Proceedings of the ASME 2022 14th International Pipeline Conference
IPC2022
USE OF CARBON COMPOSITE REPAIR TECHNOLOGIES TO REINFORCE CRACK-LIKE
FLAWS IN HIGH PRESSURE PIPELINES
David B. Futch Sergio Limon
ADV Integrity, Inc. Blade Energy Partners
Waller, Texas Salt Lake City, Utah
ABSTRACT
Pipe body cracking and seam weld crack-like flaws can be
encountered on virtually all pipeline systems and are
traditionally repaired via a cutout, grinding, or full-encirclement
metallic sleeves. Although the effectiveness of steel repair sleeves
is well established, they have drawbacks when repairing out of
roundness pipe and they can require large pipe excavations to
find a suitable location for in-service welding. Moreover, finding
a clean in-service welding landing zone can be difficult for
vintage line pipe steel which have a higher probability of
laminations and the potential of having seam weld defects in low
frequency ERW/EFW pipe. Furthermore, safety is also a concern
when welding onto an operational pipeline. An alternative to
repairing planar flaws is the use of non-weldable, light weight,
wet-lay carbon fiber composite system. A composite repair
system has distinct advantages as it can contour to most pipe
shapes, resulting in shorter repair lengths (and therefore shorter
excavations), and no welding is required. Composite repair
systems have historically been used to reinforce areas of external
corrosion and dents; however, their use has not been fully
extended to reinforce crack-like flaws. A study was conducted
where three carbon-epoxy composite technologies were explored
as an effective repair option for pipelines with crack-like defects.
A total of 35 reinforced external axial cracks were tested in
base material and the longitudinal weld in 1960’s ERW pipe
samples. Each crack was initiated by fatigue from a machined
notch. Pressure cycle testing from 10% -72% SMYS showed that
the carbon composite repair systems tested can effectively repair
axial external crack-like defects in the pipe base and seam weld.
The repaired cracks in the ERW bond line ranged from 45% to
55% wall thickness deep and all survived 25,000 test cycles with
less than 10% wall thickness of additional growth. The
aggressive test pressure cycles correlate conservatively to 600 to
1,000 years of fatigue life for normal gas pipeline operations,
which demonstrated a fatigue life extension of 3 to 5 times when
September 26-30, 2022, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
IPC2022-87282
Chris Alexander
ADV Integrity, Inc.
Waller, Texas
compared to unreinforced defects that leaked below 10,000
cycles. The contents of this paper and associated insights are
valuable to the pipeline industry in extending the use of carbon
composite repair technologies to reinforcing cracks and seam
weld crack-like flaws based on full-scale testing and
metallurgical assessment of post-tested fatigue growth of cracks.
Keywords: Composite Repair, Crack Repair
1. INTRODUCTION
Planar flaws, such as pipe body and seam weld crack-like
features, can initiate in transmission pipelines by various
mechanisms, including line pipe manufacturing practices and
pipeline operating conditions. The fracture capacity of a
structure with a crack-like feature can be determined by a
combination of knowing the crack characteristics, applied
stresses, and the material response of the structure to fracture.
Under fatigue conditions, the stable growth of subcritical
planar and seam weld flaws in pipelines is highly influenced by
cyclic operational pressures, crack size, and environment at the
crack tip. Such planar defects are traditionally repaired by
methods that include removal by grinding, Type B steel sleeves,
Type A Compression Sleeves (CSA Z662), and mechanical
clamps. All these repair methods have limitations, including:
grinding is typically limited to a percentage of the wall thickness,
which can be less when coinciding with the seam weld, Type B
steel sleeves can lead to difficulty in finding landing zones due
to laminations or “dirty” steel, Type A Compression Sleeves
require the pipe to be without extreme ovality, and mechanical
clamps can result in extended lead times.
The majority of industry codes and standards allow for the
use of other repair methods if the performance of the repair has
been demonstrated through engineering analysis and testing.
Moreover, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration (PHMSA) stipulates a similar repair option
1 © 2022 by ASME
clause in 49 CFR §192.713. Furthermore, the use of other
methods are supported in industry standards including ASME
PCC-2 and ISO 24817 that highlight the importance of
installation procedures and quality control when using composite
wraps as a repair method.
One alternative to the above repair methods in reinforcing
pipelines with crack-like features is using composite repair
technologies. Composite repairs present significant benefits over
traditional metal sleeve repairs. First, wet lay-up installations
allow the repair to conform to irregular pipe geometries,
including elbows and pipes having ovality. This limits the need
for customized rigid clamps required with Type B sleeve repairs.
Also, composite repairs can result in a shorter repair length, and
thus a shorter pipeline excavation, due to vintage pipe material
that may contain laminations. Composite repairs can also
provide a non-welded repair option, which can be difficult when
reduced wall thickness is encountered or on products that can
have unintended consequences during welding (such as
ethylene).
Demonstrating the use of composite repairs for repairing
pipelines with crack-like features have been previously
investigated, with the intent to reduce or eliminate the stable
crack growth by means of load transfer between the carrier pipe
and the composite repair technology. In one study, in-service
samples were removed from a 34-inch natural gas pipeline with
known stress corrosion cracking (SCC) fields and reinforced
using E-glass composite repairs. Fatigue test results showed
minimum fatigue crack growth extension for smaller SCC sizes
[1]. In another study, single artificial seam weld planar defects 2-
inch by 32% W.T. were introduced in the bond line of low
frequency ERW 16-inch pipe samples removed from service.
The blunt planar defect was reinforced using a carbon-fiber
composite wrap and a hybrid repair system that used a
combination of non-welded metal sleeves and composite
overwrap. All repairs were installed with no internal pressure.
The reinforced samples were pressure cycled from 10% to 72%
SMYS and both repair systems reached the target number of test
cycles of 3,500 cycles without a failure or crack initiation [8].
Recently, a larger test program was completed to evaluate fatigue
growth of reinforced cracks in 16-inch and 22-inch diameter LF-
ERW pipe samples that were all manufactured prior to 1970s [9].
Also investigated were 8-inch and 12-inch high-frequency ERW
line pipes. Single cracks were initiated from starting notches that
measured 1.5-inches to 3-inches in their axial length with depths
ranging from 30% to 60% of the wall thickness that were placed
in the seam weld and pipe body locations. The cracks had various
starting depths and the samples were reinforced using carbon
fiber wet layup systems installed by five composite repair
companies. Some of the repairs were applied with the pipe under
pressure, while others were installed with no pressure. The test
cycle pressures ranged from 10% to 72% SMYS and the results
showed an increased cycles to failure of 15 times when compared
to the unreinforced pipe samples. It was reported in this study
that the test samples reinforced with internal pressure did not
provide a distinctive trend as compared with those installed at no
internal pressure. The outcome of these full-scale test programs
has demonstrated that pipelines with crack-like features of
certain dimensions can be reinforced using composite wrap
systems and the fatigue growth will be minimized, or in some
cases eliminated, when subjected to aggressive cyclic loading.
A goal of this testing program is to contribute data to the
existing body of work to support the use of carbon composite
repair systems for reinforcing cracks in high pressure
transmission pipelines. To do so, three carbon fiber composite
repair vendors were selected to further evaluate composite repair
of crack-like features located in the pipe body and seam weld.
2. MATERIALS AND METHODS
This section describes the materials and testing methods
used during this examination. This includes the starting material,
feature dimensions, repair systems, and test program.
2.1 Starting Line Pipe Materials
Two different starting pipe materials were used in this
program including API 5L, Grade X46, nominal 12.75-inch OD
x 0.250-inch WT (LF-ERW) and API 5L Grade X52, nominal
30-inch OD x 0.375-inch WT (EFW).
The nominal 12.75-inch OD pipe specimens were each cut
to 6-feet lengths and the ERW seam was etched to allow the
notch to be properly placed in the longitudinal seam weld. Some
of the 12.75-inch OD samples were designed with a single
starting notch aligned on the axial plane of the ERW seam and
