Engineering Failure Analysis 32 (2013) 209–219

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Engineering Failure Analysis

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engfailanal

Assessment on failure pressure of high strength pipeline with

corrosion defects
Bin Ma a,⇑, Jian Shuai a, Dexu Liu b, Kui Xu a
a
China University of Petroleum, Beijing, China
b
Zhongyuan Petroleum Prospecting and Design Institute, Puyang, Henan, China

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: An accurate prediction on the failure pressure of line pipe is very important in the engi-
Received 20 December 2012 neering design and integrity assessment of oil and gas transmission pipelines. This paper
Received in revised form 28 February 2013 analytically investigates the failure pressure of line pipes with or without corrosion defects,
Accepted 31 March 2013
and focus on the high strength steels. Based on von Mises strength failure criterion, a clas-
Available online 9 April 2013
sic strength failure criterion, the failure pressure of end-capped and defect-free pipe pM is
theoretically deduced with the strain hardening material. In order to derive a general solu-
Keywords:
tion for corrosion defect assessment of high strength pipelines, an extensive series of finite
Failure Pressure
High strength steel
element analyses on various elliptical corrosion defects was performed. Finally, a new for-
Full-scale burst test mula for predicting the failure pressure of corroded pipe in the material of high strength
Pipeline steels is formulated, based on the FE models and pM, and is validated using 79 groups of
Finite element analysis full-scale burst test data, which contain the low, middle and high strength pipeline. The
results indicated that the proposed formula for predicting the failure pressure is closely
matches the experimental data for the high strength steels.
Crown Copyright Ó 2013 Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

At the present, with the industry developed rapidly, the demand of oil and gas is on the increase, and thus carrying capac-
ity and transport efficiency of pipeline has been improved. The important trend of the development to oil and gas pipelines
is: large diameter, transmission by high pressure and high strength steels [1]. And we have to improve the strength and
toughness of the material, considering the structural stability and safety of the pipeline [2]. In the pipeline industry, some
sections of high-pressure pipelines, particularly those with long service histories, may experience corrosion. Accurate pre-
diction of burst pressure for line pipes is crucial in the engineering design and integrity assessment of oil and gas transmis-
sion pipelines. The burst pressure is usually defined as the limit load or failure pressure of a pipe at plastic collapse,
representing the maximum load-bearing capacity of the pipe [3]. In this paper the burst pressure represent the pressure
measured in the actual burst test and the failure pressure represent the prediction maximum pressure at the plastic collapse
stage calculated by the theoretical equation.
The remaining strength of line pipes with corrosion defects is an important project in the oil and gas pipeline industry,
and it has been studied for years, using experimental, numerical, analytic and empirical methods [4–7]. There are lots of
assessment criteria and methods [8], such as ASME B31G-1984 [9], ASME B31G-1991 [10], ASME B31G-2009 [11], DNV
RP101 [12], PCORRC [13], RSTRENG [14] and so on. However, many experimental data have shown these methods can often
be over conservative to evaluate the pipeline with the materials of high-grade strength steels [15].

⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +98 615110284571.

E-mail address: chrismabin@163.com (B. Ma).

1350-6307/$ - see front matter Crown Copyright Ó 2013 Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engfailanal.2013.03.015
210 B. Ma et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 32 (2013) 209–219

Nomenclature

r true stress in simple tension

e true strain in simple tension
0
r0 engineering stress
e engineering strain
K the strength coefficient
ru the true ultimate tensile stress
ry the true yield stress
r
e0 initial strain, where e0 ¼ Ey
n the strain hardening exponent
r0u the engineering ultimate tensile stress
e0u the engineering strain value, when r0 ¼ r0u
r1, r2, r3 principal stresses
e1, e2, e3 principal strains
rhh, raa, rrr hoop, axial, and radial stresses, respectively
ehh, eaa, err hoop, axial, and radial strains, respectively
rM Mises equivalent stress
t, t0 instant and original wall thicknesses of the pipe, respectively
d depth of the corrosion defect
L length of the corrosion defect
D, D0 instant and original average diameters of the pipe, respectively
pM failure pressure of defect-free pipeline based on Mises criterion
pfailure failure pressure of corroded pipeline
E elastic modulus
t Poisson’s ratio

