M.

Bony Failure Pressure in Corroded

Institut Français de Mécanique Avancée,
Campus de Clermont-Ferrand,
France
Pipelines Based on Equivalent
Solutions for Undamaged Pipe
J. L. Alamilla1
e-mail: jalamill@imp.mx Simple and accurate approaches to predict failure pressures in corroded pipelines are
outlined in this work. It is shown that failure pressures for corroded pipelines can be
R. Vai predicted from the solution for undamaged pipelines using an equivalent wall thickness.

Downloaded from http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pressurevesseltech/article-pdf/132/5/051001/5751587/051001_1.pdf by University of Edinburgh user on 22 March 2023

Instituto Mexicano del Petróleo,
Eje Central Lazaro Cardenas Norte No. 152,
07730, México, D.F., México
E. Flores
Instituto Politécnico Nacional,
ESIA-Zacatenco,
México
Three different yield criteria (Tresca, ASSY (average shear stress yield), and von Mises)
are reviewed in the light of reported experimental burst pressures. At first, failure pres-
sures for cylindrical vessels with an infinitely long groove are studied by means of
numerical simulations. The effect of groove size (depth and width) over the pipeline
performance is quantified through a model. Finally, the scheme is extended to estimate
the failure pressure of thin walled vessels with irregular finite defects.
关DOI: 10.1115/1.4001801兴
Keywords: failure pressure, infinitely long groove, burst test, damaged and undamaged
pipelines

1 Introduction
Pipeline systems are commonly used for oil and gas transpor-
tation because they are economic and safe. However, their integ-
rity is affected by corrosion damages, which can originate failures.
These failures can imply health consequences for people in the
pipeline neighborhood, environmental pollution, and economic
losses. Security levels must be established on a reference frame-
work in which a trade-off between safety and consequences has to
be done. To achieve this goal, effective integrity assessment is of
primary concern.
According to the plasticity theory 关1,2兴, it is accepted that a
pipeline fails by pressure if the stress field in the wall thickness is
proportional to the maximum stress of a tensile stress-strain rela-
tion 关3–5兴. Such proportionality is described by a yield criterion
specified in terms of effective stresses. The stress field is ex-
pressed in terms of its corresponding internal failure pressure and
can be estimated analytically 关2–7兴. On the basis of Svensson’s
formulation 关3兴, using von Mises’s yield criterion, Cronin and
Pick 关8兴 assessed that the mean analytical failure pressure overes-
timates the corresponding mean obtained from experimental pipe-
line tests. Therefore, they recommended to multiply the analytical
solution by a scale factor of 0.86⬇ 冑3 / 2, which let us presume
that Tresca’s criterion could be more realistic in estimating failure
pressures than other failure criteria. Recently, Zhu and Leis 关9兴
proposed the ASSY 共average shear stress yield兲 criterion, which
corresponds to a statistical average of maximum effective shear
stress of Tresca’s and von Mises’s. This new criterion was vali-
dated with 103 experimental tests. They reported that, in average,
the criterion matched up very closely with experimental results
关9兴.
On the other hand, if the pipe wall thickness is affected by an
infinitely long groove or a corrosion defect with irregular geom-
etry, then other schemes have to be used 关8,10兴. By increasing the
length of a finite groove, the burst pressure asymptotically ap-
proaches the failure pressure of a pipe with an infinitely long
groove. Hopkins and Jones 关11兴 experimentally showed that fail-
ure pressures associated with different groove lengths greater than
a pipe diameter do not vary. Therefore, these kinds of defects are
called infinitely long grooves. Mok et al. 关4兴 and Fu and Kirk-
wood 关12兴 performed finite element numerical analyses of pipe-
lines affected by infinitely long groove defects. They documented
that burst pressure values did not change significantly as a func-
tion of groove width. The failure pressure of a pipeline with an
infinitely long groove represents a lower limit for the burst pres-
sure of a vessel with an irregular defect 关10,5,11兴. Note that cor-
roded pipes generally present defects with an irregular geometry.
In this case, numerical methods, mainly finite element method, are
very useful tools to describe the pipeline performance in corroded
zones 关8,10,4,13兴. Nevertheless, analytical approaches are avail-
able 关8,10兴. In engineering applications, semi-empirical formulas
共e.g., B31G 关14兴 and RSTRENG 关15兴兲 are used to predict failure
pressures.
Simplicity and accuracy are needed to evaluate pipeline integ-
rity. Numerical methods give precise results, but they require a
great effort to obtain them. Practical formulas are very simple to
apply; however, errors can be significant. The scheme presented in
this work is easy to use; still, results are accurate. Burst pressures
are assessed by means of mechanical models suitable for predict-
ing failure pressures of undamaged pipelines. Estimating the fail-
ure pressure of thin walled vessels with an irregular defect, a
lower bound is given by the burst pressure of pipelines with an
infinitely long groove, which in turn is bounded by the failure
pressure of undamaged pipes. Consequently, the first section of
this work is focused on the study of undamaged pipelines. Three
different yield criteria are evaluated in the light of experimental
burst tests. Then, finite element method is used to study the rela-
tionship among the failure pressure, width, and depth of infinitely
long groove defects. A model is developed to estimate the burst
pressure of pipelines with an infinitely long groove. Subsequently,
the idea is extended to predict the failure pressure of vessels with
finite irregular defects; in particular, the approach developed by
Oliveros et al. 关10兴 is retrieved. The results of the developed mod-
els are also compared with reported experimental burst pressures.

