0
Research Papers: Pipeline Systems

Analytical Assessment of the Remaining Strength of Corroded Pipelines and Comparison With Experimental Criteria

[+] Author and Article Information
Sérgio B. Cunha

Professor
Mechanical Engineering Department,
State University of Rio de Janeiro,
R. São Francisco Xavier 524,
Rio de Janeiro, RJ 20550-900, Brazil
e-mail: sergio.cunha@uerj.br

Theodoro A. Netto

Professor,
Ocean Engineering Department, COPPE,
Federal University of Rio de Janeiro,
Av. Athos da Silveira Ramos,
149, Prédio do CT, Bloco I,
sala 108, Cidade Universitária,
Rio de Janeiro, RJ, 21941-909, Brazil

1Corresponding author.

Contributed by the Pressure Vessel and Piping Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF PRESSURE VESSEL TECHNOLOGY. Manuscript received November 11, 2015; final manuscript received July 29, 2016; published online November 4, 2016. Assoc. Editor: Haofeng Chen.

J. Pressure Vessel Technol 139(3), 031701 (Nov 04, 2016) (11 pages) Paper No: PVT-15-1251; doi: 10.1115/1.4034409 History: Received November 11, 2015; Revised July 29, 2016

Recently published analytical solutions for the remaining strength of a pipeline with narrow axial and axisymmetric volumetric flaws are described in this paper, and their experimental and numerical validation are reviewed. Next, the domains of applicability of each solution are studied, some simplifications suitable to steel pipelines are introduced, and an analytical model for the remaining strength of corroded steel pipelines is presented. This analytical solution is compared with the standards most widely used in the industry for assessment of corroded pipelines: ASME B31G, modified ASME, and DNV RP-F101. The empirical and analytical solutions are compared with respect to their most relevant parameters: critical (or flow) stress, flaw geometry parameterization, and Folias or bulging factor formulation. Finally, two common pipeline steels, API 5L grades X42 and X100, are selected to compare the different corrosion assessment methodologies. Corrosion defects of 75%, 50%, and 25% thickness reduction are evaluated. None of the experimental equations take into account the strain-hardening behavior of the pipe material, and therefore, they cannot properly model materials with very dissimilar plastic behavior. The comparison indicates that the empirical methods underestimate the remaining strength of shallow defects, which might lead to unnecessary repair recommendations. Furthermore, it was found that the use of a parameter employed by some of the empirical equations to model the assumed flaw shape leads to excessively optimistic and nonconservative results of remaining strength for long and deep flaws. Finally, the flaw width is not considered in the experimental criteria, and the comparative results suggest that the empirical solutions are somewhat imprecise to model the burst of wide flaws.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2017 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Davis, P. M. , Dubois, J. , Gambardella, F. , Sanchez-Garcia, E. , and Uhlig, F. , 2011, “ Performance of European Cross-Country Oil Pipelines—Statistical Summary of Reported Spillages in 2010 and Since 1971,” CONCAWE, Report No. 8/11.
European Gas Pipeline Incident Report Group, 2011, “ 8th Report of the European Gas Pipeline Incident Group 1970–2010,” Report No. 11.R.0402 (version 2).
McConnell, R. A. , and Haswell, J. V. , 2011, “ Pipeline Product Loss Incidents (1962–2010),” United Kingdom Onshore Pipeline Operators' Association, Derbyshire, Report No. 11/076.
U.S. Department of Transportation, 2012, “ Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, Pipeline Incident and Mileage Reports,” accessed June 6, 2011, http://www.phmsa.dot.gov
National Energy Board of Canada, 2010, “ Comparative Analysis of Pipeline Performance 2000–2008,” accessed January 12, 2012, http://www.neb-one.gc.ca
