Advertisement

Journal of Failure Analysis and Prevention

, Volume 11, Issue 6, pp 666–671 | Cite as

Analysis on the Latest Assessment Criteria of ASME B31G-2009 for the Remaining Strength of Corroded Pipelines

  • Bin Ma
  • Jian Shuai
  • Junqiang Wang
  • Kejiang Han
Technical Article---Peer-Reviewed

Abstract

ASME B31G provides the most basic and widespread method in assessing the remaining strength of corroded pipelines. The third edition B31G (ASME B31G-2009) is the latest revision issued by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) and is used as the basis for this study. This article discusses the development process of ASME B31G, and presents the comparative analysis of ASME B31G, RSTRENG, and DNV RP-F101. The predicted failure pressures are calculated by each standard mentioned above, based on 35 groups of data for full-size pipe tests collected from the literature. The deviations between the predicted values and the actual experiment results are discussed. Finally, practical applications are compared among the assessment methods. The investigation showed that predictions based on ASME B31G-2009 are much more accurate than predictions based on the previous editions of B31G. The applications of ASME B31G-2009 and RSTRENG 0.85 dL effectively improve the pipe’s conveying efficiency and optimize the cost of managing the piping system. However, they both are applicable only for evaluating the medium- and low-strength pipe steels. In contrast, DNV RP-F101 is applicable to the medium- and high-strength pipe steels, but its results are often not safe for application to the lower-strength pipe steels.

Keywords

Remaining strength Evaluation criteria Corrosion Pipeline Defect 

References

  1. 1.
    ANSI/ASME B31G-1984: Manual for Determining the Remaining Strength of Corroded Pipelines. American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York (1984)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    ASME B31G-1991: Manual for Determining the Remaining Strength of Corroded Pipelines[S]. American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York (1991)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    ASME B31G-2009: Manual for Determining the Remaining Strength of Corroded Pipelines[S]. American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York (2009)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cronin, D.S., Pick, R.J.: Experimental database for corroded pipe: evaluation of RSTRENG and B31G. In: Proceedings of the International Pipeline Conference, pp. 757–768 (2000)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Wang, Y.Q., Wang, W.B.: Remaining strength assessment for corroded pipelines. Corros. Prot. 2(1), 28–31 (2008)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    DNV RP-F101-1999: Recommended Practice RP-F101 Corroded Pipelines. DNV (1999)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chen, J.M., Meng, H.M., Li, Y.Y.: Pipeline prescription analysis after corrosion and explosive test. Oil Gas Storage Transp. 17(3), 28–30 (1998)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cronin, D.S., Pick, R.J.: Experimental database for corroded pipe: evaluation of RSTRENG and B31G. In: Proceedings of the 3rd International Pipeline Conference, Calgary, Canada, vol. 2, pp. 757–768 (2000)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cronin, D., Roberts, K.A., Pick, R.J.: Assessment of long corrosion grooves n line pipe. In: Proceedings of 1st International Pipeline Conference. ASME, Calgary, Canada (1996)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kim, W.S., Kim, Y.P., Kho, Y.T.: Full scale burst test and finite element analysis on corroded gas pipeline. In: Proceedings of 4th International Pipeline Conference, Calgary, Canada, pp. 1501–1508 (2002)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© ASM International 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bin Ma
    • 1
  • Jian Shuai
    • 1
  • Junqiang Wang
    • 1
  • Kejiang Han
    • 1
  1. 1.China University of Petroleum (Beijing)BeijingChina

Personalised recommendations