IBP2124_12 ASSESSMENT OF THE HYDROSTATIC COLLAPSE OF CORRODED SUBMARINE PIPELINES: CURRENT STATUS AND RESEARCH NEEDS Adilson C.

Benjamin1, Divino J. S. Cunha2

Copyright 2012, Brazilian Petroleum, Gas and Biofuels Institute - IBP

This Technical Paper was prepared for presentation at the Rio Oil & Gas Expo and Conference 2012, held between September, 1720, 2012, in Rio de Janeiro. This Technical Paper was selected for presentation by the Technical Committee of the event according to the information contained in the final paper submitted by the author(s). The organizers are not supposed to translate or correct the submitted papers. The material as it is presented, does not necessarily represent Brazilian Petroleum, Gas and Biofuels Institute opinion, or that of its Members or Representatives. Authors consent to the publication of this Technical Paper in the Rio Oil & Gas Expo and Conference 2012 Proceedings.

Abstract
In this paper the assessment of the hydrostatic collapse of corroded submarine pipelines is addressed. Initially, the main characteristics of the problem are described. Then a literature review is performed. Finally based on this literature review the research needs are identified.

1. Introduction
Due to economic reasons a majority of the pipelines around the world is made of carbon steel, which is engineered to meet requirements outlined in API Specification 5L [1] or in other recognized standard. Underlying this preference is the fact that in the majority of cases for which candidate materials are considered for pipelines, carbon steel is usually the lowest life-cycle cost option [2,3]. Although carbon steel is the best choice for pipeline material it is not perfect. Among others the major disadvantage of carbon steel is its susceptibility to corrosion. Therefore sooner or later a carbon steel pipeline will be (internally or externally) corroded. Even when the transported fluid is dry gas, after some time in operation it is not uncommon that corrosion begins to occur because corrosive water does enter the pipeline occasionally as a result of upsets in the gas processing facility [4]. Corrosion is a critical problem that can compromise the integrity of a pipeline if not properly managed. In submarine pipelines it is generally accepted that the major threat is internal corrosion rather than external corrosion which is generally quite well addressed using good cathodic protection and coatings [2,5]. Besides the corrosion allowance that is established in the design phase several techniques are employed during the operation phase in order to mitigate internal corrosion [3,6]. Recognizing that it is almost impossible to preclude the occurrence of internal corrosion in submarine pipelines, operators perform periodically inline inspections using smart pig to detect corrosion defects [3,7]. After the detection of the corrosion defect the submarine pipeline must have its structural integrity checked in at least two loading conditions: dominant internal pressure (pi > pe) and dominant external pressure (pe > pi). Due to the high cost of repairing deepwater pipelines the service life of the corroded pipeline segments must be maximized. In order to achieve this maximization it is necessary that the assessment of the corrosion defects detected in the inline inspections is performed using an accurate and experimentally validated method. The literature on corroded pipelines subjected to dominant internal pressure is extensive and several experimentally validated assessment methods are currently available. The literature on corroded pipelines subjected to dominant external pressure is limited and experimentally validated assessment methods are not available. In this paper the assessment of the hydrostatic collapse of corroded submarine pipelines subjected to dominant external pressure is addressed. Initially, the main characteristics of the problem are described. Then a literature review is performed. Finally based on this literature review the research needs are identified.

