Chapter 28

Developments in Reliability-Based Assessment of

Corrosion

Zahiraniza Mustaffa

Additional information is available at the end of the chapter

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/57488

1. Introduction

The title of this book, Developments in Corrosion Protection, portrays one of the important issues
addressed by the industries in the present world. This theme covers a wide range of topics
with regards to corrosions which can be further expanded in different contexts. This chapter
proposes the theme to be addressed based on the assessment aspects of managing corrosions,
for which it is very much applicable to a structure that is already in operation. The discussion
presented in this chapter is generally applicable to corrosions in general but special attention
is given to corrosions in offshore pipelines. Thus this chapter attempts to brief readers on the
development of the approaches used in assessing the reliability of corroded pipelines.

2. Disputes on the significance of corrosion parameters

A corrosion defect that forms in a pipeline is represented by several length scale parameters,
namely depth (d), longitudinal length (l) and circumferential width (w), as shown in Table 1.
Typically, it will have an irregular depth profile and extend in irregular pattern in both
longitudinal and circumferential directions (Cosham et al., 2007). A defect will spread and
develop in size with time. Its growth is described by the d, l and w dimensions. Therefore, one
of the earliest concerns related to corrosion assessment in pipelines is about understanding the
importance of these parameters with respect to the reliability of the pipe. Only the most
governing parameters will be included in the design codes and standards.
Extensive experimental and numerical works have been dedicated to determine the best
governing parameters to represent a corrosion shape. The current assessment practices use a
single simple corrosion geometry and the corrosion circumferential width (w) is not considered

2014 Mustaffa; licensee InTech. This is a paper distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons
Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use,
distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
682 Developments in Corrosion Protection

(Fu and Kirkwood, 1995). The longitudinal extent of a corroded area is the most important
length parameter for the burst strength under internal pressure loading (Cosham et al., 2007).
Defects in this orientation have been reported to be the most severe since it alters the hoop
stress distribution and promotes bulging. Concurrently, Chouchaoui and Pick (1994), Fu and
Kirkwood (1995) and Batte et al. (1997) have shown that the influence of corrosion circumfer
ential width (w) to failures was not that significant.

There have been many arguments on the corrosion shapes assumed by the design standards.
Corroded area has been argued from as simple shape as a rectangle to parabolic and average
of rectangular and parabolic shapes, summary of which as shown in Table 1. The most
conservative idealisation is a rectangular profile (Cosham et al., 2007). Even until today, one
can never be too sure of the assumptions made in those standards.

Corrosion Shape Calculation of Area, A Corrosion Illustration

Rectangle dl

Parabolic 2/3dl

Average of rectangle
0.85dl
and parabolic

Exact shape Exact calculation

Note = Corrosion parameters: depth (d), longitudinal length (l) and circumferential width (w)

Table 1. Disputes on corrosion shapes

3. Mechanics of corrosion models

The assessment models used to describe the reliability of corrosions in pipelines were origi
nated from the mechanics of the circumferential stress or hoop stress (h) acting on a pipeline.
For this, consider a unit length (1 m long) pipeline containing fluids with external diameter
(Do), internal diameter (Di), wall thickness (t), internal pressure (pi), and external pressure (po),
as shown in Fig.1(a). The idea is to determine the force that the internal pressure induces in
the wall by considering the equilibrium of everything within the circumscribing rectangle
drawn in Fig. 1(b). Half the pipe and half the contents are redrawn in Fig.1(b) as a free body
diagram. The rectangle is bounded by the diameter, two tangents at the point where the
diameter intersects the outside surface, and a tangent parallel to the diameter. The stress
 Developments in Reliability-Based Assessment of Corrosion 683
http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/57488

components that act across the boundaries of different parts of the rectangle are known as the
hoop stress.

Figure 1. Circumferential stress in a pipeline pressurized internally and externally

The resultant force in the vertical direction must be zero, thus the equilibrium equation
becomes,

po Do + 2s ht = pi Di (1)

Arranging Eq. (1),

pi Di - po Do
sh = (2)
2t

Eq. (2) gives the mean circumferential stress exactly, whatever the diameter-to-thickness (D/t)
ratio. There are various versions of Eq. (2) and the most widely used is the Barlow formula,
given by,

pi D
sh = (3)
2t

The above formula was derived by neglecting the external pressure term poDo in Eq. (2). Internal
pressure from the contained fluid is the most important loading a pipeline has to carry (Palmer
and King, 2008). D is normally taken as the outside diameter which is obviously larger than
the inside parameter. This can be interpreted as a round-and-ready way of allowing for the
684 Developments in Corrosion Protection

small variation of hoop stress through the wall thickness (Palmer and King, 2008). Rearranging
Eq. (3),

2s ht
pi = (4)
D

It can be said that that,

t
pi = f ,s h (5)
D

The above equation implies that the internal pressure of an intact (no defect) pipe can with
stand is a function of a wall thickness-to-diameter (t/D) ratio and its strength (or stress).

