A Simplified Failure Assessment to Identify Crack Growth Behavior in the Gas Pipeline by Post-Hydrostatic Pressure

Fuad Mahfud Assidiq; Juswan; Daeng Paroka; Taufiqur Rachman; Rahmahdani Japri; Slamet Wahyudi

doi:10.15282/ijame.21.3.2024.3.0886

Authors

Fuad Mahfud Assidiq Deparment of Ocean Engineering, Universitas Hasanuddin, 92119 Gowa, Indonesia
Juswan Deparment of Ocean Engineering, Universitas Hasanuddin, 92119 Gowa, Indonesia
Daeng Paroka Deparment of Ocean Engineering, Universitas Hasanuddin, 92119 Gowa, Indonesia
Taufiqur Rachman Deparment of Ocean Engineering, Universitas Hasanuddin, 92119 Gowa, Indonesia
Rahmahdani Japri Deparment of Ocean Engineering, Universitas Hasanuddin, 92119 Gowa, Indonesia
Slamet Wahyudi PT. Kaliraya Sari, 75264 Kutai Kartanegara, Indonesia

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.15282/ijame.21.3.2024.3.0886

Keywords:

Crack growth behavior, Failure assessment, Gas pipeline, Post-hydrostatic pressure, Trapped air

Abstract

Hydrostatic pressure tests on pipelines have been found to be an inadequate means of critical integrity management due to the frequency of false negatives, which result from the inability of these tests to detect crack growth. It can be argued that focusing on pipe leakage does not guarantee future operability. A study presents a failure assessment methodology based on the failure assessment diagram (FAD), which aims to predict crack growth during hydrotesting. The calibrated pipe spool is validated by the application of data from hydrostatic tests and analytical techniques to ascertain the potential growth in circumferential surface cracks. A variety of factors, including pressure, material grades, flaw dimensions, and elliptical flaw angles, were examined in an effort to assess cracks. The results demonstrate that there is no pipeline leakage and minimal trapped air. Despite its location within the plastic zone, with a normalized pressure index of ≤1, the pipeline is deemed to be within acceptable limits according to the criteria established by the FAD. The assessment point was found to be predominantly influenced by the toughness ratio of the material grade. The crack propagated in the opposite direction with a maximum length a/c= 0.125 and a crack depth a/t= 0.2, which limited the toughness ratio. The load ratio indicates uniformity in elliptical angle flaw results. In this simplified failure assessment, the parameter describing the flaw size, which exhibits a strong correlation with the toughness ratio, plays a pivotal role. Further research and recommendations are also proposed.

References

American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME), Managing System Integrity of Gas pipelines, 5th Edition. USA: ASME B31.8S, 2004.

T. L. Anderson and G. V. Thorwald, “A finite element procedure to model the effect of hydrostatic testing on subsequent fatigue crack growth,” in Volume 1: Pipelines and Facilities Integrity, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 2016.

B. Guo, S. Song, J. Chacko, and A. Ghalambor, Offshore Pipelines. Gulf Professional Publishing, 2005.

American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Gas Transmission and Distribution Piping Systems. ASME B31.8-2007, 2007.

American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Pipeline Transportation Systems for Liquid Hydrocarbons and Other Liquids. ASME B31.4-2006, 2006.

International Standard Organization, Petroleum and Natural Gas Industries-Pipeline Transportation Systems. ISO 13623: 2000, 2000.

National Association of Corrosion Engineers (NACE), Inline Nondestructive Inspection of Pipelines. Toronto, Canada: NACE International, Paper No. 35100, 2000.

J. F. Keifner, Hydrostatic Testing, GRI Guide for Locating and Using Pipeline Industry Research, Kiefner and Associates Incorporation for Gas Research Institute. GR100.0192, 2001.

P. Carr and I. F. J. Nash, “Eliminating the Precommissioning Hydrotest for Deepwater Gas Pipelines,” in International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference, Busan, Korea, 2014.

J. F. Kiefner and W. A. Maxey, “The Benefits and Limitations of Hydrostatic Testing,” in API’ s 51st Annual Pipeline Conference & Cybernetics Symposium, New Orleans, LA, 2000.

T. L. Anderson, G. Thorwald, D. J. Revelle, D. A. Osage, J. L. Janelle, and M. E. Fuhry, “Development of stress intensity factor solutions for surface and embedded cracks in API 579,” Welding Research Council Bulletin, 2002.

J. Cai, X. Jiang, and G. Lodewijks, “Residual ultimate strength of offshore metallic pipelines with structural damage – a literature review,” Ships and Offshore Structures, vol. 12, no. 8, pp. 1037–1055, 2017.

M. Staat, “Plastic collapse analysis of longitudinally flawed pipes and vessels,” Nuclear Engineering and Design, vol. 234, no. 1–3, pp. 25–43, 2004.

H. Ghaednia, S. Das, R. Wang, and R. Kania, “Dependence of burst strength on crack length of a pipe with a dent-crack defect,” Journal of Pipeline Systems Engineering and Practice, vol. 8, no. 2, 2017.

H. Ghaednia, S. Das, R. Wang, and R. Kania, “Effect of operating pressure and dent depth on burst strength of NPS30 linepipe with dent–crack defect,” Journal of Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, vol. 137, no. 3, 2015.

H. Ghaednia, S. Das, R. Wang, and R. Kania, “Safe burst strength of a pipeline with dent–crack defect: Effect of crack depth and operating pressure,” Eng Fail Anal, vol. 55, pp. 288–299, 2015.

B. Bedairi, D. Cronin, A. Hosseini, and A. Plumtree, “Failure prediction for Crack-in-Corrosion defects in natural gas transmission pipelines,” International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping, vol. 96–97, pp. 90–99, 2012.

A. Okodi, Y. Li, R. Cheng, M. Kainat, N. Yoosef-Ghodsi, and S. Adeeb, “Crack propagation and burst pressure of pipeline with restrained and unrestrained concentric dent-crack defects using extended finite element method,” Applied Sciences, vol. 10, no. 21, p. 7554, 2020.

A. Okodi, M. Lin, N. Yoosef-Ghodsi, M. Kainat, S. Hassanien, and S. Adeeb, “Crack propagation and burst pressure of longitudinally cracked pipelines using extended finite element method,” International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping, vol. 184, p. 104115, 2020.

X. Liu, “Numerical and experimental study on critical crack tip opening displacement of X80 pipeline steel,” Mechanics, vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 204 - 208. 2017.

T. L. Anderson, Stress Intensity and Crack Growth Opening Area Solutions for Through-wall Cracks In Cylinders And Spheres. WRC Bulletin 478, Welding Research Council, 2003.

National Energy Board, “National Energy Board Report of the Inquiry on Stress Corrosion Cracking on Canadian Oil and Gas Pipelines,” 1996.

British Standard Institute, Guide on Methods for Assessing the Acceptability of Flaws in Metallic Structure BS 7910. British Standard Institute, 1999.

API RP 579-1 / ASME FFS-1, API 579-1/ASME FFS-1, Third Edition. New York, USA: The American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 2016.

S. Cicero, S. Arrieta, M. Sánchez, and L. Castanon-Jano, “Analysis of additively manufactured notched PLA plates using failure assessment diagrams,” Theoretical and Applied Fracture Mechanics, vol. 125, p. 103926, 2023.

S. Cicero, M. Sánchez, V. Martínez-Mata, S. Arrieta, and B. Arroyo, “Structural integrity assessment of additively manufactured ABS, PLA and graphene reinforced PLA notched specimens combining Failure Assessment Diagrams and the Theory of Critical Distances,” Theoretical and Applied Fracture Mechanics, vol. 121, p. 103535, 2022.

S. Cicero, V. Madrazo, I. A. Carrascal, and R. Cicero, “Assessment of notched structural components using Failure Assessment Diagrams and the Theory of Critical Distances,” Engineering Fracture Mechanics, vol. 78, no. 16, pp. 2809–2825, 2011.

D. Wang, A. B. Hagen, P. U. Fathi, M. Lin, R. Johnsen, and X. Lu, “Investigation of hydrogen embrittlement behavior in X65 pipeline steel under different hydrogen charging conditions,” Materials Science and Engineering: A on ScienceDirect, vol. 860, p. 144262, 2022.

E. Ohaeri, U. Eduok, and J. Szpunar, “Hydrogen related degradation in pipeline steel: A review,” International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, vol. 43, no. 31, pp. 14584–14617, 2018.

L. Ligang et al., “Evaluation of the fracture toughness of X70 pipeline steel with ferrite-bainite microstructure,” Materials Science and Engineering: A, vol. 688, pp. 388–395, 2017.

