry (PRCI) project was initiated in 2006 to develop refined tensile strain models. The work was jointly carried out by the Center for Reliable Energy Systems (CRES), C-FER Technologies, and Microalloying International. The description of this multi- year multi-million dollar effort can be found in a set of freely available publications on US DOT PHMSA web site [17,18]. The TSC model development effort led by CRES is the focus of

  • 1 Copyright © 2012 by ASME

This work is in part a work of the U.S. Government. ASME disclaims all interest in the U.S. Government’s contributions.

this paper. Some parts of the newly developed models are a continuation of the CSA Z662 Annex C approach, albeit with significantly more refinement.

Parallel to the US DOT and PRCI efforts, independent work has been carried out by other organizations, notably SINTEF [19,20,21,22], ExxonMobil [23,24,25,26,27] and Osaka/JFE [28,29,30].

STRUCTURE OF THE TSC MODELS Limit States

Two limit states, initiation-control and ductile-instability control, are incorporated in the tensile strain models.

Limit State Based on Initiation Control

The initiation-based tensile limit state is defined as CTOD F = CTOD A , where CTOD F is the crack-driving force and CTOD A (or δ A ) is the apparent toughness. The apparent toughness is the toughness corresponding to the onset of stable tearing. Both CTOD F and CTOD A are represented by the crack tip opening displacement, i.e., CTOD. The initiation-based limit state is schematically illustrated in Figure 1.

The apparent toughness represents the resistance of the material to the applied strain in the presence of weld flaws.

The term “apparent” is adopted in recognition that the

traditional single-parameter based fracture mechanics is not strictly valid in the presence of large crack-tip plasticity, which

is almost always the case for strain-based design.

this paper. Some parts of the newly developed models are a continuation of the CSA Z662

Figure 1 Definition of initiation-control based limit state

Limit Stated Based on Ductile Instability

The ductile-instability based limit state is illustrated in Figure 2. The fracture toughness is expressed as a function of flaw growth as shown in Figure 2, which is usually termed as the tearing resistance curve (i.e., CTOD R curve). The limit state is defined as the tangent point of the crack driving force curve and the fracture toughness curve.

TSC Model Structures

The tensile strain models presented here were established with the following philosophical considerations:

(1)

A flexible framework is necessary for the adoption of

current technology and the incorporation of future

development. Tensile strain design is still an evolving engineering discipline. A number of potentially valid approaches are being developed. A flexible framework allows for the incorporation of those approaches as they become mature. One example of such flexibility is the use of both CTOD and J-integral as fracture mechanics parameters. Although CTOD is used as the fracture mechanics parameter in the current models, the approach established here can be easily converted to use J as the fracture mechanics parameter. The offshore industry has been moving towards J-based assessment methodology in recent years.

Remote Strain CTOD F  1  2 CTOD R  3 Failure Point Da =
Remote Strain
CTOD F
 1
2
CTOD R
3
Failure Point
Da = 0
Flaw Growth Da
CTOD F and CTOD R

Figure 2 Definition of ductile-instability based limit state

(2) The most appropriate approach for the tensile strain design of a particular project depends on the scale of the

project and many design and maintenance considerations. No single approach may be appropriate for all projects. There can be tradeoffs between extensive material property testing and qualification versus simply “overdesigning” the system. For instance, lower grades and thicker walls may be used to achieve high strain capacity with a relatively simplified welding procedure qualification. (3) The overall framework should be flexible enough to use various forms of material toughness representation. Depending on the vintage of a pipeline or if the methodology is being applied to new constructions or an in-service pipeline, the availability of girth weld toughness varies greatly. For instance, Charpy impact energy may not be considered as a rigorous fracture mechanics parameter. For many in-service pipelines, the Charpy impact toughness could be the closest toughness representation. With those philosophical considerations as a guide, a multi-tier structure, represented by four levels, is established for the TSC models. As the level progresses, the assessment methodology becomes more sophisticated; thus more material property data are required.

Level 1 Models Initial Screening and Feasibility Studies

The Level 1 models are intended for quick estimations of likely tensile strain capacity. The TSC is tabulated for selected pipe dimensions, material properties, and flaw sizes [18]. The apparent toughness is estimated from upper shelf Charpy impact energy.

Level 2 Models Nominal Assessment with Standard Toughness Data

The Level 2 models are given in a library of parametric equations as described in the following sections. The apparent toughness can be estimated from either upper shelf Charpy impact energy or the upper shelf standard CTOD toughness.

Level 3 Models Advanced Assessment with Low- Constraint Toughness

The Level 3 models have two options. Level 3a uses an initiation control limit state. Level 3b uses a ductile instability control limit state. In Level 3a, the TSC is given by the same library of parametric equations as in Level 2. The apparent toughness may be obtained by a number of low constraint test options, including shallow-notched SENB, SENT, and CWP. In Level 3b, the crack driving force, CTOD F , is expressed by a group of iso-strain curves constructed from the same library of parametric equations. In this application, various levels of strains are given as a function of flaw depth derived from the parametric equations, see Figure 2.

Level 4 Models Advanced Analysis with Direct FEA Calculation

The Level 4 models are structured in two options representing two limit states. In contrast to Level 3 models, where the driving force relations are expressed in parametric equations, the driving force relations are directly obtained from finite element analysis (FEA) in this level. The toughness options are the same as in Level 3 models. This level allows for special cases when the specific weld geometry and material property conditions do not allow the use of the first three levels. The Level 4 models should only be exercised by seasoned experts. As stated in a prior section, the two key components of tensile strain models are crack driving force and the material’s toughness. The development of the crack driving force relations, as shown schematically in Figure 1 (CTOD F ), is described in details below.

