Copyright 2012 by ASME 1

ASSESSMENT CRITERIA AND BURST PRESSURE PREDICTION

FOR PIPELINES WITH LONG BLUNT DEFECTS

Xian-Kui Zhu, Brian N. Leis
Battelle Memorial Institute
505 King Avenue
Columbus, Ohio 43201, USA



ABSTRACT
Corrosion assessment analysis and burst pressure prediction for
an aged pipeline with blunt corrosion defects are essential to its
integrity. It has been known that the flow stress based corrosion
criteria including ASME B31G and PRCI RSTRENG are often
conservative to use, but can be non-conservative in practical
applications. The ultimate tensile stress based corrosion criteria
such as PCORRC and LPC models largely improved the burst
pressure prediction for corrosion defects, but the practice still
showed certain non-conservatism of these newer models. This
paper reviews and evaluates the commonly-used corrosion
criteria. In order to improve the existing criteria for predicting
burst pressure for long corrosion defects, three new theoretical
models with consideration of strain hardening response for the
corroded pipe are developed in terms of Tresca yield criterion,
von Mises yield criterion, and a new multi-axial yield criterion,
i.e., average shear stress yield criterion proposed recently by
the present authors. The existing corrosion criteria and the
proposed theoretical models are evaluated using experimental
burst data for long machined defects and for long real corrosion
defects removed from service. It is found that ASME B31G is
over-conservative for long defects, but can be non-conservative
for deep defects with intermediate lengths. RSTRENG is
conservative for short defects. In contrast, PCORRC (or LPC)
and the proposed ZL model predict reasonably conservative
results for long corrosion defects.

KEYWORDS: Burst pressure, ASME B31G, RSTRENG,
LPC, PCORRC, Tresca solution, ZL solution, Mises solution.

INTRODUCTION
Pipeline has been widely used for transporting oil, gas and
other liquid in petroleum, chemical and other energy industries.
Structural integrity is very important in the design and
operation of oil and gas pipelines. Plastic collapse analysis and
defect assessment are two key aspects in prediction of burst
pressure or the maximum load-carrying capacity of pipelines.
These aspects are required in the safety design, integrity
assessment and operational management of a pipeline.
Corrosion defects have been frequently found in aged
pipelines to appear randomly in different sizes, shapes and
orientations. Corrosion can cause a catastrophic failure of a
pipeline, and has been recognized as a major threat to safety
and integrity of onshore and offshore pipelines. Since the late
1970s, extensive investigations have been undertaken to
develop criteria for assessing the remaining load-carrying
capacity of corroded pressurized pipelines. Over the 40 years,
many methods and criteria for corrosion defect assessments
have been developed, as reviewed in References [1-5]. The
most extensively used assessment criteria in oil and gas
industry are ASME B31G [6] and Modified B31G or PRCI
RSTRENG [7-8] in reference to a flow stress. It has been
known that these criteria are generally over-conservative for
low pipeline grades [1-4], but can be non-conservative for high
pipeline grades [5]. Two newer remaining strength criteria are
the LPC criterion [9] developed at British Gas and the
PCORRC criterion [10] developed at Battelle in terms of the
ultimate tensile stress (UTS). These newer criteria largely
improved the burst pressure predictions by their predecessors
Proceedings of the 2012 9th International Pipeline Conference
IPC2012
September 24-28, 2012, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
IPC2012-90625
Copyright 2012 by ASME 2
for corrosion defects. However, Besel et al. [5] pointed out that
all these models tend to overestimate the remaining strength of
corroded pipes in the case of high-grade pipeline steels.
One of reasons for the non-conservatism of the UTS-based
LPC and PCORRC criteria is likely that they did not consider
the influence of strain hardening response on burst failure of
pipelines. To this end, Zhu and Leis [11-12] proposed a new
multi-axial yield criterion average shear stress yield criterion
that was simply referred to as ZL criterion for plastic collapse
analysis. Based on the ZL criterion and its associated flow rule,
a new theoretical solution of burst pressure was obtained for
defect-free pipes in addition to Tresca and von Mises solutions.
Most recently, these authors [13] evaluated the new ZL model
in conjunction with other more than 20 burst pressure
predictive models using a large burst database for a variety of
pipeline steels, and showed that the ZL model is the best one
for predicting burst pressure of defect-free line pipes in a high
accuracy. To consider the strain hardening response, Zhu and
Leis [14] proposed an upper bound solution of burst pressure
for corroded pipelines by use of the von Mises flow theory.
Further investigation is needed to develop a more accurate
criterion for predicting burst pressure for corroded pipes.
This paper first reviews five commonly-used criteria for
corrosion defect assessments: ASME B31G, Modified B31G,
RSTRENG, LPC and PCORRC criteria, and then describes the
three theoretical solutions of burst pressure for defect-free
pipes in terms of Tresca, von Mises and ZL yield criteria with
consideration of the strain hardening influence. These
theoretical solutions are extended to a corroded pipe with an
infinitely long defect. The existing and new models are
evaluated in comparison with experimental burst data for long
machined defects and for long real corrosion defects. Detailed
analyses and discussions are given in the work.

