See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/327873227

Background and New Revision of DNVGL-RP-F108

Conference Paper · June 2018

DOI: 10.1115/OMAE2018-78652

CITATIONS READS

0 2,546

4 authors, including:

Steinar Bjerke Jens Tronskar

DNV GL DNV Singapore Pte.Ltd.
1 PUBLICATION 0 CITATIONS 58 PUBLICATIONS 194 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Steven Chong
Det Norske Veritas
10 PUBLICATIONS 44 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Steinar Bjerke on 14 September 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Proceedings of the ASME 2018 37th International Conference on Ocean, Offshore and Arctic Engineering
BACKGROUND AND NEW REVISION OF DNVGL-RP-F108
Steinar Lindberg Bjerke
DNV GL
Hovik, Norway
Steven Chong
DNV GL
Singapore
ABSTRACT
DNV-RP-F108 [1] was first issued in 2006. The
Recommended Practice was developed to provide guidance on
testing and analyses for fracture control of pipeline girth welds
subjected to cyclic plastic deformation, e.g. during installation
by the reeling method, but also for other situations where
pipelines may be subjected to large plastic strains. The
Recommended Practice was based upon a Project Guideline
developed within the Joint Industry Project "Fracture Control
for Installation Methods Introducing Cyclic Plastic Strain -
Development of Guidelines for Reeling of Pipelines".
The new revision is based on the extensive experience and
knowledge gained over the years use of the previous versions,
as well as new knowledge from recent R&D projects.
The main content of Appendix A of DNV-OS-F101 (now
DNVGL-ST-F101) [2] have been transferred to DNVGL-RP-
F108. Only the requirements relative to ECA and testing have
been retained in DNVGL-ST-F101 [2].
The new revision has got a new number and new title, i.e.
DNVGL-RP-F108, “Assessment of Flaws in Pipeline and Riser
Girth Welds”.
This paper lists the fundamental changes made in the new
RP from the old Appendix A of the previous DNV-OS-F101
and discusses some of the changes, although within this paper
it is not possible to cover all changes. The focus is on
clarification of use of S-N versus the fracture mechanics
approach for fatigue life computation, classification of fatigue
sensitive welds, calculations of more accurate crack driving
force by re-introduction of the plate solution, for which a new
Lr,max (plastic collapse) calculation and a modified way to
account for residual stresses have been specified. The RP
presents new assessment procedures pertaining to use of finite
element analyses for fracture mechanics assessments. A unique
OMAE2018
June 17-22, 2018, Madrid, Spain
OMAE2018-78652
Jens P. Tronskar
DNV GL
Singapore
Asle Venås
DNV GL
Hovik, Norway
feature of the new RP is the guidance on sour service testing
and assessments included in the Appendix C of the document to
support pipeline/riser ECAs to develop flaw acceptance criteria
for NDT.
INTRODUCTION
DNV-RP-F108 was first time issued in 2006. The
Recommended Practice was developed to provide guidance
regarding testing and analyses for fracture control of pipeline
girth welds subjected to cyclic plastic deformation, e.g. during
installation by the reeling method, but also for other situations
where pipelines may be subjected to large plastic strains. The
Recommended Practice was based upon a Project Guideline
developed within the Joint Industry Project "Fracture Control
for Installation Methods Introducing Cyclic Plastic Strain -
Development of Guidelines for Reeling of Pipelines".
However, when Appendix A of DNV-OS-F101 was introduced
in 2007, the fracture mechanics assessment approach in DNV-
RP-F108 was superseded and only the procedure for
performing fracture toughness testing using SENT specimens
was still of value.
The new DNVGL-RP-F108 is based on extensive
experience and knowledge gained over 12 years of application
of previous versions with both DNV-RP-F108 and later
Appendix A of DNV-OS-F101, as well as new knowledge
gained from recent R&D projects.
Appendix A of DNV-OS-F101 (now DNVGL-ST-F101
[2]) have been modified, improved and transferred to DNVGL-
RP-F108 and only the requirements relative to ECA and testing
have been retained in DNVGL-ST-F101 [2]. The recommended
procedure for performing fracture toughness testing on SENT
specimens have been removed because this is now specified in
BS 8571.
1 Copyright © 20xx by ASME
 The new revision has got a new number and new title, i.e.
DNVGL-RP-F108, “Assessment of Flaws in Pipeline and Riser
Girth Welds”. “Riser” has been included in the title to clarify
that the approaches are applicable also for girth welds in risers.
This paper summarizes some of the main changes to the
recommended practice and presents new assessment procedures
pertaining to use of finite element analyses for fracture
mechanics assessments. The paper also presents the new
guidelines included in Appendix C covering testing and
assessments for sour service, where fracture toughness may be
adversely affected and the fatigue crack growth rate is
substantially increased compared to in air.
Due to the potentially high bending strains that may occur
for pipelines during installation or in operation, fracture
assessment is an important limit state. The applied fracture
assessment must also consider crack growth from dynamic
loads, the biaxial stress state that exists in a pipeline during
operation and a certain degree of displacement-controlled
conditions. Figure 1, shows different pipeline installation
methods and HPHT lines subjected to lateral buckling, with
typical axial/bending strain levels indicated.

