高级检索
刘明亮, 张玉凤, 霍立兴, 邓彩艳. 海底管道安全性评定方法的分析[J]. 焊接学报, 2006, (8): 75-78.
引用本文: 刘明亮, 张玉凤, 霍立兴, 邓彩艳. 海底管道安全性评定方法的分析[J]. 焊接学报, 2006, (8): 75-78.
LIU Mingliang, ZHANG Yufeng, HUO Lixing, DENG Caiyan. Methods of safe assessment for offshore pipeline[J]. TRANSACTIONS OF THE CHINA WELDING INSTITUTION, 2006, (8): 75-78.
Citation: LIU Mingliang, ZHANG Yufeng, HUO Lixing, DENG Caiyan. Methods of safe assessment for offshore pipeline[J]. TRANSACTIONS OF THE CHINA WELDING INSTITUTION, 2006, (8): 75-78.

海底管道安全性评定方法的分析

Methods of safe assessment for offshore pipeline

  • 摘要: 在给定裂纹尺寸、载荷条件以及材料的力学性能下,根据欧共体提出结构完整性评定方法SINTAP(structuralintegrityassessmentprocedure)和英国标准BS7910两种方法,针对API5LX65管线钢焊接接头焊趾处的表面裂纹进行安全评定,用极限载荷法和CTOD(裂纹尖端张开位移)试验结果进行评定。同时根据母材和全焊缝拉伸试验结果,建立X65管线钢焊接接头的0级以及1级(BS7910的1级和2级)评定曲线。结果表明,无论采用SINTAP还是BS7910方法,评定点均在评定曲线范围内,说明该结构是安全的,并且两种方法评定结果十分接近。将两种方法进行分析将有助于海底管道安全评定的选择,为选择评定方法的多样性奠定基础。

     

    Abstract: Given crack size and load, two methods of Structure Integrity Assessment Procedure(SINTAP)sponsored by the European Commission and BS910 were applied to assessment for welded joints of the API 5LX65 pipeline steel with surface flaw at the weld toe. The assessment was carried out according to Limit Load Solutions and the CTOD(Crack Tip Opening Displacement) test result. The failure lines of level 0 and level 1(level 1 and level 2 of BS7910) of the weld were derived from the tensile test results. The assessment showed that the assessment point is located within the failure line of analysis level 0 and level 1(level 1 and level 2 of BS7910). So welded joint of the pipeline is safe and the values obtained by using the two methods are very similar. Analysis of these two methods gives a help to use different methods for pipeline structure assessment, This study laid the foundation of choosing different methods of pipeline structure assessment.

     

/

返回文章
返回