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

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Finite-element mesh for the numerical burst test simulation

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

The load pressure and boundary conditions of the FE model

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

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

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. 7

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

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

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

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

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

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