20557E01

Eni S.p.A.
REVISION TRACKING
Rev. 00: 38 pages.

January 2010
Rev. 01: Actual revision is of 65 pages.

The document has been reviewed in the following points:
• Addition of methodology API-RP-580/581 Modified with additional damage
mechanisms typical of upstream plant.
• Addition of Corrosion Loops (Section 3.3)
• Corrosion Factors for Corrosion Resistant Alloys (Sections 3.4.2.2.1 and 3.4.2.2.2)
• Corrosion evaluation of hot spots (Section 3.4.3)
• Revised risk matrix for CorRA methodology, 5x5 with 5 risk levels (Section 3.4.6)
• Addition of Action Plan including recommendations emerged from the CorRA study
(Section 3.4.8)
December 2018
INFORMATION REQUEST
Eni personnel can access company standard repository at:

http://wwweandp.eni.it/TSServices/ITEM/Standards-/Normalizat/Documents-/index.asp
External user shall refer to the Project Engineer Manager.
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).
ENGINEERING COMPANY STANDARD

Documento riservato di proprietà di Eni spa. Esso non sarà mostrato a terzi né utilizzato per scopi diversi da quelli per i quali è stato inviato.
This document is property of Eni spa. It shall neither be shown to third parties nor used for purposes other than those for which it has been sent.
Eni S.p.A. 20557.ENG.COR.STD
Rev.1 Dec. 2018
Sh 3 of 65
INDEX
1 SCOPE AND GENERAL INFORMATION 6

1.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE 6
1.1.1 Foreword 6
1.1.2 Scope 6
1.2 DISTRIBUTION AND INTENDED AUDIENCE 7
1.3 REFERENCES DOCUMENTS AND NORMATIVES 7
1.3.1 International Standards 7
1.3.2 Company Standards 8
1.4 GENERAL DEFINITIONS 9
1.4.1 Specific Terms, Definitions, Acronyms and Abbreviations. 9
1.5 ORDER OF PRECEDENCE 10
2 INTRODUCTION 12
2.1 FOREWORDS 12
2.2 CORROSION RISK 12
2.3 CORROSION RISK ASSESSMENT 13
2.4 API 580/581 13
2.5 RISK TARGET OR ACCEPTABLE RISK 14
2.6 EXECUTION OF CORROSION RISK ASSESSMENT STUDIES 14
2.7 GUIDELINES FOR THE SELECTION OF THE METHODOLOGY 15
2.8 CORRA METHODOLOGY: 15
2.9 API-MODIFIED METHODOLOGY 16
3 CORRA CORROSION RISK ASSESSMENT PROCEDURE 16
3.1 FACILITIES AND ITEM IDENTIFICATION 16
3.2 DATA COLLECTION AND REVIEW 18
3.3 CORROSION LOOPS IDENTIFICATION 20
3.4 CORROSION ANALYSIS 21
3.4.1 Material review and corrosion mechanisms identification 21
3.4.2 Corrosion assessment and corrosion factors calculation 23
3.4.2.1 Corrosion factor assessment for weight loss corrosion forms 23
3.4.2.2 Corrosion factor assessment for localized corrosion forms 28
3.4.3 Corrosion evaluation of hot spots 32

Rev.1 Dec. 2018
Sh 4 of 65
3.4.4 Monitoring, NDT inspection and failure data review 33

3.4.5 Consequence analysis 33
3.4.6 Risk matrixes 35
3.4.7 Recommendations 40
3.4.7.1 Recommendations for corrosion control and prevention 40
3.4.7.2 NDT inspections 41
3.4.8 Action Plan 41
3.4.9 Corrosion Risk Assessment update 41
3.4.10 Software Requirements 42
3.4.11 Corrosion risk assessment flow diagram 42
4 API-MODIFIED RISK ASSESSMENT PROCEDURE 44
4.1 MIC 44
4.2 EROSION CORROSION 44
4.3 OXYGEN CORROSION 45
4.4 PITTING AND CREVICE CORROSION 45
4.5 SSC – SULPHIDE STRESS CRACKING 45
4.6 CO2 CORROSION 45
4.7 GALVANIC CORROSION AND MERCURY CORROSION 45
5 APPENDIX 1 – CORROSION ALLOWANCE AND THICKNESS RELATED
PARAMETERS 46
5.1 CORROSION ALLOWANCE 46
5.1.1 Corrosion allowance and corrosion modes 46
5.1.2 Actual design corrosion allowance and failure mode 47
5.1.3 ASME B31G 47
5.1.4 Sydberger et al. 49
5.1.5 EFC Document N. 23 50
5.2 RESIDUAL THICKNESS ALLOWABLE FOR CORROSION 50
6 APPENDIX 2 – CONSEQUENCE ANALYSIS 51
6.1 CONSEQUENCE ANALYSIS 51
6.2 HAZARD CONSEQUENCE FACTOR FH 51
6.2.1 Fluid type factor FF,H 52
6.2.2 Fluid pressure factor FP,H 53
6.2.3 Fluid temperature factor FT,H 54

Rev.1 Dec. 2018
Sh 5 of 65
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

Rev.1 Dec. 2018
Sh 6 of 65
1 SCOPE AND GENERAL INFORMATION
1.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE
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 likelihood of occurrence of a corrosion event, and

− the magnitude of the relevant consequences;
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.
The methodology developed by Eni to perform corrosion risk assessment is defined as

“CorRA” methodology.
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.

Rev.1 Dec. 2018
Sh 7 of 65
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.
1.2 DISTRIBUTION AND INTENDED AUDIENCE

This document is intended for use during projects phases and can be shared or distributed
to Contractors and Suppliers.
1.3 REFERENCES DOCUMENTS AND NORMATIVES

The latest edition of each publication shall be used, together with any
amendments/supplements/revisions thereto, however new revisions/updates during an
activity or project will not be considered unless there are associated safety/environmental
impacts.
1.3.1 International Standards
Ref. Code Title

01 API RP 580 Risk-Based Inspection.
02 API RP 581 Risk-Based Inspection Technology.
Terminal Piping Inspection – Inspection of In-Service
03 API 2611
Terminal Piping Systems
Manual for Determining the Remaining Strength of
04 ASME B31G
Corroded Pipelines.
Practice for Applying Statistics to Analysis of Corrosion
05 ASTM G16
Data.
06 DNV RP O501 Erosive Wear in Piping Systems.
Risk Based Inspection of Offshore Topsides Static
07 DNV-RP-G101
Mechanical Equipment.
Protection of metallic materials against corrosion -
08 EN 12500
Corrosion likelihood in atmospheric environment -

Rev.1 Dec. 2018
Sh 8 of 65
Classification, determination and estimation of corrosivity

of atmospheric environments.
Protection of metallic materials against corrosion.
09 EN 12501-1
Corrosion likelihood in soil. General.
10 EN 12473 General Principles of Cathodic Protection in Seawater.
11 EN 12474 Cathodic protection for submarine pipelines
12 EN 12495 Cathodic protection for fixed steel offshore structures.

Cathodic protection of buried or immersed metallic
13 EN 12954 structure - General principles and application for
pipelines
Standard material requirements for sulphide stress
14 ISO 15156 / NACE MR0175 cracking resistant metallic materials for oil field
equipment.
Petroleum, petrochemical and natural gas industries --
15 ISO 15589-1 Cathodic protection of pipeline systems -- Part 1: On-land
pipelines
Petroleum, petrochemical and natural gas industries --
16 ISO 15589-2 Cathodic protection of pipeline transportation systems --
Part 2: Offshore pipelines
17 NORSOK M-001 Material selection.
Design consideration for CO2 corrosion in oil and gas
18 EFC Publication No 23
production.
1.3.2 Company Standards
Ref. Code Title

19 20602.ENG.COR.PRG Corrosion integrity management.
20 06215.VAR.LCI.STD Facility functional units.
21 20198.VAR.LCI.STD Item numbering.
Internal corrosion. Fluids classification and corrosion
22 02555.ENG.COR.PRG
parameters definition.
23 20555.ENG.COR.PRG Internal corrosion monitoring specification
24 20556.ENG.COR.STD Internal corrosion monitoring. Functional requirements
25 20312.ENG.COR.STD Guidelines for chemical treatments of pipelines
26 14059.ENG.PLI.STD Pipeline inspections by ILI tools
Design, construction and installation criteria for floating
27 20384.ENG.NAV.PRG
unit’s mooring system
28 20600.ENG.COR.PRG Guidelines on corrosion and material selection normative
Guidelines for material selection in oil and gas
29 20603.ENG.COR.STD
processing facilities
30 20019.ENG.COR.STD Material selection for seawater handling systems
31 02961.ENG.COR.PRG Guidelines for Risk Based Inspections

Rev.1 Dec. 2018
Sh 9 of 65
32 27955.ENG.COR.STD Guidelines for Corrosion Data Collection and Management
33 27911.ENG.COR.STD Guideline to avoid MIC Corrosion
SVI.OMS.POS. OPOS. Opportunity and Production Operation System

34
MA.0001.000 Handbook.
Best Practice Material and Corrosion Integrity
35 bp.svi.eng.001
Management, 24 November 2016.
36 bp.svi.eng.004 Best Practice – Full Life Structural Integrity Management
1.4 GENERAL DEFINITIONS

