Proceedings of IPC 2006:

6th International Pipeline Conference

September 25-29, 2006, Calgary, Alberta Canada

IPC2006-10181

ANALYSIS OF CRACK-LIKE FLAWS AND RELATIVE RANKING OF PIPELINE

SEGMENTS FOR PRIORITIZING MITIGATION EFFORTS

J. A. Beavers, C. J. Maier
C. E. Jaske, T. A. Bubenik
CC Technologies, Inc.
5777 Frantz Road
Dublin, OH 43017-1386 USA
Phone: (614) 761-1214 Fax: (614) 761-1633
jbeavers@cctechnologies.com or
cjaske@cctechnologies.com

ABSTRACT When crack-like flaws are discovered or the possibility of

In integrity management programs, crack-like indications
are sometimes detected on pipelines by means of hydrostatic
testing, direct examination, or in-line inspection. Many of
these are non-injurious mill defects while some might undergo
time dependent growth. Mechanisms for growth include
fatigue, corrosion fatigue, and stress corrosion cracking. The
cyclic pressure fluctuations typically present on operating
pipelines affect all three mechanisms of crack growth. This
paper describes several methods for assessing the remaining
life of pipeline segments containing growing defects.
INTRODUCTION
In integrity management programs, crack like indications
are sometimes detected on pipelines by means of hydrostatic
testing, direct examination, or in-line inspection. In the case of
hydrostatic testing or direct examination, these indications are
typically removed from the pipeline. However, to be
conservative, it should be assumed that similar but less severe
defects are still present following an effective integrity
assessment. These crack-like defects can result from
fabrication or exposure to service conditions. Lack of fusion,
toe cracks, and hook cracks at welds are examples of typical
crack-like flaws caused by fabrication. Mechanical damage
defects, stress corrosion cracking (SCC), fatigue, and corrosion
fatigue are examples of defects that can form in service. In
some cases, SCC, fatigue, or corrosion fatigue cracks can
initiate from the preexisting fabrication or mechanical damage
defects.
their presence must be addressed, engineering critical
assessment (ECA) is employed to evaluate the potential for
crack growth and pipeline failure. ECA uses engineering
fracture mechanics models to predict failure when crack-like
flaws are present. ECA must consider the potential for crack
growth by SCC, fatigue, and corrosion fatigue during future
service. For a pipeline under internal pressure, failure can
occur either by a crack growing through the wall until a leak
occurs or by sudden rupture of a critical size crack. The
sudden rupture can occur either because the crack is
sufficiently large to cause failure at the operating pressure or
because the loading condition increases to a level that causes a
previously sub-critical crack to become critical. Sudden
rupture or crack instability can be governed either by the
pipeline steel’s strength or by its fracture toughness, whichever
results in the lower failure load, or smaller critical crack size.
Both surface cracks (non-leaks) and through-wall cracks
(leaks) can reach a point of instability where sudden rupture
occurs.
This paper describes several methods for assessing the
remaining life of pipeline segments containing defects that are
growing by fatigue, corrosion fatigue, or SCC.
NOMENCLATURE
Ac = Net cross-sectional area of Charpy specimen.
CVN = Charpy impact energy for full-size specimen
C = Paris Law coefficient
d = crack depth

1 Copyright © 2006 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/conferences/ipc2006/71482/ on 02/12/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/ab

 da/dN = cyclic crack-growth rate pipe segments containing defects. Assumptions must be made
DSAW = double submerged arc weld concerning the initial size of these defects. This can be based
ECA = engineering critical assessment on ILI or dig data or previous hydrostatic tests. Burst pressure
dε/dt = crack tip strain rate models are used to determine the final flaw size at failure. The
f = cyclic pressure frequency remaining life is determined using a Paris Law [1] approach to
IFM = inelastic fracture mechanics calculate the time required for the flaw to grow from the initial
J = J integral size to the size that is sufficient to cause failure. Further details
Jc = J fracture toughness of these steps are given below.
Kmax = maximum stress intensity factor
L = crack length Rainflow Cycle Counting
m = Paris Law exponent Simplified rainflow cycle counting is used to analyze
MOP = maximum operating pressure operating pressure data. This method of cycle counting is
ni = number of cycles in ith bin of rainflow analysis of described in the ASTM standard E1049, Standard Practices for
stress amplitude Sai Cycle Counting in Fatigue Analysis [2]. The simplified
Nfi = number of cycles to failure at stress amplitude Sai rainflow cycle counting method is applicable to repeating load
OD = outside diameter histories and considers only full cycles, where each cycle can
Pmax = maximum pressure be associated with a closed stress-strain hysteresis loop.
ΔP = pressure range Alternatively, the non-simplified rainflow cycle counting
R = pressure or stress ratio; the ratio of minimum to method assumes a non-repeating load history and considers
maximum pressure or stress half cycles (a pressure increase with no corresponding decrease
S = Stress range or vice-versa). The two methods produce similar results, as
SCC = stress corrosion cracking described in ASTM E1049. A proprietary routine was
SMYS = specified minimum yield strength developed that was based on the simplified method, but also
S-N = method for calculating fatigue life for unflawed includes frequency calculations that are not contained in the
structures ASTM procedure. The frequency information is used in the
t = wall thickness SCC growth rate analysis, as described below.
ΔK = stress intensity factor range Rainflow counting historically was developed to relate
ΔKth = threshold stress intensity factor range variable amplitude strain histories to constant amplitude fatigue
ΔP = cyclic pressure range data. Under nominally elastic conditions, the strain amplitude
v = crack velocity can be directly related to the stress amplitude. Currently, the
technique is widely used to relate variable amplitude fatigue
FATIGUE LIFE ASSESSMENT loading to constant amplitude fatigue data. In typical pipeline
A fatigue life assessment is performed to estimate the life applications, rainflow counting is applied to a representative
of defects that are capable of growing by a fatigue mechanism. pressure fluctuation history to produce cycle counts for a series
As described above, these can include fabrication, mechanical of pressure ranges. The pressure ranges are then converted to
damage, or SCC defects. On underground pipelines, fatigue stress ranges using the Barlow formula. The pressure history
cracks typically do not initiate away from welds in the absence analyzed is usually for a discrete period of operation, such as
of pre-existing defects. In the case of SCC, it is common for one month or one year and is typically supplied in the form of
shallow cracks to initiate and propagate by an SCC mechanism pressure records from pump or compressor discharge or suction
until they reach a size at which the fatigue crack growth rate locations. The pressure history at locations along the pipeline
exceeds the SCC growth rate. The size at which this can be estimated by interpolation of the data obtained at the
conversion occurs is dependent on the severity (magnitude and pump or compressor locations.
frequency) of the cyclic loading on the pipeline. Liquid Since multiple pressure histories are typically available for
pipelines typically experience more severe cyclic loading than a pipeline segment, it is necessary to select one history at each
gas pipelines and defects are more prone to growth by a fatigue point (discharge or suction/line) as representative of current
mechanism in liquid pipelines than in gas pipelines. pipeline operations. The selection process typically considers
A fatigue assessment of a pipeline begins with a the possibility of seasonal fluctuations as well as the time
characterization of the loading spectrum. This spectrum is then interval between pressure recordings. In other words, a longer
used to assess the fatigue life. The simplest method to perform history is desirable to capture any seasonal fluctuations and a
this assessment is to assume that there is no initial defect shorter time interval between readings is desirable to accurately
present (S-N method). This approach might give unreasonably capture the pressure cycles that occur. Non-conservative
long estimates of fatigue life but can be used to compare estimates of SCC or fatigue life can be obtained where the
different pipelines or segments of pipelines for subsequent interval between readings is too long to capture significant
remedial actions. A more accurate, but more complicated, pressure cycles.
assessment involves the determination of the remaining life of

2 Copyright © 2006 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/conferences/ipc2006/71482/ on 02/12/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/ab

 The pressure data are prepared for cycle counting by
filtering to remove values not at a reversal point (a reversal is a
point where the pressure changes direction from increasing to
decreasing, or vice versa). The cycle counts are tabulated into
bins ranging from 0 to the maximum pressure in discrete bins
in increments corresponding to 5 to 10% of the maximum
pressure. A typical example is shown in Figure 1. The results
of the cycle counting are then used to perform the fatigue life
calculations, with the assumption that the pressure histories
provided are representative of the future pipeline operating
conditions.
Fatigue Life Calculations Involving No Initial Defect –
S-N Method Nomenclature
The simplest method of fatigue assessment, the S-N
Method, is based on total life of structures containing growing
fatigue cracks. This method assumes that there is no initial
defect. Fatigue curves (related to the stress amplitude and
number of cycles to failure) produced from laboratory data are
used to establish the number of cycles to failure as a function of
stress amplitude. Input data for the calculation include the
results of the cycle counting, pipe outside diameter (OD),
nominal wall thickness, elastic modulus of the pipe steel, and a
fatigue curve for the pipe material. A design fatigue curve can
be obtained from Appendix F of API Recommended Practice
579 on Fitness-for-Service [3]. Alternatively, pipeline specific
data can be obtained from laboratory fatigue testing. The
design curves correspond to the number of cycles that can be
applied before the probability of survival (non-failure) drops
below 98% (i.e. two standard deviations). For comparison
purposes, (e.g., comparing pipeline segments) the design
curves can be used directly, whereas the design curves must be
adjusted by two standard deviations for actual life prediction.
The design curves for smooth unwelded test specimens (base
metal) and full penetration butt weld specimens are shown in
Figure 2. A full penetration butt weld is representative of a
double submerged arc weld (DSAW) on a pipeline. The values
of stress range (S) are calculated values (strain range X the
elastic modulus) for strain controlled tests.
In the remaining fatigue life calculations, the fatigue
damage is calculated for each pressure range based on the
number of cycles counted within that pressure range. Using a
modified version of Miner’s rule and the individual fatigue
damage components, the number of blocks (years) to failure is
calculated (one block is the length of time captured in the
pressure history).
m strength (SMYS) and at the maximum operating pressure
ni
∑N
i =1
= Damage / Block
fi
Where ni is the number of cycles corresponding to the ith bin
of constant stress amplitude Sai in a sequence of m bins and Nfi
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/conferences/ipc2006/71482/ on 02/12/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/ab
is the number of cycles to failure at that stress amplitude, Sai.
The number of blocks to failure is simply 1/damage per block.
The S/N method generally predicts a longer remaining life
than the Paris Law method because the S/N method assumes a
flawless material and the time required for crack initiation is
considered. Nevertheless, this approach can be used in
integrity management programs to rank valve sections or
different pipelines.
Life Prediction – Estimating Initial and Critical Flaw
Sizes
For pipelines containing pre-existing flaws, a burst
pressure model, such as that found in Section 9 of API 579 [3],
the NG-18 log-secant equation [4], or CorLASTM [5], must be
used to predict critical flaw sizes for failure. All such validated
methods will give essentially similar though not necessarily
identical results. CorLAS™ was used in the example provided
in this paper. It was developed by CC Technologies and
calculates burst pressures and critical flaw dimensions for
crack-like defects. This model incorporates well-established
and proven methodologies. The effective area method [6] is
used for flow-strength analysis and IFM is used for fracture
mechanics analysis (evaluation of surface and through-wall
cracks).
For crack-like defects, both flow strength and fracture
toughness failure criteria are considered. The flow strength
failure stress (determined using the effective area method) and
the fracture toughness dependent failure stress (determined
using inelastic fracture mechanics (IFM)) are evaluated, and the
lower of these two values is then predicted to be the actual
failure stress (pressure) of the pipeline for a given flaw. For the
fracture mechanics analysis, the surface crack is typically
approximated by a semi-elliptical profile.
For the IFM calculations, values of the critical J integral
(JC) are rarely available for pipeline steels and therefore, they
are estimated from the Charpy (CVN in ft-lbs) data using the
following relation:
JC = 12 CVN / AC (2)
Where AC is the net cross-sectional area of the Charpy
specimen in units of in2, JC is in units of in-lb/in2 and 12 is a
unit conversion factor. Past work has shown that Equation (2)
provides accurate predictions of fracture toughness for pipeline
steels [4, 7, 8, 9].
The burst pressure models generate a series of failure
curves showing the critical length as a function of depth and
pressure. Typical curves at 100% of specified minimum yields
(1)
(MOP) of 72% of SMYS are shown in Figure 3 for a 610 mm
(24 inch) diameter × 6.35 mm (0.25 inch) wall thickness
pipeline with the minimum mechanical properties given in
Table 1. Flaws falling below the curve, at the respective
pressure, are predicted to survive while flaws falling above the
curve are predicted to fail.
3 Copyright © 2006 by ASME
 The initial flaw dimensions (flaw length and depth) are and final failure; Regions A, B, and C, respectively. The Paris
selected for the remaining life calculation. These dimensions Law region corresponds to Region B, where the cyclic crack
can be based on previous hydrostatic test history or results of growth rate is directly proportional to the range of stress
ILI or direct assessments. In situations where the prior intensity factor. The Paris Law [1, 10] can be expressed as:
hydrostatic test is used to calculate the initial flaw size, the
length versus critical depth curves for the minimum hydrostatic da
test pressures in the pipe segments are used. In some cases, the = C (ΔK) m (3)
remaining life analysis is performed for a single typical length dN
and depth. The length is selected to be longer than the
where C and m are constants that depend on material and
leak/rupture length at MOP and is a reasonable estimate of the
environment. Values for ΔK are calculated assuming a semi-
lengths of flaws that could impact integrity on the pipeline,
elliptical surface crack [11, 12]. The values of C and m can be
based on prior experience. For the minimum mechanical
found for carbon (pipeline) steels in Appendix F of API 579 [3]
properties shown in Table 1, the length versus rupture length at
or can be measured in laboratory tests of the pipeline steel.
MOP is 53 mm (2.1 inches), based on CorLASTM. This length
The input data for the fatigue life calculation are the
increases to 81 mm (3.2 inches) at MOP for the average
rainflow cycle counting results and the results of the critical
properties. In the example shown in Figure 3, a 100 mm long
flaw size calculations described above. In the calculations, the
flaw, 2.3 mm deep would have survived the initial hydrostatic
flaw is grown from the present estimated size, based on a
test and could grow in service approximately 2 mm before
recent hydrostatic test, ILI or dig data, to the critical size at
causing failure at MOP.
