Assessment Methodologies for Girth Weld Defects in Pipelines

Conference paper
Part of the NATO Science for Peace and Security Series C: Environmental Security book series (NAPSC, volume 1)

Abstract

Imperfections such as lack-of-fusion and undercut are inevitable in field welding of pipelines. Also, small defects can grow in service by corrosion or fatigue. Above a certain size, such defects must be removed or repaired. In the present state of the art, determination of allowable defect size is done by Engineering Critical Assessment (ECA). ECA methods used in current international pipeline standards are reviewed and compared.

Keywords

Stress Intensity Factor Plastic Zone Linear Elastic Fracture Mechanics Limit Load Crack Mouth Opening Displacement 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgment

This paper provides background material that has been acquired by the authors over many years of experience in the field of fracture mechanics applied to pipelines. The authors are grateful to their employers (MTL/CANMET and TransCanada PipeLines Ltd., TCPL) for providing the opportunity to obtain this knowledge. The authors are grateful to TCPL for supporting the work on application of the Failure Assessment Diagram to pipeline girth welds.

References

  1. 1.
    ASME B31G, Manual for Determining the Remaining Strength of Corroded Pipelines (ASME, New York, 2009)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    FITNET, M. Kocak, FITNET Fitness-for-Service (FFS) Procedure, Revision MK8, 2008 (GKSS Research Centre, Geestacht, 2008)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    CSA Standard Z662-07, Oil and Gas Pipeline Systems. Annex K: Standards of Aceptability for Circumferential Pipe Butt Welds Based Upon Fracture Mechanics Principles (Canadian Standards Association, Mississauga, 2007)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    API Standard 1104, Welding of Pipelines and Related Facilities, 20th edn. (API Publishing Services, Washington, 2005). Errata July 2007, December 2008Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    BS 7910:2005, Guide to Methods for Assessing the Acceptability of Flaws in Metallic Structures (British Standards Institution, London, 2005). Amended September 2007Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ted L. Anderson, Fracture Mechanics: Fundamentals and Applications, 2nd edn. (CRC Press, Boca Raton, 1994). 3rd edn. 2005Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    ASTM E 1820, Standard Test Method for Measurement of Fracture Toughness (ASTM International, West Conshohocken, 2009)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    BS 7448, Fracture Mechanics Toughness Tests, Part 1 (for Homogeneous Materials) and Part 2 (for Welds) (British Standards Institution, London, 1991)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    A.G. Miller, Review of limit loads of structures containing defects. Int. J. Pres. Ves. Piping 32, 197–327 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    S. Chapuliot, M.H. Lacire, P. Le Delliou, Stress intensity factors for internal circumferential cracks in tubes over a wide range of radius over thickness ratios. ASME 365, 95–106 (1998)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    G. Wilkowski, D.J. Shim, F.W. Brust, P. Krishnaswamy, Inherent safety factors in the API girth weld defect tolerance analysis – Part II, Proceedings of Pipeline Technology Conference, Ostend, 12–14 Oct 2009, Paper no. 2009-006Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.MTL/CANMETNatural Resources CanadaOttawaCanada
  2. 2.TransCanada PipeLines Ltd.CalgaryCanada

Personalised recommendations