Inspectioneering Journal

A Discussion on the Piping Thickness Management Process - Part 2: Determining Corrosion Monitoring Locations

By A.C. Gysbers, Refining Metallurgical and Corrosion Expert at Becht. This article appears in the November/December 2012 issue of Inspectioneering Journal.
This article is part 2 of a 5-part series.
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3
Part 4 | Part 5


Piping failures still represent a frustrating and ongoing problem for processing plants (example in Figure 1)1. Failures are still commonly reported and contribute to large losses. In the author’s experience, piping represents the highest percentage of fixed equipment failures in petroleum refining. There are of course many factors within a pressure equipment integrity program (PEIP) that can contribute to piping integrity problems, including design issues, operating window compliance, management of change issues, etc.

Figure 1. The failed elbow recovered from the plant.
Figure 1. The failed elbow recovered from the plant.

This article is the second of a series of articles that will focus on one critical sub process within a PEIP that is key in managing the integrity of process piping: thickness monitoring programs for internal corrosion. These articles will discuss what constitutes an effective piping thickness monitoring process and will present several practices that may be new to some readers, but these practices have produced beneficial results in other major piping reliability programs. The first article (September/October 2012 Inspectioneering Journal) provided an overview of this process as outlined in Figure 2. This second article will discuss the considerations that factor into determining the number and position of corrosion monitoring locations (CMLs) as part of the thickness monitoring which is outlined in the highlighted (red) portion of Figure 2. A future article will focus on the type of monitoring, comparing radiographic versus ultrasonic thickness evaluation techniques.

This content is available to registered users and subscribers

Register today to unlock this article for free.

Create your free account and get access to:

  • Unlock one premium article of your choosing per month
  • Exclusive online content, videos, and downloads
  • Insightful and actionable webinars
Interested in unlimited access? VIEW OUR SUBSCRIPTION OPTIONS

Current subscribers and registered users can log in now.

Comments and Discussion

Posted by Jake Davies on April 29, 2016
Very informative article, Andy. Thank you. Best... Log in or register to read the rest of this comment.

Posted by Maximiliano Araneda on March 29, 2017
Hello Mr. Gysbers. I am Maximiliano Araneda and I... Log in or register to read the rest of this comment.

Posted by Andy Gysbers on March 29, 2017
Maximilliano, 1. The suggestion for coverage for... Log in or register to read the rest of this comment.

Add a Comment

Please log in or register to participate in comments and discussions.

Inspectioneering Journal

Explore over 20 years of articles written by our team of subject matter experts.

Company Directory

Find relevant products, services, and technologies.

Training Solutions

Improve your skills in key mechanical integrity subjects.

Case Studies

Learn from the experience of others in the industry.


Inspectioneering's index of mechanical integrity topics – built by you.

Industry News

Stay up-to-date with the latest inspection and asset integrity management news.


Read short articles and insights authored by industry experts.

Expert Interviews

Inspectioneering's archive of interviews with industry subject matter experts.

Event Calendar

Find upcoming conferences, training sessions, online events, and more.


Downloadable eBooks, Asset Intelligence Reports, checklists, white papers, and more.

Videos & Webinars

Watch educational and informative videos directly related to your profession.


Commonly used asset integrity management and inspection acronyms.