Corrosion Management of Pipelines, Onshore

Facilities More Important than Ever

June 2016, Vol. 243, No. 6

By Marta Castillo, Manager, Pipeline Integrity, Wood Group Mustang

Some pipelines and onshore facilities deteriorate slowly during operation and in certain
cases have been reliable for more than their estimated lifetime. Other installations,
however, exhaust their useful life after only two to five years of operation.
There are numerous factors that affect the life of a pipeline and onshore facilities. These
include construction quality, coatings, cathodic protection (CP) systems, the nature of
the product or fluid, the external environment, operating conditions, materials selected
and quality of after-installation maintenance.
Ongoing Corrosion Problem
Corrosion is one of the leading causes of failures in both gas and hazardous liquids
onshore transmission pipelines in the United States. It also is a threat to gas distribution
mains and services, as well as to oil and gas gathering systems. Corrosion causes billions
of dollars in damages each year. As a result of this deterioration process, pipeline
sections often have to be removed from service and replaced.
Internal and external corrosion have been responsible for a high percentage of the
significant incidents on pipelines transporting gas and crude oil. The financial amount
and effort involved was in the majority of the cases expended after the problem
occurred. But, was there a similar effort in prevention?
Pipe failures can be due either to leaks or ruptures with differing results. Leaks from a
liquid line can contaminate the soil, groundwater or surface water. Ruptures in a gas
pipeline are more likely to cause an explosion and fire, thus resulting in more fatalities
and injuries, on average.
Many factors that complicate the investigation or mitigation of corrosion include:

Inadequate understanding of the soil and environment surrounding a buried

pipeline or other installation.
Variations in the oxygen, moisture content, contaminants and chemical
composition of the soil surrounding the pipe, which can act as concentration cells
that promote corrosion.
Coating degradation due to ultraviolet (UV) exposures, H2S presence, bacteria or
other microorganisms present in the soil and at girth welds.
Disbonding of coatings from the pipe surface, allowing groundwater to contact the
steel.
Corrosive species in the fluid, which make it difficult to determine whether internal
corrosion is occurring.
Bacteria corrosion that makes sampling complicated and detection procedures not
available for field inspection.
Required excavation to inspect pipe and coating anomalies.
Stray currents from nearby buried structures that can interfere with the cathodicprotection system.

Thus, the pipeline engineer is faced with a challenging problem preventing corrosion in
a long and frequently large-diameter metal structure contained within a unique
environment of predominantly undetermined chemical and physical properties without
the means for direct observation of the majority of the structure.
Risks from Corrosion
Corrosion can lead to the gradual reduction of the wall thickness of the pipe, resulting in
loss of strength. This loss can cause the pipeline to leak or rupture due to internal
pressure stresses unless the corrosion is repaired, the affected pipeline section is
replaced, or the operating pressure of the pipeline is reduced. Corrosion-created
weaknesses also make the pipe more susceptible to third-party damage or overpressure
events.
Gas pipelines: Typically, sales-quality dry natural gas will not corrode pipeline interior
surfaces. However, as it comes from the well, natural gas may contain small amounts of
contaminants such as water, carbon dioxide and hydrogen sulfide. If the water
condenses, it can react to form an acid that might collect in a low spot and cause
internal corrosion.
Liquid pipelines: Similarly, internal corrosion can occur in pipelines carrying corrosive
liquids or contaminants. Liquid pipelines can experience internal corrosion anywhere
along their length where electrolytes or solids drop out and wet the surface or provide a
place for electrolytes to collect.
Many of the corrosion mechanisms are dependent on factors such as the local soil
resistivity and chemistry along the pipelines route, the transported fluids molecular
composition, the operating pressure and temperature, metallurgical material selections,
reservoir dependencies, aerobic and anaerobic bacteria dependencies.
Therefore, the principal types of corrosion-management systems need to be
implemented based on actual survey data and laboratory information received and
analyzed during the detailed engineering and design phase of the work.

