23rd World Gas Conference, Amsterdam 2006

< COMPARATIVE STUDY FOR VARIOUS REPAIR METHODS OF IN-SERVICE PIPELINE USING FULL SCALE BURST TEST>

Jong-hyun Baek , Woo-sik Kim*, Young-pyo Kim Research and Development Division, Korea Gas Corporation, Ansan, 426-790, Korea * Correspondence author : wskim@kogas.re.kr

ABSTRACT
In the buried natural gas pipelines, many defects can occur by construction faults, corrosion, third-party interference and ground movement. Nowadays, selection of proper repair method on inservice natural gas pipeline is a matter of primary concern of Korea Gas Corporation (KOGAS). Therefore, the systematic study has been required for the repair methods of API 5L X65 main pipeline operating under the internal pressure of 6.9 MPa whose diameter is 762 mm and thickness is 17.5 mm. The objective of this work is to investigate the fracture behavior of repaired pipe using full scale burst test and to select the appropriate repair method of in-service gas pipelines. We performed a series of full scale burst test for damaged pipe and each repaired pipe and analyzed the fracture behavior on API 5L X65 grade gas pipelines (diameter 762mm, thickness 17.5mm) with mechanically machined defects. Tested specimens are damaged pipe and repaired pipes with sleeve welding, epoxy sleeve, composite material rapping (clock-spring) and direct deposit welding method for damaged pipe with same shape. From the study for merits and demerits, safety and reliability of each repair methods, we confirmed the efficiency and safety of proper in-service pipeline repair methods for various defect condition.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Abstract 2. Body of Paper 3. References 4. List Tables 5. List of Figures

Comparative Study for Various Repair Methods of In-Service Pipeline Using Full Scale Burst Test
1. Introduction
In the buried natural gas pipelines, many defects can occur by construction faults, corrosion, third-party interference and ground movement. When a segment of a pipeline is found to be defective, one of the repair methods is to vent the gas within the pipeline and cut out the defective segment after shutting down the pipeline.[1] However, the cost is extremely high in terms of venting and stopping the gas supply. Therefore, most pipeline companies have developed in-service repair methods without removing the line from service and these repair methods are used widely throughout the natural gas, petroleum and petrochemical industries [1-4]. Welding onto a gas pipeline in active operation, called in-service welding, is a technique that is frequently employed in the in-service repair of gas pipelines. The direct depositions of weld metal, sleeve-repair welding and hot-tap welding are typical examples of in-service welding.[1,2,5,6,7] Also, the epoxy sleeve repair and the composite rapping are repair method of in-service natural gas pipeline.[3,4] The epoxy sleeve repair need a longitudinal welding of sleeve, but this welding is not performed on live pipeline. The composite repair does not need any welding procedure. Nowadays, selection of proper repair method on in-service natural gas pipeline is a matter of primary concern of Korea Gas Corporation (KOGAS). KOGAS operate a trunk line with a total length of about 2,600 km, and in-line inspection technology has been applied to gas pipeline to detect metal loss and deformation on pipeline. Therefore, the systematic study has been required for the repair methods of API 5L X65 main pipeline operating under the internal pressure of 6.9 MPa whose diameter is 762 mm and thickness is 17.5 mm. The objective of this work is to investigate the fracture behavior of repaired pipe using full scale burst test and to select the appropriate repair method of inservice gas pipelines.

2. Experiments
We performed a series of full scale burst test for damaged pipe and each repaired pipe and analyzed the fracture behavior on API 5L X65 grade gas pipelines (diameter 762mm, thickness 17.5mm) with mechanically machined defects. Tested specimens are damaged pipe and repaired pipes with sleeve welding, epoxy sleeve, composite material rapping (clock-spring) and direct deposit welding method for damaged pipe with same shape. The dimension of damaged section is 200mmLx50mmTx14mmd (L: pipe longitudinal direction, T: circumferential direction, d: wall thickness direction) on base metal (A type) and girth weldment (B type) and 440Lx30mmTx14mmd 90 V-notch defect on base metal(C type). Repair methods and dimensions of test specimens are summarized in Table 1.
o

Table 1 Classification of defected pipe and repaired pipe. Defect size Type Location or Method Base Metal (A) Weld Metal (B) V-notch B.M. (C) Sleeve Weld (A) Sleeve Weld (B) Epoxy Sleeve (A) Repaired pipe Epoxy Sleeve (B) Epoxy Sleeve (C) Clock Spring (A) Clock Spring (B) Overlay Welding 1 Overlay Welding 2 Length (mm) Defected pipe 200 200 440 200 200 200 200 440 200 200 200 150 Width (mm) 50 50 30 50 50 50 50 30 50 50 50 50 Depth (mm) 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 8.8 11.5

Figure 1 shows the configuration of various test pipes. The sleeve-repair welding is one of the repair welding processes on in-service gas pipelines and is used in case of the repair of the pipelines with relatively large detects. Two sleeves made by expanding radically are attached to pipe around damaged sections and then circumferential fillet welding and longitudinal butt welding are performed. The both ends of the pipe were welded using the cap made of WPHY 65. Manual shielded metal arc welding (SMAW) and gas tungsten arc welding (GTAW) processes were applied to sleeve fillet welds and butt welds. It took about 130 minute to finish the longitudinal weld joint on the sleeve length of 800 mm and thickness of 17.5 mm by the 2 welder, and about 210 minute to execute the circumferential fillet welding by the 2 welder. The possibility of burn-through can be avoided by controlling the heat input. The welding procedure specification for sleeve repair welding was prepared from results of several mechanical tests and computer simulation before full scale burst test. The epoxy sleeve repair(ERP) was done by technicians of British Gas Repair Center for defect shape pipe similar to sleeve welding repair cases. The sleeve length used in ESR is calculated from the pipe outer diameter plus the defect length. The sleeve length of 970 mm and inner diameter of 800 mm is applied to type A and B. In case of type C adopted a sleeve length of 1,120 mm. The sleeves used as a reinforcement material in ESR have an equal or a higher wall thickness and a ultimate tensile strength than defected pipeline. Longitudinal butt welding was applied to repair the defect type A, B and C in the ESR. The butt weld joints were comprised of SMAW process with low hydrogen E8016-G electrode. Mixture with an epoxy and hardener was injected into the gap between the sleeve and defected pipe under pressure about 7 atm. It took 24 hours to cure the mixture injected under the sleeve. The composite rapping (Clock-spring) repair was done also by technicians of KOREA agent of

Clock-spring Company for defect shape pipe similar to sleeve welding repair cases. One Clock Spring having a width of 304.8 mm was applied to defect type A. Three Clock Springs were installed to defect type B to apply the bridge process which is used to the girth weld joint. Over laying welding for small size defect was done according to KOGAS technical standard to prepare from results of many mechanical test and computer simulation. For the defect depth with 50% and 65% of wall thickness, Overlay weld repair (Direct deposited welding repair) was applied. SMAW using E9016-G electrode of 2.6mm diameter was applied to overlaying repair welds. The deposited welding conditions were 5 layer with 28 passes and 6 layers with 31 passes, respectively.

(a)

(b)

(c)
Figure 1 Various pipes for burst test (a) Defected pipe B (c) Epoxy sleeve repair of B pipe (b) sleeve weld repair of B pipe (d) clock-spring repair of B pipe

(d)

The burst test was performed by increasing the internal pressure with water up to 28.44 MPa. The length of tested pipe is about 2.5m and the both ends of the pipe were welded using the cap. The rate of internal pressure increases is 0.25 MPa/min up to 19.6 MPa, and 0.15 MPa/min up to 28.44 MPa. The pressure change as time measured 1 value per 1 second using computer. In order to observe the strain variation during pressurization, strain gages which can detect up to strain of 5% were attached on the pipe body and reinforcement material.

3. Results
Repair welding on in-service pipeline There are two important concerns with welding on in-service pipelines. The first concern is the possibility of burn-through due to the localized heating, leading to loss of material strength on the inner

surface of pipe during the welding process. The pipe wall can burst out under internal pressure if the loss of strength is large. The second concern is the high cooling rates of the weld by the flowing gas which quickly removes heat from the pipe wall, resulting in accelerated cooling of the weld. The high cooling rate can promote the formation of the heat-affected zone (HAZ) microstructure with high hardness, making these welds susceptible to cold cracking and sulfide stress cracking in sour service. The rapid cooling can be compensated by increasing heat input, but the increased heat input can promote weld penetration and the possibility of burn-through. Thus suitable weld procedures must ensure the optimal HAZ hardness without cracking and no burn-through with proper heat input. We developed the welding procedure specifications for sleeve welding and over ay welding in in-service pipeline repair. Burn-through and cold cracking were not predicted for the sleeve-fillet welding and overlay welding on in-service welding conditions in this experiment from previous study.[1]