Kiefner, J. F. , Maxey, W. A. , Eiber, R. J. , and Duffy, A. R. , 1973, “ Failure Stress Levels in Pressurized Cylinders,” Progress in Flaw Growth and Fracture Toughness Testing, ASTM STP 536, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, pp. 461–481.
Kiefner, J. F. , and Veith, P. H. , 1989, “ A Modified Criterion for Evaluating the Remaining Strength of Corroded Pipeline,” Pipeline Research Council International, Report No. L51688Be. http://www.osti.gov/scitech/biblio/7181509
Wang, Y. S. , 1991, “ An Elastic Limit Criterion for the Remaining Strength of Corroded Pipe,” International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Artic Engineering, Vol. V, pp. 179–186.
Bubenik, T. A. , Olson, R. J. , Stephens, D. R. , and Francini, R. B. , 1992, “ Analyzing the Pressure Strength of Corroded Line Pipe,” International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, Vol. V-A, pp. 225–231.
Chouchaoui, B. A. , Pick, R. J. , and Yost, D. B. , 1992, “ Burst Pressure Predictions of Line Pipe Containing Single Corrosion Pits Using the Finite Element Method,” International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, Vol. V-A, pp. 203–210.
Kiefner, J. F. , and Veith, P. H. , 1993, “ Database of Corroded Pipe Tests,” Pipeline Research Council International, Report No. L51689e.
Kiefner, J. F. , Veith, P. H. , and Roytman, I. , 1996, “ Continued Validation of RSTRENG,” Pipeline Research Council International, Report No. L51749e.
Netto, T. A. , Ferraz, U. S. , and Estefen, S. F. , 2005, “ The Effect of Corrosion Defects on the Burst Pressure of Pipelines,” J. Constr. Steel Res., 61(8), pp. 1185–1204. [CrossRef]
Benjamim, A. C. , and Andrade, E. Q. , 2003, “ Modified Method for the Assessment of the Strength of Corroded Pipeline,” Rio Pipeline Conference, Paper No. IBP 413-03.
The American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 1991, “ ASME B31G—Manual for Determining the Remaining Strength of Corroded Pipelines,” American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York.
DNV, 1999, “ Recommended Practice DNV RP-F101—Corroded Pipelines,” Det Norske, Veritas, Høvik, Norway.
Sigurdsson, G. , Cramer, E. H. , Bjørnøy, O. H. , Fu, B. , and Ritchie, D. , 1999, “ Background to DNV RP-F101 Corroded Pipelines,” International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, Paper No. OMAE 99/PIPE-5031.
Bjørnøy, O. H. , Sigurdsson, G. , Cramer, E. H. , Fu, B. , and Ritchie, D. , 1999, “ Introduction to DNV RP-F101 Corroded Pipelines,” International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, Paper No. OMAE 99/PIPE-5030.
Kanninen, M. F. , Pagalthivarthi, K. V. , and Popelar, C. H. , 1992, “ A Theoretical Analysis for the Residual Strength of Corroded Gas and Oil Transmission Pipelines,” Corrosion Forms and Control for Infrastructure, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, Standard No. ASTM STP 1137, pp. 183–198. http://www.astm.org/DIGITAL_LIBRARY/STP/PAGES/STP19762S.htm
Stewart, G. , Klever, F. J. , and Ritchie, D. , 1994, “ An Analytical Model to Predict the Burst Capacity of Pipelines,” International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, Pipeline Technology, Vol. 5, pp. 177–188. http://www.osti.gov/scitech/biblio/55751
Stephens, D. R. , Leis, B. N. , Kurre, M. D. , and Rudland, D. , 1999, “ Development of an Alternative Failure Criterion for Residual Strength of Corrosion Defects in Moderate to High Toughness Pipe,” Pipeline Research Council International, Report No. L51794. http://www.osti.gov/scitech/biblio/325700
Cunha, S. B. , and Netto, T. A. , 2012, “ Analytical Solution for Stress, Strain and Plastic Instability of Pressurized Pipes With Volumetric Flaws,” Int. J. Pressure Vessels Piping, 89, pp. 187–212. [CrossRef]
Timoshenko, S. P. , and Goodier, J. N. , 1970, Theory of Elasticity, 3rd ed., McGraw-Hill, New York.
Considère, M. , 1885, “ Mémoires sur L'employ du Fer et de L'acier dans les Constructions,” Ann. Ponts Chausses, 6(9), pp. 574–775.
Zhu, X. , and Leis, B. N. , 2006, “ Average Shear Stress Yield Criterion and Its Application to Plastic Collapse Analysis of Pipelines,” Int. J. Pressure Vessels Piping, 83(9), pp. 663–671. [CrossRef]
