A. P.

Teixeira
Centre for Marine Technology and Ocean
Engineering (CENTEC),
Instituto Superior Tecnico,
Reliability Analysis of Pipelines
Universidade de Lisboa,
Avenida Rovisco Pais, No. 1, With Local Corrosion Defects
Lisboa, 1049-001, Portugal
e-mail: teixeira@centec.tecnico.ulisboa.pt Under External Pressure
O. G. Palencia
Centre for Marine Technology and Ocean This paper aims at assessing the reliability of pipelines with local corrosion defects sub-
Engineering (CENTEC), jected to external pressure. Several collapse strength models are calibrated and then used
Instituto Superior Tecnico, to formulate the reliability problem of corroded pipelines. Model uncertainty factors are
Universidade de Lisboa, derived for the various collapse strength models based on available experimental results
Avenida Rovisco Pais, No. 1, to better predict the effect of local corrosion defects on the reduction of the collapse
Lisboa, 1049-001, Portugal strength of pipelines. The model uncertainty factor is defined as function of the depth of
e-mail: oscar.palencia@centec.tecnico.ulisboa.pt the local corrosion defect and calibrates the overconservative predictions of collapse
strength models that deal with the effect of corrosion defects by considering a uniform
C. Guedes Soares1 reduction of the pipe thickness. The collapse strength models together with the corre-
sponding model uncertainty factors are then used to formulate the reliability problem of
Fellow ASME
pipelines with local corrosion defects subjected to external pressure. Parametric and sen-
Centre for Marine Technology and Ocean
sitivity analyses are performed for different levels of corrosion damages to identify the
Engineering (CENTEC),
influence of the various parameters on the collapse probability of corroded pipelines
Instituto Superior Tecnico,
under external pressure. Finally, an approach is suggested to calibrate a design code for-
Universidade de Lisboa,
mulation that is conservative when the minimum pipe thickness is used to represent a local
Avenida Rovisco Pais, No. 1,
corrosion defect. The approach consists of identifying an equivalent depth of the corrosion
Lisboa, 1049-001, Portugal;
defect, corresponding to an intermediate thickness of the corroded pipeline larger than
Ocean Engineering Department,
the minimum thickness, that adjusts the design code to match the safety levels of the col-
COPPE,
lapse strength model calibrated to the experimental results. [DOI: 10.1115/1.4042384]
Federal University of Rio de Janeiro,
Rio de Janeiro, 21941-972, Brazil
e-mail: c.guedes.soares@centec.tecnico.ulisboa.pt

Introduction A model for corrosion prediction in pipelines and its governing

parameters are explicitly included into the probabilistic frame-
Several probabilistic approaches have been suggested to assess
work and the burst pressure of the pipe is evaluated using the
the structural safety of pipelines. The emphasis has been on the
ASME B31G design method and other empirical formulas. Sev-
burst failure of pipelines with corrosion defects using different
eral parametric studies were conducted to investigate how changes
design equations to predict the burst pressure capacity of the pipes
in the observed corrosion (depth and length) and in the frequency
(e.g., Refs. [1–6]). In particular, Teixeira et al. [3] have adopted a
of inspections affect the time-dependent reliability of the pipe.
limit-state function defined based on the modified B31G code [7]
Instead of assessing pipelines with single or multiple corrosion
and on the failure pressure model proposed by Netto et al. [8]
defects, Teixeira et al. [4] have represented the nonuniform thickness
using a series of small-scale experiments and three-dimensional
reduction due to corrosion by random fields. The reliability problem
nonlinear finite element analyses. It was shown that although the
was formulated in terms of the probability distribution of the burst
deterministic predictions of the B31G code are overconservative
pressure of the nonuniformly corroded pipe obtained by stochastic
when compared with the estimates of the failure equation pro-
simulation of random fields and nonlinear finite element analyses.
posed by Netto et al. [8], this latter results in lower reliability indi-
Recently, there has been an increased focus on oil and gas fields
ces for large corrosion defects. Moreover, a sensitivity analysis
located in deep and ultra-deep waters [12] that pose significant
has indicated that the depth of the corrosion defect is considerably
challenges in the design and operation of subsea pipelines. In this
more important in the Netto et al. failure model than in the B31G
case, the pipelines are subjected to high levels of external pressure
code, showing the importance of the reliability methods for com-
and they are designed mainly to resist to collapse. The collapse
paring different design equations.
behavior of pipes under predominantly external pressure has been
More recent reliability studies have adopted the failure pressure
widely investigated, analytically, numerically, and experimentally
models of DNV-RP-F101 [9] to estimate the burst failure proba-
(e.g., Refs. [13–16]). Bai and Hauch [14] and Fatt [15] have pro-
bility (e.g., Refs. [5], [6], and [10]). These studies have revealed
posed to adapt the expression proposed by Timoshenko and Gere
some variability among the implicit safety of the different models
[17] in order to account for defects on the pipe.
and have also demonstrated that ASME B31G is in general over-
The ISO/TR 10400:2007 [18], although not being a design code,
conservative compared to DNV RP-F101 [10].
provides several prediction equations for calculating the properties
Palencia et al. [11] have proposed a dynamic Bayesian network
of casings, tubing, drill pipe, and line pipe used as casing or tubing.
framework for probabilistic modeling of degradation processes in
In particular, the collapse of well casings due to external pressure,
oil and gas pipelines and for bust failure probability assessment.
e.g., during cementing, is similar and is governed by the same
parameters to that of other subsea pipelines subjected to high levels
1
Corresponding author. of external hydrostatic pressure. From the assessment of various
Contributed by the Ocean, Offshore, and Arctic Engineering Division of ASME
for publication in the JOURNAL OF OFFSHORE MECHANICS AND ARCTIC ENGINEERING.
equations available against collapse test datasets, ISO/TR
Manuscript received August 18, 2017; final manuscript received December 19, 2018; 10400:2007 has adopted the Klever and Tamano [19] collapse
published online February 15, 2019. Assoc. Editor: Theodoro Antoun Netto. strength model for further probabilistic calibration.

Journal of Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering OCTOBER 2019, Vol. 141 / 051601-1
C 2019 by ASME
Copyright V

Downloaded From: https://offshoremechanics.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org on 02/24/2019 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 Netto et al. [16] have studied the influence of local corrosion pc ðt1 Þ
defects on the collapse pressure of offshore pipelines through the pext  pmin  (1)
cm  cSC
combination of small-scale experiments with nonlinear numerical
finite element analyses. By means of a parametric study, Netto
where pext is the external hydrostatic pressure on the pipe, pmin is
et al. have shown that the collapse mode and, consequently, the
the minimum internal pressure of the pipe, normally taken as zero
strength of the pipe under external pressure are dependent on the
for as-laid pipeline, and t1 is the minimum wall thickness of the
defect geometry and on its interaction with the ovalization of
pipe that corresponds to the weakest point of the pipe circumfer-
the pipe cross section.
ence where the collapse takes place. cm and cSC are tabulated
Later, Netto [20] proposed a simple formulation for estimating
resistance factors. The characteristic value of the external collapse
the collapse pressure of pipes with narrow and long defects, which
pressure (pc) is given by
are considered to be the most common type of defect encountered
in the field. The proposed equation was derived empirically using  
D
the results of nonlinear numerical analyses calibrated by experi- ðpc ðtÞ  pel ðtÞÞ  pc ðtÞ2  pp ðtÞ2 ¼ pc ðtÞ  pel ðtÞpp ðtÞ  fo (2)
t
mental test results conducted by Netto et al. [16]. The predictions
of the proposed method to estimate the collapse pressure of cor- with,
roded pipelines were later compared by Netto [21] with a new set
of experimental results published by Sakakibara et al. [22], show-  3
t
ing a very good correlation. 2E
Although the probabilistic assessment of the burst failure of D
pel ðtÞ ¼ (3)
pipelines has been extensively studied by several authors, the 1  2
structural safety of corroded pipelines under external pressure has 2t
not received the same attention. Oliveira et al. [23] have con- pp ðtÞ ¼ fy  afab  (4)
ducted a probabilistic analysis of the collapse pressure of pipelines D
with corrosion defects using the Nettos [20] collapse formula for Dmax  Dmin
corroded pipes under external pressure. fo ¼ (5)
This paper adopts several collapse strength models to assess the D
effect of local corrosion defects on the collapse pressure of pipe- Although corrosion defects are not specifically accounted for, the
lines and to formulate the limit state functions (LSF) for safety offshore standard mentions that it is expected that buckling will
assessment of pipelines under external pressure. In particular, the take place at the damaged area. It is also referred that calculating
collapse strength models proposed by Bai and Hauch [14], Fatt the collapse pressure using the minimum thickness (t1) that corre-
[15], and Klever and Tamano [19], the DNV-OS-F101 [24] sponds to the maximum corrosion depth (d) may lead to overcon-
design code method currently used in practice and the Netto servative estimations. A larger pipe thickness than the minimum
[20] model that explicitly accounts for the effect of local corro- value (t1) may be used if properly documented that it represents
sion defects are adopted. The predictions of the various collapse the lowest capacity of the pipeline. Thus, it is possible to take
strength methods are compared and model uncertainty factors some intermediate value (t’) between the minimum thickness of
are derived for the Klever and Tamano [19], DNV-OS-F101 the corroded pipeline (t1) and the nominal thickness of the intact
[24] and Netto [20] collapse strength models based on a series pipeline (t).
of collapse tests reported by Sakakibara et al. [22]. The model
uncertainty factor is defined as function of the local corrosion
depth to intact thickness ratio (d/t) and aims at calibrating the Netto. The Netto’s semi-empirical equation [20] estimates the
predictions of the ratio between the collapse pressure of the cor- ratio between the collapse strength of the intact and corroded pipe
roded and intact pipe (pcor/pco), which is particularly relevant with a defect of finite length and different geometries, given by
for the Klever and Tamano [19] and DNV-OS-F101 collapse Eq. (6). The collapse pressure of the intact pipeline can be given
strength models that do not account explicitly for the effect of a by some other methods, such as the DNV-OS-F101 formulation,
local corrosion defect. which has been adopted in the present study.
The calibrated collapse strength models are then used to 2 32:675
assess the effect of local corrosion defects on the reduction of d
pCOR 6 1 7
the safety levels of pipelines using the first-order reliability RNetto ¼ ¼6 6
t !7 (6)
method (FORM) and the Monte Carlo importance sampling pCO 6   0:4
  0:4 7
7
41  d c l 5
(MCIS) technique. 1
t pD 10D
A parametric study and a sensitivity analysis are also performed
for different levels of local corrosion damages to identify the
influence of the various parameters on the collapse probability of The equation has been calibrated for three different categories of
corroded pipelines under external pressure. Finally, an approach is defects, defined as follows:
suggested to calibrate the DNV design code method that is con- Shallow Defects. Those with geometrical properties within the
servative when using the minimum pipe thickness to represent a following ranges:
local corrosion defect.  
d c
0:1   0:2;  0:1 (7)
t pD
Collapse Pressure of Corroded Pipelines
Moderately Deep Defects. Those with geometrical properties
Five different strength models are adopted to predict the col-
within the following ranges:
lapse pressure of pipelines with corrosion defects. These include
the collapse strength models proposed by Netto [20], Bai and  
Hauch [14], Fatt [15], Klever and Tamano [19], and the DNV-OS- d c
0:2 <  0:4;  0:1 (8)
F101 [24] code requirements. t pD

For this type of defects, the following condition should be considered:

DNV-OS-F101. Det Norske Veritas standard DNV-OS-F101
[24] establishes that the external pressure at any point along the c d c d
if  0:15  0:25 then ¼ 0:15  0:25 (9)
pipeline shall fulfill the criterion, pD t pD t

051601-2 / Vol. 141, OCTOBER 2019 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: https://offshoremechanics.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org on 02/24/2019 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 Deep and Narrow Defects. Those defects with geometric proper-
ties within the following ranges:
 
d c d E
0:4 < < 0:6;  0:2  0:25 (10)
t pD t ro ð1   2 Þ
For this type of defects, the following condition should be
considered:
c d c d
if  0:1  0:125 then ¼ 0:1  0:125 (11)
pD t pD t the collapse strength (pc) of casings subjected to external pressure
Bai and Hauch. Bai and Hauch [14] have proposed to adapt
the solution provided by Timoshenko and Gere [17] for the initial
yielding condition of a cylinder with uniform thickness and initial
imperfections under external pressure in order to account for
defects on the pipe. They have simply proposed to reduce the shell
thickness to be equal to that of the corroded region in the pipe (h).
This means that if the corrosion defect is not too deep, the pipe
thickness (t) can be directly substituted by h in the yielding condi-
tion equation of Timoshenko and Gere given by
   
ry h w1 ry h
p2iy  þ 1þ6 pel piy þ pel ¼ 0 (12)
R h R
where w1 is the amplitude of ovality, ry is the yield strength of the
shell material, and piy is the pressure at the initial yielding of the
shell that accounts for the amplification of external loads due to
the combination of initial-out-of-roundness and axial compression.
This reasoning is also present in the DNV-OS-F01 code, which
considers that buckling happens when the external forces are
larger than the wall section resistance, and thus will happen at the
weakest point along the pipe cross section (in this case, where the
defect is located). Thus, the defect length and width are not
explicitly accounted for in the assessment of the external pressure
that corresponds to the initial yielding of the shell of the pipeline.
The estimates provided by this simple approximation were found
to be within the 10% interval around the finite element method
predictions when the corrosion depth is less than 20% of the shell
thickness. However, the discrepancy between analytical and finite
element predictions became unacceptable when the corrosion
depth is larger.
Fatt. Fatt [15] has proposed an extension to Timoshenko’s
solution, using a modified interaction formula for the fully plastic
membrane forces and bending moments in the nonuniform cylin-
der. The defect region is described in terms of depth and angular
extent of the corrosion. The length of the defect is assumed to
extend for the whole length of the cylinder. The collapse of the
pipe is described by both initial yielding and fully plastic yielding
conditions.
It is proposed that initial yield can take place in three regions
(with different yield pressures) depending on the pipe characteris-
tics: at the corroded area; at the noncorroded area at the neutral
axis of the noncorroded area, t/2; or at the noncorroded area at the
neutral axis of the corroded area, (t  d)/2.
The normalized initial yield pressure giy ¼ piy/pel is expressed
in the following dimensionless form for a simplified case with no
bending moment:
 3 R function of corrosion depth, it is possible to see again the correla-
4ry ð1   2 Þ R
¼ giy  t  (13)
E t d Fatt and the experimental test results of Sakakibara et al. [22].
1
t The external collapse pressure decreases almost linearly as the
Full plastic yielding can as well take place both at the noncor-
roded or corroded areas. The final solution used to estimate the
Journal of Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering
Downloaded From: https://offshoremechanics.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org on 02/24/2019 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
normalized full plastic yielding pressure gfp ¼ pfp/pel, for a simpli-
fied case with no bending moment, is
 2  4
t 1
g2fp  2 ¼ 1 (14)
R d
1
t
Klever and Tamano. According to Klever and Tamano [19],
is given by [18]
 1=2
ðpe þ py Þ  ðpe  py Þ2 þ 4  pe  py  Ht
pc ¼ (15)
2ð1  Ht Þ
with
ke  2E
pe ¼ (16)
ð1   2 Þð D=tÞð D=t  1Þ2
py ¼ ky  2ry ðt=DÞð1 þ t=ð2DÞÞ (17)
Ht ¼ 0:127  ov þ 0:0039  ec  0:440ðrs=ry Þ (18)
where pe and py are the ultimate elastic and yield strengths,
respectively; and Ht is a decrement factor that accounts for imper-
fections, such as ovality ov ¼ ðDmax  Dmin Þ=D ½in %, eccentric-
ity ec ¼ ðtmax  tmin Þ=t ½in %, residual stress rs. ke and ky are
empirical calibration factors obtained from collapse tests defined
as 1.089 and 0.991, respectively [18].
Comparison of the Collapse Strength Prediction Methods.
The predictions of the five methods are now compared with results
of a series of collapse tests reported by Sakakibara et al. [22]. The
experiments were conducted on 2-in. diameter, seamless, stainless
steel 304 pipes with diameter to thickness ratios (D/t) of 19 and
21 with constant defect length and varying depth (d) and width
(c), with 0.1985  d/t  0.540 and 0.0166  c/(pd)  0.1111.
Figure 1 compares the predictions of the different methods with
the experimental test results in terms of the ratio between the col-
lapse pressure of the corroded and intact pipe (pcor/pco). It can be
seen that the formulations proposed by Bai and Hauch and Fatt are
both conservative and that the Fatt’s predictions are better correlated
with the experimental data than the ones from Bai and Hauch.
The DNV design equation and the Klever and Tamano (K&T)
prediction model that account explicitly for ovality and eccentricity
of the pipes provide similar results, as shown in Fig. 1. Moreover,
as expected both models provide very conservative estimations for
the collapse pressure of the corroded pipe, as the calculations were
conducted using the minimum thickness of the pipe that corre-
sponds to the maximum depth of the corrosion defect.
The Netto’s collapse model that accounts explicitly for the
effect of a local corrosion defect is the one that shows better corre-
lation with the experimental data. However, it is also possible to
see that the Netto’s collapse equation overestimates the actual
pipe strength in three particular cases. These correspond to the
mild steel specimens for which the equation provides less accurate
results, as Netto already pointed out in the original work [20].
Figure 2 shows the same predictions plotted against the normal-
ized defect depth (d/t). When plotting the predicted values as a
tion between the methods proposed by Netto, Bai and Hauch, and
corrosion depth increases.
Figure 3 presents the predictions of the methods plotted against
the normalized defect width. Both the experimental and predicted
OCTOBER 2019, Vol. 141 / 051601-3
 Fig. 1 Comparison between experimental (measured) [22] and predicted normalized collapse
pressures of pipes with defects with constant length and varying depth and width

