PROCEEDINGS OF THE ASME 2022 14TH INTERNATIONAL PIPELINE CONFERENCE

IPC2022
SEPTEMBER 26-30, 2022, CALGARY, ALBERTA, CANADA

IPC2022-87142

KEY CONSIDERATIONS FOR ELASTIC FINITE-ELEMENT MODELING OF

PIPELINE DENTS FOR FATIGUE ASSESSMENTS

Ryan Sager, P.E. Fernando Curiel, P.E. Chris Holliday P. Eng

ROSEN USA DCP Midstream ROSEN Canada Ltd.
Houston, TX Houston, TX Calgary, AB

ABSTRACT
The assessment of the remaining life of dents in pipelines NOMENCLATURE
generally relies on characterizing the structural response to
pressure loading and combining a known pressure history with d Dent Depth
S-N curves to determine a fatigue life. A robust method for D Outer Diameter of pipe
determining the structural response of a dent to pressure loading E Young’s Modulus (elastic modulus)
is through the determination of a Stress-Concentration Factor FEA Finite Element Analysis
(SCF) derived from the modelling of the dent using Finite- ILI In-Line Inspection
Element Analysis (FEA). For simplicity, most SCF assessments MOP Maximum Operating Pressure
rely on the use of unrestrained models derived directly from NPS Nominal Pipe Size
deflection data recorded by ILI or laser scan; however, this OD Outer Diameter of pipe
application can lead to overly high predictions of SCF values PILI Internal Pressure during ILI measurement of
when evaluating restrained dents. Explicit modelling of restraint dent shape
using bespoke indenter profiles and elastic-plastic material Pint Internal Pressure
models can be used to derive more appropriate SCF values for PMOP Internal Pressure at Maximum Operating
restrained dents; however, this requires significantly more Pressure
analytical effort and can sacrifice the fidelity of the shape for psi Pound per square inch
complex geometry. An approach that utilizes the efficient PSMYS Internal Pressure that produces a hoop stress
modeling and high fidelity of unrestrained elastic models would equal to SMYS
provide the industry with a reliable and repeatable process for R Radius
evaluating the fatigue response of restrained dents. The SCF Stress Concentration Factor
methodology presented within this paper will seek to validate SMYS Specified Minimum Yield Strength
reasonable bounds for unrestrained elastic models that can be t Wall Thickness of pipe
applied to cases where restrained dents are indicated. This ε Strain
paper will investigate the feasibility of a plasticity-restraint ν Poisson’s ratio
correction factor that could be applied to elastic SCFs and σ Stress
discuss the implications for dent fatigue assessments. The σnom (hoop) Nominal Hoop Stress as defined by Barlow’s
response of restrained elastic-plastic models will be compared Equation
to the response to elastic models for a range of indenter shapes
to show the feasibility of this correction factor. 1. INTRODUCTION
The fatigue assessment of dented pipelines can be a
Keywords: Finite Element Analysis, Dents challenging endeavor that requires expertise in different
technical areas. A remaining life assessment for a dent may
require knowledge of fatigue, fracture mechanics, finite element
modeling, pressure cycle characterization, material and
geometric characteristics of the parent pipeline, and the restraint
or boundary conditions of the dent.

