Structural Design of Metallic Components

Proceedings of the ASME 2014 Pressure Vessels & Piping Conference
PVP2014
July 20-24, 2014, Anaheim, California, USA
PVP2014-28712
STRUCTURAL DESIGN OF METALLIC COMPONENTS IN ISO 13628-7
Finn Kirkemo
Statoil ASA
Oslo, Norway
Email: fkir@statoil.com
ABSTRACT
ISO 13628-7 (ISO-7) for completion and workover
(C/WO) riser systems was published in 2005 and adopted back
by API as API RP 17G 2nd edition 2006 (identical). ISO-7 gives
requirements and recommendations for the design, analysis,
materials, fabrication, testing and operation of C/WO riser
systems. This paper provides a brief introduction and
background to some of the design and material requirements in
ISO-7. The main focus is on requirements for calculation of
static and cyclic (fatigue) capacities of metallic components in
the C/WO riser system subjected to pressure and external loads.
Some differences between ISO-7, API 6A (6A), API 6X (6X),
API 17D (17D), ASME VIII Div. 3 (Div.3) and ASME VIII
Div.2 (Div.2) are also included.
INTRODUCTION
The first edition of API 17G was released in 1995 as a
recommended practice for completion/ workover risers. The
ISO-7 committee saw the need to update API 17G to
incorporate the latest industry practice and to be more
prescriptive and self-contained than the first edition of API
17G. ISO-7 was a rewrite of the first edition of API 17G and
included a major update regarding design, material and
fabrication requirements for pipes and connectors and riser
connector qualification requirements.
ISO-7 was written by a team including end users and
manufactures based primarily in Europe in the period 19992005. The first edition of ISO-7 was released in 2005 and was
adapted back by API as API RP 17G second edition (identical)
in 2006. The Petroleum Safety Authority in Norway refers to
ISO 13628 series for subsea facilities; hence ISO-7 is
mandatory in the North Sea for C/WO riser systems. ISO-7 has
been used since 2006 by Statoil for all new subsea field
development projects in the North Sea for completion/workover

risers, wellhead systems and for connectors on subsea trees.
The ISO-7 standard is made up of eleven clauses, two
normative appendixes and seven informative appendixes. The
clauses and annexes addressed in this paper are Clause 6 for
design requirements which refers to Annex C for determination
of cyclic capacities, Annex D for determination of static
capacities, Annex I for qualification of connectors and Clause 7
for materials and fabrication requirements. Material
requirements in Clause 7 are directly linked to component
structural capacities in Clause 6 to ensure ductile failure modes
and that final mechanical properties of the components are
representative for the critical cross sections.
API 17G is under revision from a recommended practice to
a specification; see Stawaisz et al (2014). Some proposed
modifications to ISO-7 which are in the proposed 3rd edition of
API 17G are also included in this paper and referred to as 17G.
The modifications are based on experience with use of ISO-7.
The present paper will focus on structural design
requirements with associated material requirements. Emphasis
is given to structural failure modes such as burst, plastic
collapse, brittle (unstable) fracture and fatigue failure of
pressure-containing components under combined tension and
bending, i.e. in the primary load path of the riser. Some end
user experience is also included. The comments in this paper
are the personal opinions of the author and should not be
considered as interpretations of ISO-7.
NOMENCLATURE
a
B
CALAS
CVN
surface flaw height (depth)

intercept of design M-N curve with N axis
plate thickness
carbon and low alloy steels
Charpy V-notch
Copyright 2014 by ASME
C/WO
2c
d
DF
FM
Fd
Fi,mean
Fi,amp
Ftot
m
M
Mc
MT
NDT
N
pd
pb,c
pc
pi
po
pt
RWP
RWL
S-N
curve
t
Te
Tc
UT
Yu
Yy
M
completion/workover
surface flaw length
bore diameter
fatigue design factor
fracture mechanics
static design factor
static load components
amplitude of dynamic load components
total design load
inverse slope of the M-N curve
bending moment
single load bending capacity (limit load)
magnetic testing
nondestructive testing
number of cycles to failure at constant load
range
design pressure
cylinder burst pressure capacity (closed end)
single load pressure capacity (closed end)
internal pressure
external pressure
test pressure
rated working pressure
rated working load
graphical presentation of the dependence of
fatigue life (N) on fatigue strength (S)
thickness
effective (applied) tension
single load effective tension capacity
ultrasonic testing
tensile strength temperature derating factor
yield strength temperature derating factor
bending moment range (double amplitude)
equivalent von Mises plastic strain
yield strength
tensile strength
GENERAL APPROACH USED TO WRITE ISO-7

The guiding philosophy used in the development of ISO-7
was to use present industry practice around year 2000 for
production risers represented by DNV-OS-F201 (2001) and API
RP 2RD (1998) in combination with the high pressure codes
Div.3 (1997) and ASME B31.3 Chapter IX (1999). In addition
to the referred codes, the following documents were consulted:
DNV-OS-F201: Kirkemo, et al (1999), Mrk, et al (2001),

and Kirkemo (2001).
ASME B31.3 Chapter IX: Sims (1994).
Div.3: ASME VIII and III criteria (1969), Sims (1997) and
Mraz and Kendall (2000).
DNV-OS-F201 (2001) was used as the design factors for

different failure modes were calibrated to a consistent risk level
applicable to offshore risers systems operating from floating
vessels. C/WO risers are high pressure systems; hence, both the
high pressure section in ASME B31.3 (1999) and Div.3 (1997)
were consulted in the preparation of ISO-7.
EDP
LRP
Figure 1 Open sea WOR system
NEW TECHNOLOGY
ISO-7 uses the latest (at year 2001) industry design
methods with associated design factors (safety factors) to
optimize design such as: minimize wall thickness (weight
reduction) and optimize fatigue life. The ISO-7 design methods
give increased insight into structural behavior compared with
older design methods (i.e. 6A). A pre-requisite for the use of
ISO-7 design methods and criteria is that material,
manufacturing procedures, mechanical testing, NDT and
qualification guarantee the required quality of the components.
Some of the new design approaches included in ISO-7
compared to API RP 17G 1st edition are:
Explicitly addressing relevant failure modes

Explicitly addressing of the effect of external loads
Introduction of accidental design conditions
Limit load based closed form pipe capacity equations
Elastic-plastic stress analysis of components
Fatigue design requirements
Use of offshore calibrated design factors
Global riser analysis requirements
Representative mechanical testing
Thermal derating of material strength above 50C (120F)
Material toughness requirements
Ultrasonic testing in lieu of radiographic testing
Connector qualification testing
CLAUSE 1 - SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS

Clause 1 describes the scope of application of ISO-7. ISO7 gives requirements and recommendations for the design,
analysis, materials, fabrication, testing and operation of subsea
completion/workover (C/WO) riser systems run from a floating
vessel, see Figure 1. It is applicable to all new C/WO riser
systems and may be applied to modifications, operation of
existing systems and reuse at different locations and with
different floating vessels. ISO-7 is intended to serve as a
common reference for designers, manufacturers and
operators/users, thereby reducing the need for company
specifications. ISO-7 is limited to pressure-containing and
primary load bearing components manufactured from carbon
and low alloy carbon steels (CALAS). The term pressurecontaining component means a component whose failure to
function as intended results in a release of wellbore fluid to the
environment, e.g. valve bodies, bonnets, pipes and bolting
which join pressure-containing components.
ISO-7 is a system based standard. System engineering is
conducted to ensure that the C/WO system and its equipment
are designed, manufactured, fabricated, tested, operated and
maintained for their intended use, throughout its intended life.
It is important to note that the manufacturers can design,
manufacture and supply equipment independent of system
requirements.
The design methodology in ISO-7 assumes ductile material
behavior. ISO-7 is applicable for design pressure (rated
working pressure) between 34,5 MPa (5 ksi) and 138,0 MPa
(20 ksi) at minimum design (operating) temperature. The
recommended static design method does not have any pressure
rating limitations. Design temperatures (temperature ratings)
includes the range from temperature class K, -60C (-75F) to
temperature class Y, 345C (650F). Maximum temperature is
below the creep limit and the stress relaxation limit for metallic
materials. Minimum temperature is limited to the ductility and
toughness performance of the metal to ensure ductile failure
mode. Temperature class Y is proposed to be removed from API
17G. Cyclic design methods are limited to high cycle fatigue
(stress life) and temperatures in the referred codes; i.e. DNVRP-C203, BS 7608, BS 7910 and ASME FFS-1.
C/WO riser is classified as a temporary riser and normally has a

limited operating envelope. In situations where operating
conditions are expected to exceed the allowable, the well is shut
in and the riser is either disconnected and hung-off or retrieved.
In addition it may serve as a running string for the subsea tree
and for the tubing hanger.
A C/WO riser system includes riser joints, riser connectors,
workover control systems, surface flow trees, surface tree
tension frames, lower workover riser packages, valves, rams,
lubricator valves, retainer valves, subsea test trees, shear subs
and tubing hanger orientation systems.
Stress joint
ISO-7: DF=1,00
EDP block
17D: DF=0,67
EDP connector
17D: DF=0,67
Subsea test
tree
ISO-7:
DF=1,00
LRP connector
17D: DF=0,67
THRT
17D: DF=0,67
Subsea tree block

17D: DF=0,67
Subsea tree block

17D: DF=0,67
Wellhead connector
17D: DF=0,67
Wellhead connector
17D: DF=0,67
Wellhead
17D: DF=0,67
Wellhead
17D: DF=0,67
Tre mode (open sea)
CLAUSE 4 - SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS

General
System requirements are given in clause 4 of ISO-7.
Clause 4 gives the principles for safety, design and operation
and barrier requirements. The governing design principle of
ISO-7 is that the overall system design shall be fail-safe.
A C/WO riser system is run and operated from a floating
vessel and it forms a high pressure conduit from a subsea tree
or tubing hanger to the floating vessel. C/WO riser systems are
used for well completion, well testing, well servicing with
wireline and coiled tubing and well isolation. The riser is
exposed to ocean environmental loads such as hydrodynamic
loads from waves and current in addition to vessel motions. A
LRP block
17D: DF=0,67
BOP
stack
BOP
connector
Tubing hanger mode (within BOP)
Figure 2 Equipment codes and design factors for accidental

load condition
The C/WO riser interfaces the following 17D equipment,
Figure 2:
Tree mode (open sea) operation: Christmas tree and

wellhead system.
Tubing hanger (thru BOP/drilling riser) mode: Tubing
hanger, tubing hanger running tool and wellhead system.
API 17D is a component specification where the

requirement is to design and qualify equipment for rated
working pressure (RWP), rated loads (normal operating) and

hydrostatic test pressure. For C/WO riser applications, it is
normal industry practice to ensure that the load combinations
determined in ISO-7 (e.g. normal, extreme and accidental
loading conditions) do not exceed the rated capacity (i.e.
normal capacity) of 17D equipment, see Figure 2. Tubing
hanger mode in Figure 2 applies for horizontal tree. In cases
where the rated capacity is exceeded, the equipment should be
designed, manufactured and qualified in accordance with ISO7. Compared to 17D, ISO-7 permits higher design stress levels
in materials for extreme and accidental load conditions, but
requires more extensive design analysis, as well as additional
non-destructive testing, material toughness, mechanical testing
and qualification of connectors. 17D mentions fatigue
considerations but does not specify requirements and refers to
ISO-7. However, no reference to material, fabrication and
quality requirements in ISO-7 are given in 17D, hence 6A
material requirements apply.
In order to obtain sufficient bending moment capacity of

standard pressure rated components, components with higher
pressure rating and/or larger size are normally selected.
Test pressure is usually the governing case for cylinder
wall thickness design in accordance with 6A/17D. This is not
the case for ISO-7 where design pressure at operating
temperature normally governs and not the test pressure. In
some cases, combined design pressure and external loads
effects may be governing.
CLAUSE 5 - FUNCTIONAL REQUIREMENTS
Equipment functional requirements for all equipment
within the scope of ISO-7 including workover control system
are specified in clause 5 of ISO-7. The functional requirements
are aligned with the principles for safety, design and operation
and barrier requirements specified in clause 4 of ISO-7.
CLASUE 6 - DESIGN REQUIREMENTS
17G propose to include lower riser package (LRP) and

emergency disconnect package (EDP) bodies with connectors
as part of 17G. In addition to design factors for normal (0.67)
and extreme (0.8) an increased safety margin for accidental
(0.9) is proposed for well barrier elements that remain in place
following an emergency disconnect, e.g. subsea test tree and
LRP with connector.
Design process
In the design of C/WO riser components all relevant factors
shall be taken into account to ensure that the equipment will be
safe in operation. Design of C/WO riser systems typically
involves the following main steps:
Establishment of a design basis, e.g. minimum bore (drift)

requirement, design pressure, design temperature, external
pressure and material selection of pipe and components;
Perform static design of pipe (initial sizing-wall thickness
by hand calculations):
a. Internal pressure (burst) design with zero external
pressure, i.e. pipe sizing (wall thickness);
b. Collapse due to external pressure only with the empty
pipe (zero internal pressure);
c. Longitudinal load due to static effective tension and
internal pressure (plastic collapse) at top of riser;
Select/design C/WO riser system components/connectors:
a. Connector/connection selection based on static and
cyclic capacities;
b. Weak link/safety joint sizing and static weak link
global analysis;
Perform global riser analysis to determine external load
effects to:
a. Determine operating limitations;
b. Calculate fatigue lives and fatigue inspection intervals.
General
Design requirements for all pressure-containing and/or
primary load bearing components, are given in clause 6 of ISO7. The scope of clause 6 includes requirements for; structural
design, component capacities, loads and load effects analysis,
code checks and operating limitations. A failure mode based
design approach is used, where the C/WO riser system is
designed against all relevant failure modes.
Clause 6 gives general design requirements and does not
provide cookbook formulae for design of components, since
it is anticipated that a design by analysis approach will be used
in most cases. Closed form solutions are provided for pipes and
other cylindrical components.
Structural and functional design and safety (clause 6) as
shown in Figure 3, is closely linked to materials and fabrication
requirements (clause 7), cyclic capacities (Annex C), static
capacities (Annex D), qualification of connectors (Annex I),
testing (clause 8) and maintenance and monitoring (clause 10),
where there is an iteration between material selection, design
requirements and verification of component static and cyclic
capacities.
The design shall incorporate appropriate design factors to
obtain adequate safety margins against all relevant structural
and functional failure modes in a consistent manner. The C/WO
riser components shall be designed for loadings appropriate to
its intended use and other reasonable foreseeable operation
conditions. Failure mode, effects and criticality (FMECA) and
hazard and operability (HAZOP) are useful tools in this
context.
Structural and functional integrity are obtained by using
design factors on static capacities and cyclic capacities (fatigue
life) for the relevant failure mode. The structural and functional
capacities of components are established by calculations and
validated by testing, especially to evaluate performance
parameters that cannot be studied adequately through
calculations, e.g. leak tightness, galling resistance, contact

fatigue performance, fretting performance.
includes the following fundamental design requirements for

components and system:
Component design and

qualification testing
Static capacity
Cyclic capacity
System design
Material engineering
Reduce failure probability

