You are on page 1of 10

Proceedings of the 2012 9th International Pipeline Conference IPC2012 September 24-28, 2012, Calgary, Alberta, Canada

IPC2012-90401

ASSESSMENT OF THE REMAINING STRENGTH OF CORRODED SMALL DIAMETER (BELOW 6) PIPELINES AND PIPEWORK
Troy Swankie GL Noble Denton Loughborough, LE11 3GR, UK Robert Owen and Robert Bood National Grid Plc. Warwick, CV34 6DA, UK Vinod Chauhan GL Noble Denton Loughborough, LE11 3GR, UK

Geoffrey Gilbert BG Group Reading, RG6 1PT, UK

ABSTRACT Internal and external corrosion damage is a major cause of pipeline failures worldwide. When corrosion features in pipelines are detected by in-line inspection (ILI), a decision whether to replace, repair or accept and monitor must be made. Extensive experimental and numerical work has been undertaken to develop methods for assessing the remaining strength of corroded transmission pipelines. Common methods used by the pipeline industry include ASME B31G, modified ASME B31G and LPC. These methods are semi-empirical and have been developed using a modified version of a toughness independent ductile failure criterion for pressurized pipes containing axially orientated surface breaking defects. The validity range of these models is dominated by large diameter (10 to 48), thin walled, low grade (API 5L grade A to X65) and low yield to tensile ratio line pipe. Smaller diameter (not greater than 6), thick walled pipelines and pipework located, for example, at above ground installations, compressor and pressure reduction stations are very common. The use of ASME B31G, modified ASME B31G or LPC may not be appropriate when assessing the remaining strength of small diameter pipelines and pipework. No alternative methods are available in the public domain and hence a program of work was undertaken to derive appropriate defect acceptance limits by conducting a series of full-scale burst tests on small diameter pipe with simulated corrosion defects. It was concluded that the LPC method gave the most accurate prediction of failure pressure when compared with the results of the full-scale tests, and the most conservative predictions of failure pressure were obtained using the ASME B31G method.

INTRODUCTION A procedure for the inspection, assessment and repair of damage to onshore steel pipelines transporting sweet, dry natural gas, operating at pressures greater than 6.9barg was developed by the former British Gas Corporation back in 1974. This procedure, referred to as BGC/PS/CP/P11[1] (hereafter P11), has been extensively updated in recent years by GL Noble Denton and is used by National Grid and BG Group to assess the integrity of their pipeline assets. In 2006, GL Noble Denton undertook a review of National Grid and BG Group pipeline/pipework assets to determine the applicability of the P11 procedure to these assets. The review concluded that both National Grid and BG Group had a substantial population of small diameter (sub 6) pipelines and pipework. It was also concluded that the acceptance limits for the different damage types in the P11 procedure were derived from empirical and/or semi-empirical equations validated from data obtained from tests undertaken on pipelines of diameter greater than 6. Consequently, concerns were raised that use of the P11 procedure may not be applicable for assessing defects in pipelines/pipework of diameter 6 and below, and with a diameter to wall thickness (D/t) ratio of less than 20. To address these concerns, GL Noble Denton undertook a series of burst tests simulating corrosion damage in small diameter pipe. In total 80 burst tests were undertaken on six sizes of pipe, with simulated corrosion defects ranging in depth from 0.4t (where t is the pipe wall thickness) to 0.8t, and lengths from 25mm to 150mm. Actual failure pressures were then compared with standard assessment methods such as ASME B31G[2][3], modified ASME B31G[3][4] and LPC[5][6]. This paper summarizes the results of the burst test program and the applicability of the existing semi-empirical methods for

Copyright 2012 by ASME

assessing the remaining strength of small diameter pipelines and pipework. NOMENCLATURE D = Specified outside diameter of the pipe El = Elongation t = Pipe wall thickness d = Depth of metal loss L = Length of metal loss M = Bulging stress magnification factor = Failure pressure (corroded pipe) Pf = Failure pressure (un-corroded pipe) Po RA = Reduction in cross section area RB = Round bar test specimen = Yield strength (at 0.2% strain) Rp0.2 = Tensile strength Rm = Reserve strength factor Rs = Flow stress Sflow SMTS = Specified minimum tensile strength SMYS = Specified minimum yield strength ASSESSMENT METHODS The equations for each assessment method are presented below, together with a summary of the range of pipe sizes and defects tested towards validation of the methods. Original ASME B31G The original ASME B31G failure equation is given by[2][3]:

Corrosion; d/t 0.30 to 1.00 L/(Dt) 0.48 to 5.48 Despite this, the ASME B31G:2009 manual (and previous edition, ASME B31G:1991) provides tables which give the maximum length of corrosion for pipe diameters 60.3mm (2) and above. Modified ASME B31G The modified ASME B31G failure equation is given by[3][4]:
d 1 0.85 2tS flow t Pf = D d 1 1 0.85 t M

[3]

..for d/t0.80; L/(Dt)7.071 where:


L L M = 1 + 0.6275 0.003375 Dt Dt Sflow = SMYS+68.95 N/mm
2 4 2

and,
d 1 0.85 2tS flow t Pf = D d 1 1 0.85 t M

[4]

d 1 0.667 t 2tS flow Pf = D d 1 1 0.667 t M


2tS flow d Pf = 1 D t

[1] where:
L M = 3.3 + 0.032 Dt Sflow = SMYS+68.95 N/mm
2

..for d/t0.80; L/(Dt)>7.071

..for d/t0.80; L/(Dt)4.479 [2] ..for d/t0.80; L/(Dt)>4.479 Where:


L M = 1 + 0.8 Dt Sflow = 1.1(SMYS)
2

The method was validated against 47 full-scale burst tests of corroded pipe. The tests were undertaken on vintage pipe of relatively low toughness. The range of test parameters is summarized below: Pipe; D 406.4 to 762mm t 7.9 to 9.5mm D/t 51.6 to 80.0 Grade A25 to X52

The method was validated against 86 full-scale burst tests of corroded pipe (the database included the 47 tests used to validate the original ASME B31G method). The tests were undertaken on vintage pipe of relatively low toughness. The range of test parameters is summarized below: Pipe; D 406.4 to 762mm t 6.4 to 9.7mm D/t 51.6 to 109.1 Grade A25 to X65 Corrosion; d/t 0.29 to 1.00 L/(Dt) 0.48 to 21.1 Despite this, the ASME B31G:2009 manual provides tables which give the maximum length of corrosion for pipe diameters 60.3mm (2) and above.

Copyright 2012 by ASME

LPC-1 The LPC-1 failure equation is given by[5][6]:


d 1 2tS flow t Pf = D t d 1 1 t M

[5]

..for d/t0.85; all lengths where:


L M = 1 + 0.31 Dt
2

Note: metal inserts enable the specimen to be gripped in the test machine, without the pipe ends being crushed by the griping force.

FIGURE 1

Sflow = SMTS The method was validated against 131 tests; 79 full-scale pipe burst tests and 52 ring expansion tests, on modern high toughness line pipe with corrosion defects machined on the internal or external surface of the pipe. The range of test parameters is summarized below: Pipe; D 203.2 to 914.4mm t 9.5 to 25.4mm D/t 8.6 to 48.1 Grade X52 to X65 Corrosion; d/t 0.20 to 0.95 L/(Dt) 0.31 to

FULL-SECTION TENSILE SPECIMEN EXTRACTED FROM THE 14MM DIAMETER PIPE.

The full-scale pipe burst test program comprised 80 tests of single isolated defects. The total number of tests and size of defects tested for each pipe size are summarized in Table 2. Total tests 16 16 8 16 16 8 Defect dimensions Depth, d/t Length (mm) 0.6 0.8 25 75 150

Group A1 B1 C1 D1 E1 F2
Notes: 1. 2.

0.4

Defects extended around the full pipe circumference Defects extended approximately 8t around the pipe circumference.

BURST TEST PROGRAMME Following a review of the pipe sizes and material grades in the Clients pressure systems, all tests were undertaken on grade B, seamless line pipe. Six pipe sizes were selected to cover a wide range of pipe diameters, wall thicknesses and pipe D/t ratios: Group A B C D E F
TABLE 1

TABLE 2

MATRIX OF FULL-SCALE BURST TESTS.

