Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
C
)
Pipe OD 610.0 mm
Pipe Wall Thickness 31.8mm (D/t 19.2)
Pipe Submerged Weight (empty) 1.5 kN/m
Pipe Submerged Weight (operating) 1.95 kN/m
Axial - Lateral Friction 0.5 - 0.7
Residual Lay Pull 400 kN
Operating Pressure 25.0 MPa at 0.0 m
Max/Min Diff. Temperature 30.1/7.9 C
Pipe Temperature Profile during Operation:
Thermal Expansion vs. Bottom Roughness
Tuapse
Izobilnoye
Tuapse
Izobilnoye
BLUE STREAM PIPELINES
Hazard due to Severe Operating Condition
Snamprogetti 58
October 19th, 2005
-1234
-1229
-1224
-1219
-1214
-1209
-1204
18100 18150 18200 18250 18300
Buckle 3
-1318
-1313
-1308
-1303
-1298
-1293
19100 19150 19200 19250 19300 19350
Buckle 4
-864
-859
-854
-849
-844
-839
-834
-829
13900 13950 14000 14050 14100
Buckle 2
-170
-160
-150
-140
-130
-120
-110
-100
9700 9750 9800 9850 9900 9950
-1727
-1726
-1725
-1724
-1723
-1722
-1721
28300 28350 28400 28450 28500 28550
Buckle 6
-1382
-1380
-1378
-1376
-1374
-1372
-1370
19950 20000 20050 20100 20150 20200
Buckle 5
Buckle 1
Pipeline X Coordinate (m) 2D Analysis - Pipeline Vertical Configuration Axial friction 0.5 - Lateral friction 0.7
P
i
p
e
l
i
n
e
Z
C
o
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
e
(
m
)
-4.0
-3.0
-2.0
-1.0
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
9000 10000 11000 12000 13000 14000 15000 16000 17000 18000 19000 20000 21000 22000 23000 24000 25000 26000 27000 28000 29000
R
e
l
a
t
i
v
e
V
e
r
t
i
c
a
l
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
[
m
]
2D Analysis - Pressure
2D Analysis - Temperature
Pipeline X Coordinate (m) 2D Analysis - Pipeline Vertical Configuration Axial friction 0.5 - Lateral friction 0.7
-3.0E+6
-2.0E+6
-1.0E+6
0.0E+0
1.0E+6
2.0E+6
3.0E+6
4.0E+6
9000 10000 11000 12000 13000 14000 15000 16000 17000 18000 19000 20000 21000 22000 23000 24000 25000 26000 27000 28000 29000
V
e
r
t
i
c
a
l
l
B
e
n
d
i
n
g
S
M
2
(
N
*
m
)
Temperature - 2D Response
2D FE Analysis
to define how
safely the pipeline
copes with bottom
roughness
Snamprogetti 59
October 19th, 2005
-1425.0
-1400.0
-1375.0
-1350.0
-1325.0
-1300.0
-1275.0
-1250.0
-1225.0
-1200.0
-1175.0
-1150.0
17650 17900 18150 18400 18650 18900 19150 19400 19650 19900 20150 20400 20650
Pipeline X Co-ordinate (m)
W
a
t
e
r
D
e
p
t
h
(
m
)
-10.0
-5.0
0.0
5.0
10.0
Y
C
o
-
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
e
(
m
)
Fully 3-dimensional FE Analysis to define where and how the pipeline might
develop upheaval buckling at the most pronounced undulations
Advanced engineering analyses have to be carried to minimize mitigation measures
against severe operating conditions in arctic environment
Snamprogetti 60
October 19th, 2005
Buried Pipelines subject to Seismic Travelling Waves
BODY WAVES SURFACE WAVES
(A) P-waves or Compression Waves (B) S-waves or Shear Waves
(C) Rayleigh Waves (D) Love Waves
Waves Types
Pipe Configuration
Seismic Excitation
Pipeline Response
Snamprogetti 61
October 19th, 2005
Strike-slip
Reverse-slip
Surface earthquake fault
Permanent Ground Deformation Active Faults
Snamprogetti 62
October 19th, 2005
Fault Displacements
Permanent Ground Deformation Active Faults
-0.5
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
-5 0 5 10 15
Perpendicular Distance from Fault Scarp (meters x V)
V
e
r
t
i
c
a
l
F
a
u
l
t
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
(
m
e
t
e
r
s
x
V
)
V
0.2 V
3 V 4 V 1.5 V
V is the vertical displacement
reported from field measurement.
