Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
= _
:
c
_
2
y +1
+
y -1
y +1
]_
[
2y
y-1
(01)
where p
(t), e
(t) and e
t
(t) are measured by means of strain
gauges on the Hopkinson bars. On Figure 3, the elastic stress
waves measured during a high strain rate experiment on
pipeline steel.
Figure 3: Incident, reflected and transmitted stress waves
From these measured signals, the mean force in the
specimen can be calculated as [28]
F(t) =
F
n
(t) + F
out
(t)
2
= A
b
E
b
|e
t
(t) +e
(t) +e
(t)]
(03)
with E
b
the stiffness and A
b
the cross section of the Hopkinson
bars. The mean strain rate can be calculated by dividing the
velocity difference between the Hopkinson bar interfaces with
the initial specimen length I:
e (t) =
:
out
(t) - :
n
(t)
I
=
c
b
I
|e
(t) -e
t
(t) - e
(t)]
(04)
4 Copyright 2012 by ASME
where c
b
is the propagation velocity of longitudinal waves in
the Hopkinson bars. Thus, the corresponding strain can be
written as
e(t) =
u
out
(t) - u
n
(t)
I
=
c
b
I
_|e
() - e
t
() - e
()] J
t
0
(05)
When the specimen is sufficiently small, a quasi-static
equilibrium
e
t
(t) = e
(t) +e
(t) (06)
is established in the specimen from the early stages of loading.
As a result, both the stress and strain are homogeneous along
the length of the specimen, and the force history (03) reduces to
F(t) = A
b
E
b
e
t
(t) (07)
while the expression (05) for the specimen strain simplifies to
e(t) = -2
c
b
I
_e
() J
t
0
(08)
The main advantages of the Hopkinson experiments are that
test execution is relatively simple, and the interpretation of the
obtained results is straightforward. Stresses and strains are
obtained independently from each other, without having to
make assumptions on the specimen behavior.
Figure 4: Split Hopkinson Tensile Bar at UGent
STRAIN RATE SENSITIVITY OF PIPELINE STEEL
The Split Hopkinson Tensile Bar (SHTB) used for the
dynamic tensile tests is shown on Figure 4. The device consists
of two aluminum bars with a diameter of 25 mm. The input bar
has a length of 6 meters, and the output bar is 3.125 meter long.
To obtain quasi-static equilibrium during dynamic loading, and
hence satisfying Eq. (06), small cylindrical samples are used
with a length of 6 mm and a diameter of 2.5 mm.
To investigate the dynamic behavior of high strength
pipeline steel, an X70 material with 19 mm thickness was
selected. This steel grade is produced at one of ArcelorMittals
European plants, which is particularly suited for the production
of hot rolled coils for linepipes, thanks to its dimensional
capacity and production quality. The composition of the steel is
reported in Table 1.
Table 1: X70 chemical composition [weight %]
C Mn V+Nb+Ti Ni+Cu+Mo+Cr
Ceq
(IIW)
Pcm
<0.06 >1.6 <0.15 >0.6 <0.41 <0.17
Static experiments are performed on a traditional tensile test
machine, with an imposed velocity of 0.00036 m/s and 0.036
m/s. For these static tests, steel samples with the same size and
geometry (6 mm long and 2.5 mm diameter) as the Hopkinson
samples are used. For the dynamic tensile tests, the imposed
impact velocity is 2.5 m/s and 6 m/s respectively. This design
of experiments allows evaluating the strain rate sensitivity of
the steel from static conditions up to strain rates of e = 1000/s.
Figure 5: Strain rate sensitivity of X70 pipeline steel
On Figure 5, the obtained stress-strain curves are compared
for different strain rates. During dynamic loading, the yield
stress and the tensile strength increase, while the strain capacity
is only slightly reduced. This demonstrates the potential of high
strength pipeline steels under dynamic loading conditions.
5 Copyright 2012 by ASME
Several constitutive equations to describe the dynamic
behavior of steel are available, although they have not been
widely applied to pipeline steels. The proposed
phenomenological models are based on readily available,
macroscopic parameters of the typical conditions during high
strain rate loading. A recent review is published in [29]. In [30],
a Cowper-Symonds constitutive law
o
(e
cq
pI
, e
cq
pI
) = o
(e
cq
pI
) _1 + _
e
cq
pI
e
0
_
1 p
_ (09)
with e
0
= 10
8
/s and p = 12 was applied to describe the dynamic
behavior of pipeline steel during Charpy V-notch impact
experiments. To fit the data presented on Figure 5, we propose
the frequently used Johnson-Cook model [31]
o = (A +B e
p
n
) _1 +C ln
e
e
0
] (I) (10)
where e
p
is the true strain. This equation gives a linear increase
of the true stress o with the logarithm of the strain rate e , and
comprises three factors: strain hardening, strain rate hardening
and thermal softening, represented by
(I) = 1 - _
I - I
oom
I
mcIt
- I
oom
]
m
(11)
where I
oom
is the room temperature, I
mcIt
is the melting
temperature and m is a material parameter. The parameters A, B
and n can be obtained from the quasi-static experiments,
whereas the value C is derived from the high strain rate
experiments. The Johnson-Cook parameters corresponding to
the curves on Figure 5 are listed in Table 2.
