Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Introduction

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Corrosion and Reliability Assessment of Inspected Pipelines

  • 57 Accesses

Abstract

Although onshore pipelines are considered a safe means of transportation, they experience additional challenges due to their complex pipeline networks. These steel structures cover distances as long as 4700 km (e.g., Eastern Siberia-Pacific Ocean oil pipeline), which are difficult to monitor. In addition, these structures may pass through various soils, water corridors, and densely populated areas. So, a spill or Loss of Containment (LOC) can dramatically affect the environment (e.g., soil, air, or water bodies pollution) and threaten life and property. Pipelines are exposed to deterioration phenomena such as corrosion or fatigue that can reduce the pipeline wall’s thickness, making it prone to a Loss of Content (LOC) in the form of a leak or a rupture. The extent of LOC also depends on the applied loads, such as the operating pressure, surrounding stresses, or climate conditions. Onshore pipelines are often susceptible to corrosion at the pipes inner or outer wall. Corrosion is a time and space-dependent phenomenon that depends on several factors, including the properties of the soil, the metabolic activity of microorganisms or fungi, and imperfections in the steel or stray currents. The scope of this book is to provide the necessary tools to support pipeline integrity programs for corroded pipelines. A significant effort is directed toward managing the uncertainty derived from consecutive In-Line measurements. We concentrate on how ILI measurements can be used to manage the following: (i) the spatial variability of the corrosion defects at various scales, (ii) the modeling and identification of new defects, and (iii) the estimation of the lifetime and the pipe’s reliability.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. J. Frittelli, A. Andrews, P. Parfomak, R. Pirog, J. Ramseur, M. Ratner, U.S. Rail Transportation of Crude Oil: Background and Issues for Congress. Technical report, Congressional Research Service, 2014. CRS Report Number: R43390

    Google Scholar 

  2. K. Clay, A. Jha, N. Muller, R. Walsh, The External Costs of Transporting Petroleum Products by Pipelines and Rail: Evidence from Shipments of Crude Oil from North Dakota. Technical report

    Google Scholar 

  3. PHMSA, Report Shipping Crude Oil by Truck, Rail, and Pipeline. Technical report, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, 2018

    Google Scholar 

  4. Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, Pipeline Incident 20 Year Trends, 2018

    Google Scholar 

  5. R. Carvalho, L. Buzna, F. Bono, M. Masera, D.K. Arrowsmith, D. Helbing, Resilience of natural gas networks during conflicts, crises and disruptions. PLOS ONE 9(3), 1–9 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. B. Vonarburg, Preventing natural gas crises. https://ethz.ch/en/news-and-events/eth-news/news/2014/03/erdgas-krisen-verhindern.html, 2014

  7. European Parliament, An Assessment of the Gas and Oil Pipelines in Europe. Technical report, POLICY DEPARTMENT A: ECONOMIC AND SCIENTIFIC POLICIES, Brussels, 2009. PE 416.239 (IP/A/ITRE/NT/2009-13)

    Google Scholar 

  8. ECSPP, An Overview of the Pipeline Networks of Europe. Technical report, European Chemical Site Promotion Platform, 2014. ARL 64-174

    Google Scholar 

  9. G.D. Goodfellow, C.J. Lyons, J.V. Haswell, UKOPA Pipeline Product Loss Incidents and Faults Report (1962–2017). Technical report, United Kingdom Onshore Pipeline Operator’s Association, 2019. UKOPA/RP/18/002

    Google Scholar 

  10. CONCAWE, Performance of European cross-country oil pipelines. Statistical summary of reported spillages in 2016 and since 1971. Technical report, Conservation of Clean Air and Water in Europe, 2016

    Google Scholar 

  11. EGIG, 10th report of the European gas pipeline incident data group (period 1970–2016). Technical report, European Gas Pipeline Incident Data Group, 2018

    Google Scholar 

  12. M.R. Dann, C. Dann, Automated matching of pipeline corrosion features from in-line inspection data. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 162, 40–50 (2017)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. T. Berstad, C. Dørum, J.P. Jakobsen, S. Kragset, H. Li, H. Lund, A. Morin, S.T. Munkejord, M.J. Mølnvik, H.O. Nordhagen, E. Østbya, {CO2} pipeline integrity: A new evaluation methodology. Energy Proc. 4, 3000–3007 (2011). 10th International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies

    Google Scholar 

  14. L. Varga, G. Fekete, Continuous integrity evaluation of corroded pipelines using complemented FEA results – Part I: Procedure development. Int. J. Press. Vessel. Pip. 150, 19–32 (2017)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. R. Amaya-Gómez, M. Sánchez-Silva, F. Muñoz, Pattern recognition techniques implementation on data from In-Line Inspection (ILI). J. Loss Prevent. Process Ind. 44, 735–747 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. R. Amaya-Gómez, J. Riascos-Ochoa, F. Muñoz, E. Bastidas-Arteaga, F. Schoefs, M. Sánchez-Silva, Modeling of pipeline corrosion degradation mechanism with a Lévy Process based on ILI (In-Line) inspections. Int. J. Press. Vessel. Pip. 172, 261–271 (2019)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. R. Amaya-Gómez, M. Sánchez-Silva, F. Muñoz, Integrity assessment of corroded pipelines using dynamic segmentation and clustering. Process Saf. Environ. Prot. 128, 284–294 (2019)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. E.W. McAllister, Pipeline Rules of Thumb Handbook: A Manual of Quick, Accurate Solutions to Everyday Pipeline Engineering Problems (Elsevier Science, 2014)

    Google Scholar 

  19. ASME, ASMEB31G: Manual for determining the remaining strength of corroded pipelines. Technical report, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 2009

    Google Scholar 

  20. T.A. Netto, U.S. Ferraz, S.F. Estefen, The effect of corrosion defects on the burst pressure of pipelines. J. Constr. Steel Res. 61(8), 1185–1204 (2005). Second Brazilian special issue

    Google Scholar 

  21. A. Kale, B.H. Thacker, N. Sridhar, J.C. Waldhart, A probabilistic model for internal corrosion of gas pipeline, in 2004 International Pipeline Conference, Alberta, 2004

    Google Scholar 

  22. P. Tang, J. Yang, J. Zheng, I. Wong, S. He, J. Ye, G. Ou, Failure analysis and prediction of pipes due to the interaction between multiphase flow and structure. Eng. Fail. Anal. 16(5), 1749–1756 (2009)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. G.A. Zhang, L. Zeng, H.L. Huang, X.P. Guo, A study of flow accelerated corrosion at elbow of carbon steel pipeline by array electrode and computational fluid dynamics simulation. Corros. Sci. 77, 334–341 (2013)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. M.D. Pandey, D. Lu, Estimation of parameters of degradation growth rate distribution from noisy measurement data. Struct. Saf. 43, 60–69 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. S. Zhang, W. Zhou, Cost-based optimal maintenance decisions for corroding natural gas pipelines based on stochastic degradation models. Eng. Struct. 74, 74–85 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. F.A.V. Bazán, A.T. Beck, Stochastic process corrosion growth models for pipeline reliability. Corros. Sci. 74, 50–58 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. S.X. Li, S.R. Yu, H.L. Zeng, J.H. Li, R. Liang, Predicting corrosion remaining life of underground pipelines with a mechanically-based probabilistic model. J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 65(3–4), 162–166 (2009)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. F. Caleyo, J.C. Velázquez, A. Valor, J.M. Hallen, Probability distribution of pitting corrosion depth and rate in underground pipelines: a Monte Carlo study. Corros. Sci. 51(9), 1925–1934 (2009)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. NORSOK Standard, \(CO_2\) corrosion rate calculation model. Technical report, Oslo, Norway, 2005. M-506 Rev.2

    Google Scholar 

  30. C. de Waard, U. Lotz, Prediction of CO2 corrosion of carbon steel, in NACE International, Houston, 1993

    Google Scholar 

  31. NACE International, SP0502-2010 Pipeline External Corrosion Direct Assessment Methodology. Standard Recommended Practice. Technical report, Houston, 2010

    Google Scholar 

  32. H.P. Hong, Inspection and maintenance planning of pipeline under external corrosion considering generation of new defects. Struct. Saf. 21(3), 203–222 (1999)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. F. Caleyo, J.C. Velázquez, A. Valor, J.M. Hallen, Markov chain modelling of pitting corrosion in underground pipelines. Corros. Sci. 51(9), 2197–2207 (2009)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. W. Zhou, H.P. Hong, S. Zhang, Impact of dependent stochastic defect growth on system reliability of corroding pipelines. Int. J. Press. Vessel. Pip. 96 and 97, 68–77 (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  35. M. Abdel-Hameed, Lévy Processes and Their Applications in Reliability and Storage (Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg, 2014)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  36. J. Riascos-Ochoa, M. Sánchez-Silva, Georgia-Ann Klutke, Modeling and reliability analysis of systems subject to multiple sources of degradation based on Lévy processes. Probab. Eng. Mech. 45, 164–176 (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  37. M. Sánchez-Silva, G.-A. Klutke, Reliability and Life-Cycle Analysis of Deteriorating Systems. Springer Series in Reliability Engineering (Springer, 2016)

