gcrc 2019 presentation (2-1)김명현

GCRC-SOP 9th Year International Workshop

Project 2-1

1

Research Background

Overview of Research Contents

Summary of the 2019 research year

Results of Each Research Topic

Validation of the master curve approach based on Charpy impact test with

groove shapes

Fatigue life estimation for HFMI-treated weldments considering weld toe

magnification factors

Strain-based failure assessment based on a reference strain method for

welded pipelines

Research Outcomes (Jan. 2019~Dec. 2019)Project No. 2-1: Reliability and strength assessment of core parts and material system

2

Reliability and strength assessment of core parts and material system Acquisition of fatigue and fracture assessment DB (2011.09 ~ 2014.02)

• Fatigue strength assessment for low temperature materials• Investigate for fracture characteristics in offshore structural steels

Development for fatigue fracture analysis method and prediction technology

(2014.03 ~ 2017.02)• Development of advanced fatigue life prediction method• Development for residual stress/welding distortion control technology

Application of advanced design assessment method for offshore

structures (2017.03 ~ 2021.02)• Fitness-for-purpose assessment for ECA(Engineering Critical Assessment)• Development of structural integrity assessment method• To examine application for large welded structures

Project No. 2-1: Reliability and strength assessment of core parts and material system

3

The important issues in the design of ship and offshorestructures are fatigue and fracture performances in order tosecure the structural integrity Considering the operating and manufacturing condition of ship and

offshore structure, fatigue and fracture performances are crucial to the structural integrity

Structural integrity assessment of welded structures wherecracks may appear during construction or operation presentsimperative importance


4

Validation of the master curve approach based on Charpy impact test with groove shapes• Estimation of master curves with groove shape & sample locations

• Comparison of BS 7910:2013 & BS 7910:2019

Fatigue life estimation for HFMI-treated weldments considering weld toe magnification factors• Welding & HFMI treated Residual Stress Distribution

• Fatigue life estimation for HFMI treated weldments

Strain-based failure assessment based on a reference strain method for welded pipelines• Introduce of strain-based ECA & Reference strain method

• Comparison & Suggestion of Kim and Lee model for J integral estimation against existing model


5

Validation of the master curve approach based on Charpy impact testwith groove shapes• Modification of the probability level and/or the reference temperature is required

to include more variety of welding conditions.

Fatigue life estimation for HFMI-treated weldments considering weld toemagnification factors• 𝑴𝒌 value in HFMI treated condition exhibits a significant difference compared to

the As-welded condition.

• Suggested fatigue strength estimation method which consider geometrical effectpresents 90 % higher accuracy compared with without geometrical effect case.

Strain-based failure assessment based on a reference strain method for welded pipelines

• Influence on J-integral values: Under-matching > Over-matching.

• J integral estimation: Proposed method estimates J-integral value better than

other methods.


6

Results of Topic 1

7

‘Guide to methods for assessing the acceptability of flaws in metallicstructures’

Supporting a method for evaluating structures on the fracture mechanics


8

*SBA: Strain-based assessment

- IIsabel Hadley, Progress towards BS 7910, IIW 2019 (X-1935r-19)


9

Engineering critical assessment(ECA) is a effective procedure forevaluating the soundness of structures with flaws and requires reliablefracture toughness data to assess the effect of defects.

Ideal data are typically obtained from samples taken during constructionof an engineering structures or from the structure afterward, but there arein which removal of the test samples is impossible.


10

Charpy test Fracture toughness testSpecimen Charpy impact test specimen SE(B) or C(T) specimen

Notch depth 20% of specimen thickness 50% of specimen thickness

Notch type Blunt machine Vee-notch with 0.25mm root radius Fatigue pre-crack

Unit Joules (J) N/mm

<SE(B) specimen><Charpy V-notch test specimen>

Ductile to brittle transition temperature is different by the effects of thedifference between Charpy test and fracture toughness test: specimengeometry, notch depth and notch type.


11

BS 7910 provides a method for predicting fracture toughness by theCharpy V-notch impact test.

