0 Up votes0 Down votes

26 views9 pagesOct 23, 2012

© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

26 views

Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

- UHX-paper-4493
- rahman_advanced-fracture-mechanics.pdf
- crack width check
- IPC2012-90201
- fatiq dan corosi
- ajp-jp4199707C348
- IPC2012-90236
- IPC2012-90499
- IPC2012-90271
- IPC2012-90224
- IPC2012-90549
- IPC2012-90614
- IPC2012-90624
- IPC2012-90637
- IPC2012-90653
- IPC2012-90663
- Mechanical Damage Final Report
- IPC2012-90148
- Buckling of thin shells, Recent advances and trends
- A Two-stage Model for Predicting Crack Growth Due to Repeated Thermal Shock

You are on page 1of 9

IPC2012

September 24-28, 2012, Calgary, Alberta, Canada

IPC2012-90662

Center for Reliable Energy Systems Spectra Energy

Dublin, OH, USA Houston, TX, USA

KEYWORDS pipes, the helical-seam (or spiral) pipes can offer cost

advantages for as much as 10% to 15% [1].

Fitness for Service, Skelp-End Weld, Spiral Pipe

The majority of the recently installed spiral pipes were

ABSTRACT

manufactured from steel coils. Some of the spiral pipes in the

For large diameter spiral pipes, there can be one skelp-end past were manufactured from steel plates. The coils and plates

weld (SEW) in every 5-7 joints of pipes. The industry are collectively termed skelps.

acceptance of SEWs is uneven although API 5L permits SEWs

The weld joining the skelps is often called skelp-end weld

in finished pipes. A joint industry project (JIP) [1] was formed (or strip/plate end weld in API 5L terms). The position of the

to develop uniformly acceptable inspection and test plans skelp-end weld (SEW) in a pipe is schematically shown in

(ITPs) for SEWs. The development was conducted through Figure 1. The skelps are firstly joined by a partial penetration

two parallel processes: (1) fitness-for-service analysis of the weld on what will become the inside diameter (ID) side of the

SEWs under a variety of loading conditions expected in their pipe. The string with the partially completed skelp-end weld is

life time and (2) consensus building based on the best practice fed into the pipe forming process. The helical welding is

and quality control protocols. completed from ID and outside diameter (OD) sides as the pipe

This paper details the fitness-for-service analysis of SEWs. is being formed. The skelp-end weld is then completed from

A companion paper provides a summary of the recommended the OD side by applying OD welding. As a result, the partially

ITPs developed in the JIP [2]. In the fitness-for-service completed skelp-end weld is subjected to pipe forming strains.

analysis, the SEWs were subjected to a variety of loading Skelp-End Weld

conditions covering construction, commissioning, and normal

service with and without internal pressure. For in-service

loading, both static and cyclic loading was considered. The

extensive fitness-for-service analysis demonstrated that there is

no inherent integrity risk associated with the SEWs when these

welds are manufactured, tested, and inspected using generally

accepted quality control measures applied to helical seam

welds. Additional inspection and quality control for coil end

properties and T-joints are recommended in the companion

paper. Helical Weld

In many of the recent onshore large diameter pipeline The acceptance of the SEW in finished line pipes varies

construction projects in North America, more helical-seam greatly [1]. Although API 5L provides provisions for the

welded pipes (SAWH or COWH in API 5L [3] terms) have testing and acceptance of SEWs, some companies do not accept

been installed than longitudinal-seam welded pipes (SAWL or SEWs at all. Other companies may accept SEWs on a case-by-

COWL in API 5L terms). This trend is expected to continue for case basis, often after additional tests specified by purchasers.

the foreseeable future. Compared to the longitudinal-seam

FITNESS-FOR-SERVICE ANALYSES determined from statistic analyses of material properties

Scope of FFS Analysis provided by project sponsors (X70) and those collected in

CRES material database (X80). The pipe and weld properties

During onshore pipeline construction, many processes such

were measured in pipe longitudinal and circumferential

as lowering-in, back fill, tie-in, and hydrotest can generate

direction, respectively. The weld mismatch was calculated by

tensile stresses in the pipe and cause tensile rupture. Among all

normalizing the weld tensile strength by the pipe tensile

the above processes, pipe lowering-in usually produces the

strength. The heat affected zone (HAZ) mismatch was

highest longitudinal stresses. Hydrotest usually produces the

determined by the ratio between the HAZ and pipe material

highest stress in pipe circumferential (hoop) direction. Due to

hardness. Mismatch greater than one represents overmatching.

the Poisson’s effect, the internal pressure from hydrotest can

It is seen that the weld is about 5% overmatched while the HAZ

also induce longitudinal stresses.

is about 5% undermatched (softened).

On the other hand, lowering-in and field cold-bending can

Table 1 Representative properties used in analysis

apply bending deformation to a pipe. The pipe could buckle on

the compressive side when the deformation is excessive. YS UTS uEL n WM HAZ

Grade Y/T

(ksi) (ksi) (%) (CSA) Mismatch Mismatch

In addition to the construction processes, the operating

loadings may also induce tensile and compressive stress to the X70 76 90 0.84 10.6 20.1 1.05 0.95

pipe. The operating pressure and temperature variations may X80 86 98 0.88 8.8 26.9 1.05 0.95

induce cyclic stresses to the pipeline and lead to fatigue flaw

growth. For finite element analyses (FEA), full tensile stress-strain

curves were created for the materials given in Table 1 with the

The FFS analyses performed in this paper covered the CSA Z662 equation [4]:

stresses from lowering-in, cold bending, hydrotest, and

n

operation. The tensile, compressive, and fatigue failure modes

were investigated. 0.005 y , (1)

Geometry Parameters E E y

Figure 2 shows a schematic drawing of a SEW where some where and represent engineering strain and stress,

basic parameters are given. The helical angle () is the angle respectively. The E is the material’s Young’s modulus, y is the

between the helical weld and pipe circumference. The length material’s yield strength, and n is the strain hardening exponent.

of the skelp-end weld equals to the coil width. The intersection The pipe stress-strain curves are shown in Figure 3. The

of the helical and skelp-end welds is commonly referred to as stress-strain curves of the weld metal and HAZ material were

the T-joint or T-weld. generated by scaling the corresponding pipe stress-strain curves

To avoid some practical issues in construction (e.g., girth according to the strength mismatch level in Table 1 .

weld inspection), a minimum distance of 300 mm (11.8 inch) is

800

required between the SEW and the finished pipe end [3]. In the

following analyses, the SEW is assumed to be sufficiently away

from and not affected by the pipe end. 600

Eng. Stress (MPa)

Skelp-End Weld

400

T-Joint

(Helical Angle)

w

(Coil Width) (Pipe OD)

0

T-Joint

0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14

Eng. Strain (mm/mm)

Helical/Spiral Weld Figure 3 Representative X70 and X80 stress-strain curves used

in analysis

Figure 2 Skelp-end weld geometry parameters Assessment of Tensile Integrity

Material Properties Assessment Procedures

Two pipe grades, X70 and X80, were selected for FFS For tensile failure assessment, existing flaws of certain

analyses. The pipe and weld properties are summarized in sizes were assumed to be present. These flaws are associated

Table 1. The material properties of the helical seam weld and with natural weld features which fall below weld repair criteria.

SEW were the same. The material properties in Table 1 were

The crack driving force (CDF) in fracture mechanics CTOD under pure Mode I loading. The Mode I (opening) and

terminology was used to measure the magnitude (or intensity) Mode III (slide) components of the CTD are referred to as

of loading to the flaw. The CDF is associated with applied CTDI and CTDIII, respectively.

stress or strain. A failure event is postulated to occur when the Table 2 FEA matrix

FEA Matrixof lowering-in

- Lower-in induced tension(tension)

and Hydrotest and hydrotest

CDF reaches the material’s toughness. The toughness is

Helical Wall Flaw

usually measured experimentally. A lower bound conservative WM HAZ OD (D )

Coil Width

(w)

Angle Flawed Thickness

High-

Low

Depth No. of

Grade ( ) (t ) D /t Length Cases

OM UM Weld

toughness value can be estimated based on the past data of

(inch) (mm) (inch) (mm) (degree) (inch) (mm) (mm) (mm)

similar materials. 36 914 18.6 Skelp-

FEA Models X70

1.05 0.95 36 914

54 1372 28.5 end

weld 0.50 12.7 72

0.00

2 50 16

X80 72 1829 39.5 1.27

A typical finite element model used in the tensile integrity 72 1829 39.5

Helical

weld

assessment is shown in Figure 4. The pipe with an elliptic

surface breaking flaw on pipe ID surface was modeled with (a)

three-dimensional (3D) solid/brick elements. The flaw was

located on the fusion line (i.e., HAZ flaw) of the SEW at the T-

joint. Due to the slight HAZ softening and weld metal (WM)

overmatching, the HAZ flaw is considered to represent the

worst case. The total length of the model was set to be 6OD to (b) ID Surface h

HAZ HAZ

The weld high-low misalignment was modeled by relative

shift of the coils on the two sides of the skelp-end weld. The a

misalignment was uniform along the skelp-end weld and was (c)

ID Surface

gradually reduced to zero over the width of the helical weld at

the T-joints.

Figure 4 FEA model for flaws in skelp-end welds

The FEA matrix is shown in Table 2. The pipe OD and Mode I

wall thickness were 36 inch and 0.50 inch, respectively. The (Opening)

coil widths were varied and the helical angles were from 19 to CTD : Crack tip displacement

40. The maximum high-low misalignment was 1.27 mm (i.e., CTD I : Mode I crack tip displacement

CTD III: Mode III crack tip displacement

10% of the wall thickness). The flaw size was assumed to be 2-

mm deep and 50-mm long.

Lower-in

CTD I

The pipe lowering-in process was simulated by applying CTD III

size relative to the pipe diameter, the uniform tension loading is Mode III

a reasonable representation of the tension side of the pipe under (Out-of-Plane Shear)

global bending. Figure 5 Schematic drawing of mode I and III loading and

Due to the orientation of the SEW, the flaw in the SEW crack tip displacement (CTD)

experiences primarily mixed Mode I and Mode III loading.

The Mode I loading opens the two flaw surfaces while the

Mode III loading creates relative slide between the two flaw

surfaces along the length of the flaw (see Figure 5). Figure 6

shows a typical plastic strain contour near the flaw tip. Due to

softened HAZ properties, the plastic strain in the HAZ is larger

and spreads wider than the strain in the weld metal. The

relative opening and sliding of the flaw surfaces are evident.

