Theoretical and Applied Fracture Mechanics 103 (2019) 102286

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Theoretical and Applied Fracture Mechanics

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tafmec

The influence of torsion effect on fracture behavior of Pipe Ring Notched T

Bend specimen (PRNB)
⁎
D. Damjanovića, , D. Kozaka, I. Geloa, N. Gubeljakb
a
Josip Juraj Strossmayer University of Osijek, Mechanical Engineering Faculty in Slavonski Brod, Trg I. B. Mažuranić 2, Slavonski Brod, Croatia
b
University of Maribor, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Smetanova 17, Maribor, Slovenia

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Through the time, researches realize the problem of inability to measure the fracture toughness of pipe material
PRNB in some cases, because of inability of producing standard specimens from pipe wall. This problem is especially
J – integral expressed in thin walled pipes. In that sense, a lot of alternative procedures and nonstandard specimens are
Fracture behavior proposed but with no notable success. One of the latest and the most convenient one is Pipe Ring Notched Bend
Torsion effect
specimen (PRNB) proposed by Gubeljak and Matvienko (Patent No. RU 2564696 C1, 10.10.2015.: Matvienko
Finite element method
Y.G. and Gubeljak N., Model for Determination of Crack – Resistance of the Pipes). Lot of research are made on
the PRNB specimen and this paper presents further analysis of such a specimen. Due to the specific geometry of
PRNB specimen and loading which is three – point bending, torsion effect occurs in the region of crack. This
paper deals with analysis of influence of this torsion effect on fracture behavior of PRNB specimen. In order to
obtain more detailed analysis of torsion effect influence, J – integral versus thickness of the specimen curves are
presented for the specimen with and without torsion effect and for various a/W ratios. Further, comparison of
maximal J – integral values (at half of wall thickness B/2) for specimens with and without torsion effect in
relation to the a/W ratio has been analyzed.

1. Introduction
There are lot of proposed alternative procedures and specimens to
measure fracture toughness of the pipe material which can be found in
[1–6]. Main and very important disadvantage of previously proposed
specimens is complicated preparation of the specimen itself and need
for special testing jig to perform the testing. Further, all the previously
proposed specimens are used to simulate transverse crack which is not
so often in pipes and tubes. One of the main advantages of PRNB among
other proposed specimens for measuring fracture toughness of pipe
material is very simple procedure which includes cutting the ring from
the pipe and positioning the ring to the jig for three-point bend test.
Until now, a lot of research are made on Pipe Ring Notched Bend
specimen (PRNB) including two doctoral dissertations [7,8]. Some of
the first research about PRNB deals only with ideal geometry of spe-
cimen which is cut out from the plate in order to exclude all the im-
perfections from the consideration like eccentricity, ovality, deviation
in dimensions, residual stresses, etc. [7,9–11]. Further, there are ex-
tensive research on PRNB regarding correlation investigation on stan-
dard SENB and corresponding PRNB specimen made from real pipe
material [12], as well as investigation on residual stresses and its effect
to the fracture behavior of PRNB specimen [13–15]. There are also
some research about CGM micromechanical analysis of PRNB specimen
[16]. Within research in this paper, torsion effect which appears to be in
the crack plane is analyzed. Fig. 1 shows PRNB specimen with illus-
tration of torsion effect. At the beginning of the loading of the PRNB
specimen, there are even crack closure effects at the inner surface of the
specimen which is due to torsion effect as well [14]. Torsion effect
presence in crack zone can lead to unreliable fracture toughness testing
procedure so the main aim of this research is to determine whether the
torsion effect in PRNB specimen have significant influence to the frac-
ture behavior or that influence can be neglected.
2. Experimental setup
Material properties required for experimental as well as numerical
part of investigation are obtained from tensile test. Three cylindrical
tensile specimens are made from the considered pipe in longitudinal
direction of the pipe with diameter of measurement part d0 = 5 mm
according to the [17]. Young’s Modulus of elasticity E according to the
[18], 0,2% yield stress Rp0,2 and tensile strength Rm are obtained from
tensile test with mean values for all three specimens as follows:

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: darko.damjanovic@sfsb.hr (D. Damjanović).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tafmec.2019.102286
Received 28 February 2019; Received in revised form 30 May 2019; Accepted 27 June 2019
Available online 28 June 2019
0167-8442/ © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
D. Damjanović, et al. Theoretical and Applied Fracture Mechanics 103 (2019) 102286