1 © 2022 by ASME
 There are three key pieces of information that must be
understood in order to assess the fatigue life of a dented pipeline;
the applied cyclic loading due to internal pressure, the fatigue
response of the pipeline material, and the structural response of
the dented pipeline. The cyclic loading due to internal pressure
is well understood and typically requires representative historical
pressures that can be converted into a histogram to describe the
cycles experienced by the dented pipeline. This can typically be
done with standardized cycle counting processes such as those
detailed in ASTM E 1049 [1]. Following cycle counting, the
number of cycles for a specific pressure range will be tabulated
into histogram bins. The selection of the histogram bin size is an
important factor that can affect the conservatism of the final
fatigue estimation. Guidance on bin selection is provided in API
RP 1183 [9].
The fatigue response of a pipeline dent typically requires an
understanding of the pipe geometry and the use of an S-N curve
representative of the material. The fatigue life will be affected by
the presence of welds and general characterizations of a
structure’s geometry. Guidance on selection of appropriate
fatigue curves can be found in BS 7608 [10] as well as other
sources, e.g. [11][12][13].
The structural response of the dented pipeline is the focus of
this paper. In general, it is not trivial to estimate the structural
response of a dented pipeline. A dented pipeline is a structural
component that has undergone plasticity and can exhibit
complex non-linear geometry; as such, important considerations
must be made when modeling dents to characterize the structural
response. There are multiple methods to assess the fatigue life of
pipeline dents and many have limitations with respect to
applicability.
The depth based criteria for dents that exists in current US
pipeline regulations [2][3] resulted from early models that were
developed using depth based metrics [4][5]. The historical
approaches to estimating dent fatigue life that followed
continued to use depth to characterize the severity of dents and
incorporated additional testing [6][7]. While these approaches
offer robust methods for assessing dent fatigue life, they may be
overly simplistic or overly conservative in many cases. Relying
on depth to describe the structural response of a dent is similar
to using only the length of a bridge to characterize its structural
capacity. In both cases, an oversimplification of a complex
structure can lead to analysis results that are overly conservative
or potentially inaccurate. More modern methods rely on the dent
shape to characterize the dent structural response to cyclic
pressure loads [8]. The PRCI MD-4-9 report presented a method
to analyze dents that uses characteristic lengths and areas of a
dent shape as key inputs to estimate the fatigue life [8]. This
work was initiated in the 2000s and was intended to provide the
industry with a method that was more rapid to apply to large
numbers of dents than FEA models of each dent. The PRCI
method is applicable for simple single-peaked dents that are
restrained or unrestrained and resulted in findings that would
shape the new API recommended practices for assessing dents,
API RP 1183 [9]. The PRCI project used full scale testing results
and calibrated finite element models to generate the shape factors
that are used in the methodology. Outside of using these
methods, Finite Element Analysis (FEA) is often leveraged to
obtain a representative structural response for pipeline dents. The
employment of FEA to determine the structural response of
pipeline dents typically entails calculating a stress concentration
factor (SCF) that is used to determine the peak stresses that occur
within the area of the dent with applied internal pressure. These
peak stresses can then be combined with appropriate S-N curves
[10][11][12] in a fatigue assessment in accordance with Level 3
API 579 procedures [13]. The industry has been using FEA to
calculate SCFs for pipeline dents since the 1990’s [14]. The
focus of this paper will be considerations for finite element
analyses of dented pipelines as they relate to fatigue assessments.
The ability of finite element analysis to accurately predict
the structural response of dents based on their unique geometry
and characteristics, make the SCF approach arguably the best
method for evaluating the fatigue response of any specific dent.
Advanced fitness-for-service methods in API 579 will utilize
FEA [13] because of the ability to evaluate the specific 3D shape
of a dent along with any boundary conditions to provide an
appropriate and unique result for a given dent. The results from
FEA are not diluted and are specific for individual dent features
unlike methods that use the application of regression analyses or
gross simplifications based on single parameters, such as depth.
However, differences in FEA modeling methods can impose
their own limitations depending on the approach taken. Detailed
modeling procedures that simulate dent formation through
contact with an indenter provide the most robust and
comprehensive result, but computational and resource
requirements may make large scale applications of this approach
unreasonable. To counteract this, the pipeline industry has
developed methods which utilize the shape of the deformed
pipeline, usually taken directly from an ILI inspection, as a basis
for the finite element model. Since solving for contact between
the indenter and the pipe is not included in this analysis, these
models can be evaluated at significantly reduced effort. For
pipelines operating within design pressure ranges, this method
has been demonstrated to accurately predict the stress response
of unrestrained dents [15]. Unfortunately, the lack of explicit
contact modeling of an indenter does not provide an accurate
prediction when a dent is in reality held in place or restrained
from deforming freely under load. This modeling limitation
tends to result in overly conservative estimations of the stress
response for dents which are restrained but modeled as
unrestrained.
The purpose of this paper is to evaluate the differences in
FEA modeling approaches of dents between those which
explicitly account for contact and restraint produced by an
indenter, and those which use the more computationally efficient
methodology of evaluating the already-formed dent based on ILI
inspection results but without the use of restraint. A comparison
of the stress concentration factors for each model is provided and
a method for reducing the conservatism of unrestrained model
predictions in the case of restrained dents is presented.
2 © 2022 by ASME
 2. CONSIDERATIONS
Considerations for this study and for dent finite element
modeling in general are described in this section.
2.1 DENT RESTRAINT
One of the most important bifurcations in dent fatigue
behavior is the nature of restraint. Unrestrained dents are free to
flex with cyclic pressure loads, and experience fatigue failures
originating on the outside surface; typically in the shoulder
region away from the dent peak [8]. Restrained dents exhibit
different behavior due to the presence of the indenter. The outer
surface in a restrained dent is in compression and the pipe may
flex around the indenter as cyclic pressure loads are applied.
Restrained dents will experience fatigue cracks originating on
the inner surface of the pipe; typically at or near the apex of the
dent [8]. The restraint condition of the dent will therefore affect
the applicability of different finite element modeling methods.
The best approach to characterize a dent as restrained or
unrestrained is to examine key indicators. Some common
indicators include dent orientation (i.e., o’clock position), elastic
SCF magnitude, presence of ovalization / bulging either side of
