See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/321157321

The Inspections, Standards and Repairing Methods for Pipeline with

Composite: A Review and Case Study

Conference Paper · October 2018

DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-70365-7_17

CITATIONS READS

5 1,148

6 authors, including:

hadj meliani Mohammed Bouledroua Omar

Hassiba Benbouali University of Chlef Sonatrach
86 PUBLICATIONS   484 CITATIONS    29 PUBLICATIONS   80 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Necar Merah Pluvinage Guy

King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals Ecole Nationale d'Ingénieurs de Metz
143 PUBLICATIONS   943 CITATIONS    220 PUBLICATIONS   2,718 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Hydrogen Embrittlement - Understanding and research framework View project

Safety, Reliability and repairing of corroded Pipelines View project

All content following this page was uploaded by hadj meliani Mohammed on 29 January 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

The Inspections, Standards and Repairing
Methods for Pipeline with Composite:
A Review and Case Study

M. Hadj Meliani, O. Bouledroua, Z. Azari, A. Sorour, N. Merah

and G. Pluvinage

Introduction

An accident free pipeline operation is the dream of every player in oil and gas
industry, but corrosion by nature is a contending issue in this regard. Corrosion has
been around for all recorded history and causes the degradation of the mechanical
properties of pipeline system due to chemical reaction with the operational fluid and
environment.
The paper initially inspects some points of view on the burst pressure standards
calculation on pipeline with external corrosion defect. A real test will be presented,
and a comparison on the two methods to repair the pipeline will be focus on the
second part. A FEM simulation should be a good tool to estimate the safety factor
on both parts. For the first part, an inspection is given for a real pipe exhibiting a
surface corrosion defect. Details are given in Section “Clock Spring Pipe
Repairing”. The data collected by the intelligent pig are regrouped with the critical
pressure establish by different codes ASME B31G [1], DNV RP F-101 [2],
PCORRC [3], SHELL 92 [4], RSTRENG [5], Barlow’s equation [6], Modified
B31G code [7], the Netto et al. method [8], the Choi’s method [9] and the average
shear stress criterion method [10]. Effect of corrosion length and depth are studied.
Additionally, in Section 3.2, a Finite Element Method, FEM has been used to
compute the different Stress at defect tip and semi-elliptical defects were consid-
ered: diagonally, horizontally and vertically. The interest of the paper is to give

M. Hadj Meliani (&)
O. Bouledroua
N. Merah

LPTPM, Hassiba BenBouali University of Chlef, 02000 Chlef, Algeria
e-mail: m.hadjmeliani@univhb.chlef.dz
M. Hadj Meliani
Z. Azari
N. Merah
G. Pluvinage
LaBPS-ENIMI, Paul Verlaine University of Metz, Ile de Saulcy, 57045 Metz, France
A. Sorour
N. Merah
Center of Research Excellence in Corrosion (CoRE-C), King Fahd University of Petroleum &
Minerals, P.O.Box 5040, 31261 Dhahran, Saudi Arabia

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018 147

R. R. Ambriz et al. (eds.), Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on New
Trends in Fatigue and Fracture, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-70365-7_17
148 M. Hadj Meliani et al.

some critical about the more conservatives result given by the different standards in
the literature. A proposal method to repair pipeline after inspection were presented
in detail in Section “History of the Pipe, Inspection of Defects and Experimental
Burst Test”. Two methods, ISO/TS 24817 and ASME PCC-2, are supposed to be
the able to given the more safety.

History of the Pipe, Inspection of Defects and Experimental

Burst Test

In the aim to anticipate the operational regime maintaining on the GG1 gas pipeline
under optimal safety conditions, analysis on a highly corroded tube are conducted
by the DRC and the MNI project at the Boukeroues base on 20 April 2011. To
study the behavior of API 5L X60 steel, corrosion lords of the bursting test and thus
checking the safety of the standards requested. This test was limited to tubes
referenced No. 12510 taken from PK 266.895 of the pipeline GG1. The test was
carried out in two stages, firstly checking the extent of corrosion against the results
of the intelligent tool and then testing the burst and analyzing preliminary data.
An example of a risk-based inspection planning method is given for a subsea oil
export pipeline installed in 1981. Table 1 shows general information about the
target pipeline, with inspection results of the corrosion defect in 2011. By an
internal pipeline inspection using the Magnetic Flux Leakage (MFL) intelligent pig
tool, collected corrosion zones can be measured with the locate, size and assess
anomalies along the full length. The data collected were downloaded and processed
for evaluation of the entire length of the pipeline, details of a subsea pipeline, such
as segments and corrosion locations, as shown in Fig. 1.
Measurements of the instances and penetration depth of corrosion on the inner
side of operating pipelines were collected. A total of 67 measurements were
available for the present study, categorized as depth, width and length, Fig. 2.
All defects reported were evaluated in according to the different standards. This
approach used the axial length, the circumferential extension as well as the depth