-0.5
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
-5 0 5 10 15
Perpendicular Distance from Fault Scarp (meters x V)
F
a
u
l
t
N
o
r
m
a
l
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
(
m
e
t
e
r
s
x
V
)
V
3 V
The fault normal displacement, FN, is defined as a function of
the vertical displacement, V, reported from field
measurement.
Folding and/or
distributed shear
Fault slip on
main fault
-0.5
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
-10 -5 0 5 10
Perpendicular Distance from Fault Scarp (meters x V)
F
a
u
l
t
P
a
r
a
l
l
e
l
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
(
m
e
t
e
r
s
x
F
P
)
2 meters, regardless of
displacement
FP is the displacement parallel to the
fault strike and is independent of the
observed vertical displacement.
FP
Snamprogetti 63
October 19th, 2005
Pipeline Response
through FE Models
Pipeline crossing Active Faults
Differential Displacement (m)
A
x
i
a
l
S
t
r
a
i
n
(
-
)
High risk seismic area, see for
example, Sakhalin Island
Snamprogetti
October 19th, 2005
Hazard due to Ice Gouging
( )
H
D H
n
soil
e D H D u
C
)
Pipeline Sector from KP 444 to KP 500 Pipeline Sector from KP 500 to KP 524 Pipeline Sector from KP 524 to KP 544 Assumed Temperature Profile
WINTER SEASON
MONTHLY MEAN TEMPERATURE
TEMPERATURE PROFILES FOR
DIFFERENT OPERATING
CONDITIONS
Pipeline Design in Tundra Areas
Snamprogetti 70
October 19th, 2005
The heave is not only
caused by freezing of the
in-situ pore water but also
by water flow to a freezing
front (segregational heave).
This water flow is induced
by a suction gradient that
develops in the frozen soil.
The frost heave after the
development of ice bulb is
dependent on the value of
the segregation potential
SP
o
.
The segregation potential is
in general obtained from
laboratory tests.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Time (month)
G
r
o
u
n
d
T
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e
(
C
)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
Pipe Internal Temperature -4C
Pipe Internal Temperature -7C
Pipe Internal Temperature -11C
Time (month)
S
e
g
r
e
g
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
H
e
a
v
e
(
m
)
Frost Heave Analysis
) (
) (
T grad e SP v
t P a
o
e
=
Snamprogetti 71
October 19th, 2005
Differential Settlement due Frost Heave
Pipeline Design in Arctic Environment
Snamprogetti 72
October 19th, 2005
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT SCENARIO GAS TO MARKET
OFFSHORE PIPELINE TECHNOLOGY
PIPELINE SYSTEM DESIGN PHILOSOPHY
DESIGN PROCESS
PIPELINE INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE
LIMIT STATES BASED DESIGN
EXERCISES
OUTLINE OUTLINE
Snamprogetti 73
October 19th, 2005
At the end of the design phase:
Diameter, Thickness and material
Pipeline route
Construction technology
Intervention works
-Before construction
-After construction
Operating philosophy
-Inspection and monitoring plan
-Damage evaluation
-Pipeline repair
Safety objective met
for all relevant limit
states
Pipeline Inspection and Maintenance Philosophy
Snamprogetti 74
October 19th, 2005
Inspection/Monitoring Requirements
The objective is to define:
How How to inspect
What What (and Where Where) to inspect
Emergency procedures Emergency procedures
& &
Intervention Intervention measures measures
When When to inspect
Based on Based on
HAZID, Risk HAZID, Risk
Analysis Analysis
and inputs from and inputs from
design design
General Criteria General Criteria
Based on inspection
results and damage
evaluation
Pipeline Inspection and Maintenance Philosophy
Snamprogetti 75
October 19th, 2005
What What (and Where Where) to inspect
Earthquakes vs. Earthquakes vs.
