Engineering Failure Analysis 109 (2020) 104284

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Engineering Failure Analysis

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engfailanal

Failure pressure estimation error for corroded pipeline using

T
various revisions of ASME B31G
⁎
Seyed Saleh Mousavia, , Ali Shaghaghi Moghaddamb
a
ICOFC, Iran
b
Department of Mechanical Engineering, TIAU, Iran

A R T IC LE I N F O ABS TRA CT

Keywords: Corrosion defects always occur in carbon steel pipelines and due to their reduction in pipe wall
Corrosion thickness, the pipe will fail at a pressure lower than the pressure calculated by given yield
Pipeline integrity strength. Therefore, one of the most important factors in controlling the integrity of pipelines is
ASME B31G failure due to corrosion. The burst pressure test is one of the laboratory tests that is carried out to
Failure pressure
evaluate the failure pressure of corroded pipes and is not applicable to all pipelines depending on
its nature and its costs. Therefore, in the industry, it has been tried to introduce and use
guidelines for assessing and predicting failure pressure of corroded pipelines. The most widely
used references is the ASME B31G standard. This standard is published in different versions and
also different level of analysis. In this article, the burst test results of 18 samples consist of 3
different types of corrosion and their configurations are also analyzed by all revisions and levels
of standard ASME B31G and the results are compared together.

1. Introduction

Carbon steel pipelines have been used to transport hydrocarbons since the 1930s [1]. Almost always carbon steel is the best choice
for pipeline material because it has low cost and good mechanical properties. Due to carbon steel susceptibility to corrosion [2],
sooner or later a carbon steel pipeline will be corroded. External corrosion typically occurs where, due to a coating defect (holiday or
disbandment) or due to the coating degradation, the wet soil enters in contact with the pipe external surface [3]. Internal corrosion
occurs due to the presence of water in the transported fluid [4].
Corrosion represents a threat to the pipeline strength because it produces a reduction in the pipe wall thickness. The most
common morphology of corrosion defects on pipelines is uneven metal loss over a localized area [3].
Colonies of corrosion defects are frequently found in pipelines. Usually the failure pressure of a colony of closely spaced corrosion
defects is smaller than the failure pressures that the defects would attain if they were isolated. This reduction in the corroded pipe
pressure strength is due to the interaction between adjacent defects. Over time, the size of the corrosion defect will increase, it will
reach a maximum point, and at this point, the pipeline will be cracked or ruptured. In high-pressure fluid transfer pipelines, this
failure can stop production, destroy equipment, or damage the adjacent human population. Therefore, the pressure drop should be
calculated appropriately and with the view of numerous preventive measures to prevent the occurrence of these events.
The breakdown pressure is the maximum pressure that the tube can withstand before failure. The factors needed to calculate the
burst pressure are material's quality, pipe thickness, heat, and so on. Corrosion defects are observed in both single and complex form.
Usually, the failure pressure in the complex faults is less than when there are individual defects. This further loss of strength depends

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: s.salehmousavi@yahoo.com (S.S. Mousavi), shaghaghi@ioec.com (A.S. Moghaddam).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engfailanal.2019.104284
Received 27 April 2019; Received in revised form 5 August 2019; Accepted 4 November 2019
Available online 07 November 2019
1350-6307/ © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
S.S. Mousavi and A.S. Moghaddam Engineering Failure Analysis 109 (2020) 104284

of the interaction of adjacent defects [5].

A significant effort over the past 40 years has been made to study the behavior of metal-loss defects of corroded pipeline under
static internal pressure using experimental, numerical and theoretical methods [6]. In experimental methods the breakdown pressure
is obtained by conducting the pressure test until the complete failure of the tube in the laboratory. By the burst test, the user of the
pipeline is assured the health of the system and the structural integrity of the tubing. However, the burst test has limitations such as
the impossibility of testing for all pipeline pipes, the high cost of execution, and the complexity issues of the operating instructions
before and after the test [5].
Due to the limitations of pressure testing, a number of methods for assessing the remaining strength of corroded pipelines have
been developed. The methods including ASME B31G and RSTRENG 0.85dL [6].
These standards, with different factors, give different results in the final burst pressure. This error is also due to different com-
putational levels in the above standards. One of most popular sources of standards using for pipeline corrosion defect assessment is
ASME B31G published.
In this paper, the results of the burst tests presented under two papers are attempted by Benjamin et al.’ [7,8], will be analyzed by
different versions of ASME B31G and also the different levels of evaluation presented therein and the results compared [9,10]. In this
way, the calculation error will be determined by the results of the laboratory tests. The effect of the interaction of defects in this
article will also be investigated.

2. Literature review

It has been recognized within the pipeline industry that some sections of high-pressure pipelines, particularly those with long
service histories, may experience corrosion. It has also been recognized, through theoretical analysis, scientific research and testing,
and industry operating experience, that some amount of metal loss due to corrosion can be tolerated without impairing the ability of
the pipeline to operate safely. In 1984, ASME published the first edition of the B31G Manual for Determining the Remaining Strength
of Corroded Pipelines. The B31G document provided pipeline operators with a simplified evaluation method based on the results of
analysis and tests. The application of B31G has enabled pipeline operators to reliably determine safe operating pressure levels for pipe
affected by corrosion, and to determine whether repairs are necessary in order to continue operating safely [9].
B31G continued to be reissued by ASME with only minor revisions over time, although other corrosion evaluation methods had
evolved since B31G’s initial publication. A majority of these other methods are based on the same theoretical model from which the
original B31G method was derived, but may offer some refinement in accuracy. Subsequently, an effort was undertaken to update the
B31G document to recognize certain other corrosion evaluation methods that have proven sound and that have seen successful use in
the pipeline industry. Incorporation of these other methods into a recognized Code document provides the pipeline operator or other
user with a formalized framework within which to use such methodologies, as well as a wider range of codified technical options with
which to make an evaluation. The 2009 revision of B31G reflected those objectives [10].
The 2012 edition of B31G was approved by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) on September 20, 2012 [10].

2.1. Calculation procedure based on standard ASME B 31G (1991 Edition)

In this edition, calculation proceeds as follow:

If the measured maximum depth of the corroded area is greater than 10% of the nominal wall thickness but less than 80% of the
minimum wall thickness and the measured longitudinal extent of the corroded area is greater than maximum allowable longitudinal
extent as specified according to defect depth and nominal wall thickness, calculate [9]:
Lm
A = 0.893
D×t (1)

Lm: Measured longitudinal extent of the corroded area, in.

D: Nominal outside diameter of the pipe, in.
t: Nominal wall thickness of the pipe, in. Additional wall thickness required for concurrent external loads shall not be include in
the calculations.

If A < =4, then calculate P′:

⎡ 1− 2 × d ⎤
⎢
P' = 1.1 × P × ⎢
3 ( t ) ⎥
2 d/t
⎥
⎢ 1 − ⎛3 × 2 ⎞ ⎥
⎣ ⎝ A + 1 ⎠⎦ (2)

P: Maximum value of MAOP or “P” calculated below, psi:

d: Depth of metal loss
P = 2 × S × t × F × T/D (3)

2
S.S. Mousavi and A.S. Moghaddam Engineering Failure Analysis 109 (2020) 104284

S: Specified minimum yield strength (SMYS), psi

t: Nominal wall thickness of the pipe, in
F: Appropriate design factor from ASME B31.4, B31.8 or B31.11
T: Temperature derating factor from appropriate B31 code (if none listed, T = 1)
D: Nominal outside diameter of the pipe, in.

For values of “A” greater than 4.0:

d
P' = 1.1 × P × (1 − )
t (4)

2.2. Calculation procedure based on standard ASME B 31G (2012 Edition)

In this standard, four levels of evaluation from level 0 to level 3 are used for analyzing the corroded area of the pipeline. At each of
the assessment levels, a method has been developed to calculate the failure strength. By calculating the strength of the failure, we can
calculate the pressure based on the basic formulation of the pipe design. At the zero level of this standard, the strength is not
calculated and defect evaluation is based only on defect dimensions [10]. Level 3 assessment is a method based on finite element
methods not described in the standard text body. We do only assessment of defects level 0 to level 2 by formulas mentioned in the
standard text not outsourced ones (FEM).

2.2.1. Level 1
At first “Z” calculate as follow:
L2
Z=
(D × t) (5)

L: Length of metal loss

D: Specified outside diameter of the pipe
t: Pipe wall thickness

After calculation of “Z”, fracture strength will be calculated by using one of following methods:

• ASME B31G - Original method:

Bulging stress magnification factor is calculated as follow:
M = (1 + 0.8 × Z)1/2 (6)
Fracture strength for Z ≤ 20,

1 − 2/3(d/t) ⎤
SF = SFLOW × ⎡
⎢
⎣ 1 − 2/3(d/t)/M ⎥
⎦ (7)

d: Depth of metal loss

And for Z > 20,

SF = SFLOW × (1 − d/t) (8)

It should be noted that in this standard, different values are defined for S Flow, of which the following values are consistent with
the amount specified in previous versions of this standard and in order to easily compare the results between different versions, this
value is selected and used [10].
SFLOW = 1.1 × SMYS (9)

• ASME B31G - Modified method

M for Z ≤ 50,
M = (1 + 0.6275Z − 0.003375Z2) (10)
And for Z > 50,
M = 0.032Z + 3.3 (11)

Fracture strength in this method will be calculated as follow:

3
S.S. Mousavi and A.S. Moghaddam Engineering Failure Analysis 109 (2020) 104284

Table 1
Summary of the tension test results for the transverse tensile specimens, Charpy impact test results (0 °C).
Tube Yield strength (MPa) Ultimate tensile strength Impact energy for 2/3 thickness Impact energy equivalent to full thickness
(MPa) specimens (J) specimens (J)

1 662 773 71.5 107.3

2 639 732 82.0 123.0
3 654 748 53.5 80.3
4 652 739 47.5 71.3
5 580 728 55.9 83.9

Table 2
Nominal geometric characteristics of the base defects.
Defect d (mm) L (mm) W (mm) r (mm) d/t

1 3.2 60 30 2.5 0.4

2 4.8 30 30 3.8 0.6
3 4.8 30 90 3.8 0.6

Table 3
Composition of the colonies of corrosion defects of the tubular specimens.
Specimen Number of defects BD1 Number of defects BD2 Number of defects BD3 Total number of defects

IDTS 13 1 – – 1
IDTS 14 – 1 – 1
IDTS 15 2 1 – 3
IDTS 16 2 2 – 4
IDTS 17 3 2 – 5
IDTS 18 4 1 – 5
IDTS 19 5 1 – 6
IDTS 20 5 1 – 6
IDTS 21 6 1 – 7
IDTS 22 6 2 – 8
IDTS 23 6 2 – 8
IDTS 24 7 2 – 9
IDTS 25 5 4 – 9
IDTS 26 5 4 – 9
IDTS 27 8 2 – 10
IDTS 28 1 – 1 2
IDTS 29 2 – 1 3
IDTS 30 3 – 2 5

Table 4
Specimens specifications and due burst pressures.
Specimen Tube t (mm) OD (mm) Yield Strength (MPa) dclus (mm) Lclus (mm) Wclus (mm) d/t Burst Pressure (MPa)

IDTS 13 2 7.9 457.3 639 3.07 60 30 0.39 26.6

IDTS 14 2 7.9 457.3 639 4.8 30 30 0.61 26.7
IDTS 15 2 7.9 457.3 639 4.76 130 110 0.6 24
IDTS 16 1 7.91 457.3 662 4.79 190 70 0.61 23.4
IDTS 17 1 7.91 457.3 662 4.82 320 60 0.61 21.2
IDTS 18 1 7.91 457.3 662 4.83 170 110 0.61 22.7
IDTS 19 1 7.91 457.3 662 4.82 210 120 0.61 23.3
IDTS 20 3 7.94 457.3 654 4.64 430 80 0.58 20.8
IDTS 21 3 7.94 457.3 654 4.83 240 110 0.61 22.6
IDTS 22 3 7.94 457.3 654 4.86 210 140 0.61 20.3
IDTS 23 3 7.94 457.3 654 4.85 270 130 0.61 21.5
IDTS 24 4 8.01 457.3 652 4.9 260 120 0.61 20.5
IDTS 25 4 8.01 457.3 652 4.9 340 130 0.61 19.9
IDTS 26 4 8.01 457.3 652 4.9 340 90 0.61 19.8
IDTS 27 4 8.01 457.3 652 4.92 420 120 0.61 21.3
IDTS 28 5 7.92 457.3 580 4.9 110 90 0.62 23.2
IDTS 29 5 7.92 457.3 580 4.95 130 170 0.63 23.4
IDTS 30 5 7.92 457.3 580 4.93 320 120 0.62 21.1

4
S.S. Mousavi and A.S. Moghaddam Engineering Failure Analysis 109 (2020) 104284

Fig. 1. IDTS 16 after failure [8].

Fig. 2. IDTS 16 before failure [8].

Fig. 3. IDTS 16 top view (sketch) [8].

Fig. 4. IDTS 16 side view (sketch) [8].

5
S.S. Mousavi and A.S. Moghaddam Engineering Failure Analysis 109 (2020) 104284

Table 5
Calculation of burst pressure (MPa) based on different revision of ASME B 31G.
Specimen Burst Pressure (MPa) Burst Pressure Burst Pressure - Revision 2012 Burst Pressure - Revision 2012 - Level 1 Burst Pressure - Revision 2012
Revision 1991 - - -
(MPa) Level 1 - Modified method Level 2 -
Original method (MPa) Effective Area method
(MPa) (MPa)

IDTS 13 26.6 11.9 22.3 22 20.9

IDTS 14 26.7 6.2 22.9 22.6 21.4
IDTS 15 24 8.9 17.8 16 13.3
IDTS 16 23.4 9.7 17.4 15.2 12.5
IDTS 17 21.2 7.1 9.8 13.9 11.3
IDTS 18 22.7 9.5 17.6 15.4 12.7
IDTS 19 23.3 9.7 17.1 14.8 12.1
IDTS 20 20.8 7.5 10.4 14 11.4
IDTS 21 22.6 9.8 16.7 14.4 11.7
IDTS 22 20.3 9.6 16.9 14.7 11.9
IDTS 23 21.5 7 9.7 14.1 11.4
IDTS 24 20.5 9.9 16.6 14.3 11.5
IDTS 25 19.9 7 9.8 13.8 11.1
IDTS 26 19.8 7 9.8 13.8 11.1
IDTS 27 21.3 7 9.7 13.5 10.7
IDTS 28 23.2 7.5 16.5 15 12.4
IDTS 29 23.4 7.7 15.9 14.2 11.6
IDTS 30 21.1 6 8.3 12 9.6

Fig. 5. Comparison between different burst pressure calculated and laboratory test chart.

1 − 0.85(d/t) ⎤
SF = SFLOW ⎡
⎢
⎣ 1 − 0.85(d/t)/M ⎥
⎦ (12)

2.2.2. Level 2
This level of assessment is named “Effective Area Assessment”, and the failure pressure in this method is obtained by calculating
and estimating the corrosion rate.

1 − A/A0 ⎤
SF = SFLOW ⎡
⎢
⎣ 1 − (A/A0)/M ⎥
⎦ (13)

A: local area of metal loss in the longitudinal plane

A0: Local original metal area: L * t

It should be noted that in these standards, defects that are spaced three times the nominal pipe thickness are considered in-
dividually and examined separately.

6
S.S. Mousavi and A.S. Moghaddam Engineering Failure Analysis 109 (2020) 104284

Table 6
Pressure error (%) of different revision of ASME B 31G based on laboratory burst pressure.
Specimen Burst Pressure (MPa) Pressure Error Pressure Error- Pressure Error - Revision 2012 - Level 1 - Pressure Error - Revision 2012 -
Revision 1991 Revision 2012- Modified method Level 2 -
Level 1 - Effective Area method
Original method

IDTS 13 26.6 55.4 16.1 17.4 21.4

IDTS 14 26.7 76.6 14.1 15.4 19.8
IDTS 15 24 63 25.8 33.2 44.4
IDTS 16 23.4 58.7 25.8 35.1 46.8
IDTS 17 21.2 66.6 53.6 34.2 46.9
IDTS 18 22.7 58.4 22.6 32 44.3
IDTS 19 23.3 58.3 26.7 36.3 48.1
IDTS 20 20.8 64.1 50.1 32.8 45.1
IDTS 21 22.6 56.7 26.2 36.2 48.2
IDTS 22 20.3 52.7 16.8 27.8 41.3
IDTS 23 21.5 67.4 54.8 34.4 46.9
IDTS 24 20.5 51.9 19.1 30.5 43.7
IDTS 25 19.9 64.7 51 30.8 44.3
IDTS 26 19.8 64.5 50.7 30.4 44.1
IDTS 27 21.3 67.2 54.5 36.8 49.6
IDTS 28 23.2 67.5 28.7 35.4 46.4
IDTS 29 23.4 67.1 31.9 39.3 50.3
IDTS 30 21.1 55.4 16.1 17.4 21.4

Fig. 6. Comparison between pressure errors (%) calculated by different methods and revisions of ASME B 31G.

3. Data analysis

In this paper, the results of laboratory tests done by Benjamin et al.’ [7,8] are analyzed and evaluated by the 1991 and 2012
revisions of the standard ASME B31G. In that source, three types of defects are described in Table 2 and were created on 18 pieces of 5
tubes with an external diameter of 457.6 mm (18 in.) with material API 5L X70 and a nominal thickness of 7.9 mm. The mechanical
properties of the laboratory tests for tubes are presented in Table 1 and all 18 pieces have been subjected to laboratory pressure
testing. The number of defects per piece is given in Table 3. The specification of each piece by separation and with the mention of the
laboratory failure pressure is given in Table 4 [7,8].
There are images before and after failure for all pieces and also upper and side view of them are shown [8]. In this paper, images
for IDTS 16 are shown as an example in Figs. 1, 2, 3 and 4.
All the above components are analyzed according to the specifications of defects according to the ASME B31G -1991 and the
different assessment levels of the 2012 revision. The results of calculations presented in Table 5 and Fig. 5. Also, the calculation errors
based on the laboratory failure pressure is also calculated and the results are specified in Table 6 and Fig. 6.

4. Conclusion

Results shown in Tables 5 and 6 present that in about 60% of the specimens, the error of the burst pressure calculated by the
original method of revision 2012 is lower than those from other methods of this revision as well as the revision 1991, and in other
specimens also the burst pressure error calculated by the modified method of revision 2012 has the least error.

7
S.S. Mousavi and A.S. Moghaddam Engineering Failure Analysis 109 (2020) 104284

By reviewing the type of defects, one cannot find a suitable model for estimating the best method, but it is clear that the
calculation error of the original method in the revision 2012 for single defects is about 15%, which shows less difference compared
with other methods of revision 2012 and revision 1991 also. It can also be observed that by increasing the number of defects with
higher depth, the modified method of the revision 2012 presents a relatively lesser error than other methods and the revision 1991
also.
Reviewing the results of the calculations shows that the calculated failure pressure in all revisions of ASME B31G is always less
than the actual failure pressure by laboratory test. The main reason is using the yield stress in design instead of ultimate tensile
strength of the tube material. Also, in design stage (thickness calculation required) of a new pipe system, we will assign a safety factor
at the highest level 72% of the yield strength (Not the ultimate tensile strength). The safety factor is used to be assured of strength of
designed pipe system and not performing plastic behavior of metal. Using this factor will cause to a wide range of error in calculation
of pressure.
In this standard, the interaction of adjacent defects is not well considered, and only the overall dimensions of a group of defects
are used for computation. This can be another one of the main reasons for the relatively large calculation error.
In this standard, the range of plastic material and the behavior of matter in that range, as well as the complexity of the stage of
necking, are not considered. It should be noted, only a circumferential force created in the pipe was considered as a cylindrical cross
section, and the negligence of the axial force created in the pipe generated a large calculation error compared to the actual results. In
the theory of failure, which is closer to real values, all stress components are considered in accordance with the criteria of von Mises
or Tresca.
In the industry, there are a wide variety of errors including measuring errors, human errors, pipe manufacturing errors, material
compositions tolerances, installation and operating errors. This could cause the pipe to fail at lower pressures than the laboratory
failure condition. Therefore, a large computation error, compared to the experimental results, increases the reliability of the pipe and
reduces the risk of an accident. This justifies the increasing usage of this standard.
The formulas presented in these standards (formulas no. 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11 and 12), in order to calculate the fracture pressure,
show the length of the corrosion is inversely effective in calculating the pressure and the highest corrosion depth measured in
calculations is considered. By considering the adjacent imperfections as one defect, while the spacing between adjacent defects are
less than three times the nominal thickness (about 24 mm), the overall length of the defects, taking into account the maximum depth
measured, is greater than that of the defects considered as individual, and this, due to the ratio of the length of the corrosion and the
failure pressure in all of the formulas presented, reduces the calculated failure pressure. In further studies in this field, we can
examine the effect of interaction of defects in detail and compare the results with laboratory test results.

Declaration of Competing Interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to
influence the work reported in this paper.

References

[1] J.F. Kiefner, C.J. Trench, Oil Pipeline Characteristics and Risk Factors: Illustrations from the Decade of Construction, Pipeline Committee, American Petroleum
Institute (API), December 2001.
[2] S. Papavinasam, Corrosion Control in the Oil and Gas Industry, Gulf Professional Publishing, Elsevier, London, UK, 2014.
[3] J.A. Beavers, N.G. Thompson, External corrosion of oil and natural gas pipelines, vol. 13C. ASM International, ASM Handbook, Corrosion: Environments and
Industries, 2006.
[4] P.O. Gartland, R. Johnsen, I. Ovstetun, Application of internal corrosion modeling in the risk assessment of pipelines, Proceedings of the NACE International
Conference CORROSION, (2003).
[5] S. Karuppanan, A.S. Aminudin, A.A. Wahab, Burst pressure estimation of corroded pipeline with interacting defects using Finite Element Analysis, J. Appl. Sci. 12
(24) (2012) 2626–2630.
[6] J.F. Kiefner, P.H. Vieth, A Modified Criterion for Evaluating the Remaining Strength of Corroded Pipe, Battelle, Ohio, Project to the Pipeline Supervisory
Committee of the American Gas Association, Final Report for PR-3-805, 1989.
[7] A.C. Benjamin, J.L.F. Freire, R.D. Vieira, D.J.S. Cunha, Interaction of corrosion defects in pipelines e Part 1: Fundamentals, Int. J. Press. Vessels Pip. 144 (2016)
56–62, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpvp.2016.05.007.
[8] A.C. Benjamin, J.L.F. Freire, R.D. Vieira, D.J.S. Cunha, Interaction of corrosion defects in pipelines Part 2: MTI JIP Database of corroded pipe tests, Int. J. Press.
Vessels Pip. 145 (2016) 41–59, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpvp.2016.06.006.
[9] Anon, ASME B31G-2012-Manual for determining the remaining strength of corroded pipelines e a supplement to ANSI/ASME B31 code for pressure piping,
Revision of ASME B31G-200New York, The American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 2012.
[10] Anon, ASME B31G-1991-Manual for determining the remaining strength of corroded pipelines e a supplement to ANSI/ASME B31 code for pressure piping, New
York: The American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 1991.