The Company Standards shall comply with the use of the Company Terminology. All
acronyms and abbreviations used in the document are summarized in section 1.4.1.
i. The Company is Eni SpA;

ii. The word shall is used to indicate that a provision is mandatory;
iii. The word should is used to indicate that a provision is not mandatory, but
recommended as good practice.
1.4.1 Specific Terms, Definitions, Acronyms and Abbreviations.
Symbol or Unit Definition

abbreviation
CorRA (-) Corrosion risk assessment
CR (mm/y) Corrosion rate
CRA’s (-) Corrosion resistant alloys
DL (years) Design life or residual life
DMS Development Management System
Fc (-) Corrosion factor

FE (-) Environmental consequence factor
FH (-) Hazard consequence factor
FO (-) Operability consequence factor
FOC (-) Overall consequence factor
HAZOP Hazard and Operability Study
HSE Health, Safety, Environment

ICMS Integrated Corrosion Management System
IDMS Inspection Data Management System

Rev.1 Dec. 2018
Sh 10 of 65
LCC Life Cycle Cost
MSD Material Selection Diagram
NDT Non Destructive Testing
O&M Operation and Maintenance
OPDS Opportunity and Project Development System
P&ID Process Instrumentation Diagram
PFD Process Flow Diagram
SME Subject Matter Expert
SSC Sulphide Stress Cracking

TA (-) Technical Authority
t (mm) Nominal wall thickness (referred to a pipe or a vessel)
tCA (mm) Actual design corrosion allowance. It is the original maximum allowable
thickness which can be corroded before a damage/failure occurs
tCD (mm) Declared design corrosion allowance.
tCONS (mm) Consumed thickness. It is the thickness of the wall consumed from
start up to the moment the assessment is performed.
tINS (mm) Total residual thickness as determined from direct thickness
measurements, by ultra-sonic or by intelligent pig inspections.
tMIN (mm) Design wall thickness required for pressure containment and
mechanical resistance
TMS Technology Management System
tRES (mm) Residual thickness. It is the part of the actual design corrosion
allowance still available at the moment the assessment is performed
UTM (-) Ultrasonic thickness measurements
X, Y, Z (-) Weights overall consequence factors
1.5 ORDER OF PRECEDENCE

In conjunction with this specification, the codes, standards and regulations listed in
section 1.3 shall be applicable. Reference to any Standard or Code shall mean the latest
edition of that Standard or Code including addenda, supplements or revisions, unless
otherwise stated in this document.
The order of precedence shall be as follows: (descending order)
i. Local Regulations of the Country where the equipment is installed;

ii. Project Specifications and Data Sheets;
iii. Company General Specifications;
iv. International Codes & Standards
International Standards are at the lower level of hierarchy, their contents, assumed as
reference, is developed and detailed within the Company Specifications considering the

Rev.1 Dec. 2018
Sh 11 of 65
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.

Rev.1 Dec. 2018
Sh 12 of 65
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 targets of a corrosion risk assessment are:
− to assess the integrity status of the assets;

− as premise for risk based inspections;
− to provide recommendations on actions to be taken to reduce corrosion related risks.
The main methods based on chemical treatments for internal corrosion control of pipelines
herein considered are:
− corrosion inhibitors;
− glycol control;
− pH stabilisation.
2.2 CORROSION RISK

Risk is defined as the product of the probability of occurrence for a given event, P, by the
entity of the consequences, C, of the event occurrence:
Risk = P ×C
This definition implies the assessment of the probability P and of the consequence C (see
Ref. /1/and Ref. /2/)

Rev.1 Dec. 2018
Sh 13 of 65
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
2.3 CORROSION RISK ASSESSMENT

In the CorRA a semi-quantitative approach is adopted based on calculations of two
factors:
• 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.
2.4 API 580/581

The RBI methodology as described in API 580 can be applied at different levels:
qualitative, semi-quantitative or quantitative.
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.

Rev.1 Dec. 2018
Sh 14 of 65
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.
2.5 RISK TARGET OR ACCEPTABLE RISK

At the beginning of each RBI or CorRA it is required to define the Risk Target or Acceptable
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 following values of acceptable risk are recommended as a base case:
• CorRA (Semi-quantitative): Medium (see Section 3.4.6 Risk matrixes)

• RBI API 581 (Quantitative): Area Consequence 10 [ft2/y] or 0.93 [m2/y].
2.6 EXECUTION OF CORROSION RISK ASSESSMENT STUDIES

The procedure for the execution of corrosion risk assessment studies consists of a
sequence of steps, or sub tasks (see also Figure 3.7 – Corrosion risk assessment flow diagram.)
− facilities and item identification;

− data collection and review;

Rev.1 Dec. 2018
Sh 15 of 65
− corrosion loops identification

− corrosion analysis;
− consequence analysis;
− risk matrixes;
− recommendations.
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.
2.7 GUIDELINES FOR THE SELECTION OF THE METHODOLOGY

This Section provides guidelines for the adoption of the most suitable methodology for
the execution of a corrosion risk assessment to be selected between the CorRA and API-
Modified methods.
The main characteristics of CorRA and API-Modified methods are here described.
2.8 CORRA METHODOLOGY

− It is based on corrosion models, which make reference to Company standards.
− It is a semi-quantitative analysis.
− It takes advantage from the Company experience from the field.
− Only damage mechanisms related to corrosion are included.
− Is supported by an Excel spreadsheet software prepared for each Project, which can
be updated for further studies.
− Each study is performed and tailored on the base of the specific Project’s requirements.
− No license is necessary.

Rev.1 Dec. 2018
Sh 16 of 65
2.9 API-MODIFIED METHODOLOGY

− Based on the API-RP-580/581 Standard, widely known and recognized by authorities
of many different Countries.
− Can be performed at different levels: qualitative, semi-quantitative or quantitative. The
tool in Palladio Software is based on a quantitative approach.
− All the possible damage mechanisms are covered.
− Allows to evaluate the effectiveness of different inspection activities on the risk level.
− The probability of the failure event depends on the detection capability of the inspection
tool which will be used.
− Is supported by a dedicated tool certified by Bureau Veritas to be compliant with API
581. This module has been modified by Eni to include additional damage mechanisms
within the software Palladio not foreseen by API 581. Its use is regulated by a license
agreement. The Palladio user can decide whether to apply the API 581 or the API 581
Modified methodology.
In summary, the CorRA method should be preferred when:
• 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 API RBI Modified approach should be preferred when:
• The main target is to develop an RBI plan to be certified;

• The RBI analysis is required by local authorities;
• A fully quantitative analysis shall be performed;
• All the possible damage mechanisms shall be considered in the analysis;
• When a previous RBI study based on API 580/581 has been performed and results
are available;
• The RBI analysis shall be part of an IDMS (e.g. Palladio).
3 CORRA CORROSION RISK ASSESSMENT PROCEDURE
3.1 FACILITIES AND ITEM IDENTIFICATION

The CorRA study starts with the identification of the assets and of the individual
components (or items) to be covered. Each type of facility, in fact, includes a number of
components or items; for instance:
− 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

Rev.1 Dec. 2018
Sh 17 of 65
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.
Facilities Type of components Exposure side Remarks
Wells − tubing; − internal − soil side corrosion is usually

− wellhead (choke valve ignored;
included); − corrosion due to packer and
− downhole equip. completion fluid is usually
included
Gathering networks − wellhead piping; − Internal; − choke valve, excluded, is
− wellhead separator. − external: atmospheric usually adopted as battery
(optional). limit
− flowlines; − Internal; − internal corrosion analysis
− trunklines. − external: soil, − for buried flowlines and
atmospheric (optional) trunklines, corrosion analysis
and under thermal shall be extended to the soil
insulation. side
Process plant units − Piping; − Internal; − internal corrosion analysis
− Vessels; − external: soil, − for buried tank or vessel and
− heat exchangers; atmospheric (optional) for above ground storage
− storage tanks; and under thermal tanks, corrosion analysis
insulation. shall be extended to the soil
− pumps (optional);
side
− valves (optional).
Transfer pipelines − pipelines (on land and − Internal; − internal corrosion analysis
offshore). − external: soil, − in case of long pipelines, the
seawater and sea corrosion analysis is
mud. performed after dividing the
line in homogeneous trunks
Offshore/Subsea − risers; − internal − internal corrosion analysis
structures − subsea wellhead; − external: seawater and
− PLEM. sea mud
− Hull; − external: seawater and

− Jackets. sea mud
Table 3.1 – Guidelines for item identification.
As base case, the CorRA includes the following main process Units:
− Manifold Unit 130

− Flowlines Unit 150
− Oil Pipelines / Sealines Unit 160
− Gas Pipelines /Sealines Unit 170
− Production Pipelines Unit 180
− Oil Separation Unit 200
− Crude Oil Treatment Unit 210
− Crude Oil Transport and Storage Unit 220
− Flare, Vent and Blowdown Unit 230
− Gas Separation Unit 300
− Gas Dehydration Unit 310
− Gas Sweetening /Acid Gas removal Unit 330
− Gas Compression Unit 360
− Sea Water Unit 500
− Water Injection Unit 510
− Oily Water Treatment Unit 560

Rev.1 Dec. 2018
Sh 18 of 65
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/).
3.2 DATA COLLECTION AND REVIEW

In this phase, for the identified items to be covered, all the data needed for the corrosion
and consequence analysis are gathered and reviewed. The following categories of data
can be identified:
− item codes and extent;

− sizes;
− materials;
− design and operating parameters;
− fluid chemical analysis and physical parameters;
− fluid treatments with chemicals;
− process treatments;
− cathodic protection;
− coating and painting;
− monitoring, inspection and failures;
− presence of critical points or hot-spots as dead-legs.
Main data and sources for above categories are shown in Table 3.2.
A field survey is recommended in order to:
• 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;

Rev.1 Dec. 2018
Sh 19 of 65
• identify modifications and repairs;

• verify reliability of monitoring system;
• verify reliability of inhibition systems;
• verify reliability of cathodic protection system;
• check inspection technologies available on site (see also Ref. /31/).
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.

Rev.1 Dec. 2018
Sh 20 of 65
Data Category Main data Reference Documents
Item codes and extent − identification code of each item to be − P&ID;

covered in the CorRA; − construction drawings;
− extension (item connected – from/to); − equipment datasheets;
− presence of dead-legs. − any other applicable document.
Sizes and asset register c − thickness related parameters; − P&ID;
− pipeline length and diameter; − piping specifications;
− vessel sizes and volume. − equipment datasheets;
− construction drawings.
Materials − Type (family; grade; etc.); − material selection reports;
− reference normative. − MSD;
− piping specifications;
− construction drawings.
Process − separation; − project specifications;
− dehydration; − P&ID;
− physical deaeration (of raw sea water); − PFD.
− filtering;
− water removal.
Design and operating data − Temperature; − design premises;
− Pressure; − P&ID;
− fluid flow rates (oil; water; gas; GOR) − Heat&Material balances;
present and past; − production report.
− production forecast.
Fluid data − CO2 molar fractions; − PVT studies;
− H2S molar fractions; − Heat&Material balances;
− water phase chemical analysis; − chemical analysis bulletins;
− bacterial activity; − microbial analysis bulletins.
− contaminants (oxygen; organic acids;
elemental sulphur; mercury; etc.);
− physical parameters (density, compressibility
factors, etc.).
Fluid treatments with chemicals − products: corrosion inhibitors; biocide; − project specifications;
oxygen scavengers; etc − products bulletins and safety datasheets;
− dosages; − P&ID.
− injection points;
− historical data.
Cathodic protection − CP system data (type; layouts; components; − project specifications;
etc.); − project drawings;
− periodical measurements (on and instant off − survey reports.
potentials; TR operating data; etc.).
Coating and painting − coating and painting type; − project specifications.
− dry film thickness;
− thermal insulation.
Monitoring, inspection and − monitoring data from permanent probes − project specifications;
failures − inspection data (visual, UTS, etc.) − monitoring and inspection reports
− failure analysis (periodical);
− failure analysis report.
Table 3.2 – Data categories and main sources.
3.3 CORROSION LOOPS IDENTIFICATION

Items (equipment and piping) shall be grouped into Corrosion Loops, sometimes called
Corrosion Circuits.

Rev.1 Dec. 2018
Sh 21 of 65
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.
An example of corrosion loops identification on a MSD is reported in Annex 3.
3.4 CORROSION ANALYSIS

Corrosion analysis is aimed to calculate or assess, for each item, the likelihood of a
corrosion failure, expressed by the corrosion factor, FC.
FC is a qualitative parameter representing the probability of a failure caused by a corrosion

process; it is normalized to express the severity of the environment with respect to the
fitness of the corrosion control methods.
The corrosion analysis is performed for each item through the following steps:
− material review and corrosion mechanisms identifications;

− corrosion assessment and corrosion factor calculations;
− review of monitoring, NDT inspection and failure data and corrosion assessment
validation.
Above steps are illustrated in next paragraphs.
3.4.1 Material review and corrosion mechanisms identification

In this phase, the expected corrosion mechanisms are identified for each item or
homogeneous sets of items (Corrosion Loops or Corrosion Circuits);
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:
− standard documents: Company and International;

− technical literature;
− software programs: calculation tools and expert systems;
− Human expertise and experience.

Rev.1 Dec. 2018
Sh 22 of 65
The most common corrosion mechanisms met in oil and gas production are listed in Table
3.3, distinguishing between internal and external corrosion.
Exposure Affected Prediction

Corrosion mechanism Main affecting parameters Remarks and reference normative
side materials approach
− Uniform or localized loss of thickness

CO2 corrosion xCO2; P; T; pH; corrosion CS CR Rules and models available (Ref.
inhibitor; glycol /22/)
Microbial Induced Corrosion Bacterial activity; T; [SO42-], CS CR or S/I Rules available (Ref. /22/, /33/)
(MIC) salinity
H2S corrosion xH2S; T; pH CS CR Rules available (Ref. /22/)
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]
Mercury [Hg] CRA; Al S/I Rules available (Ref./22/)
− Environmental weight loss corrosion and cracking

Atmospheric Type of atmosphere: rural, CS; CRA CR or S/I Rules available (Ref. /8/, /22/)
industrial, marine, etc.; coating
Corrosion under insulation Type of atmosphere; insulation CS; CRA CR or S/I No rule available
(CUI) material; coating
External
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.

Rev.1 Dec. 2018
Sh 23 of 65
3.4.2 Corrosion assessment and corrosion factors calculation

Once the corrosion mechanisms have been identified and reviewed, corrosion is assessed
following different approaches:
− 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.
3.4.2.1 Corrosion factor assessment for weight loss corrosion forms

When a corrosion rate (mm/y) can be calculated, (e.g. CO2 corrosion, Erosion, Oxygen
Corrosion) the corrosion factor is then evaluated using the following formula, which
combines the corrosion rate (CR) with the design life (DL) and the corrosion allowance
(tCA):
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:
− negative values represent over-design conditions: the available corrosion allowance is

greater than necessary to cover the design life;
− a corrosion factor of zero represents the optimum case, with corrosion allowance
exactly consumed at the end of the life of the facility under study;
− positive values of the corrosion factor represent cases where the corrosion allowance
is not enough to last for all the design life;
− a corrosion factor close to 5 means that the corrosion rate are extremely high and
that the corrosion allowance will be consumed long before the end of the design life.

Rev.1 Dec. 2018
Sh 24 of 65
Corrosion Factor and Design Life

100.0
90.0
80.0
Residual Design Life %
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
Figure 3.1 – Relationship between Fc and the Residual Design Life.
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:
at design or before start-up:
− the Project design life;
for assets already in service or late in their design life or for design life extension:
− the residual design life;

− a period of time assumed for validity of the CorRA Study.
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.

Rev.1 Dec. 2018
Sh 25 of 65
In case of new facilities, as it is the case of studies performed before handover to

operation, the design, or declared, corrosion allowance shall be used.
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:
tRES = tCA – tCONS
where tCONS is the thickness consumed from start up.
The residual thickness can be calculated or estimated using inspection data, in particular
ultrasonic thickness measurements, if available.
Definitions and applicable calculation approaches are illustrated in Appendix 1.
3.4.2.1.1 Erosion and Erosion–Corrosion
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.
Erosion-Corrosion is caused by interaction of the erosion and corrosion processes. When

corrosive fluids flow through a pipe at low velocity a corrosion layer will develop on the
wetted surface. The corrosion rate decreases as this protective layer forms a barrier
between the base material and the fluid and eventually corrosion will slow or stop. In
particle-laden flow impacts remove the protective layer, thus accelerating the corrosion
process.
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).
However, other flow related phenomena need to be evaluated such as cavitation,

noise/vibration, friction pressure loss, water hammer 1. In the case of corrosive fluids
erosion-corrosion and corrosion threats should be evaluated.
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.

Rev.1 Dec. 2018
Sh 26 of 65
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:
• UC erosion-corrosion critical velocity

• C erosion-corrosion factor
• ρm fluid mixture density in actual conditions
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:
• C = 165 (135) low alloy carbon steels

• C = 244 (200) low alloy carbon steels plus corrosion inhibitors
• C = 366 (300) martensitic stainless steels
• C = 427-488 (350-400) CRA’s (austenitic and duplex stainless steels, nickel
Alloys).
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.
Table 5.1: Erosion-Corrosion likelihood and corrosion factor FC,EC .
Fluid Velocity Ratio EC Corrosion Factor FC,EC

U ≥ 1.5 Uc FC,EC = 5
1.5 ≥ U ≥ 1.0 Uc FC,EC = 2
1.0 ≥ U ≥ 0.8 Uc FC,EC = 1
U ≤ 0.8 Uc FC,EC = 0
Cupronickel 90/10 is susceptible to erosion-corrosion. The company standard about

seawater handling facilities (Ref. /29/) indicates 3 m/s as the fluid velocity limit to avoid
erosion of 90/10 alloy. Based on this limit the following corrosion factor will be applied:
Table 5.2: 90/10 Erosion-Corrosion likelihood and corrosion factor FC,EC.
Fluid Velocity [m/s] EC Corrosion Factor FC,EC

U>3 FC,EC = 5
U≤3 FC,EC = 1
In presence of solid particles, the erosion rate can be calculated with the erosion model
of TULSA (SPPS) or DNVGL (Ref. /06/).

