Proceedings of the ASME 2022 14th International Pipeline Conference

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

IPC2022-87259

A MORE EFFICIENT EFFECTIVE AREA METHOD ALGORITHM FOR CORROSION

ASSESSMENT (FASTER RSTRENG)

Jason Yan*, Dongliang Lu, Ian Khou, Shenwei Zhang

TC Energy Corporation
Calgary, Alberta, Canada

simulation technique where millions of simulations are

ABSTRACT*
Corrosion is one of the major threats to the safety and
structural integrity of oil and gas transmission pipelines. The
corrosion threat is usually managed by regular in-line
inspection (ILI).
The effective area method (RSTRENG) is the most popular
corrosion assessment model to convert the measured corrosion
size to predicted burst pressure. Given a detailed corrosion
measurement profile, the effective area method involves an
iterative process to find the minimum burst pressure. As stated
in ASME B31G, “for a corroded profile defined by n
measurements of depth of corrosion including the end points at
nominally full wall thickness, n!/2(n − 2)! iterations are
required to examine all possible combinations of local metal
loss with respect to surrounding remaining material”, the
widely used effective area algorithm has at least an order of n-
square time complexity (O(n2)). As n increases, the
computation time increases nonlinearly.
This paper reviewed the traditional RSTRENG algorithm
first, and demonstrated that it is not necessary to always loop
through all the combinations and check the corresponding burst
pressure one by one. Because some combinations with
shallower and shorter corrosion size are certainly not the final
critical combination corresponding to the minimum burst
pressure. A more efficient algorithm (Faster RSTRENG) is
proposed and presented in this paper, which can reduce the
algorithm computation time significantly.
While the impact of efficiency of the algorithm on the
integrity assessment process is insignificant if solely
conducting burst pressure calculation in a deterministic way, a
highly efficient algorithm is desired when assessing a large
volume of corrosion anomalies by the reliability-based
(probabilistic) assessment method using Monte Carlo
Corresponding author: jason_z_yan@tcenergy.com
* The effective area method [4] is one of the most popular
required.
In addition, TC Energy has developed a more accurate and
precise corrosion assessment model, i.e., plausible profiles
(Psqr) model, published in IPC 2018 and 2020, and reviewed
by industry experts through PRCI. The use of Psqr model needs
to generate hundreds of profiles for one corrosion anomaly and
repeatedly uses the effective area algorithm. This needs
extensive computing efforts. When Psqr model was built into
the probabilistic assessment framework, the computing efforts
were dramatically increased. Therefore, it is of great
importance to have a more efficient effective area algorithm to
facilitate the probabilistic assessment using Psqr model.
A case study was used to demonstrate the efficacy of the
developed algorithm by comparing the computation time using
different effective area algorithms. Engineers who are already
familiar with RSTRENG model, might jump to the Faster
RSTRENG section and Annex A directly.
INTRODUCTION
Metal-loss corrosion continues to be one of the most
significant threats to the safety and structural integrity of
pipeline systems. In-line inspection (ILI) using magnetic flux
leakage (MFL) or ultrasonic (UT) tools has been recognized as
the most effective means to manage integrity of energy
pipelines. After ILI, operators need to identify the critical
anomalies, determine appropriate response time, and whether
pressure restriction (derate) is required. Repair decisions, such
as recoat or sleeve, are made after excavations with field
measured anomaly size.
For pressure-driven integrity decisions, the assessment
model used to convert measured corrosion size to predicted
burst pressure has the largest impact to the integrity decisions
[1]. An accurate and precise assessment model is the key to
optimize operators’ decisions and ensure pipe safety [2, 3].
corrosion assessment model, commonly used and accepted by

1 Copyright © 2022 by ASME

regulators, operators and ILI vendors. It is originally published
in PRCI report PR-3-805 [4], and later included in ASME
B31G [5]. The effective area method is evolved from earlier
models. The chronology of the development is:
• NG-18 Ln-Sec, 1973 [6]
• ASME B31G, 1984 [7]
• Modified B31G (or known as 0.85dL), 1989 [4, 5]
• Effective Area, 1989 [4, 8-11]
The effective area method has been adopted by various
regulations and industry standards such as US Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR, Title 49, Part 192 & 195), ASME B31.4
[12], ASME B31.8S [13] and CSA Z662 [14].
For a given detailed corrosion measurement profile, the
effective area method involves an iterative process to find the
minimum burst pressure. Therefore, it is usually implemented
by computer programs. As the original Microsoft DOS based
computer program in PRCI PR-3-805 [4] developed by Battelle
Memorial Institute for American Gas Association (AGA), was
called RSTRENG (Remaining STRENGth), the effective area
method is also well known as RSTRENG model in the pipeline
industry today.
As stated in Section 1.10 of ASME B31G [5], alternative
software other than the original RSTRENG disc is allowed to
perform corrosion assessment if results are validated against
published benchmark test data such as [11]. Following PRCI
PR-3-805 [4] and ASME B31G [5], the effective area method
has been rewritten as local or cloud-based modern computer
software packages or spreadsheets by ILI vendors, regulators,
operators, and other companies in the industry (e.g., PRCI EC-
2-9 Psqr project spreadsheet [15], and the public available
KAPA spreadsheet from Kiefner & Associates).
When using effective method with detailed corrosion
profile inputs, currently most, if not all, of the software
packages or spreadsheets loop through and calculate the
predicted burst pressure for all the possible sub-sections
(combinations) one by one. The minimum pressure of all
combinations is used as the final output. Detailed steps are
discussed in the following sections.
As stated in ASME B31G [5], “for a corroded profile
defined by n measurements of depth of corrosion including the
end points at nominally full wall thickness, n!/2(n − 2)!
iterations are required to examine all possible combinations of
local metal loss with respect to surrounding remaining
material”, the widely used effective area algorithm has at least
an order of n-square time complexity (O(n2)) (big O notation
[16]). As n increases (e.g., longer corrosion or the same
corrosion measured by higher resolution tools), the
computation time increases in a nonlinearly accelerating manor.
When conducting deterministic assessment using modern
local computer or cloud-based servers, the effective area
algorithm will not impact the performance or user experience
significantly. For example, an MFL ILI tally with 100 thousand
reported corrosion clusters, or hundreds of corrosion anomalies
measured by UT ILI or field laser scan with detailed 3-
dimensional (3D) maps could usually be assessed within
minutes. But when performing reliability-based (probabilistic)
2 Copyright © 2022 by ASME
ILI assessment using Monte Carlo method [17, 18], millions of
simulations are required for each anomaly. The computing
efforts are increased dramatically.
In addition, to reduce the conservatism of the effective area
method [2, 4], TC Energy has developed a new corrosion
assessment model, i.e., plausible profiles (Psqr) model,
published in IPC 2018 and 2020 [19, 20], and reviewed by
industry experts through a PRCI project [21, 22]. Psqr model
considers the circumferential separation between corrosion pits.
Instead of the one “river bottom” profile used by the effective
method, to predict the burst pressure more accurately and
precisely, Psqr model generates hundreds of profiles for each
corrosion cluster and repeatedly uses the effective area
algorithm [2, 3, 15, 19-22]. Psqr model is discussed to be
included in the next revision of ASME B31G [5] and CSA
Z662 [14].
When performing probabilistic assessment, or using Psqr
model, or even performing probabilistic assessment by using
Psqr model, an ILI tally with 100 thousand reported corrosion
clusters using millions of simulations might take millions of
minutes. Therefore, a more efficient effective area algorithm
becomes the key component to optimize the performance.
The following sections of this paper review the traditional
RSTRENG algorithm first, demonstrate that it is not necessary
to always loop through all the combinations and check the
corresponding burst pressure one by one. Because some
combinations with shallower and shorter corrosion size are
certainly not the final critical combination corresponding to the
minimum burst pressure. A more efficient algorithm (Faster
RSTRENG) is proposed in this study, which can reduce the
algorithm computation time significantly.
A case study comparing the computation time by using
different effective area algorithms is presented at the end. For
large corrosion clusters, with high resolution ultrasonic or laser
scan measurements, the more efficient algorithm could be 10-
100 times faster.
ASME B31G LEVEL 1 MODELS
As all ASME B31G [5] family models share the common
format, the original model published in 1984 [7], and the
modified B31G model (also known as 0.85dL model in CSA
Z662 Clause 10.10.2.6 [14]) are reviewed here first before the
effective area method. When using the original B31G and
modified B31G models, the corrosion size is only characterized
by the peak depth, dmax and total length, L. Therefore, they are
also called Level 1 models in ASME B31G [5] Section 2.2.
The predicted burst pressure of corroded pipe is:
𝑃𝑏 = 𝑃𝑏𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑐𝑡 ∗ 𝑅𝑆𝐹 = 𝜎𝑓 ×
2𝑡
× 𝑅𝑆𝐹
𝐷
𝐴 𝑑𝑚𝑎𝑥
1−
= 𝜎𝑓 ×
2𝑡
×
𝐴0
𝐴 = 𝜎𝑓 ×
2𝑡
×
1−𝑆𝐹×
1 𝑑
𝑡
(1)
𝐷 1−
𝑀𝐴0
𝐷 1− ×𝑆𝐹× 𝑚𝑎𝑥
𝑀 𝑡
where Pb_intact is the predicted burst pressure of defect free
intact pipe. RSF stands for remaining strength factor, which is a
real number between zero and one, defined as Pb/Pb_intact, and
used to characterize the severity of corrosion anomalies. RSF
depends on corrosion size and pipe geometry only. D, t, f and scan, e.g., 2mm by 8mm, or 2mm by 1mm, is much higher than
y are the outside diameter, wall thickness, flow stress and yield MFL boxes. Therefore, for the same corrosion anomaly, UT or
stress, respectively. laser scan has more granular characterization of metal loss
As shown in Figure 1, A and SF are the corroded area and compared to MFL flat-bottom rectangular boxes.
shape factor, respectively. When Level 1 assessment methods As the pipe hoop stress is much larger than the longitudinal
are used, the corroded area is a function of the assumed shape stress and radial stress, the impact of corrosion on the pipe
factor, peak depth, dmax and total length, L. A0 is the reference capacity holding internal pressure is usually evaluated along the
area and defined as L × t. longitudinal direction. The “river bottom” profile is the
L commonly used 2D profile to represent the 3D corrosion
measurements, which is generated by connecting the deepest
measured points of each circumferential pipe slice and
dmax projecting them to the longitudinal cross section as shown in
t Figures 2(a) and 2(b). Psqr model [19, 20] generates multiple
A A0 2D plausible profiles instead of the most conservative “river
bottom” profile to better characterize the corrosion.
Figure 1 Corrosion Size and Shape
This paper uses the “river bottom” profile as an illustrative
M is bulging factor and also known as Folias factor [23], example. The same effective area algorithm could be used to
which is given by: convert any 2D corrosion profile to predicted burst pressure.
𝐿2 For MFL “river bottom” profiles, the effective area
𝑀𝑜𝑟𝑖𝑔𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑙 = √1 + 0.8 𝐷𝑡 (2a) algorithm creates new “segments” whenever depth changes.
or Therefore, each segment has uniform depth as shown in Figure
2
2(a). As the MFL reported boxes do not have the same length,
2 2 𝐿2
√1 + 0.6275 𝐿 − 0.003375 ( 𝐿 ) ≤ 50 so the length of MFL “river bottom” segments varies. Most of
𝑀={ 𝐷𝑡 𝐷𝑡 𝐷𝑡 (2b)
3.3 + 0.032
𝐿2 𝐿2
> 50
time, whether one segment with uniform depth (formed by one
𝐷𝑡 𝐷𝑡 MFL box) is allowed to be split into multiple shorter
The model settings are summarized in Table 1. The shape subsegments or not, has no impact to the predicted burst
factor is defined as A/(L×dmax), which is between zero and one. pressure using the effective area method. However,
The Level 1 models are generally conservative, because the counterexamples exist (see Annex B). When using Psqr model
assumed shape factors, either 2/3 or 0.85, are fixed rough [19, 20], the MFL 3D maps need to be meshed to evenly spaced
estimation of the metal loss area as shown in Figure 1. The grids, e.g., 5mm by 5mm or 1mm by 1mm. Therefore, the MFL
accuracy and precision of models were compared and discussed “river bottom” profiles could be converted to evenly spaced
in past studies [2, 15, 19, 24-27]. In addition, recently some rectangular metal-loss area “bars” with the same length, see
new equations are developed to estimate the burst pressure of Figure 2(d).
intact pipe [27, 28], which are beyond the scope of this paper. The UT or field laser scan measurement points are usually
Table 1: ASME B31G Family evenly spaced, so the measurement interval is equal to the
Model Flow Stress, f Shape Factor Bulging Factor
segment length and defined as x = xi+1 – xi, as shown in
Original B31G 1.1 × y 2/3 Eq. (2a) Figures 2(c) and 2(d). There are two ways to characterize the
Modified B31G, or measured depth, e.g., the trapezoid or rectangle bar assumption,
y + 10 ksi 0.85 Eq. (2b)
0.85dL method as indicated in Figures 2(c) and 2(d). For n measurement
Effective area, or
y + 10 ksi deff /dmax_Aeff Eq. (2b) or (4c) points, the total length of the corrosion is (n - 1) x, or n x,
RSTRENG
based on different assumptions. The area of the ith segment Ai is
(di + di+1) x / 2, or di x., where di is the ith measured depth.
CORROSION CHARACTERIZATION
As UT or field laser scan usually has at least hundreds of
Detected and measured corrosion anomalies could be
measurement points, the impact of this assumption on the
characterized not only by their peak depth (dmax), total length
predicted burst pressure is negligible. The trapezoid assumption
(L), and total width (W), but also the details within the
could always be converted to rectangle bar assumption by
corrosion anomalies (clusters), e.g., the depth distribution,
letting (di + di+1) / 2 be the ith measured depth based on the
overall shape, or called morphology.
rectangle bar assumption.
After ILI, MFL signals are usually converted to flat-bottom
This paper focuses on 2D corrosion profiles formed by
rectangular metal-loss boxes and reported in pipe tallies. A
evenly spaced uniform depth rectangular metal-loss area bars as
plotted example is shown in Figure 2(a). Figure 2(b) shows an
shown in Figure 2(d) hereafter without losing the generality.
example of corrosion anomaly measured by ultrasonic (UT)
tools or field laser scan. In general, the resolution of UT or laser

3 Copyright © 2022 by ASME

 Ai

di+1
di
xi xi+1

(c)

Ai

di
xi xi+1

(a) (b) (d)

Figure 2: Corrosion Measurement Examples

A1 A2 A3 A4 A5

A6 A7 A8 A9 A10

Figure 3: Effective Area Method Combinations

𝑞
𝐿𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑏_𝑗 = ∑𝑖=𝑝 𝐿𝑖 , (1 ≤ 𝑝 ≤ 𝑞 ≤ 𝑛) (3b)
EFFECTIVE AREA METHOD (RSTRENG) 𝑗 = [2𝑛 − (𝑞 − 𝑝 − 1)]/2 × (𝑞 − 𝑝) + 𝑝, (1 ≤ 𝑝 ≤ 𝑞 ≤ 𝑛) (3c)
Consider a 2D profile with n uniform depth segments,
denoted as S1, S2, …, Si, … Sn. The corresponding depth and 𝑑𝑎𝑣𝑒_𝑗 = 𝐴𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑏_𝑗 /𝐿𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑏_𝑗 , (1 ≤ 𝑗 ≤ 𝑛(𝑛 + 1)/2) (3d)
length of each segment are d1, d2, …, di, …, dn and L1, L2, …, 𝐴𝑜_𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑏_𝑗 = 𝑡𝐿𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑏_𝑗 , (1 ≤ 𝑗 ≤ 𝑛(𝑛 + 1)/2) (3e)
Li, … Ln. It is noted that some segments could have zero depth. where i, j, p, q, n are all integers. Equations (3a) to (3e) indicate
Given n uniform depth segments, a total of n (n + 1) / 2 that all n (n + 1) / 2 combinations could be derived by varying p
sub-sections (or called combinations hereafter) could be and q.
generated by combining the adjacent segments. For example, a The effective area method (RSTRENG) checks the
profile with 4 segments could generate a total of 10 calculated burst pressure for all the possible segment
combinations as shown in Figure 3. combinations one by one, and the minimum value is used as the
It is noted that the number of combinations here is n (n + predicted burst pressure for the 2D profile.
1) / 2 instead of n (n - 1) / 2 in ASME B31G [5], because the 2𝑡
notation is different. ASME B31G [5] uses n measurement 𝑃𝑏 = min {𝑃𝑏_𝑗 } = 𝜎𝑓 × 𝐷
× min {𝑅𝑆𝐹𝑗 } (4a)
1≤𝑗≤𝑛(𝑛+1)/2 1≤𝑗≤𝑛(𝑛+1)/2
points to form n - 1 trapezoid segments. As described in the 𝐴𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑏_𝑗
𝑑𝑎𝑣𝑒_𝑗
previous section, they are mathematically equivalent. 1−
𝐴0_𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑏_𝑗 1−
𝑅𝑆𝐹𝑗 = = 𝑡
(4b)
The metal-loss area, length, average depth and reference 1−
1
×
𝐴𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑏_𝑗
𝑀𝑗 𝐴0_𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑏_𝑗
1−
1 𝑑𝑎𝑣𝑒_𝑗
𝑀𝑗
×
𝑡
area of the jth combination are denoted as Acomb_j, Lcomb_j, dave_j
and A0_comb_j, respectively, where j = 1, 2, …, n (n + 1) / 2. They 2
√1 + 0.6275 𝐿𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑏_𝑗 − 0.003375 (𝐿𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑏_𝑗 )
2 2
𝐿𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑏_𝑗 2
≤ 50
could be calculated by: 𝑀𝑗 = { 𝐷𝑡 𝐷𝑡 𝐷𝑡 (4c)
𝐿𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑏_𝑗 2 𝐿𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑏_𝑗 2
𝑞 3.3 + 0.032 > 50
𝐴𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑏_𝑗 = ∑𝑖=𝑝 𝑑𝑖 𝐿𝑖 , (1 ≤ 𝑝 ≤ 𝑞 ≤ 𝑛) (3a) 𝐷𝑡 𝐷𝑡

4 Copyright © 2022 by ASME

where f = y + 10 ksi as listed in Table 1. It is noted that as D,
t and f are all constant for all combinations. As shown in Eq.
(4a), it is more efficient to calculate the remaining strength
factor (0 ≤ RSFj ≤ 1) for all combinations first and convert it to
the final burst pressure after taking the minimum of all RSF.
The average depth, length, and area of the combination
corresponding to the minimum burst pressure are defined as
effective depth, effective length and effective area of the
profile, and denoted as deff, Leff and Aeff, respectively, as the red
box shown in Figure 4. The shape factor is deff /dmax_Aeff, where
dmax_Aeff is the maximum depth within the effective area.
Figure 4: Effective Area Example
For a fixed length, the larger average depth predicts lower
burst pressure. For a fixed depth, the longer corrosion leads to
lower burst pressure. However, it is noted that usually the
effective area does not cover the entire corrosion profile, i.e, the
effective length is usually shorter than the total length, as the
example shown in Figure 4. Because as the combination length
increases, the average depth could become shallower. The
combination with balanced length and average depth is the
critical one to be searched by the effective area (RSTRENG)
algorithm.
For a given corrosion profile with n segments, the
RSTRENG algorithm needs to check all n (n + 1) / 2
combinations. A 10 times larger profile with 10n segments
generates around 100 times more combinations. The
computation time increases nonlinearly. The widely used
RSTRENG algorithm has at least an order of n-square time
complexity. It is known as O(n2) algorithm in computer science
discipline [16], which would be the bottleneck when
performing systematic probabilistic assessment using Psqr
model [19, 20].
MORE EFFICIENT ALGORITHM (FASTER RSTRENG)
The O(n2) RSTRENG algorithm could be improved. This
paper uses 2D corrosion profiles formed by evenly spaced
uniform depth rectangular metal-loss area bars as shown in
Figure 4 to illustrate the approach. Other scenarios could be
converted as discussed in previous sections.
Consider a 2D profile with n segments with depth d1, d2,
…, di, …, dn and constant segment length, x. The total number
of combinations is n (n + 1) / 2. Within these n (n + 1) / 2
combinations, there are n – k + 1 combinations with length
equal to kx, where k is an integer and 1 ≤ k ≤ n. For example,
the profile shown in Figure 4 has n = 179 segments and n (n +
5 Copyright © 2022 by ASME
1) / 2 = 16110 combinations. There are 179 and 178
combinations with length equal to x and 2x, respectively.
The “river bottom” profile with 179 segments in Figure 4 is
used as an example hereafter in this paper.
The average depth of the n (n + 1) / 2 combinations could
be plotted against their combination length over the constant
segment length, x, i.e., the normalized length, k as shown in
Figure 5.
Figure 5: Average Depth versus Normalized Length, k
It is obvious that for the same k, larger average depth leads
to lower burst pressure. Therefore, for each k, only the
combination with the largest average depth (denoted as d<k>),
i.e., the points on the red line in Figure 5, are possible to be the
point corresponding to the effective length and effective depth
predicting the overall minimum pressure, i.e., the large red
point in Figure 5.
∑𝑗+𝑘−1 𝑑𝑖 ∆𝑥 1 𝑗+𝑘−1
{ ∑𝑖=𝑗 𝑑𝑖 } (5)
𝑖=𝑗
𝑑 <𝑘> = max { }= max
1≤𝑗≤𝑛 – 𝑘 + 1 𝑘∆𝑥 1≤𝑗≤𝑛 – 𝑘 + 1 𝑘
However, the computation cost of Eq. (5) is high. If looping all
possible k from 1 to n, i.e., using Eq. (5) n times, the overall
algorithm still has the same O(n2) complexity as the traditional
RSTRENG algorithm. Equation (5) is equivalent to Eqs. (3a) to
(3e). If only calculating the burst pressure or RSF for
combinations on the red line of Figure 5, Eqs. 4(a) to 4(c) are
used n times instead of n (n + 1) / 2. But the overall computing
time saving is still minimal.
It is observed that by definition d<k>kx is the maximum
metal-loss area of all combinations with length equal to kx.
For given two different normalized combination length k and
(k+k), where k is a positive integer and 1 ≤ k < (k+k) ≤ n,
when the combination length increases from kx to (k+k)x,
the corresponding maximum area increases from d<k>kx to
d<k+k>(k+k)x. Denote dmin and dmax as the overall minimum
and maximum of all segment depth d1, d2, …, di, …, dn. The
following inequality holds:
𝑑 <𝑘+∆𝑘> (𝑘+∆𝑘)−𝑑 <𝑘> 𝑘
𝑑𝑚𝑖𝑛 ≤ ∆𝑘
≤ 𝑑𝑚𝑎𝑥 (6)
i.e., the length weighted average depth for the increased area
should be between dmin and dmax. Rearranging Eq. (6) and
considering the overall dmin and dmax boundary, the following
inequality holds:
𝑚𝑎𝑥 {
𝑑 <𝑘> 𝑘+𝑑𝑚𝑖𝑛 ∆𝑘
, 𝑑𝑚𝑖𝑛 } ≤ 𝑑<𝑘+∆𝑘> ≤ 𝑚𝑖𝑛 {
𝑑 <𝑘> 𝑘+𝑑𝑚𝑎𝑥 ∆𝑘
, 𝑑𝑚𝑎𝑥 } (7)
𝑘+∆𝑘 𝑘+∆𝑘
Similarly, let 1 ≤ (k-k) < k ≤ n, For this example with n = 179, it takes 66 steps to find the
𝑑 <𝑘> 𝑘−𝑑<𝑘−∆𝑘> (𝑘−∆𝑘) effective length equal to 132x (i.e., k = 132) as shown in
𝑑𝑚𝑖𝑛 ≤ ≤ 𝑑𝑚𝑎𝑥 (8)
∆𝑘 Figure 6(d). The computationally expensive Eq. (5) has been
𝑚𝑎𝑥 {
𝑑 <𝑘> 𝑘−𝑑 𝑚𝑎𝑥 ∆𝑘
, 𝑑𝑚𝑖𝑛 } ≤ 𝑑<𝑘−∆𝑘> ≤ 𝑚𝑖𝑛 {
𝑑 <𝑘> 𝑘−𝑑 𝑚𝑖𝑛 ∆𝑘
, 𝑑𝑚𝑎𝑥 } (9) used 66 times, and 179 – 66 = 113 times are saved compare to
𝑘−∆𝑘 𝑘−∆𝑘
<k>
the traditional effective area (RSTRENG) algorithm. See Annex
For any known k and d , Eqs. (7) and (9) could be used A for details.
to estimate the upper and lower bound of unknown d<k±k> for The final results, i.e., the predicted burst pressure, effective
all other normalized length, k±k. For the same length, the length, effective depth, effective area, shape factor, using
deeper corrosion leads to lower pressure. Therefore, the upper RSTRENG and Faster RSTRENG are identical because they
bound of d<k±k> is corresponding to the lower bound of burst have rigorously mathematical equivalency.
pressure. Denote k±k as k′, where 1 ≤ k′ ≤ n and k′ ≠ k. After
refactoring Eqs. (7) and (9), the derived upper bound of the
unknown d<k′> from the known d<k> is:
𝑑<𝑘> 𝑘−𝑑𝑚𝑖𝑛 (𝑘−𝑘′)
𝑚𝑖𝑛 { , 𝑑𝑚𝑎𝑥 } , 𝑖𝑓𝑘′ < 𝑘
𝑘′
𝑑 <𝑘′>
≤ <𝑘′>
𝑑𝑢𝑝𝑝𝑒𝑟 ={
𝑑 <𝑘> 𝑘+𝑑𝑚𝑎𝑥 (𝑘 ′ −𝑘)
(10)
𝑚𝑖𝑛 { , 𝑑𝑚𝑎𝑥 } , 𝑖𝑓𝑘′ > 𝑘
𝑘′
All the direct calculation for d<k> using Eq. (5) is
computationally expensive. However, if d<k> is calculated for
one specific k, Eq. (10) could be used to estimate the upper
bound of all the other unknown d<k′> for free. The computation (a)
cost of Eq. (10) is negligible compare to Eq. (5).
For the same example in Figure 4, let k = 90 first, after
checking all the n – k + 1 = 179 – 90 + 1 = 90 combinations
with normalized length equal to 90, d<90> = 49.6% × t is
calculated using Eq. (5). With known d<90>, the upper bound of
d<k′> for k′ = 1, 2, …, 89, 91, …, 179, could be calculated using
Eq. (10), which is plotted as the red line in Figure 6(a).
If the RSF (proportional to Pb) corresponding to the upper
bound of d<k′> and k′x using Eq. (4b) and (4c) is greater than
or equal to the currently known minimum RSF, it is obvious
that k′x is not the final effective length, and all the (b)
combination with normalized length equal to k′ could be
excluded from all further calculation. In Figure 6(a), as marked
by black crosses, all the combinations with the normalized
length, k′, less than or equal to 6 are excluded, because their
lower bound RSF values corresponding to the upper bound d<k′>
are still greater than the calculated RSF for k = 90.
It is observed from Figure 6(a) that the closer k′ to the
calculated k = 90, the lower estimated upper bound of d<k′> is. It
is more efficient and informative to choose the next k (e.g., 135
in Figure 6(b)) far away from the known calculated k = 90, and
the minimum and maximum possible values, i.e., 1 or n. (c)
As shown in in Figure 6(b), similarly, after calculating
d<135> using Eq. (5), the upper bound for all the other unknown
d<k′> could be updated using Eq. (10) for free again. The RSF
corresponding to k = 135 is less than the RSF for k = 90, so k =
135 is corresponding to the currently known minimum RSF
value shown as the large red point in Figure 6(b). Based on the
RSF for the upper bound of d<k′>, k′ = 88, 89, 91 could be
excluded from any further calculation. See Annex A for details.
This process could be repeated until all the possible integer
k, 1 ≤ k ≤ n, checked using Eq. (5) or excluded based on Eq.
(10). Figure 6(c) shows that after 15 steps, 15 d<k> values for (d)
Figure 6: Faster RSTRENG Algorithm Steps
different k have been calculated by Eq. (5), and the other 23 k
values have been excluded using Eq. (10).

6 Copyright © 2022 by ASME

DISCUSSION
A comprehensive case study has been conducted using 2D
profiles with various n values ranging from 2 to 10000. As
shown in Figure 7, Faster RSTRENG algorithm proposed in
this paper takes much less time for large n (i.e., long or
complex corrosion anomalies) compare to the traditional
RSTRENG. Faster RSTRENG algorithm is much more
efficient than the traditional RSTRENG. The results generated
by the two algorithms are identical.
1400
1200 RSTRENG
Faster RSTRENG
Time (seconds)
1000
800
600
400
200
0 model contains an iterative process to find the critical sub-
0 2000 4000 6000
n segments = total length / segment length
Figure 7: Case Study Showing Time Efficiency Benefit
It should be emphasized that Faster RSTRENG and
RSTRENG algorithms are rigorously mathematically
equivalent. The calculated burst pressure results are always
identical. All the combinations (or called iterations) mentioned
in ASME B31G [5] and PRCI PR-3-805 [4] have been checked.
The benefit of Faster RSTRENG comes from that some
shallower and shorter combinations, certainly not the final
critical combination, are checked and excluded more efficiently
without actually calculating the corresponding burst pressure
one by one.
The key component of Faster RSTRENG is Eq. (10)
derived from the inequality Eqs. (6) and (8), which could be
used to check and exclude combinations efficiently with
negligible computational cost. As the example shown in Figure
6(d), a 2D profile with n = 179 is calculated using 66 steps, all
the other 113 normalized length k values are excluded using Eq.
(10). The 113 black cross markers in Figure 6(d) are
computational free, whereas the red line in Figure 5 is
computationally very expensive and unnecessary.
Faster RSTRENG algorithm presented in this paper is
clearly not the “most” efficient algorithm. There is still room to
further improve this algorithm. For instance, the strategy to
select the next k to calculate using Eq. (5) based on the existing
information, e.g., calculated d<k> values and current upper
bound distribution of d<k′> (see Annex A for details). But it is
proved to be good enough for general engineering purpose.
Assume an MFL ILI reported corrosion cluster formed by
m individual flat bottom rectangular boxes as shown in Figure
2(a), and the generated “river bottom” has n segments with
uniform depth and various length, where n ≤ m. The current
common industry practice is to check the burst pressure for all
n (n + 1) / 2 combinations and use the minimum as the final
burst pressure for the corrosion cluster. However, if the n
segments are allowed to be split into shorter subsegments, as
shown in Annex B, sometimes, burst pressure lower than the
minimum of the n (n + 1) / 2 combinations could be found. In
other words, if the n segments forming a 2D profile do not have
the same length, it is not guaranteed that the commonly used
RSTRENG algorithm always predicts the minimum burst
pressure for the profile after checking the n (n + 1) / 2
combinations. A counterexample is presented in Annex B. It is
hard to solve the generic problem analytically, especially for
complex MFL reported clusters. Therefore, it is suggested to
mesh the MFL reported corrosion clusters into evenly spaced
small girds, e.g., 5mm by 5mm, before generating “river
bottom” profiles, and calculate using RSTRENG or Faster
RSTRENG algorithm.
SUMMARY
When assessing corrosion threat, the effective area
(RSTRENG) model is commonly used to predict burst pressure
from known measured corrosion anomaly size. RSTRENG
8000 10000 section (combination) corresponding to the minimum burst
pressure. The commonly used RSTRENG algorithm has an
order of n-square time complexity (O(n2)). As n increases (e.g.,
longer corrosion or the same corrosion measured by higher
resolution tools), the computation time increases nonlinearly.
The traditional effective area algorithm is reviewed first in
this paper. It is found that it is not necessary to always loop
through all the combinations and check the corresponding burst
pressure one by one. A more effective algorithm (Faster
RSTRENG) is proposed and described in detail. Faster
RSTRENG is mathematically equivalent to the traditional
RSTRENG algorithm and always guarantees identical burst
pressure results as the traditional algorithm. All the
combinations (or called iterations) mentioned in ASME B31G
[5] and PRCI PR-3-805 [4] are checked but in a more efficient
way.
A case study is conducted with input profiles formed by
various measurement points, n. It is proven that Faster
RSTRENG algorithm is much more efficient than the
traditional RSTRENG.
Faster RSTRENG algorithm reduces the computation cost
significantly and makes it possible to perform reliability-based
(probabilistic) assessment using Monte Carlo method. Millions
of simulations could be performed using RSTRENG model, or
even the more accurate and precise Psqr model developed by
TC Energy [19, 20]. Operators usually benefit from the
advanced data driven corrosion assessment when optimizing
the mitigation works [2, 15].
As the effective area method is the fundamental of
corrosion assessment, the proposed algorithm in this study
potentially brings broad benefits to the pipeline industry.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Authors acknowledge the comments received from internal
and external reviewers. Jason Yan would like to thank the
family support when working from home during the novel
coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.
7 Copyright © 2022 by ASME
REFERENCES
[1] Zhou, W., Gong, C. and Kariyawasam, S. “Failure pressure ratios
