Rehabilitationandproductionofpipesusing Fiber Reinforced Polymer FRPmaterials

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/332736519
Rehabilitation and production of pipes using Fiber Reinforced Polymer (FRP)

materials
Article · April 2019
CITATIONS READS
0 76
1 author:
Ali Kakavand
Chalmers University of Technology
2 PUBLICATIONS 1 CITATION
SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Ali Kakavand on 29 April 2019.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Rehabilitation and production of pipes using Fiber
Reinforced Polymer (FRP) materials
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering

CHALMERS UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY
Gothenburg, Sweden 2016
Abstract
Over the past two decades fiber reinforced polymer (FRP) composite materials have been widely used
as a permanent and cost-effective repair technology for the sections of pipe which were affected locally
by cracks, dent and corrosion. This rehabilitation technique is quick and reduces safety risk compare to
the traditional repair methods such as replacement the damage segment with new pipe or installation of
steel sleeve over the damage section.
There are different research, field experiments and laboratory tests by several organizations and
manufactures which have demonstrated the use of composite materials as a legitimate repair system.
Additionally, there are two technical specifications, ASME PCC2 code and ISO/TS 24817 standard,
which are commonly applied to design the composite repair systems in pipeline industries.
However, there is still no published data about production of new pipes coated with composite materials.
One of the advantages of using FRP materials in production of pipes is the possibility of tailor making
the sections based on the requirements put forward by each project. Efficient use of materials brings
added values such as cost effectiveness to production of FRP pipe sections. Very good durability of FRP
materials guarantees the long-term performance of these pipes (usually +100 years). In addition to
advantages mentioned above, application of FRP materials for this purpose, enables to include remote
monitoring systems as a built-in component of FRP-coated pipes.
The main body of this work is divided into two major parts.
First the influence of composite materials on rehabilitation of existing pipes was reviewed briefly to
have a better understanding about the real behavior of composite repair systems. Both advantages and
limitations of each type of FRP materials were discussed in more details. It was shown that how
composite repair transfer the circumferential stress from the damage zone in pipe by means of high
compressive load strength filler to the composite repair. A numerical investigation was also carried out
based on ISO 24817 to evaluate the minimum composite repair thickness achieved from case study 3.
The second part of this work was related to production of new pipes coated with FRP materials. The
feasibility of manufacturing of this method was introduced and their pros and cons were identified.
Furthermore, two possible nondestructive (ND) methods, namely Fiber optic systems and Radio
frequency identification (RFID), were introduced for remote detecting and monitoring the damage area
in the pipe systems. In the end a numerical case study was carried out to identify the other improvement
factors which are associated with strengthening of pipes with FRP composite. In this section a FRP-
wrapped steel pipe and a FRP-wrapped PEX pipe were designed base on ISO 24817 and their
characteristics were compared to the unwrapped pipes. From the numerical calculation it was observed
that application of thin layers of FRP composites has a significant effect to preventing the heat loss.
Numerical results were also shown that the strengthening of PEX pipes with FRP composite allowed
the PEX pipes to withstand for a greater pressure compare to the unwrapped condition.
Keywords: Fiber reinforced polymer (FRP), pipe, rehabilitation, production, damage
II
List of contents
Abstract ................................................................................................................................................... II
List of contents ...................................................................................................................................... III
List of pictures ........................................................................................................................................ V
List of tables .......................................................................................................................................... VI
Acknowledgement ................................................................................................................................ VII
1. Aim and scope of the report ............................................................................................................ 1
2. Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1
3. Rehabilitation and repair of existing pipes using FRP materials ..................................................... 2
3.1. Problem definition ................................................................................................................... 2
3.2. Introduction of Fiber Reinforced Polymer FRP composites ................................................... 2
3.2.1. Mechanical properties of different types of FRP composites .......................................... 3
3.3. FRP wrapping techniques ........................................................................................................ 7
3.3.1. Layered systems .............................................................................................................. 7
3.3.2. Wet lay-up systems ......................................................................................................... 8
3.4. Case studies ........................................................................................................................... 11
3.4.1. Case study 1: FRP Composite repair of corroded steel pipe ......................................... 11
3.4.2. Case study 2: Pipeline repair of corrosion and dents..................................................... 13
3.4.3. Case study 3: composite repair for corroded ................................................................. 16
3.4.4. Design of composite repair for pressure based on ISO/TS 24817................................. 19
4. Production of new pipes using FRP materials ............................................................................... 21
4.1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 21
4.2. Manufacturing ....................................................................................................................... 21
4.2.1. Pultrusion....................................................................................................................... 21
4.2.2. Filament Winding .......................................................................................................... 23
4.3. Non-destructive (ND) status monitoring system in pipelines ............................................... 24
4.3.1. General introduction of monitoring NDT ...................................................................... 24
4.3.1.1. Inclusion fiber optic system in newly produced FRP-wrapped pipes ....................... 24
4.3.1.2. Inclusion RFID tags in newly produced FRP pipes .................................................. 25
4.4. Case study.............................................................................................................................. 26
4.4.1. The influence of FRP composites on steel pipe heat loss .............................................. 26
4.4.2. The influence of FRP composites on the PEX pipe MAOP .......................................... 30
5. Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................... 34
6. Future work ................................................................................................................................... 34
Appendix 1 ............................................................................................................................................ 35
Appendix 2 ............................................................................................................................................ 36
Appendix 3 ............................................................................................................................................ 42
III
Appendix 4 ............................................................................................................................................ 43
Appendix 5 ............................................................................................................................................ 45
References ............................................................................................................................................. 80
IV
List of pictures
Figure 1 Composition of FRP composite materials ................................................................................ 3
Figure 2 Temperature rages for polymers, Metal and Ceramic matrices ................................................ 3
Figure 3 E-glass woven roving ................................................................................................................ 5
Figure 4 Typical structure of Clock Spring® repair system ................................................................... 7
Figure 5 Layered system-Clock Spring (Clock Spring®_ Company, 2007)........................................... 8
Figure 6 Basic principle of wet lay-up method ....................................................................................... 8
Figure 7 Installation of wet lay-up composite wrap (Armor Plate_ pipe wrap)...................................... 9
Figure 8 Pipe repair application kit. (a) Reinforcement and application tools. (b) Two-part putty and
epoxy used to fill defects and wet out carbon fiber wrap. ..................................................................... 11
Figure 9 Pipe test vessels with machined flaws with a depth of 50% wall thickness for (a)
axisymmetric and (b) 6x6 in patch defects. ........................................................................................... 11
Figure 10 Pipe repair process (a) filling defect with putty (b) wrapping epoxy wetted carbon fabric
around the defect ................................................................................................................................... 12
Figure 11 Simulated corrosion details ................................................................................................... 13
Figure 12 Burst failure for all pipe samples .......................................................................................... 14
Figure 13 Simulated corrosion details ................................................................................................... 16
Figure 14 Test pipes with complete repairs ........................................................................................... 17
Figure 15 Test specimens number 1, 2, 5, 3 and 4 after bursting .......................................................... 18
Figure 16 Typical Pultrusion Process .................................................................................................... 22
Figure 17 Example of pultruded glass fiber reinforced pipe ................................................................. 22
Figure 18 Filament winding process ..................................................................................................... 23
Figure 19 Multimode and Singlemode Fiber Optic ............................................................................... 24
Figure 20 Basic principle of RFID technology ..................................................................................... 25
Figure 21 Hoop stress working on thin walled pipe .............................................................................. 26
Figure 22 Cross section of FRP wrapped steel pipe .............................................................................. 28
Figure 23 Heat transfer through the steel pipe ...................................................................................... 28
Figure 24 Comparasion of heat loss between bare steel pipe and pre-FRP wrapped pipe .................... 30
Figure 25 Example of PEX pipe ............................................................................................................ 31
Figure 26 Comparison of pressure capacity between bare PEX pipe and pre-FRP wrapped PEX pipe 33
V
List of tables
Table 1 Typical Properties of Thermoset and Thermoplastic Polymers ................................................. 4
Table 2 Typical properties of different glass fiber grades ....................................................................... 4
Table 3 Typical Properties of Carbon Fibers .......................................................................................... 6
Table 4 Typical Properties of Kevlar Fibers ........................................................................................... 6
Table 5 Comparison of experimental rapture pipe tests ........................................................................ 12
Table 6 Comparison of finite element rapture pipe tests ....................................................................... 12
Table 7 Pipe material used for 75% corrosion samples......................................................................... 13
Table 8 Pipe material used for dent samples ......................................................................................... 14
Table 9 Burst pressure and hoop strain for 75% corrosion burst sample .............................................. 14
Table 10 Hoop strain recorded at 1000 cycles for the 75% corrosion samples ..................................... 15
Table 11 Hoop strain recorded at 1000 cycles for dent samples ........................................................... 15
Table 12 Pipe material used for 75% corrosion samples....................................................................... 16
Table 13 Repair class (ISO 24817) ....................................................................................................... 19
Table 14 Material properties of steel and fiber glass composite ........................................................... 26
Table 15 Steel pipe diameters and properties ........................................................................................ 27
Table 16 FRP wrapped steel pipe diamteres and properties .................................................................. 28
Table 17 Heat transfer of steel pipe ....................................................................................................... 29
Table 18 Heat transfer of FRP-wrapped steel pipe................................................................................ 29
Table 19 Material properties of PEX pipe and fiber glass composte .................................................... 31
Table 20 PEX pipe – DN110 - properties ............................................................................................. 31
Table 21 PEX pipe – DN80 - properties ............................................................................................... 32
Table 22 PEX pipe+FRP – DN110 - properties .................................................................................... 32
Table 23 PEX pipe+FRP – DN80 - properties ...................................................................................... 32
Table 24 Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Accident Summary by Cause 1/1/2002 - 12/31/2003 ................. 42
Table 25 Natural Gas Transmission Pipeline Incident Summary by Cause 1/1/2002 - 12/31/2003 ..... 42
Table 26 Mechanical Properties of PEX pipe ....................................................................................... 43
Table 27 Electrical properties................................................................................................................ 43
Table 28 Thermal properties ................................................................................................................. 43
Table 29 Drinking water PEX pipes, weight and volume ..................................................................... 44
Table 30 Heating PEX pipes (UponorevalPEX), weight and volume ................................................... 44
VI
Acknowledgement
As you may be aware, the completion of every research could not be possible without the participation
and support of so many kind people whose name may not all be mentioned but their collaboration and
kindness will never be forgotten.
However, I would like to express my sincere and deepest gratitude particularly to my supervisor, Reza
Haghani Dogahe for his prompt inspiration comments and suggestions during this research that showed
me an obvious pattern to put this works together and for his generosity in sharing his time and enormous
knowledge with me.
I acknowledge with gratitude to Professor Bijan Adl-Zarrabi, who gave me this great opportunity to
write about this subject and providing me all valuable support and concern, his sympathetic attitude and
immense motivation protect my efforts at all stages and made me to complete the research.
Last but not least, it is my privilege to express my sense of thankfulness to my dear family and all my
friends for their perpetual assistance and guidance and for being patiently by my side over these past
few months.
Ali Kakavand
Winter 2016
VII
CHALMERS - Civil and Environmental Engineering
1. Aim and scope of the report

The fundamental objective of this document is to evaluate the production feasibility of new pipes
reinforced with fiber reinforced polymer (FRP) composite materials. This document also provide a
review of the use of FRP materials for rehabilitation of existing pipes. Strengthening and rehabilitation
of both pipelines and piping system with FRP material are the main concern of this work. Generally,
three main repair scenarios are involved in pipework based on the type of damage; pipe subjected to
external damage (e.g. corrosion and mechanical damage), internal damage (corrosion and/erosion) and
through-wall defects (leaks). This document, therefore, cover the repair for external damage of pipework
only.
In order to have a good understanding of advantages and limitations of FRP reinforcement technique,
the rehabilitation of existing damage pipes are discussed in three different case studies and for one case
the results compared to the design value from ISO/TS 24817 standard. Afterwards, the FRP wrapping
and manufacturing techniques with their pros and cons for both existing pipes and new pipes are
presented. To estimate the status performance of pipes during the operation conditions, two possible
non-destructive (ND) screening methods are also introduced. In the end, a numerical investigation of a
FRP-wrapped Crosslinked Polyethylene (PEX) pipe and a FRP-wrapped steel pipe are carried out based
on ISO/TS 24817 standard to identify the other improvement factors involved in this method.
2. Introduction
It is predicted by the Energy Information Administration (EIA) that the energy demand increases more
rapidly from 2003 to 2030. According to EGIG (2005) the total length of gas transmission pipelines in
Europe between 1970 and 2004 has increased from about 30000 km to 120000 km. However, in many
cases most of these pipelines are degraded with the passage of time. This means a great need to repair
or replace of the in-service aged pipes with new pipeline system (Hopkins, 2007). The service life of
pipelines is affected due to several factors such as third party damages, material and construction defect,
natural forces and corrosion (Lim et al., 2016). Consequently, the design operation capacity of the
system will be decreased in the whole pipe network. It is estimated that more than 50% of the 1,000,000
km USA oil and gas pipelines are more than 40 years old (Hopkins, 2007). To recover the design
operating capacity of the corroded or damaged pipes one repair technique is to remove and replace the
damaged sections with new pipes. Replacement of in-service damage pipes is a long term and costly
technique (Karbhari, 2015). Application of steel sleeve or steel clamp have also been used as a
conventional repair method in pipelines. In this technique, steel sleeves are externally welded or bolted
to the outside surface of the pipes. Nevertheless, several disadvantages are associated in this repair
method including limited application for joints and bends, and the risk of explosion due to welding (Lim,
2016).
Repair with FRP materials are recently recognized as an ideal alternative repair method for damaged
pipelines and piping systems. The viability of this method has been proven by several field experiments
and laboratory tests (Meniconi et al, 2002, Kessler et al, 2004 and Alexander et al, 2014). Moreover,
two international design codes, one by the International Organization for Standardization ISO/TS-24817
and the other the ASME PCC-2, are available to design the composite repair.
1
3. Rehabilitation and repair of existing pipes using FRP materials
Rehabilitation and repair of pipes by means of fiber composite materials is generally focused on the
external repair of corroded steel pipes to restore the strength in the circumferential direction (Alexander
and Ochoa, 2010). However, application of fiber reinforced composites for internal repair are also
becoming a suitable alternative to achieve the original design strength of pipes. It should be noted that
the main focus of this work is conducted to evaluate the behavior of FRP composites for external repair
of existing pipes.
3.1.Problem definition
Repair of corroded and damage pipes has been an important issue facing the transmission pipelines both
from energy cost perspective and safety perspective. According to National Association of Corrosion
Engineers (NACE), the estimated cost for monitoring, replacing and maintaining corroded transmission
pipelines in the United States alone stands well in excess of $7 billion annually (Koch et al., 2002). The
risk of explosion and release of hazardous liquid is the other issue attributed to the repair of pipelines.
The July 9, 2015, explosion of the Tebidaba-Clough Creek line, an oil pipeline in Nigeria's onshore
Niger Delta, which results in twelve dead and three injured is a recent example as such repair works
(www.bbc.com).
Over the past two decades rehabilitation and repair of damaged pipes by means of FRP materials has
become a cost effective alternative repair system in the pipeline transportation industry. It has shown
from several laboratory hydrostatic burst tests and field practices that composite repair techniques
provide better results than traditional pipeline repair techniques such as welded or bolt-on repair sleeve
and damaged section replacement methods (Her et al 2014, Alexander et al, 2014, Duell et al 2008).
3.2.Introduction of Fiber Reinforced Polymer FRP composites
According to Mohitpour et al., 2003 more than 1.7 million kilometers gas and petroleum products are
distributed through steel pipeline networks around the world. Furthermore, annually between $2.0 and
$3.3 billion energy is lost due to maintenance and repair of gas and petroleum pipelines in the Unite
state only (Koch et al., 2001). One of the main detrimental effect of steel pipes is referred to corrosion
(internal and external). Corrosion in steel pipes is affected by several factors such as environmental
conditions, interaction of internal fluid and pipe properties (Toutanji et al., 2008). Different upgrading
pipe techniques are involved for corrosion problems in existing pipelines. Examples of such methods
might be replacement of corroded segments, welding or bolting steel sleeves and the recently FRP
composite materials method. FRP composites have been attracted a great deal of attention in
rehabilitation and strengthening of existing aged pipelines. Superior mechanical properties of FRP
composites such as high strength and stiffness, very good durability properties and light weight have
made them a suitable alternative for traditional materials and techniques. It is shown from industrial
analysis that rehabilitation of pipelines by FRP material is approximately 24% cheaper than welded
sleeves treatment and 73% cheaper than replacement techniques in steel pipes (Koch et al., 2001). Thus,
application of FRP composites has become a cost effective alternative over the past two decades in
pipeline systems.
The constituent of FRP composites is made of polymeric matrix and fiber. The fibers which have
normally high strength capacity are embedded into polymeric matrix for reinforcing purpose. The
behavior of fiber and matrix, due to different chemical and physical properties, are separate and distinct
from each other in the final structure (Zoghi, 2014). This significant feature of FRP composites lead to
creation of a high strength material with low density. In FRP composites, the matrix are used to bond
the fibers next to each other and protect them from outside chemical and physical defects. The
orientation of fibers may also be in specific or random direction and has important role in the final
properties of FRP composites. In Figure 1 the details of FRP composites are illustrated. Matrices are
normally selected based on required composite temperature and are typically polymers, metal and
ceramic. Polymer matrices are commonly materials used in civil infrastructures applications due to their
low cost and chemical properties. Thermosets and thermoplastics are the main two classification of the
2
polymer matrices and are selected based on their performance against heat. When thermosets are heated
irreversible deformation take place between cross-linking. Conversely, thermoplastics deform
temporary and chemical reaction does not occur in the polymer chains (Zoghi, 2014).
Figure 1 Composition of FRP composite materials

Source: www.slideshare.net/GranchBerheTseghai/2-textile-reinforced-composites
3.2.1. Mechanical properties of different types of FRP composites

In FRP composites, ingredients include matrix (discrete phase) and fiber (continuous phase). The matrix
normally works as a glue to tie the fiber up together and protect them from physical and chemical defects.
On the other hand, fibers (reinforcements) act as load carrying constituent and has significant effect on
the final mechanical properties of composite (Zoghi, 2014). The mechanical properties of each
constituent are discussed in the next section.
3.2.1.1. Polymers Matrix
Matrix in composite structures acts as an adhesive to connect fibers together and also shift the applied
loads to fibers. Furthermore, they behave as a barrier to protect the composite from environmental and
chemical defects. The mechanical properties of composite materials, such as shear, transverse and
compressive strength, are also affected by matrix material characteristics. Matrices are normally selected
based on design requirement temperature of a desired composite structure. For low temperature
applications polymer is a suitable choice and for high temperature requirements ceramic are normally
used. Temperature ranges for typical matrix material are illustrated in Figure 2.
Figure 2 Temperature rages for polymers, Metal and Ceramic matrices

