An engineering critical assessment (ECA) is commonly conducted during the design of an offshore pipeline in order to determine the tolerable size of flaws in the girth welds. API 579-1/ASMEFFS-1 2016 andBS 7910:2013+A1:2015 Incorporating Corrigenda Nos. 1 and 2 give guidance on conducting fitness-for-service assessments of cracks and crack-like flaws. The essential data required for an assessment (nature, position and orientation of flaw; structural and weld geometry; stresses; yield and tensile strength; fracture toughness; etc.) is subject to uncertainty. That uncertainty is addressed through the use of bounding values. The use of extreme bounding values might be overly-conservative. A sensitivity analysis is one way of investigating the sensitivity of the results of an assessment to the input data. A structural reliability-based assessment (a probabilistic assessment) is an alternative. A probabilistic assessment is significantly more complicated than a deterministic assessment. API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 and BS 7910:2013 note that a sensitivity analysis, partial safety factors or a probabilistic analysis can be used to evaluate uncertainties in the input parameters. Annex K of BS 7910:2013 gives partial safety factors for different combinations of target reliability and variability of input data. ISO 16708:2006 gives guidance on the use of structural reliability-based limit-state methods in the design and operation of pipelines. The structural reliability-based assessment of circumferentially-orientated, surface crack-like flaw in a girth weld in a pipeline is used to illustrate the significance of the distributions of the difference between the wall thickness and the ovality (out-of-roundness) of two pipes when calculating the bounding value of the stress concentration factor due to axial misalignment. The (assumed) distributions of diameter, wall thickness, out-of-roundness, yield strength, etc. are based on Annex B of ISO 16708:2006. The (nominal) probability of failure is calculated. It is then used to inform the choice of an appropriate bounding value (i.e. a characteristic value) for axial misalignment.
展开▼
机译:通常,在海上管道的设计过程中会进行工程关键评估(ECA),以确定环焊缝中可容许的缺陷尺寸。 API 579-1 / ASMEFFS-1 2016和BS 7910:2013 + A1:2015并入第1号和第2号勘误为进行裂缝和类似裂纹的适用性评估提供了指导。评估所需的基本数据(缺陷的性质,位置和方向;结构和焊接几何形状;应力;屈服和拉伸强度;断裂韧性等)都存在不确定性。通过使用边界值可以解决这种不确定性。使用极限值可能过于保守。敏感性分析是调查评估结果对输入数据的敏感性的一种方法。另一种方法是基于结构可靠性的评估(概率评估)。概率评估比确定性评估要复杂得多。 API 579-1 / ASME FFS-1和BS 7910:2013注意,可以使用灵敏度分析,部分安全系数或概率分析来评估输入参数中的不确定性。 BS 7910:2013的附录K给出了输入数据目标可靠性和可变性的不同组合的部分安全系数。 ISO 16708:2006给出了在管道的设计和运行中使用基于结构可靠性的极限状态方法的指南。基于结构可靠性的管道环缝焊缝中沿圆周方向的表面裂纹状缺陷的评估,用于说明壁厚和椭圆度(圆度)之间的差异分布的重要性。两根管道在计算由于轴向未对准而引起的应力集中系数的边界值时。直径,壁厚,不圆度,屈服强度等的(假定)分布均基于ISO 16708:2006的附件B。计算出(名义)失效概率。然后将其用于通知为轴向未对准选择合适的边界值(即特征值)。
展开▼