Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
ABSTRACT
Engineering critical assessments (ECAs) have increasingly become a routine part of pipeline
design to determine tolerable flaw sizes for weld defects. These assessments are now being
applied to pipeline systems in deeper water with increased loadings arising from responses
to thermal and pressure cycling. Often these are flowline systems in which fatigue damage
is exacerbated by the presence of aggressive internal conditions.
In these situations, ECAs can give 'alarming' results, indicating that only very small flaws
would be acceptable. In some cases, applying the same methodology to in-service pipelines
would suggest that the pipeline should have failed a long time ago, whereas in reality they
have not.
Therefore, a number of questions arise:
are ECAs too conservative;
are there situations where ECAs may be non-conservative; and
do we fully understand what we are doing?
In this paper, these issues are illustrated by means of several examples and an attempt is
made to partly answer the above questions.
1 INTRODUCTION
Pipeline systems are being designed to operate in deep waters at high temperatures and
high pressures, in aggressive internal environments. Design issues for such pipeline
systems tend to arise in the flowlines rather than the risers or ‘platforms’. Fatigue can be a
significant design constraint.
The fatigue design of risers is typically governed by ‘hot spots’ at the top and bottom of the
riser due to loads arising from wind, wave and current loading. Wave loading is typically
7 8
predictable and of a low frequency, with of the order of 10 or 10 cycles over the design life
of the system. Current loading is more unpredictable. Factors of safety of five for flowlines
and ten for risers are typically applied in fatigue design.
Deep water flowlines operating at high temperatures and pressures need to be designed to
accommodate issues such as significant end expansion, walking and lateral buckling.
Insulation or direct electrical heating may be required for flow assurance. Shut-downs result
in significant pressure and temperature cycles. The fatigue loading is characterised by a
small number of large cycles, less than 10 3 cycles over the design life. The fatigue loading is
in a completely different regime to that in a riser , giving rise to a different set of design
challenges. The fatigue loading is also, in principle, under the direct control of the pipeline
operator because it is driven by variations in pressure and temperature, unlike environmental
loading. Factors of safety in fatigue design, and the associated ECAs, tend to be lower, in
part because there is perceived to be a higher level of confidence in the fatigue loading, but
also because higher factors of safety cannot be accommodated. The fatigue design is
†
Atkins Boreas, Churchill House, 12 Mosley Street, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE1 1DE, UK.
Tel: +44 (0)191 230 8098, Fax: +44 (0)191 261 0200, e-mail: andrew.cosham@atkinsglobal.com
1/17
complicated by issues such as: corrosion-fatigue, frequency and strain rate, in addition to the
effect of the internal environment on toughness.
Fatigue design is normally based on S-N curves (e.g. the class D and E design curves). The
ECA is a secondary consideration. S-N curves are only appropriate if the weld is free from
significant defects. An ECA is conducted to determine the tolerable flaw size, i.e. the size of
a significant defect. With the application of ECAs to pipeline systems in deeper water subject
to high thermal and pressure cycling and aggressive internal environments, it is important to
understand if ECAs can be overly conservative, or perhaps even non-conservative It is
therefore informative to examine a number of the issues surrounding ECAs, and their
relationship with S-N curves, and pipeline welding codes and standards.
Although spoken in a different context, the words of former secretary of defense are relevant:
“As we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know
there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know.
But there are also unknown unknowns -- the ones we don't know we don't know.” [1].
2/17
3 FATIGUE
Fatigue is a damage process whereby a crack can form and grow under the action of
fluctuating (cyclic) loads. The fatigue life of a welded joint is lower than that of a plain plate
because of the presence of stress concentrations and crack-like discontinuities. In a welded
joint, fatigue crack initiation may occupy only a very small proportion of the fatigue life; it is
dominated by fatigue crack propagation (growth) [10].
The environment has a significant effect on fatigue. The fatigue life in a corrosive
environment is lower than that in a non-corrosive environment. Corrosion-fatigue can be
more severe than either corrosion or fatigue. The rate of crack propagation is higher and the
endurance limit (or threshold for the initiation of fatigue crack growth) is lower or non-
existent.
A corrosive environment can be created simply by the presence of pre-existing cracks or
crevices. Capillary condensation may cause there to be a corrosive environment in a crack,
even though the bulk environment is non-corrosive. This issue can be of particular concern
in sour environments, where corrosion-fatigue rates can be very high.
Frequency is another issue that needs to be considered. A number of fatigue tests, both
published and unpublished, have shown that in a corrosive environment, such as sea-water
or a sour fluid, the fatigue life is reduced as the loading frequency is reduced. These tests
tend also to show that there is a plateau in the frequency response. This is fortunate,
because loads associated with, say, lateral buckling have a frequency of the order of 10 -6 Hz,
or lower, which is too low for testing to be practical.
Fatigue is an important consideration in an ECA.
The two methods used to assess fatigue are:
S-N curves; and
fracture mechanics.
S-N curves are derived from endurance testing. In fracture mechanics based fatigue, fatigue
crack growth laws, also derived from testing, are used. It is important that the endurance
and fatigue crack growth rates tests are conducted in conditions (e.g. material, geometry,
frequency, temperature and environment) that are representative of the actual conditions.
3/17
the length of individual surface flaws should not exceed 25 mm (1 in.), and the total
length of such flaws in any 300 mm (12 in.) should not exceed 25 mm; and
the length of individual embedded (also referred to as buried) flaws should not exceed
50 mm (2 in.), and the total length of such flaws in any 300 mm (12 in.) should not
exceed 50 mm.
Workmanship acceptance levels were developed at a time when welding was manual and
the completed welds were inspected using radiography. The type of flaw can be identified,
and the length of the flaw can be measured using radiography, but not the height (depth).
Consequently, workmanship acceptance levels were originally expressed in terms of the type
of flaw and the length of the flaw. Semi-automatic and automatic welding systems have
been developed, and automatic ultrasonic (AUT) inspection has been introduced. The profile
of manual and automatic (or semi-automatic) welds is different, and some types of weld
defect are more, or less, common depending upon the welding method. AUT inspection is
more effective at identifying planar defects than radiography, and is capable of measuring
the height, as well as length, of flaws.
Inspection methods have improved over time. Consequently, the size and types of welding
defect that can be found has been extended as inspection methods have improved.
The workmanship acceptance levels in BS 4515-1 can only be applied if a minimum Charpy
V-notch (CVN) impact energy requirement is satisfied. The average CVN impact energy at
the minimum design temperature should be at least 40 J, and the minimum at least 30 J.
Welding codes and standards also make reference to defect acceptance limits (or defect
limits) based on fitness-for-purpose. Appendix A of API 1104 gives alternative acceptance
criteria for girth welds, based on fitness-for-purpose methods. Appendix A is applicable if:
the maximum applied axial strain does not exceed 0.5%, and the CTOD at the minimum
design temperature is at least 0.127 mm (0.005 in.). Appendix A is not applicable to a
pipeline subject to fatigue loading in excess of a prescribed limit; the “spectrum severity” limit
in §A.2.2.1 is equivalent to a usage factor of 0.013 with respect to the class E design curve
(see section 9).
BS 4515-1 also allows acceptance criteria to be based on fitness-for-purpose, and refers to
the guidance in BS 7910 for conducting ECAs.
4/17
The Tier 3 defect limits are larger than the Tier 2 limits, and there are additional
requirements. Tier 3 of the EPRG guidelines is applicable if: the maximum applied axial
stress does not exceed the yield strength (similar to the Tier 2 requirement, in that API 5L
defines the yield strength as the stress at a total strain of 0.5% [11]), and, in addition to the
CVN requirement, the average CTOD (measured using a single edge notch bend specimen)
at the minimum design temperature, from a set of three tests, must be at least 0.15 mm, and
the minimum is at least 0.10 mm. The Tier 3 defect limits are larger than the Tier 2 limits, so
it is reasonable (and conservative) to consider that 40/30 J is equivalent to 0.15/0.10 mm.
The EPRG guidelines are partly based on wide plate, and full scale, testing, which means
that the implications of constraint are considered implicitly. Bi-axial is also addressed, in that
the guidelines are applied to transmission pipelines operating at hoop stresses up to 72%
SMYS (but the axial strain is limited to 0.5%).
6 S-N CURVES
S-N curves can be used to estimate the fatigue life of a welded joint. An S -N curve presents
the fatigue life, N, as a function of the applied stress range, S. S-N curves of welded joints
are based on endurance tests of workmanship quality welds. Welded joints are classified,
and for each class there is a different S-N curve, e.g. in PD 5500, the class E curve is for a
full penetration butt weld made from both sides, and the class F2 curve is for a full
penetration butt weld made from one side, without backing [12]. The class of an S-N curve
refers to a particular mode of fatigue failure, e.g. initiation at the weld toe, or the weld root, so
more than one class may apply to a particular welded joint. The effect of stress
concentrations due to the weld shape and type are included in the S-N curves of welded
joints.
Design S-N curves, such as those given in BS 7608, PD 5500 and DNV-RP-C203 [13], are
mean minus two standard deviation curves to the experimental data.
In addition to classifying the welded joint, to select the appropriate S-N curve, the effect of
plate thickness, the environment, and gross structural discontinuities and deviations from the
intended design shape, need to be taken into account. Some codes also indicate an effect of
material, if other than a ferritic steel at ambient temperature.
The endurance test specimens used in the fatigue tests upon which the S-N curves will have
included some degree of misalignment, and weld defects, but there is rarely sufficient
information in the published data for these effects to be quantified [14]. Also, it is common
practice in analysing endurance test data to plot the local stress range, corrected for
misalignment (from strain gauge measurements), not the nominal stress range. There is a
view that the class E design S-N curve includes an allowance for misalignment,
corresponding to an SCF equal to 1.3, but this is not universally accepted in design codes
[10]. BS 7608 states that the classifications for transverse butt welds allow for some degree
of misalignment, but only if the root sides of joints with single-sided preparations are back-
gouged [15]. Macdonald et al. (2000), in a review of S-N curves for girth welds, concluded
that the class E S-N curve could be used for full penetration girth welds made from one side,
in conjunction with a thickness correction and SCFs [14]. The guidance in DNV-RP-C203 is
based on the Macdonald et al. (2000) review.
PD 5500 does not require a factor of safety (or usage factor) to be applied to the fatigue life
estimated using the design S-N curves. DNV-RP-C203 and DNV-OS-F101 specify a factor
of safety, which depends on the safety class. For a ‘normal’ safety class, a factor of safety of
five must be applied to the fatigue life estimated using the design S-N curves. For a ‘high’
safety class, a factor of ten is applied. The fatigue limits in IGE/TD/1, a design code for
onshore transmission pipelines, incorporate a factor of safety of ten on fatigue life [16]. PD
8010-1 and -2 indicate that factors of safety in pipeline design typically range from 1 for non-
hazardous, non-critical pipelines to 3 to 10 for hazardous pipelines [17,18]. It further states
5/17
that if full penetration high quality welds are assured, then the relevant S-N curves from BS
7608 can be used without a factor of safety.
There are a number of reasons for the different approach es, including redundancy, ease of
inspection and weld quality. PD 5500 specifies acceptance levels that are more severe than
the typical workmanship acceptance levels in pipeline welding codes.
6/17
similar to BS 4515-1. The acceptance levels for non-planar defects are summarised in Table
1, below. The important point to note is that PD 5500 does not permit planar defects. In
addition to these acceptance criteria, the criteria in §C.3.4.2 of PD 5500 apply to vessels
assessed to Annex C, i.e. vessels subject to fatigue loading. Acceptance levels for non-
planar embedded defects (i.e. inclusions and porosity) are given [Table C.4], with respect to
the weld classes, and are summarised in Table 2, below. The only significant difference
between the acceptance criteria in §5.7 and §C.3.4.2 are that the latter are more restrictive
on the length of slag inclusions; the criteria are compared in Table 1 and Table 2, below.
The weld defect acceptance criteria in §C.3.4.2 of PD 5500 correspond to the limits for non-
planar flaws for the ‘quality categories’ given in BS 7910. The ‘quality categories’ provide an
alternative method of assessing the fatigue life of a flaw in a weld, compared to a fracture
mechanics based fatigue calculation.
PD 5500 refers to BS 7910 for assessing the fatigue lives of defects, or determining the
tolerable defects for a given fatigue life.
The common thread in the above codes and standards is that ‘free from significant defects’
means no planar defects. This is significant when it is noted that BS 4515-1 does permit
planar defect.
D (Q1) 2.5 3
E (Q2) 4 3
F (Q3) 10 5
F2 (Q4) 35 5
G (Q5) no limit 5
W (Q6) and lower no limit 5
NOTE 1 Tungsten inclusions in aluminium alloy welds do not affect fatigue behaviour and need not
be considered as defects from the fatigue viewpoint.
NOTE 2 For assessing porosity, the area of radiograph used should be the length of the weld
affected by porosity multiplied by the maximum width of weld.
