0
Research Papers

Modeling the Deformation Response of High Strength Steel Pipelines—Part I: Material Characterization to Model the Plastic Anisotropy

[+] Author and Article Information
Sunil Neupane, Samer Adeeb, Roger Cheng

Civil and Environmental Engineering,  University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta T6G 2W2, Canada

James Ferguson, Michael Martens

TransCanada Pipelines Ltd., Calgary, Alberta T2P 5H1, Canada

J. Appl. Mech 79(5), 051002 (Jun 21, 2012) (9 pages) doi:10.1115/1.4006380 History: Received April 11, 2011; Revised January 17, 2012; Posted March 15, 2012; Published June 21, 2012; Online June 21, 2012

The design equations for pipelines subjected to both internal pressure and longitudinal loading are based on the isotropic hardening plasticity model. However, high strength steel (HSS) pipelines exhibit plastic anisotropy, which cannot be incorporated in the traditional isotropic hardening plasticity model. The stress strain behaviors of HSS in the longitudinal and the circumferential directions are different. Thus, it would not be desirable to adopt the same design equations based on the isotropic hardening plasticity model for HSS pipelines. The design equations of HSS steel pipelines have to be developed by solving numerical models incorporating a suitable material plasticity constitutive model for the HSS that can deal with the exhibited plastic anisotropy. In this paper, various plasticity models are studied and an appropriate plasticity model is adopted and calibrated to model the plastic anisotropy exhibited by the HSS.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2012 by American Society of Mechanical Engineers
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 2

Π plane showing the instantaneous evolution of the backstress upon loading of a longitudinal tensile specimen

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 7

Calibration results for material pattern III: (a) circumferential response, and (b) longitudinal response (the results using the Chaboche rule and the experimental results are identical)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 1

Π plane showing the translation of the yield stress in the stress space upon pipe expansion

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 3

Results for true stress versus plastic strain for Pipe “H.” (a) Experimental results, (b) experimental versus analytical circumferential results, and (c) experimental versus analytical longitudinal results.

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 5

Results for the true stress versus plastic strain for Pipe “G.” (a) Experimental results, (b) experimental versus analytical circumferential results, and (c) experimental versus analytical longitudinal results.

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 4

Results for true stress versus plastic strain for Pipe “B.” (a) Experimental results, (b) experimental versus analytical circumferential results, and (c) experimental versus analytical longitudinal results.

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 6

Experimental results for stress versus plastic strain for three identified material patterns: (a) pattern I, (b) pattern II, and (c) pattern III materials

Tables

Errata

Discussions

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 Journal Articles
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