PDF

PIPE TOC
Proceedings
of OMAE02
Proceedings of OMAE 02
Conference
on Offshore
Mechanics
21 International
21st International
Conference
on Offshore Mechanics
and Arctic
Engineering
and
Artic
Engineering
June 2328, 2002, Oslo, Norway
June 23-28, 2002,Oslo, Norway
st
OMAE2002 PAPER NO. 28093
OMAE2002-28093
PROBABILISTIC INSPECTION OPTIMIZATION OF FREE-SPAN SURVEYS
FOR SUBSEA GAS PIPELINES
Jens P. Tronskar
Det Norske Veritas Pte Ltd
Singapore
Gudfinnur Sigurdsson
Olav Fyrileiv
Olav Forli
Det Norske Veritas AS
HVIK, Norway
Joseph H. Kiefer
Conoco Inc.
Houston Texas, USA
Colin Lewis
Gulf Resources
Indonesia
ABSTRACT
Probabilistic methods have been used to develop the basis for free-span inspection of a gas pipeline system in the South China Sea.
The objective of the probabilistic analysis was to study the probability of fatigue failure associated with postulated planar flaws in the
HAZ of repair welds performed on some of the girth welds. The impact of flaws on the fatigue life under different free-span
conditions were studied.
Conventional free-span analysis involves computation of allowable free-span lengths based on onset of in-line vibrations and does not
normally consider fatigue crack growth. To consider the effect of the weld flaws on the failure probability a combined probabilistic
fatigue and fracture model is required. For the particular pipelines analysed automatic ultrasonic testing (AUT) was used replacing the
conventional radiography of the girth welds. Conservatism in the free-span assessment can then be significantly reduced by taking into
account detailed flaw sizing information from the AUT. The inspection records provide distribution of flaw height, length and position.
Combined with information on current distribution, material strength and fracture toughness distribution, a detailed probabilistic
fatigue crack growth and unstable fracture assessment can be conducted as per the Det Norske Veritas (DNV) 2000 Rules for
Submarine Pipeline Systems [1] using the response models of the DNV Guideline 14 for free-span analyses [2]. The objective of this
analysis is to estimate the critical free-span lengths and the time for fatigue cracks to penetrate the pipe wall.
KEYWORDS Subsea pipelines, Free spans, Girth welds, Probabilistic analyses, Fatigue crack growth, Unstable fracture
Conventional free-span analysis is based on allowable freespan lengths calculated conservatively from a criterion
involving onset of in-line vibrations and does not normally
consider fatigue crack growth. To consider the effect of the
weld flaws on the failure probability a combined probabilistic
fatigue crack growth and fracture model is required.
INTRODUCTION
Reliability methods have been found efficient for optimisation
of in-service inspection of pipelines in the North Sea and also
recently for optimisation of free-span inspection of gas
pipelines in South East Asia. The pre-requisites to apply the
methods are that statistical distributions pertaining to flaw size,
material strength and fracture toughness as well as current and
wave distribution are available.
Application of such model would allow criticality assessment

and determination of time to inspection of pipe-lines subjected
to free-spans that may contain flaws in the girth welds
themselves or in repairs performed during pipelaying.
1
1
Copyright
2002
2002 by
by ASME
ASME
Copyright
Proceedings of OMAE02
21st International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering
For many applications, however, especially in the case of large

pipe dimensions, many of the above disadvantages are clearly
outweighed by the advantages.
Radiography has traditionally been the technique used for

examination of girth welds during pipelaying. However,
radiography is increasingly being replaced by Automated
Ultrasonic Testing (AUT). AUT has been used during a
number of recent pipeline projects in Europe (Europipe II and
the Syd Arne - Nybro pipeline in the North Sea) and recently
in South East Asia for a major gas trunkline which is part of
the Asian gas grid.
Several companies are offering AUT for use during offshore

pipelaying, e.g. Shaw, RTD, R/D Tech, AiB Vinottes and
SGS, of which Shaw and RTD till now have been the
dominant suppliers offshore. The use of AUT has developed
so rapidly that there, to some extent, has been a lack of
equipment and competent personnel for inspection and in
particular interpretation of AUT pulse echo and Time Of
Flight Diffraction (TOFD) records.
AUT equipment are now available with satisfactory operating

performance, accuracy and reliability for rapid testing of
pipeline girth welds.
Data processing capacity is today available to provide for
rapid processing and on-line presentation of voluminous test
results and their storage. AUT is (consequently) faster and
more cost effective to use than radiography.
Det Norske Veritas 1996 and 2000 Rules for Submarine