______________________________ 1 D.Sc., Civil Engineer PETROBRAS 2 D.Sc., Mechanical Engineer PETROBRAS

Rio Oil & Gas Expo and Conference 2012

2. Deepwater Scenario
Ever since the first pipeline was installed offshore, pipeline developments have been moving into ever deeper waters. While in the early days of the offshore industry 100 m water depth was considered as deep, now pipelines are being installed in 2500 m water depth or more [8]. For a history of the submarine pipelines from the point of view of the installation activity see Timmermans [9]. There are in the literature many definitions for the limit beyond which a water depth can be considered as deep. Herein, water depths equal to or greater than 1000 m (3281 feet) are considered deep. The design of a submarine pipeline is carried out considering that during installation the pipeline is air-filled. This assumption means that during installation the pipeline will have to withstand the external hydrostatic pressure of the sea. As a pipeline is installed in deeper water, the external pressure that the pipe have to be able to withstand increases. Consequently the pipe becomes thicker. During installation the pipeline is empty and its portion that is resting on the seabed is subjected to an external overpressure (external pressure alone). As corrosion is a time dependent phenomenon that usually requires several years to produce a corrosion defect sufficiently large to be a threat to the pipeline integrity, during installation it is considered that the pipeline is free of any metal loss due to corrosion. In service, if the transported fluid is gas, an external overpressure occurs when there is a shutdown of operation (scheduled or not). If the transported fluid is oil, an external overpressure occurs when after a shutdown of operation the line is evacuated (emptied). Submarine pipelines usually have De / t ratios smaller than 30 while deepwater pipelines usually have De / t ratios smaller than 20. As offshore oil and gas developments are steadily moving into deeper waters far from the coast, submarine pipeline designers are faced with the challenge of designing large diameter trunklines (diameters in excess of 16 in) that will be installed in deepwaters (water depths in excess of 1000 m). In this scenario the external hydrostatic pressure is one of the driving parameters for the design of submarine pipelines. Local infield lines, such as subsea umbilicals, risers and flowlines (SURF) usually are modest challenges (for the pipe manufacturing and for the pipeline designer) as they are small in diameter and inherently resistant to hydrostatic collapse. These lines generally are produced as seamless pipe which is readily available and generally economical [10]. Deepwater trunklines and long-distance tiebacks present a greater challenge (for the pipe manufacturing and for the pipeline designer). To increase subsea production these lines tend to be larger in diameter with a thicker pipe wall to withstand the hydrostatic pressure and bending as it is laid to the seabed [10]. In terms of water depths in which pipelines have been installed to date, it is necessary to distinguish between the function and size of the pipelines. Smaller diameter, usually in-field flowlines of less than 14 in diameter, have been installed in water depths in excess of 2900 m, such as the flowlines (10 in diameter) of the Perdido field in the Gulf of Mexico [11]. The installation of larger diameter trunklines, typically in excess of 16 in, has been limited to around 2500 m, such as the export pipelines (18 in diameter) of the Perdido field in the Gulf of Mexico [12]. As the oil and gas fields discoveries are moving into deeper waters far from the coast, the use of large-diameter linepipe for deepwater is increasing in the offshore industry [10]. Large diameter trunklines have proved to be the safest and cheapest way of transporting gas for short to medium distances up to 2500 kilometers [13]. For large diameter, heavy walled linepipe, the UOE pipe manufacturing process is the general method applied by pipe mills [14]. The name UOE stems from the initials of three mechanical steps which are carried out during the process (U for U-ing cold forming from the plate, O for O-ing cold forming from the Ushape, E for cold expansion to meet the geometric tolerances). Out-of-roundness (ovality) of the pipe cross section is one of the imperfections introduced during the UOE pipe manufacturing process. Typical deep water pipelines can have an ovality fo of at most 1%. Another side effect of the UOE process is the reduction of the tube compressive yield stress in the hoop direction. As a result of the cold deformation caused by forming operation, the transverse compressive yield strength measured on the pipe may be lower than that measured on the plate. However extensive research [15] has showed that the de-rating of the compressive yield strength can be compensated for by a heat treatment at a moderately elevated temperature (about 200C to 220C). This heat treatment is analogous to what the linepipe experiences during the application of the anticorrosive coating (polyethylene or polypropylene). Pipelines in deepwater require the tightest dimensional tolerances to maximize resistance to collapse and to maximize girth weld fatigue resistance. Furthermore, pipelines from 16-in. to 28-in. diameter are seen as the future for deepwater export pipeline systems [10]. 2

Rio Oil & Gas Expo and Conference 2012 Recently the thicker pipe (t = 1.25 in=31.75 mm) at 18-in. diameter has been manufactured for the TupiMexilhao gas pipeline [16]. While this pipeline is not the deepest ever installed, it represents a milestone in pipe forming. This is the thickest UOE pipe ever manufactured at 18-in. diameter (note as the diameter of a pipe reduces and thickness increases, the levels of strain and power required to forming it increases) [10]. As remarked by McKinnon [17], with the ongoing technological advances such as deepwater drilling and diverless production systems, the viability of developing deepwater prospects has been enhanced. Uncertainty relating to high cost drilling operations has also been diminished with the advent of high-tech 3D seismic acquisition, modelling and interpretation. With each development comes the potential requirement for transportation by pipeline. It is anticipated that over the next 20 years, deepwater field developments will increase substantially in number and water depth. Potential areas of developments around the world include [17,18,19]: Gulf of Mexico, Offshore Brazil, UK Atlantic Frontier, Norwegian sector and Offshore Philippines.

