Proceedings of the 2012 9th International Pipeline Conference IPC2012 September 24-28, 2012, Calgary, Alberta, Canada

IPC2012-90598
Landscape Investigation on External Corrosion and SCC of a Tape Coated Enbridge Pipeline
Abdoulmajid Eslami Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Edmonton, Alberta, Canada Shamus McDonnell Hunter McDonnell Pipeline Services Inc. Edmonton, Alberta, Canada Trevor Place Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Edmonton, Alberta, Canada Qin You Hunter McDonnell Pipeline Services Inc. Edmonton, Alberta, Canada

Chijioke Ukiwe Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Edmonton, Alberta, Canada

ABSTRACT It is generally believed that physical and chemical condition of the pipeline environment (such as soil texture, drainage, ground topography, cathodic protection level, pH, etc) in addition to pipeline construction factors (such as pipe vs. ground slope, type and quality of the pipe coating, etc.) affect the incidence and severity of external corrosion and SCC on pipelines. In an attempt to identify locations of highest susceptibility to external corrosion and cracking on a tape coated Enbridge pipeline, and to aid integrity management processes; Enbridge embarked on a project investigating landscape factors which might affect the severity of external corrosion and stress corrosion cracking (SCC) on the pipeline. Results showed that some of the investigated factors had positive correlations with the severity of external corrosion and SCC on the tape coated pipeline. However, despite the positive correlations observed, they were not strong enough to be used as an independent predictive tool. 1- INTRODUCTION External corrosion and stress corrosion cracking (SCC) have been an integrity risk for oil and gas transmission pipelines for years. External corrosion on pipeline steels could be described as uneven metal loss over localized areas covering a few to several hundred square inches [1]. The most common mechanism causing this form of corrosion is referred to as differential corrosion cells. Micro-bacterial activities and stray direct current (dc) in the soil could affect this form of corrosion [1].

SCC results from a combination of small amounts of localized corrosion, and tensile stress that can lead to sudden and premature failure if it reaches a critical stage [2]. SCC is an environmentally-induced process that is linked to three main conditions that must co-exist for it to develop or propagate: the use of pipe material susceptible to SCC for a given service application; the imposition of sufficiently high stress on the material; and, an environment favorable to SCC [3, 4]. Two types of SCC have been identified by their crack morphology, which are: high-pH (also, classical or inter-granular) and nearneutral-pH (or, non-classical, trans-granular, or low-pH) SCC. In order to prevent the external corrosion and SCC, coatings in combination with cathodic protection are applied to the pipe surface. Despite this, corrosion and SCC have been frequently occurring under the tape coated pipes, at locations where the coating gets damaged and disbonded [5]. In this situation, while the coating shields the CP, ground water can penetrate under the coating disbondment forming a suitable environment for corrosion and/or cracking. Figure 1, shows an image of typical tape coating which has been damaged and disbonded.

Copyright 2012 by ASME

Figure 2 is a schematic showing how features were sized on a pipe joint.

Girth welds
d

L2 Defect2 W2 W1
Crosssection

L1 Defect1

Joint Length, JL

Fig. 2: Schematic Showing Defect Sizing on a Pipe Joint Environmental and operational data from multiple sources were also collected and assembled to complete a dataset for each pipe joint. These were: Fig. 1: Coating Tape Disbondments on a Pipe Surface Extensive work has been done dealing with the SCC and corrosion of tape coated pipelines. In this regard Enbridge, which currently operates the worlds longest crude oil and liquids transportation systems, regularly, performs in-line inspections on its pipelines as part of its overall integrity management programs. These routine inspections comprise running cleaning, inertial, crack and corrosion inspection pigs through the pipelines. This investigation attempts to complement the integrity programs with corrosion and stress corrosion cracking threat indicators based on a correlative study of landscape factors to ILI external corrosion and SCC indications. Pipeline inertial data (Enbridge source); Cathodic Protection Close Interval Potential Survey data(CP CIPS) (Enbridge source); Pipeline construction and coating type data (Enbridge source); Site specific data from Enbridge dig program (Enbridge source); LIDAR drainage and topography data (Enbridge source); Wetland data (Unites States Fish and Wildlife source [6]) Soil clay content, pH (USDA source [7]) Pressure profile (Enbridge source)

2- Methodology
The landscape investigation was done on two trap-to-trap sections of a PE tape coated Enbridge pipeline build 1969-1970. Different levels of corrosion and near-neutral pH SCC1 damage were observed between two trap-to-trap sections. The first segment (Segment A) had 27,793 pipe joints spanning 978,776 feet; and the second segment (Segment B) had 15,500 pipe joints spanning 539,373 feet. The assessments were done on a joint-by-joint basis to facilitate detailed analysis. In particular, this was limited only to joints with corrosion and SCC. Within this framework, each joint was listed along with the population of all corrosion and SCC features associated with it. The corrosion and SCC severity2 was then determined by normalizing the cumulative corrosion volume and crack colony lengths on a pipe joint, by the length of the pipe joint. This sounds appropriate for the near-neutral pH SCC, since most near-neutral pH SCC cracks are shallow and long as compared to the short and deep high pH SCC cracks.
This assumption is based on the observed crack morphology underneath the PE-tape coatings, and historical evidence from the pH of the bulk soil 2 SCC and corrosion Severity in this context does not imply confirmed cracking. Enbridge considers tool reported features only once confirmed by direct pipe examination.
1

Correlation between each individual environmental and operational parameter with external corrosion and SCC severity on the pipe joints was then qualitatively assessed. For corrosion, this was done by comparing the volumetric metal loss against each environmental or operational parameter. In the case of SCC, the correlation was done by comparing normalized SCC length against similar parameters as investigated for corrosion. A rigorous statistical approach was not used because many of the parameters investigated were present as data categories and did not lend themselves to a numerical evaluation. To ensure a comprehensive study, three existing industry corrosion models were evaluated. These models were: USDA Steel Susceptibility to Corrosion (SSoC) Model [7]; American Water Works Association (AWWA) Numerical Corrosivity Model [8]; and, a modified version of the pipeline risk management tool developed by J. F. Keifner [9].

3- Results and discussion

Initial investigations showed that all the three industrial models followed similar trends based on the available input data.

Copyright 2012 by ASME

Therefore USDA was selected as its data provided most comprehensive coverage of the pipeline under investigation. The following sections will provide the results of an extensive study performed on determining the correlation between landscape environmental factors and operational parameters with corrosion and SCC severity on the PE tape coated Enbridge pipeline. 3.1. Landscape investigation on external corrosion Correlation of external corrosion severity with USDA SSoC, land topography, land state (wetland), drainage, clay content CP and pH and was investigated for both Segment A and Segment B of the tape coated Enbridge pipeline. Results are presented in the following: 3.1.1. Segment A According to Figure 3, soil corrosivity determined by the USDA soil categories, shows some correlation to normalize volumetric metal loss at wall loss depths greater than 30%. This demonstrates the general applicability of soil corrosion models for corrosion trending. However, SSoC alone does not reliably correlate with all instances of corrosion, as evident by the lack of trending at low depth categories, and the existence of >40% wall loss in low SSoC soils.

Fig. 4: Normalized Volumetric Metal Loss vs. Ground Topography According to Figure 5, for pipe joints traversing wetlands, the amount of wall loss within the wetlands far outweighs those within 50 m and beyond 50 m of the wetland areas.

Fig. 5: Normalized Volumetric Metal Loss vs. Land State Fig. 3: Normalized Volumetric Metal Loss vs. Steel Susceptibility to Corrosion (SSoC) Obtained by USDA Categories The effect of ground topography, based on the LiDAR data is plotted in Figure 4. At feature depths greater than 30%, the highest normalized metal loss corresponded with the dip slope category. This implies that joints located in water hold-up would be expected to experience deeper corrosion. In Figure 6, the normalized wall loss is correlated with drainage as a function of pipe orientation (TOP: 9-3 oclock; BOT, the lower one-half: 3-9 oclock) and orientation of the long seam weld around the pipe. The most predominant normalized wall loss is observed in very poorly and poorly drained soils.

Copyright 2012 by ASME

Figure 8 shows the correlation of the normalized corrosion wall loss to the measured pipe-to-soil potential (PSP), which represents the cathodic protection status of the line section on a per joint basis. Given that the majority of the pipeline falls into the protected range (from -850 mV to -1100 mV), and also because of not knowing the exact value of CP condition under the coating disbondments due to the coating shielding effect, no valid correlations could be drawn.