Rev.1 Dec. 2018
Sh 27 of 65
3.4.2.1.2 Microbiological Induced Corrosion – MIC
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:
• Presence of bacterial activity (SRB);

• Presence of sulphates (SO4-- above 10 ppm);
• Anaerobic conditions (even locally, e.g. under deposit);
• Temperature not exceeding 100°C;
• pH below 10.5;
• Salinity below 140 g/l.
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:

Rev.1 Dec. 2018
Sh 28 of 65
3.4.2.2 Corrosion factor assessment for localized corrosion forms

For corrosion resistant alloy, as well as for some corrosion forms of carbon and low alloy
steel (typically cracking forms), corrosion performance can be predicted only in terms of
stability or instability. This leads to FC = 0 in case of verified stability and FC = 5 for
verified instability. Stability or instability (S/I) are assessed using available material
performance expertise with the supports of the normative.
In a similar approach, the corrosion assessment is performed by verifying the applicability

limits of the alloy, with the conditions met for the item under evaluation.
The procedure is:
− the expected corrosion forms are identified;

− the parameters affecting the occurrence of each corrosion form are identified and the
actual values gathered;
− for each corrosion form, the actual values of affecting parameters are compared with
a set of pre-defined limits here below given for the most used materials;
− the corrosion factor, FC, is assigned by means of rules whose antecedents are the
results of above comparisons with the application limits.
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.
3.4.2.2.1 Pitting and Crevice corrosion

Pitting and crevice corrosion can start in presence of chlorides and is influenced by the
following set of parameters:
• Chlorides concentration [g/L];

• Material type;
• Oxygen contamination;
• Temperature [°C];
• pH.

Rev.1 Dec. 2018
Sh 29 of 65
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.
3.4.2.2.1.1 Nickel Alloy 825 (UNS N08825)

Nickel base alloy type Alloy 825, with a PREN of 26, may be susceptible to localized pitting
and crevice corrosion in production environments in case of oxygen contamination and in
presence of chlorides, even if resistance to localized corrosion is higher if compared to
AISI 316L stainless steel.
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:
• If contact with raw seawater is not possible → FC,LC = 0

• If contact with raw seawater is possible → FC,LC = 5

Nickel base alloy type Alloy 625 has a PREN of 41 and is considered resistant to localized
corrosion due to chlorides in production environments and also in contact with raw
seawater at ambient temperature.

Rev.1 Dec. 2018
Sh 30 of 65
Table 5.11: Pitting and crevice corrosion factors for Alloy 625 – Production
Environment
O2 Contamination Temperature Chlorides FcLC

[°C] Concentration
[g/l]
No Any Any 0
Yes Any <20 0
Yes >60 >20 4
3.4.2.2.1.3 Super Duplex 2505 (UNS S32750)

25Cr stainless steel has a PREN above 40, so its resistance to localized corrosion in contact
with seawater or production fluids with oxygen contamination is similar to that of Nickel
Alloy 625.
Table 5.11: Pitting and crevice corrosion factors for SuperDuplex 2505 –
Production Environment

[°C] Concentration
[g/l]
No Any Any 0
Yes Any <20 0
Yes >60 >20 5
3.4.2.2.1.4 Duplex 2205 (UNS S31803)

22Cr stainless steel has a PREN between 30 and 40, so its resistance to localized corrosion
in the event of oxygen contamination is similar to that of Alloy 825. The same rules
defined for alloy 825 apply also for duplex stainless steel.
3.4.2.2.1.5 AISI 316L Stainless Steel (UNS S31603)

In presence of chlorides austenitic stainless steel type AISI 316L is highly susceptible to
localized pitting and crevice corrosion in case of oxygen contamination. The susceptibility
increases with the operating temperature. The corrosion factor for localized corrosion ‘FC,
LC’ is assigned by applying the following set of rules.
Table 5.11: Pitting and crevice corrosion factors for AISI 316L SS

[°C] Concentration
[g/l]
No Any Any 0
Yes <60 <0.1 0
Yes <60 >0.1 3
Yes >60 Any 5

Rev.1 Dec. 2018
Sh 31 of 65
3.4.2.2.1.6 AISI 304 Stainless Steel (UNS S30400)

AISI 304 Stainless Steel is completely unreliable in case of chlorides contamination. It
shows high susceptibility to pitting and crevice corrosion. Because of this reason, the
following rules will be applied to define the corrosion factor for this damage mechanism:
Table 5.12: Pitting and crevice corrosion factors for AISI 304 SS

[°C] Concentration
[g/l]
No Any Any 0
Yes Any <0.1 2
Yes Any >0.1 5
3.4.2.2.2 Chlorides Stress Corrosion Cracking (CSCC)

In presence of oxygen contamination and under certain conditions, several CRAs may
suffer of stress corrosion cracking damage mechanisms triggered by chlorides presence.
The following parameters influence the onset of CSCC:
• Chlorides concentration [g/L];

• Material type;
• Oxygen contamination;
• Temperature [°C];
• pH.

The same rules for Pitting Corrosion applies.

3.4.2.2.2.3 Duplex 2205 (UNS S31803)

22Cr duplex stainless steel may be susceptible to chloride stress corrosion cracking in
case of oxygen contamination and at relatively high temperature. The following set of
rules will be applied to define the corrosion factor:
Table 5.13: Chloride stress corrosion factors for SAF 2205

[°C] Concentration
[g/l]
No Any Any 0
Yes <100 Any 0
Yes >100 <100 3
Yes >100 >100 5
3.4.2.2.2.4 Super Duplex 2507 (UNS S32750)


Rev.1 Dec. 2018
Sh 32 of 65
3.4.2.2.2.5 AISI 316L Stainless Steel (UNS S31603)

Austenitic stainless steel type AISI 316L is highly susceptible to CSCC in case of oxygen
contamination and at temperature in excess of 50-60°C. The following set of rules will be
applied to define a corrosion factor Fc, CSCC for CSCC damage mechanism of AISI 316L
stainless steel:
Table 5.14: Chloride stress corrosion factors for AISI 316L SS

[°C] Concentration
[g/l]
No Any Any 0
Yes <60 Any 0
Yes >60 <10 3
Yes >60 >10 4
Yes >60 >100 5
3.4.2.2.2.6 AISI 304 Stainless Steel (UNS S30400)

The following set of rules apply for AISI 304 Stainless Steel.
Table 5.15: Chloride stress corrosion factors for AISI 304 SS

[°C] Concentration
[g/l]
No Any Any 0
Yes <60 Any 0
Yes >60 <10 3
Yes >60 >10 4
Yes >60 >100 5
3.4.3 Corrosion evaluation of hot spots

The risk analysis study shall include a section where hot spots, defined as areas of the
plant where severe corrosion conditions can take place, like the following are analyzed:
• 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

Rev.1 Dec. 2018
Sh 33 of 65
effect of the corrosion inhibition treatment or create the conditions for the growth of
bacteria.
Hot spots can be identified on piping isometrics, 3D models or equipment’s construction

drawings, as described in the RBI Std.
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.
3.4.4 Monitoring, NDT inspection and failure data review

Monitoring, NDT inspection and failure data represent a valuable source of information on
integrity of operating facilities.
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.
NDT include a number of techniques, like: electromagnetic; ultrasonic; mechanical

(caliper); electrical (casing potential). Intelligent pig inspection of pipelines are also part
of the available inspection techniques.
Failure analysis also provides information on actual performance of a component at given

operating conditions.
Results from monitoring, NDT inspection and failure data review can be used:
− to validate results from corrosion predictive models;

− to adjust the results from predictive models;
− to validate fitness of in service materials;
− to assess residual thickness of inspected items;
− to assess if damage mechanism not expected are active in the plant.
For being used in corrosion risk assessment studies, data from all above sources need to
be carefully reviewed and elaborated; this activity is out the scope of this standard and
needs specialist corrosion expertise.
3.4.5 Consequence analysis

The target of this activity is to assess the entity of the consequences in case of occurrence
of a corrosion event producing effects in the operation which can impact on:
− safety;
− environment;
− asset operability.

Rev.1 Dec. 2018
Sh 34 of 65
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:
− safety consequence factor FH ,

− environmental consequence factor FE,
− operability consequence factor FO .
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
0→5 0→X 0→Y 0→Z

where:
FOC Overall Consequence Factor,
FH Safety Consequence Factor,

FO Operability Consequence Factor,
FE Environmental Consequence Factor,

X Hazard Factor Weight: it represents the maximum value of the Safety
Consequence Factor,
Y Operability Factor Weight: it is the maximum value of Operability Consequence
Factor,
Z Environmental Factor Weight: is the maximum value of Environmental

Consequence Factor,
X+Y+Z Maximum value for FOC (5).
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.

