Front. Struct. Civ. Eng.

2013, 7(3): 276–287

DOI 10.1007/s11709-013-0207-9

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Inverse Gaussian process-based corrosion growth

modeling and its application in the reliability analysis for
energy pipelines
Hao QIN, Shenwei ZHANG, Wenxing ZHOU*

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Western University, London N6A 5B9, Canada
*
Corresponding author. E-mail: wzhou@eng.uwo.ca

© Higher Education Press and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

ABSTRACT This paper describes an inverse Gaussian process-based model to characterize the growth of metal-loss
corrosion defects on energy pipelines. The model parameters are evaluated using the Bayesian methodology by
combining the inspection data obtained from multiple inspections with the prior distributions. The Markov Chain Monte
Carlo (MCMC) simulation techniques are employed to numerically evaluate the posterior marginal distribution of each
individual parameter. The measurement errors associated with the ILI tools are considered in the Bayesian inference. The
application of the growth model is illustrated using an example involving real inspection data collected from an in-service
pipeline in Alberta, Canada. The results indicate that the model in general can predict the growth of corrosion defects
reasonably well. Parametric analyses associated with the growth model as well as reliability assessment of the pipeline
based on the growth model are also included in the example. The proposed model can be used to facilitate the
development and application of reliability-based pipeline corrosion management.

KEYWORDS pipeline, metal-loss corrosion, inverse Gaussian process, measurement error, hierarchical Bayesian, Markov
Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC)

1 Introduction corrosion growth modeling [1–3]. For example, Hong [1]

Metal-loss corrosion is a major threat to the structural
integrity of steel energy pipelines world-wide, the majority
of which are highly pressurized underground oil and
natural gas pipelines. The reliability-based corrosion
management programs have been increasingly employed
by the pipeline operators. The corrosion growth modeling
plays a key role in the various tasks involved in the
pipeline corrosion management program such as determi-
nation of the inspection interval, evaluation of the failure
probability and development of phased mitigation actions
to satisfy the safety constraint and optimize the allocation
of limited resources.
The corrosion process is subjected to significant
uncertainties of both temporal and spatial variability. The
Markov process and Gamma process are two stochastic
process models that have been commonly applied in
Article history: Received Feb. 21, 2013; Accepted Jun. 8, 2013
proposed a non-homogenous Markov process to model the
corrosion growth based on data obtained from corrosion
experiments. Maes et al. [2] and Zhang et al. [3] reported
non-homogenous Gamma process- (NHGP-) based models
formulated in the hierarchical Bayesian framework to
characterize the growth of defects on pipelines based on
data obtained from multiple inline inspections (ILI). The
study in Ref. [3] differs from that in Ref. [2] as the former
considers the initiation time of each individual defects and
incorporates a general form of the measurement errors
associated with ILI data, which includes the biases and
random scattering error as well as the correlations between
the random scattering errors associated with the ILI tools
used in different inspections.
A study reported in the literature [4] suggests that the
inverse Gaussian process (IGP) is a viable alternative to
characterize the corrosion process. The mathematical
tractability of IGP [4] also facilitates incorporating the
IGP-based corrosion growth model in a Bayesian frame-
 Hao QIN et al. Inverse Gaussian process-based corrosion growth modeling
work to evaluate and update the model parameters based
on the corrosion inspection data. However, reports on the
IGP-based models to characterize the growth of corrosion
defects on pipelines are scarce in the literature.
In this study, we aim to develop an IGP-based growth
model for the depths of corrosion defects on energy
pipelines by incorporating the ILI-reported depths collected
from multiple ILI runs. The growth model is formulated in
a hierarchical Bayesian framework to deal with uncertain-
ties in the growth model and inspection data. The Markov
Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) simulation techniques are
employed to carry out the Bayesian inference and
numerically evaluate the probabilistic characteristics of
the model parameters. The proposed growth model is
illustrated and validated through an example involving a set
of real ILI data collected from a natural gas pipeline that is
currently in service in Alberta, Canada. The use of the
developed growth model for evaluating the time-dependent
system reliability of a joint of the above mentioned pipeline
is also included in the example.
2 Inverse Gaussian process
Consider that X is a random variable and follows an inverse
Gaussian distribution with the probability density function
(PDF), fX(x|μ,θ), parameterized as [5]
rffiffiffiffiffiffi
 