Geo Geo- -hazards hazards
Possible occurring earthquakes may trigger
geo-hazards events that may threaten the
pipeline structural integrity. The following
geo-hazards are of major concern:
mass flows
- fault displacements
- soil slides and slumps
- turbidity currents
- Travelling waves are usually less severe that
geo-hazards
Pipeline geometry & configuration
Internal Inspection Internal Inspection
(IMU, (IMU, Caliper Caliper pig) pig)
Condition of area around PL:
Visual Inspection Visual Inspection
Leak detection:
LDS/SCADA system LDS/SCADA system
Pipeline Inspection and Maintenance Philosophy
Snamprogetti 76
October 19th, 2005
What What (and Where Where) to inspect
Arctic Hazards: Arctic Hazards:
The following geo-hazards are of major
concern:
Ice gouging
Differential settlement
Erosion at landfall
Pipeline geometry & configuration
Internal Inspection Internal Inspection
(IMU, (IMU, Caliper Caliper pig) pig)
Condition of area around PL:
Visual Inspection Visual Inspection
Leak detection:
LDS/SCADA system LDS/SCADA system
Pipeline Inspection and Maintenance Philosophy
Snamprogetti 77
October 19th, 2005
Design Philosophy
DFI
As-laid Configuration
Pre-Commissioning
Misfit? Leak?
Safety & Availability
Accidental Scenarios &
Extreme Environmental
Loads
RFO
As-Built Configuration
Ordinary Inspection
(External)
Continuous Leak
Detection (SCADA)
Inspect?
Misfit?
Leak?
STOP
Maintenance & Repair
NO
YES
NO
YES
YES
NO
NO
YES
Survey Data
Survey Data
Extraordinary
Inspection (External
&/or Internal)
Pipeline System
Inspection Procedures
vs.
Emergency Response
Snamprogetti 78
October 19th, 2005
Pipeline System
Maintenance and
Repair Procedures
Leak
Misfit w/out Leak
Dent Anodes etc. Anti
Corrosion
Coating
Repair (section
replacement)
Pipeline Repair
Repair?
Evaluation Criteria
(Safety,
Availability)
Ordinary
Inspection,
Leak detection
(SCADA)
Shutdown
?
Trenching,
Gravel
dumping,
Reinforcement
Section
Replacement
Pre-commissioning
&
Commissioning
YES
NO
YES
NO
Medium/large
Leak or rupture
Small Leak
Shutdown
Damage
Location
Damage
Location
Snamprogetti 79
October 19th, 2005
External ROV Survey
Shape of pipe anomaly as predicted
by FE Analysis
Shape of pipe anomaly as measured
by Internal Inspection
Pipeline Monitoring and Maintenance .
Structural Integrity Diagnosis before . Repair
Snamprogetti 80
October 19th, 2005
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT SCENARIO GAS TO MARKET
OFFSHORE PIPELINE TECHNOLOGY
PIPELINE SYSTEM DESIGN PHILOSOPHY
DESIGN PROCESS
PIPELINE INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE
LIMIT STATES BASED DESIGN
EXERCISES
OUTLINE OUTLINE
Snamprogetti
October 19th, 2005
LIMIT STATE BASED DESIGN
Design criteria currently in use are based on Design criteria currently in use are based on
allowable stresses allowable stresses and weakly related to actual and weakly related to actual
failure modes. failure modes.
Limit state design Limit state design adopts functional relations adopts functional relations
describing actual failure modes in a format describing actual failure modes in a format
expliciting expliciting load and resistance factors and refers to a load and resistance factors and refers to a
rationally based safety philosophy weighting each rationally based safety philosophy weighting each
design issue in relation to type of failure and nature design issue in relation to type of failure and nature
of consequences and reflecting quantified safety of consequences and reflecting quantified safety
targets in relevant partial safety factors. targets in relevant partial safety factors.