Reduce consequence of failure
Material selection
Material specifications
Manufacture and fabrication
Global riser analysis

Static and dynamic load effects
Cyclic load effects
Manufacture procedure specification

Representative mechanical testing
Quality control and testing
Structural and functional safety

Load or Load effect Fd x Satic capacity
Service life Fatigue life/DF
Operation and maintenance
Testing
Monitoring
Inspection/repair/replacement
Pressure and functional testing

System integration testing
Figure 3 Structural and functional safety flowchart

Material and quality control requirements are required to
adequately support the design. It does not matters how
elaborate or sophisticated a design calculation is, if the material
selection requirements are not met and the quality control
requirements during manufacture and fabrication are not
adequate to support the material selection requirements, the
component will not perform as required. In short, the structural
design principle in ISO-7 is a complete package of design,
material selection, quality control requirements and operational
requirements and maintenance to ensure structural and
functional integrity of the C/WO riser system during its lifetime
(Figure 3).
Fundamental requirements
Section 6.2.2 gives the fundamental design requirements of
ISO-7. The goal of ISO-7 is to provide a safe C/WO riser
system and riser components for its intended use throughout its
intended life. This philosophy is put into practice by starting
with robust material selection, good mechanical design
practice, high level manufacture and fabrication standards,
quality assurance/control standards, testing, system design,
operating procedures, monitoring, maintenance and verification
of compliance with requirements by use of third parties, see
Figure 3. It is assumed that all work during design,
manufacture, fabrication, operation and maintenance are carried
out by personnel who have appropriate qualifications and
experience and using qualified procedures. The design in ISO-7
Risk based design, i.e. the failure probability or safety for

a given failure mode is linked to the consequence of the
same failure mode. A low failure probability or high safety
is required when the consequence of that failure is high and
vice versa.
Ductile failure mode which is obtained by:
o Ductile and tough materials, i.e. yield before fracture;
o Ductile design, e.g. avoiding sudden changes in
section properties (low constraint/triaxiality).
Safe-life fatigue design which is obtained by using high
design fatigue factors for the service life or the scheduled
inspection intervals.
Damage tolerant design which is obtained by requiring
toughness to ensures ductile failure mode for fabricationor service-induced flaws for the service life or scheduled
inspection intervals.
Structural and functional safety which is obtained by
operating within allowable structural and functional limits.
The overall system design shall be fail-safe, i.e. ensure that
no single failure will cause an unacceptable risk.
Protection against accidental damage is done by the
following two principles:
o Reduction of damage probability.
o Reduction of damage consequences, e.g. by use of
load limiting devices (e.g. safety joint) to protect well
barriers.
Design considerations
Section 6.2.3 provides the general design considerations.
As described in Section 6.2.3 the design of the C/WO riser
system, its components and details shall, as far as possible,
include the following considerations:
Riser connectors should be stronger than the connecting
pipe with respect to pressure and/or bending moment.
Simple load paths and smooth stress fields should be aimed
for in the design.
Components and details should be designed so that the
component will behave in a ductile manner by:
o Avoiding sudden changes in section properties or deep
sharp notches which give high constraint (triaxiality).
o Selection of ductile and tough material in actual
environment and temperature.
Robust material selection considering mechanical and
physical properties, brittle fracture, weldability,
hardenability, environmental stress fracture resistance and
corrosion resistance.
Sharp notches and stress concentrations should as far as
possible be avoided including minimizing contact stress
concentrations between contacting bodies.
Access for inspection at fatigue sensitive locations should
be provided.
Cyclic loaded components should be preloaded up to

normal operating cyclic stress levels and hence reduce risk
for fatigue failure and fretting failure.
Inspection/replacement philosophy should be an integral
part of the design.
Static design format and design factors

ISO-7 requires static design of components due to
environmentally induced external loads. Although the
environmental loads are time dependent static and dynamic, the
resulting load effect is assumed to be static for the purpose of
component design. The aim of the static design is to ensure that
the components have adequate structural and functional
capacity for the static loads.
The component static safety level is achieved by setting
limits on load or load effects to a fraction of the capacity of the
component as follows, see Figure 4:
Load or LoadEffect Fd Capacity
(1)
F d is design factor which is the inverse of the safety factor SF,

see Table 1. External load effects are typically a time dependent
variable Load or load effect can also mean applied stress or
strain. Capacity can mean yield strength, strain capacity or load
capacity. The design factors depend on the failure mode and
loading condition. This design format is named the allowable
load design method or working stress design method.
The reference values for load effects and capacity used in
design are normally based on lower bound values for capacity
and upper bound values for loads. The values of tension,
pressure, bending moment to be used in design are the most
probable maximum values corresponding to that load case. The
values used for capacities are minimum strength, minimum
dimensions, lower/upper bound friction coefficients and
minimum/maximum preload.
Figure 4 Structural safety and allowable load/stress format

Nominal target failure probabilities, P f, design factors and
safety factors for static loading conditions are given in Table 1
for burst, hoop buckling (collapse) and plastic collapse, see

sections 6.4 and 6.5 in ISO-7. The failure probability in Table
1 is from structural reliability analysis and hence is a nominal
value and cannot be interpreted as an expected frequency of
failure. Note that gross (human) errors are not included in the
failure probabilities in Table 1. For functional failure modes for
connectors, the design factor is 1,00. This corresponds to a
nominal target failure probability of 10 -2-10-3. Lower design
factors shall be considered if material and fabrication are not in
accordance with Clause 7 in ISO-7.
The primary design format in DNV F201 is called Load
and Resistance Factor Design format using partial safety
factors. Each partial safety factor is intended to reflect the
uncertainty in the parameter it is multiplied by. More
background to target failure probabilities and applicable failure
modes are given in DNV F201. The design factors in ISO-7 are
based on a calibration to DNV F201 assuming a 50%/50% split
between functional and environmental load effects. The factors
in Table 1 are similar to what is found in API RP 2RD (1999).
Table 1 Static structural design factors
Static load condition
Pf
Fd
SF
RWL
factor4
Single load
Internal design (rated) pressure1 10-7 0.60 1.67
External design pressure
10-5 0.60 1.67
Pressure testing - FAT
0.90 1.11
Combined external load
Normal (rated working load)2
10-6 0.67 1.50
1.00
2
Extreme
10-5 0.80 1.25
1.20
Accidental, above well barrier2
10-5 1.00 1.00
1.50
Accidental, well barrier2,3
10-6 0.90 1.11
1.35
1
For sizing, limiting static axial tension (sustained) combined
with combined design pressure to Fd=0.55-0.60 will usually
provide a design that meets normal, extreme and accidental
conditions when dynamic loads are included.
2
Combined loading with pressure, temperature and external
loads are determined by global riser analysis.
3
Proposed in 17G to increase safety due to consequence of
failure.
4
Rated working load factor (RWL) = Load/Rated load
Normal, extreme and accidental load conditions set limits
on combined axial, pressure and bending loads. Since pressure
design (internal and external) set limits on pressure, the
combined loading criteria set limits on the longitudinal load due
to axial and bending loads. In other words, the pressure limit
applies in addition to the combined load limits.
The normal load condition and the accidental condition for
well barrier elements have a very high consequence of failure;
hence a very low target failure probability is given. Extreme
load conditions and accidental conditions for elements above
the well barrier elements have a high consequence of failure;
hence a low target failure probability is given. The accidental
load conditions are associated with extreme-low-probability
events (10-2 to 10-4). Load conditions with a probability less

than 10-4 are not considered. The failure probability for internal
design pressure (wall thickness design) is 1 to 2 orders of
magnitude lower than the general failure probability given in
Table 1. This is in accordance with industry practice in DNV
F201 and ASME B31.3 Chapter IX.
Experience has shown that for loads in excess of rated
working loads and for hydrostatic FAT pressure testing loss of
preload may occur due to limited local permanent deformations
in areas of stress concentrations/flange ring/bolting. Accidental
static load condition may result in permanent deformations that
necessitate the removal of the component from service for
inspection and repair of damage
Div.3 (1997) used the working stress design format;
however Div.3 (2007 and later) uses the load and resistance
factor design format. It should be noted that API 6X (2014)
includes the extreme condition in addition to the rated load
condition. API 17D standard wellhead and Christmas tress
connectors is restricted to operate within the normal load
condition (rated load factor equal to 1.00) for all external load
conditions.
ISO-7 uses the same design factors for bolting as for
forgings and pipes. The allowable primary stress in Div.2 at
RWP is one-third of the specified minimum yield strength at
temperature. Div.3 limits the allowable primary stress at RWP
to the yield strength at temperature divided by 1.8. 6A flanges
design limits primary stress to the yield strength at room
temperature divided by 2.0 based on ASTM A193 B7. For
bolted flanged connections designed in accordance with 6A and
Div.3, the allowable stresses leaves little margin left for
external loads. This means that the RWL is relatively small at
the RWP and may not be suitable for components used in
C/WO with high external loads. Industry practice is to select
15K flanges for 10K RWP. This practice results in limiting bolt
stresses at RWP to one-third of the yield strength will typically
ensure sufficient reserves for bending moments. It should be
noted that the compact flanged connections in ISO 27509
applied one-third of yield strength for RWP for bolting design.
17G's proposal to bolt sizing is one third of 17G yield strength
for RWP for connections in the riser load path to include some
reserves for external loads.
Cyclic design format and design factors
In principle, all components exposed to loads which cause
cyclic stresses, are liable to suffer fatigue cracking, and
therefore should be assessed for fatigue failure. ISO-7 requires
fatigue analysis of components due to environmentally induced
cyclic external loads, see sections 6.2.4 and 6.4.9. Design to
resist fatigue is recognized as one of the main requirements for
C/WO riser system components in harsh environments like in
the North Sea. The aim of the cyclic load design is to ensure
that the components have adequate structural and functional
capacity for cyclic loads. To ensure this, one of the basic
concepts of ISO-7 is to specify a minimum fatigue life. If the
service life has not been defined by the purchaser, a minimum
of 5 years shall be used.
For fatigue loading, the target component safety level is

achieved by setting limits on the service life to a fraction of the
calculated fatigue life as follows:
Service life
Fatigue life
DF
(2)
DF is the design fatigue factor, Table 2. Fatigue life or fatigue

capacity is the number cycles of stress that produces fatigue
failure. Service life is the period (number of cycles) in which
the component is required to perform safely with an acceptable
probability. Design fatigue factors are applied to reduce the
probability of fatigue failures.
Table 2 Fatigue design factors
Analysis method
P fa
DF
Method based on stress-life (S-N)
10
-5
10
Method based on fracture mechanics (FM)
5b
a
The failure probability cannot be interpreted as an expected
frequency of failure.
b
Assumes no flaws are detected. The initial flaw size to be used
is the size which is reliably-detectable by the applied NDT
method, see API Std 2RD.
Careful design of details and stringent quality requirements
for fabrication are essential in achieving acceptable fatigue
capacity. Fatigue analysis results are used for identifying
fatigue sensitive regions for inspection planning both during
manufacturing/welding and during service.
The fatigue capacity may be determined by calculations,
tests or both. Calculation methods include the stress life (S-N)
method and the fracture mechanics (FM) method. The S-N
method is the primary design tool in ISO-7 due to its simplicity
and efficiency. Fatigue life extension may be performed by the
FM method. The number of cycles to fatigue fracture failure in
the design S-N curve in DNV-RP-C203 represents 97,7 %
probability of survival (2,3 % probability of failure) with a
75 % confidence interval, Lotsberg and Ronold (2011).
The fatigue life of a component is defined as the time to
develop a though-thickness crack of the component. Fracture
criterion is not explicitly accounted when using stress life (S-N)
data. Probabilistic fatigue crack growth and fracture analysis
using FAD method indicates that the failure probability is
relatively insensitive to the failure criteria (attainment of a final
crack depth equal to 10 % of wall thickness, 20% of wall
thickness and through-thickness crack) when considering the
total fatigue life, see Maljaars et al (2012). This also justifies
the present industry practice of using the S-N approach.
ISO-7 fatigue design is based on safe life design, i.e. leakbefore-break is not required. DNV requires a fatigue design
factor of 10 for the S-N method if leak-before-failure cannot be
proven, Andreassen and Valsgrd (2002). For S-N fatigue
method a DF of 10 is applied, which implies that the probability
of generating a through the thickness fatigue crack during the
service life becomes very small, i.e. less than 10-5, see Table 2.
DNV-OS-F101/F201, DNV-RP-C203 and API Std 2RD applies

a fatigue design factor of 10 for critical components. The factor
of 10 seems high, but a small change in stress range gives a
large change in fatigue life. Typical a change in stress range by
a factor of 1.81 gives a change in fatigue life by a factor of 10.
Note that gross (human) errors are not included in the failure
probabilities in Table 2.
Fracture mechanics may be used to extend the predicted
fatigue life. The fracture mechanics fatigue design factor in
Table 2 is then applied to determine the next inspection interval
in cases where no cracks are found. For more details on
inspection planning and use of probabilistic analysis methods,
see Kirkemo (1988).
ISO-7 requires that all relevant failure modes shall be

investigated. A failure mode is relevant if its occurrence is
physically possible and the anticipated consequence(s) of the
failure cannot be disregarded. Failure mode, effects, and
criticality analysis (FMECA) is a useful tool to identify relevant
failure modes.
The possible ways in which components can fail are
classified into static short term, static long term and cyclic type
failure modes, or a combination of these. The following failure
modes are typically addressed:
Figure 5 Definition of S-N design curve

