Crack in Corrosion Defect

Assessment in Transmission
Pipelines
Cracks may occur coincident with corrosion representing a new hybrid defect in gas and
oil pipelines known as crack in corrosion (CIC) that is not directly addressed in the cur-

Downloaded from http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pressurevesseltech/article-pdf/135/2/021701/6313642/pvt_135_2_021701.pdf by University of Edinburgh user on 22 March 2023

A. Hosseini
e-mail: sa2hosse@uwaterloo.ca
D. Cronin
e-mail: dscronin@uwaterloo.ca
A. Plumtree
e-mail: plumtree@ uwaterloo.ca
Mechanical and Mechatronics Department,
University of Waterloo,
200 University Ave West,
Waterloo, ON, N2L3G1, Canada
rent codes or assessment methods. Hence, there is a need to provide an assessment of
CIC and evaluate the line integrity, as well as identify the requirements for defect repair
or line hydrotest. An experimental investigation was undertaken to evaluate the collapse
pressures of lines containing corrosion, cracks, or (CIC) defects in a typical line pipe
(API 5L Grade X52, 508 mm diameter, 5.7 mm wall thickness). The mechanical proper-
ties of the pipe were measured using tensile, Charpy, and J-testing for use in applying
evaluation criteria. Rupture tests were undertaken on end-capped sections containing
uniform depth, finite length corrosion, cracks, or CIC defects. Failure occurred by plastic
collapse and ductile tearing for the corrosion defects, cracks, and CIC geometries tested.
For the corrosion defects, the corroded pipe strength (CPS) method provided the most
accurate results (13% conservative on average). The API 579 (level 3 failure assessment
diagram (FAD), method D) provided the least conservative collapse pressure predictions
for the cracks with an average error of 20%. The CIC collapse pressures were bounded
by those of a long corrosion groove (upper bound) and a long crack (lower bound), with
collapse dominated by the crack when the crack depth was significant. Application of
API 579 to the CIC provided collapse pressure predictions that were 18% conservative.
Sixteen rupture tests were successfully completed investigating the failure behavior of
longitudinally oriented corrosion, crack, and CIC. The pipe material was characterized
and these properties were used to predict the collapse pressure of the defects using cur-
rent methods. Existing methods for corrosion (CPS) and cracks (API 579, level 3, method
D) gave conservative collapse pressure predictions. The collapse pressures for the CIC
were bounded by those of a long corrosion groove and a long crack, with collapse domi-
nated by the crack when the crack depth was significant. CIC failure behavior was deter-
mined by the crack to corrosion depth ratio, total defect depth and its profile. The results
showed that the failure pressures for CIC were reduced when their equivalent depths
were similar to those of corrosion and using crack evaluation techniques provided an ap-
proximate collapse pressure. [DOI: 10.1115/1.4007644]

1 Introduction
Pipelines are the safest form of transportation for oil and refined
products; however, aging pipeline infrastructure may experience
defects in the form of cracks or corrosion commonly resulting
from coating or cathodic protection degradation, local environ-
ment, or third party damage during fabrication. Evaluation of
these defects is important for continued safe operation. Based on
the type of defect, there are different codes and standards for
assessing pipeline defects. For instance, the most popular codes
for cracks assessment in oil and gas pipelines are API 579 [1] and
BS7910 [2] and common methods for assessing corrosion are
RSTRENG [3] and the CPS method.
In general, significant amounts of corrosion (i.e., greater than
10% of the wall thickness (WT)) and cracks are not found to-
gether. This may in part be related to the soil chemistry required
to generate each type of defect [4]. However, new hybrid defects
including cracking within corrosion have been identified [5].
These include cracking coincident with corrosion, termed CIC
and have to be investigated extensively.
A study by Cronin and Plumtree [6] determined the behavior of
long cracks within long corrosion grooves for these hybrid
Contributed by the Pressure Vessel and Piping Division of ASME for publication
in the JOURNAL OF PRESSURE VESSEL TECHNOLOGY. Manuscript received October 9,
2011; final manuscript received April 17, 2012; published online March 18, 2013.
Assoc. Editor: Saeid Mokhatab.
defects. They concluded that the behavior of these hybrid defects
fell between that for cracks and corrosion. Furthermore, it was
found that the transition from crack to corrosion behavior
occurred when the corrosion depth was greater than 75% of the
total defect depth [6].
The aim of this present study is to review the most commonly
used existing techniques for evaluating cracks and corrosion, and
to provide a framework for applying them to CIC defects. For the
purpose of this study, a series of rupture tests were undertaken to
investigate the failure behavior of a thin walled gas pipe contain-
ing a series of axial flaws such as crack, corrosion, or CIC defects.
2 Background
2.1 Corrosion Defect Assessment. Corrosion may occur on
the outside of a pipe due to coating failure, and after some years
without protective coating, the pipe will experience external cor-
rosion. Corrosion can also occur on the internal surface of the
pipeline caused by contaminants in the products such as small
sand particles or amino acids. There are several methods for
assessing corrosion occurring on pipelines, with RSTRENG [3]
most commonly used in practice. Developing methods such as
CPS [7] provide improved failure pressure predictions. Most
existing methods consider that the circumferential or hoop stress
in the pipe dominates the response and estimate the collapse pres-
sure based on the area of metal loss.

Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology Copyright V

C 2013 by ASME APRIL 2013, Vol. 135 / 021701-1
 The RSTRENG method is based on the NG-18 equation (Eq.
(1)) for failure of part-wall flaws. RSTRENG is generally
regarded as a conservative method for predicting the remaining
strength of externally corroded pipe. However, it is less conserva-
tive than other methods, such as the modified B31G approach [3].
The main improvements in RSTRENG compared to the other
methods include improved representation of the metal loss area
[8] and a more accurate estimate of the material flow stress.
The NG-18 surface flaw equation expresses the relation
between flow stress, bulging (Folias) factor (M), and defect geom-
etry [3,15] as follows:
2 3
d loading path to intersect the FAD boundary at point A. Kr and Lr
6 1 t 7
rh ¼ r6
4   7 (1)
d 15
1
t M
For RSTRENG, the flow stress r is estimated by using
r ¼ ry þ 69:8 ðMPaÞ
The Folias factor (M) describes the bulging effect of a shell sur-
face that is thinner in wall thickness than the surrounding shell
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
 
2c 2
M ¼ 1 þ 0:6275 pffiffiffiffiffi 0:003375 pffiffiffiffiffi
Dt
The failure stress of a corroded pipe under internal pressure
containing corrosion defect oriented along the axis of the pipe is
given by Eq. (4)
2 3
d response. They are more conservative than level 3, which utilizes
t 6 1 
Pf ¼ r6  t 7 7 (4)
R 4 d 15
1
t M
The CPS method [7] uses a plastic collapse criterion, where
failure is initiated when the stresses in the material exceeds a criti-
cal value (i.e., ultimate tensile strength). The upper (plain pipe)
and lower (long groove) limit solutions provide bounds for the
collapse pressure prediction, and the actual failure is determined
based on the metal loss [7]. The main advantage of this method is
its ability to make full use of the characteristic corrosion geometry
and tensile properties of the material. In addition, it is unnecessary
to consider defect interaction, since the interaction of adjacent
corrosion is taken into account [7].
2.2 Crack Assessment. Cracks can occur on the internal or
external surfaces of a pipe and typically grow on the pipe surface
perpendicular to the hoop stress (maximum principal stress) result-
ing in alignment of the crack along the longitudinal direction [9].
There are several methods for assessing for cracks in pipelines.
API level 3 FAD (methods B and D) [1] have been successfully
applied to evaluate the cracks. These methods use linear elastic
fracture mechanics (LEFM) and elastic–plastic fracture mechanics
(EPFM), respectively. LEFM can be used when the plastic zone at
the crack tip is small and the linear elastic stress intensity factor
(K) is given by
pffiffiffiffiffiffi
KI ¼ Yrm pa (5)
On the other hand, EPFM can be used when the plastic zone at
the crack tip is significant. This method is commonly applied
using the J integral (JI), based on the strain energy density (U) in
the vicinity of the crack
1 @U
JI ¼ 
t @a
021701-2 / Vol. 135, APRIL 2013
KI and JI are determined based on the crack dimensions of the
component under the expected loads. In low ductility materials,
JIC can be used to estimate an equivalent value of KIC for LEFM
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
KIC ¼ JIC E0 (7)
The FAD provides [17,19–22] an evaluation of the conditions
that can affect the type of failure expected. This diagram is based
on two criteria, namely, failure by fracture and failure by plastic
collapse, defined by Fig. 1 which shows the normalized crack tip
stress intensity (Kr) and the normalized stress (Lr). As the applied
load is increased, the assessment point (Kr, Lr) increases along the