Rev.1 Dec. 2018
Sh 35 of 65
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.
The procedure to calculate the above consequence factors is illustrated in details in

Appendix 2 of this Document.
Table 3.4 – Consequence factor normalization weights. Base case.
Weight (typical
Consequence Factor Affecting parameters
values)
Safety - fluid type

- fluid pressure
- fluid temperature
X=2
- fluid volume available for
escape
- close proximity
Environmental - close proximity
- fluid type
Y=1
- fluid volume available for
escape
Operability - production loss percentage
- redundancy Z=2
- shutdown time
Overall X+Y+Z = 5
3.4.6 Risk matrixes

Once the corrosion factor and the overall consequence factors were calculated, the two
factors are used on the relevant coordinates of the risk matrix to assess the risk level of
the item under study.
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.

Rev.1 Dec. 2018
Sh 36 of 65
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.
Examples of homogeneous groups of items are:
− Item in the same corrosion loop;

− vessels of same process unit;
− piping of same process unit;
− wells of same field;
− flowlines of same gathering system.

Rev.1 Dec. 2018
Sh 37 of 65
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.

Rev.1 Dec. 2018
Sh 38 of 65
Overall Consequence Factor, FOC
0 A B C D E
3
Corrosion Factor, FC
<0
Legend Corrosion Risk Classes
High
Medium High
Medium
Low
Safe
Figure 3.5 – CorRA risk matrix 5x5 and 5 levels of risk.

Rev.1 Dec. 2018
Sh 39 of 65
Overall Consequence Factor, FOC
10
10
9 HIGH
7 MEDIUM
6 HIGH
5 MEDIUM
3 LOW
Corrosion Factor, FC
< SAFE
0
Legend Corrosion Risk

Classes
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.

Rev.1 Dec. 2018
Sh 40 of 65
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.
Recommendations can be grouped in two main categories:
− recommendations for corrosion control and prevention, and

− NDT inspections.
3.4.7.1 Recommendations for corrosion control and prevention

Recommendations for corrosion control and prevention are associated to an item or to a
group of items showing a corrosion risk higher than expected.
For convenience, recommendations are separately issued for internal or external

corrosion, based on the prevailing corrosion forms determining the risk.
Recommendations include a number of possible intervention covering all the techniques

available for corrosion control and prevention.
For internal corrosion, the main ones are:
− item replacement, with same or with different material;

− treatment with chemicals: corrosion inhibitor; biocide; oxygen scavenger; others;
− optimization of performed treatment with chemicals;
− application of internal coating - organic or metal;
− application of internal cathodic protection;
− introduction or improvement of corrosion monitoring techniques;
− performance of chemical analysis; the reference value shall be clearly stated; usually
some of them are available as KPI in the contract agreement with the Chemical
Supplier.
− performance of bacterial counts;
− process modification.
Specifically for external corrosion:
− application of organic coating;

− introduction or improvement of cathodic protection;
− execution of cathodic protection surveys.
General recommendation which can arise from corrosion risk assessment studies are:
− request of additional data and information;

− request for data confirmation;
− issue of corrosion studies focussed on specific problems;
− residual life assessment;
− design of retrofitting or refurbishment studies and design documents;
− periodical revision of the corrosion risk assessment study (see par. 3.4.9).

Rev.1 Dec. 2018
Sh 41 of 65
3.4.7.2 NDT inspections

The corrosion risk matrixes can be used for:
− 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/.
3.4.8 Action Plan

The recommendations provided in the study will be included in an action plan where the
proposed interventions are clearly detailed.
The Action Plan should contain the following data:
• What to do: description of the action;

• Where: Unit involved, details on the item interested by the intervention;
• How : detail on the methodology to be followed or standard to be adopted;
• Priority: high, medium-high, medium or low priority according to the risk level of
the item.
Table 3.5 – Example of Action Plan as output of the risk assessment

Action Tracking – Corrosion Risk Assessment
N Priority Unit Action Description Deadline Action by Open/
Closed
1 High V101 Increase corrosion inhibitor date To be filled ...
dosage at water outlet by Field
2 Medium- ... ... date …. ...
High
3 Medium ... ... date … ...
4 Low ... date ... ...
... ... ... ... ... ... ...
3.4.9 Corrosion Risk Assessment update

CorRA Studies need to be periodically revised based on updated data, in particular
operating data. Oil and gas production assets, in fact, different from downstream facilities,
are exposed to conditions which vary along the life of the assets. Typical parameters that

Rev.1 Dec. 2018
Sh 42 of 65
can change with time are: pressure and temperature; flow rates; water cut; gas oil ratio;
concentration of contaminants.
Furthermore, the recommendations for corrosion control provided in a CorRA, once

implemented, can significantly modify the corrosion risk and this shall be verified by a re-
assessment of the corrosion factors and issue of new matrixes.
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.
3.4.10 Software Requirements

The corrosion risk assessment analysis and/or RBI shall be performed with the support of
a software (Excel worksheet or dedicated software like Palladio), and the final database
with all the data and calculations shall be delivered to the Company.
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.
3.4.11 Corrosion risk assessment flow diagram

The procedure for execution of corrosion risk assessment studies is illustrated in Fig 3.7,
where main supports and activities are shown for each sub task.

Rev.1 Dec. 2018
Sh 43 of 65
PUT AND SUPPORTS − Field Reports

− Inspection Reports
− Data Management System
− Project specifications
− Data Management System − Design premises − Statistics − Data Management System
− P&I Diagrams − PVT Studies − Software tools − Software tools
− Applicable normative − Material Balances − Applicable normative − Applicable normative − Applicable normative
− − P&I Diagrams − − −
SUB-TASKS
Item Data Collection Corrosion Analysis Consequence Risk Matrixes Recommendations

Identification and Review Analysis
− 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
− Coatings and CP data − Inspection data review

− Corrosion monitoring − Failure review
− Inspections data − FC calculation.
− Failures data − Risk Target Definition
− Painting data − Corrosion Loops Identification
Figure 3.7 – Corrosion risk assessment flow diagram.

Rev.1 Dec. 2018
Sh 44 of 65
4 API-MODIFIED RISK ASSESSMENT PROCEDURE
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:
− Erosion Corrosion API RP 14E

− Sand Erosion DNVGL-RP-O501
− MIC DNVGL-RP-G101
− Oxygen Corrosion DNVGL-RP-G101
− Pitting and Crevice Corrosion DNVGL-RP-G101
− While the following existing modules have been modified:

− SSC – Sulphide Stress Cracking NACE MR0175 - ISO15156
− CO2 corrosion NORSOK M506 / DeWaard & Milliams.
− 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.
The result of the module is a probability of failure.
4.2 EROSION CORROSION

For the assessment of the Erosion-Corrosion and Sand/Solids Corrosion the approach is based
on the API-RP14E for the evaluation in case of solids free system.
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.

Rev.1 Dec. 2018
Sh 45 of 65
The results of the erosion-corrosion module is a probability of failure while for the sand erosion
module is a corrosion rate.
4.3 OXYGEN CORROSION

Oxygen corrosion is evaluated based on the approach reported in DNVGL-G101 and the final
result is a corrosion rate. The evaluation is performed for seawater, closed and open loops
circuits and cooling water. It is not intended for use in the evaluation of oxygen corrosion in
production streams
4.4 PITTING AND CREVICE CORROSION

Pitting and Crevice corrosion is evaluated based on the approach reported in DNVGL-G101 and
the final result is a corrosion rate. The evaluation is performed for seawater, closed and open
loops circuits, cooling water and is not intended for use for production streams oxygen corrosion.
4.5 SSC – SULPHIDE STRESS CRACKING

The damage module present in the API 581 is based on the requirements of standard ISO
17945/NACE MR0103 which is applicable to the downstream sector. In the upstream sector the
standard NACE MR0175 / ISO 15156 defines area of severity for carbon steel and specific limits
based on chlorides contents, pH, temperature, pH2S and presence of elemental Sulphur for CRA.
These limits have been implemented in the new module and the result is a probability of failure.
4.6 CO2 CORROSION

The damage module in API 581 is based on NORSOK M506 model. While this module is applicable
in the upstream sector, the module in API 581 does not take into account some factors, which
have a significant effect on CO2 corrosion:
• the API grade of the oil;

• the presence/absence of free water in the gas stream;
• the type of water: condense or formation;
• the presence of elemental sulphur.
For this reason the API module has been modified in order to consider all the factors reported
above.
4.7 GALVANIC CORROSION AND MERCURY CORROSION

The “warning” modules are based on Company knowledge and give as a result of the evaluation
an indication of the possibility that the mechanisms is active. There are no models available in
literature that can be applied to obtain a likelihood or a corrosion rate for these types of damage
mechanism. In case the damage mechanism is assessed as active it is recommended to consult
a SME/TA.

