Akron1133204597 PDF

AN OVERVIEW AND VALIDATION OF THE FITNESS-FOR-SERVICE ASSESSMENT
PROCEDURES FOR LOCAL THIN AREAS
A Thesis
Presented to
The Graduate Faculty of the University of Akron
In Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree
Masters of Science – Mechanical Engineering
J.L. Janelle
December, 2005
AN OVERVIEW AND VALIDATION OF THE FITNESS-FOR-SERVICE ASSESSMENT
PROCEDURES FOR LOCAL THIN AREAS
J.L. Janelle
Thesis
Approved: Accepted:
Advisor Department Chair

Dr. Paul Lam Dr. Celal Batur
Committee Member Dean of College

Dr. Jiang Zhe Dr. George K. Haritos
Committee Member Dean of the Graduate School

Dr. Xiaosheng Gao Dr. George R. Newkome
Date
ii
ABSTRACT
In today’s petroleum refining industry, aging infrastructure is a primary concern when
considering replacement costs and safe operation. As vessels, piping, and tankage age in
service, they are subjected to various forms of degradation or damage that may eventually
comprise structural integrity. An engineering or Fitness-For-Service (FFS) assessment is
required to evaluate structural integrity and safely extend the life of damaged equipment.
Guidelines for performing a FFS assessment have been documented in API RP 579. The goal of
API 579 is to ensure the safety of plant personnel and the public while aging equipment
continues to operate, provide technically sound Fitness-For-Service assessment procedures for
various forms of damage, and help optimize maintenance and operation of existing facilities while
enhancing long-term economic viability.
The procedures in API 579 (2000 release) provide computational methods to assess flaws
that are found in in-service equipment caused by various damage mechanisms. The focus of this
study is to review the technical basis for the Fitness-For-Service assessment procedures for
general and local metal loss. Extensive validation of these procedures along with additional
development is presented. The conclusions of the study are recommended as the best practices
to be included in future versions of API 579. The specific objectives for the study are as follows:
• Objective 1: Validate the API 579 Section 5 LTA rules in addition to the validation in WRC
465. The validation includes comparison of the API 579 methodology to other industry
method and to a database of full scale tests.
• Objective 2: Develop new or improve upon the existing methodology to increase the
accuracy of the assessment procedures and eliminate some of the limitations.
iii
• Objective 3: Standardize the safety margin between MAWP and failure pressure for
industry analysis methods and different Design Code margins on allowable stress.
• Objective 4: Improve the existing rules for LTAs subject to supplemental loading
(circumferential extent of the LTA).
This study is part of a series of WRC Bulletins that contain the technical background to the
assessment procedures in API 579:
• WRC 430 – Review of Existing Fitness-For-Service Criteria for Crack-Like Flaws
• WRC 465 – Technologies for the Evaluation of Erosion/Corrosion, Pitting, Blisters, Shell
Out-of-Roundness, Weld Misalignment, Bulges, and Dents in Pressurized Components
• WRC CCC – An Overview and Validation of The Fitness-For-Service Assessment
Procedures for Crack-Like Flaws in API 579 (not complete as of this printing)
• WRC 471 – Development of Stress Intensity Factor Solutions for Surface and Embedded
Cracks in API 579
• WRC 478 – Stress Intensity and Crack Growth Opening Area Solutions for Through-Wall
Cracks in Cylinders and Spheres
• WRC MMM – An Overview of the Fitness-For-Service Assessment Procedures for Weld
Misalignment and Shell Distortions in API 579 (not complete as of this printing)
• WRC PPP – An Overview of the Fitness-For-Service Assessment Procedures for Pitting
Damage in API 579 (not complete as of this printing).
This study represents a significant improvement to the current techniques available in the
public domain for the analysis of Local Thin Areas. Information is also included that can be used
to standardize the different LTA analysis techniques available in industry. However, further
research, development and testing is required to further increase the accuracy of LTA analysis
methods. The shortcomings of the assessment procedures are discussed as well as areas for
future research.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
LIST OF TABLES................................................................................................................. xii
LIST OF FIGURES............................................................................................................... xiv
CHAPTER
I. INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Industry Needs................................................................................................. 1
1.2 Flaw Types and Damage Mechanisms in API 579.......................................... 2
1.3 General Corrosion and Local Thin Areas (LTAs) ............................................ 3
1.4 Need for Standardized Assessment ................................................................ 3
II. LTA ASSESSMENT AND VALIDATION OVERVIEW ................................................. 5
2.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................... 5
2.2 Acceptance Criteria.......................................................................................... 6
2.2.1 Overview .......................................................................................... 6
2.2.2 Linear Elastic Allowable Stress Classification ................................. 6
2.2.3 Non-linear Elastic-Plastic Stress Criteria ......................................... 7
2.2.4 Remaining Strength Factor .............................................................. 8
2.3 Original LTA Assessment Methodology........................................................... 9
2.4 LTA Development and Validation Work........................................................... 10
2.4.1 Introduction....................................................................................... 10
2.4.2 Kiefner, et al ..................................................................................... 10
2.4.3 Stephens, Bubenik, Leis, et al.......................................................... 11
2.4.4 Coulson, Worthington....................................................................... 12
v
2.4.5 Mok, Pick, Glover, Hoff .................................................................... 13
2.4.6 Chell ................................................................................................. 13
2.4.7 Hopkins, Jones, Turner, Ritchie, Last .............................................. 14
2.4.8 Kanninen, et al ................................................................................. 15
2.4.9 Chouchaoui, Pick ............................................................................. 15
2.4.10 Valenta, et al.................................................................................... 15
2.4.11 Zarrabi, et al .................................................................................... 16
2.4.12 Sims, et al ........................................................................................ 16
2.4.13 Batte, Fu, Vu, Kirkwood................................................................... 16
2.4.14 Fu, Stephens, Ritchie, Jones .......................................................... 17
2.5 ASME Section XI Class 2 and 3 Piping ........................................................... 17
2.6 Current In-Service Inspection Codes............................................................... 17
III. API 579 METAL LOSS ASSESSMENT PROCEDURES............................................. 19
3.1 Introduction...................................................................................................... 19
3.2 Multi-Level Assessment Procedure ................................................................ 20
3.3 Inspection Data Requirements........................................................................ 21
3.3.1 Point Thickness Readings ............................................................... 21
3.3.2 Critical Thickness Profiles ................................................................ 22
3.4 Assessment of General Metal Loss ................................................................ 23
3.4.1 Overview .......................................................................................... 23
3.4.2 Applicability and Limitations ............................................................. 24
3.4.3 Metal Loss Away from Structural Discontinuities............................. 25
3.4.3.1 Assessment with Point Thickness Readings ................... 25
3.4.3.2 Assessment with Critical Thickness Profiles ................... 26
3.4.4 Metal Loss at Major Structural Discontinuities................................. 29
3.5 Assessment of Local Metal Loss .................................................................... 31
3.5.1 Overview .......................................................................................... 31
3.5.2 Applicability and Limitations ............................................................. 31

vi
3.5.3 Assessment Procedure – Circumferential Stress Direction............. 33
3.5.3.1 Overview .......................................................................... 33
3.5.3.2 API 579 Section 5, Level 1 Assessment ......................... 33
3.5.3.3 API 579 Section 5, Level 2 Assessment ......................... 34
3.5.4 Assessment Procedure – Longitudinal Stress Direction.................. 36
3.5.4.1 Overview .......................................................................... 36
3.5.4.2 API 579 Section 5, Level 1 Assessment.......................... 37
3.5.4.3 API 579 Section 5, Level 2 Assessment.......................... 38
3.5.5 Non-Cylindrical Shells ...................................................................... 41
3.5.5.1 Overview .......................................................................... 41
3.5.5.2 Spherical Shells and Formed Heads ............................... 41
3.5.5.3 Conical Shells .................................................................. 43
3.5.5.3 Elbows ............................................................................. 43
3.6 API 579 Advanced Assessment of Metal Loss ............................................... 44
3.6.1 Overview .......................................................................................... 44
3.6.2 Assessment with Numerical Analysis .............................................. 45
3.6.3 API 579, Level 3 Assessment (Lower Bound Limit Load)................ 46
3.6.4 Plastic Collapse Load....................................................................... 48
3.7 Comparison of General and Local Metal Loss ................................................ 49
3.8 Remaining Life Evaluation ............................................................................... 50
3.8.1 Overview .......................................................................................... 50
3.8.2 Thickness Approach......................................................................... 50
3.8.3 MAWP Approach.............................................................................. 51
IV. LTA ASSESSMENT PROCEDURES FOR CIRCUMFERENTIAL STRESS............... 52
4.1 Introduction...................................................................................................... 52
4.2 Calculation of Undamaged MAWP ................................................................. 52
4.3 Calculation of Undamaged Failure Pressure .................................................. 53
vii
4.4 Calculation of Damaged MAWP and Damaged Failure Pressure................... 55
4.5 Thickness Averaging Assessment................................................................... 57
4.5.1 Overview .......................................................................................... 57
4.5.2 API 510 Assessment (Method 8) ..................................................... 57
4.5.3 API 653 Assessment (Method 9) ..................................................... 58
4.5.4 API 579 Section 4, Level 1 and Level 2 Assessment (Methods

25 and 26) ........................................................................................ 58
4.6 ASME B31.G Assessment ............................................................................... 59
4.6.1 Overview .......................................................................................... 59
4.6.2 Original ASME B31.G Assessment (Method 7) ............................... 59
4.6.3 Modified B31.G Assessment, 0.85dl Area (Method 4)..................... 62
4.6.4 Modified B31.G Assessment, Exact Area (Method 6) ..................... 64
4.7 RSTRENG Method (Method 5)........................................................................ 65
4.8 PCORR Assessment (Method 20)................................................................... 66
4.9 API 579 Assessment........................................................................................ 68
4.9.1 Overview .......................................................................................... 68
4.9.2 API 579, Level 1 Assessment (Method 1)........................................ 69
4.9.3 API 579, Level 2 Assessment, Effective Area (Method 2) ............... 69
4.9.4 API 579, Level 2 Assessment, Exact Area (Method 3).................... 70
4.9.5 API 579 Hybrid 1, Level 1 Assessment (Method 14) ....................... 70
4.9.10 API 579 Hybrid 3, Level 2 Assessment (Method 19) ...................... 74
4.9.11 API 579 Modified, Level 1 Assessment (Method 27) ...................... 74
4.9.12 API 579 Modified, Level 2 Assessment (Method 28) ...................... 75
4.10 Chell Assessment .......................................................................................... 76
viii
4.10.1 Overview.......................................................................................... 76
4.10.2 Chell Assessment (Method 12) ....................................................... 78
4.10.3 Modified Chell Assessment (Method 13) ........................................ 79
4.11 British Gas Assessment................................................................................. 79
4.11.1 Overview.......................................................................................... 79
4.11.2 British Gas Single Defect Analysis (Method 10) ............................. 81
4.11.3 British Gas Complex Defect Analysis (Method 11) ......................... 83
4.12 BS 7910 Assessment..................................................................................... 86
4.12.1 BS 7910, Appendix G Assessment, Isolated Defect (Method 21) .. 86
4.12.2 BS 7910, Appendix G Assessment, Interacting Flaws (Method

22)................................................................................................... 87
4.13 Kanninen Assessment (Method 23)............................................................... 87
4.14 Shell Theory Assessment (Method 24).......................................................... 89
4.15 Janelle Method............................................................................................... 90
4.15.1 Janelle Level 1 Assessment (Method 29) ....................................... 90
4.15.2 Janelle Level 2 Assessment (Method 30) ....................................... 91
V. VALIDATION OF LTA ASSESSMENT PROCEDURES FOR CIRCUMFERENTIAL

STRESS....................................................................................................................... 93
5.1 Introduction...................................................................................................... 93
5.2 Validation Databases ...................................................................................... 93
5.3 New LTA Analysis Methods ............................................................................ 94
5.3.1 API 579 Hybrid Assessment Procedures......................................... 95
5.3.2 New Folias Factor Development for Hybrid Methods ...................... 96
5.3.3 Modified API 579, Level 2 Folias Factor for Long Flaws ................. 97
5.3.4 Janelle Method ................................................................................. 99
5.4 Statistical Validation of LTA Methodology Using a Failure Ratio.................... 100
5.5 Summary of Validation Results ....................................................................... 101
VI. ALLOWABLE RSF FOR DIFFERENT DESIGN CODES ............................................ 102
6.1 Introduction...................................................................................................... 102

ix
6.2 Design Codes for Pressurized Equipment...................................................... 102
6.3 Margin of MAWP to Failure Pressure per Design Code ................................. 105
6.4 Allowable RSF Results.................................................................................... 105
VII. LTA ASSESSMENT PROCEDURES FOR LONGITUDINAL STRESS ...................... 106
7.1 Introduction...................................................................................................... 106
7.2 Kanninen Assessment Method ....................................................................... 106
7.3 Thickness Averaging....................................................................................... 106
7.3.1 API 510............................................................................................. 107
7.3.2 API 653............................................................................................. 107
7.4 API 579 Assessment Methods......................................................................... 107
7.4.1 API 579 Section 5, Level 1 Analysis ................................................ 107
7.4.2 API 579 Section 5, Level 2 Analysis ................................................ 107
7.4.3 Modified API 579 Section 5, Level 2 Analysis.................................. 107
7.4.4 Janelle, Level 1 Analysis.................................................................. 108
7.4.5 Janelle. Level 2 Analysis.................................................................. 112
VIII. VALIDATION OF LTA ASSESSMENT PROCEDURES FOR LONGITUDINAL

STRESS....................................................................................................................... 116
8.1 Introduction...................................................................................................... 116
8.2 Validation Databases ...................................................................................... 116
8.3 Summary of Validation Results ....................................................................... 117
IX. LTA PROCEDURES FOR HIC DAMAGE.................................................................... 118
9.1 Introduction...................................................................................................... 118
9.2 Subsurface HIC Damage ................................................................................ 118
9.3 Surface Breaking HIC Damage....................................................................... 120
X. LTA PROCEDURES FOR EXTERNAL PRESSURE .................................................. 123
XI. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS............................................................ 125
11.1 Introduction .................................................................................................... 125
11.2 LTA Assessment Procedures for Circumferential Stress .............................. 125

x
11.2.1 Recommended Methods for Circumferential Stress ....................... 125
11.2.2 Allowable Remaining Strength Factors ........................................... 126
11.3 Recommended Methods for Longitudinal Stress........................................... 126
11.4 Further LTA Assessment Development......................................................... 127
11.4.1 Material Toughness Effects............................................................. 127
11.4.2 Stress Triaxiality from LTAs ............................................................ 128
11.4.3 Rules for LTAs Near Structural Discontinuities ............................... 128
XII. NOMENCLATURE ....................................................................................................... 129
XIII. TABLES........................................................................................................................ 134
XIV. FIGURES ..................................................................................................................... 224
REFERENCES..................................................................................................................... 258
xi
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1 Stress Classification ................................................................................................ 134
2 Examples of Stress Classification ........................................................................... 135
3 Thickness Averaging for In-Service Inspection Codes............................................ 138
4 Section Properties for Computation of Longitudinal Stress in a Cylinder with a

LTA .......................................................................................................................... 139
5 LTA Assessment Methods....................................................................................... 141
6 Validation Cases for the Undamaged Failure Pressure Calculation Method .......... 143
7 Parameters for a Through-Wall Longitudinal Crack in a Cylinder Subject to a

Through-Wall Membrane and Bending Stress ........................................................ 144
8 LTA Database 1 Case Descriptions ........................................................................ 145
12 FEA Results for a Cylindrical Shell with a LTA........................................................ 149
13 FEA Results for a Spherical Shell with a LTA ......................................................... 150
14 API 579 Folias Factor Values for a Cylinder and a Sphere..................................... 151
15 Cases Omitted from Statistics ................................................................................. 153
16 Stress Limits Based on Design Codes .................................................................... 154
17 Stress Limits Based on Design Codes .................................................................... 157
18 MAWP Ratio vs. Allowable Stress for ASME Section VIII, Division 1 (Pre 1999)
and ASME B31.1 (Pre 1999) ................................................................................... 158
19 MAWP Ratio vs. Allowable Stress for ASME Section VIII, Division 1 (Post 1999)
and ASME B31.1 (Post 1999) ................................................................................. 163
xii
20 MAWP Ratio vs. Allowable Stress for ASME Section VIII, Division 2 and ASME
B31.3........................................................................................................................ 168
21 MAWP Ratio vs. Allowable Stress for the New Proposed ASME Section VIII,
Division 2 ................................................................................................................. 173
22 MAWP Ratio vs. Allowable Stress for CODAP........................................................ 178
23 MAWP Ratio vs. Allowable Stress for AS 1210 and BS 5500................................. 183
24 MAWP Ratio vs. Allowable Stress for ASME B31.4 and ASME B31.8, Class 1,
Division 2 ................................................................................................................. 188
25 MAWP Ratio vs. Allowable Stress for ASME B31.8, Class 1, Division 1 ................ 193
26 MAWP Ratio vs. Allowable Stress for ASME B31.8, Class 2.................................. 198
29 MAWP Ratio vs. Allowable Stress for API 620........................................................ 213
30 MAWP Ratio vs. Allowable Stress for API 650........................................................ 218
31 Geometry Parameters for the Circumferential Extent Validation Cases ................. 223
32 Circumferential Extent Validation Results ............................................................... 223
x iii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1 Logic Diagram for the Assessment of General or Local Metal Loss in API 579 ..... 224
2 Logic Diagram for the Assessment of Local Thin Areas in API 579 ....................... 225
3 Coefficient of Variation for Thickness Reading Data

(a) Small Variability in Thickness Profiles and the COV (b) Large Variability in
Thickness Profiles and the COV.............................................................................. 226
4 Examples of an Inspection Grid to Define the Extent of Metal Loss Damage ........ 227
5 Establishing Longitudinal and Circumferential Critical Thickness Profiles from an

Inspection Grid
(a) Inspection Planes and Critical Thickness Profile (b) Critical Thickness Profile
(CTP) – Longitudinal Plane (Projection of Line M) (c) Critical Thickness Profile
(CTP) – Circumferential Plane (Projection of Line C) ............................................. 228
6 Critical Thickness Profiles for Isolated and Multiple Flaws

(a) Isolated Flaw (b) Network of Flaws................................................................... 229
7 Zone for Thickness Averaging in a Nozzle.............................................................. 230
8 LTA to Major Structural Discontinuity Spacing Requirements in API 579............... 231
9 Example of a Zone for Thickness Averaging at a Major Structural Discontinuity ... 232
10 Level 1 Assessment Procedure for Local Metal Loss I Cylindrical Shells

(Circumferential Stress)........................................................................................... 233
11 Determination of the RSF for the Effective Area Procedure

(a) Subsection for the Effective Area Procedure (b) Minimum RSF
Determination .......................................................................................................... 234
12 Exact Area Integration Bounds................................................................................ 235
13 Supplemental Loads for a Longitudinal Stress Assessment ................................... 236
14 Assessment Locations and Parameters for a Longitudinal Stress Assessment

(a) Region of Local Metal Loss Located on the Inside Surface (b) Region of
Local Metal Loss Located on the Outside Surface.................................................. 237
15 Longitudinal Stress, Level 1 Screening Curve ........................................................ 238
16 BG Depth Increment Approach ............................................................................... 238

xiv
17 Table Curve 3D Fit of the Shell Theory Folias Factor ............................................. 239
18 Comparison Between Analysis Methods and FEA Trends for a Cylinder with a
LTA .......................................................................................................................... 239
19 3D Solid FEA Model Geometry of a Cylinder for λ = 5............................................ 240
20 Axisymmetric FEA Model Geometry of a Cylinder for λ = 5.................................... 240
21 Table Curve 2D Fit of the Modified API 579 Folias Factor ...................................... 241
22 Comparison of the Old API 579 Folias Factor to the Modified Folias Factor and
the Original Folias Factor ........................................................................................ 241
23 Screening Curve for the Circumferential Extent of an LTA ..................................... 242
24 Comparison of the Old API 579 Level 1 Screening Curve to the Modified API 579
Folias Factor Level 1 Screening Curve ................................................................... 243
25 Axisymmetric FEA Model Geometry of a Sphere for λ = 5 ..................................... 244
26 Comparison Between Analysis Methods and FEA Trends for a Sphere with a
LTA .......................................................................................................................... 244
27 Table Curve 3D Plot of the Janelle Method............................................................. 245
28 RSFA vs. MAWP Ratio for ASME Section VIII, Division 1 (Pre 1999) and ASME
B31.1 (Pre 1999) for the Modified API 579 Assessment (Method 28) .................... 246
29 RSFA vs. MAWP Ratio for ASME Section VIII, Division 1 (Post 1999) and ASME
B31.1 (Post 1999) for the Modified API 579 Assessment (Method 28) .................. 246
30 RSFA vs. MAWP Ratio for ASME Section VIII, Division 2 and ASME B31.3 for
the Modified API 579 Assessment (Method 28) ...................................................... 247
31 RSFA vs. MAWP Ratio for the New Proposed ASME Section VIII, Division 2 for
the Modified API 579 Assessment (Method 28) ...................................................... 247
32 RSFA vs. MAWP Ratio for CODAP for the Modified API 579 Assessment
(Method 28) ............................................................................................................. 248
33 RSFA vs. MAWP Ratio for AS 1210 and BS 5500 for the Modified API 579
Assessment (Method 28)......................................................................................... 248
34 RSFA vs. MAWP Ratio for ASME B31.4 and ASME B31.8, Class 1, Division 2
for the Modified API 579 Assessment (Method 28)................................................. 249
35 RSFA vs. MAWP Ratio for ASME B31.8, Class 1, Division 1 for the Modified API
579 Assessment (Method 28).................................................................................. 249
36 RSFA vs. MAWP Ratio for ASME B31.8, Class 2 for the Modified API 579
xv
39 RSFA vs. MAWP Ratio for API 620 for the Modified API 579 Assessment
(Method 28) ............................................................................................................. 251
40 RSFA vs. MAWP Ratio for API 650 for the Modified API 579 Assessment
(Method 28) ............................................................................................................. 252
41 Maximum Bending Factor as a Function of the Radius to Thickness Ratio............ 252
42 Screening Curve for the Circumferential Extent of a LTA ....................................... 253
43 Longitudinal Stress Folias Factor ............................................................................ 254
44 Subsurface HIC Damage

(a) Subsurface HIC Damage – Actual Area (b) Subsurface HIC Damage – Area
Modeled as an Equivalent Rectangle ...................................................................... 255
45 Surface Breaking HIC Damage

(a) Surface Breaking HIC Damage – Actual Area (b) Surface Breaking HIC
Damage – Area Modeled as an Equivalent Rectangle ........................................... 256
46 Idealized Geometry for a LTA Subject to External Pressure................................... 257
xvi
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
1.1 INDUSTRY NEEDS
Most US design codes and standards for pressure containing equipment do not
adequately address degradation and damage during operation. In the pressure vessel and
pipeline industries, surface flaws are major limiting factors of vessel or pipe life, and this type of
degradation due to age and aggressive environment eventually threatens the structural integrity
of equipment. Replacing vessel and piping equipment is expensive, making it cost effective and
desirable to operate slightly damaged equipment. For corrosion beyond a specified limit or other
damage mechanism like cracking, a Fitness-For-Service (FFS) assessment is required.
A FFS assessment is a quantitative engineering evaluation to determine the structural
integrity of equipment containing a flaw or damage. The American Petroleum Institute (API)
Recommended Practice (RP) 579 [1] is a comprehensive document for evaluating common flaws
and damage in pressure vessels, piping, and tankage. The guidelines presented in API 579 may
also be used in other industries as long as the applicability and limitations for an assessment are
satisfied. API 579 is intended to supplement and expand upon the requirements in the inspection
codes NBIC [2], API 510 [3], API 570 [4], and API 653 [5]. The goals are to ensure an acceptable
margin of safety, provide accurate remaining life predictions, and help optimize maintenance and
inspection for damaged equipment still in operation. The focus of this study is to further develop
and validate the rules for assessing metal loss or corrosion damage in API 579.
1
1.2 FLAW TYPES AND DAMAGE MECHANISMS IN API 579
Various types of flaws can occur in piping systems and pressure vessels due to
environmental and in-service factors. API 579 addresses the following geometric flaws and
damage mechanisms:
• Brittle Fracture: Brittle fracture is the susceptibility of a material to form crack-like flaws or
experience a catastrophic failure typically at lower temperatures.
• General Metal Loss: General metal loss is a uniform reduction in wall thickness caused
by corrosion and is one of the simplest defects to assess.
• Local Metal Loss: Local metal loss or Local Thin Areas (LTAs) are similar to general
metal loss. The geometry of these defects is more complex than general metal loss and
includes most types of isolated metal loss that can occur in pipe and vessel walls.
• Pitting: Pitting corrosion is closely related to local metal loss and is characterized by large
numbers of small pits in a given area of pipe or vessel wall. The damage can be
assessed with the same rules that are provided for LTAs with a few additional
requirements.
• Blisters and Laminations: Blisters most often appear in equipment that is in some form of
hydrogen service. Hydrogen molecules impregnate the steel, forming high-pressure
bubbles of hydrogen gas or blisters in the vessel wall. Laminations occur during the steel
plate manufacturing process and are a plane of non-fusion in the interior of the steel
plate. Blisters may also be evaluated with the analysis methodology provided for LTAs
with additional requirements.
• Weld Misalignment and Shell Distortion: Weld misalignment is an offset of plate
centerlines that occurs in the longitudinal or circumferential weld joints of vessels during
the vessel fabrication process. Shell distortion usually occurs during fabrication and is
the result of improperly rolled shell plates.
2
• Crack-Like Flaws: Crack-like flaws can have widely varying geometry and are caused by
multiple mechanisms. Rules are provided for analyzing crack-like flaws as they are, or
grinding them out and treating them like a LTA.
• Creep Damage: Creep damage occurs mostly in high temperature service and is a
relation between time, temperature, stress, and excessive strain. This damage can also
lead to cracks and crack growth.
• Dents and Gouges: Dents and gouges are forms of damage usually resulting from
mechanically cold working a material. These defects are similar to shell distortions and
LTAs respectively, but additional requirements must be met to prevent brittle fracture.
1.3 GENERAL CORROSION AND LOCAL THIN AREAS (LTAS)
Local thin areas appear in several different geometries. The first is isolated areas of general
corrosion. These "patches" of corrosion are areas of isolated uniform corrosion in a pipe or
vessel wall and are characterized by a non-varying flaw thickness profile. Areas of local metal
loss are similar to general metal loss but may have extreme variations in the flaw thickness
profile. Isolated pits are another classification of local thin area that have a circular shape and
are usually smaller than areas of general corrosion. Combinations of general metal loss, local
metal loss, and pitting can give rise to an infinite number of local thin area geometries. General
pitting, blisters, and gouges can also be thought of as local thin areas and assessed using similar
analysis methods. Likewise, a crack-like flaw may be ground out and the resulting groove
evaluated like a LTA. With many types of common defects being classified as local thin areas,
the importance of finding a reliable analysis method is evident.
1.4 NEED FOR STANDARDIZED ASSESSMENT
Currently there are twenty-five different methods compiled in this study for analyzing local
thin areas in pipes and vessels. These analysis methods all have roots in various industries,
codes, and standards. In industry, at least five of these methods are actively used in Fitness-For-
3
Service assessments today. This can make communication difficult between parties using
different assessment procedures, and some parties may be using methods with low accuracy or
reliability. Depending on the assessment code that is used, assessment results may vary
drastically. One standardized set of analysis guidelines is needed to eliminate confusion
regarding which method should be used. The focus of this study is to find the most statistically
accurate and reliable method currently available and to validate the guidelines in API 579.
4
CHAPTER II
LTA ASSESSMENT AND VALIDATION OVERVIEW
2.1 INTRODUCTION
Determining the Fitness-For-Service or safe operating pressure of corroded equipment is
not yet an exact science. As such, assessment accuracy is extremely important. In an attempt to
improve reliability, researchers have implemented test programs involving full-scale burst tests
and finite element analysis of corroded pipes and vessels. With the data collected from test
programs, many different methods and acceptance criteria for analyzing LTAs have evolved.
The questions are: which of these methods are the most accurate and can the accuracy be
further improved? In an attempt to answer these questions, large databases of burst tests and
finite element analysis have been compiled in this study from various sources. The cases in
each database are analyzed with each of analysis methods available in the public domain and
some newly developed methods. Statistical analysis of the various Fitness-For-Service
assessment methods will provide the best gage for measuring the accuracy of each method.
Alterations to the current API 579 Fitness-For-Service guidelines will be recommended
based on the findings of this study. The current procedures for inspection and analysis of an LTA
from the document are presented in later sections. The assessment methods in API 579 will be
validated and compared to all other closed formed methods presented in this study. The
validated assessment methods will be used with various construction codes, and code based
assessment guidelines will be developed and included in API 579. This will allow standardized
assessment of components designed to different construction codes.
5
2.2 ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA
2.2.1 Overview
Depending of the type of mechanical analysis being performed, different acceptance criteria
have been developed for various failure modes to insure safety in a given design. For example, a
primary concern in the design of a vacuum tower is buckling of the shell wall due to external
pressure. To prevent this type of failure, structural stability criteria have been developed for use
with buckling analysis for equipment with large compressive stresses. There are other types of
acceptance criteria such as fatigue initiation used to evaluate components subject to cyclical
loading, and similarly, creep-fatigue initiation criteria used for components exposed to cyclical
loading in the creep regime. One of the most widely used acceptance criterion is stress criteria.
Stress criteria are limits placed on stresses generated in a given component due to geometry,
loading, damage (such as an LTA), or other conditions and is based on material properties of the
component at a given temperature. The two types of stress criteria that are relevant to a LTA
assessment are linear elastic stress classification and non-linear elastic-plastic stress evaluation.
A separate approach for evaluating a LTA is the Remaining Strength Factor (RSF) criteria. With
the RSF approach, the load carrying capacity of a damaged component is compared to the load
carrying capacity of the undamaged component to calculate a reduction in strength. Either linear
elastic stress or RSF criteria are used for the closed form assessment procedures presented in
this report. Non-linear elastic-plastic stress criteria is most commonly used for advanced
(numeric) analysis of a LTA, but other criteria for fatigue, buckling, creep, or any other failure
mode may also be used.
2.2.2 Linear Elastic Allowable Stress Classification
For LTAs a quantity known as stress intensity can be computed and compared to an
allowable value of stress intensity. Stress intensity is a measure of stress derived from a yield
criterion. Two yield criteria to establish stress intensity are recommended by API 579. Maximum
6
yield stress intensity is equal to twice the maximum shear stress which is equal to the difference
between the largest and smallest principle stress as follows:
S = 2τ max = max  σ 1 − σ 2 , σ 2 − σ 3 , σ 3 − σ 1  (1)
The other yield criterion is maximum distortion energy. This is the preferred criteria and is
also known as the Von Mises equivalent stress.
1  2 0.5
( σ 1 − σ 2 ) + (σ 2 − σ 3 ) + ( σ 3 − σ 1 ) 
2 2
S = σ von Mises = (2)
2 
Determination of structural integrity is based on a comparison between calculated stress
intensity and the allowable stress intensity of the material.
There are five stress intensity categories based on location and origin of the stress field.
The five categories and their associated limits along with the tri-axial stress limits are shown in
Table 1. Examples of stress classification based on component, location, and loading is provided
in Table 2. Establishment of the allowable stress intensity for structural integrity comparison is
based on the design code used to construct the component. A detailed description of the design
codes and associated allowable stress intensities can be found in Paragraph 6.2.
2.2.3 Non-linear Elastic-Plastic Stress Criteria
Non-linear elastic-plastic stress criteria typically provide a better prediction of safe load
carrying capacity for a component. Traditional linear elastic stress classification and allowable
stress criteria make only a rough estimate of failure loads because they ignore non-linear
phenomenon that may occur in component failure. Non-linear elastic plastic analysis takes into
account geometric, material, and combined non-linearity directly, to develop plastic collapse
loads. Plastic collapse loads are defined as the maximum load where material response is
elastic-plastic including strain hardening and large displacement effects. Closed form solutions
for plastic collapse loads are not readily available, so numerical techniques such as Finite
Element Analysis (FEA) may be used to obtain a solution. The calculated stress intensity for limit
7
or plastic collapse loads can be compared to allowable stress intensities to determine a
component’s structural integrity. The concept of plastic collapse load can be used to develop a
simplified strength factor for LTAs called the Remaining Strength Factor.
2.2.4 Remaining Strength Factor
The Remaining Strength Factor (RSF) has been introduced to define the acceptability for
continued service of components containing a flaw in terms non-linear elastic plastic stress
criteria. For a LTA analysis, plastic collapse loads can be calculated using FEA or full scale burst
tests. The RSF was originally proposed by Sims [6] to evaluate LTAs and is defined as:
RSF =
{Collapse Load of Damaged Component} (3)
{Collapse Load of Undamaged Component}
Acceptance criteria can be established using the RSF in combination with traditional code
formulas, elastic stress analysis, limit load theory, or elastic-plastic analysis, depending on
complexity of the assessment. The RSF is the value calculated by many of the assessment
procedures presented in API 579. Each of the LTA assessment methods presented in this study
has been reworked in terms of the RSF where possible for ease of comparison. Detailed
procedures for calculating the RSF for each analysis method are found in Paragraphs 4.6
through 4.14. The RSF can be used to calculate either the failure pressure or the Maximum
Allowable Working Pressure (MAWP) of damaged components. The calculation for determining
the failure pressure of damaged equipment is:
Pf = P0 ⋅ RSF (4)
The MAWP is slightly different and can be calculated using the RSF and an allowable RSF
as follows:
 RSF 
MAWP = MAWP0   for RSF < RSFa (5)
 RSFa 
8
MAWP = MAWP0 for RSF ≥ RSFa (6)
In a Fitness-For-Service assessment, the calculated RSF is compared to an allowable value.
If the calculated RSF is greater than the allowable, the component may be returned to service. If
the calculated RSF is less than the allowable, the component may be derated using Equation (5).
The recommended value for the allowable remaining strength factor that is currently in API 579 is
0.9 for equipment in process services. This value can be overly conservative or un-conservative
based on the design code used in construction, type of loading, or consequence of failure. One
of the objectives of this study is to standardize the amount of conservatism in the determination of
a damaged MAWP for different design codes and assessment methods. This will be achieved by
tuning the allowable RSF so that a fixed margin on MAWP to failure pressure is maintained
regardless of design code.
2.3 ORIGINAL LTA ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY
Before specific LTA assessment procedures were developed, regions of metal loss in were
assessed using thickness averaging techniques. The origins of this method are unclear,
although some guidelines still use these procedures which have been shown to be greatly
conservative. To improve the assessment techniques for corroded pipelines, additional criteria
was developed in the late 1960’s and early 1970’s through research sponsored by Texas Eastern
Transmission Corporation and the AGA pipeline research committee. The criterion was
incorporated into ASME B31.4 and B31.8 piping design codes and is commonly referred to as the
B31.G [7] assessment criteria. The B31.G criteria are based on a fracture mechanics
relationship developed by the AGA NG-18 Line Pipe Research Committee. The relationship was
introduced by Maxey [8] and is based on a Dugdale plastic zone model, a Folias [9] bulging factor
for a through wall crack in a cylindrical shell, and a flaw depth to thickness relationship. A series
of corroded pipe burst tests were performed by Kiefner [10] to demonstrate the relationship
between the remaining strength of pipes with and without LTAs. The B31.G method is the
9
foundation for most of the local thin area assessments that are currently in use. Details of the
original B31.G calculation procedure are presented in Paragraph 4.6.2.
2.4 LTA DEVELOPMENT AND VALIDATION WORK
2.4.1 Introduction
Since initial development of local thin area assessment in the late 1960’s, many other
groups and individuals have conducted research related to this topic. Twenty-five analysis
methods developed by various authors are contained in this study for general LTAs, and many
more methods exist for analyzing specific cases. In addition to new development work, much
effort has gone into validating the existing methods and comparing the methods to determine
which is the most accurate. The following paragraphs have a brief summary of the validation and
development work that is available in the public domain.
2.4.2 Kiefner, et al
Kiefner [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17] has published multiple papers with other authors
on the subject of local thin area assessments for pipes. Contained in the papers from the late
1960’s and early 1970’s is the basis for most of today’s assessment procedures, in addition to a
large number of corroded pipe burst test cases that were used to validate the developed
methodology. Kiefner also contributed to the development of techniques that improved upon the
basic procedure, including the RSTRENG [18] (see Paragraph 4.7) method and software analysis
tool.
10
2.4.3 Stephens, Bubenik, Leis, et al
Bubenik [19] showed that finite element analysis can be used to predict the load carrying
capacity of corroded pipes. Comparisons between FEA and over 80 burst tests showed that
failure stresses were well over yield. It was also concluded that load redistribution is dependent
on geometry and strain hardening and is more significant for small deep corroded regions than
for large corrosion regions.
Stephens [20] conducted research with full scale testing and FEA on the failure of corroded
pipe subjected to internal pressure and axial loading. For pipe defects subjected only to internal
pressure, defect width was of secondary importance to defect length and depth. For pipe defects
subject to combined axial and pressure loads, defect width is significant, and results indicated
that axial loads increased the combined von Mises stress in the pipe, resulting in lower failure
pressure. Interaction of separated defects was also examined. The interaction of separated
defects is dependant on the defect size. Small defects have small interaction length and large
defects have large interaction lengths. Axial spaced defects increase the stresses when
compared to an isolated defect, which may decrease failure pressure. Circumferentially spaced
defects decrease the stresses when compared to an isolated defect, which may increase failure
pressure. This study was also used in the development of PCORR. The PCORR analytic model
uses traditional finite element analysis applied to local thin areas in pipelines.
Stephens [21] compared some of the prominent LTA assessment methods to determine the
most accurate method. Methods used in the comparison were B31.G, modified B31.G,
RSTRENG, Chell, Kanninen, Ritchie, Sims, and API 579. Conclusions showed the API 579
method to have the least variability. The modified B31.G, RSTRENG, and Chell methods also
had small variability.
Stephens [22], [23], [24], [25], [26] has investigated the fundamental mechanisms driving
failure of pipeline corrosion defects. The research involved three phases: development of an
analytic model known as PCORR, comparative evaluation of material and defect geometry
variables controlling failure, and development of a simple closed form failure assessment
11
method. A parametric study with PCORR was used to identify variables that influence failure in
moderate to high toughness pipe. The variables are ranked according to the magnitude of their
influence as follows:
1. Internal pressure
2. Vessel or pipe diameter
3. Flaw depth and wall thickness
4. Ultimate material strength
5. Defect Length
6. Defect shape and characteristics
7. Yield strength and strain hardening characteristics
8. Defect Width
9. Fracture toughness
The authors observed that pipes with low material toughness may fail at stresses below
ultimate stress. This could be caused by crack initiation at the base of corrosion defects,
resulting in failure pressures below the fully ductile prediction. PCORR was also used to develop
a closed form solution for analyzing corrosion defects. The method is fully described in
Paragraph 4.8 and is called the PCORR Assessment Method.
2.4.4 Coulson, Worthington
Coulson and Worthington [27], [28] examined spirally oriented local thin areas and the
interaction spacing between adjacent local thin areas. A full-scale burst test program was used
in the study. Axial oriented flaws were compared to spiral flaws of equal length, and it was found
that the spirally oriented flaws were less severe. A factor was developed that scaled the severity
of spiral flaws to axial flaws of equal length. Failure pressure for spiral flaws is determined by
calculating the failure pressure of an equivalent axial flaw and multiplying the result by the spiral
factor. Additionally, general rules for the interaction of adjacent defects were developed as
follows:
12
• Flaws may interact in the axial direction if the separation between them is less than or
equal to the length of the shortest flaw.
• Flaws may interact in the circumferential direction if the separation between them is less
than or equal to the width of the narrowest flaw.
• Spiral flaws may interact if the separation between them along the spiral direction is less
than or equal to the length.
• Spiral flaws separated by at least 12 inches normal to the spiral direction are not
expected to interact.
• For the assessment of interacting flaws, assessment of the individual components is also
necessary.
The burst tests to verify these rules consisted of four spiral flaw tests, two axial flaw tests,
three axial spaced flaw tests, one spirally spaced flaw test, and two circumferentially spaced flaw
tests. Further validation of this method was performed by British Gas.
2.4.5 Mok, Pick, Glover, Hoff
Mok, Pick, Glover, and Hoff [29], [30] examined the effects of long external corrosion by
expanding on the work by Coulson and Worthington. Their objective was to develop a less
conservative approach for evaluating long and long spiral flaws. Using previous tests and FEA
analysis, the authors developed a burst pressure criterion for those types of flaws based on an
orientation angle with respect to the circumferential plane of a cylindrical shell.
2.4.6 Chell
In the original B31.G assessment methodology, a Folias factor is calculated based on a non-
dimensional length parameter for the LTA. The Folias factor is used with the flaw profile to
calculate a surface correction factor and subsequent acceptance criterion. Chell [31] developed
13
an alternate form for the surface correction factor for LTA assessments. Details of the Chell
surface correction factor are presented in Paragraph 4.10.1.
2.4.7 Hopkins, Jones, Turner, Ritchie, Last
Hopkins and Jones [32] performed experimental tests to examine long flaws, interactions of
slots, interaction of small and moderate size flaws, and short deep flaws contained in a larger
shallow flaw. The experiments were performed in 24 inch pipe and included the following tests.
• Long slots: 4 cases
• Ring slots: 4 cases
• Short flaws and pits: 9 cases
• Interaction of medium flaws: 9 cases
• Short, deep flaws in a larger shallow flaw: 6 cases
Jones, Turner, and Rithcie [33] performed FEA tests to examine plane stress failures (infinite
length flaw) in 36 inch pipe. The authors were able to show that the failure sequence for the
flaws were as follows.
• Yielding of the thinned section
• Full plastic behavior of the thinned section.
• Bending stresses exceeding yield develop in the undamaged section adjacent to the
thinned section.
• Ductile failure occurs in the thinned section
Ritchie and Last [34] developed a calculation procedure to calculated the failure pressure of
a corroded shell based on the original B31.G equations. The authors modified the procedure to
remove some of the conservatism and take into account ultimate strength and strain hardening
for the damaged component.
14
2.4.8 Kanninen, et al
Kanninen [35], [36], [37], [38] and others developed methodology to analyze the failure of
LTAs subject to supplemental loading. As part of the research, full scale failure tests were
performed to study the behavior of a LTA defect in a cylindrical shell that fails due to an applied
net section bending moment. The assessment methodology developed by Kanninen is the bases
for the evaluation of the circumferential (longitudinal stress) profile of a LTA. The details of his
assessment method are presented in Paragraphs 4.13 and 7.2.
2.4.9 Chouchaoui, Pick
Chouchaoui and Pick [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44] investigated the behavior of isolated or
closely spaced corrosion flaws oriented circumferentially or longitudinally in pipe. The study
included full scale burst tests and FEA of the test cases. For isolated flaws, it was shown that the
B31.G and RSTRENG methods result in reasonable characterization of the damage. It was also
concluded that longitudinally aligned pits within a certain spacing decreases the failure pressure
of the pipe.
2.4.10 Valenta, et al
Valenta [45], [46] developed a Finite Element Analysis model and a theoretical model for
evaluating corrosion defects in gas transmission pipelines. The models were compared to the
B31.G assessment and experimental verification. It was concluded that the FEA model would
more accurately predict failure in corroded gas transmission pipelines than the ASME B31.G
assessment method.
15
2.4.11 Zarrabi, et al
Zarrabi [47] has presented methodology for assessing the integrity of cracked, eroded, or
corroded vessels, tubes, or pipe. The methodology involves Finite Element models of cylindrical
shells with part through rectangular slots. Plastic collapse pressures from the FEA are reported
for a wide range of shells and slots through the use of non-dimensional parameters.
Zarrabi [48] has developed methodology for assessing locally thin boiler tubes. By using
elastic-plastic Finite Element Analysis models of boiler tubes with local thinning, a procedure is
presented to calculate primary stress in the thinned section. The primary stress combined,
material properties of the boiler tube, and operating conditions are used to calculate the creep
and plastic lives of the boiler tube.
2.4.12 Sims, et al
Sims [49], [50] was responsible for developing the RSF acceptability criterion for LTAs as
described in Paragraph 2.2.4. In addition the authors reviewed existing methodology and
developed modified rules for evaluating LTAs and groove-like flaws.
2.4.13 Batte, Fu, Vu, Kirkwood
Batte, Fu, Vu, and Kirkwood [51], [52] undertook a British Gas group sponsored project to
improve the assessment of corroded pipelines, resulting in the BG assessment methods.
Included in that study are numerous full-scale pipe burst tests and FEA models. The burst tests
were performed on high strength steel pipes with machined single or adjacent local thin areas.
The full scale burst tests were reproduced with FEA models and the numeric results were
compared to the actual results. The BG methods are presented in Paragraph 4.11 and the
databases are presented in Paragraph 5.2.
16
2.4.14 Fu, Stephens, Ritchie, Jones
Fu, Stephens, Ritchie, Jones [53] are the authors of the most current publication from the
Pipeline Research Council. In the document, the original B31.G, modified B31.G, RSTRENG,
and British Gas (BG) closed form methods for assessing local thin areas are compared. The
study did not include the methodology currently in API 579. The cases are validated with full
scale tests which are included in Database 1 and Database 3 of this report. The study
recommends using the B31.G method for analyzing low toughness pipes and the RSTRENG and
BG methods for high toughness pipes based on statistical analysis of the burst pressures
predicted by the different methods. The BG methods (10 and 11) presented in this report have
been expanded on to include methodology for analyzing groups of closely spaced local thin
areas. Some spacing criteria is presented, but the method is still largely empirical.
2.5 ASME SECTION XI CLASS 2 AND 3 PIPING
The ASME Section XI [54], [55], [56], group on pipe flaw evaluation is currently developing
requirements for analytical evaluation of pipe wall thinning. The evaluation involves two separate
assessments for a LTA in a pipe, elbow, or reducer. The first assessment is a thickness
evaluation to determine if the minimum wall thickness is acceptable for internal pressure loads.
The second is a stress evaluation to determine if primary and secondary loads cause stress that
exceeds the material allowable limits specified by the code of construction.
2.6 CURRENT IN-SERVICE INSPECTION CODES
Current in-service inspection codes for pressure vessels, piping, and tankage in the refinery
and petrochemical industries contain assessment guidelines to evaluate LTAs. Although these
rules have been in existence for many years, they are empirically based and do not have a sound
technical background that is required to extend current limitations. A summary of the existing
rules for the API 510, API 653, API 570, and NBIC inspection codes is shown in Table 3. These
17
rules are based on average measured thickness data over a prescribed length. The advantages
and limitations of thickness averaging are discussed in Chapter 3. As an alternative, the in-
service inspection codes provide an option for evaluation by stress analysis. In this option,
assessment results are evaluated using the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section
VIII, Division 2, Appendix 4 (Hopper diagram). This option provides flexibility in the analysis but
becomes difficult to apply because the categorization procedure in Appendix 4. However, results
may be arbitrary due to stress classification with the Hopper diagram.
18
CHAPTER III
API 579 METAL LOSS ASSESSMENT PROCEDURES
3.1 INTRODUCTION
The Fitness-For-Service (FFS) assessment procedures proposed in API 579 were
developed to provide a standardized assessment methodology for inspectors, plant engineers,
and engineering specialists. The rules include classification, limitations, and acceptance criteria
for different types of metal loss. The option to calculate a derated MAWP based on the extent of
damage is also provided. The procedures are valuable for extending the life of damaged
equipment, setting inspection intervals, or determining the remaining life of damaged equipment.
Most in-service inspection codes and standards use a thickness averaging procedure to
evaluate areas of metal loss. API 579 includes modified thickness averaging rules as well as
specific LTA analysis methodology to be consistent with the inspection standards. Therefore,
metal loss is divided into two categories in API 579. General metal loss includes regions of
corrosion or erosion that have uniform or non-uniform remaining thickness. The rules for
evaluating general metal loss are presented in Section 4 of API 579. Local Metal Loss includes
regions of metal loss that have a non-uniform thickness and more detailed assessment rules are
used to provide an accurate result. The rules for evaluating local metal loss are presented in
Section 5 of API 579. The difference between general and local metal loss assessments has to
do with the amount and type of data that is required for the assessment. For general metal loss,
point thickness readings or detailed thickness profiles are required. For local metal loss, detailed
thickness profile information, which involves thickness readings and their spacing, is required.
19
The assessment procedures for general metal loss in API 579 are based on a thickness
averaging approach similar to other existing codes and provide a suitable result when applied to
uniform metal loss. For local areas of metal loss, the thickness averaging approach may still be
used; however, the results will be overly conservative. For these cases, the API 579 assessment
procedures for local metal loss can be used to reduce the conservatism in the analysis. The local
metal loss rules may also be used to evaluate general metal loss, but the amount of inspection
data and complexity of the analysis is greater. The distinction between general and local metal
loss is difficult to make without detailed knowledge of the metal loss profile, so the rules in API
579 have been structured to provide consistent results between the two methods. It is
recommended that a simpler general metal loss assessment be initially performed for either type
of metal loss. If the results are not satisfactory, an assessment using the local metal loss rules
can be used for a less conservative estimate.
3.2 MULTI-LEVEL ASSESSMENT PROCEDURE
Three levels of assessment are provided in API 579 for each flaw and damage type. In
general, each assessment level has a balance between degree of conservatism, the amount of
information required to perform the assessment, the skill of the personnel performing the
assessment and the complexity of the analysis. A logic diagram is included in each section to
illustrate how these assessment levels are interrelated. The overall logic diagram for assessing
general or local metal loss is shown in Figure 1, and the logic diagram for evaluating local metal
loss specifically is shown in Figure 2. Level 1 is the most conservative, but is easiest to use.
Practitioners usually proceed sequentially from a Level 1 to a Level 3 assessment (unless
otherwise directed by the assessment techniques) if the current assessment level does not
provide an acceptable result or a clear course of action cannot be determined. A general
overview of each assessment level and its intended use are described below:
• Level 1: The assessment procedures included in this level provide conservative
screening criteria that require a minimum amount of inspection or component information.
20
The Level 1 assessment procedures are intended for use by either plant inspection or
engineering personnel.
• Level 2: The assessment procedures included in this level provide a more detailed
evaluation that is less conservative than those from a Level 1 assessment. In a Level 2
assessment, inspection information similar to that required for a Level 1 assessment is
required; however, more detailed calculations are used in the evaluation. Level 2
assessments are intended for use by plant engineers or engineering specialists
experienced and knowledgeable in performing FFS assessments.
• Level 3: The assessment procedures included in this level provide the most detailed
evaluation that produces results that are less conservative than those from a Level 2
assessment. In a Level 3 assessment additional inspection and component information
is typically required, and the recommended analysis is based on numerical techniques
such as finite element analysis. The Level 3 assessment procedures are intended for
use by engineering specialists experienced and knowledgeable in performing FFS
evaluations.
3.3 INSPECTION DATA REQUIREMENTS
3.3.1 Point Thickness Readings (PTR)
There are two inspection techniques that may be used when characterizing a region of metal
loss. Point Thickness Readings (PTR) are a random sampling of thickness measurements in a
corroded region. PTR are only suitable for assessments where the variation in thickness
readings is statistically small. The test for significance in the variability is based on the
Coefficient of Variation (COV) of the thickness reading population. The COV is defined as the
standard deviation of a sample divided by the mean of a sample. As shown in Figure 3, if the
COV of the thickness reading population is small, then the variability in thickness readings is
small. Alternatively, if the variability in thickness readings is large, so is the COV. If the COV of
the thickness reading population minus the Future Corrosion Allowance (FCA) is less than 10%,
21
then the general metal loss is defined to be uniform and the average thickness can be computed
directly from the population of thickness readings. If the COV is greater than 10%, then the use
of thickness profiles is required to determine the average thickness. PTR data may only be used
for an API 579 Section 4 general metal loss assessment. As recommended in API 579, if point
thickness readings are used in an assessment, the assumption of general metal loss should be
confirmed considering the following:
• A minimum of 15 thickness readings is recommended unless the level of NDE utilized
can be used to confirm that the metal loss is general. In some cases, additional readings
may be required based on the size of the component, the construction details utilized,
and the nature of the environment resulting in the metal loss.
• Additional inspection may be required such as visual examination, radiography or other
NDE methods.
3.3.2 Critical Thickness Profiles (CTP)
The other technique for characterizing metal loss is by using a Critical Thickness Profile
(CTP). If possible, it is recommended that CTPs are always used for the assessment of metal
loss. They are required for a detailed API 579 Section 5 local metal loss assessment and may
also be used for an API 579 Section 4 general metal loss assessment. In addition the CTPs are
better for inspections records if continued damage is expected. If the COV test for point
thickness readings is greater than 10%, then the general metal loss is defined to be non-uniform
and the use of thickness profiles is required. An inspection grid covering the region of metal loss
is typically required to determine the extent of the damage. Examples of inspection grids used to
map the metal loss damage on a cylinder, cone, and elbow are shown in Figure 4. Once the
inspection grids have been established and the thickness readings are taken, the Critical
Thickness Profiles (CTPs) can be determined. The CTPs in the longitudinal and circumferential
directions are required for the assessment. The process to establish the CTP is shown in Figure
5. The longitudinal and circumferential CTPs are found by taking the lowest readings along the
22
lines designated by Mi and Ci, respectively, as noted in the figure. This establishes the maximum
metal loss or minimum thickness readings in the region of damage by using a "river bottom"
approach. Once the minimum thicknesses along all of the lines identified with Mi and Ci lines are
taken, these values are projected onto longitudinal and circumferential planes, respectively, to
form the CTP in these directions as shown in Figure 5. In the figure, the dimension s is the length
of the longitudinal CTP and the dimension c is the length of the circumferential CTP. The spacing
of the CTPs is the spacing of the thickness grid in the longitudinal and circumferential directions.
This process can be used for both isolated and multiple flaws as shown in Figure 6.
3.4 ASSESSMENT OF GENERAL METAL LOSS
3.4.1 Overview
The API 579 Section 4 assessment procedures can be used to evaluate uniform and non-
uniform metal loss on the outside diameter or inside diameter of a component. The results
obtained for general metal loss may be overly conservative for flaws with significant thickness
variations. To account for this, an initial screening can be performed using general metal loss
guidelines, and an additional assessment may be performed using local metal loss guidelines if
the component does not meet the general metal loss criteria.
Two procedures for evaluating general metal loss away from structural discontinuities are
provided based on the type of inspection data available. One procedure uses Point Thickness
Readings (PTR) and the other uses Critical Thickness Profiles (CTP). Point thickness readings
should be used in assessments where variance in thickness readings is small. Critical thickness
profiles are suited to handle all types of assessment. It is recommended that CTPs be used
whenever possible. Acceptability for both methods is determined from a strength criterion
dictated by the original construction code, and each has criteria to ensure against leakage. If the
strength criterion is not satisfied, rules are provided to determine the MAWP of pressurized
components or the maximum fill height for atmospheric storage tanks. Procedures are also
23
provided to establish an inspection interval based on a remaining life assessment, or to specify a
future corrosion allowance for continued operation.
A different procedure is required for metal loss at structural discontinuities. Structural
discontinuities include nozzles and branch connections, axisymmetric discontinuities such as
stiffening rings, piping systems which have thickness interdependency, or any other structural
component that affects the shell stiffness in the region of metal loss. The current assessment
methodology defines a zone of interaction between the shell and discontinuity. Acceptance for
the region of metal loss is established by determining an average thickness for each component
in the interaction zone and using the average thickness with the original design code equations
for each component and the interdependency of the two.
3.4.2 Applicability and Limitations
The following are the limitations and applicability for the Level 1 and Level 2 assessment
procedures specified in API 579.
• The component must be designed and constructed in accordance with a recognized
code or standard. This insures construction to a standard quality level and requires
normal scheduled inspections.
• The component must not be operating in the creep range. The assessment guidelines
presented here have not been validated for these conditions, although they may be
applicable. Accumulated creep strains usually become concentrated in reduced stiffness
regions. Stiffness reduction is a function of wall thickness, flaw geometry, material
properties, and load conditions. These effects have not yet been addressed, so this type
of assessment may not be conservative for these conditions.
• The region of metal loss must have relatively smooth contours without notches, crack-like
flaws, or other locations of stress concentration. Notches and other areas of stress
concentration may lead to cracking or brittle fracture, which is not considered in this type
of assessment. Similarly, the material of the component must have sufficient material
24
toughness. The local metal loss rules do not apply to materials that may be embrittled
due to temperature or operating environment
• The component is not subject to cyclic service. Fatigue screening guidelines in API 579
are separate from a general LTA assessment. The cut-off for cyclic service in API 579 is
150 cycles.
These limitations result in an acceptable level of conservatism when performing this type of
assessment.
Limitations based on loading conditions are also included. Internal pressure, maximum fill
height, or supplemental loads must be governed by equations that relate the load to a required
wall thickness. A summary of load limitations in API 579 for each assessment level are given as
follows.
• Level 1 assessments are applicable to internal or external pressure only
• Level 2 assessments may have internal or external pressure and/or supplemental
loading from weight and occasional loads
• Level 3 assessment can be performed when any of the above limitations are not satisfied
or for any load conditions.
3.4.3 Metal Loss Away from Structural Discontinuities
3.4.3.1 Assessment with Point Thickness Readings
The acceptance criteria for metal loss can be determined once the average and minimum
thicknesses have been established. The Level 1 Assessment criteria are shown below.
tam − FCA ≥ tmin (7)
tmm − FCA ≥ tlim (8)
Where the minimum permissible thickness for pressure vessels and piping is
tlim = max [ 0.5tmin , 0.10 inches ] (9)
25
and the minimum permissible thickness for tanks is
tlim = max [ 0.6tmin , 0.10 inches ] (10)
The Level 2 Assessment criteria are shown below.
tam − FCA ≥ RSFa ⋅ tmin (11)
tmm − FCA ≥ tlim (12)
The minimum permissible thickness, tlim, is evaluated using Equations (9) and (10). If the
component fails the above criteria, a damaged MAWP can be determined by substituting the
average thickness back into the original design equations as long as the minimum thickness
requirement is satisfied. For example, for a cylindrical shell subjected to internal pressure, the
MAWP could be determined as follows using a typical design equation.
1 σ a ( tam − FCA )
MAWP = ⋅ (13)
RSFa R + 0.6 ( tam − FCA )
The Level 1 calculation does not include the allowable RSF. The MAWP with inclusion of
the allowable RSF may not be higher than the original calculated MAWP.
3.4.3.2 Assessment with Critical Thickness Profiles
To perform a thickness averaging assessment with CTPs, the length for thickness
averaging, L, is computed using the following equations.
L = Q Dtmin (14)
0.5
 1 − R 
2

Q = 1.123  t
 − 1 (15)
 1 − Rt RSFa  
tam − FCA
Rt = (16)
tmin
26
The Q factor is actually derived from the API 579, section 5 assessment rules for regions of
local metal loss and can be thought of as a conservative screening method for local metal loss.
A remaining strength factor based on the remaining thickness ratio and the flaw length is
calculated as follows:
Rt
RSF = (17)
1
1− (1 − Rt )
Mt
M t = 1 + 0.48λ 2 (18)
l
λ = 1.285 (19)
Dt
tmm − FCA
Rt = (20)
tmin
In the above equations, l is the length of the local thin area based on the CTP. By setting
the RSF equal to the allowable RSF and solving for l, conservative screening criteria can be
derived which relates the length for thickness averaging to the remaining thickness ratio as
follows:
l
λ = 1.285 (21)
Dt
2
 l 
M t = 1 + 0.48 1.285  (22)
 Dt 
Rt
RSFa = (23)
1 − Rt
1−
l2
1 + 0.7926
Dt
Solving for l or the length for thickness averaging yields:
27
 
2

  
1 − Rt
l = 1.262 Dt   − 1 (24)
 Rt  
 1 − RSF  
 a  
Setting l equal to L and factoring out Q yields the following:
L = Q Dt (25)
0.5
 
2

  
 1 − Rt
Q = 1.123   − 1 (26)
 Rt  
 1 − RSF  
 a  
When the thickness averaging rules are applied to an area of metal loss that is an actual
LTA, the length for thickness averaging will be small because a small Rt ratio produces a small Q
value. This small length for thickness averaging when centered on the minimum thickness
reading will produce a small average thickness that subsequently results in a small or
conservative MAWP. The rules of API 579 have been structured to direct the user to the LTA
assessment procedures for these cases. Alternatively, when the LTA has a high remaining
thickness ratio, the value of Q becomes larger thus increasing the length for thickness averaging.
When this longer length is centered on the minimum thickness reading value, a large average
thickness and corresponding MAWP will result. This MAWP will approach the value that would
be obtained using the LTA assessment procedures. The consistency in the rules is guaranteed
because the length for thickness averaging given by Equation (14) is derived by substituting
RSFa for RSF in equation (35) and solving for l; the resulting value of l is then set to the length for
thickness averaging, L.
After the length for thickness averaging, L, is determined, the assessment is completed
based on the relative values of s and L:
• s > L the local metal loss assessment rules can be used for the evaluation
• s < L the general metal loss rules are used for the evaluation
28
When using the general metal loss rules, the average thickness for both the meridional and
circumferential planes must be considered. The average thickness in the meridional direction,
tsam, is determined by averaging the thickness readings within the dimension s over the length L,
and the average thickness is in the circumferential direction, tcam, is determined by averaging the
thickness readings within the dimension c over the length L. The minimum thickness is based on
the minimum thickness reading in the grid.
In a Level 1 assessment, tam = tsam for cylindrical shells because the only loading permitted is
internal pressure. For spheres and formed heads, the average thickness is taken as
tam=max[tsam, tcam].
In a Level 2 assessment, tsam and tcam are used directly in the analysis to account for
supplemental loads. For cylindrical shells, the acceptance criterion for the average thickness is
the same as specified in Paragraph 3.4.3.1 except Equation (11) is replaced with the following
equations.
s
tam − FCA ≥ RSFa ⋅ tmin
C
(27)
c
tam − FCA ≥ RSFa ⋅ tmin
L
(28)
For spherical shells and formed heads the assessment criterion is identical to the cylindrical
shell methodology. The only difference is how tmin is calculated. If the component fails the
specified criteria, a damaged MAWP can be determined as described in Paragraph 3.4.3.1.
3.4.4 Metal Loss at Major Structural Discontinuities
One advantage the general metal loss rules have over the local metal loss rules is that they
allow the assessment of metal loss at structural discontinuities. Examples of structural
discontinuities include local erosion and/or corrosion at vessel nozzle and piping branch
connections, internal tray support rings, stiffening rings, conical shell transitions, and flanges. In
the current edition of API 579, general and local areas of metal loss at structural discontinuities
are evaluated by determining an average thickness within a thickness averaging zone, and using
29
the thickness with the original construction code design rules to determine acceptability for
continued service. Design rules for components at a major structural discontinuity typically
involve satisfying a local reinforcement requirement (e.g. nozzle reinforcement area), stress
requirement based upon a given load condition, geometry, and thickness configuration (e.g.
flange design). These rules typically have a component with thickness that is dependent upon
the thickness of another component. To evaluate components with thickness interdependency,
the MAWP should be computed based upon the average measured thickness minus the future
corrosion allowance including the thickness required for supplemental loads for each component
using the equations in the original construction code. The calculated MAWP should be equal to
or exceed the design MAWP.
The average thickness of the region can be obtained as follows for components with
thickness interdependency as described in API 579.
• Nozzles and branch connections: The average measured thickness is determined as the
average of the thickness readings taken within the nozzle reinforcement zone as shown
in Figure 7.
• Axisymmetric Structural Discontinuities: Determine L using Equation (14) and Lv based
on the type of structural discontinuity as shown in Figures 8 and 9. The average
thickness is computed based on the smaller of these two distances. If L < Lv, the
midpoint of L should be located where the wall thickness is equal to tmm to establish a
length for thickness averaging unless the location of tmm is within L/2 of the zone for
thickness averaging. In this case, L should be positioned so that it is entirely within Lv to
compute the average thickness.
• Piping Systems: Piping systems have thickness interdependency because of the
relationship between the component thickness, piping flexibility, and the resulting stress.
For straight sections of piping, determine L using the procedure described above and
compute the average thickness to represent the section of pipe with metal loss in the
piping analysis. For elbows or bends, the thickness readings should be averaged within
the bend and a single thickness used in the piping analysis (i.e. to compute the flexibility
30
factor, system stiffness and stress intensification factor). For branch connections, the
thickness should be averaged within the reinforcement zones for the branch and header,
and these thicknesses should be used in the piping model (to compute the stress
intensification factor). An alternative assumption is to use the minimum measured
thickness to represent the component thickness in the piping model. This approach may
be warranted if the metal loss is localized; however, this may result in an overly
conservative evaluation.
3.5 ASSESSMENT OF LOCAL METAL LOSS
3.5.1 Overview
The local metal loss assessment rules are used to evaluate regions of metal loss resulting
from erosion/corrosion, mechanical damage such as grooves and gouges, blend ground areas
used to remove crack-like flaws, and the damage associated with pitting and blisters. The local
metal loss assessment rules may only be used with CTP data. These procedures use the
concept of an RSF for acceptance criteria, and contain separate rules for evaluating the
longitudinal and circumferential stress direction of a flaw in cylindrical shells.
The local metal loss rules are divided into rules for evaluating the circumferential stress
direction or longitudinal profile of an LTA and the longitudinal stress direction or circumferential
profile of an LTA. The circumferential stress assessment is used to evaluate LTAs in equipment
subject to internal pressure only where circumferential stresses dominate. The longitudinal
stress assessment is used to evaluate LTAs in equipment subject to internal pressure and
supplemental loads that may cause the longitudinal stresses to effect the flaw behavior. As in the
rules for general metal loss, two levels of assessment are provided.
31
3.5.2 Applicability and Limitations
The applicability and limitations of Level 1 and Level 2 local metal loss assessment
procedures have the same limitations as those described for general metal loss in Paragraph
3.4.2. In addition, the following limitations must be satisfied for an API 579 Section 5 LTA
assessment.
• A Level 1 assessment may only be used for components subject to internal pressure
• A Level 2 assessment may only be used for components subject to internal pressure or
cylinders subject to internal pressure and supplemental loads
• The length of a LTA may not exceed the following limitation for a Level 2 assessment.
l ≤ 3.891 Dt (29)
• The assessment must be performed using CTP inspection data. PTR inspection data
may not be used.
• The assessment may not be used to evaluate components subjected to external
pressure.
• Local metal loss rules are currently limited to flaws that meet the following minimum wall
thickness criteria. The minimum measured wall thickness may not be less than 20% of
the original wall thickness or less than 0.1 inches
tmm − FCA
Rt = (30)
tmin
Rt ≥ 0.2 (31)
tmm − FCA ≥ 0.10 inches (32)
• The local metal loss may not be near a structural discontinuity. If an LTA fails the
following criterion, the rules provided for analyzing regions of general metal loss near a
structural discontinuity in Paragraph 3.4.4 may be used.
Lmsd ≥ 1.8 Dtmin (33)
32
• The assessment is currently limited to the following components: cylindrical, conical,
spherical, elliptical, and torispherical shell sections away from structural discontinuities or
junction and head attachment locations. (See Paragraph 3.5.5)
• The assessment for longitudinal stress is only applicable to cylindrical shell sections.
3.5.3 Assessment Procedure – Circumferential Stress Direction
3.5.3.1 Overview
Due to geometry and loading of cylindrical shells, different assessment criteria are provided
in API 579 based on the stress direction. For most LTAs in cylindrical shaped shells, the
circumferential direction is limiting because hoop stresses are typically twice that of longitudinal
stresses. As a result, almost all LTA research and development has been concentrated on the
circumferential stress direction. This approach is valid for most cases where only pressure
loading is evaluated. If supplemental loads are included in the assessment, then the longitudinal
stress direction should be taken into consideration.
Two levels of assessment are provided for regions classified as local metal loss. The region
of metal loss is approximated as a simple rectangular section encompassing the critical thickness
profile for a Level 1 assessment. Level 2 uses an iterative process that slices the critical
thickness profile of the region of metal loss into subsections. Each subsection is evaluated, and
acceptance is based on the limiting subsection. These assessment methods may also be
applied to groove-like flaws and gouges. Additional geometric limitations are required for groove-
like flaws, and additional material limitations are required for gouges.
3.5.3.2 API 579 Section 5, Level 1 Analysis
A Level 1 assessment is based on a simple rectangular approximation for the area of metal
loss. This method may be overly conservative for flaws with significant variations in the critical
33
thickness profile or for groups of flaws that are closely spaced. The following procedure is
presented in API 579 for the Level 1 local metal loss assessment.
• Step 1: Determine the critical thickness profile as described in Paragraph 3.3.2.
• Step 2: Determine the minimum required thickness. For a cylinder, the minimum
required thickness for the circumferential stress direction is:
PRc
tmin = (34)
SE − 0.6 P
• Step 3: Check the restrictions covered in Paragraph 3.5.2.
• Step 4: Calculate an RSF as follows:
Rt
RSF = (35)
1
1− (1 − Rt )
Mt
tmm − FCA
Rt = (36)
tmin
M t = 1 + 0.48λ 2 (37)
l
λ = 1.285 (38)
Dt
The above equations can be represented in graphical form by plotting the metal loss
damage parameter against the remaining thickness ratio. The resulting plot is shown in Figure
10. This plot can be considered as a failure assessment diagram for local metal loss. The
MAWP for the damaged component may also be calculated using the RSF and Equations (5) and
(6).
3.5.3.3 API 579 Section 5, Level 2 Assessment
In the Level 2 assessment, the remaining strength of an LTA is evaluated using an
incremental approach. The length limitation for an LTA can be expressed in terms of lambda as
follows.
34
λ ≤ 5.0 (39)
If the above limitation is satisfied, then the RSF can be computed using the following steps.
The procedure is also presented in a standard format in Paragraph 4.9.3.
• Steps 1 – 3: Use the same procedure as Steps 1 – 3 detailed in Paragraph 3.4.3.2.
• Step 4: Implement the incremental procedure as follows:
– Rank the thickness readings in ascending order based on metal loss.
– As shown in Figure 11, set the initial evaluation starting point, s1, as the location of
maximum metal loss, this is the location in the thickness profile where tmm is
recorded; subsequent starting points should be in accordance with the ranking in
Step 1.
– At the current evaluation starting point, subdivide the thickness profile into a series
of subsections. The number and extent of the subsections should be chosen
based on the desired accuracy and should encompass the variations in metal loss.
– For each subsection, compute the Remaining Strength Factor using the following
equation where the term Ai is the area of metal loss associated with si (see Figure
12). The bulging factor for a cylindrical shell given by Equation (41) is based on the
original work by Folias.
 Ai 
1−  i 
RSF i =  Ao  (40)
 1   Ai 
1−  i  i 
 M t   Ao 
0.5
 1.02 + 0.4411( λ i )2 + 0.0006124 ( λ i )4 
Mt = 
i  (41)
 1.0 + 0.02642 ( λ i )2 + 1.533 (10 )−6 ( λ i )4 
 
Aoi = s i tmin (42)
35
lei
A = ∫ d ( x ) dx
i
(43)
lsi
• Step 5: Determine the minimum value of the Remaining Strength Factor, RSFi, for all
subsections (see Figure 11). This is the minimum value of the Remaining Strength
Factor for the current evaluation point.
• Step 6: Repeat Steps 3 through 5 of this calculation for the next evaluation point which
corresponds to the next thickness reading location in the ranked thickness profile list.
• Step 7: The Remaining Strength Factor to be used in the assessment, RSF, is the
minimum value determined for all evaluation points.
• Step 8: The MAWP for the damaged component may also be calculated using the RSF
and Equations (5) and (6).
3.5.4 Assessment Procedures – Longitudinal Stress Direction
3.5.4.1 Overview
Pressure vessels and piping are frequently subjected to significant axial and bending loads
as well as internal pressure. At this point there are no industry-accepted criteria for performance
of blunt defects under combined pressure and axial loads. To address this shortcoming, a simple
beam bending formulation is used to evaluate the longitudinal stress in cylinders due to
supplemental loads. Rules to evaluate net-section loads on cylindrical shells and pipes using
conventional elastic bending theory are provided in API 579. It is assumed in the methodology
that plane sections remain plane and that the pipe does not ovalize or distort during bending.
Section properties of net cross-sectional area and section modulus are computed based upon
uniform depth metal loss in the circumferential plane. In the event that the longitudinal stress is
compressive, a buckling check is also performed.
Supplemental loads applicable to a Level 2 assessment are shown in Figure 13. A level 1
assessment is a graphical representation of the Level 2 assessment procedure with
36
supplemental loads set to zero (internal pressure only). For a Level 2 assessment, two load
cases, weight and weight plus thermal, must be considered. The weight case includes load
controlled loads. The weight plus thermal case includes displacement controlled loads.
Acceptability is established by satisfying the von Mises equivalent stress criteria for two
critical stress locations on the cylinder cross section. The von Mises stress was used based on
the observation of full scale burst tests that ruptured due to a net section bending moment. It was
observed that flaws under the same loads failed differently depending on if the flaw was on the
tension or compression side of the pipe. The phenomenon follows the von Mises bi-axial stress
envelope. The points A and B are the critical assessment locations as shown in Figure 14.
Circumferential regions of non-uniform metal loss can be analyzed by bounding the area of metal
loss with a rectangular area. This method insures conservative results; for less conservative
results, a Level 3 assessment is required.
3.5.4.2 API 579, Section 5, Level 1 Assessment
The current API 579 Section 5, Level 1 assessment for the circumferential extent of a LTA is
a graphical procedure based on two parameters. The first parameter in the ratio of the
circumferential flaw length to the cylinder diameter and the second is the remaining thickness
ratio. The screening curve was developed using the Level 2 rules with the following
assumptions:
• The circumferential extent of the LTA can be approximated with a rectangular area
• The component was designed correctly with an allowable stress equal to two-thirds yield.
One-half of this stress was allocated for the longitudinal stress due to pressure and one-
half was allocated to a bending moment that causes maximum tension on the LTA. All
other end loads are assumed to be equal to zero.
• The graph is based on the maximum controlling radius to thickness ratio that varied from
5 to 1000 in the analysis.
• The curve is based on an allowable remaining strength factor of 0.9.
37
The actual curve was generated by back calculating remaining strength factors of 0.9 with a
range of circumferential flaw to diameter ratios and remaining thick ratios. The Level 1 screening
curve is shown in Figure 15.
3.5.4.3 API 579, Section 5, Level 2 Assessment
The Level 2 assessment procedure for longitudinal stress can be used to determine the
acceptability of the circumferential extent of a flaw in a cylindrical or conical shell subject to
pressure and/or supplemental loads. These types of loads may result in a net section axial force,
bending moment, torsion, and shear being applied to the cross section of the cylinder containing
the flaw. Supplemental loads will result in longitudinal membrane, bending, and shear stresses
acting on the flaw, in addition to the longitudinal and circumferential (hoop) membrane stress
caused by pressure.
The supplemental loads should include loads that produce both load-controlled and
displacement-controlled effects. Therefore, the net section axial force, bending moment, torsion,
and shear should be computed for two load cases; weight and weight plus thermal. The weight
load case includes pressure effects, weight of the component, occasional loads from wind or
earthquake, and other loads, which are considered as load-controlled. The weight plus thermal
load case includes the results from the weight case plus the results from a thermal case which
includes the effects of temperature, support displacements, and other loads which are considered
as displacement-controlled.
Longitudinal stresses are calculated using an elastic bending model for a beam with
cylindrical cross section subject to axial force and bending moment. The circumferential extent of
the flaw is approximated with a rectangular box bounding the circumferential critical thickness
profile. The cylinder section modulus in the beam equations is then modified to exclude the
bounding box area in the longitudinal stress calculation. Circumferential stresses are calculating
using a code equation with an increase in stress based on the RSF calculated to account for
bulging effects generated by the LTA. The API 579, Section 5, Level 2 assessment for the
38
circumferential stress direction as shown in Paragraph 3.5.3.3 is used to calculate the RSF. The
Level 2 assessment procedures are as follows:
• Step 1: For the circumferential inspection plane being evaluated, approximate the
circumferential extent of metal loss on the plane under evaluation as a rectangular
shape. for a region of local metal loss located on the inside surface,
D f = Do − 2 ( tmm − FCA ) (44)
and for a region of local metal loss located on the outside surface:
D f = Di + 2 ( tmm − FCA ) (45)
The circumferential angular extent of the region of local metal loss is:
c  180 
θ=   (θ in Degrees ) (46)
Df  π 
• Step 2: Compute the section properties of a cylinder with and without a region of local
metal loss using the equations in Table 4.
• Step 3: Compute the maximum section longitudinal membrane stress for both the weight
and weight plus thermal load cases considering points A and B in the cross section:
Aw F
σ lmA = ( MAWPr ) + +
Am − Af Am − Af
(47)
yA x
( y + b )( MAWPr ) Aw + M x  + A M y
IX IY
Aw F
σ lmB = ( MAWPr ) + +
Am − Af Am − Af
(48)
yB x
( y + b )( MAWPr ) Aw + M x  + B M y
IX IY
σ lm = max σ lmA , σ lmB  (49)
39
• Step 4: Evaluate the results as follows. The following relationship should be satisfied for
either a tensile and compressive longitudinal stress for both the weight and weight plus
thermal load cases:
σ cm
2
− σ cmσ lm + σ lm2 + 3τ 2 ≤ H σ ys (50)
with,
MAWPr  Di 
σ cm =  + 0.6  (51)
EL ⋅ RSF  Do − Di 
MT V
τ= + (52)
2 ( At + Atf ) d Am − Af
– The elastically calculated von Mises stress must be satisfied for both the weight
and weight plus thermal load cases for positions on the cross section defined by x
and y (see Figure 14). The critical points that are required to be check are labeled
A and B in the figure. For the weight case, H = 0.75, and for the weight plus
thermal case, H = 1.5. The value H = 0.75 is established considering a RSFa = 0.9
factor applied to a two-thirds factor that is typically applied to the yield stress to
establish a design stress value for a load-controlled stress (H = 0.9x0.67 ~ 0.75).
For the weight plus thermal case, a margin of two is typically applied to the yield
stress. The value of H = 1.5 represents an allowable stress reduction factor that is
typically applied to a weight plus thermal load case. This reduction was included to
compensate for possible elastic follow-up that can occur in some structures
because of a significant localized change in stiffness.
• Step 5: If the maximum longitudinal stress computed in Step 4 is compressive, then this
stress should be less than or equal to the allowable compressive stress or the allowable
tensile stress, whichever is smaller. When using this methodology to establish an
40
allowable compressive stress, an average thickness representative of the region of local
metal loss in the compressive stress zone should be used in the calculations.
• Step 6: If the longitudinal membrane stress computed in Step 3 does not satisfy the
requirements of Step 4, then the MAWP and/or supplemental loads should be reduced,
and the evaluation repeated.
If the metal loss in the circumferential plane is composed of several distinct regions, then a
conservative approach is to define a continuous region of local metal loss that encompasses all
of these regions. If this assumption is too conservative or the metal loss has significant variability
making the rectangular approximation for the remaining thickness too conservative, a numerical
procedure such as the Monte Carlo integration method may be used to compute the section
properties.
3.5.5 Non-Cylindrical Shells
3.5.5.1 Overview
Non-cylindrical shells include spherical shells, formed heads, conical shells, and elbows.
Very little technical development and experimental validation has been performed for flaws in
components with these types of geometry. The assessment procedure for non-cylindrical shells
is based on the procedure for cylindrical shells with minor modifications.
3.5.5.2 Spherical Shells and Formed Heads
The Level 1 assessment procedure for spherical shells and formed heads is the same
procedure used in an API 579, Section 5, Level 1 assessment for cylindrical shells. The Level 2
assessment uses the API 579, Section 5, Level 2 assessment for cylindrical shells with a different
Folias factor. The Folias factor for a spherical shells and formed heads replaces Equation (41) in
the API 579, Section 5, Level 2 assessment for cylindrical shells and is from the original work by
Folias [57] and is defined as follows.
41
1.0005 + 0.49001( λ ) + 0.32409 ( λ )
2
Mt = (53)
1.0 + 0.50144 ( λ ) − 0.011067 ( λ )
2
The LTA assessment procedures for formed heads in API 579 are limited to LTAs occurring
within the 0.8D center zone of the head. The minimum required thickness and maximum
allowable working pressure for spherical heads is defined as follows.
PRc
tmin = (54)
2SE − 0.2 P
2SEtc
MAWP0 = (55)
Rc + 0.2tc
The minimum required thickness and maximum allowable working pressure for elliptical
heads within the center zone of the head is defined as follows.
PDc K
tmin = (56)
2SE − 0.2 P
2SEtc
MAWP0 = (57)
KDc + 0.2tc
K = 0.2535 + 0.1400 Rell + 0.1224 Rell2 − 0.01530 Rell

3
(58)
The minimum required thickness and maximum allowable working pressure for torispherical
heads within the center zone of the head is defined as follows.
PCrc
tmin = (59)
2SE − 0.2 P
2SEtc
MAWP0 = (60)
Crc + 0.2tc
42
The procedures outlined in Paragraphs 3.5.3.2 and 3.5.3.3 to calculate RSFs for a Level 1
and 2 can be used in conjunction with the above equations to evaluate spherical shells and
formed heads.
3.5.5.3 Conical Shells
The LTA assessment procedures for conical shells are the same as those used for
cylinders. However, in the assessment procedures, the minimum required thickness is based on
the equations in the original construction code for conical shells, and the inside diameter to be
used in the assessment is specified to be the diameter at the center of the LTA. The minimum
required thickness and maximum allowable working pressure for conical shells is defined as
follows.
PDc
tmin = (61)
2 cos α ( SE − 0.6 P )
2 SEtc cos α
MAWP0 = (62)
Dc + 1.2tc cos α
The procedures outlined in Paragraphs 3.5.3.2 and 3.5.3.3 to calculate RSFs for a Level 1
and 2 can be used in conjunction with the above equations to evaluate conical shell sections.
3.5.5.4 Elbows
Bubenik and Rosenfeld [58] studied the effects of an LTA on the strength of an elbow with
analytical and experimental methods. It can be concluded from the results of the study that LTAs
in an elbow can be evaluated using the assessment procedures for a cylindrical shell if the
Lorenz factor is included in the analysis. The Lorenz factor is the ratio of the elastic membrane
stress at a point on the circumference of an elbow to the membrane stress in a cylindrical shell
with the same inside diameter and thickness. The Lorenz factor is defined as follows.
43
 Rb sin θ L 
 + 
 Rm 2 
Lf = (63)
 Rb 
 + sin θ L 
 Rm 
In the above equation, θL = 00, 1800 correspond to the crown position on the elbow, θL = 900
corresponds to the extrados of the elbow, and θL = 2700 corresponds to the intrados of the elbow.
Bubenik indicates that a conservative estimate of the failure stress for an LTA in an elbow can be
computed as follows.
  A 
 1−   
 σ  t   Ao  
σ fail =  flow   loc   (64)
 L  t   1  A  
 f   1 −     
  M t   Ao  
The term tloc in the above equation is the local wall thickness in the elbow before corrosion
and t is the nominal wall thickness of the elbow. The effects of local variation in the elbow wall
thickness from forming are neglected; therefore, in Equation (64), tloc/t = 1.0. The Lorenz factor is
included in the LTA assessment procedure by using the minimum required thickness as follows.
PDo
tmin = + MA (65)
σ E 
2  a c + PY 
 L 
 f 
3.6 API 579 ADVANCED ASSESSMENT OF METAL LOSS
3.6.1 Overview
A Level 3 assessment is API 579 is considered and advanced assessment of metal loss.
Finite element analysis is the typical method for quantifying stress in a component for a Level 3
assessment; however, other numerical methods may be employed. Linear elastic stress analysis
with appropriate stress classification or non-linear elastic-plastic stress analysis to calculate
44
collapse loads may be used. Non-linear stress analysis will more accurately duplicate actual
behavior like the redistribution of stress due to plasticity or creep which are considered directly in
the analysis. Linear elastic analysis tends to under predict strain ranges at fatigue sensitive
points, while non-linear analysis will more accurately represent actual strain ranges and the
accumulation of inelastic strains.
Components that are subject to external pressure or large compressive stresses should also
be evaluated for structural stability and buckling. Additional procedures for components subject
to cyclic loading are also provided in API 579, Appendix B.
When formulating a finite element model for a Level 3 assessment, thickness data can be
mapped directly onto two or three dimensional continuum elements as applicable. Alternately,
shell elements with different thicknesses may be used to approximate an LTA. Mesh densities
and application of loads and boundary conditions vary between applications and must be applied
using engineering experience. Special considerations must be taken into account if there are
significant supplemental loads and structural discontinuities affecting the region containing the
flaw. Flexibility and stress distribution in these locations may be affected by the location and
distribution of metal loss, may cause a reduction in calculated plastic collapse loads, and cause
difficulty in relating to the original design specifications
3.6.2 Assessment with Numerical Analysis
For a non-linear stress analysis, structural integrity can establish for a component by taking
two-thirds of the plastic collapse load. The plastic collapse load can be determined using the
following two criteria taken directly from API 579.
• Global Criteria: A global plastic collapse load is established by performing an elastic-
plastic analysis of the component subject to the specified loading conditions. The plastic
collapse load is the load which causes overall structural instability.
• Local Criteria: A local plastic collapse load is a measure of the local failure in the vicinity
of the flaw as a function of the specified loading conditions. Local failure can be defined
45
in terms of a maximum peak strain in the remaining ligament of the flaw. One
recommendation is to limit the peak strains at any point in the model to 5%. Alternatively,
a measure of local failure can also be established by placing a limit on the net section
stress in the remaining ligament of the flaw when material strain hardening is included in
the analysis. In addition, the operational requirements of the component (i.e. local
deformation); constraint effects related to the hydrostatic stress, material ductility, the
effects of the environment; and the effects of localized strain which can result in zones of
material hardness that may be subject to damage from the environment should be
considered.
An alternate method to determine structural integrity of a component may be used in place
of calculating plastic collapse loads. Applied loads in a finite element analysis may be increased
by a multiplier, and the stability of the component with respect to the loads can be determined
with non-linear elastic-plastic FEA and the global and local criteria. This procedure is referred to
as Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD).
3.6.3 API 579, Level 3 Assessment (Lower Bound Limit Load)
The following procedure for performing a Level 3 assessment using LRFD for a volumetric
flaw is provided in API 579 and is also known as the lower bound limit load. The procedure may
be modified based on specific application, component configuration, material properties, and
loading conditions. It is not applicable to cyclic loading conditions.
• Step 1: Develop a finite element model of the component including all relevant geometry
characteristics. The mesh used for the finite element analysis should be designed to
accurately model the component and flaw geometry. In addition, mesh refinement
around areas of stress and strain concentrations should be included. Based on the
experience of the Engineer performing the analysis, the analysis of one or more finite
element models may be required to ensure that an accurate description of the stress and
46
strains in the component is achieved. This type of model evaluation is particularly
important for non-linear analysis.
• Step 2: Define all relevant loading conditions including pressure, supplemental loads and
temperature distributions.
• Step 3: An accurate representation of material properties should be included in the finite
element model. An elastic-plastic material model with large displacement theory should
be used in the analysis. The Von Mises yield function and associated flow rule should be
used if plasticity is anticipated. Material hardening or softening may be included in the
analysis if the material stress-strain curve is available. If hardening is included in the
plastic collapse load analysis, it should be based upon the kinematic hardening model, or
a combined kinematic and isotropic model.
• Step 4: Determine the load to be used in the analysis by applying a load multiplier of 1.5
to the actual load. If the component is subject to multiple loads, all of the actual loads
should be proportionally scaled with the same multiplier.
• Step 5: Perform an elastic-plastic analysis. If convergence is achieved in the solution,
the component is stable under the applied loads, and the global criteria described above
is satisfied. Otherwise, the load as determined in Step 4 should be reduced and the
analysis repeated. Note that if the applied loading results in a compressive stress field
within the component, buckling may occur, and the effects of imperfections, especially for
shell structures, should be considered in the analysis.
• Step 6: Review the results of the analysis in the areas of high strain concentrations and
check the failure parameter chosen to categorize local failure. If the local criteria are not
satisfied, the applied loads should be reduced accordingly.
• Step 7: If the global and local criteria are satisfied, the component is suitable for
continued operation subject to the actual loads used in the assessment.
• Step 8: A check for shakedown should be made if the component is to remain in-service
during multiple start-up and shutdowns. This check can be made by removal and re-
47
application of the actual load. A few cycles of this load reversal may be necessary to
demonstrate shakedown. If significant incremental plastic strains occur during this load
cycling (ratcheting), the permissible operating load should be reduced; otherwise,
shakedown has occurred.
3.6.4 Plastic Collapse Load
An alternate Level 3 procedure for analyzing a LTA is by using FEA to directly calculate a
RSF. The method is known as the plastic collapse load and can be calculated with the following
procedure.
• Step1: Develop a FEA model as described in Step 1 of Paragraph 3.6.3 for both the
undamaged and damaged geometry of the component.
• Step 2: Define all relevant loading conditions including pressure, supplemental loads and
temperature distributions.
• Step 3: Include elastic-plastic material properties with kinematic hardening in the FEA
models.
• Step 4: Perform an elastic-plastic analysis for each model with increasing load
increments. The load increment that causes instability (no convergence) in the analysis
is the plastic collapse load for the component.
• Step 5: Compare the plastic collapse load of the damaged component to the undamaged
component to determine the RSF. The RSF can be used with Equations (5) and (6) to
calculate a safe operating pressure or loading condition.
• Step 6: Rerun the analysis of the damaged component at the safe operating pressure or
loading condition and performs Steps 6 – 8 in Paragraph 3.6.3.
48
3.7 COMPARISON OF GENERAL AND LOCAL METAL LOSS
The differences between the API 579 assessment procedures for general and local metal
loss can be summarized as follows:
The general metal loss rules for Level 1 and Level 2 assessments are based on establishing
an average thickness. The average thickness is then used with Code rules to determine
acceptability for continued operation. Rerates, if required, are based on the Code rules using the
average thickness.
The local metal loss rules for Level 1 and Level 2 assessments are based on establishing a
Remaining Strength Factor. The RSF is then used to determine acceptability for continued
operation. Rerates, if required, are based on the Code rules for determining the MAWP and the
RSF.
The general metal loss rules for Level 1 and Level 2 assessments can be based on point
thickness readings (subject to a restriction on the variability in the thickness reading data) or
critical thickness profiles.
The local metal loss rules for Level 1 and Level 2 assessments are based on critical
thickness profiles.
• The Level 2 assessment procedures for general and local metal loss when applied to
corrosion and/or erosion at local structural discontinuities are currently the same and use
the general metal loss rules. New Level 2 local metal loss assessment procedures are
currently being developed.
• The Level 3 assessment procedures for general and local metal loss are currently the
same. Numerical analysis using elastic-plastic stress analysis techniques is
recommended for the assessment.
As previously stated, the general and local metal loss rules have been structured to provide
consistent results. If the general metal loss rules are applied to an LTA and the assessment
results produce a conservative answer, the same LTA can be re-evaluated with the local metal
loss rules. The resulting answer will typically be less conservative. Therefore, it is recommended
49
by API 579 that regions of corrosion/erosion be evaluated initially with the general metal loss
rules, followed by an assessment using the local metal loss rules.
3.8 REMAINING LIFE EVALUATION
3.8.1 Overview
API 579 includes procedures for estimating the remaining life for components subject to
continued corrosion or degradation. Rules to evaluate the current integrity of a component are
provided by general and local metal loss assessments. However, a remaining life assessment
can be used to calculate a rough estimate to actual time of failure. This type of assessment is
valuable in determining an inspection interval, in service monitoring, or urgency of repair. Two
procedures can be used to evaluate reaming life, one based on component thickness and the
other based on maximum allowable working pressure.
3.8.2 Thickness Approach
Minimum required thickness based on in service conditions, thickness data from inspection,
and an estimated corrosion rate can be used to estimate remaining life of a component. This
method is applicable for components that do not have thickness interdependency and may be
non-conservative when applied to components with this configuration. The remaining life can be
estimated as follows:
tam − Ktam
Rlife = (66)
Crate
for components with interdependent thickness, the MAWP approach should be used.
50
3.8.3 MAWP Approach
The MAWP approach for determining remaining life was proposed by Osage [59] and is
applicable to all types of pressurized components, including those with thickness
interdependency. It also ensures that design pressure is not exceeded during operation as long
as the future corrosion rate is correctly estimated. The following procedure for the MAWP
approach is taken directly from API 579.
• Step 1: Determine the metal loss of the component, tloss, by subtracting the average
measured thickness at the time of the last inspection, tam, from the nominal thickness,
tnom.
• Step 2: Determine the MAWP for a series of increasing time increments using an
effective corrosion allowance and the nominal thickness in the computation. The
effective corrosion allowance is determined as follows:
CAe = tloss + Crate ⋅ time (67)
• Step 3: Determine the remaining life from a plot of MAWP versus time. The time at which
the MAWP curve intersects the design MAWP for the component is the remaining life of
the component.
• Step 4: Repeat the Steps 1, 2 and 3 for each component. The equipment remaining life
is taken as the smallest value of the remaining lives computed for each of the individual
components.
51
CHAPTER IV
LTA ASSESSMENT PROCEDURES FOR CIRCUMFERENTIAL STRESS
4.1 INTRODUCTION
This section contains a compilation of the LTA assessment methods published in the public
domain for evaluating the circumferential stress direction in cylindrical shells. All the methods in
this section will be used in the statistical validation to determine the most reliable method. A
complete summary of all the methods provided in Table 5. Each method is assigned a number,
and the method number will be used to identify each in the statistical analysis results.
Where possible, the methods have been converted to a standard calculation format for ease
of comparison. Methods are presented in their original form and then recast into the standard
calculation form whenever possible. For assessment of flaws governed by the circumferential
stress direction only, methods for assessment include the original and modified B31.G methods,
the Battelle method, the API 579 methods and hybrids, the Chell based methods, the British Gas
methods, and the BS 7910 methods. The modified API 510 and API 653 thickness averaging
methods and the Kanninen method are included, but are applicable to both the circumferential
and longitudinal stress direction.
4.2 CALCULATION OF UNDAMAGED MAWP
For the calculation of MAWP of an undamaged component, the following general equation is
used unless otherwise specified:
σ at
MAWP0 = (68)
R + 0.6t
52
Different design codes may use different design equations for the MAWP, but the
differences result in a negligible change in the MAWP calculation. Where a specific design code
has the largest impact on calculated MAWP is in the allowable stress basis. The allowable stress
can be significantly different for different design codes, leading to a large variation in the safety
margin between the calculated MAWP and the calculated failure pressure. The non-uniform
margin on calculated MAWP is addressed in later sections by varying the allowable remaining
strength factor.
4.3 CALCULATION OF UNDAMAGED FAILURE PRESSURE
The estimated undamaged failure pressure is calculated using methodology developed and
validated by Svensson [60]. The method is an internal pressure to inner and outer bore strain
relationship for a material that has the following stress-strain relationship.
σ = σ 0ε n (69)
The variables n and σ0 are parameters to define the true stress – true strain curve for the
material. For a thick wall cylinder, the following relationship between pressure and the material
stress-strain curve is as follows. The 1 and 2 locations are the inner radius and outer radius,
respectively.
ε2
εn
P = σ0 ∫ 3ε
dε (70)
ε1 1 − e
The formulation for a thick walled sphere is as follows.
ε2
εn
P = σ0 ∫ dε (71)
ε1 1 − e1.5ε
For the condition where the pressure is at the strain based failure pressure, the following
conditions must be satisfied.
53
 dP 
 =0 (72)
 d ε1 
n
 ε1  e 3ε1
  = (73)
 ε2   
−2
 Ro 

(
1 − 1 − e 3ε1 )  
 Ri 


  Ro 
−2

ε2 =
1
3
log e 1 − 1 − e

( 3ε1
)  
 Ri 


(74)
For a given true stress-strain curve, the above equations can be solved using various
numerical techniques to calculate the inner and outer strain values and evaluate the integral to
determine burst pressure. The following simplified solution can be derived for a thin wall cylinder,
but for the calculations in this study, the thick wall solution is always used.
n
t n 2
Pf = σ 0   (75)
( 3)
n +1
Ri  e 
For spheres, the simplified solution is as follows.
n
t  n  2n +1
Pf = σ 0   n (76)
Ri  e  3
The thick walled formulation for a cylindrical shell was compared to FEA to validate the
accuracy. The FEA models were run with non-linear geometry and an elastic-plastic true stress-
strain curve. The results from the FEA and the above methodology are almost identical. The
validation cases and results are shown in Table 6.
54
4.4 CALCULATION OF DAMAGED MAWP AND DAMAGED FAILURE PRESSURE
All the analysis methods presented here have been recast in terms of a standard calculation
format where applicable in order to provide a standard means for comparison of the methods.
Conversion to the format does not change the values calculated by each method; it only
rearranges the variables to be consistent between all the methods. The standard format consists
of evaluating an LTA by calculating certain factors with the following steps:
• Step 1: Calculate flaw area and original area. The procedure for calculating the flaw
area will vary from method to method. The original area is always the undamaged
component thickness times the length of the LTA. For methods that have an incremental
approach, the area calculation will be referred to as the effective area. The effective area
involves subdividing a LTA into sections centered on the deepest point on the critical
thickness profile in order to prevent an un-conservative result for highly irregular profiles
(See Figures 11 and 12). For a LTA that is very long, but with only one very deep
location, this prevents the severity of the damage from being averaged out over the
length of the flaw. The following equations are used to calculate the areas for the
different methods.
A0 = t ⋅ l (undamaged area) (77)
A = d ⋅ l (rectangular area) (78)
2
A= d ⋅ l (parabolic area) (79)
3
A = 0.85d ⋅ l (equivalent area) (80)
l
A = ∫ d ( x ) dx (exact area) (81)
0
55
Ai = t ( lei − lsi ) (effective undamaged area) (82)
Ai = d ( lei − lsi ) (effective rectangular area) (83)
lei
A = ∫ d ( x ) dx (effective area)
i
(84)
lsi
• Step 2: Calculate the lambda (λ) non-dimensional geometry factor and the Folias factor,
Mt. The Folias factor is based on lambda and both vary between methods.
• Step 3: Calculate the surface correction factor, Ms based on area ratio and the Folias
factor. There are two forms of Ms as shown below.
 A  1 
1−    
 A0   M t 
Ms = (B31.G) (85)
 A
1−  
 A0 
1
Ms = (Chell) (86)
 A   A  1 
1−   +    
 A0   A0   M t 
• Step 4: Calculate an RSF. The RSF is usually calculated as follows.
1
RSF = (87)
Ms
• Step 5: Calculate the final MAWP for the corroded component using Equations (5) and
(6). The failure pressure for the corroded component can be calculated with the following
equation.
Pf = P0 ( RSF ) (88)
56
This procedure is used with every method presented in this chapter where applicable. Each
method is presented in its original format and the standard format whenever possible.
4.5 THICKNESS AVERAGING ASSESSMENT
4.5.1 Overview
Thickness averaging is the simplest method used to evaluate LTAs and was developed to
provide a reasonable result for areas of general metal loss based on the average thickness of the
region. The method is not accurate for complex areas of metal loss and will produce the most
conservative results of all the methods. The thickness averaging methods do not conform to the
standard calculation format described in Paragraph 4.4.
4.5.2 API 510 Assessment (Method 8)
The API 510 assessment methodology consists of averaging thickness readings over a
specified length and comparing the average thickness to limiting thickness. The average
measured thickness, tam, is determined by averaging the thickness readings over the following
lengths:
D 
L = min  , 20 inches  when D ≤ 60 inches (89)
2 
D 
L = min  , 40 inches  when D > 60 inches (90)
3 
The required strength check is as follows:
tam − CA ≥ tmin (91)
An additional check is made on the minimum measured thickness:
57
tmm − CA ≥ 0.5tmin (92)
A MAWP and failure pressure can be calculated using the design equations and average
measured thickness over the specified region as follows.
σ a tam
MAWP = (93)
R + 0.6tam
σ uts tam
Pf = (94)
R + 0.6tam
4.5.3 API 653 Assessment (Method 9)
The API 653 assessment methodology consists of averaging thickness readings over a
specified length and comparing the average thickness to limiting thickness. The average
measured thickness, tam, is determined by averaging the thickness readings over the following
length:
L = max 3.7 Dtmm , 40.0 inches  (95)
tam − CA ≥ tmin (96)
An additional check is made on the minimum measured thickness:
tmm − CA ≥ 0.6tmin (97)
A MAWP and failure pressure can be calculated using the design equations and average
measured thickness over the specified region with Equations (93) and (94).
58
4.5.4 API 579, Section 4 Level 1 and 2 Assessment (Methods 25 and 26)
The API 579, Section 4 Level 1 and Level 2 assessment for general regions of metal loss is
also a variation of the thickness averaging methodology and is presented in Paragraphs 3.4.3.1
and III.4.3.2 respectively. These methods are used as screening criteria for a local metal loss
assessment. They were never meant to actually be used in the assessment of local metal loss,
but are still included in the statistical comparison of the LTA assessment methods. Like the other
thickness averaging methods, a MAWP and failure pressure can be calculated using the design
equations and average measured thickness over the specified region with Equations (93) and
(94)
4.6 ASME B31.G ASSESSMENT
4.6.1 Overview
The B31.G assessment method was designed to more accurately assess corrosion in pipe
lines and is included in ASME B31 Codes for Pressure Piping. The procedure was developed
based on full-scale burst tests of defected pipes. Mathematical expressions were developed
semi-empirically and based on fracture mechanics principles. The original method is a
combination of a Dugdale plastic zone size model, a Folias analysis of an axial crack in a
pressurized cylinder, and an empirically established flaw depth to pipe thickness relationship.
The original B31.G method has evolved over time with the addition of new burst tests and data.
Methods 4, 5, 6, and 7 in are the original B31.G method and its modifications including the
RSTRENG method.
4.6.2 Original ASME B31-G Assessment (Method 7)
The original B31-G LTA assessment method was first presented in the following form.
59
  2  d  
 1 −  3  t   l2
P ' = 1.1P      for ≤ 20 (98)
1 −  2  d  1  Dt
  3  
 t  M


 d l2
P ' = 1.1P 1 −  for > 20 (99)
 t Dt
By inspection, it is evident that the remaining strength factor and allowable remaining
strength factor can be written as follows.
1
= 1.1 (100)
RSFa
  2  d  
 1 −  3  t   l2
RSF =      for ≤ 20 (101)
1 −   d  1
2  Dt
  3  
 t  M


 d l2
RSF = 1 −  for > 20 (102)
 t Dt
From this, an original allowable RSF of 0.909 (1/1.1) is specified. Since the surface
correction factor defined in the standard format is equal to one over the RSF, the surface
correction factor can be written as follows.
  2  d  1 
1 −  3  t  M  2
M s =       for l ≤ 20 (103)
 1 −  2  d   Dt
    
 3  t 
 
 1  l2
Ms =   for > 20 (104)
d Dt
1 − 
 t 
60
The surface correction factor can be converted to areas by multiplying the LTA depth and
original thickness by the length of the LTA. The area of metal loss is assumed to be rectangular
with respect to the maximum depth and length of the LTA. The surface correction factor can be
rewritten as follows.
 A 1 
1 − A M  l2
Ms =  0
 for ≤ 20 (105)
 1− A  Dt
 A0 
In Equation (105), the undamaged area and parabolic damaged area are calculated using
Equations (77) and (79).
 
 1  l2
Ms =   for > 20 (106)
1 − A  Dt
 A0 
In Equation (106), the undamaged area and rectangular damaged area are calculated using
Equations (77) and (78). The original form of the Folias factor was presented as follows.
1/ 2
 l2 
M = 1 + 0.8  (107)
 Dt 
The Folias factor and the dimensional limits can be converted to the non-dimensional
parameter, lambda, as follows.
l
λ = 1.285 (108)
Dt
l2 λ2
= (109)
Dt 1.2852
M t = 1 + 0.48449λ 2 (110)
61
l2
≤ 20 becomes λ ≤ 5.75 (111)
Dt
l2
> 20 becomes λ > 5.75 (112)
Dt
The original B31.G equations can be recast in terms of the standard format and calculated
with the following steps.
• Step 1: Calculate the undamaged area and parabolic damaged area using Equations
(77) and (79). The defect area is a parabolic estimate based on the maximum depth and
total length of the defect.
• Step 2: Calculate λ and the Folias factor, Mt.
l
λ = 1.285 (115)
Do t
M t = 1.0 + 0.48449λ 2 for λ ≤ 5.75 (116)
• Step 3: Calculate the B31.G surface correction factor, Ms.
 A  1 
1 −   
A M
M s =  0  t  for λ ≤ 5.75 (117)
 A
1−  
 A0 
 
 1 
Ms =   for λ > 5.75 (118)
1 − A 
 A0 
• Step 4: Calculate the RSF as described in Paragraph 4.4.
• Step 5: Calculate new MAWP and failure pressure as described in Paragraph 4.4.
62
4.6.3 Modified B31-G Assessment, 0.85dl Area (Method 4)
The modified B31-G, 0.85 dl Area method is essentially the same as the original. The
difference between the two methods is in estimation of defect area and calculation of the Folias
factor. The Folias factor for this method was developed by the American Gas Association (AGA).
The original presentation of this method is as follows:
 d 
 10000   1 − 0.85 
P ' = P 1 +   t  (119)
 σ  d  1 
 ys  
1 − 0.85 
  t  M


By inspection, the following is apparent from the above equation.
1  10000 
= 1 +  (120)
RSFa  σ ys 
 d 
 1 − 0.85 
RSF =  t  (121)
1 −  0.85  1
d 
  
t  M


The RSF can be written in terms of a surface correction factor and areas in the same
manner as the original B31.G method. In the modified B31.G method, the Folias factor is slightly
different and is written as follows.
1/ 2
 1.255 l 2 0.0135 l 4  l2
M = 1 + −  for ≤ 50 (122)
 2 Dt 4 D 2t 2  Dt
l2 l2
M = 0.032 + 3.3 for > 50 (123)
Dt Dt
The Folias factor equations can be rewritten using lambda in place of l2/Dt as follows.
63
l2 λ2
= (124)
Dt 1.2852
M t = 1.0 + 0.3797λ 2 − 0.001936λ 4 for λ ≤ 9.1 (125)
M t = 0.01936λ 2 + 3.3 for λ > 9.1 (126)
The allowable remaining strength factor is different from the original B31.G method and is
dependant on the material properties. It can be written as follows.
σ ys
RSFa = (127)
σ ys + 10000
The Modified B31.G, 0.85 dl area method can be calculated in terms of the standard format
as follows.
• Step 1: Calculate the undamaged area and equivalent damaged area using Equations
(77) and (80).
l
λ = 1.285 (128)
Do t
M t = 1.0 + 0.3797λ 2 − 0.001936λ 4 for λ ≤ 9.1 (129)
M t = 0.01936λ 2 + 3.3 for λ > 9.1 (130)
• Step 3: Calculate the B31.G surface correction factor, Ms, using Equation (85) in
Paragraph 4.4.
64
4.6.4 Modified B31-G Assessment, Exact Area (Method 6)
The exact area modified B31.G method is exactly the same as the 0.85dl method, except for
the defect area calculation. The defect area is more accurately calculated by numerically
integrating the defect profile. The same procedure detailed in Modified B31.G Assessment,
0.85dl Area can be used with the following modifications.
• Step 1: Calculate the undamaged area and exact damaged area by numerically
integrating the defect profile using Equations (77) and (81).
• Step 2: Calculate λ and the Folias factor, Mt, with equations (128), (129), and (130).
Paragraph 4.4.
4.7 RSTRENG METHOD (METHOD 5)
The RSTRENG method differs from other B31.G methods in that it is an iterative calculation.
The flaw profile is divided into sections as described in Step 1 and an RSF is calculated based on
the current section. The advantage of the iterative approach is that very deep locations in an
otherwise shallow flaw are not averaged out over the length of the defect. The final RSF is equal
to the lowest value calculated for all the section iterations. The lambda and Folias factors along
with the surface correction factor are the same as described for the B31.G modified 0.85dl
assessment. The current API 579 Level 2 assessment method is based on the RSTRENG
iterative procedure.
• Step 1: Starting with the deepest location in the critical thickness profile, partition the LTA
into i sections. Calculate the effective undamaged area and effective damaged area for
each section using Equations (82) and (84).
• Step 2: Calculate λ and the Folias factor, Mt for each section.
65
λ = 1.285
i (l i
e − lsi )
(131)
Do t
M ti = 1.0 + 0.3797 ( λ i ) − 0.001936 ( λ i )

2 4
for λ i ≤ 9.1 (132)
M ti = 0.01936 ( λ i ) + 3.3 for λ i > 9.1

2
(133)
• Step 3: Calculate the B31.G surface correction factor, Ms, for each section.
 Ai   1 
1−  i  i 
A M
M si =  0  i t  (134)
A 
1−  i 
 A0 
• Step 4: Determine the minimum remaining strength factor as follows for all the sections:
1
RSF i = (135)
M si
RSF = min  RSF 1 , RSF 2 , ...., RSF i  (136)
• Step 5: Calculate new MAWP and failure pressure as shown in Paragraph 4.4.
4.8 PCORR ASSESSMENT (METHOD 20)
The PCORR method was developed by Battelle as part of ongoing research into the
fundamental mechanisms driving failure of pipeline corrosion defects. The focus was to derive a
more analytical, as opposed to empirical, method for predicting failure of general and complex
LTAs. A finite element analysis tool called PCORR was developed to aid in the research. The
procedure presented here is the final closed form model for the failure of blunt defects in
pipelines that are general in nature and that can be applied to critical defect problems in the
66
pipeline industry. The method is only applicable to high toughness steels, so its flexibility is
limited.
The original Battelle method was designed to predict the failure pressure of damaged pipe
and was originally presented as follows.
2t  d   l   
Pd = σ uts 1 − 1 − exp  −0.157   (137)
D  t   Rt *   
By inspection, the failure pressure for an undamaged component, and the RSF can be
separated as follows.
2t  d   l   
P0 = σ uts and RSF = 1 − 1 − exp  −0.157   (138)
D  t   Rt *   
Since this method is designed to calculate a failure pressure, no allowable RSF is needed.
This method does not use the Folias factor or surface correction factor in the calculation, but an
equivalent Folias factor can be derived using the definition of the surface correction factor in
terms of rectangular area and the definition of lambda as follows.
l l λ 2
λ = 1.285 or = (139)
Di ( t − d ) Rt * 1.285
d 1
1−
1 t Mt 1
Ms = = = (140)
RSF d  d   l   
1− 1 − 1 − exp − 0.157
t     
 t   Rt *   
Substituting lambda in the above equation and solving for the Folias factor yields the
following equation.
d
1− 1 − exp ( −0.1728λ ) 
Mt = t  (141)
exp ( −0.1728λ )
67
The Battelle assessment method can be calculated in the API 579 format with the following
steps:
• Step 1: Calculate the undamaged area and rectangular damaged area using Equations
(77) and (78).
l
λ = 1.285 (142)
Di ( t − d )
d
1− 1 − exp ( −0.1728λ ) 
Mt = t  (143)
exp ( −0.1728λ )
Paragraph 4.4.
4.9 API 579 ASSESSMENT
4.9.1 Overview
The current API 579 Level 1 and 2 assessments for regions of local metal loss are
presented in Paragraphs 3.5.3.2 and 3.5.3.3. These assessments are shown below in the
standard calculation format as methods 1 and 2. Method 3, as shown in Paragraph 4.9.4, is a
modified version of the API 579 Section 5, Level 2 assessment that calculates the exact area of
metal loss instead of using the effective area iterative procedure. Three hybrid assessments
based on API 579 assessment methodology are also included in this section. All of the Level 1
assessments use the rectangular area formulation.
68
4.9.2 API 579 Section 5, Level 1 Analysis (Method 1)
(77) and (78).
• Step 2: Calculate λ and the Modified B31.G Folias factor, Mt.
l
λ = 1.285 (144)
Di t
M t = 1.0 + 0.48λ 2 (145)
Paragraph 4.4.
4.9.3 API 579 Section 5, Level 2 Assessment, Effective Area (Method 2)
The API 579, Level 2 effective area method is identical to RSTRENG (method 5) except the
Folias factor has been modified. The level 2 assessment differs from level 1 by the area
calculation and Folias factor.
λ i = 1.285
(l
i
e − lsi )
(146)
Di t
69
1.02 + 0.4411( λ i ) + 0.006124 ( λ i )
2 4
Mt = (147)
1.0 + 0.02642 ( λ i ) + 1.533 (10−6 )( λ i )
2 4
• Step 3 – Step 5: See the Modified B31-G Assessment, Effective Area – RSTRENG
method, Steps 3 through 5 in Paragraph 4.7.
4.9.4 API 579 Section 5, Level 2 Assessment, Exact Area (Method 3)
The same procedure detailed in 2.3.4.3. can be used with the following modifications in
steps:
l
λ = 1.285 (148)
Di t
1.02 + 0.4411λ 2 + 0.006124λ 4

Mt = (149)
1.0 + 0.02642λ 2 + 1.533 (10−6 ) λ 4
Paragraph 4.4.
4.9.5 API 579 Hybrid 1, Level 1 Assessment (Method 14)
The API 579 Hybrid 1 assessment follows the same procedure as the current API 579
assessments. The λ factor and surface correction factor calculation from the Chell method in
Paragraph 4.10.2 have been substituted into the assessment as well as the B31.G Folias factor.
70
(77) and (78).
• Step 2: Calculate the Chell λ and B31.G Folias Factor, Mt.
πl
λ = 1.285 (150)
4 Di d
M t = 1.0 + 0.48λ 2 (151)
• Step 3: Calculate the Chell surface correction factor, Ms, using Equation (86) in
Paragraph 4.4.
The Level 2 Hybrid 1 assessment is identical to the Level 1 assessment except the effective area
procedure is used.
into i sections. Calculate the effective undamaged area and effective rectangular
damaged area for each section using Equations (82) and (83).
• Step 2: Calculate the Chell λ and Folias Factor, Mt, for each increment.
π ( lei − lsi )
λ = 1.285
i
(152)
4 Di d
M ti = 1.0 + 0.48 ( λ i )
2
(153)
• Step 3: Calculate the Chell surface correction factor, Ms, for each increment.
71
1
M si = (154)
 Ai   Ai   1 
1−  i  +  i   i 
 A0   A0   M t 
method, Steps 4 and 5 in Paragraph 4.7.
Hybrid 2 is identical to Hybrid 1 except that a depth dependant lambda and the BG Folias
factor is used. The Level 1 assessment is as follows.
(77) and (78).
• Step 2: Calculate λ and British Gas Folias factor, Mt.
l
λ = 1.285 (155)
Di d
M t = 1.0 + 0.18774λ 2 (156)
Paragraph 4.4.
procedure is used.
72
• Step 2: Calculate λ and the British Gas Folias factor, Mt, for each increment
λ i
= 1.285
(l
i
e − lsi )
(157)
Di d
M ti = 1.0 + 0.18774 ( λ i )
2
(158)
• Step 3: See API 579 Hybrid 1, Level 2 Assessment, Step 3 in Paragraph 4.9.6.
4.9.9 API 579 Hybrid 3, Level 1 Assessment (Methods 18)
Hybrid 3, like hybrid 2, uses different equations for λ, Mt, and Ms. The depth dependant
lambda and Chell surface correction factors are used. A new Folias factor has been developed
based on actual test data and is incorporated into the method. The details of the new JO Folias
factor are presented in Paragraph 5.3.2.
(77) and (78).
• Step 2: Calculate λ using Equation (155) and the JO Folias factor, Mt.
1.5
d
M t = 1.0 − 0.5753λ 0.5 + 1.7593λ   (159)
t
• Step 3 – Step 5: See API 579 Hybrid 1, Level 1 Assessment, Steps 3 through 5.
73
procedure is used.
• Step 2: Calculate λ using Equation (157) and the JO Folias factor, Mt, for each increment
1.5
d 
M t = 1.0 − 0.5753λ ( λ )
i 0.5
+ 1.7593λ  
i
(160)
t
• Step 3: See API 579 Hybrid 1, Level 2 Assessment, Step 3 in Paragraph 4.9.6.
4.9.11 API 579 Modified, Level 1 Assessment (Method 27)
The modified API 579 methods are identical to the current API 579 methods except that the
Folias factor has been modified to include very long flaws (no lambda limitation). The details of
the modified API 579 Folias factor are presented in Paragraph 5.3.3. The Level 1 assessment
can be calculated as follows.
(77) and (78).
• Step 2: Calculate λ and the Janelle Folias factor, Mt.
l
λ = 1.285 (161)
Di t
74
M t = 1.0010 − 0.014196λ + 0.29090λ 2 − 0.096420λ 3 +
0.020890λ 4 − 0.0030540λ 5 + 2.9570 (10−4 ) λ 6 −
(162)
1.8462 (10−5 ) λ 7 + 7.1553 (10 −7 ) λ 8 − 1.5631(10−8 ) λ 9 +
1.4656 (10−10 ) λ 10
Paragraph 4.4.
4.9.12 API 579 Modified, Level 2 Assessment (Method 28)
The API 579 Modified Level 2 assessment uses the effective area instead of the rectangular
area and can be calculated as follows.
• Step 2: Calculate λ and the Janelle Folias factor, Mt.
λ i
= 1.285
(li
e − lsi )
(163)
Di t
M t = 1.0010 − 0.014196 ( λ i ) + 0.29090 ( λ i ) − 0.096420 ( λ i ) +

2 3
0.020890 ( λ i ) − 0.0030540 ( λ i ) + 2.9570 (10−4 )( λ i ) −

4 5 6
(164)
1.8462 (10 −5 )( λ i ) + 7.1553 (10−7 )( λ i ) − 1.5631(10−8 )( λ i ) +
7 8 9
1.4656 (10 −10 )( λ i )

10
method, Steps 3 through 5 in Paragraph 4.7.
75
4.10 CHELL ASSESSMENT
4.10.1 Overview
In the Chell method, a different surface correction factor is introduced into the original B31.G
assessment method. Like the original B31.G method, the Chell surface correction factor was
originally developed to analyze crack like flaws. The Chell surface correction factor behaves
better for deep flaws than the surface correction factor introduced in B31.G. The surface
correction factors differ as follows:
 d  1 
1−    
 t  Mt 
Ms = (B31.G) (165)
d 
1−  
t
1
Ms = (Chell) (166)
 d   d  1 
1−   +    
 t   t  Mt 
The Chell surface correction factor is a more analytical solution than the empirically based
original surface correction factor and is derived by treating a cylinder with metal loss as two
separate cylinders. The area of metal is assumed to be a rectangle encompassing the area of
metal loss. Cylinder 1 is equal to the undamaged cylinder. Cylinder 2 has the radius of cylinder
1 with thickness equal to the depth of the area of metal loss. The failure pressures of cylinders 1
and 2 are calculated as follows.
σ uts R
Pfcylinder 1 = (167)
t
σ uts R  d 
Pfcylinder 2 =   (168)
t t
76
Subtracting the failure pressures for cylinder 2 from cylinder 1 will yield the failure pressure
for a cylinder with thickness equal to the minimum measured thickness of the original cylinder
containing the flaw as follows:
σ uts R σ uts R  d 
Pftmm = −   (169)
t t t
The failure pressure for cylinder 2 containing the flaw is calculated based on the Folias
factor as follows:
σ uts R  d   1 
Pf flaw =    (170)
t  t  Mt 
By adding the failure pressure for the cylinder with minimum measured thickness and the
failure pressure for cylinder 2 containing the flaw, the failure pressure for the original cylinder with
the flaw can be calculated as follows.
Pf = Pftmm + Pf flaw (171)
σ uts R σ uts R  d  σ uts R  d   1 

Pf = −  +    (172)
t t t t  t  Mt 
σ uts R
Pf0 = (173)
t
  d   d   1 
Pf = Pf0 1 −   +     (174)
  t   t   M t 
By definition, the failure pressure for a cylinder containing a flaw is equal to the undamaged
failure pressure multiplied by a remaining strength factor.
 d   d  1 
RSF = 1 −   +     (175)
 t   t  Mt 
77
1
RSF = (176)
Ms
1
Ms = (177)
 d   d  1 
1−   +    
 t   t  Mt 
It can be shown that as the solution approaches a through wall flaw (d = t), the Chell surface
correction factor goes to infinity while the B31.G surface correction factor is simply equal to the
Folias factor. This causes better behavior with the Chell surface correction factor for deep flaws.
Also, an alternate lambda parameter has been derived from the Chell work.
4.10.2 Chell Assessment (Method 12)
The Chell assessment method can be calculated with the following steps:
• Step 2: Calculate the Chell λ and the B31.G Folias factor, Mt.
πl
λ = 1.285 (178)
4 Di d
M t = 1.0 + 0.48449λ 2 (179)
Paragraph 4.4.
78
4.10.3 Modified Chell Assessment (Method 13)
The modified Chell uses a D/t dependent Folias factor and an effective area calculation.
The Chell procedure can be used with the following modifications.
into i sections. Calculate the effective undamaged area and effective rectangular
damaged area for each section using Equations (82) and (83).
• Step 2: Calculate the Folias factor as follows, where Amm, and Amb are functions that are
defined by the ratio of the diameter to the thickness. The below factors were developed
based on a through wall crack like flaw in a cylinder.
M T = Max ( Amm + Amb ) , ( Amm − Amb )  (180)
The parameters Amm and Amb are evaluated using the information in Table 7 with λ
computed from the following equation:
1.818l
λ= (181)
Ri t
Paragraph 4.4.
4.11 BRITISH GAS ASSESSMENT
4.11.1 Overview
LTA defects are separated into two categories in the British Gas methods: single defects
and complex defects. A single defect is defined as an isolated pit or area of general corrosion.
Complex defects are groups of pits or general corrosion. The single defect analysis can be used
79
as a lower bound for complex defect analysis. The same basic equations for assessment are
used by both analysis methods. A Folias factor that was developed based on finite element test
cases is used to calculate the RSF. The finite element test cases of single, semi-elliptical shaped
defects based on varying d/t and lambda were used. The FEA models were then used to
develop a new Folias factor by curve fitting the results. To develop the BG Folias factor, the
following base equation was used.
B
 l 
Mt = 1+ C   (182)
 Dt 
Initially, C and B were allowed to vary in the curve fit, but based on the B31.G form of this
equation, B was set to two. For the final curve fit of the FEA results, a best fit of C=0.31 was
derived and the final equation is as follows:
2
 l 
M t = 1 + 0.31  (183)
 Dt 
The complex defect analysis uses the same equations to calculate an RSF. The only
difference is the defect is broken into about fifty different depth increments and the geometric
variables are based on all the included defects. An RSF is calculated at each depth increment,
and the worst case RSF is the final result similar to the effective area approach.
Interaction rules are provided to determine whether a flaw can be treated as a single defect
or a complex defect. A flaw can be treated as a single defect if the depth of the flaw is less than
20% of the wall thickness or if the following equations are satisfied.
3 t
φ > 360 (184)
π D
s > 2 Dt (185)
80
Phi is the circumferential spacing between defects, and s is the longitudinal spacing
between defects. If the longitudinal defect spacing is less than the limit, the defects will interact if
the following conditions are satisfied.
 d1   1 −  1   d1l1 + d 2l2  
 1−     
 t   l1 + l2 + s  
 t > (186)
1 − d1    1  d1l1 + d 2l2  
 tQ1  1 −  tQ  l + l + s  
  12  1 2  
 d2   1 −  1   d1l1 + d 2l2  
 1−      
 t   l1 + l2 + s  
 t >  (187)
1 − d 2    1   d1l1 + d 2l2  
 tQ2  1 −  tQ   l + l + s  
  12   1 2  
2
 l 
Q1 = 1 + 0.31 1  (188)
 Dt 
2
 l 
Q2 = 1 + 0.31 2  (189)
 Dt 
2
l +l +s
Q12 = 1 + 0.31 1 2  (190)
 Dt 
4.11.2 British Gas Single Defect Analysis (Method 10)
The British Gas method for the single defect was originally presented in the following form.
d
1−
Pf = P0 t (191)
d 1
1−
t Q
81
2
 l 
Q = 1 + 0.31  (192)
 Dt 
Q is the British Gas Folias factor and the RSF is calculated as follows.
d
1−
RSF = t (193)
d 1
1−
t Q
The RSF is in terms of the surface correction factor and can be simply recast in terms of
rectangular areas. The British Gas Folias factor can be written in terms of lambda with the
following relationship.
2
 l  λ2
  = 2
(194)
 Dt  1.285
M t = 1.0 + 0.18774λ 2 (195)
The British Gas single defect analysis can be calculated as follows in terms of the standard
format.
(77) and (78).
• Step 2: Calculate the British Gas Folias factor, Mt, based on λ.
l
λ = 1.285 (196)
Do t
M t = 1.0 + 0.18774λ 2 (197)
Paragraph 4.4.
82
4.11.3 British Gas Complex Defect Analysis (Method 11)
The British gas complex defect analysis uses an iterative process to calculate failure
pressure. The method divides a complex LTA into several depth increments as shown in Figure
16. At each increment, failure pressure is calculated for the total LTA, each individual LTA that
may be formed based on the depth increment, and the interaction of individual LTAs. A minimum
failure pressure is obtained at each depth increment, and the minimum failure pressure for the
LTA is most limiting result for all the increments. Since the complex defect analysis is iterative, it
is difficult to put it in terms of the standard format. For this reason, it is presented in its original
format, except for the calculation of the Folias factor.
• Step 1: Calculate the failure pressure for a defect free section of pipe and the average
depth of the LTA with numerically integrated area.
2tσ uts
P0 = (198)
(D −t)
A
d ave = (exact area) (199)
l
• Step 2: Calculate the failure pressure for the total defect.
l
λ = 1.285 (200)
Do t
M t = 1.0 + 0.18774λ 2 (201)
83
 d  
 1 −  ave  
Ptotal = Po   t   (202)
  d  1 
1 −  ave   
  t   M t  
• Step 3: Select the number of depth increments to partition the LTA and calculate the
incremental depth based on the maximum depth and number of increments.
d max
dj = (203)
# inc
• Step 4: For each depth increment, calculate the average depth of the patch.
Apatch
d patch = (exact area) (204)
ltotal
• Step 5: Calculate the failure pressure of the patch.
  d patch  
 1−   
  t  
Ppatch = Po (205)
  d patch   1 
1 −   
  t  M t  
• Step 6: Determine the number of pits and calculate the average depth of each individual
LTA.
i = # individual LTA ' s (206)
Ai , LTA
di = (exact area) (207)
li
• Step 7: Determine the equivalent thickness for each individual LTA.
Ppatch D i= N
te = for d j ∑ li < Apatch (208)
( 2σ uts + Ppatch ) i =1
84
i= N
te = t for d j ∑ li ≥ Apatch (209)
i =1
• Step 8: Determine the equivalent average depth of each individual LTA.
d ei = di − ( t − te ) (210)
• Step 9: Calculate the failure pressure of each individual LTA.
li
λi = 1.285 (211)
Dte
M ti = 1.0 + 0.18774λi2 (212)
  d ei  
 1−   
2t σ  te 
Pi = e uts   (213)
( D − te ) 1 −  dei   1 
   
  te   M ti  
• Step 10: Calculate the overall length of the interacting individual LTAs.
i = m −1
lnm = lm + ∑ (l + s )
i=n
i i (total length of LTAs plus spacing) (214)
• Step 11: Calculate the average depth of the interacting LTAs.
i =m
∑d ei i l
d e,nm = i=n
(215)
lnm
• Step 12: Calculate the failure pressure of the interacting LTAs.
lnm
λnm = 1.285 (216)
Dte
85
M nm = 1.0 + 0.18774λnm
2
(217)
 d  
 1 −  e ,nm  
2teσ uts   te  
Pnm = (218)
( D − te ) 1 −  de,nm   1  

   
  te   M tnm  
• Step 13: Determine the final failure pressure and RSF for the LTA.
Pf = MIN ( Ptotal , Ppatch , Pi , Pnm ) (219)
Pf
RSF = (220)
P0
• Step 14: Repeat Steps 4 through 13 for each depth increment. The failure pressure for
this assessment is the minimum pressure obtained for all the depth increments.
4.12 BS 7910 ASSESSMENT
The BS 7910 flaw assessment guide uses the British Gas research as its basis for the
assessment of local areas of metal loss. Like British Gas, the assessment of local metal loss is
based on classifying a flaw as either a single defect or complex or interacting defect. The
interactions rules are exactly the same as presented in the British Gas method.
4.12.1 BS 7910, Appendix G Assessment, Isolated Defect (Method 21)
The BS 7910 assessment for a single flaw is exactly the same as the British Gas single flaw
assessment procedure presented in Paragraph 4.11.2.
86
4.12.2 BS 7910, Appendix G Assessment, Interacting Flaws (Method 22)
The BS 7910 assessment for interacting defects uses the BS 7910 isolated defect
procedure for each isolated flaw and for all combination of isolated flaw interaction. Unlike the
British Gas complex defect assessment, the BS 7910 procedure is no longer iterative. The BS
7910 flaw assessment procedure is as follows:
• Step 1: Calculate the failure pressure (P1, P2, …, PN) for each of the N isolated defects
using the procedure presented for British Gas Single Defect Analysis.
• Step 2: Calculate the failure pressure for all combinations of the isolated defects using
the procedure presented for British Gas Single Defect Analysis and the following
equations for flaw length and depth.
i = m −1
lnm = lm + ∑ (l + s )
i=n
i i (221)
i =m
∑d l i i
d nm = i=n
(222)
lnm
• Step 3: Calculate the failure pressure for the combined defects.
Pf = MIN ( P1 , P2 , ..., PN , Pnm ) (223)
• Step 4: Calculate the MAWP. The fc factor is based on the original design factor.
MAWP = f c Pf (224)
4.13 KANNINEN ASSESSMENT (METHOD 23)
The Kanninen method was developed by the Southwest Research Institute to analyze
corroded areas in pipes subject to large axial stress. Large longitudinal stresses can be
generated due to end forces and bending moments applied to a pipe in addition to pressure
87
loads. The methods presented above focus on pressure loading only, where failure is a function
of the circumferential stress. In the Kanninen method, large longitudinal stress is accounted for
by computing an equivalent stress based on circumferential and longitudinal stress and
comparing it to material ultimate stress for failure or allowable stress for MAWP. The
Circumferential stress is compute based on the load conditions and increased with an RSF factor
due to the corroded region. The RSF is calculated using a Folias factor derived from shell theory.
The longitudinal stress is calculated based on the load conditions and cross sectional properties
of the corroded region. The Kanninen method can be calculated as follows.
• Step 2: Calculate the shell theory Folias factor, Mt.
d
η = 1− (225)
t
l
α = 0.9306 (226)
D (t − d )
(1 + η 4 ) ( cosh α ⋅ sinh α + sin α ⋅ cos α ) + 

 
 2η 3/ 2 ( cosh 2 α − cos 2 α ) + 
 
 2η 2 ( cosh α ⋅ sinh α − sin α ⋅ cos α ) + 
 
 2η 5 / 2 ( cosh 2 α − cos 2 α ) 
Mt = (227)
cosh α ⋅ sin α + 
sinh α ⋅ cos α + 
 
 5/ 2 
 2η ⋅ cosh α ⋅ cos α + 
η 2 ( sinh α ⋅ cos α − cosh α ⋅ sin α ) 
 
Paragraph 4.4.

88
• Step 5: Calculate the equivalent von Mises stress with the following equations.
Ix
Z= (228)
Df
+y
2
pD M x
σ lm1 = + (229)
4t Z
pD M x
σ lm 2 = − (230)
4t Z
1 pD
σ cm = (231)
RSF 2t
σ eq1 = σ cm
2
− σ cmσ lm1 + σ lm2 1 (232)
σ eq 2 = σ cm
2
− σ cmσ lm 2 + σ lm2 2 (233)
σ eq = max σ eq1 , σ eq 2  (234)
• Step 6: Calculated the MAWP and failure pressure by varying the pressure in the above
equations until the calculated equivalent von Mises stress is equal to the material
allowable stress or material ultimate stress, respectively.
4.14 SHELL THEORY ASSESSMENT (METHOD 24)
The shell theory method follows the standard format and uses the shell theory Folias factor
presented in the Kanninen method. The shell theory Folias factor has been curve fit using Table
Curve 3D as shown in Figure 17. The shell theory method can be calculated with the following
steps:
89
• Step 2: Calculate the shell theory Folias factor, Mt.
d
η = 1− (235)
t
l
α = 0.9306 (External Flaw) (236)
D (t − d )
0.9848 − 0.4582η − 0.5868α + 0.006156η 2 + 0.07628α 2 + 0.1232ηα

Mt = (237)
1 − 0.4691η − 0.7484α − 0.005116η 2 + 0.2827α 2 + 0.8853ηα
Paragraph 4.4.
4.15 JANELLE METHOD
The Janelle method does not involve the calculation of a Folias Factor or surface correction
factor. Instead, the RSF is calculated directly from non-dimensional parameters. The
development of the Janelle method is described in Paragraph 5.3.4. The Level 1 assessment is
based on the rectangular defect area, and the Level 2 assessment is based on the effective area.
4.15.1 Janelle Level 1 Assessment (Method 29)
The Level 1 Janelle assessment can be calculated with the following steps.
(77) and (78).
• Step 2: Compute the Remaining Strength Factor using the following equations.
90
l
λ = 1.285 (238)
Di t
1.0
Z1 = 1.0144
(239)
 A 
 A 
1.0 +  0

 1006.0 
 
 
1.0
Z2 = 1.0232
(240)
 λ 
1.0 +  
 1.8753 
RSF = 1200  −1.0144 + 1.0152 Z1 + 1.0141Z 2 (1 − Z1 )  (241)
• Step 3: Calculate new MAWP and failure pressure as shown in Step 5 of Paragraph 4.4.
4.15.2 Janelle Level 2 Assessment (Method 30)
The Level 2 Janelle assessment can be calculated with the following steps.
• Step 2: For each subsection, compute the Remaining Strength Factor using the following
equations.
λ i
= 1.285
(li
e − lsi )
(242)
Di t
91
1.0
Z1i = 1.0144
(243)
 Ai 
 
A0i 
1.0 + 
 1006.0 
 
 
1.0
Z 2i = 1.0232
(244)
 λi 
1.0 +  
 1.8753 
RSF i = 1200  −1.0144 + 1.0152 Z1i + 1.0141Z 2i (1 − Z1i )  (245)
• Step 3: Determine the minimum remaining strength factor as follows for all the sections:
RSF = min  RSF 1 , RSF 2 , ...., RSF i  (246)
• Step 4: Calculate new MAWP and failure pressure as shown in Step 5 of Paragraph 4.4.
92
CHAPTER V
VALIDATION OF LTA ASSESSMENT PROCEDURES FOR CIRCUMFERENTIAL STRESS
5.1 INTRODUCTION
This section contains details of the procedures used to validate the LTA analysis methods
presented in Paragraphs 4.5 through 4.15 as well as the theory behind the newly developed
analysis methods. The analysis methods were verified by comparing calculated results for a
given method to full-scale burst tests and non-linear FEA. Close to one thousand full-scale burst
tests and non-linear FEA models were used in the validation. A computer program was used to
evaluate each test case with each analysis method and calculate associated statistics. The most
accurate assessment method was determined based on the statistical analysis.
5.2 VALIDATION DATABASES
There are four separate databases of burst test and FEA cases, which are organized based
on their primary source. The cases in the four databases are assigned by numbering convention.
Database 1 contains cases numbered from 1 to 1999. Similarly, Database 2 cases are
numbered from 2000 to 2999, Database 3 cases are 3000 to 3999, and Database 4 cases are
4000 to 4999. A complete listing of the databases and their sources are shown in Tables 8, 9,
10, and 11.
• LTA Database 1: LTA Database 1 is a collection of burst test cases from two primary
sources. Cases 1-124 and 216-221 are summarized in Kiefner [61], and Cases 1-215
are summarized in Kiefner [62]. There is also a spreadsheet compiled by Battelle that
has a summary of all 222 cases. The cases were compiled and used to develop and
93
validate the RSTRENG analysis method. A case by case summary of LTA Database 1 is
shown in Table 8.
• LTA Database 2: The full scale burst tests in LTA Database 2 are from Connelly [63].
These burst tests were also correlated with finite element analysis by Depadova [64].
The 58 LTA tests were performed using two retired pressure vessels. Approximately 30
LTAs were created in each vessel, and the pressure tests were run until leaks occurred.
Defects included internal and external LTAs in the shell and heads. A case by case
summary of LTA Database 2 is shown in Table 9. The cases in this database were not
used in the LTA validation. The vessels were pressurized to the point of plastic
deformation multiple times and the results obtained from the test are not consistent with
the other databases.
• LTA Database 3: The burst test cases for local thin areas found in LTA Database 3 are
from a British Gas Linepipe Group Sponsored Project reported by Fu [65]. The tests
were designed and performed for the development of the British Gas analysis methods.
These cases are actual burst tests performed for the project. A case by case summary
of LTA Database 3 is shown in Table 10.
• LTA Database 4: LTA Database 4 is composed of the finite element testing done as part
of the British Gas Linepipe Group Sponsored Project performed in conjunction with the
test cases in LTA Database 3. In order to determine a failure or burst pressure for the
FEA cases, the models were run to the ultimate tensile stress for the material. These
cases were reported by Fu [66]. A case by case summary of LTA Database 4 is shown
in Table 11.
5.3 NEW LTA ANALYSIS METHODS
New assessment procedures are incorporated in this study in an attempt to improve
assessment accuracy. Two approaches were taken. The Hybrid methods were developed
based on existing analysis methods. Desirable characteristics were taken from the existing
94
methods and combined to develop hybrid methods. The basis for these hybrids is the API 579
format with alterations to the Folias factor and surface correction factor. Hybrids one and two
have the best attributes of existing methods combined into a new method. Hybrid three is similar,
except that a new Folias factor was derived and included in the method. The new proposed API
579 (Janelle) method was derived directly from actual burst test data and FEA simulation. In the
method, the Folias factor and surface correction factor equations are eliminated. The RSF is
calculated directly based on the area of metal loss and a non-dimensional length parameter.
In addition to developing completely new analysis methods, new Folias factors were
developed for the API 579 method to eliminate the limitation on the length of a flaw that may be
analyzed. Most of the current Folias factors do not behave appropriately for very long flaws and
result in non-conservative evaluations. The new factors were developed based on the original
Folias data and by comparison to FEA.
5.3.1 API 579 Hybrid Assessment Procedures
Methods 14 through 19 presented in Paragraph 4.9.5 through 4.9.10 are newly developed
assessment procedures designed to improve upon existing methods. There are three hybrid
methods, each with a level one and two assessment. Rectangular area calculations are used in
the Level 1 assessment, and the effective area is used in the Level 2 assessment. In all of the
hybrids, the B31.G surface correction factor calculation is replaced with the Chell surface
correction factor. The API Folias factor is used for Hybrid 1, the British Gas Folias factor is used
in Hybrid 2, and a newly developed Folias factor is used in Hybrid 3. The details for development
of the new Folias factor are presented in Paragraph 5.3.2. The hybrid methods were statistically
more accurate than the original API 579 method in the validation process and are not
recommended for use.
95
5.3.2 New Folias Factor Development for Hybrid Methods
The new Folias factor was developed based on a curve fit of the burst test cases. The data
points for all the LTA analysis cases were plotted three dimensionally using d/t, lambda, and RSF
for the axes. The Chell surface correction factor was used for the fit as follows.
d d 1 
RSF = 1 − +   (247)
t t  Mt 
The new factor was derived by picking an equation form for the Folias factor Mt, and curve
fitting that equation to the LTA test cases. The first form chosen was similar to the one derived
by British Gas and has the following form.
M t = 1.0 + C0 λ n (248)
l
λ = 1.285 (249)
Di d
The values of C0 and n were derived based on a curve fit using the Table Curve 3D software
and the resulting equation was as follows.
M t = 1.0 + 0.4497λ 1.2069 (250)
The accuracy of the above equation was not a significant improvement in the predicted RSF.
A second Folias factor form was chosen with a direct d/t dependence that is lacking in other
forms of the Folias factor. This form was defined as follows.
n3
d 
M t = 1.0 + C0 λ + C1λ  
n1 n2
(251)
t
The initial curve fit resulted in the following equation.
1.7711
d 
M t = 1.0 + −0.6094λ 0.3928
+ 2.2361λ 0.8907
  (252)
t
96
Based on the results of the curve fit, n1 was set to 0.5, n2 was set to 1.0, and n3 was set to
1.5. The equation was refit for C0 and C1 with the following final result.
1.5
d
M t = 1.0 − 0.5753λ 0.5
+ 1.7593λ   (253)
t
It was determined during the validation process that accuracy was not improved with the
above Folias factor, and it is not recommended for use.
5.3.3 Modified API 579, Level 2 Folias Factor for Long Flaws
One of the limitations with the current API 579 assessment of local metal loss is a restriction
on the length of a LTA that can be analyzed. The current version of the document has the
following length limitation.
λ ≤ 5.0 − > l ≤ 3.891 Dt (254)
The limitation reflects the fact that the Folias factor and corresponding RSF calculation do
not approach the proper bound as a flaw becomes very long. As a flaw increases in length, the
RSF should approach the ratio of the remaining thickness to the undamaged thickness. The
current Folias factor does not approach this limit fast enough, resulting in slightly higher RSFs
and an un-conservative result. The reason this occurs, is because the data for the development
of the original Folias factor only went out to a lambda value of 8. For longer flaws, a linear
extrapolation was used, and the assumption that the function remains linear was not accurate.
The actual trend for the Folias Factor should approach a very large value as the length of the flaw
approaches the following limit based on shell theory.
lmax = 20 DT ≈ λ = 15 (255)
A matrix of axisymmetric and 3D solid FEA models was developed to further investigate the
behavior of long flaws. The models included non-linear geometry effects and an elastic-plastic
97
material model with kinematic hardening. In all cases, the collapse load calculated for a model
containing a flaw was compared to the collapse load of an undamaged model to obtain the RSF
for the flaw. The RSF trend with respect to the flaw length is shown in Figure 18 and the FEA
details and calculated RSF values are shown in Table 12. Typical geometries for the 3D solid
and axisymmetric models are shown in Figures 19 and 20 respectively. In the figure, the current
API 579 Folias factors do not follow the trend of the FEA. The original Folias data (to a lambda of
8) was refit and extrapolated to follow the trend of the FEA results as shown in the figure. For
lambda values greater than 30, a lambda of 30 should be used in the calculation. The curve fit
for the modified Folias factor is shown in Figure 21 and the resulting equation is as follows.
M t = 1.0010 − 0.014196λ + 0.29090λ 2 − 0.096420λ 3 +

0.020890λ 4 − 0.0030540λ 5 + 2.9570 (10−4 ) λ 6 −
(256)
1.8462 (10−5 ) λ 7 + 7.1553 (10 −7 ) λ 8 − 1.5631(10−8 ) λ 9 +
1.4656 (10−10 ) λ 10
For LTAs that have a lambda less than 8, the results of the analysis are identical when using
the old or new Folias factor (see Figure 22). Almost all of the cases in the LTA database fall into
that category. The results for LTAs with lambda greater than 8 are slightly more conservative
with the new Folias factor and approach the limiting value much quicker than the old Folias
factor. The new Folias factor will be recommended to replace the existing API 579, Level 2
factor, and the length limitation for the analysis will be removed as the results will no longer be
un-conservative for long flaws. A new Level 1 screening curve was also developed with the
modified Folias factor and is shown in Figure 23. A comparison between the new screening
curve and the old screening curve is shown in Figure 24.
The FEA procedure used to investigate long flaws in cylindrical shells was repeated for a
spherical shell. The geometry and RSF calculations for the FEA cases are shown in Table 13. A
typical geometry for the axisymmetric model is shown in Figure 25. The trends of the FEA and
the current API 579 Folias factor for spheres are shown in Figure 26. Based on the trends, the
current API 579 Folias factor is applicable to flaws that extend up to the entire inside
98
circumference of the shell. The API 579 Folias factor for spherical shells is shown in Equation
(53). Tabular data for the cylindrical and spherical shell Folias factors is shown in Table 14.
5.3.4 Janelle Method
The Janelle method is a departure from the previous methodology and does not include the
calculation of the Folias factor or surface correction factor. Instead, the RSF for a given LTA is
calculated directly from a non-dimensional LTA length parameter and metal loss damage factor.
The RSF formulation is a direct data fit of the actual burst tests and FEA simulations. This
method has slightly better scatter statistics than the other methods because it is a curve fit of the
actual database cases, but the greatest advantage is how the function is bounded. The function
approaches and RSF of 1.0 as the length or depth approaches 0.0, and the RSF approaches the
ratio of remaining thickness to undamaged thickness as the length approaches infinity. The
curve fit derived from the Table 3D program is shown in Figure 27. This method will be
recommended to replace the API 579, Level 2 assessment in a future release of the document.
The resulting equations from the fit are as follows.
1.0
Z1 = 1.014385410
(257)
 A 
 A0 
1.0 +  
 1006.013191 
 
 
1.0
Z2 = 1.023217085
(258)
 λ 
1.0 +  
 1.875264927 
RSF = −1217.299931 + 1218.299686 Z1 +

(259)
1216.947150 Z 2 − 1216.946241Z1Z 2
99
5.4 STATISTICAL VALIDATION OF LTA METHODOLOGY USING A FAILURE RATIO
In order to validate the analysis methods in this study, comparisons between the methods
and actual test cases are required. Pressure ratio assessment is the main tool for determining
the statistical accuracy of each LTA analysis method. The failure ratio is defined as follows:
 Actual Failure Pressure 

Failure Ratio =   (260)
 Predicted Failure Pressure 
The actual failure pressure can be obtained two ways. Full-scale vessel or pipe specimens
that contain an LTA can be pressurized to failure, or non-linear elastic plastic finite element
models of an LTA can be generated and loaded to failure conditions. The predicted failure
pressure is calculated with the methods provided in this study. For each of the cases in the
database, the ratio is calculated. Statistical analysis based on the calculations is used to quantify
the accuracy of each analysis method at calculating these ratios.
Databases 1, 3, and 4 were used for the validation and omitted cases are shown in Table
15. All the cases in the databases were analyzed using a computer program that included all the
analysis methods and statistics were generated for each method. For the computer program, the
inside diameter, shell or pipe thickness, allowable stress ratios based on yield and ultimate
stress, an allowable RSF, yield and ultimate stresses, actual failure pressure, and the longitudinal
defect profile are required input data. The program output for each method included the
calculated failure pressure, calculated MAWP, ratio of calculated failure to actual failure, ratio of
calculated MAWP to actual failure, and statistics of the ratios based on all the database cases.
The most desirable method is the one with the least amount of scatter in the failure ratio
calculations, or the one with the smallest standard deviation. The analysis methods with
statistical data are shown in Table 16.
Scatter in the data can be attributed to physical phenomenon that can occur with LTAs.
Material toughness plays a major role in determining the failure pressure of a damaged
component. Most of the methods presented here do not directly consider material toughness in
the analysis. Those that make an attempt to include toughness effects, have considered
100
materials with very high toughness which is not applicable to many cases that can be found in
industry. Another phenomenon that affects the failure of corroded components is triaxial
stresses. A high state of triaxiality has been shown to have a significant effect on failure. These
conditions can be generated from jagged or non-uniform profiles of metal loss. Methods like the
British Gas method, which are solely based on cases with smooth metal loss profiles, do not take
this effect into consideration.
5.5 SUMMARY OF VALIDATION RESULTS
Based on the statistical results in Table 16, the new Janelle Method (Method 30) is the most
accurate. It has a mean failure ratio of nearly 1.0 and the lowest standard deviation of any of the
other methods. The most accurate of the old methods are API 579 and modified API 579, Level
2 effective and exact area methods (Methods 2, 3, and 28) and the RSTRENG effective and
exact area methods (Methods 5 and 6). The methods that use the effective area are considered
superior because they protect against highly irregular metal loss profiles. The Janelle and
modified API 579 methods (Methods 28 and 30) do not have a limitation on the length of a flaw
that may be analyzed, so have less limitations than the other methods. The modified API 579,
Level 2 (Method 28) is recommended for current use. The Janelle Method (Method 30) is
recommended to replace the current method in the next release of API 579.
101
CHAPTER VI
ALLOWABLE RSF VALUES FOR DIFFERENT DESIGN CODES
6.1 INTRODUCTION
Local thin areas are phenomena appearing in a wide variety of field equipment, from
pressure vessels to piping to large storage tanks. Based on the type of equipment, different
design codes are used in construction. Since the LTA assessment procedures presented are
meant for use with most types of equipment, effects of the design code must be taken into
consideration. Each design code has different factors to determine allowable material stresses.
Using the different values for allowable stress will have no effect on calculating the failure
pressure or failure ratio. The difference is in calculating the MAWP; some methods may be too
conservative for a certain design code. In this section an allowable RSF vs. MAWP margin will
be developed for various design codes.
6.2 DESIGN CODES FOR PRESSURIZED EQUIPMENT
All of the following design codes provide a maximum allowable stress, which is calculated
from material yield and ultimate stresses as follows:
yield stress
f ys = (261)
allowable stress
ultimate stress
futs = (262)
allowable stress
102
σ a = Min  Fysσ ys , Futsσ uts  (263)
Actual yield and ultimate stresses or minimum values may be used in VCESage, and for the
analysis presented here, actual measured stress values from material testing were used. The
design code will have no effect on the failure ratio calculation, but does contribute to the MAWP
ratio. Some design codes may be over-conservative for calculating the MAWP ratio, allowing for
a reduction in the allowable RSF factor. The objective is to determine which allowable RSF best
matches each design code. A summary of the design codes and their allowable stresses can be
found in Table 17.
• ASME Section VIII, Division I and Division II [67], [68], [69]: ASME Section VIII design
codes cover the fabrication rules for all types of pressure vessels. Section VIII is
subdivided into three divisions. Divisions I and II are addressed in this study and
described below. Division III is alternate rules for high pressure vessels and not
considered in this study. Division I contains the general rules for constructing pressure
vessels or design by rule. Division II is the alternate rules for pressure vessel fabrication.
Division II is more restrictive in the choice of materials than Division I. It also permits
higher design stress intensity values to be used in the range of temperatures over which
the design stress intensity value is controlled by the ultimate or yield strength. More
detailed design procedures and complete examination, testing, and inspection are
required.
• ASME B31.1, B31.3, B31.4, and B31.8 [70], [71], [72], [73], [74]: The ASME B31 design
codes cover all types of piping. ASME B31.1 covers the design, fabrication, and
inspection of power piping associated with steam boilers. This type of piping is usually
found in electrical power generation stations, industrial plants, institutional plants,
geothermal heating systems, and heating and cooling systems. The B31.3 code covers
the design, fabrication, and inspection of process piping that is found in refinery and
petrochemical plants. This code was formerly referred to as the refinery and chemical
plant piping code. It is used in the design of piping that is found in petroleum refineries,
103
chemical, pharmaceutical, textile, paper, semiconductor, and cryogenic plants, and
related processing plants and terminals. The ASME B31.4 design code covers pipeline
transportation systems for liquid hydrocarbons and other hydrocarbons. It is used to
design piping for transporting products which are predominantly liquid between plants
and terminals and within terminals, pumping, regulating, and metering stations. The
B31.8 design code deals with gas transportation and distribution systems. It is used for
the design of piping transporting products which are predominately gas between sources
and terminals including compressor, regulating, and metering stations and gas gathering
pipelines. The code assigns design factors according to pipe classification. The design
factor is selected based on five piping location classes described in B31.8. They are
location class 1, division 1 and division 2, and location class 3, class 4, and class 5. This
code uses yield stress along with the design factor for steel piping system design
requirements. The yield times the design factor, F, is essentially the allowable stress
used in design. The steel pipe design formula presented is written as:
2St
P= ( F ⋅ E ⋅T ) (264)
D
• API 620 and API 650 [75], [76]: The design and construction of large, welded, low
pressure storage tanks is detailed in API 620. These types of tank include field-
assembled storage tanks that contain petroleum intermediates (gases or vapors) and
finished products including other liquid products commonly handled and stored by the
various branches of industry. Tank temperature must be less than 250 F and tank gas or
vapor space pressure may not exceed 15 psi. API Standard 650 covers the design of
welded steel storage tanks of various sizes and capacities.
• CODAP [77]: CODAP is the French design code for fired or unfired pressure vessels,
similar to the ASME Section VIII Codes.
• AS 1210 [78]: AS 1210 is the Australian design code for fired or unfired pressure vessels,
104
• BS 5500 [79]: BS 5500 is the British Standard design code for pressurized vessels,
6.3 MARGIN OF MAWP TO FAILURE PRESSURE PER DESIGN CODE
To determine the margin, or safety factor on working pressure compared to failure pressure,
the MAWP ratio is used. The MAWP ratio is defined as:
 Actual Failure Pressure 

MAWP Ratio =   (265)
 Predicted MAWP 
The actual failure pressure is determined from a full scale burst test or numeric FEA
simulation. The predicted MAWP for the damaged component is a function of the analysis
methods in Paragraphs 4.5 through 4.15 and the material allowable stress. Since each Code has
a different formulation for allowable stress, the margin between MAWP and failure pressure can
vary. The allowable RSF is used to set a desired margin on MAWP to failure pressure. The
database cases are run with allowable RSFs of 0.7, 0.75, 0.8, 0.85, 0.9, and 0.95, and 1.0 for
each of the design codes in Paragraph 6.2. The lower 95% prediction interval on MAWP ratio is
used to determine the margin on MAWP for each design code. The statistical analysis results for
each method and each design code are shown in Tables 18 through 30.
6.4 ALLOWABLE RSF RESULTS
With the data in Tables 18 through 30, a margin of calculated MAWP to failure pressure can
de derived for any of the methods described in Paragraphs 4.5 through 4.15 and any of the
design codes described in Paragraph 6.2. The allowable RSF vs. the MAWP to failure margin
based on the 95% prediction interval are shown in Figures 28 through 40 for the modified API
579, Level 2 assessment (Method 28). Similar plots can be derived for any assessment method
by graphing the data points in the tables.
105
CHAPTER VII
LTA ASSESSMENT PROCEDURES FOR LONGITUDINAL STRESS
7.1 INTRODUCTION
The LTA assessment procedures for longitudinal stress presented in this section are based
on work done by Southwest Research and Kanninen. The research at Southwest was done to
incorporate effects from thermal expansion and supplemental loads into an LTA assessment.
Full scale burst tests subject to internal pressure and four point bending were performed to
evaluate the increased longitudinal stress. The Kanninen method presented in Chapter 4 was
the conclusion of this research.
7.2 KANNINEN ASSESSMENT METHOD
The Kanninen method is presented in Paragraph 4.13 and was included in the
circumferential stress methods to evaluate its accuracy at predicting failure for flaws dominated
by circumferential stress (internal pressure only).
7.3 THICKNESS AVERAGING
The thickness averaging methods are applicable to both the circumferential and longitudinal
stress directions for evaluating regions of metal loss. The methods are presented in LTA
Assessment Procedures for Circumferential Stress.
106
7.3.1 API 510
This method is presented in Paragraph 4.5.2.
7.3.2 API 653
This method is presented in Paragraph 4.5.3.
7.4 API 579 ASSESSMENT METHODS
7.4.1 API 579 Section 5, Level 1 Analysis
This method is presented in Paragraph 3.5.4.2. The screening curve is shown in Figure 15.
7.4.2 API 579 Section 5, Level 2 Analysis
This method is presented in Paragraph 3.5.4.3.
7.4.3 Modified API 579 Section 5, Level 2 Analysis
The following modifications to the API 579, Section 5, Level 2 longitudinal stress
assessment have been made to improve the assessment. The worst case stress conditions
including effects from both longitudinal and circumferential weld joint efficiency can be calculated
with the following modifications. Equations (266), (267), (268), (269), and (270) should replace
Equation (50) in the original method.
σ eq ≤ H σ ys (266)
σ eq = max σ eq1 , σ eq 2  (267)
107
2 2
σ  σ σ A σ A 
σ eq1 =  cm  − cm lm +  lm  + 3τ 2 (268)
 Ec  Ec El  El 
2 2
σ  σ σ B σ B 
σ eq1 =  cm  − cm lm +  lm  + 3τ 2 (269)
 Ec  Ec El  El 
EC = EL = 1.0 (Corroded region not on a weld) (270)
The shell theory Folias factor presented by Kanninen has been curve fit and incorporated
into the analysis per the following modifications. Equations (271), (272), (273), and (274) replace
the RSF calculation in the original method.
A
1−
A0
RSF = (271)
A
1− B
A0
0.9848 − 0.4582η − 0.5868α + 0.006156η 2 + 0.07628α 2 + 0.1232ηα

B= (272)
1 − 0.4691η − 0.7484α − 0.005116η 2 + 0.2827α 2 + 0.8853ηα
d
η = 1− (273)
t
l
α = 0.9306 (274)
D (t − d )
7.4.4 Janelle, Level 1 Analysis
The following methodology was used to develop an improved screening curve for the
circumferential extent of a local thin area (LTA). The assumptions used to develop the curve
were:
108
• The LTA must pass the longitudinal extent screening curve. If it does, the worst case
RSF for the longitudinal extent of the LTA is equal to the allowable RSF (typically 0.9).
The longitudinal RSF is set to the allowable RSF for the screening curve.
• The loads on the component are internal pressure plus a supplemental net section
bending moment. All other supplemental loads are assumed to be negligible. If the
component is known to have a negligible supplemental bending moment, the No Bending
Moment screening curve may be used; otherwise, the Maximum Bending Moment
screening curve must be used.
• The equivalent stress criteria must be satisfied for the moment tension and compression
side, an internal or external LTA, and at locations A and B. Location A is the center of
the LTA with respect to the cylinder cross section and point B is the edge of the LTA with
respect to the cylinder cross section.
• The additional longitudinal tension or compression stress is limited to 40% of the material
allowable stress based on a radius to thickness ratio of 10 (see Figure 41).
The following equations from API 579 were used to generate the screening curve:
Sa
σ cm
2
− σ cmσ lm + σ lm2 + 3τ 2 ≤ (275)
RSFa
In generating the screening curve, the circumferential stress is assumed to be the worst
case that could pass the longitudinal LTA extent screening curve. It is assumed that the
circumferential stress due to pressure is equal to the material allowable stress and the remaining
strength factor for the longitudinal extent of the LTA is equal to the allowable remaining strength
factor. This results in a circumferential stress equal to the allowable stress divided by the
allowable remaining strength factor. The torsion stress is assumed to be zero.
Sa
σ cm = ,τ =0 (276)
RSFa
109
Substituting the assumptions in (276) into Equation (275) and solving, results in the
acceptance criteria shown in Equation (279).
2
 Sa   Sa  Sa
 −  σ lm + σ lm ≤
2
 (277)
 RSFa   RSFa  RSFa
 Sa 
σ lm2 −   σ lm ≤ 0 (278)
 RSFa 
σ lm RSFa
0≤ ≤1 (279)
Sa
Equation (280) is the formulation for longitudinal stress from API 579 (equations for the
section properties are shown in Table 4).
 Aw FT 
 ( MAWP ) + + 
M sC  Am − Af Am − Af 
σ lmA, B =   (280)
Ec  y A, B x A, B
 F y + ( y + b )( MAWP ) Aw + M x  + My
 Ix  T Iy 
 
To generate the screening curve it is assumed that the weld joint efficiency, Ec, is equal to 1,
and there is no additional axial force or out of plane bending moment acting on the cylinder. The
maximum allowable working pressure stress is equal to the material allowable stress.
2Sat
Ec = 1 , FT = 0 , M y = 0 , MAWP = (281)
D
The stress from the in plane net section bending moment is assumed to be equal to the
allowable stress multiplied by a bending factor, BF.
M xD 2I S
= BF S a Æ M x = BF x a (282)
2I x D
110
Substituting in (281) and (282) into Equation (280) results in the final formulation for
longitudinal stress shown in Equation (283).
 Aw  2S a t  y A, B  2I S  
( y + b )  a  Aw + BF x a  
2S t
σ lmA, B = M sC   +  (283)
 Am − Af  D  I x   D  D  
Using the acceptance criteria in Equation (279), two conditions for acceptance must be
checked. The first criterion is for the tensile side of the cylinder with respect to the applied
bending moment. Assuming additional tensile longitudinal stress from the moment results in the
acceptance criteria shown in Equation (284).
 Aw  2t  y A, B  2I  
( y + b )   Aw + BF x   ≤ 1
2t
RSFa M sC   +  (284)
 Am − Af  D  I x  D D  
The second criterion is for the compressive side of the cylinder with respect to the applied
bending moment. Assuming additional compressive longitudinal stress from the moment results
in the acceptance criteria shown in Equation (285).
Aw  2t  y A, B  2I 
( y + b )   Aw − BF x  ≥ 0
2t
 +  (285)
Am − Af  D  I x  D D 
Since the circumferential remaining strength factor cancels out on the compression side, the
acceptance criteria is based more on a bending moment limitation as opposed to limitations on
the LTA dimensions. The bending moment limitation is a function of the radius to thickness ratio
(ROT). The maximum bending factor, BF, was calculated for ROTs varying between 10 and 1000
using an iterative procedure and Equation (285). The ROT of 10 was most limiting, and based on
the calculations, a maximum BF of 0.4 (see Figure 41) was used to generate the screening curve
with a maximum bending moment included.
The screening curve varies based on the ROT for given cylinder. Screening curves using
ROTs of 10 to 500 were generated. The ROT of 10 was the most conservative and used as the
basis for the final screening curves. The screening curve was generated by setting values of
111
lambda ranging from 0 to 18 and solving for the minimum remaining thickness ratio using the
acceptance criteria in Equations (284) and (285). For a cylinder with an ROT of 10, lambda is
equal to 18 for an LTA that extends all the way around the circumference of the cylinder. Two
separate circumferential screening curves are generated to set the bounds for the possible
loading between the no supplemental load case and the maximum permissible bending moment
load case. The two resulting screening curves are shown in Figure 42.
7.4.5 Janelle, Level 2 Analysis
An alternate method for evaluating the longitudinal stress direction of local thin areas has
been developed based on the full-scale tests presented by Kanninen. This method is designed
for use in conjunction with the API 579 circumferential stress assessment for regions of local
metal loss.
This method incorporates the Folias bulging factor into the calculation of circumferential
stress and longitudinal stress and uses a von Mises equivalent stress criteria. The Folias factor
for circumferential stress is taken from the API 579, Section 5, Level 2 assessment. The
equation for the longitudinal stress bulging factor is derived from curve fitting data presented by
Folias for determining bulging effects with circumferentially oriented cracks in cylindrical shells.
The influence of the Folias factor on longitudinal stress is much less than the influence on
circumferential stress, but may have a significant effect on an equivalent stress calculation. The
Folias factor for longitudinal stress is graphically represented in Figure 43.
For flaws with no additional supplemental loads effecting longitudinal stress (pressure only),
longitudinal stress is ignored and equivalent stress is not calculated. In some cases, the addition
of supplement loads may result in equivalent stresses that are less than those that would be
obtained for the pressure only case. For this scenario, supplemental loads may be ignored, as
the circumferential stress solution will be more conservative. This can be used as a screening
technique for determining the influence of supplemental loads on an LTA.
112
The first step in the procedure involves calculating the longitudinal stress in the flawed
region of the cylinder. Longitudinal stress due to an applied bending moment is calculated based
on the damaged cross section of the cylinder. This stress is added to the normal longitudinal
pressure stress. The combined bending and pressure stress is multiplied by a circumferential
bulging factor presented by Folias to determine the total longitudinal stress. An acceptable range
is given for the longitudinal stress. If the calculated longitudinal stress is within the specified
range, it can be ignored and the assessment may be performed per the API 579 Level 2
circumferential stress assessment. If the calculated longitudinal stress is outside the acceptable
range, the assessment must be performed using the von Mises equivalent stress acceptance
criteria. The longitudinal stresses in the given range may be ignored because equivalent von
Mises stresses calculated with these values will be below stresses calculated with the
circumferential assessment method. The alternate longitudinal stress assessment can be
performed as follows (See Figures 13 and 14):
• Step1: Calculate the section properties as shown in Table 4 and the equations in Step 1
of Paragraph 7.4.2.
• Step 2: Calculate the circumferential stress using the following equations:
l
λL = 1.285 (286)
Dt
1.02 + 0.4411λ 2 + 0.006124λ 4

M tL = (287)
(
1.0 + 0.02642λ 2 + 1.533 10−6 λ 4 )
 1  d 
1−  L  
M t
M sL =  t  (288)
d
1−  
t
1
RSFL = (289)
M SL
113
P  Di 
σ cm =  + 0.6  (290)
RSFL ⋅ EL  Do − Di 
• Step 3: Calculate the longitudinal stress with following equations:
c
λC = 1.285 (291)
Dt
1.0 + 0.1401( λC ) + 0.002046 ( λC )

2 4
M = C
(292)
1.0 + 0.09556 ( λC ) + 0.0005024 ( λC )
t 2 4
 1  d 
1−  C  
M sC =  Mt  t  (293)
d
1−  
t
 Aw P FT 
 + + 
M SC  Am − A f Am − A f 
σ lm , A =   (294)
EC  y A xA
 F y + ( y + b ) Aw P + M X  + M Y 
 I X  T IY 
 Aw P FT 
 + + 
M S  Am − A f Am − A f
C

σ lm , B =   (295)
EC  yB x
 FT y + ( y + b ) Aw P + M X  + B M Y 
 I X IY 
σ lm = max  σ lm , A , σ lm, B  (296)
Note: For the validation, FT and M Y are set to zero in equations (294) and (295).
• Step 4: Calculate the torsional stress
114
MT V
τ= + (297)
2 ( At + Atf ) tmm Am − Af
Note: For the validation, M T and V are set to zero in equation (297).
• Step 5: Calculate the von Mises equivalent stress:
σ eq , A = σ cm
2
− σ cmσ lm, A + σ lm2 , A + 3τ 2 (298)
σ eq , B = σ cm
2
− σ cmσ lm, B + σ lm2 , B + 3τ 2 (299)
σ eq = max σ eq , A , σ eq , B  (300)
• Step 5: The following conditions indicate failure or acceptability:
σ eq ≥ σ uts (failure) (301)
σ eq ≤ σ a (acceptable) (302)
Failure pressure and MAWP can also be calculated by setting the equivalent stress equal to
the ultimate stress or allowable stress respectively, and solving for the pressure. The maximum
allowable moment can also be calculated in the same fashion as follows. These equations are
valid if net section bending is the only supplemental load.
2
 M sC 
σ −M  2

eq
2
x
t  Z 
P= (303)
R M L 2 − 1 M LM C + 1 M C 2
( s ) 2 s s 4( s )
2
Z  PR   L 2 1 L C 1 C 2
M x = C σ eq2 −   ( M s ) − M s M s + ( M s )  (304)
Ms  t   2 4 
115
CHAPTER VIII
VALIDATION OF LTA ASSESSMENT PROCEDURES FOR LONGITUDINAL STRESS
8.1 INTRODUCTION
The Janelle assessment methodology for the longitudinal stress direction of an LTA
described in Paragraph 7.4.5 was validated with full scale burst tests. The full scale tests cases
were pressurized to a fixed value, then four point bending was applied until the pipe failed. The
loads at failure were used to calculate an equivalent stress at failure using the assessment
methodology. The calculated stress was compared to actual measured ultimate stress for the
pipe material. For the test cases available, there was only a small amount of error between
calculated stress at failure and the material ultimate stress.
8.2 VALIDATION DATABASES
Unfortunately, data for only five full scale burst tests was available to validate the
assessment methodology. The tests were performed by Southwest Research on 48 inch
diameter X65 pipe and have properties that are shown in Table 31. The flaws in the pipe were
machined patches on the pipe OD used to simulate metal loss. Each pipe contained 2 machined
flaws, one on the tension side from bending, and one on the compression side. Additional tests
were performed by Southwest for 20 inch diameter X52 pipe, but complete data for use in
validation was unable to be obtained. Additional test cases should be used to further validate the
methodology whether they are actual test cases or Finite Element Analysis simulations.
116
8.3 SUMMARY OF VALIDATION RESULTS
The assessment methodology was used to calculate the equivalent stress for the flaws on
the tension and compression sides of the pipe tests. The equivalent stress that was calculated
for the side that actually experienced failure was compared to material actual ultimate stress to
verify the accuracy of the methodology. The actual failures occurred on the compression side
when the calculated equivalent stresses were significantly higher on that side than the tension
side and vice versa. The actual calculated values are shown in Table 32.
For the five test cases, calculated equivalent stresses at failure were very close to the
material ultimate strength. It can be concluded that the von Mises equivalent stress criteria with
the presented method for calculating stresses in local thin areas is a good predictor of actual
behavior. If this is true, stresses caused by other forms of supplemental loading should be able
to be handled the same way as an applied bending moment. Additional tests should be
performed to confirm these findings.
117
CHAPTER IX
LTA PROCEDURES FOR HIC DAMAGE
9.1 INTRODUCTION
HIC damage is characterized by stepwise internal cracks that connect adjacent hydrogen
blisters on different planes in the metal, or to the metal surface. Externally applied stress is not
required for the formation of HIC. In steels, the development of internal cracks (sometimes
referred to as blister cracks) tends to link with other cracks by a transgranular plastic shear
mechanism because of internal pressure resulting from the accumulation of hydrogen. The link-
up of these cracks on different planes in steels has been referred to as stepwise cracking to
characterize the nature of the crack appearance. HIC is commonly found in steels with high
impurity levels that have a high density of large planar inclusions, and/or regions of anomalous
microstructure produced by segregation of impurity and alloying elements in the steel.
The effect of HIC damage is to produce a weakened zone within a plate. This weakening
effect can be characterized by using an RSF factor. RSF factors need to be developed for both
subsurface and surface breaking HIC damage. In the case of surface breaking HIC damage, the
Folias bulging factor needs to be included in the RSF solution.
9.2 SUBSURFACE HIC DAMAGE
The RSF for subsurface HIC damage (see Figure 44) can be derived from the definition of
the remaining strength factor, or
118
LD Collapse Load Of The Damaged Component
RSF = = (305)
LUD Collapse Load Of The Undamaged Component
The collapse loads of the damaged and undamaged plate can be estimated using lower
bound limit load theory. The lower bound limit load for the damaged plate section is given by the
following equations where DH is a measure of HIC damage:
LD = ( 2 LH t + A − AH DH ) σ ys (306)
or
LD = ( 2 LH t + st − AH DH ) σ ys (307)
 A 
LD = t  2 LH + s − H DH  σ ys (308)
 t 
Finally
  A 
LD = t  2 LH + s 1 − H DH   σ ys (309)
  st 
The lower bound limit load for the undamaged plate section is referenced to the minimum
required wall thickness per the applicable code is:
LD = tmin ( 2 LH + s ) σ ys (310)
Combining Equations (309) and (310):
   AH  
 t  2 LH + s 1 − st DH   
 
RSF = min   , 1.0  (311)
 tmin ( 2 LH + s ) 
 
 
If the actual area is approximated as a rectangle with dimensions s and wH, the expression
for the RSF becomes:
119
   wH  
 t  2 LH + s 1 − t DH   
 
RSF = min   , 1.0  (312)
 tmin ( 2 LH + s ) 
 
 
In the above equations for the RSF, the region of the undamaged plate that is assumed to
strengthen the HIC damaged area is:
LH = 8t (313)
The minimum function in the above equations is required because the RSF is indexed to tmin.
Therefore, if tmin is small relative to the plate thickness t, and the reduced strength of the HIC
damaged area approaches the strength of undamaged plate, the RSF can be computed to be
greater than 1.0 indicating that the plate thickness above tmin can adequately reinforce the
damaged area located below tmin. If the RSF is indexed to the full plate thickness, then the
expressions for the RSFs shown above become:
  AH 
 2 LH + s 1 − st DH  
 
RSF =  (314)
( 2 LH + s )
or
  wh 
 2 Lh + s 1 − t DH 
 
RSF =  (315)
( 2 Lh + s )
9.3 SURFACE BREAKING HIC DAMAGE
For surface breaking HIC damage (see Figure 45), the bulging factor needs to be
considered in the RSF. By inspection of Equation (311), the RSF factor can directly be written
as:
120
wH
1− DH
tmin
RSF = (316)
1  wH 
1−  DH 
M t  tmin 
or in terms of a damaged area:
AH
1−DH
A0
RSF = (317)
1  AH 
1−  DH 
M t  Ao 
where
Ao = stmin (318)
Note that when there 100% HIC damage, then DH = 1.0, and the RSF factor becomes:
wH
1−
tmin
RSF = (319)
1  wH 
1−
M t  tmin 
The remaining thickness ratio, Rt, is:
tmm tmin − wH w
Rt = = = 1− H (320)
tmin tmin tmin
then
Rt
RSF = (321)
1
1− [1 − Rt ]
Mt
which is the expression used for an LTA.
121
Note that in the above formulation, the parameter, LH , is set to zero. This is consistent with
current LTA assessment methodologies. The modified API Folias factor as shown in Equation
(256) should be used in the above equations.
122
CHAPTER X
LTA PROCEDURES FOR EXTERNAL PRESSURE
The methodology for this analysis is presented by Rajagopalan [80] and supported by
Esslinger [81]. It utilizes a step-wise approach for shells that have abrupt changes in
thicknesses. The overall buckling pressure of a cylinder made of lengths at varying thicknesses
can be calculated from the following equation:
L L L L L
e
= 1e + 2e + 3e + ... + ne (322)
P P1 P2 P3 Pn
The parameters L and Pen are the unsupported length and buckling pressures of the overall
vessel, respectively, and Ln and Pen represent the unsupported lengths and the buckling
pressures of each of the individual shell courses in the vessel, respectively.
The following assessment procedure can be used to evaluate cylindrical shells subject to
external pressure. If the flaw is found to be unacceptable, the procedure can be used to
establish a new MAWP.
• STEP 1: Determine the CTP and the parameters in Paragraph 3.3.3.2.
• STEP 2: Subdivide the CTP in the longitudinal direction using a series of cylindrical shells
that approximate the actual metal loss (see Figure 46). Determine the length and
thickness of each of these cylindrical shells and designate them ti and Li.
• STEP 3: Determine the allowable external pressure of each of the cylindrical shells
defined in STEP 2 using (ti – FCA) and Li, designate this pressure as Pei. Methods for
determining the allowable external pressure are provided in Appendix A.
123
• STEP 4: Determine the allowable external pressure of the actual cylinder using the
following equation:
∑L i
MAWPr = i =1
n
(323)
Li
∑
i =1 Pi
e
• STEP 5: If MAWPr > MAWP, then the component is acceptable for continued operation.
If MAWPr < MAWP, then the component is not acceptable for continued operation and
the allowable MAWP is MAWPr.
124
CHAPTER XI
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
11.1 INTRODUCTION
This section contains a summary of the validation results for existing and new methods for
evaluating the longitudinal and circumferential extent of an LTA. Recommendations for use are
made for the methods that correlate the most accurately with actual full scale burst tests of
damaged shells. In addition, data is provided so that a margin on MAWP to failure pressure can
be calculated based on various design codes. Finally, additional areas requiring more research
and validation are outlined.
11.2 LTA ASSESSMENT PROCEDURES FOR CIRCUMFERENTIAL STRESS
11.2.1 Recommended Methods for Circumferential Stress
Of the existing methods for analyzing LTAs that are currently in use, the API 579, Level 2
and RSTRENG methods based on an effective area procedure correlate the best to actual test
data. The statistical analysis is presented in Table 16, and those two methods most accurately
predict the burst pressure of a damaged shell with the least amount of scatter in the results. The
drawback with these methods is that they do not approach the proper limits. For example, as the
length of an LTA becomes very long, the RSF is not necessarily calculated to be the ratio of
remaining thickness to undamaged thickness. To correct the problem, the modified Folias factor
should be used in conjunction with these methods. The new Folias factor does not change the
results of the analysis for LTAs that have a lambda value less than 8 (see Figures 21 and 22).
125
However, for longer flaws it is more conservative and approaches the proper bound. The
modified Folias factor is incorporated into Methods 27 and 28. It is recommended that Method 27
replace the current API 579, Level 1 assessment and Method 28 replace the current API 579
Level 2 assessment.
The new Janelle method was developed based on the actual test data and correlates even
better with full scale test results than any of the other methods. It also mathematically
approaches the bounds of the problem with the proper trends (see Figure 27). It is
recommended that the method eventually replace the current methods in API 579 in a future
release of the document.
11.2.2 Allowable Remaining Strength Factors
Any desired margin of calculated MAWP to failure pressure can de derived for the methods
described in Paragraphs 4.5 through 4.15 and the design codes described in Paragraph 6.2 with
the data presented in Tables 18 through 30. It is recommended that the tables which correlate to
the method published in the current or future releases of API 579 be included and referenced in
the document. This will allow a user to calculate whatever safety margin of MAWP to actual
failure is desired for the API 579 methodology.
11.3 RECOMMENDED METHODS FOR LONGITUDINAL STRESS
The Kanninen method, and similarly the API 579 modified method for evaluating flaws with
longitudinal stress do not give accurate results for cases where circumferential stress is
dominant. However, these methods do address loading conditions that result in flaws dominated
by longitudinal stresses. For local thin areas where supplemental loads or thermal expansion
may cause larger longitudinal stress, it is recommended that the LTA be first evaluated using an
assessment method for circumferential stress. If the flaw is acceptable for the circumferential
stress assessment, then it should be evaluated using a method that addresses flaws dominated
by longitudinal stresses.
126
The Janelle method, which is a modified version of the Kanninen and API 579 methodology
is recommended for use when evaluating the circumferential extent of an LTA. The method
correlates much better to actual full scale burst tests as described in Paragraph 8.3 and is
recommended for use in future releases of API 579.
11.4 FURTHER LTA ASSESSMENT DEVELOPMENT
11.4.1 Material Toughness Effects
The material toughness of a shell with a LTA can influence the load carrying capacity of the
component for medium and low toughness steels. A LTA is a natural stress concentration site
and may have large triaxial stresses. The stress concentration in combination with the irregular
geometry of the LTA may result in fracture before plastic collapse. For high toughness steels,
this is likely not an issue as most failures due to a LTA type defect will be mostly a ductile failure.
However, for low toughness steels, the stress concentration at the deepest point of a LTA may
cause micro cracks to form and result in brittle fracture contributing to the failure. This type of
failure occurs at a lower stress level than a purely ductile failure. A criterion to evaluate the
susceptibility of a damaged component to experience a fracture failure should be developed for
LTA type defects. A criterion for crack extension in a cylindrical shell has been developed by
Hahn [82]. A similar procedure for LTAs should be developed for inclusion in a later release of
API 579. In terms of stress, a modified stress calculation could be developed to include the
material fracture toughness and the remaining strength factor to account for susceptibility of low
toughness steels to brittle fracture. The calculation would include a factor based on toughness
as follows.
σ cal = RSF ⋅ f ( K mat ) ⋅ σ m (324)
127
11.4.2 Stress Triaxiality from LTAs
The current analysis methods do not directly take into account the magnitude of triaxial
stress that can result from a local defect like an LTA. Typically, as the triaxiality increases the
toughness of the material decreases. This can result in a greater chance of fracture for highly
triaxial stress fields. The new proposed Section VIII, Division 2 Code will have a check and
limitation on the magnitude of triaxial stress fields to reduce the chance of fracture. This type of
criteria could be a good additional screening check for LTAs to help avoid that failure mode.
11.4.3 Rules for LTAs Near Structural Discontinuities
By far the most limiting criteria that must be satisfied in order to perform a FFS assessment
of a LTA is the distance to the nearest structural discontinuity. This distance is based on the
shell theory attenuation distance that stresses due to a global discontinuity die out along the shell
length. In API 579, the limiting distance is set to the following value.
Lmsd = 1.8 Dt (325)
In API 579, any attachment or change in shell geometry that creates a local stress field is
classified as a structural discontinuity. In reality there are two different types of discontinuity.
The first type is a global discontinuity, like a conical shell transition. The distance required for the
additional stress to die out along the shell for this type of discontinuity is on the order of
magnitude calculated by Equation (325). The other type of discontinuity is a local structural
discontinuity, like a nozzle attachment. The distance required for the additional stress to die out
along the shell for this type of discontinuity is on the order of plate thicknesses, not the length
specified in Equation (325). For local discontinuities, the limiting distance is extremely
conservative. Research is currently underway to modify this limitation in API 579.
128
CHAPTER XII
NOMENCLATURE
Unless otherwise cited in the text, the variables used in this report are shown below:
A = Area of metal loss
Ao = Original metal area
Aa = Effective cross-sectional area for a cylinder with metal loss
Af = Cross-sectional area of the region of local metal loss
Am = Cylinder or pipe metal cross-section
At = Mean area to compute torsion stress for the region of the cross section without
metal loss
Atf = Mean area to compute torsion stress for the region of the cross section with
metal loss
Aw = Effective area of cylinder or pipe cross section on which pressure acts
BF = Bending Factor. This value is used to determine the additional longitudinal
compression or tension stress caused by the net section bending moment as a
factor of the material allowable stress. i.e. a bending factor of 0.4 results in
addition longitudinal stress equal to 40% of the material allowable stress.
b = Location of the centroid of area Aw, measured from the x − x axis
c = Circumferential extent of the flaw
Crate = Corrosion or metal loss rate
129
CAe = Equivalent corrosion allowance
d = Depth of metal loss damage
D = Mean diameter
Di = Inside diameter of the cylinder
Do = Outside diameter of the cylinder
EC = Weld joint efficiency for circumferential stress (longitudinal weld joints)
EL = Weld joint efficiency for longitudinal stress (circumferential weld joints)
F = Applied section axial force determined for the weight or weight plus thermal load
case
Fd = Design factor
Fys = Yield stress factor
Futs = Ultimate tensile stress factor
FCA = Future corrosion allowance
H = Load factor. For the weight case, H=0.75, and for the weight plus thermal case
H=1.5. The H factor is based on an allowable RSF of 0.9, a Fys of 2/3, and a
factor of two for the weight plus thermal load case
Ix = Moment of inertia of the cross section with the region of local metal loss about
the y axis
Iy = Moment of inertia of the cross section with the region of local metal loss about
the y axis
IX = Moment of inertia of inertia of the cross section with the region of local metal loss
about the x -axis
IY = Moment of inertia of inertia of the cross section with the region of local metal loss
about the y -axis
130
K = Fracture toughness
l = LTA length
L = Length for thickness averaging
Lf = Lorenz factor
Lmsd = Distance from the flaw to the nearest structural discontinuity
Mb = Net-section bending moment
Ms = Surface correction factor
Mt = Folias through-wall bulging factor for a crack-like flaw
MT = Applied net-section torsion determined for the weight or weight plus thermal load
case
Mx = Applied section bending moment determined for the weight or weight plus
thermal load case about the x-axis
My = Applied section bending moment determined for the weight or weight plus
thermal load case about the y-axis
MA = Mechanical allowances
MAWP = Maximum allowable working pressure of damaged component
MAWP0 = Maximum allowable working pressure of undamaged component
P = Pressure
P0 = Failure pressure of undamaged component
Pf = Failure pressure of damage component
Q = Shape factor to determine the length for thickness averaging
Rb = Radius of the pipe bend
Ri = Inside radius
Rlife = Component remaining life
131
Rm = Mean Radius
Rt = Remaining thickness ratio
RSF = Calculated Remaining Strength Factor for a given flaw
RSFa = Allowable Remaining Strength Factor
s = Spacing between flaws
t = Current wall thickness of the component
tam = Average measured thickness
C
tam = Average measured thickness in the circumferential direction
L
tam = Average measured thickness in the longitudinal direction
tlim = Minimum permissible thickness
tloss = Metal loss computed as the difference between the furnished thickness and the
thickness at the time of an inspection
tmin = Minimum required wall thickness of the shell containing a flaw
C
tmin = Minimum required wall thickness based on applied circumferential stresses
L
tmin = Minimum required wall thickness based on applied longitudinal stresses
tmm = Minimum measured wall thickness
tnom = Nominal thickness
T = temperature derating factor
V = Applied net-section shear force determined for the weight or weight plus thermal
load case
x = Distance along the x-axis to a point on the cross section where the bending
stress is to be computed
y = Distance from the x − x axis to a point on the cross section where the bending
stress is to be computed
132
y = Location of the neutral axis
Y = ASME B31 y-factor adjustment for temperature
Zc = Section modulus of the corroded pipe cross section
λ = Shell metal loss damage parameter
σa = Allowable stress
σ cm = Maximum circumferential stress, typically the hoop stress from pressure loading
for the weight and weight plus thermal load case, as applicable
σ fail = Failure stress
σ flow = Material flow stress
σ lm = Maximum longitudinal membrane stress computed for both the weight and
weight plus thermal load cases
σ uts = Material ultimate tensile stress
σ ys = Material yield stress
τ = Maximum shear stress in the region of local metal loss for the weight and weight
plus thermal load case
θL = Circumferential position on an elbow where the stress is to be computed
133
CHAPTER XIII
TABLES
Table 1 – Stress Classification

Stress Category Description Value
• Average value across the thickness of a section
General Primary Membrane • Produced by internal pressure and other mechanical
kSm
Stress Intensity, (Pm) loads
• Excludes all secondary and peak stresses
• Average value across the thickness of a section
• Produced by internal pressure and other mechanical
Local Primary Membrane Stress loads
• Excludes all secondary and peak stresses 1.5kSm
Intensity, (PL)
• Stress intensities exceeding 1.1Sm do not extend in the
meridional direction more than Rt
• Highest value across the thickness of a section
Primary Membrane (general or
• Produced by internal pressure and other mechanical
local) Plus Primary Bending 1.5kSm
loads
Stress Intensity, (PL + Pb)
• Excludes all secondary and peak stresses
• Highest value at any point across the thickness of a
section
Primary Plus Secondary Stress • Produced by internal pressure and other mechanical
3Sm
Intensity, (PL + Pb + Q) loads and general thermal effects
• Effects of gross structural discontinuities but not local
discontinuities are included
• Highest value at any point across the thickness of a
section
Primary Plus Secondary Plus • Produced by internal pressure and other mechanical
Peak Stress Intensity, (PL + Pb + loads and general and local thermal effects Sa
Q + F) • Effects of gross structural discontinuities and local
discontinuities are included
• Used in fatigue calculation
Notes
1. Sm is the allowable stress.
2. k is equal to 1.0 for design loads and equal to 1.2 for design loads plus wind or pressure loads.
3. Sa is the allowable alternating stress established from a design fatigue curve based on a specified
number of cycles.
4. In addition to the stress classification acceptance criteria, a triaxial stress limit,
(σ 1 + σ 2 + σ 3 ) ≤ 4Sm , is applied to prevent ductile fracture. This limit is based on primary
loads.
134
Table 2 – Examples of Stress Classification
Vessel Component Location Origin of Stress Type of Stress Classification

General membrane
Pm
Shell plate Internal pressure Gradient through
Q
remote from plate thickness
discontinuities Axial thermal Membrane Q
gradient Bending Q
Net-section axial
force and/or Local membrane PL
Near nozzle or bending moment
Bending Q
other opening applied to the
Peak (fillet or corner) F
nozzle, and/or
internal pressure
Temp. difference.
Membrane Q
Any shell including Any location Between shell and
Bending Q
cylinders, cones, head
spheres and Shell distortions
formed heads such as out-of- Membrane Pm
Internal pressure
roundness and Bending Q
dents
LTA – Center Membrane Pm
Internal pressure
region Bending Pb
LTA – Membrane PL
Internal pressure
Periphery Bending Q (2)
Net-section axial
force and/or Local membrane
LTA Near PL
bending moment
nozzle or other Bending Q
applied to the
opening Peak (fillet or corner) F
nozzle, and/or
internal pressure
Membrane stress
averaged through
the thickness;
Pm
Net-section axial stress component
force, bending perpendicular to
Any section
moment applied to cross section
across entire
the cylinder or cone, Bending stress
vessel
and/or internal through the
Cylindrical or pressure thickness; stress
conical shell Pb
component
perpendicular to
cross section
Junction with Membrane PL
Internal pressure
head or flange Bending Q
LTA – Tank
Membrane PL
bottom course- Liquid Head
Bending Q
to-shell junction
135
Table 2 – Examples of Stress Classification (Continued)
Membrane Pm
Crown Internal pressure
Dished head or Bending Pb
conical head Knuckle or Membrane PL (1)
Internal pressure
junction to shell Bending Q
Membrane Pm
Center region Internal pressure
Bending Pb
Flat head
Membrane PL
Junction to shell Internal pressure
Bending Q (2)
Membrane (average Pm
through cross
section)
Typical Bending (average
Pb
ligament in a Pressure through width of
Perforated head or uniform pattern ligament., but
shell gradient through
plate)
Peak F
Isolated or Membrane Q
atypical Pressure Bending F
ligament Peak F
General membrane
(average. across
Internal pressure or
full section).
Cross section external load or Pm
Stress component
perpendicular to moment
perpendicular to
nozzle axis
section
External load or Bending across
Pm
moment nozzle section
General membrane Pm
Nozzle Local membrane PL
Internal pressure
Bending Q
Nozzle wall Peak F
Membrane Q
Differential
Bending Q
expansion
Peak F
General membrane Pm
LTA – Nozzle Local membrane PL
Internal pressure
wall Bending Q
Peak F
Differential Membrane F
Cladding Any
expansion Bending F
Equivalent linear
Radial temperature Q
stress [note (4)]
Any Any distribution [note
Nonlinear portion of
(3)] F
stress distribution
Stress concentration
Any Any Any F
(notch effect)
136
Table 2 – Examples of Stress Classification (Cont.)
Notes:
1. Consideration must also be given to the possibility of wrinkling and excessive deformation in
vessels with large diameter-to-thickness ratio.
2. If the bending moment at the edge is required to maintain the bending stress in the center
region within acceptable limits, the edge bending is classified as Pb, otherwise, it is classified
as Q.
3. Consider possibility of thermal stress ratchet.
4. Equivalent linear stress is defined as the linear stress distribution which has the same net
bending moment as the actual stress distribution.
137
Table 3 – Thickness Averaging for In-Service Inspection Codes
In-Service Summary Of Metal Loss Rules

Inspection Codes
API 510 The average measured thickness, tam , is determined by averaging the
thickness readings over the following lengths:
D 
L = min  , 20 inches  when D ≤ 60 inches
2 
D 
L = min  , 40 inches  when D > 60 inches The required
3 
strength check is as follows:
tam − CA ≥ tmin
An additional check is made the minimum measured thickness:
tmm − CA ≥ 0.5tmin
An alternative, the corrosion and/or erosion can be analyzed using stress
analysis techniques with the results evaluated using principles of the
ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section VIII, Division 2,
Appendix IV is permitted
API 570 • ASME B31G
• Stress analysis evaluated using the principles of the ASME Boiler and
Pressure Vessel Code, Section VIII, Division 2, Appendix IV
• Methodology included in API 510
API 653 The average measured thickness, tam , is determined by averaging the
thickness readings over the following length:
L = max 3.7 Dtmm , 40.0 inches 
tam − CA ≥ tmin
An additional check is made the minimum measured thickness:
tmm − CA ≥ 0.6tmin
An alternative, the corrosion and/or erosion can be analyzed using stress
analysis techniques with the results evaluated using principles of the
ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section VIII, Division 2,
Appendix IV is permitted
NBIC The assessment is the same as that required by API 510
138
Table 4 – Section Properties for Computation of Longitudinal Stress in a Cylinder with an LTA
I X = I X + Am y 2 − I LX − A f ( yLX + y )
2
IY = IY − I LY
π
IX = Iy =
64
(D 4
o − Di4 )
 3d d 2 d 3   2sin 2 θ  
 1 − + −  θ + sin θ cos θ −  +
3 
2 R R 2 4 R3   θ  
I LX =R d
 d 2 sin 2 θ  d d2  
 2 1 − + 2  
 3R θ ( 2 − d R )  R 6 R  
 3d d 2 d 3  
I LY = R 3d 1 − + 2 − 3  (θ − sin θ cos θ ) 
 2 R R 4 R  
2 R sin θ  d 1 
yLX = 1 − + 
3θ  R 2 − d R 
0.5π ( Di + Do ) − c  ( Di + Do )
At = 
8
π
Aa = Di2
4
π
Am =
4
(D 2
o − Di2 )
139
Table 4 – Section Properties for Computation of Longitudinal Stress in a Cylinder with an LTA
(Continued)
For A Region of Local Metal Loss Located on the For A Region of Local Metal Loss
Inside Surface Located on the Outside Surface
θ θ
Af =
4
(D 2
f − Di2 ) Af =
4
(D 2
o − D 2f )
Aw = Aa + A f Aw = Aa
1 sin θ ( D f − Di ) 1 sin θ ( Do − D f )
3 3 3 3
y= y=
12 Am − Af 12 Am − Af
xA = 0.0 xA = 0.0
Do Df
yA = y + yA = y +
2 2
Do Df
xB = sin θ xB = sin θ
2 2
D Df
yB = y + o cos θ
2 yB = y + cosθ
2
1 sin θ ( D f − Di )
3 3
b=0
b=
12 Aa + A f D
R= o
Df 2
R=
2
d=
(D o − Df )
d=
(D f − Di ) 2
2
t=
(D f − Di )
t=
(D o − Df ) 2
2 c ( Di + D f )
Atf =
c ( Do + D f ) 8
Atf =
8
140
Table 5 – LTA Assessment Methods
Method Description
1 API-579 Section 5, Level 1 Analysis – B31.G surface correction,
rectangular area, API level 1 Folias factor
2 API-579 Section 5, Level 2 Analysis – B31.G surface correction, effective
area, API level 2 Folias factor
3 API-579 Section 5, Level 2 Analysis – B31.G surface correction, exact
4 Modified B31-G Method – B31.G surface correction, 0.85dl area, AGA
Folias factor
5 Modified B31-G Method (RSTRENG) – B31.G surface correction, effective
area, AGA Folias factor
6 Modified B31-G Method – B31.G surface correction, exact area, AGA
Folias factor
7 Original B31-G Method – B31.G surface correction, parabolic area, B31-G
Folias factor
8 Thickness Averaging – API 510, 8th Edition
9 Thickness Averaging – API 653, 2nd Edition
10 British Gas Single Defect Method – B31.G surface correction, exact area,
BG Folias factor
11 British Gas Complex Defect Method – B31.G surface correction, exact
area, BG Folias factor
12 Chell Method – Chell surface correction, exact area, B31-G Folias factor
13 Osage Method – Chell surface correction, effective area, D/t dependent
Folias factor
14 API-579, Level 1, Hybrid 1 Analysis – Chell surface correction, rectangular
15 API-579, Level 2, Hybrid 1 Analysis – Chell surface correction, effective
area, JO Folias factor
area, JO Folias factor
20 Battelle Method – B31.G surface correction, rectangular area, Battelle
Folias factor
21 BS 7910, Appendix G (Isolated Defect) – B31.G surface correction,
rectangular area, BG Folias factor
22 BS 7910, Appendix G (Grouped Defects) – B31.G surface correction,
rectangular area, BG Folias factor
23 Kanninen Equivalent Stress – B31.G surface correction, rectangular area,
shell theory Folias factor
24 Shell Theory Method – Chell surface correction, exact area, shell theory
Folias factor
141
Table 5 – LTA Assessment Methods (Continued)
25 Thickness Averaging – API 579, Level 1

26 Thickness Averaging – API 579, Level 2
27 Modified API-579 Section 5, Level 2 Analysis – B31.G surface correction,
rectangular area, Modified API Folias factor
28 API-579 Section 5, Level 2 Analysis – B31.G surface correction, effective
area, Modified API Folias factor
29 Janelle Method – rectangular area
30 Janelle Method – effective area
142
Table 6 – Validation Cases for the Undamaged Failure Pressure Calculation Method
Outside Thickness Failure Pressure Failure Pressure Error

Diameter (in) (in) from FEA from Svensson Between
(psi) Method (psi) Methods
6.625 0.28 5064.6 5121.1 1.1%
12.75 0.375 3478.4 3515.9 1.1%
24.0 0.375 1822.4 1841.5 1.0%
36.0 0.375 1204.8 1221.2 1.4%
Outside ID Equivalent ID Equivalent OD Equivalent OD Equivalent

Diameter (in) Plastic Strain Plastic Strain Plastic Strain Plastic Strain
from FEA from Svensson from FEA from Svensson
Method Method
6.625 0.1792 0.1811 0.1536 0.1529
12.75 0.1795 0.1765 0.1616 0.1571
24.0 0.1786 0.1717 0.1691 0.1616
36.0 0.1731 0.1700 0.1669 0.1633
Notes:
Table 118 The yield stress for the material model used in the FEA and Svensson
method was 34135 psi.
Table 118 The ultimate stress and corresponding plastic strain for the material was
82889 psi and 0.3213 in/in.
3. The strain hardening coefficient for the material was 0.3233
143
Table 7 – Parameters for a Through-Wall Longitudinal Crack in a Cylinder Subject to a Through-
Wall Membrane and Bending Stress
Ri Parameter C0 C1 C2 C3 C4 C5
t
3.0 Amm 1.0073E+00 8.3839E-01 1.5071E-01 5.4466E-02 -7.5887E-03 2.5248E-04
Amb -5.7070E-03 8.1803E-02 -2.3171E-02 -1.5258E-01 2.4677E-02 -3.0187E-04
5.0 Amm 1.0048E+00 1.8860E-01 7.3172E-01 -8.4972E-02 6.1289E-03 -1.7729E-04
Amb -2.3257E-03 1.4261E-01 -3.6873E-02 2.1666E-03 4.8189E-03 1.4505E-04
10.0 Amm 9.9652E-01 1.3041E-01 3.3780E-01 4.7232E-03 -2.7829E-03 1.3064E-04
Amb -4.7919E-03 1.6845E-01 -3.8474E-02 8.8191E-02 -9.8223E-04 9.9173E-05
20.0 Amm 1.0011E+00 1.2212E-01 4.4068E-01 -2.5824E-02 1.1045E-03 -2.3964E-05
Amb -2.9633E-04 1.5835E-01 -3.2881E-02 -8.9569E-03 1.1153E-02 -4.4610E-04
50.0 Amm 1.0010E+00 2.2135E-01 3.8500E-01 -9.8415E-03 -3.2277E-04 2.3126E-05
Amb -1.3263E-04 1.7173E-01 -3.2485E-02 -3.4733E-03 9.5691E-03 -3.3192E-04
100.0 Amm 1.0115E+00 9.2952E-02 5.6457E-01 -5.7580E-02 4.4685E-03 -1.3837E-04
Amb -4.0142E-04 1.8879E-01 -3.3723E-02 -1.6795E-02 1.3916E-02 -5.4210E-04
Notes:
Table 118 The equations to determine the coefficients are shown below.
0.5
Amm = C0 + C1λ + C2 λ2 + C3λ3 + C4 λ4 + C5λ5
C0 + C1λ + C2 λ2
Amb =
. + C3λ + C4 λ2 + C5λ3
10
Table 118 Ri t .
Interpolation may be used for intermediate values of
Table 118 The solutions can be used for cylinders with 3 ≤ Ri t ≤ 100 ; for Ri t < 3 use the solution for
Ri t = 3 and for Ri t > 100 use the solution for Ri t = 100 . Interpolation for values of
Ri t other than those provided is recommended.
Table 118 Crack and geometry dimensional limits: λ ≤ 12.5 . If λ > 12.5 , then use the following
solutions. If λ exceeds the permissible limit, then the following equations can be used:
=M
L10202
. + 0.44108λ + 61244
. (10 ) λ O
2 −3 4 0.5
(10 ) λ PQ
Amm
N 10. + 0.026421λ + 15329
. 2 −6 4
−6.6351c10 h + 0.049633λ − 8.7408(10

−3 2 −3
) λ4
Amb =
. + 19046
10 . (10 ) λ + 5.7868c10 hλ
−3 2 −3 4
144
Table 8 – LTA Database 1 Case Descriptions
Case Number Description
These tests were performed by the Texas Eastern Transmission Corporation
and are described in Reference 1-3. This group of tests involved burst tests
1-25 of corroded pipe samples removed from service and fabricated into end-
capped vessels. Only six different specimens were used to generate the 25
cases; leaks were repaired and the vessel tested again.
These cases are another group of tests performed for the Texas Eastern
Transmission Company. Details and discussion of these tests can be found
26-31
in References 1-4, 1-5, and 1-6. The six pressure vessel tests were
fabricated from samples of corroded pipe.
These cases are burst tests conducted with PRC funding. All the cases are
32-42 pressure vessel tests fabricated from line-pipe samples contributed by
several pipeline operators.
These cases are burst test results produced by independent pipeline
43-47, 52-78, 83
operators. The tests are corroded pipes fabricated into end-capped vessels.
These cases are investigations of service failures by pipeline operators. As
48-51, 79-81, 86
such, the longitudinal stress in the pipe is unknown.
These cases represent burst tests performed by various pipeline operators.
The specimens are corroded pipe removed from service and fabricated in
87-92
pressure vessels. Case 89 involves internal corrosion; the rest have
external corrosion.
These cases are burst tests of end-capped pipe samples performed for
Nova. The defects in these test are machined, corrosion simulating, notches
of significant width (>1”). Cases 93-96 and 102 were spirally oriented
notches. Cases 97-99 were single longitudinally oriented notches. Cases
100 and 101 had pairs of longitudinally oriented notches on the same axial
line, separated by different amounts. Cases 103 and 104 involved pairs of
93-105
parallel, overlapping, longitudinally oriented notches, separated
circumferentially by small multiples of the wall thickness. Case 105 is a
defect free control case pressurized to failure. More details of these cases
can be found in References1-7 and 1-8. There are some discrepancies
between the original data and the data found in Reference 1-1 and 1-2.
Original values were used.
Cases 106-117 are pipe samples removed from service that had internal
pitting. Testing on these cases was performed in a special rig that allowed
pressurization of the pipe without axial stress. Defects were mostly isolated
pits less than 3” in axial length. Case 107 gave an anomalous result as it
106-117
was discovered that a fatigue crack had extended the pit. Cases can be
found in Reference 1-9. There are some discrepancies between the original
data and the data found in Reference 1-1 and 1-2. Original values were
used.
These cases are a variety of machined, corrosion simulating notches. Case
118 is a defect free control case. Cases 119 and 124 contain long, single,
longitudinally oriented notches. Case 120 contains two longitudinally
oriented slots of different lengths and depths; one on the side of the pipe and
118-124 one on the other side of the pipe. Cases 121 and 122 had bands of material
of differing sizes removed around the complete circumference in two
locations along the axis of the sample. Case 123 contains two different
sized rectangular patches of removed metal each on opposite sides of the
pipe. All cases were pressurized to failure. Failures were all ruptures
145
occurring at one defect.
Table 8 – LTA Database 1 Case Descriptions (Continued)

These cases were presented by British Gas researchers and can be found
also in Reference 1-10. They include various machined defects to simulate
corroded pipe. Cases 125-129 are a series of single notch defects designed
to evaluate the effect of flaw length. The flaws were narrow, behaving more
like a crack than a pit-like flaw. Cases 130-133 involve tests with closely
125-157 spaced notches to monitor defect interaction. Cases 134-142 involve tests
with closely spaced round pits. Cases 143-152 are tests to address the
behavior of patches of missing metal and their interactions with each other
and with rounded pits. Cases 153-157 contain short flaws within longer
flaws or areas of reduced wall thickness. Cases 132, 141, and 143 are
omitted from the statistical analysis due to lack of information.
These cases are part of an experiment carried out at Southwest Research
Institute and reported in Reference 1-11. Metal loss in these cases was
simulated by machining away 25-50% of the wall thickness over rectangular
areas of various sizes. Two identical areas of metal loss were created with
158-162
180 degrees of circumferential separation between the two. This was done
so that one defect would be in compression while the other was in tension
for an applied bending moment. The tests were subjected to various
combinations of internal pressure and bending moments.
These cases were performed at the University of Waterloo and can be found
in References 1-12, 1-13, and 1-14. These burst tests were conducted on
pipes containing various arrays of electrochemically machined pits.
163-187
Longitudinal, circumferential, and spiral defect arrays were used. Some
tests were run using a special apparatus that eliminated axial stress in the
test case.
Most of these cases are failures and burst tests of corroded pipe in and
removed from service. Cases 188 and 190 are hydrostatic failures of
corroded pipe. Cases 189, 191, 195, and 214 are ductile mode in-service
188-215 failures of corroded pipe. Cases 192-194, 198-213, and 215 are burst tests
of corroded pipe samples previously removed from service. Cases 196 and
197 are brittle mode in-service failures of corroded pipe. Cases 192-194 and
196-197 are omitted from the statistical analysis due to lack of information.
These cases are additional cases found in Reference 1-1 and on the
216-221 compiled spreadsheet. Case 217 is omitted from the statistical analysis due
to lack of information.
146
2000-2025 These cases are from test vessel #1. Cases 2000-2003 are longitudinal
defects in the shell. Case 2004 is a circumferential defect in the shell.
Case 2005 is a defect in the shell to head weld. Cases 2006-2013 are
defects located in the elliptical heads of the vessel. Cases 2014-2015 are
defects in and around the nozzles of the vessel. Cases 2016-2019 are
axial defects in the shell. Cases 2020-2025 are external axial defects in the
shell.
2026-2057 These cases are from test vessel #2. Cases 2026-2029, 2043-2046, and
2052-2053 are longitudinal defects in the shell. Case 2030 is a
circumferential defect in the shell. Case 2031 is a defect in the shell to
head weld. Cases 2032-2039 are defects in the elliptical heads of the
vessel. Cases 2040-2042 and 2054-2057 are defects around the nozzles
of the vessel. Cases 2047-2051 are external axial defects in the shell.
Cases 2054-2057 are omitted from the statistical analysis due to lack of
information.

3000-3006 These cases are machined isolated pit defects. Cases 3000-3003 are
external pits and cases 3004-3006 are internal pits.
3007-3035 These cases contain machined groove defects. Cases 3007-3013 and
3017-3035 are external grooves and cases 3014-3016 are internal grooves.
3036-3045, These cases contain machined patches that simulate areas of general
3047-3057 corrosion. Cases 3036-3042 and 3047-3057 are external general defects
and cases 3043-3045 are patches of internal corrosion.
3046 This case is a defect free control case.
3058-3063 These cases are machined circumferential defects. Cases 3058 and 3061
are areas of external general corrosion. Cases 3059 and 3062 are external
grooves. Cases 3060 and 3063 are external slots.
3064-3068 These cases contain adjacent deep pit defects.
3069-3070 These cases have multiple adjacent deep pit defects. Case 3069 has 4
connected pits, and case 3070 has 3 adjacent pits.
3071-3074 These cases contain adjacent areas of machined general corrosion
patches.
3075-3080 These cases contain machined pits in areas of machined general corrosion.
Cases 3075 and 3076 have two pits in an area of general corrosion. Cases
3077 and 3078 have one pit in an area of general corrosion.
147
4000-4187 These cases are FEA models of corroded pipe. Diameter, thickness, defect
length, depth, and width have all been varied.
4188-4198 These cases are defect free FEA control cases.
4199-4220 These cases are FEA models of corroded pipe with decreased material yield
stress.
4221-4242 These cases are FEA models of corroded pipe with increased material yield
stress.
4243-2251 These cases are FEA models of deep corrosion pits.
4252-4347 These cases are FEA models of axially adjacent corrosion pits of various
dimensions.
4348-4441 These cases are FEA models of axially adjacent general areas of corrosion
of varying parameters.
4442-4459 These cases are repeats of cases 4415-4442, except that the defect length
has been changed.
4460-4504 These cases are FEA models of corrosion pits contained within an area of
general corrosion.
4505- These cases are FEA models of undamaged validation cases.
148
Table 12 – FEA Results for a Cylindrical Shell with a LTA
FEA Model Type LTA Length Lambda, λ Failure Pressure RSF
(in) (psi)
3D Solid 0.0 0 1823.2 1.0
11.4893 5 1431.8 0.785
22.9784 10 1236.0 0.678
34.468 15 1183.4 0.649
45.9572 20 1147.6 0.629
57.4466 25 1127.2 0.618
68.9358 30 1114.0 0.611
Infinite Infinite 1090.8 0.598
Axisymmetric 0.0 0 1822.2 1.0
Solid 11.4893 5 1385.4 0.760
22.9784 10 1138.4 0.625
34.468 15 1017.8 0.559
45.9572 20 966.4 0.530
57.4466 25 943.6 0.518
68.9358 30 932.0 0.511
Infinite Infinite 911.1 0.500
Notes
1. The FEA models were run with non-linear geometry and elastic-plastic material properties.
2. The geometry used for the models was a standard 24 inch pipe (inside diameter of 23.25
inches and thickness of 0.375 inches)
3. The LTA is a rectangular area of metal loss with depth of 0.1875 inches.
4. For the 3D models, the flaw length in the circumferential direction was a 60 degree arc.
149
Table 13 – FEA Results for a Spherical Shell with a LTA
FEA Model Type LTA Length Lambda, λ Failure Pressure RSF
(in) (psi)
Axisymmetric 0.0 0 1650.2 1.0
Solid 5.7447 2.5 1620.4 0.982
11.4893 5 1466.2 0.889
17.2340 7.5 1341.4 0.813
22.9784 10 1212.6 0.735
34.468 15 1081.2 0.655
45.9572 20 1001.4 0.607
57.4466 25 943.4 0.572
68.9358 30 905.6 0.549
Infinite (148.44) Infinite (63.6) 825.2 0.500
Notes
1. The FEA models were run with non-linear geometry and elastic-plastic material properties.
2. The geometry used for the models was a sphere with inside diameter of 47.25 inches and
thickness of 0.375 inches.
3. The LTA was modeled as a circular area of metal loss with diameter equal to the LTA
Length and uniform depth of 0.1875 inches.
150
Table 14 – API 579 Folias Factor Values for a Cylinder and Sphere
Lambda, λ Folias Factor, Mt, for a Cylindrical Folias Factor, Mt, for a Spherical
Shell Shell
0.0 1.001 1.001
0.5 1.056 1.063
1.0 1.199 1.218
1.5 1.394 1.427
2.0 1.618 1.673
2.5 1.857 1.946
3.0 2.103 2.240
3.5 2.351 2.552
4.0 2.600 2.880
4.5 2.847 3.221
5.0 3.091 3.576
5.5 3.331 3.944
6.0 3.568 4.323
6.5 3.802 4.715
7.0 4.032 5.119
7.5 4.262 5.535
8.0 4.493 5.964
8.5 4.728 6.405
9.0 4.972 6.858
9.5 5.227 7.325
10.0 5.500 7.806
10.5 5.794 8.301
11.0 6.117 8.810
11.5 6.474 9.334
12.0 6.872 9.873
12.5 7.316 10.429
13.0 7.815 11.002
13.5 8.375 11.592
14.0 9.004 12.200
14.5 9.710 12.827
15.0 10.500 13.474
15.5 11.382 14.142
16.0 12.361 14.832
16.5 13.446 15.544
151
Table 14 – API 579 Folias Factor Values for a Cylinder and Sphere (Continued)
Lambda, λ Folias Factor, Mt, for a Cylindrical Folias Factor, Mt, for a Spherical
Shell Shell
17.0 14.638 16.281
17.5 15.941 17.042
18.0 17.355 17.830
18.5 18.876 18.645
19.0 20.496 19.489
19.5 22.208 20.364
20.0 23.999 21.272
Notes
1. The equation for the cylindrical shell is as follows. If λ is greater than 30, use a λ value of 30
in the calculation.
M t = 1.0010 − 0.014195λ + 0.29090λ 2 − 0.096420λ 3 +
0.020890λ 4 − 0.0030540λ 5 + 2.9570 (10−4 ) λ 6 −
1.8462 (10−5 ) λ 7 + 7.1553 (10−7 ) λ 8 −
1.5631(10 −8 ) λ 9 + 1.4656 (10−10 ) λ 10
2. The equation for the spherical shell is as follows. The λ value is only limited by the inside
circumference of the shell.
1.0005 + 0.49001( λ ) + 0.32409 ( λ )

2
Mt =
1.0 + 0.50144 ( λ ) − 0.011067 ( λ )
2
152
Table 15 – Cases Omitted from Statistics
Case Numbers Reason
132, 141, 143 The length of the flaw is unknown.
192-194 The failure pressure or bending moment of the test is unknown.
196-197, 217 No information is known regarding these cases.
2054-2057 The defect depth is unknown.
26, 36-37, These cases have a remaining thickness over original thickness ratio of less
40-41, 45, than 0.2. The statistical analysis results obtained from these cases will skew
the data as cases with less than 20% of the original wall thickness are not
49-50, 52,
practical applications for the various analysis methods presented here.
62, 79, 83,
85, 189, 195,
200-201,
2010, 2019,
3001-3002,
3005-3006,
3023,
3032-3033,
3064-3070,
4248-4251
107 Case 107 gave an anomalous result as it was discovered that a fatigue crack
had extended the pit.
Database 2 The cases in this database were not used in the LTA validation. The vessels
were pressurized to the point of plastic deformation multiple times and the
results obtained from the test are not consistent with the other databases.
105, 118, These cases are defect free control cases, and are not included in the
1005, statistical analysis.
4188-4198
153
Table 16 – Failure Ratio Statistics for Method Validation
Failure Ratio Failure Ratio
Mean Failure Ratio
Upper 95% Lower 95%
Method Failure Standard
Prediction Prediction
Ratio Deviation
Limit Limit
1 - API 579 Section 5, Level 1
Analysis - B31.G surface
1.2184 0.3134 1.8341 0.6027
correction, rectangular area,
API level 1 Folias factor
2 - API 579 Section 5, Level 2
1.0397 0.1514 1.337 0.7423
correction, effective area, API
level 2 Folias factor
3 - API-579 Section 5, Level 2
1.015 0.1495 1.3088 0.7213
correction, exact area, API
4 - Modified B31.G Method -
B31.G surface correction, 1.0035 0.1976 1.3916 0.6154
0.85dl area, AGA Folias factor
5 - Modified B31.G Method
(RSTRENG) - B31.G surface
1.0284 0.1465 1.3161 0.7408
correction, effective area, AGA
Folias factor
6 - Modified B31.G Method -
B31.G surface correction, 1.006 0.1457 1.2922 0.7198
exact area, AGA Folias factor
7 - Original B31.G Method -
B31.G surface correction,
1.0317 0.2937 1.6087 0.4547
parabolic area, B31-G Folias
factor
8 - Thickness Averaging - API
1.1225 0.2597 1.6326 0.6124
510, 8th Edition
1.217 0.2962 1.7988 0.6351
653, 2nd Edition
10 - British Gas Single Defect
Method - B31.G surface
1.0782 0.2413 1.5522 0.6042
correction, exact area, BG
Folias factor
11 - British Gas Complex
Defect Method - B31.G surface
1.0953 0.1978 1.4838 0.7067
correction, exact area, BG
Folias factor
12 - Chell Method - Chell
surface correction, exact area, 1.0142 0.2099 1.4264 0.6019
B31-G Folias factor
154
Table 16 – Failure Ratio Statistics for Method Validation (Continued)

Mean Failure Ratio
Upper 95% Lower 95%
Ratio Deviation
Limit Limit
13 - Osage Method - Chell
surface correction, effective
0.9361 0.1677 1.2656 0.6067
area, D/t dependent Folias
factor
14 - API 579, Level 1, Hybrid 1
Analysis - Chell surface
1.0132 0.2098 1.4253 0.601
API level 1 Folias factor
0.9204 0.1717 1.2576 0.5832
correction, effective area, API
0.9658 0.2068 1.3719 0.5596
BG Folias factor
0.9079 0.1752 1.252 0.5638
correction, effective area, BG
Folias factor
0.8963 0.1747 1.2393 0.5532
JO Folias factor
0.8537 0.1446 1.1377 0.5697
correction, effective area, JO
Folias factor
20 - Battelle Method - B31.G
surface correction, rectangular 1.078 0.2421 1.5536 0.6025
area, Battelle Folias factor
21 - BS 7910, Appendix G
(Isolated Defect) - B31.G
1.0782 0.2413 1.5522 0.6042
surface correction, rectangular
22 - BS 7910, Appendix G
(Grouped Defects) - B31.G
1.0105 0.1906 1.385 0.6361
surface correction, rectangular
23 - Kanninen Equivalent
Stress - B31.G surface
1.3862 0.5358 2.4387 0.3337
shell theory Folias factor
155
Table 16 – Failure Ratio Statistics for Method Validation (Continued)

Mean Failure Ratio
Upper 95% Lower 95%
Ratio Deviation
Limit Limit
24 - Shell Theory Method -
Chell surface correction, exact 1.168 0.3156 1.7879 0.5481
area, shell theory Folias factor
1.3599 0.445 2.234 0.4858
579, Level 1
1.0391 0.299 1.6264 0.4518
579, Level 2
27 - Modified API 579 Section
5, Level 1 Analysis - B31.G
surface correction, rectangular 1.1896 0.2939 1.767 0.6122
area, Modified API Folias
factor
28 - Modified API 579 Section
5, Level 2 Analysis - B31.G
surface correction, effective 1.0415 0.1509 1.3408 0.7422
area, Modified API Folias
factor
29 - Janelle Method, Level 1 -
1.1166 0.2253 1.5591 0.674
rectangular area
30 - Janelle Method, Level 1 -
1.0128 0.1433 1.2942 0.7314
effective area
156
Table 17 – Stress Limits Based on Design Codes
Design Code Equipment Fys Futs
ASME Section VIII, Divison 1 (pre 1999) Pressure Vessels 2/3 1/4
ASME Section VIII, Divison 1 (post 1999) Pressure Vessels 2/3 1/3.5
ASME Section VIII, Division 2 Pressure Vessels 2/3 1/3
New Proposed ASME Section VIII, Pressure Vessels 2/3 1/2.4

Division 2
EN13445 Pressure Vessels 2/3 1/2.4
CODAP Pressure Vessels 1 1/3
AS 1210 Pressure Vessels 2/3 1/2.35
BS 5500 Pressure Vessels 2/3 1/2.35
ASME B31.1 (pre 1999) Power Piping 2/3 1/4
ASME B31.1 (post 1999) Power Piping 2/3 1/3.5
ASME B31.3 Process Piping 2/3 1/3
ASME B31.4 Liquid Piping 0.72 1
ASME B31.8, Class 1, Division I Gas Piping 4/5 1
ASME B31.8, Class 1, Division II Gas Piping 0.72 1
ASME B31.8, Class 2 Gas Piping 3/5 1
API 620 Atmospheric Storage 3/5 3/10

Tanks
API 650 Low-Pressure 2/3 2/5

Storage Tanks
157
Table 18 – MAWP Ratio vs. Allowable RSF for ASME Section VIII, Division 1 (pre 1999) and
ASME B31.1 (pre 1999)
MAWP MAWP Ratio MAWP Ratio
Mean
Allowable Ratio Upper 95% Lower 95%
Method MAWP
RSF Standard Prediction Prediction
Ratio
Deviation Limit Limit
1 - API 579 0.7 3.8496 0.8788 5.5758 2.1235
Section 5, Level 1 0.75 4.0301 0.9478 5.8919 2.1683
Analysis - B31.G 0.8 4.2236 1.0253 6.2375 2.2096
surface correction, 0.85 4.4319 1.1069 6.6061 2.2576
rectangular area, 0.9 4.6610 1.1858 6.9902 2.3317
API level 1 Folias 0.95 4.9079 1.2575 7.3780 2.4378
factor 1.0 5.1641 1.3249 7.7666 2.5616
2 - API 579 0.7 3.4419 0.5716 4.5646 2.3191
Section 5, Level 2 0.75 3.5509 0.5560 4.6431 2.4587
Analysis - B31.G 0.8 3.6780 0.5564 4.7709 2.5850
effective area, API 0.9 3.9952 0.6075 5.1885 2.8019
level 2 Folias 0.95 4.1939 0.6435 5.4580 2.9299
factor 1.0 4.4107 0.6778 5.7422 3.0793
3 - API-579 0.7 3.3769 0.6030 4.5614 2.1924
Section 5, Level 2 0.75 3.4780 0.5792 4.6157 2.3403
Analysis - B31.G 0.8 3.5978 0.5687 4.7150 2.4806
exact area, API 0.9 3.9011 0.6017 5.0830 2.7192
level 2 Folias 0.95 4.0944 0.6339 5.3396 2.8493
factor 1.0 4.3060 0.6671 5.6163 2.9957
0.7 3.3822 0.7606 4.8761 1.8883
4 - Modified
0.75 3.4912 0.7449 4.9544 2.0281
B31.G Method -
0.8 3.6227 0.7425 5.0812 2.1641
B31.G surface
0.85 3.7702 0.7574 5.2578 2.2826
correction, 0.85dl
0.9 3.9405 0.7861 5.4846 2.3964
area, AGA Folias
factor 0.95 4.1336 0.8264 5.7568 2.5104
1.0 4.3468 0.8693 6.0542 2.6393
5 - Modified 0.7 3.5014 0.5976 4.6753 2.3275
B31.G Method 0.75 3.6079 0.5791 4.7455 2.4703
(RSTRENG) - 0.8 3.7322 0.5750 4.8616 2.6028
B31.G surface 0.85 3.8744 0.5896 5.0325 2.7163
correction, 0.9 4.0453 0.6194 5.2621 2.8286
effective area, 0.95 4.2417 0.6564 5.5310 2.9524
AGA Folias factor 1.0 4.4595 0.6915 5.8177 3.1012
0.7 3.4404 0.6306 4.6791 2.2016
6 - Modified
0.75 3.5396 0.6049 4.7277 2.3515
B31.G Method -
0.8 3.6574 0.5912 4.8187 2.4961
B31.G surface
0.85 3.7932 0.5958 4.9634 2.6230
correction, exact
0.9 3.9577 0.6184 5.1724 2.7430
area, AGA Folias
factor 0.95 4.1490 0.6514 5.4284 2.8696
1.0 4.3619 0.6854 5.7083 3.0156
158
ASME B31.1 (pre 1999) (Continued)

Mean
Method MAWP
Ratio
0.7 3.4403 0.9192 5.2460 1.6347
7 – Original B31.G
0.75 3.5408 0.9572 5.4209 1.6607
Method – B31.G
0.8 3.6565 1.0039 5.6284 1.6847
surface correction,
0.85 3.8052 1.0572 5.8819 1.7285
parabolic area,
0.9 3.9715 1.1168 6.1651 1.7780
B31-G Folias
factor 0.95 4.1600 1.1801 6.4781 1.8419
1.0 4.3732 1.2426 6.8141 1.9324
0.7 4.7645 1.1374 6.9987 2.5304
0.75 4.7645 1.1374 6.9987 2.5304
8 – Thickness 0.8 4.7645 1.1374 6.9987 2.5304
Averaging – API 0.85 4.7645 1.1374 6.9987 2.5304
510, 8th Edition 0.9 4.7645 1.1374 6.9987 2.5304
0.95 4.7645 1.1374 6.9987 2.5304
1.0 4.7645 1.1374 6.9987 2.5304
0.7 5.1635 1.2870 7.6915 2.6355
0.75 5.1635 1.2870 7.6915 2.6355
9 – Thickness 0.8 5.1635 1.2870 7.6915 2.6355
Averaging – API 0.85 5.1635 1.2870 7.6915 2.6355
653, 2nd Edition 0.9 5.1635 1.2870 7.6915 2.6355
0.95 5.1635 1.2870 7.6915 2.6355
1.0 5.1635 1.2870 7.6915 2.6355
0.7 3.5369 0.7360 4.9827 2.0912
10 – British Gas
0.75 3.6652 0.7619 5.1617 2.1687
Single Defect
0.8 3.8086 0.8011 5.3822 2.2350
Method – B31.G
0.85 3.9678 0.8513 5.6400 2.2955
surface correction,
0.9 4.1490 0.9070 5.9306 2.3674
exact area, BG
Folias factor 0.95 4.3489 0.9646 6.2436 2.4541
1.0 4.5701 1.0177 6.5691 2.5710
0.7 3.6074 0.5867 4.7598 2.4550
11 – British Gas
0.75 3.7334 0.6129 4.9372 2.5296
Complex Defect
0.8 3.8730 0.6549 5.1593 2.5867
Method – B31.G
0.85 4.0335 0.7085 5.4253 2.6418
surface correction,
0.9 4.2180 0.7681 5.7268 2.7093
exact area, BG
Folias factor 0.95 4.4220 0.8256 6.0438 2.8003
1.0 4.6475 0.8728 6.3620 2.9330
0.7 3.3119 0.7394 4.7643 1.8595
12 – Chell Method 0.75 3.4208 0.7304 4.8554 1.9861
– Chell surface 0.8 3.5504 0.7370 4.9980 2.1028
correction, exact 0.85 3.7057 0.7615 5.2016 2.2099
area, B31-G 0.9 3.8890 0.8014 5.4632 2.3148
Folias factor 0.95 4.0863 0.8496 5.7551 2.4176
1.0 4.2996 0.8949 6.0574 2.5418
159

Mean
Method MAWP
Ratio
0.7 3.1684 0.7459 4.6335 1.7032
13 - Osage
0.75 3.2398 0.7048 4.6242 1.8553
Method - Chell
0.8 3.3292 0.6722 4.6496 2.0089
surface correction,
0.85 3.4431 0.6550 4.7297 2.1566
effective area, D/t
0.9 3.5945 0.6664 4.9035 2.2856
dependent Folias
factor 0.95 3.7728 0.6971 5.1420 2.4036
1.0 3.9707 0.7334 5.4114 2.5300
14 - API 579, 0.7 3.3101 0.7400 4.7637 1.8566
Level 1, Hybrid 1 0.75 3.4185 0.7307 4.8538 1.9832
Analysis - Chell 0.8 3.5476 0.7371 4.9954 2.0997
API level 1 Folias 0.95 4.0824 0.8492 5.7504 2.4143
factor 1.0 4.2953 0.8946 6.0525 2.5382
15 - API 579, 0.7 3.1530 0.7621 4.6500 1.6561
Level 2, Hybrid 1 0.75 3.2180 0.7227 4.6375 1.7985
Analysis - Chell 0.8 3.2990 0.6911 4.6565 1.9416
level 2 Folias 0.95 3.7128 0.7121 5.1116 2.3140
factor 1.0 3.9040 0.7493 5.3758 2.4322
0.7 3.2316 0.7718 4.7477 1.7155
16 - API 579,
0.75 3.3177 0.7537 4.7983 1.8372
Level 1, Hybrid 2
0.8 3.4213 0.7497 4.8939 1.9488
Analysis - Chell
0.85 3.5518 0.7626 5.0498 2.0539
surface correction,
0.9 3.7137 0.7948 5.2748 2.1526
rectangular area,
BG Folias factor 0.95 3.8958 0.8378 5.5415 2.2502
1.0 4.0946 0.8832 5.8294 2.3598
0.7 3.1445 0.7741 4.6651 1.6240
17 - API 579,
0.75 3.2053 0.7371 4.6531 1.7576
Level 2, Hybrid 2
0.8 3.2801 0.7070 4.6687 1.8914
Analysis - Chell
0.85 3.3766 0.6900 4.7319 2.0212
surface correction,
0.9 3.5069 0.6970 4.8760 2.1377
effective area, BG
Folias factor 0.95 3.6667 0.7252 5.0912 2.2423
1.0 3.8510 0.7632 5.3501 2.3519
0.7 3.1584 0.7930 4.7160 1.6007
18 - API 579,
0.75 3.2260 0.7611 4.7209 1.7311
Level 1, Hybrid 3
0.8 3.3104 0.7363 4.7566 1.8642
Analysis - Chell
0.85 3.4142 0.7218 4.8320 1.9964
surface correction,
0.9 3.5365 0.7202 4.9512 2.1218
rectangular area,
JO Folias factor 0.95 3.6738 0.7317 5.1111 2.2366
1.0 3.8290 0.7547 5.3114 2.3467
160

Mean
Method MAWP
Ratio
0.7 3.0967 0.8083 4.6844 1.5089
19 - API 579,
0.75 3.1382 0.7660 4.6427 1.6336
Level 2, Hybrid 3
0.8 3.1948 0.7219 4.6128 1.7767
Analysis - Chell
0.85 3.2695 0.6817 4.6085 1.9306
surface correction,
0.9 3.3667 0.6507 4.6449 2.0885
effective area, JO
Folias factor 0.95 3.4875 0.6363 4.7374 2.2376
1.0 3.6304 0.6391 4.8858 2.3750
0.7 3.5181 0.7547 5.0006 2.0357
20 - Battelle
0.75 3.6420 0.7805 5.1751 2.1089
Method - B31.G
0.8 3.7845 0.8179 5.3912 2.1779
surface correction,
0.85 3.9475 0.8655 5.6476 2.2475
rectangular area,
0.9 4.1335 0.9178 5.9363 2.3307
Battelle Folias
factor 0.95 4.3431 0.9703 6.2491 2.4371
1.0 4.5694 1.0217 6.5763 2.5624
21 - BS 7910, 0.7 3.5369 0.7360 4.9827 2.0912
Appendix G 0.75 3.6652 0.7619 5.1617 2.1687
(Isolated Defect) - 0.8 3.8086 0.8011 5.3822 2.2350
B31.G surface 0.85 3.9678 0.8513 5.6400 2.2955
correction, 0.9 4.1490 0.9070 5.9306 2.3674
BG Folias factor 1.0 4.5701 1.0177 6.5691 2.5710
22 - BS 7910, 0.7 3.4056 0.6658 4.7135 2.0978
Appendix G 0.75 3.5092 0.6574 4.8006 2.2179
(Grouped Defects) 0.8 3.6273 0.6637 4.9309 2.3237
- B31.G surface 0.85 3.7581 0.6851 5.1038 2.4124
correction, 0.9 3.9101 0.7184 5.3212 2.4990
BG Folias factor 1.0 4.2823 0.8021 5.8579 2.7067
23 - Kanninen 0.7 4.3514 1.4718 7.2423 1.4604
Equivalent Stress 0.75 4.5660 1.6113 7.7310 1.4010
- B31.G surface 0.8 4.7931 1.7515 8.2334 1.3527
correction, 0.85 5.0393 1.8860 8.7439 1.3347
shell theory Folias 0.95 5.5782 2.1360 9.7739 1.3825
factor 1.0 5.8690 2.2501 10.2887 1.4493
0.7 3.8278 0.8540 5.5053 2.1504
24 - Shell Theory
0.75 3.9704 0.9346 5.8063 2.1345
Method - Chell
0.8 4.1254 1.0229 6.1348 2.1161
surface correction,
0.85 4.3002 1.1121 6.4847 2.1156
exact area, shell
0.9 4.4953 1.1982 6.8489 2.1416
theory Folias
factor 0.95 4.7108 1.2788 7.2227 2.1989
1.0 4.9518 1.3491 7.6017 2.3018
161

Mean
Method MAWP
Ratio
0.7 4.8300 1.5839 7.9412 1.7188
0.75 5.0507 1.7875 8.5618 1.5395
25 - Thickness 0.8 5.3068 2.0618 9.3566 1.2569
Averaging - API 0.85 5.6841 2.3371 10.2749 1.0934
579, Level 1 0.9 6.1443 2.6847 11.4178 0.8707
0.95 6.6748 2.9860 12.5401 0.8095
1.0 7.4340 3.2858 13.8882 0.9799
0.7 3.6916 1.0691 5.7914 1.5917
0.75 3.9833 1.2852 6.5078 1.4588
26 - Thickness 0.8 4.3724 1.5932 7.5019 1.2430
Averaging - API 0.85 4.8674 1.9639 8.7250 1.0098
579, Level 2 0.9 5.5303 2.4109 10.2659 0.7947
0.95 6.3377 2.8362 11.9087 0.7666
1.0 7.4340 3.2858 13.8882 0.9799
27 - Modified API 0.7 3.7722 0.8347 5.4118 2.1327
579 Section 5, 0.75 3.9433 0.8932 5.6978 2.1888
Level 1 Analysis - 0.8 4.1278 0.9621 6.0177 2.2379
B31.G surface 0.85 4.3271 1.0366 6.3632 2.2910
correction, 0.9 4.5471 1.1103 6.7281 2.3661
Modified API
Folias factor 1.0 5.0356 1.2410 7.4733 2.5979
28 - Modified API 0.7 3.4450 0.5711 4.5668 2.3232

579 Section 5, 0.75 3.5544 0.5562 4.6469 2.4619
Level 2 Analysis - 0.8 3.6820 0.5572 4.7765 2.5874
B31.G surface 0.85 3.8265 0.5765 4.9590 2.6940
correction, 0.9 4.0001 0.6096 5.1974 2.8028
effective area, 0.95 4.1989 0.6461 5.4681 2.9298
Modified API
Folias factor 1.0 4.4160 0.6806 5.7529 3.0790
0.7 3.5308 0.7205 4.9460 2.1155
0.75 3.6844 0.7366 5.1313 2.2375
29 - Janelle 0.8 3.8548 0.7689 5.3651 2.3444
Method, Level 1 - 0.85 4.0461 0.8133 5.6436 2.4485
rectangular area 0.9 4.2642 0.8596 5.9526 2.5757
0.95 4.4963 0.9078 6.2796 2.7131
1.0 4.7329 0.9556 6.6100 2.8558
0.7 3.3159 0.6239 4.5414 2.0904
0.75 3.4184 0.5860 4.5694 2.2673
30 - Janelle 0.8 3.5426 0.5630 4.6486 2.4367
Method, Level 1 - 0.85 3.6909 0.5617 4.7942 2.5877
effective area 0.9 3.8761 0.5790 5.0134 2.7389
0.95 4.0816 0.6070 5.2739 2.8894
1.0 4.2960 0.6389 5.5510 3.0411
162
Table 19 – MAWP Ratio vs. Allowable RSF for ASME Section VIII, Division 1 (post 1999) and
ASME B31.1 (post 1999)
Mean
Method MAWP
Ratio
1 - API 579 0.7 3.3684 0.7689 4.8788 1.8580
Section 5, Level 1 0.75 3.5263 0.8294 5.1554 1.8972
Analysis - B31.G 0.8 3.6956 0.8972 5.4579 1.9334
API level 1 Folias 0.95 4.2944 1.1003 6.4557 2.1331
factor 1.0 4.5186 1.1593 6.7958 2.2414
2 - API 579 0.7 3.0116 0.5001 3.9940 2.0293
Section 5, Level 2 0.75 3.1070 0.4865 4.0627 2.1514
Analysis - B31.G 0.8 3.2182 0.4869 4.1746 2.2618
level 2 Folias 0.95 3.6697 0.5631 4.7758 2.5636
factor 1.0 3.8594 0.5931 5.0244 2.6944
3 - API-579 0.7 2.9548 0.5276 3.9913 1.9184
Section 5, Level 2 0.75 3.0432 0.5068 4.0387 2.0478
Analysis - B31.G 0.8 3.1481 0.4977 4.1256 2.1705
exact area, API 0.9 3.4135 0.5265 4.4476 2.3793
level 2 Folias 0.95 3.5826 0.5547 4.6722 2.4931
factor 1.0 3.7677 0.5837 4.9143 2.6212
0.7 2.9594 0.6655 4.2666 1.6522
4 - Modified
0.75 3.0548 0.6518 4.3351 1.7746
B31.G Method -
0.8 3.1698 0.6497 4.4461 1.8936
B31.G surface
0.85 3.2989 0.6627 4.6006 1.9972
correction, 0.85dl
0.9 3.4480 0.6878 4.7991 2.0969
area, AGA Folias
factor 0.95 3.6169 0.7231 5.0372 2.1966
1.0 3.8034 0.7606 5.2975 2.3094
5 - Modified 0.7 3.0637 0.5229 4.0909 2.0365
B31.G Method 0.75 3.1569 0.5067 4.1523 2.1615
(RSTRENG) - 0.8 3.2657 0.5031 4.2539 2.2775
B31.G surface 0.85 3.3901 0.5159 4.4034 2.3768
correction, 0.9 3.5397 0.5420 4.6043 2.4750
effective area, 0.95 3.7115 0.5743 4.8396 2.5833
0.7 3.0103 0.5518 4.0942 1.9264
6 - Modified
0.75 3.0972 0.5293 4.1368 2.0576
B31.G Method -
0.8 3.2002 0.5173 4.2164 2.1841
B31.G surface
0.85 3.3191 0.5213 4.3430 2.2951
correction, exact
0.9 3.4630 0.5411 4.5259 2.4001
area, AGA Folias
factor 0.95 3.6304 0.5699 4.7499 2.5109
1.0 3.8167 0.5997 4.9947 2.6386
163
ASME B31.1 (post 1999) (Continued)

Mean
Method MAWP
Ratio
0.7 3.0103 0.8043 4.5902 1.4304
7 - Original B31.G
0.75 3.0982 0.8375 4.7433 1.4531
Method - B31.G
0.8 3.1995 0.8784 4.9249 1.4741
surface correction,
0.85 3.3296 0.9251 5.1467 1.5124
parabolic area,
0.9 3.4751 0.9772 5.3945 1.5557
B31-G Folias
factor 0.95 3.6400 1.0326 5.6683 1.6117
1.0 3.8266 1.0873 5.9624 1.6908
0.7 4.1690 0.9952 6.1238 2.2141
0.75 4.1690 0.9952 6.1238 2.2141
8 - Thickness 0.8 4.1690 0.9952 6.1238 2.2141
Averaging - API 0.85 4.1690 0.9952 6.1238 2.2141
510, 8th Edition 0.9 4.1690 0.9952 6.1238 2.2141
0.95 4.1690 0.9952 6.1238 2.2141
1.0 4.1690 0.9952 6.1238 2.2141
0.7 4.5181 1.1261 6.7301 2.3061
0.75 4.5181 1.1261 6.7301 2.3061
9 - Thickness 0.8 4.5181 1.1261 6.7301 2.3061
Averaging - API 0.85 4.5181 1.1261 6.7301 2.3061
653, 2nd Edition 0.9 4.5181 1.1261 6.7301 2.3061
0.95 4.5181 1.1261 6.7301 2.3061
1.0 4.5181 1.1261 6.7301 2.3061
0.7 3.0948 0.6440 4.3599 1.8298
10 - British Gas
0.75 3.2071 0.6666 4.5165 1.8976
Single Defect
0.8 3.3325 0.7010 4.7094 1.9556
Method - B31.G
0.85 3.4718 0.7449 4.9350 2.0086
surface correction,
0.9 3.6304 0.7936 5.1893 2.0715
exact area, BG
Folias factor 0.95 3.8053 0.8440 5.4632 2.1474
1.0 3.9988 0.8905 5.7480 2.2496
0.7 3.1565 0.5134 4.1649 2.1481
11 - British Gas
0.75 3.2668 0.5362 4.3201 2.2134
Complex Defect
0.8 3.3889 0.5730 4.5144 2.2634
Method - B31.G
0.85 3.5294 0.6200 4.7471 2.3116
surface correction,
0.9 3.6908 0.6721 5.0109 2.3706
exact area, BG
Folias factor 0.95 3.8693 0.7224 5.2883 2.4503
1.0 4.0666 0.7637 5.5667 2.5664
0.7 2.8979 0.6470 4.1688 1.6271
12 - Chell Method 0.75 2.9932 0.6391 4.2485 1.7378
- Chell surface 0.8 3.1066 0.6449 4.3733 1.8399
area, B31-G 0.9 3.4029 0.7012 4.7803 2.0255
Folias factor 0.95 3.5755 0.7434 5.0357 2.1154
1.0 3.7622 0.7830 5.3002 2.2241
164

Mean
Method MAWP
Ratio
0.7 2.7723 0.6527 4.0543 1.4903
13 - Osage
0.75 2.8348 0.6167 4.0462 1.6234
Method - Chell
0.8 2.9131 0.5881 4.0684 1.7578
surface correction,
0.85 3.0127 0.5731 4.1385 1.8870
effective area, D/t
0.9 3.1452 0.5831 4.2906 1.9999
dependent Folias
factor 0.95 3.3012 0.6099 4.4993 2.1032
1.0 3.4744 0.6418 4.7350 2.2138
14 - API 579, 0.7 2.8964 0.6475 4.1682 1.6245
Level 1, Hybrid 1 0.75 2.9912 0.6394 4.2471 1.7353
Analysis - Chell 0.8 3.1041 0.6450 4.3710 1.8372
API level 1 Folias 0.95 3.5721 0.7431 5.0316 2.1125
factor 1.0 3.7584 0.7827 5.2959 2.2209
15 - API 579, 0.7 2.7589 0.6668 4.0688 1.4490
Level 2, Hybrid 1 0.75 2.8157 0.6323 4.0578 1.5737
Analysis - Chell 0.8 2.8867 0.6047 4.0744 1.6989
level 2 Folias 0.95 3.2487 0.6231 4.4726 2.0248
factor 1.0 3.4160 0.6556 4.7038 2.1281
0.7 2.8277 0.6754 4.1543 1.5011
16 - API 579,
0.75 2.9030 0.6595 4.1985 1.6076
Level 1, Hybrid 2
0.8 2.9937 0.6560 4.2821 1.7052
Analysis - Chell
0.85 3.1078 0.6673 4.4185 1.7971
surface correction,
0.9 3.2495 0.6954 4.6155 1.8835
rectangular area,
BG Folias factor 0.95 3.4089 0.7331 4.8488 1.9689
1.0 3.5828 0.7728 5.1007 2.0648
0.7 2.7515 0.6774 4.0820 1.4210
17 - API 579,
0.75 2.8047 0.6449 4.0715 1.5379
Level 2, Hybrid 2
0.8 2.8701 0.6186 4.0851 1.6550
Analysis - Chell
0.85 2.9545 0.6037 4.1404 1.7686
surface correction,
0.9 3.0685 0.6099 4.2665 1.8705
effective area, BG
Folias factor 0.95 3.2084 0.6345 4.4548 1.9620
1.0 3.3697 0.6678 4.6814 2.0579
0.7 2.7636 0.6939 4.1265 1.4006
18 - API 579,
0.75 2.8228 0.6659 4.1308 1.5147
Level 1, Hybrid 3
0.8 2.8966 0.6442 4.1621 1.6312
Analysis - Chell
0.85 2.9874 0.6316 4.2280 1.7469
surface correction,
0.9 3.0945 0.6302 4.3323 1.8566
rectangular area,
JO Folias factor 0.95 3.2146 0.6402 4.4722 1.9570
1.0 3.3504 0.6603 4.6475 2.0533
165

Mean
Method MAWP
Ratio
0.7 2.7096 0.7073 4.0988 1.3203
19 – API 579,
0.75 2.7459 0.6702 4.0624 1.4294
Level 2, Hybrid 3
0.8 2.7954 0.6317 4.0362 1.5546
Analysis – Chell
0.85 2.8608 0.5965 4.0324 1.6892
surface correction,
0.9 2.9459 0.5694 4.0643 1.8274
effective area, JO
Folias factor 0.95 3.0516 0.5568 4.1452 1.9579
1.0 3.1766 0.5592 4.2751 2.0781
0.7 3.0784 0.6604 4.3755 1.7812
20 – Battelle
0.75 3.1867 0.6829 4.5282 1.8453
Method – B31.G
0.8 3.3115 0.7157 4.7173 1.9057
surface correction,
0.85 3.4541 0.7573 4.9416 1.9665
rectangular area,
0.9 3.6168 0.8031 5.1943 2.0393
Battelle Folias
factor 0.95 3.8002 0.8491 5.4680 2.1325
1.0 3.9982 0.8940 5.7543 2.2421
21 – BS 7910, 0.7 3.0948 0.6440 4.3599 1.8298
Appendix G 0.75 3.2071 0.6666 4.5165 1.8976
(Isolated Defect) – 0.8 3.3325 0.7010 4.7094 1.9556
B31.G surface 0.85 3.4718 0.7449 4.9350 2.0086
correction, 0.9 3.6304 0.7936 5.1893 2.0715
BG Folias factor 1.0 3.9988 0.8905 5.7480 2.2496
22 – BS 7910, 0.7 2.9799 0.5826 4.1243 1.8356
Appendix G 0.75 3.0706 0.5752 4.2005 1.9407
(Grouped Defects) 0.8 3.1739 0.5807 4.3146 2.0332
– B31.G surface 0.85 3.2883 0.5994 4.4658 2.1108
correction, 0.9 3.4213 0.6286 4.6561 2.1866
BG Folias factor 1.0 3.7470 0.7019 5.1257 2.3684
23 – Kanninen 0.7 3.8075 1.2878 6.3370 1.2779
– B31.G surface 0.8 4.1939 1.5325 7.2042 1.1836
correction, 0.85 4.4094 1.6502 7.6509 1.1679
factor 1.0 5.1354 1.9688 9.0026 1.2682
0.7 3.3494 0.7472 4.8172 1.8816
24 – Shell Theory
0.75 3.4741 0.8178 5.0805 1.8677
Method – Chell
0.8 3.6098 0.8951 5.3679 1.8516
surface correction,
0.85 3.7626 0.9731 5.6741 1.8512
exact area, shell
0.9 3.9334 1.0485 5.9928 1.8739
theory Folias
factor 0.95 4.1220 1.1189 6.3199 1.9241
1.0 4.3328 1.1805 6.6515 2.0141
166

Mean
Method MAWP
Ratio
0.7 4.2263 1.3859 6.9486 1.5039
0.75 4.4194 1.5641 7.4916 1.3471
25 - Thickness 0.8 4.6434 1.8040 8.1870 1.0998
Averaging - API 0.85 4.9736 2.0450 8.9905 0.9567
579, Level 1 0.9 5.3762 2.3492 9.9906 0.7619
0.95 5.8404 2.6128 10.9726 0.7083
1.0 6.5048 2.8751 12.1521 0.8574
0.7 3.2301 0.9354 5.0675 1.3927
0.75 3.4854 1.1246 5.6944 1.2765
26 - Thickness 0.8 3.8259 1.3940 6.5641 1.0876
Averaging - API 0.85 4.2590 1.7184 7.6343 0.8836
579, Level 2 0.9 4.8390 2.1095 8.9827 0.6953
0.95 5.5455 2.4817 10.4202 0.6708
1.0 6.5048 2.8751 12.1521 0.8574
27 - Modified API 0.7 3.3007 0.7303 4.7353 1.8661
579 Section 5, 0.75 3.4504 0.7816 4.9855 1.9152
Level 1 Analysis - 0.8 3.6118 0.8419 5.2655 1.9581
B31.G surface 0.85 3.7862 0.9070 5.5678 2.0046
correction, 0.9 3.9787 0.9715 5.8871 2.0703
Modified API
Folias factor 1.0 4.4062 1.0859 6.5392 2.2732
28 - Modified API 0.7 3.0144 0.4997 3.9960 2.0328

579 Section 5, 0.75 3.1101 0.4867 4.0660 2.1542
Level 2 Analysis - 0.8 3.2217 0.4876 4.1795 2.2640
B31.G surface 0.85 3.3482 0.5045 4.3391 2.3573
correction, 0.9 3.5001 0.5334 4.5478 2.4524
effective area, 0.95 3.6741 0.5654 4.7846 2.5635
Modified API
Folias factor 1.0 3.8640 0.5955 5.0338 2.6941
0.7 3.0894 0.6304 4.3278 1.8511
0.75 3.2239 0.6445 4.4899 1.9578
29 - Janelle 0.8 3.3729 0.6728 4.6945 2.0514
Method, Level 1 - 0.85 3.5403 0.7116 4.9381 2.1425
0.95 3.9343 0.7944 5.4946 2.3739
1.0 4.1413 0.8362 5.7838 2.4988
0.7 2.9014 0.5459 3.9737 1.8291
0.75 2.9911 0.5127 3.9982 1.9839
30 - Janelle 0.8 3.0998 0.4926 4.0675 2.1321
Method, Level 1 - 0.85 3.2296 0.4915 4.1949 2.2642
effective area 0.9 3.3916 0.5066 4.3867 2.3965
0.95 3.5714 0.5311 4.6146 2.5282
1.0 3.7590 0.5590 4.8571 2.6610
167
Table 20 – MAWP Ratio vs. Allowable RSF for ASME Section VIII, Division 2 and B31.3
Mean
Method MAWP
Ratio
1 - API 579 0.7 2.8872 0.6591 4.1819 1.5926
Section 5, Level 1 0.75 3.0225 0.7109 4.4189 1.6262
Analysis - B31.G 0.8 3.1677 0.7690 4.6782 1.6572
API level 1 Folias 0.95 3.6809 0.9431 5.5335 1.8284
factor 1.0 3.8731 0.9937 5.8250 1.9212
2 - API 579 0.7 2.5814 0.4287 3.4235 1.7394
Section 5, Level 2 0.75 2.6632 0.4170 3.4823 1.8440
Analysis - B31.G 0.8 2.7585 0.4173 3.5782 1.9387
level 2 Folias 0.95 3.1455 0.4827 4.0935 2.1974
factor 1.0 3.3081 0.5084 4.3066 2.3095
3 - API-579 0.7 2.5327 0.4523 3.4211 1.6443
Section 5, Level 2 0.75 2.6085 0.4344 3.4618 1.7552
Analysis - B31.G 0.8 2.6983 0.4266 3.5362 1.8605
exact area, API 0.9 2.9258 0.4513 3.8122 2.0394
level 2 Folias 0.95 3.0708 0.4754 4.0047 2.1369
factor 1.0 3.2295 0.5003 4.2122 2.2467
0.7 2.5367 0.5704 3.6571 1.4162
4 - Modified 0.75 2.6184 0.5587 3.7158 1.5211
B31.G Method -
0.8 2.7170 0.5569 3.8109 1.6231
B31.G surface
0.85 2.8276 0.5680 3.9434 1.7119
correction, 0.85dl
0.9 2.9554 0.5896 4.1135 1.7973
area, AGA Folias
factor 0.95 3.1002 0.6198 4.3176 1.8828
1.0 3.2601 0.6519 4.5407 1.9795
5 - Modified 0.7 2.6260 0.4482 3.5065 1.7456
B31.G Method 0.75 2.7059 0.4344 3.5591 1.8528
(RSTRENG) - 0.8 2.7992 0.4312 3.6462 1.9521
B31.G surface 0.85 2.9058 0.4422 3.7743 2.0373
correction, 0.9 3.0340 0.4646 3.9465 2.1215
effective area, 0.95 3.1812 0.4923 4.1482 2.2143
0.7 2.5803 0.4730 3.5093 1.6512
6 - Modified 0.75 2.6547 0.4536 3.5458 1.7636
B31.G Method -
0.8 2.7430 0.4434 3.6140 1.8721
B31.G surface
0.85 2.8449 0.4468 3.7226 1.9673
correction, exact
0.9 2.9683 0.4638 3.8793 2.0573
area, AGA Folias
factor 0.95 3.1117 0.4885 4.0713 2.1522
1.0 3.2714 0.5141 4.2812 2.2617
168
(Continued)

Mean
Method MAWP
Ratio
0.7 2.5803 0.6894 3.9345 1.2260
7 – Original B31.G 0.75 2.6556 0.7179 4.0657 1.2455
Method – B31.G
0.8 2.7424 0.7529 4.2213 1.2635
surface correction,
0.85 2.8539 0.7929 4.4114 1.2964
parabolic area,
0.9 2.9787 0.8376 4.6238 1.3335
B31-G Folias
factor 0.95 3.1200 0.8851 4.8585 1.3815
1.0 3.2799 0.9320 5.1106 1.4493
0.7 3.5734 0.8530 5.2490 1.8978
0.75 3.5734 0.8530 5.2490 1.8978
8 – Thickness 0.8 3.5734 0.8530 5.2490 1.8978
Averaging – API 0.85 3.5734 0.8530 5.2490 1.8978
510, 8th Edition 0.9 3.5734 0.8530 5.2490 1.8978
0.95 3.5734 0.8530 5.2490 1.8978
1.0 3.5734 0.8530 5.2490 1.8978
0.7 3.8726 0.9652 5.7686 1.9767
0.75 3.8726 0.9652 5.7686 1.9767
9 – Thickness 0.8 3.8726 0.9652 5.7686 1.9767
Averaging – API 0.85 3.8726 0.9652 5.7686 1.9767
653, 2nd Edition 0.9 3.8726 0.9652 5.7686 1.9767
0.95 3.8726 0.9652 5.7686 1.9767
1.0 3.8726 0.9652 5.7686 1.9767
0.7 2.6527 0.5520 3.7370 1.5684
10 – British Gas 0.75 2.7489 0.5714 3.8713 1.6265
Single Defect
0.8 2.8565 0.6008 4.0367 1.6763
Method – B31.G
0.85 2.9758 0.6385 4.2300 1.7216
surface correction,
0.9 3.1118 0.6802 4.4479 1.7756
exact area, BG
Folias factor 0.95 3.2617 0.7235 4.6827 1.8406
1.0 3.4276 0.7633 4.9268 1.9283
0.7 2.7056 0.4400 3.5699 1.8412
11 – British Gas 0.75 2.8001 0.4596 3.7029 1.8972
Complex Defect
0.8 2.9048 0.4911 3.8695 1.9401
Method – B31.G
0.85 3.0252 0.5314 4.0690 1.9813
surface correction,
0.9 3.1635 0.5761 4.2951 2.0320
exact area, BG
Folias factor 0.95 3.3165 0.6192 4.5328 2.1002
1.0 3.4856 0.6546 4.7715 2.1998
0.7 2.4839 0.5546 3.5732 1.3946
12 – Chell Method 0.75 2.5656 0.5478 3.6416 1.4896
– Chell surface 0.8 2.6628 0.5527 3.7485 1.5771
area, B31-G 0.9 2.9168 0.6011 4.0974 1.7361
Folias factor 0.95 3.0647 0.6372 4.3163 1.8132
1.0 3.2247 0.6712 4.5431 1.9063
169
(Continued)

Mean
Method MAWP
Ratio
0.7 2.3763 0.5594 3.4751 1.2774
13 - Osage 0.75 2.4298 0.5286 3.4682 1.3915
Method - Chell
0.8 2.4969 0.5041 3.4872 1.5067
surface correction,
0.85 2.5824 0.4912 3.5473 1.6175
effective area, D/t
0.9 2.6959 0.4998 3.6776 1.7142
dependent Folias
factor 0.95 2.8296 0.5228 3.8565 1.8027
1.0 2.9780 0.5501 4.0585 1.8975
14 - API 579, 0.7 2.4826 0.5550 3.5728 1.3924
Level 1, Hybrid 1 0.75 2.5639 0.5480 3.6404 1.4874
Analysis - Chell 0.8 2.6607 0.5528 3.7466 1.5748
API level 1 Folias 0.95 3.0618 0.6369 4.3128 1.8107
factor 1.0 3.2215 0.6709 4.5394 1.9036
15 - API 579, 0.7 2.3648 0.5716 3.4875 1.2420
Level 2, Hybrid 1 0.75 2.4135 0.5420 3.4781 1.3489
Analysis - Chell 0.8 2.4743 0.5183 3.4924 1.4562
level 2 Folias 0.95 2.7846 0.5341 3.8337 1.7355
factor 1.0 2.9280 0.5620 4.0318 1.8241
0.7 2.4237 0.5789 3.5608 1.2866
16 - API 579, 0.75 2.4883 0.5653 3.5987 1.3779
Level 1, Hybrid 2
0.8 2.5660 0.5622 3.6704 1.4616
Analysis - Chell
0.85 2.6639 0.5720 3.7873 1.5404
surface correction,
0.9 2.7853 0.5961 3.9561 1.6144
rectangular area,
BG Folias factor 0.95 2.9219 0.6284 4.1561 1.6876
1.0 3.0709 0.6624 4.3721 1.7698
0.7 2.3584 0.5806 3.4988 1.2180
17 - API 579, 0.75 2.4040 0.5528 3.4898 1.3182
Level 2, Hybrid 2
0.8 2.4601 0.5302 3.5015 1.4186
Analysis - Chell
0.85 2.5324 0.5175 3.5489 1.5159
surface correction,
0.9 2.6301 0.5228 3.6570 1.6033
effective area, BG
Folias factor 0.95 2.7501 0.5439 3.8184 1.6817
1.0 2.8883 0.5724 4.0126 1.7640
0.7 2.3688 0.5948 3.5370 1.2005
18 - API 579, 0.75 2.4195 0.5708 3.5407 1.2983
Level 1, Hybrid 3
0.8 2.4828 0.5522 3.5675 1.3982
Analysis - Chell
0.85 2.5607 0.5413 3.6240 1.4973
surface correction,
0.9 2.6524 0.5402 3.7134 1.5914
rectangular area,
JO Folias factor 0.95 2.7554 0.5488 3.8333 1.6774
1.0 2.8718 0.5660 3.9836 1.7600
170
(Continued)

Mean
Method MAWP
Ratio
0.7 2.3225 0.6062 3.5133 1.1317
19 - API 579, 0.75 2.3536 0.5745 3.4820 1.2252
Level 2, Hybrid 3
0.8 2.3961 0.5415 3.4596 1.3325
Analysis - Chell
0.85 2.4521 0.5112 3.4564 1.4479
surface correction,
0.9 2.5250 0.4880 3.4837 1.5664
effective area, JO
Folias factor 0.95 2.6156 0.4772 3.5531 1.6782
1.0 2.7228 0.4793 3.6643 1.7812
0.7 2.6386 0.5660 3.7504 1.5268
20 - Battelle 0.75 2.7315 0.5854 3.8813 1.5817
Method - B31.G
0.8 2.8384 0.6135 4.0434 1.6334
surface correction,
0.85 2.9606 0.6491 4.2357 1.6856
rectangular area,
0.9 3.1001 0.6884 4.4523 1.7480
Battelle Folias
factor 0.95 3.2573 0.7278 4.6869 1.8278
1.0 3.4270 0.7663 4.9322 1.9218
21 - BS 7910, 0.7 2.6527 0.5520 3.7370 1.5684
Appendix G 0.75 2.7489 0.5714 3.8713 1.6265
(Isolated Defect) - 0.8 2.8565 0.6008 4.0367 1.6763
B31.G surface 0.85 2.9758 0.6385 4.2300 1.7216
correction, 0.9 3.1118 0.6802 4.4479 1.7756
BG Folias factor 1.0 3.4276 0.7633 4.9268 1.9283
22 - BS 7910, 0.7 2.5542 0.4994 3.5351 1.5734
Appendix G 0.75 2.6319 0.4931 3.6004 1.6634
(Grouped Defects) 0.8 2.7205 0.4978 3.6982 1.7428
- B31.G surface 0.85 2.8186 0.5138 3.8278 1.8093
correction, 0.9 2.9326 0.5388 3.9909 1.8742
BG Folias factor 1.0 3.2117 0.6016 4.3934 2.0300
23 - Kanninen 0.7 3.2635 1.1038 5.4317 1.0953
- B31.G surface 0.8 3.5948 1.3136 6.1750 1.0146
correction, 0.85 3.7795 1.4145 6.5579 1.0010
factor 1.0 4.4018 1.6875 7.7165 1.0870
0.7 2.8709 0.6405 4.1290 1.6128
24 - Shell Theory 0.75 2.9778 0.7010 4.3547 1.6009
Method - Chell
0.8 3.0941 0.7672 4.6011 1.5871
surface correction,
0.85 3.2251 0.8341 4.8635 1.5867
exact area, shell
0.9 3.3714 0.8987 5.1367 1.6062
theory Folias
factor 0.95 3.5331 0.9591 5.4170 1.6492
1.0 3.7138 1.0118 5.7013 1.7264
171
(Continued)

Mean
Method MAWP
Ratio
0.7 3.6225 1.1879 5.9559 1.2891
0.75 3.7880 1.3406 6.4214 1.1547
25 - Thickness 0.8 3.9801 1.5463 7.0174 0.9427
Averaging - API 0.85 4.2631 1.7529 7.7062 0.8200
579, Level 1 0.9 4.6082 2.0136 8.5634 0.6530
0.95 5.0061 2.2395 9.4051 0.6071
1.0 5.5755 2.4643 10.4161 0.7349
0.7 2.7687 0.8018 4.3436 1.1937
0.75 2.9875 0.9639 4.8809 1.0941
26 - Thickness 0.8 3.2793 1.1949 5.6264 0.9322
Averaging - API 0.85 3.6505 1.4729 6.5437 0.7574
579, Level 2 0.9 4.1477 1.8082 7.6994 0.5960
0.95 4.7533 2.1272 8.9316 0.5750
1.0 5.5755 2.4643 10.4161 0.7349
27 - Modified API 0.7 2.8292 0.6260 4.0588 1.5995
579 Section 5, 0.75 2.9575 0.6699 4.2733 1.6416
Level 1 Analysis - 0.8 3.0958 0.7216 4.5133 1.6784
B31.G surface 0.85 3.2453 0.7774 4.7724 1.7182
correction, 0.9 3.4103 0.8328 5.0460 1.7746
Modified API
Folias factor 1.0 3.7767 0.9308 5.6050 1.9484
28 - Modified API 0.7 2.5837 0.4283 3.4251 1.7424

579 Section 5, 0.75 2.6658 0.4171 3.4852 1.8464
Level 2 Analysis - 0.8 2.7615 0.4179 3.5824 1.9406
B31.G surface 0.85 2.8699 0.4324 3.7192 2.0205
correction, 0.9 3.0001 0.4572 3.8981 2.1021
effective area, 0.95 3.1492 0.4846 4.1011 2.1973
Modified API
Folias factor 1.0 3.3120 0.5105 4.3147 2.3093
0.7 2.6481 0.5404 3.7095 1.5866
0.75 2.7633 0.5525 3.8485 1.6781
29 - Janelle 0.8 2.8911 0.5767 4.0238 1.7583
Method, Level 1 - 0.85 3.0345 0.6100 4.2327 1.8364
0.95 3.3722 0.6809 4.7097 2.0348
1.0 3.5497 0.7167 4.9575 2.1418
0.7 2.4869 0.4679 3.4060 1.5678
0.75 2.5638 0.4395 3.4271 1.7005
30 - Janelle 0.8 2.6570 0.4223 3.4864 1.8275
Method, Level 1 - 0.85 2.7682 0.4212 3.5956 1.9408
effective area 0.9 2.9071 0.4342 3.7600 2.0542
0.95 3.0612 0.4552 3.9554 2.1670
1.0 3.2220 0.4792 4.1632 2.2808
172
Table 21 – MAWP Ratio vs. Allowable RSF for New Proposed ASME Section VIII, Division 2
Mean
Method MAWP
Ratio
1 - API 579 0.7 2.3183 0.5265 3.3525 1.2842
Section 5, Level 1 0.75 2.4269 0.5676 3.5419 1.3119
Analysis - B31.G 0.8 2.5434 0.6139 3.7492 1.3375
API level 1 Folias 0.95 2.9553 0.7528 4.4340 1.4766
factor 1.0 3.1096 0.7932 4.6675 1.5516
2 - API 579 0.7 2.0729 0.3419 2.7445 1.4012
Section 5, Level 2 0.75 2.1385 0.3321 2.7908 1.4862
Analysis - B31.G 0.8 2.2150 0.3316 2.8664 1.5635
level 2 Folias 0.95 2.5256 0.3828 3.2775 1.7737
factor 1.0 2.6561 0.4031 3.4480 1.8643
3 - API-579 0.7 2.0338 0.3613 2.7435 1.3241
Section 5, Level 2 0.75 2.0946 0.3465 2.7752 1.4140
Analysis - B31.G 0.8 2.1667 0.3396 2.8337 1.4997
exact area, API 0.9 2.3493 0.3584 3.0533 1.6453
level 2 Folias 0.95 2.4657 0.3775 3.2072 1.7242
factor 1.0 2.5931 0.3972 3.3733 1.8129
0.7 2.0368 0.4561 2.9327 1.1408
4 - Modified
0.75 2.1024 0.4462 2.9789 1.2258
B31.G Method -
0.8 2.1815 0.4443 3.0541 1.3088
B31.G surface
0.85 2.2702 0.4525 3.1590 1.3814
correction, 0.85dl
0.9 2.3727 0.4692 3.2943 1.4511
area, AGA Folias
factor 0.95 2.4889 0.4931 3.4575 1.5204
1.0 2.6173 0.5186 3.6360 1.5986
5 - Modified 0.7 2.1087 0.3575 2.8108 1.4065
B31.G Method 0.75 2.1728 0.3458 2.8521 1.4935
(RSTRENG) - 0.8 2.2476 0.3427 2.9207 1.5745
B31.G surface 0.85 2.3332 0.3507 3.0221 1.6442
correction, 0.9 2.4361 0.3684 3.1596 1.7125
effective area, 0.95 2.5543 0.3903 3.3210 1.7876
0.7 2.0720 0.3777 2.8139 1.3300
6 - Modified
0.75 2.1317 0.3618 2.8423 1.4211
B31.G Method -
0.8 2.2026 0.3529 2.8958 1.5093
B31.G surface
0.85 2.2843 0.3550 2.9815 1.5871
correction, exact
0.9 2.3834 0.3682 3.1066 1.6601
area, AGA Folias
factor 0.95 2.4985 0.3878 3.2602 1.7369
1.0 2.6268 0.4080 3.4282 1.8254
173
(Continued)

Mean
Method MAWP
Ratio
0.7 2.0717 0.5516 3.1553 0.9882
0.75 2.1322 0.5742 3.2602 1.0042
Method – B31.G
0.8 2.2019 0.6021 3.3845 1.0192
surface correction,
0.85 2.2913 0.6339 3.5366 1.0461
parabolic area,
0.9 2.3914 0.6694 3.7063 1.0766
B31-G Folias
factor 0.95 2.5049 0.7073 3.8942 1.1156
1.0 2.6333 0.7447 4.0961 1.1704
0.7 2.8688 0.6792 4.2030 1.5346
0.75 2.8688 0.6792 4.2030 1.5346
8 – Thickness 0.8 2.8688 0.6792 4.2030 1.5346
Averaging – API 0.85 2.8688 0.6792 4.2030 1.5346
510, 8th Edition 0.9 2.8688 0.6792 4.2030 1.5346
0.95 2.8688 0.6792 4.2030 1.5346
1.0 2.8688 0.6792 4.2030 1.5346
0.7 3.1096 0.7721 4.6263 1.5930
0.75 3.1096 0.7721 4.6263 1.5930
9 – Thickness 0.8 3.1096 0.7721 4.6263 1.5930
Averaging – API 0.85 3.1096 0.7721 4.6263 1.5930
653, 2nd Edition 0.9 3.1096 0.7721 4.6263 1.5930
0.95 3.1096 0.7721 4.6263 1.5930
1.0 3.1096 0.7721 4.6263 1.5930
0.7 2.1300 0.4410 2.9962 1.2639
10 – British Gas
0.75 2.2072 0.4561 3.1032 1.3113
Single Defect
0.8 2.2935 0.4793 3.2351 1.3520
Method – B31.G
0.85 2.3893 0.5091 3.3893 1.3893
surface correction,
0.9 2.4984 0.5422 3.5634 1.4333
exact area, BG
Folias factor 0.95 2.6187 0.5767 3.7514 1.4860
1.0 2.7519 0.6084 3.9469 1.5569
0.7 2.1726 0.3509 2.8619 1.4833
11 – British Gas
0.75 2.2485 0.3663 2.9679 1.5290
Complex Defect
0.8 2.3325 0.3911 3.1008 1.5642
Method – B31.G
0.85 2.4291 0.4231 3.2603 1.5979
surface correction,
0.9 2.5402 0.4589 3.4415 1.6388
exact area, BG
Folias factor 0.95 2.6630 0.4934 3.6321 1.6939
1.0 2.7988 0.5216 3.8233 1.7743
0.7 1.9943 0.4432 2.8649 1.1237
12 – Chell Method 0.75 2.0598 0.4372 2.9186 1.2010
– Chell surface 0.8 2.1378 0.4405 3.0030 1.2725
area, B31-G 0.9 2.3416 0.4783 3.2811 1.4020
Folias factor 0.95 2.4603 0.5069 3.4561 1.4646
1.0 2.5887 0.5340 3.6376 1.5399
174
(Continued)

Mean
Method MAWP
Ratio
0.7 1.9079 0.4477 2.7874 1.0285
13 - Osage
0.75 1.9509 0.4226 2.7809 1.1208
Method - Chell
0.8 2.0047 0.4023 2.7949 1.2145
surface correction,
0.85 2.0732 0.3913 2.8418 1.3046
effective area, D/t
0.9 2.1644 0.3978 2.9458 1.3830
dependent Folias
factor 0.95 2.2717 0.4160 3.0888 1.4547
1.0 2.3909 0.4376 3.2505 1.5312
14 - API 579, 0.7 1.9932 0.4436 2.8645 1.1219
Level 1, Hybrid 1 0.75 2.0584 0.4374 2.9177 1.1992
Analysis - Chell 0.8 2.1361 0.4406 3.0015 1.2706
API level 1 Folias 0.95 2.4580 0.5067 3.4533 1.4626
factor 1.0 2.5862 0.5338 3.6346 1.5377
15 - API 579, 0.7 1.8987 0.4576 2.7975 0.9999
Level 2, Hybrid 1 0.75 1.9378 0.4334 2.7892 1.0864
Analysis - Chell 0.8 1.9865 0.4139 2.7995 1.1736
level 2 Folias 0.95 2.2356 0.4253 3.0710 1.4001
factor 1.0 2.3507 0.4475 3.2296 1.4717
0.7 1.9459 0.4631 2.8555 1.0364
16 - API 579,
0.75 1.9978 0.4517 2.8850 1.1105
Level 1, Hybrid 2
0.8 2.0601 0.4487 2.9414 1.1787
Analysis - Chell
0.85 2.1386 0.4559 3.0340 1.2431
surface correction,
0.9 2.2360 0.4749 3.1689 1.3032
rectangular area,
BG Folias factor 0.95 2.3457 0.5005 3.3288 1.3626
1.0 2.4653 0.5275 3.5015 1.4291
0.7 1.8936 0.4648 2.8066 0.9805
17 - API 579,
0.75 1.9301 0.4422 2.7987 1.0616
Level 2, Hybrid 2
0.8 1.9751 0.4236 2.8071 1.1431
Analysis - Chell
0.85 2.0331 0.4128 2.8440 1.2223
surface correction,
0.9 2.1116 0.4168 2.9302 1.2930
effective area, BG
Folias factor 0.95 2.2079 0.4335 3.0593 1.3564
1.0 2.3188 0.4561 3.2147 1.4229
0.7 1.9019 0.4763 2.8374 0.9664
18 - API 579,
0.75 1.9427 0.4568 2.8399 1.0454
Level 1, Hybrid 3
0.8 1.9935 0.4415 2.8607 1.1263
Analysis - Chell
0.85 2.0559 0.4323 2.9051 1.2067
surface correction,
0.9 2.1295 0.4308 2.9757 1.2834
rectangular area,
JO Folias factor 0.95 2.2121 0.4370 3.0705 1.3537
1.0 2.3055 0.4502 3.1899 1.4211
175
(Continued)

Mean
Method MAWP
Ratio
0.7 1.8648 0.4857 2.8187 0.9108
19 – API 579,
0.75 1.8898 0.4600 2.7933 0.9863
Level 2, Hybrid 3
0.8 1.9238 0.4332 2.7748 1.0729
Analysis – Chell
0.85 1.9688 0.4086 2.7713 1.1663
surface correction,
0.9 2.0273 0.3893 2.7921 1.2625
effective area, JO
Folias factor 0.95 2.1000 0.3799 2.8463 1.3537
1.0 2.1860 0.3809 2.9341 1.4378
0.7 2.1186 0.4520 3.0065 1.2308
20 – Battelle
0.75 2.1932 0.4672 3.1108 1.2756
Method – B31.G
0.8 2.2790 0.4893 3.2400 1.3180
surface correction,
0.85 2.3771 0.5174 3.3933 1.3608
rectangular area,
0.9 2.4890 0.5485 3.5663 1.4117
Battelle Folias
factor 0.95 2.6152 0.5798 3.7540 1.4764
1.0 2.7514 0.6104 3.9505 1.5523
21 – BS 7910, 0.7 2.1300 0.4410 2.9962 1.2639
Appendix G 0.75 2.2072 0.4561 3.1032 1.3113
(Isolated Defect) – 0.8 2.2935 0.4793 3.2351 1.3520
B31.G surface 0.85 2.3893 0.5091 3.3893 1.3893
correction, 0.9 2.4984 0.5422 3.5634 1.4333
BG Folias factor 1.0 2.7519 0.6084 3.9469 1.5569
22 – BS 7910, 0.7 2.0512 0.3995 2.8360 1.2664
Appendix G 0.75 2.1136 0.3943 2.8881 1.3391
(Grouped Defects) 0.8 2.1847 0.3978 2.9661 1.4033
– B31.G surface 0.85 2.2634 0.4104 3.0695 1.4573
correction, 0.9 2.3549 0.4302 3.2000 1.5099
BG Folias factor 1.0 2.5791 0.4805 3.5228 1.6353
23 – Kanninen 0.7 2.6207 0.8841 4.3573 0.8840
– B31.G surface 0.8 2.8865 1.0521 4.9532 0.8198
correction, 0.85 3.0347 1.1329 5.2601 0.8093
factor 1.0 3.5343 1.3517 6.1893 0.8793
0.7 2.3057 0.5139 3.3152 1.2962
24 – Shell Theory
0.75 2.3916 0.5625 3.4965 1.2867
Method – Chell
0.8 2.4849 0.6156 3.6941 1.2757
surface correction,
0.85 2.5901 0.6692 3.9047 1.2755
exact area, shell
0.9 2.7076 0.7210 4.1239 1.2913
theory Folias
factor 0.95 2.8374 0.7695 4.3489 1.3259
1.0 2.9825 0.8118 4.5770 1.3880
176
(Continued)

Mean
Method MAWP
Ratio
0.7 2.9078 0.9486 4.7711 1.0445
0.75 3.0406 1.0709 5.1441 0.9370
25 - Thickness 0.8 3.1947 1.2358 5.6221 0.7673
Averaging - API 0.85 3.4221 1.4017 6.1754 0.6688
579, Level 1 0.9 3.6994 1.6118 6.8655 0.5334
0.95 4.0191 1.7939 7.5428 0.4954
1.0 4.4766 1.9753 8.3567 0.5965
0.7 2.2228 0.6408 3.4814 0.9641
0.75 2.3983 0.7703 3.9114 0.8853
26 - Thickness 0.8 2.6325 0.9550 4.5084 0.7566
Averaging - API 0.85 2.9305 1.1779 5.2441 0.6169
579, Level 2 0.9 3.3298 1.4474 6.1729 0.4866
0.95 3.8161 1.7039 7.1631 0.4692
1.0 4.4766 1.9753 8.3567 0.5965
27 - Modified API 0.7 2.2717 0.4999 3.2537 1.2897
579 Section 5, 0.75 2.3746 0.5347 3.4250 1.3243
Level 1 Analysis - 0.8 2.4857 0.5758 3.6167 1.3546
B31.G surface 0.85 2.6056 0.6202 3.8239 1.3873
correction, 0.9 2.7380 0.6643 4.0429 1.4331
Modified API
Folias factor 1.0 3.0322 0.7425 4.4907 1.5737
28 - Modified API 0.7 2.0747 0.3416 2.7458 1.4037

579 Section 5, 0.75 2.1406 0.3321 2.7930 1.4882
Level 2 Analysis - 0.8 2.2174 0.3321 2.8697 1.5651
B31.G surface 0.85 2.3043 0.3430 2.9781 1.6305
correction, 0.9 2.4089 0.3626 3.1211 1.6967
effective area, 0.95 2.5286 0.3843 3.2835 1.7737
Modified API
Folias factor 1.0 2.6593 0.4048 3.4544 1.8642
0.7 2.1261 0.4310 2.9728 1.2795
0.75 2.2186 0.4400 3.0829 1.3542
29 - Janelle 0.8 2.3210 0.4587 3.2221 1.4200
Method, Level 1 - 0.85 2.4361 0.4848 3.3885 1.4838
0.95 2.7072 0.5410 3.7698 1.6446
1.0 2.8497 0.5695 3.9682 1.7311
0.7 1.9968 0.3735 2.7304 1.2633
0.75 2.0585 0.3500 2.7459 1.3711
30 - Janelle 0.8 2.1332 0.3352 2.7916 1.4749
Method, Level 1 - 0.85 2.2225 0.3335 2.8775 1.5674
effective area 0.9 2.3340 0.3434 3.0084 1.6595
0.95 2.4577 0.3599 3.1645 1.7509
1.0 2.5868 0.3788 3.3308 1.8428
177
Table 22 – MAWP Ratio vs. Allowable RSF for CODAP
Mean
Method MAWP
Ratio
1 - API 579 0.7 2.8872 0.6591 4.1819 1.5926
Section 5, Level 1 0.75 3.0225 0.7109 4.4189 1.6262
Analysis - B31.G 0.8 3.1677 0.7690 4.6782 1.6572
API level 1 Folias 0.95 3.6809 0.9431 5.5335 1.8284
factor 1.0 3.8731 0.9937 5.8250 1.9212
2 - API 579 0.7 2.5814 0.4287 3.4235 1.7394
Section 5, Level 2 0.75 2.6632 0.4170 3.4823 1.8440
Analysis - B31.G 0.8 2.7585 0.4173 3.5782 1.9387
level 2 Folias 0.95 3.1455 0.4827 4.0935 2.1974
factor 1.0 3.3081 0.5084 4.3066 2.3095
3 - API-579 0.7 2.5327 0.4523 3.4211 1.6443
Section 5, Level 2 0.75 2.6085 0.4344 3.4618 1.7552
Analysis - B31.G 0.8 2.6983 0.4266 3.5362 1.8605
exact area, API 0.9 2.9258 0.4513 3.8122 2.0394
level 2 Folias 0.95 3.0708 0.4754 4.0047 2.1369
factor 1.0 3.2295 0.5003 4.2122 2.2467
0.7 2.5367 0.5704 3.6571 1.4162
4 - Modified
0.75 2.6184 0.5587 3.7158 1.5211
B31.G Method -
0.8 2.7170 0.5569 3.8109 1.6231
B31.G surface
0.85 2.8276 0.5680 3.9434 1.7119
correction, 0.85dl
0.9 2.9554 0.5896 4.1135 1.7973
area, AGA Folias
factor 0.95 3.1002 0.6198 4.3176 1.8828
1.0 3.2601 0.6519 4.5407 1.9795
5 - Modified 0.7 2.6260 0.4482 3.5065 1.7456
B31.G Method 0.75 2.7059 0.4344 3.5591 1.8528
(RSTRENG) - 0.8 2.7992 0.4312 3.6462 1.9521
B31.G surface 0.85 2.9058 0.4422 3.7743 2.0373
correction, 0.9 3.0340 0.4646 3.9465 2.1215
effective area, 0.95 3.1812 0.4923 4.1482 2.2143
0.7 2.5803 0.4730 3.5093 1.6512
6 - Modified
0.75 2.6547 0.4536 3.5458 1.7636
B31.G Method -
0.8 2.7430 0.4434 3.6140 1.8721
B31.G surface
0.85 2.8449 0.4468 3.7226 1.9673
correction, exact
0.9 2.9683 0.4638 3.8793 2.0573
area, AGA Folias
factor 0.95 3.1117 0.4885 4.0713 2.1522
1.0 3.2714 0.5141 4.2812 2.2617
178
Table 22 – MAWP Ratio vs. Allowable RSF for CODAP (Continued)

Mean
Method MAWP
Ratio
0.7 2.5803 0.6894 3.9345 1.2260
7 - Original B31.G
0.75 2.6556 0.7179 4.0657 1.2455
Method - B31.G
0.8 2.7424 0.7529 4.2213 1.2635
surface correction,
0.85 2.8539 0.7929 4.4114 1.2964
parabolic area,
0.9 2.9787 0.8376 4.6238 1.3335
B31-G Folias
factor 0.95 3.1200 0.8851 4.8585 1.3815
1.0 3.2799 0.9320 5.1106 1.4493
0.7 3.5734 0.8530 5.2490 1.8978
0.75 3.5734 0.8530 5.2490 1.8978
8 - Thickness 0.8 3.5734 0.8530 5.2490 1.8978
Averaging - API 0.85 3.5734 0.8530 5.2490 1.8978
510, 8th Edition 0.9 3.5734 0.8530 5.2490 1.8978
0.95 3.5734 0.8530 5.2490 1.8978
1.0 3.5734 0.8530 5.2490 1.8978
0.7 3.8726 0.9652 5.7686 1.9767
0.75 3.8726 0.9652 5.7686 1.9767
9 - Thickness 0.8 3.8726 0.9652 5.7686 1.9767
Averaging - API 0.85 3.8726 0.9652 5.7686 1.9767
653, 2nd Edition 0.9 3.8726 0.9652 5.7686 1.9767
0.95 3.8726 0.9652 5.7686 1.9767
1.0 3.8726 0.9652 5.7686 1.9767
0.7 2.6527 0.5520 3.7370 1.5684
10 - British Gas
0.75 2.7489 0.5714 3.8713 1.6265
Single Defect
0.8 2.8565 0.6008 4.0367 1.6763
Method - B31.G
0.85 2.9758 0.6385 4.2300 1.7216
surface correction,
0.9 3.1118 0.6802 4.4479 1.7756
exact area, BG
Folias factor 0.95 3.2617 0.7235 4.6827 1.8406
1.0 3.4276 0.7633 4.9268 1.9283
0.7 2.7056 0.4400 3.5699 1.8412
11 - British Gas
0.75 2.8001 0.4596 3.7029 1.8972
Complex Defect
0.8 2.9048 0.4911 3.8695 1.9401
Method - B31.G
0.85 3.0252 0.5314 4.0690 1.9813
surface correction,
0.9 3.1635 0.5761 4.2951 2.0320
exact area, BG
Folias factor 0.95 3.3165 0.6192 4.5328 2.1002
1.0 3.4856 0.6546 4.7715 2.1998
0.7 2.4839 0.5546 3.5732 1.3946
12 - Chell Method 0.75 2.5656 0.5478 3.6416 1.4896
- Chell surface 0.8 2.6628 0.5527 3.7485 1.5771
area, B31-G 0.9 2.9168 0.6011 4.0974 1.7361
Folias factor 0.95 3.0647 0.6372 4.3163 1.8132
1.0 3.2247 0.6712 4.5431 1.9063
179

Mean
Method MAWP
Ratio
0.7 2.3763 0.5594 3.4751 1.2774
13 - Osage
0.75 2.4298 0.5286 3.4682 1.3915
Method - Chell
0.8 2.4969 0.5041 3.4872 1.5067
surface correction,
0.85 2.5824 0.4912 3.5473 1.6175
effective area, D/t
0.9 2.6959 0.4998 3.6776 1.7142
dependent Folias
factor 0.95 2.8296 0.5228 3.8565 1.8027
1.0 2.9780 0.5501 4.0585 1.8975
14 - API 579, 0.7 2.4826 0.5550 3.5728 1.3924
Level 1, Hybrid 1 0.75 2.5639 0.5480 3.6404 1.4874
Analysis - Chell 0.8 2.6607 0.5528 3.7466 1.5748
API level 1 Folias 0.95 3.0618 0.6369 4.3128 1.8107
factor 1.0 3.2215 0.6709 4.5394 1.9036
15 - API 579, 0.7 2.3648 0.5716 3.4875 1.2420
Level 2, Hybrid 1 0.75 2.4135 0.5420 3.4781 1.3489
Analysis - Chell 0.8 2.4743 0.5183 3.4924 1.4562
level 2 Folias 0.95 2.7846 0.5341 3.8337 1.7355
factor 1.0 2.9280 0.5620 4.0318 1.8241
0.7 2.4237 0.5789 3.5608 1.2866
16 - API 579,
0.75 2.4883 0.5653 3.5987 1.3779
Level 1, Hybrid 2
0.8 2.5660 0.5622 3.6704 1.4616
Analysis - Chell
0.85 2.6639 0.5720 3.7873 1.5404
surface correction,
0.9 2.7853 0.5961 3.9561 1.6144
rectangular area,
BG Folias factor 0.95 2.9219 0.6284 4.1561 1.6876
1.0 3.0709 0.6624 4.3721 1.7698
0.7 2.3584 0.5806 3.4988 1.2180
17 - API 579,
0.75 2.4040 0.5528 3.4898 1.3182
Level 2, Hybrid 2
0.8 2.4601 0.5302 3.5015 1.4186
Analysis - Chell
0.85 2.5324 0.5175 3.5489 1.5159
surface correction,
0.9 2.6301 0.5228 3.6570 1.6033
effective area, BG
Folias factor 0.95 2.7501 0.5439 3.8184 1.6817
1.0 2.8883 0.5724 4.0126 1.7640
0.7 2.3688 0.5948 3.5370 1.2005
18 - API 579,
0.75 2.4195 0.5708 3.5407 1.2983
Level 1, Hybrid 3
0.8 2.4828 0.5522 3.5675 1.3982
Analysis - Chell
0.85 2.5607 0.5413 3.6240 1.4973
surface correction,
0.9 2.6524 0.5402 3.7134 1.5914
rectangular area,
JO Folias factor 0.95 2.7554 0.5488 3.8333 1.6774
1.0 2.8718 0.5660 3.9836 1.7600
180

Mean
Method MAWP
Ratio
0.7 2.3225 0.6062 3.5133 1.1317
19 – API 579,
0.75 2.3536 0.5745 3.4820 1.2252
Level 2, Hybrid 3
0.8 2.3961 0.5415 3.4596 1.3325
Analysis – Chell
0.85 2.4521 0.5112 3.4564 1.4479
surface correction,
0.9 2.5250 0.4880 3.4837 1.5664
effective area, JO
Folias factor 0.95 2.6156 0.4772 3.5531 1.6782
1.0 2.7228 0.4793 3.6643 1.7812
0.7 2.6386 0.5660 3.7504 1.5268
20 – Battelle
0.75 2.7315 0.5854 3.8813 1.5817
Method – B31.G
0.8 2.8384 0.6135 4.0434 1.6334
surface correction,
0.85 2.9606 0.6491 4.2357 1.6856
rectangular area,
0.9 3.1001 0.6884 4.4523 1.7480
Battelle Folias
factor 0.95 3.2573 0.7278 4.6869 1.8278
1.0 3.4270 0.7663 4.9322 1.9218
21 – BS 7910, 0.7 2.6527 0.5520 3.7370 1.5684
Appendix G 0.75 2.7489 0.5714 3.8713 1.6265
(Isolated Defect) – 0.8 2.8565 0.6008 4.0367 1.6763
B31.G surface 0.85 2.9758 0.6385 4.2300 1.7216
correction, 0.9 3.1118 0.6802 4.4479 1.7756
BG Folias factor 1.0 3.4276 0.7633 4.9268 1.9283
22 – BS 7910, 0.7 2.5542 0.4994 3.5351 1.5734
Appendix G 0.75 2.6319 0.4931 3.6004 1.6634
(Grouped Defects) 0.8 2.7205 0.4978 3.6982 1.7428
– B31.G surface 0.85 2.8186 0.5138 3.8278 1.8093
correction, 0.9 2.9326 0.5388 3.9909 1.8742
BG Folias factor 1.0 3.2117 0.6016 4.3934 2.0300
23 – Kanninen 0.7 3.2635 1.1038 5.4317 1.0953
– B31.G surface 0.8 3.5948 1.3136 6.1750 1.0146
correction, 0.85 3.7795 1.4145 6.5579 1.0010
factor 1.0 4.4018 1.6875 7.7165 1.0870
0.7 2.8709 0.6405 4.1290 1.6128
24 – Shell Theory
0.75 2.9778 0.7010 4.3547 1.6009
Method – Chell
0.8 3.0941 0.7672 4.6011 1.5871
surface correction,
0.85 3.2251 0.8341 4.8635 1.5867
exact area, shell
0.9 3.3714 0.8987 5.1367 1.6062
theory Folias
factor 0.95 3.5331 0.9591 5.4170 1.6492
1.0 3.7138 1.0118 5.7013 1.7264
181

Mean
Method MAWP
Ratio
0.7 3.6225 1.1879 5.9559 1.2891
0.75 3.7880 1.3406 6.4214 1.1547
25 - Thickness 0.8 3.9801 1.5463 7.0174 0.9427
Averaging - API 0.85 4.2631 1.7529 7.7062 0.8200
579, Level 1 0.9 4.6082 2.0136 8.5634 0.6530
0.95 5.0061 2.2395 9.4051 0.6071
1.0 5.5755 2.4643 10.4161 0.7349
0.7 2.7687 0.8018 4.3436 1.1937
0.75 2.9875 0.9639 4.8809 1.0941
26 - Thickness 0.8 3.2793 1.1949 5.6264 0.9322
Averaging - API 0.85 3.6505 1.4729 6.5437 0.7574
579, Level 2 0.9 4.1477 1.8082 7.6994 0.5960
0.95 4.7533 2.1272 8.9316 0.5750
1.0 5.5755 2.4643 10.4161 0.7349
27 - Modified API 0.7 2.8292 0.6260 4.0588 1.5995
579 Section 5, 0.75 2.9575 0.6699 4.2733 1.6416
Level 1 Analysis - 0.8 3.0958 0.7216 4.5133 1.6784
B31.G surface 0.85 3.2453 0.7774 4.7724 1.7182
correction, 0.9 3.4103 0.8328 5.0460 1.7746
Modified API
Folias factor 1.0 3.7767 0.9308 5.6050 1.9484
28 - Modified API 0.7 2.5837 0.4283 3.4251 1.7424

579 Section 5, 0.75 2.6658 0.4171 3.4852 1.8464
Level 2 Analysis - 0.8 2.7615 0.4179 3.5824 1.9406
B31.G surface 0.85 2.8699 0.4324 3.7192 2.0205
correction, 0.9 3.0001 0.4572 3.8981 2.1021
effective area, 0.95 3.1492 0.4846 4.1011 2.1973
Modified API
Folias factor 1.0 3.3120 0.5105 4.3147 2.3093
0.7 2.6481 0.5404 3.7095 1.5866
0.75 2.7633 0.5525 3.8485 1.6781
29 - Janelle 0.8 2.8911 0.5767 4.0238 1.7583
Method, Level 1 - 0.85 3.0345 0.6100 4.2327 1.8364
0.95 3.3722 0.6809 4.7097 2.0348
1.0 3.5497 0.7167 4.9575 2.1418
0.7 2.4869 0.4679 3.4060 1.5678
0.75 2.5638 0.4395 3.4271 1.7005
30 - Janelle 0.8 2.6570 0.4223 3.4864 1.8275
Method, Level 1 - 0.85 2.7682 0.4212 3.5956 1.9408
effective area 0.9 2.9071 0.4342 3.7600 2.0542
0.95 3.0612 0.4552 3.9554 2.1670
1.0 3.2220 0.4792 4.1632 2.2808
182
Table 23 – MAWP Ratio vs. Allowable RSF for AS 1210 and BS5500
Mean
Method MAWP
Ratio
1 - API 579 0.7 2.2726 0.5170 3.2880 1.2571
Section 5, Level 1 0.75 2.3790 0.5574 3.4738 1.2842
Analysis - B31.G 0.8 2.4931 0.6027 3.6770 1.3092
API level 1 Folias 0.95 2.8969 0.7390 4.3486 1.4453
factor 1.0 3.0482 0.7786 4.5776 1.5187
2 - API 579 0.7 2.0318 0.3346 2.6890 1.3745
Section 5, Level 2 0.75 2.0961 0.3248 2.7340 1.4582
Analysis - B31.G 0.8 2.1710 0.3242 2.8077 1.5343
level 2 Folias 0.95 2.4755 0.3739 3.2100 1.7409
factor 1.0 2.6034 0.3938 3.3769 1.8299
3 - API-579 0.7 1.9935 0.3537 2.6882 1.2987
Section 5, Level 2 0.75 2.0531 0.3390 2.7191 1.3871
Analysis - B31.G 0.8 2.1237 0.3321 2.7760 1.4715
exact area, API 0.9 2.3027 0.3502 2.9906 1.6148
level 2 Folias 0.95 2.4168 0.3688 3.1413 1.6923
factor 1.0 2.5416 0.3881 3.3039 1.7794
0.7 1.9965 0.4472 2.8749 1.1180
4 - Modified
0.75 2.0608 0.4376 2.9204 1.2012
B31.G Method -
0.8 2.1383 0.4357 2.9941 1.2825
B31.G surface
0.85 2.2253 0.4437 3.0969 1.3537
correction, 0.85dl
0.9 2.3258 0.4601 3.2296 1.4219
area, AGA Folias
factor 0.95 2.4397 0.4836 3.3895 1.4898
1.0 2.5655 0.5086 3.5645 1.5665
5 - Modified 0.7 2.0668 0.3498 2.7539 1.3798
B31.G Method 0.75 2.1297 0.3382 2.7940 1.4654
(RSTRENG) - 0.8 2.2030 0.3349 2.8608 1.5452
B31.G surface 0.85 2.2868 0.3426 2.9599 1.6138
correction, 0.9 2.3877 0.3598 3.0944 1.6810
effective area, 0.95 2.5036 0.3812 3.2525 1.7547
0.7 2.0309 0.3697 2.7571 1.3046
6 - Modified
0.75 2.0894 0.3539 2.7847 1.3942
B31.G Method -
0.8 2.1589 0.3451 2.8368 1.4810
B31.G surface
0.85 2.2390 0.3469 2.9204 1.5576
correction, exact
0.9 2.3360 0.3598 3.0427 1.6294
area, AGA Folias
factor 0.95 2.4489 0.3789 3.1931 1.7048
1.0 2.5746 0.3986 3.3575 1.7917
183
Table 23 – MAWP Ratio vs. Allowable RSF for AS 1210 and BS5500 (Continued)

Mean
Method MAWP
Ratio
0.7 2.0307 0.5405 3.0923 0.9691
0.75 2.0899 0.5626 3.1950 0.9848
Method – B31.G
0.8 2.1582 0.5899 3.3169 0.9995
surface correction,
0.85 2.2459 0.6211 3.4659 1.0260
parabolic area,
0.9 2.3440 0.6558 3.6322 1.0558
B31-G Folias
factor 0.95 2.4552 0.6929 3.8163 1.0941
1.0 2.5811 0.7296 4.0142 1.1479
0.7 2.8117 0.6641 4.1162 1.5072
0.75 2.8117 0.6641 4.1162 1.5072
8 – Thickness 0.8 2.8117 0.6641 4.1162 1.5072
Averaging – API 0.85 2.8117 0.6641 4.1162 1.5072
510, 8th Edition 0.9 2.8117 0.6641 4.1162 1.5072
0.95 2.8117 0.6641 4.1162 1.5072
1.0 2.8117 0.6641 4.1162 1.5072
0.7 3.0479 0.7559 4.5327 1.5632
0.75 3.0479 0.7559 4.5327 1.5632
9 – Thickness 0.8 3.0479 0.7559 4.5327 1.5632
Averaging – API 0.85 3.0479 0.7559 4.5327 1.5632
653, 2nd Edition 0.9 3.0479 0.7559 4.5327 1.5632
0.95 3.0479 0.7559 4.5327 1.5632
1.0 3.0479 0.7559 4.5327 1.5632
0.7 2.0879 0.4328 2.9382 1.2377
10 – British Gas
0.75 2.1636 0.4478 3.0433 1.2840
Single Defect
0.8 2.2482 0.4707 3.1727 1.3237
Method - B31.G
0.85 2.3421 0.4999 3.3240 1.3602
surface correction,
0.9 2.4490 0.5324 3.4947 1.4033
exact area, BG
Folias factor 0.95 2.5670 0.5662 3.6791 1.4549
1.0 2.6975 0.5973 3.8707 1.5243
0.7 2.1295 0.3432 2.8037 1.4553
11 - British Gas
0.75 2.2038 0.3581 2.9073 1.5003
Complex Defect
0.8 2.2862 0.3824 3.0373 1.5351
Method - B31.G
0.85 2.3808 0.4136 3.1933 1.5683
surface correction,
0.9 2.4897 0.4486 3.3709 1.6085
exact area, BG
Folias factor 0.95 2.6101 0.4823 3.5576 1.6627
1.0 2.7432 0.5099 3.7448 1.7416
0.7 1.9548 0.4344 2.8081 1.1015
12 - Chell Method 0.75 2.0190 0.4285 2.8607 1.1773
- Chell surface 0.8 2.0954 0.4317 2.9434 1.2474
area, B31-G 0.9 2.2952 0.4687 3.2159 1.3745
Folias factor 0.95 2.4116 0.4968 3.3873 1.4358
1.0 2.5374 0.5233 3.5652 1.5096
184

Mean
Method MAWP
Ratio
0.7 1.8701 0.4386 2.7315 1.0086
13 – Osage
0.75 1.9122 0.4138 2.7250 1.0994
Method – Chell
0.8 1.9649 0.3938 2.7384 1.1915
surface correction,
0.85 2.0321 0.3828 2.7840 1.2801
effective area, D/t
0.9 2.1214 0.3891 2.8857 1.3571
dependent Folias
factor 0.95 2.2266 0.4068 3.0257 1.4276
1.0 2.3434 0.4280 3.1841 1.5027
14 – API 579, 0.7 1.9538 0.4347 2.8077 1.0998
Level 1, Hybrid 1 0.75 2.0177 0.4287 2.8598 1.1756
Analysis – Chell 0.8 2.0938 0.4318 2.9419 1.2456
API level 1 Folias 0.95 2.4092 0.4966 3.3846 1.4339
factor 1.0 2.5349 0.5231 3.5623 1.5075
15 – API 579, 0.7 1.8610 0.4482 2.7415 0.9806
Level 2, Hybrid 1 0.75 1.8993 0.4245 2.7331 1.0655
Analysis – Chell 0.8 1.9471 0.4052 2.7429 1.1513
level 2 Folias 0.95 2.1912 0.4160 3.0084 1.3740
factor 1.0 2.3040 0.4377 3.1637 1.4443
0.7 1.9074 0.4538 2.7987 1.0161
16 – API 579,
0.75 1.9582 0.4426 2.8276 1.0888
Level 1, Hybrid 2
0.8 2.0193 0.4397 2.8828 1.1557
Analysis – Chell
0.85 2.0962 0.4467 2.9735 1.2188
surface correction,
0.9 2.1917 0.4653 3.1057 1.2777
rectangular area,
BG Folias factor 0.95 2.2992 0.4903 3.2623 1.3360
1.0 2.4164 0.5168 3.4316 1.4012
0.7 1.8560 0.4554 2.7505 0.9616
17 – API 579,
0.75 1.8919 0.4331 2.7425 1.0412
Level 2, Hybrid 2
0.8 1.9359 0.4147 2.7505 1.1213
Analysis – Chell
0.85 1.9928 0.4040 2.7863 1.1993
surface correction,
0.9 2.0697 0.4078 2.8706 1.2687
effective area, BG
Folias factor 0.95 2.1640 0.4241 2.9970 1.3310
1.0 2.2727 0.4462 3.1492 1.3963
0.7 1.8643 0.4668 2.7812 0.9474
18 – API 579,
0.75 1.9042 0.4477 2.7836 1.0248
Level 1, Hybrid 3
0.8 1.9540 0.4328 2.8041 1.1039
Analysis – Chell
0.85 2.0152 0.4238 2.8477 1.1828
surface correction,
0.9 2.0874 0.4223 2.9169 1.2579
rectangular area,
JO Folias factor 0.95 2.1683 0.4284 3.0098 1.3269
1.0 2.2599 0.4413 3.1268 1.3930
185

Mean
Method MAWP
Ratio
0.7 1.8278 0.4758 2.7625 0.8932
19 - API 579,
0.75 1.8523 0.4506 2.7375 0.9672
Level 2, Hybrid 3
0.8 1.8857 0.4243 2.7192 1.0522
Analysis - Chell
0.85 1.9298 0.4001 2.7156 1.1440
surface correction,
0.9 1.9871 0.3811 2.7358 1.2385
effective area, JO
Folias factor 0.95 2.0583 0.3718 2.7886 1.3281
1.0 2.1426 0.3726 2.8745 1.4107
0.7 2.0768 0.4434 2.9478 1.2057
20 - Battelle
0.75 2.1498 0.4584 3.0502 1.2495
Method - B31.G
0.8 2.2339 0.4801 3.1769 1.2910
surface correction,
0.85 2.3300 0.5076 3.3272 1.3329
rectangular area,
0.9 2.4398 0.5381 3.4968 1.3827
Battelle Folias
factor 0.95 2.5635 0.5688 3.6808 1.4461
1.0 2.6970 0.5989 3.8735 1.5205
21 - BS 7910, 0.7 2.0879 0.4328 2.9382 1.2377
Appendix G 0.75 2.1636 0.4478 3.0433 1.2840
(Isolated Defect) - 0.8 2.2482 0.4707 3.1727 1.3237
B31.G surface 0.85 2.3421 0.4999 3.3240 1.3602
correction, 0.9 2.4490 0.5324 3.4947 1.4033
BG Folias factor 1.0 2.6975 0.5973 3.8707 1.5243
22 - BS 7910, 0.7 2.0106 0.3916 2.7798 1.2414
Appendix G 0.75 2.0718 0.3865 2.8309 1.3126
(Grouped Defects) 0.8 2.1415 0.3899 2.9074 1.3755
- B31.G surface 0.85 2.2186 0.4023 3.0088 1.4285
correction, 0.9 2.3084 0.4217 3.1367 1.4800
BG Folias factor 1.0 2.5281 0.4710 3.4533 1.6029
23 - Kanninen 0.7 2.5691 0.8680 4.2741 0.8641
- B31.G surface 0.8 2.8297 1.0329 4.8585 0.8009
correction, 0.85 2.9750 1.1121 5.1595 0.7904
factor 1.0 3.4647 1.3268 6.0709 0.8586
0.7 2.2601 0.5035 3.2491 1.2710
24 - Shell Theory
0.75 2.3442 0.5511 3.4268 1.2617
Method - Chell
0.8 2.4357 0.6032 3.6205 1.2510
surface correction,
0.85 2.5388 0.6557 3.8268 1.2508
exact area, shell
0.9 2.6540 0.7065 4.0417 1.2663
theory Folias
factor 0.95 2.7812 0.7540 4.2622 1.3002
1.0 2.9234 0.7954 4.4858 1.3611
186

Mean
Method MAWP
Ratio
0.7 2.8502 0.9296 4.6761 1.0243
0.75 2.9804 1.0493 5.0415 0.9192
25 - Thickness 0.8 3.1314 1.2108 5.5097 0.7532
Averaging - API 0.85 3.3544 1.3734 6.0521 0.6567
579, Level 1 0.9 3.6263 1.5795 6.7288 0.5238
0.95 3.9397 1.7582 7.3934 0.4861
1.0 4.3884 1.9370 8.1932 0.5836
0.7 2.1788 0.6280 3.4122 0.9453
0.75 2.3509 0.7548 3.8335 0.8683
26 - Thickness 0.8 2.5804 0.9357 4.4185 0.7424
Averaging - API 0.85 2.8725 1.1541 5.1394 0.6056
579, Level 2 0.9 3.2639 1.4184 6.0500 0.4779
0.95 3.7408 1.6700 7.0211 0.4604
1.0 4.3884 1.9370 8.1932 0.5836
27 - Modified API 0.7 2.2269 0.4908 3.1910 1.2627
579 Section 5, 0.75 2.3278 0.5250 3.3590 1.2965
Level 1 Analysis - 0.8 2.4366 0.5653 3.5470 1.3262
B31.G surface 0.85 2.5541 0.6089 3.7501 1.3582
correction, 0.9 2.6839 0.6521 3.9649 1.4030
Modified API
Folias factor 1.0 2.9723 0.7289 4.4040 1.5406
28 - Modified API 0.7 2.0336 0.3343 2.6902 1.3770

579 Section 5, 0.75 2.0981 0.3248 2.7362 1.4601
Level 2 Analysis - 0.8 2.1734 0.3246 2.8109 1.5358
B31.G surface 0.85 2.2586 0.3351 2.9169 1.6003
correction, 0.9 2.3610 0.3542 3.0567 1.6654
effective area, 0.95 2.4784 0.3754 3.2158 1.7410
Modified API
Folias factor 1.0 2.6065 0.3954 3.3831 1.8298
0.7 2.0841 0.4227 2.9143 1.2538
0.75 2.1747 0.4315 3.0223 1.3270
29 - Janelle 0.8 2.2751 0.4498 3.1587 1.3915
Method, Level 1 - 0.85 2.3879 0.4754 3.3217 1.4541
0.95 2.6536 0.5304 3.6955 1.6117
1.0 2.7932 0.5584 3.8900 1.6965
0.7 1.9572 0.3656 2.6753 1.2392
0.75 2.0176 0.3423 2.6901 1.3452
30 - Janelle 0.8 2.0909 0.3276 2.7344 1.4474
Method, Level 1 - 0.85 2.1784 0.3258 2.8183 1.5385
effective area 0.9 2.2876 0.3353 2.9462 1.6290
0.95 2.4089 0.3514 3.0991 1.7187
1.0 2.5354 0.3698 3.2619 1.8090
187
Table 24 – MAWP Ratio vs. Allowable RSF for ASME B31.4 and ASME B31.8, Class 1, Division
2
Mean
Method MAWP
Ratio
1 - API 579 0.7 1.7305 0.4190 2.5535 0.9075
Section 5, Level 1 0.75 1.8117 0.4520 2.6995 0.9238
Analysis - B31.G 0.8 1.8987 0.4885 2.8582 0.9391
API level 1 Folias 0.95 2.2063 0.5971 3.3792 1.0334
factor 1.0 2.3215 0.6290 3.5571 1.0859
2 - API 579 0.7 1.5437 0.2525 2.0396 1.0478
Section 5, Level 2 0.75 1.5922 0.2429 2.0693 1.1151
Analysis - B31.G 0.8 1.6488 0.2404 2.1210 1.1766
level 2 Folias 0.95 1.8794 0.2744 2.4185 1.3403
factor 1.0 1.9766 0.2890 2.5443 1.4088
3 - API-579 0.7 1.5152 0.2694 2.0442 0.9861
Section 5, Level 2 0.75 1.5601 0.2567 2.0643 1.0559
Analysis - B31.G 0.8 1.6134 0.2496 2.1036 1.1232
exact area, API 0.9 1.7487 0.2601 2.2596 1.2379
level 2 Folias 0.95 1.8354 0.2739 2.3733 1.2974
factor 1.0 1.9302 0.2882 2.4962 1.3641
0.7 1.5196 0.3523 2.2117 0.8275
4 - Modified
0.75 1.5686 0.3478 2.2518 0.8854
B31.G Method -
0.8 1.6277 0.3493 2.3137 0.9416
B31.G surface
0.85 1.6939 0.3579 2.3969 0.9909
correction, 0.85dl
0.9 1.7704 0.3721 2.5014 1.0394
area, AGA Folias
factor 0.95 1.8571 0.3913 2.6257 1.0885
1.0 1.9529 0.4116 2.7614 1.1444
5 - Modified 0.7 1.5703 0.2634 2.0876 1.0529
B31.G Method 0.75 1.6176 0.2525 2.1136 1.1217
(RSTRENG) - 0.8 1.6730 0.2479 2.1600 1.1860
B31.G surface 0.85 1.7364 0.2519 2.2311 1.2416
correction, 0.9 1.8127 0.2635 2.3302 1.2952
effective area, 0.95 1.9006 0.2791 2.4488 1.3523
0.7 1.5435 0.2807 2.0949 0.9920
6 - Modified
0.75 1.5876 0.2671 2.1123 1.0628
B31.G Method -
0.8 1.6400 0.2587 2.1480 1.1319
B31.G surface
0.85 1.7005 0.2582 2.2076 1.1934
correction, exact
0.9 1.7739 0.2666 2.2976 1.2503
area, AGA Folias
factor 0.95 1.8596 0.2805 2.4105 1.3087
1.0 1.9550 0.2951 2.5347 1.3754
188
2 (Continued)

Mean
Method MAWP
Ratio
0.7 1.5451 0.4249 2.3797 0.7105
7 - Original B31.G
0.75 1.5903 0.4438 2.4619 0.7186
Method - B31.G
0.8 1.6422 0.4662 2.5581 0.7264
surface correction,
0.85 1.7089 0.4914 2.6742 0.7436
parabolic area,
0.9 1.7835 0.5190 2.8030 0.7639
B31-G Folias
factor 0.95 1.8681 0.5484 2.9452 0.7909
1.0 1.9638 0.5774 3.0980 0.8297
0.7 2.1327 0.4910 3.0971 1.1682
0.75 2.1327 0.4910 3.0971 1.1682
8 - Thickness 0.8 2.1327 0.4910 3.0971 1.1682
Averaging - API 0.85 2.1327 0.4910 3.0971 1.1682
510, 8th Edition 0.9 2.1327 0.4910 3.0971 1.1682
0.95 2.1327 0.4910 3.0971 1.1682
1.0 2.1327 0.4910 3.0971 1.1682
0.7 2.3134 0.5638 3.4208 1.2059
0.75 2.3134 0.5638 3.4208 1.2059
9 - Thickness 0.8 2.3134 0.5638 3.4208 1.2059
Averaging - API 0.85 2.3134 0.5638 3.4208 1.2059
653, 2nd Edition 0.9 2.3134 0.5638 3.4208 1.2059
0.95 2.3134 0.5638 3.4208 1.2059
1.0 2.3134 0.5638 3.4208 1.2059
0.7 1.5895 0.3519 2.2808 0.8983
10 - British Gas
0.75 1.6471 0.3662 2.3665 0.9277
Single Defect
0.8 1.7116 0.3864 2.4705 0.9527
Method - B31.G
0.85 1.7831 0.4108 2.5901 0.9761
surface correction,
0.9 1.8645 0.4373 2.7234 1.0055
exact area, BG
Folias factor 0.95 1.9542 0.4646 2.8669 1.0416
1.0 2.0536 0.4900 3.0162 1.0911
0.7 1.6172 0.2550 2.1181 1.1162
11 - British Gas
0.75 1.6732 0.2638 2.1914 1.1549
Complex Defect
0.8 1.7353 0.2803 2.2859 1.1847
Method - B31.G
0.85 1.8068 0.3023 2.4006 1.2130
surface correction,
0.9 1.8891 0.3275 2.5324 1.2457
exact area, BG
Folias factor 0.95 1.9803 0.3524 2.6725 1.2881
1.0 2.0812 0.3726 2.8132 1.3492
0.7 1.4877 0.3427 2.1608 0.8146
12 - Chell Method 0.75 1.5365 0.3407 2.2058 0.8673
- Chell surface 0.8 1.5946 0.3453 2.2729 0.9163
area, B31-G 0.9 1.7463 0.3755 2.4839 1.0086
Folias factor 0.95 1.8347 0.3974 2.6153 1.0541
1.0 1.9305 0.4185 2.7525 1.1084
189
2 (Continued)

Mean
Method MAWP
Ratio
0.7 1.4222 0.3361 2.0823 0.7620
13 – Osage
0.75 1.4538 0.3164 2.0753 0.8323
Method – Chell
0.8 1.4936 0.3002 2.0833 0.9038
surface correction,
0.85 1.5443 0.2910 2.1160 0.9727
effective area, D/t
0.9 1.6119 0.2948 2.1911 1.0328
dependent Folias
factor 0.95 1.6917 0.3077 2.2962 1.0873
1.0 1.7805 0.3237 2.4164 1.1446
14 – API 579, 0.7 1.4869 0.3429 2.1603 0.8134
Level 1, Hybrid 1 0.75 1.5355 0.3408 2.2049 0.8661
Analysis – Chell 0.8 1.5933 0.3453 2.2716 0.9151
API level 1 Folias 0.95 1.8329 0.3971 2.6130 1.0528
factor 1.0 1.9285 0.4183 2.7501 1.1070
15 – API 579, 0.7 1.4153 0.3434 2.0899 0.7408
Level 2, Hybrid 1 0.75 1.4441 0.3245 2.0816 0.8066
Analysis – Chell 0.8 1.4800 0.3087 2.0864 0.8737
level 2 Folias 0.95 1.6646 0.3138 2.2810 1.0483
factor 1.0 1.7503 0.3300 2.3984 1.1022
0.7 1.4514 0.3539 2.1467 0.7562
16 – API 579,
0.75 1.4901 0.3475 2.1727 0.8074
Level 1, Hybrid 2
0.8 1.5365 0.3474 2.2188 0.8542
Analysis – Chell
0.85 1.5949 0.3540 2.2902 0.8996
surface correction,
0.9 1.6673 0.3688 2.3918 0.9429
rectangular area,
BG Folias factor 0.95 1.7489 0.3882 2.5115 0.9863
1.0 1.8381 0.4089 2.6414 1.0348
0.7 1.4116 0.3489 2.0969 0.7263
17 – API 579,
0.75 1.4385 0.3312 2.0890 0.7879
Level 2, Hybrid 2
0.8 1.4716 0.3161 2.0924 0.8507
Analysis – Chell
0.85 1.5145 0.3069 2.1172 0.9117
surface correction,
0.9 1.5726 0.3087 2.1790 0.9661
effective area, BG
Folias factor 0.95 1.6440 0.3201 2.2726 1.0153
1.0 1.7265 0.3363 2.3872 1.0658
0.7 1.4188 0.3623 2.1305 0.7071
18 – API 579,
0.75 1.4493 0.3498 2.1363 0.7622
Level 1, Hybrid 3
0.8 1.4872 0.3406 2.1562 0.8182
Analysis – Chell
0.85 1.5339 0.3364 2.1947 0.8732
surface correction,
0.9 1.5889 0.3377 2.2523 0.9255
rectangular area,
JO Folias factor 0.95 1.6507 0.3444 2.3273 0.9741
1.0 1.7204 0.3560 2.4197 1.0211
190
2 (Continued)

Mean
Method MAWP
Ratio
0.7 1.3905 0.3651 2.1077 0.6734
19 - API 579,
0.75 1.4089 0.3456 2.0878 0.7300
Level 2, Hybrid 3
0.8 1.4340 0.3250 2.0724 0.7956
Analysis - Chell
0.85 1.4673 0.3062 2.0688 0.8658
surface correction,
0.9 1.5108 0.2919 2.0840 0.9375
effective area, JO
Folias factor 0.95 1.5649 0.2851 2.1249 1.0049
1.0 1.6290 0.2863 2.1913 1.0667
0.7 1.5808 0.3580 2.2840 0.8776
20 - Battelle
0.75 1.6364 0.3721 2.3673 0.9055
Method - B31.G
0.8 1.7005 0.3913 2.4692 0.9318
surface correction,
0.85 1.7737 0.4145 2.5878 0.9596
rectangular area,
0.9 1.8572 0.4394 2.7204 0.9941
Battelle Folias
factor 0.95 1.9514 0.4646 2.8641 1.0388
1.0 2.0531 0.4892 3.0140 1.0922
21 - BS 7910, 0.7 1.5895 0.3519 2.2808 0.8983
Appendix G 0.75 1.6471 0.3662 2.3665 0.9277
(Isolated Defect) - 0.8 1.7116 0.3864 2.4705 0.9527
B31.G surface 0.85 1.7831 0.4108 2.5901 0.9761
correction, 0.9 1.8645 0.4373 2.7234 1.0055
BG Folias factor 1.0 2.0536 0.4900 3.0162 1.0911
22 - BS 7910, 0.7 1.5310 0.3169 2.1535 0.9085
Appendix G 0.75 1.5777 0.3169 2.2002 0.9552
(Grouped Defects) 0.8 1.6309 0.3235 2.2663 0.9954
- B31.G surface 0.85 1.6898 0.3365 2.3507 1.0289
correction, 0.9 1.7582 0.3540 2.4536 1.0628
BG Folias factor 1.0 1.9257 0.3957 2.7030 1.1484
23 - Kanninen 0.7 1.9615 0.7017 3.3399 0.5832
- B31.G surface 0.8 2.1616 0.8332 3.7982 0.5249
correction, 0.85 2.2729 0.8964 4.0336 0.5121
factor 1.0 2.6475 1.0684 4.7461 0.5488
0.7 1.7185 0.3879 2.4805 0.9566
24 - Shell Theory
0.75 1.7827 0.4251 2.6178 0.9476
Method - Chell
0.8 1.8524 0.4655 2.7667 0.9380
surface correction,
0.85 1.9308 0.5061 2.9250 0.9366
exact area, shell
0.9 2.0185 0.5456 3.0903 0.9468
theory Folias
factor 0.95 2.1155 0.5826 3.2598 0.9711
1.0 2.2237 0.6146 3.4310 1.0164
191
2 (Continued)

Mean
Method MAWP
Ratio
0.7 2.1720 0.7237 3.5936 0.7504
0.75 2.2715 0.8131 3.8686 0.6744
25 - Thickness 0.8 2.3869 0.9321 4.2178 0.5559
Averaging - API 0.85 2.5570 1.0532 4.6258 0.4882
579, Level 1 0.9 2.7652 1.2119 5.1456 0.3848
0.95 3.0044 1.3501 5.6564 0.3524
1.0 3.3496 1.5034 6.3027 0.3964
0.7 1.6590 0.4864 2.6145 0.7035
0.75 1.7908 0.5838 2.9376 0.6439
26 - Thickness 0.8 1.9662 0.7201 3.3806 0.5518
Averaging - API 0.85 2.1894 0.8849 3.9276 0.4513
579, Level 2 0.9 2.4889 1.0882 4.6265 0.3513
0.95 2.8527 1.2824 5.3716 0.3337
1.0 3.3496 1.5034 6.3027 0.3964
27 - Modified API 0.7 1.6955 0.3976 2.4765 0.9145
579 Section 5, 0.75 1.7724 0.4261 2.6093 0.9355
Level 1 Analysis - 0.8 1.8554 0.4588 2.7566 0.9542
B31.G surface 0.85 1.9450 0.4936 2.9145 0.9755
correction, 0.9 2.0438 0.5280 3.0809 1.0068
Modified API
Folias factor 1.0 2.2635 0.5898 3.4220 1.1050
28 - Modified API 0.7 1.5451 0.2521 2.0402 1.0499

579 Section 5, 0.75 1.5937 0.2428 2.0706 1.1168
Level 2 Analysis - 0.8 1.6506 0.2405 2.1230 1.1781
B31.G surface 0.85 1.7150 0.2465 2.1993 1.2307
correction, 0.9 1.7925 0.2596 2.3025 1.2826
effective area, 0.95 1.8816 0.2753 2.4223 1.3408
Modified API
Folias factor 1.0 1.9788 0.2900 2.5484 1.4093
0.7 1.5863 0.3405 2.2550 0.9175
0.75 1.6553 0.3503 2.3434 0.9672
29 - Janelle 0.8 1.7319 0.3668 2.4523 1.0115
Method, Level 1 - 0.85 1.8178 0.3879 2.5798 1.0558
0.95 2.0202 0.4334 2.8715 1.1688
1.0 2.1265 0.4562 3.0226 1.2303
0.7 1.4876 0.2783 2.0343 0.9409
0.75 1.5332 0.2592 2.0424 1.0239
30 - Janelle 0.8 1.5885 0.2464 2.0726 1.1045
Method, Level 1 - 0.85 1.6548 0.2436 2.1332 1.1763
effective area 0.9 1.7377 0.2505 2.2297 1.2458
0.95 1.8299 0.2628 2.3461 1.3137
1.0 1.9260 0.2766 2.4693 1.3828
192
Table 25 – MAWP Ratio vs. Allowable RSF for ASME B31.8, Class 1, Division 1
Mean
Method MAWP
Ratio
1 - API 579 0.7 1.5562 0.3768 2.2963 0.8161
Section 5, Level 1 0.75 1.6292 0.4065 2.4276 0.8307
Analysis - B31.G 0.8 1.7075 0.4393 2.5704 0.8445
API level 1 Folias 0.95 1.9841 0.5370 3.0389 0.9294
factor 1.0 2.0877 0.5657 3.1988 0.9765
2 - API 579 0.7 1.3882 0.2270 1.8342 0.9423
Section 5, Level 2 0.75 1.4318 0.2184 1.8609 1.0027
Analysis - B31.G 0.8 1.4827 0.2162 1.9074 1.0581
level 2 Folias 0.95 1.6901 0.2468 2.1749 1.2053
factor 1.0 1.7775 0.2599 2.2880 1.2669
3 - API-579 0.7 1.3625 0.2422 1.8383 0.8868
Section 5, Level 2 0.75 1.4029 0.2308 1.8564 0.9495
Analysis - B31.G 0.8 1.4509 0.2244 1.8917 1.0101
exact area, API 0.9 1.5726 0.2339 2.0320 1.1132
level 2 Folias 0.95 1.6505 0.2463 2.1343 1.1667
factor 1.0 1.7358 0.2592 2.2448 1.2267
0.7 1.3665 0.3169 1.9889 0.7441
4 - Modified
0.75 1.4106 0.3128 2.0250 0.7962
B31.G Method -
0.8 1.4637 0.3141 2.0807 0.8468
B31.G surface
0.85 1.5233 0.3218 2.1555 0.8911
correction, 0.85dl
0.9 1.5921 0.3347 2.2494 0.9347
area, AGA Folias
factor 0.95 1.6701 0.3519 2.3613 0.9789
1.0 1.7562 0.3702 2.4833 1.0291
5 - Modified 0.7 1.4121 0.2369 1.8774 0.9469
B31.G Method 0.75 1.4547 0.2271 1.9007 1.0087
(RSTRENG) - 0.8 1.5045 0.2230 1.9424 1.0665
B31.G surface 0.85 1.5615 0.2265 2.0064 1.1166
correction, 0.9 1.6301 0.2369 2.0955 1.1647
effective area, 0.95 1.7091 0.2510 2.2021 1.2161
0.7 1.3880 0.2525 1.8839 0.8921
6 - Modified
0.75 1.4277 0.2402 1.8996 0.9558
B31.G Method -
0.8 1.4748 0.2326 1.9317 1.0179
B31.G surface
0.85 1.5292 0.2322 1.9852 1.0732
correction, exact
0.9 1.5953 0.2397 2.0662 1.1244
area, AGA Folias
factor 0.95 1.6723 0.2522 2.1677 1.1769
1.0 1.7581 0.2654 2.2794 1.2368
193
Table 25 – MAWP Ratio vs. Allowable RSF for ASME B31.8, Class 1, Division 1 (Continued)

Mean
Method MAWP
Ratio
0.7 1.3895 0.3821 2.1400 0.6389
7 - Original B31.G
0.75 1.4301 0.3991 2.2139 0.6462
Method - B31.G
0.8 1.4768 0.4193 2.3004 0.6532
surface correction,
0.85 1.5368 0.4419 2.4048 0.6687
parabolic area,
0.9 1.6039 0.4668 2.5207 0.6870
B31-G Folias
factor 0.95 1.6799 0.4931 2.6486 0.7113
1.0 1.7660 0.5192 2.7859 0.7461
0.7 1.9179 0.4415 2.7852 1.0506
0.75 1.9179 0.4415 2.7852 1.0506
8 - Thickness 0.8 1.9179 0.4415 2.7852 1.0506
Averaging - API 0.85 1.9179 0.4415 2.7852 1.0506
510, 8th Edition 0.9 1.9179 0.4415 2.7852 1.0506
0.95 1.9179 0.4415 2.7852 1.0506
1.0 1.9179 0.4415 2.7852 1.0506
0.7 2.0804 0.5070 3.0763 1.0844
0.75 2.0804 0.5070 3.0763 1.0844
9 - Thickness 0.8 2.0804 0.5070 3.0763 1.0844
Averaging - API 0.85 2.0804 0.5070 3.0763 1.0844
653, 2nd Edition 0.9 2.0804 0.5070 3.0763 1.0844
0.95 2.0804 0.5070 3.0763 1.0844
1.0 2.0804 0.5070 3.0763 1.0844
0.7 1.4294 0.3165 2.0510 0.8078
10 - British Gas
0.75 1.4812 0.3294 2.1282 0.8343
Single Defect
0.8 1.5392 0.3475 2.2217 0.8567
Method - B31.G
0.85 1.6035 0.3695 2.3292 0.8778
surface correction,
0.9 1.6767 0.3932 2.4491 0.9042
exact area, BG
Folias factor 0.95 1.7574 0.4178 2.5781 0.9367
1.0 1.8468 0.4407 2.7124 0.9812
0.7 1.4543 0.2294 1.9048 1.0038
11 - British Gas
0.75 1.5047 0.2373 1.9707 1.0386
Complex Defect
0.8 1.5605 0.2521 2.0556 1.0654
Method - B31.G
0.85 1.6248 0.2718 2.1588 1.0908
surface correction,
0.9 1.6988 0.2945 2.2773 1.1203
exact area, BG
Folias factor 0.95 1.7808 0.3169 2.4033 1.1583
1.0 1.8716 0.3351 2.5299 1.2133
0.7 1.3379 0.3082 1.9432 0.7326
12 - Chell Method 0.75 1.3818 0.3064 1.9836 0.7799
- Chell surface 0.8 1.4340 0.3105 2.0440 0.8240
area, B31-G 0.9 1.5704 0.3377 2.2337 0.9070
Folias factor 0.95 1.6499 0.3574 2.3519 0.9480
1.0 1.7360 0.3764 2.4753 0.9968
194

Mean
Method MAWP
Ratio
0.7 1.2789 0.3022 1.8726 0.6853
13 - Osage
0.75 1.3074 0.2845 1.8663 0.7485
Method - Chell
0.8 1.3431 0.2700 1.8735 0.8128
surface correction,
0.85 1.3888 0.2617 1.9029 0.8747
effective area, D/t
0.9 1.4496 0.2652 1.9704 0.9288
dependent Folias
factor 0.95 1.5214 0.2767 2.0649 0.9778
1.0 1.6011 0.2911 2.1730 1.0293
14 - API 579, 0.7 1.3371 0.3083 1.9428 0.7315
Level 1, Hybrid 1 0.75 1.3808 0.3065 1.9828 0.7789
Analysis - Chell 0.8 1.4329 0.3105 2.0428 0.8229
API level 1 Folias 0.95 1.6483 0.3571 2.3499 0.9468
factor 1.0 1.7343 0.3761 2.4731 0.9955
15 - API 579, 0.7 1.2728 0.3088 1.8794 0.6662
Level 2, Hybrid 1 0.75 1.2986 0.2919 1.8719 0.7254
Analysis - Chell 0.8 1.3309 0.2776 1.8762 0.7857
level 2 Folias 0.95 1.4970 0.2822 2.0512 0.9427
factor 1.0 1.5740 0.2967 2.1569 0.9912
0.7 1.3052 0.3183 1.9305 0.6800
16 - API 579,
0.75 1.3400 0.3125 1.9539 0.7261
Level 1, Hybrid 2
0.8 1.3817 0.3124 1.9953 0.7682
Analysis - Chell
0.85 1.4343 0.3183 2.0595 0.8090
surface correction,
0.9 1.4994 0.3317 2.1509 0.8479
rectangular area,
BG Folias factor 0.95 1.5728 0.3491 2.2586 0.8870
1.0 1.6530 0.3678 2.3753 0.9306
0.7 1.2694 0.3137 1.8857 0.6531
17 - API 579,
0.75 1.2936 0.2978 1.8786 0.7086
Level 2, Hybrid 2
0.8 1.3233 0.2842 1.8816 0.7651
Analysis - Chell
0.85 1.3619 0.2760 1.9040 0.8198
surface correction,
0.9 1.4142 0.2776 1.9595 0.8688
effective area, BG
Folias factor 0.95 1.4784 0.2878 2.0437 0.9130
1.0 1.5526 0.3025 2.1467 0.9585
0.7 1.2759 0.3258 1.9160 0.6359
18 - API 579,
0.75 1.3033 0.3145 1.9211 0.6855
Level 1, Hybrid 3
0.8 1.3374 0.3063 1.9391 0.7358
Analysis - Chell
0.85 1.3794 0.3025 1.9736 0.7852
surface correction,
0.9 1.4289 0.3037 2.0255 0.8323
rectangular area,
JO Folias factor 0.95 1.4844 0.3098 2.0929 0.8760
1.0 1.5471 0.3201 2.1760 0.9183
195

Mean
Method MAWP
Ratio
0.7 1.2505 0.3283 1.8954 0.6056
19 - API 579,
0.75 1.2670 0.3108 1.8775 0.6565
Level 2, Hybrid 3
0.8 1.2896 0.2923 1.8637 0.7154
Analysis - Chell
0.85 1.3195 0.2754 1.8604 0.7786
surface correction,
0.9 1.3586 0.2625 1.8741 0.8431
effective area, JO
Folias factor 0.95 1.4073 0.2564 1.9109 0.9037
1.0 1.4649 0.2574 1.9706 0.9592
0.7 1.4216 0.3219 2.0539 0.7892
20 - Battelle
0.75 1.4716 0.3346 2.1289 0.8143
Method - B31.G
0.8 1.5292 0.3519 2.2205 0.8379
surface correction,
0.85 1.5950 0.3727 2.3271 0.8629
rectangular area,
0.9 1.6702 0.3952 2.4464 0.8940
Battelle Folias
factor 0.95 1.7549 0.4178 2.5756 0.9342
1.0 1.8463 0.4399 2.7105 0.9822
21 - BS 7910, 0.7 1.4294 0.3165 2.0510 0.8078
Appendix G 0.75 1.4812 0.3294 2.1282 0.8343
(Isolated Defect) - 0.8 1.5392 0.3475 2.2217 0.8567
B31.G surface 0.85 1.6035 0.3695 2.3292 0.8778
correction, 0.9 1.6767 0.3932 2.4491 0.9042
BG Folias factor 1.0 1.8468 0.4407 2.7124 0.9812
22 - BS 7910, 0.7 1.3768 0.2850 1.9366 0.8170
Appendix G 0.75 1.4188 0.2850 1.9786 0.8590
(Grouped Defects) 0.8 1.4666 0.2909 2.0380 0.8952
- B31.G surface 0.85 1.5196 0.3026 2.1139 0.9253
correction, 0.9 1.5811 0.3184 2.2065 0.9558
BG Folias factor 1.0 1.7318 0.3559 2.4308 1.0327
23 - Kanninen 0.7 1.7640 0.6310 3.0035 0.5245
- B31.G surface 0.8 1.9438 0.7493 3.4157 0.4720
correction, 0.85 2.0439 0.8061 3.6273 0.4605
factor 1.0 2.3808 0.9608 4.2681 0.4935
0.7 1.5454 0.3488 2.2307 0.8602
24 - Shell Theory
0.75 1.6031 0.3823 2.3541 0.8522
Method - Chell
0.8 1.6658 0.4186 2.4880 0.8435
surface correction,
0.85 1.7364 0.4552 2.6304 0.8423
exact area, shell
0.9 1.8152 0.4907 2.7791 0.8514
theory Folias
factor 0.95 1.9024 0.5239 2.9315 0.8733
1.0 1.9997 0.5527 3.0854 0.9140
196

Mean
Method MAWP
Ratio
0.7 1.9532 0.6508 3.2316 0.6748
0.75 2.0427 0.7312 3.4790 0.6065
25 – Thickness 0.8 2.1465 0.8382 3.7930 0.4999
Averaging – API 0.85 2.2995 0.9472 4.1599 0.4390
579, Level 1 0.9 2.4867 1.0898 4.6274 0.3461
0.95 2.7018 1.2141 5.0867 0.3169
1.0 3.0122 1.3520 5.6679 0.3565
0.7 1.4919 0.4375 2.3511 0.6326
0.75 1.6104 0.5250 2.6417 0.5791
26 – Thickness 0.8 1.7682 0.6475 3.0401 0.4963
Averaging – API 0.85 1.9689 0.7958 3.5320 0.4058
579, Level 2 0.9 2.2382 0.9786 4.1605 0.3159
0.95 2.5653 1.1532 4.8306 0.3001
1.0 3.0122 1.3520 5.6679 0.3565
27 – Modified API 0.7 1.5247 0.3575 2.2270 0.8224
579 Section 5, 0.75 1.5939 0.3831 2.3465 0.8413
Level 1 Analysis – 0.8 1.6685 0.4126 2.4790 0.8581
B31.G surface 0.85 1.7491 0.4439 2.6210 0.8772
correction, 0.9 1.8380 0.4748 2.7706 0.9054
Modified API
Folias factor 1.0 2.0355 0.5304 3.0773 0.9937
28 – Modified API 0.7 1.3895 0.2267 1.8347 0.9442

579 Section 5, 0.75 1.4332 0.2183 1.8621 1.0044
Level 2 Analysis – 0.8 1.4843 0.2163 1.9092 1.0594
B31.G surface 0.85 1.5423 0.2217 1.9777 1.1068
correction, 0.9 1.6120 0.2335 2.0706 1.1534
effective area, 0.95 1.6921 0.2476 2.1784 1.2058
Modified API
Folias factor 1.0 1.7795 0.2608 2.2917 1.2673
0.7 1.4265 0.3062 2.0279 0.8251
0.75 1.4886 0.3150 2.1074 0.8698
29 – Janelle 0.8 1.5574 0.3298 2.2053 0.9096
Method, Level 1 – 0.85 1.6347 0.3489 2.3199 0.9495
0.95 1.8167 0.3898 2.5823 1.0511
1.0 1.9123 0.4103 2.7182 1.1064
0.7 1.3378 0.2503 1.8294 0.8461
0.75 1.3787 0.2331 1.8367 0.9208
30 – Janelle 0.8 1.4285 0.2216 1.8639 0.9932
Method, Level 1 – 0.85 1.4881 0.2191 1.9184 1.0578
effective area 0.9 1.5627 0.2252 2.0051 1.1203
0.95 1.6456 0.2363 2.1098 1.1814
1.0 1.7321 0.2487 2.2206 1.2435
197
Table 26 – MAWP Ratio vs. Allowable RSF for ASME B31.8, Class 2
Mean
Method MAWP
Ratio
1 – API 579 0.7 2.0791 0.5034 3.0678 1.0903
Section 5, Level 1 0.75 2.1766 0.5431 3.2433 1.1098
Analysis – B31.G 0.8 2.2812 0.5869 3.4340 1.1283
API level 1 Folias 0.95 2.6508 0.7174 4.0599 1.2416
factor 1.0 2.7891 0.7558 4.2736 1.3046
2 – API 579 0.7 1.8547 0.3033 2.4504 1.2589
Section 5, Level 2 0.75 1.9129 0.2918 2.4862 1.3397
Analysis – B31.G 0.8 1.9809 0.2888 2.5482 1.4136
level 2 Folias 0.95 2.2580 0.3297 2.9057 1.6103
factor 1.0 2.3747 0.3473 3.0568 1.6926
3 – API-579 0.7 1.8204 0.3236 2.4560 1.1847
Section 5, Level 2 0.75 1.8743 0.3084 2.4801 1.2686
Analysis – B31.G 0.8 1.9384 0.2998 2.5274 1.3494
exact area, API 0.9 2.1010 0.3125 2.7148 1.4872
level 2 Folias 0.95 2.2051 0.3291 2.8514 1.5587
factor 1.0 2.3190 0.3462 2.9991 1.6389
0.7 1.8257 0.4233 2.6572 0.9942
4 – Modified
0.75 1.8846 0.4179 2.7054 1.0637
B31.G Method –
0.8 1.9555 0.4196 2.7798 1.1313
B31.G surface
0.85 2.0351 0.4300 2.8798 1.1905
correction, 0.85dl
0.9 2.1270 0.4471 3.0052 1.2488
area, AGA Folias
factor 0.95 2.2312 0.4701 3.1547 1.3077
1.0 2.3463 0.4945 3.3177 1.3749
5 – Modified 0.7 1.8866 0.3164 2.5082 1.2651
B31.G Method 0.75 1.9435 0.3034 2.5394 1.3476
(RSTRENG) – 0.8 2.0100 0.2979 2.5951 1.4249
B31.G surface 0.85 2.0861 0.3026 2.6805 1.4917
correction, 0.9 2.1778 0.3165 2.7996 1.5561
effective area, 0.95 2.2834 0.3353 2.9420 1.6248
0.7 1.8544 0.3373 2.5169 1.1918
6 – Modified
0.75 1.9074 0.3210 2.5378 1.2769
B31.G Method –
0.8 1.9703 0.3108 2.5807 1.3599
B31.G surface
0.85 2.0430 0.3102 2.6523 1.4338
correction, exact
0.9 2.1313 0.3203 2.7604 1.5022
area, AGA Folias
factor 0.95 2.2342 0.3369 2.8960 1.5723
1.0 2.3488 0.3545 3.0452 1.6524
198
Table 26 – MAWP Ratio vs. Allowable RSF for ASME B31.8, Class 2 (Continued)

Mean
Method MAWP
Ratio
0.7 1.8564 0.5105 2.8591 0.8536
7 - Original B31.G
0.75 1.9106 0.5331 2.9578 0.8634
Method - B31.G
0.8 1.9730 0.5602 3.0733 0.8727
surface correction,
0.85 2.0531 0.5904 3.2129 0.8934
parabolic area,
0.9 2.1428 0.6236 3.3677 0.9178
B31-G Folias
factor 0.95 2.2444 0.6588 3.5385 0.9503
1.0 2.3594 0.6937 3.7220 0.9968
0.7 2.5623 0.5899 3.7210 1.4035
0.75 2.5623 0.5899 3.7210 1.4035
8 - Thickness 0.8 2.5623 0.5899 3.7210 1.4035
Averaging - API 0.85 2.5623 0.5899 3.7210 1.4035
510, 8th Edition 0.9 2.5623 0.5899 3.7210 1.4035
0.95 2.5623 0.5899 3.7210 1.4035
1.0 2.5623 0.5899 3.7210 1.4035
0.7 2.7794 0.6774 4.1099 1.4488
0.75 2.7794 0.6774 4.1099 1.4488
9 - Thickness 0.8 2.7794 0.6774 4.1099 1.4488
Averaging - API 0.85 2.7794 0.6774 4.1099 1.4488
653, 2nd Edition 0.9 2.7794 0.6774 4.1099 1.4488
0.95 2.7794 0.6774 4.1099 1.4488
1.0 2.7794 0.6774 4.1099 1.4488
0.7 1.9097 0.4228 2.7402 1.0792
10 - British Gas
0.75 1.9789 0.4400 2.8432 1.1146
Single Defect
0.8 2.0564 0.4642 2.9682 1.1446
Method - B31.G
0.85 2.1423 0.4936 3.1119 1.1727
surface correction,
0.9 2.2400 0.5254 3.2720 1.2080
exact area, BG
Folias factor 0.95 2.3479 0.5582 3.4444 1.2514
1.0 2.4673 0.5887 3.6238 1.3109
0.7 1.9429 0.3064 2.5448 1.3411
11 - British Gas
0.75 2.0102 0.3170 2.6328 1.3876
Complex Defect
0.8 2.0848 0.3368 2.7463 1.4234
Method - B31.G
0.85 2.1707 0.3632 2.8841 1.4573
surface correction,
0.9 2.2696 0.3935 3.0425 1.4967
exact area, BG
Folias factor 0.95 2.3792 0.4234 3.2108 1.5475
1.0 2.5005 0.4477 3.3799 1.6210
0.7 1.7874 0.4117 2.5961 0.9787
12 - Chell Method 0.75 1.8460 0.4093 2.6501 1.0420
- Chell surface 0.8 1.9158 0.4149 2.7307 1.1009
area, B31-G 0.9 2.0980 0.4512 2.9843 1.2118
Folias factor 0.95 2.2043 0.4774 3.1421 1.2665
1.0 2.3193 0.5028 3.3070 1.3317
199

Mean
Method MAWP
Ratio
0.7 1.7087 0.4038 2.5018 0.9155
13 - Osage
0.75 1.7467 0.3801 2.4933 1.0000
Method - Chell
0.8 1.7944 0.3607 2.5030 1.0859
surface correction,
0.85 1.8554 0.3497 2.5422 1.1686
effective area, D/t
0.9 1.9366 0.3542 2.6325 1.2408
dependent Folias
factor 0.95 2.0325 0.3697 2.7587 1.3064
1.0 2.1391 0.3890 2.9031 1.3751
14 - API 579, 0.7 1.7864 0.4119 2.5955 0.9773
Level 1, Hybrid 1 0.75 1.8448 0.4094 2.6490 1.0406
Analysis - Chell 0.8 1.9143 0.4148 2.7292 1.0994
API level 1 Folias 0.95 2.2022 0.4771 3.1394 1.2649
factor 1.0 2.3170 0.5025 3.3041 1.3300
15 - API 579, 0.7 1.7005 0.4126 2.5109 0.8900
Level 2, Hybrid 1 0.75 1.7350 0.3899 2.5009 0.9691
Analysis - Chell 0.8 1.7781 0.3709 2.5066 1.0497
level 2 Folias 0.95 2.0000 0.3770 2.7405 1.2594
factor 1.0 2.1029 0.3964 2.8816 1.3242
0.7 1.7438 0.4252 2.5791 0.9085
16 - API 579,
0.75 1.7902 0.4176 2.6104 0.9700
Level 1, Hybrid 2
0.8 1.8460 0.4173 2.6657 1.0263
Analysis - Chell
0.85 1.9162 0.4253 2.7515 1.0808
surface correction,
0.9 2.0032 0.4431 2.8736 1.1328
rectangular area,
BG Folias factor 0.95 2.1012 0.4664 3.0174 1.1850
1.0 2.2084 0.4913 3.1734 1.2433
0.7 1.6959 0.4192 2.5192 0.8726
17 - API 579,
0.75 1.7282 0.3979 2.5098 0.9467
Level 2, Hybrid 2
0.8 1.7680 0.3797 2.5139 1.0221
Analysis - Chell
0.85 1.8195 0.3687 2.5437 1.0953
surface correction,
0.9 1.8894 0.3709 2.6179 1.1608
effective area, BG
Folias factor 0.95 1.9751 0.3845 2.7304 1.2198
1.0 2.0743 0.4041 2.8680 1.2806
0.7 1.7046 0.4353 2.5597 0.8496
18 - API 579,
0.75 1.7412 0.4202 2.5666 0.9158
Level 1, Hybrid 3
0.8 1.7868 0.4092 2.5906 0.9830
Analysis - Chell
0.85 1.8429 0.4041 2.6367 1.0490
surface correction,
0.9 1.9090 0.4058 2.7060 1.1120
rectangular area,
JO Folias factor 0.95 1.9832 0.4138 2.7961 1.1703
1.0 2.0670 0.4277 2.9071 1.2268
200

Mean
Method MAWP
Ratio
0.7 1.6707 0.4386 2.5322 0.8091
19 – API 579,
0.75 1.6927 0.4153 2.5084 0.8771
Level 2, Hybrid 3
0.8 1.7229 0.3905 2.4899 0.9558
Analysis – Chell
0.85 1.7629 0.3679 2.4855 1.0402
surface correction,
0.9 1.8151 0.3506 2.5039 1.1263
effective area, JO
Folias factor 0.95 1.8801 0.3425 2.5529 1.2073
1.0 1.9572 0.3439 2.6328 1.2816
0.7 1.8992 0.4301 2.7441 1.0543
20 – Battelle
0.75 1.9660 0.4471 2.8441 1.0879
Method – B31.G
0.8 2.0430 0.4702 2.9666 1.1195
surface correction,
0.85 2.1310 0.4979 3.1091 1.1529
rectangular area,
0.9 2.2313 0.5279 3.2683 1.1943
Battelle Folias
factor 0.95 2.3445 0.5582 3.4410 1.2481
1.0 2.4667 0.5878 3.6212 1.3122
21 – BS 7910, 0.7 1.9097 0.4228 2.7402 1.0792
Appendix G 0.75 1.9789 0.4400 2.8432 1.1146
(Isolated Defect) – 0.8 2.0564 0.4642 2.9682 1.1446
B31.G surface 0.85 2.1423 0.4936 3.1119 1.1727
correction, 0.9 2.2400 0.5254 3.2720 1.2080
BG Folias factor 1.0 2.4673 0.5887 3.6238 1.3109
22 – BS 7910, 0.7 1.8394 0.3807 2.5873 1.0915
Appendix G 0.75 1.8955 0.3807 2.6433 1.1476
(Grouped Defects) 0.8 1.9594 0.3887 2.7228 1.1959
– B31.G surface 0.85 2.0302 0.4042 2.8242 1.2362
correction, 0.9 2.1124 0.4254 2.9479 1.2769
BG Folias factor 1.0 2.3136 0.4755 3.2475 1.3797
23 – Kanninen 0.7 2.3567 0.8430 4.0126 0.7007
– B31.G surface 0.8 2.5970 1.0011 4.5633 0.6306
correction, 0.85 2.7307 1.0770 4.8461 0.6153
factor 1.0 3.1808 1.2837 5.7022 0.6593
0.7 2.0647 0.4661 2.9802 1.1493
24 – Shell Theory
0.75 2.1418 0.5108 3.1451 1.1385
Method – Chell
0.8 2.2255 0.5593 3.3240 1.1270
surface correction,
0.85 2.3198 0.6081 3.5142 1.1253
exact area, shell
0.9 2.4252 0.6556 3.7128 1.1375
theory Folias
factor 0.95 2.5416 0.7000 3.9165 1.1667
1.0 2.6716 0.7384 4.1221 1.2212
201

Mean
Method MAWP
Ratio
0.7 2.6095 0.8695 4.3174 0.9016
0.75 2.7291 0.9769 4.6479 0.8103
25 - Thickness 0.8 2.8677 1.1199 5.0675 0.6679
Averaging - API 0.85 3.0721 1.2654 5.5577 0.5865
579, Level 1 0.9 3.3223 1.4560 6.1822 0.4624
0.95 3.6096 1.6221 6.7958 0.4234
1.0 4.0243 1.8063 7.5723 0.4762
0.7 1.9931 0.5844 3.1411 0.8452
0.75 2.1515 0.7015 3.5293 0.7737
26 - Thickness 0.8 2.3623 0.8651 4.0615 0.6630
Averaging - API 0.85 2.6304 1.0631 4.7187 0.5422
579, Level 2 0.9 2.9902 1.3075 5.5584 0.4220
0.95 3.4273 1.5407 6.4537 0.4009
1.0 4.0243 1.8063 7.5723 0.4762
27 - Modified API 0.7 2.0370 0.4777 2.9753 1.0987
579 Section 5, 0.75 2.1295 0.5119 3.1349 1.1240
Level 1 Analysis - 0.8 2.2292 0.5512 3.3119 1.1464
B31.G surface 0.85 2.3368 0.5930 3.5016 1.1720
correction, 0.9 2.4556 0.6343 3.7015 1.2096
Modified API
Folias factor 1.0 2.7194 0.7086 4.1113 1.3276
28 - Modified API 0.7 1.8563 0.3029 2.4512 1.2614

579 Section 5, 0.75 1.9148 0.2917 2.4877 1.3418
Level 2 Analysis - 0.8 1.9831 0.2890 2.5507 1.4154
B31.G surface 0.85 2.0604 0.2962 2.6423 1.4786
correction, 0.9 2.1536 0.3119 2.7663 1.5409
effective area, 0.95 2.2606 0.3308 2.9103 1.6109
Modified API
Folias factor 1.0 2.3775 0.3484 3.0617 1.6932
0.7 1.9058 0.4091 2.7093 1.1023
0.75 1.9888 0.4209 2.8154 1.1621
29 - Janelle 0.8 2.0807 0.4406 2.9463 1.2152
Method, Level 1 - 0.85 2.1840 0.4661 3.0994 1.2685
0.95 2.4271 0.5207 3.4499 1.4043
1.0 2.5548 0.5481 3.6315 1.4782
0.7 1.7873 0.3344 2.4441 1.1304
0.75 1.8420 0.3115 2.4538 1.2302
30 - Janelle 0.8 1.9085 0.2961 2.4901 1.3269
Method, Level 1 - 0.85 1.9881 0.2927 2.5630 1.4132
effective area 0.9 2.0878 0.3009 2.6789 1.4967
0.95 2.1985 0.3157 2.8187 1.5784
1.0 2.3140 0.3323 2.9667 1.6613
202
Mean
Method MAWP
Ratio
1 - API 579 0.7 2.4899 0.6028 3.6741 1.3058
Section 5, Level 1 0.75 2.6067 0.6504 3.8842 1.3291
Analysis - B31.G 0.8 2.7319 0.7029 4.1126 1.3513
API level 1 Folias 0.95 3.1746 0.8592 4.8622 1.4870
factor 1.0 3.3403 0.9051 5.1181 1.5624
2 - API 579 0.7 2.2212 0.3632 2.9347 1.5077
Section 5, Level 2 0.75 2.2909 0.3495 2.9774 1.6044
Analysis - B31.G 0.8 2.3724 0.3459 3.0518 1.6929
level 2 Folias 0.95 2.7042 0.3949 3.4798 1.9285
factor 1.0 2.8440 0.4159 3.6609 2.0270
3 - API-579 0.7 2.1801 0.3876 2.9413 1.4188
Section 5, Level 2 0.75 2.2447 0.3693 2.9702 1.5193
Analysis - B31.G 0.8 2.3214 0.3591 3.0268 1.6161
exact area, API 0.9 2.5162 0.3742 3.2513 1.7811
level 2 Folias 0.95 2.6408 0.3941 3.4149 1.8667
factor 1.0 2.7772 0.4146 3.5917 1.9628
0.7 2.1865 0.5070 3.1823 1.1906
4 - Modified
0.75 2.2570 0.5005 3.2400 1.2739
B31.G Method -
0.8 2.3420 0.5025 3.3291 1.3549
B31.G surface
0.85 2.4373 0.5150 3.4488 1.4258
correction, 0.85dl
0.9 2.5473 0.5354 3.5991 1.4956
area, AGA Folias
factor 0.95 2.6721 0.5630 3.7780 1.5662
1.0 2.8099 0.5923 3.9733 1.6466
5 - Modified 0.7 2.2594 0.3790 3.0038 1.5150
B31.G Method 0.75 2.3275 0.3633 3.0412 1.6139
(RSTRENG) - 0.8 2.4072 0.3567 3.1079 1.7064
B31.G surface 0.85 2.4983 0.3624 3.2102 1.7865
correction, 0.9 2.6082 0.3791 3.3528 1.8636
effective area, 0.95 2.7346 0.4016 3.5234 1.9458
0.7 2.2208 0.4040 3.0143 1.4273
6 - Modified
0.75 2.2843 0.3844 3.0393 1.5292
B31.G Method -
0.8 2.3597 0.3722 3.0907 1.6287
B31.G surface
0.85 2.4468 0.3715 3.1764 1.7171
correction, exact
0.9 2.5524 0.3836 3.3058 1.7990
area, AGA Folias
factor 0.95 2.6757 0.4035 3.4683 1.8830
1.0 2.8130 0.4246 3.6470 1.9789
203

Mean
Method MAWP
Ratio
0.7 2.2232 0.6114 3.4241 1.0223
7 - Original B31.G
0.75 2.2881 0.6385 3.5423 1.0340
Method - B31.G
0.8 2.3629 0.6709 3.6806 1.0452
surface correction,
0.85 2.4589 0.7071 3.8477 1.0700
parabolic area,
0.9 2.5662 0.7468 4.0331 1.0992
B31-G Folias
factor 0.95 2.6879 0.7890 4.2377 1.1380
1.0 2.8256 0.8308 4.4575 1.1938
0.7 3.0686 0.7065 4.4563 1.6809
0.75 3.0686 0.7065 4.4563 1.6809
8 - Thickness 0.8 3.0686 0.7065 4.4563 1.6809
Averaging - API 0.85 3.0686 0.7065 4.4563 1.6809
510, 8th Edition 0.9 3.0686 0.7065 4.4563 1.6809
0.95 3.0686 0.7065 4.4563 1.6809
1.0 3.0686 0.7065 4.4563 1.6809
0.7 3.3286 0.8112 4.9221 1.7351
0.75 3.3286 0.8112 4.9221 1.7351
9 - Thickness 0.8 3.3286 0.8112 4.9221 1.7351
Averaging - API 0.85 3.3286 0.8112 4.9221 1.7351
653, 2nd Edition 0.9 3.3286 0.8112 4.9221 1.7351
0.95 3.3286 0.8112 4.9221 1.7351
1.0 3.3286 0.8112 4.9221 1.7351
0.7 2.2871 0.5063 3.2817 1.2925
10 - British Gas
0.75 2.3700 0.5270 3.4051 1.3349
Single Defect
0.8 2.4627 0.5559 3.5547 1.3707
Method - B31.G
0.85 2.5656 0.5911 3.7268 1.4044
surface correction,
0.9 2.6827 0.6292 3.9186 1.4468
exact area, BG
Folias factor 0.95 2.8119 0.6685 4.1250 1.4987
1.0 2.9549 0.7051 4.3398 1.5699
0.7 2.3269 0.3670 3.0477 1.6061
11 - British Gas
0.75 2.4074 0.3796 3.1531 1.6618
Complex Defect
0.8 2.4968 0.4033 3.2890 1.7046
Method - B31.G
0.85 2.5997 0.4350 3.4541 1.7453
surface correction,
0.9 2.7181 0.4713 3.6438 1.7924
exact area, BG
Folias factor 0.95 2.8493 0.5070 3.8453 1.8533
1.0 2.9946 0.5362 4.0478 1.9414
0.7 2.1406 0.4930 3.1090 1.1721
12 - Chell Method 0.75 2.2108 0.4902 3.1737 1.2479
- Chell surface 0.8 2.2944 0.4969 3.2703 1.3185
area, B31-G 0.9 2.5126 0.5403 3.5740 1.4512
Folias factor 0.95 2.6399 0.5718 3.7630 1.5168
1.0 2.7776 0.6022 3.9605 1.5948
204

Mean
Method MAWP
Ratio
0.7 2.0463 0.4836 2.9962 1.0964
13 – Osage
0.75 2.0918 0.4553 2.9860 1.1976
Method – Chell
0.8 2.1490 0.4320 2.9976 1.3005
surface correction,
0.85 2.2220 0.4187 3.0446 1.3995
effective area, D/t
0.9 2.3193 0.4242 3.1527 1.4860
dependent Folias
factor 0.95 2.4342 0.4427 3.3038 1.5645
1.0 2.5618 0.4658 3.4768 1.6468
14 – API 579, 0.7 2.1394 0.4933 3.1084 1.1704
Level 1, Hybrid 1 0.75 2.2094 0.4903 3.1725 1.2462
Analysis – Chell 0.8 2.2926 0.4968 3.2685 1.3167
API level 1 Folias 0.95 2.6373 0.5714 3.7598 1.5149
factor 1.0 2.7749 0.6018 3.9570 1.5928
15 – API 579, 0.7 2.0365 0.4941 3.0071 1.0659
Level 2, Hybrid 1 0.75 2.0778 0.4670 2.9951 1.1606
Analysis – Chell 0.8 2.1295 0.4442 3.0020 1.2571
level 2 Folias 0.95 2.3952 0.4515 3.2820 1.5083
factor 1.0 2.5184 0.4748 3.4510 1.5859
0.7 2.0884 0.5093 3.0887 1.0881
16 – API 579,
0.75 2.1440 0.5001 3.1262 1.1617
Level 1, Hybrid 2
0.8 2.2108 0.4998 3.1925 1.2291
Analysis – Chell
0.85 2.2948 0.5093 3.2952 1.2944
surface correction,
0.9 2.3991 0.5307 3.4414 1.3567
rectangular area,
BG Folias factor 0.95 2.5164 0.5586 3.6137 1.4192
1.0 2.6447 0.5884 3.8005 1.4890
0.7 2.0310 0.5020 3.0171 1.0450
17 – API 579,
0.75 2.0697 0.4765 3.0057 1.1337
Level 2, Hybrid 2
0.8 2.1173 0.4548 3.0106 1.2241
Analysis – Chell
0.85 2.1791 0.4415 3.0464 1.3118
surface correction,
0.9 2.2627 0.4442 3.1353 1.3901
effective area, BG
Folias factor 0.95 2.3654 0.4605 3.2700 1.4609
1.0 2.4842 0.4839 3.4348 1.5336
0.7 2.0415 0.5213 3.0655 1.0174
18 – API 579,
0.75 2.0853 0.5033 3.0738 1.0967
Level 1, Hybrid 3
0.8 2.1398 0.4901 3.1025 1.1772
Analysis – Chell
0.85 2.2071 0.4840 3.1578 1.2563
surface correction,
0.9 2.2862 0.4860 3.2408 1.3317
rectangular area,
JO Folias factor 0.95 2.3751 0.4956 3.3486 1.4016
1.0 2.4754 0.5122 3.4816 1.4693
205

Mean
Method MAWP
Ratio
0.7 2.0008 0.5253 3.0326 0.9690
19 - API 579,
0.75 2.0272 0.4973 3.0041 1.0504
Level 2, Hybrid 3
0.8 2.0633 0.4677 2.9819 1.1447
Analysis - Chell
0.85 2.1112 0.4406 2.9767 1.2458
surface correction,
0.9 2.1738 0.4199 2.9986 1.3489
effective area, JO
Folias factor 0.95 2.2517 0.4102 3.0574 1.4459
1.0 2.3439 0.4119 3.1530 1.5348
0.7 2.2745 0.5151 3.2863 1.2627
20 - Battelle
0.75 2.3545 0.5354 3.4062 1.3029
Method - B31.G
0.8 2.4467 0.5631 3.5528 1.3407
surface correction,
0.85 2.5521 0.5963 3.7234 1.3807
rectangular area,
0.9 2.6723 0.6323 3.9142 1.4304
Battelle Folias
factor 0.95 2.8078 0.6685 4.1210 1.4947
1.0 2.9541 0.7039 4.3367 1.5715
21 - BS 7910, 0.7 2.2871 0.5063 3.2817 1.2925
Appendix G 0.75 2.3700 0.5270 3.4051 1.3349
(Isolated Defect) - 0.8 2.4627 0.5559 3.5547 1.3707
B31.G surface 0.85 2.5656 0.5911 3.7268 1.4044
correction, 0.9 2.6827 0.6292 3.9186 1.4468
BG Folias factor 1.0 2.9549 0.7051 4.3398 1.5699
22 - BS 7910, 0.7 2.2029 0.4560 3.0985 1.3072
Appendix G 0.75 2.2700 0.4560 3.1657 1.3743
(Grouped Defects) 0.8 2.3466 0.4655 3.2609 1.4323
- B31.G surface 0.85 2.4314 0.4841 3.3823 1.4804
correction, 0.9 2.5298 0.5094 3.5304 1.5292
BG Folias factor 1.0 2.7708 0.5694 3.8893 1.6523
23 - Kanninen 0.7 2.8223 1.0096 4.8055 0.8392
- B31.G surface 0.8 3.1101 1.1989 5.4651 0.7552
correction, 0.85 3.2703 1.2898 5.8037 0.7368
factor 1.0 3.8093 1.5373 6.8290 0.7896
0.7 2.4727 0.5581 3.5691 1.3764
24 - Shell Theory
0.75 2.5650 0.6117 3.7666 1.3635
Method - Chell
0.8 2.6653 0.6698 3.9809 1.3497
surface correction,
0.85 2.7782 0.7282 4.2086 1.3477
exact area, shell
0.9 2.9044 0.7851 4.4465 1.3622
theory Folias
factor 0.95 3.0438 0.8383 4.6904 1.3973
1.0 3.1996 0.8844 4.9367 1.4625
206

Mean
Method MAWP
Ratio
0.7 3.1251 1.0413 5.1706 1.0797
0.75 3.2684 1.1699 5.5663 0.9704
25 – Thickness 0.8 3.4344 1.3412 6.0688 0.7999
Averaging – API 0.85 3.6791 1.5155 6.6559 0.7024
579, Level 1 0.9 3.9788 1.7437 7.4038 0.5537
0.95 4.3228 1.9426 8.1386 0.5070
1.0 4.8195 2.1632 9.0687 0.5704
0.7 2.3870 0.6999 3.7618 1.0122
0.75 2.5766 0.8401 4.2268 0.9265
26 – Thickness 0.8 2.8291 1.0360 4.8641 0.7940
Averaging – API 0.85 3.1502 1.2732 5.6512 0.6493
579, Level 2 0.9 3.5811 1.5658 6.6568 0.5054
0.95 4.1045 1.8452 7.7290 0.4801
1.0 4.8195 2.1632 9.0687 0.5704
27 – Modified API 0.7 2.4396 0.5721 3.5633 1.3159
579 Section 5, 0.75 2.5503 0.6130 3.7544 1.3461
Level 1 Analysis – 0.8 2.6697 0.6601 3.9664 1.3730
B31.G surface 0.85 2.7986 0.7102 4.1936 1.4036
correction, 0.9 2.9408 0.7596 4.4329 1.4486
Modified API
Folias factor 1.0 3.2568 0.8486 4.9237 1.5899
28 – Modified API 0.7 2.2231 0.3627 2.9356 1.5107

579 Section 5, 0.75 2.2931 0.3493 2.9793 1.6070
Level 2 Analysis – 0.8 2.3749 0.3461 3.0547 1.6951
B31.G surface 0.85 2.4676 0.3547 3.1644 1.7708
correction, 0.9 2.5792 0.3736 3.3130 1.8454
effective area, 0.95 2.7073 0.3961 3.4854 1.9293
Modified API
Folias factor 1.0 2.8472 0.4172 3.6668 2.0277
0.7 2.2824 0.4899 3.2446 1.3201
0.75 2.3818 0.5040 3.3718 1.3917
29 – Janelle 0.8 2.4919 0.5277 3.5285 1.4553
Method, Level 1 – 0.85 2.6155 0.5582 3.7119 1.5191
0.95 2.9067 0.6236 4.1316 1.6818
1.0 3.0597 0.6564 4.3491 1.7702
0.7 2.1404 0.4005 2.9271 1.3538
0.75 2.2060 0.3730 2.9387 1.4733
30 – Janelle 0.8 2.2857 0.3546 2.9822 1.5891
Method, Level 1 – 0.85 2.3809 0.3505 3.0694 1.6925
effective area 0.9 2.5003 0.3604 3.2082 1.7925
0.95 2.6330 0.3781 3.3757 1.8903
1.0 2.7713 0.3980 3.5530 1.9896
207
Mean
Method MAWP
Ratio
1 – API 579 0.7 3.1124 0.7536 4.5926 1.6322
Section 5, Level 1 0.75 3.2584 0.8130 4.8553 1.6614
Analysis – B31.G 0.8 3.4149 0.8786 5.1407 1.6891
API level 1 Folias 0.95 3.9682 1.0739 6.0777 1.8587
factor 1.0 4.1753 1.1314 6.3976 1.9530
2 – API 579 0.7 2.7765 0.4541 3.6683 1.8846
Section 5, Level 2 0.75 2.8637 0.4369 3.7218 2.0055
Analysis – B31.G 0.8 2.9655 0.4324 3.8147 2.1162
level 2 Folias 0.95 3.3802 0.4936 4.3498 2.4106
factor 1.0 3.5549 0.5199 4.5761 2.5338
3 – API-579 0.7 2.7251 0.4845 3.6767 1.7735
Section 5, Level 2 0.75 2.8059 0.4617 3.7127 1.8991
Analysis – B31.G 0.8 2.9018 0.4489 3.7835 2.0201
exact area, API 0.9 3.1452 0.4678 4.0641 2.2264
level 2 Folias 0.95 3.3010 0.4926 4.2686 2.3334
factor 1.0 3.4716 0.5183 4.4896 2.4535
0.7 2.7331 0.6337 3.9779 1.4883
4 – Modified
0.75 2.8212 0.6256 4.0501 1.5924
B31.G Method –
0.8 2.9275 0.6282 4.1613 1.6936
B31.G surface
0.85 3.0466 0.6437 4.3110 1.7823
correction, 0.85dl
0.9 3.1842 0.6693 4.4988 1.8695
area, AGA Folias
factor 0.95 3.3401 0.7038 4.7226 1.9577
1.0 3.5124 0.7403 4.9666 2.0582
5 – Modified 0.7 2.8243 0.4737 3.7547 1.8938
B31.G Method 0.75 2.9094 0.4541 3.8015 2.0174
(RSTRENG) – 0.8 3.0090 0.4459 3.8849 2.1331
B31.G surface 0.85 3.1229 0.4530 4.0127 2.2331
correction, 0.9 3.2602 0.4738 4.1910 2.3295
effective area, 0.95 3.4183 0.5020 4.4043 2.4323
0.7 2.7760 0.5049 3.7678 1.7842
6 – Modified
0.75 2.8553 0.4805 3.7991 1.9115
B31.G Method –
0.8 2.9496 0.4652 3.8634 2.0358
B31.G surface
0.85 3.0584 0.4643 3.9705 2.1464
correction, exact
0.9 3.1905 0.4795 4.1323 2.2488
area, AGA Folias
factor 0.95 3.3446 0.5044 4.3354 2.3538
1.0 3.5162 0.5307 4.5587 2.4737
208

Mean
Method MAWP
Ratio
0.7 2.7790 0.7642 4.2801 1.2779
7 - Original B31.G
0.75 2.8602 0.7981 4.4279 1.2925
Method - B31.G
0.8 2.9536 0.8386 4.6008 1.3064
surface correction,
0.85 3.0736 0.8839 4.8097 1.3374
parabolic area,
0.9 3.2077 0.9335 5.0414 1.3740
B31-G Folias
factor 0.95 3.3598 0.9863 5.2971 1.4225
1.0 3.5321 1.0385 5.5719 1.4923
0.7 3.8357 0.8831 5.5703 2.1011
0.75 3.8357 0.8831 5.5703 2.1011
8 - Thickness 0.8 3.8357 0.8831 5.5703 2.1011
Averaging - API 0.85 3.8357 0.8831 5.5703 2.1011
510, 8th Edition 0.9 3.8357 0.8831 5.5703 2.1011
0.95 3.8357 0.8831 5.5703 2.1011
1.0 3.8357 0.8831 5.5703 2.1011
0.7 4.1607 1.0141 6.1526 2.1689
0.75 4.1607 1.0141 6.1526 2.1689
9 - Thickness 0.8 4.1607 1.0141 6.1526 2.1689
Averaging - API 0.85 4.1607 1.0141 6.1526 2.1689
653, 2nd Edition 0.9 4.1607 1.0141 6.1526 2.1689
0.95 4.1607 1.0141 6.1526 2.1689
1.0 4.1607 1.0141 6.1526 2.1689
0.7 2.8589 0.6329 4.1021 1.6156
10 - British Gas
0.75 2.9625 0.6587 4.2563 1.6686
Single Defect
0.8 3.0784 0.6949 4.4434 1.7134
Method - B31.G
0.85 3.2070 0.7389 4.6585 1.7555
surface correction,
0.9 3.3533 0.7865 4.8982 1.8085
exact area, BG
Folias factor 0.95 3.5148 0.8356 5.1563 1.8734
1.0 3.6936 0.8813 5.4248 1.9624
0.7 2.9086 0.4587 3.8096 2.0076
11 - British Gas
0.75 3.0093 0.4745 3.9414 2.0772
Complex Defect
0.8 3.1210 0.5041 4.1113 2.1308
Method - B31.G
0.85 3.2496 0.5437 4.3176 2.1816
surface correction,
0.9 3.3976 0.5891 4.5547 2.2405
exact area, BG
Folias factor 0.95 3.5616 0.6338 4.8066 2.3167
1.0 3.7432 0.6702 5.0597 2.4267
0.7 2.6757 0.6163 3.8863 1.4651
12 - Chell Method 0.75 2.7635 0.6128 3.9672 1.5599
- Chell surface 0.8 2.8680 0.6211 4.0879 1.6481
area, B31-G 0.9 3.1407 0.6754 4.4675 1.8140
Folias factor 0.95 3.2999 0.7147 4.7038 1.8959
1.0 3.4721 0.7527 4.9506 1.9935
209

Mean
Method MAWP
Ratio
0.7 2.5579 0.6045 3.7452 1.3705
13 – Osage
0.75 2.6148 0.5691 3.7325 1.4970
Method – Chell
0.8 2.6863 0.5400 3.7470 1.6256
surface correction,
0.85 2.7775 0.5234 3.8057 1.7494
effective area, D/t
0.9 2.8992 0.5303 3.9408 1.8575
dependent Folias
factor 0.95 3.0427 0.5534 4.1298 1.9556
1.0 3.2023 0.5823 4.3460 2.0586
14 – API 579, 0.7 2.6743 0.6166 3.8855 1.4630
Level 1, Hybrid 1 0.75 2.7617 0.6129 3.9656 1.5578
Analysis – Chell 0.8 2.8657 0.6210 4.0856 1.6459
API level 1 Folias 0.95 3.2967 0.7143 4.6997 1.8936
factor 1.0 3.4686 0.7523 4.9463 1.9910
15 – API 579, 0.7 2.5456 0.6176 3.7588 1.3324
Level 2, Hybrid 1 0.75 2.5973 0.5837 3.7438 1.4507
Analysis – Chell 0.8 2.6619 0.5552 3.7525 1.5713
level 2 Folias 0.95 2.9939 0.5644 4.1025 1.8854
factor 1.0 3.1480 0.5934 4.3137 1.9824
0.7 2.6105 0.6366 3.8609 1.3601
16 – API 579,
0.75 2.6800 0.6251 3.9078 1.4521
Level 1, Hybrid 2
0.8 2.7635 0.6247 3.9906 1.5363
Analysis – Chell
0.85 2.8685 0.6366 4.1190 1.6180
surface correction,
0.9 2.9988 0.6633 4.3018 1.6959
rectangular area,
BG Folias factor 0.95 3.1456 0.6983 4.5171 1.7740
1.0 3.3059 0.7355 4.7507 1.8612
0.7 2.5388 0.6275 3.7713 1.3063
17 – API 579,
0.75 2.5872 0.5956 3.7572 1.4172
Level 2, Hybrid 2
0.8 2.6467 0.5684 3.7633 1.5301
Analysis – Chell
0.85 2.7238 0.5519 3.8080 1.6397
surface correction,
0.9 2.8284 0.5553 3.9191 1.7377
effective area, BG
Folias factor 0.95 2.9568 0.5756 4.0875 1.8261
1.0 3.1052 0.6049 4.2934 1.9170
0.7 2.5519 0.6517 3.8319 1.2718
18 – API 579,
0.75 2.6066 0.6291 3.8422 1.3709
Level 1, Hybrid 3
0.8 2.6748 0.6126 3.8781 1.4715
Analysis – Chell
0.85 2.7588 0.6050 3.9472 1.5704
surface correction,
0.9 2.8578 0.6074 4.0510 1.6646
rectangular area,
JO Folias factor 0.95 2.9688 0.6195 4.1857 1.7519
1.0 3.0943 0.6403 4.3520 1.8366
210

Mean
Method MAWP
Ratio
0.7 2.5010 0.6566 3.7907 1.2112
19 - API 579,
0.75 2.5340 0.6216 3.7551 1.3130
Level 2, Hybrid 3
0.8 2.5791 0.5846 3.7274 1.4308
Analysis - Chell
0.85 2.6390 0.5507 3.7208 1.5572
surface correction,
0.9 2.7172 0.5249 3.7483 1.6861
effective area, JO
Folias factor 0.95 2.8146 0.5128 3.8218 1.8074
1.0 2.9299 0.5149 3.9412 1.9185
0.7 2.8431 0.6439 4.1079 1.5783
20 - Battelle
0.75 2.9431 0.6692 4.2577 1.6286
Method - B31.G
0.8 3.0584 0.7039 4.4410 1.6759
surface correction,
0.85 3.1901 0.7454 4.6543 1.7259
rectangular area,
0.9 3.3403 0.7903 4.8927 1.7879
Battelle Folias
factor 0.95 3.5098 0.8356 5.1512 1.8684
1.0 3.6926 0.8799 5.4209 1.9643
21 - BS 7910, 0.7 2.8589 0.6329 4.1021 1.6156
Appendix G 0.75 2.9625 0.6587 4.2563 1.6686
(Isolated Defect) - 0.8 3.0784 0.6949 4.4434 1.7134
B31.G surface 0.85 3.2070 0.7389 4.6585 1.7555
correction, 0.9 3.3533 0.7865 4.8982 1.8085
BG Folias factor 1.0 3.6936 0.8813 5.4248 1.9624
22 - BS 7910, 0.7 2.7536 0.5700 3.8732 1.6341
Appendix G 0.75 2.8375 0.5700 3.9571 1.7179
(Grouped Defects) 0.8 2.9332 0.5818 4.0761 1.7903
- B31.G surface 0.85 3.0392 0.6051 4.2278 1.8506
correction, 0.9 3.1623 0.6368 4.4130 1.9115
BG Folias factor 1.0 3.4635 0.7118 4.8616 2.0654
23 - Kanninen 0.7 3.5279 1.2621 6.0069 1.0489
- B31.G surface 0.8 3.8877 1.4986 6.8313 0.9440
correction, 0.85 4.0879 1.6122 7.2547 0.9211
factor 1.0 4.7616 1.9217 8.5362 0.9870
0.7 3.0909 0.6977 4.4613 1.7205
24 - Shell Theory
0.75 3.2063 0.7646 4.7082 1.7044
Method - Chell
0.8 3.3316 0.8372 4.9761 1.6871
surface correction,
0.85 3.4727 0.9103 5.2608 1.6846
exact area, shell
0.9 3.6305 0.9814 5.5581 1.7028
theory Folias
factor 0.95 3.8048 1.0478 5.8630 1.7466
1.0 3.9995 1.1055 6.1709 1.8281
211

Mean
Method MAWP
Ratio
0.7 3.9064 1.3017 6.4632 1.3496
0.75 4.0855 1.4624 6.9579 1.2130
25 – Thickness 0.8 4.2929 1.6765 7.5860 0.9999
Averaging – API 0.85 4.5989 1.8943 8.3199 0.8780
579, Level 1 0.9 4.9734 2.1796 9.2547 0.6922
0.95 5.4035 2.4283 10.1733 0.6338
1.0 6.0244 2.7040 11.3358 0.7130
0.7 2.9837 0.8749 4.7023 1.2652
0.75 3.2208 1.0501 5.2835 1.1582
26 – Thickness 0.8 3.5363 1.2951 6.0802 0.9925
Averaging – API 0.85 3.9378 1.5915 7.0640 0.8116
579, Level 2 0.9 4.4764 1.9573 8.3210 0.6318
0.95 5.1307 2.3065 9.6612 0.6001
1.0 6.0244 2.7040 11.3358 0.7130
27 – Modified API 0.7 3.0495 0.7151 4.4541 1.6448
579 Section 5, 0.75 3.1878 0.7663 4.6930 1.6826
Level 1 Analysis – 0.8 3.3371 0.8252 4.9579 1.7162
B31.G surface 0.85 3.4982 0.8877 5.2420 1.7545
correction, 0.9 3.6760 0.9496 5.5412 1.8108
Modified API
Folias factor 1.0 4.0710 1.0608 6.1547 1.9874
28 – Modified API 0.7 2.7789 0.4534 3.6695 1.8884

579 Section 5, 0.75 2.8664 0.4367 3.7242 2.0087
Level 2 Analysis – 0.8 2.9687 0.4326 3.8184 2.1189
B31.G surface 0.85 3.0845 0.4434 3.9555 2.2135
correction, 0.9 3.2240 0.4670 4.1412 2.3068
effective area, 0.95 3.3842 0.4951 4.3567 2.4116
Modified API
Folias factor 1.0 3.5591 0.5215 4.5835 2.5347
0.7 2.8530 0.6124 4.0558 1.6502
0.75 2.9772 0.6300 4.2147 1.7396
29 – Janelle 0.8 3.1149 0.6596 4.4106 1.8192
Method, Level 1 – 0.85 3.2694 0.6977 4.6399 1.8989
0.95 3.6334 0.7795 5.1645 2.1022
1.0 3.8246 0.8205 5.4363 2.2128
0.7 2.6755 0.5006 3.6589 1.6922
0.75 2.7575 0.4663 3.6734 1.8416
30 – Janelle 0.8 2.8571 0.4433 3.7277 1.9864
Method, Level 1 – 0.85 2.9762 0.4381 3.8368 2.1156
effective area 0.9 3.1254 0.4505 4.0103 2.2406
0.95 3.2912 0.4726 4.2196 2.3628
1.0 3.4641 0.4974 4.4412 2.4870
212
Table 29 – MAWP Ratio vs. Allowable RSF for API 620
Mean
Method MAWP
Ratio
1 – API 579 0.7 3.2048 0.7316 4.6419 1.7678
Section 5, Level 1 0.75 3.3550 0.7891 4.9050 1.8051
Analysis – B31.G 0.8 3.5161 0.8536 5.1928 1.8395
API level 1 Folias 0.95 4.0858 1.0469 6.1422 2.0295
factor 1.0 4.2991 1.1030 6.4657 2.1325
2 – API 579 0.7 2.8654 0.4758 3.8000 1.9307
Section 5, Level 2 0.75 2.9561 0.4629 3.8653 2.0469
Analysis – B31.G 0.8 3.0619 0.4632 3.9718 2.1520
level 2 Folias 0.95 3.4915 0.5358 4.5438 2.4391
factor 1.0 3.6719 0.5643 4.7804 2.5635
3 – API-579 0.7 2.8113 0.5020 3.7974 1.8252
Section 5, Level 2 0.75 2.8954 0.4822 3.8425 1.9483
Analysis – B31.G 0.8 2.9952 0.4735 3.9252 2.0651
exact area, API 0.9 3.2477 0.5009 4.2316 2.2637
level 2 Folias 0.95 3.4086 0.5277 4.4452 2.3720
factor 1.0 3.5847 0.5553 4.6756 2.4939
0.7 2.8157 0.6332 4.0594 1.5720
4 – Modified
0.75 2.9065 0.6201 4.1245 1.6884
B31.G Method –
0.8 3.0159 0.6182 4.2301 1.8016
B31.G surface
0.85 3.1387 0.6305 4.3771 1.9002
correction, 0.85dl
0.9 3.2805 0.6544 4.5660 1.9950
area, AGA Folias
factor 0.95 3.4412 0.6880 4.7925 2.0899
1.0 3.6187 0.7237 5.0402 2.1972
5 – Modified 0.7 2.9149 0.4975 3.8922 1.9376
B31.G Method 0.75 3.0036 0.4821 3.9506 2.0566
(RSTRENG) – 0.8 3.1071 0.4787 4.0473 2.1669
B31.G surface 0.85 3.2254 0.4908 4.1895 2.2614
correction, 0.9 3.3677 0.5157 4.3807 2.3548
effective area, 0.95 3.5312 0.5464 4.6045 2.4578
0.7 2.8641 0.5250 3.8953 1.8329
6 – Modified
0.75 2.9467 0.5035 3.9358 1.9576
B31.G Method –
0.8 3.0448 0.4922 4.0116 2.0780
B31.G surface
0.85 3.1579 0.4960 4.1321 2.1837
correction, exact
0.9 3.2948 0.5148 4.3060 2.2836
area, AGA Folias
factor 0.95 3.4540 0.5423 4.5192 2.3889
1.0 3.6313 0.5706 4.7521 2.5105
213
Table 29 – MAWP Ratio vs. Allowable RSF for API 620 (Continued)

Mean
Method MAWP
Ratio
0.7 2.8641 0.7653 4.3673 1.3609
7 - Original B31.G
0.75 2.9477 0.7968 4.5129 1.3825
Method - B31.G
0.8 3.0441 0.8357 4.6857 1.4025
surface correction,
0.85 3.1678 0.8802 4.8967 1.4390
parabolic area,
0.9 3.3063 0.9297 5.1325 1.4801
B31-G Folias
factor 0.95 3.4632 0.9824 5.3930 1.5334
1.0 3.6407 1.0345 5.6728 1.6087
0.7 3.9665 0.9469 5.8264 2.1065
0.75 3.9665 0.9469 5.8264 2.1065
8 - Thickness 0.8 3.9665 0.9469 5.8264 2.1065
Averaging - API 0.85 3.9665 0.9469 5.8264 2.1065
510, 8th Edition 0.9 3.9665 0.9469 5.8264 2.1065
0.95 3.9665 0.9469 5.8264 2.1065
1.0 3.9665 0.9469 5.8264 2.1065
0.7 4.2986 1.0714 6.4032 2.1941
0.75 4.2986 1.0714 6.4032 2.1941
9 - Thickness 0.8 4.2986 1.0714 6.4032 2.1941
Averaging - API 0.85 4.2986 1.0714 6.4032 2.1941
653, 2nd Edition 0.9 4.2986 1.0714 6.4032 2.1941
0.95 4.2986 1.0714 6.4032 2.1941
1.0 4.2986 1.0714 6.4032 2.1941
0.7 2.9445 0.6128 4.1481 1.7409
10 - British Gas
0.75 3.0513 0.6343 4.2972 1.8054
Single Defect
0.8 3.1707 0.6669 4.4807 1.8606
Method - B31.G
0.85 3.3032 0.7087 4.6953 1.9110
surface correction,
0.9 3.4541 0.7551 4.9372 1.9709
exact area, BG
Folias factor 0.95 3.6204 0.8030 5.1978 2.0430
1.0 3.8046 0.8472 5.4688 2.1404
0.7 3.0032 0.4884 3.9626 2.0438
11 - British Gas
0.75 3.1081 0.5102 4.1103 2.1059
Complex Defect
0.8 3.2243 0.5452 4.2952 2.1535
Method - B31.G
0.85 3.3579 0.5899 4.5166 2.1993
surface correction,
0.9 3.5115 0.6394 4.7675 2.2555
exact area, BG
Folias factor 0.95 3.6813 0.6873 5.0314 2.3312
1.0 3.8691 0.7266 5.2964 2.4417
0.7 2.7572 0.6156 3.9663 1.5480
12 - Chell Method 0.75 2.8478 0.6080 4.0422 1.6534
- Chell surface 0.8 2.9557 0.6135 4.1608 1.7506
area, B31-G 0.9 3.2376 0.6672 4.5481 1.9271
Folias factor 0.95 3.4019 0.7073 4.7911 2.0126
1.0 3.5794 0.7450 5.0428 2.1160
214

Mean
Method MAWP
Ratio
0.7 2.6377 0.6210 3.8574 1.4179
13 – Osage
0.75 2.6971 0.5868 3.8497 1.5445
Method – Chell
0.8 2.7716 0.5596 3.8708 1.6724
surface correction,
0.85 2.8664 0.5453 3.9375 1.7954
effective area, D/t
0.9 2.9925 0.5548 4.0822 1.9028
dependent Folias
factor 0.95 3.1409 0.5803 4.2808 2.0010
1.0 3.3056 0.6106 4.5050 2.1062
14 – API 579, 0.7 2.7557 0.6160 3.9658 1.5456
Level 1, Hybrid 1 0.75 2.8459 0.6083 4.0408 1.6510
Analysis – Chell 0.8 2.9534 0.6136 4.1587 1.7480
API level 1 Folias 0.95 3.3986 0.7070 4.7872 2.0099
factor 1.0 3.5759 0.7447 5.0387 2.1130
15 – API 579, 0.7 2.6249 0.6345 3.8711 1.3787
Level 2, Hybrid 1 0.75 2.6790 0.6016 3.8607 1.4972
Analysis – Chell 0.8 2.7464 0.5753 3.8765 1.6164
level 2 Folias 0.95 3.0909 0.5928 4.2554 1.9264
factor 1.0 3.2501 0.6238 4.4753 2.0248
0.7 2.6903 0.6426 3.9525 1.4282
16 – API 579,
0.75 2.7620 0.6275 3.9946 1.5295
Level 1, Hybrid 2
0.8 2.8483 0.6241 4.0741 1.6224
Analysis – Chell
0.85 2.9569 0.6349 4.2039 1.7098
surface correction,
0.9 3.0916 0.6617 4.3913 1.7920
rectangular area,
BG Folias factor 0.95 3.2433 0.6975 4.6133 1.8732
1.0 3.4087 0.7353 4.8530 1.9645
0.7 2.6178 0.6445 3.8837 1.3519
17 – API 579,
0.75 2.6684 0.6136 3.8737 1.4632
Level 2, Hybrid 2
0.8 2.7307 0.5885 3.8867 1.5746
Analysis – Chell
0.85 2.8110 0.5744 3.9393 1.6827
surface correction,
0.9 2.9195 0.5803 4.0593 1.7796
effective area, BG
Folias factor 0.95 3.0526 0.6037 4.2384 1.8667
1.0 3.2060 0.6354 4.4540 1.9580
0.7 2.6293 0.6602 3.9261 1.3326
18 – API 579,
0.75 2.6856 0.6336 3.9302 1.4411
Level 1, Hybrid 3
0.8 2.7559 0.6129 3.9599 1.5520
Analysis – Chell
0.85 2.8423 0.6009 4.0226 1.6620
surface correction,
0.9 2.9442 0.5996 4.1219 1.7664
rectangular area,
JO Folias factor 0.95 3.0585 0.6091 4.2550 1.8620
1.0 3.1877 0.6283 4.4218 1.9536
215

Mean
Method MAWP
Ratio
0.7 2.5780 0.6729 3.8997 1.2562
19 - API 579,
0.75 2.6125 0.6377 3.8651 1.3600
Level 2, Hybrid 3
0.8 2.6596 0.6010 3.8402 1.4791
Analysis - Chell
0.85 2.7219 0.5675 3.8366 1.6072
surface correction,
0.9 2.8028 0.5417 3.8669 1.7387
effective area, JO
Folias factor 0.95 2.9033 0.5297 3.9439 1.8628
1.0 3.0223 0.5321 4.0674 1.9772
0.7 2.9288 0.6283 4.1630 1.6947
20 - Battelle
0.75 3.0320 0.6498 4.3082 1.7557
Method - B31.G
0.8 3.1506 0.6809 4.4882 1.8131
surface correction,
0.85 3.2863 0.7205 4.7016 1.8710
rectangular area,
0.9 3.4411 0.7641 4.9420 1.9403
Battelle Folias
factor 0.95 3.6156 0.8078 5.2024 2.0289
1.0 3.8040 0.8506 5.4748 2.1332
21 - BS 7910, 0.7 2.9445 0.6128 4.1481 1.7409
Appendix G 0.75 3.0513 0.6343 4.2972 1.8054
(Isolated Defect) - 0.8 3.1707 0.6669 4.4807 1.8606
B31.G surface 0.85 3.3032 0.7087 4.6953 1.9110
correction, 0.9 3.4541 0.7551 4.9372 1.9709
BG Folias factor 1.0 3.8046 0.8472 5.4688 2.1404
22 - BS 7910, 0.7 2.8352 0.5543 3.9240 1.7464
Appendix G 0.75 2.9214 0.5473 3.9965 1.8464
(Grouped Defects) 0.8 3.0197 0.5525 4.1050 1.9345
- B31.G surface 0.85 3.1286 0.5703 4.2489 2.0083
correction, 0.9 3.2552 0.5981 4.4299 2.0804
BG Folias factor 1.0 3.5650 0.6678 4.8767 2.2533
23 - Kanninen 0.7 3.6225 1.2252 6.0292 1.2158
- B31.G surface 0.8 3.9902 1.4581 6.8543 1.1262
correction, 0.85 4.1952 1.5701 7.2793 1.1112
factor 1.0 4.8860 1.8732 8.5654 1.2066
0.7 3.1867 0.7110 4.5832 1.7902
24 - Shell Theory
0.75 3.3054 0.7781 4.8338 1.7770
Method - Chell
0.8 3.4344 0.8516 5.1072 1.7617
surface correction,
0.85 3.5799 0.9259 5.3985 1.7613
exact area, shell
0.9 3.7423 0.9975 5.7017 1.7829
theory Folias
factor 0.95 3.9218 1.0646 6.0129 1.8306
1.0 4.1223 1.1231 6.3284 1.9163
216

Mean
Method MAWP
Ratio
0.7 4.0210 1.3186 6.6111 1.4309
0.75 4.2047 1.4881 7.1277 1.2817
25 – Thickness 0.8 4.4179 1.7164 7.7894 1.0464
Averaging – API 0.85 4.7320 1.9457 8.5538 0.9102
579, Level 1 0.9 5.1151 2.2351 9.5053 0.7249
0.95 5.5568 2.4859 10.4396 0.6739
1.0 6.1888 2.7354 11.5619 0.8157
0.7 3.0732 0.8900 4.8214 1.3251
0.75 3.3161 1.0699 5.4178 1.2145
26 – Thickness 0.8 3.6400 1.3263 6.2453 1.0348
Averaging – API 0.85 4.0521 1.6349 7.2635 0.8407
579, Level 2 0.9 4.6040 2.0071 8.5464 0.6615
0.95 5.2761 2.3611 9.9140 0.6382
1.0 6.1888 2.7354 11.5619 0.8157
27 – Modified API 0.7 3.1404 0.6949 4.5053 1.7755
579 Section 5, 0.75 3.2828 0.7436 4.7434 1.8222
Level 1 Analysis – 0.8 3.4364 0.8010 5.0097 1.8630
B31.G surface 0.85 3.6023 0.8630 5.2974 1.9072
correction, 0.9 3.7854 0.9244 5.6011 1.9698
Modified API
Folias factor 1.0 4.1922 1.0332 6.2216 2.1628
28 – Modified API 0.7 2.8680 0.4754 3.8019 1.9341