Snamprogetti 82
October 19th, 2005
LSD in the Offshore/Onshore Pipeline Technology
Deterministic vs. Reliability Approach
Reliability
Methods
Deterministic
Approach
Limit State Based
Design (LSBD)
Working Stress
Design (WSD)
Load and Resistance
Factored Design (LRFD)
Probabilistic Based
Design
Snamprogetti 83
October 19th, 2005
LSD in the Offshore/Onshore Pipeline Technology
Reliability Based Limit States Design Pursuing given Safety Target
LIMIT STATES DESIGN FORMAT
L
d
(
,
F,
C ,
S
) < R
d
(
SC ,
m
)
where:
L
d
design load effect function
R
d
design resistance function
C
condition load factor
F
functional load factor
S
system safety factor
resistance usage factor
Reliability Index
Standard Deviation
Probability Distribution
of Safety Margin
(R-L)
1.E-07
1,.E-06
1.,E-05
1.E-04
1.E-03
1.E-02
1.E-01
1.E+00
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
Reliability Index,
P
r
o
b
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
o
f
F
a
i
l
u
r
e
P
r
o
b
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
D
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
Resistance
Distribution, R
Load
Distribution, L
Nominal Load
Nominal Resistance
Nominal
Safety
Domain
f
L
>1 f
R
<1
Snamprogetti 84
October 19th, 2005
LSD in the Offshore/Onshore Pipeline Technology
Calibration of Limit State Based Design Criteria
through Reliability Analysis
Limit State g(x) = R - L
Criteria, Decision
Loads, L
Long term
Distr., Risk
Uncertainty f
x
(x)
Failure Probability
Target Safety
Capacity, R
FEM, Test
Tools
Consequences
( ) [ ] ( )
( )
= =
0 x g
f
dx x f 0 x g P P
Snamprogetti 85
October 19th, 2005
ULTIMATE LIMIT STATES (ULS): ULTIMATE LIMIT STATES (ULS):
Bursting Bursting
Collapse Collapse
Propagating Buckling Propagating Buckling
Local Buckling due to Combined Loading Local Buckling due to Combined Loading
Fracture/Plastic Collapse Fracture/Plastic Collapse
Ratcheting Ratcheting (Accumulation of plastic deformation) (Accumulation of plastic deformation)
SERVICEABILITY LIMIT STATES (SLS): SERVICEABILITY LIMIT STATES (SLS):
Ovalization Ovalization Limit due to Bending Limit due to Bending
FATIGUE LIMIT STATES (FLS) FATIGUE LIMIT STATES (FLS)
ACCIDENTAL LIMIT STATES (ALS) ACCIDENTAL LIMIT STATES (ALS)
Limit States/Failure Modes as per DNV OS-F101
Snamprogetti 86
October 19th, 2005
LSD in the Offshore/Onshore Pipeline Technology
Relevant Limit States (Loads vs. Failure Mechanisms)
Internal pressure Bursting
Fracture/Plastic collapse of defected long. welds
External pressure Collapse
Buckle propagation and/or arrest
Combined loads Local buckling
Fracture/Plastic collapse of defected girth welds
Variable loads Fatigue
Operating loads Global buckling
Snamprogetti
October 19th, 2005
Ultimate Limit States
Failure Failure occurs when internal actions are no longer able to equilibrate occurs when internal actions are no longer able to equilibrate
external loads and consequently external loads and consequently deformations are uncontrolled by any deformations are uncontrolled by any
boundary boundary
Deformation due to external loads are controlled or imposed by Deformation due to external loads are controlled or imposed by
external boundaries external boundaries and and failure failure occurs at deformation level which activate occurs at deformation level which activate
material (ductile tearing, cracking etc.) or shape instabilities material (ductile tearing, cracking etc.) or shape instabilities ( (ovalization ovalization, ,
wrinkling and/or bulging/kinking etc.) wrinkling and/or bulging/kinking etc.)
Ultimate Limit States (ULS) Ultimate Limit States (ULS) for a pipeline entail structural damages which for a pipeline entail structural damages which
will give rise to the release of the transported fluid into the will give rise to the release of the transported fluid into the external external
environment or the flooding of the line, both in the short and l environment or the flooding of the line, both in the short and long term ong term
Snamprogetti
October 19th, 2005
Ultimate Limit States
Longitudinal failure Longitudinal failure modes modes may develop in the presence of longitudinal may develop in the presence of longitudinal
defects which cause the reduction of strength capacity for the c defects which cause the reduction of strength capacity for the containment ontainment
of internal pressure of internal pressure
Circumferential failure modes Circumferential failure modes are associated with excessive longitudinal are associated with excessive longitudinal
stresses and strains caused by external loads stresses and strains caused by external loads
In relation to geo In relation to geo- -morpho morpho hazard, hazard, circumferential failure modes circumferential failure modes due to due to
bending effects are of major concern. bending effects are of major concern.
