Advanced Integrity Assessment of Pipeline Dents Using ILI Data

Plant Reliability Specialists
Advanced Integrity Assessment of Pipeline Dents Using ILI Data
ERRP Berlin; October 2010

Dr. Gregory W. Brown
US Structural Integrity Lead
Dr. Ted L. Anderson
Chief Technology Officer
Eric Scheibler
Consulting Engineer
Quest Integrity Group, LLC
2465 Central Avenue, Suite 110
Boulder, CO 80301 USA
G.Brown@QuestIntegrity.com
Abstract
Improvements in inline inspection (ILI) and computing technology, coupled with the emergence of
fitness-for-service standards, have created an opportunity to advance the state of the art in pipeline
integrity assessment. This paper describes a novel approach for assessing dents in pipelines using data
from ILI tools.
Dents that are introduced during fabrication, installation, or by a third party are the most common source
of failure in pipelines. Traditional assessments are based on a simplistic characterization of the dent
(e.g. the ratio of the dent depth to the pipe diameter), combined with simple empirical equations. The
Quest Integrity Group has developed an advanced dent assessment methodology that combines a
detailed mapping of the dent from ILI data (either UT or a caliper pig) with 3D elastic-plastic finite
element analysis. Dent formation is simulated with three-dimensional (3D) finite element modeling.
Cyclic loading is then applied and remaining life is computed through a proprietary low-cycle fatigue
damage model. This advanced methodology can be applied to interacting anomalies such as dent/gouge
and dent/crack combinations.
This technology is demonstrated via correlation to experimental data from cyclic testing of dented pipes.
Application of this methodology to in-service pipelines under operating conditions is presented.
20 October 2010
Page 1 of 27

Table of Contents
ABSTRACT ......................................................................................................................................... 1
LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................................................ 3
1
OVERVIEW .................................................................................................................................. 4
DENT DETECTION WITH COMPRESSION WAVE ILI ........................................................................ 5
TRADITIONAL DENT ASSESSMENT ............................................................................................... 5
ADVANCED DENT ASSESSMENT ................................................................................................... 6

4.1
FINITE ELEMENT MODELING OF DENTS ................................................................................................... 6
4.2
LOW CYCLE FATIGUE DAMAGE MODEL ................................................................................................... 6
4.3
CRACK ANALYSES ................................................................................................................................ 7
4.4
API 1156 DENT RESULTS .................................................................................................................... 7
4.5
IN SERVICE PIPELINES........................................................................................................................... 9
CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................ 10
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................................. 11
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................. 12
FIGURES AND TABLES................................................................................................................ 13
20 October 2010
Page 2 of 27

List of Figures
Figure 1: Localized Corrosion Identified Using InvistaTM and LifeQuestTM. ...................................... 13
Figure 2: Dig Verification of Localized Corrosion. ........................................................................ 13
Figure 3: Hydrogen Blistering Identified Using InvistaTM and LifeQuestTM. ...................................... 14
Figure 4: X-ray Verification of Hydrogen Blistering. ..................................................................... 14
Figure 5: Pipe Denting Identified Using InvistaTM and LifeQuestTM. ................................................. 15
Figure 6: Verification of Pipe Denting. ......................................................................................... 15
Figure 7: 3D Elastic-Plastic FEA: Dent Formation. ........................................................................ 16
Figure 8: 3D Elastic-Plastic FEA: Dent Re-rounding (10 Cycles). ................................................... 16
Figure 9: Damage Parameter Validation Using Test Specimen. ....................................................... 17
Figure 10: Symmetric 3D FEA Model of Crack in ERW Seam. ................................................... 18
Figure 11: Pipe Experimental Examples from API 1156 Addendum [9]. .......................................... 19
Figure 12: 3D Pipe Denting Finite Element Model. ........................................................................ 20
Figure 13: FEA Dent Measurement After Elastic Rebound. ............................................................ 20
Figure 14: Effect of Straight-Edge Length on Dent Depth Measurement. ...................................... 21
Figure 15: Dent Re-Rounding During Pressure Cycles. .................................................................. 21
Figure 16: Dent Re-Rounding: Simulation vs. Experiment. ............................................................. 22
Figure 17: API 1156 Addendum [9] Observed Failure Locations. .................................................... 22
Figure 18: Damage Contours in 24% Dent. ................................................................................... 23
Figure 19: Hoop Stress (psi) for 6% and 24% Depth Dents. ............................................................ 23
Figure 20: Damage Accumulation in 12% Dent. ............................................................................ 24
Figure 21: 3D Finite Element Model of In-Service Pipeline. ........................................................... 24
Figure 22: Dent Re-Rounding of In-Service Pipelines. ................................................................... 25
Figure 23: Comparison of Re-Rounded Dent Shapes. ..................................................................... 25
Figure 24: Damage Contours for In-Service Pipelines. ................................................................... 26
Figure 25: Hoop Stress (psi) for 6% and 24% Depth Dents for In-Service Pipelines. ......................... 26
Figure 26: Damage Accumulation for Dents in In-Service Pipelines. ............................................... 27
20 October 2010
Page 3 of 27