Full scale burst test The burst test result for the various damaged and repaired pipe represented nearly the similar burst pressure. All of the repair method of welding sleeve, epoxy sleeve, composite material rapping and direct weld deposition were not ruptured in defect part and base metal to internal pressure of 23.22 MPa, which means for the 506MPa of circumferential yield stress of pipe to apply as pipe internal pressure. Up to end of burst test for the repaired pipe specimens with the sleeve welding, epoxy sleeve and direct deposit weld, any crack and defect in repaired part didnt occur. But for repaired pipe with composite material rapping, the crack occurred in the defect part of base metal and the surface of composite material. In the repaired pipe with composite material rapping for girth weldment, the circumferential crack occurred in the surface of composite material and any crack didnt occur in the defect part.

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

(e)

Figure 2 Configurations of burst test results for damaged pipe and various repaired pipe (a) Defected pipe A (d) Composite rapping (A) (b) Sleeve Weld pipe (A) (e) overlay weld 1 (C) Epoxy Sleeve (A)

Table 2 Applied pressures, hoop stresses and burst result in pipe during burst test. Classification Defected pipe A B C Sleeve Weld (A) Sleeve Weld (B) Epoxy Sleeve (A) Epoxy Sleeve (B) Epoxy Sleeve (C) Composite rapping (A) Composite rapping (B) Overlay Weld 1 Overlay Weld 2 Applied Pressure (Mpa) 17.15 17.84 8.72 30.77 30.18 29.40 29.89 30.28 25.87 28.42 28.32 28.32 Hoop stress (Mpa) 373.70 388.65 190.06 670.53 657.72 640.63 651.31 659.85 563.76 619.28 617.15 617.15 Burst Yes Yes Yes No No No No No Yes(leak) No No No

Repaired pipe

Pipeline operated by the KOGAS has a design factor of 0.4 according to Table 841.114B in ASME B31.8 [8]. It has a safety factor of 2.5. MAOP of API 5L X65 pipe having an outer diameter of 762 mm and a wall thickness of 17.5 mm used in this work is 7.85 MPa. The defected pipe A having a depth ratio of 78% of wall thickness and defect length of 200 mm was failed at 17.15 MPa. The

defected pipe B which has a defect at girth weld joint was fractured at 17.84 MPa. The defected pipe C of a V-notch type having a depth ratio of 80% of wall thickness and defect length of 440 mm was ruptured at 8.72 MPa. The safety factors of the defected pipe A, B and C correspond to 2.19, 2.28 and 1.11, respectively. These values, however, are less than a safety factor of 2.5. The repaired pipes through the full encirclement sleeve, epoxy sleeve, and deposited welding did not fracture up to 28.42 MPa. Even in case of pipe rehabilitated by the epoxy sleeve procedure on the V-notch type defect

with a depth ratio of 80% of wall thickness and defect length of 440 mm did not rupture up to 28.42 MPa. In case of pipe I restored with the composite material on the corrosion type defect of the pipe body was failed at 25.87 MPa. Since it has a safety factor of 3.30 with regard to the MAOP of 7.85 MPa, the composite material can be applied to repair a flaw having a defect ratio of 80% of wall thickness. Cost Comparison For Various Repair Methods We compared a working cost on the various repair methods. Most of defects in natural gas pipeline are developed by the mechanical defect and corrosion. Corrosion defects were developed generally at girth weld joint due to a poor installation of a heat shrinkage sheet which is applied to protest the pipeline from the corrosive environment. Fixed conditions used in this work to compare a working cost are as follows. We assume that length of between governor stations is 20 km. Corrosion defect having a length of 50 mm was developed at a girth weld metal. Natural gas was pressurized under 0.6078 MPa (6 atm, 6.198 kg/cm ) at 5 in the API 5L X65 with a outer diameter of 762 mm and wall thickness of 17.5 mm. In order to employ a cutting and replacement of the defective segment as a method of a pipeline repair, natural gas should be evaporated into the atmosphere. Volume of natural gas vented is calculated as follows.
2