other 12.75-inch OD samples were designed with three notches
equally spaced around the pipe circumference. For the remainder
of this study, the three notches around the circumference are
designated as 60°, 180°, and 300°, which is a reference to the
clockwise angle from the ERW seam. The nominal 30-inch OD
specimens were cut into 10-feet lengths and a starting notch was
placed in the axial direction and circumferentially offset from the
longitudinal seam by 90° - notches were not installed in the long
seam of the 30-inch OD pipe due to them being electric fusion
welded (EFW aka AO Smith) as this long seam type was not
evaluated in this study.
The starting notches in all samples were all 3-inches long
with an approximate depth of 30% W.T. for the 12-inch O.D.
pipeline and 35% W.T. deep for the 30-nch O.D. samples. All
test samples were cycled from approximately 10% to 72%
SMYS to initiate cracks from the notches. The goal was to
initiate fatigue cracks and let them grow to a target depth of 50%
WT deep.
Once the pipe samples were fully fabricated (end caps
installed and samples notched), the notch was instrumented
using either a clip gage or a uniaxial strain gage to monitor crack
initiation and growth during cyclical pressure testing for the
unreinforced samples and indicate when to stop the pre-cycle
step for the samples identified to be reinforced. The clip gage
2 © 2022 by ASME
was used during pre-cycling to generate a sharped tip crack at 3 30 Body
the base of the EDM notch. Once completed, the resulting crack 3 30 Body
was heat tinted using a small torch resulting in a blue tint on the 28R 12 0.25 3 30 Body
fracture face. This is crucial to distinguish the pre-crack vs. 3 30 Body
growth during subsequent repair. 3 30 Body
29R 30 0.375 3 35 Body
2.2 Feature Dimensions 30R 30 0.375 3 35 Body
31R 30 0.375 3 35 Body
A total of 34 pipe samples were fabricated, some with
32R 12 0.25 3 30 Seam
multiple starting cracks, which resulted in 48 total cracks being
33R 12 0.25 3 30 Seam
tested in this study. 10 of which were unreinforced and 24 were 34R 12 0.25 3 30 Seam
reinforced by the three carbon fiber repair vendors. 21 samples
were manufactured from the nominal 12.75-inch pipe and 13 2.3 Repair Systems
were manufactured from the nominal 30-inch OD pipe. The Three carbon fiber composite repair systems were utilized
starting crack dimensions for the features repaired within this during this program. The modulus of each system is summarized
study are summarized in Table 1. in Table 2.
TABLE 1: SUMMARY OF SAMPLES TABLE 2: SUMMARY OFAVERAGE MODULUS FOR EACH
Type # OD WT Notch Starting Notch VENDOR
(in) (in) Length Notch Location
(in) Depth
Vendor Modulus (Msi)
(%) A 9.1
Un- 1U 12 0.25 3 30 Body B 10.9
reinforced 2U 12 0.25 3 30 Body C 9.8
3U 12 0.25 3 30 Body
3 30 Body Each vendor was allowed to determine the repair thickness
4U 30 0.375 3 35 Body using their own methods. This resulted in varying repair
5U 30 0.375 3 35 Body thicknesses, as summarized in Table 3. Vendor C’s repairs were
6U 30 0.375 3 35 Body considerably thinner than the other vendors. Discussions with
7U 30 0.375 3 35 Body Vendor C indicated that their repair calculation was performed
8U 12 0.25 3 30 Seam to achieve 25,000 cycles (runout condition, discussed in Section
9U 12 0.25 3 30 Seam
2.4). Repair areas were girt blasted prior to repair.
10U 12 0.25 3 30 Seam
3 30 Seam
Vendor A 11R 12 0.25 3 30 Body TABLE 3: SUMMARY OF REPAIR THICKNESS
3 30 Body Vendor OD WT Repair Measured Repair
(in) (in) Layers Thickness (in)
3 30 Body
A 12.75 0.250 16 0.708
12R 12 0.25 3 30 Body
30 0.375 21 0.749
3 30 Body
B 12.75 0.250 28 0.623
3 30 Body
30 0.375 37 0.786
13R 30 0.375 3 35 Body
C 12.75 0.250 27 0.408
14R 30 0.375 3 35 Body
30 0.375 36 0.572
15R 30 0.375 3 35 Body
16R 12 0.25 3 30 Seam
17R 12 0.25 3 30 Seam 2.4 Test Program
18R 12 0.25 3 30 Seam The developed test program included unreinforced burst
Vendor B 19R 12 0.25 3 30 Body testing, unreinforced cycling, precycling of notches, cycling
3 30 Body once repaired, and burst testing if runout conditions are achieved.
3 30 Body The test method for each test sample is summarized in Table 4.
20R 12 0.25 3 30 Body
3 30 Body TABLE 4: SUMMARY OF SAMPLE TYPE
3 30 Body Type Sample #
21R 30 0.375 3 35 Body Burst 1U, 4U, 8U
22R 30 0.375 3 35 Body Unreinforced Fatigue 2U, 3U, 5U, 6U,
23R 30 0.375 3 35 Body 7U, 9U, 10U
24R 12 0.25 3 30 Seam Reinforced Fatigue 11R – 34R
25R 12 0.25 3 30 Seam
26R 12 0.25 3 30 Seam Unreinforced burst testing included a 5-minute hold at 72%
Vendor C 27R 12 0.25 3 30 Body SMYS (1,300-psig for 12.75-in OD pipe and 940-psig for 30-in

3 © 2022 by ASME
OD pipe) and a second 5-minute hold at 100% SMYS (1,800- # ΔP (psig) Starting EDM Depth Cycles
psig for 12.75-in OD pipe and 1,300-psig for 30-in OD pipe). Depth (in) Growth (in) Reached
Following the 100% SMYS hold, pressure was increased until 2U 100-1,300 0.072 (31.2%) 0.159 6,507
failure occurred. The pressure holds were selected based on (68.8%)
typical maximum operating pressure (72% SMYS) and full 3U 100-1,300 0.067 (29.8%) 0.158 5,297
(70.2%)
calculated pressure capacity based on specified minimum
0.064 (27.9%) 0.066
material properties (100% SMYS). (28.8%)
5U 100-940 0.120 (34.8%) 0.225 4,273
Unreinforced cycling to failure was performed from 100-psig (65.2%)
(5% SMYS) to 1,300-psig (72% SMYS) for the 12.75-in OD 6U 100-940 0.127 (34.9%) 0.237 4,871
pipe samples and from 100-psig (7% SMYS) to 940-psig (72% (65.1%)
SMYS) for the 30-in OD samples. Once repairs were completed 7U 100-940 0.127 (33.2%) 0.255 7,685
and cured, the samples were pressure cycled to failure or until (66.7%)
they reached a target runout of 25,000 cycles. The test cycling 9U 100-1,300 0.071 (28.9%) 0.175 5,530
loading was the same as for the unreinforced cyclic tests, for both (71.1%)
pipe sample diameters. 10U 100-1,300 0.069 (27.7%) 0.180 8,990
(72.3%)
0.074 (29.6%) 0.095
Burst tests were performed if runout conditions were
(38%)
achieved utilizing the same bursting sequence as the
unreinforced test samples.
3.3 Reinforced Cycling/Burst
A summary of the samples repaired by Vendor A, B and C
Once testing was complete, the cracks were removed,
are shown in Table 7 through Table 9, respectively. The samples
chilled in liquid nitrogen, and broken open to reveal the fracture
that contained the three cracks around the pipe’s circumference
surface. Detailed examination of the fracture surface revealed the
typically resulted in growth of one crack instead of three,
actual EDM notch depth, precycling growth (appearing blue),
therefore, repaired growth for those cracks not experiencing
and post-repair growth.
growth are listed as 0%.
3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The results of this testing program are described in the TABLE 7: SAMPLES REPAIRED BY VENDOR A
Sample Starting Repaired Repaired Burst
subsections below: unreinforced burst testing, unreinforced Crack Growth Cycle Count (psig)
cycling, reinforced cycling/burst. The initial EDM notch depth Depth (in) (in)
and growth during cycling are included in the sections below. 11R A 0.0833 0 (0%) 5,468 N/A
These depths were based upon examination of the fracture -60 (35.5%)
surfaces. 11R B - 0.0919 0.1351 N/A
180 (40.5%) (59.5%)
3.1 Unreinforced Burst Testing 11R C - 0.1101 0 (0%) N/A
The unreinforced burst testing results are shown in Table 5. 300 (49%)
12R A 0.1075 0 (0%) 2,884 N/A
TABLE 5: SUMMARY OF UNREINFORCED BURST RESULTS - 60 (44.4%)
# Precycling Pre- Starting Precrack Burst 12R B - 0.1175 0.1174 N/A
ΔP (psig) Cycles EDM Depth Growth Pressure 180 (50%) (50%)
(in) (in) (psig) 12R C - 0.1169 0 (0%) N/A
1U 100-1,300 4,500 0.077 0.039 2,246 300 (48.9%)
(34.4%) (17.4%) (139%) 13R 0.1890 0.0332 25,000 1,595
4U 100-940 4,903 0.116 0.116 1,570 (49.3%) (8.7%) (120%)
(34%) (34.4%) (134.4%) 14R 0.1631 0.0072 25,000 2,060
8U 100-1,300 5,297 0.072 0.025 2,438 (45.6%) (2%) (166.1%)
(31.3%) (10.6%) (146.9%) 15R 0.2013 0.0257 25,000 2,034
(51.9%) (6.6%) (151.3%)
16R 0.1356 0.0128 25,000 2,739
3.2 Unreinforced Cycling
(54%) (5.1%) (151.1%)
The unreinforced cyclic test results are shown in Table 6. 17R 0.1127 0.0073 25,000 2,591
(45.7%) (3%) (145.7%)
18R 0.1126 0.0131 25,000 2,543
(47.9%) (5.6%) (150%)

TABLE 6: SUMMARY OF UNREINFORCED CYCLIC RESULTS TABLE 8: SAMPLES REPAIRED BY VENDOR B

4 © 2022 by ASME
 Sample Starting Repaired Repaired Burst
Crack Growth Cycle Count (psig)
Depth (in) (in)
19R A 0.1708 0.0528 24,879 N/A
-60 (76.4%) (23.6%)
19R B - 0.0922 0.0134 N/A
180 (41%) (6%)
19R C - 0.0839 0.0079 N/A
300 (36.9%) (3.5%)
20R A 0.1244 0.0217 25,000 2,817
-60 (54.3%) (9.5%) (170.6%)
20R B - 0.0824 0.0165 25,000 2,817
180 (35%) (7%) (166%)
20R C - 0.0944 0.0187 25,000 2,817
300 (40.9%) (8.1%) (169.2%)
21R 0.1458 0.0281 25,000 2,047
(40.7%) (7.8%) (164.8%)
22R 0.1338 0.0173 25,000 1,887
(39.2%) (5.1%) (159.6%)
FIGURE 1: EXAMPLE FRACTURE SURFACE – SAMPLE 14
23R 0.1505 0.0216 25,000 2,040
(42.6%) (6.1%) (166.7%)
24R 0.1221 0.0105 25,000 2,633 All repaired samples that were burst tested failed remote of
(49.5%) (4.3%) (148%) the composite repair at a stress level greater than 100% SMYS.
25R 0.1210 0.0101 25,000 2,988 The cyclic tests results from the three vendors vary, some
(47.9%) (4%) (163.8%) samples experienced a lower amount of repaired crack growth
26R 0.1154 0.0108 25,000 2,946 after reaching the 25,000 runout cycles, while some samples
(44.9%) (4.2%) (158.7%) grew through the wall thickness once repaired. Recall that the
starting crack sizes also varied. However, it’s important to
understand the differences in the cyclic life between systems
TABLE 9: SAMPLES REPAIRED BY VENDOR C when comparing the results.
Sample Starting Repaired Repaired Burst
Crack Growth Cycle Count (psig) The three repair systems have different elastic moduli and
Depth (in) (in) were installed at different thicknesses. This results in varying
27R B - 0.0904 0.0112 25,000 2,765 stiffness (modulus x thickness). A repair with a higher stiffness
180 (39.3%) (4.9%) (166.6%)
(higher modulus product, thicker application, or both) provides
27R C - 0.1021 0.0080 25,000 2,765
additional support and theoretically increases the life of a
300 (45.3%) (3.5%) (169.9%)
28R A 0.1854 0.0386 2,325 N/A repaired crack. However, there’s some limit on the number of
-60 (82.8%) (17.2%) layers to make the repair an attractive repair alternative from a
28R B - 0.0891 0 (0%) 2,325 N/A time and cost perspective. It becomes important to normalize the
180 (39.6%) results from the three vendors in order to understand the ability
28R C - 0.0725 0 (0%) 2,325 N/A of a carbon fiber repair system to reinforce crack-like features.
300 (32.6%)
29R 0.1529 0.1359 25,000 1,981 To normalize the results, an equivalent pressure approach
(40.9%) (36.3%) (152.8%) was utilized to calculate the expected vs. actual stress reduction
30R 0.1703 0.1141 25,000 2,038 ratio. The equivalent pressure is given by equation (1) which
(45.5%) (30.5%) (156.9%) attempts to calculate the contribution of the composite to the
31R 0.1643 0.2027 20,267 N/A
stress level experienced in the pipe. The stress reduction ratio is
(44.8%) (55.2%)
given by equation (2). The lower the stress reduction ratio, the
32R 0.1398 0.0898 25,000 3,154
(55.5%) (35.6%) (173.4%) more effective the composite repair performs.
33R 0.1319 0 (0%) 25,000 2,824
𝑃𝑃𝐷𝐷 𝐸𝐸𝑝𝑝 𝑡𝑡𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛 +𝑃𝑃𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 𝐸𝐸𝑐𝑐 𝑡𝑡𝑐𝑐
(52.7%) (156.4%) 𝑃𝑃𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 = (1)
34R 0.1244 0.0126 25,000 2,565 𝐸𝐸𝑝𝑝 𝑡𝑡𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛 +𝐸𝐸𝑐𝑐 𝑡𝑡𝑐𝑐
(50.8%) (5.1%) (145.1%)
𝑃𝑃𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒
A representative photograph showing fatigue growth of a 𝑃𝑃𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 = (2)
𝑃𝑃𝐷𝐷
repaired crack is shown in Figure 1, where the starting notch, 𝑃𝑃𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 : equivalent pressure with composite contribution
initiated crack, fatigue crack growth and freeze break after test
completion are highlighted. 𝑃𝑃𝐷𝐷 : design pressure

5 © 2022 by ASME
 𝐸𝐸𝑝𝑝 : pipe modulus
An “Estimated” stress reduction ratio can be calculated for
𝑡𝑡𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛 : pipe nominal wall thickness each repair using (1) and (2). This takes into account the
𝑃𝑃𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 : install pressure variations in the composite repair modulus and thickness for
𝐸𝐸𝑐𝑐 : composite modulus each system/sample. Comparing the “Actual” to the “Estimated”
𝑡𝑡𝑐𝑐 : composite thickness ratios provides a normalized approach to the various systems. A
𝑃𝑃𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 : stress reduction ratio considering composite ratio greater than 100% indicates the composite outperformed
the estimated reinforcement. A summary of the pressure
reduction ratios and the percent difference between the two is
The experienced fracture loading was then calculated using
summarized in Table 11 for those features experiencing growth.
the Newman-Raju equation provided the equivalent pressure
values determined via (1) and (2). Minimum and maximum
TABLE 11: SUMMARY OF CALCULATED PRESSURE
pressure result in the minimum and maximum fracture loading
REDUCTION RATIOS
of the repaired feature. This is given in the equation (3), where
Vendor OD Sample Actual Estimated %
the pressure ratio is substituted. Doing so enables the
(in) Pratio Pratio Change
contribution of the composite to be estimated.
A 12 11R-B 0.77 0.51 66%
𝑃𝑃𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 𝑅𝑅 12 12R-B 0.82 0.52 63%
𝐾𝐾𝐼𝐼 = 𝐹𝐹 √𝜋𝜋𝜋𝜋
2𝑡𝑡 30 13R 0.34 0.62 182%
30 14R 0.22 0.61 277%
𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜
30 15R 0.30 0.62 207%
𝑃𝑃𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 𝑃𝑃𝐷𝐷 𝑅𝑅 12 16R 0.25 0.53 212%
𝐾𝐾1 = 𝐹𝐹 2𝑡𝑡
√𝜋𝜋𝜋𝜋 (3)
12 17R 0.25 0.53 212%
Next, average crack growth per cycle can be utilized for the 12 18R 0.25 0.52 208%
unreinforced samples to calculate C within equation (4) for both
starting pipe diameters. The resulting C values for the B 12 19R-A 0.23 0.49 213%
unreinforced samples are summarized in Table 10. 12 20R-A 0.26 0.50 192%
12 20R-B 0.39 0.50 128%
𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑
= 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐾𝐾 𝑚𝑚 12 20R-C 0.34 0.50 147%
𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑
(4) 30 21R 0.36 0.55 153%
30 22R 0.31 0.54 174%
TABLE 10: SUMMARY OF CALCULATED C VALUES
OD Sample WT Number of C Average C 30 23R 0.32 0.55 172%
(in) (in) Cycles (N) 12 24R 0.25 0.52 208%
12 2U 0.231 6,507 3.40x10-10 4.33x10-10
3U 0.225 5,297 4.20x10-10 12 25R 0.26 0.52 200%
9U 0.246 5,530 5.70x10-10
12 26R 0.29 0.53 183%
10U 0.249 8,990 4.00x10-10
30 5U 0.345 4,273 3.40x10-10 3.32x10-10 C 12 27R-B 0.30 0.63 210%
6U 0.364 4,871 3.60x10-10
7U 0.382 7,685 2.95x10-10 12 27R-C 0.24 0.62 258%
12 28R-A 0.48 0.72 150%
The resultant stress reduction ratio can be calculated using
30 29R 0.51 0.66 129%
the crack growth data from the repaired samples using the known
number of cycles, material properties, and the estimated C values 30 30R 0.47 0.66 140%
from the unreinforced samples. The variable n was held constant
30 31R 0.54 0.66 122%
at 3 (same as that used to calculate the C value for the
unreinforced samples). This is done through a series of iterations 12 32R 0.38 0.64 168%
where the stress reduction ratio is varied until the crack growth
12 34R 0.26 0.64 246%
per cycle matches the experimental data (determined from
repaired samples). This determines an “Actual” stress reduction
ratio.

6 © 2022 by ASME
 With the exception of Sample 11R-B and 12R-B, all
composite repairs exceeded the calculated stress reduction ratio
(greater than 100%). The reason for this outlier was not
determined but could be related to the repair or local variations
in the sample geometry. These results indicate that a properly
designed and installed carbon fiber composite repair system can
provide structural reinforcement to longitudinal crack-like
features. The proper repair design should consider the starting
crack depth and intended life (number of pressure cycles).
Thicker repairs would be required as the crack depth increases
and the pipeline’s cyclic history becomes more aggressive. For
instance, a liquid pipeline may require additional layers due to a
more aggressive pressure cycling range.

This approach normalized the data showing that the three

vendors selected performed in a similar manner, although,
varying crack depth was identified. Attempting to control the
layer count (and repair thickness) through a fracture mechanics
approach appears to have some validity assuming there’s a
defined life (in number of cycles) and fracture toughness is
known or conservatively assumed based on pipe vintage.

4. CONCLUSION
This study provided additional data to support the composite
repair of crack-like features. In doing so, three vendors were
evaluated, all showing the ability to increase the life of a crack-
like indication. Normalizing the results indicated that an
appropriate design should consider the starting crack depth and
intended life (number of pressure cycles).

REFERENCES
[1] V. Linton, E. Gamboa, M. Law, “Strategies for the repair
of stress-corrosion cracked gas transmission pipelines:
assessment of the potential for fatigue failure of dormant stress-
corrosion cracks due to cyclic pressure service” Journal of
Pipeline Engineering, 2007, 4(1), pp. 207-217.

[2] Alexander, C.R., Rizk, T., Wang, H., Clayton, R.,

Scrivner, R., “Reinforcement of Planar Defects in Low-
Frequency ERW Long Seams using Composite Reinforcing
Materials”, 11th International Pipeline Conference, Paper No.
PC2016-64082, September 26-30, 2016, Calgary, AB.

[3] D. Futch, C. Sheets, K. Bagnoli, R. Cabrera, S. Koetting,

“Composite Repair of Crack-like Features”, PRCI REX 2021,
Paper REX2021-036, March 2021.

7 © 2022 by ASME