Fracture Mechanics Assessment of Cracks in Areas of Large Scale Plasticity in Subsea HPHT Equipment

M. Kulkarni, Carlos López, Daniel J Kluk, J. Chappell
{"title":"Fracture Mechanics Assessment of Cracks in Areas of Large Scale Plasticity in Subsea HPHT Equipment","authors":"M. Kulkarni, Carlos López, Daniel J Kluk, J. Chappell","doi":"10.4043/30999-ms","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n Subsea HPHT components may be evaluated utilizing a fracture mechanics-based approach as per guidelines in API RP 17TR8 and ASME Section VIII Division 3. Typically, the assessment is performed based on methods described in API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 and BS7910. The analysis is performed to determine critical flaw sizes and estimate the fatigue life of a growing crack as a means of establishing inspection intervals for the equipment. In most cases, the assessment is based on a linear elastic fracture mechanics approach. The effect of plasticity is generally included via the use of a failure assessment diagram (FAD); however, even with this approach the effect of plastic strain around the crack is not explicitly considered. The assessment standards do not provide clear guidance for cases involving a crack which is located within a region of large-scale plastic strain. For these cases, API 579, Annex 9G.5 recommends utilizing a driving force method whereby the J-integral is directly evaluated from an elastic-plastic finite element model.\n This paper presents such an approach. A simplified representative geometry is considered for this study. A region of a stress concentration, such as is typically encountered near an internal radius is considered. Such a region can potentially show localized plasticity. J-integral is calculated by explicitly modeling a series of cracks of increasing depth through this zone of plasticity and the results are compared to the different methodologies described in API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 and BS7910. Cracks are modeled both completely and partially enveloped within the plastic zone.\n Results are summarized and compared, highlighting the key differences between different analysis approaches with the aim of identifying the most conservative assessment method for different crack sizes. Additionally, the effect of large-scale plasticity on the crack driving force is determined relative to similar conditions without plasticity. The results indicate that for cracks lying within the regions of localized plasticity, using an API579 Level 2 approach coupled with extracting elastic-plastic through wall stresses from an uncracked geometry may result in significant under prediction of the driving force. Conversely, extracting linear elastic stresses from an uncracked geometry may significantly over predict the driving force and may prove too conservative for determining acceptable crack sizes.\n This paper presents a comprehensive comparison of different analysis approaches used for evaluating cracks in subsea equipment. The results indicate that, for HPHT equipment with increased safety implications, a detailed elastic plastic fracture mechanics evaluation of the cracked geometry should be performed for cases in which localized plasticity is expected to occur.","PeriodicalId":11184,"journal":{"name":"Day 3 Wed, August 18, 2021","volume":"56 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-08-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Day 3 Wed, August 18, 2021","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4043/30999-ms","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Subsea HPHT components may be evaluated utilizing a fracture mechanics-based approach as per guidelines in API RP 17TR8 and ASME Section VIII Division 3. Typically, the assessment is performed based on methods described in API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 and BS7910. The analysis is performed to determine critical flaw sizes and estimate the fatigue life of a growing crack as a means of establishing inspection intervals for the equipment. In most cases, the assessment is based on a linear elastic fracture mechanics approach. The effect of plasticity is generally included via the use of a failure assessment diagram (FAD); however, even with this approach the effect of plastic strain around the crack is not explicitly considered. The assessment standards do not provide clear guidance for cases involving a crack which is located within a region of large-scale plastic strain. For these cases, API 579, Annex 9G.5 recommends utilizing a driving force method whereby the J-integral is directly evaluated from an elastic-plastic finite element model. This paper presents such an approach. A simplified representative geometry is considered for this study. A region of a stress concentration, such as is typically encountered near an internal radius is considered. Such a region can potentially show localized plasticity. J-integral is calculated by explicitly modeling a series of cracks of increasing depth through this zone of plasticity and the results are compared to the different methodologies described in API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 and BS7910. Cracks are modeled both completely and partially enveloped within the plastic zone. Results are summarized and compared, highlighting the key differences between different analysis approaches with the aim of identifying the most conservative assessment method for different crack sizes. Additionally, the effect of large-scale plasticity on the crack driving force is determined relative to similar conditions without plasticity. The results indicate that for cracks lying within the regions of localized plasticity, using an API579 Level 2 approach coupled with extracting elastic-plastic through wall stresses from an uncracked geometry may result in significant under prediction of the driving force. Conversely, extracting linear elastic stresses from an uncracked geometry may significantly over predict the driving force and may prove too conservative for determining acceptable crack sizes. This paper presents a comprehensive comparison of different analysis approaches used for evaluating cracks in subsea equipment. The results indicate that, for HPHT equipment with increased safety implications, a detailed elastic plastic fracture mechanics evaluation of the cracked geometry should be performed for cases in which localized plasticity is expected to occur.
海底高温高压设备大塑性区裂纹断裂力学评价
根据API RP 17TR8和ASME Section VIII Division 3的指导方针,可以使用基于断裂力学的方法对海底高压高压组件进行评估。通常,评估是根据API 579-1/ASME FFS-1和BS7910中描述的方法进行的。进行分析是为了确定临界缺陷尺寸和估计裂纹的疲劳寿命,作为建立设备检查间隔的一种手段。在大多数情况下,评估是基于线弹性断裂力学方法。塑性的影响通常通过使用失效评估图(FAD)来考虑;然而,即使采用这种方法,也没有明确考虑裂纹周围塑性应变的影响。对于裂纹位于大规模塑性应变区域的情况,评估标准没有提供明确的指导。对于这些情况,API 579,附录9G。5建议使用驱动力方法,即j积分直接从弹塑性有限元模型中评估。本文提出了这样一种方法。本研究考虑了一种简化的代表性几何。考虑应力集中的区域,例如通常在内半径附近遇到的应力集中区域。这样的区域可以潜在地显示局部可塑性。j积分是通过明确地模拟一系列通过该塑性区域的深度增加的裂缝来计算的,并将结果与API 579-1/ASME FFS-1和BS7910中描述的不同方法进行了比较。裂缝在塑性区被完全和部分包裹。对结果进行了总结和比较,突出了不同分析方法之间的关键差异,旨在确定不同裂纹尺寸下最保守的评估方法。此外,确定了大规模塑性对裂纹驱动力的影响相对于类似条件下的无塑性。结果表明,对于位于局部塑性区域内的裂纹,使用API579 2级方法结合从未裂纹几何形状中提取弹塑性穿壁应力可能会导致驱动力显著低于预测。相反,从未破裂的几何形状中提取线弹性应力可能会大大高估驱动力,并且在确定可接受的裂纹尺寸时可能过于保守。本文对用于海底设备裂缝评估的不同分析方法进行了全面比较。结果表明,对于具有更高安全性的高温高压设备,应该对裂纹几何形状进行详细的弹塑性断裂力学评估,以防止局部塑性的发生。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信