At present ISO-7 includes fatigue analysis due to cyclic
external loads, however, 17G is considering to include fatigue
analysis requirements due to cyclic internal pressure, especially
for higher pressure rating as required in Div.3, see Wormsen et
al (2014). Fatigue analysis has traditionally not been part of the
design for equipment covered by 6A/17D equipment neither for
cyclic external loads nor for cyclic pressure.
Loads, load effects and failure modes
Load and load effects that shall be covered are given in
section 6.3 in general and in section 6.6.2 for connectors. The
intent is to require considerations of all loadings that can cause
significant stresses in the components. Typical loads which
shall be considered are pressure, temperature, and external load
effects (bending moment, axial load and torque). For
connectors and connections additional loads apply, i.e. makeup/break-out loads (torque, bending and tension) and remaining
preload after make-up have to be considered.
External loads are typically environmental (waves, current
and vessel offset/motions) and functional (weight, buoyancy,
contents and applied top tension). External load effects are
determined by global riser analysis. Accidental loads may be
caused by abnormal environmental induced load effects, loss of
vessel station keeping, anchor line failure or motion
compensator lock-up.
Static failure modes that lead to immediate failure like:

o Structural failure modes: bursting, plastic collapse,
local strain, brittle fracture, local buckling (wrinkling),
ratcheting (progressive plastic deformation), thread
unzipping (jump out), dog disengagement, backdriving of locking mechanism.
o Functional failure modes: seal/gasket leakage (small
volume leakage), preload exceedance, loss of preload,
galling, failure to unlock, loss of multi make/break
performance, loss of locking mechanism performance,
loss of interchangeability, failure to operate
mechanism to seal the well bore.
Static failure modes that lead to delayed failure:
o Structural failure mode: environmental assisted
cracking (service environment).
o Functional failure mode: erosion, corrosion.
Cyclic failure modes that lead to delayed failure like:
o Structural failure mode: fatigue failure, back driving of
locking mechanism, unscrewing.
o Functional failure mode: seal/gasket leakage due to
fretting.
Large volume leakage shall be considered as structural

failure mode. Static failure modes that lead to delayed failure
are normally avoided by:
Material selection to avoid failure due to environmental

assisted cracking.
Using corrosion/erosion allowance in combination with
coating/cathodic protection is used to avoid failure due to
erosion and corrosion.
Many of these failure modes are addressed by calculations and

others by material selection. However, some of the failure
modes have to be addressed by testing. Seal/gasket leakage due
to fretting is normally avoided by using preloaded connectors
and gaskets which are kept in position during cyclic loading.
Compared to 17D and Div.3, ISO-7 includes failure modes
which also are applicable to connectors. 17D considers only
explicit plastic collapse for pressure and rated external loads.
Div. 3 includes plastic collapse, local failure, buckling and
fatigue for pressure vessels. The vessels involved are generally
an internally pressurized thick-walled cylinder. Little guidance
is given for external loads and connectors.
Global riser analysis

The aim of the global riser analysis is to establish the
operating limitations of the riser system for all operating modes
as well as calculate the fatigue life of the system components
together with recommended inspection intervals. The C/WO
riser load effects are mainly caused by vessel motions and
direct environmental loads are required, see 6.3.4 ISO-7.
Global riser analysis is carried out using a non-linear approach.
One or combinations of the following methods may be applied
to establish load effects to determine operation limitations:
Regular (design) wave analysis in time domain;

Irregular wave analysis in frequency domain;
Irregular wave analysis in time domain.
The irregular wave analysis term refers to modelling of

water particle motions and vessel motions. Irregular wave
analysis in time domain is the preferred method. If regular
wave analysis or frequency domain analysis is used, validation
against irregular wave should be carried out.
The C/WO riser system global analysis models include the
subsea tree and wellhead primary load bearing components in
order to accurately predict load effects of the subsea well
intervention system.
The performance and operating limitations of the well
intervention system are established by global system load
analyses with all relevant design load conditions to determine
load effects and utilization of component capacities in addition
to vessel response limitations, e.g. top compensator stroke.
Extreme and accidental loads may be caused by abnormal
environmental induced load effects, loss of vessel station
keeping, anchor line failure or motion compensator lock-up.
The external load effects determined by global riser
analysis are given as bending moment, effective tension and
torque. This forms the basis for requiring component capacities
as closed form formulas using effective tension and bending
moment to simplify code checks.
There is a link between system requirements through
global load and load effect analysis (Clause 6), Annex B
(Operational modes and global riser analysis) and system
integration testing (validation and verification). The global riser
analysis covered in Clause 6 and Annex B is a system
verification and validation activity and is independent of the
determination of component structural and functional
capacities. Global riser analysis is a system engineering activity
performed for new, used and rental C/WO riser systems.
There has been some discussion in how to combine and
determine design load effects. The following is proposed in
17G. Design load effects, Ftot, may be combined taking into
account their probability of simultaneous occurrence. Static
(mean) load components, Fi,mean, and dynamic (varying) load
components, Fi,amp, which are statically independent may be
combined according the following formulae, DNV-OS-H102:
= = ,
+ = ,
Dynamic load components may include load effects from

waves/swell, vessel motions and top tension (hysteresis). Static
load components may include loads from pressure, temperature,
currents, tide, surge, top tension, weight, buoyancy, vessel
offset, and wellhead inclination.
MATERIAL AND FABRICATION
General
Clause 7 in ISO-7 includes requirements and guidelines for
material selection, manufacture, testing, corrosion protection,
fabrication and documentation. ISO-7 is restricted to seamless
pipes, forged components, fasteners and seal rings (metallic and
non-metallic). For welding, ISS-7 is limited to girth welds and
overlay welds.
Materials for high pressure components in the primary load
path of the riser require a combination of high structural
strength, high fatigue strength, high toughness and large section
thickness. Thicker wall components are more difficult to heat
treat and can have lower toughness. Higher strength materials
are more susceptible to environmental cracking. Wave induced
cyclic external loads require material with high fatigue quality
especially for shallow water applications. Pressure induced
stresses at the bore (inside) surfaces will increase with
increasing pressure rating which reduces the cyclic pressure life
and increases the susceptibility to environmental cracking.
These demands require robust material selection, manufacture
process, and quality control.
Material selection
Section 7.2.1 gives the material selection requirements.
Materials are to be selected with due consideration to
internal/external media, loads, temperature, possible failure
modes and maintenance. The selection of materials is to ensure
that the requirements to materials are considered for all
components in the C/WO riser system. The following material
characteristics are considered:
Mechanical and physical properties

Weldability
Environmental assisted cracking
Corrosion resistance
Wear resistance
A robust material selection includes a careful selection of

the chemical composition to ensure weldability (carbon
equivalent), avoid environmental assisted cracking, prevent
brittle fracture (toughness) and ensure sufficient hardenability
to meet the minimum mechanical property requirements
through the critical cross sections, see sections 7.2.7, 7.2.8 and
7.2.9 in ISO-7.
(3)
Environmental assisted cracking (service environment)

Section 7.2.4 and 7.2.9 give requirements to reduce the risk
for environmental assisted cracking. Environmental assisted
cracking (e.g. hydrogen induced stress cracking, hydrogen
embrittlement and sulfide-stress cracking) is a non-ductile
premature failure that is caused by:
Tensile stress (applied and residual stress) applied over a

certain time;
Susceptible material, e.g. microstructure and inclusion
distribution;
Presence of hydrogen (H+) in the material, e.g. from
manufacture and/or charged from external source like sour
service (H2S) or cathodic protection (CP).
For environmental assisted cracking to take place all three

conditions must be met simultaneously. The component needs
to be in a particular crack promoting environment, the
component must be made of a susceptible material, and there
must be sustained tensile stresses above some minimum
threshold value. An externally applied load is not required as
the tensile stresses may be due to residual stresses in the
material or preload stresses. The threshold stresses are
sometimes below the yield strength of the material.
All applied loads expect momentary loads are normally
considered. It has been an industry practice to neglect loads that
act on a component for less than a couple of minutes or
sometimes less than to 1 hour. Accidental loads may induce
permanent deformations and build residual stresses and strains
into the components. These permanent, residual stresses and
strains are then considered.
All metallic materials exposed to or likely to be exposed to
well-bore fluids that contain H2S shall be selected and qualified
in accordance with ANSI/NACE MR0175/ISO 15156, 7.2.4 in
ISO-7.
Table 3 Environmental assisted cracking limitations
Environment
Requirement
Cathodic protection in seawater
Actual yield strength1, max
950 MPa (140 ksi)
Hardness, max
35 HRC/330 HBW
H2S service2, hardness, max
Forging
22 HRC/237 HBW
Bolting A320 L7M
99 HRB/228 HBW
Tubulars T95 API 5CT
25,4 HRC/255 HBW
Pipes X70QS API 5L
22 HRC/250 HV10
1
2
Proposed for 17G.

ANSI/NACE MR0175/ISO 15156
Present industry practice is to avoid environmental assisted

cracking by selecting materials with limited hardness and yield
strength, see Table 3, which also is given in ISO-7.
Environmental effects on mechanical properties are normally
neglected when these limitations are fulfilled in CP
environments.
Post weld heat treatment is performed of all welds exposed

to well bore fluids to reduce residual stresses, hardness and
hydrogen content and hence reduce the risk for environmental
assisted cracking, see 7.4.1 in ISO-7. Repair by welding is not
acceptable for seamless pipes, forgings, fasteners and seal rings
as sealing and fatigue performance will be degraded.
Div.3 does not include environmental assisted cracking due
to H2S and CP. 17D refers to ANSI/NACE MR0175/ISO 15156
and restricts hardness due to CP, however, no guidance on
allowable tensile stress for H2S service is not given.
Materials and manufacturing specifications
Section 7.2.2, 7.2.3, 7.3.3.1 and 7.3.3.2 gives requirements
to materials and manufacturing speculations. Steel making,
chemical composition, manufacture process and associated
quality are key elements to obtain high quality materials, see
Figure 3. A material specification is to be prepared stating the
material requirements. Manufacture is to be performed in
accordance to a qualified manufacturing procedure
specification of a prequalified manufacturer. The manufacture
procedure specification shall address the following to obtain
high strength, high ductility, high toughness and high quality
CALAS:
Steel making and refining practice

o Allowable melting practice(s)
o Fully killed, fine grain and clean steel
o Ingot type/size
Chemical composition with tolerances
o Reduce impurity elements like sulfur and phosphorus
with increasing strength
o Increase hardenability elements with thickness
Manufacture process and quality control
o Forging techniques, hot work ratios and forged to
shape as close as possible
o Heat treatment, e.g. furnace loading/ unloading, time,
temperature control, quenching
o Critical regions/sections identified for
Mechanical properties (significant loading)
Surface NDT (fatigue quality of notches)
o Representative mechanical testing from
Sacrificial forging
Qualified prolongation
All components shall be within specified dimensions and
surface roughness (sealing surfaces and fatigue hot spots).
Full traceability from heat to heat treatment lot and final
product.
Material certification (material certificates or test reports)
to comply with ISO 10474 3.1.
ISO-7 uses generally more stringent material requirements than

6A/17D. 6A uses a constant safety factor of 1.50 (allowable
stress of 67 % of yield strength) independent of PSL level. 17D
uses 6A PSL3. 6A/17D does not include extreme and accidental
load conditions which ISO-7 considers. The next sections will
10
give more details with respect to ductility requirement,

toughness requirements and representative mechanical testing
in ISO-7.
Representative material testing of forgings
Forgings in ISO-7 use the same design factors as pipes;
hence, the forgings should have the similar confidence in
mechanical properties during production as for pipes, see DNV
F101/F201. A pipe has always a prolongation and the shape is
known. This forms the background for requiring high quality
mechanical testing during production, see 7.2.8 and 7.3.3.3 in
ISO-7.
Hardenability is the main challenge with CALAS forgings
where the key essential variables for production are chemistry
and size (thickness) at the time of heat treatment. Selection of
CALAS forging materials (F22, 8630, 4340, 4130) shall be
based upon verified hardenability through the critical cross
sections of the forged components in the final condition.
Verification shall include a review of mechanical properties and
microstructure.
For critical cross section representative testing means that
minimum mechanical requirements are required throughout the
entire critical cross-section of the component. This may not be
the thickest section of the component where the sizes are
governed by functional requirements, e.g. elastic deformations
(stiffness) or start of yielding, and hence relatively low applied
stresses. For thicker non critical sections (low utilization)
fracture mechanics (FM) testing and an engineering critical
assessment is performed to document that the component is fit
for purpose.
Production testing of mechanical properties in ISO-7 is
performed per heat and heat treatment load and is performed on
material taken from:
structural safety margin than intended. It should be noted that

