Case Study on Corrosion Assessment of Infield Pipelines by

Different Corrosion Models in Operation Phase

Masoud Asgari*, Madhu Abburi, Heather McBeath and Arnaud Barr

Wood Group Kenny Norge AS, Lkkeveien 99, 4008-Stavanger, Norway.
Tel: +47 51 37 25 45 (direct)
Fax: +47 51 37 2501
E-mail: masoud.asgari@woodgroupkenny.com
* Corresponding author

Abstract
Internal corrosion monitoring & assessment of subsea production and export carbon steel
pipelines during operation is a crucial part of overall subsea pipeline corrosion
management strategy. Internal corrosion of the pipelines is generally assessed by
continuous monitoring of operational parameters and periodic inspection of pipelines
internal condition by inspection tools such as NDT (non- destructive testing) techniques.
However, corrosion assessment is highly challenging for the pipelines not equipped with
facilities (un-piggable pipelines) to run the inspection tools. One prominent alternative for
the corrosion assessment of un-piggable pipelines is to use a combination of different
corrosion models.
This paper presents a case study of corrosion assessment of different pipelines by semiempirical and mechanistic corrosion models. The assessment is carried out by NORSOK
M-506 CO2 corrosion model, Multicorp (Multiphase Flow Modelling Program), ECE
(Electronic Corrosion Engineer) and Cassandra. The methodology and input data used
and the results of the models are presented. The results of the different models are
compared in order to assess the internal condition of the pipelines. The study also
presents the minimum allowable wall thickness and the effective corrosion allowances for
each pipeline, calculated from DNV-OS-F101 standard. Cumulative metal loss of each
pipeline due to CO2 corrosion since the start of the operation is calculated by the
corrosion models. Based on the effective corrosion allowances and the cumulative metal
loss to date calculated, the pipelines future life is assessed. In addition corrosion
mechanisms, application of corrosion inhibitors and PSA regulations for operation of the
pipelines are briefly discussed.
The paper concludes that the corrosion models can be used effectively to recommend
deferral of pigging or provide sufficient confidence to determine fitness for purpose and
life extension of a pipeline when combined with monitoring data. Finally, corrosion models
can be used to establish a system monitoring program, for example to determine the
required frequencies at which certain parameters should be recorded.

1.

Introduction
Carbon steel pipelines are widely used in subsea for transport of multiphase production
fluids due to their significant economic impact on offshore projects. However, carbon steel
is highly susceptible to internal corrosion caused by presence of carbon dioxide (CO2)
and hydrogen sulphide (H2S) in free water, an environment commonly present in
multiphase (oil, gas and water) production systems and pipelines. During design stage of
the carbon steel pipelines, a corrosion allowance is usually added to pipe wall thickness
in order to accommodate metal loss due to corrosion during the operational life. Corrosion
allowance is an effective barrier for mitigating the loss of pressure containment of a
carbon steel pipeline due to internal corrosion. The corrosion allowance during the design
phase is determined based on the predicted corrosion rates by corrosion modelling and
anticipated corrosion management strategy will be in place during the operational phase.
The corrosion management strategy (CMS) is a critical part of pipelines overall integrity
management strategy and provides guidelines for the effective management of the
internal and external corrosion of a pipeline system. CMS ensures that internal and
external corrosion threats are identified, quantified and controlled to safeguard the
technical and operational integrity of the subsea pipelines to end of design life. The CMS
is progressively updated to take account of changes in the operating conditions and the
results of ongoing inspection, mitigation and monitoring activities.
Internal corrosion of carbon steel subsea production pipelines is influenced by several
factors such as CO2 and H2S content, water cut, temperature, pressure, flow rate, oil and
water wetting, bacterial content, formation of surface protective films and presence of
corrosion inhibitors. Corrosion inhibitor is continuously injected to control the corrosion
rate and its residual concentration in the produced water is measured to adjust the
dosing. As part of the corrosion management strategy, quantitatively measurable factors
are identified as Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) and their threshold limits are defined.
The operational parameters and produced water chemistry are regularly monitored
against the threshold limits to preliminary assess internal corrosion of a pipeline. In
addition corrosion coupons are placed inside the pipeline at fixed locations at the top side
to monitor the corrosion rates and efficiency of the corrosion inhibitors. Although the
topside monitoring of operational parameters, water chemistry and corrosion coupons
provides some understanding of internal condition of a pipeline related to corrosion, the
process is qualitative and does not reflect the true condition of an entire pipeline. A small
change in operational parameters could alter the corrosion rate inside a pipeline
significantly. One quantitative approach to assess the true condition of a pipeline is to
carry out intelligent pig inspection periodically. Intelligent pigs equipped with nondestructive tools such as acoustic testing reveal metal loss features. Thereby,
effectiveness of corrosion inhibitors and other corrosion control strategies can be verified
and mitigation strategies can be developed.
Pipelines are not always equipped with permanent pigging facilities. Pigging of such lines
requires temporary installation of subsea pig launchers and receivers. Such
arrangements are very costly and not always economically feasible for aged assets. For
such systems, periodic corrosion assessment by different corrosion models can be a
prominent alternative.

This paper presents a case study of corrosion assessment of different pipelines by

NORSOK M-506, Multicorp and Electronic Corrosion Engineer (ECE) corrosion models.
These models are selected to represent both empirical and mechanistic approach and
build confidence in the modelling results comparable to realistic conditions.
A mechanistic model takes the chemical, electrochemical and transport processes into
account, whereas empirical models take some simple empirical correlations and data
verifications [Ref. 1]. The chosen three models cover either mechanistic or empirical to
attribute how the productivity of the corrosion films and the effect of oil wetting affected
the corrosivity prediction.
NORSOK M-506 developed by the Norwegian oil companies Statoil, Norsk Hydro and
Saga Petroleum and is an empirical model [Ref. 2]. The model takes larger account of the
effect of protective corrosion films, but does not account for any effect of oil wetting.
ECE model is semi empirical model developed by Intetech and includes a module for
calculation of pH from the water chemistry and bicarbonate produced by corrosion
[Ref. 3]. This model is less sensitive to protective films and assumes a strong effect of oil
wetting and H2S.
Multicorp model is developed by Ohio University by using a mechanistic model for CO2
corrosion with protective iron carbonate films [Ref. 4 and Ref. 5]. This model assumes a
strong effect of protective films and includes oil wetting effects. The model calculates the
solution pH, height of water and oil layers in three phase flow and corrosion rates in slug
flow.

2.

Field Data
The subsea pipelines presented in this study transport multiphase production fluids from
subsea production template to top side platform facilities. The production fluid is
processed and separated. After separation, the oil and gas are exported. Some of the
produced gas is used for gaslift purposes. The gas is mixed with production fluid and
transported through the pipelines.
A selection of multiphase data from six different flowlines was collected by a major
operator in North Sea and was made available for use in the evaluation of three
corrosion models. An overview of the field data cases is shown in Table 1. The CO2 and
H2S content was taken from the GC analysis data of the export gas from one year and is
assumed equal for all fields.
The average daily values of the pipeline temperatures and pressures for each month
have been obtained from the downstream subsea well choke and used as input into the
Norsok and Multicorp models for the corrosion prediction.
For the ECE model the average inlet and outlet daily values flowline temperatures and
pressures values for each month have been obtained from the subsea and topside and
used for the assessment.
In all cases the base case corrosion evaluation is based on the uninhibited cases. The
total or overall accumulated corrosion attack of the pipelines during the operational life
3

was calculated using the corrosion inhibitor availability criteria as described in NORSOK
M-001. The days with corrosion inhibitor injection more than 20% below the target are
considered as uninhibited days and are take in account for cumulative metal loss.
In this study minimum allowable wall thickness (MAWT) and maximum allowable
operating pressure (MAOP) data in accordance with DNV-RP-F101 were used to
calculate effective corrosion allowance, the result is presented in table 1.
Table 1: An overview of the flowline data for corrosion evaluation
Oil line
1

Oil line
2

Oil line
3

Oil line
4

Oil line
5

Oil line
6

Nominal Wall Thickness (mm)

12.7

12.7

12.7

20.8

15.6

17.7

Effective corrosion Allowance (mm)

4.65

4.65

4.65

11.7

8.37

9.33

MAWT = NWT ECA (mm)

