Proceedings of the 2016 11th International Pipeline Conference

IPC2016
September 26-30, 2016, Calgary, Alberta, Canada

IPC2016-64685

EVALUATING PIPELINE OVALITY ACCEPTABILITY CRITERIA FOR STRAIGHT

PIPE SECTIONS

David Kemp Justin Gossard

DNV GL DNV GL
Dublin, Ohio, USA Dublin, Ohio, USA
Shane Finneran Joseph Bratton
DNV GL DNV GL
Dublin, Ohio, USA Dublin, Ohio, USA

ABSTRACT are classified as dents, buckles, or wrinkles which were not

Pipe ovalization, a deviation from the circular nominal considered in this study. An example illustration of a pipe cross
cross section, is a common occurrence during the section with and without ovality is shown below in ‎Figure
manufacturing of pipe sections. Additionally, ovalization can 1and ‎Figure 2.
also occur in pipelines during and after installation and Pipe ovality may be introduced during the manufacturing
construction. CSA Z662-11 ‎[1] provides an acceptance criteria process as a result of poor quality control, or during the
of 5% for pipeline ovality in bends, however there is a variation construction of a pipeline, typically during bending. Ovality
in acceptance criteria for pipe ovality occurring in straight pipe may also occur as a result of external loads, for example if the
sections. An industry review of pipeline design, operation, and pipeline is inadequately supported.
maintenance codes was conducted to determine the industry
acceptance for ovality limits in straight pipe sections. Based
upon this industry review, the ovality limits were evaluated
against constructability limits, limitations for passage of in-
line-inspection (ILI) tools, as well as evaluating the stress in an
ovalized pipe section compared to the maximum allowable
stress of the pipe. During this review, it was revealed that
allowable stress was the limiting factor for pipeline ovality,
compared to constructability and ILI tool passage, thus this Figure 1. Cross-Section of Defect Free Pipe
paper primarily discusses limitations related to remaining
strength for ovalized pipe sections. The API 579 Fitness-for-
Service assessment was used to evaluate varying levels of
ovality to determine acceptability criteria for ovalization in
straight pipe. The criteria was first established using a level 2
Fitness-for-Service assessment, which was then evaluated with
a level 3 assessment using finite element analysis. This criterion
was evaluated using multiple pipeline diameters and wall
thickness in order to determine scalability.

INTRODUCTION Figure 2. Cross-Section of Pipe Exhibiting Ovality

The ovality (out-of-roundness) of a pipe cross section is
defined as a deviation from the circular cross-section. Further,
the‎ovality‎is‎a‎“smooth‎longitudinal”‎deformation‎of‎the‎cross‎
section which may or may not be symmetric. This is an
important distinction as short, local deformations, or
deformations which affect less than half of the circumference
Ovality can occur in pipelines for several reasons related to
manufacturing or construction of the pipeline as well as
external loading, such as insufficient pipe support. In general, a
circular cross section is desirable for pipelines as the stresses
are more evenly distributed when compared to an ovalized pipe

1 Copyright © 2016 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/conferences/asmep/90315/ on 02/21/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/abo

 section. Ovality tends to create localized stress concentrations Ovality and Pipeline Load Capacity
around the circumference, which can contribute to elevated With the introduction of ovality for a pipeline section, the
stress levels on the pipeline. Additionally, in cases where the stress concentrations which are present around the
external loads are significant, such as offshore applications, circumference can reduce the collapse pressure (under external
these stress concentrations can lead to an increased likelihood loading), as well as reduce the static strength and fatigue
of external section collapse. In extreme cases, the ovality can strength of the pipe segment. Further, the presence of tensile
restrict the passage of inspection, cleaning, or batching pigs. axial or bending loads will act to reduce the pipeline’s‎ability‎to‎
For these reasons, acceptance criteria are set for a maximum withstand collapse.
acceptable ovality for manufacture, construction, and operation
of pipelines.
External Pressure Collapse
For this study, a review of currently available acceptance
External collapse is used to describe a form of local
criteria was conducted and compared to numerical modeling
buckling which occurs as a result of yielding in the
methods in order to evaluate the validity of the criteria as
circumferential direction, elastic instability, and circumferential
related to straight pipe sections.
collapse. A widely used model used in predicting external
collapse due to external pressure is the de Winter equation, as
INDUSTRY REVIEW OF OVALITY LIMITS
presented in DNV-OS-F101, and BS PD 8010 ‎[8] and shown in
The ovality of a pipe section is measured based upon the
Equation (4).
maximum, minimum, and nominal diameters. Based upon the
𝐷
literature review conducted for this study, three alternative (𝑝𝑐 − 𝑝𝑒𝑙 )(𝑝𝑐2 − 𝑝𝑝2 ) = 𝑝𝑐 𝑝𝑒𝑙 𝑝𝑝 𝑓𝑜 (4)
definitions were found to be used within the industry. The most 𝑡
common definition described by DNV-OS-F101 ‎[2], The elastic collapse is given by:
PDAM ‎[3], CSA Z245.1 ‎[4] and API 5L ‎[5], ASME Boiler and
Pressure Vessel Code (BPVC) Section III ‎[6] and ISO
13623 ‎[7] and compares the total deviation from the original 𝑡 2 1
circular cross-section as described in Equation (1). 𝑝𝑒𝑙 = 2𝐸 ( ) (5)
𝐷 (1−𝜈2 )
(𝐷𝑚𝑎𝑥 − 𝐷𝑚𝑖𝑛 )
𝑂𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑦 = (1) The plastic collapse pressure is given by:
𝐷
𝑡
Where: 𝑝𝑝 = 2𝜎𝑦𝛼𝑓𝑎𝑏 (( )) (6)
𝐷
Dmax is the maximum diameter Where:
Dmin is the minimum diameter Pc characteristic collapse pressure
D is the nominal diameter pel elastic collapse pressure
pp plastic collapse pressure
CSA Z662-11uses a slightly modified formula, (Equation fo ovality (defined as Equation (1))
(2)) which is the same definition as Equation (1) when D pipe diameter
considering symmetrical deformation (i.e. the deviation from t pipe wall thickness
the nominal diameter is equal for Dmax and Dmin): E Young’s‎modulus
ν Poisson’s‎ratio
σy material yield strength
(𝐷𝑚𝑎𝑥 − 𝐷𝑚𝑖𝑛 )
𝑂𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑦 = 2 ( (2) αfab fabrication factor
𝐷𝑚𝑎𝑥 + 𝐷𝑚𝑖𝑛 )
Equation (4) accounts for ovality through the fo term
(calculated using the Equation [1] – symmetrical ovality
ASCE’s‎report‎“Guidelines‎for‎the‎Design‎of‎Buried‎Steel‎ definition). The fabrication factor, αfab, is used to modify the
Pipe”‎ describes‎ ovality‎ based‎ on‎ Equation‎ (3)‎ which‎ typically material yield strength to represent differences in the
results in half of the ovality calculated from Equation (2). This compressive and tensile yield strength introduced during cold
formulation was used in earlier editions of API 5L, which has deformations as part of the pipe manufacturing process. Table
since switched to Equation (1). 5-5 of DNV-OS-F101 lists fabrication factors of 1.0 for
seamless pipe and 0.93 for electric resistance welded (ERW)
pipe. No factor is presented for spiral welded pipe, but it is
(𝐷𝑚𝑎𝑥 − 𝐷)
𝑂𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑦 = (3) reasonable to assume that a factor comparable to that for ERW
𝐷
pipe would be appropriate.
For this study, symmetrical ovality deformation was Section collapse as a result of external pressure is a
examined using Equation (1) for determining the extent of significant concern for offshore pipelines, where the pipe may
ovality. be subject to substantial external pressures. As such, offshore

2 Copyright © 2016 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/conferences/asmep/90315/ on 02/21/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/abo

 pipeline codes, such as DNV-OS-F105, deal explicity with
external pressure capacity with regards to ovalization.
Considering buried onshore pipelines, the external loads
are typically the result of the weight and degree of compaction
of the overburden as well as any additional surface loadings
(roads, railroads, etc.). External loading for buried onshore
pipelines is typically much less than offshore pipelines. As
such, CSA Z662-11 states:
“The effect of external pressures and loadings on the pipe
during installation and operation shall be accounted for using
good engineering practice. The pipe wall thickness selected
shall provide adequate strength to prevent excessive
deformation and collapse, taking into consideration mechanical
properties, wall thickness tolerances, ovality, bending stresses,
and external reactions.”
Failure due to Internal Pressure
Ovality acts to create areas of circumferential stress
concentration in a pipe under internal pressure. Various
published assessment approaches primarily address the effect of
ovality on the loading of the longitudinal seam weld. BS
7910 ‎[9] uses a modified form of the Barlow equation to
describe the internal pressure capacity of a pipeline as shown in
Equation (7).
2𝑡𝜎𝑈
𝑃=(
𝐷−𝑡)
Where:
P failure pressure
σu material ultimate tensile strength
D pipe diameter
t pipe wall thickness
For pipeline design, the ultimate tensile strength (UTS) is
typically replaced by the material yield strength or flow stress
as well as relevant factors of safety for added conservatism.
The non-circular cross section for pipeline ovality, results in
additional bending stresses upon pressurization. BS 7910 ‎[9]
presents Equation (8) to calculate a stress concentration factor,
as a result of ovality, at a weld aligned at‎an‎angle‎of‎θ‎ to‎the‎
major axis of ovality as shown in ‎Figure 3.
1.5(𝐷𝑚𝑎𝑥 − 𝐷𝑚𝑖𝑛) cos 2𝜃
𝑘= 𝑃𝑚 (1−𝜈2 ) 𝐷 3
(8)
𝑡[1+0.5 𝐸
( ) ]
𝑡
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/conferences/asmep/90315/ on 02/21/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/abo
Figure 3. Alignment of Longitudinal Weld with respect to Major Axis
of Ovality
Where:
D pipe diameter
t pipe wall thickness
Dmax maximum diameter
Dmin minimum diameter
k stress concentration factor
Pm maximum internal pressure
Θ angle of weld to major axis (degrees)
API 579 ‎[10] is another commonly used standard which
(7) contains a three-level approach to establishing the fitness for
service of pressurised components with shell distortion, which
relates to pipe sections with ovality. The three levels are
successively more accurate and less conservative but the higher
assessment levels require more information and a more detailed
analysis to complete. The recommended approach is to move
progressively up the scale from Level 1, and to use Level 2 and
Level 3 only if the component is not shown to be acceptable by
the lower levels.
Level 1 requires the application of fabrication tolerances
provided in the original construction code. For ovality in piping
under internal pressure, API 579 references ASTM fabrication
codes with ovality limits of 1.0% to 1.5%.
Level 2 involves the use of semi-empirical models to
determine the acceptability of a component for continued
service through the use of a‎ concept‎ termed‎ the‎ ‘remaining‎
strength‎factor’‎(RSF).‎Various empirical models are presented,
based upon the defect or distortion type, to calculate a
representative RSF. For most design codes, an RSF of 0.9 is
quoted as the acceptance criteria for ovalized pipe sections,
thus the combination of loading and geometry is limited to 90%
of the load capacity of the component.
Level 3 is the highest level of fitness for service
assessment‎outlined‎in‎API‎579‎and‎is‎“intended to provide the
most detailed evaluation which produces results that are more
precise than those from a Level 2 assessment. In a Level 3
Assessment the most detailed inspection and component
information is typically required, and the recommended
analysis is based on numerical techniques such as the finite
element method or experimental techniques when appropriate”.
3 Copyright © 2016 by ASME
 Additionally, ovality can affect‎the‎pipeline’s resistance to
failure due to fatigue. The fatigue life of a flaw in the pipe body OVALITY SENSITIVITY STUDIES
or weld in the vicinity where ovality is present would be Assessment Cases
reduced based upon the stress concentration factor presented in In an effort to examine acceptable ovality limits, several
Equation (8). pipeline diameters of varying wall thickness were examined.
The pipeline diameters and wall thickness considered in this
Ovality Acceptance Criteria in Industry study are presented below in ‎Table 2.
Various pipeline design, construction, operation, and
maintenance codes from Canada and other jurisdictions were
Table 2. Ovality Criterion - Assessment Cases
reviewed with a focus on ovality acceptance criteria. The
standards evaluated were: CSA Z662-11, DNV-OS-F101, API Outside Wall
Material
579, BS 8010, Z245.1-07, API 5L 2007. Calculating an Case Diameter Thickness
Grade
(mm) (mm)
equivalent ovality, as defined in Equation (1) for each standard,
1 914.4 11.6
it was found that the acceptance criteria generally ranged
2 914.4 12.4
between 1.5% and 6%, as shown below in ‎Table 1.
3 914.4 13.4
Additionally, several standards presented ovality acceptance CSA Z245 Gr.
4 914.4 15.9
criteria applicable only in pipe bends, with no limit presented 483
5 914.4 20.4
for straight pipe sections. CAT I C.E.
6 762.0 11.6 0.32% MAX
7 762.0 12.7
Table 1. Pipe Construction and Operating Codes – Ovality 8 762.0 14.3
Acceptance Criteria
9 609.6 7.92
Equivalent Ovality
Source Reference
Acceptance Criterion
Section 6.2.3 5% Symmetrical ovality was considered for each case to determine
CSA Z662-11 Annex C the maximum acceptable ovality. For each case, external
3% -6%
Section C.6.3.3.5 collapse, failure due to internal pressure, and ovality limits for
Section 5 ILI tool passage was examined. Examining limits for tool
DNV-OSF101 3%
Clause C 202 passage and external collapse (considering on shore buried
Clause pipelines), it was found that failure due to internal pressure was
API 579 1% - 1.5%
8.4.2.1 the limiting case for acceptable ovality.
Clause
BS 8010 3%
6.2.2.3
Section Failure due to Internal Pressure
Z245.1-07 1.2% - 59.6% The API 579 Level 2 assessment model for assessing the
11.4.3
API 5L 2007 Table 10 2% - 4% acceptable ovality in welded cylindrical shells was applied for
each of the cases outlined in ‎Table 2. Considering the typical
DNV OS F101 (2012) Section 5 Clause C 202 and Clause maximum allowable operating pressure in Canada, the internal
D 1100 ‎[2] presents an ovality acceptance criteria of 3% pressure resulting in a circumferential stress equal to 80% of
without assessment. Higher degrees of ovality may be the material specified minimum yield strength (SMYS), the
acceptable provided additional factors including the moment maximum acceptable ovality was calculated for each case.
resistance, geometrical restrictions, and increases in cyclic
Key values and assumptions used in the Level 2 FFS
stress are accounted for.
assessment were:
The ovality acceptance criteria of 1%-1.5% presented in
API 579 is based upon ASME and API fabrication tolerances as θ = 0º - angle of weld to the major axis of ovality
part of the Level 1 Fitness-For-Service (FFS) assessment. (conservative assumption)
Higher levels of ovality may be acceptable based upon a more Sa = 80% SMYS – allowable stress based on CSA
detailed Level 2 or Level 3 FFS, though these require further design factor
details to determine acceptability based upon an RSF for each Cs = 0.5 - factor of severity – 0.5 for symmetrical
individualized geometry. ovality
Z245.1-07 presents acceptable ovality limits based upon a Lf = 1.0 - Lorentz factor – 1.0 for straight pipe
maximum difference between the maximum and minimum E = 1.0 - weld joint efficiency – mill-welded
diameters, which varies based upon the nominal pipe diameter. YB31 = 0.4 - ASME B31 wall thickness coefficient – 0.4 if
Thus, considering extreme cases in a small diameter pipe, this < 482ºC
could lead to a high level of acceptable ovality. Hf = 1.5 - induced stress is primary stress
Rbs = -1.0 - ratio of induced stress to bending stress (axial
joint / circumferential stress)
fwm = 0.2 - weld misalignment factor at girth welds

4 Copyright © 2016 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/conferences/asmep/90315/ on 02/21/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/abo

 RSFa = 0.9 - allowable RSF per API 579 pipe sections. The elastic model consisted of a two dimensional
cross section of the ovalized geometry, constructed using
Additionally, the assessment was performed considering CPS4R 2D plane stress elements with‎ the‎ bottom,‎ 6‎ o’clock‎
ovality and remaining strength in the pipe body, away from point on the OD constrained in the vertical and lateral
welded joints. In cases where a seam weld is present, the directions. Internal pressure loads were then applied to the
operator should consider efficiency factors when performing internal diameter surface of the ovalized pipe model. A linear
FFS assessment. Further, the ovality was assumed to be elastic model was used as this is in alignment with the API 579
constant along the pipe axis. Local deviations of the cylindrical Level 2 assessment methodology.
shell along the pipe axis, would fall under shell distortions
An example of the 2D circumferential stress results for one
rather than ovality. The results of the maximum acceptable
of the cases under consideration is shown in ‎Figure 4 with the
ovality (considering symmetrical ovality) for each case are
highest stresses shown in red and the lowest stresses shown in
presented below in ‎Table 3.
blue.
Table 3. Ovality Limits per API 579 Level 2 FFS
Outside Wall Acceptable Ovality at
Case Diameter Thickness 80% SMYS
(mm) (mm) Operating Stress
1 914.4 11.6 6.90%
2 914.4 12.4 6.51%
3 914.4 13.4 6.14%
4 914.4 15.9 5.44%
5 914.4 20.4 4.67%
6 762.0 11.6 5.97%
7 762.0 12.7 5.58%
8 762.0 14.3 5.17%
9 609.6 7.92 6.73% Figure 4. FEA Model and Circumferential Stress Contours

Additionally, the internal pressure limit was calculated As illustrated in ‎Figure 4, the maximum circumferential
considering 5% ovality for each of the cases. The 5% limit was stresses‎occur‎at‎the‎12‎and‎6‎o’clock‎positions‎on‎the‎OD‎and‎
selected as this is specified in several standards and was also at‎the‎3‎and‎9‎o’clock‎positions on the ID, which correspond to
towards the lower end of acceptability limits presented in ‎Table Dmin and Dmax, respectively. Considering circumferential stress
3. The lone exception being case 5, which was a heavier wall in a pressurized cylinder, the hoop stress is generally greatest at
pipe. The internal pressure limits, based upon API 579 Level 2, the inner diameter and smallest at the outer diameter and is
are shown below considering 5% ovality. uniformly distributed around the circumference of the cylinder.
In an ovalized section, stress concentrations occur at the
Table 4. Internal Pressure Limit at 5% Symmetrical Ovality per API regions of ovality, resulting in non-uniformly distributed
579 circumferential stresses. The larger diameter, Dmax, behaves
Outside Wall Internal Pressure Limit at 5% similarly to a pressurized cylinder with the maximum stress
Case Diameter Thickness Ovality occurring at the ID while the smaller diameter, due to the nature
(mm) (mm) (kPa)
of ovality, is in tension at the OD and thus exhibits a higher
1 914.4 11.6 11,562
2 914.4 12.4 12,076
circumferential stress at the OD of the pipe.
3 914.4 13.4 12,689 The ovalized geometries were generated at the geometry
4 914.4 15.9 14,109 level, thus residual stresses and plastic strains from the ovalized
5 914.4 20.4 16,552 geometry were not considered in the analysis. Further, the
6 762.0 11.6 12,996 models were analyzed without loads from the surrounding soil,
7 762.0 12.7 13,748 thus simulating an unrestrained cross section. This is a more
8 762.0 14.3 14,785 conservative case than reality as it is representative of an
9 609.6 7.92 11,745 excavated or above ground ovalized section without the
external support of the soil. In the presence of surrounding soil,
FINITE ELEMENT ASSESSMENT VALIDATION the pipe geometry encounters a resistance to growth in the
Finite Element Analysis (FEA) was performed to validate radial direction and thus for a given pressure, the
the calculation methods for internal pressure failure outlined circumferential membrane stresses on the pipe are typically
above.‎Simulia’s‎Abaqus‎Standard,‎version‎6.14-1, was used to lower for a restrained scenario (below grade) versus an
assess the circumferential membrane (hoop) stresses in ovalized unrestrained scenario (above grade/excavated).

5 Copyright © 2016 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/conferences/asmep/90315/ on 02/21/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/abo

 The FEA cases used for the validation are shown below Table 6. Comparison of Circumferential Membrane Stresses and
in ‎Table 5. In all cases, the symmetrical ovalized geometry was RSF for API 579 Level II and Level III Assessments
5% according to Equation (1). API 579 - σm (1+Rb )
Out of Level II Level III
FEA Case
Table 5. FEA Validation Cases Roundness Assessment Assessment FEA
Number
Internal Factor, Rb (MPa) (MPa)
Internal
Pressure 1 0.43 643.2 618.6
Pressure
FEA Outside Wall Corresponding
D/t Limit at 2 0.46 643.1 617.4
Case Diameter Thickness to 80% SMYS
Ratio 5%
Number (mm) (mm) for Nominal 3 0.50 643.1 616.2
Ovality
Cross Section
(kPa) 4 0.61 642.9 613.9
(kPa)

914.4 11.6 78.8 11,562 9,800 5 0.77 643.3 613.1

1
6 0.43 643.4 618.8
2 914.4 12.4 73.7 12,076 10,480
7 0.46 642.6 617.0
3 914.4 13.4 68.2 12,689 11,330 8 0.50 643.3 616.4
4 914.4 15.9 57.5 14,109 13,440 9 0.61 643.4 614.3

5 914.4 20.4 44.8 16,552 17,240 10 0.76 643.7 613.5

An API 579 Level 2 assessment determines the

acceptability‎ of‎ a‎ component‎ based‎ upon‎ the‎ ‘remaining‎
strength‎ factor’‎ (RSF).‎ API‎ 579‎ includes‎ a‎ factor‎ for‎ out-of-
roundness to account for the increase in circumferential
membrane stress due to ovality in the RSF calculation. The
maximum allowable RSF per API 579, denoted as RSFa, is 0.9.
Equation 8.21 in API 579 calculates the RSF as shown below in
Equation (9).
𝐻𝑓 𝑆𝑎
𝑅𝑆𝐹 = min [( ) , 1]
𝜎𝑚 (1+𝑅𝑏 )+𝜎𝑚𝑠 (1+𝑅𝑏𝑠 )
In order to validate the results of the FEA to the API 579
Level 2 ovality limits discussed above, it is necessary to
examine the RSF from API 579. Considering Equation 9, 𝑅𝑏 is
the ratio of the induced bending stress to the applied membrane
stress in a component that results from supplemental loads. This
factor for consideration of out-of-roundness of a cylinder is
defined as the absolute value 𝑅𝑏𝑜𝑟 which based upon the ten
FEA cases considered, ranges from 0.43 to 0.77. This out of
roundness factor is essentially a percentage increase on the
circumferential membrane stress from a nominal pipe section in
the form of 𝜎𝑚 (1 + 𝑅𝑏 ) contained in the denominator of
Equation 9. This 𝜎𝑚 (1 + 𝑅𝑏 ) was the term used for comparison
of the FEA results to the API 579 Level 2 assessment and the
ovality acceptance criteria of 5%. A comparison of the
calculated circumferential membrane stresses (including the out
of roundness factor) and the FEA results for each validation
case is shown below in ‎Table 6.
As shown in Table 6 above, the FEA results show good
comparison to the analytical API 579 Level II assessment and
acceptability criteria. Overall, the Level 2 assessment results
are slightly more conservative than the Level 3 assessment
results for each of the ten cases under consideration. The
internal pressure limit shown in Table 6 was obtained based
upon an API 579 Level II assessment with an RSF of 0.9 for
5% ovality. Under a Level 3 assessment using FEA with this
same pressure load, it is found that the RSF is slightly higher at
(9) 0.94 – 0.95. Comparing the circumferential membrane stresses
including the out of roundness factor, 𝑅𝑏 , from the Level 2
assessment with the FEA results, the Level 2 assessment results
in higher stresses (approximately 4 – 5%) than the FEA model
results for the same loading scenarios. This percentage
difference is also seen in the level of conservatism for the RSF
for API 579 Level 2 when compared to the RSF calculated
using the stresses obtained from the finite element model.
SUMMARY
The review has shown that there is some variation in
ovality acceptance criteria for straight pipe either in the pipe
construction or operating codes, and in established practice.
Published standards show that ovality limits in the range of 1%
to 6% are given in the codes reviewed (neglecting higher levels
technically possible for smaller diameter pipelines under the
definitions used in CSA Z245-1).
Generally, pipe ovality within the limits required for
construction and integrity will not be an issue for the passage of
internal inspection tools. Most research on pipe ovality has
focused on the question of collapse due to external pressure and
the widely-used de Winter model addresses this failure mode.
The assessment performed in this review indicates that the
external loads imposed on buried onshore pipelines are much
lower than those likely to lead to external pressure collapse.
Therefore, this study has primarily considered the stress-

