The Role of Material and Corrosion Engineering in Managing the Service-Life Integrity of Flow and Export Lines

  • Manuela Gentile
  • Roberta Vichi
  • Roberto Bruschi
  • Furio Marchesani
Conference paper
Part of the NATO Science for Peace and Security Series C: Environmental Security book series (NAPSC, volume 1)


Material and corrosion assessment are crucial engineering tasks that can deeply influence the satisfactory performance of interfield and export lines over the design lifespan. The project conditions to be pursued, can be different, and the field of engineering investigations needed and technical solutions developed, vast. The selection of line pipe material at design stage, in relation to the transported products and flow rate, relevant temperature and pressure profiles along the route and external environment as well, is a factor for a successful project. To be noticed that there are significant differences in the relevant engineering tests for the final selection, whether dealing with a short small diameter multi-phase flow line or a long strategic large diameter treated gas trunk line. On the other hand, the integrity management of a line over the operating time span, when the variation of transported product composition or inlet temperature and pressure as well, may occur, is a very specific process, to be assessed case by case, far different from the management of a strategic gas trunk line the performance of which over time is not subject to significant variation of transport conditions and the integrity of which may affect the vital activities of a district. In most circumstances the relevant project decisions regarding material and corrosion management are to be taken at a very early design stage, deeply influencing the future project development and operation as well. It shall be a very expert and safe decision. In this paper we will provide a brief overview of a few topics regarding strategic pipeline material selection and integrity management of interfield network, referring to recent outstanding R&D and project experiences.


Corrosion Rate X100 Steel Line Pipe Subsea Pipeline Trunk Line 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    R. Bruschi, F. Tura, Offshore pipeline safety, OMC 1995, Washington, DC, 1995Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    C.M. Spinelli, F. Marchesani, TAP project, IPC 2004, Calgary, 2004Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    M. Gentile, M. Fehervari, M. Drago, E. Torselletti, R. Bruschi, Il Rischio di Tensocorrosione da H2S all’Esterno di Condotte Sottomarine: una Metodologia di Valutazione Quantitativa, Giornate Nazionali sulla Corrosione e Protezione, 2009Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    ISO 15156, Sulphide stress cracking resistant metallic materials for oilfield equipment, 2003, 814 Corrosion, 2, 8–10 (2005)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    DNV OS-F 101, Submarine pipeline systems, Det Norske Veritas, 2007Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    A.C. Palmer, R.A. King, Subsea Pipeline Engineering (PennWell, Tulsa, 2004)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    G. Gabetta, P. Cavassi, Il costo della Corrosione, Tpoint no. 3, 2001Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    C. De Waard, D.E. Milliams, Carbonic Acid Corrosion of Steel, Corrosion1975, Paper N°31, 1975Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    C. De Waard, U. Lotz, Prediction of CO2 corrosion of carbon steel, Corrosion93, Paper no. 69, Houston, 1993Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    C. De Waard, U. Lotz, A. Dugstad, Influence of liquid flow velocity on corrosion: a semi-empirical model, Corrosion 95, Paper no. 128, NACE, Houston, 1995Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    NORSOK M-506, CO2 corrosion rate calculation model, Norwegian Technology Standards Institution, Oslo, 2005
  12. 12.
    R. Nyborg, P. Andersson, M. Nordsveen, Implementation of CO2 corrosion models in a three-phase fluid flow model, Corrosion2000, Paper no. 48, Houston, 2000Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    R. Nyborg, Evaluation of CO2 corrosion prediction models. Final Report Kjeller Field Data Project, IFE Institute for Energy Technology, No. 2000/135, 2000Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    R. Nyborg, Evaluation of CO2 corrosion prediction models, IFE Institute for Energy Technology, No. 2003/170, 2003Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    T. Sotberg, A. Sjaastad, P.O. Gartland, T. Landmark, Pipeline operational safety by integrating flow modelling and risk reliability assessment, Rio Pipeline Conference 2005, Rio de Janeiro, 2005Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    A.S. Nowak, K.R. Collins, Reliability of Structures (McGraw-Hill, New York, 2000)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    B. Krose, P. van der Smagt, An Introduction to Neural Network (University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, 1996)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    S. Haykin, Neural Networks (Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, 1994)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    D. Klerfors, Artificial Neural Networks (Saint Louis University School of Business & Administration, St. Louis, 2001)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    C. Merz, M. Pazzani, A principal components approach to combining regression estimates. Machine Learn. 0, 211–218 (1997)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    S. Milani, D. Šel, N. Hvala, S. Strmnik, R. Karba, Improving neural network models of a hydrolysis process by integration of a priori knowledge, European Symposium on Intelligent Techniques, Aachen, 1999Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    ASME B31G, Manual for Determining the Remaining Strength of Corroded pipelines, Supplement to the ASME B31 Code for Pressure Piping (American Society Of Mechanical Engineers, New York, 1991)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    BS 7910, Guidance on Methods for Assessing the Acceptability of Flaw in Fusion Welded Structures (British Standard Institution, London, 2005)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    API 579, Fitness for Service, API, 2000Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    ABS, Submarine Pipeline Systems (American Bureau of Shipping, New York, 2005)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    L.M. Bartolini, A. Battistini, L. Marchionni, L. Vitali, Strength and Deformation Capacity of Corroded Pipes, XIX Congress Italian Association for Theoretical and Applied Mechanics AIMETA, Ancona, 2009Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    R. Bruschi, L. Vitali, E. Torselletti, A. Santicchia, Collapse capacity of corroded pipes design equation vs. 3D FE analyses, Italian ABAQUS Regional User’s Meeting, Bari, 2006Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Manuela Gentile
    • 1
  • Roberta Vichi
    • 1
  • Roberto Bruschi
    • 1
  • Furio Marchesani
    • 1
  1. 1.Saipem Energy Services S.p.A.FanoItaly

Personalised recommendations