摘要
对比ASME B31G,API 579,DNV RP-F101,PCORRC等评价方法中的鼓胀因子、流变应力、腐蚀面积、缺陷长度等参数对管道剩余强度的影响。分析表明:管材的级别越高,不同标准之间的流变应力的定义的差异越小;NG-18公式仅适用于短缺陷;与实际爆破试验数据相比,ASMEB31G标准相对误差较大,DNV RP-F101和PCORRC标准评价结果相对误差较小。
The influence of the parameters including bulging factor,flow stress,corrosion area and defect shape on the remaining strength of pipeline are compared among the several popular methods,such as ASME B31G,API 579,DNV RP-F101 and PCORRC.The results show that the higher the pipeline steel grade is,the differences among the flow stresses defined from different assessment methods will be less significant.Formula NG-18 can only used in case of defects with short length.Comparing the results from the above four assessment methods with explosion tests,the error amounts from ASME B31G method is larger than the results from DNV RP-F101 and PCORRC methods.
出处
《压力容器》
2013年第1期20-23,30,共5页
Pressure Vessel Technology
基金
中国石油大学(北京)青年教师专项培养基金项目(KYJJ2012-04-26)
关键词
管道
腐蚀缺陷
剩余强度
评价方法
pipeline
corrosion defects
remaining strength
assessment methods
