Application of Failure Assessment Diagram (FAD) for Steel Welded Connection Based on BS7910 and DNV-RP-108



Abstract Views
467

Downloads
2098

Citations

Share

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.sidebar##

Submitted Jul 15, 2021
Published Aug 11, 2021
10.24018/ejeng.2021.6.5.2522

Abstract viewed = 467 times

Table of Contents

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##

The failure assessment diagram (FAD) method has been widely accepted to evaluate the extent to which cracks may affect structural safety. The usage of this FAD method has been validated and included in [1]-[3]. The structure under investigation, described in four fully welded T-joint (BCC5) specimens, where these welded joints are a source of stress concentration and defects from which fatigue cracks can grow. The four specimens were modeled under different displacement loading using a finite element analysis program Ansys and SolidWorks software. In this work, the application of a FAD (Lr, Kr) using maximum stress, cumulative stress ranges, and the last half-cycle stress range was investigated. The results are showing that all the points were lying outside the FAD curve except for the BCC5D specimen point was inside FAD when using maximum stress.

Conclusions made that the cumulative stress gives Lr and Kr are extremely large and hence predict failure too early. With the Crack Tip Opening Displacement (CTOD) of the test specimen assumed to be about 1mm rather than 0.1mm it was found that, if a FAD is to be used to indicate failure, then both Lr and Kr should be based on the maximum stress. It appears that the FAD methodology does help to predict the final failure (which is the usual application in such cases). This represents more effectively the structural behavior and would be more easily used by designers.

Keywords: BS7910, displacement loading, DVA-P-108, Failure assessments diagram (FAD), Fitness for Service, Integrity assessment, steel welded connection

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

  1. Guide to methods for assessing the acceptability of flaws in metallic structures, BS7910- 2005.
     Google Scholar
  2. Guide to Methods for Assessing the Acceptability of Flaws in Metallic Structures, BS 7910:2013+A1-2015.
     Google Scholar
  3. Fracture control for pipeline installation methods, introducing cyclic plastic strain, DET NORSKE VERITAS (DNV) DNV-RP-F108-2006.
     Google Scholar
  4. C. Tipple and G. Thorwald. (2012). Using the failure assessment diagram method with fatigue crack growth to determine leak before rupture. SIMULIA customer conference.
     Google Scholar
  5. P. Ipiñac, A. Marcos, Berganta, A. Alejandro, Yawny, and E. Juan. (2015). Failure Assessment Diagram in Structural Integrity Analysis of Steam Generator Tubes. International Congress of Science and Technology of Metallurgy and Materials, SAM – CONAMET – 2013. Procedia Materials Science 8. Science Direct. [Online]. Available: www.sincedirect.com.
     Google Scholar
  6. A Joint API/ASME Fitness-for-Service Standard for Pressurized Equipment, API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 -2007.
     Google Scholar
  7. T.L. Anderson, Fracture Mechanics Fundamentals and Applications, 3rd ed. Taylor & Francis group, Boca Raton, 2005, pp. 453-455. ISBN-10:0-8493-1656-1.
     Google Scholar
  8. Fitness-for-service, American Petroleum Institute/ASME, Washington DC API 579-1/ ASME FFS-1 -2016.
     Google Scholar
  9. V. Pillai, A. Kolios and S.T. Lie. (2019). Failure assessment of cracked uni-planar square hollow section T-, Y- and K-joints using the new BS 7910:2013+A1:2015. Arch Appl Mech 89, 835–845 -2019 [online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00419-018-1423-5.
     Google Scholar
  10. R. Ainsworth, M. Gintalas, M. Sahu, J. Chattopadhyay and B. Dutta. (2016). Application of failure assessment diagram methods to cracked straight pipes and elbows. International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping. Elsever. Volume 148. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpvp.2016.10.005.
     Google Scholar
  11. Assessment of the integrity of structures containing defects, Revision 4, including subsequent updates to Amendment 11, R6-2015. EDF Energy Generation, Gloucester, UK.
     Google Scholar
  12. Q. Yann, H. Chien-Hua and Chi-Fang L. (2013). Fracture resistance of ship longitudinal members including fatigue crack, ASME International Offshore and Arctic Engineering, OMAE, 32nd, June 9-14, Nantes, France.
     Google Scholar
  13. H. J. Hoh, J. H.L. Pang and Tsang K. S. (2018). Failure Assessment Diagram (FAD) analysis of fatigue test results for X65 welded joints. MATEC Web of Conferences, 165, 21011 [online]. Available: https://doi:10.1051/matecconf/201816521011.
     Google Scholar
  14. K. Konstantinos, H. Isabel, and M. Mahmoud. (2018). Validation of BS7910: assessing the integrity of pipes containing axial flaws. Procedia Structural Integrity 13, Elsevier.
     Google Scholar
  15. S. Lie. and V. Pillai, Safety Assessment of Damaged Multi-planar Square Hollow Section Welded Joints Using the New BS 910:2013+A1:2015. Advances in Applied Sciences. Vol. 4, No. 1, -2019 pp.11-22. [Online]. Available: https://doi: 10.11648/j.aas.20190401.12.
     Google Scholar
  16. S. Montassir, K. Yakoubi, H. Moustabchir, A. Elkhalfi, K. R. Dipen and I. Catalin. (2020), Analysis of Crack Behaviour in Pipeline System Using FAD Diagram Based on Numerical Simulation under XFEM, Appl. Sci. 10, 6129. [Online]. Available: www.mdpi.com/journal/applsci.
     Google Scholar
  17. E. Male, L. Calado and De Luca. (2003). An Experimental investigation on European welded connections. ASCE 129, Journal of Structural Engineering, 07339445, pp. 1301-1311.
     Google Scholar
  18. W. Aboalriha, N. Barltrop and L. Calado, (2018). “Prediction of low cycle fatigue life of steel welded connection subjected to high cyclic strains,” presented at the ICCIE, March 13–15, 2018. Ras Al Khaimah, UAE.
     Google Scholar
  19. Guide to fatigue design and assessment of steel structures, BS7608-2014.
     Google Scholar
  20. Offshore standard, submarine pipeline system, DET NORSKE VERITAS (DNV) DNV-OS-F101-2012. [Online]. Available: http://www.dnv.com.
     Google Scholar
  21. Guide to methods for assessing the acceptability of flaws in metallic structures, BS7910- 2013.
     Google Scholar