23rd World Gas Conference, Amsterdam 2006

< COMPARATIVE STUDY FOR VARIOUS REPAIR METHODS OF

IN-SERVICE PIPELINE USING FULL SCALE BURST TEST>

Jong-hyun Baek , Woo-sik Kim*, Young-pyo Kim

Research and Development Division, Korea Gas Corporation,

Ansan, 426-790, Korea

* Correspondence author : wskim@kogas.re.kr

 ABSTRACT

In the buried natural gas pipelines, many defects can occur by construction faults, corrosion,
third-party interference and ground movement. Nowadays, selection of proper repair method on in-
service natural gas pipeline is a matter of primary concern of Korea Gas Corporation (KOGAS).
Therefore, the systematic study has been required for the repair methods of API 5L X65 main pipeline
operating under the internal pressure of 6.9 MPa whose diameter is 762 mm and thickness is 17.5 mm.
The objective of this work is to investigate the fracture behavior of repaired pipe using full scale burst
test and to select the appropriate repair method of in-service gas pipelines.
We performed a series of full scale burst test for damaged pipe and each repaired pipe and
analyzed the fracture behavior on API 5L X65 grade gas pipelines (diameter 762mm, thickness
17.5mm) with mechanically machined defects. Tested specimens are damaged pipe and repaired
pipes with sleeve welding, epoxy sleeve, composite material rapping (clock-spring) and direct deposit
welding method for damaged pipe with same shape.
From the study for merits and demerits, safety and reliability of each repair methods, we
confirmed the efficiency and safety of proper in-service pipeline repair methods for various defect
condition.
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Abstract

2. Body of Paper

3. References

4. List Tables

5. List of Figures
 Comparative Study for Various Repair Methods of In-Service Pipeline
Using Full Scale Burst Test

1. Introduction
In the buried natural gas pipelines, many defects can occur by construction faults, corrosion,
third-party interference and ground movement. When a segment of a pipeline is found to be defective,
one of the repair methods is to vent the gas within the pipeline and cut out the defective segment after
shutting down the pipeline.[1] However, the cost is extremely high in terms of venting and stopping the
gas supply. Therefore, most pipeline companies have developed in-service repair methods without
removing the line from service and these repair methods are used widely throughout the natural gas,
petroleum and petrochemical industries [1-4].
Welding onto a gas pipeline in active operation, called in-service welding, is a technique that is
frequently employed in the in-service repair of gas pipelines. The direct depositions of weld metal,
sleeve-repair welding and hot-tap welding are typical examples of in-service welding.[1,2,5,6,7] Also,
the epoxy sleeve repair and the composite rapping are repair method of in-service natural gas
pipeline.[3,4] The epoxy sleeve repair need a longitudinal welding of sleeve, but this welding is not
performed on live pipeline. The composite repair does not need any welding procedure.
Nowadays, selection of proper repair method on in-service natural gas pipeline is a matter of
primary concern of Korea Gas Corporation (KOGAS). KOGAS operate a trunk line with a total length
of about 2,600 km, and in-line inspection technology has been applied to gas pipeline to detect metal
loss and deformation on pipeline. Therefore, the systematic study has been required for the repair
methods of API 5L X65 main pipeline operating under the internal pressure of 6.9 MPa whose
diameter is 762 mm and thickness is 17.5 mm. The objective of this work is to investigate the fracture
behavior of repaired pipe using full scale burst test and to select the appropriate repair method of in-
service gas pipelines.

2. Experiments
We performed a series of full scale burst test for damaged pipe and each repaired pipe and
analyzed the fracture behavior on API 5L X65 grade gas pipelines (diameter 762mm, thickness
17.5mm) with mechanically machined defects. Tested specimens are damaged pipe and repaired
pipes with sleeve welding, epoxy sleeve, composite material rapping (clock-spring) and direct deposit
welding method for damaged pipe with same shape. The dimension of damaged section is
200mmLx50mmTx14mmd (L: pipe longitudinal direction, T: circumferential direction, d: wall thickness
o
direction) on base metal (A type) and girth weldment (B type) and 440Lx30mmTx14mmd 90 V-notch
defect on base metal(C type). Repair methods and dimensions of test specimens are summarized in
Table 1.
Table 1 Classification of defected pipe and repaired pipe.
Defect size
Type Location or Method Length Width Depth
(mm) (mm) (mm)
Base Metal (A) 200 50 14
Defected
Weld Metal (B) 200 50 14
pipe
V-notch B.M. (C) 440 30 14
Sleeve Weld (A) 200 50 14
Sleeve Weld (B) 200 50 14
Epoxy Sleeve (A) 200 50 14
Epoxy Sleeve (B) 200 50 14
Repaired
Epoxy Sleeve (C) 440 30 14
pipe
Clock Spring (A) 200 50 14
Clock Spring (B) 200 50 14
Overlay Welding 1 200 50 8.8
Overlay Welding 2 150 50 11.5