Table 2: Johnson-Cook parameter values
A [MPa] B [MPa] n [-] m [-] C [-]
552.28 568.78 0.425 6.834 0.0089
The linear dependency on strain rate in (10) underestimates
the flow stress at low strain rates (e < 1/s), and tends to slightly
overestimate the stresses at very high strain rates. However, to
describe the dynamic behavior of pipeline steel during a
Battelle Drop Weight Tear test, the formulation (10) is fit for
purpose.
INFLUENCE OF STRESS TRIAXIALITY
In addition to static and dynamic tensile tests on cylindrical
steel samples, notched tensile tests were performed at high
strain rates, to assess the influence of both strain rate sensitivity
and triaxiality on the response of the material. The geometric
dimensions of the notched samples is shown on Figure 6.
p = u.S6
p = u.82
p = 1.14
Figure 6: Notched tensile specimen geometry [mm]
Using different notch radii allows introducing increasing
values of stress triaxiality
p =
o
p
o
m
(12)
with o
m
the Von Mises stress and o
p
= o
S the hydrostatic
pressure.
6 Copyright 2012 by ASME
For the notched tensile specimen, the initial triaxiality can be
estimated by the Bridgeman equation
p = 1 + S ln _1 +
4R
] (13)
with the specimen diameter and R the notch radius. Hence,
for the experiments presented here, the triaxiality varies from
p = u.SS (cylindrical specimens) to p = 1.14 (notch radius 0.5
mm).
Figure 7: Quasi-static notched tensile tests
The results of the static notched tensile tests are presented
in Figure 7, showing that the stress triaxiality has a pronounced
influence on the material response. Indeed, high stress
triaxiality promotes void nucleation and subsequent
propagation, and hence drastically reduces the strain capacity of
the material.
Figure 8: Dynamic notched tensile tests
The results of the dynamic notched tensile tests (with an
initial impact velocity : = 6 m/s) are shown on Figure 8,
revealing a similar trend. Again, in dynamic conditions, the
tensile strength improves at the expense of strain capacity. The
static curves are shown in grey as well, indicating that the
influence of stress state is much more pronounced than the
strain rate sensitivity.
The notched tensile tests have been performed at four
different speeds and four levels of stress triaxiality. In Figure 9,
the influence of both parameters on the maximum stress level is
compared. The maximum stress clearly increases with
increasing triaxiality. The strain rate has a fairly limited
influence on this trend. On Figure 10, the maximum
displacement is plotted (on a logarithmic scale) for different
values of strain rate and stress triaxiality. The triaxiality greatly
reduces the strain capacity, and the strain rate has little or no
influence on this tendency.
Figure 9: Maximum stress level for different q and s
On Figure 11, the fracture surface is investigated under an
optical microscope for different values of triaxiality in both
static (: = 0.00036 m/s) and dynamic (: = 6 m/s) conditions.
Indeed, the void growth in the vicinity of the fracture surface
can reveal the influence of both strain rate and stress triaxiality.
For increasing levels of p, the number and size of voids
increase, which clearly proves that triaxiality promotes void
nucleation and propagation. Under dynamic loading, the voids
are bigger than under static loading at the same triaxiality.
Figure 10: Maximum displacement for different q and s
7 Copyright 2012 by ASME
STATIC DYNAMIC
p
=
u
.
S
S
p
=
u
.
S
6
p
=
u
.
8
2
p
=
1
.
1
4
Figure 11: Void distribution for different levels of triaxiality
DUCTILITY AT LOWER TEMPERATURES (-70C)
Finally, dynamic notched tensile tests were performed at lower
temperatures (-70C) as well, to evaluate the ductility of
pipeline steel under such severe conditions. A dedicated fixture
has been designed to enable cooling of the specimen between
the Hopkinson bars by means of solid CO
2
. The results of these
experiments allow discriminating between the effects of strain
rate, triaxiality and temperature.
The results of the dynamic notched tensile tests at -70C
are presented in Figure 12. The corresponding curves at room
temperature are shown in grey as well, indicating that the
influence of temperature is almost negligible.
