Proceedings of The First International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Management Applications ISBN: 978-969-7710-01-0

DEVELOPMENT OF A NEURAL NETWORK MODEL FOR PREDICTION OF

CUI CORROSION RATE USING FIELD DATA IN A MARINE ENVIRONMENT
Muhammad Mohsin Khan1, Ainul Akmar Mokhtar2, Umair Sarwar3 , Hilmi Hussin4, Shuaib Kaka5 , Tahir Raza6
123456
Mechanical Engineering Department, Universiti Teknologi Petronas, Bandar Seri Iskandar, 31620 Tronoh, Perak,
Malaysia
1
Email: mohsinelectric@gmail.com

Abstract: Corrosion under insulation (CUI) has been a major problem for oil and gas industries. As CUI remains hidden
beneath the insulation so its accurate prediction, identification, and estimation is very difficult. The difficulty in corrosion
monitoring has contributed by the scarcity of CUI corrosion rate data that is typically used for quantitative Risk-Based
Inspection (RBI) analysis. For prioritizing RBIs, many companies have adopted and applied different methodologies for
reducing failure risk levels. However due to complexity and less availability of quantitative thickness data for CUI, effective
analysis is a tough task to be accomplish by using traditional quantitative techniques of risk analysis. In this study, field data
of CUI from a marine environment industry, has been utilized for the development of a neural network (NN) based prediction
model. Along with testing accuracy of the NN model, the main purpose of the proposed NN model is to predict CUI corrosion
rates in order to facilitate the quantitative approach of RBI. The developed NN model has successfully given its outcomes
with a standard error of 0.001 while having an overall accuracy of 76.23%. The results from the developed NN model would
provide corrosion/inspection engineers to do necessary inferences in a more quantitative approach.

1. INTRODUCTION
One of the most serious external corrosion problems in oil and gas industries is the corrosion of under the insulations of piping
systems, typically known as Corrosion under Insulation (CUI). CUI is one of the major reasons that contribute to unexpected
failures of piping systems in many of today’s plants. A study indicated that the highest incidence of leaks in the refining and
chemical industries is due to CUI, not due to process corrosion while it takes 40% to 60% budget of the piping maintenance
cost [1]. The failures can be disastrous or at least have a noticeable economic impact on the industry in terms of increasing
downtimes and repairs [2]. Due to its varying nature, CUI is very difficult to detect/predict since corrosion occurs beneath the
insulation, hence making corrosion detection/prediction process very complicated.
CUI typically remains undetected until, either insulation and cladding/jacketing is removed during inspection period or
when some leakages from the pipes may occur. The difficulty in corrosion monitoring has contributed by the scarcity of CUI
corrosion rate data that is typically used for quantitative Risk-Based Inspection (RBI) analysis.
The data for CUI cases presented in the American Petroleum Institute standard (API 581) is limited and vague for both
stainless steels and carbon steels [3]. The proposed corrosion rates are deterministic and subject to a large uncertainty [3].
Various models in recent years have been developed to predict the failure progress of CUI corrosion rates. Among those
data-driven models artificial neural network and fuzzy logic are the tools of artificial intelligence, which have been mostly
utilized by the researchers [4].
Past studies have shown that predictions made by using ANN for different types of corrosion were very nearer to their
original data (data from which those NN models were developed initially). That is why; the present study has utilized ANN
for the development of a CUI corrosion rate prediction model, using field data of a marine environment.
Artificial neural network (ANN) is an intelligence processing pattern that is influenced by the way human brain
processes information. ANNs consist of a number of interconnected processing nodes called neurons. The neurons are usually
organized in a sequence of layers, including an input layer, one or two hidden layers, and an output layer. The input layer
receives input data to the network but does not perform any computations. The output layer gives the network’s response to
the specified input. The hidden layers are typically connected to the input and output layers. Each neuron in the hidden and
output layers receives the signals from all the neurons in a layer above it and then performs a weighted summation and
transfer function of the inputs [5].
An artificial neural network is a generalized model, taking into account the experience of a set of training data and hence
contains no explicit rules. It is reliable in the sense that, input pattern will always generate same answer. In this study, the
multilayer feedforward neural network has been used. The term “feedforward” indicates that the network has links that extend
in only one direction. When the inputs are introduced to the network, they will be multiplied by their flexible weights 𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤 and
in every processing element added and went over a transfer function 𝑓𝑓 in order to generate the outputs, as mathematically
expressed in Eq. (1). The data utilized as inputs is transmitted through the network, layer by layer, and a set of outputs is
obtained.

Mehran University of Engineering and Technology, Jamshoro, Sindh, Pakistan | February 20-22, 2017 270
 Proceedings of The First International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Management Applications ISBN: 978-969-7710-01-0

(1)

Where, and are the inputs and outputs of the network respectively. While = 1,2,3,...N where, N is the number of
neurons. In addition to this, a bias term , is generally added to the input.
Artificial neural networks are better for estimate of relations among sensor based data, particularly among
non-structured data, with a high degree of nonlinearity, erroneous and deficient data. This kind of data frequently happens in
process of atmospheric corrosion. Neural networks (NNs) have the capacity to simulate conditions which can be not really
understood by classic methods of statistic data evaluation and they find themselves able to express more complicated relations
than these methods [6]. Jančíková et al. has developed a model using artificial neural network for the prediction of corrosion
loss of auxiliary carbon steel using the input environmental measurements. It was confirmed that utilization of ANNs for the
prediction of corrosion loss of materials is extremely perspective [7] . Author also suggested NN as beneficial, if it is
important to show complex mutual relations among sensor based data [7].
Ren et al. applied the backpropagation neural network model to predict the corrosion rate of long distance gas pipeline.
The results of model showed better fitting precision and forecasting result, and prediction of corrosion rate. Neural network
algorithm is of fast convergence, with better prediction accuracy, which can predict effectively the corrosion rate than other
methods [8]. Supriyatman et al. [5] proposed a program using ANN to determine the corrosion rates of carbon-steel materials
containing flowing fluid. The data only had used having a high level of significance and the ones having very low level
significances are excluded using equation. The model had the high accuracy results, if the sufficient data from fields is
available [9]. Cai Jian-ping and Ke-wei [6] developed a ANNs based application for the prediction corrosion rate in the
atmosphere. They have been good results and indicating the neural network in corrosion research has broad application
prospects [10].

2. CUI CORROSION RATE BY API 581 FOR CARBON STEEL PIPING SYSTEMS
The relationship between CUI corrosion rate of insulated carbon steel with different operating temperature in marine type of
environment is described by American Petroleum Institute in its standard API 581. The type of environment where the
average rainfall is between 1000 mm/year to 1500 mm/year is classified as marine environment [11]. Table 1 shows CUI
corrosion rate in marine environments at different operating temperatures, when type of insulation type is foamglass or
calcium silicate while pipe complexity and insulation condition are average with the assumption that piping system are
supported on beams or such a configurations that do not allow proper coating, as per given by API 581.

Table 1: CUI Corrosion rates in marine environment as per API 581[12].

Corrosion Rate (mm/year) in Marine Environment

Operating Temperature (°C ) When Insulation Type was When Insulation Type was
"Foamglass" "Calcium Silicate"
-12 to -8 0 0
-8 to 6 0.0375 0.0625
6 to 32 0.1905 0.3175
32 to 71 0.1905 0.3175
71 to 107 0.381 0.635
107 to 135 0.1905 0.3175
135 to 162 0.0765 0.1275
162 to 176 0.0375 0.0625
More than 176 0 0
Note: - Driver is defined as the atmospheric condition causing the corrosion rate.
- Interpolation may perform for intermediate values of temperature.

3. Methodology Adopted for the Conducted Research

Total 153 CUI corrosion rate data points were obtained from a local gas plant of Malaysia that was located in a marine
environment. Type of Insulation which was utilized for piping systems in that industry was foamglass and calcium silicate.

Mehran University of Engineering and Technology, Jamshoro, Sindh, Pakistan | February 20-22, 2017 271
 Proceedings of The First International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Management Applications ISBN: 978-969-7710-01-0

Pipe complexity and insulation condition were consider as average with the assumption that piping system were supported on
beams or such a configurations that did not allow proper coating. According to API 581 operating temperature, type of
environment, pipe complexity, insulation condition, and type of insulation are the five factors which are most prone for the
cause of CUI [12]. Therefore these five factors were selected as the input parameter while CUI corrosion rate was selected as
the output parameter for the proposed NN prediction model. Among these five input parameters, 3 input parameters i.e. type
of environment, pipe complexity, and insulation condition were constant while 2 input parameters i.e. operating temperature
and insulation type were variable as shown in Figure 1.
Matlab R2013a software was utilized for the development of the proposed NN model. 103 data points were utilized for
model development, while 50 data points were used for final validation of the developed model. The model was trained
through Levenberg-Marquardt back propagation method by taking 1000 number of iterations. Figure 2 shows methodology
followed for the development of the proposed NN model.

INPUTS OUTPUT

Operating Temperature

Variable
Parameters
Insulation Type

Type of Environment (Marine) NN Model Corrosion Rate (CUI)

Constant Pipe Complexity

Parameters

Insulation Condition

Figure 1: Input /Output parameters for NN model.

Start

Data Collection & its analysis

Identify Variables for CUI

NN Model Building

NN Model Developed For Prediction

of CUI

Model Validation

No
Satisfactory

Yes
Utilize Model For RBI of Plant

Figure 2: Methodology followed for the development of the proposed NN model.

Mehran University of Engineering and Technology, Jamshoro, Sindh, Pakistan | February 20-22, 2017 272
 Proceedings of The First International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Management Applications ISBN: 978-969-7710-01-0

4. Results and Discussion

In order to check the prediction capability of ANN modelling, API 581 CUI corrosion rate published data for a marine
environment with both type of insulations i.e. foamglass and calcium silicate, was utilized. Insulation condition and pipe
complexity were consider as “average”. The predicted results generated by NN model are shown in Table 2. When predicted
results were compared with API 581 data, while having foamglass as insulation type, standard error of outcomes was found to
be 1.61x10-6 and an overall accuracy of the NN model was found to be 99.29% as shown in Figure 3. When predicted results
were compared with API 581 data when calcium silicate was the type of insulation, the standard error of outcomes was found
to be 1.65x10-5 and an overall accuracy of the NN model was found to be 97.81% as shown in Figure 4.

Table 2: Results comparison of CUI corrosion rates generated by NN model with API 581 CUI corrosion rates for two
different insulation types.

Corrosion Rate (mm/year) in Marine Environment

Operating When Insulation When Insulation When Insulation When Insulation
Temperature Type was Type was Type was Type was "Calcium
(°C ) "Foamglass" "Foamglass" "Calcium Silicate"
(Actual API 581 (Prediction using NN Silicate" (Actual (Prediction using
data) Model) API 581 data) NN Model)
-12 to -8 0 0 0 0
-8 to 6 0.0375 0.037 0.0625 0.062
6 to 32 0.1905 0.19 0.3175 0.317
32 to 71 0.1905 0.1905 0.3175 0.3175
71 to 107 0.381 0.382 0.635 0.634
107 to 135 0.1905 0.1905 0.3165 0.3165
135 to 162 0.0765 0.0755 0.1275 0.1265
162 to 176 0.0375 0.0365 0.0625 0.0615
More than 176 0 0 0 0

Standard Error: 1.61 ×

Accuracy: 99.29%

Figure 3: Comparison between CUI corrosion rates published by API 581 with API 581 data based NN prediction model
when insulation type was “Foamglass”.

