International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 83 (2006) 420432

www.elsevier.com/locate/ijpvp

Structural integrity evaluation of X52 gas pipes subjected to external

corrosion defects using the SINTAP procedure
H. Adib-Ramezani a,*, J. Jeong a, G. Pluvinage b
a

Ecole Polytechnique de lUniversite dOrleans, CNRS-CRMD, 8 rue Leonard de Vinci, 45072 Orleans Cedex 2, France
b
Laboratoire de Fiabilite Mecanique (LFM), Universite de Metz-ENIM, 57045 Metz, France
Received 27 July 2005; received in revised form 26 December 2005; accepted 1 February 2006

Abstract
In the present study, the SINTAP procedure has been proposed as a general structural integrity tool for semi-spherical, semi-elliptical and long
blunt notch defects. The notch stress intensity factor concept and SINTAP structural integrity procedure are employed to assess gas pipelines
integrity. The external longitudinal defects have been investigated via elasticplastic finite element method results. The notch stress intensity
concept is implemented into SINTAP procedure. The safety factor is calculated via SINTAP procedure levels 0B and 1B. The extracted
evaluations are compared with the limit load analysis based on ASME B31G, modified ASME B31G, DNV RP-F101 and recent proposed
formulation [Choi JB, Goo BK, Kim JC, Kim YJ, Kim WS. Development of limit load solutions for corroded gas pipelines. Int J Pressure Vessel
Piping 2003;80(2):121128]. The comparison among extracted safety factors exhibits that SINTAP predictions are located between lower and
upper safety factor bounds. The SINTAP procedure including notch-based assessment diagram or so-called NFAD involves wide range of defect
geometries with low, moderate and high stress concentrations and relative stress gradients. Finally, some inspired and advanced viewpoints have
been investigated.
q 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Gas pipeline; External corrosion defects; SINTAP; Notch stress intensity

1. Introduction
Pipelines have been employed as one of the most practical
and low cost methods for oil and gas transmission since
1950. Pipeline installation for oil and gas transmission has
drastically increased in the last three decades. The
economical and environmental considerations involve structural integrity and safety. Therefore, reliable structural
integrity and safety of oil and gas pipelines under various
service pressure events including defects should be warily
evaluated. The external defects, e.g. corrosion defects,
gouges, foreign object scratches and pipeline erection
activities are major failure reasons of gas pipelines. In the
present work, finite element stress analysis for API X52 is
performed including longitudinal external defects under high
internal pressure. The failure assessment and structural
integrity of the gas pipeline have been compared with
SINTAP failure assessment levels (levels 0B and 1B) [2] and
* Corresponding author. Tel.: C33 2 384 94992; fax: C33 2 384 17329.
E-mail address: hradib_2000@yahoo.com (H. Adib-Ramezani).

0308-0161/$ - see front matter q 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ijpvp.2006.02.023

limit load analysis (ASME B31G, modified ASME B31G,

DNV RP-F101 and Choi et al. [1]). The elasticplastic finite
element analysis is utilized and the SINTAP procedure is
applied to the notch problem for calculating the structural
integrity of the considered pipelines.

2. Assessment of corrosion defects

In Fig. 1, a list of methods available for corrosion defect
assessment is presented. The methods are grouped vertically by
their type, codified methods or others, and horizontally by their
applicability, pressure or combined loading, etc. The structural
integrity of corrosion defects is substantially studied and the
outcomes for gas pipelines are classified in ASME B31G [3]
and DNV RP-F101. In Fig. 1, the coded methods, i.e. ASME
B31G, modified ASME B31G [4,5] and DNV RP-F101 are
taken into account.
Moreover, the SINTAP procedure is also considered to be
investigated for the structural integrity assessment of
corroded pipelines. In the present study, corroded pipes
under pressure excluding combined loading and external
force are addressed.

H. Adib-Ramezani et al. / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 83 (2006) 420432

421

Nomenclature
D
t
L
d
Pf
M
sY
sf
sU
Q
R
Di
kr
Lr
Lmax
r
SF
f(Lr)
m
N
E
n

outside diameter
wall thickness
longitudinal corrosion defect length
corrosion depth
failure pressure
bulging factor
yield stress
flow stress
ultimate tensile stress
corrector factor
outside radius
inside diameter
non-dimensional stress intensity parameter
non-dimensional loading based parameter
maximum of Lr
safety factor
interpolating function
first correction factor
second correction factor
modulus of elasticity
Poissons ratio

2.1. ASME B31G and modified ASME B31G

ASME B31G is a code for evaluating the remaining strength
of corroded pipelines. It is a supplement to the ASME B31
code for pressure piping. The code was developed in the late
1960s and early 1970s at Battelle Memorial Institute and
provides a semi-empirical procedure for the assessment of
corroded pipes. Based on an extensive series of full-scale tests
on corroded pipe sections, it was concluded that pipeline steels
have adequate toughness and the toughness is not a significant

3ref
sref
Kr
seff
smax
Xeff
Xn
c(r)
syy(r)
F(r)
d(x)
A%
n
K
KC

kt
ks
sg
Papp
Fs
FS

reference strain
reference stress
notch stress intensity factor
effective stress
maximum stress
effective distance
distance at the end of zone III
relative stress gradient
maximum principal stress
weight function
Diracs delta function
relative elongation
hardening exponent
hardening coefficient
fracture toughness
elastic stress concentration factor
elasticplastic stress factor
applied circumferential stress
applied internal gage pressure
safety factor using SINTAP procedure
security factor using SINTAP procedure

factor. The failure of blunt corrosion flaws is controlled by their

size and the flow stress or yield stress of the material. The input
parameters include pipe outer diameter (D) and wall thickness
(t), the specified minimum yield strength (sY), the maximum
allowable operating pressure (MAOP), longitudinal extent of
corrosion (Lc) and defect depth (d).
According to the ASME B31G code, a failure equation for
corroded pipelines was proposed by means of data of burst
experiments and expressed with consideration of two conditions below.

Fig. 1. Methods for corrosion assessment including codified and other methods.

422

H. Adib-Ramezani et al. / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 83 (2006) 420432

First, the maximum hoop stress cannot exceed the yield

strength of the material (sqq%sY). Second, relatively short
corrosion is projected on the shape of a parabola and long
corrosion is projected on the shape of a rectangle. The failure
pressure equation for the corroded pipeline is classified by
parabola and rectangle as shown in Fig. 2.



21:1sY t
1K2=3d=t
Pf Z
;
D
1K2=3d=t=M
s
 2  
L
D
where M Z 1 C 0:8
(1)
D
t
s
 2  
L
D
for 0:8
% 4 parabolic defects
D
t
21:1sY t
1Kd=t; where M ZN
Pf Z
D
s
 2  
L
D
for 0:8
O 4 rectangular defects
D
t

proposed (Kiefner et al.) [4,5] as:

sf Z 1:1sY C 69 MPa

(3)

The modified ASME B31G including this new modified

flow stress and bulging factor is as follows:



21:1sY C69t
1K0:85d=t
Pf Z
;
D
1K0:85d=t=M
s
 2  
 4  2
L
D
L
D
where M Z 1C0:6275
K0:003375
D
t
D
t
 2  
L
D
for
%50
D
t
(4)



21:1sY C 69t
1K0:85d=t
;
D
1K0:85d=t=M
 2  
L
D
where M Z 3:3 C 0:032
D
t
 2  
L
D
for
O 50
D
t
Pf Z

(2)

where Pf, D, d, t, M, sY and L are the failure pressure, outer

diameter, maximum corrosion depth, wall thickness, bulging
factor, yield stress and longitudinal corrosion defect length,
respectively.
Due to some problems associated with the definition of flow
stress sfZ1.1sY and the bulging factor, a new flow stress was

(5)

It is necessary to recall that ASME B31G is limited to low

stress concentration factors and internal pressure loading
conditions. In the assessment procedure, one considers the
maximum depth and longitudinal extent of the corroded area,

(a)

L
d

D/2
t

(b)

(c)

Longitudinal axis of corroded gas pipeline

L
d

Parabolic defect shape assumption for short defects

Longitudinal axis of corroded gas pipeline

Corroded regions

Rectangular defect shape assumption for long defects

Corroded regions

Fig. 2. (a) Typical illustration of corrosion defects in longitudinal axis of pipe, (b) short corrosion defect simplified as a parabolic curve, (c) long corrosion defects
simplified as a rectangular defect based on ASME B31G code.

H. Adib-Ramezani et al. / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 83 (2006) 420432

but ignores the circumferential extent and the actual profile. If

the corroded region is found to be unacceptable, B31G allows
the use of more rigorous analysis or a hydrostatic pressure test
in order to determine the pipe remaining strength. Alternatively, a lower maximum allowable operating pressure may be
imposed.
2.2. DNV RP-F101
DNV RP-F101 is the first comprehensive and extensive
code for pipeline corrosion defect assessment. It provides
guidance for internal pressure and combined loading. As
shown in Fig. 1, it covers all loading types, e.g. pressure only
and combined loading. Furthermore, it provides codified
formulations for pressure, bending and area depth. DNV RP101 proposes two methods to find the failure pressure. The first
method is based on the partial safety factor and the second is
classified as allowable stress design. Both methods entail
information on the pipe outside diameter (D), wall thickness
(t), ultimate tensile strength (sU), maximum allowable
operating pressure (MAOP), longitudinal extent of corrosion
(Lc) and defect depth (d). The allowable stress design method
considering non-interacting defects is discussed here. The
exact procedures for the partial safety factor method and
interacting defects can be found within the DNV code.
To pursue the design procedure via DNV RP-101, it is
required to determine the loading type (pressure only and
combined loading) and consequently, the failure pressure can
be obtained as



2sU t 1Kd=t
Pf Z
;
DKt 1Kd=t=Q
(6)
s


1 2
where Q Z 1 C 0:31 p
Dt
where Pf, D, d, t, Q and sU are the failure pressure, outside
diameter, corrosion depth, wall thickness, correction factor and
ultimate tensile strength, respectively. According to DVN RP101, the failure pressure should not exceed the maximum
allowable stress design operating pressure (MAOP), otherwise,
the corroded pipe will be repaired or replaced before returning
to service.

where
 2
 

d
d
K0:1035
C1; C1
C0 Z0:06
t
t
 2
 
 2
d
d
d
K0:1447; C2 Z0:1163
C0:4548
ZK0:6913
t
t
t
 
 
d
d
K0:1053
C0:0292; C3 ZK0:9847
C1:1101; C4
t
t
 

d
Z0:0071
K0:0126
t
where Pf, sU, Di, d, t and R are the failure pressure or maximum
pressure, ultimate tensile strength, inside diameter, defect
depth, wall thickness and average pipe radius, respectively. In
general, the corrosion pits are idealized into a semi-elliptical
shape rather than rectangular and semi-spherical shapes. In
Fig. 3, the geometrical parameters of one semi-elliptical defect
are displayed. As illustrated, the intersection of the ellipsoidal
volume and the cylindrical pipe volumes produces intersected
curves. The mathematical expression of these curves can be
written as:
8 2
x
yKD=22
z2
>
>
> 2C
C
Z1
>
<d
d2
L=22
M1 :
>
x2 Cy2 ZR2 for z2KL=2;L=2 or xZD=2cos q; y
>
>
>
:
ZD=2sin qCD=2 for z2KL=2;L=2 and q20;2p
(8)
The subtraction of the mentioned volumes creates the semielliptical corrosion defect. To obtain the semi-spherical defect,
it is necessary to modify relation (8) as follows:
8 2
x
yKD=22 z2
>
>
>
C
C 2 Z1
>
2
<d
d2
d
M2 :
>
x2 Cy2 ZR2 for z2KL=2;L=2 or xZD=2cos q; y
>
>
>
:
ZD=2sin qCD=2 for z2KL=2;L=2 and q20;2p
(9)

2.3. Chois method

Based on limit load analysis assumptions and finite element
analysis of corroded pipelines, Choipetal.
proposed a limit load
solution as a function of R/t, d/t, L= Rt as follows [1]
8
0
1
0
12 3
2
>
>
2s
t
L
L
L
>
U 4
>
C0 CC1 @ p A CC2 @ p A 5; p !6
0:9
>
>
<
Di
Rt
Rt
Rt
2
0
13
Pf Z
>
>
>
2sU t 4
L
L
>
>
p R6
C3 CC4 @ p A5;
>
: 1 Di
Rt
Rt
(7)

423

Fig. 3. Typical semi-elliptical defect geometrical configuration.

424

H. Adib-Ramezani et al. / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 83 (2006) 420432

As will be mentioned later, the semi-spherical defects do not

produce high stress concentration (less than two for the same d/
t and D/t values).
2.4. SINTAP procedure
The SINTAP (Structural Integrity Assessment Procedure for
European Industry) procedure offers a failure assessment
diagram (FAD). In the FAD method, a failure curve or
interpolating curve is used to assess the failure zone,
safe zone and safety factor. In Fig. 4, a typical failure
assessment diagram is illustrated.
The failure assessment diagram accounts for plastic collapse
as well as brittle failure including safety factor considerations.
The normalized stress intensity factor versus normalized stress
or loading parameter is taken into account in the failure
assessment diagram. The failure assessment diagram has been
included in British Standard (BS 7910) in conjunction with the
structural integrity of cracked structures. The main objective of
the present study is to develop the interpolating curve and FAD
concept for the notch problem.
The SINTAP procedure can be generally simplified to
several distinct levels according to the no yield point
elongation assumptions. In the current paper, no yield point
elongation is expected due to the material mechanical behavior
(API X52) [2]. The mathematical expressions of the SINTAP
procedure with the aforementioned assumption can be
categorized as below

K1=2 h
i
6
L2r
f Lr Z 1 C
0:3 C 0:7 eK0:6Lr ;
2


150 2:5
max
for 0% Lr % 1; where; Lr Z 1 C
sY

kr

(10)

FAILURE
C

f(Lr)

Interpolating curve

0.75

SAFE ZONE
0.50

0.25

Assessment point,
SF=OC/OA>2

Interpolating curve
including SF=OC/OB=2

Plastic collapse

kr*

SECURITY ZONE

L*r
O

0.25

0.50

0.75

(11)
where



E
m Z min 0:001
; 0:6 ;
sY


sY
N Z 0:3 1K
sU

Lmax
Z
r

E3ref 1
L2r
C
f Lr Z
2 E3ref =sref
sref

K1=2



1 sY C sU
;
2
sU

for

0% Lr % Lmax
r
(12)

where
Lmax
Z
r



1 sY C sU
;
2
sU

sref Z Lr sY

where f(Lr), Lr, Lmax

r , sY, m, E, sU, N, 3ref and sref are
interpolating function, non-dimensional loading or stress-based
parameter, maximum value of non-dimensional loading or
stress-based parameter, yield stress, first correction factor,
modulus of elasticity, ultimate stress, second correction factor,
reference strain and reference stress, respectively.

3. Notch stress intensity factor concept

Brittle fracture

1.00

82
3K1=2
>
2
>
>
L
6
r
>
41C 5
>
0:3C0:7 eKmLr ;
0%Lr %1
>
>
2
<
f Lr Z 2
3K1=2
>
>
>
>
41C 1 5
>
0:3C0:7eKm LNK1=2N
; 1!Lr %Lmax
>
r
r
>
:
2

max

1.00 L

Lr

Fig. 4. Typical presentation of failure assessment diagram (FAD), which

presents the evolution of non-dimensional stress intensity parameter versus
non-dimensional loading or stress based parameter including an assessment
point AL
r ; kr
.

As outlined later, corrosion defects cannot be considered as

cracks and consequently, the fracture mechanics hypotheses
are not applicable. In the present study, corrosion pits are
deemed as notches and the notch stress intensity factor concept
is utilized.
The local fracture criterion, it is presumed that the fracture
process requires a certain fracture volume [6]. This volume is
assumed as a cylinder with effective distance as its diameter.
Based on the bi-logarithmic elasticplastic stress distribution
along the ligament, three distinct zones can be readily
distinguished. The elasticplastic stress primarily increases
and it attains a peak value (zone I) then it gradually drops to the
perfect elastic regime (zone II). Zone III represents linear
behavior in the bi-logarithmic diagram and starts at a certain
distance, which is named the effective distance. As a matter of
fact, the notch tip can be considered as a virtual crack after
effective distance [7]. Therefore, the notch stress intensity
factor is described and defined as a function of effective
distance and effective stress (Fig. 5)
p
Kr Z seff 2pXeff
(13)
where Kr, seff and Xeff are notch stress intensity factor, effective
stress and effective distance, respectively.

H. Adib-Ramezani et al. / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 83 (2006) 420432

Log (syy (r))

(r) =

1
s yy(r)

stress distribution effect is not solely a major parameter for the

fracture process zone. The minimum point of the relative stress
gradient in the bi-logarithmic diagram is conventionally taken
into account as the relevant effective distance and signifies the
virtual crack length. The effective stress is defined as

s yy(r)
x

Stress distribution along defect root

smax
seff

Kr =seff

2pXeff

seff
I

II

III

Relative stress gradient

Fracture Process Zone(FPZ)

Xeff

Xn
Log(r)

Notch stress intensity virtual crack

Geometrical defect

Fig. 5. Schematic elasticplastic stress distribution along notch ligament and

notch stress intensity virtual crack concept.

The determination of effective stress and effective distance

is accomplished by the relative stress gradient and denoted as
cr Z

1 vsyy r
syy r vr

425

(14)

where c(r) and syy(r) are the relative stress gradient and
maximum principal stress or crack opening stress, respectively.
The relative stress gradient depicts the severity of the stress
concentration around the notch and crack tips. However, the

1
Z
Xeff

Xeff

syy rFrdr

(15)

where seff, Xeff, syy(r) and F(r) are effective stress, effective
distance, maximum principal stress and weight function,
respectively. The weight function delineates stress importance
in the fracture process zone. In Table 1, some proposed weight
functions are described. As shown in Table 1, the unit weight
function and Petersons weight function are the simplest
definitions of the effective distance. The unit weight function
deals with the straight stress average and Petersons weight
function gives the stress value at a specific distance and it is not
required to compute numerical integration. The other methods
involve some computational efforts.
4. Structural integrity evaluation of corroded pipes using
SINTAP
In the present section, the structural integrity of corroded
pipes is addressed. The main goal is to determine the effect of
defect geometry in pipelines. The semi-spherical defects, semielliptical defects and long blunt notch are taken into account.

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

F(r)

seff

Unit weight function

F(r)Z1

Petersons weight function [8]

Qylafkus weight function [9]

FrZ drKXeff
FrZ 1Krcr

Kadis weight function [10]

FrZ ercr=2

seff Z X1eff

syy rdr

seff Z syy Xeff

Xeff
syy r1Krcrdr
seff Z X1eff
seff Z X1eff

FrZ 1Krjcrj

Modified Qylafkus weight function [11]

Xeff

seff Z X1eff

0
Xeff
0
Xeff

syy rercr=2 dr
syy r1Krjcrjdr

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

!0.05

0.032

Table 3
Mechanical properties of API X52
E (GPa)

203

0.30
KC

sY (MPa)

sU (MPa)

A%

K (MPa)

KC
MPa m0:5

410

528

32

0.164

876

116.6

E, n, sY, sU, A%, n, K and

are modulus of elasticity, Poissons ratio, yield stress, ultimate stress, relative elongation, hardening exponent, hardening coefficient
and fracture toughness, respectively.

426

H. Adib-Ramezani et al. / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 83 (2006) 420432

The failure pressure is extracted by means of the maximum

failure pressure according to the above-mentioned codes
(ASME B31G, modified ASME B31G, DNV RP-101 and
Chois method). To achieve this, API X52 is considered and
non-linear static finite element analysis is performed including
gravity effects. The obtained stress distributions yield the notch
stress intensity factor and stress parameters, which are needed
to assess structural integrity by the notch-adapted SINTAP
procedure [2].
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.
In Fig. 6, the true stressstrain curve of API X52 including
hardening effects is depicted.
As illustrated in Fig. 6b, the fracture toughness has been
extracted using a piece of pipe under three point bending
condition. The present test set-up yields the fracture toughness
or so-called notch fracture [12] toughness, which is applied to
the SINTAP procedure FAD diagram in the current study. It is
necessary to mention that the fracture toughness expression can
also be obtained using another proposed method [13].
Fig. 6. (a) Simple tension test results as true stressstrain curve for API X52
material, (b) experimental test set-up for extracting the fracture toughness.

Fig. 7. (a) Pipe geometry (all dimensions in millimetres), (b) central semi-spherical defect (tZ6.1 mm, dZt/2), (c) central semi-elliptical defect (tZ6.1 mm, dZt/2,
d/LZ0.1), (d) central long blunt notch (tZ6.1 mm, dZt/2, d/LZ0.1, rZ0.15 mm).

H. Adib-Ramezani et al. / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 83 (2006) 420432

4.2. FEM simulations

To find the structural integrity of corroded pipes under high
internal pressure, it is required to obtain the stress distribution
in the vicinity of corrosion defects. The semi-spherical defects,
semi-elliptical defects and long blunt notch are considered in
this study. The main objective is to determine and evaluate the
stress distribution pattern and its corresponding impact on
structural integrity of corroded pipes. To tease out the
boundary conditions side effects and gain pure induced stress
distribution due to the defects existence, it is assumed that the
aforementioned defects are mathematically positioned into an
infinite pipeline. This assumption can be physically fulfilled by
sufficient pipe length, which can be found via trial and error
procedure. In Fig. 7, the geometrical configuration of current
defects is presented. In the present paper, the defect depth for
all models is equal to one-half of pipe wall thickness and the

427

defect length over defect depth ratio is considered as 10 (L/dZ

10). Using the same defect depth and lengthdepth ratio allows
comparison of the geometrical features on the stress
distribution and stress gradient around the chosen defects.
To analyze the stress distribution, one-quarter symmetry
considerations including an eight-node solid element mesh
have been employed. In Fig. 8, the mesh densities around the
defects are shown. Firstly, the elastic stress concentration
factors for different defect shapes are accounted for. This
comparison provides a general point of view about the
geometrical effects excluding the mechanical properties of
X52, and corresponding plastic zones, which commonly appear
in the neighborhood of high concentration stress positions.
Moreover, it allows us to consider the elastic relative gradient
in the longitudinal defect direction.
In Fig. 9, the gross elastic stress concentration factor and
relative elastic stress gradient are represented for the semi-

Fig. 8. (a) A quarter semi-spherical model (defect depth is equal to half thickness), (b) mesh density around selected semi-spherical shape defect, (c) a quarter semielliptical model (defect depth is equal to half thickness), (d) mesh density around selected semi-elliptical shape defect, (e) a quarter long blunt notch model (defect
depth is equal to half thickness), (f) mesh density around selected long blunt notch shape defect.

H. Adib-Ramezani et al. / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 83 (2006) 420432

P1

0.7
P2

0.6

8
7

x
elastic relative stress
gradient jump position

6
5

P3

0.5

P4

0.4
0.3

elastic relative stress

gradient drop position

0.2
0.1

0.0

3
2

0.1

P3

P2
P1

0.2

P4

1
Longitudinal pipe direction

Longitudinal to radial direction

Radial direction

0
0

0.3

0.4
10

Distance (mm)

Elastic gross stress concentration factor, kt

P1

Stress concentration factor

Elastic relative gradient,

9
8

elastic relative stress

gradient jump position

0.7

P2

P3

P4

0.5
0.4
0.3

P3

0.2
0.1
0.0

elastic relative stress

gradient drop position

P2

P1

1
0

0.6

0.2

Longitudinal
direction

0.1

Radial
direction

Longitudinal to radial direction

10 12

P4 0.3

Elastic relative stress gradient, (mm1)

0.8

(b) 10

the longitudinal direction and radial direction paths have high

stress jumps in maximum principal stress or crack opening
stress magnitude and these outstanding positions play an
essential role in structural integrity of corroded or gouged
pipelines, i.e. the micro-cracks appear at these hot points and
the stress magnitude and gradient sustains and drives the
above-mentioned micro-cracks to the naked eye cracks or
visible crack. Particularly, the outlined phenomenon is delayed
due to the material ductility of X52. The elasticplastic stress
factor would be considered as suitable scale. In Fig. 10, semielliptical and blunt notch defects are taken into account based
on high stress concentration and plastic zone induction for
70 bar as internal gage pressure and the same aspect ratio 0.1.
The elasticplastic stress factor has been defined as maximum
principal elasticplastic stress over nominal hoop stress.
It is straightforward to account for the highlighted regions to
extract the notch stress intensity factor. The computed notch
stress intensity factors at longitudinal and radial direction of all
the defects have been taken into account (semi-spherical, semielliptical and blunt notch). It is required to clarify that the
elasticplastic stress analysis was not achieved according to the
lack of a plastic zone presence at applied loading for semispherical defects:

14 16 18

P1

ElasticPlastic stress factor, k

0.4
20 22 24

ElasticPlastic relative gradient,

Distance (mm)

0.3
P2

EP relative stress gradient

jump position

0.2
P3

0.7
0.6

elastic relative stress

gradient jump position

0.5

0.4
P1 P 2

6
P2

y
x

P4
P5

elastic relative stress

gradient drop position

2 P1
1

P3

P3

0.3

Longitudinal to radial direction

0
2

0.1
0.0
0.1
P5 0.2

Longitudinal
direction

0.2

10 12 14 16 18 20
Distance (mm)

0.3

4
3

spherical shape, semi-elliptical shape and blunt notch with the

same aspect ratio and defect depth. The gross elastic stress
concentration has been defined as maximum principal stress
over nominal hoop stress throughout the present study.
The stress distribution at the edge of the critical damage
plane reveals that the stress substantially increases in the blunt
notch case. The relative stress gradient drop and jump points
are at sharp corners as shown in Fig. 9. As illustrated in Fig. 9,

0.1
0.2

P3
P2

0.3

P1

0.4
Longitudinal
direction

Radial
direction

Longitudinal to radial direction

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

P4 0.5

0.6
24

Distance (mm)
0.3

6
EP relative stress gradient
jump position

0.4
22 24

Fig. 9. Stress concentration factor and elastic relative stress gradient variation
at edge of critical damage plane for 70 bar as internal pressure including semispherical defect, semi-elliptical defect and blunt notch with aspect ratio d/LZ
0.1: (a) semi-spherical shape, (b) semi-elliptical shape, (c) blunt notch shape.

0.0

EP relative stress gradient

drop position

5
P2

EP stress factor, k

0.1

P4

P4

0.2

P3

0.1
0.0

4
EP relative stress gradient
drop position

0.1

P 1 P2

0.2

P3

P1

P4
P5

y
x

Longitudinal
direction

Radial direction

P4

Elastic relative stressgradient, (mm1)

Stress concentration factor

Elastic relative gradient,

Radial direction

Elastic gross stress concentration factor,kt

(c)

0.8

EP stress factor, k

10

EP relative stress gradient, (mm1)

0.8
Stress concentration factor
Elastic relative gradient,

Elastic relative stress gradient, (mm1)

Elastic gross stress concentration factor,kt

(a) 10

Longitudinal to radial direction

0.3
P5

0.5

ElasticPlastic stress factor, k

ElasticPlastic relative gradient,

0
0

10

12

14 16

0.4

18

20

22

EP relative stress gradient, (mm1)

428

0.6
24

Distance (mm)

Fig. 10. Elasticplastic stress factor and relative stress gradient evolution
including critical zones: (a) semi-elliptical defect, (b) blunt notch defect.

H. Adib-Ramezani et al. / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 83 (2006) 420432

4.3. Notch stress intensity factor calculation and SINTAP

implementation
The notch stress intensity factors are computed using the
maximum principal stress versus ligament in the bi-logarithmic
diagram (Fig. 11).
In Fig. 11, the stress distribution along the radial and
longitudinal directions is taken into account. These positions
sustain the stress propagation in the radial and longitudinal
direction of the considered pipe defects. Based on the notch
stress intensity method for highly plastic zones (Fig. 11c and

150

Stress distribution in longitudinal direction (P2-P1)

P2

P3

250
200

(b) 300
P1

Maximum principal stress (MPa)

Stress distribution in radial direction (P3-P4)

eff

P3
P4

Xeff = 0.42561 mm
eff = 202.765 MPa

P4

100

Xeff

1E-3

0.01

0.1
Distance (mm)

200

P3

0.1

eff

0.2

Xeff = 0.6736 mm
eff = 450.343 MPa

0.3

P2

0.4

P3

0.5

P4
Stress distribution in radial direction (P3-P4)
Relative stress gradient
Xeff

100
0.01

0.1

Xn

P2

P2

eff

P4

P1

100

Xeff

0.01

0.1
Distance (mm)

P1

400

Xeff = 0.37973 mm
eff = 539.656 MPa

0.05

300

0.10
P 1 P2

100
0.01

0.15
P5

Stress distribution in radial direction (P4-P5)

Relative stress gradient
Xeff
Xn

0.1

1
Distance (mm)

0.20
0.25
0.30
10

Maximum principal stress (MPa)

0.00

P4
P5

P2

P2

300

eff

P3
P4

eff = 0.5333 mm

200

eff = 252.160 MPa

P1

Xeff

0.1

(f) 600
Relative stress gradient (mm1)

Maximum principal stress (MPa)

0.05

10

Stress distribution inlongitudinal direction (P2-P1)

500

100
0.01

0.10

700 P4
600
eff
500

P3

Xn

Xn

10

Distance (mm)

(e) 800

200

P4

eff = 184.468 MPa

1E-3

0.6
10

P3

eff = 0.72781 mm

150

Distance (mm)

400

P1

(d) 600
Relative stress gradient (mm1)

Maximum principal stress (MPa)

0.0

P1

200

10

500

300

250

Xn

(c) 600

400

e), the elasticplastic relative stress gradient is applied to

specify the effective stress. In Table 4, notch stress intensity
factors are summarized.
The obtained notch stress intensity factors and applied
internal pressure are utilized to define the required assessment
points, which are used in the failure assessment prediction of
the SINTAP procedure.
In Fig. 12, the SINTAP diagram including the assessment
points, security and failure margins are shown. The notch stress
intensity factor is defined by Kr and the non-dimensional
parameter kr is denoted by Kr over KC
:

Maximum principal stress (MPa)

Maximum principal stress (MPa)

(a) 300

429

500

P2

Stress distributioninlongitudinal direction (P2-P1)

400
300

eff
eff = 0.6383 mm
eff = 463.311 MPa

200

P1
P1 P2
P3
x

P4
P5

100

0.01

Xeff

0.1

Xn

10

Distance (mm)

Fig. 11. Stress distribution in the bi-logarithmic diagram: (a) semi-spherical in radial direction, (b) semi-spherical in longitudinal direction, (c) semi-elliptical in
radial direction, (d) semi-elliptical in longitudinal direction, (e) blunt notch in radial direction, (f) blunt notch in longitudinal direction.

430

H. Adib-Ramezani et al. / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 83 (2006) 420432

Table 4
Effective stress, effective distance and notch intensity factors along radial and longitudinal direction using 70 bar as applied internal gage pressure
Defect type

Semi-spherical
Semi-elliptical
Blunt notch

kr Z

Radial direction

Longitudinal direction
0.5

Effective distance
(mm)

Effective stress
(MPa)

Kr (MPa m )

Effective distance
(mm)

Effective stress
(MPa)

Kr (MPa m0.5)

0.426
0.674
0.380

202.765
343.450
539.656

10.485
22.344
26.369

0.728
0.533
0.638

184.468
252.16
311.463

12.474
14.597
19.725

Kr
KC

(16)

Lr Z

The loading parameter in the SINTAP failure assessment

diagram is calculated using the ratio of applied circumferential

kr

(a) 1.3
SINTAP failure margin level 0B
1.2
SINTAP failure margin level 1B
SINTAP failure marginlevel 1B
1.1
SINTAP security margin level 0B
SINTAP security margin level 1B
1.0
FAILURE
0.9
E Fs=OE/OA
0.8
SINTAP failure margin level 0B
D
Fs=OD/OA
0.7 SINTAP Level 1B security margin
0.6
SINTAP Level 0B security margin
0.5
C FS =OC/OA
0.4
assessment points B
FS=OB/OA
0.3
A
0.2
cut-off
cut-off
0.1
SECURITY ZONE
SAFETY ZONE
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
Lr

(b) 0.55
0.50
0.45
0.40
0.35

kr

0.30

stress to the flow stress as follows

SINTAP Level 1B security margin

SAFETY ZONE

SINTAP Level 0B security margin

FS=OC/OA
C

Semi-spherical defect-radial direction

Semi-spherical defect-longitudinal direction
Semi-elliptical defect-radial direction
Semi-elliptical defect-longitudinal direction
Blunt notch-radial direction
Blunt notch-longitudinal direction

0.25

FS=OB/OA

0.20
0.15

cut-off

0.10
assessment points

0.05

SECURITY ZONE

0.00
O 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55 0.60
Lr

Fig. 12. SINTAP diagram including Levels 0B and 1B for all selected defect
shapes (a) failure, safety and security zones (b) security and partially illustrated
safety zone.

sg
;
sf

where sg Z

Papp D
s C sU
and sf Z Y
2t
2

(17)

where sg, sf, Lr, Papp, D, t, sY and sU are applied

circumferential stress, flow stress, non-dimensional loading
parameter, applied internal gage pressure, outside diameter,
wall thickness, yield stress and ultimate stress, respectively.
According to Task 2.6 in SINTAP procedure [14], it does not
cover the considered geometries in the present paper. SINTAP
FAD formulation with no SINTAP Lr expressions, which
usually occurs in practice, is applied in the current study.
However, the extracted outcomes in Table 5, clearly
substantiate that this assumption is approximately good
enough.
The blunt notch safety factor in the radial direction (point A)
for SINTAP levels 0B and 1B can be written as below:
8
OD
>
>
; level 0B
>
>
< OA
(18)
Fs Z
OE
>
>
>
;
level
1B
>
: OA
The security factor can be described as
8
OB
>
>
; level 0B
>
>
< OA
FS Z
OC
>
>
>
; level 1B
>
: OA

(19)

where Fs and FS are safety factor and security factor using

SINTAP procedure, respectively. In Fig. 12, all assessment
points are located in the security zone and evidently the safety
zone.
The security zone can be conventionally defined using
certain safety factor (FsZ2). Thus, the security and safety
factors have been extracted via SINTAP security and safety
margins and assessment points. Moreover, the ASME B31G,
modified ASME B31G or so called mAMSE B31G, DNV RP-

Table 5
Calculated safety factors using mentioned coded and other methods
Type

SINTAP 0B

SINTAP 1B

ASME B31G

mASME B31G

DNV RP F-101

Choi et al.

Semi-spherical
Semi-elliptical
Blunt notch

4.095
3.407
3.186

4.106
3.750
3.583

3.521
3.432
N/A

4.056
3.936
N/A

4.263
4.263
N/A

3.339
2.812
N/A

H. Adib-Ramezani et al. / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 83 (2006) 420432
5
1
2
3
4
5
6

Safety factor, Fs

SINTAP level 0B
SINTAP level 1B
ASME B31G
mASME B31G
DNV RP F-101
Choi et al.

4 5

Semi-spherical

Semi-elliptical

Blunt notch

Defect type

Fig. 13. Safety factor of selected codified and methods for semi-spherical,
semi-elliptical and blunt notch defects.

F101 and Choi et al. are employed to obtain safety factors. The
safety factor is determined by means of the applied pressure
Papp over failure pressure Pf as
SF Z

Papp
Pf

(20)

where SF, Papp and Pf are safety factor, applied internal gage
pressure and failure pressure or burst pressure, respectively. In
Table 5, different safety factors according to the SINTAP
procedure and limit load analysis methods are computed using
implemented MATLAB code.
As expected earlier, the SINTAP 0B is more conservative
than SINTAP 1B. Nevertheless, ASME B31G, modified
ASME B31G, DNV RP F-101 and Chois method do not
offer any structural integrity formulae for blunt notch defects
and DNV RP F-101 does not exhibit any variation in safety
factor for the chosen semi-spherical and semi-elliptical defects.
The comparison of computed safety factors emphasizes that
DNV RP F-101 and Chois method provide the upper bound
and lower bound margins (Fig. 13).
5. Conclusion and discussion
The structural integrity of corroded pipelines subjected to
internal pressure is studied in this paper. The semi-spherical,
semi-elliptical and blunt notch defects are examined under this
loading and safety factors are evaluated by means of the
SINTAP procedure, which is modified using a notch-based
failure assessment diagram or so called NFAD. The ASME
B31G, mASME B31G, DNV RP F-101 and Chois method have
been also utilized. By taking advantage of the notch stress
intensity concept for elastic and elasticplastic stress distribution along critical ligaments, the notch-based failure
assessment diagram, NFAD sustains the structural integrity
evaluation. The mentioned NFAD accounts for not only the
loading points of view, e.g. limit load analysis, but also
the fracture aspect. This provides more flexibility to estimate
the wide range of defect geometries, i.e. it is feasible to assess
structural integrity of semi-spherical corrosion crater as well as

431

sharp blunt notch including all mechanical properties with the

same procedure. Using the SINTAP procedure and the
corresponding modified FAD concept facilitates the notch stress
intensity calculation in defect hot point positions. The current
facilities make it possible to evaluate and determine the notch
stress intensity factor at two sharp corners where cracks and
local damages are expected to occur. The critical edge should be
considered in structural integrity estimation, e.g. the semispherical defect represents a greater notch intensity factor in the
longitudinal direction rather than the radial direction (Table 4).
Consequently, the aforementioned SINTAP procedure with the
NFAD idea is entirely good enough to take into account the most
important critical points. Furthermore, the reliability aspects can
be readily employed into the NFAD and the security issues are
satisfied. Hence, the brief conclusions can be summarized as
below:
1. SINTAP procedure and NFAD concept using notch stress
intensity point of view provide safety factors, which are
located between lower and upper bound estimates by other
codified methods for chosen defects.
2. SINTAP estimations confirm low fracture influence on
structural integrity of gas pipelines under pure internal
pressure [1517].
3. NFAD enables to consider the hot spot regions and it is
obtained via an effective stress and effective distance in
elastic and elasticplastic states and consequently, it yields
the notch stress intensity factor, which is applied into the
NFAD.
4. SINTAP is not restricted to low stress concentrations and
provide high flexibility for predicting low stress concentration factors, e.g. semi-spherical shapes as well as high
concentration factors (blunt notch shapes).
5. Due to the finite element analysis, all type of loading, e.g.
traffic loading, soil movement, consolidation for buried
pipelines [18], bending effect via pipe self-weight for long
span pipe supports including or excluding external forces and
randomly applied forces and deformations throughout the
pipelines can be imposed in structural integrity assessment
evaluation.
6. Different SINTAP procedure levels can be applied to
implement the reliability [19] and security points of view
according to the available and the most well-known human
and environmental limitations.
7. Transverse corrosion defects, which would be considered for
low diameter pipelines, can also be assimilated via SINTAP.
8. It is possible that oblique defects, which lead to so-called
mixed mode notch fracture analysis and multi-corrosion
defects [20], are likewise treated using SINTAP and the
notch stress intensity concept.

Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Pr. Michel Lebienvenu for
project support and Dr Joseph Gilgert who provides some
experiments.

432

H. Adib-Ramezani et al. / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 83 (2006) 420432

References
[1] Choi JB, Goo BK, Kim JC, Kim YJ, Kim WS. Development of limit load
solutions for corroded gas pipelines. Int J Pressure Vessels Piping 2003;
80(2):1218.
[2] SINTAP: Structural integrity assessment procedure. Final report E-U
project BE95-1462. Brite Euram Programme Brussels; 1999.
[3] American National Standard Institute (ANSI)/American Society of
Mechanical Engineers (ASME). Manual for determining strength of
corroded pipelines, ASME B31G; 1984.
[4] Keifner JF, Vieth PH. A modified criterion for evaluating the remaining
strength of corroded pipe. Final report on project PR 3-805. Battle
Memorial Institute, Columbus; 1989.
[5] Veith PH, Keifner JF. Database of corroded pipe tests. Final report on
Contract No. PR 218-9206. Kiefner & Associates, Inc.; 1994.
[6] Pluvinage G. Fracture and fatigue emanating from stress concentrators.
Dordrecht: Kluwer; 2003.
[7] Adib H, Pluvinage G. Theoretical and numerical aspects of volumetric
approach for fatigue life prediction in notched components. Int J Fatigue
2003;25(1):6776.
[8] Peterson RE. In: Sines G, editor. Metal fatigue. New York: McGraw-Hill;
1959. p. 293306.
[9] 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.
[10] Kadi N. PhD thesis. University of Metz, Metz-France; 2001.

[11] Adib H, Pluvinage G, Bienvenu M. Role of stress gradient at notch roots

using volumetric method. ECF16, Alexandroupolis; 37 July, 2006.
[12] Pluvinage G. Fatigue and fracture emanating from notch; the use of the
notch stress intensity factor. Nucl Eng Des 1998;185:17384.
[13] Cicero S, Ainsworth RA. The treatment of constraint effects in integrity
evaluations. In: Proceedings of the 24th international conference on
offshore mechanics and arctic engineering, OMAE2005, Halkidiki,
Greece; June 2005.
[14] Al Laham S, Ainsworth RA. Stress intensity factor and limit load
handbook, issue 2, April 1998. British Energy Generation Ltd; 1998
[SINTAP/Task 2.6].
[15] Hopkins P, Corbin P. A study of external damage of pipelines. Seventh
american gas association symposium, Calgary, Alberta, Canada;
September 1988.
[16] Cosham A, Hopkins P. The pipeline defect assessment manual. In:
Proceeding of IPC 2002, international pipeline conference, 29
September3 November, Calgary, Alberta, Canada; 2002.
[17] Cosham A, Hopkins P. The effect of dents in pipelinesguidance in
pipeline defect assessment manual. Int J Pressure Vessels Piping 2004;81:
12739.
[18] Manferedi C, Otegui JL. Failures by SCC in buried pipelines. Eng Fail
Anal 2002;9:495509.
[19] Ahmmed M. Probabilistic estimation of remaining life of a pipeline in
presence of active corrosion defects. Int J Pressure Vessels Piping 1998;
75:3219.
[20] Chouchaoui BA, Pick RJ. Behavior of longitudinal aligned corrosion pits.
Int J Pressure Vessels Piping 1996;67:1735.