effects of flaws and corrosion on the structural integrity ... · effects of flaws and corrosion on...

Stijn Hertelé - Lecture Lasgroep Zuid-Limburg - 13 September 2016

Effects of flaws and corrosion

on the structural integrity of welds

Are fitness-for-service standards unambiguous?

What is the role of material properties?

How can experiments help us?

… and how about numerical models?

Prof. dr. ir. Stijn Hertelé

Ghent University, [email protected]

www.soetelaboratory.ugent.be

© U

Gent

–A

ll rig

hts

reserv

ed f

or

all

countr

ies. C

annot

be d

isclo

sed, used,

or

repro

duced w

ithout

prio

r w

ritt

en

specific

auth

orizatio

n o

f U

Gent

–C

ON

FID

EN

TIA

L –

privile

ged in

form

atio

n –

UG

ent

pro

prie

tary

in

form

atio

n.

2

Welds are a potential weakest structural link

Stijn Hertelé - Lecture Lasgroep Zuid-Limburg - 13 September 2016Laboratory Soete – Stijn Hertelé – Public PhD defence – May 22nd, 2012 Image source: lincolnelectric.com

Welder skills?

Welding

parameters?Alignment

of pipes?

Material?

Environment

3

Welds are far from flawless


© U

Gent

–A

ll rig

hts

reserv

ed f

or

all

countr

ies. C

annot

be d

isclo

sed, used,

or

repro

duced w

ithout

prio

r w

ritt

en

specific

auth

orizatio

n o

f U

Gent

–C

ON

FID

EN

TIA

L –

privile

ged in

form

atio

n –

UG

ent

pro

prie

tary

in

form

atio

n.

4

Welds are far from flawless


What made this weld survive 65 years of operation?!

© U

Gent

–A

ll rig

hts

reserv

ed f

or

all

countr

ies. C

annot

be d

isclo

sed, used,

or

repro

duced w

ithout

prio

r w

ritt

en

specific

auth

orizatio

n o

f U

Gent

–C

ON

FID

EN

TIA

L –

privile

ged in

form

atio

n –

UG

ent

pro

prie

tary

in

form

atio

n.

5

Weld defect economics: repair or tolerate a safety risk?


NDT

‘Imperfection’

Accept WMSSafe

Potentially

unsafe (‘defect’)

Perform

ECA? N

Y

Repair

Economical

considerations

ECAAccept Safe

Potentially

unsafe

Repair

Cheap but very conservative

€€€

€€€

€€€

WMS: workmanship

ECA: engineering critical assessment

(= fitness-for-service or FFS)

Source: applusrtd.com

© U

Gent

–A

ll rig

hts

reserv

ed f

or

all

countr

ies. C

annot

be d

isclo

sed, used,

or

repro

duced w

ithout

prio

r w

ritt

en

specific

auth

orizatio

n o

f U

Gent

–C

ON

FID

EN

TIA

L –

privile

ged in

form

atio

n –

UG

ent

pro

prie

tary

in

form

atio

n.

6

Weld economics:

the potential benefit of ECA


Imperfection length 2c

Imperfection

height a

2c

a

WMSsafe

pot. unsafe (defect)

Level 3

Level 2

Level 1

ECA

More input

required

More critical cases

(w.r.t. ease of repair,

number of defects found)

© U

Gent

–A

ll rig

hts

reserv

ed f

or

all

countr

ies. C

annot

be d

isclo

sed, used,

or

repro

duced w

ithout

prio

r w

ritt

en

specific

auth

orizatio

n o

f U

Gent

–C

ON

FID

EN

TIA

L –

privile

ged in

form

atio

n –

UG

ent

pro

prie

tary

in

form

atio

n.

7

Where to search?

Standards for workmanship and fitness-for-service


“Cookbook recepies”

towards weld assessment

© U

Gent

–A

ll rig

hts

reserv

ed f

or

all

countr

ies. C

annot

be d

isclo

sed, used,

or

repro

duced w

ithout

prio

r w

ritt

en

specific

auth

orizatio

n o

f U

Gent

–C

ON

FID

EN

TIA

L –

privile

ged in

form

atio

n –

UG

ent

pro

prie

tary

in

form

atio

n.

8

Cooking can be difficult


Idea:

Result:

Diagnosis:

working with the wrong ingredients

© U

Gent

–A

ll rig

hts

reserv

ed f

or

all

countr

ies. C

annot

be d

isclo

sed, used,

or

repro

duced w

ithout

prio

r w

ritt

en

specific

auth

orizatio

n o

f U

Gent

–C

ON

FID

EN

TIA

L –

privile

ged in

form

atio

n –

UG

ent

pro

prie

tary

in

form

atio

n.

9

Cooking can be difficult


Idea:

Result:

Diagnosis:

working with the wrong ingredients

© U

Gent

–A

ll rig

hts

reserv

ed f

or

all

countr

ies. C

annot

be d

isclo

sed, used,

or

repro

duced w

ithout

prio

r w

ritt

en

specific

auth

orizatio

n o

f U

Gent

–C

ON

FID

EN

TIA

L –

privile

ged in

form

atio

n –

UG

ent

pro

prie

tary

in

form

atio

n.

10

The importance of analysis input (“ingredients”):

Variability of properties hampers a clear-cut analysis


Four macrographs originating from

the same circumferential pipe weld

(having operated for 65 years)

3

6

9

12

© U

Gent

–A

ll rig

hts

reserv

ed f

or

all

countr

ies. C

annot

be d

isclo

sed, used,

or

repro

duced w

ithout

prio

r w

ritt

en

specific

auth

orizatio

n o

f U

Gent

–C

ON

FID

EN

TIA

L –

privile

ged in

form

atio

n –

UG

ent

pro

prie

tary

in

form

atio

n.

11

Current ECA procedures are based on highly

simplified representations of welds (“idealized welds”)


Base

metal

Base

metalWeld

metal

HAZ

(sometimes)

Surface

breaking

defect

© U

Gent

–A

ll rig

hts

reserv

ed f

or

all

countr

ies. C

annot

be d

isclo

sed, used,

or

repro

duced w

ithout

prio

r w

ritt

en

specific

auth

orizatio

n o

f U

Gent

–C

ON

FID

EN

TIA

L –

privile

ged in

form

atio

n –

UG

ent

pro

prie

tary

in

form

atio

n.

12

Measuring is knowing: mechanical testing of welds

provides valuable insights…


… but is expensive!

© U

Gent

–A

ll rig

hts

reserv

ed f

or

all

countr

ies. C

annot

be d

isclo

sed, used,

or

repro

duced w

ithout

prio

r w

ritt

en

specific

auth

orizatio

n o

f U

Gent

–C

ON

FID

EN

TIA

L –

privile

ged in

form

atio

n –

UG

ent

pro

prie

tary

in

form

atio

n.

13

How about numerical modelling as an alternative?


Finite element model of pipe containing a

circumferential weld defect

crap in = crap out

weld with defect

© U

Gent

–A

ll rig

hts

reserv

ed f

or

all

countr

ies. C

annot

be d

isclo

sed, used,

or

repro

duced w

ithout

prio

r w

ritt

en

specific

auth

orizatio

n o

f U

Gent

–C

ON

FID

EN

TIA

L –

privile

ged in

form

atio

n –

UG

ent

pro

prie

tary

in

form

atio

n.

14

Outline of this talk


Experimental

testing

Numerical

modelling

Workmanship

ECAHow to improve?

The role of materials

How to support?

How to validate?How to optimize

result/cost balance?

Two case studies: Weld corrosion assessment

Assessment of heterogeneous welds

15

Who are we?


16

Soete Laboratory is part of Ghent University’s

“Tech Lane Ghent Science Park” site


Soete

Laboratory

Offices

Test hall

17

What’s in a name?