6 Copyright © 2016 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/conferences/asmep/90315/ on 02/21/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/abo

 concentrating effect of ovality on the circumferential stress in
the pipe due to internal pressure.
A semi-empirical model which is widely used for
determining the acceptable loads on welded structures, was
used to investigate the relationship between ovality in straight
pipe and the acceptable operating pressure for the 9 pipe sizes
under consideration. The model used was presented in API 579
and is known as a Level 2 fitness for service assessment. This
assessment indicated that increasing ovality reduces the
acceptable operating pressure, however at ovalities of less than
5% a pressure equivalent to an operating stress of 80% of the
material specified minimum yield stress (SMYS) is acceptable
except for the case of very heavy-wall pipe, which is often used
to reinforce pipe sections and typically operates at pressures
less than 80% SMYS. The API 579 Level 2 results were
validated using a more sophisticated finite element modelling
approach.
In the absence of direct guidance in the applicable pipeline
codes and published literature, the choice of an ovality
acceptance criterion for straight pipe is open to interpretation.
The low values of approximately 1% quoted in construction
codes are driven by weld alignment concerns and are not
directly applicable here. The work done for this study indicates
that ovality will not reduce the acceptable pressure to less than
an 80% SMYS operating stress if the ovality is below 5%
(other than in some specific cases with a heavier wall thickness
where the operating stress would typically be lower than 80%
SMYS). An acceptance limit of less than 5% would reduce the
local stress concentration further, but this may introduce an
unnecessary level of conservatism and lead to higher pipe
repair costs.
[9] British‎ Standard‎ BS‎ 7910,‎ ‘Guide‎ to‎ methods‎ for‎
assessing the acceptability of flaws in metallic
structures’,‎Amendment‎17344,‎September‎2007.
[10] American Society of Mechanical Engineers API 579-
1/ASME FFS-1, ‘Fitness-for-service’,‎ 2nd‎ Edition‎
June 2007.
[11] Dumitrescu, A. and Zisopol, D., Experimental Results
Regarding the Influence of Initial Ovality on Local
Buckling Under External Pressure (Collapse) of Oil
Industry‎ Tunulars,‎ “Petroleum-Gas”,‎ University‎ of‎
Ploiesti, Romania, 2003.
[12] Baek, J., Effect of ovality and eccentricity on collapse
pressure of subsea pipeline, R&D Division, Korea Gas
Corporation, Ansan, 426-790, Korea, International Gas
Union research Conference, 2011.
[13] Canadian Energy Pipeline Association (CEPA), Final
Report, Development of a Pipeline Surface Loading
Screening Process & Assessment of Surface Load
Dispersing Methods, Warman, D.J., Hart, J.D.,
Francini, R.B., Revised October 16, 2009.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors would like to thank their colleagues at DNV
GL for their support of the program.

REFERENCES
[1] Canadian Standards Association Standard Z662-11,
‘Oil‎and‎Gas‎Pipeline‎Systems’,‎June‎2011.
[2] DNV GL Offshore Standard DNV-OS-F101,
‘Submarine‎Pipeline‎Systems’,‎October‎2013.
[3] The Pipeline Defect Assessment Manual (PDAM),
Report to the PDAM Joint Industry Project, A.Cosham
P.Hopkins, Penspen Ltd. May 2003.
[4] Canadian Standards Association Standard Z245.1-07,
‘Steel‎Pipe’,‎April‎2007.
[5] ANSI/API‎ Specification‎ 5L,‎ ‘Specification‎ for‎ Line‎
Pipe’,‎American‎Petroleum‎Institute,‎October‎1,‎2007.
[6] ASME,‎ ‘Rules‎ for‎ Construction‎ of‎ Pressure‎ Vessels’,‎
VIII Division 1, American Society of Mechanical
Engineers, July 1, 2008.
[7] International‎ Standard‎ ISO‎ 13623,‎ ‘Petroleum‎ and‎
natural gas industries — Pipeline transportation
systems’,‎2nd‎Edition,‎June‎2009.
[8] Published‎ Document‎ PD‎ 8010,‎ ‘Code‎ of‎ Practice‎ for‎
Pipelines’,‎British‎Standards‎Institute,‎July‎2004.

7 Copyright © 2016 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/conferences/asmep/90315/ on 02/21/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/abo