ADVANCES IN INTERACTION RULES FOR CORROSION DEFECTS IN PIPELINES

Vinod Chauhan Advantica Ltd United Kingdom Wytze Sloterdijk NV Nederlandse Gasunie The Netherlands

ABSTRACT Corrosion metal loss is one of the major damage mechanisms in oil and gas transmission pipelines. The pipeline industry widely uses the ASME B31G and the RSTRENG methods for assessing the remaining strength of corroded pipelines. These methods were developed using an early fracture mechanics relationship for the toughness-independent failure of pressurized pipes and were empirically calibrated against a database of around 80 full-scale burst tests for thin wall pipes, dominated by pipes of material grades B and X52. Advantica recently undertook a comprehensive review on behalf of Pipeline Research Council International, Inc. (PRCI) of the existing and emerging methods for assessing corroded pipelines. This review identified that the existing criteria used by the pipeline industry to assess interaction of metal loss defects is based on limited experimental data and has not been adequately validated. Existing practice within the pipeline industry is to assume that defect clusters interact when they are spaced six wall thicknesses (6t) from each other. The development of new criteria for defect grouping and interaction would considerably improve the accuracy of pipeline defect assessment and thereby help to reduce operating costs for pipeline operators. This paper describes the results of a non-linear finite element (FE) study and full scale burst testing program that was undertaken by Advantica to develop new guidance for interaction of metal loss defects in pipelines. It is concluded from this work that the 6t criterion used at present can be over conservative, particularly when assessing interaction of small pit like corrosion defects.

INTRODUCTION Following in line inspection (ILI) of a pipeline, the interaction criterion used in subsequent defect assessment is agreed between the inspection vendor and the pipeline operator. Figure 1 shows the typical method used. The first process, referred to as boxing, is where a box is drawn around each feature. The second process, referred to as clustering, is a process to determine whether boxes located in close proximity to one another should be considered as a single corrosion feature. Finally a decision has to be made on whether adjacent defect clusters will interact or not. Remaining strength predictions of the corroded pipeline will be very sensitive to the interaction criterion used and the method by which clusters are deemed to interact is generally agreed between the inspection company and the pipeline operator.

Metal Loss Defects Detected from ILI

Boxing of Defects

separation distance
Clustering to Determine Overall Dimensions of Corroded Area

Figure 1. Boxing and Clustering of Corrosion Metal Loss Defects

To date, most of the research work on corrosion assessment techniques has focused on studying isolated defects, primarily of similar depths. The failure pressure of an interacting defect will be lower than that for an isolated defect because it will interact with neighboring defects. Both ASME B31G [1] and RSTRENG [2, 3] do not provide guidance for grouping and assessing metal loss defects that may interact. Some guidance is given in BS 7910 [4] and DnV RP-F101 [5] and indeed some pipeline operators have developed their own criterion for grouping defects. In general, existing guidance is based on limited empirical or semi empirical derived methods that still require on judgment from the analyst. A generally accepted and very conservative assumption is that defect clusters will interact if they are located to within 6 wall thicknesses (6t) from each other, see [10]. Pipeline Research Council International, Inc. (PRCI) have recognized that a robust method for grouping and assessing metal loss defects that may interact is required by the pipeline industry and contracted Advantica to develop new and improved guidance. This paper describes a program of numerical finite element (FE) analyses and full-scale test work undertaken by Advantica to develop the guidance. The results of this work will be published by PRCI, Catalog numbers L51968 [8] and L52007 [9]. NON LINEAR FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSES Method Metal loss corrosion defects in pipelines are generally present as smooth profiled areas with a reduced ligament of the pipe wall. It has now been well established that the failure mechanism of this type of defect is mainly dominated by plastic collapse at the remaining ligament. The failure pressure of internally pressurized ductile steel pipe with either local or general metal loss defects, such as corrosion, can be predicted by numerical analysis using the non-linear finite element (FE) method. This method, now incorporated into standards such as BS 7910 [4], was developed by Advantica [6] and allows complex flaw shapes and combined loading conditions to be considered. Briefly the method consists of four major steps as follows; Create a finite element model of the corroded pipe, using information of the defects detected, the measured material properties and the structural constraints and loads applied. Perform a non-linear, large deformation, stress analysis using a validated finite element analysis software package. Determine stress levels in the vicinity of the defect as the pressure or external load is increased. Determine the critical failure pressure of the corroded pipeline by determining the variation of the local stress in the vicinity of the defect as the pressure is increased and compare this stress to a validated criterion. Due to the complexity of the problem, the accuracy of the FE model is highly dependent upon the assumptions made in the generation of the model and in an accurate representation of the material properties of the pipeline. Also, the FE method described above has been generally been used to predict the failure pressure of pipelines with single metal loss defects

