Some philosophical issues in modeling corrosion of oil and gas pipelines

  • Maneesh SinghEmail author
  • Tore Markeset
  • Uday Kumar
Original Article


For the efficient design, installation, operation and maintenance of a plant, a reliable and robust mathematical model for predicting corrosion in pipelines can be a valuable asset. Such a model can help a plant supervisor to cut down on the expenditure arising from frequent inspections and unnecessary maintenance shutdowns and to take preventive maintenance action before an accident actually takes place. This paper discusses some of the philosophical issues related to the development of such a model. It also brings to the fore the limitations and value of such a model.


Corrosion Modeling Oil and gas Philosophy Pipelines 


  1. Ahammed M (1997) Prediction of remaining strength of corroded pressurised pipelines. Int J Press Vessels Pip 71:213–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ahammed M (1998) Probabilistic estimation of remaining life of a pipeline in the presence of active corrosion defects. Int J Press Vessels Pip 75:321–329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ahammed M, Melchers RE (1995) Probabilistic analysis of pipelines subjected to pitting corrosion leaks. Eng Struct 17:74–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ahammed M, Melchers RE (1996) Reliability estimation of pressurised pipelines subject to localised corrosion defects. Int J Press Vessels Pip 69:267–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ahammed M, Melchers RE (1997) Probabilistic analysis of underground pipelines subject to combined stresses and corrosion. Eng Struct 19:988–994CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Anoop MB, Rao KB, Rao TVSRA (2002) Application of fuzzy sets for estimating service life of reinforced concrete structural members in corrosive environment. Eng Struct 24:1229–1242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Beven K (2002) Towards a coherent philosophy for modelling the environment. Proc R Soc Lond A 458:2465–2484CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  8. Bozzini B, Ricotti ME, Boniardi M, Mele C (2003) Evaluation of erosion–corrosion in multiphase flow via CFD and experimental analysis. Wear 255:237–245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bucolo M, Fortuna L, Nelke M, Rizzo A, Sciacca T (2002) Prediction models for the corrosion phenomena in pulp & paper plant. Control Eng Pract 10:227–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chalmers AF (2005) What is this thing called science? 3rd edn. Open University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  11. Crowe MJ (1999) Pierre Duhem, the history and philosophy of physics, and the teaching of physics. Phys Perspect 1:54–64CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  12. Darling KM (2002) The complete Duhemian underdetermination argument: scientific language and practice. Stud Hist Philos Sci 33:511–533CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dayalan E, Vani G, Shadley JR, Shirazi SA, Rybicki EF (1995) Modeling CO2 corrosion of carbon steel in pipe flow. In: Proceedings of the CORROSION ‘95, NACE International, paper no. 118Google Scholar
  14. de Marsily G, Combes P, Goblet P (1992) Comment on ‘Ground-water models cannot be validated’, by L.F. Konikow and J.D. Bredehoeft. Adv Water Resour 15(6):367–369CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. de Waard C, Lotz U (1993) Prediction of CO2 corrosion of carbon steel. In: Proceedings of the CORROSION ‘93, NACE International, paper no. 69Google Scholar
  16. de Waard C, Milliams DE (1975) Carbonic acid corrosion of carbon steel. Corrosion 31:177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. de Waard C, Lotz U, Milliams DE (1991) Predictive model for CO2 corrosion engineering in wet natural gas pipelines. Corrosion 47:976–985CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Det Norske Veritas (DNV) (2004) Corroded pipelines, recommended practice DNV-RP-F101. DNV, HøvikGoogle Scholar
  19. Dugstad A, Lunde L, Videm K (1994) Parametric study of CO2 corrosion of carbon steel. In: Proceedings of the CORROSION ‘94, NACE International, paper no. 14Google Scholar
  20. Edwards JD, Sydberger T, Mork KJ (1996) Reliability based design of CO2-corrosion control. In: Proceedings of the CORROSION ‘96, NACE International, paper no. 29Google Scholar
