A Probabilistic Approach To Estimate The Remaining Life and Reliability of Corroded Pipelines

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/357231920
A probabilistic approach to estimate the remaining life and reliability of

corroded pipelines
Article in Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering · March 2022

DOI: 10.1016/j.jngse.2021.104387
CITATION READS
1 1,952
5 authors, including:
Zelmati Djamel Bouledroua Omar

Research Center In Industrial Technologies Sonatrach
18 PUBLICATIONS 102 CITATIONS 35 PUBLICATIONS 275 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Oualid GHELLOUDJ Milos Djukic

Research Center In Industrial Technologies University of Belgrade
26 PUBLICATIONS 114 CITATIONS 106 PUBLICATIONS 1,127 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Stability Analysis in Elastic States of Very Slender Columns View project
Symposium on Hydrogen Embrittlement Understanding and Future Research Framework (ECF22 conference, Serbia, 26-31 August 2018). View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Milos Djukic on 22 December 2021.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

A probabilistic approach to estimate the remaining life and reliability of
corroded pipelines
Djamel Zelmati1,2*, Omar Bouledroua3, Oualid Ghelloudj1,2,

Abdelaziz Amirat2, Milos B. Djukic4
1
Research Center in Industrial Technologies (CRTI), P.O. Box 64, Cheraga, Algiers 16014, Algeria.
2
LRTAPM, Research Laboratory of Advanced Technology in Mechanical Production, Department of
Mechanical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering Science, Badji Mokhtar University Annaba, BP 12,
23000 Annaba, Algeria.
3
LPTPM, HassibaBenBouali University of Chlef, P.O. Box. 151 Hay Salem, 02000 Chlef, Algeria.
4
University of Belgrade, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Kraljice Marije 16, Belgrade 11120, Serbia.
*Contact: d.zelmati@crti.dz / djamel.zelmati@univ-annaba.org
Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering, Available online 21 December

2021, 104387, In Press, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jngse.2021.104387
Abstract
Considering corrosion rate during the remaining life assessment of aging pipelines is
fundamental to calculate the interval between two consecutive inspections. A total of 798
internal and external corrosion defects have been detected, using the Magnetic Flux Leakage
intelligent inspection tool, over 48 km of a pipeline length located in the west region of
Algeria. The statistical analysis has shown that there is a strong correlation between the
corrosion defect length and the corrosion defect circumferential width, with a significant
correlation coefficient equal to 82.87 %. A probabilistic methodology is presented for the
assessment of the remaining life of a corroded pipeline transporting gas, and a finite element
method (FEM) was used to assess the pipeline failure pressure. The numerical FEM modeling
results were compared with the commonly used codes-models for calculating limit pressure to
establish a more realistic and accurate engineering model. The reliability analysis of an API
5L X60 steel made Algerian natural gas pipeline, in service for thirty years, and exposed to
active corrosion attack, is presented. The sensitivity analysis of the basic random variables
within the nonlinear limit state function was carried out to bring out the relative contribution
of each variable affecting the remaining life of corroded pipelines. The reliability analysis is
carried out by using Breitung’s formula, based on the second-order reliability method
(SORM). The reliability assessment of the corroded pipeline is based on the usage of the
notched failure assessment diagram (NFAD), different codes for the calculation of the failure
pressure, and the numerical results using the finite element analyses (FEA) software ANSYS.
Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering, Available online 21 December 2021,
104387, In Press, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jngse.2021.104387
1
Keywords: Corrosion defects, Pipelines, Remaining life, Probability of failure, Reliability,
Probabilistic approach.
1. Introduction
Using pipelines represents the most economic and safest way of transporting gas and
oil over long distances [1-5]. The various corrosion studies in natural gas pipelines and other
hydrocarbons industrial plants are reported [6-10]. These studies covered various topics
including reliability assessment methods, inspection, repair, and maintenance practice of steel
pipelines exposed to corrosion attack during exploitation [11-15]. A probabilistic approach in
the analysis of corrosion defects of gas and oil pipelines has been successfully used to
estimate the remaining life of corroded pipelines and during reliability analysis. Typically, to
enhance the accuracy of the reliability assessment, an intelligent inspection tool had been used
to analyze the degree and distribution of in-service corrosion attack and spatial corrosion
defects distribution in the long-distance pipelines which transport gas and oil.
Lecchi [16] studied the procedures employed to carry out a probabilistic assessment of
corroded pipelines inspected with in-line inspection (ILI) tools. Qin and Cheng [17]
developed a novel method to assess corrosion defects by using the ILI tool and to predict the
failure pressure of pipelines under cyclic loading. Askari et al. [18] have recently published a
comprehensive review on the internal corrosion risks and environmentally assisted cracking
of oil and gas pipelines during both sweet and sour service. They concluded that various
internal corrosion mechanisms controlled by complex interactions of hydrodynamic,
chemical, electrochemical, metallurgical, and mechanical parameters represent one of the
predominant causes of pipeline failures and reliability decrease. The calculation of burst
pressure of pipelines with local corrosion defects represents one of the valid approaches for
the reliable assessment of pipeline integrity and reliability. Zhang and Zhou [19] proposed a
new burst capacity model for corroded oil and gas pipelines based on extensive parametric
three-dimensional (3D) elastic-plastic finite element analyses (FEA) validated by the full-
scale burst test. Several engineering mechanical models-codes were developed to evaluate and
assess the failure pressure of corroded pipelines with different types of corrosion defects [20-
22]. The corrosion pits with different orientations and morphologies are the most common
cause of pipeline reliability degradation [20-31].
2
The purpose of the present work is to provide a comprehensive reliability analysis and
the remaining life assessment of a corroded steel pipeline made of API 5L X60 steel
transporting gas that has been installed in the west region of Algeria. After 30 years of this
long-distance pipeline service, a significant corrosion attack appeared provoking numerous
local corrosion defects at different locations, with different sizes, and orientations. An
intelligent in-line inspection (ILI) tool was used to detect the distribution and spatial
dimensions of localized external and internal corrosion defects. The corrosion rate and the
probability of densities of corrosion rates in radial (circumferential) and axial directions were
also determined. For the probabilistic approach implementation, the statistical analysis of
correlations between spatial dimensions of corrosion defects was also done. The remaining
life of the corroded pipeline was assessed, by using a deterministic approach based on the API
570 standard [32].
A probabilistic approach was used to estimate the steel pipeline failure probability
based on commonly used codes such as ASME B31G [33], modified ASME B31G [34],
Battelle [35], DNV RP F101 [36], and Shell-92 [37], The details about formulas and applied
deterministic approaches of various mechanical codes and standards for the corroded straight
pipe are presented in more detail in [38]. The failure scenario was also considered and
numerically analyzed using the finite element method (FEM) and ANSYS software. The
reliability assessment of the corroded pipeline is based on the usage of the notched failure
assessment diagram (NFAD). The reliability index and the corresponding probability of
failure of the 48 km of the corroded pipeline, as an integral structure, were determined. Also,
the pipeline is divided into four subsections of equal length of 12 km and the probability of
failure of each section was also determined.
Furthermore, the sensitivity of the basic random variables within the limit state
function was established to bring out the degree of influence and the contribution of each
variable on the fracture process of the corroded pipeline. Based on the experimental burst test
results previously published by Bouledroua et al. [20], the sensitivity of the variables that
contributed to the failure process was established for the typical failure pressure value.
3
The proposed probabilistic methodology for the prediction of the reliability
degradation of a pipeline brings out the level of conservatism of each assessment technique
and applied engineering mechanical codes. It further identifies the impact of the corrosion
defect on the remaining strength and the probability of failure of the corroded steel pipeline.
Therefore, the presented comprehensive probabilistic approach for estimation of the
remaining life and reliability assessment of corroded pipelines provides enhanced integrity
management of gas and oil pipelines exposed to severe corrosion during exploitation. The
enhanced corrosion management, according to the comprehensive probabilistic approach
presented in this paper, is mainly provided by the proposed calculation of the predicted
reliability index decrease for the particular pipeline sections with different corrosion attack
rates rather than for the pipeline as an integral structure. Furthermore, the applied sensitivity
analysis provides the tool for the detection of potentially most influential random variables on
the reliability of a corroded pipeline. Therefore, corrosion asset managers and oil and gas
pipeline operators are enabled to predict and prevent the catastrophic failures of oil and gas
pipelines due to corrosion.
2. Experimental results, statistical analysis, and corrosion rates
The material used in this research is an API X60 steel grade produced by ARCELOR
company. It was used to construct pipelines by the ALFAPIPE Company at a production site
of steelmaking complex El Hadjar, Annaba, Algeria. The chemical composition analysis of
the material has shown that material composition conforms with the specification defined in
API 5L [28] standard. The chemical composition, in weight % (wt%), of an API 5L X60
pipeline steel, is presented in Table 1. Specimens for tensile tests were cut and machined
from the rolling-transverse direction of the base metal. Geometry and dimensions of strip
tensile specimen according to the API Specification 5L are presented in [39]. To determine
the material mechanical properties a tensile testing machine of 600 KN loading capacity was
used. The mechanical properties of the base metal are presented in Table 2.
Also, a statistical analysis was done to bring out the probabilistic density of the
mechanical properties and defect dimensions. More details are presented later within section 4
about the reliability assessment.
4
Table 1. Chemical composition of the API 5L X60 steel pipe in (wt%).
Table 2. Mechanical properties of the API 5L X60 steel pipe.
The long-distance natural gas pipeline in service for three decades transports gas under
a mean pressure of 6.9 MPa. The pipeline diameter (D) is 40 inches (1016 mm) and the wall
thickness (t) is 11.1 mm. A total of 798 internal and external corrosion defects along the total
pipeline length (Ltot. = 48 km) were detected. The corrosion defects detection, both internal
and external, and dimension measurement has been done using an intelligent in-line
inspection (ILI) tool through on the total 48 km of pipeline length. The mean number of
corrosion defects (internal plus external) per km of an investigation section (on the total
length of 48 km) of a pipeline is approximately 16.
An extensive experimental test has been performed to determine the corrosion defects
geometrical parameters and mechanical properties of the pipeline steel. The database
composed of the inspection data obtained with the intelligent ILI tool, and direct
measurements of pipe dimensions performed in the ALFAPIPE workshop, was analyzed to
assess the means values and standard deviations. The uncertainties of the basic random
variables within the limit state functions for each mechanical model were modeled as normal
distribution for the corrosion defect length (l) and defect depth (d). For pipe diameter (D) and
wall thickness (t), the coefficients of variation are equal to 0.3 % and 5%, respectively, with
Gaussian distribution laws. Figure 1 shows the inspection results of the corrosion defects
through a longitudinal pipeline distance (L) (at a total of 48 km pipeline length - Ltot.)
expressed by corrosion defects o’clock position (Fig. 1a) and corrosion defect depth to wall
thickness ratio (d/t) (Fig. 1b).
As previously mentioned, a total of 798 corrosion defects were detected on the internal
and external surfaces of the pipeline. The analysis has shown that most corrosion defects are
localized in the internal area of the pipeline (81.12 %) with different o’clock orientations,
Fig. 1a. The explanation of corrosion defects distribution along the pipeline cross-section
with a schematic representation of different o’clock orientations was presented in [20]. The
remaining percentage of external corrosion defects (18.88 %) were mostly detected within the
first 15 km of a pipeline with a relatively small number of defects detected between 15 and 45
km (Fig. 1a).
5
The area in which the relative external and internal geometrical corrosion defects ratio
values, expressed as corrosion defect depth to wall thickness ratio - d/t, is lower than 20 %
seems to be the dominant and hence most important, Fig. 1b [20]. The higher relative d/t
ratios, between 25 and 45 %, were quite rarely detected by the ILI tool (only 20 times), and on
both internal and external surfaces of the pipeline. It is important to note that the maximum
corrosion pit is an external defect with a relative depth d/t equal to 45 %, which was detected
at a longitudinal pipeline distance L = 23 km (Fig. 1b).
Fig. 1 Distribution of external and internal corrosion defects through the longitudinal distance
of a pipeline (L): a) defects o’clock orientation; b) defect depth to wall thickness ratio (d/t).
The qualitative categorization of carbon steel corrosion rates have been predefined, as
a (i) low (corrosion rate is < 0.13 mm/year); (ii) moderate (corrosion rate between 0.13 and
0.20 mm/year); (iii) high (corrosion rate between 0.20 and 0.381 mm/year); and (iv) severe, if
the corrosion rate is higher than 0.381 mm/year, per the NACE RP0775 standard [49].
According to this qualitative categorization, and based on the collected corrosion results
provided by the intelligent ILI tool, 796 corrosion defects fell into the low corrosion rate
category, with a standard deviation equal to 0.0123. Only 2 measurements fell into the
moderate corrosion rate category. There are eight corrosion defects in the ILI tool corrosion
database, which corrosion rate (0.1 mm/years) is quite close to the lower limit for the
moderate corrosion rate (0.13 mm/years), with a standard deviation of 0.0114 mm/years.
These corrosion defects should not be neglected during the corrosion rate prediction.
Probability density functions for the transverse (radial) and axial corrosion rates, Vr
and Va, respectively, with log-normal distribution, are presented in Fig. 2. The best fit of the
radial corrosion rate distribution, Vr, is the generalized extreme value distribution law (GEV),
as illustrated in Fig. 2a. In this paper, the log-normal distribution is attributed to the
transverse (radial) corrosion rate Vr, as an average state between normal and GEV density
distributions, Fig. 2a. The mean value and standard deviation for the radial corrosion rate Vr
are 0.057 mm/year and 0.01335 mm/year, respectively.
6
Several models for the corrosion rate estimation were developed in the literature.
These are (i) the linear growth model where a linear function is assumed between corrosion
depth and the service time [23]; (ii) a power-law model evolving the corrosion defect depth as
a function of service time [50]; (iii) a constant value for corrosion rate of 0.4 mm/years as
recommended by the National Association of Corrosion Engineers - NACE [51]; (iv) and a
Markov Chain model developed by Caleo et al. [52]. In this paper, the API 570 standard is
adopted to estimate the remaining life of the corroded pipeline. According to the API 570, the
long term and short term corrosion rates are calculated from values for the current measured
pipe wall thickness, a previous pipe wall thickness or the initial pipe wall thickness and the
time between the two.
Fig. 2 Probability density functions of the corrosion rates: a) transverse (radial), Vr;
b) axial, Va.
According to the API 570 standard [32], the long-term corrosion rate should be
compared with the short-term corrosion rate to see which results in the shortest remaining life.
The long term corrosion rate of a pipe should be calculated using the following equation (1):
t initial  t last
Corrosion rate (mm/year)  (1)
time (years) between last and initial inspection
where, tinitial, and tlast are the initial wall thickness, determined at the time of inspection, and
the measured wall thickness during the last inspection, respectively.
From the deterministic point of view, the remaining life of the piping system is
calculated according to the API 570 [32] and it is expressed by equation (2):
t actual  t min
Remaining life (years)  ( 2)
corrosion rate
where, tactual, and tmin are the actual minimum wall thickness, determined at the time of
inspection, and the minimum required wall thickness, respectively.
The calculated remaining life according to equation (2) is about 59 years. According to
this result and having in mind the API 570 standard [32] (Table 6.1, recommended maximum
inspection interval), the next inspection should be scheduled 10 years after the last inspection.
7
Table 3 summarizes the observed distribution laws and the corresponding mean
values and standard deviations of the basic random variables - parameters within the limit
state function.
Table 3. Probability density functions of the basic random variables - parameters for
reliability analysis.
3. Numerical simulation and notch failure assessment diagram (NFAD)
In this section, the analysis of the safety domain is based on the usage of the notched
failure assessment diagram (NFAD) for the prediction of the remaining strength of the
corroded pipeline. The results are confronted with the commonly used codes, whereas the
specific parameters of the NFAD were settled using the volumetric method assessment based
on the notch stress intensity factor. In this study, a nonlinear elastic-plastic FEA for API 5L
X60 steel-made pressurized pipeline (operating pressure: 6.9 MPa) with an external elliptical
corrosion defect is performed. The finite element method is configured under the ANSYS
software [40], while a SOLID186 element is utilized with an eight-node solid element that
exhibits a quadratic displacement behavior. For the symmetry reason, only one-quarter of the
pipe is considered and an eight-node solid element mesh has been used. The FEM simulation
results are presented in Fig. 3. The elastic-plastic stress distribution at the notch tip was
determined for a pipe with 1016 mm external diameter (D) and 11.1 mm wall thickness (t),
and with the maximum external pit corrosion defect detected by the intelligent ILI tool. The
maximal detected depth to wall thickness ratio is d/t = 45 % (see Fig. 1), with a defect length
(l) of 164 mm, and defect width (w) of 389 mm.
The FEM obtained distribution of the maximum principal stress Syy through the pipe
ligament versus normalized distance ligament x/b for different applied pipeline service
pressure Ps values from 1 to 15 MPa, is illustrated in Fig. 4a. More details about the
procedure for using the NFAD (Fig. 4b) and the volumetric method, together with the
definition of the assessment point ((Lr, Kr); Lr - non-dimensional applied stress (load), and Kr -
non-dimensional crack driving force), the polar angles, three typical domains on the diagram,
and the application of the NFAD are presented in [2-5,20,41].
8
Fig. 3 Simulation results of the corroded pipeline with an external elliptical corrosion defect
with depth to wall thickness ratio d/t = 45 %: a) geometry of an external elliptical corrosion
defect; b) meshing; c) principal stress distribution.
Fig. 4 Numerical analysis: a) maximum principal stress Syy through the pipe ligament versus
normalized distance ligament x/b; b) corresponding deterministic notch failure assessment
diagram (NFAD) based on the maximum corrosion defect depth to wall thickness ratio d/t =
45 % and the maximum allowable operating pressure (MAOP).
The SINTAP (Structural Integrity Assessment Procedure for European Industry)

procedure [42] modified with the NFAD is often used for the failure assessment and to
analyze the structural integrity and reliability of corroded gas pipelines with semi-elliptical,
semi-spherical, and blunt notch defects [43]. The confrontation of the obtained results for the
failure pressure using the above-mentioned codes (ASME B31G, modified ASME B31G -
designated as ASME MB31G, Battelle, DNV RP F101, and Shell-92), as well as by NFAD
based on the FEM, is shown in Fig. 4b.
The interpolation curve of the generated NFAD is based on the SINTAP level 1
procedure, and it is expressed by the equation (3). The mathematical interpretation of the
SINTAP level 1B procedure with simplification according to the no yield point elongation
assumption for API 5L X60 steel is given by the following expressions [42,43]:
1
Kr 

2 1
Lr
2

0 . 3  0 . 7 e  0 . 6 L r 
6
 for 0  L r  1 ( 3)
2 .5
 150 
L r , max 1   (4)
  
 y 
 
 y  u  (5)
0
2
K
K r*  (6)
K  ,c
h
L*r  (7 )
0
9
where, Kr, Lr, Lr, max, σy, σu, σo, σh, Kρ, and Kρ,c are non-dimensional crack driving force, non-
dimensional applied stress (load), a maximum value of non-dimensional loading or stress-
based parameter, yield strength, ultimate strength, flow stress, hoop stress (maximum
circumferential stress), applied notch stress intensity factor, and the notch fracture toughness,
respectively.
The NFAD based on the SINTAP level 1B procedure interpolation curve is situated
between the most conservative code (ASME B31G) and the lowest conservative code (DNV
RP F101). Also, from the NFAD the corresponding safety factors (Sf) were calculated for the
pipeline operating pressure of 6.9 MPa according to all codes. The calculation method for the
Sf is schematically presented and the procedure is also explained in [27,42]. The assessment
point is in the safety zone for Sf > 1, the failure zone of NFAD for Sf < 1 while for Sf = 1 the
critical limiting case is reached. At a pipeline operating pressure of 6.9 MPa, the Sf margin is
estimated between 1.27 and 1.51, and it is in the safety zone for all commonly used codes.
Based on the NFAD, the value of the safety factor for the same operating pressure is equal to
1.377, which presents an intermediate safety state value in comparison to the commonly used
codes. These results are in accordance with findings by Adib-Ramezani et al. [42]. They
pointed out that the SINTAP procedure and corresponding NFAD provide safety factors value
between lower and upper bound values obtained by commonly used codes.
4. Reliability analysis: A probabilistic approach to reliability analysis methodology and

implementation
A MATLAB script is developed for the assessment of the reliability index (β) and/or
the probability of failure (Pf) of the corroded pipeline (Ltot. = 48 km) by using the second-
order reliability method SORM. The reliability assessment of the corroded pipeline is based
on the commonly used codes for the failure pressure calculation: ASME B31G, modified
ASME B31G, Battelle, DNV RP F101, and Shell-92. The limit state function G(X) of a
mechanical model is expressed by the difference between the resistance R and the solicitations
S, equation (8), and it is considered as a border between the margin of security when G(X) >
0, and the margin of failure when G(X) ≤ 0. This latter is attributed to the difference between
the failure pressure, defined by each code, and the pipeline operating pressure.
10
The reliability index β, expressed by the equation (9), is defined as the minimum
distance between the origin and the failure surface in the equivalent Gaussian space, Ui, and it
was assessed numerically using the first-order reliability method (FORM). First, the reliability
assessment is carried out using the FORM, after, thus is improved by including information
about the curvature τj of the limit state function, and the SORM method is applied to assess
the probability of failure using Breitung’s formula, equation (10) [20]. The input parameters
in the developed script are: (i) the corrosion defect geometry; (ii) the pipeline geometry; (iii)
the material mechanical properties; (iv) the pipeline operating pressure; and (v) their
coefficients of variations and probabilistic density functions of the basic random variables X
within the limit state function G(X) [44-47].
G  RS (8)
  minimize U i i
2
 
, subjected G X j  0 (9)
 n 1 1 
Pf        (10)
 j 1 1   j 
 
The effect of some of the basic random variables on the reliability of the corroded pipeline
that most affects the failure of the pipeline was studied. Comprehensive sensitivity analysis
was applied and as a sensitivity index, the contribution of selected basic variables in the limit
state function expressed as their relative contributions α2(X), were calculated. The sensitivity
analysis results of basic variables used in common mechanical codes are presented in
subsections 4.2 and 4.3. More details about the comprehensive probabilistic approach for
estimation of the remaining life and reliability assessment of corroded pipelines applied in this
paper are given in previous studies [1,20,23,44,46]
4.1. Correlation between corrosion defect spatial dimensions
During the last inspection of a pipeline, a lot of corrosion defects with different
propagation directions, different sizes, and o’clock orientation were detected at the internal
and external pipeline surface, as illustrated in Fig. 1. Based on the intelligent ILI tool results
of the 48 km of the pipeline made of API 5L X60 steel there is no correlation between the
corrosion defect depth (d) and the corrosion defect circumferential width (w) (weak
correlation coefficient equal to 12.7 %).
11
The same applies to the correlation between the corrosion defect depth (d) and the
corrosion defect length (l) (weak correlation coefficient equal to 16.7 %), Figs. 5a and 5b.
Contrary, as expected, there is a strong correlation between the corrosion defect length (l) and
the corrosion defect circumferential width (w), with a significant correlation coefficient equal
to 82.87 %, Fig. 5c.
Fig. 5 Correlation between corrosion defects dimensions of the pipeline: a) depth and width;
b) depth and length; c) length and width.
This strong dependency between l and w should be taken into consideration during the
assessment of the pipeline reliability using the 3D FEM.
4.2. Probability of failure assessment at the last inspection
The reliability analysis of the corroded pipeline was done for the critical value (safety
level) of the failure probability Pf equals 10-4 that is corresponding to the reliability index β =
3.72 [47,48]. The evolution of the probability of failure Pf for the commonly used codes, as a
function of the operating pressure, for the average (d/t = 14.4 %) and maximum (d/t = 45 %)
external corrosion defect depth to wall thickness ratio, are shown in Fig. 6a and Fig. 6b,
respectively. The comparison of obtained reliability index β values of the API X60 steel
pipeline under gas pressure of 6.9 MPa using different codes and for the average corrosion
defect depth (d/t = 14.4 %), is presented in Table 4.
Fig. 6 The probability of failure of a pipeline as a function of the operating pressure for the:
a) average external corrosion defect depth (d/t = 14.4 %); b) maximum external corrosion
defect depth (d/t = 45 %).
Table 4. Reliability index β of the API X60 steel pipeline under gas pressure of 6.9 MPa with
the average external corrosion defect depth (d/t = 14.4 %) for different codes.
During the initial step of the reliability assessment, the total 48 km of pipeline length
was treated as an integral structure without subdividing into several length segments -
sections. The pipeline operating pressure corresponds to the maximum allowable operating
pressure (MAOP) defined by the commonly used codes. The β results for the total pipeline
length (Ltot. = 48 km) at a gas operating pressure of 6.9 MPa, presented in Table 4, clearly
emphasized that the ASME B31G (β = 2.80) is the most conservative code followed by Shell-
92 (β = 3.51), and modified ASME B31G (β = 3.57), respectively.
12
For all of these three conservative codes, the obtained reliability indexes are below the
critical value β = 3.72. Contrary, for the both of two less conservative codes, obtained β
values are much higher, Battelle (β = 4.06) and DNV RP F101 (β = 4.18), very close to each
other, and significantly above the critical value (β = 3.72).
For the whole pipeline (integral structure), and d/t = 45 %, the Pf of the pipeline at 6.9
MPa, assessed by the SORM method using codes (ASME B31G, Battelle, modified ASME
B31G - designated as ASME MB31G, DNV RP F101, and Shell-92), are 2.0910-1, 1.2110-1,
1.1310-1, 2.3610-2, and 3.4310-2, respectively, Fig. 6b. It is important to note that Pf values,
for the maximum external corrosion defect depth d/t = 45 %, obtained using ASME B31G,
Battelle, modified ASME B31G, and Battelle codes, with an increase of pressure, become
more conservative and very close to each other, Fig. 6b. The same trend was not observed for
the average corrosion defect depth (d/t = 14.4 %), in which case the level of conservatism of
each code becomes more pronounced at higher pressure leading to the larger scatter of
obtained Pf values, Fig. 6a.
As indicated in Fig. 1, the degree of corrosion attack is nonuniform along the 48 km of

pipeline length. There are pipeline sections with significant differences in the numbers of
corrosion defects, their spatial locations (external or internal defects), and sizes. Therefore, to
enhance the accuracy of the reliability assessment, the whole pipeline length (Ltot. = 48 km)
was divided into four sections with an equal longitudinal length of 12 km, designated as
sections 1-4, Table 5. For each pipeline section, the total number of corrosion defects and the
statistical data with the corresponding mean values and standard deviations for the corrosion
defect depth d was determined, as shown in Table 5. The results of the probability of failure
assessment for each pipeline section (1-4) and the whole pipeline length (48 km), for the
average corrosion defect depth, are shown in Table 6.
Table 5. Statistical analysis of the corrosion defect depth d for the four sections of the
pipeline.
Table 6. Reliability analysis - the probability of failure of four pipeline sections and the
whole length of the pipeline for the average corrosion defect depth at a pressure of 6.9 MPa.
The reliability analysis of the corroded pipeline sections shows that the probability of
failure of individual sections differs.
13
The section most exposed to corrosion attack is the section having the lowest
reliability index, i.e., the highest probability of failure. That is section 1, representing the
"weakest link" with the largest number of corrosion defects, followed by section 4, section 2,
and finally the least corrosion-threatened section 3, Table 5. The Pf results presented in Table
5, once again pointed out that the ASME B31G code is the most conservative of all used
mechanical codes followed by modified ASME B31G, Shell-92, Batelle, and DNV RP F101
code, respectively. The Pf of the pipeline as an integral structure (Ltot. = 48 km), is noticeably
lower than the Pf of the first section of the pipeline (section 1), and slightly lower than for
section 4, for all commonly used mechanical codes, Table 5.
Therefore, it can be assumed that the two most corrosion-endangered sections of the
pipeline, which will fail first during further exploitation, are sections 1 and 4 with higher Pf
values than for the whole pipeline. The least corrosion endangered sections, with the lower Pf
values than for the whole pipeline, are the middle sections 2 and 3 of the pipeline. The
improved maintenance program for a pipeline should be optimized based on the predicted
reliability index (probability of failure) decrease for each pipeline section separately rather
than for the pipeline as an integral structure.
The results of the sensitivity analysis of the basic random variables within the limit
state function, as a function of the pipeline operating pressure, for the second most
conservative code - ASME MB31G, and the least conservative code - DNV RP F101, are
shown in Fig. 7. The trend of changes of the relative contribution of each random variable
α2(X) to the variance of the limit state function G was plotted. The analyzed basic random
variables X within the limit state function G were: (i) yield stress, σy; (ii) wall thickness, t; (iii)
corrosion depth, d; (iv) corrosion length, l; and (v) operating pressure, P. It can be observed
that with an increase of pressure, for both ASME MB31G (Fig. 7a) and DNV RP F101 (Fig.
7b) codes, the relative contribution of the corrosion depth d and wall thickness t (α2(d) and
α2(t)) decreases. The values for the relative contributions (α2(d) and α2(t)) of both of these two
"corrosion-controlled" variables (d and t) are the highest of all variables and hence dominant
at a lower operating pressure, Fig. 7. The two threshold operating pressures at which relative
contribution of some other variables become more dominant instead of the relative
contribution of wall thickness t (α2(t)) and corrosion depth d (α2(d)), can be observed.
14
For the ASME MB31G code (Fig. 7a), these two threshold operating pressures are
approximately 6 MPa (α2(P) > α2(t)), and 8 MPa (α2(P) > α2(d)). The other three basic random
variable relative contributions (α2(P), α2(l), and α2(σy)) increase with an increase of operating
pressure for both modified ASME B31G (Fig. 7a) and DNV RP F101 (Fig. 7b) codes. It is
interesting to note that the relative contribution of operating pressure (α2(P)) is generally more
pronounced in the case of modified ASME B31G in comparison with the DNV RP F101
code.
This is in accordance with the data for the change of probability of failure with the
operating pressure shown in Fig. 6. The rising degree of conservatism with an increase of an
operating pressure in the corroded pipeline of both ASME B31G and modified ASME B31G
codes are controlled by a high relative contribution of operating pressure P (α2(P)). The α2(P)
is one of the basic random variables within the limit state function. The results indicate that
the sensitivity indexes of variables, expressed through α2(X), are different and strongly depend
on the gas operating pressure in the pipeline. The relative contribution of the main corrosion
parameter, i.e., corrosion depth d (α2(d)), is high (α2(d) = 40÷80 %) at low and intermediate
operating pressures (P = 0÷7 MPa). It significantly decreases (α2(d) < 30 %) at higher
operating pressures (P > 10 MPa), Fig. 7. This corrosion parameter has a very strong
influence on the probability of failure of the corroded pipeline. The relative contributions of
the other two corrosion parameters, i.e., corrosion length, l, and wall thickness t (α2(l) and
α2(t)), for all operating pressures, are much lower and within the range of 0÷20 % for both
parameters, Fig. 7. These two corrosion parameters (α2(l) and α2(t)) have a smaller influence
on the probability of failure of the pipeline.
Further sensitivity analysis of variables is shown in Fig. 8, in which the relative

contribution α2(X) of each random variable X, i.e., σy, t, d, l, and P, at the pipeline operating
pressure of 6.9 MPa, for different codes, are presented. The dominant random variables at the
pipeline operating pressure of 6.9 MPa obtained using different mechanical codes are also
different. In the case of ASME B31G and modified ASME B31G codes, the three most
dominant random variables with the highest relative contributions are P, σy, and d (ASME
B31G), and d, σy, and t (modified ASME B31G).
15
The relative contributions of three most dominant random variables are relatively
uniform for both ASME codes: α2(P) = 34 %, α2(σy) = 28 %, and α2(d) = 16 % (ASME B31G)
and α2(d) = 36 %, α2(σy) = 25 %, and α2(t) = 17 % (modified ASME B31G). The ASME
B31G code expresses the lowest influence of corrosion parameters of all used codes. The
cumulative relative contribution of three corrosion parameters d, t, and l (α2(d) + α2(t) + α2(l))
for the ASME B31G code is 38 %, and relatively low. The same cumulative relative
contribution of three corrosion parameters (α2(d) + α2(t) + α2(l)) for the modified ASME
B31G code is 64 %, and significantly higher than for the ASME B31G code, Fig. 8. In the
case of the other three, less conservative codes, i.e., Battelle, DNV RP F101, and Sheel-92,
the situation is quite different. For all these three codes, the relative contribution of the
corrosion depth d (α2(d)) is the most prominent and its value is approximately 50%. The
values of relative contributions for three corrosion parameters (α2(d), α2(t), and α2(l)), for
these three codes, are very close. Moreover, the cumulative relative contributions of three
corrosion parameters (α2(d) + α2(t) + α2(l)) are also very high: 83% (Battelle), 83% (DNV RP
F101), and 75% (Sheel-92), Fig. 8.
The cumulative relative contribution of the corrosion variables (α2(d) + α2(t) + α2(l))
for Battelle, DNV RP F101, and Sheel-92 codes are high and hence have the most pronounced
influence on the Pf of the API 5L X60 steel-made corroded pipeline. Both somewhat older
ASME codes (ASME B31G and ASME MB31G) express significantly lower sensitivity, and
hence the relative contributions of so-called "corrosion-controlled" variables (d, t, and l) on
the probability of failure Pf of the corroded pipeline, are also much lower.
Fig. 7 Sensitivity analyzes of variables, the relative contribution α2(X) of each random
variable X as a function of the operating pressure using: a) Modified ASME B31G code;
b) DNV RP F101 code. The basic random variables X within the limit state function G are (i)
yield stress, σy; (ii) wall thickness, t; (iii) corrosion depth, d; (iv) corrosion length, l; and (v)
operating pressure, P.
variable X at the operating pressure of 6.9 MPa for different codes.
16
4.3. Predicted probability of failure
The prediction of the remaining strength of the pipelines containing active

corrosion defects are often based on the application of commonly used standard DNV RP
F101, recommended for high toughness steel pipelines [24,36]. In addition to the radial
corrosion rate, Vr, as well as the other important parameter affecting the integrity of the
pipeline: corrosion defect depth d [27], the increase of the operating pressure has also a
significant impact on the degradation of the reliability of the steel pipeline transporting oil and
gas. The decrease of the probability of failure Pf and reliability index β of the investigated
pipeline made of API 5L X60 steel at different operating pressures, as a function of elapsed
service time (Te), is shown in Fig. 9a and Fig. 9b, respectively. It is evident that both Pf and β
values are significantly altered upon further 25-50 years of a pipeline operation, but they are
also strongly dependent on the service pressure. This observation is in the accordance with the
results published by Zelmati et al. [27]. They emphasized the significant β decrease of a
pipeline as a function of elapsed service time for different predefined corrosion rates, using
DNV RP F101 code, and also other codes, like MB31G, Battelle, and Shell-92.
Comprehensive sensitivity analysis and the contribution of selected basic variables in

the limit state function, expressed as their relative contributions α2(X), are presented in
previous subsections 4.2. The evolution of the relative contributions with an elapsed service
time (Te) of two critically important corrosion variables, radial corrosion rate Vr and corrosion
defect depth d (α2(Vr) and α2(d)), at different operating pressures, is shown in Fig. 10a and
Fig. 10b, respectively. The change of operating pressure in a pipeline has a minor effect on
the α2(Vr) change with time. It steadily increased with time for all applied operating pressures,
Fig. 10a. Contrary, the relative contribution α2(d) decreases with time, and the effect of a
pipeline operating pressure is more significant and manifested by a general decrease in α2(d) -
corrosion defect depth sensitivity at higher operating pressures, Fig. 10b.
Fig. 9 Predicted: a) probability of failure; b) reliability index, at different operating pressures

as a function of elapsed service time.
It is important, to exhibit the impact of the correlations between the pipeline spatial
corrosion defects dimensions on the accuracy of the reliability assessment results.
17
In this section, and during the previous reliability analysis, the strong correlation
between the length (l) and the circumferential width (w) of the corrosion defects (R = 82.87
%) is taken into consideration. Even the weak correlation between the corrosion defect depth
(d) and length (l) (R = 16.7 %) or between the corrosion defect depth (d) and the
circumferential width (w) (R = 12.7 %), was also taken into consideration, as shown in Fig. 5.
To quantify the degree of error upon neglecting the existing correlations between the basic
random variables, the reliability analysis is re-estimated without taking into account the
correlation coefficients. Figure 11 shows the results of the assessment of the error for the
reliability index  and the basic random variable relative contributions (α2(Vr) and α2(d)), at
different operating pressures, if the correlations between random variables were not taken into
consideration.
Fig. 10 The evolution of the relative contribution (α2(Vr) and α2(d)) with an elapsed service
time of variables at different operating pressures: a) the radial corrosion rate; b) corrosion
defect depth.
As shown in Fig. 11, the range of the assessed maximal relative error for the estimated
reliability index β is in the range 1.61 - 5.27 % and the analysis overestimates the reliability
index results, which modify the maintenance plan and inspection. At the last inspection, this
error increases with the increase of the operating pressure and the service time of the pipeline.
For instance, at the last inspection, and without taking into consideration the correlation
between corrosion defect dimensions, the reliability index β is assessed to be equal to 4.6206
when the pipeline is pressurized at 1 MPa, while the reliability index drop to a value equal to
4.546 when the correlation is taken in consideration. Also, with the increase of the operating
pressure from 5 MPa up to 6 MPa, the relative error for the reliability index β increased from
4.88 % to 5.27 %.
Besides, the impact of neglecting existing correlations between the basic random
variables is more accentuated in the case of both the relative contribution α2(d) of the
corrosion depth d and the relative contribution α2(Vr) of radial corrosion rate Vr. The assessed
maximal relative error for the relative contribution of the corrosion defect depth α2(d) is in the
wide range 2.72 - 22.51 % depending on the operating pressure (1 - 6 MPa).
18
For the same range of the operating pressures (1 - 6 MPa), the assessed maximal
relative error for the relative contribution of the radial corrosion rate α2(Vr) is less accentuated
and in the range 3.79 - 10.28 %.
Fig. 11 The evolution of the assessed maximal relative error for the basic random variables
relative contributions (α2(Vr) and α2(d)), and the reliability index  at different operating
pressures.
5. Conclusions
Based on the results obtained using an intelligent in-line inspection tool on the
corroded pipeline made of API 5L X60 steel, the correlation between corrosion defect depth
and length or between corrosion defect depth and width was not detected. At the same time,
there is a strong correlation between corrosion defects length and width, with a correlation
coefficient equal to 82.87 %. The statistical analysis has revealed that the mean value of the
transverse (radial) corrosion rate is 0.057 mm/year with a standard deviation equal to 0.0135
mm/year.
From a deterministic point of view, the finite element method results obtained using
the notched failure assessment diagram based on the SINTAP procedure provide an
assessment point situated between points for the ASME B31G mechanical code, as the more
conservative standard, and the DNV RP F101 code, as the least conservative mechanical
code. According to the commonly used codes, and when the oil is transported in a pipeline
with an operating pressure equal to 6.9 MPa, the safety factor margin is assessed to be 1.27-
1.51. At the same operating pressure, the notched failure assessment diagram gives a value of
safety factor equal to 1.377, which presents an intermediate safety state value in comparison
to the safety states obtained by commonly used codes.
From a probabilistic point of view, the reliability analysis was done on the whole
length of an API 5L X60 steel made pipeline, as a single structure, and also after the dividing
of the whole pipeline length (48 km) into four sections of an equal length (12 km). At the last
inspection, the sensitivity analysis of the corroded pipeline was done for different operating
pressures, and the two engineering mechanical codes: modified ASME B31G, and DNV RP
F101. The main conclusions are summarized as below:
19
 When the gas operating pressure is equal to 6.9 MPa, the obtained reliability index of
the whole pipeline is lowest using ASME B31G code, which is the most conservative
mechanical code, followed by Shell-92, modified ASME B31G, Battelle, and DNV
RP F101 code as the least conservative code.
 Based on the reliability analysis of four sections of the pipeline of an equal length (12
km), for all sections, once again, ASME B31G is the most conservative engineering
mechanical code, followed by Shell, modified ASME B31G, Battelle, and DNV RP
F101. The probability of failure of the whole pipeline is lower than the probability of
failure of the first section of the pipeline, and close to the fourth section, for all
commonly used mechanical codes. The first pipeline section with the lowest reliability
index, i.e., the highest probability of failure represents the "weakest link" from the
reliability point of the view due to the largest number of corrosion defects.
 Advanced maintenance strategies for long-distance pipelines transporting gas and oil
should be optimized based on the predicted reliability index decrease for the particular
pipeline sections with different corrosion attack rates rather than for the pipeline as an
integral structure.
 The analysis of the effects of variables on the reliability of a pipeline using two
mechanical codes (ASME B31G and DNV RP F101) has demonstrated that the most
dominant random variables are the corrosion defect depth, followed by pipeline wall
thickness and operating pressure, respectively.
 The operating pressure has a significant impact on the drop of the predicted
probability of failure of the pipeline, in the next 20-50 years of exploitation.
 The sensitivity analysis of the two potentially most influential random variables on the
reliability of a pipeline: transverse corrosion rate, and defect depth, was done at
different operating pressures, for the commonly used engineering mechanical codes,
for the next 20-50 years of exploitation.
 The impact of the correlations between the pipeline spatial corrosion defects
dimensions on the accuracy of the reliability assessment results is pronounced, and
should not be neglected, particularly at high operating pressures.
20
The comprehensive probabilistic approach for the remaining life calculation and
reliability assessment of corroded pipelines, presented in this paper, provides a practical
engineering tool for the enhanced maintenance and integrity management of gas pipelines
exposed during operation to severe corrosion.
During the reliability assessment based on the coupling between the mechanical FEM
and the probabilistic models, the probability density functions of the corrosion rates and the
correlation between corrosion defects dimensions of the pipeline should be taken into
consideration, To improve the quality of the reliability assessment results. Also, the initially
applied first-order reliability method (FORM), further improved with the second-order
reliability (SORM) approximation with Breitung’s formula has its own merits but also
limitations.
Hence the proposed comprehensive probabilistic approach can be further improved by

the application of both contemporary correlation/models for the corrosion rate estimation and
prediction, and various Monte Carlo simulation (MCS) methods for improved estimation of
the probability of failure of the pipeline. Besides, since there is a permanent fluctuation of the
operating pressure in the pipeline transporting gas, an important topic for future research is
the reliability assessment of a pipeline under cyclic loading.
References
[1] Zelmati, D., Ghelloudj, O., & Amirat, A. (2017). Correlation between defect depth and
defect length through a reliability index when evaluating of the remaining life of steel pipeline
under corrosion and crack defects. Engineering Failure Analysis, 79, 171-185.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engfailanal.2017.04.025
[2] Meliani, M. H., Matvienko, Y. G., & Pluvinage, G. (2011). Corrosion defect assessment
on pipes using limit analysis and notch fracture mechanics. Engineering Failure
Analysis, 18(1), 271-283. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engfailanal.2010.09.006
[3] Meliani,, M. Hadj, Bouledroua, O., Azari, Z., et al. The inspections, standards and
repairing methods for pipeline with composite: a review and case study. In: International
21
Conference on New Trends in Fatigue and Fracture. Springer, Cham, 2017. pp. 147-156.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-70365-7_17
[4] Bouledroua, O., Meliani, M. H., & Pluvinage, G. (2017). Assessment of pipe defects using
a constraint-modified failure assessment diagram. Journal of Failure Analysis and
Prevention, 17(1), 144-153. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11668-016-0221-z
[5] Pluvinage, G., Bouledroua, O., Meliani, M. H., & Suleiman, R. (2018). Corrosion defect
analysis using domain failure assessment diagram. International Journal of Pressure Vessels
and Piping, 165, 126-1346. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpvp.2018.06.005
[6] Popov B.N., Lee J-W., Djukic M.B. Chapter 7 - Hydrogen Permeation and Hydrogen
Induced Cracking, in: Handbook of Environmental Degradation of Materials, Third Edition,
edited by Myer Kutz, 2018, William Andrew, Elsevier, 2018, pp. 133-162.
https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-323-52472-8.00007-1
[7] NACE Technical Committee, Task Group T-1F-23, 1993. Stress corrosion cracking
resistance of pipeline welds: a special report on sulfide stress cracking resistance of pipeline
welds. Materials Performance 32, 58-64.
[8] Albarran, J.L., Aguilar, A., Martinez, L., Lopez, H.F. (2002). Corrosion and cracking
behavior in an API X-80 steel exposed to sour gas environments. Corrosion, 58 (9), 783-792.
https://doi.org/10.5006/1.3277661
[9] Nešić, S. (2007). Key issues related to modelling of internal corrosion of oil and gas
pipelines - a review. Corrosion Science, 49(12), 4308-4338.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.corsci.2007.06.006
[10] Wasim, M., Djukic, M.B., Ngo, T.D. (2021). Influence of hydrogen-enhanced plasticity
and decohesion mechanisms of hydrogen embrittlement on the fracture resistance of steel.
Engineering Failure Analysis, 123, 105312.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engfailanal.2021.105312
22
[11] Djukic, M.B., Bakic, G., Sijacki Zeravcic, V., Sedmak A., Rajicic, B. (2019). The
synergistic action and interplay of hydrogen embrittlement mechanisms in steels and iron:
Localized plasticity and decohesion. Engineering Fracture Mechanics, 216, 106528.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engfracmech.2019.106528
[12] Djukic, M.B., Bakic, G.M., Sijacki Zeravcic, V., Sedmak, A., Rajicic, B. (2016).
Hydrogen Embrittlement of Industrial Components: Prediction, Prevention, and Models.
Corrosion, 72(7), 943-961, https://doi.org/10.5006/1958
[13] Dawson, J.L., John, G., Oliver, K., 2010. Management of Corrosion in the Oil and Gas
Industry, Shreir's Corrosion. Elsevier, pp. 3230-3269.
[14] Dawson, J.L., Palmer, J.W., Moreland, P.J., Dicken, G.E., 1999. Weld corrosion -
chemical, electrochemical and hydrodynamic issues, inconsistencies and models. In: Jackman,
P.S.a.S., L.M. (Eds.), Advances in Corrosion and Materials in Oil and Gas Production: (EFC
26). European Federation of Corrosion Publications, Maney Publishing, pp. 155-169
[15] James, B., Hudgins, A., 2016. Chapter 1 - Failure Analysis of Oil and Gas Transmission
Pipelines A2 - Aliofkhazraei, Abdel Salam Hamdy Makhlouf Mahmood, Handbook of
Materials Failure Analysis with Case Studies from the Oil and Gas Industry. Butterworth-
Heinemann, pp. 1–38.
[16] Lecchi, M. (2011). Evaluation of predictive assessment reliability on corroded

transmission pipelines. Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering, 3(5), 633-641.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jngse.2011.07.005
[17] Qin, G., & Cheng, Y. F. (2020). Failure pressure prediction by defect assessment and
finite element modelling on natural gas pipelines under cyclic loading. Journal of Natural Gas
Science and Engineering, 81, 103445. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jngse.2020.103445
[18] Askari, M., Aliofkhazraei, M., & Afroukhteh, S. (2019). A comprehensive review on
internal corrosion and cracking of oil and gas pipelines. Journal of Natural Gas Science and
Engineering, 71, 102971. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jngse.2019.102971
23
[19] Zhang, S., & Zhou, W. (2021). Development of a burst capacity model for corroded
pipelines considering corrosion defect width and a revised Folias factor equation. Journal of
Natural Gas Science and Engineering, 88, 103812.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jngse.2021.103812
[20] Bouledroua, O., Zelmati, D., & Hassani, M. (2019). Inspections, statistical and reliability
assessment study of corroded pipeline. Engineering failure analysis, 100, 1-10.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engfailanal.2019.02.012
[21] Peabody, A. W. (2001). Peabody's control of pipeline corrosion (No. Ed. 2). NACE
international.
[22] Chen, Y., Zhang, H., Zhang, J., Li, X., & Zhou, J. (2015). Failure analysis of high
strength pipeline with single and multiple corrosions. Materials & Design, 67, 552-
557. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2014.10.088
[23] Zelmati, D., Ghelloudj, O., & Amirat, A. (2017). Reliability estimation of pressurized
API 5L X70 pipeline steel under longitudinal elliptical corrosion defect. The International
Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 90(9-12), 2777-2783.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-016-9580-6
[24] Cosham, A., Hopkins, P., & Macdonald, K. A. (2007). Best practice for the assessment
of defects in pipelines–Corrosion. Engineering Failure Analysis, 14(7), 1245-
1265. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engfailanal.2006.11.035
[25] Yeom, K. J., Lee, Y. K., Oh, K. H., & Kim, W. S. (2015). Integrity assessment of a
corroded API X70 pipe with a single defect by burst pressure analysis. Engineering Failure
Analysis, 57, 553-561. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engfailanal.2015.07.024
[26] Azevedo, C. R. (2007). Failure analysis of a crude oil pipeline. Engineering Failure
Analysis, 14(6), 978-994. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engfailanal.2006.12.001
[27] Zelmati, D., Bouledroua, O., Hafsi, Z., & Djukic, M. B. (2020). Probabilistic analysis of
corroded pipeline under localized corrosion defects based on the intelligent inspection
tool. Engineering Failure Analysis, 115, 104683.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engfailanal.2020.104683
24
[28] Ghelloudj, O., Gharbi, A., Zelmati, D., Bouhamla, K., Ramoul, C. E., & Berdjane, D.
(2021). Effect of Heat Treatment on the Structure, Wear and Corrosion of AISI L6 Tool Steel.
In Defect and Diffusion Forum (Vol. 406, pp. 448-456). Trans Tech Publications Ltd.
https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/DDF.406.448
[29] Zelmati, D., Ghelloudj, O., Hassani, M., & Amirat, A. (2019). Remaining Life
Estimation of the High Strength Low Alloy Steel Pipelines by Using Response Surface
Methodology. In Computational Methods and Experimental Testing In Mechanical
Engineering (pp. 145-152). Springer, Cham.
[30] Ghelloudj, O., Zelmati, D., Berdjane, D., Gharbi, A., Achouri, S., Ramoul, C. E., &
Bouhamla, K. (2021). Reliability Estimation of Cracked API 5L X70 Pipeline Steel.
In Journal of Physics: Conference Series (Vol. 1818, No. 1, p. 012164). IOP Publishing.
[31] Ghelloudj, O., Zelmati, D., Gharbi, A., Berdjane, D., Ramoul, C. D., & Chouchane, T.
(2017). Reliability of the high strength pipeline steel under corrosion defect. acta polonica
physica A, 131(3), 420-422. https://doi.org/10.12693/APhysPolA.131.420
[32] Osage, D. A. (2003, January). API 579: A Comprehensive Fitness-for-Service Standard.

In ASME Pressure Vessels and Piping Conference (Vol. 41545, pp. 71-84).
[33] ASME B31 Committee. ASME B31G-2009, Manual for Determining the Remaining
Strength of Corroded Pipelines, American Society of Mechanical Engineers (2009).
[34] ASME B31G, Manual for Determining the Remaining Strength of Corroded Pipelines.
Supplement to the ASME B31 Code for Pressure Piping, (2012).
[35] W.A. Maxey, Outside Force Defect Behaviour, Report to Line Pipe Research
Supervisory Committee of the Pipeline Research Committee of the American Gas
Association, NG-18 Report No. 162, AGA Catalogue No. L51518, Battelle (1986).
[36] DNV-RP-F101, Corroded Pipelines, Det Norske Veritas, Norway, 2015.
[37] F.J. Klever, G. Stewart, C.A.C van der Valk, New developments in burst strength
predictions for locally corroded pipelines, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New
York, NY (United States), 1995.
25
[38] Muthanna, B.G.N., Bouledroua, O., Meriem-Benziane, M., Setvati, M.R., Djukic, M.B.
(2021). Assessment of corroded API 5L X52 pipe elbow using a modified failure assessment
diagram. International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping, 190, 104291.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpvp.2020.104291
[39] API 5L PSL2 standards
[40] ANSYS®2016. Academic Research Mechanical, Release 18.0, Help System, Coupled
Field Analysis Guide, ANSYS Inc.
[41] Bouledroua, O., Hafsi, Z., Djukic, M.B., Elaoud, S. (2020). The synergistic effects of
hydrogen embrittlement and transient gas flow conditions on integrity assessment of a
precracked steel pipeline. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 45(35), 18010-18020.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2020.04.262
[42] Adib-Ramezani, H., Jeong J., Pluvinage, G. (2006). Structural integrity evaluation of
X52 gas pipes subjected to external corrosion defects using the SINTAP procedure.
International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping, 83, 420-432.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpvp.2006.02.023
[43] SINTAP: Structural integrity assessment procedure. Final report E-U project BE95-1462.
Brite Euram Programme Brussels; 1999.
[44] Lemaire, M. Structural reliability, John Wiley & Sons, 2013.
[45] Ditlevsen, O., Madsen, H.O. Structural reliability methods, Wiley, New York, 1996.
[46] Zhao, Y.-G., Ono, T. (2001). Moment methods for structural reliability. Structural
Safety, 23(1), 47-75. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-4730(00)00027-8
[47] Ayyub, B.M., Haldar, A. (1984). Practical structural reliability techniques. Journal of
Structural Engineering, 110(8), 1707-1724. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-
9445(1984)110:8(1707)
[48] Bai, Y., Song R. (1997). Fracture assessment of dented pipes with cracks and reliability-
based calibration of safety factor. International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping,
74(3), 221-229. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0308-0161(97)00113-0
26
[49] NACE International: NACE Standard TM0177/96, Standard Test Method, NACE,
Houston, TX, revised Dec. 1996.
[50] Amirat, A., Mohamed-Chateauneuf, A., Chaoui, K. (2006). Reliability assessment of

underground pipelines under the combined effect of active corrosion and residual
stress. International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 83(2), 107-117.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpvp.2005.11.004
[51] Standard Recommended Practice RP 0169–92: Control of External Corrosion on

Underground or Submerged Metallic Piping Systems, NACE, 1992.
[52] Caleyo, F., Velázquez, J.C., Valor, A., Hallen, J.M. (2009). Markov chain modelling of
pitting corrosion in underground pipelines. Corrosion Science, 51(9), 2197-2207.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.corsci.2009.06.014
27
LIST OF TABLES

reliability analysis.
Table 4. Reliability index β of the API X60 steel pipeline under gas pressure of 6.9 Mpa with
pipeline.
C Si Mn P S V Nb Ti Al Co Cu Nb
0.24 0.45 0.40 0.025 0.015 0.010 0.05 0.04 0.02 0.008 0.025 0.09
Young modulus, E (GPa) Yield stress, σy (MPa) Ultimate stress, σu (MPa)
210 414 565
28
reliability analysis
Variable - parameter Unit Mean value Standard deviation Distribution

Yield stress, σy MPa 414 41.4 Normal
Ultimate stress, σu MPa 565 56.5 Normal
Operating pressure, P MPa 6.9 / Deterministic
Outside diameter, D mm 1016 3.05 Normal
Wall thickness, t mm 11.1 0.555 Normal
Corrosion depth, d mm 1.6 0.379 Normal
Corrosion length, l mm 37.91 22.81 Normal
Corrosion width, w mm 63.29 55.31 Normal
Radial corrosion rate, Vr mm/year 0.057 0.0135 Log normal
Axial corrosion rate, Va mm/year 1.354 0.8149 Log normal
Table 4. Reliability index β of the API X60 steel pipeline under gas pressure of 6.9 MPa with
Standard/code ASME B31G ASME MB31G Battelle DNV RP F101 Shell-92
Reliability index, β 2.80 3.57 4.06 4.18 3.51
pipeline.
Number of Corrosion defect depth Standard

Section Distribution
corrosion defects mean value, d (mm) deviation
1 (1÷12 km) 276 1.555 0.393 Normal
2 (12÷24 km) 151 1.707 0.482 Normal
3 (24÷36 km) 190 1.560 0.294 Normal
4 (36÷48 km) 183 1.619 0.315 Normal
29
Probability of failure, Pf
Section ASME B31G ASME MB31G DNV RP F101 Battelle Shell-92
1 (1÷12 km) 1.95 10-3 1.22 10-4 1.0310-5 1.74 10-5 1.69 10-4
2 (12÷24 km) 1.86 10-3 1.13 10-4 9.98 10-6 1.67 10-5 1.55 10-4
3 (24÷36 km) 1.84 10-3 1.11 10-4 9.89 10-6 1.61 10-5 1.51 10-4
4 (36÷48 km) 1.91 10-3 1.18 10-4 1.02 10-5 1.71 10-5 1.63 10-4
Whole pipeline 1.89 10-3 1.17 10-4 1.01 10-5 1.69 10-5 1.60 10-4
(48 km)
30
LIST OF FIGURES
b) axial, Va.
with depth to wall thickness ratio d/t = 0.45 %: a) geometry of an external elliptical corrosion
0.45 % and the maximum allowable operating pressure (MAOP).
Fig. 5 Correlation between corrosion defects dimensions of the pipeline: a) depth and width;
b) depth and length; c) length and width.

defect depth.
31
pressures.
32
(a)
14:00
Internal defects
External defects
12:00
Defect o'clock orientation
10:00
08:00
06:00
04:00
02:00
00:00
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Longitudinal pipeline distance, L (km)
(b)
50
Internal defects
Defect depth to wall thickness ratio, d/t (%)
External defects
40
30
20
10
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Longitudinal pipeline distance, L (km)
33
(a)
(b)
b) axial, Va.
34
(a) (b)
(c)
with depth to wall thickness ratio d/t = 0.45 %: a) geometry of an external elliptical corrosion
35
1200
Operating pressure, P (MPa)
P=1 P=2 P=3 P=4 P=5
Maximum principal stress, Syy (MPa)

P=6 P=7 P=8 P=9 P=10
1000 P=11 P=12 P=13 P=14 P=15
800
P=15 MPa
600
400
200
P=1 MPa
0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Normalized distance ligament, x/b
(a)
(b)
0.45 % and the maximum allowable operating pressure (MAOP).
36
6.0
d = 0.0009w + 1.54
5.5 Correlation coefficient R = 12.7%
5.0
4.5
Defect depth, d (mm)
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0 100 200 300 400 500
Defect width, w (mm)
.
(a)
6.0
d = 0.0028 l + 1.49
5.5 Correlation coefficient R = 16.7%
5.0
4.5
Defect depth, d (mm)
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0 50 100 150 200
Defect length, l (mm)
(b)
37
l = 0.3419w + 16.275
200 Correlation coefficient R = 82.87%
Defect length, l (mm) 150
100
50
0 100 200 300 400 500

Defect width, w (mm)
(c)
Fig. 5 Correlation between corrosion defects dimensions of the pipeline: (a) depth and width;
(b) depth and length; (c) length and width.
38
ASME B31G
Shell-92
8.0E-1 ASME MB31G
Probability of failure, Pf Battelle
DNV RP F101
6.0E-1
4.0E-1
2.0E-1
1.0E-4
5 6 7 8 9 10
(a)
ASME B31G
Shell-92
8.0E-01 ASME MB31G
Battelle
DNV RP F101
6.0E-01
4.0E-01
2.0E-01
1.0E-05
5 6 7 8 9 10
(b)
39
d t P y l
80
ASME MB31G
70
Variables sensitivity,  (%)

60
2
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
(a)
d t P u l
80
DNV RP F101
70
Variables sensitivity, 2(%)
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
(b)
40
ASME B31G ASME MB31G
10.5%
24.5%
28.2%
34%
17.5%
11.3%
14.2%
7.3%
16.2% 36.3%
Shell-92 Battelle
8.3% 10.9% 5.5%

16.9%
17.1%
15.4%
17.3%
11.3%
48% 49.2%
DNV RP F101
11.3% 5.6%
17.1%
13.3%
52.7%
41
P=1 MPa P=2 MPa P=3 MPa P=4 MPa P=5 MPa P=6 MPa
0.1
0.01
0.001
Pf =1E-4
1E-4
1E-5
1E-6
0 5 10 15 20
Elapsed time, Te (years)
(a)
P=1 MPa P=2 MPa P=3 MPa P= 4 MPa P=5 MPa P=6 MPa
6
5
Reliability index,
4 =3.72
0
0 5 10 15 20
(b)

42
40
Radial corrosion rate sensitivity, 2 Vr (%) 30
20
10
0
0 5 10 15 20
(a)
90
80
Defect depth sensitivity, 2d (%)
70
60
50
40
30
0 5 10 15 20
(b)
defect depth.
43
2(d ) 2(Vr) 
25
20
Error assessment (%)
15
10
0
1 2 3 4 5 6
pressures.
44
View publication stats

A Probabilistic Approach To Estimate The Remaining Life and Reliability of Corroded Pipelines

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Probabilistic Approach To Estimate The Remaining Life and Reliability of Corroded Pipelines

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

A probabilistic approach to estimate the remaining life and reliability of

Article in Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering · March 2022

Zelmati Djamel Bouledroua Omar

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Oualid GHELLOUDJ Milos Djukic

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Stability Analysis in Elastic States of Very Slender Columns View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Djamel Zelmati1,2*, Omar Bouledroua3, Oualid Ghelloudj1,2,

Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering, Available online 21 December

2. Experimental results, statistical analysis, and corrosion rates

Table 2. Mechanical properties of the API 5L X60 steel pipe.

3. Numerical simulation and notch failure assessment diagram (NFAD)

The SINTAP (Structural Integrity Assessment Procedure for European Industry)

4. Reliability analysis: A probabilistic approach to reliability analysis methodology and

4.1. Correlation between corrosion defect spatial dimensions

4.2. Probability of failure assessment at the last inspection

As indicated in Fig. 1, the degree of corrosion attack is nonuniform along the 48 km of

Further sensitivity analysis of variables is shown in Fig. 8, in which the relative

The prediction of the remaining strength of the pipelines containing active

Comprehensive sensitivity analysis and the contribution of selected basic variables in

Fig. 9 Predicted: a) probability of failure; b) reliability index, at different operating pressures

Hence the proposed comprehensive probabilistic approach can be further improved by

[16] Lecchi, M. (2011). Evaluation of predictive assessment reliability on corroded

[32] Osage, D. A. (2003, January). API 579: A Comprehensive Fitness-for-Service Standard.

[36] DNV-RP-F101, Corroded Pipelines, Det Norske Veritas, Norway, 2015.

[39] API 5L PSL2 standards

[44] Lemaire, M. Structural reliability, John Wiley & Sons, 2013.

[50] Amirat, A., Mohamed-Chateauneuf, A., Chaoui, K. (2006). Reliability assessment of

[51] Standard Recommended Practice RP 0169–92: Control of External Corrosion on

Table 1. Chemical composition of the API 5L X60 steel pipe in (wt%).

Table 1. Chemical composition of the API 5L X60 steel pipe in (wt%).

Table 2. Mechanical properties of the API 5L X60 steel pipe.

Young modulus, E (GPa) Yield stress, σy (MPa) Ultimate stress, σu (MPa)

210 414 565

Variable - parameter Unit Mean value Standard deviation Distribution

Standard/code ASME B31G ASME MB31G Battelle DNV RP F101 Shell-92

Reliability index, β 2.80 3.57 4.06 4.18 3.51

Number of Corrosion defect depth Standard

1 (1÷12 km) 276 1.555 0.393 Normal

2 (12÷24 km) 151 1.707 0.482 Normal

3 (24÷36 km) 190 1.560 0.294 Normal

4 (36÷48 km) 183 1.619 0.315 Normal

Section ASME B31G ASME MB31G DNV RP F101 Battelle Shell-92

Fig. 9 Predicted: a) probability of failure; b) reliability index, at different operating pressures

Maximum principal stress, Syy (MPa)

Defect length, l (mm) 150

0 100 200 300 400 500

Variables sensitivity,  (%)

8.3% 10.9% 5.5%

Fig. 9 Predicted: a) probability of failure; b) reliability index, at different operating pressures

Radial corrosion rate sensitivity, 2 Vr (%) 30

View publication stats

You might also like