Proceedings of tile Eleventh (2001) International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference Stavanger, Norway, June 17-22, 2001

Copyright 2001 by Tile International Society of Offshore and Polar Engineers 1SBN 1.880653-51-6 (Set); ISBN 1-880653-53-2 (Vol. II); ISSN 1098-6189 (Set)

Assessment of Corroded Pipelines: Past, Present and Future

O.H. Bjornoy and M.d. Marley Det Norske Veritas Oslo, Norway

ABSTRACT
The evaluation of the integrity of corroded pipelines has long been, and continues to be, a concern for the industry. Methods for assessing corrosion metal loss defects have been available for many decades, as for instance the NG-18 equation and the ASME B31G method. Throughout the years many modifications to the original method has been proposed and adopted. In the recent years various alternative methods have been developed based on finite element parametric studies, extended test database and calibration of safety factors. This paper presents a review of past and present methods for assessing corroded pipelines and discusses these various methods. Possible future extensions and new methods are also discussed. The review do not claim to be complete as there are a large number of assessment methods, and many of the methods are only minor modifications to others. The review is in general limited to single corrosion metal loss defects in pipelines exposed to internal pressure, and excludes interaction of defects, additional loads etc.

OVERVIEW OF ASSESSMENT METHODS AGA-NG18 and ASME B31G Battelle developed a semi-empirical equation for the remaining strength of corroded pipelines in early 1970 (Maxey et al. 1971; Kiefner and Duffy 1971; Kiefner 1974). The equation has been called the NG-18 equation from the name of the sponsoring project, and is given as:

P = ~rjlo,,, 2. t

I1- t]
Ao

(1)

L. AoMJ
where Ao = d .t and M P ~flow D A t d : Folias bulging factor, accounting for effect of stress-concentration at notch : failure pressure : flow stress : pipe outer diameter : projected corroded area : nominal pipe wall thickness : maximum corrosion depth 0.54(L / 2) 4 (Dt) ~ (2)

KEY WORDS: pipeline, burst, reliability, corrosion, calibration INTRODUCTION The basis for the well known ASME B31G was made in the late 1960s and early 1970s in a project sponsored by AGA-NGI8, where a semi-empirical fracture-mechanical formula for calculating the remaining strength of a metal loss defect was made. The original formula was modified and became known as B31G, and there have been several minor modifications to the criterion. Other methods as the Shell criterion, RSTRENG, etc. are available, and have been compared and evaluated by others (Denys 1995; Stephens and Francini 2000). Many of these methods will not be repeated in this paper, while a few others will be mentioned. In the recent years new methods have been developed based on extensive use of finite element analyses and full scale testing, as for instance the PCORRC and the BG/DNV (BS 7910) methods.

I 2.51(L/2)z M l = 1+ Dt

Flow stress was initially defined as ~rltow= 1.1 SMYS The Folias factor M is complex and was intended for short defect lengths. M should increase for increasing defect lengths, but the above defined M decreases when the defect length becomes fairly long. To overcome these practical problems Kiefner (1974) recommended simplifying the Folias factor to:

93

(3)

And various definitions of the bulging factor M have been proposed. Mt and Me as shown above, and M3 as proposed by Vieth and Kiefner for the RSTRENG method: M3= M1 M 3 = 0.32 L 2 + 3.3 for L2/Dt < 50 for L2/Dt > 50 (6)

The commonly applied criterion for assessment of corroded pipes, ANSI/ASME B3 IG (ASME, 1991) was initially based on the NG-18 equation (Maxey et al., 1971) adjusted to account for available experimental data, and assumes that short corrosion defects has an approximate parabolic shaped area. The area of a parabolic shape defect is A= 2/3 dL Replacing A = 2/3 dL and A0 = tL in the NG-18 equation, and including a safety factor and SMYS, the B31G becomes:

Dt

The various bulging factors are plotted in Figure 1. Although there are large differences in the M values, the effect of these on the predicted failure pressure is minor. This is shown in Figure 2, which plots the reduction factor (factor in brackets in equations 1 and 4) for an example case with d/t = 0.45. (note the change of scale in the x-axes).
20 18 16

p=FI.I.SMYS.2.t D

. 1-23 dt 1 2d 1

(4)

3tM
where SMYS F is the Minimum Specified Yield Stress is the safety factor, usually 0.72.
o

14

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . K!ef ...........

Mi . . . . . . . . . .~ ............

However, for long corrosion defects the equation obviously converges towards a too high capacity due to the 2/3 factor. Therefore, for a length exceeding a specified value, the capacity is assumed to be independent of length (infinite length) an a rectangular shape is assumed:

lO

~9
6 4 2 0

/ ~

~"..ye1.1!!,71)..

p= FI'I'SMYS'2"t 1-dID [

t00

200 U/(Dt)

300

400

500

(5)

Figure I Comparison of M values

The B31G was considered to give conservative results, and a modified criterion was proposed where the corroded area was calculated more exactly and a less conservative definition of the flow stress was introduced. The approach was called RSTRENG, and is an extension of B31G where the profile of the defects is considered (Kiefner and Vieth, 1989). Several modifications have been proposed to improve the NG18/B31G criterion in order to better predict the actual failure pressure. However, for the most part, these modifications have, merely been changes to the equation parameters. An overview of some of these modifications to the flow stress, the bulging factor M and the procedure for estimating the projected corrosion area A is given below (Denys, 1995). Variations of proposed flow stress: ~,,,, ~0~ ~,,,. ~ow = 1.I SMYS = 1.15 SMYS = 0.5 (SMYS + SMTS) = SMYS + 69 MPa (10 ksi) = x. SMTS, wherex=0.90, 1.0orl.l (as inB31G)

'i +iiii+i +II iii 171 i ii +M i-. + ........................................................... ....

