Effect of Lüders Plateau on Fracture Response and Toughness of Pipelines Subject to Extreme Plastic Bending
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The reeling technique presents an economical pipeline installation method for offshore oil and gas applications, especially for thick-wall (low D/t) pipelines. During reeling, the pipe is subjected to large plastic bending strains up to 3%. In thick-wall pipes, the tensile fracture response of the pipeline/girth weld would normally be the governing limit state. Seamless line pipes are preferred for the reeling applications in which the Lüders plateau is often exhibited in materials stress-strain response. In this paper, the fracture response of such pipelines is investigated from a continuum perspective using a nonlinear 3D finite element analysis. A typical pipeline with a hypothetical defect is considered, with the material having a range of Lüders strains and strain hardening indices. Results show that the Lüders plateau modifies the shape of the moment-strain response curves of the pipe, as well as the J-integral fracture response. It is observed that the response is always bounded between two limiting material models, which are (i) the elastic-perfectly plastic stress-strain response and (ii) the conventional elastic-strain hardening plasticity response, without a Lüders plateau. Also, the Lüders plateau was observed to decrease the crack opening stress ahead of the crack tip and thus the crack tip constraint. On the other hand, the presence of a Lüders plateau elevates the near tip plastic strain and stress triaxiality fields, thus promoting ductile fracture. A micromechanical damage integral model coupled with a modified boundary layer analysis was incorporated to study this aspect. Based on the findings of this study, it is believed that the presence of Lüders plateau could significantly alter the fracture response and toughness of pipes subject to relatively high strains.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".