Pressure Vessels

© All Rights Reserved

18 tayangan

Pressure Vessels

© All Rights Reserved

- Theory of Plasticity
- Theories of Failure
- Top 10 Unity Checks for Von Mises Stress Values - Finite Element Analysis
- Plastic Hinge Length of Reinforced Concrete Columns.
- Rolled Shells en 13445-3_7.4.2
- 20161012 - Castigliano Theorem
- Fatigue Thesis
- Constitutive Model for Partially Saturated Soils. ALONSO
- Theories of Failure
- 1-s2.0-S2211379718328997-main.pdf
- Ship_Structures_II - (C.Daley).pdf
- A Critical State Model for Overconsolidated Structured Clays. Suebsuk Et Al. (2011)
- Formado, Trabajo ideal, introducción bloques.
- Metal Plasticity
- Metal Plasticity
- Dowling, Carroll
- Steel Grade Specifications
- 200100-A Plasticity Model With Yield Surface d
- SaudiEndodJ3265-5749814_155818
- Modelo de Coef de Rest

Anda di halaman 1dari 9

of Pipelines

Xian-Kui Zhu

Mem. ASME

e-mail: zhux@battelle.org

Brian N. Leis

Mem. ASME

Battelle Memorial Institute,

505 King Avenue,

Columbus, OH 43221

new yield theory, i.e., the average shear stress yield (ASSY) theory, is proposed in reference to the classical Tresca and von Mises yield theories for isotropic hardening materials. Based on the ASSY theory, a theoretical solution for predicting the burst pressure of

pipelines is obtained as a function of pipe diameter, wall thickness, material hardening

exponent, and ultimate tensile strength. This solution is then validated by experimental

data for various pipeline steels. According to the ASSY yield theory, four failure criteria

are developed for predicting the burst pressure of pipes by the use of commercial finite

element softwares such as ABAQUS and ANSYS, where the von Mises yield theory and the

associated flow rule are adopted as the classical metal plasticity model for isotropic

hardening materials. These failure criteria include the von Mises equivalent stress criterion, the maximum principal stress criterion, the von Mises equivalent strain criterion,

and the maximum tensile strain criterion. Applications demonstrate that the proposed

failure criteria in conjunction with the ABAQUS or ANSYS numerical analysis can effectively

predict the burst pressure of end-capped line pipes. DOI: 10.1115/1.2767352

Keywords: von Mises theory, Tresca theory, ASSY theory, ABAQUS, ANSYS, burst pressure,

pipeline

Introduction

An accurate prediction of the burst pressure of pipelines is very

important in the engineering design and integrity assessment of oil

and gas transmission pipelines. Experimental results showed that

analytical, numerical, and empirical predictions available are generally inconsistent and inaccurate, and have limited applications.

Stewart and Klever 1 pointed out that the theoretical solutions of

burst pressure depend on the yield theory adopted. The Tresca

yield theory generally predicts a lower bound of experimental data

of burst pressure, whereas the von Mises yield theory predicts an

upper bound of burst pressure for end-capped pipes or cylindrical

pressure vessels, as reviewed in Refs. 2,3. This stimulates the

present work to develop a better solution to predict the burst pressure of line pipes.

The application of the finite element analysis FEA to the burst

failure prediction of pipelines with or without corrosion defects

potentially offers greater accuracy, but it requires an appropriate

failure criterion. Such failure criteria available are often related to

the ultimate tensile stress UTS, but inconsistent with each other.

For instance, a pipeline can be considered as a burst failure when

the von Mises equivalent stress on the defect ligament in FEA

simulations reaches the true UTS. This failure criterion was utilized by Fu and Kirkwood 4 for X46 and X60 pipeline steels and

by Karstensen et al. 5 for an X52 pipeline steel in their FEA

predictions of burst pressure. However, Choi et al. 6 predicted

the burst pressure for X65 corroded pipelines using a different

failure criterion in the FEA calculations. They assumed that burst

failure occurs when the von Mises equivalent stress in a defect

reaches 90% of the true UTS for a rectangular defect and 80% of

the true UTS for an elliptical defect. Therefore, further investigaContributed by the Pressure Vessel and Piping Division of ASME for publication

in the JOURNAL OF PRESSURE VESSEL TECHNOLOGY. Manuscript received October 6,

2006; final manuscript received February 22, 2007. Review conducted by G. E. Otto

Widera. Paper presented at the 2006 ASME Pressure Vessels and Piping Conference

PVP2006, Vancouver, BC, Canada, July 2327, 2006.

for the burst pressure prediction of line pipes using the FEA calculations.

As is well known, the commercial finite element software

ABAQUS 22 provides a modified RIKS method for a plastic instability analysis, which can be used to determine global failure

loads for engineering structures. Most commercial FEA packages,

including ABAQUS and ANSYS 23, adopt the classical metal plasticity model, i.e., the von Mises yield theory and the associated

flow rule as its default plasticity model for isotropic hardening

materials. Accordingly, the RIKS method that was built in ABAQUS

can only determine a von Misesbased upper bound solution for

the burst pressure of pipelines, as demonstrated in our recent work

7 for a defect-free pipe. Likewise, Lam et al. 8 showed that the

FEA results of burst pressure determined using ABAQUS and the

RIKS method overestimate the experimental data for thin-wall

cylindrical pressure vessels. This indicates that ABAQUS with the

RIKS method may determine an unreliable FEA result of burst

pressure for end-capped pipes or cylindrical shells.