    Google Scholar 

  38. M. Sánchez-Silva, G.A. Klutke, D.V. Rosowsky, Life-cycle performance of structures subject to multiple deterioration mechanisms. Struct. Saf. 33(3), 206–217 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. H. Castaneda, O. Rosas, External Corrosion of Pipelines in Soil, chapter 20 (Wiley, 2015), pp. 265–274

    Google Scholar 

  40. W.K. Muhlbauer, Pipeline Risk Management Manual: Ideas, Techniques, and Resources (Elsevier Science, 2004)

    Google Scholar 

  41. M.H. Alencar, A.T. de Almeida, Assigning priorities to actions in a pipeline transporting hydrogen based on a multicriteria decision model. Int. J. Hydrog. Energy 35(8), 3610–3619 (2010)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. H. Wang, A. Yajima, R.Y. Liang, H. Castaneda, Bayesian modeling of external corrosion in underground pipelines based on the integration of Markov Chain Monte Carlo techniques and clustered inspection data. Comput.-Aided Civil Infrastruct. Eng. 30(4), 300–316 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. S.A. Miran, Q. Huang, H. Castaneda, Time-dependent reliability analysis of corroded buried pipelines considering external defects. J. Infrastruct. Syst. 22(3), 04016019 (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  44. K.M. Dzioyev, K.D. Basiyev, G.I. Khabalov, E.V. Dzarukayev, Stress corrosion processes in the metal and welded joints in gas pipelines. Weld. Int. 28(9), 717–721 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. R.C.C. Silva, J.N.C. Guerreiro, A.F.D. Loula, A study of pipe interacting corrosion defects using the FEM and neural networks. Adv. Eng. Softw. 38(11 and 12), 868–875 (2007). Engineering Computational Technology

    Google Scholar 

  46. V. Chauhan, W. Sloterdijk, Advances in interaction rules for corrosion defects in pipelines, in International Gas Research Conference IGRC Vancouver, 2004

    Google Scholar 

  47. A.C. Benjamin, J.L.F Freire, R.D Vieira, Part 6: Analysis of pipeline containing interacting corrosion defects. Exp. Tech. 31(3), 74–82 (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  48. R. Amaya-Gómez, F. Schoefs, M. Sánchez-Silva, F. Muñoz, E. Bastidas-Arteaga, Matching of corroded defects in onshore pipelines based on In-Line Inspections and Voronoi partitions. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 223, 108520 (2022)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. R. Alzbutas, T. Iešmantas, M. Povilaitis, J. Vitkutė, Risk and uncertainty analysis of gas pipeline failure and gas combustion consequence. Stoch. Env. Res. Risk Assess. 28(6), 1431–1446 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. S. Bonvicini, P. Leonelli, G. Spadoni, Risk analysis of hazardous materials transportation: evaluating uncertainty by means of fuzzy logic. J. Hazard. Mater. 62(1), 59–74 (1998)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Universidad de Los Andes, Bogotá D.C., Colombia

    Rafael Amaya-Gómez & Mauricio Sánchez-Silva

  2. Laboratory of Engineering Sciences for the Environment, La Rochelle University, La Rochelle, France

    Emilio Bastidas-Arteaga

  3. Institute for Research in Civil and Mechanical Engineering (GeM), University of Nantes, Nantes, France

    Franck Schoefs

  4. Empresa Colombiana de Petróleos (ECOPETROL), Bogotá D.C., Colombia

    Felipe Muñoz

Authors
  1. Rafael Amaya-Gómez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Emilio Bastidas-Arteaga
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mauricio Sánchez-Silva
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Franck Schoefs
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Felipe Muñoz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2024 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Amaya-Gómez, R., Bastidas-Arteaga, E., Sánchez-Silva, M., Schoefs, F., Muñoz, F. (2024). Introduction. In: Corrosion and Reliability Assessment of Inspected Pipelines . Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-43532-4_1

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation