This document was downloaded from the Penspen Integrity Virtual Library

For further information, contact Penspen Integrity:

Penspen Integrity
Units 7-8 Telephone: +44 (0)191 238 2200
St. Peter's Wharf Fax: +44 (0)191 275 9786
Newcastle upon Tyne Email: integrity.ncl@penspen.com
NE6 1TZ Website: www.penspenintegrity.com
United Kingdom
 WTIA/APIA WELDED PIPELINE SYMPOSIUM
Sydney, Australia.
3 April 2009

ASSESSMENT OF PIPELINE DEFECTS AND APPROPRIATE REPAIR

METHODOLOGIES

by Phil Hopkins1, Penspen, UK.

ABSTRACT

Oil and gas transmission pipelines have a good safety record. This is due to a combination
of good design, materials and operating practices. However, like any engineering structure,
pipelines do occasionally fail. The major causes of pipeline failures around the world are
external interference and corrosion; therefore, assessment methods are needed to determine
the severity of such defects when they are detected in pipelines.
Defects occurring during the fabrication of a pipeline are usually assessed against
recognised and proven quality control (workmanship) limits. These workmanship limits are
somewhat arbitrary, but they have been proven over time. However, a pipeline will invariably
contain larger defects at some stage during its life, and these will require an assessment to
determine whether or not to repair the pipeline. Consequently, the past 40 years has seen a
large number of full scale tests of defects in pipelines, and the development of a number of
methods for assessing the significance of defects. Some of these methods have been
incorporated into industry guidance, while others are to be found in the published literature.
This paper presents a summary of the ‘best practices’ in pipeline defect assessment for a
range of defects. Additionally, the paper presents the key elements of a pipeline repair
methodology, as some defects will inevitably need repair.

1
(p.hopkins@penspen.com)

Page 1 of 20
1. INTRODUCTION

Pipelines are a very safe method for transporting hydrocarbons, but like any engineering
structure they will contain defects and these defect may lead to failure.
Consequently, it is important that these defects are:
• understood;
• predicted;
• prevented or mitigated;
• detected;
• assessed;
• repaired (when necessary); and
• documented.
We are detecting more defects in pipelines, mainly due to the increased use of ‘smart pigs’
that can now reliably detect and size a wide range of defects in pipelines, Figure 1.
Additionally, most of our oil and gas pipelines around the world are ‘middle aged’ (over 40
years old) and inevitably will contain many defects. This combination of maturing pipeline
systems, and closer and more regular inspections mean that every pipeline operator needs
to be aware of the behaviour of defects, and how to assess and repair them.

Figure 1. Smart Pig2 (Left) and Corrosion in a Pipeline (Right).

This paper gives a summary of the accepted assessment methods of pipeline defects,
presents some general repair methodologies, and ends with a view of the future.

1.1 What is a ‘Defect’?

Pipelines can contain many differing types of defects such as corrosion, dents and gouges,
but first we need to be careful with ‘definitions’.

Modern standards (e.g. API 1163 [1]) now consider:

• an ‘anomaly’ is a deviation from sound pipe material or weld.
• a ‘defect’ is an anomaly for which an analysis indicates that the pipe is approaching
failure as the nominal hoop stress approaches the specified minimum yield strength

2
Smart pig image courtesy and copyright of Rosen.

Page 2 of 20
 of the pipe material. This means an anomaly with dimensions or characteristics that
exceed acceptable limits.
• an ‘imperfection’ is an anomaly in the pipe that will not result in pipe failure at
pressures below those that produce a nominal hoop stress equal to the specified
minimum yield strength of the pipe material. That means an anomaly with
characteristics that do not exceed acceptable limits.
These definitions are consistent with API 5L [2], that describes a defect as ’An imperfection
of a size and/or population density greater than the acceptance criteria specified in this
International Standard’. Defects considered acceptable to standards such as API 5L are
often called ‘workmanship’ defects.
Not all defects are a threat to the pipeline: this is why pipeline standards such as API 5L
allow certain anomalies to remain in the pipeline and can remain in the pipeline during
construction and operation. Furthermore, some defects may exceed these workmanship
standards, but are not a threat to the pipeline’s safety throughout its life. These defects
require some type of assessment to prevent unnecessary repairs. This means we will need
to calculate their failure stress, and if this calculated failure stress is above the pipeline’s
maximum operating stress throughout the pipeline’s life, then the defect will not fail the
pipeline.

