International Pipeline Conference Volum e I

ASM E 1998

IPC1998-2033

FATIGUE CURVES FOR DAMAGE CALCULATIONS FOR A DENTED

AND OVALLED SECTION OF THE TRANSALASKA PIPELINE SYSTEM

Glen R. Stevick
Principal Mechanical Engineer
Berkeley Engineering And Research, Inc.

James D. Hart
Principal
SSD, Inc.

Bill Flanders
Senior Engineer
Alyeska Pipeline Service Company

ABSTRACT
During the summer o f 1996, the TransAlaska Pipeline System (TAPS)
experienced vibrations near Thompson Pass, about 25 miles north of
Valdez, Alaska. The vibrations could, on occasion, be detected by
residents living near the pipeline at the bottom of the pass. Close to
the source of the phenomena, small bushes could be seen moving in
response to the seismic shocks and a noise similar to a mortar firing
in the distance could be heard. Alyeska Pipeline Service Company
initiated an extensive investigation and quickly determined that the
seismic shocks were a result of pressure pulses originating near the
slackline-packline interface. This only occurred when the slackline-
packline interface was positioned near a terraced portion of the
pipeline topography on the downstream side o f the pass. This
knowledge allowed Alyeska Pipeline to control the pulsations by back
pressuring the pipeline to move the slackline-packline interface well
above the terrace location.
One key aspect of the project was an extensive analytical investigation
of a dented and ovalled section of the pipeline near the origin of the
pressure pulses. The main concern at this location was that, as each
pressure pulse passes, the ovalled and dented pipe section tends to
reround causing the pipe wall to flex a small amount. Since the
pulses occurred frequently under certain flow conditions, there was a
concern for possible fatigue damage to the pipe steel. The locations of
maximum stress range were estimated to be near the 6:00 position on
the outside surface of the pipe at the periphery of the dents in the X65
base metal (Stations 40959+28 and 40959+40 in Alyeska
terminology).
This paper describes the design and decision S-N relationships
that were developed during the Thompson Pass investigation to
estimate fatigue damage. These curves are a combination of the AWS
A fatigue curve and an adjusted version o f the ASME Section VIII,
Division 2 design fatigue curve. These curves were used together
with a multi-axial fatigue model to compute fatigue damage due to
pipe stresses caused by pressure pulse cycling as well as that due to
operational startup and shutdown cycles.
INTRODUCTION
The calculation of fatigue damage is an inexact science and, for new
designs conservative assumptions are made in order to ensure that the
probability of a crack initiating in a component during its service life
is extremely small. This is done, among other things, by using design
S-N curves that incorporate a conservative margin of safety. Our
concern for assessing the state of the pipe at Thompson Pass was
whether there was a significant probability that a crack had or would
initiate, not whether there was a minute probability. The purpose of
the assessment was to guide the decision making process regarding
short and long term actions needed to ensure the integrity of the
pipeline. If the cumulative fatigue damage at a dent location equals the
damage that would be allowed for a new design (typically a
cumulative damage of 1.0, based on a design S-N curve), this does
not mean that the pipeline is on the verge o f failure, or even on the
verge of crack initiation. For this reason, fatigue damage calculations
were made using two different S-N curves, namely a design curve
and a decision curve. The differences between these curves can be
explained as follows.