Table 1 General information about the target pipeline

Type of pipeline Crude oil pipeline, operating
Diameter (mm) 42 in.
Wall thickness (mm) 11.91–12.7
Length (km) 437
Material grade API 5L X 60
Max. allowable operating pressure (MAOP) (MPa) 69 bars
Max. actual pressure (Design) 73 bars
Date pipeline was commissioned (year) 1981
Report date 20.04.2011
The Inspections, Standards and Repairing Methods for Pipeline … 149

Fig. 1 Information on weld location and segment of a subsea pipeline

Fig. 2 Schematic view of 800

gas pipeline corrosion Depth
700 Width
Length
600
Corrosion Data (mm)

500

400

300

200

100

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Defects Positions (m)

for the determination of the new safety pressure. Example of burst test are prepared
from the tube No. 12510 with a pressure according to Fig. 3. In the API 5L X60
with design and operational burst pressures of 73 and 69 bars, respectively, the
pressure recorded was 95 bars with a defect of 75.6% of depth, Fig. 4. The result
has highlighted the more conservative of the current standards used. And the rec-
ommendation that further testing be conducted to a database required for optimal
integrity management.
150 M. Hadj Meliani et al.

Fig. 3 Preparation of tube No. 12510 from GG1 for the bursting test (a) and the pressure
recording (b)

Fig. 4 Resistance of all the corrosion nest (a) and state of scratcher (b) at 95 bars of pressure

For regions of external corrosion where the deepest penetration is less than 80%
of the wall thickness, an ASME B31G or RSTRENG evaluation of acceptable
defect length (L) can be conducted. The acceptable circumferential extent (c) of the
collected defects are evaluated in Fig. 5, with the standards API RP 579, where
(t) is the nominal pipe wall thickness, (d) is the maximum defect depth, and (D) is
the nominal pipe diameter. Pipe that is not severely corroded enough to fail either of
the criteria for acceptable defect length and the criterion for acceptable defect
circumferential extent requires no repair except recoating and backfilling.

Clock Spring Pipe Repairing

In this part a numerical study of the pipe repair using with the Clock Spring method
is presented. This method of reparation is using in Algeria. A composite sleeve
manufactured from E-glass fibers and polyester resin is used. The fibers are oriented
in order to run around the hoop direction of the pipe and to maximize the strength in
this direction. The sleeve is colored in yellow in the picture, Fig. 6. A methacrylate
The Inspections, Standards and Repairing Methods for Pipeline … 151

1,0
B
0,9 D
0,8
Acceptable
0,7

0,6 Unacceptable
0,5
(t-d)/t

0,4

0,3

0,2 D c
0,1 D: Diametre extrene
c:
0,0
0,0 0,5 1,0 1,5 2,0 2,5 3,0
c/D

Fig. 5 Acceptance criterion for circumferential extent of metal-loss defect

Fig. 6 Clock Spring® sleeve being applied to a damaged, steel pipe

Fig. 7 Stress distribution at the inside repaired defect a Two Sleeve, b Eight sleeves

adhesive is used to secure the repair. The adhesive is colored blue in the picture,
Fig. 6. The model of repaired pipe is presented and the effect of sleeve number on
the stress value has been studied. The maximum stresses is localized at the defect
tip and presented in Fig. 7. We note that the sleeve number has an effect on the
152 M. Hadj Meliani et al.

Fig. 8 Maximum principal 600

Maximum principal stress σ 11 (MPa)

stress evolution with sleeve 580 With repair
number 560 Without repair
Yield stress (σy=415 MPa)
540
520
500
480
460
440
420
400
0 2 4 6 8
Sleeve number

maximum stress value. Figure 8 presents the maximum principal stress evolution
with sleeve number. This result indicates that after Clock Spring repair, the max-
imum principal stress decreases, with sleeve number. This maximum principal
stress has a value 413 MPa for 8 sleeves close to yield stress (ry = 415 MPa), this
stress diminution is about 34%.