NOMENCLATURE
εUTS: Engineering strain at UTS (uniform elongation)
εYS: Engineering strain at YS (uniform elongation)

CDFWRS: Crack Driving Force due to weld residual

stresses
CDF: Crack Driving Force
CTODmat: Material CTOD fracture toughness
Jmat: Material J-integral fracture toughness
σ: Longitudinal stress
Rp0.2: Yield strength at 0.2% plastic deformation
Rm (or UTS): The ultimate tensile strength representing the
Figure 1: Typical strain levels for different pipeline
material tested (same material condition and
installation methods and lateral buckling in operation.
test temperature).
ReL Lower yield plateau stress
The fracture assessment methodologies described in
YS: The yield stress (Rt0.5 or Rp0.2)
DNVGL-RP-F108 [1] are based on fracture mechanics
Qm: Membrane component of transverse weld
principles and evaluate the criticality of circumferential flaws
residual stress
in metallic pipeline and riser systems. The assessment
tnom: Nominal wall thickness
procedures specified in this RP, except for the FE fracture
tfab: Fabrication tolerances on wall thickness
mechanics assessments, have been used successfully for many
tcorr: Corrosion allowance
years and are based on the Option 2 procedure in BS7910:2013
tc: Characteristic wall thickness. tc=tnom-tfab-tcorr
[3] with tearing (equivalent to Level 3B in BS 7910:2005).
(operation) or tc=tnom-tfab (installation)
It is known that the crack driving force (CDF) for girth
welds is inaccurately calculated (typically under-estimated) in
DNVGL-ST-F101 AND DNV GL-RP-F108
many cases if the strain-based assessment approach using the
The structural utilization of the pipelines is high, with
reference stress solution for cylinders specified in BS 7910 is
nominal circumferential stresses of up to 90% of the yield
applied without implementing weld residual stresses
stress. The utilization in the axial direction is often even higher.
conservatively. Another way would be to assess the crack
Primarily this is due to nominal bending strains during reeling
driving force more accurately (higher) and then to include
installation (approx. 2%) and during operation (typically
residual stresses less conservatively. Such an alternative has
limited to 1%).
been suggested in the new RP.
DNVGL-ST-F101[2] provides firm criteria for the service,
ultimate, accidental and fatigue limit states, but not for fracture
FUNDAMENTAL CHANGES TO RP
limit state.
The fundamental changes from Appendix A of the previous
However, DNVGL-ST-F101 [2] requires fracture
DNV-OS-F101, and which some will be discussed in the
assessment to be performed to establish weld repair criteria
following include:
when strains exceed 0.4% during pipeline installation or
1. Combined fatigue and fracture limit state presented (not
operation, but does not state how this should be performed.
one S-N fatigue and one fracture mechanics which also
DNVGL-ST-F101[2] refers to the new DNVGL-RP-F108 for a
considers fatigue).
detailed recommended procedure for how to perform such
2. Clarification of the S-N approach vs. the fracture
assessments.
mechanics approach

