Proceedings of the ASME 2022 13th International Pipeline Conference
IPC2022
MODIFICATION OF EXISTING PIPELINE CORROSION ASSESSMENT METHODS FOR
COMBINED INTERNAL PRESSURE AND COMPRESSIVE LOADING – AN UPDATE
Chris Owens Angus Patterson
ROSEN Canada ROSEN UK
Calgary, UK Newcastle, UK
Andy Russell
ROSEN UK
Newcastle, UK
ABSTRACT
Corrosion anomalies in pipelines are typically assessed
using methods such as ASME B31G. These methods were
developed to consider the axial extent and depth of the anomaly
in relation to internal pressure loading only. For the majority of
pipelines internal pressure will be the primary loading; however,
pipelines can also be subject to additional axial compressive
stresses (e.g. thermal stresses). When these additional axial
compressive stresses become significant, they can interact with
the applied internal pressure to lower the failure pressure of the
anomaly. ASME B31G, which now incorporates Modified B31G
and Detailed RStreng, acknowledges the need to account for
significant axial compressive stresses but it does not include a
codified procedure to account for combined loading.
This paper considers an approach to modify these widely
used existing assessment methods in order to account for the
potential effects of combined loading. The approach used to
modify the methods was based on the global collapse method
developed for DNVGL-RP-F101, which uses the Tresca yield
criterion. To validate that the modified assessment methods
would provide safe failure pressure predictions, the results were
compared against existing full-scale test data. This was further
supported by carrying out finite element analysis (FEA)
simulations to estimate plastic collapse and local failure
pressures, in order to consider the impact of different corrosion
profiles on predictions using effective area calculations.
This work follows on from a previous paper and includes
additional FEA simulations to consider the influence of the
loading order on the failure pressure. In addition, a case study is
presented showing the potential benefit of using an effective area
method when compressive loading is significant.
September 26-30, 2022, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
IPC2022-87090
Arlene Arias Alex Brett
ROSEN UK ROSEN UK
Newcastle, UK Newcastle, UK
Keywords: Corrosion assessment, compressive combined
loading
NOMENCLATURE
t Pipe wall thickness
d Depth of the metal loss
Q Length correction factor (or Folias factor)
TS Material tensile strength
D Outside diameter
c Circumferential length (or ‘width’)
1. INTRODUCTION
Corrosion anomalies in pipelines are typically assessed
using methods such as ASME B31G [1]. These methods were
developed to assess corrosion anomalies in terms of their axial
extent and depth, in relation to internal pressure loading only. For
the majority of pipelines internal pressure will be the primary
loading; however, pipelines can also be subject to additional
loading including axial (longitudinal) compressive stresses.
Sources of pipeline axial compressive stresses include
ground movement, seismic activity, frost heave and bending; e.g.
subsea freespans due to seabed scour or unsupported pipe
sections at crossings. Depending on the restraint conditions,
pipelines operating at elevated temperatures can also be subject
to additional axial compressive loading due to thermal
expansion. If these additional axial compressive stresses become
significant, they can interact with the applied internal pressure
and lower the failure pressure of a corrosion anomaly.
Consequently, unless compressive loading is taken into account,
remaining strength assessments can sometimes give non-
conservative results.
1 © 2022 by ASME
 ASME B31G acknowledges for pipelines subject to
significant axial compressive stresses, these need to be
accounted for but it does not include a codified procedure to
account for combined loading – the user is instead directed to
other ‘more comprehensive’ methods.
Other assessment methods are available that have been
specifically developed to assess corrosion subject to combined
internal pressure and compressive loading, due to an axial force
or a bending moment. The combined loading assessment method
included within DNVGL-RP-F101 (DNVGL hereafter) [2][3] is
the most widely used in the industry and is also recommended
by PDAM2 [4]. This method considers global collapse and uses
a Tresca yield criterion. Alternative methods include an approach
developed by the Southwest Research Institute (SwRI) [5], the
‘RPA-PLLC’ method [6] developed by Petrobras (based on the
DNVGL method) and the biaxial method (failure locus
diagrams) developed by Germanischer Lloyd (GL) [7][8] as part
of a project funded by Pipeline Research Council International,
Inc. (PRCI).
Since Modified B31G and Detailed RStreng (an effective
area method that considers the corrosion profilei) are widely used
in the industryii, this paper presents an approach to modify these
assessment methods, based on the global collapse method
developed by DNVGL, to allow them to be used to assess
corrosion subject to combined internal pressure and compressive
loading. To validate that the proposed modified assessment
methods provide safe failure pressure predictions, the results
were compared against existing full-scale test data. This was
further supported by carrying out finite element analysis (FEA)
simulations to estimate plastic collapse and local failure
pressures (based on API 579 Level 3 assessment procedures), in
order to consider the impact of different corrosion profiles on
predictions using effective area calculations. It is noted that this
work follows on from a previous paper [9] and includes
additional FEA simulations to consider the influence of the
loading order on the failure pressure. In addition, a case study is
presented showing the potential benefit of using an effective area
method when compressive loading is significant.
2. EXISTING ASSESSMENT METHODS
Assessment methods such as Original and Modified B31G,
do not provide a codified procedure to take account of metal loss
subject to combined loading from internal pressure and
compressive axial stress. ASME B31G states that “…the
combination of hoop stress due to internal pressure and
longitudinal compression could interact to lower the failure
pressure in the metal loss area. The methods and criteria
provided herein do not address buckling or wrinkling, or
interaction of hoop stress with longitudinal compressive
stresses. For such situations, the user should refer to a more
comprehensive fitness for-purpose guidance document.”
i
The complex shape assessment methodology (profile based) within DNVGL-
RP-F101 is only applicable to internal pressure loading.
ii
Some operators do not recognize the DNVGL standard and require that an
ASME (e.g. Modified B31G, Detailed RStreng) assessment method is used.
As noted above, there are a number of alternative
assessment methodologies to assess corrosion subject to internal
pressure and compressive axial stress; however, the most widely
used method is the stress based approach developed by DNVGL.
The method assumes the applied axial loads are load
controlled. It is noted that the results from testing show that the
failure behaviour will be different in a purely displacement
controlled environment [10][11]. For this loading scenario, the
impact of the axial load on the failure pressure is expected to be
less significant. This partly depends on the available material
strain capacity to allow relaxation of the applied secondary
stresses. In practice, it may not always be possible to clearly
determine if the applied loading is load controlled or
displacement controlled (or a combination of both). In this
situation, guidance for example from the Joint Industry Project
(JIP) sponsored PDAM2 [4] suggests that load control should be
assumed.
The DNVGL combined loading method assumes that the
failure surface follows the shape of a Tresca yield criterion (see
FIGURE 1), and considers global collapse based on the net axial
cross-sectional area. Failure is deemed to occur when the
effective (Tresca) stress equals the flow stress (defined as the
tensile strength (TS) in this case). The method does not consider
failure due to global yielding or instability/bucklingiii.
As shown in FIGURE 1 below, a tensile axial (longitudinal)
stress does not affect the failure pressure, but a compressive axial
stress linearly reduces the failure pressure. The DNVGL
combined loading method is only applicable if the total axial
stress is compressive; i.e. after taking into account the tensile
axial stress due to internal pressure.
FIGURE 1: INFLUENCE OF APPLIED LOADS ON THE
FAILURE MODE OF A CORROSION ANOMALY (SOURCE:
DNVGL-RP-F101, 2019)
The method was originally validated against 10 full-scale
tests for single anomalies (7 longitudinally orientated and 3 fully
circumferential) subject to internal pressure and axial
compression or bending. The validation was supplemented using
a number of FEA simulations.
These failure modes can be evaluated using the biaxial method developed by
iii
GL.
2 © 2022 by ASME
2.1 DNVGL-RP-F101 (Part B) Combined Loading 3. MODIFICATION OF EXISTING ASSESSMENT
Method METHODS
The failure pressure for an anomaly under internal pressure The DNVGL equation (Part B) to estimate the failure
loading only is given by: pressure of a corrosion anomaly subject to internal pressure
loading only (Equation 1 above) has a very similar format to the
 d  Modified B31G failure pressure equation (Equation 6 below):
 1 
2t  t 
Ppres s  UTS
D  t  1  d  1  
d
2t (1− 0.85 t )
   Ppress = (SMYS + 68.95) (6)
 t  Q   D (1− 0.85 d )
(1) tM

It is not necessary to include the effects of external loads if The three key differences between the failure pressure
the loads are within the following limits; where, σL iv > σ1: equations for DNVGL (Part B) and Modified B31G relate to the
following:
 d 
 1   Flow stress (DNVGL: TS vs. Modified B31G: SMYS +
 1  0.5 UTS  t 
  d 
68.95 MPav)
1      Length (bulging) correction factor equation (or Folias
  tQ   (2) factor, M)
 Profile factor (PF) (DNVGL: PF = 1 vs. Modified
The failure pressure for a longitudinal corrosion anomaly B31G: PF = 0.85, both flat bottomed)
(including the H1 correction factor for the influence of
compressive longitudinal stress) is given by the following To account for the effect of combined loading on the failure
equation: pressure (as determined by Equation 1), the DNVGL method
applies a correction factor (H1) based on the Tresca yield
 d  criterion. This criterion is based on engineering principles and is
 1 
2t  t H therefore not related specifically to the DNVGL failure pressure
Pc omp  UTS
D  t  1  d  1   1 equation. Consequently, to account for combined loading when
  
 t  Q   using Modified B31G, the Tresca based correction factor used
(3) by DNVGL has been adopted. Where appropriate, the definitions
for flow stress, Folias factor and profile factor have been
Where changed in accordance with those defined for the Modified
B31G assessment method.
L 1 Based on the modifications to the equation, the failure
1
UTS A r pressure for a longitudinal break (including the H1 correction for
H1 
 d the influence of compressive longitudinal stress) is given by the
1  
1  t following equation:
1
2A r  d  1 
1    
 t  Q   d
 (4) 2t (1− 0.85 t )
Pcomp = (SMYS + 68.95) H
D (1− 0.85 d ) 1
tM
𝑑 𝑐
𝐴𝑟 = 1 −
𝑡 𝜋𝑑
(5) (7)

For anomalies affected by compressive loading, H1 is < 1. Where

The magnitude of the failure pressure reduction is directly
L σ 1
related to H1. 1+SMYS+68.95 A
The failure pressure of a single anomaly subjected to H1 = d
r
(8)
1 (1−0.85 t )
internal pressure loading combined with compressive 1− 2Ar (1−0.85 d )
longitudinal stresses is the minimum of P press and Pcomp. tM

With reference to Equations 2, 3 and 4 above, the flow stress

for Modified B31G is replaced by SMYS + 68.95 MPa, the

Sum of longitudinal stress due to external applied axial force and bending
iv v
Based on the definition given in the original 1989 AGA report.
moment.

3 © 2022 by ASME
Folias factor is given by M and the profile factor is replaced by
0.85.
As a comparison, FIGURE 2 shows an example sentence
curve (allowable corrosion depth vs. axial length) according to
both DNVGL and Modified B31G considering two loading
cases; i) Internal pressure only (at 72% SMYS), ii) Internal
pressure and a compressive stress of 200 MPa (56% SMYS). As
illustrated, the proposed Modified B31G combined loading
method provides a similar level of reduction in the allowable
depths as the DNVGL combined loading method (10% to 15%
of the wall thickness (wt) reduction, compared to allowable
depths based on internal pressure loading only).
FIGURE 2:COMPARISON BETWEEN ALLOWABLE
CORROSION DEPTHS ACCORDING TO DNVGL-RP-F101
(PART B) AND THE PROPOSED MODIFIED B31G COMBINED
LOADING METHOD (GRADE X52)
In order to account for combined compressive loading when
using other methods such as Original B31G and NG-18 [12], a
similar approach (as described above) could be used. The
approach could also potentially be adopted for use with effective
area methods such as Detailed RStreng, though care is needed
when selecting the anomaly width.
Although the above proposed modifications are based upon
the existing codified Tresca approach used by DNVGL (which
has already been subject to validation and accepted for use),
further supporting analysis was considered necessary to confirm
the satisfactory performance of the proposed modifications. This
is discussed further in Sections 4 and 5.
4. FEA
The proposed updates to the Modified B31G and Detailed
RStreng corrosion assessments were validated using full-scale
burst test data supported by simulations from a FEA based
parametric study. In this study, a series of API 579 Level 3
strength assessments was conducted to estimate the failure
pressures under combined loading (internal pressure and axial
compression), for different combinations of pipe diameters, wall
thicknesses, material properties and corrosion anomaly profiles.
The failure pressures estimated by the FEA parametric study
for each of the scenarios considered were compared to the failure
pressures calculated using the proposed updated versions of
Modified B31G and Detailed RStreng, in order to assess their
conservatism and consequently determine their acceptability for
use.
The parametric FEA study was selected for supporting the
validation, in addition to comparison with full-scale burst test
data, given the key benefit of FEA in allowing a wide range of
scenarios to be assessed. This included different anomaly
profiles (‘river bottom profiles’ (RBPs)) which could be
encountered in pipelines, but are not covered by available full-
scale test data. FEA was therefore the most pragmatic way of
supporting the proposed method of predicting failure pressures
for interacting corrosion anomalies, as test data mostly covers
only single depth flat bottomed anomalies.
4.1 Calculation of Failure Pressure in Parametric Study
In the parametric study, failure pressures of corrosion
anomalies were estimated using an API 579 Level 3 assessment
for each scenario. The assessments were conducted using the
elastic-plastic methods from Annex 2D of API 579 [13] and the
corresponding guidance from ASME VIII-2 [14]. The modelling
approach was the same as that provided in Annex G of BS7910;
this is consistent with the modelling approach used for the
original development of the DNVGL method. For each strength
assessment, separate sub-assessments were conducted for the
following strength failure mechanisms:
i. Global plastic collapse of the pipeline cross section due
to the presence of the corrosion anomalies. This would be
observed as collapse of the pipeline section in the hoop
direction.
ii. Local failure of the pipeline wall in the corrosion
anomalies. This would most likely be observed as a leak
failure in the corroded area, causing a loss of containment
of the pipeline.
In each of the sub assessments, the pressure at which
collapse failure of the corrosion area occurs was determined
(without safety factors), for comparison with the proposed
updates to Modified B31G and Detailed RStreng.
It is noted that the above two failure mechanisms cover the
range of pressure burst failure scenarios for corrosion anomalies
that the proposed updated versions of Modified B31G and
Detailed RStreng would be used to assess. There are other failure
mechanisms by which a section of pipeline with a corrosion
anomaly under combined loading could potentially fail (e.g.
compressive bucklingiii initiated by the presence of such
corrosion); however, these are not failure mechanisms that the
proposed updates are intended to cover and therefore were not
considered in the parametric study.
4 © 2022 by ASME
4.2 Parametric Study Cases and FEA Model
To conduct the parametric study, a series of 3D solid
element models of a section of pipeline was created in the
Abaqus FEA solver. Each of the models contained a corrosion
area (or cluster) comprised of 3 to 5 individual rectangular flat-
bottomed corrosion anomalies located adjacent to each other,
ensuring interaction. The combination of each corrosion area and
associated RBP was specifically designed to create different
corrosion profiles.
Different combinations of geometry of the section of
pipeline and corrosion anomalies, pipeline material and
compressive axial loading were modelled as part of the
parametric study, to cover a range of scenarios. In total, 28 FEA
models were created with a combination of the parameters in
TABLE 1. An example of one corrosion cluster combination is
shown in FIGURE 3.
A sufficient length between the ends of the model and the
corrosion area was modelled, to prevent boundary condition
effects from influencing the stresses at the location of the
anomalies.
As the assessments followed the elastic-plastic assessment
method from API 579, the elastic-plastic true-stress true-strain
behaviour was modelled using the Ramberg-Osgood stress-
strainvii response derived using Annex 2E.3.3 of API 579 (see
FIGURE 4). All analyses were performed with non-linear
geometry options turned on. As the strength assessment assumes
monotonic loading, isotropic hardening and incremental
plasticity were used with a von Mises yield criterion.

TABLE 1: SUMMARY OF PARAMETERS USED IN THE

PARAMETRIC STUDY
Grade X42, X65
Wall thickness (mm) 6.35, 11.1
OD (mm) 219.1, 914.4
Longitudinal Stressvi σL (MPa) -204.9, -148.0
Anomaly Max Depth (% wt.) 20, 35, 50, 65, 70
Anomaly Length (mm) 50 to 500
Anomaly Width (mm) 138 to 2585

FIGURE 4: X42 & X65 ELASTIC-PLASTIC TRUE-STRESS TRUE

STRAIN CURVES USED FOR FEA MODEL

The models were meshed using 20-node quadratic

hexahedral reduced integration elements (C3D20R). A refined
mesh was used in the regions of the corrosion anomalies to
accurately capture the stresses. A coarser mesh was used away
from these regions in order to reduce analysis time. The pipeline
sections were meshed with four elements through wall. This
number of second order elements is considered sufficient to
accurately model the stress state and plastic strains required to
calculate failure pressure accurately.
To calculate the pressure at which failure is estimated to
occur under combined loading, for comparison with those
predicted using the proposed updated versions of Modified
B31G and Detailed RStreng, load and boundary conditions were
applied as per FIGURE 5:

 The initial compressive load was simulated by fixing

the axial position (and rotation) of one end face of the
section of pipeline, then applying an axial displacement
FIGURE 3: ANOMALY CONFIGURATION FOR ONE EXAMPLE
FEA SIMULATION

vi
These values were selected based on the typical range of thermal compressive The yield and tensile strength values were based on specified minimum values
vii

stresses for buried pipelines operating at temperatures of up to 100°C. as actual values were not available. Consequently, the estimated failure stress
values will be conservative relative to results using actual values.

5 © 2022 by ASME
 to the other end face to put it into compression i.e.
equivalent to a temperature displacement.
 A pressure load was then applied to the internal surface.
This load was increased incrementally until global
collapse or local failure was reached.

The above loading order (i.e. axial compressive load with

increasing internal pressure) will not be representative of all
loading cases. For example, there will be service conditions
where the compressive load is applied to a pressurized pipe, or
incremental increase of both loads occurs during service.
Consequently, the influence of the order in which loads were
applied on the failure pressure (the axial compressive load
followed by the pressure load) was reviewed as part of a
sensitivity study.
In this sensitivity study, three of the 28 FEA simulations
were rerun with the loads applied in the reverse order (the failure
pressure load calculated by the original simulation was first
applied, followed by the axial compressive load).
The results of the sensitivity study showed a small reduction
of between 2%-3% in the failure pressure when the loading order
was reversed, indicating the loading order did not have a
significant influence on the failure pressure for the cases
considered in the sensitivityviii study.

FIGURE 6: FEA CONTOUR PLOTS FOR (a) VON MISES STRESS

(MPA) (b) ABSOLUTE DISPLACEMENT (MM)

5. VALIDATION AND SIMULATION RESULTS

FIGURE 5: LOADS AND BOUNDARY CONDITIONS APPLIED
TO THE MODEL
4.3 Results
The results of the global collapse analysis conducted as part
of the API 579 Level 3 strength assessment are presented below
for one of the cases studied. FIGURE 6 shows contour plots of
von Mises stressix and absolute displacement within the pipe
section at the global collapse failure pressure.
To assess if the proposed modifications to existing equations
for Modified B31G and Detailed RStreng to take account of
combined internal pressure and compressive axial stress were
appropriate, the results from 27 full-scale tests were initially
consideredx. All of the test results were based on those that were
collated as part of the original (2006) PDAM JIP, and included
10 conducted by DNVGL, 16 by SwRI and 1 by Battelle. All of
the full-scale tests considered single flat bottomed anomalies.
The tests considered a range of loading paths and load cases, in
order to simulate typical loading during pipeline operation.
In addition to the full-scale tests, the 28 FEA simulations
(Section 4) were considered. As described above, the FEA
simulations considered multiple interacting anomalies with
different profiles, which were used to determine if the

Further work is ongoing to consider the significance of load-controlled versus

viii x
The original validation for the DNVGL method only considered 10 full-scale
displacement-controlled conditions on the failure pressure. tests.
ix
Detailed review of end stresses showed insignificant variation from nominal
and demonstrated minimal influence on the stresses at the anomaly location.

6 © 2022 by ASME
predictions using the modified version of Detailed RStreng were
appropriate and safe.
FIGURE 7 shows a comparison between the actual (from
full-scale tests or FEA simulations) and predicted failure stress
according to DNVGL’s compressive model. FIGURE 8 and
FIGURE 9 show the same comparison according to the proposed
modified versions of Modified B31G and Detailed RStreng
respectively.

FIGURE 8: ACTUAL FAILURE STRESS (FULL SCALE TESTS

OR FEA SIMULATIONS) VS. PREDICTED FAILURE STRESS
ACCORDING TO THE PROPOSED COMBINED LOADING
VERSION OF MODIFIED B31G

FIGURE 7: ACTUAL FAILURE STRESS (FULL SCALE TESTS

OR FEA SIMULATIONS) VS. PREDICTED FAILURE STRESS
ACCORDING TO THE DNVGL COMBINED LOADING METHOD

FIGURE 9: ACTUAL FAILURE STRESS (FULL SCALE TESTS

OR FEA SIMULATIONS) VS. PREDICTED FAILURE STRESS
ACCORDING TO THE PROPOSED COMBINED LOADING
VERSION OF DETAILED RSTRENG

With the exception of one result, all failure stress predictions

using the proposed approach were conservative with respect to
full-scale tests and FEA simulations (TABLE 2).

7 © 2022 by ASME
TABLE 2: SUMMARY OF PREDICTIONS VERSUS 27 FULL
SCALE TESTS AND 28 FEA SIMULATIONS
Combined Loading Standard
Mean Ratioxi
Assessment Method Deviation
DNVGL-RP-F101 2.34 1.46
Modified B31G 2.46 1.55
Detailed RStreng 2.30 1.38

Predicted failure stresses were comparable to those using the

codified method in DNVGL. One full-scale test was non-
conservatively predicted by all three methods; however, during
testing it was noted that the anomaly buckled prior to failure.
None of the above assessment methods consider this failure
mode.
It can be seen from FIGURE 7 and FIGURE 8 that the
predictions using simple area approximations according to both
DNVGL and the modified version of Modified B31G have a high
level of conservatism when compared to the FEA simulations.
This is expected, since the FEA cases were specifically designed
to consider multiple interacting anomalies with varying profiles. FIGURE 10: EXAMPLE CORROSION CLUSTER AS REPORTED
The failure stress predictions according to the modified version BY UT ILI; UT C-SCAN (TOP) & ANOMALY RBP (BOTTOM)
of Detailed RStreng (FIGURE 9) were less conservative
Using a method such as the DNVGL combined loading
compared to the FEA simulations, as the profile was taken into
approach to assess anomalies that have significant variations in
account.
their depth profile will tend to result in overly conservative
failure pressure estimates. This is because the method uses an
6. CASE STUDY
area approximation based on the anomaly peak depth and total
In order to demonstrate the potential benefit of using a
axial length. As illustrated by the anomaly RBP in FIGURE 10,
profile based assessment method (i.e. Detailed RStreng) when
this assumption will significantly over estimate the actual
there is significant compressive loading, a case study was
corroded area. Assessment using the proposed modified version
considered for a 20” diameter pipeline.
of Detailed RStreng accounting for combined loading, would
The buried pipeline operates at a maximum temperature of
allow a more accurate estimate of the actual corroded area and
90°C (equivalent to a thermal compressive stress of
less conservative failure pressure prediction.
approximately 170 MPa) and was recently inspected using an
Consequently, due to the typical profile of the reported
ultrasonic (UT) in-line inspection (ILI) tool. Due to coating
corrosion anomalies, the following three-stage assessment
breakdown and subsequent water ingress, the line contained
process was considered:
extensive external corrosion pitting around the pipe
circumference. Complex areas of corrosion were reported which
i. Screening assessment of all reported anomalies using
typically were axially long, with significant circumferential
the DNVGL combined loading method (area
extents and varying depth profiles. FIGURE 10 shows an
approximation)
example of a representative corrosion cluster reported by the UT
ii. Assessment of all reported anomalies using the
ILI tool; the UT c-scan for the anomaly is shown at the top, and
combined loading version of Detailed RStreng based on
the associated river bottom profile for the anomaly is shown
ILI box dataxii
below.
iii. Assessment of the most critical anomalies based on
detailed RBPs, using the combined loading version of
Detailed RStreng

A summary of the number of predicted

investigations/repairs within 2 years of the ILI is shown in
TABLE 3.

xi
Failure stress from full-scale tests or FEA simulations divided by predicted This approach can be automated for ILI box data, where the profile is
xii

failure stress. approximated by rectangular boxes. For clusters, the profile is approximated
based on the boxes that make up the cluster.

8 © 2022 by ASME
TABLE 3: SUMMARY OF ASSESSMENT RESULTS
Repair DNVGL Detailed RStreng
Time Combined Loading Combined Loading
Immediate 3 0
0-1 year 13 0 “Corroded Pipelines”.
1-2 year 25 10
Total 41 10
As shown in TABLE 3, the predicted number of
investigations/repairs reduced significantly from 41 to 10
anomalies by assessing them using the modified combined
loading version of Detailed RStreng, which allowed the
corrosion profile to be taken into account. This in turn
considerably reduced the cost to investigate and remediate the
necessary features, decreasing the number of required
mobilisations prior to the next ILI.
7. CONCLUSION
This paper presents a proposed approach to modifying
existing assessment methods such as Modified B31G and
Detailed RStreng (using the Tresca based approach adopted by
DNVGL-RP-F101), to allow them to be used for assessment of
corrosion subject to combined internal pressure and compressive
loading.
To validate that the proposed modified assessment methods
provide safe failure pressure predictions, the results were
initially compared against existing full-scale test data (single
anomalies). To consider the impact of different corrosion
profiles on predictions using the proposed modified combined
loading version of Detailed RStreng, 28 FEA simulations were
carried out based on multiple interacting anomalies with varying
profiles.
The predicted failure stresses using the proposed modified
combined loading versions of Modified B31G and Detailed
RStreng were conservative relative to the full-scale tests and
FEA simulations; and were comparable to those predicted using
the codified method in DNVGL-RP-F101. The proposed
modified combined loading methods were therefore considered
to give safe predictions.
The failure stress predictions according to the modified
(combined loading) version of Detailed RStreng, were less
conservative than simple area approximations, when compared
to the FEA results. This was as expected since the anomaly
profile was taken into account – the key benefit of the method.
The results of a case study demonstrated the benefit of being
able to assess anomalies using the modified (combined loading)
version of Detailed RStreng. This provided a significant
reduction in the number of predicted repairs compared to
assessment using the simple area approximation method within
DNVGL-RP-F101.
REFERENCES
[1] ASME B31G, 2012 (R2017), “Manual for Determining
the Remaining Strength of Corroded Pipelines”.
[2] DNVGL-RP-F101 Recommended Practice, 2019,
[3] Bjørnøy, O.H., Sigurdsson, G. and Marley M.J., 2001,
“Background and Development of DNV-RP-F101 "Corroded
Pipelines", Proceedings of the Eleventh (2001) International
Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference.
[4] Cosham, A., 2016, “The Pipeline Defect Assessment
Manual”, Report to the PDAM Joint Industry Project, Edition 2.
[5] Grigory, S.C. and Smith, M.Q., “New Procedures for the
Residual Strength Assessment of Corroded Pipe Subjected to
Combined Loads”, Proceedings of the 1st International Pipeline
Conference (IPC), 1996.
[6] Benjamin, A.C. 2008, “Prediction of the Failure Pressure
of Corroded Pipelines Subjected to a Longitudinal Compressive
Force Superimposed to the Pressure Loading", IPC2008-64089,
Proceedings of the IPC2008 7th International Pipeline
Conference.
[7] Liu, J., Chauhan, V., Ng, P., Wheat, S. and Hughes, C.,
2009, “PROJECT #153J Remaining Strength of Corroded Pipe
Under Secondary (Biaxial) Loading”, Issue 3.0, Report prepared
by GL Industrial Services UK Ltd for US Department of
Transportation.
[8] Chauhan, V. and Swankie, T., 2015, “Project #153M
Guidance for Assessing the Remaining Strength of Corroded
Pipelines”, Issue 3.0, Report prepared by GL Industrial Services
USA, Inc. trading as GL Noble Denton, for US Department of
Transportation.
[9] Patterson, A., Arias, A., Brett, A. and Russell, A.C.,
“Modification of Existing Pipeline Corrosion Assessment
Methods for Combined Internal Pressure and Compressive
Loading, Technology for Future and Ageing Pipelines (TFAP),
October 2021.
[10] Wang, W., Smith, M.Q. and Popelar, C.H., “A New
Rupture Prediction Model for Corroded Pipelines under
Combined Loadings”, International Pipeline Conference (IPC),
1998, IPC1998-2064.
[11] Liu, M., Zhou, H., Wang, B., Wang, Y., Bergman, J.,
Ayton, B., Stephens, M., Weeks, T. and Gianetto, J., “Strain-
Based Design and Assessment in Critical Areas of Pipeline
Systems with Realistic Anomalies”, prepared for US DoT,
PHMSA & OPS, 31st August 2017.
[12] Kiefner, J.F., Maxey, W.A., Eiber, R.J. and Duffy, A.R.,
2016, “The Failure Stress Levels of Flaws in Pressurised
Cylinders”, ASTM STP 536, American Society for Testing and
Materials, Philadelphia, 1973, pp 461-481.
[13] API 579-1/ASME FFS-1, 2016, “Fitness for Service”.
[14] ASME BPVC-VIII-2-2021, “Rules for Construction of
Pressure Vessels Division 2 – Alternate Rules”.
9 © 2022 by ASME