Figure 12: Dynamic notched tensile test results at -70C
On Figure 13, the fracture surface is investigated under a
Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM) for a specimen with : =
2.5 m/s and p = 1.14. The cup and cone fracture, and the
dimples in the fracture surface, clearly indicate that the X70
pipeline steel behaves fully ductile until final fracture, even
when subjected to low temperatures, high triaxiality and high
strain rates.
Figure 13: Fully ductile fracture surface at -70C (q=1.14)
8 Copyright 2012 by ASME
CONCLUSIONS
In this paper, more than 30 instrumented experiments on
high strength pipeline steel were reported. Uniaxial tensile
tests were conducted under static, quasi-static and dynamic
loading, to evaluate the strain rate sensitivity of the material.
Both static and dynamic notched tensile tests were performed
with four different levels of triaxiality, to assess the influence of
both strain rate sensitivity and triaxiality on the response of the
material. In addition, dynamic experiments were conducted at
low temperatures (-70C) to evaluate the ductility of pipeline
steel under such severe conditions. The main conclusions from
this experimental investigation are as follows:
Under dynamic loading, the yield stress and the tensile
strength of the selected X70 pipeline steel grade improve,
while the strain capacity is only slightly reduced. This
demonstrates the potential of high strength pipeline steels
under dynamic loading.
The Split Hopkinson Tensile Bar (SHTB) experiments on
cylindrical steel samples were used to tune the parameters
of the Johnson-Cook model. This constitutive law hence
allows predicting the strain rate sensitivity of the material
in numerical analysis.
The stress triaxiality has the most pronounced influence on
the material response. The maximum stress increases with
increasing triaxiality, at the expense of strain capacity. The
influence of stress state is much more pronounced than the
strain rate sensitivity.
Dynamic notched tensile tests at low temperatures (-70C)
have indicated that the material behaves fully ductile until
final failure, even when subjected to high strain rates, high
triaxiality and low temperatures.
The results, presented in this paper, allow discriminating
between the effects of strain rate, triaxiality and temperature,
and provide reliable experimental data to accurately model the
constitutive behaviour of high strength pipeline steels.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors gratefully acknowledge the support of Ulrich
Van De Woestyne during the experimental program at Ghent
University.
REFERENCES
[01] Eiber R.J., Bubenik T.A. and Maxey W.A., Fracture
Control Technology for Natural Gas Pipelines, Pipeline
Research Council International (1993)
[02] Maxey W.A., Fracture Initiation, Propagation and Arrest,
Proceedings of the 5
th
Symposium on Line Pipe Research,
Pipeline Research Council International (1974)
[03] Maxey W.A., Gas Expansion Studies, American Gas
Association (1983)
[04] Eiber R.J., Kiefner J.F., Maxey W.A. and Duffy A.R.,
Failure Stress Levels of Flaws in Pressurized Cylinders,
ASTM (1973)
[05] Maxey W.A., Evaluation of Ductile Crack Arrest
Experiments, NCF Industries (1989)
[06] Cosham A., Fracture Propagation: the What, the Why and
the How, Proceedings of the First International Forum on
the Transportation of CO2 by Pipeline, Tiratsoo Technical,
Great Southern Press, Newcastle, UK (2010)
[07] Erdelen-Peppler M., Hillenbrand H.G. and Knauf G.,
Limits of Existing Crack Arrest Models, Proceedings of
the 5th Pipeline Technology Conference, Ostend, Belgium
(2009)
[08] Mannucci G. and Demofonti G., Control of Ductile
Fracture Propagation on X80 Gas Linepipe, Proceedings
of the 5
th
Pipeline Technology Conference, Ostend,
Belgium (2009)
[09] Liebeherr M., Romera D.R., Soenen B., Ehlers S. and
Hivert E., Recent Developments of High Strength
Linepipe Steels on Coil, Proceedings of the 7th
International Pipeline Conference, Calgary, Canada,
IPC2008-64295 (2008)
[10] Liebeherr M., Gngr O.E., Ottaviani R., Lebre D., Llic
N., Quidort D. and Ehlers S., Production and Properties of
X70 and X80 on Coil Thickness in Excess of 20 mm,
Proceedings of the 5
th
Pipeline Technology Conference,