1
Corresponding author.
Contributed by the Pressure Vessel and Piping Division of ASME for publication 2 Burst Pressure of Undamaged Pipeline
in the JOURNAL OF PRESSURE VESSEL TECHNOLOGY. Manuscript received October 20,
2008; final manuscript received June 10, 2009; published online August 20, 2010. On the basis of Svensson’s 关3兴 work, the failure pressure of a
Assoc. Editor: Shawn Kenny. thin walled undamaged pipeline can be obtained analytically as

Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology Copyright © 2010 by ASME OCTOBER 2010, Vol. 132 / 051001-1

Fig. 1 Experimental failure pressures versus predicted failure
pressures for Tresca, ASSY, and von Mises yield criteria
t0
pplain = k␴U 共1兲
r0
A pipeline is considered thin walled if the ratio of wall thickness
to diameter is approximately less than 0.05 关3兴. Radial stresses can
be neglected since they are much lower than tangential ones. In
Eq. 共1兲, t0 is the initial wall thickness 共original, undeformed wall
thickness兲, and r0 is the inner initial radius. As shown in Appendix
A, the true stress-strain relation is defined by the parameters ␴0, n,
and ␴U = ␴0nn. Here, k is a constant, and its value depends on the
yield criterion:
冦 冧
2 using von Mises’s yield criterion are above the upper dot-dashed
von Mises
e 共冑3兲n+1
n line, which means that pressure values obtained from von Mises’s
k=
1
共2e兲 n 冉 冊
2 + 冑3
2 冑3
n+1
ASSY 共2兲
1 measurements and from experimental tests. These mechanical
Tresca
共2e兲n
In order to compare failure pressures obtained from Eq. 共1兲 and
experimental burst pressures, a sample of 46 tests of undamaged
pipelines was used. This sample corresponds to 8 tests from Cro-
nin 关5兴, 2 from Mok et al. 关4兴, 9 from Papka et al. 关16兴, 8 from
Liessem et al. 关17兴, 12 from Amano et al. 关18兴, 2 from Vieth and
Kiefner 关19兴, and 5 from Law 关20兴. Since the tests come from
different authors, the nature of the data is heterogeneous, and no
set dominates or can statistically bias the results. Moreover, the
sample is heterogeneous with respect to mechanical and geometri-
cal properties. Steel grades range from API 5L X-42 to API 5L
X-120, and outer diameters range from 273.0 mm to 1219.2 mm.
Information of five tests were incomplete as the n value was not
available. In these cases, Eq. 共A3兲 of Appendix A was used to
estimate the missing parameter.
Figure 1 shows the experimental burst pressure values versus
the corresponding predicted pressures obtained from Eq. 共1兲. Dif-
ferent symbols were used to distinguish yield criteria. In agree-
ment with Refs. 关8,9兴, failure pressures associated with von Mis-
es’s criterion overestimate the corresponding experimental
pressures. The burst pressures related to the ASSY criterion are
among Tresca and von Mises results, coherently with the defini-
tion of the ASSY criterion. No clear tendency can be identified to
establish whether the Tresca or ASSY yield criterion is more suit-
able to fit experimental results. The error, defined as the ratio of
the predicted failure pressure to the corresponding experimental
burst pressure, was computed for each test and criterion. The
051001-2 / Vol. 132, OCTOBER 2010
Downloaded from http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pressurevesseltech/article-pdf/132/5/051001/5751587/051001_1.pdf by University of Edinburgh user on 22 March 2023
Fig. 2 Normalized analytical burst pressure versus strain
hardening coefficient
mean errors are 1.126, 1.044, and 0.963 for von Mises, ASSY, and
Tresca, respectively, whereas the coefficient of variation is equal
to 0.042, regardless of the considered criterion. The statistical
variability of the error is small. A continuous line and two couples
of lines are shown in Fig. 1. The continuous line represents the
ideal match, i.e., model prediction equal to the experimental re-
sult. The first couple of lines showed as dotted lines defines the
ideal pressure value of ⫾1 standard deviation 共0.042兲. The second
couple denoted as dot-dashed lines corresponds to the ideal pres-
sure value of ⫾2 standard deviations. As shown in Fig. 1, the
failure pressure results related to both ASSY and Tresca’s criteria
are between the mean ⫾2 standard deviations. Burst pressures
criterion are inaccurate.
Herein, the predicted pressure values are associated with deter-
ministic mechanical properties, which were obtained from pipe
properties are expected to be slightly different from those of the
defect zone where the pipe failed. A detailed analysis about the
influence of the statistical variability of each mechanical property
over the failure pressure is beyond this work.
Figure 2 shows the ratio of the predicted to experimental failure
pressures as a function of the strain hardening exponent n. If this
ratio is less than 1, then the model underpredicts the real burst
pressure. On the contrary, if the ratio is more than 1, then the
model overpredicts the real burst pressure. In Fig. 2, a clear trend
can be identified; ratios increase with n. For n values less than
0.10, the ASSY criterion may lead to more accurate predictions.
For n values greater than 0.10, Tresca’s criterion may lead to more
accurate results. The same conclusions can be drawn from the
results presented in the work of Christopher et al. 关21兴; however,
they worked with thick walled cylinders. This issue requires fur-
ther research.
From previous results, von Mises’s yield criterion may lead to
inaccurate failure pressure predictions of undamaged pipes.
Therefore, it will not be considered in the following sections. On
the other hand, ASSY’s and Tresca’s criteria are statistically
equivalent. Both will be used and compared in the following.
3 Burst Pressure of Pipeline With Infinitely Long
Groove Defect
In this section, the relationship among failure pressures, me-
chanical characteristics, and long groove size is discussed.
Grooves are defined in terms of groove depth dmax and width w;
Transactions of the ASME
 Table 1 Material mechanical properties Table 2 Summary of finite element analyses

Ludwik parameters Depth, dmax

␴Y ␴U ␴0 1 / 8t0 1 / 4t0 1 / 2t0 3 / 4t0
Material 共MPa兲 共MPa兲 共MPa兲 N Numerical failure pressure
W 共MPa兲
API 5L X-42 350.90 506.20 641.33 0.105
API 5L X-52 389.00 575.80 757.80 0.139 Material API 5L X-42 steel
API 5L X-60 540.00 672.51 843.30 0.097 0 15.99 15.99 15.99 15.99
t0 / 2 14.97 13.02 8.70 4.32
t0 14.90 12.83 8.61 4.31
2t0 14.86 12.83 8.59 4.31
mechanical characteristics are expressed in terms of the pipeline 4t0 14.84 12.82 8.58 4.31
wall thickness t0 and the steel stress-strain relation. At the end of 8t0 14.79 12.78 8.55 4.30