1 Overview
Advances in inline inspection (ILI) technology have led to enhancements in both the quality and
quantity of pipeline inspection data. Corresponding improvements in fitness-for-service assessment
methods and technology are necessary to take full advantage of inspection data with higher resolution
and higher accuracy.
The fitness-for-service standard API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 [1] provides a comprehensive guideline for
assessing various flaw types and damage mechanisms in all pressure equipment including pipelines.
This standard incorporates three levels of assessment:
Level 1: This is a basic assessment that can be performed by properly trained inspectors or plant
engineers. A Level 1 assessment may involve simple hand calculations.
Level 2: This assessment level is more complex than Level 1, and should be performed only by
engineers trained in the API/ASME FFS standard. Most Level 2 calculations can be performed
with a spreadsheet.
Level 3: This is the most advanced assessment level, which should be performed only by
engineers with a high level of expertise and experience. A Level 3 assessment may include
computer simulation, such as finite element analysis (FEA) or computational fluid dynamics
(CFD).
These three assessment levels represent a trade-off between simplicity and accuracy. The simplified
assessment procedures are necessarily more conservative than more sophisticated engineering analyses.
With Level 1 assessments, the specified procedures must be followed exactly, and there is little or no
room for interpretation. Level 2 procedures provide some latitude to exercise sound engineering
judgment. For Level 3 assessments, the API/ASME standard provides a few overall guidelines, but the
details of the assessment are left to the user. The lack of specificity in Level 3 is by design. There is no
practical way to codify step-by-step procedures for advanced engineering analyses because every
situation is different, and there a wide range of approaches that may be suitable for a given situation.
The Quest Integrity Group has recently developed advanced assessment techniques for pipeline dents.
These level 3 assessments incorporate elastic-plastic finite element analysis. This involves modeling of
dent creation and re-rounding processes. The use of a damage model based on the Manson-Coffin
approach is used to model low cycle fatigue. This enables quantitative life prediction based on number
of pressure cycles to failure.
20 October 2010
Page 4 of 27

2 Dent Detection with Compression Wave ILI

The availability of high-fidelity ILI data has enabled advanced assessment of pipeline dents and gouges.
An ILI data set may cover several hundred kilometers of pipe, requiring the use intelligent software to
process and visualize the inspection data. Unlike MFL data, high resolution compression wave
ultrasonic (UT) may be displayed as digital maps of wall thickness and pipe geometry. This enables the
identification and dimensioning of discrete flaws, such as localized metal loss, denting, and blistering, as
well as continuous features, such as varying amounts of generalized metal loss.
The Quest Integrity Group has developed the LifeQuestTM Pipeline software to process and visualize
data from high-resolution compression-wave UT ILI tools, including our InVistaTM intelligent pigs [2].
LifeQuestTM allows the visualization of large ILI datasets, enabling the identification and categorization
of discrete flaws such as dents. In addition, this software can perform a rapid Level 2 API/ASME wall
loss assessment over an entire ILI dataset, and compute the RSF and MAOP for each pipe section. The
areas of highest corrosion damage can be quickly identified by ranking the calculated RSF and MAOP
values.
The identification of localized corrosion is illustrated in figure 1, with the associated prove-up dig
provided in figure 2. This can be compared with the identification of hydrogen blistering shown in
figures 3 and 4. Figure 5 shows the identification and dimensioning of a pipeline dent. The depth and
shape of the dent can be determined due to the resolution and visualization of the ILI data. Figure 6
shows measurement of this dent. Though all these flaws can be categorized as circular indications,
different types of damage can be distinguished due to the resolution of the UT dataset. In addition to
providing information on general wall loss, advanced ILI data coupled with digital processing allows
identification and dimensioning of pipeline dents. Information regarding the re-rounded shape of dents
is required to determine failure location and remaining life.
3 Traditional Dent Assessment

Traditional dent assessments are often based on a simplistic characterization of the dent (e.g. the ratio of
the dent depth to the pipe diameter), possibly combined with simple empirical equations [3,4,5]. These
methods often apply a simple criterion for acceptance of dents, such as depth ratios of less than 2 to 6%.
However, information from pipeline operators has suggested low cycle fatigue failures of shallow
dents with depths of 2% or less. This raises concerns about the application of existing assessment
methodologies as a means to ensure pipeline integrity.
Pipe denting is a sufficiently complex phenomenon that Level 3 assessment technology is warranted.
Significant plastic strain (damage) occurs when the dent first forms. The pipe tends to re-round upon
pressure cycling, such that the observed deformation understates the true damage that has accumulated
in the pipe. The application of simple criterion to such re-rounded dents can provide non-conservative
20 October 2010
Page 5 of 27

estimates of remaining life. The size, shape, and location of the original dent affect the remaining life,
as do external factors such as the constraint provided by the surrounding soil.
4 Advanced Dent Assessment

In order to handle the complexities associated with dents, the Quest Integrity Group has developed a
Level 3 assessment methodology that relies on elastic-plastic finite element simulation. The formation
of the dent is simulated, along with the subsequent pressure cycling. The support of the surrounding soil
is incorporated as appropriate. The remaining life is computed through a proprietary low-cycle fatigue
damage model that has been incorporated into the elastic-plastic finite element simulation. Dimensional
data from ILI can also be used to build 3D finite element models of dented pipes. However the prior
damage created during the initial denting must be taken into account. Parametric studies modeling the
dent formation are used to infer the relationship between the current dimensions and the as-dented
configuration. Elastic-plastic finite element simulation can also be used to model interacting anomalies,
such as a crack in a dent.
4.1 Finite Element Modeling of Dents
To estimate the damage occurring in pipelines during dent formation and pressure cycling, 3D finite
element analysis (FEA) is used. This modeling uses elastic-plastic analysis to capture the strain
evolution during re-rounding and pressure cycling. Dimensional data from ILI can be used to capture
the shape of the dent, as well as the presence of nearby wall thinning.
This 3D finite element analysis is demonstrated with the typical modeling of dent formation in a pipe as
shown in figure 7. Note this model also includes the mapping of a slight out-of-roundness (bulging)
near the dent. Figure 8 shows the same model after 10 pressure cycles. Note the change in the shape of
the dent due to re-rounding. This illustrates the change in observed dent shape as compared to initial
dent shape as discussed in section 5.
The amount and shape of re-rounding, as well as damage incurred by the pipeline, depends on shape of
the initial dent, the support configuration, and the properties of the pipeline material. In particular, the
amount of strain hardening in the material can have a significant effect on the re-rounded shape, failure
location/mechanism, and remaining life. Calibration with material test data can be used to determine
appropriate material hardening parameters to be used in the FEA analysis.
4.2 Low Cycle Fatigue Damage Model
The damage occurring in the pipe during dent formation and pressure cycling is determined through a
proprietary low-cycle fatigue damage model. This allows the estimation of remaining life of the
pipeline. This damage model is based on the Manson-Coffin approach [6,7] for low cycle fatigue.
20 October 2010
Page 6 of 27

Damage accumulation due to reduction of deformability is defined by the Palmgren-Miners rule. This
relates a scalar damage parameter to the plastic strain and number of cycles to failure:
where
is the plastic strain amplitude, is the current number of cycles, and is the total number of
cycles to failure. For many pipeline (ductile) materials, the number of cycles to failure can be expressed
as a function of the plastic strain amplitude by the Manson-Coffin relationship [6,7]
where
and
are material constants. A discrete finite element implementation of this damage
methodology was used to enable quantitative life prediction based on the number of pressure cycles to
failure. Validation of the damage parameter was conducted using axisymmetric finite element analysis
of test specimens as shown in figure 9.
As discussed above, the loss of ductility places a crucial role in the accumulation of damage, and thus
remaining life of a dented pipe. Calibration with material testing, along with comparison of re-rounded
dent shapes can be used to determine appropriate material hardening parameters.
4.3 Crack Analyses
While low cycle fatigue life can be estimated from the proprietary damage model, other damage
mechanisms must be considered when assessing pipe integrity. Interacting anomalies, including cracks
in dents can be examined using advanced elastic-plastic finite element analysis. This can include the
insertion of cracks into dents, including mapping of the strain field resulting from dent formation.
Similarly, welding residual stresses can be included in the crack modeling as appropriate. Results from
pipeline dent-crack analyses can include remaining life for fatigue crack growth, critical crack sizing,
and pressure rerating. Crack insertion is illustrated with a typical 3D model of a crack in the seam of a
16 inch ERW pipe shown in figure 10.
4.4 API 1156 Dent Results
Validation of the Quest Integrity advanced dent assessment methodology was based on cyclic pressure
tests of dented pipes as presented in API publication 1156. [8,9] The experimental examples considered
dents in API 5L X52 (52,000 psi minimum yield) pipes with outer diameters of 12.75 inches and wall
thicknesses of 0.188 inch. A 4 inch diameter dome indenter was used to create initial dents to depths of
6, 12, 18, and 24 percent of the original diameter of the pipes.
20 October 2010
Page 7 of 27

During testing, the unpressurized pipes were supported with saddle type supports and indented to a
prescribed depth with a 4 inch dome indenter. The pipes were then subjected to pressure cycles of 0 to
72% of specified minimum yield (SMYS) to shape each dent around the indenter. The pressure was
then released and the indenter removed. The elastic spring-back of the dent could then be measured.
Pressure cycles of 36 to 72% SMYS and 6.5 to 78% SMYS were then applied to the pipe. The pressure
cycles were continued until failure (leak) was observed. Information taken from the API 1156
addendum [9] showing the samples considered for this validation are shown in figure 11. This figure
shows a table of the various dents considered, a photo of measurement of a dented pipe, and a plot of a
re-rounded dent profile.
A three-dimensional (3D) finite element model of the experimental set-up was constructed. This
included the pipe, the indenter, and the constraints due to the pipe supports. Owing to the symmetry in
the experimental configuration, a symmetric finite element model was used. The use of symmetry
allowed for increased mesh refinement in regions of interest while keeping a reasonable model size.
The FEA model used quadratic (20 node) brick elements and was run using the Abaqus [10] finite
element package. To accurately model the denting procedure, the simulation included nonlinear
geometry and contact interactions between indenter and pipe and between pipe and saddle supports.
Solving the simulations in parallel on 6 computer processors required typical wall clock times of 6+
hours. The finite element model for the denting simulations is shown in figure 12. As discussed in
section 4.2, a proprietary damage model was incorporated into the finite element analyses.
Following simulation of the dent formation and initial pressure cycling, the resulting dent profiles after
elastic rebound from FEA were compared to results from the API 1156 addendum [9]. Figure 13 shows
the dent profiles following elastic rebound. Measurement of dents in the addendum appeared to be
based on a straight-edge approach as suggested in figure 11. However, since there is significant
deformation of the pipes around the dents, the measured depth of each dent will depend on the length of
straight edge used. This is illustrated schematically in figure 14. The addendum did not provide details
on dent measurement. The small symbols on figure 13 show the assumed measurement locations for
comparison with the finite element results. These correspond to a straight-edge length of 24 inches.
The resulting errors between FEA and experimental dent depths varied from a few percent up to around
20%. However, these errors could be reduced by assuming a different straight-edge length.
The successive re-rounding of the dent with repeated pressure cycles is shown in figure 15 for an initial
dent depth of 18%. During pressure cycling, the depth of the dent decreased. However, formation of a
small peripheral bulge or hump at the edges of the dent was also observed. This was observed in the
experimental results as well, and is a characteristic re-rounded shape of deeper dents. Figure 16
compares the final dent shape of the FEA with the API 1156 results. Note that in the case of the FEA,
the final dent shape was after 9 pressure cycles. Note there was favorable agreement of the re-rounded
dent shapes. In particular, note the formation of humps at the edges of the deeper dents. The rerounded shape and formation of humps depends on the loss of ductility in the material during dent
20 October 2010
Page 8 of 27

