Back to Programme Back to Topic Next Paper

THE CHALLENGES OF APPLYING COMPOSITE

REPAIRS IN AN OFF-SHORE ENVIRONMENT

S. R. Frost
Walker Technical Resources
Scotstown Moor Base
Perwinnes Moss
Bridge of Don
Aberdeen
AB23 8NN
Email: simon.frost@wtr.uk.com

SUMMARY
This talk will overview the technical challenges of applying composite repairs on off-
shore North Sea installations. These challenges include qualification of repair systems,
design and identifying the critical issues in installation and inspection. These challenges
and their solutions will be highlighted through several case histories of application of
Technowrap repairs, the composite repair system provided by Walker Technical
Resources.
Keywords: Composite repairs, design, qualification, installation, inspection,
Technowrap
 THE CHALLENGES OF APPLYING COMPOSITE
REPAIRS IN AN OFF-SHORE ENVIRONMENT

S. R. Frost
Walker Technical Resources
Scotstown Moor Base
Perwinnes Moss
Bridge of Don
Aberdeen
AB23 8NN
Email: simon.frost@wtr.uk.com

SUMMARY
This talk will overview the technical challenges of applying composite repairs on off-
shore North Sea installations. These challenges include qualification of repair systems,
design and identifying the critical issues in installation and inspection. These challenges
and their solutions will be highlighted through several case histories of application of
Technowrap repairs, the composite repair system provided by Walker Technical
Resources.
Keywords: Composite repairs, design, qualification, installation, inspection,
Technowrap

INTRODUCTION
Pipework on off-shore installations in the North Sea can suffer from both internal and
external corrosion. External corrosion is the result of the moist salt laden air whereas
internal corrosion can be from one of many corrosion reactions as a consequence of
both water and hydrocarbon transport including sweet (CO2) and sour (H2S) corrosion.
The rates of corrosion can be as high as millimetres per year so if the corrosion is not
contained or managed then very quickly the pipework can become unfit for service.
Therefore, repair solutions to pipework are an important aspect of the integrity
management of all North Sea operators. One such repair solution is composite repairs.
Walker Technical Resources supplies are range of composite solutions for the repair of
off-shore pipework. The trade mark name for the repair products is TechnowrapTM.
These repairs are hand applied, wet lay-up systems and consist of either a glass or
carbon fibre cloth encased in an epoxy resin. The main advantage of using a wet lay-up
system is that often the geometries where composite repairs are applied are complex
implying pre-engineered and formed composites would be inappropriate.
Figure 1 presents an overview of some of the applications of Technowrap composite
repairs demonstrating the range of pipework components that can be repaired. In
general components that can be repaired using composite repairs include;
• Piping systems (all components including bends, tees, reducers, flanges etc.)
• Pipelines
 • Vessel/tanks (e.g. nozzle attachments)
• Risers/caissons
DEFECT TYPES
Most of the common defect types that occur in offshore pipework can be repaired.
Specifically, from a composite repair perspective these are split at follows;
• Internal defects (not through wall), e.g. corrosion pits, general wall loss
• External defects (not through wall), e.g. dents, general wall loss
• Through wall defects, e.g. leaks
There is one defect type that requires specific consideration before applying a composite
repair, namely cracks. The issue with cracks is that on application of a composite repair,
the stress acting on the crack tip will be reduced but it may not be sufficient to prevent
further growth. Therefore cracks can be repaired but only under special circumstances.
FAILURE MODE OF COMPOSITE REPAIRS
Prior to defining a design procedure for composite repairs, an understanding of the
critical failure modes is required. There are two critical failure modes which are
dependent on the type of defect. If the defect is not through wall, then the failure mode
of the composite system will be failure of the composite laminate. If the defect is
through wall, then the failure mode changes to that of interfacial delamination implying
that the strength of the interface is less than the strength of the composite laminate.
Figure 2 presents two photographs of deliberate Technowrap composite repair failures.
The photograph on the right of Figure 2 corresponds to a through wall defect where the
internal pressure is applied increasingly until failure. The photograph on the right of
Figure 2 corresponds to a fully circumferential through wall defect under increasing uni-
axial tension until failure. In both cases it is clear that the interface has failed rather than
the repair laminate. Therefore when considering the design process for composite
repairs, the relevant failure mode dependent on the defect type should always be
considered.
REPAIR DESIGN AND STANDARDS
There are two international standards appropriate for the application of composite
repairs, namely ISO/TS 248171 and ASME PCC-2 Article 4.12. These standards, which
from a design perspective are equivalent, provide the necessary requirements to specify
the repair situation used as input to the design as well as the calculation procedure. The
output of the design calculation is the thickness and axial extent of the repair.
To determine the repair thickness for a through wall defect, a laminate strength
calculation and a strength of bond calculation is required. The larger of the two resulting
calculated thicknesses is taken as the design thickness. Two calculations are required
because the following questions require answering:
• Laminate strength calculation - is the repair strong enough to carry the load
induced by the internal pressure and axial loads?
• Strength of bond calculation - is the adhesion of the bond between the repair
laminate and the substrate strong enough to withstand the internal pressure and
prevent leakage?
For the case of non-through wall defects only a laminate strength calculation is required.
This is because the repair will only be subjected to membrane forces and the calculation
reduces to one of load share between the repair laminate and the underlying substrate.
The maximum allowable working pressure of the substrate pipe (MAWP) can be
determined using API 579 or other similar fitness for service codes. The complexity of
this calculation is dependent on the nature of the defect and available substrate data
information, but often it is a simple assessment based on minimum remaining wall
thickness.
If the condition of the substrate pipe, i.e. wall thickness profile, is unknown then the
substrate contribution to load carrying is ignored and the repair laminate is assumed to
carry all the applied loads.
The design allowable strains for the repair laminate are obtained from default tabular
data and are broadly similar to those used for the design of composite process
equipment3.
For the case of a through wall defect, a strength of bond calculation is required. This is
because in these circumstances the repair laminate is exposed directly to both radial
pressure forces and to the process media. The combined action of these applied loads
and factors will cause a delamination along the interface between the repair laminate
and the substrate pipe. The design method involves the use of a fracture energy
calculation that characterises the adhesion between the repair laminate and the substrate.
Figure 3 shows the situation. It can be shown that the pressure, P, required to cause an
interfacial delamination is based on an energy balance between that stored under the
deformed laminate and that required to cause delamination (crack growth), i.e.
1 dV
γc = P
4πa da
where: a is the radius of the defect
P is the internal pressure
V is the volume under the delamination
γc is the critical energy release rate
The critical energy release rate is a property of the repair system where importantly the
system is defined as the repair laminate, the surface preparation procedure and the
substrate. This energy release rate can only be determined through measurement, the
procedure defined in the above mentioned standards.
Using the critical energy release rate, design procedures are presented on how to
calculate repair thickness as a function of internal pressure for three through wall defect
types (generic geometries of delamination corresponding to specific types of corrosion):
• A circular defect (e.g. pin hole corrosion)
• An axial slot (e.g. erosion damage)
• A fully circumferential slot (e.g. weld defects)
The service or de-rating factor for safety used is a minimum of 1.5. For the laminate
strength calculation the design factor is hidden within the default composite allowable
design strains. For the strength of bond calculation the design factor is defined as
follows. Figure 4 shows a schematic example of the analysed results (in terms of mean
and lower confidence limit (LCL) curve fits to measured data) of short term pressure
tests as a function of defect size. The design curve is defined as the LCL curve divided
by a factor of 3. The value of 3 is derived from two terms, a durability strength
reduction term (from short term to long term) of 2 (taken from ISO 146924) and a
design factor of 1.5.
QUALIFICATION
The objectives of qualification of a repair system are threefold:
• To demonstrate fitness for purpose for the required design conditions
• To obtain quantitative data for use in design calculations
• To define those parameters and the limits of those parameters that need to be
controlled during repair application
It is a fundamental premise behind performance based standards that the materials and
processes that are used to produce test samples for qualification are identical to those to
be used in service. It is also important that qualification testing replicates as near as
practically possible the design or service conditions. As a practical observation,
qualification always represents a compromise between testing rigour and test number
limitations. If the testing requirement is too limited its value will be minimal; if the
requirement is too onerous the test programme will be too costly.
Qualification requirements include:
• Basic material properties of the repair laminate, e.g., modulus and strength values
• Lap shear tests to demonstrate a minimum level of adhesion and durability
• Tests to determine γc for through wall defects. Essentially this entails short term
pressure testing a series of pipe spools with through wall defects of varying
diameters and then determining γc statistically from the measured data set
A key point when considering qualification data is that the achievement of a high
numerical value of a given property, e.g. γc should not necessarily be seen as an
objective. What is more important is that the value that is measured during qualification
testing can be replicated, repeatedly and with confidence under site conditions.
Technowrap composite repairs are fully qualified to both ISO and ASME standards.
COMPATIBILITY
In the application of composite repairs there is the potential for the repair laminate to
come into contact with a variety of chemicals. In off-shore applications, it is important
to understand the compatibility or chemical resistance of the repair laminate to the
environment.
The epoxy resin systems used in Technowrap composite repairs have excellent chemical
resistance to hydrocarbons e.g. alkanes, cyclo-alkanes. However, as with all resin
systems there are some chemicals to which they are not compatible. As a rough guide
for Technowrap resins pH is a useful indicator. Inside the pH range 3 to 10 the resins
are compatible to most off-shore service conditions. However, there are three classes of
compounds where consideration of the compatibility is required before application.
These compounds include aromatics, alcohols and amines. As with all issues
surrounding chemical resistance the effects are strongly influenced by both temperature
and concentration of the specific chemical of interest.
 INSTALLATION
Installation is the most critical stage in the application of composite repairs.
The ISO and ASME standards provide guidance for each step of the installation process.
The fundamental issue is that site installation should reflect the same processes that
were applied in the preparation of samples for qualification testing. This is especially
the case for surface preparation as this is the single most important task to be performed.
It is probable that failure to execute surface preparation will be the root cause of many
of the examples of disappointing performance.
To assist in the achievement of the necessary level of control the ISO and ASME
standards recommend the contents of method statements including the definition of hold
or inspection points. These include simple on-site tests that are useful for example in
checking that the surface has been prepared according to the method statement.
Technowrap repairs always are provided with a complete installation method statement.
The standards do not prescribe a surface preparation procedure. There is guidance on
recommended practice for given circumstances, but the choice of procedure is for the
repair supplier to define and demonstrate the qualification process. Technowrap repairs
are fully qualified for three surface preparation procedures, Sa 2.5, ST 3 and ST 2.
The ISO and ASME standards also include guidance on the minimum level of training
required for an applicator. Also the training requirements for supervisors of the repair
application are also defined. Technowrap repairs are only applied by trained and
qualified installers.
REPAIR INSPECTION
There are three main inspection challenges for composite repairs systems. These are:
• Inspection of the repair laminate
• Inspection of the interface between the repair and the substrate pipe
• Inspection of the underlying pipe
Of these, the second and third are of most concern, especially if the pipe is suffering
from internal corrosion. This issue is perhaps the most significant with regard to the
potential use of composite repairs for the more demanding applications. For long term
application in hydrocarbon service the ability to inspect the status of the pipe post repair
and assess whether the repair is bonded to the substrate is probably a pre-requisite.
The following recommendations are based on current best practices and experience
using commercially available inspection techniques:
For general substrate wall loss:
• X-rays
• Electro-magnetic (EM) techniques, pulsed eddy current or low frequency

