You are on page 1of 6

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

IPC2012-90674
CYCLIC PRESSURE TESTING A SECTION OF 34" PIPE REPAIRED USING THE PETROSLEEVE TECHNOLOGY TO DETERMINE THE EFFECT ON A 50% CRACK
Rick Wang, P. Eng. TransCanada Pipelines Calgary, Alberta, Canada Robert J. Smyth, P. Eng. 1 PETROSLEEVE Incorporated Nisku, Alberta, Canada Richard Kania, P. Eng. TransCanada Pipelines Calgary, Alberta, Canada Ian R. Smyth, MIIE 1 PETROSLEEVE Incorporated Creigiau, Wales, United Kingdom

ABSTRACT TransCanada Pipelines operates a large mainline pipeline transportation system. Engineering analysis and severe testing was performed to confirm that the PETROSLEEVE1 Steel Compression Reinforcement Technology would arrest crack extension in large diameter pipe. This testing involved putting a 50% crack into a section of 862 mm diameter, 9.5mm wall thickness grade 448 pipe. Then a compression sleeve was installed while the pipe was pressurized to 3800 kPa (38% SMYS). Following sleeve installation, the test vessel was subjected to 9000 cycles 7880 to 2960 kPa (80% - 30% SMYS); 200 cycles 7800 to 0 kPa (80%-0% SMYS); hold pressures of 8870 kPa (90% SMYS) for 4 hours and 10840 kPa (110% SMYS) for 2 hours. Following the cyclic pressuring, the crack was metallurgically inspected. It was reported by third party inspection that the compression sleeve reinforcement "can effectively suppress fatigue crack growth of an axial flaw (100mm long x 50% of the wall thickness deep) in the API X65 pipe." This paper reviews the engineering and cyclic testing undertaken.

INTRODUCTION This repair technique is based on the premise that when a crack is put into compression, no crack extension can occur. Using the installation technique, the result is that an interference fit is obtained between the pipe and the sleeve, with the pipe being put into compression and the sleeve material put into tension. The technique has been used to repair cracking in pipe for pipe sizes 3" to 42". Even though a cyclic test had been completed on a section of 20" pipe [1], concern has been raised as to whether the repair technique is applicable for larger diameter size pipe. Because of this concern, a 34" test was undertaken to determine the ability of this repair technique to function in large diameter pipe that was pressurized to 3800 kPa (38% SMYS) during the sleeve installation process. It was recognized that many compression sleeves had been installed on a 24 crude line, repairing SCC cracking. Subsequent crack tool runs had illustrated that after the SCC had been sleeved, no further crack growth occurred under the sleeve, even though SCC growth continued to occur in adjacent joints of pipe [2]. However, as mentioned above, there was concern on the ability for the technology to perform on large diameter pipe.

Patented

Copyright 2012 by ASME

CRACK PREPARATION Initially, an axial flaw was saw-cut (100mm long; 4mm deep) into the pipe wall that allowed a fatigue pre-cracking depth of 4.75mm (50% wall) [3]. Six strain gauges were attached to the interior of the pipe; one control gauge, one gauge directly under the crack, and four gauges to measure the compression created by the sleeve. To obtain a base line for the crack, the crack was inspected using a phased array inspection technique. For this test, the same technician was used to perform the phased array inspections prior to sleeve installation and after the pressure cycling. STATIC PRESSURE INSTALLATION TEST PRIOR TO SLEEVE

WATER FILLING PRIOR TO SLEEVE INSTALLATION The vessel was emptied of water and moved into a facility. It then was refilled with water. During this filling process, an unplanned pressure spike occurred (calculated pressure 6300 kPa; 63% SMYS). The vessel did not rupture. However, the strain readings under the crack illustrated that movement within the crack had occurred. During the static pressure test, the strains under the crack had gone from 0 to 459 and then back to 1 (pressure 0 to 4750 to 0 kPa). During the pressure spike, the strains went from 0 to 1460 to 829, (remaining at 829 at 0 pressure). Concern was expressed as to whether the crack could have extended during this phase. Consequently, the crack was re-marked using an ink dye and re- examined using the phased array inspection technique. No change was identified.

Concern was expressed regarding safety when installing the sleeve while the vessel was pressurized to 3800 kPa (38% SMYS). To alleviate this concern, it was agreed that the vessel should be pressurized to 1.25 times the installation pressure, with all strains being measured. [4]

Figure 1: STRAIN GAUGE RESPONSE DURING PRESSURIZING AND DEPRESSURIZING.

850 750 650 550


Internal Gauges

Strain ()

450 350 250 150 50 -50 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
Defect Gauges

Pressure (kPa)

Copyright 2012 by ASME

SLEEVE INSTALLATION To install the sleeve, the two sleeve halves are placed around the pipe and held in place using a specialized jacking system. Engineering Software, incorporating the physical conditions and the design post-repair stress requirement, was used to determine the installation parameters. After heating the sleeve halves to attain the design installation temperature, the two final fillet welds were completed, creating a steel encirclement around the pipe. STRAIN GAUGE READINGS The strain gauge recording equipment was initiated and operated, with all gauges zeroed and stable. The vessel then was pressurized up to 3800 kPa (38% SMYS). The chart below, Figure 3, illustrates the average of the strains recorded during the sleeve installation process. The chart illustrates that the compression created during the sleeve installation was in the order of 1089 strain.

Following sleeve installation, one of the end caps was removed, and a "hot dog" was placed inside the vessel. The "hot dog" was inserted to reduce the volume of oil needed to be injected into the vessel during the pressure cycling process. The end cap was again welded on to prepare the vessel for cyclic pressure testing. The vessel then was shipped to CANMET, Ottawa, Ontario for pressure cycling.
Figure 2: VESSEL PREPARED FOR SHIPPING TO CANMET

Figure 3: AVERAGE STRAINS RECORDED DURING THE SLEEVE INSTALLATION PROCESS


800

Control Gauge
600

400

Microstrain ()

200

0 0 -200 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000

Time (Seconds)
Strain Under Sleeve
-400

-600

Copyright 2012 by ASME

Figure 3: CYLIC TEST SETUP PRESSURE CYCLING The pressure cycling regime selected for this test used an R ratio of .375. For gas pipelines, the R ratio (lowest operating pressure divided by highest operating pressure for a particular pipe joint) usually is in the .9 range (i.e. 6200/6900 kPa). For oil pipelines, this ratio could be in the range of 0.4. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Pressure to 7880 kPa (80% SMYS); Hold 1 hour 9000 cycles; 2960-7880 kPa (30 - 80% SMYS; R.375) 200 cycles; 0-6300 kPa (0 60% SMYS; R- 0) Pressure to 8870 kPa (90% SMYS); Hold 4 hours Pressure to 10840 kPa (110% SMYS); Hold 2 Hours

Figure 2: TYPICAL STRAIN RECORDING DURING THE 9000 CYCLES


1600

1400 4:30

1200

1000

STRAIN ()

800 2:30 7:30 400 10:30

600

200

0 130000

130100

130200

130300

130400

130500

130600

130700

TIME (sec)

Copyright 2012 by ASME

REMOVAL OF SLEEVE AND BREAKING CRACK SPECIMEN Following the pressure cycling and sleeve removal, the crack again was inspected using the phased array inspection technique. No change was identified with respect to the initial phrased array inspections. The crack specimen then was removed from the vessel and prepared for fracture surface analysis (cooling using dry ice and placing the specimen into a vice). Figure 4: PHOTO OF VESSEL WITH CRACK SPECIMEN REMOVED

Figure 5: BREAKING SPECIMEN

CONCLUSIONS a) The pressurizing up to 4750 kPa did not result in a rupture. This confirmed that in accordance with CSA Z662-07, it was reasonable to safely pressurize the vessel up to 3800 kPa for the sleeve installation phase.

b) Following sleeve installation, the compression obtained was in the order of 1089 micro strain. c) The test vessel was subjected to cycling pressures and strains that far exceed the change in strain that an operating pipeline would experience.

After the specimen was broken, the initial visual inspection did not identify any crack extension. However, when analyzing the crack surface using SEM high resolution scanning electron microscope, small regions of crack front were revealed that could not be identified. The crack front was later identified as an overload stretch plastic deformation mainly attributed to the undesired 6.3 MPa pressure spike experienced during the water filling operation. The high residual strain (829) is the evidence of crack tip stretch due to small scale yielding [5].

d) The investigations of the broken specimen did not identify fatigue crack extension. e) The technique can effectively suppress fatigue crack growth of an axial flaw (100mm long x 50% of the wall thickness deep) in 34 API X65 pipe. [5]

Copyright 2012 by ASME

REFERENCES [1] IPC02-27079; Case History of repairing Cracking in the Seam Welds of 1950 Vintage Pipe Using the Steel Compression Reinforcement Technology; Robert J Smyth P. Eng., Derek K Spitzmacher, P. Eng. [2] IPC04-0445; Integrity Planning and SCC Management In A Liquid Pipeline; Bill Gu, Wayne Feil, Richard Kania, Ming Gao, Ravi Krishnamurthy [3] Cyclic Test of Petrosleeve-Reinforced Pipe with Axial Flaw; CANMET Materials Technology Laboratory 2010-06(CF) [4] LEE08-07; Petro-Line Construction Ltd. Strain Gauge Monitoring of NPS 34 (864mm) Pipe During PetroSleeve Installation; July 20, 2009 [5] TCP-U210-01x SEM Analysis of Fracture Surface of An Axial Flaw in A Petrosleeve-Reinforced Pipe; Dec 26, 2010

Copyright 2012 by ASME