3. Characteristics of the Problem

From a structural point of view an empty pipeline resting on the seabed is a long circular tube subjected to an external hydrostatic pressure. Depending on its external diameter to thickness ratio (De / t) the pipeline is classified as a thick tube (De / t less than 20) or as a thin tube (De / t equal to or greater than 20). Submarine pipelines usually have external diameter to thickness ratios ((De / t) that range from 10 to 30. In this range of De / t ratio the failure behavior of a non corroded pipeline subjected to an external pressure is characterized by the interaction between plasticity and geometric instability, i.e., yielding of the pipeline cross section begins before the collapse by geometric instability is achieved. The failure behavior of a non corroded pipeline subjected to an external pressure is sensitive to initial imperfections introduced by the manufacturing process, as for example: initial geometric imperfections (e.g., ovality of the cross section), reduction of the tube compressive yield strength and residual stresses. The failure behavior of a corroded pipeline subjected to an external pressure is sensitive not only to initial imperfections but also to the dimensions of the corrosion defect (e.g., the defect depth (d), the defect length (L) and the defect width (w)). The corrosion defect can be seen as a geometric imperfection whose dimensions grow with time. The detrimental effect of the corrosion defect on the pipeline strength varies in function of its position in relation to the ovality of the pipe cross section. Depending on its relative position the corrosion defect intensify or lessen the pipe ovalization. Due to the complexity of the problem, the Nonlinear Finite Element Method is the best method to calculate the collapse pressure of a corroded pipeline subjected to an external hydrostatic pressure. However a method composed of closed form equations, experimentally validated, is more adequate to perform the collapse check of the great quantity of defects detected in the periodical inline inspections.

4. Literature Review
The literature about corroded pipelines subjected to external pressure is limited. Analytical methods for the assessment of pipelines containing infinitely long single corrosion defects were published by Bai and Hauch [20], Hoo Fatt [21] and Xue and Hoo Fatt [22]. An extensive parametric study using 2-D and 3-D Finite Element (FE) models was carried out by Netto and others [23-25]. Also small scale tubular specimens containing artificially generated single corrosion defects were submitted to collapse test. These experimental results were used to calibrate the FE models. Based on the numerical results an empirical method was developed. An extensive parametric study using 2-D and 3-D Finite Element (FE) models was carried out by Sakakibara and others [26]. Also small scale tubular specimens containing artificially generated single corrosion defects were submitted to collapse test. These experimental results were used to calibrate the FE models. Based on the numerical results the limit value beyond which a corrosion defect can be considered infinitely long was established. As part of a multi-year research project funded by PRCI, an extensive parametric study using 3-D Finite Element (FE) models was carried out by C-Fer together with DNV [27,28]. Also nine full scale tubular specimens containing spark eroded single corrosion defects were submitted to collapse test. These experimental results were used to calibrate the FE models. Based on the numerical results an empirical method was developed.

Rio Oil & Gas Expo and Conference 2012

5. Conclusions
Until now little research on corroded pipelines subjected to external pressure has been carried out, so far only nine full scale tests of tubular specimens containing single corrosion defects have been performed while research on pipelines containing closely spaced corrosion defects subjected to external pressure has not been undertaken. Also the literature about the subject is limited. This problem is much more complex than two correlated problems: corroded pipelines subjected to internal pressure and non-corroded pipelines subjected to external pressure. However the literature about these two problems is extensive [29,30] and the number of full scale tests performed is large [29,30]. Consequently the assessment of corroded pipelines subjected to external pressure is in an incipient stage of development and more research projects are needed and a large number of full scale collapse tests must be performed. Due to the high cost of repairing deepwater pipelines it is anticipated that soon the oil companies will be highly interested in the development of cutting edge methods for the assessment of corrosion defects in pipelines subjected to dominant external pressure.

6. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank PETROBRAS for permission to publish this paper.

