1st Quarter, 2014
An assessment of the effect of
steel pipeline wall losses on the
maximum allowable operating
pressure of a gas pipeline
by Dr Maciej Witek
Department of Heat and Gas Engineering Systems, Warsaw University of Technology, Warsaw,
Poland
I NTERNAL AND EXTERNAL wall defects in steel
pipelines with a maximum operating pressure (MOP)
above 1.6 MPa can be classified as follows:
• material losses resulting in a reduction of wall
thickness, for example as a consequence of
electrochemical corrosion caused by oxidation,
or caused by either direct or alternating current
at locations of damaged insulation;
• geometric shape defects caused by mechanical
damage, such as dents or ovality;
• cracks caused, for example, by stress corrosion
or fatigue;
• other types of defect caused during pipe
manufacture or welding imperfections, such as
delamination or inadequate weld penetration in
the joints.
In practice, more than a single defect can be found
at a particular location on a steel pipeline: wall
damage such as corrosion, as well as different types
of defect, such as a dent with wall thinning, may
occur simultaneously. The majority of pipeline wall
defects detailed above can be detected in the operating
phase by internal examination performed using various
inspection devices. Among the inspection methods used
for pipelines with an MOP greater than 1.6 MPa on
a commercial scale [1], inspections using intelligent
tools provide the most data, with the proviso that the
individual technologies used are each designed for the
detection of different types of defect. The selection of
a testing method depends on the experience gained
from previous inspections, and particularly on the
type of wall damage anticipated based on the available
operational data. In some instances, it is justifiable to
combine two inspection technologies during a single
Author’s contact details:
tel: +48 22 76 70 984
email: maciej_witek@is.pw.edu.pl
37
tool run, for example the combination of magnetic
and gyroroscopic technologies.
The present state of gas pipeline
inspection technologies using
inspection tools
At the present stage of development of diagnostics
using inspection tools, the following technologies can
be used by a gas network operator for the assessment
of the technical condition of high-pressure gas pipelines
in the operation phase, in compliance with the rules
set out in Ref.2:
• internal geometry examination with a calibration
tool operating on the swing-arm deflection
principle, or by the eddy-current-based contactless
method;
• inspection using the magnetic-flux leakage (MFL)
method, either in standard resolution (SR) or
high resolution (HR);
• examination with magnetic-flux leakage transverse-
field inspection (TFI) tools, which have been
developed especially for detecting defects in
factory-made longitudinal welds, opened cracks,
and material losses oriented in parallel to the pipe
axis, with a circumferential dimension (width) of
up to 10% of the wall thickness, which cannot
be detected with the MFL HR technologies;
• examination with eddy-current-based shallow-
internal-corrosion (SIC) tools, developed specially
for the detection of internal gas pipeline wall
defects up to 10 mm deep, which are detectable
with a lower level of confidence using the MFL
HR technology;
• inspection by guided waves using electromagnetic-
acoustic transducers (EMAT), designed for the
detection of wall cracks in gas pipelines, and
stress-corrosion cracking (SCC) and fatigue cracks
in particular;
38
• survey with ultrasonic inspection tools to
detect cracks in gas pipeline walls and welds,
and in particular SCC and fatigue cracks,
whose use in gas pipelines involves a liquid
coupling medium between the sensors and the
steel surface;
• examination with leak-detection tools, enabling
the detection and location of gas leaks by acoustic
or pressure-gradient measurement methods;
• examination with gyroscopic inspection tools
to determine, using lasers, the gas pipeline
running profile in the horizontal and vertical
planes by determining the coordinates in the
GPS (x,y,z) system.
The Journal of Pipeline Engineering
Fig.1. Photograph of a wall defect formed
during pipe manufacture, detected using
a magnetic-inspection tool.
Fig.2. Photograph of a corrosion defect
detected with a magnetic-inspection tool.
It should be noted that no diagnostic tools have been
developed so far – on a commercial scale – which
would enable the detection of insulation defects. Also,
with the use of inspection tools, it is not possible to
determine the pipeline depth of cover or soil coverage
thickness, but only to calculate the pipe burial depth
by comparing the coordinates obtained from the
gyroscopic inspection tool with the ground elevation
determined by geodesic methods. In the Polish gas
network, internal-geometry survey tools and MFL tools,
primarily detecting gas pipeline wall material losses, have
been employed to date: the assessment of their effect
on the gas pipeline operation parameters is subjected
to detailed analysis in this paper.
1st Quarter, 2014 39

d
2
3 d

t
t -- gas pipeline wall thickness

d
d 0.85 d

t
t

Fig.3. Cross-section of a model wall-loss defect in a gas Fig.4. Shape models of the wall-loss defect taken for
pipeline. calculation.

Analysis of gas pipeline wall-loss
defects
This type of damage, which involves a localized reduction
in the pipeline wall thickness, mainly comprises the
effects of the corrosion process and wall defects occurring
during pipe manufacture, which are primarily detectable
using MFL technology. An example of a wall loss in an
operating gas pipeline, formed during pipe manufacture
and detected with a magnetic inspection tool, is shown in
Fig.1, while an example of a defect caused by corrosion
is illustrated in Fig.2. A cross-section of a wall-loss defect
in a gas pipeline is shown in Fig.3.
Calculation methods for determining the significance of
a wall-loss defect in a gas pipeline subjected to static
pressure can be classified as follows:
The calculation results for specific sizes of
material loss were verified by laboratory tests by
comparing them with the results of destructive
pressure tests of pipe lengths containing
defects. Recent issues of the standard documents that
provide procedures for calculating the acceptability
of various flaw types for steel gas pipelines are
as follows:
• American Society of Mechanical Engineers
Standard ASME B31G:2009 Manual for
determining the remaining strength of corroded
pipelines: supplement to ASME B 31:2009 Code for
pressure piping [3];
• British Standard BSI BS 7910:2005 Guide
to methods for assessing the acceptability of flaws in
metallic structures [8].

1. Analysis of limiting stress states based on the In the assessment of the acceptability of a single wall-
allowable strains resulting from the wall material’s loss defect, the following equations (1-3), as provided in
yield stress values [3, 4, 5, 6, 7], with the proviso [3], are used to determine the circumferential stresses
that the pipes should have relatively smooth corresponding to a gas pipeline failure:
contours (bottom profile), as is normally the
case when considering the effects of σf
electrochemical corrosion. = 1.1M −1
2. Use of finite-element stress analysis (FESA) for Re for a defect in the entire wall cross-
the non-linear numerical computation of the section, i.e. when d = t;
components of permissible strains and stresses,
which makes it possible to take into account
2d
complex load states, as well as analysing the 1−
σf 3t
atypical shapes of wall losses that may occur at = 1.1
a single location on a gas pipeline [6, 8, 9]. Re 2 d −1
1− M
3. Employing fracture-mechanics’ methods using 3t for a partial gas pipeline wall loss
the FAD (failure-assessment diagram), while defect, when 0.1t < d < 0.8t and M ≤ 4.12;
regarding the wall loss as a notch [8, 10] in a
model approach.
40 The Journal of Pipeline Engineering

Dw
Defect no. Dz (mm) d (mm) t (mm) d/t (mm) L (mm) σf (MPa) Pf (MPa)

D1 711 6.7 10.0 0.67 691 24 380.99 10.72

D2 711 4.0 10.0 0.40 691 15 388.74 10.94

D3 711 3.7 10.0 0.37 691 49 376.59 10.59

D4 711 3.6 10.0 0.36 691 37 382.15 10.75

D5 711 3.2 10.0 0.32 691 13 389.51 10.96

D6 711 3.2 10.0 0.32 691 22 387.75 10.91

where:
Dw – gas pipeline inner diameter (mm);
The other designations are the same as in Equns 1-3.

Table 1. Calculation results for the defects detected by in-line MFL inspection of a gas pipeline with Dz = 711 mm,
MOP = 5.5 MPa.

