0
Research Papers: Pipeline Systems

Crack in Corrosion Defect Assessment in Transmission Pipelines

[+] Author and Article Information
A. Hosseini

e-mail: sa2hosse@uwaterloo.ca

D. Cronin

e-mail: dscronin@uwaterloo.ca

A. Plumtree

e-mail: plumtree@ uwaterloo.ca
Mechanical and Mechatronics Department,
University of Waterloo,
200 University Ave West,
Waterloo, ON, N2L3G1, Canada

Contributed by the Pressure Vessel and Piping Division of ASME for publication in the Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology. Manuscript received October 9, 2011; final manuscript received April 17, 2012; published online March 18, 2013. Assoc. Editor: Saeid Mokhatab.

J. Pressure Vessel Technol 135(2), 021701 (Mar 18, 2013) (8 pages) Paper No: PVT-11-1185; doi: 10.1115/1.4007644 History: Received October 09, 2011; Revised April 17, 2012

Cracks may occur coincident with corrosion representing a new hybrid defect in gas and oil pipelines known as crack in corrosion (CIC) that is not directly addressed in the current codes or assessment methods. Hence, there is a need to provide an assessment of CIC and evaluate the line integrity, as well as identify the requirements for defect repair or line hydrotest. An experimental investigation was undertaken to evaluate the collapse pressures of lines containing corrosion, cracks, or (CIC) defects in a typical line pipe (API 5L Grade X52, 508 mm diameter, 5.7 mm wall thickness). The mechanical properties of the pipe were measured using tensile, Charpy, and J-testing for use in applying evaluation criteria. Rupture tests were undertaken on end-capped sections containing uniform depth, finite length corrosion, cracks, or CIC defects. Failure occurred by plastic collapse and ductile tearing for the corrosion defects, cracks, and CIC geometries tested. For the corrosion defects, the corroded pipe strength (CPS) method provided the most accurate results (13% conservative on average). The API 579 (level 3 failure assessment diagram (FAD), method D) provided the least conservative collapse pressure predictions for the cracks with an average error of 20%. The CIC collapse pressures were bounded by those of a long corrosion groove (upper bound) and a long crack (lower bound), with collapse dominated by the crack when the crack depth was significant. Application of API 579 to the CIC provided collapse pressure predictions that were 18% conservative. Sixteen rupture tests were successfully completed investigating the failure behavior of longitudinally oriented corrosion, crack, and CIC. The pipe material was characterized and these properties were used to predict the collapse pressure of the defects using current methods. Existing methods for corrosion (CPS) and cracks (API 579, level 3, method D) gave conservative collapse pressure predictions. The collapse pressures for the CIC were bounded by those of a long corrosion groove and a long crack, with collapse dominated by the crack when the crack depth was significant. CIC failure behavior was determined by the crack to corrosion depth ratio, total defect depth and its profile. The results showed that the failure pressures for CIC were reduced when their equivalent depths were similar to those of corrosion and using crack evaluation techniques provided an approximate collapse pressure.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2013 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Failure assessment diagram (level 3)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Typical J–R curve [13]

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Machined slit and crack after cyclic loading

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

CIC defect (a) cut slit, (b) fatigue crack, and (c) corrosion defect

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Semi-elliptical Surface crack in longitudinal direction of a cylinder [1]

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

CIC defect collapse pressure and corresponding corrosion and crack defect analysis results

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Comparison of defect profiles (of equivalent depth)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Experimental and predicted collapse pressures for crack defects

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Collapse pressure prediction for cracks using API579 level 3 FAD (method D)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Collapse pressure prediction for cracks using API579 level 3 FAD (method B)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Corrosion defect collapse pressure predictions compared to existing evaluation methods

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.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
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