NOTE 3 Individual pores are limited to a diameter of e/4 or 6 mm, whichever is the lesser.
NOTE 4 The above levels can be relaxed in the case of steel welds which have been thermally
stress relieved, as described in BS 7910.
7/17
8 WHAT IS AN ECA?
An ECA, in general terms, considers all of the modes of final failure of a flaw (e.g. fracture or
plastic collapse) and all of the possible material damage mechanisms that may lead to the
growth of a sub-critical flaw (e.g. fatigue) or deterioration in the material properties (e.g.
embrittlement in a hydrogen charged environment).
The maximum operating pressure of the typical pipeline is well below the creep regime.
Environmental crack mechanisms, such as stress corrosion cracking, tend to exhibit high
rates of crack propagation, so normal practice is to avoid the initiation of such mechanisms.
Therefore, an ECA in a typical pipeline will be concerned with two issues: failure by fracture
or plastic collapse (hereafter, referred to simply as fracture), and the growth of sub-critical
flaws by fatigue. The ECA is therefore concerned with static loads and cyclic loads. The
growth of sub-critical flaws by ductile tearing may be an issue if the static loads are high (e.g.
reeling). Corrosion-fatigue, embrittlement, and the initiation of environmental crack
mechanisms may be of concern in some environments. In simple terms, however, the
former is addressed by an increase in the rate of fatigue crack growth, whilst the latter two
are addressed by reducing the fracture toughness.
The steps in an ECA are summarised in Figure 1. The simplest case (and perhaps the case
that was originally envisaged when the concept of ECAs and fitness-for-purpose were first
developed) is the ECA of a known flaw, see Figure 1 a). A structure (such as a pipeline)
contains a known flaw (), detected by means of some inspection technique (e.g.
radiography, ultrasonics, or an intelligent pig). The limiting flaw size () in the structure is
then calculated, based upon the failure mode(s), applied loads and the material properties.
Whether the known flaw in the structure is ‘fit-for-purpose’ depends on the difference
between the known flaw size and the limiting flaw size (), taking into account material
damage mechanisms and the capabilities of the inspection technique. This may include
calculation of the remaining life of the known flaw, and even re-inspection at some regular
interval into the future.
It is a natural extension of this simple case to consider an ECA to determine a flaw
acceptance criteria, see Figure 1 b). The limiting flaw size () in the structure is calculated,
based upon the failure mode(s), applied loads and the material properties. In a design case,
this would be the flaw size at the end of the design life. The relevant material damage
mechanisms over the time period under consideration are identified, and their effect on the
limiting flaw size is taken into account (). In a design case, the time period would be the
design life of the structure. The result is a calculated flaw size (); if the structure contains a
flaw that is greater than or equal to this calculated flaw size, then the structure will fail before
the end of the time period under consideration. In a design case, the maximum tolerable
flaw size is equal to this calculated flaw size. Then the flaw acceptance criteria () is
determined, with reference to the tolerable flaw size, the capabilities of the inspection
technique(s), workmanship considerations, and other factors. One approach would simply
be to subtract the inspection tolerances from the tolerable flaw size. Another approach,
assuming that workmanship acceptance levels are less than the subtracting the inspection
tolerances from the tolerable flaw size, would be to apply workmanship acceptance levels,
with the results from the ECA used for concessions.
Figure 1 b) is a relatively simple illustration of the steps required to determine a flaw
acceptance criteria. In practice, it can be significantly more complicated, as illustrated in
Figure 1 c). Consider an offshore pipeline that is designed to accommodate lateral buckling.
Firstly, it may be necessary to consider both installation and operation. Secondly, it may not
be immediately obvious as to what is the limiting condition, necessitating a number of
different calculations. The limiting flaw size at the end-of-life (e-o-l) is calculated, based on
the end-of-life loads (). The corresponding flaw size at the start-of-life is then calculated by
8/17
2
known flaw
4
1
acceptance criteria
calculated flaw
installation
8
3 1
acceptance criteria
5 2
? 7 4
calculated flaw
9/17
taking into account the relevant material damage mechanisms over the design life (). The
structure may experience higher loads at the start-of-life than at the end-of-life, e.g. the
stresses and strains in a lateral buckle tend to be highest when the buckle first forms. The
limiting flaw size at the start-of-life (s-o-l) is calculated, based on the start-of-life loads ().