Corrosion Management
An effective corrosion-management program promotes early identification of potential
threats and outcomes and resolves problems at the earliest possible stage. Effective
corrosion-control programs go beyond minimum code requirements to anticipate
problems and proactively apply appropriate preventive and mitigative measures.
Therefore, CP systems should be part of any newly built, below-grade pipeline design.
Adequate CP can reduce the corrosion rate to levels below 0.01 millimeters/year, which
is considered to be within acceptable limits. Also, internal corrosion-control methods
(chemical injection and material selection, for example) should be considered if potential
corrosive conditions are identified.
A corrosion-management plan needs to be proactive, not reactive, considering different
steps in the process to prevent early stage corrosion and avoid sudden and unexpected
failures that lead to costly repairs and replacement. Regular operator monitoring,
inspections and maintenance can assess the rate of change in physical condition. These
procedures will give a more accurate idea of how much longer a pipeline can be
expected to operate safely and be used to plan for remedial action.
The operating history and other data relative to each system should be reviewed and
analyzed to identify existing and possible future threats; these threats may be system
specific. Threats to be analyzed include corrosion, natural forces, excavation damage,
other outside force damage, material or weld failure, equipment malfunction, and
inappropriate operation.
The evaluation should consider several corrosion sources: internal, external,
environmentally influenced stress cracking, bacteria (MIC), alternating current (AC)induced, selected seam and corrosion at the welds. Once the corrosion threats have
been identified, the risk assessment for corrosion must be evaluated.
A successful corrosion-management program will implement three key phases:
Phase 1, Diagnosis prediction, risk and threat assessments: Assessing pipeline system
risk is the product of evaluating the probability of corrosion threats and the possible
consequence. Risk potential for pipeline systems includes a host of issues
environmental, material, consequence, operations and practical factors. Prioritizing the
risk is the process of evaluating and rating the threats to each system and in relationship
to the threats affecting other systems. Prioritization will be used as a guideline for
establishing assessment schedules. Assessing and prioritizing risks is a continual
process. Risk assessments should be conducted periodically and when conditions
change.
At this phase, records research and data collection need to be executed to identify
threats to the asset and what operating conditions may cause internal or external
corrosion. This includes performing a resource inventory of existing pipeline system data
followed by a risk assessment. The amount and type of data to be needed will vary
depending on the threat being assessed. Databases should be created that contain
information about operating condition, history of the pipeline operation, maintenance
data, material, history of failures, leaks (if any) so that corrosion models and risk

analyses can be run. Planning for collection and maintaining data can be used as a
geographical integrated system (GIS), database, spreadsheets, or other tools.
Phase 2, Corrosion control implementing actions to control corrosion: Once threats are
identified, a corrosion-control plan needs to be implemented. Methods to control external
corrosion may include cathodic protection, coatings, chemical injection (inhibitors,
biocides, scavengers), corrosion-resistant alloys or other non-metallic materials. Internal
corrosion control might rely on internal coatings of various types.
Phase 3, Corrosion monitoring follow-up strategy: A complete strategy for corrosion
monitoring enables online real-time data acquisition of corrosion rates at strategic points
related to higher predicted corrosion rates or locations where corrosion control with
chemical injection is used.
Corrosion sensors used in online monitoring can be located in critical equipment and
piping sections that inspection methods are unable to access. The sensors can provide
real-time information on corrosion activity and corrosion upsets with operating
conditions, and allows proactive implementation of corrective action before corrosion
failures occur.
Figure 1 shows the three phases of a corrosion-management plan. More details can be
included on each phase, depending on the corrosion threats and the methods to control
and prevent leaks or corrosion failures.

Conclusion
Both corrosion-management and pipeline-integrity management plans, while different,
are instrumental in ensuring pipeline safety and performance. It is important that
engineers design pipeline corrosion-control methods for internal and external protection.

If they do not, corrosion issues may result in more costs associated with failures,
adjustment of the design to install corrosion control methods after the system is in
operation, and additional replacement and repairs.
These extra costs, in many ways, can be avoided or at least minimized if a corrosion
management plan is considered from the beginning of the project.

Author: Marta Castillo has over 20 years of experience in pipeline integrity and corrosion
management and is Pipeline Integrity Director at Wood Group Mustang in Houston. She
holds a degree in mechanical and metallurgy engineering from Universidad Simn
Bolivar in Venezuela and a Master of Science degree in materials science and
engineering from Case Western Reserve University, OH.

Treatment, Prevention of Microbially Induced Corrosion

June 2016, Vol. 243, No. 6

By Craig Bartling, Principal Research Scientist, Battelle, Columbus, OH

Sometimes, the biggest problems are the ones you cant see.
Microbially Induced Corrosion (MIC) is an enormous and expensive -problem for the oil and gas
industry, directly or indirectly costing billions of dollars each year in treatment, prevention and
equipment repair. Emerging technologies may soon give companies more effective options of
managing the microbial communities that eat away at the bottom line.
Where MIC Thrives
While not all corrosion is microbially induced, bacteria are implicated in a significant proportion of
corrosion problems for pipelines, storage tanks, and offshore platforms and equipment. Oil and gas
infrastructure often provide perfect conditions for corrosion-causing bacteria to thrive.
MIC-causing bacteria require:

Water: Like all living things, microbes need water to live and reproduce. Bacterial colonies
especially like stagnant sources of water, such as the pools that collect in the bottom of unused
storage tanks or in low-lying areas along a pipeline.

Metal: Metal acts as the host location for bacterial growth and provides a source of metal ions
required for corrosion to take place. Some bacteria that cause corrosion depend on these
metal ions to fuel their metabolic processes. For example, iron-related bacteria (IRB) use iron
pulled out of the metal they are colonizing in their metabolism.
An energy source: All bacteria require an energy source in order to grow and multiply. The
specific source depends on the bacterial species. For example, sulfate-reducing bacteria
(SRB), one of the most common types implicated in offshore MIC, requires sulfate and an
electron donor such as molecular hydrogen or organic compounds.
Oxygen (or a lack of it): Corrosion-causing bacteria can be broadly categorized into aerobic
(oxygen requiring) and anaerobic (oxygen avoidant) species. Bacteria will only thrive in
environments with the right oxygen levels for their species.
A way to adhere to the surface: Cracks, crevices, weld seams, bolts, corrugation and other
irregularities in the metal provide ideal spots for a microbial colony to get a toehold. Once
established in these areas, bacteria can form biofilms that allow them to spread to smoother
surfaces on the metal.

The interior of oil and gas pipelines can provide potential breeding grounds for both aerobic and
anaerobic bacteria, depending on the environment. Exterior pipeline surfaces are also vulnerable to
MIC, especially in low-lying areas where water pools and in moist, high-conductivity soils (such as
clay-based soils).
Poor welds, damaged coatings and other surface imperfections can provide entry points for MIC in
pipelines and other equipment. Storage tanks, pressure vessels and coiled tubing, especially if
improperly drained and maintained, are also prime locations for development of an MIC problem.
In offshore environments, platforms, mooring chains and underwater pipelines and equipment are all
vulnerable. MIC is especially prone to develop around the legs of oil platforms, where slag and drill
cuttings tend to accumulate. These piles of irregular, uncoated waste metal and drilling mud provide
ideal breeding grounds for anaerobic SRB colonies, which can then spread from the slag piles to
valuable offshore equipment.
Growing Problem
Detection of an emerging MIC problem can be difficult through visual inspection alone. MIC often
starts with very small, but localized, pinhole imperfections that are difficult for inline equipment to
detect. Inspection equipment also may miss developing problems hidden in weld seams or crevices.
Periodic testing of soil, water and product samples, along with any solids collecting on the metal
surfaces, to determine if corrosion-causing bacterial species are present, can provide a more
accurate and reliable early warning system for developing MIC issues.
The presence of bacteria even in large numbers does not by itself indicate that a corrosion
problem is microbially induced. Just as not all corrosion is caused by bacteria, not all bacteria are
implicated in MIC. Many microbes are harmless hitchhikers on oil and gas infrastructure and may
even provide a degree of protection against more destructive species.
To make the best treatment decisions, its important to determine what species of bacteria are present
and potentially causing the problem. Lab tests and soon, new hand-held field diagnostic kits use
DNA analysis to determine which species of MIC-causing bacteria are present.
Acute MIC Problem

Once corrosion-causing bacteria take hold, rapid treatment is paramount. The longer the colonies are
allowed to reproduce unmolested, the more damage is likely to be done. As bacteria eat away at the
metal they have colonized, they compromise the integrity of the structure and reduce its ability to hold
weight or pressure, eventually leading to costly equipment failures.
There are several actions operators can take to prevent MIC from spreading:

Drain and dry the equipment: For tanks and pressure vessels, this can be a good first line of
defense. Removing water prevents bacteria from reproducing and may kill off the colony
entirely. This can be done by heating equipment to evaporate pooling water or by using
product additives. However, its important to be aware that some species of bacteria can
survive dehydration and reanimate once they have a new water source. If drying equipment
requires shutting down key production or transmission activities, it may not be a practical or
economical choice of course this is not an option at all for offshore infrastructure.
Mechanical cleaning: In some cases, an emerging MIC problem can be contained by simply
flushing or brushing away the problem. Pipelines can be cleaned by pushing large volumes of
slurries through or by using special pipeline pigs that push out debris that harbors bacterial
growth. Cleaning up drill cuts residing at the base of platform legs may prevent developing
bacterial colonies from spreading to the equipment.
Biocides: In most cases, some form of biocide will be needed to ensure that MIC-causing
bacteria are truly gone. Biocides can be applied in different ways. Some biocides can be mixed
into tanks or injected directly into pipelines with the product itself. In other cases, pipeline
operators may choose to send a slug of biocide through the pipeline using a batch pig system
that holds concentrated biocide in between multiple pigs.

Not all bacteria respond equally to individual biocides, so proper biocide selection is critical. Its also
important to get the right loading, or dosage, for the selected biocide. Biocides need to be targeted so
they kill the MIC-causing bacteria while minimizing damage to the environment and to equipment.
More is not always better: biocides can themselves be corrosive to the equipment they are meant to
protect. Biocides may also present health, safety and environmental concerns.
In addition, improper use of biocides can lead to development of resistant bacteria, much like
improper use of medical antibiotics. Matthew Henderson, research scientist at Fusion Technologies,
Inc. explained, If you have the right biocide and the right loading, youll see the bacterial population
go way down and stay down. But sometimes a biocide will cause an immediate drop in bacterial
populations but lead to a major rebound later.
At Fusion Technologies, scientists perform kill studies to determine the right biocide selection and
dosing. Samples from the affected area are exposed to different chemicals and concentrations over a
two-week period to select the right remedy. In the future, data from rapid field detection kits may allow
operators to accurately diagnose MIC and select appropriate biocide treatments in the field.
Prevention Options
The best option for combating MIC is prevention. Proper equipment maintenance, such as draining
and drying pipes and storage tanks when not in use, can make oil and gas infrastructure less
hospitable to bacterial colonization. Protective coatings can also protect metal surfaces from MIC.
Regular inspection of exposed surfaces and coatings is critical to early detection.
Companies should also look at equipment design and infrastructure layout. Taking steps such as
eliminating low points where stagnant water can gather will reduce development of MIC. Operation

changes can be utilized to re-entrain settled water, for example, by increasing turbulence, velocity or
product density.
Improving weld seam quality and streamlining equipment design to avoid unnecessary cracks and
crevices will also help. Finally, companies should look at materials selection when designing and
manufacturing oil and gas infrastructure and equipment. Some metals and alloys are less attractive to
corrosion-causing bacteria.
Material science may soon provide new options for oil and gas companies.

Smart coatings: Self-healing coatings release healing chemicals when they are damaged to
slow the spread of corrosion. One example already on the market is the Battelle Smart
Corrosion Detector Bead, which provides corrosion detection and mitigation in one step. The
beads detect the markers of corrosion at the microscopic level and automatically release a
self-healing payload. They also fluoresce under a black light if corrosion is present to assist
with rapid manual inspection.
Antimicrobial wraps: Protecting mooring chains from MIC is a particular challenge; the nooks
and crannies in the chain provide ideal conditions for bacterial adhesion, but chemical biocides
cannot be applied in the open ocean. Battelle is testing antimicrobial wraps that slow down the
growth of bacteria on mooring chains.
Functional materials: Research is underway on novel advanced materials to protect against
MIC that may one day offer more options for equipment designers. Scientists are developing
functionalized surfaces that are able to respond to specific triggers such as the presence of
bacteria.

In a healthcare setting, these materials can be designed to detect the presence of a particular
bacterial species, such as E. coli, and release a targeted biocide in response. A similar approach
could one day be used against MIC.
Because these materials release biocides only when the target bacteria are present, they reduce the
buildup of biocides in the environment. Other materials use nano-structures to prevent bacteria from
adhering. Conductive coatings could also be used to develop self-sterilizing surfaces that heat up to
kill bacteria when an electric current is applied.
With appropriate treatment and prevention strategies, oil and gas companies can get MIC under
control. Early treatment and effective prevention can go a long way toward reducing the costs and
risks of corrosion-related failures.
Author: Craig Bartling, principal research scientist at Battelle, is part of the companys Applied
Genomics and Biology group. He has more than 12 years of laboratory and project management
experience and is focused on characterization of environmental samples for microbial DNA and
proteins.
Contributions were made by Jennifer OBrian, a research scientist in Battelles Energy Resources
group, who manages Battelles Pipeline Simulation Facility and is focused on managing and
supporting pipeline integrity programs.

CO2 Corrosion Prediction: Consider the Need for

Validation
March 2016, Vol. 243, No. 3

Carbon dioxide (CO2) corrosion modeling software is used by asset owners, contractors
and consultants in the oil and gas industry to predict the CO2 corrosion rate at both the
design and operation phases of pipelines and well tubing. Prediction results from a dozen
CO2corrosion models are known to vary wildly. This article discusses the need for
CO2 corrosion model validation and introduces the CO2corrosion model validation matrix

and index score system for an objective and effective validation of a CO2 corrosion
models performance.
Corrosion Model Validation
CO2 corrosion is a recognized integrity threat worldwide. CO2 corrosion modeling has
been used at both the design and operation phases of oil and gas pipelines for the
prediction of internal corrosion growth rates. Since the classic carbon dioxide corrosion
model published by C. DeWaard and D.E. Milliams in 1970s1, over a dozen CO2 corrosion
models have been developed over the past 40 years. An excellent overview of the
different CO2 corrosion models is given in reference2.
A considerable gap exists between CO2 corrosion model predictions and the reality2-4.
Some CO2 model developers claim that their model can accurately predict this and
accurately predict that, but when it comes to the corrosion rate prediction, it simply
fails and it fails badly.
Figures 1 and 2 show comparisons of the measured corrosion growth rate and the
corrosion growth rates predicted from 13 CO2corrosion prediction models under two
specific field conditions3. Some CO2 corrosion models consistently underestimate the
CO2corrosion rate under most operating conditions by a factor of over 10 in some cases
(Models F and J).

Some CO2 corrosion models consistently overestimate the CO2 corrosion rate (Models C
and K). Other models simply fail to give reasonable predictions when the operating
conditions change (Models B, D and G in Figure 1).
When a model failed to predict the corrosion rate, it failed. Explaining the failure to
predict by saying the model is sensitive to pH, sensitive to oil wetting, sensitive to shear
stress so on and so forth is completely irrelevant to the end users. It is nothing but the
final corrosion rate predicted by a CO2 corrosion model that matters to the end users.
A models ability to accurately predict pH, the effects of oxygen, NaCl, bicarbonate,
H2S, HAc, scaling, oil wetting, fluid velocity, and any other factors has absolutely no use if
the model consistently fails to make a reasonable prediction of the actual corrosion rate.
Figure 1 shows that four out of the 13 CO2 corrosion-prediction models produced
reasonable corrosion growth rates, while the majority of the CO2 prediction models simply
failed to produce meaningful results. Under another specific field condition (Figure 2), all
models failed to produce reasonable corrosion rates.

