0 Bewertungen0% fanden dieses Dokument nützlich (0 Abstimmungen)

8 Ansichten9 SeitenEngineering Criticality Assessment

Jun 13, 2019

© © All Rights Reserved

PDF, TXT oder online auf Scribd lesen

Engineering Criticality Assessment

© All Rights Reserved

Als PDF, TXT **herunterladen** oder online auf Scribd lesen

0 Bewertungen0% fanden dieses Dokument nützlich (0 Abstimmungen)

8 Ansichten9 SeitenEngineering Criticality Assessment

© All Rights Reserved

Als PDF, TXT **herunterladen** oder online auf Scribd lesen

Sie sind auf Seite 1von 9

Loading Phase According to BS 7910 Guideline

Seyed Mohammad Hossein Sharifi1, Mehran Kaveh2, Hamed Saeidi Googarchin3

1

Assisstant Professor, Faculty of Marine Science, Petroleum University of Technology, Abadan, Iran;

Downloaded from ijcoe.org at 14:22 +0430 on Thursday June 13th 2019

Sharifi@put.ac.ir

2

M.Sc Student, Faculty of Marine Science, Petroleum University of Technology, Abadan, Iran; MKaveh@put.ac.ir

3

Assistant Professor, School of Automotive Engineering, Iran University of Science and Technology, Tehran, Iran;

HSaeidi@iust.ac.ir

Article History: Offshore pipelines are an efficient long-distance transportation method for oil

Received: 15 Nov. 2016 and gas. These are usually constructed by the use of girth welds, while welds

Accepted: 15 Mar. 2016

may naturally contain flaws. Hence, it is essential to inspect the fracture

response of girth welds in order to check the structural integrity of the

Keywords: pipeline. One of the guidelines that is using wide spread for investigating the

Engineering critical assessment fracture response of steel structures is BS 7910 which is based on Engineering

(ECA)

offshore pipeline

Critical Assessment (ECA) method. In this paper Engineering Critical

surface cracks Assessment (ECA) of offshore pipeline girth welds is done according to BS

girth weld misalignment, BS 7910 7910 through Crackwise software and the influence of several parameters on

ECA is presented. It is concluded that Influence of misalignment on axial

internal surface flaws is more significant than on axial external flaws.

Furthermore it is observed that internal surface flaws have always larger

values for tolerable defect heights than external surface cracks. In addition,

circumferential surface flaws have evermore larger amount of acceptance level

in defect heights than axial flaws.

In order to transport oil and gas e.g. from the condition suppose a simple power law for the

platforms to land-based terminals, offshore pipelines material's plastic stress-strain curve. Anisworth

are utilized which are usually composed of a number modified the EPRI relationships in order to make it

of short pipes joined by welding. The girth welds may more representative of the flow behavior of real

contain weld imperfections of certain size (height and materials. He defined reference stress approach and

length) at specific location along the longitudinal substituted it to the plastic component of EPRI

direction of the weld. [1]. Therefore, it is important to procedure to characterize the possibility of plastic

find a suitable fracture assessment procedure for collapse alongside fracture failure [5]. With additional

welded pipeline and know how these eventual cracks simplifications and modifications to the reference

develop in order to assess the structural integrity of stress approach, BS7910:2005[6] express it in terms

the pipelines [2]. For this means, two methods were of a Failure Assessment Diagram (FAD). At the

introduced which are quality control and Fitness-For- moment, this regulation is widely used in order to

Purpose (FFP) approaches. Quality control approach determine defect acceptance criterion in steel

usually gives both arbitrary and conservative levels structures.

for acceptance; however FFP procedure make the First attempts on ECA analysis in accordance with BS

acceptance levels very less conservative by providing 7910 code have been made by Darcis et al [7]. They

the conditions to cause failures in structures are not studied fracture assessment process in fillet-welded

reached[3]. Engineering Critical Assessment (ECA) is joints where cracks emanate from the weld toe.

a FFP procedure which is based on fracture mechanics Pysarsky and his colleagues [8] investigated ECA

principles. It was introduced by Kumar et al [4] in analysis of high strength steel pipeline girth welds

1981. They proposed an analytical methodology for which are subjected to plastic axial loading. Several

computing crack driving force based on J-Integral studies have been performed in order to compare

which was published by Electric Power Research different methods of ECA analysis. Permana [9]