Pipeline Systems cover the use of automated ultrasonic
systems and the latest revision has a separate appendix on
AUT for application to girth weld inspection.
AUT is better than radiography in revealing more severe

defect types, such as planar flaws including lack of fusion
defects.
The DNV rules allow application of probabilistic fatigue crack

growth and unstable fracture analysis accounting for both the
detection accuracy and the sizing accuracy for observed
cracks. The time to first inspection and the interval between
the inspections based on a specified required safety level
according to the DNV Rules for Submarine Pipeline Systems
can be evaluated using structural reliability methods ref. e.g.
Madsen et al. (1986) [4].
AUT makes it possible to use acceptance criteria based on

fracture mechanics fitness-for-purpose calculations to BS 7910
: 1999 [3], or experimentally determined critical defect sizes,
as the AUT systems give information on the height, length and
position of defects in the weld zone. This also facilitates repair
work if an unacceptable defect is found and rapid re-inspection
following repair can also be accommodated.
The present paper is divided into five main sections. The first
section explains the probabilistic fatigue and fracture models.
The second section details the wave and current induced load
and response analysis methods and presents the results in
terms of calculated axial stress ranges for the case study
analyses of 22" and 14" OD pipelines. The third section
presents the materials and flaw size data for the case study
analyses. The fourth and fifth sections present the results of the
probabilistic and the overall conclusions drawn based on the
experience from the case study.
Radiation hazards, shielding, and the use of chemicals and

internal crawlers are avoided.
The use of AUT does have certain disadvantages. These
disadvantages include that the equipment is very complex and
may malfunction, hence a back-up unit is required. The
successful application of AUT requires extensive static and
dynamic calibration and statistical correlation of flaw sizes
measured by AUT and metallographic sectioning as per DNV
OS F-101. For some TMCP steels, anisotropy may cause
shear wave velocity variation depending on direction of
propagation. This must be considered by using the right
material for the calibration block. Forced water cooling of
repair welds to below 90C to allow use of AUT and water
couplant is known to have contributed to hydrogen induced
cracking. Finally, another disadvantage at the present position
is that there appears to be a shortage of experienced and
competent operators.
2. FATIGUE AND FRACTURE ANALYSIS METHOD

2.1 Probabilistic crack growth
In order to predict the fatigue crack growth of a surface crack,
it is assumed that the crack growth per stress cycle at any point
along the crack front follows the Paris and Erdogan equation.
This equation states that, at a specific point (r,) along the
crack front, the increment in crack size during a load cycle dN
right 2002 by ASME

2
Copyright 2002 by ASME
magnification factor, which includes the effect of local stress

concentration, such as the weld toe. Subscript m refers to
membrane loading and b refers to bending loading. The factor
is the membrane stress ratio (Pm/Stot).
The stress intensity factors in the two-dimensional expression
for the crack growth rate depend on the crack size. It is
therefore generally not possible to obtain an analytical closed
form solution of the coupled differential equations (2) and (3).
A numerical solution procedure have to be applied to solve
these coupled ordinary first order differential equations.
In the following, the equivalent one dimensional crack growth
model is applied for illustration purposes only. Then the crack
growth formula reads
da
= C ( K (a, c )) m
(5)
dN
The variables in the differential equation for non-threshold
crack growth models can be separated and integrated to give
a (t )
N ( t tini )
da
( S i )m
=
C
(6)
a Y m a m
i =1
0
is related to the range of the stress intensity factor K r ( ) for

that specific load cycle through
dr ( )
= C ( )( K ( )) m ; K r ( ) > K th ; r (tini ) = r0
r
r
(1)
dN
where Cr() and m are material parameters for that specific
point along the crack front and r is the distance from the origin
and is the location angle.
The differential equation (1) must be satisfied at all points
along the crack front. To simplify the problem it is assumed
that the fatigue crack initially has a semi-elliptical shape, and
that the shape remains semi-elliptical as the crack propagates,
i.e. the crack depth, a, and the crack length, 2c, are sufficient
to describe the crack front. As a consequence of this
assumption, the general differential equation (1) can be
replaced by two coupled differential equations
da
dN
dc
dN
= C A ( K A )m ;
= C C ( K C ) m ;
K A > K th
K C > K th
; c (t ini ) = c
where a ( t ) is the crack depth at the time t and N (t t ini ) is

the total number of stress cycles in the time period [t ini , t ] .
(2)
; a(t ini ) = a 0
For spanning pipelines, the sum in equation (6) can be

estimated by N (t t ini ) E S m , giving
(7)
D (a N ) = C N (t t ini ) E S m
[
[
(3)
]
]
where the term D ( a N ) is an indicator of the damage

accumulated by the growth of a crack from its initial value a 0
to a crack size a N after N stress cycles.
For crack growth models including thresholds, the damage
indicator can be expressed as
aN
da
D( a N ) =
(8)
m
m
a0 G ( a ) Y
a
where G(a) is a reduction factor in the range 0-1, depending on
the threshold level Kth and the stress range process S, ref.
Madsen et al. (1987) [5].
where tini is the crack initiation time and K th is the threshold

level for the stress intensity below that the crack is not
propagating. The subscripts A and C refer to the deepest point
and at end point of the crack at the surface, respectively.
The general expression for the stress-intensity factor is

K = S tot Y a , where Stot is the applied stress and Y is the
geometry function accounting for the effect of all the
boundaries, i.e. the relevant dimensions of the structure (width,
thickness, crack front curvature etc.) and the loading
condition. If the empirical equations for the stress intensity
factor K() for a surface crack in a finite plate subjected to
membrane and bending loads proposed by Newman and Raju
(1981) are applied, the geometry function may be calculated
as
(4)
Y = Ym M k ,m + Yb M k ,b (1 )
Many uncertainties are related to the fatigue life prediction.

