Submitted:
10 September 2024
Posted:
11 September 2024
You are already at the latest version
Abstract
Keywords:
1. Introduction
2. Methodology
2.1. Failure Identification of Corroded Pipeline
2.2. Corrosion Pipeline Model Simplification
2.3. Finite Element Simulation Modeling
2.4. Establishment of Data Sets for Simulation Experiments
2.5. Experimental Setup
2.5.1. Design of Test Pipelines
2.5.1. Construction of Test Platform
3. Results
3.1. Influence of Boundary Conditions on Stress
3.2. Sensitivity Analysis of Defect Parameters on Failure Pressure
3.2.1. Relationship between Stress and Corrosion Length
3.2.2. Relationship between Stress and Corrosion Width
3.2.3. Relationship between Stress and Corrosion Depth
3.3 Establishment of Nonlinear Regression Equation for Failure Pressure
3.4 Comparative Analysis and Discussion of Experimental Results
4. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Hua, C. Research on the Residual Strength of Pressure Pipelines with Corrosion Defects. Beijing: China University of Petroleum (Beijing), 2017.
- Wang, Z.B.; Pang, L.; Zheng, Y.G. A review on under-deposit corrosion of pipelines in oil and gas fields: Testing methods, corrosion mechanisms and mitigation strategies. Corrosion Communications 2022, 7, 70-81. [CrossRef]
- Wang, Q.; Song, Y.; Zhang, X.; et al. Evolution of corrosion prediction models for oil and gas pipelines: From empirical-driven to data-driven. Engineering Failure Analysis 2023, 146, 107097.
- Wasim, M.; Djukic, M.B. External corrosion of oil and gas pipelines: A review of failure mechanisms and predictive preventions. Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 2022, 100, 104467.
- Colombo, A.; Oldani, L.; Trasatti, S. Corrosion failure analysis of galvanized steel pipes in a closed water cooling system. Eng Fail Anal 2018, 84(2), 46-58.
- Rajabipour, A.; Robert, E. Service life of corrosion pitted pipes subject to fatigue loading and hydrogen embrittlement. Int J Hydrogen Energ 2018, 43(17), 8440-8450.
- Dao, U.; Sajid, Z.; Khan, F.; et al. Modeling and analysis of internal corrosion induced failure of oil and gas pipelines. Reliability Engineering & System Safety 2023, 234, 109170.
- De-León-Escobedo, D. Risk-based maintenance time for oil and gas steel pipelines under corrosion including uncertainty on the corrosion rate and consequence-based target reliability. International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 2023, 203, 104927.
- Jiang, F.; Zhao, E. An integrated risk analysis model for corroded pipelines subjected to internal pressures: Considering the interacting effects. Ocean Engineering 2022, 247, 110683. [CrossRef]
- Amaya-Gómez, R.; Sánchez-Silva, M.; Bastidas-Arteaga, E.; et al. Reliability assessments of corroded pipelines based on internal pressure – A review. Engineering Failure Analysis 2019, 98, 190-214. [CrossRef]
- Ferreira, D.; Torres, C.; Lins, F.; et al. Computational fluid dynamics investigation for austenitic AISI 904L stainless steel.
- Sun, L.; Zhu, M.; Ou, G.; et al. Corrosion investigation of the inlet section of REAC pipes in the refinery. Eng Fail Anal 2016, 66(8), 468-478.
- Soomro, A.A.; Mokhtar, A.A.; Kurnia, J.C.; et al. Integrity assessment of corroded oil and gas pipelines using machine learning: A systematic review. Engineering Failure Analysis 2022, 131, 105810.
- Mahmoodian, M.; Li, C.Q. Failure assessment and safe life prediction of corroded oil and gas pipelines. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 2017, 151, 434-438. [CrossRef]
- Zheng, H.W.; Yang, G.X.; Wang, D.Z. Numerical analysis of residual strength of corroded pipes and secondary development of ANSYS. Functional Materials 2018, 49(11), 11075-11079+11084.
- Adib, H.; Jallouf, S.; Schmitt, C.; et al. Evaluation of the effect of corrosion defects on the structural integrity of X52 gas pipelines using the SINTAP procedure and notch theory. International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 2006, 84(3), 123-131. [CrossRef]
- Kinfer, J.F. Corroded pipe: strength and repair methods. Fifth Symposium Line Pipe Research Paper L1, USA, 1971.
- Kinfer, J.F.; Vieth, P.H. New method corrects criterion for evaluation corroded pipe. Oil and Gas Journal 1992, 90(42), 84-89.