2 Copyright © 20xx by ASME

 3. New weld type classification “fatigue sensitive welds”
4. R-curves accounting for blunting introduced for situations
without compressive plastic strain
5. More guidance for how to combine loads (not necessary to
include “non-fatigue-sensitive welds” in combined fatigue
and fracture analyses)
6. Simplifications related to “end-of-life” fracture check
(critical flaw size in operation). May reduce testing and
simplify analyses.
7. More guidance on sour service testing and assessments
(Appendix C).
8. Comprehensive comparisons between FEM fracture
mechanics analyses and the FAD approach as specified in
the RP has shown that the CDF is considerably
underestimated considering high plastic strain if the
cylinder reference stress solution is used and that much
better agreement is obtained if the plate reference stress
solution is used. Hence, both the plate solution and the
cylinder solution are included in the new RP, but this also
implies that different approaches for Lr,max (plastic
collapse) and residual stresses have been specified.
9. Stricter AUT acceptance criteria specified for “fatigue-
sensitive welds”, is included in DNVGL-ST-F101 and in
this RP.
10. It is clarified that ECA is required for C-Mn steels in sour
service and mode guidance and recommendation for how
to perform the required material testing under such
conditions are provided.
As it is not possible to cover all changes listed above in
this paper, focus is on the changes mentioned in bullet points
3, and 6-10.
FATIGUE AND FRACTURE LIMIT STATE
S-N and fracture mechanics based fatigue assessments
are different approaches with somewhat different
applications. Fatigue analyses based on S-N curves are most
applicable when evaluating fatigue initiation from weld toes
or other geometrical stress concentrations that are included in
the actual S-N curve, i.e. certain quality requirements are
necessary to meet the dedicated S-N curve. Typically, the S-N
curves used for pipeline and riser girth welds are applicable
for welds without significant surface breaking flaws.
However, in fracture mechanics based fatigue crack growth
assessments, significant surface breaking flaws are typically
assumed. Hence, the fatigue lives assessed by fatigue crack
growth analyses are normally significantly shorter than the
fatigue lives calculated using the S-N approach. This means
that it is necessary to make rules for how and when these two
different approaches should be used. The differences between
the two approaches are illustrated in Figure 2.
Figure 2: Illustration of fatigue crack growth and the
relationship between the S-N and FCG assessment
approaches.
Special consideration should be given to girth welds
subjected to low-cycle high strain fatigue and special
consideration should be given to girth welds susceptible to in
sour service or other environments that may degrade the
materials properties.
The loading may vary significantly for different girth
welds in a pipeline or riser and it is acceptable to divide the
pipeline or riser into different zones with different weld
quality requirements and flaw acceptance criteria. If a
pipeline or riser is subjected to longitudinal strain exceeding
0.4% and ECA is required per DNVGL-ST-F101. However, if
an ECA is required this may also introduce the need for
assessing dynamic stresses and loads below 0.4% strain. As
the direct input to the fracture mechanics analyses described
in the RP is always stresses and not strains, it is necessary to
distinguish between “strain-based” and “stress-based”
loading. In simplicity, “strain-based” loading may be
considered as situations where the stress level is above the
proportional yield stress, e.g. applied stress level dependent
of the stress-strain curve, while “stress-based” may be
considered as situations where the applied stress is below the
proportional yield stress, e.g. applied stress independent of
the stress-strain curve. If an ECA is performed, all loads that
may contribute to crack growth shall normally be considered.
The following loads are relevant for ECA:
 Maximum applied longitudinal stress or strain
during installation (reel lay, J-lay or S-lay)
 Dynamic loads when the pipeline or riser is
unsupported between the installation vessel and
touch-down. Maximum longitudinal stress or
strain at the sagbend. Dynamic loads in the
temporary phases before production start-up (free
spans, etc.).
 Dynamic loads in the operational phase (free
spans, lateral buckles/expansion loops, etc.).
 Maximum longitudinal stress in operation.
3 Copyright © 20xx by ASME

Only stresses in tension need to be considered in
fracture mechanics analyses assessing ductile tearing or
unstable fracture while the total stress range, including the
compressive part, is normally required in fatigue crack
growth analyses.
ASSESSMENT CATEGORIES
It is recommended to evaluate the limit state and decide
on the assessment approach by performing the following
steps:
1) Determine the maximum longitudinal strain levels εl,nom
as described in DNVGL-ST-F101 [2].
2) Classify the girth welds as either fatigue-sensitive welds
or non-fatigue-sensitive welds.
3) Divide the pipeline or riser into different zones as
applicable, with different maximum longitudinal strain
levels and, if welds are classified as fatigue-sensitive or
non-fatigue-sensitive.
4) Determine the assessment category from Table A1.
5) Determine the weld quality requirements (NDT
acceptance criteria).
Assessment categories I to IV are not applicable for sour
service or other conditions where the fatigue crack growth rate
is likely to increase or the fracture toughness is likely to be
degraded due to the surrounding environment.
If the welds have lower or partially lower tensile properties
than the parent material the fracture mechanics approaches
described in Sec.4 and Sec.5 of DNVGL RP-F108 [1] may not
be safe because the crack driving force may be underestimated.
For such situations, FE based fracture mechanics analyses are
recommended performed to account for strength mismatching.
Assessment category V “Environmental” is recommended
for welds where the environmental conditions are likely to
adversely influence the fracture toughness properties or fatigue
resistance. Guidance for testing and assessments are provided
in Appendix C of the new recommended practice.
CRACK DRIVING FORCE AND RESIDUAL STRESS
Comprehensive comparisons between FEM fracture
mechanics analyses and the FAD approach as specified in the
RP have shown that the CDF is considerably underestimated
if the cylinder reference stress solution is used and that much
better agreement is obtained if the plate reference stress
solution is used. This has been known for quite long time and
in 2012 it was decided to specify the plate solution instead of
the cylinder solution in DNV-OS-F101, Appendix A.
However, by a mistake no changes were made to the methods
for how to include residual stresses and the result was that the
“total” CDF considering both the applied strain and residual
stress increased significantly compared to earlier. The
approach was rejected and in the 2013 version of DNV-OS-
F101 Appendix A, the plate reference stress solution was
again omitted.
In DNVGL-RP-F108 both the plate solution and the
cylinder solution are included, but different approaches for
estimation of Lr,max (plastic collapse) and residual stresses
have been specified. It is known that the reference stress
solution for cylinders (Kastner), combined with applied stress
extracted from the engineering stress-strain curve typically
results in a too low crack driving force. This is illustrated in
Figure 3 for a 12” OD, 15.9 mm wall thickness pipe with an
external surface breaking circumferentially oriented flaw of 2
mm height and 25 mm length.
0,20
Comparison 3D Abaqus and DNVGL-RP-F108
0,18 3D ABAQUS, 2x25
0,16
RP-F108 Plate, 2x25
RP-F108 cylinder, 2x25mm
0,14
Crack driving force, CTOD [mm]
0,12
0,10
0,08
0,06
0,04
0,02
0,00
0,0 0,5 1,0 1,5
Applied strain, %
2,0 2,5 3,0
Figure 3: Crack Driving Force computed by 3D FEA
compared with the FAD approach using the plate and the
cylinder reference stress solutions.
It is seen from Figure 3 that the plate solution and the
3D FEA gives corresponding results, whereas the cylinder
solution underestimates the CDF for applied strains above
0.5%.
Hence, it is necessary to define residual stresses
conservatively if the cylinder solution is used. If the reference
stress solution for plates is used, it is seen that the calculated
CDF is more correct and the influence of residual stresses can
be reduced. In Figure 4, the total crack driving force including
both the applied strain and the weld residual stresses for the
cylinder reference stress solution approach is shown.
It is observed from Figure 4 that if a conservative
assumption about weld residual stress as a uniform residual
stress Qm = YS, where YS is the pipe longitudinal yield stress is
made and included for the cylinder case, good correspondence
is achieved with the 3D FEA results for the CDF when adding
a strain ε = YS/E to the applied strain for the FEA. Because, the
plate reference stress solution has proven to give a crack
driving force more in agreement with FE fracture mechanics
analyses at high applied strain, DNVGL-RP-F108 allows for
including weld residual stress as an increase in the applied
strain with YS/E similar as for FE fracture mechanics analyses.
4 Copyright © 20xx by ASME
 0,6 Crack driving force with and without residual stress, RP-F108 cylinder vs. Abaqus specified as 0.5tc (no testing for operation required, analyses
RP-F108 cylinder, 3x25mm simplified).
RP-F108 cylinder, Qm=YS, 3x25mm
0,5
3D FE analyses, 3x25mm external surface flaw
Lr,max
Crack driving force, CTOD [mm]

3D FE incl. weld residual stress (YS/E)