15

Seyed Mohammad Hossein Sharifi et. al./ Engineering Critical Assessment of Offshore Pipelines under Operational Loading Phase According to BS 7910

Guideline

performed a case study on ECA analysis of a pipeline Standards Institution set up a logical acceptance

girth weld during reeling installation and compare BS standard which was both safer and more economical

7910 code with direct finite element. Although BS than the traditional workmanship acceptance

7910 tends to be conservative for long crack lengths standards.

compared to finite element analysis, it shows less In BS 7910: 2013[3], there are three levels,

conservative critical crack sizes in the region of short available for a fracture assessment. The Level 1 which

cracks. Smith and Pisarski [10] compare API 1104- is called simplified assessment procedure is based on

Appendix A and BS 7910 FAD procedure with and a conservative Failure Assessment Diagram (FAD)

without residual stress. Larger flaws are allowed by applicable when the data on the materials properties is

the BS 7910 procedure compared with API 1104 limited. The Level 1 FAD has Kr, Sr co-ordinates,

Downloaded from ijcoe.org at 14:22 +0430 on Thursday June 13th 2019

procedure, irrespective of whether the safety factor on where Kr is the ratio of applied crack driving force to

flaw length is included or not in the API 1104 fracture toughness and Sr the ratio of applied stress to

assessment. Also, Larrosa and Anisworth [11] showed flow strength where the flow strength is mean of yield

the differences in ECA results which are assessed by and tensile strength hence including some plasticity.

the API 579, the UK nuclear industry standard for For the cases where single-value measurements of

fracture assessment (R6), and BS 7910 procedures. fracture toughness are available level 2 which is

They revealed that BS 7910 has larger plastic collapse named normal assessment method is used. Further

limitation compare to the other codes. there are two assessment strategies: Level 2A and

However, few literatures contribute to investigate the Level 2B. When material specific full stress–strain

effect of various parameters on ECA of offshore information is available, Level 2B is utilized based on

pipelines in accordance with BS 7910. Holtman [12] reference stress solution. Level 3 is similar as level 2

focused on examining the fracture behavior of with the exception that is appropriate for ductile

offshore pipeline steel in sour environment materials showing tearing mode of failure with Level

(containing water and hydrogen sulphide). Wei and 3A and 3B dependent on the type of stress-strain data

Handley [13] presented the effects of bi-axial available. A typical figure of level 2 FAD is shown in

stressing (internal pressure plus external axial loading) figure 1.

on ECA analysis of plate and cylinder containing

surface cracks. Recently, Bonara et al [14]

investigated the ECA procedure to assess CRA welds

for clad and lined pipe material in bi-metallic girth

weld joints. As an extension, this study is aimed to

investigate the influence of axial misalignment in

girth welds and ductile tearing on engineering critical

assessment of girth welded offshore pipelines under

operational loading phase based on BS 7910 guideline

for various flaw geometries.

engineering critical assessment of offshore pipelines is

performed. Accordingly, a brief overview of BS7910 Figure 1- BS 7910 level 2 failure assessment diagram

and theoretical background of engineering critical [3]

assessment method is provided; afterward,

geometrical configurations, mechanical properties of According to BS7910 level 2B, a flaw can be

pipeline materials, and loading scenarios are described accepted when the following equation is satisfied:

in details. Influence of axial misalignment in girth

welds and ductile tearing on ECA analysis of offshore 1/ 2

pipeline in various flawed geometries is presented E ref L 3 Y S

Kr r (1)

based on BS 7910 code. Finally, summary of results Y S L r 2 E ref

and conclusions are given in the last section.

In the above equations, Kr= KI / Kmat is fracture

1. BS 7910 ratio, σref is reference stress, εref is the true strain

Because workmanship standards settle totally specific obtained from the uni-axial tensile stress-strain curve

rules for allowable lengths of slag inclusion and at reference stress, Lr=σref /YS is load ratio and

density of porosity, a large amount of repair work is Lr(max)=UTS+ YS /2YS is cut-off value, E is the

carried out for innocuous planar flaws such as cracks Young’s modulus. The first term in equation 1

based on these codes. It has been estimated that such considers both the limiting elastic and fully plastic

unnecessary repairs may add as much as 10% to behaviors. The second term determines the response

