Otwarty dostęp

Investigating the Effects of Crack Orientation and Defects on Pipeline Fatigue Life Through Finite Element Analysis


Zacytuj

Figure 1.

Mesh of the pipe.
Mesh of the pipe.

Figure 2.

Stress distribution Syy in the case of a) longitudinal (axial) crack, b) circumferential (transversal) crack.
Stress distribution Syy in the case of a) longitudinal (axial) crack, b) circumferential (transversal) crack.

Figure 3.

J-integral versus crack length.
J-integral versus crack length.

Figure 4.

Stress intensity factor KI versus crack length.
Stress intensity factor KI versus crack length.

Figure 5.

Stress intensity factor KII versus crack length.
Stress intensity factor KII versus crack length.

Figure 6.

An organogram of fatigue life prediction in AFGROW.
An organogram of fatigue life prediction in AFGROW.

Figure 7.

Geometrical parameters of semi-elliptic crack and pipe.
Geometrical parameters of semi-elliptic crack and pipe.

Figure 8.

Evolution of the crack depth a and crack length c according to the number of cycles N (t = 3 mm).
Evolution of the crack depth a and crack length c according to the number of cycles N (t = 3 mm).

Figure 9.

Evolution of the crack depth a and crack length c according to the number of cycles N (t = 4 mm).
Evolution of the crack depth a and crack length c according to the number of cycles N (t = 4 mm).

Figure 10.

Evolution of the crack depth a and crack length c according to the number of cycles N (t = 5 mm).
Evolution of the crack depth a and crack length c according to the number of cycles N (t = 5 mm).

Figure 11.

Evolution of the crack depth a and crack length c according to the number of cycles N (t = 6 mm).
Evolution of the crack depth a and crack length c according to the number of cycles N (t = 6 mm).

Figure 12.

Evolution of the crack length c according to the number of cycles N for different ratios a/t.
Evolution of the crack length c according to the number of cycles N for different ratios a/t.

Figure 13.

Evolution of the relative crack depth a/t according to the number of cycles N.
Evolution of the relative crack depth a/t according to the number of cycles N.

Figure 14.

Evolutionof the aspect ratio a/c according to the number of cycles N.
Evolutionof the aspect ratio a/c according to the number of cycles N.

Figure 15.

Evolution of the crack depth and length crack (a and c) according to the number of cycles N(Do = 350 mm)
Evolution of the crack depth and length crack (a and c) according to the number of cycles N(Do = 350 mm)

Figure 16.

Evolution of the crack depth and length crack (a and c) according to the number of cycles N (Do = 345 mm)
Evolution of the crack depth and length crack (a and c) according to the number of cycles N (Do = 345 mm)

Figure 17.

Evolution of the crack depth and length crack (a and c) according to the number of cycles N (Do = 340 mm)
Evolution of the crack depth and length crack (a and c) according to the number of cycles N (Do = 340 mm)

Figure 18.

Evolution of the crack depth and length crack (a and c) according to the number of cycles N (Do = 335 mm)
Evolution of the crack depth and length crack (a and c) according to the number of cycles N (Do = 335 mm)

Figure 19.

Evolution of outside diameter of pipe Do as a function of number of cycles N.
Evolution of outside diameter of pipe Do as a function of number of cycles N.

Figure 20.

Evolution of the crack depth and length (a and c) according to the number of cycles N for different values of internal pressure.
Evolution of the crack depth and length (a and c) according to the number of cycles N for different values of internal pressure.

Figure 21.

Internal pressure versus number of cycles N.
Internal pressure versus number of cycles N.

Test simulation conditions with different values of relative depth a/t.

Test Do mm Di mm t mm a/t
1 350 344 3 0.30
2 350 342 4 0.25
3 350 340 5 0.20
4 350 339 6 0.16

Mechanical properties of X52 steel. (Harter, 2002; NASA, 2001)

Young’s modulus E (MPa) 200
Poisson’s ratio υ 0.30
Yield stress σY (MPa) 410
Ultimate tensile stress σUTS (MPa) 498
Elongation εf (%) 35
Toughness fracture (Mpa.mm1/2) 95
Threshold (MPa.mm1/2) 7

Tests simulation conditions with different values of outer diameter Do.

Test Do mm Di mm t mm a/t
1 350 340 5 0.2
2 345 335 5 0.2
3 340 330 5 0.2
4 335 325 5 0.2

Tests simulation conditions with different values of aspect ratio a/c.

Test Depth Length Aspect ratio
a mm c mm a/c
1 1 1 1
2 1 1.2 0.83
3 1 1.4 0.71
4 1 1.6 0.62
5 1 1.8 0.55
6 1 2 0.50

Mechanical properties of X52 steel for NASGROW model. (Harter, 2002; NASA, 2001)

Young’s modulus E (MPa) 200
Poisson’s ratio υ 0.30
Yield stress σY(MPa) 410
Ultimate tensile stress σUTS(MPa) 498
Elongation εf (%) 35
Toughness fracture Kc (Mpa.mm1/2) 95
Threshold Kth (Mpa.mm1/2) 200
p 0.65
q 0.001
C 1.15e-10
n 2.41
eISSN:
2300-7591
Język:
Angielski
Częstotliwość wydawania:
Volume Open
Dziedziny czasopisma:
Engineering, Introductions and Overviews, other