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

IPC2012-90613
EXTENSION OF CURRENT DEFECT ASSESSMENT METHODS FOR GOUGE AND CORROSION DEFECTS IN X80 GRADE PIPELINE
Giuliano Malatesta Centro Sviluppo Materiali Rome, Italy Andrea Meleddu Centro Sviluppo Materiali Pula, Italy

Robert Owen National Grid Warwick, United Kingdom

Mures Zarea GDF SUEZ St. Denis La Plaine, France

KEYWORDS FFP criteria, X80, defect, corrosion, gouge.

ABSTRACT The increasing demand for natural gas affects the type of transportation, both from the strategic and the economic point of view. Long-distance pipelines are a safe and economic way to transport the gas from production sites to end users. Hence, pipes producers need to supply the market executing projects where high strength material is involved, to reduce the steel use. Among high strength steel grade pipes (X80 - X100 X120), the X80 grade is already in use for a number of gas pipelines in the world since many years. There is a need to evaluate the suitability of extending the current Fitness For Purpose methods to X80 grade steel linepipe, since the existing guidance was developed and validated mainly on test data coming from steel pipes of grade lower than X80. Hence they could not be directly applied to X80 grade pipes, but should be experimentally verified, otherwise their straightforward extrapolation would be questionable. EPRG recognized the need to cover this gap and launched a specific project, aimed at verifying the applicability of the presently available criteria to X80 grade, with particular focus on corrosion and gouge types of defects, longitudinally oriented.

The project includes the collection and review of available tests data and FFP criteria, and the identification of the most promising among those collected. Four hydraulic full scale burst tests on X80 representative pipes (helically and longitudinally welded) containing simulated corrosion and gouge defects have been carried out to experimentally verify the applicability of the criteria to the X80 grade pipes. The selected criteria for the corrosion (DNV RP-F101) and for the gouge (Battelle NG-18) defects revealed to be suitable for X80 grade pipes too, as demonstrated by the accuracy in predicting the failure pressure of the experimental tests and of the literature database. The criteria showed to be even more accurate for X80 grade than they were for lower grades. Finally, it is worth mentioning that the selected criteria did not need any correction factor for obtaining the best prediction. Such a result is a demonstration of the sound theory behind the criteria. INTRODUCTION The presently available methods for predicting the residual strength of a pipe containing gouge or corrosion defects have been validated against data on low grade pipelines ( X70). In some cases their extension to higher grade steel pipes is allowed on the basis of experimental evidences derived by laboratory tests on small specimens. Aim of the present work is to verify their applicability to X80 grade linepipes by comparing criteria predictions with full scale tests results.

Copyright 2012 by ASME

In order to reach the target, the project is composed of different tasks, each devoted to a specific step. The tasks are the following: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Collection of experimental database; Review and selection of applicable methods; Material selection and characterization; Definition of defects geometry; Experimental testing; Assessment of selected methods.

EXPERIMENTAL DATABASE The collection and review of the experimental available tests results is finalized at providing as many data as possible to assess the predicting capability of the methods under study. Burst strength test data available in the public domain on pipes tested with longitudinal gouge or corrosion defects have been collected into a database, which includes the following main information: Type of pipe: UOE, spiral, ERW; Pipe geometry: diameter and wall thickness; Pipe mechanical properties : yield and ultimate tensile strength, CharpyV toughness energy; Type of defect: corrosion or gouge; Defect geometry;

The gouge and corrosion defects were replicated via machined defects on the pipe surface and longitudinally oriented. This alignment is recognized to be more critical than the circumferential one since the defect undergoes mainly hoop stress, which is up to double the longitudinal stress (depending on the pipe constraint), thus promoting failure. The gouge defect was simulated by a slit in the pipe wall, a thin cut (0.1 0.2 mm wide) identified by its length and depth, in order to reproduce the damage caused by a sharp object scratching the pipe external surface. The corrosion defect was simulated by a general metal loss defect, characterized by smooth edges and identified by its length and depth, with fixed width (50 mm). The aim is to reproduce the metal loss due to generalized corrosion, hence excluding corrosion cracking phenomena.