Soete Laboratory

Walter SoeteDirector of lab, 1946-1982

Fracture mechanics pioneer

Emphasis on large scale testing

63 m

1000 m²

Test hall

18

Strategic alliances into metals research


IOF

(Industrieel OnderzoeksFonds)

e.g.:

1st Tacon/MSC seminar

"Industrial examples of structural

integrity of metal structures"

(19/5/2016)

Devoted to

- establishing industrial relations

- screening research opportunities

- contract negotiations

© U

Gent

–A

ll rig

hts

reserv

ed f

or

all

countr

ies. C

annot

be d

isclo

sed, used,

or

repro

duced w

ithout

prio

r w

ritt

en

specific

auth

orizatio

n o

f U

Gent

–C

ON

FID

EN

TIA

L –

privile

ged in

form

atio

n –

UG

ent

pro

prie

tary

in

form

atio

n.

19



Experimental

testing

Numerical

modelling

Workmanship

ECA

20

Fracture mechanics:

adding a dimension to material resistance


Stress

0Yield

strength

Crack driving force

0

Fracture

toughness

e.g.

Crack Tip Opening Displacement

(CTOD)

© U

Gent

–A

ll rig

hts

reserv

ed f

or

all

countr

ies. C

annot

be d

isclo

sed, used,

or

repro

duced w

ithout

prio

r w

ritt

en

specific

auth

orizatio

n o

f U

Gent

–C

ON

FID

EN

TIA

L –

privile

ged in

form

atio

n –

UG

ent

pro

prie

tary

in

form

atio

n.

21

The concept of CTOD


Original crack tip

CTOD

Applied CTOD (as a function of load,

geometry, defect dimensions)

Analytical solutions

Finite element analysis

CTOD toughness

“CTOD testing”

twi-global.com

© U

Gent

–A

ll rig

hts

reserv

ed f

or

all

countr

ies. C

annot

be d

isclo

sed, used,

or

repro

duced w

ithout

prio

r w

ritt

en

specific

auth

orizatio

n o

f U

Gent

–C

ON

FID

EN

TIA

L –

privile

ged in

form

atio

n –

UG

ent

pro

prie

tary

in

form

atio

n.

22

In addition to crack opening, there may be

stable crack extension


© U

Gent

–A

ll rig

hts

reserv

ed f

or

all

countr

ies. C

annot

be d

isclo

sed, used,

or

repro

duced w

ithout

prio

r w

ritt

en

specific

auth

orizatio

n o

f U

Gent

–C

ON

FID

EN

TIA

L –

privile

ged in

form

atio

n –

UG

ent

pro

prie

tary

in

form

atio

n.

Original

notch

CMOD

Crack extension

crack mouth opening displacement

CTOD “ductile tearing”

23

Advanced fracture mechanics concepts take

into account plasticity and stable crack extension


Stress

0Yield

strength

Crack driving force

0

Fracture

toughness

© U

Gent

–A

ll rig

hts

reserv

ed f

or

all

countr

ies. C

annot

be d

isclo

sed, used,

or

repro

duced w

ithout

prio

r w

ritt

en

specific

auth

orizatio

n o

f U

Gent

–C

ON

FID

EN

TIA

L –

privile

ged in

form

atio

n –

UG

ent

pro

prie

tary

in

form

atio

n.

becomes…

strain

stress

crack extension

crack

driving

force

Stress-strain

curve

“R-curve”

becomes…

24

Example R-curve


0

1

2

3

0 1 2

CT

OD

(m

m)

Da (mm)

W2G4

25

ECA is a fracture mechanics based

assessment of structural integrity


Defect

Applied

conditions

Strength

Toughness

ECA

NDT

Laboratory

testing

Compendia

of analytical

solutions © U

Gent

–A

ll rig

hts

reserv

ed f

or

all

countr

ies. C

annot

be d

isclo

sed, used,

or

repro

duced w

ithout

prio

r w

ritt

en

specific

auth

orizatio

n o

f U

Gent

–C

ON

FID

EN

TIA

L –

privile

ged in

form

atio

n –

UG

ent

pro

prie

tary

in

form

atio

n.

26

Essential to ECA:

knowledge of weld properties and validity limits


property 1 (e.g., strength related)

property 2

(e.g., toughness related)

ECA valid

no ECA predictions possible

© U

Gent

–A

ll rig

hts

reserv

ed f

or

all

countr

ies. C

annot

be d

isclo

sed, used,

or

repro

duced w

ithout

prio

r w

ritt

en

specific

auth

orizatio

n o

f U

Gent

–C

ON

FID

EN

TIA

L –

privile

ged in

form

atio

n –

UG

ent

pro

prie

tary

in

form

atio

n.

27

Example ECA procedure:

the Failure Assessment Diagram


Source: Zerbst et al., Int J Press Vess Pip 77 (2000).

© U

Gent

–A

ll rig

hts

reserv

ed f

or

all

countr

ies. C

annot

be d

isclo

sed, used,

or

repro

duced w

ithout

prio

r w

ritt

en

specific

auth

orizatio

n o

f U

Gent

–C

ON

FID

EN

TIA

L –

privile

ged in

form

atio

n –

UG

ent

pro

prie

tary

in

form

atio

n.

28

Workmanship should be associated with little or no

validity criteria


property 1 (e.g., strength related)

property 2

(e.g., toughness related)

Workmanship valid

This comes

at the cost of

high conservatism

© U

Gent

–A

ll rig

hts

reserv

ed f

or

all

countr

ies. C

annot

be d

isclo

sed, used,

or

repro

duced w

ithout

prio

r w

ritt

en

specific

auth

orizatio

n o

f U

Gent

–C

ON

FID

EN

TIA

L –

privile

ged in

form

atio

n –

UG

ent

pro

prie

tary

in

form

atio

n.

29

Example WMS rule


Source: API 1104 - 2013

© U

Gent

–A

ll rig

hts

reserv

ed f

or

all

countr

ies. C

annot

be d

isclo

sed, used,

or

repro

duced w

ithout

prio

r w

ritt

en

specific

auth

orizatio

n o

f U

Gent

–C

ON

FID

EN

TIA

L –

privile

ged in

form

atio

n –

UG

ent

pro

prie

tary

in

form

atio

n.

30

Ghent University and WMS:The EPRG Tier 2 guidelines for weld defect assessment


© U

Gent

–A

ll rig

hts

reserv

ed f

or

all

countr

ies. C

annot

be d

isclo

sed, used,

or

repro

duced w

ithout

prio

r w

ritt

en

specific

auth

orizatio

n o

f U

Gent

–C

ON

FID

EN

TIA

L –

privile

ged in

form

atio

n –

UG

ent

pro

prie

tary

in

form

atio

n.

Flaw length

(mm)

Flaw

depth

(mm)

Weld should be overmatching in

strength

CVN > 30 J / 40 J

(min. / average of three tests)

Y/T < 0.90

and some other restrictions

t

3

4

5

3t 5t 7t

SAFE

POTENTIALLY

UNSAFE

31



Experimental

testing

Numerical

modelling

Workmanship

ECA

32

Two purposes of experimental testing


Supporting an analytical ECA or workmanship analysis

(establishing validity)

Small scale, standardized testing

Eliminating the need for analytics

(Experimental level 3 ECA)

Large (preferably full) scale,

non-standardized testing

twi-global.com

© U

Gent

–A

ll rig

hts

reserv

ed f

or

all

countr

ies. C

annot

be d

isclo

sed, used,

or

repro

duced w

ithout

prio

r w

ritt

en

specific

auth

orizatio

n o

f U

Gent

–C

ON

FID

EN

TIA

L –

privile

ged in

form

atio

n –

UG

ent

pro

prie

tary

in

form

atio

n.

