Anda di halaman 1dari 16

REPORT

1.0 INTRODUCTION
The research objectives of this subtask are:

Evaluate the mass diffusion using numerical simulation on the PE and PA11 pipeline
sections and compare the variations in the amount of gas diffused

Obtain an insight into the degradation of the physical properties of the materials of
pipeline and map the concentration into another simulation

Conduct the XFEM creep analysis in the new simulation to which the concentration due
to mass diffusion has been mapped

In the previous report, a simulation of the mass diffusion of methane has been simulated for
particular conditions. The simulations give us a clear picture on the variation of the gas
concentration along the radial direction of the pipeline and translation of the mass diffusion of
gas in the pipeline to equivalent temperature distribution in the piping system.
This report will present another method to map the concentration of hydrocarbon after the mass
diffusion is done by using the ABAQUS software. Then the XFEM analysis has been done on the
model which now consists of the effects of diffusion of the gas.
2.0 MASS DIFFUSION IN PIPELINES
The mass diffusion of various gases like hydrogen, methane and carbon dioxide has been a great
concern for the increasing deterioration of the life of the polymer pipelines used. The sorption of
gasses in polymer membranes depends strongly on the nature of the polymer, the pressure and
temperature.
In this section of report there is an alternate method that has been studied to map the
concentration of the diffusion to another model and the creep XFEM analysis has been done. In
previous report, we have tried to use the thermal-mass diffusion analogies to create a link
between the mass diffusion and temperature diffusion. This is required because once mass
diffusion is done we will not be able to do further analysis on it to obtain the post diffusion
properties in the materials. Thus it is being converted to an equivalent temperature distribution

and then subjected to mechanical testing, but it was not possible to do complex XFEM analysis
in a thermo-coupled manner hence this new method has been tried out.
3.0 METHODOLOGIES FOR ANALYSIS OF DIFFUSION EFFECT
METHOD 1: THERMO-DIFFUSION ANALOGY
In the previous report a detailed analysis of mass diffusion of gases was done for different cases
and was visualized. In this section we are have made effort to convert the diffusion to equivalent
temperature diffusion. This is done as there is no possibility of doing a post diffusion analysis in
the simulation software. Hence the mass diffusion is converted to a temperature simulation and
then a mechanical analysis is done to obtain the change in properties.
For now the mass diffusion is done and equivalent temperature analysis is done by using direct
analogy which is explained in the upcoming sections. In practice, the thermal diffusion or heat
transfer function can be utilized to simulate mass diffusion through a thermal-mass diffusion
analogy.
The conduction heat transfer equation (1) can be described by Fouriers law,

where T and q are the temperature K and the heat flux W m 2, respectively; inverted delta is the
gradient operator; and k is the thermal conductivity Wm1 K1 for isotropic thermal diffusion, and
its dependency on temperature is negligible in most cases.
Assuming no internal heat generation, the energy balance yields the governing equation (2) of
heat transfer as

where and Cp are the density kg m3 and the specific heat J kg1 K1, respectively. Assuming
that thermal conductivity is uniform, Eqs.1 and 2 yields the well-known heat conduction
equation (3) as

where is the thermal diffusivity m2 s1 defined as =k/ Cp


The mass diffusion equation (4) can be described by Ficks first law as,

where C and J are the moisture concentration kg m3 and the mass flux kg m2 s1, respectively; D
is the diffusivity coefficient m2 s1 of an isotropic-diffusion material, and it is generally a
function of temperature as well as concentration.
Assuming no substance generation, the mass conservation yields the governing equation (5) of
mass diffusion Ficks second law as

With an assumption of uniform diffusivity, Eq. (4) and (5) yield the mass diffusion equation (6)
as,

These equations show us that there can be an equivalent conversion of mass diffusion in terms of
temperature distribution. The analogy is explained in the next subsection.
A thermal-moisture analogy can be established from direct comparison of Eq. (3) and (6). A
direct analogy between the two governing equations can be expressed as
Field variable: T (temperature) = C (concentration)
Diffusion coefficient: (thermal) = D (moisture)

Such an analogy scheme is simple and easy to understand. Equations 3 and 6 were derived based
on the assumption of uniform conductivity and diffusivity. Consequently, this analogy is valid

only when the diffusivity is uniform within a diffusing medium. This implies that the diffusing
medium has to be homogeneous and its temperature field also has to be uniform at a given time
i.e., the temperature field has no spatial variation but can change with time since the diffusion
coefficient is strongly dependent on temperature.
Though this method results in good results it was not possible to conduct a XFEM post thermal
analysis and hence the crack propagation due to creep analysis simulated.
METHOD 2: DIFFUSION MAPPING AND ANALYSIS
This method gives us the capability to map the diffusion results into another model on which any
analysis can be done. This method is widely discussed in this report which has given us a great
insight into the post diffusion XFEM analysis of the pipe section.

Mass diffusion analysis done in pipe


section

Deformation in each node is stored as


seperate job

A new model is created for the XFEM


analysis

The deformation from the is transfered


node-wise to new model
XFEM analysis is done on the new model
which has the deformation values of
diffusion

4.0 MESH TO MESH SOLUTION MAPPING OF CONCENTRATION


The mapping of diffusion solution from diffusion model to another model in which XFEM is to
be done is like a remeshing analysis technique, where a mesh that has deformed significantly
from its original configuration is replaced by a mesh of better quality and the analysis continues.
The solution mapping technique is used when:

elements become so severely distorted during an analysis that they no longer provide a
good discretization of the problem;

maps the solution from an old, deformed mesh to a new mesh so that the analysis can
continue; and

only continuum elements are for analysis.

The interpolation technique used in solution mapping obtains the solution variables at the nodes
of the old mesh by extrapolating all values from the integration points to the nodes of each
element and then averaging these values over all similar elements abutting each node.
Next, the location of each integration point in the new mesh is obtained with respect to the old
mesh:

The element (in the old mesh) in which the point lies is found, and the point's location in
that element is obtained. (This procedure assumes that all integration points in the new
mesh lie within the bounds of the old mesh: warning messages are issued if this is not so,
and the values of the variables are set to zero.)

The variables are then interpolated from the nodes of the old element to the integration
points of the new element.

All necessary variables are interpolated automatically in this way so that the solution can proceed
with the new mesh. This method inputs diffusion in the mapped solution. The effect of the
diffusion scales with the solution gradient in the old mesh, even for regions of the model where
the mesh does not change from the old to the new model, diffusion due to the mapping can result
in significantly different mapped quantities when the old-mesh solution gradient is high. We can

moderate this effect by refining the old mesh in regions where solution gradients are high or by
remeshing earlier model.
The solution mapped from the initial analysis forms the initial conditions for the remeshed
analysis. Initial conditions such as temperature for a pure stress/displacement analysis can be
specified. Any other specified initial conditions will be ignored.
Boundary conditions are not carried over from the old mesh to the new mesh. The boundary
conditions applied at the beginning of the remeshed analysis should normally be the same as
those in effect at the step and increment selected from the initial analysis. Although boundary
conditions can be changed, the problem may fail to converge if the structure is far from an
equilibrium state.
There are no restrictions on applying boundary conditions in a mapped solution analysis.
Boundary conditions can be applied to all available degrees of freedom in the same way as they
are applied in an analysis without a mapped solution.
There are no restrictions on applying loads in a mapped solution analysis. Loads can be applied
in the same way as they are applied in an analysis without a mapped solution.
The loads applied at the beginning of the remeshed analysis should normally be the same as
those in effect at the end of the initial analysis. Although the loads can be changed, the problem
may fail to converge if the structure is far from an equilibrium state.
Temperature and field variables are mapped from the old mesh to the new mesh. If the number of
field variables is changed in the remeshed analysis, the number common to both analyses will be
transferred. Predefined fields can be modified in the same way as they are modified in an
analysis without solution mapping.
Any of the mechanical constitutive models available in Abaqus can be used in a mapped solution
analysis. There is no restriction on agreement between material models in the old and new
analyses. The solution mapping algorithm will transfer those variables common to both models.
You must ensure that the material models are compatible. The solution mapping capability can
be used only with continuum elements.

There is no output specific to a mapped solution analysis. Output can be requested in the same
way as in an analysis without a mapped solution.
*HEADING
*NODE
Data lines to define the new-model nodes occupying the space of the old model in its deformed
configuration
*ELEMENT
Data lines to define the new-model elements occupying the space of the old model
in its deformed configuration
*MAP SOLUTION, STEP=step, INC=inc
translation and rotation data
*STEP
*STATIC (or *COUPLED TEMPERATURE-DISPLACEMENT or *GEOSTATIC or
SOILS or *VISCO)
*END STEP
5.0 SIMULATION OF PIPELINE XFEM CREEP ANALYSIS
5.1 PART 1: MASS DIFFUSION SIMULATION
A simple 3D pipeline section has been modelled in Abaqus software and the values that are
applied are listed below. The values are given for Polyethylene material

Coefficient of diffusivity 1.6 e-7 (methane)


Solubility of material 0.57 (methane)
Steady state
Concentration on the inner edge 0.8
Concentration on the outer edge 0

The geometry, mesh and boundary conditions are shown in Figure 1-3. The concentration
distribution is also shown in Figure 4.

