0

Full Content is available to subscribers

Subscribe/Learn More  >

Comparison of Calculated Crack Growth Values Using Unloading Compliance and d-c EP During SENT Testing

[+] Author Affiliations
Y. Hioe, S. Kalyanam, G. M. Wilkowski

Engineering Mechanics Corporation of Columbus, Columbus, OH

Paper No. IPC2016-64630, pp. V002T06A015; 9 pages
doi:10.1115/IPC2016-64630
From:
  • 2016 11th International Pipeline Conference
  • Volume 2: Pipeline Safety Management Systems; Project Management, Design, Construction and Environmental Issues; Strain Based Design; Risk and Reliability; Northern Offshore and Production Pipelines
  • Calgary, Alberta, Canada, September 26–30, 2016
  • Conference Sponsors: Pipeline Division
  • ISBN: 978-0-7918-5026-6
  • Copyright © 2016 by ASME

abstract

SENT testing has become increasingly important in the characterization of the base, girth weld, and HAZ structural integrity for pipelines that are operational in the low temperature regions, such as the arctic. While the SENB and CT specimens have been used traditionally in the fracture toughness characterization and assessment of pipeline materials and welds, the SENT specimen is better representative of the constraint behavior of surface cracks found in service. Further, the SENT specimen is closer in representing the ductile-to-brittle transition temperature region for the pipe operation.

For strain-based design, ECA, and stress-based fracture analyses of girth weld defects, SENT test results have been found to be more representative of the constraint of a surface crack in a pipe and hence better reflects the material toughness. Typically the CTOD as a function of crack growth is used in girth weld defect analyses, but J-R curves can be calculated at the same time. While several procedures for SENT testing (DNV, Exxon Mobil, CANMET) are currently used in the industry and are based on reliable constitutive behavior, plasticity, and fracture theories and experimental methods, more recently a British Standard (BS8571:2014) has been published. In these procedures, either the d-c EP method or the unloading compliance technique are used to determine the start of ductile tearing and crack growth to arrive at fracture resistance CTOD-R and J-R curves. This paper presents results from comparisons of crack growth predictions where in both techniques were used simultaneously when conducting the SENT tests. Other unique aspects of the comparative methodologies, pros and cons of each of the two methods, guidelines for fracture resistance curve development from SENT testing, and its impact on girth weld, HAZ testing are also discussed.

Copyright © 2016 by ASME

Figures

Tables

Interactive Graphics

Video

Country-Specific Mortality and Growth Failure in Infancy and Yound Children and Association With Material Stature

Use interactive graphics and maps to view and sort country-specific infant and early dhildhood mortality and growth failure data and their association with maternal

NOTE:
Citing articles are presented as examples only. In non-demo SCM6 implementation, integration with CrossRef’s "Cited By" API will populate this tab (http://www.crossref.org/citedby.html).

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In