Uncertainties in the loading conditions, the material
parameters, the initial crack size and the stress intensity factor
have to be considered. In probabilistic fracture mechanics
these variables are represented by random variables.
Reliability problems for fatigue crack growth can be
formulated as limit state problems.
The failure i.e. leak criterion may be defined as
(9)
aC a N 0
Here Ym and Yb are the geometry functions for pure membrane

and pure bending loading, respectively. M k is a stress

3
where a C (or cC ) is the critical crack i.e. a through thickness

crack or the critical crack size for unstable fracture at ultimate
load.
i.e.:
Lr , a =
The safety margin M and the fatigue limit state is defined as

(10)
M = G2 (t ) = a C a N
The probability of failure during T years i.e., the probability

that the crack size exceeds the critical crack ac size within the
time period (or N cycles ) is then
(12)
Pf = P(G 2 (T ) < 0)
The marginal annual probability of failure in the year T, is
given by
(13)
Pf = P{ G 2 (T ) 0 G 2 (T 1) > 0 }
ref =
Pb + 3Pm "
+
N
(16)
p "
2
2
2
{Pb + 3Pm "} + 9 Pm (1 " ) + 4( B )
N
p "
N = 3(1 " ) 2 + 4(
)
B
2.2 Unstable fracture analyses
Final rupture is evaluated by applying the failure assessment

diagram (FAD) method as per BS 7910:1999 [3], in which a
failure assessment curve defines the boundary between safe
and unsafe conditions.
The condition of the assessed
component is described by two parameters defining the
assessment point; one parameter reflecting the condition with
respect to unstable fracture (Kr )according to linear elastic
fracture mechanics, and one parameter reflecting the condition
with respect to plastic collapse. Safe conditions are predicted
if the assessment point is located within the assessment curve.
The FAD method is intended to predict initiation of both
brittle and ductile fracture.
0.5
Where
2a

B
"=
B
(1 + )
c
(17)
for W 2(c+B) and

4a
"= B
c
W
In the current study the postulated problem is cracking in the

HAZ and it is common practise to use the so-called Option 1
FAD of the Rev. 4 of the R-6 method [6]. This expression is
given by
(15)
where ref is the reference stress and y is the material yield

stress. The reference stress term has to be estimated to obtain
the load ratio Lr,a. Various equations to compute the reference
stress are available. For the analysis reported herein the
reference stress equation pertaining to a external semielliptical crack in a cylinder oriented circumferentially, was
adopted from BS 7910 [3] This document recommends using
the reference stress solution for an embedded flaw in a flat
plate under normal restraint. The reference stress was
calculated from the following expression:
The failure probability, i.e., the probability that the crack size
exceeds a critical crack size within the time period t (or N) is
then
(11)
PF = P( M 0)
K r = (1 014
. Lr 2 ) 0.3 + 0.7 exp( 0.65Lr 6 )}
ref
y
(18)
for W < 2(c+B)

Pm is the primary membrane stress, Pb is the primary bending
stress, 2a is the flaw height and c is half of the flaw length, B
the wall thickness and W is taken as half the pipe
circumference
(14)
Kr,a is defined as the ratio of the applied stress intensity factor

to the material fracture toughness (which may be calculated
from the critical stress intensity factor or the critical CTOD)
The failure assessment point (Lr,a,Kr,a) or (Lr,a,r,a) is

determined as follows:
t 2002 by ASME
4
plus the effect of interaction between primary and secondary

stresses, given by:
3. LOAD AND RESPONSE ANALYSES

3.1 Introduction
Kr ,a
I
K
= I + =
+
mat
K mat
(19)
Two types of load/stresses are required for input to the

probabilistic fatigue crack growth and fracture analysis
pertaining to the free spanning sections of the pipeline:
Peak stresses for combined static and extreme dynamic,
environmental loads due to vortex induced vibration
(VIV) and/or wave actions.
Cyclic stresses due to VIV and/or wave actions
The static stresses are composed of axial stress due to lay
tension, temperature and internal pressure and bending stress
due to submerged weight and current.
where :
KI
Applied stress intensity factor
Applied crack tip opening displacement (CTOD)
Kmat Material fracture toughness in terms of stress intensity

factor
An assessment of dynamic stresses due to environmental

loading should consider the following loading phenomena:
mat Material fracture toughness in terms of CTOD
: Plasticity correction factor accounting for interaction

between primary and secondary stresses. The model proposed
in BS 7910: 1999 [3], is applied.
An amplitude response model may be applied when the

vibrations of the free span are dominated by vortex induced
resonance phenomena, while a force model may be used when
the free span response can be found through application of
calibrated hydrodynamic loads.
The limit state G1 for final unstable fracture / plastic collapse

may be obtained as:
G1 (t )= K r (t ) K ( K I , K mat , )
K (t )
= K r (t ) I
(t )
K mat
Vortex induced vibrations

Direct wave loads
The vortex induced vibrations are mainly controlled by the

following parameters:
(20)
The reduced velocity:
2.3 Combined fatigue and fracture limit state
VR =
The failure event for the limit state defined by equation (20) is
a first passage failure probability of the stochastic process
down through zero. The annual extreme load effect is assumed
identically distributed and taken as independent between the
years. The approximate combined annual fatigue crack growth
and fracture probability at time T-1 to T can thus be calculated
as:
Pf = Pf {G 1 (T ) 0 (G2 (T ) 0 G 2 (T 1) > 0)
Uc + U w
f0 D
(22)
the Keulegan-Carpenter number:

