Engineering Procedure

SAEP-306 25 January 2018

Assessment of Pipeline Defects
Document Responsibility: Piping Standards Committee

Contents
1 Scope ................................................................ 2
2 Conflicts and Deviations ................................... 2
3 Applicable Documents ...................................... 2
4 Definitions ......................................................... 3
5 General ............................................................. 3
6 Data Required for Metal Loss Defects .............. 5
7 Pipeline Corrosion Defect Assessment ............. 6
8 Mechanical Damage in Pipeline ........................ 9
Revision Summary................................................. 11

Appendix A – Chart-1: Corroded Pipelines

Defects Assessment Flowchart ....... 12
Appendix B – Schematic Illustrations for Defects
Measurements and Grouping ......... 13

Previous Issue: 17 Julay 2017 Next Planned Update: 25 January 2021

Revised paragraphs are indicated in the right margin Page 1 of 15
Contact: Muslim, Husain M. (musallhm) on phone +966-13-8804667
©Saudi Aramco 2018. All rights reserved.
Document Responsibility: Piping Standards Committee SAEP-306
Issue Date: 25 January 2018
Next Planned Update: 25 January 2021 Assessment of Pipeline Defects

1 Scope

This Saudi Aramco Engineering Procedure (SAEP) provides guidelines for assessment
of defects in pipelines that have been designed to a recognized pipeline design code,
including but not limited to ASME B31.4 and ASME B31.8.

2 Conflicts and Deviations

Any conflicts between this document and other applicable Mandatory Saudi Aramco
Engineering Requirements (MSAERs) shall be addressed to the EK&RD Coordinator.

Any deviation from the requirements herein shall follow internal company procedure
SAEP-302.

3 Applicable Documents

3.1 Saudi Aramco References

Saudi Aramco Engineering Procedures

SAEP-20 Equipment Inspection Schedule
SAEP-302 Instructions for Obtaining a Waiver of a Mandatory
Saudi Aramco Engineering Requirement
SAEP-310 Piping and Pipeline Repair

Saudi Aramco Engineering Standards

SAES-L-150 Pressure Testing of Plant Piping and Pipelines
SAES-L-310 Design of Plant Piping
SAES-L-410 Design of Pipelines

3.2 Industry Codes and Standards

American Society of Mechanical Engineers

ASME B31.4 Pipeline Transportation Systems for Liquid
Hydrocarbons and Other Liquids
ASME B31.8 Gas Transmission and Distribution Piping Systems

American Petroleum Institute

API RP 570 Piping Inspection Code
API RP 579 Fitness for Services

British Standard

Page 2 of 15
Document Responsibility: Piping Standards Committee SAEP-306
Issue Date: 25 January 2018
Next Planned Update: 25 January 2021 Assessment of Pipeline Defects

BS 7910 Guide to Methods for Assessing the Acceptability of

Flaws in Metallic Structures

Pipeline Research Council International

L52047 Updated Pipeline Repair Manual, Revision 6

The PDAM Joint Industry Project

The Pipeline Defect Assessment Manual (PDAM)

4 Definitions

ERF: Estimated Repair Factor can be established by dividing the maximum allowable
operation pressure (MAOP) or design pressure by the predicted failure pressure Pf.

ILI: In-Line Inspection of Pipeline

LPC: Line Pipe Corrosion equation

PRCI: Pipeline Research Council International, Inc.

Plain Dent: Dent with no other type of defects

5 General

5.1 This procedure should be used by experienced engineers or trained inspectors or

who have demonstrated capabilities in understanding and applying this procedure.
Also, they should be familiar with SAEP-20, SAEP-310 and SAES-L-410.
Commentary:

Attending and successfully completing fitness for service courses is highly

recommended.

5.2 Metal Loss Defects

For the local metal loss in the Pipeline, this procedure mandates the use of two
assessment levels which are Level-1 and Level-2 as detailed in Section 8.
Chart-1 of Appendix-A provides schematic diagram of the two levels.

5.2.1 A level-1 assessment only considers the maximum defect dimensions,

i.e., the maximum depth(s), maximum length(s) and separating
distance(s) of an isolated defect, and uses one of the simple failure
equations. The level-1 assessment method is used for assessing multiple
or large number of corrosion metal-loss defect so that severe or critical
defects can be identified.

Page 3 of 15
Document Responsibility: Piping Standards Committee SAEP-306
Issue Date: 25 January 2018
Next Planned Update: 25 January 2021 Assessment of Pipeline Defects

A level-1 assessment evaluation may be used for prioritizing metal-loss

defects identified by ILI.

5.2.2 A level-2 assessment considers not only the maximum defect dimensions
but also the shape of the metal-loss area(s) of the defect. The level-2
assessment method is more complex and less conservative than a level-1
assessment method, and requires more information about the defect shape,
support of computer software and knowledge of specialists. It gives
results with higher accuracy when compared with a level-1 assessment.

A level-2 assessment evaluation may be used in prioritizing metal-loss

defects identified by high resolution ILI.

5.2.3 For defects, which fail to pass the level-1 assessment, a level-2
assessment shall then be considered if the defect shape is considerably
variable and detailed measurements are available.

5.2.4 The finite elements (FE) can be used for assessing corrosion defects
which fail to pass level-2

5.2.5 Limitations
a. This is applicable for internal corrosion defects or external
corrosion defects in the base material of a straight pipe section and
pipe bends.
b. The assessment methods can be empirically applied to corrosion
metal-loss defects across or immediately close to pipe welds
(longitudinal seam welds, spiral seam welds and girth welds).
This is subject to the following conditions:
 There are no significant weld defects present that may interact
with the corrosion defects.
 The weld material is not under-matched.
 Fracture is not likely to occur.

5.3 Plain Dent Defects

5.3.1 Plain dent assessment shall be according to ASME B31.4 or

ASME B31.8. Strain assessment for plain defect shall be according to
Section 8.
Commentary Note:

If the pipeline is experiencing cyclic pressure, the assessment of dents

shall consider fatigue due to cyclic stress. Cyclic pressure is not common
in Saudi Aramco pipeline network, and its severity has to be assessed by

Page 4 of 15
Document Responsibility: Piping Standards Committee SAEP-306
Issue Date: 25 January 2018
Next Planned Update: 25 January 2021 Assessment of Pipeline Defects

proven industry method and based on extended pressure trends. The two
common methods for cyclic counting is reservoir cycle counting method
and the rain-flow cycle counting method, both recommended in BS 7910.

5.3.2 The finite elements (FE) can be used for assessing mechanical damage.

5.3.3 Limitations
5.3.3.1 A dent containing a stress concentrator, such as a scratch,
groove, or arc burn damage is not within the strain assessment
of section 8.
5.3.3.2 The plain dent assessment shall be used only for straight pipe.
It is not applicable for pipe fittings or bends.

5.4 Other Defects

Other defects such as crack or crack-like flaws, blisters, dents with gouges,
selective seam corrosion, etc. may be assessed by industry proven methods such
as API RP 579, BS 7910, PRCI Pipeline Repair Manual, or Pipeline Defect
Assessment Manual (PDAM).

Use of other equivalent proven industry not listed above shall be reviewed by
the Chairman of Piping Standards Committee.

6 Data Required for Metal Loss Defects

6.1 Local Metal Loss

The assessment of the corrosion metal-loss defects requires the following

information:
a. The outside diameter of the pipe.
b. The specified minimum yield strength (SMYS).
c. The specified minimum tensile strength (SMTS).
d. The nominal wall thickness of the pipe.
e. Longitudinal and circumferential spacing between defects.
f. The weld joint efficiency (E).
d. Corrosion Allowance (CA).

6.2 Defect Shape

a. For level-1 assessment, the data of corrosion metal-loss defect shall be
presented by rectangular boxes that envelop the maximum surface

Page 5 of 15
Document Responsibility: Piping Standards Committee SAEP-306
Issue Date: 25 January 2018
Next Planned Update: 25 January 2021 Assessment of Pipeline Defects

dimensions and maximum through-wall-thickness dimension of the metal-

loss area, as shown in Figure-3 and Figure-4 in Appendix-B.
b. For level-2 assessment, a corrosion metal-loss area shall be presented by a
projected profile as shown in Figure-6 in Appendix-B. The profile represents
a longitudinal cross section through the corroded area. The profile spacing
can be taken as a regular or irregular spacing according to the software used.

6.3 Defect Grouping

a. A single metal-loss defect is a metal-loss area that is longitudinally or
circumferentially separated from other metal-loss areas by at least 3 times
the nominal wall thickness.
b. A number of metal-loss areas, which are longitudinally or circumferentially
separated by less than 3 times the nominal wall thickness shall be
considered as a single defect as illustrated in Figure-5 in Appendix-B.
c. A single defect does not interact with any other metal-loss defects.

7 Pipeline Corrosion Defect Assessment

7.1 Local Metal Loss Assessment

7.1.1 Level-1 Defect Assessment for the Pipeline:

a. For level-1, the Line Pipe Corrosion failure equation method (LPC)
shall be used.
b. LPC failure equation is defined by:
Pf  Po Rs (1)

2
Po  (2)
D 
  1
t 

  SMTS (3)

d 
1  
Rs  t (4)
d  1
1  
t  L 
2

1  0.31 
 Dt 

Page 6 of 15
Document Responsibility: Piping Standards Committee SAEP-306
Issue Date: 25 January 2018
Next Planned Update: 25 January 2021 Assessment of Pipeline Defects

d 
for    0.80 ; all lengths
t
Where:
Pf Predicted failure pressure for corroded pipe, lb/in²
SMTS Specified minimum tensile strength, lb/in²
D Nominal outside diameter, in
t Nominal wall thickness, in
d Maximum depth of a corrosion metal-loss area, in
L Maximum axial length of corrosion metal-loss area, in

7.1.2 Level-2 Defect Assessment for the Pipeline

a. The RSTRENG effective-area method shall be used for level-2
assessment.
b. The RSTRENG effective-area method is defined by a procedure of
progressive failure predictions based on the RSTRENG equation but
assuming that the equivalent depths of the incremental “defects” are
determined by the areas of the sub-sections.
c. The procedure, as schematically illustrated by Figure-4, can be
described by the following steps:
1) For a projected defect profile with the area of the profile,
A, its axial length, L, and the maximum depth, d, divide the
overall defect length, L, by n incremental sub-sections,
Li (i=1,2,3,…n and Li contains Li-1), then obtain areas of the
sub-sections, Ai (i=1,2,3,…n and Ai contains Ai-1);
2) Calculate a predicted failure pressure using the following
formulae:
Pf  min Pf 1 , Pf 2 ,..., Pfj ,..., Pfn  ( i = 1, 2, 3, …, n ) (5)

 d  
 1  i  
2   t   d 
Pi f  For    0.80 (6)
 D    d i  1  t
  1     
 t    t  M i  

  SMYS  10000 (lb/in2) (7)

Page 7 of 15
Document Responsibility: Piping Standards Committee SAEP-306
Issue Date: 25 January 2018
Next Planned Update: 25 January 2021 Assessment of Pipeline Defects

A
d 
i
i
(8)
Li

2 4
 L   L  Li
M i  1  0.6275 i   0.003375 i  for  7.071 (9)
 Dt   Dt  Dt

2
 L  Li
M i  3.3  0.032 i  for  7.071 (10)
 Dt  Dt

Where:
Pf Predicted failure pressure for corroded pipe, lb/in²
SMYS Specified minimum yield strength, lb/in²
D Nominal outside diameter, in
t Nominal wall thickness, in
d Maximum depth of a corrosion metal-loss area, in
L Maximum axial length of corrosion metal-loss area, in

7.2 Repair of Metal Loss Corrosion Defect

7.2.1 Estimated Repair Factor for pipelines (ERF)

The estimated repair factor for a corrosion defect can be established by

dividing the maximum allowable operating pressure (MAOP) or design
pressure by the safe operating pressure, Ps, for the corrosion defect, as
below:
MAOP
ERF  (11)
Ps

where:
Pf
Ps  (12)
1.25

7.2.2 The remedial actions of the assessed defect are based on the ERF values
for the defects and shall be according to Table 1 below.

Table 1 – Corrosion Defects Remedial Action

Assessment Corrosion ERF Values ≥ 1 or
ERF Valves < 1
Level Type (d/t) > 0.8
Repair or consider level-2 Require coating only to
Level-1 External
assessment stop corrosion.

Page 8 of 15
Document Responsibility: Piping Standards Committee SAEP-306
Issue Date: 25 January 2018
Next Planned Update: 25 January 2021 Assessment of Pipeline Defects

Require coating only to

Level-2 External Require immediate repair
stop corrosion.
Periodical corrosion
Level-1 Internal Require immediate repair
monitoring
Require close corrosion
Level-2 Internal Require immediate repair
monitoring
Notes: 1) All stress risers shall be removed.
2) Repair shall be according to SAEP-310.

7.2.3 Internal corrosion defects, which pass the assessment, shall be monitored
on a periodical basis. The inspection period shall be determined by the
Engineering of the Operating Organization.

8 Mechanical Damage in Pipeline

8.1 Strain Assessment for Plain Dent Defects

a. The main parameters shall be measured:

t = Wall Thickness
Hr = Dent depth
L =dent length
Ro=Nominal Raduis
R1=Indented Raduis as in Figure-1
R2 = Indented Radius as in Figure-2
Where:
: is positive when the curvature of the pipe surface in the transverse
plane is in the same direction as the original surface curvature as
shown in Figure-1

: is negative when dent is re-entrant, meaning the curvature of the

pipe surface in the transverse plane is actually reversed as shown in
Figure-1
Commentary Note:

R1 and R2 are not direct measurements, but they can be inferred from
the dent profile developed by high resolution ILI or shape duplication after
digging.

Page 9 of 15
Document Responsibility: Piping Standards Committee SAEP-306
Issue Date: 25 January 2018
Next Planned Update: 25 January 2021 Assessment of Pipeline Defects

Figure 1 – Main Parameter of the Plain Dent

Figure 2 – Illustration of Measuring R2

b. Calculate Strains
1. In the circumferential direction ( )

(12)

2. In the longitudinal direction ( )

(13)

3. Extensional strain in the longitudinal direction ( )

(14)

c. Calculate the Total Stain

1. Strain of the inside pipe surface

Page 10 of 15
Document Responsibility: Piping Standards Committee SAEP-306
Issue Date: 25 January 2018
Next Planned Update: 25 January 2021 Assessment of Pipeline Defects

(15)
2. Strain of the Outside pipe surface

(16)
Step 4: If the values of either & > 6%, then IT IS NOT ACCEPTED

8.2 Repair Mechanical Damage

Table 2 - Mechanical Damage

Pipeline Type Responding Condition Note

Plain dent ≤ 6% of OD or strain < 6% for all depth

Accepted 1
Dent on girth welds ≤ 2% of OD
Gas and Liquid
Pipelines Plain dent> 6%
Not Accepted Dent on girth welds > 2% 2
Strain > 6%

Notes: 1) All stress risers shall be removed.

2) Repair shall be according to SAEP-310.

Revision Summary
30 April 2012 Major revision.
17 July 2017 Major revision for the normal revision cycle, and requirements against company needs
according to latest related industry practices. Changes include:
1) Introducing more international standards accepted for defect assessment to address
defects, not covered in the document.
2) Align with the international standards and current company practices for assessment of
corrosion defects.
25 January 2018 Editorial revision paragraphs indicated in the right margin

Page 11 of 15
Document Responsibility: Piping Standards Committee SAEP-306
Issue Date: 25 January 2018
Next Planned Update: 25 January 2021 Assessment of Pipeline Defects

Appendix A – Chart-1: Corroded Pipelines Defects Assessment Flowchart

Assessments start

Report all single defects.

Group defects that are less than 3t the adjacent
defects

Level-1

Calculate predicted failure pressures for all Level-2

reported single defects using the LPC-1 equation
(Paragraph 7.1) Are projected profiles of the critical single NO
defect(s) available?

Yes
Identify critical defect(s) and defect Re-analyze the critical single defect(s) as
groups complex-shaped defect(s) using the
RSTRENG effective-area method

Calculate the ERF

ERF ≥1

(Paragraph 8.1) Calculate the ERF (paragraph 8.1)

Check defect(s) acceptance

Check defect(s) acceptance using
using ERF
ERF
using ERF (Paragraph
ERF <1 ERF <1 4.3)
ERF ≥1

Maintain the current operating

Condition and recommend defect Recommend remedial action
monitoring actions

Assessments completed

Page 12 of 15
Document Responsibility: Piping Standards Committee SAEP-306
Issue Date: 25 January 2018
Next Planned Update: 25 January 2021 Assessment of Pipeline Defects

Appendix B – Schematic Illustrations for Defects Measurements and Grouping

Longitudinal dimension of the pipe wall

L2
Circumferential dimension of

L1

L3
the pipe wall

d1 d2 d3

t
Figure 4. Example of re

Figure 3 – Example of Reported Corrosion Defects

d
t

the projected through-wall-thickness profile of a corrosion metal-loss area

Figure 4 – Project Profile for Metal Loss

Page 13 of 15
Document Responsibility: Piping Standards Committee SAEP-306
Issue Date: 25 January 2018
Next Planned Update: 25 January 2021 Assessment of Pipeline Defects

L L

Figure 5 – Defect Grouping,

Defects that are less than 3t should be considered as a single defect.

Page 14 of 15
Document Responsibility: Piping Standards Committee SAEP-306
Issue Date: 25 January 2018
Next Planned Update: 25 January 2021 Assessment of Pipeline Defects

a plan view of four corrosi on pits

 (maximum width)

projected defect profile

L (overall axial length)

A (projected area)

d
t

subsection, i

subsection, j

Figure 6 – A Schematic Illustration of Level-2 Assessment

Page 15 of 15