Copyright 1998 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 09/12/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 DEFINING THOMPSON PASS "DESIGN FATIGUE CURVE
To obtain a design level curve, experimental results are used, giving
the measured number o f cycles to failure at various stress levels. There
is always a great deal o f scatter in the results, and for any given
number o f cycles, a substantial factor of safety is applied to obtain the
allowable design stress. As will be described later, we developed a
design curve for the TAPS base metal utilizing the American Welding
Society (AWS) A-Curve (D l.l 1996) for high cycle stress levels, an
extension of the A-curve for midrange stress levels and a Bi-axial
fatigue curve proposed in the literature for the low cycle life portion.
The resulting composite fatigue curve is shown in Figure 1 with the
American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) fatigue curve
(ASME, 1995) and Bi-axial design fatigue curves proposed in the
literature (Rahka, 1993). Note that above 10,000 cycles, the curve is
the same as the AWS A-curve.
The AWS A-curve is based on fatigue tests of rolled steel beams
(NCHRP, 1982). The residual stresses from the rolling process are of
yield magnitude and cause the fatigue specimens to experience
maximum mean stress effects. In addition, the rough as-rolled surface
would typically have more surface flaws than rolled plate of the type
used for the TAPS pipe. Thus, the A-curve should be somewhat
conservative for the TAPS pipe. All o f the AWS fatigue curves are
obtained by applying a design factor corresponding to two standard
deviations on stress to the mean o f the experimental results (the stress
at crack initiation). For the data the AWS A-curve is based on, see
Figure 2, this is approximately equal to a factor of 1.5 on stress.
Comparison with the ASME S-N curve for pipe and pressure vessel
materials provides additional support for use of the AWS A-Curve for
the high cycle portion of the TAPS design fatigue curve. Fatigue data
for the ASME curves were initially generated using small, smooth,
unwelded specimens tested in air under strain controlled conditions.
Equivalent stress amplitude data was obtained by multiplying the strain
range data by one-half Youngs modulus. Mean fatigue curves were
then obtained by drawing best fit curves through the equivalent stress
amplitude data (Cooper, 1992). Mean stress effects were conservatively
accounted for using a modified Goodman Diagram approach for stress
amplitude values below the material yield strength (ASME, 1969). The
ASME fatigue design curves were determined by applying a factor 2.0
on stress or 20 on life, whichever was more conservative. The factor of
2.0 on stress governs in the high cycle region and 20 on life governs in
the low cycle region. These factors are not safety factors. The factor
of 20 was originally based on engineering judgement taking into account
that the base test data was determined using small, smooth, unwelded
specimens. The factor of 20 was made up of the following sub-factors:
Data Scatter (minimum to mean) 2.0
Size Effect 2.5
Surface finish, atmospheric, etc. 4.0
The factor of 2.0 on stress was originally determined to provide an
equivalent margin in the high cycle region. The fatigue data currently
being utilized for the ASME Curves are based on larger specimens.
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 09/12/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
At Thompson Pass, the vast majority of the applied stress cycles were
in the high cycle region. The calculated remaining lives of the subject
dents were highly dependent on the level of the endurance limit
(allowable stress amplitude for an infinite number of cycles) in the
TAPS design fatigue curve. The AWS A-curve endurance limit, 25
ksi range, was used in the TAPS curve.
Supporting the use of the AWS A-curve in the high cycle region, an
almost identical endurance limit can be determined by adjusting the
ASME endurance limit for similar surface roughness, material
ultimate strength and design factors. The ASME endurance limit for
an 85 ksi ultimate strength material is 13.5 ksi. Removing the design
factor of 2.0 on stress gives a mean data estimate of 27 ksi amplitude.
Adjusting for surface roughness by dividing by 0.9 for fine
ground/commercial polish and multiplying by 0.63 for hot rolled parts
(Juvinall, 1967) gives an adjusted mean data estimate of 18.9 ksi.
Applying a safety factor of 1.5, the multiplicative equivalent of two
standard deviations for the AWS A-Curve data, gives an allowable
stress amplitude of 12.6 ksi. This is almost identical to the AWS A-
curve fatigue limit of 25 ksi range.
At the low cycle end of the design fatigue curve, an allowable strain
amplitude of 1 percent (300 ksi equivalent stress) was chosen for 1
cycle to failure based on the proposed bi-axial fatigue design curve
and high bi-axial fatigue data given and described in (ASME, 1995).
The cited bi-axial fatigue data from (Ives, 1966) and (Rahka, 1992)
clearly show a significant drop in fatigue resistance with increasing bi-
axiality. To fill in the mid-region, the AWS A-curve was extended
(using its original slope on a log-log plot) from its low-cycle end point
at 10,000 cycles (60 ksi range) to 1000 cycles with a corresponding
allowable stress range of 88 ksi. The points determined at 1 and 1000
cycles were then connected with a straight line on a log-log plot to
complete the Thompson Pass (TP) design fatigue curve.
DEFINING THOMPSON PASS DECISION FATIGUE CURVE
It can not be emphasized too strongly that a calculated cumulative
damage of 1.0 for a design S-N curve does not mean that there is
cause for alarm, or that an immediate repair is needed. For the
purposes o f such short term decisions, it is more reasonable to base the
cumulative damage calculations on an S-N curve with a smaller factor
of safety.
If we assume that the factor o f safety o f 1.5 in the design fatigue curve
corresponds to the mean value minus two standard deviations, one
standard deviation is equal to 0.167 o f the mean (1.0 - 2 (0.167) =
0.667, or a 1.5 safety factor). A more reasonable factor o f safety for a
decision level S-N curve is the mean minus one standard deviation.
If the calculated cumulative fatigue damage using this curve were to
exceed 1.0 at some location in the pipeline, this would mean that there
is a significant probability of crack initiation at that location (about
one chance in six), again with a smaller probability of a crack large
enough to cause a leak. In this case, we believe there would be cause
for more seri ous short term concern, and an immediate repair would
probably be advisable.
 We have thus calculated cumulative damage values using two S-N
curves, one at a design level and one at a decision level. The
decision level fatigue curve is obtained by multiplying the design
level stresses by 1.25 (multiply by 1.5 to get the mean, then by 0.833
to determine the mean minus one standard deviation). The design
and decision Thompson Pass (TP) S-N curves are both shown in
Figure 3.
CALCULATING DAMAGE
With the TP design fatigue curve defined, fatigue damage was
calculated using Miners Rule. This rule states that the cumulative
damage is equal to the sum o f the number of cycles at each stress level
divided by die number of cycles to cause failure at the same stress
level. The equation is:
where D is damage (cumulative damage ratio), N is the number of
cycles at stress level i and Nf is the number o f cycles necessary to
cause failure at the same stress level. Crack initiation is assumed to
occur when D=I.O.
The TP design fatigue curve was used to determine Nf for stress level
i. The choice of a base metal curve is appropriate because the critical
dent is approximately 6 feet away from the nearest girth weld, and the
highly stressed region of the dent is near the 6:00 position of the pipe
cross section, approximately 90 degrees from the longitudinal seam
weld.
The stresses at the critical dents are bi-axial in the longitudinal and
hoop directions (the radial stress is not significant). The Von Mises
method o f combining stresses as described in (Shigley, 1983) is used
to determine the equivalent mean and alternating stresses. First the
stress state at the minimum and maximum applied load are
determined. Then the alternating and mean stresses are determined for
each direction in the coordinate system being used, axial (x direction)
and circumferential (y direction) in this case:
(2a)
2 2
_ G y \Jr &y\ _ &yi ~ &y\ (2b)
Gy* 2 2
where the subscripts m and a correspond to mean and alternating
stress for the particular direction and the subscripts 1 and 2 refer to
minimum and maximum load conditions. The Von Mises mean and
alternating stresses are then determined from the mean and alternating
component stresses:
_ / 2 i 2 (3a)
O m ^ JOim~&xmOyn O ym
_ / 2 4_
O a *yO m ~ 0 to 0 ya O ya (3b)
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 09/12/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
In actual application, the Von Mises mean and alternating stresses are
determined from finite element analysis results for the application of
each pressure pulse level or bin used to describe the assumed
histogram of pressure transients experienced by the subject dent. The
TP design fatigue curve is then used to determine the number of
cycles to initiate a crack at the surface for each pressure pulse level.
Once the stress ranges and the number o f stress cycles for each level is
known, the calculation remaining fatigue life involves a
straightforward application of Miners Rule.
It should be noted that the maximum cyclic stresses associated with a
constrained pipe dent subjected to a positive pressure transient are
bending stresses (positive on the outer surface) and they are located at
the periphery of the dent The resulting fatigue damage just below the
outer pipe surface is significantly less than at the surface. Thus, zero
remaining fatigue life as defined using the above method indicates
crack initiation at the surface, not a through wall crack or leak.
DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
For the purposes o f decision making on long term actions, a design
level S-N curve is clearly appropriate. If the calculated cumulative
fatigue damage using this curve were to exceed 1.0 at some location in
the pipeline, this would mean that there is a very small probability of
crack initiation at that location, with a still smaller probability of a
crack large enough to cause a leak. If one were to calculate a
cumulative fatigue damage o f 1.0 for any dent, this would indicate
that the pipe no longer satisfies typical design criteria at the dent, not
that it is on the verge of crack initiation. The authors believe the
proper decision in this case would be to schedule a repair of the pipe
within a reasonable time period and, until that time, to monitor the
pipe with leak detection sensors. As described above, cumulative
fatigue damage values were calculated using two different forms of
the TP-Curves, as follows.
(1) A design curve, which indicates whether the pipe at the critical
dent location would satisfy the criteria for new pipeline design.
This is based essentially on mean values minus two standard
deviations. With this curve, there is only a small probability that
a cumulative damage of 1.0 will correspond to actual crack
initiation. (For a design value o f exactly the mean minus two
standard deviations the theoretical probability of crack initiation
is 2.5%, or 1 in 40). The probability that the pipe will leak is less
than this, since the crack must first propagate through the pipe
wall. Crack growth assessments were not performed for the
dented region, however, the majority of the stress cycling is
through the thickness bending o f the pipe wall rather than
membrane, therefore it is believed that crack propagation through
the pipe wall would be a slow process.
(2) A decision curve, which is better suited for deciding on actions
to be taken in the short term, in particular whether it would be
prudent to undertake an immediate repair of the pipe. With this
curve, there is roughly a 16% probability (about a 1 in 6 chance)
that a cumulative damage of 1.0 will correspond to actual crack
initiation, with, again, a smaller probability that the pipe will
leak.
 The results of the overall analysis are discussed in more detail in
accompanying papers (Baskurt, 1998 and Hart, 1998). These papers
describe the work done in determining a history of the pressure
transients, size o f the dents, soil stiffness and the finite element model
of the dents. A brief summary of the results are discussed here to
indicate the effects of using the design and decision level fatigue
curves in practice.
The fatigue analyses using the design level S-N curve were performed
and considered first to determine whether or not the pipe still satisfied
the type of design criteria that might be used for new pipeline design.
In other words, was there any remaining life based on a design
analysis with its inherent safety factors and conservatism. The
decision level S-N curve analyses were then performed to determine
what short term measures needed to be taken to ensure the structural
integrity o f the pipe.
Using the design level S-N curve, cumulative fatigue damage fractions
exceeding 1.0 were calculated only for the cases with the most
conservative assumptions o f pressure transient history and soil
stiffness. For what were considered reasonable assumptions, the
cumulative fatigue damage fraction never exceeded a value of 0.6 for
the design level S-N curve. Many variations of transient pressure
levels and soil stiffness were considered to determine their
significance on the fatigue life o f the pipe.
For the decision level S-N curve, the calculated damage values were
approximately one fifth of those for the design S-N curve. The
calculated damage factions were no more than 0.21 for any of the
cases considered reasonable in terms of assumptions.
A similar fatigue analysis was performed for the girth weld (Station
40959+34) between the two relatively large dents at Thompson Pass.
Fatigue design and decision level curves were assembled in a similar
manner based on the AWS X-Curve (same as the AWS Cl curve)
which is recommended for as-welded, full penetration butt splices and
groove welds. Based on the proximity to the slackline interface (i.e.,
near the origin o f the pressure pulses) this weld is the most likely to be
subjected to a relatively high level of stress cycling from the pulses. It
is postulated that, with all other factors being equal, if this weld has
little or no fatigue damage or crack growth, then welds further
downstream would have sustained little or no fatigue damage or crack
growth. The calculated cumulative damage fraction for the girth weld
never exceeded 0.22, thus the dents govern the fatigue life of the pipe
at Thompson Pass.
With an estimated fatigue damage fraction no greater than 0.6, the
static strength of the pipe is essentially unimpaired. This means that if
the pressure pulses were stopped, as was accomplished in early 1997,
the pipe at the critical dent locations is essentially undamaged for
future operating conditions.
This information was used to make recommendations to Alyeska,
namely that there did not appear to be any reason, based on technical
grounds, for excavating and repairing the pipe, since there is nothing
to repair.
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 09/12/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
A technical peer review by the Joint Pipeline Office, a joint
federal/state oversight agency, confirmed the analysis performed by
Alyeska and supported Alyeskas conclusions.
Although the pipe was deemed to be stable and safe from the integrity
analysis, Alyeska elected to perform an inspection of the ovaled and
dented area at pipeline milepost 776 to verify the fatigue analysis and
to confirm, by testing, some of the key assumptions made in the
computer model regarding pipe support and geometry. The site was
excavated in July 1997. The excavation also allowed investigation of
the cause of dent and allowed Alyeska to make repairs if necessary.
The pipe was examined by wet fluorescent magnetic particle methods
that could reveal microcracks on the outside surface of the pipe and
also by non-destructive ultrasonic methods that examine the interior of
the pipe wall for crack features. No evidence of fatigue damage or
cracking was found, confirming the main conclusions of our analyses.
REFERENCES
ASME, 1969, Criteria o f the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel
Code for Design by Analysis in Section III and Section VIII, Div. 2.
ASME, 1995, Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section VIII,
Division 2 - Alternative Rules.
Baskurt, U. J., Bradshaw, P. M., and Hart, J. D., 1998, Slackline
Testing of the Trans Alaska Pipeline System at Thompson Pass,
International Pipeline Conference, Calgary, Alberta Canada.
Cooper, W. E., 1992, The Initial Scope and Intent o f the Section
III Fatigue Design Procedures, PVRC Workshop on Cyclic Life and
Environmental Effects in Nuclear Power Plants, Clearwater, Florida.
D l.1-1996 Structural Welding Code - Steel, American Welding
Society, 550 NW LeJeune Road Miami, FL 33126.
Hart, J. D., Powell, G. H., Maple, J. A., Stevick, G. R., Norton,
D., 1998, Fatigue Damage Calculations For a Dented and Ovalled
Section of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System at Thompson Pass,
International Pipeline Conference, Calgary, Alberta Canada.
Ives, K. D., Kooistra, L. F., Tucker, J. T., 1966, Equibiaxial
Low-Cycle Fatigue Properties of Typical Pressure-Vessel Steels,
Journal of Basic Engineering.
Juvinall, R. C., 1967, Engineering Considerations o f Stress,
Strain and Strength, McGraw-Hill.
NCHRP, 1982, Evaluation of Fatigue Tests and Design Criteria
on Welded Details, National Cooperative Highway Research
Program Report 286, Project 12-15(5).
Rahka, K., 1992, Design Limits for Low Cycle Fatigue of
Notched Components Baltica II, International Symposium on Life
and Performance of High Temperature Materials and Structures,
Tallinn, Estonia.
Rahka, K., 1993, Review of Strain State Effects on Low Cycle
Fatigue of Notched Components PVP, Vol 263, High Pressure -
Codes Analysis and Applications, ASME.
Shigley, J.E., and Mitchell, L.D., 1983, "Mechanical
Engineering Design ", 4th Edition, McGraw Hill Book Company.
 S T R A IN A M P L IT U T D E (% )

F IG U R E 1. Thom pson Pass fa tig u e cu rve shown w ith u n iax ia l and

b ia x ia l fa tig u e d a ta and cu rve fits from R e fe re n c e [3].

CL

111
o
z
<
cc
C
O
CO
111
IT
I
CO
cc
C
O

F IG U R E 2. F a tig u e d a ta , from R e fe re n c e [4], used as th e basis

fo r the A W S-A design fa tig u e cu rve [1].

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 09/12/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 Figure 3 The "Design" AW S-A and "Decision" S-N Fatigue Curves

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 09/12/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use