Availability of Charpy transition curve Calculate 𝑇 through

𝑇 or 𝑇

Yes

No

Estimating fracture toughness by Master Curve

with 𝑇 and 𝐶

Estimatingfracture toughness

by empirical equation with 𝐶

𝐓𝟎: the temperature for median fracture toughness of 100MPa.m0.5 in a 25mm thick fracture toughness specimen𝐓𝟐𝟕𝐉/𝐓𝟒𝟎𝐉: the temperature for 27J/40J measured in a standard Charpy V specimen𝐂𝐯: Charpy V-notch impact energy at the service temperature


12

Fracture toughness estimation based on master curve approach

𝐾 20 11 77 exp 0.019 𝑇 𝑇 25/𝐵 . ln 1/ 1 𝑃 .

𝑇 𝑇 18 𝑜𝑟 𝑇 24

𝐓 : Service temperature, ℃

B : Thickness

𝐏𝐟: Probability of 𝐊𝐦𝐚𝐭 being less than estimated. In BS 7910, it is recommended that 𝐏𝐟 𝟎. 𝟎𝟓.

𝐓𝟎: the temperature for median fracture toughness of 100MPa.m0.5 in a 25mm thick fracture toughness specimen.

Reference temperature, 𝑇

• BS 7910:2013 • Revised BS 7910:2019

𝑇 𝑇 87 𝜎1000𝐶𝑉

𝐓𝟐𝟕𝐉/𝐓𝟒𝟎𝐉: the temperature for 27J/40J measured in a standard Charpy V specimen

𝐂𝐕𝐔𝐒: Charpy upper shelf energy

* Pisarski and Bezensek, Estimating fracture toughness from Charpy data, OMAE2019-95787

Master curve approach based on Charpy V-notch impact test


13

Prediction equation for 𝑻𝟎 is revised for reasonable estimation of fracture toughness

𝑇 𝑇 → 𝑇 𝑇 87 𝜎1000𝐶𝑉

Reference temperature, 𝑻𝟎

More reasonable

<Predicted fracture toughness by existing method> <Predicted fracture toughness by modified method>

* Pisarski and Bezensek, Estimating fracture toughness from Charpy data, OMAE2019-95787


14

Validation of master curve approach with various welding conditions

Test conditions with API 2W Gr.50 and POSTEN 60

Welding type FCAW

Root Face 0 ~ 3mm

Back Gousing O

<Welding conditions>

Over heat input WPS

Current 380 A 320 A

Voltage 40 V 36 V

CPM 20 25

Heat input >45 25 ~ 30

Groove shape X-groove K-groove

Groove angle 60° 45°

<Schematic diagram of welded panel and sample location of mechanical test>

Mechanical tests such as impact, CTOD, and tensile were performed tovalidate the master curve approach based on Charpy impact test data.


15

<Charpy transition curve of API 2W Gr.50 and sample location of impact test>

<X-Groove> <K-Groove>

< CTOD transition curve of API 2W Gr.50 and sample location of CTOD test>

<X-Groove> <K-Groove>


16

<API 2W Gr. 50 & X-Groove> <API 2W Gr. 50 & K-Groove>

<API 2W Gr. 50 & Over heat input> <API 2W Gr. 50 & WPS>

The difference in sample location and welding conditions are reflected inmaster curves are not consolidated.


17

The revised master curve estimates less conservative (higher) fracturetoughness values anticipated from the decreased reference temperature.

More discrepancies at high fracture toughness values.

X-Groove

K-Groove

<Master curve of API 2W Gr. 50 according to BS 7910:2013 and the newly revised BS 7910:2019>


18

The largest discrepancy in fracture toughness according to weldingconditions is the groove shape for API 2W Gr. 50 and the heat input forPOSTEN 60.

<API 2W Gr.50 (modified BS7910 & Pf = 0.05)> <POSTEN 60(modified BS7910 & Pf = 0.05)>


19

Critical stress intensity factor from CTOD

𝐾𝑚𝜎 𝛿 𝐸

1 𝑣 ,

𝐸 : Elastic modulus

𝜎 : 0.2% proof or yield strength of the material for

which CTOD has been determined

𝛿 : Fracture toughness in terms of CTOD

𝑚 1.517𝜎𝜎

.

𝑓𝑜𝑟 0.3 𝜎 /𝜎 0.98

𝜎 : Tensile strength of the material tested, determined

at the fracture toughness test temperature.

𝜎 𝜎 10

491 1.8𝑇 189

Mechanical properties with assessment temperature

𝜎 𝜎 0.7857 0.2423 exp𝑇

170.646

𝑇 : Assessment temperature

* BS 7910:2013, Guide to methods for assessing the acceptability of flaws in metallic structures. British Standards Institution.