Source: Zoghi, 2014
Due to the high cost of ceramic and metal matrices, these materials are not applied in civil engineering
infrastructures. Because of different benefits of polymers they are applied as matrix materials at
composite structures in this field. The main advantages of polymers for this purpose are listed as below:
 Low cost
 Good endurance against chemical defects
 Ease of processing
 Lightweight
There are also several disadvantages which associated to polymer matrix. Examples include of low
strength, low operating temperature and low moisture resistance which has negative effects on polymer
mechanical properties.
The heat response capacity of polymer has a vital influence for selecting them as a matrix material.
Polymer matrices are mainly divided into thermosets and thermoplastics. As it mentioned in section 3.2
when thermoset polymers are heated, irreversible chemical changes take place between polymer
3
molecular bonds. Therefore by heating this material they can be cured to the desired shapes. Typical
thermosets which widely used in civil infrastructures applications are epoxy, phenolic resin and
polyester. Besides, thermoplastics have long polymer chains and no chemical reaction occur in their
structures when they are heated. In other word thermoplastics have reversible deformation when heated.
Typical examples of thermoplastics are nylon, polyethylene and polycarbonate (Zoghi, 2014). Different
properties of thermoset and thermoplastic polymer are exhibited in Table 1.
Table 1 Typical Properties of Thermoset and Thermoplastic Polymers
Property Epoxy Polycarbonate
Density, 𝜌 (g⁄cm3 ) 1.2-1.3 1.0-1.2

Modulus of elasticity, 𝐸 (GPa) 3-4 2.2-2.4
Ultimate Strength, σult (𝑀𝑃𝑎) 55-130 45-70
−6
Thermal expansion, 𝛼 (10 /℃) 45-65 70
Failure strain, 𝜀f 1-8 50-100
Source: Zoghi, 2014
3.2.1.2. Fiber (Reinforcement)

Fibers in the composite materials act as reinforcement and are involved about 30-70% of the total
volume of the composite and 50% of its weight (Potyrala, 2011). Selection of fibers is basically depends
on the desired properties required in finished composite structures (Clarke, 1996). Type of fiber, fiber
volume fraction, length of the fiber and fiber orientation have affected following properties of composite
materials (Mallick, 2008)
 Density
 Tensile strength and modulus
 Compressive strength and modulus
 Fatigue strength as well as fatigue failure mechanism
 Electrical and thermal conductivity
 Cost
In civil engineering industry three types of fibers are commonly applied in composite materials: Glass,
carbon and aramid fibers. Each of these fiber types has their own pros and cons which are discussed in
following section.
 Glass Fiber
Fiber glasses are generally used as a most common reinforcing fiber in the production of FRP composite
materials. The main material to process this type of fiber is glass. Fiber glass is suitable choice as
reinforcement in FRP composites due to low cost, high chemical resistance, good insulating
characteristics and high tensile strength. Conversely, there are several disadvantages of glass fiber
namely low tensile modulus, high density compare to other commercial fibers, low fatigue resistance
and high hardness (Mallick, 2008). Glass fiber is available in various classes based on their typical
properties. In Table 2 different grades of glass fibers are listed.
Table 2 Typical properties of different glass fiber grades
Properties E-Glass A-Glass S-Glass C-Glass R-Glass D-Glass High Modulus
Density, 𝜌 (g⁄cm3 ) 2.54 2.45 2.49 2.45 2.58 2.14 2.89

Tensile Strength,
3.45 3.30 4.58 3.31 4.40 2.50 3.40
σult (GPa)
4
Elastic modulus,
72.4 69.0 85.5 69.0 84.8 55.0 110.4
𝐸 (GPa)
Diameter, 𝑑 (𝜇𝑚) 3-20 - 8-13 - - - -
Thermal expansion,
5.0 - 2.9 6.3 - 3.1 -
𝛼 (10−6 /℃)
Max operation -
550 - 650 600 477 -
temp. (℃)
Source: Zoghi, 2014
E-glass and S-glass are the two common types of glass fibers applied in FRP composites. E-glass is the
most used fiber glass type for general purpose in FRP industry. Durability characteristics, high tensile
strength and low cost of E-glass are the main reasons of E-glass widespread application. Nevertheless,
E-glass fibers are very damageable from both physical and environmental perspectives (Clarke, 1996).
S-glass fiber has the highest tensile strength compare to other glass fiber. However, due to high
manufacturing cost it is more expensive than E-glass (Mallick, 2008). A typical e-glass fiber is shown
in Figure 3.
Figure 3 E-glass woven roving

Source: www.alibaba.com
 Carbon Fiber
Carbon fibers are produced by transforming organic precursors, contain pyrolysis and crystallization at
temperature above 2000oC (Potyrala, 2011). Properties of final carbon fibers depend mostly to the
structure and composition of precursors. Manufacturing process of carbon fibers are practically the
same, but achievement of high carbon fibers performance is related to the type of processing condition
required for different precursors (Huang, 2009). Application of carbon fiber, compare to the glass fiber,
are limited in construction field because high energy is needed during manufacturing process.
Conversely, carbon fibers have greater fatigue strength and elastic modulus than fiber glass (Potyrala,
2011). Advantages involved of carbon fibers can be mentioned as below (Mallick, 2008):
 High tensile strength–weight ratios
 High tensile modulus–weight ratios
 Very low coefficient of linear thermal expansion
 High fatigue strength
 High thermal conductivity
On the other hand, low strain to failure and low impact resistance as well as high production costs of
carbon fibers are its main disadvantages (Mallick, 2008).
The mechanical properties of carbon fibers can vary based on the aim of the application. The fibers in
Type I are graphitized to provide high stiffness. Type II has fibers with high strength. In the Table 3 the
properties of different Types of carbon fibers are presented.
5
Table 3 Typical Properties of Carbon Fibers
Properties Type I Type II Pitch Rayon
Density, 𝜌 (g⁄cm3 ) 1.95 1.75 2.0 1.7

Tensile Strength, σult (GPa) 2.4-2.7 3.4-4.5 1.55 2.50
Long, elastic modulus, 𝐸𝐿 (GPa) 380 230 380 500
Trans, elastic modulus, 𝐸𝑇 (GPa) 12 20 - -
Diameter, 𝑑 (𝜇𝑚) 7-10 8-9 10-11 6.5
Long, thermal expansion, 𝛼𝐿 (10−6 /℃) -0.5 -0.5 -1.0 -0.9
Trans, thermal expansion, 𝛼 𝑇 (10−6 /℃) 7-12 7-12 8 7.8
Source: Zoghi, 2014
 Aramid Fiber
Aramid fibers, also known as aromatic polyamide fibers, consist of high crystalline aromatic polyamide
fibers and are largely utilized in civil engineering application (Potyrala, 2011). Based on the trade name,
aramid fibers are available in the market. Furthermore, high toughness feature of aramid fibers make
them a good choice for impact and ballistic protection applications. Other aramid fibers characteristics
are low density, high strength to weight ratio and high stiffness to weight to weight ratio (Zoghi, 2014).
The major disadvantages of aramid fibers are:
 Low compressive strength
 Sensitive to UV light
 Moisture absorption
 Susceptibility to creep
 High cost
The most commercial brand of aramid fibers is Kevlar® (produced by DuPont). The properties of
different grades of Kelvar are summarized in Table 4.
Table 4 Typical Properties of Kevlar Fibers
Properties K29 K49 K68 K119 K129 K149
Density, 𝜌 (g⁄cm3 ) 1.44 1.44 1.44 1.44 1.45 1.47

Tensile Strength, σult (GPa) 2.9 3.0 2.8 3.0 3.4 2.4
Long, elastic modulus, 𝐸𝐿 (GPa) 70.5 112.4 101 55 100 147
Diameter, 𝑑 (𝜇𝑚) 12 12 12 12 12 12
Long, thermal expansion, 𝛼𝐿 (10−6 /℃) -4.0 -4.9 - - - -
Source: Zoghi, 2014
6
3.3.FRP wrapping techniques

There are two basic types of composite repair method being applied as reinforcement sleeves for existing
pipelines; layered system and wet lay-up system. These methods are introduced in sections 3.3.1 and
3.3.2.
3.3.1. Layered systems
In layered system, FRP material is rigid and produced in factory based on the pipe diameter. The pre-
cured pipes are then bonded in the deteriorated area of the pipe using an adhesive. Due to the fabrication
of the composite material in factory, the mechanical properties increase by higher volume fiber fraction.
This method is basically restricted for rehabilitation of straight section of pipes.
This reinforcement repair technology is primary used by Clock spring® Company L.P. for repairing
high-pressure transmission pipelines. In this repair system the composite sleeve includes of three
components (Figure 4):
 A unidirectional E-Glass composite coil
 Methyl Methacrylate Adhesive with a high lap shear strength used between layers of the wrap
 High compressive strength filler Material (to transfer the load from the defects to the composite
coil)
The advantages of clock spring system are (www.clockspring.com)
 Quick, Simple, Easy Installation (because no cutting or welding is required during the repair
process)
 Minimize All Field Errors
 Maximize Operational Efficiency
 Save Significant Money
 Enhance Short-Term and Long-Term Safety
Figure 4 Typical structure of Clock Spring® repair system

Source: www.clockspring.com/products/clock-spring
Clock spring is fixed to the pipeline with a specially formulated adhesive system which are designed for
easy field mixing and application and for quick setting under a variety of environmental conditions.
These adhesive systems maintain their durability and strength under different corrosive environments.
The installation of Clock Spring composite wrap are described as follows (Figure 5):
1- Identification of the defect which is performed either through the use of inspection pigs or actual
online inspections. To make sure that adequate inspection are carried out, the pipeline must be
cleaned with an appropriate method.
2- The damage or pitted corroded areas are filled with the filler material to ensure that there are no
gaps between the pipe wall and the Clock Spring. The most effective method to achieve
matching contour is to apply the Clock Spring while the filler is wet. In this condition an
adequate load must be transferred between defect, pipe and the Clock Spring.
3- A thin film of adhesive is applied uniformly over the pipe section.
7
4- The Clock Spring layers are immediately covered while the adhesive film are applied between
the layers by a paint roller.
5- Once the entire exposed surface of the Clock Spring that has been wrapped around the pipe, is
covered with adhesive the remaining coiled Clock Spring is passed around the pipe. This process
continues until the coiled Clock Spring is completely wrapped around the pipe
6- The Clock spring is tightened using a tension bar. Adhesive and filler extrude from the side of
the Clock Spring coil during this step.
7- The adhesive will cure in approximately two hours.
8- When Clock Spring is securely mounted onto the pipe the entire repair area must be sealed
Figure 5 Layered system-Clock Spring (Clock Spring®_ Company, 2007)

Source: Karbhari, 2015
3.3.2. Wet lay-up systems

The oldest and cheapest manufacturing method for fiber reinforced composite materials is hand (wet)
lay-up technique. This method is utilized in various composite products such as boats, housing and auto
components where limited number of strips are required (Zoghi, 2014). In lay-up manufacturing method,
initially preparation of mold, including cleaning the mold and adding release agent and gel coat, must
be carried out. In addition, the release agent and gel coat are applied to the inside of the mold to prevent
the resin to stick to the mold (Figure 6). In the next step, a layer of fiber composite is laid down and by
a hand roller the resin is separated throughout the fibers to remove internal voids. For the other layers
this process is repeated. Moreover, the resin is used to paste composite layers to each other and transfer
stress to the load carrying parts or reinforcement fibers (Clarke, 1996). In the final step, the resin is cured
through heating or exposure to normal atmosphere conditions.
Figure 6 Basic principle of wet lay-up method

Source: www.aerospaceengineeringblog.com/composite-manufacturing
8
Wet (hand) lay-up is the basic rehabilitation technique for repair of pipes (Figure 7). The repair system
includes the following stages (Karbhari, 2015):
 High air pressure or sandblasting is the primary stage required to prepare the surface of pipe for
wet lay-up system. The purpose of this part is to provide a clean surface without any loose
materials. In case that the resin is moisture sensitive, it must be removed from the pipe surface.
 The deterioration areas of the surface can be patched before FRP application. For small holes
with diameter around 30 mm the damage zone can be treated with extra layers of FRP
composites. If the deterioration area has diameter larger than 30 mm welding a steel plate over
the damage area could be necessary.
 High-viscosity epoxy is applied to the damaged area.
 A dielectric barrier is normally used between carbon fibers and steel pipe to prevent galvanic
corrosion. It is widely recommended that glass fabric is applied as the first layer for any steel
pipe repairs.
 Two rollers in saturating machine are applied to add the resin into dry fabric.
 Based on the length and diameter of the pipe, saturated fabrics are installed on the surface of
pipe.
Figure 7 Installation of wet lay-up composite wrap (Armor Plate_ pipe wrap).
Source: Karbhari, 2015
The main advantages of wet lay-up system are (www.nptel.ac.in.com):

 Low cost instruments to repair the damage segment
 Room temperature for curing
 Different combination of fibers and composite materials are possible
 It can be used to cover several of geometries such as tees, elbows, bends and even valves.
Although, this method is employed as an effective repair system over the years, it has some
disadvantages (www.carbonfrppipe.com).
 Time consuming installation process
 The quality of repair depends on skilled people – saturating of fibers – alignment of carbon
fibers during the installation
 Difficulties for set up multiple FRP layers
9
3.3.2.1. Codes and design guides
Composite repairs have found widespread use in transmission pipeline industry for the past two decades.
Therefore, to harmonize technical specifications of composite repair materials in pipeline industry,
numerous international standards are associated. Most internationally of these standards, American
Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) and International Organization for Standardization (ISO) are
elected and discussed in the following section.
 ISO/TS 24817 – Petroleum, petrochemical and natural gas industries – Composite repairs
for pipework – Qualification and design, installation, testing and inspection
The following statement is made by ISO/TS 24817 in terms of composite repairs of pipework.
The objective of ISO/TS 24817 is to ensure that composite repairs to
pipework when qualified, designed, installed and inspected using ISO/TS
24817 will meet the specified performance requirements. This technical
specification gives requirements and recommendations for the
qualification and design, installation, testing and inspection for the
external application of composite repairs to corroded or damaged
pipework used in the petroleum, petrochemical and natural gas
industries.
 ASME B31.4 – Pipeline Transportation System for Liquid Hydrocarbons and Other
Liquids
The following statement is made by ASME B31.4 in terms of composite repairs of liquid
pipelines.
451.6.2 Disposition of Defects
(c) Repair Methods
(14) Mechanically applied composite material wrap may be used to
reinforce the pipeline provided that design and installation methods are
proven for the intended service prior to application. The user is cautioned
that a qualified written procedure performed by trained personnel is a
requirement and records shall be retained …
 ASME B31.8 – Gas Transmission and distribution piping systems

The following statement is made by ASME B31.8 in terms of composite repairs of gas
pipelines.
851.42 Permanent Field Repairs of Injurious Dents and Mechanical Damage
(e) Nonmetallic composite wrap repairs are not acceptable for the repair
of injurious dents or mechanical damage, unless proven through reliable
engineering tests and analysis.
10
3.4.Case studies
3.4.1. Case study 1: FRP Composite repair of corroded steel pipe
To stop the external corrosion in steel pipes by external wrapping techniques in the damaged areas, fiber
reinforced polymer (FRP) composite materials are employed as a good alternative, compare to
traditional welded repairs. Duell et al (2008) presented the influences of FRP composites for several
different damage geometries on steel pipes. Damages created in circumferential direction to simulate
the corrosion patches for rapture testing. Furthermore, FE modeling used to evaluate the effectiveness
of FRP repairs and the effect of corroded length compare to the field test under computed failure
pressure. The steel pipe for this test was ASTM A-106 Grade B with 1.52 m length, 7.11 mm thickness
and outer diameter 168.3 mm. Moreover, epoxy putty used as filler in the corroded regions (Figure. 8).
A woven carbon fiber consists of 12 K tow (12000 carbon fibers in each bundle) in the wrap direction
and 6 K tow (6000 carbon fiber/ tow) in the fill direction.
Figure 8 Pipe repair application kit. (a) Reinforcement and application tools. (b) Two-part putty and epoxy used
to fill defects and wet out carbon fiber wrap.
Source: Duell et al (2008)
3.4.1.1. Experimental rupture test

Two defects were simulated on the pipe surface, one with longitudinal length of 15.24 cm (6 in) and the
other in full circumferential direction (Figure. 9). The depth of the defects was 50% of the pipe wall
thickness (3.56 mm). To prepare repair condition, when the defects were machined, the steel pipes
sandblasted to a near white finished surface. In the next step the epoxy putty was applied to fill the defect
area.
Figure 9 Pipe test vessels with machined flaws with a depth of 50% wall thickness for (a) axisymmetric and (b)
6x6 in patch defects.
Then carbon fibers were impregnated with the premixed low viscosity epoxy/amine pre-polymer using
an adhesive roller. Once, the fabric was completely saturated, it wrapped around the test pipe and the
freshly applied putty using hand tension to pull the wet fabric. The centerline of the wrap was adjusted
with the center of defect zone (Figure 10).
11
Figure 10 Pipe repair process (a) filling defect with putty (b) wrapping epoxy wetted carbon fabric around the
defect
Six layers of carbon/epoxy wrap with a total thickness of 3.1 mm were used to cover the damage area.
Afterwards, the epoxy was allowed to cure for 24hr in room temperature before testing. It should be
noted that before testing, each wrapped pipes were filled with water vertically to insure no air was
present in the system. Finally a hydraulic power unit was applied to pressurize the testing pipes and a
transducer was used to record the pressure in the line. The failure pressure (burst pressure) obtained
from the tests is presented in Table 5.
Table 5 Comparison of experimental rapture pipe tests
Burst pressure, MPa (ksi)

Defect type width × length (inches) × 50%
thickness
Tested
Axisymmetric 43.8 (6.35)

6×6 43.1 (6.25)
3.4.1.2. Finite-element simulations

FE modeling for four different defect geometries was performed. In all cases failure occurs in the center
of the defect area. In addition, the failure pressure for all cases was determined as the value to causes a
stress based failure criterion to be met. The failure criterion was also reached for the composite wrap in
all cases, means that the maximum stress in the FRP was the same. The maximum stress to cause failure
in the composite was the hoop stress (at 576 MPa) for all four FE modeling, and it was occurred at the
inside edge of the composite (adjacent to the putty). The burst pressure for the four FRP repaired pipes
are listed in Table 6. The burst pressures vary slightly for the four tested specimens, with just 2.2%
variation between the maximum and minimum predicted burst pressure.
Table 6 Comparison of finite element rapture pipe tests
Burst pressure, MPa (ksi)

