Evaluating Pipeline Operational Integrity - Sand Production

of 8
Evaluating Pipeline Operational Integrity - Sand Production
Jayanthi Vijay Sarathy, M.E, CEng, MIChemE, Chartered Chemical Engineer, IChemE, UK
Piping systems associated with production,
transporting oil & gas, water/gas injection
into reservoirs, experience wear & tear with
time & operations. There would be metal loss
due to erosion, erosion-corrosion and
cavitation to name a few. The presence of
corrosion defects provides a means for
localized fractures to propagate causing pipe
ruptures & leakages. This also reduces the
pipe/pipeline maximum allowable operating
pressure [MAOP].
The following document covers methods by
DNV standards to quantitatively estimate the
erosion rate for ductile pipes and bends due
to the presence of sand. It is to be noted that
corrosion can occur in many other scenarios
such as pipe dimensioning, flow rate
limitations, pipe performance such as
pressure drop, vibrations, noise, insulation,
hydrate formation and removal, severe slug
flow, terrain slugging and also upheaval
buckling. However these aspects are not
covered in this document.
Based on the erosional rates of pipes and
bends, the Maximum Safe Pressure/Revised
MAOP is evaluated based on a Level 1
Assessment procedure for the remaining
strength of the pipeline. The Level 1
procedures taken up in this tutorial are
RSTRENG 085dL method, DNVGL RP F-101
(Part-B) and PETROBRAS’s PB Equation.
General Notes & Assumptions
1. In evaluating corrosion defects, the
generally accepted or traditional approach
is the ASME B31G code which gives overly
conservative results in terms of lower
burst pressures with which operators
repair/replace the corroded pipe/pipeline
segments. This represents higher
maintenance costs necessitating the need
to follow a procedure that meets pipeline
integrity requirements while also lowering
maintenance, repair & replacement costs.
2. To assess pipeline integrity, standard
corrosion assessment procedures are
classified on three levels – Level 1, Level 2
and Level 3. Level 1 procedure represents
longitudinal area of metal loss based on the
maximum defect depth and overall defect
length. The ASME B31G, RSTRENG 085dL,
and DNVGL RP F-101 method for single
defect can be classified as Level 1 methods.
Level 2 procedure represents longitudinal
area of metal loss based on the defect
depth profile. The RSTRENG Effective Area
method and DNVGL RP F-101 method for
complex shaped defects can be classified as
Level 2 methods. Level 3 assessment
methods involve using Finite element
methods (FEM) provided the FEM model is
validated against experimental results.
3. Corrosion failures are caused by two main
mechanisms – Leakage resulting in a
relatively small loss of product and
Rupture causing a sudden release of
pressure which propagates in isolation.
4. To understand corrosion assessment
procedures, two terms come into play –
Folias Bulging factor [MT] and flow stress
[f]. Folais factor represents the bulging
effect of a shell surface that is thinner in
wall thickness [WT] than the surrounding
shell. It takes into account the work-
hardening effect, i.e., the increase in the
stress concentration levels as the corrosion
defect begins to bulge before eventually
causing a failure. The flow stress is the
stress at which the corrosion defect is
predicted to cause a failure.

of 8
5. In pipeline assessment literature, SMYS
and yield strength are used differently.
Specific Minimum Yield Strength (SMYS) is
the absolute minimum yield strength for a
particular material grade specified by
ASTM standards. Whereas, yield strength is
obtained from mill conducted tensile tests.
Wherever possible yield strength should
be used. In cases, where the yield strength
value is not available, SMYS can be used
instead.
6. When a corrosion defect occurs inside a
pipe/pipeline, the defect tends to
propagate longitudinally. ASME B31G
mandates a maximum allowable
longitudinal length [LM] for a given defect
depth [d]. As per Modified ASME B31G
method i.e., 085dL method, defects are
classified as Long defect and short defect
based on the condition, LS2/Dt = 50, Where
D = Pipeline Outer diameter (OD) and t =
pipeline nominal wall thickness. When
field measured defect’s longitudinal length,
L < LS, the defect is termed as short defect.