Ostend (2009)
[11] Eiber R.J., Fracture Propagation: Prediction Steel Grade
Dependent, Oil and Gas Journal, vol. 106(40), pp. 20-25
(2008)
[12] Wilkowski G., Rudland D., Xu H. and Sanderson N.,
Effect of Grade on Ductile Failure Arrest Criteria for Gas
Pipelines, Proceedings of the International Pipeline
Conference, IPC2006-10350, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
(2006)
[13] Knauf G., EPRG Crack Arrest and Girth Weld Acceptance
Criteria for High Pressure Gas Transmission Pipelines,
Proceedings of the Pipe Dreamers Conference, Pacifico
Yokohama, Japan, pp. 475-500 (2002)
[14] Rothwell A.B., Fracture Propagation Control for Gas
Pipelines Past, Present and Future, Proceedings of the 3
rd
Pipeline Technology Conference, Bruges, Belgium (2000)
[15] Leis B., Zhu X.K., Forte T. and Clark E., Modelling
Running Fracture in Pipelines: Past, Present and Plausible
Future Directions, Proceedings of the International
Conference on Fracture, Turin, Italy (2005)
[16] Rudland D., Wilkowski G., Feng Z., Wang Y.Y., Horsley
D. and Glover A., Experimental Investigation of CTOA in
Linepipe Steels, Engineering Fracture Mechanics, vol. 70,
pp. 567-577 (2003)
[17] Hashemi S., Howard I., Yates J., Andrews R. And
Edwards A., Single Specimen CTOA Test Method for
Evaluating the Crack Tip Opening Angle in Gas Pipeline
Steels, Proceedings of the 5
th
International Pipeline
Conference, IPC2004-0610, Calgary, Canada (2004)
[18] Wilkowski G., Rudland D. and Wang Y.Y., Recent
Developments in Determining Steady State Dynamic
9 Copyright 2012 by ASME
Ductile Fracture Toughness from Impact Tests,
Proceedings of the 3
rd
International Pipeline Conference,
Bruges, Belgium (2000)
[19] Shim D.J., Wilkowski G., Brust F., Horsley D. and Toch
M., Applicability of Existing Fracture Models to High
Strength Steel Linepipe, Proceedings of the 8
th
International Pipeline Conference, IPC2010-31461,
Calgary, Alberta, Canada (2010)
[20] Van den Abeele F. and Thibaux P., Computational Fracture
Mechanics to Model Toughness of Modern Pipeline
Steels, Proceedings of the NAFEMS World Congress,
Crete, Greece (2009)
[21] Gurson A.L., A Continuum Theory of Ductile Rupture by
Void Nucleation and Growth: Yield Criteria and Flow
Rules for Porous Ductile Materials, Journal of Materials
and Technology, vol. 99, pp. 2-15 (1977)
[22] Needleman A. And Tvergaard V., An Analysis of Ductile
Rupture Modes at a Crack Tip, Journal of Mechanics and
Physics of Solids, vol. 35, pp. 151-183 (1987)
[23] Klepaczko J., Application of the Split Hopkinson Bar to
Fracture Dynamics, Institute of Physics Conference Series
vol. 47, Chapter 2 (1979)
[24] Ruiz R. And Mines R.A.W., The Hopkinson Pressure Bar:
an Alternative to the Instrumented Pendulum for Charpy
Tests, International Journal of Fracture, vol. 29, pp. 101-
109 (1985)
[25] Rubio L., Fernndez J.S, Navarro C., Determination of
Dynamic Fracture Initiation Toughness using Three Point
Bending Tests in a Modified Hopkinson Pressure Bar,
Experimental Mechanics, vol. 43(4), pp. 379-386 (2003)
[26] Fengchun J., Ruitang L., Xiaoxin Z., Vecchio K.S.,
Rohatgi A., Evaluation of Dynamic Fracture Toughness by
Hopkinson Pressure Bar Loaded Instrumented Charpy
Impact Test, Engineering Fracture Mechanics vol. 71, pp.
279-287 (2003)
[27] Verleysen P., Degrieck J., Verstraete T. and Van Slycken J.,
Influence of Specimen Geometry on Split Hopkinson
Tensile Bar Tests on Sheet Materials, Experimental
Mechanics, vol. 48, pp. 587-598 (2008)
[28] Kolsky H., An Investigation of the Mechanical Properties
of Materials at Very High Rates of Loading, Proceedings
of the Physical Society, vol. 62, pp. 676-700 (1949)
[29] Van Slycken J., Verleysen P., Degrieck J. And Bouquerel
J., Constitutive Equations for Multiphase TRIP Steels at
High Rates of Strain, Proceedings of the 8th International
Conference on Mechanical and Physical Behaviour of
Materials under Dynamic Loading, DYMAT (2006)
[30] Hausild P., Berdin C. and Rossoll A., Modelling of the
Charpy Impact Test in the BDDT Range, Materials
Science Forum, vol. 482, pp. 331-334 (2005)
[31] Johnson G.R. and Cook W.H., Fracture Characteristics of
Three Metals Subjected to Various Strains, Strain Rates
and Pressures, Engineering Fracture Mechanics, vol.
21(1), pp. 31-48 (1985)