0
Research Papers: Pipeline Systems

Determination of Limit Load Solution for the Remaining Load-Carrying Capacity of Corroded Pipelines

[+] Author and Article Information
Mechri Abdel Ghani

Composite Structures and Innovative
Materials Laboratory (LSCMI),
Mechanical Engineering Faculty,
University of Sciences and Technology,
Mohamed Boudiaf (USTOMB),
BP 1505, El M'naouer,
Oran 31000, Algeria
e-mail: agmechri@gmail.com

Ghomari Tewfik

Aeronautics and Propulsive Systems
Laboratory (LASP),
Mechanical Engineering Faculty,
University of Sciences and Technology,
Mohamed Boudiaf (USTOMB),
BP 1505, El M'naouer,
Oran 31000, Algeria
e-mail: tewfikghomari@yahoo.com

Djouadi Djahida

Composites Structures and Innovative
Materials Laboratory (LSCMI),
Mechanical Engineering Faculty,
University of Sciences and Technology,
Mohamed Boudiaf (USTOMB),
BP 1505, El M'naouer,
Oran 31000, Algeria
e-mail: djahidamechri@yahoo.fr

1Corresponding author.

Contributed by the Pressure Vessel and Piping Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF PRESSURE VESSEL TECHNOLOGY. Manuscript received September 16, 2015; final manuscript received March 17, 2016; published online April 29, 2016. Assoc. Editor: Allen C. Smith.

J. Pressure Vessel Technol 138(5), 051701 (Apr 29, 2016) (8 pages) Paper No: PVT-15-1215; doi: 10.1115/1.4033090 History: Received September 16, 2015; Revised March 17, 2016

The evaluation of pipelines having external corrosion defect and their remaining load-carrying capacity is a concern which becomes important in energy industry, especially with the increasing operating pressures and the consequences which can occur following the bursting of these pipelines. A lower bound analytical solution for the prediction of the burst pressure of pipelines is proposed. This solution is based on the approach of plastic-instability criterion in terms of material strain-hardening exponent of internally pressurized corroded pipelines. The suggested solution is evaluated by using database comprising more than 100 carried out tests of pipelines with or without corrosion defects. This database is collected from the literature and covers the majority of steel materials as well as the various standard sizes. The accuracy of the proposed solution is compared with B31.G method and its improved version B31.G Mod by using statistical analyses in terms of average error and its correspondent standard deviation. The proposed solution is accurate than B31.G and modified B31.G methods that are conservative and provide in some cases of middle and high strength material an overestimated burst pressure predictions.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2016 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

ANSI/ASME, 1984, “ Manual for Determining the Remaining Strength of Corroded Pipelines,” American National Standards Institute/American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York, Standard No. B31G-1984.
ASME, 1991, “ Manual for Determining the Remaining Strength of Corroded Pipeline,” American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York, Standard No. B31G-1991.
ASME, 2009, “ Manual for Determining the Remaining Strength of Corroded Pipelines,” American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York, Standard No. B31G-2009.
Kiefner, J. F. , and Vieth, P. H. , 1989, “ A Modified Criterion for Evaluation the Remaining of Corroded Pipe,” Pipeline Supervisory Committee, American Gas Association, Battelle, OH, Report No. PR3-805.
Det Norske Veritas, 2004, “ Recommended Practice: Corroded Pipelines,” American Gas Association, Battelle, OH, Report No. DNV-RP-F101.
PRCI, 2008, “ A Review of Methods for Assessing the Remaining Strength of Corroded Pipelines,” Pipeline Research Council International, Falls Church, VA, http://prci.org/index.php/site/projects_single/a_review_of_methods_for_assessing_the_remaining_strength_of_corroded_pipeli/
Zhu, X. K. , and Leis, B. N. , 2003, “ Influence of the Yield-to-Tensile Strength Ratio on Failure Assessment of Corroded Pipelines,” ASME Paper No. PVP2003-2004.
Bjornoy, O. H. , and Marley, M. J. , 2001, “ Assessment of Corroded Pipelines: Past, Present and Future,” 11th International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference, Stavanger, Norway, June 17–22, pp. 93–101.
Stephens, D. R. , Leis, B. N. , Kurre, J. D. , and Rudland, D. L. , 1999, “ Development of an Alternative Failure Criterion for Residual Strength of Corrosion Defects in Moderate to High-Toughness Pipe,” Battelle Report to PRC International Report, AGA Catalog No. L51794.
Cronin, D. S. , and Pick, R. J. , 2000, “ A New Multi-Level Assessment Procedure for Corroded Line Pipe,” Third International Pipeline Conference (IPC 2000), Calgary, AB, Canada, Oct. 1–5, pp. 801–808.
Stewart, G. , and Klever, F. J. , 1994, “ An Analytical Model to Predict the Burst Capacity of Pipelines,” 13th International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering (OMAE 1994), Houston, TX, Feb. 27–Mar. 3, pp. 177–188.
Leis, B. N. , and Stephens, D. R. , 1997, “ An Alternative Approach to Assess the Integrity of Corroded Line Pipe—Part I: Current Status,” Seventh International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference, Honolulu, HI, May 25–30, Vol. IV, pp. 624–641.
Leis, B. N. , and Stephens, D. R. , 1997, “ An Alternative Approach to Assess the Integrity of Corroded Line Pipe—Part II: Alternative Criterion,” Seventh International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference, Honolulu, HI, May 25–30, Vol. IV, pp. 624–641.
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]
Choi, J. B. , and Goo, B. K. , 2003, “ Development of Limit Load Solutions for Corroded Gas Pipelines,” Int. J. Pressure Vessels Piping, 80(2), pp. 121–128. [CrossRef]
Besel, M. , Zimmermann, S. , Kalwa, C. , Koppe, T. , and Liessem, A. , 2010, “ Corrosion Assessment Method Validation for High-Grade Line Pipe,” ASME Paper No. IPC2010-e31664.
Osaguchi, S. , Makino, H. , and Hamada, M. , 2004, “ Development and Mechanical Properties of X120 Linepipe,” Int. J. Offshore Polar Eng., 14(1), pp. 29–35.
Cronin, D. S. , and Pick, R. J. , 2000, “ Experimental Database for Corroded Pipe: Evaluation of RSTRENG and B31G,” Third International Pipeline Conference (IPC 2000), Calgary, AB, Canada, Oct. 1–5, pp. 757–767.
Benjamin, A. , Vieira, R. D. , Freire, J. L. F. , and Castro, J. , 2000, “ Burst Tests on Pipeline With Long External Corrosion,” Third International Pipeline Conference (IPC 2000), Calgary, AB, Canada, Oct. 1–5, pp. 793–799.
Kim, Y. P. , Kim, W. S. , Lee, Y. K. , and Oh, K. H. , 2004, “ The Evaluation of Failure Pressure for Corrosion Defects Within Girth or Seam Weld in Transmission Pipelines,” ASME Paper No. IPC2004-0216.
Noronha, D. B., Jr. , Benjimin, A. C. , and de Andrade, E. Q. , 2002, “ Finite Element Models for the Prediction of the Failure Pressure of Pipeline With Long Corrosion Defects,” ASME Paper No. IPC2002-27191.
Mok, D. H. B. , Pick, R. J. , Glover, A. G. , and Hoff, R. , 1991, “ Bursting of Line Pipe With Long External Corrosion,” J. Pressure Vessel Piping, 46(2), pp. 195–216. [CrossRef]
Chauhan, V. , and Crossley, J. , “ PROJECT #153H: Corrosion Assessment Guidance for High Strength Steels,” GL Industrial Services USA, Inc., Mechanicsville, PA, http://ntl.bts.gov/lib/44000/44200/44220/44220.pdf
Freire, J. L. F. , Vieira, R. D. , Castro, J. T. P. , and Benjamin, A. C. , 2006, “ Part 3: Burst Tests of Pipeline With Extensive Longitudinal Metal Loss,” Exp. Tech., 30(6), pp. 60–65. [CrossRef]
Toshihido, A. , and Hiroyuki, M. , 2012, “ Evaluation of Leak-Rupture Behavior for Axially Part-Through-Wall Notched High-Strength Line Pipes,” ASME Paper No. IPC2012-90216.
Mannucci, G. , Demofonti, G. , Harris, D. , Barsanti, L. , and Hillenbrand, H. G. , 2002, Fracture Properties of API X 100 Gas Pipeline Steels, Europipe Technical Publications, Ratingen, Germany.

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

The variation of the hoop stress (MPa) at the defect at the numerical burst pressure

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

The load pressure and boundary conditions of the FE model

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Finite-element mesh for the numerical burst test simulation

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Variation of mean error and standard deviation of burst pressure predictions in comparison to the experimental database

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Comparison of the dependence of failure pressure on normalized defect depth and length between the FEM results and the proposed solution

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Comparison of the burst pressure between modified-B31G method and the proposed solution

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Comparison of the burst pressure between B31G method and the proposed solution

Tables

Errata

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