Y
stress in the corresponding strain
Y
. In general, yielding is defined by F = 0,
where F is the yield function such that:
[3]
Y
F o o =
The uniaxial yield criterion, as modified by the action of the hardening rules is
provided in the forms:
0
o o = F
Y
F o o o =
Isotropic hardening kinematic hardening,
where:
o o o + =
Y 0
is the largest magnitude of uniaxial stress reached in the previous plastic
deformation. The coefficient called kinematic change, used in the kinematic
hardening rule assumes a zero value before the start of yielding.
Strain values greater than
Y
assume an increase d decomposed into its elastic d
e
and plastic d
p
contributions in the form:
p e
d d d c c c + =
Stress increases are associated with only the elastic component,
{ }  { }   { } { } ( )  { }  { }
p
p t
p e
d H d E d d E d E d c c c c c o = = = =
where [E]: matrix elastic properties, [H
P
]: strain hardening parameter and [E
t
]:
stiffness tangent modulus. Considering the yielding function:
{ } { } ( )
p
W F F , , o o =
{ }
p
W , o
{ }
o
c d
Q
d
p
)
`
c
c
=
{ } { } o o d d ,
Where values of count for the hardening, describing how a yield surface is
altered in the multidimensional stress space, for changes in the size or location in
response to plastic deformation. The flow rule is defined in terms of a function Q,
called the plastic potential.
With a scalar d called plastic multiplier, increments in plastic deformation are given
by: .
Modeling considering a kinematic hardening, it is represented by the vector { } o ,
which considers displacement of the yield surface in the vector space, represented
as:
{ }  { }
p
d C c o
}
= ,
expression obtained from the integration of:
{ }   { }
p
d C d c o = ,
 
(
=
2
1
2
1
2
1
1 1 1
3
2
P
H C
,
being H
P
the plastic modulus of the material.
For an increase in plastic deformation, dF = 0, is obtained from the yield function:
{ } { } 0 =
)
`
c
c
+
)
`
c
c
o
o
o
o
d
F
d
F
T T
.
Replacing the plastic deformation increases in the equation for the increase of stress
associated with the elastic component, so as the kinematic hardening vector is
obtained:
{ }   { } { }  
o
o
o
c o d
Q
C d d
Q
d E d
)
`
c
c
=


.

\

)
`
c
c
= , .
Replacing the expressions for in the penultimate equation and solving the
resulting equation for the plastic multiplier d is obtained:
{ }   { } c
d P d = , where  
c
c
)
`
c
c
)
`
c
c
)
`
c
c
)
`
c
c
=
o o o o
o
Q
C
F Q
E
F
E
F
P
T T
T
.
Finally, from the equations for
{ } { } o o d d , and { } d is obtained:
{ }   { } c o d E d
ep
= ,
       


.

