Professional Documents
Culture Documents
20557E01
20557E01
REVISION TRACKING
INFORMATION REQUEST
For information about the content of this standard, please refer to persons mentioned on
first page or to Company Standard Team (mbxc&st@eni.com).
INDEX
6.2.4 Fluid volume available for escape (fluid flow rate) factor FFR,H 54
6.2.5 Close proximity (location) factor FL,H 55
6.2.6 Overall hazard consequence factor FH 56
6.3 OPERABILITY CONSEQUENCE FACTOR FO 56
6.3.1 Production loss factor FPL,O 57
6.3.2 Redundancy factor FR,O 58
6.3.3 Shutdown time factor FST,O 59
6.3.4 Overall operability consequence factor FO 60
6.4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCE FACTOR FE 60
6.4.1 Close proximity (location) factor FL,E 61
6.4.2 Fluid type factor FF,E 61
6.4.3 Fluid volume available for escape factor FA,E 62
6.4.4 Overall environmental consequence factor FE 64
7 APPENDIX 3 TYPICAL OF CORROSION LOOPS IDENTIFICATION ON A
MSD 65
1.1.1 Foreword
Many studies have been issued by Eni dealing with the evaluation of the risks related to
corrosion in oil and gas production assets, including: production wells; treatment plants;
gathering systems; offshore structures. Most of these studies are based on procedures
that allow the evaluation of:
the corrosion risk is then assessed by combining the two on the risk matrix.
The above studies use and integrate several models and rules in combination with specific
and tailored corrosion knowledge expertise. The previous experiences allowed the
development of a procedure, illustrated in this document, applicable to Eni Upstream
assets.
Together with the “CorRA” methodology, the methodology defined in API 580 and 581
can be used to perform a risk based inspection study. The scope of both approaches is
the preparation of an inspection plan based on risk. The API 580/581 have been developed
for the downstream and refinery industry. In order to apply this methodology also to the
upstream sector some damage mechanisms typical of upstream environments have been
added by Eni to the API 581 tool included in Palladio software obtaining an “RBI API
Modified” approach. Both the CorRA and the “RBI API Modified” approaches are acceptable
to perform a corrosion risk assessment study and prepare the inspection plan adopting
criteria described in this document.
Other methodologies (eg. DNV) can be evaluated and approved by the HQ Technical
Authority (Engineering TA during the Design phase of the project and Production TA during
the Operations phase), based on Project’s specific needs and requirements.
For downstream and refinery applications, the RBI API 581 methodology can be applied
as it is. In particular, for what concerns the RBI studies in refineries, they are managed
by dedicated documents and guidelines issued by Eni Refining and Marketing (NT/BP-
MD/2000-04 dated 21.12.2004, and CAI-RT_18-03 dated 09.11.2018).
1.1.2 Scope
This Company standard deals with the aims, the contents, the execution procedure and
the field of application of the Corrosion Risk Assessment (following both the CorRA
developed by Eni and the API-581 methodologies) and Risk Based Inspection (RBI)
studies.
This document provides the description of the approaches adopted for calculating the
corrosion factors or likelihood and the consequences factors to be used to assess the risk.
The possible approaches are Qualitative, Quantitative and Semi-quantitative.
The algorithms and the criteria for corrosion prediction, both internal, i.e. due to conveyed
fluids, and external, caused by exposure to the external environment, are reviewed;
reference is made as much as possible to Company and International standards.
The sub-tasks which lead to the preparation of Corrosion Risk Assessment studies are
illustrated; specific attention is paid to the data to be gathered as input for the execution
of the study.
With the final aim of improving the integrity of the assets with reference to corrosion
related issues, the targets of this Company document are:
− to illustrate the standardized methodologies for the execution of the Corrosion Risk
Assessment studies;
− to provide guidelines for the execution of the Corrosion Risk Assessment studies in
different phases of the life of the assets;
− to provide guidelines for the adoption of the most suitable methodology, between the
CorRA and RBI API Modified.
International Standards are at the lower level of hierarchy, their contents, assumed as
reference, is developed and detailed within the Company Specifications considering the
specific application and the area of business in which Eni SpA is operating. On top of those
there are the Local Regulations, the Project Specifications, then the Company
Specifications. Any applicable local mandatory rule prevails on this specification. Should
there be a perceived conflict between this standard and other referenced standards, or
lack of clear definition as to the applicability of any specification or standard, the Facilities
Technical Units owner of the Standard, shall seek guidance to the Standard Team.
2 INTRODUCTION
2.1 FOREWORDS
Corrosion risk assessment is a task of the Materials and Corrosion Integrity Management
process (see Ref. /19/).