A. Coseru, J. Capelle, and G. Pluvinage, “On the use of Charpy transition temperature as reference temperature for the choice of a pipe steel,” Engineering Failure Analysis, vol. 37, pp. 110–119, 2014.

X. Gao, Y. Shao, L. Xie, Y. Wang, and D. Yang, “Prediction of Corrosive Fatigue Life of Submarine Pipelines of API 5L X56 Steel Materials,” Materials, vol. 12, no. 7, p. 1031, 2019.

S. Capula-Colindres, G. Terán, D. Angeles-Herrera, J. C. Velázquez, and E. Torres-Santillán, “Determination of Fracture Toughness and KIC-CVN Correlations for BM, HAZ, and WB in API 5L X60 Pipeline,” Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering, vol. 46, no. 8, pp. 7461–7469, 2021.

M. Soudani et al., “Reduction of hydrogen embrittlement of API 5l X65 steel pipe using a green inhibitor,” International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, vol. 43, no. 24, pp. 11150–11159, 2018.

D. Wang, A. B. Hagen, D. Wan, X. Lu, and R. Johnsen, “Probing hydrogen effect on nanomechanical properties of X65 pipeline steel using in-situ electrochemical nanoindentation,” Materials Science and Engineering: A on ScienceDirect, vol. 824, p. 141819, 2021.

E.E. Cota, “Toughness Evaluation and Fracture Predictions in Elastoplastic Materials,” Ph.D Thesis, Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 2019.

Design Engineering Practice (DEP), Hydrostatic Pressure Testing of New Pipelines, Design and Engineering Practice, Technical Specification for Royal Dutch/ Shell Group. DEP 31/40/38/Gen, 1993.

E.W. McAllister. Pipeline Rules of Thumb Handbook, 5th ed. Elsevier BV, 2009.

J. C. Gray, “How Temperature Affects Pipeline Hydrostatic Testing,” Pipeline and Gas Journal, vol. 203, no. 14, p. 30, 1976.

T. Lewis and X. Wang, “The T-stress solutions for through-wall circumferential cracks in cylinders subjected to general loading conditions,” Engineering Fracture Mechanics, vol. 75, no. 10, pp. 3206–3225, 2008.

Y. H. Wang, G. Z. Wang, S. T. Tu, and F. Z. Xuan, “In-plane and out-of-plane constraint characterization of different constraint parameters for semi-elliptical surface cracks in pipes,” Engineering Fracture Mechanics, vol. 235, p. 107161, 2020.

C. E. Feddersen, “Evaluation and Prediction of the Residual Strength of Centre Cracked Tension Panels,” American Standard Testing and Material, STP26673S, p. 50, 1970.

M. Palmer, Pressure Testing Procedures for Pipelines, Facilities Engineering, Maintenance and Construction (FEMC), Revision 2. Revision 2, No- EN/MPS/706, 2004.

American Institute of Petroleum (API), Recommended Practice for the Pressure Testing of Steel Pipelines for the Transportation of Gas, Petroleum Gas, Hazardous Liquids, Highly Volatile Liquids or Carbon Dioxide, Sixth Edition. USA: Institute of Petroleum, 2013.

Californa State Land Commission (CSLC), A Procedure for the Hydrostatic Pressure Testing of Marine Facility Piping. USA: California State Lands Commission, 2003.

R. Verley, S. Lund, and H. Moshagen, “Wall thickness design for high pressure offshore gas pipelines,” in American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York, USA, 1994.

T. Sotberg and R. Burschi, “Future pipeline design philosophy-framework” in The International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, pp. 239–239, 1992.

American Institute of Petroleum (API), Specification for Line Pipe, 43th Edition. USA: Institute of Petroleum, 2004.

Q. Bai and Y. Bai, “Wall Thickness and Material Grade Selection,” in Subsea Pipeline Design, Analysis, and Installation, Elsevier, pp. 23–39, 2014.

G. Jiao, T. Sotberg, R. Bruschi, R. Verley, and K. Moerk, “The SUPERB project: Wall thickness design guideline for pressure containment of offshore pipelines (No. CONF-9606279-),” New York, United State: American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 1996.

A. Bahadori, “Transportation Pipelines Pressure Testing,” in Oil and Gas Pipelines and Piping Systems, Elsevier, pp. 93–117, 2017.