当前位置：首页 > 过刊浏览->2025年第51卷第4期
腐蚀管道剩余强度计算方法研究和修正
Research and correction of calculation methods for residual strength of corroded pipeline
浏览(595) 下载(6)
- DOI:
- 10.3969/j.issn.1001-2206.2025.04.009
- 作者:
- 陈健, 穆科, 赵洪超, 苟仁惠, 王婷婷, 梁昌晶
CHEN Jian, MU Ke, ZHAO Hongchao, GOU Renhui, WANG Tingting, LIANG Changjing
- 作者单位:
- 1. 华北石油管理局有限公司苏里格勘探开发分公司, 内蒙古鄂尔多斯 017300;2. 中国石油华北油田公司第一采油厂, 河北任丘 062552;3. 中国石油华北油田公司第五采油厂, 河北辛集 052360
- 关键词:
- 腐蚀缺陷; 剩余强度; 流变应力; 鼓胀系数; 管道; 裂纹缺陷
corrosion defect;residual strength;flow stress;swelling coefficient;pipeline;crack defect
- 摘要:
为提高腐蚀管道剩余强度计算结果的准确性和适应性，在分析常用评价方法差异性的基础上，基于有限元分析验证体积型腐蚀缺陷与裂纹型缺陷向塑性区域发展模式上的差异，采用反算方法得到了不同当量缺陷长度和当量缺陷深度下的鼓胀系数，并对鼓胀系数进行了修正，最后统计了不同计算方法的误差分布情况。结果显示：流变应力、完好管道剩余强度对腐蚀管道剩余强度的计算结果影响较小，鼓胀系数对腐蚀管道剩余强度的计算结果影响较大；腐蚀深度较浅时，塑性区主要从缺陷端部发展，腐蚀深度较深时，塑性区则从缺陷端部和中间同时发展；ASME B31G准则、修正ASME B31G准则、DNV-RP-F101准则、API 579-1准则、本文研究方法计算结果的相对误差在±5%之间的占比分别为22.03%、20.33%、38.98%、22.03%、55.93%，本文研究提出的计算方法实用性更高。
This study aims to improve the accuracy and adaptability of the calculation results of the residual strength of corroded pipelines. After analyzing the difference of commonly used evaluation methods, the difference in the development of volumetric corrosion defects and crack defects to the plastic zone was verified based on finite element analysis. Additionally, the swelling coefficient under different equivalent defect lengths and depths was obtained based on the inverse calculation method, and the swelling coefficient was revised. Finally, the error distribution of different calculation methods was calculated. The results show that the flow stress and the residual strength of the intact pipe have little influence on the residual strength of the corroded pipe, while the swelling coefficient has a great influence on the residual strength of the corroded pipe. When the corrosion depth is shallow, the plastic zone develops from the defect end. When the corrosion depth is deep, the plastic zone develops from the defect end and the middle simultaneously. The relative errors within ±5% of ASME B31G standard, modified ASME B31G standard, DNV-RP-F101 standard, API 579-1 standard, and the calculation results of the proposed method were 22.03%, 20.33%, 38.98%, 22.03%, and 55.93%, respectively. Therefore, this method is of higher practicality.