The objects of the corrosion risk assessment studies can be all the assets belonging to a
given oil and gas production field, or part of them. Typical examples are:
− production wells;
− water or gas injection wells;
− gathering networks, including: piping in the wellhead area, flowlines, trunklines;
− onshore treatment plants;
− offshore topside facilities;
− transfer pipelines, onshore or offshore;
− offshore structures like: platform jackets, subsea wellheads, hull, etc.
With respect to the project phases (see Ref. /34/), the corrosion risk assessment studies
can be issued:
− In the development phase, to check the material and corrosion prevention and control
strategies selected during design and execution (not acceptable risk shall have impact
on the material selection or corrosion control options); in this case the analysis will be
Qualitative.
− At handover to operation, as baseline for future assessments;
− Periodically, during the operation period, to check the status of the assets.
The main methods based on chemical treatments for internal corrosion control of pipelines
herein considered are:
− corrosion inhibitors;
− glycol control;
− pH stabilisation.
Risk = P ×C
This definition implies the assessment of the probability P and of the consequence C (see
Ref. /1/and Ref. /2/)
Applied to the case of corrosion failures, the consequences of an event include hazard for
people, repair intervention, loss of production and environmental pollution, and in the
case of API methodology also Company Reputation
• the first is a corrosion factor, FC, proportional to the likelihood of failure due to
corrosion;
• the second is an overall consequences factor, FCO, which combines and expresses
the entity of the consequences due to hazard (safety to personnel), operability
(production loss) and environmental impact.
The two factors are then combined to calculate the Risk value and represented on the
corrosion matrixes.
Depending on the results of the analysis, e.g. risk levels, the recommended inspection
date and coverage are defined.
The methodology described in API 581 is based on the concept of the evolution of Risk
over time and the assessment of the level of inspection necessary to keep the risk level
below the acceptable level or risk target.
Figure 2.1 – Evolution of Risk over time. In this case the risk target is reached
before the plan date.
In an RBI analysis the risk is evaluated at the date of the analysis and at the future
evaluation date (“Plan date”, date of planned inspection). The effect of the planned
inspection can be added.
Based on the results of the risk evaluation the optimal inspection plan (date and inspection
techniques/effectiveness) is then defined.
Figure 2.2 – Examples of Risk Matrix in Palladio showing the evolution of Risk
over time and the effect of Inspection on Risk.
The acceptable risk, or risk target as defined by API 580/581, is the maximum acceptable
risk above which immediate action shall be taken in order to reduce the risk.
This value shall be agreed with the Project or Operator of the Plant under evaluation
taking into account the requirements of the local legislation and rules.
The sequence of execution of the sub tasks, however, may be not strictly linear, and may
require loops between the steps to adequate the procedure to the project requirements.
The activities to be performed shall be agreed between the Parties (Company; Company
Representative; Contractor; etc.) and adequately planned in the early phases of the
project.
The main steps of the corrosion risk assessment procedure are reviewed in the next
Chapters; reference is made to the applicable Company and International standard. Some
specific issues are also illustrated in the Appendixes.
For each Project, this procedure shall be adapted based on requirements and information
attaining to the assets and to the specific case under evaluation.
A number of supports are available and shall be used during the execution of the corrosion
risk assessment activities; these include:
− Company standards;
− International standards;
− Company software tools;
− Data management systems.
The main characteristics of CorRA and API-Modified methods are here described.
• The main target of the CorRA is to check the integrity status of the assets or parts
of the plant;
• The time available does not allow to perform a fully quantitative analysis;
• It is requested to prepare a corrosion study, or a reassessment, with the purpose
to develop actions to be taken for reducing the corrosion related risks;
• When a previous CorRA study has been performed, a spreadsheet has been
implemented and is available.
− the individual well for the set of the production or injection wells;
− the individual piping and vessels in a process unit of a treatment plant;
− the individual piping and vessels in a package unit;
− the individual flowlines and trunklines in a gathering network.
As first step of the CorRA procedure, the individual items to be covered shall be identified.
In this phase, preference shall be given to include the greatest number of items, with the
aim to provide the most complete picture for the asset under study. In this phase, for
each type of component, the exposure side to be investigated - if internal, or external or
both - shall be also defined. Guidelines are given in Table 3.1.
As base case, the CorRA includes the following main process Units:
Extension of the CorRA Study to other Units, including Utilities Units, shall be agreed in
the Project Scope of Work.
The types and quantities of items to be included in the corrosion risk analysis shall be
evaluated case by case; the following guidelines apply:
− process piping: all main piping conveying the treated fluids; manifolds
are treated as piping;
− drain piping (closed and open): extent of corrosion analysis to be evaluated case by
case; grouping of homogeneous types (based on fluids,
size and material) is admitted;
− vessels: all main (pressure) vessels; corrosion analysis is
performed for shell and internals;
− storage tanks: all; corrosion analysis is performed for bottom and for
shell and roof (optional);
− heat exchangers: all; corrosion analysis is performed for main
components: shell, tubes, plate, etc. depending of heat
exchanger type;
− pumps and valves: to be evaluated case by case;
− instrumentation: excluded.