NOMENCLATURE 2c d t pact ppred w A D L M pact ppred SMYS SMTS Defect length (corrosion type defect) Defect depth Pipe thickness Actual failure pressure Predicted failure pressure Defect width Elongation Pipe diameter Defect length (gouge type defect) Folias factor Experimental failure pressure Predicted failure pressure Specified Minimum Yield Strength Specified Minimum Tensile Strength Flow stress Actual hoop failure stress Predicted hoop failure stress Actual ultimate tensile stress Actual yield stress

Test result: failure pressure. Data come from literature [1 - 7] and EPRG present work, and have been split between corrosion (Table 1) and gouge (Table 2) type of defect, basing on the defect width: if the defect width is less than 0.3% the pipe circumference, the defect type is considered gouge, otherwise the defect type is considered corrosion. For evaluating the predicting capabilities of the methods, the actual pipe material tensile properties (Y and U) were considered instead of SMYS and SMTS. Such choice is necessary in order to reduce unknowns in the assessing process, since a difference exists between the nominal and the actual material properties, and such difference is not predictable. In general, using nominal properties provide a conservative result (typically SMYS < Y and SMUTS < U). Nevertheless, such conservativeness is not predictable (basing on above considerations) and it is not the aim of the work, which is addressed at selecting the best fitting method. Grade [API 5L] Pipe diameter, D [mm] Pipe thickness, t [mm] OD/t Actual yield stress, Y [MPa] Actual ultimate tensile stress, U [MPa] Y /U 2/3 Charpy V energy [J] Defect depth, d [mm] d/t Defect length, 2c [mm] 2c/(Dt)0.5 Defect width, w [mm] Actual failure pressure, pact [MPa] Hoop failure stress, f,act [MPa] A X100 273.0 1321.0 4.6 22.9 8.6 130.3 196.0 795.0 277.0 851.0 0.60 1.00 18.0 90.0 1.5 17.1 0.09 0.97 19.4 1600.2 0.5 401.9 19.0 1108.0 4.7 124.1 145.9 784.8

f,act f,pred U Y

Table 1: Range of data for corrosion defects database.

Copyright 2012 by ASME

Grade [API 5L] Pipe diameter, D [mm] Pipe thickness, t [mm] OD/t Actual yield stress, Y [MPa] Actual ultimate tensile stress, U [MPa] Y /U 2/3 Charpy V energy [J] Defect depth, d [mm] d/t Defect length, 2c [mm] 2c/(Dt)0.5 Defect width, w [mm] Actual failure pressure, pact [MPa] Hoop failure stress, f,act [MPa]

X52 X100 244.5 1422.4 5.6 22.9 22.1 104.0 379.2 795.0 483.3 990.0 0.71 0.99 13.6 287.3 1.0 18.5 0.10 0.92 63.5 3048.0 0.6 181.8 ---- (slit) 1.8 61.4

Predictive method NG-18 [1]

Basic Eq. NG-18

Y U
2

Defect Shape rectangular

M Two terms

Table 4: Predictive methods for gouge defect.

56.4 824.3

Table 2: Range of data for gouge defects database.

SELECTION OF FFP CRITERIA The available FFP methods for the defect assessment in presence of corrosion or gouge type defects have been reviewed (Table 3 and Table 4). As evident, a number of methods is available for predicting the residual strength of a pipe with longitudinally oriented corrosion defects, while very few are available for gouges. All of them except PCORRC are based upon the original Battelle NG-18 formula whose main parameters are the material flow stress ( ), the defect shape idealization and the stress intensification factor (M). Predictive method NG-18 [1] ASME B31G [9] Modified B31G [10] RSTRENG [10] SHELL92 [11] DNV-RPF101 [12] PCORRC [13]

