applied

sciences
Article
Analysis of Crack Behaviour in Pipeline System
Using FAD Diagram Based on Numerical Simulation
under XFEM
S. Montassir 1 , K. Yakoubi 1 , H. Moustabchir 2 , A. Elkhalfi 1 , Dipen Kumar Rajak 3
and Catalin I. Pruncu 4,5, *
1 Department of Mechanical Engineering, Faculty of Science and Technology, Sidi Mohamed Ben Abdellah
University Fez, Fez 30000, Morocco; [email protected] (S.M.);
[email protected] (K.Y.); [email protected] (A.E.)
2 Laboratory of Systems Engineering and Applications (LISA), National School of Applied Sciences of Fez.
Sidi Mohamed Ben Abdellah University Fez, Fez 30000, Morocco; [email protected]
3 Department of Mechanical Engineering, Sandip Institute of Technology and Research Centre,
Nashik MH 422213, India; [email protected]
4 Department of Mechanical Engineering, Imperial College London, Exhibition Rd., London SW7 2AZ, UK
5 Department of Mechanical Engineering, School of Engineering, University of Birmingham,
Birmingham B15 2TT, UK
* Correspondence: [email protected]




Received: 8 August 2020; Accepted: 1 September 2020; Published: 3 September 2020


Abstract: For a long time, cracked structures have triggered various researchers to develop a structural
integrity approach and design models to address the fracture problems. In the present study, a pipeline
with an axial semi-elliptical surface defect was examined in detail. Recent works have highlighted the
use of the classical finite element method (CFEM) as numerical tools to solve the fracture mechanics;
however, this approach comes with a few difficulties in the modelling aspects. To overcome this issue,
we proposed the use of the extended finite element method (XFEM), which was implemented in the
commercial version of Abaqus software. Moreover, we have used the results based on this technique
in the volumetric method to estimate the stress intensity factors (SIFs). Then, this parameter was
employed to build the failure assessment diagram (FAD). The FAD curve was used in the current
investigation because it is one of the conventional methods for the evaluation of flaws in steel pipes.
The XFEM simulations enable us to draw an FAD curve that can be used as a practical reference for
defect evaluation in pipeline systems in the industrial world.

Keywords: failure assessment diagram (FAD); extended finite element method (XFEM); crack;
failure; pipeline

1. Introduction
In the industrial world, the major structure belongs to the family of shells, such as the pressurised
vessels of reactors, the hydraulic tubes of airplanes, and natural gas pipelines. These structures
are under significant pressure and have been an interesting topic for mechanical researchers for
a long time, in particular, pipeline installations for the transfer of gas and oil [1]. Even though
the industrial revolution gave way to advanced technology in this field, however, as any structure,
they break down. The main causes of shell failures are surface defects in the shape of cracks (external,
internal), which appear during manufacture or during service operations (corrosion, fatigue) [2],
which implies the reduction in the resistance of the structure during their employment. For these
reasons, the evaluation of the various modes of failure including cracking is vital to guarantee the best

Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 6129; doi:10.3390/app10176129 www.mdpi.com/journal/applsci

Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 6129 2 of 13

possible performance of these structures. Crack growth can lead to critical failures, and for this reason,
it is indispensable to deal with the cracking problem. According to the most recent specifications in
design codes, these structures have major surface defects in a semi-elliptical form with a ratio of a/c
where “a” is the depth and “c” is the width of the defect. A large amount of research exists in this
field for pressure shells with semi-elliptical defects [3–9]. These defects may cause longitudinal and
circumferential failures. It is clear that there is a relationship between the defect and the radius of the
pipe, and for small-radius pipes that are mainly subject to bending stresses, circumferential damage is
critical. For large-radius pipes, the circumferential stresses are insignificant compared to the bending
stresses, and because of this issue, longitudinal/axial failure occurs.
The problem of crack propagation is integrated into the context of fracture mechanics, so the use
of these approaches makes it possible to give a global and local view on the degree of harmfulness
of the defect, the period of intervention, and the operation carried out. Results have been appearing
since the fifties; they are part of the linear elastic mechanics of fracture. The theory then became more
complex with the development of non-linear fracture mechanics. Moreover, to evaluate the failure
analysis of engineering materials, many parameters or criteria have been presented over the last few
years, such as the stress intensity factor [10], the crack tip opening displacement (CTOD) [11], the crack
tip opening angle CTOA [12], and the J integral [13]. Among the objectives of the introduction of
numerical analysis is the accurate modelling of crack initiation and propagation. Even if several
works have been done using the classical finite element method (CFEM) [14] for the assessment of
structures, it remains incapable of simulating the problems with discontinuities produced by cracks,
holes, and other bi-material interfaces, and of modelling the propagation of discrete cracks. It requires
a re-meshing rule on each increment and a mesh-compliancy which is delicate and very expensive in
terms of time. To clear up the numerical difficulties correlated to the problems created by the cracks,
several techniques were established such as the element-free Galerkin approach [15], boundary element
technique [16], extended finite element method (XFEM) [17], peridynamics models [18], and modelling
with the phase-field [19]. Among all the various processing techniques for modelling structures,
the most used method so far is the XFEM, which is based on the unit partition [20], and allows
meshing the structure without taking into account the crack to describe the opening of the crack and
the singularity at its tip, where special shapes functions are inserted.
In the context of predicting the failure of a cracked structure, we find that another approach that
shows its capability in this field is the failure assessment diagram (FAD) [21]. The development of
this graph depends on the mechanics of fracture to be effective in determining the fracture pressure,
as well as the safety, of engineering structures. The FAD method was used by [22] to assess welded
oilfield drill pipes [23], and the FAD was applied to examine the structural integrity of steam generator
tubes. This diagram was used as a tool that can reduce the conservative nature of traditional plastic
limit load analysis [24]. There are some research works that generated the FAD by applying XFEM in
order to evaluate the failure of a gas cylinder [25]. For more information, we suggest the following
chapter [26]. In the paper of [27], the evaluation of pipes containing cracking defects was carried out
by three approaches: Crack growth, failure evaluation diagram, limit analysis. The reason for the
use of these approaches is explained in this way: Despite the plastic behaviour of the steels used in
the design of pipelines, they sometimes suffer from near-fragile fracture or damage due to plastic
collapse. In view of all these situations, it is recommended that the methods presented be used.
For more accurate results, the use of a modified notch failure assessment diagram (NMFAd) was
proposed [28]. In order to establish the parameters of this diagram, it is necessary to compute the notch
stress intensity factor [29], which is widely exploited in the literature for the survey of fatigue and
fracture of structural components. This concept has been used by [30] in the treatment of pipes with
longitudinal external corrosion semi-elliptical defects. The crucial notch stress intensity factor is a local
failure condition that presumes that a certain amount of rupture is required during the failure process;
this volume is characterised by an effective distance. It is computed by the bi-logarithmic distribution
of the elastoplastic stress, because the area of the fracture evolution is the area with the highest stress.
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 6129 3 of 13

This method is called the volumetric method. Several works have examined the integrity of pipelines
based on this technique, and they have calculated the stress distribution using the conventional finite
element method. Mesh sensitivity and calculation time are major factors for numerical calculation,
which is why we adopt another calculation strategy, and we propose to combine the XFEM method
with the volumetric method in order to build the FAD to check the safety of our structure. To implement
these methods, we have adopted a P264GH steel gas pipe with a peak internal pressure of 6 MPa.
The properties of this material are taken from experimental work in [3]. Their weld ability and ductility
make this material appropriate for piping use.
The implementation of this research is detailed as follows: In Section 2, an overview of the
volumetric method is presented, followed by main steps to determine the failure assessment diagram.
Then, a brief description of the extended finite element method is presented. In Section 3, the properties
of the material and the dimensions of the model are presented. In Section 4, the results obtained are
analysed and discussed. In Section 5, discussion concerning the results obtained and future perspective
are given. Section 6 includes the conclusions that outline the main accomplishments of the paper.