The most critical condition for the The most critical condition for the localisation localisation of deformation is associated of deformation is associated
with the development of with the development of bending strains bending strains which may be either unbounded or which may be either unbounded or
limited by external boundaries. limited by external boundaries.
Sometimes circumferential (and longitudinal) failure modes are a Sometimes circumferential (and longitudinal) failure modes are activated by ctivated by
the the localization of deformation in fully restrained conditions localization of deformation in fully restrained conditions due to high due to high
temperature in combination with high pressure temperature in combination with high pressure
Snamprogetti 89
October 19th, 2005
LSD in the Offshore/Onshore Pipeline Technology
Target safety level (P
f
T
) According to DNV OS-F101
Snamprogetti 90
October 19th, 2005
LSD in the Offshore/Onshore Pipeline Technology
Relevant Limit States (Failure Statistics)
Corrosion Outside
Forces
Material
def ects
Construction
def ects
Other
47.1%
0.0%
23.5%
0.0%
29.4%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
Corrosion Outside
Forces
Material
def ects
Construction
def ects
Other
Corrosion Outside
Forces
Material
def ects
Construction
def ects
Other
0.4%
99.2%
0.2% 0.0% 0.2%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
90.0%
100.0%
Corrosion Outside
Forces
Material
def ects
Construction
def ects
Other
Total incident by cause in the
midline zone (Offshore gas
pipelines - Gulf of Mexico
experience before 1980 - OD>20),
Ref./VERITAS, 1980/
Total incident by cause in the
safety zone (Offshore gas pipelines
- Gulf of Mexico experience before
1980 - OD>20),
Ref./VERITAS, 1980/
Snamprogetti 91
October 19th, 2005
LSD in the Offshore/Onshore Pipeline Technology
Reliability Based Load and Resistance Factored Design (LRFD)
DESIGN CHECK (P
f
T
=10
-3
)
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
Stress:
L
,
R
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
F
u
n
c
t
i
o
n
s
:
f
L
(
L
)
,
f
R
(
R
)
Load
Resistance
m;
C,
A,
U
Mean Value
Load
Characteristic
Load/load effect
F
;
E
;
C
Mean Value
Resistance
Characteristic
Resistance
SC
Design Value
Load and Resistance
SC m
C
d
CA A A E E C F F L C d
d d
R
R
L L L L L
R L
=
+ + = =
Snamprogetti 92
October 19th, 2005
TENSILE MODE LIMIT STATES (fracture or plastic collapse of
girth welds, circumferential flaw up to through thickness then
opening mode)
COMPRESSIVE MODE LIMIT STATES (wrinkling, out-bulging
and formation of a longitudinal flaw, through thickness, due to
circumferential tearing instability of line pipe material)
LSD in the Offshore Pipeline Technology
Relevant Limit States for Offshore Pipelines In Arctic Environments
under Extreme Events (Ice Keel Gouging)
Snamprogetti 93
October 19th, 2005
OVALIZATION BUCKLING
-
NO PRESSURE
WRINKLING
-
INNER PRESSURE
PLASTIC STRAIN
PLOT
DEFORMED
PLOT
LSD in the Offshore/Onshore Pipeline Technology
Local Buckling (Combined Loading)
Snamprogetti 94
October 19th, 2005
Bending and deformation Bending and deformation
capacity of pipes subject to capacity of pipes subject to
axial force, inner pressure axial force, inner pressure
and bending, and bending,
Results implemented in Results implemented in
DNV OS DNV OS- -F101 local F101 local
buckling criterion buckling criterion
0.500
HOTPIPE 2 - EXPERIMENTAL TESTS - PIPE SPECIMEN NO. 3
BENDING MOMENT VS. CURVATURE RELATIONSHIP
0.00E+00
1.00E+05
2.00E+05
3.00E+05
4.00E+05
5.00E+05
6.00E+05
7.00E+05
8.00E+05
9.00E+05
1.00E+06
1.10E+06
1.20E+06
1.30E+06
0.000 0.050 0.100 0.150 0.200 0.250 0.300 0.350 0.400 0.450
AVERAGE CURVATURE (1/m)
B
E
N
D
I
N
G
M
O
M
E
N
T
(
N
m
)
T3 Pipe specimen t = 16.2 mm, , fo =0.0%, SMYS = 480 MPa, Mean D FE Mesh, Mid Section,
T3 Pipe specimen t = 16.2 mm, , fo =0.0%, SMYS = 480 MPa, Mean D FE Mesh, Mid Section, Triggering Force
Specimen 3 - Experimental Test
LSD in the Offshore/Onshore Pipeline Technology
Local Buckling (Combined Loading)
Snamprogetti 95
October 19th, 2005
LSD in the Offshore/Onshore Pipeline Technology
LCC Local Buckling (Combined Loading)
1
)
1
2
b c
d
2
b c
d
p c
d
m sc
2
p c
d
m sc
|
|
.
|
\
|
+
|
|
|
.
|
\
|
|
|
.
|
\
|
+
|
|
.
|
\
|
p
p
p
p
M
M
S
S
( )( )
>
>
< < +
< +
=
+ =
e i
e i
b
e i
h
h
y
u
c
0
3
2 ) (
60 / 0
60 / 15 45 / / 60 4 . 0
15 / ) 4 . 0 (
) 1 (
p p for
p p for
p
p p
q
t D for
t D for t D q
t D for q
f
f
h
( ) ( )
U Temp Y Y A U Temp U U b
f SMYS f f SMTS f
f
t D
t
f
t D
t
P
, ,
u
y
; ;
3
2
15 . 1
2
,
3
2 2
min = =
|
.
|
\
|
=
1.000
1.050
1.100
1.150
1.200
1.250
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Outer diameter to thickness ratio (D/t)
f
l
o
w
s
t
r
e
s
s
p
a
r
a
m
e
t
e
r
,
c
qh = 0
qh = 0.2
qh = 0.4
qh = 0.6
qh = 0.8
f
u
/f
y
= 1.18
Effective axial force Strain hardening factor Differential Internal Pressure
Design Format
DNV OS-F101
where where
Snamprogetti 96
October 19th, 2005
LSD in the Offshore/Onshore Pipeline Technology
DCC Local Buckling (Combined Loading)
d A A d E E d F C F D
d C,
D
, , ,
+ + =
( )
( )
>
<
|
.
|
\
|
=
=
|
.
|
\
|
=
|
|
.
|
\
|
+
|
.
|
\
|
60
60 20
100
20
0 . 1
20 0 . 1
2
5 1 78 . 0
0
0
0
0
max
,
2
3
,
,
t
D
if unknown
t
D
if
t
D
t
D
if
T
Y
t
t D
p
f SMYS
0.01 -
D
t
=
gw
d h
d h
d h
gw
u Temp y
h
C
where where
Design Format
DNV OS-F101
Snamprogetti 97
October 19th, 2005
OD = 24, API 5L X65, WT = 13.7mm - BENDING MOMENT VS. CURVATURE
Local Buckling Assessment by Advanced FEM Analysis
Snamprogetti 98
October 19th, 2005
OD = 24, API 5L X65, WT = 13.7mm
BENDING MOMENT VS. MINIMUM COMPRESSIVE AXIAL STRAIN
Local Buckling Assessment by Advanced FEM Analysis
Snamprogetti 99
October 19th, 2005
OD = 24, API 5L X65, WT = 13.7mm
BENDING MOMENT VS. MAXIMUM COMPRESSIVE AXIAL STRAIN
Local Buckling Assessment by Advanced FEM Analysis
Snamprogetti 100
October 19th, 2005
OD = 24, API 5L X52, WT = 22.2mm - BENDING MOMENT VS. CURVATURE
Local Buckling Assessment by Advanced FEM Analysis
Snamprogetti 101
October 19th, 2005
OD = 24, API 5L X52, WT = 22.2mm
BENDING MOMENT VS. MINIMUM COMPRESSIVE AXIAL STRAIN
Local Buckling Assessment by Advanced FEM Analysis
Snamprogetti 102
October 19th, 2005
OD = 24, API 5L X52, WT = 22.2mm
BENDING MOMENT VS. MAXIMUM COMPRESSIVE AXIAL STRAIN
Local Buckling Assessment by Advanced FEM Analysis
Snamprogetti 103
October 19th, 2005
LSD in the Offshore/Onshore Pipeline Technology
Fracture and Plastic Collapse Limit State of Defected Welds
Fitness-For-Purpose approaches (FFP)
- Fabrication Codes/Standards are based on good workmanship principles
- They are somewhat arbitrary, and do not consider effect of weld flaw on
service performance
- Repairing welds could introduce more severe defects, material properties
degradation
- Weld flaw is acceptable, provided that the critical conditions are not reached
in service life
- Unnecessary and costly weld repairs may be avoided
- FFP assessments rely on NDT input
Engineering Criticality Assessment approaches (ECA)
- Usually based on the Failure Assessment Diagram (FAD)
- Explicitly include material properties (toughness, yield and tensile strength),
flaws and structure geometry, loads and load effects
- Suitable for a limit state based Design
- BS7910 (1999), R6 rev.4 (2001)
Snamprogetti 104
October 19th, 2005
Girth Weld
Flaw
Calculation of acceptable and detectable flaw Calculation of acceptable and detectable flaw
dimensions based on fracture/plastic collapse dimensions based on fracture/plastic collapse
capacity and on the allowable applied capacity and on the allowable applied
stress/strain stress/strain
r
= (
I
/
mat
) +
L
r
=
n
/
Y
2c
a
2a
t
BS 7910
FAILURE ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM (FAD)
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20
(Plastic Collapse) L
r
(
F
r
a
c
t
u
r
e
)
r
SAFE AREA
FAILURE
LSD in the Offshore/Onshore Pipeline Technology
Fracture and Plastic Collapse Limit State of Defected Welds
The design issue: ECA, AUT/NDT, allowable load effects
for defected girth welds
Snamprogetti 105
October 19th, 2005
LSD in the Offshore/Onshore Pipeline Technology
Fracture and Plastic Collapse Limit State of Defected Welds
ECA - Failure Assessment Diagram - Application
Typical Stress-Strain Relationships:
mean, upper bound and lower bound
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
0.0% 0.5% 1.0% 1.5% 2.0% 2.5% 3.0%
Strain
S
t
r
e
s
s
(
M
P
a
)
Minimum
Mean
Maximum
MISMATCHING of Material MISMATCHING of Material
Mechanical Characteristics Mechanical Characteristics
Applied longitudinal stress Applied longitudinal stress
depends on the actual depends on the actual
mechanical characteristics mechanical characteristics
of the weld material relatively of the weld material relatively
to the base material of to the base material of
the nominal pipe joints. the nominal pipe joints.
Snamprogetti 106
October 19th, 2005
FAD CONSTRAINT MODIFIED
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
1.1
1.2
1.3
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20
Plastic Collapse, L
r
F
r
a
c
t
u
r
e
,
r
SAFE AREA
FAILURE AREA
R6 (rev.4) Lev.1
MODIFIED
R6 (rev.4) Lev.1
LSD in the Offshore/Onshore Pipeline Technology
Fracture and Plastic Collapse Limit State of Defected Welds
Constraint Based ECA
FRACTURE
TOUGHNESS
[J, K, CTOD]
GEOMETRY / CONSTRAINT [T,Q,M]
SENB (a/W = 0.3)
CT (a/W = 0.5)
SENB (a/W = 0.5)
SENT PIPE
Defected welds in
tubular are usually
low constraint structures
FEM (ABAQUS)
Modified FAD
Approach, R6
Snamprogetti 107
October 19th, 2005
Load instability curve
680
685
690
695
700
705
710
715
720
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0
Tearing a [mm]
C
r
i
t
i
c
a
l
S
t
r
e
s
s
[
M
p
a
]
0.00%
0.50%
1.00%
1.50%
2.00%
2.50%
S
t
r
a
i
n
Stress
Strain
Maximum
X65 Maximum - Matching
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20
Lr
r
FAD 2B
FAD 2B Constraint modified-R6
Increasing crack height
Increasing applied stress/strain
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.4
1.15 1.20 1.25 1.30
Resistance Curve
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0
Tearing - a [mm]
C
T
O
D
[
m
m
]
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
J
[
N
/
m
m
]
DESIGN CURVE
CTOD (mm)
J (N/mm)
LSD in the Offshore/Onshore Pipeline Technology
Fracture and Plastic Collapse Limit State of Defected Girth Welds
Ductile Tearing ECA
Snamprogetti 108
October 19th, 2005
LSBD vs. Harsh Environment
(Deep waters, Arctic and Sub-arctic environment, high seismic area etc.)
LSBD and reliability methods have been developed in the last ten years
through a joint effort of pipeline operators, construction Companies and
design consulting Companies
LSBD allows to optimise pipeline design as it accounts for actual failure
modes including in a rational way the effects of uncertainties related to
offshore pipeline construction and operation
LSBD will be increasingly important while exploiting harsh environments
and also in the rational integrity management of the huge pipeline network,
both on-land and offshore, currently in service
Snamprogetti 109
October 19th, 2005
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT SCENARIO GAS TO MARKET
OFFSHORE PIPELINE TECHNOLOGY
PIPELINE SYSTEM DESIGN PHILOSOPHY
DESIGN PROCESS
INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE
LIMIT STATES BASED DESIGN
EXERCISES
OUTLINE OUTLINE
Snamprogetti 110
October 19th, 2005
INPUT DATA
Pipe outer diameter, D
o
= 914.4 mm
Pipe steel wall thickness, t = 26.04 mm
Outer diameter to thickness ratio, D
o
/t = 35.12
Steel Grade = API 5L X60
Minimum Specified Yield Stress, SMYS = 415 MPa
Minimum Specified Tensile Strength, SMTS = 520 MPa
SMYS derated factor, f
y, Temp
= 0 MPa
SMTS derated factor, f
u, Temp
= 0 MPa
Max yield to tensile strength factor,
h,d
=(Y/T)
max
= 0.90
Inner pressure, p
i
= 0 to 10 MPa
Exercise No. 1
Calculate the Local buckling deformation capacity
using DCC DNV OS-F101 Design Equation
i.e. limit value, functional, accidental and environmental value
Snamprogetti 111
October 19th, 2005
d A A d E E d F C F D
d C,
D
, , ,
+ + =
( )
( ) =
|
.
|
\
|
=
|
|
.
|
\
|
+
|
.
|
\
|
2
5 1 78 . 0
max
,
2
3
,
,
T
Y
t
t D
p
f SMYS
0.01 -
D
t
=
d h
d h
d h
gw
u Temp y
h
C
C
: limit strain
F,d
: applied functional strain
E,d
: applied environmental strain
A,d
: applied accidental strain
Snamprogetti 112
October 19th, 2005
SYMBOL DEFINITION
D
: design strain
F
: functional load factor (=1.1)
E
: environmental load factor (=1.3)
A
: accidental load factor (=1.0)
P
: pressure load factor (=1.05)
C
: functional load condition factor (=1.0)
gw
: reduction factor due to girth welds (= 1.0 assumed)
h,d
: maximum yield stress to ultimate tensile strength (=0.92)
u
: material strength factor (=1.00 assumed)
=
7 . 1
0 . 1 , D
( ) t t D SMYS M
o
p
=
2
Exercise No. 2
Calculate maximum bending strain on a pipeline
induced by ice keel gouging
Snamprogetti 118
October 19th, 2005
Rotational equilibrium gives:
The rotation at each hinge, , is
equal to
The bending strain at each hinge is
distributed on a 2.5 D
o
pipe length
z
u
=
q
M
z M z q
p
p
= =
8
2
4
1
2
( )
( )
z
H D u D
D
D
Radius M
q
H D u
o
o
o
bend
bend bend
p
,
5
1
5 2 5 . 2 2
1
8
, 2 . 0 = =
= = =
Exercise No. 2
Calculate maximum bending strain on a pipeline
induced by ice keel gouging
Snamprogetti
October 19th, 2005
RESULTS: Applied bending strain vs. soil cover, ice keel gouge depth
and soil lateral resistance
Exercise No. 2
Calculate maximum bending strain on a pipeline
induced by ice keel gouging
0.00%
0.50%
1.00%
1.50%
2.00%
2.50%
3.00%
3.50%
4.00%
4.50%
2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5
Pipeline burial depth (m)
M
a
x
i
m
u
m
b
e
n
d
i
n
g
s
t
r
a
i
n
(
%
)
q = 250 kN/m; D = 2.1 m.
q = 450 kN/m; D = 2.1 m.
q = 250 kN/m; D = 2.5 m.
q = 450 kN/m; D = 2.5 m.