47 views

Uploaded by Daniel Calero Zavaleta

a phenomenological model of ductile fracture for API X65 steel

- lec29
- Material Selection
- Mechanics of Materials II(3)
- 2-Axial Loading.pdf
- class3
- Tension Test Report
- Ch02
- Utm Manual 1
- LTRC Final Report 500 Mechanistic Evaluation of Asphalt Mixtures Containing Thiopave Additives
- Shear Properties
- Details of the Types of Failure in Materials
- Ijs r 13010104
- 11661_2015_2880_Author
- Numerical Analysis on the Rockburst
- 114458688 Bond Anchorage and Development Length
- Materials Science
- `00 Chennai 2 Day Fracture Analysis.pdf
- labreport-engineeringmaterialslab-tensiletest-180320080450.pdf
- Crack Path Paper
- 1.AEP Intro.pdf

You are on page 1of 14

www.elsevier.com/locate/ijmecsci

Chang-Kyun Oha, Yun-Jae Kima,, Jong-Hyun Baekb, Young-Pyo Kimb, Woosik Kimb

a

Department of Mechanical Engineering, Korea University, 5 Ka, Anam-dong, Sungbuk-Ku, Seoul 136-701, South Korea

Korea Gas Corporation (KOGAS) Research and Development Center, 638-1 Il-dong, Ansan, Kyunggi-do 425-150, South Korea

Available online 24 March 2007

Abstract

This paper presents a phenomenological model of ductile fracture for the API X65 steel using the GursonTvergaardNeedleman

(GTN) model. Experimental tests and FE damage simulations using the GTN model are performed for smooth and notched tensile bars,

from which the parameters in the GTN model are calibrated. Comparison of experimental data of pre-strained, notched tensile and

fracture toughness tests with nite element (FE) damage analyses show good agreements, suggesting the validity of the calibrated

parameters. As application, the developed GTN model is applied to predict the pre-strain effect on deformation and fracture and the

results are compared with experimental data.

r 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: GTN model; Ductile fracture; API X65; Pre-strain

1. Introduction

Crack-like defect assessment is an important element in

tness-for-service analyses based on which engineering

decisions can be made whether such defect can be tolerated

for continued operation. For the last two decades,

signicant progress has been made in development of

engineering methods for crack-like defect assessment (see

for example Refs. [111]). These methods can be roughly

classied into the following three categories. The rst

category is the net-section limit load approach [3,4] based

on solid mechanics concept, where a defective structure is

assumed to fail at the load when the net section reaches

fully plastic stress state. Such approach is valid for

structures made of materials with sufcient ductility. It is

simple and could be efcient in application, as it requires

only tensile properties of the material of interest. However,

validation is rather expensive, requiring a large number of

full-scale pipe test data. The second category is the

approach based on elasticplastic (non-linear) fracture

mechanics [12,13]. In this approach, information on

Corresponding author. Tel.: +82 2 3290 3372; fax: +82 31 290 5276.

0020-7403/$ - see front matter r 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.ijmecsci.2007.03.008

in addition to tensile properties. This approach is increasingly popular and accordingly many tness-for-service

codes have been developed based on this approach(see for

example Refs. [2,49]). Although existing codes are

designed to provide conservative failure predictions of

defective structures, it is well known that structural

geometry and the mode of loading can affect fracture

toughness, which is often termed to as the crack-tip

constraint effect. To accommodate the constraint effect, a

second fracture mechanics parameter has been proposed

[1417]. Although some codes include a method to

incorporate such constraint effects, they are still in a

developing stage. A more comprehensive approach is based

on phenomenological models of fracture, which is the last

category. For ductile fracture, for instance, the micromechanical processes of void nucleation, growth and

coalescence have been modelled extensively for the last

three decades (see for example Refs. [1829]). Among

them, one notable model is due to Gurson [18] who has

developed the constitutive model of a porous material by

incorporating the void volume fraction as an extra internal

variable.The Gurson model has been improved signicantly (see for instance Refs. [2429]), to account for void

ARTICLE IN PRESS

C.-K. Oh et al. / International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 49 (2007) 13991412

1400

nucleation, coalescence and strain hardening. More recently efforts have been made on application of such

micro-mechanical models to predict failure of cracked

specimens and defective structures, via detailed computational schemes [3039]. In fact, the application of the

phenomenological models to predict failure of component

can provide signicant benets, particularly when relevant

tests are either very difcult or impossible.

This paper rstly develops a GTN (Gurson, Tvergaard

and Needleman) model of ductile fracture for the API

(American Petroleum Institute) X65 steel, popularly used

for gas and oil pipelines within Korea. The parameters in

the GTN model are calibrated by combining notched

tensile bar tests and detailed nite element (FE) analyses.

For application, the calibrated model is applied to quantify

the pre-strain effect on deformation and fracture, and the

results are compared with experimental data of prestrained smooth and notched tensile bars and single-edge

cracked bend bars. Section 2 briey introduces the GTN

model as the phenomenological model used in the present

work. Section 3 discusses calibration of the parameters in

the phenomenological model for the API X65 steel. Section

4 applies the proposed model to quantify the pre-strain

effect on deformation and fracture. The present work is

concluded in Section 5.

2. GTN model

represents the macroscopic hydrostatic stress; s is the

current ow stress of the matrix material; and f denes the

effective void volume fraction. The matrix ow stress, s,

can be obtained by enforcing equality between the rates of

macroscopic and matrix plastic work:

e_pij

f pf c ;

f 4f c ;

(2)

where

is the macroscopic plastic strain rate tensor,

and e_ p is the average effective plastic strain rate of the

material. It can be seen that the above yield locus recovers

that of von Mises in the limiting case of zero porosity

f ! 0. Note that Tvergaard has originally suggested the

values of additional parameters as q1 1:5 and q2 1. The

effective void volume fraction f has been introduced by

Needleman and Tvergaard [39] to better predict the effect

(3)

denote the void volume fraction at failure and at a critical

situation at which f starts to deviate from f , respectively;

f u is the value f at fracture (i.e., f u f u f f . The load

carrying capacity vanishes when f 1=q1 , and correspondingly f u 1=q1 .

To complete the constitutive model, a rate form of the

void volume fraction has to be established. The increases in

porosity may in general have contributions from two

processes; the growth of existing voids and the nucleation

of new voids. Mathematically this can be expressed as

f_ f_growth f_nucleation .

(4)

growth part is directly related to the mesoscopic plastic

dilatation:

f_growth 1 f _epkk ,

(5)

tensor. Void nucleation based on plastic straining can be

included by

f_nucleation Ae_p .

porous ductile media based on a rigid-plastic material

behaviour and the upper bound theorem of plasticity.

Based on detailed phenomenological studies of the

bifurcation behaviour of materials containing periodic

distributions of cylindrical and spherical voids, Tvergaard

[24,25] has rened the constitutive model by incorporating

some additional parameters (q1 , q2 , resulting in the

following yield function:

s2

3sh

(1)

F e2 2q1 f cosh q2

1 q21 f 2 0,

s

2s

of void coalescence,

8

>

<f;

f f f u f c f f ;

>

c

: c ff fc

(6)

suggested in Ref. [28]

(

)

fN

1 epe eN 2

A p exp

.

(7)

2

sN

sN 2p

In Eq. (7), f N is the volume fraction of particles available

for void nucleation, eN is the mean void nucleation

strain, and sN is the standard deviation of the distribution.

Eqs. (1)(7) constitute the GTN model to be used to

simulate ductile damage and failure in the present work.

The GTN model has eight parameters eN ; sN ; f N ; f o ; f c ; f f ;

q1 ; q2 that must be calibrated for a given material.

3. Calibration of damage parameter

In the previous section, the GTN model was described. It

was shown that the model included eight micro-mechanistic parameters to be calibrated for a given material. In

this section, these parameters are calibrated for the API

X65 steel, by comparing with notched round bar test

results with FE damage simulations.

3.1. Mechanical tests

For the present study, the API 5L X65 steel [40] is

chosen, which is popularly used for gas pipelines in Korea.

To determine mechanical properties, tensile and Charpy

tests were performed using specimens extracted from a pipe

ARTICLE IN PRESS

C.-K. Oh et al. / International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 49 (2007) 13991412

17:5 mm (in the longitudinal direction). Chemical compositions and tensile properties of the present API X65 steel are

summarized in Tables 1 and 2, respectively. True stress

strain data at room temperature and values of the Charpy

energy as a function of temperature are shown in Fig. 1.

Even at 60 C, the Charpy impact energy was more than

250 J and all specimens failed by 100% dimple fracture,

indicating that the present material is sufciently tough.

One interesting point is that, as most of API X65 gas

pipelines in Korea have been built within the last 10 years,

mechanical properties of API X65 gas pipelines in Korea

tend to have quite uniform properties.

To investigate the effect of triaxial stress states on tensile

ductility of the API X65 steel, tensile tests were performed

using smooth and notched round bars with three different

notch radii. Schematic diagrams for smooth and notched

tensile bars, employed in the present work, are depicted in

Fig. 2. For all specimens, the minimum section has a

diameter of 6 mm. For notched bars, three different round

notch radii were machined, which were 6.0 mm 6R,

3.0 mm 3R and 1.5 mm 1:5R. Fig. 3 depicts tensile

testing, axial displacement was monitored using extensometer with the length of 25 mm. For a given specimen

geometry, three tests were performed, giving a total of 12

tests. Engineering stressstrain data for all specimens tested

Fig. 2. Schematic models: (a) tensile test specimens and (b) notched tensile

test specimens with notch radii 1:5, 3, 6 (mm).

Table 1

Chemical composition of the API X65 steel

Elements (wt.%)

C

P

Mn

Si

Fe

Ceq

0.08

1.45

0.03

0.31

Balance

0.32

0.019

Table 2

Tensile properties of the API X65 steel

Youngs modulus

Poissons ratio

Yield strength

Tensile strength

E (GPa)

sy (MPa)

sy (MPa)

210.7

0.3

464.5

563.8

1401

Fig. 1. (a) True stressstrain data at room temperature and (b) Charpy energy as a function of temperature for API X65.

