1/5

VALIDATION OF THE ASME B31G AND RSTRENG METHODOLOGIES FOR THE

DETERMINATION OF THE BURST PRESSURE OF CORRODED PIPES IN API 5L X70-PIPES
A. Weyn, Vinotte, Belgium
P. Roovers, Fluxys, Belgium
T. Lefevre, Universiteit Gent, Belgium

INTRODUCTION
The ASME B31G [1] and the RSTRENG [2] methodologies are generally used for the determination of the
remaining strength of externally corroded pipe subjected to internal pressure. Defects are modelled by their
depth and length in the longitudinal direction, see figure 1. The defect width is not considered explicitly in
the calculation but a conservative assumption is made in both methods.
Published validation data is only available for API 5L Grade B, X52, X60 and X65 materials. Therefore,
Fluxys, the operator of the natural gas transport infrastructure in Belgium, decided to perform some
validation tests on Grade X70 material with properties as used in Belgium.
To demonstrate the validity of the ASME B31G and the RSTRENG methodologies for material X70, a test
program was defined in collaboration between Vinotte, Fluxys and the Laboratorium Soete, Universiteit
Gent. Burst tests were performed on four pipes with artificial defects. The test program comprised:
determination of the mechanical properties of the test pipes
burst testing of 4 test vessels with artificial defects
comparison of the actual burst pressure values with the failure pressures calculated by :
- ASME B31G
- RSTRENG
- linear and nonlinear Finite Element Method (FEM)
comparison of the FEM strains with the results of strain gauge measurements made
during the burst tests
As no large reductions of the operating pressure are normally allowed in operation, the sizes of the artificial
defects were determined in a range so that they lead only to a moderate reduction (max. 30%) of the
theoretical failure pressure in comparison with the one of a defect free pipe.

FAILURE PRESSURE ACCORDING TO ASME B31.G

According to the ASME B31G methodology, the failure pressure Pfail of a corroded pipe subjected to internal
pressure can be written as:

Pfail = 2 x Sfail x t / D in which Sfail = S (1-A/Ao) / [1 (A/Ao)(M-1)] and

Sfail : failure stress (MPa)
S : material flow stress = 1.1 x SMYS (SMYS = Specified Minimum Yield Strength, MPa)
D : pipe diameter (mm)
t
: pipe wall thickness (mm)
L : axial extent of the defect (mm)
d : maximum defect depth (mm)
A : defect area of the longitudinal plane through the wall thickness, taken equal to (2/3) x d x L (mm2)
Ao : t x L (mm2)
M : two-term Folias factor (-) ; M = (1+ 0.8 L2 / D t )1/2
The maximum allowable service pressure results from the division of the failure pressure Pfail by an
appropriate safety factor.

2/5

FAILURE PRESSURE ACCORDING TO RSTRENG

The failure pressure Pfail according to RSTRENG can be formulated as in ASME B31G, see point 2 above,
but with different values for S, A and MT :
- flow stress S : SMYS + 69 MPa
- defect area A : actual surface of the projected area of the defect on a longitudinal plane through the
wall thickness ; if no detailed calculation of the area is performed, an approximate
value can be used, such as the effective area A = 0.85 x d x L for long defects
(note: the acceptability of the approximation depends on the defect geometry)
- three-term Folias factor MT (-) : if L2 / D t <= 50 : MT = (1+ 0.6275 L2 / D t - 0.003375 L4 / D2 t2 )1/2
if L2 / D t > 50 : MT = 0.032 (L2 / D t) + 3.3

TEST VESSELS
Four test vessels in API 5L X70 material were subjected to burst testing. Two test vessels were made from a
24 in (DN 600) x 10.3 mm pipe and two from a 36 in (DN 900) x 12.8 mm pipe. The pipes were
longitudinally welded (D-SAW welds). Figure 2 shows a picture of test vessel no.1.
Each test piece was provided from the outer pipe wall with three artificial rectangular defects having the
same longitudinal length L and constant depth d but a different width w. They were located at 2, 6 and 10
oclock relative to the longitudinal D-SAW welds in the pipes. Figure 3 shows the location and dimensions
of the defects in test vessel no. 1. The artificial defects were made by machining and it was verified

that the machining operations did not influence the surface material properties in a significant way.
Strain gauges (see figure 6) were attached in the defect zones in order to monitor the strains during burst
testing.
Table 1 summarizes the principal geometric dimensions of the four test vessels and their defects :
Pipe

Defect 1

Defect 2

Defect 3

Test
Vessel

DN

tmin

tactual

TP1

600

10.3

11.3

210

4.1

100

210

4.1

50

210

4.1

100*

TP2

600

10.3

11.4

200

6.8

128

200

6.8

256

200

6.8

128*

TP3

900

12.8

13.4

300

4.0

60

300

4.0

200

300

4.0

120

TP4

900

12.8

13.4

300

6.0

600

300

6.0

200

300

6.0

120

notes : - L, d and w are the axial length, depth and width of the artificial defects
- tmin is the minimum specified thickness of the pipe and tactual the actual thickness
- all defects have a constant depth d over their total surface except the defects marked
with * which have a flat defect surface
- the defects in bold are those where rupture occurred during the burst test
Table 1 : Test configurations (units: mm)

3/5

MATERIAL PROPERTY TESTING

Extensive material testing was performed in order to characterize the actual material properties. Specimens
for mechanical testing were taken at several locations around the circumference of the pipes. The following
mechanical properties were determined at these locations in longitudinal and transverse direction :
Tensile properties : yield strength, tensile strength, uniform and total elongation
Engineering stress-strain and true stress-strain curves under tensile testing
Charpy V notch impact tests : impact energy, notch toughness, lateral expansion, % shear area
It should be noted that in Belgium, in order to guarantee sufficient ductility and toughness, X70 pipe material
must fulfil supplementary requirements when it is used in high pressure gas pipelines. In particular, an upper
limit is imposed to the ratio of the yield strength (Rt0.5) to the tensile strength (Rm). Also Charpy V impact
tests shall be performed at 20C .The test vessels were made of pipe ordered in accordance with these
supplementary requirements.

BURST TESTING
The four test vessels were pressurized with water at a very slow rate until failure occurred. During the tests,
strain gauge measurements were continuously recorded. The actual burst pressure values are given in table 2.
All ruptures were ductile. Figures 4 to 7 show pictures of the test vessels after bursting. For test vessels 1
and 3, the rupture propagated outside the defect zone into the surrounding pipe wall. For test vessels 2 and 4,
having deeper defects, the rupture remained limited to the defect zone.

CALCULATIONS
The theoretical failure pressures of the test vessels were calculated with the ASME B31.G and RSTRENG
methodologies. Also linear and nonlinear (limit load) FEM analyses were performed. The results of the
calculations are summarized in table 2. Figure 8 shows the geometry of the 3D FEM model.
The failure pressure from linear FEM analysis is assumed to be 1.5 x the allowable working pressure. The
latter is determined using the stress classification criteria of ASME VIII div.2 and considering two thirds of
the yield stress as the basic allowable stress.
The failure pressure in the nonlinear FEM analysis is defined as the pressure corresponding to the
appearance of a 5% strain, unless numerical instability occurs at a lower strain. Figure 9 shows for defect 1
in test vessel 4 the strain distribution when the limit load (97 bar) is attained (nonlinear analysis). Figure 10
shows for the same defect the strain distribution at 105 bar.
Pipe

Defect

Calculated Failure Pressures

RSTRENG
FEM
FEM
B31.G
0.85 x d x L Linear Nonlinear
166
164
113
175

Test
Vessel

DN

tactual

Actual Burst
Pressure

TP1

600

11.3

210

4.0

100

214

TP2

600

11.4

200

6.8

128

150

143

133

69

83

TP3

900

13.4

300

4.0

200

173

134

134

97

125

TP4

900

13.4

300

6.0

600

133

122

118

79

97

Table 2 : Actual burst pressure & calculated failure pressures (bar)

4/5

MAIN CONCLUSIONS
For all four tests, the failure pressures calculated with the ASME B31G and the RSTRENG methods were
conservative as compared with the actual burst pressure values.
The failure pressures resulting from the nonlinear FEM analyses were also conservative in comparison with
the actual burst pressure values. However, the failure pressures calculated by the linear FEM were too
conservative in order to be useful in practice.
The strain gauge measurements agreed well with the FEM strains in the range where measurements were
possible.
REFERENCES
[1] ASME B31G 2001 (R2004) : Manual for determining remaining strength of corroded pipelines.
[2] A modified criterium for determining the remaining strength of corroded pipe, J.F. Kiefner
& P. Vieth, PRCI Contract PR-3-805, December 22, 1989

Figure 1 : Defect length and depth

Figure 2 : Test Vessel 1

Figure 3 : Location and dimensions of defects in vessel 1

5/5

Figure 4 : Test Vessel 1 after bursting

Figure 5 : Test Vessel 2 after bursting

Figure 6 : Test Vessel 3 after bursting

Figure 7 : Test Vessel 4 after bursting

Figure 8 : 3D FEM Model

Figure 9 : Test Vessel 4 Defect 1

Limit Load Analysis
Von-Mises strain distribution at 97 bar

Figure 10 : Test Vessel 4 Defect 1

Limit Load Analysis
Von-Mises strain distribution at 105 bar