Contractors or consultants who have been using a single CO2 corrosion modeling
software for all clients and under all operating conditions may not realize the
considerable, sometimes shocking uncertainties in the predicted corrosion growth rates
(by a factor of over 10). Facility owners and users of CO2 corrosion model software should
protect their interest by validating the CO2 corrosion model software independently.
Without proper validation, facility owners and users of CO2 corrosion-modeling programs
have no way of knowing the accuracy of the predicted corrosion growth rates. The blind
trust in a single CO2 corrosion model without proper validation and the subsequent use of
the modeled results in the design will either expose the assets to increased integrity risk
(in case of Models F and J) or lead to overdesign with the unnecessary use of
corrosion-resistant alloys (CRAs) or additional inhibitor dosage (in case of models C and
K).
Commercial CO2 model software developers typically do not provide the users with any
validation details. Validation of modeled results against lab or field data is often difficult
as quality lab or field data under the prevailing operating conditions used in the
prediction software are not readily available. This is particularly true at the design stage
where the input parameters are often simulated or projected.
Validation of modeled results against corrosion-monitoring data in the field may not be
applicable as that data is based on spot measurement at a specific location, and under
some uncertain local operating conditions. Also, the modeled results represent the
worst-case scenario in the whole system (not spot measurement) under the specific
operating conditions.
The only practical way to ensure that the modeled results are reasonably reliable is to
validate the CO2 modeling software itself by utilizing the users or any third-partys welldefined quality lab and field data before starting the modeling project. It is critical to the
user or any third-party quality data, not the model developers data for the validation
process.
Validating Corrosion Models
An objective and effective validation process must cover a wide range of parameter
values in a systematic way. Non-performing CO2 corrosion models (such as Models F,
J, C, K) over a wide range of operating conditions will be positively identified and
the errors of prediction are objectively quantified.
The following CO2 corrosion model validation matrix (CO2MVM) and CO2 corrosion model
validation index score (CO2MoVIS) systems are proposed for the objective,
comprehensive and systematic validation of any CO2 corrosion-modeling software.
The CO2 corrosion model validation matrix (CO2MVM) consists of eight categories of input
parameters in three different input value ranges (low, medium and high), with a total of
48 data sets in the matrix. The absolute value of error percent, PE, in each data set is
used to compute the average score, defined as the CO2 corrosion model validation index
score (MoVIS), in three input parameter value ranges (low, medium, high).

The MoVIS-L, MoVIS-M and MoVIS-H scores are direct indications of a CO2 corrosion
models prediction accuracy in the low, medium and high input parameter value ranges,
respectively. The overall MoVIS score is the average of the MoVIS-L, MoVIS-M and MoVISH scores, representing the absolute error percentage averaged over the eight input
parameter categories in three ranges of input parameter values. The overall MoVIS score
is a direct, objective and comprehensive measure of a CO2 corrosion models prediction
accuracy.
After validating the CO2 corrosion model software, facility owners and users of the
CO2 corrosion model software will know the accuracy or the uncertainty in the predicted
results which will lead to better engineering and financial decisions when it comes to
corrosion allowance, material selection, chemical treatment, CO2 removal, glycol
injection, pH stabilization and other methods for CO2corrosion mitigation.
Table 2 shows the recommended parameter value range to be used in the CO2 Corrosion
Model Validation Matrix. It is important to note all data sets used in the matrix must be
high quality. CO2corrosion modeling follows the garbage in, garbage out rule. If a highquality data set is not available in some boxes in the matrix, leave the boxes blank and
exclude them in the computation of the MoVIS score. Low-quality data should never be
used in the validation matrix.

High-quality data should meet the following criteria:

The lab or field data must be from a reliable and reputable source and must be
verifiable with a clear and detailed description of the source, history and the
background information relating to the data.

The lab or field data must be complete and have detailed information on the
operating/test conditions and the test/measurement procedures/techniques used
to obtain the data. Incomplete data should not be used in the validation matrix.

The lab or field data from and/or used by the CO2 corrosion model developer
should not be used in the validation matrix.

Conclusion
It is always easier and better to validate the CO2 corrosion modeling software before
beginning a modeling project than trying to validate the modeled results afterward. A
CO2 corrosion prediction model may be a useful tool at the design and operating phases
of the oil and gas pipeline, but it must be used with caution.
References
1. C. De Waard and D. E. Milliams, Carbonic Acid Corrosion of Steel, Corrosion, Vol. 31,
No. 5, 1975, 1975, p175-181
2. R. Nyborg, CO2 Corrosion Models for Oil and Gas Production Systems, NACE
CORROSION / 2010, Paper No. 10371

3. G. Gabetta, Corrosion and Fitness for Service, 11th International Conference on

Fracture 2005 (ICF11), Turin, Italy, 20-25 March 2005, paper No. 4173
4. S. M. HOSSEINI, Avoiding Common Pitfalls in CO2 Corrosion Rate Assessment for
Upstream Hydrocarbon Industries, the 16th Nordic Corrosion Congress, 20-22nd
May 2015, Stavanger, Norway, Paper No.24

Author: J.H. Qiu is the principal consultant at WebCorr Corrosion Consulting Services,
Singapore. He is a NACE-certified corrosion specialist and served the Singapore section
as a committee member, vice chairman and chairman from the 1990s to early 2000s.
Qui obtained bachelors and doctorate degrees in engineering both in the field of
corrosion. He can be contacted at j.h.qiu@corrosionclinic.com.