89 views

Uploaded by ypnprince

Accuracy of the Double-clip on Gauge Method for Evaluating CTOD of SE(T) Specimens
Proceedings of the 2014 10th International Pipeline Conference;
IPC2014;
September 29 – October 3, 2014, Calgary, Alberta, Canada;
IPC2014-33219

- [2] Propiedades Mecanicas y Ecuaciones Constitutivas de Concreto Que Contiene Un Bajo Volumen de Particulas de Neumatico
- 358 Experimental Xue
- Ultimate Limit State Analysis of a segementeed tunnel lining.pdf
- Paper Arms10_ Rock Shotcrete (2)
- 3-Behavior of reinforced concrete beams with minimum.pdf
- Self-Healing Capability of Fibre Reinforced Cement
- 179-182
- Lecture 1 - General Introduction
- L13 14 Fracture
- Wall Cracks. Modelling
- Archundia Tena Grande EngStru 2013
- Tensile Behaviour of Three-dimensional Carbon-epoxy Adhesively Bonded
- fea ppt
- Modes of Failure
- 7-Fire Exposed Hollow Core Slab
- Chapter 32
- Chiara Monte Cv
- Slender Wall
- Investigation on the Flexural Behaviour of Reinforced Concrete Beams Using Phyllite Aggregates From Mining Waste
- Tensile Properties of Metal Foams

You are on page 1of 8

IPC2014

September 29 October 3, 2014, Calgary, Alberta, Canada

IPC2014-33219

ACCURACY OF THE DOUBLE-CLIP ON GAUGE METHOD FOR EVALUATING

CTOD OF SE(T) SPECIMENS

Zijian Yan, Yifan Huang, Wenxing Zhou

1

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering

The University of Western Ontario

1151 Richmond Street, London, ON, Canada N6A 5B9

KEYWORDS

Crack tip opening displacement (CTOD); Double-clip on

gauge; Fracture toughness testing; SE(T) specimen

ABSTRACT

The crack tip opening displacement (CTOD)-based fracture

toughness has been widely used for structural integrity

assessment and strain-based design of oil and gas pipelines.

The double-clip on gauge method has been used to

experimentally determine CTOD. In this study, three-

dimensional (3D) finite element analyses of clamped single-

edge tension (SE(T)) specimens are carried out to investigate

the accuracy of the CTOD evaluation equation associated with

the double-clip on gauge method. The analysis considers

SE(T) specimens with ranges of crack lengths (0.3 a/W 0.7)

and specimen thickness (B/W = 0.5, 1 and 2). Based on the

analysis results, a modified CTOD evaluation equation based

on the double-clip on gauge method is developed to improve

the accuracy of the CTOD evaluation. This study will

facilitate the application of the fracture toughness determined

from the SE(T) specimen in the strain-based design of

pipelines.

INTRODUCTION

The strain-based design (SBD) method is considered a

viable option to address the demanding loading conditions in

offshore and onshore energy pipeline applications, such as

offshore pipe laying and large ground movements imposed on

onshore pipelines due to, for example, seismic activity,

landslides, frost heave, and thaw settlement [1-3].

1

Corresponding author: wzhou@eng.uwo.ca

Tel: 1.519.661.2111 x 87931, Fax: 1.519.661.3779

In the SBD method, the fracture toughness is a key input to

the evaluation of the tensile strain capacity of the pipeline, e.g.

the allowable longitudinal tensile strain in the pipeline girth

weld containing circumferential cracks [4]. For ductile

materials, the fracture toughness is usually characterized by the

toughness resistance curve, such as crack-tip opening

displacement resistance (CTOD-R) curve, which is typically

obtained from deeply-cracked single-edge bend (SE(B)) or

compact tension (CT) specimens as standardized in ASTM

1820-11 [5] and BS7448-1[6]. Due to the similar loading

conditions and crack-tip constraint levels between the single-

edge tension (SE(T)) specimen and the full-scale pipeline

containing surface cracks under longitudinal tension [7], there

is an increasing interest in using the SE(T) specimen to

determine the toughness resistance curve in the pipeline

industry over the last decade.

Previous studies [8-10] indicate that CTOD can be

determined indirectly from the J-integral (J) through a J-CTOD

relationship that involves a dimensionless constraint parameter,

m. The value of J can be evaluated from the experimentally

measured load-displacement curve through a plastic geometry

factor, pl [8-10]. It follows that by adopting this method the

accuracy of the determined CTOD is largely governed by those

two parameters, i.e. m and pl, both of which are functions of

the specimen geometry and material properties [8-11].

Compared with the indirect method, the plastic component

of CTOD can be determined directly from the measured crack

mouth opening displacement (CMOD) by employing a plastic

hinge model assuming two halves of the specimen rotate rigidly

about a rotational center (i.e. plastic hinge) during tests, as

specified in BS7448-1[6] for bend specimens. However, the

position of the plastic hinge is usually load-, geometry- and

material-dependent [12, 13].

2 Copyright 2014 by ASME

The double-clip on gauge (DCG) method [14, 15] was first

proposed in the 1980s as an alternative to experimentally

determine CTOD. As shown in Fig. 1, a pair of specially-

designed knife edges are used to adapt two clip-on gauges at

different heights above the specimen surface, which can

simultaneously measure two values of CMOD at the two

heights. Based on certain simplifying assumptions, CTOD can

then be related to the two directly measured CMOD values

through a simple geometric relationship. The advantage of the

DCG method is that it is based on the physical deformation of

the crack tip and simple geometric relationship and does not

involve the evaluation of J or assumption of the location of the

plastic hinge as required in the plastic hinge model. The DCG

method was documented in a version of DNV-OS-F101 [16]

that has since been superseded.

Fig. 1. Schematic illustration of the installation of knife edges

for the double-clip on gauge method

Tang et al. [17] examined the applicability of the DCG

method for SE(T) specimens numerically based on two-

dimensional (2D) plane strain finite element analyses (FEA).

The crack propagation was simulated, and the CTOD was

defined as the opening length of the original crack tip before

blunting, which is different from the commonly used 90

intersect definition of CTOD [18]. These two CTOD

definitions are schematically illustrated in Fig. 2. Tang et al.

reported that the CTOD values obtained from the DCG method

agree well with the corresponding values directly obtained from

FEA. Moore and Pisarski [19] investigated the accuracy of

the DCG method experimentally by comparing the CTOD

values obtained from DCG with those measured from the

specimen notch replicas. They adopted the same definition of

CTOD as that by Tang et al. [17] and reported that the CTOD

values measured using DCG agree well with the physical

measurements taken from the notch replicas with errors being

less than 10% if the relative crack length (a/W) is in the range

of 0.3 to 0.5, where a and W are the crack length and specimen

width, respectively. Verstraete et al. [20] employed the Digital

Image Correlation (DIC) technology to obtain the full field

optical deformation measurements of the SE(T) specimen and

concluded that CTOD values obtained through the full field

measurements are in excellent agreement with those obtained

from DCG for a/W = 0.2 and 0.4. In their study, the CTOD

obtained from DCG was defined based on the 90 intersect

method starting from the deformed crack tip [18], as illustrated

in Fig. 2.

In this study, systematic three-dimensional (3D) finite

element analyses of clamped SE(T) specimens are carried out

to investigate the accuracy of CTOD measured from the DCG

method. The analysis considers SE(T) specimens with ranges

of crack lengths and thickness-to-width ratios. The commonly

used 90 intersect definition of CTOD was adopted in this study

and is denoted by CTOD90 or 90. The geometric relationship

in the vicinity of the deformed crack tip that is key to the DCG

method was examined, and the impact of specimen thickness-

to-width ratio on the accuracy of the DCG method was also

investigated. Based on the analysis results, the existing

equation for evaluating CTOD based on the DCG method was

slightly modified to improve the accuracy of the CTOD

evaluation. This study will facilitate the application of the

fracture toughness determined from the SE(T) specimen in the

strain-based design of pipelines.

Fig. 2. Schematic illustration of CTOD definitions

The rest of this paper is organized as follows. A brief

illustration of the DCG method for evaluating CTOD90 is

included in Section 2; the 3D FEA models and analysis

procedures are described in Section 3; Section 4 shows the

analysis results and modification of the existing DCG-based

equation for evaluating CTOD90, and the summary and

concluding remarks are presented in Section 5.

CTOD MEASURED FROM DOUBLE-CLIP ON GAUGE

METHOD

A detailed geometry near the crack tip regarding the

double-clip on gauge method was developed and shown in

Fig. 3, where point O is the deformed crack tip and OB is the

45

following equation can be derived from the geometric

relationships shown in Fig. 3 to evaluate the CTOD value

considering the similar triangles between BEF and FHG:

{

90

=

1

2(

0

+

1

) sin

12 sin cos(45

)

sin =

2

1

2(

2

1

)

(1)

3 Copyright 2014 by ASME

where V1 and V2 are the two measured crack mouth opening

displacements corresponding to two different knife edge

heights z1 and z2, respectively; a0 is the initial crack length, and

DC90 denotes the CTOD value obtained from the double-clip on

gauge method here. Generally the angle is small such that

Eq. (1) can be simplified as:

90

=

1

(

0

+

1

)(

2

1

)

1

(2)

Equation (2) is the same as that used by Tang et al. [17],

although they adopted a different definition of CTOD.

Fig. 3. Schematic illustration of the geometric relationship for

the evaluation of CTOD

In the 2000 version of DNV-OS-F101 [16], DC90 is

separated into an elastic component and a plastic component as

follows:

90

=

(1

2

)

2

2

+

1

(

0

+

1

)(

2

1

)

1

(3)

where the first term on the right hand side of Eq. (3) is the

elastic component of DC90 and evaluated from the stress

intensity factor KI; v, E and YS are Poisson's ratio, Youngs

modulus and the yield strength of the material, respectively; the

second and third terms on the right hand side of Eq. (3) are the

plastic component of DC90, and Vpl1 and Vpl2 are the plastic

components of the two measured CMOD values. The

accuracy of both Eqs. (2) and (3) was examined in this study.

FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSES

The commercial software package ADINA 8.7.4 [21] was

used to carry out the 3D FEA. The J2 incremental theory of

plasticity [22] with the finite strain formulation was employed

in the analysis. All the SE(T) specimens considered in this

study are end-clamped, plane-sided, and have the same width

(W = 20mm) and daylight length (H = 10W) [23, 24], but five

different relative crack lengths, i.e. a/W = 0.3 to 0.7 with an

increment of 0.1, and three different thickness-to-width ratios,

i.e. B/W = 0.5, 1 and 2, where B is the specimen thickness.

Because of symmetry, only a quarter of the specimen was

modeled using 8-node 3D isoparametric brick elements with

the 2 2 2 Gaussian integration [21]. The model was

divided into 17 layers along the thickness direction with the

mesh density increasing from the mid-plane to the free surface

to capture the high stress gradients near the free surface. A

blunt crack tip with initial radii (0) of 2.5, 5 and 10 m was

incorporated in the model to simulate the crack-tip blunting

during the loading process and facilitate convergence of the

finite strain analysis [25]. The first value of 0 is the baseline

case that applies to all the specimens considered, whereas the

latter two values were employed for selected geometric

configurations only (i.e. B/W = 1 and a/W = 0.5) to investigate

the impact of the initial crack tip radius on the accuracy of the

DCG method. The mesh surrounding the crack tip consists of

40 concentric semicircles. In the vicinity of the crack tip, the

minimum in-plane size of the elements closest to the crack tip

is about 1/10 of the crack-tip radius [26, 27], whereas the in-

plane size of the elements in the outermost ring (i.e. 40

th

ring) is

about 2,000 times that of the element closest to the crack tip

[25]. The total number of elements is approximately 32,000

for a typical model. The geometric and mesh configurations

for a typical specimen with B/W = 1and a/W = 0.5 are shown in

Fig. 4 together with the fixation and loading conditions.

Stationary cracks were assumed in the present analysis.

The uniaxial stress-strain relationship of the material is

described using an elastic-power law plastic expression:

0

= {

0

,

0

(

0

)

, >

0

(4)

where 0 is the reference stress; 0 is the reference strain, 0 =

0/E; n denotes the strain hardening exponent of the material.

In this study 0 = YS = 520 MPa, E = 200 GPa and n = 10 were

selected.

According to the reported test results in the literature [28,

29], all the specimens were loaded by a displacement-

controlled load up to the level corresponding to large plastic

deformations, i.e. P/Py = 1.3, through about 5,000 steps, where

P is the applied load, and Py is the reference load defined as

B(W - a)Y [8]. Note that Y is the effective yield strength,

defined as Y = (YS + TS)/2, where TS is the ultimate tensile

strength. Applying Consideres necking criterion [30] to Eq.

(4), one can derive the following equation to evaluate TS:

= (

0

1

)

1/

(5)

where e = 2.71828 is the base of the natural logarithm.

4 Copyright 2014 by ASME

Fig. 4. Geometric and mesh configuration of the finite element model with a blunt crack tip

Convergence studies on mesh density and deformation rate

were conducted and showed good convergence in the elastic-

plastic analyses. As illustrated in Fig. 5, due to symmetry,

CTOD90/2 was evaluated based on the intercept between a

straight line at 45

deformed position and the deformed crack flank at the mid-

plane of the specimen. The interception point was captured

using a linear interpolation between two nearest deformed

nodes on the deformed flank given the corresponding nodal

displacements [8, 10, 31]. The value of CTOD90 obtained

from FEA based on this approach is denoted by FE90 and

considered as the true value of CTOD in this study.

Fig. 5. Schematic illustration of the determination of CTOD

in FEA

As shown in Fig. 6, the two measured CMODs, i.e. V1 and

V2, are calculated from the nodal displacements of the two

outermost nodes on the deformed crack flank at the mid-plane

of the specimen in FEA, i.e. points M and N, which are

corresponding to the two knife edge heights of zero and z2.

Therefore, Eqs. (2) and (3) can be employed to calculate the

double-clip on gauge measured DC90 according to the FEA

results. Several other positions of point N (shown in Fig. 6 as

Ni, i = 2, 3, 4, 5) have been analyzed as sensitivity cases, which

indicates that DC90 is insensitive to the position of point N.

Fig. 6. Schematic illustration of the double-clip on gauge

method in FEA

5 Copyright 2014 by ASME

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

Let e1 = (DC90 - FE90)/FE90 denote the error of DC90

evaluated using Eq. (3). The values of e1 are plotted against

P/Py for specimens with the same B/W ratio but different a/W

ratios in Figs. 7(a) through 7(c). The figures suggest that once

P/Py exceeds 0.3, DC90 can markedly overestimate FE90, and

when the applied load reaches around 0.9Py, the error reaches a

peak value of up to 40%. The specimen B/W ratio has a

negligible impact on this error. It is also observed that the

error associated with DC90 evaluated using Eq. (2) (i.e. without

separating CTOD into the elastic and plastic components) is

even higher than that associated with DC90 evaluated using Eq.

(3), with the peak value reaching as high as 100%. The main

reason attributing to this error is that the idealized geometric

relationship as shown in Fig. 3 does not always hold in real

situations.

(a) B/W = 0.5

(b) B/W = 1

(c) B/W = 2

Fig. 7. Variation of e1 against P/Py

Figure 8(a) schematically illustrates the geometric

relationship in the vicinity of the blunt crack tip according to

the FEA results, which indicates that the intersection point

between the 45

flank, i.e. point D, is not on the extension of the straight line

that connects the two outermost nodes on the deformed crack

flank in FEA, i.e. points M and N. In other words, the

assumption that the intersection point D is collinear with points

M and N as involved in the DCG method (see Fig. 3) does not

hold in real conditions. Figure 8(a) also clearly shows the

relationship between the true CTOD90, FE90, and the CTOD

value evaluated using the DCG method. The above observation

suggests that although the DCG method is more advantageous

than the single clip-on gauge method by avoiding the

assumption of the plastic hinge location, the accuracy of the

DCG method can be further improved. The relatively large

errors associated with the DCG method as reflected in Fig. 7

are in contrast to the results reported in [19], which indicated

that the accuracy of the DCG method is within 10%. Note that

the CTOD definitions adopted in this study and in [19] are

different; therefore, the difference between the accuracy of the

DCG method reported in the two studies suggests that the

accuracy is sensitive to the definition of CTOD.

(a)

(b)

Fig. 8. Geometric relationship surrounding the blunt crack

tip

-10%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4

a/W = 0.7

a/W = 0.6

a/W = 0.5

a/W = 0.4

a/W = 0.3

P/P

y

e

1

-10%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4

a/W = 0.7

a/W = 0.6

a/W = 0.5

a/W = 0.4

a/W = 0.3

P/P

y

e

1

-10%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4

a/W = 0.7

a/W = 0.6

a/W = 0.5

a/W = 0.4

a/W = 0.3

P/P

y

e

1

6 Copyright 2014 by ASME

To improve the accuracy of CTOD measured using the

DCG method, a correction factor, DC, as defined in Fig. 8(b)

by setting MC' = DCa0, is introduced to modify the initial crack

length a0 used in Eq. (1). Equation (1) can then be revised as

follows by considering the similar triangles between D'EM and

NFM:

{

90

=

1

2(

0

+

1

) sin

12 sin cos(45

)

sin =

2

1

2(

2

1

)

(6)

where the correction factor DC can be uniquely determined by

setting DC90 = FE90. The values of DC are plotted against

P/Py for clamped SE(T) specimens with ranges of B/W and a/W

ratios in Fig. 9(a). It is observed that DC generally decreases

towards unity as P/Py or a/W increases, which means that for

deeply-cracked specimens, i.e. point D in Fig. 8 being far away

from points M and N, the required correction factor, DC is close

to unity. For specimens with a/W = 0.5, 0.6 and 0.7, the B/W

ratio has a negligible impact on DC, and for specimens with

a/W = 0.3 and 0.4, the maximum difference between DC values

corresponding to different B/W ratios is about 4%. The impact

of the initial blunt crack tip radius in the FEA mesh, 0, on the

proposed correction factor DC was also investigated. Based

on clamped SE(T) specimens with a/W = 0.5 and B/W = 1, the

values of DC corresponding to three different 0 are depicted in

Fig. 9(b), which shows that DC is insensitive to 0.

(a)

(b)

Fig. 9. Variation of DC against P/Py

To facilitate the practical application of DC, the following

expression of DC was developed based on the results obtained

in this study:

=

0

+

1

(/

) +

2

(/

)

2

+

3

(/

)

3

,

0.3 / 0.7

(7)

where the fitting coefficients q0, q1, q2 and q3 are functions of

a/W and given as follows:

0

= 1.1803(/) + 2.0817

1

= 2.5743(/) 1.9859

2

= 4.5977(/) + 3.1564

3

= 2.3633(/) 1.5551

(8)

The fitting error of Eq. (7) is generally less than 3%. The

error of the DCG method by employing the modified equations,

i.e. Eqs. (6) and (7), denoted as e2, is plotted against P/Py for

specimens with B/W = 1 in Fig. 10, which indicates that the

modified equations can significantly improve the accuracy of

CTOD evaluated from the DCG method with e2 being generally

within 10%. It should be noted that Eq. (7) is applicable for

the stain hardening exponent of n = 10.

Fig. 10. Variation of e2 against P/Pyfor specimens with B/W = 1

SUMMARY AND CONCLUDING REMARKS

The double-clip on gauge method used to experimentally

measure CTOD for clamped SE(T) specimen was reviewed,

and the accuracy of this method was systematically investigated

by carrying out three-dimensional finite element analyses of

clamped SE(T) specimens with a wide range of specimen

dimensions (a/W = 0.3 to 0.7 with an increment of 0.1, and B/W

= 0.5, 1 and 2). The commonly-used 90 degree intersection

definition of CTOD was adopted in this study rather than the

definition used in [17] and [19].

It is observed that the CTOD values evaluated using the

existing equations based on the CMOD measurements obtained

from the double clip-on gauges can involve significant errors.

This error primarily depends on a/W and loading level

characterized by P/Py, and can be as large as 40 - 100%. The

specimen B/W ratio has a negligible impact on the error.

Based on the 3D FEA results obtained in this study, the

geometric relationship surrounding the blunt crack tip was

1

1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

1.5

1.6

1.7

1.8

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4

B/W = 1

B/W = 2

B/W = 0.5

P/P

y

D

C

a/W = 0.7

a/W = 0.3

1

1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

1.5

1.6

1.7

1.8

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4

Initial radius 2.5m

Initial radius 5m

Initial radius 10m

P/P

y

D

C

-10%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4

a/W = 0.7

a/W = 0.6

a/W = 0.5

a/W = 0.4

a/W = 0.3

P/P

y

e

2

7 Copyright 2014 by ASME

investigated and the existing DCG-based equations were

modified by introducing a correction factor to the original crack

length included in the equation. This correction factor was

then fitted as a polynomial function of a/W and P/Py. The

modified equation can significantly improve the accuracy of the

CTOD evaluated from the double clip-on gauges, with the error

being generally within 10%. Further analyses will be carried

out to investigate the impact of the presence of side grooves

and the stain hardening exponent n of the material on the

accuracy of the DCG method and compare the numerical

results with experimental data.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support

provided by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research

Council (NSERC) of Canada and TransCanada Ltd. through the

Collaborative Research and Development (CRD) program.

REFERENCES

[1] Selvadurai, A. P. S., and Shinde, S. B., 1993, Frost heave

induced mechanics of buried pipelines, Journal of

geotechnical engineering, Vol. 119(12), pp. 1929-1951.

[2] Mohr, W., 2003, Strain-Based Design of Pipelines, EWI

Report Project 45892GTH., Columbus, OH.

[3] Tyson, W. R., 2009, Fracture Control for Northern

Pipelines Damage and Fracture Mechanics, T.

Boukharouba, M. Elboujdaini, and G. Pluvinage, eds.,

Springer Netherlands, pp. 237-244.

[4] Fairchild, D. P., Kibey, S. A., Tang, H., Krishnan, V. R.,

Wang, X., Macia, M. L., and Cheng, W., 2012, Continued

advancements regarding capacity prediction of strain-based

pipelines, Proceedings of 9th International Pipeline

Conference (IPC2012), Calgary, Alberta, Canada,

September 2428.

[5] ASTM, 2011, ASTM E1820-11: Standard Test Method for

Measurement of Fracture Toughness, America Society for

Testing and Materials International, West Conshohocken,

PA.

[6] BSI, 1991, BS 7448-1: Fracture mechanics toughness tests

Method for determination of KIc, critical CTOD and critical

J values of metallic materials, British Standard Institution,

London.

[7] Chiesa, M., Nyhus, B., Skallerud, B., and Thaulow, C.,

2001, Efficient fracture assessment of pipelines. A

constraint-corrected SENT specimen approach,

Engineering Fracture Mechanics, Vol. 68(5), pp. 527-547.

[8] Shen, G., and Tyson, W. R., 2009, Evaluation of CTOD

from J-integral for SE(T) specimens, Pipeline Technology

Conference 2009 Ostend, Belgium.

[9] DNV, 2010, Offshore Standard DNV-OS-F101:

Submarine Pipeline Systems," Det Norske Veritas.

[10] Ruggieri, C., 2012, Further results in J and CTOD

estimation procedures for SE (T) fracture specimensPart I:

Homogeneous materials, Engineering Fracture Mechanics,

Vol. 79, pp. 245-265.

[11] Moreira, F. and Donato, G., 2010, Estimation procedures

for J and CTOD fracture parameters experimental

evaluation using homogeneous and mismatched clamped

SE(T) specimens, Proceedings ASME 2010 Pressure

Vessels and Piping Conference, PVP2010, Bellevue,

Washington, USA, July 18-22.

[12] Donato, G. H. B. and Ruggieri, C., 2006, Estimation

procedure for J and CTOD fracture parameters using three-

point bend specimens, Proceedings of 6th International

Pipeline Conference (IPC2006), Calgary, Alberta, Canada,

September 25-29, Paper Number: IPC2006- 10165.

[13] Cravero, S. and Ruggieri, C., 2007, Estimation procedure

of J resistance curves for SE (T) fracture specimens using

unloading compliance, Engineering Fracture Mechanics,

Vol. 74(17), pp. 2735-2757.

[14] Deng, Z., Chang, C., and Wang, T., 1980, Measuring and

calculating CTOD and the J-integral with a double clip

gauge, Strain, Vol. 16(2), pp. 63-67.

[15] Willoughby, A. A. and Garwood, S. J., 1983, On the

Unloading Compliance Method of Deriving Single-

Specimen R-Curves in Three-Point Bending, Elastic

Plastic Fracture Second Symposium, Volume II: Fracture

Curves and Engineering Applications, ASTM STP 803, pp.

II-372-II-397.