σf d burst pressure, Pf, can be determined from the

= 1− transformed equation:
Re t
for a partial wall-loss defect, when
0.1t < d < 0.8t and M > 4.12; 2 ×σ f × t
Pf =
DZ (3)
where:
2
 L  There are many modifications of the above-mentioned
M = 1 + 0.8   limit-state method which enable the determination of a
 D ⋅t 
 Z  (2) wall-loss defect’s acceptability, and where the calculation
procedures are based on identical assumptions with
in which: the equations only differing in coefficients and the
defect-shape model [10].
σf = circumferential stress corresponding to gas
pipeline failure pressure (MPa); Later on in the paper, allowable-operating-pressure
Re = yield stress of the wall material of a given calculation results are provided for several defects
gas pipeline length (MPa); involving wall-thickness reductions, which were obtained
L = axial defect length (mm); using the standardized calculation method from ASME
d = defect depth (mm); B31G:2009, analysis level 1 [3]. For defects found as
Dz = pipe external diameter (mm); a result of the inspection of a DN-700 gas pipeline
t = design rated wall thickness of a given gas operated in Poland, and made of G-355 steel to the
pipeline length (mm). standard PN-79/H-74244 [11] with a yield strength of
Re = 355 MPa, calculations based on Equns 1-3 are
The material loss depth, d, is taken for calculation summarized in Table 1, where Dw is the gas pipeline’s
depending on the defect bottom shape, which is assumed internal diameter (mm), and the other designations are
in the ASME B31G method as parabolic or – in its the same as in Equns 1-3.
modified version – as rectangular, as shown in Fig.4.
The values of the reduced depth of a single defect An analysis of the relationships given in Equns 1
are indicated on the right-hand side of each of the and 2 indicates that the circumferential stresses, σf,
shape models. corresponding to the failure pressure of a gas pipeline
with a defect, when M < 4.12, may not exceed 110%
Knowing the circumferential stress, σf, as determined of the pipe steel’s yield strength, Re. At the same time,
from Equns 1 and 2, corresponding to the failure with the defect sizes given in Table 1, the effect of
of a gas pipeline with a wall-loss defect, the static defect depth and defect length on the circumferential
1st Quarter, 2014 41

0.9

0.8

0.7
D1
λ=1.10
0.6

0.5 λ=1.25
D2
d/t

0.4
D3
D5 D4
0.3 D6

0.2 λ=1.39

MS4.12
0.1

0
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00

L/(D2t)0.5

Fig.5. Diagram of the acceptability of 0.1t < d < 0.8t and M ≤ 4.12 flaws for partial wall-loss defects of a DN 700 gas
pipeline made of G-355 steel.

stress corresponding to the failure pressure of a given pressure-safety factor λ being chosen by the gas pipeline
gas pipeline length and, as a consequence, on the static operator, the expression for the critical value of the
burst pressure, is relatively small, as demonstrated by relative depth of a defect meeting the conditions 0.1t
the Pf pressure values, which are contained in a narrow < d < 0.8t and M ≤ 4.12 can be obtained, and will
range of 10.6-11.0 MPa. The limiting coefficient value have the form:
of M = 4.12, given in Equns 1 and 2, for a pipeline
diameter of Dz = 711 mm and wall thickness of
t = 10 mm, corresponds to a defect length equal to λ × MAOP × Dz
1.65 Re − 0.75
L = 380 mm. Only for defects exceeding this length d  t
  =
and the resulting value of M > 4.12 will the effect of t
 kr  −
1