The early research on the failure pressure of pipeline ignored the hardening behavior of materials, such as J.B. Choi devel-
oped a limit load solutions for corroded pipelines made of X65 steel, but he did not consider the hardening behavior of mate-
rial [16]. The increase demand of oil and gas require the modern pipeline steels with higher tensile strengths, which have
different strain hardening behavior than the traditional lower-grade strength steels. Xian-Kui first proposed to consider
the hardening behavior condition [17], but he considered the extensive materials from Grade B to X80 and not the high-
grade strength steel specially. Nonsolution is applied to the whole materials as different strength grade steel has different
properties. This paper adopts the materials of high-grade strength steels such as X70 and X80 and analysis an evaluation
formula to predict the high strength corroded pipeline.

2. Failure pressure of defect-free pipeline

When the line pipe generally approaches failure it comes into plastic collapse stage undergoing large plastic deformation.
The failure analysis of pipeline often adopts two classical strain hardening models, which are the Hollomon (power-law)
model [18] (defined as Eq. (1)) and the Ramberg–Osgood model [19] (defined as Eq. (2)), which are shown as:
r ¼ K en ð1Þ
 n
e r r
¼ þa ð2Þ
e0 ry ry
Xian-Kui and Leis [6] first considered the condition of buried pipeline, thus define a long, defect-free, thin-wall pipe with
remote capped ends subjected to internal pressure only, and based on the finite strain theory, in the plastic instability stage
the volume incompressibility require ehh + eaa + err  0 and t = 0.5. Based on the Von Mises criterion and the power-law hard-
ening model, he deduced a solution assessing the failure pressure of pipeline without defects, which can be determined by
the condition of dp=de ¼ 0, and the limit strain elim it ¼ pnffiffi3, and can be expressed as:
4 t0
pM ¼ pffiffiffi nþ1   r0 ð3Þ
ð 3Þ D0 u

In the plastic instability stage, Ramberg–Osgood model can ignore the linear portion, which can express as:
 n
e r
¼a ð4Þ
e0 ry
 B. Ma et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 32 (2013) 209–219 211

Base on Eq. (4), the assessment solution which deduced by Xian-Kui can be expressed by:
4 t0
p0M ¼  nþ1   r0 ð5Þ
pffiffiffi n D0 u
3

where the strain hardening exponent n in Eq. (5) is the one in the Ramberg–Osgood model.

3. Non-linear finite element analysis

3.1. material properties

In the FEA simulations there are three kinds of material utilized in the three kinds of pipelines, respectively. Each kind of
pipeline has 60 kinds of volumetric defects with the variations of lengths (from 25 mm to 2000 mm) and depths (from 20% to
60% of wall thickness). In the all calculations, the elastic modulus E = 207 GPa, and the Poisson ratio t = 0.3. The true stress
versus true strain curves for the pipeline materials API X70 and API X80 which were used in our FEA simulations are shown
in Fig. 1. The material parameters are expressed in Table 1.