Figure 1 shows the configuration of various test pipes. The sleeve-repair welding is one of the
repair welding processes on in-service gas pipelines and is used in case of the repair of the pipelines
with relatively large detects. Two sleeves made by expanding radically are attached to pipe around
damaged sections and then circumferential fillet welding and longitudinal butt welding are performed.
The both ends of the pipe were welded using the cap made of WPHY 65. Manual shielded metal arc
welding (SMAW) and gas tungsten arc welding (GTAW) processes were applied to sleeve fillet welds
and butt welds. It took about 130 minute to finish the longitudinal weld joint on the sleeve length of 800
mm and thickness of 17.5 mm by the 2 welder, and about 210 minute to execute the circumferential
fillet welding by the 2 welder. The possibility of burn-through can be avoided by controlling the heat
input. The welding procedure specification for sleeve repair welding was prepared from results of
several mechanical tests and computer simulation before full scale burst test.
The epoxy sleeve repair(ERP) was done by technicians of British Gas Repair Center for defect
shape pipe similar to sleeve welding repair cases. The sleeve length used in ESR is calculated from
the pipe outer diameter plus the defect length. The sleeve length of 970 mm and inner diameter of 800
mm is applied to type A and B. In case of type C adopted a sleeve length of 1,120 mm. The sleeves
used as a reinforcement material in ESR have an equal or a higher wall thickness and a ultimate
tensile strength than defected pipeline. Longitudinal butt welding was applied to repair the defect type
A, B and C in the ESR. The butt weld joints were comprised of SMAW process with low hydrogen
E8016-G electrode. Mixture with an epoxy and hardener was injected into the gap between the sleeve
and defected pipe under pressure about 7 atm. It took 24 hours to cure the mixture injected under the
sleeve.
The composite rapping (Clock-spring) repair was done also by technicians of KOREA agent of
Clock-spring Company for defect shape pipe similar to sleeve welding repair cases. One Clock Spring
having a width of 304.8 mm was applied to defect type A. Three Clock Springs were installed to defect
type B to apply the bridge process which is used to the girth weld joint.
Over laying welding for small size defect was done according to KOGAS technical standard to
prepare from results of many mechanical test and computer simulation. For the defect depth with 50%
and 65% of wall thickness, Overlay weld repair (Direct deposited welding repair) was applied. SMAW
using E9016-G electrode of 2.6mm diameter was applied to overlaying repair welds. The deposited
welding conditions were 5 layer with 28 passes and 6 layers with 31 passes, respectively.

(a) (b)

(c) (d)
Figure 1 Various pipes for burst test
(a) Defected pipe B (b) sleeve weld repair of B pipe
(c) Epoxy sleeve repair of B pipe (d) clock-spring repair of B pipe

The burst test was performed by increasing the internal pressure with water up to 28.44 MPa.
The length of tested pipe is about 2.5m and the both ends of the pipe were welded using the cap. The
rate of internal pressure increases is 0.25 MPa/min up to 19.6 MPa, and 0.15 MPa/min up to 28.44
MPa. The pressure change as time measured 1 value per 1 second using computer. In order to
observe the strain variation during pressurization, strain gages which can detect up to strain of 5%
were attached on the pipe body and reinforcement material.

3. Results

Repair welding on in-service pipeline
There are two important concerns with welding on in-service pipelines. The first concern is the
possibility of burn-through due to the localized heating, leading to loss of material strength on the inner
surface of pipe during the welding process. The pipe wall can burst out under internal pressure if the
loss of strength is large. The second concern is the high cooling rates of the weld by the flowing gas
which quickly removes heat from the pipe wall, resulting in accelerated cooling of the weld. The high
cooling rate can promote the formation of the heat-affected zone (HAZ) microstructure with high
hardness, making these welds susceptible to cold cracking and sulfide stress cracking in sour service.
The rapid cooling can be compensated by increasing heat input, but the increased heat input can
promote weld penetration and the possibility of burn-through. Thus suitable weld procedures must
ensure the optimal HAZ hardness without cracking and no burn-through with proper heat input. We
developed the welding procedure specifications for sleeve welding and over ay welding in in-service
pipeline repair. Burn-through and cold cracking were not predicted for the sleeve-fillet welding and
overlay welding on in-service welding conditions in this experiment from previous study.[1]

Full scale burst test

The burst test result for the various damaged and repaired pipe represented nearly the similar
burst pressure. All of the repair method of welding sleeve, epoxy sleeve, composite material rapping
and direct weld deposition were not ruptured in defect part and base metal to internal pressure of
23.22 MPa, which means for the 506MPa of circumferential yield stress of pipe to apply as pipe
internal pressure.
Up to end of burst test for the repaired pipe specimens with the sleeve welding, epoxy sleeve
and direct deposit weld, any crack and defect in repaired part didn’t occur. But for repaired pipe with
composite material rapping, the crack occurred in the defect part of base metal and the surface of
composite material. In the repaired pipe with composite material rapping for girth weldment, the
circumferential crack occurred in the surface of composite material and any crack didn’t occur in the
defect part.
 (a)
(b)

(c)

(d)

(e)
Figure 2 Configurations of burst test results for damaged pipe and various repaired pipe
(a) Defected pipe A (b) Sleeve Weld pipe (A) (C) Epoxy Sleeve (A)
(d) Composite rapping (A) (e) overlay weld 1

Table 2 Applied pressures, hoop stresses and burst result in pipe during burst test.
Applied
Hoop stress
Classification Pressure Burst
(Mpa)
(Mpa)
A 17.15 373.70 Yes
Defected
B 17.84 388.65 Yes
pipe
C 8.72 190.06 Yes
Sleeve Weld (A) 30.77 670.53 No
Sleeve Weld (B) 30.18 657.72 No
Epoxy Sleeve (A) 29.40 640.63 No
Epoxy Sleeve (B) 29.89 651.31 No
Repaired
Epoxy Sleeve (C) 30.28 659.85 No
pipe
Composite rapping (A) 25.87 563.76 Yes(leak)
Composite rapping (B) 28.42 619.28 No
Overlay Weld 1 28.32 617.15 No
Overlay Weld 2 28.32 617.15 No

Pipeline operated by the KOGAS has a design factor of 0.4 according to Table 841.114B in
ASME B31.8 [8]. It has a safety factor of 2.5. MAOP of API 5L X65 pipe having an outer diameter of
762 mm and a wall thickness of 17.5 mm used in this work is 7.85 MPa. The defected pipe A having a
depth ratio of 78% of wall thickness and defect length of 200 mm was failed at 17.15 MPa. The
defected pipe B which has a defect at girth weld joint was fractured at 17.84 MPa. The defected pipe C
of a V-notch type having a depth ratio of 80% of wall thickness and defect length of 440 mm was
ruptured at 8.72 MPa. The safety factors of the defected pipe A, B and C correspond to 2.19, 2.28 and
1.11, respectively. These values, however, are less than a safety factor of 2.5. The repaired pipes
through the full encirclement sleeve, epoxy sleeve, and deposited welding did not fracture up to 28.42
MPa. Even in case of pipe rehabilitated by the epoxy sleeve procedure on the V-notch type defect
with a depth ratio of 80% of wall thickness and defect length of 440 mm did not rupture up to 28.42
MPa. In case of pipe I restored with the composite material on the corrosion type defect of the pipe
body was failed at 25.87 MPa. Since it has a safety factor of 3.30 with regard to the MAOP of 7.85
MPa, the composite material can be applied to repair a flaw having a defect ratio of 80% of wall
thickness.

• Cost Comparison For Various Repair Methods

We compared a working cost on the various repair methods. Most of defects in natural gas
pipeline are developed by the mechanical defect and corrosion. Corrosion defects were developed
generally at girth weld joint due to a poor installation of a heat shrinkage sheet which is applied to
protest the pipeline from the corrosive environment. Fixed conditions used in this work to compare a
working cost are as follows. We assume that length of between governor stations is 20 km. Corrosion
defect having a length of 50 mm was developed at a girth weld metal. Natural gas was pressurized
2
under 0.6078 MPa (6 atm, 6.198 kg/cm ) at 5℃ in the API 5L X65 with a outer diameter of 762 mm
and wall thickness of 17.5 mm. In order to employ a cutting and replacement of the defective segment
as a method of a pipeline repair, natural gas should be evaporated into the atmosphere. Volume of
natural gas vented is calculated as follows.
TN P 273.15 6 π
VN = × a × Va = × × × 0.727 × 20,000 = 48,917 Nm
2 3

Ta PN 278.15 1 4
Where PN, VN, TN is a pressure, volume and temperature under normal condition (0 , 1 atm).
Pa, Va, Ta is a pressure, volume and temperature when natural gas vent (5 , 6 atm). Natural gas
3 3 3
cost of 48,917 Nm is calculated as $24,458 (48,917 Nm x $0.5/ Nm = $24,458). Repair costs for
various repair methods are provided in Table 3.

