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

net/publication/281768369

Assessment of corrosion damage acceptance criteria in API579-ASME/1 code

Article  in  International Journal of Mechanics and Materials in Design · September 2014

DOI: 10.1007/s10999-014-9278-6

CITATION READS

1 828

4 authors, including:

Mohammad S. Attia M. Ammar Darwish

GE Global Research University of Atlanta
21 PUBLICATIONS   153 CITATIONS    182 PUBLICATIONS   1,737 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

S.Suriya Prakash Sundram

2 PUBLICATIONS   2 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Development, Design, and Analysis of Wind Turbine Jointed Blades View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Mohammad S. Attia on 22 September 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Int J Mech Mater Des
DOI 10.1007/s10999-014-9278-6

Assessment of corrosion damage acceptance criteria

in API579-ASME/1 code
M. S. Attia • M. M. Megahed • M.
Ammar Darwish • S. Sundram

Received: 17 August 2014 / Accepted: 15 September 2014

Ó Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Abstract This study presents a comparative evalu- continued operation at the original design pressure for
ation of the various acceptance criteria in API579- shorter period against a pressure de-rating procedure
ASME/1 fitness-for-service (FFS) code for equipment for extended operation.
suffering from metal loss, using a case of severe
corrosion in a pipe subjected to internal pressure and Keywords Fitness-for-service  Corrosion 
supplemental loads. All three assessment levels were Remaining life assessment  Limit analysis 
conducted to evaluate the remaining life of the pipe Finite element analysis
under various acceptance criteria assuming constant
corrosion rate. In particular, Level-3 assessment was
List of symbols
performed using three-dimensional parametric limit
D Inside shell diameter corrected for LOSS or
finite element analysis to evaluate the remaining life.
FCA
The model accounts for the observed metal loss, with
Do Outside diameter
the aim of evaluating the plastic collapse pressure of
Pd Design pressure
the corroded pipe. The remaining life was estimated
Pc Current operational pressure
using both global and local failure criteria and the
PL Limit pressure of the structure
conservatism of various methods and criteria is
tc Net remaining thickness excluding FCA
assessed. Results showed a potential trade-off of
away from metal loss region
tmin Minimum required wall thickness of the
component
M. S. Attia (&)  M. M. Megahed trd Uniform measured thickness away from the
Faculty of Engineering, Cairo University, Giza 12613, local metal loss location
Egypt tsl Thickness required to withstand loads other
e-mail: m.attia@utoronto.ca
than internal pressure
M. M. Megahed tlim Limiting thickness, for piping components:
e-mail: mmegahed@eng.cu.edu.eg
tlim = max (0.2tnom, 2.5mm)
M. A. Darwish  S. Sundram tnom Nominal pipe thickness corrected for mill
Zakum Development Company, under-tolerance
P.O. Box 46808, Abu-Dhabi, UAE Ls Recommended thickness measurements
e-mail: mdarwish@zadco.ae
inspection grid size per API-579/ASME-1
S. Sundram FCA Future corrosion allowance
e-mail: ssundram@zadco.ae