CORROSION ASSESSMENT CRITERIA
This section reviews five corrosion assessment criteria
used widely in pipeline industry. Other corrosion criterion
evaluations were given in Reference [1]. Real corrosion defects
can occur in any size, shape and orientation. This work
considers only single, longitudinal oriented blunt corrosion
defects in thin-walled pipes, where the defect length is larger
than its width. Defect interaction, sharp cracks and crack-like
flaws are not considered here. In all cases, only the physical
models are addressed without consideration of safety factors.

ASME B31G
In the early 1970s, Battelle [15] developed a semi-
empirical equation for predicting the remaining strength of
corroded pipelines. This equation was called NG-18 equation
from the name of the AGA sponsoring project. Based on the
NG-18 equation, a corrosion defect assessment criterion called
ASME B31G [6] was developed in the early 1980s with
consideration of experimental burst data available at that time
for real corrosion defects removed from service. For a short
corrosion defect with a length Dt L 20 s , B31G assumed that
the corroded area has a parabolic shape with a curved bottom,
and the failure pressure of corroded pipeline was obtained as:
(

=
M t d
t d
D
t
P
f
b
/ ) / )( 3 / 2 ( 1
) / )( 3 / 2 ( 1
2 o
, for Dt L 20 s (1)
For a long corrosion defect with a length Dt L 20 > , B31G
assumed that the corroded area is a rectangle with a flat bottom,
and the failure pressure were determined as:
(

=
t
d
D
t
P
f
b
1
2 o
, for Dt L 20 > (2)
where
SMYS 1 . 1 =
f
o
is the flow stress of pipeline steel, SMYS
denotes the specified minimum yield stress, D is the outside
diameter (OD) of the corroded pipeline, t is the wall thickness,
d is the defect depth, L is the total defect length, and M is a
bulging factor and defined as:
2
8 . 0 1 |
.
|

\
|
+ =
Dt
L
M
(3)
This criterion was developed and calibrated with the vintage
pipeline grades up to X65, and thus may not be appropriate to
use for modern pipeline steels like X100.

Modified B31G (0.85-dL Method)
In order to reduce the over-conservatism of ASME B31G
criterion that may cause unnecessary replacement of corroded
pipes, Kiefner and Vieth [7-8] proposed a modified version of
ASME B31G in a PRCI report as:
(

=
M t d
t d
D
t
P
f
b
/ ) / ( 85 . 0 1
) / ( 85 . 0 1
2 o
(4)
This modified B31G criterion was also called 0.85-dL method,
where corroded area was assumed to be larger than a parabola
and the factor of 2/3 in Eq. (1) was replaced by 0.85 to support
their test data. In Eq. (4), the flow stress was redefined as:
) ( 69 MPa SMYS
f
+ = o
(5)
and the bulging factor was given as:
4 2
003375 . 0 6275 . 0 1 |
.
|

\
|
|
.
|

\
|
+ =
Dt
L
Dt
L
M
(6a)
for short defects with Dt L 50 s , and
2
032 . 0 3 . 3 |
.
|

\
|
+ =
Dt
L
M
(6b)
for long defects with Dt L 50 > . If a corrosion defect is very
long, Equation (4) reduces to:
Copyright 2012 by ASME 3
(

=
t
d
D
t
P
f
b
85 . 0 1
2 o
(7)
In reality, the parabolic method has obvious limitations. The
parabolic shape becomes less and less accurate to approximate
the actual corroded area as the defect length increases. For a
very long defect, the corroded area would be underestimated,
and the remaining strength would be overestimated [8]. As a
result, the factor of 2/3 was removed for a long defect, as
evident in Eq. (2). Likewise, the factor of 0.85 must be
eliminated from Eq. (7) for a long defect. In this case, Modified
B31G is equivalent to RSTRENG in Eq. (10) for long defects.
For an intermediately long defect, a modified 0.86dL method
proposed in Reference [16] can provide a better prediction.

RSTRENG (Effective Area Method)
In order to more accurately represent the real corrosion
area with a river bottom profile, an effective area method was
proposed by Kiefner and Vieth [7-8] to estimate the remaining
strength of the corroded pipe:
(

=
M A A
A A
D
t
P
d
d
f
b
0
0
/ 1
/ 1
2 o
(8)
where the flow stress is given in Eq. (5), the bulging factor is
given in Eq. (6), A
d
denotes the effective area of a complex
corrosion profile, and A
0
=Lt is the cross-section area with the
maximum defect length. This effective area method permits to
determine accurate corroded area using the discrete method,
and thus to determine more accurate burst pressure for a real
corrosion defect. A personal-computer code called RSTRENG
was developed by Kiefner and Vieth to facilitate the analysis of
corroded area via the effective area method. Thus, RSTRENG
is often used to represent the effective area method. RSTRENG
software has higher accuracy than the 0.85dL method [1].
For a machined rectangular defect, the metal loss area is
A
d
=dL and Eq. (8) becomes:
(

