Pipeline Integrity Assessment

4%
(1999 )

1/3

GNP

Summary of Incident Causes

ASME Causes of Gas Transmission Incidents

Third Party Damage

External Corrosion
Internal Corrosion
Natural Forces
Misc
Incorrect Operation
Unknown
Other Failures

Non-Pipe

Constr/Instal

Pipe

Mfr
Prev. Damgd Pipe
Malfunction
Stress Corrosion Cracking
Vandalism
0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

Avg Annl Incide nts, 85-01

12.0

14.0

COST OF CORROSION

$5.0 bil.

Department of Transportation (DOT), USA, 2001 ($276 bil.)

Cost Estimate Example Offshore PNG Pipeline

Category

Cost (US $ Million)

7.4 MPa

8.4 MPa

10 MPa

12 MPa

Bare Pipe Materials

374.1

314.4

296.5

228.8

External Coating

44.1

44.1

44.1

42.0

Internal Coating

21.2

21.3

21.2

21.2

Weight Coating

67.2

63.7

57.8

54.0

Cathodic Protection

20.7

20.5

20.5

20.2

Pipe Laying

80.7

78.1

80.8

80.8

Dredging& Backfill

17.7

17.1

16.8

16.1

Mobil. & Demobil.

8.4

8.4

8.4

8.4

634.1

567.6

546.1

471.5

Total

10 15% of total direct construction cost for corrosion protection (coating + CP)
(Cited from Feasibility Study Report for Irkutsk PNG pipeline)

CASE HISTORIES ON UNDERGROUND CORROSION

Corrosion on the pipeline

Corrosion on the bottom plates of aboveground storage tank

CORROSION IN ANAEROBIC SOIL

Chemical/microbiological corrosion
/

Electrical corrosion

10

(corrosivity)

vs.
3

P/S

Disbonded area

Sulfate

P0

P0

P0

0
-2.0

0
-1.8

-1.6

-1.4

-1.2

-1.0

20

40

60

80

100

0
0
10

120

P/S (V/CSE)

10

10

[SO4 ] (mg/g of soil)

SRB

pH

10

2-

Disbonded Area (cm )

3

10

Resistivity

P0

P0

P0

1
1

0
4

pH

10

0
3
10

10

10

10

10

SRB (cells/g of soil)

10

10

0
1
10

10

10

Resistivity (Ohm.cm)

10

Soil Resistivity
Wenner 4-Pin Resistivity Measurement
I

.
= R A/L (
(

cm)
)

4-pin method

Soil box

SOIL RESISTIVITY SURVEY: EQUIPMENTS

Soil pin
.
.

a/2

5,000 ohm.cm

1.E+06

Soil Resistivity ( .cm)

1.E+05

1.E+04

corrosive

1.E+03

1.E+02
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Distance (km)

80

90

100

110

120

130

B
A, B

?
19

SOIL RESISTIVITY SURVEY

: DEPENDENCY ON SOIL DEPTH

A.
B.
C.

.
.

.
.

D.

20

SOIL RESISTIVITY SURVEY

: BARNES METHOD

h1

h2

h3

S
h4

h5

1
R

1
R1

1
R2

1
Rn
21

SOIL RESISTIVITY SURVEY

: BARNES METHOD

4m
1.
2.
3.

2m, 4m
(R2, R4)
R2-4

1
R4
R2

1
R2
4

2 4

1
R2

R2 R 4
R2 R 4
400

2-4

22

R2 R 4
R2 R 4

SOIL RESISTIVITY SURVEY

: BARNES METHOD

Pin

2m

R2 = 6.3

Pin

4m

R4 = 1.3

2m

2= 2 2006.3=7,917

cm

2m

4= 2 2006.3=3,267

cm

2-4 = 400 (R2R4)/(R2-R4)

= 400 (1.36.3)/(6.3-1.3)
= 2,061

Test data
a (cm)

R (Ohms)

200
400

Barnes Analysis
Avg.