The tolerable flaw size, with respect to operation, at the start -of-life () is the lower of that
determined from & , and . It is then necessary to consider the effect of the relevant
material damage mechanisms during installation (). In simple terms, this might only be
fatigue loading during installation. In general terms, there may be a requirement for a further
ECA to determine the tolerable flaw size for installation () and the flaw size after
installation, taking into account factors such as fatigue and ductile tearing (and even the
effects of installation on the material properties). The tolerable flaw size, with respect to
installation, at the start-of-life () is the lower of that determined from & , and . Then
the flaw acceptance criteria () is determined, as above.
10/17
6
B = 15 mm class E
5
flaw height, a (mm) 0.05 = f, 0.95xB = a f
4 0.05 = f, 0.5xB = af
3
0.1
0.1
0.2 0.2
1
0.3
0.4
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
flaw length, 2c (mm)
a)
6 0.05
0.05
B = 25 mm class E
5
flaw height, a (mm)
0.1 = f, 0.95xB = a f
4
0.1 = f, 0.5xB = af
2 0.2
0.2
1 0.3 0.3
0.4 0.4
0.5 0.5
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
flaw length, 2c (mm)
b)
Figure 2 Initial flaw sizes corresponding to the class E S-N curve
This simple comparison between the results on an ECA and an S-N curve illustrates the
following points:
initial flaw size is more important than final flaw size;
the influence of final flaw size decreases as the fatigue loading increases, indicating that
in a design subject to high fatigue loading factors that influence fatigue are more
important than those that affect the final flaw size; and
11/17
if the fatigue design uses a high proportion of the allowable fatigue damage, then small
initial flaw sizes are inevitable.
It is also apparent that the factor of safety applied to S-N curves is, implicitly, also a ‘defect’
factor.
12/17
5 5
B = 15 mm, = 0.15 mm B = 25 mm, = 0.15 mm
4 4
flaw height, a (mm)
2 2
API 1 104
API 11 04
Tier 3
Tier 3
EPRG, Tier 2 EPRG, Tier 2
0 0
0 50 100 150 200 0 50 100 150 200
flaw length, 2c (mm) flaw length, 2c (mm)
Figure 3 EPRG, API 1104 and BS 7910 defect limits
0.35 0.35
X65 X65 B = 15 mm
fracture tough ness, d (mm)
fracture to ughn ess, d (mm)
0.25 B = 15 mm 0.25
X = 1.5 B = 25 mm X = 1.5
0.20 0.20
8.625 in.
0.6 12.75 in. 0.6
16 in.
0.4 0.4
0.2 0.2
Tier 3
Tier 3
13/17
11 ARE ECAs UNCONSERVATIVE?
ECAs are intended to be conservative. This conservatism is intentional. Leaving aside
conservative data and assumptions, the conservatism can be attributed to: constraint, over-
matching, tearing resistance, residual stresses, the FAD, and the various stress intensity
factor and reference stress solutions.
To address over-conservatism, the sources of conservatism are addressed. It is possible
that hidden, or unrecognised sources of non-conservatism can be unintentionally unearthed
in the pursuit of non-conservatism. A potential example of this is the influence of bi-axial
loading.
Also of concern are assumptions made without sufficient justification, on the grounds that the
ECA is over-conservative. A potential example is the arbitrary selection of constraint factors.
14/17
as an insurance policy for cases where a defect is detected during post-construction
audit or during in-service inspection.
Limiting the objectives of the ECA to determining whether or not typical workmanship
acceptance levels (e.g. surface planar flaws limited to 3 mm deep by 25 mm long) are fit-for-
purpose, rather than precisely defining flaw acceptance criteria, means that the calculations
can be framed in terms of reasonable and conservative (but not overly conservative)
assumptions, and sensitivity studies. If workmanship acceptance levels are fit-for-purpose,
then the information that becomes available as the design progress is simply used to verify
the initial assumptions. Larger flaw acceptance criteria could be developed, but the question
is then: is this of benefit to the long term integrity of the pipeline?
If the ECA indicates that workmanship acceptance levels are not fit-for-purpose then there is
a problem. Identifying the problem early on in the design means that it is more likely that it
can be addressed without large cost implications, by re-design and/or raising the priority of
project-specific testing or other studies. In addition, identify those types of design that are
likely to be challenging in this regard (e.g. lateral buckling in sour environments, hydrogen
embrittlement in sour environments) means that a proactive approach to solving the
problems can be adopted.