=
M t d
t d
D
t
P
f
b
/ ) / ( 1
) / ( 1
2 o
(9)
If the defect is very long, the bulging factor is assumed to be
infinite, and Eq. (9) reduces to:
( ) (MPa) 69 1
2
+
(

= SMYS
t
d
D
t
P
b
(10)

LPC Criterion
In reference to newer burst test data and numerical results
obtained for rectangular blunt defects from the detailed elastic-
plastic finite element analysis (FEA), British Gas [9] developed
a line pipe corrosion (LPC) criterion for determining burst
pressure of corroded line pipes:
(

=
Qt d
t d
D
t
P
uts
b
/ 1
/ 1 2 o
(11)
where o
uts
is the UTS of pipeline steels, D is a mean diameter,
and the parameter Q is defined as:
2
31 . 0 1 |
.
|

\
|
+ =
Dt
L
Q
(12)
The pipeline grades used to calibrate this LPC model were also
up to X65, and thus Eq. (11) may be improper to use for high-
grade pipeline steels [5]. The LPC criterion has been adopted in
DNV RP-F-101 [17] with introducing safety factors.
For a very long corrosion defect, Equation (11) becomes:
(

=
t
d
D
t
P
uts
b
1
2 o
(13)
This is the UTS-based Barlow equation for a wall-thinning pipe
with a diameter D and a remaining wall thickness t-d. When
the defect depth becomes zero, Eq. (13) reduces to the Tresca
strength solution of burst pressure for a defect-free pipe:
D
t
P
uts
o 2
0
=
(14)
PCORRC Criterion
In parallel to development of LPC criterion, Battelle [10]
made a similar effort based on experimental data and FEA
results, and developed another corrosion defect assessment
criterion called as PCORRC criterion for determining burst
pressure or remaining strength of a corroded line pipe:
(
(

|
|
.
|

\
|

= )
2 / ) (
157 . 0 exp( 1 1
2
d t D
L
t
d
D
t
P
uts
b
o
(15)
For a very long corrosion defect, Eq. (15) reduces to Eq. (13).
In this case, the PCORRC criterion is identical to the LPC
criterion, and so only PCORRC is discussed for long defects.

Comparisons of Corrosion Criteria
Figures 1(a), 1(b) and 1(c) show the comparisons of burst
pressures predicted using ASME B31G, Modified B31G,
RSTRENG, LPC and PCORRC criteria with the length of a
blunt defect in an X60 line pipe for a shallow defect of d/t=0.2
and two deep defects of d/t=0.5 and d/t=0.8, respectively. In
these figures, all burst pressures are normalized by the UTS-
based Barlow solution as given in Eq. (14), and the defect
length is normalized by the shell parameter Dt . Due to lack
of real material properties, the specified minimum tensile stress
(SMTS) of the X60 steel is used as the UTS for the LPC and
PCOCCR criteria. From these figures, it is observed that (1)
LPC and PCORRC criteria predict very similar results for
shallow and deep defects; (2) ASME B31G criterion predicts
the most conservative results for all shallow defects and all
deep long defects, but its predictions can be non-conservative
for short, deep defects; (3) Modified B31G criterion predicts
Copyright 2012 by ASME 4
smaller results than the LPC and PCORRC criteria for all
shallow defects, but its predictions gradually become larger
than those by LPC and PCORRC for longer deep defects; and
(4) RSTRENG criterion predicts conservative results similar to
Modified B31G for all shallow defects, and the predictions
gradually deviate from those by Modified B31G for deep
defects but approach to the conservative results. If the burst
pressure obtained by the LPC or PCORRC criterion is
considered as the accurate result, then both ASME B31G and
Modified B31G predictions are conservative for all shallow
defects, but non-conservative for deep defects with an
intermediate length. In contrast, RSTRENG predictions are
conservative for all defects and close to those predicted by LPC
and PCORRC criteria.
Figures 2(a), 2(b) and 2(c) show the comparisons of burst
pressures predicted using ASME B31G, Modified B31G,
RSTRENG, LPC and PCORRC criteria with the length of a
blunt defect in a modern high-grade X100 line pipe for a
shallow defect of d/t=0.2 and two deep defects of d/t=0.5 and
d/t=0.8, respectively. The trends and observations found in
Fig. 2 for X100 are similar to those in Fig. 1 for X60. These
comparisons show that ASME B31G and Modified B31G
criteria are good only for shallow defects, while RSTRENG
criteria is conservative for all sizes of defects. Possibly, ASME
B31G may not be used for deep corrosion defects, and
Modified B31G may not be used for any deep long corrosion
defect. These suggestions are limited to machined defects only
and may differ from those for real corrosion defects. As such,
cares must be taken when use the traditional criteria for the
corrosion defect assessment.
Definition of Long Corrosion Defects
As shown in Figs. 1 and 2, the defect length has (1) a large
effect on the burst pressure prediction for all assessment
criteria only for short defects with Dt L 5 < , (2) a minor effect
for defects with intermediate lengths of Dt L Dt 10 5 < s ,
and (3) nearly no effect for very long defects with Dt L 10 > .
In the oil and gas industry, a transmission pipeline usually has a
large diameter and a thin-wall thickness, which often leads to a
high diameter to thickness ratio, say D/t>30. In this situation,
if the defect length is larger than one pipe diameter, L>D, one
has 5 . 5 / > Dt L that meets the long defect definition specified
in ASME B31G. If the defect length is larger than two pipe
diameters, L>2D, one has 11 / > Dt L that meets the
requirement for a very long defect. Thus, a corrosion defect
with a length larger than one pipe diameter is categorized into
the long defect, and a corrosion defect with a length larger than
two pipe diameters is considered as an infinitely long defect in
this work. Such a definition of long corrosion defect is
consistent with the common use in pipeline industry, such as by
Mok et al. [18] and Hopkins and Jones [19] who showed that a
corrosion defect can be considered as infinite in length if the
defect length is larger than one pipe diameter and the defect
width is not significant.
(a)
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
P
b
/