KC =
Uw
fw D
(23)
the current flow velocity ratio:
(21)
=
Uc
Uc + U w
(24)
and the (modal) stability parameter:

5
KS =
4 me T
w D2
The in-line response of a pipeline span in current dominated

conditions (typically > 0.8) for 1.0<VR<4.5 is associated
with either alternating or symmetric vortex shedding. The
amplitude response depends mainly on the reduced velocity,
VR, the stability parameter, KS, the turbulence intensity, Ic, and
the flow angle relative to the pipe, .
(25)
Here, f0 is the natural frequency for a given vibration mode, D

the pipe diameter, Uc the current velocity, Uw the wave
induced velocity (amplitude) at the pipe level, fw the wave
frequency and w the water density. me is the effective mass
including structural mass, added mass and mass of internal
fluid, while T is the total modal damping ratio at a given
vibration mode comprising structural damping, soil damping
and hydrodynamic damping.
The characteristic stress range, Sin, is calculated by the in-line

VIV response model, see DNV Guideline no 14 [2].
where Ain is the unit stress amplitude (stress due to a unit

diameter mode shape deflection). ,in is a correction factor for
current flow ratio, , and s a safety factor accounting for the
uncertainty in the stress range (here set to 1.0 to get best
estimate stresses).
The direct in-line force acting on a free spanning pipeline is

normally determined using the Morisons equation.
The presence of a fixed boundary near the pipe (for e/D< 1, e
is span gap) has a pronounced effect on the response. This
effect has been included into the response models of DNV RPF105 and was used for the free span assessment reported
herein.
(AY/D) is the normalised in-line, VIV, response amplitude as a

function of VR and KS (the stability parameter), see Figure 1.
The response model has been derived based on available
0.20
R I ,1 = 0
R I , 2 = 0
In-line VIV Amplitude (Ay/D)
0.18
3.2
In-line response
In-line response (response in-line with the flow direction) may

be caused by direct wave induced loads or by vortex induced
resonance phenomena. The following analysis models are
considered:
(26)
S in = 2 A in (A Y / D) ,in S
Response models
Force models
0.16
0.14
Ks,d=0.00
0.12
Ks,d=0.25
0.10
Ks,d=0.50
0.08
Ks,d=0.75
0.06
Ks,d=1.00
0.04
Ks,d=1.25
0.02
Ks,d=1.50
0.00
0.0
The response models are empirical models providing the

maximum steady state amplitude response as a function of the
basic hydrodynamic and structural parameters. The response
models are in agreement with the generally accepted concept
of vortex induced vibrations. In case of in-line fatigue, a
response model is relevant for current dominated conditions
while a force model (i.e. based on Morisons equation) is
applicable in wave dominant conditions. The selection of an
appropriate model is based on the prevailing flow regimes. For
details about the frequency domain force model, see Mrk and
Fyrileiv (1998) [8].
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
Reduced Velocity VR,d (=V R/f)
4.0
4.5
5.0
Figure 1: Illustration of the in-line VIV Response

Amplitude versus VR and KS.
experimental laboratory test data and a limited number of fullscale tests.

3.3
Cross-flow response
The characteristic vortex shedding induced stress range Scr due

to a combined current and wave flow is calculated by the
cross-flow response model similar to the in-line VIV [2]:
ight 2002 by ASME

6
to detailed probabilistic fracture mechanics analysis of the 22"

and 14" OD gas pipelines.
(27)
S cr = 2 A cr (A Z / D) R k S
Here, Rk is a reduction factor due to damping. The normalised

(maximum) amplitude response (AZ/D) in combined current
and wave flow have been derived based on available
Figure 3 shows typical result of distributions of cycles against

stress ranges from the response analysis for span lengths of 40,
45 and 50 metres of the 22" OD pipeline. Here it is seen that
the cyclic stresses start to occur at a span length around 40m
and significantly increase in size and number as the span
length increases from 40 to 45 and 50 metres.
1.5
1.4
Cross-Flow VIVAmplitude (A Z/D)
1.3
=0.8-1.0; all KC
1.2
Figure 4 shows similar results for the 14" OD pipeline . Here

no significant vibrations occur until the span reaches a length
of approximately 27-28m. As the length increases the size and
number of stress fluctuations also increases. However, as the
span reaches 40m, the stress cycling in the in-line direction
drops as the bending stress for a one diameter deflections
decreases and the number of vibrations does not increase
significantly.
1.1
1
0.9
=0.0-0.8;
KC>30
=
0.8
0.7
=0.0-0.8;
KC<10
=
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
VRcr,onset
0.1
0
0
5
6
7
8
9
10
Reduced Velocity VR,d (=V R/f)
11
12
13
14
15
16
Figure 2: Basic Cross-Flow Response Model assuming no

trench underneath the pipeline and with a span gap to
pipeline diameter ratio, e/D>0.8)
experimental laboratory test data and a limited number of fullscale test. The curves in Figure 2 embody to a large extent all
available test result.
3.4
Cyclic Stress Distribution