123

MAWP Maximum allowable working pressure
RSF Remaining strength factor
1 Introduction
The concept of Fitness-For-Service (FFS) pertains to
the development of quantitative tools to evaluate the
ability of existing equipment that suffered one or more
forms of defects and/or damage to remain in service.
The earliest FFS standard appeared in the mid 1970s in
the UK to evaluate the effect of welding defects in
nuclear pressure vessels (R6–Rev.4, 2001). It has then
spread to refinery industry equipment; in particular it
has attracted an increased attention over the past two
decades (Anderson and Osage 2000) in terms of defect
types, coverage and analysis fidelity. Currently, there
exist a number of FFS standards in various interna-
tional jurisdictions (API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 2007;
FITNET 2008; BS 7910; SINTAP 1999; ASME
2012). The decision of an FFS assessment is to either
keep equipment in-service under original design
conditions, re-rating for a specified remaining life, or
to be completely retired. In situations where the
equipment is kept in-service, FFS tools provide means
to evaluate its remaining life under original or re-rated
operational conditions. In particular, API-579/ASME-
1 FFS standard has been first released as an API
recommended practice (RP) document in 2000, and
was later released as a standard under joint collabo-
ration between API and ASME in 2007 (American
Society of Mechanical Engineers 2007). It provides a
comprehensive coverage of various forms damage
such as crack defects, dents, gouges, general and local
metal loss, among others. The standard provides three
assessment levels for each defect type, with reduced
conservatism and increased analysis fidelity and
inspection requirements as the analysis level is
increased from Level-1 to 3.
A survey of literature showed numerous studies on
the FFS and acceptance criteria of piping suffering
metal loss. A comprehensive overview of existing
assessment methods and comparison of various
acceptance criteria is presented in (Turbak and Sims
1994; Stephens et al. 1997; Cosham et al. 2007;
Brighenti 2001). These studies highlight the use of
plastic instability (Turbak and Sims 1994; Stephens
et al. 1997; Cosham et al. 2007) and buckling
(Brighenti 2001) as governing failure criteria to
123
M. S. Attia et al.
evaluate the burst pressure for thin piping with metal
loss defects. Furthermore, they outline the role of
assumed flow stress on the assessment results. Sim-
plified assessment rules commonly employ limit load
analysis to evaluate the burst pressure assuming elastic
perfectly-plastic material models BS 7910 2005. In
contrast, plastic collapse load analysis using nonlinear
stress–strain material data and advanced numerical
techniques such as FEA yields more realistic and less
conservative results (Choi et al. 2003; Chiodo and
Ruggieri 2009; Netto et al. 2005; Stephens and Leis
1997; Roy et al. 1997; Kamaya et al. 2008; Khyabani
and Sadrnejad 2009). This can be explained due to the
non-zero post-yield stiffness, which allows an entirely
plastic region to sustain some of the increase in post-
yield load. Similar to limit load evaluation technique,
the plastic collapse load is evaluated as the highest
convergent load increment in a well-configured finite
element analysis with sufficiently small load
increments.
2 Problem statement
The objective of this study is to conduct a comparative
evaluation of various acceptance criteria in API-579/
ASME-1 FFS standard (American Society of Mechan-
ical Engineers 2007) for equipment suffering metal
loss. This is demonstrated through a case study of a
4-inch, Sch. 80 seamless pipe spool suffering from
metal loss. Figure 1 illustrates a schematic of the
problem under consideration. The spool is subject to
mechanical loading due to internal pressure P, fluid
and valve attachments weight W, simultaneously. The
spool is attached to a vertical 1200 pipe run with a
reinforcement plate. Evidently, the 1200 pipe is much
stiffer than the spool under consideration, which
makes it possible to assume fixed end conditions at
their junction. Table 1 summarizes the main design
data of the pipe leg. Based on periodic wall thickness
measurements, an annual corrosion rate of 1.2 mm has
been identified. This severe rate prompted an FFS
assessment of the pipe spool to evaluate its condition
and remaining life.
Figure 2 summarizes the inspection results along a
150 mm distance between stations S-1 and S-2 using
pulse-echo ultrasonic (UT) transducer. The inspection
grid size was 10 mm in the length direction and
Assessment of corrosion damage

Fig. 1 Schematic of the

corroded 4 inch pipe leg

Table 1 Design data of the corroded pipe leg 3 FFS assessment procedure
Pipe dimensions NPS 4–Sch. 80
According to the rules of API-579/ASME-1, the
Fluid crude oil
current problem can be studied within the framework
Design pressure 90 barg.
of either Part-4 (General metal loss) or Part-5 (Local
Current operating pressure 15 barg.
metal loss). The selection of a specific procedure
Design temperature -20–400 °F
depends on the resolution of available inspection data.
Operating temperature 120 °F
The recommended grid size Ls per code requirements
Material API 5L Grade B
is
Yield strength 207 MPa h pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffii
Insulation None Ls ¼ min 0:36 Dtmin ; 2trd ð1Þ
Thermal stresses Negligible
which gives Ls & 7 mm for the current pipe geom-
etry. However, the adopted grid size in the UT
inspection is much coarser as can be seen from
46 mm (equivalent to 45°) in the circumferential
Fig. 2. Therefore, it is not possible to evaluate the
direction, covering the lower half of the pipe circum-
nature of metal loss, whether global or local. Hence,
ference surrounding the metal loss region. The UT
resort was made to perform FFS assessment using the
measurements indicated that the metal loss was
rules of Part-4 since it provides a more conservative
confined to the region between 135°–225°, hence
assessment, even if further more detailed inspection
Fig. 2 shows the thickness readings within this range.
proves that the metal loss to be of localized nature.
The greatest metal loss occurred at 180° (6 o’clock)
Accordingly, FFS assessment will be performed in the
with some limited spread toward 3 o’clock and 9
following sequence:
o’clock. The minimum remaining thickness at 180°
was 3 mm (metal loss of 5.56 mm), as the nominal 1. Conduct Level-1 assessment first neglecting the
thickness is 8.56 mm. At 135°, 225° minimum effect of sustained mechanical loads other than
remaining thicknesses were 3.5 mm and 4.8 mm internal pressure,
respectively. The following sections provide a detailed 2. Conduct piping stress analysis to estimate the
rationale for FFS assessment, followed by analysis supplemental wall thickness required to resist
results and discussion. mechanical loads,

123
 M. S. Attia et al.

Fig. 2 UT thickness
measurements in the metal
loss zone

3. Conduct Level-2 assessment taking into account membrane analysis according to the following equa-
the effect of sustained mechanical loads, tions (API: 579-1/ASME FFS-1, 2007)
4. Perform remaining life assessment (RLA) using PDo
C
Level-2 results based on current operating tmin ¼ ð2Þ
2ðSE þ 0:4PÞ
pressure,
5. Conduct Level-3 assessment using non-linear PDo
L L
finite elements and limit load analysis according tmin tmin ¼ þ tsl ð3Þ
4ðSE þ 0:4PÞ
to the procedures of Annex-B1 of ASME/API 579
(API579-1/ASME FFS-1, 2007). which gives tCmin and tLmin values of 3.76 and 1.88 mm,
respectively. Noteworthy, Level-1 assessment does
not take into account supplemental loads thickness, i.e.
tsl = 0; with the rationale behind this to simplify
3.1 Level-1 assessment analysis requirements. The next stage is to evaluate
longitudinal and circumferential critical thickness
The first step in Level-1 assessment is to evaluate the profiles (CTP) using the inspection data summarized
L
minimum thickness values in longitudinal ‘‘tmin ’’ and in Fig. 2. These profiles trace the minimum measured
C thickness in both directions. These profiles are then
circumferential ‘‘tmin ’’ directions using thin-wall