1/R

(1/R)

Layer R

6.3

7,917

0.16

6.3

7,917

1.3

3,267

0.77

0.61

1.64

2,061

23

Layer

SOIL RESISTIVITY SURVEY

: BARNES METHOD

Test data

Barnes Analysis

a (cm)

R (Ohms)

1/R

(1/R)

Layer R

150

1.1

0.91

1.1

1,040

300

0.89

1.1

0.19

5.3

4,995

450

0.46

2.2

1.1

0.91

858

600

0.14

7.1

4.9

0.20

190

750

0.083

12

4.9

0.20

190

900

0.076

13

1.0

1.0

94

Ref.) T.H. Lewis, Jr., Deep Anode Systems, NACE (2000) p.7-11

24

Layer

(sulfatereducing bacteria; SRB)

CORROSION IN ANAEROBIC SOIL

SULFATE-REDUCING BACTERIA (SRB)

SO42- + ATP

SO42-

APS + PPi

Enters cell

2e-

SO32- + AMP
H+
S2O52-

Metabisulfite

2eOutside cell

S2-

2e-

S2O32Thiosulfate

2e-

S2O42-

Dithionite

S3O62-

Trithionate

Anaerobic bacteria
Neutral environments
Reducing sulfate to corrosive sulfides
27

Pi

SRB Population vs. Soil Key Parameters

9

Resistivity

10

10

10

10

10

10

SRB (cells/g-soil)

10

10

10

10

10

SRB (cells/g-soil)

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

Clay content

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

Redox potential

10

10

SRB (cells/g of soil)

10

10

10

20

30

40

50

10

60

0.0

0.2

0.4

Eh (V/NHE)

Clay Content (%)

( cm)

-0.2

10

10

10

10

Anaerobic,
Neutral,
High clayey,
Low resistivity,
High water content

10

10
10

APB (cells/g-soil)

SRB (cells/g-soil)

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

APB

Water content

10

10

20

30

Water Content (%)

40

50

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

SRB (cells/g-soil)

10

10

0.6

0.8

Corrosion vs. Exposure Time

A

-0.4

25 m

SRB-active
Biocide added
APB-active

Fe

Ecorr (mV/SCE)

Counts (Arb. Unit)

S
Fe

Al

-0.6

-0.8

20 m

Fe

Si

0
2

10

20 m
2.0

-1.0
0.4

0.36mm/y
0.3
D

0.2
m

0.1

2.0

1.5

0.0
0

1.5

Counts (Arb. Unit)

Corrosion Rate (mm/y)

Energy (keV)

50

100

Time (Day)
1.0

Fe

150

200

Counts (Arb. Unit)

Fe

1.0

Fe
0.5

P
Si

0.5

Fe
C

Si

Al

Fe
2

Energy (keV)

Energy (keV)

0.0
0

Fe

0.0

10

10

MIC in Aerobic Condition

2.0

Counts (Arb. Unit)

1.5

1.0

0.5

Fe
C

Fe

Si

Al

Fe

0.0
0

Energy (keV)

SRB

10

CP
SRB-active soil
Ref.) K. Kasahara, et al.,
Corrosion, 55(1) (1999) 74
2H 2O

2e

2 OH

The change of local chemistry at metal

surface, inducing an increase of pH.
Effective tool for prevention of SRBinduced MIC in soil.

31

CP vs. MIC
3

P0

0
-2.0

-1.8

-1.6

-1.4

-1.2

P/S (V/CSE)

Despite of coating and CP, MIC occurred.

All corrosion occurred the region under the disbonded coating.

-1.0

Pt & Reference

~15cm depth

Ref1

Ref2 Pt

Pipe

1. Ref 1 vs. Pipe

2. Ref 2 vs. Pipe

3. Ref 2 vs. Pt

33

Potential

mV vs. Cu/CuSO4

P/S

-1430 (-1200)

In Crevice

-610 (-500)

Pt Electrode

-480

Redox

-160 (vs. NHE)*1

*1. At pH 7

34

 ANSI/AWWA
< 700
700 - 1000
1000 - 1200
1200 - 1500
1500 - 2000
> 2000

10
8
5
2
1
0

pH
0-2
2-4
4 - 6.5
6.5 - 7.5
7.5 - 8.5
> 8.5
> 100
50 - 100
0 - 50
<0

(polyethylene
encasement)
10

5
3
0
0**
0
3
(mV)