Figure 3: In-line stress ranges versus no of cycles for
different span lengths for 22" OD pipeline.
One of the main objectives of the load and response analysis

was to come up with the number of cycles, ni corresponding to
the stress range block Si. This may be calculated by:
n i = P () f v Tlife
1600000
(28)
22.5 m span
1400000
25.0 m span
27.5 m span
1200000
30.0 m span
no of cycles
P() is the probability of a (combined) wave or current

induced flow event. fv is the dominating vibration frequency
of the considered pipe response and Tlife is the time of
exposure to this load effect (i.e. during design lifetime).
1000000
35.0 m span
40.0 m span
800000
600000
400000
The number of stress cycles for the direct wave loading is

given by the wave loading frequency at the pipe level and the
exposure time relevant for this loading.
200000
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Stress range (MPa)
The method presented above was applied to derive the number

of cycles per year for axial stress ranges to be applied for input
Figure 4: In-line stress ranges versus no of cycles for different

span lengths for the 14" OD pipeline.
opyright 2002 by ASME

7
Following testing, all CTOD test pieces were sectioned at

25%, 50% and 75% of the sample width and prepared for
metallographic examination to determine the pre-crack tip
location relative to the fusion boundary. The Post-CTOD test
metallography
was
performed
according
to
the
recommendations of BS 7478 : Part 2 : 1997[9] to ensure a
valid crack location i.e. within 0.5 mm of the fusion
boundary in the central 75% of the test sample thickness.
Note however, that this is valid only for the in-line vibrations.
The cross-flow vibrations will, however, become critical for
such span lengths.
4.
MATERIALS AND FLAW SIZING DATA
4.1
Materials strength
The pipeline materials were delivered as per API 5L X70 and

X65, respectively for the 22" and 14" OD pipelines. The mean
yield and tensile properties for the linepipe and the standard
deviations are shown in Table 1. The repair weld metal
strength estimated from hardness test data as per BS 7448 :
part 2: 1997 is also shown.
The cumulative distribution of CTOD fracture toughness and

the fitted Weibull distribution are shown in Figure 5. In the
fitting of the Weibull distribution to the CTOD data, only the
lower CTOD values were utilised. This was to add further
conservatism to the analysis. The analysis is considered
conservative because it does not account crack tip constraint
and the inherent conservatism in the BS 7910 : 1999[3]
analysis resulting from use of 3 point bend test pieces of a/W
0.5 to assess the criticality of short surface cracks in tension.
Material
22" OD
YS
STDV
TS
STDV
(MPa)
(MPa)
(MPa)
(MPa)
544
13
643
11
544
647
Cumulative Probability
Table 1: Tensile data for pipe and repair welds tested at

+20C.
X70 pipe
14" OD
X65 pipe
Repair weld
497*
28
630*
30
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0.00
Weibull fit
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
CTOD, (mm)
AWS 8010-G
Figure 5: Distribution of CTOD fracture toughness in

CGHAZ of SMAW repair welds.
Derived from hardness data according to BS 7448:Part 2:1997.
4.2
Data
CTOD fracture toughness

4.3
The material CTOD fracture toughness of the HAZ was

determined from testing of 15 BxB CTOD test pieces
extracted from the actual repair welds on the 22" OD pipeline.
The CTOD tests were performed according to BS 7448: Part
2:1997 [9]. The CTOD tests were notched from the root side
and pre-fatigued such that the crack front would sample the
coarse grained and inter-critically reheated HAZ between 0.45
and 0.55 of the test piece thickness. This location was
considered representative for the location where the flaws had
been detected by AUT and metallographic sections.
Automated UT - Flaw Sizing
AUT data from inspection performed after the repairs were

evaluated, looking for any indications left in the area of the
repair.
Any indications from the root area had to be seen from both
sides of the weld to be considered a relevant indication. An
indication that can be seen from one side of the weld only was
considered as mismatch.
2002 by ASME
8
Cumulative probability
Cumulative Probability
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
ECP (AUT)
Lognorm (AUT)
ECP (MET)
Lognorm (MET)
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0
0.5
1.5
2.5
Flaw height, a (mm)
3.5
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
ECP
F(a/c) Weibull
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0
Figure 6: Comparison between distributions of surface

breaking flaws measured by micro section examination
and from AUT assuming all flaws within 0-3 mm of the
external surface are surface breaking.
Number of defects reported
Metallography
46
26
Maximum flaw height, amax (mm)
2.18
0.96
Minimum flaw height, amin (mm)
0.23
0.04
Mean, amean (mm)
0.97
0.50
Standard deviation, SD (mm)
0.50
0.28
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Cumulative probability
The length and position of the defect within the weld

circumference.
The measurement from the OD of the pipe to the top
of the indication (Ligament).
The measurement to the bottom of the indication.
(Bottom)
The through-wall extent of the indication. (Height)
The centerline position of the indication.
A clock position 12, 3, 6, 9, to give a the position for
the indication along the pipe circumference.
All of the above measurements were taken from Shaws

Infocus AUT software. The values were taken from the strip
chart, the weld cross-section, the Time of Flight indicator bar
(beam path length), and the amplitude indicator bar (indication
height).
ECP
F(2c) Lognorm
1.5
When indications were detected, no matter how small, they

were plotted by taking the following measurements: -
6.
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
Aspect ratio,
a/c
1
Figure 8: Distribution aspect ratios, a/c for surface

breaking flaws.
Table 2: Comparison of flaw sizing information from AUT

and metallographic examination.
AUT
0.5
All of the above values were transferred to an Excel

spreadsheet for further statistical analysis in the general
purpose probability analysis software program PROBAN. The
flaw heights, lengths, depths and aspect ratios estimated based
on the AUT record examination are plotted in Figure 6, 7 and
8. Cumulative log-normal distributions or Weibull
distributions have been fitted to the data sets. In Figure 6 a
comparison is made between the flaw heights determined from
metallographic sections of selected welds and AUT of all
welds inspected, including those examined metallographically.
It is seen that the metallographic examination gave flaws that
were biased towards smaller heights partly due to the greater
resolution of the microscopic examination compared to AUT,
Flaw length, 2c (mm)
Figure 7: Distribution of lengths, 2c for surface breaking

flaws.
ht 2002 by ASME
9
if the span is present for more than 3 years. This implies that
to assure that the annual fatigue failure probability of the
pipeline does not exceed 1.0E-4, inspections of the pipeline
should be conducted at intervals not exceeding 3 years.
but also it is believed due to a systematic effect where AUT

overestimates the flaw height.
A comparison between the two sets of data from AUT and the
metallogrpahy is also shown in Table 2. It is seen that the
largest flaw height detected by AUT is 2.18 mm whereas the
metallography detected a maximum flaw height of 0.96 mm.
The mean values were 0.97 and 0.50 mm with corresponding
standard deviations of 0.50 and 0.28 mm, for AUT and
metallography, respectively. The minimum flaw size reported
by AUT was 0.23 mm whereas the metallography detected
flaws that were on 0.04 mm.
For the 14" OD pipeline it is seen from Figure 10 that the

failure probability associated with span lengths of 27.5 and 30
m exceed 1.0E-4. It is therefore recommended that the 14" OD
pipeline initially should be inspected every year to ensure that
no span exceed 26.5 m.
1.0E-03
Annual Failure probability .
Statistical evaluation of inspection data from AUT of pipelines

using the same equipment as used for the project reported
herein has shown that the typical uncertainty in the flaw height
is 0.8 mm at the 95% confidence.
It can be concluded that the AUT gives flaw distributions that
are systematically shifted to larger defects than those actually
measured by metallography, and that applying AUT data with
a standard deviation of 0.8 mm at the 95% confidence level
would give conservative fracture assessments.
1.0E-04
1.0E-05
Combined Failure - Free Span = 50m

Pure Fatigue Failure (leak) - Free Span = 50m
1.0E-06
5.
RESULTS OF FATIGUE AND FRACTURE

ANALYSIS
Service time (years)
Figure 9: Combined probability of failure for 22" OD

pipeline plotted against service time for critical free-span
lengths of 45 and 50 m.
Combined probabilistic fatigue crack growth and unstable

fracture analyses were performed using limit state functions as
described in the previous sections. The limit state functions
and parametric equations were implemented in the software
program PROBAN [9]. The basic variables applied for the
probabilistic fatigue and fracture analysis have been tabulated
in Table 3.
Annual Failure probability .
1.0E-02
Results of the analysis of the 22" OD and 14" OD pipelines are

shown in Figure 9 and 10, respectively.
Referring to the 22" OD pipeline and Figure 9, we have that
for a span of length 40 metres, the service life must exceed 50
years in order for the annual failure probability pertaining to
combined crack growth and fracture failure to exceed an
annual failure probability of 1.0E-5. With a target level for
annual failure probability of 1.0E-5, free-spans up to a length
of 40 metres will therefore not be critical.
1.0E-03
1.0E-04

Combined Failure - Free Span = 27.5m
Pure Fatigue Failure (leak) - Free Span = 27.5m
1.0E-05
1.0E-06
0
Time (years)
Figure 10: Combined probability of failure for 14" OD

pipeline plotted against service time for critical free-span
lengths of 27.5 and 30 m.
For span of lengths of 45 and 50 metres, it is observed from

Figure 9 that the annual failure probability will exceed 1.0E-4
ght
10 2002 by ASME
10
6.
recommended initially to be inspected every year until the

risk of development of free spans has been confirmed.
CONCLUSIONS
The following conclusions may be drawn from the

probabilistic analyses of pipelines with stationary free-spans:
Reduced conservatism in the free-span assessment has

been demonstrated by application of probabilistic fracture
mechanics based crack growth analysis. This was made
possible due to the detailed flaw sizing capabilities of the
AUT method.
The method developed is considered particularly useful

for establishing the reliability of pipelines where flaws are
detected in the girth welds or repairs welds and free-spans
may develop during the service life.
The effect of waves on the span response is significant

even though the water depth is 70-80 metres.
Use of directionality data for waves and current is found
important.
A basis for planning of pipeline free-span surveys is

proposed considering the results of case study analyses of
22" and 14" OD gas pipelines.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
This paper has been prepared based on a project conducted for

Conoco Indonesia Inc. Ltd, Gulf Resources (Kakap) Limited,
and Premier Oil Natuna Sea Limited. The authors gratefully
acknowledge the permission received from Conoco, Gulf
Resources, and Premier Oil to publish this paper.
The probabilistic free-span analyses show that span length

is the most important parameter with respect to the
number and size of cyclic stresses that may be generated
by environmental loads
7.
AUT girth weld inspection can provide a basis for fitnessfor-service assessment in general and specifically for more
detailed free-span analysis.
For the 22" OD line it found that free-span survey should

initially be performed with intervals not exceeding 3 years
to ensure an annual failure probability not exceeding 10-4
for those parts of the pipeline beyond 500 m distance from
the platform.
Within 500 m of the platform, inspection should be
performed annually to ensure an annual failure probability
not exceeding 10-5. This is in line with the acceptable
failure probabilities quoted in DNV OS-F101 Submarine
Pipeline Systems, January 2000 Section 2 C600 [1].
8.
REFERENCES
[1]
DNV OS F101 Submarine Pipeline Systems, 2000
[2]
DNV GL 14 Free Spanning Pipelines, 1998
[3]
British Standards Institution: Guide on methods for

assessing the acceptability of flaws in metallic
structures. BSI BS 7910:1999 ISBN 0
[4]
Madsen, H.O., Krenk, S., and Lind. N.C.:"Methods of

Structural Safety".Prentice Hall Inc. Englewood Cliffs,
N.J. 07632. ISBN 0-13-579475-7
[5]
Madsen, H.O., Skjong, R., Tallin, A., Kirkemo, F.,

(1987), Probabilistic fatigue crack growth analysis of
offshore structures, with reliability updating through
inspection, Marine Structural reliability Symp.,
SNAME, Arlington Virginia, (also DNV report 872022).
[6]
British Energy: Assessment of the integrity of

structures containing defects. R/H/R6 Revision 4.
April 2001
[7]
Det Norske Veritas (DNV) RP F105
[8]
Mrk, K.J. and Fyrileiv, O. Fatigue Design According

to the DNV Guideline for Free Spanning Pipelines,
OPT98, Oslo, Norway, 23-24 February 1998.
[9]
British Standards Institution: Fracture mechanics

toughness tests Part 2. Method for determination of KIC,
critical CTOD and critical J values of welds in metallic
materials. BS 7448: Part 2 : 1997
[10] Det Norske Veritas (DNV): User's Manual PROBAN
For the 14" OD pipeline the annual failure probability was

found to be higher than for the 22" OD pipeline and it is
Copyright
2002 by ASME
11
11
Table 3 Parameters and distributions applied for the probabilistic fatigue and unstable fracture analysis.
Parameter
Comments
Diameter and wall

thickness
The outer and inner diameter Do and Di are modelled as deterministic:
22" OD: Do = 558.8 mm ; Di = 533.0 mm, Thickness = 12.9 mm

14" OD: Do = 355.6 mm ; Di = 346.1 mm, Thickness = 9.5 mm
Initial crack size a 0
and c0
The initial crack size is assumed to be semi-elliptical. The initial crack depth is modelled as log-normal
distributed, fitted from observed/measured defects, with a mean value, E[], and standard deviation, StD[],
given as:
E [a0 ] = 0.97 mm ;
StD[a0 ] = 0.50 mm ;
The initial crack aspect ratio is modelled as Weibull distributed, fitted from observed/measured defects, with
the following values,
22" OD:
E [a 0 / c0 ]= 0.47 ;
StD[a 0 / c0 ]= 0.27; Low = 0.05
14" OD:
E [a 0 / c0 ]= 0.15 ;
StD[a 0 / c 0 ]= 0.14; Low = 0.02
Material parameter
m
Modelled as deterministic value equal to 2.88
Material parameter
C
log10C is modelled as Normally distributed with
Stress
intensity
threshold
E[Log10C ]= 12.232;
StD[Log10C ]= 0.1713
(units: MPa mm and mm/cycle)
The threshold level for the crack growth rates is set equal to.
K th = 63 N/mm 3/2
Geometry function
Y
Youngs
E
Modulus,
The geometry function, Ycalc, is calculated using the empirical formulae for a finite plate subjected to
membrane and bending loading proposed by Newman and Raju (1981). The uncertainty in the geometry
function is included by multiplying Ycalc with variable Ymodel.. Ymodel is modelled as an unbiased Normally
distributed variable with CoV equal to 0.1.
Youngs modulus is modelled as fixed with value 2.07 105 MPa
Copyright
2002 by ASME
12
12
Parameter
Comments
Stress
Concentration
Factor, SCF
The SCF due to eccentricity is modelled as Normal distributed with mean value 1.0 and a CoV equal to 0.1.
CTOD
CTOD is modelled as Weibull distributed with the following values:

E [CTOD ]= 0.127 mm ;
Fatigue loading
CoV [CTOD ]= 0.5; Low = 0.01 mm
The long-term stress range distribution is calculated from the stress range response from in-line VIV for the
addressed free span. It is conservatively assumed that the obtained maximum stress range distribution for a
span occurs at the location of the weld. It is further assumed that the weld defect considered is located at a 3
or 9 oclock position, thereby being exposed to the maximum occurring stress range distribution.
The occurring stress range distribution is fitted to a Weibull distribution. Dependent on the span length
considered, the following parameters apply,
x
F ( x)) = 1 exp

22" OD:
# cycles/year
40 m
4.9 MPa
0.8
3.6 E5
45 m
11.5 MPa
1.2
2.0 E6
50 m
13.4 MPa
1.5
2.4 E6
# cycles/year
22.5 m
1.15
0.84
0.59E1
25.0 m
2.24
0.74
1.2E4
27.5 m
2.98
0.76
4.5E5
5.68
0.98
2.30E6
Span length
14" OD
Span length
30.0 m
Uncertainty on
Weibull Scale
Parameter
An un-biased uncertainty is introduced on the Weibull scale parameter to incorporate uncertainty related to
the stress modelling. The uncertainty factor on the scale parameter is unbiased with a CoV equal to 0.2. The
uncertainty in the Weibull scale parameter is included to allow for uncertainty in the stress ranges established
from the VIV models.
Copyright
2002 by ASME
13
13
Annual dynamic
Peak Stress
The distribution of the annual maximum peak stress due to in-line VIV stress as obtained from the Fat-Free
assessment. The dynamic peak stress distribution is modelled as Gumbel distributed with the following
parameters,
Span length
Static
environmental
stress
Mean Value
CoV
22.5 m
14.4
0.17
25 m
20.8
0.17
27.5 m
30.8
0.17
30.0 m
49.2
0.18
The in-line static environmental stress introduced due to drag forces on the pipeline are modelled as Normal
distributed with the following values;
Span length
Mean Value
CoV
22.5 m
6.6
0.1
25.0 m
8.1
0.1
27.5 m
9.8
0.1
30.0 m
11.7
0.1
Pre-tension stress,
pressure induced
stress and
temperature
induced stress
The axial stress level in the pipeline due to the lay-tension, pressure induced stress from maximum operating
pressure and temperature induced stress is obtained from the Fat-free assessment, and modelled as Normal
distributed with mean value 80.2 MPa and CoV equal to 0.1.
Crack size
In the case of the combined event of fatigue crack growth and final fracture, the crack size is assumed equal
to the size at the end of the year under consideration.
Yield stress
The yield stress, is modelled as Normally distributed with mean value and CoV given by ;
[ ]
E S y = 497 MPa ;
[ ]
CoV S y = 0.04
Uncertainty in FAC
No uncertainty is introduced in the modelling of the failure assessment curve. However, although the
experimental data used to establish the FAC exhibit a wide scatter the general R6 FAC diagram is considered
conservative as it was chosen deliberately by Ainsworth [6] to represent a lower bound for all fracture
assessment curves obtained for many different materials.
Plasticity
correction factor
The plasticity correction factor is modelled according to BSI 7910: 1999 [3], where the residual stresses are
conservatively assumed equal to the yield stress.
yright
2002 by ASME
14
14

PDF

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Исходное описание:

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

PDF

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

PIPE TOC

OMAE2002 PAPER NO. 28093

Application of such model would allow criticality assessment

For many applications, however, especially in the case of large

Radiography has traditionally been the technique used for

Several companies are offering AUT for use during offshore

AUT equipment are now available with satisfactory operating

Det Norske Veritas 1996 and 2000 Rules for Submarine

AUT is better than radiography in revealing more severe

The DNV rules allow application of probabilistic fatigue crack

AUT makes it possible to use acceptance criteria based on

Radiation hazards, shielding, and the use of chemicals and

2. FATIGUE AND FRACTURE ANALYSIS METHOD

right 2002 by ASME

Copyright 2002 by ASME

magnification factor, which includes the effect of local stress

is related to the range of the stress intensity factor K r ( ) for

where a ( t ) is the crack depth at the time t and N (t t ini ) is

For spanning pipelines, the sum in equation (6) can be

where the term D ( a N ) is an indicator of the damage

where tini is the crack initiation time and K th is the threshold

The general expression for the stress-intensity factor is

Many uncertainties are related to the fatigue life prediction.

Here Ym and Yb are the geometry functions for pure membrane

Copyright 2002 by ASME

Copyright 2002 by ASME

where a C (or cC ) is the critical crack i.e. a through thickness

The safety margin M and the fatigue limit state is defined as

The probability of failure during T years i.e., the probability

2.2 Unstable fracture analyses

Final rupture is evaluated by applying the failure assessment

for W 2(c+B) and

In the current study the postulated problem is cracking in the

where ref is the reference stress and y is the material yield

for W < 2(c+B)

Kr,a is defined as the ratio of the applied stress intensity factor

The failure assessment point (Lr,a,Kr,a) or (Lr,a,r,a) is

Copyright 2002 by ASME

plus the effect of interaction between primary and secondary

3. LOAD AND RESPONSE ANALYSES

Two types of load/stresses are required for input to the

Applied stress intensity factor

Applied crack tip opening displacement (CTOD)

Kmat Material fracture toughness in terms of stress intensity

An assessment of dynamic stresses due to environmental

mat Material fracture toughness in terms of CTOD

: Plasticity correction factor accounting for interaction

An amplitude response model may be applied when the

The limit state G1 for final unstable fracture / plastic collapse

Vortex induced vibrations

The vortex induced vibrations are mainly controlled by the

The reduced velocity:

2.3 Combined fatigue and fracture limit state

the Keulegan-Carpenter number:

the current flow velocity ratio:

and the (modal) stability parameter:

Copyright 2002 by ASME

Copyright 2002 by ASME

The in-line response of a pipeline span in current dominated

Here, f0 is the natural frequency for a given vibration mode, D

The characteristic stress range, Sin, is calculated by the in-line

where Ain is the unit stress amplitude (stress due to a unit