Rev.1 Dec. 2018
Sh 46 of 65
5 APPENDIX 1 – CORROSION ALLOWANCE AND THICKNESS RELATED PARAMETERS
5.1 CORROSION ALLOWANCE

Calculation of the corrosion factor, FC, of carbon and low alloy steel 2 pipes and vessels explicitly
considers the pipe or vessel wall thickness available for corrosion, reported as corrosion
allowance. (see Par. 3.4.2 in this Document). For calculation of the correct value for corrosion
allowance, the following thickness related parameters are defined:
t nominal wall thickness

tMIN design wall thickness required for pressure containment and mechanical resistance.
tCD declared design corrosion allowance: it is the part of the wall thickness required by design
because of corrosion.
tCA actual design corrosion allowance: it is the true extent of wall thickness to which corrosion
could be tolerated during operation; it can be greater than tCD.
If approximation to the closest available API pipe diameter and tolerance factor are ignored, the
following relationship can be stated:
t = tMIN + tCD
In next paragraphs, the following issues are covered:
− actual design corrosion allowance based on expected corrosion modes;

− residual corrosion allowance in facilities already in operation.
5.1.1 Corrosion allowance and corrosion modes

The actual design corrosion allowance depends on the corrosion mode, that is the type of damage
or failure caused by a given corrosion mechanism, strictly related to the morphology of the
corrosion attack. Typical morphologies are:
− 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:
− CO2 pitting corrosion;
2
The corrosion allowance is calculated for carbon and low alloy steels only, not for corrosion resistant alloys.

Rev.1 Dec. 2018
Sh 47 of 65
− CO2 longitudinal grooving (mesa or step corrosion);

− pitting by microbial induced corrosion;
− pitting by oxygen corrosion;
− erosion corrosion attacks.
Most common cracking mechanisms are:
− sulphide stress cracking;

− hydrogen induced cracking;
− chloride stress cracking.
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.
5.1.2 Actual design corrosion allowance and failure mode

In case of corrosion defects, that is of attacks interesting a very limited portion of the exposed
metal surface, the actual design corrosion allowance, tCA, can be greater than the declared design
corrosion allowance, tCD. This means that a part of the design wall thickness required for
mechanical containment (tMIN) in excess to tCD, can be reasonably assumed to be available before
critical defect size conditions are reached.
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.
5.1.3 ASME B31G

ANSI/ASME B 31G provides criteria to evaluate a corrosion defect considering the depth of the
defect and the length of the corroded area (see Figure 5.1). Acceptance of a corrosion defect is
assessed based on the ratio d/t between maximum corrosion depth, d, and pipe wall thickness,
t, and a parameter,
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.

Rev.1 Dec. 2018
Sh 48 of 65
��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.
Figure 5.1 – Size identification parameters on internal defect in a pipe.
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.

Rev.1 Dec. 2018
Sh 49 of 65
5.1.4 Sydberger et al.

Sydberger and others 4,5, in accordance with ANSI/ASME B 31G, derived specific criteria based
on a probabilistic approach of the failure mode.
For localized pitting corrosion (corrosion mode α') it is proposed:
− tCA = 0.80 × t
with:
− t - tCA ≥ 5 mm.
For localized full penetrating pitting corrosion (mode α”) it is:
− tCA = 0.95 × t
This corrosion mode usually applies to, in particular, tubing, where most of corrosion failures,
apart cracking, manifest as wall penetration.
For longitudinal grooving (corrosion mode β') it is proposed:
PI - PE
t CA = t - 1.25 DE
SMYS
and for mode β”:
PI - PE
t CA = t - DE
SMYS
where:
PI internal design pressare (MPa)
PE external pressure (MPa)
DE pipe external diameter (mm)
SMYS specified minimum yield strength (MPa).
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.

Rev.1 Dec. 2018
Sh 50 of 65
5.1.5 EFC Document N. 23

The EFC Document N. 23, Section 8, provides a procedure to calculate the maximum allowed
corrosion allowance for localised corrosion in general.
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
tCA = tCD + 0.2 × (t - tCD) = tCD + 0.2 × tMIN
Where:
tCD design corrosion allowance;

tMIN thickness required for pressure containment.
5.2 RESIDUAL THICKNESS ALLOWABLE FOR CORROSION

In case of corrosion risk assessment of existing structures, the actual design corrosion allowance
shall be replaced by the residual part of the actual design corrosion allowance, i.e. the original
one less the amount consumed by corrosion from start up to the moment the assessment is
performed.
The following thickness related parameters are defined:
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):
tRES = tCA - tCONS

tCONS can be calculated based on past corrosion rate values or can be estimated from monitoring,
inspection and failure data.
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.

Rev.1 Dec. 2018
Sh 51 of 65
tCONS
tcd tCA
0.2 x tmin tRES

t
tmin
Figure 5.3 – Thickness related parameters in a corroded wall.
6 APPENDIX 2 – CONSEQUENCE ANALYSIS
The following sections show the recommended values for the different Factors, which may be
modified according to specific needs or Project requirement
6.1 CONSEQUENCE ANALYSIS

The overall consequence factor, FOC, is a normalized parameter used to assess and quantify the
consequence of failure (lack of integrity). The overall consequence factor is made up of the
weighted contribution of three factors:
− hazard consequence factor FH ,

− environmental consequence factor FE.
− operability consequence factor FO ,
with:
FOC = FH + FE + FO
0→5 0→X 0→Y 0→Z
6.2 HAZARD CONSEQUENCE FACTOR FH

Calculation of the hazard consequence factor, FH, is based on the following parameters:
− the nature of fluids:

− release of toxic compounds, i.e. H2S,
− flammable releases with potential to cause fires and explosions,
− the operating conditions (pressure, temperature):
− releases with potential to cause personnel injuries, i.e. hot or high pressure releases,
− the quantity of fluids which may be released; it is evaluated considering:
− flow rates, in case of pipes,
− capacity, in case of vessels and tanks,
− the evaluated component location,
− the tentative number of persons who may be consequently injured (population density).
The following factors are defined:

Rev.1 Dec. 2018
Sh 52 of 65
− fluid type FF,H,

− fluid pressure FP,H,
− fluid temperature FT,H,
− fluid volume available for escape (fluid flow rate) FFR,H,
− close proximity (location) FL,H.
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.
Parameter Factor Range of values

Fluid type FF,H 0.0 – 3.0
Fluid pressure FP,H 1.0 – 3.0
Fluid temperature FT,H 1.0 – 1.5
Fluid flow rate FFR,H 1.0 – 3.0
Close proximity FL,H 1.0 – 3.0
Table 6.1 – Ranges of values for the parameters composing FH
6.2.1 Fluid type factor FF,H

It express the hazard associated with the nature of the process fluid; numerical values are
assigned based on:
− type of fluid;
− content of H2S;
− Gas Oil Ratio (GOR) or Gas Liquid Ratio (GLR) 7,
and based on the following considerations:
− hydrocarbon containing H2S: H2S toxicity, risk of fire and explosion,

− hydrocarbon not containing H2S: the risk is limited to fire and explosion,
− amine solutions: it is harmful if inhaled, corrosive to the skin and eyes and causes severe
irritation of the respiratory tract. It releases flammable gases and forms readily explosive
mixture with air,
− glycol: the hazard is related to the risk of inhalation toxicity,
− formation water: a low risk factor of 1.5 (higher than potable water) considers the presence
of a small percentage of oil and gas in the water, together with residuals of chemicals added
to the produced fluid. The water itself causes a risk of burns,
− waters (other): the hazard is just related to the risk of burn.
7
The Gas Oil Ratio (GOR) is determined by means of the following formula:
GOR = QG / QO
where:
QG gas production flow rate (Sm3/d),

QO oil production flow rate (m3/d).
The Gas Liquid Ratio (GLR) is defined as:
GLR = QG / (QO + QW)

where:
QW water production flow rate (m3/d).

Rev.1 Dec. 2018
Sh 53 of 65
The values in Table 6.2 are proposed as base case.
xH2S GOR or GLR

Fluid type FF,H
[%MOL] [Sm3/m3]
>0 3.0
Gas and gas with condensates (GH) (-)
=0 2.5
>0 ≥ 100 3.0
>0 < 100 2.5
Liquid hydrocarbons and multiphase systems (LH)
=0 ≥ 100 2.5
=0 < 100 2.0
Stabilized oil (O)
(-) (-) 2.0
Hot oil (HO)
Glycol (GL) (-) (-) 1.8
>0 2.5
Amine solutions (AM) (-)
=0 1.8
Production or formation water (PW) (-) (-) 1.5
Chemicals (corr. inhibitors, scale inhibitors, wax
(-) (-) 1.5
inhib.) (CH)
Sodium hypochlorite (SH) (-) (-) 1.4
Sea water (SW) or
Fresh water (FW) or (-) (-) 1.2
Brackish water (BW)
Utility water (seawater, cooling water, potable water)
(W) or
Steam (S) or (-) (-) 1.0
Foam (F) or
Inert gas (IG)
Empty line (-) (-) 0.0
Table 6.2 – Fluid type factor FF,H
6.2.2 Fluid pressure factor FP,H

The hazard associated with a failure increases with the operating pressure of the item under
evaluation.

