Pipeline Pigging and Integrity Management Conference

th
17-18 May 2004 – Amsterdam, The Netherlands

THE ASSESSMENT OF CORROSION IN PIPELINES – GUIDANCE IN THE PIPELINE

DEFECT ASSESSMENT MANUAL (PDAM)

ANDREW COSHAM PHIL HOPKINS

Penspen Integrity Penspen Integrity
1
(Andrew Palmer and Associates), UK

ABSTRACT
The Pipeline Defect Assessment Manual (PDAM) project is a joint industry project sponsored
by fifteen international oil and gas companies, to produce a document specifying the best
methods for assessing defects in pipelines. PDAM documents the best available techniques
currently available for the assessment of pipeline defects (such as corrosion, dents, gouges,
weld defects, etc.) in a simple and easy-to-use manual, and gives guidance in their use. In
this paper the best practices for the assessment of corrosion in pipelines are presented. Full
scale tests, theoretical analyses and assessment methods are also discussed, and the ‘best’
methods included in PDAM are described.

NOMENCLATURE
2c maximum longitudinal length of metal loss defect (equals l)
d depth of part-wall metal loss defect
t pipe wall thickness
D outside diameter of pipe
M Folias factor (bulging factor)
Q length correction term
R outside radius of pipe
σ flow stress
σθ hoop stress at failure
σY yield strength
σU ultimate tensile strength
SMYS specified minimum yield strength
SMTS specified minimum ultimate tensile strength

1 INTRODUCTION
Oil and gas transmission pipelines have a good safety record. This is due to a combination
of good design, materials and operating practices; however, like any engineering structure,
pipelines do occasionally fail. The most common causes of damage and failures in onshore
and offshore, oil and gas transmission pipelines in Western Europe and North America are

1
Penspen Integrity (Andrew Palmer and Associates), Hawthorn Suite, Units 7-8 St Peter's Wharf, St
Peter's Basin, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE6 1TZ, UK, Tel: +44 (0)191 238 2210 Fax: +44 (0)191 275
978; e-mail: [email protected]

1 Penspen Integrity
 Pipeline Pigging and Integrity Management Conference, The Netherlands, May 2004

external interference (mechanical damage) and corrosion[1-3]. Assessment methods are

needed to determine the severity of such defects when they are detected in pipelines.
Defects occurring during the fabrication of a pipeline are usually assessed against
recognised and proven quality control (workmanship) limits. However, a pipeline will
invariably contain larger defects during its life, and these will require a ‘fitness-for-purpose’
assessment to determine whether or not to repair the pipeline. Consequently, the past 40
years has seen the development of a number of methods for assessing the significance of
defects. Some of these methods have been incorporated into industry guidance, others are
to be found in the published literature. However, there is no definitive guidance that contains
all of the assessment techniques, or assesses each method against the published test data,
or recommends best practice in their application.
To address this industry need, a Joint Industry Project has been sponsored by fifteen
international oil and gas companies (Advantica Technologies, BP, CSM, DNV, EMC, Gaz de
France, Health and Safety Executive, MOL, Petrobras, PII, SNAM Rete Gas, Shell Global
Solutions, Statoil, Toho Gas and TotalFinaElf) to develop a Pipeline Defect Assessment
Manual (PDAM). PDAM presents the ‘best’ currently available methods for the assessment
of pipeline defects (such as corrosion, dents, gouges, weld defects, etc.), in a simple and
easy-to-use manual, and gives guidance in their use. It is based on an extensive critical
review of published ‘fitness-for-purpose’ methods and test data. PDAM is intended to be
another tool that will assist pipeline engineers in maintaining pipeline integrity. The PDAM
project was completed in June 2003. PDAM is being maintained and updated through the
ongoing PDAM+ joint industry project.
Fitness-for-Purpose. Fitness-for-purpose, as discussed here, means that a particular
structure is considered to be adequate for its purpose, provided the conditions to reach
failure are not reached[4] 2. Fitness-for-purpose is based on a detailed technical assessment
of the significance of the defect. Local and national legislation and regulations may not
permit certain types of defects to be assessed by fitness-for-purpose methods or may
mandate specific limits. Such issues should always be considered prior to an assessment.
Safety must always be the prime consideration in any fitness-for-purpose assessment and it
is always necessary to appreciate the consequences of a failure. These will influence the
necessary safety margin to be applied to the calculations.
Pipeline Integrity Management. Pipeline failures are usually related to a breakdown in a
‘system’, e.g. the corrosion protection ‘system’ has become faulty, and a combination of
ageing coating, aggressive environment, and rapid corrosion growth may lead to a corrosion
failure. This type of failure is not simply a ‘corrosion’ failure, but a ‘corrosion control system’
failure. Similar observations can be drawn for failures due to external interference, stress
corrosion cracking, etc..
These considerations lead to the conclusion that a ‘holistic’ approach to pipeline defect
assessment and integrity is necessary (see Figure 1); understanding the equation that
quantifies the failure load is only one aspect of the problem.
Pipeline integrity management is the general term given to all efforts (design, construction,
operation, maintenance, etc.) directed towards ensuring continuing pipeline integrity. The
American Petroleum Institute (API) has developed an industry consensus standard that gives
guidance on developing integrity management programmes (API 1160)[5]. The American
Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) has developed a similar integrity management
guidelines for a supplement to ASME B31.8[6].

2
Note that fitness-for-purpose may also have a legal and contractual meaning in different countries.

2 Penspen Integrity
 Pipeline Pigging and Integrity Management Conference, The Netherlands, May 2004

Figure 1 – The Key Elements of Pipeline Integrity Management

This paper summarises some of the methodology and contents of the Pipeline Defect
Assessment Manual (PDAM). The best methods for assessing a variety of different types of
defect are summarised (see Table 1) but this paper focuses on the assessment of corrosion
with reference to previous reviews of corrosion assessment methods and published full scale
test data.

2 THE PIPELINE DEFECT ASSESSMENT MANUAL

PDAM is based upon a comprehensive, critical and authoritative review of available pipeline
defect assessment methods. This critical review includes a compilation of published full-
scale test data used in the development and validation of existing defect assessment
methods. The full-scale test data is used to assess the inherent accuracy of the defect
assessment methods, and to identify the ‘best’ methods (considering relevance, accuracy
and ease of use) and their range of applicability. PDAM describes the ‘best’ method for
assessing a particular type of defect, defines the necessary input data, gives the limitations
of the method, and defines an appropriate factor to account for the model uncertainty. The
model uncertainty for each assessment method has been derived from a statistical
comparison of the predictions of the method with the published test data, based on the
prediction interval of the classical linear regression model.
PDAM provides the written text, the methods, recipes for application, acceptance charts and
simple examples, and is supported by background literature reviews. Simple electronic
workbooks have been developed to permit easy implementation of the ‘best’ methods. The
role of PDAM in the fitness-for-purpose assessment of a defect in a pipeline is summarised
in Figure 2 (at the end of the paper).
PDAM has been closely scrutinised throughout its development by the sponsors, and all
literature reviews and chapters have been independently reviewed by international experts in
the field of pipeline defect assessment.

3 Penspen Integrity
 Pipeline Pigging and Integrity Management Conference, The Netherlands, May 2004

PDAM does not present new defect assessment methods; it presents the current state of the
art in the fitness-for-purpose assessment of defective pipelines. Limitations of the methods
recommended in PDAM represent limitations of the available methods and of knowledge.

3 TYPES OF DEFECT CONSIDERED IN THE PIPELINE DEFECT ASSESSMENT

MANUAL
PDAM contains guidance for the assessment of the following types of defect:
• defect-free pipe
• corrosion
• gouges
• plain dents
• kinked dents
• smooth dents on welds
• smooth dents containing gouges
• smooth dents containing other types of defects
• manufacturing defects in the pipe body
• girth weld defects
• seam weld defects
• cracking
• environmental cracking
In addition, guidance is given on the treatment of the interaction between defects (leading to
a reduction in the burst strength), and the assessment of defects in pipe fittings (pipework,
fittings, elbows, etc.). Guidance is also given on predicting the behaviour of defects upon
failing (i.e. leak or rupture, and fracture propagation).
The following types of loading have been considered in the development of the guidance:
internal pressure, external pressure, axial force and bending moment.
Methods are given in PDAM for assessing the burst strength of a defect subject to static
loading and for assessing the fatigue strength of a defect subject to cyclic loading. There are
some combinations of defect type, orientation and loading for which there are no clearly
defined assessment methods. In summary, the assessment of defects subject to static or
cyclic internal pressure loading is well understood, but, in general, other loads and combined
loading are not.

4 THE FORMAT OF THE PIPELINE DEFECT ASSESSMENT MANUAL

The Pipeline Defect Assessment Manual broadly follows the following format for each defect
type and assessment method:
1. A brief definition of the type of defect.
2. A figure illustrating the dimensions and orientation of the defect relative to the axis of the
pipe, and a nomenclature.
3. Brief notes that highlight particular problems associated with the defect.
4. A flow chart summarising the assessment of the defect.