The items to be investigated shall be identified and a unique code associated to each item.
Reference shall be made as much as possible to the Company numbering system (see
Ref. /21/).
Main data and sources for above categories are shown in Table 3.2.
• verify the status of the plant, as input for external corrosion assessment;
• check integrity details as presence of grease on bolts, integrity of insulation, water
stagnations, leak points;
Moreover, the interview with Operating/Maintenance personnel for the assessment of the
consequences of failures is deemed necessary, in order to provide the proper risk level to
each item under study.
All missing data shall be assumed, and included in a dedicated report “Assumed Data” to
be agreed with the Business Unit.
Each group shall collect items that based on the materials, fluids, operating conditions
are exposed to the same corrosion mechanisms. Corrosion Loops shall be identified at
least on the relevant MSD by means of different colors, and if requested also on the
relevant P&IDs.
The corrosion analysis is performed for each item through the following steps:
Review of the item material represents a good practice before starting to assess corrosion;
in particular, compliance between material specified in the project documents and used
for construction shall be verified. Reference shall be made to as built drawings and
construction data sheets.
The corrosion mechanisms are identified separately for the internal side, dominated by
the conveyed fluid, and for the external side where corrosion is determined by the natural
environment of exposure – atmosphere, soil, sea water, etc.
In this phase, the scope is not to predict the severity of each corrosion mechanisms, but
to verify that potential conditions exist for occurrence.
The analysis shall be supported by appropriate knowledge available from the following
main sources:
The most common corrosion mechanisms met in oil and gas production are listed in Table
3.3, distinguishing between internal and external corrosion.
Oxygen corrosion [O2]; T; UAVG CS; CRA CR Rules and models available (Ref.
/22/)
Erosion corrosion UAVG; metallic material; operating CS; CRA CR Rules and models available (Ref.
conditions (continuous; /22/)
intermittent); fluid treatments
Amine corrosion Amine type; T; HSAS; acid gas CS CR (Ref. /2/) provides tables with
loading; UAVG corrosion rates
T, acid gas loading CRA
Galvanic Environment conductivity; CS; CRA CR Rules and models available (Ref.
coupled materials, Oxygen /22/)
Internal
presence
Elemental sulphur corrosion Presence of elemental sulphur; T; CS; CRA S/I Rules and threshold values
[O2]; [Cl-] available (Ref. /22/)
Localized pitting and crevice [Cl-]; T; [O2]; pH CRA S/I Rules available (Ref. /22/)
corrosion
Sand erosion solid particles; UAVG CS; CRA CR Rules and models available (Ref.
/22/)
− Environmental cracking
Sulphide Stress Cracking xH2S; P; pH CS S/I Based on compliance with
(SSC) applicable normative (Ref. /14/,
xH2S; P; T; pH, [Cl-] CRA /22/)
Hydrogen Induced Cracking xH2S; P; T; pH CS S/I Based on compliance with
applicable normative (Ref. /14/)
Amine cracking Amine type; applied/residual CS S/l Guidelines available (Ref. /2/)
stress; T
Chloride Stress Corrosion [Cl-]; T; pH; applied/residual CRA S/I Rules available (Ref./22/)
Cracking (CSCC) stress; [O2]
Sea water corrosion CP; coating CS; CRA CR Rules and models available (Ref.
/30/)
Soil corrosion [Cl-]; [SO42-]; pH; T; bacterial CS; CRA CR Rules available (Ref. /9/); CP
activity; resistivity; CP; coating measurements (Ref. /15/, /16/)
Electrical interference (DC and DC and AC electrical source in CS S/I Rules available (Ref. /12/).
AC) proximity; CP; coating
Carbonate-bicarbonate stress T; pH; presence of bicarbonates; CS S/I Guidelines available (Ref. /12/)..
corrosion cracking CP; coating
Abbreviations: CR - corrosion rates -- CS - carbon steel -- CRA - corrosion resistant alloys -- S/I - stability/instability
Table 3.3 – Corrosion mechanisms: affecting parameters and materials; prediction approach.
− For the corrosion forms which lead to metal weight loss with progressive thickness
reduction, as for instance CO2 corrosion or oxygen corrosion, the corrosion rate is
calculated using applicable models or assigned by knowledge rules;
− For corrosion forms where only conditions of material stability or instability exist (S/I),
as it is case for instance of the cracking mechanisms, the corrosion factor is attributed
based on expected performance of the alloy at the given exposure conditions.
The two approaches are discussed in next paragraphs. The approach based on corrosion
rate calculation is restricted to a limited number of corrosion forms.