To effectively predict the actual burst pressure, theoretical and

numerical investigations are carried out for defect-free endcapped pipes in this paper. Based on the proposed average shear

stress yield ASSY theory, a new theoretical solution for the burst

pressure of pipes is obtained and validated by extensive experimental data. Four failure criteria are proposed for the burst pressure prediction in the von Misesbased FEA simulations. These

failure criteria are the von Mises equivalent stress criterion, the

maximum principal stress criterion, the von Mises equivalent

strain criterion, and the maximum tensile strain criterion. Applications of these failure criteria to a numerical analysis for endcapped pipes using ABAQUS and ANSYS are discussed.

In the plasticity analysis of metallic materials, the classical

Tresca and von Mises theories are commonly used. Many experimental investigations have indicated that the test data for initial

yielding and postyielding lie between the Tresca and von Mises

predictions. To more effectively describe the plastic yield behav-

Fig. 1 Three yield theoretical loci and initial yielding experimental data of

Lode 10, Ros and Eichinger 11, Lessels and MacGregor 12, Davis 13,

Marin and Hu 14, and Maxey 15

yield theory, i.e., the ASSY theory for isotropic hardening materials. In the following sections, the ASSY theory is first introduced, and its validations for both initial and subsequent yieldings

are then demonstrated with extensive experimental results.

Average Shear Stress Yield Theory. An average shear stress

A is defined as the average of the maximum shear stress max

and the von Mises equivalent shear stress M . Since the von

Mises shear stress is related to the octahedral shear stress by M

= 3 / 2oct, the average shear stress is a weighted average of the

maximum shear stress and the octahedral shear stress. It is assumed that plastic yielding will occur if the average shear stress of

a material reaches a critical value, namely,

1

A = max +

2

3

oct = Ac

2

theory hereafter. In reference to the uniaxial tension test, the maximum shear stress and the octahedral shear stress at initial yielding

are 0 / 2 and 20 / 3, respectively. Therefore, the critical average

shear stress at yielding is Ac = 2 + 30 / 43, where 0 is the

yield strength of the material in tension.

In the principal stress space 1 , 2 , 3 with an assumption of

1 2 3, from Eq. 1, the ASSY equivalent stress A can be

expressed as

A =

2 + 3

3T + 2 M

where the Tresca equivalent stress T and the von Mises equivalent stress M are defined, respectively, by

T = 2max = 1 3

and

M =

2 oct =

1

1 22 + 2 32 + 3 12 4

2

weighted average of the Tresca equivalent stress and the von

Mises equivalent stress. For the simple tension, from Eq. 2, the

ASSY yield theory can be simplified as A = 0.

Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology

stress condition 3 = 0 and in the principal stress plane 1 , 2,

three yield loci for the Tresca, von Mises, and ASSY theories are

compared with extensive experimental data for tube or pipe specimens in biaxial stress states, as plotted in Fig. 1. In this figure, the

experimental data for initial plastic yielding are taken from the

well-known classical experiments by Lode 10, Ros and Eichinger 11, Lessels and MacGregor 12, Davis 13, and Marin

and Hu 14 for different structural steels and the mill experiment

by Maxey 15 for X52 and X60 pipeline steels. The comparisons

indicate that the ASSY yield locus lies between the Tresca and

von Mises yield loci and provides the best correlation to the average experimental data for all ductile metals considered.

Experimental Validation for Subsequent Yielding. To analyze the subsequent plastic yielding of multiaxial stress states for

isotropic hardening materials, an equivalent strain must be defined

in accordance with its corresponding equivalent stress for a yield

theory. According to the definition of the average shear stress, an

ASSY equivalent strain is defined as the average of the Tresca

equivalent strain and the von Mises equivalent strain,

1

1 1

1

A = T + M =

max + oct

2

2

2 2

where the maximum shear strain max and the octahedral shear

strain oct are expressed, respectively, by

max = 1 3

and

oct =

2

1 22 + 2 32 + 3 12

3

Marin and Hu 14 developed useful experimental data of biaxial stress-strain relations for a mild SAE1020 steel. All test specimens were tubes with a wall thickness of 1.27 mm and an inside

diameter of 25.40 mm, and loaded by the internal pressure and an

axial tension for different constant stress ratios. The experimental

stress-strain curves up to the maximum load were reported in Fig.

1 of their paper in both axial and hoop directions for five loading

cases of S2 / S1 = 0.0, 0.5, 1.0, 2.0, and , where S1 is the hoop

stress and S2 is the axial stress. From these experimental data, the

maximum shear stress max and the maximum shear strain max

NOVEMBER 2007, Vol. 129 / 645

can effectively characterize the initial and subsequent plastic

yielding at the multiaxial stress states for isotropic ductile materials.