Defect type width × length (inches) × 50%
thickness
FEA predicted
Axisymmetric 43.8 (6.35)

6×6 44.7 (6.48)
3×6 44.8 (6.50)
1×6 43.8 (6.35)
12
By comparing the results obtained from Table 5 and Table 6 it is determined that the tested pipes with
machined defects, failed at pressure predicted by the finite element modeling. Variation of defect length
in the hoop direction had small impact on the final pressure estimated using finite element techniques.
It is clear that additional experimental and numerical investigations for different defect size should be
examined to identify the relation between failure pressures and repair components in steel pipes repaired
with FRP composite materials.
3.4.2. Case study 2: Pipeline repair of corrosion and dents
Alexander et al (2014) performed a comprehensive testing program to evaluate the repair of sever
corrosion and dents using composite materials (Armor Plate® Pipe Wrap), as well as Type A and Type
B steel sleeves. The main objective of this work was to determine the service life of two mentioned
repair technologies and also to qualify the relative performance of the composite repair and steel sleeves.
Loading in this study included pressure to failure and cyclic pressure.
3.4.2.1. Test methods:
The repair methods, fiber composites and steel sleeves, on both corrosion samples and dent samples
are considered in the following sections.
- Corrosion samples
Several steps were accomplished to prepare the samples for burst and fatigue testing. First, the end caps
were welded to steel pipes to create uniform pressure vessel pipes. Then, corrosion defects with 75%
wall loss were formed to simulate corrosion on the samples surface (Figure 11). Strain gages were also
installed beneath the repair areas to compare the level of reinforcement in each repair system. Next, the
pipes sandblasted to remove the surface impurities on the samples. Finally, composite repair with total
0.625 in (10 layers) thickness, Type A sleeve and Type B sleeve are installed. The details of the pipe of
75% corrosion samples are listed in Table 7. It should be noted that the corrosion samples were
fabricated for both burst and fatigue testing.
Table 7 Pipe material used for 75% corrosion samples
Nominal Diameter Wall Thickness Grade SMYS* MAOP**
12.75 in (323.85 mm) 0.375 in (9.525 mm) X42 2470 Psi (17.03) 1780 Psi (12.27)
* Specified Minimum Yield Strength - ** Maximum allowable operating pressure
Source: Source: Alexander et al (2014)
Figure 11 Simulated corrosion details

Source: Alexander et al (2014)
13
- Dent samples
The preparation of dented pipe test samples was involved in several stages. As previous section, the
ending caps were installed firstly. Then, three dents having an initial 15% depth were generated on the
pipe surface using a 4-inch spherical end cap as the rigid intender. Next, the repair areas were
sandblasted and the strain gages were installed near dents. At last, composite repairs with total 0.313 in
(5 layers) thickness, Type A sleeve and Type B sleeve were installed. The details of dent samples pipes
are listed in Table 8. Opposite to corrosion samples, dent samples were only tested under cyclic pressure.
Table 8 Pipe material used for dent samples
Nominal Diameter Wall Thickness Grade SMYS MAOP
12.75 in (323.85 mm) 0.188 ( 4.77 mm) X42 1239 Psi ( 8.54 MPa) 890 Psi ( 6.14 MPa)
3.4.2.2. Test results:

Test results are presented for corrosion burst test, corrosion pressure cyclic fatigue test and dented
pressure cyclic fatigue test.
- Corrosion samples under burst test
The burst pressures for three repaired pipes are shown in Table 9. The hoop strain in different parts of
the repaired zone which were recorded by strain gage, are also added to this table. For this test all
corrosion samples failed from outside the repaired area, as shown in Figure 12.
Table 9 Burst pressure and hoop strain for 75% corrosion burst sample
Hoop Strain (µɛ)**
Repair Type 2-inch off Burst pressure

Center under Outside of the
center under Base pipe
repair repair
repair
APPW* 2191 2283 950 818 4480 Psi (30.88MPa)

Sleeve A 1919 1577 446 871 4233 Psi (29.18 MPa)
Sleeve B 2153 2437 416 789 4290 Psi (29.58 MPa)

* Armor Plate® Pipe Wrap - ** Hoop strains listed in microstrain (10000 microstrain = 1% strain)
Figure 12 Burst failure for all pipe samples

14
- Corrosion samples under fatigue test

In this test the 75 % corrosion repaired samples with composite materials failed after 198’550 cycles.
No failures occurred in the steel sleeves samples as they reached 302’465 cycles. The maximum hoop
strain and ranges at 1000 cycles for these samples are listed in Table 10. The pipe pressure for all
corrosion samples under fatigue test, cycled from 890 Psi (6.14 MPa) to 1780 Psi (12.27 MPa) (∆P =
36% SMYS).
Table 10 Hoop strain recorded at 1000 cycles for the 75% corrosion samples
Under Repair (µɛ) On Repair (µɛ) *

Base Pipe (µɛ)
Repair Type Center 2-inch off center Center
1 Hoop 1 Axial 2 Hoop 2 Axial 3 Hoop 3 Axial 4 Hoop 4 Axial

APPW 1035 193 985 252 350 409 NA NA**
Sleeve A 765 42 726 32 215 67 NA NA
Sleeve B 655 42 722 107 275 61 NA NA
* Hoop strains listed in microstrain (10000 microstrain = 1% strain)
** NA – Data not available due to issue with the strain gage
- Dent samples under fatigue test

The maximum hoop strain and ranges for the fatigue dent samples at 1000 cycles are listed in Table 11.
The composite repaired samples failed in the dent area after 149’913 cycles. The steel sleeves reached
239897 cycles before cycling was stopped after the samples had exceed the run out condition. The pipe
pressure for all dent samples under fatigue test, cycled from 100 Psi (0.689 MPa) to 990 Psi (6.83 MPa)
(∆P = 72% SMYS).
Table 11 Hoop strain recorded at 1000 cycles for dent samples
Under Repair (µɛ) On Repair (µɛ)

Base Pipe (µɛ)
Repair Type Apex of Dent Apex of Dent Center
1 Hoop 1 Axial 2 Hoop 2 Axial 3 Hoop 3 Axial 4 Hoop 4 Axial

APPW 1536 132 NA NA 2043 1250 767 156
Sleeve A 595 66 571 75 414 90 767 156
Sleeve B 424 35 431 44 760 190 767 156
One important observation achieved from this study is related to strain values for the 75% corrosion
burst (Table 10). In this table the strain values of reinforced regions for all three repaired samples at
72% SMYS are presented. From the hoop strain data, on the center of damage (under the repair), one
can conclude that all measured strains are within 15% of each other. Furthermore, the sample reinforced
with the composite material reduces hoop strain levels to those similar to both Type A and Type B
sleeves. Although the pressure cycle fatigue results for the steel sleeves exceeds the results for the
composite repaired sample, the test result demonstrate that during a quasi-static burst test, the composite
material is able to provide reinforcement to the machined corrosion region similar to what could be
expected for a steel sleeve.
15
3.4.3. Case study 3: composite repair for corroded
Five series of tests were performed by the composite repair specialist company 3X Engineering in
Monaco to investigate the failure behavior of pressurized corroded pipes. Samples had a machined area
to simulate corrosion defect. Two loading conditions, long term loading and fatigue cyclic loading, were
applied to evaluate the performance of the repaired samples. Preparation and test results are discussed
in the following section separately.
The pipe samples were fabricated for testing under long term and fatigue pressure loading (samples
number 1, 2 and 5 were tested under long term pressure loading and samples number 3 and 4 under
cyclic loading). The pipe samples were having a machined region to simulate corrosion with 70% wall
loss (remaining thickness 2.1 mm). The details of machined area were 90mm axial by 45 mm
circumferential. Furthermore, the length of the pipe samples (without end caps) and the outside diameter
are 2000 mm and 168 mm respectively. The details of the corrosion samples are depicted in Figure 13.
The specifications of pipe materials used in this study are listed in Table 12.
Figure 13 Simulated corrosion details

Source: www.3xengineering.com
Table 12 Pipe material used for 75% corrosion samples
Nominal Diameter Wall Thickness Grade Min tensile strength Min Yield strength
168.3 mm 7.1 mm A 333 –Grade 6 450 MPa 240 MPa
The composite repair were REINFORCEKiT®4D-EC for rehabilitation of corroded pipe samples. This
type of sleeve is usually made of 50 m long Kevlar® tape and 5 kg of R3X1060 epoxy resin.
REINFORCEKiT®4D is an advanced permanent composite repair system for pipelines and piping
suffering from corrosion defects and mechanical damage. Reinforcekit4D is engineered to restore pipe
original integrity without shutdown. It is a non-metallic technical alternative to metal clamps, welded
sleeves and pipe replacement. Thoroughly tested by third-party laboratories REINFORCEKiT is a 3X
Engineering patented concept which provides the required strength according to ASME B31G, ISO
24817 and ASME PCC-2 codes and standards. The original 3X concept is a combination of Kevlar®
tape and specific epoxy resin. The bi-directional woven high-strength aramid-fiber material provides
reinforcement in the hoop and axial directions. The epoxy resin allows binding and transferring loading
through the whole composite system. REINFORCEKiT®4D is a wet lay-up system. It is wrapped
helicoidally around the pipe in order to bring the mechanical resistance to the damaged pipe section.
The number of layers, determined by calculation, is linked not only to the pipe pressure, temperature,
diameter and thickness but also to the pit depth and length, the steel grade and the pipe location. The
repair design and material requirements is provided by 3X software REA after information compilation
according to ASME B31G, ISO 24817 and ASME PCC-2 codes and standards. The resin, fiber and
composite specifications of one types of REINFORCEKiT®4D (REINFORCEKiT®4D-EC) are listed in
Appendix 1.
16
The implementation and checking steps for REINFORCEKiT®4D-EC of the external corroded pipe
samples are categorized as below:
Step 1: Surface preparation to get optimal resin bonding
a) The location of defects was identified. Then, it were checked that the pipe samples did not leak.
b) The area to be fixed was delimited and then adhesive tape was used according to the installation
data sheet.
c) The hygrometric conditions were checked, includes relative humidity, support temperature,
ambient temperature, dew point temperature.
d) Surface cleaning was performed in delimited area by Bristle blasting
e) Clean the prepared area with rags and solvent cleaner.
Step 2: Fill the corroded areas with F3X8 filler
a) Two parts of the F3X8 filler were mixed until perfect mixture achieved
b) The corroded areas were filled with F3X8 filler
c) The curing time was 15 minutes to 1 hour depending on the ambient pressure.
Step 3: Apply the R3X1060 resin on the whole surface
a) Two parts of the R3X1060 resin were mixed to get a homogenous mixture
b) The R3X1060 resin were applied on the whole area to be fixed
Step 4: Impregnate and wrap the R4D-EC tape over the pipe
a) First tape was wrapped with contentious overlap of 50 mm. The length of the wrapping was 550
mm.
b) The Second tape was wrapped on first layer. The beginning was with a gap of 50 mm from
beginning of the previous layer. Total length of the second wrap was 450 mm.
c) Same procedure was implemented for third and fourth layers with total length 350 mm and 250
mm respectively.
d) The last fourth layers were wrapped with continuous overlap of 50 mm, but without gap at the
beginning. Total length of layers was 250 mm.
e) On a width of 250 mm, 8 layers of tape were obtained totally (6.4 mm). Each layer had 50 mm
continuous overlap (Figure 14).
Figure 14 Test pipes with complete repairs

17
3.4.3.1. Long term pipe spool survival
As it is noted, test specimens 1, 2 and 5 were tested for long term pressure loading. 160 bar (16 MPa)
pressure applied continuously from 29th April 2009 to 9th June 2009 (exact time 984 h and 30 minutes).
Under this period of time no permanent deformation, cracks or visible damages were occurred.
Afterwards, the pipe specimens are pressured for 10 bar at every 4 minutes. Similar results were
achieved for all three tested pipes. Bursting pressure for all cases was 390 bar at 23℃ and occurred
outside the repair region (Figure 15). Moreover, no leakage was observed before bursting pressure.
3.4.3.2. Fatigue test
Test specimens number 3 and 4 are tested under cyclic pressure loading. The pressure oscillated between
60 and 120 bar at each cycle and the duration of one cycle was 30 second. Totally 34248 number of
cycles was recorded from 17th June 2009 to 29th June 2009 (11 days and 21.4 hour). Under this period
of time no permanent deformation, cracks or visible damages were occurred in this case as well. Similar
procedure as previous section were examined (pressure increased 10 bar at each 4 minutes). The burst
pressure 380 bar at 23℃ was documented which occurred outside the repair are (Figure 15). No leakage
was observed before bursting pressure.
Figure 15 Test specimens number 1, 2, 5, 3 and 4 after bursting

18
3.4.4. Design of composite repair for pressure based on ISO/TS 24817

According to ISO/TS 24817, two design cases are observed based on the formation of defects in
substrate. In the first design case, defect type A, the defect occurs within the substrate during the lifetime
of the repair system but not through the wall. Therefore, structural reinforcement is only required for
this case. Three design methods are used based on the project criteria for defect type A design cases.
Selection of each design methods depends on the design complexity and also judgement of designer.
1- Design based on substrate allowable stress
2- Design based on repair laminate allowable strains
3- Design based on repair allowable stresses determined by performance testing
The second design case, defect type B, is used when substrate requires structural reinforcement and
sealing of through wall defects (leaks). For substrate with active internal corrosion, the repair laminate
shall be designed on the assumption that a through-wall defect will occur if the remaining wall thickness
at the end of the service life is expected to be less than 1 mm. The following design methods can be used
for defect type B.
1- Design of repairs of through-wall defects
2- The design method for the Defect type A design case
Furthermore, each repair shall be allocated to a particular class following completion of the risk
assessment. Repair classes are defined in Table 13. Class 1 repair covers design pressures up to 1 MPa
(10 bar) and design temperatures up to 40℃ and is appropriate for the majority of the utility service
systems. This class is intended for systems that do not relate directly to personal safety or safety-critical
systems. Class 2 repair covers design pressures up to 2 MPa (20 bar) and design temperatures up to
100℃ excluding hydrocarbons. This class is appropriate for systems that have specific safety-related
functions. Class 3 repairs cover all fluid types and pressures up to the qualified upper pressure limit.
This class is appropriate for systems transporting produced fluids. Applications in which the service
conditions are more onerous or not included in the above are designated as Class 3. This classification
is mainly utilized to calculate allowable strain for composite laminate and pipe’s derating service factor.
Table 13 Repair class (ISO 24817)
Repair Class Typical service Design pressure Design temperature

Low specification duties, e.g. static head, drains,
Class 1 cooling medium, sea (service) water, diesel and < 1 MPa < 40℃
other utility hydrocarbons
Class 2 Fire water /deluge systems < 2 MPa < 100℃
Produced water and hydrocarbons, flammable
fluids, gas system Qualified upper Qualified upper
Class 3
Class 3 covers operating conditions more onerous limit limit
than described
Source: Technical Specification ISO/TS 24817
A comparison between required composite thickness in case study 3 and the minimum repair laminate
required thickness obtained from Technical Specification ISO/TS 24817 are accomplished to evaluate
the results that are achieved from this case study.
In case study 3, it was observed that the corrosion on the substrate was 70% and the defect was not
through the wall. Furthermore, the level of corrosion was relatively high on the substrate and the long
term performance data of steel pipe was not available. Thus, defect Type A (non-leak) is selected to
design the composite repair for this case study. In order to select an appropriate subdivision method of
defect Type A, the judgment of the designer is essential to determine the level of corrosion severity.
Visual inspection is not feasible at this case, therefore, both Type A-Method 1 and Type A-Method 2
are considered in the calculation process (see Appendix 2). From the calculation result in Appendix 2,
19
it is observed that the minimum required FRP repair thickness (11.4 mm) is approximately similar to
the repair thickness achieved from the case study 3 (12.8 mm). The design procedure is briefly discussed
in the following section.
3.4.4.1. Type A – Method 1: Design based on substrate allowable stress
This design method is used when the remaining wall thickness of substrate can be contributed in the
load carrying capability. For pipelines two equations (Eq.1 and Eq.2) are presented by ISO/TS 24817 to
calculate the minimum thickness of the composite wrap. The design thickness of composite must fulfil
the required load carrying capacity of the damage region as the original non-corroded capacity. In the
derivation of these equations it is assumed that the repair thickness is limited by the allowable strain of
the repair laminate. It should be noted that only circumferential loading is considered in determining the
minimum wall thickness of the repair laminate.
In the circumferential direction, the minimum repair laminate thickness, 𝑡𝑚𝑖𝑛 (expressed in millimeters),
due to internal pressure is obtained by equation 4.
𝑝𝑒𝑞 ∙ 𝐷 𝑡𝑠 𝑝𝑙𝑖𝑣𝑒 ∙ 𝐷
𝜀𝑐 = −𝑠 − 𝐸𝑞. 1
2 ∙ 𝐸𝑐 ∙ 𝑡𝑚𝑖𝑛 𝐸𝑐 ∙ 𝑡𝑚𝑖𝑛 2(𝐸𝑐 ∙ 𝑡𝑚𝑖𝑛 + 𝐸𝑠 ∙ 𝑡𝑠 )
Where
𝑝𝑒𝑞 is the equivalent internal pressure (MPa)
𝐷 is the external diameter (mm)
𝐸𝑐 is the circumferential modulus of the repair laminate (MPa)
𝜀𝑐 is the allowable repair laminate circumferential strain (mm/mm)
𝑠 is the allowable stress of the substrate material (MPa)
𝑡𝑠 is the minimum remaining substrate wall thickness (mm)
𝑝𝑙𝑖𝑣𝑒 is the internal pressure during repair installation (MPa)
𝐸𝑠 is the modulus of substrate (MPa)
In case that the repair is applied at zero internal pressure (𝑝𝑙𝑖𝑣𝑒 = 0), the design repair thickness can be
determined from equation 2.
1 𝑝𝑒𝑞 ∙ 𝐷
𝑡𝑚𝑖𝑛 = ∙( − 𝑠 ∙ 𝑡𝑠 ) 𝐸𝑞. 2
𝜀𝑐 ∙ 𝐸𝑐 2
3.4.4.2. Type A – Method 2: Design based on repair laminate allowable strains
This method is often chosen when the contribution of the substrate is to be ignored in the calculation of
load carry capability. In other words, in this case the designer ignores the remaining strength of the
corroded area in calculation of load carrying capacity. The repair laminate thickness must be calculated
for stress in both circumferential and axial direction. The maximum value of these equations represents
the minimum repair laminate thickness. In the circumferential and axial direction, the minimum repair
laminate thickness, 𝑡𝑚𝑖𝑛 (mm) due to internal pressure is obtained from Eq.3 and Eq.4 respectively.
1 𝑝𝑒𝑞 ∙ 𝐷 𝐹𝑒𝑞 𝜈
𝑡𝑚𝑖𝑛,𝑐 = ( − ∙ ) 𝐸𝑞. 3
𝜀𝑐 2 ∙ 𝐸𝑐 𝜋 ∙ 𝐷 𝐸𝑐
1 𝐹𝑒𝑞 1 𝑝𝑒𝑞 ∙ 𝐷 ∙ 𝜈
𝑡𝑚𝑖𝑛,𝑎 = ( ∙ − ) 𝐸𝑞. 4
𝜀𝑎 𝜋 ∙ 𝐷 𝐸𝑎 2 ∙ 𝐸𝑐
Where 𝐹𝑒𝑞 is the equivalent axial load (N), 𝐸𝑎 is the axial modulus of the repair laminate (MPa) and
𝜈 is the Poisson’s ratio of the repair laminate
20
4. Production of new pipes using FRP materials

This section presents an overview of production of new pipes which are strengthened through fiber
reinforced polymer (FRP) materials. The structural features and the manufacturability of the FRP-
wrapped pipe as well as advantages and limitations associated with this method are discussed in section
4.2. Furthermore, two possible non-destructive (ND) screening methods are presented in section 4.3 for
estimating the status performance of the FRP-wrapped pipes under operation conditions. In the end, a
FRP-wrapped steel pipe and a FRP-wrapped Crosslinked Polyethylene (PEX) pipe are evaluated based
on ISO/TS 24817 to identify which extra improvement factors are involved in this method.
4.1.Introduction
Pipes are important components of gas and liquid transmission industries, many of which are
deteriorated each year due to different causes and contributors. The U. S. Department of
Transportation’s Research and Special Programs Administration, Office of Pipeline Safety (RSPA/OPS)
presents the significant causes of failure with their contributed data in pipelines between the years 2002
and 2003 (see Appendix 3). From these data it can be recognized that for both hazardous liquid pipelines
and gas transmission pipelines the primary source of accidents results from corrosion damage in the pipe
material. Consequently, it is observed from these data that the total estimated cost of liquid and natural
gas pipelines due to corrosion is higher compare to other causes.
As it mentioned in previous section, strengthening of pipes with FRP composites can be a most
acceptable solution to increase the performance of pipes. Moreover, due to high corrosion resistance
behavior of FRP composites, the FRP-wrapped pipe can be used across different pipes industries. Other
significant advantages of the FRP-wrapped pipe are involved in the strength-to-weight ratio, durability
and cost of manufacturing. These advantages make FRP-wrapped pipes more desirable than other typical
pipes. The design of FRP-wrapped pipe is basically depends on following factors:
 Form of fibre:
- Roving
- Tow
- Mat
- Woven Fabric
 Type of fibre:
- Fiberglass
- Carbon fibre or Graphite
- Organic fibre, aramids (kelvar)
 Orientation of fibre
 Type of substrate
4.2.Manufacturing
The aim of this section is to present possible manufacturing methods for producing prefabricated FRP-
wrapped pipes. Traditionally, FRP composite pipes are produced by two techniques namely pultrusion
and filament winding. A brief introduction of each technique is discussed in the next part.
4.2.1. Pultrusion
Pultrusion is a continuous manufacturing production process of fiber reinforced polymer composite
materials. Commonly, the pultrusion machines vary in design but the fabrication process is same. The
various stages of pultrusion system are illustrated in Figure 16. In the first stage of the production the
continuous fiberglass rovings are combined with filament mat through a guide plate. Next, the
continuous fiber bundle is pulled and impregnated into a dip bath of resin to wet out the fibers (Zoghi,
2014). The surface veil is then added to the fiber bundle and passes into the pre-former for primary
required cross sectional shape. The final shaping of the composite takes place in the curing die section.
To increase the tensile strength of the composite a pulling device is provided to pull the fibers in the
21
heating die. In the final stage the composite is cut in different sections by the cut-off saw. The matrix in
this technique are typically thermosetting polymer such as polyester, vinyl ester and epoxy resin
(handbook). Orientation, type and size of fibers or reinforcements have a significant role on the final
tensile strength and mechanical properties of pultrusion. (Venkat Raman et. al, 2010)
Figure 16 Typical Pultrusion Process

Source: www.aerospaceengineeringblog.com/composite-manufacturing
Manufacturing of fiberglass pipes by pultrusion technique has a number of advantages.
 High strength
Tensile strength of the fiberglass pultruded products is normally high, compare to other
methods, due to the pulling condition when they are cured in the heated die.
 Low weight
The lightweight properties of pultruded fiberglass pipes reduce the energy requirement during
installation process.
 Corrosion resistance
The corrosion resistance behavior of fiberglass pultruded pipes against broad range of chemicals
is extremely high compare to steel pipes.
 Low thermal conductivity
Thermal conductivity of the fiberglass composites is basically related to the thermal properties
of the both fiber and matrix. Nevertheless, in general case it is 1/20 of aluminum and 1/60 of
steel.
 Cost effective for high volume of production
An example of a pultruded fiberglass pipe is shown in the figure 17.
Figure 17 Example of pultruded glass fiber reinforced pipe

Source: www.mgs4u.com/fiberglass-tube-rod.htm
22
4.2.2. Filament Winding

Filament winding is an automated manufacturing technique for producing FRP composite materials. In
this technique each pre-tensioned continuous fiber roving (typically carbon, fiberglass or a mixture of
both) is embedded into the resin bath completely. The continuous fibers, filaments, are then wound over
a rotating mandrel while a guide head positions the fibers on the mandrel surface. The alignment of the
fibers is either unidirectional or can oriented randomly. The orientation of the fibers over the rotating
mandrel is controlled by carriage arm which moves up and down around along the length of the mandrel.
The final properties of the composite is affected by the tensile strength of the fiber and also the type of
filament and resin. Different parts of a typical filament winding machine are illustrated in Figure 18.
Figure 18 Filament winding process

Source: www.nuplex.com/composites/processes/filament-winding
23
4.3.Non-destructive (ND) status monitoring system in pipelines
Remote monitoring technologies with the intention of evaluating the pipeline performance during
operational conditions are significantly developed over the past few decades. In this section two possible
ND inspection methods are presented to evaluate the feasibility of the remote monitoring potential of
FRP-wrapped pipes.
4.3.1. General introduction of monitoring NDT

The non-destructive (ND) status monitoring of FRP-wrapped pipe are considered in this section. ND
testing techniques for detecting thermal, leakage and corrosion status of pipelines are important for
decreasing cost of energy. Therefore it is favorable for many energy companies to estimate the remaining
service life and maintenance time of pipeline networks.
4.3.1.1.Inclusion fiber optic system in newly produced FRP-wrapped pipes

This method is involved to the distributed fiber optic (DFO) sensing technique. In this method infrared
light travels through an optical fiber that is placed in the core center of fiber cable. The energy of light
propagates along the fiber (Figure 19). The cladding which is set in the upper cover of the optical fiber
cable has lower index of refraction. Therefore it provides a region to trap the infrared light inside the
core (Oral and Mehmet Ali, 2013). The infrared light is transmitted into the fiber with a certain
wavelength (850 nanometers to 1550 nanometers) (www.thefoa.org). Presence of external forces in the
pipes such as heat and vibration will cause shift in the wavelength of the reflected light. Dictating of
which wavelength passes and which reflects is an outstanding feature of this method and makes it
possible to distinguish and identify the type of damage. Detection of integrity such as cracking and
leakage at thousands of points along the whole length of the pipelines from a single fiber is another
valuable feature of this method. A suggested idea for status monitoring of the rehabilitated pipelines
with FRP composites is to install the optical fiber under the manufacturing process. In the filament
winding method (section 4.2.2) it is shown that the continuous fibers are winded surrounding a rotating
mandrel by an automated machine (Figure. 19). The simplest possible way to implement the fiber optic
sensing around the pipeline can be added up during the production process in this technique.
Figure 19 Multimode and Singlemode Fiber Optic

Source: www.l-com.com/content/Article.aspx?Type=N&ID=107
24
4.3.1.2.Inclusion RFID tags in newly produced FRP pipes

Another attractive method for non-destructive (ND) status monitoring of pipelines is addressed to Radio
Frequency Identification (RFID). Advances of this method in different fields with different kinds of
detecting sensors make it as a suitable tool for wireless monitoring system. Detecting sensors are varies
based on the purpose of the application. In the field of pipelines and piping systems these sensors are
typically categorized to temperature sensors, pressure sensors and acoustic sensors. Many factors such
as the surrounding environment of the pipes, the pipe materials and the type of application affect to the
selection of an appropriate sensor in pipeline networks. This technique consists of a transponder or RFID
tags, a reader to interpret data and a scanning antenna (Figure. 20). The reader generates high frequency
alternating electromagnetic field for tracking RFID tags. A radio frequency transceiver which is a
computer server records the transfer data (Finkenzeller, 2010). Furthermore, some of the RFID tags are
battery free and are charged by interrogating radio waves. These kind of RFID tags are known as Passive
transponder. Therefore, they can be considered as a convenient ND technique for long term status
monitoring system. Application of this method in the FRP-wrapped pipes may lead to a great
maintenance progress in the future pipe industries.
Figure 20 Basic principle of RFID technology

Source: www.animalmigration.org/RFID/index.htm
25
4.4.Case study
In order to identify the other improvement factors which are associated with strengthening of pipes
with FRP composite, a numerical investigation of two different piping materials, steel pipe and PEX
pipe, are presented in this section.
4.4.1. The influence of FRP composites on steel pipe heat loss

One of the most additional improvement, among the others, achieved by coating steel pipes with FRP
composites is related to thermal resistance property of FRP composites. Due to good thermal
performance of FRP composites with a coefficient of thermal conductivity 𝜆 = 0.04 𝑊⁄𝑚𝐾, production
of pre-FRP wrapped steel pipe with the intention of improving corrosion resistance, reduces the energy
loss from heating supply pipes significantly.
In order to assess the heat loss level improvement after strengthening steel pipes with FRP composites,
a comparison between thermal performance of bare steel pipe and pre-FRP wrapped pipe under similar
condition is presented. To develop the numerical evaluation, a FRP-wrapped steel pipe is designed based
on ISO 24817 for a single steel pipe segment under three different internal designed pressures. The
details for the pipe material and FRP composite used in this part are listed in Table 14.
Table 14 Material properties of steel and fiber glass composite
Thermal Modulus of Allowable tensile

Type of material
Conductivity elasticity strength
Seamless carbon steel pipe. Grade B - DN-300 50 𝑊/𝑚𝐾 200 𝐺𝑃𝑎 240 𝑀𝑃𝑎
FRP – Fiber glass 0.04 𝑊/𝑚𝐾 20 𝐺𝑃𝑎 300 𝑀𝑃𝑎
The minimum wall thickness of a pipe under maximum allowable operating pressure (MAOP) is
achieved by considering the free body diagram of the pipe (see Figure 21). The force acting to the pipe
is obtained by multiplying the MAOP to the surface area of pipe.
𝐹 = 𝑃𝑠 𝐿𝐷 𝐸𝑞. 5
Where 𝑃𝑠 is the maximum allowable operating pressure (MAOP), L is the length of the pipe and D is
the pipe diameter.
Figure 21 Hoop stress working on thin walled pipe

Source: www.mathalino.com/reviewer/mechanics-and-strength-of-materials
The tension force in the pipe wall due to internal pressure is calculated as below:
𝑇 = 𝑠2(𝑡𝑠 𝐿) 𝐸𝑞. 6
26
Where 𝑠 is the allowable stress of the substrate material and 𝑡𝑠 is the minimum remaining wall thickness
in hoop direction of substrate.
The minimum substrate wall thickness due to maximum allowable operating pressure is obtained from
equation 5 and 6.
𝑃𝑠 𝐷
𝑡𝑠 = 𝐸𝑞. 7
2𝑠
According to ISO/TS 24817 the maximum strain of laminate and substrate can be calculated as below:
𝑃𝐷
𝜀= 𝐸𝑞. 8
2(𝐸𝑐 𝑡𝑚𝑖𝑛,𝑐 + 𝐸𝑠 𝑡𝑠 )
Where 𝑝 is the equivalent internal pressure, 𝐸𝑐 is the circumferential modulus of the laminate and 𝐸𝑠 is
the modulus of the substrate
Accordingly, the allowable stress of the substrate is:
𝐸𝑐
𝑃𝐷 − 2𝑠 ( )𝑡
𝐸𝑠 𝑚𝑖𝑛,𝑐
𝑠= 𝐸𝑞. 9
2𝑡𝑠
By substituting equation 7 to equation 9, the minimum laminate thickness in the circumferential
direction due to internal pressure is given by equation 10:
𝐷 𝐸𝑠
𝑡𝑚𝑖𝑛,𝐶 = ( ) (𝑝 − 𝑝𝑠 ) 𝐸𝑞. 10
2𝑠 𝐸𝑐
Following the similar procedure, the minimum laminate thickness in the axial direction due to internal
pressure is given by equation 11:
𝐷 𝐸𝑠 2𝐹𝑒𝑞
𝑡𝑚𝑖𝑛,𝑎 = ( )( − 𝑝𝑠 ) 𝐸𝑞. 11
2𝑠 𝐸𝑎 𝜋𝐷2
Where 𝐸𝑎 is the axial modulus of the laminate and 𝐹𝑒𝑞 is the equivalent axial load.
By following the above design procedure, the minimum wall thickness of steel pipe with nominal
diameter 300 mm is achieved for each internal design pressure. Furthermore, the minimum FRP
thickness are obtained for the FRP-wrapped steel pipe under similar internal design pressure. In this
case the steel wall thickness are decreased slightly due to low elastic modulus of FRP composite
compare to the steel pipe. The results are presented in Table 15 and Table 16.
Table 15 Steel pipe diameters and properties
Steel
DN 𝐷1 𝑟1 𝐷2 𝑟2 𝐷3 𝑟3 MAOP MOP 𝑡𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑒𝑙
(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (MPa) (MPa) (mm)
311.1 155.55 323.9 161.95 - - 9.41 8.5 6.35

298.5 149.25 323.9 161.95 - - 18.82 17 12.7
300
273.1 136.55 323.9 161.95 - - 37.64 33.5 25.4
257.2 128.6 323.9 161.95 - - 49.38 44.3 33.32
27
Table 16 FRP wrapped steel pipe diameters and properties
Steel + FRP Wrap

DN 𝐷1 𝐷2 𝑟2 𝐷3 𝑟3 MAOP MOP 𝑡𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑒𝑙 𝑡𝐹𝑅𝑃
𝑟1 (mm)
(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (MPa) (MPa) (mm) (mm)
313.2 156.6 323.9 161.95 331.9 165.95 9.41 8.5 5.34 4

302.6 151.3 323.9 161.95 339.9 169.95 18.82 17 10.67 8
300
281.1 140.5 323.9 161.95 347.9 173.95 37.64 33.5 21.41 12
267.3 133.7 323.9 161.95 355.9 177.95 49.38 44.3 28.29 16
In the next section the heat transfer rate is calculated for bare steel pipe and pre-FRP wrapped pipe under
similar supply and ambient temperature. The most important parameter which indicates the thermal
performance of materials is thermal conductivity. The basic model of FRP-wrapped steel pipe is
illustrated in Figure 22.
Figure 22 Cross section of FRP wrapped steel pipe

For the single layer steel pipe the rate of heat transfer is obtained by multiplying the overall heat transfer
coefficient to heat area and the change of temperature (equation 12). It is assumed that the length of pipe
is 1 meter. The temperature of the water within the pipe is 15℃ and it has a convective heat transfer
coefficient of 30 𝑘𝑊 ⁄𝑚2 𝐾 Air surrounding the pipe is at a temperature of -10℃ and has a convective
heat transfer coefficient of 20 𝑊⁄𝑚2 𝐾. As it mentioned in Table 14 the thermal conductivity of the steel
pipe is 50𝑊 ⁄𝑚𝐾.
𝑄 = 𝑈𝐴 ∙ ∆𝑇 𝐸𝑞. 12
Where U is the overall heat transfer coefficient (𝑊 ⁄𝑚2 𝐾), A is the total surface area (𝑚2 ) and ∆𝑇 is the
change of temperature (℃).
The first two member in equation 12 can be achieved simultaneously calculating each one of the
resistances. The first resistance, 𝑅1 (𝑘⁄𝑊 ) is a convective heat transfer resistance due to water in the
pipe. The second resistance, 𝑅2 (𝑘⁄𝑊 ) is a conductive resistance through the steel wall. The last
resistance, 𝑅3 (𝑘⁄𝑊 ) is convective resistance of the air touching the outside of the steel wall (Figure 23).
Figure 23 Heat transfer through the steel pipe
28
The sum of the reciprocal of resistances gives the overall heat transfer times surface area. It means:
𝑟
1 𝐿𝑛 ( 2 ) 1
𝑟1
∑ 𝑅𝑡𝑜𝑡 = + + 𝐸𝑞. 13
ℎ𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟 ∙ 2𝜋𝑟1 𝐿 2𝜋𝜆𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑒𝑙 𝐿 ℎ𝑎𝑖𝑟 ∙ 2𝜋𝑟2 𝐿
−1
∑ 𝑅𝑡𝑜𝑡 = 𝑈𝐴 𝐸𝑞. 14
The heat transfer from the steel pipe which is a constant value can then obtained by inserting the value
of UA to Eq.12.
By following similar procedure and considering the conductive resistance of the FRP layer in the
calculation the heat transfer rate of the FRP-wrapped pipe will be obtained.
The results of these calculations are listed in Table 17 and 18.
Table 17 Heat transfer of steel pipe
Steel
DN ℎ𝑎 ℎ𝑤 𝑡𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑒𝑙 𝑡𝐹𝑅𝑃 𝑇𝑖𝑛 𝑇𝑜𝑢𝑡 Q

(mm) (𝑊 ⁄𝑚2 𝐾) (𝑘𝑊 ⁄𝑚2 𝐾 ) (mm) (mm) (℃) (℃) (𝑊 ⁄𝐾 )
6.35 - 507.46
12.7 - 506.10
300 20 30 -10 15
25.4 - 503.22
33.32 - 501.29
Table 18 Heat transfer of FRP-wrapped steel pipe
Steel + FRP Wrap
DN ℎ𝑎 ℎ𝑤 𝑡𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑒𝑙 𝑇𝑖𝑛 𝑇𝑜𝑢𝑡 Q