4 Penspen Integrity
 Pipeline Pigging and Integrity Management Conference, The Netherlands, May 2004

5. The minimum required information to assess the defect.

6. The assessment method.
7. The range of applicability of the method, its background, and any specific limitations.
8. An appropriate model uncertainty factor to be applied to the assessment method.
9. An example of the application of the assessment method.
10. Reference is made to alternative sources of guidance available in national or
international guidance, codes or standards.
The flow charts included for each defect type generally consist of a number of yes-no type
questions designed to identify whether or not the methods contained in that chapter are
appropriate to the given case, and to indicate the appropriate method to use. An example of
the flow chart for the assessment of corrosion is given in Figure 3.

5 ASSESSMENT METHODS IN THE PIPELINE DEFECT ASSESSMENT MANUAL

A summary of all of the methods recommended in the Pipeline Defect Assessment Manual
for predicting the burst strength of a defect subject to internal pressure is given in Table 1[7-16].
Longitudinally and circumferentially-orientated defects are considered. The ‘primary’
methods (indicated in normal font) are plastic collapse (flow stress dependent or limit state)
failure criteria, and are only appropriate if a minimum toughness is attained[18]. The
secondary methods (indicated in italic font) are the alternative methods recommended when
a minimum toughness is not attained. Upper shelf behaviour is assumed throughout. The
general procedures for assessing flaws in structures, based on fracture mechanics, given in
BS 7910[4] (and API 579[17]) can be applied in general (irrespective of upper or lower shelf
behaviour), but will generally be conservative compared to the pipeline specific methods3.

Having given an overview of the contents of PDAM, the remainder of this paper: (1)
describes in general terms the various methods for the assessment of corrosion, (2)
summarises the available full scale test data, (3) considers the role of toughness, (4)
identifies what are generally recognised as the ‘best’ methods for assessing corrosion, and
(5) presents the key considerations when assessing a corrosion defect in a pipeline.

6 CORROSION IN PIPELINES
Corrosion is an electrochemical process. It is a time dependent mechanism and depends on
the local environment within or adjacent to the pipeline. Corrosion usual appears as either
general corrosion or localised (pitting) corrosion. There are many different types of
corrosion, including galvanic corrosion, microbiologically induced corrosion, AC corrosion,
differential soils, differential aeration and cracking. Corrosion causes metal loss. It can
occur on the internal or external surfaces of the pipe, in the base material, the seam weld,
the girth weld, and/or the associated heat affected zone (HAZ).
Internal and external corrosion are together one of the major causes of pipeline failures.
Data for onshore gas transmission pipelines in Western Europe for the period from 1970 to
1997 indicates that 17 percent of all incidents resulting in a loss of gas were due to
corrosion[1]. Incident data from the Office of Pipeline Safety in the USA for the year 2001

3
PAFFC incorporates correlations between the fracture toughness and the upper shelf Charpy impact
energy; therefore, PAFFC is not applicable to lower shelf conditions (although the underlying
theoretical model is applicable if the fracture toughness (K, J or δ) is measured).

5 Penspen Integrity
 Pipeline Pigging and Integrity Management Conference, The Netherlands, May 2004

attributes 29 percent of incidents in liquid pipelines, and 19 percent of incidents in gas

pipelines, to corrosion[3].
Environmentally assisted cracking, such as stress corrosion cracking (low pH and high pH
SCC), hydrogen induced cracking (HIC), etc., must be assessed using different methods to
those describe here, because the degradation mechanism causes cracking, blistering, etc.,
rather than blunt metal loss.
Corrosion in a pipeline may be difficult to characterise. Typically, it will have an irregular
depth profile and extend in irregular pattern in both longitudinal and circumferential directions
(as illustrated in Figure 4). It may occur as a single defect or as a cluster of adjacent defects
separated by full thickness (uncorroded) material. There are no clear definitions of different
types of corrosion defects. The simplest and perhaps most widely recognised definitions are
as follows: pitting corrosion, defined as corrosion with a length and width less than or equal
to three times the uncorroded wall thickness, and general corrosion, defined as corrosion
with a length and width greater than three times the uncorroded wall thickness. The Pipeline
Operators Forum (POF) has developed a set of specifications and requirements for the
inspection of pipelines by intelligent pigs, including definitions of types of metal loss features
(pinhole, pitting, slotting, grooving and general)[19]. ‘Blunt’ has been defined in the literature
as defects whose minimum radius equals or exceeds half of the pipe wall thickness[20], and
defects with a width greater than their local depth[21].
A considerable amount of time and effort has been devoted to the study of the static strength
of corrosion defects in pipelines. Initially, research concentrated on the behaviour of sharp
defects (machined V-shaped notches and slits), but subsequently the work was extended to
consider artificial and real corrosion defects. The primary focus of research into the
significance of corrosion defects has been towards longitudinally-orientated defects subject
to internal pressure loading. Several recently published papers have discussed the
background to the various methods for assessing corrosion that exist in the literature (B31G,
modified B31G, RSTRENG, DNV-RP-F101, etc.)[22-24], so such information is not repeated
here.

7 FULL SCALE BURST TESTS OF REAL AND ARTIFICIAL CORROSION DEFECTS

Full scale vessel burst tests of predominantly longitudinal real and artificial corrosion defects
in line pipe subject to internal pressure have been carried out by a number of different
organisations. Artificial corrosion defects are machined pits, grooves and patches, blunt, flat-
bottomed defects with a uniform profile. A smaller number of tests have been conducted on
longitudinal corrosion subject to axial and/or bending loads in addition to internal pressure,
and on circumferential and helical defects; these tests are not considered here.
The total number of published burst tests of ‘corrosion’ defects considered here is 343
(including 215 tests in the AGA/PRCI Database of Corroded Pipe Burst Tests), although only
157 tests are considered to be ‘reliable’ tests of longitudinally orientated corrosion subject to
internal pressure (see below). The number and type of tests conducted by each organisation
is given below.
Barkow (1972)[25] 4 vessel tests (real corrosion)
Texas Eastern (1972)[26] 15 vessel tests (real corrosion)
[27]
Battelle (1973) 47 vessel tests (real corrosion)
British Gas (1974)[28] 22 vessel tests (real corrosion)
University of Waterloo (1990, 1991)[29-32] (Mok et al.) 20 burst tests (machined grooves)
[33]
British Gas (1992) 23 vessel tests (machined)
Vieth and Kiefner (1994)[34] (AGA/PRCI) 124 vessel tests (most real corrosion)

6 Penspen Integrity
 Pipeline Pigging and Integrity Management Conference, The Netherlands, May 2004

Kiefner et al. (1995)[35] (AGA/PRCI) 91 vessel tests (some real corrosion)

[20]
Battelle (1995) 2 vessel tests (machined)
University of Waterloo (1992)[36] 12 vessel tests (real corrosion pits)
[37-39]
University of Waterloo (1994 - 1996) 26 vessel tests (machined pits)
[40] 4
Fu and Batte (1999) (British Gas) (LPC) 2 vessel test (machined patch)
Transgas (2000)[41] 17 vessel tests (some real corrosion)
[42]
Petrobras (2000) 9 vessel tests (machined grooves)
[43-45]
University of Waterloo (1996, 2000) 40 vessel tests (real corrosion)
British Gas (1992)[33] 4 ring tests (machined slits)
[46,47]
British Gas, Shell (1992, 1994) 9 ring tests (machined grooves)
[48]
University of Waterloo (1998) (Roberts and Pick) 10 vessel tests (machined)
DNV (2000)[49] 12 vessel tests (machined)

The AGA/PRCI Database of Corroded Pipe Tests[34,35] is the most comprehensive source of
publicly available burst tests of real and simulated corrosion in line pipe material, although it
does not included all of the tests identified above (based on the 1995 edition of the database,
there are an additional 108 vessel tests and 21 ring tests in the published literature).
The tests include artificial (simulated) corrosion defects (machined pits, slots and patches)
and real corrosion defects, single defects and interacting defects, burst tests (internal
pressure only) and combined loading (pressure, bend and axial compression) tests. Given
the large number of tests from different sources contained in the Database of Corroded Pipe
Tests and in the wider published literature, the data must be used with some care, otherwise
tests that are not directly comparable may be considered together. Some of the test data is
not reliable, due to the test having been subject to a number of pressure cycles (as is the
case when a vessel containing multiple defects is tested repeatedly), or the test being
terminated prior to failure of the defect. Other tests involve interaction, or the effects of
combined loading, and should not be considered with tests of single defects. For some tests
the available information is incomplete.
The ‘reliable’ test data has been identified as above and guided by the tests omitted from the
further validation of RSTRENG[35]. The range of the experimental parameters of all of the
‘reliable’ burst tests of predominantly longitudinally orientated (real or artificial) ‘corrosion’
defects (a total of 159 tests) is:
Pipe Diameter, mm 273.0 to 914.4
Wall Thickness, mm 4.57 to 22.1
2R/t ratio 31.5 to 130.3
Grade (API 5L) A25 to X65
Yield strength, Nmm-2 196.0 to 515.0
Tensile strength, Nmm-2 277.0 to 658.0
yield to tensile ratio 0.60 to 0.85
2/3 Charpy Impact Energy, J 18.0 to 90.0
Maximum Defect Depth (d), mm 1.60 to 17.1
d/t 0.25 to 0.97
Defect Length (2c), mm 19.35 to 3048.0

4
The Linepipe Corrosion Group Sponsored Project (conducted by British Gas) conducted
approximately 81 full scale vessel burst tests and 52 ring expansion tests of artificial corrosion defects
(both single defects and interacting defects). However, most of these tests have not been published.

7 Penspen Integrity
 Pipeline Pigging and Integrity Management Conference, The Netherlands, May 2004

2c/(Rt)0.5 0.527 to 49.7

Defect Width, mm 0.15 to 304.8
Burst Pressure, Nmm-2 4.88 to 25.2
Burst Stress, Nmm-2 145.9 to 589.5
Burst Stress (percent SMYS) 45.4 to 186.3
Real corrosion defects have an irregular profile, whereas artificial (machined) corrosion
defects are typically flat bottomed. The profile of a corroded area must be considered if an
accurate prediction of the burst pressure is desired. River-bottom profiles are available for all
of the defects in the Database of Corroded Pipe Tests. This information is not available for
some of the additional published tests of real corrosion.
A number of conclusions on the behaviour of corrosion defects from various authors are
listed below:
1. The longitudinal extent of a corroded area is the most important length parameter for the
burst strength under internal pressure loading. The circumferential extent has a small
influence on the burst strength, but the effect is sufficiently small to not need
considering. However, the circumferential extent must be considered if external axial
and/or bending loads are present.
2. External loads reduce the burst pressure compared to the case of an end-capped
pressure vessel (axial stress equal to half the hoop stress). The effect of tensile external
loads is generally small, whilst compressive loads can cause a significant reduction in
the burst pressure.
3. No difference between the behaviour of internal and external corrosion has been noted
in full scale tests or finite element analyses (but noting that pipelines are thin walled
geometries).
4. Short defects (typically less than 3t in length) of any depth record high burst pressures,
typically above the pressure required to yield the uncorroded pipe.
5. In modern, tough, line pipe steel the flow stress for smooth corrosion defects is the
ultimate tensile strength of the material.
6. The effect of toughness of an sharp defect is more significant than that on a blunt defect.

8 THE ROLE OF GEOMETRY AND FLOW STRESS

8.1 Ductile Failure

Two possible scenarios for the ductile failure of a blunt part-wall defect in a tough line pipe
steel (i.e. excluding the possibility of cleavage fracture) have been identified, as described by
Leis and Stephens (1997)[50,51] and Fearnehough et al.[52,53]).
(1) As the load (pressure) increases, local wall thinning will occur in the remaining net
section. This local wall thinning could continue, leading to necking of the wall and failure due
to void nucleation, growth and coalescence in a manner comparable to that of a tensile test
specimen.
(2) Alternatively, a crack could initiate at the base of the defect due to the presence of micro-
stress raisers (e.g. local surface irregularities caused by a corrosion mechanism) through a
process of void nucleation and growth. The behaviour after the initiation of a crack would
depend on the toughness of the material. In a high toughness material, initiation would be
delayed to a higher load and further stable ductile tearing would be slower, or a growing
crack could blunt; wall thinning would continue and the failure load would tend to that of
plastic collapse. However, in a lower toughness material, once initiated, the crack would
extend by stable ductile tearing, reducing the remaining wall thickness and hence reducing

8 Penspen Integrity
 Pipeline Pigging and Integrity Management Conference, The Netherlands, May 2004

the degree of wall thinning that occurs before failure. The load at failure would be less than
that predicted by the plastic collapse limit state because of the stable ductile tearing.

8.2 The Role of Geometry

The failure of a part-wall defect in a pipeline subject to internal pressure has two limits:
(1) a defect with a length and depth tending towards zero (i.e. defect-free pipe), and
(2) an infinitely long defect of finite depth (see Figure 5).
It is assumed that the line pipe material is tough and that failure occurs due to plastic
collapse (i.e. unstable plastic flow). In the first case, the failure stress tends towards the
failure stress of defect-free pipe, based on the full wall thickness (t), and in the second case it
tends towards the failure stress of defect-free pipe, but based on the reduced wall thickness
(t-d).
The failure stress of a part-wall flaw of finite length lies between the above two extremes; it is
a function of (1) the geometry of the pipe and the geometry of the defect, and (2) the
material.

8.3 The Role of Flow Stress

The failure stress of defect free pipe tends towards the ultimate tensile strength of the
material, as measured in a uniaxial tensile test, although account must be taken of large
scale geometry effects (a cylinder under internal pressure exhibits geometric softening: as
the pressure increases, the diameter increases; the hoop stress increases because of both
the increase in pressure and the increase in diameter). Theoretically, the failure stress
depends upon the strain hardening characteristics of the material and the assumed yield
criterion (Tresca or von Mises)[46,50,51,54,55]; experimental results indicate that the failure stress
lies between the Tresca and von Mises bounds, and is reasonably approximated by the
ultimate tensile strength.
The failure stress of defect free pipe can be interpreted as a flow stress, although the term
reference stress5 has also been proposed (by researchers at Battelle[50,51]) to differentiate it
from the term flow stress as used in fracture mechanics6. The flow or reference stress
describes the role of the material.

8.4 The Failure of a Blunt, Part-Wall Defect

Therefore, the failure stress of a blunt, part-wall defect subject to internal pressure can be
predicted by a failure criteria that comprises a flow stress term and a geometry term. The
geometry term includes the effects of bulging, the global stiffness, the stiffness of the defect,
defect acuity, etc.. The flow, or reference, stress represents the material behaviour. Note
that the complete separation of material and geometry terms is an approximation, introducing
some scatter into predictions of test data or numerical data.

8.5 The Role of Geometry and Flow Stress in the Published Methods

Failure criteria such as the flow stress dependent forms of the NG-18 equations[7] (and ASME
B31G[27,56], modified B31G[14], etc.) have been described as plastic collapse failure criteria.

5
The reference stress is the failure stress of defect-free pipe; it represents the plastic collapse limit
state. The reference stress is independent of the defect geometry.
6
The flow stress is an empirical concept. It was introduced to incorporate plasticity into a linear-elastic
fracture mechanics analysis. The flow stress is not necessarily the stress at plastic collapse (where
plastic collapse is failure due to plastic flow).

9 Penspen Integrity
 Pipeline Pigging and Integrity Management Conference, The Netherlands, May 2004

However, in many of the tests on which these older semi-empirical failure criteria are based,
failure was preceded by significant amounts of ductile tearing and some of the steels had a
low toughness. Furthermore, the geometry term was empirical and the flow stress was
adjusted to fit the test results. This lead to empirical definitions of the flow stress (reference
stress) that were conservative, since they were biased towards the behaviour of older steels.
The NG-18 equations were developed from tests of V-shaped notches, not blunt, part-wall
defects. Therefore, the methods for assessing corrosion based on the NG-18 equations
(ASME B31G, modified B31G, etc.) have a conservative bias when applied to tests of blunt,
part-wall defects.
Developments in the accuracy of failure criteria follow from their being better able to describe
the effects of reference stress and geometry. The more recent failure criteria for corrosion
(DNV-RP-F101[13], PCORRC[21]) have used finite element analyses of blunt, part-wall defects
to determine the form of the geometry term, and have considered the form of the reference
stress in more detail. These failure criteria were validated against burst tests of modern line
pipe steels containing blunt, part-wall defects or real corrosion defects. Modern line pipe
steels have a higher toughness than older steels, such that the failure of blunt part-wall
defects is controlled by plastic collapse (where plastic collapse is defined in terms of the
defect-free failure stress (i.e. the ultimate tensile strength)), and the effect of toughness is
negligible. However, difficulties can then arise in applying the more recent methods to older,
lower toughness, line pipe. The more recent methods may be none conservative.

9 THE EFFECT OF TOUGHNESS

The effect of toughness on the failure stress of blunt, part-wall defects can be observed
through comparisons with the published burst tests of real and artificial corrosion. The
influence of toughness is clear in tests of part-wall V-shaped notch tests, as conducted by
Battelle during the development of the NG-18 equations[7] (see Figure 6): as the toughness
decreases, a flow stress dependent failure criterion becomes inappropriate (the predictions
become increasingly non-conservatively). The influence of toughness on the failure of
corrosion defects is less clear (see Figure 7 and Figure 8) because: (1) corrosion defects are
blunt, and (2) the irregular profile of a real corrosion defect introduces experimental scatter.
Increasing conservatism with increasing toughness is apparent for modified B31G (Figure 7),
but not for DNV-RP-F101 (Figure 8). The toughness of the line pipe steel is not known for a
large number of the tests in the AGA/PRCI Database of Corroded Pipe Tests7.
Figure 7 and Figure 8 include those AGA/PRCI tests of defects which have not been subject
to multiple pressure cycles are shown (since removing all of the ‘unreliable’ tests would
remove some tests of low toughness line pipe and give an incomplete picture). The tensile
strength is not available for all of the tests, so some tests in Figure 7 are not to be found
Figure 8. A number of test results are noteworthy8: test index 107 is a corrosion pit that
contained a prior through-wall crack and can therefore be excluded, test indices 215, 9, 6
have transition temperatures at or above the test temperature, and test index 1 is of a line
pipe steel with an unreported transition temperature. Test indices 1, 6 and 9 are all the first
test of a series of multiple tests of a single vessel. No metallurgical analysis of the fracture
surfaces is reported, so the actual failure mechanism (ductile or cleavage) is the subject of
conjecture.

