International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 83 (2006) 107117 www.elsevier.

com/locate/ijpvp

Reliability assessment of underground pipelines under the combined effect of active corrosion and residual stress
A. Amirat a, A. Mohamed-Chateauneuf b,*, K. Chaoui a
a

LR3MI, Department of Mechanical Engineering, University Badji Mokhtar, BP 12, Annaba 23000, Algeria b ` LaMI, UBP & IFMA, Campus de Clermont-Ferrand, Les Cezeaux, BP 265, F-63175 Aubiere, France Received 28 May 2004; received in revised form 30 November 2005; accepted 30 November 2005

Abstract Lifetime management of underground pipelines is mandatory for safe hydrocarbon transmission and distribution systems. Reliability analysis is recognized as a powerful decision-making tool for risk-based design and maintenance. Both the residual stresses generated during the manufacturing process and in-service corrosion reduce the ability to resist internal and external loading. In this study, the residual stress distribution in large diameter pipes has been characterized experimentally in order to be coupled with the corrosion model. During the pipe lifetime, residual stress relaxation occurs due to the loss of pipe thickness as material layers are consumed by corrosion. The reliability-based assessment of residual stress effects is applied to underground pipelines under a roadway, with and without active corrosion. It has been found that the residual stress greatly increases the failure probability, especially in the early stage of the pipe lifetime. q 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Reliability analysis; Residual stress; Corrosion; Underground pipelines

1. Introduction Tubing made with high strength low alloy steels (HSLA) is used to construct gas and oil pipelines for conveying pressurized hydrocarbons over long distances. The pipelines are subjected to high stresses due to internal uid pressure, overlaying soil, surface trafc and environmental attacks that can lead to damage, especially under failed passive protective coating. The main causes of this damage are stress corrosion cracking, wall thickness reduction and the presence of stress concentrators [1]. Moreover, during the manufacturing process of the pipe, thermal and mechanical deformations always produce residual stresses. The generated residual stresses are usually very high, sometimes approaching the material yield strength, but their effects are not evident until the structure is fully loaded or exposed to service environment [2,3]. Tensile surface residual stresses are detrimental as they increase the susceptibility of the component to fatigue damage, stress corrosion and even fracture.

* Corresponding author. Tel.: C33 47328 8029; fax: C33 47328 8100. E-mail address: alaa.chateauneuf@ifma.fr (A. Mohamed-Chateauneuf).

0308-0161/$ - see front matter q 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.ijpvp.2005.11.004

There has been a trend to improve the material mechanical properties in terms of yield strength and corrosion resistance. In the last three decades, the steel yield strength has been increased from 250 MPa to more than 760 MPa [4,5]. Meanwhile, the most common approach to protect steel pipelines from destructive corrosion is still to provide extra wall thickness as sacricial material. However, for a given operation lifetime, corrosion is of critical interest in design and maintenance optimization. For this reason, many research efforts have been devoted to solving the problem of pipeline suitability under the presence of defects. Deterministic methods [3,6] based on the safety factor concept are unable to predict the failure of corroded pipelines due to uncertainties related to geometrical measurements, pipe manufacturing, and operating conditions. Therefore, the probabilistic approach [79] is the only way to give realistic answers for design and maintenance by handling the system uncertainties and uctuations. With the development of computing facilities, the numerical solution of probabilistic models can be easily applied to evaluate the reliability of awed structures. The aim of this paper is to assess the safety of corroded steel pipelines by taking account of residual stress effects. Compared to previous researches [1012], the present work is mainly concerned with the inuence of residual stresses on the reliability assessment. For this reason, extensive experimental

108

A. Amirat et al. / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 83 (2006) 107117

work has been carried out to characterize the distribution of residual stresses through the pipe wall thickness. The test data are then introduced in the probabilistic-mechanical model, where the residual stress model is coupled with the corrosion model. In addition to internal pressure, pipelines are required to resist stresses produced by external loads, such as soil and trafc loads [13]. As radial and shear stresses are neglected for thin pipes, the main stresses affecting the structure of the tube are circumferential and longitudinal stresses. For long-term corrosion, the reliability procedure incorporates adequately the residual stress relaxation resulting from wall thickness losses. The reliability of the pipeline is then evaluated for different corrosion rates varying from the atmospheric one to very active corrosion processes.

sc Z spc C ssc C stc C sresc sl Z spl C ssl C stl C sresl (2)

where spc ; spl are stresses due to internal pressure, ssc ; ssl are due to soil loading, stc ; stl are bending stresses and sresc ; sresl are residual stresses; the subscripts c and l indicate, respectively, circumferential and longitudinal components. For a thin tube, these stresses are evaluated as given in Table 1 [13]. 2.2. Corrosion model A practical engineering way to account for a uniform corrosion process is to use a power law to model the loss of wall thickness with the time of exposure. The general form of the corrosion power law is written as tc Z kT n (3)