Basic Eq. NG-18 NG-18 NG-18 NG-18 NG-18 NG-18 New

Y + 10 ksi
1.1Y

Defect Shape rectangular parabolic arbitrary river bottom profile rectangular rectangular rectangular

M Three terms Two terms Three terms Three terms Two terms Two terms Implicit

The most promising methods for X80 grade steel pipe have been selected comparing predictions with actual test results in the database. Since most of the formulas are NG-18 based, all of them have been assessed on both corrosion and gouge database for sake of completeness. Tables from Table 5 to Table 8 report the main statistics (mean and standard deviation), computed on the predictions of the analyzed methods (using actual geometries and material properties), and expressed as ratio between the experimental burst pressure and the predicted one. The mean describes the central location of the predictions. For the present analysis, the closer the mean to 1, the better the prediction. The standard deviation provides an indication of the scatter of the predictions. It shows how much variation or dispersion exists from the mean. A low standard deviation indicates that the data points tend to be very close to the mean, whereas high standard deviation indicates that the data points are spread out over a large range of values. Results of the analysis for the corrosion methods are reported in Table 5, which refer to the dataset on pipes lower than X70 grade, and Table 6, which refer to high grades (X80 X100) pipe dataset. From Table 5 it appears that the lowest standard deviation value is obtained by the ASME B31G equation, followed by modified ASME B31G and then by DNV RP-F101. Instead, from Table 6, the positions are changed, and the best method is the DNV RP-F101. Since the aim of the present work is to select the best method for application to X80 grade pipes, the DNV RP-F101 result to be the selected method, with no need of modification, as the mean and the standard deviation values are close to 1 and 0 respectively. pact/ppred mean std.dev. 1.53 0.65 1.60 0.72 1.16 0.29 1.24 0.32 1.22 0.45 1.54 0.63 1.21 0.46

Y + 10 ksi Y + 10 ksi
0.9U

Method Grade X70

NG-18 2 terms Folias 3 terms Folias

U U

ASME B31G ASME B31G mod. DNV-RP-F101 SHELL92 PCORRC

Table 3: Predictive methods for corrosion defect.

n 195 203 203 203 157 157 157

Table 5: Statistics on corrosion database (grade X70).

Copyright 2012 by ASME

Method X80 X100 grades

NG-18 2 terms Folias 3 terms Folias

ASME B31G ASME B31G mod. DNV-RP-F101 SHELL92 PCORRC

n 13 13 13 13 13 13 13

pact/ppred mean std.dev. 1.06 0.06 1.11 0.06 0.88 0.17 0.95 0.12 1.02 0.05 1.22 0.08 1.01 0.06

SELECTION MATERIALS

AND

CHARACTERIZATION

OF

Two different materials have been tested, one spiral welded pipe (42) and one LSAW pipe (48), both X80 grade. Pipe nominal characteristics are reported in Table 9. Material Spiral LSAW Pipe 903/2 474 D mm 1066.8 1219.2 t mm 13.7 14.3 D/t 77.8 85.3 Grade X80

Table 6: Statistics on corrosion database (grade X80).

Same approach has been used for gouge methods, whose statistics have been reported in Table 7 and Table 8. Table 7 shows that the two terms Folias NG-18 equation has the best mean value, and the second best standard deviation, while in Table 8 it exhibits the lowest standard deviation and the second best mean value. For X80 X100 grades (Table 8), the database refers only to few samples with small differences among methods, which makes difficult the selection. The corrosion methods exhibit quite good predicting capabilities. But, the small database do not allow to presently extend their applicability to gouge type defect. pact/ppred mean 1.00 1.00 0.84 0.87 0.82 1.04 0.81

Table 9: Nominal characteristics of the two materials.

For all pipes, the following characteristics have been measured: Geometrical characterization; Tensile properties; Toughness testing; Chemical analysis.

The actual geometries are reported in Table 10. Pipes 903/2A and 903/2B are actually two different pipes coming from the same coil, while pipe 474/B and 474/C are two halves of the same original pipe. Material Pipe 903/2A 903/2B 474/B 474/C D mm 1067.9 1067.9 1217.7 1219.4 t mm 13.7 13.7 14.1 14.5 D/t 77.9 77.9 86.4 84.1

Method Grade X70

NG-18 2 terms Folias

3 terms Folias ASME B31G

ASME B31G mod. DNV-RP-F101 SHELL92 PCORRC

n 55 57 58 58 55 55 55

std.dev. 0.13 0.16 0.21 0.18 0.11 0.15 0.11

Spiral LSAW

Table 10: Pipes measured geometries.

Table 7: Statistics on gouge database (grade X70).

Both materials show actual yield strength higher than the required SMYS, similar Y/T ratio and practically equal A% values (referring to transversal specimens in Table 11). Position Long Spiral 640 720 0.89 20.1 622 703 0.89 20.7 LSAW 610 684 0.89 19.8 698 725 0.96 18.9

Method X80 - X100 Grades

NG-18 2 terms Folias 3 terms Folias

ASME B31G ASME B31G mod. DNV-RP-F101 SHELL92 PCORRC

n 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

pact/ppred mean std.dev. 0.97 0.04 0.92 0.03 0.79 0.08 0.85 0.05 0.91 0.04 1.10 0.05 0.91 0.02

Y U Y /U
A

Trasv

Y U Y /U
A

MPa MPa --% MPa MPa --%

Table 8: Statistics on gouge database (grade X80).

Table 11: Pipes tensile properties (round bar specimens).

Since the NG-18 (two terms Folias) was specifically developed for gouge assessment, this make it preferable when considering this type of defects.

Pipes have similar toughness values in both transversal and longitudinal direction (Table 12).

Copyright 2012 by ASME

Position

Long

Trasv

Temp C 20 0 -20 20 0 -20

Spiral J 277 275 259 271 254 237

LSAW J 273 282 241 293 298 242

generalized corrosion, hence excluding corrosion cracking phenomena. In both cases constant cooling and lubrication have been provided in order to reduce the cutting temperature and hence risk of material microstructural alteration.

Table 12: Charpy V impact energy

The chemical composition is reported in Table 13. Both pipes have low Carbon level; Mn Cr Nb V Ti is the alloying and microalloying system for the longitudinal seam welded pipe, which is replaced by Mn Cr Mo Nb Ti system of the spiral one. Spiral 0.06 1.74 0.04 0.29 0.10 0.30 0.15 < 0.005 0.02 LSAW 0.07 1.80 0.03 0.22 0.06 0.32 0.01 0.04 0.02

Figure 1: Defects layout on the pipe sample

C Mn Ni Cr Nb Si Mo V Ti

% % % % % % % % %

The relevant dimensions are reported in Table 14 for simulated corrosion defects and Table 15 for simulated gouge defects. Defect d/t d mm 6.9 8.9 11.0 7.2 9.3 11.4 2c mm Pipe 903/2B 448.2 223.8 129.4 Pipe 474/C 489.5 244.4 141.4 w mm ppred MPa

Shallow Interm. Deep Shallow Interm. Deep

0.50 0.65 0.80 0.50 0.65 0.80

50.0

10.4

Table 13: Chemical analysis (S < 50 ppm, P < 0.02%).

50.0

9.5

DEFECTS GEOMETRY Three machined defects with equal hoop width, but different axial length and depth (and hence named shallow, intermediate and deep), have been machined on each pipe sample, according to sketch in Figure 1, for both simulated corrosion (Figure 2) and gouge (Figure 3) defects. Length and depth have been chosen to have the same hoop failure stress (72% SMYS), according to the selected FFP method (DNV RP-F101 for corrosion and two terms Folias NG-18 for gouge), as to highlight the influence of the defect geometry on the actual pipe failure pressure. The simulated gouge defect is a machined slit in the pipe wall, obtained via thin circular saw: a cut (0.1 0.2 mm wide) identified by its length and depth. The aim is to reproduce the damage caused by a sharp object scratching the pipe external surface. The simulated corrosion defect is a general metal loss defect, obtained via milling cutter, characterized by smooth edges and identified by its length and depth, with fixed width (50 mm). The aim is to reproduce the metal loss due to

Table 14: Geometry for corrosion defect type.

Defect

d/t

Shallow Interm. Deep Shallow Interm. Deep

0.40 0.55 0.70 0.45 0.60 0.75

L mm Pipe 903/2A 5.5 563.5 7.5 217.8 9.6 127.6 Pipe 474/B 6.4 398.3 8.6 196.2 10.7 117.7

d mm

w mm

ppred MPa

0.2

10.4

0.2

9.5

Table 15: Geometry for gouge defect type.

Copyright 2012 by ASME

The simulated corrosion shallow defect is visible in Figure 2, while Figure 3 shows the simulated shallow gouge defect.

d mm Shallow Interm. Deep 8.4 9.6 11.5 6.7 9.3 11.2

2c mm 504.5 248.2 143.3 457.0 225.1 130.1

ppred MPa Pipe 903/2B 9.2 10.1 9.8 Pipe 474/C 12.0 11.7 12.4

pact MPa 9.2 ------------11.6 -----

Error Abs. Rel. MPa % 0.0 ------0.1 --0.0 ------0.9 ---

Figure 2: Corrosion shallow defect on pipe 903/2B.

Shallow Interm. Deep

Table 16: Corrosion defects burst tests results.

d
Figure 3: Gouge shallow defect on pipe 474/B.

L mm

ppred

pact MPa ----13.3 ----11.7 ---------

Error Abs. Rel.

mm Shallow Interm. Deep Shallow Interm. Deep 5.6 7.6 8.2 6.3 8.6 10.5

EXPERIMENTAL TESTING AND ASSESSMENT OF SELECTED METHOD Four full scale burst tests have been performed in order to assess the predicting capabilities of the selected methods. The actual defects geometry and the related theoretical burst pressures are reported in Table 16 (corrosion defects) and in Table 17 (gouge defects) together with the experimental value obtained from the burst tests. The hoop failure stress for each single defect has been computed using Eq. 1 (NG 18 method) for the gouge type defect and Eq. 2 (DNV-RP-F101 method) for the corrosion type defect. The corresponding theoretical failure pressure has been obtained via Eq. 3. In all computations, the actual values of pipe (geometry and mechanical properties) and defects (geometry) have been used.

MPa Pipe 903/2A 560.0 11.5 220.0 11.5 125.0 13.3 Pipe 474/B 450.0 11.1 200.0 11.0 123.0 11.1

--1.8 --0.6 -----

--13.5 --5.1 -----

Table 17: Gouge defects burst tests results.

In all cases, the theoretical and experimental burst pressures are practically equal, with generally low error (at most 1.8 MPa for pipe 903/2A). Such result is a demonstration of the very good predicting capabilities of both selected methods, irrespective of the pipe type (spiral or LSAW). In no case the deep defect has caused the failure of the pipe. Table 18 reports the updated statistics on X80 X100 grades. The added data, from the burst tests made in the present work, do not change the good predicting capabilities of the methods. On the contrary, they confirm such a good behaviour. X80 - X100 Grade DNV RP-F101 (corrosion) 15 1.02 0.05

, =

1 1

; = 1 + 0.52 (

Eq. 1

, =

1 1

= ; = 1 + 0.31 (

Eq. 2

pact/ppred n mean std.dev.

= 2

Eq. 3

NG-18 (gouge) 6 1.01 0.08

Table 18: Statistics on selected methods (grade X80).

The four failed damages are reported from Figure 4 to Figure 7.