6A require prolongation testing for tools, see Annex H in 6A.
17D refers to ISO-7 for extreme and accidental load conditions
without specifying use of prolongation or sacrificial forgings to
ensure representative mechanical testing.
Figure 6 Representative sampling for mechanical testing

Ductile failure mode
General
Yield before fracture is the prevailing philosophy in the
design of critical pressure-containing components in the
primary load path in ISO-7. It is assumed that the components
have sufficient ductility to accommodate the required plastic
flow and deformation without premature failure, see Figure 7.
a qualified integral prolongation of the component or

a sacrificial production forging.
The mechanical properties at the prolongation during

production shall be representative the critical cross section of
the component. In other words, the mechanical properties
determined at the prolongation shall ensure that the minimum
requirements are met at the critical cross section. Note that
prolongations may affect the mechanical properties of forging
compared to a forging without a prolongation. Figure 6 shows
some examples of sampling for mechanical testing.
API 6A allows for use of separate qualified test coupons
(QTCs) for checking mechanical properties of pressurecontaining components. The results from a separate QTC might
not always correspond with the properties of the actual
components. Experience has shown that mechanical properties,
especially CVN impact energy values vary significantly from
the material properties of the actual components. Reduction in
tensile strength in the range of 20-30 % and reduction in CVN
values more than 50 % are not uncommon. Brittle failure has
occurred due to improper testing after manufacturing by use of
separate QTCs, Koneti et al (2013). This may result in a lower
Figure 7 Load-deformation characteristics of components

Plastic collapse analysis implicitly assumes that the
material possesses sufficient post-yield ductility and toughness
to ensure that the plastic collapse analysis is appropriate for the
component. It is assumed that the components fail in a ductile
manner and not in a brittle manner. Brittle manner
includes unstable fracture, buckling and thread unzipping.
Ductile manner means that the component has a
11
strength/deformation reserve beyond the plastic collapse

capacity (limit load).
Ductile structural design
A component may be brittle even if it is made of ductile
and tough materials, e.g. when there are sudden changes in
section properties which give high constraint (triaxiality).
Ductile design, e.g. low triaxiality/constraint, implies use of
smooth transitions/notches/grooves and rounded thread roots
with radius or elliptical transitions, see Figure 8.
strength beyond yield strength, energy absorption and

allow for some shake-down in the component.
Charpy V-notch impact energy or fracture toughness (i.e.
resistance to the extension of a crack) is given to prevent
unstable (brittle) fracture for small defects, i.e. damage
tolerant design and is also used as a quality measure for
manufacture.
Table 4 Ductility and CVN requirements for CALAS

Property
Requirement
Ductility
Minimum elongation after fracture
16 %1
Minimum reduction in area
35 %
Maximum yield/tensile ratio
0.922
3
Impact energy requirements
Minimum average CVN impact energy
40 J (30 ft lb)
1
Proposed to increase to 18 % in API 17G 3rd ed.

Proposed to be 0.90 for forgings and fasteners in API 17G 3rd ed.
3 Full size specimens at minimum design temperature in transverse direction.
2
Figure 8 Examples of brittle (3) and ductile designs (1,2)

Further design considerations are given in ISO-7 to ensure
ductile failure modes are:
Girth welds shall be stronger than base material to protect
(shield) welds from plastic deformation.
Welds shall be post weld heat treated (stress relieved).
Connectors should be stronger than the connecting pipe.
Block bodies (e.g. EDP, LRP, SFT) have a capacity greater
than the end connectors.
Ductility and toughness
Because of the use of high strength materials, it is essential
that all components and welds have sufficient ductility and
toughness to avoid unstable fracture. Mechanical property
requirements for CALAS to ensure failure in a ductile manner
are given in Table 4, which includes the following parameters:
Elongation is given to ensure sufficient uniaxial strain

capacity.
Reduction in area which is an indicator of forging ratio and
influence the multi-axial strain capacity.
Maximum yield strength to tensile strength ratio is given to
ensure minimum strain hardening to ensure reserve
Fracture toughness is preferably quantified by fracture

mechanics testing and determination of crack tip opening
displacement (CTOD) or J-integral. However, due to its
simplicity, low cost and vast amount of existing data, CVN
testing is generally applied for production testing. CVN impact
tests are required for all pressure-containing components and
for all components in the primary load path. Specifying
material Charpy impact requirements has historically been
applied to help prevent brittle fracture. ISO-7 requires
minimum average CVN impact energy of 40 J (30 ft lb) at
minimum design temperature in transverse or critical direction
with limitations regarding yield strength and thickness. Fracture
mechanics testing is part of the qualification for high strength
thick materials. For example fracture mechanics testing and
analysis are required when the thickness exceeds 40 mm (1,57
in) for yield strength 560 MPa (81 ksi). See Annex A for
CVN requirements proposed for 17G.
6A/17D PSL3 requires minimum CVN energy 20 J (15 ft
lb) independent of wall thickness and yield strength. It should
be noted that 17D refers to ISO-7 regarding extreme and
accidental load conditions, i.e. for 1.2 and 1.5 times rated load,
without increasing the CVN energy requirement. Div.3 and
B31.3 IX require 40J (30 ft lb) impact energy. Div.2 has
similar requirements as in Annex A; however, minimum impact
energy is 27 J (20 ft lbf).
Non-destructive testing at fatigue sensitive locations
NDT requirements are given in 7.2.17, 7.3.3.4, 7.4.3 and
7.5 of ISO-7. NDT methods selected shall be suitable for
detection of the type of defect considered detrimental to the
safety and integrity of the components. All components shall be
100 % surface and volume tested as far as practical for both
surface and volumetric (internal) imperfections.
Personnel responsible for all NDT activities shall be
qualified and certified (3rd party) to Level 3 according to ISO
9712 or equivalent. NDT personnel shall be qualified and
12
certified (3rd party) to Level 2 according to ISO 9712 or

equivalent. API 6A allows use of the recommended practice
ASNT-TC-1A with manufacturer (2nd party) certification. As
NDT quality control is an important part of the quality control,
ISO-7 therefore refers to a standard instead of a recommended
practice.
NDT detection capability and acceptance criteria shall
reflect design requirements for the actual component and
application. NDT shall be performed with qualified procedures.
The selected NDT method should demonstrate its capability to
detect the defined flaw reliably. Annex E of BS7910 indicates
detection capabilities of different NDT methods.
Ultrasonic testing is selected as the primary method for
volumetric testing. Ultrasonic testing is preferred for detecting
linear defects in comparison to radiographic testing. Ultrasonic
scan plans shall be developed for ultrasonic testing as part of
the procedure to demonstrate volumetric coverage.
Fatigue failure often initiates from surface breaking
defects, either at outer or inner (back) surfaces, hence highly
sensitive NDT methods such as wet fluorescent magnetic
particle testing (WFMT) are used in the final machined
condition of forged components and welds. For girth welds
ultrasonic testing may be performed by semi-automated phased
array and time of flight diffraction (TOFD) to improve
detection capability compared to manual ultrasonic testing.
The NDT requirements in ISO-7 are similar to PSL 3 in
API 6A for forgings, but there is increased emphasis on surface
NDT to detect small crack like flaws that may be initiation sites
for fatigue cracks. No crack like defects is acceptable at fatigue
sensitive locations (hot spots). Fatigue hot spots shall be
identified on design drawings. Crack like defects found at
fatigue hot spots are normally repaired by blend grinding
without weld repair for ISO-7 components.
TESTING
Clause 8 of ISO-7 establishes minimum requirements for
pressure testing, qualification testing, function testing and
system integration tests.
All pressure-containing components and welds are required
to be subjected to a full hydrostatic pressure testing as part of
the factory acceptance test. The full pressure test is 1.5 times
the RWP which is the same as 6A/17D. The hydrostatic test
pressure for Div.3 is 1.25 times the RWP.
This is equivalent to 17D requirements. It should be noted
that the test pressure is governing the wall thickness in 17D/6A,
and not the design pressure. In ISO-7 the design pressure is
governing the pressure based wall thickness.
Div.3 requires use of elastic-plastic finite element analysis
without strain hardening for hydrostatic test conditions and not
with strain hardening as for the other load conditions.
STATIC ANALYSIS AND CAPACITY
General
Annex D contains requirements for calculating the static

capacities of components and connectors. ISO-7 is primarily a
design-by-analysis code, i.e. finite element analysis is applied
to determine the static capacity a component. The yield strength
used in structural capacity calculations are the minimum of
yield strength and 90% of tensile strength. Design-by-formulae
is also allowed for simple geometries like cylinders/pipes. ISO7 covers only load controlled design methods, i.e. where limits
are given to the allowable applied load and not, as for strain
based design methods as used for pipelines for reeling, where
limits are given to allowable applied strain.
Material strength derating starts at 50C (120 F) and
follows Div.3 and DNV F101/F201. Any corrosion allowance
and non-lead bearing weld overlays are not included in the
capacity calculations. API 6A/6X starts derating when the
internal fluid temperature exceeds 121 C (250 F).
Definition of plastic collapse capacity
Plastic collapse load in ISO-7 is defined as the limit load
based on hand calculations or elastic-plastic analysis without
material strain hardening and with large deformation theory.
ISO-7 uses the same method as used in Div.3 (before 2007).
For internal pressure and tension this means through the
thickness yielding and for bending full cross section yielding or
plastic hinge. The basis for this selection was to:
Use same definition as used in elastic analysis for pressure

and axial loads;
Use analytical based limit loads solutions available, see
Gerdeen et al (1979), Kirkemo (2001) and Kalnins (2003);
The limit load for most common high strength materials
will not be excessively conservative because of the yield to
tensile strength ration is high (e.g. 0.8-0.9);
Loads above limit load (100 % yield strength) can result in
excessive deformations and strains;
Have a slight reserve between limit load and true plastic
collapse load (e.g. 10-15 %).
Analysis (calculation) methods

General
Since the introduction of elastic analysis in Div. 2 in 1968,
non-linear finite element analysis (FEA) codes have developed.
The elastic stress analysis method provides an approximation
for determination of the limit load. However, since it has been
used for many years, it is still permitted for simple geometries.
Elastic-plastic methods provide a more accurate assessment of
the plastic collapse load of a component relative to the elastic
method because the actual structural behavior is more closely
approximated. The redistribution of stress that occurs as a
result of inelastic deformation (plasticity) and deformation
characteristics of the component are considered directly in the
analysis. This is reflected in ISO-7 which recommends use of
non-linear FEA of components as Div.2/Div.3. Two alternative
analysis (numerical calculation) methods are provided to
establish plastic collapse capacities, see Figure 9:
13
1.
2.
Elastic stress analysis method

Elastic-plastic stress analysis method
It is seen from Figure 9 that elastic-plastic analysis stress

methods compares better with actual physical testing than
elastic stress analysis methods. This is of importance when
comparisons are made to actual physical tests and calculate
accurate capacities.
Design by analysis, i.e. using elastic finite element analysis
in design, was introduced by ASME for nuclear applications in
1964 and for pressure vessels and boilers by Div.2 in 1968. All
these routes lead to the same well-known problems, especially
the stress categorization problem and 3D stress fields, Hechmer
and Hollinger (1988) and Kalnins and Updike (1991), and all
are now out-of-step with the continuing development of
computer software and hardware. For preloaded connections it
is not possible to separate applied stresses into primary and
secondary with elastic analysis. Elastic analysis cannot be used
to calculate bending moment capacities due to the inherent
limitation of checking thickness stresses and not section
stresses. Div.3 indicates limitations to elastic methods to shells
with D/t ratio less 10. Functional capacities have to be
determined by elastic-plastic analysis methods as linear elastic
analysis methods cannot simulate local yielding which affects
functionality.
Von Mises yield criterion is recommended, however, the

Tresca yield criterion (stress intensity) may also be applied. The
Tresca yield criterion ignores the third (intermediate) principal
stress. The more accurate, but more complex, von Mises yield
criterion considers all three principal stresses. The Tresca
criterion is a little (0% to 15 %) more conservative than Mises.
The effect of non-linear geometry (large displacement theory)
and nonlinear contact is applied in the analysis to improve the
accuracy of the predicted plastic collapse load, e.g. unzipping
combined with ovalisation for threaded connectors.
When selecting analysis methods it is important that the
calculated plastic collapse load compares well with testing and
gives consistent safety margins independent of pressure rating.
Elastic stress analysis method
Stresses are computed using an elastic analysis, linearized
at governing cross sections of the component and classified into
categories, and limited to allowable values such that the plastic
collapse load can be established. This requires knowledge of
governing sections of the component and extensive postprocessing, involving linearization of the stresses into primary,
secondary and peak, as well as membrane and bending, see
Figure 10. For complex components, especially 3D stress
fields, and/or bending moments this method requires significant
knowledge and judgment as part of the analysis. Elastic stress
analysis can validate through-thickness yielding for pressure
and tension loads, however, not directly applicable for
establishing bending capacity where plastic hinge of the
component is the failure mode.
Figure 9 Load against deformation