𝑡𝐹𝑅𝑃 (mm)
(mm) (𝑊 ⁄𝑚2 𝐾) (𝑘𝑊 ⁄𝑚2 𝐾 ) (mm) (℃) (℃) (𝑊 ⁄𝐾 )
5.34 4 172.37
10.67 8 104.75
300 20 30 -10 15
21.41 12 75.72
28.29 16 59.58
This result is plotted in Figure 24, where the internal design pressure of both wrapped and unwrapped
for each pipe wall thickness is constant. It is shown that the slope of the heat loss of bare steel (blue line)
for different pipe wall thicknesses is almost zero. In the wrapped pipe (red line) due to desirable thermal
conductivity property of FRP, the heat loss has been dramatically reduced by only adding thin layers of
FRP materials around the pipe. Moreover, a small reduction of steel wall thickness is achieved compare
to the unwrapped pipe. In other word that the maximum allowable stress can be increased slightly by
applying similar wall thickness for unwrapped condition.
29
The influence of FRP composite on steel pipe heat loss
600
507.46 506.10 503.22 501.29

500
𝑃𝑀𝑂𝑃 = 8.5 𝑀𝑃𝑎 𝑃𝑀𝑂𝑃 = 17 𝑀𝑃𝑎 𝑃𝑀𝑂𝑃 = 33.5 𝑀𝑃𝑎 𝑃𝑀𝑂𝑃 = 44.3 𝑀𝑃𝑎
400
Bare steel
Heat transfer (W/L)
300
Steel + FRP
composite
200 172.37
104.75
𝑃𝑀𝑂𝑃 = 8.5 𝑀𝑃𝑎
75.72
100 𝑃𝑀𝑂𝑃 = 44.3
𝑃𝑀𝑂𝑃 = 17 𝑀𝑃𝑎
𝑃𝑀𝑂𝑃 = 33.5 𝑀𝑃𝑎 59.58
0
6.35 12.7 25.4 33.32
5.34 Steel + 4 FRP 10.67 Steel + 8 FRP 21.41 Steel + 12 FRP 28.29 Steel + 16 FRP
Pipe wall thickness (mm)
Figure 24 Comparison of heat loss between bare steel pipe and pre-FRP wrapped pipe
4.4.2. The influence of FRP composites on the PEX pipe MAOP

In this part one type of plastic pipe (Crosslinked polyethylene - PEX pipe) is selected and designed
based on ISO/TS 24817 under different internal pressure. The principal objectives of the present work
are:
- A brief overview of PEX pipe and its material properties
- Evaluating the effect of FRP composite on the maximum allowable operating pressure
(MAOP) of PEX pipe.
- The Crosslinked Polyethylene (PEX) pipe

Crosslinked polyethylene is the most common pipe in Europe due high durability and material
performance. Their principal advantages are good resistance in hot and cold water line, speed the
installation process and high impact resistance at very low temperature. The disadvantages are that it
cannot be used outside because it’s very susceptible to ultraviolet, it cannot be recycled and it has a short
life expectancy.
The Crosslinked Polyethylene is a type of polyethylene which the long polymer chains of thermosets
are chemically bonded to other long polymer chains during the processing (Silowash, 2010). Due to this
change in molecular structure of polyethylene the chains of the polymer are joined to each other
permanently (crosslinked polyethylene). This structural modification of polyethylene causes significant
performance improvement on PEX properties such as better environmental stress crack resistance
(ESCR), greater temperature strength and improved chemical resistance (Plastic Pipe Institute, PPI –
www.plasticpipe.org). PEX is widely used in Europe for cold and hot water distribution in piping system
and are available in varies sizes. An example of PEX pipes is shown in Figure 25. The mechanical,
electrical and thermal properties of PEX pipe are listed in Appendix 4.
30
Figure 25 Example of PEX pipe

Source: www.familyhandyman.com/plumbing/pex-piping-everything-you-need-to-know/view-all
- Evaluation
A numerical evaluation has been carried out in order to identify the improvement factor(s) involved with
FRP wrapping of PEX pipe. ISO/TS 24817 technical specification for upgrading an undamaged pipe is
the standard which is used as a guideline for this aim. The substrate allowable stress method (defect type
A) is selected to design the FRP-wrapped PEX pipe (Appendix 5). In this method the contribution of
the substrate is considered in the calculation for load carrying capacity. Furthermore, the composite
thickness is limited by the allowable stress in the substrate. It means that substrate yield strength
indicates the required thickness of the composite material.
Two PEX pipe with nominal diameter 110mm and 80mm are selected in this work to show the effect of
FRP wrapping on the final maximum allowable operating pressure (MAOP). The pipe wall thickness is
varied from 4mm to 12mm and are similar for both case. Fiber glass is chosen as composite material for
strengthening the PEX pipes. The material properties of PEX pipe and fiber glass are listed in Table 19.
Table 19 Material properties of PEX pipe and fiber glass composite
Thermal Modulus of Allowable tensile

Type of material
Conductivity elasticity strength
Crosslinked polyethylene (PEX) - DN-

0.41 𝑊/𝑚𝐾 900 𝑀𝑃𝑎 20 𝑀𝑃𝑎
110 - 80
FRP – Fiber glass 0.04 𝑊/𝑚𝐾 20000 𝑀𝑃𝑎 300 𝑀𝑃𝑎

Source: Appendix 4
The calculation procedure in this section is similar to section 4.4.1 (equation 5 – 10). However the main
design procedure are presented in Appendix 5. The final result is listed in Tables 20, 21, 22 and 23.
Table 20 PEX pipe – DN110 - properties
PEX pipe - DN110
𝐷1 𝑟1 𝐷2 𝑟2 𝐷3 𝑟3 𝑡𝑃𝐸𝑋 MAOP MOP

(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (MPa) (MPa)
102 51 110 55 - - 4 1.45 1.31
98 49 110 55 - - 6 2.18 1.96
90 45 110 55 - - 10 3.64 3.27
86 43 110 55 - - 12 4.36 3.93
31
Table 21 PEX pipe – DN80 - properties
PEX pipe - DN80
𝐷1 𝑟1 𝐷2 𝑟2 𝐷3 𝑟3 𝑡𝑃𝐸𝑋 MAOP MOP

(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (MPa) (MPa)
72 36 80 40 - - 4 2.00 1.80
68 34 80 40 - - 6 3.00 2.70
30 30 80 40 - - 10 5.00 4.50
56 28 80 40 - - 12 6.00 5.40
Table 22 PEX pipe + FRP – DN110 - properties
PEX pipe - FRP – DN110
𝐷1 𝑟1 𝐷2 𝑟2 𝐷3 𝑟3 𝑡𝑃𝐸𝑋 𝑡𝐹𝑅𝑃 MAOP MOP

(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (MPa) (MPa)
102 51 110 55 111.6 55.8 4 0.8 8.61 7.83
98 49 110 55 112.4 56.2 6 1.2 12.84 11.67
90 45 110 55 112.8 56.4 10 1.4 16.14 14.67
86 43 110 55 113.2 56.6 12 1.6 18.62 16.93
Table 23 PEX pipe + FRP – DN80 - properties
PEX pipe - DN80
𝐷1 𝑟1 𝐷2 𝑟2 𝐷3 𝑟3 𝑡𝑃𝐸𝑋 𝑡𝐹𝑅𝑃 MAOP MOP

(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (MPa) (MPa)
72 36 80 40 81.6 40.8 4 0.8 11.79 10.71
68 34 80 40 82.4 41.2 6 1.2 17.54 15.94
30 30 80 40 82.8 41.4 10 1.4 22.03 20.03
56 28 80 40 83.2 41.6 12 1.6 25.40 23.09
The results of these tables are plotted in Figure 26. The MAOP data is first screened for unwrapped
pipes where the horizontal axis is adjusted for different pipe wall thicknesses. As it is shown for both
pipe diameters (110mm – 80mm) in this case the internal pressure capacity of unwrapped pipe has a
trend of increase when the internal diameter decreases. Besides, MAOP of the FRP-wrapped pipe which
were designed according to ISO/TS 24817 technical specification is mapped. It is found that the internal
pressure capacity of coated pipes is increased dramatically with adding thin layers of FRP composite.
The main improvement factor is related to value of elastic modulus of FRP composite which is much
higher than PEX pipe. Furthermore, same trend of increase is seen for FRP coated pipe when the internal
diameter is reduced.
32
The influence of FRP composite on MAOP

30
PEX pipe - D=110 mm
PEX + FRP . D=110 mm
Maximum allowable operating pressure - MAOP (MPa) 25.40
PEX pipe - D=80 mm
25
PEX +FRP - D=80 mm 𝑡𝐹𝑅𝑃 = 1.4
𝑡𝐹𝑅𝑃 = 1.6
22.03
20
𝑡𝐹𝑅𝑃 = 1.2 18.62
16.14
17.54 𝑡𝐹𝑅𝑃 = 1.6
15
𝑡𝐹𝑅𝑃 = 0.8 12.84 𝑡𝐹𝑅𝑃 = 1.4
11.79
10 𝑡𝐹𝑅𝑃 = 1.2
8.61
6.00
𝑡𝐹𝑅𝑃 = 0.8 5.00
5
3.00 4.36
2.00
3.64
1.45 2.18
0
4 6 10 12
PEX pipe wall thickness (mm)
Figure 26 Comparison of MAOP between bare PEX pipe and pre-FRP wrapped PEX pipe
33
5. Conclusion
The strengthening and rehabilitation of pipes with FRP composites were presented and the advantages
and limitations associated with this technique were discussed through different case studies. It was
shown that how corroded and damaged pipes restore their initially load carrying capacity when they
were repaired with this composite material.
A numerical investigation of FRP-wrapped steel pipe and FRP-wrapped PEX pipe were also carried out
based on ISO 24817 standard to identify the other advantages are involved of production of new pipe
coated with FRP composites. From this investigation it was observed that coating of steel pipes with
thin layers of FRP composites has a positive effect on total heat loss. Furthermore, it was noticed that
strengthening of plastic pipes through FRP composites increase the maximum allowable operating
pressure significantly.
6. Future work
Although different advantages achieved by means of FRP strengthening of pipes in this work, but there
are several questions arising simultaneously which should be pursued. Some important investigations
that can be made of the present work are:
 Design and stress analysis of FRP-wrapped pipe with finite element analysis
 The load distribution between substrate and fiber for different internal service pressure
 Evaluation of burst pressure of FRP-wrapped pipe
 Non-linear behavior of substrate and FRP material in both hoop and longitudinal direction of
the FRP-wrapped pipe
 The effect of fiber orientation on the structural behavior of FRP-wrapped pipes
 Behavior of FRP-wrapped pipe under fatigue loading and fatigue crack growth analysis
 Environment effects on the performance of FRP-wrapped pipes
 Non-destructive technique for remote status monitoring of pipes
34
Appendix 1
35
Appendix 2
Design of pipeline composite repair systems:

a) Defect Type A design case:
1. Design based on substrate-allowable stress (6.5.4):

In this design method the substrate is included in the calculation for load-carrying
capability. Furthermore, in these equations it is assumed that the repair thickness is
limited by the allowable stress in the substrate.
−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−
D: is the external diameter of pipe [millimeters (Annex H)]
D := 168.3mm
−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−
s.1 : is the allowable stress of the substrate material [megapascals (N/mm2 )]
s1 := 240MPa
−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−
Es : is tensile modulus of substrate [megapascals (N/mm2 )]
Es := 210000MPa
−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−
Ec : is the circumferential modulus of the repair laminate [megapascals (N/mm2)]
Ec := 32800MPa
−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−
peq: is the equivalent internal pressure [megapascals (N/mm2 )] and is given by
equation 3.
p: is internal design pressure [megapascals (N/mm2)]

p := 16MPa
−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−
Fsh: is the applied shear load [newtons (N)]
Fsh := 0N
−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−
Mto: is the applied torsional moment [newton millimeters (N.mm)]
M to := 0N⋅ mm
−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−
 2

 16  M to 
p eq := p ⋅ 1 +   ⋅  Fsh + 2 ⋅   = 16⋅ MPa Eq.3
2  D 
 ( 2
)  
  π⋅ D ⋅ p  
−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−
Ea : is the axial modulus of the repair laminate [megapascals (N/mm2 )]
Ea := 8800MPa
−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−
Feq: is the equivalent axial load [newtons (N)] and is obtained by equation 3.
Fax : is the applied axial load [Newtons (N)]

Fax := 10000N
−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−
Max : is the applied axial momnet [Newton millimiteres (Nmm)]
M ax := 100000N⋅ mm
−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−
π 2 2 2  4  ⋅ M 2 + M 2 = 3.683 × 105 N
Feq := ⋅ p ⋅ D + Fax + 4 ⋅ Fsh +  D ax to Eq.3
4  
−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−
Minimum required thickness for the pipeline in hoop direction:
In the circumferential direction, the minimum repair laminate thickness (t min ), due to internal
pressure is limmited by the allowable repair laminate circumferential strain (εc)
The following parameters are required to achieve t min:

Note: Some of the parameters are defined in the previous section.
t s is the minimum remaining substrate wall thickness (mm)

t s := 2.1mm
−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−
plive is the internal pressure during repair installation (MPa)
p live := 0MPa
−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−
εc is the allowable repair laminate thermal strain in circumferential direction (mm/mm)
( ) ( ) (
ε c := fT1 Tt , Tm1 ⋅ ε c.0 Ea , Ec , C , Y − ∆T⋅ αs − αc ) Eq.8
−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−
fT.1: is the temperature de-rating factor (table.6 - P.15)
Td: is the design temperature, in degree Celsius

Td := 20
−−−−−−−−−−−
Tg: is the glass transition temperature, in degree Celsius
Tg := 80
THDT: is heat deflection temperature, in degree Celsius

THDT := −
−−−−−−−−−−−
Tm: is maximum operating temperature of repair system, in degree Celsius (Table.5)
Tm1 := Tg − 20 = 60
For repair system that Tg cannot be measured, the repair system should not be used
above the HDT less 20 o C.
Tm2 := THDT − 15
−−−−−−−−−−−
fT1 : is the temperature de-rating factor is obtained from Table.6
Tt := Td = 20
( )
fT1 Tt , Tm1 := 0.7 if Tt = Tm1 ( )
fT1 Tt , Tm2 := 0.7 if Tt = Tm2
075 if Tt = Tm1 − 20 075 if Tt = Tm2 − 20
0.85 if Tt = Tm1 − 40 0.85 if Tt = Tm2 − 40
0.90 if Tt = Tm1 − 50 0.90 if Tt = Tm2 − 50
1.00 if Tt = Tm1 − 60 1.00 if Tt = Tm2 − 60
( )
fT1 Tt , Tm1 = 0.85 (
fT1 Tt , Tm2 = )
−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−
εc.0: is the allowable repair laminate circumferential strain (table.8 - P.19)
C: is the repair Class

C := 3
−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−
Y: is the repair lifetime in years
Y := 2
−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−
( )
ε c.0 Ea , Ec , C , Y := ( )
0.004 if Ea > 0.5⋅ Ec ∨ Ea < 0.5⋅ Ec ∧ C = 1 ∧ Y = 2
( )
0.0032 if Ea > 0.5⋅ Ec ∨ Ea < 0.5⋅ Ec ∧ C = 1 ∧ Y = 10
0.0025 if ( Ea > 0.5⋅ Ec ∨ Ea < 0.5⋅ Ec) ∧ C = 1 ∧ Y = 20
0.0035 if ( Ea > 0.5⋅ Ec ∨ Ea < 0.5⋅ Ec) ∧ C = 2 ∧ Y = 2
0.003 if ( Ea > 0.5⋅ Ec ∨ Ea < 0.5⋅ Ec) ∧ C = 2 ∧ Y = 10
0.0025 if ( Ea > 0.5⋅ Ec ∨ Ea < 0.5⋅ Ec) ∧ C = 2 ∧ Y = 20
0.003 if ( Ea > 0.5⋅ Ec ∨ Ea < 0.5⋅ Ec) ∧ C = 3 ∧ Y = 2
0.0027 if ( Ea > 0.5⋅ Ec ∨ Ea < 0.5⋅ Ec) ∧ C = 3 ∧ Y = 10
0.0025 if ( Ea > 0.5⋅ Ec ∨ Ea < 0.5⋅ Ec) ∧ C = 3 ∧ Y = 20
−3
( )
ε c.0 Ea , Ec , C , Y = 3 × 10
∆T is the differences between design and installation temperature (degree Celsius)
∆T := 30deg
−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−
α s is the substrate thermal expansion coefficient (millimeters per millimeter degree Celsius)
−6 mm
αs := 12⋅ 10
mm⋅ deg
−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−
α c is the repair laminate thermal expansion coefficient, circumferential direction (millimeters
per millimeter degree Celsius)
−6 mm
αc := 2 ⋅ 10
mm⋅ deg
−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−
− 3 mm
( ) ( ) (
ε c := fT1 Tt , Tm1 ⋅ ε c.0 Ea , Ec , C , Y − ∆T⋅ αs − αc ) = 2.25 × 10 ⋅
mm
Eq.8
−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−
 p eq⋅ D   ts  p live ⋅ D
 2⋅ E ⋅ t  −  s1 ⋅ E ⋅ t  − 2 E ⋅ t = ⋅ εc
Eq.4
 c min   c min  ( c min + Es⋅ ts)
2 2 2 2 2
D⋅ p live − D⋅ p eq − D ⋅ p eq − 2 ⋅ D ⋅ p eq⋅ p live + D ⋅ p live ... ...
+ 4 ⋅ D⋅ Es⋅ p eq⋅ t s⋅ ε c + 4 ⋅ D⋅ Es⋅ p live ⋅ t s⋅ ε c − 4 ⋅ D⋅ p eq⋅ s1 ⋅ t s ...
+ 4 ⋅ D⋅ p live ⋅ s1 ⋅ t s ...
2 2 2 2
+ 4 ⋅ Es ⋅ t s ⋅ ε c − 8 ⋅ Es⋅ s1 ⋅ t s ⋅ ε c ...
2 2
+ 4 ⋅ s1 ⋅ t s
+ 2 ⋅ s1 ⋅ t s ...
+ 2 ⋅ Es⋅ t s⋅ ε c
t min := − = 11.415⋅ mm
4 ⋅ Ec ⋅ ε c
D
t design := t min if t min <
6
D
0 if t min ≥
6
t min = 11.415⋅ mm
1.4 If the repair is applied at zero internal pressure (plive =0)
The minimum repair laminate thickness (t min ) in the circumferential direction is limmited by
the allowable repair laminate circumferential strain (εc) and can be obtained from Eq.5.
 1  ⋅  eq  − s ⋅ t  = 11.415⋅ mm
p ⋅D
t min.0 :=  ε ⋅ E   2  1 s Eq.5
 c c
t design.3 := t min.0
D
t Design := t min.0 if t min.0 <
6
D
0 if t min.0 ≥
6
t Design = 11.415⋅ mm
This value is approximately equal to the minimum repair thickness is achieved from case
study 3.
Appendix 3
Table 24 Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Accident Summary by Cause 1/1/2002 - 12/31/2003
Number of % of Total Barrels Property % of Total

Reported Cause Fatalities Injuries
Accidents Accidents Lost Damages Damages
Excavation 40 14.7 35,075 $8,987,722 12.0 0 0
Natural Forces 13 4.8 5,045 $2,646,447 3.5 0 0

Other Outside
12 4.4 3,068 $2,062,535 2.8 0 0
Force
Materials or Weld
45 16.5 42,606 $30,681,741 41.0 0 0
Failure
Equipment Failure 42 15.4 5,717 $2,761,068 3.7 0 0
Corrosion 69 25.4 55,610 $17,775,629 23.8 0 0
Operations 14 5.1 8,332 $817,208 1.1 0 4
Other 37 13.6 20,022 $9,059,811 12.1 1 1
Total 272 175,475 $74,792,161 1 5

Source: www.corrosion-doctors.org/Pipeline/Pipeline-failures.htm
Table 25 Natural Gas Transmission Pipeline Incident Summary by Cause 1/1/2002 - 12/31/2003
Number of % of Total Property % of Total

Reported Cause Fatalities Injuries
Incidents Incidents Damages Damages
Excavation
32 17.8 $4,583,379 6.9 2 3
Damage
Natural Force
12 6.7 $8,278,011 12.5 0 0
Damage
Other Outside
16 8.9 $4,688,717 7.1 0 3
Force Damage
Corrosion 46 25.6 $24,273,051 36.6 0 0
Equipment 12 6.7 $5,337,364 8.0 0 5
Materials 36 20.0 $12,130,558 18.3 0 0
Operation 6 3.3 $2,286,455 3.4 0 2
Other 20 11.1 $4,773,647 7.2 0 0
Total 180 $66,351,182 2 13
Source: www.corrosion-doctors.org/Pipeline/Pipeline-failures.htm
42
Appendix 4
Table 26 Mechanical Properties of PEX pipe
Properties Value Standard

3
Density 0.938 g⁄cm DIN 53455
2
at 20°C 19-26 N⁄mm
Tensile strength DIN 53457
at 100°C 9-13 N⁄mm2
at 20°C 800-900 N⁄mm2
Modulus DIN 53455
at 80°C 300-350 N⁄mm2
at 20°C 350-550 %
Elongation at break DIN 53453
at 100°C 500-700 %
at 20° C No cracks
Toughness DIN 53472
at -140° C No cracks
Moisture absorption (22° C) 0.01 mg / 4d
Coefficient of friction against
0.08-0.1
steel
Surface energy 34 × 10−3 N⁄mm2
Oxygen permeability, uncoated at 20 °C 0.8 × 10−9 gm⁄m2 s bar
tube at 55 °C 3.0 × 10−9 gm⁄m2 s bar
Oxygen permeability, coated
3.6 mg⁄m2 d ISO 17455
tube Uponor evalPEX
Source: www.vvshandboken.se/Kulvert/Topics/c_KulvertTekniskaDataPEXRorHuvudrubrik.html
Table 27 Electrical properties

Spec.resistivity at 20 °C 1015 W⁄m
Dielectric constant at 20 °C 2.3 DIN 53483
−3
Dielectric loss factor at 20 °C/50 Hz 1 × 10 DIN 53483
Breakdown voltage at 20 °C 102 kV⁄mm DIN 53481 - VDE 0303
Table 28 Thermal properties

Operating temperature −100 … + 100 ℃
Linear expansion coefficient at 20°C 1.4 × 10−4 𝑚/𝑚℃ DIN 53752
−4
Linear expansion coefficient at 100°C 2.05 × 10 𝑚/𝑚℃ DIN 53752
Softening temperature +133 ℃ DIN 53460
Specific heat 2.3 𝑘𝐽/ 𝑘𝑔 ℃
Thermal conductivity 0.35 𝑊/𝑚℃ DIN 4725
43
Table 29 Drinking water PEX pipes, weight and volume
Dimension Inner diameter (mm) Weight (kg/m) Volume (l/m)

18 × 2.5 13.0 0.12 0.13
28 × 4.0 20.0 0.29 0.31
32 × 4.4 23.3 0.38 0.42
40 × 5.5 29.0 0.59 0.66
50 × 6.9 36.2 0.92 1.03
63 × 8.7 45.6 1.46 1.63
75 × 10.3 54.4 2.08 2.31
90 × 12.4 65.2 2.97 3.26
110 × 15.4 79.8 4.44 4.85
Table 30 Heating PEX pipes (UponorevalPEX), weight and volume
Dimension Inner diameter (mm) Weight (kg/m) Volume (l/m)

25 × 2.3 20.4 0.18 0.31
32 × 2.9 26.2 0.27 0.50
40 × 3.7 32.6 0.43 0.80
50 × 4.6 40.8 0.67 1.32
63 × 5.8 51.4 1.05 2.08
75 × 6.8 61.2 1.46 2.96
90 × 8.2 73.6 2.11 4.25
110 × 10 90.0 3.14 6.29
44
Appendix 5
a) Defect type A design case:
1. Design based on substrate-allowable stress (6.5.4):

In this design method the substrate is included in the calculation for load-carrying capability.
Furthermore, in equations (1) and (2), it is assumed that the repair thickness is limited by the
allowable stress in the substrate.
1.1. Stresses in circumferential (hoop) direction in pipe system:
The minimum repair laminate thickness, t min,c (mm) due to internal pressure is obtained by
equation 1.
 D  ⋅  Es  ⋅ p − p
t min.c :=  2s   E  ( eq s) Eq.1
 1  c
−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−
D: is the external diameter of pipe [millimeters (Annex H)]

−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−
s.1 : is the allowable stress of the substrate material [megapascals (N/mm2 )]
−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−

−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−
−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−
equation 3.
−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−
−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−
 2

 16  M to 
p eq := p ⋅ 1 +   ⋅  Fsh + 2 ⋅   Eq.3
2  D 
  ⋅ 2⋅ p
( )  
  πD  
−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−
ps: is maximum allowable working pressure [megapascals (N/mm2)]
t s: substrate wall thickness (mm)

t s := 10mm
Maximum allowable working pressure
2 ⋅ sa ⋅ t s
p s :=
D
−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−
The minimum repair laminate thickness, t min,c (mm) for stresses in circumferential direction:
 D  ⋅  Es  ⋅ p − p
t min.c :=  2s   E  ( eq s) Eq.1
 a  c
−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−
−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−
1.2. Stresses in axial direction in pipe system:
The minimum repair laminate thickness, t min,a (mm) due to internal pressure, bending and
axial thrust is obtained by equation 2.
 D  ⋅  Es  ⋅  2 ⋅ Feq − p 
t min.a :=  2s   E   s
 Eq.2
 1   a   π⋅ D2 
−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−
−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−

−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−
−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−
π 2 2 2  4 ⋅ M 2 + M 2
Feq := ⋅ p ⋅ D + Fax + 4 ⋅ Fsh +  D ax to Eq.3
4  
−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−
The minimum repair laminate thickness, t min,a (mm) for stresses in axial direction:
 D  ⋅  s  ⋅  2⋅ eq − p 
E F
t min.a.1 :=  2s   E   s

 a   a   π⋅ D2  Eq.2
t min.a := 0 if t min.a.1 ≤ 0
t min.a.1 if t min.a.1 > 0
−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−
The design repair thickness, t design.1 (mm), is the maximum value of t min,c and
t min,a determined from equation 1 and 3 respectively.
(
t design.1 := max t min.c , t min.a )
D
Thickness := t design.1 if t design.1 <
6
D
0 if t design.1 ≥
6
if tDesign.1 =0 means that the tdesign.1 value is not valid and vice versa.
−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−
−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−
Minimum required thickness for the pipeline in hoop direction:
In the circumferential direction, the minimum repair laminate thickness (t min ), due to internal
pressure is limmited by the allowable repair laminate circumferential strain (εc)
The following parameters are required to achieve t min:

Note: Some of the parameters are defined in the previous section.

−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−
plive is the internal pressure during repair installation (MPa)
−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−
the t min value can be achieved regarding to allowable repair strain limitation
−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−
( ) ( ) (
fT.1: is the temperature de-rating factor (table.6 - P.15)

−−−−−−−−−−−

−−−−−−−−−−−
Tm1 := Tg − 20
Tm2 := THDT − 15
−−−−−−−−−−−
Tt := Td
(
fT1 Tt , Tm1 :=) 0.7 if Tt = Tm1 ( )
fT1 Tt , Tm2 := 0.7 if Tt = Tm2
075 if Tt = Tm1 − 20 075 if Tt = Tm2 − 20
0.85 if Tt = Tm1 − 40 0.85 if Tt = Tm2 − 40
0.90 if Tt = Tm1 − 50 0.90 if Tt = Tm2 − 50
1.00 if Tt = Tm1 − 60 1.00 if Tt = Tm2 − 60
(
fT1 Tt , Tm1 ) (
fT1 Tt , Tm2 )
−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−

−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−
−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−
−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−
( )
ε c.0 Ea , Ec , C , Y := ( )
0.004 if Ea > 0.5⋅ Ec ∨ Ea < 0.5⋅ Ec ∧ C = 1 ∧ Y = 2
( )
0.0032 if Ea > 0.5⋅ Ec ∨ Ea < 0.5⋅ Ec ∧ C = 1 ∧ Y = 10
0.0025 if ( Ea > 0.5⋅ Ec ∨ Ea < 0.5⋅ Ec) ∧ C = 1 ∧ Y = 20
0.0035 if ( Ea > 0.5⋅ Ec ∨ Ea < 0.5⋅ Ec) ∧ C = 2 ∧ Y = 2
0.003 if ( Ea > 0.5⋅ Ec ∨ Ea < 0.5⋅ Ec) ∧ C = 2 ∧ Y = 10
0.0025 if ( Ea > 0.5⋅ Ec ∨ Ea < 0.5⋅ Ec) ∧ C = 2 ∧ Y = 20
0.003 if ( Ea > 0.5⋅ Ec ∨ Ea < 0.5⋅ Ec) ∧ C = 3 ∧ Y = 2
0.0027 if ( Ea > 0.5⋅ Ec ∨ Ea < 0.5⋅ Ec) ∧ C = 3 ∧ Y = 10
0.0025 if ( Ea > 0.5⋅ Ec ∨ Ea < 0.5⋅ Ec) ∧ C = 3 ∧ Y = 20
( )
ε c.0 Ea , Ec , C , Y
−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−
−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−
−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−
( ) ( ) (
−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−
 p eq⋅ D   ts  p live ⋅ D
 2⋅ E ⋅ t  −  s1 ⋅  − = ⋅ εc
Eq.4
 c min   Ec⋅ t min
 ( )
2 Ec⋅ t min + Es⋅ t s
2 2 2 2 2
D⋅ p live − D⋅ p eq − D ⋅ p eq − 2 ⋅ D ⋅ p eq⋅ p live + D ⋅ p live ... ...
+ 4 ⋅ D⋅ Es⋅ p eq⋅ t s⋅ ε c + 4 ⋅ D⋅ Es⋅ p live ⋅ t s⋅ ε c − 4 ⋅ D⋅ p eq⋅ s1 ⋅ t s ...
+ 4 ⋅ D⋅ p live ⋅ s1 ⋅ t s ...
2 2 2 2
+ 4 ⋅ Es ⋅ t s ⋅ ε c − 8 ⋅ Es⋅ s1 ⋅ t s ⋅ ε c ...
2 2
+ 4 ⋅ s1 ⋅ t s
+ 2 ⋅ s1 ⋅ t s ...
+ 2 ⋅ Es⋅ t s⋅ ε c
t min := −
4 ⋅ Ec ⋅ ε c
D
t design := t min if t min <
6
D
0 if t min ≥
6
1.4 If the repair is applied at zero internal pressure (plive =0)
The minimum repair laminate thickness (t min ) in the circumferential direction is limmited by
the allowable repair laminate circumferential strain (εc) and can be obtained from Eq.5.
 1  ⋅  p eq⋅ D  − s ⋅ t  Eq.5

t min.0 :=  ε ⋅ E   2  1 s
 c c
t design.3 := t min.0
t Design.3 := if  1 , 0 , t design.3 <

D

 6
if t Design.3 =0 means that the value for t design.3 is not valid and vice versa.
2. Design based on repair laminate allowable strain (6.5.5):
In this design method the substrate is not included in the calculation for load-carrying
capability and short term material properties are considered.
2.1. Stresses in circumferential (hoop) direction:
The minimum repair laminate thickness, t min,c (mm) due to internal pressure, bending and
 1  ⋅  peq⋅ D  −  Feq⋅ ν 
t min.c :=  ε   2E   π⋅ D⋅ E  Eq.6
 c   c   c 
−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−
Eq.8
( ) ( ) (
ε c := fT1 Tt , Tm1 ⋅ ε c.0 Ea , Ec , C , Y − ∆T⋅ αs − αc )
−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−
f T.1 is the temperature de-rating factor (table.6 - P.15)

−−−−−−−−−−−
−−−−−−−−−−−
−−−−−−−−−−−
Tm1 := Tg − 20
Tm2 := THDT − 15
−−−−−−−−−−−
Tt := Td
(
fT1 Tt , Tm1 :=) 0.7 if Tt = Tm1 ( )
fT1 Tt , Tm2 := 0.7 if Tt = Tm2
075 if Tt = Tm1 − 20 075 if Tt = Tm2 − 20
0.85 if Tt = Tm1 − 40 0.85 if Tt = Tm2 − 40
0.90 if Tt = Tm1 − 50 0.90 if Tt = Tm2 − 50
1.00 if Tt = Tm1 − 60 1.00 if Tt = Tm2 − 60
(
fT1 Tt , Tm1 ) (
fT1 Tt , Tm2 )
−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−
−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−
−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−
−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−
( )
ε c.0 Ea , Ec , C , Y := ( )
0.004 if Ea > 0.5⋅ Ec ∨ Ea < 0.5⋅ Ec ∧ C = 1 ∧ Y = 2
( )
0.0032 if Ea > 0.5⋅ Ec ∨ Ea < 0.5⋅ Ec ∧ C = 1 ∧ Y = 10
0.0025 if ( Ea > 0.5⋅ Ec ∨ Ea < 0.5⋅ Ec) ∧ C = 1 ∧ Y = 20
0.0035 if ( Ea > 0.5⋅ Ec ∨ Ea < 0.5⋅ Ec) ∧ C = 2 ∧ Y = 2
0.003 if ( Ea > 0.5⋅ Ec ∨ Ea < 0.5⋅ Ec) ∧ C = 2 ∧ Y = 10
0.0025 if ( Ea > 0.5⋅ Ec ∨ Ea < 0.5⋅ Ec) ∧ C = 2 ∧ Y = 20
0.003 if ( Ea > 0.5⋅ Ec ∨ Ea < 0.5⋅ Ec) ∧ C = 3 ∧ Y = 2
0.0027 if ( Ea > 0.5⋅ Ec ∨ Ea < 0.5⋅ Ec) ∧ C = 3 ∧ Y = 10
0.0025 if ( Ea > 0.5⋅ Ec ∨ Ea < 0.5⋅ Ec) ∧ C = 3 ∧ Y = 20
( )
ε c.0 Ea , Ec , C , Y

−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−
−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−
−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−
( ) ( )
ε c := fT1 Tt , Tm1 ⋅ ε c.0 Ea , Ec , C , Y − ∆T⋅ αs − αc ( ) Eq.8
−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−
D: is the external diameter of test spool (mm)
−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−

equation 3.

−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−
−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−
−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−
  16  2
 M to  
p eq := ( p ) ⋅ 1 +  N  ⋅  F + 2⋅  Eq.3
  π⋅ D2⋅ p
( )   sh D 

−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−
−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−
−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−
−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−
π 2 2 2  4 ⋅ M 2 + M 2
⋅ p⋅ D + Fax + 4 ⋅ Fsh +  D ax to Eq.3
4  
−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−
ν is the poission's ratio of the repair laminate (Annex B)
−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−
The minimum repair laminate thickness, t min,c (mm) for stresses in circumferential direction:
( )
 1  ⋅  eq 
p ⋅D  ( −Feq) ⋅ ν Eq.6
t min.c :=  ε   2E  −  
 c   c   π⋅ D⋅ Ec 
In Eq.6 the contribution of Feqshould be taken as negative.
−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−
−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−
2.2. Stresses in axial direction:

The minimum repair laminate thickness, t min,a (mm) due to internal pressure, bending and
 1  ⋅  Feq  −  p eq⋅ D⋅ ν 
t min.a :=  ε   π⋅ D⋅ E   2E  Eq.7
 a   a  c 
−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−
εa is the allowable repair laminate thermal strains in the axial directions (mm/mm)
( ) ( ) (
ε a := fT1 Tt , Tm1 ⋅ ε a.0 Ea , Ec , C , Y − ∆T⋅ αs − αa ) Eq.8
−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−
εa.0 is the allowable repair laminate axial strain (table.8 - P.19)
( )
ε a.0 Ea , Ec , C , Y := 0.004 if Ea > 0.5⋅ Ec ∧ C = 1 ∧ Y = 2
0.0032 if Ea > 0.5⋅ Ec ∧ C = 1 ∧ Y = 10
0.0025 if Ea > 0.5⋅ Ec ∧ C = 1 ∧ Y = 20
0.0035 if Ea > 0.5⋅ Ec ∧ C = 2 ∧ Y = 2
0.003 if Ea > 0.5⋅ Ec ∧ C = 2 ∧ Y = 10
0.0025 if Ea > 0.5⋅ Ec ∧ C = 2 ∧ Y = 20
0.003 if Ea > 0.5⋅ Ec ∧ C = 3 ∧ Y = 2
0.0027 if Ea > 0.5⋅ Ec ∧ C = 3 ∧ Y = 10
0.0025 if Ea > 0.5⋅ Ec ∧ C = 3 ∧ Y = 20
0.0025 if Ea < 0.5⋅ Ec ∧ C = 1 ∧ Y = 2
0.0016 if Ea < 0.5⋅ Ec ∧ C = 1 ∧ Y = 10
0.001 if Ea < 0.5⋅ Ec ∧ C = 1 ∧ Y = 20
0.001 if Ea < 0.5⋅ Ec ∧ C = 2 ∧ Y = 2
0.001 if Ea < 0.5⋅ Ec ∧ C = 2 ∧ Y = 10
0.001 if Ea < 0.5⋅ Ec ∧ C = 2 ∧ Y = 20
0.001 if Ea < 0.5⋅ Ec ∧ C = 3 ∧ Y = 2
0.001 if Ea < 0.5⋅ Ec ∧ C = 3 ∧ Y = 10
0.001 if Ea < 0.5⋅ Ec ∧ C = 3 ∧ Y = 20
( )
ε a.0 Ea , Ec , C , Y
α a is the repair laminate thermal expansion coefficient, axial direction, (millimeters per
millimeter degree Celsius)
−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−
( ) ( ) ( )
ε a := fT1 Tt , Tm1 ⋅ ε a.0 Ea , Ec , C , Y − ∆T⋅ αs − αa
−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−
The minimum repair laminate thickness, t min,a (mm) for stresses in axial direction:
 1  ⋅  eq  −  eq
F p ⋅ D⋅ ν 
t min.a :=  ε   π⋅ D⋅ E   2E  Eq.7
 a  a  c 
In Eq.6 the contribution of Feqshould be taken as positive.
−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−
The design repair thickness, t design.1 (mm), is the maximum value of t min,c and
t min,a determined from equation 1 and 3 respectively.
(
t design.1 := max t min.c , t min.a )
t Design.1 := if  1 , 0 , t design.1 <

D

 6
t Design.1 =0 means that the t design.1 value is not valid and vice versa.
−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−
−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−
3. Design based on repair-allowable stresses determined by performance testing (6.5.6):
This design method is appropriate if the performanced based-test date are available.
3.1 The substrate is not included in the calculation for load-carrying capability:
3.1.1 Stresses in circumferential (hoop) direction:
The minimum repair laminate thickness, t min,c (mm) due to internal pressure, bending and
 1  ⋅  p eq⋅ D − ν⋅ Feq  Eq.9

t min.c :=  f ⋅s 
 perf lt   2 π⋅ D 
f perf is service factor for performance data for repair system (Table.9 - P.20)

−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−
f1000h ( C , Y) := 0.83 if C = 1 ∧ Y = 2
0.65 if C = 1 ∧ Y = 10
0.5 if C = 1 ∧ Y = 20
0.67 if C = 2 ∧ Y = 2
0.58 if C = 2 ∧ Y = 10
0.5 if C = 2 ∧ Y = 20
0.6 if C = 3 ∧ Y = 2
0.55 if C = 3 ∧ Y = 10
0.5 if C = 3 ∧ Y = 20
f1000h ( C , Y)
fDesign.life( C , Y) := 1 if C = 1 ∧ Y = 2
0.83 if C = 1 ∧ Y = 10
0.67 if C = 1 ∧ Y = 20
0.83 if C = 2 ∧ Y = 2
0.75 if C = 2 ∧ Y = 10
0.67 if C = 2 ∧ Y = 20
0.75 if C = 3 ∧ Y = 2
0.71 if C = 3 ∧ Y = 10
0.67 if C = 3 ∧ Y = 20
fDesign.life( C , Y)
−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−
D: is the external diameter of test spool (mm)
−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−
equation 3.1.

−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−
−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−
  16  2
 M to  
p eq := ( p ) ⋅ 1 +  N  ⋅  Fsh + 2 ⋅  Eq.3.1
  π⋅ D2⋅ p
( )  D 
   
−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−
Feq: is the equivalent axial load [newtons (N)] and it should be taken as negative in Eq.9. It
is obtained by equation 3.2.

−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−
−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−
π 2 2 2  4 ⋅ M 2 + M 2
Feq := ⋅ p ⋅ D + Fax + 4 ⋅ Fsh +  D ax to Eq.3.2
4  
−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−
ν is the poission's ratio of the repair laminate (Annex B)
−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−
slt: is lower confidence limit of the long-term stress determined by performance testing
Three different performance-based testing method options are considered in Annex E to
measure the s lt (MPa)
i: Survival testing:
In this case the repair system is subjected to a period of sustained load for 1000h.
−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−
Limitations:
- Minimum diamter of the pipe section: 100mm
- Minimum thickness of the pipe section: 3mm
- Three identical tests are perfomed and the repair laminate should survive in all three tests.
−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−
ptest: is the internal pressure and is defined by the repair system supplier. It should sustain
for 1000h.(MPa)
−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−
−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−
tmin: is the thickness of repair laminate (mm)
−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−
−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−
−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−
s a: is the measured yield stressof the substrate or mill certification yield stress (MPa)
−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−
εlam: composite laminate strain
−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−
εshort: short-term failure strain of the composite laminate
−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−
The 95% lower confidence long-term stress is calculated as below:(MPa)
p test.i⋅ D⋅ Ec
slt.i := if ε lam ≤ ε short
(
2. Ec⋅ t min + Es⋅ t s )
 1  ⋅  p test.i⋅ D − s ⋅ t  if ε
t   2 a s lam > ε short
 min  
ii: Regression testing:
- In this method a series of test specimens are subjected to sustained pressures of

different values.
- The time that the repair laminate shows signs of cracking should be recorded
- The result should be plotted (log-log)
-The required long-term pressure should be determined by a regression analysis using
95% lower confidence limit.
−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−
Limitations:
- Minimum diamter of the pipe section: 100mm
- Minimum thickness of the pipe section: 3mm
- At least 18 results are required in order to perform the regression analysis.(ASTM D2992)
−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−
The 95% lower confidence long-term stress is calculated as below:(MPa)
p test.ii⋅ D⋅ Ec
slt.ii := if ε lam ≤ ε short
(
2. Ec⋅ t min + Es⋅ t s )
 1  ⋅  p test.ii⋅ D − s ⋅ t  if ε
t   2 a s lam > ε short
 min  
−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−
iii: Representative coupon testing:
ASTM D2992
ASTM D1598
ISO 14692
−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−
The minimum repair laminate thickness, t min,c (mm) for stresses in circumferential
direction due to internal pressure, bending and axial thrust is given by Eq.9:
(a) with service factor for 1000h data
 1  ⋅  peq⋅ D − ν⋅ ( −Feq)  Eq.9

t min.c.1000 := f 
 1000h( C , Y) ⋅ slt.i   2 π⋅ D 

−−−−−−−−−−−−
(b) with service factor for Design life data
 ⋅  eq − ( eq) 
p ⋅ D ν⋅ −F
 1
Eq.9
t min.c.Design := f 
 Design.life( C , Y) ⋅ slt.i   2 π⋅ D 
3.1.2 Stresses in axial direction:

The minimum repair laminate thickness, t min,a (mm) for stresses in axial direction due to
internal pressure, bending and axial thrust is obtained by equation (2) or equation (7) as
appropriate.
a2: Stresses in axial direction: (6.5.4)
The minimum repair laminate thickness, t min,a.2 (mm) due to internal pressure, bending
and axial thrust is obtained by equation 2.
 D2   Es.2   Feq.2 
t min.a.2 :=  2s  ⋅  E  ⋅  2 ⋅ − p s.2 Eq.2
 1   a.2   π⋅ D2 2 

D.2: is the external diameter of pipe [millimeters (Annex H)]
−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−
s1: is the allowable stress of the substrate material [megapascals (N/mm2)]
−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−
Ea.2 : is the axial modulus of the repair laminate [megapascals (N/mm2 )]
−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−
Feq.2: is the equivalent axial load [newtons (N)] and is obtained by equation 3.
−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−
Fax.2: is the applied axial load [Newtons (N)]
−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−
Max.2 : is the applied axial momnet [Newton millimiteres (Nmm)]
−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−
Fsh.2: is the applied shear load [newtons (N)]
−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−
Mto.2: is the applied torsional moment [newton millimeters (N.mm)]
−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−
p.2: is internal design pressure [megapascals (N/mm2 )]
−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−
π 2 2 2  4 ⋅ M 2 + M 2 Eq.3
Feq.2 := ⋅ p 2 ⋅ D2 +
4
Fax.2 + 4 ⋅ Fsh.2 + D  ax.2 to.2
 2
−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−
ps.2 : is maximum allowable working pressure [megapascals (N/mm2 )]
−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−
Es.2 : is tensile modulus of substrate [megapascals (N/mm2 )]
−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−
The minimum repair laminate thickness, t min,a.2 (mm) for stresses in axial direction:
 D2   Es.2   Feq.2 
t min.a.2 :=  ⋅  ⋅  2⋅ − p s.2
Eq.2
 2s1   Ea.2   π⋅ D2 2 

In Eq.2 the contribution of Feq.2 should be taken as positive.
−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−
a7: Stresses in axial direction: (6.5.5)
The minimum repair laminate thickness, t min,a.7 (mm) due to internal pressure, bending
and axial thrust is obtained by equation 7.
 1  ⋅  eq.7   p eq.7⋅ D7⋅ ν 

F
t min.a.7 :=  ε   π⋅ D ⋅ E  −  2E  Eq.7
 a.7   7 a.7   c.7 
−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−
Ea.7 : is the axial modulus of the repair laminate [megapascals (N/mm2 )]
−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−
D.7: is the external diameter of pipe [millimeters (Annex H)]
−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−
εa.7 is the allowable repair laminate thermal strains in the axial directions (mm/mm)
( ) ( ) (
ε a.7 := fT1 Tt , Tm1 ⋅ ε a.0 Ea , Ec , C , Y − ∆T⋅ αs − αa ) Eq.8
−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−
εa.0: is the allowable repair laminate axial strain (table.8 - P.19)

−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−
−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−

−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−
( )
ε a.0 Ea , Ec , C , Y := 0.004 if Ea > 0.5⋅ Ec ∧ C = 1 ∧ Y = 2
0.0032 if Ea > 0.5⋅ Ec ∧ C = 1 ∧ Y = 10
0.0025 if Ea > 0.5⋅ Ec ∧ C = 1 ∧ Y = 20
0.0035 if Ea > 0.5⋅ Ec ∧ C = 2 ∧ Y = 2
0.003 if Ea > 0.5⋅ Ec ∧ C = 2 ∧ Y = 10
0.0025 if Ea > 0.5⋅ Ec ∧ C = 2 ∧ Y = 20
0.003 if Ea > 0.5⋅ Ec ∧ C = 3 ∧ Y = 2
0.0027 if Ea > 0.5⋅ Ec ∧ C = 3 ∧ Y = 10
0.0025 if Ea > 0.5⋅ Ec ∧ C = 3 ∧ Y = 20
0.0025 if Ea < 0.5⋅ Ec ∧ C = 1 ∧ Y = 2
0.0016 if Ea < 0.5⋅ Ec ∧ C = 1 ∧ Y = 10
0.001 if Ea < 0.5⋅ Ec ∧ C = 1 ∧ Y = 20
0.001 if Ea < 0.5⋅ Ec ∧ C = 2 ∧ Y = 2
0.001 if Ea < 0.5⋅ Ec ∧ C = 2 ∧ Y = 10
0.001 if Ea < 0.5⋅ Ec ∧ C = 2 ∧ Y = 20
0.001 if Ea < 0.5⋅ Ec ∧ C = 3 ∧ Y = 2
0.001 if Ea < 0.5⋅ Ec ∧ C = 3 ∧ Y = 10
0.001 if Ea < 0.5⋅ Ec ∧ C = 3 ∧ Y = 20

( )
ε a.0 Ea , Ec , C , Y
−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−
fT.1 is the temperature de-rating factor (table.6 - P.15)
−−−−−−−−−−−
−−−−−−−−−−−
−−−−−−−−−−−
Tm1 := Tg − 20
Tm2 := THDT − 15
−−−−−−−−−−−
Tt := Td
( )
fT1 Tt , Tm1 := 0.7 if Tt = Tm1 ( )
fT1 Tt , Tm2 := 0.7 if Tt = Tm2
075 if Tt = Tm1 − 20 075 if Tt = Tm2 − 20
0.85 if Tt = Tm1 − 40 0.85 if Tt = Tm2 − 40
0.90 if Tt = Tm1 − 50 0.90 if Tt = Tm2 − 50
1.00 if Tt = Tm1 − 60 1.00 if Tt = Tm2 − 60
(
fT1 Tt , Tm1 ) (
fT1 Tt , Tm2 )
−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−
αa: is the repair laminate thermal expansion coefficient, axial direction, (millimeters per
millimeter degree Celsius)
−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−
−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−
αs: is the substrate thermal expansion coefficient (millimeters per millimeter degree Celsius)
( ) ( )
ε a.7 := fT1 Tt , Tm1 ⋅ ε a.0 Ea , Ec , C , Y − ∆T⋅ αs − αa ( )
−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−
Feq.7: is the equivalent axial load [newtons (N)] and is obtained by equation 3.
−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−
Fax.7: is the applied axial load [Newtons (N)]
−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−
Max.7 : is the applied axial momnet [Newton millimiteres (Nmm)]
−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−
Fsh.7: is the applied shear load [newtons (N)]
−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−
Mto.7: is the applied torsional moment [newton millimeters (N.mm)]
−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−
p.7: is internal design pressure [megapascals (N/mm2 )]
−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−
π 2 2 2  4 ⋅ M 2 + M 2 Eq.3
Feq.7 := ⋅ p 7 ⋅ D7 +
4
Fax.7 + 4 ⋅ Fsh.7 + D  ax.7 to.7
 7
−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−
peq.7: is the equivalent internal pressure [megapascals (N/mm2)] and is given by equation 3.
  16  2
   M to.7  
N
p eq.7 := ( p 7 ) ⋅ 1 +   ⋅  Fsh.7 + 2 ⋅  Eq.3
   π⋅ D 2⋅ p    D7
 
   7 7 
−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−
Ec.7 : is the circumferential modulus of the repair laminate [megapascals (N/mm2)]
−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−
The minimum repair laminate thickness, t min,a.7 (mm) for stresses in axial direction:
 1  ⋅  Feq.7   p eq.7⋅ D7 ⋅ ν 
t min.a.7 :=  ε   π⋅ D ⋅ E  −  2E  Eq.7
 a.7   7 a.7   c.7 
In Eq.7 the contribution of Feq.7 should be taken as positive.
−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−
The design repair thickness, t design (mm), is the maximum value of t min,c,1000 and
t min,a.2 or t min,a.7 .
(
t design.a := max t min.c.1000 , t min.a.2 )
 D2 
t Design.a := if  1 , 0 , t design.a < 
 6 
t Design.a =0 means that the t design.a value is not valid and vice versa.
− − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − −OR − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − −
(
t design.b := max t min.c.1000 , t min.a.7 )
 D7 
t Design.b := if  1 , 0 , t design.b < 
 6 
t Design.b =0 means that the t design.b value is not valid and vice versa.
−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−
3.2 The substrate is included in the calculation for load-carrying capability:
For hoop stress due to internal pressure, the design repair laminate thickness, t design, is
given by equation 10:
s 2 is the allowable stress of the substrate material (MPa)
(a) with service factor for 1000h data
 1  ⋅  p eq⋅ D − s ⋅ t  Eq.10
t design.1000 := f  2 s
 1000h( C , Y) ⋅ slt.i   2 
−−−−−−−−−−−−
(b) with service factor for Design life data
 1  ⋅  p eq⋅ D − s ⋅ t  Eq.10
t design.Design := f  2 s
 Design.life( C , Y) ⋅ slt.i   2 
b) Defect type B design case:
Design of repairs for through-wall defects (6.5.7):
A defect within a substrate should be considered through-wall if the wall thickness at any
point of the affected area is determined to be less than 1mm at the end of its life.
1.For a circular or near-circular defect:

The minimum thickness for a reoair laminate, t mim (mm), should be calcualted by
eqaution 11.


0.001⋅ γLCL
( )
p := fT2 Tt , Tm1 ⋅ fleak⋅ 
  1 − ν2   3⋅ d 4 d   3d
2   Eq.11
 ⋅ + + 
  Eac   512⋅ tmin3 π   64⋅ G⋅ tmin  
   
−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−
fT2 : is the temperature de-rating factor (Table.7)

−−−−−−−−−−−
Ttest: is the qualification test temperature, in degree Celsius
−−−−−−−−−−−
Tamb: is the ambient test temperature, in degree Celsius
−−−−−−−−−−−
−−−−−−−−−−−
−−−−−−−−−−−

Tm1 := Tg − 30
Tm2 := THDT − 20
−−−−−−−−−−−
fT2 : the temperature de-rating factor is obtained from Table.7
(
Tt := Td − Ttest − Tamb )
(
fT2 Tt , Tm1 :=) 0.7 if Tt = Tm1
075 if Tt = Tm1 − 20
0.85 if Tt = Tm1 − 40
0.90 if Tt = Tm1 − 50
1.00 if Tt = Tm1 − 60
(
fT2 Tt , Tm1 )
−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−
d: is the diameter of defect, expressed in millimetres;
−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−
γLCL: is the 95% lower confidence limit of toughness parameter (energy release rate)
for the repair laminate/substrate interface (J/m2) - Annex D
2
 n−1  

 ∑ ( di i)
A ⋅ p 

γLCL :=   − t ⋅σ ⋅ 
i =0 1
 n−1  (v ) n− 1 

∑ ( Adi)  ∑ ( di) 
2 2
A
  
 i = 0  i=0 
limitations: (P.50)
- Minimum diameter of the metallic pipe section is 100mm
- Minimum thickness of the metallic pipe section is 3 mm
- The repair system should be applied with the defects in the 6 o'clock orientation
- Yielding of the pipe prior to failure should not occur
- The test should be carry out at the qualification test temperarute
- The test pressure should be increased in accordance with ASTM D1599
- A minimum number of nine tests should be carried out, covering a minimum of three hole
sizes, typically of diameters 10mm, 15mm and 25mm
−−−−−−−−−−−
n: is the number observed data points, minimum value for n is 7.(P.52)
−−−−−−−−−−−
di: is the diameter of through-wall defect (mm), subscript ''i'' is the number of observed data
points.
−−−−−−−−−−−
γi: is the energy release rate or toughness parameter for the composite steel interface
−−−−−−−−−−−
ti: is the thickness of repair laminate (mm)
−−−−−−−−−−−
G: is the shear modulus of the repair laminate (MPa)
−−−−−−−−−−−
ν: is the Poission's ratio of the repair laminate (Table.4 ISO 527-1, ISO 527-4 (or ASTM D3039)
−−−−−−−−−−−
Eac: is the combined tensile modulus of the repair laminate (MPa)
Eac := Ea ⋅ Ec
−−−−−
−−−−−
−−−−−
Eac := Ea ⋅ Ec
−−−−−−−−−−−
Adi: is the fnction of defect size and repair laminate properties of the observation ''i''
n− 1
 0.001 
Adi :=
∑  
) ⋅3⋅ (di)   d  
4 2
i =0   1 − ν2
( ( i) + 3⋅ ( i)  
d
 
+   64⋅ G⋅ t  Eq.(D.1)
  Eac π
  512⋅ ( t ) 3   i 
  i  
−−−−−−−−−−−
pi: is the pressure (MPa)
p i := Adi⋅ γ
−−−−−−−−−−−
σ: is the variance of measurement of pressure and is given by equation (D.4)
n− 1
2
∑ (pi − Adi⋅ γmean )
i =0 Eq.(D.4)
σ :=
( n − 2)
−−−−−−−−−−−
γmean: is the mean energy release rate and is calculated from by Equation D.2
2
 n−1 
 Adi⋅ p i ) 
 ∑ ( 
γmean :=  i =0 
 n−1 

∑
2 

( di) 
A
 i = 0 
−−−−−−−−−−−
σ: is the variance of measurement of pressure and is given by equation (D.4)
n− 1
2
∑ (pi − Adi⋅ γmean )
i =0 Eq.(D.4)
σ :=
( n − 2)
−−−−−−−−−−−
tv(n): is the Student's t-value and is based on a two sided 0.025 level of significance.
t v( n ) := 2.841 if n = 7
2.752 if n = 8
2.685 if n = 9
2.634 if n = 10
2.593 if n = 11
2.560 if n = 12
Table. D.1
2.533 if n = 13
2.510 if n = 14
2.490 if n = 15
2.473 if n = 16
2.458 if n = 17
2.445 if n = 18
−−−−−−−−−−−
γLCL: is the 95% lower confidence limit of toughness parameter (energy release rate)
for the repair laminate/substrate interface (J/m2) - Annex D
2
 n−1  
 Adi⋅ p i )  
 ∑ (  
γLCL :=  i =0  − ( t ( n ) ⋅ σ) ⋅ 1  Eq.(D.3)
 n−1  v n− 1 

∑ ( Adi)  ∑ ( di) 
2 2
A
  
 i = 0  i =0 
J
γLCL := 92
2
m
−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−
(a) - fleak : is the service de-rating factor and is achieved based on the repair class (Eq.15)
−−−−−−−−−−−
tlifetime : is the design lifetime, expressed in years
−−−−−−−−−−−
−−−−−−−−−−−
( − 0.02088 ) tlifetime
− 1
fleak := 0.83⋅ 10   if Class = 1
( − 0.01856 ) tlifetime
− 1
0.75⋅ 10   if Class = 2 Eq.15
( − 0.01584 ) tlifetime
− 1
0.666⋅ 10   if Class = 3
−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−
(b) - fleak,long: is the service de-rating factor if long term performance test data
are available and is achieved based on the repair class (Eq.16 and Annex G)
fleak.long := 0.83⋅ fD if Class = 1

Eq.16
0.75⋅ fD if Class = 2
0.666⋅ fD if Class = 3
−−−−−−−−−−−
fD: is the degradation factor for the repair of through-wall defects (type B defect)
( − 5.24⋅ B)
fD := 10
Eq.(G4)
−−−−−−−−−−−
B: is the regression gradient and should be calculated according to Equation G.3

1
B :=
  p sthp  
log 
  pdot  
  −1
 log  p sthp 

  pmthp  
−−−−−−−−−−−
psthp: is the short term failure pressure and should be calculated using Eq.G.2 (MPa)
−−−−−−−−
pmthp: is the average failure pressure of at least five medium-term tests
−−−−−−−−
psthp: is the short term failure pressure (MPa)


0.001⋅ γmean
p sthp :=
  1 − ν2   3⋅ d 4 d   3d  
2
 ⋅ + +  Eq.G.2
  Eac   512⋅ ti3 π   64⋅ G⋅ ti  
   
−−−−−−−−−−−
pdot: is the fixed linear increase in pressure, expressed in megapascals per hour (MPa/h)
It is recommended to set the linear increase in pressure to:
( − 3)
p dot := 0.9⋅ 10 ⋅ p sthp
−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−
t: is the substrate wall thickness (mm)
−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−
D: is the substrate external diameter (mm)
−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−
The minimum thickness for a repair laminate, tmim (mm), should be calcualted
by eqaution 11.
p1: is internal design pressure [megapascals (N/mm2 )]
   0.001⋅ N⋅ m2   
   γ  

f ( t min.1.1) := fT2 ( Tt , Tm1 ) ⋅ fleak ⋅
  mm⋅ J  LCL −p 
  2   1
d 
4
  1 − ν ⋅ 3⋅ d
+ ...   Eq.11
   Eac   512⋅ t 3 π  
   ( min.1.1)   
   3d
2   
   64⋅ G⋅ t
+
  
   min.1.1   
t min.1.1 := 1mm
(( )
t min.1.2 := root f t min.1.1 , t min.1.1 )
t min.1 := t min.1.2 if d ≤ 6 ⋅ D⋅ t
"Not Valid" if d > 6 ⋅ D⋅ t
−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−
2. For a non-circular or near-circular defect:
For non-circular defects that have an aspect ratio < 5, Equation (11) shall be used,
where the value of ''d'' (effective defect diameter) is selected such that it contains
the defect.
−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−
3. For a circumferential slot type defect :
For a circumferential slot type defect, the minimum thickness for a repair laminate,
t min , expressed in millimetres, is calculated using the smallest value of repair
thickness calculated from both Eq.12 and Eq.13:
p3: is internal design pressure [megapascals (N/mm2 )]
   0.001⋅ N⋅ m2  
    γLCL 
   mm⋅ J  
p 3 := fT2 ( Tt , Tm1 ) ⋅ fleak⋅
 2   4
π⋅ w   
   1 − ν  ⋅  w + ...  
   Eac   24t 3 4    Eq.12
   min   
     4 + ν  ⋅ w2  
5 2 
    3    
 + 
  16⋅ G⋅ t ⋅
( 1 + ν)  
    min   
 fT2 ( Tt , Tm1 ) ⋅ fleak    0.008⋅ N⋅ m2  

p 3 :=   ⋅   ⋅ Eac⋅ tmin⋅ γLCL Eq.13
 D    mm⋅ J  
−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−
w: is the axial width of the slot (mm)
−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−
   0.001⋅ N⋅ m2  
   γ 
   mm⋅ J  LCL 
h ( t min.3.1) := fT2 ( Tt , Tm1 ) ⋅ fleak⋅
 2   − p3
π⋅ w 
4
  1 − ν ⋅ w
+ ... 
   Eac   24t 3 4  
   min.3.1  
   4 + ν  ⋅ w2 
 5 2
 3   
  + 16⋅ G⋅ t ⋅
( 1 + ν) 
  min.3.1 
t min.3.1 := 1mm
(( )
t min.3.2 := root h t min.3.1 , t min.3.1 )
−−−−−−−−−−−
 fT2( Tt , Tm1) ⋅ fleak    0.008⋅ N⋅ m2  

 ⋅   ⋅ Eac⋅ tmin.3.3⋅ γLCL − p 3
 D    mm⋅ J  
2 2
125.0⋅ D ⋅ J⋅ mm⋅ p 3
t min.3.3 :=
2 2 2
(
Eac ⋅ N⋅ fleak ⋅ m ⋅ γLCL⋅ fT2 Tt , Tm1 )
−−−−−−−−−−−
The thickness of repair laminate is obtained from the smallest value of tmin.3.2 and tmin.3.3
(
t min.3 := min t min.3.2 , t min.3.3 )
4. For a axial slot type defect :

For an axial slot type defect having a circumferential width of the slot w4 (mm), the
minimum thickness for a repair laminate, t min (mm), is calculated using Eq.14:
   0.001⋅ N⋅ m2  
   γ 
p 4 := fT2 ( Tt , Tm1 ) ⋅ fleak⋅   mm⋅ J  LCL 
   1 − ν2   π⋅ d ⋅ ϕ  
 +  D ⋅ ϕ 
4 4
   ⋅ 
  ... 
   Eac   8   384t 3   Eq.14
    min.4 
 
    D4⋅  E + 2 ⋅ ϕ6  
  +   4 ⋅ G    
    11520t 3   
    min.4   
the limit on the applicability of Equation (14) is given by ϕ < 1, where ϕ is the angle
subtended by the axial slot, expressed in radians.
2 ⋅ w4
ϕ :=
D
−−−−−−−−−−−
p4: is internal design pressure [megapascals (N/mm2)]
−−−−−−−−−−−
   0.001⋅ N⋅ m2   
   γ  
   mm⋅ J  LCL  
U( t min.4.1) := fT2 ( Tt , Tm1 ) ⋅ fleak ⋅  p 

− 4
  1 − ν  ⋅  π⋅ d⋅ ϕ  +  D ⋅ ϕ 
2 4 4
  ... 

   Eac   8     
3
    384tmin.4.1   
    4 Eac  6  
    D ⋅  2 + ⋅ϕ   
   4⋅ G   
 + 
   11520tmin.4.1 
 3  
      
t min.4.1 := 1mm
( ( )
t min.4.2 := root U t min.4.1 , t min.4.1 )
t min.4 := t min.4.2 if ϕ < 1
"Not Valid" if ϕ ≥ 1
References
AEROSPACE (2012) http://aerospaceengineeringblog.com/composite-manufacturing/
Alexander, C. and Ochoa, O. (2010) Extending onshore pipeline repair to offshore steel risers with carbon-fiber
reinforced composites.
Alexander, C., Vyvial, B. and Wilson, F. (2014) Pipeline Repair of Corrosion and Dents: A Comparison of
Composite Repairs and Steel Sleeves, 10th International Pipeline Conference
ASME B31.4 (2002) Pipeline transportation systems for liquid hydrocarbons and other liquids
ASTM B31.8 (2012) Gas transmission and distribution piping systems
Basic Operation of a Fiber Cable (2005) http://www.l-com.com/content/Article.aspx?Type=N&ID=107
Behre, G. (2015) Textile reinforced composites - http://www.slideshare.net/GranchBerheTseghai/2-textile-

reinforced-composites
Büyüköztürk, O. and Taşdemir, M. (2013) Nondestructive Testing of Materials and Structures
Clarke, J. (1996) Structural Design of Polymer Composites. EUROCOMP design code and handbook. London E
& FN SPON
Clock Spring Pipeline Repair & Pipe Reinforcement System (2015) http://www.clockspring.com/products/clock-
spring/
Composite Repair Specialist – 3X engineering - http://www.3xengineering.com
Duell, J.M., Wilson, J.M. and Kessler, M.R. (2008) Analysis of a carbon composite overwrap pipeline repair
system, International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 85 (2008) 782–788.
EGIG (2005) 6th Report of European Gas Pipeline Incident Data Group, December, 2005, 6th EGIG Report
1970e2004, Gas pipeline Incidents, 2e31
Finkenzeller, K. (2010) RFID Handbook fundamentals and applications in contactless smart cards and
identification
Gerhardus H. Koch, Michiel P.H. Brongers, and Neil G. Thompson, Y. Paul Virmani, J.H. Payer (2002)
Corrosion Costs and Preventative Strategies in the United States, a Supplement to Materials Performance,
NACE International, Houston TX (July 2002).
Guide to fiber optics & premises cabling (2002) http://www.thefoa.org/tech/wavelength.htm
Her, R., Renard, R., Gaffard, V., Favry, Y. and Wiet, P. (2014) Design of pipeline composite repairs: from lab
scale tests to FEA and full scale testing
Hinton, M.J., Kaddour, A.S. and Soden, P.D. (2004) Failure Criteria in Fiber Reinforced Polymer Composites
Hopkins, P. (2007) PIPELINES: Past, Present, and Future. The 5th Asian Pacific IIW International Congress
Sydney, Australia 7th – 9th March 2007
Huang, X. (2009) Fabrication and Properties of Carbon Fibers, Materials 2009, 2, 2369-2403;
doi:10.3390/ma2042369
ISO/TS 24817 (2006) Petroleum, petrochemical and natural gas industries - Composite repairs for pipework -
Qualification and design, installation, testing and inspection
K. S. Lim, S. N. A. Azraai, N. M. Noor, N. Yahaya (2016) An Overview of Corroded Pipe Repair Techniques
Using Composite Materials
Karbhari, V.M. (2015) Rehabilitation of Pipelines Using Fiber-reinforced Polymer (FRP) Composites
Koch, G.H., Brongers, M.P., Tompson, N.G., Virmani, Y.P. and Payer, J.H. (2002) Corrosion Cost and
Preventive Strategies in the United States. Federal Highway Administration, Office of Infrastructure Research
and Development, pp. 260e311.
80
Mallick, P.K. (2008) Fiber reinforced composites Materials, Manufacturing, and Design
Masuelli, M.A. (2013) Introduction of Fiber-Reinforced Polymers – Polymers and Composites: Concepts,
Properties and Processes
Max-Gain Systems - http://www.mgs4u.com/fiberglass-tube-rod.htm
Meniconi, L., Freire, J., Vieira, R and Diniz, J. (2002) Stress Analysis of Pipelines with Composite Repairs, 4th
International Pipeline Conference
Michael R. Kessler, Roger H. Walker, Dixit Kadakia, Jeffrey M. Wilson, Joshua M. Duell and William K.
Goertzen (2004) Evaluation of Carbon/Epoxy Composites for Structural Pipeline Repair, International Pipeline
Conference
Mohitpour, M., Golshan, H. and Murray, A. (2003) Pipeline Design and Construction: A Practical Approach,
second ed. ASME Press, New York, NY. pp. 499e518.
Nuplex - Filament winding (2014) http://www.nuplex.com/composites/processes/filament-winding
Oil workers killed in Nigeria pipeline blast (2015) http://www.bbc.com/news/live/world-africa-33208767
PEX Piping: Everything You Need to Know (2016) http://www.familyhandyman.com/plumbing/pex-piping-

everything-you-need-to-know/view-all
PEX rör (2013) http://www.vvshandboken.se/Kulvert/Topics/c_KulvertTekniskaDataPEXRorHuvudrubrik.html
Pipeline Failure Causes (2002-2003) - http://www.corrosion-doctors.org/Pipeline/Pipeline-failures.htm
Potyrala P.B. (2011): Use of fiber reinforced Polymer Composites in Bridge Construction. State of the Art in
Hybrid and All-Composite Structures. Master thesis, Universitat Politecnica De Catalunya, 2011.
Radar Aerology - http://animalmigration.org/RFID/index.htm
Raman, V.V., Devsingh, D. and Reddy, M.J. (2010) Manufacturing and Product Analysis on Composite FRP
Pulruded Products
Toutanji, H., Han, M. and Gilbert, J. (2008) Stress modeling of defected pipelines strengthened with FRP
composites
www.alibaba.com
Zoghi, M (2014) The international handbook for FRP composite in civil engineering
81
View publication stats

Rehabilitationandproductionofpipesusing Fiber Reinforced Polymer FRPmaterials

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Rehabilitationandproductionofpipesusing Fiber Reinforced Polymer FRPmaterials

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Rehabilitation and production of pipes using Fiber Reinforced Polymer (FRP)

Article · April 2019

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering

Keywords: Fiber reinforced polymer (FRP), pipe, rehabilitation, production, damage

1. Aim and scope of the report

Figure 1 Composition of FRP composite materials

3.2.1. Mechanical properties of different types of FRP composites

Figure 2 Temperature rages for polymers, Metal and Ceramic matrices

Property Epoxy Polycarbonate

Density, 𝜌 (g⁄cm3 ) 1.2-1.3 1.0-1.2

3.2.1.2. Fiber (Reinforcement)

Properties E-Glass A-Glass S-Glass C-Glass R-Glass D-Glass High Modulus

Density, 𝜌 (g⁄cm3 ) 2.54 2.45 2.49 2.45 2.58 2.14 2.89

Figure 3 E-glass woven roving

Properties Type I Type II Pitch Rayon

Density, 𝜌 (g⁄cm3 ) 1.95 1.75 2.0 1.7

Source: Zoghi, 2014

Properties K29 K49 K68 K119 K129 K149

Density, 𝜌 (g⁄cm3 ) 1.44 1.44 1.44 1.44 1.45 1.47

Source: Zoghi, 2014

3.3.FRP wrapping techniques

Figure 4 Typical structure of Clock Spring® repair system

Figure 5 Layered system-Clock Spring (Clock Spring®_ Company, 2007)

3.3.2. Wet lay-up systems

Figure 6 Basic principle of wet lay-up method

The main advantages of wet lay-up system are (www.nptel.ac.in.com):

 ASME B31.8 – Gas Transmission and distribution piping systems

3.4.1.1. Experimental rupture test

Table 5 Comparison of experimental rapture pipe tests

Burst pressure, MPa (ksi)

Axisymmetric 43.8 (6.35)

Source: Duell et al (2008)

3.4.1.2. Finite-element simulations

Burst pressure, MPa (ksi)

Axisymmetric 43.8 (6.35)

Source: Duell et al (2008)

Nominal Diameter Wall Thickness Grade SMYS* MAOP**

Source: Source: Alexander et al (2014)

Figure 11 Simulated corrosion details

Nominal Diameter Wall Thickness Grade SMYS MAOP

Source: Alexander et al (2014)

3.4.2.2. Test results:

Hoop Strain (µɛ)**

Repair Type 2-inch off Burst pressure

APPW* 2191 2283 950 818 4480 Psi (30.88MPa)

Sleeve B 2153 2437 416 789 4290 Psi (29.58 MPa)

Source: Alexander et al (2014)

Figure 12 Burst failure for all pipe samples

- Corrosion samples under fatigue test

Under Repair (µɛ) On Repair (µɛ) *

1 Hoop 1 Axial 2 Hoop 2 Axial 3 Hoop 3 Axial 4 Hoop 4 Axial

- Dent samples under fatigue test

Under Repair (µɛ) On Repair (µɛ)

1 Hoop 1 Axial 2 Hoop 2 Axial 3 Hoop 3 Axial 4 Hoop 4 Axial

Source: Alexander et al (2014)

Figure 13 Simulated corrosion details

Table 12 Pipe material used for 75% corrosion samples

168.3 mm 7.1 mm A 333 –Grade 6 450 MPa 240 MPa

Figure 14 Test pipes with complete repairs

Figure 15 Test specimens number 1, 2, 5, 3 and 4 after bursting

3.4.4. Design of composite repair for pressure based on ISO/TS 24817