D mm 88.9 114.3 114.3 14.0 60.4 168.3

t mm 5.5 8.6 13.5 3.3 5.5 11.0

D/t 16.2 13.3 8.5 4.2 11.0 15.3

The test pipes were prepared by TIG welding hemispherical end caps onto both ends of each pipe. These end caps were welded to the test pipes after the completion of the pipe machining and subsequent wall thickness measurements. Each end cap had a hole drilled through its centre, which was threaded 1/4 BSPT. These threaded ports were subsequently used to attach the pipework for pressurization and pressure monitoring. A photograph of a typical prepared pipe sample can be seen in Fig.2.

TEST PIPE GEOMETRY.

The test program comprised 12 tensile tests and 80 fullscale burst tests on pipe with machined metal loss defects. The tensile tests were undertaken to the requirements of BS EN 10002-1[7] at ambient laboratory temperature (approximately 20C). All specimens were extracted from the pipe longitudinal direction. Full section specimens were extracted from the 14mm diameter pipe (see Fig.1). All other specimens were standard, proportional size, solid section round bar specimens.

FIGURE 2

EXAMPLE OF A FULL-SCALE BURST TEST SPECIMEN.

Each test pipe was subjected to detailed metrology to determine the maximum depth of the machined section, the minimum remaining ligament thickness. This was done using a purpose built comparator, which was calibrated using slip

Copyright 2012 by ASME

gauges prior to undertaking the measurements. The measurements were undertaken at 4 equi-spaced positions around the pipe circumference and at either end of the machined section (75 and 150mm long defects) to determine the variation in remaining ligament thickness measurement. The exception to this procedure was the 14mm diameter pipe samples. Due to their small size, the depth of the machined section and remaining ligament thickness was determined using a Vernier caliper to measure the circumferential variation in pipe wall thickness at either end of the pipe, and a micrometer to measure the reduction in diameter. The test set up is schematically shown in Fig.3 and a picture of the test arrangement is shown in Fig.4. Testing of the 14mm diameter pipe was slightly different; the test pipes were supported horizontally and a 3,000 barg pressure transducer was used to record the failure pressure.

Group A B C D E F
TABLE 3

Specimen diameter mm 4.0 5.0 8.0 11.9O 7.4I 4.0 5.6

Rp0.2 N/mm2 323 299 311 431 311 276

Tensile properties Rm El % N/mm2 535 31.0 436 33.5 510 34.0 534 483 498 27.0 33.0 26.0

RA % 67.0 74.0 64.0 66.0 78.0 72.0

Notes: O and I refer to the outside and inside diameter of the gauge area of the hollow specimen

TENSILE TEST RESULTS SUMMARY (TESTED AT AMBIENT TEMPERATURE, 20C).

Full-Scale Pipe Burst Tests and Predictions of Failure Pressure Figure 5 shows a typical pressure-time history of a tested specimen, and Appendix A presents typical failure macrophotographs showing how the failure mode (leak or rupture) changes depending on the depth and length of corrosion tested; the macro-photographs presented are for the group A specimens.
600

Burst pressure: 474 Barg

FIGURE 3

TEST SCHEMATIC.
Pressure (Barg)

400

200

0 0 5 Time (mins) 10 15

FIGURE 5

TYPICAL PRESSURE-TIME HISTORY OF A TESTED SPECIMEN.

Notes: the two metal hoops with adjustable screws were used to support the test pipe within the test frame. The pipes were free to expand during the test.

FIGURE 4

PHOTOGRAPH ARRANGEMENT.

OF

TYPICAL

TEST

RESULTS AND ASSESSMENT Tensile Tests The results of the tensile test program are presented in Table 3.

The results of the full-scale pipe burst tests and corresponding predictions of failure pressure using original ASME B31G, modified ASME B31G and LPC-1 are presented in Fig.6 to Fig.8 and Table 4 through to Table 9. The predictions of failure pressure are based on the actual pipe tensile properties (Table 3). The results in Table 4 through to Table 9 are presented as failure pressure ratios; ratio of the test failure pressure to the predicted failure pressure. A value greater than 1.0 means that the predicted failure pressure is less than the actual failure pressure (i.e., the assessment method gives a conservative prediction). As noted above, the original ASME B31G and modified ASME B31G methods are limited to defects up to 80% of the pipe wall thickness in depth, d/t0.80. Some of the pipe defects tested exceed this limit; the maximum being d/t=0.83 (the limit

Copyright 2012 by ASME

for LPC-1 is d/t0.85). Despite this, all defects have been assessed.
2000
Predicted failure pressure (Bar)
Non-conservative prediction

1500

1000

500

0 0 500

14x3.3mm [D/t=4.2] 60.4x5.5mm [D/t=11.0] 168.3x11mm [D/t=15.3] 88.9x5.5mm [D/t=16.2] 114.3x8.6mm [D/t=13.3] 114.3x13.5mm [D/t=8.5] 1:1

1000 1500 2000 Actual failure pressure (Bar)

2500

FIGURE 6

ORIGINAL ASME B31G: ASSESSMENT OF ALL EXPERIMENTAL DATA.


Non-conservative prediction

2000
Predicted failure pressure (Bar)

1500

1000

500

0 0 500

14x3.3mm [D/t=4.2] 60.4x5.5mm [D/t=11.0] 168.3x11mm [D/t=15.3] 88.9x5.5mm [D/t=16.2] 114.3x8.6mm [D/t=13.3] 114.3x13.5mm [D/t=8.5] 1:1

1000 1500 2000 Actual failure pressure (Bar)

2500

The following observations are made based on the results presented in Fig.6 to Fig.8: Original ASME B31G; o Approximately 25% of the predictions are nonconservative. o The predicted failure pressures are generally within 60% over-prediction/45% under-prediction, with respect to the actual test failure pressures. o The predicted failure pressure of approximately 15% of the tests is consistent with the actual test failure pressure. Modified ASME B31G; o Approximately 30% of the predictions are nonconservative. o The predicted failure pressures are generally within 50% over-prediction/35% under-prediction, with respect to the actual test failure pressures. o The predicted failure pressure of approximately 30% of the tests is consistent with the actual test failure pressure. LPC-1; o The majority of the predictions are non-conservative. o The predicted failure pressures are generally within a 50% over-prediction, with respect to the actual test failure pressures. o The predicted failure pressure of approximately 50% of the tests is consistent with the actual test failure pressure. The results of the assessments for each pipe test are presented below in Table 4 through to Table 9, compared with the test result. Also presented is the corresponding failure stress, presented in relation to SMYS. The failure stress is the hoop stress at failure, calculated using the following formulae:
hoop = Pfail
2 + 1 2 1

FIGURE 7

MODIFIED ASME B31G: ASSESSMENT OF ALL EXPERIMENTAL DATA.


Non-conservative prediction

[6]

2000
Predicted failure pressure (Bar)

1500

Where k is the ratio of the pipe outside to inside diameter, and the failure pressure is input in units of N/mm.
Defects
14x3.3mm [D/t=4.2] 60.4x5.5mm [D/t=11.0] 168.3x11mm [D/t=15.3] 88.9x5.5mm [D/t=16.2] 114.3x8.6mm [D/t=13.3] 114.3x13.5mm [D/t=8.5] 1:1

1000

Test results Pf Barg 660 650 512 507 466 474 577 579 314 270 350 348 Sfail %SMYS 203 199 154 153 141 147 181 183 98 86 108 108

Failure pressure ratio B31G 1.59 1.58 1.39 1.37 1.71 1.88 1.55 1.58 1.83 1.55 1.01 1.03 Mod B31G 1.46 1.47 1.34 1.33 1.30 1.40 1.48 1.52 1.19 1.02 1.05 1.08 LPC1 0.99 0.99 0.95 0.94 0.96 1.05 1.00 1.03 0.97 0.83 0.75 0.78

500

0 0 500

1000 1500 2000 Actual failure pressure (Bar)

2500

FIGURE 8

LPC-1: ASSESSMENT OF ALL EXPERIMENTAL DATA.

