DETERMINATION OF CTOD AND CMOD OF TUBULAR

T-JOINT USING THE FINITE ELEMENT SOFTWARE

COSMOS/M

OOI SEOK TENG

UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA

I hereby declare that I have read this thesis and in my opinion this thesis is
sufficient in terms of scope and quality for the award of the degree of
Bachelor Degree of Civil Engineering

Signature : .
Name of Supervisor : P.M. DR. SARIFFUDDIN BIN SAAD
Date : 23rd Mac 2005
DETERMINATION OF CTOD AND CMOD OF TUBULAR
T-JOINT USING THE FINITE ELEMENT SOFTWARE
COSMOS/M

OOI SEOK TENG

A report submitted in partial fulfillment of the

requirements for the award of the degree of
Bachelor of Civil Engineering

Faculty of Civil Engineering

Universiti Teknologi Malaysia

MARCH 2005
 ii

I declare that this thesis entitled Determination of CTOD and CMOD of Tubular T-
Joint using the Finite Element Software COSMOS/M is the result of my own
research except as cited in the references. The thesis has not been accepted for any
degree and is not currently concurrently submitted in candidature of any other
degree.

Signature : .
Name : OOI SEOK TENG
Date : 23rd MARCH 2005
 iii

To my dearest and beloved

father, mother,
sisters and brothers
 iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

In preparing this thesis, I was in contact with many people, researchers,

academicians, and practitioners. They have contributed towards my understanding
and thoughts. In particular I wish to express my sincere appreciation to my main
thesis supervisor, Associate Professor Dr. Sariffuddin Bin Saad, for encouragement,
guidance, critics and friendship. Without his continued support and interest, this
thesis would not have been the same as presented here.

I am also very thankful to Associate Professor Dr. Abdul Kadir Marsono for
his guidance and advice on my modeling using the COSMOS/M software.

I am also indebted to my fellow friends for their support. My sincere

appreciation also extends to all my colleagues and other who have provided
assistance at various occasions. Their views and tips are useful indeed.
Unfortunately, it is not possible to list all of them in this limited space. I am grateful
to all my family members.
 v

ABSTRACT

In recent years, more and more attention has been paid to the study of fracture
behavior of cracked tubular joints. Crack exist to some extent in nearly all tubular
joints, either as a result of manufacturing fabrication defects or localized in service.
This undergraduate project is concerned with the investigation of the applicability of
COSMOS / M in solving the fracture mechanics parameter of tubular joint i.e. the
crack tip opening displacement, CTOD and crack mouth opening displacement,
CMOD of the tubular T-joints in the linear elastic region. The COSMOS/M finite
element software was used to obtain the results which were then compared with
relevant experimental results from the literature. Shell elements were used to model
the tubular joints with surface cracks; where line spring elements were embedded
into shell elements at the chord wall near the brace chord intersection to stimulate
cracks. In this approach, the crack geometry was actually not modeled and the line
spring elements are used to provide local flexibility of the two sides of a crack along
the edges of the shell elements. The finite element analyses were carried out in
different values of applied tension load at the brace end in order to obtain the
corresponding CTOD and CMOD. The finite element numerical results were
compared with the experimental test results obtained from the literature. It was found
that the CTOD results at various loads levels are quite close to the corresponding
experimental results. However, the CMOD results obtained in this work are quite
different compared to the experimental results at various levels of elastic loading.
 vi

ABSTRAK

Sejak kebelakangan ini, banyak pihak mula memberi perhatian kepada

penyelidikan keadaan mekanik patah pada keretakan sambungan tubular. Keretakan
wujud hampir pada kesemua sambungan tubular akibat daripada kecacatan semasa
pembuatan atau terjadi semasa tempoh perkhidmatan sambungan tersebut. Projek
Sarjana Muda ini adalah berkaitan dengan keberkesanan penggunaan perisian kaedah
unsur terhingga iaitu COSMOS/M dalam menyelesaikan parameter mekanik patah
iaitu, anjakan hujung retak terbuka (CTOD) dan anjakan mulut retak terbuka
(CMOD) semasa pembebanan elastic lelulus. Perisian COSMOS/M telah digunakan
untuk memperolehi data yang kemudianya dibanding dengan data eksperimen
daripada literatur. Unsur Shell digunakan untuk memodelkan sambungan tubular
dengan retak pada permukaan di mana unsur line spring ditanam ke dalam unsur
shell pada dinding chord pada kawasan sempadan antara chord dan brace
untuk merangsang keretakan. Dalam pendekatan ini, keretakan sebenar tidak
dimodelkan, sebaliknya unsur line spring digunakan untuk memberikan fleksibiliti
pada kedua-dua permukaan sempadan keretakan unsur tersebut. Analisis kaedah
unsur terhingga dijalankan dengan menggunakan beberapa beban tegangan yang
berlainan pada hujung brace untuk mendapatkan nilai CTOD dan CMOD.
Keputusan analisis kaedah unsur terhingga dibandingkan dengan keputusan
eksperimen yang diperolehi daripada literatur. Adalah didapati bahawa keputusan
CTOD pada pelbagai beban tersebut amat rapat dengan keputusan daripada
eksperimen. Walu bagaimanapun, keputusan CMOD pada pelbagai peringkat
bebanan yang diperolehi dalam projek ini adalah agak berlainan jika dibandingkan
dengan keputusan ujikaji makmal.
 vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER TITLE PAGE

PREFACE i
DECLARATION ii
DEDICATION iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT iv
ABSTRACT v
ABSTRAK vi
TABLE OF CONTENT vii
LIST OF TABLES x
LIST OF FIGURES xi
LIST OF SYMBOLS xiv

1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Introduction 1

2 PURPOSE, OBJECTIVE AND SCOPE OF STUDY

2.1 Purpose of study 4
2.2 Objectives of study 4
2.3 Scopes of study 5

3 METHODOLOGY
3.1 Preliminary Survey 7
3.2 Literature Review 7
 viii

3.3 Theory Review 7

3.4 Data Collection
3.4.1 Geometry, Loading Geometry and Cracks 8
3.4.2 Material 8
3.5 Modeling / Database Development 9
3.6 Processing and Analysis 9
3.7 Recommendation and Conclusion 9

4 LITERATURE REVIEW
4.1 Part I: experimental data base and brief summary of the
results. 12
4.2 Part II: R6 analysis. 14
4.3 Part III: UK BS7910 methodology. 15
4.4 Part IV: Application of the ETM 97/1. 16
4.5 Part V: Screening method by required toughness and
plastic stability considerations. 17
4.6 Part VI: Application of WES 2805-1997. 18
4.7 Tubular Joints
4.7.1 Introduction 20
4.7.2 Simple Welded Joints 20

5 THEORY REVIEW
5.1 Fracture Mechanics Approach 27
5.2 Linear Elastic Stress Field in Cracked Bodies
5.2.1 Crack Deformation Modes 27
5.2.2 The Energy Criterion 28
5.2.3 The Stress Intensity 31
5.3 Elastic-Plastic Stress Field in Cracked Bodies
5.3.1 Irwins Model 33
5.3.2 The Dugdales Model 34
5.3.3 The Crack Tip Opening Displacement (CTOD) 36
5.4 The Finite Element Method
5.4.1 Introduction 37
5.4.2 Concept of Finite Element Method
 ix

5.4.2.1 The Concept of an Element 38

5.4.2.2 Various Element Shapes 42
5.4.3 Finite Element Software Systems
5.4.3.1 COSMOS / M Software 43

6 FINITE ELEMENT MODELLING ON THE TUBULAR T-

JOINT
6.1 Methodology
6.1.1 Introduction 52
6.1.2 Data of the model
6.1.2.1 Geometry, Loading geometry and Cracks 54
6.1.2.2 Material 55
6.1.3 Building the Geometry of the Model 55
6.1.4 Meshing 65
6.1.5 Crack Modeling 68
6.1.6 Applying loads and boundary conditions 69
6.1.7 Elements and their Attributes 73
6.1.8 Spring Element embedded in the Shell Element 74
6.1.9 Analysis options 75

7 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

7.1 Results 76
7.1.1 Crack Tip Opening Displacement, CTOD 77
7.1.2 Crack Mouth Opening Displacement, CMOD 78
7.1.3 The Deformed Shape 80
7.2 Discussion 81

8 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

8.1 Conclusion 82
8.2 Recommendation 83

REFERENCES 84
 x

LISTS OF TABLES

TABLE NO. TITLE PAGE

6.1 Pressures applied at the brace 72

7.1 Comparison of COSMOS/M and experimental results for

CTOD 77
7.2 Comparison of COSMOS/M and experimental results for
CMOD 78
 xi

LISTS OF FIGURES

FIGURE NO. TITLE PAGE

3.1 Geometry, crack position, and loading geometry of the

T-joints (schematic) 10
3.2 T-joint in the testing rig 10
3.3 Weldment geometry in the saddle region 11
3.4 A typical mesh of the T-joint model 11

4.1 Principle of the determination of the CTOD- a curves on

the T-joints 22
4.2 Loci of assessment points on the failure assessment diagram
as function of crack depth for F = 2.026 GN for Jmat =
76 N/mm and Jmat = 217 N/mm, for crack depths in the range
6-18 mm 23
4.3 Close-up Figure 2.4 for F = 2.026 GN for Jmat = 76N/mm,
Jmat = 217 N/mm and Jmat = 1214 N/mm. Numbers in the
figure are the crack depth in mm for corresponding assessment
point. 23
4.4 Basic principle of the ETM 24
4.5 Definition of the crack opening displacement, 5 24
4.6 Considered plastic collapse modes 25
4.7 Influence of stable crack growth on the conservatism of the
WES analyses in terms of (a) CTOD and (b) applied force 25
4.8 Tubular joint notations 26
4.9 Tubular joint geometric classification 26
 xii

5.1 Modes of crack surface displacement 45

5.2 Superimposition of modes of crack surface displacement 45
5.3 Approximate energy model. 46
5.4 Crack tip coordinates and stress components 46
5.5 The Irwin Plastic Zone Correction 47
5.6 The Dugdale Approach 48
5.7 Crack Opening Displacement 49
5.8 Distribution of displacement, u, temperature T, or
fluid heat, . 49
5.9 Approximate solution as patchwork of solutions over
elements 50
5.10 Boundary conditions or constraints 50
5.11 One-dimensional element 51
5.12 Two-dimensional elements 51
5.13 Three-dimensional elements 51

6.1 Key points 55

6.2 Curves arcs 56
6.3 Surfaces extrude 56
6.4 Key points on curves 56
6.5 Curves generation 57
6.6 Curves on surface 57
6.7 Surface 4 curves 58
6.8 Curve break 58
6.9 Surfaces on crack region (1) 58
6.10 Curves intersection 59
6.11 Surfaces on crack region (2) 59
6.12 Surfaces on neighbours of crack region (1) 60
6.13 Surfaces on chord (1) 60
6.14 Surfaces on chord (2) 60
6.15 Surfaces between chord and brace (1) 61
6.16 Surfaces on brace (1) 62
6.17 Surfaces on neighbours of crack region (2) 62
6.18 Surfaces between chord and brace (2) 63
 xiii

6.19 Surfaces on chord (3) 63

6.20 Surfaces on brace (2) 64
6.21 Meshing on crack region 65
6.22 Reflection of quarter model to half 66
6.23 Reflection of half model to full 66
6.24 Delete surfaces without crack 67
6.25 Create surfaces without crack 67
6.26 Crack gap before 68
6.27 Crack gap after 68
6.28 Boundary conditions 69
6.29 Loading at brace (1) 70
6.30 Loading at brace (2) 71
6.31 Loading at brace (3) 71
6.32 Loading at brace (4) 73
6.33 Spring elements embedded into shell elements 74
6.34 A_STATIC option 75

7.1 Applied load versus CTOD for tubular T-joint 78

7.2 Applied load versus CTOD for tubular T-joint. 79
7.3 The Deformed Shape of the Whole Model 80
7.4 The Detail Deformed Shape of the Crack Region 80
 xiv

LISTS OF SYMBOLS

E - Young Modulus
- Stress
- Poisson Ratio
- Degree
G - Strain Energy Release Rate
CTOD - Crack Tip Opening Displacement
CMOD - Crack Mouth Opening Displacement
K - Stress Intensity Factor
U - Energy
 CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Introduction

It is now well accepted that all welded structures contain flaws, and that these
do not necessarily affect structural integrity or service performance. This is implicitly
recognised by most welding fabrication codes which specify weld flaw tolerance
levels based on experience and workmanship practice. However, these flaw
acceptance levels cannot provide quantitative measures of structural integrity, for
instance how 'close' a particular structure containing weld flaws is to the failure
condition. In addition, flaws can develop during service due to e.g. corrosion and
fatigue and the tolerance of the component regarding these needs to be known.