0,4 Pipe OD = 323,8mm, WT = 15,9mm The failure assessment diagram (FAD) should not be
extended to arbitrarily large plastic deformations and a cut-off
0,3 limit (referred as Lr cut-off or Lr,max) for the Lr (Lr = σref /YS)
axis is recommended. Depending on the reference stress
0,2 solution used, the following Lr,max values are recommended:
1) Reference stress solution for surface breaking flaw in
0,1 cylinder: it is acceptable for strain-based assessments to
define the Lr,max value as the engineering UTS/YS ration of
0,0 the parent pipe representing the characteristic high stress-
0,0 % 0,5 % 1,0 % 1,5 % 2,0 % 2,5 % 3,0 % 3,5 % 4,0 %
Applied strain strain curve for the relevant material condition. The Lr,max
Figure 4: Crack Driving Force computed by 3D FEA and value should not exceed 1.5 for C-Mn materials.
per the cylinder reference stress solution with and without 2) Reference stress solution for surface flaw in plate: the true
weld residual stresses. values of YS and UTS are used instead.

“END-OF-LIFE” FRACTURE CHECK YS may be defined as Rt0.5 or Rp0.2. If the stress-strain

A small flaw that starts to grow by fatigue will grow very curve has a yield plateau, the yield stress should be defined as
fast towards the “end of life” and the difference in time for this ReL, see Figure 6.
flaw to grow through thickness or for example halfway through
the thickness, is quite insignificant, as illustrated in Figure 5.
Unstable fracture is in such cases not important as long as the
maximum stress is not far above the yield stress, the material is
not brittle or a combination of both, i.e. the critical flaw height
is not very small.
Previously it was required to calculate and test the critical
crack size at “end of life” even if there was no plastic
deformation. However, it was realized that very little error is
made if an allowable height is set to 50% of the wall thickness.

Figure 6: Illustration of the tensile stress-strain curves and

definitions.

For strain-based analyses where the reference stress

formula for cylinder is used Lr,max is defined as:

(1)

Figure 5: Schematic illustration of a growing fatigue crack

If reference stress formula for plate is used for strain-based
where towards the ”end of life” growth is accelerated.
analyses:
Hence, for fatigue-sensitive welds in pipelines that have
(2)
only elastic utilization it is not necessary to determine the
critical flaw size at “end-of-life” for the following situations:
Longitudinal stress below 0.5YS and embrittlement not
likely. Critical flaw height may be specified as 0.75tc (no FRACTURE TOUGHNESS
testing for operation required, analyses simplified) The fracture toughness may be expressed in terms of the
Longitudinal stress between 0.5YS and YS and where Jmat value or the crack tip opening displacement (CTODmat)
embrittlement is not likely. Critical flaw height may be value. The procedure for testing and calculating CTOD and J as

5 Copyright © 20xx by ASME

relevant should be in accordance with BS 8571 [4]. It is in
general not recommended to convert CTOD values to J or vice
versa. If J is calculated from fracture toughness testing, J
should also be used in the FAD assessment, and vice versa.
However, if it for some reason is necessary to convert Jmat
values to CTODmat or CTODmat values to Jmat it is acceptable to
use:
(3)
If Jmat is converted from CTODmat values, low Rp0.2 and Rm
values should be used to give conservative results. If CTODmat
values are converted from Jmat, high Rp0.2 and Rm values should
be used to ensure sufficiently conservative results.
RESIDUAL STRESS
Stress-based loading will normally not be evaluated by FE
fracture mechanics analyses unless the material has low
fracture toughness properties or large detected flaws need to be
assessed. While a procedure for implementing weld residual
stresses for strain-based loading has existed, no such procedure
has been given if FE fracture mechanics analyses are performed
for stress-based loading. Per the new DNVGL-RP-F108, a
procedure for including weld residual stresses in FE fracture
mechanics analyses considering stress-based loading have been
suggested as an increase in the crack driving force (CDF) as
follows:
(4) providing sour service testing guidelines for the fracture and
If the girth welds have been subjected to plastic strain, the
increase in the CDF due to residual stresses in subsequent
stress-based load cases may be calculated as follows:
(5)
Here, the CDF is the crack driving force assessed by FE
fracture mechanics analyses without considering
residual stresses and CDFWRS and CDFRS are the crack
driving force including weld residual stresses (WRS)
and residual stresses after plastic deformation (RS)
respectively. , is the applied longitudinal stress and is
always below YS. These formulas are simply based on
curve fitting to the results obtained using a traditional
FAD based approach for stress-based cases and the
reference stress solution for surface breaking flaw in
cylinder allowing for relaxation.
SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR CRA CLAD PIPE
If different material combinations and weld deposits are
used, it may be difficult to test the fracture toughness properties
of all representative microstructures using standard fracture
toughness test specimens as specified in BS 8571. The
microstructures in the root and hot-pass of CRA girth welds are
examples where standard testing is difficult to execute. One
possible way may be to test smaller specimens with notching as
illustrated in Figure 7.
Figure 7: Suggested method for fracture toughness testing
of microstructure in the root of CRA girth welds in lined or
clad pipes.
ASSESSMENTS FOR SOUR SERVICE
Introduction
Exploration and production of oil and gas resources is
moving into deeper water as most of the “easy-oil” fields have
been depleted. Such wells pose large technical challenges as
they tend to produce fluids of high pressure (HP) and high
temperature (HT) while also containing different mixtures of
H2S, H2O and CO2. Sour environments are known to have a
detrimental effect on the fracture and fatigue performance of
welded C-Mn line pipe steels. However, methodologies to
evaluate fracture toughness and fatigue crack growth rate
parameters in sour service are not well established. Therefore
in DNVGL-RP-F108 [1], a separate appendix i.e. Appendix C
has been dedicated to address these technical concerns by
fatigue limit state. The fracture toughness (FT) and fatigue
crack growth rate (FCGR) testing of welded C-Mn line pipe
steel in sour environments will ensure reliable and conservative
material properties are developed for ECA calculations.
Sour service testing is the subject of ongoing research in
the oil and gas industry. It is not the intention of this Appendix
to provide a comprehensive review of all sour service test
methods that exist or that are under development, rather to
provide helpful baseline information considering the current
state of knowledge in this area, to support the design and
installation of welded C-Mn steel pipelines and risers that will
be exposed to sour service conditions. It is anticipated that this
Appendix will be updated and expanded in future editions of
DNVGL-RP-F108 [1] as more information becomes available
and more consensus on test procedures is reached in the
industry.
In the context of Appendix C, a sour environment is
defined as having a partial pressure of H2S (pH2S) above
0.05psia (0.003bara), in accordance with standard NACE/ISO
criteria.
6 Copyright © 20xx by ASME
 7.0
Region 0 Region 1
6.0 Region 2
5.0
pH
4.0
Region 3
3.0
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10
H2S partial pressure (bar)
Figure 8: NACE domain diagram which depicts regions of
environmental severity with respect to SSC for carbon and
low alloy steels (Source: NACE MR0175/ISO 15156-2)
The following sub sections provide a brief outline of the
contents covered in Appendix C of the RP.
Test Environment
The following key environmental variables should be
reproduced accurately and conservatively based on available
project information and considering the discussion below.
 pH
 Partial pressure of H2S (pH2S)
 Salt concentration
 Temperature
 Inhibitor
For C-Mn steels exposed to sour environments, hydrogen
embrittlement effects are known to be most pronounced at
room temperature (RT). Therefore, conducting FT and FCGR
tests at RT with relevant partial pressure of H2S should provide
conservative properties for ECA calculations.
Corrosion inhibitors have a dual influence on sour service
fracture and fatigue behavior. The presence of inhibitors lowers
the corrosion rate and the associated hydrogen pick up, which
would be expected to reduce the fracture and fatigue
susceptibility of C-Mn line pipe steels in sour environments.
However, in some instances, such as fatigue crack growth at
very low values of K or ΔK, the reduction in corrosion rate can
have an apparently detrimental effect on the measured crack
growth rate, as it may reduce crack tip blunting or crack closure
effects. When performing FCGR tests, it is recommended to
use a representative concentration of inhibitor. However, for
FT tests, it is recommended to use the worst-case environment
because a fracture event could occur at any time during
operation due process upsets.
Sample Details
The sample details section provides guidelines for the user in
selecting the appropriate specimen geometry and configuration
to be used for the FT and FCGR tests in the specific
environment/condition. These include the following:
Geometry: SENB, CT or SENT specimens are typically used
for sour FT testing. SENB or CT specimens are typically used
for FCGR testing.
Notching: L-C orientation is more consistent and representative
of the overall pipe properties; L-R orientation more closely
matches the geometry of the surface breaking flaw as used for
SENT samples.
Coating Configuration: non-metallic/non-brittle coating; 5/6
sides to simulate one-sided diffusion.
Figure 9: Proposed coating configuration: 5/6 sides to
simulate one-sided diffusion
Pre-soaking: 4 days to reach steady state based on H-flux
measurements and simulation is sufficient for wall thickness
20 mm. For larger specimens, a longer soaking time may be
necessary.
Fracture Toughness Test Methodology (Rising
Displacement)
Many FT test methods exist and for ECA of pipeline girth
welds purposes, and Section B.2.8.3 of the DNVGL-ST-F101
states that the SENT specimen is generally recommended since
it is designed to provide a crack tip constraint close to that of
an actual pipe in bending containing a flaw. Furthermore, the
SENT specimen as per DNV-RP-F108 allows for realistic crack
depths of a/W = 0.2-0.5. Other fracture toughness test methods
and specimen geometries may be used if it can be demonstrated
that the results will be sufficiently conservative in relation to
the situation assessed. DNV GL Singapore and Columbus are
currently running a Joint Industry Project “Standardization of
SENT Test for Sour Service Environments” and different
testing methods in sour service environment are investigated.
7 Copyright © 20xx by ASME
 It should be noted that the FT in sour environments is
dependent on the loading method (dynamic vs. static) and the
loading rate. In particular, for the loading rate or K-rate to be
used for ECA related tests, it needs to be carefully selected.
When carrying out ECAs for sour service applications, the
threshold or plateau K-rate should be conservatively use to
establish the fracture toughness for the ECA when no project
specific loading rates are available. It should be noted as this
will most likely result in stringent flaw acceptance criteria and
high repair rates, project specific loading rates (or K-rates)
which are intermediate and more realistic may be considered,
and this approach needs to be accepted by all parties. The main
objectives of the FT tests (Rising Displacement) is to establish
the J value associated with crack initiation and to develop a
complete J R-curve in environment to quantify resistance to
crack propagation. A typical set-up for single specimen SENT
FT test (rising displacement) in sour service environment is
illustrated in Figure 10. Some other key aspects related to the
test are highlighted below:

 Single specimen (DCPD) is recommended since it is

more economical.
 It is recommended to perform minimum three K-rate
sensitivity studies to obtain the plateau K-rate.
 The K-rate to be used should be representative of the
pipeline in operation. Plateau K-rate can be used when
no project specific loading rates are available.
 FT tests should be performed on all three
microstructures; WCL, HAZ and PP.
 For single specimen approach, a minimum of one test
per microstructure is required. Duplicate tests per
microstructure are recommended.
 Depending on the ECA requirements, J0.2mm or the full
J R-curve can be used for the ECA (if the material
exhibits stable tearing resistance).
Figure 10: Set-up for single specimen SENT FT test (rising
displacement) in sour service environment performed by
DNV GL Singapore Laboratory.
Fatigue Crack Growth Rate Tests (Frequency Scan & Paris
Curve)
In addition to the environmental variables discussed
above, FCGR in sour environments is dependent on ∆K and
loading frequency.
As such, it is recommended to firstly perform frequency
scan FCGR tests at constant K. The objectives of such a test is
to evaluate the effect of cyclic loading frequency over a range
of frequencies and determine the increase in FCGR with
respect to performance in air. Such a test also helps to
determine the plateau frequency (defined as the frequency
below which there is no further increase in FCGR). The test
also allows one to determine the microstructure (notch
location) that exhibits the highest FCGR.
Some other recommendations related to the test are
highlighted below:
 Perform the frequency scan tests under decreasing
frequency from 1 Hz to 10mHz.
 Perform the tests on all three microstructures; WCL,
HAZ and PP, with a minimum of one test per
microstructure.