the defect depth on the failure pressure be decisive.  λ × MAOP × Dz   L  2

1.1Re − 2t
1 + 0.8 
 Dt   
The significance of gas pipeline wall losses is best    z   
illustrated in the diagram of relative defect depth   (5)
d/t versus defect length L.
where the pressure-safety factor is defined by the
For a partial wall-loss defect, i.e. 0.1t < d < 0.8t and relationship:
M ≤ 4.12, a diagram can be plotted of the allowable
relative defect depth d/t as a function of the so-called
normalized defect length L/(Dz x t) 0.5, where, for a Pf
λ=
gas pipeline length with a constant diameter and wall MAOP (6)
thickness, the variable is L. To this end, Equns 1-3
can be transformed to:
In the Polish regulations concerning the technical
conditions to be met by gas pipeline networks [12], the
P × Dz MAOP means the maximum value of pressure to which
1.65 Re − 0.75 f
d  t a gas pipeline may be subjected. In view of the above,
 =
t  − 
1
it can be assumed that the MAOP value will either
 Pf × Dz   L  2 
exceed the MOP by the pressure increment resulting
1.1Re − 2t 1 + 0.8    
   Dz t    from the flow dynamics in an unsteady state, or will
  (4) have a value below the MOP, if this results from the
failure-pressure calculation, assuming the pressure-safety
After substituting the maximum-allowable operating factor accepted by the network operator. For a typical
pressure (MAOP) in Equn 4, with the acceptable high-pressure gas pipeline operating with circumferential
42
Standard Range of the required minimum yield strength in MPa
designation 235 – 245 289 – 295 317 – 355 –360
320
API Spec 5L/ B X42 X46 X52
ISO 3183 BN X42N X46N X52N
BM X42M X46M X52M
BQ X42Q X46Q X52Q
PN-EN L245NB L290NB – L360NB
10208-2 L245MB L290MB L360MB
L360QB
Table 2. A summary of steels designed for manufacturing pipes according to API/ISO and European EN standards [15, 16].
stresses in the range of 50-72% of the yield strength,
the λ factor for material-loss defects is taken from the
range of (1.1-1.39) as the limiting values resulting from
ASME B31.8S:2010 [3]. The diagram of the permissible
relative defect depth d/t as a function of L/(Dz × t)0.5
for the defects from Table 1 is shown in Fig.5, with
values of λ of 1.1, 1.25, and 1.39.
The data from Table 1 have been plotted in Fig.5: all
flaws lying below the (d/t)kr line for the λ factor value
assumed by the operator should be regarded as acceptable.
The higher the acceptable pressure-safety factor value
assumed by the gas pipeline operator, the narrower the
flaw-acceptability region, which is limited at the top by
the curve with the position resulting from the assumed λ
value. When assuming a higher pressure-safety factor value
for permissible gas pipeline operating pressure analyses,
such as λ = 1.39 (the inverse of the maximum design
factor value of fo = 0.72 according to PN-EN 1594:2011
[14]), the diagram of acceptability for the defects from
Table 1 will shift downwards, as shown in Fig.5. The
recommendations for the acceptability of flaws of a high-
pressure gas pipeline operated at circumferential pressures
in the range of 50-72% of the yield strength, depending
on the pressure-safety factor, are given in paragraphs A-C
below, based on the standard [13].
A. The operator shall be obliged to perform a direct
assessment (DA) of the defects within a period not
exceeding five days if diagnostic examination finds
corrosion defects in the wall of a gas pipeline
with a design pressure-safety factor of λ ≤ 1.1,
or should other flaws be detected which might
cause leaks or result in a burst of the pipeline
within a short time, as well as in case of finding
any metal losses in contact with factory-produced
longitudinal pipe seams made by one of the
following methods:
• direct-current welding;
• low-frequency electric-resistance welding; or
• electric-flash welding.
The Journal of Pipeline Engineering
385 – 413 – 415 445 – 450 480 – 485 553 – 675
390
X56 X60 X65 X70 X80
X56N X60N X65N X70N X80N
X56M X60M X65M X70M X80M
X56Q X60Q X65Q X70Q X80Q
– L415NB L450MB L485MB L555MB
L415MB L450QB L485QB L555QB
L415QB
The direct assessment of defects involves the
field detection of the location of the defect
and performance of a visual examination of
the damage with non-destructive tests, normally
ultrasonic tests. All flaws qualified for repair
– based on the DA – should be immediately
rectified, or the pipeline operating pressure
should be reduced. It is also set out in the
standard [13] that a gas pipeline that has defects
from this group can still be operated without
being repaired under a specific MAOP equal to