Pressure and tension capacities can be determined by 2D
models with axisymmetric geometry. For bending and nonaxisymmetric geometry (e.g. bolt holes, bolts, and latch dogs)
3D FEA is performed. In case of compressive stresses and risk
for buckling, imperfections shall be explicitly considered in the
analysis model geometry.
Both elastic and elastic-plastic analysis includes contact
elements between contacting bodies and large deformations.
Unfavorable combinations of dimensions and coefficient of
friction are used in the analysis. The inherent safety is reduced
with higher material grades; hence the yield strength to be
applied in analysis has been limited to 90 % of the tensile
strength.
Figure 10 Illustration of through wall stress linearization
Elastic-plastic stress analysis method

Elastic-plastic stress analysis does not require
categorization into primary and secondary stresses as elastic
stress analysis requires. The elastic-plastic analysis includes
true stress-true strain curve and isotropic strain hardening. The
load is applied in increments. Locations within the component
which start to yield are identified. Iterations are necessary at
14
each load increment to satisfy equilibrium due to non-linear

geometry and non-linear material behavior. A plastic collapse
load is derived from an elastic-plastic analysis considering both
the applied loading and deformation characteristics of the
component.
For elastic-plastic analysis without strain hardening the
true stress-strain curve shall use the model given in Div.3 KD231.4 with a cut off at the yield strength, see Figure 11. It is
important to model stress-strain curve with yield at 0,2 %
plastic strain when considering functional failure modes, i.e.
loss of preload due to local yielding. The curves given Div.3
KD-231.4 may be used in cases where the actual stress-strain
curves are not available. For steels which exhibit a yield
discontinuity (Lders strain or yield plateau) in the stress-strain
curve, the yield discontinuity should be included in the stressstrain curve. BS 7910 (2013) gives some guidance on
modelling yield discontinuity. Actual stress-strain curves have
to be corrected to represent minimum specified values if
applied.
Figure 11 True stress-true total strain curves

Elastic failure criteria
Plastic collapse capacity criteria
Plastic collapse load in ISO-7 is defined as the limit load
based on hand calculations or use of non-linear finite element
analysis. First, stresses are categorized into two types with
different stress limits. The two categories of stress are primary
and secondary. Primary stresses are load controlled; secondary
stresses are displacement controlled. Primary and secondary
stresses can be membrane or bending. The stresses are then
linearized over the wall thickness in the principal directions.
The stresses are linearized into two elements; membrane stress
and bending stress. The membrane stress is a uniform stress
that is in force equilibrium with the actual stress distribution.
The bending stress is a linear bending stress that is in moment
equilibrium with the actual stress distribution (throughthickness). The peak stress is the maximum stress of the actual
stress distribution. This is illustrated in Figure 10. At the plastic
collapse load the primary membrane is limited to 100 % of
yield strength and the primary membrane bending is limited to
150 % of yield strength. This is consistent with present Div.3

requirements.
Local stress criteria
ISO-7 does not include any triaxial stress limitations. Div.3
limits the algebraic sum of the three principal stresses,
including the primary, secondary and peak stresses to 2.5 times
the yield strength. 17G proposes to use the Div.3 requirements.
Functional criteria
In a linear-elastic analysis, the material is assumed to be
linear elastic although the stresses are higher than the yield
strength. This means that elastic analysis is not applicable for
validating functional performance of components like bolted
flanged connectors and threaded connectors where local
yielding will occur and affect functionality, i.e. leak tightness
and loss of preload.
Elastic-plastic failure criteria
Global criteria
In ISO-7 the plastic collapse load is taken as the load that
causes 2% total primary membrane strain across the load
carrying cross section for a material model that include strain
hardening, see Figure 11. This strain limit is based on the Div.3
strain limit used for determination of collapse pressure by
testing (KD-1253). The collapse load is evaluated with the load
that causes yielding through the entire thickness of a cross
section or the load generating a plastic hinge. Furthermore, load
sharing between parts in a component/connector are evaluated
at the plastic collapse load. Large deformations are applied to
improve accuracy where finite deformations influence the
results, e.g. ovalisation due to bending and unzipping of
threaded connectors.
For some components, the 2 % strain criteria have been
time consuming to apply, e.g. for threaded connector. Based on
this experience it is proposed for 17G to allow for the use of
elastic-plastic stress-strain curve without strain hardening, see
Figure 11. The plastic collapse capacity is taken as the load that
causes structural instability. Div.3 (post 2007) allows for this
method.
Before 2007 Div.3 used ideal elastic, perfectly plastic (nonstrain hardening), and required a margin of minimum 2.0
against the calculated collapse load. After 2007 Div.3 use
elastic-plastic stress strain curve with strain hardening and
requires a margin of 1.8 against the calculated collapse load.
Local failure criteria
It is necessary to limit local strains in areas with high
stress/strain concentration, such as notches and thread roots, to
avoid local rupture before plastic collapse. A local strain
criterion is given in ISO-7 which limits the equivalent von
Mises plastic strain at any point in a component as follows:
15
[ . ; .
(x)
This typically will limit the local plastic strain to be limited to

5% to 10 % depending on the yield to tensile strength ratio.
Weld overmatch is assumed to shield the welds, i.e. weld roots
and caps/undercuts are not included as part of the local strain
criteria. Local strain limits also apply to geometric
strengthening components, i.e. snap through problems where
bending stress is transformed to a membrane stress. The local
strain criterion was inspired by the 5 % local criteria in Div.3
(1997). It is well known that local strain limits depend on
triaxiality (constraint). The plastic strain limit is reduced with
increased stress tension triaxiality or constraint and increased
with increased stress compression triaxiality or constraint.
When ISO-7 was written the local criterion was believed to be a
simple but conservative local strain criterion for design with
low constraint.
In 2007 Div.3 introduced a new local strain criterion which
depends on local constraint or local stress triaxiality in addition
to yield strength, tensile strength, elongation to failure and
reduction of area. Failure is defined as when the material begins
to show micro-void formation or cracking at the stress
concentrations with high triaxial stresses (constraint). This
criterion is based on testing of notched tensile specimens. Div.3
puts a design margin of 1.8 (Fd=0.55) on the load causing
global failure, but uses only a design margin of 1.28 (Fd=0.78)
on load causing local failure in a FEA model. ISO-7 limits
plastic strains at the limit load or plastic collapse load
(Fd=1.00).
The yield-before-break approach in 17G is to avoid local
sharp notches (ductile design) and to use tough materials to
avoid premature failure from small flaws. Figure 12 shows
shallow notch/crack type geometries with increasing constraint.
Cracks will always have the higher triaxial tensile stresses than
rounded notches with equal depth. Experience from full scale
testing to failure of notched components, e.g. such as thread
roots with small radii (less than 0.05 mm/0.002 in), have not
shown any local failure. However, 17G is evaluating the ASME
criterion in the updating process.
Notch
Crack depth
Notch depth
Local ductule failure
Unstable/stable crack growth

Increasing degree of constraint
Figure 12 Notches and cracks with increasing constraint

Functional criteria
The design of components shall be such that any
permanent deformations caused by local yielding when
subjected to hydrostatic test pressure and other relevant
external load conditions shall not impair the functionality of the
component. Examples of local plastic strain which affect
functionality are connector loss of preload and gasket leak
tightness performance. The plastic collapse criteria and local

strain criteria may be satisfied, but the functionality is not
satisfactory. The manufacturers have to set these local strain
criteria applicable for the component, see D.2.4 in ISO-7.
Pipe/cylinder capacity equations
Limit load based pipe/cylinder capacity equations for thin
walled pipes subjected to pressure and bending are given by
Rodabaugh (1979). Analytically based, closed form limit load
pipe capacity equations, independent of pressure and diameter
to wall thickness ratio, were presented by presented by
Kirkemo (2001) and are given as follows for pi po:
||
= (
||
= (
, )
(4)
(5)
(6)
= [
=
= (
(7)
(8)
(9)
These equations were validated against tests and nonlinear

finite element analysis, Kirkemo (2001), and are valid for both
low and high pressure, i.e. independent of diameter to thickness
ratio. The limit loads for combined loading are found by setting
F d=1.00. The plastic moment capacity Mc corresponds to
yielding of the cross section, i.e. plastic hinge. The plastic
tension capacity Tc corresponds is the load which produces
yield over the cross section.
The fundamental failure mode of concern for a pressurecontaining component is burst. When increasing pressure in a
cylinder, there are three points which are reached as the
pressure is increased from ambient to final rupture:
Initial bore yield

Through-thickness yield
Ultimate rupture
The internal bore pressure which cause initial yielding in

the bore is called the initial yield pressure or yield pressure.
Initial bore yield pressure is a functional concern more than a
pressure boundary concern. As pressure increases, yielding
progress though the wall until the fibers at the outside surface
begin to yield. This is referred to as through-thickness yield
16
pressure or plastic pressure capacity, see Equation (8). Equation

(8) applies for a capped end pipe or for an axially restrained
pipe. Since most of the materials are ductile and will strain
harden, the pressure can be increased beyond the through the
thickness yield pressure before bursting of the pipe/cylinder
occurs.
Equations (4), (5) and (6) limit resulting axial
(longitudinal) loads (e.g. bending and effective tension) of the
pipe/cylinder when subjected to internal pressure.
It is proposed in 17G to change the burst capacity equation
in ISO-7 to limit any permanent deformations during FAT
pressure testing for cylinders with low yield to tensile ratio
given. Present pipe/cylinder burst capacity equation in ISO-7 is
,
= , ( + )
(10)
Equation (4) is slightly modified in 17G compared to ISO-7 in

order to be consistent with API Spec 2RD (2013).
Component/connector load capacity envelopes (charts)
The load capacity envelopes are determined by single load
capacity analysis and some combined load capacity analysis to
validate the combined load interaction relationship. The
component or connector is subject to make-up, hydrostatic test
and then loaded to structural failure. The plastic collapse
capacity is then determined. It must be shown that shakedown
occurs within two RWL cycles.
The structural and functional load capacities are presented
as closed formed equations like bore pressure vs. bending
moment for different tension levels. For flanges where the
bolting is governing the closed form may be presented as
effective tension vs. moment. Note that sealing diameters are
given in order to calculate capacities for different pressures.
(11)
(12)
The line with arrow against the origin indicates the change
in capacity with increasing tension. Note the maximum
pressure is limited to design pressure. Closed form capacity
equations are determined for both structural and functional
failure modes.
Several interaction equations may be provided for one
connector in case a simple linear relation as suggested above
gives sufficient accuracy. Internal pressure may give global
expansion, hence, increase thread engagement for threaded
connectors, and thereby preventing unzipping and nonconservative tension/bending capacities. This non-conservative
tension/bending capacity shall not be used, hence, T c/Mc, shall
in these cases only be based on tension only without any
internal pressure.
FATIGUE ANALYSIS AND CAPACITY
General
Annex C contains requirements for the calculation of the
fatigue capacities of components. It should be noted that
connectors may leak or unscrew during cyclic loading,
however, these failure modes are not covered by Annex C.
Limitations with respect to material strength, environment, and
temperature are given in the referred codes like DNV-RP-C203,
BS 7608, BS 7910 and ASME FFS-1. ISO-7 covers only high
cycle fatigue, i.e. stress-life, and not low cycle fatigue, i.e.
strain-life.
Methods for calculating fatigue capacity
Fatigue capacities may be performed by the following:
Figure 13 Connector load capacity envelopes

Figure 13 illustrates a linear capacity chart. As an
alternative to this capacity chart, the connector capacity may be
given by effective tension-moment-pressure (Te-M-p)
interaction equations in the format of:
Methods based upon fatigue tests (S-N curves for normally

sound connections) and estimation of cumulative damage
(Palmgren-Miner rule);
Methods based upon fracture mechanics (fatigue crack
growth predictions of flawed components);
Direct experimental approach by fatigue testing of
components representing given manufacturer methods of
production;
Combination of calculations and full scale fatigue testing,
e.g. for connectors.
The fatigue capacity should in general be based on S-N

data, determined by fatigue testing of a representative
component and the linear damage hypothesis (PalmgrenMiner). The S-N method of fatigue analysis is the primary
design tool used to assess fatigue resistance of C/WO riser
components due to its simplicity and efficiency. As discussed
earlier in this paper, the S-N approach may be used due to the
safe life design philosophy applied in ISO-7. Annex D
17
compares S-N and FM calculation methods for a simple

example.
The S-N method may be applied welds, seamless pipe,
machined components and fasteners, see Table 5. The S-N
relationships for the various structural detail classes as shown
by some examples in Table 5, have been based on statistical
analysis of available experimental data. In general fracture
mechanics is not a suitable design method, as the results are
dependent to a very large extent, upon the assumptions which
are made regarding the size of the initial flaw(s), the shape of
the resulting fatigue crack, and the local stress fields normal to
the assumed crack growth plane. All this information is not
usually available at the design stage for all components, e.g.
welds, fasteners, connectors. Therefore, if fracture mechanics is
used at the design stage, assumptions have to be conservative.
Table 5 S-N curves and fatigue lives DNV-RP-C203
Description
S-N curve
Life/W31
Weld/detail
Geometry/hotspot
F1
5,40
F3
3,80
Single-sided
girth weld
D
16
Seamless
pipe
Machined
component
Fastener
B1
111
SCF=1
SCF=3
SCF=1
HS
SCF=3
F1 (rolled)
W3 (cut)
111
34
921
4
5,4
1,0
B1
The recommended design method or method to determine the

fatigue capacity is the S-N approach due to its simplicity
To extend the fatigue life of components in service, the
updated fatigue capacities may be determined by fracture
mechanics methods where applied initial flaw size is based on
the NDT inspection detection capability applied during
inspection to extend the fatigue life.
Typical environments include, air or non-corrosive
environment, seawater environment with cathodic protection
and free corrosion and sour service. Sour service reduces the
fatigue capacity. Present practice in North Sea has been to
assume free corrosion environment S-N curves for well fluid
wetted fatigue hot spots (bore) in cases with sour service.
Buitrago et al (2008) and Hudak et al (2012) report a
degradation factors on fatigue life between 10 and 100 when
compared to fatigue life in air. Free corrosion typically gives a
degradation factor on fatigue life in the range of 3 (high stress
range) to 20 (low stress range) when compared to fatigue life in
air, see DNV-RP-C203. However, it should be noted that
C/WO risers normally are exposed to well fluids only a small
fraction of the connected time.
Fatigue capacity format
Fatigue capacities are established for all significant cyclic
loads, e.g. cyclic bending moment, cyclic internal pressure, and
cyclic tension. The fatigue capacities should be given as closed
form equations as follows for cyclic bending moment, see
Figure 14,
=
=
Fatigue life normalised with respect to W3 S-N curve at a stress range of 200
MPa (29 ksi) for seawater with cathodic protection
Fracture mechanics can, however, be a useful method for

carrying out parametric studies, where the objective is to define
the relative influence of a particular set of variables. If
appropriate, the fatigue analysis may alternatively be based on
or supplemented by fracture mechanics based fatigue
assessment. This may be relevant if the remaining life of a
cracked component is sought or if crack detection limits for
fabrication and in-service inspection NDT are of interest.
If no representative fatigue resistance data are available, a
direct experimental approach by fatigue testing of components
should be applied. This may be relevant in cases where
limitations on fatigue strength data are for temperature, material
strength and fluids to which the material is exposed.
However, fracture mechanics based fatigue analysis is used
in the following cases:
Assessing the fitness for purpose of components with

known flaws/cracks;
Extend fatigue life for components being in service.
(13)

