Engineering Failure Analysis 105 (2019) 610–626

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Engineering Failure Analysis

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engfailanal

Next-generation fracture prediction models for pipes with localized

T
corrosion defects
Mojtaba Mokhtari⁎, Robert E. Melchers
Centre for Infrastructure Performance and Reliability, The University of Newcastle, Newcastle, NSW, Australia

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: This study presents a novel concept and a guide for developing the next generation of fracture
Fracture mode prediction models for corroded metallic pipelines. Based on this new concept, the first 3D burst
Pipeline failure capacity models are developed herein. These models combine simplicity and accuracy through
Complex defect the use of a new parameter, volume of the defect, to measure the burst pressure of corroded pipes
Corrosion
with localized defects of complex morphology. The past 50 years has seen the development of
Fracture prediction
numerous 2D burst capacity models, which have focused only on the longitudinal-section area of
the corrosion defect and have become increasingly more complicated and less practical in an
attempt to increase their relatively low accuracy and stability. Unlike these earlier models, the 3D
models presented herein do not require definition of the exact defect profile; despite this, they are
significantly more accurate and more stable than the well-known conventional models. Thus,
they can significantly reduce the life-cycle costs of pipelines through eliminating or substantially
reducing the unnecessary repair or replacement of corroded pipelines. The 3D models have been
developed from two sets of computational models that were validated against full-scale burst
capacity tests on API-5L pipes with localized complex-shaped defects. In addition, high-speed
imaging of the fracture was used to determine the location of ductile crack initiation and the
corresponding internal pressure.

1. Introduction

Corrosion and external interference (mechanical damage) are the major reasons for the failure of onshore and offshore metallic
pipelines [1]. Apart from the lost lives and environmental disasters that may result, it has been estimated that the global annual cost
of corrosion for the world economy is $2.2 trillion [2]. In the USA alone, during the period from 1998 to 2017, 306 fatalities and 1259
injuries were caused by 5716 incidents related to oil, gas and hazardous fluid pipeline failures that were estimated to cost over $8.1
billion [3]. As a result, the corrosion-induced failure of pipelines has become a major concern in maintaining pipeline integrity [4–6].
Various fracture prediction models—so-called ‘burst capacity’ models—have been developed in recent years to estimate the re-
maining strength of corroded pipelines with localized corrosion defects [1]. The first efforts to develop a burst capacity model can be
traced back to over four decades ago. Studies by Kiefner [7] and Kiefner and Vieth [8] led to the well-known ASME B31G criterion
[9], which is a model that is simple to use. Later, due to its highly conservative predictions, it was modified to ASME Modified B31G
[10]. These models can be categorized as ‘easy to use’ because they employ simplified 2D geometries, such as rectangular and

Abbreviations: 2D, 2-dimensional; 3D, 3-dimensional; CAD, Computer Aided Design; CNC, Computer Numerical Control; CoV, Coefficient of
Variation; FE, Finite Element; FEA, Finite Element Analysis; FEM, Finite Element Methods; DAQ, Data Acquisition
⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: mojtaba.mokhtari@uon.edu.au (M. Mokhtari).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engfailanal.2019.06.094
Received 7 December 2018; Received in revised form 10 March 2019; Accepted 28 June 2019
Available online 29 June 2019
1350-6307/ © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
M. Mokhtari and R.E. Melchers Engineering Failure Analysis 105 (2019) 610–626

Nomenclature Pu,v Upper limit burst pressure of an intact pipe ac-

cording to the von Mises yield criterion
Ai Area of the ith sub-defect in a river-bottom profile R Outside radius of the pipe
of the defect depth s Standard deviation of x1, x2, …, xN
c Width of a pitting corrosion S() A function of pit dimensions and pipe size in the
D Outside diameter of the pipe 3D Regression Model
deq Equivalent depth of a pitting corrosion t Wall thickness of the pipe
dmax Maximum depth a pitting corrosion V Volume of a pitting corrosion
L Length of a pitting corrosion x Average (mean) of x1, x2, …, xN
N Number of studied pipes xj Normalized burst pressure produced by a burst-
P Internal pressure of pipe capacity model for jth studied pipe
Pb Burst pressure of the corroded pipe predicted by a σtu Actual ultimate strength of the pipe (true ultimate
burst capacity model tensile stress)
Pa Actual burst pressure (produced by the FE model σu Ultimate strength of the pipe (engineering ulti-
with complex-shaped pit) mate tensile stress)
Pu,t Upper limit burst pressure of an intact pipe ac- σy Yield strength of the pipe
cording to the Tresca yield criterion

parabolic, to represent the longitudinal corrosion defect area (Ref. [11] shows how these simple 2D geometries are applied). There
are other simple and well-known burst capacity models, such as SHELL92 [12], PCORRC [13–15], and the DNV-RP-F101 model for
single defects [16]. These simple models require only the length and maximum depth of the pit (in addition to pipe size and material
properties) to calculate the burst pressure. However, the pit geometry simplification has some consequences, such as large scatter in
burst pressure predictions and excessively conservative estimates in some cases [17–21]. If nothing else, the existence of large scatter
alone reduces the trust that can be placed in the results of such simple models in practical applications.
In order to improve the burst capacity predictions, models such as RSTRENG were developed; these models use the exact pit depth
profile or the effective defect area to model the pit geometry [22]. These improved models provide more stable predictions (i.e.
predictions with less uncertainties) compared to the simple models noted above, yet retain a considerable degree of scatter in their
predictions, as well as producing conservative results [17–21]. Moreover, they are complicated and time-consuming to use and
generally not suitable for field/hand calculations. Another issue is that they require the exact pit shape profile, which makes them
more difficult to use. The issues of prediction accuracy and of scatter led to the development of further models, such as DNV-RP-F101,
for complex-shaped defects [16]. However, this model is even more complicated. It requires the exact depth-vs-length profile of
defects [16], as well as a complicated calculation process comprising 15 steps.
In addition to the models outlined so far, there are other, somewhat similar models that, because of their lower or similar accuracy
and/or their excessive complexity, are less well-known. In summary, the burst capacity models that are currently widely used in the
pipeline industry can be divided into two classes. The first class contains models such as Modified B31G [10], SHELL92 [12], PCORRC
[13–15] and the DNV model for single defects [16]; these are easy to use, but tend to produce excessive scatter in their predictions.
The second class contains models such as RSTRENG [22], the CSA model [23] and the DNV model for complex-shaped defects [16];
these produce more stable predictions when compared to the first class, but are complicated, time-consuming and not suitable for
field/hand calculation.
Many experimental studies [24–33] and numerical analyses [19,20,24,25,29,33–39] have been carried out in recent years, both
to investigate the remaining strength of corroded pipelines and to assess the performance of the available burst capacity models
against such data. Almost without exception, these studies have shown that both classes of models, along with the currently accepted
assessment processes that use the results of these models, occasionally impose costly and unnecessary repair or replacement of
pipelines, with associated operational shutdowns [18–21,34]. More importantly, these experimental and numerical studies that were
used to assess the existing burst capacity models are themselves conservative, as they employed simplified defect geometries (such as
cuboidal and ellipsoidal pits) to represent pitting corrosion, as shown by Mokhtari and Melchers [19,20]. These authors demonstrated
that employing simplified/idealized geometries in numerical or experimental studies to model a complex-shaped pit results in un-
derestimated burst pressures for mid-to-high toughness carbon steel pipes. This means that conventional burst capacity models
underestimate the burst pressure to an even greater extent than has been reported in recent experimental and numerical studies that
employed simple pit geometries.

1.1. Preliminary procedure for development of the first 3D burst capacity models

Rather than following the conventional 2D approach used over the past five decades, Mokhtari and Melchers introduced a new
approach [20] aimed at combining model simplicity, high accuracy and high stability. Through a series of parametric studies on the
burst pressure of pipes with isolated complex-shaped pits, these authors found that the volume of the pit was a significant factor in
evaluating the burst pressure. This allowed for a new parameter, equivalent depth, to be introduced, which can be calculated using
the following equation:

611
M. Mokhtari and R.E. Melchers Engineering Failure Analysis 105 (2019) 610–626

V
deq = + d max /2
Lc (1)

where deq, V, L, c and dmax are the equivalent depth, volume, length, width, and maximum depth of an irregular defect. The re-
placement of dmax with deq in the simple burst capacity models was, in theory, expected to maximize the accuracy of the predictions
and minimize their scatters. This replacement resulted in a significant reduction in the average error and Coefficient of Variation
(CoV) of the burst capacity models selected for the modification (i.e. PCORRC and the DNV model for single defects). However, after
this modification, a slightly better performance was observed for PCORRC compared with the DNV model so that the average error
for PCORRC dropped from 16.6% to 6.6% and its CoV fell to 2.1% from 8.1% as obtained from the modification. The expressions for
the modified PCORRC, hereafter termed 3D PCORRC, for the average error and the CoV are as follows:

3D PCORRC: P b =
2t u
1
( V
Lc )
+ d max /2
1 exp
0.157L
D t D t ( V
Lc
+ dmax )/2
2 (2)

N
j=1
xj
Average error = (1 x ) × 100 = 1 × 100
N
(3)

N
j = 1 (xj x )2
s N
CoV = = × 100
x x (4)

( P b )j
xj =
(Pa )j (5)

where in Eq. (2), t is the wall thickness, D is the outside diameter, and σy is the yield strength of the pipe; σu is the ultimate
strength of the pipe. In Eqs. (3) and (4), x is the average (mean) of x1, x2, …, xN; xj is the normalized burst pressure produced by the

The FE models were

First set of FE simula!ons including 11 FE models were Failure mechanism was
validated against 7 full-scale
carried out. These used X65 steel pipes with 11 studied and a failure
burst capacity tests carried
different external complex-shaped corrosion defects. criterion was defined.
out by Choi et al. [24].

In order to test the concept of using deq in the Through analysing

A brand new variable for burst capacity
burst capacity models, two well-known burst the results of the
models, termed Equivalent Pit Depth
capacity models (PCORRC and DNV) were first set, volume
(deq), was developed. This variable uses
selected for modifica!on. The modifica!on of the defect was
the pit volume as the main parameter
significantly improved the performance of the found to be a key
and was considered as an alterna!ve for
selected models. Modified PCORRC showed parameter
the conven!onal "maximum pit depth"
improved performance. Thus, 3D PCORRC was influencing the
variable (dmax).
introduced as the first 3D burst capacity model. burst pressure.

Using the results of the first set of

A second set of simula!ons was Six full-scale burst capacity
simula!ons, another 3D burst capacity
carried out on API 5LB/X42 pipes tests (3 with complex pits
model was developed independent of the
to validate the developed 3D and 3 with cuboidal pits)
previous burst capacity models. This used
burst capacity models and to were performed to verify
only normalised equivalent depth and
ensure that the adopted failure the FE models used for the
normalised pit length as variables to ensure
mechanism is typical for all pipes second set of simula!ons.
that these two variables would be sufficient
constructed from duc!le and These were conducted
to develop very accurate, stable and simple
semi-duc!le materials. using API 5LB/X42 pipes.
3D burst capacity models.

Fig. 1. Development and validation process of the 3D burst capacity models.

612
M. Mokhtari and R.E. Melchers Engineering Failure Analysis 105 (2019) 610–626

burst capacity model for the jth studied pipe (and is calculated using Eq. (5)); N is the number of pipes considered in the study; s is the
standard deviation, and Pb is the burst pressure produced by the burst capacity model, while Pa is the actual burst pressure obtained
from a validated FE model with a realistic model of a complex-shaped pit (i.e. as validated against experimental test results).
Pit width appears to have an insignificant effect on the burst pressure of pitting corroded pipelines, at least as an independent
variable [19,20,24,40]. As noted by Mustaffa and van Gelder [41], it is likely that this is the reason that pit width has not previously
been used in the conventional burst capacity models, and why the 2-dimensional approach (using only the length and depth of the
pit) appears to be the only approach used to date to develop the well-known burst capacity models. In contrast, the 3-dimensional
approach considered herein uses the pit width, c, in the development of burst capacity models. This is because it is now clear, from
Eq. (1), that pit width has a direct influence on the equivalent depth and thus an indirect effect on the burst pressure calculations.
As noted above, a preliminary exposition of the 3D approach was presented in Ref. [20]. The present paper presents a detailed
validation of this approach using both detailed FE results and experimental observations. The present paper also proposes a new 3D
burst capacity model independent of all the previous models. The development procedure and the details of the model are given in
the next section (see Fig. 1 for the overall development process). The development of the new 3D burst capacity model independent of
previous models shows that the 3D approach is not only able to modify previous burst capacity models, but also allows pit volume
(together with pit length and maximum pit depth) to be considered as a new key parameter of the pit in parametric studies. This
allows for the development of 3D burst capacity models appropriate for other pipes with different materials and different sizes, and
for pipes under different loading conditions, etc. Thus, as noted, the conventional simple models can be modified and improved
simply by replacing the maximum pit depth (dmax) in these models with the equivalent pit depth (deq) given in Eq. (1) [20].
Finally, the present paper proposes a novel fast-track method for parametric experimental and numerical studies of pipelines with
complex corrosion defects that can significantly accelerate the progression of this field of research. The proposed methodology uses

Table 1
Pits dimensions, the nomenclature used to identify each studied pipe, and numerically computed burst pressures.
Simulation set # Pipe material Pipe # Pit length, L (mm) Pit width, c (mm) Pit maximum depth, dmax (mm) Burst pressure, Pa (MPa)

A API 5L X65 P100‐50-25% 100 50 4.4 27.4

P100‐50-50% 100 50 8.8 25.3

P100‐50-75% 100 50 13.1 24.0

P200‐50-25% 200 50 4.4 26.9

P200‐50-50% 200 50 8.8 24.9

P200‐50-75% 200 50 13.1 21.2

P300‐50-25% 300 50 4.4 27.0

P300‐50-50% 300 50 8.8 22.7

P300‐50-75% 300 50 13.1 19.1

P200‐100-50% 200 100 8.8 24.3

P200‐200-50% 200 200 8.8 24.5

B API 5LB/X42 P36‐18-25% 35.8 17.9 2.33 37.4

P36‐18-50% 35.8 17.9 4.65 35.5

P36‐18-75% 35.8 17.9 6.98 33.3

P72‐18-25% 71.7 17.9 2.33 37.3

P72‐18-50% 71.7 17.9 4.65 32.6

P72‐18-75% 71.7 17.9 6.98 29.9

P107‐18-25% 107.5 17.9 2.33 36.8

P107‐18-50% 107.5 17.9 4.65 32

P107‐18-75% 107.5 17.9 6.98 25.7

P72‐36-50% 71.7 35.8 4.65 32.5

P72‐72-50% 71.7 71.7 4.65 32.5

613
M. Mokhtari and R.E. Melchers Engineering Failure Analysis 105 (2019) 610–626

CNC coding to generate a machined version of the actual pit topography on a pipe of the same material and size as the operating pipe.
If the operating pipe is accessible, the results obtained from the 3D scanning of the external surface of the pipe can be used to generate
the CNC code; otherwise, the algorithm described in the next section (which was also used in Ref. [20] to develop a CAD model of a
complex-shaped pit) can be adopted. In addition, the designed setup for the burst capacity tests permits observation of the pipe
failure/fracture mechanism with high-speed cameras in burst tests to obtain visual images of the deformations and cracks at the
failure region during the bursting process. Importantly, this information can be obtained without the original pipe being taken out of
service.

2. Methods

2.1. Finite element modelling

In order to develop the 3D burst capacity models, two sets of FE simulations were carried out using the nonlinear finite element
code ABAQUS. The 3D burst capacity models were developed from the results of the first set of simulations. To verify the developed
models, a second set of FE simulations were carried out, along with a series of full-scale burst capacity tests with complex-shaped pits
on pipes that differed in material and size from the pipes used in the first set.

2.1.1. First set of finite element simulations (Set A)

The first set of simulations included 11 different models with 11 different topographies and dimensions for complex-shaped pits
(Table 1) on the exterior surface of X65 steel pipes; this material is used extensively for pipes in the oil and gas industry. Two
examples of the pit geometries developed to represent isolated complex-shaped pits are shown in Fig. 2. The geometries considered
herein are closely consistent with the topographies of irregular isolated corrosion defects observed in practice [20,42–46]. For
development of the artificial complex-shaped pits, a novel algorithm was devised. Ref. [20] provides an explanation of this algorithm,
as well as the relationship and similarity between the artificial complex-shaped defects developed herein with actual complex-shaped
pits.
The meshing shown in Fig. 2 was generated automatically through applying an Adaptive Meshing algorithm [47] with five
iterations. In order to minimize the run time while maximizing the accuracy of results, this algorithm develops finer mesh where the
stress/strain is higher and coarser mesh elsewhere. This is particularly useful for FEA of models with irregular geometries. As a result,
the number of elements is different in each simulation. The number and size of elements, as well as the developed stress in the pipe
wall, were found to stabilize after the second or third iteration, thereby ensuring that the results of the present study would not be
affected by an increase in the number of elements or the use of a finer mesh. In this algorithm, a number of criteria can be considered

Fig. 2. Meshing at the pit region and two examples of the morphology of the complex-shaped pits.

614
M. Mokhtari and R.E. Melchers Engineering Failure Analysis 105 (2019) 610–626

to determine the mesh size at each arbitrary point throughout the model. Using the determined criteria, the algorithm refines the
meshing after each iteration. The criteria include plastic strain, equivalent plastic strain, Mises equivalent stress, element energy, or a
combination of these [47]; in the present study, a combination of the element energy, Mises equivalent stress and equivalent plastic
strain was used. This resulted in the number of 4-Node Linear Tetrahedron elements (C3D4) being between 1.5 and 2.5 million for all
simulations.
The length, outside diameter and wall thickness of the pipes in the first set (Set A) were 2.3 m, 762 mm and 17.5 mm, respectively,
corresponding to the pipes tested experimentally by Choi et al. [24]. These values were chosen to validate the numerical models in
the first set (i.e. Set A). It should be noted that the pipe lengths used herein (both for the simulations and the burst capacity tests)
were obtained from parametric studies to ensure that longer pipes would produce essentially the same results as the shorter pipes,
which are considered herein because of limitations on testing procedures. Table 1 presents the dimensions of the pits and the
nomenclature used to identify each pipe in the present study. For example, pipe P200‐50-75% is a pipe with the following pit di-
mensions: l = 200 mm, c = 50 mm and d/t = 0.75.
The material stress-strain behaviour for X65 steel was modelled using the true stress-strain curve shown in Fig. 3a, which is
derived from the uniaxial tensile tests reported by Choi et al. [24]. For the X42 steel, the true stress-strain curve (Fig. 3b) was
obtained from uniaxial tensile tests carried out as a part of the present study, as explained in the next section. These full true stress-
strain curves were digitally imported into the FE models without simplifications.
To solve the FE models, a full Newton solution technique in a geometrically non-linear static analysis was applied [47]. No special
boundary conditions were required to solve the models. This was because the full pipe length was modelled, which also included the
sealing end caps used in the experimental tests, as described in Ref. [24]. The only concession made was to fully restrain the pipe in
the FE model against rigid body translational and rotational movement. This was done in order to obviate unconstrained rigid body
movement, as this could lead to numerical instability [47]. The boundary conditions were tested to ensure that they did not create
resistance to overall pipe deformation. The internal pressure was applied using a distributed uniform load (so-called ‘pressure load’ in
the ABAQUS software) on the interior surface of the pipe wall [47]. This was ramped up linearly from zero to the pipe burst pressure.
The pipe burst pressure in the FEA was determined using the failure criterion defined in Refs. [20, 24]. According to this failure
criterion, once the von Mises equivalent stress along the entire remaining wall thickness of the pipe at the pit region exceeds the so-
called reference stress, the corresponding internal pressure is considered as the burst pressure (Fig. 4). The reference stress considered
herein is equal to 90% of the actual ultimate tensile strength of the pipe (i.e. 0.9 σtu). This value was obtained from a parametric study
in Ref. [20]. Burst pressures obtained from the first set of simulations (Set A) using the failure criterion noted above are presented in
Table 1. The numerical models used in Set A were already validated in Ref. [20] against full-scale burst capacity test results.
Therefore, to avoid excessively prolonging this paper, further discussion on validating the Set A numerical models will be elided
herein.

2.1.2. Second set of finite element simulations (Set B)

To ensure that the results derived from the first set of simulations (Set A) are applicable to pipes of different sizes and constructed
from different ductile materials, a second set of FEAs was carried out (Set B). This set included 11 different FE models, each of which
had a different isolated complex-shaped pit (Table 1). One example of the FE models developed for the second set of simulations is
shown in Fig. 2. Pipes in this set of simulations were constructed from API 5LB/X42 steel. These pipes had an outside diameter, length
and wall thickness of 273 mm, 1 m and 9.3 mm, respectively. Numerical models for this set of cases were validated against full-scale
burst capacity tests carried out as a part of this study, as described in section 2.2.
In order to obtain the stress-strain curve of API 5LB/X42 steel (shown in Fig. 3b) for the numerical modelling, three different test
specimens were prepared according to ASTM–E–8/E–8 M–08 [46]. These were cut from the pipes used in the full-scale burst capacity
tests (see Section 2.2 below) in the longitudinal direction and tested in a universal testing machine (MTS-LPS.305). Three very similar
true stress-strain curves were obtained, the average of which is shown in Fig. 3b. The pipe material was considered isotropic and

800 800

700 700

600 600
True stress, MPa

True stress, MPa

500 500

400 400

300 300

200 200

100 100
(a) (b)
0 0
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30
True strain True strain

Fig. 3. True stress-strain curve of (a) API 5L X65 steel [24] and (b) API 5LB/X42.

615
M. Mokhtari and R.E. Melchers Engineering Failure Analysis 105 (2019) 610–626

Pressure: 18 MPa

Black area is considered failed

Pressure: 18.5 MPa

Pressure: 19.2 MPa

Bursting/leakage onset zone

according to the failure criterion

Fig. 4. von Mises stress distribution at the pitting corroded area with increasing pressure for pipe P300‐50-75% (stresses in Pa).

616
M. Mokhtari and R.E. Melchers Engineering Failure Analysis 105 (2019) 610–626

homogenous throughout the pipe.

The computational approaches used for this set of cases (Set B) were similar to those used for Set A, including the use of the same
failure criterion for the burst pressures (Table 1).

2.2. Full-scale burst capacity tests with cuboidal and complex corrosion defects

In this section, the numerical models discussed in the previous section (i.e. the models for the cases in Set B) are validated against
full-scale burst capacity tests. For this, six full-scale burst capacity tests were performed. Three of these had cuboidal pits machined
into them, while the other three were machined to feature complex-shaped pits. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first
implementation of a systematic study with control over complex pit dimensions in the literature.
The use of artificial cuboidal pit geometries is conventional in many studies [17,27,48–53]. To permit proper validation of the
numerical models proposed in the present paper, it is necessary to consider both the pit geometries used in conventional methods and
in the method proposed herein. It should be noted that the results of tests with cuboidal pits are only used for the validation of
numerical models and have no other application in this study. To perform a validation examination using cuboidal pits, three extra FE
models were developed by replacing the complex-shaped pit in the FE models of the second set with the cuboidal pit used in the
experimental study. The dimensions and geometries of these pits are shown in Fig. 5.

2.2.1. Full-scale burst capacity tests setup and FE models validation (Set B)
The burst capacity tests were conducted using pipes made of API 5LB/X42 steel. The desired corrosion defects on the exterior
surface of the pipes (as seen in Fig. 6) were machined onto the exterior surface after the CAD models of the pits were developed using
Autodesk Inventor (see Ref. [20] for the CAD model development process). The G-codes were generated from the CAD models and
then given as input to a CNC machine (ProtoTRAK SMX CNC).
Both ends of the pipe with the defect machined onto it were sealed using hemi-spherical caps. These caps had the same thickness
and material as the pipe and were attached with full-penetration girth welds. A hydraulic valve was installed at the centre of one of
the end caps, which had a threaded hole. For each test, the prepared pipe was placed inside a cylindrical steel safety chamber. The
chamber had a top-mounted bolted steel circular plate. To begin the burst testing, the pipe was first filled with hydraulic oil and then
pressurized using a hydraulic pump until bursting failure occurred. A pressure transducer installed on the hydraulic valve measured
the burst pressure noting that the hydrostatic pressure from the oil is negligible in comparison with the applied internal pressures. A
high-speed camera recorded the deformations and the fracture of the pipes in the defected region; this camera was located next to a
small hole machined in the safety chamber wall. A transparent bullet-proof polymer was used to seal the hole. A diagram of the test
arrangement is presented in Fig. 7. A computer connected to the pressure transducer through a Data Acquisition (DAQ) device
recorded pressure vs. time data. The maximum pressures recorded immediately before pipe bursting occurred are shown in Table 2,
together with the burst pressures computed by the corresponding FE models. Good agreement was observed between the compu-
tational and experimental results.

Fig. 5. Topography of complex-shaped pits and their corresponding cuboidal pits for the full-scale burst capacity tests.

617
M. Mokhtari and R.E. Melchers Engineering Failure Analysis 105 (2019) 610–626

Fig. 6. Machining of a complex-shaped pit on pipe P72‐18-50%.

Fig. 7. Diagram of the burst capacity test arrangement.

2.3. Development of a 3D burst capacity model with a 3D-nonlinear regression analysis

In this section, a simple procedure independent from the previous burst capacity models is introduced to demonstrate how
employing only the normalized equivalent depth (Eq. (1)) and the pit length can assist in the development of a burst capacity model
that is not only very easy to use, but is also (according to the results of this study) the most accurate and most stable model when
compared with previous well-known burst capacity models. This procedure may also be used for the development of other 3D burst
capacity models in the future and for different applications.
To begin developing a burst capacity model, the following general form may be considered:

deq L
P b = Pu, t × S ,
t R (t deq ) (6)

618
M. Mokhtari and R.E. Melchers Engineering Failure Analysis 105 (2019) 610–626

Table 2
Validation of numerical models against the results of the burst capacity tests.
Simulation set # Pipe # – pit shape Burst pressures (MPa) Error against experimental data Average error against experimental data

Experimental FEM

B P72‐18-25% – Complex 37.4 37.3 0.3% 2.2%

P72‐18-50% – Complex 31.5 32.6 3.5%

P72‐18-75% – Complex 30.3 29.9 1.3%

P72‐18-25% – Cuboidal 33.8 34.3 1.4%

P72‐18-50% – Cuboidal 28.5 29.7 4.2%

P72‐18-75% – Cuboidal 22.9 23.5 2.6%

2t u
Pu, t =
D (7)

where R is the outer radius of the pipe; Pu,t is the upper limit burst pressure of an intact pipe according to the Tresca yield criterion
d
[54]; S() is a function of eq and L
that represents the normalized size and dimensions of the pit; deq and L are normalized to t
t R (t deq )

and R (t deq) respectively. It is noted that deq, as calculated from Eq. (1), is a function of V, dmax, L and c. More precisely, S() is a
function of V, dmax, L, c, t and R.
From a series of parametric analyses and a 3D-nonlinear regression analysis conducted on the results of the first set of simulations
(Fig. 8), the following equation was obtained:

d eq L d eq L
S , = 1.1
t R (t d eq ) 3t R (t deq ) (8)

Therefore, Pb is given by:

2t u deq L
Pb = 1.1
D 3t R (t d eq ) (9)

d eq
Fig. 8. Variations of normalized actual burst pressure ( Pa
) as a function of and L
.
Pu, t t R (t deq )

619
M. Mokhtari and R.E. Melchers Engineering Failure Analysis 105 (2019) 610–626

( )
In Eq. (9), when the pipe is intact (i.e. deq=L = 0), the burst pressure is P b = 1.1 Du , which is very similar to but slightly lower
2t

than the upper limit burst pressure defined by the von Mises yield criterion for an intact pipe (Pu,v) [54], given by:

2 2t u 2t u
Pu, v = 1.15
3 D D (10)

This suggests that Eq. (9) is most likely to be valid for pits that are even shallower than the shallowest pits studied herein (i.e. pits
with max 0.25). In the next section, the burst pressures obtained from Eq. (2) and Eq. (9) are compared with those produced by the
d
t
conventional burst capacity models and with the actual burst pressures computed by validated FE models with complex-shaped pits.

3. Results and discussion

3.1. Failure mechanism

Using the failure criterion defined in Section 2.1.1, the leak zones obtained from one of the FEAs are presented in Fig. 9 together
with experimental observations. It is observed that the leak zones in the FE simulation match closely with the location of the initial
leaks seen in the burst capacity test. Moreover, the failure paths within the pits in the FEA between leak zones A and B (see the white
path between zones A and B in Fig. 9) correspond with the crack propagation path in the experimental study. In the present study, the
possibility of a pre-existing crack, which is the basis of classical fracture mechanics [55], was not considered. In the present work,
‘crack’ is interpreted as a by-product of the existing corrosion defects on pressurized pipes causing the stress concentration within the
defect.
The crack initiates at high internal pressures extremely close to the burst pressure of the pipeline after a notable bulging around
the pit region. For example, for pipe P72‐18-75%, a crack initiated at a pressure of about 37.3 MPa and the bursting occurred at
37.4 MPa (Fig. 10). The internal pressure was increased very slowly, so that it took 12 s to increase the pressure from 37.3 MPa to
37.4 MPa. The bulging and plastic deformation continued to increase following crack initiation until the crack had propagated
enough throughout the remaining thickness of the pipe to cause bursting failure. This failure mechanism is very similar to the necking
phenomenon observed in the uniaxial tensile tests explained in Section 2.1.2, indicating that the pipe failed in a ductile failure mode
at the ultimate tensile strength of the pipe. It was observed that plastic deformations were more localized for deeper pits, while large
global deformations were observed for shallower pits (Fig. 11). These underwent very high internal pressures of up to 374 bars.
Further elaboration on the extent of the plastic region around a pit is provided in Fig. 12, which demonstrates the growth of the
plastic region (shown in grey) with the increase in internal pressure for pipe P72‐18-75%. This pipe developed the smallest plastic
region compared with the other pipes in the burst capacity tests, simply because it included the deepest pit, leading to a lower burst
pressure and more localized deformations. For other tested pipes, far larger plastic regions were observed, so that for pipe P72‐18-25%,
the entire FE model underwent plastic deformation before the bursting failure.
In the numerical simulations, from the cross-sectional view, the failed elements at the defected region resemble an X shape
(Fig. 13a). This suggests that the fracture is likely to be either a so-called cup-and-cone or a slanted fracture [56]. These fracture
modes are typical in the ductile and semi-ductile tensile failure of metals, confirming that the failure is controlled by hoop plastic
stress. The experimental results confirmed these findings (Fig. 13b). In the burst capacity tests of pipes with a shallow or medium-
depth pit, a combination of cup-and-cone and slanted fractures was observed (Fig. 13b). Images recorded via high-speed camera
showed that the cup-and-cone fracture initiated at the bottom of pits where the remaining wall thickness was minimum. This fracture
then extended along the region through which the ductile crack had propagated immediately before the bursting occurred (Figs. 9a
and 10e). In this area, there is significant reduction in the pipe wall thickness due to high plastic deformations, and the fracture
propagation rate is low. Slanted fracture occurred where the fracture propagated through with an extremely high rate after the
leakage was observed (Fig. 10f).

Fig. 9. Failure of pipe P72‐18-75% in (a) the burst capacity test and (b) the numerical simulation.

620
M. Mokhtari and R.E. Melchers Engineering Failure Analysis 105 (2019) 610–626

Fig. 10. Plastic deformation, crack initiation, crack propagation and bursting failure of P72‐18-25% in the burst capacity test.

Fig. 11. Pipes with complex-shaped pits after the burst capacity test.

3.2. Performance and validation of the 3D burst capacity models

Table 3 and Fig. 14 present the normalized burst pressures calculated by different burst capacity models. The CoV (according to
Eq. (4)) and the average error (Eq. (3)) are also shown.
Compared with other studied burst capacity models, as expected, the results for the Modified ASME B31G and SHELL92 models
exhibited the highest average errors of 24.5% and 34.2%, respectively. For the DNV model and PCORRC the errors were 15.3% and
16.7%, respectively, and these had the lowest average errors among the conventional models. The CSA model and RSTRENG ex-
hibited the lowest scatter in their predictions with CoVs of 4.7% and 4.8%, respectively. These two models had very similar per-
formance on the cases studied herein, and both require detailed pit depth profile for the burst pressure calculation. Although PCORRC
and the DNV model do not require actual pit depth profiles and are easy to use, they have lower average errors compared with the

621
M. Mokhtari and R.E. Melchers Engineering Failure Analysis 105 (2019) 610–626

Fig. 12. Logarithmic (true) strain distribution around the corrosion pit of pipe P72‐18-75%. for different internal pressures: (a) elastic phase; (b) onset
of plastic deformation; (c) growth of plastic region; (d) extent of plastic region immediately before bursting; (e) maximum principal logarithmic
strain vs. internal pressure.