A number of crack driving force representations, such as

Figure 6 Typical plastic strain contour and deformation near the

the stress intensity factors (K), J-integral (J), and crack tip

flaw tip (Figure 4(c) location)

opening displacement (CTOD) have been developed to evaluate

the intensity of the crack-tip fields, such as stresses and strains. To help understand the effect of helical angles, a so-called

The crack tip displacement vector (CTD) has been developed load angle was introduced. The load angle is defined as the

and used for mixed mode fracture problems [5]. The CTD is angle between the flaw length and the primary stress (see

defined as the relative displacement of the two points on the Figure 7). For lowering-in analysis, the primary stress is along

two flaw surfaces at a given distance (0.5-mm in this work) the pipe longitudinal direction.

behind the flaw tip as shown in Figure 5 and Figure 6. The 0.5 The comparison of the CTDI and CTDIII induced by the

mm is selected so that the CTD is very close to the traditional lowering-in tensile stress is shown in Figure 8 for the X70 pipe

with a helical angle () of 40. The lowering-in tensile stress Hydrotest

induces higher Mode III loading than Mode I loading. Similar During hydrotest, tensile stress up to the yield strength of

relations were observed for other helical angles and pipe the pipe can be generated along the pipe circumferential

grades. direction (hoop) due to applied internal pressure. At the same

time, tensile stress can be generated in the pipe axial (or

longitudinal) direction (axial) due to axial restraint and the

Tension

Poison’s effect (see Figure 11). The hoop and axial stress can

Load Angle be calculated with the following equations,

Load Angle

PD , and PD ,

hoop axial

2t 2t

Flaw in Skelp-end weld Flaw in helical weld

where P represents the internal pressure and D and t represent

Figure 7 Definition of load angle under longitudinal tension the pipe outside diameter and wall thickness, respectively. The

The total CTD driving forces of SEW flaws are shown in symbol represents the Poison’s ratio of the pipe material. It

Figure 9 for different helical angles. For comparison, the flaws should be noted that the total resultant stress (total) is not

in helical welds were also analyzed. The helical weld high-low perpendicular to the flaw surface (i.e., the skelp-end weld) for

misalignment was 10% of wall thickness (maximum allowed) any given helical angles. If = 0.3 is used, the total is

and uniform along the whole helical weld. The assumption is perpendicular to the flaw when the helical angle equals to

believed to be conservative. Figure 9 shows that the CTD 16.7. The helical angle is defined as the angle between the

driving force increases as the load angle increases. The SEW helical weld and pipe circumference direction (as shown in 2).

high-low misalignment has very little effect on the CTD driving 0.06

force for the SEW flaws. However, the helical weld high-low Lower-in Tension, X70 Pipe

misalignment increases the CTD driving force for the flaws in 0.05

D = 36 in, t = 0.5 in, w = 72 in, = 40

a = 2 mm, 2c = 50 mm, h = 0.0 mm

CTD Driving Force (mm)

the helical welds. Very similar results were found for the X80

pipes (see Figure 10). The CTD driving forces of the X80 0.04 CTD_I

pipes are slightly higher than those of the X70 pipes. CTD_III

To assess the fitness-for-service of the welds, it is 0.03

appropriate measure of material’s toughness. The concept of 0.02

0.01

is the initiation toughness under low crack-tip constraint

conditions, e.g., a planar flaw in a structure subjected to

0.00

predominantly tensile loading. The apparent toughness is 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0

higher than a conventional toughness measured by testing high- Applied Stress / Yield Strength

constraint specimens. The concept and the applications of the

apparent toughness may be found in a number of publications Figure 8 Mode I and Mode III crack driving force (CTDI and

[6,7,8,9,10]. CTDIII) induced by pipe lowering-in tensile stress

Past experience indicated that the lower bound apparent 0.10

Lower-in Tension, X70 Pipe

toughness (low-constraint) appropriate for the current D = 36 in, t = 12.7 mm

Helical Angle / Load Angle

assessment of the X70 and X80 pipes and welds is 0.2 mm. a = 2 mm, 2c = 50 mm

CTD Driving Force (mm)

0.08

The average apparent toughness can be 0.4-0.6 mm or higher. Solid lines: h = 0.00 mm 40/ 50 (HLW)

For all the cases analyzed, the maximum CTD driving force is Dashed lines: h = 1.27 mm

0.06 HLW: Flaw in helical weld

less than 0.1 mm when the applied stress reaches the pipe yield SEW: Flaw in skelp-end weld 40/40 (SEW)

strength. The CTD at the applied stress that equals to the yield

strength is much smaller than this lower bound toughness. 0.04

Therefore the integrity of the SEWs is sound under the tensile 29/29 (SEW)

19/19 (SEW)

Figure 9 and Figure 10 also show that the CTD increases

as the load angle increases and this trend is not affected by the 0.00

flaw locations (i.e., in skelp-end or helical weld). Therefore the 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2

flaws in the skelp-end weld can be treated as those in the Applied Stress / Yield Strength

helical weld as long as the load angle is properly adjusted. This Figure 9 CTD driving force under lowering-in tension (X70)

observation is further demonstrated in hydrotest analysis.

0.10 0.04

Lower-in Tension, X80 Pipe Helical Angle / Load Angle Hydrotest, X70 Pipe

D = 36 in, t = 12.7 mm D = 36 in, t = 0.5 in, w = 72 in, = 40

a = 2 mm, 2c = 50 mm a = 2 mm, 2c = 50 mm, h = 0.0 mm

CTD Driving Force (mm)

0.08

Solid lines: h = 0.00 mm 40/ 50 (HLW) 0.03

Dashed lines: h = 1.27 mm CTD_I

0.06 HLW: Flaw in helical weld

SEW: Flaw in skelp-end weld 40/40 (SEW) CTD_III

0.02

0.04

29/29 (SEW)

0.01

0.02 19/19 (SEW)

0.00 0.00

0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0

Applied Stress / Yield Strength Applied Stress / Yield Strength

Figure 12 Model I and Mode III crack driving force (CTDI and

Figure 10 CTD driving force under lowering-in tension (X80) CTDIII) induced by hydrotest

Helical Weld 0.05

Hydrotest, X70 Pipe

D = 36 in, t = 12.7 mm Helical Angle / Load Angle

0.04 a = 2 mm, 2c = 50 mm

hoop total Solid lines: h = 0.00 mm 19/71 (SEW)