(14)
The fatigue capacities are presented as closed form as

moment range (M) vs. number of cycles to failure (N), i.e.
M-N curves, tension range vs. number of cycles to failure and
pressure range vs. number of cycles to failure.
Figure 14 Component M-N curve

The M-N curve plot is a straight line on log-log paper, see
Figure 14. The cyclic capacity can also be presented as bilinear
18
(two-slope) or multi-linear M-N curves. Similar capacity

curves shall be established for cyclic pressure, i.e. P-N, where
P is the pressure range and N is the number of pressure cycles
to failure and for cyclic effective tension, i.e. T e-N, where Te
is the effective tension range and N is the number of cycles to
failure for cyclic effective tension.
By using elastic-plastic material stress-strain curves for
fatigue capacity calculations, local yielding in areas of high
tensile stress during make-up, pressure testing and first load
cyclic loading is accounted for. This improves the accuracy of
the calculated mean stress and cyclic stress range. Residual
compressive stresses are imposed on these areas, reducing the
mean stress on subsequent cyclic loads. For threaded
connections, linear elastic analysis often predicts the first
threads to have the highest stress concentration factors. Elasticplastic analysis has shown to predict other threads (e.g. thread
number five to seven) to be critical. Fatigue testing confirmed
these calculations.
FEA analysis and models are similar to the static capacity
3D models, contact elements between contacting bodies. If
stress ranges are in the elastic range, linear elastic stress-strain
curve may be used. For local yielding, an elastic-plastic stress
strain curve with isotropic strain hardening is used to allow for
local yielding during make-up, pressure testing and for
simulating the first load cycle. A fine mesh is required at stress
concentrations to allow for local yielding. The calculated mean
stress and stress range during a load cycle (bending, tension, or
pressure) are then entered into the S-N curve and the number of
load ranges (M, p, Te) to failure can be calculated.
Different cyclic load levels are analysed and the M-N curves
are determined. The curves are then representing the region(s)
where
the
fatigue
capacity is
lowest
in
the
connection/component. Industry practise has been to calculate
SCFs or transfer functions which are combined with the
appropriate S-N curve to calculate the fatigue life. By using MN curves, the interface and the format of capacities become
simpler and the possibilities for misunderstandings between
global analysis and component performance are reduced.
Alternatively a fracture mechanics approach may be used
assuming crack growth from an initial crack size to the final
crack size using the results from the elastic or elastic-plastic
calculations.
QUALIFICATION OF CONNECTORS
Historically, many riser connectors, particular those with
complex geometries, have been successfully qualified for
service by performance testing, e.g. ISO 13625 (API 16R), ISO
21329, ISO 13679 (API 5C5), and API 17D. These codes form
the basis for the qualification testing requirements in ISO-7.
ISO-7 test to failure to confirm the failure mechanism and the
margin between design capacities and actual failure
loads/fatigue lives. Furthermore, ISO-7 utilizes the benefits of
combining non-linear FEA and physical testing which is not the
case for the codes referred to above. Integration of FEA with
physical tests is required to make the most effective connector

qualification.
Connector qualification tests are used to demonstrate that
the design, manufacturing and assembly have resulted in
connectors conforming to calculations and specified
requirements.
Connector static and fatigue capacities are determined by
calculations and validated by full scale testing. The connector
qualification program shall consist of calculations including
finite element analysis and testing. Full scale testing is limited
to a relatively small number of test specimens due to the
fundamental benefit obtained through elastic-plastic finite
element analysis. Nevertheless, testing is also necessary to
explore performance parameters that cannot be studied
conveniently through finite element analysis, e.g. preload, wear,
galling, fretting, leak-tightness, and fatigue performance.
Figure 15 Connector qualification overview

A typical connector test program may include:
Leak tightness, both internal and external, tests to validate
the calculated internal and external fluid leak-tightness
performance. E.g. pressure/temperature cycling test, API
6A F.1.11, ending with external leak tightness test (e.g.
burp test).
Make-and-break tests are performed to determine the
ability of the connectors to resist wear and galling during
repeated make-up and seal, if applicable.
Combined pressure and external load (e.g. bending) tests
are conducted to validate the calculated structural and
functional static performance of the connector for
hydrostatic pressure test, normal, extreme and accidental
condition. Break-make may be performed after the
19
accidental condition, if applicable, before the test is

continued to destruction. Test to failure is included to
document the inherent reserves in the calculated capacities.
Bending fatigue tests are performed to validate the
calculated cyclic load performance (e.g. fatigue crack
growth, fretting, leak tightness). The need for cyclic
internal pressure test for higher pressure ratings is
discussed within API 17G. For simple connections, fatigue
capacity can be calculated with relative high confidence,
however, for complex connections with cyclic contact
pressure or fretting, no reliable calculation methods exists,
hence, testing have to be performed to get confidence in
the calculated fatigue capacities.
All full scale testing are typically performed in air in room

temperature. Make/break testing of subsea made up connectors
is performed in water due to interaction between lubrication
and water changes compared to air.
A bridging or summary document is established to correlate
and compare calculated and tested results and conclude on
performance. Figure 15 gives an overview of connector
qualification. Calculations are performed of all connectors,
however, qualification testing have to be performed when
essential parameters to the connector performance are changed.
17D requires make/break testing in air and external load
testing but no fatigue testing. 17D connectors are normally load
tested to RWL. Div.3 and 6A do not include any requirements
for qualification testing of connectors.
Qualification to ISO-7 has been performed for riser joint
connectors and for wellhead connections over the last ten years.
Experience shows that structural failure loads compare well
with elastic-plastic analysis using actual material properties and
that calculated design capacities are conservatively calculated.
Fatigue testing using DNV B1/HS S-N curve shows
conservative results compared to calculations both for welds
and notched connectors. However, contact fatigue failure has
also been experienced, which was not considered by the
designer due to lack of accepted design methods.
COMPARISONS OF DESIGN CODES
Basis
A simple cylinder made of API 6A 75K material has been
used to compare wall thicknesses and fatigue stresses for RWP
in the range of 69 MPa (10K) to 207 MPa (30K). Design
temperature is 121C (250 F).
Wall thickness comparison
Closed end cylinder is a cylinder in which the load due to
pressure acting on the closures at the ends of the cylinder is
transmitted through the cylindrical wall, creating an axial stress
in the cylindrical shell that carries the end load. The minimum
wall thickness is calculated by the following equations:
= [ (
) ]
(15)
= [ (
= [ (
= [
= [ (
.9
) ]
(16)
) ]
(17)
(18)
) ]
(19)
Note that the limits on design pressures in cylindrical

shells given Div.3 are based on a design margin of 1.732 on the
burst pressure as determined using the flow strength (average of
the yield and the tensile strengths) and Von Mises theory. 17G
is based on a design margin of 1.67 on the burst pressure as
determined by the yield strength (limit load pressure) and von
Mises theory. 6X implies a design margin of 1.52 on limit load
pressure and Tresca yield criterion or 1.75 based on limit load
and von Mises yield criterion. 6X has the same design factors
as API 16A.
Table 6 Wall thickness relative to 17G
17G1
RWP
D/t
10 Ksi
15 Ksi
20 Ksi
25 Ksi
30 Ksi
10.49
7.36
5.80
4.87
4.26
B31.3
IX2
VIII
Div 33
VII
Div 22
API
6X2
API
6A4
Yield
1.04
1.04
1.04
1.04
1.05
0.86
0.85
0.84
0.84
0.83
1.22
1.23
1.25
1.26
1.28
1.06
1.06
1.06
1.07
1.07
1.01
1.19
1.53
2.49
-
Limit load burst capacity von Mises closed end

Limit load burst capacity Tresca closed end membrane
3
Flow strength (average of yield strength and tensile strength) burst capacity
von Mises closed end
4
API 6A yield is start yielding, i.e. a functional requirement
1
Div.3 permits a thinner wall than any of the other codes,

see Table 6. The wall thicknesses required by 17G, B31.3 IX
and 6X compares well. 17G is requiring the thinnest wall of
these codes. Start yield in API 6A gives the thickest wall and
cannot be used for 30K and above. Start yield in API 6A is a
functional requirement to avoid any start of yield at bore during
pressure testing. Note that this requirement does not give a
safety margin against burst which is consistent with pressure
rating and hence diameter to thickness ratio. Note that ISO-7,
ASME B31.3 IX and Div.3 can be used for both thin-wall and
thick-wall designs.
The distribution of stress through the thickness of a thick
walled cylinder is highly non-uniform. As the internal pressure
within a thick walled cylinder is increased, the stress at the bore
surface reaches the yield strength of the material while the
material at the outside surface is still within the elastic range.
Note that plastic collapse does not occur until the outermost
20
fibers reach the yield strength of the material. The reserve from
start yield to through the thickness yield is given in Table 7.
When bore surface stress is above yield strength, the bore will
be permanently elongated and placed into compression when
the pressure is released. Although calculations indicate that the
bore surface stress will be above yield for design pressure, the
actual stress will be less due to the yielding which occurred at
the bore during pressure testing.
Table 7 Cylinder bore surface stress for 17G
Design pressure at
Test
120C1
pressure
Hoop
von
von Mises
RWP
D/t
stress/
Mises
stress/yield
Yield
stress/
strength
strength
Yield
strength
10 Ksi 10.49
0.70
0.74
1.00
15 Ksi 7.36
0.72
0.81
1.11
20 Ksi 5.80
0.73
0.89
1.21
25 Ksi 4.87
0.76
0.97
1.33
30 Ksi 4.26
0.78
1.06
1.45
Reserve
from
start
yield to
through
thickness
yield
1.23
1.35
1.48
1.62
1.77
1
Yield strength is de-rated by 0.91 for 120 C (250 F). Minimum wall
thickness without any corrosion allowance and wall thickness tolerance.
Cyclic stress range at bore

Fatigue due to cyclic pressure has been raised as concern,
API 17 TR8. A simple comparison of von Mises stress range
between ambient to design pressure is shown in Table 8. The
stress ranges in Table 8 is normalized. It is seen that cyclic
stress range increases with increasing pressure rating,
approximately 10 % increase for each 5K increased in RWP. It
is seen that hydro-test will generate local plastic deformation at
the bore, see Table 7. This will create compressive mean stress
which will improve fatigue performance with increasing RWP
especially at stress concentrations. This indicates that the
fatigue performance may not be reduced as much as indicated
in Table 8. No special increase in fatigue stress range occur
from 15K to 20K and upwards. For more details, see Wormsen
et al 2014.
Table 8 Fatigue stress range relative to 10K RWP
RWP
D/t
von Mises
Factor on
stress range1 fatigue life2
10 Ksi
10.49
1.00
1.00
15 Ksi
7.36
1.10
0.64
20 Ksi
5.80
1.21
0.41
25 Ksi
4.87
1.32
0.27
30 Ksi
4.26
1.44
0.18
requirements than ASME Div.2 (1986-2004). Furthermore, API

6A/6X did not include the ASME fatigue requirements. API 6X
includes the extreme conditions, i.e. 1,2 times rated loads. Div.2
includes derating of mechanical properties when temperature
exceeds 40C (100F) while 6A/6X require strength derating
above 121C (250F).
Wall thickness comparisons are given in Table 6 for several
pressure ratings using API 6A 75K material at temperature
rating of 121C (250 F). A thermal derating factor of 0.91 has
been applied for the yield strength for all codes which
exception of 6A which does not require any derating at 121C
(250 F). Test pressure is the controlling case for API 6A/17D
in this case. API calculations are based on membrane stress
intensity (Div. 2 2004) and closed end cylinder. Note that
Div.2 from 2010 uses von Mises. It can be seen from the table
that ISO-7 gives almost the same thickness as Chapter IX High
pressure piping in ASME B31.3 and API 6X. Div.3 gives the
thinnest wall while API 6A gives the thickest wall. API 6X
replaces Tresca yield criteria with von Mises yield criterion.
Note that ISO-7, Div.3 and B31.3 IX use strength at design
temperature; while API uses SMYS as test pressure is
governing wall thickness. Div.3 (2013) use a margin of 1,732
on plastic collapse using strain hardening in the design
formulae, while ISO-7 use a margin of 1,67 on plastic collapse
without strain hardening (limit load).
Div.2 limits the allowable stress to the lowest of specified
minimum tensile strength divided by 2.4 and the yield strength
at temperature divided by 1.5.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The author acknowledges the assistance by Mr. Anthony
David Muff, Mr. Derek Ferguson and Mr. Keith Taylor for
reviewing the manuscript and providing valuable suggestions.
CONCLUSIONS
ISO-7 represents a significant step toward addressing the
design, materials, fabrication and testing requirements of high
pressure components exposed to external loads compared to
present industry practice represented by API 6A/17D/17G 1st
edition. The present paper is meant to provide an overview of
structural design methods given in ISO-7 as well as some
background for the requirements. Furthermore, some proposed
changes in the ongoing updating process of API 17G to the 3 rd
revision are discussed. There are still some agenda items
outstanding in the updating process, some of which are
discussed in this paper. Statoil has good experience in using
ISO-7 since 2003 (DIS version).
Normalized stress range with respect to 10 Ksi.