For the case of a pipeline with corrosion defects, Eq. (5) can be modified by incorporating the
defect projected area (A) term into the equation. The same principle was applied when
developing the failure pressure (PF) model; a model used for the assessment of remaining
strength in a pipeline subjected to corrosions. Generally, the basic PF model can be expressed
as,

t
pi = PF = f ,s h , A (6)
D

Batelle developed a semi-empirical equation for the remaining strength of corroded pipelines
in early 1970 (Maxey et al., 1971; Kiefner and Duffy, 1971; Kiefner, 1974). The equation has
been called the NG-18 equation and is given by,

A
1-
s flow .2.t Ao
PF = (7)
D 1 - A 1
Ao M

where, Ao=dt, M is Folias bulging factor, flow is flow stress, and d is maximum corrosion depth.
Note that the h term has been replaced by flow here. Several modifications have been made to
the above parameters depending on the available test data sets and study techniques. These
includes (i) flow stress, flow, (ii) defect profile or projected corrosion area, A, and (iii) geometry
correction factor (also referred to as the Folias factor, or the bulging correction factor, M).

The flow stress (strength), flow is a concept proposed in the 1960s to measure the strength of
steel in the presence of a defect. The NG-18 equation here assumes that failure is due to a flow
stress dependent mechanism and can, therefore be described by the tensile properties like yield
 Developments in Reliability-Based Assessment of Corrosion 685
http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/57488

strength or ultimate tensile strength (Cosham et al., 2007). The flow has been proposed for
several modifications, as listed below,
flow = 1.1 SMYS
flow = 1.15 SMYS
flow = 0.5 (SMYS+SMTS)
flow = SMYS + 68.95 MPa (or 10 ksi)
flow = x.SMYS, where x = 0.90, 1.0 or 1.1
where, SMYS and SMTS is Specified Minimum Yield Stress and Specified Minimum Tensile
Strength, respectively. The projected corrosion area, A has also undergone several proposi
tions, namely,
A = dl (rectangle)
A = 2/3dl (parabolic)
A = 0.85dl (approximate average of rectangle and parabolic)
A = exact calculation
with l as the defect longitudinal length (refer Table 1).
The geometry correction factor which is also referred to as the Folias factor, or the bulging
correction factor, M developed by Folias (1964) to account for the stress concentration that is
caused by radial deflection of the pipe surrounding a defect.

4. Reliability assessment of corrosion in pipelines

4.1. Deterministic vs. probabilistic method

The offshore technology is evolving and growing rapidly. As offshore knowledge continues
to evolve, the recommended design practice gets revised accordingly as well. The basic
approaches to structural reliability and design codes can be historically described based on
three approaches, namely,

Deterministic
Semi-probabilistic
Probabilistic

The deterministic (traditional) method originated from the knowledge of allowable stress design
and plastic design while the semi-probabilistic method progresses from the ideology of partial
factors design. The probabilistic method on the other hand, is based on the analytical methods
and simulation. The difference between the early and recent practice in the design of structures
can be summarized in Table 2.
686 Developments in Corrosion Protection

Early Practice Recent Practice

Design Margin Probability of Failure

Factor of safety Partial safety factors

Experience based Probabilistic calculation

Natural scatter ignored Statistical distributions used in practical engineering

Table 2. Comparison between the early and recent practice in the design concept of structures

In the deterministic method, the safety aspect of structures was expressed in terms of safety
margins and safety factors to consider the effect for uncertainties in loading and material
properties and inaccuracies in geometry and theory. The use of precisely defined point design
(single) values represents not what an engineer needs to accomplish, but rather what is
convenient to numerically solve, assuming inputs that are known precisely (Singh et al.,
2007). It considers the worse-case scenarios to determine the load and capacity of a system. In
most cases, such safety margins and factors are seldom based on any mathematical rigor or
true knowledge of the underlying risk and results in an overdesign (Singh et al., 2007).
Consequently, this leads to designs that are more heavy and costly and even result in greater
safety or reliability.

The probabilistic method deals with many uncertainties that are common to the data (random
variables) employed. Both the strength (R) and load (S) can take on a wide range of values by
explicitly incorporating uncertainty in system parameters. Note that the deterministic method
does not give any idea of probability of failure (Pf) or reliability. The Pf is a rational measure of
safety. The key to probabilistic method is the interference between load and strength to
evaluate Pf. The approach treats both random variables in the form of probability density
functions (with statistical parameters mean, and standard deviation, ) rather than consid
ering each input parameter as an average value, as what has been assumed in the deterministic
approach. Fig. 2 illustrates the contradiction on these definitions. Measuring the safety of a
structure by its reliability makes the reliability a useful decision parameter.

Figure 2. Comparison in load and strength from two different methods, (a) Deterministic (b) Probabilistic
 Developments in Reliability-Based Assessment of Corrosion 687
http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/57488

The probability theory is considered to be more suitable since all design parameters used in
engineering calculations have a degree of uncertainty. The uncertainties associated with these
quantities arise because of many factors related to the measurement, calibration equipment,
operators error etc. Therefore, statistics and probability provides conventional means of
reducing observed data to a form in which it can be interpreted, evaluated and effectively
measured.

4.2. Design codes and standards

Several design codes and standards have been widely used to estimate the reliability assess
ment of corroded pipelines, namely ASME B31G, Modified ASME B31G, DNV 99, Shell 92,
RSTRENG and PCORRC. Note that these codes take into account only the corrosion depth (d)
and longitudinal length (l) parameters in their equations. The assessment in these codes is in the
form of a failure pressure (PF) model, which is originated from the NG-18 criterion. Detailed
discussions and comparison on the theories and development of the PF models have been
carried out by Cosham et al. (2007), Bjrny and Marley (2001) and Cronin (2000), for instance
while a summary of the equations are presented in Table 3.

Method Basic Flow stress Defect shape Bulging factor

equation
NG-18 NG-18a SMYS + 68.95 MPa Rectangle (dl)
1 + 0.6275 ( ) 0.003375( )
l
Dt
2 l
Dt
4

ASME B31G NG-18 1.1 SMYS parabolic (2/3dl)

1 + 0.8( ) l
Dt
2

Modified B31G NG-18 SMYS + 68.95 MPa arbitrary (0.85dl)

1 + 0.6275 ( ) 0.003375( )
l
Dt
2 l
Dt
4

RSTRENG NG-18 SMYS + 68.95 MPa river bottom

profile
1 + 0.6275 ( ) 0.003375( )
l
Dt
2 l
Dt
4

SHELL 92 NG-18 SMTS rectangle(dl)

1 + 0.8( ) l
Dt
2

LPC NG-18 SMTS rectangle(dl)

1 + 0.31 ( ) l
Dt
2

DNV-RP-F101 NG-18 SMTS rectangle (dl) and

river bottom
1 + 0.31 ( ) l
Dt
2

profile
PCORRC Newb SMTS rectangle (dl) c

Table 3. Design standards on the assessment of corrosion in pipelines (Adapted from Cosham et al., 2007)

b
The basic equation of the PCORRC part-wall NG-18 failure criterion is,

1( ) A
Ao 1 ( ) d
t
= = , where, M is bulging factor and is flow stress.
1( ) 1 )
(
A 1 d 1
Ao t
M M

c
The basic equation for PCORRC failure criterion is,
688 Developments in Corrosion Protection

= 1 ( dt )(1 exp 0.16( l

Rt
)(1 ) ) .
d 0.5
t

These design codes and standards have been critically discussed by Stephens and Francini
(2000) and Cosham et al. (2007) for instance, and have further classified them into two
categories, namely the old and new methods. Descriptions pertaining to these methods are
summarized in Table 4.

Category Description

Example: ASME B31G (or modified B31G and RSTRENG).

Predominantly developed and validated through full scale tests on older line pipe steels.
Old Method Empirically calibrated criteria that have been adjusted to be conservative for almost all corrosion
defects, irrespective of the toughness of the line pipe (these criteria are variously based on the
yield strength, the flow stress, or ultimate tensile strength).

Example: DNV RP-F101 and PCORR.

