0

Full Content is available to subscribers

Subscribe/Learn More  >

Safety Factor for Use in the Fatigue Crack Growth Assessment of Pipeline Weld Integrity and Engineering Critical Assessments

[+] Author Affiliations
T. Sriskandarajah, George Hobbs, Graeme Roberts

Subsea 7, Sutton, UK

Daowu Zhou

Susbea 7, Sutton, UK

Paper No. OMAE2013-10184, pp. V04AT04A021; 7 pages
doi:10.1115/OMAE2013-10184
From:
  • ASME 2013 32nd International Conference on Ocean, Offshore and Arctic Engineering
  • Volume 4A: Pipeline and Riser Technology
  • Nantes, France, June 9–14, 2013
  • Conference Sponsors: Ocean, Offshore and Arctic Engineering Division
  • ISBN: 978-0-7918-5536-2
  • Copyright © 2013 by ASME

abstract

Engineering critical assessments (ECA) are routinely used to provide defect acceptance criteria for pipeline welds. The fatigue crack growth evaluation as part of ECA involves the use of a safety factor applied to the number of cycles of a given stress spectrum. It has been routinely presumed that a safety factor value of half of the corresponding safety factor used for S-N fatigue should be used in the ECA. For example, this was suggested in DNV OS F101 earlier than the 2012 edition.

This paper presents a rationale and example calculations as to why a safety factor of 1.0 for fatigue crack growth is wholly appropriate for design stage calculations (for re-assessment when the various parameters are well defined then it could be appropriate to use a higher safety factor for the cycle counts). A probabilistic approach accounting for the statistical coincidence of misalignment, defect size, weld under maximum loading, etc is described in this paper. The probabilistic approach (based on fatigue crack growth) was compared with the S-N fatigue calculation and the deterministic ECA result. The results demonstrate that the probability of occurrence of fatigue failure using the probabilistic ECA approach with safety factor of 1 is far less than the DNV-OS-F101 requirement of 25 × 10−4 for medium safety class.

This conclusion presumes that in the standard ECA, a worst onerous selection is made from the range of input parameters, e.g. wall thickness, misalignment, defect location etc.

Copyright © 2013 by ASME

Figures

Tables

Interactive Graphics

Video

Country-Specific Mortality and Growth Failure in Infancy and Yound Children and Association With Material Stature

Use interactive graphics and maps to view and sort country-specific infant and early dhildhood mortality and growth failure data and their association with maternal

NOTE:
Citing articles are presented as examples only. In non-demo SCM6 implementation, integration with CrossRef’s "Cited By" API will populate this tab (http://www.crossref.org/citedby.html).

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In