See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/282990721

Probabilistic assessment of external corrosion rates in buried oil and gas

pipelines

Article in NACE - International Corrosion Conference Series · January 2015

CITATIONS READS

11 870

8 authors, including:

Shan Guan Nama Sridhar

Det Norske Veritas Institute of Aeronautical Engineering
40 PUBLICATIONS 260 CITATIONS 102 PUBLICATIONS 2,023 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Shan Guan on 12 June 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Paper No.

5529

Probabilistic assessment of external corrosion rates in buried oil and gas pipelines

Swati Jain, Andrea N. Sánchez, Shan Guan, Shanshan Wu, Francois Ayello, Narasi Sridhar
DNV GL
5777 Frantz Road
Dublin, OH, 43016 U.S.A.

Qingshan Feng and BingChuan Yan

PetroChina Pipeline Company
Langfang, Hebei, 065000 China

ABSTRACT
Quantitative risk assessment due to external corrosion requires an estimation of corrosion rates which
is a challenging task for pipeline engineers because of the uncertainty in data related to environmental
and physical variables such as soil type, drainage, soil chemistry, CP effectiveness, coating type and
coating properties. Unfortunately, the research into quantitative assessment of external corrosion rates
and the probability of failure of a buried pipeline is limited and has not progressed significantly. The
reason is the complex mechanism of external corrosion, numerous factors affecting it, and the
uncertainty in the knowledge of the variables. There is the need of a probabilistic external corrosion
methodology that compiles in one framework field data, multiple analytical methods (i.e. mechanistic
models from various sources and multiple risk modelling methods are combined in one unified method)
and expert knowledge. In this paper a novel model for quantitative assessment of corrosion rates using
Bayesian network method is proposed. Bayesian Networks are graphical models based on cause-
consequence relationships that are quantified through conditional probability tables based on a
combination of information available from subject matter experts, mechanistic models, and field data. A
case study is presented to assess the probability of failure due to external corrosion in a crude oil
buried pipeline located in Eastern China. The model was validated using in-line inspection data.

Key words: external corrosion, probabilistic model, risk assessment, Bayesian networks, pipelines

INTRODUCTION
External corrosion represents the main cause of failures in hazardous liquid transmission pipelines and
natural gas distribution pipelines. More than half of the failures registered in those pipelines between
1994 and 1999 were due to external corrosion.1 The research into quantitative assessment of external
corrosion rates and the probability of failure of a buried pipeline has not progressed significantly. The
reason is the complex mechanism of external corrosion, numerous factors affecting it, and the
uncertainty in the knowledge of the variables.

Due to the large complexity and uncertainty on many variables involved in the process of external
corrosion, empirical models with advanced stochastic approaches may be a viable approach to predict

©2015 by NACE International. Requests for permission to publish this manuscript in any form, in part or in whole, must be in writing to
NACE International, Publications Division, 15835 Park Ten Place, Houston, Texas 77084. The material presented and the views expressed in
this paper are solely those of the author(s) and are not necessarily endorsed by the Association.
1
 external corrosion risk in pipelines.2-8 For instance, Valor et al. modeled the formation and growth of pits
using nonhomogeneous Poisson process and nonhomogeneous Markov process, respectively. Results
were compared with laboratory data using various materials.2 Additionally, Caleyo et al., built
mathematical approximations to generate probability distributions using Monte Carlo simulations on
corrosion pits depth and growth in buried pipes with collected field data on depth of corrosion pits and
soil properties of more than 250 excavation locations.5,6

The results of the models described above are less conservative than the mechanistic and deterministic
models currently available. Despite the use of some of the chemical and physical aspects of the
external pipeline system in the model assumptions, these stochastic models (as acknowledged by
those authors) do not account for other corrosion causing mechanisms as microbiologically influenced
corrosion (MIC) and stray current.1 As mentioned earlier, corrosion in external pipelines is a very
complex and uncertain process and to fully comprehend and predict failures there is the need of a
modeling approach that accounts for the various mechanism and possible interactions between
mechanisms. Also available field data is often scarce. In this paper a novel approach for quantitative
assessment of corrosion rates using Bayesian network methods is proposed. This method has been
applied to other pipeline corrosion phenomena as internal corrosion with success.9 Validation of the
model using in-line inspection (ILI) data is also shown. Bayesian network methodology to assess
external corrosion is chosen because of: (i) these models allow for uncertainties related to data to be
included; (ii) the ability to include supplement physical understanding of some aspects of the system
with other corroborative observations; and (iii) the ability to modify the probabilistic predictions through
observations. In addition, Bayesian network models allow for combining expert knowledge, statics and
mechanistic based information.
MODELING
Bayesian Network Approach
A graphical model based on cause-consequence relationships was developed to compute the external
corrosion mechanism in crude oil pipelines using Bayesian Networks. Bayesian network models use
Bayes theorem where the probability of an event depends on the probability of its immediate causes. 9
Thus, by knowing the probability distribution of an event the probability of its causes can be calculated
through Bayesian inference.
An example of a simple Bayesian network is illustrated in Figure 1a. The oval nodes represent the
parameters/events; the pointing forward arrows connect the causal nodes (pH and chloride ion
concentration or Cl) with the consequence node (corrosion rate or CR). Each parameter/event has a
set of states (or ranges) that indicates the likelihood of given states to take place. For the example
given in Figure 1 a) the pH and the Cl are divided into two states: 6-7 and 7-8, and 0 ppm-100 ppm and
100 ppm-500 ppm, respectively. The gray bars represent the certainty of the data for the causal node
parameters; for the Cl node there is 80% certainty that the concentration is between 0-100 ppm. If the
information is unknown for a certain parameter then a flat distribution can be assumed (e.g the pH, 50%
for both states).