Developed through tests on modern, high toughness, line pipe steels.
New Method
Developed based on plastic collapse criteria that are only appropriate for blunt defects in
moderate to high toughness line pipe (these criteria are based on the ultimate tensile strength).

Table 4. Classification of the design standards on the assessment of corrosion in pipelines according to Stephens and
Francini (2000) and Cosham et al. (2007)

The old and new methods were biased towards the type and toughness of the steels. Then,
the difference between the behaviour of both categories can largely be attributed to the general
increase in the toughness of line pipe, due to improvement in steel production and techno
logical advances. Because of the old methods demonstrate greater scatter than the new
methods when compared to the (relevant) published full-scale test data, the new methods
are more accurate (Cosham et al., 2007).

4.3. Limit state function models

With time, the probabilistic approaches have been identified as a more suitable approach to be
used in the assessment of corrosions as compared to the deterministic method due to the
conservatism of the latter (Mustaffa, 2011). The assessment of corroded pipelines has then been
modified with the integration of probabilistic approaches into the existing failure pressure (PF)
models. One of the common ways to represent probabilistic assessment is through the use of
limit state function (LSF) equations. The LSF model is able to check the remaining strength of
the pipe, for which its response towards operational loads can then be predicted.

A general limit state function, Z model can be written as,

Z =RS (8)
 Developments in Reliability-Based Assessment of Corrosion 689
http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/57488

where R is the strength or more generally the resistance to failure and S is the load or that
which is conducive to failure. The limit state is described by Z=0. Failures takes place when
the failure surface falls in the region of Z < 0 while Z > 0 is a survival region. The probability
of failure, Pf is then given by,

Pf = Pr ( Z 0 ) = Pr ( R S ) (9)

The reliability is the probability Pr (Z 0), and is therefore when described in term of probability
of failure becomes,

Pr ( Z> 0 ) = 1 - Pf (10)

The past limit state function models as given in Table 5 were mostly modified from the PF
models originated from the NG-18 criterion. In these models, the strength/resistance (R) term
of Eq. 8 has been aggressively studied by Ahammed and Melchers (1996), Pandey (1998),
Ahammed (1998), De Leon and Macas (2005) and Teixeira et al. (2008), for instance. All models,
however, assumed the same parameter for the load (S) term, represented by the operational
loading (Po) exerted by the transported hydrocarbon in the pipeline.

Limit State Function Remarks

Ahammed and Melchers (1996): A multiplying factor, mf was introduced into the

Z = 2 mf sy D
t 1d / t
pa equation which is usually taken as between 1.1010 and
1 d / (tM )
1.1510

Pandey (1998): Flow stress, flow coefficient of 1.15

t 1d / t
Z= 2.3 sy D 1 d / (tM ) pa

Ahammed (1998) and De Leon and Macias (2005): Revision in the flow coefficient.

{
Z = 2(sy + 68.95) D
t 1 d0 + Rd (T T 0)
1 d0 + Rd (T T 0)
/t

/ tM
}
pa

with, d=do+Rd(T-To) and l=lo+RL(T-To)

Teixeira et. al. (2008): Applied the Buckingham- theorem and multivariate

Z= ( 1.1 sy 2 t
D
) 1 0.9435(d / t) 1.6
(l / D) 0.4
pa
regression analysis techniques.

Table 5. Different limit state function models applied in the reliability assessment of corrosions in pipelines

For all expressions, the M term is given by,

(
M = 1 + 0.6275 Dt 0.003375 D 2t 2
l2 l4
) 1/2
for l2/Dt 50 or

l2
M = 0.032 Dt + 3.3for l 2 / Dt > 50
690 Developments in Corrosion Protection

with sy = yield stress

d = defect depth
l = defect longitudinal length
t = wall thickness
D = pipe outer diameter
M = Folias/bulging factor
pa = applied/operating pressure
do = defect depth measured at time To
lo = defect longitudinal length measured at time To
T = any future time
To = time of last inspection
Rd = radial corrosion rate (=d/T)
RL = longitudinal corrosion rate (=l/T)

The Folias factor, M is a measure of stress concentration that is caused by radial deflection of
the pipe surrounding a defect.

The performance of these models can be visualized in a plot as shown in Fig. 3. The figure
illustrates the behaviour of Pf under varying pipeline operating pressures (Po); a term that has
been made dimensionless by dividing it with the specified minimum tensile strength (SMTS)
term. The Pf increases as loads increases. Results from the figure showed the model developed
by Ahammed and Melchers (1996) tends to fail first while those developed by Ahammed
(1998) and De Leon and Macias (2005) seems to be the last to fail.

Figure 3. Probability of failure (Pf) computed for all limit state functions under varying operating pressures
 Developments in Reliability-Based Assessment of Corrosion 691
http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/57488

This section has provided discussion on different methods and approaches used to estimate
the reliability assessment of corrosion in pipelines, part of which can be summarized in Table
6 below.

Approach Research Related Literature

Deterministic approach: Ambiguities in corrosion parameters and Critical summary prepared by:
Semi-empirical fracture- shapes. Cronin (2000), Bjrny and Marley
mechanical formula Development of NG-18 criterion. (2001) and Cosham et al. (2007)
Finite element analysis Development of failure pressure (PF) models etc.
design codes and standard criterion such as
ASME B31G, Modified ASME B31G, DNV 99, Shell
92, RSTRENG and PCORRC.

Probabilistic approach Corrosion assessment for single pipeline: Ahammed and Melchers (1996),
Integration of failure pressure models into limit Pandey (1998), Ahammed (1998),
state function (LSF) models. De Leon and Macas (2005) and
Teixeira et al. (2008) etc.

Corrosion assessment for pipeline system. Li et al. (2009), De Leon and Macas
(2005), Zhou (2010), and Mustaffa
(2011).

Table 6. Brief summary on the development of reliability assessment of corrosions in pipelines

5. System reliability assessment of corrosions in pipelines

5.1. Reliability of pipeline in series

Several attempts have been made by previous researchers in understanding the response of
corrosions towards the reliability of pipelines when acting as a system. A system can be defined
as a group of elements connected either in series or parallel, having the same function or
objective. Many structures are designed to be composed of multi components and the relia
bility/failure of a component may be triggered by other components as well. This is true as
these components are sharing similar loads, thus their performance may be redundant.

A pipeline acts a system connected in series, as shown in Fig. 4. Therefore, the failure of any
one or more of these components constitutes the failure of the system. In other words, the
reliability or safety of the system requires that none of the components fail. From Fig. 4 for
instance, the probability of failure, Pf of a corroded pipeline acting as a unit is not the same
with those separated into different segments. Each small segment portrays smaller probability
of failures (i.e. ~10-3) as compared to the whole structure (i.e.~10-2).
692 Developments in Corrosion Protection

100

90

80
-2
70 P f = 1.3 x 10
Defect depth, d (%)

60

50

40 -3 -3 -3
P f1 = 7.8 x 10 P f2 = 4.4 x 10 P f3 = 5.6 x 10
-3 P f4 = 6.7 x 10
30
Sect ion 1 Sect ion 2 Sect ion 3 Sect ion 4
20

10

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130

Longitudinal distance (km)

Figure 4. Comparison in probability of failure (Pf) between sectional and individual pipeline of corroded pipeline

Better understanding on pipelines acting as a system has paved the knowledge to interpret the
correlation and characteristics among corrosion defects in the pipe. The interaction among
multiple corrosion defects can best be assessed by assuming the pipeline operating as a series
system. The interaction among defects is still not well defined. When it is conservative to
assume that all of a cluster of adjacent defects interact (Cosham et al., 2007), Bjrny and Marley
(2001) concluded that there are unlimited combinations of interaction of defects. Li et al. (2009)
has studied the effect of correlation of corrosion defects and it was revealed that the assumption
of independent corrosions defects lead to conservative results. Literatures on this, however,
are still limited. To the author best knowledge, the reliability of corroded pipelines acting in a
system has been reported by De Leon and Macas (2005), Zhou (2010) and Mustaffa (2011). A
summary on their works are presented in Table 7.

Research on: Related Literature

Spatial correlation between multiple defects on a pipeline system reliability De Leon and Macas (2005)
under burst failure mode.

Reliability of a corroding pipeline segment as a series system under three Zhou (2010)
potential failure models (small leak, large leak and rupture).

Length scale effect of a pipeline in series. Mustaffa (2011)

Table 7. Literatures on corrosion assessment in pipeline systems

 Developments in Reliability-Based Assessment of Corrosion 693
http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/57488

5.2. reliability-based maintenance approach

Most of the discussions on reliability assessment of pipelines presented in earlier sections of

this chapter are those closely developed based on the mechanics of corrosions. The parameters
addressed in the equations are very much depending on the design parameters of the pipe as
well as the corrosion inspection data reported by the inspection tool i.e. intelligent pigging tool.
Apparently, these are the important two factors required to carry out the assessment.