123
Assessment of corrosion damage

used to evaluate average measured thicknesses tSam and
tCam based on longitudinal and circumferential CTPs.
Thickness averaging is performed over characteristic
length L, given as:
8 vffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
#ffi
> u " 2
>
< u 1  R
1:123tDtc
t
 1 Rt RSFa
L¼ 1  Rt =RSFa
>
> pffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
: ment necessitates higher analysis fidelity and usually
50 Dtc
where Rt is the net thickness ratio between the metal
loss area to the nominal thickness, and RSFa is the
allowable remaining strength factor defined as the
ratio between limit or plastic collapse loads of
damaged to undamaged component. It aims at reduc-
ing the analysis conservatism by taking into account
the nonlinear material behaviour rather than the elastic
regime only. The current recommendation for RSFa
for piping components in API-579/ASME-1 is 0.9
(API579-1/ASME FFS-1, 2007). Hence, the values of
tSam and tCam can be evaluated for various FCA levels to
evaluate the acceptability conditions and remaining
life of the component.
Table 2 summarizes the results of Level-1 accord-
ing to various acceptability criteria in (API579-1/
ASME FFS-1, 2007) for FCA between 0.4–2.8 mm,
which is equivalent to 4–28 months of operation at a
corrosion rate of 1.2 mm/year. The acceptability
conditions are shown for each case as True ‘‘T’’ or
False ‘‘F’’. According to Level-1 requirements, the
corroded pipe should not be operated at the original
design pressure Pd = 90 bar. However, it is permis-
sible to continue operation at a de-rated pressure
Pc = 15 bar for a period of 24 months. It is worth
mentioning that Level-1 assessment does not account
for supplemental loads requirements. In the following
section, a complete Level-2 assessment will be
conducted, including the effects of supplemental
loads.
3.2 Level-2 assessment
The transition from Level-1 to Level-2 FFS assess-
Rt [RSFa
provides a less conservative assessment results and
ð4Þ
extended component life. In particular, it is necessary
to account for mechanical loads other than internal
pressure. The associated reduced conservatism is
mainly due to accounting for the RSFa, thereby
obtaining credit for the nonlinear deformation of the
component. In the current case, these include the
weight of the filled corroded pipe, and the weight of
attached valves at the tip of the cantilevered pipe
spool. Figure 3 depicts a schematic of the piping leg
showing the applied loads at their respective center of
gravity. The piping leg is rigidly attached to a 12’’ line
at its far end, with a reinforcement plate at the junction
location.
In order to estimate the stresses in the vicinity of the
corroded area resulting from the sustained mechanical
loads, piping stress analysis criteria in ASME B31.3
(2004) are used. The essential design requirement in
this regard is that the sum of longitudinal stresses
arising from both pressure and mechanical loads
should not exceed the allowable stress S, i.e.:
rPa þ rsla  S ð5Þ
where rPa and rsla are the axial stresses due to pressure
and supplemental mechanical loads, respectively.
These stresses can be evaluated using either mechan-
ics of materials approach using Fig. 3, or through
finite element analysis. In order to quantify the effect

Table 2 Level-1 assessment results at various FCA

FCA (mm) 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0 2.4 2.8
Months of operation 4 8 12 16 20 24 28
Acceptability of average measured thickness
Condition-1: tSam-FCA [ tCmin F F F F F F F
Condition-2: tCam-FCA [ tLmin T T F F F F F
Acceptability of MAWP
Condition-3/1: MAWPr [ Pd F F F F F F F
Condition-3/2: MAWPr [ Pc T T T T T T F
Acceptability of minimum measured thickness
Condition-4: tmm-FCA B tlim T F F F F F F

123
 M. S. Attia et al.

Fig. 3 Schematic of the

Piping Leg and Acting
Sustained Loads

Table 3 Level-2 assessment results at various FCA

FCA (mm) 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2 2.4 2.8
Months of operation 4 8 12 16 20 24 28
Acceptability of average measured thickness
Condition-1: tsam-FCA [ RSFa 9 tcmin F F F F F F F
Condition-2: tcam-FCA [ RSFa 9 tLmin T F F F F F F
Acceptability of MAWP
Condition-3/1: MAWPr [ Pd F F F F F F F
Condition-3/2: MAWPr [ Pc T T T T F F F
Acceptability of minimum measured thickness
Condition-4: tmm-FCA B tlim T F F F F F F

of supplemental loads, the required thickness to resist
them tsl was evaluated equal to 0.76 mm, almost 30 %
of the minimum required thickness of 2.54 mm. This
significant effect of supplemental loads was reflected
in Level-2 assessment results as will be shown later.
Table 3 summarizes Level-2 assessment results for
the corroded piping leg. Compared to Level-1
acceptability criteria, the main difference is the
introduction of remaining strength factor (RSFa) in
Level-2 assessment to reduce the assessment conser-
vatism in acceptance conditions 1 through 3. It is
observed that Level-2 assessment consistently yielded
more conservative results than Level-1 in condi-
tions 1, 2, and 3, while it provided similar conserva-
tism in condition-4, which does not incorporate the
RSFa effect. Furthermore, both Level-1 and Level-2
show that it is not possible to operate the piping
component at the original design pressure Pd, while it
is possible to operate at a reduced pressure Pc for 24
and 16 months, respectively. This result is counter-
intuitive since Level-2 is supposed to provide less
conservative results through RSFa concept. However,
the effect of incorporating supplemental loads on the
minimum required thickness actually caused Level-2
thickness acceptability criteria to be more conserva-
tive than Level-1. The above conclusions are more
accurate than those obtained from Level-1. Consid-
eration of supplemental loads has proved to be useful
and has its subtle influence on the calculations of
Level-2 assessment.

