International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 113 (2014) 15e24

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijpvp

Review

Fatigue analysis of corroded pipelines subjected to pressure and temperature loadings

Divino J.S. Cunha a, *, Adilson C. Benjamin a, Rita C.C. Silva b, Joo N.C. Guerreiro c, Patrcia R.C. Drach c
a b c

PETROBRAS Research and Development Center, Brazil Federal University of Par e UFPA, Brazil National Laboratory for Scientic Computation e LNCC, Brazil

a r t i c l e i n f o
Article history: Received 10 January 2011 Received in revised form 7 October 2013 Accepted 17 October 2013 Keywords: Multiaxial fatigue Biaxial fatigue Strain-life Out-of-phase cyclic loadings Heated pipelines Corroded pipeline fatigue analysis Corrosion defect SCFs

a b s t r a c t
In this paper a methodology for the fatigue analysis of pipelines containing corrosion defects is proposed. This methodology is based on the nominal stresses from a Global Analysis using a one-dimensional Finite Element (FE) model of the pipeline together with the application of stress concentration factors (SCFs). As the stresses may exceed the yielding limit in the corrosion defects, the methodology also adopts a strain-life approach (eN method) which is capable of producing less conservative fatigue lives than the stress-based methods. In addition the proposed methodology is applied in the assessment of the fatigue life of an onshore-hot pipeline containing corrosion pits and patches. Five corrosion pits and ve corrosion patches with different sizes are considered. The corrosion defects are situated on the external surface of the pipeline base material. The SCFs are calculated using solid FE models and the fatigue analyses are performed for an out-of-phase/non-proportional (NP) biaxial stresses related to the combined loading (internal pressure and temperature) variations caused by an intermittent operation with hot heavy oil (start-up and shut-down). The results show that for buried pipelines subjected to cyclic combined loadings of internal pressure and temperature fatigue may become an important failure mode when corroded pipeline segments are left in operation without being replaced. 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Fatigue is not usually a failure mode that occurs in buried pipelines subjected only to internal pressure. However, this is not always the case if other types of loadings act on the pipeline, like the cyclic combined loadings of internal pressure and temperature resulting from intermittent operation with hot heavy oil. Furthermore, fatigue may become an important failure mode, even in buried pipelines subjected only to internal pressure, if any type of defect (cracks, dents or corrosion) is found in periodical inspections [1,2]. In the case of hot pipelines designed under the traditional philosophy of preventing buckling by burying, fatigue becomes an important failure mode when corroded pipeline segments are left in operation without being replaced. This is a worldwide trend
* Corresponding author. Av Horcio Macedo 950, Cidade Universitria, Ilha do Fundo, 21941-915 Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil. Tel.: 55 21 3865 4743; fax: 55 21 3865 3764. E-mail addresses: divinocunha@petrobras.com.br, djs.cunha@hotmail.com (D.J. S. Cunha), acbenjamin@petrobras.com.br (A.C. Benjamin), ritaccs@ufpa.br (R.C. C. Silva), joao@lncc.br (J.N.C. Guerreiro), pdrach@lncc.br (P.R.C. Drach). 0308-0161/$ e see front matter 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpvp.2013.10.013

where very conservative corrosion assessment methods have been replaced by more accurate methods which are capable of not only guaranteeing the pipeline structural integrity but also tolerating larger corrosion defects for longer periods of time. This paper presents a methodology for the fatigue life assessment of hot pipelines with corrosion defects in the base material. The proposed methodology is based on nominal stresses and stress concentration factors (SCFs) together with a BrowneMiller (BM) strain-life critical-plane method [3e5]. Although stress-life methods are more disseminated [6], strain-life methods are more adequate for pipelines which undergo plastic deformation. The BM method handles plasticity, which may occur in the corrosion defect, as well as the multiaxial stresses/strains and the out-of-phase/non-proportional (NP) characteristic of the applied loadings or the corresponding stresses [3e5,7]. The proposed methodology was applied to an onshore corroded API-X60 pipeline with a 57.7 ratio of the diameter to the wall thickness. The pipeline operates 3 times a week alternating between hot heavy oil and light products at ambient temperature. The maximum operating pressure is 8.2 MPa and the maximum operating temperature of the oil is 80  C.

16

D.J.S. Cunha et al. / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 113 (2014) 15e24

Nomenclature a straight portion of the corrosion defect depth b Basquins fatigue strength exponent c CofneManson fatigue ductility exponent BM BrowneMiller CM CofneManson CP critical plane (highest damage plane) C/P Ang FE-SAFE nomenclature for the CP angle f CWP cylindrical wide pit Cycle-Ampl FE-SAFE nomenclature for the fatigue parameter amplitude (e/2) d corrosion defect depth dsi (i 1, 2, 3) stress datasets (FE-SAFE data line with the stress tensor components) e BM parameter or strain (e h gmax n) e BM-parameter range (e e2 e1 De h Dgmax Dn) eL elongation D total damage (D SDi) De pipe external diameter Di damage of a single loading cycle (Di 1/N) DFF design fatigue factor E elastic (Youngs) modulus EFF environmental fatigue factor h hardening exponent H hardening coefcient hc cyclic hardening exponent Hc cyclic hardening coefcient hs soil cover L corrosion defect length (longitudinal dimension) LP longitudinal patch n number of loading repeats N number of strain cycles to failure (obtained from eN curve) N loading history life (N 1/D), FE-SAFE output fatigue life NP non-proportional p internal pressure pd design pressure poper maximum operating pressure r pit radius or patch-bottom llet radius R patch-top llet radius SCF stress concentration factor SMTS minimum specied ultimate tensile stress SMYS minimum specied yielding stress t time t pipe wall thickness

temperature pipeline installation temperature maximum operating temperature pipe weight corrosion defect width (circumferential dimension) local cylindrical co-ordinates global cylindrical co-ordinates distance between the soil surface and the trench bottom afat fatigue usage factor g shear strain (gij i j on the shear plane iej, i, j 1, 2, 3, i s j) i (i 1,2,3) principal strains: in-plane (1, 2), out-of-plane/outof-surface (3 h z) n normal strain ij n i j =2 on the shear plane iej, i, j 1, 2, 3, i s j) 0 fatigue ductility coefcient f true uniaxial true strain n Poissons ratio strue uniaxial true stress s0f Basquins fatigue strength coefcient sh hoop stress (sh pDi/(2t)) si (i 1, 2, 3) principal stresses: in-plane (s1, s2), out-of-plane/ out-of-surface (s3 h sz) sL longitudinal stress su engineering ultimate tensile stress sy engineering yield stress reference sample (stress-tensor/dataset, within the s* stress history, taken by FE-SAFE to dene the orientation of stress principals and principal/shear planes) s* i (i 1, 2, 3) reference principal stresses related to dataset s* f rotating angle of the principal/shear planes round the out-of-surface axis 3 h z (0  f  180 ), measured between the plane normal n and the stress principal s* 1 , and identied in FE-SAFE output le as C/P Ang fx angle between the CP normal n and the x-axis (positive from x-axis towards y-axis), identied in FE-SAFE output le as CP/X/Ang q1 angle between s1 and s* 1 (q1 0 for constant direction principals) DT temperature loading (DT T Tinst) (,)h hoop (circumferential) (,)L longitudinal (,)max maximum (,)nom nominal

T Tinst Toper w w x, y, z X, Y, Z z

2. Methodology of analysis As shown in Fig. 1, the proposed methodology for the corroded pipeline fatigue life assessment has three main phases: (1) Stress Global Analysis, (2) Stress components amplication by the corrosion defect SCFs, with the SCFs obtained from a (20 ) Local Analysis, and (3) Fatigue Analysis using a multiaxial strainlife method. The steps (20 )e(2) and (3) must be repeated for each corrosion defect. These three phases will be described in more detail later on. Using SCFs means that the stress analysis is carried out for the plain pipeline (uncorroded) and a one-dimensional model may be

considered for the pipeline (Global Analysis). This approach differs from that [3,4,8,9] where the stress analysis is normally performed with the structure containing the corrosion defect (Local Analysis). In such cases, the stresses which result from the analysis are already amplied in the defect, but the nite element model, being a solid model, is more complex. In other words, although the calculations of the SCFs require a solid model, neither this model nor the stresses from it are employed in the fatigue analysis. Only the values of both SCFs are utilized. The SCFs also imply that the Global Analysis only needs to be performed once irrespective of the type or the geometry of the corrosion defects.

D.J.S. Cunha et al. / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 113 (2014) 15e24 Table 1 Design and operating parameters of the pipeline. Parameter Pipe material SMYS SMTS Elongation eL Youngs modulus E Poissons ratio n Thermal expansion coefcient a Pipe external diameter De Pipe wall thickness t Soil cover hs Pipe weight w Design pressure pd Maximum operating pressure poper Pipeline installation temperature Tinst Pipeline operating temperature Toper Design life Number of operations per week Number of operations during design life Design fatigue factor DFF Environment fatigue factor EFF e

17

Fig. 1. Methodology owchart.

API 5L X60 413 MPa 517 MPa 0.22 206 GPa 0.3 1.17 105 mm/mm/ C 457.2 mm (18 in) 7.92 mm (0.312 in) 1.0 m 2.18 N/mm 10.30 MPa 8.2 MPa 20  C 80  C 40 years 3 6240 5 2