Dashed lines: h = 1.27 mm

0.03 HLW: Flaw in helical weld

29/61 (SEW)

SEW: Flaw in skelp-end weld

axial

0.02 40/50 (SEW)

0.01

Skelp-end Weld

To simulate the hydrotest process, internal pressure was 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2

applied while the pipe ends were restrained from longitudinal Hoop Stress / Yield Strength

displacement. The hydrotest also applies a mixed mode loading Figure 13 CTD driving force under hydrotest (X70 Pipe)

of Mode I and Mode III to the flaw. As shown in Figure 12, 0.05

unlike in the lowering-in process, the hydrotest generates Hydrotest, X80 Pipe

D = 36 in, t = 12.7 mm Helical Angle / Load Angle

higher Mode I loading than Mode III loading. a = 2 mm, 2c = 50 mm

0.04

CTD Driving Force (mm)

The total CTD driving forces are shown in Figure 13 and Solid lines: h = 0.00 mm

Dashed lines: h = 1.27 mm

Figure 14 for X70 and X80 pipes, respectively. The primary HLW: Flaw in helical weld 19/71 (SEW)

0.03

stress from hydrotest is applied in pipe circumference direction. SEW: Flaw in skelp-end weld

Therefore, the load angle is the angle between the flaw length 29/61 (SEW)

and the pipe circumference. The CTD driving force increases 0.02

as the load angle increases no matter where the flaw is located 40/50 (SEW)

40/ 40 (HLW)

misalignment shows much greater effect on the CTD driving

force than what was found in the lowering-in simulation. The

0.00

weld high-low misalignment increases the CTD driving force 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2

by approximately 50% in comparison to the cases without high- Hoop Stress / Yield Strength

low misalignment. It is also found that, unlike the lowering-in

Figure 14 CTD driving force under hydrotest (X80 Pipe)

analysis results, the X70 pipes showed higher CTD driving

forces than the X80 pipes. This is probably due to the bi-axial Operation

stress effect and the change of the main loading mode. Similar to the loading conditions in hydrotest, a pipe

In general, the CTD driving force due to hydrotest is much experiences bi-axial tensile stress during normal operations.

smaller than that from the lowering-in process. The maximum One principal stress (hoop) is in the pipe circumferential

CTD driving force of all the cases that were analyzed is much direction which is directly generated by the internal pressure.

smaller than the expected toughness of the materials. Therefore The other principal stress (axial) is along the pipe axial (or

the assumed SEW flaw should be safe under hydrotest. longitudinal) direction and is usually generated by the Poison’s

effect. The flaw is therefore under mixed mode I (opening / The FEA matrix is shown in Table 3. The pipe OD was 36

normal stress) and III (out-of-plane shear) loading as that in inch and two wall thicknesses, 0.50 and 0.75 inch, were

hydrotest. Since the maximum allowable operating pressure analyzed. The corresponding D/t ratios were 72 and 48,

(MAOP) is less than the hydrotest pressure, the results obtained respectively. Three coil widths, corresponding to helical angles

in the hydrotest analysis can be applied for the operation of 18.6, 28.5, and 39.5, were studied. The effect of the SEW

condition conservatively. high-low misalignment was also analyzed and the maximum

In addition to the axial stress generated by the axial misalignment is assumed to be 1.5 mm.

constraint and Poison’s effect, coincidental forces may apply Table 3 FEA matrix for bending analysis

additional tension or bending load to the pipe in the FEA Matrix - Lower-in induced bending, field bend, and in-service bending

longitudinal direction. It should be noted that only the

Helical

accidental forces that are less than those applied in the pipe WM HAZ OD (D )

Coil Width

Angle

Wall High-

Grade (w) Weld Thickness (t ) D /t Low No. of

( )

lowering-in process are considered in this analysis. OM UM Cases

(inch) (mm) (inch) (mm) (degree) (inch) (mm) (mm)

It is known that the internal pressure is beneficial to the 36 914 18.6 Skelp-

tensile stress capacity (in stress-based design regime). In X70

54 1372 28.5 end

0.50 12.7 72 0.00

1.05 0.95 36 914 weld 32

another word, the resistance to tensile rupture (in stress-based X80 72 1829 39.5 0.75 19.1 48 1.50

Plain

design regime) is increased by the internal pressure. Therefore, N/A

Pipe

the results from the lowering-in analysis can be applied to those Pipe with skelp-end weld

accidental force conditions conservatively. Enforced Rotation Enforced Rotation

Assessment Procedures L = 6D

D

tolerance to global bending. At initial loading stage, a pipe

gradually deforms with the increase of bending moment. The

deformation is relatively uniform along the pipe length. Upon

reaching a critical load level, the deformation starts to localize Skelp-end weld T-Joint at the

Helical weld

in certain locations. Further loading usually causes the compressive side

localized deformation in one of the locations to grow rapidly Figure 15 FE model for bending analysis

and the bending moment to decrease. The curvature or strain Lower-in/Cold Bend

associated with the peak bending moment is often used as the

critical bending strain. In general, buckled pipes with finite The lower-in and cold bend induced bending stress was

size wrinkles can still contain pressure. Therefore, the buckling simulated by applying rotation at both pipe ends. One pipe end

is not considered as an ultimate limit state. However, the was allowed to translate freely in the longitudinal direction.

buckled pipes offer reduced resistance to further deformation A deformed pipe from the lower-in simulation is shown in

and may fail by fatigue in the buckled area. Figure 16 where a buckle was formed on the bottom (i.e.,

The focus of the analysis is whether the material property compression) side of the pipe. Due to the highly localized

variation and weld geometry discontinuity near the SEW, deformation near the buckle, the compressive strain at the

especially at the T-joint, could reduce the tolerance of pipes to bottom of the pipe is not uniform along the pipe length. An

the compressive stress on the compression side of the pipe. average strain is often used to evaluate the compressive strain.

The average strain is calculated using the relative rotations

The critical compressive buckling strain of pipes between the two cross-sections of a pipe segment of a given

containing SEW was calculated in FEA. The calculated critical gauge length centered at the buckling location as shown in

strain was then compared with the maximum strain given by Figure 16. A gauge length of 2D is often used where D

the design codes to see if the critical strain is reduced by the represents the pipe outside diameter. The average strain was

SEW. The overall buckling analysis procedure has been calculated using the following equation,

D ( 2 1 )

extensively documented in [11,12].

FEA Models ave where l gauge 2 D (2)

Figure 15 shows a typical FE model used in compressive 2 l gauge

capacity analyses. The pipe was modeled with 3D solid/brick

Typical relationship between the bending moment and the

elements. The total length of the pipe was 6OD which is

average compressive strain from the finite element simulation

similar to the dimension used in most experiments. To simulate

is shown in Figure 17 for X70 pipes. Three pipe conditions are

the thick plates attached to the pipe ends in most experimental

shown: (1) a plain pipe without helical or skelp-end weld; (2) a

bending tests, the pipe ends were modeled as rigid plane. One

pipe with helical and skelp-end weld without weld high-low

of the T-joints was put on the bottom side of the pipe where the

misalignment; (3) a pipe with helical and skelp-end weld with

maximum compressive strain is expected.

1.5-mm SEW high-low misalignment.

D = 914.4 mm; = 28.52; t = 0.75 in; fp = 0; X70

lgauge lgauge 9

2 2

8

7

Enforced Enforced

Moment (MN m)

Rotation Rotation 6

1 2

5

Bulking Location

4 Plain Pipe

Figure 16 Buckled pipe under bending deformation Skelp-End Weld, h = 0 mm

3 Skelp-End Weld, h = 1.5 mm

The average compressive strains corresponding to the

maximum bending moment are normally referred to as the 2

critical compressive strains. It is seen that without high-low 1 X70, No pressure, = 29, D/t = 48

misalignment, the SEW does not affect the critical strain. The

0

high-low misalignment, however, can greatly reduce the critical 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4

strain. The critical strains of the pipes with different helical Compressive Strain (%)

angles are almost identical. In other words, the critical Figure 17 Moment vs. compressive

No Pressure strain (no pressure)

compressive strains were found to be independent of the helical 6

angles. Similar results were found for X80 pipes. Elastic Equation

CAN/CSA Z662-96

The FEA calculated critical strains of the X70 pipes (D/t = 5 DNV-OS-F101

48 and 72) are compared with the maximum design strains C-FER Zero Pressure Design

FEA: X70, No HiLow

from some pipeline design standards in Figure 18. Without

FEA: X70, HiLow = 1.5 mm

4

high-low misalignment, the calculated critical strains for pipes

X70 No Pressure

containing SEWs are all greater than the maximum design

3

strains allowed by the codes. However, the calculated critical

strain with 1.5-mm high-low misalignment and D/t = 72 is

2

slightly lower than that given in CSA Z662 but is still higher

than those given in DNV-OS-F101 and C-FER design curve. It

should be noted that the elastic equation given in Figure 18 is 1

an ideal elastic solution to the buckling problem. It is known to

over-predict the buckling strain and is not taken by any of the 0

20 40 60 80 100

design codes or standards. The elastic equation is presented D/t

only for reference and validation purpose.

Figure 18 Calculated critical compressive strain vs. design

Operation strains in codes

D = 914.4 mm; = 28.52; t = 0.75 in; fp = 0.8; X70

Similar bending analyses as those described in previous 6

section were performed with the addition of internal pressure.

The finite element model and matrix were the same with those 5

shown in Figure 15 and Table 3. In the analysis, the MAOP

was applied first where the pipe end was free of any

Moment (MN m)

4

displacement restraint and load. The bending load was then

applied by enforcing a specified rotation at the pipe end. 3

Typical bending moment vs. average compressive strain curves Plain Pipe

are shown in Figure 19. The results were found almost 2

Skelp-End Weld, h = 0 mm

Skelp-End Weld, h = 1.5 mm

identical for all helical angles and for X80 pipes. By

comparing these results with those in Figure 17, it is seen that

1

the internal pressure increases the critical compressive strains.

X70, Pressure = 80%SMYS, = 29, D/t = 48

Therefore, the strain capacity is sufficient when compared with

0

the maximum design strains shown in Figure 18. 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4

Compressive Strain (%)

From the above analysis, it can be concluded that the SEW

does not pose any threat to the pipe integrity under static Figure 19 Moment vs. compressive strain (with pressure)

service loads. Fatigue Assessment

Pressure and temperature oscillations during normal

operations can generate cyclic stress in a pipe. As a result, the

flaws in the skelp-end weld may undergo fatigue growth. The

cyclic stress consists of two principal components, i.e., hoop

and axial (as shown in Figure 11). The flaw is under mixed should not be a concern for the skelp-end welds with initial

mode I and III fatigue loading conditions. The magnitude of flaws less than 2 mm (depth) 50 mm (length).

each loading mode depends on the angle between the total Table 4 Operating conditions

stress (total) and the flaw surface (i.e., helical angle).

Pipe and Operating Conditions

In the following analysis, the mixed mode fatigue problem OD WT Grade Design MAOP hoop axial total

was simplified to a pure mode I problem where the applied (in) (mm) (ksi) Factor (ksi) (ksi) (ksi) (ksi)

stress was assumed to be the total and always perpendicular to 36.0 12.7 80 0.8 1.78 64.0 19.2 66.8

the flaw surface regardless of the helical angle. Therefore, this Table 5 Stress spectrum for fatigue assessment

simplified assessment is independent of the helical angles. The

assessment results are believed to be conservative since the Stress Spectrum for Fatigue Assessment

materials’ resistance to mode I fracture and fatigue are usually Description P/P

P hoop axial total Cycles/

(ksi) (ksi) Year

the lowest among all three loading modes. (ksi) (ksi)

Daily 2% 0.04 1.28 0.38 1.34 365

The pipe geometry and designed operating condition are Monthly 10% 0.18 6.40 1.92 6.68 12

given in Table 4. The MAOP yields a design factor of 0.8. The Seasonal 20% 0.36 12.80 3.84 13.36 2

maximum allowed flaw size under the MAOP was determined Upset Condition 50% 0.89 32.00 9.60 33.41 4

with the ECA procedure in API1104 Appendix A where the Hydrotesting 125% 2.22 80.00 24.00 83.52 N/A

Option 1 method was used with the CTOD toughness between P: Operation pressure; P: Pressure oscillation

0.10 mm and 0.25 mm. Table 6 Predicted flaw growth vs. service time

The assumed stress spectrum used in the fatigue

BS7910 Mean+2SD Growth Curve R>0.5 in Air

assessment is given in Table 5 where the oscillation of the

pressure was given as a percentage of the MAOP. It should be No High-Low High-Low = 10% Wall Thickness

noted that only one hydrotest cycle was applied. The Length Depth Length Depth

Year Year

combination of the high pipe grade (X80) and the high MAOP (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm)

(Design Factor = 0.80) yields conservative results since it 50.0 2.0 0 50.0 2.0 0

generates high cyclic stress. The assessment results can be 51.6 2.7 167 51.6 2.7 73

conservatively applied to lower grade pipes (such as X70) and 53.2 3.4 281 53.3 3.4 124

lower design factors (such as 0.72). In addition, the assessment 54.9 4.1 357 55.0 4.2 158

results can be conservatively applied to pipes with wall 56.6 4.9 410 56.6 4.9 181

thickness greater than 12.7 mm. CONCLUSIONS

The fatigue growth rate (da/dN) was assumed to follow the Fitness-for-service analysis was conducted on SEWs under

Paris’s Law and be in the form of a power law function of the a variety of loading conditions including construction,

stress intensity factor range (K) as da/dN = C (K)n. The two- commissioning, and full-pressure service. The FFS analyses

stage mean plus two standard deviation (2SD) growth covered the stresses from lower-in, cold bending, hydrotest, and

properties for R 0.5 in air recommended in BS 7910:1999 for operation. The tensile, compressive, and fatigue failure modes

weld fatigue assessment were used. The constants were given were investigated.

in the following,

In comparison to helical welds, no inherent risk was found

Stage A (K 196 N/mm3/2), C = 2.110-17 and n = 5.10, for SEWs. Using material property data from actual SEWs, the

Stage B (K > 196 N/mm3/2), C = 1.2910-12 and n = 2.88, fitness-for-service analysis has demonstrated that the pipes

containing SEWs are safe under both static and cyclic loading

where the unit of da/dN is mm/cycle.

conditions. The project team believes spiral pipes containing

The initial flaw depth and length were assumed to be 2 mm SEW can provide satisfactory service when manufactured,

and 50 mm, respectively; and the weld high-low misalignment inspected, and accepted by the recommended procedures.

was assumed to be 0.00 mm or 1.27 mm (10% of wall

The fitness-for-service of the SEWs is established on the

thickness). The stress intensity factor solutions of Anderson’s

basis of (1) safety margins under a variety of loading conditions

[13] were used in the assessment. A stress magnification factor

and (2) comparison of expected performance of spiral welds

of 1.33 was applied to the case with weld high-low

and SEWs under similar material property and loading

misalignment per BS7910:1999.

conditions. The actual pipe properties in a given pipe order or a

The predicted flaw growth vs. the service time is shown in grade can have large variations permitted by applicable codes

Table 6, where the last row indicates the predicted maximum and standards (e.g., API 5L and CSA Z245.1). Anti-corrosion

allowable flaw size at the MAOP from the ECA procedure in coating is known to affect the tensile property of the pipes. The

API1104 Appendix A. It is seen that the predicted service life Charpy impact energy of the welds (deposited weld metal and

is 410 and 181 years for the cases without and with high-low heat-affected zone) is likely to have variations too. These

misalignment, respectively. Therefore, the fatigue failure variations are known and they affect both spiral welds and

SEWs. The material properties used in the fitness-for-service

analysis should not be interpreted as representing a particular

grade, wall thickness, or other attributes of the data used. With Evaluation against Experimental Data,” Proceedings of the

the possible material property variations in mind, the safety 9th International Pipeline Conference, Paper No. IPC2012-

margins shown in the analysis are sufficiently high that 90660, September 24-28, 2012, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.

satisfactory service of SEWs can be expected when the 11 Liu, M. and Wang, Y.-Y., “Modeling of Anisotropy of

recommended QA/QC procedures [1,2] are applied. TMCP and UOE Linepipes,” Proceedings of the Sixteenth

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference,

The financial support from the following sponsors is (ISOPE 2006), San Francisco, USA, May 28 – June 2, 2006,

gratefully acknowledged: Alliance Pipeline, Berg Steel Pipe, pp. 221-227.

