Optimal Design of Composite Repair Systems of Transmission Pipelines

  • Evgeny N. BarkanovEmail author
  • I. Lvov
  • P. Akishin
Part of the Engineering Materials book series (ENG.MAT.)


Optimisation methodology for composite repair systems of transmission pipelines with volumetric surface defects is presented. Due to large dimension of the numerical tasks to be solved, this methodology is developed employing the method of experimental design and response surface technique. To bring an efficiency of damaged section up to the level of undamaged pipeline, two optimisation problems based on equivalently resistant (equiresistant) and minimum weight designs are formulated and solved in the present study. Features, advantages and limitations of both approaches are discussed in their applicability for the optimal design of composite repair systems of transmission pipelines.


Pipe Volumetric surface defect Composite repair Optimisation 


  1. 1.
    ISO 24817:2015: Petroleum, Petrochemical and Natural Gas Industries—Composite Repairs for Pipeworks—Qualification and Design, Installation, Testing and Inspection (2015)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    ASME PCC-2-2015: Repair of Pressure Equipment and Piping (2015)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    P.H. Chan, K.Y. Tshai, M. Johnson, S. Li, Compos. Struct. 133, 312 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    A. Chris, J. Souza, C. Whalen, in Proceedings of the ASME 2014 Pressure Vessels & Piping Conference. Anaheim, California (2014)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    V. Orlov, Procedia Eng. 165, 1168 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    A. Kovalska, M. Eiduks, in Proceedings of the 9th International DAAAM Baltic Conference Industrial Engineering. Tallinn, Estonia (2014)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    A. Chris, L. Cercone, J. Lockwood, in Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering. Estoril, Portugal (2008)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    C.F.J. Wu, M. Hamada, Experiments: Planning, Analysis, and Parameter Design Optimisation (Wiley, New York, 2000)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    R.H. Myers, D.C. Montgomery, Response Surface Methodology: Process and Product Optimisation Using Designed Experiments (Wiley, New York, 2002)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    E.N. Barkanov, R.B. Rikards, A.K. Chate, Mech. Compos. Mat. 1, 485 (1993)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    E. Barkanov, S. Gluhih, A. Kovalov, Mech. Adv. Mat. Struct. 15(3–4), 325 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    E. Barkanov, E. Eglitis, F. Almeida, M.C. Bowering, G. Watson, Eng. Optim. 48(9), 1618 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    J. Auzins, in Proceedings of the 10th AIAA/ISSMO Multidisciplinary Analysis and Optimisation Conference. Albany, New York, AIAA 2004–4578 (2004)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    A. Janushevskis, T. Akinfiev, J. Auzins, A. Boyko, Proc. Est. Acad. Sci. Eng. 10(4), 236 (2004)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    ANSYS User’s Manual. ANSYS, Inc. (2016)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    J.C. Heltona, F.J. Davis, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 81, 23 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    S.S. Rao, Engineering Optimisation: Theory and Practice (Wiley, New York, 2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    J. Auzins, A. Janushevskis, J. Janushevskis, E. Skukis, in Proceedings of the International Conference on Engineering and Applied Sciences Optimisation. Kos Island, Greece (2014)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Riga Technical UniversityRigaLatvia
  2. 2.National Technical University, Kharkiv Polytechnical InstituteKharkivUkraine

Personalised recommendations