Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Ipc2012-90089-Research On Burst Tests of Pipeline With Spiral Weld Defects#Chen2012
Ipc2012-90089-Research On Burst Tests of Pipeline With Spiral Weld Defects#Chen2012
Ipc2012-90089-Research On Burst Tests of Pipeline With Spiral Weld Defects#Chen2012
IPC2012
September 24-28, 2012, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
IPC2012-90089
ABSTRACT
On some old long distance transmission pipelines of NOMENCLATURE
PetroChina some severe spiral weld defects existed. These weld A - longitudinal area of metal loss
defects were found to be from a lack of penetration and lack of A( , ) - spiral correction factor
fusion during pipe manufacturing. To avoid possible failure
c - half length of the defect
accidents, tri-axis magnetic flux leakage (MFL) in-line
inspections were performed on some certain pipelines. A large D - pipe diameter
quantity of spiral weld defects were detected in the inspections d - maximum depth of the defect
and their sizes were reported, some of them with large depth K r - ratio of SIF to material toughness
and large length along the spiral weld seam. However, there is
no applicable engineering critical assessment (ECA) method
L - length of the defect
for this kind of defects up to now. Assessment methods M - Folias factor
provided in BS7910:2005 and other codes are only applicable Pb - predicted burst pressure
to assess flaws in cylinder oriented axially or circumferentially.
Pb* - measured burst pressure in the test
Projection processing must be used to utilize these methods for
spiral flaws. Three other different assessment methods for Q - spiral correction factor
spiral defects in linepipe were proposed by Mok et al., Fu and R - pipe radius
Jones, and Bai et al. separately. But these methods were
SMYS - specified minimum yield strength
originally developed for spiral corrosion and have not been
proved to be applicable for spiral weld defects on the old S r - ratio of applied load to flow stress
pipelines of PetroChina. In this paper’s work, several burst t - wall thickness of the pipe
tests of pipeline with spiral weld defects were carried out. W - width of the defect
Different projection assessment methods based on - angle of the spiral defect
BS7910:2005 were conducted as well as the spiral corrosion
assessment methods proposed in previous studies. Predicted flow - flow stress
results were compared with burst tests and analyzed in this - dimensionless geometric parameter of the defect
paper. As a conclusion of comparison, the axial projection - Poisson’s ratio
method based on BS7910:2005 was suggested to assess this
kind of spiral weld defects despite of its conservatism. INTRODUCTION
Some long distance transmission pipelines of PetroChina
KEY WORDS were constructed in the 1970s. Due to limited pipe
pipeline, spiral weld defect, burst test, engineering critical manufacturing technology at that time, some severe spiral weld
assessment (ECA) defects with large depth and large length existed on some
BURST TESTS
To confirm actual burst pressure of pipeline and compare
with assessment methods, 7 groups of full scale burst tests of
pipes with real spiral weld defects were conducted at Langfang,
China in 2010.
The test pipes were taken from an old transmission
pipeline of PetroChina which had been inspected by tri-axis
MFL in-line inspection tool. The parameters of test pipes are
shown in Table 1. The spiral weld defects on them were real
defects formed in pipe manufacturing which were reported by
tri-axis MFL tool. Table 2 shows defect size parameters of the
test pipes. The relative defect depths (d/t) of the 7 defects were
close from 0.506 to 0.689 mm/mm. The lengths of defects were
all very long from 800mm to 6000mm. Some long defects were
defect cluster according to interaction rules.
Hydraulic
Test pipe
pressure unit
Figure 7 - Diagram of burst test setup Figure 8 - Cracking at the middle of weld - test 5#