3. Pipeline characteristics This study was carried out on a buried API-X60 steel pipeline (see Fig. 2) designed according to the ASME B31.4 code [10]. It was assumed that the pipeline curvature is negligibly small and that the soil cover is large enough to prevent the pipeline global buckling. In this case, as the nominal stresses are uniform in both longitudinal and circumferential directions, the fatigue loading of the pipeline containing one corrosion defect reduces to only one stress history. The pipeline operates 3 times a week alternating between hot heavy oil and light products at ambient temperature. The maximum operating pressure is 8.2 MPa and the maximum operating temperature of the oil is 80  C. The main characteristics of the pipeline are shown in Table 1. As the operating temperature is below 120  C, no derating is applied on the steel properties [10]. 4. Geometry of the corrosion defects It is supposed that the pipeline has been operating for several years and during this time corrosion has occurred on its external surface. Two types of corrosion defects are considered in this study: cylindrical wide pit (CWP) and longitudinal patch (LP). In both cases ve corrosion defect sizes are evaluated. The geometry of each pit is described by three key parameters: the pit depth d, the radius of the pit root r and the length a of the cylindrical portion of the pit. Other geometric parameters are: the pit length L, which is the pit longitudinal dimension and the pit width w, which is its circumferential dimension. A corrosion pit is sketched in Fig. 3. The length a of the cylindrical part of the pit is equal to r, the pit depth d is equal to 2r, the pit length L is equal to 2r and the pit width w is approximately equal to 2r. Consequently, the pit length L and the pit width w are equal to the pit depth d. Table 2 presents the dimensions of each pit considered. The corrosion patch geometry is described by the following parameters: the depth d, the length L, the width w, the llet radius r and R and the straight length a of the rectangular part. The shape of the corrosion patch is shown in Fig. 4 and the patch dimensions are in Table 3. 5. Local Analysis 5.1. Solid nite element model The corrosion defects (pits and patches) in Tables 2 and 3 were modeled using solid (3D) Finite Elements (FE) and their corresponding SCFs were calculated using these models. Each model was represented by a 2.6 m straight pipe with a single corrosion defect. A cylindrical coordinate system was used with the following convention: X-axis (radial), Y-axis (circumferential) and Z-axis (longitudinal). The local analyses of all the corroded pipeline models were performed with the ANSYS program [11]. To take advantage of

soil
hs

Fig. 2. Pipeline burial parameters.

Fig. 3. Cylindrical wide pit (CWP): (a) top view, (b) longitudinal view.

18

D.J.S. Cunha et al. / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 113 (2014) 15e24 Table 3 Dimensions of the longitudinal patches (LPs). L (mm) 0.792 1.584 2.376 3.168 3.960 w (mm) 0.792 1.584 2.376 3.168 3.960 d/t 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 Defect LP1 LP2 LP3 LP4 LP5 d (mm) 0.792 1.584 2.376 3.168 3.960 r (mm) 0.634 1.267 1.901 2.534 3.168 a (mm) 0.158 0.317 0.475 0.634 0.792 L (mm) 60 90 120 150 180 w (mm) 20 30 40 50 60 R (mm) 1.268 2.534 3.802 5.068 6.336 d/t 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50

Table 2 Dimensions of the cylindrical wide pits (CWPs). Defect CWP1 CWP2 CWP3 CWP4 CWP5 d (mm) 0.792 1.584 2.376 3.168 3.960 r (mm) 0.396 0.792 1.188 1.584 1.980 a (mm) 0.396 0.792 1.188 1.584 1.980

symmetry only a quarter of each model was analyzed. The solid FE models were constructed using the non-conforming 8-node brick element SOLID45 available in the ANSYS FE library. Appropriate boundary conditions were applied to the symmetry planes (see Fig. 5). The FE models were extended far enough beyond the corroded region to prevent the end conditions from affecting the results. In the corroded region, 8 elements were used through its thickness and at some distance outside the corroded region this number was reduced to 4 elements through the thickness (see Fig. 6). This mesh density was selected after a convergence study in which linear analyses were performed using an increasing degree of mesh renement.

The analysis of the plain pipe (uncorroded) was performed using a uniform mesh solid FE model with 4 elements through the thickness. In total, eleven solid FE models were constructed: one for the plain pipe and ten for the pipe with each type of corrosion pits and patches presented in Tables 2 and 3. For each solid FE model a linear analysis was performed. In these analyses, the pipeline was subjected to an internal pressure and a longitudinal tension. In fact, the longitudinal tension simulates the temperature loading effect. 5.2. Stress concentration factors (SCFs) For each applied loading (internal pressure and longitudinal tension) and each direction (longitudinal and circumferential or hoop) the SCFs were determined as the ratio between the maximum stress component in the corroded region and the corresponding stress in the uncorroded pipeline (nominal stress):

 SCFi 
k

sk i

  max
nom

sk i

i L; h

and

k p; DT

(1)

In order to simplify the SCFs application, the SCF for longitudinal stress was taken as the mean value between the two longitudinal SCFs related to the internal pressure and the temperature loading. Therefore, as the temperature (or longitudinal loading) has no inuence in the circumferential (hoop) direction, in this work the SCFs are given as:

SCFL

SCFL p SCFL DT ; 2

SCFh SCFh p

(2)

The SCFs curves are shown in Fig. 7 as a function of the normalized defect depth (d/t). Their numerical values are presented in Tables 4 and 5. The SCFs unitary values corresponding to the plain pipe (design condition) were included in the rst line of both tables as new corrosion defects named CWP0 and LP0 respectively.

Fig. 4. Longitudinal patch (LP): (a) top view, (b) longitudinal view, (c) cross-section.

Fig. 5. Boundary conditions of the solid FE models.

D.J.S. Cunha et al. / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 113 (2014) 15e24

19

Fig. 6. Solid FE models used to calculate the SCFs: (a) plain pipe, (b) pit CWP3, and (c) patch LP2.