 – 2=3 ðx –
Þ2
fX ðxj
,Þ ¼ x exp – Ið0,1Þ ðxÞ, (1)
2π 2
2 x
with μ (μ > 0) and θ (θ > 0) denoting the mean and shape
parameters of X, respectively, and I(0,1)(x) denoting an
indicator function that equals unity for x > 0 and zero
otherwise. The mean and variance of X are μ and μ3/θ,
respectively.
Let {X(t); t≥0} denote an inverse Gaussian process
(IGP) with a PDF given by [4]
   2 
 1 X–1
fX ðtÞ xðtÞΘðtÞ, ΘðtÞ
0  2 1
 – ΘðtÞ
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi B xðtÞ C where Ei denotes the n
n variance-covariance matrix
¼ =2πΘðtÞxðtÞ – 3=2 exp @ – A
2xðtÞ
 

Ið0,1Þ xðtÞ , (2)
where Θ(t) and (Θ(t))2 denote the mean and shape
functions, respectively, with  denoting a scale parameter.
The IGP has three properties: 1) X(t) equals zero at t = 0
with probability one; 2) X(t) has independent increments;
and 3) for all t2 > t1≥0, X(t2) – X(t1) follows an inverse
Gaussian distribution with a PDF given by Eq. (1), where
the mean and shape parameters equal Θ(t2) – Θ(t1) and
(Θ(t2) – Θ(t1))2, respectively.
277
Based on Eq. (1), the mean and variance of X(t), denoted
by E[X(t)] and Var[X(t)], respectively, are given by
E½X ðtÞ ¼ ΘðtÞ, (3a)
Var½X ðtÞ ¼ ΘðtÞ=: (3b)
3 Inspection data and growth models for
multiple defects
The inspection data reported by the ILI tools are always
associated with certain sizing errors including biases and
random scattering error that will impact the estimation of
model parameters. Suppose m active corrosion defects on a
particular pipe segment have been inspected and sized n
times over a certain period of time. The measured depth of
the ith defect at the jth inspection, yij, (i = 1, 2, …, m; j = 1, 2,
…, n) can be related to the corresponding actual depth, xij,
through the following equation [6,7]:
yij ¼ aj þ bj xij þ εij , (4)
where aj and bj denote the constant and non-constant bias
associated with the ILI tool used in the jth inspection, and εij
denotes the random scattering error associated with the
ILI-reported depth of the ith defect at the jth inspection, and
is assumed to be normally distributed with a zero mean and
known standard deviation [8]. It is further assumed that for
a given inspection j, εij and εlj (i≠l) are independent,
whereas for a given defect i, εij and εik (j≠k) are correlated
with a correlation coefficient of ρjk (i.e., the correlation
coefficient between the random scattering errors associated
with the jth and kth inspections) [8]. Denote Ei = (Ei1, Ei2 …
Ein)′ as the vector of random scattering errors associated
with the n inspections for defect i, with “′” representing
transposition. It follows from the above assumption
that Ei is multivariate normal-distributed and has a PDF
given by
 
fEi ðεi Þ ¼ pffiffiffiffiffi X 1=2 exp – εí
1
ε , (5)
n=2   2 i Ei i
ð 2πÞ  E 
i
P
of Ei with each of elements equal to ρjkσjσk (j = 1, 2, …, n; k
= 1, 2, …, n), and σj denotes the standard deviation of the