Downloaded from http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pressurevesseltech/article-pdf/132/5/051001/5751587/051001_1.pdf by University of Edinburgh user on 22 March 2023

this section, a simple model is proposed to quantify the effect of 40t0 14.45 12.49 8.25 4.21
such characteristics over the failure pressure. ␲D / 2 14.32 12.37 8.22 4.18
There are few experimental tests reported on cylindrical thin 3␲D / 4 14.10 12.19 8.08 4.06
walled vessels with infinitely long groove defects. Therefore, nu- ␲D 14.01 12.05 8.03 4.05
merical simulations were performed by means of finite element
method using the commercial computer program ANSYS 关22兴. To Material API 5L X-52 steel
0 17.49 17.49 17.49 17.49
have a reference calibration work, some of the geometrical 共D
t0 / 2 16.52 14.46 9.66 4.79
= 500 mm, t0 = 8 mm兲, and mechanical properties 共API 5L X-42, t0 16.44 14.27 9.54 4.79
X-52, and X-60兲 of pipes reported by Mok et al. 关4兴 were used. 2t0 16.40 14.24 9.53 4.79
The geometrical and mechanical characteristics of the studied 4t0 16.34 14.18 9.53 4.77
pipes are given in Table 1. 8t0 16.26 14.12 9.48 4.76
To perform numerical simulations, rigid displacements and de- 40t0 15.76 13.67 9.17 4.61
formations out of the plane, i.e., along the axis, were restricted to ␲D / 2 15.65 13.52 9.05 4.55
zero. In plane large deformations were considered, and plane ele- 3␲D / 4 15.49 13.34 8.88 4.49
ments were defined by eight nodes 共plane 183: solid quad 8, node ␲D 15.33 13.17 8.78 4.43
183兲 were used. In order to ensure the numerical convergence,
around the groove a refined mesh was used 共Fig. 3兲. The mesh Material API 5L X-60 steel
was selected after performing several simulations with different 0 21.74 21.74 21.74 21.74
mesh schemes. Horizontal displacement was constrained along the t0 / 2 20.34 17.49 11.62 5.82
t0 20.14 17.36 11.59 5.81
symmetry axis 共see Fig. 3兲. A field of uniform internal pressure
2t0 20.09 17.35 11.58 5.79
was applied around the pipeline section, and it was stepwise in-
4t0 20.03 17.31 11.57 5.79
creased during the numerical analysis. The plasticity was repre- 8t0 19.99 17.27 11.53 5.79
sented by the multilinear kinematic hardening model, which uses 40t0 19.57 16.87 11.28 5.67
the von Mises yield criterion and the Prandtl–Reuss flow rule. It ␲D / 2 19.48 16.77 11.21 5.63
was considered that failure pressure is reached when the equiva- 3␲D / 4 19.24 16.55 11.07 5.56
lent stress at each point along a radius is greater or equal to the ␲D 19.05 16.39 10.94 5.50
true maximum stress ␴U. In order to have a reference framework,
the experimental tests and numerical results given in Refs. 关4,5兴
were reproduced. The finite element model was adopted to per-
form numerical experiments and to study the relation between yield criterion. As can be seen in Fig. 4, the normalized burst
depth and groove width. The results of numerical simulations are pressure can be treated as independent of the steel material. How-
presented in Table 2 and in Figs. 4 and 5. ever, it is a function of the depth and width of the groove. In
In Table 2, for each numerical experiment, groove geometry is general, the normalized failure pressure values tend to decrease as
given along with calculated burst pressure. Failure pressures are the depth increases; meanwhile, they slightly decrease as the
normalized by the corresponding burst pressures of undamaged groove width increases. The reduction is more sensible for shal-
pipes, so that enlisted numerical values do not depend on any low grooves than for deep grooves. Normalized burst pressures
change suddenly for very narrow defects. This agrees with the

Fig. 4 Normalized numerical pressure plong groove versus the

normalized width of an infinitely long groove for different steel
Fig. 3 Detailed mesh scheme for a pipe with a groove defect materials

Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology OCTOBER 2010, Vol. 132 / 051001-3


Fig. 5 Normalized numerical pressure plong groove versus the
normalized depth of an infinitely long groove
experimental results performed by Hopkins and Jones 关11兴. For
normalized groove widths approximately greater than 0.2, the nor-
malized failure pressure tends to be constant. In particular, it tends
toward the normalized burst pressure of an undamaged pipe with
wall thickness t0 − dmax. For this reason, in engineering applica-
tions, it is considered that groove width does not contribute sig-
nificantly to the failure pressure. In Fig. 5, the relationship be-
tween normalized burst pressure and normalized groove depth is
illustrated. The continuous line represents normalized failure pres-
sures for defect free pipes whose wall thickness is reduced by
dmax / t0 percent. If shallow grooves are considered, the difference
among the results is less than 10%. By increasing groove depth,
normalized failure pressure tends toward that of a defect free pipe
with reduced wall thickness. Results confirm what was previously
stated: In engineering applications, it can be considered that
groove width does not contribute significantly to the failure pres-
sure.
For pipelines with an infinitely long corrosion defect, the failure
pressure can be estimated by the product of the burst pressure of
the undamaged pipe and the damage factor 1 − dmax / t0 关23兴; this is
the idea taken in B31G 关14兴. Besides this model, Cronin 关5兴 pro-
posed another approximated approach to evaluate failure pres-
sures of pipes with infinitely long grooves. The latter scheme is
obtained assuming a deformed pipe configuration, along with suit-
able hypotheses on forces, and performing a static equilibrium of
forces. According to this author, the approach is less conservative
than the B31G 关5兴. The failure pressure is expressed in terms of the
unknown critical deformation, and the solution has to be guessed
iteratively. In the following, a simpler equation to estimate groove
failure pressures is proposed. It is assumed that the groove failure
pressure is bounded by two pplain pressures. The first one corre-
sponds to the burst pressure of the undamaged pipe. The second
one is the failure pressure of a pipe with wall thickness t0 − dmax;
i.e., the groove width is equal to the perimeter. These bounds are
combined to obtain an explicit solution.
Here and thereafter, the failure pressure pplain corresponds to the
burst pressure of an undamaged pipeline with initial wall thick-
ness t0; plong groove denotes the failure pressure of a pipeline with
initial wall thickness t0 and an infinitely long groove defect with
depth dmax and width w; and pⴱplain is the failure pressure of an
undamaged pipeline with initial wall thickness t0 − dmax, called
reduced wall thickness. As discussed above, pⴱplain is a lower
bound for plong groove. According to Eq. 共1兲, pⴱplain and pplain can be
related as follows:
051001-4 / Vol. 132, OCTOBER 2010
Downloaded from http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pressurevesseltech/article-pdf/132/5/051001/5751587/051001_1.pdf by University of Edinburgh user on 22 March 2023
Fig. 6 Gamma parameter for different groove depths versus
the width of an infinitely long groove for different steel
materials
冉 冊
ⴱ dmax
pplain = pplain 1 − 共3兲
t0
Note the similarity with the approach of B31G 关14兴. It turns out that
B31G considers the pressure of an undamaged pipe with reduced
wall thickness as a lower limit and that it does not take into
account the damage width.
On the other hand, pplain is an upper bound for plong groove be-
cause a damaged pipe theoretically cannot support a failure pres-
sure beyond the corresponding pplain. Rigorously pⴱplain
ⱕ plong groove ⱕ pplain. According to these statements and based on
the ideas of Cronin and Pick 关8兴, plong groove can be estimated as
ⴱ ⴱ
plong groove = pplain + 共pplain − pplain 兲␥ 共4兲
Here, ␥ = ␥共dmax , w兲 is a function of depth dmax and width w of the
groove. The values of ␥ are in the interval between 0 and 1. The
first term of Eq. 共4兲 denotes the failure pressure of the undamaged
pipe with reduced wall thickness t0 − dmax, and the second term
denotes the contribution to the failure pressure of the remaining
material located between t0 and t0 − dmax. Substituting Eq. 共3兲 in
Eq. 共4兲, it can be stated that
plong groove = 冋
pplain 1 −
dmax
t0
共1 − ␥兲 册 共5兲
Defining the equivalent wall thickness tElong groove = t0 − dmax共1
− ␥兲 and considering Eq. 共1兲, then Eq. 共5兲 can be rewritten as
tElong groove
plong groove = k␴U 共6兲
r0
The failure pressure of a pipe with an infinitely long groove is
equal to that of an undamaged pipeline with equivalent wall thick-
ness tElong groove. Since 0 ⱕ ␥ ⱕ 1, the equivalent wall thickness
takes values in the interval 关t0 − dmax , t0兴. Figures 6 and 7 show the
relationship between ␥ and the parameters dmax and w. These
figures were obtained from the numerical simulations given in
Table 2. In Fig. 6, it is shown that ␥ is greater for shallow defects.
Whichever groove depth is considered, ␥ decreases as the groove
width increases. Minor differences are due to the steel grade; the
pattern is ruled by the geometry of the groove. In Fig. 7, ␥ is
studied considering just one steel grade and varying depth and
width of the groove. Trends shown in Fig. 6 are emphasized.
From a theoretical point of view, ␥ has to satisfy the following
limits: ␥ = 1 when dmax = w = 0; ␥ = 0 when w = ␲D 共where ␲D is
the corresponding exterior perimeter of the pipe兲; finally, ␥ → 0
when dmax → t0 and w ⫽ 0. To represent the behavior of ␥ as a
function of dmax and w and to satisfy the described limits, the
following function is proposed:
Transactions of the ASME

Fig. 7 Gamma parameter versus the depths of an infinitely
long groove for different groove widths
冉
␥共dmax,w兲 = 1 −
dmax
t0
冊冉
q1
1−
w
␲D
冊 q2
e−q3共dmax/t0兲
The constants q1 = 1.3, q2 = 1.5, and q3 = 3.5 were obtained from a
nonlinear least-squares minimization. Data given in Table 1 were
used. In Fig. 8, numerical results from finite element simulations
and corresponding failure pressures obtained from Eqs. 共6兲 and 共7兲
were compared. All pressures were normalized by their corre-
sponding pplain value. Steel API 5L X-42 was the only one that
was used as the normalized pressures can be considered indepen-
dent of material characteristics. In Fig. 8, the axis associated with
the width groove is in logarithmic scale to appreciate differences
for each value of w. Results obtained from Eqs. 共6兲 and 共7兲 are
very close to those obtained from finite element method. Equation
共7兲 and its fitted parameters can be used to estimate plong groove.
4 Burst Pressure of Pipeline With Corrosion Defect of
Irregular Geometry
According to Oliveros et al. 关10兴, the failure pressure pR of a
vessel with a finite irregular defect can be obtained as
Fig. 8 Numerical simulations of normalized pressure
plong groove „finite element… versus analytical results „Eqs. „6…
and „7……
Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology
pR = plong groove + 共pplain − plong groove兲gd
min
共8兲
where gmin
d takes values between 0 and 1 and depends on the
corrosion depth along the longitudinal profile of the defect.
Mainly, this factor quantifies the contribution to the burst pressure
due to the remaining metal between the surface along the defect
and dmax. Algebra related to gmin
d is discussed in detailed form by
Oliveros et al. 关10兴, and a practical procedure to compute gmin d is
given in Appendix B.
Substituting Eq. 共5兲 into Eq. 共8兲, Eq. 共8兲 can be rewritten as
冋
pR = pplain 1 −
dmax
t0
共1 − ␥兲共1 − gmin
d 兲 册 共9兲
Downloaded from http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pressurevesseltech/article-pdf/132/5/051001/5751587/051001_1.pdf by University of Edinburgh user on 22 March 2023
The equivalent thickness defined in the previous section can be
modified and generalized as
tER = t0 − dmax共1 − ␥兲共1 − gmin
d 兲 共10兲
According to Eqs. 共1兲 and 共10兲, Eq. 共9兲 can be rewritten as
tER
pR = k␴U 共11兲
r0
Accordingly, the failure pressure of a pipe with a corrosion defect
共7兲
of irregular geometry is equal to that of an undamaged pipeline
with equivalent wall thickness tER, which is defined in the interval
关t0 − dmax , t0兴. Equation 共11兲 is an extension of Eqs. 共1兲 and 共6兲; it
can be used to estimate failure pressures of undamaged and dam-
aged pipelines. Using the corresponding wall thickness, Eq. 共11兲
allows us to estimate the burst pressure of vessels with a finite
irregular defect, with an infinitely long groove and with no defect
at all.
Failure pressures associated with an infinitely long groove
change suddenly for very narrow defects, in agreement with the
experimental results reported in Ref. 关11兴. For larger defects, fail-
ure pressures are almost equal to that of undamaged pipes with
reduced wall thickness 共plong groove ⬇ pⴱplain, w = ␲D, and ␥ = 0兲.
This suggests that for engineering purposes of an analysis and a
prediction of failure pressure, the groove width can be neglected
关8,14兴. Equations are simpler and do not require a datum that is
generally unavailable. If it is assumed that plong groove = pⴱplain, then
the equivalent wall thickness given by Eq. 共10兲 can be expressed
as
tER = t0 − dmax共1 − gmin
d 兲 共12兲
In Figs. 9共a兲 and 9共b兲, experimental failure pressures are com-
pared with those calculated using Eqs. 共11兲 and 共12兲. To this pur-
pose, 56 reported burst tests associated with corrosion defects
were used to calibrate the model: 10 from Vieth and Kiefner 关19兴,
7 from Mok et al. 关4兴, 23 from Cronin 关5兴, 5 from Hopkins and
Jones 关11兴, 4 from Mannucci et al. 关24兴, and 7 from Choi et al.
关25兴. The error was defined as the quotient of the predicted failure
pressure divided by the corresponding experimental burst pres-
sure. For each test and yield criterion, such error was computed
considering plong groove = pⴱplain. Its mean and standard deviation,
for Tresca’s criterion 共Fig. 9共a兲兲, is 0.90 and 0.13, respectively.
For the ASSY criterion 共Fig. 9共b兲兲, the mean is 0.98 and the stan-
dard deviation is 0.14. Failure pressures were denoted by filled
symbols, as shown in Figs. 9共a兲 and 9共b兲. In general, we can state
that predictions obtained using the ASSY criterion are more pre-
cise than the ones obtained by Tresca. Note that from results plot-
ted in Fig. 1, statistical equivalence between the two yield criteria
was stated. Now, differences in mean values mark that this con-
clusion has to be modified when Eqs. 共11兲 and 共12兲 are used. As
shown in Figs. 9共a兲 and 9共b兲, we distinguished between real cor-
rosion defects and machined defects; the filled circles denote real
corrosion defects, and the filled squares denote machined defects.
There is no different trend between these two sets of defects. The
generalized pressure model can be applied to both.
OCTOBER 2010, Vol. 132 / 051001-5