CSA model and RSTRENG. However, RSTRENG and the CSA model predictions are far more stable than those of the DNV model and
PCORRC. For practical applications, this means that the DNV model and PCORRC are accurate in some cases and quite conservative
in others. Thus, it is not clear whether or not a predicted burst pressure is close to the actual burst pressure, or whether or not the
results are conservative. In this context, it is noted that the results obtained herein can assist in determining the likely accuracy of
model predictions. From the observations in Table 3, it appears that conservative results are most likely to be produced when the pit
is very deep and the pit mouth is narrow (for example, when dmax/t = 0.75 and L/c = 6 in Table 3).
In light of all the issues associated with the conventional models outlined above, the 3D burst capacity models described herein exhibit
high performance, with CoV and average error for the 3D Regression Model at only 2.57% and 5.27%, respectively. For the 3D PCORRC
model, the corresponding values are only slightly higher. These are promising results, which suggest that the concepts put forward in the
present paper may form the basis for a new generation of burst capacity models based on the volume of irregular pitting defects. Most
importantly, the accurate and stable predictions of the 3D Regression Model were obtained from a very simple model (Eq. (9)). In practice,
this significantly reduces the required calculation time, thereby diminishing asset life-cycle costs [57]. It follows that the 3D models do not
require programming to provide accurate and stable predictions, unlike the most precise conventional models such as RSTRENG. As a result,
these 3D models offer a solution for cases where fast and accurate decision-making is required.
On the subject of how data for the pit/defect volumes should be collected, it is noted that several methods are available: these
include recent in-line inspection techniques such as ultra sound pigging, Axial Magnetic Flux Leakage Ultra-High-Resolution tech-
nology (MFL-A Ultra), etc. These techniques can provide accurate data regarding the volume of pits or defects. Another option is the

622
M. Mokhtari and R.E. Melchers Engineering Failure Analysis 105 (2019) 610–626

Fig. 13. Fracture modes in (a) the numerical study, corresponding with (b) the experimental results demonstrating a ductile fracture mechanism
(P72‐18-25%).

use of 3D laser scanners in cases where there is access to the surface of the pipe; where such external access is possible, the simplest
method of measuring pit or defect volume is simply to use a non-stick gum. This gum can be squeezed into the pit until it fully fits,
after which the volume of the pit can be measured using the suspension technique or by dividing the gum's weight by its density.
Finally, when considering the results of the present study, the following limitations should be noted:

• Studied pipes had high andd mid-to-high toughness;

max
0.25 0.75
t

• Studied pits had:

L
1.1 5.5
R (t deq )
d eq
0.17 0.54
t

4. Conclusions

The method introduced herein, i.e. that of using pit volume for the development of fracture prediction models, has produced the
first 3D burst capacity models; despite exhibiting significantly lower error and scatter in their predictions compared with conven-
tional models, these models are among the simplest available for practical use. Accordingly, the approach described herein may
establish a foundation for the next generation of burst capacity models. The main conclusions of the present study are as follows:

• High-speed camera records of the bursting moment showed that no ductile crack is detectable with the naked eye at the pit region
unless the pipe is extremely close to its burst pressure.
• High plastic deformations accompanied by significant wall thinning (necking) were observed at the pit region. A combination of
cup-and-cone and slanted fracture modes was detected for pipes with shallow and medium depth pits. For pipes with deep pits,
only a narrow and relatively short crack occurred immediately prior to a minor bursting, as evidenced by a small oil leak.
• The cup-and-cone fracture mode was observed at the pit region where the ductile crack propagated through prior to bursting. The
slanted fracture mode, however, occurred where the fracture propagation rate was extremely high after bursting onset and during
the explosive oil discharge.
• Of the conventional models, the DNV model and PCORRC, which use simplistic 2D profiles for pits in their predictions, yielded the
lowest average error (of about 16%) and CoVs of 10.8% and 7.2%, respectively. These relatively high CoVs stem from the poor
performance of these models in burst pressure prediction for pipes with deep and narrow pits.
• The CSA model and RSTRENG, which require a detailed 2D profile of an actual pit for their predictions, produced the most stable
predictions compared to the other conventional models, with a CoV of around 5%. However, these models tend to be considerably
conservative, with an average error of around 19%.
• The above-mentioned average errors and CoVs dropped considerably when the 3D approach was employed to develop burst
capacity models so that for the 3D Regression Model, the CoV and the average error were found to be only 2.57% and 5.27%,
respectively. Nevertheless, the 3D Regression Model is a simple, practical model that can significantly reduce the life-cycle costs of
pipelines both in the energy transportation sector and in the water distribution systems by providing very accurate predictions
with minimal calculation time.

623
 Table 3
M. Mokhtari and R.E. Melchers

Burst capacity models predictions.

Set # Application Pipe # Pa (MPa) Normalized burst pressure predictions (Pb /Pa)

Conventional models 3D models

Shell92 Modified ASME B31G CSA Model RSTRENG PCORRC DNV Model 3D PCORRC 3D Regression Model

A The 3D models were developed from this set results P100-50-25% 27.4 0.81 0.83 0.83 0.84 0.91 0.95 0.93 0.99
P100-50-50% 25.3 0.77 0.83 0.87 0.88 0.91 0.96 0.96 1.00
P100-50-75% 24.0 0.61 0.76 0.87 0.88 0.83 0.86 0.95 0.95
P200-50-25% 26.9 0.76 0.80 0.81 0.82 0.89 0.91 0.92 0.98
P200-50-50% 24.9 0.65 0.73 0.78 0.79 0.83 0.84 0.93 0.96
P200-50-75% 21.2 0.47 0.66 0.75 0.76 0.74 0.69 0.95 0.94
P300-50-25% 27.0 0.73 0.77 0.78 0.79 0.85 0.87 0.89 0.95
P300-50-50% 22.7 0.65 0.74 0.76 0.76 0.83 0.83 0.94 0.97
P300-50-75% 19.1 0.44 0.63 0.76 0.76 0.67 0.62 0.95 0.93
P200-100-50% 24.3 0.66 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.85 0.86 0.93 0.96

624
P200-200-50% 24.5 0.66 0.75 0.82 0.82 0.85 0.86 0.93 0.96

B Verifies the 3D models P36-18-25% 37.4 0.79 0.82 0.81 0.82 0.88 0.93 0.89 0.94
P36-18-50% 35.5 0.75 0.82 0.82 0.84 0.87 0.94 0.91 0.92
P36-18-75% 33.3 0.63 0.78 0.85 0.87 0.82 0.88 0.93 0.92
P72-18-25% 37.3 0.74 0.78 0.78 0.79 0.85 0.89 0.87 0.92
P72-18-50% 32.6 0.69 0.78 0.83 0.85 0.87 0.90 0.94 0.96
P72-18-75% 29.9 0.48 0.67 0.80 0.82 0.75 0.72 0.92 0.90
P107-18-25% 36.8 0.71 0.76 0.77 0.79 0.84 0.86 0.87 0.91
P107-18-50% 32.0 0.63 0.73 0.78 0.79 0.81 0.82 0.91 0.93
P107-18-75% 25.7 0.46 0.66 0.75 0.76 0.72 0.67 0.97 0.94
P72-36-50% 32.5 0.69 0.78 0.80 0.82 0.87 0.90 0.94 0.95
P72-72-50% 32.5 0.69 0.78 0.84 0.86 0.87 0.90 0.94 0.96

Average (Mean) 0.66 0.75 0.80 0.81 0.83 0.85 0.93 0.95
Average Error% 34.22 24.52 19.93 18.77 16.70 15.26 7.45 5.27
CoV% 15.96 7.27 4.72 4.80 7.15 10.76 2.87 2.57
Engineering Failure Analysis 105 (2019) 610–626
M. Mokhtari and R.E. Melchers Engineering Failure Analysis 105 (2019) 610–626

1
P100-50-25%
Predicted burst pressure / Actual burst pressure

P100-50-50%
P100-50-75%
0.9
P200-50-25%
P200-50-50%
P200-50-75%
0.8 P300-50-25%
P300-50-50%
P300-50-75%
(Pb / Pa)

0.7 P200-100-50%
P200-200-50%
P36-18-25%
0.6 P36-18-50%
P36-18-75%
P72-18-25%
0.5 P72-18-50%
P72-18-75%
P107-18-25%
0.4 P107-18-50%
P107-18-75%
P72-36-50%
0.3 P72-72-50%
Shell92 Modified CSA Model RSTRENG PCORRC DNV Model 3D PCORRC 3D Regression
ASME B31G Model

Conventional 2D models Proposed 3D models

Fig. 14. Burst pressure prediction accuracy of the proposed 3D models alongside that of the conventional 2D models.

Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge the financial support of the Australian Research Council [Grant Number DP140103388] and also the
contributions of The University of Newcastle towards two research scholarships (UNIPRS and UNRSC) for the first author to pursue
his PhD.
This research was facilitated by the collaboration of several professional and technical officers at the Centre for Infrastructure
Performance and Reliability of The University of Newcastle. The authors would like to thank Goran Simundic, Andy Sullivan, Ross
Gibson, Michael Goodwin, Dr. Michele Spadari and Dr. Igor Chaves for their valuable assistance during the experimental setup,
testing and risk management procedure.

References

[1] A. Cosham, P. Hopkins, K.A. Macdonald, Best practice for the assessment of defects in pipelines – corrosion, Eng. Fail. Anal. 14 (2007) 1245–1265.
[2] Raising Awarenes about Corrosion and Corrosion Protection around the World, http://corrosion.org/wp-content/themes/twentyten/images/nowisthetime.pdf
(accessed on 5 September, 2018).
[3] Pipeline Significant Incident 20 Year Trends|PHMSA, www.phmsa.dot.gov, (2018) , Accessed date: 7 September 2019.
[4] J.C. Kim, D.J. Shim, K.O. Yoon, J.B. Choi, Y.S. Chang, Y.J. Kim, S.C. Choi, W.S. Kim, Development of Corroded Gas Pipeline Assessment Program Based on Limit
Load Solution, (2005), pp. 47–52.
[5] C. Su, Y. Li, X. Li, Burst Tests of Pipeline Containing Colonies of Metal Loss Defects with Different Sizes, (2018).
[6] A. Batte, B. Fu, M.G. Kirkwood, D. Vu, Advanced Methods for Integrity Assessment of Corroded Pipelines, Pipes & Pipelines International, (1997).
[7] J. Kiefner, W. Maxey, R. Eiber, A. Duffy, Failure stress levels of flaws in pressurized cylinders, Progress in Flaw Growth and Fracture Toughness Testing, ASTM
International, 1973.
[8] J.F. Kiefner, P.H. Vieth, Evaluating Pipe 1. New method corrects criterion for evaluating corroded pipe, Oil Gas J. 88 (1990).
[9] ANSI/ASME B31G-1984, Manual for Determining the Remaining Strength of Corroded Pipelines, (1984).
[10] J.F. Kiefner, P.H. Vieth, A Modified Criterion for Evaluating the Remaining Strength of Corroded Pipe, (1989).
[11] H. Adib-Ramezani, J. Jeong, G. Pluvinage, Structural integrity evaluation of X52 gas pipes subjected to external corrosion defects using the SINTAP procedure,
Int. J. Press. Vessel. Pip. 83 (2006) 420–432.
[12] D. Ritchie, S. Last, Burst Criteria of Corroded Pipelines-Defect Acceptance Criteria, (1995).
[13] B. Leis, D. Stephens, An Alternative Approach to Assess the Integrity of Corroded Line Pipe-Part I: Current Status, (1997).
[14] D.R. Stephens, B.N. Leis, Material and Geometry Factors Controlling the Failure of Corrosion Defects in Piping, vol. 350, American Society of Mechanical
Engineers, Pressure Vessels and Piping Division(Publication) PVP, 1997, pp. 3–11.
[15] D.R. Stephens, B.N. Leis, M. Kurre, Development of an Alternative Criterion for Residual Strength of Corrosion Defects in Moderate-to High-Toughness Pipe,
(2000), pp. 781–792.
[16] D.N. Veritas, Recommended Practice DNV-RP-F101 Corroded Pipelines, Hovik, Norway, 2004, p. 11.
[17] R.S. Motta, H.L. Cabral, S.M. Afonso, R.B. Willmersdorf, N. Bouchonneau, P.R. Lyra, E.Q. de Andrade, Comparative studies for failure pressure prediction of
corroded pipelines, Eng. Fail. Anal. 81 (2017) 178–192.
[18] W. Zhou, G. Huang, Model error assessments of burst capacity models for corroded pipelines, Int. J. Press. Vessel. Pip. 99 (2012) 1–8.
[19] M. Mokhtari, R.E. Melchers, Advanced Numerical Method for Failure Assessment of Corroded Steel Pipes, (2016).
[20] M. Mokhtari, R.E. Melchers, A new approach to assess the remaining strength of corroded steel pipes, Eng. Fail. Anal. 93 (2018) 144–156.
[21] A.P. Teixeira, C. Guedes Soares, T.A. Netto, S.F. Estefen, Reliability of pipelines with corrosion defects, Int. J. Press. Vessel. Pip. 85 (2008) 228–237.
[22] J. Kiefner, P. Vieth, Database of Corroded Pipe Tests, Final Report on Contract No. PR, (1993), pp. 218–9206.
[23] C. Oil, gas pipeline systems, CSA Standard Z662-07, Canadian Standard Association, Mississauga, Ontario, Canada, 2007.
[24] J. Choi, B. Goo, J. Kim, Y. Kim, W. Kim, Development of limit load solutions for corroded gas pipelines, Int. J. Press. Vessel. Pip. 80 (2003) 121–128.
[25] T.A. Netto, U.S. Ferraz, S.F. Estefen, The effect of corrosion defects on the burst pressure of pipelines, J. Constr. Steel Res. 61 (2005) 1185–1204.
[26] S. Rathnayaka, B. Shannon, C. Zhang, J. Kodikara, Introduction of the leak-before-break (LBB) concept for cast iron water pipes on the basis of laboratory
experiments, Urban Water J. 14 (2017) 820–828.
[27] Y. Chena, H. Zhang, J. Zhang, X. Li, J. Zhou, Failure analysis of high strength pipeline with single and multiple corrosions, Mater. Des. 67 (2015) 552–557.

