Pipeline Defect Assessment -- A Review & Comparison

of Commonly Used Methods

by John F. Kiefner and Keith Leewis

INTRODUCTION
Basic Methods
This document catalogs analysis methods and computational tools for addressing defects and
damage discovered on in-service pipelines. It includes example calculations where closed-form
algorithms are available in the public domain. It lists and describes solution techniques not
available in the public domain, and it provides information so that users can either acquire the
relevant software or pursue assistance regarding a particular defect assessment technique. The
methods reviewed herein are summarized below.
Methods for External or Internal Corrosion-Caused Metal Loss
Method
B31G
Modified B31G
MODB31G.XLS
PCORRC
API RP 579
Level 1
DNV RP-F101
KAPA

Availability
Public Domain
Public Domain
Public Domain
Public Domain
Public Domain

Principal Application
Evaluation of ILI data
Evaluation of ILI data
Remaining life prediction
Evaluation of ILI data
Evaluation of ILI data

Public Domain
Public Domain

RSTRENG

PRCI (license
agreement for
user)
PRCI (license
agreement for
user)

Evaluation of ILI data

Improved predictions
based on effective area
of metal missing
Improved predictions
based on effective area
of metal missing
Improved predictions
based on effective area
of metal missing, variable
axial load is considered

PCORR

Validation
These methods have been
validated by means of fullscale pressure tests of
corroded pipes or pipes
containing corrosionsimulating defects. The
tests were conducted on
pipes ranging from 8-inch
to 36-inch in diameter, and
materials ranging from
Grade A through X80.
The full-scale data are
presented in References
18, 19, 20, and 24.
Confidence levels and
comparisons of the
methods may be found in
Reference 24.

PR218-05404

Methods for Longitudinally-Oriented Cracks (non-indented pipe)

Method
Modified Ln-Sec
Equation

Availability
Public domain

MRECTANG.XLS Public domain

MELIPCEQ.XLS

Public domain

MREALELIP.XLS Public domain

KAPA (Modified
Ln-Sec Equation
solved iteratively)
COR-LAStm

PAFFC

API RP 579
Level II (FAD)

Public domain

DNV
Columbus
(purchase
software)
PRCI (purchase
software)

API standard

PD 6493

British
Standard

BS 7910

British
Standard

PDAM

Propietary
(Penspen
Integrity)

Principal
Application
Failure pressure based
on crack length and
depth and CVN-based
toughness
Remaining life
prediction
Remaining life
prediction
Remaining life
prediction
Failure pressure based
on effective crack
profile and CVNbased toughness
Failure pressure based
on effective crack
profile and CVN- or
J-based toughness and
remaining life
predictions
Failure pressure based
on crack length and
depth and CVN- or Jbased toughness and
remaining life
predictions
Failure pressure based
on, crack length and
depth and CVN- or Jbased toughness
BS PD 6493:1991
Guidance on Methods
for Assessing the
Acceptability of
Flaws in Fusion
Welded Structures.
BS 7910:1999: Guide
on methods for
assessing the
acceptability of flaws
in metallic structures
Pipeline Defect
Assessment Manual

Validation
These methods have been
validated by means of
full-scale pressure test of
pipes containing
simulated axial defects.
The diameters of the test
specimens ranged from 6
inch es to 42 inches, and
the materials ranged from
Grade B through X80.
The test data is available
in References 10, 13 and
14. Confidence limits are
presented herein (see
Figure 6).
Full description of
capabilities and validation
are discussed in
References 30 and 31.
Full description of
capabilities and validation
are discussed in
References 28 and 29.
The methods presented in
these standards are based
on many of the same
references presented in
the list of references in
this report.

Validationa and
confidence levels are
provided in the document.

Methods for Dents and Mechanical Damage

Method
EPRG
Model

Availability
Principal Application
Public Domain Dents containing gouges
(depth of re-rounding
cracks should be taken
into account)

Battelle Qfactor
model

Public Domain Dents containing gouges

(depth of re-rounding
cracks should be taken
into account)

Validation
The simplified model
appears to adequately
conservative if rerounding crack depth is
added to gouge depth
Supporting data is
presented in Reference
41, however, the
method does not seem
to have been rigorously
validated.

Method for Calculating Strain in a Dent

Method
ASME
B31.8
Appendix R

Availability
ASME
standard

Principal Application
Calculate strain in dent
based on curvature

Validation
The method is based
on well-accepted
mechanics of materials
principles.

Methods for Estimating the Fatigue Life of a Dent

Method
Specific
approach
based on
recent
papers

Availability
Presented
herein

Principal Application
Acceptance criteria for
smooth dent in liquid line

Validation
These methods should
be considered
experimental at this
time because of
scarcity of validating
full-scale test data.

Methods for Circumferentially-Oriented Defects

Name
Wangs
FAD-based
approach

Availability
Proposed to
replace API
Standard 1104,
Appendix A

Principal Application
Cracks in girth welds

CSA
Z662,
App K

CSA standard

Planar defects in girth

welds

EPRG
Guidelines

Public Domain

Defects in Girth Welds

Validation
These methods have
been validated by
means of full-scale
tests described in
References 79, 80, and
81.
Explained in PDAM
(Reference 25) and
not discussed in this
document.

This document is intended to provide the user with basic tools for defect assessment when the
information available includes knowledge of the applied static stress levels in the pipe, the
material properties (strength and toughness), and the dimensions of the defect. The methods
described herein can be useful for assessing the severity of a particular anomaly in a pipe as to

whether or not repair or removal is warranted, for prioritizing in-line-inspection (ILI) data, and
for making remaining life assessments. It is recognized that situations will arise from time to
time where these methods may prove inadequate because of the complexity of the stress state,
the uncertainty as to the effective dimensions of the defect, the exitence of conditions not
accounted for in the basic models, or the existence of time-varying strain or loading conditions.
In such situations the user may be compelled to employ more advanced analysis methods or to
seek expert technical advice. Some recommendations for guidance in these situations are as
follows.

Complex Loading
For situations where both internal pressure and axial load may influence calculated failure
pressures, one may consult References 25, 94, 95, and 96.

Multiple Defect Interaction

Simple rules for the interaction of closely-spaced corrosion anomalies are presented both in
ASME B31.4 2006 and CSA Z662 2003. The interaction rules in ASME B31.4 are based on
experiments with multiple defects decribed in Fracture Initiation. J.F. Kiefner,
4th Symposium on Line Pipe Research, Dallas Texas, November, 18-19, 1969, Pipeline Research
Committee of American Gas Association, Catalog No 30075. Because the experiments involved
machined surface flaws, the authors believe that the B31.4 interaction rules are applicable to
cracks as well as to metal loss anomalies.

Pressure-Cycle-Induced Fatigue
Where pressure-cycle-induced fatigue may be a factor in the remaining life of a pipeline, one
may consult the following public-domain document for guidance:
TTO Number 5, Integrity Management Program Delivery Order DTRS56-02-2-70036, Low
Frequency ERW and Lap Welded Longitudinal Seam Evaluation, by Michael J. Baker, Kiefner and
Associates, Inc. and CorrMet Engineering Services, PC, for the Department of Transportation,
Research and Special Programs Administration, Office of Pipeline Safety, October, 2003 (Revised
April 2004).

Time-Dependent Strain
The software program PAFFC described in References 28 and 29 has capabilities to examine the
time-dependent strains at defects associated with steady-state or time varying loads.

Technical Expertise
A number of consulting firms have advanced capabilities for the analysis of defect behavior.
Names of specific firms are not provided herein because it would be too easy to inadvertently

leave out some. Instead, it is noted that the list of references provides names of many current
experts in the field of defect assessment. These individuals and the companies with which they
are associated have techniques for advance analysis and can often provide answers for situations
that cannot be adequately assessed by means of the basic methods presented in this document.

Organization of This Document

This document is divided into two sections: BACKGROUND and EXAMPLES. The
background section presents descriptions of the various models and how they evolved. The
examples can be used as guidance for a particular defect evaluation need.

Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Bob Francini and Harvey Haines for their careful review and
helpful suggestions regarding this report. The authors would also like to thank Dave Warman
and Kolin Kolovich for assistance in setting up and assessing the software associated with some
of the models. Particular thanks go to Kolin Kolovich for also updating the spreadsheets and
KAPA program to accommodate the Modified Ln-Sec equations. Also, the authors are
extremely appreciative of the thorough review and valuable added material related to the
evaluation of dents provided by Mike Rosenfeld. Finally the authors are grateful for the
thorough review and comments provided by David Batte, Richard Espiner, and Tom
Zimmerman.