ASSY-Based Burst Pressure. Consider a long thin-wall pipe or

pipeline with end caps and subjected to internal pressure. For pure

power-law hardening materials, using the Tresca, von Mises, and

ASSY yield theories, Zhu and Leis 7,9,16 obtained three different theoretical solutions for the burst pressure Pb of the pipe,

which are expressed in the general form of

Pb =

C

2

n+1

4t0

D0 UTS

where t0 is the original thickness, D0 is the original average diameter of the pipe, C is a yield theory-dependent constant with

values as

C=

2/3

UTS

is the engineering UTS, and n is the strain hardening exponent and usually ranges from 0 to 0.3 for most pipeline steels. Our

recent work 17 indicated that for a given yield-to-tensile stress

Y / T ratio, n can be solved from

ey

Y

=

T

n

10a

yield stress defined at the 0.5% total strain, y = 0.005. For the

yield stress defined at the 0.2% offset strain, y = 0.002+ Y / E, with

E being the elastic modulus. Alternatively, n can be approximated

by

n=

at the 0.5 % total strain

0.224T/Y 1

0.604

at the 0.2 % offset strain

10b

At the burst pressure, the equivalent stress, hoop stress, equivalent strain, and hoop strain for the three yield theories were obtained as

eqb =

Fig. 2 Experimental results of biaxial plastic stress-strain relations for five loading cases: a maximum shear stress versus

maximum shear strain; b octahedral shear stress versus octahedral shear strain; c equivalent average shear stress versus equivalent average strain

Fig. 2a; the octahedral shear stress oct and the octahedral shear

strain oct are calculated from Eqs. 4 and 7 and displayed in

Fig. 2b; and the equivalent average shear stress A and the

equivalent average strain A are obtained from Eqs. 1 and 5

and shown in Fig. 2c. These figures show that a the maximum

shear stress-strain curve or the Tresca yield theory can only reasonably correlate the biaxial stress-strain relations, b the octahedral shear stress-strain curve or the von Mises yield theory provides a better correlation for the biaxial stress-strain relations, and

c the equivalent shear stress-strain curve or the ASSY yield

theory provides the best correlation for the biaxial stress-strain

646 / Vol. 129, NOVEMBER 2007

b = 2

C

2

C

2

n+1

eqb =

UTS

UTS

11

12

nC

2

13

n

2

14

b =

where UTS is the true UTS and the correlation between the true

UTS and the engineering UTS is UTS = enUTS

. Note that the true

strain at the UTS in the tension test is similar to the strain hardening exponent for power-law hardening materials. It is interesting that for all three yield theories, the hoop strain of the pipe at

the plastic collapse has the same value of n / 2, which is independent of the yield theory. Therefore, Eq. 14 could be used as a

maximum tensile strain criterion to monitor the maximum pressure in the hydrostatic testing of a pipeline.

Transactions of the ASME

data of Kiefner et al. 18, Amano et al. 19, Maxey 20, and Netto et al. 21

for different pipeline steels

Full-Scale Experimental Validation. Extensive full-scale experimental data for the burst pressure of defect-free pipes were

collected and compared with theoretical solutions in Fig. 3. The

experimental results involve 40 burst tests by Kiefner et al. 18

for pipeline steels with grades ranging from grade B to X65, 12

tests by Amano et al. 19 for X65 and X70 pipeline steels, 3 tests

by Maxey 20 for an X70 pipeline steel, and 1 test by Netto et al.

21 for an AISI 1020 mild steel. Table 1 compares the three

theoretical solutions with the average experimental data of normalized burst pressure for two typical strain hardening exponents:

n = 0.08 0.004 and n = 0.12 0.004. The percentages of errors of

the three predictions with respect to the test data are given in the

table.

Both Fig. 3 and Table 1 demonstrate the excellent agreement

between the proposed ASSY solution and the average experimental data of burst pressure for all pipeline steels considered, including low and high strength grades. It also shows that the von Mises

solution serves as an upper bound and that the Tresca solution

serves as a lower bound of experimental data. Therefore, it is

anticipated that the ASSY yield theory can be used as an effective

tool to predict the actual burst pressure of line pipes in the engineering design and integrity assessment of pipelines.

Elastic and Plastic Deformation Behaviors. For the endcapped pipe, the equivalent stress, hoop stress, equivalent strain,

and hoop strain can be generally expressed for the three yield

theories 9,16 as

eq =

1

D0

=

Pd

C

2t0C

eq = C =

16

normalized dimension ratio, with D being the current average diameter and t being the current wall thickness of the pipe. For the

elastic deformation, the pipe geometry change is small, and thus

d 1. From Eq. 15 and the elastic Hooks law, one obtains the

stress-load and strain-load relations,

1 P

eq

=

C P0

UTS

17

P

UTS

CE P0

18

eq =

As demonstrated above, the ASSY-based solution is an effective

prediction of the burst pressure of pipelines. The following sections investigate failure criteria for the ASSY burst prediction

through the use of the FEA calculations and the von Mises yield

theory for isotropic hardening materials. Four important field

variablesvon Mises equivalent stress, hoop stress, von Mises

equivalent strain, and hoop strainare discussed to develop the

failure criteria for the burst prediction.

C

ln d

2

15

as P0 = 2t0UTS

/ D 0.

For the plastic deformation that is characterized by the powerlaw stress-strain relation, from Eqs. 15 and 16, the stress-load

and strain-load relations can be written as

d P

eq

=

C P0

UTS

19

Tresca

von Mises

ASSY

Hardening

exponent n

Test data

Solution

Error

Solution

Error

Solution

Error

0.08 0.004

0.12 0.004

1.0333

0.9869

0.9461

0.9202

8.44%

6.76%

1.1051

1.0810

6.95%

9.54%

1.0253

1.0003

0.77%

1.35%

three yield theories

eq =

n d

e C

1/n

P

P0

1/n

20

19 reduces to Eq. 17, but Eq. 20 does not reduce to Eq. 18.

This indicates that the stress-load relation in Eq. 19 is satisfied

for both elastic and plastic deformations, but the strain-load relation in Eq. 20 holds only for the plastic deformation. The above

equations are the basis for the following analysis.

Critical D / t Ratio. From Eqs. 16 and 20, one obtains a

relationship between the internal pressure P and the dimension

ratio D / t or d during loading for the three yield theories as follows:

n+1

P 2 C

=

P0 d 2

e

ln d

n

21

dimension ratio d for the von Mises, ASSY, and Tresca theories

according to Eq. 21 for a strain hardening exponent n = 0.15. It is

evident from this figure that when d = e0.15 1.162, the applied

pressure reaches the peak value, and the pipeline burst is initiated

for all three yield theories. Again, the Tresca theory predicts the

lowest burst pressure, the von Mises theory predicts the highest

one, and the ASSY theory predicts an intermediate value. As

shown in Fig. 4, the von Misesbased dimension ratio reaches a

critical value dcM 1.044 at the ASSY burst pressure. If the von

Mises theory is used and its dimension ratio reaches the critical

value, a critical von Mises load that will be equal to the ASSY

burst pressure can be determined, i.e., PcM = PAb at d M = dcM . From

Eqs. 8, 9, and 21, the critical von Mises dimension ratio can

be solved from the following equation:

1

dcM

e

ln dcM

n

2+ 3

4

21, the equivalent stress for the three yield theories is generally

expressed as a function of d,

e

eq

= Cn

ln d

2n

UTS

24

For a given pressure, d is determined from Eq. 21, the equivalent stress is determined from Eq. 24, and the equivalent stress

versus the internal pressure is thus established and shown in Fig.

6 for n = 0.15. In this figure, UTS denotes the engineering UTS. It

is seen that for the von Mises, ASSY, and Tresca yield theories,

the corresponding burst pressures are different significantly, but

the three equivalent stresses are very close to each other at the

burst pressure. From Eq. 11, the von Mises and ASSY equivalent

M

b = 1.070UTS

stresses at the burst failure are eq

and Aeqb

= 1.059UTS

, respectively, for n = 0.15. At the ASSY burst pressure, we can determine a critical von Mises equivalent stress. It is

assumed here that if the von Mises equivalent stress reaches its

critical value during loading, a pipeline burst will be initiated and

the corresponding critical load will be the ASSY burst pressure,

M

M

i.e., PcM = PAb at eq

= eq

c. From Eqs. 2224, the critical von

Mises equivalent stress is obtained as

n+1

22

From the above equation, the variation of dcM with n is illustrated as the square symbols in Fig. 5. Using the least squares

regression to fit the calculated points, an explicit expression of dcM

is obtained as

dcM = 1 + 0.882n1.585

23

For n = 0.15, one yields the critical Mises dimension ratio dcM

1.044 from Eq. 23, which is the same as that graphically determined in Fig. 4. Apparently, the critical Mises dimension ratio

is less than the burst value of the Mises dimension ratio.

648 / Vol. 129, NOVEMBER 2007

strain hardening exponent n

n = 0.15 for three yield theories

M

eq

c = 31 + 0.882n1.585

2+ 3

4 3

n+1

UTS

25

following quadratic polynomial:

M

eq

26

M

From this equation, one obtains eq

c = 0.887UTS

for n = 0.15.

This critical von Mises equivalent stress is less than the von Mises

equivalent stress at the burst failure of about 17%, as illustrated in

Fig. 6. If the true UTS is used, as shown in Fig. 7, Eq. 26

becomes

M

eq

c = 1.259n2 1.308n + 0.932UTS

27

Our companion work 16 has indicated that the ratio of the true

equivalent stress to the true UTS is equal to the ratio of the nominal equivalent stress to the engineering UTS. Therefore, Eq. 27

can be used to define a critical nominal von Mises equivalent

stress in reference to the engineering UTS.

Maximum Principal Stress Criterion. For a pressurized pipeline, the hoop stress is the maximum principal stress. From Eqs.

15 and 21, the hoop stress for the three yield theories is expressed as a function of d,

e

= Cn+1

ln d

2n

UTS

28

From Eqs. 21 and 28, the variations of the hoop stress with

the internal pressure during loading are determined and shown in

Fig. 8 for n = 0.15. It is observed that the three hoop stress versus

internal pressure curves are linear and identical to each other for

loading up to 80% of P0, where the elastic deformation dominates. From Eqs. 15 and 17, one has the linear relationship

/ UTS

= P / P0 for all yield theories. However, the hoop stresses

at the burst failure are significantly different for the three theories.

From Eq. 12, the von Mises and ASSY hoop stresses at the burst

M

are

b = 1.236UTS

and Ab = 1.141UTS

, respectively, for n

= 0.15. At the ASSY burst pressure, one can determine a critical

exponent

= 0.15 for the three yield criteria

von Mises hoop stress. It is assumed that if the von Mises hoop

stress reaches its critical value during loading, a pipeline burst

will occur and the corresponding critical load will be the ASSY

M

M

burst pressure, i.e., PcM = PAb at

=

c. From Eqs. 22, 23,

and 28, the critical von Mises hoop stress is determined and has

M

c = 2 / 3eM c

an equation similar to Eq. 25. Moreover,

holds. From Eq. 26, an approximate explicit equation for the

critical von Mises hoop stress is obtained as

M

29

Using this equation, the critical von Mises hoop stress is obM

tained as

c = 1.025UTS

for n = 0.15. This critical hoop stress

is about 83% of the von Mises burst hoop stress. The big difference is clearly shown in Fig. 8. If the true UTS is used, Eq. 29

becomes

M

c = 1.454n2 1.510n + 1.076UTS

30

Due to the similar reason for the use of Eq. 27, Eq. 30 can

be used to define a critical nominal von Mises hoop stress in

reference to the engineering UTS.

von Mises Equivalent Strain Criterion. Similar to the von

Mises equivalent stress criterion, one can assume that if the von

Mises equivalent strain reaches its critical value, a pipeline burst

will occur and the corresponding critical load will be the ASSY

M

M

burst pressure, i.e., PcM = PAb at eq

= eq

c. From Eqs. 16 and

23, the critical von Mises equivalent strain is obtained as

M

eq

c =

3 ln1 + 0.882n

1.585

31

M

eq

c = 0.443n1.524

32

Maximum Tensile Strain Criterion. For a pressurized pipeline, the maximum tensile strain is the hoop strain. Similarly, one

can assume that if the von Mises hoop strain reaches its critical

value, a pipeline burst will be initiated and the corresponding

critical load will be equal to the ASSY burst pressure, i.e., PcM

M

M

M

= PAb at

=

c. From

c = 3 / 2eM c and Eq. 32, the

critical von Mises hoop strain can be approximated as

M

c = 0.384n1.524

33

equally used to determine the burst pressure of pipes using the

FEA calculations and the von Mises yield theory. Actually, our

experience indicated that the two strain criteria are not as efficient

as the two stress criteria because a small load increase can cause a

large plastic strain increase near the pipe burst. Therefore, only

applications of the two stress failure criteria to the numerical burst

prediction are demonstrated in the next sections.

Finite Element Calculations and Results by ABAQUS. Detailed FEA calculations were performed using the commercial

package ABAQUS Standard 22 for a defect-free pipeline with an

outside diameter of 762 mm and a thickness of 17.53 mm, i.e.,

D / t = 43.5. Due to the negligible axial strain, the long pipe was

simplified as a plane strain problem note that this plane strain

model is equivalent to the axisymmetric model for the pipeline.

Only one quarter of the circular section was modeled because of

symmetry. The uniform FEA mesh has four elements in thickness

and 90 elements in circumferential direction, which lead to 360

elements and 1269 nodes in total. The eight-node quadratic parametric element with reduced integration was used in the numerical

simulation. The applied load was internal pressure only, and the

symmetric displacement boundary conditions were employed in

the FEA model. The elastic-plastic finite strain formulation and

the modified RIKS method built in ABAQUS have been adopted in

the FEA simulation. Since ABAQUS adopts the classical metal plasticity model, i.e., the von Mises yield theory and the associated

flow rule, as its default plasticity model, all calculated results are

the von Misesbased numerical solutions.

The material considered is an X65 pipeline steel. Experimental

data of true stresstrue plastic strain curve for the X65 is shown in

Fig. 9, where the input data of material properties used in the FEA

calculations are also marked. The yield stress defined at the 0.5%

total strain is 508 MPa, the UTS is 645 MPa, and thus Y / T

= 0.788. From Eq. 10a, the strain hardening exponent is estimated as n = 0.113, and the measured value is n = 0.112. In the

FEA calculation, the elastic modulus E = 207 GPa and the Poissons ratio = 0.3. From Eq. 8, the von Mises solution and the

ASSY solution for the burst pressure of this pipe are determined

as PbM = 32.96 MPa and PAb = 30.51 MPa, respectively.

Figure 10 shows the variation of the von Mises equivalent

stress with internal pressure obtained from the FEA calculations

Transactions of the ASME

Fig. 9 True stress versus true plastic strain curve for the X65

pipeline steel

that an excellent agreement exists between the numerical results

and theoretical solutions for a full-range loading from elastic deformation to plastic instability. At plastic instability, the numerical

result of the von Mises pressure is 32.84 MPa, which is almost

identical to its theoretical value of 32.96 MPa. This indicates that

ABAQUS can well predict the von Misesbased stress-load relation

and the burst pressure for defect-free pipelines. From Eq. 26,

M

c

one has the critical von Mises equivalent stress eq

= 0.895UTS

= 577.13 MPa for this X65 pipeline steel. When this

critical von Mises equivalent stress is reached in the FEA simulation, a corresponding critical pressure is obtained as PcM

= 30.85 MPa, which is nearly equal to the ASSY burst pressure of

30.51 MPa. Similarly, the same critical pressure can be determined by the use of the maximum principal stress failure criterion. Therefore, it is concluded that the proposed stress failure

criteria can be effectively used to determine the burst pressure of

pipes in the FEA simulations by ABAQUS, and the burst pressure

for the X65 pipeline is 30.85 MPa.

