Assessing the structural capacity of pipelines affected by corrosion defects can be a complex and critical task, especially when multiple or irregularly shaped defects interact. While inspection reports and data provide essential input, a dedicated assessment is strongly recommended when dealing with intricate combinations of local defects and their interactions.
DNV-RP-F101 offers a well-established framework for such assessments, including guidance on evaluating complex geometries. This involves simplifying detailed 3D inspection data into 2D representations, which are then used in capacity calculations.
Although DNV-RP-F101 was originally developed using both physical testing and Finite Element Analysis (FEA) in the late 1990s, the landscape has evolved significantly. Advances in FEA tools, inspection technologies, and computational capabilities now allow for more refined and realistic simulations. Revisiting the comparison between standardized calculation methods and modern FEA is timely and valuable—not only to validate existing practices but also to identify opportunities for improving accuracy, reducing conservatism, and supporting future updates to the recommended practice.
This paper compares pipe joint capacity results obtained using standardized DNV-RP-F101 calculation methods with those from 3D FEA. A benchmark example from DNV-RP-F101 is included, along with a case study based on the inspection data. The conservatism of the standardized methods is evaluated against the more detailed FEA results. Finally, the paper discusses potential improvements to the recommended practice, aiming to reduce the gap between simplified and advanced assessment methods.