6. Global Analysis 6.1. Pipe model The Global Analysis was carried out using ABAQUS [12] and PATRAN [13] programs. The pipeline was represented by a 1.0 mlong pipe segment. The stress and strain components are referenced to a local coordinate system with the following convention: x-axis (longitudinal), y-axis (circumferential) and z-axis (radial). A single PIPE21 available in ABAQUS FE library was used to model the 1.0 m long pipe segment. This element has two nodes with 3-d.o.f. per node. Both extreme nodes were considered clamped. Due to this restriction on the pipeline movement, and also the pipeline straight geometry, the soil has no inuence on the stress analysis. As the Global Analysis is elastic, the material behavior is characterized only by the Youngs modulus and Poissons ratio. Furthermore, the analysis is considered to be nonlinear geometric (NLGEOM optional parameter). 6.2. Basic cyclic loadings The basic loadings are made up of the internal pressure p and temperature loading DT variations related to the pipeline intermittent operation with hot heavy oil. In the numeric Global Analysis with ABAQUS, the basic loadings were applied throughout 4 cycles as depicted in Fig. 8. Each cycle

was composed of 4 load-steps [14] in such a way as to represent both the start-up operation (internal pressure application followed by the temperature loading application) and the shut-down operation (internal pressure removal or depressurization of the pipeline followed by the temperature loading removal or pipeline cooling). Within each step, the loading was incremented using an automatic time stepping algorithm, (only the initial/nal values and minimum/maximum increment limits were provided). The internal pressure was applied considering the pipeline internal diameter as a reference.
4,00 Patch - (SCF)L Patch - (SCF)h 3,00 SCF Pit - (SCF)L Pit - (SCF)h

2,00

1,00 0 0,1 0,2 d /t

Fig. 7. Stress concentration factors of the corrosion defects.

0,3

0,4

0,5

20

D.J.S. Cunha et al. / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 113 (2014) 15e24

Table 4 Stress concentration factors of the corrosion pits CWPs. Defect CWP0 CWP1 CWP2 CWP3 CWP4 CWP5 d/t 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 (SCFL)p 1.000 1.707 2.099 2.214 2.284 2.370 (SCFL)DT 1.000 1.568 1.867 2.094 2.258 2.398 SCFLa 1.000 1.638 1.983 2.154 2.271 2.384 SCFh 1.000 1.601 1.901 2.005 2.086 2.162 Fig. 8. Basic cyclic loadings (out-of-phase/NP constant-amplitude pressure and temperature variations due to the start-up and shut-down operations).

a The SCFL mean value (see Eq. (2)) was applied to the longitudinal stresses due to both basic loadings (internal pressure and temperature loading).

6.3. Nominal stresses In a pressurized, sufciently buried pipeline, the longitudinal strain is nil because of the soil imposed restriction. Under these boundary conditions, a hot pipeline develops only membrane stresses: one circumferential sh and other longitudinal sL, the latter resulting from the sum of the longitudinal stresses (sL)P and (sL)DT caused by the longitudinal displacement restraint. The pipeline nominal stresses during the rst three cycles are shown in Figs. 9 and 10. Similarly to the basic loadings, the longitudinal and circumferential stress components are out-of-phase and have constant amplitudes. The points B and D in Fig. 10 correspond to the operating pressure application (p poper) and removal (p 0) respectively. The points C and A correspond to the temperature loading application (DT DTmax Toper Tinst) and removal (DT 0) respectively. Some typical nominal stress values acting on the pipeline during a cycle are shown in Table 6. They correspond to the vertices of the lozenge in Fig. 10 and/or to the times 1, 2 and 3. Due to the simplicity of the model, these values could also be obtained analytically (see Table 7). As the stresses are elastic and the soil has no effect on their variations with time, the rst cycle is simply repeated throughout the analysis. 7. Fatigue analysis The fatigue analysis was carried out using FE-SAFE program [8]. The fatigue analysis phase is characterized by the following steps: (a) fatigue loading (nominal stresses) reading; (b) stress amplication by the SCFs; (c) plasticity correction (Neubers rule) using the static and cyclic true stressestrain curves and nally (d) the fatigue life/damage calculation using a multiaxial strain-life method together with a uniaxial eN curve. These steps are described below. 7.1. Fatigue loading and application of SCFs In this analysis, the fatigue loading is given by the nominal longitudinal and circumferential stress histories. As the rst stress
Table 5 Stress concentration factors of the corrosion patches LPs. Defect LP0 LP1 LP2 LP3 LP4 LP5 d/t 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 (SCFL)p 1.000 1.719 2.152 2.520 2.988 3.484 (SCFL)DT 1.000 1.577 1.847 2.104 2.316 2.527 SCFLa 1.000 1.648 2.000 2.312 2.652 3.006 SCFh 1.000 1.769 2.445 2.902 3.465 4.046

cycle repeats itself on all subsequent cycles (see Fig. 9), only one cycle needs to be analyzed, naturally, the rst one (see Fig. 11). It should be mentioned that the calculated fatigue life is the same irrespective of whether the complete stress history is input (as in Fig. 11) or only their inection points (stresses at times 0, 1, 2, 3 and 4) are provided. For a corrosion defect, the nominal/elastic stresses are amplied by the SCFs according to the following expression:

si SCFi ,si nom ;

i L; h

(3)