Rev.1 Dec. 2018
Sh 54 of 65
Fluid type Fluid pressure P [bar] FP,H

P ≥ 35 3.0
Gas and gas with condensates (GH) or
15 ≤ P < 35 2.5
Liquid hydrocarbons and multiphase systems (LH) or
1 < P < 15 2.0
Hot oil (HO)
P=1 1.5
Formation water (PW) or P ≥ 15 2.0
Sea water (SW) or
Fresh water (FW) or P < 15 1.5
Brackish water (BW)
Stabilized oil (O) P≥1 1.5
Glycol (GL) or
Amine solutions (AM) or
Sodium hypochlorite (SH) or P≥1 1.5
Chemicals (corr. inhibitors, scale inhibitors, wax inhib.)
(CH)
Utility water (seawater, cooling water, potable water)
(W) or
Steam (S) or P≥1 1.0
Foam (F) or
Inert gas (IG)
Table 6.3 – Fluid pressure factor FP,H
6.2.3 Fluid temperature factor FT,H

The fluid temperature represents a potential hazard to personnel in the immediate vicinity of a
failure.
Fluid temperature [°C] FT,H

T ≥ 100 1.5
70 ≤ T < 100 1.3
50 ≤ T < 70 1.1
T < 50 1.0
Table 6.4 – Fluid temperature factor FT,H
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

Rev.1 Dec. 2018
Sh 55 of 65
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.
Facilities Layout Fluid type Fluid rate / Capacity FFR,H

Production wells or
Water injection wells
(-) (-) (-) 1.0
or
Gas injection wells
Onshore 3.0
Offshore
Wellheads (-) (-) 3.0
platform
Offshore subsea 1.0
Sealines (-) (-) (-) 1.0
Risers (-) (-) (-) 1.5
Buried (-) (-) 1.0
QO ≥ 100 m3/d 3.0
Liquid hydrocarbons and
50 ≤ QO < 100 m3/d 2.5
multiphase systems (LH)
QO < 50 m /d 3
2.0
QG ≥ 500,000 Sm3/d 3.0
Flowlines or
Gas and gas with 100,000 ≤ QG < 500,000
Trunklines or 2.5
condensates (GH) Sm3/d
Oil and gas pipelines
Unburied QG < 100,000 Sm3/d 2.0
or
Piping Formation water (PW)or QW ≥ 25 m3/d 2.0
Sea water (SW) or
15 ≤ QW < 25 m3/d 1.5
Fresh water (FW) or
Brackish water (BW) QW < 15 m3/d 1.0
Glycol (GL) or
(-) 1.5
Amine solutions (AM)
Liquid hydrocarbons and V ≥ 10 m3 3.0
multiphase systems (LH) or
5 ≤ V < 10 m3 2.5
Gas and gas with
Vessels or condensates (GH) V< 5 m 3
2.0
Heat exchangers or Glycol (GL) or
(-) (-) 1.5
Above ground tanks Amine solutions (AM)
Formation water (PW)or
Sea water (SW) or
(-) 1.0
Fresh water (FW) or
Brackish water (BW)
Table 6.5 – Fluid flow rate factor FFR,H
6.2.5 Close proximity (location) factor FL,H

The close proximity factor considers the potential impact of an uncontrolled condition on life near
the considered facility.

Rev.1 Dec. 2018
Sh 56 of 65
Facilities Accessibility Location Manned/Unmanned FL,H
Vessels or Manned plant area 2.5

Onshore (-)
Heat exchangers or Unmanned plant area 1.5
Above ground tanks or Manned platform 3.0
Offshore (-)
Piping Unmanned platform 1.5
Close to a dwelling / city 3.0
Oil and gas pipelines or Close to a public road / railway 2.5
Flowlines or Onshore Country area (-) 2.0
Trunklines Land, desert and swamp area 1.0
Parks / wildlife preserve 2.5
Sealines (-) (-) (-) 1.0
Risers (-) (-) (-) 1.5
Close to a public road / railway 2.5
Onshore Country area (-) 2.0
Production wells
Land, desert and swamp area 1.0
Manned platform 3.0
Offshore (-)
Unmanned platform 1.5

Close to a public road / railway 2.5
Onshore Country area (-) 2.0
Wellheads Land, desert and swamp area 1.0
Offshore platform 3.0
(-) (-)
Offshore subsea 1.0
Water or gas injection
(-) (-) (-) 1.0
wells
Table 6.6 – Location factor FL,H
6.2.6 Overall hazard consequence factor FH

The overall hazard consequence factor, FH, is then calculated as product of the individual factors
contributing to hazard. In order to reproduce the hazard factor on a scale ranging from 0 to a
maximum value equal to X as assumed, a normalization factor NFH is introduced.
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
FH = (FF,H × FP,H × FT,H × FFR,H × FL,H) / NFH
6.3 OPERABILITY CONSEQUENCE FACTOR FO

To calculate the operability consequence factor the following factors are defined:

Rev.1 Dec. 2018
Sh 57 of 65
− production loss percentage (fluid flow rate) FPL,O,

− redundancy FR,O,
− shutdown (repair) time FST,O.
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
Table 6.7 – Ranges of values for the parameters composing FO
6.3.1 Production loss factor FPL,O

In most cases, for safety reasons, the occurrence of a failure causes the immediate shutdown
with a consequent production loss. The production loss factor can be estimated in different ways
depending on the functionality of the component:
− 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.

Rev.1 Dec. 2018
Sh 58 of 65
Facilities Fluid type Fluid rate / Capacity FPL,O

Formation water (PW) or
Water injection/disposal
Sea water (SW) or
wells or (-) 3.0
Fresh water (FW) or
Wellheads
Brackish water (BW)
QO ≥ 100 m3/d 4.0
50 ≤ QO < 100 m3/d 3.5
Production wells or multiphase systems (LH)
QO < 50 m3/d 3.0
Gas injection wells or
QG ≥ 500,000 Sm3/d 4.0
Wellheads Gas and gas with condensates
100,000 ≤ QG < 500,000 Sm3/d 3.5
(GH)
QG < 100,000 Sm /d 3
3.0
QO ≥ 100 m3/d 4.0
50 ≤ QO < 100 m /d 3
3.5
QO < 50 m3/d 3.0
Flowlines or QG ≥ 500,000 Sm3/d 4.0
Gas and gas with condensates
Trunklines or 100,000 ≤ QG < 500,000 Sm3/d 3.5
(GH)
Oil and gas pipelines or QG < 100,000 Sm3/d 3.0
Sealines or Formation water (PW) or QW ≥ 25 m3/d 2.0
Risers or Sea water (SW) or 15 ≤ QW < 25 m3/d 1.5
Piping Fresh water (FW) or
QW < 15 m3/d 1.0
Brackish water (BW)
Glycol (GL) or
(-) 1.5
Liquid hydrocarbons and V ≥ 10 m3 4.0
multiphase systems (LH) or 5 ≤ V < 10 m3 3.5
Gas and gas with condensates
(GH) V < 5 m3 3.0
Vessels or
Glycol or
Heat exchangers or (-) 1.5
Amine solutions
Above ground tanks
Sea water (SW) or
(-) 1.0
Fresh water (FW) or
Brackish water (BW)
Table 6.8 – Production loss factor FPL,O
6.3.2 Redundancy factor FR,O

In case of failure, the function of some components may be compensated by redundant
components, without total production loss.

Rev.1 Dec. 2018
Sh 59 of 65
Redundancy FR,O
Not redundant 1.0
Partially redundant 0.8
Redundant 0.5
Unknown 1.0
Table 6.9 – Redundancy factor FR,O
6.3.3 Shutdown time factor FST,O

The time (or in reality, cost) to carry out any necessary repair and regain the full production is
another factor to determine the operability consequences of a failure. Shutdown time factor
depends upon well accessibility (FWA,O, for wells and wellheads only), rig availability (FRA,O, for
wells only) and replacement materials availability (FMA,O for all items), and is calculated as
follows:
FST,O = Constant x FWA,O x FRA,O x FMA,O
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.
Facilities Layout Diameter, Ø [inch] FST,O

Production wells or
Water injection wells or (-) (-) 4.5 × FWA,O × FRA,O × FMA,O
Gas injection wells
Wellheads (-) (-) 4.0 × FWA,O × FMA,O
Sealines (-) (-) 4.0 × FMA,O
Risers (-) (-) 3.5 × FMA,O
Vessels or
Heat exchangers or (-) (-) 3.0 × FMA,O
Above ground tanks
Flowlines or Ø ≥ 10” 2.5 × FMA,O
Buried
Trunk lines or Ø < 10” 2.0 × FMA,O
Pipelines or Ø ≥ 10” 1.2 × FMA,O
Unburied
Piping Ø < 10” 1.0 × FMA,O
Table 6.10 – Shutdown time factor FST,O
It has been supposed an operability impact that increases with the difficulty of the repair
operations and/or spare availability.
Accessibility (for wells only) FWA,O

Subsea 1.00
Offshore 0.85
Onshore 0.75
Table 6.11 – Well accessibility factor FWA,O

Rev.1 Dec. 2018
Sh 60 of 65
Rig availability (for wells only) FRA,O

Low 1.00
High 0.90
On site 0.80
Unknown 1.00
Table 6.12 – Rig availability factor FRA,O
Spare material availability FMA,O

Low 1.00
High 0.95
On site 0.85
Unknown 1.00
Table 6.13 – Spare material availability factor FMA,O
6.3.4 Overall operability consequence factor FO

The Overall Operability Consequence Factor FO is calculated as the product of the individual
factors contributing to operability; to reproduce the overall factor on a scale ranging from 0 to
a maximum value equal to Y as assumed, a normalization factor NFO has been introduced.
The normalization factor and the overall operability factor are calculated as follows:
NFO = (max. FPL,O × max. FR,O × max. FST,O) / Y
FO = FPL,O × FR,O × FST,O / NFO
6.4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCE FACTOR FE

The Environmental Consequence Factor is intended as the risk of fluid release associated to an
uncontrolled condition (failure) evaluated from the point of view of environmental impact
(environmental pollution, contamination etc.). The environmental consequence factor takes into
account the environmental laws in force in the countries where the considered assets are
installed.
The factors contributing to the environmental risk are:
− close proximity (location) FL,E,

− fluid type FF,E,
− fluid volume available for escape FA,E.
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.

