Proceedings of the Twenty-seventh (2017) International Ocean and Polar Engineering Conference www.isope.

org
San Francisco, CA, USA, June 25-30, 2017
Copyright 2017 by the International Society of Offshore and Polar Engineers (ISOPE)
ISBN 978-1-880653-97-5; ISSN 1098-6189

Fracture Mechanics-based Approach for Quantifying Corrosion Damage of Offshore Structures

Mohammad Zaidi. Ariffin
Nanyang Technological University (NTU) University of Southampton (UoS)
Singapore Southampton, United Kingdom
Zhongmin. Xiao
Nanyang Technological University (NTU)
Singapore
R. Ajit. Shenoi
University of Southampton (UoS) - Southampton Marine and Maritime Institute, Fluid Structure Interactions Group, Lloyds Register / Royal
Academy of Engineering Research
Southampton, United Kingdom

ABSTRACT
A fracture mechanics based approach is proposed to quantify the
influence of corrosion damage on structural integrity. This approach
investigates the corrosion surface for geometrical structural change
consisting of a general thickness reduction combined with localised
stress concentration where cracks are predicted to initiate or have
already initiated from pitting. It comprises a numerical model of
corroded SENT specimens of high strength offshore steel which is then
validated against Thermoelastic Stress Analysis (TSA) and Digital
Image Correlation (DIC) experimental results. With this validation, this
concept can provide a basis for a complete test program using
numerical method combined with in-situ inspection capabilities to
estimate the remaining strength the corroded material.
KEY WORDS: Fracture Mechanics, Corrosion, Thermoelastic Stress
Analysis, Digital Image Correlation, Offshore Structures
INTRODUCTION
Offshore structures, pipelines and ships are exposed to the seawater
environment which leads to corrosion damage. Furthermore, pitting
causes high stress intensity regions that possibly develops into cracks
(Turnbull, Wright et al. 2010). Since corrosion can lead to structural
strength degradation and fatigue cracks, the integrity of such structures
can be considerably affected (Wang, Wharton et al. 2014). As such,
corrosion defects are commonly evaluated using the defect geometry
and a plastic collapse-based criterion applying methods such as DNV-
RP-F101 (Veritas 2010), while several codes exist to evaluate cracks
including BS 7910 (Institution 2013). Recently, a hybrid defect known
as Crack-in-Corrosion (CIC) (Bedairi, Cronin et al. 2012) has been
identified and investigated to determine the integrity evaluation of
corroded pipelines. If safety of these corroded marine platforms is to be
ensured, taking into consideration such CIC defects and pitting with
high stress concentration that may develops into cracks, a fracture
mechanics based approach may have to be applied to evaluate the
effects of corrosion on the strength of these structures (Zhang, Tan et
al. 2015). By modelling the corrosion surface for geometrical structural
change consisting of a general thickness reduction combined with an
equivalent crack due to localised stress concentration of pitting, the
influence of corrosion damage on structural integrity can be quantified
using fracture mechanics parameters such as the Stress Intensity Factor,
K, and the J-integral. Hence, this paper presents a numerical model of
corrosion damage which is then checked against experimental results.
With this model validated, a test program combined with inspection
capabilities is proposed.
PROPOSED MODEL OF CORROSION DAMAGE
To maximise asset management of ageing system, measurement and
prediction of damage development during life through numerical
methods to predict performance and remnant strength is vital (Cosham,
Hopkins et al. 2007). An initial damage assumption is required to apply
fracture mechanics to evaluate corrosion. To approximate this, it can be
modelled as a combination of the following two geometric changes:
1) Uniform damage: a general thickness reduction of area that
increases stress in the remaining structure (represented by c and d)
2) Local pitting-crack: High stress concentration and cracks can be
found at the corrosion locations with localised pitting. The
deepest/largest crack will then be considered. However, if no such
cracks are found, the highest stress concentration location can be
considered as an equivalent crack (represented by 2a).
This can be seen in Fig. 1 where the corroded area can be taken as
uniform damage (as represented by the dashed lines) and the local
pitting-crack is represented by a through crack with crack length, 2a. In
other words, this models a CIC situation. With such a proposed model,
it must be proven that numerical methods can predict results of these
actual corroded specimens. A simple corroded plate specimen with
through-crack is considered for an initial study of the application of
fracture mechanics to quantify corrosion damage.

