Graduate Paper

Optimization Pipeline Integrity without Shutdown in Oilfield

Hastovensyah, SPE, Sekolah Tinggi Teknologi Minyak & Gas
SPE member no.: 3249247

® 2010, STT MIGAS.

thickness; and if the pipe is not leaking. Currently accepted
This paper is written as a part of completion of graduate paper at Sekolah Tinggi Teknologi methods of pipeline rehabilitation include bolted split sleeve
MIGAS Balikpapan.
(Plidco), welded split sleeve, cylinder replacement, epoxy
This paper will be presented in front of examiners and advisors from STT MIGAS. Content of
this paper is far of perfect and writer widely opens the door for further discussion and
grouted sleeve, and composite wrap/reinforcement as
corrections. In order to socialize SPE (Society of Petroleum Engineer), writer intentionally described at below figures.
included SPE logo dan member number without aims to publishing this paper on behalf SPE
by which this paper never been evaluated by neither SPE regional nor international.

Abstract
The challenges for oilfield operator who has mature fields
increases in assuring the strength and integrity of
infrastructure (pipeline) therefore the continuity of production
operational in safe and reliable level. Failure to maintain the
strength and integrity of pipeline could cause catastrophic and
need a large amount of cost.
Many of thousands kilometers of pipeline in the world are
suffering from external corrosion due to many causes.
External corrosion reduces the pipe wall thickness, in which in
turn reduces the hoop strength of pipeline. In most cases
where this is found, operators are required to lower the
operating pressure, along with the decrease of flow rate, to
remain within a safe working limit for the pipeline. In some
cases replacing defective sections of pipeline is prohibitively
expensive as the cost of the loss of transportation capacity is
incurred in addition of the cost of replacement1.
Vico Indonesia has conducted some test for several
rehabilitation methods that commonly used at field. The tested
repairs method were bolted split sleeve (Plidco), welded split
sleeve, cylinder replacement, epoxy grouted sleeve, and
composite wrap/reinforcement (i.e. StrongBack &
ClockSpring).
Result of test showed that composite reinforcement system
had the highest tensile strength which was similar to newly
pipe. Flexural strength only owned by composite
reinforcement, particularly StrongBack. In between composite
reinforcement system, StrongBack is distinguished by its
ability to be installed under water and oddly shaped pipe. In
term of price wise, StrongBack had the lowest cost among the
types of pipe rehabilitation.

Introduction
Pipeline rehabilitation is accepted in international design
codes if the wall loss is less than 80% of the nominal wall
2 Hastovensyah STT MIGAS

Figure 1. Accepted methods of pipeline rehabilitation2

In this paper, the latter method will be discussed due to the

room limit. Moreover the composite reinforcement system is
relatively newly method for oilfield in East Kalimantan that
requires field test to assure its performance and reliability.

Pipe rehabilitation using composite, the aim of pipeline

rehabilitation is to restore the hoop strength of pipe. High
tensile strength of repair product as well as having flexural
strength is necessary for certain application likely riser repair
at offshore. Most of pipeline external defect could be repaired
using composite3. Composite has been extensively used to
repair pipeline for more over seventeen years.
Pipeline rehabilitation using composite refers to ASME
code standard. ASME B31.8 is a reference for gas pipeline
and ASME B31.4 is for liquid pipeline. In the recent years,
ASME has documented a new standard focuses for repairing
pressurized equipment which is PCC-2-2006 (PCC: Post
Construction Committee) “Repair of Pressure Equipment and
Piping Standard Article 4.1 Non-metallic Composite Repair
Systems for Pipelines and Pipe works; High Risk
Applications”. PCC-2-2006 describes in details about the use
of composite materials to rehabilitate pipeline. Other reference
standard is ISO 24817 “Composite Repairs” also gives the
same guidance.