Figure 1: Geometry

Figure 2: Mesh

Figure 3: Loads

Figure 4: Concentration distribution for PE pipeline

5.2 PART 2: XFEM CREEP ANALYSIS


Once the mass diffusion is translated to the new model the Abaqus software is used to do XFEM
creep analysis. In previous reports, important parameters to define the model in Abaqus and
parameter values, final geometry and simulation results are mentioned.
In this report, the complete model is analyzed and the XFEM creep analysis is carried out for
locating the crack propagation and visualizing its effect. The same results can be obtained using

only one-half geometry and lesser number of elements with the help of appropriate boundary
conditions.
The model was mesh was imported from the previous analysis of mass diffusion along with the
node-to-node simulation results. Tet elements were used as body had a curved surface. After
meshing, material model was assigned. The parameters values chosen to define model are as
under.

Mod. of Elasticity 1700 MPa

Poissons Ratio 0.4

Tensile Strength, Ultimate 68.9 MPa

Tensile Strength, Yield 44 MPa

Tangent Mod. 2.5% of Mod. of Elasticity

CZM, Criterion Max. Principal Stress

CZM, Value 52 MPa

CZM, Damage Evolution Energy, Exponential Softening

CZM, Fracture Energy 620 KJ/m2

Later, Boundary conditions were given. The boundary conditions are given to constrain the
model in the DOFs which are as follows:

BCs can only be applied in directions that the element has DoFs.

The flat surfaces at the ends of pipe are completely constrained.

There is pressure load applied to get a solution.

As the diffusion of gas causes degradation in the properties of the material, the two layer of the
pipe are given a decrease in their properties of 6.67% and 3.33% for inner and outer layer
respectively. The figure 5 and 6 shows the two layer defined for different material properties.

Figure 5. First layer with different material properties

Figure 6. Second layer with different material properties

Figure 7. Mapped Geometry

Figure 8. Loading
The red dots shows the Boundary conditions applied and the arrows show the pressure applied
on each of the nodes.

Figure 9. Boundary Condition

Figure 10. Stress Plot withhout mass diffusion

Figure 11. Displacement Plot withhout mass diffusion

Figure 12. Stress Plot with mass diffusion

Figure 11. Displacement Plot with mass diffusion


A pressure load was applied and the results were obtained, further analysis is being conducted to
find the critical parameters which affect the crack propagation. In future report, an detailed
analysis with parametric study can be expected.
5.0 FUTURE DIRECTION OF RESEARCH
The future plan is to find various factors for which affect the crack propagation due to creep in
the pipelines. The mapping of concentration obtained from mass diffusion of the polyethylene
and polyamide11 has been successfully transferred to another model and the XFEM analysis is
done. The simulation presented in this reported only the primitive and would be further research
on how to better them to bring accurate results. As future work we have planned to do a
parametric analysis on the various prime factors affecting the crack growth.
REFERENCES
[1] Duncan, Bruce, Jeannie Urquhart, and Simon Roberts. Review of measurement and
modelling of permeation and diffusion in polymers. Middlesex, UK: National Physical
Laboratory, 2005.

[2] Flaconneche, B., J. Martin, and M. H. Klopffer. "Permeability, diffusion and solubility of
gases in polyethylene, polyamide 11 and poly (vinylidene fluoride)."Oil & Gas Science and
Technology 56.3 (2001): 261-278.
[3] Kristensen, Susanne Brogaard. Diffusion in Flexible Pipes. 2000.
[4] Yoon, Samson, Bongtae Han, and Zhaoyang Wang. "On moisture diffusion modeling using
thermal-moisture analogy." Journal of electronic packaging129.4 (2007): 421-426.
[5] Olden, Vigdis, C. Thaulow, and R. Johnsen. "Modelling of hydrogen diffusion and hydrogen
induced cracking in supermartensitic and duplex stainless steels." Materials & design 29.10
(2008): 1934-1948.
[6] Chen, Jiahui, Leslie S. Loo, and Kean Wang. "A Novel Time Lag Method to Measure the
Permeation of Vapor-Gas Mixtures." Journal of Membrane and Separation Technology 1.2
(2012): 94-99.
[7] Yang, FuQian. "Diffusion-induced stress in inhomogeneous materials: concentrationdependent elastic modulus." Science China Physics, Mechanics and Astronomy 55.6 (2012):
955-962.
[8] Flaconneche, B., J. Martin, and M. H. Klopffer. "Transport properties of gases in polymers:
experimental methods." Oil & Gas Science and Technology 56.3 (2001): 245-259.
[9] Amaro, Robert L., et al. "Modeling the fatigue crack growth of X100 pipeline steel in
gaseous hydrogen." International Journal of Fatigue 59 (2014): 262-271.
[10]

Uilhoorn, Ferdinand E. "Evaluating the risk of hydrate formation in CO 2 pipelines under

transient operation." International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 14 (2013): 177-182.


[11]

Olden, Vigdis, Antonio Alvaro, and Odd M. Akselsen. "Hydrogen diffusion and hydrogen

influenced critical stress intensity in an API X70 pipeline steel welded jointExperiments and
FE simulations." International journal of hydrogen energy37.15 (2012): 11474-11486.
[12]

ABAQUS 6.4, Analysis Users Manual, Sec. 6.8.1.