Page 103 - Pipelines and Risers
P. 103

76                                                                Chapter 4


           The general requirement of the accumulated plastic strain is that it should be based on strain
           aging and toughness testing of the pipe material. It is stated that due to material considerations
           a permanent/plastic strain up to 2% is allowable without any testing. In practice, this is valid
           also for the operational case.

           If the pipeline is to be exposed to more than 2% accumulated plastic strain, as is often the case
           for reeling installation method, the material should be  strain aging tested. However, recent
           testing of modem pipeline steel has shown that plastic strain up to 5% or even 10% can be
           acceptable.


           In order to have an extra safety margin, it is also desirable to have a certain ratio between the
           yield stress and the ultimate tensile stress. A requirement to this ratio is given in DNV’81,
           paragraph 5.2.6.2, where the yield stress is determined not  to exceed 85% of  the ultimate
           stress.  Accumulated plastic  strain will  increase the  yield  stress of  the  material  and  also
           increase the yieldultimate stresses ratio.


           4.10  Strain Concentration at Field Joints Due to Coatings

           It is necessary to evaluate effects of  the concrete coating on  strain concentrations at field
           joints. It is found reasonable to assume that the SNCF (Strain Concentration Factor) is  1.2.
           This value is mainly selected due to an allowable strain as high  as 0.4% from the fracture
           criterion and the technical information from Ness and Verley (1996).


           4.11  References
           1.  Bai, Y.  and Damsleth, P.A.  (1997) “Limit-state Based  Design of  Offshore Pipelines”,
              Proc. of OMAE’97.
           2.  Chen, M.J.,  Dong, G., Jakobsen, R.A.  and Bai, Y.  (2000) “Assessment of Pipeline Girth
              Weld Defects” Proc. of ISOPE’2000.
           3.  Denys,  R.M.,  (1992)  “A  Plastic  Collapse-based  Procedure  for  girth  weld  defect
              Acceptance” Int. Conf. on Pipeline Reliability, June 2-5, 1992, Calgary.
           4.  Hauch S. and Bai Y., (1999). “Bending Moment Capacity of Pipes”, OMAE99.
           5.  Igland, R.T.,  Saerik, S.,  Bai, Y.,  Berge, S., Collberg, L.,  Gotoh, K.,  Mainuon, P.  and
              Thaulow, C. (2000) “Deepwater Pipelines and Flowlines”, Proc. of OTC’2000.
           6.  IS0  13623 (1997)  “Petroleum  and  Natural  Gas  Industries; Pipeline  Transportation
              Systems”, International Standard Organisation.
           7.  Koets, O.J. and Guijt J. (1996) “Troll Phase I, The Lessons Learnt”, OPT’96.
           8. NEN (1992), NEN 3650, “Requirements for Steel Pipeline Transportation System”, 1992.
           9.  Ness,  O.B.  and  Verley, R.,  (1996) “Strain Concentrations in  Pipeline  With  Concrete
              Coating”, Journal of Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, Vol. 118.
           10. Nyswm P., T@mes  K.,  Bai Y.  and Damsleth P.,  (1997). “Dynamic Buckling and Cyclic
              Behavior  of HP/HT Pipelines”, Proc. of ISOPE’97.
   98   99   100   101   102   103   104   105   106   107   108