- ASME (American Society of Mechanical Engineering). ASME B31G-1991, Manual for Determining the Remaining Strength of Corroded Pipelines. New York, USA, 1991.
- Kiefner, J.F.; Vieth, P.H. Evaluating PIPE-1 new method corrects criterion for evaluating corroded pipe. Oil Gas J 1990, 88(32), 56-59.
- O'Grady, T.J.; Hisey, D.T.; Kiefner, J.F. Pressure calculation for corroded pipe developed. Oil and Gas Journal 1992, 90(42), 84-89.
- API RP579-2010. Fitness for Service. American Petroleum Institute, 2010, First edition, January.
- DNV-RP-F101. Recommended practice for corroded pipelines. Det Norske Veritas, Norway, 2004.
- Femando, D.; Claudio, R. Structural integrity assessments of high-pressure pipelines with axial flaws using a micromechanics model. International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 2004, 81, 761-770.
- Cicero, S.; Lacalle, R.; Cicero, R.; Ferreno, D. Assessment of local thin areas in a marine pipeline by using the FITNET FFS corrosion module. Int. J. Pres. Ves. Pip. 2009, 86(5), 329-334.
- API 579-1 Ed. 2(2007). Fitness-for-service. American Petroleum Institute.
- DNV-RP-F101. Corroded pipelines. Det Norske Veritas.
- ANSI/ASME B31G-1991. Manual for determining the remaining strength of corroded pipelines a supplement to ASME B31 code for pressure piping.
- Choi, K.H.; Lee, C.S.; Ryu, D.M.; et al. Comparison of computational and analytical methods for evaluation of failure pressure of subsea pipelines containing internal and external corrosion. Journal of Marine Science and Technology 2016, 21(3), 369-384. [CrossRef]
- Hoang, V.T.; Long, W.; Liu, H.G.; et al. Remaining strength of oil and gas pipelines containing uniform corrosion defects based on finite element analysis. Oil and Gas Storage and Transportation 2018, 37(2), 157-161.
- Chen, Y.; Hou, F.; Lang, Y.; et al. A method for calculating collapse pressure of submarine pipelines with corrosion defects. China Offshore Oil and Gas 2021, 33(05), 182-188.
- Kou, H.; Chu, J.; Guo, W.; et al. Field study of residual forces developed in pre-stressed high-strength concrete (PHC) pipe piles. Can Geotech J 2016, 53(4), 696-707.
- Chang, K.; Jang, G. Comparative study on residual stress distribution of 600 MPa grade high tensile strength steel pipe weldment. Materials & Processing Report 2014, 27(1), 76-78.
- Li, X.; Jia, R.; Zhang, R.; et al. A KPCA-BRANN based data-driven approach to model corrosion degradation of subsea oil pipelines. Reliability Engineering & System Safety 2022, 219, 108231.
- Su, Y.; Li, J.; Yu, B.; et al. Fast and accurate prediction of failure pressure of oil and gas defective pipelines using the deep learning model. Reliability Engineering & System Safety 2021, 216, 108016.
- Chen, Y.; Hou, F.; Dong, S.; et al. Reliability evaluation of corroded pipeline under combined loadings based on back propagation neural network method. Ocean Engineering 2022, 262, 111910. [CrossRef]
- Ferreira, A.D.M.; Afonso, S.M.B.; Willmersdorf, R.B.; et al. Multiresolution analysis and deep learning for corroded pipeline failure assessment. Advances in Engineering Software 2021, 162-163, 103066.
- Liu, W.; Chen, Z.; Hu, Y. XGBoost algorithm-based prediction of safety assessment for pipelines. International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 2022, 197, 104655.
- Li, M.D. Testing of true stress-strain curves and mechanical performance analysis of high-strength pipeline steel [Doctoral Dissertation]. China University of Petroleum (Beijing), 2018. [CrossRef]














| Calculation Rules Methodology | Unit or Author | Date of Submission |
|---|---|---|
| ASME-B31G | American Society of Mechanical Engineering | 1984 |
| Amended B31G(0.85dL) | Kiefer, Vieth | 1989 |
| RSTRENG | Kiefer, Vieth | 1989 |
| CAS-Z184-M86 | Canadian Standards Association | 1999 |
| BS-7910 | British Standards Institution | 1999 |
| API-579 | American Petroleum Institute | 2000 |
| DNV-RP-F101 | Det Norske Veritas | 2000 |
| PCORRC | Stephens, Leis | 2000 |
| CPS | Waterloo, Canada | 2000 |
| FITNET FFS | Cicero | 2009 |
| Properties | Values |
|---|---|
| Pipe name | API 5L X65 pipe |
| Densities, ρ(kg/m3) | 7850 |
| Modulus of elasticity, E(MPa) | 2.06×105 |
| Poisson’s ratio, v | 0.3 |
| Yield strength,σy (MPa) | 545 |
| Tensile strength,σb (MPa) | 665 |
| Yield ratio, σy/σb | 0. 82 |
| Input Parameters | Values |
|---|---|
| Outer diameter of pipe, D (mm) | 325 |
| Wall thickness, t (mm) | 12 |
| Length of pipe, L (mm) | 600~2400 |
| Ultimate pressure of intact pipe, p0 (MPa) | 49.1 |
| Normalized effective defect length, (l/D) | 0.15~1.54 |
| Normalized defect width, (w/πD) | 0.012~0.12 |
| Normalized effective defect depth, (d/t) | 0.08~0.92 |
| Normalized failure press,(pf/p0) | 0~1 |
| Input Parameters | Values | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 | Model 4 | ||
| Outer diameter of pipe, D (mm) | 325 | 325 | 325 | 325 | |
| Wall thickness, t (mm) | 12 | 12 | 12 | 12 | |
| Length of pipe, L (mm) | 600 | 1200 | 1800 | 2400 | |
| Defect length, l (mm) | 300 | 300 | 300 | 300 | |
| Defect width, w (mm) | 32 | 32 | 32 | 32 | |
| Defect depth, d (mm) | 9 | 9 | 9 | 9 | |
| Pipe internal pressure, p(MPa) | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | |
| Input Parameters | Values | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Test 1 | Test 2 | Test 3 | Test 4 | ||
| Outer diameter of pipe, D (mm) | 325 | 325 | 325 | 325 | |
| Wall thickness, t (mm) | 12 | 12 | 12 | 12 | |
| Length of pipe, L (mm) | 1200 | 1200 | 1200 | 1200 | |
| Normalized effective defect length, (l/D) | 1.215 | 0.938 | 0.938 | 0.938 | |
| Normalized defect width, (w/πD) | 0.031 | 0.031 | 0.031 | 0.041 | |
| Normalized effective defect depth, (d/t) | 0.775 | 0.775 | 0.758 | 0.758 | |
| Normalized failure press,(pf/p0) | 0~1 | 0~1 | 0~1 | 0~1 | |
| Pipe models | Maximum stress(MPa) | Maximum deviation |
Minimum stress(MPa) | Maximum deviation |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model 1 | 491.6 | 1.7 % | 6.655 | 27% |
| Model 2 | 484.1 | 9.121 | ||
| Model 3 | 483.4 | 8.175 | ||
| Model 4 | 483.1 | 7.285 |
| (l/D) | (w/πD) | (d/t) | (py/p0) | Percentage Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FEM | Test | ||||
| 1.215 | 0.031 | 0.775 | 0.1975 | 0.1824 | 8.27 |
| 0.938 | 0.031 | 0.775 | 0.2058 | 0.1925 | 6.91 |
| 0.938 | 0.031 | 0.758 | 0.2410 | 0.2243 | 7.45 |
| 0.938 | 0.041 | 0.758 | 0.2594 | 0.2393 | 8.4 |
| (l/D) | (w/πD) | (d/t) | (pf/ p0) | Percentage Difference | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FEM | Equation | Test | ||||
| 1.215 | 0.031 | 0.775 | — | 0.2408 | 0.2224 | 8.26 |
| 0.938 | 0.031 | 0.775 | — | 0.2510 | 0.2347 | 6.96 |
| 0.938 | 0.031 | 0.758 | — | 0.2939 | 0.2735 | 7.46 |
| 0.938 | 0.041 | 0.758 | — | 0.3163 | 0.2918 | 8.39 |
| 0.9231 | 0.0314 | 0.75 | 0.3245 | 0.3105 | — | 4.31 |
| 0.9231 | 0.0608 | 0.75 | 0.3804 | 0.3194 | — | 5.52 |
| 0.9231 | 0.0608 | 0.5833 | 0.4936 | 0.4506 | — | 8.71 |
| 0.9231 | 0.0608 | 0.6667 | 0.4507 | 0.4115 | — | 8.69 |
| 0.6154 | 0.0314 | 0.75 | 0.3765 | 0.3564 | — | 5.34 |
| 0.7692 | 0.0314 | 0.75 | 0.3574 | 0.3493 | — | 2.27 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).