MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2117206331 · doi:10.2118/169813-pa

Design Method Combining API and ASME Codes for Subsea Equipment for HP/HT Conditions Up to 25,000-psi Pressure and 400°F Temperature

2014· article· en· W2117206331 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueOil and Gas Facilities · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicOffshore Engineering and Technologies
Canadian institutionsConocoPhillips (Canada)
FundersOhio State University
KeywordsSubseaFlangeEngineeringStructural engineeringMechanical engineeringPressure vesselLinearizationSteel designMarine engineeringNonlinear system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary A current challenge in the offshore industry is the design of subsea equipment for pressures exceeding 15,000 psi and temperatures exceeding 250°F. This combination of pressure and temperature has been fairly accepted as the start of the high-pressure/high-temperature (HP/HT) region. The current American Petroleum Institute (API) standard for designing subsea equipment, API Specification (SPEC) 17D (2011), is limited to a working pressure of 15,000 psi and provides little guidance on temperature conditions exceeding 250°F. This paper demonstrates a design methodology which combines the API and American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code (BPVC) for designing an example subsea pressure containing component for HP/HT conditions greater than 15,000 psi and 250°F. This paper shows the evaluation of a combined load-capacity chart for an API SPEC 17D flange flow-loop [API SPEC 6A (2010), 4 in., 20 ksi) for a design pressure of 20,000 psi and a temperature of 350°F with external tension and bending loads. Both the linear elastic and elastic plastic methods for protection against plastic collapse are used to determine the structural capacity of the flange body. These methods combine the API material and design allowables and ASME design methods. Stress classification and linearization are used for the evaluation of design capacities with linear methods. Modified load-resistance design factors are used both to evaluate design capacities and to account for the difference in ASME and API hydrostatic-test pressures with elastic-plastic methods. The structural capacity is combined with thermal analysis to determine the effects of high temperature on the flange capacity. To assess the cyclic-loading capacity of the flange, stress-based fatigue analysis and fracture-mechanics analysis are also compared. The results obtained are comparable to existing API Technical Report (TR) 6AF1 (1998) charts. This work has been performed to demonstrate both the acceptance of existing methods for HP/HT conditions and to introduce the advanced ASME design methods for designing API SPEC 17D subsea equipment. The methods presented are acceptable for designing equipment up to working pressures of up to 25,000 psi and temperatures up to 400°F.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.608
Threshold uncertainty score0.744

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.223 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it