20

<X-Groove & Over heat input> <X-Groove & WPS> <K-Groove & WPS>

POSTEN 60

<X-Groove & Over heat input> <X-Groove & WPS> <K-Groove & WPS>

API 2W Gr. 50


21

<Fracture toughness of API 2W Gr. 50 & X-groove obtained by Charpy impact energy and CTOD>

In the 0.05 cumulative probability level, both BS7910:2013 and modified2019 tend to overestimate fracture toughness.


22

Modification of the probability level and/or the reference temperaturemay be required to include more variety of welding conditions.

Further study for high strength steel, modern welding processes …

𝑇 𝑇 𝟖𝟕 𝜎1000𝐶𝑉 𝑇 𝑇 𝟔𝟓 𝜎

1000𝐶𝑉 𝑃𝑓 𝟎. 𝟎𝟓 𝑃𝑓 𝟎. 𝟎𝟏

<Master curve of API 2W Gr. 50 & X-groove according to reference temperature and probability level>


23

Results of Topic 2

24

Recent increase in the size of ships and offshore structures lead to higher demands for High strength steel with low plate thickness for the loading capacity.

In case of using high strength steel, steel plate is designed to low thickness, and it causes a fatigue problem.

To guarantee performance of the product, fatigue strength improvement and estimation are conducted frequently.

• Clarkson Research, 2015


25

Variety of fatigue improvement methods are suggested.

However, each post treatment is known to be not effective for high strength steel.

Project No. 2-1: Reliability and strength assessment of core parts and material system• Fatigue improvement techniques for welds, J. Johnson, Processbarron

26

On the contrary, HFMI treatment exhibits high fatigue improvement performance for the high strength steel.

HFMI treatment effect is attributed by mechanical and geometrical effects.

Mechanical effect of HFMI treatment is properly considered in conventional fatigue estimation methods.


Higher yield strength ‐> Higher fatigue improvement effect

S‐N curve slope As‐ welded : 3HFMI treated : 5

• M. Leitner et al., Fatigue enhancement of thin-walled… , Welding in the world, 2014

27Project No. 2-1: Reliability and strength assessment of core parts and material system

The final goal of this study : an explicit fatigue life method for HFMI treated structure

The research scope Weld toe magnification factor calculation

• I. Stress intensity factor value calculation in HFMI treated weld toe geometry• II. Stress intensity factor value calculation in As-welded weld toe geometry• III. Weld toe magnification factor calculation

Stress Intensity Factor range calculation• I. Residual stress calculation by simulation• II. Stress Intensity Factor range calculation

a. Effective stress ratio calculation (Albrecht & Yamada equation)b. Application of stress ratio model

Fatigue life estimation based on Paris law𝑑𝑎𝑑𝑁 𝐶 𝑀 ∆𝐾

28Project No. 2-1: Reliability and strength assessment of core parts and material system

Paris law𝑑𝑎𝑑𝑁 𝐶 𝑀 ∆𝐾

𝑴𝒌 (Weld toe magnification factor)

𝑀𝐾 𝑜𝑟 𝐾

𝐾

∆𝑲 (Stress intensity factor range)

𝑅𝐾 . 𝐾𝐾 . 𝐾

∆𝐾 1 0.39823𝑅 ∆𝐾

∆𝐾 ∆𝐾

Material Constant

S355 FCGR experiment data

Fatigue life estimation

29

Numerical simulation sequence : Welding > Peening (HFMI)


1. Welding- Heat transfer model- Apply the Heat source on the analysis target

2. Residual stress(by welding)- General, Static model- Import the heat-induced stress from heat transfer model to

mechanical stress

3. HFMI treatment- Dynamic, Explicit model- HFMI treatment

30Enter Project No: Project Title in Slide Master

< Result of residual stress simulation >

Redistribution of residual stress : Tensile residual stress (As-welded) -> Compressive residual stress (HFMI treated)

31

Stress intensity factor 𝑲 analysis for 𝑴𝒌 calculation : HFMI treated, andAs-welded


< Condition of stress intensity factor analysis>

Crack length / plate thickness [a/t] Load [MPa]