Rev.1 Dec. 2018
Sh 61 of 65
Parameter Factor Range of values

Close proximity FL,E 2.0 – 5.0
Fluid type FF,E 0.0 – 3.0
Fluid volume available for escape FA,E 0.5 – 2.5
Table 6.14 – Ranges of values for the parameters composing FE
6.4.1 Close proximity (location) factor FL,E

Close proximity considers the potential impact of an uncontrolled condition on
environment near the considered facility.
The following criteria have been assumed to take into account item location effects:
Facilities Accessibility Location FL,E

Oil and gas pipelines or Close to a dwelling / city 4.0
Flowlines or (-) Close to a public road / railway 2.5
Trunklines Country area 2.5
Sealines or
(-) (-) 4.0
Risers
Vessels or Parks / wildlife preserve 5.0
Heat exchangers or Close to a dwelling / city 4.0
Above ground tanks or Onshore Close to a public road / railway 2.5
Piping or
Country area 2.5
Production wells or
Water injection wells or
Gas injection wells or Offshore (-) 4.0
Wellheads
Table 6.15 – Location factor FL,E
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.
6.4.2 Fluid type factor FF,E

The risk for the environment, associated with a particular failure, is heavily dependent on the
nature of the process fluid and its pollutant characteristics.
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 following type of fluid factors have been assigned:

Rev.1 Dec. 2018
Sh 62 of 65
Fluid type Gas type FF,E

Liquid hydrocarbons and multiphase systems (LH) (-) 3.0
Stabilized oil (O) or
(-) 2.2
Hot oil (HO)
Gas with condensates 2.0
Gas and gas with condensates (GH) Wet gas 1.2
Dry gas 1.1
Glycol (GL) or
(-) 1.8
Formation water (PW) (-) 1.5
Chemicals (corr. inhibitors, scale inhib., wax inhib.) (CH) (-) 1.2
Sea water (SW) or
Fresh water (FW) or (-) 1.0
Brackish water (BW)
Foam (F) (-) 1.0
Utility water (seawater, cooling water, potable water) (W) or
Sodium hypochlorite (SH) or
(-) 0.0
Steam (S) or
Inert gas (IG)
Empty line (-) 0.0
Table 6.16 – Fluid type factor FF,E
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.
6.4.3 Fluid volume available for escape factor FA,E

It is the mass of fluid that could be potentially released in the environment in uncontrolled
conditions. Liquid and gas flow rates for pipes and mass capacity for tank and vessels have been
assumed as indicative of the mass of fluid potentially available for escape in case of failure.
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:
FA,E = FFR,E x FT,E
The following factors have been assigned:

Rev.1 Dec. 2018
Sh 63 of 65
Facilities Fluid type Fluid rate / Capacity FFR,E

Sea water (SW) or
Water injection wells or Fresh water (FW) or (-) 1.0
Wellheads Brackish water (BW)
Formation water (PW) (-) 2.5
QO ≥ 100 m3/d 2.5
50 ≤ QO < 100 m3/d 2.0
Production wells or multiphase systems (LH)
QO < 50 m3/d 1.8
Gas injection wells or
QG ≥ 500,000 Sm3/d 2.5
Wellheads Gas and gas with
100,000 ≤ QG < 500,000 Sm /d 3
2.0
condensates (GH)
QG < 100,000 Sm3/d 1.8
QO ≥ 100 m /d 3
2.5
50 ≤ QO < 100 m3/d 2.0
QO < 50 m3/d 1.8
Flowlines or QG ≥ 500,000 Sm /d 3
2.5
Gas and gas with
Trunklines or 100,000 ≤ QG < 500,000 Sm3/d 2.0
condensates (GH)
Pipelines or QG < 100,000 Sm /d 3
1.8
Sealines or Formation water (PW) (-) 1.5
Risers or
Sea water (SW) or
Piping
Fresh water (FW) or (-) 1.0
Brackish water (BW)
Glycol (GL) or
(-) 1.5
Gas and gas with V ≥ 10 m3 2.5
condensates (GH) or 5 ≤ V < 10 m3 2.0
multiphase systems (LH) V < 5 m3 1.8
Vessels or
Heat exchangers or Glycol (GL) or
(-) 1.5
Above ground tanks Amine solutions (AM)
Sea water (SW) or
(-) 1.0
Fresh water (FW) or
Brackish water (BW)
Table 6.17 – Mass of fluid factor FFR,E
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.

Rev.1 Dec. 2018
Sh 64 of 65
Expected time to control fluid release FT,E

Critical (very long period to manage uncontrolled fluid release) 1.0
Long 0.8
Short 0.5
Unknown 1.0
Table 6.18 – Time needed to control fluid release factor FT,E
6.4.4 Overall environmental consequence factor FE

The Overall Environmental Consequence Factor FE is calculated as the product of the singular
factors contributing to environmental impact; to reproduce the overall factor FE on a scale
ranging from 0 to a maximum value equal to Z as assumed, a normalization factor NFE has been
introduced.
The normalization factor and the overall environmental consequence factor are calculated as
follows:
NFE = max. FL,E × max. FF,E × max. FA,E / Z
FE = FL,E × FF,E × FA,E / NFE

Rev.1 Dec. 2018
Sh 65 of 65
7 APPENDIX 3 TYPICAL OF CORROSION LOOPS IDENTIFICATION ON A MSD


20557E01

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

20557E01

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Eni S.p.A.

Rev. 00: 38 pages.

Rev. 01: Actual revision is of 65 pages.

Eni personnel can access company standard repository at:

External user shall refer to the Project Engineer Manager.

ENGINEERING COMPANY STANDARD

1 SCOPE AND GENERAL INFORMATION 6

ENGINEERING COMPANY STANDARD

3.4.4 Monitoring, NDT inspection and failure data review 33

ENGINEERING COMPANY STANDARD

ENGINEERING COMPANY STANDARD

1 SCOPE AND GENERAL INFORMATION

1.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE

− the likelihood of occurrence of a corrosion event, and

The methodology developed by Eni to perform corrosion risk assessment is defined as

ENGINEERING COMPANY STANDARD

1.2 DISTRIBUTION AND INTENDED AUDIENCE

1.3 REFERENCES DOCUMENTS AND NORMATIVES

1.3.1 International Standards

Ref. Code Title

ENGINEERING COMPANY STANDARD

Classification, determination and estimation of corrosivity

10 EN 12473 General Principles of Cathodic Protection in Seawater.

11 EN 12474 Cathodic protection for submarine pipelines

12 EN 12495 Cathodic protection for fixed steel offshore structures.

1.3.2 Company Standards

Ref. Code Title

ENGINEERING COMPANY STANDARD

32 27955.ENG.COR.STD Guidelines for Corrosion Data Collection and Management

33 27911.ENG.COR.STD Guideline to avoid MIC Corrosion

SVI.OMS.POS. OPOS. Opportunity and Production Operation System

36 bp.svi.eng.004 Best Practice – Full Life Structural Integrity Management

1.4 GENERAL DEFINITIONS

i. The Company is Eni SpA;

1.4.1 Specific Terms, Definitions, Acronyms and Abbreviations.

Symbol or Unit Definition

Fc (-) Corrosion factor

HSE Health, Safety, Environment

ENGINEERING COMPANY STANDARD

LCC Life Cycle Cost

MSD Material Selection Diagram

NDT Non Destructive Testing

O&M Operation and Maintenance

OPDS Opportunity and Project Development System

P&ID Process Instrumentation Diagram

PFD Process Flow Diagram

SME Subject Matter Expert

SSC Sulphide Stress Cracking

1.5 ORDER OF PRECEDENCE

i. Local Regulations of the Country where the equipment is installed;

ENGINEERING COMPANY STANDARD

ENGINEERING COMPANY STANDARD

The targets of a corrosion risk assessment are:

− to assess the integrity status of the assets;

2.2 CORROSION RISK

ENGINEERING COMPANY STANDARD

2.3 CORROSION RISK ASSESSMENT

2.4 API 580/581

ENGINEERING COMPANY STANDARD

2.5 RISK TARGET OR ACCEPTABLE RISK

The following values of acceptable risk are recommended as a base case:

• CorRA (Semi-quantitative): Medium (see Section 3.4.6 Risk matrixes)

2.6 EXECUTION OF CORROSION RISK ASSESSMENT STUDIES

− facilities and item identification;