Finite Element Calculations and Results by ANSYS. Recently,

Xue et al. 24 performed detailed FEA calculations for static and

dynamic burst analyses of a cylindrical shell using the commercial

two FEA codes adopted the von Mises yield theory and the associated flow rule as the classical metal plasticity model. The cylindrical shell is a thin-wall end-capped pipe with a mean diameter

of 606 mm, a wall thickness of 6 mm, and a length of 2400 mm.

The material of the cylinder is a low carbon steel, Q235-A. The

yield stress defined at the 0.2% offset strain is 339.4 MPa, the

UTS is 472 MPa, and Y / T = 0.719. From Eq. 10b, the strain

hardening exponent for this material is estimated as n = 0.127.

From Eq. 8, the theoretical result of the von Mises burst pressure

for this cylinder is determined as 10.06 MPa, and the ASSY burst

pressure for this cylinder is 9.31 MPa. The FEA result of the burst

pressure for this pipe determined in Ref. 24 is 10.0 MPa in the

static analysis using ANSYS and 9.6 MPa in the dynamic analysis

using LS-DYNA. Apparently, these two numerical predictions coincide with the theoretical result of the von Mises burst pressure.

Accordingly, both ANSYS and LS-DYNA can numerically determine

the von Mises burst pressure. Similar to ABAQUS, when the von

Mises equivalent stress criterion or the maximum principal stress

criterion developed previously is used in the FEA simulations, the

actual burst pressure for this cylinder can be similar to the ASSY

burst pressure of 9.31 MPa.

Concluding Remarks

This paper investigated the theoretical and numerical predictions of the accurate burst pressure of pipes or pipelines. Since the

Tresca yield theory predicts a lower bound of burst pressure and

the von Mises yield theory provides an upper bound of burst pressure for pipelines, a new multiaxial yield theory, i.e., the ASSY

theory, was developed for isotropic hardening materials so as to

improve the prediction of burst pressure. The comparisons with

classical experimental data showed that the ASSY yield theory

can much better correlate the stress-strain relations for both initial

yielding and subsequent yielding than the Tresca or von Mises

yield theory can. A theoretical solution of burst pressure based on

the ASSY yield theory was obtained as a function of pipe diameter, wall thickness, material hardening exponent, and ultimate

tensile strength for defect-free pipelines. This solution was validated by extensive experimental data of burst pressure for different pipeline sizes and grades. Therefore, the proposed ASSYbased solution for the burst pressure can be considered as an

effective prediction of burst pressure for pressurized pipes and

pipelines.

Fig. 10 Variation of normalized von Mises equivalent stress with normalized load

for an X65 steel

adopt the von Mises yield criterion and the associated flow rule as

the default plasticity model for isotropic hardening metals, only

the von Misesbased burst pressure of pipes can be determined

using these FEA codes, as shown in the examples. To effectively

predict the actual or ASSY burst pressure using these FEA codes,

four burst failure criteria: the von Mises equivalent stress criterion, the maximum principal stress criterion, the von Mises

equivalent strain criterion, and the maximum tensile strain criterion were developed in reference to the UTS and the strain hardening exponent. The applications showed that the proposed failure

criteria are simple and effective, and can be used to determine the

actual burst pressure of pipelines using ABAQUS or ANSYS. It is

expected that the proposed ASSY theory and the four failure criteria for burst prediction can provide reliable and useful results of

burst pressure for pipes, pipelines, and cylindrical pressure vessels.

Acknowledgment

The support of the U.S. Department of Transportation through

the Broad-Agency Announcement funding is gratefully acknowledged. One of the authors X.K.Z. sincerely thanks Professor

Otto Widera at Marquette University for his useful discussions.

References

1 Stewart, G., and Klever, F. J., 1994, An Analytical Model to Predict the Burst

Capacity of Pipelines, Proceedings of the International Conference of Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering (OMAE), Vol. 5, Houston, TX, February 27March 3, pp. 177188.

2 Law, M., Bowie, G., and Fletcher, L., 2004, Burst Pressure and Failure Strain

in PipelinePart 2: Comparisons of Burst-Pressure and Failure-Strain Formulas, Journal of Pipeline Integrity, 3, pp. 102106.

3 Christopher, T., Sarma, B. R., Potti, P. K. G., Rao, B. N., and Sankaranarayanasamy, K., 2002, A Comparative Study on Failure Pressure Estimations of

Unflawed Cylindrical Vessels, Int. J. Pressure Vessels Piping, 79, pp. 5366.

4 Fu, B., and Kirkwood, M. G., 1995, Determination of Failure Pressure of

Corroded Linepipes Using the Nonlinear Finite Element Method, Proceedings of the Second International Pipeline Technology Conference, Vol. II, Ostend, Belgium, September 11-14, pp. 19.

5 Karstensen, A., Smith, A., and Smith, S., 2001, Corrosion Damage Assessment and Burst Test Validation of 8in X52 Linepipe, Proceedings of ASME

Pressure Velssel and Piping Conference, PVP, Vol. 430, Pressure Vessel and

Piping Design Analysis, Atlanta, GA, July 22-26, , pp. 189194.

6 Choi, J. B., Goo, B. K., Kim, J. C., Kim, Y. J., and Kim, W. S., 2003, Development of Limit Load Solutions for Corroded Gas Pipelines, Int. J. Pressure Vessels Piping, 80, pp. 121128.

7 Zhu, X. K., and Leis, B. N., 2004, Strength Criteria and Analytic Predictions

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

of Failure Pressures in Line Pipes, Int. J. Offshore Polar Eng., 14, pp. 125

131.

Lam, P. S., Morgan, M. J., Imrich, K. J., and Chapman, G. K., 2006. Predicting Tritium and Decay Helium Effects on Burst Properties of Pressure Vessels, Proceedings of the ASME Pressure Vessel Piping Conference, Vancouver, BC, Canada, July 2327, Paper No. PVP2006-ICPVT11-93274.

Zhu, X. K., and Leis, B. N., 2006, Average Shear Stress Yield Criterion and

Its Application to Plastic Collapse Analysis of Pipelines, Int. J. Pressure Vessels Piping, 83, pp. 663671.

Lode, W., 1926, Versuche eber den Einfluss der mittleren Hauptspannung

auf das Fliessen der Metalle Eisen, Kupfer, und Nickel, Z. Phys., 36, pp.

913939.

Ros, M., and Eichinger, A., 1929, Versuche Zur Klaerung der Frage der

Bruchefahr III, Mettalle, Eidgenoss, Material pruf. und Versuchsantalt Industriell Bauwerk und Geerbe, Diskussionsbericht No. 34, Zurich, pp. 359.

Lessels, J. M., and MacGregor, C. W., 1940, Combined Stress Experiments

on a Nickel-Chrome-Molybdenum Steel, J. Franklin Inst., 230, pp. 163180.

Davis, E. A., 1945, Yielding and Fracture of Medium-Carbon Steels under

Combined Stresses, ASME Trans. J. Appl. Mech., 67, pp. A13A24.

Marin, J., and Hu, L. W., 1956, Biaxial Plastic Stress-Strain Relations of a

Mild Steel for Variable Stress Ratios, ASME Trans. J. Appl. Mech., 78, pp.

499509.

Maxey, W. A., 1974, Measurement of Yield Strength in the Mill Expander,

Proceedings of the fifth Symposium on Line Pipe Research, Houston, TX, Nov.

2022, pp. N1N32.

Zhu, X. K., and Leis, B. N., 2005, Analytic Prediction of Plastic Collapse

Failure Pressure of Line Pipes, Proceedings of the ASME Pressure Vessel

Piping Conference, Denver, CO, July 1721, Paper No. PVP2005-71204.

Zhu, X. K., and Leis, B. N., 2005, Influence of Yield-to-Tensile Strength

Ratio on Failure Assessment of Corroded Pipelines, ASME J. Pressure Vessel

Technol., 127, pp. 436442.

Kiefner, J. F., Maxey, W. A., and Duffy, A. R., 1971, The Significance of the

Yield-to-Ultimate Strength Ratio of Line Pipe Materials, Pipeline Research

Committee, American Gas Association, NG18 Report No. 26.

Amano, K., Matsuoka, M., Ishihara, T., Tanaka, K., Inoue, T., Kawaguchi, Y.,

and Tsukanoto, M., 1986, Significance of Yield Ratio Limitation to Plastic

Deformation of Pipeline in High Pressure Proof Test, Proceedings of the

Seventh Symposium on Line Pipe Research, Houston, TX, Oct. 1416, pp.

81821.

Maxey, W. A., 1986, Y / T Significance in Line Pipe, Proceedings of the

Seventh Symposium on Line Pipe Research, Houston, TX, Oct. 1416, pp.

91918.

Netto, T. A., Ferraz, U. S., and Estefen, S. F., 2005, The Effect of Corrosion

Defects in the Burst Pressure of Pipelines, J. Constr. Steel Res., 61, pp.

11851204.

Anon, 2005, ABAQUS Standard Users Manual, Version 6.5, ABAQUS, Inc.,

Pawtucket, RI.

Anon, 2005, ANSYS Users Manual, Revision 10.0, ANSYS, Inc., Canonsburg, PA.

Xue, L., Cheng, C., Widera, G. E. O., and Sang, Z., 2006. Static and Dynamic

Burst Analysis of Cylindrical Shells, Proceedings of the ASME Pressure Vessel Piping Conference, Vancouver, BC, Canada, July 2327, Paper No.

PVP2006-ICPVT11-93247 .