2. Mechanical model Thin underground pipelines are mainly subjected to longitudinal and circumferential stresses (Fig. 1). The mechanical model aims to dene these stresses as functions of applied loading. The mechanical stress is directly given by the von Mises equation applied to the non-vanishing stresses: circumferential stress sc and longitudinal stress sl, leading to the following expression q (1) sequiv Z s2 C s2 Ksc sl c l where sequiv is the von Mises equivalent stress. The circumferential and longitudinal stresses are given in the following sections for uncorroded and corroded pipes. 2.1. Uncorroded pipe model The total circumferential and longitudinal stresses sc and sl, respectively, are determined by the superposition of four principal stresses

where tc is the thickness of the corroded layer, T is the elapsed time and k and n are the corrosion constants, to be evaluated by tting Eq. (3) to corrosion data [14]. For atmospheric pressure, the mean and standard deviation are, respectively, 0.066 and 0.037 for the multiplier k, and 0.53 and 0.14 for the power n. Due to corrosion, the net wall thickness must be considered instead of the original pipe wall thickness; hence, for corroded pipes, the circumferential stresses take the respective forms: pr spc Z (4) tKkT n ssc Z stc Z 6km Cd gB2 ErtKkT n EtKkT n 3 C 24kd pr 3 6km Ic CL gFErtKkT n Le EtKkT n 3 C 24kd pr 3 (5)

(6)

The longitudinal pressure stress is also affected by loss of wall thickness; the equation in Table 1 is changed by replacing the thickness t with tKkTn. 3. Residual stress model 3.1. Residual stress identication

r p

t
Fig. 1. Underground pipeline conguration.

The residual stresses are those stresses locked into the material when it is free from external forces. The fabrication process, thermal processing, welding, heat treatment and mechanical forming are the most common sources for residual stresses. Practically, these stresses are present in every manufactured component and assembled structure. When producing tubes, residual stresses are generated from the hot rolling process that introduces large deformations. The identication of the residual stresses can be carried out experimentally by means of destructive techniques known as Block Removal Splitting and Layering (BRSL) methods, which are based on the pioneering work developed by Sachs [15]. The MesnagerSachs method [15,16] consists in boring

A. Amirat et al. / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 83 (2006) 107117 Table 1 Stresses acting on the underground pipeline [13] Stress component spc Z pr=t ssc Z 6km Cd gB2 Etr=Et3 C 24kd pr3 Parameter description

109

stc Z 6km Ic CL gFEtr=Le Et3 C 24kd pr3 spl Z npr=t ssl Z aEDq stl Z Erc

spc , circumferential stress due to internal; p, internal pressure; r, internal pipe radius; t, pipe wall thickness ssc , circumferential bending stress due to overlaying soil; B, width of ditch at the pipe top level; Cd, coefcient of earth pressure; E, modulus of elasticity; km, bending coefcient depending on load and soil reaction; kd, deection coefcient; g, soil density stc , circumferential stress due to trafc loads; Ic, impact factor; CL, surface load coefcient; F, surface wheel load; Le, effective pipe length on which the load is computed spl , longitudinal tensile stress resulting from Poissons ratio n ssl , longitudinal thermal stress due to temperature variation; a, thermal expansion coefcient; Dq, temperature variation stl , longitudinal stress due to external bending load; c, longitudinal curvature of the bent pipe

out the centre of a cylinder in a succession of small layers and measuring the changes in length and diameter of the remaining portion after each bore. Sachs proposed the following expressions for longitudinal, circumferential, and radial stresses in hollow cylinders   dl sl Z E 0 A0 KAb Kl (7) dAb   dq qA0 KAb sc Z E 0 A0 KAb K dAb 2Ab sr Z E 0 with l Z 3t C n3l q Z 3l C n3t and E0 Z E 1Kn2 (12) (10) (11)  qA0 KAb 2Ab  (9) (8)

follows
0

1 1 K sc Z E t D0 D1

 (13)

where E 0 is given by Eq. (12). According to Cramptons method, the tube length L should satisfy the geometrical condition [19]: L/D0R1.7. In the circumferential direction, the experimental methods for determining non-axisymmetric residual stresses through the thickness are developed by Garcia-Granada et al. on the basis of Sachs method [2022]. Although non-axisymmetric cases represent an important class of residual stress problems including seam welded pipes and pressure vessels [23], the experimental measurements are not easy to handle. 3.2. Residual stress 3.2.1. Measurement procedure The procedure of measuring residual stresses is carried out by Amirat et al. [24]. The specimens were received in the form of a 450 mm length seamless tubes machined from the parent pipe (219 mm external diameter, 12.7 mm wall thickness and 12 m length). In order to determine the residual stress, 10 specimens were prepared in order to have different tubes with gradually reduced thickness, from 12.7 to 2 mm. The layer removal operations were achieved by boring out on a lathe, where the tube dimensions were recorded before and after the machining process. In order to measure the residual displacements and strains due to the cutting process, the tube was mounted on a horizontal milling machine and clamped with a purpose designed device allowing it to be xed at the lower point and to open at the opposite point as shown in Fig. 2. This ensures a free displacement condition for all other points of the tube, when the notch was operated along the specimen. The notch was deepened progressively by the mean of a 2 mm thick disk mill, using controlled regular depth passes of 0.25 mm until the nal cut. Each pass was followed by displacement and strain measurements. Fig. 3 illustrates the tube instrumentation devices for strain and displacement measurements. The displacement measurements were carried out by installing four precision dial indicators to record changes in diameter. The lower point is the xed point where the specimen is

