Journal of Failure Analysis and Prevention

, Volume 18, Issue 1, pp 66–74 | Cite as

Investigation and Recommendations on Bottom-Dented Petroleum Pipelines

  • Erik Mueller
  • Xiaohu Liu
  • Ravindra Chhatre
  • Adrienne Lamm
Technical Article --- Peer Reviewed
  • 83 Downloads

Abstract

On September 21, 2015, the National Transportation Safety Board responded to a petroleum leak from a transmission pipeline in Centreville, VA. A small through crack was found leaking at a dent on the underside of the pipe, located away from any welds. The investigation found that corrosion fatigue could initiate at small dents, typically caused by impingement. While top-side dents from excavation and servicing have well-been documented and regulated, bottom-side dents, deemed acceptable per regulations, were found to be susceptible to stress corrosion and fatigue cracking. This investigation explored multiple and fundamental aspects of cracking in steel pipe dents, including nondestructive inspection, electron microscopy, finite element modeling, and long-term cyclic loading tests to characterize the cause of this pipeline accident.

Keywords

Pipeline Corrosion fatigue NNpHSCC Dent Fatigue cracking 

Notes

Acknowledgments

In accordance with Title 5 Code of Federal Regulations §2635.807(b)(2), the views expressed in this article do not necessarily represent the views of the National Transportation Safety Board or the USA. The authors would like to thank Sanjay Tiku, Aaron Dinovitzer, and all those at BMT Fleet Technology, Ltd., for their invaluable assistance in this investigation. The authors would also like to thank Drew Lohoff, Mark Piazza, and Robert Zmud in their assistance, cooperation, and coordination during this investigation.

References

  1. 1.
    Annual report mileage for hazardous liquid or carbon dioxide systems. Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, Washington, DC (2017)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    J.A. Beavers, N. Thompson, External Corrosion of Oil and Natural Gas Pipelines, in Corrosion: Environments and Industries, ASM Handbook, vol. 13C (ASM International, 2006), pp. 1015–1025Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    B. Bolton, V. Semiga, A. Dinovitzer, S. Tiku, C. Alexander, Towards a validated pipeline dent integrity assessment model, in Proceedings of the 2008 7th International Pipeline Conference, Vol 2, September 29–October 3, 2008 (Calgary, Alberta), ASME, 2008, pp. 893–903 (IPC2008-64621)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    J.A. Beavers, Integrity Management of natural gas and petroleum pipelines subject to stress corrosion cracking. Corrosion 70(1), 3–18 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    API Specification 5L, Specification for Line Pipe, 41st edn. (American Petroleum Institute, Washington, DC, 1995)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    M. Wilmott, B. Erno, T. Jack, R. Worthingham, The role of coatings in the development of corrosion and stress corrosion cracking on gas transmission pipelines, in Proceedings of the 1998 2nd International Pipeline Conference, Vol 1, June 7–11, 1998 (Calgary, Alberta), ASME, 1998, pp. 399–408 (IPC1998-2048)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    S. Tiku, A. Dinovitzer, unpublished research, June (2016)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    W. Chen, F. King, E. Vokes, Characteristics of near-neutral-pH stress corrosion cracks in an X-65 pipeline. Corrosion 58(3), 267–275 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    B.Y. Fang, A. Atrens, J.Q. Wang, E.H. Han, Z.Y. Zhu, W. Ke, Review of stress corrosion cracking of pipeline steels in “low” and “high” pH solutions. J. Mater. Sci. 38(1), 127–132 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    A. Eslami, B. Fang, R. Kania, B. Worthingham, J. Been, R. Eadie, W. Chen, Stress corrosion cracking initiation under the disbonded coating of pipeline steel in near-neutral pH environment. Corros. Sci. 52(11), 3750–3756 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    J.A. Beavers, J.T. Johnson, R.L. Sutherby, Materials factors influencing the initiation of near-neutral pH SCC on underground pipelines, in Proceedings of the 2000 3rd International Pipeline Conference, vol. 2, October 1–5, 2000 (Calgary, Alberta), ASME (2000), pp. 979–988Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    R. Chu, W. Chen, S.H. Wang, F. King, T.R. Jack, R.R. Fessler, Microstructure dependence of stress corrosion cracking initiation in X-65 Pipeline steel exposed to a near-neutral pH soil environment. Corrosion 60(3), 275–283 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    B.S. Delanty, J. O’Beirne, Major field study compares pipeline SCC with coatings. Oil Gas J. 90(24), 39 (1992)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    R.N. Parkins, W.K. Blanchard Jr., B.S. Delanty, Transgranular stress corrosion cracking of high-pressure pipelines in contact with solutions of near neutral pH. Corrosion 50(5), 394–408 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    B.Y. Fang, E.H. Han, J.Q. Wang, W. Ke, Stress corrosion cracking of X-70 pipeline steel in near neutral pH solution subjected to constant load and cyclic load testing. Corros. Sci. Eng. Technol. 42(2), 123–129 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    J.A. Beavers, R.G. Worthingham, The influence of soil chemistry on SCC of underground pipelines, in Proceedings of the 2002 4th International Pipeline Conference, Parts A and B, September 29–October 3, 2002 (Calgary, Alberta), ASME, 2008, pp. 1671–1678 (IPC2002-27146)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    F.M. Song, Predicting the effect of soil seasonal change on stress corrosion cracking susceptibility of buried pipelines at high pH. Corrosion 66(9), 095004 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    J.A. Beavers, R.N. Parkins, Recent advances in understanding factors affecting stress corrosion cracking of line-pipe steels, in Proceedings of the Seventh Symposium on Line Pipe Research, October 1986, American Gas Association, 1986, pp. 25–31Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    W. Chen, F. King, T.R. Jack, M.J. Wilmott, Environmental aspects of near-neutral pH stress corrosion cracking of pipeline Steel. Metall. Mater. Trans. A 33A, 1429–1436 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    B. Phull, Evaluating Corrosion Fatigue, in Corrosion: Fundamentals, Testing, and Protection, ASM Handbook, vol. 13A (ASM International, Materials Park, 2003), pp. 625–638Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    M. Yanishevsky, D.W. Hoeppner, Corrosion fatigue behavior of Ti–6Al–4V in simulated body environments, in 16th Annual Meeting of International Metallographic Society, July 25–28 (1983) (Calgary, Canada)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Y. Mutoh, A.A. Korda, Y. Miyashita, T. Sadasue, Stress shielding and fatigue crack growth resistance in ferritic–pearlitic steel. Materials Science and Engineering: A 468–470, 114–119 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    A.A. Korda, Y. Miyashita, Y. Mutoh, T. Sadasue, Fatigue crack growth behavior in ferritic–pearlitic steels with networked and distributed pearlite structures. Int. J. Fatigue 29(6), 1140–1148 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    J.A. Ronevich, B.P. Somerday, C.W. San Marchi, Effects of microstructure banding on hydrogen assisted fatigue crack growth in X65 pipeline steels. Int. J. Fatigue 82(3), 497–504 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    J. Bratton, T. Alexander, T. Bubenik, S. Finneran, H.O. Heggen, An approach for evaluating the integrity of plain dents reported by in-line inspection tools, in Proceedings of the 2012 9th International Pipeline Conference. September 24–28, (Calgary, Alberta), ASME, (2012), pp. 885–894 (IPC2012-90643)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    X. Liu. Finite Element Modeling Study Report. Accident No. DCA15MP002, National Transportation Safety Board, Washington, DC, March (2016)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    J.A. Beavers, C.E. Jaske, Near-neutral-pH SCC in pipelines: effects of pressure fluctuations on crack propagation, CORROSION 98, March 22–27, 1998 (San Diego, CA), NACE International, 1998, Paper No. 98257Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    B. Bolton, V. Semiga, S. Tiku, A. Dinovitzer, J. Zhou, Full scale cyclic fatigue testing of dented Pipelines and development of a Validated Dented Pipe Finite Element Model, in Proceedings of the 2010 8th International Pipeline Conference. September 27–October 1, 2010 (Calgary, Alberta), ASME, 2010, pp. 863–872 (IPC 2010-31579)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    S. Tiku, V. Semiga, A. Dinovitzer, G. Vignal. “Full Scale Cyclic Fatigue Testing of Dented Pipelines and Development of a Validated Dented Pipe Finite Element Model, in Proceedings of the 2012 9th International Pipeline Conference. September 24-28, 2012 (Calgary, Alberta), ASME, 2012, pp. 693–702 (IPC2012-90427)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    CFR Part 195—Pipeline Safety: Safety of Hazardous Liquid Pipelines; Proposed Rule, PHMSA, Washington, DC, October 13, 2015Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    National Transportation Safety Board Accident Investigation DCA15MP002 (2017). https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Pages/PAB1701.aspx

Copyright information

© ASM International 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Erik Mueller
    • 1
  • Xiaohu Liu
    • 2
  • Ravindra Chhatre
    • 3
  • Adrienne Lamm
    • 1
  1. 1.Materials Laboratory DivisionNTSBWashingtonUSA
  2. 2.Vehicle Performance DivisionNTSBWashingtonUSA
  3. 3.Pipeline and Hazardous Materials DivisionNTSBWashingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations