Sunteți pe pagina 1din 33

Chain out of plane bending fatigue

1. Girassol failures and OPB mechanism


2. Phase 1: validation
OPB stress measurement
Analytical
3. Phase 2: Reduced scale chain OPB fatigue tests
4. Conclusions
5. JIP proposal


1 - Story of Girassol failure events
State of the art design
Girassol chains designed according to conventional fatigue
assessment using API RP2SK T-N curves
API fatigue life >60 years (3 x design life)
According to industry best practice in 2001 Girassol mooring
should not have failed!
Girassol events
Several chains broken in ~ 8 months
Failure on link 5
Bushing friction torque higher than interlink friction torque
Chain must bend before bushing rotates





Chainhawse
Failed link

Chainhawse
Failed link

Chainhawse
Failed link
=>New source of fatigue : Out
of Plane Bending
SBM developed a
methodology to assess
performance of chains under
this new fatigue mechanism
1 - Story of Girassol failure events
1 - OPB Failure mechanism
Tension fatigue is due to
cyclic range of tension
variations loading the
chain.

OPB fatigue is due to
range of interlink rotation
under a certain tension.

Occurs predominantly in
the first link after a link that
is constrained against free
rotational movement.

Failure can be fast.

Link Constraint provided by
Chainhawse or Fairlead.

T
T
|
Mechanism aggravated by high pretensions and is
generating critical cyclic stress loading
1 - Failure mechanism
Crack propagation initiated
at hot spot stress in bending

Crack initiation due to
corrosion pitting

Rupture in 235 days




Area of max stress
in Out of Plane
Bending
M
OPB
Crack propagation

1 - Interlinks locking modes

int

r
i

r
0


N
F
T
i
OPB OPB
r
M
I
o =
OPB i friction
M r T =

Bending stress:



Rolling




Sticking



Sliding:


|
|
.
|

\
|
|
|
.
|

\
|
+
+ =
i
i
i OPB
r r
r
T r M
0
int
* sin * * o |
( )
int
1
* 2 * * o

=
i
a
OPB
r T k M
1 - Interlinks contact area
Flat contact area generated by the proof load test (> 66% MBL)

This indentation area may encourage sticking mode / rolling
mode

Finite Element plastic analysis at proof load



Girassol recovered link
Indentation area
2 1
st
test phase: OPB o measurement
SBM laboratory tests :
measurement of bending
stresses in chains








Chain size (mm): 81, 107, 124, 146

Tension : 20 t 94 t
Bending stress variation against interlink angle








Test campaign to measure OPB stress in sticking locking mode
Determine the influence of:
- Tension
- Diameter
- Interlink angle
Derive an empirical law


2 - Experiments & analysis
) , , ( o o d T f
OPB
=
2a Quarter-Link Model

Fixed Link:
Symmetric B.C. 2-3 plane: U1 = 0.0
3-direction: ? U3 = 0.0 (distributed
coupling)

OPB Link:
Link X-Section rotates
with RP node, T/2 loading
distributed via kinematic
coupling.
OPB Link:
Applied loading rotates
with link rotation
T/2
Fixed Link and OPB Link:
Symmetric B.C. 1-3 plane: U2 = 0.0
Surface Contact
And friction
OPB Link:
Constraint to enforce friction sliding
(3-direction): ? U3 = 0.0 (distributed
coupling)

1
2
3
1
2
3
T/2


94 ton tensile loading
with zero friction
94 ton tensile loading
with
friction
=0.25, 0.5
60% CBL (878 ton)
with
friction
=0.5
94 ton tensile loading
wth
friction
=0.1
94 ton tensile load
with OPB link forced
sliding
friction
=0.3
Elastic material with contact
and friction
+/- 2 amplitude

FEA Details:
Cases:
2a Rolling
2a Sliding
2a Sticking-Sliding
2a Sticking-Sliding vs. Rolling
Experiment and FEA
124 mm Chain links
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Interlink angle (degrees)
S
t
r
e
s
s

a
m
p
l
i
t
u
d
e

(
M
P
a
)
94 ton, test #30
85 ton, test #30
60 ton, test #30
80 ton, test #30
65 ton, test #30
Sticking-Sliding
Roilling
Sticking-Sliding
Rolling
2a 3-Link Model


Experimental setup for 124mm links

2a 3-Link Model


Ramberg-Osgood Stress-Strain Curve
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
0% 5% 10% 15%
Strain
S
t
r
e
s
s

(
M
P
a
)
Engineering
True
Yield 580.0 MPa
Ultimate 860.0 MPa
alpha = 0.71
n = 10.3
eps ult = 12.0%