Table 3. Estimated cost for various repair methods.

Repair method Factor Cost ($) Contents
Venting of natural gas 24,458 Length of governor station : 20 km
Civil working 10,000 Excavation, backfill and pavement
Cutting and Nitrogen purge 2,000 10% purge : volume of 20 km pipe
replacement Air blowing 400 90% purge : volume of 20 km pipe
Pipe welding 2,500 Welder : 2 , Helper:1, plumber : 1
Total repair cost $39,358
Civil working 10,000 Excavation and backfill
Composite
Material 6,750 $2,250/ea x 3ea (include installation)
(Clock Spring)
Total repair cost $16,750
 Civil working 10,000 Excavation, backfill and pavement
Sleeve manufacturing 600 API 5L X65, 30”, 17.5t
Sleeve welding 1,500 Welder : 2 , Helper:1
Epoxy sleeve
Material 1,800 Epoxy, putty, solvent, royalty
Epoxy installation 1,000 -
Total repair cost $14,900
Civil working 10,000 Excavation, backfill and pavement
Sleeve Sleeve manufacturing 600 API 5L X65, 30”, 17.5t
welding Sleeve welding 2,000 Welder : 2 , Helper:1
Total repair cost $12,600
Civil working 10,000 Excavation, backfill and pavement
Deposited
Deposited welding 500 Welder : 1 , Helper:1
welding
Total repair cost $10,500

4. Summary
From the study for merits and demerits, safety and reliability of each repair methods, we
confirmed the efficiency and safety of proper in-service pipeline repair methods for various defect
condition. Full encirclement sleeve, epoxy sleeve, and composite repair technologies have a value of
more than a safety factor of 2.5 with regard to the MAOP of 7.85 MPa, repair technologies used in this
work can be used to repair a flaw having a depth ratio of 80% of a wall thickness except deposited
welding repair. Deposited welding repair can be applied up to a depth ratio of 65% of a wall thickness
due to burn through.

5. Reference
1. Kim, W.S., Kim, Y. P. and Oh, J. H. (2002). The Effects of Hat Input and Gas Flow Rate on Weld
th
Integrity for Sleeve Repair Welding of In-Service Gas Pipelines. Proceedings, 4 International Pipeline
Conference, IPC2002-27031, Calgary, Canada.
2. Chapetti, M. D., Otegui, J., Manfredi, L. C., and Martins, C. F., (2000). Full Scale Experimental
Analysis of Stress States in Sleeve Repairs of Gas Pipelines. Int J Press Ves Piping., 78(5) :379-387.
3. Kiefner, J. F., (2000). Technical Review of Epoxy Filled Repair Sleeve. Kiefner and Associates, Inc.,
Worthington, Ohio 43085.
4. Nicholson, C. M., and Patric, A. J. (2001). BP Uses Clock Spring System to Repair Crude Oil
Pipeline. Pipeline & Gas Industry, March : 75-79.
5. Bowdoin, L. A., (2000), Direct Deposit Welding Advance Make It a Viable Repair Technique.
Pipeline & Gas Industry, Nov.,: 67-72.
6. Nippard, F., Pick, R. J. and Horsley, D., (1996). Strength of a Hot Tap Reinforced Tee Junction. Int
J Press Ves Piping., 68(2) :169-180.
7. Mohitpour, M., Mcmanus, M., and Trefanenko, B., (2002). Trend in Pipeline Integrity Inspection and
th
Rehabilitation Techniques. Proceedings, 4 International Pipeline Conference, IPC2002-27035,
Calgary, Canada.
8. American Society of Mechanical Engineers. (2003). Gas Transmission and Distribution Piping
Systems. ASME B31.8. USA.
List of Tables
Table 1 Classification of defected pipe and repaired pipe.
Table 2 Applied pressures, hoop stresses and burst test in pipe after burst test.
Table 3 Estimated cost for various repair methos.

List of Figures
Figure 1 Various pipes for burst test.
Figure 2 Configuration of burst results for damaged pipe and various repaired pipe.