Copyright 2012 by ASME

compared with experimental database. Being this work aimed to verify the feasibility of extending the current FFP methods to X80 grade pipelines, the methods were compared on the basis of a statistical analysis on the available database. DNV RP-F101 and the NG-18 formulas were selected, since they exhibit the best capability in predicting the failure pressure of pipes with corrosion and gouge defects respectively. Then, the methods predictions were further compared against results obtained from full scale hydraulic burst test, on four X80 pipe samples, each containing three machined defects designed for failing at the same pressure. The comparison confirmed the prediction capabilities of the methods, since the error was less than 1% for the DNV RP-F101 method, and in the range from 5% to 13% for the NG-18 method. Same good predictions were confirmed when upgrading the X80 X100 literature database with results from the tests performed in the present work, even if the database for the gouge type defect is composed of few tests. In conclusion, considering that the error mean and standard deviation are less than the equivalent for lower grade, and that the experimental activity and validation analysis provided good results, the DNV RP-F101 method can be considered applicable to corrosion type defects (metal loss) and the NG-18 method to gouge type defects (slits) for X80 grade linepipe. REFERENCES 1 Cosham A., Hopkins P., 2004 The Assessment of Corrosion in Pipelines Guidance in the Pipeline Defect Assessment Manual (PDAM), Proc. of Pipeline Pigging and Integrity Management Conference; Cosham A., 2002, Assessment Methods for Corrosion in Pipelines, A Report to the Pipeline Defect Assessment Manual (PDAM) Joint Industry Project, Report Nr. NR99012/4238.1.72/R3; Cosham A., 2002, Assessment Methods for Gouges in Pipelines, A Report to the Pipeline Defect Assessment Manual (PDAM) Joint Industry Project, Report Nr. NR99013/4238.1.73/R3; Chauhan V., Crossley J., 2008, Project #153H Corrosion assessment guidance for high strength steels, Report N.R9017 prepared by Advantica for US DOT PHMSA; Kim et al., 2004, The Evaluation of Failure Pressure for Corrosion Defects within Girth or Seam Weld in Transmission Pipelines, Proc. of International Pipeline Conference, Calgary; Confidential data from National Grid; Confidential data from ENI;

Figure 4: Corrosion shallow defect on pipe 903/2B after failure.

Figure 5: Corrosion intermediate defect on pipe 474/C after failure.

Figure 6: Gouge intermediate defect on pipe 903/2A after failure.

Figure 7: Gouge shallow defect on pipe 474/B after failure.

CONCLUSIONS The methods for predicting the failure stress of the corrosion and gouge defects type have been identified among those available in the literature. Most of them have the same basic equation (NG-18), and provide similar results when 6 7

Copyright 2012 by ASME

Kiefner,J.F., Maxey,W.A., Eiber,R.J., and Duffy,A.R., 1973, The Failure Stress Levels of Flaws in Pressurised Cylinders, ASTM STP 536, American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, 1973; ASME B31G, 1991 Manual for determining the remaining strength of corroded pipelines a supplement to ASME B31 code for pressure piping, The American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York;

11 Ritchie D., Last S.; 1995, Burst Criteria of Corroded Pipelines - Defect Acceptance Criteria, Proc. of the EPRG/PRC 10th Biennial Joint Technical Meeting on Line Pipe Research, Cambridge, UK; 12 DNV-RP-F101, 2004 Corroded Pipelines, Recommended Practice, Det Norske Veritas; 13 Leis,B.N., Stephens,D.R., 1997, An Alternative Approach to Assess the Integrity of Corroded Line Pipe - Part I: Current Status, Proc. of the Seventh International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference, Honolulu, USA.

10 Kiefner,J.F., Vieth,P.H., 1989, A Modified Criterion for Evaluating the Strength of Corroded Pipe, Final Report for Project PR 3-805 to the Pipeline Supervisory Committee of the American Gas Association, Battelle, Ohio;

Copyright 2012 by ASME