4.6 Article

Burst Pressure Prediction of Subsea Supercritical CO2 Pipelines

期刊

MATERIALS
卷 15, 期 10, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ma15103465

关键词

carbon capture and sequestration (CCS); corrosion defects; unified strength theory; burst pressure

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51805127]
  2. China Postdoctoral Science Foundation [2021M693504]
  3. Subject Construction Project of Weifang University of Science and Technology [2021XKJS24]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper investigates the burst pressure of subsea supercritical CO2 pipelines, establishing a mechanical model of corroded CO2 pipelines and deriving a new burst pressure equation using the unified strength theory (UST). The study proves the accuracy of the burst pressure equation through experimental data, providing a theoretical basis and reference for pipeline design.
To improve transportation efficiency, a supercritical CO2 pipeline is the best choice for large-scale and long-distance transportation inshore and offshore. However, corrosion of the pipe wall will occur as a result of the presence of free water and other impurities present during CO2 capture. Defects caused by corrosion can reduce pipe strength and result in pipe failure. In this paper, the burst pressure of subsea supercritical CO2 pipelines under high pressure is investigated. First, a mechanical model of corroded CO2 pipelines is established. Then, using the unified strength theory (UST), a new burst pressure equation for subsea supercritical CO2 pipelines is derived. Next, analysis of the material's intermediate principal stress parameters is conducted. Lastly, the accuracy of the burst pressure equation of subsea supercritical CO2 pipelines is proven to meet the engineering requirement by experimental data. The results indicate that the parameter b of UST plays a significant role in determining burst pressure of pipelines. The study can provide a theoretical basis and reference for the design of subsea supercritical CO2 pipelines.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据