the MOP, depending on the results of a direct
assessment of the defects, of which none shall
exceed the critical size within the specified time
until the next inspection.
B. Wall defects of a gas pipeline with the λ factor
in the range of 1.1-1.25 should be periodically
assessed by the operator using DA until the next
in-line inspection, with the frequency depending
linearly on the λ value. In this case, the time
interval until the next inspection in accordance
with ASME B31.8S:2010 [13] shall not exceed
five years.
C. Wall defects of a gas pipeline with the λ factor
in the range 1.25-1.39 should be periodically
assessed by the operator using DA until the
next inspection with an inspection tool, with
the frequency depending linearly on the λ value.
In this case, the time interval until the next
inspection in accordance with ASME B31.8S:2010
[13] shall not exceed ten years.
The above method of analysing the acceptability of wall-
loss sizes depending on the maximum-allowable operating
pressure is called the fitness-for-purpose assessment (FPA)
of a gas pipeline, where the purpose is to transport the
gas at the required pressure and volume. In the FPA
analysis of a given high-pressure gas pipeline operated
with circumferential stresses of magnitudes above 50%
of the yield strength, the curves corresponding to the
1st Quarter, 2014
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
d/t
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 0.5 1 1.5
Fig.6. Diagram of the acceptability of 0.1t < d < 0.8t and M ≤ 4.12 flaws for partial wall-loss defects of a DN 600,
MOP = 8.4 MPa, gas pipeline made of L-485-MB steel.
pressure-safety factor values detailed above constitute
the reference values for the network operator, which
can be defined as below:
λ = 1.1 – burst curve
λ = 1.25 – repair curve
λ = 1.39 – defect-acceptability curve.
Gas pipelines made of thermo-
mechanically rolled steel
In the previous section, results are provided for the
circumferential stress corresponding to a failure and
the burst pressure of a high-pressure gas pipeline made
of alloy steel according to the 1979 material standard
formerly applicable in Poland. The steels currently used in
Europe for the manufacture of Class B linepipes intended
for high-pressure gas pipelines conform to the PN-EN
10208-2:2011 [15] standard, and are designated with the
letter ‘L’ and the number indicating the minimum yield
strength value expressed in MPa, for example ‘360’. The
subsequent letters have the following meaning:
N – normalized or normalizing-formed steel;
M – thermo-mechanically rolled steel; and
Q – toughened steel.
The final letter ‘B’ indicates that the steel meets the
enhanced quality requirements for Class B pipes. Modern
steels used for high-pressure gas pipelines should be
fully normalized and constructed using a technology
appropriate to fine-grained steel, and should meet
high requirements for important strength parameters,
for example the impact energy of a value above 30 J,
43
λ=1.39
D8 λ=1.65
D7 λ=2.00
MS4.12
2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
L/(Dzt) 0.5
as determined by the Charpy-V method for a single
specimen at a temperature of 0oC. Table 2 details steels
currently used for constructing gas pipelines according
to American and European standards.
In view of the significant improvement in recent years
in the quality of materials used for the manufacture
of pipes intended for steel gas pipelines, the question
arises: to what extent are the results of calculations for
the static pressure corresponding to a pipe burst at the
site of a defect, based on the ASME B31G:2009 [3],
valid for L485MB-grade high-strength thermo-mechanically
rolled steel to PN-EN 10208-2:2011 [15] and X70M
according to ISO 3183:2007 [16]?
In the following, a fitness-for-purpose assessment will
be made for two gas pipelines made from L480MB
steel conforming to PN-EN 10208-2:2011, with the
following parameters:
• Pipeline no. 2: Dz = 610 mm, MOP = 8.4 MPa,
t = 11.3 mm (the pipes made with no negative
wall thickness deviation), Re0.5min = 485 MPa;
these parameters indicate that the gas pipeline
will operate at circumferential stresses of up to
48% of the yield strength, which means the
design factor fo < 0.5.
• Pipeline no. 3: Dz = 914 mm, MOP = 8.4 MPa,
t = 13.4 mm (the pipes made with no negative
wall thickness deviation), Re0.5min = 485 MPa;
these parameters indicate that the gas pipeline
will operate at circumferential stresses of up to
61 % of the yield strength, which means the
design factor fo < 0.6.
44 The Journal of Pipeline Engineering

MAOPdop MAOPdop MAOPdop

Defect Re0.5min d t DZ L σf Pf
DN d/t M (MPa) (MPa) (MP)
no. (MPa) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (MPa) (MPa)
λ = 1.39 λ = 1.65 λ = 2.00
D7 485 600 4.10 11.3 0.35 610 210 2.47 450.54 16.69 12.01 10.12 8.35
D8 485 600 6.80 11.3 0.60 610 200 2.38 384.30 14.24 10.24 8.63 7.12

Table 3. A summary of defect-strength calculations for gas pipeline no.2, Dz = 610 mm, MOP = 8.4 MPa.

MAOPdop MAOPdop MAOPdop

Defect Re0.5min d t DZ L σf Pf
DN d/t M (MPa) (MPa) (MP)
no. (MPa) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (MPa) (MPa)
λ = 1.39 λ = 1.65 λ = 2.00
D9 485 900 4.00 13.4 0.30 914 300 2.62 462.38 13.56 12.33 10.85 9.75
D10 485 900 6.00 13.4 0.45 914 300 2.62 422.25 12.38 11.26 9.90 8.91

Table 4. A summary of defect-strength calculations for gas pipeline no.3, Dz = 914 mm, MOP = 8.4 MPa.

0.9

0.8

0.7 λ=1.10

0.6
λ=1.25
0.5
D10 λ=1.39
d/t

0.4

0.3 D9
MS4.12
0.2

0.1

0
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00

L/(Dzt)0.5

Fig.7. Diagram of the acceptability of 0.1t < d < 0.8t and M ≤ 4.12 flaws for partial wall-loss defects of a DN 900,
MOP = 8.4 MPa, gas pipeline made of L485 MB steel.

The different values of the design factor for the different depths which are, respectively, 35% and 60%
above two gas pipelines entail different assumptions of the wall thickness. Considering the design-pressure
for the fitness-for-purpose assessment based on ASME safety factors for λ > 1.39 (see the red curve in Fig.6),
B31.8S:2010 [13]. neither defect requires rectification.

For the DN 600 gas pipeline no. 2 made of L485MB-
grade steel operated at circumferential stresses lower
than 50% of the yield strength, the diagram of the
permissible relative defect depth (d/t) as a function
of L/(Dz × t) 0.5, shown in Fig.6, has been plotted for
values of λ = 1.39, 1.65, and 2.00, taken from Table
3 of ASME B31.8S:2010 [13]. The defects, denoted by
D7 and D8, have a similar length, but significantly
Concerning the time intervals for the inspection of the
gas pipeline operated at circumferential stresses within
30-50% of the yield strength, the reference λ value for
a re-inspection time interval of five years is λ = 1.39,
and for a re-inspection time interval of 10 years, the
minimum pressure safety factor value is λ = 1.65, in
accordance with Table 3 of ASME B.31.8S:2010, while
for a 15-year re-inspection time interval, it is 2.0.
1st Quarter, 2014 45

d t DZ L σf Pf
Defect no. DN d/t
(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (MPa) (MPa)

D11 600 4.1 11.3 0.36 622.6 210 448.66 16.29

D12 600 6.8 11.4 0.60 622.8 200 386.82 14.16

D13 900 4.0 13.4 0.30 926.8 300 462.61 13.38

D14 900 6.0 13.4 0.45 926.8 300 422.57 12.22

Table 5. A summary of defects and failure-pressure calculation results for the gas pipeline made from X-70M steel pipe
conforming to ISO 3183:2007.

d t DZ Pf Test burst Actual Relative

Defect no. DN
(mm) (mm) (mm) (MPa) pressure, Pt pressure safety deviation,
(MPa) factor, λrz δ (%)

600 4.1 11.3 622.6 21.4 2.67 23

D11 16.29

600 6.8 11.3 622.8 15.0 1.87 5

D12 14.16

900 4.0 13.4 926.8 17.3 2.06 23

D13 13.38

900 6.0 13.4 926.8 13.3 1.58 9

D14 12.22

Table 6. Results of the determination of the relative pipe specimen failure-pressure deviation.

