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

net/publication/267648851

Damage Assessment of Pipelines With Dents and Cracks: Proposal for

Methodology for Calculation of Acceptable Dimensions of a Combination of
Crack and Dent in Subsea Pipelines

Conference Paper · December 2010

DOI: 10.1115/OMAE2010-21190

CITATIONS
READS
2
276

3 authors:

Ronny Hoff
Espen Berg
National Oilwell Varco
TechnipFMC
3 PUBLICATIONS 3 CITATIONS
18 PUBLICATIONS 176 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Ljiljana Djapic Oosterkamp

University of Stavanger (UiS)
21 PUBLICATIONS 568 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Eperimental and Analytical analysis of pipeline rotation with residual curvature during installation with IKM Ocean Design Stavanger Norway View project

Properties of Aluminium Alloys at High Strain Rates View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Ronny Hoff on 16 April 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Proceedings of the ASME 2010 29th International Conference on Ocean,
Offshore and Arctic Engineering
OMAE2010
June 6-11, 2010, Shanghai, China

OMAE2010-21190

DAMAGE ASSESSMENT OF PIPELINES WITH DENTS AND CRACKS – PROPOSAL

FOR METHODOLOGY FOR CALCULATION OF ACCEPTABLE DIMENSIONS OF A
COMBINATION OF CRACK AND DENT IN SUBSEA PIPELINES

Ronny Hoff* Espen Berg

IKM Ocean Design Linkftr
Trondheim, Norway Trondheim, Norway
Email: ronny.hoff@ikm.no

ABSTRACT
This paper presents a proposal for methodology to
evaluate the maximum acceptable combination of longitudinal
crack and dent in an offshore pipeline. The procedure is based
on 2-parameter fracture mechanics FE analyses and fatigue
calculations. The reduction in material capacity due to the
dent damage is modeled by increasing the driving force by
introducing a stress concentration factor to the load. The
framework presented in this article represents one possible
approach for determining whether a given measured damage
to a pipeline must be repaired or if it is sufficient to monitor
the damage in the future. Avoiding unnecessary repairs of
damaged but viable subsea pipelines is a substantial cost-
saving issue.
INTRODUCTION
Trawl impacts have caused several pipeline field joints to
be damaged, exposing bare steel. Damage is caused by 2
distinct trawl/pipe interactions: a more-or-less impact-like
interaction close to 3 or 9 o'clock on the pipe where the
coating is compressed and often torn away by trawl door
movement, and; a scraping action caused by the trawl moving
axially along the pipe between 9 and 12 o’clock (depending
on the pipeline size) when the trawler crosses the pipe at a
non- perpendicular angle. Both of these interactions can cause
the coating to be removed, exposing bare metal and may cause
gouging of the metal pipe surface. The first interaction
(impact-like) may cause a dent in the pipe wall. Several repair
scenarios will be evaluated but an alternative to repair
remedies is to monitor the damage and evaluate the severity
based on these surveys. It is anticipated that with time, dents
and cracks and combinations of these may be discovered and
based on measurements of these the severity may be assessed.
As the damage is in the field joint area of the pipe, there is a
significant probability that the damage will involve the girth
weld and/or the longitudinal weld.
A joint industry program resulting in a Pipeline Defect
Assessment Manual (PDAM) [1], has established a set of
equations based on results from several full scale experiments.
It has to be noted that the results of the full scale experiments
cannot be readily used for assessment of pipelines with
dimensions outside the testing window. However it has been
found that for combination damage with both a crack and a
dent, the allowable damage becomes so small as to be
undetectable by off-shelf pigs, especially if the damage is
located on a weld, as is often the case with the damaged field
joints. The goal of the present paper is to propose an
alternative approach to the conservatism inherent in the
PDAM by use of FE calculations.
The fracture assessments in this study are carried out using the
tailor-made shell program LINKpipe . A detailed presentation
of the numerical aspects and implementation is given by
Skallerud et al. [6]. LINKpipe is based on a high performance
shell element, denoted ANDES, introduced by Felippa and
Militello [7] and further enhanced by Skallerud and Haugen
[8]. The surface crack is handled by line-spring elements,
initially formulated by Rice [9] and Rice and Levy [10]. It was

* Address all correspondence to this author

1 Copyright © 2010 by
further extended to account for elastic-plastic material by
White and Parks [11].
Berg et al. [12] demonstrated the applicability of using
LINKpipe for two parameter fracture assessments. Recent
validations against large scale experiments were presented by
Berg et al. [13].
The two-parameter approach in LINKpipe utilises the T-stress,
initially presented by Larsson and Carlsson [14]. As proposed
by Ainsworth and O'Dowd [15], the T-stress can be used to
scale the crack growth resistance curve. This was later
demonstrated by Nyhus et al. [16] and Berg et al. [12].
MATERIAL PROPERTIES
The pipe material in these analyses was DNV-450 steel
(X65). Using actual production data for the pipe steel we find
the following material properties. The average yield strength
(σ0.2) and tensile strength (σTS), minus one standard deviation
for conservatism, were measured to respectively 465.3MPa
and 546.4MPa. The elastic material properties were Young’s
modulus, E = 207GPa, and Poisson's ratio, ν = 0.3.

MODEL BASIS

The proposed methodology involves using verified FE

software capable of fracture mechanics analyses and 3D solid
modeling. In this case the software of choice was LINKpipe
[5] by LINKftr for the fracture mechanics and ANSYS for the
solid modeling.

As modeling of a dent is not implemented in LINKpipe to

date, a separate ANSYS contact model has been developed
with the purpose of finding the increase in stress due to the
dent. The hoop stress changes linearly with the internal
pressure. Hence we can account for the stress history and
changes in geometry of the pipe wall in the vicinity of the
dent by multiplying the net internal pressure with the
geometry stress enhancement factor to obtain a set of
acceptable damages in the same way as for a normal
LINKpipe ECA analysis. (Note that the plots do not include a
safety factor beyond the implicit conservatism in the model
input, and that “acceptable” in this context only means that the
pipe FE calculations do not show pipe failure, it is not
acceptable according to any given rules or standards).
The driving force of a longitudinal crack in a pipeline is
mainly governed by the hoop stress of the pipe wall, which is
linearly dependent on the internal pressure. Axial stress and
bending moments do not significantly contribute to the hoop
stress, hence the simplification is made that the pipe axial
stress is equal to the end cap effect with zero bending
moment.
Figure 1: Stress-strain curve for the pipe base material.
ANSYS CONTACT ANALYSIS
LINKpipe is currently not capable of modeling a dented
pipe, though that may be implemented at a future date. In
order to evaluate the stress due to the dent a separate ANSYS
quarter pipe contact model has been developed.
The ANSYS model consists of a symmetric half-pipe built
with 3D-elements (SOLID185). A heat-shrink sleeve with
3mm thickness and 900kg/m3 density has been assumed as
pipeline coating.
Both objects are covered with contact elements, CONTA173
for the denting object and TARGE170 for the pipe. Several
analyses were performed with an impression of the denting
object ranging from 0.5% to 6.0% of the pipe OD.

GEOMETRY OF THE PIPE AND TRAWL BOARD EDGE

The pipe considered has a nominal outer diameter of

748.4mm with a wall thickness used in the analyses of
18.2mm; this also takes into account fabrication tolerances as
specified in [2]. The pipe section is straight and has a length
of 2400mm.

The dent is achieved by pressing a rigid, oval-shaped object

(modeled with SOLID185 elements) into the pipeline. The
radius of the object is set to 10mm, hence can be regarded as Figure 2: ANSYS element model
sharp according to recommended practice [3].

2 Copyright © 2010 by

Figure 3: Sample ANSYS post-denting plot.
The analysis consists of pressing a sharp object into the
pressurized pipe and removing the denting object, leaving a
plastically deformed dent in the pipe.
Hoop stress results from the ANSYS contact analyses were
compared for different dent depths. The stress concentration
factor (SCF) is then found by summing the stress from the
dent centre along the crack length to the end of the longest
crack to be considered, which is 2cmax = 300mm.
Figure 4: Hoop stress along the crack length for different dent
depths
It can be seen from Figure 4 that the total hoop stress
increases rapidly when a dent is introduced, but as the dent
depth
increases, the stress along the length of the crack reaches a
plateau and decreases thereafter. This can be understood as
the curvature of the dent along the crack length becomes less
severe with increasing dent depth. Hence plotting the SCF vs
the dent depth we find that the SCF reaches a maximum value
as an increasing fraction of the crack length is located within
the dent. The SCF then decreases somewhat as the diameter of
the plastically deformed dent is larger than the crack length
simultaneously as the curvature of the dent centre becomes less
severe. The maximum value found from the ANSYS contact
analyses is SCF = 2.81.
Figure 5: SCF as a function of dent depth
LINKPIPE ECA
LINKpipe is capable of including the load history (both
installation and production phase) in the ECA-analyses. The
ECA analysis entails running analyses for first the most
shallow crack depth combined with the longest crack length.
If this does not result in plastic collapse or violate an
acceptance criterion, a deeper crack with the same length is
analysed. This continues until a crack depth is reached which
is not acceptable. When that happens, the last found
acceptable crack depth is used with a shorter crack length.
This process continues until all combinations specified by the
user is analysed, therefore a curve describing acceptable crack
dimensions is obtained.
Each analysis in the ECA consists of one fatigue load step and
one pressure load step.
The fatigue load step calculates the fatigue crack growth over
the remaining lifetime based on the number of pressure cycles
obtained in the rainflow count and the pressure amplitude
multiplied by the SCF to include the effect of the dent.
The pressure load step calculates the crack growth based on
the axial force from end cap effects at the average pressure,
and the internal net pressure which is modified for hydrostatic
effects and multiplied with a factor which gives the maximum
hoop stress levels found in the ANSYS analyses.
3 Copyright © 2010 by
FATIGUE LOAD STEP the maximum hoop stress found in the ANSYS contact
analysis. Using the design pressure in the hoop stress formula
Actual pressure measurements for the pipeline have been used we find a hoop stress of σH = 280MPa. The ANSYS analysis
in the rainflow count of the internal pressure variations. shows a maximum post-denting hoop stress of 450MPa, hence
Assuming that these variations may be considered the internal pressure of the LINKpipe model needs to be
representative for the remainder of the pipeline design life, the multiplied with a factor of 1.6 to achieve the same hoop stress
total number of pressure cycles for each interval of pressure in the pipe wall. For the dented pipe the pressure used is
amplitudes may be extrapolated, yielding an estimate for the therefore Pm = 218bar.
total fatigue experienced by the pipe.
The chosen failure criteria in LINKpipe is the crack tip
Pressure Cycles opening displacement (CTOD). A maximum CTOD of 0.15mm
Amplitude and maximum total crack depth of 17.0mm are used as
[Mpa] [-] acceptance criteria
0.2 340000
0.6 1000
1.2 400 RESULTS
2 160
Performing ECA analyses with LINKpipe we obtain the
3 100
largest combination of crack length and depth that the FE
4.8 10
calculations find to hold. When the crack dimensions are such
7.6 10
that either the calculations do not converge due to plastic
9.2 20 collapse of the material or that a fail criteria specified by the
11.2 40 user is met, LINKpipe will report a non-acceptable crack
14.7 20
Table 1: Internal pressure variations over the remainder of
lifetime.

The fatigue calculations for longitudinal cracks uses Paris’

equation with a ΔK solution calculated for curved shells under
internal pressure as specified in [4]. Nominal linear elastic
loading conditions in the high cycle fatigue assessment is
assumed. Paris’ equation is given by:

where the coefficient C = 2.30E-12 and the exponent m = 3.00

are taken from [4]. It is assumed that the CP voltage of the
Figure 6: LINKpipe model showing longitudinal crack.
system is -850mV. The recommended fatigue crack growth
curve specifies that a conservative estimation entails using the
Figure 6 shows a typical mesh from LINKpipe of a pipe
upper bound values (Mean + 2 standard deviations) with a
with an axial surface flaw. Figure 7 shows the equivalent
stress ratio R ≥ 0.5. The simplified and conservative fatigue
strain in the model after an internal pressure has been applied.
crack growth curve has been used in the analyses.
It is seen that the strain level at the crack ends are of much
For the dented pipe the pressure amplitudes used are
higher magnitude than for the «nominal equivalent strain».
multiplied with the SCF, resulting in an increase of the ΔK,
The slightly higher strains close to the pipe ends are due to the
and hence a more rapid fatigue crack growth.
interaction between the shells and the end beam elements. The
pipe length is given a length of about six diameters to ensure
BURST LOAD STEP
the beams at the pipe end are not interfering with the crack
zone.
In the burst load step the maximum net internal pressure of
P = 136bar is applied to the pipe with the philosophy that the
pipe shall hold also at the end of the lifetime.

For the dented pipe the internal pressure is increased to a level

which gives the hoop stress in the pipe wall corresponding to

4 Copyright © 2010 by
 analysis. For both Fig. 9 and Fig. 10, the results are from the
deepest point of the crack.

Figure 9: Sample LINKpipe ECA result at failure; CTOD vs

loadstep.
Figure 7: LINKpipe model showing equivalent strain at failure

Due to the internal pressure, the crack can propagate in

the thickness direction as well as in the longitudinal direction.
Fig. 8 shows the loaded model with the total crack depth
along the crack as a colour gradient. It is seen that the deepest
point is at the mid-span of the crack.

Figure 10: Sample LINKpipe ECA result at failure; total crack

depth vs loadstep.

Figure 11 shows the limit of acceptable gouge dimensions

for the dented and the un-dented pipe. It can be seen that the
reduced capacity of the dented pipe, here modeled as an
increase in the crack driving force, results in significantly
reduced acceptable defect size. The dent is significantly
reducing the fracture capacity of the pipe.

Figure 8: Sample LINKpipe model showing total crack depth

of the line-spring elements.

For an ECA-analysis several non-linear analyses in

LINKpipe are carried out. In each analysis, the failure criteria
are checked to determine whether the crack is critical or not.
Figure 9 shows an example of the evolution of CTOD as a
function of the load steps/increments. It is seen that the
CTOD-level increases slowly in the beginning and a rapid
increase is observed at the end of the analysis. Figure 10
shows an example of the total crack depth as a function of the
load step/increment. As for the result in Figure 9, also here it
is seen a rapid increase in the crack depth at the end of the

5 Copyright © 2010 by

Figure 11: Acceptable crack dimensions in a dented and un-
dented local area on the pipe.
CONCLUSIONS
The framework presented in this paper represents one
possible approach to determine whether a given measured
damage to a pipeline must be repaired or if it is sufficient to
monitor the damage in the future. Avoiding unnecessary
repairs of damaged but viable subsea pipelines is obviously a
huge cost-saving issue. Results from these types of analyses
may also be indicative of the required sensitivity of future
developments of pigs for monitoring of the pipelines.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors would like to gratitude the helpful
discussions with Mr. Erlend Olsø, Prof. Dr. Bjørn Skallerud,
Mr. Per Olav Asklund, Dr. Ljiljana Djapic Oosterkamp, Dr.
Håvard Ilstad and Dr. Richard Verley.
REFERENCES
[1] Andrew Cosham, Phil Hopkins, “The Pipeline Defect
Assessment Manual” (PDAM), 2006.
[2] Det Norske Veritas, DNV-OS-F101:2007, ”Submarine
Pipeline Systems”, 2007.
[3] Det Norske Veritas, DNV-RP-F111, ” Interference
between Trawl Gear and Pipelines”, 2006.
[4] British Standards Institution, BS7910 “Guide to methods
for assessing the acceptability of flaws in metallic structures”,
2005.
[5] LINKftr AS, LINKpipe Verification Manual v2.4, 2009.
[6] Skallerud B, Holthe K, and Haugen B. “Thin shell and
surface crack finite elements for simulation of combined
failure modes”. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and
Engineering. 194:2619–2640, 2005.
[7] Felippa, C. A. and Militello, C., “Membrane triangles with
corner drilling freedoms—II. The ANDES element”, Finite
Elements in Analysis and Design. 12:189–201, 1992.
[8] Skallerud, B. and Haugen, B., “Collapse of thin shell
structures - stress resultant plasticity modelling within a co-
rotated andes finite element formulation”. International
Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering. 36:1961–
1986, 1999.
[9] Rice, J. “ The line spring model for surface flaws”.
Swedlow J.L. (Ed.), The Surface Crack: Physical Problems
and Computational Solutions”. American Society of
Mechanical Engineers, New York. 171–185, 1972.
[10] Rice, J. and Levy, N. “The part-through surface crack in
an elastic plate”. Journal of Applied Mechanics. 39:185–194,
1972.
[11] White, C. S. and Parks, D. M. “Elastic-plastic line-spring
finite elements for surface-cracked plates and shells”. Journal
of Pressure Vessel Technology. 104:287–292, 1982.
[12] Berg, E., Skallerud, B. and Thaulow, C.,
“Circumferential crack growth and two-parameter fracture
mechanics in surface cracked pipelines using line-spring
elements”, Engineering Fracture Mechanics. 75:17-30, 2008.
[13] Berg, E., Østby, E., Thaulow, C. and Skallerud, B.
“Ultimate fracture capacity of pressurised pipes with defects –
comparisons of large scale testing and numerical simulations”.
Engineering Fracture Mechanics. 75:2352–2366, 2008.
[14] Larsson, S. G. and Carlsson, A. J. “Influence of non-
singular stress terms and specimen geometry on small-scale
yielding at crack tips in elastic-plastic materials”. Journal of
the Mechanics and Physics of Solids. 21:263–277, 1973.
[15] Ainsworth, R. A. and O'Dowd, N. P. “A framework for
including constraint effects in the failure assessment diagram
approach for fracture assessment”. In: Proceedings of ASME
Pressure Vessels and Piping Conference. PVP-vol.287/MD-vol.
47, 1994.
[16] Nyhus, B., Zhang Z.L. and Thaulow, C. “Normalisation
of material crack resistance curves by the T-stress”.
Proceedings of the 14th European Conference of Fracture,
Poland, 2002.
6 Copyright © 2010 by ASME
View publication stats