0
3.5
4
5

(sulfide)
positive
trace
negative
(moisture)
(drainage)
,
,

DIN 50929
,

3.5
2
0
,

2
1
0

35

CORROSIVITY MAP (

36

P=ktn
P:
t:
k, n:

Power law

P (Maximum Pit Depth/mm)

Corrosion of Steel in Soil Environment

n

P=kt

t, (Time/year)

.
.
37

LogPc

0.700

0.069Log( SRB ) 0.749P / S

0.203Log( Cl ) 0.050E h

Clay

0.014pH Log( )

2.5

R=0.942
2.0

P0

0.500Pc t 0.372

P0, obs

1.5

1.0

Chemical factors
Biochemical (microbial) factors
CP effects

0.5

0.0
0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

P0, cal
38

INTERFERENCE

(interference)

(stray current;
(

(
,

)
( :

; stray current corrosion)

,
AC

(anodic interference)

(anodic interference)

(cathodic interference)

crossing

Rectifier

Pipeline Potential, V/CSE

power up

corrosion !!
Rectifier

-1

-2

-3
0

50

100

Distance, m

150

STS 304L
:1
:
DC

1.2V/CSE

(combined interference)

(combined interference)

49

25km,

10km,

: ~3km

100

10

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

Substation Spacing, L (km)

10

feeding current ( )

Il'''/I (%)

Total Leakage Current, Il''' (A)

7000A
leak current

vs.

.
(

/
(BS EN 50162: 2004)
(KS C IEC 62128-2)
(

(2005) p.83

10
10
9
8

7
6
5

10V
1

19
18
17
16
15
14
1

13
12
11

+5V
5

10

6
7

7
6

10

15
19

4
3
2
1

-5V

18

17

16

13 11
12
14

I-BEAM (

I-beam
I-beam

(
1

[A]

[A]

[A]

[A]

15.5 19.0

7.2

4.7

0.04

3.2

79%

15.5 18.9

9.9

4.2

4.7

100%

15.5 18.5

0.9

12.9

75%

15.5 16.8

8.0

48%

15.5 14.6

0%

[V]

1
2

[A]

/
-

/
: 19A
: 0.82

14.6A (23%
1.06 (30%

Maximum Corrosion Rate, mm/y

40

30

20

10

-800

-600

-400

-200

Potential, mV/CSE

200

Rail spike

: 2-3
1.2m

61

(-)

Forced Drainage Bond Using a Potential Controlled Rectifier

(
)

Is
Potential
Controlled
Rectifier

Is

structure

buried reference
electrode

)
instant off
7.5A

-1.0

12.5A

-1.5

E (V Vs. CSE)

Case Histories on Mitigation

Clients: KOGAS, KOWACO

-0.5

-2.0
-2.5
-3.0
-3.5
-4.0

32

30

28

26

24

T/B No.

22

20

18

T3-14

)
)

R3-5

C3-8

R3-4

T3-15

T3-12
T3-11
C3-4

R3-3

R4-4
R4-3

R4-5

R4-2

R4-6

R4-7

T3-10

R3-2

R4-8

R4-1

R3-1 C3-2
T3-8
T3-7

T3-6

C3-7 T3-5
T4-9
T3-2

T3-3
C3-9

T3-4
C3-6

66

Corrosion Control of Underground Pipelines

Base metal: CS
Coating + Cathodic Protection (CP)
(
,

CP

Corrosion Protection
TB

coating & lining

(
) CP
anodic protection
corrosion inhibitor
material selection

: Mg, Al
:
,

Mg

+
-

Cathodic Protection (CP)

CP is achieved by supplying e- to the metal
structure to be protected and widely used in:
1)
2)
3)
4)

long pipelines,
gas and oil transmission lines,
ships,
chemical processing equipments, etc.

Eapp

Cu

Fe
Corrosion current

EFe<ECu
(a) before protection

Cu

Fe
Corrosion current

Eapp>ECu-EFe
(b) after protection

Galvanic (Sacrificial) Anode CP System

CURRENT

ANODE

Impressed Current CP (ICCP) System

Power
Source

CURRENT

CURRENT

ANODE

Relative Economic Range for Galvanic and Impressed Current Systems

as a Function of Current Required and Soil Resistivity
3.5
3.0
2.5
Impressed Current

2.0
1.5
1.0
Galvanic

0.5
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Soil Resistivity ( in ohm-m)

80

90

100

CP

73

CP

74

Effect of CP

NACE RP0169 Control of External Corrosion on

Underground or Submerged Metallic Piping Systems
(potential criteria)
-850mV
100mV

76

: -850mV vs Cu/CuSO4
: -5,000mV
P/S
Pipe to Soil
(
: Sat. Cu/CuSO4
Ag/AgCl

T/B
300m - 500m

Equivalent Circuit for Corrosion Cell

Electrochemical
Reaction

Electrochemical
Reaction

Rct

Resistance
of Solution

Rct

Rsol

Anode

Double-layer
Capacitance

: Rsol

78

Double-layer
Capacitance

Cathode

Voltage and Current Lines Around a Bare Pipeline

Receiving Cathodic Protection Current

Potential (-mV)

(+)

80

ON Potential
IR

ON-IR -850 mVCSE

OFF Potential

100 mV
Polarization

OFF -850 mVCSE

100 mV Depolarization

Native (Free Corroding, Static) Potential

81

P/S

82

Reference Electrode Placed Close to Pipe Surface to

Minimize IR Drop Error in Potential Measurement

IR-free Potential (Instant-Off Method)

Potential (-mV)

(+)

ON Potential
IR

ON-IR -850 mVCSE

OFF Potential

100 mV
Polarization

OFF -850 mVCSE

100 mV Depolarization

Native (Free Corroding, Static) Potential

Time

Electrode for IR-free Potential Measurement

(polarization shift)
100mV
100mV

86

(polarization shift)

87

Test Point

-500
-600

P/S potential (mVCSE)

-700
-800

CP criteria

-900

TB 3
15.4mA

-1000
-1100

TB 4
14.7mA

TB 1
26.8mA

-1200

TB 9
25.2mA

TB 7
TB 6
19.2mA 34.3mA

TB 2
55mA

-1300

TB 8
0 mA

TB 5
11.4mA

-1400
-1500
0

Test points
TP

TP

Distance (km)

10

!!!

Test Point

Aboveground
Storage Tank
Grade

Test / Access
Station

Reference Cell
Monitoring
Tube

Rim

25'

On -1411 -698
Off -902 -664
Potentials (mV)

Center

55'

Rim

-404
-402

-601
-578

-1455
-911

Close Interval Potential Survey (CIPS)

120o

Ls

Pin-pointing of Coating Defects

DCVG (pulsed-direct current voltage gradient) method
20

3-4m

15

Potential Difference (mV)

10
5

-5

Defect
-10

-15

-20

-25
0

Measure Point

Pipeline operators concern and solution

Concern

Solution

Is protective coating sound?

DCVG *1

Is cathodic protection system working properly?

CIPS*2

What extent and where is the corrosion damage

(metal loss?)

ILI*3

Is pipelines having corrosion defects safe? What will FFS*4

be the life?
What will the appropriate remedial action?

Internal Expert
Consulting Service

*1. Direct current voltage gradient method

*2. Close interval potential survey
*3. In-line inspection
*4. Fitness-for-service

(External Corrosion Direct Assessment; ECDA)

ECDA (External Corrosion Direct Assessment)

(CP)
,

(2003)

1MPa

15

(Gas Transmission IM Rule), 49CFR192.923-931

(2003)
5

10

HCA

7
(ECDA)
(pressure testing)
, e.g., In-line inspection (MFL-ILI)

ASME B31.8S Section 6.4

ASME B31.8S Appendix B2 & A3
NACE RP0502 (Methodology for ECDA)
Shall/Must
Should Statements

 ECDA
PRE-ASSESSMENT

INDIRECT EXAM.

POST ASSESSMENT

DIRECT EXAM.

Risk Assessment
(region)

CIPS/DCVG/

SEVERE
MODERATE
MINOR

IMMEDIATE
SCHEDULED
MONITORING

/
/

1.

Pipe locator
AC

30m

ECDA

Pre-assessment

,TB,

:CIPS,DCVG,

)
,PCM

1.

Active/passive corrosion

04-4
04-3
04-2
04-1
03-4
03-3
03-2
03-1
02-4
02-3
02-2
02-1
01-4
01-3
01-2
01-1
00-4
00-3
00-2
00-1
99-4
99-3
99-2
99-1
98-4
98-3

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63

1.

-2,500 --2,000

-2,000 --1,500 T/B

-1,500
NO.--1,000

-1,000 --500

-500 -0

1.

ECDA 1

ECDA 2

ECDA 3

ECDA 4

ECDA 5

CIPS
CIPS/DCVG

PCM

CIPS/DCVG

River

Sandy-Loam

Sandy

Sandy

Loam

Medium

Well Drained

Well Drained

Poor Drainage

No History

Low

Med. Resist.

High

No History

Some Problems

Many Problems

1
CIPS(

2
2)

DCVG

(ASP)
,
/

CIS

DCVG
(

<50m,

CIS

>50m,

DCVG

CIS

PCM

CIS

DCVG

CIS

DCVG

CIS

DCVG

CIS

DCVG

CIS

PCM

Steel casing

DCVG

encasement

CIS

DCVG

CIS

DCVG

1.
2.
30m
3. 1, 2

, 40-50m
SCM
DCVG

.
CIS

DCVG

1.
2.
3.

30m
DCVG

4)(

5)( 6)
(

GSD 2124
(

6)

CIS

SCM

4)

NACE RP0502

OO

UNITS

CpIS (ICCP)

1-3m

mV (CSE)

DCVG

12m
%IR
Cathodic/anodic

- 1.2-3m
-

Resistivity
(Wenner 4-pin
method or soil
box)
PCM

1/3

, 2/3

18 45 m,
35 m

% IR
cathodic/anodic

(dip)
- %IR

cm

(50m)

20m
CIPS

(mA)

2.

TB,

TB

2.

(mVCSE)
(m)

600m-1Km

13

(TB)

M01

-498

-511

-503

M02

864

M03

1386

126
180

-59
-5

22
88

M04

2028

230

70

150

M05

2970

540

100

320

M06

3186

168

-227

-24

M07

3732

920

560

740

M08

4494

-84

-432

-285

M09

4908

148

-299

-97

M10

5748

-181

-598

-412

M11

5976

-219

-705

-432

M12

6762

-235

-535

-427

M13

7488

-207

-483

-361

TP

TP

2.

(< ~5,000 ohm.cm)

Wenner
~200m

four pin Method

2.

(CIPS)

120o

Ls

CIPS

CIPS

CIPS

(25 ft to 5 ft)
5 ft interval

25 ft interval

2.

DCVG

2.

Mg

DCVG/CI - Side Drainage

115

DCVG - %iR
5 ft interval

25 ft interval

%IR

(NACE RP0502-2002)

Category 1: 1-15% IR:

.

Category 2: 16-35% IR:

,

.
.
.

Category 3: 36-60% IR:

Category 2

-Category 4: 61-100% IR:

.

117

1995

-2002

DCVG

DCVG-GPS System

120

CIPS/DCVG

GPS Antenna

Measure cable

PDA

Push switch

Bluetooth communication

PDA screen touch operation

Pipeline Current Mapper(PCM)

4-8Hz
Pipe locator

receiver

(receiver

Case I.

Case II.

Case III.

Case IV.

short

Case V

Case VI

PCM

OO
transmitter
,

, 4Hz, 1A
)

transmitter

loss

Receiver

PCM

2.

(static or dynamic)

))

(STA 29+37.91)
0
STA 73
80V 9A

-300

E, mV

-600

-900

-1200

-1500
-15

-10

-5

10

15

Distance, m

: ~0.2A (

9A

2.2%)

Carrier pipe

128

casing

CIS survey: river-crossing region

Stray current mapper

(SCM)

DGPS coordinates measurement

-500

-1,000

-1,500

-2,000

-2,500

-3,000
0

CIS survey: asphalt road

20

40

60

80
No drilling

100

120
Drilling

140

160

180

200

0
-200
-400
-600
-800
-1000

CIPS

-1200
-1400
-1600
-1800
-2000
250

%IR

300

600

900

1200

1500

1800

2100

2400

2700

3000

3300

3600

600

900

1200

1500

1800

2100

2400

2700

3000

3300

3600

600

900

1200

1500

1800

2100

2400

2700

3000

3300

3600

3300

3600

200

150

%IR

100

50

0
100000

300

PCM300

10000

1000

100

10

1
2500

2A

2A

2A

2000

1500

PCM

1000

500

0
0

300

600

900

1200

1500

1800

2100

2400

2700

3000

CP Effectiveness (Pipeline Integrity) Assessment

Field Survey
Pipe Location

TB2
TB23
-2
T2 TB TB 5-1
TB23
TB2
24 25
-1
6 TB2TB2
7 8

Pipe locator/SCM

TB2
3

TB3
5
TB3
TB3 4
TB33
2

TB3
TB3
TB20 1
9

T1

CP History
Insulation Survey

Rectifier/Test
Point/Insulation Flange

Soil Corrosivity

Resistivity/Water
Content/MIC etc.

0
D2-9

D2-8

-500
-0.75V
-0.85V

P ote n tial ( VC SE )

-1000

CIPS/DCVG/PCM

-1500

-2000

23
-2500

23-1

T1

T2

23-2

26
25

25-1

Special Region Exam.

Risk Assessment

Mitigation Action
Documentation

Steel Casing
DC/AC Interference, etc.

30

27 28

24

31

32

33 34

29

-3000
0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

Distance from TB 23 (m)

3000

3500

4000

4500

DIRECT EXAMINATION
(urgency of excavation)
(Immediate action required)
(Schedule for action required)
(Suitable for monitoring)

feedback

(
1
:
DCVG +

cm)

2
1
CIPS

1 good coating)

DCVG*
Severe

Moderate

Minor

NI

< 3,000

I*

S*

S*

M*

3,000 7,000

I*

S*

M*

M*

7,000 20,000

I*

S*

M*

NI*

> 20,000

S*

M*

M*

NI*

I*

S*

M*

NI

Severe

Moderate

Minor

NI

NI

NI

1
+ CIPS

* I: Immediate (

), S: Scheduled (

), M: Monitoring (

(
(minor)

2 poor coating)
(moderate)

-0.75V < off

CIPS
> 10,000

cm

(severe)

< -0.65V

5,000 10,000

Off

cm

> -0.65V

< 5,000

CIPS
I
II
III

IV
V

cm

pH

Coating defect found

No disbonding
Defect was protected perfectly by CP.

(monitoring)

Disbonded area

(scheduled)

Mechanical Damage

No corrosion at crevice opening

Corrosion occurred inside crevice
Depth of disbondment: about 15 cm.

Coating disbondment

Crevice opening: pH>11

Inside crevice: pH 6-7

(
STN

(immediate)
pH

(mV)

cm)

:10,362cm2
1

-604

6,513

:56cm2
: 12

:25 ~ 70cm2
2

7~9

-735

2,098

: 12

,7

:10,362cm2
3

-562

2,538

:1,602cm2
:5.4 ~ 6.1cm2
,

8~9

-701

1,360
:7.6cm2~47cm2

Is corrosion is active or passive?

CASE 1: Active corrosion

Types

Potential (mV/CSE)

Pipe-to-Soil Potential

-1430 to -1200

Potential inside crevice

-610 to -550

OFF

CASE 2: Passive corrosion

pH
2H 2O 2e

H2

pH

2OH

1)

, OH-

pH

2)

pH

(
)
pH

3)

pH

pH
pH>10~11
,
.

vs. pH

pH
.

.
pH< 8

4.

ECDA


Maximum pit depth/burial time

0.4 mm/y*1
0.3 mm/y at least 40mV CP

LPR measurement (ASTM G59) + pitting index

Corrosion coupon

*1. Upper 80% confidence level of maximum pitting rates for long term (up to 17y) underground corrosion tests of
bare pipe coupons without CP in a variety of soils including native and non-native backfill.

RL

t
0.85SM
GR

FOR:

PFAIL
SM
PYIELD

PMAOP
PYIELD

SM (safety margin) = 0.6

GR (
T(

) = 10 mil/yr.

RL

) = 0.330

1/2

0.330
0 .85 (. 6 )
.010
ECDA

16 .8 yr

!!!

ECDA

DCVG
.

DCVG

, ECDA
.

.
DCVG

ECDA
.

ECDA
,
feedback

Availability of ECDA Tools (cf. NACE RP0502)

CIPS

DCVG

Pearson

EM

AC Attenuation

Coating holidays

1,2

1,2

Anodic zone or bare pipe

Near river or water crossing

Under frozen ground

1,2

Stray currents

1,2

1,2

Shielded corrosion activity (heat-shrink sheet)

Adjacent metallic structures

1,2

1,2

Near parallel pipelines

1,2

1,2

Under HVAC overhead electric transmission lines

1,2

Shorted casing

Under paved roads

1,2

Uncased crossing

1,2

1,2

Cased piping

At deep burial locations

Wetlands (limited)

1,2

1,2

Rocky terrain/rock ledges/rock backfill

*1:
*2:
*3:

<600mm2),

Corrosion under Disbonded Coating

147

Crevice Potential Measurement Under Disbonded Coating

Holiday potential -1.0V/CSE

NaCl 0.001M, 8350 cm

NaCl 0.005M, 1755 cm

NaCl 0.05M, 195 cm

ECDA + ILI
(

ILI

(GRI-02/0087)
33% ILI

40

75%

25%
ILI
ECDA

ILI
(

(2002)

unpiggable
. (25% + (42%))

ECDA+ILI (KOGAS

ILI

/
(Defect Assessment)

Geometry pig
MFL pig
(CIPS)
/

( )
(ECDA)

ILI-MFL

.
(threshold value)
.

Wireless
Networks

GPS
GIS
Satellite
Communication

TB 1

Rectifier
Remote
Control
Rectifier

TB 2

Remote
Monitoring
Data Logger
Reference
Electrode

Anode

155

Current

Rectifier
Remote
Monitoring
Data Logger

Remote
Control
Rectifier

Reference
Electrode

Anode

SMPS type

SCR type

(on/off)

GPS

10 msec

Installation & Operation Status in Korea

Gas transmission pipelines
~150 km of total 3,000 km is covered by
RemoteCPMSTM

Municipal water pipelines

~50km of total 3,000km is covered

Samsung BP Chemical pipeline

~ 5km

Gas distribution pipeline (Mokpo)

~ 5km

Installed
Being installed now (2009)
Future

Economic Feasibility Study on Remote CP Monitoring

Example: CP Maintenance Cost for Water Pipelines in Korea
80

Remote Monitoring

70

Manual Maintenance

Relative Cost

60

50

40

30

20

Assumption:
- Lifespan: 15 y
- One rectifier + Two TB in 2km region

10

10

15

Operation Period (yr)

20

25

30

10

10
9
8

7
6
5

10V
1

10

OO

(-),

= -2.5VCSE

(+)

)
6

OO
OO
4

OO

OO

vs.
2

4 P/S

3 P/S

2 P/S

35+25=60(A)


16

CIPS

logger)

(data

(#13, #26,
#28, #30)

(
R19 on/off,

25

(on/off

27mV)

)
R15 on/off,

R18 on/off,

R17 on/off,

20mV

17

(on/off

-74mV)

13

21

(on/off

(on/off

192mV)

-1756mV)

(
30
13
14
15
18
16
17
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
28

(m
)
-1000
6
864
2028
2364
2970
3186
3504
3732
4380
4908
5748
6762
7488
7650
8650

M1
M2
M4
M5
M6
D2
M7
M9
M10
M12
M13
End

R1

R2

R3

R4

R5

R7

R8

R9

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-200
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

R11 R12
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

R13-1

R13-2

R13-3

R14

R15

R17

R18

R19

R20

R21

R22

R23

R24

R25

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
192
36
28
69
29
31
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
50
0
-74
-23
-22
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
24
36
43
100
94
208
-1756
258
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
49
27
43
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
26
43
29
0
0
76

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
28
30
45
43
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

ILI
IT

( )

(ECDA,

Design can never be absolute.

A designer is seldom a corrosion engineer.
Unlike conventional engineering, the basic difficulty is that
corrosion is not a tangible property.
Decisions are often a compromise based on cost and availability of
materials and resources.

Communication is important.
Communication of agreed reasons for failures may not always
reach the designer. (ASM Metals Handbook, Vol. 13A)
Site personnel: 77%
Designers: 55%
Materials suppliers: 37%
Contractors: 11%