ARTICLE IN PRESS

1402

Fig. 4. Experimental results for tensile tests and notched tensile tests.

strengths increase with decreasing the notch radius, but the

engineering strain to fracture (tensile ductility) decreases.

Such trend is due to the fact that the triaxial stress increases

with decreasing the notch radius.

3.2. FE analysis

Detailed elasticplastic, axi-symmetric FE damage analyses based on the GTN model, described in Section 2, were

performed to simulate tensile tests of smooth and notched

round bars using ABAQUS [41]. The GTN model,

described in Section 2, has been implemented into

ABAQUS using the user-material subroutine [42]. Averaged true stressstrain data of the API X65 steel, resulting

from three tensile tests of the smooth tensile specimen, are

shown in Fig. 1. The experimental true stressplastic strain

data, shown in Fig. 1, were directly given in the FE

analysis. To incorporate a large geometry change effect, the

large geometry change option was chosen. The deformation boundary condition was applied to the top of the FE

model, and the resulting tensile load was determined from

nodal forces. The gauge length elongation was also

monitored from the FE displacement results.

The four-node solid element within ABAQUS (element

type CAX4) was used and in the minimum section,

elements with the length of 0.15 mm are uniformly spaced.

It should be noted that the element size could be important

in FE damage analysis. The number of elements and nodes

in FE meshes ranges from 484 elements/1557 nodes to

658 elements/2089 nodes, depending on a notch radius.

Typical FE meshes, employed in the present work, are

shown in Fig. 5.

Fig. 5. FE meshes for notched tensile specimens: (a) notch 1:5R and (b)

notch 3R.

It was noted that the GTN model, described in

Eqs. (1)(7), has eight parameters: three parameters related

to void nucleation, eN , sN and f N ; three for void

growth and coalescence, f o , f c and f f ; and two for the

rened yield locus, q1 and q2 . In the present work, ve

parameters related to void nucleation and the rened

yield locus are xed to typical values suggested in literature

[24,25]: eN 0:3, sN 0:1, f N 0:0008; q1 1:5 and

q2 1:0. Furthermore, the parameter f o , related to initial

void volume fraction, is determined from the Franklins

formula [43] (based on the assumption of a spherical

ARTICLE IN PRESS

C.-K. Oh et al. / International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 49 (2007) 13991412

inclusion):

f o 0:054 S%

0:001

,

Mn%

(8)

only two parameters (f c and f f need to be calibrated. By

comparing smooth and notched tensile bar test results with

the present FE damage analyses, these two parameters are

Table 3

Calibrated parameters of the GTN model for the API X65 steel

Parameter set 1

Parameter set 2

Material parameter

q1

q2

1.5

1

1.5

1

Void nucleation

eN

sN

fN

0.3

0.1

0.0008

0.3

0.1

0.0

Void growth/coalescence

fo

fc

ff

0.000125

0.015

0.25

0.000125

0.003

0.18

1403

results. Resulting values of f c and f f are found to be f c

0:015 and f f 0:25, as summarized in Table 2 (referred to

as the parameter set 1). In applying the GTN model to

simulate ductile failure, a proper choice of the parameters

in the GTN model is crucial. To validate the calibrated

values listed in Table 3, experimental notched bar tensile

test results will be compared with simulated ones using the

calibrated parameters in the next sub-section, and experimental loaddisplacement records from cracked bend bar

tests with simulated ones in Section 4. The calibrated

parameters will be further discussed later in Section 3.5,

with emphasis on sensitivity analysis results.

3.4. Comparison with notched bar test results

Fig. 6 compares experimental (engineering) stressstrain

data with the results from FE damage analyses using the

parameters given above (FE results with damage).

Experimental data include those from smooth round bar

test and notched bar tests with three different notch radii.

For each type of the specimen, three test data are shown.

For the FE results, conventional elasticplastic FE

analyses based on isotropic elasticplastic materials with

Fig. 6. Comparison of notched tensile tests with FE simulations: (a) smooth, (b) notched 6R, (c) notched 3R and (d) notched 1:5R.

ARTICLE IN PRESS

C.-K. Oh et al. / International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 49 (2007) 13991412

1404

the results are also included (FE results w/o damage) in

Fig. 6 for comparison. Conventional elasticplastic FE

analyses can predict deformation behaviours of smooth

and notched tensile bars, even after the maximum loads

(necking points), but fail to simulate failure initiation and

subsequent failure. The FE damage analyses based on the

GTN model, on the other hand, can predict failure

initiation points reasonably well not only for smooth

round bars but also for notched round bars with different

notch radii. Good agreements between test data with

simulated FE results suggest that the calibrated parameters

for the GTN model are acceptable.