Test ID A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11 A12

d/t 0.38 0.42 0.41 0.41 0.41 0.44 0.60 0.61 0.62 0.61 0.79 0.80

L Dt
1.10 1.12 3.33 3.34 6.65 6.72 1.14 1.15 6.74 6.78 1.12 1.12

Copyright 2012 by ASME

Defects Test ID A13 A14 A15 A16 d/t 0.81 0.79 0.81 0.82

Test results Pf Barg 157 175 136 132 Sfail %SMYS 48 54 42 42

Failure pressure ratio B31G 0.62 0.68 1.56 1.68 Mod B31G 0.75 0.81 0.74 0.77 LPC1 0.69 0.73 0.78 0.84 Test ID D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 D6 D7 D8 D9 D10 D11 D12 D13 D14 D15 D16

Defects d/t 0.33 0.33 0.58 0.56 0.74 0.71 0.36 0.33 0.72 0.76 0.33 0.36 0.58 0.60 0.76 0.71

Test results Pf Barg 2468 2473 1296 1538 705 888 1927 2064 822 603 1981 2003 1322 1290 637 699 Sfail %SMYS 182 182 95 113 52 65 142 152 61 44 146 148 97 95 47 51

Failure pressure ratio B31G 1.31 1.31 0.84 0.97 0.53 0.65 1.32 1.34 1.29 1.09 1.30 1.37 1.40 1.42 1.15 1.05 Mod B31G 1.31 1.31 0.91 1.04 0.63 0.76 1.10 1.14 0.80 0.64 1.13 1.18 1.06 1.07 0.72 0.71 LPC1 0.97 0.96 0.72 0.82 0.57 0.66 0.85 0.87 0.78 0.65 0.87 0.91 0.91 0.93 0.74 0.68

L Dt
3.35 3.34 6.69 6.79

L Dt
4.08 4.05 4.07 4.06 4.06 4.08 10.31 10.31 10.30 10.29 20.54 20.55 20.45 20.57 20.58 20.54

Notes: values in red highlight a non-conservative prediction of failure pressure

TABLE 4 GROUP A RESULTS SUMMARY: TEST FAILURE PRESSURES AND CORRESPONDING FAILURE PRESSURE PREDICTIONS.

Defects Test ID B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 B8 B9 B10 B11 B12 B13 B14 B15 B16 d/t 0.41 0.41 0.38 0.39 0.41 0.41 0.61 0.61 0.61 0.61 0.83 0.78 0.83 0.81 0.83 0.80

Test results Pf Barg 666 656 562 558 471 473 575 609 322 326 309 381 214 216 151 152 Sfail %SMYS 178 177 153 151 127 126 153 162 86 87 81 102 58 58 41 40

Failure pressure ratio B31G 1.50 1.49 1.44 1.43 1.68 1.66 1.36 1.44 1.73 1.75 0.78 0.96 0.78 0.77 1.86 1.61 Mod B31G 1.36 1.35 1.34 1.34 1.24 1.22 1.26 1.33 1.08 1.09 0.77 0.94 0.92 0.89 0.79 0.73 LPC1 1.04 1.04 1.05 1.05 1.01 1.00 0.96 1.01 0.95 0.96 0.62 0.73 0.94 0.89 0.93 0.81

L Dt
0.81 0.83 2.48 2.45 4.91 4.90 0.80 0.80 4.85 4.85 0.79 0.81 2.45 2.43 4.90 4.83

Notes: values in red highlight a non-conservative prediction of failure pressure

TABLE 7 GROUP D RESULTS SUMMARY: TEST FAILURE PRESSURES AND CORRESPONDING FAILURE PRESSURE PREDICTION.

Defects Test ID E1 E2 E3 E4 E5 E6 E7 E8 E9 E10 E11 E12 E13 E14 E15 E16 d/t 0.40 0.40 0.61 0.61 0.80 0.82 0.41 0.41 0.64 0.81 0.39 0.41 0.62 0.61 0.80 0.81

Test results Pf Barg 708 693 486 480 194 193 574 530 312 84 499 515 287 299 99 79 Sfail %SMYS 148 145 102 100 41 40 120 111 65 18 104 108 60 63 21 17

Failure pressure ratio B31G 1.29 1.27 1.00 0.98 0.46 0.47 1.16 1.07 0.76 0.25 1.30 1.37 1.19 1.21 0.78 0.66 Mod B31G 1.21 1.19 0.98 0.97 0.51 0.52 1.12 1.04 0.81 0.30 1.00 1.05 0.78 0.80 0.39 0.32 LPC1 0.77 0.76 0.64 0.63 0.37 0.39 0.76 0.70 0.59 0.28 0.70 0.74 0.61 0.62 0.38 0.32

L Dt
1.65 1.65 1.65 1.65 1.65 1.65 4.11 4.11 4.11 4.11 8.28 8.28 8.28 8.28 8.28 8.28

Notes: values in red highlight a non-conservative prediction of failure pressure

TABLE 5 GROUP B RESULTS SUMMARY: TEST FAILURE PRESSURES AND CORRESPONDING FAILURE PRESSURE PREDICTION.

