There are many options available to pipeline operators when addressing anomalies or integrity threats. Repairing integrity threats requires an understanding of both the anomaly to be repaired, and the repair system itself. This can be challenging as pipeline repair systems come in a wide variety of materials, application techniques, and designs. Operators have similar challenges when performing maintenance activities on operating pipelines. Maintenance activities can take many different forms and often involve welding or other high temperature processes on the outside pipe surface. These processes can result in elevated temperatures on the inside surface of the pipeline and must be seriously considered before undertaking to ensure the safety of personnel performing the tasks and to protect the integrity of the pipeline. This study aimed to provide a greater understanding of pipeline reinforcement systems and maintenance activities as they relate specifically to thin-walled pipelines.
To evaluate systems reinforcing thin-wall pipes, five different repair systems were investigated using 12.75-inch × 0.219-inch, Gr. X65 pipe that had been removed from service. The systems included a Type B steel sleeve, an epoxy-filled, interference fit, Type A steel sleeve, a hybrid steel sleeve-fiberglass based composite repair system, epoxy-filled oversized Type A steel sleeves, and a rigid coil, pre-cured, fiberglass-based composite repair system. Each system was used to reinforce a simulated 50% wall loss anomaly and was installed with the pipe samples maintained at an internal pressure equal to 33% of the pipe’s specified minimum yield strength (SMYS). The samples underwent pressure cycling and hydrostatic testing while strains in the simulated wall loss region were continually monitored. As a final step, the samples were burst tested. Monitoring of strain gages installed in the simulated wall loss anomaly allowed for comparisons to be made between the tested repair systems. It was observed that the recorded strain magnitudes and strain ranges were higher in some samples than others during testing. This allowed the systems to be ranked according to the recorded strains. Although differences were observed in the recorded strains, burst testing showed that all reinforcement systems were able to force failure to the base pipe outside of the simulated wall loss region.
Maintenance procedures were also evaluated to identify those that could produce unacceptable temperatures on the inside surface of the thin-wall pipe. The maintenance procedures included installation of Type A steel sleeves (non-pressure containing), Type B steel sleeves (pressure containing), cad welds, and pin brazing cathodic protection (CP) test leads. Temperatures were monitored on the internal pipe surface using thermocouples and an infrared (IR) camera while the maintenance procedures were being performed. An internal surface temperature of 500 °F (260 °C) was set as the threshold for suitability. Monitoring of the Type B steel sleeve installation showed temperatures on the inside surface of the pipe that exceeded 1,200 °F (648 °C) when performing the circumferential weld at each end of the steel sleeve. A maximum temperature of 280 °F (137 °C) was recorded when making the longitudinal welds that included a backing strip. For the application being considered, this indicated that Type A steel sleeves (longitudinal welds only) could be installed within the required temperature limits. A maximum internal temperature of 936 °F (502 °C) was recorded during cad-welding. Pin-brazing was slightly lower, but also exceeded the 500 °F threshold. This testing confirmed that the installation of Type B steel sleeves, cad welding, or pin brazing should receive scrutiny before being performed on operating thin-wall pipelines.