579 Section 5, 0.75 2.9590 0.4630 3.8686 2.0495
Level 2 Analysis – 0.8 3.0653 0.4639 3.9765 2.1540
B31.G surface 0.85 3.1856 0.4800 4.1284 2.2428
correction, 0.9 3.3301 0.5075 4.3269 2.3333
effective area, 0.95 3.4956 0.5379 4.5522 2.4390
Modified API
Folias factor 1.0 3.6763 0.5666 4.7893 2.5633
0.7 2.9394 0.5998 4.1176 1.7612
0.75 3.0673 0.6132 4.2718 1.8627
29 – Janelle 0.8 3.2091 0.6401 4.4664 1.9517
Method, Level 1 – 0.85 3.3684 0.6771 4.6983 2.0384
0.95 3.7432 0.7558 5.2277 2.2586
1.0 3.9402 0.7956 5.5029 2.3774
0.7 2.7605 0.5194 3.7807 1.7403
0.75 2.8458 0.4878 3.8040 1.8876
30 – Janelle 0.8 2.9493 0.4687 3.8699 2.0286
Method, Level 1 – 0.85 3.0727 0.4676 3.9912 2.1542
effective area 0.9 3.2269 0.4820 4.1736 2.2801
0.95 3.3979 0.5053 4.3905 2.4054
1.0 3.5765 0.5319 4.6212 2.5317
217
Table 30 – MAWP Ratio vs. Allowable RSF for API 650
Mean
Method MAWP
Ratio
1 – API 579 0.7 2.4111 0.5474 3.4864 1.3358
Section 5, Level 1 0.75 2.5240 0.5903 3.6835 1.3646
Analysis – B31.G 0.8 2.6451 0.6384 3.8992 1.3911
API level 1 Folias 0.95 3.0736 0.7830 4.6117 1.5355
factor 1.0 3.2341 0.8250 4.8546 1.6135
2 – API 579 0.7 2.1560 0.3564 2.8561 1.4558
Section 5, Level 2 0.75 2.2242 0.3464 2.9046 1.5439
Analysis – B31.G 0.8 2.3038 0.3462 2.9837 1.6238
level 2 Folias 0.95 2.6269 0.3999 3.4123 1.8415
factor 1.0 2.7627 0.4211 3.5899 1.9355
3 – API-579 0.7 2.1153 0.3764 2.8546 1.3760
Section 5, Level 2 0.75 2.1786 0.3612 2.8880 1.4692
Analysis – B31.G 0.8 2.2536 0.3542 2.9494 1.5578
exact area, API 0.9 2.4435 0.3742 3.1785 1.7085
level 2 Folias 0.95 2.5646 0.3942 3.3388 1.7904
factor 1.0 2.6971 0.4147 3.5118 1.8825
0.7 2.1184 0.4747 3.0507 1.1860
4 – Modified
0.75 2.1866 0.4644 3.0989 1.2744
B31.G Method –
0.8 2.2689 0.4624 3.1773 1.3605
B31.G surface
0.85 2.3612 0.4712 3.2867 1.4357
correction, 0.85dl
0.9 2.4678 0.4887 3.4277 1.5079
area, AGA Folias
factor 0.95 2.5887 0.5136 3.5976 1.5799
1.0 2.7222 0.5402 3.7833 1.6611
5 – Modified 0.7 2.1932 0.3726 2.9252 1.4612
B31.G Method 0.75 2.2599 0.3607 2.9685 1.5514
(RSTRENG) – 0.8 2.3378 0.3577 3.0404 1.6352
B31.G surface 0.85 2.4268 0.3664 3.1464 1.7071
correction, 0.9 2.5338 0.3848 3.2897 1.7779
effective area, 0.95 2.6568 0.4078 3.4578 1.8558
0.7 2.1550 0.3936 2.9281 1.3820
6 – Modified
0.75 2.2172 0.3771 2.9580 1.4764
B31.G Method –
0.8 2.2909 0.3682 3.0142 1.5677
B31.G surface
0.85 2.3760 0.3706 3.1039 1.6480
correction, exact
0.9 2.4790 0.3845 3.2342 1.7237
area, AGA Folias
factor 0.95 2.5988 0.4050 3.3942 1.8033
1.0 2.7321 0.4261 3.5691 1.8952
218

Mean
Method MAWP
Ratio
0.7 2.1548 0.5742 3.2826 1.0269
7 - Original B31.G
0.75 2.2177 0.5977 3.3918 1.0436
Method - B31.G
0.8 2.2901 0.6267 3.5212 1.0591
surface correction,
0.85 2.3832 0.6599 3.6795 1.0870
parabolic area,
0.9 2.4873 0.6969 3.8562 1.1184
B31-G Folias
factor 0.95 2.6053 0.7364 4.0518 1.1589
1.0 2.7389 0.7754 4.2619 1.2158
0.7 2.9841 0.7088 4.3763 1.5919
0.75 2.9841 0.7088 4.3763 1.5919
8 - Thickness 0.8 2.9841 0.7088 4.3763 1.5919
Averaging - API 0.85 2.9841 0.7088 4.3763 1.5919
510, 8th Edition 0.9 2.9841 0.7088 4.3763 1.5919
0.95 2.9841 0.7088 4.3763 1.5919
1.0 2.9841 0.7088 4.3763 1.5919
0.7 3.2343 0.8041 4.8137 1.6549
0.75 3.2343 0.8041 4.8137 1.6549
9 - Thickness 0.8 3.2343 0.8041 4.8137 1.6549
Averaging - API 0.85 3.2343 0.8041 4.8137 1.6549
653, 2nd Edition 0.9 3.2343 0.8041 4.8137 1.6549
0.95 3.2343 0.8041 4.8137 1.6549
1.0 3.2343 0.8041 4.8137 1.6549
0.7 2.2153 0.4586 3.1162 1.3144
10 - British Gas
0.75 2.2956 0.4744 3.2275 1.3637
Single Defect
0.8 2.3854 0.4986 3.3648 1.4060
Method - B31.G
0.85 2.4850 0.5296 3.5253 1.4446
surface correction,
0.9 2.5984 0.5641 3.7066 1.4903
exact area, BG
Folias factor 0.95 2.7236 0.6000 3.9021 1.5450
1.0 2.8621 0.6330 4.1055 1.6187
0.7 2.2597 0.3658 2.9783 1.5411
11 - British Gas
0.75 2.3386 0.3820 3.0890 1.5883
Complex Defect
0.8 2.4260 0.4080 3.2275 1.6245
Method - B31.G
0.85 2.5265 0.4415 3.3937 1.6594
surface correction,
0.9 2.6421 0.4787 3.5823 1.7018
exact area, BG
Folias factor 0.95 2.7699 0.5146 3.7807 1.7590
1.0 2.9111 0.5440 3.9797 1.8424
0.7 2.0743 0.4615 2.9807 1.1679
12 - Chell Method 0.75 2.1424 0.4553 3.0368 1.2480
- Chell surface 0.8 2.2235 0.4589 3.1250 1.3221
area, B31-G 0.9 2.4355 0.4985 3.4147 1.4563
Folias factor 0.95 2.5591 0.5284 3.5969 1.5212
1.0 2.6926 0.5566 3.7859 1.5994
219

Mean
Method MAWP
Ratio
0.7 1.9845 0.4661 2.9001 1.0688
13 - Osage
0.75 2.0292 0.4401 2.8937 1.1646
Method - Chell
0.8 2.0852 0.4193 2.9088 1.2616
surface correction,
0.85 2.1565 0.4081 2.9581 1.3549
effective area, D/t
0.9 2.2513 0.4150 3.0665 1.4361
dependent Folias
factor 0.95 2.3630 0.4340 3.2154 1.5105
1.0 2.4869 0.4566 3.3838 1.5899
14 - API 579, 0.7 2.0732 0.4618 2.9803 1.1660
Level 1, Hybrid 1 0.75 2.1410 0.4556 3.0358 1.2462
Analysis - Chell 0.8 2.2218 0.4590 3.1234 1.3201
API level 1 Folias 0.95 2.5566 0.5282 3.5940 1.5191
factor 1.0 2.6900 0.5564 3.7828 1.5971
15 - API 579, 0.7 1.9749 0.4763 2.9105 1.0392
Level 2, Hybrid 1 0.75 2.0155 0.4514 2.9022 1.1288
Analysis - Chell 0.8 2.0663 0.4313 2.9134 1.2191
level 2 Folias 0.95 2.3254 0.4436 3.1968 1.4539
factor 1.0 2.4451 0.4668 3.3619 1.5282
0.7 2.0240 0.4821 2.9710 1.0771
16 - API 579,
0.75 2.0779 0.4704 3.0019 1.1539
Level 1, Hybrid 2
0.8 2.1427 0.4674 3.0608 1.2246
Analysis - Chell
0.85 2.2244 0.4750 3.1575 1.2913
surface correction,
0.9 2.3258 0.4949 3.2979 1.3536
rectangular area,
BG Folias factor 0.95 2.4398 0.5216 3.4644 1.4152
1.0 2.5643 0.5498 3.6443 1.4842
0.7 1.9695 0.4839 2.9200 1.0190
17 - API 579,
0.75 2.0076 0.4605 2.9121 1.1031
Level 2, Hybrid 2
0.8 2.0544 0.4413 2.9212 1.1875
Analysis - Chell
0.85 2.1148 0.4303 2.9600 1.2695
surface correction,
0.9 2.1964 0.4346 3.0500 1.3428
effective area, BG
Folias factor 0.95 2.2965 0.4520 3.1844 1.4086
1.0 2.4119 0.4756 3.3462 1.4776
0.7 1.9782 0.4956 2.9517 1.0046
18 - API 579,
0.75 2.0205 0.4754 2.9543 1.0868
Level 1, Hybrid 3
0.8 2.0734 0.4595 2.9760 1.1708
Analysis - Chell
0.85 2.1383 0.4501 3.0223 1.2543
surface correction,
0.9 2.2149 0.4486 3.0960 1.3338
rectangular area,
JO Folias factor 0.95 2.3008 0.4552 3.1950 1.4066
1.0 2.3980 0.4692 3.3196 1.4764
220

Mean
Method MAWP
Ratio
0.7 1.9396 0.5055 2.9324 0.9467
19 - API 579,
0.75 1.9656 0.4788 2.9061 1.0250
Level 2, Hybrid 3
0.8 2.0010 0.4511 2.8870 1.1150
Analysis - Chell
0.85 2.0478 0.4256 2.8837 1.2119
surface correction,
0.9 2.1087 0.4058 2.9057 1.3116
effective area, JO
Folias factor 0.95 2.1843 0.3962 2.9626 1.4060
1.0 2.2737 0.3975 3.0544 1.4930
0.7 2.2035 0.4704 3.1275 1.2796
20 - Battelle
0.75 2.2810 0.4861 3.2360 1.3261
Method - B31.G
0.8 2.3703 0.5092 3.3705 1.3701
surface correction,
0.85 2.4723 0.5385 3.5301 1.4145
rectangular area,
0.9 2.5887 0.5710 3.7102 1.4672
Battelle Folias
factor 0.95 2.7200 0.6036 3.9056 1.5344
1.0 2.8617 0.6355 4.1100 1.6133
21 - BS 7910, 0.7 2.2153 0.4586 3.1162 1.3144
Appendix G 0.75 2.2956 0.4744 3.2275 1.3637
(Isolated Defect) - 0.8 2.3854 0.4986 3.3648 1.4060
B31.G surface 0.85 2.485 0.5296 3.5253 1.4446
correction, 0.9 2.5984 0.5641 3.7066 1.4903
BG Folias factor 1.0 2.8621 0.6330 4.1055 1.6187
22 - BS 7910, 0.7 2.1332 0.4155 2.9495 1.3170
Appendix G 0.75 2.1981 0.4100 3.0035 1.3927
(Grouped Defects) 0.8 2.2721 0.4136 3.0845 1.4596
- B31.G surface 0.85 2.3539 0.4267 3.1921 1.5158
correction, 0.9 2.4491 0.4473 3.3278 1.5704
BG Folias factor 1.0 2.6823 0.4995 3.6635 1.7010
23 - Kanninen 0.7 2.7253 0.9187 4.5298 0.9207
- B31.G surface 0.8 3.0018 1.0934 5.1494 0.8541
correction, 0.85 3.1559 1.1774 5.4686 0.8432
factor 1.0 3.6755 1.4047 6.4347 0.9162
0.7 2.3979 0.5345 3.4478 1.3481
24 - Shell Theory
0.75 2.4872 0.5850 3.6363 1.3382
Method - Chell
0.8 2.5843 0.6402 3.8419 1.3268
surface correction,
0.85 2.6937 0.6960 4.0609 1.3266
exact area, shell
0.9 2.8159 0.7499 4.2889 1.3430
theory Folias
factor 0.95 2.9509 0.8003 4.5229 1.3790
1.0 3.1019 0.8443 4.7602 1.4435
221

Mean
Method MAWP
Ratio
0.7 3.0244 0.9876 4.9644 1.0844
0.75 3.1626 1.1150 5.3528 0.9724
25 - Thickness 0.8 3.3229 1.2867 5.8503 0.7955
Averaging - API 0.85 3.5594 1.4593 6.4258 0.6929
579, Level 1 0.9 3.8477 1.6776 7.1430 0.5525
0.95 4.1801 1.8667 7.8467 0.5135
1.0 4.6557 2.0546 8.6915 0.6200
0.7 2.3118 0.6670 3.6220 1.0017
0.75 2.4945 0.8019 4.0696 0.9194
26 - Thickness 0.8 2.7381 0.9943 4.6911 0.7850
Averaging - API 0.85 3.0480 1.2262 5.4566 0.6393
579, Level 2 0.9 3.4632 1.5065 6.4224 0.5041
0.95 3.9690 1.7730 7.4517 0.4863
1.0 4.6557 2.0546 8.6915 0.6200
27 - Modified API 0.7 2.3626 0.5199 3.3838 1.3414
579 Section 5, 0.75 2.4697 0.5561 3.5621 1.3773
Level 1 Analysis - 0.8 2.5852 0.5989 3.7616 1.4087
B31.G surface 0.85 2.7099 0.6452 3.9772 1.4426
correction, 0.9 2.8477 0.6911 4.2052 1.4901
Modified API
Folias factor 1.0 3.1536 0.7725 4.6709 1.6363
28 - Modified API 0.7 2.1579 0.3561 2.8574 1.4584

579 Section 5, 0.75 2.2264 0.3464 2.9069 1.5459
Level 2 Analysis - 0.8 2.3063 0.3466 2.9872 1.6254
B31.G surface 0.85 2.3968 0.3583 3.1005 1.6930
correction, 0.9 2.5055 0.3787 3.2494 1.7616
effective area, 0.95 2.6300 0.4014 3.4186 1.8415
Modified API
Folias factor 1.0 2.7659 0.4228 3.5965 1.9354
0.7 2.2113 0.4487 3.0928 1.3299
0.75 2.3075 0.4582 3.2076 1.4074
29 - Janelle 0.8 2.4141 0.4779 3.3528 1.4754
Method, Level 1 - 0.85 2.5338 0.5052 3.5261 1.5415
0.95 2.8158 0.5638 3.9232 1.7084
1.0 2.9640 0.5934 4.1296 1.7983
0.7 2.0769 0.3892 2.8414 1.3124
0.75 2.1411 0.3650 2.8580 1.4241
30 - Janelle 0.8 2.2189 0.3500 2.9063 1.5314
Method, Level 1 - 0.85 2.3117 0.3485 2.9963 1.6271
effective area 0.9 2.4277 0.3590 3.1329 1.7225
0.95 2.5564 0.3763 3.2955 1.8172
1.0 2.6907 0.3961 3.4686 1.9127
222
Table 31 – Geometry Parameters for the Circumferential Extent Validation Cases
Pipe Axial extent Circumferential Flaw depth (%

Case Pipe OD (in) thickness of the flaw extent of the of wall
(in) (in) flaw (in) thickness)
1 48 0.48 18 12 25%
2 48 0.48 6 30 50%
3 48 0.48 18 12 50%
4 48 0.48 30 6 50%
5 48 0.48 6 30 50%
Table 32 – Circumferential Extent Validation Results
Material Tension Compression

Pressure Moment at Error in
Ultimate Side Side
Case at Failure Failure Failure Side calculated
Strength Equivalent Equivalent
(psi) (in-lb) stress
(psi) Stress (psi) Stress (psi)
1 1480 34440000 Compression 100000 88790 92570 7.4%
2 950 28956000 Tension 100000 103080 74810 3.1%
3 980 36600000 Compression 100000 88030 97340 2.7%
4 840 39144000 Compression 100000 75620 92600 7.4%
5 950 31032000 Tension 100000 107440 78440 7.4%
223
CHAPTER XIV
FIGURES
Determine tmin
(see Appendix A)
Locate Regions of Metal

Loss on the Equipment
Take Point Thickness

Assessment Using No Readings and Use
Thickness Profiles? Additional NDE to Confirm
General Corrosion
Yes
Determine Inspection
Plane(s) and Take
Thickness Profile Data Determine tmm, tam and COV
from the Thickness Data
Determine tmm and L
Determine CTP's in the

Longitudinal and
Circumferential Directions
Determine s, c, and tam

for the CTP's
Determine Average
Thickness, tam, within
Yes Type B or C
the Zone for Thickness
Component?
Averaging, see
Paragraph 4.4.3.3
No
Yes
Evaluate the
Yes Obtain
MAWP Using a Assessment Using No No Levell 3 No
COV > 10%? Thickness
Section 4 Level 2 Thickness Profiles? Assessment?
Profiles?
or 3 Assessment
No
Yes
Yes
Longitudinal or
Yes Meridonal Extent of Cylinder, Cone No Assessment
Is s<=L?
Metal Loss is or Elbow? Complete
Acceptable
No
Yes
Evaluate
Circumferential
Use tam for Evaluation
Extent of Metal
Calculations Option:
Loss Using
Section 5, Level 1
Conservative Thickness Stress Localized

Approach Averaging Analysis Metal Loss
Determine tam Using Evaluate Using

Use tam=tmm for Evaluate Using
Thickness Data a Level 3
Calculations Section 5
Within Length L Assessment
Evaluate Using
Section 4, Level
1 or Level 2
Assessment
Figure 4.2 - Assessment Procedure To Evaluate A Component
With Metal Loss Using Part 4 and Part 5
Figure 1 – Logic Diagram for the Assessment of General or Local Metal Loss in API 579
224
Obtain
Equipment Data
No Perform Level 1
Assessment?
Yes
No Equipment Is
Acceptable per
Level 1 Criteria?
Yes
Rerate No
Equipment?
Yes Remaining Life

Yes Acceptable per
Level 1 Criteria?
Perform Rerate per Level

1 Criteria to Reduce No
Pressure and/or
Temperature
Perform a Level 2 No
Assessment?
Yes
No Equipment is
Acceptable per
Level 2 Criteria?
No Yes
Rerate Equipment?
Yes
No No Remaining Life
Perform a Level 3
Acceptable per
Assessment?
Perform Rerate per Level Level 2 Criteria?
2 Criteria to Reduce
Yes Pressure and/or
Temperature Yes
Equipment Acceptable No
per Level 3 Assessment?
Yes No
Rerate Equipment?
Remaining Life
Yes Yes
Acceptable per Level 3
Criteria?
No
Repair, Perform Rerate per Level

Replace, or 3 Criteria to Reduce
Retire Pressure and/or
Equipment Temperature
Return the
Equpiment to
Service
Figure 2 – Logic Diagram for the Assessment of Local Thin Areas in API 579
225
t
tavg
Uniform Metal Loss
COV = tsd/tavg
tsd tsd
tavg Thickness
(a) Small Variability in Thickness Profiles and the COV
t
tavg
Uniform Metal Loss
COV = tsd/tavg
tsd tsd
tavg Thickness
(b) Large Variability in Thickness Profiles and the COV
Figure 3 – Coefficient of Variation for Thickness Reading Data
226
CL CL
Metal
Loss Metal
Loss
C1 C1
C2 C2
C3 C3
M1 M2 M3 M3
M1 M2 M3
M1
Cylindrical Shell Conical Shell
M1 CL
Extrados
C3 M2
M3
C2
C1
Metal Loss
Intrados
Elbow or Pipe Bend
Figure 4 – Examples of an Inspection Grid to Define the Extent of Metal Loss Damage
227
C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7
M5
M4
C
M3 CL
M2
M1
Line M - path of Line C - path of minimum

minimum thickness thickness Cylindrical Shell
readings in the readings in the
longitudinal direction circumferential direction
(a) Inspection Planes and the Critical Thickness Profile
t tmin
tmm
(b) Critical Thickness Profile (CTP) - Longitudinal Plane (Projection of Line M)
t tc
tmm
(c) Critical Thickness Profile (CTP) - Circumferential Plane (Projection of Line C)
Figure 5 – Establishing Longitudinal and Circumferential Critical Thickness Profiles from an

Inspection Grid
228
Flaw
Path of Maximum
Metal Loss
t
tmin
Thickness Profile tmm
(a) Isolated Flaw
Flaw 2
Flaw 1
t
tmin
Thickness Profile
(b) Network Of Flaws
Figure 6 – Critical Thickness Profiles for Isolated and Multiple LTAs
229
C
L
Nozzle
Reinforcement
Zone
Reinforcing Pad
tn
Lno te Shell
di
tv
Lni
Lv Lv
Nozzle with a Reinforcement Element
Notes:
1. Lv = max  d i , ( d i 2 + tn + tv )  (zone for thickness averaging in the horizontal direction).
2. Lno = min  2.5tv , ( 2.5tn + te )  (zone for thickness averaging in the vertical direction on the
outside of the shell).
3. Lni = min [ 2.5tv , 2.5tn ] (zone for thickness averaging in the vertical direction on the inside of
the shell).
4. tv , tn , te are the furnished vessel, nozzle and reinforcing pad thicknesses, respectively.
3.1
5. is the current inside diameter.

3.0
Lower 95% Ratio - Calculated
2.9
MAWP to Actual Failure
2.8
2.7
2.6
2.5
2.4
2.3
0.70 0.75 0.80 0.85 0.90 0.95 1.00
RSFa
Figure 7 – Zone for Thickness Averaging in A Nozzle
230
Stiffening Ring
L1msd
Nozzle
L4msd
Flaw
L2msd
Pipe Support
L3msd
Conical
Transition
Notes:
1. For the example shown above, the minimum distance to a major structural discontinuity is:
Lmsd min  L1msd , L2msd , L3msd , L4msd 
2. Typical major structural discontinues associated with vertical vessels are shown in this figure.
3. For horizontal drums, the saddle supports would constitute a major structural discontinuity and
for a spherical storage vessel, the support locations (shell-to-leg junction) would constitute a
major structural discontinuity. The location of the flaw from these support locations would
need to be considered in determining Lmsd as well as the distances from the nearest nozzle,
piping/platform support, conical transition, and stiffening ring.
4. The measure of the minimum distances defined in this figure is from the nearest edge of the
region of local metal loss to the nearest weld of the structural discontinuity.
Figure 8 – LTA to Major Structural Discontinuity Spacing Requirements in API 579
231
CL
Small End
Cylinder
tS
Lv
Zones for
Cone RS Thickness
Averaging - Small
End
Lv
Lv tC
RL
Large End
Cylinder
Lv Zones for Thickness

tL
Averaging - Large End
Notes:
1. Lv = 0.78 RS tS (thickness averaging zone for the small end cylinder).
2. Lv = 0.78 RS tC (thickness averaging zone for the small end cone).
3. Lv = 1.0 RL tC (thickness averaging zone for the large end cone).
4. Lv = 1.0 RL t L (thickness averaging zone for the large end cylinder).
5. tS , tC , t L are the furnished small end vessel, cone, and large end vessel thicknesses,
respectively.
6. RS , RL are the small end and large end vessel inside radii, respectively.
Figure 9 – Example of a Zone for Thickness Averaging at a Major Structural Discontinuity
232
1.0
0.9 ACCEPTABLE
0.8
0.7
0.6
Rt
0.5
UNACCEPTABLE
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Figure 10 – Level 1 Assessment Procedure for Local Metal Loss in Cylindrical Shells
(Circumferential Stress)
233
si+3
si+2
si+1
si
s2
s1
t tmin
Cross Hatched Area - Ai Aio - Area Within Box
(a) Subsection for the Effective Area Procedure
RSFi
Minimum RSF
Si
(b) Minimum RSF Determination
Figure 11 – Determination of the RSF for the Effective Area Procedure
234
li
d(x)
dx t
lsi
lei
Figure 12 – Exact Area Integration Bounds
235
Circumferential Plane
A t
My
V
p
Di
2
MT Ri MT
F F
Mx
Mx
My V
My
Region Of Local Metal Loss
c t
θ θ
Di
2 Mx
F
MT
Section A-A
Figure 13 – Supplemental Loads for a Longitudinal Stress Assessment
236
y,y
Metal Loss
tmm A B
θ θ yLx
Dff
x 2 x
y
x x
Di
Do 2
2
t
(a) Region Of Local Metal Loss Located on the Inside Surface

y,y Metal Loss
B
A tmm
θ θ yLx
Df
2
x x
y
x x
Di
2
Do
2
t
(b) Region Of Local Metal Loss Located on the Outside Surface
Figure 14 – Assessment Locations and Parameters for a Longitudinal Stress Assessment
237
Circumferential LTA Screening Curve
RSFa=0.9
1.0
0.8
0.6
tmm/tnom
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
c/Dm
Figure 15 – Longitudinal Stress, Level 1 Screening Curve
ltotal
dpatch
dj
de,i di
te
li si
Current Depth Increment, dj
Figure 16 – BG Depth Increment Approach
238
Figure 17 – Table Curve 3D Fit of the Shell Theory Folias Factor
1.0
3D Solid FEA
Axisymmetric FEA
0.9 Current API 579 Level 1
Current API 579 Level 2
Modified API 579 Level 1&2
0.8
RSF
0.7
0.6
0.5
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Lambda, λ
Figure 18 – Comparison Between Analysis Methods and FEA Trends for a Cylinder with a LTA
239
Figure 19 – 3D Solid FEA Model Geometry of a Cylinder for λ = 5
Figure 20 – Axisymmetric FEA Model Geometry of a Cylinder for λ = 5
240
folias
Rank 17 Eqn 6007 y=a+bx+cx^2+dx^3+ex^4+fx^5+gx^6+hx^7+ix^8+jx^9+kx^(10)
r^2=1 DF Adj r^2=1 FitStdErr=4.7721507e-08 Fstat=2.152902e+19
a=1.00101 b=-0.014196003 c=0.29089777 d=-0.096419915 e=0.020889797 f=-0.0030539593
g=0.00029570201 h=-1.8462059e-05 i=7.1552833e-07 j=-1.5631239e-08 k=1.4655864e-10
500 500
450 450
400 400
350 350
300 300
250 250
200 200
150 150
100 100
50 50
0 0
0 10 20 30
lam
Figure 21 – Table Curve 2D Fit of the Modified API 579 Folias Factor
20
Current API 579 Level 2
RSTRENG
Original Folias Data
Proposed API 579 Level 1&2
15
Folias Factor, Mt
10
0
0 5 10 15 20
Lambda, λ
Figure 22 – Comparison of the Old API 579 Folias Factor to the Modified Folias Factor and the
Original Folias Data
241
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
Rt
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
λl
Screening Curve Equations
Rt = 0.2 for λ ≤ 0.354

−1
 RSFa   RSFa 
Rt =  RSFa −  1.0 −  for 0.354 < λ < 20.0
 Mt  Mt 
Rt = 0.90 for λ ≥ 20.0
Figure 23 – Screening Curve for the Circumferential Extent of an LTA
242
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
Rt
0.4
0.3
0.2
Proposed Level 1&2 Remaining Strength Factor
0.1
Current Level 2 Remaining Strength Factor
0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
λl
Figure 24 – Comparison of the Old API 579 Level 1 Screening Curve to the Modified Folias
Factor Level 1 Screening Curve
243
Figure 25 – Axisymmetric FEA Model Geometry of a Sphere for λ = 5
1.0
Axisymmetric FEA
Current API 579
0.9
0.8
RSF
0.7
0.6
0.5
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Lambda, λ
Figure 26 – Comparison Between Analysis Methods and FEA Trends for a Sphere with a LTA
244
Figure 27 – Table Curve 3D Plot of the Janelle Method
245
6.0
Mean Mawp Margin
5.5 Upper 95% Prediction Interval
Lower 95% Prediction Interval
5.0
MAWP Margin on Failure 4.5
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
0.70 0.75 0.80 0.85 0.90 0.95 1.00
RSFa
Figure 28 – RSFA vs. MAWP Ratio for ASME Section VIII, Division 1 (pre 1999) and ASME
B31.1 (pre 1999) for the Modified API 579 Level 2 Assessment (Method 28)
5.5
Mean Mawp Margin
4.5
MAWP Margin on Failure
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
0.70 0.75 0.80 0.85 0.90 0.95 1.00
RSFa
Figure 29 – RSFA vs. MAWP Ratio for ASME Section VIII, Division 1 (post 1999) and ASME
B31.1 (post 1999) for the Modified API 579 Level 2 Assessment (Method 28)
246
4.5
Mean Mawp Margin
Upper 95% Prediction Interval
4.0 Lower 95% Prediction Interval

3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
0.70 0.75 0.80 0.85 0.90 0.95 1.00
RSFa
Figure 30 – RSFA vs. MAWP Ratio for ASME Section VIII, Division 2 and B31.3 for the Modified
API 579 Level 2 Assessment (Method 28)
4.0
Mean Mawp Margin
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.70 0.75 0.80 0.85 0.90 0.95 1.00
RSFa
Figure 31 – RSFA vs. MAWP Ratio for the New Proposed ASME Section VIII, Division 2 for the
Modified API 579 Level 2 Assessment (Method 28)
247
4.5
Mean Mawp Margin

3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
0.70 0.75 0.80 0.85 0.90 0.95 1.00
RSFa
Figure 32 – RSFA vs. MAWP Ratio for CODAP for the Modified API 579 Level 2 Assessment
(Method 28)
3.5
Mean Mawp Margin
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.70 0.75 0.80 0.85 0.90 0.95 1.00
RSFa
Figure 33 – RSFA vs. MAWP Ratio for AS 1210 and BS 5500 for the Modified API 579 Level 2
Assessment (Method 28)
248
2.8
Mean Mawp Margin
2.6
2.4
2.0
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.70 0.75 0.80 0.85 0.90 0.95 1.00
RSFa
Figure 34 – RSFA vs. MAWP Ratio for ASME B31.4 and B31.8, Class 1, Division 2 for the
Modified API 579 Level 2 Assessment (Method 28)
2.4
Mean Mawp Margin
2.0
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.70 0.75 0.80 0.85 0.90 0.95 1.00
RSFa
Figure 35 – RSFA vs. MAWP Ratio for B31.8, Class 1, Division 1 for the Modified API 579 Level
2 Assessment (Method 28)
249
3.2
3.0 Mean Mawp Margin

2.4
2.2
2.0
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1.0
0.70 0.75 0.80 0.85 0.90 0.95 1.00
RSFa
Figure 36 – RSFA vs. MAWP Ratio for B31.8, Class 2 for the Modified API 579 Level 2
4.0
Mean Mawp Margin
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.70 0.75 0.80 0.85 0.90 0.95 1.00
RSFa
250
5.0
Mean Mawp Margin
4.5

4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
0.70 0.75 0.80 0.85 0.90 0.95 1.00
RSFa
5.0
Mean Mawp Margin
4.5
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
0.70 0.75 0.80 0.85 0.90 0.95 1.00
RSFa
Figure 39 – RSFA vs. MAWP Ratio for API 620 for the Modified API 579 Level 2 Assessment
(Method 28)
251
5.0
Mean Mawp Margin
4.5

4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
0.70 0.75 0.80 0.85 0.90 0.95 1.00
RSFa
Figure 40 – RSFA vs. MAWP Ratio for API 650 for the Modified API 579 Level 2 Assessment
(Method 28)
0.50
0.49
0.48
Acceptable Bending Factor
0.47
0.46
0.45
0.44
0.43
0.42
0.41
0.40
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
ROT
Figure 41 – Maximum Bending Factor as a Function of the Radius to Thickness Ratio
252
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
Rt
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2 Maximum Bending Moment

No Bending Moment
0.1
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Lambda
Screening Curve Equation (Maximum Bending Moment)
c
λ = 1.285
Dt
Rt = 0.2 λ ≤ 0.818
−0.6999 + 1.1178λ + 0.3014λ 2
Rt = λ > 0.818
1.0 + 1.1139λ + 0.3453λ 2
Screening Curve Equation (No Bending Moment)
Rt = 0.2 λ ≤ 2.514
−0.2498 + 0.2092λ + 0.001312λ 2
Rt = λ > 2.514
1.0 + 0.1492λ + 0.008318λ 2
Figure 42 – Screening Curve for the Circumferential Extent of an LTA
253
Folias Factor for
Longitudinal Stress
2.00
1.75
1.50
1.25
Folias Factor
1.00
0.75
0.50
0.25
0.00
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Lambda
Figure 43 – Longitudinal Stress Folias Factor
254
a.) Subsurface HIC Damage – Actual Area
b.) Subsurface HIC Damage – Area Modeled as an Equivalent Rectangle
Figure 44 – Subsurface HIC Damage
255
LH s LH
wH
t
tmm
AH - Area Of HIC Damage with Reduced Strength

Characterized by DH
A) Surface Breaking HIC Damage - Actual Area
LH s LH
wH
t
tmm
AH - Area Of HIC Damage with Reduced

Strength Characterized by DH
B) Surface Breaking HIC Damage - Area Modeled as an Equivalent Rectangle
Figure 45 – Surface Breaking HIC Damage
256
Stiffening Rings
Actual Cylindrical Shell
LT
Idealized Cylindrical Shell
t1 t2 t3 t4
L1 L2 L3 L4
Figure 46 – Idealized Geometry for a LTA Subject to External Pressure
257
REFERENCES
[1] API Publication 579, Recommended Practice for Fitness-For-Service, American Petroleum
Institute, Washington, D.C., 2000.
[2] NBIC, National Board Inspection Code, ANSI/NB-23, National Board, Columbus, Ohio,
2004.
[3] API Publication 510, Pressure Vessel Inspection Code: Maintenance Inspection, Rerating,
Repair and Alteration, American Petroleum Institute, Washington, D.C., 1997.
[4] API Publication 570, Piping Inspection Code: Inspection, Repair, Alteration, and Rerating,
American Petroleum Institute, Washington, D.C., 1998.
[5] API Publication 653, Tank Inspection, Repair, Alteration, and Reconstruction, American
Petroleum Institute, Washington, D.C., 2001.
[6] Sims, J. R., Hantz, B. F., and Kuehn, K. E., 1992, “A Basis for the Fitness-For-Service
Evaluation of Thin Areas in Pressure Vessels and Storage Tanks,” ASME PVP Vol. 233,
Pressure Vessel Fracture, Fatigue, and Life Management (1992): 51-58.
[7] American National Standards Institute (ANSI) and American Society of Mechanical
Engineers Publication B31G, Manual for Determining the Remaining Strength of Corroded
Pipelines, 1984.
[8] Maxey, W. A., Kiefner, J. F., Eiber, R. J., and Duffy, A. R., 1972, “Ductile Fracture Initiation,
Propagation, and Arrest in Cylindrical Vessels.” In Fracture Toughness, Proceedings of the
1971 National Symposium on Fracture Mechanics, Part II, ASTM STP 514, American
Society for Testing and Materials, 1972, pp 70-81.
[9] Folias, E. S., “The Stresses in a Cylindrical Shell Containing an Axial Crack,” ARL 64-174,
Aerospace Research Laboratories, October 1964.
[10] Kiefner, J.F., and Duffy, A.R., “Summary of Research to Determine the Strength of
Corroded Areas in Line Pipe.” Presented at a Public Hearing at the US Department of
Transportation 20 July 20 1971 (1971).
[11] Kiefner, J.F., “Fracture Initiation.” Presented at the American Gas Association 4th
Symposium on Line Pipe Research 18 November 1969 (1969).
[12] Kiefner, J.F., Duffy, A.R., and Atterbury, T.J., “Investigation of the Behavior of Corroded
Line Pipe, Phase I.” Report to Texas Eastern Transmission Corporation 8 September 1970
(1970).
258
Line Pipe, Phase II.” Report to Texas Eastern Transmission Corporation 8 January 1971
(1971).
Line Pipe, Phase III.” Report to Texas Eastern Transmission Corporation 19 July 19 1971
(1971).
[15] Kiefner, J.F., Maxey, W.A., Eiber, R.J., and Duffy, A.R., “Failure Stress Levels of Flaws in
Pressurized Cylinders,” ASTM STP 536, American Society for Testing and Materials, 1973,
pp 461-481.
[16] Kiefner, J. F. and Vieth, P. H., 1989, “A Modified Criterion for Evaluating the Remaining
Strength of Corroded Pipe,” (with RSTRENG), American Gas Association, Catalog No.
L51609, PR3-805, December 22, 1989. See also Vieth, P.H., and Kiefner, J.F. (1993)
“RSTRENG2 Users Manual,” Pipeline Research Supervisory Committee, American Gas
Association.
[17] Kiefner, J. F., Vieth, P. H., and Roytman, I; 1996, “Continuing Validation of RSTRENG,”
Pipeline Research Supervisory Committee, PRC International, AGA Catalog Number
L51749, December 20, 1996.
[18] PRC, “A Modified Criterion for Evaluating the Remaining Strength of Corroded Pipe.” Final
Report to the Pipeline Supervisory Committee of the Pipeline Research Committee of the
American Gas Association December 1989 (1989).
[19] Bubenik, T.A., Olson, R.J., Stephens, D.R., and Francini, R.B., “Analyzing the Pressure
Strength of Corroded Line Pipe,” Battelle Memorial Institute, Columbus, Ohio, 1992.
[20] Stephens, D.R., Bubenik, T.A., and Francini, R.B., “Residual Strength of Pipeline
Corrosion Defects Under Combined Pressure and Axial Loads,” Battelle Memorial Institute,
Columbus, February, 1995.
[21] Stephens, D.R., Krishnaswamy, P., Mohan, R., Osage, D.A., and Wilkowski, G.M., “A
Review of Analysis Methods and Acceptance Criteria for Local Thin Areas in Piping and
Piping Components,” Battelle Memorial Institute, Columbus, July, 1997.
[22] Stephens, D.R., Leis, B.N., and Rudland, D.L., “Development of a New, Simplified Criterion
for Pipeline Corrosion Defect Limit States.” Presented at the PRCI/EPRG 11th Biennial
Joint Technical Meeting on Line Pipe Research Held in Arlington Virginia 8-10 April
1997(1997).
[23] Stephens D. R., and Leis, B. N., “Material and Geometry Factors Controlling the Failure of
Corrosion Defects in Piping.” Presented at the Pressure Vessels and Piping Conference
Held in Orlando Florida July 1997 (1997).
[24] Stephens, D. R., and Leis, B. N., 1997b, “Development and Validation of a PC-Based
Finite Element Model for Residual Strength of Pipeline Corrosion Defects,” Pipeline
Research Supervisory Committee, American Gas Association Project PR-3-9509.
[25] Stephens, D.R., Bubenik, T.A., “Development of Guidelines for Acceptance of Corroded
Pipe,” Battelle Memorial Institute, Columbus, Ohio, Paper 25.
259
[26] Stephens, D. R., Leis, B. N., and Rudland, D. L., 1996, “Influence of Mechanical Properties
and Irregular Geometry on Pipeline Corrosion Defect Behavior.” Presented at the PRC I
American Gas Association 9th Symposium on Pipeline Research 30 September 1996
(Paper 34, , Catalog No. L51746,1996.)
[27] Coulson, K. E. W. and Worthingham, R. G., (1990) “Standard Damage-Assessment

Approach is Overly Conservative,” Oil and Gas Journal, (April 9, 1990) and “New
Guidelines Promise More Accurate Damage Assessment,” Oil and Gas Journal (April 16,
1990).
[28] Coulson, K.E.W., and Worthington, R.G., “New Guidelines Promise More Accurate
Damage Assessment,” Oil and Gas Journal, (April 1990).
[29] Mok, D. R. B., Pick, R. J., and Glover, A. G., “Behavior of Line Pipe with Long External
Corrosion,” Materials Performance, Vol. 29, No. 5 (May 1990): 75-79.
[30] Mok, D. H. B., Pick, R. J., Glover, A. G., and Hoff, R., “Bursting of Line Pipe with Long
External Corrosion,” Int. J. Pressure. Vessel and Piping, Vol. 46 (1991): 195-216.
[31] Chell, G. G., “Application of the CEGB Failure Assessment Procedure, R6, to Surface
Flaws,” Fracture Mechanics: Twenty-First Symposium, 1990, ASTM STP 1074, J.P.
[32] Hopkins, P. and Jones, D.G., “A Study of the Behavior of Long and Complex-Shaped
Corrosion in Transmission Pipelines.” Presented at the ASME Offshore Mechanics and
Arctic Engineering Symposium 1992 (1992).
[33] Jones, D. G., Turner, T., and Ritchie, D. “Failure Behavior of Internally Corroded Linepipe,”
British Gas plc, OMAE-92-1045.
[34] Ritchie, D., and Last, S. (1992), “Shell 92, Burst Criteria of Corroded Pipelines - Defect
Acceptance Criteria”, Shell Research B.V., The Netherlands.
[35] Kanninen, M. F., Pagalthivarthi, K. V., and Popelar, C. H., “A Theoretical Analysis for the
Residual Strength of Corroded Gas and Oil Transmission Pipelines.” Presented at the
Symposium on Corrosion forms and Control for Infrastructure Held in San Diego California
4 November 1991 (1991).
[36] Kanninen, M. F., Roy, S., et. al., “Assessing the Reliability of Corroded Oil Transmission
Pipelines Under the Combined Loading Conditions Arising in Arctic Service.” Presented at
the ASME 12th Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering Conference in Scotland June
1993 (1993).
[37] Kanninen, Melvin F., Roy, Samit, Couque, Herve R. A., Grigory, Stephen C., Smith, Marina
Q., “Generalized Guidelines for Determining the Residual Strength of Corroded Oil and
Gas Pipelines.” Presented at the Energy Transportation, Transfer and Storage Conference
and Exposition Held in Houston Texas 25-27 January 1994 (1994): 391-403.
[38] Couque, H. R., Smith, M.Q., Grigory, S. C., and Kanninen, M. F., “The Development of
Methodologies for Evaluating the Integrity of Corroded Pipelines under Combined Loading
- Part 2: Engineering Model and PC Program Development.” Presented at the Energy
Week Conference in Houston Texas 29 January 1996 (1996).
[39] Chouchaoui, B.A., “Evaluating the Remaining Strength of Corroded Pipelines,” Ph.D. diss.,
The University of Waterloo, Canada, 1993.
260
[40] Chouchaoui, B. A. and Pick, R. J., “Behavior of Circumferentially Aligned Corrosion Pits,”
Int. J. Pressure Vessel and Piping, Vol. 57 (1994): 187-200.
[41] Chouchaoui, B. A. and Pick, R. J., “Interaction of Closely Spaced Corrosion Pits in Line
Pipe,” Pipeline Technology, Vol. 5 (1993): 203-214.
[42] Chouchaoui, B. A. and Pick, R. J., “A Three Level Assessment of the Residual Strength of
Corroded Line Pipe,” OMAE-94, 13th International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and
Arctic Engineering, Vol. V, Pipeline Technology.
[43] Chouchaoui, B.A., and Pick, R.J., “Behavior of Isolated Pits Within General Corrosion.”
Submitted to Pipes and Pipelines International (1993).
[44] Chouchaoui, B. A., Pick, R. J., and Yost, D. B., “Burst Pressure Predictions of Line Pipe
Containing Single Corrosion Pits using the Finite Element Method.” Presented at the 11th
International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering Held in Calgary
Alberta 7 June 1992 (1992).
[45] Valenta, F., Sochor, M., Spaniel, M, and Michalec, J., “Remaining Load Carrying Capacity
of Gas Pipelines Damaged by Surface Corrosion,” Czech Technical University, Prague,
Czech Republic, 1994.
[46] Valenta, F., Sochor, M., Spaniel, M, Michalec, J., Ruzicka, M., and Halamka, V.,
“Theoretical and Experimental Evaluation of the Limit State of Transit Gas Pipelines
Having Corrosion Defects,” Czech Technical University, Prague, Czech Republic, 1996.
[47] Zarrabi, K., “Plastic Collapse Pressures for Defected Cylindrical Vessels,” University of
New South Wales, New South Wales, Australia, August, 1993.
[48] Zarrabi, K., and Zhang, H., “Primary Stress in Scarred Boiler Tubes,” University of South
Wales, New South Wales, Australia, October, 1994.
[49] Hantz, B. F., Sims, J. R., Kenyon, C. T., and Turbak, T. A., (1993) “Fitness-For-Service:
Groove Like Local Thin Areas on Pressure Vessels and Storage Tanks”, ASME PVP Vol
252, Plant Systems/Components Aging Management.
[50] Turbak, T. A., and Sims, J. R., (1994), “Comparison of Local Thin Area Assessment
Methodologies, ASME PVP Vol. 288, Service Experience and Reliability Improvement:
Nuclear, Fossil and Petrochemical Plants.
[51] Batte, A. D., Fu, B., Vu, D., and Kirkwood, M. G., “Advanced Methods for Integrity
Assessment of Corroded Pipelines.” Presented at the Pipeline Reliability Conference Held
in Houston Texas, 19-22 November 1996 (1996).
[52] Batte, A. D., Fu, B., Vu, D., and Kirkwood, M. G., “Advanced Methods for Integrity
Assessment of Corroded Pipelines,” Pipes and Pipelines International, (January-February
1997).
[53] Fu, B., Stephens, D., Ritchie, D., and Jones, C., “Methods for Assessing Corroded Pipeline
– Review, Validation, and Recommendations.” Prepared for the Materials Supervisory
Committee of Pipeline Research Council International, Inc. Houston Texas April 2002.
[54] Draft Code Case N-480 ‘Requirements for Analytical Evaluation of Pipe Wall Thinning’,
Minutes of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Working Group on Pipe Flaw
Evaluation, Section XI, December 1996.
261
[55] Draft of the Basis Document for Draft Code Case N-480 – ‘Requirements for Analytical
Evaluation of Pipe Wall Thinning’, Minutes of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,
Working Group on Pipe Flaw Evaluation, Section XI, December 1996.
[56] “Evaluation of Flaws in Austenitic Steel Piping,” (Technical Basis Document for ASME
IWB-3640 Analysis Procedure). Prepared by Section XI Task Group for Piping Flaw
Evaluation, EPRI Report NP-4690-SR, April 1986.
[57] Folias, E.S., "On the Effect of Initial Curvature on Cracked Flat Sheets," International
Journal of Fracture Mechanics, Vol. 5, No. 4 (December 1969): 327-346.
[58] Bubenik, T.A. and Rosenfeld, M.J., "Assessing The Strength of Corroded Elbows," NG-18
Report No. 206, American Gas Association, May, 1993.
[59] Osage, D.A., Buchheim, G.M., Brown, R.G., Poremba, J., "An Alternate Approach for
Inspection Scheduling Using the Maximum Allowable Working Pressure for Pressurized
Equipment," ASME PVP Vol. 288, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York,
1994, 261-273.
[60] Svensson, N., “The Bursting Pressure of Cylindrical and Spherical Vessels,” Journal of
Applied Mechanics (1958): 326-334.
[61] Kiefner, J.F., and Vieth, P.H., “Database of Corroded Pipe Tests,” Final Report on Contract
No. PR 218-9206, AGA Catalog No. L51689, American Gas Association, April 4, 1994.
[62] Kiefner, J.F., Vieth, P.H., and Roytman, I., “Continued Validation of RSTRENG,” Final
Report on Contract No. PR 218-9304, AGA Catalog No. L51749, American Gas
Association, December 20, 1996.
[63] Connelly, L.M., “Hydro-test of Two Retired Pressure Vessels with Local Thin Areas.”
Presented at the 1995 Joint ASME/JSME Pressure Vessel and Piping Conference 23-27
July 23-27,1995, edited by M. Prager, ASME, 1995.
[64] Depadova, T.A. and Sims, J.R., “Fitness-For-Service Local Thin Areas Comparison of
Finite Element Analysis to Physical Test Results.” Presented at the 1995 Joint
ASME/JSME Pressure Vessel and Piping Conference 23-27 July 1995, edited by M.
Prager, ASME, 1995.
[65] Fu, B., and Vu, D.Q., “Failure of Corroded Line Pipe (1) - Experimental Testing,” BG plc
Research and Technology, October 7, 1997.
[66] Fu, B., and Noble, J.P., “Failure of Corroded Line Pipe (2) - Numerical Analysis,” BG plc
Research and Technology, October. 7, 1997.
[67] ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section VIII, Division I, Rules for the Construction
of Pressure Vessels, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 1998.
[68] ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section VIII, Division I, Rules for the Construction
of Pressure Vessels, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 1999.
[69] ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section VIII, Division II, Alternate Rules for the
Construction of Pressure Vessels, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 1999.
[70] ASME Code for Pressure Piping, B31.1, Power Piping, American Society of Mechanical
Engineers, 1998.
262
[71] ASME Code for Pressure Piping, B31.1, Power Piping, American Society of Mechanical
Engineers, 2004.
[72] ASME Code for Pressure Piping, B31.3, Process Piping, American Society of Mechanical
Engineers, 2002.
[73] ASME Code for Pressure Piping, B31.4, Liquid Transportation Systems for Hydrocarbons,
Liquid Petroleum Gas, Anhydrous Ammonia, and Alcohols, American Society of
Mechanical Engineers, 1992.
[74] ASME Code for Pressure Piping, B31.8, Gas Transmission and Distribution Piping
Systems, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 1995.
[75] API Publication 620, Design and Construction of Large Welded, Low-Pressure Storage
Tanks, American Petroleum Institute, Washington, D.C., 2002.
[76] API Publication 650, Welded Steel Tanks for Oil Storage, American Petroleum Institute,
Washington, D.C., 1998.
[77] CODAP, French Code for Construction of Unfired Pressure Vessels, SNCT Publications,
1995.
[78] Australian Standard 1210, SAA Unfired Pressure Vessels Code, Standards Association of
Australia, 1999.
[79] British Standard BS 5500, Unfired Fusion Welded Pressure Vessels, British Standards
Board, 1997.
[80] Rajagopalan, K., “Finite Element Buckling Analysis of Stiffened Cylindrical Shells”, Indian
Institute of Technology, A.A. Balkema/Rotterdam, 1993.
[81] Esslinger, M. and Geier, B.,”Buckling Loads of Thin-walled Circular Cylinders with
Axisymmetric Irregularities”, Paper 36, Institute for Structural Mechanics, Germany.
[82] Hahn, G., Sarrate, M., and Rosenfeld, A., “Criteria for Crack Extension in Cylindrical
Pressure Vessels,” International Journal of Fracture Mechanics, Vol. 5, No. 3 (September
1969): 187-210.
[83] Wang, Y. S., “Remaining Strength of Pipes with Axi-Symmetric and Axially Invariant
Corrosion Patterns.” Presented at the PRCI/American Gas Association 8th Symposium on
Line Pipe Research Held in Houston Texas 26 September 1993, Paper 22, Catalog No.
L51680, (1993).
[84] Klever, Frans J., Stewart, Graham, and van der Valk, Clemens A.C., “New Developments
in Burst Strength Predictions for Locally Corroded Pipelines,” Shell Research B.V., The
Netherlands, Publication 1306, March, 1995, 1995 Offshore Mechanics and Arctic
Engineering (OMAE) Conference, Copenhagen, Denmark.
[85] Maxey, W. A., “Outside force Defect Behavior.” Presented at the 7th Symposium on Line
Pipe Research Held in Houston Texas October 1986, Paper 14 (1986).
263
[86] Rooves, P., Bood, R., Galli, M., Marewski, U., Steiner, M., and Zarea, M., "EPRG Methods
for Assessing the Tolerance and Resistance of Pipelines to External Damage,"
Proceedings of the 3rd International Pipeline Technology Conference, Volume II, R. Denys
(Editor), Brugge, Belgium, Elsevier, 2000.
[87] Eiber, R. J., and others, “Investigation of the Initiation and Extent of Ductile Pipe Rupture,”
Battelle Memorial Institute Report to the Atomic Energy Commission, BMI 1908, 1971.
[88] Shannon, R.W.E., “The Failure Behavior of Line Pipe Defects,” International Journal of
Pressure Vessels and Piping, 1974 – Applied Science Publishers, Ltd., England, Printed in
Great Briton, 1974.
[89] Jones, D. G., “The Significance of Mechanical Damage in Pipelines.” Presented at the
A.G.A./EPRG Line pipe Research Seminar Held in Duisburg West Germany September
1981, ERS E291(1981).
[90] Cairns, A., and Hopkins, P., “A Statistical Analysis of Data from Burst Tests on Pipe
Containing Dent/Defect Combinations,” ERS R.2381, October, 1981.
[91] Kim, H.O., “Model Simplifies Estimate of Bending Strength in Corroded Pipe,” Oil and Gas
Journal (April 1993): 54-58.
[92] Miller, A. G., “Review of Limit Loads of Structures Containing Defects,” Int. J. Pressure
Vessel and Piping (Vol. 32, 1988): 197-327.
[93] Osage, D.A., Davis, R.C., Brown, R.G., and Andreani, J.L. "Use of Non-linear Analysis
Techniques in Fitness-For-Service Assessment in the Refining Industry," ASME, PVP Vol.
277, Pages 143-161, 1994.
[94] Johns, T. G., Mesloh, R. E., Winegarder, R., and Sorenson, J. E., “Inelastic Buckling of
Pipelines Under Combined Loads,” Proceedings of Offshore Technology Conference,
Dallas, Paper No. OTC 2209, 1975.
[95] Miller, C.D. and Mokhtarian, K. “Proposed Rules for Determining Allowable Compressive
Stresses for Cylinders, Cones, Spheres and formed Heads,” WRC Bulletin 406 (November
1995).
[96] Miller, C.D., Mokhtarian, K. “A Comparison of Proposed Alternative Rules with ASME Code
Rules for Determining Allowable Compressive Stresses,” ASME PVP.
264

Akron1133204597 PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Akron1133204597 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

AN OVERVIEW AND VALIDATION OF THE FITNESS-FOR-SERVICE ASSESSMENT

PROCEDURES FOR LOCAL THIN AREAS

The Graduate Faculty of the University of Akron

of the Requirements for the Degree

Masters of Science – Mechanical Engineering

PROCEDURES FOR LOCAL THIN AREAS

Advisor Department Chair

Committee Member Dean of College

Committee Member Dean of the Graduate School

In today’s petroleum refining industry, aging infrastructure is a primary concern when

comprise structural integrity. An engineering or Fitness-For-Service (FFS) assessment is

continues to operate, provide technically sound Fitness-For-Service assessment procedures for

enhancing long-term economic viability.

method and to a database of full scale tests.

accuracy of the assessment procedures and eliminate some of the limitations.

(circumferential extent of the LTA).

assessment procedures in API 579:

• WRC 430 – Review of Existing Fitness-For-Service Criteria for Crack-Like Flaws

Out-of-Roundness, Weld Misalignment, Bulges, and Dents in Pressurized Components

• WRC CCC – An Overview and Validation of The Fitness-For-Service Assessment

Cracks in API 579

Cracks in Cylinders and Spheres

• WRC MMM – An Overview of the Fitness-For-Service Assessment Procedures for Weld

• WRC PPP – An Overview of the Fitness-For-Service Assessment Procedures for Pitting

Damage in API 579 (not complete as of this printing).

LIST OF TABLES................................................................................................................. xii

LIST OF FIGURES............................................................................................................... xiv

1.1 Industry Needs................................................................................................. 1

1.2 Flaw Types and Damage Mechanisms in API 579.......................................... 2

1.3 General Corrosion and Local Thin Areas (LTAs) ............................................ 3

1.4 Need for Standardized Assessment ................................................................ 3

II. LTA ASSESSMENT AND VALIDATION OVERVIEW ................................................. 5

2.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................... 5

2.2 Acceptance Criteria.......................................................................................... 6

2.2.1 Overview .......................................................................................... 6

2.2.2 Linear Elastic Allowable Stress Classification ................................. 6

2.2.3 Non-linear Elastic-Plastic Stress Criteria ......................................... 7

2.2.4 Remaining Strength Factor .............................................................. 8

2.3 Original LTA Assessment Methodology........................................................... 9

2.4 LTA Development and Validation Work........................................................... 10

2.4.2 Kiefner, et al ..................................................................................... 10

2.4.3 Stephens, Bubenik, Leis, et al.......................................................... 11

2.4.4 Coulson, Worthington....................................................................... 12

2.4.6 Chell ................................................................................................. 13

2.4.7 Hopkins, Jones, Turner, Ritchie, Last .............................................. 14

2.4.8 Kanninen, et al ................................................................................. 15

2.4.9 Chouchaoui, Pick ............................................................................. 15

2.4.10 Valenta, et al.................................................................................... 15

2.4.11 Zarrabi, et al .................................................................................... 16

2.4.12 Sims, et al ........................................................................................ 16

2.4.13 Batte, Fu, Vu, Kirkwood................................................................... 16

2.4.14 Fu, Stephens, Ritchie, Jones .......................................................... 17

2.5 ASME Section XI Class 2 and 3 Piping ........................................................... 17

2.6 Current In-Service Inspection Codes............................................................... 17

III. API 579 METAL LOSS ASSESSMENT PROCEDURES............................................. 19

3.2 Multi-Level Assessment Procedure ................................................................ 20

3.3 Inspection Data Requirements........................................................................ 21

3.3.1 Point Thickness Readings ............................................................... 21

3.3.2 Critical Thickness Profiles ................................................................ 22

3.4 Assessment of General Metal Loss ................................................................ 23

3.4.1 Overview .......................................................................................... 23

3.4.2 Applicability and Limitations ............................................................. 24

3.4.3 Metal Loss Away from Structural Discontinuities............................. 25