Defects Test ID C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 d/t 0.42 0.40 0.41 0.43 0.80 0.80 0.81 0.80

Test results Pf Barg 1297 1287 930 929 688 676 309 302 Sfail %SMYS 206 206 147 146 112 111 50 48

Failure pressure ratio B31G 1.69 1.70 1.46 1.47 1.02 1.01 0.72 0.69 Mod B31G 1.54 1.54 1.41 1.43 0.99 0.97 0.88 0.83 LPC1 0.99 1.00 0.95 0.97 0.65 0.64 0.80 0.73

L Dt
0.63 0.65 3.82 3.84 0.67 0.67 3.85 3.83

Notes: values in red highlight a non-conservative prediction of failure pressure

TABLE 8 GROUP E RESULTS SUMMARY: TEST FAILURE PRESSURES AND CORRESPONDING FAILURE PRESSURE PREDICTION.

Notes: values in red highlight a non-conservative prediction of failure pressure

TABLE 6 GROUP C RESULTS SUMMARY: TEST FAILURE PRESSURES AND CORRESPONDING FAILURE PRESSURE PREDICTION.

Defects Test ID F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 d/t 0.40 0.39 0.79 0.80 0.39

Test results Pf Barg 685 685 400 459 486 Sfail %SMYS 204 204 119 137 145

Failure pressure ratio B31G 1.83 1.82 1.25 1.44 1.50 Mod B31G 1.64 1.64 1.24 1.44 1.41 LPC1 0.99 0.98 0.78 0.91 0.89

L Dt
0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 3.90

Copyright 2012 by ASME

Defects Test ID F6 F7 F8 d/t 0.41 0.79 0.80

Test results Pf Barg 539 233 223 Sfail %SMYS 161 69 66

Failure pressure ratio B31G 1.68 1.03 0.99 Mod B31G 1.59 1.21 1.17 LPC1 1.00 1.00 0.97

L Dt
3.90 3.90 3.90

Notes: values in red highlight a non-conservative prediction of failure pressure

TABLE 9 GROUP F RESULTS SUMMARY: TEST FAILURE PRESSURES AND CORRESPONDING FAILURE PRESSURE PREDICTION.

The individual results presented in Table 4 through to Table 9 show that the non-conservative predictions of failure pressure for both the original and modified ASME B31G methods are for those tests with deep defects, d/t greater than 0.6.

DISCUSSION Original ASME B31G, modified ASME B31G and LPC-1 are methods that are commonly used to assess the remaining strength of a pipe with corrosion damage. An extensive research effort has recently been completed by GL Noble Denton for the Pipeline Research Council International, Inc. (PRCI), and the US Department of Transportation, Pipelines and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA)[8]. The aim of this research was to extend the range of applicability of the assessment methods to higher strength steels (pipelines constructed from grade X100 line pipe) and low toughness pipelines, and to provide new and improved guidance for the assessment of closely spaced corrosion defects, pipelines subjected to combined internal pressure and external loading, and pipelines subjected to cyclic internal pressure loading. There has been no work undertaken to verify the applicability of these methods to small diameter (sub 150mm diameter) pipelines and pipework, despite ASME B31G:2009 (including the 1991 edition) providing tables which give the maximum length of corrosion for pipe diameters as small as 60.3mm outside diameter. As shown from the test data and analyses presented in this paper, these methods are not suitable for assessing the remaining strength of a small diameter, sub 6 pipeline or pipework, without additional limitations being imposed. The data would suggest that the original ASME B31G and modified ASME B31G methods can be used, but only for corrosion up to 60% of the pipe wall thickness in depth. However, if the assessment is based on the original ASME B31G method, the corresponding prediction of failure pressure can be up to 45% lower than the actual failure pressure, and although slightly better, if based on the modified ASME B31G method the prediction can be up to 35% lower than the actual failure pressure. The LPC-1 method resulted in the most number of accurate predictions of the three methods. However, the majority of the predictions were non-conservative. Even if the LPC-1 method was limited to d/t not greater than 0.6, the