123
Assessment of corrosion damage
Fig. 4 Finite element mesh
of the corroded pipe leg
3.3 Level-3 assessment
3.3.1 Finite element modeling
Level-3 FFS assessment requires detailed stress
analysis calculations to assess the acceptability of
the equipment and evaluate remaining life. Limit
load analysis of the corroded piping component was
performed using three-dimensional nonlinear finite
element analysis (COSMOSM, 2004). The adopted
meshis illustrated in Fig. 4. Thin-wall, full-integra-
tion four-node shell elements with six degrees of
freedom per node were used to model the piping
under consideration. The loads acting on the piping
are identical to those adopted in Level-2 assessment
as detailed in Fig. 4, Hence, the corresponding
boundary conditions on the FE model consist of
internal pressure P on all pipes and axial traction ra
along the circumference at the pipe ends to simulate
the axial membrane stresses due to P. The pipe and
fluid weights were included in the effective density
of the pipe wall material. Remote concentrated
forces W1 and W2 simulating the two valves
attachments were applied to simulate the weights
of these valves at their respective centers of gravity.
Finally, the pipe was assumed fully constrained at
the 1200 line junction. In accordance with code
recommendations for limit load analysis in Annex
B1 (API579-1/ASME FFS-1, 2007), the material
behavior was modeled as an elastic-perfectly-plastic
material with small strain plasticity formulation. The
material yield strength Y = 207 MPa and the elastic
modulus E = 208 GPa. The tangent modulus Et was
set equal to 0.01 % of the elastic modulus to avoid
numerical stability issue.
The corroded metal area was modeled using a
perfectly square mesh with an element size of 5 mm
covering the inspection area completely. In order to
incorporate the metal loss into the FE model, the
ultrasonic thickness measurement results summarized
in Fig. 1 were mapped on the FE mesh and were linearly
interpolated at respective element centroids. This ensures
smooth thickness variation throughout the corroded area
and is more consistent with the general metal loss
assessment criteria adopted herein Carpenter et al.
(2014). Figure 5 depicts the three-dimensional thickness
profile in the corroded area as obtained from MATLAB
(2008).
3.3.2 Evaluation of limit pressure
The piping under consideration is acted upon by
sustained loads W and internal pressure P. Limit
pressure evaluation involves first applying the sus-
tained loads W to the system, followed by incremental
increase of P until the material exhibits plastic
instability. This is typically evidenced by uncontrolled
increase in strain levels with virtually no increase in
pressure. In order to verify the FE model, limit
analysis was performed in the uncorroded conditions
ignoring supplemental loads effect. The value of limit
pressure PL in this case was evaluated using FEA as
37 MPa. The theoretical value of yield and limit
pressure for a thin-walled cylinder; without consider-
ation of any sustained loads is given by:
2 t
PL ¼ pffiffiffi Y ð6Þ
3R
which gives a theoretical PL = 38.5 MPa. This indi-
cates a good match between numerical and theoretical
estimates.
123

Fig. 5 Three-dimensional corroded thickness profile
Fig. 6 Evaluation of limit
pressure ‘‘PL’’ for both
corroded and as-new pipes
Figure 6 depicts the variation of effective stress
with internal pressure in a corroded pipe with
FCA = 0.4 mm. The limit pressure PL was evaluated
to correspond to the last stable solution time step
before divergence. Compared to the uncorroded
condition, the corroded pipe with FCA = 0.4 mm
has PL & 18 MPa, thus indicating a RSFa of 49 %.
Figure 7a, b illustrates the effective stress distribution
in the corroded pipe at the onset of yield and plastic
instability, respectively. Evidently, yielding is local-
ized to the location of metal loss area, while the rest of
the pipe remained largely elastic. It is interesting to
observe that the peak effective stress distribution at the
123
M. S. Attia et al.
onset of plastic instability amounted to 220 MPa,
which indicates significant yielding was attained due
to the limited extent of the plastic instability zone.
Comparing the solver behaviour in this case with the
uncorroded case, it was observed that the peak
effective stress in the uncorroded case barely reached
209 MPa before the solution diverged due to excessive
plastic strain. The reason for is that the instability in
the uncorroded condition is global, while it was
localized in the corroded condition. Hence, the
surrounding material was able to provide sufficient
stiffness to the component to prevent global instability
(American Society of Mechanical Engineers 2007).
Assessment of corrosion damage

Fig. 7 Effective stress

distribution in the corroded
pipe leg: a at the onset of
yielding, b at the onset of
plastic instability

Table 4 Level-3 global and local instability assessment

results
FCA Global Local Decision
(mm) instability instability

Design pressure 0.4 T T Pass

Pd = 90 barg. 1.0 T F Fail
1.6 T F Fail
Reduced operating 0.4 T T Pass
pressure 1.0 T T Pass
Pc = 15 barg.
1.6 T T Pass

3.3.3 Level-3 acceptability criteria

Level-3 assessments for both global and local failure

under applied loads are summarized in Eq. 7. In this Fig. 8 Level-2 and Level-3 Remaining Life Estimates
equation ‘‘D’’ denotes the dead weight of the piping
and attachments, while ‘‘P’’ denotes the internal
The global instability criterion in Eq. 7(a) is derived
pressure. If either load combination causes global
based on the load combination (Pressure and dead
instability, the component is considered unsafe for
loads) required to cause incipient yielding in the
operation under the applied pressure.
structure. These design loads were originally evalu-
Global instability : 1:5ðP þ DÞ  RSFa ated based on stress allowable S = Y/1.5. Hence,
ð7Þ
Local instability : 1:7ðP þ DÞ  RSFa multiplying them by 1.5 would cause primary stresses

123

to reach yield stress level. In an elastic-perfectly-
plastic material, this is the limit load of the structure.
The inclusion of RSFa accounts for the limit load
knockdown due to present metal loss damage. The
rationale of the local instability criterion is similar to
the global one, with the exception of using a factor of
1.7 instead of 1.5, hence allowing higher limit load
levels to account for the local nature of instability, i.e.
the surrounding material to the instability zone will
provide additional resistance to the spread of exces-
sive plastic deformation.
Table 4 summarizes Level-3 acceptability criteria
for FCA = 0.4, 1.0 and 1.6 mm under both the design
and current, reduced operating pressures. No global
instability was observed for the FCA values under
consideration. This is attributed to the limited extent of
corrosion although the code treatment of the problem is
global. Furthermore, the pipe did not exhibit local
instability for FCA = 0.4 mm. However, a FCA value
of 1 mm resulted in the onset of plastic instability and
clear instability was observed for FCA 1.6 mm. Hence,
it is concluded that the piping component will be safe
for Level-3 assessment for FCA values between 0.4 and
1 mm under both global and local instability criteria.
Finally, it is noteworthy to compare the remaining life
estimates of Levels 2 and 3. Figure 8 depicts Level-2
estimates using MAWP criterion, and Table 4 presents
Level-3 assessments results. While Level-2 estimated
that the component cannot withstand the design
pressure for more than 1 month, Level-3 estimated that
the design pressure can be tolerated for more than
4 months. This ‘‘reduced conservatism’’ comes at the
expense of increased analysis complexity and compu-
tations and, indeed, is in accordance with the inherent
ASME/API -579 code philosophy.
4 Conclusions
This study presented a detailed FFS assessment of a
4-inch pipe subjected to internal pressure and supple-
mental mechanical loads and suffers from metal loss,
using the general metal loss guidelines in API-579/
ASME-1 code. The pipe failed both Level-1 and
Level-2 acceptability conditions regarding average
measured thickness, design pressure and minimum
measured thickness. It passed both levels with varying
remaining life estimates at a reduced operating
pressure level. Furthermore, Level-2 assessment was
123
M. S. Attia et al.
more conservative compared to Level-1, which con-
tradicts the code philosophy of reduced conservatism
with increased analysis fidelity. It has been shown that
this is due to supplemental loads being ignored in
Level-1 assessment. Level-3 assessment using plastic
instability analysis shows that the pipe passes global
instability failure criterion under the design pressure
for a short period, which can be justified by the limited
extent to metal loss in the pipe. However, the pipe
failed the local instability criterion. In conclusion, this
study reveals that careful consideration of the assump-
tions and restrictions of each level are critical to the
final assessment results.
References
Anderson, T.L., Osage, D.: API 579: A comprehensive fitness-
for-service guide. Int. J. Press. Vessel Pip. 77, 953–963
(2000)
API: 579-1/ASME FFS-1- Fitness-for Service. American
Society of Mechanical Engineers (2007)
Assessment of the Integrity of Structures Containing Defects,
R6 Rev. 4, British Energy Generation Ltd, 2001
B31.3:2004: Process Piping—ASME Code for Pressure Piping
(2004)
B31G: Manual for determining the remaining strength of cor-
roded pipelines, ASME (2012)
Brighenti, R.: Influence of a central straight crack on the
buckling behavior of thin plates under tension, compres-
sion, or shear loading. Int. J. Mech. Mat. Des. 6(1), 73–87
(2001)
BS 7910: Guide on methods for assessing the acceptability of
flaws in fusion welded structures, BSI (2005)
Carpenter, H.W., Reid, R.G., Paskaramoorthy, R.: Extension of
the layer removal technique for the measurement of
residual stresses in layered anisotropic cylinders. Int.
J. Mech. Mat. Des. doi:10.1007/s10999-014-9245-2. (2014
in-press)
Chiodo, M.S.G., Ruggieri, C.: Failure assessments of corroded
pipelines with axial defects using stress-based criteria:
Numerical studies and verification analyses. Int. J. Press.
Vessel. Pip. 86, 164–176 (2009)
Choi, J.B., Goo, B.K., Kim, J.C., Kim, Y.J., Kim, W.S.:
Development of limit load solutions for corroded gas
pipelines. Int. J. Press. Vessel. Pip. 80, 121–128 (2003)
Cosham, A., Hopkins, P., Macdonald, K.A.: Best practice for the
assessment of defects in pipelines – Corrosion. Eng. Fail.
Anal. 14, 1245–1265 (2007)
COSMOSM 2.90 Theory Manual, Structural Research and
Analysis Corporation (2004)
FITNET Fitness-For-Service (FFS): Procedure - Revision MK8.
GKSS Research Centre, Geesthacht (2008)
Kamaya, M., Suzuki, T., Meshii, T.: Failure pressure of straight
pipe with wall thinning under internal pressure. Int.
J. Press. Vessel. Pip. 85, 628–634 (2008)
Assessment of corrosion damage
Khyabani, A., Sadrnejad, S.A.: Finite element evaluation of
residual stresses in thick plates. Int. J. Mech. Mat. Des.
5(3), 253–261 (2009)
MATLAB: MATLAB Release 2008. The MathWorks, Inc,
Natick (2008)
Netto, T.A., Ferraz, U.S., Estefen, S.F.: The effect of corrosion
defects on the burst pressure of pipelines. J. Construc. Steel
Res. 61, 1185–1204 (2005)
Roy, S., Grigory, S., Smith, M., Kanninen, M.F., Anderson, M.:
Numerical simulations of full-scale corroded pipe tests
with combined loading. J. Press. Vessel. Tech. 119,
457–466 (1997)
SINTAP, Structural Integrity Assessment Procedure for Euro-
pean Industry: SINTAP BRITE-EURAM Project BRPR-
View publication stats
CT95-0024. http://www.eurofitnet.org/sintap_Procedure_
version_1a.pdf (1999)
Stephens, D.R., Leis, B.N.: Material and geometry factors
controlling the failure of corrosion defects in piping.
Vessel. Pip. Div. 350, 3–11 (1997)
Stephens, D.R., Krishnaswamy, P., Mohan, R., Osage, D.A.,
Wilkowski, G.M.: A review of analysis methods and
acceptance criteria for local thinned areas in piping and
piping components. Vessel Pip. Div. 359, 55–65 (1997)
Turbak, T.A., Sims, J.R.: Comparison of local thin area assess-
ment methodologies. Vessel Pip. Div. 288, 307–314 (1994)
123