33

The result of an experiment is nothing more than the

collection of recorded signals


© U

Gent

–A

ll rig

hts

reserv

ed f

or

all

countr

ies. C

annot

be d

isclo

sed, used,

or

repro

duced w

ithout

prio

r w

ritt

en

specific

auth

orizatio

n o

f U

Gent

–C

ON

FID

EN

TIA

L –

privile

ged in

form

atio

n –

UG

ent

pro

prie

tary

in

form

atio

n.

Electrical signals(e.g. voltages)

Visual information(e.g. fracture surface)

0

0.5

0

1400000

0 3500

Voltage(V)

Time (s)

Load cellClip gauge

34

Mechanical experiments are expensive:

try to maximize their output!


Two strategies:

Advanced test settings

Increasing the number of sensors

© U

Gent

–A

ll rig

hts

reserv

ed f

or

all

countr

ies. C

annot

be d

isclo

sed, used,

or

repro

duced w

ithout

prio

r w

ritt

en

specific

auth

orizatio

n o

f U

Gent

–C

ON

FID

EN

TIA

L –

privile

ged in

form

atio

n –

UG

ent

pro

prie

tary

in

form

atio

n.

Crack extension characterization by means of stiffness

(“unloading compliance”)

35

Crack depth is related to stiffness

Stiffness is measured by unloading compliance


© U

Gent

–A

ll rig

hts

reserv

ed f

or

all

countr

ies. C

annot

be d

isclo

sed, used,

or

repro

duced w

ithout

prio

r w

ritt

en

specific

auth

orizatio

n o

f U

Gent

–C

ON

FID

EN

TIA

L –

privile

ged in

form

atio

n –

UG

ent

pro

prie

tary

in

form

atio

n.

2WP2

0

500

1000

1500

0.00 1.00 2.00

CMOD (mm)

Fo

rce

(kN

) 1/UC

CMOD: crack mouth opening displacement

36

Unloading compliance testing:

Specimen is “breathing”


© U

Gent

–A

ll rig

hts

reserv

ed f

or

all

countr

ies. C

annot

be d

isclo

sed, used,

or

repro

duced w

ithout

prio

r w

ritt

en

specific

auth

orizatio

n o

f U

Gent

–C

ON

FID

EN

TIA

L –

privile

ged in

form

atio

n –

UG

ent

pro

prie

tary

in

form

atio

n.

37

Compliance increases as a crack extends


© U

Gent

–A

ll rig

hts

reserv

ed f

or

all

countr

ies. C

annot

be d

isclo

sed, used,

or

repro

duced w

ithout

prio

r w

ritt

en

specific

auth

orizatio

n o

f U

Gent

–C

ON

FID

EN

TIA

L –

privile

ged in

form

atio

n –

UG

ent

pro

prie

tary

in

form

atio

n.

0.05

0.10

0.15

0% 2% 4%

Applied strain (%)

Unlo

ad

ing c

om

plia

nce (

µm

/kN

)

Crack

extends

1/UC

38

Mechanical experiments are expensive:

try to maximize their output!


Two strategies:

Advanced test settings

Increasing the number of sensors

© U

Gent

–A

ll rig

hts

reserv

ed f

or

all

countr

ies. C

annot

be d

isclo

sed, used,

or

repro

duced w

ithout

prio

r w

ritt

en

specific

auth

orizatio

n o

f U

Gent

–C

ON

FID

EN

TIA

L –

privile

ged in

form

atio

n –

UG

ent

pro

prie

tary

in

form

atio

n.

Crack growth characterization by means of stiffness

(“unloading compliance”)

Multiphysics approach: e.g. optical measurements

39

3D Digital image correlation (DIC):

optical profilometry and full field strain analysis


© U

Gent

–A

ll rig

hts

reserv

ed f

or

all

countr

ies. C

annot

be d

isclo

sed, used,

or

repro

duced w

ithout

prio

r w

ritt

en

specific

auth

orizatio

n o

f U

Gent

–C

ON

FID

EN

TIA

L –

privile

ged in

form

atio

n –

UG

ent

pro

prie

tary

in

form

atio

n.

2 cameras

(3D view)

Digital image correlation

software

Undeformed

specimen

Reference

Deformed

specimen

In-plane strains

40

Size doesn’t matter


© U

Gent

–A

ll rig

hts

reserv

ed f

or

all

countr

ies. C

annot

be d

isclo

sed, used,

or

repro

duced w

ithout

prio

r w

ritt

en

specific

auth

orizatio

n o

f U

Gent

–C

ON

FID

EN

TIA

L –

privile

ged in

form

atio

n –

UG

ent

pro

prie

tary

in

form

atio

n.

Miniature tension test

Cross weld tension test

Single-edge notched tension

(SENT) test

Medium curved wide plate

(MWP) test

Full scale pipe tension test

15 mm

15 mm

150 mm

200 mm

2 mm

41

Case study where DIC aided the interpretation of an

(expensive) test


© U

Gent

–A

ll rig

hts

reserv

ed f

or

all

countr

ies. C

annot

be d

isclo

sed, used,

or

repro

duced w

ithout

prio

r w

ritt

en

specific

auth

orizatio

n o

f U

Gent

–C

ON

FID

EN

TIA

L –

privile

ged in

form

atio

n –

UG

ent

pro

prie

tary

in

form

atio

n.

Miniature tension test

Cross weld tension test

Single-edge notched tension

(SENT) test

Medium curved wide plate

(MWP) test

Full scale pipe tension test 200 mm

42

Widened pipe connection – old practice (1920s)


© U

Gent

–A

ll rig

hts

reserv

ed f

or

all

countr

ies. C

annot

be d

isclo

sed, used,

or

repro

duced w

ithout

prio

r w

ritt

en

specific

auth

orizatio

n o

f U

Gent

–C

ON

FID

EN

TIA

L –

privile

ged in

form

atio

n –

UG

ent

pro

prie

tary

in

form

atio

n.

OD 265 mm

WT 7 mm

where would you think it may fail under tension load?

43

DIC reveals the weakest spots of this connection


© U

Gent

–A

ll rig

hts

reserv

ed f

or

all

countr

ies. C

annot

be d

isclo

sed, used,

or

repro

duced w

ithout

prio

r w

ritt

en

specific

auth

orizatio

n o

f U

Gent

–C

ON

FID

EN

TIA

L –

privile

ged in

form

atio

n –

UG

ent

pro

prie

tary

in

form

atio

n.

44



Experimental

testing

Workmanship

ECA

Case study 1: Weld corrosion assessment

45Stijn Hertelé - Lecture Lasgroep Zuid-Limburg - 13 September 2016

Pipe corrosion management

Underground pipelines are protected against corrosion by two barriers:

‣ a protective coating.

‣ a cathodic protection system (CP).

Coating on a pipe is usually applied in the pipe mill while coating on the

girth weld is applied on site usually in lesser controlled conditions

corrosion concentrates in the girth weld area.

In some cases this can lead to shielding

of the cathodic protection system and result in corrosion.

Example of a defective

girth weld coating

© U

Gent

–A

ll rig

hts

reserv

ed f

or

all

countr

ies. C

annot

be d

isclo

sed, used,

or

repro

duced w

ithout

prio

r w

ritt

en

specific

auth

orizatio

n o

f U

Gent

–C

ON

FID

EN

TIA

L –

privile

ged in

form

atio

n –

UG

ent

pro

prie

tary

in

form

atio

n.


Standards cookbook?

Freedom in choosing ingredients

In practice…

Extract from ASME B31G-2012

(Manual for determining the

remaining strength of corroded pipelines)

Specification for weld material in 1966

was 28J Charpy U (1/1, -20°C)

All very nice and well

but is this weld tough

enough?

constructed in 1966

© U

Gent

–A

ll rig

hts

reserv

ed f

or

all

countr

ies. C

annot

be d

isclo

sed, used,

or

repro

duced w

ithout

prio

r w

ritt

en

specific

auth

orizatio

n o

f U

Gent

–C

ON

FID

EN

TIA

L –

privile

ged in

form

atio

n –

UG

ent

pro

prie

tary

in

form

atio

n.