7
Tests with an unknown toughness are plotted as having a zero toughness, to illustrate the range of
the predictions.
8
The test index number refers to the number of the test in the AGA/PRCI Database of Corroded Pipe
Tests.

10 Penspen Integrity
 Pipeline Pigging and Integrity Management Conference, The Netherlands, May 2004

The tests of real corrosion defects that are non-conservatively predicted by modified B31G
and DNV-RP-F101 involve line pipe steels tested at a temperature below the transition
temperature (or the transition temperature is unknown). None of the assessment methods
are applicable to line pipe steel that is in the transitional region or on the lower shelf.
Considering all of the published full scale tests, the lowest toughness is 18 J (13 ftlbf) and the
maximum wall thickness is 22.5 mm (1.0 in.)9. Consequently, considering the basis of the
various criteria and a comparison with full scale test data, ASME B31G, modified B31G and
RSTRENG are applicable to low, moderate and high toughness steels (assuming upper shelf
behaviour), whilst DNV-RP-F101[13] and PCORRC[21] are only proven for moderate to high
toughness steels (see sections 11 and 12).

10 METHODS FOR ASSESSING CORROSION DEFECTS

Numerous methods have been developed for predicting the burst pressure of blunt part-wall
defects, which characterise the behaviour of typical corrosion defects. A number of these
methods are listed below (see also Table 2). All of these methods are primarily concerned
with the longitudinal extent of the corroded area and internal pressure loading. The methods
are empirical or semi-empirical; the older methods are based on the original Battelle part-wall
failure criterion (the NG-18 equations), whilst the more recent methods have partly
developed from extensive numerical studies validated against test data (see below).
i. ASME B31G[56]

ii. modified B31G (RSTRENG 0.85) (Kiefner and Vieth (1989))[14]

iii. RSTRENG (Kiefner and Vieth (1989))[14]

iv. Klever (1992)[54], Stewart et al. (1994)[46]

v. SHELL92 (Ritchie and Last (1995))[55]

vi. DNV-RP-F101 (LPC)[13,40] *

vii. PCORRC (Stephens and Leis (2000))[21,51] *

viii. CPS (Cronin and Pick (2000))[44] *

ix. SAFE (SwRI) (Wang et al. (1998))[57] *

(an asterisk denotes the ‘new’ methods)

The DNV-RP-F101 and SAFE methods can be applied to corrosion subject to axial and
bending loads.
A detailed description of all of these methods can be found in the published literature.
i. Real corrosion
Corrosion defects are orientated and spaced in a random manner. In the analysis of such a
defect an attempt is made to characterise the corroded area by its projected length and area.
The difficulty in describing a three-dimensional corroded area by a few parameters
introduces large scatter in comparisons of predicted to actual failure stress. The scatter is
significantly reduced by the use of assessment methods based on a river-bottom profile, but

9 [22]
Fu (1999) has tested line pipe up to 25.4 mm, but the test results have not been published .

11 Penspen Integrity
 Pipeline Pigging and Integrity Management Conference, The Netherlands, May 2004

there is still more scatter than for flat-bottomed defects. River-bottom methods (such as
RSTRENG and those given in DNV-RP-F101 and CPS) are based on iterative algorithms
and are not suited to hand calculations. The methods based on a simple geometric
approximation are closed-form methods.
Interaction between defects has been considered empirically, or through finite element
analysis of a narrow range of pipe and defect geometries. Limited guidance is available in
the published literature.
ii. Approximate methods for assessing real corrosion
The original ASME B31G criterion[56], modified B31G criterion[14], DNV-RP-F101 (LPC), and
PCORRC define simple approximations to the exact corroded area, based on the maximum
length and the maximum depth of the defect. Corrosion typically has an irregular profile.
The most conservative idealisation is a rectangular profile (as in DNV-RP-F101 and
PCORRC). ASME B31G assumes a parabolic profile (the 2/3 factor in the equation, see
Table 2) and modified B31G assumes an arbitrary profile (the 0.85 factor in the equation).
The methods for assessing a river-bottom profile are also approximations, because a river-
bottom profile is an idealisation of the actual three-dimensional shape of a corroded area.
All of the methods considered here assume that failure is due to a flow stress dependent
mechanism and can, therefore, be described by the tensile properties (yield strength,
ultimate tensile strength) of the line pipe steel. It is further assumed that the steel is on the
upper shelf; the transition temperature is conventionally defined as the temperature at which
a DWTT specimen exhibits an 85 percent shear area. A minimum toughness may need to
be satisfied. This is specifically the case for the recent, alternative, assessment methods
(DNV-RP-F101 (LPC), PCORRC, CPS[44], SAFE[57]) which assume that failure is controlled
by plastic collapse (plastic flow) (i.e. the flow stress is the ultimate tensile strength).
The methods are all similar in their general form, being based on the NG-18 equation for the
failure of a part-wall flaw, but differ in respect of assumptions and simplifications made in
their derivation. These differences can be classified in terms of:
i. the flow stress.
ii. the geometry correction factor (also referred to as the Folias factor, or the length
correction factor, or the bulging correction factor), and
iii. the defect profile.
Stephens and Francini (2000) have concluded that two categories of assessment methods
for corrosion defects can be described[24]: (1) empirically calibrated criteria that have been
adjusted to be conservative for almost all corrosion defects, irrespective of the toughness of
the line pipe (these criteria are variously based on the yield strength, the flow stress, or the
ultimate tensile strength) (the ‘old’ methods), and (2) plastic collapse criteria that are only
appropriate for blunt defects in moderate to high toughness line pipe (these criteria are
based on the ultimate tensile strength) (the ‘new’ methods). DNV-RP-F101 (LPC),
PCORRC, SAFE and CPS should be regarded as belonging to the second category of
assessment method.
The ASME B31G, modified B31G, RSTRENG, SHELL92[55], LPC, DNV-RP-F101 and
PCORRC[21] methods are summarised in Table 2 and Figure 910. The LPC and DNV-RP-
F101 methods are essentially the same. LPC, DNV-RP-F101 and PCORRC were developed
from curve fitting to the results of parametric finite element analyses of blunt, part-wall
defects. These are theoretically calibrated methods (i.e. calibrated to average data in the

10
All of the curves in this figure represent the failure locus of critical defect depth and defect length for
a hoop stress equal to 100 percent SMYS. For all of the methods except ASME B31G, the failure loci
are dependent on the line pipe steel grade. The curves are presented for two grades, X42 and X65.

12 Penspen Integrity
 Pipeline Pigging and Integrity Management Conference, The Netherlands, May 2004

form of an experimentally validated finite element model and associated numerical failure
criterion), as compared to ASME B31G and related methods, which are based on curve fits
to empirical data (originally tests on V-shaped notches, then real corrosion defects).
PCORRC and DNV-RP-F101 give similar results (see Figure 9).

11 COMPARISON OF METHODS FOR ASSESSING CORROSION DEFECTS

11.1 Problems with Scatter in the Data

Large scatter is apparent in the predictions of the burst strength of real corrosion when using
a method based on a simple geometric idealisation (rectangular, parabolic, etc.), because
maximum depth and maximum length are insufficient to describe the irregular shape of a real
corrosion defect (see Figure 10).

11.2 Problems with Comparing the Methods

There is insufficient data in the published literature to do a thorough comparison of the

methods for assessing corrosion. If there were enough detailed data, then the first step in a
comparison would be burst tests of artificial, flat-bottomed corrosion defects, to avoid scatter
associated with approximations to an irregular profile. The approach would be to (1)
consider those tests which are known to have failed by plastic collapse (i.e. the flow stress or
reference stress (defect-free failure stress) is equal to the ultimate tensile strength) and
define an appropriate failure criterion (as has been done for DNV-RP-F101 and PCORRC),
then (2) identify those tests which do not follow the predictions of the criterion, and then (3)
determine what is different about these outliers and thence define the limitations of the failure
criterion. Only then would the methods be compared against burst tests of real corrosion
defects.

11.3 Comparisons of Methods in the Published Literature

Several reviews or comparisons of methods for assessing corrosion defects are described in
the published literature. The Linepipe Corrosion Group Sponsored Project and the DNV
Joint Industry Project both conducted a review of existing assessment methods as part of the
development of an improved method[22,23] 11. Battelle have also reviewed methods for
assessing corrosion[24]. Other authors have conducted limited comparisons of methods with
test data during the course of the development and validation of new or modified assessment
methods. The conclusions of the various reviews are:
1. Recently developed methods such as DNV-RP-F101 and PCORRC are based on
equations fitted to the results of a large number of finite element analyses of blunt, part-
wall defects, these analyses incorporated a failure criterion validated against actual burst
tests. The DNV-RP-F101 and PCORRC methods were developed to be mean fits to the
experimental and numerical data, and so should be the most accurate methods; this is
the consensus view of the reviews in the literature[22-24] (see Figure 10 and note the
accurate predictions of the artificial corrosion defects12).
2. The modified B31G method is more accurate than the original ASME B31G method[14,24].

11
A PRCI sponsored project is being conducted to further compare existing assessment methods for
corrosion subject to internal pressure and to clarify issues surrounding the behaviour of blunt defects
in low and moderate to high toughness line pipe steels. The result of this study are not currently in the
public domain.
12
The AGA/PRCI tests include tests of older, lower grade line pipe steels, hence some of the non-
conservative predictions.

13 Penspen Integrity
 Pipeline Pigging and Integrity Management Conference, The Netherlands, May 2004

3. RSTRENG gives a further improvement in accuracy[14,22,24].

4. The more recent methods, such as DNV-RP-F101 and PCORRC, are only applicable to
blunt defects in tough materials[23,24].
The ASME B31G method (or modified B31G and RSTRENG) for predicting the burst
pressure of a corroded pipeline (the ‘old’ methods) were, predominantly, developed and
validated through full scale tests on older line pipe steels. The ‘new’ methods (DNV-RP-
F101 and the pipeline specific appendix of BS 7910, and PCORR) were developed and
validated through tests on modern, high toughness, line pipe steels. The ‘new’ methods are
biased towards the behaviour of modern, high toughness, line pipe steels and the ‘old’
methods are biased towards older, relatively lower toughness, steels. The difference
between the behaviour of older line pipe steels and modern steels can largely be attributed to
the general increase in the toughness of line pipe, due to improvement in steel production
and technological advances. The ‘old’ methods demonstrate greater scatter than the ‘new’
methods when compared to the (relevant) published full scale test data; the ‘new’ methods
are more accurate.

12 RECOMMENDATIONS IN PDAM
The recommendations in PDAM for assessing the burst strength of a corrosion defect
(considering depth and longitudinal length) are:
1. DNV-RP-F101 for moderate to high toughness line pipe, and
2. modified B31G and RSTRENG in older, lower grade line pipe, and when there is no
confidence that the requirements for the application of the more recent methods are
satisfied.
Moderate to high toughness line pipe is defined as:
i. modern (clean) line pipe with a 2/3 thickness specimen size upper shelf Charpy V-notch
impact energy equal to at least 18 J (13 ftlbf) (the full size equivalent is 27 J (20 ftlbf)),
ii. meeting the minimum elongation requirements in API 5L[58], and
iii. excluding line pipe steels suspected of containing a significant number of inclusions,
second phase particles or other contaminants; typically, this means lower grade line pipe
(such as grades A and B) and other older line pipe.
Note that none of the methods have been proven in line pipe with a wall thickness greater
than 25.4 mm.

13 ASSESSING A CORRODED AREA

13.1 The Assessment Method

The best methods for assessing a corrosion defect (considering depth and longitudinal
length) in a pipeline subject to internal pressure have been identified, and their limitations
highlighted in section 12.

13.2 The Assessment Procedure

The flowchart in Figure 3 provides a general overview of the issues that need to be
considered when assessing an area of corrosion in a pipeline, and identifies the appropriate
method to be used. The flowchart does not give practical guidance of how to conduct the
assessment.

14 Penspen Integrity
 Pipeline Pigging and Integrity Management Conference, The Netherlands, May 2004

What follows is some practical guidance that can be applied to assessing an area of
corrosion: it can be applied to direct measurements obtained from excavating and inspecting
a pipeline by hand, or to the results of an intelligent pig run. The approach adopted is to use
the most conservative geometric idealisation to determine if the defect(s) are acceptable.
These assumptions are then revisited and revised systematically to move from a
conservative assessment to a more accurate (but still conservative) assessment. The
approach can be applied to any suitable assessment method. DNV-RP-F101 and modified
B31G specify an acceptance criterion, providing a necessary safety margin between failure
and acceptance.
Specified minimum material properties (as given in the line pipe steel specification) and the
specified minimum wall thickness should be used. The longitudinal and circumferential
dimensions of the defect are defined by a projection in the respective transverse direction.
Inspection tolerances should be added to all defect dimensions.
The corrosion is assumed to be in undented pipe and away from any welds. The pipeline is
assumed to be subject to only internal pressure loading. The longitudinal extent of the
corrosion is likely to be more important that the circumferential extent. In general, however,
the various steps of the assessment should be applied to both the longitudinal and
circumferential extent of the corrosion.
These assumptions simplify the assessment procedure, because it is only necessary to
consider single defects and interacting defects. However, in practice corrosion coincident
with dents, welds or other defects, and external loads, must be considered to complete the
assessment, since they can lead to a very different picture of the significance of the defects
(see Figure 11).
The corrosion is assumed to be inactive. The guidance is also applicable to active corrosion,
except that it is also necessary to consider the implications of defect growth. It is important
to establish the cause of any corrosion in a pipeline.
SCREENING
1. Identify the critical defects (i.e. depth greater than 80 percent of the wall thickness,
failure pressure less than the maximum operating pressure). This assessment assumes
that all defects are single defects, it does not take account of defect interaction. This is
non-conservative; therefore the assessment cannot stop at this stage.
INTERACTION
2. Determine whether the defect(s) can be considered as a single feature or as part of a
group of interacting features.
A number of different interaction rules have been described in the literature. One
commonly used rule is that adjacent defects are considered to interact if the spacing (in
the longitudinal or circumferential direction) between the defects is less than the
respective dimension (i.e. length or width) of the smaller defect13. The depth of the
composite defect is defined by the maximum depth14, and the length and width by the
dimensions of an enveloping rectangle
It is always conservative to assume that all of a cluster of adjacent defects interact. The
dimensions of the composite defect are defined as above.
ASSESSMENT
3. Assess the single defect(s).

13
This interaction rule is based on linear elastic fracture mechanics. It is to be found in documents
[4]
such as BS 7910 .
14
Assuming that all of the defects are on a coincident surface.

15 Penspen Integrity
 Pipeline Pigging and Integrity Management Conference, The Netherlands, May 2004

4. Assess the interacting defect(s), using the dimensions of the composite defect(s).
REVIEW
5. Consider more accurate assessment methods (less conservative) interaction rules, a
river-bottom profile, etc.) for those defect(s) which are not acceptable. Alternatively,
repair the defect or downrate the pipeline.

14 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors acknowledge the sponsors of the Pipeline Defect Assessment Manual Joint
Industry Project for their contributions and permission to publish this paper.

15 REFERENCES
1. BOLT,R., OWEN,R.W.; Recent Trends in Gas Pipeline Incidents (1970-1997): a report
by the European Gas Pipeline Incidents Data Group (EGIG), Paper C571/032/99,
Ageing Pipelines, Optimising the Management and Operation: Low Pressure - High
Pressure, IMechE Conference Transactions 1999-8 (C571), Institution of Mechanical
Engineers, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, 11-13 October 1999.
2. EIBER,R.J., MIELE,C.R., WILSON,P.R.; An Analysis of DOT Reportable Incidents on
Gas Transmission and Gathering Lines for June 1984 Through 1992, Topical Report to
Line Pipe Research Supervisory Committee of the Pipeline Research Committee of the
American Gas Association, NG-18 Report No. 213, American Gas Association, July
1995.
3. http://ops.dot.gov/stats.htm
4. ANON; Guide on methods for assessing the acceptability of flaws in fusion welded
structures, BS 7910 : 1999, Incorporating Amendment No. 1, British Standards
Institution, London, UK, 1999.
5. ANON; Managing System Integrity for Hazardous Liquid Pipelines, API Standard 1160
(ANSI/API STD 1160-2001), First Edition, November 2001.
6. LEWIS,K.; Integrity Management of Pipelines, Congreso Internacional de Ductos
(International Pipeline Congress), Mérida, Yucatán, Mexico, 14-16 November 2001.
7. KIEFNER,J.F., MAXEY,W.A., EIBER,R.J., and DUFFY,A.R.; The Failure Stress Levels
of Flaws in Pressurised Cylinders, ASTM STP 536, American Society for Testing and
Materials, Philadelphia, 1973, pp. 461-481.
8. LEIS,B.N., BRUST,F.W., SCOTT,P.M.; Development and Validation of a Ductile Flaw
Growth Analysis for Gas Transmission Line Pipe, Final Report to A.G.A. NG-18, Catalog
No. L51543, June 1991.
9. LEIS,B.N., GHADIALI,N.D.; Pipe Axial Flaw Failure Criteria - PAFFC, Version 1.0 Users
Manual and Software, Topical Report to A.G.A. NG-18, Catalog No. L51720, May 1994.
10. KNAUF,G., HOPKINS,P.; The EPRG Guidelines on the Assessment of Defects in
Transmission Pipeline Girth Welds, 3R International, 35, Jahrgang, Heft, 10-11/1996, pp.
620-624.
11. ROOVERS,P., BOOD,R., GALLI,M., MAREWSKI,U., STEINER,M., and ZARÉA,M.;
EPRG Methods for Assessing the Tolerance and Resistance of Pipelines to External
Damage, Pipeline Technology, Volume II, Proceedings of the Third International Pipeline
Technology Conference, Brugge, Belgium, 21-24 May 2000, R. Denys, Ed., Elsevier
Science, 2000, pp. 405-425.
12. HOPKINS,P.; The Application of Fitness for Purpose Methods to Defects Detected in
Offshore Transmission Pipelines, Conference on Welding and Weld Performance in the
Process Industry, London, 27-28 April 1992.