Through the ages, the application of materials in engineering design has

posed difficult problems to mankind. The Industrial Revolution of the 19th century
brought along an increased demand for metals, particularly iron and steel, for use in
construction and engineering on a greatly expanded scale, particularly in the second
half of the 19th century. This large and fierce expansion of the engineering world was
accompanied by a rather large rate of failure of engineering structures.

Early in the war, welded merchant vessels experienced difficulties in the form
of fractures, which could not be explained. The fractures, in many cases, manifested
themselves with explosive suddenness and exhibited a quality of brittleness, which
was not ordinarily associated with the behavior of a normally ductile material such as
 2

ship steel. It was evident that the implications of these failures on welded ships might
be far-reaching and have a significant effect upon the war effort. They are::
(i) 4,694 welded steel merchant vessels were built by the Maritime Commission
in the United States and considered in this investigation;
(ii) 970 of these vessels suffered casualties involving fractures;
(iii) 24 vessels sustained a complete fracture of the strength deck;
(iv) 1 vessel sustained a complete fracture of the bottom;
(v) 8 vessels were lost, 4 broke in two and 4 were abandoned after fracture
occurred, 4 additional vessels broke in two, but were not lost;
(vi) the highest incidence of fracture occurred under the combination of low
temperatures and heavy seas;
(vii) every fracture examined started in a geometrical discontinuity or notch
resulting from unsuitable design or poor workmanship.

Engineering fracture mechanics can deliver the methodology to compensate

the inadequacies of conventional design concepts. The conventional design criteria
are based on tensile strength, yield strength and buckling stress. These criteria are
adequate for many engineering structures, but they are insufficient when there is the
likelihood of cracks.

For over a century, researchers have studied the fracture and fatigue
properties of engineering materials, the main objective being to be able to predict the
fracture/failure characteristics or the fatigue life of a component. The fracture
properties of different materials undergoing different load patterns associated with
different environments are generally obtained by experimental testing. Knowing
these fracture properties, it is possible for engineers and designers to assess, with the
help of fracture mechanics, just how components are likely to behave while being
loaded.

Offshore structures used for oil and gas extraction have the common function
of providing a safe, dry working environment for the equipment and personnel who
operate the platform. Currently, four distinct types of structure are used. The most
common one is the Jacket, a term which originates from the steel template placed in
 3

the shallow water swamps of Louisiana, as a guide for the piled foundations which
supported drilling equipment.

To construct a steel jacket, it is necessary to join the large diameter tubular

steel members in some way. These tubular joints, or nodes, are a major source of
difficulty and high cost in the design of a jacket. The jacket will take the loadings
from the topside and the sea environment. As these structures are located in hostile
environment, such as the wave generated form the sea; these joint are structural weak
spots. It is important to develop reliable methods of determining the risk of fracture
of such joints.

As a powerful and versatile numerical analysis tool, the finite element (FE)
method has been used widely for the analyses of different types of welded circular
tubular joint. In recent years, more and more attention has been paid to the study of
fracture behavior of cracked tubular joints. Crack exist to some extent in nearly all
tubular joints, either as a result of manufacturing fabrication defects or localized in
service. Finite element analysis using software e.g. COSMOS/M [1]can be used as an
attractive solution to carry out the fracture mechanics analyses on tubular joint rather
than to test the actual joints due to its massive size and also the associated testing
costs.
 4

CHAPTER 2

PURPOSE, OBJECTIVE AND SCOPE OF STUDY

2.1 Purpose of study

The purpose of the study is to identify and delineate how COSMOS / M can
be applied in fractures mechanics study of tubular joint. The program produces
displacements, strains, stresses, forces, and error estimates as results of the analysis
under a variety of loading conditions.

2.2 Objectives of study

The main objectives of the study are

(a) to model and analyse the T-tubular joint based on the experiment data from
referreed journal using the Finite Element Method (FEM): COSMOS / M;

(b) to investigate the applicability of COSMOS / M in solving the fracture

mechanics parameter of tubular joint i.e. the crack tip opening displacement,
CTOD and crack mouth opening displacement, CMOD;

(c) to obtain the load applied versus crack tip opening displacement and load
applied versus crack mouth opening displacement of the tubular T-joint using
the COSMOS/M FE software system.
 5

2.3 Scopes of study

The scopes of the study involve the analysis on Tubular T joint based on the
fracture mechanics that involve only tensile loading of the brace (tension force only).
The fracture mechanics analysis will be carried out using the finite element software
COSMOS/M [1]: finite element analyses.

Analysis on linear elastic fracture mechanics (LEFM) will be carried out in

order to obtain the crack criterion, the crack tip opening displacement (CTOD) and
the crack mouth opening displacement, CMOD.
 6

CHAPTER 3

METHODOLOGY

Preliminary Survey

Literature Review

Theory Review

Data Collection

Modelling / Database Development

Processing and Analysis

Recommendation and Conclusion

 7

3.1 Preliminary Survey

Preliminary survey is about determination of existing problem in analysis of

fracture mechanics on tubular joint in the offshore industry and thus defined the
scope, aims and objectives of the study.

Relevant information is collected by referring to previous thesis, recognized

referred journal, reference books, research papers and websites that related to the
application of fracture mechanics in tubular joints.

3.2 Literature Review

The function of literature review is to provide the background information on

related studies being conducted and insight to search techniques that been employed
in previous studies on similar area. The previous studies able help to limit the
problem area, define the problem, avoid unnecessary repetition, search and
recommend new methods or approaches to the researcher.

The literature review in this study is divided into two major components,
namely Fracture Mechanics Analysis and Introduction to Finite Element Analysis.

3.3 Theory Review

This chapter is divided into two main parts which are the Theory of Fracture
Mechanics in the Linear Elastic and Elastic Plastic Fracture Mechanics, the Finite
Element Analysis / Method (FEA / FEM).
 8

3.4 Data Collection

Data collection is an important stage. Without data, a proper research study

cannot be conducted. The tubular T-joints geometry, loading geometry, cracks and
types of material are the data needed for the study.

The data are obtained from the experimental results from the Journal named:
The fracture behaviour of a welded tubular joint an ESIS TC1.3 round robin on
failure assessment methods [2].

3.4.1 Geometry, Loading geometry and Cracks

Figure 3.1 and Figure 3.2 show the geometry and dimensions respectively of
the T-joint used in this study. Tensile loading was applied to the end of the T brace
and reacted at both ends of the chord.

A starter notch for the cracks was introduced in the saddle region of the joints
by electric discharge machining at a distance of 2 mm from the weld root position.
The angle between the notch plane and the loading direction was chosen as 66o to
ensure a straight extension of the fatigue crack. The geometry of the weld at the
saddle point is shown in more detail in Figure 3.3, which was taken from an original
component.

3.4.2 Material

The material used in the experiments was a cold deformed 450 YS TMCP-
steel. The tubes were cold prestraining as it was manufactured from plates by
bending and butt-welding. The Youngs modulus was determined as 210 GPa.
 9

3.5 Modeling / Database Development

The collected data need to be converted into a standard format. Using the
Finite Element Analysis software named COSMOS/M, the data are then being
tabulated to produce result. New user needs to explore the functions of the software
to set-up database. The COSMOS/M software was used to generate a computer
model of the T-joint described above. Figure 3.4 shows a typical mesh of the T-joint.

3.6 Processing and Analysis

Processing and analysis of data is implemented by using the Finite Element

Method software, COSMOS/M. The software will display the parameter needed by
the user, in this case the crack tip opening displacement (CTOD) and the crack
mouth opening displacement, (CMOD).

3.7 Recommendation and Conclusion

COSMOS/M is the program that produces displacements, strains, stresses,

forces, and error estimates as results of the analysis under a variety of loading
conditions. The next steps are to tabulate the data to compare with the experimental
results in analysis of fracture mechanics in tubular T-joints.
 10

Figure 3.1: Geometry, crack position, and loading geometry of the T-joints (schematic) [2]

Figure 3.2: T-joint in the testing rig [2]

 11

Figure 3.3: Weldment geometry in the saddle region [2]

Figure 3.4: A Typical mesh of the T-joint model [2]

 12

CHAPTER 4

LITERATURE REVIEW

4.1 Part I: experimental data base and brief summary of the results. [2]

The journal described the experimental work that was being carried out to
determine the fracture behaviour of welded tubular T-joints made of high strength
TMCP- steel. The experimental information obtained from the experiments on the
joints are supposed to serve as reference solutions to check various fracture
mechanics assessment approaches.

Four T-joints were tested by tensile loading of the brace. Their geometry and
dimensions are presented in Figure 3.1 and Figure 3.2 respectively. A starter notch
for cracks was introduced in the saddle region of the joints by electric discharge
machining at a distance of 2 mm from the weld root position. The material used in
the experiments was a cold deformed 450 YS TMCP-steel. The tubes were cold
prestraining as it was manufactured from plates by bending and butt-welding.

The Youngs modulus was determined as 210 GPa. Multiple J- and CTOD-R
curves were determined on these small bend specimens. The J-integral was
calculated from the crack mouth opening displacement (CMOD) while the crack tip
opening displacement (CTOD) values were determined according to ESIS P2-92 and
ASTM E 1290-93. Additionally, crack tip profiles were obtained by a sectioning
technique, but for the centre line of the specimens only. There are fours types of
measurements used in the T-joints. There are:
 13

i. The stress concentration factor at the saddle point

In this journal, the SCF was determined experimentally via elastic strain
measurements.

ii. Load load line displacement and load-CMOD curves

CMOD was measured with a CTOD-5-clip in the centre line of surface
crack. The T-joints were loaded up to different amounts of deformation and
subsequently unloaded to allow the determination of a multiple specimen R-
curve.

iii. Residual stresses

The residual stresses should have been significantly released, as the joints
were post weld heat. The residual stresses were determined by a hole drilling
method. As a general result, the maximum residual stresses were determined
to be about 100 MPa.

iv. Crack tip profiles and CTOD- a curves

The crack tip profiles were determined by a sectioning technique. The
principle is illustrated in Figure 4.1

There are six different types of flaw assessment methods were applied to the
T-joints experiments. The methods investigated include:
i. finite element analyses,
ii. R6 analyses,
iii. UK BS 7910 (PD 6493) methodology,
iv. engineering treatment model (ETM 97/1),
v. screening method according to Schindler et. al,
vi. design curve according to WES 2805-1997.
 14

4.2 Part II: R6 analysis. [3]

The R6 procedures in this paper used the method for primary loading, as
relevant to the application to the T-joint. The R6 procedures involved the calculation
of two parameters; measure of the proximity to linear elastic fracture and a measure
to proximity to plastic collapse.

The T-joint geometry and loading arrangement are shown in Figure 3.1 and
Figure 3.2, which includes the overall components dimensions. The R6 calculations
were performed to evaluate the limiting value of the central load on the brace of the
T-joint. For the purposes of the stress intensity factor calculation, the stress
distribution normal to the crack plane at a load of 480 kN had been used.

It was found that the problem was collapse-dominated through the calculation
of stress intensity factor at both the surface and deepest points on the defect.
Therefore, the precise definition of K was not important for determination of the load
carrying capacity of the T-joint. Results are shown in Figure 4.2 and the relevant
region of the failure assessment diagram is shown in close-up in Figure 4.3. From the
diagram, the limiting load F = 2.026 GN and 10 mm deep defect lying just on the
cut-off.

The calculated limiting load is close to but less than maximum loads applied
experimentally of between 2.107 2.397 GN for four joints with crack depths in the
range of 9.00 11.46 mm. It shows that the limiting load is governed by plastic
collapse and the collapse load is insensitive to the crack size.

One of the advantages of R6 is that it can demonstrate whether a problem is

dominated by stress intensity factor or limit load calculations in a short period of
time. Overall, it has been shown that load carrying capacity of these components is
little affected by the presence of defects of this size.
 15

4.3 Part III: UK BS7910 methodology. [4]

The journal is about the analyses that have been carried out to give a safe
prediction of the ultimate strength of a series of cracked tubular joints as part of an
ESIS round robin exercise. The basic data for the round robin assessment is given in
Part 1 of this series of papers.

The calculations have been based partly on the procedures given in British
Standard BS7910:1997 and partly on the experience of the author gained in several
programmes of research into ultimate strength of cracked tubular joints. The analysis
been carried out for the target case of initial surface defects of 10 mm depth and
46.5mm length at the weld toe at the saddle position of tubular T-joints in TMCP
steel even though the actual defect depths in the four tests carried out are reported to
have been 9,11.46, 9.94 and 10.67mm.

Expectation for the analyses would be that the tubular joints would be
expected to exceed the HSE characteristic design strength and approach the HSE
mean strength with only very limited ductile tearing crack extension. (Tubular joints
> HSE characteristic design strength) & (Tubular joints HSE mean strength).
Tearing would commence at the ends (surface) of the crack before the deepest point
with initiation of tearing at not less than 1000kN.

There are also some assumptions being made in the analyses; a notional R-
curve for more extensive tearing to explore the accuracy of predictions on this basis,
even though well outside any validity limits. The R-curve was terminated at ductile
crack extensions of 7 mm at the ends of the crack and when tearing had just
commenced at the deepest point. The author predicted that the maximum load in the
brace of about 2000 kN at 1mm tearing and the limit load of 3420 kN at 7 mm
tearing, approaching the nominal yield load of the brace. The actual tubular joint test
based on the experimental result is that the joint reached a maximum load of 2500kN
with very limited tearing.
 16

4.4 Part IV: Application of the ETM 97/1. [5]

The journal described how to implement the engineering treatment model

(ETM) into the T-joints. The general idea of ETM is outlined in Figure 4.4. The
deformation behaviour of the cracked net section in the component is assumed to be
identical to that obtained in a tensile test. By transferring the materials stress-strain
curve to the yielding ligament of the cracked component, the linear-elastic solutions
can be extrapolated into the fully plastic loading regime. Replacing the level of
plastification, /Y, with the ratio F =FY and the normalised strain / Y with a
normalised crack tip opening displacement, / Y gives the ETM curve.

A special feature of the ETM is that it prefers the 5 as definition for the
crack tip opening displacement as an alternative to the plastic hinge definition of BSI
and ASTM. The definition is illustrated in Figure 4.5. The CTOD determined by a
sectioning technique at the deepest point of the surface crack by its nature is close to
the 5 definition, but it was also shown to be comparable with the plastic hinge
definition.

The information needed for an ETM application to the T-joints includes the
geometry and dimensions of the component. The components were four welded
tubular T-joints containing surface cracks in their saddle region. They were loaded in
axial tension. The crack shape developed during precracking was almost an ideal half
ellipse.

The yield load, FY, of the cracked component was determined in two different
ways; by applying an analytical yield load solution and by using a finite element
analysis based on shell element. The related yield strength values were 430 and 460
MPa, respectively resulted in upper and lower bounds of the yield loads. The yield
loads estimated analytically and the shell finite element results were nearly identical.

The elastic stress distribution in the crack plane, determined without the
presence of the crack. The result illustrates the phenomenon that in the elastic
 17

loading regime the hot spot region at the saddle point was loaded predominantly by
bending even though the remote load at the brace was pure tension.

The linear-elastic stress intensity factor, K can be determined using four

different models:
i. empirical solutions based on da/dN curves from fatigue tests
ii. application of available solutions for substitute geometries such as plates or
hollow cylinders
iii. solutions based on parametrisation of finite element calculations, and
iv. code solutions such as the ASME code solution.

The strain hardening exponent of the material, N can be determined in three

different ways. They are the uniaxial tensile test, fracture mechanics test on a bend
specimen and the EMPA-finite element calculations.

Experimental results obtained on tension loaded tubular T-joints were used as

reference solutions in order to assess the potential of the ETM (option ETM 97/1) to
predict critical loads. The quality of an ETM failure assessment depends on the
accuracy of the input parameters as described above. Based on the result from the
ETM predicted loads at the brace at the unloading points, it can be shown that ETM
97/1 is suitable for estimating the load carrying capacity of the cracked T-joint
components.

4.5 Part V: Screening method by required toughness and plastic stability

considerations. [6]

The journal described the first screening method that considered a structure
with respect to its defect sensitivity. The method enabled one to identify fracture
critical parts and to predict roughly the behaviour of crack-like defect.
 18

First of all, by considering the loading behaviour of the joint by simple rigid
plastics models according to the basic theory of strength of materials. From the
calculation, it was found out that the first yielding that manifested on the global load
vs. load-line displacement curve occured at a load of 1.23 MN.

When the load F was further increased, a plastic zone will spread out from A
into the chord (see Figure 4.6). One hand along the circumferential weld toe and the
other one perpendicular to the tube axis deeper into the chord. Therefore, two modes
of plastic collapse could occur when these zone were saturated. From the calculation,
plastic pull out of the brace occurs before plastic hinge formation in the chord.
Therefore, the representative plastic limit load Fp was 1.93 MN.

Based on the relevant parameters, the required toughness, Kreq = 2740

3/2
N/mm while the fracture toughness of the material, KIc = 8470 N/mm3/2. Since the
fracture toughness of the material exceeded the required toughness, this means that
the crack was expected to extend by ductile tearing rather than by cleavage. In
addition, the tearing process in found out to be stable and the maximum extension of
the crack at plastic collapse is estimated to be 0.57 mm.

Even though the result of a simple model is- as expected conservative but
the predictions made in the present paper were done just on the basis without
knowing the further experimental results as documented. Comparison between the
predictions in the present paper and the measurements given shows a relatively good
agreement. As a conclusion, the cost-effective engineering failure assessment
technique presented, which does not required any expensive stress calculations, is a
powerful tool for an initial analyses of the failure behaviour of structures.

4.6 Part VI: Application of WES 2805-1997. [7]

The design curve approaches in WES 2805-1997 do not need K factor

solution as an input parameter. The local strain, which in the case of welded and
 19

notched geometries, is the sum of the strain portions due to the boundary force, 1,
the welding residual stresses, 2 and strain concentration at the notch, 3. The WES
2805 procedure had been developed for brittle fracture. Brittle fracture did, however,
not exclude extended plasticity and even ductile crack growth. In the upper ductile-
to-brittle transition range which covered most of the brittle failures in engineering
practice, the cracked ligaments usually experienced large scale yielding and some
stable crack growth before failing by cleavage.

The T-joint investigated in the paper behaved in a ductile manner. They were
not broken but unloaded after a certain amount of stable crack growth. The elastic
stress concentration factor, Kt was determined experimentally. The WES analysis
was based on two Kt values 3 and 3.5 in order to cover for experimental scatter. In
both cases (T-joints B and E), the WES analysis yielded accurate or slightly
conservative results. In contrast to this, the crack tip loading was underestimated for
T-joints F and G, i.e., the results were significantly non-conservative. This was
because the analysis does not take into account the effect of stable crack growth on
the measured CTOD. In figure 4.7, the influence of increasing stable crack growth on
the conservatism of the WES predictions was illustrated.

As a conclusion, the method yielded conservative results for smaller degrees

of stable crack growth (in the order of 0.2 mm or smaller). The predictions became
non-conservative if the amount of stable crack growth became larger. Therefore, the
method should be constricted to brittle fracture below or at stable crack initiation.
The analysis showed that existing parameter equations for welded components such
as the T-joints would usually yield extremely conservative predictions of the crack
tip loading. However, the non-conservative results were also possible due to the
inaccurate Kt solutions.
 20

4.7 Tubular Joints

4.7.1 Introduction

Offshore structures used for oil and gas extraction have the common function
of providing a safe, dry working environment for the equipment and personnel who
operate the platform. Jacket, a term, which originates from the steel template placed
in the shallow water swamps of Louisiana, as a guide for the piled foundations,
which supported drilling equipment. The substructure, referred to as the 'jacket', is a
three-dimensional space frame made from large tubular steel members. The jacket,
which takes the loadings from the topside and the sea environment, is piled to the
seabed. These piles must also be able to resist tension as the hydrodynamic forces on
the structure have a tendency to cause overturning.

To construct a steel jacket, it is necessary to join the large diameter tubular

steel members in some way. These tubular joints, or nodes, are a major source of
difficulty and high cost in the design of a jacket. Tubular joints can be classified into
4 main categories. There are the simple welded joints, complex welded joints, cast
steel joints and composite joints.

4.7.2 Simple Welded Joints

Simple welded joints are those formed by welding two or more tubular
members in a single plane without overlapping of brace members and without the use
of gussets, diaphragms, stiffeners or grout. Unlike a pipe joint, the chord wall is left
intact with the hidden plug regions enclosed by the braces. The geometric and other
notations given to simple joints are shown in Figure 4.8.

From the geometries of the braces and the chord meeting at the tubular
intersection, the following geometric ratios may be defined:

chord length parameter

 21

diameter ratio

chord thinness ratio

wall thickness ratio

gap parameter

When the chord member is not thick enough to prevent excessive local
deformation, the chord wall may be thickened in the region of the joint by the
addition of a can. This will allow the static strength and/or fatigue strength of a joint
to be altered, without unnecessarily increasing the self-weight of the entire member.

As well as member geometries, a tubular joint may have differing numbers of

brace members meeting the chord at various angles and positions. These varying
configurations are commonly referred to by an alphabetic letter corresponding to the
shape of the joint. The nomenclature for simple joint configurations is shown in
Figure 4.9.
 22

Figure 4.1: Principle of the determination of the CTOD- a curves on the T-joints [3]
 23

Figure 4.2: Loci of assessment points on the failure

assessment diagram as function of crack depth for F = 2.026
GN for Jmat = 76 N/mm and Jmat = 217 N/mm, for crack depths
in the range 6-18 mm [3]

Figure 4.3: Close-up Figure 2.4 for F = 2.026 GN for Jmat

= 76N/mm, Jmat = 217 N/mm and Jmat = 1214 N/mm.
Numbers in the figure are the crack depth in mm for
corresponding assessment point. [3]
 24

Figure 4.4: Basic principle of the ETM [5]

Figure 4.5: Definition of the crack opening displacement, 5 [5]

 25

Figure 4.6: Considered plastic collapse modes: (a) pull-out of the

brace by plastic shearing and (b) plastic hinge mechanism force [6]

Figure 4.7: Influence of stable crack growth on the conservatism

of the WES analyses in terms of (a) CTOD and (b) applied force [7]
 26

Figure 4.8: Tubular joint notation

Figure 4.9: Tubular joint geometric classification

 27

CHAPTER 5

THEORY REVIEW

5.1 Fracture Mechanics Approach

The science of fracture mechanics has become the primary approach to

controlling the brittle fracture and fatigue failure of engineering structures. It may be
used to quantitatively describe the tradeoffs between stress, material toughness, and
flaw size so that the designer may determine the relative importance of each during
the design stage rather than during a failure analysis.

Engineering fracture mechanics can deliver the methodology to compensate

the inadequacies of conventional design concepts. The conventional design criteria
are based on tensile strength, yield strength and buckling stress. These criteria are
adequate for many engineering structures, but they are insufficient when there is the
likelihood of cracks.

5.2 Linear Elastic Stress Field in Cracked Bodies

5.2.1 Crack Deformation Modes

Crack surface displacement becomes the fundamental concept of fracture

mechanics. The crack surfaces move relatively to each other when a load is applied
to a cracked body and there are three possible modes of crack surface displacement
may occurs as shown in Figure 5.1 They are:
 28

(a) Mode I: The Opening Mode, where opposing crack surfaces move directly
apart. The forces are perpendicular to the crack (the crack is horizontal and
the forces are vertical), pulling the crack open.

(b) Mode II: The Edge Sliding Mode, where crack surfaces move more over each
other perpendicular to the crack tip. The forces are parallel to the crack. One
force is pushing the top half of the crack back and the other is pulling the
bottom half of the crack forward, both along the same line. This creates a
shear crack: the crack is sliding along itself. It is called in-plane shear
because the forces are not causing the material to move out of its original
plane.

(c) Mode III: The Shear Mode, where crack surfaces move over each other
parallel to the crack tip. The forces are perpendicular to the crack (the crack is
in front-back direction, the forces are pulling left and right). This causes the
material to separate and slide along itself, moving out of its original plane
(which is why its called out-of-plane shear). The forces could also be pushing
left and right and the same effect would occur. But the forces have to be
moving in opposite directions in order to grow the crack.

In fracture mechanics the interest is in what happens in the vicinity of the

crack tip, and it is more correct to refer to the crack tip surface displacement. By
superimposing the three modes, it is possible to describe the general case of crack tip
displacement as shown in Figure 5.2. In practice, most cracks tend to grow in Mode
I, so attention is largely confined to this mode.

5.2.2 The Energy Criterion

In 1920, Griffith proposed a criterion for predicting the propagation of a

crack in terms of the fundamental energy theorems of classical mechanics and
thermodynamics. His energy balance approach is based on the premise that a crack is
 29

unstable if the stored energy released at fracture is greater than the creation of
surface energy due to new surfaces. In other words, the energy approach states that
crack extension (i.e. fracture) occurs when the energy available for crack growth is
sufficient to overcome the resistance of the material. The material resistance may
include the surface energy, plastic work, or other type of energy dissipation
associated with a propagating crack.

To apply his theory, we may consider the following model. Consider the plate
in the absence of the crack as shown in Figure 5.3 (a) when the material is uniformly
stressed and fixed remotely (constant displacement). The energy per unit volume is
known to be / 2E, where E is Young modulus. Next, introduce a crack of length
2a into the plate. There will be a general relaxation of the material above and below
the crack, and some strain energy will be released. In order to obtain an approximate
solution, let us assume that the released zone is in the form of a triangle, height a
above and below the crack shown shaded in Figure 5.3 (b). The relaxed volume of
the shaded zone is 2a2B, where B is the plate thickness. Hence, the energy, U
released per unit thickness is given by:

U = energy per unit volume x volume

= a 2
2E (5.1)

This is in good accord with Griffiths accurate solution for plane stress:

2
U 2
U = a 2 , = a (5.2)
2E a E

The variation of U with crack length is shown schematically in Figure 5.4.

Since U represents a release of energy, it is plotted as a negative quantity. It is
assumed in the figure that the effective surface energy is a constant, so the energy
required for crack growth from zero length, W, is a straight line. Summing U and W
provides the total energy within the system for each crack length. It can be seen from
Figure 5.4 that for
 30

0 < a ac, energy input into the system is required to increase the crack length but
when a > ac, the crack will grow without the input of additional work. Therefore,
strain energy within the system provides the work needed for crack growth, and ac is
defined as the critical length at which crack growth takes place.

The value of (U/a) defines the strain energy release rate for an incremental
crack extension. Differentiating Equation (5.2), leads to:

U 2 a
G = = (Plane stress) (5.3)
a E

where G is strain energy release rate, which provides a numerical measure of a

cracks severity. For plain strain condition, E is replaced by E/(1-2), where is
Poissons ratio.

2 a
G = (1 2 ) (Plane strain) (5.4)
E

The critical value of G at which crack growth takes place provides a measure
of what is usually known as materials fracture toughness that is its resistance to
brittle fracture. It could be regarded as providing a measure of the materials
effective surface energy. In principle, the critical value of G may be measured by
increasing the load in a quasi-static test on a cracked specimen, and noting the
critical (tensile) stress, c, at which crack growth takes place. The critical values of G
for the plane stress and plane strain condition are given the symbols Gc and GIc
respectively. It is assumed that only Mode I crack growth is being considered.
Replacing variables in Equation (5.3) and Equation (5.4) by critical values of Gc
(plane stress), GIc (plane strain) and c gives:

2
a
Gc = c
(Plane stress) (5.5)
E
 31

2
a
G Ic = c
(1 2 ) (Plane strain) (5.6)
E

5.2.3 The Stress Intensity

The stress intensity factor is of fundamental importance in the prediction of

brittle failure using linear elastic fracture mechanics (LEFM) principles. It is a
function of both the cracked geometry and the associated loading. The concept of
stress intensity factor arises from a two-dimensional linear elastic stress analysis of
cracks. The conventional notation for the position of a point relative to the crack tip,
and the stresses at this point is shown in Figure 5.4. The crack tip is the origin of the
coordinate systems, and the z coordinate is taken perpendicular to the paper.

For a particular mode of crack tip surface displacement, the leading term is
always of the same general form. Individual stress components and displacement are
proportional to K/r1/2, where r is the distance form the crack tip and K is the stress
intensity factor. Subscripts I, II, III are used to indicate mode.

For Mode I the formal definition of stress intensity factor is:

lim
K = y ( 2 r ) 1 / 2 (5.7)
r o

The in plane stresses, which are identical for plane stress and plane strain are:

K 3
x = cos 1 sin sin (5.8)
( 2 r ) 1/ 2
2 2 2

K 3
= cos 1 sin sin (5.9)
( 2 r )
y
2 2 2
1/ 2
 32

K 3
xy = cos 1 sin cos (5.10)
( 2 r ) 1/ 2
2 2 2

Note that each stress component is proportional to a single constant, K. If this

constant is known, the entire stress distribution at the crack tip can be computed with
the equations above, i.e. Equation (5.8), Equation (5.9) and Equation (5.10). This
constant, which is called the stress intensity factor, completely characterizes the
crack tip conditions in a linear elastics material.

Material properties in the presence of a crack can be measured in terms of the

opening mode stress intensity factor, KI, in just the same way as the tensile or fatigue
properties of a plain specimen are measured in terms of stress. For example, the
higher the value of KI the more severe the crack, and when a critical value Kc is
reached, a crack will extend under a static load; Kc is therefore a measure of a
materials fracture toughness, or resistance to brittle fracture. For the plate illustrated
in Figure 5.3 (b), the stress intensity factor is given by

K I = a (5.11)

Failure occurs when KI = Kc. in this case, KI is the driving force for fracture
and Kc is a measure of material resistance. As with Gc, the property of similitude
should apply to Kc. that is Kc is assumed to be a size-independent material property.
Comparing Equation (5.5) and (5.11) results in a relationship between KI and G:

2
KI
G= (5.12)
E

Thus the energy and stress intensity approaches to fracture mechanics are
essentially equivalent for linear elastic materials.
 33

5.3 Elastic-Plastic Stress Field in Cracked Bodies

5.3.3 Irwins Model

According to the elastic stress field solutions, a stress singularity exists at the
tip of an elastic crack. There is always a region around the tip of a crack in a metal,
where plastic deformation occurs, and hence a stress singularity cannot exist. The
plastic region is known as the crack tip plastic zone.

Figure 5.5(a) shows the magnitude of the stress y in the plane = 0. Until a
distance rp* from the crack tip, the stress is higher than the yield stress ys. Take rp*
as the first estimate of the extent of the plastic zone.

2a
2
K1 K1
y = = ys rp = =
*
or (5.13)
2 ys 2 ys
2 2
2rp
*

It is clear that the force produced by the stress shown in the shaded area in
Figure 5.5(a), acting over length r will produce further yielding. In fact the whole
stress curve must be shifted so that equilibrium is maintained.

Irwin argued that the occurrence of plasticity around the crack tip may result
in the displacement become larger and the stiffness is lower than in the elastic case.
In Figure 5.5(b), the physical crack size is replaced by a longer crack of size,
aff = a + , the physical crack size plus a correction and the elastic stress
distribution (y) at the tip of the effective crack is given. Once again, the stress at the
tip of the effective crack is again limited to the yield stress ys. Therefore, in order to
replaced the lost by cutting the area A as shown in Figure 5.5(b), must be large
enough to carry the load so that the area A is equal to area B. The distance, can
written as:

K a + 2 (a + )
ys = = or = rp
*
(5.14)
2 2 2 ys
2
 34

Since is small compared to the crack size, it can be neglected and rp*. By
equalizing the area A and area B with being neglected,

= rp* and rp = + = 2rp* (5.15)

The size of the plastic zone rp is found to be twice as large as the first
estimate, rp*, also known as Irwins plastics zone correction. Assuming for the time
being that the plastic zone has a circular shape, the situation can be represented as in
Figure 5.5(c), where the effective crack extends to the centre of the plastic zone. If
the plastic zone correction is applied consistently, a correction to K is also necessary:

(
K = C a + r p
*
) (5.16)

Since, K in the Equation (5.16) presents some difficulties; the plastic

correction is seldom applied in practice. The plastic zone correction is useful in
consideration concerning the crack opening displacement (COD). The crack opening
displacement is given by:

4
COD = 2 = a2 x2 (5.17)
E
Where x = a at the crack tip. If plasticity occurs, crack tip blunting takes place and
the crack tip opening displacement (CTOD) may be different from zero, whereas for
x = a the prediction from Equation (5.16) is that CTOD = 0.

CTOD =
4
E
(a + r ) p
* 2
a
2 4
E
2arp
*
=
4 K2
E ys
(5.18)

5.3.4 The Dugdales Model

Dugdale proposed an alternative approach to that of Irwin. In this case, the

crack is assumed to extend right through the plastic zone shown in Figure 5.6, thus
 35

the crack length is increased from 2a to 2 (a+), where is the extent of the plastic
zone.

Dugdale postulated that the plastic zone dimension is fixed by the

requirement that the stress singularity should disappear, thus the superposition of
stress intensity due to remotely applied stress; K and that due to plastic closure K
should be zero. At low remote stress levels, << ys:

2 2 a K 2
= = (5.19)
8 ys 8 ys
2

By using the plastic zone correction of Dugdale, the CTOD equation becomes:

8 ys a
= CTOD = log sec (5.20)
E 2 ys

After series of expansion of the log sec yields the following formula for CTOD (and
as long as the is small compared to ys):
2 a G1
CTOD = = (5.21)
E ys ys

In general,

K 1 (1 2 )
2
G1
CTOD = = Plane strain situations (5.22)
ys E ys

2
G1 K1
CTOD = = Plane stress situations (5.23)
ys E ys
 36

5.3.5 The Crack Tip Opening Displacement (CTOD)

The displacement of the crack surfaces (Figure 5.7) is given as:

4
COD = 2 = a2 x2 (5.24)
E

As being discussed in Section 5.3.1 regarding the crack tip plastic zone, the
displacement of crack surfaces equation always being used together with the plastic
zone correction rp*.

(a) By applying a plastic zone correction of Irwin, the COD equation become:

COD =
4
E
(a + r )p
* 2
x2 (5.25)

where a + rp* is the effective crack size and where the origin of the coordinate system
is at the center of the crack. Since rp* << a, it turns out that

4
CTOD =
*
2arp (5.26)
E
A displacement of the origin of the coordinate system to the crack tip yields the
general expression for crack opening:

4
COD = 2 a eff r (5.27)
E

CTOD equation follows from r = rp* and aeff = a. Substitution of rp* = 2a / 2ys2
yields:

2
4 K1
CTOD = (5.28)
E ys
 37

(b) By applying the plastic zone correction of Dugdale, the CTOD equation
become:

2
G1 K1
CTOD = = Plane stress situations (5.29)
ys E ys

5.4 The Finite Element Method

5.4.1 Introduction

The finite element method (FEM) is a numerical technique, which solves the
governing equations of a complicated system through a discretization process. The
system of interest can be either physical or mathematical. The governing equations
can be given in differential form or be expressed in terms of variational integrals.
FEM has been successfully used to solve very complex solid mechanics, fluid
mechanics, heat transfer and electro-magnetic problems.

The engineer of today can concentrate on the objective of the analysis, and
then obtain answers that normally would have required a prototype. Indeed, modern
graphic portraits of the model inside the computer make one believe it is real. The
FEM is used as it:
(a) can analyze solids with complicated Structural Configurations (shapes),
(b) can consider complicated Loadings,
(c) can consider complicated Boundary Conditions.
 38

5.4.2 Concept of Finite Element Method

5.4.2.1 The Concept of an Element

The predominant interpretation of the finite element is a physical

visualization of a body or structure as an assemblage of building block-like elements,
interconnected at the nodal points. A significant intermediary step in the evolution of
the physical concept of finite element was the representation of two- and three-
dimensional bodies and structures as groupings of small grids or lattices.