Normalized stress range with respect to 10 Ksi. Assumed m=4.7 in S-N
curve (DNV RP C203 HS curve)
API 6A/6X modified the ASME Div.2 (1986-2004)

requirements to permit higher static stresses than were allowed
by ASME. However, API 6A allows lower CVN impact energy
REFERENCES
1.
Andreassen, J, and Valsgrd, S (2002), Managing

innovation using the Normal Lady and Hegh Galleon as
Case Studied, Gastech 2002, Paper No 2003-P004, 24 pp.
21
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
Buitrago, J. et al, High-cycle and low-cycle fatigue

resistance of girth welds in sour service, OMAE 200857545.
API RP 2RD, Design of risers for floating production
systems (FPSs) and tension leg platforms (TLPs), 1998.
API Std 2RD, Dynamic risers for floating production
systems, 2013.
API Spec 6A, Specification for wellhead and Christmas
tree equipment, 20th edition, 2010.
API Std 6X, Design calculations for pressure-containing
equipment, 1st edition, March 2014.
API TR 6AM, Technical report on material toughness, 2 nd
edition, 1995.
API Spec 16A, Specification for drill-through equipment,
3rd edition, 2004.
API Spec 17D, Design and operation of subsea production
systems Subsea wellhead and tree equipment, 1st edition
1992 and 2nd edition 2011.
API TR 17TR8, High-pressure high temperature (HPHT)
design guidelines, Draft, March, 2014.
ASME, Criteria of the ASME boiler and pressure vessel
code for design by analysis in Sections III and VIII,
Division 2, ASME, 1969.
ASME B31.3, Process piping, Chapter IX - High pressure
piping, 1999 and 2012.
ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section V,
Nondestructive examination, 2013.
ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section VIII,
Division 2: Alternative Rules, 2013.
ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section VIII,
Division 3: Alternative Rules for Construction of High
Pressure Vessels, 2001 and 2013.
ASME FFS-1, Fitness-for-service, 2007.
ASNT SNT-TC-1A, Recommended practice for Nondestructive personnel qualification and certification, 2011.
BS 7608, Guide to fatigue design and assessment of steel
products, 2014.
BS 7910, Guide on methods for assessing the acceptability
of flaws in metallic structures, 2013.
Buitrago, J., Hudak, S.J. Jr., and Baxter, D., High cycle
and low cycle fatigue resistance of girth welds in sour
service, OMAE 2008-57545.
DNV-RP-C203, Fatigue design of offshore steel structures,
2012.
DNV-OS-F101, Submarine pipeline systems, 2013.
DNV-OS-F201, Dynamic risers, 2001 and 2010.
DNV-OS-H102, Marine operations, design and fabrication,
2012.
Gerdeen, J.C., A Critical Evaluation of Plastic Behavior
Data and A Unified Definition of Plastic Loads for
Pressure Components; Rodabaugh, E.C., Interpretive
Report on Limit Analysis and Plastic Behavior of Piping
Products; ODonnel, W.J., Interpretive report on limit
analysis of flat circular plates, WRC Bulletin 254, 1979
Hadley, I. and Pisarski, H.G., Overview of BS
7910:2013, EISA12, EMAS Publishing, 2013.
27. Hechmer, J.L. and Hollinger G.L, Considerations in the

calculations of the primary plus secondary stress intensity
range for Code stress classification, ASME PVP Vol. 136,
1988.
28. Hudak, S.J.Jr., Feiger, J.H. and Robledo, G.B, Fatigue
performance of high-strength riser materials subjected to
sour environments, DEAC2607NT42677, February, 2012.
29. ISO 9712:2012, Non-destructive testing - Qualification and
certification of NDT personnel.
30. ISO 10474:2013, Steel and steel products - Inspection
documents.
31. ISO 13625:2003 (API RP 16Q), Petroleum and natural gas
industries - Drilling and production equipment - Marine
drilling riser couplings.
32. ISO-7:2005, Petroleum and natural gas industries - Design
and operation of subsea production systems - Part 7:
Completion/workover riser systems (API 17G 2nd edition
2006 identical).
33. ISO 13679:2002 (API RP 5C5), Petroleum and natural gas
industries - Procedures for testing casing and tubing
connections.
34. ISO 15156 (NACE MR 0175), Petroleum and natural gas
industries - Materials for use in H2S-containing
environments in oil and gas production, all parts, 2009.
35. ISO 21329, Petroleum and natural gas industries - Pipeline
transportation systems - Test procedures for mechanical
connectors, 2004.
36. ISO 27509, Petroleum and natural gas industries Compact flanged connections with IX seal ring, 2012.
37. Kalnins, A. and Updike, D.P., Role of plastic limit and
elastic-plastic analysis in design, ASME PVP-Vol. 210-1,
1991.
38. Kalnins, A., Guidelines for sizing of vessels by limit
analysis, WRC Bulletin 464, 2003.
39. Kirkemo, F., Applications of probabilistic fracture
mechanics to offshore structures, Applied Mechanical
Review, Volume 41, Number 2, February 1988.
40. Kirkemo, F., Mrk, K.J., Sdhal, N. and Leira, B., Design
of deepwater metallic risers, 99-MMS-04, ISOPE, 1999.
41. Kirkemo, F,. Burst and gross plastic deformation limit
state equations for pipes-Part 1 Theory, ISOPE-2001-JSC249.
42. Koneti, S., Ross, J. and Gokhale, S.,Brittle failure of
OCTG components doe to improper testing after
manufacture, Wordl Oil, August 2013, pps 31-37.
43. Lotsberg, I. and Ronold, K.O., On the derivation of design
S-N curves based on limited fatigue test data,
OMAE2011-49175.
44. Maddox, S.J. et al, An investigation of the fatigue
performance of riser girth welds, OMAE2006-92315.
45. Maljaars, J., Steenbergen, H.M.G.M, and Vrouwenvelder,
A.C.W.M, Probabilistic model for fatigue crack growth
and fracture of welded joints in civil engineering
structures, Int. Journal of Fatigue 38 (2012) 108-117.
22
46. Mraz, G.J. and Kendall, D.P., Criteria of the ASME boiler
and pressure vessel code Section VIII, Division 3, ASME,
2000.
47. Mrk, K.J., Sdahl, N. and Souza, L., Present and future
fatigue analysis and procedures for dynamic risers,
OMAE2001/OFT-1272.
48. Osage, D.A. and Prager, M., Technical basis of material
toughness requirements in the ASME Boiler and Pressure
vessel code, Section VIII, Division 2, Journal of pressure
vessel technology, Vol. 134 June 2012.
49. Palmer, A.C. and King, R.A., Subsea pipeline
engineering, 2nd edition, PennWell Corporation, 2008.
50. Sims, J.R., Development of design criteria for high
pressure piping code, ASME PVP Vol. 110 1994.
51. Sims, J.R., A comparison of Section VIII Division 2 and
Division 3 on high pressure vessels, PVP-353, ASME,
1997.
52. Sims, J.R., Section VIII, Division 3 Alternative rules
for construction of high-pressure vessels, Companion
guide to the ASME boiler & pressure vessel codes: criteria
and commentary on selected aspects of the Boiler &
pressure vessel and piping codes / editor, K.R. Rao, 4th
edition, ASME, 2012.
53. Stawaisz, R., Muff, D.A. and Skeels, B., API 17G
Specification for subsea well intervention equipment,
OTC 25402, 2014.
54. Yang, X., Kumar, S.B. and Tronskar, J.P., ECA of pipeline
girth weld in sour service, ISOPE, 2009.
55. Wormsen, A., Kirkemo, F. and Muff, A.D., Fatigue
capacity of steel cylindrical bodies and conduits subjected
to cyclic pressure, PVP2014-28665.
23
ANNEX A
CARPY V-NOTCH IMPACT REQUIREMENTS
As part of the updating process of 17G, a study has been
performed to evaluate the CVN impact toughness requirements
to prevent brittle (unstable) facture. Plastic collapse load in
ISO-7 as in API 6A is defined as the limit load, i.e. plastic
collapse load without any strain hardening. Limit load methods
imply yield before fracture. This means that the components
with imperfections have sufficient ductility and toughness to
reach the limit load without premature failure. All components
including welded joints may have imperfection or flaws.
The applied stress level increases proportional with the
yield strength of the material. NDT is performed to ensure
product quality, i.e. reduce the risk for unacceptable defects are
present in components put into service. The NDT quality level
is normally independent of yield strength, hence, the toughness
requirement increases with increase strength level in
accordance with fracture mechanics principles. The material
toughness tends to decrease as strength increases. The strength
of the material must be limited to reduce the risk of
environmental assisted cracking, hence, maximum yield in this
study is limited to 725 MPa (105 ksi).
Figure A-1 Example of FAD diagram, Hadley et al (2013)

A fracture mechanics approach has been used to evaluate
material toughness and CVN impact energy requirements. The
BS 7910 failure assessment diagram (FAD) procedure is
applied. The FAD, Figure A-1, is a plot of the failure envelope
of a cracked component, defined in terms of two parameters K r
and Lr. Kr is the ratio of the applied linear elastic stress
intensity factor, KI, to the materials fracture toughness, K mat. Lr
is the ratio of the applied load giving rise to the primary

stresses to plastic limit load of the flawed component. The FAD
equation defines a load-stress intensity envelope for a cracked
component within which a component is not expected to fail.
Zone 3 in Figure A-1 indicates where components are supposed
to fail in a ductile manner. Fracture mechanics-based
procedures have previously been used to calculate required
CVN impact requirements, e.g. Div. 2 by Osage and Prager
(2012).
The assumption about initial flaw sizes and stress (applied
and residual) levels have a strong influence on the calculated
requirements for minimum fracture toughness K mat. A flat plate
with a semi-elliptical surface flaw has been assumed. Two cases
are considered as given in Table A-1 Case 1 is intended to
simulate extreme loading condition with an incidental large
flaw and case 2 is the accidental loading condition with a
small flaw. Both cases are assumed to be in the post weld
heat treated condition.
Parameter
Case 1
Case 2
Flaw depth, a
12,5 % of thickness1
7 % of thickness2
Flaw length, 2c
=
=
Primary stress
.
.
Residual stress
.
.
1

2

Table A-1 Surface reference flaws and applied stresses
The minimum size, 3 x 18 mm, corresponds to inspection
capabilities for back surface flaws, e.g. at bore of cylindrical
forgings, with conventional ultrasonic testing, see BS 7910, for
10 mm < thickness < 25 mm. This flaw height may also an
approximate height of a weld bead. Case 2 flaw size is the
maximum depth of a crack-like imperfection that could
reasonably be missed by the inspection. Both cases are
considered as accidental scenarios with no safety margin
included.
The minimum required fracture toughness, K mat, based on
the BS7910 FAD analysis, increases with both thickness and
yield strength. The TWI software Crackwise has been used to
calculate Kmat. The required material fracture toughness is
established based on the calculated stress intensity factor
resulting from the applied stress and reference flaw for both
conditions. The required Charpy impact energy is then
determined from the fracture toughness using an upper shelf
region correlation given in D200 of Div.3, and the minimum
value of the impact energy is set as 40 J (30 ft lbs), see Table A2. Table A-2 gives also closed form equations for transvers
(worst case direction) CVN impact energy requirements for
full-size specimens for CALAS as a function of the specified
minimum yield strength for components subjected to post weld
heat treatment.
Correlations between CVN and Kmat are uncertain,
however, it is a good indicator about trends. It should further be
24
noted that cracks considered here are shallow and have a lower
crack tip constraint than crack tips in standard fracture
mechanics test specimens, hence, higher toughness are
expected in these cases.
ISO-7 has stricter CVN impact toughness and quality
requirements than API 6A PSL 3 which requires 20 J (15 ft lbf)
independent of thickness and strength. API 6AM indicates that
20J is sufficient, however, it is assumed very small surface
defects 1,6 mm x 4,8 mm (1/6 in x 3/16 in ) and applied stress
of 2 /3 of yield. No procedure qualification is required by API
6A and for bore type of defects with no access of MT, this
defect may be too optimistic with present 6A PSL 3 UT practice
of forgings. The minimum impact energy requirement in Div.3
is 42 J (30 ft-lbf) for steel with yield strength up to 930 MPa
(135 ksi) independent of wall thickness. However, it should be
noted that Div.3 requires fracture mechanics testing and
analysis if leak-before-break behavior cannot be
demonstrated. However, ISO-7 is based on the safe-life
philosophy; hence leak-before-break is not necessary to be
demonstrated.
Table A-2 CVN impact test requirements
Thickness,
CVN (J)
B, (mm)
Specified minimum yield strength (MPa)
450
550
650
720
6
40
40
40
40
13
19
25
38
51
64
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
48
40
40
40
40
47
57
40
40
40
41
52
63
76
89
102
127
152
46
53
60
73
86
56
65
73
89
106
66
76
86
106
125
74
85
96
117
138
CVN SMYS 0,00118 B 0,01259 , min 40J
controlled design methods in the next revision. 6A, 6X, ISO-7,