2. Methodology

2.1. Volumetric Method

One of the simplest techniques for predicting structural integrity is the volumetric method.
The implementation of this technique depends on the concept of the notch stress intensity factor,
which is built on the idea that the failure mechanism necessitates a physical volume [31]. This idea is
explained by the fact that the kind of loading, the geometry of the configuration, and the scale effect
determine the failure stress. The maximum surface stress known by the hot spot stress value cannot
describe the effect of these criteria on the fracture resistance. We must incorporate the stresses and
stress gradient of all surrounding points on the volume of the failure mechanism. Similar to the shapes
of plastic zones, the bulk is assumed quasi-cylindrical. The diameter of this cylinder is called «distance
effective»; in this region, the tensile stress can be approximated. Therefore, the amount of this stress
is built on two parameters: The effective stress σe f f and effective distance Xe f f . The figure below
explains the parameters of this technique. The bi-logarithmic distribution of elastic−plastic stresses
along the ligament shows three different regions; the first region (I) shows the increase in stress σ yy up
to a maximum value; then, in the second region (II), there is a decrease until the elastoplastic state
occurs. Region (III) indicates the linear behaviour of the curve shown in Figure 1. The projection of the
minimum amount of the relative stress gradient χ gives distance and effective stress. The relationship
of the relative stress gradient is:
1 ∂σ yy (r)
χ(r) = (1)
σ yy (r) ∂r
where σ yy (r) indicates the crack opening stress and χ(r) indicates the relative stress gradient.
The mean quantity of the stress distribution through the effective distance represents the effective
stress. Indeed, to improve the numerical result of this stress, as well as to incorporate the value
of the stress gradient related to the load mode and the configuration, the stress is multiplied by a
weight function:
Z Xe f f
1
σe f f = σ yy (r) × ϕ(r)dr (2)
Xe f f 0
where σe f f represents the effective stress, Xe f f represents the effective distance, and ϕ represents the
weight function.
The calculation of these parameters using this approach gives us the stress intensity factor:
q
k = σe f f 2π.Xe f f (3)
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 6129 4 of 13
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 13

Figure 1. The distribution

Figure 1. distribution of
of elastic−plastic
elastic−plastic stress along defect [32].

2.2. Determination of Failure Assessment Diagram

The mean quantity of the stress distribution through the effective distance represents the
effective stress. Indeed,
The fundamental to improve
fracture the numerical
mechanics correlationresult of this stress,
collaborates as wellThe
three factors: as to incorporate
length of defectthea,
value
the of the stress
constraint enforced σapprelated
gradient , and thetofracture
the loadresistance
mode andR. the R configuration,
can represent the thecrucial
stress isstress
multiplied by
intensity
a weight
factor , the crucial value of the J integral Jc , or the critical crack opening displacement δc . In this
KIc function:
survey, the utilisation of the FAD concept requires 1 Xthe eff replacement of these parameters by the calculation
σ =
of two parameters, i.e., the load ratioeffSr (or equivalently ∫ σyy (r) ×Lrφ(r)
) anddrthe toughness ratio Kr . The failure (2)
Xeff 0
curve is defined by:
where 𝜎𝑒𝑓𝑓 represents the effective stress, 𝑋f𝑒𝑓𝑓 (Sr )represents
= Kr the effective distance, and 𝜑 represents (4)
the weight function.
where TheKrcalculation
is the non-dimensional
of these parameters critical
using crack driving force
this approach givesand
us theSr stress
(or equivalently Lr ) the
intensity factor:
non-dimensional load. Structures that are subjected to loads and present a surface defect are
represented by a control point in the plane Kr , Sr :
𝑘 = 𝜎𝑒𝑓𝑓 √2𝜋. 𝑋𝑒𝑓𝑓 (3)
k σ app
Kr = , Sr = (5)
KIc Rm
2.2. Determination of Failure Assessment Diagram
where K and KIc are the stress intensity factor and fracture toughness, respectively, and σapp and Rm
are theThe fundamental
applied stress andfracture mechanics
ultimate strength, correlation
respectively. collaborates three factors: The length of defect
a, the constraint enforced
The construction of this 𝑎𝑝𝑝 𝜎 ,
curve was taken from a plasticityR.correction
and the fracture resistance R can represent
introducedthe bycrucial stress
Dugdale’s
intensity
model factor
[33]. 𝐾𝐼𝑐 , the crucial
This methodology value ofthat
considers the any
J integral 𝐽𝑐 , or the
sort of failure critical
from crack
a fragile opening
crack displacement
to plastic collapse is
𝛿 . In
obtained
𝑐 this survey, the utilisation of the FAD concept requires the replacement of
from the brittle fracture by a plasticity correction. Several methods are used to determine this these parameters by
the calculation
curve: Structural of INTegrity
two parameters, i.e., the
Assessment load ratio
Procedure 𝑆𝑟 (or equivalently
(SINTAP) in Europe [34], 𝐿𝑟 ) Electric
and thePower
toughness ratio
Research
Kr. The failure curve is defined by:
Institute (EPRI) in the United States [35], and R6 in the UK [36]. The mathematical expression of this
curve determined from the SINTAP method isƒ(𝑆
presented
) = 𝐾 by: (4)
𝑟 𝑟

where 𝐾𝑟 is the non-dimensional " critical # −1crack driving force and 𝑆𝑟 (or equivalently 𝐿𝑟 ) the non-
S2 r 2 h −0.6S6 r )
i
f (Sr ) =
dimensional load. Structures + subjected
that1are 0.3 to 0.7 ∗ e(and
+ loads present for 0a≤surface
Sr ≤ 1 defect are represented
(6)
2
by a control point in the plane 𝐾𝑟 , 𝑆𝑟 :
In the FAD procedure, the failure region was 𝑘 estimated by using a failure curve, the acceptable
𝜎𝑎𝑝𝑝
𝐾𝑟 = , 𝑆𝑟 = (5)
region, and the unacceptable region. A conventional 𝐾𝐼𝑐 FAD is𝑅represented
𝑚 [21] in Figure 2.
where K and 𝐾𝐼𝑐 are the stress intensity factor and fracture toughness, respectively, and 𝜎𝑎𝑝𝑝 and
𝑅𝑚 are the applied stress and ultimate strength, respectively.
The construction of this curve was taken from a plasticity correction introduced by Dugdale’s
model [33]. This methodology considers that any sort of failure from a fragile crack to plastic collapse
is obtained from the brittle fracture by a plasticity correction. Several methods are used to determine
this curve: Structural INTegrity Assessment Procedure (SINTAP) in Europe [34], Electric Power

Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, x; doi: FOR PEER REVIEW www.mdpi.com/journal/applsci

expression of this curve determined from the SINTAP method is presented by:
−1
𝑆2𝑟 2 6 )
(6)
ƒ (𝑆𝑟 ) = [1 + ] [0.3 + 0.7 ∗ 𝑒 (−0.6𝑆 𝑟 ] for 0 ≤ 𝑆𝑟 ≤ 1
2

In the FAD procedure, the failure region was estimated by using a failure curve, the acceptable
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 6129 5 of 13
region, and the unacceptable region. A conventional FAD is represented [21] in Figure 2.

Figure 2.
Figure Assessmentdiagram
2. Assessment diagramfailure.
failure.

IfIf the
the operational
operational condition
condition isis situated
situated as
as shown
shown in in Figure
Figure 2,
2, we
we can
can ensure
ensure the
the safety
safety of
of our
our
design; ifif ititisis
design; situated on the
situated on failure curve,curve,
the failure failurefailure
will arise byarise
will crackbypropagation. From the assessment
crack propagation. From the
point A, we can specify the safety factors:
assessment point A, we can specify the safety factors:
O00𝑂B′′𝐵, ƒ = OD 𝑂𝐷 O0 C
𝑂′ 𝐶
fs,σ ƒ=
𝑠,𝜎 = 𝑂′′ 𝐴, fs,a𝑠,𝑎= 𝑂𝐴, ,ƒ𝑠,𝐾
fs,K==𝑂′𝐴 0 (7)(7)
O A
00 OA OA
where, ƒ𝑠,𝜎 , ƒ𝑠,𝑎 , ƒ𝑠,𝐾 represent the safety factor on the load, on the size of the defect, and on the stress
where, f , f s,a , fs,K represent the safety factor on the load, on the size of the defect, and on the stress
intensitys,σ
factor, respectively.
intensity factor, respectively.
2.3. The Extended Finite Element Method
2.3. The Extended Finite Element Method
The XFEM-based method executed in the finite element system Abaqus/standard (v.2017) was
The XFEM-based method executed in the finite element system Abaqus/standard (v.2017) was
employed in this survey. This method has appeared as an alternative to the classical finite element
employed in this survey. This method has appeared as an alternative to the classical finite element
method. It is built on the principle of partition of unity (PU) [20], and has the ability to follow the
method. It is built on the principle of partition of unity (PU) [20], and has the ability to follow the crack
crack without conforming to the mesh; thus, it is not required for this re-meshing operation. The
without conforming to the mesh; thus, it is not required for this re-meshing operation. The existence of
existence of discontinuities in an element is available now with this approach. The idea is to enrich
discontinuities in an element is available now with this approach. The idea is to enrich the degrees of
the degrees of freedom by adding a special function of displacement. According to the partition of
freedom by adding a special function of displacement. According to the partition of unity, the nodes
unity, the nodes corresponding to the elements completely cut by the crack were enriched by the
corresponding to the elements completely cut by the crack were enriched by the discontinuous shape
discontinuous shape function; thus, the elements including the crack front were enriched by singular
function; thus, the elements including the crack front were enriched by singular shape functions.
shape functions. The approximation of a displacement field U with the XFEM discretisation is
The approximation of a displacement field U with the XFEM discretisation is determined as follows:
determined as follows:
XN  X4 
4 𝛽 β
UU(x)
(x) == ∑𝑁 𝑁 N(𝑥)[𝑢
𝐼 = 1 𝐼 I ( x ) u+
𝐼 I 𝐻(𝑥)𝑎
+ H ( x ) a+
𝐼 I ∑
+ 𝐹 (𝑥)𝑏
F
𝛽 = 1 𝛽 β ( x ) b]
𝐼 I (8)(8)
I=1 β=1
where 𝑁𝐼 is the finite element shape function, and 𝑢𝐼 , 𝑎𝐼 , 𝑏 𝛽 𝐼 represent the classical, discontinuous,
where NI is the finite element shaperespectively.
function, andH(x) , bβ I 𝐹represent
uI , aIand the classical, discontinuous,
and singular degrees of freedom, 𝛽 (𝑥) are the Heaviside enrichment
and singular
function degreesthe
that returns of freedom, respectively.
displacement H(x) and
jumps through (x) are
theFβcrack the Heaviside
surface, enrichmentcrack-tip
and the asymptotic function
that returns the displacement jumps through the crack surface,
function that captures the singularity near the crack tip field, respectively. and the asymptotic crack-tip function
that captures the singularity near the crack tip field, respectively.
With
Appl. Sci. the
2020, 10,treatment of crack
x; doi: FOR PEER initiation and propagation using XFEM, Abaqus
REVIEW offers two types of
www.mdpi.com/journal/applsci
damage modelling; linear elastic fracture mechanics (LEFM) and the cohesive segments approach.
In this work, XFEM is combined with the cohesive approach. It is useful and shows great results in the
literature [25,37,38]. The principle of the traction separation law constructs the cited procedure, and it
is a very smart and powerful method to simulate initiation and growth for brittle or ductile fracture.
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 13
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 6129 6 of 13
With the treatment of crack initiation and propagation using XFEM, Abaqus offers two types of
damage modelling; linear elastic fracture mechanics (LEFM) and the cohesive segments approach. In
The
this main
work,parameters that constitute
XFEM is combined thiscohesive
with the model are the maximum
approach. principal
It is useful showsσmax,ps
and stress and fracture
great results in the
energy G . These damage parameters are used in Abaqus to control the crack.
literaturec [25,37,38]. The principle of the traction separation law constructs the cited procedure, and
it is aInvery
addition, of the
smart and cohesivemethod
powerful method, tonumerical modelling
simulate initiation andofgrowth
the contact between
for brittle two bodies
or ductile is a
fracture.
significant
The main task in computational
parameters mechanics
that constitute this and
modelhas are
a vast
theimplementation
maximum principalin engineering
stress 𝜎[39]. In
𝑚𝑎𝑥,𝑝𝑠 this
and
field,
fracturewe energy
selected𝐺a𝑐 .contact interaction
These damage propertyare
parameters thatused
specifies the compressive
in Abaqus behaviour
to control the crack. of the crack
surface In [40].
addition, of the cohesive method, numerical modelling of the contact between two bodies is
a significant task in computational mechanics and has a vast implementation in engineering [39]. In
3. Material Properties
this field, we selected a contact interaction property that specifies the compressive behaviour of the
crackAn surface [40].elastoplastic material was chosen to simulate the structure of our study, where the
isotropic
choice of the properties of this material was taken from the experimental work of [3]. In the reference
3. Material Properties
mentioned, the strain−stress is a result of a tensile test and it is represented as an engineering
stress−strain.
An isotropicIn Abaqus, like most
elastoplastic FEA was
material software,
chosenthetoappropriate
simulate thestress−strain
structure of data must be
our study, entered
where the
as true stress and true strain. To obtain the stress−strain curve, we have utilised the Ramberg−Osgood
choice of the properties of this material was taken from the experimental work of [3]. In the reference
law as mentioned
mentioned, in the experimental
the strain−stress test of
is a result of [3]:
a tensile test and it is represented as an engineering
stress−strain. In Abaqus, like most FEA software, the appropriate
1 stress−strain data must be entered
σ σ n
as true stress and true strain. To obtain the εstress−strain
= + curve, we have utilised the Ramberg−Osgood (9)
E K
law as mentioned in the experimental test of [3]:
where K = 49,454 MPa, n = 0.068. 𝜎 𝜎 1⁄𝑛
𝜀 = + ( )
The material used in this study is P264GH, which is stainless (9)
steel and is known for its forming and
𝐸 𝐾
welding characteristics. It is considered among the most established steels in the field of engineering,
where K = 49,454
specifically MPa, ndomain.
in the piping = 0.068. Table 1 describes the mechanical properties of this kind of material.
The material used in this study is P264GH, which is stainless steel and is known for its forming
and welding characteristics.TableIt is1. considered among the
Mechanical properties most
of steel established steels in the field of
P264GH.
engineering, specifically in the piping domain. Table 1 describes the mechanical properties of this
kind of material. Young’s Modulus E = 207 GPa
Poisson’s ratio ϑ = 0.3
Table 1. Mechanical
Yield stress properties of steel
Re = 340P264GH.
MPa
Young’s
Ultimate tensileModulus
strength Rm= =
E 207
440GPa
MPa
Poisson’s ratio
Elongation to fracture 𝜗A = 35%
= 0.3
Yield stress Re = 340 MPa
Ultimateoftensile
Figure 3 illustrates the dimension strength
the example Rm examined
model = 440 MPain this overview. The example
represents a cylindrical shape ofElongation
a shell madeto of
fracture
steel P264GH.A =This
35%geometry includes a longitudinal
surface defect,
Figure and it was
3 illustrates exposed
the dimension to internal pressuremodel
of the example duringexamined
the numerical
in thissimulation.
overview. The example
The cylinder
represents size was
a cylindrical shape ofLa =shell
set to 625 made
mm, Rof i= 193.2
steel = 203.2
mm, R0 This
P264GH. mm, t =includes
geometry 10 mm and the defect
a longitudinal
size set to a/t = 0.2 mm, 2c/a = 4, ρ = 0.25. The data of this geometry are imported
surface defect, and it was exposed to internal pressure during the numerical simulation. from [41].

Figure
Figure 3.3. Schematic
Schematic ofof dimension
dimension model:
model: (a) Pipe 3D model, (b) dimensions
dimensions of
of geometry
geometry model
model with
with
defect,
defect, (c)
(c) characteristics
characteristics of
of defect.
defect.

Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, x; doi: FOR PEER REVIEW www.mdpi.com/journal/applsci

Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 13

The cylinder size was set to L = 625 mm, Ri = 193.2 mm, R0 = 203.2 mm, t = 10 mm and the defect
Appl. set
size Sci. to a/t10,
2020, 6129mm, 2c/a = 4, 𝜌 = 0.25. The data of this geometry are imported from [41].
= 0.2 7 of 13

4. Numerical Procedure and Results

4. Numerical Procedure and Results
The FAD has most recently been utilised for pipeline integrity [42], evaluating a cracked pipe
The FAD has most recently been utilised for pipeline integrity [42], evaluating a cracked pipe
using the FAD construction built on the curve of stress−strain. In addition, in [41], they modelled a
using the FAD construction built on the curve of stress−strain. In addition, in [41], they modelled
pipe with an external defect to build the FAD, and the modelling was done by the CFEM using
a pipe with an external defect to build the FAD, and the modelling was done by the CFEM using
CASTEM software. We can also find similar research works that have been interested in cracked
CASTEM software. We can also find similar research works that have been interested in cracked
pipelines such as [7−9], where they have focused on cases where plastic deformation is important.
pipelines such as [7–9], where they have focused on cases where plastic deformation is important.
They have been interested in circumferential cracks, and the classical finite element model is used to
They have been interested in circumferential cracks, and the classical finite element model is used to
study the CTOD failure parameter. Thus, the FAD and XFEM were used to evaluate the liquefied
study the CTOD failure parameter. Thus, the FAD and XFEM were used to evaluate the liquefied
petroleum gas cylinder (API 579) [25]. In this study, we have combined the volumetric technique
petroleum gas cylinder (API 579) [25]. In this study, we have combined the volumetric technique (VM)
(VM) based on the XFEM and FAD for studying the pipe steel P264GH. In order to determine the
based on the XFEM and FAD for studying the pipe steel P264GH. In order to determine the parameters
parameters of the VM, we have to calculate the elastoplastic circumferential stress distribution
of the VM, we have to calculate the elastoplastic circumferential stress distribution around the defect
around the defect 𝜎𝑦𝑦 . The geometry of our study was numerically modelled with XFEM in a three-
σ yy . The geometry of our study was numerically modelled with XFEM in a three-dimensional space of
dimensional space of the solid type established with ABAQUS/CAE with the standard/explicit
the solid type established with ABAQUS/CAE with the standard/explicit scheme, for the purpose of
scheme, for the purpose of establishing the curve 𝜎𝑦𝑦 of a steel pipe exposed to inner pressure. The
establishing the curve σ yy of a steel pipe exposed to inner pressure. The cylinder configuration was
cylinder configuration was simulated as a 3D deformable solid structure, and to reduce the
simulated as a 3D deformable solid structure, and to reduce the calculation time, we have turned our
calculation time, we have turned our problem into a symmetry problem, which is why, in the
problem into a symmetry problem, which is why, in the transversal and axis direction, we applied
transversal and axis direction, we applied symmetric boundary conditions, so just a quarter model
symmetric boundary conditions, so just a quarter model could be simulated. The XFEM model design
could be simulated. The XFEM model design with enforced limit conditions is introduced in Figure
with enforced limit conditions is introduced in Figure 4. where symmetric boundary conditions
4. where symmetric boundary conditions on the transversal and axial direction are illustrated in
on the transversal and axial direction are illustrated in Figure 4. The mesh is shown in Figure 4.
Figure 4. . The mesh is shown in Figure 4. with 338,148 nodes and 322,000 elements.
with 338,148 nodes and 322,000 elements.

Figure 4.
Figure Finite element
4. Finite element model
model and
and boundary
boundary conditions:
conditions:(a,b)
(a,b)Symmetric
Symmetricboundary
boundaryininthe
theX,X,Y,Y,
and Z
and
direction,
Z direction,and (c)(c)
and mesh ofof
mesh thethe
quart model
quart using
model extended
using extended finite element
finite method
element (XFEM).
method (XFEM).

