Inspectioneering
Inspectioneering Journal

Determining Pipeline Corrosion Growth Rates

By Elizabeth Allen at DNV GL, and Michelle Havlock at DNV GL. This article appears in the November/December 2017 issue of Inspectioneering Journal

Introduction

Corrosion of metal is a long-standing historical and global problem in a wide range of industries, and the oil and gas industry is no exception. Pipeline operators are faced with many questions about the presence, location, and severity of corrosion in their oil and natural gas pipeline systems. In addition, many challenges arise in estimating a realistic rate at which corrosion may be growing. An overly conservative corrosion growth rate can lead to inspecting the pipeline more frequently than needed, additional required and costly excavations, as well as inaccurate modeling and forecasting within a risk program. One way to gain an understanding of pipeline condition and degradation rates is by performing an in‑line inspection (ILI) of a pipeline. A variety of ILI technologies are available; however, the magnetic flux leakage (MFL) or ultrasonic wall measurement (UTWM) inspection technologies are most typically used for assessing corrosion of metal pipelines.

An ILI survey will report the axial and circumferential location of detected corrosion anomalies along the pipeline, as well as the severity of the anomaly in the form of depth, length, and width measurements. If two inspections are available for a pipeline, a corrosion growth rate can be calculated based on the change in depth of the same individual corrosion anomaly divided by the time between the two inspections.

Overview of the SAC Assessment

The SAC Assessment is performed utilizing the four steps described in the following sections, which include:

  1. Align inspections and determine potential bias (tendency of the ILI to over-call or under-call anomaly depths) in ILI-reported depths
  2. Statistically evaluate differences between inspections to identify potential growth zones
  3. Validate growth identified by statistical analysis, as well as identify other areas of potential growth through ILI signal comparisons
  4. Assess remaining life of the pipe at each corrosion anomaly location based on calculated growth rates
Figure 1. Overview of SAC Assessment

Figure 1. Overview of SAC Assessment

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
GET STARTED
Interested in unlimited access? VIEW OUR SUBSCRIPTION OPTIONS

Current subscribers and registered users can log in now.


Comments and Discussion

Posted by Dana Baham on February 19, 2018
Well written paper and a good discussion.... 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.

Job Postings

Discover job opportunities that match your skillset.

Case Studies

Learn from the experience of others in the industry.

Event Calendar

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

Industry News

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

Blog

Read short articles and insights authored by industry experts.

Acronyms

Commonly used asset integrity management and inspection acronyms.

Asset Intelligence Reports

Download brief primers on various asset integrity management topics.

Videos

Watch educational and informative videos directly related to your profession.

Expert Interviews

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