𝟓𝟓 𝐭𝐭 𝑪𝑪𝑪𝑪
FC = (𝑫𝑫𝑫𝑫 − )
𝑫𝑫𝑫𝑫 𝐂𝐂𝐂𝐂
The corrosion factor FC calculated by the above formula is a number varying from negative
to +5, which is the maximum likelihood according to API:
70.0
60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
Fc - Corrosion Factor
The corrosion rate, CR, shall be calculated independently for each expected corrosion
forms, and only the highest value is considered to calculate the corrosion factor.
Internal and external corrosion rates are considered separately and totally independent
one from the other.
Depending on the Project phase in which the CorRA Study is performed, DL can represent:
for assets already in service or late in their design life or for design life extension:
It is also possible, in the same CorRA Study, to agree and assume different values for DL,
intended for instance as short, medium and long term evaluation periods.
The corrosion allowance thickness, tCA, is a key parameter to calculate the corrosion
factor, FC. It represents the true extent of wall thickness available to be consumed by
corrosion during operations (see Appendix 1 for details).
Depending on the project phase in which the corrosion risk assessment study is
performed, if development or operating phase, different values could be used for corrosion
allowance.
For studies performed during the operating life of the assets, the residual corrosion
allowance, tRES, shall be calculated, that is the measured or calculated residual thickness
allowable for corrosion:
The residual thickness can be calculated or estimated using inspection data, in particular
ultrasonic thickness measurements, if available.
Particle erosion occurs when a particle impacts on a surface, removing small amount of
material. After a large number of impact the total surface loss can be enough to cause a
functional failure.
When presence of solid is excluded, erosion is the result of mechanical wear of the flowing
fluid on the metal surface, where high flow rates and high local turbulence could lead to
a local breakdown or a complete removal of the protective corrosion products from the
metal surfaces, exposing the bare metal to the corrosive environment.
For monophasic liquid systems or dry gas system, erosion-corrosion is not expected and
there are no erosional velocity limits for purely single phase, solid free, non-corrosive
liquids (no entrained gas) or gases (no entrained liquid).
1
Water hammer results from the shock pressure due to the sudden stopping of a liquid (e.g. when closing a
valve or where reciprocating pumps or compressors are used). The magnitude of this pressure shock is a
function of the fluid velocity, the stoppage time and the elasticity of the pipe. The accompanying mechanical
vibrations can result in fatigue failure if corrective actions are not taken.
For wet gas or multiphase systems and corrosive fluids, erosion-corrosion assessment
consists in verifying that the average fluid velocity is lower than the erosion-corrosion
critical velocity “UC” calculated with the API RP 14E formula with modified C factor:
𝑪𝑪
𝑈𝑈𝐶𝐶 =
�𝛒𝛒𝛒𝛒
Where:
The erosion-corrosion factor depends on multiple variables, such as fluid corrosivity and
material resistance to corrosion. For multiphase flow corrosive systems the following C
factor values, expressed here in Metric units (Imperial in brackets) are recommended:
The evaluated critical erosional velocity “UC” is then compared with the actual flow velocity
“U”. Where erosion - corrosion is expected, very high corrosion rates can occur.
In presence of solid particles, the erosion rate can be calculated with the erosion model
of TULSA (SPPS) or DNVGL (Ref. /06/).
Corrosion resulting from microbial activity is associated with the presence of bacteria,
typically in water injection system or in formation brine from low temperature reservoir.
A number of different species of bacteria can cause corrosion:
• SRB (Sulphur Reducing Bacteria): they are the most commonly met in anaerobic
conditions; the corrosion mechanism is cathodic depolarization.
• SOB (Sulphur Oxidizing Bacteria): it is a group of bacteria growing in aerobic
conditions and leading to the production of sulphuric acid.
• IRB (Iron Related Bacteria): it is a group of bacteria growing in aerobic conditions
and leading to the oxidation of iron ion from a soluble form towards one not
soluble. The not soluble iron ions in combination with chlorides in the environment
give place to ferric chloride that is corrosive.
• APB (Acid Producing Bacteria): they give place to the production of organic acids
and sulphuric acid.
• ASB (Aerobic Slime-Forming Bacteria): they give place to the formation of "slime"
that is a product with a polymeric basis.
The presence of aerobic bacteria in closed system, with low fresh oxygen renewal, can
lead to the consumption of all the oxygen present and can cause insurgence of colonies
of anaerobic bacteria.
Amongst the above mentioned bacteria types, SRB are the most common in Upstream
Oil&Gas industry. Conditions for microbial thriving and hence MIC insurgence are the
following:
Sulphates ions are needed for SRB to grow, however bacterial growth can also be
supported by thiosulphate ions, which form by reaction between O2 and H2S.