3.2. FE model generation

For the corroded line pipes, quarter symmetry, three-dimensional (3D) non-linear FE models have been performed using
the commercial software ABAQUS. This approach takes advantage of symmetry to reduce the size of the FE model, thereby
reducing computer processing times. The 3D models were constructed using 20 nodes, reduced integration brick elements
(C3D20R). The elastic–plastic finite strain formulation and the modified RIKS algorithm that are built in ABAQUS have been
utilized. There are two layers of elements through the remaining ligament of each corrosion defect.
Many researches (such as Leis and Stephens [20]) have shown that the effect of defect width to the limit pressure is not
significant. In this paper we investigate the effect of the length and the depth of the corrosion defects to the failure pressure
of corroded pipelines. In order to ignore the effect of the defect width, width is designed to be a constant value. A plastic
collapse FE model is presented for the end-capped pipe with various defects, which contains 195 cases with different mate-
rial, various pipe geometry and defect geometry. In the simulations there were three kinds of pipes with the outside diam-
eter of 1016 mm and 1219 mm, and the nominal wall thicknesses of 14.6 mm, 21 mm and 22 mm using the material API X70
and API X80, respectively. Artificial corrosion defects are designed with ten length grades increased from 25 mm to 2000 mm
and five depth grades increased from 20% to 60% of wall thickness for each of the three pipes above.

Fig. 1. The true stress-true strain curves of API X70 and API X80.

Table 1
Material parameters of API X70 and API X80 in the FEA simulations.

Grade and no. Material model n a ry ru

X70-1 Ramberg–Osgood 12.26 0.5553 508 667
X70-2 11.42 0.6178 523 701
X80 11.19 1.043 524 685
212 B. Ma et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 32 (2013) 209–219

All groove defects were designed to be elliptical shaped bottomed with spherical ends. It is showed in Fig. 2. The geometry
parameters of pipelines and defects are described in Table 2.

3.3. Loading and boundary conditions

This research only considers the condition, in which the buried pipelines subjected to internal pressure only. For each
model the load was applied as a monotonically increasing internal pressure, where pressure loads remain normal to the pipe
internal surface. External loading was not considered.
The symmetry boundary conditions were used to reduce the size of the FE models. Two axes of symmetry were applied to
the quarter models, in the x = 0 and z = 0 planes. The model was not allowed to rotate, or expand or contract axially, however,
was allowed to expand and contract radially. The origin is the center of the cross section of the pipe. The cross section is in
the deepest location of the corroded defect, and the coordinate axis and the loading and boundary conditions of FE models
can be shown in Fig. 2.

3.4. Calculation of FE models

For each model analyzed, the von Mises equivalent stresses were monitored at three points through the highest stress
portion of the ligament of each defect as the internal pressure in the pipe was increased. For the analyses, the failure pressure

Fig. 2. The load and boundary condition of the FE model.

Table 2
Geometry parameters of pipelines and defects in the FEA simulations.

Material Geometric parameters of pipes Geometric parameters of defects

D (mm) t (mm) L (mm) d (mm)
X70-1 1016 14.6 25 2.92
45 4.38
65 5.84
85 7.3
100 8.76
X70-2 1219 21 200 4.2
300 6.3
400 8.4
500 10.5
600 12.6
X80 1320 22 800 4.4
1000 6.6
2000 8.8
11
13.2
 B. Ma et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 32 (2013) 209–219 213

Fig. 3. Von Mises equivalent stress variation through ligament with increasing internal pressure.

Fig. 4. Typical 3D quarter symmetry FE model of a pipeline with an axial groove defect.

was determined when the von Mises equivalent stress of the corresponding point reach the true ultimate tensile strength of
the material, which is in the mid surface of the ligament. As shown in Figs. 3 and 4.

3.5. Effect of defect depth and length

pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Two parameters of L= D  t and d/t were considered in finite element analyses. The value of d/t was set to 0.2, 0.3, 0.4, 0.5
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
and 0.6 considering the actual dimensions of pipeline. The value of L= D  t is ranging from 0.15 to 13.69 were considered.
Total of 195 cases were analyzed as summarized in Table 2. Figs. 5 and 6 show the resulting maximum allowable pressure
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
values vary with the various L= D  t and d/t. The results indicate that the failure pressure of corroded pipes: (a) decreases as
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
d/t increases for all defects; p and when
ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi the d/t is small, the pressure decreases slowly; (b) decreases as L= D  t increases for
all defects; and when the L= D  t is small, the pressure decreases
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi slowly; (c) when the defect length is larger than the pipe
diameter,
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi the variation of failure pressure is tiny as L= D  t increases. (d) The variation trend of the failure pressure with the
L= D  t accord with the power index function of –e.

4. Failure pressure of corroded pipeline

For Ramberg–Osgood hardening materials under monotonous loading, the deformation theory of plasticity shows that
the stress components are linearly proportional to the applied load, like those in Eq. (3) for defect-free pipes. At the limit
state, it can be assumed that the failure pressure pfailure of a corroded pipe with a defect is also related to the p0M , and has
the following form:
 
d L
pfailure ¼ p0M  f ; pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ð6Þ
t Dt
214 B. Ma et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 32 (2013) 209–219

Fig. 5. The variation of the resulting failure pressure with the various of the ratio of d and t.

where p0M is the failure pressure of defect-free pipeline based on Mises criterion, i.e. Eq. (5). And f is a function of the geom-
etry variables of defects, i.e. dt and pffiffiffiffi
L ffi
Dt
. The range of f function is form 0–1, consider the two bounding cases that involve either
very small or very large corrosion defects on the outside surface of a pipe. First, a sufficiently small defect does not
 B. Ma et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 32 (2013) 209–219 215

Fig. 6. The variation of the resulting failure pressure with the various ratio of L and sqrt(Dt).

appreciably affect failure pressure. Hence, the upper bound on practical defect failure, whose failure pressure (denoted as
pfailure), can be approximated as the failure pressure of defect-free pipe determined by Eq. (5). The lower bound of a very deep
216 B. Ma et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 32 (2013) 209–219

Table 3
Standard deviation of prediction error among these methods.

Materials
Methods Low strength grade steel Mid strength grade steel High strength grade steel Overall error
pfailure 13.99 8.03 4.95 15.11
B31G 11.45 13.48 15.38 17.80
DNV 16.94 9.40 8.23 15.77
PCORRC 16.68 8.73 8.11 15.75
Zhu Xian-Kui 18.09 9.47 8.30 17.17
Choi’s 15.30 6.90 6.20 15.05

Fig. 7. Comparison of predicted failure pressure with actual failure pressure by Eq.8

and long defect can be approximated as the failure pressure for the thinner wall pipe. Considering the variation trend of pres-
sure with the d/t and pffiffiffiffi
L ffi
Dt
, the function f has a simple form of:
    c 
d bL d
f ¼1 1  a  exp pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi  1  ð7Þ
t Dt t

where a, b and c are the parameters. Consequently, based on extensive finite element analysis, the expression of failure pres-
sure of corroded pipe is obtained:
( "    0:1151 #)
4 t0 d 0:4174  L d
pfailure ¼ pffiffiffi nþ1   r0u  1 1  0:7501  exp pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi  1 ð8Þ
ð 3Þ n D0 t Dt t

5. Full-scale experimental validation

In order to verify the reliability and application fields of this method, 79 groups of full-scale burst tests data (shown as
Table 4) from the published references are collected for pipeline failure pressure prediction. Based on the experimental data,
the failure pressures are calculated using the criteria of B31G, DNV, PCORRC, and the methods by Eq. (8), Xian-Kui and Leis
[6] and Choi’s [16], and the error between the actual burst pressure and the failure pressure calculated by the methods above
was expressed by Table 3. The pipeline steels contained in Table 3 and Fig. 7 represent grades from X42 to X100, which con-
tains the material of low-, mid- and high-grade strength steels, as shown in Table 4, the low-grade strength steels include the
grades from X42 to X56; the mid-grade strength steels include the grades from X60 and X65; and the high-grade strength
steels include the grades from X80 and X100, which are shown in Table 4.
The comparison results in Table 3 and Fig. 7 indicate that the failure pressure predicted by Eq. (8): (a) is most closest to
the actual burst pressure in the pipeline with high-grade strength steel; (b) and also apply to evaluate the pipeline with mid-
grade strength steel; (c) but is not reliable to evaluate the pipeline with low-grade strength steel.
 B. Ma et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 32 (2013) 209–219 217

Table 4
Seventy nine groups of full-scale burst tests data.

No. Grade D (mm) t (mm) d (mm) L (mm) ru (MPa) Burst pressure (MPa) pfailure (MPa)
1 X42 273.30 4.95 3.30 182.88 453.86 7.75 7.20
2 X42 272.97 4.67 2.62 48.26 453.86 13.79 11.80
3 X42 273.53 4.78 1.63 30.48 453.86 13.71 14.56
4 X42 273.10 4.88 2.18 101.60 453.86 15.18 11.69
5 X42 273.89 4.93 1.60 45.72 453.86 14.99 14.63
6 X42 274.14 5.00 2.16 124.46 453.86 13.35 11.70
7 X42 274.45 4.57 2.74 66.04 453.86 12.67 10.31
8 X42 274.12 4.98 2.72 38.10 453.86 14.8 13.31
9 X42 274.52 4.83 2.11 157.48 453.86 12.62 10.73
10 X42 529.00 9.00 4.70 350.00 415.00 8.83 7.93
11 X42 529.00 9.00 4.70 160.00 415.00 15.7 9.59
12 X42 529.00 9.00 5.30 150.00 415.00 14.2 9.13
13 X46 323.60 8.51 0.00 0.00 469.29 25.06 26.64
14 X46 323.34 8.64 2.16 63.50 469.29 24.37 23.48
15 X46 323.60 8.64 0.00 0.00 469.29 24.44 27.05
16 X46 323.09 8.59 2.97 203.20 469.29 23.11 19.09
17 X46 324.10 8.53 0.00 0.00 469.29 25.01 26.67
18 X46 323.09 8.64 2.69 60.96 469.29 25.23 22.74
19 X46 321.56 8.33 0.00 0.00 469.29 22.46 26.25
20 X46 323.60 8.74 0.00 0.00 469.29 23.92 27.36
21 X46 324.10 8.43 0.00 0.00 469.29 23.27 26.35
22 X46 323.60 8.61 3.30 144.78 469.29 23.93 19.23
23 X46 323.60 8.64 2.67 127.00 469.29 21.75 21.09
24 X46 323.09 8.53 2.18 50.80 469.29 21.56 23.46
25 X46 323.85 8.64 0.00 0.00 469.29 24.52 27.03
26 X46 323.85 5.08 3.66 99.06 472.39 9.74 8.14
27 X46 863.60 9.63 3.63 213.36 508.02 10.8 9.05
28 X46 863.60 9.47 3.00 185.42 508.02 10.56 9.55
29 X46 863.60 9.37 4.62 91.44 508.02 9.17 9.20
30 X46 273.05 8.26 3.96 241.30 481.13 21.21 18.19
31 X52 273.05 5.23 1.85 408.94 502.27 16.71 13.53
32 X52 273.05 5.26 1.73 139.70 502.27 18.06 15.23
33 X52 273.05 5.28 0.00 0.00 502.27 17.24 21.04
34 X52 611.35 6.55 3.30 901.70 534.53 9.45 6.14
35 X52 612.55 6.43 3.56 1432.56 534.53 7.88 5.40
36 X52 611.51 6.40 2.57 1371.60 534.53 9.81 7.22
37 X56 506.73 5.74 3.02 132.08 587.34 10.73 9.09
38 X56 504.95 5.66 3.25 462.28 587.34 8.05 6.27
39 X56 508.00 5.69 3.76 619.76 587.34 8.58 4.91
40 X56 508.00 5.74 3.84 533.40 587.34 9.89 4.91
41 X56 508.00 5.74 3.05 416.56 587.34 10.91 7.01
42 X56 508.00 5.61 3.35 596.90 587.34 8.05 5.74
43 X56 508.00 5.64 2.46 170.18 587.34 11.51 9.30
44 X60 323.90 9.80 7.08 255.60 542.00 14.4 13.40
45 X60 323.90 9.66 6.76 305.60 542.00 14.07 12.84
46 X60 323.90 9.71 6.93 350.00 542.00 13.58 11.84
47 X60 323.90 9.71 6.91 394.50 542.00 12.84 11.45
48 X60 323.90 9.91 7.31 433.40 542.00 12.13 10.52
49 X60 323.90 9.74 7.02 466.70 542.00 11.92 10.69
50 X60 323.90 9.79 6.99 488.70 542.00 11.91 10.88
51 X60 323.90 9.79 6.99 500.00 542.00 11.99 10.83
52 X60 323.90 9.74 7.14 527.80 542.00 11.3 10.01
53 X60 508.00 6.60 2.62 381.00 598.90 11.3 10.43
54 X60 508.00 6.70 2.66 1016.00 601.00 11.6 10.21
55 X60 508.00 6.40 3.46 899.20 672.50 8 8.19
56 X60 508.00 6.40 2.18 899.20 672.50 11.8 11.74
57 X60 508.00 6.40 3.18 1000.80 672.50 8.4 8.98
58 X60 720.00 8.00 4.30 180.00 535.00 10.3 8.10
59 X60 720.00 8.00 4.40 320.00 535.00 8.83 6.83
60 X60 720.00 8.00 6.20 180.00 535.00 7.55 6.23
61 X65 762.00 17.50 4.40 200.00 600.00 24.11 25.58
62 X65 762.00 17.50 8.80 200.00 600.00 21.76 21.10
63 X65 762.00 17.50 13.10 200.00 600.00 17.15 17.32
64 X65 762.00 17.50 8.80 100.00 600.00 24.3 23.72
65 X65 762.00 17.50 8.80 300.00 600.00 19.08 19.27
66 X65 762.00 17.50 8.80 200.00 600.00 23.42 21.10
67 X65 762.00 17.50 8.80 200.00 600.00 22.64 21.10
68 X80 459 8 3.75 40 731 24.2 22.75

(continued on next page)

218 B. Ma et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 32 (2013) 209–219

Table 4 (continued)

No. Grade D (mm) t (mm) d (mm) L (mm) ru (MPa) Burst pressure (MPa) pfailure (MPa)
69 X80 457 8.1 5.39 39.6 684 22 20.61
70 X80 1219.00 19.89 15.41 605.72 740.00 9.3 9.65
71 X80 1219.00 19.89 7.44 605.72 740.00 17.7 18.28
72 X80 1219.00 19.89 1.77 607.74 740.00 23.3 24.69
73 X80 1219.00 13.79 10.78 588.37 740.00 5.2 5.99
74 X80 1219.00 13.79 5.45 589.40 740.00 12 12.08
75 X80 1219.00 13.79 1.54 586.42 740.00 16.1 16.69
76 X100 1320.00 22.90 11.36 609.03 886.00 19.1 20.14
77 X100 1320.00 22.90 11.45 1109.94 886.00 15.4 15.81
78 X100 1320.00 22.90 11.52 514.98 886.00 19.9 19.76
79 X100 1320.00 22.90 11.45 1012.75 886.00 17 18.06

Note: The data of X46 are form the literatures [21,22]; the data of X52 and X56 are from the literature [23]; the data of X60 and X65 are from the literatures
[24–28]; the data of X80 and X100 are from the literature [29,30].

6. Conclusions

This paper investigates the prediction method of the failure pressure of the corroded pipeline, which focus on high-grade
strength steels. Based on von Mises strength failure criterion, a formula (denoted as p0M ) is theoretically deduced adopting
Ramberg–Osgood hardening stress–strain relation, which was used to evaluate the failure pressure of end-capped and de-
fect-free pipeline.
Extensive FEA simulations were presented in this paper for failure pressures of high-grade strength steel pipelines with
outer corrosion defects. The FEA simulations were to investigate how the depth and length of the corrosion defects influence
load carrying capacity of the defective pipelines, when the von Mises equivalent stress of the corresponding point reach the
true ultimate tensile strength of the material, where is in the mid surface of the ligament, because of the instability of the
inner surface point. And the FEA results indicate that the failure pressure of corroded pipes: (a) decreases as dt increases for all
defects; and when the dt is small, the pressure decreases slowly; (b) decreases as pffiffiffiffi L ffi
Dt
increases for all defects; and when the
pffiffiffiffi
L ffi
is small, the pressure decreases slowly; (c) when the defect length is larger than the pipe diameter, the variation of failure
Dt
pressure is tiny as pffiffiffiffi
L ffi
Dt
increases. (d) The variation trend of the failure pressure with the pffiffiffiffi
L ffi
Dt
accord with the power index func-
tion of –e;
The failure pressure prediction formula pfailure of corroded pipe with defects was determined based on pM, and f. f is a func-
tion to express the variation trend of pressure with the dt and pffiffiffiffi L ffi
Dt
. 79 groups of full-scale burst test data were collected to
verify the reliability and application fields of this method. The comparison results indicate that the failure pressure predicted
by Eq. (8): (a) is much closer to the accrual burst pressure in the pipeline with high-grade strength steel; (b) and also apply to
evaluate the pipeline with mid-grade strength steel; (c) but is not reliable to evaluate the pipeline with low-grade strength
steel.

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to the Zhongyuan Petroleum Prospecting and Design Institute for its support, through the na-
tional science and technology major project (project number is 2011ZX05017-004-HZ04). Special thanks are due to the
anonymous reviewers for their useful comments and suggestions regarding the present paper.

References

[1] Zhuang Chuan-jing, Feng Yao-rong. The development and its future research direction of grade X80 pipeline steel in China. In: International technology
conference of X80 grade steel pipeline. Beijing; 2004. p. 22–32.
[2] TSO LiangTeng, Peng-Hsiang Chang. A study of residual stresses in multi-pass girth-butt welded pipes. Int J Ves Pip 1997;74:59–70.
[3] Zhu Xian-Kui, Leis Brian N. Average shear stress yield criterion and its application to plastic collapse analysis of pipelines. Int J Press Vessels Pip
2006;83:663–71.
[4] Bin Ma, Jian Shuai. Analysis on the latest assessment criteria of ASME B31G-2009 for the remaining strength of corroded pipelines. J Fail Anal Preven
2011:666–71.
[5] Choia JB, Goo BK. Development of limit load solutions for corroded gas pipelines. Int J Press Vessels Pip 2003;80:121–8.
[6] Zhu Xian-Kui, Leis Brian N. Strength criteria and analytic predictions of failure pressure in line pipes. Int J Offshore Polar Eng 2004;14(2):125–31.
[7] Shuai Jian, Zhang Chun’e, Chen Fu-lai. Prediction of failure pressure in corroded pipelines based on non-linear finite element analysis. Acta Petrolei
Sinica 2008;29(6):933–7.
[8] Adib-Ramezani H, Jeong J, Pluvinage G. Structural integrity evaluation of X52 gas pipes subjected to external corrosion defects using the SINTAP
procedure. Int J Pres Ves Pip 2006;83:420–32.
[9] ANSI/ASME B31G-1984. Manual for determining the remaining strength of corroded pipelines. New York; 1984.
[10] ASME B31G-1991. Manual for determining the remaining strength of corroded pipeline. American Society of Mechanical Engineers; 1991.
[11] ASME B31G-2009. Manual for determining the remaining strength of corroded pipelines. American Society of Mechanical Engineers; 2009.
[12] Recommended Practice. DET NORSKE VERITAS, DNV-RP-F101. Corroded Pipelines; 2004.
[13] Denny R. Stephens, Brian N. Leis. Development of alternative criterion for residual strength of corrosion defects in moderate-to-high-toughness pipe.
Battelle Energy Products Division, 505 King Ave Columbus, Ohio 43201-2693. In: 2000 international pipeline conference, vol. 2. ASME 2000.
 B. Ma et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 32 (2013) 209–219 219

[14] Kiefner JF, Vieth PH. A Modified criterion for evaluation the remaining strength of corroded pipe. Final report on project PR 3-805 to the Pipeline
Research Committee of the American Gas Association; 1989.
[15] Fu B, Batte AD. New Methods for assessing the remaining strength of corroded pipelines. In: Proceedings of EPRG/PRCI 12th biennial joint technical
meeting on pipeline research, Groningen, The Netherlands. Paper # 28; 1999.
[16] Choi JB, Goo BK. Development of limit load solutions for corroded gas pipelines. Int J Press Vessels Pip 2003;80:121–8.
[17] Zhu XK, Leis BN. Influence of the Yield-To-Tensile Strength Ratio on Failure assessment of Corroded Pipelines. In: Proceedings of ASME-PVP 2003:
pressure vessels and piping conference. Cleveland, Ohio (USA); July 20–24, 2003.
[18] Hollomon JH. Trans AIME 1945;162:268–90.
[19] Skelton RP, Maier HJ, Christ HJ. The Baushinger effect, masing model and the Ramberg–Osgood relation for cyclic deformation in metals. Mater Sci Eng
A 1997;238:377–90.
[20] Leis BN, Stephens DR. An alternative approach to assess the integrity of corroded line pipe – Part I: current status and Part II: alternative criterion. In:
Proceedings of the seventh international offshore and polar engineering conference, vol. IV. Honolulu (USA); May 25–30, 1997. p. 624–41.
[21] Chouchaoui BA, Pick RJ, Yost DB. Burst pressure predictions of line pipe containing single corrosion pits using finite element method. Pipeline-
Technology. ASME OMAE 1992; vol. V-A; 203–10.
[22] Chouchaoui BA, Pick RJ. Behavior of circumferentially aligned corrosion pits. J Press Vessel Pip 1994;57:187–200.
[23] Bjornoy OH, Ole Rengard, Stein Fredheim. Residual strength of dented Pipelines, DNV Test Results. In: Proceedings of the 10th international offshore
and polar engineering conference seattle. USA; May 28–June 2, 2000; ISBN I-880653-46-X (Set).
[24] Mok DRB, Pick RJ, Glover AG. Behavior of line pipe with long external corrosion. MP 1990;29(5):75–9.
[25] Adilson C, Benjamin Renaldo D. Vieira, Jose Luis F, et al. Burst tests on pipeline with long external corrosion, vol. 2. International pipeline conference;
2000.
[26] Cronin Duane S, Roberts K. Andrew, Pick Roy J. Assessment of long corrosion grooves in line pipe. In: Department of mechanical engineering.
International pipeline conference, vol. 1. ASME. Waterloo, Ontario, Canada: University of Waterloo; 1996.
[27] Daruo Braga Noronha Jr, Asilson Carvalho Benjimin. Finite element models for the prediction of the failure pressure of pipeline with long corrosion
defects. In: Proceedings of IPC‘02, 4th international pipeline conference. Canada; September 29–October 3, 2002.
[28] Mok DRB, Pick RJ, Glover AG. Bursting of line pipe with long external corrosion. J Press Vessel Pip 1991;46:195–216.
[29] ADVANTICA. corrosion assessment guidance for high strength steels (phase1). <http://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/meetings/FilGet.mtg
fil=113&nocache=4996>.
[30] Freire JLF, Vieira RD, Benjamin AC, et al. PART 3: Burst tests of pipeline with extensive longitudinal metal loss. Exp Tech 2006;11:60–5.