Zhu, X. , and Leis, B. N. , 2007, “ Theoretical and Numerical Predictions of Burst Pressure of Pipelines,” ASME J. Pressure Vessel Technol., 129(4), pp. 644–652. [CrossRef]
Law, M. , and Bowie, G. , 2007, “ Prediction of Failure Strain and Burst Pressure in High Yield-To-Tensile Strength Ratio Linepipe,” Int. J. Pressure Vessels Piping, 84(8), pp. 487–492. [CrossRef]
Brabin, T. A. , Christopher, T. , and Rao, B. N. , 2011, “ Bursting Pressure of Mild Steel Vessels,” Int. J. Pressure Vessels Piping, 88(3), pp. 119–122. [CrossRef]
Dieter, G. E. , 1988, Mechanical Metallurgy—SI Metric Edition, D. Bacon , ed., McGraw-Hill, New York.
ABAQUS/Standard, 2005, “ ABAQUS/Standard User's Manual ver. 6.5,” Dassault Systèmes Simulia Corp., Providence, RI.
Cunha, S. B. , 2007, “ Analytical Solution for the Plastic Instability of Internally Pressurized Pipes With Volumetric Flaws,” Rio Pipeline Conference, Paper No. IBP 1045-07.
Shuai, J. , Chun'e, Z. , Fulai, C. , and Renyang, H. , 2008, “ Prediction of Failure Pressure of Corroded Pipelines Based on Finite Element Analysis,” ASME Paper No. IPC2008-64260.
Zhu, X. , and Leis, B. N. , 2005, “ Influence of Yield-to-Tensile Strength Ratio on Failure Assessment of Corroded Pipelines,” ASME J. Pressure Vessel Technol., 127(4), pp. 436–442. [CrossRef]
Vieira, R. D. , 2014, “ Ensaios de Tração nos Materiais Base de Nove Tubos Usados na Confecção dos Espécimes Tubulares,” Pontifícia Universidade Católica PUC-RJ, Report for PETROBRAS, Contract No. 004/CTDUT/2014.
Souza, R. D. , 2003, “ Avaliação Estrutural de Dutos com Defeitos de Corrosão Reais,” M.Sc. dissertation, Pontifícia Universidade Católica PUC-RJ, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
Leis, B. N. , Walsh, W. J. , and Brust, F. W. , 1990, “ Mechanical Behavior of Selected Line-Pipe Steels,” Batelle Report No. L51624.
Teixeira, J. C. G. , 2003, “ Avaliação de Defeitos Planares em Dutos,” PETROBRAS Internal Report No. PRODUT 600377 - RT TMEC 015/03.
Teixeira, J. C. G. , 2003, “ Estudos de Aplicação de Aços API X-80 para Tubos,” PETROBRAS Internal Report No. PRODUT 600237.
Benjamim, A. C. , Andrade, E. Q. , Jacob, B. P. , Pereira, L. C. , and Machado, R. S., Jr ., 2006, “ Failure Behavior of Colonies Corrosion Defects Composed of Symmetrically Arranged Defects,” ASME Paper No. IPC 2006-10266.
API, 2010, “ Specification for Line Pipe,” American Petroleum Institute, Wasington, DC, Standard No. API 5L.
ASME, 2012, “ ASME B31G—Manual for Determining the Remaining Strength of Corroded Pipelines,” American Society for Mechanical Engineers, New York.

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Effect of flaw width—SAE 1020 carbon steel d/t2 = 50%

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Circumferential strain components versus flaw width

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Narrow flaw model comparison with full scale experiments [14]—API 5L X60

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Narrow flaw model comparison with experiments and FEM simulations—ANSI 304 stainless steel

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Narrow flaw model comparison with experiments and FEM simulations—SAE 1020 carbon steel

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Axisymmetric model comparison with experiments and FEM simulations—ANSI 304 stainless steel

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Axisymmetric model comparison with experiments and FEM simulations—SAE 1020 carbon steel

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Effect of flaw width—ANSI 304 stainless steel d/t2 = 50%

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Analytical versus empirical models—API 5L X42 steel

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Analytical versus empirical models—API 5L X100 steel

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

Effect of the pipe slenderness—API 5L X100 steel, 75% wall loss

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