376

Fig. 1 Geometric model of corrosion damage (l is the length, d is the
depth of corrosion, c is the width of the corroded area, t is the thickness
of the material and 2a is the crack length)
Firstly, nonlinear 3-D finite element analysis is conducted on corroded
high strength offshore steel coupon specimens (130mm long, 30mm
wide and 4mm thick) of EN10225 offshore steel. Fig. 2 shows the
dimensions of the corroded cracked specimen. The J-integral and Stress
Intensity Factor, K, are then obtained as basis of comparison for the
fracture toughness. Then, to validate these numerical results, full-field
measurement techniques, Thermoelastic Stress Analysis (TSA) and
Digital Image Correlation (DIC), are utilised as novel methodologies to
investigate the remnant strength of these offshore steel. These two
methods are chosen as it provides a non-intrusive method of
investigating the stress intensity factor and J-integral. Traditional
methods such as clip gauging and strain gauges would require
additional clip-in gauges and strain gauges which must be placed on the
specimen itself (at the crack opening or bonded onto specimen).
Fig. 2 Dimensions of corroded pre-crack specimen
However, it is to be noted that this is simplified with only corrosion
depth parameter varied while corroded area remains the equal. In
377
addition, through-cracks are considered as the equivalent cracks as a
basis for this study, instead of semi-elliptical or penny-shaped cracks
due to manufacturing constraints.
NUMERICAL ANALYSIS
Numerical Model
The finite element method (FEM) has been extensively utilised to
predict the failure pressures in corrosion and crack defects (Zhang,
Ariffin et al. 2014). ABAQUS 6.14 was used to model the coupon
specimen with the defects to predict the fracture parameters K and J-
integral. The 20-node reduced integration quadratic elements were used
with a focused spider web mesh (TL. 2005) shown in Fig. 3 for the
crack tip region.
Fig. 3 Spider web mesh at crack tip region
A typical FE model for the damage coupon specimen had
approximately 12 000 16 000 elements. The schematic diagram for
the boundary conditions is shown in Fig. 4. The general thickness
reduction model of uniform corrosion is numerically run with the
maximum stress and average stress on the coupon compared for
varying corrosion depth (0.1 - 2mm). Then, CIC cases are analysed
with varying crack lengths (4, 5 and 6mm). A total of 30 models
configurations were considered. 30 contours were taken from the crack
tip to ensure the convergence of the value for J-integral and Stress
Intensity Factor, K.
Fig. 4 Boundary and load conditions of model (U1 is in the x-direction,
U3 is in the z-direction and P is the pressure)

Material Properties

The isotropic power-law hardening model was adopted to characterize Fig. 6 Specimen after corrosion
the uniaxial true stress-strain relationship of EN10225 offshore steel,
written as The specimens were then washed and prepared using ASTM G1-03
(Standard 2004). Here, TSA is utilised under cyclic load to predict the
(1) extent of corrosion damage in terms of cracks Stress Intensity Factor,
K. TSA is a non-contacting technique that provides full field stress
where is the yield stress, is the corresponding yield maps from the surface of cyclically loaded components (Stanley and
strain, E is the Youngs modulus and n is the hardening exponent. In DulieuSmith 1996). It measures small temperature changes induced
the analyses, the Youngs modulus, E, was taken as 211 GPa while the because of cyclic load. For cracking problem, it computes cyclic stress
Poissons ratio v was assumed to be 0.3. The true stress-strain response field ahead of the crack-tip; makes it possible to evaluate the actual
for the pipeline material is shown in Fig. 5. This is done using strain crack driving force. Hence, coupons are cyclically loaded with an
gauges and guidelines of ASTM E8/E8M (Standard). amplitude of 5kN at about a mean load of 10kN with loading
frequency of 10 Hz using an Instron 8032 servo-hydraulic test machine
with a load capacity of 100kN. The coupons were first sprayed with a 3
700
passes of matt black paint coating with an estimate thickness of 16 20
microns. A Cedip Silver infrared detector system was used. This is to
600
obtain the mean temperature, T, and the change in temperature,
which is then used to calculate the thermoelastic constant, k using the
500
following relation
(2)
Stress (MPa)

