Issue 50

M. Belhamiani et alii, Frattura ed Integrità Strutturale, 50 (2019) 623-637; DOI: 10.3221/IGF-ESIS.50.53 631 0 2 3 L y i R P ln R         (8) Figure 8 : Comparison of the FE limit results for uncracked pipe with HILL’s solution. The results (Fig. 8) show that the present FE analyses agree well with Hill’s works. Tabs. 3 validate this observation with maximum error about 3%. Further confidence is gained by comparing for the idealized plane strain case with known solutions for instance Carter’s [28] and Chell’s [29] works. Rm/t FEA model Hill’s model Error (%) 5,0 95 95,69 0,719 10,0 49,2 47,73 3,086 13,5 36 35,34 1,863 20,0 23,8 23,85 0,207 40,0 11,6 11,92 2,707 Table 2 : Relative error between Hill’s and our solution The limit load of pipe with defects under pure internal pressure for Carter and Chell models are given in the Eqns. (9, 10): Carter’s model 0 0 L y i i R R P ln R a R a                 (9) Chell’s model 2 3 L y i t a P R a           (10)