16 Penspen Integrity
 Pipeline Pigging and Integrity Management Conference, The Netherlands, May 2004

13. ANON; DNV-RP-F101, Corroded Pipelines, Det Norske Veritas, 1999.

14. KIEFNER,J.F., VIETH,P.H.; A Modified Criterion for Evaluating the Strength of Corroded
Pipe, Final Report for Project PR 3-805 to the Pipeline Supervisory Committee of the
American Gas Association, Battelle, Ohio, 1989.
15. KASTNER,W., ROHRICH,E., SCHMITT,W. and STEINBUCH,R.; Critical Crack Sizes In
Ductile Piping, International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping, Vol. 9, 1981, pp
197-219.
16. SCHULZE,H.D., TOGLER,G., BODMAN,E.; Fracture Mechanics Analysis on the
Initiation and Propagation of Circumferential and Longitudinal Defects in Straight Pipes
and Pipe Bends, Nuclear Engineering And Design, Vol. 58, 1980, pp 19-31.
17. ANON; Fitness-For-Service, API Recommended Practice 579, First Edition, American
Petroleum Institute, January 2000.
18. COSHAM,A., HOPKINS,P.; The Pipeline Defect Assessment Manual, IPC02-27067,
Proceedings of IPC 2002, International Pipeline Conference, American Society of
Mechanical Engineers, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, 2002.
19. ANON; Specifications and Requirements for Intelligent Pig Inspection of Pipelines,
Version 2.1, Pipeline Operators Forum, 6 November 1998.
20. STEPHENS,D.R., BUBENIK,T.A., and FRANCINI,R.B.; Residual Strength of Pipeline
Corrosion Defects under Combined Pressure and Axial Loads, Final Report to Line Pipe
Research Supervisory Committee of the Pipeline Research Committee of the American
Gas Association, NG-18 Report No. 216, A.G.A. Catalog No. L51722, Battelle Memorial
Institute, February 1995.
21. STEPHENS,D.R., LEIS,B.N.; Development of an Alternative Criterion for Residual
Strength of Corrosion Defects in Moderate- to High-Toughness Pipe, Volume 2,
Proceedings of the Third International Pipeline Conference (IPC 2000), Calgary, Alberta,
Canada, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 1-5 October 2000, pp. 781-792.
22. FU,B.; Advanced Engineering Methods for Assessing the Remaining Strength of
Corroded Pipelines, Ageing Pipelines, Optimising the Management and Operation: Low
Pressure - High Pressure, IMechE Conference Transactions 1999-8 (C571), Institution
of Mechanical Engineers, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, 11-13 October 1999.
23. BJØRNØY,O.H., MARLEY,M.; Assessment of Corroded Pipelines / Past, Present and
Future, Eleventh International Conference on Offshore and Polar Engineering (ISOPE
2001), Stavanger, USA, June 2001.
24. STEPHENS,D.R., FRANCINI,R.B.; A Review and Evaluation of Remaining Strength
Criteria for Corrosion Defects in Transmission Pipelines, Proceedings of ETCE/OMAE
2000 Joint Conference on Energy for the New Millennium, New Orleans, LA, USA, 14-17
February 2000.
25. BARKOW,A.G.; Don’t Bet on a Pit, Materials Protection and Performance, Vol. 11 (10),
October 1972, pp. 11-17.
26. MARVIN,C.W.; Determining the Strength of Corroded Pipe, Materials Performance, Vol.
11, No. 11, November 1972, pp. 34-40.
27. KIEFNER,J.F., DUFFY,A.R.; Criteria for Determining the Strength of Corroded Areas of
Gas Transmission Lines, Paper T, American Gas Association Operating Section on
Transmission Conference, AGA, 1973, pp. T86-T91.
28. SHANNON,R.W.E.; The Failure Behaviour of Line Pipe Defects, International Journal of
Pressure Vessel and Piping, Vol. 2, 1974, pp. 243-255.
29. MOK,D.R.B., PICK,R.J., and GLOVER,A.G.; Behaviour of Line Pipe with Long External
Corrosion, Materials Performance, Vol. 29, No. 5, May 1990, pp. 75-79.
30. MOK,D.R.B., PICK,R.J., GLOVER,A.G., and HOFF,R.; Bursting of Line Pipe with Long
External Corrosion, International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping, Vol. 46, 1991,
pp. 195-216.

17 Penspen Integrity
 Pipeline Pigging and Integrity Management Conference, The Netherlands, May 2004

31. COULSON,K.E.W., WORTHINGHAM,R.G.; Pipe Corrosion-1: Standard damage

assessment approach is overly conservative, Oil & Gas Journal, April 9th, 1990.
32. COULSON,K.E.W., WORTHINGHAM,R.G.; Pipe Corrosion-Conclusion: New guidelines
promise more accurate damage assessment, Oil & Gas Journal, April 16th, 1990.
33. HOPKINS,P., JONES,D.G.; A Study of the Behaviour of Long and Complex-Shaped
Corrosion in Transmission Pipelines, Proceedings of Eleventh International Conference
on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering (OMAE 1992), American Society of
Mechanical Engineers, Calgary, Canada, 7-11 April 1992.
34. VIETH,P.H., KIEFNER,J.F.; Database of Corroded Pipe Tests, Final Report on Contract
No. PR 218-9206 to Line Pipe Research Supervisory Committee of the American Gas
Association, Kiefner and Associates, Inc., April 1994.
35. KIEFNER,J.F., VIETH,P.H., and ROYTMAN,I.; Continued Validation of RSTRENG,
Updated Draft Final Report on Contract No. PR 218-9304 to Line Pipe Research
Supervisory Committee, Pipeline Research Committee of the American Gas Association,
Kiefner and Associates, Inc., 31 March 1995.
36. CHOUCHAOUI,B.A., PICK,R.J.; Residual Burst Strength of Pipe with Internal Corrosion
Pits, International Conference on Pipeline Reliability, Calgary, Canada, June 1992.
37. CHOUCHAOUI,B.A., PICK,R.J.; Behaviour of Isolated Pits within General Corrosion,
Pipes and Pipeline International, January-February 1994, pp. 12-20.
38. CHOUCHAOUI,B.A., PICK,R.J.; Behaviour of Circumferentially Aligned Corrosion Pits,
International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping, Vol. 57, 1994, pp. 187-200.
39. CHOUCHAOUI,B.A., PICK,R.J.; Behaviour of Longitudinally Aligned Corrosion Pits,
International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping, Vol. 67, 1996, pp. 17-35.
40. FU,B., BATTE,A.D.; Advanced Methods for the Assessment of Corrosion in Linepipe,
Health and Safety Executive Summary Report, OTO 1999-051, HSE Books, 1999.
41. NEHODA,J., HORALEK.V.; Long Term Experiences with the Maintenance of High
Pressure Pipelines at Transgas s.p., Third International Conference on Pipeline
Rehabilitation & Maintenance, Prague, Czech Republic, 4-7 September 2000.
42. BENJAMIN,A.C., VIEIRA,R.D., FREIRE,J.L.F., and DE CASTRO, J.T.P.; Burst Tests on
Pipeline with Long External Corrosion, Volume 2, Proceedings of the Third International
Pipeline Conference (IPC 2000), Calgary, Alberta, Canada, American Society of
Mechanical Engineers, 1-5 October 2000, pp. 793-799.
43. CRONIN,D.S., PICK,R.J.; Experimental Database for Corroded Pipe: Evaluation of
RSTRENG and B31G, Volume 2, Proceedings of the Third International Pipeline
Conference (IPC 2000), Calgary, Alberta, Canada, American Society of Mechanical
Engineers, 1-5 October 2000, pp. 757-767.
44. CRONIN,D.S., PICK,R.J.; A New Multi-Level Assessment Procedure for Corroded Line
Pipe, Volume 2, Proceedings of the Third International Pipeline Conference (IPC 2000),
Calgary, Alberta, Canada, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 1-5 October
2000, pp. 801-808.
45. CRONIN,D.S., ROBERTS,K.A., PICK,R.J.; Assessment of Long Corrosion Grooves in
Line Pipe, Volume 1, Proceedings of the First International Pipeline Conference (IPC
1996), Calgary, Alberta, Canada, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 1996.
46. STEWART,G., KLEVER,F.J., and RITCHIE,D.; An Analytical Model to Predict the Burst
Capacity of Pipelines, Vol. V. Pipeline Technology, International Conference on Offshore
Mechanics and Arctic Engineering (OMAE 1994), American Society of Mechanical
Engineers, 1994, pp. 177-188.
47. JONES,D.G., TURNER,T., and RITCHIE,D.; Failure Behaviour of Internally Corroded
Linepipe, Proceedings of Eleventh International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and
Arctic Engineering (OMAE 1992), American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 7-11 April
1992.

