\

=
, 1 1 (1)
3
where EN
corr
is the expected number of corrosion defects and p(a,t) is the probability density function (pdf) of the
defect depth a at time t. For reasons of simplicity EN
corr
is assumed to be independent of the time. EN
corr
follows
from p(N
corr
), the pdf of N
corr
, which can be deducted from the number of coating defects N
coat
in two steps.
Firstly, an estimation is made for the pdf of the number of coating defects p(N
coat
). Secondly, a factor (corr/coat) is
introduced which expresses the fraction of coating defects where corrosion occurs. This expression can be used
for instance to incorporate prior knowledge about the CP history of the pipeline or soil corrosivity in the model.
Multiplication of p(N
coat
) with (corr/coat) then gives p(N
corr
).
Before p(a,t) can be calculated, an estimate has to be made of the pdf of the defect depth at time t
0
, p(a,t
0
). Then
an estimated, yearly corrosion rate da/dt is applied to p(a,t
0
) to calculate the defect depth distribution after t years.
In some cases, t
0
will be the point in time when the pipeline was newly installed. If for instance the pipeline of
interest has been inspected inline a number of years ago, this point in time can be chosen as t
0
. In the latter case,
p(a,t
0
) follows from the pigrun results.
The critical defect depth (e.g. the depth of a corrosion defect at failure) follows from the limit state function for
corrosion defects.
2,3,4,7,8
If all defects are treated as longitudinal corrosion defects
9
subject to internal loading only,
a
c
is given by
1
1
1
=
Q
w
a
u
h
u
h
c
(2)
where w is the wall thickness,
h
is the hoop stress and
u
is the ultimate tensile strength of the pipeline. Q is a
length correction factor given by
2
1
2
31 . 0 1


.

\

+ =
Dw
L
Q (3)
where L is the axial length of the corrosion defect and D is the (external) diameter of the pipeline. Since changes
in the axial defect length only have a minor influence on the critical defect depth, L was considered to be time
independent. The hoop stress is given by
w
PD
h
2
= (4)
where P is the internal pressure.
Where the defect depth and the number of defects are described by probability density functions, uncertainties in
defect length, wall thickness, internal pressure, ultimate tensile strength and thus indirectly uncertainties in the
critical defect depth can also be handled by the model.
Step 2: Use technique I to update the expected number of coating defects
In the followed approach a strict separation between coating defects and corrosion defects is applied throughout
the whole process. Technique I is a coating survey technique in the true sense of the word. It is applied to the
whole length of the pipeline with the purpose to detect all the coating defects present. Needless to say, the
performance of a coating survey technique depends on a variety of different factors (e.g. instrument, operator, soil
resistivity, coating type).
6
Therefore a careful comparative assessment must be made in advance to determine
which coating survey technique should be used under specific circumstances.
4
To quantify the performance of Technique I, the following parameters are defined:
Probability of Detection Technique I (PoD
I
): the number of true coating defects detected by
Technique I divided by the total number of coating defects present on the pipeline
Probability of False Indication Technique I (PoFI
I
): the number of false indications divided by the
total number of indications by Technique I
Prior values for the PoD
I
and PoFI
I
can in some cases be estimated from results from previous coating surveys
with Technique I under comparable circumstances. If no such information is available, specifications from the
operator could serve as a guideline. A pdf for the number of coating defects on the pipeline p(N
coat
) was already
established in step 1. In step 2, this pdf is updated using Bayes theorem
(1)
by integrating the results from the
coating survey in the prior knowledge. This process has been described in more detail by Francis et al.
2,3
If the
survey with Technique I results in N
I
indications, the expected number of coating defects after the survey, EN
coat
,
is given by
( )
=
=
1
'
coat
N
I coat coat coat
N N p N EN (5)
where p(N
coat
N
I
) is the conditional probability that the pipeline contains N
coat
coating defects given that
Technique I indicates that N
I
coating defects are present.
Step 3: Use Technique II to update the expected number of corrosion defects
Where Technique I was only used to detect and pinpoint coating defects, the purpose of Technique II is to indicate
if (active) corrosion is taking place at the detected coating defects. In this approach, Technique II is not applied
over the entire length of the pipeline, but only at the locations indicated by Technique II. It can be said in general
that bellhole excavations are by far the most expensive part of an ECDA program. Therefore, the cost
effectiveness of such a program can be greatly improved by using a Technique II with a high performance.
Based on experience of the N.V. Nederlandse Gasunie and several other gas transport companies, the most
promising method is to determine the true, IRfree potential, exactly at the epicenter of a coating defect, and
compare this value to the applicable protection criterion. These measurements are often relatively laborintensive,
but are only carried out at suspected coating defects, and can save money in the long run. However, results from
CIPS or other corrosion detection techniques can be used in the model as well, as will be shown in the case
study.
In step 3 the expected number of corrosion defects EN
corr
is updated based on the survey with Technique II. Since
the technique is only applied at the locations indicated by Technique I, the Probability of Detection and
Probability of False Indication of Technique II are defined as follows:
Probability of Detection Technique II (PoD
II
): the number of true corrosion defects detected by
Technique II divided by the total number of corrosion defects present at the coating defects detected
by Technique I
Probability of False Indication Technique II (PoFI
II
): the number of false indications divided by the
total number of indications by Technique II
(1)
Bayes theorem is named after the Reverend Thomas Bayes (17021761) and is a relation between conditional and prior
probabilities. It can be used as a tool for assessing how probable evidence or an observation makes a hypothesis. If A
1
and A
2
are mutually exclusive events, Bayestheorem is given by
( )
( ) ( )
( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
2 2 1 1
1 1
1
A P A B P A P A B P
A P A B P
B A P
+
=
where P(A
1
) and P(A
2
) are prior probabilities, P(A
1
B) is the conditional (or posterior) probability of A
1
given B and
P(BA
1
) and P(BA
2
) are called the likelihood functions of B given A
1
or A
2
respectively.
5
By formulating PoD
II
this way, a poor PoD
I
does not negatively affect PoD
II
. Similar to step 2, prior values of
PoD
II
and PoFI
II
are estimated.
The factor (corr/coat), introduced in step 1, is updated based on the results of Technique II. Firstly a null
hypothesis H
0
is formulated, which states that (corr/coat) is correct with a certain probability p(H
0
). The reader is
referred to Francis et al.
2,3
for more details on this Bayesian updating technique. A total of N
I
locations were
indicated by Technique I as possible coating defects. Based on the prior estimation of (corr/coat), it can be
expected that corrosion occurs at N
I
(1POF
I
)(corr/coat) of these N
I
locations. Secondly, an alternative hypothesis
H
1
is formulated, which states that (corr/coat)
1
is true with a certain probability p(H
1
), where (corr/coat)
1
is the
expected value of this factor based on the results of Technique II, given by
( )
( )
I I
II
II
II
PoFI N
PoD
PoFI
N
coat corr
=
1
1
) / (
1
(6)
where N
II
is the number of locations indicated by Technique II as possible corrosion defects. Thirdly, Bayes
theorem is used again to establish the conditional probability p(H
0
N
II
) that H
0
is true given that N
II
indications
are found by Technique II at N
I
locations. The updated value of (corr/coat) is given by
( ) ( ) ( )
II II
N H p coat corr N H p coat corr coat corr
0 1 0
1 ) / ( ) / ( )' / ( + = (7)
A new distribution for the number of corrosion defects p(N
corr
N
II
) can now be calculated, by multiplying the
updated distribution for the number of coating defects (step 2) with the updated fraction of coating defects with
corrosion (step 3). The expected number of corrosion defects after applying both Technique I and II then follows
from
( )
=
=
1
'
corr
N
II corr corr corr
N N p N EN (8)
The probability of failure is calculated in the same way as in step 1, after which the effect of the surveys on the
overall integrity of the pipeline is shown quantitatively. Depending on the outcome, a decision will be made with
respect to further mitigation measures such as bellhole excavations or additional measurements.
Step 4: Use bellhole excavations to update PoFI
I
, PoD
I
and EN
coat
To update (PoFI
I
), a null hypothesis H
0
is formulated stating that PoFI
I
is correct with a certain probability p(H
0
).
When a number of M
I
bellhole excavations are undertaken at locations indicated by Technique I, coating defects
are expected to be found at M
I
(1PoFI
I
) of these excavations. The alternative hypothesis H
1
states that (PoFI
I
)
1
is
correct, where (PoFI
I
)
1
is the expected value for PoFI
I
based on the results of the excavations. Assuming that
coating defects are found at m
I
bellholes, then (PoFI
I
)
1
is given by
( )
I
I
I
M
m
PoFI =1
1
(9)
Bayes theorem is applied again to calculate the conditional probability p(H
0
m
I
) that H
0
is true given that coating
defects were found at m
I
sites out of M
I
excavations. As shown previously for (corr/coat) in step 3, this leads to
the updated PoFI
I
through
6
( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
I I I I I
m H p PoFI m H p PoFI PoFI
0 1 0
'
1 ) ( + = (10)
If necessary, PoD
I
can be updated in a similar fashion. However, this requires excavations at locations where no
coating defects are indicated by Technique I, so that the direct contribution of these excavations to the integrity of
the pipeline is less significant than from the previously mentioned excavations. From the perspective of cost
effectiveness it is therefore important to consider in advance how many of such excavations would be required to
improve PoD
I
significantly. This depends for instance on the prior PoD
I
and on the number of indications from
Technique I.
To perform such an update, a null hypothesis is formulated stating that PoD
I
is correct. Assume that M
I,not
excavations are carried out at locations without Technique I indications. When the length of the pipeline exposed
during an excavation is assumed to be 5 m, the total pipeline with length L
pipe
is divided into segments of 5 m,
resulting in L
pipe
/5 segments. Assuming PoD
I
is true, the best estimate for the total number of coating defects on
the pipeline is (1PoFI
I
)N
I
/PoD
I
. The probability that a segment with no indication from Technique I contains a
coating defect (SCD
I,not
) can then be calculated according to
( ) ( )


.

\

=
I
pipe
I
I I I
not I
N
L
PoD
PoD N PoFI
H SCD P
5
1 1
) (
0 ,
(11)
An alternative hypothesis H
1
is formulated as well, stating that (PoD
I
)
1
is true, where (PoD
I
)
1
is the expected value
for PoD
I
based on the findings of the excavations, i.e. coating defects found at m
I,not
sites out of M
I,not
excavations.
(PoD
I
)
1
is given by
( )
( ) ( )
( ) ( )


.

\

+
=
I
pipe
not I
not I
I I
I I
I
N
L
M
m
N PoFI
N PoFI
PoD
5
1
1
,
,
1
1
1
(12)
Without further explanation, Bayes theorem is applied once more to eventually obtain the modified PoD
I
through
( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
not I I not I I I
m H p PoD m H p PoD PoD
, 0 1 , 0
'
1 ) ( + = (13)
With the updated values (PoFI
I
) and (PoD
I
) it is now possible to recalculate the distribution for the number of
coating defects.
Step 5: Use bellhole excavations to update PoFI
II
, PoD
II
and EN
corr
The updating process of PoFI
II
is identical to the update of PoFI
I
in the previous step. For obvious reasons
equation 9 is replaced by
( )
II
II
II
M
m
PoF =1
1
(14)
where M
II
is the number of excavations undertaken at locations where corrosion is indicated by Technique II and
m
II
is the actual number of sites where corrosion is found. Equation 10 is replaced by
( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
II II II II II
m H p PoFI m H p PoFI PoFI
0 1 0
'
1 ) ( + = (15)
7
To update PoD
II
, excavations need to be carried out at locations where coating defects have been indicated by
Technique I, but without indication for corrosion by Technique II. The probability that corrosion occurs at a
Technique I indication without Technique II indication (CD
II,not
) is now given by
( ) ( )
( )
II II I
II II II
not II
PoD N N
PoD PoFI N
H CD P
=
1 1
) (
0 ,
(16)
while the expected value for PoD
II
based on m
II,not
found sites with corrosion defects out of M
II,not
excavations is
given by
( )
( ) ( )
( ) ( ) ( )
II I
not II
not II
II II
II II
II
N N
M
m
N PoFI
N PoFI
PoD
+
=
,
,
1
1
1
1
1
(17)
Finally, Bayesian updating of PoD
II
results in
( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
not II II not II II II
m H p PoD m H p PoD PoD
, 0 1 , 0
'
1 ) ( + = (18)
Once the performance indicators (PoD and PoFI) of both Technique I and Technique II have been updated based
on the results of the excavations, they can be used to recalculate the fraction of coating defects with corrosion (see
step 3 for details).
The expected value of (corr/coat) based on the results of the excavations is given by
( )
I
I
I
not II
not II
II I
II
II
II
M
m
N
M
m
N N
M
m
N
coat corr
+
=
,
,
1
) / ( (19)
and the updated value of this factor is given by
( ) ( ) ( )
II II
N H p coat corr N H p coat corr coat corr
0 1 0
1 ) / ( ) / ( ' )' / ( + = (20)
Together with the updated distribution of the number of coating defects (step 4), the result from equation 20 is
used to establish a new pdf for the number of corrosion defects.
Step 6: Use bellhole excavations to update defect size distributions and corrosion rate
In this last step the dimensions of any found corrosion anomalies are used to update the defect size distributions
estimated in advance. This occurs in the following manner:
At each excavation where corrosion is found, the corrosion defect is accurately sized. When more than
one defect is found in one bellhole, the maximum defect length and the maximum defect depth are used
in the model.
The defect depth values from the excavations are plotted in a histogram, which is then approached by a
Weibull fit. The pdf of the defect depth is updated using Bayes theorem, using a null hypothesis stating
that the Weibull scale parameter
d
from the prior defect depth pdf is correct, and an alternative
hypothesis assuming that the
d
following from the excavations is correct.
Analogously, the defect length values from the excavations are plotted in a histogram, which is then
approached by a Weibull fit. The pdf of the defect length is updated using Bayes theorem, using a null
8
hypothesis stating that the Weibull scale parameter
l
from the prior defect length pdf is correct, and an
alternative hypothesis assuming that the
l
following from the excavations is correct. After updating the
defect length pdf, the critical defect depth a
c
also needs to be recalculated (see step 1).
Using the updated Weibull distribution of the defect depth, the yearly corrosion rate can be estimated. There is a
direct relation between the yearly corrosion rate da/dt and the yearly change of the scale parameter
d
, namely


.

\

= 
.

\

d d
d
dt
d
dt
da
1 1
(21)
in which is the gamma function and
d
is the Weibull shape parameter for the defect depth pdf.
Finally, the probability of failure can be recalculated using equation 1, where the variables in this equation are
substituted by their corresponding values derived in step 5 and 6.
RESULTS CASE STUDY
Step 1: Prior knowledge
Table 1 contains the details of the pipeline that was investigated by DCVG and CIPS in the summer of 2003. A
first impression of the current integrity of the pipeline is obtained by assessing all the relevant input parameters
related to pipeline geometry, material properties, defect dimensions and frequency of occurrence. If necessary,
their respective uncertainties are also taken into account. As shown in Figure 1, this results in a probability of
failure in the year 2003 (i.e. 35 years after commissioning) of P
F
= 2.710
2
, which is unacceptably high according
to ASME B31.8.
Step 2 & 3: Incorporate results from DCVG and CIPS
Figure 2 shows the effect of the DCVG survey on the probability density function of the number of coating
defects per km. A total number of 103 coating defect indications were found during the DCVG survey. The
Bayesian update results in a decrease of the expected number of coating defects from EN
coat
= 52 km
1
to EN
coat
=
7 km
1
.
The update of the initial pdf of the number of corrosion defects is depicted in Figure 3. The CIP survey showed
that both the on and the offpotential over the whole pipeline fully complied with the applicable protection
criterion.
10
As a result of this, the fraction of coating defects where corrosion occurs is updated from (corr/coat) =
0.87% to (corr/coat) = 0.61%. Combination of (corr/coat) and EN
coat
gives the expected number of corrosion
defects after both surveys, EN
corr
= 0.8 (i.e. 0.04 km
1
).
The adjusted number of corrosion defects is used to update the probability of failure to a value of P
F
= 2.410
3
.
Although the surveys decreased the probability of failure by a factor 11, the P
F
is still unacceptably high.
Additional mitigating measures in the form of bellhole excavations are therefore required to further reduce the
P
F
.
Step 4, 5 & 6: Incorporate results from bellhole excavations
A number of 13 excavations were undertaken at DCVG indications. At all these excavations actual coating defects
were found. After Bayesian updating the probability of false indication for DCVG decreased from the initial value
PoFI
I
= 0.37 to (PoFI
I
) = 0.01.
9
Only one excavation was performed at a site where no coating defect was indicated by DCVG. Indeed, no coating
defect was found during the excavation, resulting in an increase of the probability of detection of DCVG from the
initial value PoD
I
= 0.70 to (PoD
I
) = 0.76.
As a result of these adjustments, the expected number of coating defects after excavations is updated to 6.3 km
1
.
In order to update the probability of false indication for CIPS, excavations should be undertaken at sites where
corrosion is suspected based on the CIPS data. Since all the coating defects were sufficiently protected by the CP
system, no update can be performed and (PoFI
II
) maintains its initial value of PoFI
II
= 0.20.
Excavations at DCVG indications where no corrosion is indicated by CIPS are used to update the probability of
detection for CIPS. The 13 previously mentioned excavations at DCVG indications all belong to this category.
During 8 of these excavations corrosion was found to take place. This has a dramatic impact on the probability of
detection, dropping from its initially estimated value of PoD
II
= 0.60 to (PoD
II
) = 0.01.
(2)
As a result of this, the expected number of corrosion defects is updated to 82.4.
In addition to the above, the corrosion defects have been accurately measured during each excavation. Figure 4
shows a histogram of the defect depths found, as well as the Weibull fit of this histogram. In Figure 5 the same is
shown for the defect lengths found.
After Bayesian updating of the defect depth distribution the corresponding corrosion rate is calculated, resulting in
(da/dt) = 0.027 mm/y, compared to the initial value da/dt = 0.053 mm/y. The initial and updated defect depth
distributions in the year 2003 are shown in Figure 6.
Finally, Figure 7 shows the effect of the ECDA process on the probability of failure. The adjusted pdf for the
number of corrosion defects and the updated defect depth distribution and critical defect depth distribution results
in a decrease of the probability of failure to a value P
F
= 4.2510
8
.
CONCLUSIONS
A structural reliability based model has been developed to quantify the results from an external corrosion direct
assessment program. The model consists of six steps, and takes account of the uncertainties associated with direct
assessment.
In the first step, a probability of failure is calculated based on prior knowledge of the pipeline, using the
probabilistic limit state methods of SRA.
The second step takes the results from a coating survey technique such as DCVG or Pearson into account, and
updates the number of coating defects on the pipeline through Bayesian statistics.
In the third step, the results from a corrosion detection technique such as CIPS or Intensive Measurements are
utilized to update the number of corrosion defects.
(2)
The fact that the PoD
II
is adjusted to such a low value can be interpreted in three different ways:
1. The used technique (CIPS) does not comply with the objective it is being used for and is, for this particular pipeline
under these particular circumstances, not suitable to detect corrosion
2. The criterion that is being used to differentiate between coating defects that receive sufficient protection from the CP
system and defects where corrosion may occur is unsuitable for this purpose (for this particular pipeline under these
particular circumstances)
3. The found corrosion anomalies are a result from passive or historical corrosion, rather than from active corrosion (in
this case study all defects were associated with active corrosion)
10
The results from bellhole excavations are used in the last three steps to update the performance indicators of the
utilized survey techniques, the number of coating defects, the number of corrosion defects, the defect size
distributions and the corrosion rate.
The model is particularly useful in situations where inline inspections are not applicable or too expensive. It can
be a useful tool for the optimization of inspection and maintenance activities.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors would like to thank Andrew Francis and Marcus McCallum for their highly appreciated contributions
to this paper by providing a workshop on SRA at Gasunie Research in 2003.
REFERENCES
1. NACE Standard RP 05022002, Pipeline External Corrosion Direct Assessment Methodology, Houston,
Texas, 2002
2. A. Francis, M. Gardiner, A. Goodfellow, M. McCallum, G. Senior and B. Greenwood, A Systematic
Risk and ReliabilityBased Approach to Integrity Management of Piggable and NonPiggable Pipelines,
Pipeline Integrity & Safety Management Conference, Houston, Texas, September 2428, 2001
3. A. Francis, P. Geren, B. Phillips, New Method Helps Operators Assess Line Integrity, Oil & Gas
Journal, November 26, 2001
4. A. Francis and M. McCallum, Integrity Management using Direct Assessment and Structural Reliability
Analysis, Workshop at Gasunie Research, Groningen, The Netherlands, October 2021, 2003
5. C. Ward, A. Francis, G. Masters and M. McCallum, Performance Evaluation of Above Ground Surveys
for Locating External Corrosion in Pipelines, International Pipeline Conference, Calagary, Canada,
September 29October 3, 2002
6. G.G.J. Achterbosch and G.A.J. Stallenberg, Investigating the Effectiveness of Techniques used in
Assessing the Integrity of NonPiggable Pipelines, International Pipeline Conference, Calgary, Canada,
October 48, 2004
7. A. Francis, A.M. Edwards, R.J. Espiner and G. Senior, Applying Structural Reliability Methods to
Ageing Pipelines, Paper C571/011/99, IMechE Conference on Ageing Pipelines, Newcastle, UK,
October 1999
8. R.J. Espiner, A.M. Edwards and A. Francis, Structural Reliability based Approach to Uprating a Subsea
High Pressure Gas Pipeline, Paper OMAE005042, ETCE/OMAE 2000 Joint Conference, New Orleans,
USA, February 2000
9. Det Norske Veritas Recommended Practice RPF101, Corroded Pipelines, April 1999
11
10. According to the NPR 6912, Cathodic Protection Onshore Pipelines and Metal Constructions,
September 1997, the protection potential of steel required in low resistance soils (i.e. < 100 m) or in
anaerobic environment is 0.95 V.
12
TABLE 1
PIPELINE DETAILS
Length 21165 m
Commissioning date 1968
Nominal diameter 8 inch (219 mm)
Nominal wall thickness 5.56 and 6.30 mm
Steel grade B
Coating type Bitumen
Specified minimum yield strength 235 MPa
Specified minimum tensile strength 363 MPa
Cathodic protection method Impressed current
FIGURE 1 Probability of failure per km
FIGURE 2 Number of coating defects per km before and after DCVG survey
1,0E14
1,0E12
1,0E10
1,0E08
1,0E06
1,0E04
1,0E02
1,0E+00
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Number of years
P
r
o
b
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
o
f
f
a
i
l
u
r
e
0,00
0,02
0,04
0,06
0,08
0,10
0,12
0,14
0,16
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Number of coating defects per km
P
r
o
b
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
d
e
n
s
i
t
y
Initial
Updated after DCVG
13
FIGURE 3 Number of corrosion defects before and after CIPS
FIGURE 4 Defect depths found during excavations
0,00
0,10
0,20
0,30
0,40
0,50
0,60
0,70
0,80
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Number of corrosion defects
P
r
o
b
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
d
e
n
s
i
t
y
Initial
Updated after CIPS
0
1
2
3
4
5
0

0
,
3
0
,
3

0
,
6
0
,
6

0
,
9
0
,
9

1
,
2
1
,
2

1
,
5
1
,
5

1
,
8
1
,
8

2
,
1
2
,
1

2
,
4
2
,
4

2
,
7
2
,
7

3
,
0
Defect depth [mm]
N
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
d
e
f
e
c
t
s
0,00
0,05
0,10
0,15
0,20
0,25
0,30
P
r
o
b
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
d
e
n
s
i
t
y
Histogram defect depth
Weibull fit
14
FIGURE 5 Defect lengths found during excavations
FIGURE 6 Defect depth distribution before and after excavations
0
1
2
3
4
0

5
0
5
0

1
0
0
1
0
0

1
5
0
1
5
0

2
0
0
2
0
0

2
5
0
2
5
0

3
0
0
3
0
0

3
5
0
3
5
0

4
0
0
4
0
0

4
5
0
4
5
0

5
0
0
Defect length [mm]
N
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
d
e
f
e
c
t
s
0,00
0,05
0,10
0,15
0,20
0,25
0,30
0,35
P
r
o
b
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
d
e
n
s
i
t
y
Histogram defect length
Weibull fit
0,00
0,01
0,02
0,03
0,04
0,05
0,06
0,07
0,08
0,09
0,10
0,0 1,0 2,0 3,0 4,0 5,0 6,0
Defect depth [mm]
P
r
o
b
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
d
e
n
s
i
t
y
Initial
Updated after excavations
15
FIGURE 7 Effect ECDA on the probability of failure per km
1,00E14
1,00E12
1,00E10
1,00E08
1,00E06
1,00E04
1,00E02
1,00E+00
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
Number of years
P
r
o
b
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
o
f
f
a
i
l
u
r
e
Effect ECDA