Nomenclature Rm tensile strength, MPa

Rp0,2 0,2% yield stress, MPa
a notch or crack length, mm S support span distance of PRNB specimen, mm
a/W aspect ratio of crack length and specimen height, – SENB Single Edge Notched Bend specimen
B wall thickness of PRNB specimen, mm U3 displacement of loading pin in three - point bend test, mm
CGM Complete Gurson model W height of PRNB specimen, mm
D outer diameter of PRNB specimen, mm
E Young’s modulus of elasticity, MPa Greek symbols
F loading force, kN
Fmax maximal loading force in case of experiment, kN φ Angle of inclination of cross section due to torsion effect, °
CMOD crack mouth opening displacement, mm ν Poisson’s ratio, –
n hardening exponent, – σφ hoop stress, MPa
R outer radius of PRNB specimen, mm

NO TORSION
Plane Π Plane Π

Ligament
Notch

z
y x TORSION
Plane Π

torsion
effect in
crack
plane
ϕ

Fig. 1. Torsion effect in crack plane of PRNB specimen.

E = 186 GPa, Rp0,2 = 321 MPa and Rm = 522 MPa. Poisson’s ratio is
taken into account with value ν = 0,3.
All research within this paper are made on PRNB specimens with
dimensions D = 114,3 mm, B = 12,5 mm, W = 25 mm made from
Chrome Molly steel 16Mo3 which is a pressure vessel grade steel alloy
for use in elevated working temperatures mainly in boiler industry
[19]. Two ring specimens with designations PRNB_1 and PRNB_2 are
analyzed experimentally according to the ASTM 1820 standard [20].
Specimens are notched up to a/W = 0,5 on opposite sides and tested on
tensile machine in means of three – point bend test. Loading force is
monitored on loading pin in order to obtain F – CMOD curves. CMOD is
monitored on both sides of PRNB specimen, on one side with ex-
tensometer, while on another side with Aramis optical measuring
system (Fig. 2(b)).
3. Validation of numerical model
Regarding numerical methods, it is well known that in fracture
mechanics, Finite element method is the most popular one. Within this
research, Finite element method using Abaqus commercial code [21] is
used. Crack propagation is not taken into account, so regular FEM is
ideal for that kind of simulation. Very often, crack propagation is
needed to be taken into account and in that sense there is also Extended
finite element method (XFEM) developed which is very often used in
fracture mechanics. For example for predict lifetime under cyclic
loading [22,23] or for analysis of fatigue crack growth in component

loading pin
loading pin

PRNB
Aramis raster
crack
support pin
PRNB 1/4
extensometer

Three-point bend jig

a) b)
Fig. 2. PRNB testing: (a) numerical setup, (b) experimental setup.

2
D. Damjanović, et al. Theoretical and Applied Fracture Mechanics 103 (2019) 102286

[24].
With previous study it is concluded that eight nodes linear prismatic
finite element with reduced integration is suitable for this type of cal-
culation, while mesh is generated with manually controlled size of fi-
nite elements. The model is set up by controlling the displacement of
loading pin up to maximal value of U3 = −10 mm in z direction.
In case of model with restricted torsion, coupling constraint has
been implemented on the cross section of specimen where the crack is
located. Reference point has been added in the middle of that cross
section and further, surface constraint region type is selected.
Continuum disturbing coupling type with constrained degrees of
freedom in means of rotational one for all three axes is used.
Elasto – plastic material model is used where strain hardening ex-
ponent is calculated according to the ASTM E 646-07 standard [25]

20

18
Fmax exp
16

14

12

10
F, kN

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
CMOD, mm

PRNB_1 PRNB_2 PRNB (FEM) Plasticization Initiation Fmax exp

Location Von Mises Stress, MPa Hoop Stress, MPa PEEQ, -

Plasticization
F = 8,5 kN

Initiation
F = 14,5 kN

Fmax exp
F = 15,6 kN

Fig. 3. F - CMOD curves obtained experimentally and numerically for PRNB specimen and corresponding Von Mises and hoop stresses as well as equivalent
deformation distribution.

3
D. Damjanović, et al.
with value n = 0,1946. Numerical model with the finite element mesh
as well as the experimental setup are presented on the Fig. 2.
No damage model is used in numerical calculation, i.e. the crack
propagation is not taken into account. According to mentioned, the F -
CMOD curves obtained numerically are compared up to Fmax value
obtained experimentally. This type of numerical simulation implies the
growing trend of curve after reaching the plastic part of the material
model and after passing the Fmax value experimentally obtained. In
sense of validation of the numerical model, Fig. 3 shows F - CMOD
curves obtained experimentally (PRNB_1 and PRNB_2 specimens) and
numerically (corresponding FEM model of PRNB) up to Fmax obtained
by the experimental procedure. There is some deviation in experi-
mentally obtained curves for PRNB_1 and PRNB_2 which is due to ov-
ality, eccentricity and deviation in nominal dimensions of pipe and thus
corresponding PRNB specimens which are cut out from the pipe. By
dimensional analysis of particular PRNB specimens which implies
measuring of wall thickness at eight positions circumferentially and
measuring diameter on four positions circumferentially it is concluded
that diameter range is from 114,1 mm up to 114,25 mm while wall
thickness range is from 12,32 mm up to 13,28 mm. Due to non - ideal
dimensions of two considered PRNB specimens and due to random
orientation of specimens while testing them in means of three - point
bend test, some deviations are expected. Furthermore, it should be
noted that in case of experiment, notch with tip radius of ≈0,25 mm is
tested, while in numerical model, sharp crack is modeled. Fig. 3 also
shows numerical results in means of equivalent Von Mises stress, hoop
stress and equivalent plastic deformation for three characteristic loca-
tions: plasticization, initiation and maximal force. Characteristic force
value for each location obtained numerically is also presented in Fig. 3.
a) Von Mises stress, MPa (TORSION)
c) Hoop stress, MPa (TORSION)
Fig. 4. Von Mises and hoop stress distribution for PRNB with and without presence of torsion effect for a/W = 0,2 and U3 = −10 mm.
4
Theoretical and Applied Fracture Mechanics 103 (2019) 102286
Characteristic locations are related to those one obtained experimen-
tally for the PRNB_1 specimen.
Due to above, numerically obtained F – CMOD curve is in acceptable
correlation to the experimentally obtained curves and thus it can be
concluded that numerical model is reliable.
4. Results and discussion
Fig. 4 shows results for Von Mises stress as well as hoop stress for
the PRNB specimen where torsion effect is the most present, for a/
W = 0,2 and for displacement of loading ping U3 = −10 mm. Left hand
side Figures (Fig. 4(a) and (c)) shows specimen with presence of tor-
sion, right hand side Figures (Fig. (b) and (d)) shows specimen without
presence of torsion effect.
Von Mises stresses are greater in case of PRNB without torsion ef-
fect, while on other hand, hoop stress values are greater in case of PRNB
with torsion effect. Further, stress distributions for both, Von Mises as
well as hoop stresses are more symmetrical through the thickness B
taking into account whole height of the specimen W in case of no tor-
sion effect present.
In order to get better view on torsion influence, Fig. 5 shows dia-
gram of J - integral values obtained numerically for the middle of the
PRNB specimen, i.e. at the location of J – integral maximum which is B/
2 for various displacements of loading pin U3. Red line on the diagrams
correspond to the presence of the torsion effect while blue line on
diagrams correspond to the non - presence of the torsion effect. Ac-
cording to the ASTM E1820 [20] for J and δ determination, fatigue
crack size which correspond to the total average length of the crack
starter configuration plus the fatigue crack shall be between a/
b) Von Mises stress, MPa (no TORSION)
d) Hoop stress, MPa (no TORSION)
D. Damjanović, et al. Theoretical and Applied Fracture Mechanics 103 (2019) 102286

Fig. 5. J – integral values at the half of specimen wall thickness (B/2) for specimen with and without presence of torsion effect and for various displacements of
loading pin U3.

W = 0,45–0,7. That area is marked on diagrams on Fig. 5. integral values of specimen with presence of torsion effect in relation to
By analyzing the diagrams on Fig. 5 it is obvious that significant the one without presence of torsional effect is up to maximal value of
deviation in J – integral values when comparing PRNB with and 3%.
without presence of torsion effect is present only at smaller a/W ratios,
i.e. a/W = 0,2–0,45 especially for a/W = 0,2. By increasing of the a/W
5. Conclusions
ratio deviation becomes smaller, and by reaching ratios covered by
standard ASTM E1820 which is a/W = 0,45–0,7 deviation is practically
In this paper, newly proposed PRNB specimen is investigated ex-
negligible.
perimentally and numerically. From previous research it is noted that
Fig. 6 shows comparison of J – integral values through the specimen
by loading the PRNB specimen in means of three – point bend test,
thickness B again for both analyzed specimens, with and without pre-
torsion effect occurs in the crack region. Aim of this paper was to
sence of torsion effect and for various ratios a/W. Displacement of
conclude has that torsion effect any negative influence on fracture be-
loading pin in presented case on Fig. 6 is U3 = −5 mm. Significant
havior of PRNB specimen.
deviation is obvious at smaller ratios a/W (Fig. 6(a) and (b)), while for
Experimentally and numerically obtained F – CMOD curves shows
ratios covered by standard ASTM E1820 which are a/W = 0,45–0,7
very good correlation, i.e. it can be concluded that proposed numerical
deviation is practically negligible (Fig. 6(c) and (d)). It is also obvious
model is reliable.
that in case there is no torsion (blue lines on diagrams), J – integral
By further numerical analysis two kind of specimens are analyzed,
distribution is larger and more constant through the wall thickness of
PRNB with and without presence of torsion effect in crack zone. It can
the specimen.
be concluded that torsion effect has significant influence on the fracture
J – integral values are slightly larger in case of no torsion because
behavior at the smaller ratios a/W which is 0,2–0,45. By further in-
from the beginning of the loading and by increasing of the loading crack
crease of ratio a/W, i.e. a/W = 0,45–0,7 which exactly is one covered
is constantly opening, there is no influence of torsion which is slightly
by ASTM E1820 standard, there are no significant influence of torsion
preventing crack opening, especially on the inner surface of the spe-
effect. So it can be concluded that torsion effect which occurs in PRNB
cimen. At larger ratios a/W, i.e. a/W = 0,7 (Fig. 6(d)) torsion effect has
specimen while testing in three – point bend test has no influence in
significantly lower influence so J – integral values are practically the
measuring of fracture toughness by ASTM E1820 standard (for a/
same for both PRNB specimens analyzed here, with and without in-
W = 0,45–0,7). It should be noted here that research within this paper
fluence of torsion effect.
deals only on one specimen geometry: D = 114,3 mm, B = 12,5 mm,
Described above on Fig. 6 can be easily seen on diagram on Fig. 7
W = 25 mm. It is clear that torsion effect analyzed within this research
where percentage deviation is presented. It can be concluded that for
can be depended on the diameter and thickness of the specimen.
ratios covered by standard a/W = 0,45–0,7 percentage deviation in J –
Accordingly, in the further research aim is to obtain a dependence of

5
D. Damjanović, et al. Theoretical and Applied Fracture Mechanics 103 (2019) 102286

Fig. 6. J – integral values through the wall thickness B for specimen with and without presence of torsion effect and for various ratios a/W (for U3 = −5 mm).

35%
33%
30%
28%
25%
23% Deviation, %
20%
18%
15%
13%
10%
8%
5%
3%
0%

0%-3% 3%-5%
5%-8% 8%-10%
0,2 10%-13% 13%-15%
0,4
0,5 15%-18% 18%-20%
a/W 0,6 20%-23% 23%-25%
25%-28% 28%-30%
30%-33% 33%-35%
Fig. 7. Percentage deviation in J – integral values through the wall thickness B for specimen with and without presence of torsion effect and for various ratios a/W
(for U3 = −5 mm).

torsion effect and specimen geometry to the fracture behavior of the cylinder material, Eng. Fract. Mech. 50 (1995) 295–300.
PRNB specimen. [2] I. Dlouhy, N. Gubeljak, Personal discussion about testing the thin pipeline wall by
using modified CT specimen and especial developed testing device (2008).
[3] Ľ. Gajdoš, M. Šperl, Evaluating the integrity of pressure pipelines by fracture me-
References chanics, Fract. Tough. Metal Cast., Sci. Technol. Cast. Process. (2012) 283–310.
[4] J. Capelle, J. Gilgert, Y. Matvienko, G. Pluvinage, Measurement of the resistance to
fracture emanating from scratches in gas pipes using non-standard curved
[1] J.T. Evans, G. Kotiskos, R.F. Robey, A method for fracture toughness testing

6
D. Damjanović, et al.
specimens, Secur. Reliab. Damaged Struct. Defective Mater. (2009) 157–174.
[5] G. Mahajan, S. Saxena, A. Mohanty, Numerical characterization of compact pipe
specimen for stretch zone width assessment, Fatigue Fract. Eng. Mater. Struct. 39
(2016) 859–865.
[6] J.M. Koo, S. Park, C.S. Seok, Evaluation of fracture toughness of nuclear piping
using real pipe and tensile compact pipe specimens, Nucl. Eng. Des. 259 (2013)
198–204.
[7] A. Likeb, Doctoral dissertation: Primernost obročnega preizkušanca za določitev
lomne žilavosti materiala cevovoda, Fakulteta za strojništvo, Maribor, 2014.
[8] D. Damjanović, Doctoal disertation: Determination of fracture behaviour of the
pipe-ring specimen with axial crack under the influence of residual stresses,
Slavonski Brod (2016).
[9] A. Likeb, N. Gubeljak, Y. Matvienko, Finite element estimation of the plastic ηpl
factors for pipe-ring notched bend specimen using the load separation method,
Fatigue Fract. Eng. Mater. Struct. 37 (2014) 1319–1329.
[10] N. Gubeljak, A. Likeb, J. Predan, Y. Matvienko, Comparison between fracture be-
haviour of pipe - ring specimens and standard specimens, Key Eng. Mater. (2014)
637–640.
[11] N. Gubeljak, A. Likeb, Y. Matvienko, Fracture toughness measurement by using
pipe-ring specimens, Procedia Materials Science: 20th European Conference on
Fracture (ECF20), vol. 3, 2014, pp. 1934–1940.
[12] D. Damjanović, D. Kozak, Y. Matvienko, N. Gubeljak, Correlation of Pipe Ring
Notched Bend (PRNB) specimen and Single Edge Notch Bend (SENB) specimen in
determination of fracture toughness of pipe material, Fatigue Fract. Eng. Mater.
Struct. 40 (2017) 1251–1259.
[13] D. Damjanović, D. Kozak, S. Marsoner, N. Gubeljak, Residual stress state in pipe cut
ring specimens for fracture toughness testing, Materialpruefung/Mater. Test. 59
(2017) 530–535.
[14] D. Damjanović, D. Kozak, N. Gubeljak, The influence of residual stresses on fracture
Theoretical and Applied Fracture Mechanics 103 (2019) 102286
behavior of Pipe Ring Notched Bend specimen (PRNB), Eng. Fract. Mech. 205
(2019) 347–358.
[15] D. Damjanović, D. Kozak, N. Gubeljak, V. Tropša, Proposal of new Pipe-Ring spe-
cimen for fracture mechanics, Procedia Eng. 149 (2016) 33–39.
[16] W. Musraty, B. Medjo, N. Gubeljak, A. Likeb, I. Cvijović-Alagić, A. Sedmak,
M. Rakin, Ductile fracture of pipe-ring notched bend specimens – Micromechanical
analysis, Eng. Fract. Mech. 175 (2017) 247–261.
[17] DIN 50125:2004-01 - Testing of metallic materials - Tensile test pieces, 2004.
[18] ASTM E 111 - 04 - Standard Test Method for Young’s Modulus, Tangent Modulus,
and Chord Modulus, 2004.
[19] EN 10216 - 2 - Seamless steel tubes for pressure purposes - Technical delivery
conditions - Part 2: Non-alloy and alloy steel tubes with specified elevated tem-
perature properties, 2002.
[20] E ASTM E 1820 - 13 - Standard Test Method for Measurement of Fracture
Toughness, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, 2013.
[21] Abaqus 6.14-2. Abaqus/CAE User's Manual, Dassault System, 2013.
[22] M. Aldarwish, A. Grbović, G. Kastratović, A. Sedmak and M. Lazic, Stress intensity
factors evaluation at tips of multi-site cracks in unstiffened 2024-T3 aluminium
panel using XFEM, Technical Gazette, 2018, pp. 1616–1622.
[23] K.A. Eldwaib, A. Grbović, A. Sedmak, G. Kastratović, D. Petrasinović, S. Sedmak,
Fatigue life estimation of damaged integral wing spar using XFEM, Techn. Gazette
(2018) 1837–1842.
[24] A. Sghayer, A. Grbović, Sedmak Aleksandar, M. Dinulović, I. Grozdanovic,
S. Sedmak, B. Petrovski, Experimental and numerical analysis of fatigue crack
growth in integral skin-stringer panels, Techn. Gazette. (2018) 785–791.
[25] ASTM E 646 – 07, Standard Test Method for Tensile Strain-Hardening Exponents (n
-Values) of Metallic Sheet Materials, ASTM International, West Conshohocken,
2007.