When L > LS, the defect is termed as long
defect. The DNVGL RP F-101 method does
not classify defects in relation to their
longitudinal length. The pressure strength
of long defects is a function of the
longitudinal defect length [L]. The Longer
the defect, lower is the failure pressure
However a limit exists in the value of L,
beyond which any large increase in the
longitudinal defect length, L produces very
little reduction in the failure pressure.
7. Long Internal defects are one of the
various causes for geometry corrosion
induced damage that occur in oil & gas
pipelines. These occur on the pipe/pipeline
bottom due to accumulation of liquids
including water. Whereas long external
defects are caused on the pipeline’s outer
surface due to loss of protective coatings.
8. ASME B31G assumes a parabolic profile
across the area of the defect, i.e., Area of
defect = 2/3dL, where, d = Defect depth
and L = Defect longitudinal length.
Whereas with the RSTRENG 085dL
method, the defect area is approximated as
85% of the peak depth, i.e., by using a
factor of 0.85, i.e., Defect Area = 0.85dL.
Figure 1. Corrosion Shape Approximation
9. The potential for sand particles to get
carried from the formation to well bore in
oil & gas wells is subjected to the reservoir
geology. With the onset of water formation
or rapid change in well conditions, there is
sand formation. Employing a zero rate of
sand production would be economically
infeasible. Therefore sand management
programmes are put in place whereby
upstream facilities are equipped with sand
traps with necessary safeguards that aid in
achieving an acceptable sand rate. The
standard used for this tutorial is DNVGL RP
O501 which provides empirical models that
cover plain erosion & not the combined
effects of corrosion-erosion, droplet erosion
& cavitation. The tutorial therefore
considers plain erosion which leads to
corrosion pits in the pipeline & the
associated MAOP is computed using the
standard corrosion assessment methods.
10. When applying the original ASME B31G
method in simplified form (Appendix L of
ASME B31.8), the Safe Operating Pressure
given as P’ must first be calculated using the
pressure corresponding to a hoop stress
equal to 100% of SMYS for the operating
pressure, P. The resulting P’ is the estimated
failure pressure, which must then be

of 8
divided by the design factor/desired factor
of safety to obtain the correct “Safe
Operating Pressure”.
Case Study: Problem Statement
30 MMscfd of well fluids at 40 bara and 400C
is transported through an 8” DN carbon steel
flowline from the well head to a trunk line.
The process & mechanical details are,
Table 1. Process & Mechanical Details
Parameter Value Unit
Operational Life of Pipeline 25 Years
Location of Gas Pipeline Deserted -
Location Class
Class 1,
Div 2
-
Design Factor [F] 0.72 -
Pipeline Joining Method ERW -
