B31G remaining strength of corroded pipe
A blunt patch of external corrosion in a ductile line pipe does not fail by fracture — it fails when the remaining ligament reaches its flow stress and tears. B31G is a semi-empirical treatment of that: it replaces the real corrosion profile with a simple idealised shape, compares the metal lost to the metal that was there, and applies a bulging correction because a thin patch in a pressurised cylinder bulges outward and raises the local stress above the nominal hoop stress.
That bulging correction is the Folias factor M, and it is driven by the dimensionless group z = L²/(D·t). A short defect is restrained by the sound metal around it and M is close to 1. A long defect is unrestrained, M grows, and eventually the defect behaves like a uniformly thinned cylinder where only the ligament thickness matters. Both methods switch to a long-defect treatment past a limit on z.
The original B31G assumes a parabolic corrosion profile, so the area lost is two thirds of depth times length, and takes the flow stress as 1.1 × SMYS. It is deliberately conservative and was written when the assessment had to be done by hand or from a nomogram. The Modified B31G, sometimes called the 0.85dL method, uses a more realistic area of 0.85 × depth × length, raises the flow stress to SMYS + 68.95 MPa (10 ksi), and uses a better-fitted Folias expression. It typically returns 5 to 15 % more allowable pressure than the original for the same defect, and it is the method most operators now run first.
The scope limits matter as much as the arithmetic. B31G applies only to blunt, volumetric metal loss in ductile line pipe carrying internal pressure. It does not apply to cracks, crack-like flaws, laminations, gouges, grooving corrosion in a seam or girth weld, corrosion in a dent, or any defect where longitudinal or bending stress is significant. Corrosion deeper than 80 % of the wall is outside the method entirely and requires repair or replacement. And the answer depends on measuring the maximum depth and the axial length correctly — an under-measured depth from a single pit gauge reading is the most common way this calculation goes wrong in the field.
Worked example
| Pipe outside diameter | 508 mm |
| Nominal wall thickness | 9.53 mm |
| Maximum corrosion depth | 3 mm |
| Axial length of corrosion | 150 mm |
| SMYS | 359 MPa |
| Design factor / class | class1 |
| Safety factor | 1.39 |
| Depth ratio d/t | 0.315 |
| z = L²/(D·t) | 4.648 |
| Safety factor applied | 1.39 |
| Folias factor - original | 2.172 |
| Folias factor - modified | 1.96 |
| Failure pressure - original B31G | 12.96 MPa |
| Failure pressure - modified B31G | 13.62 MPa |
| Safe pressure - original B31G | 9.32 MPa |
| Safe pressure - modified B31G | 9.8 MPa |
NPS 20 X52 line pipe, 3.0 mm deep by 150 mm long external corrosion. d/t = 3.0/9.53 = 0.31480. z = 150^2/(508 x 9.53) = 22500/4841.24 = 4.64757. Original: M = sqrt(1+0.8x4.64757) = sqrt(4.71806) = 2.17211; S_f = 1.1 x 359 x (1-0.209864)/(1-0.209864/2.17211) = 394.9 x 0.790136/0.903383 = 345.396 MPa; P_f = 345.396 x 19.06/508 = 12.959 -> 12.96 MPa. Modified: M = sqrt(1 + 0.6275x4.64757 - 0.003375x21.5999) = sqrt(3.843450) = 1.960472; S_f = 427.95 x (1-0.267576)/(1-0.267576/1.960472) = 427.95 x 0.732424/0.863515 = 362.983 MPa; P_f = 13.619 -> 13.62 MPa. Safe pressures at SF 1.39: 9.32 and 9.80 MPa. The modified method returns about 5 % more, as expected.
Use at your own risk — verify before you act
These calculators support, and never replace, the judgement of qualified NDT and engineering personnel. Results are provided as is, without warranty of any kind, express or implied, and must be independently verified against the governing code edition named in your contract before being used in any inspection, acceptance, rejection, radiation-safety or fitness-for-service decision. By using them you accept full responsibility for how the results are applied; NDT Inspect, its owners and contributors accept no liability for any loss, damage, injury or death arising from their use or from reliance on them. If a result matters to safety, check it by hand and have it reviewed by a competent person.