and has not been validated for predicting failure pressures for pipelines containing multiple defects that may interact. Consequently, a program of work was undertaken to predict the failure pressure for a wide range of a pair of defects in a pipeline using non-linear finite element analysis and subsequently validated using full scale burst tests. Figures 2 and 3 show examples of three-dimensional models that were constructed.

Figure 2. Finite Element Models of a Groove and Pit Defect Pair in a Pipeline

Figure 3. Finite Element Model of a Groove-Groove Defect Pair in a Pipeline

FE models were constructed using the general-purpose finite element code ABAQUS/Standard [7]. All the models were constructed using twenty noded, reduced integration brick elements. At least four layers of elements were used through the remaining

ligament of each corrosion defect; this was to ensure that the high stress gradients at the minimum ligament could be modelled with sufficient accuracy. Because of the highly nonlinear characteristics of the problem, the FE analyses allowed for both material non-linearity and large localized non-linear deformation to be considered. Geometries and Materials Analysed The method described above was used to generate three-dimensional finite element models to predict failure pressures for a group of two adjacent defects for the following pipeline geometries and materials; Pipe Diameter, D, 36 (914.4mm) and wall thickness, t, (12.7mm) [D/t=72], API 5L Grade X65 Pipe Diameter, D, 32 (812.8mm) and wall thickness, t, (19.05mm) [D/t=43], API 5L Grade X65 Pipe Diameter, D, 24 (609.6mm) and wall thickness, t, 7.9mm [D/t=77], API 5L Grade B/X42 Pipe Diameter, D, 22 (559mm) and wall thickness, t, 9.5mm [D/t=59], API 5L Grade X65 These geometries and material grades were chosen as they represent a good proportion of the pipeline gas transmission population in North America and Western Europe. A large number of pit-pit, pit-groove and groove-groove defect pairs were investigated. Sensitivity studies were undertaken as follows; Defect depths varied from 20% to 80% of the wall thickness Defect lengths varied from 8 to 16 times the wall thickness Defect separations varied both axially and circumferentially (1 to 6 times the wall thickness) Boundary Conditions Symmetry boundary conditions were used whenever they were considered appropriate in order to reduce the size of the models and hence reduce computer run times. Additional restraints were also applied to the models to eliminate rigid body motion. The model was extended far enough from the region of interest to ensure that end effects due to the application of the boundary conditions did not affect the results of the analyses. Material Properties When defining plasticity in finite element codes such as ABAQUS, true stress versus true strain data must be used. A rate-independent plasticity model using the von Mises yield criterion and isotropic hardening rule was adopted. For each of the materials identified above, stress versus strain curves up to failure were obtained using round bar tensile specimens. The stress versus strain curves were obtained from pipe material that was going to be used for the full scale burst tests. Figure 4 shows a typical example of the true stress versus true strain for API 5L grade X65 steel. For completeness the engineering stress versus strain curve is also included in Figure 4. A similar true stress versus true strain curve was also generated for gradeB/X42 material that was used for the burst test program. The true stress versus strain curves were input into ABAQUS as a piece-wise linear approximation using the *PLASTIC option.

Youngs Modulus and Poissons ratio of 210000 N/mm2 and 0.3 respectively were used for steel.