\

)
`
c
c
=
o
P
Q
I E E
ep
.
Where   I is a unitary matrix. The elastic plastic matrix  
ep
E can be considered a
generalized form of the tangent modulus E
t
.
2.3 Multilinear kinematic hardening
Decomposing  curve of the material in various stages or steps of loading, limiting
each load step with a specified minimum strength, defines a multi linearity of 
curve that presents the kinematic hardening shown in figure 2, for each plasticity
conditions. The portion of total load for each substep and its corresponding minimal
( )
k k
o c
,
sv
N
resistance define the increased plastic deformation, assuming that each substep is
subjected to the total strain. The individual increments of plastic strain, whereas a
weighting factor determining the total or apparent increase in the plastic deformation.
The plastic deformation is updated and the elastic deformation is calculated.
=
1
1
3
2 1
K
i
TK
TK
Wi
E
V
E
E E
Wk
For :
Wk
is a weighting factor to substep k, evaluated sequentially;
Tk
E
is the
modulus of elasticity of the curve segments , and
i
W
sum of weighting factors prior assessment of substep load.
Figure. 2. Uniaxial behavior for multi linear kinematic hardening.
The minimum stress for each subload step is given by:
) ) 2 1 ( 3 (
) 1 ( 2
1
k v k E
v
yk
o c o
+
=
where
represent increases in stressstrain curve. The number of load steps is the number of
interruptions of the curve. The increase in plastic deformation for each substep is
analyzed and using the von Mises yield criterion compared to the ratio of the flow
rule.
The increase in plastic deformation for all substeps is the sum of the increments of
plastic deformation, expressed as:
{ } { }
=
A = A
Nsv
i
Pl
i
Pl
Wi
1
c c
where:
: number of substeps.
2.4 Experimental work
2.4.1 Numerical experimentation by mean of FEM
20 models were generated in three dimensions considering the geometry and
dimensions of the pipe (table 1), with metal loss located in the HAZ, oriented in the
longitudinal direction on the pipe diameter and depth increments (%d/t) of 10, 20, 33,
50 and 80%.
Table 1. Dimensions of pipe and metal loss for analysis by FEM.
Longitudinal metal loss
cases D t Lm d %d/t b
mm mm mm mm
mm
1 609.6 10.439 25.4 1.0439 10 0.7700
2 609.6 10.439 101.6 1.0439 10 0.7700
3 609.6 10.439 177.8 1.0439 10 0.7700
4 609.6 10.439 254 1.0439 10 0.7700
5 609.6 10.439 25.4 2.0879 20 0.7700
6 609.6 10.439 101.6 2.0879 20 0.7700
7 609.6 10.439 177.8 2.0879 20 0.7700
8 609.6 10.439 254 2.0879 20 0.7700
9 609.6 10.439 25.4 3.4450 33 0.7700
10 609.6 10.439 101.6 3.4450 33 0.7700
11 609.6 10.439 177.8 3.4450 33 0.7700
12 609.6 10.439 254 3.4450 33 0.7700
13 609.6 10.439 25.4 5.2197 50 0.7700
14 609.6 10.439 101.6 5.2197 50 0.7700
15 609.6 10.439 177.8 5.2197 50 0.7700
16 609.6 10.439 254 5.2197 50 0.7700
17 609.6 10.439 25.4 8.3515 80 0.7700
18 609.6 10.439 101.6 8.3515 80 0.7700
19 609.6 10.439 177.8 8.3515 80 0.7700
20 609.6 10.439 254 8.3515 80 0.7700
The geometry of metal losses considered in this work is an approach that applies the
parameters evaluated in a real scale test, in order to determine the remaining
strength of steel pipe API 5LX52 containing defects referrals. The parameters are
shown in Figures 3 and 4, where:
D: pipe diameter
t: wall thickness
Lm: longitudinal metal loss
d: depth of the metal loss
b: width of the metal loss
Figure 3. Isometric view of the pipe with the metal loss.
Figure 4. Parameters that define the geometry in the experiment.
Lateral view
Frontal view
Lm
m
Plant view
d
b
t d
Lm
The FEM analysis considered only one half of the model due to the symmetry of the
system, allowing apply more computational resources in the refined finite element
mesh in the area of the defect. A finite element model for the case% d/t=80, Lm=25.4
mm shown in figure 5.
Figure 5. FEM mesh showing one half model.
The implementation of the models used solid isoparametric elements 45 first order,
with eight nodes in each element and capacity in elasticity, plasticity, large
deformation and stiffness stress for all cases.
The mechanical properties considered in the simulation correspond to the values
obtained in tensile test in regions HAZPMWM, of sections of pipe removed from
service for a low carbon steel grade API 5LX52 (figure 6).
Figure 6. True stressstrain diagram for base metal, HAZ and Weld metal.
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
0,0000 0,0200 0,0400 0,0600 0,0800 0,1000 0,1200 0,1400 0,1600
t
r
u
e
s
t
r
e
s
s
,
M
P
a
logarithmic strain, mm/mm
True stressstrain diagram
base metal
weld metal
heat affected zone
The elastic plastic behavior of the material required the implementation of a nonlinear
analysis, to solve the FEM models to define the mechanical behavior when
considering the action of internal pressure load. In a nonlinear analysis solution can
not be predicted directly with a group of linear equations. A nonlinear structure can
be analyzed through a series of iterative linear approximations with corrections. The
ANSYS finite element program uses an iterative process called the method of
NewtonRaphson, where each iteration is known as an iteration of equilibrium.
[4]
Each iteration is a separate step through the solution of the equation, and a full
iterative analysis is for an increase in load.
The NewtonRaphson method iterates until a solution (figure 7) by the equation
 { } { } { }
nr T
F F u K = A
where:
 :
T
K tangent stiffness matrix
{ }: u A increase of displacement
{ }: F external loads vector
{ }:
nr
F internal loads vector
Figure 7. Iterative process of solution by the NewtonRaphson method.
The solution of nonlinear finite element models for each of the case studies was
carried out considering a sequence of increases in internal pressure load. Initiated
load increases from zero, reaching the internal pressure than generated yield stress
y
, through the flow stress to reach the ultimate tensile strength. This allowed to know
the pressure loads that can lead eventually to a failure condition in a pipe with a
metal loss in the region of the HAZ.
u
F
Au
1
F
nr
1
K
T
1