400
Specimen and setup are prepared as shown in Fig. 7 respectively.
300

200

100 Strain Gauge

Curve Fit

0
0.00 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03 0.035

Strain (mm/mm)
Fig. 5 Stress vs. Strain graph of EN10225 offshore steel

In this Fig. 5, the symbols represent the experimental data, and the solid
line denotes the Least Square Fitting of the data. In addition, yield
stress ( of 585MPa and hardening exponent n of 0.0315 were
obtained for isotropic hardening behavior based on the uniaxial tension
tests. It should be noted that in the present work, the ratio of the
ultimate tensile strength to yield stress was estimated at
0.935 based on the experimental data.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Validation of numerical results using Thermoelastic Stress Analysis

(TSA) and Digital Image Correlation (DIC)

Thermoelastic Stress Analysis (TSA)

2 fatigue pre-cracked coupon specimens with varying crack sizes, a
(between 4 to 6mm), are immersed in solution of 3.5wt% NaCl in
distilled water for a period of 4 weeks. This provided an artificial
corrosion of 0.1mm depth. Such a corrosion specimen sample is shown
in Fig. 6.
Fig. 7 a) Specimen sprayed with black matt paint for TSA b) TSA
experimental setup
Before the samples were tested, the technique was initially used to
obtain the thermoelastic constant, k. Thus, the thermoelastic constant
for this material is 3.40 x 10-12 0.03 Pa-1. An example of the full-field
stress from this technique can be seen in Fig. 8. Higher stresses are
observed around the crack-tip with lower stresses along the crack itself.
The crack-tip is estimated at the point of highest stress which enables
the calculation of the crack length.

378
 1.7e+7

Numerical Solutions
TSA

Stress Intensity Factor (Pa.m )

1.6e+7

0.5
1.5e+7

1.4e+7

1.3e+7

1.2e+7
3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5

Crack Length (mm)

Fig. 8 Stress map around the crack tip for 10kN with crack length of
4.6mm
Using the known thermoelastic constant, specimens are corroded to 2
various depth of 0.10mm and 0.25mm. The average stress of these
specimens is then experimentally obtained using TSA as can be seen in
Fig. 9. Numerical solution stresses based on the model proposed fit
well within the error bars of the experimental stresses attained. As such,
with this similar stresses obtained, stress field obtained from TSA
provides a good accuracy for calculation of Stress Intensity Factor, K.
Fig. 10 Stress Intensity Factor vs Crack length for uncorroded specimen
From Fig 10, it shows that for crack length 4.2mm and 4.55mm, the
experimental stress intensity factor is within 2.5% from the numerical
curve fit value. However, for cracks of 5.8 and 6.1mm, the
experimental K is at least 12% lower than the numerical curve fit value.
This might be due to the TSA technique being sensitive to plastic
deformation near the crack tip, thus this non-adiabatic condition limits
the accurate representation of stresses near the crack region for K to be
calculated. Per se, it will be expected that for the corroded specimen for
cracks of 6mm, K experimentally calculated will be lower than
numerical estimates.

90
1.8e+7
Numerical Solutions
TSA Numerical Solutions
89
TSA
1.7e+7
Stress Intensity Factor (Pa.m )
0.5

88
1.6e+7
Stress (MPa)

87
1.5e+7

86
1.4e+7

85
1.3e+7

84 1.2e+7
0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5
Depth of Corrosion (mm) Crack Length (mm)
Fig. 9 Numerical and TSA obtained Stress vs depth of corrosion Fig. 11 Stress Intensity Factor vs Crack length for corroded specimen
(0.1mm depth)

To check the validity of the stress intensity obtained through TSA, TSA
were conducted on pre-cracked specimens without corrosion. Various
crack lengths ranging from 4.2 to 6.1mm were investigated. The stress
intensity factor, , can be calculated from TSA stress field using the
following relationship
(3)
where is the change in temperature, is the mean temperature, is
the thermoelastic constant and r is the distance away from the crack-tip.
With cracks of 4.2 and 6.1mm, the specimens are corroded to 0.1mm
depth. Referring to Fig. 11, TSA provides good estimation for crack
length of 4.2mm, like the ones observed without corrosion. As
expected, longer crack length of 6.1mm shows lower by 14.3%.
Consequently, TSA technique provided a full-field stress analysis
technique that allows to calculate experimentally the stress intensity
factor which validates the numerical solutions for crack lengths of 4mm
but has a limitation to provide any validation for crack lengths of 6mm.

379
Digital Image Correlation (DIC)

To overcome the short comings of TSA for crack lengths of 6mm, 2-D
Digital Image Correlation (DIC) was employed to observe the J-
integral of the cracks as measures of the fracture toughness of these (5b)
coupons. DIC allows visualization and quantification of deformation
(strain) of an object (Crammond, Boyd et al. 2014). The commercial where is the xx-direction strain, is the yy-direction strain, is
software LaVisiaon DaVis correlation software was used in all the xy-direction strain, is the y-direction displacement, is
analyses. A 5 Mp 12 bit monochromatic LaVision E-lite camera with a
Poissons ratio, with Equation 5a taking a summation of the various
Sigma 105 mm lens attached together with a LED ring flash light was
contours around the crack tip.
set up to obtain the experimental images and consistent illumination of
specimen for data collection. The specimens were sprayed white with
The DIC data provided various vector and strain data such as , ,
black speckles and DIC setup can be seen in Fig, 12.
and ; Fig. 13 provides an example of from DIC captured
strain data. With these field data, this excel spreadsheet creates the
visual calculation for each pixel with the summation of the pixel values
to obtain the contour and area integrals.

Fig. 13 Strain map around the crack tip

Like TSA, DIC was first utilised on non-corroded specimens with crack
length of 4.55 and 5.8mm. Using Equation 5, the J-integral was
calculated for these 2 crack lengths.
Fig. 12 a) Specimen sprayed with white and black speckles for DIC b)
DIC experimental setup 1400

Numerical Solutions
As DIC processing is sensitive to its subset and step sizes, an initial 1300 TSA
check on the various step and subset size is conducted with the subset
1200
size of 41x41 and step size of 15 chosen for this study. Following that,
J-integral can be calculated from the DIC data. There has been research
J-Integral (m.Pa)

1100
done using J-integral and DIC such as JMAN (Barhli, Hollis et al.
2015) and others (Becker, Mostafavi et al. 2012). Hence, an in-house 1000
excel spreadsheet was created and used to calculate the J-integral using
the following Equation 4; 900

800
(4)
where is the strain energy, is the dot product traction, is along 700
the contour path. Equation 4 is then discretised to
600
3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5
(5a)
Crack Length (mm)
Fig. 14 J-Integral vs Crack length for uncorroded specimen

380
From the plot of J-Integral against crack length for uncorroded
specimen in Fig. 14, the J-integral calculated using strain field data
from DIC are 6% and 10% lower (respectively) than the numerical
calculated values. This provided sufficient confidence to continue the
experiment for corroding the specimen to 0.1mm depth. The J-integral
against crack length for corroded specimen was plotted in Fig. 15.

1500

Numerical Solutions
1400 DIC

1300
J-Integral (m.Pa)

1200

1100

1000

900 Fig. 16 Von Mises Stress for uncorroded numerical model a = 6mm
800
The stress intensity factors, K, and J-integral were analysed for various
700
depth of corrosion between 0 2mm and crack length of 4 and 6mm.
3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 The K and J-integral were plotted against the depth of corrosion and
Crack Length (mm)
compared with the handbook solution values in Fig. 17 to 20.
Fig. 15 J-Integral vs Crack length for corroded specimen (0.1mm
depth) 3.5e+7

Handbook Solutions for 4mm crack

With 0.1mm corrosion, the DIC data provided a good estimation of the Numerical Solutions for 4mm crack
J-integral. The J-integral calculated for crack length 4.2 and 6.1mm are 3.0e+7
Stress Intensity Factor (Pa.m )
0.5

between 6 8% in difference from the numerical curve fit values of the

J-integral. This difference is similar as the TSA-calculated and
numerical model stress intensity factor for crack length 4.2mm in Fig 2.5e+7
10. Thus, this provides a good validation for the numerical model of
crack lengths between 4 to 6mm. However, these two techniques only
provided sufficient validation for the fracture parameters of crack 2.0e+7

lengths up to 4mm obtained through the numerical modelling. Since

artificially corroding these steel specimen takes a considerable amount
1.5e+7
of time, only 0.1mm depth of corrosion could be induced for the
specimen. However, these experiment data still provided ample
validation for using the numerical model concept.
1.0e+7
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
Comparison of numerical fracture parameters with handbook
Depth of Corrosion (mm)
calculations
Fig. 17 K vs Depth of Corrosion for a = 4mm specimen
With the 30 numerical model configurations, the fracture parameters (K
and J-integral) are compared against the stress intensity factors, K, 7e+7
handbook solutions (Tada, Paris et al. 1973) given in Equation 6 and Handbook Solutions for 6mm crack
Equation 7; Numerical Solutions for 6mm crack
6e+7
Stress Intensity Factor (Pa.m )
0.5

5e+7
(6)
(7) 4e+7

where is the load, is the thickness, is the width, is the crack

length and is the youngs modulus. Equation 7 assumes that fracture 3e+7
analysis is linear elastic. This is to observe if there are any difference in
the fracture parameters if it is further simplified as just an overall 2e+7
specimen reduction in thickness with a crack (a reduced thickness
SENT specimen). The stress around the crack tip, with contours taken
1e+7
around the crack tip along the nodes for the calculation of K and J-
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
integral, can be seen in Fig. 16.
Depth of Corrosion (mm)

381
Fig. 18 K vs Depth of Corrosion for a = 6mm specimen

4500 10000

Handbook Solutions for 4mm crack a = 4mm

4000 Numerical Solutions for 4mm crack a = 5mm
8000 a = 6mm

3500

J-Integral (m.Pa)
J-Integral (m.Pa)

3000 6000

2500
4000
2000

1500 2000

1000

0
500 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
Depth of Corrosion (mm)
Depth of Corrosion (mm) Fig. 21 J-Integral vs Depth of Corrosion for a = 4, 5 & 6mm specimen
Fig. 19 J-Integral vs Depth of Corrosion for a = 4mm specimen
Proposed Test Program

10000
With non-destructive and intrusive techniques, such as TSA and DIC, it
is possible for in-situ inspection of corroded structures. This paper
Handbook Solutions for 6mm crack
Numerical Solutions for 6mm crack
provides a basis of procedure that could be further be used in industry
8000
where numerical modelling with full-field techniques can be used
together to have a comprehensive structural analysis of corroded
structures.
J-Integral (m.Pa)

6000

4000

2000

0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0

Depth of Corrosion (mm)

Fig. 20 J-Integral vs Depth of Corrosion for a = 6mm specimen

It can be seen from Fig. 17 to 20 that for corrosion depth of 0.5mm and
below, the numerical calculated fracture parameter values differ from
handbook solutions within the range of 2 10% for both crack lengths.
With increasing corrosion depth, these differences increase with a
significant difference occurring more for the 6mm crack length (at
2.0mm depth, difference of 97% for K and 82% for J-integral). This
difference could be because of the corroded area dimensions as the
boundary of the corroded area was having more effect on the stress
field around the crack tip. Thus, it is not a simple case of implying that
SENT handbook solutions can represent corroded damage specimen
without taking in consideration the length and width of corroded area,
especially for depth of more than 0.5mm.
Furthermore, plotting crack length 4, 5 and 6mm J-integral against
depth of corrosion in Fig. 21, the increase in J-integral trend are similar
with increasing depth of corrosion. This is expected as the longer crack
length will have a consistently higher J-integral. As such, to have a
more comprehensive analysis of the fracture parameters of such
corroded structures, numerical modelling is a good recommendation to
be utilised.
Fig. 22 Schematics of proposed test program on offshore pipelines
Referring to Fig. 22, an example that can be applied in the offshore
industry would be for the offshore pipelines where pigging systems can
employ TSA and DIC techniques to detect corroded damaged structures
and analyse the stress and strain fields around it. With the obtained
stress and strain data, numerical modelling can then be utilised to
provide various iterations of the conditions (load, etc.) which then
validate back by the inspection data provided by TSA and DIC
techniques. This will therefore provide a complete analysis and
quantifying the corrosion damage on the offshore pipeline based on
fracture mechanics.
CONCLUSIONS
The proposed fracture mechanics based approach was shown to
quantify the influence of corrosion damage on structural integrity. This
approach investigates the corrosion surface for geometrical structural
change consisting of a general thickness reduction combined with