Downloaded from http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pressurevesseltech/article-pdf/135/2/021701/6313642/pvt_135_2_021701.pdf by University of Edinburgh user on 22 March 2023
are expressed as follows:
KI
Kr ¼ (8)
KIC
rPref
Lr ¼ (9)
(2) ry
The stress intensity ratio, Kr , controls the failure of cracks in
low toughness materials, whereas Lr controls the failure of cracks
in high toughness materials. It is considered safe, if the current
  state of the material defined by the assessment point A determined
2c 4 for the component containing a crack under an applied load lies
(3)
Dt below the FAD curve (Fig. 1). The component may fail by frac-
ture for Kr > 1 or plastic collapse for Lr > LprðmaxÞ . In some cases,
the component may fail in the transition region between fracture
and plastic collapse.
In general, the FAD approach is applied at three different lev-
els. Levels 1 and 2 include assumptions regarding the material’s
the actual material tensile strain behavior. Five methods (A–E)
are associated with a level 3 FAD. Hosseini et al. [10] demon-
strated that level 3 FAD methods B (K-approach) and D (J-
approach), using API 579, were more accurate analytical methods
compared to others assessing longitudinal crack defects. Conse-
quently, these methods (API 579, level 3 FAD, methods B and D)
were considered for the current study. The K-approach uses the
level 2 assessment procedure, except that the FAD is constructed
using the actual material properties for level 3. Method D applies
ductile tearing analysis in which the fracture tearing resistance
(J–R curve) is defined as a function of the amount of stable ductile
tearing.
The level 3 FAD (Fig. 1) uses the actual true stress–strain curve
for the material, where the stress intensity ratio is defined as given
in Eq. (10). The cut-off for localized plastic collapse (Eq. (11))
provides the upper bound for this failure mode
" #0:5
Eeref ðLr Þ3 ry
Kr ¼ þ (10)
Lr ry 2Eeref
(6)
Fig. 1 Failure assessment diagram (level 3)
Transactions of the ASME
 ry þ ru
LPrðmaxÞ ¼ (11)
2ry
3 Material Characterization
API 5L Grade X52 pipeline steel of external diameter 508 mm
(20 in.), 5.7 mm wall thickness was used as the experimental basis
for this study.
3.1 Tensile Material Properties. Twenty two longitudinally
and twenty two circumferentially oriented tensile specimens were
prepared from the steel pipe and tested according to ASTM E8M-
07 [11]. The thickness of each specimen was the same as the WT
of the pipe, 5.7 mm, and the width was 12.5 mm. The modulus of
elasticity (E) was considered to be 207 GPa. The average values
of the true yield strength and ultimate strength in the circumferen-
tial direction were 435.0 and 631.0 MPa with the standard devia-
tions of 19.2 MPa and 28.2 MPa, respectively.
The true stress–strain curve was determined. The Ramberg–
Osgood equation (Eq. (12)) was found to provide a good fit to the
data
 8:35  
r r r the seam welds, and the geometries were accurately measured
e¼ þ 1:75 (12)
E ry E
3.2 Impact Toughness Material Properties. Material
toughness has traditionally been evaluated using Charpy V-notch
impact tests (CVN) based on ASTM E23-07 [12], which can then
be used to provide an estimate of the material fracture toughness.
Owing to the thickness of the pipes, subsize specimens were pre-
pared from four different pipe sections giving a total of 84 speci-
mens). Impact testing was carried out at eight different
temperatures namely, 60, 40, 20, 3, 22, 50, 100, and 150  C.
The following equation was used to scale the corresponding sub-
size impact energy results to full-sized impact energy values [2],
which are given in Table 1
 