VN =

TN P 273.15 6 2 3 a Va = 0.727 20,000 = 48,917 Nm Ta PN 278.15 1 4

Where PN, VN, TN is a pressure, volume and temperature under normal condition (0 , 1 atm). Pa, Va, Ta is a pressure, volume and temperature when natural gas vent (5 , 6 atm). Natural gas cost of 48,917 Nm is calculated as $24,458 (48,917 Nm x $0.5/ Nm = $24,458). Repair costs for various repair methods are provided in Table 3.
3 3 3

Table 3. Estimated cost for various repair methods. Repair method Factor Venting of natural gas Civil working Nitrogen purge Air blowing Pipe welding Total repair cost Civil working Material Total repair cost Cost ($) 24,458 10,000 2,000 400 2,500 10,000 6,750 Contents Length of governor station : 20 km Excavation, backfill and pavement 10% purge : volume of 20 km pipe 90% purge : volume of 20 km pipe Welder : 2 , Helper:1, plumber : 1 $39,358 Excavation and backfill $2,250/ea x 3ea (include installation) $16,750

Cutting and replacement

Composite (Clock Spring)

Civil working Sleeve manufacturing Epoxy sleeve Sleeve welding Material Epoxy installation Total repair cost Civil working Sleeve manufacturing Sleeve welding Total repair cost Civil working Deposited welding Total repair cost

10,000 600 1,500 1,800 1,000 10,000 600 2,000 10,000 500

Excavation, backfill and pavement API 5L X65, 30, 17.5t Welder : 2 , Helper:1 Epoxy, putty, solvent, royalty $14,900 Excavation, backfill and pavement API 5L X65, 30, 17.5t Welder : 2 , Helper:1 $12,600 Excavation, backfill and pavement Welder : 1 , Helper:1 $10,500

Sleeve welding Deposited welding

4. Summary
From the study for merits and demerits, safety and reliability of each repair methods, we confirmed the efficiency and safety of proper in-service pipeline repair methods for various defect condition. Full encirclement sleeve, epoxy sleeve, and composite repair technologies have a value of more than a safety factor of 2.5 with regard to the MAOP of 7.85 MPa, repair technologies used in this work can be used to repair a flaw having a depth ratio of 80% of a wall thickness except deposited welding repair. Deposited welding repair can be applied up to a depth ratio of 65% of a wall thickness due to burn through.

5. Reference
1. Kim, W.S., Kim, Y. P. and Oh, J. H. (2002). The Effects of Hat Input and Gas Flow Rate on Weld Integrity for Sleeve Repair Welding of In-Service Gas Pipelines. Proceedings, 4 International Pipeline Conference, IPC2002-27031, Calgary, Canada. 2. Chapetti, M. D., Otegui, J., Manfredi, L. C., and Martins, C. F., (2000). Full Scale Experimental Analysis of Stress States in Sleeve Repairs of Gas Pipelines. Int J Press Ves Piping., 78(5) :379-387. 3. Kiefner, J. F., (2000). Technical Review of Epoxy Filled Repair Sleeve. Kiefner and Associates, Inc., Worthington, Ohio 43085. 4. Nicholson, C. M., and Patric, A. J. (2001). BP Uses Clock Spring System to Repair Crude Oil Pipeline. Pipeline & Gas Industry, March : 75-79. 5. Bowdoin, L. A., (2000), Direct Deposit Welding Advance Make It a Viable Repair Technique. Pipeline & Gas Industry, Nov.,: 67-72. 6. Nippard, F., Pick, R. J. and Horsley, D., (1996). Strength of a Hot Tap Reinforced Tee Junction. Int J Press Ves Piping., 68(2) :169-180. 7. Mohitpour, M., Mcmanus, M., and Trefanenko, B., (2002). Trend in Pipeline Integrity Inspection and Rehabilitation Techniques. Proceedings, 4 Calgary, Canada. 8. American Society of Mechanical Engineers. (2003). Gas Transmission and Distribution Piping Systems. ASME B31.8. USA.
th th

International Pipeline Conference, IPC2002-27035,

List of Tables
Table 1 Classification of defected pipe and repaired pipe. Table 2 Applied pressures, hoop stresses and burst test in pipe after burst test. Table 3 Estimated cost for various repair methos.

List of Figures
Figure 1 Various pipes for burst test. Figure 2 Configuration of burst results for damaged pipe and various repaired pipe.