Prediction of Failure Pressure for Defective Pipelines Reinforced with Composite System, Accounting for Pipe Extremities

  • S. BudheEmail author
  • M. D. Banea
  • S. de Barros
Technical Article---Peer-Reviewed


The present paper is concerned with the failure analysis of the wall loss defect in pipelines reinforced with a polymer-based composite repair system. The main goal is to propose a methodology that accounts for the pipe extremities (axial stress) in an analysis to predict an accurate failure pressure. The proposed methodology defines a simple expression for a real test specimen condition (closed-cap cylinder), which allows to estimate the failure pressure using the elastic properties of the materials and test specimen geometry. Hydrostatic tests performed in different laboratories are used to validate the proposed methodology. The results show a good agreement between the model prediction and the experimental failure pressure results in all cases. However, a careful selection of the remaining strength factor is needed, as it impacts on the accuracy and conservative level of the failure pressure. In addition to the axial stress, there is a possibility to refine the theoretical prediction of the failure pressure value by accounting for the plastic deformation far from the defect region as well as the radial stress in the failure analysis.


Failure pressure Axial stress Corroded metallic pipelines Hydrostatic test Composite repair systems 

List of symbols

\( P_{\text{i}} \)

Internal pressure (MPa)

\( P_{\text{f}} \)

Failure pressure (MPa)

\( P_{\text{c}} \)

Contact pressure between the steel pipe and composite (MPa)

\( r_{\text{i}} \)

Internal radius of steel pipe (mm)

\( r_{\text{o}} \)

External radius of steel pipe (mm)

\( r_{\text{e}} \)

External radius of composite repair (mm)


Pipe thickness (mm)


Composite repair thickness (mm)

\( \alpha_{\theta } \)

Remaining strength factor


Defect length (mm)


Width of defect section (mm)


External diameter of the pipe (mm)


Depth of defect (mm)

\( E_{\text{pipe}} \)

Young’s modulus of the pipe (MPa)

\( u_{r} \)

Radial displacement (mm)

\( P_{ \hbox{max} }^{\text{th}} \)

Maximum theoretical failure pressure (MPa)

\( P_{ \hbox{max} }^{ \exp } \)

Maximum experimental failure pressure (MPa)


Principal stresses along the 1, 2 and 3 directions

\( E_{\text{sleeve}} \)

Young’s modulus of the composite sleeve (MPa)

\( E_{rr} \)

Young’s modulus of the composite in the radial direction (MPa)

\( E_{\theta \theta } \)

Young’s modulus of the composite in the circumference direction (MPa)

\( \sigma_{\theta } \)

Circumferential stress in pipe (MPa)

\( \varepsilon_{\theta }^{\text{p}} \)

Plastic strain

\( \varepsilon_{\theta }^{\text{e}} \)

Elastic strain

\( \sigma_{\text{y}} \)

Yield stress of the pipe (MPa)

\( \sigma_{\text{ult}} \)

Ultimate stress of the pipe (MPa)

\( \sigma_{\text{flow}} \)

Flow stress of the pipe (MPa)

K, N

Material constant for plastic characterization

\( \nu_{r\theta } \)

Poisson’s ratio

\( \sigma_{r} \)

Radial stress in the pipe (MPa)

\( \sigma_{z} \)

Axial stress in the pipe (MPa)

\( \tau_{r\theta } \)

Shear stress in the \( r \)\( \theta \) plane (MPa)

\( \tau_{\theta z} \)

Shear stress in the \( \theta \)z plane (MPa)

\( \tau_{rz} \)

Shear stress in the \( r \)\( z \) plane (MPa)

\( M_{t} \)

Bulging factor


Cylinder thickness



The authors would like to acknowledge the support of the Brazilian Research Agencies CNPq, CAPES and FAPERJ.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.