formation and subsequent pressure cycling. The examination of re-rounded dent shapes can be used to
verify material hardening parameters. Depending on the initial dent depth, the material inside the dent
may harden and cycle elastically. This causes the creation of plastic hinge points at the humps on the
periphery of the dent. This can in turn lead to different failure locations as compared to a very shallow
dent. In the case of a shallow dent, failure due to low cycle fatigue may be expected at the center of the
dent, while for deeper dents, failure is expected at the periphery. This result is supported by
experimental observations in the API 1156 addendum as show in figure 17.
The damage occurring during dent formation and re-rounding was computed during the simulation using
the proprietary damage model discussed in section 4.2. Figure 18 shows damage for the 24% dent.
Note that the highest damage occurred directly under the indenter. However, significant damage is
observed occurring at the hump on the periphery of the dent. Figure 19 shows the hoop stress after 9
cycles for 6% and 24% depth dents. In the case of the shallow dent, tensile stresses are observed
directly under the indenter. These observed stresses and the damage observed suggested that failure for
the 6% dent would be expected at the center of the dent. However, for the 24% dent, compressive
stresses were observed directly under the indenter throughout the cross section, while tensile stresses
were observed on the periphery. In this case, failure would be expected to initiate on the periphery of
the dent. These results matched the observations from the API 1156 addendum as shown in figure 17.
Knowing the expected failure location, and using the incremental damaged computed for each pressure
cycle, the remaining life for low cycle fatigue failure can be estimated. The number of cycles to reach
critical damage (equal to 1) can be extrapolated to estimate remaining life. Figure 20 shows a plot of the
damage parameter versus load cycles for a 12% dent. The figure shows damage at the center of the
dent, and at the periphery. Extrapolation of damage at the hump suggests approximately 24,900 cycles
will be required to initiate a low cycle fatigue failure. As the damage curve tends to flatten with higher
number of cycles, this type extrapolation tends to give a conservative result. The API 1156 Addendum
observed failure after 24,886 pressure cycles of 36 to 72% SMYS followed by 14,949 cycles of 6.5 to
78% SMYS. Note that the estimated number of cycles is to initiate a fatigue failure. Depending, on the
through wall gradients, additional cycles may be required to propagate a defect through wall to cause an
observed leak.
4.5 In Service Pipelines

The Quest Integrity method for advanced dent assessment was applied to in-service pipelines.
Representative dents as provided by the pipeline operator were provided to Quest for assessment. Like
the API 1156 experimental validation, 3D simulation of the denting procedure was conducted. These
simulations were conducted on symmetric models using the Abaqus [10] finite element package. Soil
support was considered on the bottom half of the model, representing a half-buried pipeline. Various
observed dent depths were created using a 4 inch dome indenter. Following the initial dent creation,
pressure cycles of 0 to 78% SMYS were applied to the pipe. The proprietary damage model, as
20 October 2010
Page 9 of 27

discussed in section 4.2, was incorporated into the finite element analyses. The finite element model for
the in-service pipeline denting simulations is shown in figure 21.
Repeated pressure-cycling caused re-rounding and re-shaping of the dent. This is illustrated for dent
depths of 6, 12, and 24% as shown in figure 22. Like the API 1156 experimental validation, hump
formation at the periphery of deeper dents was observed. The amount of hump formation was more
significant than in the API 1156 results due to the different pipe support configuration. This is
illustrated in figure 23, showing comparative displacements (7x amplification) and equivalent plastic
strain contours. Soil constraint under the pipe prevented ovalization, leading to a more severe rerounded profile. Greater amounts of plastic strain are observed at the periphery of the dent due to the
increased hinging effects.
The damage occurring during dent formation and re-rounding was computed during the simulation using
the proprietary damage model discussed in section 4.2. Figure 24 shows damage contours for the 6%
and 12% dent depths. Note that the highest damage occurred directly under the indenter. However, as
the dent depth is increased, more damage is observed occurring at the hump on the periphery of the dent.
Figure 25 shows the hoop stress for 6% and 24% depth dents. In the case of the shallow dents, tensile
stresses are observed directly under the indenter. However, compressive stresses are observed on the
inner surface. However, for the 24% dent, compressive stresses were observed directly under the
indenter throughout the cross section, while tensile stresses were observed on the periphery. In this
case, failure would be expected to initiate on the periphery of the dent.
Figure 26 shows computed damage at the hump for various dent depths. Extrapolation of this damage to
a critical value of one can be used to estimate remaining life. For failure at the periphery of the dents,
failure initiation was suggested at 25,000, 4,950, and 1,970 cycles respectively for dent depths of 6%,
12%, and 24%. For dents identified using ILI inspection as discussed in section 2, these estimates
provided guidelines for future evaluation or remediation.
5 Conclusion
Improvements in inline inspection (ILI) and computing technology, coupled with the emergence of
fitness-for-service standards, have created an opportunity to advance the state of the art in pipeline
integrity assessment. This paper described a novel approach for assessing dents in pipelines using data
from ILI tools.
In order to handle the complexities associated with dents, the Quest Integrity Group developed a Level 3
assessment methodology that relies on elastic-plastic finite element simulation. The formation of the
dent was simulated, along with the subsequent pressure cycling. The support of the surrounding soil
was incorporated as appropriate. The remaining life was computed through a proprietary low-cycle
20 October 2010
Page 10 of 27

