Fitness-For-Service Analysis of Skelp-End Welds in Spiral Pipes
Fitness-For-Service Analysis of Skelp-End Welds in Spiral Pipes
Fitness-For-Service Analysis of Skelp-End Welds in Spiral Pipes
IPC2012
September 24-28, 2012, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
IPC2012-90662
KEYWORDS pipes, the helical-seam (or spiral) pipes can offer cost
advantages for as much as 10% to 15% [1].
Fitness for Service, Skelp-End Weld, Spiral Pipe
The majority of the recently installed spiral pipes were
ABSTRACT
manufactured from steel coils. Some of the spiral pipes in the
For large diameter spiral pipes, there can be one skelp-end past were manufactured from steel plates. The coils and plates
weld (SEW) in every 5-7 joints of pipes. The industry are collectively termed skelps.
acceptance of SEWs is uneven although API 5L permits SEWs
The weld joining the skelps is often called skelp-end weld
in finished pipes. A joint industry project (JIP) [1] was formed (or strip/plate end weld in API 5L terms). The position of the
to develop uniformly acceptable inspection and test plans skelp-end weld (SEW) in a pipe is schematically shown in
(ITPs) for SEWs. The development was conducted through Figure 1. The skelps are firstly joined by a partial penetration
two parallel processes: (1) fitness-for-service analysis of the weld on what will become the inside diameter (ID) side of the
SEWs under a variety of loading conditions expected in their pipe. The string with the partially completed skelp-end weld is
life time and (2) consensus building based on the best practice fed into the pipe forming process. The helical welding is
and quality control protocols. completed from ID and outside diameter (OD) sides as the pipe
This paper details the fitness-for-service analysis of SEWs. is being formed. The skelp-end weld is then completed from
A companion paper provides a summary of the recommended the OD side by applying OD welding. As a result, the partially
ITPs developed in the JIP [2]. In the fitness-for-service completed skelp-end weld is subjected to pipe forming strains.
analysis, the SEWs were subjected to a variety of loading Skelp-End Weld
conditions covering construction, commissioning, and normal
service with and without internal pressure. For in-service
loading, both static and cyclic loading was considered. The
extensive fitness-for-service analysis demonstrated that there is
no inherent integrity risk associated with the SEWs when these
welds are manufactured, tested, and inspected using generally
accepted quality control measures applied to helical seam
welds. Additional inspection and quality control for coil end
properties and T-joints are recommended in the companion
paper. Helical Weld
Skelp-End Weld
400
T-Joint
0
T-Joint
0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14
Eng. Strain (mm/mm)
Helical/Spiral Weld Figure 3 Representative X70 and X80 stress-strain curves used
in analysis
Figure 2 Skelp-end weld geometry parameters Assessment of Tensile Integrity
Material Properties Assessment Procedures
Two pipe grades, X70 and X80, were selected for FFS For tensile failure assessment, existing flaws of certain
analyses. The pipe and weld properties are summarized in sizes were assumed to be present. These flaws are associated
Table 1. The material properties of the helical seam weld and with natural weld features which fall below weld repair criteria.
SEW were the same. The material properties in Table 1 were
HAZ HAZ
The weld high-low misalignment was modeled by relative
shift of the coils on the two sides of the skelp-end weld. The a
misalignment was uniform along the skelp-end weld and was (c)
ID Surface
gradually reduced to zero over the width of the helical weld at
the T-joints.
Figure 4 FEA model for flaws in skelp-end welds
The FEA matrix is shown in Table 2. The pipe OD and Mode I
wall thickness were 36 inch and 0.50 inch, respectively. The (Opening)
coil widths were varied and the helical angles were from 19 to CTD : Crack tip displacement
40. The maximum high-low misalignment was 1.27 mm (i.e., CTD I : Mode I crack tip displacement
CTD III: Mode III crack tip displacement
10% of the wall thickness). The flaw size was assumed to be 2-
mm deep and 50-mm long.
Lower-in
CTD I
The pipe lowering-in process was simulated by applying CTD III
global bending. Figure 5 Schematic drawing of mode I and III loading and
Due to the orientation of the SEW, the flaw in the SEW crack tip displacement (CTD)
experiences primarily mixed Mode I and Mode III loading.
