19
NEW DEVELOPMENTS IN FABRICATED TEES – A QUALITY ASSURANCE DESIGN GUIDELINE A.C. Seibi and R. J. Lawrence, GPPA

NEW DEVELOPMENTS IN FABRICATED TEES – A QUALITY ASSURANCE DESIGN GUIDELINE A.C. Seibi and R. J. Lawrence, GPPA

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

NEW DEVELOPMENTS IN FABRICATED TEES – A QUALITY ASSURANCE DESIGN GUIDELINE

A.C. Seibi and R. J. Lawrence, GPPA

Outline

Background Approach Quality Control

o Lab. Testso Finite Element Modeling

Results & Discussion Conclusions & Recommendations

Background

Background

Background

Design????

Background

Do we have to strictly follow ISO 4427 ????

8.0f 5.0f

Approach

1. Search for field reports of failures.

2. Examine welding fabrication process.

3. Perform finite element analysis.

4. Carry out laboratory burst tests on elbows and tees.

5. Compare results of 3. and 4.

Preliminary Findings

1. Very few field failures of pipe fittings.

2. Overlapping beads at tee joints may present weakness in fittings.

3. Soaking time for large diameter pipes should be revisited.

4. Bead not welded properly

1st Joint 2nd JointPipe yielding

Parrot beak

QC: Lab Results

Long Term Test (Tees). 12.4 MPa for 100 hrs at 20 oC5.4 MPa for 165 hrs at 80 oC

Temperature (oC)

Derating factor

Size (mm)63 – 250 560 - 900 2000

20

0.8

0.9

0.95

1

Pass

Pass

Pass

Fail

Pass

Pass

Pass

Fail

Pass

---

---

---

80

0.8

0.9

0.95

1

Pass

Pass

Pass

Fail

Pass

Pass

Pass

Fail

Pass

---

---

---

QC: Finite Element Modelling

Elbow Tee

Press. vs. displ

FEM Results

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18

Displacement, U/D

Pre

ss

ure

(b

ar)

Stress contours

Results

Size

(mm)

Bend

Angle

(deg.)

Thicknes

s

(mm)

Pressur

e

FEA

(bar)

Pressure

Experiment

al

(bar)

Error

(%)

317.5 45 12.7 21.8 23 5.39

225.6 90 15 33.8 37.5 9.87

167.1 90 15.1 46.6 49.2 5.28

161 45 14.9 54 60 10.00

225.8 45 13.8 34.95 34.9 0.14

Difference ≈ 0.1 – 10%

Stress concentration

Displacement contours

Deformed shape

Max. &not at the same place. Why?

Failure occurs at intersection due to viscoelastic material behavior

Longitudinal strain

Transverse strain

FEM Results

Practical Solution - UPI

UPI developed a 2000 mm reducer tee. No worry about pipe derating.

FEM Results

It was recommended to create fillets at the inner and outer sections of the junction.

Conclusions

1. A derating factor of 0.8 for modern PE100 like HE 3490 LS pipe tees can be safely accepted.

2. Most failures in tees take place in either 1st or 2nd weld. Need further investigation.

3. FE results showed a good agreement with burst pressures of pipe bends.

4. FE results showed that the max. stress is concentrated at the tee junction and that potential failure is anticipated to take place at the intersection of the welds.

Recommendations

1. Need to understand reasons behind tee failure along the welds.

2. Must develop a strain based failure criterion for plastic pipes and fittings.

3. Damage mechanics should be considered in FEM to better understand failure modes in fabricated pipe fittings.

4. Should take a look at the soak time in welding of large size fittings.