  21. Føllesdal D (1994) Hermeneutics and the hypothetico-deductive method. In: Martin M, McIntyre LC (eds) Readings in the philosophy of social science. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 233–245Google Scholar
  22. Guimaraes ACF (2003) A new methodology for the study of FAC phenomenon based on a fuzzy rule system. Ann Nucl Energy 30:853–864CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  23. Gunaltun YM (1996) Combining research and field data for corrosion rate prediction. In: Proceedings of the CORROSION ‘96, NACE International, paper no. 27Google Scholar
  24. Healy MJR (1978) Is statistics a science? J R Stat Soc A141(3):385–393Google Scholar
  25. Hellevik SG, Langen I, Sorensen JD (1999) Cost optimal reliability based inspection and replacement planning of piping subjected to CO2 corrosion. Int J Press Vessels Pip 76:527–538CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hoffmann JP (2005) Darwin and computational ecology: how simple models of evolution help our search for better models of ecological systems. In: Proceedings of the 1st open international conference on modeling & simulation, 12–15 June ISIMA/Blaise Pascal University, FranceGoogle Scholar
  27. Hong HP (1999) Inspection and maintenance planning of pipeline under external corrosion considering generation of new defects. Struct Saf 21:203–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. International Organization for Standardization (ISO) (1995) Guide to the expression of uncertainty in measurementGoogle Scholar
  29. Jakeman AJ, Letcher RA, Norton JP (2006) Ten iterative steps in development and evaluation of environmental models. Environ Model Softw 21:602–614CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Javaherdashti R (2000) A fuzzy approach to model risk of MIC in a cathodically-protected pipe. Anti-corros Methods Mater 47(3):142–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Jepson WP, Bhongale S, Gopal M (1996) Predictive model for sweet corrosion in horizontal multiphase slug flow. In: Proceedings of the CORROSION ‘96, NACE International, paper no. 19Google Scholar
  32. Kerlinger FN (1986) Foundations of behavioural research, 3rd edn. Holt, Rinehart and Winston Publishers, New York. ISBN 0030417619Google Scholar
  33. Kirchsteiger C (1999) On the use of probabilistic and deterministic methods in risk analysis. J Loss Prev Process Ind 12:399–419CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Klir GJ (2004) Generalized information theory: aims, results, and open problems. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 85:21–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Klir GJ, Harmanec D (1996) Generalized information theory: recent developments. Kybernetes 25(7/8):50–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Klir GJ, Smith RM (2001) On measuring uncertainty and uncertainty-based information: recent developments. Ann Math Artif Intell 32:5–33CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  37. Krzysztofowicz R (2001) The case for probabilistic forecasting in hydrology. J Hydrol 249:2–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kuhn TS (1996) The structure of scientific revolutions. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kundu S, Chen J (1998) Fuzzy logic or Lukasiewicz logic: a clarification. Fuzzy Sets Syst 95:369–379CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  40. Lawson K (2005) Pipeline corrosion risk analysis—an assessment of deterministic and probabilistic methods. Anti-corros Methods Mater 52:3–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Ligorio T (2004) Postmodernism and fuzzy systems. Kybernetes 33(8):1312–1319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Massoud TF, Hademenos GJ, Young WL, Gao E, Pile-Spellman J, Vinuela F (1998) Principles and philosophy of modeling in biomedical research. FASEB J 12:275–285Google Scholar
  43. Melchers RE (2001) Structural reliability analysis and prediction. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  44. Najjaran H, Sadiq R, Rajani BB (2006) Fuzzy expert system to assess corrosion of cast/ductile iron pipes from backfill properties, Report no. NRCC-46912, National Research Council of CanadaGoogle Scholar
  45. Negoita CV (2002) Postmodernism, cybernetics and fuzzy set theory. Kybernetes 31(7/8):1043–1049CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Nesic S, Lee K-LJ (2003) A mechanistic model for carbon dioxide corrosion of mild steel in the presence of protective iron carbonate films—part 3: film growth model. Corrosion 59(7):616–628CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Nesic S, Vrhovac M (1999) A neural network model for CO2 corrosion of carbon steel. J Corros Sci Eng 1, paper no. 6Google Scholar
