Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Contents
1 Scope ................................................................ 2
2 Conflicts and Deviations.................................... 2
2 References........................................................ 2
4 Definitions ......................................................... 3
5 General ............................................................. 3
6 Data Required for Metal Loss Defects .............. 5
7 Pipeline Corrosion Defect Assessment ............. 6
8 Mechanical Damage in Pipeline ........................ 9
Revision Summary................................................. 11
Appendix A – Chart-1: Corroded Pipelines
Defects Assessment Flowchart ....... 12
Appendix B – Schematic Illustrations for Defects
Measurements and Grouping ......... 13
1 Scope
This Saudi Aramco Engineering Procedure (SAEP) provides guidelines for assessment
of defects in pipelines that have been designed to a recognized pipeline design code,
including but not limited to ASME B31.4 and ASME B31.8.
2.1 Any conflicts between this document and other applicable Mandatory Saudi
Aramco Engineering Requirements (MSAERs) shall be addressed to the
EK&RD Coordinator.
2.2 Any deviation from the requirements herein shall follow internal company
procedure SAEP-302.
2 References
The requirements contained in the following documents apply to the extent specified in
this procedure.
British Standard
BS 7910 Guide to Methods for Assessing the Acceptability of
Flaws in Metallic Structures
4 Definitions
ERF: Estimated Repair Factor can be established by dividing the maximum allowable
operation pressure (MAOP) or design pressure by the predicted failure pressure Pf.
5 General
For the local metal loss in the Pipeline, this procedure mandates the use of two
assessment levels which are Level-1 and Level-2 as detailed in Section 8.
Chart-1 of Appendix-A provides schematic diagram of the two levels.
5.2.2 A level-2 assessment considers not only the maximum defect dimensions
but also the shape of the metal-loss area(s) of the defect. The level-2
assessment method is more complex and less conservative than a level-1
assessment method, and requires more information about the defect shape,
support of computer software and knowledge of specialists. It gives
results with higher accuracy when compared with a level-1 assessment.
5.2.3 For defects, which fail to pass the level-1 assessment, a level-2
assessment shall then be considered if the defect shape is considerably
variable and detailed measurements are available.
5.2.4 The finite elements (FE) can be used for assessing corrosion defects
which fail to pass level-2.
5.2.5 Limitations
a. This is applicable for internal corrosion defects or external
corrosion defects in the base material of a straight pipe section and
pipe bends.
b. The assessment methods can be empirically applied to corrosion
metal-loss defects across or immediately close to pipe welds
(longitudinal seam welds, spiral seam welds and girth welds).
This is subject to the following conditions:
There are no significant weld defects present that may interact
with the corrosion defects.
The weld material is not under-matched.
Fracture is not likely to occur.
Commentary Note:
5.3.2 The finite elements (FE) can be used for assessing mechanical damage.
5.3.3 Limitations
5.3.3.1 A dent containing a stress concentrator, such as a scratch,
groove, or arc burn damage is not within the strain assessment
of Section 8.
5.3.3.2 The plain dent assessment shall be used only for straight pipe.
It is not applicable for pipe fittings or bends.
Other defects such as crack or crack-like flaws, blisters, dents with gouges,
selective seam corrosion, etc., may be assessed by industry proven methods such
as API RP 579, BS 7910, PRCI Pipeline Repair Manual, or Pipeline Defect
Assessment Manual (PDAM).
2
Po (2)
D
1
t
SMTS (3)
d
1
Rs t (4)
d 1
1
t L
2
1 0.31
Dt
d
for 0.80 ; all lengths
t
Where:
Pf Predicted failure pressure for corroded pipe, lb/in²
SMTS Specified minimum tensile strength, lb/in²
D Nominal outside diameter, in
t Nominal wall thickness, in
d Maximum depth of a corrosion metal-loss area, in
L Maximum axial length of corrosion metal-loss area, in
d
1 i
2 t For 0.80
d
Pi f (6)
D d 1 t
1 i
t t M i
2 4
L L Li
M i 1 0.6275 i 0.003375 i for 7.071 (9)
Dt Dt Dt
2
L Li
M i 3.3 0.032 i for 7.071 (10)
Dt Dt
Where:
Pf Predicted failure pressure for corroded pipe, lb/in²
SMYS Specified minimum yield strength, lb/in²
D Nominal outside diameter, in
t Nominal wall thickness, in
d Maximum depth of a corrosion metal-loss area, in
L Maximum axial length of corrosion metal-loss area, in
where:
Pf
Ps (12)
1.25
7.2.2 The remedial actions of the assessed defect are based on the ERF values
for the defects and shall be according to Table 1 below.
7.2.3 Internal corrosion defects, which pass the assessment, shall be monitored
on a periodical basis. The inspection period shall be determined by the
Engineering of the Operating Organization.
R1 and R2 are not direct measurements, but they can be inferred from
the dent profile developed by high resolution ILI or shape duplication after
digging.
b. Calculate Strains
1. In the circumferential direction (1 )
1 1 1
1 = (2) 𝑡(𝑅 − 𝑅 ) (12)
𝑜 1
Strain > 6%
Revision Summary
30 April 2012 Major revision.
17 July 2017 Major revision for the normal revision cycle, and requirements against company needs
according to latest related industry practices. Changes include:
1) Introducing more international standards accepted for defect assessment to address
defects, not covered in the document.
2) Align with the international standards and current company practices for assessment of
corrosion defects.
25 January 2018 Editorial revision.
1 July 2019 Editorial revision to adjust Next Planned Update to 31 July 2022.
20 August 2020 Editorial revision to comply with SAEP-301.
Assessments start
Level-1
Calculate predicted failure pressures for all Level-2
reported single defects using the LPC-1 equation
Are projected profiles of the critical single NO
(Paragraph 7.1)
defect(s) available?
Yes
Identify critical defect(s)
Re-analyze the critical single defect(s) as
and defect groups
complex-shaped defect(s) using the
RSTRENG effective-area method
(Paragraph 8.1)
Calculate the ERF (paragraph 8.1)
Assessments completed
L L
(maximum width)
A (projected area)
d
t
subsection, i
subsection, j