Corrosion rate due to microbial induced corrosion is difficult to evaluate, but can reach
values much higher than 1mm/y, depending on how favorable are the environmental
conditions to bacterial development. No algorithms are available to quantify MIC
penetration rate.
Risk due to microbial induced corrosion is assessed using the CANMET model from the
relevant Eni company standard (Ref. /33/). The CANMET model uses a series of
parameters that influence bacterial thriving and assigns a corrosion factor depending on
their value. The considered parameters are: temperature, pressure, flow rates, cleaning
operations, pH, Langelier index, salinity (TDS) and suspended solids (TSS). Absence of
water is sufficient condition to set FCMIC = 0.
Furthermore, where MIC conditions to occur are verified, in case of carbon and low alloy
steel, the following criteria could be applied to estimate expected MIC corrosion rate:
For example, the following qualitative judgment and associated values could be defined
for the corrosion factor FC of CRA:
− safe-very high 0 ÷ 1
− high 1 ÷ 1.5
− moderate 2 ÷ 2.5
− low 3 ÷ 3.5
− very low 4 ÷ 4.5
− not applicable 5
In case of several corrosion forms expected and evaluated, the corrosion factors, FC,i, for
each form of corrosion are then combined to calculate the overall corrosion factor, FC,
assumed as the maximum value amongst the single corrosion factors.
Above guidelines to attribute a value to FC reflects the evidence that usually (with
exception of amine corrosion and sand erosion) corrosion of CRA does not occur as general
corrosion rate with a predictable penetration rate, but on the contrary, as localized
corrosion – as for instance pitting or cracking. Accordingly, the corrosion factor assumes
the meaning of likelihood of occurrence of the considered corrosion form, independently
from the time of exposure. Such prediction also expresses a degree of uncertainties,
intrinsically associated to the localized corrosion phenomena.
With the exception of Martensitic Stainless Steels, which is not covered by this Standard,
the absence of oxygen contamination is sufficient condition to neglect pitting corrosion,
in this case Fc = 0.
In case both chlorides and oxygen contamination, over a CRA is possible, the degree of
resistance to this form of corrosion is given by material properties and the severity of the
environment to which it is exposed.
The alloy susceptibility increases with the operating temperature and chloride content.
In the following table the corrosion factor for localized corrosion is assigned based on
chlorides concentration and operating temperature.
Table 5.10: Pitting and crevice corrosion factors for Alloy 825 – Production
Environment
Alloy 825 is not suitable for raw seawater service as, even at ambient temperature, it
may suffer from severe localized corrosion attacks. In offshore applications, seawater may
enter in contact with alloy 825 components accidentally or during washing operations
before periodical off-line inspection of the pressure equipment.
In such an event, corrosion factor is conservatively set equal to 5 regardless the operating
temperature and the contact time between seawater and the Incoloy 825 component:
Table 5.11: Pitting and crevice corrosion factors for Alloy 625 – Production
Environment
Table 5.11: Pitting and crevice corrosion factors for SuperDuplex 2505 –
Production Environment
Table 5.11: Pitting and crevice corrosion factors for AISI 316L SS
Table 5.12: Pitting and crevice corrosion factors for AISI 304 SS
• dead legs: defined as areas of a piping system exposed to the process that rarely
see flow leading to stagnant flow conditions. Dead legs should be removed from a
system when possible, or at least isolated and drained regularly. If removing is
not possible, then measures should be taken to continuously monitor them for
corrosion and other damage. A classification criteria to define if a pipe is a dead
leg is reported in API Standard 2611;
• choke valves;
• galvanic couplings at flanges of different materials, nut/flange, transducers. If
possible, galvanic couplings shall be avoided or eliminated;
• other critical items identified in the plant by field operation
In a Hot Spot the corrosion rate can be much higher than in the associated piping or
equipment due to the setup of local conditions, like stagnant fluid, that can reduce the
effect of the corrosion inhibition treatment or create the conditions for the growth of
bacteria.
In the Risk analysis the risk to be associated to hot spots shall be set at one level higher
than the risk related to the line or equipment to which the hot spot belongs. As an
example, in a line having a “low” risk, a dead-leg shall have a “medium” risk.
The risk of the entire piping of equipment shall be the highest calculated.
Monitoring data from permanent probes, where installed and operated, provide
information on absolute fluid corrosivity, variations of fluid corrosivity and efficiency of
chemical treatments when performed.
Results from monitoring, NDT inspection and failure data review can be used:
− safety;
− environment;
− asset operability.
The effects on safety of people and on the environment are “social” consequences, while
the effects on the asset operability are mainly “economical” and can include:
− production losses;
− repair interventions;
− item replacement and other corrective actions.
The analysis of the consequences of a failure on the operability and production of the
plant shall be performed with the support of the operation personnel of the plant under
study.