  48. Nesic S, Pots BFM, Postlethwaite J, Thevenot N (1995) Superposition of diffusion and chemical reaction controlled limiting currents—application to CO2 corrosion. J Corros Sci Eng 1, paper no. 3Google Scholar
  49. Nesic S, Nordsveen M, Maxwell N, Vrhovac M (2001) Probabilistic modeling of CO2 corrosion laboratory data using neural networks. Corros Sci 43:1373–1392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Nesic S, Nordsveen M, Nyborg R, Stangeland A (2003) A mechanistic model for carbon dioxide corrosion of mild steel in the presence of protective iron carbonate films—part 2: a numerical experiment. Corrosion 59(6):489–497CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Nesic S, Wang S, Cai J, Xiao Y (2004a) Integrated CO2 corrosion—multiphase flow model. In: Proceedings of the CORROSION 2004, NACE International, paper no. 04626Google Scholar
  52. Nesic S, Xiao Y, Pots BFM (2004b) A quasi 2-D localized corrosion model. In: Proceedings of the CORROSION 2004, NACE International, paper no. 04628Google Scholar
  53. Nesic S, Cai J, Lee K-LJ (2005) A multiphase flow and internal corrosion prediction model for mild steel pipelines. In: Proceedings of the CORROSION 2005, NACE International, paper no. 05556Google Scholar
  54. Nordsveen M, Nesic S, Nyborg R, Stangeland A (2003) A mechanistic model for carbon dioxide corrosion of mild steel in the presence of protective iron carbonate films—part 1: theory and verification. Corrosion 59(5):443–456CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. NORSOK Standard M-506 (2005) CO2 corrosion rate calculation model. Standards Norway, LysakerGoogle Scholar
  56. Nyborg R (2005) Controlling internal corrosion in oil and gas pipelines. Oil Gas Rev Bus Briefing Explor Prod 2:70–74Google Scholar
  57. Nyborg R, Andersson P, Nordsveen M (2000) Implementation of CO2 corrosion models in a three-phase fluid flow model. In: Proceedings of the CORROSION 2000, NACE International, paper no. 00048Google Scholar
  58. Oreskes N (1998) Evaluation (not validation) of quantitative models. Environ Health Perspect 106(6):1453–1460CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Oreskes N (2000) Why believe a computer? Models, measures, and meaning in the natural world. In: Schneiderman JS (ed) Earth around us: maintaining a liveable plant. W.H. Freeman and Co., San Francisco, pp 70–82Google Scholar
  60. Oreskes N (2003) The role of quantitative models in science. In: Canham CD, Cole JJ, Lauenroth WK (eds) Models in ecosystem science. Princeton University Press, Princeton, pp 13–31Google Scholar
  61. Oreskes N, Belitz K (2001) Philosophical issues in model assessment. In: Anderson MG, Bates PD (eds) Model validation: perspectives in hydrological science. Wiley, New York, pp 23–41Google Scholar
  62. Oreskes N, Shrader-Frechette K, Belitz K (1994) Verification, validation, and confirmation of numerical models in the earth sciences. Science 263:641–646CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Petermeier H, Benning R, Delgado A, Kulozik U, Hinrichs J, Becker T (2002) Hybrid model of the fouling process in tubular heat exchangers for the dairy industry. J Food Eng 55:9–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Popper K (2002) Science: conjectures and refutations. In: Balashov Y, Rosenberg A (eds) Philosophy of science: contemporary readings. Routledge, London, pp 294–301Google Scholar
  65. Refsgaard JC, Henriksen HJ (2004) Modeling guidelines—terminology and guiding principles. Adv Water Resour 27:71–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Reznik L, Pham B (2001) Fuzzy models in evaluation of information uncertainty in engineering and technology applications. In: Proceedings of the 10th IEEE international conference on fuzzy system (FUZZ-IEEE’01), Melbourne, Australia, pp 972–975Google Scholar
  67. Ross TJ (2004) Fuzzy logic with engineering applications. Wiley, ChichesterzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  68. Scarf PA (1997) On the application of mathematical models in maintenance. Eur J Oper Res 99(3):493–506CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  69. Schmitt G, Bosch C, Mueller M, Siegmund G (2000) A probabilistic model for flow induced localized corrosion. In: Proceedings of the CORROSION 2000, NACE International, paper no. 00049Google Scholar
  70. Shimizu K, Noguchi T, Seitoh H, Okada M, Matsubara Y (2001) FEM analysis of erosive wear. Wear 250:779–784CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Singh M, Markeset T (2007) Risk analysis of oil and gas pipelines subjected to CO2 corrosion. In: Proceedings of the ESREL 2007 conference, Stavanger, Norway, 25–27 JuneGoogle Scholar
  72. Smets P (1998) Theories of uncertainty. In: Ruspini E, Bonissone P, Pedrycz W (eds) Handbook of fuzzy computation. Oxford University Press/IOP Publishing, Oxford/BristolGoogle Scholar
  73. Snyder LJ (2004) Sherlock Holmes: scientific detective. Endeavour 28(3):104–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Srinivasan S, Kane RD (1996) Prediction of corrosivity of CO2/H2S production environments. In: Proceedings of the CORROSION ‘96, NACE International, paper no. 11Google Scholar
  75. van der Helm R (2006) Towards a clarification of probability, possibility and plausibility: how semantics could help futures practice to improve. Foresight 8(3):17–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Vitse F, Nesic S, Gunaltun Y, de Torreben DL, Duchet-Suchaux P (2003) Mechanistic model for the prediction of top-of-the-line corrosion risk. In: Proceedings of the CORROSION 2003, NACE International, paper no. 03633Google Scholar
  77. Wagener T, Kollat J (2007) Numerical and visual evaluation of hydrological and environmental models using the Monte Carlo analysis toolbox. Environ Model Softw 22:1021–1033CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Wang Y (1997) Flow-dependent corrosion in turbulent pipe flow. Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Chemical Engineering, University of Saskatoon, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  79. Wang H, Cai J-Y, Jepson WP (2002) CO2 corrosion mechanistic modeling and prediction in horizontal slug flow. In: Proceedings of the CORROSION 2002, NACE International, paper no. 02238Google Scholar
  80. Way EC (2001) The role of computation in modeling evolution. BioSystems 60:85–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Wierzbicki AP (2007) Modeling as a way of organising knowledge. Eur J Oper Res 176:610–635CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  82. Xiao Y, Nesic S (2005) A stochastic prediction model of localized CO2 corrosion. In: Proceedings of the CORROSION 2005, NACE International, paper no. 05057Google Scholar
  83. Zadeh LA (1973) Outline of a new approach to the analysis of complex systems and decision processes. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern SMC-3:28-44Google Scholar
  84. Zadeh LA (1975a) The concept of a linguistic variable and its applications to approximate reasoning-I. Inf Sci 8:199–249CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  85. Zadeh LA (1975b) The concept of a linguistic variable and its applications to approximate reasoning-II. Inf Sci 8:301–357CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  86. Zadeh LA (1975c) The concept of a linguistic variable and its applications to approximate reasoning-III. Inf Sci 9:43–80CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  87. Zadeh LA (2002) From computing with numbers to computing with words—from manipulation of measurements to manipulation of perceptions. Int J Appl Math Comput Sci 12(3):307–324zbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  88. Zadeh LA (2005) Toward a generalized theory of uncertainty (GTU)—an outline. Inf Sci 172:1–40CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  89. Zadeh LA (2006) Generalized theory of uncertainty (GTU)—principal concepts and ideas. Comput Stat Data Anal 51:15–46CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  90. Zhang R, Gopal M, Jepson WP (1997) Development of a mechanistic model for predicting corrosion rate in multiphase oil/water/gas flows. In: Proceedings of the CORROSION ‘97, NACE International, paper no. 601Google Scholar
  91. Zimmermann H-J (2000) An application-oriented view of modeling uncertainty. Eur J Oper Res 122:190–198CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Society for Reliability Engineering, Quality and Operations Management (SREQOM), India and The Division of Operation and Maintenance, Lulea University of Technology, Sweden 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Det Norske Veritas (DNV)StavangerNorway
  2. 2.University of StavangerStavangerNorway
  3. 3.Luleå University of TechnologyLuleåSweden

Personalised recommendations