The SCFs of a corrosion defect may be applied either before the fatigue analysis, with the manual calculation of the Eq. (3), or while entering the fatigue loading (nominal stresses) to the fatigue software [8]. The second form was adopted in this study due to the simplicity of considering only one corrosion defect at a time and because it allows the application of a different SCF to each stress component. Moreover, by taking different corrosion defects in the same pipeline, as the nominal stresses are the same, only the SCFs values need to be changed in the load denition le (*.ldf) for each defect fatigue analysis. In this way, following the nomenclature shown in Fig. 12, the nominal stress history is given as two signals, and the corresponding stress tensor/datasets dsi h [sxx syy szz syz szx], i L, h, are dened as unit tensor/datasets whose components are nil, except that related to each signal, which is assumed to be equal to 1. Both signals and unit tensor are provided in two different ASCII les (*.txt). 7.2. Stressestrain curves 7.2.1. Elastic behavior Before the plasticity correction, using the multiaxial versions of the stressestrain relationship for elastic behavior [3,7,15] and
400
Mises (L)nom (h)nom

Stress (MPa)

200

-200 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Time
Fig. 9. Nominal stress history in the rst three cycles.

10

11

12

a The SCFL mean value (see Eq. (2)) was applied to the longitudinal stresses due to both basic loadings (internal pressure and temperature loading).

D.J.S. Cunha et al. / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 113 (2014) 15e24

21

300 1st cycle 2nd cycle

Hoop stress (MPa)

C (t = 2)
200

B'

B (t = 1)

Table 7 Equations of some typical nominal-stress values during a loading cycle in a buried pipeline (see Figs. 10 and 11, and Table 6). Point Longitudinal stress (sL) Hoop stress Von Mises equivalent stress (seq) A B B0 C D
a b

100

0 0 0 sh vsh a vsh 0 sh sh EaDT vsh sh EaDT 2 vsh 1=2 b EaDT 0 EaDT p v 1 v v2 y0:889 < 1/seq B0 > seq B. v EaDT 1 2v v2 sh > 0/seq C > seq D.

D (t = 3)
0 -200 -150 -100 -50 0

A (t = 0)
50 100

7.3. Strain-life method The uniaxial eN curve is dened by the CofneManson (CM) equation:

Longitudinal stress (MPa)

Fig. 10. Nominal stresses according to the start-up and shut-down loading sequence.

D
2

s0f
E

c 2Nb 0 f 2N

(6)

the amplied nominal principal stresses (see Figs. 11 and 12), the corresponding nominal principal strains are calculated (see Fig. 13). Note that the strains are triaxial (3 [v/ (1 v)](1 2)) while the stresses are biaxial (s3 sz 0). Both principal stresses and principal strains in the FE-SAFE output le (*.log) are elastic. 7.2.2. Plasticity correction In the absence of experimental data, the static stressestrain curve (uniaxial curve) was estimated from the SMYS and SMTS stresses using the RambergeOsgood equation (see Fig. 14):

The fatigue life for a multiaxial strain parameter can be calculated by modifying the right-hand side of Eq. (6) appropriately [8], i.e., keeping the same general format and the same material constants (E, s0 ; 0 , b, c). In this study, the fatigue lives of the corrosion f f defects were obtained using the multiaxial BrowneMiller (BM) algorithm [3e5,8]:

Dgmax
2

Dn
2

1:65

s0f
E

c 2N b 1:750 f 2N

(7)

true

strue
E

s

true

1=h

(4)

and assuming the engineering ultimate strain to be half of the elongation. According to API Spec 5L [16], for X60 steel, the elongation is 22%. As mentioned in Fig. 14, the following values were obtained for the hardening parameters: H 690 MPa and h 0.08. Similarly, the cyclic stressestrain curve was dened as:

true

strue
E

strue
Hc

1=hc (5)

Table 6 Typical FE nominal stress values acting on the pipeline during a loading cycle (see Figs. 10 and 11). Point B, B0 , C B D C C Time 1-2 1 3 2 2 Stress Circumferential stress sh due to the pressure poper Longitudinal stress (sL)p due to the pressure poper Longitudinal stress (sL)DT due to the temperature loading DT Toper Tinst Total longitudinal stress sL Von Mises equivalent stress seq (MPa) 228.48

Stress (MPa)

Due to the lack of experimental data, in this study, the cyclic curve was taken to be the same as the static material curve, i.e., Hc H and hc h (see Fig. 14). That is, neither a hardening benet nor a detrimental softening was taken into account. The amplied nominal stress/strain plasticity correction, which is an integral part of FE-SAFE, is based on a multiaxial approach using Neubers rule [3e5,8,17,18]. In this process, the cyclic stresse strain curves are modied to allow for the effect of biaxial stresses [3,15].

Its worth noting that, under uniaxial conditions (3 2 v1), the multiaxial BM equation (Eq. (7)) produces the same fatigue life as does the uniaxial CM equation (Eq. (6)) itself [8]. The BrowneMiller equation proposes that the maximum fatigue damage occurs on the plane which experiences the maximum shear strain amplitude, and the damage is a function of both this shear strain gmax and the strain n normal to this plane (see Fig. 15). According to Refs. [3,4], this is an attractive fatigue criterion because it uses standard uniaxial material properties and also gives the most realistic life estimates for ductile metals [3,4]. When the principal stresses/strains are out-of-phase/nonproportional (NP), a critical plane (CP) technique is used. In the biaxial case, the maximum shear planes are rotated round the 3axis, which is normal to the surface, through an angle f (0  f  180 ) varying typically in 10 increments (see Fig. 15). The plane with the highest calculated damage is the critical plane, and

400
(L)nom (h)nom

200

-200
68.54 144.61 76.07 274.54

2 Time

Fig. 11. Basic fatigue loading history (nominal stress components of the rst cycle, also identied in FE-SAFE [8] as the in-plane principal stresses (s1)nom h (sh)nom and (s2)nom h (sL)nom).

22

D.J.S. Cunha et al. / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 113 (2014) 15e24

800

True stress (MPa)

600

400

200
Fig. 12. Amplication of the stresses during the fatigue loading history reading. In order to apply different SCFs to the stress components, these were given as signals, and the datasets dsi h [sxx syy szz syz szx], i L, h, dened as unit datasets: dsL [1 0 0 0 0 0] and dsh [0 1 0 0 0 0].
Static (h=0.08, H=690 MPa) Cyclic (hc=0.08, Hc=690 MPa)

0 0 0,02 0,04 0,06 0,08 0,1 0,12 True strain (mm/mm)

the calculated damage on this plane determines the fatigue life of the structure being analyzed. Moreover, under the condition of NP loadings the plasticity correction is carried out using an incremental Neubers rule [3e 5,8,18] in terms of deviatoric stressestrain combined with a multiaxial cyclic plasticity model, i.e., kinematic hardening model, together with multiaxial stressestrain relations. In the absence of experimental data, the uniaxial fatigue parameters were estimated by adjusting the CM equation (Eq. (6)) to an adequate existing eN curve. In particular, the fatigue strength coefcient was estimated as [19]:

Fig. 14. Estimated uniaxial stressestrain curves (see Eqs. (4) and (5)).

D nDi

n  afat Ni

(10)

where the fatigue usage factor is given by:

afat

1 DFF,EFF

(11)

s0f 1:5su

(8)

Alternatively, introducing D0 (afat)1D and N0 afatN with N h Ni, the criterion given by Eq. (10) can be rewritten as:

The proposed methodology uses the ASME best-t curve [20e 22] which is, in fact, a strain-life (eN) uniaxial curve [21e23]. For the API X-60 steel (su 517 MPa) it can be estimated by Eq. (6) with the following constant values (see Fig. 16):

D0 DFF,EFF

n n 01 N N

(12)

s0f 775:5 MPa;

b 0:14;

0 f 0:31;

c 0:48 (9)

8. Results The fatigue life of the pipeline was calculated under the conditions given in Table 1. The geometric characteristics and the SCFs of the corrosion defects considered in this analysis (ve pits and ve patches) are shown in Tables 2e5. Although the metal loss due to corrosion is a time dependent process, it was assumed that the corrosion defects exist since the start of the pipeline operation and their dimensions did not vary with time. Fatigue cracks usually initiate from the body surface. In the case of a pipe, this can be on the outer or on the inner wall surfaces. However, assuming that the pipe is a thin shell submitted only to pressure and temperature loadings, the stresses are the same at any pipe radial surface and so there is not this distinction in terms of which surface cracks initiate. The absolute value of the elastoplastic BM-parameter amplitude e/2, identied as the left-hand side of Eq. (7), and the corresponding fatigue life N are shown in Figs. 17 and 18, respectively, as functions of the angle f related to rotation of principal/shear planes round the principal axis 3 (3-axis h z-axis), mentioned in Section

The endurance limit was assumed to be 1 1015 cycles or 2 1015 reversals (half-cycles). 7.4. Fatigue damage In general, the fatigue damage is supposed to be calculated using the PalmgreneMiner rule [3,5,8,15]. In this study, as the fatigue loading amplitudes are constant the damage was simply calculated as:
2000
(1)nom

Principal strain (-strain)

(2)nom

1000
(3)nom

-1000

-2000 0 1 2 Time
Fig. 13. Principal strains of the rst cycle (triaxial strains) for the plain pipe (defect CWP0 or defect LP0). In this particular case, as the SCFi 1.0, i L, h, these strains coincide with the nominal principal strains related to the nominal stresses in Fig. 11.

Fig. 15. BrowneMiller (BM) critical plane (CP) method.

D.J.S. Cunha et al. / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 113 (2014) 15e24

23

1000
ASME best-fit curve [2022] CoffinManson adjusting (Sf'=775.5 MPa, b=0.14, ef'=0.31, c=0.48) Corresponding BrownMiller equation with parameter e/2 (Eq. (7))

5,E+07 plane 1-2 4,E+07 plane 1-3 plane 2-3

100

Strain amplitude (%)

10

Life N (repeats)

3,E+07

2,E+07

0,1

1,E+07

0,01 1,E+01 1,E+02 1,E+03 1,E+04 1,E+05 1,E+06 1,E+07 1,E+08 2N (half-cycles)
Fig. 16. Uniaxial strain-life curve adopted in the fatigue analysis (CofneManson adjusting of the ASME best-t curve). The multiaxial BM-curve (Eq. (7)) uses the same uniaxial constants.

0,E+00 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 "C/P Ang" or angle (degree)

Fig. 18. Fatigue life of the loading history throughout the rotation of the three shear planes round the 3-axis for the plain pipe (defect CWP0 or defect LP0). Lives correspondent to the BM-parameters (|e|/2) shown in Fig. 17.

