DNV RP-F101 - The Graphs los = 0.9UTS: DNV RP-F101 - Comparison with other Published MethodsDNV RP-F101 -Safety Factors o, = 0.9uTS $d = Two alternative approaches are given for the assessment of corrosion: '= The first approach in accordance with the safety philosophy adopted in the ONV Rules for Submarine Pipeline Systems (DNV96). "© Uncertainties associated wth the sing ofthe defect depth and the material properties are specifically considered. '™ Probabilistic calibrated equations (with partial safety factors) are given '§ The second approach is based on the ASD (Allowable Stress Design) format '= The calculated failure pressure pressure is multiplied by a single safety factor based on the original design factor. ' Consideration of the uncertainties associated with the sizing of the corrosion strength, =>toughness, = Weld must be free from other defects. = Compressive longitudinal stress can reduce burst pressure. ©Ponspen Let eeeeeaeeaeedeudnu ead eeaoeaenoeoeneeeeee @eeoeee00002e020002000000808089880 OTHER CONSIDERATIONS ON BURST STRENGTH OF CORROSION - Long Areas "= Some work has shown that defects longer than approximately the pipe diameter behave as infinitely long defects: ‘Other def initions of infinite defects are... (D1, 0.75D, and 4.48 (DtP*, (90.2 DI . = Tests" at Petrobras, Brazil have shown most assessment methods to be conservative when assessing long corrosion; '=AS_ME B31G could be overly conservative RST RENG Effective Area and the DNV RP-F101 (Part B) are conservative "RST RENG (using 0.85dL) is ‘non-conservative. OPonspeniis sas Seen. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS ON BURST STRENGTH OF CORROSION - Long Areas = All the main methods (ASME, DNV) allow for long defects. = The long defects tend to infinity, therefore the M or Q factor tends to infinity, and the equations go to: = Failure stress = Flow stress x (1-d/t) (© Poncpen LidOTHER CONSIDERATIONS ON BURST STRENGTH OF CORROSION - External Loads = DNV-RP-F101 The method assumes that the failure surface follows a Tresca criterion, ie. a tensile axial stress does not affect the burst pressure, but a compressive axial load reduces the burst pressure in a linear manner. A rectangular defect profile is assumed, = The method is only applicable if the total axial stress (including the contribution due to the internal pressure) is compressive. (©Penepen Lit o OTHER CONSIDERATIONS ON BURST STRENGTH OF CORROSION - External Loads Fyoop (s) +13 a ft] om) orem . eeaeeeaeeedaeaeooeaoeaeaeaeaeaeoeaoeaoeaeeeCONSTRUCTING PIPELINE DEFECT ASSESSMENT ACCEPTANCE CHART © Penspen Lis ~ A PIPELINE DEFECT ASSESSMENT ACCEPTANCE CHART -Failure Line CRITICAL DEFECT SIZE AT 72% SMYS, NO SAFETY MARGIN 2offRt)*0.5 (normalised defect length)A PIPELINE DEFECT ASSESSMENT ACCEPTANCE CHART -Failure Line FAILURE oleh rena Ketel op su oa eng i et a yy yy 90% OF WALL HORNER " pexRU0 norma tect mgt) Design Factor A PIPELINE DEFECT ASSESSMENT ACCEPTANCE CHART *The maximum pressure a ais ~——«s Atalaheetesscaveates | pipeline will experience, may | _ Inept UTS rH 2505005 be well above MAOP. “Most codes allow (typically) 10% (of MAOP) overpressures. sMethods such as ASME 31G have builtin safety factors that allow for these Uncertainties, but it we are producing our own failure ‘curves, we MUST use the ‘maximum pressure the pipeline will experience as the Os Design Hydrotest ei ‘ a Fairy [Okie sess, nd this mey be CP enspen ies Rigor meet ep mameumnme ce, 62 eeeeeeoeao eo eooeooea eeeaeoeaeaeaeaedc@eee0oe2e00000000000000000200 A PIPELINE DEFECT ASSESSMENT ACCEPTANCE z 3. 