8 Copyright © 20xx by ASME

  One microstructure be selected for subsequent Paris
curve testing; typically the notch location exhibiting
the highest FCGRs will be selected.
After the frequency scans are completed, it is proposed to
validate and supplement the frequency scan tests by measuring
FCGRs over a wider range of ∆K. The loading frequency for
Paris curve tests should be conservative and representative of
the loading frequency for the fatigue cycles in question. For
flowline assessments, it is impractical to test at loading
frequencies associated with startup and shutdown cycles, so
tests should be carried out at the plateau frequency.
It is important to note that the use of the in-air Kth
recommended in BS 7910 may not always be conservative for
sour environments. A conservative approach is to not include a
FCG threshold.
Other Notes
In general, sour FCGRs are not expected to be influenced by
cyclic plastic straining associated with reeling installation.
However, even lower fracture toughness properties have been
experienced for materials in sour environment if the material
has been plastically deformed prior to the testing. Therefore,
for reeling installation, in addition to testing “as-welded” (i.e.
unstrained) samples, it is recommended to test strained and
aged samples extracted from girth welds that have been
subjected to representative reeling simulation with the last
strain increment in tension.
In SAFEBUCK III JIP, it is stated that the FCGR in sour
environment appears to follow the same trends as the S-N
endurance behaviour. However, it should be noted that while
FCGR shows higher rates of crack growth, the S-N tests may
not always show the same level of reduction in life.
Some recommendations for environmental FCG acceleration
factors with respect to air are provided in the table below:
Table 1. Environmental FCG acceleration factors for use in
the early stages of design.
Environmen FCG Acceleration Factor
t REFERENCES
Seawater 10*
with
cathodic
protection
Sweet 10**
Sour
* For very low cyclic loading frequencies, e.g. associated with lateral
buckling, a factor of 10 should be used. For typical wave loading
frequencies, the marine environment curves in BS 7910 may be used
(these are typically a factor of 2-3 higher than in air).
** For very low cyclic loading frequencies, e.g. associated with
lateral buckling, FCGRs in sweet environments are typically around
10 time faster than in air, but can be as much as 20 times faster than
in air. For typical wave loading frequencies around 0.1Hz, FCGRs are
typically 3-6 times higher than in air.
*** The units of pH2S should be mbar (not specified in DNVGL-RP-
F108, but will be corrected in next revision). In the presence of a high
concentration of inhibitors, FCGRs at very low cyclic frequencies may
be significantly higher than 40 times faster than in air.
CONCLUSIONS
The new DNVGL-RP-F108 covers the same fracture
assessment procedures as previously specified in DNV-OS-
F101, Appendix A which are based on BS7910 Option 2 and
tearing analyses with modifications to accommodate strain
based analyses. Some changes have been made and the plate
reference stress solution is re-introduced as an alternative but
with new procedures for handling of residual stress and the Lr
cut-off.
The new RP provides procedures for FEA based fracture
mechanics that may be required to deal with strength
mismatching for CRA or CRA clad pipeline girth welds and to
handle biaxial loading associated with internal pressure and
applied axial or bending strain.
A unique feature of the new RP is that it includes
guidelines for sour service fracture toughness/resistance and
fatigue crack growth testing to support sour service
Engineering Critical Assessments to develop flaw acceptance
criteria for NDT of pipeline and riser girth welds.
ACKNWLEDGMENTS
The authors are pleased to acknowledge the permission
given by the DNV GL management to publish this paper.
The authors would also like to acknowledge and express
their sincere gratitude to our colleagues; Dr. Colum Holtam, Dr.
Thodla Ramgopal, Dr. Feng Gui, Dr. David Baxter, Dr. Erling
Ostby and Dr. Rikard Tornqvist for their contributions to
preparation of the revised recommended practice.
[1] Recommended Practice, DNVGL-RP-F108:,“Assessment
of Flaws in Pipeline and Riser Girth Welds”, October 2017
[2] Offshore Standard, DNVGL-ST-F101:”Submarine Pipeline
Systems”, DNVGL, October 2017
[3] British Standard, BS***7910:2013: “Guide to methods for
assessing the acceptability of flaws in metallic structures”,
BSI, London, 2013
[4] British Standard, BS 8571:2014: “Method of test for
determination of fracture toughness in metallic materials
using single edge notched tension (SENT) specimens”.
9 Copyright © 20xx by ASME
 ANNEX A

ASSESSMENT CATEGORIES

Table A1: Classification of assessment categories and recommended assessment approaches.

10 Copyright © 20xx by ASME

View publication stats