This study presents, for the first time, the mechanical behavior of API 5L pipeline steels X42, X52, X60, X70, X80, and X100 with external and internal corrosion defects as well as a combination of both defects that has been named external–internal corrosion defects. The conventional methods to predict failure pressure in corroded pipes, such as B31G, RSTRENG-1, SHELL, DNV-99, PCORRC, and FITNET FFS, have also been discussed in this article. In addition, pipeline failure pressure has been estimated using the finite element method, considering that it is the best approach to calculate actual failure pressure. The external and internal corrosion defect investigated in this research manifests as a rectangular shape with spherical ends at the edges. When the external–internal corrosion defect appears, failure pressure data decrease dramatically because of severe damage. This is due to the decrease in the ligament (effective area) caused by the corrosion defect. To have a good estimation of the pipeline failure pressure with an external–internal corrosion defect, DNV-99 method can be used with acceptable certainty.
AbdallaJEMachadoRDBertínRJ, et al. (2014) On the failure pressure of pipeline containing wall reduction and isolated pit corrosion defects. Computers & Structures132: 22–33.
2.
AdibHJalloufSSchmittC, et al. (2007) Evaluation of the effect of corrosion defects on the structural integrity of X52 gas pipelines using the SINTAP procedure and notch theory. International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping84(3): 123–131.
3.
Adib-RamezaniHJeongJPluvinageG (2006) Structural integrity evaluation of X52 pipes subjected to external corrosion defects using the SINTAP procedure. International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping83(6): 420–432.
4.
AlamillaJLSosaESánchez-MañanaCA, et al. (2013) Failure analysis and mechanical performance of an oil pipeline. Materials & Design50: 766–773.
5.
AlangNARazakNAShafieKA, et al. (2013) Finite element analysis on burst pressure of steel pipes with corrosion defects. In: 13th international conference on fracture, Beijing, China, 16–21 June, pp. 1–10. Red Hook, NY: Curran Associates, Inc.
6.
ANSI/ASME B31G (1984) Manual for Determining the Remaining Strength of Corroded Pipelines. New York: American Society of Mechanical Engineers.
7.
ANSYS (2009) Introduction to ANSYS for Release12.1.
8.
ASME B31G (1991) Manual for Determining the Remaining Strength of Corroded Pipelines. A Supplement to ANSI-ASME B31G Code for Pressure Piping. New York: The American Society of Mechanical Engineers.
9.
BedairiBCroninDHosseiniA, et al. (2012) Failure prediction for crack-in-corrosion defects in natural gas transmission. International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping96–97: 90–99.
10.
BelachewCTIsmailMCKaruppananS (2011) Burst strength analysis of corroded pipelines by finite element method. Journal of Applied Sciences11(10): 1845–1850.
11.
CaleyoFAlfonsoLJAlcantara HallenJM (2008) On the estimation of failure rates of multiple pipeline systems. Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology130(2): 021704-1-021704-8.
12.
CaleyoFGonzalezJLHallenJM (2002) A study on the reliability assessment methodology for pipelines with active corrosion defects. International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping79(1): 77–86.
13.
CaleyoFValorAVenegasV, et al. (2012) Pipeline integrity-1: accurate corrosion modeling improves reliability estimations. Oil & Gas Journal110(10): 122–130.
14.
ChenYZhangHZhangJ, et al. (2015) Failure assessment of X80 pipeline with interacting corrosion. Engineering Failure Analysis47(A): 67–76.
15.
Chen-LiangSUXinLJingZ (2016) Failure pressure analysis of corroded moderate-to-high strength pipelines. China Ocean Engineering30(1): 69–82.
16.
ChiodoMSGRuggieriC (2009) Failure assessment of corroded pipelines with axial defects using stress-based criteria: numerical studies and verification analysis. International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping86(2–3): 164–176.
17.
ChoiJBGooBKKimJC, et al. (2003) Development of limit load solutions for corroded gas pipelines. International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping80(2): 121–128.
18.
CoshamAKirkwoodM (2000) Best practice in pipeline defect assessment. In: Proceeding of IPC 2000: international pipeline conference, Calgary, AL, Canada, 1–5 October, pp. 1–11. New York: American Society of Mechanical Engineers.
19.
CoshamAHopskinsPMacdonaldKA (2007) Best practice for the assessment of defects in pipelines-corrosion. Engineering Failure Analysis14(7): 1245–1265.
20.
CroninDS (2000) Assessment of corrosion damage in pipeline. PhD Thesis, Department of Mechanic Engineering, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, Canada.
21.
CroninDSPickRJ (2000) Experimental database for corroded pipe: evaluation of strength and B31G. In: 3rd international pipeline conference, vol. 2, Calgary, AL, Canada, pp. 757–767. New York: ASME.
22.
CroninDSPickRJ (2002) Prediction of the failure pressure for complex corrosion defects. International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping79(4): 279–287.
23.
DickIFInegiyemiemaM (2014) Predicting the structural response of a corroded pipeline using finite element (FE) analysis. International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research5(11): 194–207.
FeketeGVargaL (2012) The effect of the width to length ratios of corrosion defects on the burst pressure of transmission pipeline. Engineering Failure Analysis21: 21–30.
26.
Fernández-CuetoMCapula-ColindesSAngeles-Herrera VelazquezJC, et al. (2018) Analysis of 3D planar laminations in a welded section of API 5L X52 applying the finite element method. Soldagem & Inspecao23(1): 17–31.
27.
FuBKirkwoodMG (1995a) Predicting failure pressure on internally corroded pipeline using the finite element method. In: International conference of offshore mechanics and Artic engineering, Copenhagen, 18–22 June, pp. 175–184. New York: ASME.
28.
FuBKirkwoodMG (1995b) Determination of failure pressure of corroded line pipes using the nonlinear finite element method. In: 2nd international conference, pipeline technology conference, Belgium, pp. 175–184.
29.
HaggagFM (1999) Nondestructive determination of yield strength and stress-strain curves of in-service transmission pipelines using innovative stress-strain microprobe technology. Final report ATC/DOT/990901. Washington, DC: US Department of Transportation.
30.
HanCJZhangHZhangJ (2016) Failure pressure analysis of the pipe with inner corrosion defects by FEM. International Journal of Electrochemical Science11: 5046–5062.
31.
HasanMKhanFKennyS (2011) Identification of the causes of variability of probability of failure for burst models recommended by codes/standards. Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology133(4): 041101.
32.
KiefnerJEViethPH (1990) New method corrects criterion for evaluating corrode pipe. Oil & Gas Journal88(32): 56–59.
33.
KimHOMapleJA (1996) A plane strain analysis of corroded pipelines. In: The sixth international offshore and polar engineering conference, Los Angeles, CA, 26–31 May, pp. 89–94. Cupertino, CA: International Society of Offshore and Polar Engineers.
34.
KleverFJStewartGvan der ValkCAC (1995) New developments in burst strength predictions for locally corroded pipelines. In: International conference on offshore mechanical and Artic engineering, Copenhagen, 18–22 June, pp. 12–31. New York: ASME.
35.
LeeGHPourariaHSeoJK, et al. (2015) Burst strength behavior of an aging subsea gas pipeline elbow in different external and internal corrosion-damaged position. International Journal of Naval Architecture and Ocean Engineering7(3): 435–451.
36.
LeisBNStephensDR (1997) An alternative approach to assess the integrity of corroded line pipe—part II: alternative criterion. In: Proceedings of the seventh international offshore and polar engineering conference, Honolulu, HI, 25–30 May.
37.
LiessemAKnaufGZimmermannS (2007) Strain based design-what the contribution of a pipe manufacturer can be. In: The seventeenth international society of offshore and polar engineer conference, Lisbon, 1–6 July, pp. 1–8. Cupertino, CA: International Society of Offshore and Polar Engineers.
38.
LiuXZhangHLiM, et al. (2016) Failure analysis of oil tubes containing corrosion defects based on finite element method. International Journal of Electrochemical Science11: 5180–5196.
39.
MaBShuaiJLiuD, et al. (2013) Assessment on failure pressure of high strength pipeline with corrosion defects. Engineering Failure Analysis32: 209–219.
40.
MajidZAMohsinRYusofMZ (2012) Experimental and computational failure analysis of gas pipe. Engineering Failure Analysis19: 32–42.
41.
MajidZAMohsinRYaacobZ, et al. (2010) Failure analysis of natural gas pipes. Engineering Failure Analysis17(4): 818–837.
42.
MokhtariMMelchersRE (2018) A new approach to assess the remaining strength of corroded steel pipes. Engineering Failure Analysis93: 144–156.
43.
MondalBCDharAS (2017) Finite-element evaluation of burst pressure models for corroded pipelines. Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology139(2): 021702-1-021702-8.
44.
MottaRSAlfonsoSMBWillmersdorfRB, et al. (2010) Automatic modelling and analysis of pipelines with colonies of corrosion defects. Mecánica ComputacionalXXIX(80): 7871–7890.
45.
NettoTAFerrazUSEstefenSF (2005) The effect of corrosion defects on the burst pressure of pipelines. Journal of Constructional Steel Research61(8): 1185–1204.
46.
NoronhaDBAdilson-CarvalhoBAndradeEQ (2002) Finite element models for the prediction of the failure pressure of pipelines with long corrosion defects. In: Proceedings of IPC’02 4th international pipeline conference, parts A and B, Calgary, AL, Canada, 29 September–3 October, pp. 1751–1758. New York: American Society of Mechanical Engineers.
47.
OssaiCI (2017) Finite element modeling and retained life estimation of corroded pipeline in consideration of burst pressures—a fractural mechanics approach. Infrastructures2(15): 1–14.
48.
PhanHCDharASMondalBC (2017) Revisiting burst pressure models for corroded pipelines. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering44: 485–494.
49.
QianGNiffeneggerMLiS (2011) Probabilistic analysis of pipeline with corrosion defects by using FITNET FFS procedure. Corrosion Science53(3): 855–861.
50.
StephensDRLeisBN (1997) Material and geometry factors controlling the failure of corrosion defects in piping. Fatigue and Fracture350: 3–11.
51.
StephensDRLeisBRudlandD (1996) Influence of mechanical properties and irregular geometry on pipeline corrosion defect behavior. Presented at the PRC I American gas association 9th symposium on pipeline research, 30 September (Paper 34, Catalog No. L51746), pp. 175–184.
52.
StephensDRLeisBNFranciniRB (1998) Developments in criteria for repair or replacement decisions for pipeline corrosion defects. In: 3°Congreso y Expo Internacional de Ductos, Monterrey, pp. 268–275.
53.
SviatoslavTBushinskayaA (2016) Diagnostics and Reliability of Pipeline Systems. Basel: Springer, pp. 9–43.
54.
TeránGCapula-ColindresSVelázquezJC, et al. (2017) Failure pressure estimations for pipes with combined corrosion defects on the external surface: a comparative study. International Journal of Electrochemical Science12: 10152–10176.
55.
TeránGCapula-ColindresSVelázquezJC, et al. (2019a) Influence of the corrosion defect size on the welding bead, heat affected zone and base metal in pipeline failure pressure estimation: a finite element study. Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology141(3): 031001-1-031001-8.
56.
TeránGCapula-ColindresSVelázquezJC, et al. (2019b) Mechanical resistance of stepped lamination defects in a welded section of oil and gas pipeline: a finite element analysis. Journal of the Brazilian Society of Mechanical Sciences and Engineering41(504): 1–12.
57.
VelázquezJCCaleyoFHallenJM, et al. (2013) Probabilistic analysis of different methods used to compute the failure pressure of corroded steel pipelines. International Journal of Electrochemical Science8: 11356–11370.
58.
VelázquezJCCaleyoFValorA, et al. (2009) Predictive model for pitting corrosion in buried oil and gas pipelines. Corrosion65(5): 332–342.
59.
VelázquezJCCaleyoFValorA, et al. (2010) Field study-pitting corrosion of underground pipelines related to local soil and pipe characteristics. Corrosion66(1): 016001-016001-5.
60.
VelázquezJCCruz-RamirezJCValorA, et al. (2017) Modeling localized corrosion of pipeline steels in oilfield produced water environments. Engineering Failure Analysis79: 216–231.
61.
Xian-KuiZLeisBN (2012) Evaluation of burst pressure prediction models for line pipes. International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping89: 85–97.
62.
XuLYChengYF (2012) Reliability and failure pressure prediction of various grades of pipeline steel in the presence of corrosion defects and pre-strain. International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping89: 75–84.
63.
ZhouWHuangGX (2012) Model error assessment of burst capacity models for corroded pipelines. International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping99–100: 1–8.
