Returning Challenges

Pipeline Components
Carlos Sicilia
Pipeline Innovation Forum 2014
Hvik, 27/03/14
Limit State Design for Submarine Pipelines
Good design codes DNV-OS-F101
Recommended Practices
JIPs
Company Guidelines

Even framework for problem specific reliability

assessment, e.g. used for UHB
Introduction
What about elements within pipeline system that
are not pipes?
Pipeline Components
Present in all systems
Introduction
PIP systems:
Bulkheads
Swaged joints
Inner pipe pull collars
General:
J-lay collars
Riser hang off
Flanges
Connectors
Corrosion monitoring
spools
Introduction
Other:
Tees
Wyes
Hot tap
Bends?
In-line structures?
Introduction
Introduction
J-lay Collar
End Bulkhead
In-line Pull-out Collar
What does DNV-OS-F101 say about this?
Design according to recognized codes with some
additional requirements
Pipeline Code
What does DNV-OS-F101 say about this?
At least same safety as the connecting pipeline/riser
section
The component shall be designed to accommodate
the loading from the connected pipeline section and
vice versa with appropriate safety
But how to even agree on Design / Test pressure?
Pipeline Code
ASME VIII, PD5500, EN13445-3
Background to Pressure Vessel Design Codes
Pressure Vessel Codes
S = min (SMTS/3.5, SMYS/1.5)
Basic approach:
Linear elastic stress analysis with factored loads
Linearize stresses
Separate Primary and Secondary stresses
Check against allowable values
Pressure Vessel Codes
Based on actual limit states:
Plastic collapse (gross plastic deformation)
Local failure (limit potential for fracture)
Collapse from buckling
Cyclic loading fatigue
Cyclic loading ratcheting
Sensible and all relevant aspects covered
Conceptually consistent with pipeline code
Pressure Vessel Codes
But is safety level consistent?
Material factor ~ 1.3 Load factor ~ 1.5
Is this too conservative?
Pressure Vessel Codes
Straight pipe Bending moment with design pressure
Scenario
DNV
LCC
EN-13445
Limit Moment Allowable Moment
No material
factor
With material
factor
No material
factor
With material
factor
Moment [kN/m] 542 580 446 387 297
Ratio to DNV 1.00 1.07 0.82 0.71 0.55
More advanced options:
Elastic perfectly plastic analysis
Full non-linear analysis with material hardening
Based on strain limits
Pressure Vessel Codes
Maximum
Plastic Strain
Is the non-linear option enough?
Pressure Vessel Codes
High Loads (Buckle?)
Pressure Vessel Codes
Pressure Vessel Codes

S = min (SMTS/3.5, SMYS/1.5)

Pressure Vessel Codes
SMTS/3.5
API 6A Specification for Wellhead and Christmas Tree
Equipment
Widely used for many years in design of bolted flanges
Higher allowable stress
Pressure Vessel Codes

S =SMYS/1.5
General agreement:
Inconsistent safety between Pressure Vessel and
Pipeline codes
Pragmatic ways around
Pressure Vessel Codes
What does the pipeline code say?
at the component weld neck
But also:
The code for pipeline shall include pipe sections
affected by the presence of the component
Code Break?
Engineering Practice
Clarifications, i.e. delays
Code Break?
Engineering Practice
Some reasonable
Code Break?
Engineering Practice
Irrelevant analyses? Only thick part
Code Break?
Engineering Practice
Adding pup / transition piece?
Code Break?
How to deal with localised strains?
Fracture is fine
Local buckling?
What about the Pipeline?
Strain Localisation occurs
either side of component, but what
is the correct criteria for acceptability
of peak strain???
Maybe can be used but
Developed for different problems
BS EN 13445: Design-by-analysis (DBA) provides rules for
the design of any component under any action
Are safety factors on loads applicable?
In-line bulkhead at lateral buckle crown?
Safety consistent with lateral buckling design?
Load / Displacement controlled? Primary /
Secondary stresses
Pipeline Component Interaction
Conservative but?
Pipeline Components
Overly conservative component design?
In some case not feasible
Safety on surrounding pipe section?
Lack of clarity means inefficient design
Project delays, costs
Start analysis without agreed acceptance criteria
Swaged PIP joint in lateral buckling design
Hang off collar design review
Problem
Most designers have developed strategies
Reinventing and wasting time?
Problem
Induction bends
All designs have them
Pipeline code:
this standard does not provide any limit state criteria for
pipeline bends
Curved pipes or Bends?
Curved pipes or Bends?
Does not really behave like pipe
Ovalisation becomes the first order of deformation and
changes the stress pattern considerable compared to
straight pipes
In-plane closing moments
Clad layer effect
Even harder when considering cold formed bends
Pressure vessel code?
Curved pipes or Bends?
Pipeline code ASD option but:
Provided that the bend has no potential for collapse.
Three times the external overpressure (deep water?)
Too onerous in any case compared with the rest?
Restrictions:
Moment and axial load can be considered displacement
controlled
Imposed shape distortion (ovalisation) is acceptable
(factors?)
Induction Bends
Designers have strategies
Design envelopes
Lack of agreed approach
Induction Bends
Flanges
Connectors

Other
Pipeline safety is a weak link problem
Is it time for unified approach?
Consider global / local interaction
Consistent probabilities of failure
Without artificial code breaks, i.e.
The component is all that is affected by the presence of
the component.
The pipeline is the bit that has not noticed there is a
component.
Solution
Reduce design time
Ensure safety in all areas
Optimize component design?
Solution
Inconvenient part of pipeline design
When not critical, tolerated
When critical, mixed approaches
Time for a consistent, unified approach?
Take component and effect on pipeline to level of
modern pipeline limit state design
Concluding Remarks