DEVELOPMENT OF CTOD F RELATIONS Material Property Representation

Background

The crack driving force (CTOD F ) is influenced by the shape of a material's stress-strain curve. The stress-strain curve

is often represented by three key material parameters: yield strength (YS), ultimate tensile strength (UTS), and uniform strain (uEL). In the development of TSC models, material's full stress-strain curves are used in FEA. These stress-strain curves are fully described by some mathematic equations. Depending on the selection of the mathematical equations, different stress- strain curves can be formed even with the same values of the three key parameters, YS, UTS (or Y/T), and uEL. Therefore, proper mathematic equations are needed to represent the shape of the stress-strain curves of actual pipe and weld materials. The mathematical equations should be able to (1) uniquely determine a full stress-strain curve using the three material parameters, i.e., YS, UTS (or Y/T), and uEL and (2) statistically give a reasonable representation of the stress-strain curves of actual materials.

Two widely used stress-strain curve equations, i.e., the Ramberg-Osgood (RO) equation and the CSA Z662 equation were examined. The CSA Z662 equation was found to give a better representation of pipe stress-strain curves than the RO equation [18]. The CSA Z662 equation was selected to represent and generate full stress-strain curves. The CSA Z662 equation defines the relationship between the engineering stress () and engineering strain () as,

E

0.005

y

E

       
 
     

 

y

n    
n
 
 

,

(1)

where E is the Young's modulus, y is the YS at 0.5% strain, and n is the strain hardening exponent of the CSA equation.

For

a given

set

of YS

(y ), UTS (u ), and uEL (u ), a

unique n can be determined by Eq. (2). Therefore, the CSA equation can uniquely determine a full stress-strain curve which satisfies the YS, UTS (or Y/T), and uEL exactly.

n  ln    
n  ln   
  u u E E    /ln    0.005  
u
u
E E    /ln   
0.005 
 
y

u

y

   

(2)

Representation of Pipe Properties

The relationship between the strain hardening exponent n and the Y/T ratio is shown in Figure 3 for a collection of 76 pipe longitudinal stress-strain curves. The range of the material properties is summarized in Table 1. The YS (longitudinal direction) ranges from 56 ksi to 114 ksi, and therefore roughly covers pipe grades from X65 to X100. The uEL varies from 5% to 17%. The key material parameters, i.e., YS, UTS, and uEL, were directly measured from the stress-strain curves and used to calculate the Y/T and the strain hardening exponent n of the CSA equation (i.e., Eq. (2)). A clear correlation between n and Y/T can be observed in Figure 3 which indicates the key linepipe parameters, i.e., YS, UTS (or Y/T), and uEL are interrelated to a certain degree. In the following analysis, the

Eng. Stress (MPa)

n (CSA)

Calculated uEL (mm/mm)

uEL was treated as a dependent material parameter. Its value is uniquely related YS and Y/T.

Table 1 Summary of the material database (pipe)

75.3 29.8 11.9 n (CSA)
75.3
29.8
11.9
n
(CSA)
YT YS-0.5% 0.05 0.74 56 68 Minimum mm/mm ksi ksi uEL UTS
YT
YS-0.5%
0.05 0.74
56 68
Minimum
mm/mm
ksi
ksi
uEL
UTS
125 Maximum 114 0.17 0.95 Median 84 100 0.07 0.88
125
Maximum
114
0.17 0.95
Median
84 100
0.07 0.88

80

60

40

20

0

YS: 56 ksi - 114 ksi No. of Stress-Strain Curves: 76 uEL: 5% - 17% Y/T:

YS: 56 ksi - 114 ksi

No. of Stress-Strain Curves: 76

uEL: 5% - 17%

Y/T: 0.74 - 0.95 Fitted Curve Experiment Data
Y/T: 0.74 - 0.95
Fitted Curve
Experiment Data
YS: 56 ksi - 114 ksi No. of Stress-Strain Curves: 76 uEL: 5% - 17% Y/T:
YS: 56 ksi - 114 ksi No. of Stress-Strain Curves: 76 uEL: 5% - 17% Y/T:
YS: 56 ksi - 114 ksi No. of Stress-Strain Curves: 76 uEL: 5% - 17% Y/T:
n= 3.14/(1-Y/T)
n= 3.14/(1-Y/T)

0.70

0.75

0.80

0.85

0.90

0.95

1.00

Y/T

Figure 3 Correlation between n and Y/T (pipe)

A representative pipe stress-strain curve is shown in Figure

  • 4. The curve is of round-house shape but becomes very flat

near UTS. The flat curve near UTS is typical for modern linepipe steels which can create certain challenges in determining uEL. In addition, due to the flat part of the curve, the representation of the stress-strain curve with a single mathematical equation can be difficult. Therefore, the stress- train curve was divided into two parts as shown in Figure 4 and represented by two different equations, respectively:

E

= u

0.005

y

E

 

     

 

y

 

 

n

(0 ) ,

(0 < u ) ,

(3)

(4)

where n, 0 , and u are calculated from the following equations,

650

600

550

500

450

400

350

300

0

UTS uEL Flat Curve
UTS
uEL
Flat Curve
0 UTS uEL Flat Curve YS
YS
YS
0 UTS uEL Flat Curve YS
0 UTS uEL Flat Curve YS
0 UTS uEL Flat Curve YS

0.00

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.10

Eng. Strain (mm/mm)

Figure 4 A sample pipe stress-strain curve

0.30

0.25

0.20

0.15

0.10

0.05

0.00

YS: 56 ksi - 114 ksi No. of Stress-Strain Curves: 76 R² = 0.56 y =

YS: 56 ksi - 114 ksi

No. of Stress-Strain Curves: 76

R² = 0.56 y = 0.99x
R² = 0.56 y = 0.99x
R² = 0.56 y = 0.99x
R² = 0.56 y = 0.99x
R² = 0.56
y = 0.99x
R² = 0.56 y = 0.99x
YS: 56 ksi - 114 ksi No. of Stress-Strain Curves: 76 R² = 0.56 y =
Y/T: 0.74 - 0.95 uEL: 5% - 17%
Y/T: 0.74 - 0.95
uEL: 5% - 17%

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

Measured uEL(mm/mm)

0.20

Figure 5 Calculated uEL v.s. measured uEL

Representation of Weld Properties

Two sample weld stress-strain curves are shown in Figure 6, one for X65 pipe and the other for X100 pipe. In contrast to the round-house type stress-strain curves of linepipes, the weld metal stress-strain curves show a discontinuous yielding point.