tc
CVN ¼ CVNS S (13)
tc
The average test values were converted to full-sized impact
energies and were expressed in the form of a sigmoidal curve,
where the average upper shelf energy was 43.2 J, corresponding to
complete ductile fracture. The ductile to brittle transition tempera-
ture was found to be 11.3  C, for 50% ductile fracture. Since
fracture toughness can be estimated using the CVN data, API 579
Appendix F [7] was used to correlate the upper shelf CVN impact
energy to the lower boundpffiffiffiffivalue of the fracture toughness KIC ,
giving a value of 89 MPa m.
3.3 Fracture Toughness (J-Integral) Testing. J-integral
testing was conducted to evaluate the material fracture toughness
using level 3 FAD (method D) [13]. J-integral tests based on
ASTM E1820 [14] were carried out on three different pipe sec-
tions to measure J0.2. The sample thicknesses for the three sample
sets were 5.3 mm, 5.12 mm, and 5.33 mm, respectively. The vari-
ation in thicknesses was due to minor surface corrosion, which
was removed prior to testing. Since the sample thickness was
small, extensive plasticity occurred in the crack ligament. Conse-
quently, the results did not meet the requirements for JIC. There-
fore, the resistance curve, J versus crack extension Da (Fig. 2),
was used to determine J0:2 [14–22], and the corresponding test val-
Table 1 Full-size (scaled) Charpy energy test result
Temperature (  C) 60 40 20 3 22 50 100 150
Average energy, E (J) 10.1 11.5 19.2 37.1 42.1 43.1 43.2 43.2
Percent shear (%) 0 10 40 60 85 95 100 100
Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology
Fig. 2 Typical J–R curve [13]
Downloaded from http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pressurevesseltech/article-pdf/135/2/021701/6313642/pvt_135_2_021701.pdf by University of Edinburgh user on 22 March 2023
ues for the three sample sets were 215.2, 196.5, and 179.6 KJ/m2,
giving an average of 197.1 (KJ/m2).
4 Experimental Rupture Testing
To investigate the failure behavior of pipes containing longitu-
dinal either corrosion, cracks, or CIC defects, a series of rupture
tests were carried out on end-capped, seam-welded pipe speci-
mens. The defects were created in the pipe sections, away from
before conducting the rupture tests. The pipe was closed by weld-
ing on hemispherical end caps and then filled with water. The pipe
was initially internally pressurized to 1 MPa to verify that there
were no leaks. Subsequently the pressure was increased at a rate
of 9:83  105 m3 /min until failure occurred. The pressure in the
pipe was continuously measured using a pressure transducer and
amplifier. The highest pressure was recorded for each test.
Five rupture tests were completed on sections of pipe (1800
mm long  508 mm OD  5.7 mm thickness) that contained simu-
lated corrosion defects. These defects, 200 mm long, 30 mm wide,
were machined on the outside of the pipe with depths varying
from 22% to 70% of the wall thickness. The corners of the groove
were rounded to a radius of 6 mm to decrease the stress
concentration.
Cracks were created in these pipe sections to evaluate the exist-
ing flaw assessment methods. In order to create a sharp crack in
the pipe wall, a narrow slit was initially cut in the pipe using a
Jeweller’s saw. The depth of the initial slit was varied, based on
the required final crack depth. Acceptable depths were determined
from an initial fatigue test series on smaller test samples to evalu-
ate the crack growth rate. The pipe was then subjected to load cy-
cling at a frequency of 2 Hz in a closed loop electrohydraulic
testing machine to generate a sharp fatigue crack. The maximum
applied hoop stress was 340 MPa, well below the yield strength of
this steel. In general, the number of cycles required to create a fa-
tigue crack of the required depth varied from 75,000 to 125,000
cycles. A schematic drawing of a typical crack is shown in Fig. 3.
Six rupture tests were carried out on the 1800  508  5.7 mm
sections with cracks of different depths and constant length of
200 mm.
Hybrid CIC defects were created (Fig. 4) on the outside of
1800  508  5.7 mm pipe sections, which contained simulated
corrosion defects of the same length (200 mm) and same width
(30 mm) but varying depths. Similar to the crack tests, a slit was
cut in the pipe which was then cyclically loaded until a fatigue
crack was developed. A simulated corrosion groove of 200 mm
long and 30 mm wide was machined on the pipe surface, consist-
ent with the corrosion specimens. The depth of corrosion was the
same as the depth of the initial slit before cycling. Five successful
rupture tests were completed. The CIC defect depths, amount of
corrosion, crack to thickness, and corrosion to thickness ratios are
summarized in Table 2.
5 Results and Discussion
5.1 Corrosion Defect Rupture-Testing and Evaluation. Ruptures
tested were carried out on five test sections containing corrosion
APRIL 2013, Vol. 135 / 021701-3
 Table 2 CIC defect geometry

Defect depth

Corrosion Crack

Total defect depth

Test ID (d1%) (mm) (d2%) (mm) wall thickness (%)

CIC1 68 3.88 32 1.82 52 5.7

CIC2 62 3.53 38 2.17 59 5.7
CIC3 66 3.76 34 1.94 60 5.7
CIC4 70 3.99 30 1.71 61 5.7

Downloaded from http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pressurevesseltech/article-pdf/135/2/021701/6313642/pvt_135_2_021701.pdf by University of Edinburgh user on 22 March 2023