"'~'---" Maxeyetal (1971) M, J ~
Vieth and Kiefner (19891 M=

0 4 1 .........................

Kiefner (19741

M~

.=ol ................. . ..... ~

0 2 4 6 L/sqrt(Dt}

~
8

,
10 12
14

Figure 2 Reduction factor dependence on M

1,2
................................................................................................................................................................

0.8 o 0.6

. . . . . . 213"dL

"

s~,,,,

~
................

o.BsdL
dL ......

SMTS is the Specified Minimum Tensile Strength, Variations of proposed projected corrosion area definition:

g 0A
0.2

A = d'L (rectangular) A = 2/3 d.L (parabolic) A = 0.85 d.L (approx. average of

rectangular and parabolic) A = "exacf' calculation (RSTRENG)

10

12

14

Usqrt(Dt)

Figure 3 Reduction factor versus defect area definition

94

Figure 2 shows that selection of M has essentially no effect on the pressure (reduction factor). The definition of the corroded area, however, has a significant effect. Figure 3 plots the reduction factor versus normalized length for a rectangular (dL), parabolic (2/3dL), and the 0.85 dL areas. These same curves are presented in Figure 4 together with the B31G criterion, which is based on a parabolic defect profile for (nondimensional)defect length less than 4.48, and a rectangular profile for longer defects.
1.2
.........................................................................................................................................................

2cr #'"D "t "1 d

I l-a- 1
t1 " t A.M

(7)

where A is a spiral correction factor (see Fu and Jones (1994) for details). Mok et al (1991) proposed a criterion for long spiral corrosion:

.0.8
~_ 0.6 ~0.4
0.2

....

ii
I

Ph=

2cr;to."t ( l _ Q d ) D

(8)

...............................

where Q is a spiral correction factor. This criterion gives very consistent results compared to 5 tests with spiral. An alternative approach for assessing longitudinal and spiral corrosion was proposed by Bai et al. (1997), where the NG-18 and the spiral corrosion factor Q from Mok et al. (see above) were combined, to account for shorter corrosion lengths.

8 Llsqrt(Dt)

`10

i
"12 "14

Figure 4 ASME ID1G and defect area definitions The failure pressure is proportional to the assumption for flow stress. The effect of this is shown in Figure 5, showing a significant dift~rence from I. I SMYS to SMTS. Also shown on the plot is the allowable pressure at the expected value of the tensile strength. Note that the differences are even larger for lower grade materials.
Sensitivity to Flow stress definition (Area =dL) 400
...........................................................................................................................................................................................

P=

(9)

Ao M J

where M3 is used as the bulging factor, and A = 2/3 Ld for L2/Dt < 30 A = 0.85 Ld for L2/Dt > 30 Baiet al. claim that it is demonstrated that the uncertainty is less than the B31G and NG-18 criteria, when compared to the AGA, NOVA (Mok et al. 1990, 1991), British Gas (Hopkins and Jones 1992; Jones 1991) and Waterloo tests results (Chouchaoui and Pick 1992). All these data has been included in the extended AGA database presented by Vieth and Kiefner (1994). The following table is given by Baiet al. (1997):
Table 1. Goodness of fit to burst test data

300 ~

..................

100
50

..............................................
..................................
o ,oo ioo 3oo ,oo doo .o

i
!

o
De4rectlength(rnrn)

I
too

B31G mean CoV

1.74

Figure 5 Reduction factor versus flow stress

0.51

NG-18 1.30 0.19

New criterion (Bai)

1.07

0.18

During the last decade, several research projects have been carried out to better understand the behaviour of corroded pipelines and to better predict the failure pressure, also considering spiral corroded pipelines. Shell Research B.V (Stewart et al. 1994; Klever et al. t995) has published advanced analytical solutions, finite element analyses results etc. for the assessment of corroded pipelines. This work has fbrmed an significant contribution to the understanding of the behaviour of corroded pipelines and has been important background knowledge for later research and development. Failure of spiral corrosion defects was investigated by British Gas plc (Fu and Jones, 1994). A spiral correction factor was introduced and included together with the Folias factor. The criterion shows fairly consistent results compared with test data.

The comparison includes 151 burst test results, where only 5 tests contained spiral corrosion defects, of which 4 are very long and one defect is medium long (L/~/Dt = 3.3) see Mok et al. For the B31G and the NG-18 criterion in this comparison, the total defect length was used rather than the projected length which is common practice. For longitudinal (spiral corrosion defects less then 30 from the length axis), the Q factor is equal to 1 and the criterion is equal to the original NG-18 equation (with alternative definitions of A). For long spiral corrosion defects, the criterion is equal to Mok given above, since the denominator becomes unity for long corrosion. It remains to validate this criterion for shorter spiral corrosion.

95

A completely different approach, RAM PIPE REQUAL, (denoted RAM) for assessing single corrosion defects was introduced by Bea et al. (1999, 2000) where the burst pressure are given as:

Pba=

2.4t-

(O - t).

SMTS SCF

(10)

SCF =1+ 2~-~

where R is the pipeline radius (D/2) It is of interest to note that the defect length is not included in the expression. The criterion is compared with the extended AGA database, and the authors claim a very good agreement, despite the fact that the length of the defect is not included in the criterion. A mean of 1.01 and CoV of 0.22 is obtained (scaled to be unbiased). The Bai and RAM criterion are presented Figure 6, in terms of the reduction factor (reduction factor for RAM is 1.0/SCF). The dashed lines are those given in Figure 4 above. The Bai et al. criterion presents the same reduction as ASME B31G for short defects, and switches over to 0.85 dL criterion for longer defects. RAM is independent of the length; for clarity it is shown for short defects only in the figure, but it extends to long defects as well.
1.2
.............................................................................................................................................................................................. i

Discussion Several modifications to the original NG-18 criterion have been proposed, with the objective of reducing the conservatism for the prediction of the safe operational pressure determined from NG-18 or the B31G methods. Other modifications aim to better predict the burst pressure, as a better basis for determining the safe pressure. The NG-18 equation has proved to be a robust approach, with its modifications as B31G, and is the most widely used criterion for assessing corrosion defects in pipeline. The RSTRENG method (and Shell 92) was a step forward to better predict the actual burst pressure, mainly due to the exact area calculation and the modified flow stress. The Folias factor was modified and the more complicated M3 factor was introduced, but the simplified definition M2 could as well have been used. The methods have been compared against the database, which include tests with machined defects, real corrosion defects, sharp defects, complex shaped defects, and low grade to high grade materials. For many cases in the AGA database, the actual (measured) values are lacking, and only nominal values are available. The scatter within the database is large, and to make any better criterion with basis in the AGA database without excluding many of the tests seems very difficult.

AGA

METHODS FOR TOUGH MATERIALS

The methods described above are validated against the extended AGA database, which also includes low-grade steel materials and old burst tests. New methods have been developed in the recent years where it is assumed that the material has a ductile behaviour and that the material toughness is reasonably high. In practice, this is the case for high quality pipelines manufactured in the last 20-30 years. BG Technology performed more than 70 burst tests in a research project in the 1990s (Fu 1995, Batte 1997, Fu 1998), and developed a failure criterion for use in the FE analyses (Fu and Kirkwood, 1995). The criterion has been included in BS 7910 (1999) In the same time period, DNV was investigating the integrity of pipelines with focus on assessment methods for modern materials and the determination of safety factors using reliability methods (Bjornoy 1997). BG Technology and DNV merged the technical results from the two respective projects and developed a unified guideline for assessment of corrosion in pipelines. The unified guideline has formed the basis for the DNV-RP-FI01 "Corroded Pipelines", (Sigurdsson et al. 1999, Bjemoy et ai. 1999) The BG/DNV equation in BS 7910 and DNV-RP-FI01 fbr the failure pressure is given as:

.................................................................

" %

~ 0.8

-.

~-" t ............ 71::r:::-_:!, 7

0.4 0.2

_ .

S Idsqrt(Dt) 8

10

12

14

Figure 6 Reduction factors by different criteria

Tiered approach Integrity assessment of corrosion defects comprises more than the equations described in this paper. Philosophies, more comprehensive methodologies and hierarchical procedures have been developed by various organisations. Shell92 is one such more comprehensive methodology and is an in-house Shell procedure. Others have published various tier approaches, as described by Chouchaoui and Pick (1994). A tier approach is beneficial in that an easy, conservative and simple to perform check is carried out as the initial step, and refined in higher levels as required. The first level is often an assessment according to the B31G criterion. RSTRENG (effective area technique), interactions and more advanced assessment methods and finite element calculations can be performed in progressively more detailed levels of assessment. API 579 (2000) includes detailed calculation procedures for fitness for purpose assessment of corroded pressure containment equipment, and uses also a tiered approach.

2t'o"u ( 1 - ( d / t ) ) Pf = (D-t)(1 (Qt) 1

where Q= 1+0.31

(ll)

The form of the equation is similar to the original NG-18 and B31G equations, but the flow stress has been changed to ~,, and the bulging factor has been significantly modified, which is the reason for changing the term from M to Q. This equation is intended to give a good estimate of the actual failure pressure for a smooth

96

shaped rectangular corrosion defect, and is on average slightly conservative (Bjornoy et al. 2001). Please note that the safety factors are specified differently in BS7910 and DNV-RP-FI01, which may result in a different allowable operating pressure. Battelle (Stephens and Leis, 2000) has selected to use an exponential function for the capacity equation labelled PCORRC, defined as:

Pb='uD~ t ~

exp-O.157~-

L Ill

(12)

PCORRC gives similar results as the BG/DNV capacity equation, as expected since both equations are derived using finite element analyses and compared to the same sets of burst tests conducted by BG Technology.
1.20
..................................................................................................................................................................................................... ,

1.00

0.80

0.60
0.40

. . . . . . . . . .

0.20

. . . . . . . . . .
0.00

i
14

Usqrt(Dt)

10

12

CAPACITY VERSUS DESIGN EQUATIONS The various methods have been compared, evaluated and discussed in numerous papers, and the outcome of the comparison is often depending of the available or selected test results used in the comparison. Further, when evaluating whether the method is conservative or safe, the safety philosophy or approach that forms the basis for the evaluation is crucial. The validity range and intended application of the criteria is often not considered when a comparison is made. For instance, B31G is made to give a safe working pressure and is intended to give conservative results, and compared against an equation for the mean value this may be misleading. Further, to compare PCORRC or the DNV-RP-F101 equations against tests with low toughness, sharp defects, or low-grade materials is not correct. PCORRC and DNV-RP-FI01 equations assume rectangular defect shapes and if other shapes are used in the comparison, as for instance parabolic shapes, the equations should underestimate (conservative) the burst capacity, as intended. It would be incorrect to include tests with parabolic shaped defects for the determination of the mean and model uncertainty. From the extended AGA database, only about 10 tests qualified to be included in a direct comparison; the rest were excluded due to lack of measured dimensions or material data, or because the defect shape was other than rectangular. There are in principle two equations of interest, namely: Capacity equation, which should predict the capacity of a corroded pipeline as precisely as possible, for known pipeline dimensions, defect shape and size, and material properties. Design equation (acceptance equation or equation to give the safe operational pressure), which should give the pressure the pipeline with the corrosion defects can be operated at, i.e., an allowable pressure. Most methods belong to the second kind of equation, but have often been compared with burst tests. But such comparison ought to be performed only for the first kind, the capacity equation. It is for instance obvious that the B31G, with the significant drop in the curve, was not intended to be a capacity equation, but rather to give a safe allowable pressure. The modifications to the NG-18 equation with the definitions flow stress and Folias factors have been attempts to define a capacity equation, but with the scatter in the AGA database this has been a very difficult task. The PCORRC and the BG/DNV equations (DNV-RP-F101, part B) are capacity equations. However, the BG/DNV equation is a simplification of the best estimate (Bjom~y 2001), but should be sufficiently accurate for practical purposes. The basis for the equations is finite element analyses and burst test results where the material properties and the pipe and defect dimensions are measured, and limited to high toughness materials and smooth shaped metal loss defects. It assumes rectangular shaped defects, and will result in conservative results for e.g. parabolic shaped defects, as intended. When assessing a corrosion defect in a pipeline, the actual material properties at the location of the defect will not be known, and the defect is measured with some degree of uncertainty. This is where the design equation is used, and where the uncertainties are accounted for. The material grade is usually known, and the specified material properties area are a natural parameter to use for the material strength. The accePtance equation in DNV-RP-FI01 reads:

Figure 7 Comparison of BG/DNV and PCORRC

It is interesting to note that if the modification for the parabolic shape in B31 G, where the defect area is 2/3 of the rectangular shape gave an equation d/t with L excluded, had instead applied the reduction to length rather than depth the Folias factor M would be:

2/3

M=~

]1+08(2/3L]2 . ~-~-) = I 1+0.35 (-~12

(13)

The reduction factor for this case is shown by the dotted line in Figure 7; it is almost identical result to the BG/DNV and PCORRC equations (but with different assumptions for shape - B31G is parabolic, whereas BG/DNV is rectangular). A review and evaluation of remaining strength criteria was performed by Battelle (Stephens and Francini, 2000), including methods not covered in this paper. The criteria is compared against an extensive database of burst tests, clearly indicating the scatter in results, and reduced scatter for the new methods when compared with the tests database with higher X-grades (and toughness). The NG-18 equation is unfortunately not included in the review, as it would be interesting to see the present methods compared with the original NG- 18 equation. Cronin (2000) developed a multi-level assessment procedure for corroded linepipe and also presented a detailed evaluation of B31G and RSTRENG against an new experimental database (Cronin and Pick 2000) of pipelines removed from service due to corrosion defects. RSTRENG showed to be very accurate in predicting the burst pressure.

97

2 t SMTS O - y a ( d / t ) * )
_Pcorr =
,~'m

(14)

where

(d / t)* = (d / t)meas + c d .StD[d / t]

The safety factors are pre-determined for three target reliability levels, namely 10"3, I 0 -4 and 10"s annual failure probabilities. For precisely known defects size, the acceptable operating pressure for the various safety levels are presented in Figure 8 for a defect depth of 0.45 d/t (pipeline dimensions and material properties for the example are given in next section). The partial safety factor Ymis 0.70, 0,74 and 0,77 for the curves in Figure 8, see DNV-RP-F101 for full details.
DNV-RP-F101, annual failure probability 10"s,10 "4 and 10 "s 400
..................................................................................................................................................................................................... .~