The stress-strain relationship is linear prior to reaching the yield

point. Furthermore, it has been frequently observed that the weld metal stress-strain curves often contain a Lüder’s strain as high as 2%. Some of the recent data suggest that the existence

of the Lüder’s strain is closely related to specimen locations.

3.14 n  The Lüder’s strain usually exists in specimens extracted near 1-Y/T , (5) pipe
3.14
n 
The Lüder’s strain usually exists in specimens extracted near
1-Y/T
,
(5)
pipe ID, while OD specimens usually do not show the Lüder’s
strain. The difference is believed to be caused by the different
n
u
   0.005
y
u
 
,
(6)
thermal histories experienced by ID and OD weld materials.
0
E
E
 
 u 1.25 0 .
       
y
 
The weld stress-strain curves usually do not show an obvious
Lüder’s strain in full-thickness specimens.
(7)
Based on the above observations, the weld stress-strain
Equation (5) was derived by curve fitting of the data shown
in Figure 3. The calculated uEL from Eqs. (5) - (7) was
compared with the originally measured values for all materials
shown in Figure 3. As shown in Figure 5, on average, the
calculated uEL matches the original values well.
curve
was
divided
into
three
sections
as
shown
in
the
following:

n (CSA)

YS (ksi)

Eng. Stress (MPa)

E

y

y /E

y / E 1%

(8)

(9)

E

  0.005

y

E

       

y

 

 

n

0.005

1%u .

(10)

where a 1% Lüder’s strain was used.

The strain hardening exponent n can be calculated from the following correlation equation:

n

2.58

1

Y/T

1.17

.

(11)

Equation (11) was derived from a collection of 64 weld stress-strain curves with YS ranging from 66 ksi to 132 ksi as shown in Figure 7. The range of the material properties is summarized in Table 2. Specimens of different types and extracted at different locations are all plotted together.

To further reduce the number of independent parameters for generating a weld stress-strain curve, a correlation equation for the YS and UTS of the weld was established for the same set of weld stress-strain curves. As shown in Figure 8, the correlation equation is given as:

y = u - 13.2,

(12)

where the unit of YS (y ) and UTS (u ) is ksi. By the use of Eqs. (8) - (12), a unique weld metal stress-strain curve can be generated for a given UTS.

Table 2 Summary of the material database (weld)

0.96 96.9 0.89 34.2 112 127 Median 138 0.13 132 Maximum 0.08 0.81 15.9 n (CSA)
  • 0.96 96.9

  • 0.89 34.2

112 127 Median 138 0.13 132 Maximum 0.08
112 127
Median
138 0.13
132
Maximum
0.08
  • 0.81 15.9

n

(CSA)

Minimum 0.04 82 YT YS UTS uEL ksi ksi mm/mm 66
Minimum
0.04
82
YT
YS
UTS
uEL
ksi
ksi
mm/mm
66

1000

800

600

400

200

X65

X100

X65 X100
X65 X100
X65 X100
X65 X100
X65 X100

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

Eng. Strain (mm/mm)

Figure 6 Sample weld metal stress-strain curves

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

n= 2.58/(1-Y/T) 1.17

n = 2.58/(1-Y/T)

Y/T: 0.81 - 0.96

uEL: 4% - 13%

Experiment Data Fitted Curve

Experiment Data

Fitted Curve

Experiment Data Fitted Curve
Experiment Data Fitted Curve
Experiment Data Fitted Curve

No. of Stress-Strain Curves: 64

YS: 66 ksi - 132 ksi

n = 2.58/(1-Y/T) Y/T: 0.81 - 0.96 uEL: 4% - 13% Experiment Data Fitted Curve No.

0.80

0.85

0.90

0.95

1.00

Y/T

Figure 7 Correlation between n and Y/T (weld)

160

140

120

100

80

60

No. of Stress-Strain Curves: 64 YS: 66 ksi - 132 ksi uEL: 4% - 13% Y/T:

No. of Stress-Strain Curves: 64

No. of Stress-Strain Curves: 64 YS: 66 ksi - 132 ksi uEL: 4% - 13% Y/T:
No. of Stress-Strain Curves: 64 YS: 66 ksi - 132 ksi uEL: 4% - 13% Y/T:
YS: 66 ksi - 132 ksi uEL: 4% - 13% Y/T: 0.81 - 0.96
YS: 66 ksi
- 132 ksi
uEL: 4% - 13%
Y/T: 0.81 - 0.96
1.00 UTS - 13.2 YS =
1.00 UTS - 13.2
YS =
No. of Stress-Strain Curves: 64 YS: 66 ksi - 132 ksi uEL: 4% - 13% Y/T:
No. of Stress-Strain Curves: 64 YS: 66 ksi - 132 ksi uEL: 4% - 13% Y/T:
No. of Stress-Strain Curves: 64 YS: 66 ksi - 132 ksi uEL: 4% - 13% Y/T:
No. of Stress-Strain Curves: 64 YS: 66 ksi - 132 ksi uEL: 4% - 13% Y/T:
No. of Stress-Strain Curves: 64 YS: 66 ksi - 132 ksi uEL: 4% - 13% Y/T:

60

80

100

120

140

160

UTS (ksi)

Figure 8 Correlation between YS and UTS (weld)

Crack Driving Force Development

FE Models

Commercial finite element (FE) software ABAQUS® was

used to calculate crack driving forces. A typical finite element

model is shown in Figure 9, where due to symmetry boundary

conditions in the circumference direction, only half of the pipe was modeled. The length of the model was 6 times of pipe OD to eliminate end-effects on crack opening and to obtain a finite zone of uniform strain in pipe longitudinal direction. Three- dimensional linear solid/brick elements were used where non- linear geometric (large-deformation) effect was enabled. The selected element type is proven to be effective on large plasticity analysis, especially associated with cracks.

The flaw was of a semi-elliptical shape and located on the ID surface of the pipe and at the fusion line (i.e., HAZ flaws). Due to weld metal overmatching, which is generally required in

strain-based design, the HAZ flaws usually see larger crack driving force than the weld metal flaws. The girth weld high- low misalignment was modeled as a relative shift of the two pipes on either side of the welds. The flaw depth was defined as the distance of the tip to the pipe ID surface, which is

adjacent to the flaw, as shown in Figure 9.

The flaw size was

kept constant during simulation and no flaw growth was

modeled. WM HAZ Flaw a Pipe body h
modeled.
WM
HAZ
Flaw
a
Pipe body
h

Figure 9 Finite element model

The FEA was conducted in two steps. In the first step, an internal pressure was applied to the ID surface where the two pipe ends were free of constraint and pressure. In the second step, a uni-axial tension was applied to the pipe while maintaining the internal pressure.

The key output of the FEA is the crack driving force relations, i.e., the relationship between the crack tip opening displacement (CTOD F ) and the remote strain. The CTOD F is calculated from the deformed crack tip profile following the traditional 45º-line method as shown in Figure 10. The remote strain was calculated in the uniform strain zone using a gage length of half OD, as shown in Figure 9.

Crack tip 45  45  Crack surface Crack surface on WM side CTOD WM on
Crack tip
45 
45 
Crack surface
Crack surface
on WM side
CTOD WM
on HAZ side
CTOD HAZ
CTOD=CTOD HAZ +CTOD WM

Figure 10 Schematic illustration of CTOD F calculation Weld Profiles

Weld and HAZ Profile

The profile of actual welds varies. To characterize the size and shape of a weld, the simplified parameters such as bevel angle, weld root width, cap height, and HAZ width are often used. In general, the total volume of the weld, determined by

the root width and bevel angle, is the dominant parameter for the CTOD F . However, the HAZ width (with softened HAZ), the shape and height of the cap (with large bevel angles), and

the alignment of the bevel angle/HAZ with plastic strain shear

band (with softened HAZ) can also have impact on the CTOD F .

The weld geometries are mainly determined by the welding

procedures. Although the exact weld shape can be affected by

many other conditions, the major parameters such as the bevel angle, root width, and HAZ width are repeatable within certain

ranges. The shape and height of the weld cap, on the other

hand, can vary significantly, even for the same weld. Mechanized GMAW and FCAW (or SMAW) are normally considered to be two of the major welding processes for pipeline welding. The mechanized GMAW welds normally have a small bevel angle and weld volume. The FCAW (or SMAW) welds have larger bevel angles and weld volume. Due to its high heat input, the FCAW (or SMAW) welds usually have a wider HAZ than mechanized GMAW welds.

The weld profiles of those two welding processes (i.e., GMAW and FCAW (or SMAW)) were selected in the analysis matrix (see Figure 11). The weld geometric parameters were determined from representative welds for each welding process. Conservative values were used for parameters that are highly variable such as the weld cap height.

3.0 mm 6 BM HAZ WM (a) GMAW Flaw 50 mm 1.5 mm 15.875 mm
3.0 mm
6
BM
HAZ
WM
(a) GMAW
Flaw
50 mm
1.5 mm
15.875 mm
4.5 mm 30 BM HAZ WM (b) FCAW Flaw 1.5 mm 15.875 mm
4.5 mm
30
BM
HAZ
WM
(b) FCAW
Flaw
1.5 mm
15.875 mm

2.5 mm

Figure 11 Weld geometry profiles and parameters

HAZ Softening

HAZ

softening

has

been

frequently

found

in

modern

linepipe welds, even for the pipe grades as low as X65.

The

hardness

map

in

the weld

area usually indicates that

the

strength of HAZ materials varies with location. It should be noted that the width of the softened zone can be twice as wide as the visible HAZ. By controlling the welding procedure, the level of HAZ softening can be controlled. For welds of reasonable quality, the maximum softening should be expected to be below 15% and likely around 10%. Previous research has demonstrated that a 10%-15% softened HAZ of 2-mm wide can increase the crack driving force by 20%.

To

obtain

reasonably

conservative

solutions,

a

10%

softening was used in all analyses. The strength of the HAZ materials was assumed to vary with the location in the HAZ and follow a 2 nd order function of a bathtub shape. The maximum softening was reached at the mid-width of the HAZ and the strength of the HAZ material gradually changed to the

strength of the pipe and weld materials, respectively at the corresponding interface.

FE Matrix

Based on the degree of interaction between the parameters, two types of analysis matrix were developed for different key parameters, namely full and partial permutation analysis matrix.

Partial Permutation Matrix

The effect of wall thickness and internal pressure on CTOD F was analyzed with a partial permutation matrix as shown in Table 3 and Table 4, respectively. In those analyses, the complete permutation was implemented only on selected parameters.

Full Permutation Matrix

The key parameters such as flaw depth, flaw length, weld high-low misalignment, pipe Y/T, and weld OM are highly interacting. Those parameters were named full permutation parameters in the following matrix. To understand and model their coupling effect, full permutation of all those parameters needs to be implemented. The corresponding FE matrix is called the full permutation analysis matrix (see Table 5). The full permutation parameters are highlighted in bold. A total of 1152 cases are included in this matrix for two different welds (GMAW and FCAW). The Y/T ranges from 0.75 to 0.94; and the weld overmatch (OM) varies from 0% to 30%. The flaw depth changes from 2 mm to 8 mm; and the flaw length changes from 25 mm to 100 mm. The weld high-low misalignment varies from 0.0 mm to 3.2 mm.

MULTI-TIER TENSILE STRAIN MODELS BY THEIR LEVELS Levels 1, 2 and 3a Models - Initiation Control

The Levels, 1, 2, and 3a models use initiation control. The TSC is determined by equating the crack driving force with the apparent toughness. The Levels 2 and 3a models are expressed

in parametric equations. The Level 1 models are effectively a tabular format of the Level 2 models.

Table 3 FE matrix for wall thickness effect

Values
Values
Values
   
Values

Values

Values
 

Parameters

 

Thickness I

Thickness II

 

Thickness III

   

YS (ksi)

 

80

 

80

 

80

Pipe

Y/T

 

0.81, 0.87

0.81, 0.87

 

0.81, 0.87, 0.94

Material

 

Lüder's Strain

 

1.0%

 

1.0%

 

1.0%

Weld

OM

 

0%, 15%

 

0%, 15%

0%, 15%

HAZ

Softening

 

10%

 

10%

 

10%

   

OD (inch)

 

42

 

42

 

42

Pipe

WT (mm)

 

12.70

 

19.05

 

25.40

 

Depth (mm )

 

2, 4

 

2, 4

 

3, 6

Geometry

Flaw

Length (mm)

 

25, 50

 

25, 50

 

25, 50

 

High-low (mm )

 

0.0, 1.6, 3.2

0.0, 1.6, 3.2

 

0.0, 1.6, 3.2, 4.8

Weld

Type

 

GMAW

 

GMAW

 

GMAW

Load

Pressure

Design Factor

 

0.72

 

0.72

 

0.72

 

Total Cases

   

192

Total Cases 192
Table 4 FE matrix for pressure effect
Table 4 FE matrix for pressure effect

Table 4 FE matrix for pressure effect

Table 4 FE matrix for pressure effect
Table 4 FE matrix for pressure effect
Table 4 FE matrix for pressure effect
Table 4 FE matrix for pressure effect
Table 4 FE matrix for pressure effect
Table 4 FE matrix for pressure effect
 
     

Values

 
 

Parameters

Nominal

Y/T

 

OM

Depth

Length

Misalignment

     

YS (ksi)

80

80

 

80

80

 

80

80

 

Pipe

 

Y/T

0.87

0.75, 0.94

 

0.87

0.87

 

0.87

0.87

Material

 

Lüder's Strain

1.0%

1.0%

1.0%

1.0%

 

1.0%

1.0%

 

Weld

 

OM

15%

15%

0%, 30%

15%

 

15%

15%

 

HAZ

 

Softening

10%

10%

 

10%

10%

 

10%

10%

     

OD (inch)

42

42

 

42

42

 

42

42

 

Pipe

 

WT (mm)

15.875

15.875

15.875

15.875

15.875

15.875

   

Depth (mm )

6

6

 

6

2, 8

 

6

6

Geometry

 

Flaw

 

Length (mm)

75

75

 

75

75

25, 100

75

 

High-low (mm )

1.6

1.6

 

1.6

1.6

 

1.6

0.0, 3.2

 

Weld

 

Type

GMAW

GMAW

GMAW

GMAW

GMAW

GMAW

Load

Pressure

Design Factor

0.0, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4, 0.5, 0.6, 0.72, 0.8

 

0.0, 0.4, 0.6, 0.72, 0.8

 
 

Total Cases

   

64

Total Cases 64

Table 5 Full permutation analysis matrix

YS (ksi) 80 1 Y/T 0.75, 0.81, 0.87, 0.94 4 Lüder's Strain 1% 1 OM 0%,

YS (ksi)

80

1

Y/T

0.75, 0.81, 0.87, 0.94

4

Lüder's Strain

1%

1

OM

0%, 15%, 30%

3

Softening

10%

1

OD (inch)

42

1

WT (in)

5/8

1

Depth (mm)

2, 4, 6, 8

4

Length (mm)

25, 50, 75, 100

4

High-low (mm)

0.0, 1.6, 3.2

3

Type

GMAW, FCAW

2

Design Factor

0.72

1

Values
Values
Total Cases
Total Cases
1152
1152
No. of Cases
No. of
Cases
YS (ksi) 80 1 Y/T 0.75, 0.81, 0.87, 0.94 4 Lüder's Strain 1% 1 OM 0%,

Pressure

Weld

Flaw

Parameters

Pipe

Geometry

Pipe

Material

Weld

HAZ

Load

Development Process

The development of the Levels 2 and 3a models follows the following process:

(1)

The crack driving force databases of the full analysis

matrix in Table 5 were fitted with two sets of parametric

equations, one for GMAW and one for FCAW/SMAW.

(2)

A wall thickness correlation relation was developed

using a curve fitting procedure based on the FEA database of pressurized pipes shown in Table 3.

(3)

The effects of internal pressure on TSC were analyzed

by comparing the TSC of pressurized pipes with the TSC of non-pressurized pipes (Table 4). A scaling factor for the TSC of non-pressurized pipes was developed by comparing their

TSC with the TSC of pressurized pipes at a pressure factor of

0.72.

(4)

An interpolation function was developed between zero

pressure and the 72% pressure based on the cases in Table 4.

The

outcome

of

the

above

process

is

a

set

of TSC

equations for a full range of internal pressure, a range of wall

thickness, and two weld profiles.

 

Input Parameters

 
f p
f
p

pressure factor, ratio of applied hoop stress to pipe yield strength.

The equations are in the general format of

TSC min u , P(f p )G(t)TSCp

(13)

where u represents pipe uniform strain (uEL) and the functions G(t) and P(f p ) characterize the effect of wall thickness and internal pressure, respectively. The function G(t) is given as,

G t    15.9  



t

0.80961 1.503

1.229

,

(14)

and the function P(f p ) is in the form of,

P

(

f

p

)

    

P

max

5

-

3

f

p

p

max

1

1

if 0

f

p

0.6

.

if 0.6

f

p

0.8

(15)

A conservative fixed value of 1.5 was initially given to P max in [18]. A more refined relation was developed later as,

The TSC models include the following parameters:

 

P

2.25

2

a

 

(16)

(1)

Geometric parameters:

max

 

t

t

pipe wall thickness, mm,

pipe yield strength, MPa,

The function TSC p in Eq. (13) is given as

 

a

flaw height, mm,

F

2c

flaw length, mm, and

TSC

p

A

A

1 F

A

(17)

h

girth weld high-low misalignment, mm.

where the unction F(A ) is

 

(2)

y

D

Material parameters:

F

A

C

A

B

A

.

(18)

A, B, C and D in Equations (1) and (3) are fitted functions of

U

pipe ultimate tensile strength, MPa,

normalized geometry and material properties.

U W

weld metal tensile strength, MPa, and

The fitted functions of A, B, C and D for GMAW are

 

A

(3)

girth weld apparent CTOD toughness, mm. Loading parameter:

A

a e

1

a

2

/

  

e

3

e

a 4 /

B

1

a

5

a

b

 

1

b

2

6

b 3

a

 

7

/

b

4

5

b

(

a

8

1

a

9

b

b

6

7

)

 

10

a

a

11

b

8

b

9

a

 

12

13

a

a

,

  • 14

,(19)

(20)

pressure factor, ratio of applied hoop stress to pipe

c

2

f

p

TSC Equations

yield strength.

  • C e

c

1

/

e

(1

D

c

3

 

)

1

c

4

c

5

d

3

d

d  

1

2

1 d

4

c e c e

6

7



c

1

d

5

d

6



1

d

7

8

c

9

d

8

c

10

c

11

d

d

9

10

.

 

c

12

,(21)

(22)

The TSC equations are given as a function of the following normalized geometric and material parameters, apparent CTOD toughness and pressure factor:

= a/t = 2c/t = h/t

normalized flaw depth, normalized flaw length, normalized weld high-low misalignment,

= y / U base metal Y/T ratio, = U W / U weld metal strength mismatch ratio

A

girth weld apparent CTOD toughness, mm,

The coefficients are listed in Table 6. The fitted functions of A, B, C and D for FCAW/SMAW are

A

a e

1

a

2

/

  

e

3

e

a 4 /

1

a

5

a

6

a

7

a

8



a

9

1

a

 

10

11

a

a

12

,(23)

B

b

 

1

b

2

b 3

/

b

4

5

b

(

b

b

6

7

)

b

8

b

9

,

(24)

c

2

C e

c

1

/

e

(1

c

3

 

)

1

c

4

c

5

c e c e

6

7



c

8

c

c

9

10

c

 

11

c

12

,

d

D d  

1

2

d

3

1

d

d d 

4

5

6



1

d d

7

8

9

d

d

10

.

(25)

(26)

The coefficients are listed in Table 7.

Applicable Range

The applicable ranges of the input parameters of TSC equations are:

= a/t = 2c/t = h/t

=

y / U

= U W / U

A

f p

0.05 0.5, 1.0 20.0, 0.0 0.2, 0.75 0.94, 1.0 1.3, 0.2 2.5 mm, and

0.0 0.8.

The applicable range of pipe wall thickness is 12.7 mm - 25.4 mm (i.e., 0.5 inch - 1.0 inch). The applicable range of pipe OD is 304 mm 1,219 mm (i.e., 12 inch 48 inch). The applicable range of pipe yield strength is 386 MPa - 690 MPa (i.e., 56 ksi - 100 ksi).

Table 6 Coefficients of GMAW equation

-5.005E-02 2.345E-01 -5.139E-03 2.209E-02 1.409E+00 8.964E-01 1.601E+00 4.181E+00 1.417E+00 1.156E+00 1.125E+00 4.485E-01 1.201E+00 3.547E-01 -3.719E+00 9.889E+00
-5.005E-02 2.345E-01 -5.139E-03 2.209E-02 1.409E+00 8.964E-01 1.601E+00 4.181E+00 1.417E+00 1.156E+00 1.125E+00 4.485E-01 1.201E+00 3.547E-01 -3.719E+00 9.889E+00
-5.005E-02 2.345E-01 -5.139E-03 2.209E-02 1.409E+00 8.964E-01 1.601E+00 4.181E+00 1.417E+00 1.156E+00 1.125E+00 4.485E-01 1.201E+00 3.547E-01 -3.719E+00 9.889E+00
-5.005E-02 2.345E-01 -5.139E-03 2.209E-02 1.409E+00 8.964E-01 1.601E+00 4.181E+00 1.417E+00 1.156E+00 1.125E+00 4.485E-01 1.201E+00 3.547E-01 -3.719E+00 9.889E+00
-5.005E-02 2.345E-01 -5.139E-03 2.209E-02 1.409E+00 8.964E-01 1.601E+00 4.181E+00 1.417E+00 1.156E+00 1.125E+00 4.485E-01 1.201E+00 3.547E-01 -3.719E+00 9.889E+00
-5.005E-02 2.345E-01 -5.139E-03 2.209E-02 1.409E+00 8.964E-01 1.601E+00 4.181E+00 1.417E+00 1.156E+00 1.125E+00 4.485E-01 1.201E+00 3.547E-01 -3.719E+00 9.889E+00
-5.005E-02
2.345E-01
-5.139E-03
2.209E-02
1.409E+00
8.964E-01
1.601E+00
4.181E+00
1.417E+00
1.156E+00
1.125E+00
4.485E-01
1.201E+00
3.547E-01
-3.719E+00
9.889E+00
8.559E+00
-2.598E+00
1.333E+00
-5.384E+00
1.029E+00
1.383E+00
-7.513E-01
2.217E+00
-2.154E-01
-5.237E-03
1.694E+00
-2.240E+00
-2.679E+00
9.313E-02
2.406E+00
b8
b9
b5
b7
b6
b2
b1
b4
b3
c8
c9
c5
c7
c6
c10
c12
c11
c2
c1
c4
c3
d7
d8
d5
d6
d9
d10
d1
d2
d4
d3
-5.005E+00 -4.950E-01 7.373E-01 2.084E+00 2.812E-01 1.025E+00 7.374E-01 -9.829E-01 1.186E+00 1.644E+00 8.655E-02 -1.029E-01 5.557E+00 -1.500E-01 a3 a2
-5.005E+00
-4.950E-01
7.373E-01
2.084E+00
2.812E-01
1.025E+00
7.374E-01
-9.829E-01
1.186E+00
1.644E+00
8.655E-02
-1.029E-01
5.557E+00
-1.500E-01
a3
a2
a8
a9
a6
a7
a14
a10
a11
a12
a13
a1
a5
a4

Table 7 Coefficient of FCAW equation

-2.023E+00

a6

9.434E-01

1.057E+00

2.603E-01

d5

c5

b5

d2 d8 7.500E+00 1.746E+00 1.014E+00 -1.243E+00 d6 d10 3.579E+01 d7 -6.930E+00 6.294E+01 d9 d3 2.378E+00 d4
d2
d8
7.500E+00
1.746E+00
1.014E+00
-1.243E+00
d6
d10
3.579E+01
d7
-6.930E+00
6.294E+01
d9
d3
2.378E+00
d4

1.609E+00

c1

d1 6.822E-03
d1
6.822E-03
-5.578E-02 b1 9.281E-01 a1
-5.578E-02
b1
9.281E-01
a1
-4.444E+00 c4 2.357E+00 c10 8.128E+00 c11 2.007E-01 c7 1.727E-02 c6 c9 c3 6.729E-01 -1.224E-02 c8 -1.354E-02
-4.444E+00
c4
2.357E+00
c10
8.128E+00
c11
2.007E-01
c7
1.727E-02
c6
c9
c3
6.729E-01
-1.224E-02
c8
-1.354E-02
c2
1.138E-01
-1.735E-01
a10
-9.815E-01
b7
2.909E-01
a11
-1.073E+00
b6
1.106E+00
a7
6.299E-01
7.585E-01
1.675E+00
a3
-5.053E-01
b3
1.112E-02
a5
a4
3.718E-01
b4
a8
b2
9.573E-02
a2
-1.519E+00
1.965E+00
b9
7.168E-01
a9
b8
5.168E-01
-1.594E+00 c12 -3.141E-01 a12
-1.594E+00
c12
-3.141E-01
a12

Level 3b - Ductile Instability Control

The TSC from the initial control limit state is determined by equating the crack driving force with the apparent toughness. The parametric equations described in the previous sections are effectively the crack driving force relation, if the apparent toughness in those equations is replaced with the crack driving force CTOD F . These parametric equations can therefore be used to develop the iso-strain curves of Figure 2.

Alternatively, the TSC equations of Eqs. (13) - (26) can be used to calculate the TSC directly for the ductile instability

limit state. A relationship between the apparent toughness (A ) and the flaw depth (a) can be generated from Eq. (17). By incrementing the flaw depth, the A vs. Da (where Da =a-a 0 ) relation is similar to a resistance curve. The parameter a 0 is the initial flaw depth. The strain value, i.e., TSC in Eq. (17), corresponding to varying amount of flaw growth (Da) can be calculated by using a = a 0 + Da and A = CTOD R (Da). Here the CTOD R (Da) is the experimentally measured material’s resistance. This process is equivalent to forcing the flaw to obey the material’s resistance curve. The computed strain values from this process first increase and then decrease with an incrementally larger Da. The maximum strain value is the tensile strain capacity (TSC) at the point of ductile instability. The process is fundamentally the same as determining the instability point using the iso-strain curves. With the parametric TSC equations, the ductile instability limit state can be exercised without generating the iso-strain curves.

Level 4 Models

The Level 4 models are effectively similar to Level 3 models. The major difference is that, at Level 4, the crack driving force is obtained on a case-by-case basis. At Levels 2 and, the crack driving force is given by a set of parametric equations. Expanded weld features can be incorporated in the Level 4 analysis. It should be emphasized that developing crack driving force in a consistent and robust manner requires extensive experience and validation. Only seasoned experts in the tensile strain design should attempt the Level 4 approach.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

Multi-tier tensile strain models are presented in this paper. Newly identified issues which can affect TSC, such as internal pressure, girth weld high-low misalignment, HAZ softening, and weld strength mismatch, have been systematically investigated and addressed. The tensile strain models are applicable to linepipe grades X65-X100 and two welding processes, i.e., GMAW and FCAW/SMAW.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The financial support of DOT/PHMSA and PRCI is gratefully acknowledged. The authors wish to recognize the invaluable contributions of Drs. Xiaoxia Wu and Honggang Zhou to the work presented here.

REFERENCES

  • 1 Wang, Y.-Y., Liu, M., Zhang, F., Horsley, D., and Nanney, S., “Multi-Tier Tensile Strain Models for Strain-Based Design Part I - Fundamental Basis,” Proceedings of the 2012 9 th International Pipeline Conference, Paper No. IPC2012-60690, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, September 24- 28, 2012.

  • 2 Liu, M., Wang, Y.-Y., Horsley, D., and Nanney, S., “Multi- Tier Tensile Strain Models for Strain-Based Design Part III - Model Evaluation against Experimental Data,” Proceedings of the 2012 9 th International Pipeline Conference, Paper No. IPC2012-60660, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, September 24-28, 2012.

  • 3 CSA Z662, “Oil and Gas Pipeline Systems,” Canadian Standards Association, 2007.

  • 4 Wang, Y.-Y., Rudland, D., Denys, R., and Horsley, D. J., “A Preliminary Strain-Based Design Criterion for Pipeline Girth Welds,” Proceedings of the International Pipeline Conference 2002, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, September 29- October 3, 2002.

  • 5 Wang, Y.-Y., Cheng, W., McLamb, M., Horsley, D., Zhou, J., and Glover, A., “Tensile Strain Limits of Girth Welds with Surface-Breaking Defects Part I an Analytical Framework,” in Pipeline Technology, Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Pipeline Technology, Edited by Rudi Denys, Ostend, Belgium, May 9-13, 2004.

  • 6 Wang, Y.-Y., Horsley, D., Cheng, W., Glover, A., McLamb, M., and Zhou, J., “Tensile Strain Limits of Girth Welds with Surface-Breaking Defects Part II Experimental Correlation and Validation,” in Pipeline Technology, Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Pipeline Technology, Edited by Rudi Denys, Ostend, Belgium, May 9-13, 2004.

  • 7 Horsley, D. and Wang, Y.-Y., “Weld Mismatch Effects on the Strain Limits of X100 Girth Welds,” in Pipeline Technology, Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Pipeline Technology, Edited by Rudi Denys, Oostende, Belgium, May 9-12, 2004.