Mehran University of Engineering and Technology, Jamshoro, Sindh, Pakistan | February 20-22, 2017 273
 Proceedings of The First International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Management Applications ISBN: 978-969-7710-01-0

Standard Error: 1.65 ×

Accuracy: 97.81%

Figure 4: Comparison between CUI corrosion rates published by API 581 with API 581 data based NN prediction model
when insulation type was “calcium silicate”.

Table 3: A sample of available field data along with NN model’s predicted CUI corrosion rates

Predicted CUI
Operating Type of Insulation Pipe Field Data CUI
S.No. Type of Insulation using NN Model
Temperature (°C) Environment Condition Complexity (mm/year)
(mm/year)

1 -39 Foamglass Marine Average Average 0.16 0.15

2 -12 Foamglass Marine Average Average 0.22 0.16
3 -12 Foamglass Marine Average Average 0.18 0.16
4 -12 Foamglass Marine Average Average 0.15 0.16
5 -11 Foamglass Marine Average Average 0.18 0.16
6 -11 Foamglass Marine Average Average 0.16 0.16
7 -11 Foamglass Marine Average Average 0.18 0.18
8 -11 Foamglass Marine Average Average 0.15 0.16
9 -11 Foamglass Marine Average Average 0.15 0.16
10 -11 Foamglass Marine Average Average 0.16 0.16
11 -8 Foamglass Marine Average Average 0.20 0.17
12 -8 Foamglass Marine Average Average 0.20 0.16
13 -8 Foamglass Marine Average Average 0.15 0.16
14 -8 Foamglass Marine Average Average 0.15 0.16
∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙
∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙
∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙
149 135 Foamglass Marine Average Average 0.18 0.18
150 135 Calcium Silicate Marine Average Average 0.18 0.17
151 260 Calcium Silicate Marine Average Average 0.18 0.14
152 380 Calcium Silicate Marine Average Average 0.118 0.12
153 385 Calcium Silicate Marine Average Average 0.1845 0.13

Table 3 shows a sample of available field data along with NN model’s predicted CUI corrosion rates. It can be observe
that available field data was also different for the same operating temperature, for instance at an operating temperature of -11
°C, the CUI corrosion rate was 0.15 °C, 0.16 °C, and 0.18 °C. On the other hand, according to API 581, the CUI corrosion rate
for such a condition is found to be 0.0 mm/year. Moreover after -39 °C, the next available data was -12 °C. Similarly after 135

Mehran University of Engineering and Technology, Jamshoro, Sindh, Pakistan | February 20-22, 2017 274
 Proceedings of The First International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Management Applications ISBN: 978-969-7710-01-0

°C there was a direct jump to 260 °C, then to 380 °C and 385 °C. Missing data of operating temperature -11 °C to -8 °C is
understandable (because there is a difference of only 2 units of temperature. It may be assume that CUI corrosion rate for
these in between operating temperatures i.e. -10 °C and -9 °C will be somewhere between 0.15 mm/year to 0.18 mm/year. It
should be noted that it is only a possible assumption). But there is no idea that what will be the CUI corrosion rate for an
operating temperature range of -38 °C to -13 °C (temperature difference of 26 units), 136 °C to 259 °C (temperature
difference of 124 units), and 261 °C to 379 °C (temperature difference of 119 units). Of course, these temperature ranges gaps
can only be filled by the availability of field data.
Oil and gas industries typically used to do their plant rejuvenation after a time period of 20 years. CUI corrosion rate
data which they obtained during their plant rejuvenation process, remains confidential mostly as per their company policies.
The situation is such a worst, that even API 581 has also only offered CUI corrosion rates for an operating temperature range
of -12 °C to 176 °C. API 581 assumes that there is 0.0 mm/year CUI corrosion rate before -12 °C and after 176 °C, which is an
unrealistic fact as it is clearly indicated by the field data in Table 3 that there is some noticeable CUI corrosion rate before -12
°C and after 176 °C.
For such a complex and critical situation that has been explained above, the developed NN prediction model is a
precious tool for assisting corrosion engineers for the purpose of RBI. The NN model which has been developed by using
field data, has a standard error of 0.001, and overall accuracy of 76.23% as shown in Figure 5.
Table 4 and Table 5 are showing predicted CUI corrosion rates even for the operating temperatures which are neither
available by API 581 nor by field data. Moreover available field data is specific to a particular insulation type for an operating
temperature. For instance, for an operating temperature of -8 °C, the insulation type is foamglass while CUI corrosion rate is
found to be 0.16 mm/year). It is not mention by field data that what will be the CUI corrosion rate for the same operating
temperature i.e. -8 °C when insulation type will be “calcium silicate” for a given piping system. The developed NN model is
predicting CUI corrosion rate for both types of insulation types i.e. “foamglass” and “calcium silicate” for the same operating
temperatures as shown in Table 4, Table 5, and Figure 6.
An argument built-up here, that why corrosion engineers should trust on CUI corrosion rate predictions of developed
NN model. This can be handled as, there is no other quantitative way researched yet. Up till now, corrosion engineers for such
a situation are taking help with the qualitative approaches which are based on human expertise and skills. Still it’s very
difficult for plant piping experts to decide that what will be a CUI corrosion rate of a piping system for a large number of same
operating temperatures having different types of insulations.
By giving above given arguments, evidences and justifications, authors are trying to convince different oil and gas
industries for sharing their CUI corrosion rate data. When more data will be available, accuracy of the developed field data
NN model will increase definitely (just like the accuracy of the NN model which was developed for API 581 data i.e. 189
regular CUI data points). Consequently all the participating industries will get benefit enormously.

Figure 5: Comparison between CUI corrosion rates predicted by NN model with field data.

Mehran University of Engineering and Technology, Jamshoro, Sindh, Pakistan | February 20-22, 2017 275
Proceedings of The First International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Management Applications ISBN: 978-969-7710-01-0

Table 4: CUI corrosion rates predicted by NN model when insulation type was foamglass.

Prediction
Temperature Type of Insulation Pipe Using NN;
S.No. Type of Insulation
(°C) Environment Condition Complexity CUI
(mm/year)
1 -40 Foamglass Marine Average Average 0.136
2 -39 Foamglass Marine Average Average 0.137
3 -38 Foamglass Marine Average Average 0.138
4 -37 Foamglass Marine Average Average 0.139
∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙
∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙
∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙
201 160 Foamglass Marine Average Average 0.062
202 161 Foamglass Marine Average Average 0.062
203 162 Foamglass Marine Average Average 0.062
204 163 Foamglass Marine Average Average 0.062
∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙
∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙
∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙
438 397 Foamglass Marine Average Average 0.132
439 398 Foamglass Marine Average Average 0.133
440 399 Foamglass Marine Average Average 0.134
441 400 Foamglass Marine Average Average 0.136

Table 5: CUI corrosion rates predicted by NN model when insulation type was calcium silicate.

Prediction
Temperature Type of Insulation Pipe Using NN;
S.No. Type of Insulation
(°C) Environment Condition Complexity CUI
(mm/year)
1 -40 Calcium Silicate Marine Average Average 0.172
2 -39 Calcium Silicate Marine Average Average 0.171
3 -38 Calcium Silicate Marine Average Average 0.169
4 -37 Calcium Silicate Marine Average Average 0.168
∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙
∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙
∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙
201 160 Calcium Silicate Marine Average Average 0.179
202 161 Calcium Silicate Marine Average Average 0.179
203 162 Calcium Silicate Marine Average Average 0.179
204 163 Calcium Silicate Marine Average Average 0.179
∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙
∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙
∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙
438 397 Calcium Silicate Marine Average Average 0.047
439 398 Calcium Silicate Marine Average Average 0.047
440 399 Calcium Silicate Marine Average Average 0.047
441 400 Calcium Silicate Marine Average Average 0.047