The effect on maintenance economics is significant

From the specifications: ASME B31 G code can be applied on pipelines

constructed in 1983 and later.

For pipelines constructed before this date: unclear if toughness criterion

could be met decided to accept only metal loss in the girth weld cap.

Corrosion limit for

pre-1983 pipe

About 6 – 9 cut outs per year, representing 120 – 180 k€ maintenance cost.

© U

Gent

–A

ll rig

hts

reserv

ed f

or

all

countr

ies. C

annot

be d

isclo

sed, used,

or

repro

duced w

ithout

prio

r w

ritt

en

specific

auth

orizatio

n o

f U

Gent

–C

ON

FID

EN

TIA

L –

privile

ged in

form

atio

n –

UG

ent

pro

prie

tary

in

form

atio

n.


Unacceptable weld, according to the Fluxys criterion

3D profilometry (DIC)

© U

Gent

–A

ll rig

hts

reserv

ed f

or

all

countr

ies. C

annot

be d

isclo

sed, used,

or

repro

duced w

ithout

prio

r w

ritt

en

specific

auth

orizatio

n o

f U

Gent

–C

ON

FID

EN

TIA

L –

privile

ged in

form

atio

n –

UG

ent

pro

prie

tary

in

form

atio

n.


Launch of experimental research program (2012-2015)

Indications from literature:

“20% - 30% metal loss is acceptable independent of toughness”

Question to Soete Laboratory to investigate:

• how conservative is current Fluxys practice?

• hypothesized workmanship criterion:“20% metal loss on a girth weld is acceptable independent of toughness”

• effects of geometry and material (ECA procedure)?

© U

Gent

–A

ll rig

hts

reserv

ed f

or

all

countr

ies. C

annot

be d

isclo

sed, used,

or

repro

duced w

ithout

prio

r w

ritt

en

specific

auth

orizatio

n o

f U

Gent

–C

ON

FID

EN

TIA

L –

privile

ged in

form

atio

n –

UG

ent

pro

prie

tary

in

form

atio

n.


Launch of experimental research program (2012-2015)

Focus on weld related properties

Geometry misalignment (hi-lo)

corrosion metal loss

Material toughness (Charpy V-notch)

weld strength mismatch

Load residual stresses

Experimental

testing

Workmanship

ECA

© U

Gent

–A

ll rig

hts

reserv

ed f

or

all

countr

ies. C

annot

be d

isclo

sed, used,

or

repro

duced w

ithout

prio

r w

ritt

en

specific

auth

orizatio

n o

f U

Gent

–C

ON

FID

EN

TIA

L –

privile

ged in

form

atio

n –

UG

ent

pro

prie

tary

in

form

atio

n.

51

Experimental

programme

Trends &

influences

Workmanship &

ECA

A look into the

future

Workmanship and ECA of corroded girth welds

52

Experimental

programme

Trends &

influences

Workmanship &

ECA

A look into the

future



Ten girth welds were extracted from the

Belgian gas grid

Weld

number

API 5L

gradePipe seam

OD

(”)

WT

(mm)

1 X46 Seamless 14 6.4

2 X60 S-SAW 20 5.6

3 X60 S-SAW 20 5.6

4 X60 L-SAW 16 6.5

5 X60 L-SAW 20 7.2

6 X46 Seamless 14 6.4

7 X60 D-SAW 36 10.2

8 X60 D-SAW 36 12.2

9 X60 D-SAW 36 10.2

10 X60 D-SAW 36 12.2

Years of installation:

1960’s-70’s

© U

Gent

–A

ll rig

hts

reserv

ed f

or

all

countr

ies. C

annot

be d

isclo

sed, used,

or

repro

duced w

ithout

prio

r w

ritt

en

specific

auth

orizatio

n o

f U

Gent

–C

ON

FID

EN

TIA

L –

privile

ged in

form

atio

n –

UG

ent

pro

prie

tary

in

form

atio

n.


Mechanical properties in a nutshell:

what you can expect from vintage pipe

Low Y/Tbetween 0.67 and 0.83

High ductilityuniform elongation > 0.10

Wide range of weld strength mismatchbetween –4% (undermatch)

and 50% (overmatch)

Potentially ‘low’ CVN toughnessminimum @ 20°C: 32 J

(full size equivalent)

© U

Gent

–A

ll rig

hts

reserv

ed f

or

all

countr

ies. C

annot

be d

isclo

sed, used,

or

repro

duced w

ithout

prio

r w

ritt

en

specific

auth

orizatio

n o

f U

Gent

–C

ON

FID

EN

TIA

L –

privile

ged in

form

atio

n –

UG

ent

pro

prie

tary

in

form

atio

n.


Vickers hardness mapping reveals significant

heterogeneity in some tested welds

HV5

150 216 5 mm

How to uniquely quantify weld strength mismatch?

© U

Gent

–A

ll rig

hts

reserv

ed f

or

all

countr

ies. C

annot

be d

isclo

sed, used,

or

repro

duced w

ithout

prio

r w

ritt

en

specific

auth

orizatio

n o

f U

Gent

–C

ON

FID

EN

TIA

L –

privile

ged in

form

atio

n –

UG

ent

pro

prie

tary

in

form

atio

n.


Simulation of weld and HAZ corrosion attack by

milling away material

base metal /

HAZ weld metal

5 mm

base metal /

HAZ

Reduction between 5% and 36% of wall thickness

Not representative for SCC or other sharp corrosion forms!

© U

Gent

–A

ll rig

hts

reserv

ed f

or

all

countr

ies. C

annot

be d

isclo

sed, used,

or

repro

duced w

ithout

prio

r w

ritt

en

specific

auth

orizatio

n o

f U

Gent

–C

ON

FID

EN

TIA

L –

privile

ged in

form

atio

n –

UG

ent

pro

prie

tary

in

form

atio

n.


Depth of weld metal loss:

average of three paths

0

1

2

3

4

0 10 20 30 40 50

Pro

file

(m

m)

Needle traverse (mm)

Left

Center

Right

“left”

“right”

“center”

Traverse (mm)

pipe A

(hi)

pipe B

(lo)weld

© U

Gent

–A

ll rig

hts

reserv

ed f

or

all

countr

ies. C

annot

be d

isclo

sed, used,

or

repro

duced w

ithout

prio

r w

ritt

en

specific

auth

orizatio

n o

f U

Gent

–C

ON

FID

EN

TIA

L –

privile

ged in

form

atio

n –

UG

ent

pro

prie

tary

in

form

atio

n.


Thirty-three “medium wide plate” tests

have been performed

Soete Laboratory’s

2.5 MN universal test rig

500

mm

120 mm ( 20” OD pipe)

150 mm (36” OD pipe)

Tension load

blunt “corrosion”

damage (machined)

girth weld

© U

Gent

–A

ll rig

hts

reserv

ed f

or

all

countr

ies. C

annot

be d

isclo

sed, used,

or

repro

duced w

ithout

prio

r w

ritt

en

specific

auth

orizatio

n o

f U

Gent

–C

ON

FID

EN

TIA

L –

privile

ged in

form

atio

n –

UG

ent

pro

prie

tary

in

form

atio

n.


3D digital image correlation for profilometry and

full field strain analysis

Axial strain0% 13%

Flattening of misaligned girth weld,

associated with plastic strain

concentration

© U

Gent

–A

ll rig

hts

reserv

ed f

or

all

countr

ies. C

annot

be d

isclo

sed, used,

or

repro

duced w

ithout

prio

r w

ritt

en

specific

auth

orizatio

n o

f U

Gent

–C

ON

FID

EN

TIA

L –

privile

ged in

form

atio

n –

UG

ent

pro

prie

tary

in

form

atio

n.


Example test

© U

Gent

–A

ll rig

hts

reserv

ed f

or

all

countr

ies. C

annot

be d

isclo

sed, used,

or

repro

duced w

ithout

prio

r w

ritt

en

specific

auth

orizatio

n o

f U

Gent

–C

ON

FID

EN

TIA

L –

privile

ged in

form

atio

n –

UG

ent

pro

prie

tary

in

form

atio

n.

61

Experimental

programme

Trends &

influences

Workmanship &

ECA

A look into the

future



Assessment criterion: gross section yielding

Rp0.2,A Rp0.2,B

Pipe ‘A’ Pipe ‘B’

Weld acceptable if

Relative failure stress > 100%

Failure stress

min(Rp0.2,A, Rp0.2,B)

Displacement (mm)

Stress (MPa)

Rp0.2,A

Rp0.2,B

© U

Gent

–A

ll rig

hts

reserv

ed f

or

all

countr

ies. C

annot

be d

isclo

sed, used,

or

repro

duced w

ithout

prio

r w

ritt

en

specific

auth

orizatio

n o

f U

Gent

–C

ON

FID

EN

TIA

L –

privile

ged in

form

atio

n –

UG

ent

pro

prie

tary

in

form

atio

n.


Load bearing capacity decreases as

wall thickness reduction is increased

80

90

100

110

120

130

140

150

160

0 10 20 30 40

Rela

tive fail

ure

str

ess (%

)

Relative wall thickness reduction (%)

Gross section yielding

(axial stress =

yield strength weakest plate)

Relative

failure

stress (%)

workmanship?

reason for scatter?

(ECA)

© U

Gent

–A

ll rig

hts

reserv

ed f

or

all

countr

ies. C

annot

be d

isclo

sed, used,

or

repro

duced w

ithout

prio

r w

ritt

en

specific

auth

orizatio

n o

f U

Gent

–C

ON

FID

EN

TIA

L –

privile

ged in

form

atio

n –

UG

ent

pro

prie

tary

in

form

atio

n.


Three weld related influence factors

were identified

High weld strength overmatchReduces strain in weld

Low pipe steel Y/T-ratioReduces strain in HAZ

Low weld misalignmentAvoids local bending strains in weld

© U

Gent

–A

ll rig

hts

reserv

ed f

or

all

countr

ies. C

annot

be d

isclo

sed, used,

or

repro

duced w

ithout

prio

r w

ritt

en

specific

auth

orizatio

n o

f U

Gent

–C

ON

FID

EN

TIA

L –

privile

ged in

form

atio

n –

UG

ent

pro

prie

tary

in

form

atio

n.


Toughness was of no role for the tests performed!

(important w.r.t. workmanship criterion)

0

5

10

15

30 40 50 60 70

Wel

d s

trai

n a

t fa

ilure

(%

)

Min. CVN energy (J)(20 C, WMC & HAZ, full size equiv.)

No trend visible

DIC contours:longitudinal strain

‘Virtual clip gauge’

Weld strainat failure (%)

Weld strain

at maximum load

(%)

‘Virtual extensometer’

All tests

collapse dominated

© U

Gent

–A

ll rig

hts

reserv

ed f

or

all

countr

ies. C

annot

be d

isclo

sed, used,

or

repro

duced w

ithout

prio

r w

ritt

en

specific

auth

orizatio

n o

f U

Gent

–C

ON

FID

EN

TIA

L –

privile

ged in

form

atio

n –

UG

ent

pro

prie

tary

in

form

atio

n.


Understanding a “poor” weld required

detailed knowledge of material behaviour

80

90

100

110

120

130

140

150

160

0 10 20 30 40

Rela

tive fail

ure

str

ess (%

)


Little misalignment

Strain hardening reasonable

Strength overmatching weld

why at the lower bound

of the scatter band?

© U

Gent

–A

ll rig

hts

reserv

ed f

or

all

countr

ies. C

annot

be d

isclo

sed, used,

or

repro

duced w

ithout

prio

r w

ritt

en

specific

auth

orizatio

n o

f U

Gent

–C

ON

FID

EN

TIA

L –

privile

ged in

form

atio

n –

UG

ent

pro

prie

tary

in

form

atio

n.


The “poor” weld is strength overmatching,

but highly heterogeneous

HV5

150 216 5 mm

Undamaged: 5.4% overmatch average (based on HV) © U

Gent

–A

ll rig

hts

reserv

ed f

or

all

countr

ies. C

annot

be d

isclo

sed, used,

or

repro

duced w

ithout

prio

r w

ritt

en

specific

auth

orizatio

n o

f U

Gent

–C

ON

FID

EN

TIA

L –

privile

ged in

form

atio

n –

UG

ent

pro

prie

tary

in

form

atio

n.


After application of weld metal loss, its

strength properties are suddenly weak

© U

Gent

–A

ll rig

hts

reserv

ed f

or

all

countr

ies. C

annot

be d

isclo

sed, used,

or

repro

duced w

ithout

prio

r w

ritt

en

specific

auth

orizatio

n o

f U

Gent

–C

ON

FID

EN

TIA

L –

privile

ged in

form

atio

n –

UG

ent

pro

prie

tary

in

form

atio

n.

HV5

150 216 5 mm

After metal loss: 2.5% undermatch average


First

principal

strain (-)

0.13

Undeformed

Deformed (close to failure)

Misalignment has

flattened out

Severe local bending,

which contributes to failure

Initial misalignment:

25% of wall thickness

Severe misalignment is detrimental to load bearing

capacity

0.00

© U

Gent

–A

ll rig

hts

reserv

ed f

or

all

countr

ies. C

annot

be d

isclo

sed, used,

or

repro

duced w

ithout

prio

r w

ritt

en

specific

auth

orizatio

n o

f U

Gent

–C

ON

FID

EN

TIA

L –

privile

ged in

form

atio

n –

UG

ent

pro

prie

tary

in

form

atio

n.

70

Experimental

programme

Trends &

influences

Workmanship &

ECA

A look into the

future




Workmanship criterion:

It’s all about easy validity limits!

80

90

100

110

120

130

140

150

160

0 10 20 30 40

Rela

tive fail

ure

str

ess (%

)


Relative

failure

stress (%)

workmanship?

20% wall thickness

reduction is acceptable,

provided…

- weld is evenmatching

- weld is free of defects

- toughness criterion?

Preferably not!

© U

Gent

–A

ll rig

hts

reserv

ed f

or

all

countr

ies. C

annot

be d

isclo

sed, used,

or

repro

duced w

ithout

prio

r w

ritt

en

specific

auth

orizatio

n o

f U

Gent

–C

ON

FID

EN

TIA

L –

privile

ged in

form

atio

n –

UG

ent

pro

prie

tary

in

form

atio

n.

72

Can effects of key influence

parameters be

objectively

conservatively

predicted?

Soundness of

collapse based approach

Safe practical applicability

ECA: calculations should be safe and sound


© U

Gent

–A

ll rig

hts

reserv

ed f

or

all

countr

ies. C

annot

be d

isclo

sed, used,

or

repro

duced w

ithout

prio

r w

ritt

en

specific

auth

orizatio

n o

f U

Gent

–C

ON

FID

EN

TIA

L –

privile

ged in

form

atio

n –

UG

ent

pro

prie

tary

in

form

atio

n.

73

Plastic collapse assessment according to

BS7910:2013 – reference stress approach

max,a

f

a

ref

Reference stress

Applied primary stress Failure stress

Flow stress


© U

Gent

–A

ll rig

hts

reserv

ed f

or

all

countr

ies. C

annot

be d

isclo

sed, used,

or

repro

duced w

ithout

prio

r w

ritt

en

specific

auth

orizatio

n o

f U

Gent

–C

ON

FID

EN

TIA

L –

privile

ged in

form

atio

n –

UG

ent

pro

prie

tary

in

form

atio

n.

