Pipe Joint Management for Risers and Pipelines

G. Mansour
{"title":"Pipe Joint Management for Risers and Pipelines","authors":"G. Mansour","doi":"10.1115/omae2021-63173","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n Minimizing the stress concentration factor (SCF) in pipe joint welding subjected to fatigue is a major concern. Machining the joint ends is one way to achieve this. However, this adds cost, time, risk of potential crack starters, and loss of wall thickness which is detrimental for fatigue, strength, and engineering criticality assessment (ECA) in particular. Pipe joint sorting (certain joints in sequence) and end matching (rotating the pipe joints for best fit) are other ways. However, this adds time, costly logistics, risk of errors, and does not guarantee the minimum possible SCF is achieved. In a typical project, more pipe joints are procured than required in order to mitigate contingencies. For pipelines, this overage is typically a percentage of the required number of joints or pipeline length. For risers, typically double the required number of joints is procured where half of the joints is sent offshore for installation and the remaining half is kept onshore for a spare riser. Then, it becomes very important to send for installation the best pipe joints that produce the best (lowest) SCFs out of the entire batch of pipe joints. This requires calculating the SCF for every potential match of any random joints to be welded together, and then choosing the best joints. Performing such calculations by spreadsheet is not feasible considering the tremendous number of required iterations and calculations. A pipe joint management software development is presented herein which accomplishes this task and examples provided to illustrate the benefits.\n Note: Selecting pipe joints with the best end measurements, whether ID, OD, OOR, or thickness does not guarantee that the minimum possible SCFs will be achieved since the SCF is a function of all those measurements.","PeriodicalId":240325,"journal":{"name":"Volume 4: Pipelines, Risers, and Subsea Systems","volume":"23 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-06-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Volume 4: Pipelines, Risers, and Subsea Systems","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1115/omae2021-63173","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Minimizing the stress concentration factor (SCF) in pipe joint welding subjected to fatigue is a major concern. Machining the joint ends is one way to achieve this. However, this adds cost, time, risk of potential crack starters, and loss of wall thickness which is detrimental for fatigue, strength, and engineering criticality assessment (ECA) in particular. Pipe joint sorting (certain joints in sequence) and end matching (rotating the pipe joints for best fit) are other ways. However, this adds time, costly logistics, risk of errors, and does not guarantee the minimum possible SCF is achieved. In a typical project, more pipe joints are procured than required in order to mitigate contingencies. For pipelines, this overage is typically a percentage of the required number of joints or pipeline length. For risers, typically double the required number of joints is procured where half of the joints is sent offshore for installation and the remaining half is kept onshore for a spare riser. Then, it becomes very important to send for installation the best pipe joints that produce the best (lowest) SCFs out of the entire batch of pipe joints. This requires calculating the SCF for every potential match of any random joints to be welded together, and then choosing the best joints. Performing such calculations by spreadsheet is not feasible considering the tremendous number of required iterations and calculations. A pipe joint management software development is presented herein which accomplishes this task and examples provided to illustrate the benefits. Note: Selecting pipe joints with the best end measurements, whether ID, OD, OOR, or thickness does not guarantee that the minimum possible SCFs will be achieved since the SCF is a function of all those measurements.
立管和管道的管接头管理
使疲劳条件下管道接头焊接的应力集中系数(SCF)最小化是一个重要问题。加工接头末端是实现这一目标的一种方法。然而,这增加了成本、时间、潜在裂缝引发的风险,以及壁厚损失,这对疲劳、强度和工程临界评估(ECA)尤其不利。管接头排序(按顺序排列某些接头)和端部匹配(旋转管接头以获得最佳配合)是其他方法。然而,这增加了时间,昂贵的物流,错误的风险,并不能保证达到最低可能的SCF。在一个典型的项目中,为了减少意外情况,采购的管道接头比所需的要多。对于管道,这一超额通常是所需接头数量或管道长度的百分比。对于立管,通常需要两倍数量的接头,其中一半用于海上安装,另一半用于陆上备用立管。然后,在整批管接头中,将产生最佳(最低)scf的最佳管接头送去安装就变得非常重要。这需要计算任意随机接头的每个潜在匹配的SCF,然后选择最佳接头。考虑到所需的大量迭代和计算,通过电子表格执行此类计算是不可行的。本文介绍了一个管节管理软件的开发过程,并举例说明了该软件的优点。注意:选择具有最佳端部测量值的管接头,无论是内径、外径、OOR还是厚度,都不能保证获得最小可能的SCF,因为SCF是所有这些测量值的函数。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信