8.05

8.05

8.05

8.9

7.23

8.37

Average Temperature (C)

25.2

44.6

54.5

49.3

50.8

61.1

Average Pressure (Bara)

26.4

35.5

39.5

39.2

41.4

46.3

Actual Uninhibited (%)

0.069

0.069

0.081

0.075

0.069

0.075

CO2 (%mol)

0.61

0.61

0.61

0.61

0.61

0.61

Average Water Cut (%)

54.5

47.4

56.9

41.9

53.25

35.32

Bicarbonate (mg/l)

145

184

173

509

126

156

Chloride (mg/l)

38800

38700

39000

34700

38700

39400

Calcium (mg/l)

2600

2600

2500

2300

2800

3000

Flowline Data
Operation Life (year)

High levels of acetate have not been reported in these fields, and as such organic acid
corrosion is not considered in the present study.
Four metallic weight loss coupons in coupon holders and two ER probes installed on the
topsides and are pulled out for analysis every 12 months. The off-line corrosion
monitoring results and metallic weight loss coupon for different flowlines for the last 12
months is presented in Table 2.
Table 2: An overview of the flowline data for corrosion evaluation
Flowline

Coupon data (mm/year)

ER Probe Data (mm/year)

Line

0.01

Line

0.03

Line

0.03

Line

0.01

Line

0.02

Line

0.01

3.

Result
Table 3 shows the predicted un-inhibited and inhibited results from three different models
during the last year. The inhibited result is calculated from un-inhibited corrosion rate with
considering the actual inhibitor availability from filed data. According to the results Norsok
and ECE models predict high corrosion rates whereas Multicorp model gives relatively
low corrosion rate.
Table 3: Predicted Corrosion Rate With and Without Inhibitor during the Last Year
Un-inhibited corrosion rate
(mm/year)

inhibited corrosion rate

(mm/year)

Flowline
Multicorp

NORSOK

ECE

Multicorp

NORSOK

ECE

Line 1

0.21

0.94

0.45

0.11

0.20

0.14

Line 2

0.29

1.03

1.52

0.12

0.20

0.26

Line 3

0.35

0.91

1.33

0.13

0.20

0.25

Line 4

0.31

0.52

0.95

0.12

0.15

0.20

Line 5

0.34

1.25

1.34

0.13

0.23

0.24

Line 6

0.4

0.95

0.90

0.13

0.20

0.19

Figure 1 shows the un-inhibited and inhibited corrosion rates corrosion rates from
NORSOK M-506 model for line 6. In addition the cumulative metal loss for both uninhibited and inhibited with 95% inhibitor availability is presented in this figure. The figure
shows that 95% inhibitor availability has a high impact in corrosion rate.

Figure 1: Un-inhibited Corrosion Rate versus Inhibited Corrosion Rate and

Relevant Cumulative Metal Loss for Line 6
5

Table 4 shows the allowable corrosion rates with and without the manufacturing
tolerance versus the highest average corrosion rates from three models. In this study the
allowable corrosion rate with and without the manufacturing tolerance is calculated
based on the effective corrosion allowance and design life for each line. The average
corrosion rate is calculated from the three models. The most conservative corrosion rate
for each line with actual inhibitor availability is selected to calculate the average
corrosion rate during the operation time.
According to the data show in table 4, line 2 and line 3 show average corrosion rates
higher than the allowable corrosion rate when considering manufacturing tolerance and
the other lines show a lower than average corrosion rate.
The monitored corrosion rates from corrosion coupons are also presented in table 4.
Corrosion coupons retrieved following exposure to the process fluids are cleaned and
weighed in accordance with NACE Test Method TM-01-69. Corrosion rate calculations,
data interpretation and classification of corrosion rates are in accordance with NACE
Recommended Practice RP-07-75 [Ref. 6]. According to the NACE Recommended
Practice RP-07-75, any corrosion rate higher than 0.254 mm/year is considered severe.
The result from corrosion model is consistent with corrosion coupon analysis. In both
cases, line 2 and line 3 show very high corrosion rates.
Table 4: Allowable Corrosion Rate versus Average Corrosion Rate

Flowline

Effective
corrosion
allowance for
design life
(mm)

Allowable corrosion
rate without
manufacturing
tolerance (mm/year)