fatigue damage model that was incorporated into the elastic-plastic finite element simulation. This
allowed quantitative estimation of remaining life.
This technology was examined using dent validation studies presented in API publication 1156. [8,9]
and applied to dent assessment of in-service lines.
6 Acknowledgements
Much of the work described in this paper was funded by Koch Pipeline Company. The authors would
like to acknowledge the contributions of colleagues at the Quest Integrity Group who have participated
in the development of the advanced pipeline assessment technology described herein. These colleagues
include Devon Brendecke, Chris Tipple, Dan Revelle, Jim Rowe, and Greg Thorwald.
20 October 2010
Page 11 of 27

7 References
1. API 579-1/ASME FFS-1, Fitness-for-Service, jointly published by the American Petroleum
Institute and the American Society for Mechanical Engineers, June 2007
2. Papenfuss S., Pigging the UNPIGGABLE: New Technology Enables In-Line Inspection and
Analysis for Non-Traditional Pipelines, 5th MENDT Conference, Bahrain, November 2009.
3. ASME, Gas Transmission and Distribution Systems, B31.8, The American Society of
Mechanical Engineers, New York, NY, 2002.
4. Fowler JR., Alexander CR., Kovach PJ., Connelly LM., Cyclic Pressure Fatigue Life of
Pipelines With Plain Dents, Dents With Gouges, and Dents With Welds, Pipeline Research
Council International Inc., Falls Church, VA, 1994.
5. Baker M. (Kiefner and Associates), Integrity Management Program: Dent Study, Department
of Transportation, Office of Pipeline Safety, Delivery Number DTRS56-02-D70036, 2004.
6. Manson SS, Behaviour of materials under conditions of thermal stress, Technical Report
NACA-TR-1170, National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics, 1954.
7. Coffin LF. Jr, A study of the effects of cyclic thermal stresses on a ductile metal, Trans
American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 76:931-950, 1954.
8.
Kiefner JR., Alexander CR., Effects of Smooth and Rock Dents on Liquid Petroleum
Pipelines, API Publication 1156, The American Petroleum Institute, November 1997.
9.
Kiefner JR., Alexander CR., Effects of Smooth and Rock Dents on Liquid Petroleum Pipelines
(Phase II), API Publication 1156 Addendum, The American Petroleum Institute, October 1999.
10. ABAQUS/Standard 6.9-3, Dassault Systmes., 166 Valley St., Providence, RI,
www.abaqus.com.
20 October 2010
Page 12 of 27

8 Figures and Tables
Figure 1: Localized Corrosion Identified Using InvistaTM and LifeQuestTM.
Figure 2: Dig Verification of Localized Corrosion.

20 October 2010
Page 13 of 27

Figure 3: Hydrogen Blistering Identified Using InvistaTM and LifeQuestTM.
Figure 4: X-ray Verification of Hydrogen Blistering.
20 October 2010
Page 14 of 27

Figure 5: Pipe Denting Identified Using InvistaTM and LifeQuestTM.
Figure 6: Verification of Pipe Denting.
20 October 2010
Page 15 of 27

Figure 7: 3D Elastic-Plastic FEA: Dent Formation.
Figure 8: 3D Elastic-Plastic FEA: Dent Re-rounding (10 Cycles).

20 October 2010
Page 16 of 27

Figure 9: Damage Parameter Validation Using Test Specimen.
20 October 2010
Page 17 of 27

Figure 10: Symmetric 3D FEA Model of Crack in ERW Seam.
20 October 2010
Page 18 of 27
4in dome indenter
Effects of Smooth and Rock Dents on Liquid Petroleum Pipelines (Phase II), API 1156 Addendum, October 1999
Sample #
Pipe geometry, Grade, D/t ratio
initial depth (d/D, %) Re-round depth (d/D, %) 1st press cycle depth (d/D, %)
69
12.75 X 0.188 in, Grade X52, D/t=68
3.3
1.8
70
12.75 X 0.188 in, Grade X52, D/t=68
12
7.1
3.49
71
12.75 X 0.188 in, Grade X52, D/t=68
18
15.8
6.85
72
12.75 X 0.188 in, Grade X52, D/t=68
24
15.9
7.16
Figure 11: Pipe Experimental Examples from API 1156 Addendum [9].
20 October 2010
Page 19 of 27

Figure 12: 3D Pipe Denting Finite Element Model.

Axial Dent Profile, Elastic Rebound
0
-0.5
Radial depth, in
-1
-1.5
-2
-2.5
-3
0
10
12
14
16
18
Axial distance, in
6% Modified - curve
12% Modified - curve
6% Modified - curve, relative error = -13%
12% Modified - curve, realtive error = -13%
18% Modified - curve, relative error = 22%
24% Modified - curve, relative error = 0.8%
Figure 13: FEA Dent Measurement After Elastic Rebound.
20 October 2010
Page 20 of 27

Figure 14: Effect of Straight-Edge Length on Dent Depth Measurement.
Decreasing Dent Depth with Succesive Pressure Cycling, Initial 18% d/OD
0
Radial Displacement (in)
-0.5
-1
-1.5
Increasing curvature
-2
-2.5
10
12
14
16
18
Axial Length (in)

Elastic Rebound
First pressure cycle
Last analysis step
Figure 15: Dent Re-Rounding During Pressure Cycles.
20 October 2010
Page 21 of 27

Dent Profile, Axial Cross Section (Final Step of Analysis)

0
-0.2
Radial Displacement (in)
-0.4
-0.6
-0.8
Figure B-13, API 1156 Phase II

-1
-1.2
-1.4
-1.6
0
6%, Modified - curve
8
10
Axial Length (in)
12
14
16
18
Figure 16: Dent Re-Rounding: Simulation vs. Experiment.
Figure 17: API 1156 Addendum [9] Observed Failure Locations.
20 October 2010
Page 22 of 27

Figure 18: Damage Contours in 24% Dent.
Tensile at OD
6% initial dent
Tensile at OD
Compressive at OD
24% initial dent

Figure 19: Hoop Stress (psi) for 6% and 24% Depth Dents.
20 October 2010
Page 23 of 27

Computed Damage, Modified - curve
0.03
0.025
Damage (%)
0.02
0.015
0.01
0.005
10
12
14
16
18
Analysis Steps
12%, Node 4 'peak'
12%, Node 3809 'hump'
Figure 20: Damage Accumulation in 12% Dent.
Figure 21: 3D Finite Element Model of In-Service Pipeline.
20 October 2010
Page 24 of 27
20

Dent Profile, Axial Cross Section (Modified - curve)

0
-0.5
Radial displacement, (in)
-1
-1.5
Note: increased curvature at the

24% initial dents periphery hump
-2
-2.5
-3
Plot represents dent rerounding after the indenter is

removed (solid line), and the final pressure cycle step
(dashed line)
-3.5
-4
0
10
12
14
16
18
Axial length, (in)

6%, Elastic rebound
12%, Elastic rebound
24%, Elastic rebound
6%, Last analysis step
Figure 22: Dent Re-Rounding of In-Service Pipelines.
Figure 23: Comparison of Re-Rounded Dent Shapes.

20 October 2010
Page 25 of 27

12% initial dent
Increased damage at dent periphery hump
6% initial dent
Figure 24: Damage Contours for In-Service Pipelines.
Tensile at OD
6% initial dent
Tensile at OD
Compressive at OD
24% initial dent

Figure 25: Hoop Stress (psi) for 6% and 24% Depth Dents for In-Service Pipelines.
20 October 2010
Page 26 of 27

Computed Damage
0.022
0.02
0.018
Damage (%)
0.016
0.014
0.012
0.01
0.008
0.006
0.004
0.002
0
Analysis Steps
6%, Node 18633 "hump"
12%, Node 18633 "hump"
24%, Node 18633 "hump"
Figure 26: Damage Accumulation for Dents in In-Service Pipelines.
20 October 2010
Page 27 of 27

Advanced Integrity Assessment of Pipeline Dents Using ILI Data

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Advanced Integrity Assessment of Pipeline Dents Using ILI Data

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Plant Reliability Specialists