ARTICLE IN PRESS

International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 84 (2007) 123131

www.elsevier.com/locate/ijpvp

Evaluation of the effect of corrosion defects on the structural integrity of

X52 gas pipelines using the SINTAP procedure and notch theory
H. Adib, S. Jallouf, C. Schmitt, A. Carmasol, G. Pluvinage
ENIM, Laboratoire de Fiabilite Mecanique (LFM) Ile du Saulcy, 57045 Metz Cedex, France
Received 23 March 2006; received in revised form 16 October 2006; accepted 16 October 2006

Abstract
The notch stress intensity factor concept and the structural integrity assessment procedure for European industry (SINTAP) structural
integrity procedure are used to assess gas pipeline integrity using deterministic and probabilistic methods. These pipes have external
longitudinal semi-elliptical corrosion defects. Stress concentration at a defect tip is investigated via elasticplastic nite element method
analysis. The notch stress intensity concept is implemented into the SINTAP procedure and a notch-based failure assessment diagram is
proposed. The safety factor and security factor are calculated through the SINTAP basic level.
r 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Corrosion defect; Notch stress intensity factor; SINTAP; Probabilistic analysis

1. Introduction
Pipelines are used as one of the most practical and low
price methods for large oil and gas transport since 1950.
Pipeline installations for oil and gas transmission drastically increased in the last three decades. Consequently,
pipeline failure problems increasingly occurred. Economical and environmental considerations require assessment of
structural integrity and safety. The explosive characteristics
of gas and oil provide a high demand for structural
integrity. Therefore, reliable structural integrity and safety
of oil and gas pipelines under various service conditions
including the presence of defects should be evaluated.
External defects, e.g., corrosion defects, gouges, foreign
object scratches, and pipeline erection activities are major
failure reasons in gas pipelines. Corrosion is one of the
major reasons causing pipeline defects. Corrosion defects
have complex geometries and are mostly assumed as
having semi-elliptical shape in some well-known codes.
ASME B31G [1] proposes bulging factors for consideration
of defect geometry.
In the rst part of this paper, the nite element method is
applied to investigate the stress distribution around
Corresponding author. Fax: 03 87 34 69 35.

E-mail address: schmitt@enim.fr (C. Schmitt).

0308-0161/$ - see front matter r 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ijpvp.2006.10.005

corrosion defects and the SINTAP procedure is modied

for estimating real corrosion defects without considering
these as crack-like defects. In the second part, due to the
unknown geometrical characteristics of corrosion defects
and loading, probabilistic approaches (Monte Carlo (MC),
FORM and SORM methods) are used to determine
security and safety factors. These methods are applied to
X52 steel gas pipes with a maximum internal pressure of
70 bar. The pipes exhibit a semi-elliptical corrosion defect
of aspect ratio 0.1 and the corrosion depth is equal to half
thickness.

2. FAD and SINTAP procedure

2.1. SINTAP procedure
There are several failure assessment diagrams (FAD).
They are described in [2]. Structural integrity assessment
procedure for European industry (SINTAP) [3] is now
widely used in European countries and was chosen for this
reason. The SINTAP procedure is based on a FAD. In the
FAD method, a failure curve or plasticity correction is
used to assess the failure zone, safe zone, security, and
safety factor. In Fig. 1, a typical FAD is illustrated.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
124

H. Adib et al. / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 84 (2007) 123131

elasticplastic stress distribution because the fracture

process zone is the highest stressed zone. This zone is
characterized by an inexion point in the stress distribution
at the limit of zones II and III in Fig. 2. Justication of this
method is given in [4]. The determination of the effective
distance is accomplished using the minimum of the relative
stress gradient w, which corresponds to this inexion point,
w, as given by
wr

Fig. 1. Typical presentation of failure assessment diagram (FAD) for a

crack.

The FAD accounts for any kinds of failure: plastic

collapse as well as brittle fracture and elasticplastic
failure. The FAD exhibits a failure curve as the critical
non-dimensional stress intensity factor vs. non dimensional
stress or loading parameter and is applied in several codes
to assess the structural integrity of cracked structures.
The SINTAP procedure is divided into several distinct
levels. A default level without yield stress assumptions is
used when there is limited knowledge of the mechanical
behaviour of the material (API X52). The mathematical
expressions of the SINTAP default level with the aforementioned assumption can be written as [3]

1=2
L2r
6
f Lr 1
0:3 0:7  e0:6Lr ,
2
for 0pLr p1,

where f Lr , Lr and sY are, respectively, plasticity

correction, non-dimensional loading or stress-based parameter and yield stress, respectively.

(2)

where wr and syy are the relative stress gradient and

maximum principal stress or crack opening stress, respectively. The effective stress is considered as the average value
of the stress distribution inside the fracture process zone.
This stress distribution is corrected by a weight function in
order to take into account the distance from the notch tip
of the acting point and the stress gradient at this point:
Z X eff
1
seff
syy r  Fr dr,
(3)
X eff 0
where seff, Xeff, syy(r) and F(r) are effective stress, effective
distance, maximum principal stress and weight function,
respectively. In Table 1, some proposed weight functions
are shown [58].
In this work, the unit weight function is used.
The notch stress intensity factor describes the stress
distribution in zone III. By extension the notch stress
intensity factor can be dened as a function of the effective
distance and effective stress [4]:
p
K r seff 2p X eff .
(4)
At failure, the notch stress intensity factor reaches the
critical value, K r;c . K r;c is a typical fracture toughness, i.e.
resistance to fracture initiation. The non-dimensional
parameter Kr is denoted for a notch as
K r;r

2.2. Modification of SINTAP for notches

The main objective of the present study is to apply the
plasticity correction and FAD concept to notch problems
because fracture mechanics is based on cracks and not on
blunt defects such as corrosion craters. For that the nondimensional stress intensity factor Kr (dened by the ratio
of applied stress intensity factor K over the fracture
toughness Kc) is replaced by the non-dimensional stress
intensity factor K r;r .
The plasticity correction f Lr given by Eq. (1) is taken
as similar because we assume that the notch stress intensity
factor is affected in a similar way to the SIF. The critical
notch stress intensity factor is a local fracture criterion that
assumes that the fracture process requires a certain fracture
process volume. This volume is assumed as a cylinder with
a diameter called the effective distance. Determination of
this effective distance is based on the bi-logarithmic

1 qsyy r
,
syy r qr

Kr
.
K r;c

(5)

The loading parameter in the FAD can be written as

follows:
Lr

sg
,
sy

(6)

where sg and sy are the global stress and yield stress,

respectively. In the plane [Lr, Kr ], the assessment point is
dened by the coordinates Lr ; K r .
As shown in Fig. 1, the safety factor Fs is dened by the
radial distance ratio between the interpolating failure curve
and the assessment point according to the SINTAP
procedure (Fs OC/OA).
By dividing the FAD parameter by a conventional safety
factor (a value of 2 is often used for practical engineering
applications), we dene the security curve. Similarly, the
security factor FS obtained according to the procedure is
FS OB/OA).

ARTICLE IN PRESS
H. Adib et al. / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 84 (2007) 123131

3. Monte-Carlo, FORM and SORM methods

MC is a simple method that uses the fact that the failure
probability integral can be interpreted as a mean value in a
stochastic simulation. An estimate is therefore given by
averaging a suitably large number of independent outcomes (simulations) of this experiment.
The basic building block of this sampling is the
generation of random numbers from a uniform distribution (between 0 and 1). This random number can be used to
generate a value of the desired random variable with a
given distribution. Using the cumulative distribution
function F(X), the random variable would then be given as
X F 1
X u

(7)

Then, to calculate the probability of failure, a multidimensional integral has to be evaluated:

Z
(8)
PF PrgX o0 f x x dx,
where g(X) is a limit state function and fx(x) is a known
joint probability density function of the random vector X.
To calculate the failure probability, one performs N
deterministic simulations and determines whether the
component analysed has failed (i.e. if g(X)o0) after every
simulation. For a count of the number of failures, NF, an

estimate of the mean probability of failure is

NF
.
(9)
PF
N
The advantage with MCS is that it is robust, easy to
implement into a computer program and for a sample size
N-N, the estimated probability converges to the exact
result. Another advantage is that MCS works with any
distribution of the random variables. There is no restriction
on the limit state functions. However, MCS is rather
inefcient, when calculating very low failure probabilities,
since most of the contribution to PF is in a limited part of
the integration interval transform method. This integral is
very hard (impossible) to evaluate, by numerical integration, if there are many random parameters [9]. We note
that in this method, crack size, load, and fracture
toughness are simultaneously random variables.
First- and second-order reliability methods are general
methods of structural reliability theory. These methods are
based on linear (rst-order) and quadratic (second-order)
approximations of the limit state surface gx 0 tangent
to the closest point of the surface to the origin of the space.
The determination of this point involves nonlinear
programming.
The FORM/SORM algorithms involve several steps:

Log( yy)

Log(ef)

Stress distribution along defect root

II

III
Fracture Process Zone (FPZ)

No
Log(x
ef)

125

Log(x)

In the rst step, the space of uncertain parameters x is

transformed into a new N-dimensional space u consisting of independent standard Gaussian variables. The
original limit state gx 0 then becomes mapped onto
the new limit state gu u 0 in the u space.
In the second step, the point on the limit state gu U 0
having the shortest distance to the origin of the u space
is determined by using an appropriate nonlinear
optimization algorithm. This point is referred to as the
design or b-point, and has a distance bHL to the origin of
the u space (see Fig. 3).
In the third step, the limit state gu u 0 is approximated by a surface tangent to it at the design point. Let
such limit states be gL u 0 andgQ u 0, which
correspond to approximating surfaces of a hyperplane
(linear or rst-order) and hyperparaboloid (quadratic or
second order), respectively.

Geometrical defect

Fig. 2. Schematic elasticplastic stress distribution along notch ligament

and notch stress intensity virtual crack concept.

The probability of failure PF is thus approximated by

Pr[gLo0] in FORM and Pr[gQ(u)o0] in SORM. These

Table 1
Different proposed weight functions for calculating effective stress around notch tip
Weight function
Unit weight function

F(r)
F(r) 1

seff
RX
seff X1 0 eff syy r  d r

Petersons weight function [5]

Fr dr  X ef

Quilafkus weight function [6]

Fr 1  r  wr

Kadis weight function [7]

Fr erwr=2

Modied Qylafkus weight function [8]

Fr 1  r  jwrj

syy X ef
X ef
RX
seff X1 0 eff syy r  1  r  wrd r
ef
RX
seff X1 0 eff syy r  erwr=2 d r
eff
RX
seff X1 0 eff syy r  1  r  jwrjd r
eff

ef

sef

ARTICLE IN PRESS
H. Adib et al. / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 84 (2007) 123131

126

U2

X2
Limit State Function
P*

Limit State Function

O

O
U1

Mx1

X1

Space of the Basic Variables

Standard Normal Space

Fig. 3. Basic principle of the rst- and second-order reliability methods.

rst- and second-order estimates PF,1 and PF,2 are given by

[10,11]
PF;1 FbHL ,
PF;2  FbHL
1
Fu p
2p

N1
Y

1  ki bHL

0:5

Table 2
Chemical composition of API X52 (weight%)
C

Mn

Si

Cr

Ni

Mo

Cu

Ti

Nb

Al

0.22

1.22

0.24

0.16

0.14

0.06

0.036

0.19

0.04

o0.05

0.032

i1



1
exp  x2 dx.
2
1
u

10

F(u) is the cumulative distribution function of a standard

Gaussian random variable, and ki are the principal
curvatures of the limit state surface at the design point.
FORM/SORM are analytical probability computation
methods. Each input random variable and the performance
function g(x) must be continuous. More explanation for
the FORM and SORM methods can be found in [11].

4. Finite element method simulation of corroded pipelines

4.1. Mechanical properties of API X52
API X52 was the most common gas pipeline material for
transmission of oil and gas during 19501960. The
chemical composition of API X52 is shown in Table 2.
In Table 3, the mechanical properties of API X52 are
presented. E, sY, sU, A%, n, K and K c are the modulus of
elasticity, yield stress, ultimate stress, relative elongation,
hardening exponent, hardening coefcient and fracture
toughness, respectively. This material exhibits a large
elongation and ductile behaviour is expected.
In Fig. 4a, the true stressstrain curve of API X52
including the above hardening exponent and coefcient is
illustrated. The fracture toughness has been obtained by
experimental studies, which are presented in Fig. 4b. This
special device and specimen have been developed as it is
not possible to get at specimens from small diameter
pipes. In [12], it has been noted that fracture toughness K r;c
is independent of notch radius below a critical value rc,
which is around 0.41 mm. A value of 0.15 mm is less
than rc and consequently fracture toughness is independent
of notch radius variation (Table 4).

Table 3
Mechanical properties of API X52
E (GPa) sY (MPa) sU (MPa) A % n
203

410

528

32

K (MPa) Kr,c (MPaOm)

0.164 876

116.6

4.2. FEM simulation

To nd the structural integrity of corroded pipes under
high internal pressure, it is required to obtain the stress
distribution in the vicinity of corrosion defects. Semielliptical defects are considered in this study. The main goal
is to determine and evaluate the stress distribution and
corresponding fracture parameters such as effective stress
and effective distance. To set the boundary conditions and
obtain a pure induced stress distribution due to the defect
existence, it is assumed that the defects are mathematically
positioned into an innite pipeline. The present assumption
can be physically fullled by a sufcient pipe length, which
can be found by a trial and error procedure. In Fig. 5 , the
geometrical conguration of the defects is presented.
In the present paper, the defect depth for all models is
equal to one half the pipe thickness and the defect aspect
ratio is considered as 0.1 L=d 0:1. A more precise
deterministic approach is given in [13] for other geometries
of defects (semi-spherical, semi-elliptical, and long blunt
notch defects). To analyze the stress distribution, onefourth symmetry considerations including a mesh with
8-node solid elements was used. In Fig. 6, the geometrical
and mesh density around the semi-elliptical corrosion
defect is shown for the pipeline considered (Fig. 5).
It is well known that the gas pipeline pressure uctuates
as a function of several parameters, e.g., repair, maintenance, accidents, peak gas consumption, etc. In the

ARTICLE IN PRESS
H. Adib et al. / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 84 (2007) 123131

127

a
600

A P I X 52

500

Stress (MPa)

=K n=876x 0.164
400

300

200

100

0.00

0.02

0.04

0.06
Strain

0.08

0.10

Fig. 4. (a) Simple tension test results as true stressstrain curve for API X52 material and (b) experimental test setup for extracting the fracture toughness.

Table 4
Coordinates of the failure assessment point
seff

Xeff

p
K r seff pX eff

syy pD=2t

s0 su sy =2

K r K r =K r;c

Sr syy =s0

343 MPa

0.67 mm

15.8 MPaOm

125 MPa

469 MPa

0.136

0.27

present study, the internal gage pressure is equal to

70 bar which is the maximum pressure of the gas pipeline
network considered. According to this pressure, elastic
plastic nite element analysis is carried out. In Fig. 7, the
elasticplastic stress distribution of semi-elliptical defects

for X52 steel material is graphically presented including a

detailed view.
As illustrated in Fig. 7, the plastic zone appears in the
radial direction of the semi-elliptical defect and failure
starts at this region. The internal pressure, which causes

ARTICLE IN PRESS
H. Adib et al. / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 84 (2007) 123131

128

high circumferential stress yields longitudinal fracture by

ductile crack extension. The elasticplastic quasi-static
simulation of deformation is in agreement with the nal
pipe geometry.

6 .1

9.1

21

1000

b
A

A
Section A - A
L
d

t - d

Fig. 5. (a) Pipe geometry (all dimensions in mm) and (b) central semielliptical defect (t 6.1 mm, d t=2, d=L 0:1).

5. Notch stress intensity implementation into the SINTAP

diagram
As discussed in Section 2, the notch stress intensity
concept is implemented into the SINTAP procedure
(default level) for deterministic and probabilistic methods.
To predict the structural integrity of the present semielliptical defects, it is required to acquire the maximum
principal stress or crack opening stress along the ligament.
The nite element analysis fulls this demand and the notch
stress intensity approach computes the necessary parameters for the notch-based failure assessment diagram
(NBFAD). In Fig. 8, the stress distribution along the
ligament is shown in bi-logarithmic and non-logarithmic
diagrams. The bi-logarithmic diagram easily highlights the
three mentioned zones and the effective distance, effective
stress and the other parameters required for the NBFAD.
The NBFAD safety factor evaluation is presented in
Fig. 9 by means of the non-linear static nite element
method results for the obtained assessment point. The
coordinates of the assessment point are given in Table 1.
As shown in Fig. 9, the safety factor and security factor
are elucidated by radial distance ratios (OC or OB over
OA). Therefore, the extracted assessment point is positioned in the safety and security zone but it does not satisfy
necessary security (FSo2).
Moreover, the security factor has been delineated to
consider the relevant and feasible human and economical
hazards. The security factor is clearly greater than the
safety factor and facilitates a wide safety range due to the
formal legislation. In the present study, the security

Fig. 6. (a) Loading and boundary conditions (internal pressure is equal to 70 bar), (b) one quarter semi-elliptical model (t 6.1 mm, d t=2, d=L 0:1),
and (c) detailed mesh density around chosen semi-elliptical defect.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
H. Adib et al. / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 84 (2007) 123131






129

fracture toughness,
yield strength,
defect distribution,
pressure distribution.

These random parameters are treated as not being

correlated with one another. The parameters can follow a
normal, log normal, Weibull or some special distribution
(for the defects). The coefcient of variation CV is an
excellent indicator of the homogeneity of the analysed unit.
This will be declared homogeneous if CVo1/3. Concerning
the properties of materials, if the mechanical tests were
carried out carefully, the coefcient of variation is an
excellent indicator of the manufacturing quality, thus, the
manufacture of low-carbon steel leads to a coefcient of
variation CV 0.1, for yield stress and fracture toughness.
The same value for CV (0.1) was used because it is
considered as upper value for a material of good quality.
Discussion about requirement of CV values is given in [14].
The pressure distribution obeys the same coefcient of
variation [15]. We note that for an exponential distribution
the coefcient of variation is necessarily taken as unit.
In order to avoid nite element calculations for each case
(106 for MC!), an analytical approximation for the
geometrical correction function has been used [4].
6.1. Fracture toughness
The fracture toughness is assumed to follow a Weibull
distribution. The Weibull probability density function has
the following form:
m
f K r;c C  m  K m1
r;c expC  K r;c ,

(11)

where C (scale) and m (shape) are the Weibull distribution

parameters. m (mean) and s (standard deviation) are the
input data into the program and are related to the Weibull
distribution parameters as follows:
C 1
,
m  G1 1=m
 



2
1
2=m
2
sC
G 1
G 1
,
m
m
m

Fig. 7. (a) Maximum principal stress distribution in MPa (global view),

(b) deformed shape of semi-elliptical defect, and (c) typical real burst
failure conguration.

probability is equal to 106 to diminish the human hazard.

Hence, the aforementioned probability is utilized and the
SINTAP interpolating curve is modied in the next section.
This allows consideration of the reliability aspect into the
pipeline failure analysis.

12

where G(Z) is the gamma function, dened by the following

integral:
Z 1
GZ
tZ1 et dt.
(13)
0

This non-linear equation system is solved using a

globally convergent method with line search and an
approximate Jacobian matrix.

6. Monte Carlo, SORM and FORM application into the

SINTAP diagram

6.2. Yield strength and pressure

Within the chosen procedure, the following parameters

are treated as random parameters:

Yield strength and internal pressure are assumed to

follow normal distributions. The normal probability

ARTICLE IN PRESS
H. Adib et al. / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 84 (2007) 123131

130

1000

-0.1
-0.2
100

-0.3
-0.4
-0.5

10
0.01

Relative stress gradient (mm-1)

Maximum principal stress (MPa)

0.0

-0.6
Xeff 1

0.1
Distance (mm)

Fig. 8. Bi-logarithmic stress distribution and relative stress gradient vs. ligament distance including highlighted non-logarithmic stress distribution and
corresponding relative stress gradient ( X eff 0:6736 mm, seff 343 MPa).

1.2

Stress (MPa)

1.1
1.0

100

100

200

300

400

500

0.9
0.8
10-1

Kr

0.7
0.6
0.5

10-2

0.4

FORM-SORM

0.3

10-3

Monte-Carlo

PR

0.2
0.1
0.0
O 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3

10-4

Lr
10-5

Fig. 9. Structural integrity evaluation via SINTAP procedure according

to the FEM outcomes for semi-elliptical defects.

Assessment
(p = 70 bar; = 125 MPa)

10-6

density function has the following form:




1
1 X m
F X p exp 
.
2
s
s 2p

10-7

(14)
Fig. 10. Evolution of the probability of failure of the gas pipe exhibiting a
defect of gouge type with the hoop stress induced by internal pressure.
Assessment points for SORM and Monte-Carlo method for a service
pressure of 70 bar.

6.3. Defect size

For the defect, depth a is assumed to follow an
exponential distribution. The probability density function
has the following form:
F X l expla,

(15)

where l is the exponential distribution parameter.

m (mean), the standard deviation, s is related to l as
below:
1
ms .
l

(16)

6.4. Results
Application of MC and FORM/SORM methods permits
calculation of the probability of failure according to the
applied mean hoop stress of 125 MPa (see Fig. 10). SORM
and FORM give the same results. For this reason, only
SORM and MC methods are compared. With SORM the
probability of failure is estimated at PF 3:105 which
does not satisfy the requirements PFo106. MC method is
limited for practical reasons to a probability of failure

ARTICLE IN PRESS
H. Adib et al. / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 84 (2007) 123131

131

higher than 106 and the obtained value cannot be

considered in this case. However, the difference between
SORM and MC becomes important for low probability of
failure.

values, which depend on social and political risk admissibility. This is totally independent of the scientic proposed
method.

7. Concluding remarks

References

The failure hazard for gas pipelines including semielliptical gouge defects is evaluated via SINTAP and the
elasticplastic nite element method. The SINTAP procedure was modied to take into account that the defect is
not a crack-like defect but has a nite tip radius. For that,
the concept of notch stress intensity described by effective
stress and effective distance was used and the corresponding fracture toughness measured using for this purpose a
special specimen called a roman tile. The classical
deterministic approach leads to the conclusion that the
necessary engineering safety factor of a gas pipe exhibiting
a severe gouge-type defect (depth equal to half the
thickness) and submitted to an internal service pressure
of 70 bar which is the normal service pressure condition for
gas transmission is widely satised (Fs 3.44Fs 2). The
security factor has been found equal to 1.7
This procedure was coupled with a SORM method
because the low probability of failure obtained is unable to
be obtained in a fast and economic way by the MC
method. Distributions of fracture toughness and yield
stress are chosen according to traditional assumptions
(Weibull and Normal) with a coefcient of variation of 0.1,
which is normal for an X52 gas pipe steel of current
quality. Under all these conditions and assumptions, which
are currently founded for gas transmission, application of
the method leads to the conclusion that the probability of
failure is greater than the conventional value when human
life risk is not expected. It is important to note that
admissible safety and security factors are conventional

[1] ASME B31G-1991. Manual for determining the remaining strength

of corroded pipelines. New York, USA: The American Society of
Mechanical Engineers; 1991.
[2] G. Pluvinage, Mecanique elastoplastique de la rupture. Ed. Cepadues, 1989.
[3] SINTAP: Structural integrity assessment procedure. Final report E-U
project BE95-1462 Brite Euram Programme Brussels, 1999.
[4] Pluvinage G. Fracture and fatigue emanating from stress concentrators. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers; 2003.
[5] Peterson RE. In: Sines G, editor. Metal fatigue. New York: McGrawHill; 1959. p. 293306.
[6] Qylafku G, Azari Z, Kadi N, Gjonaj M, Pluvinage G. Application of
a new model proposal for fatigue life prediction on the notches and
key-seats. Int J Fatigue 1999;21:75360.
[7] N. Kadi. PhD thesis, University of Metz, Metz-France, 2001.
[8] H. Adib, J. Jeong, G. Pluvinage, M. Bienvenu, Role of stress gradient
at notch roots using volumetric method. Int J Fract 2005; submitted.
[9] Rubinstein RY. Simulation and Monte-Carlo method, Wiley series in
probability and mathematical statistics. New York: Wiley; 1981.
[10] Robert EM. Structural reliability analysis and prediction. Bafns
Lane, Chichester, West Sussex, England: Wiley; 1999.
[11] Maurice Lemaire, Fiabilite des Structures, Lavoisier, Paris, 2005.
[12] Kim JH, Kim DH, Moon SI. Evaluation of static and dynamic
fracture toughness using apparent fracture toughness of notched
specimen. Mater Sci Eng 2004:3879.
[13] Adib H, Jeong J, Pluvinage G. Structural integrity evaluation of X52
gas pipes subjected to the external corrosion defects using SINTAP
procedure. Int J Pressure Vessels Piping 2006:113.
[14] Sapounov VT, Mankovsky VA, Jodin Ph, Pluvinage G. loptimisation des caracteristiques de resistance des materiaux composites en
fonction des parame`tres qui ge`rent les procedes techniques de
fabrication. Materiaux et techniques, Mars-Avril, 1996. p. 216.
[15] Jallouf S, Carmasol A, Kagnaya T, Pluvinage G. Probabilistic
approach of Gaz pipe failure. In: Proceeding of the conference of new
trends in fatigue and fracture NT2F5Bari, May 2005.