WE ARE REPORTING in this study the detection of 1888 corrosion defects using a magnetic pig over 70 km of a pipeline located in Algeria. This large amount of defects has been statistically analysed. The relative defect depth a/t exhibited a large scatter and no correlation was found between corrosion defect depth and length. For the necessity of repairing defect, two tools are available: the first is based on limit analysis and called the estimated repair factor (ERF) while the second is based on the failure assessment diagram. The adopted tool in the current study was the domain failure assessment diagram (DFAD). Analysis made with FAD concerns 66.8% of corrosion defects, with a limit analysis (LA) of 32.5%.After categorizing the corrosion defect according to the used analysis tool, the safety factor or probability of failure of each assessment point was determined and compared to the repairing criteria. It appears that the ERF criterion is more conservative in our case than the probabilistic criterion as a probability of failure of 10-4 or a non-dimensional crack driving force equal to mean minus three standard deviations.
How to Cite
corrosion defects, FAD, ERF; limit analysis
Articles submitted to the journal should not have been published before in their current or substantially similar form, or be under consideration for publication with another journal. All authors submitting their works acknowledge that they have disclosed all and any actual or potential conflicts of interest regarding authorship and publication of the work and will indemnify the publisher against any breach of such warranty. For ease of dissemination and to ensure proper policing of use, papers and contributions become the legal copyright of the publisher unless otherwise agreed.