Corinth Pipe Works, El Paso, Enbridge, Evraz Inc. N.A., 12 Liu, M. and Wang, Y.-Y., “Modeling of Anisotropy of

Panhandle Energy, PSL N.A., Spectra Energy, Stupp, and TMCP and UOE Linepipes,” International Journal of

TransCanada Pipeline Ltd.

Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference, Vol. 17, No. 4,

December 2007, pp. 288-293.

REFERENCES

13 Anderson, T.L., Thorwald, G., Revelle, D.J., and Lanaud,

1 Wang, Y.-Y. and Liu, M., “Integrity Assessment of Skelp- C., "Stress Intensity Solutions for Surface Cracks and

End Welds in Spiral Pipes,” final report of a joint industry Buried Cracks in Cylinders, Spheres, and Flat Plates," a

project, August 3, 2011. report to the Materials Properties Council, March, 2000.

2 Wang, Y-Y., Liu, M., Rapp, S., Collins, L., “Recommended

ITP for the Quality Assurance of Skelp-End Welds in Spiral

Pipes,” Proceedings of the 9th International Pipeline

Conference, Paper No. IPC2012-90663, September 24-28,

2012, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.

3 API 5L, 44th Edition.

4 CSA Z662, 2007.

5 Pirondi, A. and Dalle Donne, C., “Characterization of

Ductile Mixed-Mode Fracture with the Crack-Tip

Displacement Vector,” Engineering Fracture Mechanics,

Vol.68, 2001, p.1385-1402.

6 Wang, Y.-Y., Liu, M., Horsley, D., and Zhou, J., “A

Quantitative Approach to Tensile Strain Capacity of

Pipelines,” 6th International Pipeline Conference, Paper No.

IPC2006-10474, September 25-29, 2006, Calgary, Alberta,

Canada.

7 Liu, M., Wang, Y.-Y., and Long, X., “Enhanced Apparent

Toughness Approach to Tensile Strain Design,”

Proceedings of the 8th International Pipeline Conference,

Paper No. IPC2010-31386, September 27 – October 1,

2010, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.

8 Wang, Y.-Y., Liu, M., Zhang, F., Horsley, D., and Nanney,

S., “Multi-Tier Tensile Strain Models for Strain-Based

Design – Fundamental Basis,” Proceedings of the 9th

International Pipeline Conference, Paper No. IPC2012-

90690, September 24-28, 2012, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.

9 Liu, M., Wang, Y.-Y., Song, Y., Horsley, D., and Nanney,

S., “Multi-Tier Tensile Strain Models for Strain-Based

Design – Development and Formulation of Tensile Strain

Capacity Models,” Proceedings of the 9th International

Pipeline Conference, Paper No. IPC2012-90659, September

24-28, 2012, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.

10 Liu, M., Wang, Y.-Y., Horsley, D., and Nanney, S., “Multi-

Tier Tensile Strain Models for Strain-Based Design – Model

- UHX-paper-4493Uploaded byhmdhojjat56
- rahman_advanced-fracture-mechanics.pdfUploaded bytassili17
- crack width checkUploaded bykrishna kumar
- IPC2012-90201Uploaded byMarcelo Varejão Casarin
- fatiq dan corosiUploaded byPutra Chandra Wijaya
- ajp-jp4199707C348Uploaded bykannanmech87
- IPC2012-90236Uploaded byMarcelo Varejão Casarin
- IPC2012-90499Uploaded byMarcelo Varejão Casarin
- IPC2012-90271Uploaded byMarcelo Varejão Casarin
- IPC2012-90224Uploaded byMarcelo Varejão Casarin
- IPC2012-90549Uploaded byMarcelo Varejão Casarin
- IPC2012-90614Uploaded byMarcelo Varejão Casarin
- IPC2012-90624Uploaded byMarcelo Varejão Casarin
- IPC2012-90637Uploaded byMarcelo Varejão Casarin
- IPC2012-90653Uploaded byMarcelo Varejão Casarin
- IPC2012-90663Uploaded byMarcelo Varejão Casarin
- Mechanical Damage Final ReportUploaded bySh Enriq
- IPC2012-90148Uploaded byMarcelo Varejão Casarin
- Buckling of thin shells, Recent advances and trendsUploaded bychuckhsu1248
- A Two-stage Model for Predicting Crack Growth Due to Repeated Thermal ShockUploaded by882636013
- The Behaviour of Locally-supported Cylindrical Shells - Unstiffened ShellsUploaded byAnonymous LeC3YexoBo
- Ch01Uploaded byLeonardoMadeira11
- uu8Uploaded byShafeeq Shabaz
- Post tensioned segmental bridge.pdfUploaded byAnonymous Gd0PTUQ
- Design of Column in Offshore StructureUploaded byMoshiur Rahman
- Influence of Cavity Preparation Design on Fracture Resistance of Posterior Leucite ReinforcedUploaded bySara Faris
- 0148-9062%2894%2992857-6.pdfUploaded byForce Mapu
- designofopenings-110506064934-phpapp01Uploaded bySwapan Das
- Energy Method in Efficient Estimation of Elastic Buckling Critical Load of Axially Loaded Three-Segment Stepped ColumnUploaded byStefano Barbieri