7.3. In fact, the elastic and elastoplastic values of the BM-parameter/ strain are available at both extremes of the range/cycle (e1 and e2) in function of the angle f, so that the user can calculate |e|/ 2 h je2 e1j/2. According to both these gures, the BM-parameter is maximum and/or the fatigue life is minimum at f 30 on the plane 1e2. These results mean that the likely cracks will originate at a plane (critical plane) normal to the pipe surface (case A shown in Fig. 15) and whose normal vector n makes a 30 angle with the reference principal axis s* 1 related to the stress tensor s* taken as a reference [8] to dene the surface orientation. In general, s* is dened as the stress tensor, within the stress history, with the largest principal stress or, if the other two principals at this sample are negligibly small, the one with at least two signicant principals [8]. In this study, the stress tensor of time t 1 (the end of the rst load step with the internal pressure totally applied), whose rst principal axis coincides with the pipe circumferential (hoop) direction, was chosen as a reference. Therefore, the critical plane itself makes a 30 angle with the pipe longitudinal axis (the reference second principal axis s* 2 ) and/ or, equivalently, its normal makes a 120 angle with the pipe longitudinal axis (x-axis) in accordance with the angle fx. Moreover, the fatigue loading history (longitudinal and circumferential stresses shown in Fig. 11) were all classied as Non-proportional (constant direction principals), that is, q1 0 at any time, and the circumferential stresses/strains were identied as

the rst principals. The only interval, where the fatigue loadings were proportional, was the rst load step related to the internal pressure application, when sL (sL)p nsh (see Table 7 and Fig. 10). In a defect free pipe subjected to internal pressure and an axial loading or temperature, the stress/strain principal axes are always in the pipe longitudinal (axial) and circumferential (hoop) directions regardless of the phase between these loadings [5]. In this study, the fatigue loadings (biaxial stresses) are non-proportional due to the out-of-phase nature of the basic cyclic loadings. The fatigue life and fatigue damage for the corrosion pits and the corrosion patches are shown in Tables 8 and 9, respectively. The largest elastoplastic values of the BM-parameter/strain amplitude e/2 were also included in these tables. For both types of corrosion defects the larger the defect the higher the fatigue damage. As previously mentioned, the corrosion defects named CWP0 and LP0 are in fact the defect free pipe (design condition). As shown in Table 8 and Fig. 19, considering the fatigue damage acceptance criterion D  0.1 from Eqs. (10) and (11), all corrosion pits were accepted for more than 40 years, even the one which has the maximum depth (CWP5). However, the same doesnt apply in the case of patches. As shown in Table 9 and Fig. 19, only the corrosion patches LP1 and LP2 were accepted for more than 40 years. The corrosion patches LP3, LP4 and LP5 violate the fatigue damage acceptance criterion slightly above 26 years, 13 years and 6 years respectively. 9. Conclusions

0,14

plane 1-2
|Cycle--Ampl| or |e|/2 (%) 0,12 0,10 0,08 0,06 0,04 0,02

plane 1-3 plane 2-3

A methodology for the fatigue life assessment of hot pipelines containing corrosion defects in the base material was presented in this paper. The general procedure includes three main phases: Global Analysis of the pipeline represented by a one-dimensional

Table 8 Fatigue damage of the corrosion pits for the pipeline design life (40 years). Defect CWP0 CWP1 CWP2 CWP3 CWP4 CWP5
a b c

d/t 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50

e/2 (%)a 0.1202 0.1932 0.2307 0.2450 0.2562 0.2671

N (repeats)b 1.48E06 2.77E05 1.58E05 1.31E05 1.14E05 1.00E04

D n/Nb,c 0.0042 0.0225 0.0395 0.0476 0.0547 0.0624

30

60

90

120

150

180

"C/P Ang" or angle (degree)

Fig. 17. BM-parameter amplitude throughout the rotation of the three shear planes round the 3-axis for the plain pipe (defect CWP0 or defect LP0), after plasticity correction.

Largest elastoplastic values, critical plane 1e2 with f 30 or fx 120 . N N h 1/Di due to loading history be consisted of a single cycle. n 3 cycles/week 52 weeks/year 40 years 6240 cycles.

24

D.J.S. Cunha et al. / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 113 (2014) 15e24

Table 9 Fatigue damage of the corrosion patches for the pipeline design life (40 years). Defect LP0 LP1 LP2 LP3 LP4 LP5
a b c

d/t 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50

e/2 (%)a 0.1202 0.2103 0.2905 0.3615 0.4702 0.6040

N (repeats)b 1.48E06 2.11E05 7.86E04 4.23E04 2.08E04 1.08E04

D n/Nb,c 0.0042 0.0296 0.0794 0.1475 0.3000 0.5778

together with the plasticity, which may occur in the corrosion defect, the fatigue loading was reduced to only one nominal stress history, and the fatigue analysis of the various corrosion defects required only the changing of the SCFs values. Finally, its worth pointing out that this is a purely theoretical study and testing is required to validate the approach.

Largest elastoplastic values, critical plane: 1e2 with f 30 or fx 120 . N N h 1/Di due to loading history be consisted of a single cycle. n 3 cycles/week 52 weeks/year 40 years 6240 cycles.

Acknowledgments The authors would like to thank PETROBRAS for the permission to publish this paper.