Fig. 2 Normalized collapse pressure of the pipes with defects as a function of d/t

collapse pressures show low correlation with the width of the and the corresponding predictions provided by the Netto, DNV,
defect (c) for the range studied, being the variability of pcor/pco for and Klever and Tamano collapse strength models
each defect width mainly due to the effect of the corrosion depth.
Therefore, d/t is the main parameter governing the reduction of experimental ðpcor =pco Þ
Xc ¼ (19)
the pipes’ collapse strength due to local corrosion defects. predicted ðpcor =pco Þ

Moreover, as the deviations between the model predictions and

Model Uncertainty Factors. Based on the models, predictions,
and the experimental test results reported by Sakakibara et al.
[22], model uncertainty factors are derived with the objective of
adjusting the predictions of the collapse strength models to the
experimental results and assessing their uncertainty. The objective
is to represent by means of a model uncertainty factor the capabil-
ity of the different models to predict the reduction of the pipe col-
lapse pressure (pcor/pco), i.e., the ratio between the collapse
pressure of the pipe with a local corrosion defect (pcor) and that of
the intact pipe (pco). A global model uncertainty factor (Xc) is
defined as the ratio between the experimental collapse pressures
the test results tend to increase with the depth (d) of the corrosion
defect (as shown in Figs. 1 and 2), model uncertainty factors as
function of the normalized depth of the local defect (d/t) are also
derived, given by
1
Xc ðd=tÞ ¼ (20)
1  a1 ðd=tÞa2
where the estimated model parameters, a1 and a2, are presented in
Table 1 for the DNV, K&T, and Netto collapse strength models.
The model adopted to describe uncertainty factor ensures that

051601-4 / Vol. 141, OCTOBER 2019 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: https://offshoremechanics.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org on 02/24/2019 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 Fig. 3 Normalized collapse pressure of the pipes with defects as a function of normalized
defect width c/pD

Table 1 Model uncertainty factor on (pcor/pco) of the Netto, Xc(d/t) ¼ 1 for intact pipes (d/t ¼ 0), as the objective is to calibrate
DNV, and K&T collapse strength models the effect of a local corrosion defect and not the predictions of the
collapse strength of the intact pipe.
Netto DNV K&T Table 1 presents the mean values and standard deviations (SD)
of the global (Xc) and of the d/t dependent model uncertainty fac-
Global model uncertainty factor, Xc Xc, Netto Xc, DNV Xc, K&T
tors (Xc(d/t)) of each prediction method fitted to the data. Figure 4
Mean 1.040 1.313 1.239
shows the model uncertainty factors calculated for the sample of
Standard deviation 0.051 0.434 0.368 experimental results of pipes with local corrosion defects as func-
COV 0.05 0.33 0.30 tion of the normalized depth of the defect (d/t) and Figs. 5–7 illus-
trate the fitting of Eq. (20) to each collapse strength method. As
Model uncertainty factor as function of d/t Xc (d/t) ¼ 1/(1  a1(d/t)a2) expected, the model uncertainty factor of the Netto collapse model
is close to one (Fig. 5). Contrarily, the DNV and K&T collapse
Distribution Normal Xc, Netto (d/t) Xc, DNV (d/t) Xc, K&T (d/t)
strength models have model uncertainty factors that are clearly
Mean (Eq. (20)) a1 0.20 1.372 0.982
described by an increasing function of d/t due to their conserva-
a2 1.50 1.329 1.298 tive predictions of the effect of the local corrosion defect on the
Standard deviation 0.02 0.02 0.04 collapse strength of the pipe.

Fig. 4 Model uncertainty factor Xc of the collapse strength prediction methods

Journal of Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering OCTOBER 2019, Vol. 141 / 051601-5

Downloaded From: https://offshoremechanics.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org on 02/24/2019 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 Fig. 5 Model uncertainty factor Xc(d/t) of the Netto prediction
method as function of the local defect depth (d/t)
For reliability purposes, the model uncertainty factors as func-
tion of d/t are then assumed to follow a normal distribution with
mean value given by Eq. (20) and standard deviation given in
Table 1.
Reliability Analysis of Corroded Pipelines Under
External Pressure
The structural reliability analysis is performed using the FORM
in order to obtain an estimate of the probability of failure of the
pipe subjected to external pressure given by
ð ¼ Xc; Netto ðd=tÞ  pc;intact ðt; D; fo ; ry Þ  RNetto ðd; c; l; t; DÞ  pext
Pf ¼ P½g  0 ¼ fx ðxÞ dx  PFORM
f ¼ UðbÞ (21)
Xf
where fx(x) is the joint probability density function of X and Xf
¼{x: g(x)  0} is the failure domain and g(x) is the limit state (or
failure) function for the failure mode considered. PfFORM is the first-
order approximation of the failure probability, U is the standard nor-
mal distribution, and b is the corresponding reliability index.
The FORM predictions can be improved using the MCIS tech-
nique in which the variance of the failure probability estimator is
reduced by concentrating the simulation samples at the region of
the basic random variables space that most contribute to the fail-
ure probability (i.e., around the FORM design point) instead of
simulating them from the original joint probability density func-
tion of X as in crude Monte Carlo sampling (see, e.g., Melchers
[25] for more details on structural reliability analysis methods).
Limit State Function. The reliability problem of the collapse
failure of pipes with local corrosion defects subjected to external
pressure is described by a LSF of the form
Fig. 6 Model uncertainty factor Xc(d/t) of the DNV prediction
method as function of the local defect depth (d/t)
051601-6 / Vol. 141, OCTOBER 2019
Downloaded From: https://offshoremechanics.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org on 02/24/2019 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
Fig. 7 Model uncertainty factor Xc(d/t) of the K&T prediction
method as function of the local defect depth (d/t)
gðXÞ ¼ pc  pext (22)
where pc is the collapse external pressure of the corroded pipeline
and pext is the ambient hydrostatic pressure. This generic LSF can
be rewritten for the collapse pressure methods of Netto (RNetto),
DNV (pc,DNV), and K&T (pc,K&T), affected by the corresponding
model uncertainty factor Xc,.(d/t) previously developed to correct
their predictions to better represent the effect of a local corrosion
defect on the safety of the pipes, as
gðpext ; t; D; fo ; ry ; d; c; lÞ
(23)
gðpext ; t; D; fo ; ry ; dÞ ¼ Xc; DNV ðd=tÞ  pc;DNV ðt  d; D; fo ; ry Þ  pext
(24)
gðpext ; t; D; fo ; ry ; dÞ ¼ Xc; K&T ðd=tÞ  pc;K&T ðt  d; D; fo ; ry Þ  pext
(25)
Case Study. The case study developed is formulated from
inspection data collected from a real pipeline system. All basic
random variables and parameters used to define the model are pre-
sented in Table 2. Some of the models are defined following the
probabilistic distributions adopted by Teixeira et al. [3] for reli-
ability analysis of corroded pipelines subjected to internal pres-
sure. These include the yield stress (ry), pipe diameter (D), wall
thickness (t), and internal operational pressure (Po).
The probabilistic parameters of the pipe geometry and defect
sizes were obtained from actual measurements on the pipeline sys-
tem. The pipe ovality was not specified in the data and, therefore,
its probabilistic model was derived from data of similar pipes
available in the literature. The characteristic value of the hydro-
static external pressure pcext was calculated by the DNV-OS-F101
requirements for intact pipes under external pressure, using the
pipe characteristic values presented in the last column of Table 2
by
pc ðt1 Þ
pcext  pmin  (26)
cm  cSC
The probabilistic model of the external hydrostatic pressure pext is
derived assuming that pext follows a Gumbel distribution with
coefficient of variation (COV) ¼ 10% and that the characteristic
value pcext calculated by Eq. (26) corresponds to the 95% percen-
tile (i.e., P½pext  pcext  ¼ 95%).
The depths (d) of the local corrosion defects have been taken
from the results of an internal inspection using an ultrasonic
Transactions of the ASME
 Table 2 Basic pipe random variables and parameters

Random variable Distribution Mean Standard deviation COV (%) Characteristic value (Xc) P(xXc)

d (mm) Normal 2.20 0.3902 17.7 2.70 (90% percentile)

l (mm) Normal 168.0 9.505 5.7 168.0 (50% percentile)
c (mm) Normal 91.0 10.0 11.0 91.0 (50% percentile)
D (mm) Normal 304.8 0.3048 0.1 304.8 (50% percentile)
t (mm) Normal 20.1 0.201 1.0 20.1 (50% percentile)
ry (MPa) Lognormal (parameters) 348.0 (l ¼5.849) 27.84 (r¼ 0.0799) 8.0 304.2 (5% percentile)
fo Normal 4.9 104 0.49 104 10.0 4.9 104 (50% percentile)
pext (MPa) Gumbel (parameters) 26.60 (le ¼26.959) 0.7980 (re¼ 0.6222) 3.0 28.8 (95% percentile)
E (GPa) Deterministic 203.0 — — —
 Deterministic 0.32 — — —

intelligent pig. The inspection accuracy quoted by the inspection  

@g
tool provider is that the defect depth is reported with a 60.5 mm
@ui u¼u
tolerance. This sizing accuracy is quoted with a confidence level ai ¼ sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
 2 ffi (27)
of 80% and, therefore, the standard deviation of the defect depth PN @g
is 0.39 mm, i.e., SD ¼ 0.5/ U1((1  0.8)/2).
i¼1 @ui u¼u

Results with i ¼ 1, …, N is the index associated with each design random

The reliability analysis was performed using the FORM and
the MCIS technique. Table 3 shows the FORM and MCIS proba-
bilities of failure and the corresponding reliability indices for the
intact pipe, calculated by the DNV collapse strength model, and
for the pipe with a corrosion depth of d/t ¼ 0.11, calculated using
the calibrated limit state functions of Netto, DNV, and K&T
(Eqs. (23)–(25), respectively). It can be seen that the differences
among the two reliability methods are negligible and that the
coefficient of variation of the probability of failure (COVpf)
estimated by the MCIS method based on 10,000 samples (ns) is
always less than 3%.
The reliability index of the intact pipe (bo) calculated by the
DNV collapse strength model is around 5.9 and the reliability of
the pipe with the corrosion defect (d/t ¼ 0.11) reduces to
bcorr ¼ 4.9, which corresponds to a ratio bcorr/bo of 0.83. As
expected, the reliability indices of the corroded pipe calculated by
the calibrated Netto, DNV, and K&T LSTs are comparable,
although some variability among the three indices is observed
(i.e., 5.26, 4.88, and 5.21). This is mainly due to differences on
the effect of the model uncertainties on the reliability indices cal-
culated by the different collapse strength models. In fact, similar
determinist collapse strength predictions may not be reflected in
identical safety levels due to some differences of the importance
of each random variable in the various limit state functions.
A sensitivity analysis has been also conducted to quantify the
relative contribution or importance of each random variable to
the reliability index or safety level. A frequently used sensitivity
measure is:
variable considered in the reliability formulation. The variables ui
represent the design random variables in the standard Gaussian
space and g the limit state function. The partial derivatives of g
are evaluated at the FORM design point u*, which is defined as
the most probable outcome of the design random variables in the
standard Gaussian space when failure occurs. This sensitivity
measure indicates that a given design random variable contributes
positively to the safety level or reliability index if its sensitivity
factor is positive, meaning that an increase of the variable results
in an increase of the safety level. The relative importance of the
variable to the safety level is quantified by the magnitude of its
sensitivity factor.
Figures 8 and 9 show the sensitivity factors (ai) of random vari-
ables for the intact and corroded pipes (d/t ¼ 0.11), respectively.
Figure 8 shows that the random variables have identical impor-
tance when using the DNV and K&T collapse strength models to
predict to safety of the intact pipe, being the yield stress of the
pipe (ry) by far the most important variable in both models.
Figure 9 shows that the yield stress is also the most important
variable for the corroded pipe condition (d/t ¼ 0.11), in all models
(Netto, DNV, and K&T). However, the model uncertainty factor
Xc, the depth of the corrosion defect (d), and the thickness of the
pipe (t) have also an important contribution to the safety level of
pipe. It is interesting to see that the pipe thickness (t) has similar
importance in all models but the corrosion depth (d) is consider-
ably less important in the Netto’s model than in the DNV and
K&T collapse pressure limit state functions, which results from
the fact that both the DNV and K&T models assume

Table 3 Results of the reliability analysis

FORM MCIS (ns ¼ 10,000)

LSF Pfo bo pfo bo COVPfo (%)

Intact pipe-DNV 2.19 109 5.87 1.82 109 5.90 2.67

Corroded pipe (d/t ¼ 0.11) (Local defect with l, d, c defined in Table 2)

FORM MCIS (ns ¼ 10,000)

Pf corr bcorr pf corr bcorr COVPf corr (%)

8 8
Netto 7.04 10 5.26 6.15 10 5.29 2.54
DNV 5.29 107 4.88 4.84 107 4.90 2.39
K&T 9.67 108 5.21 8.96 108 5.22 2.47
Fig. 8 Sensitivity factors—intact pipe (d/t 5 0)

Journal of Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering OCTOBER 2019, Vol. 141 / 051601-7

Downloaded From: https://offshoremechanics.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org on 02/24/2019 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 Fig. 9 Sensitivity factors—pipe with corrosion defect
(d/t 5 0.11)

conservatively an uniform corroded thickness equal to t-d,

whereas the Netto model accounts explicitly for the effect of d.
The length (l) and width (c) of the defect, which are considered
only by the Netto’s LSF, have both low sensitivity values, indicat-
ing that these two variables have a low impact on the prediction
of the collapse strength of the corroded pipe and, consequently, on
its safety level.
Figure 10 shows the sensitivity factors of the random variables
for a larger local corrosion defect with d/t ¼ 0.30. Comparing
Figs. 9 and 10, one can see that the model uncertainty sensitivity
factor slightly decreases as d/t increases. This is due to an increase
of the importance of the depth of the corrosion defect (d) and also
of the pipe thickness (t) for larger corrosion defects that reduce
the overall contribution of the model uncertainty factor on the
pipe reliability.
A parametric study is also conducted to assess the effect of the
corrosion depth to thickness ratio (d/t) on the reliability of the cor-
roded pipe. Figure 11 shows the reliability indices bcorr and the
bcorr/bo ratio of a pipe with a corrosion defect as function of d/t
obtained by the Netto, DNV, and K&T collapse strength models
calibrated by the corresponding model uncertainty factor Xc  (d/t)
given in Table 1 (i.e., using LSFs defined by Eqs. (23)–(25)). It is
clear that all calibrated LSFs provide similar reliability results for
corrosion defects with increasing depth (d). The model uncer-
tainty factors introduced in the reliability formulation, particularly
in the DNV and K&T, are able to adjust the predictions of the col-
lapse strength of the corroded pipe and to describe conveniently
the effect of a local defect on the safety level of the pipe, bringing
the safety values obtained by the DNV and K&T models closer to the
ones provided by the Netto collapse strength model that accounts
explicitly for the effect of a local corrosion defect and better cor-
relates with the experimental results.
Fig. 10 Sensitivity factors—pipe with corrosion defect
(d/t 5 0.30)
Fig. 11 Reliability index of the corroded pipe as a function of
d/t calculated from the Netto, DNV and K&T LSFs calibrated by
the model uncertainty factor Xc (d/t): (a) reliability index of the
corroded pipe (bcorr) and (b) reliability index of the corroded
pipe (bcorr) normalized by the intact reliability (bo)
DNV Thickness Correction
The DNV-OS-F101 requirements mention that the weakest sec-
tion of a corroded pipe may not be well represented by the mini-
mum corroded wall thickness (t1), as it is not likely the defect to
be present around the whole circumference. Thus, the design code
allows for the possibility of using a larger thickness (t’), between
the minimum corroded (t1) and the nominal intact thicknesses (t),
if properly documented that it represents the lowest collapse
capacity of the pipeline.
An attempt has been made to obtain an estimation of this inter-
mediate thickness (t0 ) that can replace the minimum thickness (t1)
in the DNV design equation so as to obtain a safety level equiva-
lent to the one of the calibrated DNV LSF. The approach consists
of estimating an equivalent local corrosion defect depth d0 to be
used in the noncalibrated DNV LSF (i.e., assuming a uniform cor-
roded thickness t0 ¼ t  d0 ) that results in the safety levels obtained
by the calibrated DNV LSF (Eq. (24)).
Figure 12 shows the calculated equivalent corrosion depth (d0 )
normalized by d as function of d/t that corresponds to the interme-
diate thicknesses (t0 ¼ t  d0 ) to be used in the DNV design
equation.
According to Fig. 12, for a local corrosion defect with normal-
ized depth of 0.2 (d/t ¼ 0.2), the equivalent normalized corrosion
depth is approximately 0.4 (d0 /d ¼ 0.4), which indicates that simi-
lar safety levels are obtained using the calibrated DNV LSF with
a depth d and the noncalibrated LSF with an intermediate thick-
ness t0 DNV ¼ t  d0 ¼ t  0.4d. This consists of a possible

051601-8 / Vol. 141, OCTOBER 2019 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: https://offshoremechanics.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org on 02/24/2019 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 a systematic way an intermediate corroded thickness associated
with an equivalent defect depth that provides a safety level identi-
cal to the one obtained by the calibrated LSF.
One should mention that although the paper has contributed
with a general approach to calibrate design equations based on
experimental results and with a reliability problem formulated in
terms of calibrated strength models, the calibration process needs
to be conducted with more experimental test results covering a
wide range of variation of the design parameters before incorpo-
rating any change into the design of subsea pipelines.

Acknowledgment
The work has been financed by EMBRAPII-COPPE Unit - Sub-
sea Technology, within the project “Subsea Systems,” which is
conducted in cooperation with COPPE (UFRJ) and is financed by
Fig. 12 Equivalent DNV depth of the corrosion defect d’ as a
PETROGAL Brasil. The third author holds a visiting position at
function of d/t the Ocean Engineering Department, COPPE, Federal University
of Rio de Janeiro, which is financed by the Conselho Nacional de
Pesquisa of Brazil (CNPq).
approach to introduce at the design level a correction to account
for the less severe effect of a local corrosion defect on the safety
level of the pipe. Nomenclature
c¼ maximum defect width
d¼ maximum defect depth
Conclusions D¼ pipe outer diameter
d0 ¼ equivalent defect depth
The paper has formulated and assessed the reliability of pipe-
E¼ Young’s modulus
lines with local corrosion defects subjected to external pressure.
fo ¼ pipe ovality
The limit state functions are derived from several calibrated
l¼ maximum defect length
collapse pressure prediction methods, including the Netto semi-
pc ¼ collapse pressure
empirical design equation derived from small-scale experiments
pco ¼ collapse pressure of an intact pipe
and three-dimensional nonlinear finite element analyses, the K&T
pcor ¼ collapse pressure of a damaged pipe
strength model, and the DNV design code method currently used
pel ¼ elastic buckling pressure of an homogeneous cylinder, cal-
in practice.
culated according to Timoshenko [17]
A comparison with a series of collapse test results of pipelines
pext ¼ external hydrostatic pressure on the pipe
with local corrosion defects reported by Sakakibara et al. has
pmin ¼ minimum internal
shown that the predictions of the Netto design equation that
pp ¼ plastic collapse pressure of an homogeneous cylinder, cal-
accounts explicitly for the geometry of the local corrosion defect
culated according to Timoshenko [17]
are the ones that better correlate with the experimental data. The
R¼ pipe shell radius
DNV design equation provides conservative estimations for the
t¼ pipe mean wall thickness
collapse pressure of the pipe with a local corrosion defect, when
t1 ¼ minimum wall thickness
using a minimum thickness of the pipe that corresponds to the
t0 ¼ intermediate wall thickness between t1 and t (t0 ¼ t  d0 )
maximum depth of the defect.
w1 ¼ amplitude of ovality imperfection
Model uncertainty factors as function of the depth of the local
Xc ¼ model uncertainty factor
corrosion defect are derived for the Netto, K&T, and DNV
b¼ reliability index
collapse strength models based on the experimental test results to
bcorr ¼ reliability index of the pipe with a corrosion defect
calibrate the overconservative predictions of collapse strength
bo ¼ reliability index of the intact pipe
models that deal with the effect of corrosion defects by consider-
cm ¼ material resistance factor, taken as 1.16
ing an uniform reduction of pipe thickness. The calibrated col-
cSC ¼ safety class resistance factor, taken as 1.138
lapse strength models are then used to assess the effect of local
gfy ¼ full plastic yielding pressure normalized by the elastic
corrosion defects on the reduction of the safety levels of pipelines.
buckling pressure pel
It is demonstrated that the safety levels of the pipes with local
giy ¼ initial yielding pressure normalized by the elastic buckling
corrosion defects assessed by the calibrated collapse strength
pressure pel
models are similar, as the model uncertainty factors introduced in
ro ¼ flow stress, estimated as the average between the yield
the reliability formulation are able to adjust the predictions of the
stress and the ultimate stress
collapse strength of the corroded pipe (particularly of the DNV
¼ Poisson’s ratio
and K&T models) to describe conveniently the effect of a local
ry ¼ yield stress
defect on the safety level of the pipe.
A sensitivity analysis has shown that the yield stress is the most
important variable in all models. However, the model uncertainty
factor, the thickness of the pipe, and depth of the corrosion defect, References
particularly for the K&T and DNV LSFs, have also an important [1] Ahammed, M., and Melchers, R. E., 1996, “Reliability Estimation of Pressur-
contribution to the safety level of pipes with local corrosion defects. ised Pipelines Subject to Localised Corrosion Defects,” Int. J. Pressure Vessel
Piping, 69(3), pp. 267–72.
Also, the length and width of the defect that are considered only by [2] Leira, B. J., Næss, A., and Brandrud Næss, O. E., 2016, “Reliability Analysis of
the Netto LSF have both low sensitivity values, indicating that Corroding Pipelines by Enhanced Monte Carlo Simulation,” Int. J. Pressure
these two variables have a low impact on the prediction of the col- Vessel Piping, 144, pp. 11–17.
lapse strength of pipes with local corrosion defects. [3] Teixeira, A. P., Guedes Soares, C., Netto, T. A., and Estefen, S. F., 2008,
“Reliability of Pipelines With Corrosion Defects,” Int. J. Pressure Vessel
Finally, an approach has been suggested and demonstrated to Piping, 85(4), pp. 228–237.
calibrate the DNV collapse strength model to better represent the [4] Teixeira, A. P., Zayed, A., and Guedes Soares, C., 2010, “Reliability of Pipe-
effect of a local corrosion defect, which consists of calculating in lines With Non-Uniform Corrosion,” J. Ocean Sh. Technol., 1(1), pp. 12–30.

Journal of Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering OCTOBER 2019, Vol. 141 / 051601-9

Downloaded From: https://offshoremechanics.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org on 02/24/2019 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 [5] Bisaggio, H. D. C., and Netto, T. A., 2015, “Predictive Analyses of the Integrity
of Corroded Pipelines Based on Concepts of Structural Reliability and Bayesian
Inference,” Mar. Struct., 41, pp. 180–199.
[6] Aljaroudi, A., Khan, F., Akinturk, A., Haddara, M., and Thodi, P., 2015, “Risk
Assessment of Offshore Crude Oil Pipeline Failure,” J. Loss Prev. Process Ind.,
37, pp. 101–109.
[7] ASME, 2012, “Manual for Determining the Remaining Strength of Corroded
Pipelines,” Supplement to ASME B31 Code for Pressure Piping, American
Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York, Standard No. ASME B31G-
2012.
[8] Netto, T. A., Ferraz, U. S., and Estefen, S. F., 2005, “The Effect of Corrosion
Defects on the Burst Pressure of Pipelines,” J. Constr. Steel Res., 61(8), pp.
1185–1204.
[9] DNV, 2015, “Recommended Practice—Corroded Pipelines,” Det Norske Veri-
tas, Oslo, Norway.
[10] Hasan, S., Khan, F., and Kenny, S., 2012, “Probability Assessment of Burst
Limit State Due to Internal Corrosion,” Int. J. Pressure Vessels Piping, 89, pp.
48–58.
[11] Palencia, O. G., Teixeira, A. P., and Guedes Soares, C., 2019, “Safety of Pipe-
lines Subjected to Deterioration Processes Modeled Through Dynamic Bayes-
ian Networks,” ASME J. Offshore Mech. Arct. Eng., 141(1), p. 011602.
[12] Bruschi, R., Vitali, L., Marchionni, L., Parrella, A., and Mancini, A., 2015,
“Pipe Technology and Installation Equipment for Frontier Deep Water Proj-
ects,” Ocean Eng., 108(1), pp. 369–392.
[13] Timoshenko, S. P., 1933, “Working Stresses for Columns and Thin-Walled
Structures,” Trans. ASME, 55, pp. 173–183.
[14] Bai, Y., and Hauch, S., 1998, “Analytical Collapse Capacity of Corroded
Pipes,” Eighth International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference, Mon-
treal, QC, Canada, May 24–29, pp. 182–188.
051601-10 / Vol. 141, OCTOBER 2019
Downloaded From: https://offshoremechanics.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org on 02/24/2019 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
[15] Fatt, M. S. H., 1999, “Elastic-Plastic Collapse of Non-Uniform Cylindrical
Shells Subjected to Uniform External Pressure,” Thin-Walled Struct., 35(2), pp.
117–137.
[16] Netto, T. A., Ferraz, U. S., and Botto, A., 2007, “On the Effect of Corrosion
Defects on the Collapse Pressure of Pipelines,” Int. J. Solids Struct., 44(22–23),
pp. 7597–7614.
[17] Timoshenko, S. P., and Gere, J. M., 1961, Theory Elastic Stability, McGraw-
Hill, New York.
[18] ISO, 2007, “Petroleum and Natural Gas Industries—Equations and Calculations
for the Properties of Casing, Tubing, Drill Pipe and Line Pipe Used as Casing
or Tubing,” International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, Switzer-
land, Standard No. ISO/TR 104002007.
[19] Klever, F. J., and Tamano, T., 2006, “A New OCTG Strength Equation for Col-
lapse Under Combined Loads,” SPE Drill. Complet., 21(3), pp. 164–179.
[20] Netto, T. A., 2009, “On the Effect of Narrow and Long Corrosion Defects on
the Collapse Pressure of Pipelines,” Appl. Ocean Res., 31(2), pp. 75–81.
[21] Netto, T. A., 2010, “A Simple Procedure for the Prediction of the Collapse
Pressure of Pipelines With Narrow and Long Corrosion Defects—Correlation
With New Experimental Data,” Appl. Ocean Res., 32(1), pp. 132–134.
[22] Sakakibara, N., Kyriakides, S., and Corona, E., 2008, “Collapse of Partially
Corroded or Worn Pipe Under External Pressure,” Int. J. Mech. Sci., 50(12),
pp. 1586–1597.
[23] Oliveira, N., Bisaggio, H., and Netto, T., 2016, “Probabilistic Analysis of the
Collapse Pressure of Corroded Pipelines,” ASME Paper No. OMAE2016-
54299.
[24] DNV, 2013, “Submarine Pipeline Systems,” Det Norske Veritas, Oslo, Norway,
Standard No. DNV-OS-F101
[25] Melchers, R. E., 1999, Structural Reliability and Analysis Prediction, 2nd ed.,
Wiley, Chichester, UK.
Transactions of the ASME