74

max,a

f

a

ref

Reference stress


Flow stress

= f(geometry)

(NOT: residual stress)




© U

Gent

–A

ll rig

hts

reserv

ed f

or

all

countr

ies. C

annot

be d

isclo

sed, used,

or

repro

duced w

ithout

prio

r w

ritt

en

specific

auth

orizatio

n o

f U

Gent

–C

ON

FID

EN

TIA

L –

privile

ged in

form

atio

n –

UG

ent

pro

prie

tary

in

form

atio

n.

75

Time to introduce some symbols

average thickness B = (B1 + B2)/2

relative wall thickness reduction a/B

misalignment e/B

metal loss width 2c/W

ecap

eB1

B2

a

0

1

2

3

4

0 10 20 30 40 50

Pro

file

(m

m)

Needle traverse (mm)

Path i

Path ii

Path iii

Variation

of weld

misalignment

Damage depth

a (mm)

Position in direction transverse to weld (mm)

Metal

loss

Three

paths

(i, ii, iii)

2c

W

Average

hi-lo

ecap (mm)


© U

Gent

–A

ll rig

hts

reserv

ed f

or

all

countr

ies. C

annot

be d

isclo

sed, used,

or

repro

duced w

ithout

prio

r w

ritt

en

specific

auth

orizatio

n o

f U

Gent

–C

ON

FID

EN

TIA

L –

privile

ged in

form

atio

n –

UG

ent

pro

prie

tary

in

form

atio

n.

76

Reference stress solution for tension (a) and

bending (b) loaded plates showing metal loss

2

5.0

2

2

"13

"19

a

b

a

b

a

ref

” function of defect dimensions

a/B, 2c/W, a/2c(Willoughby and Davey, 1989)

Local misalignment bending stress

(linear-elastic solution in BS7910:2013)


© U

Gent

–A

ll rig

hts

reserv

ed f

or

all

countr

ies. C

annot

be d

isclo

sed, used,

or

repro

duced w

ithout

prio

r w

ritt

en

specific

auth

orizatio

n o

f U

Gent

–C

ON

FID

EN

TIA

L –

privile

ged in

form

atio

n –

UG

ent

pro

prie

tary

in

form

atio

n.

77



max,a

f

a

ref

Reference stress


Flow stressDegree of

conservatism


© U

Gent

–A

ll rig

hts

reserv

ed f

or

all

countr

ies. C

annot

be d

isclo

sed, used,

or

repro

duced w

ithout

prio

r w

ritt

en

specific

auth

orizatio

n o

f U

Gent

–C

ON

FID

EN

TIA

L –

privile

ged in

form

atio

n –

UG

ent

pro

prie

tary

in

form

atio

n.

78

Definition of flow stress: safe or objective

f =

SMYS(base metal) + 69 MPa

actual TS(weld metal)

Modified ASME B31GDeveloped for vintage steel (low Y/T)

Criterion for weld strength mismatch

Should yield safe predictions

Test database studies Validated for pipe body corrosion

Should yield objective predictions


© U

Gent

–A

ll rig

hts

reserv

ed f

or

all

countr

ies. C

annot

be d

isclo

sed, used,

or

repro

duced w

ithout

prio

r w

ritt

en

specific

auth

orizatio

n o

f U

Gent

–C

ON

FID

EN

TIA

L –

privile

ged in

form

atio

n –

UG

ent

pro

prie

tary

in

form

atio

n.

79

Predicted versus observed failure stresses

200

300

400

500

600

200 300 400 500 600

Ax

ial fa

ilu

re s

tres

s,

pre

dic

ted

by

Eq

. (5

) (M

Pa

)

Axial failure stress,

experimental (MPa)

Unsafe

Safe1:1

f =

SMYS + 69 MPa

TSweld

Axial failure stress, predicted (MPa)

should be around 1:1

(not below)

undesirably

excessive degree

of conservatism

© U

Gent

–A

ll rig

hts

reserv

ed f

or

all

countr

ies. C

annot

be d

isclo

sed, used,

or

repro

duced w

ithout

prio

r w

ritt

en

specific

auth

orizatio

n o

f U

Gent

–C

ON

FID

EN

TIA

L –

privile

ged in

form

atio

n –

UG

ent

pro

prie

tary

in

form

atio

n.

80

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

0 15 30

Actu

al fa

ilu

re s

tress

/

pre

dic

ted

va

lue (

-)

Relative misalignment e/B (%)

Lineair ( )

Conservatism is introduced by

overestimated effect of misalignment

Actual / predicted

failure stress (-)

f = TSweld

© U

Gent

–A

ll rig

hts

reserv

ed f

or

all

countr

ies. C

annot

be d

isclo

sed, used,

or

repro

duced w

ithout

prio

r w

ritt

en

specific

auth

orizatio

n o

f U

Gent

–C

ON

FID

EN

TIA

L –

privile

ged in

form

atio

n –

UG

ent

pro

prie

tary

in

form

atio

n.

81

Linear-elastic misalignment correction does not

account for flattening of misalignment upon plastic

deformation

Axial strain0% 13%


© U

Gent

–A

ll rig

hts

reserv

ed f

or

all

countr

ies. C

annot

be d

isclo

sed, used,

or

repro

duced w

ithout

prio

r w

ritt

en

specific

auth

orizatio

n o

f U

Gent

–C

ON

FID

EN

TIA

L –

privile

ged in

form

atio

n –

UG

ent

pro

prie

tary

in

form

atio

n.

82

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

0 5 10

Actu

al fa

ilu

re s

tress

/

pre

dic

ted

va

lue (

-)

Relative effective misalignment e/B (%)

Lineair ( )

Better predictions are obtained by the

introduction of “effective” weld misalignment

Actual / predicted

failure stress (-)

Replacing weld misalignment

by one third of its actual value

Theoretically motivated by

elastic-plastic analysis (%)

f = TSweld

© U

Gent

–A

ll rig

hts

reserv

ed f

or

all

countr

ies. C

annot

be d

isclo

sed, used,

or

repro

duced w

ithout

prio

r w

ritt

en

specific

auth

orizatio

n o

f U

Gent

–C

ON

FID

EN

TIA

L –

privile

ged in

form

atio

n –

UG

ent

pro

prie

tary

in

form

atio

n.

83

200

300

400

500

600

200 300 400 500 600

Ax

ial fa

ilu

re s

tres

s,

pre

dic

ted

by

Eq

. (5

) (M

Pa

)

Axial failure stress,

experimental (MPa)

Unsafe

Safe1:1

The effective misalignment concept is sound

f =

SMYS + 69 MPa

TSweld

Axial failure stress, predicted (MPa)

around 1:1

acceptable degree

of conservatism

© U

Gent

–A

ll rig

hts

reserv

ed f

or

all

countr

ies. C

annot

be d

isclo

sed, used,

or

repro

duced w

ithout

prio

r w

ritt

en

specific

auth

orizatio

n o

f U

Gent

–C

ON

FID

EN

TIA

L –

privile

ged in

form

atio

n –

UG

ent

pro

prie

tary

in

form

atio

n.

84

Experimental

programme

Trends &

influences

Workmanship &

ECA

A look into the

future


85

A major question remains unanswered

Toughness criterion for the validity of the developed procedures?

Additional tests planned at low temperature (-60°C)

© U

Gent

–A

ll rig

hts

reserv

ed f

or

all

countr

ies. C

annot

be d

isclo

sed, used,

or

repro

duced w

ithout

prio

r w

ritt

en

specific

auth

orizatio

n o

f U

Gent

–C

ON

FID

EN

TIA

L –

privile

ged in

form

atio

n –

UG

ent

pro

prie

tary

in

form

atio

n.