- Theory of PlasticityDiunggah olehGoutham Burra
- Theories of FailureDiunggah olehRaviShankarDuggirala
- Top 10 Unity Checks for Von Mises Stress Values - Finite Element AnalysisDiunggah olehCarlo Dizon
- Plastic Hinge Length of Reinforced Concrete Columns.Diunggah olehnvnrev
- Rolled Shells en 13445-3_7.4.2Diunggah olehmet-calc
- 20161012 - Castigliano TheoremDiunggah olehMuhammad Hidayat
- Fatigue ThesisDiunggah olehdhook_mmm
- Constitutive Model for Partially Saturated Soils. ALONSODiunggah olehDiego Orlando Garzón V
- Theories of FailureDiunggah olehRaj Kumar
- 1-s2.0-S2211379718328997-main.pdfDiunggah olehArik Nauval Anam
- Ship_Structures_II - (C.Daley).pdfDiunggah olehmajdirossross
- A Critical State Model for Overconsolidated Structured Clays. Suebsuk Et Al. (2011)Diunggah olehJesus Gonzalez
- Formado, Trabajo ideal, introducción bloques.Diunggah olehJosé Pablo Ramírez Naranjo
- Metal PlasticityDiunggah olehansta17
- Metal PlasticityDiunggah olehAmando Gallardo
- Dowling, CarrollDiunggah olehtelefonposta
- Steel Grade SpecificationsDiunggah olehSiti Rahayu Permita Sari
- 200100-A Plasticity Model With Yield Surface dDiunggah olehzwenbit
- SaudiEndodJ3265-5749814_155818Diunggah olehMihaela Gherghescu
- Modelo de Coef de RestDiunggah olehNicolas Reh
- Plastic Hinge Length in Reinforced Concrete FlexurDiunggah olehSinem Kocabaş Şirikçi
- Jurnal kompositDiunggah olehShafly Fuadi
- matthew sinclairs assessment 2 labotatory reportDiunggah olehapi-319042534
- IMT5081-01BDiunggah olehIrina Averaldo
- Mechanical Tests (Batch 3)Diunggah olehMyster Reilous
- TutorialDiunggah olehVSColin
- 10 Fracture Mechanisms NotesDiunggah olehKiran Babu Satuluri
- pre_jfs_a_01001_000_000_2014_e_chDiunggah olehBoyke Alexander
- GATE 2012 Question Paper for ME - Mechanical EngineeringDiunggah olehAshok
- Seminarski AleksandarDiunggah olehBojan Markovic

- Belt Drives and Chain DrivesDiunggah olehMohammed Imran
- 1488-5766-1-SMDiunggah olehmrezaian
- NettingDiunggah olehA Lamperouge
- A Dedicated Fourier Analysis for the SimulationDiunggah olehA Lamperouge
- Trigonometry2 Revision SheetDiunggah olehentamobea
- Root Locus - Control Systems.pdfDiunggah olehA Lamperouge
- Chapter 2Diunggah olehA Lamperouge
- MBB2094 Root Locus steady state error improvement.pptDiunggah olehA Lamperouge
- SOL Assignment 4Diunggah olehA Lamperouge
- 67047-Ch14Diunggah olehA Lamperouge
- Which Method of Integral Do You UseDiunggah olehkheper1
- Functions Revision SheetDiunggah olehJasi Ropra
- Integration Results for C3 and C4Diunggah olehshailakapoor

- P-18cDiunggah olehrathish14u
- 2017_EMT475_LAB-01Diunggah olehJazmi Mukhtar
- Introduction to Linear OptimizationDiunggah olehIftikar Alam
- Calculations ReviewDiunggah olehChrissie
- File ExamplesDiunggah olehSudharshanan Bsn
- Impact of Auto-correlation on Expected Maximum DrawdownDiunggah olehPeter Urbani
- A Model for Tutoring the Guided Study Program in System DynamicsDiunggah olehMichael McCurley
- Chapter 3 & 4 Decision AnalysisDiunggah olehIzwan Yusof
- Adaptive Wavelets in Numerical SimulationDiunggah olehJoseph
- Sheaves, Cosheaves and ApplicationsDiunggah olehTa Thanh Dinh
- Sat Math Daily Grade 1Diunggah olehLiezel Colangoy Dacuno
- Soal dan Jawaban RadarDiunggah olehPrita Dewi Mariyam
- 1601Flux trapping in superconducting accelerating cavities during cooling down with a spatial temperature gradient .02118v1Diunggah olehLeonardo Argento
- Digital Holography MicroscopyDiunggah olehRimple Poonia Dabas
- ICMI Study 19: Proof and Proving in Math Education, Proceedings Vol 1Diunggah olehMichael de Villiers
- Methods_to_Increase_Line_Relay_Loadability_6-7-06_%282%29.pdfDiunggah olehblaagica
- Vba Crash CourseDiunggah olehBerrisford Kevin Thomas
- PllDiunggah olehTuấn Anh Nguyễn
- multiplication games for childrenDiunggah olehapi-239232218
- Table of ContentsDiunggah olehVladimir Cosme Torres
- Manual Tambahan GeogebraDiunggah olehpatricius327
- Lab 10Diunggah olehAdrian Murgoci
- Control System QuizDiunggah olehMalik Moazzam
- OutlierDiunggah olehnandini
- SPE-38442-PADiunggah olehAjendra Singh
- 12 ConcepTests ClickersDiunggah olehYaj Bhattacharya
- Heat and Mass TransferDiunggah olehabdullah1s
- Paper Four Component Model for the Assessment of Body Composition in HumansDiunggah olehnutydietsantotomas
- UCLA Probability for Life Sciences SyllabusDiunggah olehIsrael Anido
- Www.inbimmer.com Best2rtlDiunggah olehvicafreak