Mehran University of Engineering and Technology, Jamshoro, Sindh, Pakistan | February 20-22, 2017 276
 Proceedings of The First International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Management Applications ISBN: 978-969-7710-01-0

Figure 6: The CUI corrosion rates predicted by NN model for the same operating temperatures with different type of
insulations.

5. CONCLUSION
CUI is a severe issue in oil and gas industries. Due to its abrupt, ambiguous, and hidden nature, its prediction is a tough job. In
this study, field data of CUI from an industry having marine environment was utilized for the development of a NN based
prediction model. The developed NN model was successfully predicting CUI corrosion rates with a standard error of 0.001
while having an overall accuracy of 76.23%. The results from the developed NN model will facilitate RBI quantitatively.
Having these results corrosion/inspection engineers will able to do necessary implications for their plant maintenance while
applying a quantitative approach rather than qualitative or semi qualitative.

6. REFERENCES
1. M. A. A. (2011), "Failure probability modeling for piping systems subject to corrosion under insulation (PhD thesis,
UTP)," Retreived from Eectronic and digital database intellectual asset, UTPedia. Accession No. 2775.
2. A. A. M. M. M. Khan, and H. Hussin, "Prediction for corrosion under insulation subject to carbon steel pipes using
anfis," ARPN Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences, vol. VOL. 11, pp. 268-276, January 2016.
3. M. A.A and M. Che Ismail, "A Fuzzy-Based Model to Determine Corrosion Rate for Carbon Steel subject to Corrosion
under Insulation," paper presented at NACE, East Asia regional conference 2008, Kuala Lumpure, Malaysia, 2008, May.
4. M. M. Khan, A. A. Mokhtar, and H. Hussin, "A Neural Based Fuzzy Logic Model to Determine Corrosion Rate for
Carbon Steel subject to Corrosion under Insulation," in Applied Mechanics and Materials, 2015, pp. 526-530.
5. H. S. S. Xin and H. Jianchun, "BP Neural Network-based Prediction Model for Internal Corrosion Rate of Oil Pipelines,"
Oil & Gas Storage and Transportation, vol. 6, p. 016, 2010.
6. Z. JAN, V. R. ÍKOVÁ, and D. J. EK, "Application of artificial intelligence methods for prediction of steel mechanical
properties," Metalurgija, vol. 47, pp. 339-342, 2008.
7. Z. Jančíková, O. Zimný, and P. Koštial, "Prediction of metal corrosion by neural networks," Metalurgija, vol. 52, pp.
379-381, 2013.
8. C.-y. Ren, W. Qiao, and X. Tian, "Natural gas pipeline corrosion rate prediction model based on BP neural network," in
Fuzzy Engineering and Operations Research, ed: Springer, 2012, pp. 449-455.
9. D. Supriyatman, S. Sumarni, K. A. Sidarto, and R. Suratman, "Artificial Neural Networks for Corrosion Rate Prediction
in Gas Pipelines," in SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, 2012.
10. G. Yuan, S.-G. Wang, and Y. Huang, "Application of markov chain in prediction of corrosion conditions for buried gas
steel pipeline," Harbin Gongye Daxue Xuebao(Journal of Harbin Institute of Technology), vol. 42, pp. 1328-1331, 2010.
11. I. Stephen A. Anderson, "Out of sight, Out of Mind ?," Hydrocarbon Engineering, August, 2010.
12. R. API, "581 Risk-Based Inspection Technology," September 2008, 2008.

Mehran University of Engineering and Technology, Jamshoro, Sindh, Pakistan | February 20-22, 2017 277