86

Experimental

programme

Trends &

influences

Workmanship &

ECA

A look into the

future


Detailed weld characterization

Medium wide plate testing with DIC

Weld strength and misalignment

No influence of toughness

20% metal loss criterion

Plastic collapse assessment

Aiming towards standardization

87



Experimental

testing

Numerical

modelling

Workmanship

ECA


Simulations generate more output than experiments

Stress-strain at all points

(also within the structure)

(e.g. CTOD)

Derived quantities

© U

Gent

–A

ll rig

hts

reserv

ed f

or

all

countr

ies. C

annot

be d

isclo

sed, used,

or

repro

duced w

ithout

prio

r w

ritt

en

specific

auth

orizatio

n o

f U

Gent

–C

ON

FID

EN

TIA

L –

privile

ged in

form

atio

n –

UG

ent

pro

prie

tary

in

form

atio

n.

CTOD


Numerical modelling: creating a “virtual lab”

Parameter space

Geometry

Materials

Conditions

Finite element

analysis…

Parametric

study

© U

Gent

–A

ll rig

hts

reserv

ed f

or

all

countr

ies. C

annot

be d

isclo

sed, used,

or

repro

duced w

ithout

prio

r w

ritt

en

specific

auth

orizatio

n o

f U

Gent

–C

ON

FID

EN

TIA

L –

privile

ged in

form

atio

n –

UG

ent

pro

prie

tary

in

form

atio

n.

When running properly:

no “experimental scatter”

“cheap” experiments


Who t(h)rusts zeros and ones?

© U

Gent

–A

ll rig

hts

reserv

ed f

or

all

countr

ies. C

annot

be d

isclo

sed, used,

or

repro

duced w

ithout

prio

r w

ritt

en

specific

auth

orizatio

n o

f U

Gent

–C

ON

FID

EN

TIA

L –

privile

ged in

form

atio

n –

UG

ent

pro

prie

tary

in

form

atio

n.

The Mars Climate Orbiter disintegrates in space

(1998):

NASA's $655-million robotic space probe plowed into

Mars's upper atmosphere at the wrong angle, burning

up in the process. The problem? In the software that

ran the ground computers the thrusters' output was

calculated in the wrong units (pound–seconds instead

of newton–seconds, as the NASA–Lockheed contract

had specified).

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/pogue-5-most-embarrassing-software-bugs-in-history/

image: Wikipedia


The difficult stage: model validation

Parameter space

Geometry

Materials

Conditions

Finite element

analysis…

Experiments

Validation

Parametric

study

© U

Gent

–A

ll rig

hts

reserv

ed f

or

all

countr

ies. C

annot

be d

isclo

sed, used,

or

repro

duced w

ithout

prio

r w

ritt

en

specific

auth

orizatio

n o

f U

Gent

–C

ON

FID

EN

TIA

L –

privile

ged in

form

atio

n –

UG

ent

pro

prie

tary

in

form

atio

n.


Example model validation

(w.r.t. strain distribution predictions)

© U

Gent

–A

ll rig

hts

reserv

ed f

or

all

countr

ies. C

annot

be d

isclo

sed, used,

or

repro

duced w

ithout

prio

r w

ritt

en

specific

auth

orizatio

n o

f U

Gent

–C

ON

FID

EN

TIA

L –

privile

ged in

form

atio

n –

UG

ent

pro

prie

tary

in

form

atio

n.

11 (-)

0.035

0.000

(a) DIC (b) FEA

93

Actual weld

(complex)


Potential for accurate weld modelling

is generally not fully exploited

© U

Gent

–A

ll rig

hts

reserv

ed f

or

all

countr

ies. C

annot

be d

isclo

sed, used,

or

repro

duced w

ithout

prio

r w

ritt

en

specific

auth

orizatio

n o

f U

Gent

–C

ON

FID

EN

TIA

L –

privile

ged in

form

atio

n –

UG

ent

pro

prie

tary

in

form

atio

n.

General approach (e.g. used for standardized ECA procedures)

“Real world”

Analytical ECA

Idealized weld

(simple)

Idealized weld

(simple)

FE analysis???


Soete Laboratory’s philosophy is different

© U

Gent

–A

ll rig

hts

reserv

ed f

or

all

countr

ies. C

annot

be d

isclo

sed, used,

or

repro

duced w

ithout

prio

r w

ritt

en

specific

auth

orizatio

n o

f U

Gent

–C

ON

FID

EN

TIA

L –

privile

ged in

form

atio

n –

UG

ent

pro

prie

tary

in

form

atio

n.

Actual weld

(complex)

“Real world”

Analytical ECA

Idealized weld

(simple)

Actual weld

(complex)

FE analysis

???


Example: modifying the weld to its desired shape:

Nodal coordinate transformations

Flat plate,

simplified weld geometry

Easy to model

Curved plate,

detailed weld geometry

Coordinate

transformations

© U

Gent

–A

ll rig

hts

reserv

ed f

or

all

countr

ies. C

annot

be d

isclo

sed, used,

or

repro

duced w

ithout

prio

r w

ritt

en

specific

auth

orizatio

n o

f U

Gent

–C

ON

FID

EN

TIA

L –

privile

ged in

form

atio

n –

UG

ent

pro

prie

tary

in

form

atio

n.


Understanding of weld behaviour is aided by

automated analysis pre- and postprocessing

© U

Gent

–A

ll rig

hts

reserv

ed f

or

all

countr

ies. C

annot

be d

isclo

sed, used,

or

repro

duced w

ithout

prio

r w

ritt

en

specific

auth

orizatio

n o

f U

Gent

–C

ON

FID

EN

TIA

L –

privile

ged in

form

atio

n –

UG

ent

pro

prie

tary

in

form

atio

n.

Analytical ECA

Idealized weld

(simple)

Actual weld

(complex)

FE analysis

Models constructed by

object-oriented scripting

(rather than CAD-based)

Automated construction

of parametric studies


In-house developed models of a wide range of

configurations

© U

Gent

–A

ll rig

hts

reserv

ed f

or

all

countr

ies. C

annot

be d

isclo

sed, used,

or

repro

duced w

ithout

prio

r w

ritt

en

specific

auth

orizatio

n o

f U

Gent

–C

ON

FID

EN

TIA

L –

privile

ged in

form

atio

n –

UG

ent

pro

prie

tary

in

form

atio

n.

CTOD test

SENT test

curved

wide plate

full pipe

Spider-web

crack tip mesh

98



Experimental

testing

Numerical

modelling

Workmanship

ECA

Case study 2: Assessment of heterogeneous welds


Automatic hardness testing of weld macrographs

reveals weld heterogeneity

4 Vickers indentations / mm²

Vickers

hardness

(5 kg)

240

170 © U

Gent

–A

ll rig

hts

reserv

ed f

or

all

countr

ies. C

annot

be d

isclo

sed, used,

or

repro

duced w

ithout

prio

r w

ritt

en

specific

auth

orizatio

n o

f U

Gent

–C

ON

FID

EN

TIA

L –

privile

ged in

form

atio

n –

UG

ent

pro

prie

tary

in

form

atio

n.


Weld heterogeneity is a fact of life

Hardness variations up to 50% have been observed at Soete Laboratory

© U

Gent

–A

ll rig

hts

reserv

ed f

or

all

countr

ies. C

annot

be d

isclo

sed, used,

or

repro

duced w

ithout

prio

r w

ritt

en

specific

auth

orizatio

n o

f U

Gent

–C

ON

FID

EN

TIA

L –

privile

ged in

form

atio

n –

UG

ent

pro

prie

tary

in

form

atio

n.


Crack driving force in heterogeneous welds: What

properties matter?