where E is the elastic modulus, A0 is the original crosssectional area of the cylinder, Ab is the area of the bored out portion of the cylinder, 3l and 3c are the longitudinal and circumferential strains, respectively, and n is Poissons ratio. This method is based on three basic assumptions: (a) elasticity theory applies for stresses in tubes subjected to internal and external pressure, (b) the stress distribution is axisymmetric and constant along the tube length, and (c) the material layer removal is accompanied by an equal and homogeneous change in longitudinal stress. These assumptions are usually met without difculties but the measuring and computing processes are not that easy. Many other methods reviewed by Sorem et al. [17] have been developed to measure the residual stresses in pipes in the axial direction such as those combining strain gauges and axial slits. In a simpler approach, Crampton [18] has developed a measuring technique for circumferential residual stresses in thin tubes by slitting the entire length longitudinally and then measuring the diameter changes. Hence, the circumferential stress is expressed in terms of wall thickness t, original diameter D0 and nal diameter D1, as

110

A. Amirat et al. / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 83 (2006) 107117
t= 2 mm t= 10 mm -30.6 mm

1.8 mm

(a)

(b)

Fig. 4. Tube behavior after disk mill slit with regards to changes in wall thickness: (a) opening displacement in thick tubes; (b) closing displacement in thin tubes.

Fig. 2. Tube on a horizontal milling machine xed at lower line and cut at upper line.

clamped; indicators 1 and 2 measure the displacements perpendicular to the machined notch; indicators 3 and 4 were placed on points approximately 5 mm apart, symmetric to the notch. Strain recordings were achieved by bonding strain gauges on the tube. The layout is presented in Fig. 3b, with three pairs of strain gauges at an angle of 1208 on the external surface of the tube and two pairs at 908 on the internal surface. The circumferential residual stress distribution was determined using a slitting process according to the specimen thickness. After boring out, each tube was slotted along the entire length. The slitting process was achieved using a disk mill (Figs. 2 and 3). The changes in diameter were recorded to allow the stress to be calculated from the relaxed strain after the tube opening. The corresponding calculated residual stresses are then plotted as a function of the distance from outer to inner diameters. 3.2.2. Residual stress distribution Due to internal pressure, pipe failures usually occur in the longitudinal direction; therefore, our interest is focused on circumferential residual stress as they have the greatest inuence on the pipe integrity. The rst apparent effect of residual stresses was observed on the behaviour of the tubes after slitting [24]. In the as-received tubes, the slitting process produced a sudden opening displacement accompanied with a
(b)
3
0 12

2 5
90

sound, resulting in a jump of residual displacements allowing the tube to be in a continual search of intermediate forms to accommodate relieved strain until the nal shape. When reducing the thickness from 12.7 to about 7.8 mm the tubes behaved in the same way but with less opening displacement and less sound. Thinner tubes, from 7.8 to about 2 mm, produced the opposite behaviour resulting in closing displacement bringing the tube to over set after slitting for thickness less than 3.5 mm. Fig. 4 shows the behaviour of two tubes with regards to wall thickness after slitting: tube opening for a thick specimen (Fig. 4a) and tube closing for a thin specimen (Fig. 4b). Consequently, for thick tubes the external wall layers are in tension resulting in a larger diameter after slitting, whereas the inner wall layers are in compression leading to a shorter diameter. In this study, the circumferential residual stress distributions through the wall thickness were obtained for 10 pipes with different wall thickness, using Cramptons equation (13). The results are plotted in Fig. 5, as a function of the mean value of the wall thickness t (given by the mean of eight measurements around the tube at three positions along the tube). The calculated values present some scatter which is attributed to the machining process and to the pipe inherent heterogeneity due to rolling. These results are comparable to those for other types of piping materials and welding [3,23,25,26]. The tting of the test data leads to the residual stress distribution as a function of specimen thickness t, as shown in Fig. 5. At the tube wall faces, the maximum residual stresses are observed to be G70 MPa. By applying Cramptons linear tting, the circumferential residual stress sresc rt is determined experimentally for X60 API standard seamless steel tube [19,24], leading to the form 2r sresc rt ZK 70 1K t t   (14)

1 4
0

(a)

Fig. 3. (a) General layout: (1) micrometer dial; (2) protected strain gauges; (3) wheatstone bridge; (4) disk mill; (5) instrumented tube. (b) Strain gauge positions.

where rt is the radial coordinate of the considered point in the wall thickness (i.e. 0%rt%t), measured from the outer radius, as indicated in Fig. 6. The linear tting allows us to nd an equilibrium state of compressive and tensile residual stresses. The dotted lines in Fig. 5 show the expected scatter of the measured residual stress values through the pipe wall. For reliability analysis, the standard deviation is taken as 10% of the maximum residual stress.

A. Amirat et al. / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 83 (2006) 107117

111

120 100 80 Residual Stress, res (MPa) 60 40 20 0 -20 -40 -60 -80 -100 -120 Specimen thickness, t (mm)
Fig. 5. Residual stress model for reliability assessment in X60 API pipeline.