In reality, the development of corrosions in the pipe cannot be explicitly described. Not only
corrosion growth is based on the science of corrosion, but other external factors are also
believed to contribute to this development as well. These external factors can be further
described in the aspects of operation and maintenance of the pipeline. Corrosions are mainly
controlled by the use of corrosion inhibitors. A corrosion inhibitor is a chemical compound that,
when added to a liquid or gas, decreases the corrosion rates of a material, typically a metal or
an alloy. A pipeline is dosed continually with an inhibitor in order to mitigate against any
corrosion that could occur. It acts as a film on a metal surface that provides physical protection
against corrosive attack.

Describing the effect of corrosion inhibitors, however, is not a straightforward task (Nei,
2007). The inhibitor is said to be only efficient when it could present in the water phase and
reach the pipe wall. If the inhibitor residual concentration in the water phase exiting the
pipeline is above a certain target level, then the whole pipeline is assumed to be protected by
the inhibitor (Rippon, 2003). It is essential to keep the inhibitor concentration as close as to and
above the minimum required at all time in order to effectively control corrosion in the pipeline
in the most cost-effective ways. Longer exposure time may allow the inhibitor to perform better
as suggested by Hong et al. (2002). In addition, Valor et al. (2010) have experimentally proven
that corrosions do grow on a daily basis even though the increment is considered to be very
small. The fact that corrosion grows every day, this then reflects the argument to also allow
the presence of corrosion inhibitor in the pipe at the same time. Leaving a pipeline without
inhibition within a period of time might cause the corrosion to grow rapidly. The inhibitor
performance is the key for day to day assessment of the inhibitor system availability. Therefore
the probability of an inhibitor to present and retain at the internal pipe circumference wall are
something that should be addressed in a corrosion assessment model.

It has been assumed that the corrosion inhibitor will be injected into the system of pipeline at
the correct dosage, without interruption during the lifetime of the system (Hedges et al.,
2000), but experience has shown that these assumptions are not applicable for a variety of
reasons for example pumps failure and interruption on inhibitor supplies. Also note that the
practice of releasing inhibitor inside a pipe is mainly controlled by the pipeline operators. The
inhibitor may not be injected accordingly to its dosage and schedule which can cause corrosion
to happen rapidly in the pipelines. Consequently, the aspect of human intervention may then
become an additional factor that indirectly contributes to the reliability assessment of corro
sions in a pipeline (Mustaffa, 2011).

The practice of releasing inhibitor in a pipe is then considered as another source of uncertainty
to the system. A reliability of a system that is exposed to such uncertainties can best be analysed
694 Developments in Corrosion Protection

using probabilistic approaches. This section illustrates an approach for which the effect of
human intervention can be considered in a reliability model. This example portrays the
inconsistency of releasing corrosion inhibitor in the pipeline, as shown in Fig. 5.

140

130

120

110

100
Corrosion Inhibit or (ppm)

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
12-mrt

26-mrt

7-mei

21-mei

13-aug

27-aug

5-nov

19-nov
8-okt

22-okt
12-feb

26-feb

10-sep

24-sep

3-dec

17-dec

31-dec
9-apr

23-apr
1-jan

15-jan

29-jan

4-jun

18-jun

2-jul

16-jul

30-jul

T ime

Figure 5. An illustration on the unavailability of corrosion inhibitor in pipeline in a year

In can be seen from Fig. 5 that the inhibitors were absent in the pipe for most of the days from
a sample period of one year i.e. when inhibitor is 0 ppm. Such practice is believed to have direct
impact towards corrosion growth in the pipe. It is proposed that the reliability for this scenario
to be translated into the form of a limit state function model as well, part of which has been
introduced in the earlier section. Therefore, the limit state function in Eq. 8 can be expanded
to an equation described by,

g(x) = Z = d ( CR tabs ) (11)

where d = allowable corrosion depth (mm), CR = corrosion rate (mm/yr), tabs= time (days) when
the corrosion inhibitor is absent in the pipeline. Eq. 11 translates the ideology of predicting
corrosion in a particular pipeline given the amount of present corrosion, its expectation to
evolve with time and the likelihood of having inhibitor in the pipeline. Eq. 11 also implicitly
states that corrosions are allowed to grow based on the given rate, but their growth could be
controlled by the practice of releasing inhibitor in the pipe.

