0
Research Papers

Failure Pressure in Corroded Pipelines Based on Equivalent Solutions for Undamaged Pipe

[+] Author and Article Information
M. Bony

 Institut Français de Mécanique Avancée, Campus de Clermont-Ferrand, France

J. L. Alamilla1

 Instituto Mexicano del Petróleo, Eje Central Lazaro Cardenas Norte No. 152, 07730, México, D.F., Méxicojalamill@imp.mx

R. Vai

 Instituto Mexicano del Petróleo, Eje Central Lazaro Cardenas Norte No. 152, 07730, México, D.F., México

E. Flores

 Instituto Politécnico Nacional, ESIA-Zacatenco, México

1

Corresponding author.

J. Pressure Vessel Technol 132(5), 051001 (Aug 20, 2010) (8 pages) doi:10.1115/1.4001801 History: Received October 20, 2008; Revised June 10, 2009; Published August 20, 2010; Online August 20, 2010

Simple and accurate approaches to predict failure pressures in corroded pipelines are outlined in this work. It is shown that failure pressures for corroded pipelines can be predicted from the solution for undamaged pipelines using an equivalent wall thickness. Three different yield criteria (Tresca, ASSY (average shear stress yield), and von Mises) are reviewed in the light of reported experimental burst pressures. At first, failure pressures for cylindrical vessels with an infinitely long groove are studied by means of numerical simulations. The effect of groove size (depth and width) over the pipeline performance is quantified through a model. Finally, the scheme is extended to estimate the failure pressure of thin walled vessels with irregular finite defects.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2010 by American Society of Mechanical Engineers
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 1

Experimental failure pressures versus predicted failure pressures for Tresca, ASSY, and von Mises yield criteria

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 2

Normalized analytical burst pressure versus strain hardening coefficient

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 3

Detailed mesh scheme for a pipe with a groove defect

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 4

Normalized numerical pressure plong groove versus the normalized width of an infinitely long groove for different steel materials

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 5

Normalized numerical pressure plong groove versus the normalized depth of an infinitely long groove

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 6

Gamma parameter for different groove depths versus the width of an infinitely long groove for different steel materials

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 7

Gamma parameter versus the depths of an infinitely long groove for different groove widths

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 8

Numerical simulations of normalized pressure plong groove (finite element) versus analytical results (Eqs. 6,7)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 9

(a) Experimental failure pressures versus predicted failure pressures for Tresca yield criterion. (b) Experimental failure pressures versus predicted failure pressures for ASSY yield criterion.

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 10

Geometry of a corrosion defect in discretized points

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In