382
localised pitting-crack where cracks are predicted to initiate or initiated
from pitting. These two parameters enable quantification of the damage
and the application of fracture mechanics principles to corrosion
damage.
A numerical model concept was validated against TSA and DIC
experimental results of coupon specimens for corrosion depth of 0.1mm
with varying cracks (length between 4 to 6.1mm). Comparison of Stress
Intensity Factor, K, & J-integral with experimental shows good validity
of numerical model proposed to quantify corrosion damage of offshore
steel. As such, 30 numerical models of varying corrosion depth (0 to
2mm) and crack length (4, 5 and 6mm) were carried out and the results
showed a consistent trend with the handbook solutions. However, for
corrosion deeper than 0.5mm, numerical solutions calculated a higher K
and J-integral as compared with handbook solutions which leads to the
importance of employing numerical solutions for accurate
representation of the corroded damage material/structure.
With this validation, this concept will be able to provide a numerical
method to estimate the remaining strength the material can withstand
due to expected loads without failure. For engineers, the investigation
results demonstrate good confidence in applying these testing
techniques in ensuring a more robust damage-tolerant design for
offshore structures.
REFERENCES
Barhli, S., D. Hollis, B. Wieneke, M. Mostafavi and T. Marrow (2015).
Advanced 2D and 3D Digital Image Correlation of the Full-Field
Displacements of Cracks and Defects. Evaluation of Existing and
New Sensor Technologies for Fatigue, Fracture and Mechanical
Testing, ASTM International.
Becker, T., M. Mostafavi, R. Tait and T. Marrow (2012). "An approach
to calculate the Jintegral by digital image correlation displacement
field measurement." Fatigue & Fracture of Engineering Materials &
Structures 35(10): 971-984.
Bedairi, B., D. Cronin, A. Hosseini and A. Plumtree (2012). "Failure
prediction for Crack-in-Corrosion defects in natural gas transmission
pipelines." International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 96
383
97: 90-99.
Cosham, A., P. Hopkins and K. Macdonald (2007). "Best practice for
the assessment of defects in pipelinesCorrosion." Engineering
Failure Analysis 14(7): 1245-1265.
Crammond, G., S. Boyd and J. Dulieu-Barton (2014). "Evaluating the
localised through-thickness load transfer and damage initiation in a
composite joint using digital image correlation." Composites Part A:
Applied Science and Manufacturing 61: 224-234.
Institution, B. S. (2013). BS7910:2013. Guide to methods for assessing
the acceptability of flaws in metallic structures. London.
Standard, A. E8/E8M, 2013a," Standard Test Methods for Tension
Testing of Metallic Materials," ASTM International, West
Conshohocken, PA, 2013, DOI: 10.1520/E0008_E0008M.
Standard, A. (2004). "Standard practice for preparing, cleaning, and
evaluating corrosion test specimens." American Society for Testing
and Materials G1-03.
Stanley, P. and J. DulieuSmith (1996). "The determination of crack-tip
parameters from thermoelastic data." Experimental Techniques 20(2):
21-23.
Tada, H., P. C. Paris and G. R. Irwin (1973). "The stress analysis of
cracks." Del Research Corp, Hellertown PA.
TL., A. (2005). Fracture mechanics: fundamentals and applications 3rd
edition, CRC Press.
Turnbull, A., Wright, L., & Crocker, L. (2010). New insight into the
pit-to-crack transition from finite element analysis of the stress and
strain distribution around a corrosion pit. Corrosion Science, 52(4),
1492-1498.
Veritas, D. N. (2010). "Recommended Practice DNV-RP-F101
Corroded Pipelines." Hovik, Norway 11.
Wang, Y., J. A. Wharton and R. A. Shenoi (2014). "Ultimate strength
analysis of aged steel-plated structures exposed to marine corrosion
damage: A review." Corrosion Science 86: 42-60.
Zhang, Y., M. Ariffin, Z. Xiao, W. Zhang and Z. Huang (2014).
"Nonlinear elasticplastic stress investigation for two interacting 3D
cracks in offshore pipelines." Fatigue & Fracture of Engineering
Materials & Structures.
Zhang, Y., T. Tan, Z. Xiao, W. Zhang and M. Ariffin (2015). "Failure
assessment on offshore girth welded pipelines due to corrosion
defects." Fatigue & Fracture of Engineering Materials & Structures.