- riopipeline2019_1142_ibp1142_gustavo_fabian_acosta_.pdfUploaded byMarcelo Varejão Casarin
- riopipeline2019_1146_paper_produtividade_final_revi.pdfUploaded byMarcelo Varejão Casarin
- riopipeline2019_1138_rio_paper_rev01.pdfUploaded byMarcelo Varejão Casarin
- riopipeline2019_1139_201906031800ibp1139_19_design_.pdfUploaded byMarcelo Varejão Casarin
- riopipeline2019_1141_ibp1141_2019..docxUploaded byMarcelo Varejão Casarin
- riopipeline2019_1140_ibp_1140_nao_intrusivos_final.pdfUploaded byMarcelo Varejão Casarin
- riopipeline2019_1137_201906031307ibp1137_19_increas.pdfUploaded byMarcelo Varejão Casarin
- riopipeline2019_1135_riopipeline2019_t1135_jst_av1..docxUploaded byMarcelo Varejão Casarin
- riopipeline2019_1136_ibp1136_19_rafael_carlucci_tav.pdfUploaded byMarcelo Varejão Casarin
- riopipeline2019_1128_fm_1128_19_formato_texto_final.docxUploaded byMarcelo Varejão Casarin
- riopipeline2019_1127_article_number_ibp1127_19.pdfUploaded byMarcelo Varejão Casarin
- riopipeline2019_1126_article_number_ibp1126_19.pdfUploaded byMarcelo Varejão Casarin
- riopipeline2019_1124_worlds_first_remote_deepwater_.pdfUploaded byMarcelo Varejão Casarin
- riopipeline2019_1120_ibp1120_19_transpetro´s_worklo.pdfUploaded byMarcelo Varejão Casarin
- riopipeline2019_1123_ibp1123_19_caliper_ili_experie.pdfUploaded byMarcelo Varejão Casarin
- riopipeline2019_1121_201906051235ibp1121_19_final.pdfUploaded byMarcelo Varejão Casarin
- riopipeline2019_1122_ibp1122_19_rev04_final_apos_re.pdfUploaded byMarcelo Varejão Casarin
- riopipeline2019_1119_ibp_1119_potential_drop_final.pdfUploaded byMarcelo Varejão Casarin
- riopipeline2019_1117_ibp1117_19_versao_final_para_e.pdfUploaded byMarcelo Varejão Casarin
- riopipeline2019_1118_riopipeline2019_1118_201905221.pdfUploaded byMarcelo Varejão Casarin
- riopipeline2019_1115_201906070716fm_3811_00_formato.pdfUploaded byMarcelo Varejão Casarin
- riopipeline2019_1114_201905291733ibp1114_19_optimiz.pdfUploaded byMarcelo Varejão Casarin
- riopipeline2019_1113_201906031824ibp_riopipeline_11.pdfUploaded byMarcelo Varejão Casarin
- riopipeline2019_1112_fm_1112_final..docxUploaded byMarcelo Varejão Casarin
- riopipeline2019_1110_201906031757ibp1110_19_the_rel.pdfUploaded byMarcelo Varejão Casarin
- riopipeline2019_1111_fm_1111_19_en_reviewed.pdfUploaded byMarcelo Varejão Casarin
- riopipeline2019_1109_201906051455qav_ibp1109_19_jet.pdfUploaded byMarcelo Varejão Casarin
- riopipeline2019_1106_ibp_1106_ultimate_high_precisi.pdfUploaded byMarcelo Varejão Casarin
- riopipeline2019_1107_201905201751ibp1107_19_jacques.pdfUploaded byMarcelo Varejão Casarin
- riopipeline2019_1105_paper_1105_19_logistics_for_ma.pdfUploaded byMarcelo Varejão Casarin

- ijcset2016061103_3Uploaded byLubab Salman
- Roof FramingUploaded byRod Aquino
- Geometry and AstrologyUploaded byVikas Suryavanshi
- THE CONNECTION Feb 2006Uploaded bybobthebigdog
- Crude Oils Their Sampling, AnalysisUploaded byHenry Vasquez
- At II ReceptorsUploaded byAlex_Gold_7243
- 5 Kitab i NaurasUploaded byMd Haris
- 17 Electric FieldsUploaded byeleanorhmtan
- Omega-3 Fatty Acid Supplementation Lowers Serum FSH in Normal Weight but Not Obese WomenUploaded byHSinfinity001
- R.H. Jarrett - It Works.pdfUploaded bynanobill
- Ganachakra - Wikipedia 7-17-14Uploaded byYoginiDevi
- Document Security and Data Integrity Policy .docxUploaded byBheki Xaba
- Interline 1012+ds+engUploaded bySUBHOMOY
- Steel BridgesUploaded byAntenasm
- The Continuous Spectrum and the Peaks of XUploaded byaman
- Kartik HandbookUploaded byMaria Celeste Camargo Casemiro
- Potter Flow SwitchUploaded byWahyu Asyari M
- VenusUploaded byAnonymous ARckOC
- Forgotten_Realms_Archetypes_Savagery_&_Shadow_(11293249).pdfUploaded byMark Avrit
- Damac Akoya Cuatro Villas Dubai +971 4553 8725Uploaded bySandeep
- Flightt Path Angle DispersionsUploaded byShashank Ch
- Plank and Joist RoofUploaded byshudhai jobe
- CIVIL WORKS [FINAL]Uploaded bymohsinciviljmi
- Derive 6Uploaded byFlavio Bacelar
- Bhabha ScatteringUploaded byGuzmanbueno
- Xbee Wireless Connectivity Kit DsUploaded byMohammad Haroon Waseem
- RH06-2Uploaded bySalvador Martínez
- 93817537-ElementBuilderSE.docxUploaded byjiang
- ENTROPIONUploaded byHapiz Arlanda Sani
- LATIHAN SOAL ULANGAN UMUM BAHASA INGGRIS SD KELAS 3 TAHUN PELAJARAN 2012-2013.docxUploaded byJoe Tomcat

## Much more than documents.

Discover everything Scribd has to offer, including books and audiobooks from major publishers.

Cancel anytime.