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

net/publication/267603077

Probabilistic Inspection Optimization of Free-Span Surveys for Subsea Gas

Pipelines

Conference Paper · January 2002

DOI: 10.1115/OMAE2002-28093

CITATIONS READS
5 622

6 authors, including:

Jens Tronskar Gudfinnur Sigurdsson

DNV Singapore Pte.Ltd. Det Norske Veritas
58 PUBLICATIONS 214 CITATIONS 36 PUBLICATIONS 422 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Olav Fyrileiv
DVN GL
46 PUBLICATIONS 387 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Jens Tronskar on 03 December 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

PIPE TOC
Proceedings of OMAE’02
Proceedings of OMAE ’02
st
21 International
21st International Conference
Conference on Offshore
on Offshore Mechanics Mechanics
and Arctic Engineering
and Artic Engineering
June 23–28, 2002, Oslo, Norway
June 23-28, 2002,Oslo, Norway
OMAE2002 PAPER NO. 28093

OMAE2002-28093
PROBABILISTIC INSPECTION OPTIMIZATION OF FREE-SPAN SURVEYS
FOR SUBSEA GAS PIPELINES

Jens P. Tronskar Gudfinnur Sigurdsson

Det Norske Veritas Pte Ltd Olav Fyrileiv
Singapore Olav Forli
Det Norske Veritas AS
HØVIK, Norway
Joseph H. Kiefer Colin Lewis
Conoco Inc. Gulf Resources
Houston Texas, USA 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

INTRODUCTION Conventional free-span analysis is based on allowable free-

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.
span 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.
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 ©
Copyright © 2002
2002 by
by ASME
ASME
1

21st International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering
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.
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.
AUT is better than radiography in revealing more severe
defect types, such as planar flaws including lack of fusion
defects.
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.
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 90°C 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.
right © 2002 by ASME
2 Copyright © 2002 by ASME
2
Proceedings of OMAE’02
June 23–28, 2002, Oslo, Norway
OMAE2002 PAPER NO. 28093
For many applications, however, especially in the case of large
pipe dimensions, many of the above disadvantages are clearly
outweighed by the advantages.
Several companies are offering AUT for use during offshore
pipelaying, e.g. Shaw, RTD, R/D Tech, AiB Vinçottes 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.
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.
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].
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.
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,ϕ) along the
crack front, the increment in crack size during a load cycle dN
 Proceedings of OMAE ’02
21st International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering
June 23–28, 2002, Oslo, Norway

OMAE2002 PAPER NO. 28093

is related to the range of the stress intensity factor ∆K r (ϕ ) for magnification factor, which includes the effect of local stress
that specific load cycle through concentration, such as the weld toe. Subscript m refers to
dr (ϕ ) membrane loading and b refers to bending loading. The factor
= C (ϕ )(∆ K (ϕ )) m ; ∆ K r (ϕ ) > ∆ K th ; r (tini ) = r0 α is the membrane stress ratio (Pm/Stot).
dN
r r (1)
The stress intensity factors in the two-dimensional expression
where Cr(ϕ) and m are material parameters for that specific for the crack growth rate depend on the crack size. It is
point along the crack front and r is the distance from the origin therefore generally not possible to obtain an analytical closed
form solution of the coupled differential equations (2) and (3).
and ϕ is the location angle.
A numerical solution procedure have to be applied to solve
these coupled ordinary first order differential equations.
The differential equation (1) must be satisfied at all points
In the following, the equivalent one dimensional crack growth
along the crack front. To simplify the problem it is assumed
model is applied for illustration purposes only. Then the crack
that the fatigue crack initially has a semi-elliptical shape, and
growth formula reads
that the shape remains semi-elliptical as the crack propagates,
i.e. the crack depth, a, and the crack length, 2c, are sufficient da
= C (∆ K (a, c )) m (5)
to describe the crack front. As a consequence of this dN
assumption, the general differential equation (1) can be The variables in the differential equation for non-threshold
replaced by two coupled differential equations crack growth models can be separated and integrated to give
a (t ) N ( t −tini )
da
∫a Y m π a m = C ∑ (∆ S i )m (6)
0 ( ) i =1

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

da
= C A (∆ K A )m ; ∆ K A > ∆ K th ; a(t ini ) = a 0 (2) the total number of stress cycles in the time period [t ini , t ] .
dN For spanning pipelines, the sum in equation (6) can be
[ ]
estimated by N (t − t ini ) E ∆S m , giving
dc [ ]
D (a N ) = C N (t − t ini ) E ∆S m (7)
= C C (∆ K C ) m ; ∆ K C > ∆ K th ; c (t ini ) = c
0
(3)
where the term D ( a N ) is an indicator of the damage
dN
accumulated by the growth of a crack from its initial value a 0
where tini is the crack initiation time and ∆K th is the threshold to a crack size a N after N stress cycles.
level for the stress intensity below that the crack is not For crack growth models including thresholds, the damage
propagating. The subscripts A and C refer to the deepest point indicator can be expressed as
aN
and at end point of the crack at the surface, respectively. da
D( a N ) = ∫ (8)
The general expression for the stress-intensity factor is
(
a0 G ( a ) Y
m
πa)m

K = S tot Y π a , where Stot is the applied stress and Y is the

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.
geometry function accounting for the effect of all the
Madsen et al. (1987) [5].
boundaries, i.e. the relevant dimensions of the structure (width,
thickness, crack front curvature etc.) and the loading
Many uncertainties are related to the fatigue life prediction.
condition. If the empirical equations for the stress intensity
Uncertainties in the loading conditions, the material
factor K(ϕ) for a surface crack in a finite plate subjected to
parameters, the initial crack size and the stress intensity factor
membrane and bending loads proposed by Newman and Raju
have to be considered. In probabilistic fracture mechanics
(1981) are applied, the geometry function may be calculated
these variables are represented by random variables.
as
Reliability problems for fatigue crack growth can be
Y = Ym M k ,m α + Yb M k ,b (1 − α ) (4)
formulated as limit state problems.
Here Ym and Yb are the geometry functions for pure membrane The failure i.e. leak criterion may be defined as
and pure bending loading, respectively. M k is a stress aC − a N ≤ 0 (9)

Copyright © 2002 by ASME

3 Copyright © 2002 by ASME
3
 Proceedings of OMAE’02
21st International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering
June 23–28, 2002, Oslo, Norway

OMAE2002 PAPER NO. 28093

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

crack or the critical crack size for unstable fracture at ultimate σ ref
Lr , a = (15)
load. σy
The safety margin M and the fatigue limit state is defined as
M = G2 (t ) = a C − a N (10) where σref is the reference stress and σy is the material yield
The failure probability, i.e., the probability that the crack size stress. The reference stress term has to be estimated to obtain
exceeds a critical crack size within the time period t (or N) is the load ratio Lr,a. Various equations to compute the reference
then stress are available. For the analysis reported herein the
(11) reference stress equation pertaining to a external semi-
PF = P( M ≤ 0)
elliptical crack in a cylinder oriented circumferentially, was
The probability of failure during T years i.e., the probability adopted from BS 7910 [3] This document recommends using
that the crack size exceeds the critical crack ac size within the the reference stress solution for an embedded flaw in a flat
time period (or N cycles ) is then plate under normal restraint. The reference stress was
Pf = P(G 2 (T ) < 0) (12) calculated from the following expression:

The marginal annual probability of failure in the year T, is

Pb + 3Pmα " (16)
given by σ ref = +
N
Pf = P{ G 2 (T ) ≤ 0 ∩ G 2 (T − 1) > 0 } (13)
0.5
 pα " 
{Pb + 3Pmα "} + 9 Pm (1 − α " ) + 4( B ) 
2 2 2

 
2.2 Unstable fracture analyses N
Final rupture is evaluated by applying the failure assessment  pα " 
N = 3(1 − α " ) 2 + 4( )
diagram (FAD) method as per BS 7910:1999 [3], in which a  B 
failure assessment curve defines the boundary between safe
Where
and unsafe conditions. The condition of the assessed
component is described by two parameters defining the  2a 
assessment point; one parameter reflecting the condition with   (17)
B
respect to unstable fracture (Kr )according to linear elastic α"=  
B
fracture mechanics, and one parameter reflecting the condition (1 + )
c
with respect to plastic collapse. Safe conditions are predicted
if the assessment point is located within the assessment curve. for W ≥ 2(c+B) and
The FAD method is intended to predict initiation of both
4a
brittle and ductile fracture.
(18)
α "= B
c
In the current study the postulated problem is cracking in the
HAZ and it is common practise to use the so-called Option 1 W
FAD of the Rev. 4 of the R-6 method [6]. This expression is for W < 2(c+B)
given by
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
{
. Lr 2 ) 0.3 + 0.7 exp( −0.65Lr 6 )}
K r = (1 − 014 (14)
Kr,a is defined as the ratio of the applied stress intensity factor
The failure assessment point (Lr,a,Kr,a) or (Lr,a,√δr,a) is to the material fracture toughness (which may be calculated
determined as follows: from the critical stress intensity factor or the critical CTOD)

t © 2002 by ASME
4 Copyright © 2002 by ASME
4
 Proceedings of OMAE ’02
21st International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering
June 23–28, 2002, Oslo, Norway

OMAE2002 PAPER NO. 28093

plus the effect of interaction between primary and secondary 3. LOAD AND RESPONSE ANALYSES
stresses, given by:
3.1 Introduction
K δI
Kr ,a = I +ρ = +ρ (19) Two types of load/stresses are required for input to the
K mat δ mat probabilistic fatigue crack growth and fracture analysis
where : pertaining to the free spanning sections of the pipeline:
• Peak stresses for combined static and extreme dynamic,
KI Applied stress intensity factor environmental loads due to vortex induced vibration
(VIV) and/or wave actions.
δI Applied crack tip opening displacement (CTOD) • Cyclic stresses due to VIV and/or wave actions
The static stresses are composed of axial stress due to lay
Kmat Material fracture toughness in terms of stress intensity tension, temperature and internal pressure and bending stress
due to submerged weight and current.
factor An assessment of dynamic stresses due to environmental
loading should consider the following loading phenomena:
δmat Material fracture toughness in terms of CTOD
• Vortex induced vibrations
ρ: Plasticity correction factor accounting for interaction • Direct wave loads
between primary and secondary stresses. The model proposed An amplitude response model may be applied when the
in BS 7910: 1999 [3], is applied. vibrations of the free span are dominated by vortex induced
resonance phenomena, while a force model may be used when
The limit state G1 for final unstable fracture / plastic collapse the free span response can be found through application of
may be obtained as: calibrated hydrodynamic loads.
G1 (t )= K r (t ) − K ( K I , K mat , ρ )
(20) The vortex induced vibrations are mainly controlled by the
K (t )
= K r (t ) − I − ρ (t ) following parameters:
K mat
The reduced velocity:

2.3 Combined fatigue and fracture limit state Uc + U w (22)

VR =
f0 D

The failure event for the limit state defined by equation (20) is
a first passage failure probability of the stochastic process the Keulegan-Carpenter number:
down through zero. The annual extreme load effect is assumed
identically distributed and taken as independent between the Uw (23)
KC =
years. The approximate combined annual fatigue crack growth fw D
and fracture probability at time T-1 to T can thus be calculated
as: the current flow velocity ratio:
Pf = Pf {G 1 (T ) ≤ 0 ∪ (G2 (T ) ≤ 0 ∩ G 2 (T − 1) > 0) } (21)
Uc (24)
α=
Uc + U w

and the (modal) stability parameter:

Copyright © 2002 by ASME

5 Copyright © 2002 by ASME
5
 Proceedings of OMAE’02
21st International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering
June 23–28, 2002, Oslo, Norway

OMAE2002 PAPER NO. 28093

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

4π me ζ T (25)
KS =
ρw ⋅ D2
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 ρw the water density. me is the effective mass
including structural mass, added mass and mass of internal
fluid, while ζT is the total modal damping ratio at a given
vibration mode comprising structural damping, soil damping
and hydrodynamic damping.
The direct in-line force acting on a free spanning pipeline is
normally determined using the Morison’s 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 RP-
F105 and was used for the free span assessment reported
herein.
conditions (typically α > 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, θ.
The characteristic stress range, Sin, is calculated by the in-line
VIV response model, see DNV Guideline no 14 [2].
S in = 2 ⋅ A in ⋅ (A Y / D) ⋅ ψ α,in ⋅ γ S (26)
where Ain is the unit stress amplitude (stress due to a unit
diameter mode shape deflection). ψα,in is a correction factor for
current flow ratio, α, and γs a safety factor accounting for the
uncertainty in the stress range (here set to 1.0 to get best
estimate stresses).
(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 Iθ ,1 = 0
0.18
R Iθ , 2 = 0
In-line VIV Amplitude (Ay/D)

0.16
Ks,d=0.00
0.14

3.2 In-line response 0.12 Ks,d=0.25

0.10
In-line response (response in-line with the flow direction) may 0.08
Ks,d=0.50

be caused by direct wave induced loads or by vortex induced 0.06

Ks,d=0.75

resonance phenomena. The following analysis models are Ks,d=1.00

0.04
considered: Ks,d=1.25

0.02 Ks,d=1.50

• Response models 0.00

• Force models 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5
Reduced Velocity VR,d (=V R/γf)
4.0 4.5 5.0

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 Morison’s 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 Mørk and
Fyrileiv (1998) [8].
Figure 1: Illustration of the in-line VIV Response
Amplitude versus VR and KS.
experimental laboratory test data and a limited number of full-
scale 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 Copyright © 2002 by ASME
6
 Proceedings of OMAE ’02
21st International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering
June 23–28, 2002, Oslo, Norway

OMAE2002 PAPER NO. 28093

to detailed probabilistic fracture mechanics analysis of the 22"

S cr = 2 ⋅ A cr ⋅ (A Z / D) ⋅ R k ⋅ γ S (27)
and 14" OD gas pipelines.

Here, Rk is a reduction factor due to damping. The normalised Figure 3 shows typical result of distributions of cycles against
(maximum) amplitude response (AZ/D) in combined current stress ranges from the response analysis for span lengths of 40,
and wave flow have been derived based on available 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
1.5 and significantly increase in size and number as the span
1.4 length increases from 40 to 45 and 50 metres.
1.3
α=0.8-1.0; all KC
1.2
Cross-Flow VIVAmplitude (A Z/D)

1.1 Figure 4 shows similar results for the 14" OD pipeline . Here
1
0.9
α=0.0-0.8;
α= KC>30
no significant vibrations occur until the span reaches a length
0.8 of approximately 27-28m. As the length increases the size and
0.7
0.6
α=0.0-0.8;
α= KC<10
number of stress fluctuations also increases. However, as the
0.5 span reaches 40m, the stress cycling in the in-line direction
0.4
0.3 drops as the bending stress for a one diameter deflections
0.2
VRcr,onset decreases and the number of vibrations does not increase
0.1
0 significantly.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Reduced Velocity VR,d (=V R/γf)

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 full-

scale test. The curves in Figure 2 embody to a large extent all
available test result.

3.4 Cyclic Stress Distribution

One of the main objectives of the load and response analysis Figure 3: In-line stress ranges versus no of cycles for
was to come up with the number of cycles, ni corresponding to different span lengths for 22" OD pipeline.
the stress range block Si. This may be calculated by:
1600000
22.5 m span
n i = P (•) f v Tlife (28) 1400000
25.0 m span

1200000 27.5 m span

30.0 m span
P(•) is the probability of a (combined) wave or current 1000000 35.0 m span
no of cycles

40.0 m span
induced flow “event”. fv is the dominating vibration frequency 800000
of the considered pipe response and Tlife is the time of 600000
exposure to this load effect (i.e. during design lifetime).
400000

The number of stress cycles for the direct wave loading is 200000

given by the wave loading frequency at the pipe level and the 0
exposure time relevant for this loading. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Stress range (MPa)

The method presented above was applied to derive the number Figure 4: In-line stress ranges versus no of cycles for different
of cycles per year for axial stress ranges to be applied for input span lengths for the 14" OD pipeline.

opyright © 2002 by ASME

7 Copyright © 2002 by ASME
7
 Proceedings of OMAE’02
21st International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering
June 23–28, 2002, Oslo, Norway

OMAE2002 PAPER NO. 28093

Note however, that this is valid only for the in-line vibrations. Following testing, all CTOD test pieces were sectioned at
The cross-flow vibrations will, however, become critical for 25%, 50% and 75% of the sample width and prepared for
such span lengths. metallographic examination to determine the pre-crack tip
location relative to the fusion boundary. The Post-CTOD test
4. MATERIALS AND FLAW SIZING DATA metallography was performed according to the
recommendations of BS 7478 : Part 2 : 1997[9] to ensure a
4.1 Materials strength valid crack location i.e. within ± 0.5 mm of the fusion
boundary in the central 75% of the test sample thickness.
The pipeline materials were delivered as per API 5L X70 and
X65, respectively for the 22" and 14" OD pipelines. The mean The cumulative distribution of CTOD fracture toughness and
yield and tensile properties for the linepipe and the standard the fitted Weibull distribution are shown in Figure 5. In the
deviations are shown in Table 1. The repair weld metal fitting of the Weibull distribution to the CTOD data, only the
strength estimated from hardness test data as per BS 7448 : lower CTOD values were utilised. This was to add further
part 2: 1997 is also shown. conservatism to the analysis. The analysis is considered
conservative because it does not account crack tip constraint
Table 1: Tensile data for pipe and repair welds tested at and the inherent conservatism in the BS 7910 : 1999[3]
+20°C. 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 YS STDV TS STDV

(MPa) (MPa) (MPa) (MPa) 1

0.9
22" OD 0.8
Cumulative Probability

544 13 643 11
0.7
X70 pipe 0.6
0.5
0.4
14" OD 544 8 647 8
0.3 Data
0.2
X65 pipe Weibull fit
0.1
0
Repair weld 497* 28 630* 30 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60

AWS 8010-G CTOD, δ (mm)

*
Derived from hardness data according to BS 7448:Part 2:1997. Figure 5: Distribution of CTOD fracture toughness in
CGHAZ of SMAW repair welds.
4.2 CTOD fracture toughness

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.
4.3 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 Copyright © 2002 by ASME
8
 Proceedings of OMAE ’02
21st International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering
June 23–28, 2002, Oslo, Norway

OMAE2002 PAPER NO. 28093

1 1

Cumulative probability
0.9 0.9
Cumulative Probability

0.8
0.8
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.4
ECP (AUT) 0.4
0.3 Lognorm (AUT)
ECP (MET) 0.3 ECP
0.2

0.1
Lognorm (MET) 0.2 F(a/c) Weibull
0 0.1
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
Flaw height, a (mm) 0
0 0.5 Aspect ratio,
1 a/c 1.5 2
Figure 6: Comparison between distributions of surface
Figure 8: Distribution aspect ratios, a/c for surface
breaking flaws measured by micro section examination
breaking flaws.
and from AUT assuming all flaws within 0-3 mm of the
external surface are surface breaking.
When indications were detected, no matter how small, they
were plotted by taking the following measurements: -
Table 2: Comparison of flaw sizing information from AUT
1. The length and position of the defect within the weld
and metallographic examination.
circumference.
AUT Metallography
2. The measurement from the OD of the pipe to the top
Number of defects reported 46 26
of the indication (Ligament).
Maximum flaw height, amax (mm) 2.18 0.96
3. The measurement to the bottom of the indication.
Minimum flaw height, amin (mm) 0.23 0.04 (Bottom)
Mean, amean (mm) 0.97 0.50 4. The through-wall extent of the indication. (Height)
Standard deviation, SD (mm) 0.50 0.28 5. The centerline position of the indication.
6. A clock position 12, 3, 6, 9, to give a the position for
the indication along the pipe circumference.
1 All of the above measurements were taken from Shaw’s
0.9
Infocus AUT software. The values were taken from the strip
Cumulative probability

0.8 ECP
0.7 F(2c) Lognorm chart, the weld cross-section, the Time of Flight indicator bar
0.6 (beam path length), and the amplitude indicator bar (indication
0.5
0.4
height).
0.3
0.2 All of the above values were transferred to an Excel
0.1
spreadsheet for further statistical analysis in the general
0
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 purpose probability analysis software program PROBAN. The
Flaw length, 2c (mm) flaw heights, lengths, depths and aspect ratios estimated based
on the AUT record examination are plotted in Figure 6, 7 and
Figure 7: Distribution of lengths, 2c for surface breaking 8. Cumulative log-normal distributions or Weibull
flaws. 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,

ht © 2002 by ASME
9 Copyright © 2002 by ASME
9
 Proceedings of OMAE’02
21st International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering
June 23–28, 2002, Oslo, Norway

OMAE2002 PAPER NO. 28093

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.
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.
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

Statistical evaluation of inspection data from AUT of pipelines

using the same equipment as used for the project reported

Annual Failure probability .

herein has shown that the typical uncertainty in the flaw height
1.0E-04
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 1.0E-05

measured by metallography, and that applying AUT data with Combined Failure - Free Span = 50m
a standard deviation of ± 0.8 mm at the 95% confidence level Pure Fatigue Failure (leak) - Free Span = 50m
Combined Failure - Free Span = 45m
would give conservative fracture assessments. Pure Fatigue Failure (leak) - Free Span = 45m
1.0E-06
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
5. RESULTS OF FATIGUE AND FRACTURE Service time (years)

ANALYSIS
Figure 9: Combined probability of failure for 22" OD
Combined probabilistic fatigue crack growth and unstable pipeline plotted against service time for critical free-span
fracture analyses were performed using limit state functions as lengths of 45 and 50 m.
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 1.0E-02

probabilistic fatigue and fracture analysis have been tabulated

in Table 3.
Annual Failure probability .

1.0E-03

Results of the analysis of the 22" OD and 14" OD pipelines are

shown in Figure 9 and 10, respectively. 1.0E-04

Combined Failure - Free Span = 30m

Referring to the 22" OD pipeline and Figure 9, we have that Combined Failure - Free Span = 27.5m
for a span of length 40 metres, the service life must exceed 50 1.0E-05
Pure Fatigue Failure (leak) - Free Span = 30m
years in order for the annual failure probability pertaining to Pure Fatigue Failure (leak) - Free Span = 27.5m

combined crack growth and fracture failure to exceed an

1.0E-06
annual failure probability of 1.0E-5. With a target level for 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Time (years)
annual failure probability of 1.0E-5, free-spans up to a length
of 40 metres will therefore not be critical. Figure 10: Combined probability of failure for 14" OD
pipeline plotted against service time for critical free-span
For span of lengths of 45 and 50 metres, it is observed from lengths of 27.5 and 30 m.
Figure 9 that the annual failure probability will exceed 1.0E-4

ght
10 © 2002 by ASME Copyright © 2002 by ASME
10

21st International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering
6. CONCLUSIONS
The following conclusions may be drawn from the
probabilistic analyses of pipelines with stationary free-spans:
• AUT girth weld inspection can provide a basis for fitness-
for-service assessment in general and specifically for more
detailed free-span analysis.
• 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 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
• 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.
• 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].
• For the 14" OD pipeline the annual failure probability was
found to be higher than for the 22" OD pipeline and it is
Copyright
11
11
Proceedings of OMAE ’02
June 23–28, 2002, Oslo, Norway
OMAE2002 PAPER NO. 28093
recommended initially to be inspected every year until the
risk of development of free spans has been confirmed.
7. 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.
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 87-
2022).
[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] Mørk, K.J. and Fyrileiv, O. “Fatigue Design According
to the DNV Guideline for Free Spanning Pipelines”,
OPT’98, 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”
© 2002 by ASME Copyright © 2002 by ASME
 Proceedings of OMAE’02
21st International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering
June 23–28, 2002, Oslo, Norway

OMAE2002 PAPER NO. 28093

Table 3 Parameters and distributions applied for the probabilistic fatigue and unstable fracture analysis.

Parameter Comments

Diameter and wall The outer and inner diameter Do and Di are modelled as deterministic:
thickness
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 The initial crack size is assumed to be semi-elliptical. The initial crack depth is modelled as log-normal
and c0 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 Modelled as deterministic value equal to 2.88

m

Material parameter log10C is modelled as Normally distributed with

C
E[Log10C ]= − 12.232; StD[Log10C ]= 0.1713 (units: MPa mm and mm/cycle)

Stress intensity The threshold level for the crack growth rates is set equal to.
threshold
∆K th = 63 N/mm 3/2

Geometry function The geometry function, Ycalc, is calculated using the empirical formulae for a finite plate subjected to
Y 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, Youngs modulus is modelled as fixed with value 2.07 105 MPa
E

Copyright
12 © 2002 by ASME Copyright © 2002 by ASME
12
 Proceedings of OMAE ’02
21st International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering
June 23–28, 2002, Oslo, Norway

OMAE2002 PAPER NO. 28093

Parameter Comments

Stress The SCF due to eccentricity is modelled as Normal distributed with mean value 1.0 and a CoV equal to 0.1.
Concentration
Factor, SCF

CTOD CTOD is modelled as Weibull distributed with the following values:

E [CTOD ]= 0.127 mm ; CoV [CTOD ]= 0.5; Low = 0.01 mm

Fatigue loading 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 o’clock 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 β 
F ( x)) = 1 − exp−   
  α  

22" OD:
Span length α β # 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

14" OD
Span length α β # 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

30.0 m 5.68 0.98 2.30E6

Uncertainty on An un-biased uncertainty is introduced on the Weibull scale parameter α to incorporate uncertainty related to
Weibull Scale the stress modelling. The uncertainty factor on the scale parameter is unbiased with a CoV equal to 0.2. The
Parameter uncertainty in the Weibull scale parameter is included to allow for uncertainty in the stress ranges established
from the VIV models.

Copyright
13 © 2002 by ASME Copyright © 2002 by ASME
13
 Proceedings of OMAE’02
21st International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering
June 23–28, 2002, Oslo, Norway

OMAE2002 PAPER NO. 28093

Annual dynamic The distribution of the annual maximum peak stress due to in-line VIV stress as obtained from the Fat-Free
Peak Stress assessment. The dynamic peak stress distribution is modelled as Gumbel distributed with the following
parameters,
Span length 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
Static
distributed with the following values;
environmental
stress 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, The axial stress level in the pipeline due to the lay-tension, pressure induced stress from maximum operating
pressure induced pressure and temperature induced stress is obtained from the Fat-free assessment, and modelled as Normal
stress and distributed with mean value 80.2 MPa and CoV equal to 0.1.
temperature
induced stress

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 The plasticity correction factor is modelled according to BSI 7910: 1999 [3], where the residual stresses are
correction factor conservatively assumed equal to the yield stress.

yright
14 © 2002 by ASME Copyright © 2002 by ASME

14
View publication stats