16.

Corroded Pipeline
Assessment
Contents

Corroded
Pipeline

ASME B31.G - 2012

 1. Scope
• Providing guidance in the evaluation of metal loss in pressurized pipelines and
piping systems within the scope ASME B31 Code.
• Acceptable applications for this document (Limited to the evaluation wall loss in
metal pipe) :
– Metal loss located below ground, above ground , offshore
– Metal loss due to internal and external corrosion
– Metal loss produce by grinding
– Metal loss that incidentally affect welds
– Metal loss any depth with respect to pipe wall
– Metal loss in new pipe where allowed by the applicable code of
construction
– Metal loss in pipe material having ductile fracture initiation characteristics
– Metal loss in pipe operating at temperature above ambient temperature
– Metal loss in pipe operating at any level of allowable design hoop stress
– Metal loss where internal pressure is the primary loading
 1. Scope
• And Does not apply to the following
– Crack-like defect or mechanical surface damage not completely
removed to a smooth contour by grinding
– Metal loss in indentations or buckles resulting radial distortion
of the pipe wall larger than 6 % of the outside diameter
– Grooving Corrosion, selective corrosion, or preferential
corrosion affecting pipe seams or girth welds
– Metal loss in fitting
– Metal loss affecting material having brittle fracture initiation
characteristics
– Pipe operating at temperature outside the range of operating
temperature recognized by the governing standard or operating
temperatures in the creep range.
2. Analysis Level
• Evaluation is the one relies on the table of allowance defect length and depth found
in section 3.
Level 0 • Can be conducted in the field without the needs performing detailed calculations

• Simple calculation that relies on single measurement s of maximum depth and axial
extend metal loss.
Level 1 • Suitable for use in prioritizing metal-loss anomalies identified by inline inspection.

• Relies on detailed measurement of the corroded surface profile

• Accounting for actual distribution of metal loss
• Involves repetitive computations calculations
Level 2 • Suitable for use in prioritizing metal-loss anomalies identified by high resolution
inline inspection.

• Detailed analysis of a specific flaw in accordance with a user defined methodology

with full justification for loading, boundary condition , material properties, and
failure criteria.
Level 3 • Conducted by a technical specialist having appropriate expertise in the subject of
fitness for service assessment.
3. Flaw Interaction and
Orientation
• Interaction • Orientation
– Considered interacting – If helical patterns < 45 °
with space each other 3 → Length Corroded area
times thickness. indicated as L1 shall be
– Flaws are considered non considered in the
interacting if space evaluation
outside above dimension – If helical patterns lies at 
45° → Length Corroded
area indicated as L2 shall
be considered in the
evaluation
4.1. Evaluation Method
Level 0
• Level 0 :
1. Determine Pipe diameter and wall thicknees
2. Det. Applicable material properties
3. Clean Corroded pipe
4. Measure the maximum depth (d) and length (L) corroded area
5. Locate table Corresponding D (pipe diameter)
6. Locate row table a depth equal to measured maximum (if not
same chose the next greater depth)
7. Read across the column showing the wall thickness of pipe.( if
not listed , use the column for the next thinner wall ) → Found
the maximum allowable longitudinal extent for corroded are at
intersection
8. Metal loss acceptable if measured L < L given by table.
4.1. Evaluation Method
Level 0
• The table were designed to provide a
minimum factor of safety of 1.39 for pipeline
operating with a hoop stress of 72 % SMYS
• Application of the table to the evaluation of
corrosion in pipelines operating at hoop stress
levels greater than 72 % of SMYS will result in
a factor of safety that proportionately less.
 4.1. Evaluation Method
Level 0
The following are applicable to Tables 3-1 through 3-12M:
(a) Metal loss having a maximum depth of 10% of the nominal pipe wall thickness or less is
not limited as to allowable length.
(b) Metal loss having a maximum depth exceeding 80% of the nominal pipe wall thickness
shall not be evaluated using the tables of allowable length.
4.2. Evaluation Method
Level 1
• Level 1 :
1. Det. Pipe diameter and nominal wall thickness.
2. Clean Corroded pipe surface
3. Measure the maximum (d) and (L)
4. Det. Applicable pipe material properties
5. Select evaluation method and calculate the estimated
failure stress (𝑆𝐹 ).
6. Define an acceptable safety factor, SF
7. Compare 𝑆𝐹 to 𝑆𝐹 × 𝑆𝑜
8. The Flaw acceptable where 𝑆𝐹 ≥ 𝑆𝐹 × 𝑆𝑜 𝑜𝑟 𝑃𝐹 ≥ 𝑆𝐹 × 𝑃𝑜
if not acceptable, then the pressure can be reduced such
𝑃𝐹
𝑃<
𝑆𝐹
4.2. Evaluation Method
Level 1
• Original B31G 𝐿2
𝑧= 𝑀 = (1 + 0.8 𝑧 )1/2
𝐷𝑡
2 𝑑
1 − 3 𝑡
❑ 𝐹𝑜𝑟 𝑧 ≤ 20, → 𝑆𝐹 = 𝑆𝑓𝑙𝑜𝑤 2 𝑑
3 𝑡
1 −
𝑀

𝑑
❑ 𝐹𝑜𝑟 𝑧 > 20, → 𝑆𝐹 = 𝑆𝑓𝑙𝑜𝑤 1 −
𝑡

𝑆𝑓𝑙𝑜𝑤 :
= 1.1 × 𝑆𝑀𝑌𝑆 for plain carbon steel Top < 250°F (120°C)
= 𝑆𝑀𝑌𝑆 + 10 𝑘𝑠𝑖 (69 𝑀𝑃𝑎) for plain carbon and low-alloy steel
having SMYS not in excess of 70 ksi
(483 MPa) and Top < 250°F (120°C)
= 𝑆𝑌𝑇 + 𝑆𝑈𝑇 Τ2 for plain carbon and low-alloy steel having
SMYS not in excess of 80 ksi (551 MPa)
4. Evaluation Method
Level 1
• Modified B31G
𝑑

– 𝑆𝐹 = 𝑆𝑓𝑙𝑜𝑤
1−0.85 𝑡
𝐿2
𝑑
0.85 𝑡 𝑧=
1− 𝑀 𝐷𝑡

– 𝐹𝑜𝑟 𝑧 ≤ 50, → 𝑀 = (1 + 0.6275𝑧 − 0.003375𝑧 2 )1/2

– 𝐹𝑜𝑟 𝑧 > 50, → 𝑀 = 0.032𝑧 + 3.3
𝑆𝑓𝑙𝑜𝑤 :
= 1.1 × 𝑆𝑀𝑌𝑆 for plain carbon steel Top < 250°F (120°C)
= 𝑆𝑀𝑌𝑆 + 10 𝑘𝑠𝑖 (69 𝑀𝑃𝑎) for plain carbon and low-alloy steel
having SMYS not in excess of 70 ksi
(483 MPa) and Top < 250°F (120°C)
= 𝑆𝑌𝑇 + 𝑆𝑈𝑇 Τ2 for plain carbon and low-alloy steel having
SMYS not in excess of 80 ksi (551 MPa)
 4.3. Evaluation Method
Level 2
• Level 2 :
– Performed using what is known as the Effective Area Method.
– Shall be carried out using a procedure similar to the ten steps described for Level 1
except the method generally requires several measurement depth of corroded area.
– The Effective Area Method Expression :
1−𝐴ൗ𝐴0
• 𝑆𝐹 = 𝑆𝑓𝑙𝑜𝑤 𝐴ൗ
𝐴
1− 𝑀 0

– Evaluate by iteration all possible combinations of local metal loss (A), with respect to
original material (𝐴0 ).
– For a Corroded profile defined by n measurement depth of corrosion including the
end points at nominally full wall thickness, 𝑛!ൗ2 𝑛−2 ! iteration are required to
examine all possible combinations of local metal loss with respect to surrounding
material.
– The local solution resulting in the lowest calculated failure stress shall govern.
– API 579 level 2 reduced to a simplest form.
 4.4. Evaluation Method
Level 3
• Level 3 :
– Typically involves as detailed analysis (FEA of the corroded region).
– Analysis Should accurately consider all factor that could affect the accuracy
of result :
• Internal pressure
• External force
• Boundary conditions and constraint
• Ovality
• Deformations
• Misalignment
• Discontinuities
• Material stress-strain characteristic
• Effect of the flaw on overall distribution of load and stress
– A failure criterion should be developed that consider strain capacity or
fracture resistance characteristic of material.
Case Study
• Corroded Pipe with Specification :
– Material : API 5L X60 d2 d1 3
• Yield Strength : 414 MPa
• Ultimate Tensile Strength : 517 MPa
– NPS 24 sch 30 P0 = operating pressure
MAOP or MOP = 3000 psig
• Outside Diameter : 24 inch
• Nominal Thickness : 0.562 inch
– Corroded @ 3 point measurement in one length with
specification dimension of flaw :
• d1 = 0.337 Inch ( 60 % corroded )
• d2 = 0.365 Inch ( 65 % corroded )
• d3 = 0.393 Inch ( 70 % corroded )
• L = 2.5 Inch
Assessment Level 0
• For Conservative result, select d3 as d (depth of corrosion).

tnom = 0.562 in.

d = d3 = 0.3934 in.
Lmeasured = 2.50 > Lallowable = 2.12

Continue to Assessment Level 1

Assessment Level 1

Determined :
• z, M, Sflow and,
SF
• In this case
Chose Original
B31G to define
those value
Failure Stress (SF)
𝑃𝑂 𝐷 Failure Pressure (PF)
𝑆𝑂 =
2𝑡

Determine
Hoop Stress

𝑃𝐹 = 2𝑆𝐹 𝑡Τ𝐷
Assessment Level 1
The flaw is acceptable when: SF  SF  S0 or PF  SF  P0
If not acceptable, then the pressure can be reduced such that
𝑃𝐹
P<
𝑆𝐹
• Choose SF (Safety Factor) = 1.25 SF  SO = 1.25  64.06 = 80.07 ksi
• Compare With Failure Stress SF = 58.53 ksi
SF < SF  S0
Therefore, the operating pressure should be reduced to:
𝑃𝐹 2741.2
P< = = 2192.92 𝑝𝑠𝑖𝑔
𝑆𝐹 1.25

Alternatively, try assessment Lv.2 or 3

 Assessment Level 2
• Method is the same with Lv.1 Except, This
method use Effective Are Method.
• For Conservative result, (Very Pessimistic)
we can take : This case we choose the
• A=dxL Simplified RSTRENG with :
• But, We can choose Effective area with A = 0.85 x d x L
this 3 method approximation.

Determine Failure
Stress Each
Profile
Where :
• A0 = t x L

http://www.nace-
houston.org/images/Brent_PhelpsRemaining_strength.pdf
Assessment Level 2

The flaw is acceptable when: SF  SF  S0 or PF  SF  P0

If not acceptable, then the pressure can be reduced
𝑃
such that P < 𝐹
𝑆𝐹

1 − 𝐴ൗ𝐴
0
𝑆𝐹 = 𝑆𝑓𝑙𝑜𝑤
𝐴ൗ
𝐴
1− 𝑀0

Criteria is not satisfy,

< SF  SO = Conduct Assessment Lv.3
80.07 ksi
Assessment Level 3
• Finite Element Method With Local Thinning Corrosion
• Since Hoop Stress Exceed The Yield Strength of
Material , We should Apply Plasticity model for
material in simulation for detecting if there are
deformation plastic in pipe

• Don`t Forget to put some fillet in the

corner of Flaw to avoid Stress
concentration
• For width can be determined by measured
data in field ( Choose the big one ).
General Methodology
Initial Study and Data Collection

Code & Standard

Generate Model for

Company Specification Pipeline

Generate Geometry for

defects
Nodal Forces & Moments
from AutoPipe
Applied Load & Constraint

Stress Analysis
(Static Analysis)

Engineering Assessment & Conclusion and

Unity Check Calculation (UC) Recommendation

No Assessment Yes Report & Presentation

OK?
 Methodology
Global Analysis using AutoPipe
Initial Data
❑ Pipe Geometry & Material
❑ Loading Condition
❑ Boundary Condition
❑ Code & Standard
❑ Regulation
❑ COMPANY Specification
Generate 3D model of pipeline
Loading Conditions:
• Installation Condition
Applied Load & Constraint • Hydrotest Condition
• Design Condition

No
UC OK?

Modelling was
Yes
conducted using: Continue to Local Analysis
Result:
➢ Nodal Forces (Fx, Fy, Fz) Input for Local Analysis
➢ Nodal Moments (Mx, My, Mz)
 Methodology
Local Analysis

Initial Data
❑ Pipe Geometry & Material Generate 3D model of pipeline: Generate 3D model of pipeline:
❑ Loading Condition • Without defect • With defect
❑ Boundary Condition

❑ Code & Standard Applied Load & Constraint Applied Load & Constraint
❑ Regulation
❑ COMPANY Specification

No Yes Assessment No
UC OK?
OK?

Loading Conditions:
• Installation Condition Yes
• Hydrotest Condition
• Design Condition Result:
Conclusion and
Allowable Defect Size (length x
Recommendation
depth x width) and location
 Global Analysis Results
Nodal Forces and Moments

FX FY FZ MX MY MZ
Descriptions
N N N Nm Nm Nm
Pipe A - Installation 0 -691 473291 0 0 0
Pipe A - Hydrotest 80 -691 0 -173 37292 0
Pipe A - Design 80 -648 -706381 -162 37292 0
Pipe A - Installation 0 -592 473291 0 0 0
Pipe B - Hydrotest 36 -592 0 -148 26956 0
Pipe B - Design 36 -546 -537951 -137 26956 0
Nodal Forces and Moments are used in the local analysis as an input.
 Local Analysis
Pipe Geometry Modelling, LC & BC

The loading conditions for local analysis can be classified into three
categories:
1. Nodal Forces and Moments
2. Residual Stress of manufacturing process
3. Internal Pressure

Fixed Support

Residual Stress

Internal Pressure

Nodal Forces and

Moments
Thank You