To assess and quantify the consequence of failure (lack of integrity) several models are
available with quite variable complexity. A simplified approach is based on the calculation
of a numerical consequence factor FOC, varying between 0 (lowest or no consequence)
and 5 (maximum consequence). The overall consequence factor FCO, whichever is the
failure mode (due to internal or external corrosion), is made up of the contribution
(weight) of three factors:
In the event of a failure, the overall consequence factor is given by the sum of the weights
of the three influencing factors as follows:
FOC = FH + FE + FO
The single values X, Y, Z shall be selected in a range between 0 and 5, provided that sum
of the three values is equal to 5.
The three consequence aspects are calculated independently from each other and then
aggregated to obtain the overall consequence factor. The assigned weights are intended
to represent the actual relevance of the parameter upon the specific consequence aspect
to be evaluated.
Main parameters affecting each consequence factor, FH, FO, FE, and typical values for the
relevant weights are reported in Table 3.4. They can be adjusted based on particular
context requirements.
Weight (typical
Consequence Factor Affecting parameters
values)
The matrix used for the CorRA methodology is shown in Figure 3.5.
For API 581 the possible matrices are two, balanced (Figure 3.3) and unbalanced (Figure
3.4). The risk levels are the same in the two matrices (i.e. Low, Medium, Medium High
and High).
In the balanced matrix the risk categories are assigned symmetrically to the boxes while
in the unbalanced the Risk categories are assigned to the boxes with the risk category
shading asymmetrical. Usually the balanced matrix is selected unless there are specific
project requirements.
The CorRA matrix has been revised: it is a 5x5 matrix while the previous version was
10x10. The risk levels are the following 5: High, Medium-High, Medium, Low and Safe
when the corrosion factor Fc is negative.
The cross reference with the risk levels obtained with the previous revision of the Standard
is shown in the matrix in Figure 3.6.
As defined in para 2.5 the following values of acceptable risk, or risk targets, are
recommended as a base case:
• CorRA: Medium
• RBI API 581: Area Consequence 10 [ft2/y] or 0.93 [m2/y].
The risk target can be visualized in the Risk Matrix as iso-risk line as shown in the following
Figure.
Figure 3.2 – API 581 balanced corrosion risk matrix and classes of risk.
On the same matrix all homogeneous items are reported, inserting the relevant code in
the corresponding risk area as it results by the values of FCO and FC. This allows to
effectively visualize and compare the risk status of the asset or facility under study.
For same group of items, more matrixes can be prepared for different values of the design
life parameter (see par. 3.4.2.1).
Figure 3.3 – API 581 balanced corrosion risk matrix and classes of risk.
Figure 3.4 – API 581 unbalanced corrosion risk matrix and classes of risk.
0 A B C D E
3
Corrosion Factor, FC
<0
High
Medium High
Medium
Low
Safe
10
10
9 HIGH
7 MEDIUM
6 HIGH
5 MEDIUM
3 LOW
Corrosion Factor, FC
< SAFE
0
very high
high
medium
low
very low
safe
Figure 3.6 – Cross reference between previous version with 10x10 matrix, and
new revision with 5x5 matrix.
3.4.7 Recommendations
Starting from the risk matrixes, which represent the result of the corrosion and
consequence analysis, recommendations shall be provided to improve the reliability, i.e.
decrease the corrosion risk of the assets under evaluation.
General recommendation which can arise from corrosion risk assessment studies are:
− requesting the execution of (additional) inspections aimed to confirm the assessed risk
level of a given item;
− to prepare risk based inspection plans.
Request of NDT inspection can include a wide range of industrial NDT techniques; visual
inspection and ultrasonic thickness measurements (UTM) are the most common ones.
Results from NDT inspection can be conveniently used to calibrate the corrosion prediction
models, based on the specific project and operating conditions.
Risk based inspection plans can be issued for homogeneous groups of item relating the
inspection frequency and the number of measurements to be performed to the risk level
of each item as indicated in the corrosion risk matrix. The RBI methodology is described
in the relevant Company Standard, Ref. /31/.
can change with time are: pressure and temperature; flow rates; water cut; gas oil ratio;
concentration of contaminants.
For the above reasons, as part of the corrosion integrity management process (see Ref.
/19/) the CorRA and RBI shall be regularly updated, mainly the following: inspections,
NDT examinations, repairs, modifications or replacements to the plant, or significant
changes in operating conditions.
This will allow to update the CRA and/or RBI during the operation of the plant as new
information on corrosion and NDT and/or inspection will be available.
− Item selection − asset register data − Corrosion mechanisms identif. − safety cons. factor calc. − Internal corrosion risk matrixes − Corrosion control recomm.
− Item codification − Fluid data − Material review and verification − environmental cons. factor calc. − External corrosion risk matrixes − Inspection
− Environmental data − Corrosion rate calculation − operability cons. factor calc. − CorRA update
− Operating data − Corrosion assessment − FOC calculation.