CIC5 65 3.71 35 1.99 66 5.7

depths. The corresponding API 579 collapse pressure predictions

Fig. 3 Machined slit and crack after cyclic loading
defects varying from 22% to 70% of the pipe wall thickness. The
predicted failure pressures were calculated based on the CPS and
RSTRENG methods as given in Table 3 and Fig. 5. In general, the
CPS method gave the more accurate results, predicting collapse
pressures between 80% and 94% of the experimental values (with
an average error of 13.5%). It should be noted that the results for
the shallower defects (22% and 45% WT) were more accurate
than those for the deeper defects (61% to 70% WT). The
RSTRENG method was more conservative, predicting collapse
pressures between 74% and 78% of the experimental values, with
an average error of 24.2%.
The longitudinal length and depth of a corroded area are impor-
tant parameters for determining the failure pressure, whereas the
effect of circumferential width has a smaller influence [7]. The
effect of groove depth will be considered in this study by main-
taining a constant length and circumferential size.
The failure of the simulated corroded pipes occurred due to
plastic collapse by ductile tearing, which was verified by examin-
ing the fracture surfaces. The failure criterion, used in both CPS
and RSTRENG methods, predicts the onset of ductile tearing at a
critical location within the corrosion defect [7]. Plastic collapse of
a corrosion defect takes place by local necking of the ligament
owing to an increase in the hoop stress which overcomes strain
hardening of the material by increasing the pipe radius and
decreasing wall thickness.
5.2 Cracks Rupture-Testing and Evaluation. Six rupture
tests were conducted on pipes containing cracks of varying
(level 3 FAD, methods D and B) were undertaken (Table 4).
Method D gave better values predicting collapse pressures
between 72% and 87% (with an average of 20%) of the experi-
mental results shown in Fig. 6. By comparison, the level 3 FAD
(method B) in API 579 predicted collapse pressures between 51%
and 78% (with an average of 33%) of the experimental collapse
pressures. The stress intensity and reference stress solution based
on API 579 [1] for cylinder equations used in this study are given
in Appendices A and B, respectively.
As noted previously, level 3 FAD (method B) was based on the
relationship between the fracture toughness ratio (Kr ¼ KI =KIC )
and load ratio (Lr ¼ rref =ry ). In general, an increase in load or
crack size will move the assessment point (Kr and Lr ) along the
loading path towards the failure line as shown in Fig. 1. To predict
the failure pressure of the pipe specimens with different crack
depths, a loading path for each crack configuration was con-
structed on the Kr versus Lr plot. The intersection of this loading
path with the failure line (level 3 FAD) defined the predicted fail-
ure pressure. Figure 6 displays the FAD curve and analytical pre-
dictions applying API 579 (cylinder approach) for four of the
pipes tested. In this case, Lmax
r ¼ 1:22 corresponds to the cut-off
value for the material properties of the pipes tested.
The level 3 FAD for method D applies the J–R curve for the
ductile tearing analysis in which the fracture tearing resistance is
defined as a function of the amount of stable ductile tearing. The
FAD curve was constructed using the J0.2 values (Fig. 2) and then
a series of assessment points were generated based on crack depth
increments. By increasing or decreasing the initial load, the point
of instability occurred when the locus of the assessment point was
tangential to the FAD, as shown by point A in Fig. 7. This figure
shows the FAD curve and the instability load based on level 3
FAD (method D).
The results are summarized in Fig. 8 demonstrating that method
D provided the least conservative estimates of rupture pressure.
According to Fig. 1 and results shown in Fig. 8, all the crack fail-
ures (38%, 47%, 48%, 51%, and 66% WT) were expected to occur

Fig. 4 CIC defect (a) cut slit, (b) fatigue crack, and (c) corrosion defect

021701-4 / Vol. 135, APRIL 2013 Transactions of the ASME

 Table 3 Experimental and predicted collapse pressure for corrosion defects

Exp. collapse Predicted collapse pressure Error (%)

Test ID Defect depth (%WT) Pressure (MPa) CPS (MPa) RSTRENG (MPa) CPS (MPa) RSTRENG (MPa)

C1 22 12.76 11.96 9.74 6.30 23.70

C2 45 9.59 8.79 7.48 8.33 21.99
C3 61 7.58 6.35 5.66 16.23 25.32
C4 66 6.63 5.54 5.04 16.39 23.98
C5 70 6.12 4.90 4.52 20.01 26.10
Average 13.45 24.22

Downloaded from http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pressurevesseltech/article-pdf/135/2/021701/6313642/pvt_135_2_021701.pdf by University of Edinburgh user on 22 March 2023

by a combination of ductile tearing and plastic collapse. This was
verified by examining the fracture surfaces, which showed void
nucleation and growth. Failure could initiate due to plastic col-
lapse and then continue by ductile tearing or vice versa.

5.3 CIC Defect—Rupture Testing and Evaluation. At

Fig. 5 Corrosion defect collapse pressure predictions com-
pared to existing evaluation methods
present, there is no assessment method available for evaluating
CIC defects in pipelines. However, in order to predict the failure
pressure of such a defect, two different assessment methods can
be considered. CIC defects are assumed either to be simulated cor-
rosion of equivalent depth and length or cracks of equivalent
depth and length as shown in Fig. 9.
As shown previously, CPS and level 3 FAD (method D),
respectively, are the more reliable methods for assessing corrosion
with a flat bottom profile and crack. These two methods were
applied to evaluate the CIC geometry by considering the defects
as only corrosion or cracks of equivalent depth and length as the
CIC defect given in Table 5 and shown in Fig. 10. Within the

Table 4 Experimental and predicted collapse pressure for crack defects

Predicted collapse pressure (MPa) Error (%)

Crack Collapse API 579 API 579 API 579 API 579
depth (a) pressure level 3 level 3 level 3 level 3
Test ID (%WT) (MPa) Exp. (method D) (method B) (method D) (method B)

CR1 38 10.1 8.75 7.90 13.37 21.78

CR2 47 9.30 7.57 6.51 18.6 30.00
CR3 47 9.17 7.57 6.51 17.45 29.01
CR4 48 9.60 7.45 6.35 22.40 33.85
CR5 51 8.83 7.12 5.89 19.37 33.30
CR6 66 6.49 4.70 3.32 27.58 48.84
Average 19.79 32.80

Fig. 6 Collapse pressure prediction for cracks using API579 Fig. 7 Collapse pressure prediction for cracks using API579
level 3 FAD (method B) level 3 FAD (method D)

Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology APRIL 2013, Vol. 135 / 021701-5

 Downloaded from http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pressurevesseltech/article-pdf/135/2/021701/6313642/pvt_135_2_021701.pdf by University of Edinburgh user on 22 March 2023
Fig. 8 Experimental and predicted collapse pressures for Fig. 10 CIC defect collapse pressure and corresponding cor-
crack defects rosion and crack defect analysis results

Fig. 9 Comparison of defect profiles (of equivalent depth)

Table 5 Experimental and predicted collapse pressure for CIC defects

Predicted failure pressure of equivalent defect (MPa) Error (%)

Total Exp. failure Crack only Level 3

defect depth pressure level 3 FAD Corrosion FAD
Test ID (% WT) (MPa) (method D) only CPS (method D) CPS

CIC1 52 7.74 7.01 7.52 9.43 2.84

CIC2 59 6.72 6.01 6.49 10.57 3.42
CIC3 60 7.06 5.75 6.28 18.56 11.05
CIC4 61 7.89 5.55 6.15 29.66 22.05
CIC5 66 6.15 4.7 5.37 23.58 12.68
Average 18.36 10.41

experimental range of 52–66% total defect depth, the CIC results
were closer to those for corrosion than cracks. Since the crack to
corrosion ratio has a major effect on the behavior of CIC defects
[6], further work will be undertaken to expand the results.
Considering CIC defects as cracks of equivalent depth, level 3
FAD (method D) in API 579 procedure provided conservative
results between 10% and 30% (18% on average) of the experi-
mental collapse pressures. Assuming that the CIC defects were of
equivalent depth to the corrosion defects, the CPS method would
predict that the collapse pressures were between 3% and 22% con-
servative (10% on average) of the experimental collapse pres-
sures. However, this approach is not recommended, since
numerical analysis [6] has demonstrated that a transition to corro-
sion dominated failure only occurs for very shallow cracks rela-
tive to the total depth of the CIC defect.
6 Conclusions
Experimental rupture tests were conducted to investigate the
failure behavior of longitudinally oriented corrosion, crack, and
CIC defects in API 5L Grade X52 pipeline steel external diameter
508 mm (20 inch), 5.7 mm wall thickness. It was found that failure
for simulated corrosion, cracks, and CIC defects occurred by plas-
tic collapse and ductile tearing.
For corrosion defects, the CPS method provided more accurate
collapse pressure predictions compared to RSTRENG. The CPS
method uses a more complete description of the material response
and surrounding material loss in comparison with RSTRENG.
Moreover, there is no need to consider defect interaction rules,
since the interaction of adjacent corrosion is considered without
simplification.
For cracks, the level 3 FAD (method D, API 579) provided the
least conservative predictions (20% average error). Method B
(level 3 FAD, API 579) gave more conservative predictions with
an average error of 33%; however, method D requires additional
information which may not always be available for defect
assessment.
Rupture testing of five CIC specimens demonstrated the effect
of defect depth on the collapse pressure. Applying API 579 level
3 method D predicted the collapse pressures with an average error
of 18%. The results showed that the failure pressures of CIC were
lower when their equivalent depths were similar to those for simu-
lated corrosion and cracks.
In addition to defect length and depth, the defect profile is an
important parameter when determining the failure behavior of a
simulated corrosion defect or CIC defect. Future work will
include numerical modeling to investigate a wider range of defect
geometries.

021701-6 / Vol. 135, APRIL 2013 Transactions of the ASME

Acknowledgment Folios bulging factor (M) is given by
The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support of  
a 1
TransCanada Pipelines Limited, Calgary, Alberta. 1  0:67
t Mt
M¼ a
Nomenclature 1  0:67
t
a¼ crack depth
1:02 þ 0:4411k2 þ :006124k4
CVN ¼ CVN Charpy fracture energy Mt ¼
CVNs ¼ subsize Charpy impact energy 1 þ 0:02642k2 þ 1:533  106 k4
d¼ defect depth 1:818C
D¼ pipe diameter k ¼ pffiffiffiffiffiffi
tRi
E¼ elasticity modulus

Downloaded from http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pressurevesseltech/article-pdf/135/2/021701/6313642/pvt_135_2_021701.pdf by University of Edinburgh user on 22 March 2023

eref ¼ reference strain
JI ¼ applied value of J-integral
JIC ¼ fracture toughness of material
KI ¼ stress intensity Appendix B: Stress Intensity
KIC ¼ fracture toughness of material
Kr ¼ ordinate of the failure assessment diagram
L¼ length of corroded area
Lr ¼ abscissa of the failure assessment diagram B.1 API 579-Cylinder Approach. Stress intensity for a cylin-
LPr ¼ cut-off line for plastic collapse der under internal pressure containing semi-elliptical surface
M¼ Folias bulging factor crack (taken from Appendix C section C.5.10 of API 579). A sam-
Pf ¼ failure pressure ple cylinder is shown in Fig. 11.
R¼ pipe radius "
Pm ¼ hoop stress    2  3
PR2i a a a
rm ¼ nominal stress KI ¼ 2 2G 0 þ 2G 1 þ 3G 2 þ4G 3
rpref ¼ reference stress Ro  R2i Ri Ri Ri
rh ¼ hoop stress  4 #rffiffiffiffiffiffi
a pa
ru ¼ ultimate tensile strength þ 5G4
ry ¼ yield strength Ri Q
r ¼ flow Stress
t¼ pipe wall thickness The influence coefficients G0 and G1 for inside and outside sur-
tSc ¼ thickness of the subsize specimen face cracks can be determined using the following equations:
tc ¼ thickness of the full-size specimen
U¼ strain energy G0 ¼ A0;0 þ A1;0 b þ A2;0 b2 þ A3;0 b3 þ A4;0 b4 þ A5;0 b5 þ A6;0 b6
Y¼ dimensionless geometry factor
G1 ¼ A0;1 þ A1;1 b þ A2;1 b2 þ A3;1 b3 þ A4;1 b4 þ A5;1 b5 þ A6;1 b6

Appendix A: Reference Stress Where b is given by the following equation and the parameters
Aij , are provided in Appendix C of the API 579 code [1].
A.1 API 579-Cylinder Approach. Stress intensity for a cylin- 2u
der under internal pressure containing semi-elliptical surface b¼
p
crack (taken from Appendix D section D.5.10 of API 579). A
sample cylinder is shown in Fig. 11. The G2 , G3 , and G4 influence coefficients can be computed
It should be noted that there is no bending stress in this case; using paragraph C.14.3 or C.14.4 in Appendix C of the API 579
therefore, the reference stress can be written as follows: code [1].
Q is determined using following equation:
rref ¼ MPm
Q ¼ 1 þ 1.464 (acÞ1:65
r0 is the uniform coefficient for polynomial stress distribution
where Pm is the hoop stress (MPa or psi).

Fig. 11 Semi-elliptical Surface crack in longitudinal direction
of a cylinder [1]
References
[1] American Petroleum Institute, API579, 2000, “Recommended Practice for Fit-
ness for Service.”
[2] British Standards Institute, BS 7910, 2000, “Guide on Methods for Assessing
the Acceptability of Flaws in Metallic Structures,” BSI-10.
[3] Escoe, A. K., 2006, Piping and Pipeline Assessment Guide, Elsevier, New
York.
[4] Hosseini, A., 2010, “Assessment of Crack in Corrosion Defects in Natural Gas
Transmission Pipelines,” MASc. Thesis, University of Waterloo, Waterloo,
Ontario, Canada.
[5] CEAP, Canadian Energy Pipeline Association, 2005, “Stress Corrosion Crack-
ing Recommended Practice,” 2nd Edition, 1860, 205 5-Aveniue SW, Calgary,
Alberta, Canada T2P 2V7.
[6] Cronin, D. S., and Plumtree, A., 2008, “Assessment of Crack in Corrosion
Defects in Natural Gas Transmission Pipelines,” 7th International Pipeline
Conference.
[7] Cronin, D. S., and Pick, R. J., 2000, “Prediction of the Failure Pressure for
Complex Corrosion Defects,” Int. J. Pressure Vessels Piping, Vol. 79, pp.
279–287.
[8] Cosham, A., and Hopkins, P., 2007, “Best Practice for the Assessment of
Defects in Pipelines-Corrosion,” Eng. Failure Anal., Vol. 14, pp. 1245–1265.

Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology APRIL 2013, Vol. 135 / 021701-7

 [9] CEAP, Canadian Energy Pipeline Association, 2005, “Stress Corrosion Crack-
ing Recommended Practice,” 1st Edition, 1860, 205 5-Aveniue SW, Calgary,
Alberta, Canada T2P 2V7.
[10] Hosseini, A., Cronin, D. S., and Plumtree, A., 2010, “Experimental Testing and
Evaluation of Crack Defects in Line Pipe,” 8th International Pipeline Confer-
ence, Calgary, Alberta.
[11] American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Standards, ASTM E8M, 2007.
[12] American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Standards, ASTM E23, 2007.
[13] Bedairi, B., 2010, “Numerical Failure Pressure Prediction to Assess Crack in
Corrosion Defects in Natural Gas Transmission Pipelines,” MASc. Thesis, Uni-
versity of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada.
[14] American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Standards, ASTM E1820,
2008.
[15] Kiefner, J. F., Maxey, W. A., Eiber, R. J., and Duffy, A. R., 1973, “Failure
Stress Levels of Flaws in Pressurized Cylinders,” American Society of Testing
and Materials Report No. ASTM STP 536, pp. 461–481.
021701-8 / Vol. 135, APRIL 2013
[16] Cravero, S., and Ruggeri, C., 2006, “Structural Integrity Analysis of Axially
Cracked Pipelines Using Conventional and Constraint-Modified Failure Assess-
ment Diagrams,” Int. J. Pressure Vessels Piping, 83, pp. 607–617.
[17] Dowling, A. R., and Townley, C. G. A., 1975, “The Effects of Defects on Struc-
tural Failure: A Two-Criterion Approach,” Int. J. Pressure Vessels Piping, 3,
pp. 77–137.
[18] Jaske, C. E., and Beavers, J. A., 1999, “Fitness-For-Service Evaluation of Pipe-
lines With Stress-Corrosion Cracks or Local Corrosion,” The International Con-
ference on Advances in Welding Technology (ICAWT).
[19] Tyson, W., 2000, “Assessment of Crack Defects,” Banff Pipeline Workshop.
[20] Zerbst, U., Schodel, M., Webster, S., Ainsworth, R. 2007. Fitness-for-Service
Fracture Assessment of Structures Containing Cracks, Academic Press.
[21] Anderson, T. L., 2005, Fracture Mechanics Fundamental and Application, 3rd
ed., Taylor & Francis, London.
[22] Paris, P., and Erdogan, F., 1963, “A Critical Analysis of Crack Propagation
Downloaded from http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pressurevesseltech/article-pdf/135/2/021701/6313642/pvt_135_2_021701.pdf by University of Edinburgh user on 22 March 2023
Laws,” J. Basic Eng., 85, pp. 528–543.
Transactions of the ASME