0,60
Pits

References
[1] Eiden H, Mackeinstein P. Safe service life analysis for pipelines e an engineering method with various applications. In: Proc. of international conference on pipeline inspection, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, CANMET CDD 621 86720 631; 1983. p. 583e97. [2] Chuahan V, Swankie TD, Espiner R, Wood I. Developments in methods for assessing the remaining strength of corroded pipelines; 2009. NACE paper 09115, NACE corrosion. [3] Fe-safe fatigue theory reference manualFE-SAFE user manual, vol. 2. UK: Safe Technology Limited; 2006. version 5.2. [4] Draper J. Metal fatigue e failure and success, Journe Scientique, Les Mthodes de Dimensionnement en Fatigue; 27 octobre, 2004. [5] Socie DF, Marquis GB. Multiaxial fatigue. Warrendale, PA, USA: Society of Automotive Engineers; 2000. [6] Palmer-Jones R, Turner TE. Pipeline buckling, corrosion and low cycle fatigue. In: OMAE98-0905, 17th international conference on offshore mechanics and article engineering, Lisbon, July 5e9, 1998. [7] Technical note e biaxial fatigue. UK: Safe Technology Limited; 2003. [8] Fe-safe user manual, vol. 1. UK: Safe Technology Limited; 2006. version 5.2. [9] Maksimovic S. Fatigue life analysis of aircraft structural components. Sci Tech Rev 2005;LV(1). [10] Anon. Pipeline transportation systems for liquid hydrocarbons and other liquids e a supplement to ASME B31 code for pressure piping. New York: The American Society of Mechanical Engineering; 2009. [11] Ansys engineering analysis system: users manual, version 8.1. ANSYS, Inc.; 2004. [12] Hibbit HD, Karlson BI, Sorensen P. ABAQUS documentation, version 6.6-EF. Pawtucket, RI 02860-04847: Hibbit, Karlson and Sorensen Inc.; 2006. [13] MSC.Patran users guide, version 2005 r2. Santa Ana, CA 92707, USA: MSC.Software Corporation; 2005. [14] Klever FJ, Palmer AC, Kyriakides S. Limit-state design of high-temperature pipelines, OMAE 1994. Pipeline Technol 1984;V:77e92. [15] Dowling NE. Mechanical behavior of materials. 2nd ed. New Jersey: PrenticeHall; 1999. [16] API specication 5L e specication for line pipe. 42nd ed. USA: American Petroleum Institute; January 2000. Effective Date July 2000. [17] Lemaitre J, Chaboche J-L. Mechanics of solid materials. Cambridge University Press; 1990. [18] Buczynski A, Glinka G. An analysis of elasto-plastic strains and stresses in notched bodies subjected to cyclic non-proportional loading paths. In: Carpinteri A, de Freitas M, Spagnoli A, editors. 6th International conference on biaxial/multiaxial fatigue and fracture. Lisbon, Portugal: ESIS Publication 31, Elsevier; 2003. p. 265e83. 2001. [19] Meggiolaro MA, Castro JTP. Statistical evaluation of strain-life fatigue crack initiation predictions. Int J Fatigue 2004;26:463e76. [20] ASME boiler and pressure vessel code, section VII, division II, appendix R: mandatory design based on fatigue analysis. American Society of Mechanical Engineers; 2004. [21] Langer BF. Design of pressure vessels for low-cycle fatigue. J Basic Eng Trans ASME September, 1962:389e402. [22] Rahka K. Review of strain state effects on low-cycle fatigue of notched components, vol. 263. PVP; 1993. p. 185e95. High pressure e codes, analysis, and applications, ASME. [23] Branco CM, Fernandes AA, Castro PMST. Fatigue of welded structures. Lisbon: Fundao Calouste Gulbekian; 1987 [in Portuguese].

0,50 0,40 Damage 0,30 0,20 0,10 0,00

Patches

Corrosion defect
Fig. 19. Fatigue damage of the corrosion pits and patches for the pipeline design life: 40 years (see Tables 8 and 9).

plain pipe model; nominal stress amplication by SCFs obtained with solid FE models, and strain-life calculation. The amplied stresses are elastic and may exceed the yielding limit. Also, due to the out-of-phase/non-proportional (NP) nature of the applied loadings and the pipe cylindrical geometry, the stresses are out-of-phase/NP and their principal directions do not change. Under such conditions, the plasticity correction is performed by applying a multiaxial approach using Neubers rule, and the fatigue life is calculated by using an eN method and the critical plane technique. The multiaxial BrowneMiller algorithm and the uniaxial eN ASME best-t curve were chosen for the fatigue life calculations. The proposed methodology was applied to an onshore pipeline containing corrosion defects on its external surface. Five corrosion pits and ve corrosion patches, with different sizes, were considered in this analysis. The fatigue results (life and/or damage of all corrosion defects) showed that all pits and only the two smaller patches could be accepted for more than 40 years (6240 cycles or start-up/shut-down operations). The other three corrosion patches would be approved up to just over 26, 13 and 6 years respectively. This means that fatigue becomes an important failure mode when corroded pipeline segments are left in operation without being replaced. It should be noted that despite the complexity related to the multiaxial stress/strain and its out-of-phase/NP characteristics