Potential influence of…

Average properties

of entire weld

Surrounding

properties

Properties

at flaw tip

External

load

Flaw

© U

Gent

–A

ll rig

hts

reserv

ed f

or

all

countr

ies. C

annot

be d

isclo

sed, used,

or

repro

duced w

ithout

prio

r w

ritt

en

specific

auth

orizatio

n o

f U

Gent

–C

ON

FID

EN

TIA

L –

privile

ged in

form

atio

n –

UG

ent

pro

prie

tary

in

form

atio

n.


The current ECA treatment of weld heterogeneity

is “fairly simplistic”

e.g. EU FITNET (fitness-for-service)

procedure, MK8 (2008)

§6.3.3.1

“It should be recognised that weld tensile

properties may vary through the thickness

of a component and may be dependent

on specimen orientation. The range of

weld metal microstructures sampled can

often lead to a high degree of scatter. The

use of the lowest tensile properties

irrespective of orientation and position is

necessary to provide a conservative

result.”

Approach approved by the best © U

Gent

–A

ll rig

hts

reserv

ed f

or

all

countr

ies. C

annot

be d

isclo

sed, used,

or

repro

duced w

ithout

prio

r w

ritt

en

specific

auth

orizatio

n o

f U

Gent

–C

ON

FID

EN

TIA

L –

privile

ged in

form

atio

n –

UG

ent

pro

prie

tary

in

form

atio

n.


Going back to Soete Laboratory’s philosophy…

© U

Gent

–A

ll rig

hts

reserv

ed f

or

all

countr

ies. C

annot

be d

isclo

sed, used,

or

repro

duced w

ithout

prio

r w

ritt

en

specific

auth

orizatio

n o

f U

Gent

–C

ON

FID

EN

TIA

L –

privile

ged in

form

atio

n –

UG

ent

pro

prie

tary

in

form

atio

n.

Actual weld

(complex)

“Real world”

Analytical ECA

Idealized weld

(simple)

Actual weld

(complex)

FE analysis



© U

Gent

–A

ll rig

hts

reserv

ed f

or

all

countr

ies. C

annot

be d

isclo

sed, used,

or

repro

duced w

ithout

prio

r w

ritt

en

specific

auth

orizatio

n o

f U

Gent

–C

ON

FID

EN

TIA

L –

privile

ged in

form

atio

n –

UG

ent

pro

prie

tary

in

form

atio

n.

Actual weld

(complex)

“Real world”

Analytical ECA

Idealized weld

(simple)

Actual weld

(complex)

FE analysis


Modelling of heterogeneous welds,

by assigning element-specific material properties

© U

Gent

–A

ll rig

hts

reserv

ed f

or

all

countr

ies. C

annot

be d

isclo

sed, used,

or

repro

duced w

ithout

prio

r w

ritt

en

specific

auth

orizatio

n o

f U

Gent

–C

ON

FID

EN

TIA

L –

privile

ged in

form

atio

n –

UG

ent

pro

prie

tary

in

form

atio

n.

Each element is linked to its

corresponding hardness value

obtained from a hardness map


Relation between Vickers hardness and stress-strain

properties (“hardness transfer function”)?

© U

Gent

–A

ll rig

hts

reserv

ed f

or

all

countr

ies. C

annot

be d

isclo

sed, used,

or

repro

duced w

ithout

prio

r w

ritt

en

specific

auth

orizatio

n o

f U

Gent

–C

ON

FID

EN

TIA

L –

privile

ged in

form

atio

n –

UG

ent

pro

prie

tary

in

form

atio

n.

0.

25

21

2

R1

9

R1.

5

4.5

5

0.5

EDM2WEIGHT:

A4

SHEET 1 OF 1SCALE:1:1

DWG NO.

TITLE:

REVISIONDO NOT SCALE DRAWING

MATERIAL:

DATESIGNATURENAME

DEBUR AND

BREAK SHARP

EDGES

FINISH:UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED:

DIMENSIONS ARE IN MILLIMETERS

SURFACE FINISH:

TOLERANCES:

LINEAR:

ANGULAR:

Q.A

MFG

APPV'D

CHK'D

DRAWN

Simple:

StandardsAccurate:

Miniature tensile testing

200

400

600

800

1000

100 200 300 400

Rp0.2,

Rm

(MPa)

Vickers hardness HV

Rm

Rp0.2

ISO15653:

base metal

weld metal

ISO18265

Comparison with local HV indentations

allows to calibrate the transfer function

Which one to choose?


Miniature tensile testing at Soete Laboratory

2 mm

10 px

60 µm

© U

Gent

–A

ll rig

hts

reserv

ed f

or

all

countr

ies. C

annot

be d

isclo

sed, used,

or

repro

duced w

ithout

prio

r w

ritt

en

specific

auth

orizatio

n o

f U

Gent

–C

ON

FID

EN

TIA

L –

privile

ged in

form

atio

n –

UG

ent

pro

prie

tary

in

form

atio

n.


Miniature tensile testing at Soete Laboratory

© U

Gent

–A

ll rig

hts

reserv

ed f

or

all

countr

ies. C

annot

be d

isclo

sed, used,

or

repro

duced w

ithout

prio

r w

ritt

en

specific

auth

orizatio

n o

f U

Gent

–C

ON

FID

EN

TIA

L –

privile

ged in

form

atio

n –

UG

ent

pro

prie

tary

in

form

atio

n.


Experimental validation of the

heterogeneity modelling approach

© U

Gent

–A

ll rig

hts

reserv

ed f

or

all

countr

ies. C

annot

be d

isclo

sed, used,

or

repro

duced w

ithout

prio

r w

ritt

en

specific

auth

orizatio

n o

f U

Gent

–C

ON

FID

EN

TIA

L –

privile

ged in

form

atio

n –

UG

ent

pro

prie

tary

in

form

atio

n.

70

80

90

100

110

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6

Ten

sile

fo

rce

(kN

)

Plastic CTOD (mm)

Experiment

Simulation

Based on SENT testing



© U

Gent

–A

ll rig

hts

reserv

ed f

or

all

countr

ies. C

annot

be d

isclo

sed, used,

or

repro

duced w

ithout

prio

r w

ritt

en

specific

auth

orizatio

n o

f U

Gent

–C

ON

FID

EN

TIA

L –

privile

ged in

form

atio

n –

UG

ent

pro

prie

tary

in

form

atio

n.

Actual weld

(complex)

“Real world”

Analytical ECA

Idealized weld

(simple)

Actual weld

(complex)

FE analysis


Deformation around weld defect under tension:

45° “slip lines”

© U

Gent

–A

ll rig

hts

reserv

ed f

or

all

countr

ies. C

annot

be d

isclo

sed, used,

or

repro

duced w

ithout

prio

r w

ritt

en

specific

auth

orizatio

n o

f U

Gent

–C

ON

FID

EN

TIA

L –

privile

ged in

form

atio

n –

UG

ent

pro

prie

tary

in

form

atio

n.

cracked section

0.08

0.00


“Weld homogenization”: consider average properties

along 45° slip lines originating from the defect

© U

Gent

–A

ll rig

hts

reserv

ed f

or

all

countr

ies. C

annot

be d

isclo

sed, used,

or

repro

duced w

ithout

prio

r w

ritt

en

specific

auth

orizatio

n o

f U

Gent

–C

ON

FID

EN

TIA

L –

privile

ged in

form

atio

n –

UG

ent

pro

prie

tary

in

form

atio

n.

Actual

weld

Idealised

weld

HAZ base metal (HVb)base metal (HVb)

M(s) = HVw(s)/HVb

45 FLFR

O

Heq,L Heq,R

Meq HVb

a

Heq,L Heq,R

HAZ

HVb

Predictions of load bearing capacity mostly accurate within 5%


www.soetelaboratory.ugent.be

effects of flaws and corrosion on the structural integrity ... · effects of flaws and corrosion on...

Documents