MOP. Each pressure cycle contributes an increment of growth
Above the leak/rupture length, the spacing between the
based on Equation 3 and the growth is summed for a block of
curves, and therefore the predicted remaining growth or life,
cycles, typically one month to one year. The increased flaw
can increase or decrease slightly with increasing length,
dimensions are then fed back into the analysis for the
depending on the mechanical properties. Fortunately, this
calculations of flaw growth for the next block. This feedback
effect is typically not large for reasonable flaw lengths, as
is necessary because ΔK increases with increasing flaw depth
shown in Figure 4.
for a constant value of the pressure range ΔP.
In performing the remaining life calculation, it also is
In some cases, it is possible for a pressure history to
typically assumed that the crack-like defect will grow in depth
contain a large number of small pressure cycles (commonly
but not in length. This is done to simplify the analysis but is
caused by frequent fluctuations of several psi). Normally, the
supported by the burst pressure models and field experience.
smallest pressure cycles (i.e., <50 psi) produce negligible
For long shallow flaws that typically are associated with
fatigue damage. However, a significant number of small
rupture of pipelines, the J integral or K of the crack is not
pressure cycles can have a disproportionately negative impact
significantly affected by growth in the length direction.
on the calculated fatigue results.
While it might seem counter intuitive, the more
In order to manage the impact of small pressure cycles on
conservative approach to calculate the initial flaw size based on
the fatigue results, a threshold value for the range in stress
hydrostatic test data is to use average, not minimum,
intensity factor (ΔK) can be incorporated in the analysis. The
mechanical properties. This is because a larger flaw can
threshold value, designated as ΔKth in Figure 6, represents a
survive a hydrostatic test in a pipe segment that has higher
value of ΔK where the crack growth rate (da/dN) approaches
mechanical properties, and the amount of growth necessary for
zero. The threshold value is intended to be a practical
this flaw to fail is less than is the case for a pipe segment that
characterization of the resistance to crack growth in the near-
has minimum properties. This effect is shown in Figure 5,
threshold regime. API RP579 includes a threshold that is
which is a comparison of the remaining growth for the
applicable to weld material and is defined as 2 MPa√m
minimum and average mechanical properties shown in Table 1,
(1.8 ksi√inch). This value is conservative for base metal since
assuming that the initial flaw size is estimated from the
the threshold value for parent material is generally higher. In
hydrostatic test at 100% of SMYS.
applying this threshold, any computed ΔK value less than
2 MPa√m (1.8 ksi√inch) is not considered to contribute to
Fatigue Life Calculations for Pre-Existing Defects –
fatigue damage and additional crack growth. Care should be
Paris Law Method
exercised in applying a threshold value of ΔK to a fatigue life
The Paris Law Method is used to evaluate crack
assessment. While a ΔKth is generally observable in laboratory
propagation from the present size to failure. The Paris law
data, it might not exist in actual pipeline operation. For
relates the cyclic crack growth rate (da/dN) to the range of
example, the measured threshold might simply represent a
stress intensity factor (ΔK). The range of stress intensity factor,
detection limit for cracking in the laboratory tests. Therefore,
ΔK, is an elastic fracture mechanics parameter relating to the
the use of a ΔKth generally requires some type of validation.
cyclic stress and crack size and is the driving force for crack
growth. Figure 6 is a plot showing three fatigue crack growth
regimes, near threshold cracking, crack propagation (growth),

4 Copyright © 2006 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/conferences/ipc2006/71482/ on 02/12/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/ab

 SCC INITIATION ASSESSMENT
High tensile stresses contribute to the initiation of SCC.
Industry guidelines suggest that SCC susceptibility is highest
for stress levels above 60% of the SMYS [13]. On that basis,
segments of a pipeline can be ranked based on the percentage
of time that they operate above 60% of SMYS.
A computer algorithm was developed for liquid pipelines
that enables the determination of the percentage of time that
each 5% increment of a given section of pipeline (based upon
the length of pipeline being assessed) operated at a stress level
> 60% SMYS. The algorithm uses as input in its calculations
historic pressure data and the right-of-way elevation profile
data for the respective sections of pipeline.
The discharge pressure history from the upstream pump
station and the suction or line pressure history from the
downstream pump station or delivery point are aligned based
on time stamps. Approximations are used, since most
discharge and suction pressure values are typically not recorded
simultaneously. Additionally, elevation profile data are
obtained for each segment.
Based on the aligned pressure data and elevation profiles,
the algorithm is used to calculate the percentage of time that
each 5% increment of a given section of pipeline operated at a
stress level > 60% SMYS. This calculation is performed for
the pipeline segments and the segments are ranked accordingly.
This ranking can be used in integrity management programs to
prioritize segments based on susceptibility to SCC.
NEAR NEUTRAL PH SCC GROWTH RATE
ASSESSMENT
As part of an integrity assessment, the rainflow cycle
counting process can be used to estimate the maximum near
neutral pH SCC growth rate for each segment. As described
above, standard rainflow counting algorithms are inadequate
for the SCC assessment because they do not capture the
frequency information required. The fatigue growth analysis
calculates the damage per cycle, which is independent of the
frequency. The SCC growth analysis calculates the amount of
SCC growth based on the crack tip strain rate (dε/dt), which is
frequency dependent.
The modified cycle counting program described previously
is capable of determining the frequency associated with each
pressure cycle that is counted. The cyclic frequency (f) is used
in conjunction with the R-ratio (R) to calculate a parameter that
is related to the average crack tip strain rate, as demonstrated in
previous SCC research by Beavers [14]:
dε ∝ 4 f (1 − R)
dt
In this research, a relationship between the product f(1-R)
and crack velocity (v), was shown. A modified version of this
relationship, based on analysis performed after the initial
research is :
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/conferences/ipc2006/71482/ on 02/12/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/ab
0.515
⎛ ⎞
ν = 1.98 ⋅10 −6 ⋅ ⎜ 4 f (1 − R) ⎟ (5)
⎝ ⎠
The data used in the analysis are the average velocities
over the first 30 days of testing. The SCC crack growth tests
were performed on pre cracked compact tension specimens of
several similar API 5L X65 line pipe steels. The test was
design to address large flaws in a pipeline that just survived a
hydrostatic test at 110% of SMYS and then operated at an
MAOP of 78% of SMYS. Figure 7 shows the actual data from
which the correlation was obtained. While there is significant
scatter in the data, the trend is clearly evident. Figure 8 shows
the same set of data plotted as fatigue data. This figure shows
that the phenomenon is clearly different from corrosion fatigue.
It is generally accepted that the SCC growth only occurs
during the rising load portion of the cycle. Therefore, the crack
velocity during the rising load portion of the cycle is taken as
twice the average for damage calculations.
0.515
⎛ ⎞
ν = 3.96 ⋅10 −6 ⋅ ⎜ 4 f (1 − R) ⎟ (6)
⎝ ⎠
In the rainflow analysis, the crack tip strain rate and duration
for each rising load cycle are counted. The amount of crack
growth for each half cycle is determined using Equation 6 to
calculate the total SCC growth for a given period of time. The
SCC growth rate during this time period is the SCC growth
divided by that time period.
The SCC growth rate calculation method is based on
experimental data for an aggressive environment. The
calculations are considered conservative for most cases because
(1) the test environment contained a higher CO2 concentration
than is typically found at SCC sites, (2) SCC growth rates
generally decreased with time [14], and (3) the tests were based
on pressure fluctuations from MOP (the maximum range of
loading for actual conditions). The calculations can be non-
conservative in cases where a very aggressive environment
exists or the stress is accentuated (i.e., magnified due to pipe
ovality or dents). The analytical approach also does not apply
to high-pH SCC. Unfortunately, laboratory data have not been
generated to develop a correlation between pressure cycling
and the growth rate of high pH stress corrosion cracks.
DISCUSSION
The procedures for fatigue life assessment described in this
paper are relatively standard procedures used throughout
(4)
industry. A challenge in applying these techniques to high
pressure pipelines lies in obtaining accurate pressure histories
for the pipelines. Data taken infrequently might miss large
pressure cycles, especially for liquid pipelines. Furthermore,
these histories might not be representative of future operation,
limiting the predictive capability of the technique. Additional
challenges include obtaining accurate mechanical property
data, especially for older pipelines, and in determining the
population of existing defects that could grow by a fatigue
5 Copyright © 2006 by ASME
 mechanism. Given these limitations, the best use of these 8. Jaske, C. E., Beavers, J. A. and Harle, B. A., “Effect of
fatigue life assessments is in ranking pipeline segments for Stress-Corrosion Cracking on Integrity and Remaining
integrity management purposes; unless all aspects of the model Life of Natural Gas Pipelines,” Paper No. 255, Corrosion
have been benchmarked against known failures in the same or 96, NACE International, Houston, 1996.
similar pipeline system. 9. Jaske, C. E. and Beavers, J. A., “Fitness-for-Service
The SCC growth analysis described is a new tool to assist Evaluation of Pipelines in Ground-Water Environments,”
the pipeline industry in managing this serious integrity threat PRCI Paper 12, PRCI/EPRG 11th Biennial Joint Technical
and is based on probably one of the largest databases of Meeting on Line Pipe Research, Arlington, Virginia, April
laboratory crack growth rate tests available. Nevertheless, 8-10, 1997.
given the limitations in the input data, as described above, and 10. Paris, P. C., “The Growth of Cracks Due to Variations in
the expected variations in the potency of field SCC Load,” Ph.D. Dissertation, Lehigh University, PA, 1962.
environments, the method should only be used for ranking 11. Jaske, C. E., “Damage Accumulation by Crack Growth
purposes. Under Combined Creep and Fatigue,” Ph.D. Dissertation,
Developments are continuing to improve the predictive The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, 1984.
capabilities of the fatigue and SCC modeling. With respect to 12. Jaske, C. E., “Estimation of the C* Integral for Creep-
the former, recent laboratory fatigue test results on line pipe Crack-Growth Test Specimens,” The Mechanism of
steels have shown a significant mean stress effect on fatigue Fracture, ASM International, Materials Park, OH, pp. 577-
crack growth rates. This behavior indicates that the current 586, 1986.
analysis is non-conservative for the common high R ratio 13. Standard Recommended Practice RP-02-04, “Stress
pressure cycles on operating pipelines. Accordingly, Corrosion Cracking Direct Assessment Methodology,”
modifications to the Paris Law approach are being developed NACE International, Houston TX, 2004.
[15]. With respect to the SCC modeling, the opposite is the 14. Beavers, J. A., “Near-Neutral pH SCC: Dormancy and Re-
case. The current model correlation predicts the same crack Initiation of Stress Corrosion Cracks,” Final Report – GRI
growth rate regardless of the maximum pressure in the cycle. Contract 7045, Gas Research Institute, 2003.
Modifications to the model are being considered to adjust for 15. Jaske, C. E., “Assessment of Pipeline Fatigue Crack-
effects of the maximum pressure on the stress range and Growth Life,” Paper IPC06-10155, Proceedings of the
thereby reduce the excessive conservatism in the current model. 2006 ASME International Pipeline Conference, The
American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New, York,
REFERENCES 2006.
1. Paris, P. C., Gomez, M. P., and Anderson, W. E., “A
Rational Analytic Theory of Fatigue,” The Trend in
Engineering, Vol. 13, No. 1, pp. 9-14, 1961.
2. ASTM E1049-85, Standard Practices for Cycle Counting
in Fatigue Analysis, American Society for Testing and
Materials, Philadelphia, PA, 1990.
3. API Recommended Practice 579, Fitness-for-Service,
American Petroleum Institute, Washington, D.C., 2000.
4. 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 of Testing and
Materials, Philadelphia, PA, 1973, pp. 461-481.
5. Jaske, C. E., CorLASTM User Manual, CC Technologies
Systems, Inc., Dublin, Ohio, 1995.
6. Kiefner, J. F. and Vieth, P. H., “The Remaining Strength of
Corroded Pipe,” Paper 29, Proceedings of the Eighth
Symposium on Line Pipe Research, A.G.A. Catalog No.
L51680, American Gas Association, Inc., Arlington, Va,
1993.
7. Jaske, C. E., and Beavers, J. A., “Effect of Corrosion and
Stress-Corrosion Cracking on Pipe Integrity and
Remaining Life,” Proceedings of the Second International
Symposium on the Mechanical Integrity of Process Piping,
MTI Publication No. 48, Materials Technology Institute of
the Chemical Process Industries, Inc., St. Louis, 1996, pp.
287-297.

6 Copyright © 2006 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/conferences/ipc2006/71482/ on 02/12/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/ab

 1000.0

306.1
249.9

106.9
Annual Number of Pressure Cycles

85.8
100.0

37.2 42.1
28.8

10.5
10.0

1.0 0.6

0.1
150 300 450 600 750 900 1050 1200 1350
Cyclic Pressure Range, kPa

Fig. 1 Typical histogram showing the results of rainflow cycle counting for one segment of a
product pipeline– Scaled to represent 1 year of service.

100000

Full Penetration Butt Weld

10000 Base Metal
Stress Range, S (MPa)

1000

100

10

1
1.E+02 1.E+03 1.E+04 1.E+05 1.E+06 1.E+07 1.E+08 1.E+09
Number of Cycles, N

Fig. 2 Design fatigue curves for smooth unwelded and welded low carbon steel specimens based
on fully reversed cyclic tests (R = -1) [3].

7 Copyright © 2006 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/conferences/ipc2006/71482/ on 02/12/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/ab

 7
72% SMYS
100% SMYS
6

5 Failure
Flaw Depth, mm

No Failure
1

0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Flaw Length, mm

Fig. 3 Critical flaw depth as a function of length and pressure for a 610 mm (24 inch) diameter
X 6.35 mm (0.25 inch) wall thickness pipeline with minimum properties shown in Table 1.
7

5
Remaining Growth, mm

4
Leak Rupture

0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450
Initial Flaw Length, mm

Fig. 4 Remaining growth at MOP of 72% of SMYS as a function of initial flaw length for
defects surviving a hydrostatic test at 100% of SMYS; 610 mm (24 inch) diameter × 6.35
mm (0.25 inch) wall thickness pipeline with minimum properties shown in Table 1.

8 Copyright © 2006 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/conferences/ipc2006/71482/ on 02/12/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/ab

 2.5

100 mm Long Flaws

2 200 mm Long Flaws

Remaining Growth, mm

1.5

0.5

0
Minimum Average
Mechanical Properties

Fig. 5 Remaining growth at MOP of 72% of SMYS as a function of mechanical properties and
initial flaw length for defects surviving a hydrostatic test at 100% of SMYS; 610 mm (24
inch) diameter × 6.35 mm (0.25 inch) wall thickness pipeline with properties shown in
Table 1.

Final
Region A Region B Failure

da/dN=C(ΔK)n
da/dN
Region C

ΔKth

Log (ΔK)
Fig. 6 Fatigue crack growth regimes represented as the cyclic crack growth rate (da/dN) as a
function of the range in stress intensity factor (ΔK).

9 Copyright © 2006 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/conferences/ipc2006/71482/ on 02/12/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/ab

 1.E-04

1.E-05

5.15E-01
y = 1.98E-06x
Crack Velocity, mm/s

1.E-06

1.E-07

1.E-08

1.E-09

1.E-10
1.E-06 1.E-05 1.E-04 1.E-03 1.E-02 1.E-01 1.E+00
Crack Tip Strain Rate, sec-1

Fig. 7 Crack velocity as a function of pseudo crack velocity (4f [1-R]) for SCC tests of several
X65 line pipe steels in a near neutral pH cracking environment at 35 C. The tests were
performed on pre-cracked compact tension specimens under constant maximum loaded
with a typical maximum K value of 55 MPa√m [after Reference 14].

1.E-02

1.E-03
Crack Velocity, mm/cycle

1.E-04

1.E-05

1.E-06

1.E-07
1 10 100
ΔK, MPa√m

Fig. 8 SCC crack velocity shown in Figure 7, plotted as fatigue data.

10 Copyright © 2006 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/conferences/ipc2006/71482/ on 02/12/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/ab

 Table 1 Mechanical properties used in failure prediction curves.

Properties Grade Yield Strength UTS CVN

Minimum 359 (X52) 359 MPa (52 ksi) 455 MPa (66 ksi) 20.3 J (15 ft-lbs)
Average 359 (X52) 407 MPa (59 ksi) 503 MPa (73 ksi) 47.5 J (35 ft-lbs)

11 Copyright © 2006 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/conferences/ipc2006/71482/ on 02/12/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/ab