  1. 1.
    M.D. Banea, L.F.M. da Silva, Adhesively bonded joints in composite materials—an overview. Proc. IME J. Mater. Des. Appl. 223, 1–18 (2009)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    S. Budhe, M.D. Banea, S. de Barros, L.F.M. da Silva, An updated review of adhesively bonded joints in composite materials. Int. J. Adhes. Adhes. 72, 30–42 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    M. Shamsuddoha, M.M. Islama, T. Aravinthan, A. Manalo, K. Lau, Effectiveness of using fibre-reinforced polymer composites for underwater steel pipeline repairs. Compos. Struct. 100, 40–54 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    J. Duell, J. Wilson, M. Kessler, Analysis of a carbon composite over wrap pipeline repair system. Int. J. Press. Vessels Pip. 85, 782–788 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    J. Cuthill, Advances in materials, methods, help gain new users. Pip. Gas J. 229(11), 64–66 (2002)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    K.B. Armstrong, W. Cole, G. Bevan, Care and Repair of Advanced Composites, 2nd edn. (SAE International, London, 2005)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    G. Marsh, Composites renovate deteriorating sewers. Reinf. Plast. 48(6), 20–24 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    C. Alexander, O.O. Ochoa, Extending onshore pipeline repair to offshore steel risers with carbon-fiber reinforced composites. Compos. Struct. 92, 499–507 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    T.S. Mally, A.L. Johnston, M. Chann, R.H. Walker, M.W. Seller, Performance of a carbon-fiber/epoxy composite for the underwater repair of pressure equipment. Compos. Struct. 100, 542–547 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    L. Mazurkiewicz, M. Tomaszewski, J. Malachowski, K. Sybilski, M. Chebakov, M. Witek, P. Yukhymets, R. Dmitrienko, Experimental and numerical study of steel pipe with part-wall defect reinforced with fibre glass sleeve. Int. J. Press. Vessels Pip. 149, 108–119 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    N.R.F. Rohem, L.J. Pacheco, S. Budhe, M.D. Banea, E.M. Sampaio, S. de Barros, Development and qualification of a new polymeric matrix laminated composite for pipe repair. Compos. Struct. 152, 737–745 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    L.P. Djukic, W.S. Sum, K.H. Leong, W.D. Hillier, T.W. Eccleshall, A.Y.L. Leong, Development of a fibre reinforced polymer composite clamp for metallic pipeline repairs. Mater. Des. 70, 68–80 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    M. Salem, B. Mechab, M. Berrahou, B.B. Bouiadjra, B. Serier, Failure analyses of propagation of cracks in repaired pipe under internal pressure. J. Fail. Anal. Prevent. 19, 212–218 (2019)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    ISO, Petroleum, Petrochemical and Natural Gas Industries-Composite Repairs for Pipework-Qualification and Design, Installation, Testing and Inspection, ISO 24817 (ISO, London, 2006)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    AMSE, Repair of Pressure Equipment and Piping, ASME PCC-2 (ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York, 2011)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    H. Toutanji, S. Dempsey, Stress modeling of pipelines strengthened with advanced composite material. Thin Wall Struct. 39, 153–165 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    H.S. da Costa Mattos, J.M.L. Reis, L.M. Paim, M.L. da Silva, R. Lopes, V.A. Perrut, Failure analysis of corroded pipelines reinforced with composite repair systems. Eng. Fail. Anal. 56, 223–236 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    N. Saeed, H. Ronagh, A. Virk, Composite repair of pipelines, considering the effect of live pressure-analytical and numerical models with respect to ISO/TS 24817 and ASME PCC-2. Compos. Part B Eng. 58, 605–610 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    J.L.F. Freire, R.D. Vieira, J.L.C. Diniz, L.C. Meniconi, Applications of experimental techniques in the field of pipeline integrity series—part 7: effectiveness of composite repairs applied to damaged pipeline. Exp. Tech. 31, 59–66 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    M.F. Köpple, S. Lauterbach, W. Wagner, Composite repair of through-wall defects in pipework-analytical and numerical models with respect to ISO/TS24817. Compos. Struct. 95, 173–178 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    A.P. Teixeira, C. Guedes Soares, T.A. Netto, S.F. Estefen, Reliability of pipelines with corrosion defects. Int. J. Press. Vessels Pip. 85, 228–237 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    H.S. da Costa Mattos, L.M. Paim, J.M.L. Reis, Analysis of burst tests and long-term hydrostatic tests in produced water pipelines. Eng. Fail. Anal. 22, 128–140 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    H.S. da Costa Mattos, J.M.L. Reis, R.F. Sampaio, V.A. Perrut, An alternative methodology to repair localized corrosion damage in metallic pipelines with epoxy resins. Mater. Des. 30, 3581–3591 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    S. Budhe, M.D. Banea, N.R.F. Rohem, E.M. Sampaio, S. de Barros, Failure pressure analysis of composite repair system for wall loss defect of metallic pipelines. Compos. Struct. 176, 1013–1019 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    H.S. da Costa Mattos, J.M.L. Reis, L.M. Paim, M.L. da Silva, F.C. Amorim, V.A. Perrut, Analysis of a glass fibre reinforced polyurethane composite repair system for corroded pipelines at elevated temperatures. Compos. Struct. 114, 117–123 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    H.L.D. Cabral, R.S. Motta, S.M.B. Afonso, R.B. Willmersdorf, P.R.M. Lyra, E.G. de Andrade, The development of a computational tool for generation of high quality FE models of pipelines with corrosion defects. J. Braz. Soc. Mech. Sci. Eng. 39, 3137–3150 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    A. Ghouaoula, A. Hocine, M. Hadj Meliani, A. Maizia, R. Suleiman, Reliability analysis of Type III gas storage vessel under pressure loading. J Fail. Anal. Prevent. 19, 445–452 (2019)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    A. Hocine, A. Maizia, A. Ghouaoula, H. Dehmous, Reliability prediction of composite tubular structure under mechanical loading by finite element method. J Fail. Anal. Prevent. 18, 1439–1446 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    A. Ghouaoula, A. Hocine, D. Chapelle, M.L. Boubakar, M. Hadj Meliani, Analytical prediction of behaviour of damaged composite tubular structures under quasi-static pressure. Struct. Integr. Life 18(2), 143–148 (2018)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    M.L. da Silva, H.S. da Costa Mattos, Failure pressure estimations for corroded pipelines. Mater. Sci. 759, 65–76 (2013)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    S. Budhe, M.D. Banea, S. de Barros, N.R.F. Rohem, Assessment of failure pressure of a GFRP composite, repair system for wall loss defect in metallic pipelines. Materialwiss. Werkstofftech. 49, 1–10 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    D.R. Stephens, R.B. Francini, A review and evaluation of remaining strength criteria for corrosion defects in transmission pipelines, in Proceedings of ETCE/OMAE2000 Joint Conference, New Orleans (2000), pp. 293–304Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    ASME, Manual for Determining the Remaining Strength of Corroded Pipelines, A Supplement to ASME B31 Code for Pressure Piping, ASME B 31G (ASME, New York, 1991)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    M.L. da Silva, H.S. da Costa Mattos, Prediction of the burst pressure for metallic pipelines with localized corrosion defects, International symposium on solid mechanics, Porte Alegre (2012), pp. 1–14Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    L.Y. Xu, Y.F. Cheng, Reliability and failure pressure prediction of various grades of pipeline steel in the presence of corrosion defects and pre-strain. Int. J. Press. Vessels Pip. 89, 75–84 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    B. Ma, J. Shuai, J. Wang, K. Han, Analysis on the latest assessment criteria of ASME B31G-2009 for the remaining strength of corroded pipelines. J Fail. Anal. Prevent. 11, 666–671 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© ASM International 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.CEFET/RJ, Federal Center of Technological Education of Rio de JaneiroRio De JaneiroBrazil
  2. 2.Institut de Rechercheen Génie Civil et MécaniqueUniversité de NantesSaint-NazaireFrance

Personalised recommendations