random scattering error associated with the tool used at the
jth inspection. A Bayesian methodology has been reported
in Ref. [8] to evaluate aj, bj, σj and ρjk by comparing the
ILI-reported and corresponding field-measured depths for
a set of static (i.e., repaired) corrosion defects.
The growth of the depth associated with each individual
defect is assumed to follow an inverse Gaussian process
given by Eq. (2), where Θ(t) is assumed to be a power-law
function of time, i.e., Θ(t) = α(t – t0)δ with t0 denoting the
initiation time of the corrosion defect, α denoting the
average growth over the first unit time interval since t0, and
278 Front. Struct. Civ. Eng. 2013, 7(3): 276–287
δ indicating the trend of the mean growth path. The mean
growth (i.e., Θ(t)) is an accelerating, decelerating and
linear growth path for δ > 1, δ < 1 and δ = 1, respectively.
In this study, the four parameters of the IGP-based
growth model, namely α, t0, δ and , were assumed to be
uncertain parameters. Furthermore, we assumed α and t0 to
be defect-specific, and δ and  to be common for all
defects. It then follows from Eq. (2) that the growth of the
ith defect between the (j – 1)th and jth inspections, ΔXij, is
inverse Gaussian distributed and has a PDF of
fΔXij(Δxij|ΔΘij, (ΔΘij)2). The mean value of ΔXij, ΔΘij,
equals αi(tj – ti0)δ for j = 1 and αi(tj – ti0)δ – αi(tj-1 – ti0)δ for j
= 2, 3, …, n, where αi denotes the average growth of the ith
defect over the first unit time interval since ti0; tj denotes
the time of the jth inspection, and ti0 denotes the initiation
time of the ith defect. The actual depth of the ith defect at the
time of the jth inspection, xij, is then obtained from xij = xi,j-1
+ Δxij, with xi0 assumed to be zero.
4 Bayesian updating of the growth model
4.1 Overview the Bayesian updating
The Bayesian updating is an approach to evaluate the
probability distributions of a set of unknown parameters of
a given model by combining the existing knowledge of
these parameters with the new information contained in the
data [9]. The mechanism for combining the information is
Bayes’ theorem. The existing knowledge of model
parameters is reflected by the prior distribution. The new
information in the data is incorporated in the Bayesian
updating through the so-called likelihood function, and the
probability distribution obtained from the updating is
known as the posterior distribution. The likelihood
function, prior and posterior distributions are described
in the following sections.
4.2 Likelihood function
4.2.1 Likelihood function of the inspection data
Consider defect i and denote yi = (yi1, yi2,…, yij, …, yin)′
and Δxi = (Δxi1, Δxi2, …, Δxin)′. It follows from Eqs. (4)
and (5) as well as the assumptions described in Section 3
that the likelihood of the inspection data, yi, conditional on
the actual depth increments, Δxi, is given by
X  – 1=2
 
Lðyi jΔxi Þ ¼ ð2πÞ – n=2  ε 
 X–1  uniform distributions, respectively, and p, q, u, r, s, v, and
1

exp – ðyi – a – bxi Þ# Ei
ðyi – a – bxi Þ ,
2 tions. The selection of the values of these parameters is
(6)
where xi = (xi1, xi2, …, xij, …, xin)′ with the jth element, xij =
Pj
k¼1 Δxik ; a = (a1, a2, …, aj, …, an)′, and b is an n
n
diagonal matrix with the jth element equal to bj.
4.2.2 Likelihood functions of the growth of depth
Assume that Δxij and Δxlj (i ≠ l) are conditionally
independent of each other for inspection j; in other words,
the exchangeability condition [9] is applicable to Δxij (i =
1, 2,…, m) conditional on αi, δ,  and ti0 for inspection j.
The joint PDF of Δxi can be written as


fΔXi ðΔxi ai ,δ,,t0i Þ ¼ Πj¼1 fΔXij ðΔxij jai ,δ,,t0i Þ
n
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
¼ Πj¼1
n – 3=2
=2πΔΘij Δxij
!
ðΔxij – ΔΘij Þ2

exp – : (7)
2Δxij
4.3 Prior distribution
For m active corrosion defects, the growth model described
in Section 3 involves a total of 2m + 2 basic parameters,
namely m defect-specific parameters αi and initiation times
ti0 (i = 1, 2,…, m) and two common parameters δ and . In
this study, the gamma distribution was selected as the prior
distributions of αi, δ and  (i = 1, 2,…, m) based on the
consideration that the gamma distribution ensures αi and 
to be positive quantities and can be conveniently made as a
non-informative distribution. The prior distribution of the
initiation time ti0was assigned a uniform distribution with a
lower bound of zero and an upper bound equal to the time
interval between the installation of the pipeline and the first
detection of the ith defect. The prior distributions of αi and
ti0 associated with all defects were further assumed to be
identical and mutually independent (iid). Details of the
prior distributions of αi, ti0 (i = 1, 2,…, m),  and δ are
given as follows:
αi e πG ðp,qÞ, (8a)
ti0 e πU ð0,uÞ, (8b)
 e πG ðr,sÞ, (8c)
δ e πG ðv,wÞ, (8d)
where πG(∙) and πU(∙) denote the PDF of the gamma and
w are known distribution parameters of the prior distribu-
discussed in Section 5.
 Hao QIN et al. Inverse Gaussian process-based corrosion growth modeling
4.4 Posterior distribution
Let θ denote the unknown model parameters and D denote
the inspection data. The joint posterior distribution of
θ, p(θ|D) can be obtained by combining the joint prior
distribution of θ, π(θ), with the likelihood, L(D|θ), of the
inspection data according to Bayes theorem [9,10]:
LðDjθÞπðθÞ
pðθjDÞ ¼
!LðDjθÞπðθÞdθ
/ LðDjθÞπðθÞ, (9a)
where “/” represents proportionality. If the distribution
parameters (denoted by λ) of the prior distribution of θ are
also considered to be uncertain, the joint posterior
distribution of the parameters θ and λ, denoted by p (θ,
λ|D), can be formulated as the same manner as Eq. (9a)
based on the hierarchical Bayesian theorem, i.e.,
LðDjθÞπðθjlÞπðlÞ
pðθ,ljDÞ ¼
!:::!LðDjθÞπðθjlÞπðlÞdθdl
/ LðDjθÞπðθjlÞπðlÞ: (9b)
It is not possible to analytically derive the joint posterior
distributions of the parameters of the growth model;
therefore, the MCMC simulation techniques were used to
numerically evaluate the posterior distribution. In this
study, the software OpenBUGS [11] was employed to carry
out the MCMC simulation and Bayesian inference of the
probabilistic characteristics of the model parameters. The
generic distribution option was used to define the inverse
Gaussian distribution in OpenBUGS [11].
5 Numerical example
5.1 Model validation
This section presents the growth models developed for 62
external corrosion defects identified on a natural gas
pipeline that is currently in service in Alberta, Canada.
This pipeline was constructed in 1972 and has been
inspected by the magnetic flux leakage (MFL) tools in
2000, 2004 and 2007. The 62 defects, which spread over a
Table 1 Summary of the ILI-reported and field-measured depths for the 62 defects
ILI-reported depth
2000 2004
min (%wt) 3 3
max (%wt) 56 55
mean (%wt) 27 28
279
pipe segment with a length of about 82 km, were
excavated, field measured and mitigated in 2010. The
field-measured depths were assumed to be free of
measurement errors [8]; that is, the actual depths of the
62 defects in 2010 are known. A summary of the ILI-
reported and field-measured depths for the defects is given
in Table 1, where the symbol wt denotes pipe wall
thickness and the symbol %wt denotes the unit of defect
depth measured by MFL tools. The apparent growth paths
indicated by the ILI-reported and field-measured depths for
the 62 defects are illustrated in Fig. 1. Note that the non-
monotonic trend of the growth paths for some defects is
attributed to the measurement errors involved in the
inspection data. The three sets of ILI data obtained in 2000,
2004 and 2007 were used to carry out the Bayesian
updating and evaluate the probabilistic characteristics of
the parameters of the growth models for each of the 62
defects. The growth model was then validated by
comparing the predicted depths in 2010 with the
corresponding actual depths.
The calibrated biases and random scattering errors
associated with individual ILI tools as well as correlations
between the random scattering errors of different ILI tools
are as follows [8]: a1 = a2 = 2.04 (%wt) and a3 = – 15.28
(%wt); b1 = b2 = 0.97 and b3 = 1.4; σ1 = σ2 = 5.97 (%wt)
and σ3 = 9.05 (%wt); ρ12 = 0.82 and ρ13 = ρ23 = 0.7, with
the subscripts “1,” “2” and “3” denoting the parameters
associated with the ILI-reported data in 2000, 2004 and
2007, respectively.
The distribution parameters of the prior distributions
given by Eq. (8) were selected as follows: p = 1, q = 1, u =
28 (year), r = 1, s = 1, v = 1 and w = 1. These values were
observed to lead to a good convergence of the MCMC
simulation. The impact of the distribution parameters of
the prior distributions on the posterior distributions as well
as the predictive accuracy of the growth model is discussed
in the following section.
A total of 20000 sequences of samples were generated
from the MCMC simulation and the first 3000 sequences
of samples were treated as the burn-in period and therefore
discarded. The samples in the remaining sequences were
used to make inference of the statistics of the model
parameters. The PDFs of the posterior marginal distribu-
tions of  and δ, which are common for all defects, are
plotted in Figs. 2(a) and (b), respectively. For comparison,
the prior distributions are also plotted in the same figure.
For brevity, the posterior distributions of αi and ti0
field-measured depth in 2010
2007
6 12
60 65
27 32
280 Front. Struct. Civ. Eng. 2013, 7(3): 276–287
Fig. 1 Apparent growth paths indicated by the ILI-reported and
field-measured depths
Fig. 2 Illustration of the prior and posterior distributions of  and
δ. (a) The prior and posterior distributions of ; (b) the prior and
posterior distributions of δ
associated with each of the 62 defects are depicted by the
box-plots instead of PDF curves and shown in Figs. 3(a)
and 3(b), respectively. In Fig. 3, the mid-line, left and right
sides of a given box indicate the median, 25- and 75-
percentile values of the posterior marginal distribution of
each parameter. The left and right ends of the arms of each
box indicate the 2.5- and 97.5-percentile values of the
corresponding marginal distribution. The bracketed number
at the right end of the arm represents the defect number. The
vertical line indicates the overall mean of this parameter for
all the defects. The overall mean of α and t0 for the 62
defects are 1.2%wt/year and 10.4 years, respectively.
Figures 2 and 3 indicate that most of the marginal
distributions of model parameters are not symmetric and
even highly skewed for certain defects. Therefore, the
median values of the marginal distributions were selected
as the point estimates of model parameters and used to
predict the corrosion growth based on Eq. (2).
The predictive quality of the growth model was
demonstrated by a comparison of the predicted depths in
2010 with the corresponding field-measured depths for the
62 defects (see Fig. 4). The predicted depths were obtained
by substituting the median values of αi, ti0 and δ associated
with each of the 62 defects evaluated from the MCMC
simulation into Eq. (3a). Figure 4 suggests that the
proposed model can predict the growth of corrosion
defects reasonably well for majority of the defects
considered in that the predicted depths for 90% of the 62
defects fall between the two bounding lines representing
actual depth 10%wt. The range of 10%wt is commonly
used in the pipeline industry as a confidence interval for the
calibration of the ILI tools and was used in this study as a
metric of the predictive accuracy of the growth model.
The mean, 10- and 90-percentile values of the growth
paths for four arbitrarily selected defects, Defects #13, #15,
#18 and #19, are plotted in Fig. 5(a) through 5(d),
respectively. The mean and standard deviation of the defect
depth at a given time were evaluated using Eqs. (3a) and
(3b), respectively, based on the median values of the model
parameters associated with this particular defect. The 10-
and 90-percentile values were then approximately eval-
uated assuming that the depth at a given time is Gaussian-
distributed according to the central limit theorem. For
comparison, the corresponding ILI-reported depths in
2000, 2004 and 2007 as well as the field-measured depth
in 2010 are also plotted in the same figure. The results in
Fig. 5 indicate that the predicted average growth rate
differs from defect to defect, which is expected because the
parameter α is defect-specific. For example, the average
growth rate of Defect #19 is the highest among the four
defects plotted and equals 1.9%wt/year, followed by
Defects #15, #13 and #18 with average growth rates
equal to 1.6, 1.3 and 1.1%wt/year, respectively.
5.2 Parametric analysis
To investigate the impact of the assumptions associated
with the model parameters on the predictions, two
scenarios, designated by Scenarios I and II respectively,
were further considered. For brevity, the case correspond-
ing to the results shown in Section 5.1 is referred to as the
baseline case, i.e., α and t0 are both defect-specific and δ
Hao QIN et al. Inverse Gaussian process-based corrosion growth modeling 281
282 Front. Struct. Civ. Eng. 2013, 7(3): 276–287

Fig. 3 Box-plots of the posterior distributions of α and t0. (a) Box plot of the posterior distribution α; (b) box plot of the posterior
distribution t0
 Hao QIN et al. Inverse Gaussian process-based corrosion growth modeling 283

Fig. 4 Comparison of the predicted depths in 2010 with the corresponding field-measured depths

Fig. 5 Predicted growth path of a given defect. (a) Defect #13; (b) (a) Defect #15; (a) Defect #18; (a) Defect #19
284 Front. Struct. Civ. Eng. 2013, 7(3): 276–287
and  are common for all defects. Scenario I assumes that
only t0 is defect-specific, whereas scenario II assumes that
only  is common for all the defects. The predicted depths
corresponding to Scenarios I and II were obtained in the
same manner as that for the baseline case. The results
indicate that the percentage of the predictions for the 62
defects falling within the region of actual depth 10%wt is
72% for Scenario I and 48% for Scenario II. The fact that
Scenario I results in a poorer prediction than the baseline
case suggests that it is more reasonable to assume α to be
defect-specific (as in the baseline case) than common for
all the defects (as in Scenario I). This is because α
represents the mean of the growth within the first unit time
interval since initiation and is expected to differ from
defect to defect due to the spatial variability of the
corrosion defects. Furthermore, the fact that the predictions
corresponding to Scenario II are markedly worse than
those corresponding to the baseline case implies that δ does
not vary markedly from defect to defect. Therefore,
assuming δ to be common for all the defects (as in the
baseline case) allows the Bayesian updating to assimilate
the growth trends associated with all the defects and
therefore make a reasonable inference of the statistics of δ.
Our investigation indicates that assuming  to be either
defect-specific or common for all defects, in general, has a
negligible impact on the predictions.
To investigate the influence of the prior distributions of
model parameters on the predictive quality, we considered
two additional scenarios, designated by Scenarios III and
IV respectively, both of which are the same as the baseline
case except that the shape parameter (i.e., p) of the prior
distribution of αi equals 10 in Scenarios III and 0.1 in
Scenarios IV (as opposed to 1.0 in the baseline case). The
analysis results indicate that about 21% (61%) of the
predictions of the 62 defects fall within the region of actual
depth 10%wt for Scenario III (IV). This is mainly
because p = 10 and 0.1 in conjunction with q = 1 in Eq. (8a)
implies that the means of the growth in the first unit time
interval since t0 equal 10%wt/year and 0.1%wt/year,
respectively. This prior knowledge about the growth rate
might be too distant from the realistic scenario to lead to a
good convergence of the MCMC simulation as well as
good estimate of the posterior distributions. The prior
distribution of αi in the baseline case (i.e., p = q = 1)
implies that the mean and coefficient of variation (COV) of
the growth in the first unit time interval since t0 equal 1%
wt/year and 100%, respectively, which are considered
reasonably representative of the reality. From this
perspective, the prior distribution of αi specified in the
baseline case can be regarded, to certain extent, as an
informative distribution. The comparison between the
baseline case and Scenarios III and IV highlights the
importance of properly selecting the prior distributions for
the Bayesian updating.
5.3 Application in the system reliability assessment
In this section, we apply the developed growth model to
the system reliability assessment of the corroding gas
pipeline considering three distinctive failure modes,
namely small leak, large leak and rupture. Details of the
mechanisms of small leak, large leak and rupture can be
found in [12]. The failure of a pipeline segment due to
small leak, large leak and rupture can be formulated based
on the following three limit state functions [13].
The limit state function for a corrosion defect penetrat-
ing the pipe wall at a given time t, g1(t), is
g1 ðtÞ ¼ 0:8wt – dðtÞ, (10a)
with wt denoting the wall thickness of the pipeline, and d(t)
denoting the depth of the corrosion defect at time t, i.e., x(t)
used in the growth model. The use of 0.8wt as opposed to
wt in the above equation is consistent with typical industry
practice, where a remaining ligament thinner than 0.2wt is
considered prone to developing cracks that could lead to
leaks.
The limit state function for plastic collapse under
internal pressure at the defect at time t, g2(t), is given by
g2 ðtÞ ¼ rb ðtÞ – pðtÞ, (10b)
where rb(t) denotes the burst pressure resistance of the pipe
at the defect at time t and p(t) is the internal pressure of the
pipeline at time t.
The limit state function for the unstable axial extension
of the through-wall defect that results from the burst, g3(t),
is given by
g3 ðtÞ ¼ rrp ðtÞ – pðtÞ, (10c)
where rrp(t) is the pressure resistance of the pipeline at the
location of the through-wall defect resulting from the burst
at time t. Note that we use g1(t), g2(t) and g3(t) to
emphasize that g1, g2 and g3 are all time-dependent as a
result of the deterioration of pipe resistance over time and
time-dependency of the internal pressure.
Given the above, the probabilities of small leak, large
leak and rupture within a time interval [0, t], denoted by
Psl(t), Pll(t) and Prp(t) respectively, are defined as follows
[14]:
Psl ðtÞ ¼ Prob½ts <tb \ ts £t, (11a)
Pll ðtÞ ¼ Prob½tb <ts \ tb £t \ g3 ðtbÞ > 0, (11b)
Prp ðtÞ ¼ Prob½tb <ts \ tb £t \ g3 ðtb Þ£0, (11c)
where Prob[$] denotes the probability of an event; ts and tb
denote the times at which the defect depth just reaches
0.8wt and p(t) outcrosses rb (t) for the first time,
respectively, and “∩” represents the intersection (i.e.,
 Hao QIN et al. Inverse Gaussian process-based corrosion growth modeling 285