18 Penspen Integrity
 Pipeline Pigging and Integrity Management Conference, The Netherlands, May 2004

48. ROBERTS,K.A., PICK,R.J.; Correction for Longitudinal Stress in the Assessment of

Corroded Line Pipe, Proceedings of Second International Pipeline Conference (IPC
1998), Calgary, Alberta, Canada, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 8-11 June
1998, pp. 553-561.
49. BJØRNØY,O.H., SIGURDSSON,G., and CRAMER,E.H.; Residual Strength of Corroded
Pipelines, DNV Test Results, Tenth International Conference on Offshore and Polar
Engineering (ISOPE 2000), Seattle, USA, 28 May - 2 June 2000.
50. LEIS,B.N., STEPHENS,D.R.; An Alternative Approach to Assess the Integrity of
Corroded Line Pipe - Part I: Current Status, Proceedings of the Seventh (1997)
International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference, Honolulu, USA, 25-30 May
1997, pp. 624-634.
51. LEIS,B.N., STEPHENS,D.R.; An Alternative Approach to Assess the Integrity of
Corroded Line Pipe - Part II: Alternative Criterion, Proceedings of the Seventh (1997)
International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference, Honolulu, USA, 25-30 May
1997, pp. 635-641.
52. FEARNEHOUGH,G.D, LEES,G.M., LOWES,J.M., and WEINER,R.T.; The Role of Stable
Ductile Crack Growth in the Failure of Structures, Paper 33, Conference on Practical
Application of Fracture Mechanics to Pressure Vessel Technology, Institution of
Mechanical Engineers, 1971, pp. 119-128.
53. FEARNEHOUGH,G.D., JONES,D.G.; An Approach to Defect Tolerance in Pipelines,
Paper C97/78, Conference on Tolerance of Flaws in Pressurised Components,
Institution of Mechanical Engineers, London, UK, 16-18 May 1978, pp. 179-192.
54. KLEVER,F.J.; Burst Strength of Corroded Pipe: Flow Stress Revisited, Paper OTC 7029,
24th Annual Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, Texas, USA, 4-7 May 1992, pp.
417-431.
55. RITCHIE,D., LAST,S.; Burst Criteria of Corroded Pipelines - Defect Acceptance Criteria,
Paper 32, Proceedings of the EPRG/PRC 10th Biennial Joint Technical Meeting on Line
Pipe Research, Cambridge, UK, 18-21 April 1995, pp. 32-1 - 32-11.
56. ANON; Manual for Determining the Remaining Strength of Corroded Pipelines, A
Supplement to ASME B31 Code for Pressure Piping, ASME B31G-1991 (Revision of
ANSI/ASME B31G-1984), The American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York,
USA, 1991.
57. WANG,W., SMITH,M.Q., POPELAR,C.H., MAPLE,J.A.; A New Rupture Prediction Model
for Corroded Pipelines under Combined Loading, Proceedings of Second International
Pipeline Conference (IPC 1998), Calgary, Alberta, Canada, American Society of
Mechanical Engineers, 8-11 June 1998.
58. ANON; Specification for Line Pipe, Exploration and Production Department, API
Specification 5L, American Petroleum Institute, Forty Second Edition, 1 April 2000.

19 Penspen Integrity
 Pipeline Pigging and Integrity Management Conference, The Netherlands, May 2004

internal pressure (static) internal pressure (static)

longitudinally orientated circumferentially orientated
[13]
DNV-RP-F101
[14] Kastner local collapse
corrosion modified B31G [15]
[14]
solution
RSTRENG
[7]
NG-18 equations Kastner local collapse
[8,9]
gouges PAFFC solution
[4] [17]
BS 7910 (or API 579 ) BS 7910 (or API 579)
plain dents empirical limits
1
kinked dents no method
smooth dents on welds no method
dent-gouge fracture
smooth dents and gouges [11,12] no method
model
smooth dents and other types of
dent-gouge fracture model no method
defect
Kastner local collapse
manufacturing defects in the pipe NG-18 equations
2 solution
body BS 7910 (or API 579)
BS 7910 (or API 579)
[10]
workmanship, EPRG
girth weld defects -
BS 7910 (or API 579)
workmanship
seam weld defects -
BS 7910 (or API 579)
BS 7910 (or API 579)
cracking
PAFFC

3 BS 7910 (or API 579)

environmental cracking
PAFFC
NG-18 equations Schulze global collapse
leak and rupture [16]
PAFFC solution

Note:
1. ‘No method’ indicates limitations in existing knowledge, and circumstances where the available
methods are too complex for inclusion in a document such as PDAM.
2. The term ‘manufacturing defect’ covers a wide range of pipe body defect (laminations, inclusions,
seams, gouges, pits, rolled-in slugs, etc.). Consequently, it may not be possible to characterise a
manufacturing defect in the pipe body as a metal-loss or crack-like defect. In these
circumstances it is necessary to rely on workmanship limits and industry experience.
3. Environmental cracking (stress corrosion cracking, hydrogen blisters, hydrogen stress cracking,
etc.) can be very difficult to measure and assess.
Table 1 – Recommended methods from the Pipeline Defect Assessment Manual for
assessing the burst strength of defects subject to internal pressure

20 Penspen Integrity
 Pipeline Pigging and Integrity Management Conference, The Netherlands, May 2004

method basic ‘flow defect shape ‘bulging’ factor(4)

equation stress’(5)
rectangular (d/t) 2 4
 2c   2c 
NG-18 NG-18 (1)
σY + 10 ksi or defect area 1 + 0.6275  − 0.003375
  Dt


(A/Ao)  Dt   
2
 2c 
ASME B31G NG-18 1.1σY parabolic 2/3(d/t) 1 + 0.8 

 Dt 
2 4
 2c   2c 
modified B31G NG-18 σY + 10 ksi arbitrary 0.85(d/t) 1 + 0.6275  − 0.003375
 


 Dt   Dt 
effective area and
2 4
effective length  2c   2c 
RSTRENG NG-18 σY + 10 ksi 1 + 0.6275  − 0.003375
 


(river bottom  Dt   Dt 
profile)
2
 2c 
SHELL92 NG-18 σU rectangular (d/t) 1 + 0.8 

 Dt 
2
 2c 
LPC NG-18 σU rectangular (d/t) 1 + 0.31 

 Dt 
rectangular (d/t) 2
 2c 
DNV-RP-F101 NG-18 σU (and river bottom 1 + 0.31 

profile)  Dt 
PCORRC new(2) σU rectangular (d/t) (3)

Note:
1. 2c is equivalent to L.
2. The basic equation of the part-wall NG-18 failure criterion is (where M is the bulging factor and
σ is the flow stress)
  A   d  
 1 −   
  1−   
σ θ = σ   Ao  
 =σ 
t 
   d 1 
1 −  A  1  1 −   
 
  Ao  M   t M 
3. The basic equation of the PCORRC failure criterion is
  2c  d   
 d   −0.5

σ θ = σ 1 −  1 − exp − 0.16 1 −   


  t    Rt  t   
  
4. The bulging factor in NG-18, ASME B31G, modified B31G, RSTRENG and SHELL92 is one of
the various forms of the Folias factor. The bulging factor in LPC and DNV-RP-F101 was derived
by curve fitting results to a non-linear geometry, elastic-plastic finite element parametric study.
The bulging factor in PCORRC is incorporated into the basic equation (see above).
5. SHELL92, LPC and DNV-RP-F101 state that using 0.9σU gives a conservative bias to the
predictions (the 0.9 factor is not included in Figure 9).
Table 2 – Methods for Assessing the Burst Strength of a Corroded Area (based on
longitudinal extent) subject to Internal Pressure Loading

21 Penspen Integrity
 Pipeline Pigging and Integrity Management Conference, The Netherlands, May 2004

REGULATIONS
IS A FITNESS-FOR-
PURPOSE ASSESSMENT
TYPE AND CAUSE APPROPRIATE?
OF DESIGN CODES
DEFECT/DAMAGE AND STANDARDS
YES

LOADS IDENTIFY APPROPRIATE

CHAPTER OF THE
PIPELINE DEFECT
ASSESSMENT MANUAL
PIPE GEOMETRY

DEFECT CONSULT ‘DEFECT

DIMENSIONS SPECIFIC’ FLOW CHART

MINIMUM INFORMATION
CONSULT BACKGROUND
REQUIRED TO
INFORMATION AS
UNDERTAKE THE
NECESSARY
ASSESSMENT

CONSIDER
CONSEQUENCES CONSULT DESCRIPTION
OF A FAILURE IDENTIFY DEFECT
OF METHOD AS
ASSESSMENT METHOD
NECESSARY

ACCEPTANCE CRITERION
(SAFETY FACTOR) APPLICABILITY OF
CONDUCT FITNESS-FOR-
METHOD
PURPOSE ASSESSMENT
1. STATIC LOADS
2. CYCLIC LOADS
MODEL UNCERTAINTY

NO IS THE DEFECT YES

ACCEPTABLE?

REFINE FITNESS-FOR-PURPOSE
ASSESSMENT, SEEK SPECIALIST
NO FURTHER
ASSISTANCE, OR TAKE
ASSESSMENT REQUIRED
APPROPRIATE REMEDIAL ACTION

DOCUMENT FITNESS-FOR-
PURPOSE ASSESSMENT

Figure 2 – The fitness-for-purpose assessment of a pipeline defect (algorithm from

PDAM)

22 Penspen Integrity
 Pipeline Pigging and Integrity Management Conference, The Netherlands, May 2004

CORRODED PIPELINE

Indications of low toughness include: old

line pipe, line pipe not manufactured to DOES THE LINE YES
API 5L (or equivalent), or an operating PIPE HAVE A LOW SEEK SPECIALIST ADVICE
temperature less than the DWTT TOUGHNESS?
transition temperature.
NO

MAXIMUM DEPTH
(d) GREATER YES
THAN 0.85xWALL SEEK SPECIALIST ADVICE
THICKNESS (t)

NO

IS THE YES
CORROSION SEE CHAPTER 26
IN A DENT?

NO

IS THE CORROSION
ASSOCIATED WITH YES
SEE CHAPTER 34
OTHER DAMAGE OR
DEFECTS?

NO

NO
IS THE
CORROSION ON
A WELD OR HAZ?

YES

IS THE WELD YES

Indications of low toughness include: old SEEK SPECIALIST ADVICE
UNDER-MATCHED?
line pipe, line pipe not manufactured to
API 5L, welds not fabricated to a
recognised pipeline welding standard, NO
poor quality welds, low frequency ERW
IS THE WELD
or IW seam welds, oxyacetylene girth YES
SUSPECTED OF
welds, and an operating temperature less SEEK SPECIALIST ADVICE
HAVING A LOW
than the DWTT transition temperature.
TOUGHNESS
If the upper shelf Charpy V-notch
impact energy is less than 30 J NO
(minimum), 40 J (average) then the weld
should be regarded as having a low
toughness.
IS THE PIPELINE YES
PRESSURE SEE SECTION 20.18
CYCLED?

NO

IS THE WALL
THICKNESS YES
SEEK SPECIALIST ADVICE
GREATER THAN
25.4 mm?

NO

23 Penspen Integrity
Pipeline Pigging and Integrity Management Conference, The Netherlands, May 2004

NO

YES IS THE LINE PIPE

GRADE A OR
GRADE B?

NO

IS THE 2/3-SIZE
NO CHARPY V-NOTCH
IMPACT ENERGY OF
THE LINE PIPE
GREATER THAN 18J?

YES

ARE THE MINIMUM

NO
ELONGATION
NO
REQUIREMENTS IN
API 5L SATISFIED?

YES

IS THE CORROSION YES

ARBITRARILY SEE SECTION 20.17
ORIENTATED?

NO

IS THE CORROSION YES

CIRCUMFERENTIALLY SEE SECTION 20.14 TO 20.16
ORIENTATED?

NO

IS THE CORROSION
LONGITUDINALLY
ORIENTATED?

YES

IS THE CORROSION
SUBJECT TO LOADS OTHER YES
THAN INTERNAL OR SEE SECTION 20.13
EXTERNAL PRESSURE?

NO

SEE SECTION 20.12.2.2

MAXIMUM DEPTH
YES
(d) GREATER
SEEK SPECIALIST ADVICE
THAN 0.80xWALL
THICKNESS (t)

NO

IS THE CORROSION YES

ARBITRARILY
NO SEE SECTION 20.17
ORIENTATED?

NO

24 Penspen Integrity
 Pipeline Pigging and Integrity Management Conference, The Netherlands, May 2004

NO

IS THE CORROSION YES

CIRCUMFERENTIALLY SEE SECTION 20.14 TO 20.16
ORIENTATED?

NO

IS THE CORROSION
LONGITUDINALLY
ORIENTATED?

YES

IS THE CORROSION
SUBJECT TO LOADS OTHER YES
THAN INTERNAL OR SEEK SPECIALIST ADVICE
EXTERNAL PRESSURE?

NO

SEE SECTION 20.12.2.1

Figure 3 – The Assessment of a Corrosion Defect in a Pipeline (algorithm from PDAM)

25 Penspen Integrity
 Pipeline Pigging and Integrity Management Conference, The Netherlands, May 2004

Figure 4 – The irregular length, width and depth of a typical corrosion defect
burst pressure of defect-free pipe (plastic
burst pressure of defect normalised by

1.0 failure pressure of

pipe of reduced
blunt defect
cross-section (1-d/t)
collapse limit load)

sharp defect
decreasing increasing
acuity toughness

increasing
defect
depth (d)

0.0
0 ∞
normalised defect length

Figure 5 – The effect of material toughness, defect depth, length and acuity on burst
strength

26 Penspen Integrity
 Pipeline Pigging and Integrity Management Conference, The Netherlands, May 2004

1.4

CONSERVATIVE
actual failure stress/predicted failure stress

1.2

1.0

0.8
Battelle (1973)
CANMET (1988)
TWI (1982)
0.6 Batelle (1986)
CSM SNAM EUROPIPE (2000)
Keller et al. (1987)
UNCONSERVATIVE Herrera et al. (1992)

0.4
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
2/3 Charpy V-notch impact energy, J

Figure 6 – The effect of toughness on flow stress dependent NG-18 predictions of

burst tests of machined V-shaped notches and slots

27 Penspen Integrity
 Pipeline Pigging and Integrity Management Conference, The Netherlands, May 2004

2.0

Battelle (1973)
1.8 AGA Database (1994, 1995)
British Gas (1999) CONSERVATIVE
Det Norske Veritas (2000)
actual failure stress/predicted failure stress

1.6 Cronin and Pick (2000)

Battelle (1995)

1.4

1.2

1.0
INDEX 1
INDEX 215 INDEX 6

0.8
INDEX 9

0.6
UNCONSERVATIVE
INDEX 107
0.4
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
2/3 Charpy V-notch impact energy, J

Figure 7 – The effect of toughness on modified B31G predictions of burst tests of real
and artificial corrosion defects
2.0

Battelle (1973)
AGA Database (1994, 1995)
1.8
British Gas (1999)
Det Norske Veritas (2000)
CONSERVATIVE
actual failure stress/predicted failure stress

Cronin and Pick (2000)

1.6 Battelle (1995)

1.4

1.2

1.0

INDEX 1
0.8

INDEX 6

0.6 INDEX 9
UNCONSERVATIVE

0.4
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
2/3 Charpy V-notch impact energy, J

Figure 8 – The effect of toughness on DNV-RP-F101 predictions of real and artificial

burst tests of corrosion defects

28 Penspen Integrity
 Pipeline Pigging and Integrity Management Conference, The Netherlands, May 2004

1.0

0.9

modified B31G (X42)

0.8
modified B31G (X65) DNV-RP-F101 (X42)
d/t (normalised defect depth)

0.7 DNV-RP-F101 (X65)

0.6 PCORRC (X42)

PCORRC (X65)
0.5
ASME B31G
0.4

0.3

0.2
SHELL92 (X42)
0.1 SHELL92 (X65)

0.0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0
2c/(Rt)^0.5 (normalised defect length)

Note:
1. All of the failure loci are plotted for a hoop stress equal to the specified minimum yield strength.
2. The equations are as indicated in Table 2.
Figure 9 – Methods for assessing the burst strength of a corroded area

29 Penspen Integrity
 Pipeline Pigging and Integrity Management Conference, The Netherlands, May 2004

160

AGA Database (1994, 1995)

140 British Gas (1999)
Det Norske Veritas (2000)
Predicted Failure Stress/Yield Strength, percent

PETROBRAS (2000)
Cronin and Pick (2000)
120
Battelle (1995)

UNCONSERVATIVE
100

80

60

40

20
CONSERVATIVE

0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Failure Stress/Yield Strength, percent

Figure 10 – DNV-RP-F101 predictions of (‘reliable’) burst tests of real and artificial

corrosion subject to internal pressure

30 Penspen Integrity
 Pipeline Pigging and Integrity Management Conference, The Netherlands, May 2004

1.0

corrosion in a single features

0.9
girth weld
interacting features
0.8 features requiring further
d/t (normalised defect depth)

coincident internal and

investigation
0.7 external corrosion

0.6

0.5
UNACCEPTABLE

0.4

0.3
ACCEPTABLE
0.2
corrosion in a section of pipeline subject to large external loads
0.1
metal loss associated with a dent
0.0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0
2c/(Rt)^0.5 (normalised longitudinal defect length)

Figure 11 – Illustration of the assessment of corrosion in a pipeline, considering single

and interacting features, and then identifying other issues that may influence the
acceptability of the defects and require further investigation

31 Penspen Integrity