0.01 ~ 0.5 100

As-welded (AW) HFMI

32

‘a/t < 0.03’ region : Case 1, 2, and 3 AW

‘a/t > 0.03’ region : Case 1, 2, and 3 AW


HFMI(Case 1,2, and 3)

As -Welded

a/t : 0.03

a/t : 0.03

Slow crack propagation

Slow crack propagation

< Weld magnification factor 𝑴𝒌 >

• [11] K. Ghahremani et al., Quality assurance for high-frequency…, Welding in the world 59, 2015• [12] E. Mikkola et al., A finite element study on residual stress…, International Journal of Fatigue, 2017

33

Based on Paris law and material constant of S355, fatigue life of each discrete crack depth 𝑎 is calculated.


< a-N curve comparison between HFMI+𝑴𝒌 and HFMI >

𝑁 𝑑𝑎

𝐶 𝑀 ∆𝐾

Material constant for S355Stress ratio C M

0 2.5893E-15 3.5622

0.25 2.5491E-15 3.7159

0.5 8.2764E-16 3.8907

0.75 4.9643E-14 3.2328

• Abilio M.P de Jesus et al., A comparison of the fatigue behavior…, Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 2012

34

Fatigue life estimation result (slope ‘m=5’ corrected) vs Experiment data


• Abilio M.P de Jesus et al., A comparison of the fatigue behavior…, Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 2012

< S355 steel 5mm butt joint S-N curve with fatigue life estimation result (‘m=5’ corrected) >

Load cycle = 10 Exp. HFMI HFMI(RS) HFMI(RS) +

Case 1HFMI(RS) +

Case 2HFMI(RS) +

Case 3Stress range

∆𝜎 [MPa] 240.67 248.38 242.93 237.56 242.42

35

Results of Topic 3

36

Ship & offshore structures which have been damaged locally due to thesevere operating condition may not satisfy its intended design life

In order to determine the maximum allowable flaw sizes at critical weldlocations under operation and extreme environmental load conditionsrequires the ECA

< Flaw initiation at critical weld location > < A schematic failure assessment diagram >


37

Most welding fabrication codes specify maximum tolerable flaw sizes

An Engineering Critical Assessment (ECA) is an analysis, based onfracture mechanics principles, of whether or not a given flaw is safe frombrittle fracture, fatigue, creep or plastic collapse under specified loadingconditions

During design, to assist in the choice of welding procedure and/orinspection techniques

During fabrication, to assess the significance of

a) Known defects which are unacceptable to a given fabrication code

b) A failure to meet the toughness requirements of a fabrication code

During operation, to assess flaws found in service and to make decisionsas to whether they can safely remain, or whether down-rating/repair arenecessary


38

ECA is carried out by means of a Failure Assessment Diagram (FAD)based on the fracture mechanics.

DNV-OS-F101 => stress-based ECA is generally used with nominal strains< 0.4%

Pipeline in installation and operation => 2~3% strain

< Reeled pipeline >< A schematic stress-based failure assessment diagram >

- DNV-OS-F101, 2013, Submarine Pipeline Systems, Det Norske Veritas, Hovik, Norway


39

Cheaitani and He proposed reference strain methods as an alternative tostrain in uncracked condition.

- M Cheaitani and W He, 2011, Strain-based Driving Force Estimates for Circumferential Cracks in Pipe Girth Welds, TWI Ltd

3. Failure assessment diagram

2. J-integral

- J-integral is a main parameter of Option 3 FAD.- FEA is performed to obtain J-integral values.

1. Stress-strain curve

- It is needed to get the option 2 FAD.- Ramberg-Osgood equation

4. Reference strain method

𝐸 𝜺𝒓𝒆𝒇

𝜎𝜎

2𝐸𝜎𝒀 𝜺𝒓𝒆𝒇

𝐽𝐽 Option 2 = 𝜺𝒓𝒆𝒇

𝒀 𝜺𝒓𝒆𝒇

/

Option 3 = 𝜺 𝒓𝒆𝒇

/𝜺

Remote strain

Stre

ss

strain

𝑫𝒓

𝑲𝒓

- Option 2- Option 3

𝑱𝒊𝒏

𝒕𝒆𝒈

𝒓𝒂𝒍

Remote strain

- Elastic J-integral- J-integral

𝜀𝜀

𝜎𝜎 𝛼

𝜎𝜎


40

The reference strain & the option 2 equation => more accurate J-integralvalues

The ratio of reference strain and remote strain is independent of remotestrain/applied strain (at strains exceeding 0.5%).