In this model the availability of inhibitor is described as its time of absence per month. Herein,
the corrosion parameters d and CR are identified based on the inspection and assessment
 Developments in Reliability-Based Assessment of Corrosion 695
http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/57488

reports while the time tabs is entirely influenced by human intervention. The parameter tabs on
the other hand, is proposed to be treated as a variable so as to simulate its response towards
the availability of inhibitor monitored in a month. The number of days of corrosion inhibitor
absence in the pipeline decreased from 30 to 0 days and the effect on the pipeline integrity was
investigated. Table 8 provides descriptive statistics of the random variables applied into the
model.

Variables Distribution Mean, Standard deviation,

Defect depth, d Normal 15.69 0.76
Corrosion rate, CR Normal 0.25 0.50
tabsence @ 30 days Normal 30.42 0.90
tabsence @ 0 day Normal 0.42 0.90

Table 8. Descriptive statistics of random variables

The probability of failures were computed using Eq. (11) based on the random tabulated in
Table 8, with results as shown in Table 9.

t absence Probability of Failure

(day/month) (Pf)

30 0.312

28 0.278

26 0.247

24 0.231

22 0.188

20 0.149

18 0.109

16 0.087

14 0.081

12 0.032

10 0.009

8 0.003

6 0.002

4 0.000

2 0.000

0 0.000

Table 9. Probability of failure (Pf) reported according to tabsence

696 Developments in Corrosion Protection

From the table, it can be seen that when the number of days of corrosion inhibitor absence in
the pipeline decreases, the probability of failure also decreases. Results from the table portray
the impact of corrosion failure as a result of the absence of corrosion inhibitor (in days per
month) in a particular pipeline. It can be seen from the table that the probability of failure
increases with the increase in the days of inhibitor absence. This is true because no continuous
protection is given to the pipe giving more chance for the corrosions to grow rapidly. Thus it
is important for the corrosion inhibitor to be present in the pipeline on a daily basis in order
to keep the probability of failure lower.

6. Conclusions

This chapter discusses the development of reliability assessment models used for the offshore
pipelines subjected to corrosion. It has been shown that the models were mostly developed
based on the mechanics of corrosions acting on a pipe. Comparisons have also been made on
different design codes and standards by the industry to estimate the reliability of corroded
pipelines. Most of these standards, however, are deterministic in nature. Corrosions cannot be
explicitly determined as there are so many uncertainties involved, thus probabilistic method
seems to be more realistic to be applied instead. In the probabilistic approaches, literatures
have integrated the failure pressure (PF) models into the limit state function (LSF) equation.
Comparisons on the performance of these LSF models have been briefly discussed.

It is proposed that human intervention to be addressed when assessing the reliability of

corroded pipelines. This is true as the growth of corrosions is very much depending on the
effectiveness practice of releasing corrosion inhibitor in the pipe. Herein, a model has been
proposed to the consider the aspect of human intervention in the assessment, and the simu
lation seems to provide favorable results.

Author details

Zahiraniza Mustaffa*

Civil Engineering Department, Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS, Tronoh, Perak, Malaysia

References

[1] Ahammed, M. and Melchers, R. E. (1996) Reliability Estimation of Pressurized Pipe

lines Subject to Localised Corrosion Defects, International Journal of Pressure Vessels
and Piping, Vol 69, pp. 267-272.
 Developments in Reliability-Based Assessment of Corrosion 697
http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/57488

[2] Ahammed, M. (1998) Probabilistic Estimation of Remaining Life of a Pipeline in the

Presence of Active Corrosion Defects, International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Pip
ing, Vol 75, pp. 321-329.

[3] Batte, A.D., Fu, B, Kirkwood, M.G. and Vu, D. (1997) New Methods for Determining
the Remaining Strength of Corroded Pipelines, the 16th International Conference on
Ocean Mechanics and Arctic Engineering (OMAE).

[4] Bjrny, O.H. and Marley, M.J. (2001) Assessment of Corroded Pipelines: Past,
Present and Future, International Journal Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference
(ISOPE), Vol 2, pp. 93-101.

[5] Chouchaoui, B.A. and Pick, R.J. (1994) Behaviour of Circumferentially Aligned Cor
rosion Pits, International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping, 57, pp. 187-200.

[6] Cosham, A, Hopkins, P. and Macdonald, K.A. (2007) Best Practice for the Assessment
of Defects in PipelinesCorrosions, Engineering Failure Analysis, No 14, pp. 1245-1265.

[7] Cronin, D.S. (2001) Assessment of Corrosion Defects in Pipelines, PhD, University of Wa
terloo.

[8] De Leon, D. and Macas, O.F. (2005) Effect of Spatial Correlation on the Failure Prob
ability of Pipelines under Corrosion, International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping,
No 82, pp. 123-128.

[9] Hedges, B., Paisley, D. and Woollam, R. (2000) Corrosion Inhibitor Availability Mod
el, Corrosion NACE International, Paper No. 00034.

[10] Hong, T., Chen, Y., Gopal, M. and Jepson, W.P. (2000) EIS Study of a Corrosion In
hibitor Behavior Under Multiphase Flow Conditions, Corrosion Science, Vol 42, pp.
979-990.

[11] Fu, B. and Kirkwood, M.G. (1995) Predicting Failure Pressure of Internally Corroded
Linepipe Using the Finite Element Method, the 14th International Conference on Ocean
Mechanics and Arctic Engineering(OMAE), Vol V, pp. 175-184.

[12] Kiefner, J.F. and Duffy, A.R. (1971) Summary of Research to Determine the Strength of
Corroded Areas in Line Pipe, Presented to a Public Hearing at the U.S. Department of
Transportation.

[13] Kiefner, J.F. (1974) Corroded Pipe: Strength and Repair Methods, the 5th Symposium on
Line Pipe Research, Pipeline Research Committee of AGA.

[14] Maxey, W.A., Kiefner, J.F., Eiber, R.J. and Duffy A.R. (1971) Ductile Fracture Initia
tion, Propagation and Arrest in Cylindrical Vessels, Fracture Toughness, Proc. of the
1971 National Symp. on Fracture Mechanics, ASTM STP 514.

[15] Mustaffa, Z. and Van Gelder, P.H.A.J.M. (2010) A Review and Probabilistic Analysis
of Limit State Functions of Corroded Pipelines, the 20th International Offshore and Polar
Engineering Conference (ISOPE), Vol 4, pp. 625-632.
698 Developments in Corrosion Protection

[16] Mustaffa, Z. (2011) System Reliability Assessment of Offshore Pipeline. Ph.D, Delft Uni
versity of Technology, The Netherlands.

[17] Nei, S. (2007) Key Issues Related to Modelling of Internal Corrosion of Oil and Gas
Pipelines A Review, Corrosion Science, Vol 49, pp. 4308-4338.

[18] Pandey, M. D. (1998) Probabilistic Models for Condition Assessment of Oil and Gas
Pipelines, NDT&E International, Vol 31, No 5, pp. 349-358.

[19] Rippon, I. J. (2003) Corrosion Control System Availability Management for Reduced
Cost and Extended Life, Corrosion NACE International, Paper No. 03313.

[20] Shitan, M. and Vazifedan, T. (2012) Exploratory Data Analysis for Almost Anyone, Uni
versiti Putra Malaysia press.

[21] Singh, V.P., Jain, S.K. and Tyagi, A. (2007) Risk and Reliability Analysis: A Handbook for
Civil and Environmental Engineers, United States of America, ASCE Press.

[22] Stephens, D.R., and Francini, R.B. (2000) A Review and Evaluation of Remaining
Strength Criteria for Corrosion Defects in Transmission Pipelines, Proc. of ETCE/
OMAE Joint Conference on Energy for the New Millennium.

[23] Teixeira, A.P., Soares, C.G., Netto, T.A., and Estefen, S.F. (2008) Reliability of Pipe
lines With Corrosion Defects, International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping, Vol
85, pp. 228-237.

[24] Tukey, J.W. (1997) Exploratory Data Analysis, Addison-Wesley, Reading, Massachu
setts.

[25] Valor, A., Caleyo, F., Rivas, D. and Hallen, J.M. (2010) Stochastic Approach to Pitting-
Corrosion-Extreme Modelling in Low-Carbon Steel, Corrosion Science, 52, pp. 910-915.

[26] Zhou, W. (2010) System Reliability of Corroding Pipelines, International Journal of

Pressure Vessels and Piping, Vol 87, pp. 587-595.