800

Stress (N/mm2)

600

400

200

True Stress Engineering Stress

0

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4 Strain

0.5

0.6

0.7

Figure 4. Stress versus Strain Curves for API 5L Grade X65 Steel

Results Figures 5 and 6 show example von Mises equivalent stress contour plots for an 80% deep defect pair separated both axially and circumferentially. The von Mises equivalent stress was monitored at three points through the ligament of each defect as the internal pressure in the pipe was monotonically increased, see Figure 7.

Figure 5. von Mises equivalent stress contour plot for an 80% deep groove-groove defect pair separated axially (3t) and circumferentially (1t)

Figure 6. von Mises equivalent stress contour plot for an 80% deep groove-groove defect pair separated axially (1t) and circumferentially (1t)

As shown in Figure 7 the stress variation with increasing internal pressure exhibits three distinct stages. The first stage is a linear response progressing to a point when the elastic limit is reached. As the pressure continues to increase a second stage is evident as plasticity spreads through the ligament; the von Mises equivalent stress increases very slowly because of the constraint of the surrounding pipe wall. A third phase is observed as the whole of the ligament deforms plastically but failure does not occur because of material work hardening. The general stress variation described above was observed for each model analyzed. Several possible criteria have been investigated to predict the failure pressure. One suggestion is that failure occurs when the maximum von Mises equivalent stress at any point through the ligament reaches the true ultimate tensile strength of the material. Another suggestion is when the minimum von Mises stress at any point reaches the true ultimate tensile strength.

1200 1100 Inner Surface Mid Surface Outer Surface

n erical instability um

von Mises Equivalent Stress (MPa)

1000 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 0

true u ate ten stren (U S ltim sile gth T ) S 2- P tage lasticity S preadin g

S 1- E tage lastic D eform ation

5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Internal Pressure (MPa)

Ote Srfac ur u e Dfe t ec

M Srfac id u e

In e Srfac nr u e

Figure 7. von Mises Equivalent Stress Variation with Increasing Pressure Through Minimum Ligament

For each defect pair the von Mises equivalent stress was monitored at the minimum ligament of each defect; failure of the defect pair was deemed to occur when the minimum von Mises equivalent stress in either ligament was equal to the true ultimate tensile strength of the material. Note that for conservatism BS 7910 stipulates that failure will occur when the average von Mises equivalent stress at the ligament is equal to the true ultimate tensile strength. Figure 8 shows an example of the sensitivity of failure pressures to pipe (D/t) ratio and defect separation distance for axially separated pit-groove defects. The following was concluded from the analyses; Interaction of small diameter (2t) axially separated pit-pit combinations is negligible (less than 5%), even when defects are spaced as close as 1t from each other. Predicted failure pressures change by less than 5% when the defect spacing is varied from 1t to 6t. Interaction of larger diameter (8t) axially separated pit-pit combinations is more significant. However, the difference in failure pressure for defects spaced 1t and 6t apart is still less than 10%.

Interaction of small diameter (2t) pit and groove (8t and 16t long) defect pairs, separated either axially, circumferentially or a combination of both, is negligible, even when the defects are spaced as close as 1t from each other. Interaction of groove-groove defect pairs (8t long) separated axially is more marked than for pit-groove combinations. A reduction in predicted failure pressure of approximately 26% is obtained as the defect spacing reduces from 6t to 1t. For similar groove-groove defects that are circumferentially spaced, the failure pressure does not change significantly when the spacing is changed from 3t to 1t. Sensitivity studies show that similar conclusions can be drawn for pipelines with (D/t) ratios of 43, 59, 72 and 77 and for materials to API 5L grades X65 and B/X42.

Axially Separated Pit-Groove Defects D/t=72, 59 and 43 18.0 17.0 16.0 15.0 14.0 13.0 12.0 11.0 10.0 9.0 8.0 7.0 6.0 5.0 0 1 2 3 4 5 Separation/Thickness (s/t) Failure Pressure (N/mm2)

D/t=72 D/t=59 D/t=43

Figure 8. Pit Groove Defect Pair Sensitivity of Predicted Failure Pressure to Pipe (D/t) Ratio and Separation Distance

FULL SCALE TESTING In order to validate the findings of the finite element analyses, a full scale burst test program was devised. All the tests were undertaken using 24 (610 mm) outside diameter (OD) by 7.9 mm wall thickness (D/t=77), welded ERW steel linepipe, material API 5L grade B/X42. A pair of defects was machined onto the external surface of the pipe. Tables 1 and 2 show the depth, length and separation of the defect pairs that were investigated over the twoyear duration of the project. In total twenty test vessels were manufactured. Combinations of pit-pit, pit-groove and groove-groove defects were studied; Tables 1 and 2 summarize the defect combinations that were investigated. In each case, defects were machined in the center of a pipe of length 1.5m to ensure that interaction effects from the ends would not interfere with the burst test failure. Following completion of the machining, a full dimensional survey of defect depths, lengths

and pipe wall thickness was undertaken. End closures (domed ends) were welded to the ends of the pipe to create a pressure vessel and supported to ensure that full radial and axial loads could be transferred to the pipe during the test. Care was taken to ensure that the defects were located well away from the vessel ends. This would ensure that welds, vessel supports, etc. would not affect the stress field in the vicinity of the defects. Figure 9 shows a typical example of the test vessel fully constructed.

10

Table 1. Burst Test Program Axially Separated Defects

Vessel Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8a 8b 9a 9b 10

Defect 1 Pit (80% Deep) Groove (80% Deep) Pit (80% Deep) Pit (50% Deep) Pit (50% Deep) Pit (20% Deep) Pit (50% Deep) Pit (80% Deep) Groove (80% Deep) Pit (20% Deep) Groove (80% Deep) Pit (80% Deep)

Defect 2 Pit (80% Deep) Groove (80% Deep) Groove (80% Deep) Pit (50% Deep) Groove (50% Deep) Pit (80% Deep) Groove (80% Deep) Pit (80% Deep) Groove (80% Deep) Groove (20% Deep)

Axial Separation (sa) 1t 1t 4t 2t 2t 4t 1t 2t 4t 2t

sa

P it

G oe ro v

d1 t

P it

sc G oe ro v d2

11

Table 2. Burst Test Program Axially and Circumferentially Spaced Defects

Vessel Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Defect 1 Groove (80% Deep) Groove (80% Deep) Groove (80% Deep) Groove (80% Deep) Groove (80% Deep) Groove (80% Deep) Groove (80% Deep) Groove (80% Deep) Pit (50% Deep) Groove (80% Deep)

Defect 2 Groove (80% Deep) Groove (80% Deep) Groove (80% Deep) Groove (80% Deep) Groove (80% Deep) Groove (80% Deep) Groove (80% Deep) Groove (80% Deep) Groove (50% Deep) Groove (80% Deep)

Axial Separation (sa) 1t 3t 6t 1t 3t 6t 2t 1t

Circ. Separation (sc) 1t 3t 1t 1t 1t 3t 3t 3t -

G oe ro v G oe ro v

ro v d1 G o e t

sc G oe ro v d2

12

Pipe section welded to form a pressure vessel

Close up of two machined defects located top dead center of pipe

Figure 9. Example of a fully constructed test vessel

High elongation strain gauges were placed on the inner surface of the vessel, directly below the defect centers. Additional strain gauges were also placed on the on the pipe wall away from the defect pair in order to monitor both the hoop and axial strains in the main body of the pipe throughout the test. All the tests were undertaken in accordance with in house hydrotesting procedures. The vessel was filled with water and care was taken to ensure that the amount of trapped air inside the vessel was kept to a minimum. The pressure was increased until failure occurred at one of defect pairs. Pressure versus volume of water, temperature, and strains in the vicinity of the defects and in the main body of the pipe were monitored and recorded throughout the duration of the test. Figure 10 shows a plot of predicted failure pressure versus actual failure pressure and a linear 1:1 line. In general the agreement is to within less than 10%; these results show that predicted failure pressures are in very good agreement with actual failure pressures.

13

150 135 Predicted Failure Pressure (bar) 120 105 90 75 60 45 30 15 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 Actual Failure Pressure (bar) Failure Points Linear (1:1 Line)

Figure 10. A Plot of Predicted versus Actual Failure Pressures

These results provide confidence that the assumptions made in the finite element analyses are valid and that failure pressures for corrosion metal loss defect pairs can be predicted with confidence. CONCLUSIONS The results of the work described in this paper provide good evidence that the finite element method can be used with confidence to predict the failure pressure of interacting corrosion metal loss defects in transmission pipelines. The following was concluded; Interaction of small diameter (2t) axially separated pit-pit combinations is negligible (less than 5%), even when defects are spaced as close as 1t from each other. Predicted failure pressures change by less than 5% when the defect spacing is varied from 1t to 6t. Interaction of larger diameter (8t) axially separated pit-pit combinations is more significant. However, the difference in failure pressure for defects spaced 1t and 6t apart is still less than 10%. Interaction of small diameter (2t) pit and groove (8t and 16t long) defect pairs, separated either axially, circumferentially or a combination of both, is negligible, even when the defects are spaced as close as 1t from each other. Interaction of groove-groove defect pairs (8t long) separated axially is more marked than for pit-groove combinations. A reduction in predicted failure pressure of approximately 26% is obtained as the defect spacing reduces from 6t to 1t. For similar groove-groove defects that are circumferentially spaced, the failure pressure does not change significantly when the spacing is changed from 3t to 1t. Similar conclusions can be drawn for pipelines with (D/t) ratios of 43, 59, 72 and 77 and for materials to API 5L grades X65 and B/X42.

14

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The work described in this paper was funded by Pipeline Research Council International, Inc (PRCI). The authors gratefully acknowledge the help and advice of the PRCI Materials Technical Committee throughout the duration of the project and for their permission to publish this paper. REFERENCES CITED 1. Anon. (1991). Manual for Determining the Remaining Strength of Corroded Pipelines. A Supplement to ASME B31 Code for Pressure Piping, ASME B31G1991. The American Society of Mechanical Engineers 2. Kiefner, J. F. and Vieth, P.H. (1989) A Modified Criterion for Evaluating the Remaining Strength of Corroded Pipe, Final report on PR-3-805 to Pipeline Corrosion Supervisory Committee of the Pipeline Research Committee of the American Gas Association, Battelle, Ohio. 3. Vieth, P. H. and Kiefner, J. F. (1993). RSTRENG2 Users Manual, Final report on PR-218-9205 to Corrosion Supervisory Committee, Pipeline Research Committee, American Gas Association, Kiefner & Associates, Inc., Ohio. 4. Anon. (2000). British Standard BS 7910:1999 Incorporating Amendment 1. Guide on Methods for Assessing the Acceptability of Flaws in Fusion Welded Structures, BSI, London, ISBN 0 580 33081 8 5. Anon. (1999). DNV Recommended Practice RP-F101: Corroded Pipelines, Det Norske Veritas, Oslo. 6. Fu, B. and Batte, A. D. (1998). Advanced Methods for the Assessment of Corrosion in Linepipe, Summary Report OTO 97065, UK Health and Safety Executive, London.

7. Anon. (2002). ABAQUS/Standard. Version 6.2, ABAQUS, Inc. 8. Chauhan, V. and Grant, R. Improved Methods for the Assessment of the Remaining Strength of Corroded Pipelines (Phase 4), PRCI Report Catalog No. L51968, Prepared for the Materials Technical Committee, Advantica Technologies, Inc., October 2002. 9. Chauhan, V. Experimental Validation of Methods for Assessing Closely Spaced Corrosion Metal Loss Defects in Pipelines, PRCI Report Catalog No. L52007, Prepared for the Materials Technical Committee, Advantica, Inc. (to be published) 10. Grant, R., Chauhan, V., Sloterdijk, W. (2004) Relationship Between Defect Shape Resolution Accuracy and Calculated Remaining Strength of Corroded Pipelines, IPC04-0547, Proceedings of IPC 2004, ASME International Pipeline Conference, Calgary, Canada

15