1
2
3
4
5
2.4.2 Hydrostatic test in a pipe containing metal loss.
The hydrostatic test is performed to evaluate the real behavior of the pipe,
considering the presence of metal loss in the HAZ, and also allows verification of the
results obtained by numerical simulation. The pipe was tested as a pressure vessel,
to be kept sealed with end caps and subjected to pressure load through the entry of
water pumping equipment (water was used neutral and free of suspended solids).
The test was conducted at a temperature of 20C, using a calibrated pressure gauge
connected to the pipe, with water as incompressible fluid whose behavior did not
generate pressure increase risk.
[5]
The hydrostatic test pressure for the pipe was determined by a standard as sealed
hydrostatic test, depending on the system operating pressure and maximum
pressure emergency. Although hydrostatic pressure is usually 1.5 times the normal
operating pressure, which in no case exceed 90% of the yield stress limit for the
material
[6]
, our experimental pressure values considered to lead to pipe until failure,
with a number of defects oriented in the HAZ.
The deformation produced in the pipe during the hydrostatic test was evaluated by
electrical strain gages, capable of measuring in the elastic plastic range. The surface
preparation for bonding of the strain gages (figure 8) was developed according to
guidelines set by the manufacturer.
[7,8]
A conditioned trench was prepared for the
hydrotest, where the pipe instrumented with strain gages was hosted, which were
connected to a strain indicator (figure 9).
Figure 8. Surface preparation and bonding of strain gages.
Figure 9. Instrumented pipe and strain indicator.
During the course of the hydrotest, allowed the free flow of water throughout the
vessel, to fill it completely. It opened the vent valve to remove air from the pipe, with
the gradual closure of the same water leaving no bubbles.
A hydraulic pump slowly increased the pressure in the vessel, with increments of 10
kg/cm
2
to reach the design pressure. In each increment of pressure is stopped the
operation of the pump, waiting for a time of 10 minutes to stabilize, proceeding with
the process of reading strain for each strain gage.
Design pressure is reached, the pressure increased again in periods of 10 minutes,
through values than generated yield stress, flow stress, ultimate tensile strength in
tension and finally up to the failure. It was verified that at each step of loading
pressure dont exist leaks.
3 Results
FEM numerical simulation revealed that the magnitude of the maximum pressure to
achieve the allowable yield stress decreases with increasing defect length or depth.
As the defect is deeper, the estimation of internal pressure load becomes more
significant with increasing the length Lm. Figure 10 shows this behavior, reaching a
considerable involvement as they increase the size of Lm in metal loss with d/t= 80%.
Figure 10. Internal pressure load and the geometry analyzed.
The stress generated according to the von Mises criterion was reached at a lower
pressure load, when the metal loss was deeper, to remain constant in length Lm.
Figure 11 shows this behavior, considering a length of Lm = 177.80 mm, whose
verification was possible because there is the same case between the two
methodologies.
0,00
0,01
0,01
0,02
0,02
0,03
0,03
0,04
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
loadgeometry diagram
d/t=10%
d/t=20%
d/t=33%
d/t=50%
d/t=80%
Figure 11. Internal pressure load and von Mises stress.
Also, in developing the hydrostatic test, the values of the strain in defects of different
sizes was evaluated, which are shown in Table 2. An stress estimate calculated from
the maximum strain recorded by extensometer is shown in this table, comparing with
