Proceedings of the ASME 2022 13th International Pipeline Conference

IPC2022
September 26-30, 2022, Calgary, Alberta, Canada

IPC2022-87301

THE STATE OF DENT SCREENING AND SHAPE-BASED ASSESSMENTS:

DISCREPANCIES TO CONSIDER

Steven J Polasik Shanshan Wu Joseph P Bratton

DNV DNV DNV
Dublin, OH Dublin, OH Dublin, OH

Rhett Dotson Ryan Sager

ADV Integrity, Inc ROSEN Group
Houston, Texas Houston, Texas

ABSTRACT based assessment dictates the dent is injurious and a response

Dents in buried pipelines either caused by third party
mechanical damage or introduced during pipeline construction
remain a leading contributor to reportable pipeline releases. API
Recommended Practice 1183 (API RP 1183) provides a modern,
shape-based fatigue life assessment of pipeline dents that can be
incorporated into a pipeline operator’s integrity management
program. Specifically, in API RP 1183, dent shape information
is obtained by analyzing in-line inspection (ILI) caliper data and
is expressed using characteristic lengths and areas. Once
obtained, these characteristic lengths and areas define not only
the dent restraint condition, but also various fatigue growth
parameters.
API RP 1183 provides multiple screening techniques that
are intended to identify dents that are non-injurious and therefore
do not require additional detailed assessments or response
actions. These screening techniques both increase in complexity
and decrease in conservatism. Three screening processes
provided in API RP 1183 are: (1) a table with lower bound,
conservative estimates of fatigue life, (2) a pipe geometry and
spectrum severity indicator (SSI) approach, and (3) a pipe
geometry and operational spectrum approach. When combined
with the shape-based fatigue life assessment, multiple analysis
approaches are described.
However, as more dents are being analyzed with the
methods from the first edition of API RP 1183, discrepancies
between the screening methods and the shape-based approach
are being observed. The aim of this paper is to discuss those cases
where the conclusions from the screening processes and the
shape-based assessment are inconsistent. In other words, there
are cases where the screening process “passes” a dent indicating
the dent is non-injurious and can be monitored while the shape-
should be taken. After discussing the inconsistencies in these
cases, the authors make recommendations on how operators
should use API RP 1183 in its current form.
Keywords: Dent, Deformation, Screening, Recommended
Practice, Fatigue
1. INTRODUCTION
API Recommended Practice 1183 (API RP 1183) presents
screening tools and assessment methods to evaluate dent fitness-
for-service in terms of formation strain, failure pressure, and
fatigue damage. This paper focuses on the fatigue life screening
methodologies outlined in Section 7 of API RP 1183 as well as
the shape-based fatigue life assessment described in Section 8 of
API RP 1183.
Two key elements within an integrity management program
are screening and assessment. The screening element acts as a
filter before the assessment element by applying conservative
and simplified methods to identify non-injurious dents requiring
neither further detailed fitness-for-service assessments, nor
response actions [1].
This paper is intended to create awareness among users of
API RP 1183 regarding the application of the screening methods
and provide guidance on potential outcomes when using the
methods until future revisions of API RP 1183 provide greater
clarity. Specifically, this paper provides examples based on the
sample scenarios contained within API RP 1183 Annex A where
the screening element would classify a dent as non-injurious
(requiring only monitoring), while the assessment element
would flag that same dent as requiring a remedial action
decision. This outcome is contradictory with regards to the stated
goals of the methods described in API RP 1183 and raises

1 © 2022 by ASME
questions about the appropriate application of the methods. This the SSI calculation. For example, the SSI of an operational
paper begins by reviewing the available screening methods and pressure spectrum varied between 1743 and 2615 using small
detailed assessments, and then examines the results of those bins compared to the 28 unique bins used elsewhere in
methods using the examples from Annex A. API RP 1183 [6]. Changing the SSI by a factor of 1.5 has a
significant impact on the fatigue lives.
2. DENT SCREENING OVERVIEW
API RP 1183 provides screening techniques that are TABLE 1: Excerpt of the INGAA Screening Table Providing
intended to quickly identify dents that are non-injurious via Conservative Estimates of Dent Fatigue Life (From [3])
conservative fitness-for-service assessments. The techniques are Total Dent Depth, %OD
presented in order of increasing data requirements and SSI < 1.0 < 1.5 < 2.0 < 3.0 < 4.0 < 5.0 < 7.0
decreasing levels of conservatism [2]. Dents that are deemed 10 5692 5276 4899 3964 3705 3252 3053
non-injurious via the screening tools “do not need to undergo 30 1897 1759 1633 1321 1235 1084 1018
detailed fatigue life fitness-for-service assessment.” [2] A 50 1138 1055 980 793 741 650 611
review of each of the screening methods is provided in the 70 813 754 700 566 529 465 436
90 632 586 544 440 412 361 339
subsections that follow.
110 517 480 445 360 337 296 278

2.1 Spectrum Severity Indicator Fatigue Life Screening

(INGAA)
The first screening method provided, and therefore
considered to be the most conservative (i.e., provides lower
bound estimates of fatigue life), is the “Spectrum Severity
Indicator Fatigue Life Screening” approach [3]. This approach
will be referred to as the “INGAA approach” due to its initial
publication for the Interstate Natural Gas Association of
America (INGAA) [4]. The INGAA approach provides the
minimum expected fatigue life of a dent (based on lower bound
fatigue lives for a range of dent shapes and sizes). The
conservative estimate of the fatigue life is determined via a
combination of the normalized total dent depth and the number
of equivalent pressure cycles with a hoop stress of 13 ksi (the
spectrum severity indicator, SSI). The INGAA approach is
summarized in a table of SSI and total dent depth from which the
operator or engineer can easily determine the lower-bound
fatigue life for a plain dent. Additional fatigue reduction factors
related to dent interaction with welds or metal loss can be applied
to the fatigue life predictions as necessary. This approach is
attractive for many operators who have limited pressure cycling
where fatigue is not expected to be a significant threat or for
operators who have large numbers of dents and need to quickly
identify features that may be injurious. The INGAA approach is
not complex, requires minimal data and can be completed
relatively quickly by operators or consultants.
A portion of the table for the INGAA approach is
reproduced below in Table 1. Operators use the table by
identifying the fatigue life corresponding to the SSI and total
dent depth. For instance, a 1.75% deep dent with an annual SSI
of 25 can be said to have a lower bound fatigue life of 1,633
years. If interpolation is used between rows and columns, the
lower bound life would be longer. It is important to note that the
table uses “Total Dent Depth”. This dent depth, which is not
commonly reported by inspection vendors, is described
graphically in Figure 7 from API RP 1183. One recommendation
from the authors of this paper is that operators and users ensure
that the appropriate dent depth is used for the assessment [5].
It is important to note that the SSI for a given dent can vary
substantially depending on the pressure range bin used during
2.2 Spectrum Severity Indicator Fatigue Life Screening
(KMax)
The next screening method provided in API RP 1183 is the
“Shallow Restrained and All Unrestrained Dent Spectrum
Severity Indicator Fatigue Life Screening” approach [7],
referred to as the “KMax approach” in this paper. In terms of
expected conservatism, this approach should result in longer
(less conservative) estimates of fatigue life compared to the
INGAA approach. As of the first edition of API RP 1183 this
approach is not applicable to deep, restrained dents (>2.5% of
pipe OD for diameters above NPS 12).
An estimated fatigue life, L, using the outside diameter, D,
wall thickness, t, and the severity of the operational pressure
spectrum (i.e., the SSI) is calculated using Eq. 1.
log10 𝐶𝐶−𝑚𝑚 log10 �𝜎𝜎𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 𝐾𝐾𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀
𝑀𝑀 �
10
𝐿𝐿 > (1)
𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆
where SSI is the spectrum severity indicator, log10 𝐶𝐶 is the
S-N curve intercept (either 12.6007 for MPa or 10.08514 for ksi),
m is the S-N curve slope (taken as 3), 𝜎𝜎𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 is the reference hoop
stress range and 𝐾𝐾𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀 is the dent maximum stress magnification
factor. 𝐾𝐾𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀 is defined in Eq. 2 based on the restraint condition
and whether the dent has experienced a pressure greater than or
less than 20% of the specified minimum yield stress.
7.5�1 − 𝑒𝑒 (−0.065 𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂/𝑡𝑡) �, 𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢, > 20%
𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀
𝐾𝐾𝑀𝑀 = �9.4�1 − 𝑒𝑒 (−0.045 𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂/𝑡𝑡) �, 𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟, ≤ 20% (2)
0.1183 𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂⁄𝑡𝑡 − 1.146, 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟
If L is less than the desired pipeline operating life, the dent
can undergo a less conservative screening method or the detailed
fatigue life fitness-for-service assessment. The KMax approach
requires more information than the INGAA approach. Notably,
the approach requires a determination of restraint condition,
which requires shape-based information from the dent including
axial and transverse lengths and areas. However, the actual stress
magnification factor for each condition is calculated based only
on the diameter and the wall thickness. As stated before, it is the

2 © 2022 by ASME
expectation that a dent may “fail” the INGAA approach but have
an acceptable life according to the KMax approach. A dent would
not be expected to have a longer fatigue life when using the
INGAA approach compared to the KMax approach.
2.3 Operational Pressure Spectrum Fatigue Life
Screening (KMax – RCC)
This screening approach expands on the KMax approach by
incorporating the rainflow cycle counted (RCC) operational
pressure spectrum instead of the SSI [8]. Therefore, it will be
referenced herein as the “KMax – RCC approach.”
Calculating a lower bound fatigue life via this screening
approach entails first performing an RCC analysis on the
operational pressure spectrum, and then expressing the pressure
range bins in % SMYS. Then 𝐾𝐾𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀 is calculated for each range
bin using Eq. 2. Next, the fatigue life for each pressure range bin
is estimated using Eq. 3. Finally, the Palmgren Miner linear
damage rule (“Miner’s Rule”) is employed to estimate the
damage per pressure range bin, the total damage, and the fatigue
life. As with the KMax approach, in the first edition of
API RP 1183 this approach is not applicable to deep, restrained
dents (<2.5% of pipe OD for diameters above NPS 12).
𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀
𝑁𝑁𝑖𝑖 = 10�log10 𝐶𝐶−𝑚𝑚 log10 �𝐾𝐾𝑀𝑀,𝑖𝑖 ∆𝑆𝑆𝑖𝑖 ��
(3)
In Eq. 3 Ni is the fatigue life for pressure bin i, log10 𝐶𝐶 and
m are the S-N curve intercept and the S-N curve slope as defined
in the KMax approach, 𝐾𝐾𝑀𝑀,𝑖𝑖 𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀
is the dent maximum stress
magnification factor for pressure bin i, and ∆𝑆𝑆𝑖𝑖 is the stress range
for pressure bin i. The KMax – RCC approach requires no
additional information beyond the KMax approach. The only
difference is that the individual pressure cycles are incorporated
with Miner’s rule. On this basis, the KMax – RCC approach is
expected to provide a longer fatigue life and be less conservative
when compared to the KMax approach, as well as the INGAA
approach.
3. DETAILED ASSESSMENTS
Fitness-for-service of dents that did not pass the screening
criteria can be evaluated using three levels, with the higher levels
incorporating lower levels of conservatism:
• Level 1: Dent Fatigue Response Severity Ranking
• Level 2: Dent Fatigue Life Assessment
• Level 3: Finite Element Modeling Dent Fatigue Life
Assessment
In Level 1, the resultant fatigue life is considered a relative
ranking because the effect of the operational spectrum is not
included [9]. Level 1 requires calculation of the restraint
parameter, RP, the dent shape parameter, SP, the shape
parameter fatigue life coefficient, A, and exponent, B, to obtain
an estimate of the fatigue life in number of cycles, N, using Eq. 4.
1
The INGAA approach table provides values for SSI’s of 90 and 110. In
Sections 4.1, 4.2, and 4.4 of this paper the referenced INGAA approach fatigue
lives will be for the 110 SSI row.
𝑁𝑁 = 𝐴𝐴(𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆)𝐵𝐵 (4)
API RP 1183 presents two options for a Level 2 assessment:
the EPRG/API 579 approach [10] and the PRCI approach [11].
This paper focuses on the PRCI approach. Like Level 1, the
Level 2 PRCI approach incorporates the calculation of RP, SP,
A, and B, but applies these to each pressure range bin from an
RCC analysis of the operational pressure data to arrive at a
fatigue life.
Both the Level 1 and Level 2 PRCI approach employ the 3D
shape of the dent, obtained by inline inspection (ILI) or direct
inspection methods, to calculate what are referred to as
“characteristic dent lengths and areas.” These characteristic
lengths and areas are then used to determine RP, the restraint
condition, and shape parameters used to estimate the fatigue
response (life) of a dent. The approach requires a substantial
amount of detailed dent and operating information, purpose-built
software, and expertise to perform; however, the approach is
described as the most refined and comprehensive fatigue life
estimate currently available outside of bespoke specialty analysis
(i.e., Level 3).
A Level 3 assessment utilizes finite element modeling to
evaluate material and structural nonlinearity as well as the
indenter contact and forming process [12] during the fatigue life
determination.
4. DISCUSSION
There are cases where the screening process and the PRCI
approach produce unexpected results; namely, where the
screening process classifies a dent as non-injurious (requiring
only monitoring), while the assessment process flags the same
dent as requiring a remedial action decision. In these scenarios,
the expected least conservative approaches (i.e., PRCI approach)
predict fatigue lives less than the most conservative approach
(i.e., the INGAA table). Multiple examples where the INGAA
approach is not the most conservative assessment have been
observed by the authors during evaluation of dents in currently
operating pipelines; however, cases where this occurs can also
be found within the sample calculations of Annex A of
API RP 1183. These cases are discussed below and serve to
illustrate this point.
4.1 Sample Calculation Annex A.2 (KMax)
The example in API RP 1183 Annex A.2 defines a dent with
the characteristics in Table 2. Note that this example is for a dent
with a total depth of 1.5% OD and an annual SSI of 100. Using
the INGAA tabular approach (see Table 1), the conservative
estimate of fatigue life is 480 years if no interpolation is used 1.
3 © 2022 by ASME
TABLE 2: Dent Parameters for Screening Example A.2 in a fatigue life of 130 years, which is less than the target life of
Parameter Value 150 years; however, the result from this method is less than all
Outside Diameter 24 inch the conservative estimates provided via the INGAA approach for
Wall Thickness 0.281 inch any dent with a total depth < 7% OD and an SSI between 90 and
Specified Minimum Yield Stress, SMYS 52,000 psi 110.
Total Dent Depth 1.5% OD The more detailed, less conservative KMax – RCC approach
Annual SSI 100 is then applied within Annex A.3. The example calculations
Maximum pressure >20% SMYS
Restraint Condition Unrestrained
result in a fatigue life of 214.45 years, which (again) is less than
Target Life 100 years all the conservative estimates provided via the INGAA approach
for any dent with a total depth < 7% OD and an SSI between 90
and 110. Notably, this example confirms that the KMax and
The maximum 𝐾𝐾𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀 is calculated to be 7.47 using Eq. 2 for
KMax – RCC approaches perform as expected in terms of relative
an unrestrained dent that has experienced a pressure > 20%
conservatism. However, both approaches show that the INGAA
SMYS. Specifically, 7.5�1 − 𝑒𝑒 (−0.065×24/0.281) � = 7.47. Annex
approach is less conservative in comparison.
A.2 states, the dent “passes the Level 0 dent integrity assessment
for the given operational pressure SSI = 100 and the target life
4.3 Further Investigation of Screening Approaches
of Y = 100 based on this screening tool” [13]. Indeed, using Eq. 1
By re-arranging Eq. 2 the implied 𝐾𝐾𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀 (or 𝐾𝐾𝑀𝑀𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 , as
and a 𝐾𝐾𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀 of 7.47 results in a fatigue life of 132 years; a value
presented in Annex A.2 and A.3) can be inferred from Table 1
greater than 100, but less than the conservative estimate
using Eq. 3.
provided via the INGAA approach for a 1.5% OD dent. This
example demonstrates a scenario where the INGAA approach, log10 𝐶𝐶−log10(𝐿𝐿×𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆)
which is expected to be the most conservative method, yields a 10
�
𝑚𝑚
�

fatigue life that is greater than the next screening approach. 𝐾𝐾𝑀𝑀𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 = (3)
𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆

4.2 Sample Calculation Annex A.2 (KMax & KMax – RCC) The INGAA approach fatigue lives (Table 1) at an annual
The second example, in API RP 1183 Annex A.3, applies SSI of 110 for a < 1.0 %OD and a < 7.0 %OD dent are 517 and
both the KMax and KMax – RCC approaches. A dent is defined 278 years, respectively. 𝐾𝐾𝑀𝑀𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 for these two cases are
with the characteristics in Table 3 and the pressure spectrum in therefore 4.58 and 5.63, respectively. Figure 1 compares the
Table 4. Note that for this example the total dent depth is not three 𝐾𝐾𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀 formulas from Eq. 2. When 𝐾𝐾𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀 < 𝐾𝐾𝑀𝑀𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 , the
specified, and the operational pressure spectrum provided results estimated fatigue life is greater than the provided target life (in
in an annual SSI of 100. If the INGAA approach were applied this case, the INGAA approach conservative lower bound lives)
(again, see Table 1), the conservative estimate of fatigue life and the dent would “pass” the screening. Fig. 1 demonstrates that
would be 517 years if the total dent depth is < 1% OD and 278 for unrestrained dents with D/t ratios above 20, 𝐾𝐾𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀 is above
assuming the total depth is < 7% OD. the 𝐾𝐾𝑀𝑀𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 and therefore results in a fatigue life less than the
INGAA approach; for shallow restrained dents, D/t ratios above
TABLE 3: Dent Parameters for Screening Example A.3 50-60 exhibit the same trend.
Parameter Value
Outside Diameter 30 inch 16
Wall Thickness 0.250 inch >20% SMYS, Unrestrained
Specified Minimum Yield Stress, SMYS 52000 psi 14
<20% SMYS, Unrestrained
Shallow Restrained
Total Dent Depth Not defined < 1.0 %OD implied from INGAA Approach
Annual SSI 100 12 < 7.0 %OD implied from INGAA Approach
Maximum pressure >20% SMYS
Restraint Condition Unrestrained 10

Target Life 150 years

KMMax

TABLE 4: Dent Parameters for Screening Example A.3 6

# Cycles Pmin, %SMYS Pmax, %SMYS

4
157 10 20
55 20 40 2
36 30 60
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Using the K approach, the maximum
Max
𝐾𝐾𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀
is calculated OD/t
to be 7.5 using Eq. 2 for an unrestrained dent that has
experienced a pressure > 20% SMYS. Annex A.3 states, the dent FIGURE 1: Comparison of 𝐾𝐾𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀 to 𝐾𝐾𝑀𝑀𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 based on
“cannot be defined as non-injurious, and therefore ‘fails’ the INGAA approach lives at 110 SSI. Values above the dashed lines
screening approach” [14]. Using Eq. 1 and a 𝐾𝐾𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀 of 7.5 results result in fatigue lives less than the INGAA approach at 110 SSI.

4 © 2022 by ASME
4.4 Sample Calculation Using the Level 2 PRCI In response to this issue, the authors of this paper
Approach recommend that the INGAA tables not be used as the primary
The previous calculations examined the performance of the screening method when calculating remaining lives for dents.
screening criteria to the values from the INGAA approach. Instead, it is recommended that the KMax approach be used to
However, the same behavior was also observed with the example screen dents. The KMax approach appears to provide fatigue lives
Level 2 PRCI approach in API RP 1183. Annex A.1 provides the that are more conservative than the Level 2 approach. If
characteristic lengths and areas for a hypothetical dent with a insufficient information is available to determine the restraint
total depth of 3.51% OD [15]. While the dent in Annex A.1 is parameter, which is required for the KMax approach, then the
hypothetical, it can be inferred from its inclusion in the sample authors recommend taking the more conservative (i.e., lower
calculations that it meets the requirements necessary to apply the life) from either a restrained or unrestrained scenario.
PRCI assessment.
When the annual 100 cycle SSI pressure spectrum in Table 4 5. CONCLUSIONS
is applied to the dent in Annex A.1 using the PRCI approach, the API RP 1183 provided multiple assessment methodologies
fatigue lives shown in Table 5 are calculated. When applying the for pipeline dents. The approaches were organized in a manner
Level 2 PRCI approach to asymmetric dents, each of the four where they are supposed to increase in complexity and decrease
quadrants of the dent are assessed separately and the lowest in conservatism. With this in mind, the expectation is that
fatigue life should be used [16]. For this example, the lowest screening approaches will never identify a dent as non-injurious
fatigue life is 268 years, but this is less than the 337 years while a more refined approach would indicate the same dent as
provided in the INGAA approach. In fact, multiple fatigue lives injurious. However, the authors of this paper have observed
in Table 5 are less than the INGAA approach value. instances with real-world dents where this behavior has been
observed. In fact, the example problems included in Annex A of
TABLE 5: Shape-Based Fatigue Lives Using Annex A.1 Profile API RP 1183 demonstrate this issue. Specifically, the following
Quadrant Restraint Parameter Fatigue Life, years conclusion were observed:
US-CW 37.49 345
US-CCW 18.29 309 • The KMax approach shows a lower fatigue life than the
DS-CW 36.56 414 INGAA Table, although the approach should be less
DS-CCW 17.82 268 conservative,
• The KMax – RCC approach shows a lower fatigue life
4.5 Ramifications than the INGAA Table, although the approach should
Table 6 contains a summary of the example calculations be less conservative,
discussed above as compared to the INGAA approach; the • The PRCI approach applied to the hypothetical dent in
INGAA approach is described in API RP 1183 as the most Annex A.1 returned a lower fatigue life than the
conservative (i.e., shortest fatigue life). INGAA Table, although the approach should be less
conservative, and
TABLE 6: Comparison of Fatigue Lives Using Annex A • An examination of the equations for KMax, shows that
Examples the approach will be less conservative than the INGAA
Example Screening Method INGAA SSI Calculated Table for all restrained dents with a D/t > 20 and all
Basis Life, years Life, years unrestrained dents with a D/t>50.
Annex A.2 KMax 480 132†
Annex A.3 KMax 278-517 130†
In response to these observations, the authors of this paper
Annex A.3 KMax & KMax – RCC 278-517 214 recommend that the INGAA screening tables not be used in their
Annex A.1 & Level 2 PRCI 337 268-345 current form. Instead, it is recommended to use the KMax
Annex A.3‡ approach or the KMax – RCC approach when screening dents. In
†
API RP 1183 does not include the calculated life; instead, the calculations are compared to cases where the restraint condition is not known, it is
a target life. The target life Annex A.2 and Annex A.3 is 100 years and 150 years,
respectively.
recommended to calculate the screening life according to both
‡
Profiles and restraint parameters as defined in Annex A.1 and the pressure spectrum as scenarios and take the lower life.
defined in Annex A.3 Pressure range bin size during RCC (and SSI) affects fatigue
life estimates, with larger bins leading to more conservative
When a detailed assessment approach (i.e., the PRCI lives. While API RP 1183 discusses the use of appropriate bin
Level 2 assessment) provides a life less than a screening sizes when developing fatigue histograms, the PRCI method is
approach it suggests that the detailed assessment is incorrect, the based on tabular parameters assigned to 28 fixed pressure bins.
screening approach is incorrect, or the specific parameters are It is the experience of the authors that if the pressure bins
outside the limits of one (or both) calculation sets. When incorporated into RCC and SSI differ from the 28 fixed bins, the
screening approaches that are supposed to be less conservative previously discussed screening calculations become even less
(result in longer lives) are the opposite, it also suggests similar conservative resulting in more situations where the screening
issues. lives exceed the fatigue lives calculated using the PRCI
approach.

5 © 2022 by ASME
REFERENCES
[1] Assessment and Management of Pipeline Dents, American
Petroleum Institute, Recommended Practice 1183
(API RP 1183), First Edition, November 2020, “Element 4
– Screening”, Section 5.2.4.
[2] API RP 1183, “Fatigue Life Dent Screening”, Section 7.4.
[3] API RP 1183, “Spectrum Severity Indicator Fatigue Life
Screening”, Section 7.4.1.
[4] BMT Fleet Technology, “Fatigue Considerations for
Natural Gas Transmission Pipelines”, 30348.FR (Rev. 02),
June 2016, prepared for Interstate Natural Gas Association
of America.
[5] Konell, J, Dedeke, B, Hurst, C, Wu, S, & Bratton, J. “A
Midstream Pipeline Operator’s Perspective on the
Implementation of API 1183.” Proceedings of the 2020 13th
International Pipeline Conference. September 28–30, 2020.
IPC2020-9486.
[6] Dotson, R, Sager, R, Curiel, F, & Le Roy, M. "Judge Me by
My Size, Do You? How Reliable Are Dent Assessments
Based on ILI Data?." Proceedings of the 2020 13th
International Pipeline Conference. September 28–30, 2020.
IPC2020-9501.
[7] API RP 1183, “Shallow Restrained and All Unrestrained
Dent Spectrum Severity Indicator Fatigue Life Screening”,
Section 7.4.2.
[8] API RP 1183, “Shallow Restrained Dent and All
Unrestrained Dent Operational Pressure Spectrum Fatigue
Life Screening”, Section 7.4.3.
[9] API RP 1183, “Level 1–Single-peak Dent Fatigue Response
Severity Ranking”, Section 8.3.2 and Section 8.3.4.
[10] API RP 1183, “Level 2 Assessment–EPRG/API 579
Approach”, Section 8.3.3.1 and Section 8.3.4.
[11] API RP 1183, “Level 2 Assessment–PRCI Approach”,
Section 8.3.3.2 and Section 8.3.4.
[12] API RP 1183, “Level 3–Detailed Finite Element Modeling
for Dent Fatigue Life Assessment”, Section 8.3.5.
[13] API RP 1183, “Shallow Dent Screening (Section 7.4.2)”,
Annex A.2.
[14] API RP 1183, “Dent Fatigue Life Screening With or
Without Operational Pressure Profile Data for Unrestrained
Dent (Sections 7.4.2 and 7.4.3)”, Annex A.3.
[15] API RP 1183, “Restraint Parameter Calculation (Section
6.4.2)”, Annex A.1.
[16] API RP 1183, “Shape Factors and Shape Parameter for
Unrestrained and Depp Restrained Dents”, Section 8.3.4.1.

6 © 2022 by ASME