joint event). Note that the probability of small leak L(t) is the defect length (i.e., in the longitudinal direction of
occurring first then followed by a burst is ignored in the the pipeline) at time t and ζ is the model error.
analysis. The probabilities given by Eq. (11) were The flow stress-dependent failure criterion for a through-
evaluated through the Monte Carlo (MC) simulation wall flaw developed by Kiefner et al. [16] was employed in
technique following the procedures described in [13]. this study to calculate rrp(t) as follows:
The PCORRC model [15] as given by Eq. (12) was
selected to evaluate rb(t) 2wtf
" !!# rrp ðtÞ ¼ , (13)
2u dðtÞ 0:571LðtÞ M ðtÞD
rb ðt Þ ¼  1– 1 – exp – pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ,
D wt Dðwt – dðtÞÞ where σf is the flow stress and equals 0.9σu [12] and M(t) is
the Folias factor given by (the notation M(t) is used to
(12)
emphasize that M is in general a function of time because
where σu is the pipe tensile strength; D is the pipe diameter; the defect length can grow over time)
8 sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
>
> LðtÞ2 LðtÞ4 LðtÞ2
>
< 1 þ 0:6275 – 0:003375 , £50;
M ðt Þ ¼
Dwt ðDwtÞ2 Dwt
(14)
>
> LðtÞ2 LðtÞ2
>
: 3:293 þ 0:032 , > 50:
Dwt Dwt
To carry out the reliability analysis, we selected nine assumed to be fully correlated. The statistics associated
defects located on one particular pipe joint (approximately with the parameters involved in the reliability analysis are
17.5 m long) from the 62 defects considered in Section 5.1. summarized in Table 2. The spatial variability of diameter,
Although the defects have been repaired and ceased wall thickness, tensile strength, defect depth, defect length
growing since 2010, they were hypothetically assumed to and model error associated with different defects was
be still active and follow the growth path predicted from ignored and all these parameters were assumed to be
the growth model. This assumption allows evaluation of mutually independent.
the time-dependent failure probability of the pipeline under A total of 100000 simulation trials were used to evaluate
the threat of the nine active defects for the sole purpose of the probabilities of small leak, large leak and rupture over a
illustrating the application of the developed growth model 10-year forecasting period since the most recent inspection
in the reliability analysis. The pipe joint selected was made (i.e., from years 2008 to 2017). For each simulation trial,
from API 5L X52 steel with a specified minimum yield the growth paths of the nine defects over the period from
strength (SMYS) of 359 MPa and a specified minimum years 2008 to 2017 (i.e., corresponding to t = 36 to 45 in
tensile strength (SMTS) of 456 MPa, and has an outside Eq. (2)) were generated from Eq. (2) with the values of αi,
diameter of 508 mm, an operating pressure of 5.66 MPa ti0, δ and  equal to the corresponding medians of their
and a nominal wall thickness of 5.56 mm. Due to lack of posterior distributions evaluated from the MCMC simula-
information of the defect lengths associated with the nine tion. The probabilities of small leak, large leak and rupture
defects in the ILI report of 2007, we assumed that the over a ten-year forecasting period are shown in Fig. 6.
defect lengths are static and follow an identical and Figure 6 indicates that the probability of small leak at a
independent lognormal distribution with a mean of 30 mm given time is the highest over the entire forecasting period,
and a COV of 50% based on the information provided in for this example, followed by the probabilities of large leak
[12]. The internal pressures of different years were and rupture in a descending order. The probabilities of
assumed to be identical and independent Gumbel- small leak, large leak and rupture gradually increase over
distributed random variables [17]; at a given year, the time with a similar trend. For example, the failure
internal pressures associated with all the defects were probability at the end of the forecasting period is about
Table 2 Probabilistic characteristics of the basic random variables used in the reliability analysis
parameter unit distribution type nominal value mean standard deviation source
D mm deterministic 508 508 – [17]
wt mm normal 5.56 5.56 0.25 [12]
L mm lognormal – 30 15 [12]
σu MPa normal 456 492 14.78 [18]
p MPa Gumbel 5.66 5.93 0.12 [12]
ζ – Gumbel 1.00 1.08 0.29 [19]
286 Front. Struct. Civ. Eng. 2013, 7(3): 276–287
Fig. 6 Failure probabilities of small leak, large leak and rupture
twice as high as that at the beginning of the forecasting
period for each of the three failure modes considered.
6 Conclusions
We propose an inverse Gaussian process- (IGP-) based
model to characterize the growth of depths of metal-loss
corrosion defects on oil and gas steel pipelines. The model
parameters (i.e., α, t0, δ and ) were assumed to be
uncertain and evaluated using the hierarchical Bayesian
methodology based on the imperfect inspection data
obtained from multiple ILI runs. The parameters α and t0
were assumed to be defect-specific, whereas δ and  were
assumed to be common for all defects. The biases, random
scattering errors as well as correlations between the
random scattering errors associated with the ILI tools
used in different inspections were accounted for in the
Bayesian inference. The Markov Chain Monte Carlo
simulation techniques were employed to carry out the
Bayesian updating and numerically evaluate the probabil-
istic characteristics of the parameters in the growth model.
An example involving real ILI data collected from a
natural gas pipeline that is currently in service in Alberta,
Canada was used to illustrate the proposed growth model
and its application in evaluating the time-dependent failure
probability of the pipeline due to corrosion. The growth
models were developed for 62 external corrosion defects
that have been subjected to multiple ILI runs, and were
subsequently excavated, field measured and repaired. The
ILI data were used to carry out the Bayesian updating and
evaluate the parameters in the growth models correspond-
ing to each of the 62 corrosion defects considered. The
median values of the posterior distributions of the model
parameters were then used to predict the depths of the
defects at the time of the field measurements. A
comparison of the predicted and field-measured depths
indicates that the proposed model can predict the corrosion
growth reasonably well: the absolute differences between
the predicted depths and the actual depths are less than and
equal to 10%wt for 90% of the 62 defects.
To illustrate the application of the growth model in the
reliability analysis, nine defects located on the same pipe
joint were selected from the 62 defects. The failure
probability of the pipe joint due to corrosion and internal
pressure was then evaluated for three distinctive failure
modes, i.e., small leak, large leak and rupture over a
forecasting period of 10 years since the most recent
inspection. The simple Monte Carlo technique was
employed in the reliability analysis by taking into
consideration uncertainties in the corrosion growth,
material and pipe geometric properties as well as internal
pressure. The growth model and procedure for the
reliability analysis described in this study can be relatively
easily implemented in a pipeline corrosion management
framework to facilitate the structural integrity management
of pipelines. It is noted that the growth model developed in
this study ignores the spatial correlation between the
growths of different defects, and is a phenomenological
model that does not attempt to address the mechanism of
metal-loss corrosion.
Acknowledgements The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial
support provided by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council
(NSERC) of Canada and TransCanada Corporation through the Collaborative
Research and Development (CRD) program. The helpful comments provided
by the anonymous reviewer are gratefully appreciated.
References
1. Hong H P. Application of stochastic process to pitting corrosion.
Corrosion, 1999, 55(1): 10–16
 Hao QIN et al. Inverse Gaussian process-based corrosion growth modeling
2. Maes M A, Faber M H, Dann M R. Hierarchical modeling of
pipeline defect growth subject to ILI uncertainty. In: Proceedings of
the ASME 28th International Conference on Ocean. Offshore and
Arctic Engineering, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA, 2009, OMAE2009–
79470
3. Zhang S, Zhou W, Al-Amin M, Kariyawasam S, Wang H. Time-
dependent corrosion growth modeling using multiple ILI data. In:
Proceedings of IPC 2012, IPC2012–90502. ASME, Calgary,
2012
4. Wang X, Xu D. An inverse Gaussian process model for degradation
data. Technometrics, 2010, 52(2): 188–197
5. Chikkara R S, Folks J L. The Inverse Gaussian Distribution. New
York: Marcell Dekker, 1989
6. Al-Amin M, Zhou W, Zhang S, Kariyawasam S, Wang H. Bayesian
model for the calibration of ILI tools. In: Proceedings of IPC 2012,
IPC2012–90491. ASME, Calgary, 2012
7. Fuller W A. Measurement Error Models. New York: John Wiley &
Sons, Inc, 1987
8. Jaech J L. Statistical Analysis of Measurement Errors. New York:
John Wiley & Sons, Inc, 1985
9. Bernardo J, Smith A F M. Bayesian Theory. New York: John Wiley
& Sons Inc, 2007
10. Gelman A, Carlin J B, Stern H S, Rubin D B. Bayesian Data
Analysis. 2nd ed. New York: Chapman & Hall/CRC, 2004
11. Lunn D, Spiegelhalter D, Thomas A, Best N. The BUGS project:
Evolution, critique and future directions. Statistics in Medicine,
287
2009, 28(25): 3049–3082
12. CSA-Z662 Oil and Gas Pipeline Systems. Canadian Standards
Association, Rexdale, Ontario, 2007
13. Zhou W, Hong H P, Zhang S. Impact of dependent stochastic defect
growth on system reliability of corroding pipelines. International
Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping, 2012, 96–97: 68–77
14. Zhou W. Reliability evaluation of corroding pipelines considering
multiple failure modes and time-dependent internal pressure.
Journal of Infrastructure Systems, 2011, 17: 216–224
15. Leis B N, Stephens D R. An alternative approach to assess the
integrity of corroded line pipe- part II: Alternative criterion. In:
Proceedings of the 7th International Offshore and Polar Engineering
Conference. Honolulu, 1997, 635–640
16. Kiefner J F, Maxey W A, Eiber R J, Duffy A R. Failure stress levels
of flaws in pressurized cylinders, Progress in flaw growth and
fracture toughness testing, ASTM STP 536. American Society of
Testing and Materials, 1973, 461–481
17. Zhou W. System reliability of corroding pipelines. International
Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping, 2010, 87(10): 587–595
18. Jiao G, Sotberg T, Igland. RSUPERB. 2M- statistical data: Basic
uncertainty measures for reliability analysis of offshore pipelines.
SUPERB JIP report no. STF70 F952112, SUPERB project 700411,
1995
19. Zhou W, Huang G. Model error assessments of burst capacity
models for corroded pipelines. International Journal of Pressure
Vessels and Piping, 2012, 99–100: 1–8