and implied reliability levels for corrosion anomalies on gas
transmission pipelines”, Proceedings of the 2016 11th
International Pipeline Conference, IPC2016-64383, Calgary,
Alberta, Canada, 2016.
[2] Kariyawasam, S., Zhang, S., and Yan, J., “A Data Driven
Validation of a Defect Assessment Model and its Safe
Implementation”, Proceedings of the 2020 13th International
Pipeline Conference, IPC2020-9690, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
2020.
[3] Kariyawasam, S., Zhang, S., Yan, J., Kariyawasam, S. Huang, T.
and Al-Amin, M., “Improving Safety and Economy Through a
More Accurate and Precise Burst Pressure Model”, Proceedings of
22nd Joint Technical Meeting, Brisbane, Australia, 2019. Paper
No. 31.
[4] Kiefner, J. F., and Vieth, P. H., “A Modified Criterion for
Evaluating the Remaining Strength of Corroded Pipe”, PRCI
Report Catalog No. L 51609, Contract Catalog No. PR-3-805,
Battelle Columbus Div., December 22, 1989.
[5] ASME. Manual for Determining the Remaining Strength of
Corroded Pipelines, A Supplement to ASME B31 Code for
Pressure Piping. ASME B31G-2012, American Society of
Mechanical Engineers, New York, 2012.
[6] Kiefner, J. F., Maxey, W. A., Eiber, R. J., and Duffy, A. R., “Failure
Stress Levels of Flaws in Pressurized Cylinders”, Progress in
Flaw growth and Fracture Toughness Testing. American Society
for Testing and Materials STP, Philadelphia, pp.461-481, 1973.
[7] ASME. Manual for Determining the Remaining Strength of
Corroded Pipelines, A Supplement to ASME B31 Code for
Pressure Piping. ASME B31G-1984, American Society of
Mechanical Engineers, New York, 1984.
[8] Kiefner, J. F., and Vieth, P. H., “Evaluating Pipe – 1: New Method
Corrects Criterion for Evaluating Corroded Pipe”, Oil and Gas
Journal, August 6, 1990.
[9] Kiefner, J. F., and Vieth, P. H., “Evaluating Pipe – Conclusion: “PC
Program Speeds New Criterion for Evaluating Corroded Pipe”, Oil
and Gas Journal, August 20, 1990.
[10] Vieth, P.H. and Kiefner, J.F. “Database of Corroded Pipe Tests”,
PRCI Report, Contract Catalog No. PR-218-9206, 1993
[11] Kiefner, J. F., Vieth, P. H., and Roytman, I., “Continued Validation
of RSTRENG”, PRCI Report Catalog No. L51749, Contract
Catalog No. PR 218-9304, December 20, 1996.
[12] ASME. Pipeline Transportation Systems for Liquids and Slurries.
ASME B31.4-2019, American Society of Mechanical Engineers,
New York, 2019.
[13] ASME. Gas Transmission and Distribution Piping Systems.
ASME B31.8-2020, American Society of Mechanical Engineers,
New York, 2020.
[14] CSA. Oil and gas pipeline systems. CSA Z662-2019, Canadian
Standards Association, 2019.
[15] Kariyawasam, S., Zhang, S., Yan, J., Kariyawasam, S. Huang, T.,
Al-Amin, M., and Gamboa, G. “Plausible Profiles (Psqr) Model
for Corrosion Assessment”, Technical report submitted to PRCI,
Project Number EC-2-9, August 9, 2019.
https://www.prci.org/141865.aspx
[16] Cormen, T. H., Leiserson, C. E., Rivest, R. L., and Stein, C.,
Introduction to Algorithms. MIT Press, 2009.
[17] Owen, A., Monte Carlo Theory, Methods and Examples. McBook,
2013.
[18] Yan, J., Zhang, S., Kariyawasam, S., Lu, D., and Matchim, T.
“Reliability-based Crack Threat Assessment and Management”,
8 Copyright © 2022 by ASME
Proceedings of the 2020 13th International Pipeline Conference,
IPC2020-9484, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. 2020.
[19] Zhang, S., Yan, J., Kariyawasam, S. Huang, T. and Al-Amin, M.,
“A More Accurate and Precise Method for Large Metal Loss
Corrosion Assessment”, Proceedings of the 2018 12th
International Pipeline Conference, IPC2018-78233, Calgary,
Alberta, Canada, 2018.
[20] Zhang, S., Yan, J., Kariyawasam, S. Huang, T. and Al-Amin, M.,
“Plausible Profile (Psqr) Corrosion Assessment Model:
Refinement, Validation and Operationalization”, Proceedings of
the 2020 13th International Pipeline Conference, IPC2020-9448,
Calgary, Alberta, Canada, 2020.
[21] Kiefner, J.F., Cosham, A., Gao, M., Hopkins, P., Krishnamurthy,
R., Nessim, M., Nestleroth, B., and Rosenfeld, M., “Peer Review
of the Plausible Profile (Psqr) Corrosion Assessment Model”,
PRCI Report, Project Number EC-2-9, Contract Catalog No.
PR218-183607-Z01, September 24, 2019.
https://www.prci.org/141865.aspx
[22] Kiefner, J. F., “Peer Review of the Plausible Profile Corrosion
Assessment Model”, Proceedings of the 2020 13th International
Pipeline Conference, IPC2020-9254, Calgary, Alberta, Canada,
2020.
[23] Folias, E.S., “The Stresses in a Cylindrical Shell Containing an
Axial Crack”, International Journal of Fracture Mechanics, Vol.
1(2), pp. 104-113, 1964.
[24] Chauhan, V., Brister, J. and Dafea, M. “A Review of Methods for
Assessing the Remaining Strength of Corroded Pipelines”, US
Dept. of Transportation (DOT), Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration (PHMSA), Report No. 6781., 2009.
[25] Kiefner, J. F., and Vieth, P. H., “Pipeline Defect Assessment – A
Review and Comparison of Commonly Used Methods”, PRCI
Report, Contract Catalog No. PR-218-05404, 2011.
[26] Zhou, W., and Huang, G.X., “Model error assessments of burst
capacity models for corroded pipelines”, International Journal of
Pressure Vessels and Piping, Volumes 99–100, Pages 1-8, 2012.
[27] Zhu, X-K, “A Comparative Study of Burst Failure Models for
Assessing Remaining Strength of Corroded Pipelines”, Journal of
Pipeline Science and Engineering, 2021.
[28] Zhou, W, and Huang, G., “Model Error Assessment of Burst
Capacity Models for Defect-Free Pipes”, Proceedings of the 2012
9th International Pipeline Conference, IPC2012-90334, Calgary,
Alberta, Canada, 2012.
 ANNEX A
FASTER RSTRENG ALGORITHM

Algorithm 1: Bulging factor or Folias factor, Eq.(2b) or (4c), M (D, t, L) 8: current_max_d_ave ← current_d_ave
Input: D, t and L (corrosion length, segment or combination length) 9 loop
1: if L ^ 2 <= 50 × (D × t) then 10: return current_max_d_ave
2: M ← (1 + 0.6275 × L ^ 2 / (D × t) - 0.003375 × L ^ 4 / (D × t) ^ 2) ^
0.5 Algorithm 6: Faster RSTRENG, n segments
3: else Input: D, t, y, 2D corrosion profile formed by n segments with same length
4: M ← 3.3 + 0.032 × L ^ 2 / (D × t)
(x) and uniform depth, {d1, d2, …, dn}
5: return M
1: Let unchecked_possible_k_list be an array from 1 to n # initialize
2: d_max ← max {d1, d2, …, dn}
Algorithm 2: Remaining strength factor, Eq.(4b), RSF (D, t, L, d) 3: d_min ← min {d1, d2, …, dn}
Input: D, t, L and d (depth, segment depth or combination average depth) 3: current_upper_d_ave ← an array with n elements equal to d_max
1: if L = 0 or d = 0 then # perfect pipe 4: current_min_RSF ← 1 # initialize
2: return 1 5: while unchecked_possible_k_list.size > 0 do
3: else 6: if this is the first step then
4: M ← M (D, t, L) # Folias factor 7: current_k ←
5: return (1 – d / t) / (1 – d / t / M) unchecked_possible_k_list [unchecked_possible_k_list.size // 2]
# start from the middle point of the list
8: else
Algorithm 3: RSTRENG, n segments, O(n2) complexity
9: last_k ← current_k
Input: D, t, y, {L1, L2, …, Ln} and {d1, d2, …, dn}, (length and depth of each 10: # get the next k to check, it should be far away from the last k, and
segment, as arrays) not close to 1 or n
1: loop through all n segments to get the area of each segment current_k ← get_next_k (unchecked_possible_k_list, last_k)
2: current_min_RSF ← 1 # initialize 11: remove current_k from unchecked_possible_k_list
3: for p = 1 to n do 12: d_ave_max_k ← get_d_ave_max_k (current_k, {d1, d2, …, dn})
4: for q = p to n do # loop through all n(n+1) combinations # based on Eq.(5)
5: get the combination length, combination area and average depth 13: current_RSF ← RSF (D, t, k × x, d_ave_max_k)
from the pth segment to the qth segment inclusive # Eqs.(3a) to (3e) 14: if current_RSF < current_min_RSF then
# When using Eqs. (3a) and (3b), always remember the area and 15: current_min_RSF ← current_RSF # update the minimum
length from the last loop to avoid duplicate summation, otherwise 16: if unchecked_possible_k_list.size > 0 then
Algorithm 3 will become O(n3) complexity 17: current_upper_d_ave ←
6: current_RSF ← RSF (D, t, current combination length and average update_upper_bound (current_upper_d_ave, d_ave_max_k,
depth) current_k, d_max, d_min) # based on Eq. (10)
7: if current_RSF < current_min_RSF then 18: for all uncheck_k in unchecked_possible_k_list do
8: current_min_RSF ← current_RSF # update the minimum 19: current_RSF ← RSF (D, t, uncheck_k × x,
9: loop current_upper_d_ave [uncheck_k])
10: loop 21: if current_RSF >= current_min_RSF then
11: return 2 × t × (y + 10ksi) / D × current_min_RSF # convert RSF to 22: remove uncheck_k from unchecked_possible_k_list
Pb, unit conversion as needed 23: loop
24: loop
Algorithm 4: Get the next k to check, this algorithm has room to further 25: return 2 × t × (y + 10ksi) / D × current_min_RSF # convert RSF to
improve. get_next_k (unchecked_possible_k_list, last_k) Pb, unit conversion as needed
Input: unchecked_possible_k_list, last_k
1: split unchecked_possible_k into 2 arrays, left and right
left contains all elements in unchecked_possible_k less than last_k
right contains all elements in unchecked_possible_k greater than last_k
both left and right are in ascending order
2: if left.size > right.size then
return left[left.size // 2] # return the middle point from the left array
3: Else
4: return right[right.size // 2] # return the middle point from the right
array

Algorithm 5: get the maximum of all average depth for combinations with
length equal to kx, Eq.(5). get_d_ave_max_k (k, {d1, d2, …, dn})
Input: k, depth of n segments {d1, d2, …, dn}
1: current_max_d_ave ← min {d1, d2, …, dn} # initialize
2: for j = 1 to n – k + 1 do
3: current_d_ave ← 0 # initialize
4: for i = j to j + k - 1 do
5: current_d_ave ← current_d_ave + di / k
6: loop
7: if current_d_ave > current_max_d_ave then

9 Copyright © 2022 by ASME

 ANNEX B
AN MFL ILI CLUSTER COUNTEREXAMPLE

Figure B1(a) shows a magnetic flux leakage (MFL) in-line
inspection (ILI) reported corrosion cluster example, which is
formed by two flat bottom rectangular individual corrosion
boxes. The two boxes are 150 mm × 100 mm × 10% wall
thickness (WT) and 50 mm × 50 mm × 40% WT, respectively.
The 2D “river bottom” profile has 2 segments (see Figure
B1(b)). A total of 2 × (2 + 1) / 2 = 3 combinations could be
generated from the 2 segments profile as shown in Figure
B1(c). After checking all 3 combinations, Combination #3 with
length = 150 mm and average depth = 20%WT has the lowest
remaining strength factor (RSF) equal to 0.8688 as shown in
Figure B1(e).
However, if it is allowed to split the 2 segments into
shorter subsegments, e.g., Combination #4 shown in Figure
B1(c), a lower RSF value could be found. Figure B1(e) shows
that the RSF value changes as a function of the length of
Combination #4. The minimum RSF value of the cluster is
0.8665 with effective length = 103 mm and effective depth =
24.56%WT.

①
① ② ①
10%WT ① ② ④
50 mm × 40%WT 100 mm × 10%WT ④
103 mm × 24.6%WT
50 mm × 40%WT 100 mm × 10%WT ③
103 mm × 24.6%WT
40%WT ② ③
②

Combination Length
(a) ③ ④ (d)
③ ④ ①
①
150 mm × 20%WT 103 mm × 24.6%WT ③
150 mm × 20%WT 103 mm × 24.6%WT ③
④
④

(b) (c) (e)

Figure B1: An MFL ILI Example

10 Copyright © 2022 by ASME