2a 3-Link Model
2a 3-Link Model Nonlinear vs. Elastic

f = 0.3, d = 150mm, elastic, T=94 ton
-40
-35
-30
-25
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
0 1 2 3 4 5
Interlink Angle (degrees)
S
1
1

i
n

O
P
B

l
i
n
k

(
M
P
a
)
Incremental S11
f = 0.3, d = 150mm, plasticity, T= 94 ton
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
0 1 2 3 4 5
Interlink Angle (degrees)
S
1
1

i
n

O
P
B

l
i
n
k

(
M
P
a
)
Incremental S11
Experiment and FEA
124 mm Chain links
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Interlink angle (degrees)
S
t
r
e
s
s

a
m
p
l
i
t
u
d
e

(
M
P
a
)
94 ton, test #30
85 ton, test #30
60 ton, test #30
80 ton, test #30
65 ton, test #30
FEA 3-link, 94 ton , nonlinear
Experiment and FEA
124 mm Chain links
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Interlink angle (degrees)
S
t
r
e
s
s

a
m
p
l
i
t
u
d
e

(
M
P
a
)
94 ton, test #30
85 ton, test #30
60 ton, test #30
80 ton, test #30
65 ton, test #30
FEA 3 link model, 94 ton, f=0.3
FEA 3 link model, 94 ton, f=0.3, cycle 2
94 ton tensile loading, rig shoe 150 mm,

friction
=0.3, elastic
94 ton tensile loading, rig shoe 150 mm,

friction
=0.3, von-Mises
2a 3-Link Model with Proof Loading
2a 3-Link Model with Proof Loading

60% MBL preload, 94 ton tensile loading, rig
shoe 150 mm,
friction
=0.3, von-Mises
Experiment and FEA
124 mm Chain links
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Interlink angle (degrees)
S
t
r
e
s
s

a
m
p
l
i
t
u
d
e

(
M
P
a
)
94 ton, test #30
85 ton, test #30
60 ton, test #30
80 ton, test #30
65 ton, test #30
FEA 3-link, 60%CBL to 94 ton, f=0.3
f = 0.3, d = 150mm, plasticity, T=878 ton (60% CBL) 94 ton
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Interlink Angle (degrees)
S
1
1

i
n

O
P
B

l
i
n
k

(
M
P
a
)
Incremental S11
2a Link Intimacy



94 ton Load after 80% MBL 94 ton Load with no Preload
Plastic Strains and Interlink Contact
Intimacy for no-Preload vs. 80% CBL Preload
2a Effect of Proof Load and Operating Tension
Experiment and FEA
124 mm Chain links
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Interlink angle (degrees)
S
t
r
e
s
s

a
m
p
l
i
t
u
d
e

(
M
P
a
)
94 ton, test #30
85 ton, test #30
60 ton, test #30
80 ton, test #30
65 ton, test #30
FEA 3-link, 60%CBL to 94 ton, f=0.3
FEA 3-link, 80%CBL to 94 ton, f=0.3
FEA 3-link, 40%CBL to 94 ton, f=0.3
FEA 3-link, 80%CBL to 60 ton, f=0.3

Better understanding of the OPB phenomena

Empirical relationship to predict OPB stress
Redesigned Chain connection

Predictions have been done on other mooring chain with surprising
results. Although traditionally neglected, OPB fatigue damage can be
significant.

Further tests are still undergoing to determine more accurately the
OPB stress relationship.
2 - Conclusion from the 1
st
test campaign
3 2
d
test campaign: fatigue testing
Test program:
Monitoring of 40 mm chain links in 2 rescaled hawse
(Girassol and Kuito)
Fatigue test with both hawses (in salt water)
Aim:
Investigate the interlink angle distribution in both hawses:
influence of the chainhawse design
Validation of the stress relationship for smaller link .
Obtain fatigue endurance data for OBP stresses


3 Phase 2: fatigue test campaign
2 Chainhawse type tested







Fatigue test results
Girassol design:




Kuito design:
- Pitch A: 1 million of cycles: no failure
- Pitch B: 1.3 million of cycles : no failure



Pretension Lab results
50t pitch A 139500
50t + preload 94t Pitch A 102700
35t Pitch A 609500
3 - Girassol results
Angle variation function of the
stroke

Propagation : p1 80% for
T=35t
Angle transmit by L4 larger
than the induced hawse
angle

Stress level at 35 t:
Total hawse angle
variation: Ao
tot
6.44

Interlink angle variation on
L5: Ao
int
4.9

Bending stress range on
L5: Ao
max
380 MPa

Note: o,
NT
140 MPa
3 - Kuito results
Angle variation function of
the stroke
Propagation : p1 34%
for T=35t

Stress level at 35 t:
Total hawse angle
variation: Ao
tot
2.70

L2 Interlink angle
variation: Ao
int
0.92

L2 Mean stress range:
Ao
max
280 MPa for
T=35t


3 - Stress function of interlink angle
Kuito results

Pitch A, Pitch B in air
and in seawater :
quite good
consistency

Stress relationship
Kuito chainhawse :
slope at origin
matches old
relationship, then
higher stresses

Girassol chainhawse:
stress level in
between theoretical
rolling stress and
locking stress


Summary of OPB tests results and determination of reduced curve
parameters
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0
Interlink angle (dg)
Average curves 81 mm 124 mm
Kuito reduced stress
Kuito Pitch B in water reduced stress
Girassol reduced stress
Rolling reduced stresses for r0=30 mm
Rolling reduced stresses for r0=22.8 mm
Poly. (Average curves 81 mm 124 mm)
3 - Fatigue performance and S-N curve
Stresses

Maximum bending
stresses are derived
from measured stresses
on link by multiplying by
a SCF (1.08)
S-N curve
Straight chainhawse
results: non failure
For high stress range,
DNV in air mean curve
gave a nice prediction
Corrosion pitting at the
end of the test may not
be representative from
long term offshore
corrosion
For lower stress ranges,
the predictions may be
too conservative


Measured
stress
S-N curve
1.8
2
2.2
2.4
2.6
2.8
4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8
log (N)
l
o
g

(
A
o
)
DNV RPC203 B1 free corrosion mean S-N curve
Curve chainhawse maximum stresses (failures points)
DNV RPC203 B1 with CP mean S-N curve
Straight chainhawse max stresses in water (non failures)
DNV RPC203 B1 in air mean S-N curve
BS7608 B in air mean S-N curve
4 - Conclusions
Stress relationship

The chainhawse geometry can affect the mode of interlink
interaction
- The curved chainhawse tend to concentrate the chain rotation
to a single interlink angle rotation
- The straight chainhawse tend to evenly spread out the chain
rotation to several interlink angles
- The curved chainhawse exhibit lower stress as a function of o
int

but o
int
a lot larger higher stresses than on the straight
chainhawse
Previously obtained stress relationship function of o
int
Matches initial slope for the straight chainhawse but then tend
to underestimate the stresses
Overestimate the stresses for the curved chainhawse (rolling?)
S-N curve
Standard S-N curve seem to give conservative predictions
The trend seems to show a lower S-N curve slope (higher m value)
compared to standard S-N curve
A link in bending experiences significant shear at the OPB peak
stress need of specific S-N curve for similar loading conditions

5 - JIP proposal
FURTHER NEEDS:
Need OPB Stresses for higher tension levels (% MBL).
More endurance data for chain links subjected to OPB.
DELIVERABLES:
Improved Chain OPB stress relationships.
S-N curves to be used for OPB fatigue calculation.
RP
SCOPE OF WORK :
OPB stress measurements based on chain tests in the SBM
laboratory (4 different chain size for 4 higher levels of tension).
Use FEA, in line with the work done by Chevron to calibrate the
interlink stiffness and sliding threshold model by benchmarking
tests results.
Develop a specific test rig for fatigue testing of chain-links in OPB.
S-N curve determination.
Develop RP for OPB fatigue prediction.
5 - JIP proposal
JIP value
Improve the safety of deepwater mooring systems by providing a
more accurate assessment method for OPB fatigue.
Added value: contribution of previous SBM and Chevron work (See
2005 OTC & 2006 OMAE papers)
Budget

Hrs Cost$US
SBM chain test refurbishment for other chain size and higher loads 50000
Chain purchasing (4 different sizes) 20000
Tests of different chains (4) for (4) different tension levels 800 80000
Calibrate FEA interlink stiffness model / tests results 300 30000
Design a chain fatigue test rig 500 50000
Construct fatigue test rig 150000
Fatigue test about 15 samples for S-N curve determination 1000 100000
Prepare design methodology for OPB fatigue determination for a
Recommended Practice.
200 20000
- Total Cost 500000
JIP Contribution 250000
SBM Contribution 250000

Questions?


Please Contact SBM Monaco
Lucile Rampi
Lucile.rampi@singlebuoy.com
00-33-92-05-86-24