Div.2 and Div.3 are using load controlled design methods. For
strain based design methods which are used in pipelines codes
like DNV F101, special considerations have to be made.
However, failure in H2S environment are complex and is not
only governed by the design method applied.
Under H2S environments, the fracture toughness will be
smaller than the non-H2S environments. Sulfide-stress cracking
(SSC) phenomenon is affected by a complex interaction of
parameters, see Figure B.1. The following four major factors
are required to initiate SCC: 1) absorption of a significant
quantity of H+, 2) tensile stress of sufficient magnitude (at
stress concentration), 3) susceptible metallurgical properties of
the steel (microstructure and inclusion distribution) and 4)
exposure time (minimum to 1 hour). These factors are
independent and critical combinations of all four factors are
required to initiate the cracking process. Factors which decrease
the susceptibility of LAS to SCC are: 1) Decrease in applied
tensile stress, 2) Decrease in residual stress, 3) Decrease in cold
work, 4) Decrease in hydrogen sulfide partial pressure, 5)
Increase in pH (lower acidity), 6) Increase in temperature, 7)
Decrease in tensile strength, 8) Decrease in hardness, 9)
Microstructure: increase in uniformity and martensite content,
10) Decrease in grain size, 11) Improved steel cleanliness
notably decrease in S (Sulfur) and P (Phosphorus)
concentration, 12) Decrease in anisotropy, 13) Decrease
duration of exposure.
Atomic hydrogen is mobile in metals. Atomic hydrogen
may be in the metals from manufacture or diffuses into metals
when charged from the environment. When loaded or stress is
applied the hydrogen migrates towards points of highest stress
concentrations. The greater the hydrogen concentration
becomes, the lower the critical tensile stress, or lower the
hydrogen concentration, the higher the critical tensile stress at
which failure may occur. Local tensile stress increases with
increasing strength (hardness), stress concentration and
constraint (triaxiality).
CVN SMYS 0,152 B 0,064 , min 30 ft lb
ANNEX B
H2S SERVICE
It is stated in NACE/ISO 15156 that it only applies to
equipment designed and constructed using conventional elastic
design criteria, see Clause 1 and 5 of Part 1. However,
conventional elastic design criteria are not defined in any
design code. This text is planned to be changed to using load
Figure B.1 Mechanism of SSC, Palmer and King (2008)

Environmental assisted cracking is usually expected to be a
risk for higher strength materials due to higher tensile stresses.
Strength and hardness limitations are used to reduce the risk for
environmental assisted cracking; see Table 3. However, no
25
guidance is given on allowable stress concentration/constraint

for high strength materials in ANSI/NACE MR0175/ISO
15156. It should further be noted that threaded fasteners require
lower hardness than forgings and tubulars intended for
downhole applications, see Table 3. These hardness limitations
indicate that components with stress concentrations should
restrict hardness. Note that API 5C3 limits stresses to start of
yielding in pipe bore (pressure) or pipe OD (bending), however,
the hardness is higher than for forgings and fasteners. Fastener
preload in API 17D is in the range of 67% to 73 % of yield
strength, and maximum stress is 83% of yield strength, hence,
yielding occurs in the thread root. This may explain lower
hardness than API 5CT and forgings.
Initial yield at H2S exposed surfaces is normally avoided in
pipe design; see API 5CT. Table 7 shows the sustained hoop
tensile stress or von Mises stress at the pipe bore normalized
with respect to yield strength. It is a trend that the static stresses
at the bore increase with pressure rating. Compressive stresses
introduced during pressure testing will reduced the total bore
tension stress for design pressure.
Incorporating the sour service requirement effect into
engineering critical assessment (ECA) to derive acceptable flaw
size criteria or fracture toughness values may not be a straight
forward task, see Yang et al (2009). Especially when
considering exposure with a relatively low tensile stress (RWP
or RWL) for some days with an overload with a short duration
(few seconds). Little published data are available.
relationship between the localised stress in the specimen and

fatigue life is known, i.e. the S-N curve. Stress-controlled
fatigue is assumed as the cyclic plastic deformation is
negligible for high cycle fatigue with the exception of the first
load cycle where local plastic deformation may occur in the
notch. The following will affect the fatigue capacity: stress
range, stress gradient, mean stress (residual stress), surface
roughness and environment. DNV-RP-C203 curve is
representative for surface roughness equal Ra =3.2 m or
better.
ANNEX C
Figure C.1 Fatigue testing used to determine representative

S-N curves for girth welded pipes
Full-scale girth welded fatigue test - rotating bending resonance test
Small-scale strip specimen axially loaded
REPRESENTATIVE S-N FATIGUE STRENGTH

Fatigue performance of girth welds are normally
determined by segment, i.e. small-scale strip, specimens and
validated by full-scale girth welded pipes, see Maddox et al
(2006), BS7608 and DNV-RP-C203. For machined forged
CALAS, smooth bar testing forms the basis for S-N curve in
DNV RP C203.
The fatigue design capacity is based on S-N curves, which
are obtained from fatigue tests, Figure C.1, shows typical tests
performed to establish S-N curves for girth welded pipes. The
design S-N curves are based on the mean-minus-two-standard
deviations curves for relevant experimental data. The S-N
curves are thus associated with a 97.7 % probability of survival.
The failure criterion inherent in the S-N curves is a crack
growth through the thickness. It should be noted that
connectors may leak or unscrew during cyclic loading,
however, these failure modes are not covered by the S-N
approach.
For machined forged CALAS, the local stress-life method
is based on the assumption that the life spent on crack
nucleation and small crack growth of a notched component can
be approximated by a smooth bar specimen under the same
cyclic stress at the crack initiation site. This is illustrated in
Figure C.2. By using this concept it is possible to estimate the
fatigue life at a point in a cyclically loaded component if the
Stress-controlled
smoth bar fatigue
specimen
Stress gradient
Environment
Nominal stress
Surface roughness
Figure C.2 Concept of local stress life approach using

smooth bar specimen
ANNEX D
EXAMPLE
Basis
Annex E in 17G includes an example which is given here.
The example problem demonstrates how to use the calculation
26
methods provided in Annex D and Annex C to establish

capacities for components. The example is a simple cylindrical
pipe with a uniform internal diameter and a step increase in
outside diameter. The pipe is loaded with internal pressure and
external axial force. All calculations were performed by using a
finite element model, since this is currently the most commonly
used method of stress analysis. Although it is not necessary to
use a finite element model to calculate stresses, this method is
recommended for all but very simple geometries and loads
where hand calculations are accurate. The geometry is the same
as in the example given in API RP 2RD (1999) Annex C.
The example is a simple cylindrical pipe with a uniform
internal diameter and a step increase in the outside diameter.
The pipe is loaded with internal pressure, p, and external
applied axial load, Te, in addition to any end cap load when
pressure is applied. Te is often denoted effective tension.
Figure D.1 shows the geometry, boundary conditions, cross
sections and finite element model. The thin walled pipe section
dimensions are:
1. Outside diameter: D = 76,2 mm (3 in)
2. Wall thickness: t = 12,7 mm (1/2 in)
3. Diameter to thickness ratio: D/t = 6
analysis and elastic-plastic analysis without strain hardening

compare very well. These values will normally be used in
design. Note that the last column in Table D.1 is the tension
capacity with 10 Ksi (69 MPa) internal pressure. It is further
seen that there are large reserves in the failure load
determined by elastic-plastic analysis with strain hardening
compared to the elastic-plastic analysis without strain
hardening. Elastic analysis based capacities compares with
hand calculations and elastic-plastic analysis with no strain
hardening for D/t=6. Div.2 and Div.3 indicates limitations to
elastic analysis for shells with a D/t ratio of 10 or less. This
limit was not found here.
Table D.1 Plastic collapse capacities
Calculation method
Pb,c
(MPa)
Hand (limit load)1
Elastic analysis
Elastic-plastic analysis without
strain hardening
Actual failure load2
241
237
1305
1314
Te at
10Ksi
(kN)
1250
1165
243
1305
1253
321
1644
1600
Tc
(kN)
Capacities calculated by Eq. (8), (9) and (6)

2
Actual failure load is maximum load determined by FEA using
elastic-plastic analysis with strain hardening material.
Figure D.1 Finite element model

The material properties used are:
Yield strength = 515 MPa (75 ksi)
Tensile strength = 655 MPa (95 ksi)
Youngs modulus = 205 GPa
Poissons ratio = 0.30
Fatigue fracture capacity

The following methods are used to estimate the fatigue life:
S-N fatigue and accumulated damage.

Fatigue crack growth.
The load range used for the fatigue analysis corresponds to 0 50 MPa axial nominal stress in the thin section. Linear elastic
material is assumed. The results in Table D.2 clearly show the
benefit of increasing radius in notches on the fatigue life and
hence fatigue capacity. Furthermore, it is seen that elliptical
transitions are more efficient than radius to improve fatigue
performance further.
Table D.2 Stress concentration factors and S-N fatigue lives
Notch geometry
SCF
Relative fatigue lives
0.1 mm radius
11,1
1
3.0 mm radius
2.79
718
3x12 mm ellipse
2.00
3431
Figure D.2 True stress-true strain curves

The stress strain curve is generated according to guidelines in
Div.3 for ferritic steels.
Static capacity
The plastic collapse capacities are summarized in Table
D.1. Hand calculations based on limit load, linear elastic
The fatigue life has also been calculated by using fracture

mechanics fatigue crack growth analysis with an initial crack
depth of 1,0 mm and a final crack depth of 80 % of thickness,
see Figure D.3. When a design fatigue factor of 10 is used, the
crack depth increases from 1.00 mm to 1.09 mm in this case.
For more bending stress across the wall thickness, the crack
growth will be more linear with time.
27
Figure D.3 Crack depth as function of number of cycles

Fatigue crack growth propagation lives for 0.1 mm radius
and 3.0 mm radius are given in Table D.3. As seen from the
calculations, the fatigue crack growth life it not very sensitive
to notch radius for this case. The ratio in fatigue crack growth
life is very dependent on the assumed initial crack depth. In
general as a design tool, the S-N method is simpler to use and
predicts fatigue lives for new equipment with sufficient
confidence and hence is recommended in ISO-7 and 17G.
Table D.3 Fatigue crack growth lives
Notch radius
Relative fatigue crack growth life
0.1 mm
1.00
3.0 mm
1.55
Div.2 use S-N method and von Mises stress, while Div.3 uses
S-N with Tresca tress where leak before break can be shown,
else, fracture mechanics apply in Div.3.
28

Structural Design of Metallic Components

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Structural Design of Metallic Components

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Proceedings of the ASME 2014 Pressure Vessels & Piping Conference

development projects in the North Sea for completion/workover

surface flaw height (depth)

Copyright 2014 by ASME

GENERAL APPROACH USED TO WRITE ISO-7

DNV-OS-F201: Kirkemo, et al (1999), Mrk, et al (2001),

DNV-OS-F201 (2001) was used as the design factors for

Explicitly addressing relevant failure modes

Copyright 2014 by ASME

CLAUSE 1 - SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS

C/WO riser is classified as a temporary riser and normally has a

Subsea tree block

Subsea tree block

Tre mode (open sea)

CLAUSE 4 - SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS

Tubing hanger mode (within BOP)

Figure 2 Equipment codes and design factors for accidental

Tree mode (open sea) operation: Christmas tree and

API 17D is a component specification where the

Copyright 2014 by ASME

working pressure (RWP), rated loads (normal operating) and

In order to obtain sufficient bending moment capacity of

17G propose to include lower riser package (LRP) and

Establishment of a design basis, e.g. minimum bore (drift)

Copyright 2014 by ASME

calculations, e.g. leak tightness, galling resistance, contact

includes the following fundamental design requirements for

Component design and

Reduce failure probability

Manufacture and fabrication

Global riser analysis

Manufacture procedure specification

Structural and functional safety

Operation and maintenance

Pressure and functional testing

Figure 3 Structural and functional safety flowchart

Risk based design, i.e. the failure probability or safety for

Copyright 2014 by ASME

Cyclic loaded components should be preloaded up to

Static design format and design factors

Load or LoadEffect Fd Capacity

F d is design factor which is the inverse of the safety factor SF,

Figure 4 Structural safety and allowable load/stress format

for burst, hoop buckling (collapse) and plastic collapse, see

Copyright 2014 by ASME

events (10-2 to 10-4). Load conditions with a probability less

For fatigue loading, the target component safety level is

DF is the design fatigue factor, Table 2. Fatigue life or fatigue

Copyright 2014 by ASME

DNV-OS-F101/F201, DNV-RP-C203 and API Std 2RD applies

ISO-7 requires that all relevant failure modes shall be

Figure 5 Definition of S-N design curve

Static failure modes that lead to immediate failure like:

Large volume leakage shall be considered as structural

Material selection to avoid failure due to environmental

Many of these failure modes are addressed by calculations and

Copyright 2014 by ASME

Global riser analysis

Regular (design) wave analysis in time domain;

The irregular wave analysis term refers to modelling of

Dynamic load components may include load effects from

Mechanical and physical properties

A robust material selection includes a careful selection of

Copyright 2014 by ASME