Failure Assessment Diagram

The failure assessment diagram (FAD) methodology replaces the three fracture
mechanic parameters relationship (fracture toughness, defect size and loading) by a
two parameters, one in order to have a plane representation where non dimensional
crack driving force kr and non-dimensional applied stress Lr are the coordinates.
The non-dimensional crack driving force kr is defined as the ratio of applied stress
intensity factor, Kapp, to the fracture toughness of material, KIc.
Kapp
kr ¼ ð1Þ
KIc

An improvement was made by introducing the J integral or crack opening

displacement as:
rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Japp dapp
kr ¼ or kr ¼ ð2Þ
Jmat dmat

where, Japp, dapp are the applied J integral and crack opening displacement and Jmat
and dc are fracture toughness in terms of critical value of J integral or critical crack
opening displacement of the material. Non dimensional stress Lr is described as the
ratio of the gross stress rg over flow
 stress (chosen as yield stress rY, ultimate stress,
rU or classical flow stress r0 ¼ ry þ rul =2
The Inspections, Standards and Repairing Methods for Pipeline … 153

rg
Lr ¼ ð3Þ
r0

The FAD exhibits a failure curve as the critical non-dimensional crack driving
force kr,c versus the critical non-dimensional stress or loading parameter Lr,c. This
curve kr,c = f(Lr,c) is obtained from fracture toughness data measured from speci-
mens tested under high levels of stress triaxiality (deep crack associated with
bending). Such conditions ensure conservative conditions. Local stress distribution
ahead of the crack tip is assumed to be plane strain with high constraint. However,
for real structures, defect tip constraint is reduced by small thickness, blunt defect or
tensile loading and real fracture toughness increases. The failure assessment curve
kr,c = f(Lr,c) delineates a fracture design curve according to the available codes, e.g
SINTAP [9], R6 [10] and RCC-MR [11]. The failure curve for the basic level of the
SINTAP procedure is given by Eq. (4). The fracture toughness, yield strength and
ultimate strength of the material are required for this level.

1 h  i
kr;c ¼ qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi : 0:3 þ 0:7exp l:L6r;c for 0  Lr  1 ð4Þ
1 þ L2r;c =2

kr;c ¼ f ðLr ¼ 1Þ:Lðr N1=2NÞ for 1  Lr  Lr;max ð5Þ

 
and Lr;max ¼ 0:5: ry þ rul =rul
with
 
  
l ¼ min 0:001E=ry ; 0:6 N ¼ 0:3: 1  ry =rul

The assessment point of a component can be highlighted by a point of coordi-

nates k*r and L*r . If this point is inside of the boundary lines of the diagram which is
limited by the failure assessment curve; the structure is safe Fig. 9. If not, failure
occurs, and the assessment point is situated outside of the interpolation curve.

Fig. 9 Typical failure Failure assessment curve

Non dimensional crack driving force Kr

assessment diagram 1,0

Brittle
(FAD) indicating the safe and FAILURE
fracture B
failure zones and assessment 0,8 ZONE
point and safety factor
Sefety factor
0,6
Kr
*
A Fs=OB/OA
Assessment point
0,4

0,2 SAFE ZONE

Plastic
O θ Lr
*
Collapse
0,0
0,0 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8 1,0 1,2
Non demensional load L r
154 M. Hadj Meliani et al.

1,2
Security zones
Horizontal direction
1,0 Vertical direction
Repair sleeve

0,8

Kr
0,6

0,4

0,2

0,0
0,0 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8 1,0 1,2
Lr

Fig. 10 FAD for corrosion defects with and without repairing. Influence of sleeve number

Table 2 Influence of sleeve number on SF on API X60 pipe steel with 7 bars in the pressure
Sleeve Without 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
number
Safety factor 0.96 1.03 1.08 1.13 1.17 1.19 1.20 1.27 1.41

In case of corrosion defect, non-dimensional defect driving force is obtained by

Volumetric Method [12]. Assessment points have been determined for the fol-
lowing conditions: (i) the pipe made of API 5L X60 steel with the following
dimensions: 600 mm diameter, 12.7 mm wall thickness with a pressure service
conditions 70 bars for a gas pipe, Two aligned defects in the circumferential
direction with d/t = 30%, W = 10 mm and L = 100 mm, separation distance dl mm
and two aligned defects in the circumferential direction with d/t = 30%, W = 10 mm
and L = 100 mm, separation distance dc mm. In other hand two aligned defects in
the circumferential direction with d/t = 30%, W = 10 mm and L = 100 mm, sep-
aration distance dl mm with repairing (number of sleeves 1–8) are used. The dif-
ferent assessment points are seen in Fig. 10. Table 2 gives the safety factors versus
the number of sleeves. One notes that the defect lead to failure under service
pressure and the pipe is safe after repairing. The safety factor increases with number
of sleeves. However, with eight sleeves the safety factor is far from the value of 2
which ensures security.
The Inspections, Standards and Repairing Methods for Pipeline … 155

Discussion

In this study, the expected numerical results confirm the strong influence of
geometry and position of defects on the service life of high pressure pipes. Single
base corrosion defects (length, width and depth) geometry affects markedly the
local stress and strain distributions, playing a critical role in the failure pressure
prediction of pipelines. Corrosion defect depth values are more “restrictive” than
the length ones. The obtained results will permit establish a comparative analysis in
order to discuss the interaction of two defects in both longitudinal and circumfer-
ential directions with a service pressure. Based on the opening stress, as a dominant
stress and responsible on the probable failure of pipe, critical distances are given in
the two senses, given the started points to consider separate or colony defects. It is
essential information taking into account in the engineering application to use the
standards to repair probable failure pipe. Corrosion defect affects the safety of pipe
under service pressure. Repairing using Clock Spring sleeves increases the safety
factor determined by Failure Assessment Diagram. However, before repairing it is
necessary to ensure that the assessment point is in the security domain i.e. the safety
factor is greater than 2. This gives an indication of the limit of this repair technic.

Conclusion

An accident free pipeline operation is the dream of every player in oil and gas
industry, but corrosion by nature is a contending issue in this regard. Corrosion has
been around for all recorded history and causes the degradation of the mechanical
properties of pipeline system due to chemical reaction with the operational fluid and
environment. Therefore, pipeline companies need to determine critical distance
between defects for making decisions about repairing the defects or leaving them
for further service. Finite element analysis (FEA) can improve the corrosion,
integrity assessment process and also evaluate the effect of defect geometries on the
operating pressure. It is a good tool, to optimize the experimental tests in the aim to
provide the assessment techniques in order to investigate the repairing methods and
their capabilities. In the same way, the monitoring techniques via ameliorating can
be enhanced by the testing methods or making more input data by establishing the
required grid.

References

1. ASME B31G. 2012. Manual for Determining the Remaining Strength of Corroded pipelines.
Supplement to the ASME B31 Code for Pressure Piping.
2. Canadian Standard Association. 2015. Oil and gas pipeline systems. CSA standard Z662-15,
Mississauga, Ontario, Canada.
 156 M. Hadj Meliani et al.

3. DNV-RP-F101. 2015. Corroded Pipelines. Det Norske Veritas, Norway.

4. Bipul Chandra, B.C. Mondal. ‘Burst Pressure Assessment for Pipelines With Multiple
Corrosion Defects’, Resilient Infrastructure, June 1–4, 2016.
5. Kiefner, J.F. and Vieth, P.H., “Evaluating pipe Conclusion: PC program speeds new criterion
for evaluating corroded pipe”, Oil & Gas Journal, Vol. 88, No. 34, pp. 91–93, August 20
(1990).
6. Pipeline Operator Forum Document: “Specifications and requirements for intelligent pig
inspection of pipelines”, Version 3.2, January (2005).
7. ANSYS, Inc.; 2017.
8. Andrade, E.Q. d., Benjamin, A.C., Machado Jr., P.R.S., Pereira, L.C., Jacob, B.P., Carneiro,
E.G., Guerreiro, J.N.C., Silva, R.C.C. and Noronha Jr., D.B. 2006. Finite element modeling of
the failure behavior of pipelines containing interacting corrosion defects. Proceedings of
OMAE2006 25th International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering
Hamburg, Germany.
9. SINTAP: Structural Integrity Assessment Procedure, Final Report E-U project BE95-1462
Brite Euram Programme Brussels, (1999).
10. Harrisson R.P, Milne I and Loosmore K “assessment of the integrity of structures containing
defects”. Central Electricity Generating Board Report R/H R6 Revision 1, Leatherhead,
Surrey, UK, (1977).
11. RCC-MRx 2015 - EN Design and Construction Rules for mechanical components of nuclear
installations: high-temperature, research and fusion reactors, AFCEN, Paris (2015).
12. Pluvinage G. “Fracture and Fatigue emanating from stress concentrators” Kluwer Academic
Publishers, Dordrecht, Netherlands, (2003).

View publication stats