In the proposed model, two parameters, f c and f f , were

calibrated; f c 0:015 and f f 0:25. It should be noted

Table 4

Parameters of the GTN model for different grades of API steels, reported

in literature

Material

fN

fo

fc

ff

Rivalin [32]

Chen [33]

Dotta [30]

API X70

0

0.00015

0.00074

0.18

API X70

0.00018

0.002

Variable

0.19

API X60

0

0.008

0

0.2

tensile bar with notch radius of 1.5 mm.

Fig. 7. Comparison of notched tensile tests with FE simulations: (a) smooth, (b) notched 6R, (c) notched 3R and (d) notched 1:5R.

ARTICLE IN PRESS

C.-K. Oh et al. / International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 49 (2007) 13991412

believe that no unique parameter set can be found. We

have tried a number of different values for f c and f f (in fact

about hundred trials), and found the calibrated values

(listed in Table 3 as the parameter set 1) gave best results,

compared to experimental notched bar tests. Typical values

of the GTN parameters for slightly different grades (API

X60 and X70 steels), reported in literature, are listed in

Table 4. Note that no report can be found for the API X65

steel, considered in the present work. Although detailed

values of the parameters in literature are different, values

seem to be overall consistent to the present ones. Note that,

as shown in Table 4, the value of f N is often set to zero,

f N 0. As this value was set to typical one in literature

1405

choice of f N is also investigated. When f N 0 was used,

resulting values of f c and f f to give best ts to notched bar

tensile test results were found to be f c 0:003 and

f f 0:18, suggesting that calibrated values could strongly

depend on the choice of other parameters in the GTN

model. The resulting parameters are listed in Table 3

(referred to as the parameter set 2). Compared to the

values of the parameter set 1, values of f c and f f decrease.

Fig. 7 compares experimental (engineering) stressstrain

data with the results from FE damage analyses using the

parameter set 2. The results for the smooth bars and

notched bars with notch radii 6R and 3R are quite similar

to those in Fig. 2 (using the parameter set 1). However, for

Fig. 9. (a) A plate extracted from a pipe for pre-strain tests and (b) experimental set-up for pre-straining.

ARTICLE IN PRESS

1406

predicted earlier using the parameter set 2 than using the

parameter set 1.

Note that the calibrated values also depend on the

element size. It was mentioned that the mesh size for the

FE damage analyses was xed to 0.15 mm in this paper.

The element could be related to the materials length scale

(such as void spacing for ductile fracture), this paper

assumes 0.15 mm for simplicity. Although this value is

believed to be realistic, considering similar values reported

in literature, mesh sensitivity analysis is also performed to

investigate the effect of the mesh size on simulated results.

Fig. 8 compares test data for the notched round bar (notch

radius 1:5R) with the results from FE damage analyses

with three different mesh sizes, 0.075, 0.15 and 0.30 mm.

Although the smaller mesh size predicts slightly earlier

failure initiation and accelerated subsequent failure, the

results for two mesh sizes, 0.075 and 0.15 mm, are overall

close. The mesh size of 0.3 mm gives quite different results,

but is a rather large number, compared to other reported

values for similar structural steels.

As conclusions, it is believed that unique determination of the parameters in the GTN model would be

are affected not only by the choice of each parameter

in the GTN model but also by the element size. A

fundamental approach would be to calibrate the parameters based on thorough metallurgical examinations.

Instead, a pragmatic approach is taken in this paper,

where the parameters are calibrated simply by comparing

the simulated results with notched bar test results. Based

on many trials, we strongly feel that the parameter set 1

listed in Table 3 would be the best choice to simulate

ductile fracture of the API X65 steel, together with the

element size of 0.15 mm.

4. Application to pre-strain effects

In the previous section, the model of ductile fracture

based on the GTN model has been established for the API

X65 steel. Once established, it has many potential

application areas. For instance, it can be used to predict

failure behaviours not only of toughness testing specimens

(which will be shown later in this paper) but also of fullscale pipes with crack-like defects. It can be also used to

predict size effects of toughness testing specimens.

Fig. 10. (ac) Experimental results of pre-strain effects on engineering stressstrain curves for notched and smooth tensile bars and (d) quantication of

the pre-strain effect on tensile curves.

ARTICLE IN PRESS

C.-K. Oh et al. / International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 49 (2007) 13991412

pipeline is integrity assessment of third-party mechanical

damage. Such third-party damage could generate plastic

deformation and thus plastic pre-strain that in turn can

affect deformation and fracture behaviours of pipelines. In

literature, a number of analytical and experimental works

have been published on quantication of pre-strain effects

on deformation, fatigue and fracture (see for instance Refs.

[44,45] for analytical results and Refs. [4649] for experimental results). Thus quantication of pre-strain effects on

tensile and fracture toughness properties for API X65 steels

is not a main concern of this paper, as it has been reported

extensively in literature. Our main concern is application

and validation of the developed GTN model to quantify

pre-strain effects, with particular emphasis on numerical

procedures.

1407

strain curve by the amount of pre-strain [44,45], which is

supported by analysing the present experimental results, as

shown in Fig. 10d.