accuracy, namely +5%, +10% and +15% of d/t, all quoted with a confidence level of 80%. ASME B31G is included in Figure 9 for comparison (F=0.72), where it can be seen that B31G fits in the same region, but allows higher pressure for short defects and less for longer defects due to the significant drop. For the PCORRC approach, a design equation has not been given, but it has for most methods been common to apply a safety factor of 0.72 (1/1.39) and it would be natural to use SMTS for the material properties. The inspection accuracy should also be considered; as its effect is significant as demonstrated in Figure 9. ASSESSMENT USING RELIABILITY M E T H O D S Reliability methods are a powerful and useful tool when assessing defects in pipelines, and especially for corroded pipelines. The basis for a probabilistic assessment is the capacity equation, the model uncertainty and the distributions of all variables, including load (internal pressure) and the sizing accuracy of the inspection tool. There are many papers on reliability based assessments of corroded pipelines, but it is observed that in many of these papers, the model uncertainty or the sizing accuracy is omitted. A proposed approach for probabilistic assessments of corroded pipelines is given in Bjornoy et al (2001), where also the model uncertainty are specified for the BG/DNV simplified capacity equation. Burst test data are usually used to determine the model uncertainty, where the mean and standard deviation of the measured to predicted burst pressure are calculated. In order to have a good estimate of the model uncertainty, a reasonable number of test results need to be available. Preferably, the tests should cover the validity range of the capacity model, not only a limited range. Coulson (1990), Chouchaoui (1992) Vieth and Kielher (1994), Petrobras (Benjamin et al. 2000) and DNV (Bjornoy et al. 2000) have published burst test results, but these tests cover only a limited range of material and pipe and defect dimensions. BG Technology (Batte et al. 1997) performed a large number of burst tests, which were used in the development of the BG/DNV criterion, and of vital importance for confidence in the method. These tests have not been published. FE analysis results covering the whole validity range were used in combination with the burst tests results to determine the model uncertainty. Cronin and Pick (2000) performed burst tests on corroded pipelines removed from service due to corrosion defects, and a overview of the tests results are given, but not published in sufficient detail for a comparison with the various assessment methods. From methods where the model uncertainty is published, Bai (1997), Bea et al. (1999, 2000), Bjomoy (2001) and Stephens and Francini (2000), the following table of the mean and standard deviation of the criteria compared with burst tests are made.
Table 2. Model uncertainty, XM

"g
'~

soo

...........................................................
a c i ~ eqmnion . . . t~- ...................... i_ i

:zoo .

-~

= t50
to0

t04
................................................................

Exactly known defect size

~ no . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
100 200 300 400 Defect length (ram) 200 600

i !
700

Figure 8 Allowable pressure vs. safety level for case with no defect measurement uncertainty
DNV-RP-F101, annual failure probability 10 "4
400 .............................................................................................................

~. 350

=~300 = Z20 ~200 o 150 ~. 100

so

,;: iiiiii;iiii,ii ;i
0 100 200 300 400 Defect length (mm) 500 600

iiii i:
i 700

:r2). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i
tly known defect size

Figure 9 Allowable pressure by DNV-RP-F101 for various inspection accuracy

Note that the measured values of the defect depth and length are input to the acceptance equation (eq. 14), and that the inspection accuracy also is input. The depth to be used in the equation is the measured depth plus an additional depth depending on the inspection method and accuracy, given by (d/t)*. This value again is multiplied with a partial safety factor. The curves in Figure 9 are the acceptable operating pressure based on magnetic flux leakage (MFL) inspection pigs results for three levels of inspection

Bai RAM mean 1.07 1.01 StD 0.19 0.22 CoV 0.18 0.22 (CoV = StD / mean

BG/DNV 1.05 0.10 0.095

PCORRC 0.97 0.098 0.100

It should be noted that the Bai and RAM equations are compared against the full AGA extended database, while BG/DNV and PCORRC are compared against tests within their validity range. (The CoV of the BG/DNV criterion is 0.075 compared to tests, but calculated to 0.095 for the full validity range, using FE and test

98

results). RAM was compared to the same tests as BG/DNV, and the CoV increased to 0.33, which demonstrates that the length should have been included in the capacity equation. Comparing the PCORRC and BG/DNV capacity equation with the AGA database will give misleading and erroneous results for the model uncertainty. In the BG/DNV and PCORRC development, only measured values (e.g material properties from testing) were used in the calculation of model uncertainty. For RAM the specified SMTS was used, and not measured (actual) properties. Bai has not specified which flow stress definition is used when determining the model uncertainty, but indicates that the tensile strength can be used, and SMTS is recommended to use for API 5L materials. In a reliability assessment the definition of the flow stress used when calculating the mean and StD is vital, and has to be consistent. The effect of this is demonstrated in Figure 10. The uppermost histogram shows the burst test to predicted capacity based on measured tensile strength. For this example test database, the prediction based on measured strength is essentially unbiased, and the COV is about 7%. The lower figure presents the same test data, but with the predicted capacity based on the material SMTS, hence the predictions are smaller, and the average ratio of test to prediction increases from 0.99 to 1.08. This also indicates that improper switching between these strength characterisations can lead to an error on the order of 10%.
20 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . q

below the mean value. For BG/DNV this becomes 1- (3.71 x 0.10) = 0.629 of mean. (and about the same for PCORRC). For Bai, the corresponding value is 1- (3.71 x 0.19) = 0. 29 of mean (and about the same for RAM). The consequence of this is the corroded pipeline can only be operated at about 0.29 times the mean calculated burst capacity if the target failure probability is to be met. Note that the mean values are slightly different, such that the factors do not directly correspond to the same pressure. And at this stage, only the model uncertainty is accounted for. A 406ram (16") diameter and 12.7 mm thick pipe of grade X60 (SMTS = 517 MPa) linepipe with a defect of 45% of the wall thickness is used as the example below. From material testing an average % of 579 MPa is measured. The BG/DNV capacity equation (eq. 11) is multiplied with the mean value of 1.05 (see Table 2) and is shown in Figure 11. The 10-4 failure probability curve accounting for the model uncertainty is shown. The dotted lines give corresponding values for 10 "2, I0 3 and 10-5 failure probabilities.
DNV-RP-FI01, model uncertainty only
400 ............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 350

,ooi.:: i ::!i;;: i :ii i 1:2 i:iiii /;ii i i i"u-;oi IIIIi: : i

~" 250

200

100

................................................................ ..................................................................

= 15.
"6 l O .

?:;u;,o_o
i

50 0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

Defect length (ram)

Figure l l Comparison of capacity equations and acceptance equation for 10-4 failure probability level
0 . . . . ~ . .~[ I~ ......... 4- ...... i

0,85 20

0.90

0.95

1.00

1.05

1.10

1.15

1.20

1.25

SMTS 15

In Figure 12, Bai's criterion, eq(9) is shown in the same way as the BG/DNV equation, multiplied with mean of 1.07 (see Table 2). The Bai criterion gives higher best estimate capacity compared with BG/DNV (and PCORRC), and has a drop giving a discontinuous curve equation.
Bai criterion, model uncertainty only
400 ......................................................................................................................................................................

"~ 10

E=
Z 5 0 0.85 .[I. 0.90

350 " ~ 300 ~ ~

XMsal* Bal Capacity equation

25o
0.95 1.00 1.05 1.10 1.15 1.20 1,25 200 in D. 150 100 ....

...........
~..,-~ : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..............

i
! i

Test I Predicted

1o ~ BGr~H~

Figure 10 Ratio of test to capacity prediction based on a) measured tensile strength; b) based on SMTS.
When using reliability methods, the failure probability can be calculated accounting for the model uncertainty, natural variation i n the parameters, defect sizing capabilities and estimated further development of the defects. The acceptance criterion will be related to the reliability of the pipeline, and an acceptable failure probability should be selected. For the following examples, a maximum failure probability of 10-4 is selected, consistent with typical industry practice. If all parameters are precisely known, and assuming a Normal distribution for the model uncertainty, the capacity associated with a failure probability of 10 "4 iS determined by 3.71 standard deviations

1"0'4' L............................. i i

50 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

0. 100 Z00 300 400 500 600 700

Defect length (mini

Figure 12 Comparison of capacity equations

The effect of the model uncertainty is clearly demonstrated in Figures 11 and 12, and a large model uncertainty results in greatly reduced calculated pressure for the same reliability level. The high mean capacity for the Bai equation can be due to that SMTS is used in the calculation of mean value, and tensile strength is used in the reliability analyses (Bai et al.).

99

Bai et al. have chosen to reduce the model uncertainty in an example following the description of the criteria and the model uncertainty (Bai et al, 1997) to a mean value of i .0 and a standard deviation of 0.10, without any supporting justification.

conducting a research project on these topics for PRCI (University of Alberta and DNV is supporting CFER in the project). The use of reliability methods will become more common, with application in the calculations of acceptable pressure, lifetime extensions and as input for risk assessments.
SUMMARY In this paper, a review of the development of criteria for assessment of corroded pipelines is presented, from the original NG-18 criteria and many of the later modifications, including the widely used ASME B31G. The major significance of the flow stress and defect area definition is demonstrated, and the minor effect from the various Folias factors is shown. The later developments, DNV-RP-FI01 (BG Technology and DNV) and PCORRC, are related to tough materials. The "Folias factor" in DNV-RP-FI01 is changed significantly, and PCORRC has applied an exponential function for the capacity equation. These methods are not replacements of the widely used ASME B31G code, but an supplement when a plastic failure collapse can be expected. For old pipelines, or pipelines where the material might not have sufficient ductility, the BG/DNV or PCORRC criteria should not be used. Modem pipeline steel materials normally have sufficient toughness to expect plastic collapse failure. Battelle (Stephens and Leis, 2000) has developed a capacity equation with similar results, and has given a preliminary recommendation of a Charpy value of 45 ft-lbs (about 60 J) for the lower bound material toughness for plastic collapse. The approach presented by Bai is a combination of the original NG-18 and the spiral criterion by Mok, but the benefit of using the approach by Bai, for short to moderately long spiral corrosion, over NG-18 and the Mok criterion, has not been demonstrated. The stated model uncertainty is large and impractical to use in reliability assessment of corroded pipelines. The simplification of omitting the defect length in the RAM approach presented by Bea looks tempting, but it is well known that the burst capacity is sensitive to the corrosion length. It is difficult to see that this can be valid on a general basis, but may be applicable within a validated range. DNV-RP-F 101 includes pre-defined calibrated safety lhctors tbr various reliability levels depending on the failure consequences, and accounting for the inspection method and defect sizing accuracy. Further developments in defect assessment may include improved methods for low toughness materials, improved inspection techniques and accuracy, interaction roles, criteria tbr combined loads etc. The use of reliability methods, both as a tool when assessing defects and for developments of new criteria will probably become more common. REFERENCES

Discussion Assessment of corroded pipelines using reliability methods are performed by various organisations. It is observed that the model uncertainty or sizing accuracy is often omitted. But, as demonstrated above, the effect of the model uncertainty is significant, and should not be omitted. However, using B31G, Bai, RAM or any other method, and a model uncertainty based on the tests in the AGA database, will result in an unacceptable (and maybe unrealistically) low safe operating pressure, due to the high model uncertainty. It remains to validate the models against more consistent test results that those in the AGA database, Dr the effects of the various parameters to be considered, such as defect profile. The test data from BG Technology has formed the basis for the confidence and calculated model uncertainty for the BG/DNV (and PCORRC) are well defined and published, and has been an very important contribution to the development of the methods for ductile materials. Unfortunately not all test results are publicly available, and hence others can not verify the values. Reliability methods were used to calibrate the partial safety factors in the joint project between BG Technology and DNV, resulting in DNV-RP-F101, where the BG Technology test data were an important basis.
CORROSION ASSESSMENT, THE FUTURE The available methods for assessing single defects are fairly accurate and well defined, and methods for assessing complex shaped defects are available. The use of reliability methods in assessing corrosion defects is in the first stages, and will probably be more commonly used as authorities require an evaluation and control of the risk involved in pipeline transportation. The assessment methods for low toughness materials should be further evaluated, but an updated database with burst tests with known (measured) properties is essential for being able to do so. Several of the tests in the existing A G A database and the test data from Cronin and Pick forms a starting point. Interaction of defects is very complex, and more precise and accurate interaction rules would be preferable. However, there are unlimited combinations of interaction of defects, and to a large extent, the assessments have to be based upon sound engineering judgement. Simplified rules for automatic exclusion of non-critical areas is required for inclusion in software. FE analyses can also be applicable for complex interaction of corroded sections. The methods for inspecting pipelines are continuously improving, and the profile of the defects may become more easily available, in which case the RSTRENG and the BG/DNV complex shape approach (developed by Ritchie in Shell, as part of Shells contribution to the BG GSP project) can become more attractive, A step further is FE analyses automatically generated from inspection results, and the burst pressure is calculated. A challenge is interpretation of when the pipe is failing and safety factors to apply. In assessing corrosion defects, other effects are also of importance, such as interaction of individual defects, the profile of the defect (complex shaped), external axial and bending loads etc. These effects are not covered by this review, and reference are made to the publications as Smith and Grigory (1996), Wang et al. (1998), Roberts and Pick (1998), Bjorn~y et al. (2000) and DNV-RP-F101. Collapse due to external pressure or axial and bending moment may be a concern for corroding pipelines. CFER is currently

API RP 579 First Edition "Fitness-for-Service', January 2000. ASME, (199l), "Manual or Determining the remaining Strength of Corroded Pipelines, A supplement to ANSI/ASME B31 Code tbr Pressure Piping". Bai Y., Xu T. and Bea, R. "Reliability-Based Design and Requalification Criteria for Longitudinally Corroded Pipelines", ISOPE 1997, Honolulu, USA Bai Y., and Hauch S. "Analytical Collapse Capacity of Corroded Pipes", ISOPE 1998, Montreal, Canada, 1998. Batte, A. D., Fu, B., Kirkwood, M. G., Vu, D. (1997), "New Methods for Determining the Remaining Strength of Corroded Pipelines", OMAE 1997.

100

Bea, R. (2000) "Reliability, Corrosion, & Burst Pressure Capabilities of Pipelines", OMAE 2000, New Orleans, USA Benjamin A.C, Vieira R. D., Freire, J. L. and de Castro J.T.P, "Burst Tests on Pipeline with Long External Corrosion", IPC 2000, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Bjornoy, O.H., Cramer, E.H., Sigurdsson, G. (1997), "Probabilistic Calibrated Design Equation for Burst Strength Assessment of Corroded Pipelines" ISOPE 1997, Honolulu, USA. Bjornoy, O.H, Sigurdsson, G. Cramer, E.H., Fu, B Ritchie, D., (1999) "Introduction to DNV-RP-F101 "Corroded Pipelines", OMAE 1999, Newfoundland, Canada. Bjernoy, O. H., Sigurdsson, G. and Cramer, E.H., "Residual Strength of Corroded Pipelines, DNV Test Results", ISOPE 2000, Seattle, USA. BS 7910 "Guidance On Methods For Assessing The Acceptability Of Flaws In Fusion Welded Structures", British Standard Institute, London, UK, 1999. Chouchaoui, B. A. and Pick, R.J., (1992), "Residual Burst Strength of Pipe with internal Corrosion Pits", Proc. Int. Conf. On Pipeline Reliability, Calgary. Chouchaoui, B. A. and Pick, R.J., (1992), "A three level Assessment of the Residual Strength of Corroded Line Pipe", OMAE 1994. Coulson, K. E. W, and Wolthingham, R.G. (1990), "Pipe Corrosion, Standard Damage Assessment Approach is Overly Conservative", Oil and Gas Journal. Cronin, D. S., (2000) "A Multi-Level Assessment Procedure for Corroded Line Pipe", IPC 2000, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Cronin, D. S., and Pick R. J., (2000) "Experimental Databases for Corroded Pipe: Evaluation of RSTRENG and B31G", IPC 2000, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Denys, R.M. (1995) "Fitness-for-purpose assessment of corrosion defects", The Pipeline Pigging Conference, Amsterdam, Netherlands, June 5-7 1995. DNV Offshore Standard, DNV-OS-F101, Submarine Pipeline Systems, Det Norske Veritas, 2000 DNV Recommended Practice, DNV-RP-FI01, Corroded Pipelines, Det Norske Veritas, 1999. Fu ,B. and Kirkwood, M. G. (1995), "Predicting Failure Pressure of Internally Corroded Linepipe using the Finite Element Method", Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, OMAE'95, Copenhagen. Fu, B., and Jones, (1994), "Failure of Spiral Corrosion in Linepipe", OMAE 1994. Fu, B., and Noble, l., (1998), "New failure pressure equation for corroded pipeline" Verbal presentation, OMAE 1998, Lisbon. Hopkins P. and Jones D.G, (1992) "A study of the Behaviour of Long and Complex-Shaped Corrosion in Transmission Pipelines", OMAE 1992. Jones D. G., and Hopkins P., "Methodologies for the Assessment of Defects in Offshore Pipelines and Risers", OMAE 1991. Jiao, G., Sotberg, T. and Igland, R. (1995), "SUPERB 2M STATISTICAL DATA: Basic Uncertainty Measures for reliability Analysis for Offshore Pipelines", SUPERB project report. Kiefner J.F. and Vieth P.H. (1994), "Database of Corroded Pipe Tests" Pipeline Research Committee, AGA.

Kiefner J.F. and Duffy A.R. (1971): "Summary of Research to Determine the Strength of Corroded Areas in Line Pipe," Presented to a Public Hearing at the U.S. Department of Transportation, July 20, 1971. Kiefner J.F., Maxey W.A., Eiber R.JH. and Dully A.R. (1973): "Failure Stress Levels of Flaws in Pressurized Cylinders, "Progress in Flaw Growth and Fracture Toughness Tests, ASTM STP 536s, American Society for Testing and Materials, pp.461-481. Kiefner LF. (1974):"Corroded Pipe: Strength and repair Methods," 5th Symposium on Line Pipe Research, Pipeline Research Committee of AGA Kiefner J.F. and Vieth P.H. (1989):"A Modified Criterion for Evaluating the Remaining Strength of Corroded Pipe, RSTRENG" Project PR 3-805 Pipeline Research Committee, American Gas Association, Dec. 22, 1989. Kiefner J.F. and Vieth P.H. (1990): "New Method Corrects Criterion for Evaluating Corroded Pipe," Oil & Gas Journal, Aug.6, 1990. Kiefner J.F. and Vieth P.H. (1993): "RSTRENG2 User's Manual" Project PR 218-9205 Pipeline Research Committee, American Gas Association, March 1993. Klever F. J. (1992) "Burst Strength of Corroded Pipe: Flow Stress Revisited" OTC 1992, Houston, USA. Klever F. J . , Stewart G., and van der Valk C. A. C, "New Developments in Burst Predictions for Locally Corroded Pipelines", OMAE 1995 Maxey W.A., Kiefner J.F., Eiber R.J. and Duffy A.R. (1971), "Ductile Fracture Initiation, Propagation and Arrest in Cylindrical Vessels," Fracture Toughness, Proc. of the 1971 National Symp. on Fracture Mechanics, ASTM STP 514. Mok D.H.B., Pick R.J. and Glover A.G. (1990): "Behaviour of Line Pipe with Long External Corrosion,"Mat. Perform., 29(5), 75-79. Mok D.H.B., Pick R.J., Glover A.G. and Hoff R. (1991): "Bursting of Line Pipe with Long External Corrosion,"lnt. J. Pressure Vessel & Piping, 46, 159-216. Roberts K. A., Pick R. J. (1998) "Corrections for Longitudinal Stress in the Assessment of Corroded Line Pipe", IPC 1998, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Sigurdsson, E.H. Cramer, O.H. Bjomoy, B. Fu, and D. Ritchie, "Background to DNV-RP-FI01 Corroded Pipelines", OMAE 1999, Newfoundland, Canada. Stephens, D. R. and Leis B., "Development of an Alternative Criterion for Residual Strength of Corrosion Detects in Moderateto High-Toughness Pipe", IPC 2000, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Stephens, D. R. and Francini R. B., (2000) "A Review And Evaluation Of Remaining Strength Criteria For Corrosion Defects In Transmission Pipelines" OMAE 2000, New Orleans, USA Stewart G. Klever F. J. and Ritchie D. (1994) "An Analytical Model to Predict Burst Pressure Capacity of Pipelines", OMAE 1994. Smith M. Q., and Grigory S. C., "New Procedure for Residual Strength Assessment of Corroded Pipe subjected to Combined Loading", IPC 1996, Calgary, Canada Vieth. P. H. and Kiefner, J. K, "Database for Corroded Pipe Tests", AGA Catalog No. L51689, 1994. Wang W., Smith M. Q., Popelar C. H., and Maple J. A. "A New Rupture Prediction Model for Corroded Pipelines Under Combined Loading", IPC 1998, Calgary, Canada.

I01