Fig. 6: Normalized Volumetric Metal Loss vs. Drainage Classification Figure 7 is the equivalent of Figure 6 for clay content. It shows that the dominant normalized wall loss occurred in the Medium Low clay category for all feature depths. Additionally, the Low clay contents appear to account for higher corrosion than the Medium High and the High categories, respectively. These observations contrast with the expectation of higher corrosion in high clay content soils [7]. The poor correlation of wall loss to clay content may be due to two reasons: (1) other factors dominate the influence of clay content on corrosion susceptibility; and, (2) the fact that the right-of-way ditch line may have been substantially disturbed during construction, implying that the true clay content of the pipe ditch may be different from those indicated in the USDA database.

Fig. 8: Normalized Volumetric Metal Loss vs. Cathodic Protection Status Correlation of soil pH to corrosion wall loss is shown in Figure 9. For corrosion wall loss depths greater than 10%, the highest normalized wall loss falls within the pH range of 6 to 7. A similar trend as the one described above is observed for all depths of wall loss until the greater than 40% depth category. In this case, the dominant pH range for normalized wall loss is 7 to 8. Once again, there were very few corrosion features at these depths with enough sample space for comparison with other pH ranges. It is not clear why higher corrosion occurs within a pH range of 6 to 7. Evidently, pH of the bulk soil did not account for variations of corrosion wall loss as determined in this study.

Fig. 7: Normalized Volumetric Metal Loss vs. Clay Content

Copyright 2012 by ASME

shows marked correlation of SCC with the soil corrosivity categories, namely, that the cumulative SCC lengths were higher for progressively more corrosive soils.

Fig. 9: Normalized Volumetric Metal Loss vs. pH levels 3.1.2. Segment B Similar study as that of Segment A was performed for segment B. Despite the difference in the external corrosion severity for the two segments, results showed similar correlations. These are summarized in the following table: Table 1: Summary of Correlation of Corrosion vs. Causative Factors Correlation to External Corrosion Segment A Segment B Yes Yes No No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes

Fig. 10: Normalized SCC Cumulative Length by USDA Categories Figure 11 clearly shows that topography also contributes to the amount of SCC on the line. The most critical terrain category, classified as Dip in this document, tend to produce higher SCC severity compared to the moderate (Flat) and apparently nonthreatening (Run-off) slopes.

Factor USDA SSoC Soil pH % Clay Drainage Wetland Cathodic Protection Topography (slopes)

3.2. Landscape investigation on SCC Correlation of SCC severity with USDA SSoC, land topography, land state (wetland), pressure, drainage, clay content, CP and pH was investigated for both Segment A and Segment B of the tape coated Enbridge pipeline. Results are presented in below: 3.2.1 Segment A The normalized cumulative length of SCC within each joint is shown plotted against USDA SSoC categories in Figure 10. It

Fig. 11: Normalized Cumulative SCC Length vs. Ground Topography The analysis in Figure 12 demonstrates a significant difference in the normalized cumulative SCC length according to wetland state. There is roughly twice the quantity of normalized SCC length within the wetland compared to the areas within 50 meters or beyond 50 meters of the wetlands.

Copyright 2012 by ASME

Fig.12: Normalized Cumulative SCC Length by Land State Figure 13 presents the pressure profiles between pump stations, operating stress, and normalized SCC length. The normalized cumulative SCC length charted with pressure profile data shows an increased quantity of SCC on the pipe operating at greater than 50% SMYS. The pump station output pressures along the pipeline decrease along the length of the line, and there is more SCC quantity in the upstream (higher pressure) segments. There are also increased SCC quantities downstream of the pump stations. For the pipe sections operated below 45% SMYS there is marked decrease in the quantity of SCC.

Fig.14: Normalized Cumulative SCC Length by Drainage Figure 15 shows progressively higher SCC in soils up to the 25% - 35% clay concentration. The quantity of SCC in soils with greater than 35% clay appears similar to the 18% - 25% clay concentration. It should be noted, however, that there are only about 1,700 joints (4%) that have greater than 35% clay concentration.

Fig. 15: Normalized Cumulative SCC Length by Clay Content Fig. 13: Normalized Cumulative SCC Length by Operating Pressure (%SMYS) Figure 14 shows the USDA soil drainage index charted against the normalized cumulative SCC lengths. There is no distinct correlation evident. The normalized cumulative SCC length was charted against the CP potential in Figure 16. The CP potentials were grouped into ranges and each joint was assigned the most positive potential reported for the entire joint. This chart indicates a higher quantity of SCC in the most negative range of potentials more negative than -2 volts. However, this range only accounts for 57 joints, which represents less than 1% of total pipe lengths. Also it might not also be true SCC, but HIC at hard spots due to the over portection. No correlation to CP potentials was evident in the available data.

Copyright 2012 by ASME

Table 2: Summary of Correlation of SCC vs. Causative Factors Correlation to Cumulative SCC Causative Factor Length Segment A Yes No No No Yes No Yes Yes Segment B Yes No No No Yes No Yes Yes

USDA SSoC pH % Clay Drainage Land State (Wetland) Cathodic Protection Fig. 16: Normalized Cumulative SCC Length by CP Range Figure 17 shows an increased quantity of SCC in soils within two pH ranges: pH<5, and pH between 7 and 8. The normalized SCC in soils with pH <5 only represents 30 joints, while there were 15,885 joints in the Segment A section that have soils with reported pH range of 7 to 8 in the USDA database. No specific correlation is evident between the range of reported pH ranges and SCC. Topography (slopes) Pressure Profile

3.3. Statistical Analysis 1 For the overall correlation to be meaningful, the percentage of pipe covered as a function of the amount of corrosion for each factor was further investigated. It was observed that each factor that showed positive correlation was only able to cover a small percentage of the pipe. In order to improve the overall correlation involving a larger percentage of the pipe, a variety of multi-factor correlations were conducted. This was aimed in order to strength the single-factor correlations as well as capture a larger portion of the corrosion. Results indicated that, although a higher percentage of the corrosion could be captured by the multi-factor correlations, the strength of the overall correlation was weakened. This was because; the multi-factor correlations further reduced the fraction of the corrosion covered relative to the pipe length as compared to the single factor correlation. 4- Conclusion Out of the individual environmental factors assessed for the two segments, four were positively correlated with the incidence and severity of external corrosion; these were soil corrosivity (USDA SSoC), drainage, wetlands and topography/slopes. For the SCC assessments in addition to the four mentioned factors, pressure also provided a positive correlation. Despite the positive correlations observed, they only covered a small percentage of the pipe. Hence, they could not be used as an independent predictive tool. The correlations may however, provide guidance for prioritizing inspection digs, and in explaining regions with differences in external corrosion and SCC severity.

Fig. 17: Normalized Cumulative SCC Length by pH Range 3.2.2. Segment B Similar study as that of Segment A was performed for segment B. Despite the deference in SCC severity for the two segments, results showed similar correlations. This has been summarized in the following table:

1 In order to minimize the length of the paper, the details of the analysis have not been reported in this paper.

Copyright 2012 by ASME

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors would like to express their special thanks to Ryan Sporns, Sean Keane, Steven Bott, Collin Taylor, Darrell Fluet, Jared Schoepp, Eric Pozniak, and Shane Rybak for their contribution to this investigation.

REFERENCES

1. J.A. Beavers, N.G. Thompson, External Corrosion of

Oil and Natural Gas Pipelines, ASM Handbook, Vol. 13C, Corrosion: Environment and Industries, 2006.

2. Van Droffelaar Atkinson, Corrosion and its Control:

An Introduction to the Subject, 2nd Ed., 1995, p. 85.

3. Pipeline Corrosion Integrity Management (PCIM), a

2008 PCIM course manual by NACE International, pp. 2-25 to 2-27.

4. Stress Corrosion Cracking Recommended Practice, 2nd

Edition, CEPA, December 2007, p. 2-3.

5. National Energy Board (NEB), Report of the Inquiry Stress Corrosion Cracking on Canadian Oil and Gas Pipelines, 1996.

6. United States Fish and Wildlife Home Page,

http://www.fws.gov/.

7. US Department of Agriculture Natural Resources

Conservation Service. http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usdagove/app/HomePage.ht m., June 2011.

8. J. David Palmer, Environmental characteristics

controlling the soil corrosion of ferrous piping, Effects of Soil Characteristics on Corrosion, ASTM STP 1013, Victor Chaker and J. David Palmer, Eds, American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, 1989, pp. 5-17.

9. John F. Keifner, A Risk Management Tool for

Establishing Budget Priorities, Presented at the Risk Assessment/Management of Regulated Pipelines, a NACE TechEdge Series Program, Houston, TX, February 10-12, 1997.

10. NACE SP0204 (latest version), Stress Corrosion

Cracking (SCC) Direct Assessment Methodology, (Houston, TX: NACE).

Copyright 2012 by ASME