Allowable corrosion
rate with
manufacturing
tolerance (mm/year)

Average
Corrosion Rate
with 95%
corrosion
availability
(mm/year)

Corrosion Rate
Coupon data
(mm/year)

Line 1

4.65

0.232

0.169

0.139

0.01

Line 2

4.65

0.232

0.169

0.176

0.03

Line 3

4.65

0.232

0.169

0.187

0.03

Line 4

11.7

0.585

0.482

0.175

0.01

Line 5

8.37

0.417

0.321

0.252

0.02

Line 6

9.33

0.622

0.474

0.173

0.01

The remaining life is calculated as follow:

Effective corrosion allowance metal loss to date = remaining wall thickness

available for loss;
Remaining Wall Thickness available divided by the predicted future corrosion rate
gives the remaining life.

Based on the effective corrosion allowances and the metal loss to date calculated, the
production lines are deemed to have a future life (based on the DNV-RP-F101 code,
including design safety factor), based on the present conditions, as presented in Table 5.
In this study, the highest value of calculated cumulative metal loss from the different
models is used in the prediction of remaining life.
6

According to the corrosion prediction models, there appears to be a low CO2 corrosion
threat to the selected production pipelines, with a predicted future life of >18 years at
approximately 95 % corrosion inhibitor availability and taking into account manufacturing
defects. This is with the exception of flowlines 2 and 3 for which the predicted life is 13
and 12 years, respectively.
Table 5: Prediction remaining life in accordance with DNV-RP-F101
Inhibited Cumulative Metal Loss
for operation time (mm)
Flowline

Effective
corrosion
allowance
for
design
life (mm)

Predicted
Life in
accordance
with DNVRP-F101
(years)

Predicted
Life as
per ECA
corrected
for
tolerance
(years)

Multicorp

NORSOK

ECE

Line 1

0.698

0.882

0.769

4.65

27

18

Line 2

0.741

0.993

1.118

4.65

20

13

Line 3

0.816

0.990

1.190

4.65

18

12

Line 4

0.604

0.634

0.791

11.7

62

50

Line 5

0.462

0.719

0.758

8.37

30

22

Line 6

0.841

0.930

1.068

9.33

48

35

The effect of multiphase slug flow on corrosion inhibitor performance also has been
assessed. The flow regime has been determined by using ECE and Multicorp. These two
models show different flow regimes. Based on Multicorp model, most of the flow regimes
are stratified smooth flow but sometimes there is also a transition from stratified smooth
flow to stratified wavy flow in some periods for pipeline 1. Flowline 5 flow regime based
on this model has been stratified wavy flow for the entire period whole year.
Based on ECE model most of the flow regimes are intermittent bubble flow but
sometimes there is also a transition from intermittent bubble flow to stratified/wavy flow in
some periods for pipeline 1 as well.
Based on these two models, stratified smooth or wavy flow from Multicorp and
Intermittent bubble from ECE are the dominating flow regimes during the last year. There
is no indication of slug flow pattern in the last year. However, historical models show that
most of the flow regimes during the first four years of operation were intermittent/slug flow
and sometimes there is also a transition from intermittent/slug flow to dispersed bubble
flow in some periods for Line 1 and Line 2.

4.

Discussion
The most effective way to monitor the potential internal and external threats is to perform
periodic in-line inspection (ILI) of the pipeline system. The ILI is able to identify internal
and external defects with different origin along the inspected flowlines: manufacturing,
welding, corrosion, 3rd party damage. The internal inspection reveals the effectiveness of
the corrosion control program in place. Based on the inspection results, mitigation
strategies can be altered to maintain the integrity of the system.

In the Norwegian sector of the North Sea, the Petroleum Safety Authority (PSA) dictates
regulations relating to conducting petroleum activities in Norway. The PSA stipulates that
Norways regulations for petroleum operations offshore and on land are risk-based, and
give great emphasis to principles for reducing health, safety and environmental (HSE)
risk. The aim is to minimise the threat of accidents, personal injuries, occupational illness
and environmental damage, Ref. 7. However, the PSA states that there is no mandatory
requirement to carry an ILI for the subsea pipelines. A risk based assessment of the
flowlines shall be performed based on the analysis of the past and current conditions of
the pipelines. The risk assessment ranking will drive the frequency of inspection.
For the pipelines not equipped with pigging facilities (un-piggable pipelines), results of the
corrosion models can be used for carry a risk based assessment to defer the pigging
inspection.
In this study the uninhibited corrosion rate result is taken into account from three different
models to prediction of the remaining life. However, different models have different
approach to corrosion rate prediction.
Figure 2 shows the un-inhibited corrosion rate from Multicorp model for the 6 flowlines.
Oil wetting and water wetting effects have a significant role for simulation process in the
Multicorp model. The software does not run the simulation for water cut < 30% (oil wetting
phase), therefore for some periods which have water cut < 30% doesnt give valid
corrosion rate values. Therefore Multicorp model show lower average corrosion rates.

Figure 2: Un-Inhibited CO2 Corrosion Prediction Based on Multicorp Model

Figure 3 shows the un-inhibited corrosion rate from ECE model for the 6 flowlines. ECE
model assumes a strong effect of oil wetting and H2S. In ECE model the water is believed

to be present as a water-in-oil emulsion for the water cuts lower than the emulsion
breakpoint, and the predicted corrosion is low, but not zero [Ref. 1].

Figure 3: Un-Inhibited CO2 Corrosion Prediction Based on ECE Model

Figure 4 shows the un-inhibited corrosion rates from NORSOK M-506 model for the 6
lines. The model takes larger account of the effect of protective corrosion films. The
model does not account for any effect of oil wetting.

Figure 4: Un-Inhibited CO2 Corrosion Prediction Based on NORSOK M-506

9

The results show that prediction of remaining life based on different un-inhibited corrosion
prediction rate are depend on input data and the terminology for each model. These
corrosion rates will change from time to time according to the daily production data with
changing in gas, oil and water content. In addition manufacturing tolerance according to
DNV code has a high impact on the results and should be considered.
The result show that evaluation of the different corrosion prediction models against actual
corrosion field data can vary considerably from case to case which models are most
successful in their prediction, and it is not possible to declare one or two models as better
than the others. Using at least three different models for corrosion rate prediction is useful
for more accurate remaining life time prediction.

5.

Conclusion
Semi-empirical and mechanistic corrosion models are used to assess internal condition of
un-piggable infield production pipelines in operation. These models have different
approaches and account for different factors into their calculation of corrosion rates.
When compared to coupon data, the models give higher corrosion rates and provide a
conservative approach to assess the remaining life of the pipelines with respect to
internal metal loss. NORSOK and ECE models predict higher corrosion rates whereas
Multicorp model gives relatively low corrosion rate since it takes the strong effect of
formation of protective films and oil wetting. Accumulated metal loss of pipelines was
determined from the corrosion rates predicted by Norsok and ECE. The results showed
that the remaining corrosion allowance is sufficient for operation of the pipelines for the
remaining of the design life assuming that present conditions exist in the future. Since
PSA regulations states that risk based assessment can be used in deferral of in-line
inspection pigging, the corrosion model predictions are helpful in the decision making.
The corrosion models can also assist the field corrosion engineers to modify the keyperformance indicators and re-define the threshold limits to minimise the corrosion rates.

6.

References
1. R. Nyborg Guidelines for Prediction of CO2 Corrosion in Oil and Gas Production
System; IFE/KR/E 2009/003;
2. CO2 Corrosion Rate Calculation Model, Rev. 2", NORSOK standard No. M-506;
3. L. Smith, C. de Waard, "Corrosion Prediction and Materials Selection for Oil and
Gas Producing Environments", CORROSION/2005, Paper no. 05648, (Houston,
TX: NACE International, 2005;
4. M. Nordsveen, S. Nesic, R. Nyborg, A. Stangeland, "A Mechanistic Model for CO2
Corrosion with Protective Iron Carbonate Films - Part 1: Theory and Verification",
Corrosion, Vol. 59, No. 5, pp. 443-456, 2003;
5. R. Nyborg "CO2 corrosion models for oil and gas production systems" NACE

2010, Paper 10371;

6. "NACE Recommended Practice RP-07-75", Reaffirmed 2005-04-07.
7. http://www.psa.no/

10