Evaluating effects such as deformations, stresses, temperature, fluid pressure,

and fluid velocities caused by forces such as applied loads or pressures and thermal
and fluid fluxes are the interest of the engineer. The nature of distribution of the
effect (deformations) in a body depends on the characteristics of the force system and
of the body itself. Therefore, the aim is to find the distribution of the effects.

The general idea of the finite element method is illustrated in the Figure 5.8,
where u is used to represent the displacements or deformation effects. When
problems such as heat and fluid flow are discussed, they will involve distribution of
temperature and fluid heats and their gradients.

Before an analysis is carried out, the whole system has to be divided into a
number of individual subsystems or components, whose behaviour is readily
understood. The basic units of the discretized subsystems are called finite elements,
which should neither overlap nor have gaps between each other. The body is divided
into a number of smaller regions as shown in Figure 5.8 (a) called finite elements. A
consequence of such subdivision is that the distribution of displacement is also
discretized into corresponding sub zones, Figure 5.8 (b). The subdivided elements
are now easier to examine as compared to the entire body and distribution of u over
it.

Regardless of the physical nature of the problem, a standard finite-element

method primarily involves the following steps. Each step requires a great deal of
 39

different planning and operations depending upon the physical nature and the
mathematical modeling of the problem.

(a) Step 1: Discretize and select element configuration

This step involves subdividing the body into a suitable number of small
bodies, called finite elements. The intersection of the sides of the elements are called
nodes or nodal points while the interfaces between the elements are called nodal lines
and nodal plane. Sometimes, additional node points along the nodal lines and planes
may need to be introduced.

(b) Step 2: Select approximation models or functions

The second step concerns with choosing a pattern or shape for the distribution
in Figure 5.8 of the unknown quantity that can be a displacement and /or stress for
stress-deformation problems or temperature in heat problems. The nodal points of the
elements provide strategic points for writing mathematical functions to describe the
shape of the distribution of the unknown quantity over a domain of the element. The
polynomial interpolation function can be expressed as
u = N1u1 + N2u2 + N3u3 + + Nmum (5.30)
where
u1, u2, u3, , um are the values of the unknowns at the nodal points
N1, N2, N3, , Nm are the interpolation functions

The solution obtained will be in terms of the unknown only at the nodal
points. Figure 5.9 shows the final solution is a combination of solutions in each
element patched together at the common boundaries. It is further illustrated by
stretching a cross section along A-A. The computed solution is not necessarily the
same as the exact continuous solution shown by the solid curve.

(c) Step 3: Define strain (gradient) displacement (unknown) and stress-strain

(constitutive) relationships
In this step, appropriate quantities must be defined for deriving equations for
the element, which uses a principle. For stress-deformation problems, one such
quantity is the strain (or gradient) of displacement. In addition, additional quantity,
 40

the stress or velocity must also be defined. This can be done by expressing this
relationship with the strain, called stress-strain law.

(d) Step 4: Derive element equations

The equations obtained are in general terms and hence can be used for all
elements in the discretized body. A number of alternatives are possible for the
derivation of element equations. The two most commonly used are the energy
methods and the residual methods.

Use of either of the two foregoing methods will leads to equations describing
the behaviour of an element, which are commonly expressed as

[k] {q} = {Q}, (5.31)

where,
[k] = element property matrix,
{q} = vector of unknowns at the element nodes,
{Q} = vector of element nodal forcing parameters

Equation 5.31, is expressed in a general sense; for the specific problem of

stress analysis, [k] = stiffness matrix, {q} = vector for nodal displacement, and {Q} =
vector of nodal forces.

(e) Step 5: Assemble element equations to obtain global or assemblage equations

and introduce boundary conditions.
Once the element equation, Equation 5.31, is established for a generic
element, the equations can be used again and again to generate equations recursively
for other elements. Then, the outputs are added together to find global equations. It
requires that the body remain continuous after the load is applied as shown in Figure
5.9. The assemblage equations can be expressed in matrix notation as

[K] {r} = {R}, (5.32)

where,
 41

[K] = assemblage property matrix,

{r} = assemblage vector of nodal unknowns,
{R} = assemblage vector of nodal forcing parameters

Until now, the properties of the body or structures have being considered but
without constraints as shown in Figure 5.10 (a). In the case of engineering bodies, the
surrounding or the constraints are the boundary conditions. Boundary conditions are
the physical constraint or supports that must exist to withstand the structure or body
in space uniquely as shown in Figure 5.10 (b). To reflect the boundary conditions in
the finite element approximations of the body, the final modified assemblage
equations are expressed as

[ K }{r } = {R } (5.33)

(f) Step 6: Solve for the primary unknowns

Equation 5.33 is a set of linear (or nonlinear) simultaneous algebraic
equations, which can be written in standard familiar forms as

K 11 r1 + K 12 r2 + ... + K 1n rn = R1 ,
K 21 r1 + K 22 r2 + ... + K 2 n r n = R 2 ,
.
.
K n1 r1 + K n 2 r2 + ... + K nn rn = R n , (5.34)

This equation can be solved using the Gaussian elimination or iterative

methods. At the end of the step, the unknowns (displacements), r1, r2, , rn will be
obtained. These are called primary quantities.

(g) Step 7: Solve for derived or secondary quantities

Additional or secondary quantities such as (in the case of stress-deformation
problems) strains, stresses, moments, and shear forces can be computed from the
primary quantities obtained in Step 6.

(h) Step 8: Interpretation of results

 42

The aim is to reduce the results obtained from the finite element calculations
to a form that can be readily used for analysis and design. Results can be obtained on
the form of printed output from the computer. The critical sections of the body be
selected, and the values for displacement and stresses along them are plotted.

5.4.2.2 Various Element Shapes

A finite element usually has a simple one-, two- or three-dimensional

configuration. The boundaries of elements are often straight lines, although for
problems that can be best represented in curvilinear coordinates, it is advantageous
for the element shapes to be similarly defined. The types of elements are:

(a) One-dimensional elements

These elements are used when the geometry, material properties, and such
dependent variables as a displacement can all be expressed in terms of one
independent space coordinate. A one-dimensional element can be represented by a
straight line whose ends are nodal points, see figure 5.11. The nodal points indicated
by 1 and 2 in the figure are called external nodes as they represent connecting points
to the adjacent elements. Additional nodal point such as node 3 is called internal
node as there is no connection to other elements.

(b) Two-dimensional elements

The simplest two-dimensional element is the triangular element shown in
Figure 5.12 (a). The corner nodes, numbered 1, 2, and 3 in the figure are called
primary external nodes, while additional nodes occur on the side of the element, like
nodes 4, 5, and 6, are called secondary external nodes. The difference between the
primary and secondary external nodes is that the secondary nodes may have fewer
displacements of interest than the corner nodes. Other types of two-dimensional
elements are shown in the Figure 5.12 (b) to Figure 5.12 (e).

(c) Three-dimensional elements

 43

The tetrahedron shown in Figure 5.13 (a) is the basic finite element for three-
dimensional problems corresponding to the triangle. It has four primary external
nodes. If necessary, secondary external nodes or internal nodes for each of the
elements can be introduced. By analogy, with the two-dimensional elements, a
hexahedron can be constructed from several tetrahedral. Other types of three-
dimensional elements are shown in Figure 5.13.

5.4.3 Finite Element Software Systems

The significant advances made in finite element technology, coupled with the
rapid developments in computer hardware and software, provided the foundation
from which many general-purpose finite element programs have evolved. After many
years of research and development, a wide variety of finite element programs are
currently being used in government and industry for the solution of a wide variety of
practical problems.

Some of the finite element software systems available in the market, which
are widely being used in the structural analysis are ANSYS, ABAQUS, COSMOS /
M, GTSTRUDL, LUSAS and many more.

5.4.3.1 COSMOS / M Software

COSMOS / M is a finite element software developed in order to analyze

structures using the finite element method. With this release, the Linear Static
module (STAR), the Frequency module (DSTAR), the Advanced Dynamic module
(ASTAR), and the Heat Transfer module (HSTAR) can be used to run any size of
models created by GEOSTAR. Three different variations of GEOSTAR are
automatically provided. These variations vary according to the limit on the number
of nodes and elements that they can handle. The node/element limits for the three
 44

variations are: 64,000, 128,000, and 256,000, respectively.

STAR is COSMOS/M's basic linear static analysis module with state-of-the-

art analysis and solver capabilities. Expert FEA users and novices alike can use the
extensive capabilities of this module to perform stress analysis of simple models or
complex 3D assemblies. The program produces displacements, strains, stresses,
forces, and error estimates as results of the analysis under a variety of loading
conditions. STAR offers a fully integrated pre- and postprocessor, allowing user to
assess how the designs will perform in their operating environments, quickly and
affordably.

With STAR, users can address 2D and 3D linear static problems. The
programs large element library and its many other modeling features allow users to
set up the designs for quick and accurate analyses. Among the extensive capabilities
of STAR is the support of various types of constraint equations, and bonding of
surfaces with incompatible meshes. STAR also supports other features such as
contact, geometric stiffening, P-type elements and adaptivity, asymmetric loading,
and much more.
 45

Figure 5.1: Modes of crack surface displacement [8]

Figure 5.2: Superimposition of modes of crack surface displacement [8]

 46

(a) Uncracked sheet. (b) Cracked sheet.

Figure 5.3: Approximate energy model. [9]

Figure 5.4: Crack tip coordinates and stress components [9]

 47

(a) First estimate of

plastic zone size

(b) Second estimate of

plastic zone size

(c) Irwins plastic

zone correction

Figure 5.5: The Irwin Plastic Zone Correction [10]

 48

Figure 5.6: The Dugdale Approach [10]

48
 49

Figure 5.7: Crack Opening Displacement [11]

Figure 5.8: Distribution of displacement, u, temperature T, or

fluid heat, . (a) Discretization of Two-dimensional body and (b)
Distribution of ue over a generic element e. [12]
 50

Figure 5.9: Approximate solution as patchwork of solutions over elements;

(a) Assemblage, (b) Neighboring elements and (c) Section along A-A [12]

Figure 5.10: Boundary conditions or constraints; (a) Body without constraints

and (b) Body with constraints [12]
 51

Figure 5.11: One-dimensional element [13]

Figure 5.12: Two-dimensional elements [13]

Figure 5.13: Three-dimensional elements [13]

 52

CHAPTER 6

FINITE ELEMENT MODELLING ON THE TUBULAR T-JOINT

6.1 Methodology
6.1.1 Introduction

The success of a finite element method for the modeling and analysis of a
structure is based largely on the basic procedures used. The basic steps in the finite
element analysis are:
i. Create the problem geometry
ii. Mesh the defined geometry with appropriate type of element (s).
iii. Apply boundary conditions (constraints) on the finite element model.
iv. Define the loads on the model.
v. Define the material properties.
vi. Submit the completed finite element model for analysis.
vii. Interpret and analyze the results.

Basically, the process can be divided into three main sections, which are the
preprocessing, analysis and post processing. The preprocessing refers to the
operations to perform such as defining the model geometry, mesh generation,
applying loads and boundary conditions, and other operations that are required prior
to submitting the model for analysis. The analysis refers to the phase of specifying
the analysis option and executing the actual analysis. Lastly the post processing
refers to the manipulation of the analysis results for easy understanding and
interpretation in the graphical environment.
 53

In this modeling, the module used for analysis is The Linear Static Analysis
Module (STAR). This module uses the linear theory of structures, based on the
assumption of small displacements, to calculate structural deformation. STAR calls
the STRESS sub module to calculate stresses. The STRESS sub module calculates
element and nodal stresses for most elements based on the results from STAR. The
Flow Chart below represents the flow for Linear Static Analysis in the basic system.
 54

6.1.2 Data of the model

6.1.2.1 Geometry, Loading geometry and Cracks

Figure 3.1 shows the geometry and dimensions of the T-joint used in this
study. Figure 3.2 was shoes the localities of crack at the brace- chord intersection.
Tensile loading was applied to the end of the T brace and reacted at both ends of the
chord.

A starter notch for the cracks was introduced in the saddle region of the joints
by electric discharge machining at a distance of 2 mm from the weld root position.

Figure 3.1 (repeated):

Geometry, crack position, and loading geometry of the T-joints (schematic) [2]

Figure 3.2 (repeated): T-joint in the testing rig

 55

6.1.2.2 Material

The material used in the experiments was a cold deformed 450 YS TMCP-
steel. The tubes were cold prestraining as it was manufactured from plates by
bending and butt-welding. The Youngs modulus was determined as 210 GPa.

6.1.3 Building the Geometry of the Model

In this dissertation, there are 3 types of geometric entities being used in the
modeling job. They are keypoints (PT), curves (CR) and also surfaces (SF).
Keypoints are the most primitive entity in GEOSTAR, and the lowest in hierarchy.
They are part of all other hierarchies. Keypoints can be created by snapping to an
active grid on plane, or by specifying coordinates for a point in space.

Meanwhile, curves are one-dimensional parametric entities built from a

combination of keypoints in space. Many types of curves can be automatically
generated by GEOSTAR, including straight lines. Surfaces are two-parametric
entities that can be planar or curved. A comprehensive command list is provided for
generation and manipulation of surfaces, including symmetry, flipping, extrusion and
many other options. Among of the command used are:

PT, 1,0,0,0
Key point 1was defined at the origin of the global

coordinate system.

PT, 2, 0.07625,0,0
PT, 3, 0, 0.07625,0
PT, 4,0,0,0.14925
PT, 5, 0, 0.14925,0
PT, 6, 0, 0,-0.14925
(See figure 6.1) Figure 6.1: Key points
 56

CRARC, 1, 3,2,1,0.07625
An arc of radius (76.25mm) was defined and
located between key points 3 and 2 with
key point 1 towards its center of curvature

CRARC, 2, 5,4,1,0.14925
CRARC, 3, 5,6,1,0.14925
(See figure 6.2) Figure 6.2: Curves arcs

SFEXTR, 1, 1, 1, Z, 0.8385
A surface was generated by extruding curve 1 by 838.5mm in the z- direction

SFEXTR, 2, 2, 1, X, 0.760
SFEXTR, 3, 3, 1, X, 0.760
(See Figure 6.3)

Figure 6.3: Surfaces extrude

PT,12,0,0.07625,0.1283292
CRARC,12,12,5,1,0.14925

PTONCR,12,0.032378743
A key point was defined and located on curve 12

PTONCR,12,0.033026318
PTONCR,12,0.064757486
(See figure 6.4) Figure 6.4: Key point on curves
 57

CRARC, 13,12,13,1,0.14925
CRARC, 14,13,14,1,0.14925
CRARC, 15, 14, 15, 1, 0.14925

CRGEN, 1, 13, 13,1,0,0.01825,0,0

A curve was generated from the existing pattern
by translating curve 13 about the current
x-direction.

CRGEN, 1, 16, 16,1,0,0.005,0,0

CRGEN, 1, 17, 17,1,0,0.005,0,0
Figure 6.5: Curves generation
(See figure 6.5)

CRONSF, 16, 18, 2, 0.001,0

A curve was defined to connect by key points
16 and 18 and located on surface 2

CRONSF, 16, 18, 2, 0.001,0

CRONSF, 18, 20, 2, 0.001,0
CRGEN, 1, 15, 15,1,0,0.01825,0,0
CRGEN, 1, 21, 21,1,0,0.005,0,0
CRGEN, 1, 22, 22,1,0,0.005,0,0
CRONSF, 23, 25, 2, 0.001,0
Figure 6.6: Curves on surface
CRONSF, 25, 27, 2, 0.001, 0
CRONSF, 17, 19, 2, 0.001,0
CRONSF, 19, 21, 2, 0.001,0
CRONSF, 22, 24, 2, 0.001,0
CRONSF, 24, 26, 2, 0.001,0
(See figure 6.6)
 58

SF4CR, 4,26,16,19,17,0
A surface was defined where it was bounded
by the curves 26, 16, 19, and 17

SF4CR, 5,27,17,20,18,0
CRONSF, 19, 25, 2, 0.001,0
CRONSF, 17, 23, 2, 0.001,0
SF4CR, 6,24,31,26,30,0
CRONSF, 21, 27, 2, 0.001,0
Figure 6.7: Surface 4 curves
SF4CR, 7,25,30,27,32,0
(See figure 6.7)

CRBRK, 17, 17,1,5,0

Curve 17 was broken into 5 segments
(See figure 6.8)

Figure 6.8: Curve break

CRGEN, 1, 33, 33, 1, 0,-0.001, 0, 0

CRGEN, 1, 33, 33,1,0,0.001,0,0
CRONSF, 33, 28, 2, 0.001,0
CRONSF, 28, 35, 2, 0.001,0
CRBRK, 30, 30,1,5,0
CRGEN, 1, 46, 46,1,0,0.001,0,0
CRGEN, 1, 46, 46, 1, 0,-0.001, 0, 0
CRONSF, 41, 39, 2, 0.001,0
CRONSF, 39, 40, 2, 0.001,0
Figure 6.9: Surfaces on crack region (1)
(See figure 6.9)
 59

CRINTCC, 48, 28, 28, 20, 0,5E-005

(See figure 6.10)

Figure 6.10: Curves intersection

CRONSF, 42, 41, 6, 0.001,0

CRONSF, 17, 32, 4, 0.001,0
CRONSF, 18, 28, 4, 0.001,0
CRONSF, 34, 21, 5, 0.001,0
CRONSF, 39, 25, 2, 0.001,0
CRONSF, 33, 16, 4, 0.001,0
CRONSF, 20, 35, 5, 0.001,0
CRONSF, 41, 23, 6, 0.001,0
CRONSF, 27, 40, 7, 0.001,0
CRONSF, 22, 42, 6, 0.001,0
CRONSF, 22, 23, 6, 0.001,0

SF4CR, 8,53,16,57,38,0
SF4CR, 9,57,19,54,40,0
SF4CR, 10,54,20,58,41,0
SF4CR, 11,39,58,18,55,0
SF4CR, 12,61,52,59,21,0
SF4CR, 13,24,59,49,56,0
SF4CR, 14,25,56,50,60,0
SF4CR, 15,60,47,55,32,0
(See figure 6.11)
Figure 6.11: Surfaces on crack region (2)
 60

CRONSF, 12, 16, 2, 0.001,0

CRONSF, 13, 17, 2, 0.001,0
CRONSF, 14, 22, 2, 0.001,0
CRONSF, 15, 23, 2, 0.001,0
SF4CR, 16,13,62,16,63,0
SF4CR, 17,15,64,21,65,0
(See figure 6.12)
Figure 6.12: Surfaces on
neighbours of crack region (1)

CRCOMPRESS, 1, 65
PTONCR, 8,0.024013159
PTONCR, 8,0.037171221
CRARC, 65, 15, 5, 1,0.14925
CRONSF, 23, 43, 2, 0.001,0
CRONSF, 27, 44, 2, 0.001,0
CRLINE, 68,5,43
CRLINE, 69, 43, 44
CRONSF, 23, 27, 2, 0.001,0
SF4CR, 18,68,65,64,66,0
SF4CR, 19,66,70,67,69,0 Figure 6.13: Surfaces on chord (1)
(See figure 6.13)

CRONSF, 20, 27, 2, 0.001,0

CRGEN, 1, 71, 71, 1, 0, 0.731749872, 0, 0
CRONSF, 27, 46, 2, 0.001,0
CRONSF, 20, 45, 2, 0.001,0
CRLINE, 75,44,9
CRGEN, 1, 67, 67, 1, 0, 0.731749872, 0, 0
SF4CR, 20, 67, 73, 76, 75, 0
SF4CR, 21, 71, 74, 72, 73, 0
(See figure 6.14) Figure 6.14: Surfaces on chord (2)
 61

CRINTSS, 1, 2, 2, 1,0.001
PTONCR, 77, 0.149628061
PTONCR, 77, 0.190622051
PTONCR, 77, 0.23161604
PTCOMPRESS, 1, 50
PT, 51, 0.76,0,0
PT, 52,0,0,0.14925
PTCOMPRESS, 1, 51
PTONCR, 77, 0.149628061
CRARC, 78,12,51,4,0.14925
CRARC, 79,51,48,4,0.14925
CRARC, 80,48,49,4,0.14925
CRARC, 81,49,47,4,0.14925
CRONSF, 50, 16, 2, 0.001,0
CRONSF, 51, 16, 2, 0.001,0
CRONSF, 48, 18, 2, 0.001,0
CRONSF, 49, 20, 2, 0.001,0
CRONSF, 20, 45, 2, 0.001,0
CRARC, 85, 10, 45, 50, 0.14925
CRLINE, 86, 47, 10
SF3CR, 22, 61, 78, 82, 0
Figure 6.15: Surfaces between chord
SF4CR, 23, 18, 82, 79, 83, 0 and brace (1)
SF4CR, 24, 19, 83, 80, 84, 0
(See Figure 6.15)

SF4CR, 25, 73, 71, 74, 72,0

SF4CR, 26, 73, 71, 74, 72,0
PTONCR, 85, 0.92680861
CRARC, 88, 45, 52, 51, 0.14925
CRONSF, 49, 52, 2, 0.001,0
CRARC, 90, 52, 10, 51, 0.14925
CRARC, 90, 52, 10, 50, 0.14925
SF4CR, 26, 74, 84, 89, 88, 0
SF4CR, 27, 89, 81, 86, 90,0
 62

PTONCR, 4, 0.152389127
PTONCR, 4, 0.194139573
PTONCR, 4, 0.235890019
PT, 56, 0, 0, 0.8385
CRLINE, 91, 7, 12
CRARC, 92, 7, 53, 56, 0.07625
CRARC, 93, 53, 54, 56, 0.07625
CRARC, 94, 54, 55, 56, 0.07625
CRARC, 95, 55, 8, 56, 0.07625
CRONSF, 50, 53, 1, 0.001, 0
CRONSF, 51, 53, 1, 0.001, 0
CRONSF, 48, 54, 1, 0.001, 0
CRONSF, 49, 55, 1, 0.001, 0
CRONSF, 47, 8, 1, 0.001, 0
SF4CR, 28, 78, 91, 92, 96, 0
SF4CR, 29, 79, 96, 93, 97, 0
SF4CR, 30, 80, 97, 94, 98, 0 Figure 6.16: Surfaces on brace (1)

SF4CR, 31, 81, 98, 95, 99, 0

(See figure 6.16)

CRBRK, 64, 64, 1, 2, 0

CRBRK, 61, 61, 1, 2, 0
CRBRK, 63, 63, 1, 2, 0
CRBRK, 62, 62, 1, 2, 0
CRONSF, 59, 57, 17, 0.001, 0
CRONSF, 58, 60, 16, 0.001, 0
SF4CR, 32, 106, 13, 102, 109, 0
SF4CR, 33, 107, 109, 103, 15, 0
SF4CR, 34, 100, 14, 104, 108, 0
Figure 6.17: Surfaces on
SF4CR, 35, 101, 108, 105, 20, 0 neighbours of crack region (2)
(See figure 6.17)
 63

CRBRK, 78, 78, 1, 2, 0

CRONSF, 58, 61, 2, 0.001, 0
SF3CR, 36, 102, 110, 112, 0
SF4CR, 37, 103, 112, 111, 82, 0
(See figure 6.18)

Figure 6.18: Surfaces between chord

and brace (2)

CRBRK, 92, 92, 1, 2, 0

CRONSF, 61, 62, 1, 0.001, 0
SF4CR, 38, 91, 114, 116, 110, 0
SF4CR, 39, 111, 116, 115, 96, 0
CRBRK, 75, 75, 1, 4, 0
CRBRK, 73, 74, 1, 4, 0
CRBRK, 89, 89, 1, 4, 0
CRONSF, 63, 66, 2, 0.001, 0
CRONSF, 66, 69, 2, 0.001, 0
CRONSF, 69, 72, 2, 0.001, 0
CRONSF, 64, 67, 2, 0.001, 0
CRONSF, 67, 70, 2, 0.001, 0
CRONSF, 70, 73, 2, 0.001, 0
CRONSF, 65, 68, 2, 0.001, 0
CRONSF, 68, 71, 2, 0.001, 0
CRONSF, 71, 74, 2, 0.001, 0
SF4CR, 40, 117, 67, 121, 133, 0
SF4CR, 41, 118, 133, 122, 136, 0
SF4CR, 42, 119, 136, 123, 139, 0
SF4CR, 43, 120, 139, 124, 76, 0
SF4CR, 44, 121, 71, 125, 134, 0
SF4CR, 45, 122, 134, 126, 137, 0
SF4CR, 46, 123, 137, 127, 140, 0
Figure 6.19: Surfaces on chord (3)
SF4CR, 47, 124, 140, 128, 72, 0
 64

SF4CR, 48, 125, 84, 129, 135, 0

SF4CR, 49, 126, 135, 130, 138, 0
SF4CR, 50, 128, 141, 132, 88, 0
(See figure 6.19)

PTONCR, 11, 0.024013157

PTONCR, 11, 0.030592105
PTONCR, 11, 0.037171052
CRONSF, 43, 75, 3, 0.001, 0
CRONSF, 44, 77, 3, 0.001, 0
PTDEL, 76, 76, 1
PTCOMPRESS, 1, 77
CRLINE, 144, 6, 75
CRLINE, 145, 75, 76
CRLINE, 146, 76, 11
SFCOMPRESS, 1, 50
CRLINE, 147, 44, 9
SF4CR, 51, 3, 68, 142, 144, 0
SF4CR, 52, 142, 69, 143, 145, 0
SF4CR, 53, 75, 10, 146, 143, 0
(See figure 6.20)

Figure 6.20: Surfaces on brace (2)

 65

6.1.4 Meshing

M_SF, 8, 11, 1, 4, 2, 2, 1, 1
Surfaces 8, 9, 10, and 11were meshed with 4-noded
elements considering 2 elements along each
major side of these surfaces.

M_SF, 12, 15, 1, 4, 2, 2, 1, 1

(See figure 6.21)

M_SF, 32, 35, 1, 4, 1, 2, 1, 1 Figure 6.21: Meshing on crack region

M_SF, 36, 37, 1, 4, 1, 1, 1, 1
M_SF, 23, 24, 1, 4, 2, 1, 1, 1
M_SF, 18, 18, 1, 4, 2, 20, 1, 1
M_SF, 19, 19, 1, 4, 20, 4, 1, 1
M_SF, 40, 40, 1, 4, 20, 20, 1, 1
M_SF, 44, 44, 1, 4, 20, 4, 1, 1
M_SF, 48, 48, 1, 4, 20, 1, 1, 1
M_SF, 41, 43, 1, 4, 20, 20, 1, 1
M_SF, 45, 47, 1, 4, 20, 4, 1, 1
M_SF, 49, 51, 1, 4, 20, 1, 1, 1
M_SF, 38, 38, 1, 4, 80, 1, 1, 1
M_SF, 39, 39, 1, 4, 1, 80, 1, 1
M_SF, 29, 29, 1, 4, 2, 80, 1, 1
M_SF, 30, 30, 1, 4, 2, 80, 1, 1
M_SF, 27, 27, 1, 4, 80, 10, 1, 1
M_SF, 31, 31, 1, 4, 10, 80, 1, 1
M_SF, 51, 51, 1, 4, 20, 2, 1, 1
M_SF, 52, 52, 1, 4, 20, 4, 1, 1
M_SF, 53, 53, 1, 4, 80, 20, 1, 1

ACTDMESH, SF, 1
The default meshing flag was activated
 66

NMERGE, 1, 7055, 1, 0.00001, 0, 0, 0

NCOMPRESS, 1, 7054
SFSYM, 1, 53, 1, X, 1, 0
Additional surfaces and their meshes were created by the symmetric reflection of
surfaces 1 to 53 about the YZ plane. (See figure 6.22)

Figure 6.22: Reflection of quarter model to half

NMERGE, 1, 13248, 1, 0.00001, 0, 0, 0

NCOMPRESS, 1, 14151

SFSYM, 2, 55, 53, Y, 1, 0

Additional surfaces and their meshes were created by the symmetric reflection of
surfaces 2 and 55 about the XZ plane. (See figure 6.23)

SFSYM, 1, 106, 1, Y, 1, 0
Additional surfaces and their meshes were created by the symmetric reflection of
surfaces 1 to 106 about the XZ plane.

Figure 6.23: Reflection of half model to full

 67

NMERGE, 1, 26392, 1, 0.00001, 0, 0, 0

NCOMPRESS, 1, 26310

Surfaces at the other side of the joint will need to be removed and remodel as rigid
joint without crack.
SFDEL, 164, 175, 1
SFDEL, 192, 195, 1
SFDEL, 139, 142, 1
SFDEL, 111, 122, 1
SFDEL, 123, 124, 1
SFDEL, 176, 177, 1
(See figure 6.24)
Figure 6.24: Delete surfaces without crack

CRONSF, 191, 196, 108, 0.001, 0

CRONSF, 141, 145, 107, 0.001, 0
CRMERGE, 1, 554, 1, 0.0001, 1, 1, 0
CRONSF, 195, 191, 108, 0.001, 0
CRONSF, 191, 158, 108, 0.001, 0
CRONSF, 159, 158, 108, 0.001, 0
SF4CR, 214, 555, 477, 469, 553, 0
SF4CR, 215, 556, 553, 465, 557, 0
CRDEL, 554, 554, 1
CRMERGE, 1, 557, 1, 0.00001, 1, 1, 0
M_SF, 214, 214, 1, 4, 4, 4, 1, 1
M_SF, 215, 215, 1, 4, 2, 4, 1, 1
ACTDMESH, SF, 1
Figure 6.25: Create surfaces without crack
SFSYM, 214, 215, 1, X, 1, 0
(See figure 6.25)

NMERGE, 1, 24111, 1, 0.0001, 0, 0, 0

NCOMPRESS, 1, 24106
 68

6.1.5 Crack Modeling

A gap is left blank around the area where crack tip located, will be modeled

through the command NPTPUSH. This command pushes a node to a key point and

replaces the coordinates of the node with that of the key point and preserves the

connectivity to other nodes.

NPTPUSH, 28, 19, 0

NPTPUSH, 31, 19, 0
NPTPUSH, 34, 19, 0
NPTPUSH, 41, 19, 0
NPTPUSH, 42, 19, 0
NPTPUSH, 47, 19, 0
NPTPUSH, 48, 19, 0
NPTPUSH, 49, 19, 0
NPTPUSH, 23, 19, 0
NPTPUSH, 22, 19, 0
NPTPUSH, 21, 19, 0
NPTPUSH, 18, 19, 0 Figure 6.26: Crack gap before

NPTPUSH, 15, 19, 0

NPTPUSH, 12, 19, 0
NPTPUSH, 9, 19, 0
NPTPUSH, 6, 19, 0
NPTPUSH, 3, 19, 0

NPTPUSH, 6227, 82, 0

NPTPUSH, 6230, 82, 0
NPTPUSH, 6234, 82, 0
NPTPUSH, 6240, 82, 0
NPTPUSH, 6241, 82, 0
NPTPUSH, 6246, 82, 0
NPTPUSH, 6249, 82, 0 Figure 6.27: Crack gap after
NPTPUSH, 6247, 82, 0
 69

NPTPUSH, 6223, 82, 0

NPTPUSH, 6221, 82, 0
NPTPUSH, 6220, 82, 0
NPTPUSH, 6217, 82, 0
NPTPUSH, 6214, 82, 0
NPTPUSH, 6211, 82, 0
NPTPUSH, 6208, 82, 0
NPTPUSH, 6205, 82, 0
NPTPUSH, 6204, 82, 0

6.1.6 Applying loads and boundary conditions

The Tubular T-joint was being fixed at both ends. Therefore, all of the nodes
at these particular curves were restrainted from moving in all direction.

DCR, 10, AL, 0, 10, 1

DCR, 294, AL, 0, 294, 1
DCR, 76, AL, 0, 76, 1
DCR, 88, AL, 0, 72, 88-72
DCR, 90, AL, 0, 90, 1
DCR, 360, AL, 0, 360, 1
DCR, 358, AL, 0, 358, 1
DCR, 347, AL, 0, 347, 1
DCR, 286, AL, 0, 286, 1
DCR, 344, AL, 0, 344, 1
DCR, 85, AL, 0, 85, 1
DCR, 156, AL, 0, 156, 1
DCR, 425, AL, 0, 425, 1
DCR, 203, AL, 0, 203, 1
DCR, 206, AL, 0, 217, 217-206
DCR, 219, AL, 0, 219, 1 Figure 6.28: Boundary conditions
DCR, 475, AL, 0, 475, 1
 70

DCR, 478, AL, 0, 488, 488-478

DCR, 491, AL, 0, 491, 1
(See figure 6.28)

Due to the unequal length of each curve at the boundary of the brace end
where tension load was applied, a surface was created to carry the tension load in the
form of pressure load. Each node that coincided the boundary nodes was merged in
order to obtain a rigid connection.

CRLINE, 420, 53, 56

CRLINE, 421, 54, 56
CRLINE, 422, 55, 56
CRLINE, 423, 7, 56
CRLINE, 424, 62, 56
CRLINE, 425, 62, 53
CRDEL, 425, 425, 1
CRLINE, 425, 62, 56
CRLINE, 425, 53, 56
CRLINE, 425, 118, 56
CRLINE, 426, 7, 56
CRLINE, 426, 110, 56
CRLINE, 427, 111, 56
CRLINE, 428, 112, 56 Figure 6.29: Loading at brace (1)

CRLINE, 429, 78, 56

CRLINE, 430, 219, 56
CRLINE, 431, 218, 56
CRLINE, 432, 217, 56
CRLINE, 433, 225, 56
CRLINE, 434, 137, 56
CRLINE, 435, 177, 56
CRLINE, 436, 169, 56
CRLINE, 437, 170, 56
CRLINE, 438, 171, 56
CRLINE, 439, 8, 56
 71

CRLINE, 440, 55, 56

(See figure 6.29)

SF3CR, 226, 85, 420, 421, 0

SF3CR, 227, 86, 421, 422, 0
SF3CR, 228, 104, 423, 424, 0
SF3CR, 229, 105, 424, 420, 0
SF3CR, 230, 219, 425, 423, 0
SF3CR, 231, 221, 426, 425, 0
SF3CR, 232, 202, 427, 426, 0
SF3CR, 233, 204, 428, 427, 0
SF3CR, 234, 206, 429, 428, 0
SF3CR, 235, 368, 430, 429, 0
SF3CR, 236, 367, 431, 430, 0
SF3CR, 237, 365, 432, 431, 0
SF3CR, 238, 377, 433, 432, 0
SF3CR, 239, 375, 434, 433, 0
SF3CR, 240, 303, 435, 434, 0
SF3CR, 241, 305, 436, 435, 0
SF3CR, 242, 293, 437, 436, 0 Figure 6.30: Loading at brace (2)
SF3CR, 243, 295, 438, 437, 0
SF3CR, 244, 296, 439, 438, 0
SF3CR, 245, 87, 422, 439, 0
(See figure 6.30)

M_SF, 227, 227, 1, 4, 2, 5, 1, 1

M_SF, 226, 226, 1, 4, 2, 5, 1, 1
M_SF, 228, 228, 1, 4, 1, 5, 1, 1
M_SF, 229, 229, 1, 4, 1, 5, 1, 1
M_SF, 230, 230, 1, 4, 1, 5, 1, 1
M_SF, 231, 231, 1, 4, 1, 5, 1, 1
M_SF, 232, 232, 1, 4, 2, 5, 1, 1
M_SF, 233, 233, 1, 4, 2, 5, 1, 1
M_SF, 234, 234, 1, 4, 10, 5, 1, 1
 72

M_SF, 235, 235, 1, 4, 10, 5, 1, 1

M_SF, 237, 237, 1, 4, 2, 5, 1, 1
M_SF, 238, 238, 1, 4, 1, 5, 1, 1
M_SF, 236, 236, 1, 4, 2, 5, 1, 1
M_SF, 239, 239, 1, 4, 1, 5, 1, 1
M_SF, 240, 240, 1, 4, 1, 5, 1, 1
M_SF, 241, 241, 1, 4, 1, 5, 1, 1
M_SF, 242, 242, 1, 4, 2, 5, 1, 1
M_SF, 243, 243, 1, 4, 2, 5, 1, 1
M_SF, 244, 244, 1, 4, 10, 5, 1, 1
M_SF, 245, 245, 1, 4, 10, 5, 1, 1
(See figure 6.31) Figure 6.31: Loading at brace (3)

NMERGE, 1, 24640, 1, 0.00001, 0, 0, 0

NCOMPRESS, 1, 24628

The tension loading applied on the brace and were varied and there are shown
in Table 6.1.Area of tension loading at brace end, A = 0.018265416m2

Table 6.1: Pressures applied at the brace

Load, MN Pressure, N/m2

0.25 1.3687E+07
0.50 2.7374E+07
0.75 4.1061E+07
1.00 5.4748E+07
1.25 6.8435E+07
1.50 8.2122E+07

PSF, 226, 2.7374E7, 245, 1, 2.7374E+007, 2.7374E+007, 4

 73

Figure 6.32: Loading at brace (4)

6.1.7 Elements and their Attributes

Shell elements were being used to model the joints with the thickness of 20
mm.