7. References
1. American Petroleum Institute, API Specification 5L: Specification for Line Pipe, 44th Edition, 2007. 2. Rippon, I. J., Carbon steel pipeline corrosion engineering: Life cycle approach, Proceedings of the NACE International Conference CORROSION 2001, (2001). 3. Palmer, A. C. and King, R. A., Subsea Pipeline Engineering, 2nd Edition, PennWell Corporation, USA, 2008. 4. Moghissi, O. C., Norris, L., Dusek, P. J. and Cookingham, B., Internal Corrosion Direct Assessment of Gas Transmission Pipelines, Proc. of the NACE International Conference CORROSION 2002, (2002). 5. Powell, D., Integrity management for piggable and non-piggable subsea pipelines, Proceedings of the NACE International Conference CORROSION 2008, 2008. 6. Winning, I. G., Taylor, A. and Ronceray, M., Corrosion Mitigation - The Corrosion Engineers Options, Proceedings of the SPE International Conference on Oilfield Corrosion, 2010. 7. Tiratsoo, J. (editor), Pipeline pigging and integrity technology, Clarion Technical Publishers, 3rd Edition, 2003. 8. Braskoro, S., Dronkers, T.D.T. and van Driel, M., From Shallow to Deep Implications for Offshore Pipeline Design, ISSN: 1829-9466 2004 Journal of the Indonesian Oil and Gas Community, Published by Komunitas Migas Indonesia, 2004. 9. Timmermans, W. J., Pipeline Retrospective Part 1: Innovation overcomes costs, reduces downtime, Offshore Magazine, Vol. 62, No 5, May 1, 2002. 10. Connelly, M., Deepwater pipelines Taking the challenge to new depth, Offshore Magazine, Vol. 6, No 7, July 1, 2009. 11. Ju, G. T., Littell, H. S., Cook, T.B., Dupre, M., Clausing, K. M., Shumilak, E., Schoppa, W.W., and Blizzard, W.A, Perdido Development: Subsea and Flowline Systems, Proc. of the Offshore Technology Conference 2010 (OTC 2010), 2010. 12. Connelly, M., Freeman, R. and Cizek, M., An Analysis of the Challenges of Manufacturing and Installing One of the World's Deepest Pipelines, Proc. of the Offshore Technology Conference 2009 (OTC 2009), 2009. 13. Grigoryev, Y. and Hashim, H. F., Pipelines or LNG - what is the future transport of choice?, Proc. of the 6th International Pipeline Conference (IPC 2006), 2006. 14. Kyriakides, S. and Corona, E., Mechanics of Offshore Pipelines - Volume 1 Buckling and Collapse, 1rst Edition, Elsevier, 2007. 15. Bruschi, R., Torselletti, E., Vitali, L. and Santicchia, A., UOE Pipes for Ultra Deep Water Application: Collapse Strength Capacity vs. Material Characteristics State of the Art, Proc. 17th International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference (ISOPE 2007), 2007. 16. Nakano, C. M. F., Pinto, A. C. C., Marcusso, J. L. and Minami, K., Pre-Salt Santos Basin -Extended Well Test and Production Pilot in the Tupi Area - The Planning Phase, Proc. of the Offshore Technology Conference 2009 (OTC 2009), 2009. 4

Rio Oil & Gas Expo and Conference 2012 17. McKinnon, C., Design, Material and Installation Considerations for Ultra Deepwater Pipelines, 1999 Offshore Europe Conference, SPE Paper No. 56910, 1999. 18. Chakhmakhchev, A. and Rushworth, P., Global overview of offshore oil & gas operations for 2005-2009, Offshore Magazine, Vol. 70, No 5, May 1, 2010. 19. Timmermans, W. J., Pipeline Retrospective Part 2: The future of offshore pipelining, Offshore Magazine, Vol. 62, No 6, June 1, 2002. 20. Bai, Y. and Hauch, S., Analytical collapse of corroded pipes, Proc. 8th ISOPE (ISOPE 98), 1998. 21. Hoo Fatt, M. S. Elastic-plastic collapse of non-uniform cylindrical shells subjected to uniform external pressure. Thin-Walled Structures, Vol. 35, No 2, pp 11737, 1999. 22. Xue, J. and Hoo Fatt, M. S., Buckling of a non-uniform, long cylindrical shell subjected to external hydrostatic pressure, Engineering Structures, Vol. 24, No 8, pp. 1027-1034, 2002. 23. Netto, T. A., Ferraz, U.S. and Botto, A., On the effect of corrosion defects in the collapse pressure of pipelines, Proc. 24th International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering (OMAE 2005), 2005. 24. Netto, T.A., Ferraz, U.S., Botto, A., Residual strength of corroded pipelines under external pressure: A simple assessment, Proc. 6th International Pipeline Conference (IPC 2006), 2006. 25. Netto, T. A., On the effect of narrow and long corrosion defects on the collapse pressure of pipelines, Proc. 26th International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering (OMAE 2007), 2007. 26. Sakakibara, N., Kyriakides, S. and Corona, E., Collapse of partially corroded or worn pipe under external pressure, International Journal of Mechanical Sciences, Vol. 50, No 12, pp. 1586-1597, 2008. 27. Chen, Q., DeGeer, D. D., Bjornoy, O., Zhou, J. and Verley, R., Collapse of Corroded Pipelines, Proc. 13th Biennial EPRG/PRCI Joint Technical Meeting, 2001. 28. Chen, Q., Marley, M. and Zhou, J., Remaining Collapse Capacity of Corroded Pipelines, Proc. 30th International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering (OMAE 2011), 2011. 29. Cosham, A., Assessment Methods for Corrosion in Pipelines, A report to the Pipeline Defect Assessment Manual (PDAM) Joint Industry Project, Report NR99012/4238.1.72, Revision 3, September 2002. 30. Benjamin, A. C. and Cunha, D. J. S., Assessment of Hydrostatic Collapse of Submarine Pipelines: An up-to-date Literature Review, Proc. of the Rio Oil & Gas Expo and Conference 2012, 2012.