Burst Strength of Pipeline Test Specimens Containing Longitudinal or Circumferential Corrosion Defects
The elastic and plastic strain data of tubular specimens undergoing rupture under internal pressure tests are presented and analyzed. Six tubular specimens were tested. The specimens were cut from longitudinally welded tubes made of API 5L X80 steel with a nominal outside diameter of 457.2 mm (18 in) and a nominal wall thickness of 7.93 mm (0.312 in). Each of the six specimens had one external longitudinal or circumferential corrosion defect that had been machined using spark erosion. Tensile specimens and impact test specimens were tested to determine material properties. Post-yielding electrical resistance strain gages were used to measure the elastic and plastic strains. The failure pressures measured in the laboratory tests were compared with those predicted by four assessment methods: the B31G method, the RSTRENG 085dL method, the DNV RPF101 method for single defects and by the Kastner equation. The paper also discusses the strength of the pipe segments used in the tests under the assumptions of following the Tresca and von Mises rupture criteria.
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.- Benjamin, A.C., Freire, J.L.F., Vieira, R.D. and Diniz, J.L.C., 2010 “Burst Tests on Pipeline Containing Circumferential Corrosion Defects,” International Pipeline Conference, IPC2010-31445, (2010).Google Scholar
- 2.- Freire, J.L.F., Vieira, R.D., Castro, J.T.P. and Benjamin, A.C., “Burst Tests of Pipeline with Extensive Longitudinal Metal Loss,” Experimental Techniques, Nov.- Dec., Vol. 30, No. 6, 60–65, (2006).Google Scholar
- 3.- Souza, R.D., Benjamin, A.C., Vieira, R.D., Freire, J.L.F., and Castro, J.T.P., “Rupture Tests of Pipeline Segments Containing Long Real Corrosion Defects,” Experimental Techniques, Jan.- Feb., Vol. 31, No. 1, 46–51, (2007).Google Scholar
- 4.- Freire, J.L.F., Vieira, R.D., Castro, J.T.P. and Benjamin, A.C., “Rupture Tests of Pipeline Containing Complex-Shaped Metal Loss Defects,” Experimental Techniques, March-April, Vol. 31, No. 2, 57–62, (2007).Google Scholar
- 5.- Benjamin, A. C., Freire, J.L.F., Vieira, R.D., “Analysis of Pipeline Containing Interacting Corrosion Defects,” Experimental Techniques, May-June, Vol. 31, No. 3, 74–82, (2007).Google Scholar
- 6.- Freire, J.L.F., Vieira, R.D., and Benjamin, A.C., “Experimental Strain Analysis of Metal Loss Defects in Pipeline,” Experimental Techniques, September-October, Vol. 30, No. 5, 42–47 (2006).Google Scholar
- 7.- Benjamin, A.C., Franzoi, A.R., Leal C., J.J, Freire, J.L.F., Vieira, R.D. and Diniz, J.L.C., 2010 “Additional Test Results of Pipeline With Corrosion – Irregular Shaped Defects,” Experimental Techniques, September-October., Vol. 34, No. 5, 68–75, (2010).Google Scholar
- 8.- Diniz, J.L.C., Vieira, R.D., Castro, J.T., Benjamin, A.C., and Freire, J.L.F., “Stress and Strain Analysis of Pipelines with Metal Loss,” Experimental Mechanics, December, Vol. 46, No. 6, 765–775, (2006).Google Scholar
- 9.- Benjamin, A.C., Freire, J.L.F., Vieira, R.D. and Diniz, J.L.C., 2009 “Burst Tests on Pipeline Containing Short Uniform Depth Corrosion Defects,” Rio Pipeline Conference 2009, IBP1105-09, 2009.Google Scholar
- 10.- Anon, “ASME-B31G - Manual for Determining the Remaining Strength of Corroded Pipelines – A Supplement to ANSI/ASME B31 Code for Pressure Piping,” The American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York, 1991.Google Scholar
- 11.- Kiefner, J.F. and Vieth, P.H., “A Modified Criterion for Evaluating the Remaining Strength of corroded Pipe,” Final Report on Project PR 3–805, Pipeline Research Committee, American Gas Association, 1989.Google Scholar
- 12.- DNV-RP-F101, “Corroded Pipelines,” Det Norske Veritas, Norway, 2004.Google Scholar
- 14.- “Specification for Line Pipe,” American Petroleum Institute, Upstream Segment, API Specification 5L, Forty Third Edition, December, 2004.Google Scholar