Longitudinal Joint Factor [E] 1.0 -
API 5L Spec
PSL1
X65
-
Ultimate Tensile Strength [u] 530 MPa
SMYS [S] 448 MPa
Design Pressure [DP] 44 bara
Design Temperature [DT] 100 0C
De-Rating Factor [T] 1.00 -
Pipeline Diameter [DN] 8.625 in
Corrosion Allowance [CA] 1.0 mm
Gas Flow Rate [mg] 31,657 kg/h
Liquid Flow Rate [ml] 14,928 kg/h
Gas Density [g] 42.0 kg/m3
Liquid Density [l] 713.2 kg/m3
Gas Viscosity [µg] 1.34E-05 kg/m.s
Liquid Viscosity [µl] 4.72E-04 kg/m.s
Mixture Viscosity [µm] 2.58E-05 kg/m.s
Sand Content [ppmW] 50.0 ppmW
Average Sand Particle Size 300 µm
No. of Pipe Diameter [900
Long Elbow]
1.5 [-]
Inclined Pipe Impact angle [] 300 degrees
Pipeline Wall Thickness [WT] Estimation
Based on the ASME B31.8 code the wall-
thickness formula is stated as,
𝑡 =
𝐷𝑃×𝑂𝐷
2×𝐹×𝐸×𝑇×𝑆𝑀𝑌𝑆
(1)
Where,
t = Minimum design wall thickness [in]
DP = Pipeline Design Pressure [psi]
OD = Pipeline Outer Diameter [in]
SMYS = Specific Minimum Yield Stress [psi]
F = Design Factor [-]
E = Longitudinal Weld Joint Factor [E]
T = Temperature De-rating Factor [-]
Applying the ASME B31.8 correlation, the
calculated wall thickness becomes,
𝑡 =
[44×14.5]×8.625×25.4
2×0.72×1×1×[448×145.038]
= 1.49 𝑚𝑚 (2)
The total WT including CA of 1.0 mm is,
𝑡𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 = 1.49 𝑚𝑚 + 1.0 𝑚𝑚 = 2.49 𝑚𝑚 (3)
The Selected WT based on API5L is,
𝑡 𝑠𝑒𝑙𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑒𝑑 = 3.18 𝑚𝑚 [0.125 𝑖𝑛] (4)
The revised design pressure based on the
selected Wall Thickness [WT] is,
𝐷𝑃 =
2×𝐹×𝐸×𝑇×𝑆𝑀𝑌𝑆×𝑡
𝑂𝐷
(5)
𝐷𝑃 =
2×0.72×1×1×[448×145.038]×3.18
8.625×14.5×25.4
= 93.5 𝑏𝑎𝑟𝑎 (6)
The pipeline inside diameter [ID] becomes,
𝐼𝐷 = 𝑂𝐷 − [2 × 𝑊𝑇] (7)
𝐼𝐷 = [8.625 × 25.4] − [2 × 3.18] = 212.73 𝑚𝑚 (8)
The pipeline cross section area [At] becomes,
𝐴 𝑝 =
𝜋𝐷2
4
=
𝜋
4
× [
212.73
1000
]
2
= 0.0355 𝑚2
(9)
Therefore the gas velocity is estimated as,
𝑉𝑔 =
𝑄 𝑔
𝐴 𝑝
=
31,657
3600×42×0.0355
= 5.9 𝑚/𝑠 (10)
The liquid Velocity is estimated as,
𝑉𝑙 =
𝑄 𝐿
𝐴 𝑝
=
14,928
3600×713.2×0.0355
= 0.16 𝑚/𝑠 (11)

of 8
Well Fluids Mixture Properties
The mixture density and mixture viscosity of
the well fluids can be determined as follows.
𝜌 𝑚 =
𝜌 𝑔 𝑉𝑔+𝜌𝑙 𝑉 𝑙
𝑉𝑔+𝑉 𝑙
(12)
𝜇 𝑚 =
𝜇 𝑔 𝑉𝑔+𝜇 𝑙 𝑉 𝑙
𝑉𝑔+𝑉 𝑙
(13)
Therefore applying the above correlations,
𝜌 𝑚 =
[42×5.9]+[713.2×0.16]
5.9+0.16
= 60.2
𝑘𝑔
𝑚3
(14)
𝜇 𝑚 =
[0.0000134×5.9]+[0.000472×0.16]
5.9+0.16
= 0.0000258
𝑘𝑔
𝑚.𝑠
(15)
Inclined Pipe Erosion Rate – DNV RP O501
The flowline profile over the terrain would
have inclined sections. With the onset of
water production from the wells, quartz sand
particles from wells [50 ppmW, 300 µm,
2,650 kg/m3] impinge at an impact angle of
300. As per DNVGL RP O501 [Rev. 2015], for
ductile materials, the maximum erosion
occurs for impact angles in the range of 150 to
300, whereas brittle materials experience
maximum erosion at normal impact angle.