construction costs [15]. In this order, British

16

Seyed Mohammad Hossein Sharifi et. al. / IJCOE 2016, No. 1; p.15-23

in between these two limits where the general 2.1. Geometrical Configuration

behavior is elastic but fracture parameter exceeds its The outer radius of pipeline is 203.2 mm, and the

elastic value, and a minor plasticity correction is average wall thickness is 20.4 mm. The length of the

supply by this term. pipe is considered three times as long as the outer

diameter. Two types of cracks are proposed which are

2. Methodology including external surface and internal surface flaws.

In order to perform engineering critical assessment of These defects are located in axial and circumferential

offshore pipeline in accordance with BS 7910 direction along the pipeline length and girth weld,

guideline, Crackwise software [16] is utilized. respectively. Figure 2 shows the pipeline cross section

Crackwise is a software which is used to compute alongside with various crack types used in this paper.

Downloaded from ijcoe.org at 14:22 +0430 on Thursday June 13th 2019

multiple parametric equations, propagating flaws in "rO" represent outer radius of the pipeline, "B" shows

ductile tearing, calculation of limiting conditions (for average wall thickness, the crack height is symbolized

example, the maximum tolerable flaw size in a as "a", and "2c" representing the crack length and "p"

structure under given conditions), reporting, editing showing crack ligament height in embedded flaws.

and archiving such complex calculations. Input values

of this software for current study are as fallows.

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

Figure 2- Crack geometries used in current study: (a) axial external surface, (b) axial internal surface, (c) circumferential external

surface, (d) Circumferential internal surface flaws [16]

2.2. Material Properties uniquely by the CSA equation for the input YS, UTS,

Two stress-strain curve equations which are widely and uEL. Based on the aforementioned observations,

used for modeling engineering materials are Ramberg- in this paper the CSA Z662 equation is selected to

Osgood equation and the CSA Z662 [17] equation. produce the full stress-strain curves (option 2 in

CSA Z662 in contrast to Ramberg-Osgood equation Crackwise FAD failure locus) in all models. Table 1

provides the relationship between the stress and strain shows the input information for generating stress-

as mentioned in equation 2: strain curve which is mentioned in reference [18].

(0.005 )( ) (2) n ln ( ) ln ( ) (3)

E E YS 0.005 Y S E YS

where E is young modules, YS is the yield stress at Table 1-Mechanical properties used in pipeline [18]

0.5% strain and n is the strain hardening exponent of YS UTS E uEL Poisson's

Pipe n

the CSA equation. Equation 3 determines a unique n (MPa) (MPa) (GPa) (mm/mm) ratio

API-5L-

for any given set of yield stress (YS), Ultimate Tensile X65

545 592 207 0.0816 39.25 0.3

Strength (UTS), and uniform Elongation (uEL).

17

Seyed Mohammad Hossein Sharifi et. al./ Engineering Critical Assessment of Offshore Pipelines under Operational Loading Phase According to BS 7910

Guideline

2.3. Toughness

Fracture toughness is described by single-value 0

measurements (KI, J-Integral, CTOD) on level 2

assessment and expressed in terms of an resistance

-2e+6

curve (J-∆a or CTOD-∆a) on level 3 assessment

method. Hence, in this paper for level 2 assessment KI

Axial force, N

is equal to 338 MPa.√𝑚 [18]. Based on DNV-RP-108 -4e+6

lower bound curve for the experimental results. Often -6e+6

Downloaded from ijcoe.org at 14:22 +0430 on Thursday June 13th 2019

reference [18].

-1e+7

2.4. Loading Scenarios Anchor

0 Point 2 4 6 8 10

A pipeline is laid on the seabed will be inclined to Distance along the pipeline, km

expand longitudinally because of temperature and Fully constrained axial force

pressure differential along the pipeline path. If the Friction force

Effective force

expansion is constrained by the frictional resistance

force between pipeline and soil, then an axial

compressive load which is called effective axial force Figure 3- Effective axial force along the pipeline

will be exerted on the pipeline (High Pressure/ High length

Temperature condition) [20]. The effective axial force

increases from pipeline end until it reaches its According to BS 7910, the stresses that will be

maximum at the point of full axial constraint. The considered in the analysis are primary and secondary

effective axial force in fully constrained condition stresses. The primary stress is stresses that could

during operation can be calculated as a result of end- contribute to plastic collapse. They include all stresses

cap effect, Poisson’s effect, thermal and residual lay appearing from internal pressure and external loads.