1.2 What is a ‘Fitness-for-purpose’ Assessment?

We often describe an assessment of a defect in a pipeline as an ‘engineering critical
assessment’, or a ‘fitness-for-purpose assessment’. ‘Fitness-for-purpose’ used in a defect
assessment context means that a particular structure is considered to be adequate for its
purpose, provided the conditions to reach failure are not reached [3]. It is based on a detailed
technical assessment of the significance of the defect.
We need to be careful with this term as it has legal implications in different countries [4], and
local and national legislation/regulations may not permit certain types of defects to be
assessed by fitness-for-purpose methods or may mandate specific limits. Such issues should
always be considered prior to an assessment.
It is better to refer to a fitness-for-purpose assessment of a defect simply as an ‘assessment’.

1.3 How can we assess a Defect in a Pipeline?

The first thing we need to emphasise is that defect assessment is not a substitute for good
design, construction or operation – it is complementary. All engineering structures should be
designed, built and operated to a recognised standard.
A defect can be assessed using a variety of methods:
• previous relevant experience (including workmanship acceptance levels);
• model or full scale testing;
• generic defect assessment methods;
• pipeline-specific analytical methods; or
• full structural analysis.
This paper will focus on pipeline-specific methods, but will briefly outline both generic and
pipeline-specific methods below.

1.3.1 Generic
Various technical procedures are available for assessing the significance of defects in a
range of structures. These methods use a combination of fracture mechanics and limit state

Page 3 of 20
(plastic collapse) methods. Both BS 7910 [3] and API RP 579 [5] contain detailed
engineering critical assessment methods which can be applied to defects in pipelines
(although the latter document is biased towards defects in process plant).

1.3.2 Pipeline-specific
Documents such as the above are generic; they can be conservative when applied to
specific structures such as pipelines. Therefore, the pipeline industry has developed its own
defect assessment methods over the past 45 years (and, indeed, documents such as BS
7910 recommend that such methods be used, and API 579 incorporates several). These
pipeline-specific methods are usually based on experiments, sometimes with limited
theoretical validation; they are ‘semi-empirical’ methods. Consequently, the methods may
become invalid if they are applied outside their empirical limits.
Methods and guidelines developed by the pipeline industry range from the NG-18 equations
[6] (which formed the basis of methods such as ASME B31G [7] and RSTRENG [7]) and
the Ductile Flaw Growth Model (DFGM) (implemented as PAFFC (Pipe Axial Flaw Failure
Criteria)) [9,10] developed by the Battelle Memorial Institute in the USA on behalf of the
Pipeline Research Council International (PRCI), to the guidelines for the assessment of girth
weld defects [11], mechanical damage [12], and ductile fracture propagation [13] produced
by the European Pipeline Research Group (EPRG).

1.3.3 Pipeline-specific versus generic methods

The generic methods will usually produce conservative results when compared to pipeline-
specific methods. This can largely be attributed to issues of ‘constraint’ and ‘ductile tearing’.
Constraint is the restriction of plastic flow in the vicinity of the crack tip due to stress
triaxiality. Stress triaxiality is induced by load and geometry. The standard test methods
used to measure fracture toughness are designed to give conditions of high constraint at the
crack tip to ensure conservative results. Pipelines have low constraint because they are thin
walled (geometry) and are predominantly subject to membrane tensile loading (loading
mode). Conventional (single parameter) fracture mechanics does not consider the elevation
in fracture toughness due to a reduction in the level of constraint, and hence an inherent
margin of safety is included when applied to low constraint structures.
The semi-empirical pipeline-specific methods consider constraint implicitly because they
have been developed from full scale tests in which these effects manifest themselves
directly. Similarly, the increase in toughness with ductile crack growth (a rising resistance
curve) is also considered implicitly. The difference between pipeline-specific and generic
methods diminishes when sophisticated fracture mechanics (two-parameter fracture
mechanics, tearing analysis, etc.) and limit state methods are applied.

Page 4 of 20
2. ASSESSMENT METHODS

2.1 What Assessment Methods are Available and which are the ‘Best’?

The various assessment methods that can be used on pipeline defects have been reviewed,
and the best practices recommended [4,14,16] Table 1; consequently, they will not be
covered in this paper. Table 1 shows these preferred methods, with other useful methods in
italics, for defects orientated in the longitudinal direction and circumferential direction.

Defect

Longitudinally- Circumferentially-
orientated orientated

Circumferential
Longitudinal

DNV-RP-F101 [17]
Kastner local collapse
corrosion modified B31G [8],
solution [19]
RSTRENG [8]
NG-18 equations [6] Kastner local collapse
gouges PAFFC [9,10], BS 7910 [3] solution
or API 579 [5] BS 7910 or API 579
plain dents empirical limits [4]
kinked dents no method1
smooth dents on welds no method
smooth dents with other types of dent-gouge fracture model
no method
defect [12]
Kastner local collapse
manufacturing defects in the pipe NG-18 equations
solution
body2 BS 7910 or API 579
BS 7910 (or API 579)
workmanship, EPRG [13]
girth weld defects
BS 7910 or API 579
workmanship,
seam weld defects
BS 7910 or API 579
cracking BS 7910 (or API 579), PAFFC
environmental cracking3 BS 7910 (or API 579), PAFFC
NG-18 equations Schulze global collapse
leak and rupture
PAFFC solution [20]

Table 1. Recommended Methods for Assessing the Burst Strength of Defects Subject
to Static Internal Pressure [16].

Notes:
1. ‘No method’ indicates limitations in existing knowledge, and circumstances where the available
methods are too complex for inclusion in a document such as ‘PDAM’ [4].
2. The term ‘manufacturing defect’ covers a wide range of pipe body defect (laminations, inclusions,
seams, gouges, pits, rolled-in slugs, etc.). Consequently, it may not be possible to characterise a
manufacturing defect in the pipe body as a metal-loss or crack-like defect. In these circumstances
it is necessary to rely on workmanship limits and industry experience.

Page 5 of 20
3. Environmental cracking (stress corrosion cracking, hydrogen blisters, hydrogen stress cracking,
etc.) can be very difficult to measure and assess, and its growth rate unpredictable.

2.2 Limitations in Available Methods

Table 1 is limited to internal pressure loadings, but obviously pipelines are subjected to other
types of loadings. Available assessments methods are limited when differing types of
loadings are considered, Table 2.

Internal Internal External Axial Bending Combined

pressure pressure pressure force moment loading
(static) (cyclic)
defect-free pipe Yes1 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
corrosion Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes
gouges Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes
plain dents Yes Yes No No No No
kinked dents No No No No No No
smooth dents on
welds No Yes No No No No

smooth dents and

Yes Yes No No No No
gouges
smooth dents and
other types of Yes Yes No No No No
defect
manufacturing
defects in the pipe Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes
body
girth weld defects Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes
seam weld defects Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes
cracking Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes
environmental
Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes
cracking

Table 2. Summary of Availability of Defect Assessment Methods in the Literature by

Defect Type and Loading [15].

Notes:
1 ‘Yes’ means methods published (with limitations). ‘No’ indicates no method is published or
there are limitations in existing knowledge.
Additionally, the methods that are published have inherent limitations as they are usually
based on experimental data: Table 3 gives an example of the range of applicability of the
method used to assess combined dents and gouges. The limitations of the experimental data
should not be exceeded. Clearly, any user of the methods in Table 2 must be aware of these
limitations, and not apply the methods outside their range of applicability.

Page 6 of 20
 Pipe Diameter, mm 216.3 to 1066.8
Wall Thickness, mm 4.8 to 20.0
2R/t ratio 33.6 to 107.7
Grade (API 5L) X42 to X65
Yield strength, Nmm-2 279.2 to 543.3
Tensile strength, Nmm-2 475.0 to 701.2
yield to tensile ratio 0.61 to 0.87
2/3 Charpy Impact Energy, J 16.3 to 130.7
Dent Depth, mm 1.5 to 146.5
H/2R 0.42 to 18.0
Notch Depth (d), mm 0.18 to 6.1
d/t 0.014 to 0.51
Notch Length (2c), mm 50.8 to 810.0
2c/(Rt)0.5 0.84 to 8.98
Burst Pressure, Nmm-2 0.972 to 25.24
Burst Stress, Nmm-2 29.2 to 626.8
Burst Stress (% Specified Minimum Yield Strength) 7.05 to 151.5
Table 3. Range of Applicability of the Dent-Gouge Fracture Model [4].

Indeed Reference 5 emphasises that considering these limitations is a key step in defect
assessment:

Step 1. Flaw and damage mechanism identification (cause?);

Step 2. Applicability and limitations of assessment procedures (can I assess it?);
Step 3. Data requirements (have I the data?);
Step 4. Assessment techniques and acceptance criteria (what method will I use?);
Step 5. Remaining life evaluation (how long can the defect survive?);
Step 6. Remediation;
Step 7. In-service monitoring.

Page 7 of 20
3. DEFECT REPAIR METHODOLOGIES

On many occasions a defect assessment will allow a defect to remain in the pipeline without
repair. Inevitably, some defects will require a repair, and some defects may require pipeline
modification. There is guidance on pipeline repair [21, 22, 23], but any repair or modification
of a pipeline should be treated as an engineering project. Consideration must be given to:
• Location;
• Resources ;
• Feasibility;
• Safety;
• Schedule;
• Detailed design and analysis;
• Procurement;
• Construction/Installation;
• Working practices/procedures;
• Planning.
For example, for an onshore pipeline, not only must it be repaired properly, but the work
must be carried out safely and with the minimum of damage to the environment. Some of
the issues that may have to be considered are:
• Parts of the excavation may have to be done by hand (to prevent damage to the
pipeline). This will require more workmen and take longer than mechanised digging.
• The sides of the excavation may need to be piled to prevent collapse.
• Pumps may be needed to keep the excavation free of excess water.
• For major projects it may be necessary to create a sound working base within the
excavation.
• The time of year when work can be done may be restricted by environmental
considerations such as the nesting season of rare birds.
An offshore project is likely to be an even larger operation. It will require a ship, divers and/or
remotely operated vehicles (ROVs), and a habitat may be required. The environment
(weather conditions and currents) may affect the ability to work. For some circumstances,
large specially-designed machines will be required, the operation of which will need to be
proven.
Additionally, most repair methods were developed and proven on onshore pipelines, where
internal pressure is the major loading. Subsea pipelines can have high external tensile and
compressive loadings, and extra care is needed when assessing defects in these pipelines,
and choosing the subsequent repair.

3.1 Safety First

Safety is always our first consideration. Recognised, proven procedures, relevant standards,
and qualified personnel should be used.
Pressure reductions [24], excavation safety, trench safety, welding safety, pipe movement
safety, fire prevention, emergency procedures, etc., will be primary concerns.

Page 8 of 20
Pressure reductions alone may not be sufficient to demonstrate safety prior to working on a
pipeline. Some pipelines may have ‘locked-in’ stresses; for example, from ground movement
(onshore) or a buckle (offshore). These locked-in stresses need to be considered prior to
pressure reductions and work on the line.

3.2 Repair Philosophy

A good repair approach/philosophy is [25]:
• Replace ‘like-for-like’;
• Apply a ‘temporary’ (see later) repair, until replacement can be carried out;
• Apply a ‘permanent’ (see later) repair, only where replacement is not practical.

3.3 Some Words of Caution

Repairs can often require a quick response, and may require significant engineering.
Reference 26 gives some wise words on repairs:
• ‘Do no harm’: a bad repair can make matters worse, and repairs need careful
engineering, at least as much as a new construction, so it is best not to act in haste.
• A repair is often not a good time to try something new: there is less experience with a
new procedure, compared to tried and tested designs. ‘Surprises’ may occur with
uncertainty and incompletely planned engineering.
• Preparedness pays off: repairs may need additional pipe, so a prudent operator buys
more pipe than the project needs.

3.4 Structural or Containment?

We will repair defective pipe for differing reasons, but the two major reasons will be:
• Pressure containment: this is where we are ensuring that the product will not escape
from the pipeline. For example, we may have a leaking defect, and we place a ‘clamp’
over the leak to contain the product leakages.
• Structural repair: this is where we are restoring the structural strength of a pipeline.
For example, if we have a cracked girth weld, and the pipeline is subjected to high
axial stresses, we know that this cracked weld will have poor load bearing capacity in
the axial direction, and hence will need strengthening in this direction.
Some repair methods and equipment, such as a leak clamp, are for containment, and will not
normally be able to provide any structural support for the defective pipeline.
We need to fully assess the conditions (e.g. loadings and ongoing degradation) in which any
repair is being used, and if we are using a structural repair we will need to know all the loads
on the pipeline.

3.5 Temporary or Permanent?

Pipeline repairs are termed ‘permanent’ or ‘temporary’. What do ‘permanent’ and ‘temporary’
mean? First, for all pipe repairs, the operator needs to perform a structured risk assessment
that includes the consideration of all of the potential future damage or deterioration
mechanisms over the life-cycle of the repaired pipe system [27]. Second, operators need to
consider the life of the defect and repair; for example for a clamp repair:
• will internal metal loss of the pipe underneath the clamp continue?
• will degradation of the elastomeric seal material occur?

Page 9 of 20
These considerations will dictate the need for periodic inspection and/or testing to the repair
component, and determine if the repair can be a ‘fit and forget’.
This leads to a definition of ‘permanent’ as [27]… ‘a repair component that is intended to
remain in place for the remaining life of the piping system’. The repair component itself may
well be regarded as being a ‘permanent’ repair but may require periodic examination [27].
In the USA, ‘permanent’ means [28] a repair that is equivalent to replacing the damaged
pipe, or installing a ‘full-encirclement split sleeve’, Figure 2. This is because repair guidelines
in the USA Regulations (cut outs, or full encirclement sleeve repair) were traditionally based
on recommended industry practices from the 1960s. This was based on the 1968 edition of
ASME B31.8 Code, the 1966 edition of the ASME B31.4 Code, and the 1969 edition of the
National Association of Corrosion Engineers Standard RP–01–69. In 1999 the USA’s
Department of Transportation proposed a change, to allow operators to use repair methods
that met a ‘performance standard’. The proposed standard was that the method must be able
to ‘‘permanently restore the serviceability of the pipe”. This wording was used to describe the
result expected from replacing damaged pipe or installing a full-encirclement split sleeve over
the damage to pipe. Any repair needs to be as effective as these repairs.

Composite Wrap3. Hot Tap and Cut-out

Sleeve Fillet Sleeve
weld

Longitudinal Damage Pipe Damage Pipe

weld

Type A: Not welded to pipeline Type B: Fillet welded to pipeline

Welded Sleeve

Figure 2. Example of Repair Types.

In the USA, their Office of Pipeline Safety also puts a time limit on ‘permanent’ and specifies
the requirements for the repair [29]:

3
Image from: C Alexander, ‘Pipeline Integrity Remediation and Repair’, SES, SGA Presentation, USA.

Page 10 of 20
 • ‘As to the permanency of repair, we are not suggesting that the repair should last
indefinitely. It need last only as long as the pipe is expected to last under normal
operating and maintenance conditions.’...
• ‘… a qualified repair method must have undergone “reliable engineering tests and
analyses” to confirm that the method meets the performance standard….’.

3.6 Types of Repairs

The types of repair methods available for pipeline defects include:
• Grinding;
• Weld deposition repair;
• Full circumferential sleeves (both Types A an B);
• Patch/Part sleeve repairs
• Composite wraps (including ‘Clockspring’);
• Mechanical clamps;
• Cut-outs.
Full descriptions of these repair methods can be found elsewhere [21, 22, 23, 30, 31, 32].
Weld Sleeve: Sleeve: Composite 2 Hot tap
Repair1 2
Type A Type B
External Defect2 (=80%wt) Yes Y Y Y Y5
Internal Defect2 (=80%wt) No N Y N Y5
External Defect2 (>80%wt) Y1 N Y N Y5
Internal Defect2 (>80%wt) N N Y N Y5
Leaks N N Y N N
Cracks N N Y N N6
Girth Weld Defects N N Y N N
Dents N Y
4
Y N7 Y8

Dents with defects 3 N Y4,3 Y3 N Y8

Notes:
1. You always need a minimum wall to weld onto – check with expert. AP I 1160 limits application to
wt>0.181”, and this will generally limit method to <80% wt defect depths. ‘wt’ is wall thickness.
2. Industry practice in North America is to limit Type A sleeves and composite repairs to defects not
exceeding 80% wt.
3. Any damage in the dent must have been removed, e.g. by grinding. Care must be taken when
grinding onto live pipelines. Depressurisation may be necessary.
4. Sleeve must be filled with incompressible material.
5. But not on a weld.
6. Cracks that are not leaking can be hot tapped to remove crack.
7. Some composite repairs can be used on straight pipe with dents, if they are filled with
incompressible material, and proven by tests to be permanent.
8. If dent can be removed completely.

Table 4. Repair Guidelines from API 1160.

Page 11 of 20
3.7 Which Methods for which Defects?

Various standards give guidance on which methods to apply to which defects. API 1160 [31]
and ASME B31.8S [32] gives general guidance for liquid and gas pipelines respectively,
Table 4. Additionally, there is guidance on repairing specific types of damage, Table 5.
Defect Grinding Type A Type B Composite Clamp
sleeve sleeve sleeve
Dent (=6%D) containing a N Limited
1
Y Limited1 Y
seam/girth weld
Dent (=6%D) containing a Limited2 Limited
1,3
Y Limited1,3 Y
gouge/groove/crack
1 1
Dent (=6%D) containing N Limited Y Limited Y
external corrosion (>12.5%t)
1 1,3
Dent (>6%D) N Limited Y Limited Y
1
Buckle/ripple/wrinkle N Limited Y N Y
Notes:
1. Hardenable material is used to fill the defect.
2. All defects in dent must be removed, and remaining wall must be =87.5% wall thickness, t.
3. Gouge/groove/crack must be fully removed.
4. Other conditions apply – see ASME B31.4-2006. Replacement of all the above defects by cut-out
and replacement pipe is acceptable. D = pipe diameter.

Table 5. Guidance on the Repair of Dents in ASME B31.4-2006 [33].

It should be emphasised again that the above repair methods are primarily for onshore
pipelines. Some onshore repairs, and many offshore repairs require specialist methods and
significant planning. This is particularly true of offshore pipelines: these pipelines can be
damaged by anchors or fishing equipment that can cause extensive deformation (e.g.
bending) with the damage (e.g. denting and gouging) [34] which collectively is difficult to
model and assess.

3.8 Time to Complete Repairs

API 1160 (for liquid lines) and ASME B31.8 (for gas lines) and the USA Department of
Transportation Pipeline Regulations all give guidelines for ‘speed’ of repair. For example, API
1160 gives the following times to repair:
1. Defects that require ‘immediate repair’:
• Defect has predicted burst pressure > maximum allowable operating pressure
(MAOP);
• Metal loss >80% wall thickness (t);
• Dents on top of line (4-8 o’clock) containing any defect;
• Any other defect considered serious.
2. Defects that must be evaluated and repaired within 60 days of discovery:
• All dents on top of pipeline.
3. Defects that must be evaluated and repaired within 6 months:
• Defect has predicted safe operating pressure > MAOP;

Page 12 of 20
 • Dents with metal loss or dents with welds;
• Dents > 6% pipe diameter;
• Corrosion > 50% t, weld anomalies > 50% t;
• Metal loss > 50% t at pipeline crossings.
• Cracks
• Weld corrosion
• Gouges > 12.5% t

The above are only examples - the reader should perform their own assessments on speed
of repair and consult their local regulations and codes.

Page 13 of 20
4. LOOKING TO THE FUTURE

4.1 Competence

We have a number of pipeline defect assessment methods and repair types. As pipelines
age, and are increasingly inspected using smart pigs, there will be a similar increase in the
need for engineers to assess defects and repair some of them. This will require engineers,
with a certain level of competence. Pipeline engineering competence has been discussed in
the literature [37] and this applies to pipeline defect assessment: Table 6 gives an example
of the required competencies. An investment in training will be needed to meet these
requirements.
Assessment Level Reference Data Needed Expertise of
Documents Assessor
1. Workmanship Using general Defect Size and Type Competent
pipeline standards Engineer
(e.g. API 5L)
2. Quantitative Using prescriptive Defect Size and Type Competent
pipeline integrity Pipe Dimensions, Engineer
standards (e.g. Material and Pressure
API 1160)
3. Quantitative Using ‘best Defect Size and Type Engineer
practice’ Pipe Dimensions, Experienced in
publications in the Material and Pressure Defect Assessment
literature
4. Expert Not explicitly As above plus Detailed Expert in Defect
covered by ‘best Material Data, Samples Assessment
practice’ etc.
publications

Table 6. Competence Levels required for Defect Assessment.

4.2 Exceeding Technology Limits

The pipeline industry is changing; for example, we are moving to constructing onshore
pipelines from higher grade (strength) materials, and our quest for oil from deepwater
reservoirs is leading us to thicker wall pipe. These changes will also cause changes to our
defect assessment methods and our repair methods.

The industry has developed its defect assessment methods and repair methods using
relatively low grade, thin wall pipelines, and many of the methods are based on experiments.
These experiments do not cover higher grade line pipe, or thicker wall pipe, for example
Table 3, and this will mean that the methods are not proven on these ‘new’ pipeline
parameters, and we will move into ‘grey areas’, Figure 3. This is of concern; our methods
are limited, and in some cases dated, and as we change our pipeline materials and design
we will make these methods invalid.

Accordingly, there is an urgent need to invest in defect assessment methods [34], otherwise
we will be repairing many of the defects, rather than assessing them, and hopefully avoiding
a repair.

Page 14 of 20
 Ductility
Extend
Wall beyond
Stress
thickness empirical
limits

Strength Toughness

Diameter

Figure 3. Exceeding Technology Boundaries in Pipelines.

4.3 The Role of Standards

We need to recognise the role of standards and industry guidelines. Some operators may
well consider the available guidance on defects and repair in the current generation of
standards as sufficient, and consequently no need for further changes or investment.

Standards are essential but they are not a panacea – they will need to be changed and
updated as the industry changes, and this is particularly true of defect assessment and
repair. But what exactly are ‘standards’ and what do they satisfy?

4.3.1 Standards are ‘good practice’

It is interesting to note that when ASME B31.8 was produced in 1955 one of the key
contributors (F Hough) said:

“… a code is not a law… it is… written by engineers, operators and managers… as a result
of their experience and their knowledge of the engineering and scientific principles involved,
state what they agree is good practice from the standpoint of public safety… a code is merely
a statement of what is generally considered good practice…”.

In the UK ‘good practice’ refers to practices that have been acknowledged by the
government regulator (the Health and Safety Executive (HSE)) or local authorities as
representing standards of compliance with the law. It does not mean ‘custom and practice’
necessarily – that can be poor practice.

Page 15 of 20
4.3.2 Satisfying standards may not be enough…

Good practice satisfies a law/requirement [35] (e.g. ASME B31.8 will satisfy this
requirement), and satisfying ‘good practice’ can be viewed as meeting a minimum
requirement. Recognising standards as a minimum requirement may come as a surprise to
many operators – the law may well expect more.

Additionally, depending on the level of risk and complexity involved, it is possible the
adoption of good practice alone may not be sufficient to comply with the law [36]. In these
situations we need to adopt ‘best practice’, which is a practice that goes beyond good
practice.

Consequently, satisfying standards may not be sufficient for pipeline design and operation;
this is not surprising, as we cannot expect our standards to present all the solutions. We
need to invest in our standards, and be aware of when the limits of standards are exceeded.
When we exceed these limits, as we change our designs and materials, we need to produce
new or alternative guidelines. The questions are: ‘are we aware we are exceeding limits?’
and ‘are we investing in producing these guidelines?’. Clearly, research continues into
pipeline engineering: the large numbers of papers presented at the biennial International
Pipeline Conference in Calgary, Canada demonstrates this. But are we doing enough?

A few years ago, the author attended a seminar in Sydney, and the engineers at the seminar
were describing engineering standards as ‘laws of man’ – they were not ‘laws of nature’, and
pipelines always follow the latter, but not always the former….

This is an interesting philosophy, and does illustrate how standards should be viewed,
Figure 4: if we want to understand pipelines (Laws of Nature), we need to invest into a basic
understanding of the underlying science (Laws of Science), and then incorporate the findings
into our standards (Laws of Man). You cannot obtain this understanding in the reverse order.

Laws
of
Man

Laws of Science

Laws of Nature

Figure 4. Standards are ‘Laws of Man’.

Page 16 of 20
5. CONCLUSIONS

Our pipeline systems are now mature and receiving regular inspections. This is leading to
more and more defects being reported, and an increased need in pipeline operators to
understand defect behaviour, assessment and repair.
We now have many ‘best practices’ in assessing pipeline defects that can be applied to
today’s pipelines, and we have a selection of repair methods that can be applied to defects
that exceed acceptable levels. These assessment methods are primarily for internal pressure
loading only, and the repair methods are mainly for onshore pipelines; consequently, they
have limitations.
As we change our pipeline designs (e.g. to deepwater pipelines), or materials (e.g. to high
strength line pipe steels) we will need to extend and update our defect assessment and
repair methods. This will require investment.

Page 17 of 20
REFERENCES

1. Anon., ‘In-line Inspection Systems Qualification Standard’, API Standard 1163, First
Edition, August 2005.

2. Anon., ‘Specification for Line Pipe’, ANSI/API Specification 5L, Forty-Fourth Edition,
October 1, 2007.

3. Anon., “Guide on methods for assessing the acceptability of flaws in fusion welded
structures,” BS 7910: 1999, Incorporating Amendment No. 1, British Standards
Institution, London, UK, 1999.

4. Cosham, A, Hopkins, P, ‘The Pipeline Defect Assessment Manual’, Proceedings of

IPC 2002: International Pipeline Conference. 29 September - 3 October, 2002;
Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Paper IPC02-27067.

5. Anon., ‘Fitness-For-Service’, API 579-1 / ASME FFS-1, Second Edition, American

Petroleum Institute. 2007.

6. Kiefner, J. F., Maxey, W. A., Eiber, R. J., and Duffy, A. R., “The Failure Stress Levels
of Flaws in Pressurised Cylinders,” ASTM STP 536, American Society for Testing and
Materials, Philadelphia, pp. 461-481. 1973.

7. Anon., “Manual for Determining the Remaining Strength of Corroded Pipelines,” A

Supplement to ASME B31 Code for Pressure Piping, ASME B31G-1991 (Revision of
ANSI/ASME B31G-1984), The American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York,
USA, 1991.

8. Kiefner, J F, Vieth, P H, “A Modified Criterion for Evaluating the Strength of Corroded

Pipe,” Final Report for Project PR 3-805 to the Pipeline Supervisory Committee of the
American Gas Association, Battelle, 1989.

9. Leis, B N, Brust, F W, and Scott, P M, “Development and Validation of a Ductile Flaw

Growth Analysis for Gas Transmission Line Pipe,” Final Report to A.G.A. NG-18,
Catalog No. L51543. 1991

10. Leis, B N, Ghadiali, N D, “Pipe Axial Flaw Failure Criteria - PAFFC,” Version 1.0
Users Manual and Software, Topical Report to A.G.A. NG-18, Catalog No. L51720.
1994.

11. Knauf, G, Hopkins, P, “The EPRG Guidelines on the Assessment of Defects in

Transmission Pipeline Girth Welds,” 3R International, 35, Jahrgang, Heft, pp. 620-
624. 1996

12. Roovers, P, Bood, R, Galli, M, Marewski, U, Steiner, M, and Zaréa, M, “EPRG

Methods for Assessing the Tolerance and Resistance of Pipelines to External
Damage,” Pipeline Technology, Volume II, Proceedings of the Third International
Pipeline Technology Conference, Brugge, Belgium, R. Denys, Ed., Elsevier Science,
pp. 405-425. 2000.

13. Re. G, Pistone, V, Vogt, G., Demofonti, G, and Jones, D G, “EPRG Recommendation
for Crack Arrest Toughness for High Strength Line Pipe Steels,” Paper 2,

Page 18 of 20
 Proceedings of the 8th Symposium on Line Pipe Research, American Gas
Association, Houston, Texas, pp. 2-1-2-13. 1993.

14. Cosham, A, Hopkins, P, ‘The Effect of Dents in Pipelines – Guidance in the Pipeline
Defect Assessment Manual’, International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping.
Proceedings ICPVT-10. July 7-10, 2003, Vienna, Austria.

15. Cosham, A, Hopkins, P, ‘The Assessment of Corrosion in Pipelines – Guidance in the

Pipeline Defect Assessment Manual (PDAM)’, Pipeline Pigging and Integrity
Management Conference. 17-18th May 2004 – Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

16. Cosham, A, Hopkins, P, ‘An Overview of the Pipeline Defect Assessment Manual
(PDAM)’, 4th International Pipeline Technology Conference. 9-13 May 2004,
Oostende, Belgium.

17. Anon., ’Corroded Pipelines’, DNV-RP-F101, , Det Norske Veritas, 1999.

18. Kiefner, J. F., Vieth, P H; ‘A Modified Criterion for Evaluating the Strength of
Corroded Pipe’, Final Report for Project PR 3-805 to the Pipeline Supervisory
Committee of the American Gas Association, Battelle, Ohio, 1989.

19. Kastner W, et al, ‘Critical Crack Sizes In Ductile Piping’, International Journal of
Pressure Vessels and Piping, Vol. 9, 1981, pp 197-219.

20. Schulze, H.D., et al., ‘Fracture Mechanics Analysis on the Initiation and Propagation
of Circumferential and Longitudinal Defects in Straight Pipes and Pipe Bends’,
Nuclear Engineering And Design, Vol. 58, 1980, pp 19-31.

21. Kiefner, J F, Bruce, W A, Stephens, D R, “Pipeline Repair Manual”, American Gas

Association Line Pipe Research Supervisory Committee Pipeline Research
Committee, Catalogue No. L51716, December 1994.

22. Jaske, C, Hart, B, Bruce, W, ‘PRCI Pipeline Repair Manual’, PRCI Report PR-186-
0324. 2006

23. Anon., ’Repair of Pressure Equipment and Piping’, ASME PCC-2-2006. January,
2007.

24. Cosham, A, Hopkins, P, ‘A Review of the time Dependent Behaviour of Line Pipe
Steel’, Proceedings of IPC 2004: International Pipeline Conference. October 4-8,
2004; Calgary, Alberta, Canada. IPC04-0084.

25. HSE Safety Alert on ‘Leak Sealing Repair Clamps’. 28 February, 2007.

26. Palmer, A C, King, R, ‘Subsea Pipeline Engineering’, Penwell. 2004.

27. Anon., ‘Temporary/permanent pipe repair – Guidelines’. UK Health and Safety

Executive, Offshore Technology Report 2001/038. 2001. Her Majesty’s Stationery
Office. UK. ISBN 0 7176 2069 7.

28. Anon., Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 66 / Wednesday, April 7, 1999 / Proposed
Rules. page 16883.

29. Anon., US DOT: Docket No. RSPA-98-4733; Notice 1.

Page 19 of 20
30. Bruce, W, ‘Repair Methods and In-Service Welding’, Training Course Notes, Clarion
Press, USA and WTIA, Australia.

31. Anon., Managing System Integrity for Hazardous Liquid Lines, 1st Ed., ANSI/ASME
Standard 1160-2001, American Society of Mechanical Engineers. ASME
International, New York, USA. November 2001.

32. Anon., Managing System Integrity of Gas Pipelines, ASME B31.8S 2001. Supplement
to ASME B31.8, American Society of Mechanical Engineers. ASME International,
New York, USA. 2002.

33. Anon., ‘Pipeline Transportation Systems for Liquid Hydrocarbons and Other Liquids’,
ASME B31.4-2006, American Society of Mechanical Engineers. ASME International,
New York, USA. 2006.

34. Hopkins, P, ‘Learning from Pipeline Failures’, WTIA/APIA Welded Pipeline

Symposium, Perth, Australia, March 2008.

35. Anon., UK’s HSE publications, e.g. http://www.hse.gov.uk/risk/theory/alarp2.htm.

36. http://www.hse.gov.uk/pipelines/co2conveying.htm.

37. Hopkins. P. ‘The Skills Crisis in the Pipeline Sector of the Oil and Gas Business’,
Journal of Pipeline Engineering, 2008.

Page 20 of 20