In the
In the XFEM
XFEM approach,
approach, the the geometry
geometry is is independently
independently meshed
meshed using
using an
an eight-node
eight-node linear
linear brick
brick
element with reduced integration and hourglass control (C3D8R) in the
element with reduced integration and hourglass control (C3D8R) in the Abaqus element library. The Abaqus element library.
The crack
crack initialinitial is semi-elliptical,
is semi-elliptical, and itand it isbecause,
is axial axial because, in thedirection,
in the axial axial direction,
the defectthebecomes
defect becomes
critical.
critical. Regarding the loads, we applied a pressure of 60 bar for studying the
Regarding the loads, we applied a pressure of 60 bar for studying the elastoplastic behaviour becauseelastoplastic behaviour
because
the thecomportment
plastic plastic comportmentappearsappears
when the when the pressure
pressure exceeds exceeds
40 bar;40this
bar;choice
this choice is based
is based on
on the
the experimental study of [43]. To make a good calculation, the dimensions
experimental study of [43]. To make a good calculation, the dimensions of the elements through the of the elements through
the thickness
thickness of the of wall
the wall
(i.e.,(i.e., the path
the path of propagation)
of propagation) is 0.1ismm,
0.1 mm, although
although the of
the rest rest
theofstructure
the structure
was
was meshed with coarser elements. For this study, crack propagation
meshed with coarser elements. For this study, crack propagation modelling is carried out modelling is carried out by
by
combining the
combining the XFEM
XFEM method
method and and cohesive
cohesive segments
segments approach
approach [44],[44], where
where this
this technique
technique hashas been
been
most recently employed [45,46]. This method was based on the traction separation law. The useuse
most recently employed [45,46]. This method was based on the traction separation law. The of
of this methodology lets us avoid the singular shape function, and just the Heaviside function was
Appl. Sci. 2020,[47].
considered 10, x; The
doi: FOR PEERmechanism
failure REVIEW includes two parameters: The damage www.mdpi.com/journal/applsci
initiation and damage
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 13

this methodology lets us avoid the singular shape function, and just the Heaviside function was
considered [47]. The failure mechanism includes two parameters: The damage initiation and damage
evolution
Appl. criterion.
Sci. 2020, 10, 6129 The structural behaviour is assumed linear-elastic up to the initiation criterion 8 of 13
being reached, and this parameter is based on stress or strain, where both are available in Abaqus
software. Then, material degradation depends on the damage evolution, where two kinds of
evolution
parameters criterion.
define The structural behaviour
the evolution of damage:is The
assumed linear-elastic
first parameter up to the
consists of initiation
specifyingcriterion being
the effective
reached, and this parameter is based on stress or strain, where both are available
displacement at total failure, and the second involves specifying the energy dissipated because of the in Abaqus software.
Then,
failure.material degradation depends on the damage evolution, where two kinds of parameters define
the evolution
In this study,of damage:
mode IThe firstmode
is the parameter consists
of rupture of specifying
under the effective
consideration; it is the displacement
opening of the atcrack
total
failure, and the second involves specifying the energy dissipated because
where the tensile stress will be normal to the crack plane. With a view to study the rupture of the failure.
In this study,
mechanism, we havemode I is the mode
considered of ruptureprincipal
the maximum under consideration;
stress (MAXPS) it isand
thefracture
openingenergy
of the as
crack
the
where the tensile stress will be normal to the crack plane. With a view to study the
two critical factors of failure that check crack initiation and toughness. The ultimate tensile strengthrupture mechanism,
we
washave considered themax
maximum principal
stress 𝜎stress (MAXPS) and fracture energy as the two critical
employed for the principal max 𝑝𝑠 = 𝜎𝑢𝑙𝑡 , and the damage energy was estimated
factors of failure
𝐾 2 𝐼𝐶 that check crack initiation and toughness. The ultimate tensile strength was employed
by 𝐺 = [48]. Due to the importance of the contact in the engineering field, and especially K2 in
for the max 𝐸principal stress σmaxps = σult , and the damage energy was estimated by G = EIC [48].
cracking problems, we selected a contact property using the penalty method for improving the result
Due to the importance of the contact in the engineering field, and especially in cracking problems,
of this simulation.
we selected a contact property using the penalty method for improving the result of this simulation.
4.1. Computational
4.1. Computational ElastoPlastic
ElastoPlastic Stress
Stress Distribution
Distribution around
around the
the Defect
Defect
In this
In this study,
study,we weconsidered
consideredthethedefect
defectas asaacrack
crack because
because itit behaves
behaves like
like aa notch,
notch, and
and the
the radius
radius
of curvature
of curvature is is too
too small.
small. For
Forthat
thatreason,
reason,we weutilised
utilisedthe
thevolumetric
volumetric method.
method. TheThe
distribution of the
distribution of
elastoplastic circumferential stress ahead of the defect is illustrated in Figure 5.
the elastoplastic circumferential stress ahead of the defect is illustrated in Figure 5. The curve hasThe curve has aa
maximal value
maximal value of of σσmax == 43,
43,236
236 MPaMPaat at Xmax== 0.09
Xmax 0.09 mm.
mm. The
The results
results are
are close
close to
to the
the work
work of
of [41],
[41],
max
who carried
who carried out
out the
the simulation
simulation byby the
the finite
finite element
element method
method under
under CASTEM
CASTEM Software,
Software, obtaining
obtaining
𝜎
σmax = 435.49 MPa at
𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 435.49 MPa at X 𝑚𝑎𝑥 𝑋 = 0.087 mm.
max = 0.087 mm.

Figure 5. The
Figure 5. The distribution
distribution of
of the
the elastoplastic
elastoplastic circumferential
circumferential stress
stress ahead
ahead of
of the
the defect:
defect: (a)
(a) Result
Result of
of
the
the simulation
simulation by
by the
the XFEM
XFEM technique;
technique;(b)
(b)the
thecurve ofσσyyyy..
curveof

The
The equation
equation below
below presents
presents the
the polynomial
polynomialfit
fitof
ofthe
theopening
openingstress
stressdistribution:
distribution:
n𝑛
X
σ𝑦𝑦
𝜎 yy (𝑥) = ∑a𝑎i x𝑖 i𝑥 𝑖
(x) = (10)
(10)
i= 0
𝑖=0

The polynomial
The polynomial fitfit approximation
approximation distribution
distribution ofof σ𝜎yy and the
𝑦𝑦 and the gradient
gradient of
of this
this distribution
distribution are
are
given in Figure 6. Moreover, we used relation (1) to compute the distribution of the
given in Figure 6. Moreover, we used relation (1) to compute the distribution of the relative stress relative stress
gradient χ𝜒 ahead
gradient ahead the
the defect.
defect. From
From Figure
Figure 6,
6, we
we can
can extract
extract the
the effective value 𝑋
effective value = 0.17 mm,
e f f = 0.17 mm,
X𝑒𝑓𝑓
which correlates to the minimum of the relative stress gradient χ. Using equation
which correlates to the minimum of the relative stress gradient χ. Using equation (2) will allow (2) will allow us
us to
to
determinethe
determine theeffective stressσe𝜎f𝑒𝑓𝑓
effectivestress = 311 MPa. The volumetric technique enables the estimation of
f = 311 MPa. The volumetric technique enables the estimation of the
the stress intensity factor as follows:
stress intensity factor as follows:
√
𝐾 = 311√2𝜋 × 0.17 = 10.164 MPa√
√𝑚 (11)
K = 311 2π × 0.17 = 10.164 MPa m (11)

Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, x; doi: FOR PEER REVIEW www.mdpi.com/journal/applsci

Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 6129 9 of 13
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 13
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 13

Figure6.
Figure
Figure 6.Schematic
6. Schematicof
Schematic ofpolynomial
of polynomialfit
polynomial fitand
fit andgradient
and gradientof
gradient ofσσσyyyy...
of yy

4.2.FAD
4.2.
4.2. FADCurve
FAD CurveBased
Curve Basedon
Based onthe
on theVolumetric
the VolumetricMethod
Volumetric Method
Method
Toempower
To
To empowerthe
empower the
the reliability
reliability assessment
assessment
reliability assessmentof theofsteel
of the pipe
the steelwith
steel pipea with
pipe with aa semi-elliptical
semi-elliptical
semi-elliptical defect
defect in defect
the in the
the
designing,
in
designing,
the FAD the
curve FAD
based curve
on the based
stress on the
intensitystress
factor intensity
has been factor has
plotted in been
this plotted
paper.
designing, the FAD curve based on the stress intensity factor has been plotted in this paper. TheThein this paper.
expression The
used
expression
to used
constructused
expression toconstruct
the FAD
to construct the
curve isthe FADcurve
described
FAD curve isisdescribed
described
in Equation inEquation
(6) above.
in Equation (6)to
We refer
(6) above. We
TableWe
above. refer
2 inrefer
ordertoto
to Table
find22out
Table in
in
order
the to find
coordinatesoutof the
thecoordinates
operational of the operational
condition.
order to find out the coordinates of the operational condition. condition.

Table 2.
Table2. Coordinates
2.Coordinates of
Coordinatesof the
ofthe operational
theoperational condition.
operationalcondition.
condition.
Table
PD𝑷𝑫 𝝈𝒂𝒑𝒑σapp
σeff σapp = 𝑲 K
𝑲r = KIc𝑺 S𝝈r =
p
𝝈𝝈𝒆𝒇𝒇
𝒆𝒇𝒇
Xeff K=σeff 𝟐𝝅𝑿
2πXeff
𝑿𝑿𝒆𝒇𝒇 𝑲𝑲 == 𝝈𝝈𝒆𝒇𝒇 √𝟐𝝅𝑿 𝒆𝒇𝒇
𝒆𝒇𝒇 √
𝝈𝒂𝒑𝒑 = 2t𝑷𝑫 𝑹𝑹𝒎Rm 𝑲𝑲𝒓 == K𝑲
𝝈𝒂𝒑𝒑 = 𝟐𝒕 𝑺 𝒓 ==
𝒂𝒑𝒑
Rm
311
𝒆𝒇𝒇
0.17 10.161
𝒆𝒇𝒇
115.92 𝟐𝒕
𝒎
440
𝒓 𝑲𝑰𝒄𝑰𝒄
0.106
𝒓
𝑹𝑹𝒎𝒎
0.263
311 0.17
311 0.17 10.161
10.161 115.92
115.92 440
440 0.106
0.106 0.263
0.263
Then, theFAD
Then, FAD curveisisrepresented
represented inFigure
Figure 7.From From thediagram,
diagram, theoperational
operational conditionor or
Then, the
the FAD curve curve is represented in in Figure 7. 7. From the
the diagram, the the operational condition
condition or
the assessment
assessment point coordinates (𝑆𝑟, ,𝐿𝐿𝑟)) isis located
point of coordinates located in thethe safety
safety zone,
zone, as as described
described in in the
the
the
the assessment point ofof coordinates (Sr , (𝑆
Lr𝑟) is𝑟 located in thein safety zone, as described in the theoretical
theoretical
theoretical part, which means that the structure with a defect of a⁄t
a⁄t == 0.2,
= 0.2, 2c ⁄ t = 4 subjected
2c⁄t = 4tosubjected to aa
part, whichpart,
means whichthatmeans that thewith
the structure structure
a defect with a defect
of a/t = 0.2,of2c/t 4 subjected a pressure to of
pressure of
pressure of 60
60 bar
bar isis safe,
safe, and nono failure occurs.
occurs. Moreover, the the safety
safety ratio
ratio related
related to to the
the design
design
60 bar is safe, and no failureand
occurs.failure
Moreover, theMoreover,
safety ratio related to the design circumstance is
circumstance
circumstance is
is determined
determined by
by the
the following
following rapport:
rapport:
determined by the following rapport:
OD𝑂𝐷
𝑂𝐷
𝑓f𝑓𝑠s𝑠 =
== OA (12)
(12)
(12)
𝑂𝐴
𝑂𝐴
An acceptable
Anacceptable configuration
acceptableconfiguration
configurationis is generally
isgenerally examined
generallyexamined
examinedby by comparing
bycomparing
comparingthe the calculated
thecalculated safety
calculatedsafety ratio
safetyratio with
ratiowith
with
An
the
the usual
usual value
value ((𝑓
fs𝑠 == 2)2)[26]. InIn
[26]. our case,
our wewe
case, obtained
obtaineda value
a value fs 𝑓=
of of 4.23
= >
4.23f s >= 𝑓 2. = 2.
the usual value (𝑓𝑠 = 2) [26]. In our case, we obtained a value of 𝑓𝑠𝑠 = 4.23 > 𝑓𝑠𝑠 = 2.

Figure7.
Figure
Figure 7.Failure
7. Failureassessment
assessment diagram toestablish
diagram to
to establishthe
establish theoperational
the operationalcondition.
operational condition.
condition.

Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, x; doi: FOR PEER REVIEW www.mdpi.com/journal/applsci

Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, x; doi: FOR PEER REVIEW www.mdpi.com/journal/applsci
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 6129 10 of 13

5. Discussion
The results indicate that the evaluation of the integrity of a cracked structure can be done by
the combination of the XFEM method and the volumetric method. The data obtained from these
two methods contributed to the construction of the FAD diagram. As the sensitivity of the stress
distribution along the defect requires the use of the XFEM method to eliminate all types of errors due
to the use of other techniques mentioned above, the stability of a cracked structure can be examined
using the famous FAD diagram.
By comparing these results to those presented in [41], and as we have taken the same dimensions
of defects, we found that the curve of the stress distribution corresponding to the model CFEM
method and the curve of the stress distribution corresponding to the model XFEM method are almost
identical. They have a relative error of 0.72%. We chose the XFEM model to improve the quality of the
computation results and to precisely eliminate the singularity effect at the crack point.
The fracture parameter used in this research project is the stress intensity factor; the difference
between this research and other researches is in the method of extraction of this parameter. That is
why we have combined the XFEM method and the volumetric method. It should be noted that
the method used (volumetric method) to extract the stress intensity factor is generally exploited for
notch processing. However, we have assumed that the crack behaves as a notch. We have obtained
√
10.164 MPa m. Among the reasons for applying this idea is that the study of crack propagation in
Abacus software does not allow us to directly extract this parameter, except that the crack remains
stable, and this is not the case here. The FIC is one of the parameters used to construct the famous FAD
diagram. Normally, the point (0.0, 1.0) limits this diagram on the Y-axis and (1.0, 0.0) on the X-axis.
Figure 7 shows an offset on the X-axis, but it does not influence the quality of the results. It may be due
to the effect of plasticity at the crack tip, but this is not the aim of this research; we will study this effect
in future work. Finally, the stability of the cracked structure depends on the value of the safety factor,
which is 4.23. This value shows that the structure can function correctly with this type of defect and
this type of loading.
Therefore, it can be concluded that the strategy provided in this paper has been successfully
validated on cracked pipelines. The results obtained by the use of FAD based on XFEM permit the
dealing of localised cracks in welds in future works, as well as the possibility to replace the stress
intensity factor by nonlinear mechanical parameters including the integral J or crack-type opening
displacement CTOD. The effect of plasticity is not studied in this paper, although the results obtained
encourage us to go further to treat the effect of plasticity at the crack tip as the XFEM method has not
yet justified an accuracy in this field. It is necessary to develop a user subroutine to define an element
code to integrate it with XFEM.

6. Conclusions
This survey provides the results of a detailed numerical study executed on a P264GH steel pipe
with an axial defect under the impact of internal pressure. The main purpose was to validate the use of
the XFEM method, which is more robust when compared to CFEM. The numerical results are exploited
to obtain the stress intensity factor using the volumetric method. This method is mainly used to deal
with the notch problem. By using a crack in this research, we verify the hypothesis that the crack
can behave like a notch when loaded. The results from this research are verified against the classical
FEM, which proves the consistency. Further, the obtained results enable us to build the FAD diagram,
which allows us to evaluate the safety of a structure. To conclude, the XFEM method is indicated
as a viable solution to replace the CFEM method due to its efficiency and simplicity. Thus, in the
mechanical side, the FAD diagram can be a good indication of the influence of a defect on a design,
as well as the stability of the geometry.
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 6129 11 of 13

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, S.M.; Data curation, S.M. and D.K.R.; Formal analysis, K.Y.; Project
administration, H.M. and A.E.; Resources, A.E.; Writing—original draft, C.I.P.; Writing—review and editing, C.I.P.
All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Capelle, J.; Gilgert, J.; Dmytrakh, I.; Pluvinage, G. The effect of hydrogen concentration on fracture of pipeline
steels in presence of a notch. Eng. Fract. Mech. 2011, 78, 364–373. [CrossRef]
2. Lam, C.; Zhou, W. Statistical analyses of incidents on onshore gas transmission pipelines based on PHMSA
database. Int. J. Press. Vessel. Pip. 2016, 145, 29–40. [CrossRef]
3. Moustabchir, H.; Arbaoui, J.; Azari, Z.; Hariri, S.; Pruncu, C.I. Experimental/numerical investigation
of mechanical behaviour of internally pressurized cylindrical shells with external longitudinal and
circumferential semi-elliptical defects. Alex. Eng. J. 2018, 57, 1339–1347. [CrossRef]
4. Pachoud, A.J.; Manso, P.A.; Schleiss, A.J. Stress intensity factors for axial semi-elliptical surface cracks and
embedded elliptical cracks at longitudinal butt welded joints of steel-lined pressure tunnels and shafts
considering weld shape. Eng. Fract. Mech. 2017, 179, 93–119. [CrossRef]
5. Zhang, Y.; Xiao, Z.; Luo, J. Fatigue crack growth investigation on offshore pipelines with three-dimensional
interacting cracks. Geosci. Front. 2018, 9, 1689–1697. [CrossRef]
6. Benhamena, A.; Aminallah, L.; Bouiadjra, B.B.; Benguediab, M.; Amrouche, A.; Benseddiq, N. J integral
solution for semi-elliptical surface crack in high density poly-ethylene pipe under bending. Mater. Des. 2011,
32, 2561–2569. [CrossRef]
7. Dake, Y.; Sridhar, I.; Zhongmin, X.; Kumar, S.B. Fracture capacity of girth welded pipelines with 3D surface
cracks subjected to biaxial loading conditions. Int. J. Press. Vessel. Pip. 2012, 92, 115–126. [CrossRef]
8. Zhang, Y.; Xiao, Z.; Zhang, W. On 3-D crack problems in offshore pipeline with large plastic deformation.
Theor. Appl. Fract. Mech. 2013, 67, 22–28. [CrossRef]
9. Zhang, Y.; Yi, D.; Xiao, Z.; Huang, Z. Engineering critical assessment for offshore pipelines with 3-D elliptical
embedded cracks. Eng. Fail. Anal. 2015, 51, 37–54. [CrossRef]
10. Paarmann, M.; Sander, M. Analytical determination of stress intensity factors in thick walled thermally
loaded components. Eng. Fract. Mech. 2020, 235, 107125. [CrossRef]
11. Agbo, S.; Lin, M.; Ameli, I.; Lmanpour, A.; Duan, D.-M.; Roger Cheng, J.J.; Adeeb, S. Experimental evaluation
of the effect of the internal pressure and flaw size on the tensile strain capacity of welded X42 vintage
pipelines. Int. J. Press. Vessel. Pip. 2019, 173, 55–67. [CrossRef]
12. Shibanuma, K.; Hosoe, T.; Yamaguchi, H.; Tsukamoto, M.; Suzuki, K.; Aihara, S. Crack tip opening angle
during unstable ductile crack propagation of a high-pressure gas pipeline. Eng. Fract. Mech. 2018, 204,
434–453. [CrossRef]
13. Anderson, T.L. Fracture Mechanics: Fundamentals and Applications; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2017.
14. Barsoum, R.S. On the use of isoparametric finite elements in linear fracture mechanics. Int. J. Numer.
Methods Eng. 1976, 10, 25–37. [CrossRef]
15. Belytschko, T.; Lu, Y.Y.; Gu, L. Element-free galerkin methods. Int. J. Numer. Methods Eng. 1994, 37, 229–256.
[CrossRef]
16. Partridge, P.W.; Brebbia, C.A.; Wrobel. (Eds.) Dual Reciprocity Boundary Element Method; Springer Science &
Business Media Publishing: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2012.
17. Moës, N.; Dolbow, J.; Belytschko, T. A finite element method for crack growth without remeshing. Int. J.
Numer. Methods Eng. 1999, 46, 131–150. [CrossRef]
18. Bazazzadeh, S.; Mossaiby, F.; Shojaei, A. An adaptive thermo-mechanical peridynamic model for fracture
analysis in ceramics. Eng. Fract. Mech. 2020, 223, 106708. [CrossRef]
19. Molnár, G.; Gravouil, A. 2D and 3D abaqus implementation of a robust staggered phase-field solution for
modeling brittle fracture. Finite Elem. Anal. Des. 2017, 130, 27–38. [CrossRef]
20. Melenk, J.; Babuska, I. The partition of unity finite element method: Basic theory and applications.
Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng. 1996, 139, 289–314. [CrossRef]
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 6129 12 of 13

21. Pluvinage, G.; Bouledroua, O.; Meliani, M.H.; Suleiman, R. Corrosion defect analysis using domain failure
assessment diagram. Int. J. Press. Vessel. Pip. 2018, 165, 126–134. [CrossRef]
22. Kirin, S.; Sedmak, A.; Zaidi, R.; Grbović, A.; Šarkočević, Ž. Comparison of experimental, numerical
and analytical risk assessment of oil drilling rig welded pipe based on fracture mechanics parameters.
Eng. Failure Anal. 2020, 104600. [CrossRef]
23. Bergant, M.A.; Yawny, A.A.; Perez Ipiña, J.E. Structural integrity assessments of steam generator tubes using
the FAD methodology. Nucl. Eng. Des. 2015, 295, 457–467. [CrossRef]
24. Bergant, M.A.; Yawny, A.A.; Ipiña, J.E.P. A comparison of failure assessment diagram options for inconel 690
and incoloy 800 nuclear steam generators tubes. Ann. Nucl. Energy 2020, 140, 107310. [CrossRef]
25. Kingklang, S.; Daodon, W.; Uthaisangsuk, V. Failure investigation of liquefied petroleum gas cylinder using
FAD and XFEM. Int. J. Press. Vessel. Pip. 2019, 171, 69–78. [CrossRef]
26. Pluvinage, G.; Capelle, J.; Schmitt, C. Methods for assessing defects leading to gas pipe failure. Handb. Mater.
Fail. Anal. Case Stud. Oil Gas Ind. 2016, 55–89. [CrossRef]
27. Pluvinage, G. Pipe-defect assessment based on the limit analysis, failure-assessment diagram, and subcritical
crack growth. Mater. Sci. 2006, 42, 127–139. [CrossRef]
28. Pluvinage, G.J.; Capelle, J.; Meliani, M.H. Pipe networks transporting hydrogen pure or blended with natural
gas, design and maintenance. Eng. Fail. Anal. 2019, 106, 104164. [CrossRef]
29. Lazzarin, P.; Berto, F.; Zappalorto, M. Rapid calculations of notch stress intensity factors based on averaged
strain energy density from coarse meshes: Theoretical bases and applications. Int. J. Fatigue 2010, 32,
1559–1567. [CrossRef]
30. Adib, H.; Jallouf, S.; Schmitt, C.; Carmasol, A.; Pluvinage, G. Evaluation of the effect of corrosion defects
on the structural integrity of X52 gas pipelines using the SINTAP procedure and notch theory. Int. J. Press.
Vessel. Pip. 2007, 84, 123–131. [CrossRef]
31. Pluvinage, G. Fracture and Fatigue Emanating from Stress Concentrators; Springer Science & Business Media
Publishing: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2007.
32. Bolzon, G.; Boukharouba, T.; Gabetta, G.; Elboujdaini, M.; Mellas, M. Integrity of Pipelines Transporting
Hydrocarbons: Corrosion, Mechanisms, Control, and Management; Springer Science & Business Media Publishing:
Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2011.
33. Milne, I.; Ainsworth, R.; Dowling, A.; Stewart, A. Assessment of the integrity of structures containing defects.
Int. J. Press. Vessel. Pip. 1988, 32, 3–104. [CrossRef]
34. Webster, S.; Bannister, A. Structural integrity assessment procedure for Europe–of the SINTAP programme
overview. Eng. Fract. Mech. 2000, 67, 481–514. [CrossRef]
35. Ainsworth, R.; Hooton, D.; Green, D. Failure assessment diagrams for high temperature defect assessment.
Eng. Fract. Mech. 1999, 62, 95–109. [CrossRef]
36. Lin, Y.; Xie, Y.; Wang, X. Probabilistic fracture failure analysis of nuclear piping containing defects using R6
method. Nucl. Eng. Des. 2004, 229, 237–246. [CrossRef]
37. Ameli, I.; Asgarian, B.; Lin, M.; Agbo, S.; Cheng, R.; Duan, D.-M.; Adeeb, S. Estimation of the CTOD-crack
growth curves in SENT specimens using the eXtended finite element method. Int. J. Press. Vessel. Pip. 2019,
169, 16–25. [CrossRef]
38. Higuchi, R.; Okabe, T.; Nagashima, T. Numerical simulation of progressive damage and failure in composite
laminates using XFEM/CZM coupled approach. Compos. Part A: Appl. Sci. Manuf. 2017, 95, 197–207.
[CrossRef]
39. Khoei, A.R. Extended Finite Element Method: Theory and Applications; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken,
NJ, USA, 2014.
40. Specifying a Contact Interaction Property for XFEM. Available online: https://abaqusdocs.mit.edu/2017/
English/SIMACAECAERefMap/simacae-t-enghelpxfemcontact.htm (accessed on 21 May 2020).
41. Moustabchir, H.; Pruncu, C.I.; Azari, Z.; Hariri, S.; Dmytrakh, I. Fracture mechanics defect assessment
diagram on pipe from steel P264GH with a notch. Int. J. Mech. Mater. Des. 2016, 12, 273–284. [CrossRef]
42. Wang, X.; Shuai, J.; Lv, Z. Study on FAD curves of steel pipes based on stress-strain curves. Theor. Appl.
Fract. Mech. 2020, 102451. [CrossRef]
43. Moustabchir, H.; Azari, Z.; Hariri, S.; Dmytrakh, I. Experimental and numerical study of stress-strain state of
pressurised cylindrical shells with external defects. Eng. Fail. Anal. 2010, 17, 506–514. [CrossRef]
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 6129 13 of 13

44. Abaqus Documentation. Available online: https://abaqusdocs.mit.edu/2017/English/SIMACAEEXCRefMap/

simaexc-c-docproc.htm (accessed on 17 May 2020).
45. Lin, M.; Agbo, S.; Duan, D.-M.; Cheng, J.R.; Adeeb, S. Simulation of crack propagation in API 5L X52
pressurized pipes using XFEM-based cohesive segment approach. J. Pipeline Syst. Eng. Pract. 2020,
11, 04020009. [CrossRef]
46. Okodi, A.; Lin, M.; Yoosef-Ghodsi, N.; Kainat, M.; Hassanien, S.; Adeeb, S. Crack propagation and burst
pressure of longitudinally cracked pipelines using extended finite element method. Int. J. Press. Vessel. Pip.
2020, 104115. [CrossRef]
47. Du, Z. EXtended Finite Element Method (XFEM) in Abaqus; Simulia: Johnston, RI, USA, 2009.
48. Reinhardt, L.; Cordes, J.; Geissler, D. Using Co-simulation to Extend the Usage of XFEM; Simulia: Johnston, RI,
USA, 2011.

© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).