− Fluid treatments with chemicals − monitoring data review
ACTIVITIES
The API-RP-580/581 Standards have been developed for downstream industry and do not
include some damage mechanisms which are typical of upstream environments or the
requirements and limitations for the application of materials are different.
For this reason in Palladio Software some additional damage modules have been developed or
existing have been modified.
The following modules have been added making reference to the International Standards
indicated:
− Also new modules that give a “warning” have been included for the following damage
mechanisms:
− Galvanic Corrosion;
− Mercury Corrosion.
The following Sections provide details on the additional damage mechanisms and give the
standards used as a reference for the corrosion models that have been developed and included
in the software tool Palladio-RBI.
4.1 MIC
The effect of MIC is evaluated based on the presence of bacteria, operating conditions, presence
of a monitoring system and the final probability of failure assessed with a graph taken from
DNVGL-RP0501.
When sand and/or solids are detected of foreseen in the fluids the approach is based on the
standard DNVGL-RP-O501. In particular, the erosional velocity is calculated for the bend
geometry which is considered as the worst case scenario.
The results of the erosion-corrosion module is a probability of failure while for the sand erosion
module is a corrosion rate.
These limits have been implemented in the new module and the result is a probability of failure.
For this reason the API module has been modified in order to consider all the factors reported
above.
If approximation to the closest available API pipe diameter and tolerance factor are ignored, the
following relationship can be stated:
t = tMIN + tCD
− uniform corrosion;
− localised corrosion;
− cracking.
In case of ideal uniform corrosion occurring all over the pipe or vessel surface, critical conditions
are reached when the residual thickness reaches the tMIN thickness. If the internal pressure
exceeds the maximum allowed pressure after corrosion, the expected failure mode is the pipe
or vessel rupture. Uniform corrosion seldom occurs, most of failures occurring by localised
corrosion or cracking.
Localised corrosion and cracking are most of corrosion forms in oil and gas industry. Localised
corrosion includes:
2
The corrosion allowance is calculated for carbon and low alloy steels only, not for corrosion resistant alloys.
As far as localised corrosion is concerned, the following corrosion modes 3 can be defined:
α’ severe damage by pitting, reaching a critical size detectable by inspection methods, as for
instance intelligent pig inspections of pipelines;
α” leakage due to pitting penetrating through wall thickness;
β’ severe damage due to longitudinal grooving (mesa or step corrosion) detectable during
inspection;
β” rupture due to critical grooving.
Cracking causes the sudden rupture of the item and cracking phenomena are assumed to occur
instantaneously and conservatively no corrosion rate is associated.
The criteria adopted for calculating the actual design corrosion allowance can vary case by case.
Some approaches from the technical literature are reviewed in next paragraphs.
3
J.D. Edwards, T. Sydberger and K.J. Mork - Det Norske Veritas (DNV) - "Reliability based design of CO2 corrosion control -
Corrosion 96 , The Nace International Annual Conference and Corrosion Show, Paper n° 29.
��DE � ∙ t
2
where L is the length of the corroded area and DE the pipe external diameter. The parabolic
criteria provided by the norm is illustrated in Figure 5.2: the length of the acceptable defect
increases as the ratio d/t decreases, with an asymptote close to d/t=0.2. In part 3 of the norm,
the maximum value of L are provided up to values of d/t=0.8 for different pipe diameter and
thickness. In other words, acceptance of the defect is assessed not with respect to the corrosion
allowance values, tCA or tCD, but considering the combination of defect and pipe parameters, i.e.:
d, t, L and DE.
0.900
0.800
0.700
0.600
FAIL
0.500
d/t
0.400
0.300
SAFE
0.200
0.100
0.000
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50
L/((DE/2)xt)^0.5
Figure 5.2 – Safe and fail regions based on defect sizes parameters.
− tCA = 0.80 × t
with:
− t - tCA ≥ 5 mm.
− tCA = 0.95 × t
This corrosion mode usually applies to, in particular, tubing, where most of corrosion failures,
apart cracking, manifest as wall penetration.
PI - PE
t CA = t - 1.25 DE
SMYS
PI - PE
t CA = t - DE
SMYS
where:
4
T. Sydberger, J. D. Edwards and K.J. Mork - Det Norske Veritas Industry AS - "A probabilistic approach to prediction of CO2
corrosion, and its application to life cycle cost analyses of oil and gas equipment" - Corrosion 95 , The Nace International Annual
Conference and Corrosion Show, Paper n° 65.
5
J.D. Edwards, T. Sydberger and K.J. Mork - Det Norske Veritas (DNV) - "Reliability based design of CO2 corrosion control -
Corrosion 96 , The Nace International Annual Conference and Corrosion Show, Paper n° 29.
The document allows to consider up to 20 % of the design wall thickness required for mechanical
containment, tMIN, as corrodible. This leads to the following expression for actual corrosion
allowance: 6
Where:
tCONS consumed thickness. It is the thickness of the wall consumed from start up to the moment
the assessment is performed;
tRES residual thickness. It is the part of the actual design corrosion allowance still available at
the moment the assessment is performed.
Above parameters are related to the actual design corrosion allowance as follows (see Figure
5.3):
If the model adopted for calculating the corrosion rate is conservative, it can occur that tCONS is
greater than tCA (or greater than t), leading to tRES < 0. This result in principle is correct, for
instance when corrosion failures actually occurred in the past operating life; sometime, however,
it reflects the conservativity of the prediction models.
6
In the EFC model, the pipe manufacturing tolerances, as defined for instance by API 5L, are also considered.
tCONS
tcd tCA
The following sections show the recommended values for the different Factors, which may be
modified according to specific needs or Project requirement
FOC = FH + FE + FO
The contribution, or weight, of each factor shall be estimated on the basis of the associated
effects; the values in Table 6.1 are proposed as base case.
− type of fluid;
− content of H2S;
− Gas Oil Ratio (GOR) or Gas Liquid Ratio (GLR) 7,
7
The Gas Oil Ratio (GOR) is determined by means of the following formula:
GOR = QG / QO
where:
6.2.4 Fluid volume available for escape (fluid flow rate) factor FFR,H
The fluid volume available for escape factors can be estimated in different ways depending on
the functionality of the component:
− for component conveying fluids (flowlines, pipes, etc.), the reference parameter is the flow
rate; different ranges are assumed for liquid and gas flows. For buried flowlines and tubing
strings the factor is assigned independently from hydrocarbon rate, taking into account that
for such components, loss of integrity does not involve release of hydrocarbon directly in
contact with persons;
− for components containing fluid (vessels, separators, tanks, storage vessels, etc.) the
reference parameter is the capacity, V.
The normalization factor and the overall hazard consequence factor are calculated as follows:
NFH = (max. FF,H × max. FP,H × max. FT,H × max. FFR,H × max. FL,H) / X
The contribution, or weight, of each factor shall be estimated on the basis of the associated
effects; the values in Table 6.7 are proposed as base case.
Range of
Parameter Factor
values
Production loss percentage FPL,O 1.00 – 4.00
Redundancy FR,O 0.50 – 1.00
Shutdown time FST,O 0.85 – 4.50
− for component conveying fluids (flowlines, pipes, etc.) the relevant parameter is the flow
rate; different ranges are assumed for liquid and gas flows,
− for components containing fluid (vessels, separators, tanks, storage vessels, etc.) the
parameter assumed is the capacity.
Redundancy FR,O
Not redundant 1.0
Partially redundant 0.8
Redundant 0.5
Unknown 1.0
The number of involved sub-parameters (FWA,O, FRA,O, FMA,O) depends on the considered facility
as shown in the table below. The values in Table 6.10 are proposed as base case.
It has been supposed an operability impact that increases with the difficulty of the repair
operations and/or spare availability.
The normalization factor and the overall operability factor are calculated as follows:
The contribution (weight) of each factor to environment has been estimated on the basis of the
associated effects. The following weight ranges, representing the relevance of the parameter on
environment, have been assigned.
The following criteria have been assumed to take into account item location effects:
Note: Onshore vessels, heat exchangers, above ground tanks and piping are installed in plants that are
confined areas. The parameter location refers to the place where the plant is installed.
This factor is not necessarily the same evaluated for the hazard and from this point of view the
maximum impact on environment has been associated to liquid hydrocarbon, while the
environmental impact of gas release has been assumed less significant.
The risk factors have been assigned on the basis of the expected impact of the fluid on
environment:
− Oil, condensates: oil/condensates may damage the environment in many different ways: kill
directly organisms, kill through poisoning contact, kill through exposure to water-soluble
toxic components of oil, destruction of food sources of higher species and so on. Chemicals
are added to this fluid.
− Glycol, amine solutions: chronic eco-toxicological effects and long-term effects problems may
arise.
− Formation water: a low risk factor of 1.5 considers the presence of a small percentage of oil
in water, together with residuals of chemicals added to the produced fluid.
− Wet and dry gas, seawater, fresh water, brackish water: the risk to the environment is low.
The Fluid Volume Available for Escape Factor (FA,E) depends upon mass of fluid (FFR,E) and time
needed to control fluid release (FT,E) and is calculated as follows:
The contribution of the Fluid Flow Rate Factor to the environmental risk depend upon the time
needed to control fluid release in case of blow out.
The normalization factor and the overall environmental consequence factor are calculated as
follows: