Evaluation of Burst Pressure on API X52 Pipes: Validation of Predictive Models via Full-Scale Experimental Data
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.32497/jrm.v21i1.7209Keywords:
API X52, Burst Pressure, full-scale experiment, pipeline integrity, theoretical predictionAbstract
Ensuring the operational safety of steel pipelines depends heavily on understanding their failure points, or burst pressure. While various mathematical models are widely used in engineering practice, their accuracy for specific grades like API X52 often lacks robust field validation, as these models are essentially simplifications of complex real-world conditions. This study bridges this gap by evaluating the predictive accuracy of five major models-barlow, Von Mises, Zhu-Leis, API RP 1111 and DNV-OS-F101 against data obtained from a full-scale hydrostatic burst test. Using a pipe specimen with a 12 inch diameter and 11.13 mm wall thickness, the experimental result identified the actual burst pressure at 5,400 psi. comparative analysis revealed that the Barlow equation provided the highest accuracy with a relative error of only 4.12%, followed by the semi-empirical Zhu-Leis solution with a 6.97% deviation. Conversely, API RP 1111 method was found to be highly conservative by showing 17.24% deviation, which underscores its role as a safe design limit rather than a predictor of actual failure. These findings offer practitioners confidence that for thin-walled API X52 pipes with a diameter to thickness ratio of approximately 29, the Barlow model remains a practical and reliable reference for assessing pipeline integrity and estimating safe by operating limits.
References
[1] A. S. of M. Engineers, “ASME B31.8: Gas Transmission and Distribution Piping Systems,” Am. Soc. Mech. Eng., vol. 552, no. 1, p. 203, 2022.
[2] H. Golshan, A. Murray, and M. Mohitpour, Pipeline design construction a practical approach, Third Edit. New York, NY10016: American Society of Mechanical Engineering.
[3] X. K. Zhu, “A comparative study of burst failure models for assessing remaining strength of corroded pipelines,” J. Pipeline Sci. Eng., vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 36–50, 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.jpse.2021.01.008.
[4] X. K. Zhu, “Recent Advances in Corrosion Assessment Models for Buried Transmission Pipelines,” CivilEng, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 391–415, 2023, doi: 10.3390/civileng4020023.
[5] X. K. Zhu, “Exact solution of burst pressure for thick-walled pipes using the flow theory of plasticity,” Int. J. Mech. Sci., vol. 259, 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.ijmecsci.2023.108582.
[6] D. Kuanhai, P. Yang, L. Bing, L. Yuanhua, and W. Jiandong, “Through-wall yield ductile burst pressure of high-grade steel tube and casing with and without corroded defect,” Mar. Struct., vol. 76, no. November 2020, p. 102902, 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.marstruc.2020.102902.
[7] API 5L:2018, “Line Pipe - API Specification 5L 46th E. 2018,” API Stand., no. April, pp. 1–205, 2018.
[8] ASTM A370-15 (2024), “Standard test methods and definitions for mechanical testing of steel products,” ASTM Int., vol. 01.03, no. Rapproved, pp. 1–48, 2015, doi: 10.1520/A0370-16.2.
[9] American Society of Testing and Material, “Standard Practice for Hydrostatic Leak Testing,” ASTM Int., pp. 1–5, 2012, doi: 10.1520/E1003-13.2.
[10] A. P. Institute, “Design, Construction, Operation, and Maintenance of Offshore Hydrocarbon Pipelines (Limit State Design),” in API RECOMMENDED PRACTICE 1111 FIFTH EDITION, vol. 58, no. 12, 2021, pp. 7250–7257. doi: 10.1088/1751-8113/44/8/085201.
[11] J. Shi, Q. Zhang, Z. Lian, L. Ding, and Z. Wan, “A calculation method for ultimate and allowable loads in high-pressure thick-walled worn casing,” Ocean Eng., vol. 313, no. P2, p. 119448, 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.oceaneng.2024.119448.
[12] DNV-OS-F101:2012, “Submarine Pipeline Systems,” DNV Stand., no. August, pp. 1–367, 2012, [Online]. Available: http://exchange.dnv.com/publishing/Codes/download.asp?url=2012-08/os-f101.pdf
[13] M. M. Sun, H. Y. Fang, N. N. Wang, X. M. Du, H. S. Zhao, and K. J. Zhai, “Limit state equation and failure pressure prediction model of pipeline with complex loading,” Nat. Commun. , vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 1–11, 2024, doi: 10.1038/s41467-024-48688-1.
[14] X. Zhu, B. Wiersma, W. R. Johnson, and R. Sindelar, “Burst Pressure Solutions of Thin and Thick-Walled Cylindrical Vessels,” J. Press. Vessel Technol. Trans. ASME, no. 89303321, 2023.
[15] A. Rana, R. E. Miller, and X. Wang, “Numerical simulation of ductile damage in pipeline steels across different constraint conditions using a combined void growth and coalescence model,” Eng. Fract. Mech., vol. 320, no. December 2024, 2025, doi: 10.1016/j.engfracmech.2025.111027.
[16] X. K. Zhu, “Experimental Validation of Exact Burst Pressure Solutions for Thick-Walled Cylindrical Pressure Vessels,” Appl. Mech., vol. 6, no. 1, 2025, doi: 10.3390/applmech6010020.
[17] D. H. Oh, J. Race, S. Oterkus, and E. Chang, “A new methodology for the prediction of burst pressure for API 5L X grade flawless pipelines,” Ocean Eng., vol. 212, pp. 1–33, 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.oceaneng.2020.107602.
[18] API 579, API 579-1/ASME FFS-1, December 2021 an International Code, no. December. 2021.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Teddy Setiawan, Dedy Triawan Suprayogi, Hadi Wahyudi
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Copyright of articles that appear in Jurnal Rekayasa Mesin belongs exclusively to Penerbit Jurusan Teknik Mesin Politeknik Negeri Semarang. This copyright covers the rights to reproduce the article, including reprints, electronic reproductions, or any other reproductions of similar nature.