𝜀<0.5%: Reference strain increases linearly.

𝜀>0.5%: Reference strain is a constant value.− M Cheaitani and W He, 2011, Strain-based Driving Force Estimates for Circumferential Cracks in Pipe Girth Welds, TWI Ltd

Reference strain method

𝐸 𝜺𝒓𝒆𝒇

𝜎𝜎

2𝐸𝜎𝒀 𝜺𝒓𝒆𝒇

𝐽𝐽

𝜺 𝒓𝒆𝒇

/𝜺

Remote strain

J‐integral

strain

FEAJ-Integral by Reference strain method by TWIJ-integral by Budden and Ainsworth’s method


41

It is essential to consider strength mismatch effects to welded pipeline.

− Guide to methods for assessing the acceptability of flaws in metallic structures (BS 7910), 2013, British Standard Institution

<Homogeneous> <Over−matched structures> <Under−matched structures>

< Classification of plasticity deformation patterns for mismatched structure >

Annex I and P in BS7910 provides the equivalent stress-strain curve for theoption 2 and strength mismatch effects.

𝜎 𝜀

𝐹𝐹 1 𝜎 𝜀 𝑀 𝐹

𝐹 𝜎 𝜀

𝑀 1

∗ 𝑀 𝜀𝜎 𝜀𝜎 𝜀

,𝐹𝐹

𝑓 𝑝𝑖𝑝𝑒 𝑡ℎ𝑖𝑐𝑘𝑛𝑒𝑠𝑠, 𝑐𝑟𝑎𝑐𝑘 𝑑𝑒𝑝𝑡ℎ, 𝑏𝑒𝑎𝑑 𝑤𝑖𝑑𝑡ℎ 𝐴𝑛𝑛𝑒𝑥 𝑃 𝑖𝑛 𝐵𝑆7910

*𝜺𝒑𝒍: plastic strain, W : Weld metal, P : Base metal


42

It is essential to consider strength mismatch effects to welded pipeline.

3. Failure assessment diagram

2. J-integral

- J-integral is a main parameter to calculate option 3FAD.

- FEA is performed to obtain J-integral values.

1. Stress-strain curve

4. Reference strain method

𝐸 𝜺𝑴 𝜺𝒑𝒍

𝝈𝑴 𝜺𝒑𝒍

𝜺𝑴 𝜺𝒑𝒍𝟑

2𝐸𝜎𝒀 𝝈𝑴 𝜺𝒑𝒍

𝐽𝐽

𝜎 𝜀

𝐹𝐹 1 𝜎 𝜀 𝑀 𝐹

𝐹 𝜎 𝜀

𝑀 1

𝜀 𝜀𝜎 𝜀

𝐸 𝜀

Option 2 = 𝜺𝒓𝒆𝒇

𝒀 𝜺𝒓𝒆𝒇

/

Option 3 = 𝜺 𝒓𝒆𝒇

/𝜺

Remote strain𝑱

𝒊𝒏𝒕𝒆

𝒈𝒓𝒂

𝒍

Remote strain

- Elastic J-integral- J-integral

𝑫𝒓

𝑲𝒓

- Option 2- Option 3


43

Finite element analysis was performed to accomplish the intended goal.

Dimension of the pipe

Outer diameter

[mm]

Length[mm]

Thickness[mm]

Bead width[mm]

400 800 20 5


44

Finite element analysis was performed to accomplish the intended goal.

Case 𝜎 of weld metal[MPa]

1 Even-matching 400

2Over-matching

440 (10%)

3 480 (20%)

4Under-matching

360 (10%)

5 320 (20%)

Material PropertiesE

[MPa] 𝛼 𝑛

205800 1 15

• Ramberg‐Osgood equation

𝜺𝜺𝒀

𝝈𝝈𝒀

𝜶𝝈

𝝈𝒀

𝒏

*𝜺𝒀𝝈𝒀𝑬

<Parameters of Ramberg-Osgood equation> <Stress-strain curve of weld metal for mismatch cases>

• BM : 𝜎 400𝑀𝑃𝑎


45

Estimated J-integral: Under-matching > Over-matching Reference strain ratio: Under-matching > Even-matching > Over-matching

𝜀 /𝜀 with strength mismatch remains constant at remote strainexceeding 0.5%).