The cause-consequence relationship among the nodes is quantified through a conditional probability
table (CPT) as the one shown in Figure 1b. The table is populated based on a combination of
information available from subject matter experts, mechanistic models (running Monte Carlo
simulations) or field data. The CPT created for the relationship between the pH, Cl and CR is shown in
Figure 1 b, each column of the table represents the probability distribution of possible scenarios for the
Bayesian network. In large Bayesian Networks, creating the CPT for a consequence node with multiple
causal nodes and numerous states can be a laborious effort since the CPT must have as many
columns as there are possible sets of inputs making the tables excessively large. For instance, a recent
publication shows a CPT of 3072 columns for an uninhibited uniform corrosion rate probability in an
internal corrosion Bayesian network.9 Usually, the probability distributions on these large tables are
incorporated by running a mechanistic model multiple times over all possible input conditions (Monte

©2015 by NACE International. Requests for permission to publish this manuscript in any form, in part or in whole, must be in writing to
NACE International, Publications Division, 15835 Park Ten Place, Houston, Texas 77084. The material presented and the views expressed in
this paper are solely those of the author(s) and are not necessarily endorsed by the Association.
2
 Carlo simulation) or by field or laboratory statistical data analysis. When CPT are derived from expert’s
knowledge (subject-matter expert) they tend to be much smaller.
Once the CPT is generated then the model is ready to run using Bayes theorem. The results for the
example given in Figure 1 are represented using black bars on the right hand side of the network. An
important property of Bayesian Networks is that the cause-consequence relationships are reversible,
meaning that for the example in Figure 1 if the CR probability distribution is known, the model can back
track and predict the distribution of the pH and Cl through Bayesian inference based on the knowledge
contained in the CPT. In essence, there are no inputs or outputs in Bayesian networks, only knowns
and unknowns. One of the advantages of Bayesian networks is that the model can run even if no
information is available for a given parameter, the CPT of those unknowns nodes are adjusted to flat
probability distribution (with coherent states). However, caution should be taken in the data included on
each node (regardless if it is a flat distribution or not) since the data uncertainty is proportional to the
uncertainty of the modeling results.

a)

CR (mm/y) %
0-0.3 2.5
0.3-0.6 31
0.6-1.0 66.5

b)
pH 6-7 7-8
Cl (ppm) 0-100 100-500 0-100 100-500
CR (mm/yr)

0-0.3 0.05 0 0.05 0

0.3-0.6 0.3 0 0.9 1
0.6-1 0.65 1 0.05 0

Figure 1: An example of a cause-consequence relationship between pH, Cl and CR a) Bayesian

network and b) Conditional probability table for CR.

The explanation given above on Bayesian network was purposely simplified to familiarize the reader
with the main features of the modeling approach in order to facilitate the understanding of the next
sections of the paper where an external corrosion model is developed using Bayesian networks. It is
suggested that reader refers to Ref 9 for a much more detail explanation on Bayesian networks.
Bayesian Network on External Corrosion
External corrosion susceptibility of gas and liquid pipelines depends on a variety of environmental and
material parameters. The initiation and growth of external corrosion defects are a function of complex
interactions among factors such as soil conditions, wetting and drying cycles, presence of organic
decay products, coating types, pipe surface conditions, temperature, cathodic protection etc. 1. These
factors are either very difficult to quantify or have high degree of uncertainty. Additionally, a significant
metal loss in a crude oil pipeline due to external corrosion defects can lead to the reduction of the
pressure carrying capacity of the pipeline which can eventually result in failure. The probability of failure
is a result of the corrosion flaw depth and length progression, which depends on the integration in time
of the CR (typically a high value after the coating is damaged).

A Bayesian network to assess the external corrosion probability of failure profile along the pipeline was
developed. The schematic layout of the external corrosion model is shown in Figure 2. The layout
includes the six modules in which the model is divided. The Coating Damage is calculated through

©2015 by NACE International. Requests for permission to publish this manuscript in any form, in part or in whole, must be in writing to
NACE International, Publications Division, 15835 Park Ten Place, Houston, Texas 77084. The material presented and the views expressed in
this paper are solely those of the author(s) and are not necessarily endorsed by the Association.
3
 several factors ranging from soil stress, applied CP (cathodic effect), construction practices to the
operating temperature. The Cathodic Protection module corresponds to the effective surface potential
applied to the system based on the information on: CP history of the system (preferably OFF), soil
resistivity, mill scale, shielding, stray currents and formation of galvanic cells. Evaluation of the
environment that forms under the damaged coating is quantified in the Chemistry under the Damaged
Coating. That environment depends on the CP potential, the soil properties such as total dissolved
solids, oxygen availability, and soil carbon dioxide pressure. The Corrosion module assesses the
corrosion rates (uniform and localized corrosion) and it takes into account the presence of severe
species as chloride ions, sulfate ions and bacteria. The Remaining strength module includes the
calculation of the pressure for failure of the pipeline and can be estimated from a numerical fracture
mechanics model outlined in by Jaske et al.16 Finally, External Corrosion Failure module uses the
critical pressure to estimate the probability of failure for each pipe section at one year intervals.