the result obtained by the numerical experiment by FEM. Difference between the
solution obtained by both methods showed a maximum value of 5.39% for Lm=177.8
mm with d/t=20%. This difference can be assumed to be negligible since the average
variation between the two solutions was 0.91%.
Table 2. strain and stress obtained from hydrotest data.
Strain
gage
Lm d/t Max strain,
Hydrotest
Stress obtained
by max. strain
Stress,
FEM
mm % mm/mm MPa MPa
1 254.00 10 0.001058 219.006 216.991
2 101.60 10 0.001838 380.466 376.562
3 177.80 50 0.002968 614.376 613.169
4 177.80 33 0.001503 311.121 306.852
5 25.40 10 0.001453 300.771 298.054
6 177.80 20 0.001437 297.459 281.418
7 101.60 20 0.001447 299.529 309.685
It is important to say than the final failure in the pipe subjected to internal pressure
load in the hydrotest occurs in a region different to the metal loss location in the HAZ
(figure 12). This shown than is possible to consider a FEM solution as a reliable
evaluation method, because to permit determine internal pressure load than can lead
to the pipe to a stress state that reflects its real mechanical behavior.
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
0 5 10 15 20 25
v
o
n
M
i
s
e
s
s
t
r
e
s
s
,
M
P
a
internal pressure load, MPa
stressload diagram, Lm=177.80 mm
10%d/t
20%d/t
33%d/t
50%d/t
80%d/t
The assessment should include factors to consider possible contingencies that
modify the stressstrain behavior of the pipe with metal loss, to ensure safe operation
of the same, without affecting people, environment and property.
Figure 12. Final failure in the pipe in defect output of the HAZ.
4 Conclusions
For all cases examined, the presence of an external metal loss in the HAZ
longitudinally oriented, of a pipe subjected to internal pressure limits their ability to
withstand pressure load. However, it is possible to work with pressure values that
generate locally yield stress without affecting the operation of the pipe.
Additionally, a limit value to pressurize the pipe corresponds to the load pressure
generated by a local state of stress in the same magnitude as the material flow
stress. To match this condition, the pipe could withstand load eventually increased
pressure to finally bring it to achieve the ultimate tensile strength, although this
condition is not recommended because it is close to the plastic collapse.
Reduce as far as possible the pressure load to levels to produce locally yield stress
as permissible condition, and pressure load to produce locally flow stress as a
condition acceptable limit. It is possible than loads greater than these values may
eventually compromise the integrity of the pipe.
5 References
[1] T. Belytschko, W. Kam L., B. Moran, Non Linear Finite Elements for Continua
and Structures, Editorial: John Wiley, 2001.
[2] A. S. Khan, S. Huang, Continuum Theory of Plasticity, Editorial: John Wiley &
Sons Inc, 1995.
[3] R. D. Cook, D. S. Malkus, M. E. Plesha, R. J. Witt, Concepts and Applications
of Finite Element Analysis, Editorial: John Wiley & Sons Inc., Fourth Edition,
2002.
[4] ANSYS Release 11. Structural Analysis Guide. ANSYS, Inc. is UL registered
ISO 9001:2000 Company, November 2004.
[5] NORMA OFICIAL MEXICANA NOM020STPS2002. Pressure vessels
subject to internal pressure and boilers in security conditions performance.
[6] NORMA OFICIAL MEXICANA NOM012/3SEDG2003. Pressure vessels
subject to internal pressure to storage LP Gas.
[7] Vishay Measurements Group, Catalog 500, Precision Strain Gages, March
1996.
[8] Vishay Measurements Group, MLine Strain Gages Accessories, Catalog A
1109, 1994.
6 Thanks
The author thanks to the GAIDIPNMxico the facilities to carry out the hydrotest in
the low carbon steel pipe containing the metal loss.