Assessment Methods for the Dented Pipe of Grade X80

  • Qiaofei Sun
  • Lei Guo
  • Dahai Zheng
  • Leilei Wang
  • Yi Liu
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Mechanical Engineering book series (LNME)

Abstract

Dents are common defects in pipeline, and may occur during pipeline construction or in service. The dents may threaten the integrity of pipelines. To guarantee the safety operation, the assessment of plain dents is mainly based on the depth or the strain criterion. This paper reviews the basis of the criteria in different codes and the recent research of plain dents. In addition, comparisons are made between different grades of the steel in terms of mechanical properties. With the increasing grade, the strength and the yield ratio increase, but the plastic property decreases. The average UEL of X80 is only 6.2%. When the strain-based criterion is applied to the X80 pipe with dents, it needs to be demonstrated by engineering analysis.

Keywords

Plain dents Burst strength Depth-based criterion Strain-based criterion Fatigue life 

References

  1. 1.
    PDAM-2006. Pipeline Defect Assessment Manual (2006)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    SY/T 6996-2014. Assessment of steel oil & gas pipeline with dent (2014)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    ASME B31.8-2012. Gas transmission and distribution piping systems (2012)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    ASME B31.4-2006. Pipeline transportation systems for liquid hydrocarbons and other liquids (2006)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    API 579-2016. Fitness for service (2016)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    CSA Z662-2015. Oil and gas pipeline systems (2015)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    M.J. Rosenfeld, Toward an acceptance criterion for shallow dents affecting girth welds in gas transmission pipelines in ASME Pressure Vessel and Piping Conference, vol. 353 (1997)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    R.J. Eiber, W.A. Maxey, C.W. Bert, G. McGlure, The effects of dents on the failure characteristics of line pipe. Battelle Report to A.G.A. Pipeline Research Committee, L51403 (1981), p. 38Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    C.R. Alexander, J.F. Kiefner, Effects of Smooth and Rock Dents on Liquid Petroleum Pipelines (API Publication, 1997), p. 1156Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    P. Hopkins, I. Corder, P. Corbin, Paper VIII-3, in International Conference on Pipeline Reliability (Calgary, Canada, June 1992)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    O.H. Bjørnøy, O. Rengård, S. Fredheim, P. Bruce, Residual strength of dented pipelines, DNV test results, in Tenth International Conference on Offshore and Polar Engineering (ISOPE 2000)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    G. Jonesd, The Significance of Mechanical Damage in Pipelines, 3R International, 21, Jahrgang, Heft, 7, July 1982Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    P. Hopkins, D.G. Jones, A.C. Clyne, Paper C376/049, in Proceedings of International Conference on Pipework, Engineering and Operation (Institution of Mechanical Engineers, London, 1989)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    J.F. Kiefner, C.R. Alexander, Effects of Smooth and Rock Dents on Liquid Petroleum Pipelines (Phase 2) (Addendum to API Publication, 1999), p. 1156Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    M.J. Rosenfeld, J.W. Pepper, K. Leewis, Basis of the new criteria in ASME B31.8 for prioritization and repair of mechanical damage, in 4th International Pipeline Conference, Calgary, Alberta, Canada (2002)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    J.F. Kiefner, L. Keith, Guidance for the Assessment of Pipeline Defects, PR218-05404, PRCI (2010)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    D.B. Noronha, R. Martins, B. Jacob, E. Souza, The use of B-splines in the assessment of strain levels associated with plain dents, in Rio Pipeline Conference & Exposition, PaperNo. IBP 1245_05 (2005)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    M. Baker, Dent Study, Final Report, TTO Number 10, Integrity Management Program, Delivery Order DTRS56-02-D-70036, DOT Research and Special Programs Administration, Office of Pipeline Safety (2004)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    D.B. Noronha,R.R. Martins, B.P. Jacob et al., Some remarks on the strain based assessment of pipeline dents, in The 7th International Pipeline Conference (2008)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    M. Gao, R. Mcnealy, R. Krishnamurthy, Strain-based models for dent assessment—a review, in The 7th International Pipeline Conference (2008)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    S.A. Lukasiewicz, J.A. Czyz, C. Sun et al., 2006 International Pipeline Conference, Calgary, Alberta (2006)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    I. Corder, P. Chatain, in Proceeding of the EPRG/PRC 10th Biennial Joint Technical Meeting on Line Pipe Research, Cambridge, UK, April 1995Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    J.R. Fowler, C.R. Alexander, P.J. Kovach, L.M. Connelly, Report PR-201-927 and PR-201-9324, Pipeline Research Council International, AGA, June 1994Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    M.J. Rosenfeld, Development of a Model for Fatigue Rating Shallow Unrestrained Dents. PR-218-9405, Pipeline Research Council International, KAI, L51741 (1997)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    A. Dinovitzer, R. Lazor, L.B. Caroll et al., Geometric dent characterization, in International Pipeline Conference, Calgary, Alberta (2002)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Qiaofei Sun
    • 1
  • Lei Guo
    • 2
  • Dahai Zheng
    • 3
  • Leilei Wang
    • 2
  • Yi Liu
    • 2
  1. 1.China Petroleum Pipeline Research Institute Co. Ltd.LangfangChina
  2. 2.Sci-Tech Information CenterPetroChina West to East Gas Pipeline CompanyWuhanChina
  3. 3.Piping DepartmentPetroChina West to East Gas Pipeline CompanyWuhanChina

Personalised recommendations