Research Papers: Materials Technology

Effect of Operating Pressure and Dent Depth on Burst Strength of NPS30 Linepipe With Dent–Crack Defect

[+] Author and Article Information
Hossein Ghaednia

Centre for Engineering Research
in Pipelines (CERP),
University of Windsor,
Windsor, ON N9B 3P4, Canada

Sreekanta Das

Associate Professor
Centre for Engineering Research
in Pipelines (CERP),
University of Windsor,
Windsor, ON N9B 3P4, Canada

Rick Wang, Richard Kania

TransCanada Pipelines Limited,
Calgary, AB T2P 5H1, Canada

Contributed by the Ocean, Offshore, and Arctic Engineering Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF OFFSHORE MECHANICS AND ARCTIC ENGINEERING. Manuscript received April 18, 2014; final manuscript received February 10, 2015; published online March 16, 2015. Assoc. Editor: Xin Sun.

J. Offshore Mech. Arct. Eng 137(3), 031402 (Jun 01, 2015) (8 pages) Paper No: OMAE-14-1045; doi: 10.1115/1.4029895 History: Received April 18, 2014; Revised February 10, 2015; Online March 16, 2015

Buried linepipe can be exposed to various external interferences and corrosive environment and as a result, damage in the form of dent or corrosion or crack or gouge or combination of any of these damages can form in the pipe wall. A defect combining dent and crack, often known as dent–crack defect, which may lead to a rupture or leak in the pipe wall and hence, the pipeline operator becomes concerned about the performance and safety of the pipeline. A research was recently completed at the Centre for Engineering Research in Pipelines (CERP), University of Windsor to study the influence of dent depth and operating line pressure on the pressure capacity (burst strength) of 30 in. diameter and X70 grade linepipe. This study found that the dent depth of 12% with crack depth of 4 mm or more can reduce the pressure capacity by 38%. This paper discusses the test specimens, test setup, test procedure, test results, and data obtained from finite element analyses.

Copyright © 2015 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.