3 DEFECTS IN THIS AREA WOULD FAIL 2 AT 100% SMYS. i 5 eg 2eKR*05 (normalised defect length) ‘oF enepen id A PIPELINE DEFECT ASSESSMENT ACCEPTANCE CHART -Failure, Accepta nce & Safety Margin DESIGN PRESSURE (72 percent SYS) Safety Margin ‘(normalised defect depth) HYOROTEST PRESSURE (100 percent MS) | Acceptance 1 2ci(RO}0.5 (normalised defect length) ©Penspen tid oA PIPELINE DEFECT ASSESSMENT ACCEPTANCE CHART -Failure, Accepta nce & Safety Margi ct dopth) x —~_besicn Pressure (72 prcem sts) | Safety Margin it (normalised d HYOROTEST PRESSURE (100 perce 2eKRt)*0.5 (normalised detect length) ©Ponspen tid A PIPELINE DEFECT ASSESSMENT ACCEPTANCE CHART -Failure, Accepta nce & Safety Margin MAgP oR DESIGN PRESSURE Gansuys) HyoRoTEsT PRESSURE cio0% sus) e 4 2 8 # © © + 6 © Penson Les normabted efectiongtudinlength cr") °6peeeoeoeoeeeoe000e00e00000009089890 > A PIPELINE DEFECT: ASSESSMENT ACCEPTANCE CHART -E: . - (0 cae (© Ponspen tit Corrosion Length (com) ” PIPELINE DEFECT ASSESSMENT FIELD CHART - Example © Penspan uesesoeoevoeaoeoenooooeo ooo oe00e0000860 K. COMO EVALUAR PERDIDAS DE METAL E IDENTACIONES O ABOLLADURAS Penspen Andrew Palmer A member of the Penspen Group ‘A member of the Penspen GroupjError! Estilo no definido, Error! Estilo no definido. ‘Advanced Methods for Defect Assessment in Pipelines Page 10 of 6How to Assess Gouges and Dents PENT EN i, Penspen Integrity oP amspem tes LECTURE OUTLINE Third Party interference = Protection oo” a + Pcnons | (<= Fatigue Strength * Dents contsining welds (EE) * Consvoned Dons (ESE Rock De nts Dents and Gouges * orsing Det n Dos = Other Geometric Defects in PipelinesTHIRD PARTY INTERFERENCE & DAMAGE ee THIRD PARTY INTERFERENCE & DAMAGE = One of the main causes of the failure of onshore and offshore transmission pipelines is ‘Third Party’ or ‘External’ Interference/Damage ‘Also known as Mechanical Damagelinterference = Itis the major cause of transmission pipeline failures in North America and Wester Europe. = Third party interference can cause: wa pun-cture ‘a metal loss defect (such as a gouge), or ‘a geo-mettic distortion ofthe pipe shell (such as a dent), or "2 combination of the a dent and a gouge ' Dents containing defects are more severe defects than dents or detects in sclaton "= They can have low faire pressures & short fatigue 1 Consequently dents with defects are regarded as ‘the most severe form of mechanical damage. @eeeeeaeecoeaoadoanoevoeacoa ©eee Ge @eeeees@oe0oe0000000000000000808080 THIRD PARTY INTERFERENCE & DAMAGE va DAMAGE: Punctures, Gouges, Dents veeTHIRD PARTY INTERFERENCE - Examp! Puncture 1 This 3rd party damage" was = This third party damage" was caused by a constructor caused by a constructor who failed beginning work before the touse the One Call System agreed time in a One Call notification process, Dig/Safely. means Reputable, safe equipment that works close to our pipeline can gouge it, if not carefully driven @®eeee e € @eeeeee0e sé @eeeeeee ceeoe000020020000000009808080 THIRD PARTY INTERFERENCE - Examp! This dent was detected by a ‘smart pig. "26" line in Japan. '5T he dent was at the 4 ~ 5 o'clock position, possibly caused during instalation, |= Note how close this damage is toa motorway toll booth THIRD PARTY INTERFERENCE - Work on Pipelines Can Cause DamageTYPE OF MACHINERY CAUSING DAMAGE TO UK ONSHORE PIPELINES: a TPE OF WAGHINE | Wo OF DAMAGE | Wo OF | FALURES incoens | racumes | motes aaa i A oes aoe iF = 00 Ofer 2 oor Powe a n oa Poh n 2 oz Trencher wo 2 oa ine . ; or ne 7 o a Trevsocttsccsconoed [Spe o a n Bars ci rc Las @ 1 om pinto re Oni 4 ° 2 Trewecctporecae Roger Fi ; a Sere te [poe Te 2 28 “Seeropete tus, [oeeen 7 o 2 Tota ee a 008 METHOD OF DISCOVERING DAMAGE FROM THIRD PARTY ACTIV! 'S* (UK onshore ine data) DISCOVERY METHOD | No. OF DAMAGE] No. OF INCIDENTS. FAILURES Site Contractor 160 16 [Ground Patrol 138 0 [Other 130. 