Composite
Composite could be classified into two main groups. The
first group comprises composites that are known as ‘filled
materials’. The main feature of these materials is the existence
of some basic or matrix material whose properties are
improved by filling it with some particles. Usually the matrix
volume fraction is more than 50% in such materials, and
material properties, being naturally modified by the fillers, are
governed mainly by the matrix. As a rule, filled materials can
be treated as homogeneous and isotropic, i.e., traditional
models of mechanics of materials developed for metals and
other conventional materials can be used to describe their
STT MIGAS Optimization Pipeline Integrity without Shut Down in Oilfield
behavior. The second groups of composite materials are
called ‘reinforced materials’. The basic components of these
materials (sometimes referred to as ‘advanced composites’)
are long and thin fibers possessing high strength and stiffness.
The fibers are bound with a matrix material whose volume
fraction in a composite is usually less than 50%.4 The
reinforced material is used to strengthen the weakened section
of pipe due to wall thickness loss.
Based on its installation techniques on pipe, composite
product is divided into wet-apply and pre-formed/pre-cut. Pre-
cut composite is formed by one directional fiber following the
hoop stress of pipe. While the wet-apply is formed by
bidirectional aligned fiber and needs water or humid to
activate the resin which is mixed with fiber. All of composites
are equipped with adhesive and epoxy as the load transfer
from the defective section and as the protection from UV ray
of sunlight. In pre-cut type, adhesive is utilized to glue each
layer.
The durability of composite material could be described by
below picture.
Figure 2. Composite Durability5
In this paper the type of composite reinforcement that will
be discussed is the wet-apply or wet lay-up one, namely
StrongBack.
StrongBack. StrongBack is a pipeline rehabilitation system
uses wet lay-up composite, it consists of tape and mixed epoxy
polymer and aliphatic poly amine which eliminates the
moisture and oxygen migration under the sleeve to achieve
permanent bonding with pipe surface.
Table 1 and 2 explain the mechanical and chemical
properties of StrongBack.
Table 1. Mechanical Properties of StrongBack5
Tensile Strength (73 F) ASTM-D-3039:Modified
Flexural Strength (77 F) ASTM-D-790
Compression Strength ASTM-D-695
Interlaminar Shear (77 F) ASTM-D-2344
Glass Transition Temperature ASTM-E-831
Shore D Hardness (24 hour 80
cure)
Heat Resistance 500°F
Max. Installation 350°F
Temperature
Temperature Cycle Test 16 layers cycled from 75°F – 450°F
with no delamination or loss of bond
3
Table 2. Chemical Properties of StrongBack5
Chemical Immersion Test ASTM-D-543 (30 day immersion period):
Acetone: Pass Diesel Fuel: Pass Ethyl Alcohol: Pass
Gasoline: Pass Toluene: Pass MEK: Pass
30% HCL: Pass – slight softening
StrongBack system components are epoxies and tape.
There are two types of epoxy, the fast cure GS 154 and slow
cure GS 561. GS 154 is used to fill the deep corrosion defect
while GS 561 is used to cover the minor defect. Both of
epoxies are containing Kevlar. StrongBack Tape contains
impregnated fiber and packaged inertly.
The key of success of composite reinforcement including
StrongBack is begun from surface preparation. Blast cleaning
is an ideal method of surface preparation.
Uniformity of mixed two components epoxy, either GS
154 or GS 561, is critical to achieve the proper strength of
bonding and load transfer. The good practice of tape
installation techniques is to assure that each wetted (by water)
spirally applied layer adhere one to another without any air
trap. Details of StrongBack installation could be found at
StrongBack Engineering Standards.
Calculation software in excel format is utilized to obtain
number of layer of tape and number of pintkit of epoxy
required for restoring the pipeline to its original state or
higher.
In-house test, Vico Indonesia an oil gas company where
located in East Kalimantan, Indonesia conducted several test
to StrongBack includes pressure test to defect-made pipe,
bending and hardness test. The used test spool was 8” ERW
and 8” API 5LX GR 42.
StrongBack on a 8” ERW defect-made spool (20% with
1”x6” area) could withstand the pressure 4,200 psi (Fig 3.).
The deformation of pipe profile are shown by the area that was
not reinforced by StrongBack system. (Fig 4.)
61,220 psi
53,100 psi
32,800 psi
4,500 psi
122°C
Figure 3. Hydrotest at 4,200 psi6
4 Hastovensyah STT MIGAS

Figure 4. Profile Deformation6 Figure 6. Bending Unit6

Test was conducted also on girthweld on 8” API 5LX GR

42 with defect-made and no leakage found at 1.5 x MAOP
(1,440 psi). StrongBack could stand at 1.25 of MAOP (1,200
psi) within 2 hours holding time as shown in Figure 5.