D0 = 219.7mm; t = 12.7 mm Measured stress

res = -70(1-2rt/t) R2 = 0,7634

4
2

10

11

12

Standard deviation: 2 = 15MPa

3.3. Coupled corrosion and residual stress model When the corroded layers are removed, residual strain relaxation occurs, causing a redistribution of residual stresses. The layer removal method used to determine the original distribution is helpful to set a corrosion model when considering the net wall thickness instead of the original thickness t. In fact, the corrosion can be simulated by layer removals. This means that the layer removal technique gives the residual stress level that would be found under the action of corrosion. Fig. 6 shows the geometrical parameters, where t is the original wall thickness, tc is the layer removed by corrosion and rt is the coordinate of the considered point for stress analysis (measured from the nominal outer radius). When the layer tc is removed, the maximum residual stress becomes lower at the outer pipe side, and a new self-equilibrated stress state has to take place. Under these considerations, the relaxed residual stress at the outer wall face sresRLX of the corroded pipe can be derived form Eq. (14) by updating the thickness coordinate, which leads to:  sresRLX tc Z sresc rr Z tc ZK 70 1K   kT n ZK 70 1K2 t 

N Z 2prt sres rr drt Z 0

tc

(16)

Under the assumption of a linear distribution of residual stresses, the above equation allows us to determine the inner radius stresses. For the studied pipe dimensions, this equilibrium equation leads to the neutral bre at almost the middle of the net wall thickness, which is computed by subtracting the corroded layer tc from the original thickness t; consequently, Cramptons equation (14) becomes for corroded pipes:   r KkT n sres rt Z sresRLX 1K2 t (17) tKkT n Combining Eqs. (15) and (17) leads to:    kT n r KkT n 70 1K2 srescor rt ZK 1K2 t t tKkT n

(18)
res0

2tc t

res1 res2 res3

(15)

tc

-res3

rt t
-res1 -res0

-res2

The above equation gives only the stress at the outer wall face and does not consider for instance the bending stress redistribution over the whole thickness. As given below (Eq. (16)), the following step consists in nding the stress redistribution that satises the equilibrium state in the pipe wall. When the residual stress on the corroded surface is relaxed from sresc rt Z 0ZK MPa to sresRLX tc , the internal 70 stresses are redistributed inside the pipe wall in order to satisfy the equilibrium condition of zero membrane force:

tc1 tc2 tc3

Fig. 6. Net wall thickness for corroded pipes and residual stress relaxation scheme.

112

A. Amirat et al. / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 83 (2006) 107117

The corrosion longitudinal residual stress sreslcor as a result of Poissons ratio effects, is given as: sreslcor Z nsresccor (19)

4. Reliability model In this section, the probabilistic model to be used in pipeline reliability analyses is presented. Each design variable has to be represented by a random variable, described by distribution type and parameters (generally, mean and standard deviation). Specic algorithms are applied for searching the most probable failure conguration. In the present work, the software PHIMECA [27] has been used to perform the reliability analyses. This software offers several methods for reliability calculation such as Monte Carlo simulations and First/Second Order Reliability Methods (FORM/SORM) [7,8,27]. 4.1. Limit state In this work, the reliability analysis is applied to an underground pipeline made of seamless tubes, passing under a roadway, which is used to convey gas under high pressure ranging from 7 up to 40 MPa (as in gas re-injection elds). The trafc wheel load F corresponds to the maximum applied load during the pipe lifetime. The effect of repeated loading that might lead to corrosion fatigue is not considered. The reliability assessment is performed through the study of two effects: residual stresses and active corrosion. In both cases, the limit state function G(x) corresponds to the conventional safety margin dened by the difference between the material yield strength fY and the applied equivalent stress sequiv, that is: G Z fY Ksequiv (20)

where uiZTi(xj) is the vector of basic random variables in the standard normal space obtained by appropriate probabilistic transformation, Ti(xj), and G(xj) represents the failure surface; in the standard normal space, it takes the form GTj ui . The solution of this optimization problem can be obtained by any standard optimization algorithm. In our case, specic reliability algorithms have been used and combined with a line search procedure. The solution of problem (21) is usually referred to as the design point, noted ui* or P*. In First Order Reliability Methods (FORM), the failure probability Pf is simply calculated by b Pf Z PrG% 0 Z FK (22)

where Pr[ ] is the probability operator and F( ) is the cumulative Gaussian probability function. 4.2. System uncertainties Beside the uncertainties associated with the corrosion parameters k and n, many other uncertainties result from geometry, loading, manufacturing and service conditions of the pipeline system. For instance, as our work is focussed on the coupling of residual stress and corrosion phenomena, the related probabilistic models are established by geometrical measurements and material testing. The remaining variables are taken from the literature [10]; this is particularly the case for loading parameters. Table 2 indicates the random variables involved and their statistical parameters. Due to lack of information, it is assumed that correlation between variables can be neglected. It is noted that uncertainties associated with the multiplier constant k, the impact factor Ic, and the coefcient Cd are signicant. The coefcients CL, kd, and km have moderate uncertainties since they need to be selected for a given situation on the basis on imperfect information. The geometrical parameters such as ditch width B, pipe radius Rint, wall thickness t and curvature c contain uncertainties highly dependent on workmanship and quality control after the ditch construction and pipe production process. The temperature differential depends on pipe bedding and the seasonal variation of temperature relative to the laying process. The loading parameters in terms of internal pressure p and wheel load F are particularly difcult to dene probabilistically as they depend on operational characteristics associated with the pipeline and its daily requirements. The properties of the pipeline material (i.e. Youngs modulus E, yield stress sY, thermal expansion coefcient a, Poissons ratio n) and of soil (i.e. soil unit weight) are rather well dened and have low variability. In previous reliability studies [1012], the residual stress were usually unknown and therefore neglected. The particular effort in the present work is to allow for the residual stress by determining its distribution through the pipe wall thickness. The layer removal technique used for the residual strain measurements is destructive and resulted in a large scatter of the subsequently calculated residual stresses for a number of thickness values. They uctuated between 20 and 30% of the

This margin is dened such that G(xj)O0 indicates safety and G(xj)%0 corresponds to conventional failure; xj are the random variables in the system. In this expression, the applied equivalent stress sequiv is a function of pipe aging (as thickness is reduced by corrosion and residual stresses are relaxed). To evaluate the failure probability, one can run a number of random samplings to generate different pipeline realizations. Then Monte Carlo techniques can be applied to estimate the required probability. However, this procedure needs a large number of mechanical model evaluations, especially when the failure probability is low. In order to reduce the computation time, iterative algorithms [7,8] are conveniently applied to deal with nonlinear limit state functions. For the failure scenario (20), the reliability index b is dened as the minimum distance between the origin and the failure domain in the equivalent Gaussian space ui. This index is evaluated by solving the constrained optimisation problem r X b Z minimize u2 subjected to Gxj % 0 (21) i
i

A. Amirat et al. / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 83 (2006) 107117 Table 2 Random variables and corresponding parameters Type of variables Material Symbol E sY Geometry Rint Description Modulus of elasticity Yield strength Internal radius of the tube Wall thickness Effective length of the tube Width of the ditch Thermal expansion coefcient Calculation coefcient Surface load coefcient Impact factor Multiplier constant Deection coefcient Bending moment coefcient Unit weight of soil Longitudinal curvature Poissons ratio Temperature differential Internal pressure Wheel load of trafc Maximum residual stress Mean value 201,000 MPa 475 Mpa 97.3 mm Coefcient of variation 0.04 0.10 0.01
10 9 8 7 6
Without residual stress With residual stress

113

5
4 3 2

10-6 10-5 10-4

T Le

12.7 mm 1000 mm

0.05 0.10

1 0 11 15 19 23 27 31 35 39 43

Pm (MPa)
440 mm 1.17!10K5 m/8C 1.32 0.12 1.25 0.066 0.108 0.235 0.10 0.10 Fig. 7. Variation of reliability index b as a function of up-rated mean pressure.

B Coefcients [13] a

5.1. Residual stress inuence on reliability 5.1.1. Operating mean pressure The assessment of residual stress effects is carried out by evaluating the reliability for new pipelines (i.e. uncorroded pipes), which are assumed to be free from any aw. For this pipe, the residual stress follows a linear law according to Eq. (14) in an inert environment. The reliability is evaluated as a function of 20 independent random variables (as indicated in Table 2). The reliability software PHIMECA [27] allows us to compute the reliability index b and the failure probability Pf, when internal pressure is up-rated. Fig. 7 compares the reliability index evolution as a function of the up-rated pressure for cases with and without residual stress. As expected, up-rating pressure up to 45 MPa dramatically decreases the pipe reliability in both cases. The two curves follow similar trends. Although a signicant reliability decrease due to residual stress is observed for low pressures (i.e. less than 20 MPa), the inuence of residual stresses reduces when internal pressure is increased. Table 3 gives the allowed mean pressures for three failure probability levels PfZ10K4, 10K5 and 10K6 (corresponding to bZ3.72, 4.27 and 4.75, respectively). For a given target reliability, the average pressure decreases by about 9 MPa (corresponding to a pressure drop of nearly 25%). In the rest of this study, the target failure probability is set to PftZ10K5 (i.e. btZ4.265), showing a pressure drop from 40 to 30 MPa when taking account of residual stress. 5.1.2. Variable sensitivities The sensitivities a2 or the relative contribution of the random variables to the pipe reliability are shown in Figs. 8 and
Table 3 Variation of pressure P as a result of residual stress Failure probability Pf 10K6 10K5 10K4 Reliability index b 4.75 4.27 3.72 Operating mean pressure Pm (MPa) Without residual stress 37 40 43 With residual stress 28 30 40

Cd CL Ic k kd km

0.20 0.15 0.20 0.56 0.15 0.15

g c m Dq Loading p F Residual stress sresmax

1.89!10K5 kN/mm3 K10K6 rad/mm 0.283 10.0 8C 7 MPa 150 kN 70 MPa

0.10 0.10 0.023 0.15 0.10 0.10 0.25

mean value because of disturbing the stress state while machining (Fig. 5).

5. Pipeline reliability assessment The reliability assessment is rst focused on the inuence of residual stresses in uncorroded pipelines, in order to identify the sensitivity of system parameters. In the second step, the residual stress model is coupled with the corrosion model in order to assess the aging effects through the pipe lifetime.

114

A. Amirat et al. / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 83 (2006) 107117

9, for gas pressure increases from 11 to 40 MPa. The most important variables for the pipeline safety are the thickness, the yield stress and the applied pressure. When the mean value of residual stress is 15 MPa and the pressure is up-rated, the thickness and the yield strength dominate with more than 50%; the remaining part is equally divided between the other parameters. For an operating mean pressure up to 11 MPa, the contribution of all parameters is signicant. The importance of the residual stresses increases with lower gas pressure; this importance is 8.5% for a pressure of 40 MPa and increases to 14.5% when the pressure is reduced to 11 MPa. In Fig. 9, the importance factors a2 are plotted for the full range of operating gas pressures, in order to show the evolution of variable importance. Except for the internal pressure for which steeply increasing sensitivity expressed by a2 is observed, it seems that the sensitivities of all the other variables have low variations. In particular, the comparison of the sensitivities of the residual stress and the internal diameter shows opposite evolutions. At low operating pressures, these sensitivities are almost constant up to a mean pressure of 20 MPa, then, the sensitivity of internal radius increases while
3.7% 5.5% Cs F Pm=11MPa t0
31%
24%

the sensitivity of residual stress decreases; for very high pressures, both sensitivities converge to 8.5%. When the operating pressure is very high, its sensitivity becomes dominant and therefore squeezes out most of the other variables (except the thickness and the yield strength). In this parametric study, ve signicant variables emerged: yield strength, thickness, internal pressure, internal radius, and residual stress. 5.1.3. Gas pressure uctuation The evolution of the reliability index b as a function of the coefcient of variation of pressure rP is illustrated in Fig. 10 for operating mean pressure varying from 17.5 to 45 MPa. It is observed that b decreases quasi-linearly in both cases (with and without residual stress). When residual stress is not considered, for a mean pressure of 30 MPa, b decreases from 6.5 to 3.6 when the coefcient of variation increases from rPZ0.1 to 0.3; the target reliability btZ4.265 is observed for rPZ0.238. Similar observations are made when residual stress is taken into account; in this case the target reliability for PmZ30 MPa corresponds to rPZ0.1 (as dened in initial design conditions).
1.4% 2%

Cs Pm=20 MPa

y y t0
27% 34%

2%

Ic
14,5%

2.7%

res 1.6% Rint P Km 3% 3%

Ic 5.5% L 6.5%
14,5% 11%

L res Rint
3% 0.8%

Km

0.6%

0.25%
1%

0.5%

Cs Pm=30MPa t0
30%

F Pm=40MPa y t0
25.5% 1%

Cs

F y
22% 0.5%

28%

Ic
0.6%

Ic
1.4%

L
0.1%

L
0.35% 11%

Km
8.5%

res
6%

Km
23%

res
7% 32%

Rint

Rint

Fig. 8. Variable importance on the pipe safety.

A. Amirat et al. / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 83 (2006) 107117
40% 35% 30% 25% % 20% 15% 4 10% 2 5% 5
6 7 8 9

115

12 11 MPa 20 30 40

10 1 2 3 8

6
4

0 35 40 0 30 60 mean res (MPa) 90 120

15

20 25 30 mean pressure, (MPa)

Fig. 9. Parametric study of variable importance in assessing reliability of a pipeline: (1) thickness; (2) pressure; (3) yield strength; (4) residual stress; (5) internal radius; (6) coefcient km; (7) external load; (8) coefcient CL; (9) effective length.

Fig. 11. Reliability index b as a function of mean residual stress for different gas pressures.

In all cases, for a given failure probability, if the dispersion increases, the operating pressure should be reduced. Moreover, the slope of the curves obtained with residual stress considerations is less than for the case without residual stress. This indicates that residual stresses could become benecial as they reduce the inuence of pressure uctuations. Let us consider the pressure of 25 MPa, the behaviour in the presence of residual stresses approaches the behaviour at a pressure of 30 MPa without residual stresses. Hence, it can be concluded that a pressure of 25 MPa is a secure pressure for both residual stress considerations. For high pressures, the failure probability is still high with increasing rP as b falls well below the target. Even with severe control of pressure uctuations, it is not possible to maintain safety at acceptable levels. 5.1.4. Residual stress data In this section, the inuence of residual stress parameters (mean and coefcient of variation) is considered in the reliability assessment. Fig. 11 shows the evolution of the reliability index as a function of the mean value of outer radius residual stress (for simplicity, it is here called: mean residual stress). As can be seen, increasing the mean residual stress implies a linear drop of the index b. The slope is nearly the
10 9 8 7 6 With residual stress
17.5 MPa 20 25 30 35 40 45

same for different operating pressures. When the mean residual stress varies from 0 to 110 MPa, the index b drops by nearly two graduations. The coefcient of variation of residual stress rsres, illustrated in Fig. 12 shows much less sensitivity in the pipe reliability. In fact, as the pressure becomes higher, the residual stress uncertainty loses its importance. A practical conclusion is that there is no need to spend money to obtain a more precise characterization of the residual stress dispersion. 5.2. Corrosion effects The reliability assessment of underground pipelines with active corrosion is established with the model given in Eq. (3). For atmospheric pressure with parameters kZ0.066 and nZ0.53 [14], the corroded layer in a lifetime of 50 years is equal to 0.52 mm. In more aggressive environments, the corrosion process is activated by increasing the parameter k. Therefore, for the same reference lifetime of 50 years, the studied corrosion processes involve the loss of one tenth, one fth, one third and one half of the wall thickness; beside the atmospheric rate, these processes are referenced here as low corrosion, moderate corrosion, high corrosion and very high corrosion, respectively. For a pipe thickness of 12.7 mm, these
10 11 MPa 20 30 40

5
4 3 2 1 0 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 Pressure coefficient of variation, pm 0.3
4,265

0 5 10 15 20 mean residual stress coefficient of variation, res 25

Fig. 10. Reliability index b as a function of pressure coefcient of variation.

Fig. 12. Effect of COV of mean residual stress for up-rated pressure.

116

A. Amirat et al. / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 83 (2006) 107117

corrosion rates correspond, respectively, to a loss of 6.35 mm (i.e. one half of the thickness) during the return periods of 1000, 500, 250 and 100 years. The aim of this study is then to determine the pipeline reliability with regard to corrosion rates together with residual stress effects. As the corrosion process is a time-variant process, the use of random variable theory is only possible under the hypothesis of monotonically increasing failure probability. This hypothesis allows us to evaluate the time-dependent probability by simple computation of the instantaneous failure probability. From a physical point of view, this is compatible with the corrosion process, but implies that no signicantly large jump of loading can occur during the pipe lifetime. Moreover, the computation of instantaneous failure probability with extreme loading values gives an upper bound to the time-variant failure probability; so the procedure is said to be conservative. For gas pressures of 30 and 40 MPa, Fig. 13 gives the reliability evolution as a function of elapsed pipeline life, for different corrosion rates, with and without residual stresses (solid and dashed lines, respectively). As expected, the reliability index b decreases with pipe aging and correspondingly, the failure probability increases with time T.

High corrosion rates produce a very large decrease of pipeline safety, especially in the early stage of the lifetime. The nonlinearity of these curves is more signicant for higher corrosion rates compared to atmospheric corrosion. During the reference lifetime of 50 years, the inuence of residual stresses decreases with time, since after 20 years with high corrosion, the reliability level becomes less sensitive and converges to that obtained for the case without residual stress. The explanation is that when corroded layers are consumed, the pipe wall thickness reduces and the residual stresses are relaxed, and consequently their effect is reduced. One of the major pieces of information from these curves is to supply the designer and the maintenance service with a realistic image of the pipeline risk of failure at various lifetime instances with regard to corrosion rates. As an example, for a moderate corrosion rate, for a 30 MPa pressurized pipe, the probability of failure can be acceptable for an operation time of 50 years whereas for a 40 MPa pressurized pipe this is not true since after 20 years, the corroded pipeline presents a very large risk of failure. 6. Conclusion The effects of residual stresses have been investigated to assess the reliability of underground pipelines with active corrosion. A coupled model for corrosion and residual stresses is developed on the basis of their experimentally characterized distribution. The main results of this study can be summarized as follows: 1. Up-rating pressure when neglecting residual stresses increases drastically the failure probability. Moreover, at high pressures, the failure probability is sensitive to the coefcient of variation of gas pressure. In this case, if the variance increases, the pressure should be decreased to maintain the safety level. However, for low-pressure levels, even with a large coefcient of variation, the failure probability is not signicantly affected. 2. The most sensitive parameters are: gas pressure, yield strength, internal radius, thickness and residual stress. Among these variables, the most important for pipeline safety is gas pressure that increases largely with up-rating. 3. When pressure is increased, the sensitivities to residual stress and internal diameter vary in opposite directions. For low-pressure, the residual stress sensitivity is much higher than for internal diameter. With pressure increase, a redistribution of both sensitivities is observed, and for very high pressures, both of them converge to a low inuence (8.5% for the specic example in this paper). 4. As expected, the corrosion rate produces a large increase of failure probability, especially in the early stage of the pipe lifetime. The effect of residual stress relaxation increases the safety margin of the pipeline, which tends to balance the strength losses. In this sense, the residual stress can be seen as a reserve of strength to be released with time. 5. The failure probability becomes less sensitive when residual stresses are considered. In fact, neglecting the

(a) 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Gas pressure = 30 MPa 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 Time (years) (b) 5 4 1 3 2

1 2 1'

3 4 4 5 5' 3'

2'

2 2 1

3 5 5 4 4 3

1 0 -1 -2 0 Gas pressure = 40 MPa 10

20 30 Time (years)

40

50

Fig. 13. Effect of active corrosion on the reliability index b of an underground pipe. Corrosion rates: (1) atmospheric; (2) low; (3) moderate; (4) high; (5) very high. 1 0 , 2 0 , 3 0 , 4 0 and 5 0 , respectively, obtained in terms of residual stress.

A. Amirat et al. / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 83 (2006) 107117

117

residual stresses puts all the reliability weight on the other variables (especially pressure), which makes the probability evaluation more sensitive. That means, the consideration of residual stresses implies a better redistribution of the reliability importance factors, leading to a less sensitive failure probability. 6. For high corrosion rates, the inuence of residual stresses with time exposure is lost in less than 20 years. In fact, the residual stress is relaxed because of thickness loss due corrosion attack. However, for low corrosion rates, the importance of residual stresses still remains signicant during the whole lifetime.

Acknowledgments The authors are grateful to ALFATUB Company for the material and mechanical testing. They are also thankful to FERROVIAL Company for machining the large and heavy specimens. The nancial support of SONATRACH National Oil Company, DP, Hassi Messaoud under Grant D-6001Z is greatly appreciated. References
[1] Leis B, Parkins RN. Mechanics and material aspects in prediction serviceability limited by stress-corrosion cracking. Fatigue Fract Eng Mater Struct 1998;21:583601. [2] Treuting RG. Nature and origins of residual stresses, chapter 1: residual stress measurements. Cleaveland OH, NY; 1952. p. 141. [3] Glinka G. Residual stresses in fatigue and fracture: theoretical analyses and experiments. In: Niku-Lari A, editor. Residual stressesgeneration, relaxation, measurement, prediction effects. UK: Pergamon Press; 1986. [4] Gray JM, Pontremoly M. Metallurgical options for grades X70 and X80 line pipes. In: International conference pipe technology, Rome; 1987. p. 17191. [5] Endos S, Nagae M. Development of X100 UOE line pipe. In: The international conference on pipe line reliability, Calgary; 1992. p. 3:4.1 4.11. [6] ASME-B31G. Manual for determining the remaining strength of corroded pipelinesa supplement to ASME B31G code for pressure piping. New York: American Society for Mechanical Engineer; 1991. [7] Ditlevsen O, Madsen HO. Structural reliability methods. New York: Wiley; 1996.

[8] Melchers RE. Structural reliability: analysis and prediction. Chichester, UK: Ellis Horwood; 1987. ` ` [9] Lemaire M. Evaluation des indices de abilite associes a des modeles de mecanique de structure. Revue Francaise de Mecanique 1992. [10] Ahammed M, Melchers RE. Probabilistic analysis of underground pipelines subject to combined stresses and corrosion. Eng Struct 1997; 19(12):98894. [11] Caleyo F, Gonzalez JL, Hallen JM. A study of the reliability assessment methodology for pipelines with active corrosion defects. Int J Pressure Vessels Piping 2002;79:7786. [12] Hong HP. Inspection and maintenance planning of pipeline under external corrosion considering generation of new defects. Struct Saf 1999;21: 20322. [13] Spangler MG, Handy RL. Soil engineering. 4th ed. New York: Harper & Row; 1982. [14] Kucera V, Mattsson E. Atmospheric corrosion. In: Mansfeld F, editor. Corrosion mechanics. New York: Marcel Dekker; 1987. [15] Sachs G. Internal stresses in metals. Zeitschrift des Vereines Deutcher Ingenieure 1927;71:151123. [16] Lynch JJ. The measurement of residual stresses. Am Soc Met Residual Stress Meas, Cleveland, OH 1952;4296. [17] Sorem J, Shadley JR, Rybicki EF. Experimental method for determining through thickness residual hoop stresses in thin walled pipes and tubes without inside access. Strain 1990;26:715. [18] Crampton DK. Internal stress and season cracking in brass tubes. Trans Am Inst Min Metall Eng 1930;89:23355. [19] Amirat A, Chaoui K. Residual stress in seamless tubes. Revue des Sciences et Technologies de lUniversite dAnnaba 2001;825. [20] Garcia-Granada AA, Smith DJ, Pavier MJ. Analysis for determining nonaxisymmetric residual stresses. Mater Sci Forum 2000;347349:11924. [21] Lacarac VD, Garcia-Granada AA, Smith DJ, Pavier MJ. Experimental measurement of non-axisymmetric residual stresses. Mater Sci Forum 2000;347349:12530. [22] Garcia-Granada AA, Lacarac VD, Smith DJ, Pavier MJ. A new procedure based on Sachsboring for measuring non-axisymmetric residual stresses: experimental application. Int J Mech Sci 2001;43(12):275368. [23] Ueda Y, Nakacho K, Shimizu T. Improvement of residual stresses of circumferential joint of pipe by heat-sink welding. Trans ASME 1986; 108:1423. [24] Amirat A, Chaoui K, Azari Z, Pluvinage G. Residual stress analysis in seamless API X60 steel gas pipelines. Sciences & Technologie B. Revue de lUniversite Mentouri Constantine 2004;21:714. [25] Prevey P, Hornbach D, Mason P. Thermal residual stress relaxation and distortion in surface enhanced gas turbine engine components. In: Milam DL et al, editor. Proceedings of the 17th heat treating society conference and exposition. Materials Park, OH: ASM; 1998. p. 312. [26] ASTM STP 676. Stress relaxation testing. In: Fox A, editor. Philadelhia, PA: Committee E-28; 1979. [27] PHIMECA Engineering. PHIMECAreliability-based design and anal` ysis. Users manual, version 1.6, Aubiere, France; 2002.