8 Pearson Survey 63 0 Patrol 29 O Unknown, 25 3 Public 4 3 ‘Orne inspection 8 0 Police 2 2 TOTAL 564 32 “The air patrol gave the st sighing’ of acy in 30 60% of nadents. “A considerable numberof actives were missed because of ther short duration. creel gtween 60% and 80% o the total encroachment aces lasted ess than 2 weeks, @eeeeeeaeaeene eooeooeaeaeoeoaeaeoeaeoee@eoeo0000000000000000808089 FAILURES DUE TO THIRD PARTY INTERFERENCE "= 1989 - San Bemnidino, California, USA 1 14'n, hameter gasoline pipaine at 1680 pi, 1 Dent and gouge damage ruptured causing two fatalities. = 1993 - Reston, Virginia, USA, ‘© 36in. ameter ful ol pipeline fated, "© 2000 barrels of ol contaminated the Potomac River. '= The damage was about 10 years old, = 1999 Bellingham, USA 16" quid line fallod. Three fatalities ‘= Damage was dents and gouges rom third pary interference : = 2000~ Abilene, USA x ase "= 12in, diameter natural gas 7) pipeline owned by the Mobil Pipeline Company failed resuling in one fatally (a pallce oficer), = 1993-Tojerias, Venezuela 1 Contractors instalin fibre optic cables sever a natural gas pipeline adjacent to a busy ‘ad. More than 50 people kiled in esuling fre, Two contractors jae for 16 years THE EFFECT OF MECHANICAL DAMAGE = TIMING* = IMMEDIATE FAILURES: Mechanical damage can result in immediate failures, by equipment puncturing the pipeline But ~ 20% of the time, the equipment fails to puncture the pipe, or cause damage severe enough to immediately rupture it - = DELAYED FAILURES: Mechanical : damage in a pipeline can cause ‘delayed failures’ '§ Only about 20 to 33% of mechanical ‘damage incidents result in ‘delayed failures (fallures occurring some time after the damage event) 1 but these have had serious ‘consequences.THE EFFECT OF MECHANICAL DAMAGE (cont.) COST: The immodiate fatures tend to resut in alower cost. This is because: 1 works ongoing on th tne, and 1 the operator is usuelly aware of activity, s and can respon toi qk (09 reduce i the pressure and oes valves) 1 This s paral te of l pipe fares, where the costo an immediate fare can bo 3 racton say tir) of te cost of selayed fares = SAFETY: Immediate failures have the most severe implications for safety | = for 908 pipelines the immediate atures wit cause the vast majority of casualties 1 dolayes tales usualy mean that people (those causing the damage) are ne longer around, but resident population stil al ik ‘THE EFFECT OF MECHANICAL DAMAGE: Leaks versus Ruptures* ee ees "Mechanical damage causes more ruptures than leaks, Corrosion causes more leaks than ruptures. Mo ot Fares Wo of atres 6000 if Tee. weet] foo il ‘0 3000 7 300 2000 2o0 ee@eeeoeoeoaea ee oeoeaeoeaoeaeeaeaeaeae@@eeeeeoaooevoeooeao ooo e eoeeoeee 0 PROTECTION OF PIPELINES — PROTECTION OF PIPELINES: Cover a "Depth of cover is an effective method of protection. ‘Codes require a minimum depth of cover of eg.0.9-1.1m Research work" showed that the likelihood of damage is reduced by a factor of 10 (rural area) and 3.5 (suburban), as the depth of cover is increased from 1m to 2m,PROTECTION OF PIPELINES: Wall thickness py Increased pipewall thickness offers protection against damage. For example very few (about 5%) of eo ‘excavating machinery used in suburban areas will be able to penetrate 11.9 mm wall ‘This accounts for the small proximity == distances specified in some codes | <== PROTECTION OF PIPELINES: W: thickness and Strength sh eas ™Pipelines have inherent resistance to puncture from excavating machines. AS 2885.1 gives the following relationship: "Pipeline Puncture Resistance = 0.701t(a,+ 410). + 22.4)(WIW + 3.14) 1c, ultimate tensile strength. eeeeoeeeaeuaneoeoeoeeeooea eee eee ese@ee0e0e00000000000000080808080 PROTECTION OF PIPELINES: Sleeves ipelines protected by sleeves are no longer popular due to difficulty in maintenance, and the possibility of corrosion (and the difficulty of finding it). ‘Thicker walled pipe is preferred, although care must be taken in installing the pipe, and the coating must be closely monitored PROTECTION OF PIPELINES: Marker TapesPROTECTION OF PIPELINES: Marker Tapes & Protective Plates/Slabs — eee eee Tape of Paecon To. of | Sommaryof Teas | Damage te Reduction Facer No Fea 7 —[Rhatine damages TT beth es Waning Tapes above he pipsne [3 Pipeline damages Lav frets Tim wide conaceBanirabave ie [TS Pptne damage} 335 pile fice tests 5m wie conse Darierabove te [13 — No pipe damage STF pipeline combine wi varing pes eburved aay tt 3m wide yell sped see plate above] 1S Nopelncdeness S15 the pei combine with warning ober in any te eos GOUGES SS eeeoea0aeae odo e2oeooeaooeaoeneoeeoeeee ©®eeeeeaoene0e02e00e000000000008080 GOUGES = Agouge is surface ‘damage to a pipelin caused by foreign objects removing part of the pipe wall = A.gouge is a metal loss detect fLine pipe steels are highly resistant to part wall defects, and such defects NT hey record high failure stresses due to the inherent ductility and toughness of the stools, GOUGES - Cracking & Hard Layer = Gouges are treated with caution because of the possibility of Associated denting 1 Cracks can often form due to “rerounding” of the dent. and | The risk of a work hardened layer below the gouge: SoS eam 1" This ‘hard layer is caused by the heat of the damaging process and the plastic deformation. Max depth is ~ 0.5mm This hard zone may reduce the local ductility and may crack as the indenting force is removed and the pipe attempts to regain its original shape. nmr CrackingNote cracking along edge of gouge ws dand high strength ~ may be susceptible to environmental cracking GOUGES - Hard Layer the gouge", we have: ‘plastic flow, ‘amotal transfer, ‘oven re-melting due to the heat of friction would have occurred at the ‘contact point |5For some depth we have a microstructure thatis crushed & severely cold-worked, locally degrading the ductiity & toughness, ttln the assessment of a gouge, account wil #2 eed to be taken of any hardened layers below the gouge and the effect of low. ‘microstructure inthe gouge just toughness material, bbolow the pipe surtace ‘This may require an assessment of the line pipe toughness prior to _assessment or inspection of the defect eeeeoaoeaooao eco oeoeaeoeeoeaes eee eeeGOUGES - Effect of Toughness 1s There is a risk of failure at a low stress if 2 metal loss defect is present in low toughness line pipe, due to low ductility or brittle fracture initiation, 1 The effect ofthe toughness and the h been investigated experimentally = TOUGHNESS - In tests carried out by British Gas, it was observed {that part wall defects in lower toughness line pipe (20 J or less) recorded lower failure stresses than similar defects in higher toughness (greater than 42 J). (Charpy impact energy measured Using a 2/3 size specimen). However... = HARD LAYER - Research work in Canada (carried out by CANMET) concluded that the deformed layer associated with the gouge was not deleterious in line pipe with a Charpy toughness of greater than 20 J. iard layer on the linepipe steel has e00e2e0000800 by a defect depth 2 defect longitudinal length t pipe wall thickness R Pipe radius D = pipe diameter orem @eeeveeoneeeeae0GOUGE - A Circumferential Defect Dimensions a defect depth 2 pipe wall thickness pipe radius pipe diameter R D defect circumferential length AXIAL GOUGE - Collapse and Bulging The methods assume that failure is controlled by ‘plastic collapse’ Opposite is a failed gouge in laboratory test Note extensive deformation (plasticity) and ‘bulging’ — eeeeoeoeooeooeded 6 eeeeeeeeedAXIAL GOUGE - Assessment Model a hoop stress at failure ' a flow stress d defect depth 20 axial length of defect t pipe wall thickness R pipe radius, Moe Folias factor (bulging factor) | ¥ lure Stress/Vield Strenath, 2 € Predicted Fail 38 ww (iraeacntcmal”AXIAL GOUGE - Assessment Model rears 2ei(Rty0.5 [1tan=06 os o4 03 02 os 0.08 eeoeoaoeaoaeeauea eas egeoeeoa soe oaoeaeaee @