tension [21]. For design purposes, according to Thermal and residual stresses are usually classified as

Subsea7 documentations [22] the residual lay tension secondary stresses. A significant characteristic of

may be assumed to be negligible. Therefore, full secondary stresses is that they do not, cause to plastic

constrained effective axial force is given as in collapse. However, both primary and secondary

equation 4: stresses can contribute to failure by fracture. The

stresses are separated into membrane and bending

N eff (x ) H N end cap ( x ) N poisson N thermal (4) primary and secondary components. In this study,

primary membrane stress due to High Pressure/ High

Where H is residual lay tension, N end cap ( x ) P .Ai is

Temperature condition is assumed as 288 MPa which

P .D i .As is the largest stress occurred at anchor point along the

end-cap effect, N poisson ( x ) is Poisson’s

2t pipeline length. Primary bending stress component

effect, and N thermal ( x ) E .As . .T is thermal effect. that is induced by misalignment in the pipeline is

Largest effective axial force at anchor point is calculated using Stress Concentration Factor (SCF) in

occurred when the fully constrained effective driving association with Neuber’s rule [23]. 3 different

force equals the soil frictional force. Friction force bending stresses are considered in order to investigate

induced by pipeline-soil interaction is as in equation the influence of misalignment on fracture response of

5. offshore pipeline. The base case is performed without

L misalignment. Afterward, it was compared with

S f , max max ,axial W submerged (5) alternative eccentricities of 1 mm and 2 mm. Since

2

offshore pipes had appropriate dimensional tolerances,

In the above equation, 𝜇𝑚𝑎𝑥,𝑎𝑥𝑖𝑎𝑙 is maximum axial 1 mm misalignment might be more realistic in many

cases. However, 2mm misalignment is supposed to

frictional factor, 𝐿 is pipeline length, 𝑊𝑠𝑢𝑏𝑚𝑒𝑟𝑔𝑒𝑑 is

have maximum value along the girth weld direction

the submerged weight which is calculated with respect [24]. According to annex Q of BS7910 with

to the pipeline data’s. In this paper, 𝜇𝑚𝑎𝑥,𝑎𝑥𝑖𝑎𝑙 =0.45, considering non-uniform residual stress distribution,

𝑊𝑠𝑢𝑏𝑚𝑒𝑟𝑔𝑒𝑑 =3.345 KN/m, and L=10 km are assumed secondary membrane and bending stress will be equal

according to reference [22]. Effective axial force to 591.79 and 78.67 MPa.

along the pipeline and anchor point is shown in figure

3. 2.5. Crackwise Modeling

The flowchart which is shown in figure 4 describes

the crackwise analysis sequence. For ECA analysis in

18

Seyed Mohammad Hossein Sharifi et. al. / IJCOE 2016, No. 1; p.15-23

are needed. Yield and tensile strength, and modulus of 𝐾𝐼 = (𝑌𝜎)√(𝜋𝑎) (9)

elasticity should be determined along with adequate

co-ordinate stress/strain points to define the curve. (Yσ) = (Yσ)P + (Yσ)Q (10)

The cut-off limit is to prevent localized plastic

collapse and it is set at the point at which Lr =Lr,max Where (Yσ)P and (Yσ)Q represent contributions from

where [3]:

primary and secondary stresses, respectively.

𝑌𝑆 + 𝑈𝑇𝑆

𝐿𝑟,𝑚𝑎𝑥 = (6) (𝑌𝜎)𝑃 = Mf𝑤 (𝑘𝑡𝑚 𝑀𝑚 𝑃𝑚

2 × 𝑌𝑆 + 𝑘𝑡𝑏 𝑀𝑏 (𝑃𝑏 (11)

Downloaded from ijcoe.org at 14:22 +0430 on Thursday June 13th 2019

equation [3]: (𝑌𝜎)𝑄 = 𝑀𝑚 𝑄𝑚 + 𝑀𝑏 𝑄𝑏 (12)

Where,

𝜎𝑟𝑒𝑓 FW = Finite width correction factor,

𝐿𝑟 = (7) Ktm/tb = Membrane/bending stress SCF,

𝑌𝑆

Mm/b = Membrane/bending stress intensity

Where, σrefis obtained from an appropriate reference magnification factors,

stress solution as outlined in BS 7910. Fracture ratio is Km = Misalignment,

calculated from the following equation [3]: In the above expressions, equations for M, fw, Mm and

Mb can be found in BS9710 Appendix M for different

𝐾𝐼 types of flawed geometry configurations. For ktm, ktb

𝐾𝑟 = +𝜌 (8) and km, BS9710 part 6.4 and Annex D should be

𝐾𝑚𝑎𝑡

referenced. Eventually, the main result of ECA is the

Where 𝜌 is plasticity correction factor and is curve of critical crack size or allowable defect size.

necessary to allow for interaction of the primary and The curve can be generated by crackwise by selecting

secondary stress contributions, and the applied stress flaw height as critical analysis parameter and flaw

intensity factor, KI, has the following general form length as sensitivity analysis parameter.

[3]:

Pipeline Geometry Stress Concentration Factor Pipeline Geometry

•Radious (r) •Neuber Rule • Cylander/Pipe

•Wall Thickness (B)

•Pipe Length (W) Applied Stress Crack Type

•Primary Stress (p) •Semi-eliptical Flaw

•Secondary Stress (Q) •Surface Flaw

•Crack Oriantation •Membarane (Pm)

•Crack Position •Bending (Pb)

Plastic Collapse

Limitation (Lr Cut off)

Assigned Secondary Stress

Material Properties

•Residual Stress - Annex Q

•Yield & Tensile Strength

•Modulus of elasticity

•Poisson Ratio

•coordinate Stress-Strian Assigned Tensile Properties

points

•Full Stress-Strain Curve

•Plastic Collapse Limitation

Fracture Toughness

Assigned Fracture Toughness

•Sinle Value

•Resistance Curve

Generate Critical Crack Size Curve

19

Seyed Mohammad Hossein Sharifi et. al./ Engineering Critical Assessment of Offshore Pipelines under Operational Loading Phase According to BS 7910

Guideline

3. Results and Discussion six FADs are presented as in figure 1 but pursuant to

Tolerable defect size curves are presented through level 3B.

Crackwise software according to BS 7910 guideline It is observed from figure 4 and 5 that by changing

level 2B and 3B. In level 3B crack ductile tearing is in misalignment, the variation in acceptance curve in

simulated via resistance curves, however in level 2B level 2B for axial internal surface flaws are more than

cracks are assumed to not propagate. According to in external flaws. However, the variation between

figure 1, FADs are shown in the form of tolerable external and internal surface flaws curves are almost

crack size curve for axial external and internal surface identical to each other in level 3B but external flaws

flaws in compliant with level 2B. Each curve still have more evolution. Hence, the influence of

represents specific misalignments that are including 0, girth welds misalignment is more influential for axial

Downloaded from ijcoe.org at 14:22 +0430 on Thursday June 13th 2019

(a) (b)

14 20

18

12

16

Defect height, mm

Defect height, mm

10 14

12

8

10

8

6

4

4

40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220

40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220

Defect length, mm

Defect length, mm

without misalignment

1 mm misalignment without misalignment

2 mm misalignment 1 mm misalignment

2 mm misalignment

Figure 5- Tolerable defect size curve according to BS 7910- level 2B for axial: (a) Extrnal surface flaw, (b) Internal surface

flaw

(a) (b)

16 16

14 14

Defect height, mm

Defect height, mm

12 12

10 10

8 8

6 6

4 4

40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220

Defect length, mm Defect length, mm

without misalignment without misalignment

1 mm misalignment 1 mm misalignment

2 mm misalignment 2 mm misalignment

Figure 6-Tolerable defect size curve according to BS 7910- level 3B for axial: (a) External surface flaw, (b) Internal surface flaw

From the figure 6 and 7 the following results can more significant than in large cracks. For short

be extracting. The values of defect heights in level 3B internal surface flaws (less than 70 mm), defect

for external surface flaws are more than level 2B but heights in level 2B and 3B are adjacent to each other

whatever the misalignment increases, the amount of but they are separate with increasing in misalignment

flaw heights in level 2B become closer to level 3B. amount. However, for large cracks situation is quite

However, for short external surface cracks the the opposite and defect heights get closer with

difference between flaw heights in level 2B and 3B is increase in misalignment level.

20

Seyed Mohammad Hossein Sharifi et. al. / IJCOE 2016, No. 1; p.15-23

Internal surface flaws have larger acceptance level than axial external flaws. In large cracks, the

for crack heights than external surface flaws difference between accepted flaw height between

especially for short cracks (less than 70 mm). With axial and circumferential flaws is greater than in short

increasing in misalignment the difference between cracks (less than 70 mm). In the case of internal

external and internal flaws heights get reduced. In surface flaws although circumferential cracks still

level 3B external and internal surface flaws have have larger acceptance criteria for defect heights but

closer results than in level 2B. the difference between axial and circumferential crack

Acceptance level for defect heights in heights become greater with increasing in crack

circumferential external surface flaws is always larger length.

Downloaded from ijcoe.org at 14:22 +0430 on Thursday June 13th 2019

(a) (b)

18 18

16

16

Defect height, mm

Defect height, mm

14

14

12

12

10

10

8

6 8

40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220

without misalignment without misalignment

1 mm misalignment 1 mm misalignment

2 mm misalignment 2 mm misalignment

Figure 7-Tolerable defect size curve according to BS 7910- level 2B for circumferential: (a) Extrnal surface flaw, (b) Internal surface

flaw

(a) (b)

20 15

18 14

13

16

Defect height, mm

Defect height, mm

12

14

11

12

10

10

9

8

8

6 7

40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220

Defect length, mm Defect length, mm

without misalignment without misalignment

1 mm misalignment 1 mm misalignment

2 mm misalignment 2 mm misalignment

Figure 8- Tolerable defect size curve according to BS 7910- level 3B for circumferential: (a) External surface flaw, (b) Internal

surface flaw

In the current study, the Engineering Critical limit conditions. The influence of the misalignment

Assessment (ECA) of an offshore pipeline with values, the crack geometries including external,

elliptical surface external and internal cracks internal, axial, and circumferential flaws on the

subjected to different misalignment level under evolution of FAD in the form of defect acceptance

operational loading phase has been analyzed size curves is investigated. The main conclusions and

according to BS 7910 level 2B and 3B.Crackwise observations are made as follows:

software is employed to investigate the complex

21

Seyed Mohammad Hossein Sharifi et. al./ Engineering Critical Assessment of Offshore Pipelines under Operational Loading Phase According to BS 7910

Guideline

Influence of misalignment on axial internal Engineering Fracture Mechanics Vol. 19. No. 4.

flaws is more significant than on axial pp. 633-642, 1985.

external flaws, however in level 3B [6] BS 7910, Guide on methods for assessing the

misalignment influence is almost equal on acceptability of flaws in metallic structures. BSI,

internal and external axial flaws. In the case 2005.

of circumferential cracks misalignment is [7] Darcis, Philippe, Diego Santarosa, Naman Recho,

more influential for short external cracks (less and Tom Lassen. "A fracture mechanics approach

than 70 mm) but for long cracks it is more for the crack growth in welded joints with

significant for internal defects. reference to BS 7910." 15th European Conference

on Fracture, Stockolm 2004.

Downloaded from ijcoe.org at 14:22 +0430 on Thursday June 13th 2019

level 2B and 3B is significant but it becomes [8] Pisarski, H., S. Smith, and G. Xu. "Fracture

smaller for large cracks (larger than 70 mm). mechanics assessment of flaws in pipeline girth

for internal cracks the condition is totally vice welds." Welding Research Abroad, Vol.53, no. 3,

versa which means that level 2B and 3B for 2007.

short cracks are almost equal to each other but [9] Permana, I., A Study on Engineering Critical

their difference get larger with increasing in Assessment (ECA) of Subsea Pipeline Girth

crack length. In both cases increasing in Welds for Reeling Installation, Master’s thesis,

amount of misalignment cause to reduction in University of Stavanger, 2013.

crack height acceptance level. [10] Smith SE., Pisarsk HG., 2010. "A comparison of

Internal flaws have always larger values for the API 1104 Appendix A and BS 7910

tolerable defect heights than external surface procedures for the assessment of girth weld

cracks in both axial and circumferential flaws," Journal of Pipeline Engineering, vol. 9,

directions. However the difference between pp. 120-133.

tolerable sizes in level 3B becomes [11] Larrosa, N. O., and R. A. Ainsworth.

insignificant. "Comparisons of the solutions of common FFS

Circumferential external surface flaws have standard procedures to benchmark problems."

