基于全尺寸试验的X80管道腐蚀缺陷评价方法验证分析  

Verification Analysis of X80 Pipeline Corrosion Defect Evaluation Method Based on Full-scale Test

作　　者：雷铮强[1] 陈健[1] 梁云龙 王富祥[1] 郑洪龙[1] LEI Zheng-qiang;CHEN Jian;LIANG Yun-long;WANG Fu-xiang;ZHENG Hong-long(PetroChina Pipeline R&D Center,Langfang 065000,China;PetroChina Shandong Oil Transportation Co.,Ltd.,Heze 274500,China)

机构地区：[1]中国石油管道科技研究中心,河北廊坊065000 [2]中石油山东输油有限公司,山东菏泽274500

出　　处：《管道技术与设备》2018年第2期48-51,共4页Pipeline Technique and Equipment

基　　金：国家重点研发计划课题(2016YFC0802105);中国石油管道公司科研项目(20150302)

摘　　要：文中在调研含腐蚀缺陷X80管道全尺寸压力爆破试验数据基础上,对ASME B31G-2012、ASME B31G-1991、PCORRC、LPC-1、SHELL 92评价方法的失效压力评价结果进行验证,并用线性回归分析方法对比分析了各评价方法用于X80管道腐蚀缺陷评价的准确性和可靠性。对比分析结果表明:管道腐蚀缺陷深度或长度较大时,各评价方法的预测失效压力差异更明显,其中流动应力、腐蚀面积参数、鼓胀因子等因素共同影响了评价结果的保守性;LPC-1方法预测的准确性最高,SHELL 92方法最保守。This paper was based on the investigation of the full-scale pressure blasting test of the X80 pipeline corrosion defect,and methods of ASME B31G-2012,ASME B31G-1991,PCORRC,LPC-1,SHELL 92 were verified in the view of failure presure assessment results.The accuracy and reliability of each evaluation method for the evaluation of corrosion defects of X80 pipeline were analyzed by using the linear regression analysis method.Compared with the analysis results,the prediction failure pressure difference of the evaluation method is more obvious when the pipeline corrosion defect depth and the length are large.The factors such as flow stress,corrosion area parameters and bloating factor influence the conservatism of the evaluation results.Method of LPC-1 is most accurate,and method of SHELL 92 is the most conservative method.

关 键 词：管道 全尺寸试验 腐蚀 X80 评价方法 保守性 

分 类 号：TE88[石油与天然气工程—油气储运工程]