failure pressure is likely to still be over-predicted, by as much as 50%. To avoid much of the uncertainty when assessing the significance of corrosion damage in a small diameter pipeline or pipework, simple screening limits can be developed, an example of which is given in Fig.9. In this example, the limits incorporate a factor of safety of 2 on depth when compared with the actual test results. This is to provide an adequate factor of safety against failure and to take account of any uncertainty with accuracy of depth measurement. No consideration is given to corrosion length; there is an increase in the factor of safety on depth with reducing corrosion length. For convenience, the limits are developed for different pipe operating hoop stress ranges that are expressed as a percentage of SMYS (a limit of 72% SMYS has been imposed). For corrosion damage that exceeds these limits the pipe would either need to be repaired or an expert assessment undertaken (e.g., comparison of the corrosion depth and length with the burst test data and application of a suitable factor of safety).
1.0
Defect depth ratio (d/t)
14x3.3mm [D/t=4.2] 60.4x5.5mm [D/t=11.0] 168.3x11mm [D/t=15.3] 88.9x5.5mm [D/t=16.2] 114.3x8.6mm [D/t=13.3] 114.3x13.5mm [D/t=8.5] Limits

0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 0

50 100 Pipe operating hoop stress level (% SMYS)

150

Notes: d/t0.40 d/t0.35 d/t0.30 d/t0.25

For a hoop stress level not greater than 20% SMYS For a hoop stress level greater than 20% SMYS but not greater than 40% SMYS For a hoop stress level greater than 40% SMYS but not greater than 60% SMYS For a hoop stress level greater than 60% SMYS but not greater than 72% SMYS

FIGURE 9

CORROSION ASSESSMENT OF SMALL DIAMETER (SUB 6) PIPE: SCREENING LIMITS.

CONCLUSIONS 1. The corrosion assessment methods ASME B31G, modified ASME B31G and LPC-1 should not be used to assess corrosion damage associated with small diameter (sub 6) pipelines and pipework, without additional limitations being imposed on their use. 2. The results of the burst test program can be used to develop practical screening limits for small diameter pipelines and pipework. The example provided requires calculation of

Copyright 2012 by ASME

the pipe maximum hoop stress level and knowledge of corrosion depth only.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors would like to acknowledge the financial contributions from BG Group and National Grid.

REFERENCES [1] BGC/PS/CP/P11, Procedure for inspection and repair of damaged welded steel pipeline operating at pressures above 6.9 bar, British Gas, August 1974. [2] ASME B31G:1991 (Revision of ANSI/ASME B31G:1984), Manual for determining the remaining strength of corroded pipelines. A supplement to ASME B31 code for pressure piping, The American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 27 June 1991 - Superseded. [3] ASME B31G:2009 (Revision of ASME B31G:1991), Manual for determining the remaining strength of corroded pipelines. Supplement to ASME B31 code for pressure piping, The American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 30 October 2009. [4] J F Kiefner and P H Vieth, A modified criterion for evaluating the remaining strength of corroded pipe, Battelle Memorial Institute, Report PR 3-805 to the Materials Committee of Pipeline Research Council International, Inc., Catalogue no. L51609e, December 1989. [5] B Fu and A D Batte, Advanced methods for the assessment of corrosion in line pipe, UK Health and Safety Executive Summary Report, OTO 1999-051, HSE Books, 1999. [6] BS 7910:2005 (incorporating amendment no.1), Guide to methods for assessing the acceptability of flaws in metallic structures, British Standards Institution, UK, 28 September 2007. [7] BS EN 10002-1:2001, Metallic materials. Tensile testing. Part 1: Method of test at ambient temperature, British Standards Institution, UK, 6 September 2001 Superseded (replaced by BS EN ISO 6892-1:2009). [8] V Chauhan and T Swankie, Project #153M. Guidance for assessing the remaining strength of corroded pipelines, GL Noble Denton, Report 9492 Issue 1.0, January 2010.

Copyright 2012 by ASME

ANNEX A MACRO-PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE FAILURE BEHAVIOUR OF THE TYPE A SPECIMENS TESTED

Copyright 2012 by ASME

10

Copyright 2012 by ASME

You might also like