[16] DNV, 2000, Offshore Standard DNV-OS-F101:

Submarine Pipeline Systems, Det Norske Veritas

(superseded).

[17] Tang, H., Macia, M., Minnaar, K., Gioielli, P., Kibey, S.,

and Fairchild, D., 2010, Development of the SENT Test

for Strain-Based Design of Welded Pipelines, Proceedings

of 8th International Pipeline Conference (IPC2010),

Calgary, Alberta, Canada, September 27October 1.

[18] Shih, C. F., 1981, Relationships between the J-integral

and the crack opening displacement for stationary and

extending cracks, Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of

Solids, Vol. 29(4), pp. 305-326.

[19] Moore, P. L., Pisarski, H. G., 2012, Validation of methods

to determine CTOD from SENT specimens, International

offshore and polar engineering conference, Rhodes, Greece,

pp. 577-82.

[20] Verstraete, M. A., Denys, R. M., Van Minnebruggen, K.,

Hertel, S., and De Waele, W., 2013, Determination of

CTOD resistance curves in side-grooved Single-Edge

Notched Tensile specimens using full field deformation

measurements, Engineering Fracture Mechanics, Vol. 110,

pp. 12-22.

[21] ADINA, 2012, Theory and Modeling Guide, ADINA R

& D Inc., Watertown, MA.

[22] Lubliner, J., 2008, Plasticity Theory, Courier Dover

Publications, Mineola, NY.

[23] Shen, G., Bouchard, R., Gianetto, J. A., and Tyson, W. R.,

2008, Fracture toughness evaluation of high strength steel

pipe, Proceedings of PVP 2008, ASME Pressure Vessel

and Piping Division Conference, Chicago, Illinois, USA,

July 27-31.

8 Copyright 2014 by ASME

[24] DNV, 2006, Recommended Practice DNV-RP-F108:

Fracture Control for Pipeline Installation Methods

Introducing Cyclic Plastic Strain, Det Norske Veritas.

[25] Dodds, R. H., 2009 WARP3D: Notes on Solution &

Convergence Parameters for a Shallow-Notch SE(B)

Model, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

[26] Qian, X., Dodds, R. H., 2006, WARP3D: Effect of Mesh

Refinement on the Crack-tip Stress Field for SSY Models,

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

[27] Graba, M., Galkiewicz, J., 2007, Influence of The Crack

Tip Model on Results of The Finite Element Method,

Journal of Theoretical and Applied Mechanics, Vol. 45, pp.

225-237.

[28] Shen, G., Gianetto, J. A., and Tyson, W. R., 2009,

Measurement of J-R Curves Using Single-Specimen

Technique on Clamped SE(T) Specimens, Proceedings of

Nineteenth International Offshore and Polar Engineering

Conference, The International Society of Offshore and

Polar Engineers (ISOPE), Osaka, Japan, pp. 92-99.

[29] Wang, E., Zhou, W., Shen, G. and Duan. D., 2012, An

Experimental Study on J(CTOD)-R Curves of Single Edge

Tension Specimens for X80 Steel, Proceedings of 9th

International Pipeline Conference (IPC2012), Calgary,

Alberta, Canada, September 2428, Paper Number:

IPC2012-90323.

[30] Soboyejo, W. O., 2003, Mechanical Properties of

Engineered Materials, Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York.

[31] Tracey, D. M., 1976, Finite Element Solutions for Crack-

Tip Behavior in Small-Scale Yielding, Journal of

Engineering Materials and Technology, Vol. 98(2), pp. 146-

151.