  • 8 Wang, Y.-Y., Cheng, W., and Horsley, D., “Tensile Strain Limits of Buried Defects in Pipeline Girth Welds,” Proceedings of the International Pipeline Conference 2004, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, October 4-8, 2004.

  • 9 Wang, Y.-Y., Liu, M.,

Horsley,

D.,

and

Zhou,

J.,

“A

Quantitative Approach to Tensile Strain Capacity of Pipelines,” 6 th International Pipeline Conference, Paper No.

IPC2006-10474, September 25-29, 2006, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.

  • 10 Mohr. W. C., “Strain-Based Design of Pipelines,” final report to MMS, October 2003.

  • 11 Mohr, W., “Weld Area Mismatch and Pressure Effects in Strain-Based Design,” Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Pipeline Technology, Edited by Rudi Denys, Ostend, Belgium, May 9-13, 2004, pp. 279-290.

  • 12 Liu, M. and Wang, Y.-Y., “Significance of Biaxial Stress on the Strain Concentration and Crack Driving Force in Pipeline Girth Welds with Softened HAZ,” Proceedings of the 26 th International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering (OMAS 2007), San Diego, California, USA, June 10-15, 2007.

  • 13 Wang, Y.-Y. and Liu, M., “The Role of Anisotropy, Toughness Transferability, and Weld Misalignment in the Strain Based Design of Pipelines,” Proceedings of the 17 th International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference (ISOPE 2007), Lisbon, Portugal, July 1-6, 2007.

  • 14 Wang, Y.-Y. and Liu, M., “Weld Integrity from the Perspective of Strain-Based Design of Large Diameter and High Strength Pipelines,” Special Issue of the Proceedings of “Pipeline Technology Now and Then” at the 8 th International Welding Symposium, 8WS, November 16-18, 2008, Kyoto, Japan.

  • 15 Kibey, S. A., Minnaar, K., Issa, J. A., and Gioielli, P. C., “Effect of Misalignment on the Tensile Strain Capacity of Welded Pipelines,” Proceedings of the 18 th International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference (ISOPE 2008), Vancouver, Canada, July 6-11, 2008.

  • 16 Liu, M., Wang, Y.-Y., and Horsley, D., “Significance of HAZ Softening on Strain Concentration and Crack Driving Force in Pipeline Girth Welds,” Proceeding of the 24 th International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering , 2005, June 13-17, Kalkidiki, Greece.

  • 17 Wang, Y.-Y., Liu, M., Long, X., Stephens, M., Petersen, R., and Gordon, R., 2011, “Validation and Documentation of Tensile Strain Limit Design Models for Pipelines,” US DOT

Contract No. DTPH56-06-T000014, final report to US DOT and PRCI, August 2, 2011,

  • 19 Østby, E, “New strain-based fracture mechanics equations including the effects of biaxial loading, mismatch and misalignment”, Proceeding of the 24 th International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, Paper No. OMAE2005-67518, June 12-17, 2005, Halkidiki, Greece.

  • 20 Sandivk, A., Østby, E, Naess A., Sigurdsson G., and Thaulow, C., “Fracture control – offshore pipelines: probabilistic fracture assessment of surface cracked ductile pipelines using analytical equations”, Proceeding of the 24 th International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, Paper No. OMAE2005-67517, June 12-17, 2005, Halkidiki, Greece.

  • 21 Østby, E., Torselletti, E., and Levold, E., "A strain-based approach to fracture assessment of pipelines". Proceedings of FITNET 2006, International Conference on Fitness-for- service, May 17-19, Amsterdam, Netherlands.

  • 22 Østby, E., “Proposal for a strain-based fracture assessment procedure for offshore pipelines”. Proceedings of the 17 th International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference, July, 1-6, 2007, Lisbon, Portugal.

  • 23 Minnaar, K. Gioielli, P.C., Macia, M.L., Bardi, F., Biery, N.E., and Kan, W.C., “Predictive FEA modeling of pressurized full-scale tests”, Proceedings of the 17 th International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference, July, 1-6, 2007, Lisbon, Portugal, P3114.

  • 24 Kibey, S.A., Minnaar, K., Cheng, W., and Wang, X., “Development of a physics-based approach for the predictions of strain capacity of welded pipelines”, Proceedings of the 19 th International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference, June, 21-26, 2009, Osaka, Japan, P132.

  • 25 Kibey, S., Issa, J.A., Wang, X., and Minnaar, K., “A simplified, parametric equation for prediction of tensile strain capacity of welded pipelines”, Pipeline Technology Conference, October 12-14, 2009, Paper No. Ostend2009- 039, Ostend, Belgium.

  • 26 Kibey, S.A., Wang, X., Minnaar, K., Macia, M.L., Fairchild D.P., Kan, W.C., Ford, S.J., and Newbury, B., “Tensile strain capacity equations for strain-based design of weld pipelines”, Proceedings of the 8th International Pipeline Conference, September 27 - October 1, 2010, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, IPC2010-31661.

  • 27 Fairchild D.P., Macia, M.L., Kibey, S.A.,

Wang, X.,

Krishnan, V.R., Bardi, F., Tang, H., and Cheng, W, “A

multi-tiered procedure for engineering critical assessment of strain-based pipelines”, Proceedings of the 21 st

International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference, June, 19-24, 2011, Maui, Hawaii, USA, P698.

  • 28 Otsuka, A., et al., “Effect of Stress Triaxiality on Ductile Fracture Initiation of Low Strength Steel,” J. of the Society of Material Science, Japan, Vol. 29, No. 322, pp. 717-723,
    1980.

  • 29 Toyoda, M., et al., “Criterion for Ductile Cracking for the Evaluation of Steel Structure under Large Scale Cyclic Loading,” Proc. Of 20 th International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, OMAE 2001- MAT-3103, 2001.

  • 30 Igi, S. and Suzuki, N., “Tensile Strain Limits of X80 High- Strain Pipelines,” Proceedings of the 17 th International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference, Lisbon, Portugal, July 1-6, 2007.