崔铭伟,王媛媛,贺杰,由洋,封子艳,张月明,张书勤.相互作用腐蚀管道剩余强度评价方法对比研究[J].表面技术,2016,45(8):56-62.
CUI Ming-wei,WANG Yuan-yuan,HE Jie,YOU Yang,FENG Zi-yan,ZHANG Yue-ming,ZHANG Shu-qin.Comparison Study on Assessment Methods for Residual Strength of Interaction Corroded Pipeline[J].Surface Technology,2016,45(8):56-62 |
| 相互作用腐蚀管道剩余强度评价方法对比研究 |
| Comparison Study on Assessment Methods for Residual Strength of Interaction Corroded Pipeline |
| 投稿时间：2016-04-04 修订日期：2016-08-20 |
| DOI：10.16490/j.cnki.issn.1001-3660.2016.08.010 |
| 中文关键词: 相邻腐蚀 轴向间距 相互影响 剩余强度 评价规范 适应性 |
| 英文关键词:adjacent corrosion axial spacing interaction residual strength evaluation criterion applicability |
| 基金项目:延长石油项目（ycsy2016ky-A-17） |
|
|
| Author | Institution |
| CUI Ming-wei | Research Institute of Shaanxi Yanchang Petroleum (Group) Company Limited, Xi an 710075, China |
| WANG Yuan-yuan | Oil and Gas Exploration Company of Shaanxi Yanchang Petroleum (Group), Yan an 716000, China |
| HE Jie | Oil and Gas Exploration Company of Shaanxi Yanchang Petroleum (Group), Yan an 716000, China |
| YOU Yang | Research Institute of Shaanxi Yanchang Petroleum (Group) Company Limited, Xi an 710075, China |
| FENG Zi-yan | Research Institute of Shaanxi Yanchang Petroleum (Group) Company Limited, Xi an 710075, China |
| ZHANG Yue-ming | Research Institute of Shaanxi Yanchang Petroleum (Group) Company Limited, Xi an 710075, China |
| ZHANG Shu-qin | Research Institute of Shaanxi Yanchang Petroleum (Group) Company Limited, Xi an 710075, China |
|
| 摘要点击次数: |
| 全文下载次数: |
| 中文摘要: |
| 目的 分析现有腐蚀评价规范对相互影响腐蚀管道剩余强度计算的适应性，筛选合适的相互影响腐蚀管道剩余强度评价规范。方法 介绍了ASME B31G—91、修正的B31G、ASME B31G—2009/2012、RSTRENG方法、DNV-RP-F101方法以及PCORRC方法等七种相邻腐蚀相互作用认定准则以及相互作用腐蚀评价方法，应用实验数据分析了各评价方法的适应性。结果 ASME B31G—91、修正的B31G、ASME B31G—2009/2012、RSTRENG方法大多以临界轴向间距为依据，超过临界轴向间距时，相邻腐蚀不发生相互影响，但未给出相邻腐蚀相互影响的评价思路或影响方式。DNV RP-F101标准明确提出了相邻腐蚀相互影响准则，并给出了相互影响腐蚀评价思路。PCORRC方法未明确给出相互影响腐蚀评价思路。结论 上述七种腐蚀评价规范均以单腐蚀管道为研究基础，更适合评价单腐蚀缺陷管道，评价相互作用腐蚀缺陷过于保守，并且相邻腐蚀缺陷相互作用准则过于简单，未完全反映相邻腐蚀缺陷相互作用机理。相比而言，DNV-RP-F101方法较其他评价方法的计算结果更准确，保守性更低。 |
| 英文摘要: |
| Objective To analyze the applicability of existing corrosion evaluation specifications to the calculation of residual strength of interaction corroded pipeline and screen the suitable evaluation specification for the residual strength of interaction corroded pipeline. Methods Seven identification criteria for adjacent corrosion interaction like ASME B31G—91, modified B31G, ASME B31G—2009/2012, RSTRENG method, DNV-RP-F101 method and PCORRC method as well as interaction evaluation methodology were summarized. The applicability of all evaluation methods were analyzed by experimental data. Results ASME B31G—91, modified B31G, ASME B31G—2009/2012 and RSTRENG methods were mostly based on the critical axial spacing. Once over the critical axial spacing, adjacent corrosion interaction did not occur. However the evaluation ideas or way of influence for the adjacent corrosion interaction was not given out. DNV RP-F101 standard clearly put forward the criterion on interaction of adjacent corrosion and proposed the evaluation ideas for evaluation of interaction corrosion. PCORRC method did not explicitly suggest the evaluation ideas. Conclusion The seven corrosion evaluation criteria are all based on the single corrosion pipeline. They are more suitable for the evaluation on single corrosion defect pipeline but conservative for the evaluation on interaction corrosion defects. The interaction criterion of adjacent corrosion defects is too simple with the method of ASME B31G—91, modified B31G, ASME B31G—2009/2012, RSTRENG method, DNV-RP-F101 method and PCORRC method, and the mechanism of the interaction between adjacent corrosion defects is not completely showed. In comparison, the DNV-RP-F101 method is more accurate and less conservative than other methods. |
| 查看全文 查看/发表评论 下载PDF阅读器 |
| 关闭 |
|
|
|
渝公网安备 50010702501715号