Cathodic
Protection

Chemistry under External

Coating damaged Remaining
Corrosion Corrosion
Damage coating strength
Failure

Figure 2: Layout of the external corrosion model

Case Study
The results of the external corrosion direct assessment (ECDA) performed on a buried crude oil
pipeline located in Eastern China and installed in 1973 indicated extensive external corrosion damage.
However, information on the likelihood of external corrosion progression in the future was unknown.
Additionally, there is some uncertainty in the data collection during the ECDA and re-assessing the pipe
is not a time-efficient or cost-effective solution. A Bayesian network was constructed to predict the
probability of corrosion defects (flaw depth and length) and it is shown in Figure 3. The network
consisted of 47 nodes. A detail description of each node including: data sources, states (used in the
CPT), causal nodes and consequence nodes are described in Appendix A. The CPTs were developed
based on subject matter expert beliefs, mechanistic models, or data from the field or experiments. The
distributions of the parameters are calculated using data inputs (knowns) provided by the pipeline
company and some of them are summarized in Table 1. It should be noted that the resolution of the
model, in terms of the minimum size of the pipeline section, will depend on the resolution of the input
data. Some data such as CP potential and operating pressure vary with time and should be provided at
different times for improved prediction.

©2015 by NACE International. Requests for permission to publish this manuscript in any form, in part or in whole, must be in writing to
NACE International, Publications Division, 15835 Park Ten Place, Houston, Texas 77084. The material presented and the views expressed in
this paper are solely those of the author(s) and are not necessarily endorsed by the Association.
4
 Table 1.
Most Important Parameters Used in the External Corrosion Simulations, Gray Uncertain Data,
Black Certain Data (Ref. Figure 3 and Appendix A)

Simulation Parameters Value Certainty %

-500 to -650 VCSE 0
-650 to -700 VCSE 0
-700 to -750 VCSE 0
-750 to -800 VCSE 0
CP off potential
-800 to -850 VCSE 0
-850 to -950 VCSE 0
-950 to -1,200 VCSE 50
-1,200 to -1,500 VCSE 50
Sand 10
Soil type Clay 85
Loam 5
Depressed 10
Topography
Level 90
Yes 95
Dent
No 5
Affected 30
Area affected by weld
Not Affected 70
Blasting 0
Surface preparation Brushing 0
No Preparation 100
0 ppm to 50 ppm 20
50 ppm to 100 ppm 20
Sulfates 100 ppm to 150 ppm 20
150 ppm to 200 ppm 20
200 ppm to 1,000 ppm 20
0 ppm to 150 ppm 33
Chlorides 150 ppm to 1,500 ppm 33
1,500 ppm to 10,000 ppm 33
Yes 50
MIC
No 50
0-3 0
3-6 0
Month of soil wetness
6-9 100
9-12 0
80°C-70°C 0
70°C-60°C 25
60°C-50°C 25
Temperature 50°C-40°C 25
40°C-30°C 25
30°C-20°C 0
20°C-10°C 0
Asphalt 100
Coal Tar 0
Coating type FBE 0
PVC 0
Tar Glass 0

©2015 by NACE International. Requests for permission to publish this manuscript in any form, in part or in whole, must be in writing to
NACE International, Publications Division, 15835 Park Ten Place, Houston, Texas 77084. The material presented and the views expressed in
this paper are solely those of the author(s) and are not necessarily endorsed by the Association.
5
 Figure 3: Bayesian network model for external corrosion assessment. Every event is linked to
the next by cause-consequence relationships.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

‎Corrosion depth progression with time
The external corrosion model was used to predict the probability corrosion flaw depth and length.
Figure 4 shows the predicted probability distribution of the corrosion depth/wall thickness ratio (wall
thickness loss percentage) at different times at a pipeline section. Initially, in year 1973 (when the
pipeline was built) the probability of having a wall thickness loss is excessively small as expected
(basically ~0 with ~100% certainty), with no indication of severe corrosion at this particular pipeline
section. After 21 years (1994) of operation and exposure to the environment, the model predictions
indicate an increase of the corrosion depth with values distributed in a wider set of ranges with a high
probability of minor wall thickness loss between 0 and 10%.In 2004 the probability distribution of the
wall thickness loss is more predominant between the ranges of 5% and 10% with a ~65% probability
and 10% probability of corrosion depth between 10% and 15% mm. By 2011, the probability distribution
has noticeably shifted probability towards the right hand side meaning that the corrosion depth has
increased in this section with a 90% probability that it is between 20% mm and 50% mm. It is important
to mention that the uncertainty of the corrosion depth/wall thickness ratio probability also increases with
time and it is represented by the tails of the distribution curves.
Model Validation – ILI comparison
A The information obtained using a magnetic flux leakage ILI tool of a survey conducted in 2011 was
used to validate the modeling results. The comparison of the corrosion depths predicted with the model
and obtained through ILI at a given section of the pipeline is made in Figure 5. The distributions are
similar and show that the model is in good agreement with the ILI information. The length of the
corrosion from ILI and the model predictions for 2011 are compared in Figure 6. The model results are
in good agreement with the corrosion flaw lengths observed in ILI measurements. All the faults with
depth less than 10% wall thickness were removed because the accuracy for this ILI is ± 10% wall
thickness (WT).

©2015 by NACE International. Requests for permission to publish this manuscript in any form, in part or in whole, must be in writing to
NACE International, Publications Division, 15835 Park Ten Place, Houston, Texas 77084. The material presented and the views expressed in
this paper are solely those of the author(s) and are not necessarily endorsed by the Association.
6
 Figure 4: Change of the probability distribution of the corrosion depth/wall thickness ratio with
time

Figure 5: Comparison of the predicted probability distribution of the corrosion depth/wall

thickness ratio with the ILI at a pipeline section.

©2015 by NACE International. Requests for permission to publish this manuscript in any form, in part or in whole, must be in writing to
NACE International, Publications Division, 15835 Park Ten Place, Houston, Texas 77084. The material presented and the views expressed in
this paper are solely those of the author(s) and are not necessarily endorsed by the Association.
7
 (mm)

Figure 6: Comparison of the predicted probability distribution of the corrosion length with the
ILI at a pipeline section.
Chemistry under disbonded coatings
Chemistry at a damaged coating region was evaluated at one location on the pipeline and was
compared to the measurements; the results are shown in Table 1. The model is in good agreement with
the observed data. The concentration of bicarbonate ions is predicted in a range and has a high
uncertainty because of 2 reasons: 1) The pressure of CO2 in the soil is not very accurately known, and
2) There will always be inherent variability in the measured data due to several unknowns.

Table 1
Comparison between predicted and observed values on pH and HCO3-
Calculated
Measured
Average Range

pH 8.45 8.8 8-9

-
HCO3 2.97 mM 2.71 mM 0.05 - 5 mM

Sensitivity Analysis
The external corrosion model shown in the previous sections was successful in predicting the
distributions for the real life pipeline. This model can also be used to evaluate the factors to which the
corrosion initiation time and depth of corrosion are most sensitive, indicating what data should be
gathered to reduce the uncertainty on the length and depth of the external corrosion defects. This
information can help in deciding the corrosion mitigation control strategy. The uncertainty sensitivity
analysis depends on data used in the model, so if data is known with 100% certainty then the sensitivity
of the data uncertainty will be zero. Figure 7 shows the relative sensitivity of the uncertainty for the
depth of corrosion and time at which corrosion initiates to different parameters. The analysis shows that
the uncertainty in the data for chloride concentration and bacteria activity (MIC) has a large effect on
the calculation of probability corrosion depth. Therefore, is more certain data is gathered for chloride
and MIC then the uncertainty in the model results will be reduced. For the time at which corrosion
initiates (when coating is damaged) the sensitivity of the uncertainty is largely affected by the dents, the
operating temperature, the depth of cover and the coating.

©2015 by NACE International. Requests for permission to publish this manuscript in any form, in part or in whole, must be in writing to
NACE International, Publications Division, 15835 Park Ten Place, Houston, Texas 77084. The material presented and the views expressed in
this paper are solely those of the author(s) and are not necessarily endorsed by the Association.
8
 0.5
Relative Model Sensitivity to Data
Depth of corrosion
0.4
Time at which corrosion initiates
Uncertainty

0.3

0.2

0.1

Figure 7: Relative model outcome sensitivity to data uncertainty of the depth of corrosion and
time at which corrosion initiates to various parameters.

The external corrosion model using Bayesian Networks presented in this paper is a work in progress.
Improvements on the coating damage and chemistry under the damaged coating modules are needed
to reduce the uncertainty in the modeling results. Additional modules that address current shielding,
stray currents and pipeline casings are currently under development.

CONCLUSIONS
A probabilistic model for quantitative assessment of external corrosion using Bayesian Networks in oil
and gas pipelines was presented in this paper. The model was validated with the field data of a
severely corroded crude oil pipeline located in Eastern China. The model predictions on corrosion
depth and corrosion length were compared with the data obtained through the ILI tool indicating good
agreement with the data. This work demonstrated that even with uncertainties caused by incomplete
data sets and model uncertainties, the predicted corrosion rates were in good agreement with the ILI
results. The Bayesian network model can be used to identify factors that are important to calculate
prioritize data collection and corrosion mitigation actions.

REFERENCES
1. J.A. Beavers and N.G. Thompson, "External corrosion of oil and natural gas pipelines," ASM
Handbook 13C, Corrosion: Environments and Industries (2006): 05145.
2. A. Valor, F. Caleyo, L. Alfonso, D. Rivas and J.M. Hallen, “Stochastic modeling of pitting corrosion: A
new model for initiation and grown of multiple pits”, Corrosion Science, vol. 49, pp. 5559-579, 2007.
3. F. Caleyo, L. Alfonso, J. Alcantara and J.M. Hallen, “On the Estimation of failure rates of multiple
pipeline systems”, Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology, vol. 130, pp. 021704-1 - 021704-8, 2008.
4. D. Rivas, F. Caleyo, A. Valor, J.M. Hallen, “Extreme Value Analysis Applied to Pitting Corrosion in
Low Carbon Steel: Comparison of Block Maxima and Peak Over Threshold Approaches”, Corrosion
Science, vol. 50, pp. 3193-3204, 2008.
5. F. Caleyo. J.C. Velazquez, A. Valor and J.M. Hallen, “Probability distribution of pitting corrosion
depth and rate in underground pipelines: A Monte Carlo study”, Corrosion Science, vol. 51, pp.
1925-1934, 2009.

©2015 by NACE International. Requests for permission to publish this manuscript in any form, in part or in whole, must be in writing to
NACE International, Publications Division, 15835 Park Ten Place, Houston, Texas 77084. The material presented and the views expressed in
this paper are solely those of the author(s) and are not necessarily endorsed by the Association.
9
 6. J.C. Velazquez, F. Caleyo, A. Valor and J.M Hallen, “Predictive Model for Pitting Corrosion in
Burried Oil and Gas Pipelines”, Corrosion, vol. 65, pp. 332-342, 2009.
7. A. Valor, F. Caleyo, L. Alfonso, J.C. Velazquez and J.M. Hellen. Markov Chain Models for the
Stochastic Modeling of Pitting Corrosion”, Mathematical Problems in Engineering, vol. 2013, pp. 1-
13, 2013.
8. H. Wang, A. Yajima, R.Y. Liang and H. Castaneda, “Bayesian Modeling of External Corrosion in
Underground Pipelines Based on the Integration of Markov Chain Monte Carlo Techniques and
Clustered Inspection Data”, Computer-aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering, vol. 00, pp. 1-17,
2014.
9. F. Ayello, S. Jain, N. Sridhar and G.H. Koch, “Quantitative Assessment of Corrosion Probability – A
Bayesian Network Approach”, Corrosion, vol. 70, 2014.
10. G. Koch, F. Ayello, V. Khare, N. Sridhar and A. Moosavi, "Corrosion Threat Assessment of Crude Oil
Flow Lines Using a Bayesian Network Model", 10th International Pipeline Conference IPC 2014,
paper no. 3041. Calgary, Alberta, Canada, 2014.
11. S. Jain, F. Ayello, V. Khare and N. Sridhar, "Probabilistic Assessment of Stress Corrosion Cracking
of Pipelines", NACE annual conference 2014, paper no. 4471. San Antonio, Texas, USA, 2014.
12. F. Ayello, N. Sridhar, G. Koch and V. Khare, "Internal Corrosion Threat Assessment of Pipelines
Using Bayesian Networks", NACE annual conference 2014, paper no. 3851. San Antonio, Texas,
USA, 2014.
13. S. Jain, F. Ayello, J.A. Beavers and N Sridhar, "Probabilistic Model for Stress Corrosion Cracking of
Underground Pipelines using Bayesian Networks", NACE annual conference 2013, paper no. 2616.
Orlando, Florida, USA, 2013.
14. S. Jain, F. Ayello, J.A. Beavers and N Sridhar, "Development of a probabilistic Model for Stress
Corrosion Cracking of Underground Pipelines Using Bayesian Networks: a Concept", 9th
International Pipeline Conference IPC 2012, paper no. 90340. Calgary, Alberta, Canada, 2012.
15. F. Ayello, T. Alfano, D. Hill and N. Sridhar, "A Bayesian Network Based Pipeline Risk Management",
NACE annual conference 2012, paper no. 1123. Salt Lake City, Utah, USA, 2012.
16. C.E. Jaske, P.H. Vieth, and J.A. Beavers, "Assessment of crack-like flaws in pipelines,"
NACE/Corrosion, (NACE International: Houston, TX, 2002), ISBN: 02089 2002.
17. L.Banach, “Evaluating Design and Cost of Pipe Line Coatings”, Pipe Line Industry, (4), p. 37, 1998.
18. Sankara Papavinasam and R.Winston Revie, Protective Pipeline Coating Evaluation, NACE
International (NACE International: Houston, TX, 2002), 2006, 06047
19. J.A. Beavers and N.G. Thompson, "Effects of coatings on SCC of pipelines: New developments,"
Pipeline Technology V, pp. 249 -263, 1995.
20. J.A. Beavers and N.G. Thompson, "Corrosion beneath disbonded coatings: A review,"
NACE/Corrosion, NACE International, Houston, TX, 1996.
21. J.A. Beavers, N.G. Thompson, and K.E.W. Coulson, "Effects of surface preparation and coatings on
SCC susceptibility of line pipe phase 2 - field studies," Pipeline Technology V, pp. 225 – 239, 1993.
22. NACE Report, External Stress Corrosion Cracking of Underground pipelines, 2003,
NACE/Corrosion paper No. 35103, NACE International, Houston, TX, 2002.
23. M. Wilmott, B. Erno, and T. Jack, "The role of coatings in the development of corrosion and SCC on
gas transmission pipelines," International pipeline conference, American Society of Mechanical
Engineers, New York, NY, pp. 399 - 408, 1998.
24. National Energy Board, Canada, "Report of public inquiry concerning stress corrosion cracking on
Canadian oil and gas pipelines," National Energy Board, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, 1996
25. Ricker, R.E., Analysis of Pipeline Steel Corrosion Data From NBS (NIST) Studies Conducted
Between 1922-1940 and Relevance to Pipeline Management, 2007, National Institute of Standards
and Technology. p. 7516.

©2015 by NACE International. Requests for permission to publish this manuscript in any form, in part or in whole, must be in writing to
NACE International, Publications Division, 15835 Park Ten Place, Houston, Texas 77084. The material presented and the views expressed in
this paper are solely those of the author(s) and are not necessarily endorsed by the Association.
10
 APPENDIX‎A‎−‎External‎corrosion‎model

NODE STATES SOURCE CAUSAL NODE CONSEQUENCE NODES

Asphalt
Shielding effect
Coating type Tape
Cathodic effect level
(probability of finding a FBE Pipeline operator or database -
External force level
particular coating) Coal Tar
Coating damage
Composite coatings
Depth of cover 5m–3m
(Probability of pipe 3 m – 1m
Pipeline operator or database - Soil stress level
being located in a depth 1m–0m
range) 0m
Weld position
At weld
(Probability that the Pipeline operator or database - External forces level
Away from the weld
location has a weld)
Dents
At dent
(Probability that the Pipeline operator or database - External forces level
Away from the dent
location has a dent)
Water Blasting
Surface preparation Abrasive blasting with
(Probability that a walnut sheels
certain surface Abrasive blasting with Silica Pipeline operator or database - External forces level
preparation was used sheels
during construction) Power wire brush
No prep
Annual rainfall 1000 mm/yr – 100 mm/yr
Pipeline operator or GIS
(Probability of rainfall 100 mm/yr – 10 mm/yr - Drainage
database
being in a certain range) 10 – 0mm/yr
Undulating
Ridged
Topography
Inclined
(Probability of being in a Pipeline operator or database - Drainage
Depressed
certain topography)
Level
Side Slope
80 oC – 70 oC
70 oC – 60 oC
Temperature 60 oC – 50 oC
Pipeline operator or weather
(Probability of the 50 oC – 40 oC - Coating damage
database
operating temperature) 40 oC – 30 oC
30 oC – 20 oC
20 oC – 10 oC
Coating age
(Probability of age of the 0 years, 1 years etc. Pipeline operator or database - Coating damage
coating)
Soil porosity 60 % – 45 %
(Probability of soil 45 % – 20 %
Pipeline operator or database - O2 availability
porosity being in a 20 % – 10 %
certain range) 10 % – 0 %
Sand
Soil type Clay Pipeline operator or GIS Drainage
-
(Probability of soil type) Loam database Soil stress
Mixed soils
>10,000 Ω.cm
Soil resistivity
2000 Ω.cm – 10000 Ω.cm
(Probability of soil Pipeline operator or GIS
1000 Ω.cm – 2000 Ω.cm - Effective potential
resistivity being in a database
500 Ω.cm – 1000 Ω.cm
certain range)
0Ω.cm – 500 Ω.cm
Millscale (Probability
Yes
that there is mill scale Pipeline operator or database - Effective potential
No
on the pipeline)
AC line
Yes Presence of an
(Probability that there is Pipeline operator or database Effective potential
No AC line
an AC line nearby)
-500 to -650 V vs CSE
AC line
-650 to -700 V vs CSE
Mill scale
Effective potential -700 to -750 V vs CSE CIS or CPIS survey
Shielding coating
(Probability of Effective -750 to -800 V vs CSE Or CPT table can be
Concentration
potential being in a -800 to -850 V vs CSE developed based on the Field
cells
certain range) -850 to -950 V vs CSE data
Applied CP
-950 to -1200 V vs CSE
CP effectiveness
-1200 to -1500 V vs CSE

©2015 by NACE International. Requests for permission to publish this manuscript in any form, in part or in whole, must be in writing to
NACE International, Publications Division, 15835 Park Ten Place, Houston, Texas 77084. The material presented and the views expressed in
this paper are solely those of the author(s) and are not necessarily endorsed by the Association.
11
 Wet/Dry cycle length 9 – 12 month wet
(Probability of wetness 6 – 9 month wet
GIS database - CP effectiveness
of the soil throughout 3 – 6 month wet
the year) 0 – 3 month wet
O2 availability High
Soil porosity
(Probability of O2 Medium Subject matter expert pH under coating
Drainage
availability) Low
0 – 4 me/L
Total dissolved solids
4 – 50 me/L
(Probability of total Government database or
50 – 110 me/L - pH under coating
dissolved solids being Pipeline operator
110 – 800 me/L
in a certain range)
0.09 – 0.06 kPa
CO2 pressure
0.06 – 0.045 kPa
(Probability of CO2
0.045 – 0.039 kPa Subject matter expert - HCO3 concentration
partial pressure being in
0.039 – 0.03 kPa
a certain range)
0.03 – 0.01 kPa
HCO3 concentration 50 mM – 5 mM
(Probability of HCO3 5 mM – 0.5 mM pH under coating Max corrosion rate
Mechanistic models from
concentration being in a 0.5 mM – 0.05 mM CO2 partial Uniform corrosion rate
literature FREECORP
certain range at the pipe 0.05 mM – 0.005 mM pressure Initiation rate
surface) 0.005 mM – 0.0005 mM
Chloride concentration
0 ppm – 150 ppm
(Probability of chloride
150 ppm – 1500 ppm Pipeline operator or Max corrosion rate
concentration being in a -
1500 ppm – 10000 ppm Government database Initiation rate
certain range at the pipe
10000 ppm – 80000 ppm
surface)
Sulfates concentration 0 ppm – 50 ppm
(Probability of sulfates 50 ppm – 100 ppm Max corrosion rate
Pipeline operator or
concentration being in a 100 ppm – 150 ppm - Uniform corrosion rate
Government database
certain range at the pipe 150 ppm – 200 ppm Initiation rate
surface) 200 ppm – 1000 ppm
MIC Max corrosion rate
Yes
(Probability of MIC ECDA- field data - Uniform corrosion rate
No
occurring) Initiation rate
Coating type
External forces Weld position
High Subject matter expert
(Probability that the Dents
Medium combined with literature Composite effect
external forces are high, Surface
Low information [9-13]
medium, or low) preparation
Soil stress
Composite effect Very high
(Probability that High Model: Pool of cathodic effect External forces
Coating damage
composite forces are Medium and external forces Cathodic effect
high, medium, or low) Low
Cathodic effect
(Probability that Subject matter expert and
High
effective potential on the combination with literature Coating type
Medium Composite effect
pipe surface has a high, information Effective potential
Low
medium, or low impact [17-18]
on disbondment)
Coating damage Coating age
Yes Field data: Statistical model fits
(Probability that coating Temperature Years since initiation
No to excavation data
damage exists) Composite effect
Well Drained
Drainage Imperfectly Drained
Annual rainfall
(Probability that Poorly Drained Field data: Statistical model fits O2 availability
Topography
drainage falls in a Very Poorly Drained to excavation data Soil stress
Soil type
certain class) Very Poorly-Very Poorly
Drained
Soil stress
(Probability that the soil High Depth of cover
stress for coating Medium Subject Matter expert Soil type External forces
damage is high, Low Drainage
medium, or low)
Shielded coatings
(Probability that a Literature [17,18,21-24] or
Shielding
coating will fall in pipeline operators Coating type Effective potential
No shielding
shielding or no shielding
category)
Concentration cells
Yes Subject Matter Expert [25] Effective potential on the
(Probability of formation Soil type
No surface
of galvanic cells)

©2015 by NACE International. Requests for permission to publish this manuscript in any form, in part or in whole, must be in writing to
NACE International, Publications Division, 15835 Park Ten Place, Houston, Texas 77084. The material presented and the views expressed in
this paper are solely those of the author(s) and are not necessarily endorsed by the Association.
12
 Total dissolved HCO3 concentration
pH under coating pH = 6 – 8
Field data: Statistical fit to field solids Max corrosion rate
(Probability of finding a pH = 8 –9
data O2 availability Uniform corrosion rate
pH in a certain range) pH = 9 –11
Effective potential Initiation rate
CP effectiveness 9 – 12 month
Same as Wet dry cycle length: Max corrosion rate
(Probability of number 6 – 9 month Wet/Dry cycle
Taken from GIS weather Uniform corrosion rate
of months the CP was 3 – 6 month length
database Initiation rate
working for) 0 – 3 month
Years since corrosion
Corrosion length
initiation
Time since Corrosion depth
(Probability of years 1year, 2 years ….. Iteration in the model
initiation Loss of thickness
since the corrosion
Faults per mile
initiated)
Year of previous
initiation Years since corrosion
(Probability of years 1 year, 2 years Iteration in the model - initiation
since the corrosion
initiated in the last year)
8 mm – 7.6 mm
7.6 mm – 7.2 mm
7.2 mm – 6.8 mm
6.8 mm- 6.4 mm
6.4 mm – 6 mm
6 mm - 5.6 mm
5.6 mm – 5.2 mm
5.2 mm – 4.8 mm
Corrosion depth Time since
4.8 mm – 4.4 mm Model:
(Probability of corrosion initiation
4.4 mm – 3.6 mm Failure pressure
depth being in a certain Max corrosion
3.6 mm – 3.2 mm Corrosion rate x 𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑒 0.5
range) rate
3.2 mm – 2.8 mm
2.8 mm – 2.4 mm
2.4 mm – 2 mm
2 mm – 1.6 mm
1.6 mm – 1.2 mm
1.2 mm – 0.8 mm
0.8 mm – 0.4 mm
0.4 mm – 0 mm
1000 mm – 190 mm
190 mm – 180 mm
180 mm – 170 mm
170 mm – 160 mm
160 mm – 150 mm
150 mm – 140 mm
140 mm – 130 mm
130 mm – 120 mm
Corrosion length 120 mm – 110 mm Model: Time since
(Probability of corrosion 110 mm – 100 mm initiation
Corrosion rate x time Failure pressure
length being in a certain 100 mm – 90 mm ∑ Max corrosion
range) 90 mm – 80 mm x P{pits coalescence to n pits} rate
𝑛
80 mm – 70 mm
70 mm – 60 mm
60 mm – 50 mm
50 mm – 40 mm
40 mm – 30 mm
30 mm – 20 mm
20 mm – 10 mm
10 mm – 0 mm
1 mm/y – 0.95 mm/y
0.95 mm/y – 0.90 mm/y
0.90 mm/y – 0.85 mm/y
0.85 mm/y – 0.80 mm/y
0.80 mm/y – 0.75 mm/y pH under coating
0.75 mm/y – 0.70 mm/y HCO3
Max corrosion rate 0.70 mm/y – 0.65 mm/y concentration
(Probability of localized 0.65 mm/y – 0.60 mm/y Chlorides/salinity Corrosion length
Field data [26]
corrosion rate being in a 0.60 mm/y – 0.55 mm/y Sulfates Corrosion depth
certain range) 0.55 mm/y – 0.50 mm/y MIC
0.50 mm/y – 0.45 mm/y Effective potential
0.45 mm/y – 0.40 mm/y CP effectiveness
0.40 mm/y – 0.35 mm/y
0.35 mm/y – 0.30 mm/y
0.30 mm/y – 0.25 mm/y
0.25 mm/y – 0.20 mm/y

©2015 by NACE International. Requests for permission to publish this manuscript in any form, in part or in whole, must be in writing to
NACE International, Publications Division, 15835 Park Ten Place, Houston, Texas 77084. The material presented and the views expressed in
this paper are solely those of the author(s) and are not necessarily endorsed by the Association.
13

Uniform corrosion rate
(Probability of uniform
corrosion rate being in a
certain range)
Loss of thickness of the
pipe
(Probability of loss of
general thickness of the
pipe being in a certain
range)
Failure Pressure
(Probability of failure
pressure being in a
certain range)
Operating Pressure
(Probability of operating
pressure being in a
certain range)
©2015 by NACE International. Requests for permission to publish this manuscript in any form, in part or in whole, must be in writing to
NACE International, Publications Division, 15835 Park Ten Place, Houston, Texas 77084. The material presented and the views expressed in
this paper are solely those of the author(s) and are not necessarily endorsed by the Association.
0.20 mm/y – 0.15 mm/y
0.15 mm/y – 0.10 mm/y
0.10 mm/y – 0.05 mm/y
0.05 mm/y – 0.0 mm/y
1 mm/y – 0.95 mm/y
0.95 mm/y – 0.90 mm/y
0.90 mm/y – 0.85 mm/y
0.85 mm/y – 0.80 mm/y
0.80 mm/y – 0.75 mm/y
0.75 mm/y – 0.70 mm/y
0.70 mm/y – 0.65 mm/y pH under coating
0.65 mm/y – 0.60 mm/y HCO3
0.60 mm/y – 0.55 mm/y concentration
0.55 mm/y – 0.50 mm/y Chlorides/salinity
Field data [24] Loss of the thickness
0.50 mm/y – 0.45 mm/y Sulfates
0.45 mm/y – 0.40 mm/y MIC
0.40 mm/y – 0.35 mm/y Effective potential
0.35 mm/y – 0.30 mm/y CP effectiveness
0.30 mm/y – 0.25 mm/y
0.25 mm/y – 0.20 mm/y
0.20 mm/y – 0.15 mm/y
0.15 mm/y – 0.10 mm/y
0.10 mm/y – 0.05 mm/y
0.05 mm/y – 0.0 mm/y
8 mm – 7.6 mm
7.6 mm – 7.2 mm
7.2 mm – 6.8 mm
6.8 mm- 6.4 mm
6.4 mm – 6 mm
6 mm - 5.6 mm
5.6 mm – 5.2 mm
5.2 mm – 4.8 mm
Uniform corrosion
4.8 mm – 4.4 mm
Model: Uniform corrosion rate rate
4.4 mm – 3.6 mm Failure pressure
x time Time since
3.6 mm – 3.2 mm
corrosion initiation
3.2 mm – 2.8 mm
2.8 mm – 2.4 mm
2.4 mm – 2 mm
2 mm – 1.6 mm
1.6 mm – 1.2 mm
1.2 mm – 0.8 mm
0.8 mm – 0.4 mm
0.4 mm – 0 mm
60 bar – 56 bar
56 bar – 52 bar
52 bar – 48 bar
48 bar – 44 bar
44 bar – 40 bar
40 bar – 36 bar Loss of thickness
36 bar – 32 bar Corrosion length
32 bar – 28 bar Model [16] Corrosion depth P > Pc
28 bar – 24 bar (Also material
24 bar – 20 bar properties)
20 bar – 16 bar
16 bar – 12 bar
12 bar – 8 bar
8 bar – 4 bar
4 bar – 0 bar
60 bar – 56 bar
56 bar – 52 bar
52 bar – 48 bar
48 bar – 44 bar
44 bar – 40 bar
40 bar – 36 bar
36 bar – 32 bar
32 bar – 28 bar Pipeline operator or database - P>Pc
28 bar – 24 bar
24 bar – 20 bar
20 bar – 16 bar
16 bar – 12 bar
12 bar – 8 bar
8 bar – 4 bar
4 bar – 0 bar
14
 P > Pc
(Probability that the Yes
Failure pressure
operating pressure Model -
Operating pressure
exceed the critical No
pressure)
10000 /mile/yr – 1000
Initiation rate
/mile/yr
(Probability of the
1000 /mile/yr – 100 /mile/yr Field data: Visual survey of
localized corrosion -
100 /mile/yr – 10 /mile/yr pipeline images
initiation being in a
10 /mile/yr – 0 /mile/yr
certain range)
0 /mile/yr
pH under coating
10000 /mile – 1000 /mile HCO3
Faults per mile 10000 /mile– 1000 /mile concentration
(Probability of faults per 1000 /mile – 100 /mile Chlorides/salinity
Initiation rate x time Faults per mile
mile being in a certain 100 /mile – 10 /mile Sulfates
range) 10 /mile – 0 /mile MIC
0 /mile Effective potential
CP effectiveness
Probability of Failure Mode1
Yes
(Probability that a if faults per mile x Prob(P>Pc) P>Pc -
No
pipeline will fail) >1 : Yes, Else, No

©2015 by NACE International. Requests for permission to publish this manuscript in any form, in part or in whole, must be in writing to
NACE International, Publications Division, 15835 Park Ten Place, Houston, Texas 77084. The material presented and the views expressed in
this paper are solely those of the author(s) and are not necessarily endorsed by the Association.
15
View publication stats