The erosive wear can be estimated as,
𝐸 =
𝑚 𝑝×𝐾×𝑈 𝑝
𝑛×𝐹(𝛼)
𝜌 𝑡×𝐴 𝑡
× [3.15 × 1010] (16)
Where,
mp = Sand Flow rate [kg/s]
K=Material Constant (210-9 for Steel Grades)
n =Material Constant (2.6 for Steel Grades)
Up = Particle Velocity [m/s] (Vg + Vl)
t = Pipeline density [kg/m3]
At = Pipeline Area exposed to Erosion [m2]
F() = Function characteristic of ductility [-]
The value of F() is calculated as,
𝐹(𝛼) = 0.6 × [𝑆𝑖𝑛(𝛼) + 7.2(𝑆𝑖𝑛(𝛼) −
𝑆𝑖𝑛2(𝛼))]
0.6
× [1 − 𝑒−20𝛼] (17)
For the condition, F() [0, 1] for   [0, /2]
Note: 1 mil = 1/1000th of an inch
The sand flow rate based on ppmW is
calculated as,
𝑚 𝑝 =
[𝑚 𝑔+𝑚 𝑙]×𝑝𝑝𝑚𝑊
106
(18)
The erosion rate can be calculated beginning
with estimating the function characterizing
pipeline ductility, F() as follows,
For 300,
𝛼𝜋
180
=
30𝜋
180
= 0.5236 (19)
𝐹(𝛼) = 0.6 × [𝑆𝑖𝑛(0.5236) + 7.2(𝑆𝑖𝑛(0.5236) −
𝑆𝑖𝑛2(0.5236))]
0.6
× [1 − 𝑒−20×0.5236] = 0.9890 (20)
The sand flow rate based on ppmW is,
𝑚 𝑝 =
[31,657+14,928]×50
106
= 2.33 𝑘𝑔/ℎ (21)
The pipeline area exposed to erosion is,
𝐴 𝑡 =
𝐴 𝑝
𝑆𝑖𝑛(𝛼)
=
0.0355
𝑆𝑖𝑛(30)
= 0.0711 𝑚2
(22)
The erosion rate is therefore calculated as,
𝐸 =
2.33×[2×10−9]×[5.9+0.16]2.6×0.989×[3.15×1010]
3600×7,800×0.0711
(23)
𝐸 = 0.0078 𝑚𝑚/𝑦 (𝑜𝑟) 0.31 𝑚𝑖𝑙𝑠/𝑦 (24)
Pipe Bend Erosion Rate – DNVGL RP O501
Pipeline bends are prone to erosional wear.
When the flow direction in the bend changes,
sand particles crash against the bend wall,
instead of following the flow direction.
Assuming a straight length [10D] before the
bend, the erosion rate is estimated as,
Figure 2. Impact Angle [] in Pipeline Bends
The characteristic impact angle,  for the pipe
bend geometry is calculated from the radius

of 8
of curvature. The radius of curvature, Rc [i.e.,
bend radius] for a bend is expressed as
number of pipe diameters. Considering a 900
long elbow, the bend radius in terms of
number of pipe diameters is 1.5, i.e., Rc = 1.5.
𝛼 = 𝑇𝑎𝑛−1
[
1
√2𝑅 𝑐
] (23)
𝛼 = 𝑇𝑎𝑛−1
[
1
√2×1.5
] = 0.5236 𝑟𝑎𝑑 𝑜𝑟 30° (24)
The length of the 900 bend is estimated as,
𝐿 𝐵𝑒𝑛𝑑 =

360
× 2𝜋𝑅 𝑐, 𝑊ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑒 𝜃 = 90° (25)
𝐿 𝐵𝑒𝑛𝑑 =
90
360
× 2𝜋 × 1.5 × 8.625 = 20.3𝑖𝑛 (26)
As per DNVGL RP O0501, the erosional rate
[E] for pipe bends is computed as,
𝐸 =
𝑚 𝑝×𝐾×𝑈 𝑝
𝑛×𝐹(𝛼)×𝐺×𝐶1×𝐺𝐹
𝜌 𝑡×𝐴 𝑡
× [3.15 × 1010] (27)
Where,
E = Erosion Rate [mm/year]
mp = Sand Flow rate [kg/s]
K=Material Constant (210-9 for Steel Grades)
n =Material Constant (2.6 for Steel Grades)
Up = Particle Velocity [m/s] (Vg + Vl)
t = Pipeline density [kg/m3]
At = Bend Area exposed to erosion [m2]
F() = Function characteristic of ductility [-]
G = Particle Size correction function [-]
C1 = Constant accounting for multiple impact
of sand particles at the bend’s outer end [2.5]
GF = Geometry Factor
The geometry factor [GF], is taken to be 1.0
based on the assumption that the straight line
section, upstream of the bend is greater than
10D. For straight line section less than 10D,
the GF increases to 2 or 3. To arrive at the
particle size correction term, G, the
dimensionless parameter A is calculated first.