Fig. 9 „a… Experimental failure pressures versus predicted fail-
ure pressures for Tresca yield criterion. „b… Experimental failure
pressures versus predicted failure pressures for ASSY yield
criterion.
For cases in which the groove widths were available 共e.g., see
experiments in Mok et al. 关4兴 and Choi et al. 关25兴兲, the failures
pressures were also estimated, taking width into account 共empty
squares and triangles in Figs. 9共a兲 and 9共b兲兲. For the Tresca crite-
rion, the mean and standard deviation are 0.92 and 0.077, respec-
tively; meanwhile, for the ASSY criterion, the values are 1.00 and
0.084, respectively. In these cases, the geometry of the defect
corresponds specifically to grooves. Any filled symbol just below
an empty symbol corresponds to the burst pressure evaluated, ne-
glecting or considering the width of the defect. Failure pressures
taking into account the groove width are slightly greater than the
corresponding failure pressure obtained using a reduced wall
thickness 共w = ␲D, plong groove = pⴱplain兲. Errors obtained, ignoring or
considering the width of the groove, have practically equal mean
values. However, standard deviations are different probably be-
cause of the size of the available sample.
In Fig. 9共b兲, triangles are used to show the analytical and ex-
perimental failure pressures of five pipelines with infinitely long
grooves. The predicted failure pressures, using the ASSY crite-
rion, match up with the corresponding experimental pressures.
Despite the accuracy obtained using Eq. 共10兲, Eq. 共12兲 should
be preferred. Differences between the results obtained using Eq.
共10兲 or Eq. 共12兲 are small. The simplicity introduced with Eq. 共12兲
is significant. Moreover, in professional practice, the defect width
is often not specified in the inspection reports. Finally, comparing
051001-6 / Vol. 132, OCTOBER 2010
calculated means and standard deviations, it can be stated that the
ASSY yield criterion should be preferred to Tresca’s.
5 Application Example
In this section, the proposed approach is exemplified. Different
types of damage defects are considered. Predicted failure pres-
sures are estimated, discussed, and, in some cases, compared with
experimental results by Mok et al. 关4兴. The pipeline corresponds
to an API 5L X-60 with an exterior diameter of 508 mm and a
wall thickness of t0 = 6.35 mm 共r0 = 247.65 mm兲. Material prop-
erties are displayed in Table 1. The ASSY yield criterion is used
Downloaded from http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pressurevesseltech/article-pdf/132/5/051001/5751587/051001_1.pdf by University of Edinburgh user on 22 March 2023
共k = 0.92兲. Equations 共7兲, 共B3兲, 共10兲, and 共11兲 will be used to esti-
mate failure pressure.
5.1 Undamaged Pipe. dmax = 0 and w = 0, so that Eq. 共7兲 leads
to ␥ = 1. Equation 共B3兲 gives gmind = 1 关10兴. From Eq. 共10兲, the
equivalent wall thickness is obtained: tER = t0. Failure pressure is
estimated using Eq. 共11兲: pR = 15.88 MPa. The difference with the
mean experimental value 共15.45 MPa and 15.25 MPa, see Ref.
关4兴兲 is less than 4%.
5.2 Infinitely Long Groove, Knowing Real Width. dmax
= t0 / 2 and w = 4t0 are considered. Equation 共7兲 leads to ␥ = 0.07.
Equation 共B3兲 gives gmin d = 0. From Eq. 共10兲, the equivalent wall
thickness is obtained: tER = 3.39 mm. Failure pressure is estimated
using Eq. 共11兲: pR = 8.49 MPa. The difference with the experi-
mental value 共8.40 MPa, see 关4兴兲 is 1%.
5.3 Infinitely Long Groove, Neglecting Real Width. The
depth is still dmax = t0 / 2, while the width is considered equal to the
perimeter of the pipe w = ␲D. That is, from Eq. 共7兲, ␥ = 0. Again,
Eq. 共B3兲 gives gmind = 0. From Eq. 共10兲, the equivalent wall thick-
ness is obtained: tER = t0 − dmax = 3.175 mm. Failure pressure is es-
timated using Eq. 共11兲: pR = 7.94 MPa. The difference with the
experimental value 共8.40 MPa, see 关4兴兲 is 5%. In this case, Eq.
共10兲 or Eq. 共12兲 could be used to compute the equivalent wall
thickness. Choosing Eq. 共12兲, the evaluation of Eq. 共7兲, i.e., ␥, can
be skipped.
5.4 Finite Defect, Knowing Real Width. The pipe is affected
by a corrosion defect with a maximum depth of dmax = t0 / 2, a
width of w = 4t0, and a length of l = 50 mm. This defect is repre-
sented by a parabolic geometry, given by the following expres-
sion:
d共x兲 =
冦 冋 冉 冊册
dmax 1 −
2x
l
2
, − l/2 ⱕ x ⱕ l/2
冧 共13兲
0 elsewhere
Equation 共7兲 leads to ␥ = 0.07. The factor gmin
d can be estimated by
substituting the geometry, given by Eq. 共13兲, into Eq. 共B1兲 or
numerically by means of Eq. 共B3兲. gmin d = 0.74 was computed.
From Eq. 共10兲, the equivalent wall thickness is obtained: tER
= 5.58 mm. Failure pressure is estimated using Eq. 共11兲: pR
= 13.96 MPa.
5.5 Finite Defect, Neglecting Real Width. The pipe is af-
fected by a corrosion defect with a maximum depth of dmax
= t0 / 2 and length of l = 50 mm. The width is considered equal to
the exterior perimeter of the pipe w = ␲D. This defect is repre-
sented by a parabolic geometry given by Eq. 共13兲. From Eq. 共7兲,
␥ = 0. Equation 共B3兲 gives gmind = 0.74. From Eq. 共10兲, the equiva-
lent wall thickness is obtained: tER = 5.52 mm. Failure pressure is
estimated using Eq. 共11兲: pR = 13.81 MPa. In this case, Eq. 共10兲 or
Eq. 共12兲 could be used to compute the equivalent wall thickness.
Choosing Eq. 共12兲, the evaluation of Eq. 共7兲, i.e., ␥, can be
skipped.
Transactions of the ASME
6 Conclusions
We introduced an accurate and simple method to compute the
failure pressure of pipelines with any of an infinitely long groove
or a finite irregular corrosion defect. Finite element simulations
were used to study the relationship among burst pressure, steel
properties, and groove geometry. For a pipeline with an infinitely
long groove or with a corrosion defect of irregular geometry, the
failure pressure can be obtained from the solution of an undam-
aged pipeline using an equivalent wall thickness. The failure pres-
sure of undamaged pipelines is predicted by the classic Svens-
son’s formula for thin walled cylindrical vessels. The equivalent
wall thickness depends on the depth and width of the defect. How-
ever, the failure pressure barely depends on the width of the de-
fect, and it is convenient to consider the depth only. Different
yield criteria 共Tresca, von Mises, and ASSY兲 were compared, and
it was established which one is best. Results clearly show that the
ASSY criterion is adequate to predict the failure pressures of un-
damaged and damaged pipes.
Acknowledgment
This work was mainly supported by Instituto Mexicano del
Petróleo under Grant No. D.00433. We would like to thank Úrsula
Iturrarán for the kind comments. Suggestions from reviewers
helped to improve the manuscript.
Nomenclature
pplain ⫽ failure pressure of an undamaged pipeline
pⴱplain ⫽ failure pressure of an undamaged pipeline with
reduced wall thickness
plong groove ⫽ failure pressure of a pipeline with an infinitely
long groove
pR ⫽ failure pressure of a pipeline with a corrosion
defect of irregular geometry
k ⫽ constant associated with a certain yield
criterion
␴0 ⫽ scale parameter of the Ludwik function
n ⫽ hardening coefficient of the Ludwik function
e ⫽ 2.1782…
t0 ⫽ initial or undeformed wall thickness
tElong groove ⫽ equivalent undeformed wall thickness for an
infinitely long groove
tER ⫽ equivalent undeformed wall thickness for a
corrosion defect
r0 ⫽ inner radius of a pipe 共undeformed兲
D ⫽ outer diameter 共undeformed兲
dmax ⫽ maximum corrosion depth
w ⫽ width of the groove
␥ ⫽ auxiliary function
q1 , q2 , q3 ⫽ parameters of function ␥
␲ ⫽ 3.14159…
gmin
d ⫽ minimum value of gd共 · 兲
gd共 · 兲 ⫽ function that quantifies the remaining material
contribution at each point x0 of defect
␴U ⫽ maximum true stress
␧U ⫽ true strain at ultimate true stress
␧Y ⫽ true strain at yield stress
␴Ueng ⫽ maximum engineering stress
␧Y eng ⫽ engineering strain at engineering yield stress
E ⫽ Young modulus
␴Y ⫽ true yield stress
␰ ⫽ auxiliary variable
sech共 · 兲 ⫽ hyperbolic secant
x0 ⫽ evaluation point
xa , xb ⫽ coordinates to define geometrical bounds for
the defect
d共x兲 ⫽ corrosion depth at point x
Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology
x ⫽ coordinate associated with a damage depth
d共x兲
di ⫽ ith measured corrosion depth
Ii,j ⫽ value associated with interval 关xi , x j兴
xi ⫽ axial coordinate associated with corrosion
depth di
N ⫽ number of points where the corrosion depth di
is known
关b̂ − â兴 ⫽ interval where the corrosion defect is defined
l = b̂ − â ⫽ axial length of damage
␤ ⫽ auxiliary variable
Downloaded from http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pressurevesseltech/article-pdf/132/5/051001/5751587/051001_1.pdf by University of Edinburgh user on 22 March 2023
Appendix A: Constitutive Function
To predict the failure pressure of pipelines, mathematical mod-
els based on the mechanics of continuous media 关8,9兴 must be
used. These models depend on selected hypotheses. For example,
a constitutive function has to be chosen to define the stress-strain
relation. In particular, the elastoplastic behavior of steel can be
described by a Ramberg–Osgood or Ludwik function. The
Ramberg–Osgood function is defined by three parameters; mean-
while, the Ludwik function is defined by only two, the true stress
␴ and the true strain ␧. These parameters are related through the
power law ␴ = ␴0␧n, where n is the strain hardening exponent. Due
to its simplicity, in this work the Ludwik function is used. The
Ramberg–Osgood function can represent adequately the stress-
strain curve; meanwhile, Ludwik’s function does not fit ad-
equately for elastic strains. However, it adequately represents
plastic deformations, and it has the advantage that it leads simple
and explicit solutions as Eqs. 共1兲, 共6兲, and 共11兲.
In literature, there are experimental burst tests in which a con-
stitutive equation is not given; however, the yield and the ultimate
stress are specified. From experimental stress-strain relations,
Maes et al. 关26兴 and Zhu and Leis 关9兴 introduced semi-empirical
equations to find out the value of parameter n. In this work, a
different approach is taken; n is obtained from the linear stress ␴Y
and the ultimate stress ␴U as follows:
␴Y ␴U
= n 共A1兲
␧Yn ␧U
With Ludwik’s function, the strain at the ultimate stress ␴U is
equal to n 共␧U = n兲. Also, the elastic strain ␧Y must satisfy, at least
approximately, that ␧Y ⬇ ␴Y / E, where E is the Young modulus.
We assume that E ⬇ 207 GPa 共which is reasonable for a typical
steel material兲 and ␴Y = SMYS 共where SMYS is the minimum
yield stress兲, and we express ␴U in terms of the corresponding
engineering stress ␴Ueng = ␴U / en 共e = 2.1782. . .兲. Then, Eq. 共A1兲
can be expressed as
ln共␴Y /en␴Ueng兲 = n ln共␴Y /E兲 − n ln共n兲 共A2兲
or
ln共␴Y /en␴Ueng兲
␰= =1 共A3兲
n ln共␴Y /E兲 − n ln共n兲
To find out n, Eq. 共A2兲 must be solved numerically. The correct
value of n corresponds to ␰ = 1. Note that even if n is taken as a
random variable, e.g., Maes et al. 关26兴, its mean value would be
associated with ␰ = 1. This should be accomplished no matter what
␴Y / ␴U is.
For completeness, note that if the true yield stress and strain
共␴Y eng , ␧Y eng兲 were considered, the hypothesis on Young’s modulus
共E ⬇ 207 GPa兲 should be omitted. Typically, ␧Y eng corresponds to
0.5% of the total strain 关9兴 or to 0.2% of the plastic strain 关2兴.
Appendix B: Computation of gmin
d
According to Ref. 关10兴, the parameter gmin
d takes values in the
interval 关0,1兴. gmin
d is obtained from a function gd, which essen-
OCTOBER 2010, Vol. 132 / 051001-7
 et al. 关10兴. Finally, gmin
d is obtained as the minimum value that
results from evaluating gd at different evaluation points.

References
Fig. 10 Geometry of a corrosion defect in discretized points
tially depends on the corrosion defect depth at the evaluation point
关1兴 Hill, R., 1950, The Mathematical Theory of Plasticity, Oxford University
Press, New York.
关2兴 Mendelson, A., 1968, Plasticity: Theory and Application, Macmillan, New
York, pp. 312–317.
关3兴 Svensson, N. L., 1958, “The Bursting Pressure of Cylindrical and Spherical
Vessels,” ASME J. Appl. Mech., 25, pp. 89–96.
关4兴 Mok, D. H. B., Pick, R. J., Glover, A. G., and Hoff, R., 1991, “Bursting of
Line Pipe With Long External Corrosion,” Int. J. Pressure Vessels Piping, 46,
pp. 195–216.
关5兴 Cronin, D. S., 2000, “Assessment of Corrosion Defects in Pipelines,” Ph.D.
thesis, Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Waterloo, ON,

Downloaded from http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pressurevesseltech/article-pdf/132/5/051001/5751587/051001_1.pdf by University of Edinburgh user on 22 March 2023

x0 and on the geometry of adjacent corrosion. The pipeline failure
pressure is associated with the minimum value of the function gd,
d = min 兵gd共x0兲其. An appropriate Cartesian system is used
i.e., gmin
x0苸关â,b̂兴
to describe the defect geometry; the damage depth is defined, and
along one of its axes, the position of each depth in the interval
关â , b̂兴 is given along the other. According to Oliveros et al. 关10兴,
the function gd can be written in the form
Canada.
关6兴 Law, M., and Bowie, G., 2007, “Prediction of Failure Strain and Burst Pres-
sure in High Yield-to-Tensile Strength Ratio Linepipe,” Int. J. Pressure Vessels
Piping, 84, pp. 487–492.
关7兴 Xue, L., Widera, G. E. O., and Sang, Z., 2008, “Burst Analysis of Cylindrical
Shells,” ASME J. Pressure Vessel Technol., 130, p. 014502.
关8兴 Cronin, D. S., and Pick, R. J., 2002, “Prediction of the Failure Pressure for
Complex Corrosion Defects,” Int. J. Pressure Vessels Piping, 79, pp. 279–287.
关9兴 Zhu, X. K., and Leis, B. N., 2006, “Average Shear Stress Yield Criterion and
Its Application to Plastic Collapse Analysis of Pipelines,” Int. J. Pressure Ves-

冕
bˆ
␤
gd共x0兲 = 1 − sech共␤共x0 − x兲兲d共x兲dx
␲dmax â
where sech共 · 兲 is the hyperbolic function, ␤ = 共D共t0 − dmax兲兲−1/2, D
= 2共r0 + t0兲 is the initial exterior diameter 共in contrast with the
notation used in the body of the article兲, r0 is the inner initial
radius, t0 is the initial wall thickness, d共x兲 is the depth of the
defect at x, and dmax is the maximum depth of the defect along the
entire longitudinal profile. In engineering applications, every de-
fect profile can be approximated by a discrete set of depths di
= di共xi兲 at points xi, with i = 1 , . . . , N 共Fig. 10兲. If the function d共x兲
is approximated to be constant between two consecutive points
关xi , xi+1兴, then the complete defect profile can be represented as
follows:
1 W., 2004, “Full-Size Testing and Analysis of X120 Linepipe,” Int. J. Offshore
d共x兲 = 2 共di共xi兲 + di+1共xi+1兲兲, xi ⱕ x ⱕ xi+1, i = 1, . . . ,N − 1
This representation is simple and makes a close solution of the
integral of Eq. 共B1兲 for each interval 关xi , xi+1兴, i = 1 , . . . , N − 1. Ac-
cording to Eq. 共B2兲, the depth profile is not smooth; however, the
numerical convergence of the integral is guaranteed if ␧ ⱕ 兩xi+1
− xi兩 is small and close to zero.
Substituting Eq. 共B2兲 in Eq. 共B1兲, the integral can be solved as
sels Piping, 83, pp. 663–671.
关10兴 Oliveros, J., Alamilla, J. L., Astudillo, E., and Flores, O., 2008, “Prediction of
共B1兲 Failure Pressures in Pipelines With Corrosion Defects,” ASME J. Pressure
Vessel Technol., 130, p. 021703.
关11兴 Hopkins, P., and Jones, D. G., 1992, “A Study of the Behavior of Long and
Complex-Shaped Corrosion in Transmission Pipelines,” Proceedings of
OMAE’S 1992 11th International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arc-
tic Engineering, Calgary, Canada, pp. 211–217.
关12兴 Fu, B., and Kirkwood, M. G., 1995, “Predicting Failure Pressure of Internally
Corroded Line Pipe Using the Finite Element Method,” OMAE, 5, pp. 175–
184.
关13兴 Chouchaoui, B. A., 1993, “Evaluating the Remaining Strength of Corroded
Pipelines,” Ph.D. thesis. Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of
Waterloo, Canada.
关14兴 ASME B31G, 1991, “Manual for Determining the Remaining Strength of Cor-
roded Pipelines,” ASME Paper No. B31G-1991.
关15兴 Vieth, P. H., and Kiefner, J. F., 1989, “A Modified Criterion for Evaluating the
Remaining Strength of Corroded Pipe,” American Gas Association, Final Re-
port on Project PR 3-805 to the Pipeline Research Committee.
关16兴 Papka, S. D., Stevens, J. H., Macia, M. L., Fairchild, D. P., and Petersen, C.
Polar Eng., 14, pp. 42–51.
共B2兲 关17兴 Liessem, A., Graef, M. K., Knauf, G., and Marewski, U., 2004, “Influence of
Thermal Treatment on Mechanical Properties of UOE Linepipe,” Proceedings
of the Fourth International Conference of Pipeline Technology, Ostend, Bel-
gium, pp. 1263–1281.
关18兴 Amano, K., Matsuoka, M., Ishihara, T., Tanaka, K., Inoue, T., Kawaguchi, Y.,
and Tsukamoto, M., 1986, “Significance of Yield Ratio Limitation to Plastic
Deformation of Pipeline in High Pressure Proof Test,” Proceedings of the
Seventh Symposium on Line Pipe Research, Houston, TX, Oct. 14–16, pp.
8.1–8.21.

冋兺 册
关19兴 Vieth, P. H., and Kiefner, J. F., 1993, “Database of Corroded Pipe Tests,”
i=j−1 l=N−1 Pipeline Research Council International, Inc., Report No. L51689.

兺
1 关20兴 Law, M., 2005, “Use of the Cylindrical Instability Stress for Blunt Metal Loss
gd共x0兲 = 1 − Ii,i+1 + I j,0 + I0,j+1 + Il,l+1 Defects in Linepipe,” Int. J. Pressure Vessels Piping, 82, pp. 925–928.
␲dmax i=1 l=j+1 关21兴 Christopher, T., Rama Sarma, B. S. V., Govindan Potti, P. K., Nageswara Rao,
B., and Sankarnarayanasamy, K., 2002, “A Comparative Study on Failure
共B3兲 Pressure Estimations of Unflawed Cylindrical Vessel,” Int. J. Pressure Vessels
where Ii,j is the integral of Eq. 共B1兲 scaled by 1 / ␤ and evaluated Piping, 79, pp. 53–66.
关22兴 ANSYS, 2003, Finite Element Method Software 7.1, Analysis System Inc.
between xi and x j, 关23兴 Kiefner, J. F., 1979, “Corroded Pipe: Strength and Repair Methods,” Fifth

冕
xj Symposium on Line Pipe Research, Houston, TX.
关24兴 Mannucci, G., Demofonti, G., and Di Biagio, M., 2005, “X100-Fracture Ini-
Ii,j = ␤ sech共␤共x0 − x兲兲d共x兲dx = 共di + d j兲关tan−1共e␤共x0−xi兲兲 tiation and Propagation,” First Super High Strength Steel, Rome, Italy, Nov.
xi 2–5.
关25兴 Choi, J. B., Goo, B. K., Kim, Y. J., and Kim, W. S., 2003, “Development of
− tan−1共e␤共x0−x j兲兲兴 共B4兲 Limit Load Solutions for Corroded Gas Pipelines,” Int. J. Pressure Vessels
Piping, 80, pp. 121–128.
and function tan 共 · 兲 is the inverse tangent. In Fig. 10, subscripts
−1
关26兴 Maes, M. A., Dann, M., and Salama, M. M., 2008, “Influence of Grade on the
are listed. More details about function gd can be found in Oliveros Reliability of Corroding Pipelines,” Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf., 93, pp. 447–455.

051001-8 / Vol. 132, OCTOBER 2010 Transactions of the ASME