Table of Contents

Page EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . BACKGROUND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Basis of the B31G Criterion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Basic Equation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Assumptions Embodied in the B31G Criterion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Factor of Safety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Formats and Limitations of the B31G Criterion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Evaluating a Corroded Region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Calculating a Reduced Operating Pressure Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . Limitations of the B31G Criterion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DEVELOPMENT OF A MODIFIED CRITERION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sources of Excess Conservatism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Modified Flow Stress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i 1 2 2 2 4 5 5 5 7 8 9 9 9

Modified Folias Factor. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Modified Representation of Metal-Loss Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Format of the Modified Criterion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Equation for Allowable Length of Corrosion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Equation for Reduced Operating Pressure Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Options for Pipelines Designed to Operate at Stress Levels Other Than 72 Percent of SMYS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 PC Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Revised Curves and Tables 23

Analysis of Corroded Areas Having Depths Not More Than 20 Percent Through the Wall . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Comparison of the Old and the New Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Table of Contents (Cont d) Page Evaluating Allowable Lengths . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Evaluating Safe Operating Pressures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Analysis of the Examples Using RSTRENG. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 VALIDATION OF THE METHODOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Predictions of Failure Pressure Via RSTRENG Compared to Burst Test Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Predictions of Failure Pressure Via Approximate Methods Compared to Exact-Area Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Further Justification for Using the Effective-Area Method and 0.85 dL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Defect Parameters and Failure Stress Prediction Methods . . . . 35 Comparison of the Eight Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Statistical Analysis of the Predictive Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Summary of the Validation E f f o r t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 CORROSION IN VARIOUS TYPES OF LONGITUDINAL SEAMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 RESULTS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 APPENDIX A MORE EXACT CALCULATIONS OF REMAINING STRENGTH FROM DETAILED MEASURE. MENTS OF CORRODED AREAS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .A - l APPENDIX B RSTRENG MANUAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-l APPENDIX C TABLES AND CURVES FOR ACCEPTABLE LENGTHS OF CORROSION................C-1

Table of Contents (Contd) Page APPENDIX D BURST TEST DATA FOR CORRODED PIPE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-l LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Table 2. Table 3. Example of Table to be Used in a Modified Version of B31G.. 49 Predicted Failure Pressure Level for Cases 1 Through 9 Using RSTRENG . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 Comparisons of the Behaviors of Through-Wall Flaws in Longitudinal Welds with Identical Defects in the Pipe Material . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Figure 2. Figure 3. Figure 4. Figure 5. Figure 6. Figure 7. Figure 8. Figure 9. Figure 10. Figure 11. Figure 12. Parameters of Metal Loss Using in Analysis of Remaining Strength . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Parabolic Representation of Metal Loss as Used in the B31G Criterion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The B31G Criterion for Acceptable Length of a Corroded Region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Graphical Representation of Folias Factors Used in the Modified Criterion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Contour Map of Pit Depths . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Profile of Pit Depths Along *River-Bottom" Path in Figure 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 54 55 56 57 58

52

Comparison of Allowable Lengths Under the Old and the New Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 Comparison of Predicted Safe Operating Pressures Under the Old and New Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Example Case 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Example Case 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Example Case 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Comparison of RSTRENG Minimum Failure Pressures to Burst Test Results for Cases of Ruptures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 61 62 63 64

List of Figures (Contd) Page Figure 13. Figure 14. Figure 15. Figure 16. Figure 17. Comparison of RSTRENG Minimum Failure Pressures to Burst Test Results for Cases of Leaks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 Comparison of Predictions by Various Methods to Burst T e s t R e s u l t s f o r C a s e s o f R u p t u r e s. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 Comparison of Predictions by Various Methods to Burst Test Results for Cases of Leaks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 Bases for Calculations of Failure Pressure for a Flaw Having Nonuniform Depth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

Comparisons of Calculations of Failure Pressure by Various Methods for a Flaw of Nonuniform Depth........... 69