𝐴 =
𝜌 𝑚
2 ×𝑇𝑎𝑛(𝛼)×𝑈 𝑝×𝐷
𝜌 𝑝×𝜇 𝑚
(28)
The diameter relation [] and critical
diameter relation [g] is calculated as,
𝛾 =
𝑑 𝑝
𝐼𝐷
(29)
Where, dp = Average Particle diameter
𝑑 𝑝,𝑐
𝐼𝐷
= 𝛾𝑐 = {
𝜌 𝑚
𝜌 𝑝[1.88𝑙𝑛(𝐴)−6.04]
𝑖𝑓 0 < 𝛾𝑐 < 1
0.1 𝑖𝑓 𝛾𝑐 ≤ 0 𝑜𝑟 𝛾𝑐 ≥ 0.1
(30)
The particle size correction function [G] is,
𝐺 = {
𝛾
𝛾𝑐
𝑖𝑓 𝛾 < 𝛾𝑐
1 𝑖𝑓 𝛾 ≥ 𝛾𝑐
(31)
The pipeline Bend Area exposed to erosion is,
𝐴 𝑡 =
𝐴 𝑡
𝑆𝑖𝑛(𝛼)
(32)
Applying the expressions to the case study,
𝐴 =
60.22×𝑇𝑎𝑛(30)×6.1×0.2127
2,650×0.0000258
= 39,315 (33)
𝛾 =
300
0.2127×106
= 0.0014 (34)
𝛾𝑔 =
60.2
2,650×[1.88𝑙𝑛(39315)−6.04]
= 0.0016 (35)
Therefore since  < g, the particle size
correction function is,
𝐺 =
𝛾
𝛾 𝑔
=
0.0014
0.0016
= 0.8601 (36)
The critical particle diameter [dp,c] is
calculated as,
𝑑 𝑝,𝑐 = 𝐼𝐷 × 𝛾𝑐 =
0.2127×0.0016
106 = 349µ𝑚 (37)
The pipeline area exposed to erosion is,
𝐴 𝑡 =
𝐴 𝑝
𝑆𝑖𝑛(𝛼)
=
0.0355
𝑆𝑖𝑛(30)
= 0.0711 𝑚2
(38)
The function characterizing pipeline ductility,
F() as follows,
For 300,
𝛼𝜋
180
=
30𝜋
180
= 0.5236 (39)
𝐹(𝛼) = 0.6 × [𝑆𝑖𝑛(0.5236) + 7.2(𝑆𝑖𝑛(0.5236) −
𝑆𝑖𝑛2(0.5236))]
0.6
× [1 − 𝑒−20×0.5236] = 0.9890 (40)
Therefore the erosion rate is computed as,
𝐸 =
2.33×[2×10−9]×[6.1]2.6×0.989×1×2.5×0.86×[3.15×1010]
3600×7,800×0.0711
(41)
𝐸 = 0.0496 𝑚𝑚/𝑦 (𝑜𝑟) 1.95 𝑚𝑖𝑙𝑠/𝑦 (42)

of 8
Max Safe Pressure in Corroded Area
With sand erosion occurring due to sand flow,
defects begin to form on the pipeline inner
surface. These defects have a certain depth of
penetration [d] for a given wall thickness of
the pipe [t]. The following section provides
calculations for the maximum safe pressure
for operation based on RSTRENG 085dL
method, DNVGL RP F101 Single defect
method and PETROBRAS PB method.
As per ASME B31G, for a pit depth of up to
10%, the pipeline can be continued to be
operated with the existing MAOP. For a pit
depth between 10% and 80%, the pipeline
needs to be operated at the revised/reduced
MAOP based on the corroded wall thickness.
For a pit depth greater than 80%, the pipeline
would have to repaired or replaced.
As per ASME B31G, for a contiguous corroded
area having a maximum depth of more than
10% but less than 80% of the nominal pipe
wall thickness, Lm should not extend along the
longitudinal axis of the pipe for a distance
greater than calculated from the expression,
𝐿 𝑚 = 1.12𝐵√𝐷𝑡 (43)
Where,
Lm = Maximum Allowable Longitudinal length
of corroded area [in]
D = Pipeline OD [in]
T = Pipeline selected Wall thickness [in]
The constant B is estimated as,
𝐵 = √[
(
𝑑
𝑡
)
1.1(
𝑑
𝑡
)−0.15
]
2
− 1 (44)
As per ASME B31G, B cannot be > 4.0. For
corrosion depth [d/t] between 10% and
17.5%, the value of B is to be limited to 4.0.
For e.g., with d/t = 0.32, the value of B & Lm is,
𝐵 = √[
0.32
1.1(0.32)−0.15
]
2
− 1 = 1.23 (44)
𝐿 𝑚 = 1.12 × 1.23√8.625 × 0.125 = 1.43 𝑖𝑛 (45)
RSTRENG 085dL Method
The max safe pressure with RSTRENG 085dL
method is determined as follows,
𝑃𝑓 =
2𝑡[𝑆𝑀𝑌𝑆+69]×145.04×𝐹×𝐸×𝑇
𝐷×14.5
[
1−0.85(
𝑑
𝑡
)
1−[0.85(
𝑑
𝑡
)𝑀−1]
] (46)
Where,
SMYS = Specific Min Yield Strength [MPa]
M = Folias Bulging Factor [-]
For the condition, L2/Dt  50, M is,
𝑀 = √1 + 0.6275 [
𝐿2
𝐷𝑡
] − 0.003375 [
𝐿2
𝐷𝑡
]
2
(47)
For the condition, L2/Dt > 50, M is,
𝑀 = 3.3 + 0.032 [
𝐿2
𝐷𝑡
] (48)
For this tutorial, the measured max corroded
area depth [d] and measured longitudinal
length [L] in the inclined pipe is 0.04” and 3”
respectively. For the selected wall thickness
of 3.18 mm, d/t is 0.32, i.e., 32% pit depth.
Similarly for the pipe bend, the measured
max corroded area depth [d] and measured
longitudinal length [L] is 0.06” and 1.3”
respectively. For the selected wall thickness
of 3.18 mm, d/t is 0.48, i.e., 48% pit depth.
Therefore for the inclined pipeline,
𝐿2
𝐷𝑡
=
32
8.625×0.125
= 8.35 < 50 (49)
Since L2/Dt < 50, the Folias bulging factor is,
𝑀 = √1 + [0.6275 × 8.35] − 0.003375[8.35]2 (50)
𝑀 = 2.45 (51)
Therefore the max safe pressure is,
𝑃𝑓 =
2×0.125[448+69]×145.04×0.72×1×1
8.625×14.5
[
1−(0.85×0.32)
1−[0.85×0.32×2.45−1]
]
(52)
𝑃𝑓 = 88.4 𝑏𝑎𝑟𝑎 (53)
Performing similar calculations for Pipe Bend
with d = 0.06” and L=1.3”, the Max safe
pressure is 90.0 bara.

of 8
DNV RP F101 Single Defect Method
The max safe pressure with DNVGL RP F101
single defect method is determined as,
𝑃𝑓 =
2×𝑡×𝜎 𝑢×145.04×𝐹×𝐸×𝑇
[𝐷−𝑡]×14.5
[
1−(
𝑑
𝑡
)
1−[(
𝑑
𝑡
)𝑀−1]
] (54)
Where,
u = Ultimate Tensile Strength [MPa]
𝑀 = √1 + 0.31 [
𝐿2
𝐷𝑡
] (55)
Applying the DNVGL RP F101 Single defect
method to the same inclined pipe and pipe
bend data for an ultimate tensile strength of
530 MPa, the max safe pressure is,
𝑀 = √1 + [0.31 × 8.35] = 1.89 (56)
𝑃𝑓 =
2×0.125×530×145.04×0.72×1×1
[8.625−0.125]×14.5
[
1−1.89
1−[1.89×8.35−1]
] (57)
𝑃𝑓 = 91.9 𝑏𝑎𝑟𝑎 (58)
Performing similar calculations for pipe bend
with d=0.06” and L=1.3”, the Max safe
PETROBRAS PB Method
The max safe pressure with PETROBRAS PB
method is determined as,
𝑃𝑓 =
2×𝑡×𝜎 𝑢×145.04×𝐹×𝐸×𝑇
[𝐷−𝑡]×14.5
[
1−(
𝑑
𝑡
)
1−[(
𝑑
𝑡
)𝑀−1]
] (59)
Where,
u = Ultimate Tensile Strength [MPa]
𝑀 = √1 + 0.217 [
𝐿2
𝐷𝑡
] −
1
1.15×106 [
𝐿2
𝐷𝑡
]
4
(60)
Applying the PETROBRAS PB method to the
same inclined pipe and pipe bend data for an
ultimate tensile strength of 530 MPa, the max
safe pressure is,
𝑀 = √1 + [0.217 × 0.835] −
0.8354
1.15×106 = 1.68 (61)
𝑃𝑓 =
2×0.125×530×145.04×0.72×1×1
[8.625−0.125]×14.5
[
1−1.68
1−[1.68×8.35−1]
] (62)
𝑃𝑓 = 94.3 𝑏𝑎𝑟𝑎 (63)
Performing similar calculations for Pipe Bend
with d = 0.06” and L=1.3”, the Max safe
Results
Summarizing, the max safe pressure is 88.4
bara for pipeline and 90 bara for pipe bend,
Table 2. Max Safe Pressures
Method
Max Safe Pressure,
Pf [bara]
-
Inclined
Pipe
Pipeline
Bend
RSTRENG 085dL 88.4 90.0
DNV RP F101 Single Defect 91.9 96.3
Petrobras PB 94.3 99.7
Design Pressure [DP] 93.5 93.5
Max Safe Pressure, Pf 88.4 90.0
Based on the erosion rate for an operating
period of 25 years, the pipeline WT lost is,
Table 3. Pipeline WT Lost
Parameter
Inclined
Pipe
Pipeline
Bend
Erosion Rate [mm/y] 0.0078 0.0496
WT Lost in 25 Years [mm] 0.20 1.24
References
1. “Managing Sand Production and Erosion”,
DNVGL-RP-O501, Aug 2015 Edition.
2. “Manual for Determining Remaining
Strength of Corroded Pipelines”, ASME
B31G-1991
3. “Folias Factor”, Science Direct,
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/en
gineering/folias-factor
4. “Modified Equation for the Assessment of
Long Corrosion Defects”, Adilson C.
Benjamin, Ronaldo D Vieria, Jose Luiz F.
Friere, Jaime T.P. de Castro,
https://www.researchgate.net/publication
/249657141

APPENDIXA
ParameterValueUnitParameterValueUnitParameterValueUnit
OperationalLifeofPipeline25[Years]GasFlowRate[Mg]31,657[kg/h]GasViscosity[µg]1.34E-05[kg/m.s]
LocationofGasPipelineDeserted[-]LiquidFlowRate[Ml]14,928[kg/h]LiquidViscosity[µl]4.72E-04[kg/m.s]
LocationClassClass1,Div2[-]TotalFlowRate[Mm]46,585[kg/h]MixtureViscosity[µm]2.58E-05[kg/m.s]
DesignFactor[F]0.72[-]GasDensity[ρg]42.0[kg/m
3
]SandTypeQuartzSand[-]
PipelineJoiningMethodERW[-]LiquidDensity[ρl]713.2[kg/m3
]SandDensity[ρp]2,650[kg/m3
]
LongitudinalJointFactor[E]1.0[-]PipelineID[ID]0.2127[m]AverageSandParticleSize300[µm]
API5LSpecPSL1X65[-]PipelineMaterialofConstruction[MOC]CarbonSteel[-]NumberofPipeDiameters[90
0
LongElbow]1.5[-]
UltimateTensileStrength[σu]530[MPa]PipelineMaterialDensity[ρp]7,800[kg/m3
]AngleofImpegment[α]0.5236[rad]
SMYS[S]448.0[MPa]GasVelocity[Vg]5.9[m/s]30.0[Degrees]
DesignPressure[DP]44.0[bara]LiquidVelocity[Vl]0.16[m/s]DimensionlessParameter'A'39,315[-]
DesignTemperature[DT]100[
0
C]MixtureDensity[ρm]60.2[kg/m
3
]DiameterRelation[γ]0.0014[-]
De-RatingFactor[T]1.00[-]ParticleImpactVelocity[Up]6.1[m/s]CriticalDiameterRelation[γc]0.0016[m]
ChosenPipelineDiameter[DN]8.63[in]SandContent[ppmW]50.0[ppmW]CriticalParticleDiamter[dp,c]349[µm]
CalculatedWallThickness[tCalc]1.49[mm]SandMassFlow[mp]2.33[kg/h]ParticleSizeCorrectionFactor[G]0.8601[-]
CorrosionAllowance[CA]1.00[mm]AngleofImpegment[α]30.0[degrees]CharacteristicBendAreaExposedtoErosion[At]0.0711[m2
]
TotalWallThickness[WT]2.49[mm]MaterialDuctilityCharatersitic[F(α)]0.9890[-]MaterialDuctilityCharatersitic[F(α)]0.9890[-]
0.098[in]PipelineCrossSectionalAreaexposedtoErosion[At]0.0711[m2
]ModelGeometryFactor[C1]2.5[-]
SelectedWallThickness[t]3.18[mm]MaterialConstant'K'[SteelGrades]2.0E-09[-]GeometryFactor[GF]
0.125[in]MaterialConstant'n'[SteelGrades]2.6[-]GF1[-]
DP[BasedonselectedWT]93.5[bara]ErosionRatereferredtoDepth[E]0.0078[mm/y]ErosionRatereferredtoDepth[E]0.0496[mm/y]
PipelineInsideDiameter[ID]212.73[mm]0.31[mils/Y]1.95[mils/Y]
ParameterValueUnitParameterValueUnit
MeasuredMaxcorrodedareadepth[d]0.04[in]MeasuredMaxcorrodedareadepth[d]0.06[in]
MeasuredLongitudinalLengthofDefect[L]3.00[in]MeasuredLongitudinalLengthofDefect[L]1.30[in]
d/t[Where,t=SelectedWT]0.32[-]d/t[Where,t=SelectedWT]0.48[-]
%PitDepth32.0[%]%PitDepth48.0[%]
ActionSuggestedActionSuggested
ParameterValueUnitConstant"B"1.23[-]Constant"B"0.78[-]
PipelineSizeChosen[DN]8.63[in]MaxAllow.LLongitudinalofCorrodedArea[Lm][ASMEB31G]1.43[in]MaxAllow.LLongitudinalofCorrodedArea[Lm][ASMEB31G]0.91[in]
SelectedPipelineWT3.18[mm]L
2
/Dt8.35[-]L
2
/Dt1.57[-]
DP[BasedonSelectedWT]93.5[bara]FoliasBulgingFactor'M'[RSTRENG085dL]2.45[-]FoliasBulgingFactor'M'[RSTRENG085dL]1.41[-]
MaxSafePressure[Pipeline],d=0.04in88.4[bara]FoliasBulgingFactor'M'[DNVRP-F101-SingleDefect]1.89[-]FoliasBulgingFactor'M'[DNVRP-F101-SingleDefect]1.22[-]
MaxSafePressure[Bend],d=0.06in90.0[bara]FoliasBulgingFactor'M'[PetrobrasPBMethod]1.68[-]FoliasBulgingFactor'M'[PetrobrasPBMethod]1.16[-]
PipelineWTLostin25Years0.20[mm]MaxSafePressure[Pf][RSTRENG085dLMethod]88.4[bara]FailurePressure[Pf][RSTRENG085dLMethod]90.0[bara]
IsPipelineErosionRate,E[25Yrs]<CAMaxSafePressure[Pf][DNVRP-F101-SingleDefect]91.9[bara]MaxSafePressure[Pf][DNVRP-F101-SingleDefect]96.3[bara]
BendWTLostin25Years1.24[mm]MaxSafePressure[Pf][PetrobrasMethod]94.3[bara]FailurePressure[Pf][PetrobrasMethod]99.7[bara]
Add.OuterCAforBend[E=5mils]+tmm1.24[mm]MaxSafePressureafterCorrosionDepthApplied88.4[bara]PipelineMAOPafterCorrosionDepthApplied90.0[bara]
PipelineMechanicalDesignData
RESULTS
InclinedPipeline-WallThicknessErosionRate[SandErosion]
CheckMaxSafePressureCheckMaxSafePressure
Yes
PipelineBend-WallThicknessErosionRate[SandErosion]
SingleComponent
MaxSafePressureinCorrodedAreas-InclinedPipelineMaxSafePressureinCorrodedAreas-PipelineBend

Evaluating Pipeline Operational Integrity - Sand Production

More Related Content

Evaluating Pipeline Operational Integrity - Sand Production