The Mode I loading opens the two flaw surfaces while the
Mode III loading creates relative slide between the two flaw
surfaces along the length of the flaw (see Figure 5). Figure 6
shows a typical plastic strain contour near the flaw tip. Due to
softened HAZ properties, the plastic strain in the HAZ is larger
and spreads wider than the strain in the weld metal. The
relative opening and sliding of the flaw surfaces are evident.
A number of crack driving force representations, such as
Figure 6 Typical plastic strain contour and deformation near the
the stress intensity factors (K), J-integral (J), and crack tip
flaw tip (Figure 4(c) location)
opening displacement (CTOD) have been developed to evaluate
the intensity of the crack-tip fields, such as stresses and strains. To help understand the effect of helical angles, a so-called
The crack tip displacement vector (CTD) has been developed load angle was introduced. The load angle is defined as the
and used for mixed mode fracture problems [5]. The CTD is angle between the flaw length and the primary stress (see
defined as the relative displacement of the two points on the Figure 7). For lowering-in analysis, the primary stress is along
two flaw surfaces at a given distance (0.5-mm in this work) the pipe longitudinal direction.
behind the flaw tip as shown in Figure 5 and Figure 6. The 0.5 The comparison of the CTDI and CTDIII induced by the
mm is selected so that the CTD is very close to the traditional lowering-in tensile stress is shown in Figure 8 for the X70 pipe
the helical welds. Very similar results were found for the X80
pipes (see Figure 10). The CTD driving forces of the X80 0.04 CTD_I
pipes are slightly higher than those of the X70 pipes. CTD_III
To assess the fitness-for-service of the welds, it is 0.03
0.08
The average apparent toughness can be 0.4-0.6 mm or higher. Solid lines: h = 0.00 mm 40/ 50 (HLW)
For all the cases analyzed, the maximum CTD driving force is Dashed lines: h = 1.27 mm
0.06 HLW: Flaw in helical weld
less than 0.1 mm when the applied stress reaches the pipe yield SEW: Flaw in skelp-end weld 40/40 (SEW)
strength. The CTD at the applied stress that equals to the yield
strength is much smaller than this lower bound toughness. 0.04
Therefore the integrity of the SEWs is sound under the tensile 29/29 (SEW)
0.08
0.00 0.00
0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
Applied Stress / Yield Strength Applied Stress / Yield Strength
Figure 12 Model I and Mode III crack driving force (CTDI and
Figure 10 CTD driving force under lowering-in tension (X80) CTDIII) induced by hydrotest
Helical Weld 0.05
Hydrotest, X70 Pipe
D = 36 in, t = 12.7 mm Helical Angle / Load Angle
0.04 a = 2 mm, 2c = 50 mm
The total CTD driving forces are shown in Figure 13 and Solid lines: h = 0.00 mm
Dashed lines: h = 1.27 mm
Figure 14 for X70 and X80 pipes, respectively. The primary HLW: Flaw in helical weld 19/71 (SEW)
0.03
stress from hydrotest is applied in pipe circumference direction. SEW: Flaw in skelp-end weld
Therefore, the load angle is the angle between the flaw length 29/61 (SEW)
and the pipe circumference. The CTD driving force increases 0.02
as the load angle increases no matter where the flaw is located 40/50 (SEW)
localized deformation in one of the locations to grow rapidly Figure 15 FE model for bending analysis
and the bending moment to decrease. The curvature or strain Lower-in/Cold Bend
associated with the peak bending moment is often used as the
critical bending strain. In general, buckled pipes with finite The lower-in and cold bend induced bending stress was
size wrinkles can still contain pressure. Therefore, the buckling simulated by applying rotation at both pipe ends. One pipe end
is not considered as an ultimate limit state. However, the was allowed to translate freely in the longitudinal direction.
buckled pipes offer reduced resistance to further deformation A deformed pipe from the lower-in simulation is shown in
and may fail by fatigue in the buckled area. Figure 16 where a buckle was formed on the bottom (i.e.,
The focus of the analysis is whether the material property compression) side of the pipe. Due to the highly localized
variation and weld geometry discontinuity near the SEW, deformation near the buckle, the compressive strain at the
especially at the T-joint, could reduce the tolerance of pipes to bottom of the pipe is not uniform along the pipe length. An
the compressive stress on the compression side of the pipe. average strain is often used to evaluate the compressive strain.