CEPA, 2014, “Canadian Energy Pipeline Association,” Last Acesssed Jan 28, 2014, www.cepa.com
Smith, R. B., and Gideon, D. N., 1979, “Statistical Analysis of Dot-Opso Data,” Annual Symposium—Society of Flight Test Engineers, pp. D.1–D.9.
Wang, K., and Smith, E., 1982, The Effect of Mechanical Damage on Fracture Initiation in Line Pipe, Part I: Dents, Energy, Mines and Resources Canada, Canada Centre for Mineral and Energy Technology, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Zarea, M. F., Toumbas, D. N., Philibert, C. E., and Deo, I., “Numerical Models for Static Denting and Dynamic Puncture of Gas Transmission Linepipe and Their Validation,” Proceedings of the 1996 1st International Pipeline Conference, IPC: Part 2 (of 2), ASME, New York, June 9–13, pp. 777–784.
Lancaster, E. R., 1996, “Burst Pressures of Pipes Containing Dents and Gouges,” Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng., Part E, 210(1), pp. 19–27. [CrossRef]
Cosham, A., and Hopkins, P., 2004, “The Effect of Dents in Pipelines-Guidance in the Pipeline Defect Assessment Manual,” Int. J. Pressure Vessels Piping, 81(2), pp. 127–139. [CrossRef]
Karamanos, S. A., and Andreadakis, K. P., 2006, “Denting of Internally Pressurized Tubes Under Lateral Loads,” Int. J. Mech. Sci., 48(10), pp. 1080–1094. [CrossRef]
Hopkins, P., Jones, D., and Clyne, A., 1989, “The Significance of Dents and Defects in Transmission Pipelines,” International Conference on Pipework Engineering and Operations, London, pp. 137–145.
Bjornoy, O. H., Rengard, O., Fredheim, S., and Bruce, P., 2000, “Residual Strength of Dented Pipelines, DNV Test Results,” 10th International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference, ISOPE, Mountain View, CA, May 28–June 2, pp. 182–188.
ASME, 2012, “B31.4: Pipeline Transportation Systems for Liquids and Slurries,” ASME International, New York.
CSA, 2007, “Z662-07: Oil and Gas Pipeline Systems,” Canadian Standard Association, Mississauga, ON.
Staat, M., and Duc Khoi, V., 2013, “Limit Analysis of Flaws in Pressurized Pipes and Cylindrical Vessels. Part II: Circumferential Defects,” Eng. Fract. Mech., 97, pp. 314–333. [CrossRef]
ASME, 2004, “B31G-1991 (R2004): Manual for Determining Remaining Strength of Corroded Pipelines: Supplement to B31 Code-Pressure Piping,” ASME International, New York.
DNV, 2012, “OS-F101: Submarine Pipeline Systems,” Det Norske Veritas, Høvik, Norway.
Bachut, J., and Iflefel, I. B., 2011, “Analysis of Pipes Containing Plain and Gouged Dents,” Strain, 47(Suppl. 1), pp. e34–e51. [CrossRef]
Maxey, W. A., 1986, “Topical Report on Outside Force Defect Behavior: To Line Pipe Research Supervisory Committee of the Pipeline Research Committee of the American Gas Association,” NG-18 Report No. 162, AGA Catalogue No. L51518, Battelle, Columbus, OH.
API, 2012, “Spec 5L: Specification for Line Pipe,” American Petroleum Institute, Washington, DC.
ASTM, 2011, “E8/E8M-11: Standard Test Methods for Tension Testing of Metallic Materials,” ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA.
Ghaednia, H., Silva, J., Kenno, S., Das, S., Wang, R., and Kania, R., 2013, “Pressure Tests on 30-in. Diameter X65 Grade Pipes With Dent–Crack Defects,” J. Pipeline Eng., 12(1), pp. 61–67.
Silva, J., Ghaednia, H., and Das, S., 2012, “Fatigue Life Assessment for Nps30 Steel Pipe,” ASME Paper No. IPC2012-90081. [CrossRef]
SIMULIA, 2011, Analysis User's Manuals, Dassault Systèmes Simulia Corporation, Rising Sun Mills, Providence, RI.
Das, S., Cheng, J. J. R., and Murray, D. W., 2007, “Prediction of Fracture in Wrinkled Energy Pipelines Subjected to Cyclic Deformations,” Int. J. Offshore Polar Eng., 17(3), pp. 205–212. [CrossRef]


Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

EDM cut V-notch on pipe wall. (a) Pipe wall section showing V-notch and crack and (b) sample's location on the V-notch.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Picture taken after fatigue and burst test by SEM at different locations of the V-notch. (a) V-notch, fatigue crack, and ductile fracture area under SEM in sample's location 3 and (b) sample's location 4 under SEM.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Schematic and photo of fatigue load test setup. (a) Schematic and (b) real test setup.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Schematic and photo of denting test setup. (a) Schematic and (b) real test setup.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Load–deformation behaviors. (a) Specimens SP2, SP3, and SP4 and (b) specimens SP3 and SP5.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Burst pressure of test specimens

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Fracture area after burst test on pipe specimens. (a) Fracture area in SP1-P00-D0, (b) fracture area in SP3-P00-D4, (c) fracture area in SP4-P00-D6, and (d) fracture area in SP5-P30-D4.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Rectangular indenter used to create dent

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Meshed pipe and notch area. (a) Pipe, (b) crack, (c) end support, and (d) indenter.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Stress–strain relationship for pipe material

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

The load–deformation of tests and FEA models. (a) Comparison of SP3-P00-D4 and FEA model and (b) Comparison of SP5-P30-D4 and FEA model.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

The longitudinal strain of the tests and FEA models. (a) Comparison of SP3-P00-D4 and FEA model and (b) comparison of SP5-P30-D4 and FEA model.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

Effect of dent depth and internal pressure on burst pressure of pipe specimens



Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In