Vol. 8 4, 2018 p 384-396


Article name, authors, abstract and keyword


Corrosion defect harmfulness by domain failure assessment diagram

Guy Pluvinage a, Omar Bouledroua b, Mohammed Hadj Meliani a,b

a Laboratory LEM3, 1 road dArs-Laquenexy, CS 65820, 57078 Metz, France
b LPTPM, Hassiba Ben Bouali University, P. O. Box 151, Hay Es-Salem, 02000 Chlef, Algeria

DOI: 10.28999/2541-9595-2018-8-4-384-396

Abstract: We are reporting in this study the detection of 1888 corrosion defects using a magnetic pig over 70 km of a pipeline located in Algeria. This large amount of defects has been statistically analysed. The relative defect depth a/t exhibited a large scatter and no correlation was found between corrosion defect depth and length. For the necessity of repairing defect, two tools are available: the first is based on limit analysis and called the estimated repair factor (ERF) while the second is based on failure assessment diagram. The adopted tool in the current study was the domain failure assessment diagram (DFAD). Analysis made with elastic-plastic fracture mechanics (EPFM) concerns 66.8% of corrosion defects, with a limit analysis of 32.5%. After categorizing the corrosion defect according to the used analysis tool, the safety factor or probability of failure of each assessment point was determined and compared to the repairing criteria. It appears that the ERF criterion is more conservative in our case than the probabilistic criterion as a probability of failure of 10-4 or a non-dimensional crack driving force equal to mean minus 3 standard deviations.

Keywords: corrosion defects, failure assessment diagram, FAD, estimated repair factor, limit analysis.

For citation:
Pluvinage G., Bouledroua O., Hadj Meliani M. Corrosion defect harmfulness by domain failure assessment diagram. Nauka i tehnologii truboprovodnogo transporta nefti i nefteproduktovScience & Technologies: Oil and Oil Products Pipeline Transportation. 2018;8(4):384-396. DOI: 10.28999/2541-9595-2018-8-4-384-396.

[1] Pluvinage G. Improvement of failure assessment diagram for checking the harmfulness of pipes defects. Science and technologies: Oil and Oil Products Pipeline Transportation. 2016;(5):4450. (In Russ.)
[2] Kolmogorov A. N. Sur la loi forte des grands nombres. Comptes Rendus Acad. Sci. Paris. Serie 1: Math. 1930;(191): 910912. (In French)
[3] Kiefner J., Vieth P. A modified criterion for evaluating the strength of corroded pipe. Final report for PR 3-805 project to the Pipeline Supervisory Committee of the American Gas Association. Ohio (Columbus): Battelle; 1989.
[4] Choi J. B., Goo B. K., Kim J. C , Kim Y. J., Kim W. S. Development of limit load solutions for corroded gas pipelines. International Journal of Pressure Vessel and Piping. 2003;80(2):121128.
[5] Harrison R. P., Loosemore K., Milne I. ssessment of the integrity of structures containing defects. Central Electricity Generating Board Report No. R/H/R6. Revision 1. Leatherhead, Surry (UK): CEGB, 1977.
[6] Newman J. C., Raju I. S. Stress-intensity factors for internal and external surface cracks in cylindrical vessels. Journal of Pressure Vessels Technology. 1982;104(4):293298. DOI:10.1115/1.3264220.
[7] Pluvinage G., Sapounov V. Prévision statistique du comportement des matériaux. Cépaduès editions, 2006. (In French)
[8] Feddersen C. E. valuation and prediction of residual strength of center cracked tension panels. American Society for Testing and Materials STP. 1970;(486):5062.
[9] Adib-Ramezani H., Jeong J., Pluvinage G. Structural integrity evaluation of X52 gas pipes subjected to external corrosion defects using the SINTAP procedure. International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping. 2006;6(83):113.
[10] Pluvinage G., Schmitt C. Probabilistic approach of safety factor from failure assessment diagram. In: Numerical methods for reliability and safety assessment. Multiscale and multiphysics systems. S. Kadry, A. El Hami, editors. 2014. P. 549577.
[11] Jallouf S., Milović L., Pluvinage G., Carmasol A., Sedmak S. Determination of safety margin and reliability factor of boiler tube with surface crack. Structural Integrity and Life. 2005;5(3):131142.