Figure 7. Holding at 1,200 psi after being bent6

Figure 5. Defect-made at Girth Weld Test6

The test spool of girth weld test was being used for further
bending test (Fig 6.). After bending done the spool was again
pressurized up to 1.2 MAOP (1,200 psi) within 2 hours
holding time and no leakage found (Fig. 7).
Underwater test showed all the applied epoxies could
cover all repair area and found fully cured. Some epoxies
found not perfectly adhered to pipe due to poor of underwater
surface preparation.
Shore-D hardness test of StrongBack epoxy yielded
ranging 86 – 89 Shore-D which were above hardness
specification from manufacturer (Fig. 8 and 9). Figure 8. Hardness test6
STT MIGAS Optimization Pipeline Integrity without Shut Down in Oilfield 5

Figure 11. Cost Comparison2

Discussion. Technical comparison showed that composite

Figure 9. Hardness test result6
Rehabilitation Methods Comparison
Several accepted methods as mentioned earlier were compared
and the results were shown at Figure 10 and 11.
reinforcement system had some of distinctive parameters if
being compared to other type of repairs such like flexural
strength, compressive strength and high tensile strength.
Composite doesn’t require hot work likely welded sleeve and
cylinder replacement.
StrongBack was identified had a distinguished flexural
strength which means that StrongBack is eligible to absorb to
the axial stress of pipe likely on riser. In between composite
materials, StrongBack has ability to be installed under water
and on oddly shaped pipe while Clock Spring doesn’t.
In cost wise StrongBack was the lowest if compared to
other methods. The cylinder replacement was the most
expensive method since the cost of production loss due to line
shutdown was included.

Conclusion & Suggestion

Based on comparison data of some pipeline rehabilitation
methods and supported by in-house test carried out by Vico
Indonesia, it is concluded as follows:

1. Composite reinforcement is suitable to be an alternative

pipeline rehabilitation method either permanently or
temporary.
2. In external defect remediation, composite could act as
permanent pipeline rehabilitation.
3. In internal defect remediation, composite could act as
temporary pipeline rehabilitation.
4. Since composite reinforcement is not designed to directly
remedy pipeline leakage, it is imperative to composite
reinforcement manufacturer to create a product could cease
the leakage for combining with.

Figure 10. Technical Comparison2

6 Hastovensyah STT MIGAS

Acknowledgement
Writer gratefully thanks to Vico Indonesia, especially Mr.
Popi A Nafis and Mr. Alfin Priambudi, who has allowed
writer to publish all necessary data. And writer would like to
show his gratitude for graduate paper supervisor at STT
MIGAS who has given full guidance to writer from the
beginning.

Bibliography
1. Bond, T.J.M.; Miles, D.J., Dr; Burke, R.N., Venero, N.J.,
“Pipeline Rehabilitation Technology for the 21st Century”,
(2009)
2. Nafis, Popi A, “Analyzing Composite Repair As An Alternative
Pipeline Repair Technique”, Asia gas Storage & Transport
Conference Workshop, (2002)
3. O Ochoa, Ozden, DR, Prof: “Composite Repair Method for
Steel Pipes”, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Texas A
& M University, (June 2007)
4. Vasiliev, Valery V & Morozov, Evgeny V, “Advanced
Mechanics of Composite Materials”2nd edition, Elsevier, (2007)
5. Hoddinot, Nicholas, StrongBack Engineering Standards, Nixus
International, (2000)
6. Anonym, StrongBack Photo Documentation, PT. Expertest
Kaliper Nusantara, (2002)
7. Lake, L.W., Fanchi, J.R.: “Petroleum Engineering Handbook,
Volume III: Facilities and Construction Engineering,” SPE,
USA, ISBN 978-1-55563-113-0, Chapter: Piping and Pipelines,
author: Ralph S Stevens III and Don May, cd version, (2006)
8. Morton, Alan, PE: A “Composite” on Pipeline Rehabilitation,
American Gas, (November 2009)
9. ASME, ASME PCC-2-2006 Part 4 Article 4.1, 1 Non-metallic
Composite Repair Systems for Pipelines and Pipeworks: High
Risk Applications, (2006)
10. Priambudi, Alfin, StrongBack Data Compilation, Vico
Indonesia, (2002)