EGROUP, 1, SHELL4, 2, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0
RCONST, 1, 1, 1, 6, 0.02, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0
PICK_MAT, 1, STEEL, SI

Initially the stiffness of the spring elements was set equal to the value of
Youngs modulus.

EGROUP, 2, SPRING, 0, 2, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0
RCONST, 2, 2, 1, 1, 210E9
PICK_MAT, 2, STEEL, SI
 74

6.1.8 Spring Element embedded in the Shell Element (14)

Shell elements are used for tubular joints with surface cracks, incorporated with
line spring elements being embedded in to shell elements to stimulate cracks. In
this approach, crack geometry is actually not modeled and the line spring elements
are used to provide local flexibility of the two sides of a crack along edges of shell
elements.

CRLINE, 361, 56, 59

CRLINE, 362, 13, 14
CRLINE, 362, 17, 22
PT, 160, -1.525E-2, 8.647353E-2, 1.216594E-1
PT, 161, -1.525E-2, 8.811098E-2, 1.204774E-1
PT, 162, 1.525E-2, 8.647353E-2, 1.216594E-1
PT, 163, 1.525E-2, 8.811098E-2, 1.204774E-1
CRLINE, 363, 160, 161
CRLINE, 364, 162, 163
M_CR, 361, 362, 1, 2, 1, 1
M_CR, 14, 14, 1, 2, 1, 1
M_CR, 363, 364, 1, 2, 1, 1

Figure 6.33: Spring elements embedded into shell elements

 75

6.1.9 Analysis options

Since the analysis was carried out in the linear elastic form, the R_STATIC
command was used. The A_STATIC command (See figure 6.34) specifies details of
the linear static analysis to be performed by the R_STATIC command.

A_STATIC, N, 0, 1, 1E-006, 210E9, 0, 0, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0

Figure 6.34: A_STATIC option

R_STATIC
 76

CHAPTER 7

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

7.1 Results

The finite element analysis were carried out using different values of applied
tension loads at the brace end in order to obtain the corresponding fracture mechanics
parameter of tubular joint i.e. the crack tip opening displacement, CTOD and crack
mouth opening displacement, CMOD with the applied load.

In each analysis, the tension load was converted into pressure load to ease the
analysis due to unequal length of the curves modeled. In each analysis, the value of
CTOD obtained was 3 mm from the actual crack tip, which is the nearest nodes to
the tip modeled. Meanwhile the CMOD values were obtained from the center line of
the surface crack.

Z3
Z1

Z2
Z4
Center Line
3mm

CTOD (mm) = Displacement of Z2 Displacement of Z1

CMOD (mm) = Displacement of Z4 Displacement of Z3
 77

7.1.1 Crack Tip Opening Displacement, CTOD

Area of tension loading at brace end, A = 0.018265416 m2

Table 7.1: Comparison of COSMOS/M and experimental results for CTOD

CTOD, mm
Different
2
Load, MN Pressure, N/m COSMOS/M Experimental (%)
0.25 1.3687E+07 0.006 0.0057 5.3
0.50 2.7374E+07 0.012 0.011 9.1
0.75 4.1061E+07 0.0175 0.017 2.9
1.00 5.4748E+07 0.023 0.024 4.2
1.25 6.8435E+07 0.029 0.031 6.5
1.50 8.2122E+07 0.035 0.037 5.4
2.00 1.0950E+08 0.047 0.043 9.3

Table 7.1 shows the results of CTOD obtained from COSMOS/M in this

project and also the corresponding experimental CTOD values taken from the

literature [2] at various load levels. It can be seen that there is a maximum difference

of about 9.3% between the two set of results.

The CTOD results are then nicely plotted as shown in Figure 7.1. The best

line was drawn for each set of results. It can be seen that both lines are very close to

each other.
 78

APPLIED LOAD VERSUS CTOD

2.50

2.00
Load at Brace, MN

1.50

1.00
COSMOS/M
0.50
EXPERIMENTAL
0.00
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05
Crack Tip Opening Displacement, mm

Figure: 7.1: Applied load versus CTOD for tubular T-joint.

7.1.2 Crack Mouth Opening Displacement, CMOD

Area of tension loading at brace end, A = 0.018265416 m2

Table 7.2: Comparison of COSMOS/M and experimental results for CMOD

CMOD, mm
Pressure, Different
Load, MN N/m2 COSMOS/M Experimental (%)
0.25 1.3687E+07 0.016 0.025 36.0
0.50 2.7374E+07 0.033 0.050 34.0
0.75 4.1061E+07 0.05 0.080 37.5
1.00 5.4748E+07 0.066 0.100 34.0
1.25 6.8435E+07 0.082 0.120 31.7
1.50 8.2122E+07 0.098 0.150 34.7
2.00 1.0950E+08 0.131 0.200 34.5
 79

The results of the CMOD at various load levels obtained using COSMOS/M
together with the corresponding experimental results taken from the literature [2] are
tabulated in the Table 7.2. Looking at both sets of results, it can be seen that there is
a maximum difference of 37.5 %

These results are then plotted as shown in Figure 7.2. The best line is drawn
for each of the COSMOS/M as well as for the experimental data. It can be seen that
as the applied load on the brace is increased, the CMOD results using the
COSMOS/M and experimental method can be seem to be deviate between each
other.

APPLIED LOAD VERSUS CMOD

2.50
Load at Brace, MN

2.00

1.50

1.00
COSMOS/M
0.50
EXPERIMENTAL
0.00
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
Crack Mouth Opening Displacement, mm

Figure: 7.2: Applied load versus CTOD for tubular T-joint.

 80

7.1.3 The Deformed Shape

Figure 7.3: The Deformed Shape of the Whole Model

Figure 7.4: The Detail Deformed Shape of the Crack Region

The figure above (Figure 7.6 and Figure 7.7) shown that there is not much
deformed shape felt by the tubular T-joint when tension load was applied into the
brace end. The joints displaced as if it is being pull out from the chord. The Figure
7.7 shows the detail deformed shape of the crack region. It can be seen that the crack
propagate when load is applied.
 81

7.2 Discussion

In the experiment tests reported in literature [2], the value of crack mouth
opening displacement, CMOD was measured. This was because the measurement of
the crack tip opening displacement, CTOD was difficult and virtually impossible to
be obtained in a routine test. Therefore, by measuring CMOD, the CTOD might be
inferred. However, in the present work using finite element analysis, it is possible to
measure the CTOD due to the capabilities of the software to tabulate a result at any
location on the model depending on the nodes generated. in this project, the CMOD
was measured as an additional comparison between the COSMOS/M and
experimental result.

There are some differences between the experimental result and the
COSMOS/M result. The biggest percentage of different between the experimental
data and COSMOS/M analysis were 9.3% for the CTOD reading and 37.5% for the
CMOD reading.

The difference might be due to the fact that in this project, the CTOD and the
CMOD obtained using the linear elastic analysis whereas the experimental results
were obtained with some plasticity occurring at the crack tip. The analyses were
carried out using one type of mesh only. The use of optimum meshing may generate
more accurate crack driving force, M.

The use if line spring element embedded into the shell elements to stimulate
the crack may not correctly model the actual crack like in the experiment. Since the
approach is simple and computationally inexpensive, it may be useful for some
simple component; it may not be accurate enough for more complex components like
cracked tubular joints.
 82

CHAPTER 8

CONCLUSION & RECOMMENDATION

8.1 Conclusion

Finite element linear elastic was carried out using COSMOS/M software to
obtain the crack tip opening displacement and crack mouth opening displacement of
tubular T-joints.

A graph of load applied versus crack tip opening displacement, CTOD and
graph load applied versus crack mouth opening displacement, CMOD is plotted to
compare the result from the COSMOS/M with the experimental data from journal.
The comparison between the numerical method and experimental result is good for
the CTOD case whereas it is not so good for the CMOD case. For the CTOD case, a
maximum difference of 9.3% was obtained whereas for the CMOD case, the
maximum difference was 37.5%.
 83

8.2 Recommendation

i. It is proposed that the actual crack is modeled on the chord at the junction
between the chord and the brace rather than using line spring elements.

ii. The welding part between the chord and the brace can also be taking into
consideration in order to generate a better result as the present work did not
take into consideration of welding effect.

iii. In order to explore fracture behaviour of cracked tubular joints, three-

dimensional quadratic solid elements should be used throughout.
 84

LIST OF REFRENCES

(1) COSMOS/M User Guide Manual (Volume 1, Volume 2 & Volume 3) (1998),
COSMOS/M 2.0

(2) Zerbst.U, Heerens.J, Schwalbe K-H. The fracture behaviour of a welded

tubular joint an ESIS TC1.3 round robin on failure assessment methods.
Part I: experimental data base and brief summary of the results. Journal
Engineering Fracture Mechanics 2002:69:1093-110

(3) Marshal GW, Ainsworth RA. The fracture behaviour of a welded tubular
joint an ESIS TC1.3 round robin on failure assessment methods. Part II: R6
analysis. Engineering Fracture Mechanics 2002:69:1111-8.

(4) The fracture behaviour of a welded tubular joint An ESIS TC1-3 round
robin on failure assessment methods. Part III: UK BS7910 methodology.

(5) Zerst U, Primas R, Schindler H-J, Heerens J, Schwalbe K-H. The fracture
behaviour of a welded tubular joint an ESIS TC1.3 round robin on failure
assessment methods. Part IV: Application of the ETM 97/1. Engineering
Fracture Mechanics 2002:69:1129-48.

(6) Schindler HJ, Primas R, Veidt M. The fracture behaviour of a welded tubular
joint an ESIS TC1.3 round robin on failure assessment methods. Part V:
Screening method by required toughness and plastic stability considerations.
Engineering Fracture Mechanics 2002:69:1149-60.

(7) Zerst U, Miyata T. The fracture behaviour of a welded tubular joint an ESIS
TC1.3 round robin on failure assessment methods. Part VI: Application of
WES 2805-1997. Engineering Fracture Mechanics 2002:69:1161-9

(8) L.P.Pook (2000), Linear Elastic Fracture Mechanics for Engineers: Theory
and Application, WIT Press.
 85

(9) David Broek (1986), Elementary Engineering Fracture Mechanics, 4th ed.,
Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.

(10) Jayatilaka, Ayal de S (1979), Fracture of Engineering Brittle Materials,

Applied Science Publishers LTD.

(11) Parker, A P (1981), The Mechanics of Fracture and Fatigue, E.& F. N.

Spon Ltd.

(12) Kardestuncer, H. ed. (1987), Finite-Element Handbook, McGraw-Hill,

United State of America

(13) Desai, Chandrakan S. (1979), Elementary Finite Element Method, Prentice

Hall

(14) Cao JJ, Yang GJ, Parker JA, Burdekin FM. Crack modeling in FE analysis of
circular tubular joints. Journal Engineering Fracture Mechanics 1998:537-553