1 Copyright 2012 by ASME

DYNAMIC BEHAVIOUR OF HIGH STRENGTH PIPELINE STEEL

F. Van den Abeele
ArcelorMittal Global
R&D Ghent, Belgium
J. Peirs
Ghent University
Ghent, Belgium

P. Verleysen
Ghent University
Ghent, Belgium

F. Oikonomides
ArcelorMittal Global
R&D Ghent, Belgium

J. Van Wittenberghe
ArcelorMittal Global
R&D Ghent, Belgium

ABSTRACT
The occurrence of a longitudinal crack propagating along a
gas pipeline is a catastrophic event, which involves both
economic losses and environmental damage. Hence, the
fracture propagation control is essential to ensure pipeline
integrity. The commonly used ductile fracture control strategy
for the design of high pressure pipelines is the Battelle Two
Curve Method. This approach stipulates that if there is a crack
speed at a given pressure that exceeds the gas decompression
velocity at the same pressure, propagation will occur.
However, for high strength pipeline steels, this method
does not yield conservative predictions, as the absorbed impact
energy during a Charpy test no longer reflects the actual burst
behaviour of the pipe. Enhanced toughness measures, like
Crack Tip Opening Angle and instrumented Battelle Drop
Weight Tear test are being proposed as alternative options.
These emerging toughness tests are complemented by
numerical simulations of ductile crack propagation and arrest.
Most of these models are based on the computation of void
growth, and account for the local softening of the material due
to void growth and subsequent coalescence.
The constitutive behaviour of the sound pipeline steel is
often modelled as merely an elastoplastic law, measured under
quasi-static conditions. However, both Charpy tests and Battelle
tests are dynamic events, which require knowledge of the strain
rate sensitivity of the pipeline material. In addition, very high
strain rates can occur in the vicinity of a running crack in a high
pressure gas pipeline. Hence, the constitutive model for the
pipeline steel has to account for strain rate sensitivity.
In this paper, Split Hopkinson Tensile Bar (SHTB)
experiments are reported on high strength pipeline steel.
Notched tensile tests are performed at high strain rates, to
assess the influence of both strain rate sensitivity and triaxiality
on the response of the material. In addition, dynamic
experiments are conducted at low temperatures (-70C) to
evaluate the ductility of pipeline steel under such severe
conditions. The results 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 steel.
GAS PIPELINE FRACTURE CONTROL STRATEGY
When designing high pressure pipelines, the commonly
used fracture control strategy [01] is the Battelle Two Curve
Method [02]. This approach stipulates that if there is a crack
speed at a given pressure that exceeds the gas decompression
velocity at the same pressure, propagation will occur. This
method models the crack driving force (internal pressure) and
resistance force (material toughness) as two independent
processes, which are both function of the crack speed. If the
crack speed at a given pressure exceeds the gas decompression
velocity, crack propagation will occur. For large diameter
pipelines, the gas decompression is assumed to be one
dimensional, adiabatic and isentropic. Under these assumptions,
the pressure p
c
acting on the flanks in the vicinity of the crack
tip can be connected to the crack speed : by [03]

p
c
p

= _
:
c
_
2
y +1
+
y -1
y +1
]_
[
2y
y-1

(01)

where p

is the initial gas pressure, y is the adiabatic index or

specific heat capacity ratio of the (ideal) gas and c is the
acoustic wave velocity in the gas at a pressure p
c
. The
expression (01) for the driving force is only valid for ideal
gases, but provides a good approximation for pure methane and
lean gas.

Under the assumption that the steady crack speed :
depends on the flow stress o and the material toughness +, an
expression for the resistance force

: = z
o
+
_
p
p
u
- 1]
1 6
(02)

can be derived, relating the crack speed : to the operating
conditions and the gas pressure p. The backfill constraint effect
is reflected in (02) by the coefficient z, and p
u
is the arrest
pressure, which is written in the Battelle Two Curve Method as
a log-secant equation [04].
Proceedings of the 2012 9th International Pipeline Conference
IPC2012
September 24-28, 2012, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
IPC2012-90224
2 Copyright 2012 by ASME
The materials resistance to fracture propagation + is
related to the strain energy release rate 0 and, under conditions
of linear elastic fracture mechanics, to the plain strain fracture
toughness K
Ic
. To obtain an elegant formulation, the specific
impact energy absorbed during a Charpy V-notch experiment is
introduced in (02). As a result, the resistance force (02) can be
plotted as a function of crack speed for different impact
toughness levels [05]. The crack driving force (01) can be
plotted as a function of crack speed as well. On Figure 1, this
Battelle Two Curve Method is illustrated.


Figure 1: Battelle Two Curve Method (after [6])

The smoothly increasing curve represents the gas
decompression velocity, whereas the steeper curves represent
the arrest pressure for different toughness levels. The relative
position of these curves determines the potential for sustained
fracture propagation or arrest. Indeed, for a low toughness pipe,
fracture propagation will occur at a crack speed determined by
the intersection of crack driving and resistance curves. For a
high toughness pipe, the decompression velocity is higher than
the crack speed for every pressure level, and hence the crack
will arrest. The tangent curve dictates the minimum required
toughness in order to achieve safe crack arrest conditions.

The original Battelle Two Curve (BTC) method was
calibrated on a database of pipeline steels with upper shelf
energies below 100 Joules [02], where lab tests were correlated
to the results of full-scale propagation tests. However, recent
results [07-08] have shown that these correlations are no longer
valid for high strength pipeline grades, which can exhibit
Charpy impact values well beyond 300 Joules [09-10].