The diagram of the permissible relative defect depth (d/t)
as a function of the normalized defect length L/(Dz × t)0.5,
for values of λ of 1.1, 1.25, and 1.39, in the case of
the DN 900, MOP = 8.4 MPa, L485MB-grade steel gas
pipeline no. 3 operating at circumferential stresses within
50-72% of the yield strength is shown in Fig.7. Table 4
and Fig.7 indicate that the pipe defects denoted as D9
and D10 lie in the acceptable region, considering the
pressure safety factor λ = 1.39 as determined from Equn
6. The interpretation of the calculation results is similar
to that for gas pipeline no. 1 operated at circumferential
stresses within 50-72% of the yield strength.
The MAOPdop values given in the last three columns of
Tables 3 and 4 are calculated from Equn 6 assuming
the limiting values of the λ factor in accordance with
Table 3 of ASME B31.8S:2010, and are the possible
values of the MAOP to be maintained in a given gas
pipeline during its operation phase.
Verification of failure-pressure
calculations for gas pipelines made of
thermo-mechanically rolled steel
For this purpose, within the experiment, artificial
defects of the sizes given in Table 5 were made on
pipe lengths made of thermo-mechanically rolled steel,
followed by a destructive-strength test, and the results
were compared to the actual burst pressures Pt determined
experimentally. A summary of the results, based on
Ref. 6, is given in Table 5.
The relative deviation δ of the failure-pressure
determination was calculated from Equn 7:
Pt − Pf
δ= × 100 % (7)
Pt
The burst-pressure value obtained during the destructive
strength test, Pt, is, in each case, higher than the value
of Pf value calculated according to ASME B31G:2009
[3]; the relative deviation values are given in the last
column of Table 6. The actual pressure-safety factor, λrz,
relates to the value of the burst pressure Pt; the λ values
determined from Equn 6 for the defects summarized
in Table 6 are lower in each case.
Summary
For gas pipeline no.1 operated in Poland with
circumferential stresses above 50% of the yield strength,
and constructed from G-355 steel conforming to the
standard [11], a defect assessment was made of the
46
effect of the pipe wall material loss, as detected
by inspection with an MFL intelligent tool, on the
maximum-allowable operating pressure. Calculations
based on the ASME B31G:2009 [3] methodology
showed that the gas pipeline defects lay within the
acceptable region with the assumed pressure safety factor
of λ = 1.39, taken as the inverse of the maximum
value of the design factor fo = 0.72 resulting from
the Polish engineering and building codes [12] and
the standard PN-EN 1594:2011 [14].
For two gas pipelines of DN 600 and DN 900, and
MOP = 8.4 MPa made of L480MB thermo-mechanically
rolled steel conforming to the standard PN-EN 10208-
2:2011 [15], the assessment of the effect of the pipe-wall
loss of material on the maximum-allowable operating
pressure was made. By making calculations similar
to those for gas pipeline no.1, it was demonstrated
that individual defects might lie in a region above
the limiting curve with a pressure-safety factor of λ
= 2.0, although all of the defects determined were
contained within the acceptable region if a pressure-
safety factor of λ = 1.39 was assumed.
For X-70M thermo-mechanically rolled steel linepipe
made in conformance with ISO 3183:2007 [16], the
burst-pressure value obtained from the destructive
hydrostatic test and the defect-failure pressure calculated
based on the ASME B31G:2009 [3] methodology
were compared, yielding results relatively deviating
by up to 25%. In all of the cases examined, the
destructive-strength test pressure was higher than the
design value.
Calculations of the effect of pipeline wall-loss
defects on the maximum-allowable operating pressure
using the algorithms provided in ASME B31G:2009
[3] is now regarded as a conservative approach due to
a considerable underestimation of the design pipeline
burst pressure for some defects, as demonstrated
by the comparison results provided in the present
paper and in other publications [7, 10]. In addition,
the defect-acceptability analysis based on limiting
stress states [3, 8] is limited to a single type of wall
defect in a given location without the possibility
of examining different types of defect occurring at
that location.
In recent years, the assessment of the acceptability of
gas pipeline material-loss defects has been more and
more often made using numerical methods relying
on the non-linear finite-element method, an example
of which is given in Ref.9, or by fracture-mechanics’
methods based on the FAD diagram, where a defect
is treated as a pipeline wall notch [10]. The use
of modern numerical methods is not standardized,
though accepted by BSI BS 7910:2005 [8], which,
on the one hand, requires an individual approach to
The Journal of Pipeline Engineering
assessment, adequate knowledge by the analyst, and
proven software, while on the other hand it makes it
possible to analyse more-complex load states, as well
as atypical defect shapes and different defect types
occurring in the same place.
References
A. M.Witek, 2002. Preventive operation of a gas
transmission network. Gaz Woda i Technika Sanitarna,
3/2002. SIGMA NOT Publishing House (in Polish).
B. API, 2005. Publication 1163: In-line inspection
systems qualification standard. American Petroleum
Institute Publishing Service, 1st Edn, Washington.
4. ASME, 2009. B31G:2009 Manual for determining
the remaining strength of corroded pipelines:
supplement to ASME B 31 Code for pressure
piping. American Society of Mechanical Engineers,
New York.
5. P. Hopkins, 2001. Defect assessment in pipelines.
Training material from the Prague Conference,
6-8 March.
6. M.Witek, 2007. Inspections of high pressure gas
pipelines under Polish conditions in the aspect
of relevant legislation and regulations. Gaz Woda i
Technika Sanitarna 10/2007. SIGMA NOT Publishing
House (in Polish).
7. F.Dewint, 2011. Validation of the ASME B31G
and RSTRENG methodologies for the determination
of the burst pressure of corroded pipes in
API 5L X70 / EN 10208-2 L485. 3rd ASME
India Oil & Gas Pipeline Conf., February,
(material available as per Aug. 15th, 2012 on
the website www.novanumeric.com/samples.
php?CalcName=B31G).
8. C.T.Belachew, C.I.Mokhtar, and K.Saravanan, 2009.
Evaluation of available codes for capacity assessment
of corroded pipelines. Petronas Universiti Teknologi,
Mechanical Engineering Department, Bandar Sri
Iskandar, Malaysia, February.
9. BSI, 2005. BS 7910:2005 Guide to methods for
assessing the acceptability of flaws in metallic
structures, British Standards Institution, London.
10. H.Moustabchir, Z.Azari, S.Hariri, and I.Dmytrakh,
2010. Experimental and numerical study of stress-
strain state of pressurised cylindrical shells with
external defects. Engineering Failure Analysis, 17,
pp506-514.
11. G.Pluvinage, M.Allouti, C.Schmitt, and J.Capelle,
2011. Assesment of gouge, a dent, or a dent plus
a gouge, in a pipe using limit analysis or notch
fracture mechanics. J.Pipeline Engineering, 3rd Quarter,
Great Southern Press.
12. PKN Warsaw, 1979. PN-79/H-74244: Steel seamed
line pipes (in Polish).
13. The Regulation of the Minister of the Economy
on the technical conditions to be met by gas
networks. Dz. U. of 2001, No.97, Item 1055).
1st Quarter, 2014
14. ASME, 2010. B31.8S:2010 Managing system integrity
of the pipelines: Code for pressure piping – B31
Supplement to ASME B31.8, American Society of
Mechanical Engineers, New York.
15. PKN Warsaw, 2011. PN-EN 1594:2011 Gas delivery
systems – pipelines of a maximum operating
pressure above 16 bar – Functional requirements,
PKN Warsaw 2011.
47
16. PKN Warsaw, 2011. PN-EN 10208-2:2011 Steel
line pipes designed for combustible media –
Technical specifications of delivery – Part 2:
Pipes of the requirement Class B, PKN
Warsaw 2011.
17. ISO, 2007. 3183:2007 Petroleum and natural gas
industries – Steel pipe for pipeline transportation
systems, Switzerland.