Strength Assessment of a Corroded Pipeline through the Burst Test: Case Study
Publication: Journal of Pipeline Systems Engineering and Practice
Volume 7, Issue 3
Abstract
Failure due to corrosion has become one of the major problems in maintaining pipeline integrity. Smart pigs have been used for decades to assess the in situ condition of steel pipe serving the oil and gas industries. The assessment techniques used are generally described in standards prepared by American Petroleum Institute (API) and American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). These standards are viewed by some in the industry as being conservative, resulting in premature repair or replacement of pipelines. Therefore, pipeline operators need better, more reliable condition assessment tools, not only to assure safe operations, but also to optimize maintenance costs. That is to repair or replace only the pipe sections that need the remediation. Recently, an alternative condition assessment method was developed using finite element (FE) analyses that were validated through actual pipe burst tests results. In this paper, the burst test procedure and results of testing a 250-mm (10-in.) nominal diameter API X52 pipe sections are presented. The experiments consisted of an exhumed pipe section with internal corrosion and additional sections with simulated corrosion defects. Details of the pipe and corrosion geometry, material properties, and the conditions surrounding each failure location were recorded.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS for providing the facilities for the research work. The authors would also like to acknowledge PETRONAS for providing after service pipelines and sponsoring costs pertaining to the lab test.
References
ANSYS release 15 [Computer software]. ANSYS, Canonsburg, PA.
ASME. (1991). “Manual for determining the remaining strength of corroded pipelines.” ANSI/ASME B31, New York.
ASTM. (2008). “Standard test methods for tension testing of metallic materials.” ASTM E8M-04, West Conshohocken, PA.
Batte, A. D., Kirkwood, F. B., and Vu, D. (1997). “New methods for determining the remaining strength of corroded pipelines.” OMAE V Pipeline Technology, ASME, New York.
Belachew, C. T., Ismail, M. C., and Karuppanan, S. (2009). Capacity assessment of corroded pipelines using available codes, NACE International, Houston.
Belachew, C. T., Ismail, M. C., and Karuppanan, S. (2015). “Strength assessment of corroded pipelines—Finite element simulations and parametric studies.” J. Pressure Vessel Technol., in press.
Benjamin, A. C., Freire, J. L. F., Vieira, R. D., and Andrade, E. Q. d. (2006). “Burst tests on pipeline containing closely spaced corrosion defects.” Proc., OMAE2006, 25th Int. Conf. on offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, Ocean, Offshore, and Arctic Engineering Division, Houston.
Bjornoy, O. H., and Marley, M. J. (2001). “Assessment of corroded pipelines: Past, present and future.” Proc., 11th (2001) Int. Offshore and Polar Engineering Conf., International Society of Offshore and Polar Engineers, CA, 93–101.
Bjornoy, O. H., Sigurdsson, G., and Cramer, E. (2000). “Residual strength of corroded pipelines, DNV test results.” Proc., 10th (2000) Int. Offshore and Polar Engineering Conf., International Society of Offshore and Polar Engineers, CA, 189–196.
Choi, J. B., Goo, B. K., Kim, J. C., Kim, Y. J., and Kim, W. S. (2003). “Development of limit load solutions for corroded gas pipelines.” Int. J. Pressure Vessels Piping, 80(2), 121–128.
Chouchaoui, B. (1993). “Evaluating the remaining strength of corroded pipelines.” Ph.D. thesis, Univ. of Waterloo, ON, Canada.
Cosham, A. (2004). “The assessment of corrosion in pipelines-guidance in the pipeline.” Pipeline Pigging and Integrity Management Conf., Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Cronin, D. S., and Pick, R. J. (2002). “Prediction of the failure pressure for complex corrosion defects.” Int. J. Pressure Vessels Piping, 79(4), 279–287.
DNV (Det Norske Veritas). (2004). “Recommended practice DNV-RP-F101 corroded pipelines.” 2nd Ed., Hovic, Norway.
KAPA (Kiefner and Associates Pipe Assessment). (2000). “A modified criterion for evaluating the remaining strength of corroded pipe.” Kiefner and Associates, Worthington, OH.
KAPA (Kiefner and Associates Pipe Assessment). (2006). Kiefner and Associates, Worthington, OH.
Karuppanan, S., Wahab, A. A., Patil, S. S., and Zahari, M. A. (2014). “Estimation of burst pressure of corroded pipeline using finite element analysis (FEA).” Adv. Mater. Res., 879, 191–198.
Keifner, J. F., and Duffy, A. R. (1971). Summary of research to determine the strength of corroded areas in line pipe, Battelle Columbus Laboratories, Columbus, OH.
Seleznev, V., Aleshin, V., and Kobyakov, V. (2005). “Analysis of the corroded pipeline segments using in-line inspection data.” 8th Int. Conf. of the Slovenian Society for Non-Destructive Testing, Slovenian Society for Non-Destructive Testing, Ljubljana, Slovenia, 383–389.
Vieth, P. H., and Kiefner, J. K. (1994). “Database for corroded pipe tests.”, Kiefner and Associates, Worthington, OH.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Journal of Pipeline Systems Engineering and Practice
Volume 7 • Issue 3 • August 2016
Copyright
© 2016 American Society of Civil Engineers.
History
Received: Jan 26, 2015
Accepted: Nov 4, 2015
Published online: Jan 14, 2016
Discussion open until: Jun 14, 2016
Published in print: Aug 1, 2016
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Download citation
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.