625
M. Mokhtari and R.E. Melchers Engineering Failure Analysis 105 (2019) 610–626

[28] J. Diniz, R. Vieira, J. Castro, A. Benjamin, J. Freire, Stress and strain analysis of pipelines with localized metal loss, Exp. Mech. 46 (2006) 765–775.
[29] K.J. Yeom, Y.-K. Lee, K.H. Oh, W.S. Kim, Integrity assessment of a corroded API X70 pipe with a single defect by burst pressure analysis, Eng. Fail. Anal. 57
(2015) 553–561.
[30] A.C. Benjamin, R.D. Vieira, J.L.F. Freire, J.T. de Castro, Burst Tests on Pipeline with Long External Corrosion, (2000) pp. V002T006A013-V002T006A013.
[31] D. Cronin, R. Pick, Experimental database for corroded pipe: evaluation of RSTRENG and B31G, (2000), pp. 757–767.
[32] A.C. Benjamin, J.L.z.F. Freire, R.D. Vieira, J.T. de Castro, Burst Tests on Pipeline with Nonuniform Depth Corrosion Defects, (2002), pp. 51–57.
[33] Z. Liu, Y. Zhao, Y. Zhou, X. Qian, M. Li, P. Li, X. Li, Q. Zhang, Y. Liu, L. Zhao, D. Zhang, Experimental and numerical study on internal pressure load capacity and
failure mechanism of CO2 corroded tubing, Energy 158 (2018) 1070–1079.
[34] M.S. Chiodo, C. Ruggieri, Failure assessments of corroded pipelines with axial defects using stress-based criteria: numerical studies and verification analyses, Int.
J. Press. Vessel. Pip. 86 (2009) 164–176.
[35] X.-K. Zhu, B.N. Leis, Finite Element Analysis of Burst Pressure for Pipelines With Long Corrosion Defects, (2012), pp. 945–952.
[36] B. Ma, J. Shuai, D. Liu, K. Xu, Assessment on failure pressure of high strength pipeline with corrosion defects, Eng. Fail. Anal. 32 (2013) 209–219.
[37] J. Abdalla Filho, R. Machado, R. Bertin, M. Valentini, On the failure pressure of pipelines containing wall reduction and isolated pit corrosion defects, Comput.
Struct. 132 (2014) 22–33.
[38] G.H. Lee, H. Pouraria, J.K. Seo, J.K. Paik, Burst strength behaviour of an aging subsea gas pipeline elbow in different external and internal corrosion-damaged
positions, Int. J. Naval Architect. Ocean Eng. 7 (2015) 435–451.
[39] Y. Shuai, J. Shuai, K. Xu, Probabilistic analysis of corroded pipelines based on a new failure pressure model, Eng. Fail. Anal. 81 (2017) 216–233.
[40] D.S. Cronin, K.A. Roberts, R.J. Pick, Assessment of Long Corrosion Grooves in Line Pipe, (1996), pp. 401–408.
[41] Z. Mustaffa, P. van Gelder, A review and probabilistic analysis of limit state functions of corroded pipelines, The Twentieth International Offshore and Polar
Engineering Conference, International Society of Offshore and Polar Engineers, 2010.
[42] R. Jeffrey, R.E. Melchers, The changing topography of corroding mild steel surfaces in seawater, Corros. Sci. 49 (2007) 2270–2288.
[43] G. Small, PEEK in Longer Life Pipe-Steel Corrosion Review, https://www.magmaglobal.com/peek-longer-life-pipe (accessed on 13 September, 2018).
[44] P. Hopkins, 3 - assessing the significance of corrosion in onshore oil and gas pipelines A2 - Orazem, Mark E, Underground Pipeline Corrosion, Woodhead
Publishing, 2014, pp. 62–84.
[45] S. Brockhaus, M. Ginten, S. Klein, M. Teckert, O. Stawicki, D. Oevermann, S. Meyer, D. Storey, 10 - in-line inspection (ILI) methods for detecting corrosion in
underground pipelines A2 - Orazem, Mark E, Underground Pipeline Corrosion, Woodhead Publishing, 2014, pp. 255–285.
[46] J. Kvarekvål, J. Moloney, 6 - sour corrosion A2 - El-Sherik, A.M, Trends in Oil and Gas Corrosion Research and Technologies, Woodhead Publishing, Boston,
2017, pp. 113–147.
[47] ABAQUS Standard User's Manual, Version 6.11, Dassault Systemes Simulia Corp, Providence, RI, USA, 2011.
[48] M. Chebakov, G. Zecheru, A. Dumitrescu, R. Nedin, Stress Assessment for a Pipeline Segment with Volumetric Surface Defects Repaired Using Composite
Materials, Advanced Materials Springer, 2017, pp. 361–372.
[49] D. Shim, K. Yun, J. Choi, Y. Kim, W. Kim, S. Choi, Development of an integrity evaluation program for Corroded City gas pipelines, Corros. Sci. Technol. 4 (2005)
164–170.
[50] B. Bedairi, D. Cronin, A. Hosseini, A. Plumtree, Failure prediction for crack-in-corrosion defects in natural gas transmission pipelines, Int. J. Press. Vessel. Pip. 96
(2012) 90–99.
[51] A.C. Benjamin, J.L.F. Freire, R.D. Vieira, E.d. Andrade, Burst tests on pipeline containing closely spaced corrosion defects, 25th International Conference on
Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, OMAE, 2006.
[52] D.-M. Ryu, L. Wang, S.-K. Kim, J.-M. Lee, Comparative study on deformation and mechanical behavior of corroded pipe: part I–numerical simulation and
experimental investigation under impact load, Int. J. Naval Architect. Ocean Eng. 9 (2017) 509–524.
[53] X. Li, Y. Bai, C. Su, M. Li, Effect of interaction between corrosion defects on failure pressure of thin wall steel pipeline, Int. J. Press. Vessel. Pip. 138 (2016) 8–18.
[54] X.-K. Zhu, B.N. Leis, Evaluation of burst pressure prediction models for line pipes, Int. J. Press. Vessel. Pip. 89 (2012) 85–97.
[55] P. Weißgraeber, D. Leguillon, W. Becker, A review of finite fracture mechanics: crack initiation at singular and non-singular stress raisers, Arch. Appl. Mech. 86
(2016) 375–401.
[56] G. Sih, Mechanics of Ductile Fracture, (1977).
[57] The Institute of Asset Management, Asset Management – An Anatomy V3, (2015).

626