The influence of the steel grade on BTC predictions is
discussed in [11, 12]. For higher strength linepipe steels, the
absorbed energy during a Charpy V-notch experiment no longer
reflects the full-scale burst behavior of a pipe.
Indeed, although Charpy testing represents an inexpensive,
fast and straightforward means for quality control, there are
important restrictions [13] when trying to transfer the results to
full-scale structures:

Specimen size. In a Charpy specimen, the remaining
ligament is short compared to a pipe length, and does
not allow ample crack propagation. In addition, the
thickness of the specimen (10 mm) is typically smaller
than the pipe wall.
Loading. The loading is introduced primarily as a
bending load, which does not correspond to a running
shear fracture in a high pressure gas pipeline.
Moreover, the crack speed observed in Charpy tests is
much lower than in a full-scale burst test.
Impact toughness. The energy absorbed during a
Charpy impact test is a measure for the notch
toughness of the material, but cannot be transferred to
plain strain fracture toughness. For Charpy and
Battelle Drop Weight Tear tests, the increased apparent
toughness can be attributed to a higher initiation
energy, whereas the resistance to fracture propagation
may remain constant.
Initiation versus propagation. The upper shelf energy
does not allow distinguishing between the energy
required to initiate the crack, and the energy absorbed
by crack propagation. The original Charpy test aimed
at measuring the materials resistance to crack
initiation.

To overcome the pitfalls of the Charpy test, several
alternative options are being studied and developed in pipeline
engineering labs. A comprehensive overview of these research
efforts is provided in [14, 15]. The Crack Tip Opening Angle
(CTOA) and the instrumented Battelle Drop Weight Tear Test
(BDWTT) show the most promising potential:

Crack Tip Opening Angle can describe the materials
resistance against a propagating fracture. Currently,
different experimental techniques are being
investigated [16, 17] to measure CTOA of a pipe
section. Unfortunately, this toughness parameter
depends on the ligament length, and no clear
correlations with full-scale burst tests have been
derived yet.
An alternative approach is to introduce the energy
absorbed during a Battelle Drop Weight Tear Test,
rather than the Charpy upper shelf energy. Indeed,
instrumented BDWTT have the distinct advantage of a
longer ligament, the full wall thickness and the
discrimination between initiation and propagation
energy. Recent results indicate that the influence of the
steel grade on such BTC predictions is less
pronounced [18], and that the initiation energy in
BDWTT provides a good description of the full-scale
fracture resistance [19].
3 Copyright 2012 by ASME
These emerging toughness tests are complemented by
numerical simulations of ductile crack propagation and arrest.
Most of the numerical models are based on the computation of
void growth, and account for the local softening of the material
due to void growth and subsequent coalescence [20-22]. The
constitutive behavior of the sound pipeline steel is often
modeled using an elastoplastic law, measured under quasi-static
test conditions. However, both Charpy impact experiments and
Battelle Drop Weight Tear tests are dynamic events, which
require knowledge of the strain rate sensitivity of the pipeline
material. In addition, very high strain rates can occur in the
vicinity of a running crack in a high pressure gas pipeline.
Hence, the constitutive model for the pipeline steel has to
account for strain rate sensitivity.

In this paper, Split Hopkinson Tensile Bar (SHTB)
experiments are reported to measure the dynamic properties of
high strength pipeline steel. As the three dimensional stress
state in the vicinity of the crack tip governs the fracture
propagation, notched tensile tests at high strain rates are
performed as well, to assess the influence of both strain rate
and triaxiality. In addition, dynamic experiments are conducted
at low temperatures (-70C) to evaluate the ductility of high
strength pipeline steel under such severe conditions. 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 behavior of high strength pipeline steel.

SPLIT HOPKINSON TENSILE BAR EXPERIMENTS

Klepaczko [23] was one of the first to use a Hopkinson or
Kolsky device to measure dynamic fracture properties of metal
alloys. Using a Hopkinson pressure bar, he observed a
substantial decrease in fracture toughness under impact loading
for strain rate sensitive alloys. The same Hopkinson pressure
setup has been proposed as an alternative to the instrumented
pendulum for Charpy tests in [24]. Although this method
provides high quality data on the evolution of the absorbed
energy, the propagation of elastic stress waves in the sample
obscures the correlation between the measured force to the
stress intensity at the crack tip. In [25-26], an approach to use
Hopkinson pressure tests to determine dynamic fracture
initiation toughness has been proposed. The stress intensity
factor, however, is determined from the crack mouth opening
displacement, which requires crack gauges to be attached to the
specimen. As a result, sample preparation is no longer straight-
forward, and interpretation of the measurements signals may be
biased by noise or spurious signals.

In this paper, the potential of a Split Hopkinson Tensile Bar
(SHTB) is exploited to measure the dynamic behavior of high
strength pipeline steel. During a SHTB experiment, a small
cylindrical steel sample is subjected to a uniaxial tensile load at
high strain rate. A schematic representation of the Hopkinson
setup is shown in Figure 2.


Figure 2: Split Hopkinson Tensile Bar Setup (after [27])

This setup consists of an input and an output bar, with a
specimen sandwiched in between. A tube-like impactor is put
around the input bar, and accelerated towards an anvil. Thus, a
so-called incident tensile wave e

(t) is generated, and

propagates along the input bar towards the specimen. The
incident wave interacts with the specimen, generating a
reflected wave e

(t) and a transmitted wave e

t
(t). The strain
histories e

(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)