International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 85 (2008) 782788

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijpvp

Analysis of a carbon composite overwrap pipeline repair system

J.M. Duell a, J.M. Wilson a, M.R. Kessler b, *
a
Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Tulsa, Tulsa, OK 74104, USA
b
Department of Materials Science and Engineering, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: A relatively new method has been developed to stop external corrosion and structurally reinforce steel
Received 14 June 2007 pipes by external wrapping of damaged sections using bre reinforced polymer (FRP) materials. Several
Received in revised form 28 June 2008 different defect geometries representing corrosion patches on steel pipe were characterized using nite-
Accepted 4 August 2008
element analysis, by changing the circumferential length of the defect. Pipe vessels containing these
defects along with the composite structural repairs were modeled and the results were compared to eld
Keywords:
tests to determine the effectiveness of the repairs. It was found that the defect width around the
Composite materials
circumference had little impact on the ultimate rupture pressure of the repaired vessel, but inuenced
Finite-element method
Pipelines the stress state in the underlying pipe substrate.
Rehabilitation 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Over 1.7 million km of gas, crude oil, and petroleum product
pipeline exists throughout the world [1]. Many of these pipelines
have been in service since the 1940s and 1950s [2]. Consequently,
every year between $2 and $3.3 billion dollars in the United States
alone is lost to corrosion in gas and petroleum pipelines that need
to be repaired or replaced [3]. The large amount of external pipeline
corrosion ultimately increases the cost of energy. Traditionally
pipelines with severe corrosion problems have to either be taken
ofine while the damaged pipe segment is removed and
a replacement joint is welded in place or reinforced with a sleeve
repair where steel sleeves are manufactured in two parts and are
placed over the pipeline and subsequently welded, or bolted to
each other along the longitudinal seam [1].
Recently, bre reinforced polymer (FRP) matrix composite
overwrap systems have emerged as an alternative repair system.
Repairs made with FRP materials offer distinct advantages over
traditional, welded repairs in addition to reduced cost. Primary
benets associated with FRP piping repair systems include: 1) the
short amount of time needed to complete a repair, 2) the undis-
rupted uid transmission in the piping system while the repair is
made, and 3) explosion potential is eliminated since no welding or
cutting of the pipeline is required.
Industry analysis shows that such repair systems are, on
average, 24% cheaper than welded steel sleeve repairs and 73%
cheaper than replacing the damaged section of the steel pipe
completely [3]. FRP repair systems also slow the external corrosion
growth by shielding the damage from the environment while the
pipeline stays in service [4]. Additionally, FRPs have become a cost
effective option in the repair of other decient piping such as
corroded sewer lines [5], municipal water supplies, and process
piping and pipework. Common, FRP systems used for reinforcing
pipe walls include glass bre, aramid bre, and carbon bre
composites. Toutanji and Dempsey [6] showed that carbon bre
reinforced polymers (CFRPs) perform better than those reinforced
with glass or aramid bres in that they improve the ultimate
internal pressure capacity of pipes, signicantly enhancing the
strength, durability, and corrosive properties of the system.
In order to evaluate the effectiveness of a given repair system it is
common to rst manufacture a defect into a pristine pipe specimen,
then secondly repair the damaged region, and nally pressurize the
pipe monotonically or under cyclic conditions until failure occurs.
The size and shape of the defect region can have a signicant effect
on the level of repair that can be achieved. In this paper we therefore
evaluate by nite-element analysis four different defect geometries
representing corrosion patches on steel pipe given by changes to the
circumferential length of the defect. Pipe vessels containing these
defects along with the FRP repairs were modeled and the computed
failure pressures were compared to eld tests to determine
the effectiveness of the repairs, and the inuence that circumfer-
ential defect length has on the efciency of the repair system.
2. Experimental repair and pressure testing methods

* Corresponding author. Tel.: 1 515 294 3101; fax: 1 515 294 5444. Three types of materials were used to fabricate and evaluate
E-mail address: mkessler@iastate.edu (M.R. Kessler). repaired pressure vessels for rupture testing: a segment of

0308-0161/$ see front matter 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ijpvp.2008.08.001
 J.M. Duell et al. / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 85 (2008) 782788
Nomenclature
D external pipe diameter (mm)
Eav average modulus of the substrate/composite
combination (MPa)
Ec tensile modulus for the composite laminate in the
circumferential direction (MPa)
Es tensile modulus for steel (or pipe material) (MPa)
P internal design pressure (MPa)
Plive internal pressure of the pipe at the time of repair (MPa)
Pyield internal pressure when the substrate pipe begins to
yield (MPa)
s Specied Minimum Yield Strength (SMYS) of the pipe
(MPa)
pipeline steel, an epoxy putty (to ll defect regions in the pipe),
and a carbon bre/epoxy composite wrap. The pipeline steel was
ASTM A-106 Grade B, a seamless, plain carbon steel that is
commonly found in the pipeline industry. The epoxy putty and
resin, the carbon bre, and application tools to apply the repair
are shown in Fig. 1. The putty that is used to ll the defects on the
pipe, restoring its undamaged dimensions is diglycidyl ether of
bisphenol-A (DGEBA) based epoxide cured with an alphatic
amine hardener and a thixotropic fumed silica additive. The
carbon bre/epoxy wrap that provides the structural reinforce-
ment is created by impregnating a woven carbon bre fabric with
a similar unthickened DGEBA epoxy/amine prepolymer resin. The
plane weave carbon fabric consists of 12 K tow in the warp
direction and 6 K tow in the ll direction. The 12 K indicates that
there are approximately 12,000 carbon laments (bres) in each
bundle (tow), while 6 K indicates approximately 6000 laments
per tow.
Test vessels were prepared from 6 in. nominal diameter,
Schedule 40, steel pipes cut into 1.52 m (5 ft) lengths with welded
end-caps, each having a 9.5 mm (0.375 in.) NPT tting. The
Schedule 40 designation corresponds to a wall thickness (t) of
7.11 mm (0.280 in.) and an outer diameter (D) of 168.3 mm
(6.625 in.). Simulated defects were machined into the pipe wall
using defects with a longitudinal length of 15.24 cm (6 in.), and
a depth to 50% of the wall thickness (3.56 mm or 0.14 in.). In the
hoop dimension defect lengths are 15.24 (6 in.) or completely
around the circumference. These defects, shown in Fig. 2, are
referred to as 6  6 patch and axisymmetric respectively.
Once the defects were created in pipe test vessels, the steel was
sandblasted to a near-white nish and placed on a support
Fig. 1. Pipe repair application kit. (a) Reinforcement and application tools. (b) Two-part putty and epoxy used to ll defects and wet out carbon bre wrap.
783
t nominal wall thickness of original pipe (mm)
trepair design repair thickness (mm)
ts minimum remaining wall thickness of the pipe, m (in.)
3 total strain
3c allowable circumferential strain
3elastic elastic strain in the composite laminate
3plastic extra strain in the composite after yield
FRP bre reinforced polymer
CFRP carbon bre reinforced polymer
DGEBA diglycidyl ether of bisphenol-A
FE nite-element
FEA nite-element analysis
ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers
structure to allow the repair system to be applied. First, the two-
part high viscosity putty was mixed using a power drill and
a paddle mixer and applied to ll the defect (as shown in Fig. 3a).
The carbon fabric was impregnated with the premixed low
viscosity epoxy/amine prepolymer using an adhesive roller. After
the fabric was properly saturated, it was wrapped around the test
vessel and the freshly applied putty using hand tension to pull the
wet fabric, while keeping the centerline of the wrap with the center
of the defect. This application procedure is shown in Fig. 3b. As the
wrap was being applied, air bubbles were forced out of the system
by hand. A total of six layers of carbon/epoxy wrap were used to
cover the aw, giving the repair (excluding the epoxy putty)
a thickness of 3.1 mm (0.122 in). Once the wrap was applied the
epoxy was allowed to cure for at least 24 h, in a room temperature
environment, before testing began. A picture of a completed vessel
is shown in Fig. 4.
The rupture testing consisted of rst lling each wrapped
pressure vessel with water vertically to insure no air was present
within the system. Next, the vessel was moved to a secure area to
prevent injury to personnel. An air actuated, hydraulic power unit
was used to pressurize the test vessel. The hydraulic pump was
connected to the vessel and a transducer was used to record the
pressure in the line. The pump forces water into the pressure vessel
until rupture occurs. The internal pressure required to fail the
vessel was recorded. Pressurization to failure takes 1015 min.
3. Finite-element modeling methodology
In order to evaluate the changing stress eld with increasing
pressure levels for the repaired pipe vessels, several nonlinear
784 J.M. Duell et al. / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 85 (2008) 782788
Fig. 2. Pipe test vessels with machined aws with a depth of 50% wall thickness for (a)
axisymmetric and (b) 6  6 patch defects.
three-dimensional nite-element calculations were performed, for
four different defect geometries, a 1  6 patch, a 3  6 patch, a 6  6
patch, and axisymmetric. In all cases, the defect length (along the
length of the pipe) is 15.24 cm (6 in.) and the defect depth is 50% of
the wall thickness, while the hoop dimension defect lengths are
2.54 cm (1 in.), 7.62 cm (3 in.), 15.24 (6 in.) and completely around
the circumference respectively. A portion of the repaired pipe
specimen was discretized making use of three planes of symmetry
of the specimen geometry and loading conditions as shown in
Fig. 5. The ANSYS v8.0 nite-element software package was used to
create the model, generate the meshes (using ten node tetrahedral
solid elements), and to perform the FE calculations. The predicted
burst pressures from two of these models (6  6 patch, and
axisymmetric) will be compared to experimental burst results.
The material properties of the CFRP, the steel, and the ller putty
were found through an extensive materials characterization
program in Ref. [7]. This series of tests involved coupons for tensile,
shear, and compression. A summary of the material properties used
as input in the nite-element modeling is listed in Table 1. The
elastic/plastic stressstrain behavior of the pipeline steel is shown
in Fig. 6. Individual data points from the stressstrain curve were
converted to true stress and used as input to the nonlinear material
constitutive model for the steel. The FEA code assumes the von
Fig. 3. Pipe repair process (a) lling defect with putty (b) wrapping epoxy wetted carbon fabric around the defect.
Mises yield theory and the associated ow rule as the classical
metal plasticity model. The putty was modeled with a bilinear
elastic stressstrain behavior, with an experimentally determined
ca. 50% drop in modulus occurring at the yield stress of 33.1 MPa.
The orthotropic woven composite wrap required nine elastic
constants to model the linear elastic behavior of the carbon/epoxy
material. These values were determined by a combination of direct
measurements, literature values, and rule of mixtures estimates as
detailed by Duell (2004), and they are listed in Table 1. The ultimate
strength of the composite overwrap was found experimentally to
be 576 MPa (83.6 ksi)  12% (uncertainty is for 95% condence) for
the 12 K hoop direction [7].
A constant pressure loading condition (slightly higher than the
expected failure pressures) was applied incrementally on all of the
surface areas of the inside wall of the pipe. Symmetry boundary
conditions were applied at the appropriate planes of symmetry
shown in Fig. 5. The model was then solved iteratively using
automatic timestepping (saving the results from every substep).
The maximum stresses at each substep were analyzed to estimate
the pressure level necessary for a critical (ultimate) stress to be
reached assuming a maximum stress failure criterion in the
composite or a von Mises base failure criterion in the steel. The
vessel can be considered as a burst failure when the von Mises
equivalent stress in the steel in the FEA simulation reaches the true
ultimate tensile stress (UTS) or when the maximum stress in the
composite exceed its ultimate strength in one of the principle
material directions (576 MPa in the hoop direction). The applied
pressure was then rened on the model for subsequent analysis
based on these estimates to predict the ultimate failure pressure of
the pipe test vessel.
4. Results and discussion
Representative results from the nite-element simulation for
each of the four defect geometries at predicted failure pressures are
shown in Fig. 7. In all cases, the highest failure inducing stresses
occurred at the center of the defect region. A through thickness plot
of the three components of stress (radial, hoop, and axial) at the
center of each defect is plotted along with the corresponding
contour plot of the hoop stress in the general defect region. A
thickness distance of 0 mm corresponds to a point on the inside
steel surface of the pipe vessel under the center of the defect, while
the maximum distance (11.18 mm) corresponds to the outside
surface of the composite wrap over the center of the defect. There
are two discontinuities in the stress versus thickness plots as the
material changes from steel, to putty, to CFRP.
The failure pressure for all four cases was determined as the
value that causes a stress based failure criterion to be met. In this
case, that failure criterion means that failure of the pressure vessel
occurs at the lowest pressure that causes the von Mises stress to
exceed the ultimate strength of the steel (maximum-distortion-
 J.M. Duell et al. / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 85 (2008) 782788 785

Table 1
Material properties used in nite-element models

Material Material properties

Linear (below yield) Nonlinear (above yield)

Steel (ASTM Youngs Modulus, E Yield Stress, sY
A106 Grade B) 207 GPa (30 Msi) 300 MPa (43.5 ksi)
Poissons Ratio, n Above yield stress, individual
0.30 values from the experimental
tension tests (shown in Fig. 5)
were used as input for a
nonlinear elastic-plastic
model
Putty Youngs Modulus, E Yield Stress, sY
(Thickened Epoxy) 1.74 GPa (252 ksi) 33 MPa (4.80 ksi)
Fig. 4. Repaired pipe test vessel. Poissons Ratio, n Tangent Modulus, Etan
0.45 0.87 GPa (126 ksi)

Composite (Woven Youngs Modulus,a N/A

energy failure theory), or a principal stress in the composite or
putty exceeds the ultimate tensile or compressive strength of that
material (maximum-normal-stress failure theory).
In all cases, the failure criterion is reached rst for the composite
wrap, so the maximum stress in the FRP is the same for all four of
the graphs shown in Fig. 7, even though the failure pressures are
not the same. The maximum stress to cause failure in the composite
was the hoop stress (at 576 MPa) for all four simulations, and this
maximum occurs at the inside edge of the composite (adjacent to
the putty).
The predicted burst pressures for the four different repaired
defects are listed in Table 2. The predicted burst pressures do not
vary only slightly for the four different systems, with just 2.2%
variation between the maximum predicted burst pressure, and the
minimum predicted burst pressure. The results from real burst tests
using pressure vessel specimens with axisymmetric and 6  6
defects are given in Table 2 for comparison. Excellent agreement is
found between the experiments and the nite-element model
predicted burst pressures. Experimental burst data for repaired
vessels with the 3  6 and 1  6 specimen are not available.
As shown in Fig. 7, the amount of change in the hoop stress
through the composite wrap (at the center of the defect) is much
higher as the defect width decreases. Thus, the hoop stress for the
1  6 defect decreases by over 26% from the inside of the composite
wrap to the outside, while for the 6  6 and the axisymmetric
defects the decrease in hoop stress through the wrap is only
about 3%.
To compensate for the reduced load carried by the composite for
the 1  6 defect, a higher load is required in the steel, hence an
initial (inside wall) hoop stress value in the steel of nearly 500 MPa
at the defect center for the 1  6 defect compared to initial hoop
stress values of 440, 450, and 460 MPa for the axisymmetric, 6  6,
and 3  6 defects respectively. For all four defect types, the stress
state in the steel at the center of the defect is in the strain hardening
Fig. 5. The full 3D Model used for the nite-element calculations and a zoomed in
view showing the discretized nite-elements at the defect region (the elements are not
shown in the full 3D model).
Carbon Reinforced Ex 5.5 GPa (0.80 Msi)
Epoxy) Ey 23.4 GPa (3.40 Msi)
Ez 49.0 GPa (7.10 Msi)
Poissons Ratioa
nxy 0.430
nxz 0.196
nyz 0.430
Shear Modulusa
Gxy 0.69 GPa (0.10 Msi)
Gxz 29.6 GPa (4.00 Msi)
Gyz 0.69 GPa (0.10 Msi)
a
The x, y, and z directions correspond to the radial, axial, and hoop directions
respectively.
region, beyond the yielding point, but below the ultimate strength
(see Fig. 6).
One consequence of this higher hoop stress in the steel at the
center of the narrower defect (the 1  6 defect) is that the fatigue
life of a pressure cycled vessel is expected to be lower than the
broader shaped defects (e.g. 6  6). Recently Wilson et al.[8]
conrmed this when they reported the results of fatigue tests in
which the internal pressure was cycled from 1.73 MPa (250 psi) to
16.6 MPa (2400 psi) every 10 s. This extreme pressure variation
(which ranged from 13% to 113% of the maximum allowable oper-
ating pressure of the piping) resulted in fatigue failures in repaired
specimens containing both 1  6 and 6  6 style defects (although
with a wall loss of 80% compared to the 50% wall loss modeled in
this study). The wrapped pressure vessel with the 1  6 defect
failed after 900 cycles, while the wrapped pressure vessels with the
6  6 defect failed after an average of 3299 cycles. In all cases the
failure mode in the fatigue testing was a hoop-type failure, sepa-
ration along the axial direction of the pipe, in the steel substrate in
the defect. The composite overwrap, however, remained intact,
with subsequent leaking occurring at the edge of the overwrap.
In great contrast, when the repaired vessels were pressurized in
monotonic static loading, the vessels burst violently, with the wrap
exploding apart and the steel pressure vessel rupturing along
a longitudinal crack running the length of the defect region as
shown in Fig. 8. Another difference between specimens with the
four different defect types is the increasing degree of non-
symmetry in the stress contours around the defect region as the
defect becomes narrower. This is clearly seen in hoop stress contour
plots on the outside surface of the composite wraps in Fig. 7. One
consequence of this non-symmetry in the composite stress eld is
that a larger portion of the composite is subjected to large near
failure stresses in the axisymmetric and 6  6 defect than the 3  6
and 1  6 systems. This makes the systems with larger defects more
susceptible to aws or material variations within the composite
wrap than the repaired pipes with smaller defect regions, which
could result in lower ultimate burst pressures.
786 J.M. Duell et al. / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 85 (2008) 782788

400
Ec trepair Es ts
Eav
(2)
trepair ts
300
where Es is the elastic modulus of the steel. Then the elastic strain,
Stress (MPa)

3elastic, in the composite laminate is found as follows:

200
1 PD PD
3elastic

(3)
Eav 2 trepair ts 2 Ec trepair Es ts
100
When the substrate pipe begins to yield, the internal pressure,
Pyield, is found by rearranging Eq. (3) with P Pyield:
0
0 0.0025 0.005


23elastic Ec trepair Es ts 2s Ec trepair Es ts
Strain Pyield (4)
600 D DEs
Assuming the pipe steel is elasticperfectly plastic, as the pressure
rises above Pyield the substrate pipe carries no further load and any
500
further load is carried solely by the composite. Therefore the extra
strain, 3plastic, in the composite after yield is given by:
400  
P  Pyield D
Stress (MPa)

3plastic (5)
300
2Ec trepair

Therefore the total hoop strain, 3, as a function of pressure is given

by the sum of the strains before and after the yield pressure is
200
reached as follows:

100
Pyield D P  Pyield D
3 3elastic 3plastic
(6)
2 Ec trepair Es ts 2Ec trepair

0 Equating the total strain, 3, to the design allowable strain of the

0 0.02 0.04 0.06
Strain
Fig. 6. Elastic/Plastic stressstrain curve of the A106 steel in tension used to model
nonlinear pipe behavior.
The effectiveness of the repair can be estimated by comparing
the burst pressure of the repaired vessels (w44 MPa) with the
predicted burst pressure of an unrepaired vessel. The burst pres-
sure of an unrepaired vessel can be made using the ASME B31G
criterion [9] or using the RSTRENG technique [10], both well
established methods for assessing corroded pipelines (with the
ASME B31G criterion known to be overly conservative). For the
defects analyzed in the study, these methods (which do not take
into account the circumferential length of the defect) result in
a predicted burst pressure of 22.4 MPa (3.25 ksi) and 26.2 MPa
(3.80 ksi) for the ASME B31G criterion and the RSTRENG technique
respectively [7].
5. Comparison with ASME repair standard
A recently developed guideline for determining the thickness of
a composite overwrap for pipe defects has been developed as an
ASME Post Construction Repair Standard [11]. In this standard the
minimum repair thickness, trepair, assuming the repair is applied at
zero internal pressure, is determined by:
 
1 PD
trepair  sts
3c Ec 2
where 3c is the allowable circumferential strain, Ec is the tensile
modulus for the composite laminate in the circumferential direc-
tion, P is the internal design pressure, D is the external pipe
diameter, s is the Specied Minimum Yield Strength (SMYS) of the
pipe, and ts is the minimum remaining wall thickness of the pipe.
Eq. (1) is derived by rst assuming an average modulus of the
substrate/composite combination (Eav):
0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 composite, 3c, the minimum thickness of the repair can be derived
from the following equation to yield Eq. (1):
PD ts
3c s (7)
2Ec trepair Ec trepair
In practice, when repairs are carried out at pressure, Eq. (7) must
be modied to account for the internal pressure of the pipe at the
time of repair (Plive) as follows:
PD sts Plive D
3c  
(8)
2Ec trepair Ec trepair 2 Ec trepair Es ts
In this case, the design repair laminate thickness, trepair, may be
calculated by iteration using Eq. (8).
If Eq. (1) is used for the pipe system evaluated in this study (i.e.
D 168.3 mm, ts 3.56 mm, Ec3c 576 MPa, s 300 MPa) and if
a similar failure pressure is assumed (i.e. P 44 MPa) then the
calculated minimum repair thickness, trepair, is found to be
4.57 mm. This is higher than the 3.1 mm for the composite repair
used in the FEA models to obtain the same predicted burst pres-
sures. Of course, several assumptions are inherent in the derivation
of Eq. (1) which are not made in the FEA model. First, the
assumption that the substrate material is elastic, perfectly plastic
(i.e. no strain hardening) is overly simplied as shown by the
substantial increase in stress in the stress curve beyond yield for the
steel pipe sample shown in Fig. 6. The omission of strain hardening
(1) from the derivation of Eq. (1) is likely the primary cause of the
ASME standard over predicting the minimum repair thickness.
Also, the axial stress that is generated by the repair is neglected in
the closed-form solution. This may be a valid assumption for cases
where signicant constraints are placed on the pipe wall in the
axial direction, such as pipeline components that may limit axial
movement or soil friction in buried pipelines. However, it cannot be
neglected in the test specimens with welded end-caps that we
tested and modeled using nite-element analysis. Likewise, Eq. (1)
 J.M. Duell et al. / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 85 (2008) 782788 787

Radial Stress
Hoop Stress
Axial Stress
a b
Axisymmetric Defect 6x6 Defect
700 700
Steel Putty Composite Steel Putty Composite
600 600
500 500
Stress (MPa)

Stress (MPa)
400 400
300 300
200 200
100 100
0 0
-100 -100
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10
Distance (mm) Distance (mm)

14.6 MPa 572 MPa -4.9 MPa 584 MPa

c d
3x6 Defect 1x6 Defect
700
Steel Putty Composite 700
600 Steel Putty Composite
600
500
500
Stress (MPa)

400
Stress (MPa)

400
300
300
200
200
100
100
0
0
-100
0 2 4 6 8 10 -100
0 2 4 6 8 10
Distance (mm)
Distance (mm)

-5.1 MPa 639 MPa 1.1 MPa 618 MPa

Fig. 7. FEA predicted radial, hoop, and axial stress at the center of the 50% wall loss defect from the inside of the pipe wall to the outside of the composite wrap at burst pressure.
Contour plots show corresponding distribution of hoop stress for (a) axisymmetric defect, Pburst 43.8 MPa (b) 6  6 defect, Pburst 44.7 MPa (c) 3  6 defect, Pburst 44.8 MPa (d)
1  6 defect, Pburst 43.8 MPa.

does not account for the defect geometry (i.e. length or width); only
Table 2
the minimum remaining wall thickness (of the substrate) is used to Comparison of repaired vessels
infer the internal pressure at the point of substrate yield. Finally, the
presence of the ller putty is not considered in the closed-form Defect type width  length (inches)  50% thickness Burst pressure, MPa (ksi)

expression, while the minimal reinforcing from the putty is FEA predicted Tested
included in the FEA model. Axisymmetric 43.8 (6.35) 43.8 (6.35)
While these assumptions are very reasonable to obtain 66 44.7 (6.48) 43.1 (6.25)
a conservative closed-form solution to use for the minimum repair 36 44.8 (6.50) N/A
16 43.8 (6.35) N/A
thickness, trepair, in the ASME standard, the FEA results are able to
788 J.M. Duell et al. / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 85 (2008) 782788
Fig. 8. Example of a ruptured vessel with an axisymmetric defect.
predict the actual burst pressure with greater accuracy (with less
than 4% variation between the numerical and experimental burst
pressures, as shown in Table 2). Of course, when designing the
repair system, it is important to consider the large uncertainty in
the strength of the composite material, and material and bond
degradation that can occur with time and at elevated temperature
when subjected to stresses over an extended period of time.
Goertzen and Kessler [12] recently evaluated the creep behavior for
this type of carbon bre/epoxy matrix composite and estimated,
using time-temperature-superposition, that the stress levels to
induce failure at 50 years ranged from 84% at 30  C to 42% at 50  C
of the ultimate tensile strength; though elevated stress rupture
experiments are needed to validate the time-temperature-super-
position work. For this reason signicant design margins should be
included in any design.
6. Conclusions
The results from the nite-element analysis compare well with
experimental rupture tests. The full-scale evaluations performed
on test vessels with machined defects failed at pressures predicted
by the nite-element simulations. Varying the defect length in the
hoop direction had little impact on the failure pressure estimated
using nite-element techniques. Defect length along the axial
direction should be examined to determine what inuence it has
on the failure pressure of vessels repaired with a composite
overwrap. In the future, this work could be extended to charac-
terize more defect sizes, as well as to create a model to determine
where repaired vessels would rupture from excessive internal
pressure.
Acknowledgements
Financial support from the Oklahoma Center for the Advance-
ment of Science and Technology project number AR03(1)-050 is
gratefully acknowledged. The technical advice and helpful discus-
sions with Roger Walker, Will Goertzen, Dixit Kadakia, and Alan
Morton are gratefully acknowledged.
References
[1] Mohitpour M, Golshan H, Murray A. Pipeline design and construction: a prac-
tical approach. 2nd ed. New York, NY: ASME Press; 2003. p. 499518.
[2] Chapetti MD, Otegaui JL, Manfredi C, Martins CF. Full scale experimental
analysis of stress states in sleeve repairs of gas pipelines. International Journal
of Pressure Vessels and Piping 2001;78:37987.
[3] Koch GH, Brongers MP, Tompson NG, Virmani YP, Payer JH. Corrosion cost and
preventative strategies in the United States. Federal Highway Administration,
Ofce of Infrastructure Research and Development; 2001. p. 260311.
[4] Cuthill J. Advances in materials, methods, help gain new users. Pipeline & Gas
Journal Nov 2002;229(11):646.
[5] Marsh G. Composites renovate deteriorating sewers. Reinforced Plastics
2004;48(6):204.
[6] Toutanji H, Dempsey S. Stress modeling of pipelines strengthened with
advanced composite materials. Thin-Walled Structures 2001;39:15365.
[7] Duell JM. Characterization and FEA of a carbon composite overwrap repair
system. Masters thesis, University of Tulsa Graduate School; 2004.
[8] Wilson JM, Kessler MR, Walker RH, Duell JM, Kadakia D, Sousa N. Fatigue testing
of steel pipes repaired with carbon/epoxy composites. In: Proceedings of the
2005 Rio Pipeline Conference and Exposition, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil; Oct. 2005.
Paper IBP1089_05.
[9] ASME. B31G manual for assessing remaining strength of corroded pipes. New
York, NY: American Society of Mechanical Engineers; 1996.
[10] Kiefner JF, Vieth PH. A modied criterion for evaluating the remaining
strength of corroded pipe. Final report on project PR3-805. Columbus, OH:
Battelle Memorial Institute; 1989.
[11] ASME. Post construction standard, PCC-2, repair of pressure equipment and
piping, article 4.1. Non-metallic composite repair systems for pipelines and
pipework: high risk applications. New York, NY: American Society of
Mechanical Engineers; 2006.
[12] Goertzen WK, Kessler MR. Creep behavior of carbon ber/epoxy matrix
composites. Materials Science and Engineering A 2006;421:21725.