Using three-point bend bars extracted from the prestrained plates, the crack-tip opening displacement

(CTOD) tests were performed according to the BS 5762

4.1. Experiments

Tests were performed to quantify pre-strain effects on

tensile and fracture toughness properties of the API X65

steel. The material used in tests is same as that in Section

3.1. A plate specimen (with the thickness of 11 mm, the

width of 60 mm and the net-length of 30 mm) was extracted

from the pipe in the longitudinal direction (Fig. 9a). This

plate is plastically loaded and unloaded in axial tension to

generate the plastic strain in the plate (see Fig. 9b). The

applied engineering strain to this plate was either 5% or

10%. It should be noted that the engineering strain of 10%

corresponds to the engineering ultimate tensile strain from

smooth notch bar tests (see Fig. 4). Detailed threedimensional FE (damage) analysis for the plate was also

performed to quantify variations of plastic strains and

damage left in the plate. Detailed results will be given in the

next sub-section. From FE analyses, it was found that

actual pre-strains left in the plate were almost same as the

applied strains minus elastic ones due to recovery. Round

tensile bars and three-point bend specimens were extracted

from the pre-strained plates. The FE analyses also

suggested that pre-strains are not uniformly distributed

along the plate width due to possible edge effect. Based on

the FE results, tensile bars and bend specimens were

extracted from the centre region (within 30% of the width)

ofthe plate.

For the round tensile bar tests, overall experimental

procedures are same as those in Section 3. For a given prestrain, both smooth and notched tensile bars with three

different round notch radii, 6.0 mm 6R, 3.0 mm 3R and

1.5 mm 1:5R were tested. For all specimens, the minimum

section has a diameter of 6mm, and axial displacement was

monitored using extensometer with the length of 25 mm.

Resulting engineering stressstrain data for all specimens

tested are summarized in Fig. 10. It shows that increasing

pre-strain increases the yield and tensile strengths but

decreases the strain to fracture. Note that the pre-strain

effect on tensile properties is similar to the notch effect. It is

well known that the pre-strain effect on tensile curves can

(CTOD) tests and (b) a picture of three-point bend bars.

Fig. 12. Experimental loadCMOD curves from CTOD tests with and

without pre-strain.

ARTICLE IN PRESS

1408

bars with the thickness of 10.0 mm and the width of

10.0 mm (B B specimens) were extracted, as shown in

Fig. 11. An initial notch was machined and the subsequent

pre-cracking was introduced by fatigue. The length of the

nal pre-crack was about half of the specimen width,

according to the standard procedure. Bend bars were

loaded using three-point bend, and the crack mouth

opening displacement (CMOD) was monitored as a

function of load. Resulting loadCMOD curves are

summarized in Fig. 12. It shows that the maximum loads

for pre-strained bend bars are lower but occurs at smaller

CMOD values than those for bend bars without pre-strain.

Note that J-resistance curves could not be determined due

to small sizes of tested specimens. Thus only loadCMOD

curves will be compared.

4.2. FE analysis

To quantify variations of pre-strains and damage left in

the plate, detailed elasticplastic, three-dimensional FE

damage analyses based on the GTN model, described in

Section 2, were performed using ABAQUS [41] with the

large geometry change option. For the GTN model, the

parameter set 1 was used. The deformation boundary

condition was applied to the top of the FE model, which

matches the experimental condition. Fig. 13 shows the FE

mesh, made of eight-node brick elements (C3D8 within

ABAQUS). To be consistent to previous damage analysis,

the element size in the region of interest was xed to

equivalent plastic strains, left in the plate, are shown in

Figs. 14a and b. Note that equivalent plastic strain

distributions are measured in the centre of the plate both

along the width direction (Fig. 14a) and along the length

direction (Fig. 14b). The gures also include estimated prestrains considering elastic recovery (4.62% and 9.24%),

which are slightly lower than applied strains (5% and

10%). The results show that for the case of the 5% prestrain, estimated values are in fairly good agreements in

both width and length directions. On the other hand, for

the case of the 10% pre-strain, the FE values are about

20% higher than estimated ones along the width direction.

This is probably due to out-of-plane constraint effects.

However, along the length direction, the pre-strain

decreases. In an average sense, the estimated values of

pre-strains (4.62% and 9.24%) are assumed in the present

work. Figs. 14c and d show variations of void volume

fractions left in the pre-strained plate. Noting that the

maximum values are of interest, values of void volume

fraction for the 5% and 10% pre-strain are f 0:00014

and f 0:0002, respectively. Compared to f o 0:000125

for the plate without pre-strain, the void volume fraction

increases by 12% and 60%, respectively.

Using above information, FE damage analyses based on

the GTN model are performed to simulate tensile tests of

(smooth/notched) round bars and CTOD tests using

ABAQUS [41] with the large geometry change option. To

incorporate pre-strain into FE damage analyses, two

modications are made. The rst one is that true

ARTICLE IN PRESS

C.-K. Oh et al. / International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 49 (2007) 13991412

1409

Fig. 14. Variations of (a, b) equivalent plastic strains; and (b, d) void volume fractin in the pre-strained plate.

modied according to pre-strain, simply by shifting the

amount of pre-strain (4.62% and 9.24%, respectively), as

shown in Fig. 10d. The second modication is the value of

initial void volume fraction, f o . As noted, the value of f o

changes due to pre-strain, and values of f o 0:00014 and

f o 0:0002 for the pre-strain of 4.62% and 9.24%,

respectively. Four-node solid elements (element type

CAX4 for round tensile bar simulation and CPE4 for

CTOD test simulation) were used and elements with the

length of 0.15 mm are uniformly spaced in the minimum

section. The FE mesh for single-edge-cracked bars is shown

in Fig. 15.

Fig. 16 compares experimental (engineering) stress

strain data with the results from FE damage analyses

(FE results with damage) for selected cases. The FE

results, conventional elasticplastic FE analyses based on

isotropic elasticplastic materials with the large geometry

change option are also included (FE results w/o damage)

for comparison. Fig. 17 shows corresponding results for

the CTOD tests, i.e., experimental loadCMOD curves are

compared with the results from FE damage analyses (FE

Fig. 15. The FE mesh for damage simulations of the CTOD tests.

conventional elasticplastic FE analyses based on isotropic

elasticplastic materials with the large geometry change

option are also included (FE results w/o damage).

ARTICLE IN PRESS

C.-K. Oh et al. / International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 49 (2007) 13991412

1410

Fig. 16. Comparisons of FE simulations with test results of smooth and notched bars with pre-strain.

using the calibrated GTN model are in good agreements

with experimental data, and can capture the pre-strain

effect not only on plastic deformation but also on ductile

fracture.

5. Concluding remarks

This paper presents a phenomenological model of ductile

fracture for the API X65 steel using the GursonTvergaardNeedleman (GTN) model. Experimental tests and

FE damage simulations using the GTN model are

different notch radii, from which the parameters in the

GTN model are calibrated. Validity of the proposed

parameters is checked by comparing simulated results with

experimental ones from notched bar tests and cracked bend

bar tests.

The proposed phenomenological model would be quite

useful to predict ductile failure of defective pipes made of

API X65, particularly when relevant tests are either very

difcult or impossible. For instance, it would be difcult to

extract a large-scale cracked specimen from a pipe to

investigate the crack growth and arrest behaviours. In such

ARTICLE IN PRESS

C.-K. Oh et al. / International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 49 (2007) 13991412

without pre-strain and (b) with the 10% pre-strain.

simulate crack growth and arrest. It would be also useful to

investigate the crack-tip constraint effect on ductile

fracture. As one example, the calibrated GTN model is

applied to quantify the pre-strain effect on deformation

and fracture of the API X65 steel. Comparison of

experimental data of pre-strained, notched tensile tests

and fracture toughness tests with FE damage analyses

show good agreements.

References

[1] Kumar V, German D, Shih CF. An engineering approach for

elasticplastic fracture analysis. EPRI Final Report NP 1931; 1981.

1411

[3] Kanninnen MF, Zahoor A, Wilkoski G, Abousayed I, Marschall C,

Broek D, et al. Instability predictions for circumferentially cracked

type-304 stainless pipes under dynamic loading. EPRI Report NP2347. Palo Alto, USA: Electric Power research Institute; 1982.

[4] ASME. Rule for in-service inspection of nuclear power plant

componentsASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section XI;

1996.

[5] British Energy. R6: assessment of the integrity of structures containing defects, revision 4; 1998.

[6] API. API RP579recommended practice for tness-for-service

American Petroleum Institute; 2000.

[7] Bergman M, Brickstad B, Dahlberg L, Nilsson F, Sattari-Far I. A

procedure for safety assessment of components with crackshandbook. SA/FoU Report 91/01; ABSvensk Anlaggningsprovning,

Swedish Plant Inspection Ltd, 1991.

[8] BS 7910. Guide on methods for assessing the acceptability of aws in

fusion welded structures. London: British Standards Institution; 2000.

[9] SINTAP. Final procedure: SINTAP (structural integrity assessment

procedures for European industry). Brite-Euram Project, BE95-1426;

1999.

[10] Schwalbe KH, Zerbst U, Kim YJ, Brocks W, Cornec A, Heerens J,

et al. EFAM ETM 97: the ETM method for assessing the signicance

of crack-like defect in engineering structures GKSS 98/E/6. Germany:

GKSS Research Centre; 1998.

[11] Ainsworth RA. The assessment of defects in structures of strain

hardening materials. Engineering Fracture Mechanics 1984;19:

63342.

[12] Anderson T. Fracture mechanics fundamentals and applications.

Boca Raton: CRC Press; 1995.

[13] Kanninen MF, Popelar CH. Advanced fracture mechanics. Oxford:

Oxford University Press; 1985.

[14] Betegon C, Hancock JW. Two-parameter characterization of

elasticplastic crack-tip elds. Journal of Applied Mechanics 1991;58:

10410.

[15] Du ZZ, Hancock JW. The effect of non-singular stresses on crack-tip

constraint. Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids

1991;39:55567.

[16] ODowd NP, Shih CF. Family of crack-tip elds characterised by a

triaxiality parameter. Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids

1991;39:8981015.

[17] Yang S, Chao YJ, Sutton MA. Higher-order asymptotic crack tip

elds in a power law hardening material. Engineering Fracture

Mechanics 1993;45:120.

[18] Gurson AL. Continuum theory of ductile rupture by void nucleation

and growth. Part 1yield criteria and ow rules for porous ductile

media. Journal of Engineering Material and Technology 1977;99:

215.

[19] Thomason PF. Ductile fracture of metals. Oxford, UK: Pergamon

Press; 1990.

[20] McClintock FA. A criterion of ductile fracture by the growth of

holes. Journal of Applied Mechanics 1968;35:36371.

[21] Rice JR, Tracey DM. On the ductile enlargement of voids in triaxial

stress elds. Journal of the Physics and Mechanics of Solids 1969;

17:20117.

[22] Beremin FM. Cavity formation from inclusions in ductile fracture of

A 508 steel. Metallurgical Transactions 1981;12A:72331.

[23] Rousselier G. Ductile fracture models and their potential in local

approach of fracture. Nuclear Engineering and Design 1987;105:

97111.

[24] Tvergaard V. Inuence of voids on shear band instabilities under

plane strain conditions. International Journal of Fracture 1981;17:

389407.

[25] Tvergaard V. On Localization in Ductile Materials Containing

Spherical Voids. International Journal of Fracture 1982;18:23752.

[26] Koplik J, Needleman A. Void growth and coalescence in porous

plastic solids. International Journal of Solids and Structures

1988;24:83553.

ARTICLE IN PRESS

1412

Journal of Engineering Materials and Technology 1980;102:24956.

[28] Tvergaard V, Needleman A. Analysis of the cup-cone fracture in a

round tensile bar. Acta Metallurgica 1982;32:15769.

[29] Bernauer G, Brocks W. Phenomenological modeling of ductile damage

and tearing-results of a European numerical round robin. Fatigue and

Fracture of Engineering Materials and Structures 2002;25:36384.

[30] Dotta F, Ruggieri C. Structural integrity assessments of high pressure

pipelines with axial aws using a micromechanics model. International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 2004;81:76170.

[31] Rivalin F, Pineau A, Di Fant M, Besson J. Ductile tearing of

pipeline-steel wide plates Idynamic and quasi-static experiments.

Engineering Fracture Mechanics 2001;68:32945.

[32] Rivalin F, Besson J, Pineau A, Di Fant M. Ductile tearing of

pipeline-steel wide plates IImodeling of in-plane crack propagation. Engineering Fracture Mechanics 2001;68:34764.

[33] Chen Y, Lambert S. Numerical modeling of ductile tearing for semielliptical surface cracks in wide plates. International Journal of

Pressure Vessels and Piping 2005;82:41726.

[34] Burstow MC, Howard IC. Predicting the effects of crack tip

constraint on material resistance curves using ductile damage theory.

Fatigue and Fracture of Engineering Materials and Structures 1996;

19:46174.

[35] Roy Chowdhury S, Narasimhan R. A nite element analysis of

quasistatic crack growth in a pressure sensitive constrained ductile

layer. Engineering Fracture Mechanics 2000;66:55171.

[36] Skallerud B, Zhang ZL. A 3D numerical study of ductile tearing and

fatigue crack growth under nominal cyclic plasticity. International

Journal of Solids and Structures 1997;24:314161.

[37] Imad A, Wilsius J, Nait Abdelaziz M, Mesmacque G. Experiments

and numerical approaches to ductile tearing in an 2024-T351

aluminium alloy. International Journal of Mechanical Sciences

2003;45:184961.

[38] Gao X, Faleskog J, Shih CF. Ductile tearing in part-through cracks:

experiments and cell-model predictions. Engineering Fracture Mechanics 1998;59:76177.

a crack tip. Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids

1987;35:15183.

[40] American Petroleum Institute. Specication for Line Pie. API 5L;

2000.

[41] ABAQUS Version 6.4 Users manual. Hibbitt, Karlson & Sorensen

Inc.; 2005.

[42] Siegmund T, Brocks W. A user-material subroutine incorporating the

GTN model of porous metal plasticity into the ABAQUS FE

program. GKSS Internal Report GKSS/WMG/97/12, GKSS Research Center, Geesthacht, Germany.

[43] Franklin AG. Comparison between a quantitative microscope and

chemical methods for assessment of non-metallic inclusions. Journal

of the Iron and Steel Institute 1969;207:1816.

[44] Ainsworth RA. An assessment of the effects of prestrain on

upper shelf fracture toughness. Journal of Strain Analysis 1986;21:

21923.

[45] Cosham A. A model of pre-strain effects on fracture toughness.

Journal of Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering 2001;123:

18290.

[46] Hagiwara N, Masuda T, Oguchi N. Effects of prestrain on fracture

toughness and fatigue-crack growth of line pipe steels. Journal of

Pressure Vessel Technology 2001;123:35561.

[47] Minami F, Arimochi K. Evaluation of prestraining and dynamic

loading effects on the fracture toughness of structural steels by the

local approach. Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology 2001;123:

36272.

[48] Fukuda N, Hagiwara N, Masuda T. Effect of prestrain on tensile and

fracture toughness properties of linepipes. In: Proceedings of the

fourth international pipeline conference, IPC2002-27127, Calgary,

Alberta, Canada, 2002.

[49] Cosham A, Hopkins P. An experimental study of the effect of prestrain on the fracture toughness of line pipe steel. In: Proceedings

ICPVT-10, 2003, Vienna, Austria. p. 35765.

[50] BS 5762: Methods for crack opening displacement testing. London:

BS Institution: 1979.

- lec29Uploaded bytamizhan
- Material SelectionUploaded byRaj Bindas
- Mechanics of Materials II(3)Uploaded bysoulcivic
- 2-Axial Loading.pdfUploaded byMohamad Zaid
- class3Uploaded byaksgupta24
- Tension Test ReportUploaded byTomy George
- Ch02Uploaded byReza
- Utm Manual 1Uploaded byJhEan LoUise
- LTRC Final Report 500 Mechanistic Evaluation of Asphalt Mixtures Containing Thiopave AdditivesUploaded bywalaywan
- Shear PropertiesUploaded bytedmer1
- Details of the Types of Failure in MaterialsUploaded byFaris Farhan
- Ijs r 13010104Uploaded byarulmurugu
- 11661_2015_2880_AuthorUploaded bySugrib K Shaha
- Numerical Analysis on the RockburstUploaded byRodrigo Muñoz Valderrama
- 114458688 Bond Anchorage and Development LengthUploaded byAbu Zafor
- Materials ScienceUploaded bySrimannarayana Nandam
- `00 Chennai 2 Day Fracture Analysis.pdfUploaded bylram70
- labreport-engineeringmaterialslab-tensiletest-180320080450.pdfUploaded byNur Atiqah Nabila
- Crack Path PaperUploaded byVitor Anes
- 1.AEP Intro.pdfUploaded byanon_999896239
- PDF - ContentsUploaded byVarghese Njaliath
- Fractr ProblemsUploaded byamdeva
- Review 4511Uploaded byafnene1
- Lecture 1Uploaded bycjon
- a62381c2-2f58-4454-be95-94bd90bb0ab9Uploaded byMarco Hall
- 1-s2.0-S0921509312013755-main.pdfUploaded byEidelsayed
- Stading e Hermansson, 1991Uploaded byrafacpereira
- Assignment 5 SolutionsUploaded bydan4books
- Deflection of BeamsUploaded byManuel
- MDCh1finalUploaded byjhala

- Unit 1 Mat sciUploaded byGoutham R
- Ilizarov Sa Kompozitnim PrstenomUploaded byEdin
- BIA TEK 18 - Volumen Chnges - Analysis and Effects of Movement 2006Uploaded byMonik359
- Design of Steel Fibre Reinforced Segmental Lining for the Gold Coast Desal TunnelsUploaded byrajesh005
- 01_LuisUploaded byKenyo Alarcon
- IRC - SP-114-2018 (DRAFT)Uploaded bykapinjal_
- Muisne Ecuador 2016 Once and Again Relearning About the Role of the Miscalled Non-structural Masonry WallsUploaded bycontrerasc_sebastian988
- Chapter 4_ Axial LoadingUploaded byMaipenrai Memee
- Pipe Stress AnalysisUploaded byblondi6730
- Factor LoadsUploaded byImtiaz Khan
- Chapter 1 StressUploaded bySudarson Karthikeyan
- ArcelorMittal Automotive Product Offer EnUploaded bywulfgang66
- The Cyclic Behaviour of Steel Elements and ConnectionsUploaded byconeyqu
- 1999-01-0072 MADYMO Frame ModelUploaded bysayed
- 07_chapter2Uploaded byananthakumar
- dytran_2012_example_problem_manual.pdfUploaded byAdamD
- Chapter 6 Mechanical PropertiesUploaded byEl Mosafer
- [Crawford_R.J.] Rotational Moulding of Plastics.pdfUploaded byWilly Sastraleksana
- 4. the Behavior of Ductile DamageUploaded byJesus Ibarra Torrenegra
- IJETAE_0213_61Uploaded byperules
- AISC Tension WeldedUploaded bysundar_s_2k
- Dam Mass RatingUploaded byfededa
- P5 GEOLOGI STRUKTUR Strain & Deformasi.pdfUploaded byUlya Utami
- STERA3D User ManualUploaded byPuiu Ioan Daniel
- Design and Analysis of Multi Spindle Drilling Head with Adjustable Centre DistanceUploaded byIRJET Journal
- Acritical Review of the criteria of notch-sensitivity in fatigue of metalsUploaded byEli
- Tensile TestUploaded byMohamed Reeza
- 12 - Sheet Metal FormingUploaded byShihe Song
- Slope StabilityUploaded byviperturk
- SFD-IS-800-2007Uploaded byahmedsabercg