- [2] Propiedades Mecanicas y Ecuaciones Constitutivas de Concreto Que Contiene Un Bajo Volumen de Particulas de NeumaticoUploaded byraspaflow
- 358 Experimental XueUploaded bydraganug
- Ultimate Limit State Analysis of a segementeed tunnel lining.pdfUploaded byFelipe Pérez Pérez
- Paper Arms10_ Rock Shotcrete (2)Uploaded byroshansm1978
- 3-Behavior of reinforced concrete beams with minimum.pdfUploaded bysokamanty
- Self-Healing Capability of Fibre Reinforced CementUploaded byMehdi Bakhshi
- 179-182Uploaded bySinhro018
- Lecture 1 - General IntroductionUploaded byLiu Yuan
- L13 14 FractureUploaded bymailnewaz9677
- Wall Cracks. ModellingUploaded byrahul vaish
- Archundia Tena Grande EngStru 2013Uploaded byjrobert123321
- Tensile Behaviour of Three-dimensional Carbon-epoxy Adhesively BondedUploaded bydeepakmitr
- fea pptUploaded bykarthipriya
- Modes of FailureUploaded bycataice
- 7-Fire Exposed Hollow Core SlabUploaded bynangzakhup
- Chapter 32Uploaded byhemant_durgawale
- Chiara Monte CvUploaded byNgocTraiNguyen
- Slender WallUploaded byGermar Porquerino
- Investigation on the Flexural Behaviour of Reinforced Concrete Beams Using Phyllite Aggregates From Mining WasteUploaded bySelase Kwame Mantey
- Tensile Properties of Metal FoamsUploaded byGeoffrey Armstrong
- eea-60-3-2012-049-EN-lp-000Uploaded bykubik
- 07collins Shear Stresses CsaUploaded byandyhr
- Fracture Theory-Stress Concentration and Griffith Theory-25!09!06Uploaded byMohd Bashree Abu Bakar
- Revere Homework 1 SolutionsUploaded byEstefania Tapias Benitez
- delaminationUploaded bydimas
- EXPERIMENTAL STUDY ON HIGH STRENGTH AND LOW SHRINKAGE CONCRETEUploaded byijaert
- Tio Agastra ThesisUploaded byAhmed Esmat
- 356-366Uploaded byMustafa Oğuzhan
- 1-s2.0-S0924013617300572-mainUploaded byrahulpandit100593
- Fernandez09Uploaded byOdilson Paiva

- Nobel Prize for Physics 2017Uploaded bySinclair Broadcast Group - Eugene
- advanced-physicsprize2017.pdfUploaded bySinclair Broadcast Group - Eugene
- 1712.01815Uploaded byeldelmoño luci
- 1. Model Error Paper IPVPUploaded byypnprince
- CSME_Congress_2014_ZYan.pptxUploaded byypnprince
- Effect of Crack Front Curvature on CMOD Compliance and Crack Length Evaluation for Single-edge Bend SpecimensUploaded byypnprince

- Crim RevUploaded byIan Stromwell Guzman
- Selected New Provisions of ASCE 7-05Uploaded byme-elorm
- Best Practice - Condensate Removal From Steam LinesUploaded byBen Musimane
- 5.15 Swing Barrier v.1.0Uploaded byrfvz6s
- prefab buildingUploaded byMarkqshot Jaladara
- General EscalatorUploaded byMạnh Hùng
- Balanced Cantilever Bridge Analysis Day 3Uploaded byIsidro Buquiron
- Wo37363 Test ReportUploaded byLuis Lozoya
- 3014.pdfUploaded byIsaac Montero Barrera
- Estimation and Preparation of BOQUploaded byRizaam Nafiz
- 2016-0629 Callisto Tower 1 - Project Presentation (1).pdfUploaded byShop Here
- 2011 Hydropillar LoresUploaded byjewettwater
- Data and Idealisation for FEA of FRP EquipmentUploaded bysyammohans
- MB Concrete Footbridges July2012Uploaded byYasonsky Captain
- 11Part ATUploaded byluisfer811
- gentexUploaded bynorryson
- 10b v5 Gpsfordesigner Ws 10b 130402Uploaded bycatio000
- Pt Ni Ti, M WireUploaded byvanillalavender
- Tube - Working PressureUploaded byMichel Lupien
- Ghanas Jubilee Gas Export Pipeline ProjectUploaded byAmoah-kyei Ebenezer
- Dewatering Construction ProcedureUploaded byKelly Bates
- Retrofitting of Heritage and Historical BuildingsUploaded byAyushDwivedi
- Thermax BoilerUploaded byamitrawal0
- exam 03 chartered structural engineers examsUploaded byJohn Banda
- u1 Plastic Limit TestUploaded byikhwan
- IS-MH1912Uploaded bydayshift5
- DRAFT- Masonry Wall Design(1)Uploaded byChetan Sohal
- p05973Uploaded byred100rose
- Modul 2 FittingUploaded bypetrocamp71
- Engineering Calculation PipelineUploaded byShan Reev