For through wall defects in the substrate:

• X-rays can detect pin holes of 3 mm diameter and greater
• EM techniques have sufficient resolution to detect defects of the order of 20 mm
diameter (dependent on repair thickness/stand-off distance)
 • Ultrasonic (US) techniques can only detect large diameter defects (greater than
25 mm diameter) on thin repairs (less than 5 mm)
For delamination at the interface between the repair and substrate:
• Digital X-rays
• Laser shearography
• Microwaves
• Electronic coin tappers
The recommendations for interfacial delaminations are based on laboratory
experiments. None of the above listed techniques can be considered to be routinely
applied off-shore. Further developments in these techniques are required before they can
be commercialised.
The ISO and ASME standards provide information on both aspects of the inspection
issue; tabulated allowable defects followed by guidance of what inspection methods are
appropriate. In reality inspection of the repair laminate itself is probably of limited value
and the main means of assuring quality is to employ effective process control during
application. This is similar to the practice adopted for the construction of composite
process equipment and pipes3.
CASE STUDIES
Two cases studies are presented for piping repairs highlighting the challenges of
applying composite repairs in an off-shore environment.
Case study 1
Figure 5 presents a 45 degree bend suffering internal and external corrosion. The
corrosion has led to a through wall defect near the weld connection. The through wall
defect is a pin hole located under the temporary clamp.
The design conditions for the pipework are;
• Pressure = 5 bar
• Temperature = 500C
• Required repair lifetime = 2 years
• Bend diameter = 356 mm
• Wall thickness = 8 mm
The pipe surface was prepared using grit blasting followed by solvent cleaning to
produce a surface preparation to Sa 2.5. Grit blasting followed by solvent cleaning is
default recommended surface preparation procedure for Technowrap composite repairs.
However, grit blasting can create further damage to the pipe. In this case the suspect
area (i.e. temporary clamp) was protected by a metal band. The consequence of this
protection of the damaged area is that from a design perspective the type of through
wall defect changes from a circular (pin-hole) defect to a fully circumferential defect,
i.e. a larger defect. Essentially the unprepared surface area becomes the through wall
defect as the level of adhesion in this area cannot be guaranteed.
For this Case study, the repair was designed to withstand the internal design pressure as
well as to seal the through wall defect. Note, in this case as the degradation process in
internal corrosion, the size of defect that is assumed for design purposes is that
estimated at end of design lifetime. Furthermore, a repair thickness increase factor of
1.2 was required to account for the stress concentration created by the pipe geometry,
i.e. bend. See ISO/TS 248171 for details of repair thickness increase factors. The axial
extent of the repair beyond the defect to ensure adequate load transfer from the pipe
substrate to the repair was also calculated.
The installation procedure for this repair was as follows. The first step was to smooth
the outer surface of the temporary clamp with filler, i.e. the temporary clamp will be
over-wrapped before application of the repair laminate. The laminate was applied, two
layers followed by compaction, at a time until the required repair thickness was
achieved. The implication of this is that system was not shut-down during repair
application, but the operating pressure was reduced. Importantly the system was not
brought back to full operation until repair was fully cured.
Figure 6 presents a photograph of the completed repair.
The summary details for Case study 1 are as follows based on a glass fibre Technowrap
repair. The repair thickness was 5 mm assuming that the through wall defect was a fully
circumferential defect of axial extent of 100 mm. The axial extent of the repair beyond
the edge of the defect (in both directions) was 100 mm.
Case study 2
Figure 7 presents a 6 inch tee with 2 inch branch suffering significant external corrosion
metal loss due to corrosion under insulation (CUI). There was no through wall defect.
The design conditions for the pipework are;
• Pressure = 37 bar
• Temperature = 750C
• Required lifetime = 5 years
• Axial load on branch = 1.5 kN
• Axial bending moment on branch = 0.5 Nm
• Tee main diameter = 168 mm, wall thickness = 7 mm
• Tee branch diameter = 60 mm, wall thickness = 5.5 mm
Note, in this Case study the applied loads are not only internal pressure but also axial
loads acting on the branch of the tee.
The Plant Owner dictated that the corroded area could not be grit blasted. Only hand
preparation and solvent cleaning was allowed. However, it was permitted to grit blast on
the undamaged areas of the main and branch tee beyond the damaged area to the
required extent to ensure adequate load transfer.
For this Case study, the repair was designed to withstand all the applied loads, internal
pressure plus an axial tensile load and an axial bending moment. The resulting largest
repair thickness taken from thickness calculations in both hoop and axial directions was
used as the design thickness of the repair. Furthermore a repair thickness increase factor
of 2.14 was required to account for the stress concentration created by the pipe
geometry, tee (again refer to ISO/TS 248171 for details of the repair thickness increase
factor). The axial extent of the repair beyond the defect to ensure load transfer from the
pipe substrate to the repair was also calculated based on the diameter and wall thickness
of the tee main diameter.
The installation procedure was as follows. The pipe surface (away from the corroded
region) was prepared using grit blasting followed by solvent cleaning to produce a
surface preparation to Sa 2.5.The corroded region was hand prepared and then solvent
cleaned and then filled to form a smooth outer profile. The laminate was applied, two
layers followed by compaction, at a time until the required thickness was achieved. The
Technowrap repair was applied during a shut-down. WTR advised on curing time of the
resin and the system was not re-started until repair was fully cured.
Figure 8 presents a photograph of the completed repair.
The summary details for Case study 2 are as follows based on a glass fibre Technowrap
repair. The repair thickness was 15 mm which was the result of the repair thickness
calculation for the main branch of the tee. The axial extent of the repair beyond the edge
of the defect (in all directions) was 100 mm.
SUMMARY
This paper has presented some of the challenges faced when applying composite repairs
in off-shore applications. The first step in the process is to ensure that there is sufficient
data concerning the damaged section of pipework. This data includes; the corrosion
mechanism, the dimensions of the damage and the service conditions. Based on this
information the repair dimensions can be calculated, i.e. repair thickness and extent. The
most critical step in applying composite repairs is the installation phase. The surface of
the damaged pipework must be prepared according to installation method statement.
Technowrap repairs are a wet lay-up composite repair system, therefore only trained
applicators are used in the installation. A further important consideration is that if the
pipework is shutdown for repair installation then it should only be brought back to full
operation once the repair has fully cured. If these conditions are followed and met, then
as the Case studies have demonstrated, Technowrap repairs can be installed successfully
in challenging off-shore conditions.
REFERENCES
1. ISO/TS 24817 – Composite Repairs for Pipework
2. ASME PCC-2 Article 4.1, Non-Metallic Composite Repair Systems for Pipelines
and Pipework: High Risk Applications
3. PrEN 13121, GRP Tanks and Vessels for Use Above Ground
4. ISO 14692 - Petroleum and Natural Gas Industries – GRP Piping.
 Figure 1 – Typical applications of composite repairs

Figure 2 – Failure mode of composite repairs – left picture corresponds to failure from a
repaired through wall defect (25 mm in diameter) located at the repair centre resulting
from internal pressure with the failure occurring at the edge of the repair, about 250 mm
axial distance (vertical) from the defect location at the repair centre – right picture
corresponds to failure from a fully circumferential defect under uni-axial tension
 y - displacement t – repair
laminate
Laminate thickness

P - pressure
r
a – radius of
Substrate
delamination

Figure 3 – Schematic diagram of a delamination between the repair laminate and the
pipe substrate

Measured curve - mean Measured curve - LCL Design curve

Pressure (bar)

Design factor = 3

Defect diameter (mm)

Figure 4 – Design pressure as a function of through wall defect size (circular)

Figure 5: Case study 1 – corroded pipework

Figure 6: Completed repair for Case study 1

Figure 7: Case study 2 – corroded pipework

Figure 8: Completed repair for Case study 2