the dent and the PRCI restraint parameter [9]. Each of the
indicators have shortcomings in determining restraint. The
orientation of dents at the Bottom of Line (BOL) does not
necessarily mean that a dent is restrained. Additionally, topside
dents may be restrained. Stress concentration factor magnitude
can also be used as an indicator of restraint [16], and further
discussion and utilization of the maximum SCF value to
determine the restraint condition of a dent is discussed in detail
later within this paper. The calculation of restraint parameters as
described in API RP 1183 take the shape of a dent and use
characteristic lengths and areas to determine if the dent shape
would be indicative of a restrained dent shape [9]. However, the
restraint parameters are only applicable to simple single peak
dents and have been shown to exhibit large scatter/variance
between subsequent ILI run shape captures [17]. While all these
methods may have shortcomings, using multiple indicators can
help increase confidence in the restraint estimation. Determining
if a dent is restrained or unrestrained is important to
understanding how to properly model a dent or account for
model uncertainties.
2.2 PIPELINE DENT SCFS
Stress concentration factors (SCFs) represent the ratio of the
local peak stress (or change in peak stress) of a geometric feature
relative to the nominal stress level within the surrounding
structure. SCF values are unique to a component geometry,
boundary conditions, and loading conditions; furthermore,
values can vary as load or boundary conditions change. The
amount of variation of SCF for the load range of interest can be
minor or substantial. Knowledge of how the stress concentration
factor varies with loading allows the engineer to relate the
complicated peak stress response of a local component or
geometric anomaly to the global response of the surrounding
structure. For pipelines, the unique response of a dent to pressure
loading can be calculated using FEA. The shape of the dent is
acquired from an inline inspection tool capable of recording
geometric deformations or from direct inspection, while the
parent pipe geometry (OD and wall thickness) and material
properties are either known by the operator or obtained through
inspection. The unique geometry, material properties, and
boundary conditions are then incorporated into a FEA model to
determine the peak stress response of the dent. Once the SCF
response is known for the relevant loading conditions, the local
response of the dent can be estimated for historical or future
operational loading conditions of the pipeline. The benefit of
modeling is that it allows the engineer to estimate the unique
response of each dent explicitly based on its specific 3D
geometry and configuration while ideally providing a more
accurate result than other simplified processes.
The SCF for a dent is obtained by comparing the maximum
principal stress from the finite element model to the nominal
principal stress in an undeformed pipeline. The primary stress in
pipelines is the hoop stress; this can be approximated by
Barlow’s equation shown in Equation 1:
×
= (1)
×
For finite element models which use only elastic material
properties, the difference in maximum principal stress obtained
from an applied internal pressure is extracted from the model and
compared to the difference in nominal hoop stress generated by
the applied internal pressure as shown in Equation 2:
∆
= ∆ × (2)
×
In finite element models which use elastic-plastic material
response, the stresses that can be extracted are not applicable past
yield i.e. when the stresses exceed the material yield strength
defined in the model. The SCF may change significantly over the
range of expected pressures in restrained dent models due to the
dent shape changing with increase in internal pressure; therefore,
the largest differential principal strain tensor should be used to
generate SCF values across the pressure range of interest instead
of extracting peak stresses. The nominal change in strain can be
obtained by converting the nominal stress to a strain using the
elastic modulus. In this case, the equivalent SCF can be obtained
from Equation 3.
∆ ∆
= = ∆ ∗ (3)
∆
∗ ∗
In general, equivalent SCF values should be obtained for
differential strain tensors across the range of pressures that are
being examined. In the parametric study presented in this paper,
the results were post-processed to extract the equivalent SCF
values at pressure increments from zero pressure to the
maximum operating pressure (MOP) taken here as the equivalent
pressure required to achieve a hoop stress level of 72% SMYS.
The SCF values obtained in this manner can be used in fatigue
3 © 2022 by ASME
analyses that have cyclic pressure histograms obtained from
rainflow algorithms. A detailed discussion of the proper manner
of interpreting dented pipeline elastic-plastic finite element
results is outside of the scope of this publication. It is noted that
in this study, the effect of mean pressure was neglected, i.e., all
pressure ranges are assumed to initiate at zero minimum
pressure.
While the elastic FEA methods that are used to quickly
generate SCFs from ILI data [15] are appropriate for
unrestrained dents; they are not truly representative for
restrained dents due to differences in the modeling approach.
Restrained dents should incorporate the indenter contact in order
to capture the behavior of the pipe wall wrapping around the
indenter as pressure is applied. Additionally, the indentation
process induces plasticity in the pipe that may be important to
the solution. The authors are not currently aware of any methods
that accurately incorporate contact restraint within elastic FEA
models derived from ILI geometry data.
2.3 FINITE ELEMENT MODELS
Models of dents are commonly produced in two ways:
through the explicit simulation of the formation process where a
parent pipe model is deformed using a rigid indenter model, or
through the simulation of an already deformed pipe which
incorporates the recorded geometry of the dent as the foundation
of the base model.
The first method requires the use of simulation software that
can accommodate contact between the parent pipe and indenter
as well as non-linear elastic-plastic material response. Some of
the benefits of this method are the ability to record the stress and
strain history response of the model during the indentation
process as well as for any load cases following indentation.
API/ASME 579 recommends this when evaluating dents via a
Level 3 analysis [13]. Additionally, the ability to control the
presence of the indenter and its contact with the parent pipe
during various loading conditions make this method ideal for
simulating the presence of a fixed or varying restraint condition.
Stress concentration factors for these dent models can be
calculated for any loading condition and will retain the effects of
any response previously modeled, making them ideal for
complicated loading histories or conditions where structural
failure limits are investigated. Unfortunately, in order to achieve
the desired model response, multiple iterations of indenter shape
and indentation depth are usually required. A single iteration of
the calibration process may take many hours for a single dent.
The second method utilizes the shape of the deformed
pipeline as a basis for the finite element model. Since the model
uses the already deformed shape as the starting point, the
formation of the dent through the indentation process is not
captured. These types of models are useful in capturing the
response of the pipeline at loading magnitudes which produce
stress values below yield. For cases where elastic shakedown has
occurred, the prior formation history may not be significant to
the analysis. One example of this loading would be the
operational cycling of a pipeline. Since loads are not expected to
reach or exceed yielding limits, elastic material properties can be
used. It is possible to generate elastic finite element models of
dents using ILI data, and using this approach for SCFs has been
validated through full-scale physical testing for unrestrained
dents [15]. These elastic models can be created and analyzed at
much higher efficiency when compared to nonlinear elastic-
plastic Level 3 models.
3. METHODOLOGY
A parametric study was performed using FEA to compare
the predicted SCF values for restrained and unrestrained models.
All numerical models were analyzed using the SIMULIA
Abaqus/Standard general purpose finite element software [18].
Two model types were generated for each simulation; one with
elastic-plastic material properties, and one with elastic material
properties. Models using elastic-plastic material properties were
used to simulate and capture the strain history during the
indentation and cyclic loading phases. The dent geometry is
allowed to form based on the material response, pipe geometry,
shape of the rigid indenter, and internal pressure. The dent shape
is allowed to change based on the internal pressure experienced
as well as the presence of the indenter when internal pressure is
applied. For models using elastic material properties, the
deformed pipe geometry is taken from a previously indented pipe
model at a specified internal pressure, simulating the dent shape
observed by an in-line inspection tool under a nominal inspection
pressure. Elastic properties remove any strain history associated
with formation or re-rounding. The following sections provide
more information regarding the modeling of each scenario.
3.1 LOAD CASES
Two pipe sizes were evaluated for this study: NPS 12 (D =
12.75 inches) and NPS 30 (D = 30.0 inches). NPS 12 pipe was
modeled with a nominal wall thickness of 0.25 inches (6.35 mm),
resulting in an outer diameter to thickness ratio (D/t) of 51. NPS
30 pipe was modeled with a nominal wall thickness of
0.438 inches (11.13 mm), resulting in D/t = 68.5. Both models
use material properties associated with Grade X52 steel.
Seven indenter shapes were simulated in order to investigate
the effect of dent size and shape on SCF value. Both
circumferentially re-entrant and non-reentrant dents were
modeled using elliptical shapes as well as spherical indenters.
Table A provides a representation of each of the indenter shapes
modeled, while Table B provides the geometric definitions. All
indenter shapes were evaluated for both restrained and
unrestrained simulations.
All restrained models were generated with initial
indentation depths of 1, 3, and 5% D. Unrestrained models were
evaluated at an initial indentation depth of 9% D; however, upon
cyclic pressurization to MOP, the residual depths reduce to
values between 1-3%, depending on the indenter shape.
It should be noted that although this study only explicitly
evaluated single-peaked dents, the findings outlined in this study
should be applicable to all dent shapes including those with
multiple peaks, skewed shape, or nearby adjacent deformations.
The results should also be applicable to dents with more complex
geometries due to the capacity of FEA to capture the 3-
4 © 2022 by ASME
dimensional effects of complex shapes on the global and local applied to both ends of the pipeline in order to approximate a
stress-strain response. buried pipeline configuration. The length of each model is 240
inches (~6 m), which is long enough to ensure that the boundary
TABLE A: INDENTER PROFILES conditions do not influence the solution.
For restrained dents, the indenter remains in contact with the
Indenter Shape Circumferential Profile Axial Profile pipe throughout the duration of the simulation, representing the
presence of a rock or other object holding the dent in place during
Elliptical pipeline operation. Restrained dents would likely be formed
Reentrant during the installation of the pipeline by either being placed onto
a rock or having a rock dropped on top of the pipeline during
backfill. There may be cases where restraint could occur after
pressurization of the pipe; however, the vast majority of
Elliptical Non- restrained dents likely originate during installation. For these
Reentrant reasons, indentation for all restrained dent models within this
study are performed at zero internal pressure.
For unrestrained dents, the indenter is removed after
reaching full depth, allowing the dent shape to re-round and flex
freely when subjected to internal pressure. Unrestrained dents
Spherical can be created by either denting the pipeline prior to construction
(possible damage during pipe joint transportation or storage),
during operation (likely through third-party damage) or by
removing a restraint as part of an excavation of an operating
TABLE B: INDENTER GEOMETRY DEFINITIONS pipeline. For this study, indentation of the unrestrained dent
models is applied while under maximum operating pressure
Axial (MOP) taken as the pressure required to achieve a nominal hoop
Circumferential Radius,
stress of 0.72 x SMYS.
Indenter Radius, R1 R2
ID Indenter Description (inches) (inches)
The restrained dent models were pressurized to a nominal
hoop stress of 1.0 x SMYS following indentation, in order to
1 Elliptical Reentrant 4in -2.0 4.0
simulate hydrotesting. This is in line with the assumption that
2 Elliptical Reentrant 24in -12.0 24.0 most restrained dents are likely formed during installation of the
3 Elliptical Reentrant 48in -24.0 48.0 pipeline and thus would experience a hydrotest prior to
commissioning. Hydrotest pressure loads were not applied to
4 Elliptical Non-Reentrant 4in 40.0 4.0
unrestrained models since they were assumed to be formed after
5 Elliptical Non-Reentrant 8in 80.0 8.0 pipeline commissioning either through third-party damage or
6 Spherical 4in -4.0 4.0 following a repair/replacement. It should be noted that it is
possible to form an unrestrained dent during pipeline
7 Spherical 16in -16.0 16.0 installation; however, upon experiencing a hydrotest, any
unrestrained dent would likely “pop-out” of the pipe or leave a
shallow deflection with residual depth less than most ILI
3.1.1 ELASTIC-PLASTIC ANALYSIS MODELS inspection reporting thresholds. This is somewhat dependent on
Both restrained and unrestrained dents were modelled for the shape of the dent and the pipeline D/t ratio.
this study. Each finite element model had three components: a After indentation and hydrotest (for restrained dent models),
deformable pipeline cylinder, a rigid indenter, and a rigid each model is subjected to a series of pressure cycles from zero
analytical surface that was used as a saddle for the pipeline. All to MOP. This cycling models the re-rounding of the dent that
models were constructed using reduced integration shell would occur during normal pipeline operations. After 1-2 cycles,
elements (S4R and S3R) within Abaqus. A more refined mesh no additional plastic strain will be induced within the dent unless
was used in regions of the pipeline that were subject to contact pressure exceeding MOP is experienced. This process is known
with the rigid indenter. Figure 1 presents the mesh used for the as “elastic shakedown”. All results discussed in this study are
NPS 12 model, while Figure 2 illustrates the interaction between taken after this cycling procedure has been applied and elastic
the pipe, rigid indenter at top, and saddle at bottom. Material shakedown has occurred. Table C provides pipe dimensions and
properties within Abaqus can be defined for both the elastic and relevant pressures used within this study.
post-yield (plastic) regime. Elastic properties were defined using
nominal elastic modulus and Poisson’s ratio for steel; E =
30.0E+06 psi, ν = 0.3. Post-yield material properties were
defined using a true stress – strain curve following the MPC
material model [13]. Symmetry boundary conditions (BCs) were

5 © 2022 by ASME

FIGURE 1: NPS 12 PIPE MODEL MESH – FULL MODEL AND
REGION LOCAL TO INDENTER
FIGURE 2: PIPE MODEL WITH RIGID INDENTER AND
SADDLE
TABLE C: DIMENSIONS AND PRESSURES USED IN STUDY
Pipe Size NPS 12 NPS 30
D (in) 12.75 30.00
t (in) 0.250 0.438
SMYS (psi) 52000 52000
PSMYS (psi) 2039 1518
PMOP (psi) 1468 1093
PILI (psi) 600 600
3.1.2 ELASTIC ANALYSIS MODELS
To simulate the commonly-used approach of generating
elastic dent models from geometry data obtained through ILI, 3D
shape data was obtained from the elastic-plastic models at an
assumed ILI pressure. Following elastic shake down, the elastic-
plastic models were pressurized to 600 psi (approximate
pressure common for ILI inspections) and the 3D coordinates for
all nodes were extracted. These coordinates were then used to
generate the geometry for the elastic finite element models.
Idealized elastic material properties for steel (E = 30.0E+06 psi,
ν = 0.3) were used. Axial symmetry boundary conditions were
applied at the ends of each model.
Pressure was applied to the internal surface with a
magnitude equal to the difference between MOP and ILI
pressures. The elastic SCF value is calculated as the difference
in maximum principal stress observed within the model divided
by the difference in nominal hoop stress for the pressure range
evaluated, as shown in Equation 2.
4. RESULTS
The evaluation of restrained and unrestrained dents using
FEA is intended to answer three questions:
· How accurately does elastic modeling using ILI-
equivalent geometry represent the SCF values for
unrestrained and restrained dents,
· Is there a limit to the magnitude of SCF value predicted
which can be used to identify restrained dents that were
modeled using elastic unrestrained simulations and,
· Is there an upper-bound approximate SCF value which
can be assumed to produce conservative fatigue
predictions for restrained dents when modeled using
elastic unrestrained models based on ILI geometry?
4.1 COMPARISON OF UNRESTRAINED DENTS
TO ILI-DERIVED ELASTIC MODELS
As discussed previously, models derived from ILI data are
taken from the shape of a dent observed at a non-zero pressure.
The dent shape will be affected by the pressure during the ILI
run (i.e., unrestrained depth will be shallower with internal
pressure applied than with zero internal pressure, while
restrained dents may be deeper due to radial expansion of the
pipe away from the point of restraint when pressurized);
therefore, the SCF results derived from these models represent
the equivalent response of the dent at the observed pressure and
6 © 2022 by ASME
greater. However, due to elastic shakedown, the general response
of the dent at pressures below the observed pressure would be
expected to also respond similarly. Considering this
characteristic, SCF values were extrapolated for pressure ranges
below the assumed ILI pressure. The extrapolation was based on
a 3rd-order polynomial best-fit curve of the SCF values obtained
from the elastic model simulating ILI-derived data at pressures
greater than the assumed ILI pressure. This approach is
illustrated in Figure 3 and Figure 4 for the example using the
unrestrained dent models of NPS 12 pipe with Indenter #1. A
comparison of the range of SCF values from the ILI-derived
elastic model to the model using elastic-plastic (E-P) material
properties, and for which the full pressure history response is
available, is made in Figure 3. After fitting a polynomial curve
to the elastic ILI model SCF curve, a full SCF curve is plotted in
Figure 4. Extrapolation of ILI-derived elastic model SCF values
is a key approach, which is included in all results presented in
this paper.
fatigue damage for pressure ranges whose magnitudes are less
than the ILI pressure. The extent of under/over conservatism is
likely case dependent but should be quantified as part of future
work.
Finally, a comparison of peak stress range versus pressure
range for all unrestrained elastic-plastic dent models is presented
in Figure 5. The peak stress range experienced at any pressure
range is equal to the product of the local SCF along the curve and
the equivalent elastic hoop stress defined using Equation 1. For
all unrestrained elastic-plastic dents evaluated in this study, the
maximum equivalent stress range never exceeded 3.5 x SMYS
(187,200 psi). The maximum stress range for all dents occurs at
the maximum internal pressure range, i.e., 0 to MOP.
6.0
PILI
5.0
4.0

Figure 8 and Figure 9 present the calculated SCF values for 3.0
the unrestrained dents simulated in NPS 12 and NPS 30 pipe,
respectively. For each indenter shape evaluated, two curves are 2.0 E-P Model
ILI Model
provided. The solid curve illustrates the variation of SCF with 1.0
pressure for the models using elastic-plastic material properties.
The dashed curve represents the SCF values calculated from an 0.0
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
“ILI-derived” elastic model, including extrapolated values below Internal Pressure Range (% MOP)
the ILI pressure.
Two observations are made from these results. First, FIGURE 3: COMPARISON OF SCF VALUES BETWEEN
comparisons between the two model results show very good ELASTIC-PLASTIC MODEL AND ELASTIC ILI-DERIVED
agreement, demonstrating that an elastic model derived from UNRESTRAINED DENT MODEL. ELASTIC SCF VALUES NOT
data obtained from an ILI inspection can produce very similar EXTRAPOLATED BELOW P-ILI. NPS 12, INDENTER #1
results to a model commonly used in Level 3 assessments which
6.0
incorporates elastic-plastic material properties and accounts for PILI
cyclic strain history. This is an important conclusion, since the 5.0
Extrapolated values
computational resources, time, and skill required to generate and 4.0
evaluate an elastic model directly from ILI data is significantly
less than that required to generate and evaluate a complex elastic- 3.0 E-P Model
ILI Model
plastic model. Assessments of unrestrained dents using ILI- 2.0
Extrapolated ILI Model
derived data directly are therefore cheaper and more accessible
to the integrity analyst while still providing equivalent accuracy 1.0

of results. 0.0
Second, SCF values are clearly dependent on both dent 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Internal Pressure Range (% MOP)
shape as well as pressure range. The calculated SCF magnitude
decreases as the pressure range increases. Pipe size also FIGURE 4: COMPARISON OF SCF VALUES BETWEEN
demonstrates an effect, with a larger range of SCF observed for ELASTIC-PLASTIC MODEL AND ILI-DERIVED ELASTIC
the NPS 30 pipe than the NPS 12 pipe. Substantial variation in UNRESTRAINED DENT MODEL. ELASTIC SCF VALUES
SCF value for pressure ranges from zero to MOP illustrate the EXTRAPOLATED BELOW P-ILI USING BEST-FIT
need to utilize the full curve for a fatigue assessment. Average POLYNOMIAL. NPS 12, INDENTER #1
variations between the maximum and minimum SCF values of
47% are observed for the simulated models, with maximum
variations of 81%, indicating that the pressure at which ILI
measurements are obtained could have a significant effect on any
fatigue estimations. Use of a single SCF value for evaluating
fatigue performance at various pressure ranges would result in
potentially inaccurate results, with conservative fatigue damage
estimation (i.e., over-estimation of fatigue damage) for pressure
ranges which exceed the ILI pressure, and non-conservative

7 © 2022 by ASME

FIGURE 5: PEAK STRESS RANGE FOR ALL UNRESTRAINED
ELASTIC-PLASTIC DENTS
4.2 COMPARISON OF RESTRAINED DENTS TO
ILI-DERIVED ELASTIC MODELS
Figure 10 and Figure 11 present the calculated SCF values
for the restrained dent models simulated in NPS 12 and NPS 30
pipe, respectively. The solid curves illustrate the variation of
SCF with pressure for the models using elastic-plastic material
properties and maintaining the presence of the indenter
throughout the pressure loading cycle. The dashed curves
represents the estimated SCF values calculated from an
unrestrained elastic model similar to what would be derived from
data taken during an ILI inspection (at a pressurized state).
Results are presented for all indenter shapes and all initial
indentation depths.
While substantial variation in the calculated SCF values can
be seen in the restrained dent models, all trends ultimately lead
to SCF values between 1.4-3.6 at MOP. If taken as a percentage
of SMYS, this yields a maximum peak stress range of
1.0-2.6 x SMYS (i.e., SCF x 0.72xSMYS). This finding is
illustrated in Figure 6, which plots the peak stress range
encountered for all dents with initial depth of 5% OD evaluated
versus the pressure range experienced.
The elastic models derived from ILI measurements on the
other hand produce a wide range in predicted SCF values at
MOP, ranging from 2.2–7.1. If taken as a percentage of SMYS,
this yields a maximum stress range of 1.6-5.1 x SMYS. The SCF
curve predicted by these elastic models consistently increases
with depth; however, their ability to capture the response of a
restrained dent is generally arbitrary. With that said, the
estimated SCF values are near universally conservative for the
full pressure range when elastic models are used. Only one
elastic model predicted a local SCF value less than predicted by
the restrained elastic-plastic model, with the largest difference
being 13% lower at MOP (2.61 vs 3.02 for NPS 30, Indenter #1).
With differences in fatigue damage estimates equivalent to the
peak stress raised to the power of the fatigue curve (generally 3.0
– 3.5), overestimation of a SCF value by a factor of 2 can lead to
the under prediction of fatigue life by a factor of 8-11.3. For the
restrained dents evaluated in this study, SCF values predicted
using elastic FEA models derived from ILI inspection can
exceed a factor of 6.0 relative to the SCF value at MOP. These
variances in SCF values would potentially result in the over
prediction of fatigue damage and under prediction of fatigue life
by two orders of magnitude. This would likely increase for
restrained dents with initial depths at zero pressure deeper than
5% D.
Dotson et al. observed that excessively high SCF values
derived from unrestrained elastic FEA dent models could
indicate the possibility that the dent being evaluated was
restrained [16]. If the SCF value multiplied by the nominal hoop
stress at the maximum recorded pressure experienced by the dent
exceeded 2.5-3.5 x SMYS, it is unlikely that the dent could
remain in place without re-rounding. Its presence within the
pipeline is therefore explained by the fact that such a shape can
only exist if held in place by a restraint.
Results from this study of unrestrained dents indicate that
the maximum stress range experienced does not exceed 3.5 x
SMYS, as demonstrated in Figure 5. Similarly, the peak stress
range experienced for all restrained dents within this study never
exceed 2.6 x SMYS. The combination of these two findings
potentially reveal a useful limit which may be imposed on SCF
values calculated using elastic FEA models derived from ILI
data.
First, dents whose elastic SCF value would produce a stress
range exceeding 3.5 x SMYS at MOP (or the maximum pressure
observed during operations) are likely restrained. This follows
from the observation that all unrestrained dents were limited to
this stress range; making it unlikely that an unrestrained dent
could exceed this value without taking a new shape which results
in lower SCFs or by re-rounding altogether. This indication can
also be combined with others to have a higher confidence in the
restraint condition of a given dent feature. Other restraint
indicators include a restraint parameter (RP) value greater than
20 when calculated using the methodology outlined in API
RP 1183 [9], and the presence of the dent on the lower 1/3 of the
pipeline (i.e., between 4:00-8:00). It should be noted that an SCF
value which produces a peak stress range less than 3.5 x SMYS
at MOP does not preclude the dent from being restrained, just as
dents located on the lower 1/3 of the pipe may be unrestrained.
Second, using the observed peak stress range limit of 3.5 x
SMYS at MOP for unrestrained dents, a maximum SCF value
may be applied to any SCF value calculated using elastic FEA
models derived from ILI data. As shown in Figure 7, a shift of
the entire SCF curve is applied equal to the difference between
the originally predicted SCF at MOP and the limiting SCF.
Figure 12 and Figure 13 present the resulting adjusted SCF
curves for the NPS 12 and NPS 30 models, respectively. All
dents with SCF values at MOP greater than 4.86 have been
adjusted downward as needed. The maximum value of 4.86 is
derived based on the assumption that these dents are located
within a pipeline operating at a MOP equal to 0.72 x SMYS,
where the limiting SCF is calculated as 3.5 x SMYS / 0.72 x
SMYS = 4.86. Table D presents the limits for pipelines operating
at other common MOP. For dents whose SCF curves have been
adjusted, the resulting lower SCF reduce the conservatism
associated with the use of ILI-derived elastic models.
8 © 2022 by ASME
 Since no restrained dents demonstrated peak stress ranges at 5. DISCUSSION
MOP greater than 2.6 x SMYS, this could also provide a possible Although the explicit and appropriate modeling of dents
limit for restraint. However, it is possible this limit could be including formation, pressure cycling history, and restraint will
exceeded for other dent or pipe geometry that have not been produce the most accurate and precise estimation of the fatigue
evaluated in this study. For this reason, use of a limiting peak response, this approach is not always possible or desirable due
stress range from an elastic model at MOP equal to 3.5 x SMYS to possible resource, time, and skill limitations within a pipeline
is recommended pending further investigations. operator or engineering consultancy. Extensive research by the
pipeline industry has generated tools and methodologies which
5.0 seek to increase the accuracy of dent fatigue estimation while
4.5 Dashed = NPS 12 pipe
Solid = NPS 30 pipe
accounting for complexities associated with restraint,
4.0
Indenter 1 observation pressure, and 3D shape profiles with the introduction
3.5
3.0 Indenter 2 and adoption of API RP 1183 [9]. Unfortunately, these methods
2.5 Indenter 3 have shown concerning levels of repeatability, and lack
2.0 Indenter 4 applicability for any complex shapes or when other geometric
1.5 Indenter 5 deformities (e.g., dents, bulges) are nearby [9][17] and may
1.0
Indenter 6 necessitate the use of FEA to assess a large portion of dents that
0.5
Indenter 7 exist in pipelines. Use of FEA models derived from ILI geometry
0.0
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% data and characterized by elastic material properties still remains
Internal Pressure Range (% MOP) a common approach throughout the pipeline industry due to the
method’s efficiency, demonstrated performance, and ability to
FIGURE 6: PEAK STRESS RANGE FOR RESTRAINED accommodate complex geometry and interactions.
ELASTIC-PLASTIC DENTS WITH INITIAL DEPTH OF 5% OD
In order to generate elastic SCFs from data captured during
ILI, some understanding of the dent characteristics is required.
The most important characterization is the nature of restraint. For
unrestrained dents, the elastic dent models are observed to
accurately capture the behavior shown in elastic-plastic models.
Dents that exhibit restraint can also be modeled as elastic, even
if the modeling conditions are not appropriate. Elastic SCF
values are near universally conservative when compared to the
more appropriate Level 3 model SCFs, with the level of
conservatism generally increasing with dent depth. However,
this conservatism can be of such a magnitude that it can lead to
the counter-intuitive situation where a dent that is actually
restrained, exhibits a fatigue life lower than an unrestrained dent
FIGURE 7: DEMONSTRATION OF ADJUSTMENT OF ILI- when modeled using elastic properties.
DERIVED ELASTIC MODEL SCF CURVE SO LIMITING SCF AT The most appropriate way of modeling dents with restraint
MOP PRODUCES PEAK STRESS RANGE = 3.5 X SMYS; NPS 30, is using a Level 3 elastic-plastic finite element model. The
INDENTER #3, 5% INITIAL RESTRAINED DENT DEPTH challenge to large scale application in the industry is that Level 3
models are computationally expensive and require calibration for
TABLE D: LIMITING SCF VALUES FOR RESTRAINED DENTS each individual dent shape. Additionally, most models will
AT VARIOUS MOP SUCH THAT MAXIMUM PEAK STRESS
RANGE = 3.5 X SMYS require some sort of idealization of the shape, which may not
fully reflect the true shape of the dent. More efficient and rapidly
Limiting generated elastic models can be used to estimate the fatigue
MOP response but certain considerations regarding depth, pipe
SCF at
(% SMYS) geometry, and operational history should be incorporated to
MOP
properly understand and use results from such models.
80 4.38
Comparison of elastic model results to those derived from
72 4.86 Level 3 models utilizing elastic-plastic material properties and
60 5.83 contact demonstrate excellent agreement for unrestrained dents.
The excellent agreement of elastic results with more complex
50 7.00
models implies that the precision of the results derived from
40 8.75 elastic FEA models can be trusted when the dent is unrestrained.
When these models then produce SCF estimates that exceed the
observed peak stress range of 3.5 x SMYS at MOP, these results
can reliably be used to identify a restraint condition. Finally, the
use of elastic models for restrained dents will reliably produce

9 © 2022 by ASME
conservative estimates of the SCF values. These SCF’s can be
unrealistically high, and further analysis or adjustments can be
made. Employing the elastic-plastic analysis or adjustment of the
SCF curve as shown in this study are two options to reduce the
conservatism when SCFs are notably overly conservative in
elastic models.
There has been significant industry research and effort to
move toward comprehensive formula based approaches to
evaluate the fatigue response of dents in pipelines. The use of
FEA models derived from ILI geometry data continues to offer
a robust and efficient tool for conservative evaluation. The
findings outlined in this paper seek to improve confidence in
these tools in order to provide engineers and operators the ability
to ensure the integrity of pipelines against the dent fatigue threat
whilst reducing over-conservatism.
6. CONCLUSIONS
1. How accurately does elastic modeling of dents using
ILI-derived geometry represent the SCF values for
unrestrained and restrained dents?
The modeling of dents using elastic ILI-derived geometry
shows excellent agreement with elastic-plastic models and
provides a reliable and efficient way of modelling unrestrained
dents. Conversely, the use of elastic ILI-derived models to model
restrained dents tends to produce overly conservative results.
This paper describes an approach that reduces this conservatism
and improves accuracy while still ensuring under-prediction of
response does not occur.
DETAILED FIGURES FOR FEA RESULTS
The following section contains the figures for relevant finite
element results that were mentioned in previous sections. Each
included detailed figure presents 7 individual plots, one per
indenter. The figures in this section are as follows:
· Figure 8: comparison of SCF values for NPS 12
unrestrained dent models and ILI elastic models
· Figure 9: comparison of SCF values for NPS 30
unrestrained dent models and ILI elastic models
· Figure 10: SCF values for NPs 12 restrained dent
models and ILI elastic models
· Figure 11: SCF values for NPS 30 restrained dent
Models and ILI elastic models
· Figure 12: SCF values for NPS 12 restrained dent
models and ILI elastic modes – elastic curves adjusted
for limiting SCF at MOP = 4.86
· Figure 13: SCF values for NPS 30 restrained dent
models and ILI elastic modes – elastic curves adjusted
for limiting SCF at MOP = 4.86

2. Is there a limit to the magnitude of SCF value predicted

which could be used to identify restrained dents
modeled using elastic unrestrained simulations?

Yes, the SCF that would produce peak stresses of

3.5 x SMYS at the maximum operating pressure serves as a
practical observed limit that can be used. This limit is important
because it can provide restraint characterization based on
physical behavior that is observed in modeling approaches.

3. Is there an upper-bound approximate SCF value that

can be assumed will produce conservative fatigue
predictions for restrained dents when using elastic
unrestrained models based on ILI geometry?

Yes, the SCF that produces peak stresses of 3.5 x SMYS at

MOP can be used as an appropriate upper bound SCF value when
using elastic unrestrained modeling techniques that utilize the
ILI geometry data. The results of this study indicate that a more
refined limit may exist; however, more work is required to
understand this limit.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The Authors would like to acknowledge DCP Midstream,
ROSEN USA and ROSEN Canada for supporting the
development of this paper.

10 © 2022 by ASME
FIGURE 8: COMPARISON OF SCF VALUES FOR NPS 12
UNRESTRAINED DENT MODELS AND ILI ELASTIC MODELS

11 © 2022 by ASME
FIGURE 9: COMPARISON OF SCF VALUES FOR NPS 30
UNRESTRAINED DENT MODELS AND ILI ELASTIC MODELS

12 © 2022 by ASME
FIGURE 10: SCF VALUES FOR NPS 12 RESTRAINED
DENT MODELS AND ILI ELASTIC MODELS

13 © 2022 by ASME
FIGURE 11: SCF VALUES FOR NPS 30 RESTRAINED
DENT MODELS AND ILI ELASTIC MODELS

14 © 2022 by ASME
FIGURE 12: SCF VALUES FOR NPS 12 RESTRAINED
DENT MODELS AND ILI ELASTIC MODELS – ELASTIC
CURVES ADJUSTED FOR LIMITING SCF AT MOP = 4.86

15 © 2022 by ASME
FIGURE 13: SCF VALUES FOR NPS 30 RESTRAINED DENT
MODELS AND ILI ELASTIC MODELS – ELASTIC CURVES
ADJUSTED FOR LIMITING SCF AT MOP = 4.86

16 © 2022 by ASME
REFERENCES Pigging & Integrity Management Conference, Houston,
[1] ASTM E 1049 – 85 (Reapproved 1997). “Standard Practices Texas, February 10-13, 2014.
for Cycle Counting in Fatigue Analysis.” American Society [16] Dotson, R., Holliday, C., Torres, L., Hagan, D., “An
for Testing and Materials. Wet Conshohocken, PA. 1997. authoritative Comparison of Remaining Life Assessments
[2] Code of Federal Regulations, Title 49, Part 195, for Pipeline Dents”, Paper No. IPC2018-78247,
Transportation of Hazardous Liquids or Carbon Dioxide by Proceedings of the 12th International Pipeline Conference,
Pipeline: Minimum Federal Safety Standards, U. S. Sep 24-28, 2018, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Government Printing Office. [17] Dotson, R., Sager., R., Curiel., F., Le Roy., M., “Judge me
[3] Code of Federal Regulations, Title 49, Part 192, by my size, do you?: How reliable are dent assessments
Transportation of Natural and Other Gas by Pipeline: based on ILI data?” Paper No. IPC2020-14732, Proceedings
Minimum Federal Safety Standards, U. S. Government of the 13th International Pipeline Conference, September
Printing Office. 28- October 2, 2020, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
[4] Alexander,C.R., Kiefner,J.F.; Effects of Smooth and Rock [18] ABAQUS 2017. Reference Manual
Dents on Liquid Petroleum Pipelines, Final Report to The
American Petroleum Institute, Stress Engineering Services,
Inc., and Kiefner and Associates, Inc., 10 October 1997, API
Publication 1156, First Edition, November 1997.
[5] J.R. Fowler, C.R. Alexander, P.J. Kovach, and L.M.
Connelly, “Cyclic Pressure Fatigue Life of Pipelines with
Plain Dents, Dents with Gouges, and Dents with Welds,”
Report PR-201-927 and PR-201-9324, American Gas
Association, June 1994.
[6] Corder,I., Chatain,P.; “EPRG Recommendations for the
Assessment of the Resistance of Pipelines to External
Damage”, Proceeding of the EPRG/PRC 10th Biennial Joint
Technical Meeting on Line Pipe Research, Cambridge, UK,
April 1995.
[7] Roovers, P., Bood, R., Galli, M., Marewski, U., Steiner, M.
and Zarea, M., “EPRG Methods for Assessing the Tolerance
and Resistance of Pipelines to External Damage,” Pipeline
Technology, Volume II, R. Denys (Editor), Elsevier Science
B.V., 2000.
[8] Tiku, S., Eshraghi, A., Dinovitzer, A., Fatigue Life
Assessment of Dents with and without Interacting Features,
PRCI, MD-4-9, PR-214-114500-R01, August 31, 2018.
[9] Recommended Practice for Assessment and Management of
pipeline Dents, American Petroleum Institute,
Recommended Practice 1183, First Edition, November
2020.
[10] British Standards Institution. “Guide to fatigue design and
assessment of steel products.” BS 7608:2014+A1:2015.
December 2015
[11] Det Norske Veritas. “Fatigue Design of Offshore Steel
Structures.” DNV RP-C203. April 2008
[12] American Bureau of Shipping. Fatigue Assessment of
Offshore Structures. April 2003.
[13] American Petroleum Institute. 579-1. Second Edition.
Fitness-for-Service. June 5, 2007.
[14] Alexander C.R., “Analysis of dented pipeline considering
constrained and unconstrained dent configurations.” Energy
Sources Technology Conference
[15] Dotson, R.L., Ginten, M., Alexander, C.R., Bedoya, J.J., and
Schroeer, K, “Combining High Resolution In-Line
Geometry Tools and Finite Element Analysis to Improve
Dent Assessments,” Paper No. PPIM-ILI2-16, Pipeline

17 © 2022 by ASME