The average strain is calculated using the relative rotations
The critical compressive buckling strain of pipes between the two cross-sections of a pipe segment of a given
containing SEW was calculated in FEA. The calculated critical gauge length centered at the buckling location as shown in
strain was then compared with the maximum strain given by Figure 16. A gauge length of 2D is often used where D
the design codes to see if the critical strain is reduced by the represents the pipe outside diameter. The average strain was
SEW. The overall buckling analysis procedure has been calculated using the following equation,
D ( 2 1 )
extensively documented in [11,12].
FEA Models ave where l gauge 2 D (2)
Figure 15 shows a typical FE model used in compressive 2 l gauge
capacity analyses. The pipe was modeled with 3D solid/brick
Typical relationship between the bending moment and the
elements. The total length of the pipe was 6OD which is
average compressive strain from the finite element simulation
similar to the dimension used in most experiments. To simulate
is shown in Figure 17 for X70 pipes. Three pipe conditions are
the thick plates attached to the pipe ends in most experimental
shown: (1) a plain pipe without helical or skelp-end weld; (2) a
bending tests, the pipe ends were modeled as rigid plane. One
pipe with helical and skelp-end weld without weld high-low
of the T-joints was put on the bottom side of the pipe where the
misalignment; (3) a pipe with helical and skelp-end weld with
maximum compressive strain is expected.
1.5-mm SEW high-low misalignment.
7
Enforced Enforced
Moment (MN m)
Rotation Rotation 6
1 2
5
Bulking Location
4 Plain Pipe
Figure 16 Buckled pipe under bending deformation Skelp-End Weld, h = 0 mm
3 Skelp-End Weld, h = 1.5 mm
The average compressive strains corresponding to the
maximum bending moment are normally referred to as the 2
critical compressive strains. It is seen that without high-low 1 X70, No pressure, = 29, D/t = 48
misalignment, the SEW does not affect the critical strain. The
0
high-low misalignment, however, can greatly reduce the critical 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
strain. The critical strains of the pipes with different helical Compressive Strain (%)
angles are almost identical. In other words, the critical Figure 17 Moment vs. compressive
No Pressure strain (no pressure)
compressive strains were found to be independent of the helical 6
angles. Similar results were found for X80 pipes. Elastic Equation
CAN/CSA Z662-96
The FEA calculated critical strains of the X70 pipes (D/t = 5 DNV-OS-F101
48 and 72) are compared with the maximum design strains C-FER Zero Pressure Design
FEA: X70, No HiLow
from some pipeline design standards in Figure 18. Without
4
displacement restraint and load. The bending load was then
applied by enforcing a specified rotation at the pipe end. 3
Typical bending moment vs. average compressive strain curves Plain Pipe
are shown in Figure 19. The results were found almost 2
Skelp-End Weld, h = 0 mm
Skelp-End Weld, h = 1.5 mm
identical for all helical angles and for X80 pipes. By
comparing these results with those in Figure 17, it is seen that
1
the internal pressure increases the critical compressive strains.
X70, Pressure = 80%SMYS, = 29, D/t = 48
Therefore, the strain capacity is sufficient when compared with
0
the maximum design strains shown in Figure 18. 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
Compressive Strain (%)
From the above analysis, it can be concluded that the SEW
does not pose any threat to the pipe integrity under static Figure 19 Moment vs. compressive strain (with pressure)
service loads. Fatigue Assessment
Pressure and temperature oscillations during normal
operations can generate cyclic stress in a pipe. As a result, the
flaws in the skelp-end weld may undergo fatigue growth. The
cyclic stress consists of two principal components, i.e., hoop
stress was assumed to be the total and always perpendicular to 36.0 12.7 80 0.8 1.78 64.0 19.2 66.8
the flaw surface regardless of the helical angle. Therefore, this Table 5 Stress spectrum for fatigue assessment
simplified assessment is independent of the helical angles. The
assessment results are believed to be conservative since the Stress Spectrum for Fatigue Assessment
materials’ resistance to mode I fracture and fatigue are usually Description P/P
P hoop axial total Cycles/
(ksi) (ksi) Year
the lowest among all three loading modes. (ksi) (ksi)
Daily 2% 0.04 1.28 0.38 1.34 365
The pipe geometry and designed operating condition are Monthly 10% 0.18 6.40 1.92 6.68 12
given in Table 4. The MAOP yields a design factor of 0.8. The Seasonal 20% 0.36 12.80 3.84 13.36 2
maximum allowed flaw size under the MAOP was determined Upset Condition 50% 0.89 32.00 9.60 33.41 4
with the ECA procedure in API1104 Appendix A where the Hydrotesting 125% 2.22 80.00 24.00 83.52 N/A
Option 1 method was used with the CTOD toughness between P: Operation pressure; P: Pressure oscillation
0.10 mm and 0.25 mm. Table 6 Predicted flaw growth vs. service time
The assumed stress spectrum used in the fatigue
BS7910 Mean+2SD Growth Curve R>0.5 in Air
assessment is given in Table 5 where the oscillation of the
pressure was given as a percentage of the MAOP. It should be No High-Low High-Low = 10% Wall Thickness
noted that only one hydrotest cycle was applied. The Length Depth Length Depth
Year Year
combination of the high pipe grade (X80) and the high MAOP (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm)
(Design Factor = 0.80) yields conservative results since it 50.0 2.0 0 50.0 2.0 0
generates high cyclic stress. The assessment results can be 51.6 2.7 167 51.6 2.7 73
conservatively applied to lower grade pipes (such as X70) and 53.2 3.4 281 53.3 3.4 124
lower design factors (such as 0.72). In addition, the assessment 54.9 4.1 357 55.0 4.2 158
results can be conservatively applied to pipes with wall 56.6 4.9 410 56.6 4.9 181
thickness greater than 12.7 mm. CONCLUSIONS
The fatigue growth rate (da/dN) was assumed to follow the Fitness-for-service analysis was conducted on SEWs under
Paris’s Law and be in the form of a power law function of the a variety of loading conditions including construction,
stress intensity factor range (K) as da/dN = C (K)n. The two- commissioning, and full-pressure service. The FFS analyses
stage mean plus two standard deviation (2SD) growth covered the stresses from lower-in, cold bending, hydrotest, and
properties for R 0.5 in air recommended in BS 7910:1999 for operation. The tensile, compressive, and fatigue failure modes
weld fatigue assessment were used. The constants were given were investigated.
in the following,
In comparison to helical welds, no inherent risk was found
Stage A (K 196 N/mm3/2), C = 2.110-17 and n = 5.10, for SEWs. Using material property data from actual SEWs, the
Stage B (K > 196 N/mm3/2), C = 1.2910-12 and n = 2.88, fitness-for-service analysis has demonstrated that the pipes
containing SEWs are safe under both static and cyclic loading
where the unit of da/dN is mm/cycle.
conditions. The project team believes spiral pipes containing
The initial flaw depth and length were assumed to be 2 mm SEW can provide satisfactory service when manufactured,
and 50 mm, respectively; and the weld high-low misalignment inspected, and accepted by the recommended procedures.
was assumed to be 0.00 mm or 1.27 mm (10% of wall
The fitness-for-service of the SEWs is established on the
thickness). The stress intensity factor solutions of Anderson’s
basis of (1) safety margins under a variety of loading conditions
[13] were used in the assessment. A stress magnification factor
and (2) comparison of expected performance of spiral welds
of 1.33 was applied to the case with weld high-low
and SEWs under similar material property and loading
misalignment per BS7910:1999.
conditions. The actual pipe properties in a given pipe order or a
The predicted flaw growth vs. the service time is shown in grade can have large variations permitted by applicable codes
Table 6, where the last row indicates the predicted maximum and standards (e.g., API 5L and CSA Z245.1). Anti-corrosion
allowable flaw size at the MAOP from the ECA procedure in coating is known to affect the tensile property of the pipes. The
API1104 Appendix A. It is seen that the predicted service life Charpy impact energy of the welds (deposited weld metal and
is 410 and 181 years for the cases without and with high-low heat-affected zone) is likely to have variations too. These
misalignment, respectively. Therefore, the fatigue failure variations are known and they affect both spiral welds and
SEWs. The material properties used in the fitness-for-service