The authors propose a failure criterion for pipelines with surface and longitudinal flat through defects based on destructive testing of specimens with induced cracks over the width and thickness. The specimens are prepared from pipeline walls. The crack depth, the failure load, and the specimen metal deformation curve are used to build the rated rupture stress to crack depth function and to determine the failure toughness values for crack propagation over the wall thickness and for through crack propagation cases. The suggested criterion is found to be aligned with the ultimate crack resistance failure criterion. Assuming the stress-strain state at failure in a cracked specimen to be close to the stress-strain state at failure in the area of a longitudinal surface crack in a pipeline the suggested approach can be applied to assess the strength of a cracked pipeline, which has the wall thickness and the deformation curve similar to that of the specimen. The article considers the conditions for developing the so-called "leak to failure" in a pipeline depending on the failure toughness anisotropy coefficient. We have proposed and substantiated the approach to ranking flat defects in a pipeline depending on the severity level using the development of the leak to failure. The consequences of a leak are substantially less severe than that of a failure. This fact shall be taken into account when ranking flat defects by the severity level. Therefore, if the surface defect length is known from the smart pigging results the type of possible loss of tightness, i.e. rupture or leakage, can be assessed well before the accident. The defects which can lead to a rupture should be repaired as the first priority.
References
1. Kiefner J.F. et al., Failure stress levels of flaws in pressurized cylinders, American society of testing and materials report, 1973, ASTM STP 536, pp. 461–481,
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1520/stp49657s
2. Cosham A., Hopkins Ph., Leis B., Srack-like defects in pipelines: the relevance of pipeline-specific methods and standards, Proceedings of the 2012 9th International Pipeline Conference, September 24–28, 2012, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1115/IPC2012-90459
3. Jason Y., Shenwei Zh., Shahani K. et al., Validate crack assessment models with in-service and hydrotest failures, Proceedings of the 2018 12th International Pipeline Conference September 24–28, 2018, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1115/IPC2018-78251
4. Yan Z. et al., Model error assessment of burst capacity models for energy pipelines containing surface cracks, International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping, 2014, August–September, pp. 120–121, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpvp.2014.05.007
5. Scott C., Further development of the gamma exponent model for assessment of flaws in oil and gas pipelines, Journal of Pipeline Science and Engineering, 2021, V. 1, pp. 321–328, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpse.2021.06.002
6. Mekhanika katastrof. Opredelenie kharakteristik treshchinostoykosti konstruktsionnykh materialov. Metodicheskie rekomendatsii (Mechanics of catastrophes. Determination of crack resistance characteristics of structural materials. Guidelines), Part 2, Moscow: Publ. of FTsNTP PP “Bezopasnost'”, Assotsiatsiya KODAS, 2001, 254 p.
7. Pestrikov V.M., Morozov E.M., Mekhanika razrusheniya (Fracture mechanics), St. Petersburg: Professiya Publ., 2012, 552 p.
8. Varshitskiy V.M., Valiev M.I., Kozyrev O.A., Methodology of definition of retesting interval for a pipeline section (In Russ.), Nauka i tehnologii truboprovodnogo transporta nefti i nefteproduktov = Science & Technologies: Oil and Oil Products Pipeline Transportation, 2013, no. 3 (11), pp. 42–46.
9. Broek D., Elementary engineering fracture mechanics, Groningen: Noordhoff International Publ., 1974.
10. Kiefner J.F., Kolovich K.M., Models for predicting failure stress levels for defects affecting ERW and flash-weld seams, Final report as the deliverable of sub-task 2.4 on U.S. Department of Transportation Other Transaction Agreement No. DTPH56-11-T-000003, January 3, 2013.
11. Fracture: An