Factors of safety are another problematic area. Factors of safety are lower on ECAs than on
the design S-N curves. BS 7910 does not require additional factors of safety provided that
the data and assumptions are conservative. It is not always clear how conservative the data
and assumptions are.
15/17
We stray into the murky waters of the known unknowns and the unknown unknowns…
14 CONCLUSIONS
The pipeline systems that are likely to be developed in the future will involve a variety of
challenges, from high pressures and high temperatures, to high fatigue damage in
aggressive internal conditions. It is important that ECAs are part of the solution, and not part
of the problem. Work is ongoing through various joint industry projects and project specific
studies. More work will be required.
Returning to the three questions posed at the start of this paper, the answers would appear
to be: sometimes, possibly and no.
NOMENCLATURE
a flaw height
2c flaw length
B wall thickness
CTOD crack tip opening displacement
CVN Charpy V-notch
ECA engineering critical assessment
REFERENCES
1. Department of defense news briefing, Donald H. Rumsfeld, February 12, 2002.
http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=2636
2. ANON.; Guide to Methods for Assessing the Acceptability of Flaws in Metallic Structures,
BS 7910 : 2005, British Standards Institution, London, UK, July 2005.
3. ANON.; Fitness-For-Service, API Recommended Practice 579, First Edition, American
Petroleum Institute, January 2000.
4. ANON.; Assessment of the Integrity of Structures containing Defects, R6-Revision 4,
British Energy, June 2005.
5. ANON.; Submarine Pipeline Systems, Offshore Standard DNV-OS-F101, Det Norske
Veritas, October 2007.
6. ANON.; Fracture Control for Pipeline Installation Methods Introducing Cyclic Plastic
Strain, Recommended Practice DNV-RP-F108, Det Norske Veritas, January 2006.
7. ANON.; Specification for Welding of Steel Pipelines on Land and Offshore. Carbon and
Carbon Manganese Steel Pipelines, BS 4515-1 : 2004, British Standards Institution,
London, UK, November 2004.
8. ANON.; Welding of Pipelines and Related Facilities, API Standard 1104, Twentieth
Edition, American Petroleum Institute, Washington, USA, November 2005.
9. KNAUF,G., HOPKINS,P.; The EPRG Guidelines on the Assessment of Defects in
Transmission Pipeline Girth Welds, 3R International, 35, Jahrgang, Heft, 10-11/1996, p.
620-624.
10. MADDOX,S.J.; Fatigue Strength of Welded Structures, Abington Publishing, Second
Edition, 1991.
16/17
11. ANON.; Specification for Line Pipe, Exploration and Production Department, API
Specification 5L, American Petroleum Institute, Forty Second Edition, 2000.
12. ANON.; Specification for unfired fusion welded pressure vessels, Published Document
PD 5500 : 2006, British Standards Institution, Third Edition, January 2006.
13. ANON.; Fatigue Design of Offshore Steel Structures, Recommended Practice DNV-RP-
C203, Det Norske Veritas, August 2005.
14. MACDONALD,K.A., MADDOX,S.J., and HAAGENSEN,P.J.; Guidance for Fatigue
Design and Assessment of Pipeline Girth Welds, Health and Safety Executive, Offshore
Technology Report OTO 2000 043, May 2000.
15. ANON.; Code of Practice for: Fatigue design and assessment of steel structures, BS
7608 : 1993, Incorporating Amendment No. 1, British Standards Institution, London, UK,
1993.
16. ANON.; Steel Pipelines for High Pressure Gas Transmission, IGE/TD/1 Edition 4 : 2000,
Recommendations on Transmission and Distribution Practice, Institute of Gas
Engineers, Communication 1670, 2001.
17. ANON.; Code of practice for pipelines - Part 1: Steel pipelines on land, PD 8010-1 :
2004, British Standards Institution, London, UK, 2004.
18. ANON.; Code of practice for pipelines - Part 2: Subsea pipelines, PD 8010-2 : 2004,
British Standards Institution, London, UK, 2004.
19. ANON.; Specification for arc welding of carbon and carbon manganese steels, BS 5135 :
1984, British Standards Institution, London, UK, 1984.
20. ANON.; Background to New Fatigue Guidance for Steel Joints and Connections in
Offshore Structures, Prepared by Failure Control Ltd. and MaTSU for the Health and
Safety Executive, Health and Safety Executive, Offshore Technology Report OTH 92
390, December 1999.
17/17