<Reference strain ratio curve><J-integral for each case>

20% UM

10% UM

EM

10% OM

20% OM

20% UM

10% UM

EM

10% OM

20% OM

Strain=0.5% (0.005)

a

b

a > b

a: variation in under-matching caseb: variation in over-matching case

Flat! – independent of remote strain


46

Conception

Consideration for

strength mismatc

h

Strain employed

Method AAinsworth and Budden

(strain at flaw location

in uncracked condition)

X Remote strain

Method B O Strain at weld metal obtained by FEA

Method C Cheaitani and He X

Reference strain by Cheaitani and H

e’s

method

Method D Current work OReference strain proposed in this stu

dy


47

<J integral estimation through the existing strain method and reference strain method for over-matched pipe>

Existing methods and the proposed method in this study exhibitreasonable correlation of elastic-plastic energy release rates in the caseof overmatching.

In particular, J-integral by Method B and Method D (considering strengthmismatch effects) are close to results from FE analysis.

<10% OM> <20% OM>

Mismatch X

Mismatch O

Mismatch X

Mismatch O


48

<20% OM> <20% UM>


Method B (Ainsworth and Budden’s procedure taking into accountstrength mismatch) works fairly well in OM case.

However, Method B excessively over-estimates the J-integral ( by 57%)in UM case.

Thus, Method B is not recommended for undermatching in economicpoint of view.

Method B‐> almost same with FEA resultsin 20% UM

Method B‐> Excessively overshoot in comparison with FEA in 20% UM


49

<10% UM> <20% UM>


In 20% under-matching case, Methods A & C with no consideration of themismatch underestimate the J-value by about 13% and 22%, respectively.

It indicates that the actual structure may be subject to more dangerous situationin undermatched case unless mismatch is carefully considered.

The proposed method provides safe and reasonable estimation of J-values

FEA results

Dangerous FEA results

Dangerous


50

Publications International Journal (SCI)

Author Paper Journal Vol. No Page Date

Lee D.J., Kim M.K., Walsh J., Jang H.K., Kim H.I., Oh E.Y.,

Nam J.D., Kim M.H., Suhr J.H.

Experimental characterization of temperature dependent dynamic properties of glass fiber

reinforced polyurethane foamsPolymer Testing 74 - 30-38 2019.04

Kim T.Y., Yoon S.W., Cho J.H., Kim M.H.

Vibration characteristics of filament wound composite tubes applied to the intermediate shaft in

ship propulsion systemModern Physics Letters B 33 - - 2019.04

Lee D.J., Shin S.B., Kim M.H.Prediction of traditional behavior of out-of-plane

welding distortion by solar radiation in upper deck of hull structure

Journal of Marine Science and Technology

- - 01-16 2019.05

Kim B.E., Park J.Y., Lee J.S., Lee J.I., Kim M.H.

Effects of the Welding Process and Consumables on the Fracture Behavior of 9 Wt.% Nickel Steel

Experimental Techniques - - 1-12 2019.09

Park J.Y., Kang N.H., Kim M.H.

Effects of the welding processes and consumables on the fatigue and fracture performances for 3.5

wt.% nickel steelsWelding in the world 63 5

1355-1367

2019.09

Park J.H., Kim S.H., Moon H.S., Kim M.H.

Influence of Gravity on Molten Pool behavior and Analysis of Microstructure on Various Welding

Positions in Pulsed Gas Metal Arc WeldingApplied Science 9 21 01-12 2019.10


51

Publications International & Domestic Journal (non-SCI)

International Conference Presentation

저자 논문명 게재지명 권 호 수록면 Date

Park C.H., Kang N.H., Kim M.H., Liu S.

