Corrosion defect harmfulness by domain failure assessment diagram

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.sidebar##

Published Sep 30, 2018
Guy Pluvinage O. Bouledroua M. H. Meliani

Abstract

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

How to Cite

1.
Pluvinage G, Bouledroua O, Meliani MH. Corrosion defect harmfulness by domain failure assessment diagram. PST [Internet]. 2018Sep.30 [cited 2020Apr.7];2(3):163-77. Available from: https://pipeline-science.com/index.php/PST/article/view/73

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.
Abstract 317 | PDF file Downloads 256

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.details##

Keywords

corrosion defects, FAD, ERF; limit analysis

Section
Original Work