P
0
L / (Dt)^0.5
ASME B31G
Modified B31G
RSTRENG
LPC
PCOCCR
X60, d/t =0.2


(b)
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
P
b
/

P
0
L / (Dt)^0.5
ASME B31G
Modified B31G
RSTRENG
LPC
PCOCCR
X60, d/t =0.5


(c)
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
P
b
/

P
0
L / (Dt)^0.5
ASME B31G
Modified B31G
RSTRENG
LPC
PCOCCR
X60, d/t =0.8


Figure 1. Comparison of burst pressure predictions by the
indicated criteria for an X60 line pipe with a blunt
defect (a) d/t=0.2, (b) d/t=0.5, and (c) d/t=0.8


Copyright 2012 by ASME 5
(a)
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
P
b
/

P
0
L / (Dt)^0.5
ASME B31G
Modified B31G
RSTRENG
LPC
PCOCCR
X100, d/t =0.2


(b)
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
P
b
/

P
0
L / (Dt)^0.5
ASME B31G
Modified B31G
RSTRENG
LPC
PCOCCR
X100, d/t =0.5


(10)
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
P
b
/

P
0
L / (Dt)^0.5
ASME B31G
Modified B31G
RSTRENG
LPC
PCOCCR
X100, d/t =0.8


Figure 2. Comparison of burst pressure predictions by the
indicated criteria for an X100 line pipe with a blunt
defect (a) d/t=0.2, (b) d/t=0.5, and (c) d/t=0.8

THEORETICAL SOLUTIONS OF BURST PRESSURE
Burst Pressure Solutions for Defect-Free Pipes
For a defect-free line pipe, three theoretical solutions of
the burst pressure were developed by Zhu and Leis [11-13]
through the plastic collapse analysis in terms of Tresca, von
Mises and ZL yield criteria and the associate flow rule. These
theoretical solutions of burst pressure are described below.
Tresca solution. In reference to the UTS and Tresca
strength theory, the burst pressure solution for a defect-free line
pipe was obtained as Eq. (14) in Reference [20] for an elastic
perfectly-plastic material. To consider the effect of strain
hardening response on the burst pressure prediction, the plastic
flow behavior needs to be studied. Using the Tresca flow
theory, a general Tresca solution of burst pressure for a defect-
free pipe was obtained in [11-12] as:

uts
n
T
D
t
P o
4
2
1
1 +
|
.
|

\
|
=
(16)
where n is strain hardening exponent, and is usually obtained
from the simple tension test. For n = 0, the above equation
reduces to Eq. (14). For non-zero values of n, all burst pressure
values predicted by Eq. (16) are smaller than those by Eq. (14).
von Mises solution. Using the UTS and von Mises
strength theory, the burst pressure of defect-free pipes was
obtained in [19] as:
uts Mo
D
t
P o
3
4
=
(17)
For a hardening material, von Mises flow theory determined a
general solution of burst pressure for a plain pipe [11-12] as:

uts
n
M
D
t
P o
4
3
1
1 +
|
|
.
|

\
|
=
(18)
For n = 0, the above equation reduces to Eq. (17). For non-zero
values of n, all burst pressure values predicted by Eq. (18) are
smaller than those by Eq. (17).
ZL solution. Extensive experiments [12-13] showed that
burst pressure data for various pipeline steels lie between those
predicted by the Tresca and von Mises solutions, and thus an
intermediate prediction is desired. To this end, the present
authors [11-12] proposed a new multi-axial yield criterion by
introducing a new concept of average shear stress. The new
criterion is called ZL (or Zhu-Leis) criterion in consistence
with the short name of Tresca or von Mises criterion [13].
Using the ZL criterion and its plastic flow rule, a new solution
of burst pressure was obtained for defect-free pipes as:

uts
n
A
D
t
P o
4
3 4
3 2
1 +
|
|
.
|

\
|
+
=
(19)
For n = 0, the above equation becomes:
Copyright 2012 by ASME 6

uts A
D
t
P o
|
|
.
|

\
|
+
=
3
3 2
(20)
Equation (20) is the average of Eqs (14) and (17). For non-
zero values of n, all burst pressure values predicted by Eq. (20)
are smaller than those by Eq. (19).
Figure 3 compares the Tresca, von Mises, and ZL burst
pressure predictions with experimental data for defect-free line
pipes in a variety of pipe geometries described by D/t and
strain hardening responses characterized by strain hardening
exponent n. There are more than 100 burst tests involved in
Fig. 3, and the detailed burst data were given in Reference [13].
This figure shows that the strain hardening response has a
strong effect on burst pressure for the pipeline steels. Basically,
the Tresca flow solution in Eq. (16) predicts a lower bound of
the burst pressure, the von Mises flow solution in Eq. (18)
predicts an upper bound, and the ZL solution in Eq. (19)
predicts an intermediate solution that matches the average of
experimental burst data for all strain hardening exponents
considered. As a result, the proposed ZL solution is a more
accurate prediction of the burst pressure for a defect-free pipe.
Moreover, Reference [13] showed that the ZL model is the best
one for predicting burst pressure of defect-free line pipes in a
high accuracy. The Tresca strength solution in Eq. (14) gives
an overall good result of burst pressures, but the strain
hardening response is not considered. The von Mises strength
solution in Eq. (17) gives a highest upper bound of burst
pressure that overly estimates the burst pressure data.

0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
1.1
1.2
0.00 0.04 0.08 0.12 0.16 0.20
P
b
/

P
0
n
Mises solution
Zhu-Leis solution
Tresca solution

Figure 3. Comparison of burst pressure predictions by
Mises, Zhu-Leis and Tresca criteria with test data
for defect-free pipes in a wide range of n

Burst Pressure Solutions for Long Blunt Defects
For a very long blunt defect, the burst pressure predicted
by the LPC and PCORRC criteria is equivalent to the UTS-
based solution in Eq. (13). This equation is similar to Barlow
equation (14) with use of the ligament thickness of t-d. So
motivated, the three general burst pressure solutions in Eqs
(16), (17) and (19) for defect-free pipes are simply extended to
an infinitely long defect in the plastic collapse analysis:
(1) Tresca flow solution:
(

|
.
|

\
|
=
+
t
d
D
t
P
uts
n
T
1
4
2
1
1
o
(21)
(2) von Mises flow solution:
(

|
.
|

\
|
=
+
t
d
D
t
P
uts
n
T
1
4
3
1
1
o
(22)
(3) ZL flow solution:
(

|
|
.
|

\
|
+
=
+
t
d
D
t
P
uts
n
T
1
4
3 4
3 2
1
o
(23)
Since the ZL solution in Eq. (19) has a higher accuracy in
predicting burst pressure for a defect-free pipe, the ZL solution
in Eq. (23) is considered here as a better burst pressure
prediction for a corroded pipe with an infinitely long defect.
Comparisons of New and Existing Corrosion Criteria
The preceding analysis indicates that assessment criteria
for very long corrosion defects are ASME B31G in Eq. (2),
RSTRENG (or Modified B31G) in Eq. (10), and PCORRC (or
LPC) in Eq. (13). These criteria can be evaluated through
comparing with the proposed ZL solution (Eq. (23)) as well as
Tresca solution (Eq. (21)) and von Mises solution (Eq. (22)).
Figure 4 shows the comparison of burst pressure predictions for
a long corrosion defect in grades of GrB, X42, X52, X60, X65,
X70, X80, X100, and X120, where burst pressures are
normalized by the PCORRC solution in Eq. (13). SMYS is
used as the yield stress, and SMTS is used as the UTS.
Compared to the ZL solution, von Mises solution overestimates
the burst pressure for all grades, PCORRC solution gives a
reasonable prediction, and all other models underestimate the
burst pressure for all grades. In which, ASME B31G and
RSTRENG are overly conservative for grades below X60.

0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
GrB X42 X52 X60 X65 X70 X80 X100 X120
p
b
/

p
p
c
o
r
r
c
Mises
Zhu-Leis
Tresca
PCORRC
RSTRENG
ASME B31G


Figure 4. Comparison of burst pressure predictions for a
very long corrosion defect in grades up to X120
Copyright 2012 by ASME 7
EXPERIMENTAL EVALUATION OF CORROSION
CRITERIA
In order to validate the proposed ZL solution as a better
criterion for predicting burst pressure of a long corrosion defect
in a pipeline, a series of burst test data for long simulated
defects and for long real corrosion are used here in evaluation
of corrosion criteria under consideration, including ASME
B31G in Eq. (2), RSTRENG in Eq. (10), PCORRC in Eq. (13),
the ZL solution in Eq. (23) and von Mises solution in Eq. (22).
Evaluation by Burst Data for Long Simulated Defects
Mok et al. [18, 21] reported a series of burst tests for long
corrosion defects simulated by machined grooves on the
outside of X60 pipes with a diameter of 508 mm and a wall
thickness of 6.35 mm. The tests were conducted by NOVA
Corporation in the period between 1986 and 1988. Seven burst
tests: one is defect-free pipe and six are corroded pipes with a
single longitudinal defect are selected to use for evaluating the
corrosion criteria. Pipe 1 to pipe 7 have a defect length in 0,
0.75D, 2.0D, 1.77D, 1.77D, 1.97D and 0.4D, and have a defect
depth to thickness ratio of 0, 0.4, 0.4, 0.54, 0.34, 0.5 and 0.53,
respectively. Figure 5 shows the burst pressure predictions by
the five criteria (actual material properties are used as needed)
in comparison with the measured burst data. The mean error of
prediction is -5%, -11%, -13%, -31% and -35%, respectively
for Mises, Zhu-Leis, PCORRC, RSTRENG and ASME B31G.
For the defect-free pipe, Zhu-Leis (PCORRC) solution has the
best accuracy, and von Mises solution is non-conservative. For
the six corroded pipes, von Mises solution becomes better,
Zhu-Leis (PCORRC) solution is conservative, and ASME
B31G and RSTRENG results are over-conservative for all
pipes. The defect lengths for pipe 2 and 7 are less than one pipe
diameter, and so these defects are not long, but intermediate
ones. If the defect length correction is considered, the proposed
solution would be better.

0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
pipe 1 pipe 2 pipe 3 pipe 4 pipe 5 pipe 6 pipe 7
P
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d

p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

/

m
e
a
s
u
r
e
d

b
u
r
s
t

d
a
t
a
Mises
Zhu-Leis
PCORRC
RSTRENG
ASME B31G

Figure 5. Comparison of burst pressure data to predictions
by five indicated criteria for long defects in X60 pipes
Evaluating by Burst Data for Long Real Corrosion Defects
A series of burst tests for real corroded pipes with long
corrosion defects that were removed from service were
conducted by Souza et al [22-23] at Petrobras. Six pipe
segments with long real corrosion defects were cut from
several existing pipelines, and tested hydrostatically in
laboratory to determine the remaining strength of these actual
corroded pipes. Two of them with specimen identifications as
TS6.1 and TS6.2 in the grade X42 have the actual yield stress
of 380 MPa and the actual ultimate tensile stress of 528.5 MPa.
The other four pipe specimens with the identifications as TS02,
TS04, TS05, TS06 and TS10 in the grade X46 have the actual
yield stress ranged from 285.1 to 362.3 MPa, and the actual
ultimate tensile stress ranged from 428.5 to 568.2 MPa.
Dimensions of tested pipes and defect profiles including
the pipe diameter, wall thickness, maximum defect depth,
average defect depth, and overall defect length were given in
Table 4 in Reference [22]. For the X42 pipes, the nominal
diameter is 274 mm, wall thickness is 5.3 mm, maximum
defect depth ratio is 0.8, average defect depth ratio is 0.15, and
defect length is 1000 mm that is equal to 3.65D. This indicates
that the real corrosion defects are very long. The shape and
orientation of corroded area are irregular in river bottom profile.
For the X46 pipes, the nominal diameter is 458 mm, wall
thickness is 6 mm, maximum defect depth ratio is 0.52, average
defect depth ratio is 0.28, and defect length is 2750 mm that is
equal to 6D. This indicates that the real corrosion defects are
infinitely long. But the corroded areas have less irregular shape
and orientation than those for the X42 pipes.
The experimental data of burst pressure for each long real
corrosion defect in the X42 or X46 pipeline are compared in
Fig. 6 with the predicted burst pressure by the five corrosion
criteria of ASME B31G, RSTRENG (without consideration of
defect profile), PCORRC, von Mises solution and ZL solution.
When the maximum defect depth is used, Figure 6(a) shows
that all predictions, except one case of Mises solution for TS6.1,
are conservative, and the mean errors of predictions are -14%, -
35%, -35%, -52% and -57%, respectively for von Mises, Zhu-
Leis, PCORRC, RSTRENG and ASME B31G criteria. In this
case, the von Mises solution obtains a better prediction of burst
pressure, and all other criteria obtain over-conservative results.
When the average defect depth is used, Figure 6(b) shows that
(1) von Mises solution overly predicts the burst pressures
except for one specimen of TS06, and its mean error is 21%;
(2) Zhu-Leis solution overestimates the burst pressures for the
two X42 pipes, but underestimates the burst pressures for the
four X46 pipes, and the overall mean error is -9%; (3)
PCORRC predictions are similar to the Zhu-Leis solutions with
a mean error of -8%; and (4) RSTRENG and ASME B31G
predictions are conservative for all pipes with a mean error of -
33% and -39%, respectively. In this case, the von Mises
solution is non-conservative, ASME B31G and RSTRENG
predictions are still over-conservative, and Zhu-Leis solutions
and PCOCCR predictions are more reasonable and
conservative with a mean error less than 10%.
Copyright 2012 by ASME 8
(a)
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
TS6.1 TS6.2 TS02 TS04 TS05 TS06 TS10
P
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d

p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

/

m
e
a
s
u
r
e
d

b
u
r
s
t

d
a
t
a
Mises
Zhu-Leis
PCORRC
RSTRENG
ASME B31G


(b)
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
TS6.1 TS6.2 TS02 TS04 TS05 TS06 TS10
P
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d

p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

/

m
e
a
s
u
r
e
d

b
u
r
s
t

d
a
t
a
Mises
Zhu-Leis
PCORRC
RSTRENG
ASME B31G


Figure 6. Comparison of burst pressure data to predictions
by five indicated criteria for X42 and X46 corroded pipes
with very long defects, (a) the maximum defect depth, and
(b) the average defect depth

In addition, Cronin and Pick [24] reported an experimental
database with 40 burst tests developed at the University of
Waterloo before 2000 for real corrosion defects removed from
the existing pipelines in service. There are seven long real
corrosion defects with the defect length larger than one
diameter in X52 and X55 pipelines. Using these burst data, an
evaluation of the five corrosion assessment criteria was
performed, and the results similar to those in Fig. 6 were
obtained. That is, von Mises solution has a better prediction,
Zhu-Lies and PCORRC results are reasonably conservative,
and ASME B31G and RSTRENG predictions are over-
conservative for the long real corrosion defects. Further
evaluation of the corrosion criteria for high-grade pipeline
steels is needed.

CONCLUSIONS
This paper investigated the corrosion assessment criteria
and burst pressure prediction for single, longitudinally oriented
long corrosion defects in aged pipelines. Five commonly-used
corrosion criteria: ASME B31G, Modified B31G, RSTRENG,
LPC and PCORRC were reviewed and evaluated for assumed
blunt defects in X60 and X100 pipelines. In order to consider
the effect of strain hardening response on the burst pressure
prediction, more accurate theoretical solutions were proposed
for predicting the remaining strength of an infinite long defect
in terms of the newly developed ZL yield criterion and the
classical Tresca and Mises yield criteria. The existing corrosion
criteria and the proposed models were evaluated using
experimental burst data for long machined corrosion defects
and for long real corrosion defects. From the present study, the
following conclusions were made:
(1) In comparison to the LPC and PCORRC predictions,
ASME B31G and Modified B31G predictions are conservative
for a shallow defect, but can be non-conservative for deep
defects with intermediate lengths. ASME B31G is overly
conservative for all long corrosion defects, and RSTRENG or
the effective area method may be conservative for all short
blunt defects.
(2) For long real corrosion defects, both ASME B31G and
RSTRENG predictions are over-conservative and their mean
errors of burst pressure prediction are larger than 30%.
(3) The UTS-based corrosion criteria, LPC and PCORRC,
predict significantly improved results compared to ASME
B31G and RSTRENG, and their predictions are reasonable for
line pipes with or without a corrosion defect.
(4) For defect-free pipe, the newly developed Zhu-Leis
solution can consider the effect of strain hardening response
and provides the best prediction on average in good agreement
with experimental data. The von Mises flow solution
determines an upper bound and the Tresca flow solution
determines a lower bound of burst pressure.
(5) These theoretical solutions were extended to corroded
pipes. As a result, the Zhu-Leis solution for corrosion defects
considers the strain hardening effect that PCORRC or LPC
criterion did not.
(6) For long real corrosion defects considered, the von
Mises solution seems to predict a better result, and the Zhu-
Leis solution and the PCORRC (or LPC) predict reasonably
conservative results of burst pressure for the corroded pipes.
Further investigations are needed in evaluation of the proposed
corrosion assessment models for different pipeline steels.

REFERENCES
[1]. Stephens, D.R. and Francini, R.B., 2000, A Review and
Evaluation of Remaining Strength Criteria for Corrosion
Defects in Transmission Pipelines. Proceedings of
Copyright 2012 by ASME 9
ETCE/OMAE 2000 Joint Conference, New Orleans, LA,
February 14-17, 2000. ETCE2000/OGPTR-10255.
[2]. Bjornoy, O.H., Sigurdsson, G. and Marley, M.J., 2004,
Updated DNV-RP-F101 for Corroded Pipelines.
Proceedings of the International Pipeline Conference,
Calgary, Canada, October 4-8, 2004. IPC04-0424.
[3]. Cosham, A., Hopkins, P., and Macdonald, K.A., 2007,
Best Practice for the Assessment of Defects in
Pipelines, Engineering Failure Analysis, Vol. 14, pp.
1245-1265.
[4]. Belachew, C.T., Mokhtar, C. and Saravanan, K., 2009,
Evaluation of Available Codes for Capacity Assessment
of Corroded Pipelines. Proceedings of the NACE East
Asian and Pacific Regional Conference and Exposition,
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, July 13-15, 2009.
[5]. Besel, M., Zimmermann, S., Kalwa, C., Kippe, T., and
Liessem, A., 2010, Corrosion Assessment Method
Validation for High-Grade Lin Pipe, Proceedings of the
8
th
International Pipeline Conference, Calgary, Canada,
September 27-October 1, 2010. IPC2010-31664.
[6]. American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 1991, Manual
for Determining the Remaining Strength of Corroded
Pipelines, ASME B31G-1991, New York.
[7]. Kiefner, J.F. and Vieth, P.H., 1989, A Modified Criterion
for Evaluating the Remaining Strength of Corroded Pipe,
Final report on Project PR 3-805 to the Pipeline Research
Committee of the American Gas Association.
[8]. Kiefner, J.F. and Vieth, P.H., 1990, New Method
Corrects Criterion for Evaluating Corroded Pipe, Oil &
Gas Journal, August 6, 1990: 56-59.
[9]. Fu, B. and Batte, A.D., 1999, New Methods for
Assessing the Remaining Strength of Corroded
Pipelines, Proceedings of EPRG/PRCI 12th Biennial
Joint Technical Meeting on Pipeline Research,
Groningen, The Netherlands, Paper 28.
[10]. Stephens, D.R., Leis, B.N., Kurre, M.D., Rudland, D.L.,
1999, Development of an Alternative Failure criterion for
Residual Strength of Corrosion Defects in Moderate-to-
High Toughness Pipe, PRCI Project Report PR3-9509.
[11]. Zhu, X.K. and Leis, B.N., 2004, Accurate Prediction of
Burst Pressure for Line Pipes, Journal of Pipeline
Integrity Vol. 4, pp. 195-206.
[12]. Zhu, X.K. and Leis, B.N., 2006, Average Shear Stress
Yield Criterion and Its Application to Plastic Collapse
Analysis of Pipelines, International Journal of Pressure
Vessels Piping, Vol. 83, 663-671.
[13]. Zhu, X.K. and Leis, B.N., 2012, Evaluation of Burst
Pressure Prediction Models for Line Pipes. International
Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping, Vol. 89, pp. 85-
97.
[14]. Zhu, X.K. and Leis, B.N., 2005, Influence of the Yield-
To-Tensile Strength Ratio on The Failure Assessment of
Corroded Pipelines, Journal of Pressure Vessel
Technology, Vol. 127, pp. 436-442.
[15]. Maxey, W.A., Kiefner, J.F., Eiber, R.J., and Duffy, A.R.,
1972, Ductile Fracture Initiation, Propagation And
Arrest In Cylindrical Vessels, Fracture Toughness,
ASTM STP 514, Part II, pp. 347-362.
[16]. Benjamin, A.C. and de Andrade, E.Q. Modified Method
for the Assessment of the Remaining Strength of
Corroded Piplines, Proceeding of The Rio Pipeline
Conference and Exhibition 2003, IBP413_03.
[17]. Det Norske Veritas, 2004, Recommended Practice DNV-
RP-F101 Corroded Pipelines.
[18]. Mok, D.H.B., Pick, R.J., Glover, A.J., and Hoff, R., 1991,
Bursting of Line Pipe with Long External Corrosion,
International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping,
Vol. 46, pp. 195-215.
[19]. Hopkins, P. and Jones, D.G., 1992, A Study of the
Behavior of Long and Complex-Shaped Corrosion in
Transmission Pipelines, Proceedings of ASME OMAE
Conference, Volume V-Pipeline Technology.
[20]. Zhu, X.K. and Leis, B.N., 2004, Strength Criteria and
Analytic Predictions of Failure Pressures in Line Pipes,
International Journal of Offshore and Polar Engineering,
Vol. 14, pp. 125-131.
[21]. Mok, D.R.B. and Pick, R.J., 1990, Behavior of Line Pipe
with Long External Corrosion, Material Performances,
Vol. 29, pp. 75-79.
[22]. Souza, R.D., Benjamin, A.C., Freire, J.L.F., Vieira, R.D.,
Diniz, J.L.C., 2004, Burst Tests on Pipeline Containing
Long Real Corrosion Defects, Proceedings of
International Pipeline Conference, Calgary, Alberta,
October 4-8, 2004, IPC04-0128.
[23]. Souza, R.D., Benjamin, A.C., Vieira, R.D., Freire, J.L.F.,
Castro, J.T.P., 2007, Rupture Tests of Pipeline Segments
Containing Long Real Corrosion Defects, Experimental
Technique, Vol. 31, pp. 46-51.
[24]. Cronin, D.S. and Pick, R.J., 2000, Experimental
Database for Corroded Pipe: Evaluation of RSTRENG
and B31G, Proceedings of ASME International Pipeline
Conference, Calgary, Canada, 2000.