Effect of prestrain on hydrogen diffusion and trapping in structural Material Letters 235 - 193-196 2019.01

박진형, 김성환, 김노원, 문형순, 김명현

A Study in the Bead Shape and Changing Material Properties Depending on the Welding

Position in P-GMAW대한용접․접합학회 - - - 2019.06

이진호, 신용택, 김명현 용접홈형상에따른샤르피충격시험기반마스터선도접근법의검증에관한연구

대한용접․접합학회 37 6 539-546 2019.12


Author Conference Title Nation

InternationalConference

Conference

Lee J.S., Kim M.H. OMAEInvestigation of Strain-Based Failure Assessment

Based on Reference Strain Method for Welded Pipes영국

Kim D.Y., Kim M.H. OMAEFatigue Life Estimation for HFMI Treated Weldments

Considering Weld Toe Magnification Factor영국

Park J.Y., Kim M.H. IIWInvestigation of fatigue and fracture characteristic for

low temperature metals considering the effect of various alloying components

슬로바키아

Kim M.H.2019 East Welding

and Joining Conference

Investigation of strain-based failure assessment based on reference strain method for welded

pipelines대한민국

52

Publications Conference Presentation


Domestic Conference

Conference

박정열, 김명현

대한용접ㆍ접합학

회

클립게이지를이용한 CTOD 측정방법에과한비교

연구

한국

이재성, 김명현과대하중을고려한고망간강용접부의

피로균열전파특성에대한연구

박정열, 김명현A study on crack tip opening displacement for high

manganese steel considering welding process

문동현, 김명현Constraint-based Fracture Assessment for Welded

Joint

김동엽, 김명현필렛용접부에대한 High Frequency Mechanical

Impact treatment 시뮬레이션을위한파라메트릭연구

김동엽, 김명현A fatigue life estimation of butt welded joints

considering HFMI weld toe magnification factor

이진호, 김명현원주용접파이프의반복응력-변형률선도를고려한

구조변형률방법기반저주기피로평가Ⅱ

최명환, 이정훈, 남형빈, 김명현, 조대원, 강남현

극저온용고망간강용접부의인장및미세조직거동

김명현 대한조선학회

선박해양플랜트

구조연구회

Introduction to the revised BS7910 (2019)

김동엽, 김명현 Fatigue assessment of HFMI treated welded joints

이진호, 김명현 Low cycle fatigue based on strain based approach


53

Publications Conference Presentation

Education MS Graduate

• 3 graduated Ph. D. Graduate

• 2 graduated



Domestic Conference

Conference

김동엽, 김명현

대한용접ㆍ접합학

회

HFMI Weld Toe Magnification Factor를고려한

맞대기용접부피로수명추정연구 PART 2

한국

이진호, 김명현다양한용접조건을고려한샤르피충격시험기반

마스터선도접근법에대한연구

박정열, 김명현7 wt.% 니켈강파괴인성기반용접부의 Master curve

평가에관한연구

이진호. 김명현원주용접파이프의구조변형률기반저주기피로

저평가에대한연구

54

Industry-University Liaison Research Grant

• 해양 Tubular 용접부의자동 ECA 프로그램개발

(2017.12 ~ 2019.03, (주)현대중공업• 초대형컨테이너선용 EH51BCA강용접이음부피로시험 DATA 확보

(2018.05 ~ 2019.02, (주)포스코)• 에틸렌운반선용 5% Ni강용접이음부피로성능확보기술개발

(2018.11 ~ 2020.01, (주)포스코)• Mark-Flex Aramid FSB 극저온피로강도평가Ⅱ

(2019.03 ~ 2019.08, (주)한국카본)• LNG CCS용멤브레인피로성능평가Ⅱ

(2019.03 ~ 2019.08, (주)동성화인텍)• 카본 SMC 피로시험및피로수명예측방법도출

(2019.07 ~ 2020.07, 현대자동차(주))• 피로성능향상기법에따른맞대기용접부피로강도평가

(2019.08 ~ 2019.11, 현대로템(주))


55

Industry-University Liaison Research Grant

• 이중구조를갖는 IMO 타입 B 탱크용스프레이형단열시스템평가

(2019.09 ~ 2019.11, (주)GASPACK• SUS304L 소재의소성변형및압연방향을고려한인장시험평가

(2019.11 ~ 2019.12, 대우조선해양(주))• 연안선박용중소형 LNG 연료저장모듈개발

(2019.11 ~ 2019.12, 중소조선연구원)• MLNGC CCS 2차방법피로시험

(2019.11 ~ 2020.10, 한국조선해양(주))• 러더트렁크구조용접변형에대한간이수치평가

(2019.12 ~ 2020.01, (주)코피코)

Intellectual Properties Registered

• 해양 Tubular Joint 용접부에대한자동구조건전성평가프로그램


gcrc 2019 presentation (2-1)김명현

Documents