evermore larger amount of acceptance level in International Journal of Pressure Vessels and

defect heights than axial flaws but with Piping, Vol.139, pp. 36-46, 2016

increasing in crack length, acceptance levels [12] Holtam, C., 2010. Structural integrity assessment

for axial and circumferential flaws get closer. of C-Mn pipeline steels exposed to sour

However, in the case of internal surface environments, PhD dissertation, Loughborough

circumferential flaws acceptance levels for University, 2010.

crack height is still more than axial flaws but [13] Wei, L., and Hadley, I., "The effect of bi-axial

the difference become larger with increasing stress on limit loads of structures containing

in crack length. surface-breaking flaws and its influence on

structural integrity assessments." ASME 2012

References Pressure Vessels and Piping Conference,

[1] Dake Y, Sridhar I, Zhongmin X, Kumar S B. Toronto, Ontario, Canada, July 15–19, 2012.

Fracture capacity of girth welded pipelines with [14] Bonora, N., Carlucci, A., Ruggiero, A., and

3D surface cracks subjected to biaxial loading Iannitti, G., "Simplified Approach for Fracture

conditions. International Journal of Pressure Integrity Assessment of Bimetallic Girth Weld

Vessels and Piping, vol. 92, no. 11, p. 115-126, Joint." ASME 2013 32nd International

2012. Conference on Ocean, Offshore and Arctic

[2] Yi D, Idapalapati S, Xiao Z M, Kumar S B. Engineering, Nantes, France, June 9–14, 2013.

Fracture analysis of girth welded pipeline with [15] Wiesnera C S, Maddoxa C S, Xua W, Websterb

3D embedded subjected to biaxial loading G A, Burdekinc F M, Andrewsd R M, Harrisona J

conditions. Journal of Engineering Fracture D. Engineering critical analyses to BS 7910 - the

Mechanics; vol. 96: p. 570–587, 2013. UK guide on methods for assessing the

[3] BS 7910, Guide on methods for assessing the acceptability of flaws in metallic structures.

acceptability of flaws in metallic structures. BSI, International Journal of Pressure Vessels and

2013. Piping, vol. 77, no. 11, p. 883-893, 2000.

[4] Kumar V, German MD, Shih CF. An engineering [16] TWI Software. CRACKWISE 5 help content

approach for elastic–plastic fracture analysis. version 5.0R 27934 Final, 2016.

EPRI Report NP-1931. Palo Alto (CA): Electric [17] CSA Z662, “Oil and Gas Pipeline Systems,”

Power Research Institute; 1981. Canadian Standards Association, 2007.

[5] Ainsworth R A. The assessment of defects in [18] Wang Y Y, Liu M, Song Y, Horsley D. Tensile

structures of strain hardening material. strain models for strain-based design of pipelines.

Proceedings of the ASME 2012 31st International

22

Seyed Mohammad Hossein Sharifi et. al./ IJCOE 2016, No. 1; p.15-23

Conference on Ocean, Offshore and Arctic [21] DNV-OS-F101, Offshore Standard – Submarine

Engineering, OMAE2012, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, pipeline systems. Det Norske Veritas, Hovik,

July 1-6, 2012. Norway; 2013.

[19] DNV-RP-F108. Offshore standard – fracture [22] Subsea 7, Technical Guideline for ECA of Reeled

control for pipeline installation methods Rigid Pipelines, Doc. No. GD-GL-PDCOE- 010,

introducing cyclic plastic strain. Det Norske February 2011.

Veritas, Hovik, Norway; 2006. [23] Neuber, H. “Theory of Stress Concentration for

[20] Sriskandarajah T, Zhou D. Engineering critical Shear Strained Prismatic Bodies with Nonlinear

assessment of offshore pipes with partially over Stress–Strain Law,” Journal of Applied

matching girth welds during reel lay. 24th Mechanics, Vol. 28, No. 4, pp. 544–550, 1961.

Downloaded from ijcoe.org at 14:22 +0430 on Thursday June 13th 2019

International offshore and polar engineering [24] Hertele S, Cosham A, Roovers P. Structural

conference ISOPE. Busan, Korea, June 15-20, integrity of corroded girth welds in vintage steel

2014. pipelines. Journal of Engineering Structures, vol.

124, no. 8, p. 429-441, 2016.

23