Anti - Corrosion Management, Environment and Quality

at the Oil Refining Industry

Alec Groysman

Oil Refineries Ltd., P.O.Box 4, 31000 Haifa, Israel

E-mail: GALEC@ORL.CO.IL Phone: 972-4-8788623; Fax: 972-4-8788371

Abstract
Many corrosion problems have occurred with related ecological damage, during the
90 years of the existence of the oil refining industry. Many corrosion problems have been
solved. Some of them have not. Why? Sometimes corrosion damages occur at certain
facilities, but nor at others. There are many corrosion experts, institutes and laboratories,
corrosion magazines, books, standards, and conferences. A lot of companies manufacture
different materials and equipment for corrosion control and monitoring. In spite of this,
corrosion problems remain the main danger to the oil refining industry and to ecology.
The aim of this work is to survey the corrosion situation at the oil refining industry during the
past four years, in order to estimate cost of corrosion; to define the reasons for corrosion
problems and to find effective measures to solve them, and, as a result, to improve reliability,
availability and profitability at the refinery facilities including ecology.
Every industry, even every plant, has its own distribution of corrosion phenomena that occur
with different frequency. Examples of distribution of corrosion damages that occurred during
the last four years as well as the solutions of their prevention are given. About 75% of all
corrosion failures happened because of insufficient information and knowledge, as well as
inadequate interaction among different groups responsible for the acceptance and approval of
anti-corrosion decisions. The human factor was the main reason of corrosion failures.
Anti - corrosion management must be designed in such a manner that will increase human
potential in performance of correct decisions. Examples of wrong use of corrosion control
measures, such as corrosion inhibitors` type and their concentrations, alloys, coats, and
technological regimes are given. Insufficient, or sometimes lack of use of corrosion
monitoring methods result in a non-controlling corrosion situation.
Indirect cost of corrosion is connected with the ecological impact on the environment, loss of
expensive chemicals, a contamination of technological streams by corrosion products, loss of
efficiency, overdesign and shutdowns. The corrosion risk is related to environmental pollution
by hazardous chemicals, fuels, and gases, resulting in possible fires and explosions, damage
to people, animals, plants, air, soil and water. The causes of corrosion damage of
aboveground storage tanks, pipes, heat exchangers, and other equipment, as well as
preventive measures are analyzed. Most corrosion costs can be saved and quality improved by
means of control measures, and analysis of failures, dissemination of knowledge, and use of
monitoring techniques. A model of interconnections of all groups at the oil refining industry
with the aim to diminish corrosion risk was suggested. Anti-corrosion management quality
includes design, manufacture, improvement, and control at all stages.

Keywords: anti-corrosion management, ecology, corrosion problems, control, monitoring.

1
 Introduction
The Oil Refining industry exists for about 90 years. All types of corrosion phenomena known
to corrosion experts, plus some specific problems (such as naphthenic acid corrosion, sulfide
corrosion, and hydrogen induced corrosion), were found at the Units of the Oil Refineries.
Many corrosion problems have been solved [1 - 3]. Some of them have not. Why? Sometimes
corrosion damages occur at certain facilities, but not at others. There are many corrosion
experts, corrosion magazines, books, standards, and conferences, such as ours, etc. A lot of
companies manufacture different materials and equipment for corrosion control and corrosion
monitoring. Many institutes and laboratories waste much money and time for corrosion
researches. In spite of this, corrosion problems remain the main danger to the oil refining
industry and to ecology.
The aim of this work is to survey the corrosion situation in the refining industry in Israel,
during the past four years, in order to estimate the cost of corrosion; to define the reasons for
corrosion problems and to find effective measures to solve them, to define correct ways for
anti-corrosion management, and, as a result, to improve reliability, availability and
profitability at the oil refinery facilities.

Analysis of corrosion cases

Corrosion cases registered during the last four years at the Oil Refineries showed that they
occurred about once or twice a week (Table 1).
Table 1.
Corrosion cases in 2001 2004

Year Number of Cases

2001 52
2002 41
2003 46
2004 70

How do we define a corrosion case? It is any failure that occurred because one of the
following corrosion phenomena: general corrosion, pitting, crevice, galvanic, intergranular,
stress corrosion cracking (SCC), microbiologically induced corrosion (MIC), dezincification,
erosion-corrosion, cavitation, fatigue corrosion, caustic embrittlement, hydrogen sulfide and
hydrogen induced corrosion, corrosion under thermal insulation, dew point corrosion, stray
current corrosion, under deposit corrosion, over-heating corrosion, chemical cleaning
corrosion, and welding corrosion. Failure of one of the corrosion control measures such as
incorrect use of protective coatings or corrosion inhibitors, or unsuitability of materials to
standards, or plugging because of deposits` (corrosion products) formation is also considered
corrosion case. Estimation of the direct corrosion cost gave the value of about 10 million
dollars per year at one refinery.
We analyzed the reasons in every corrosion case (Table 2). About 75% (average value in
2001 2004) of all corrosion failures happened because of insufficient information and
knowledge. Thus, the human factor was the main reason for corrosion failures. The human
factor was divided into the lack of awareness and knowledge, insufficient control and
supervision, unwillingness to improve the situation, wrong operation and design. The
importance of human factor in occurring of corrosion failures resulted in development correct
anti-corrosion management which must be designed in such a manner that it will increase the
human potential in performance of correct decisions. In general human factor diminished
from 85% to 65% during the last four years. We can compare this value with human factor of
80 to 90% in chemical, naval and aviation industries [4]. This diminishing is explained by the

2
development of correct anti-corrosion management, and, first of all, introduction of analysis
of corrosion failures for technical personnel, and spreading of corrosion monitoring methods
at the units.
Table 2.
Causes of corrosion failures in 2001 2004

Factor 2001 2002 2003 2004

Number of cases 52 41 46 70
Human factor (general) 44 30 33 45
Human factor (in per cent) 85 73 72 65
Lack of awareness and knowledge 13 2 15 14
Lack of control and supervision 10 14 8 13
Unwillingness to improve 13 8 6 7
Incorrect operation 4 2 3 5
Incorrect design 4 3 1 4
Human error 1
Un-known 2 2 2

The organization of courses of dissemination of corrosion knowledge and information as part

of anti-corrosion management were introduced on three levels: for technicians, engineers and
management. Increase of general corrosion cases registered at the units from 46 in 2003 to 70
in 2004 is explained by understanding of importance of analysis of every corrosion event in
order to prevent corrosion failures in future.
Every industry, every plant, has its own distribution of corrosion phenomena that occur with
different frequency. This distribution changes every year at even the same enterprise.
We classified real corrosion cases occurring during the last four years according to corrosion
forms (Table 3). The distribution of corrosion forms changes every year. The first three forms
of corrosion failures, namely, general corrosion, pitting, and erosion cavitation constitute
about 50 to 60% of the 50 to 70 cases reported. We can emphasize that the frequency of
general corrosion (30%) and pitting (13 to 25%) is indicative of most industries in general
(for example, chemical industry [5]), and is not limited to the Oil Refining industry alone.
I have to mention the failures of coatings and polymers (about 8 to 13% of cases) and stress
corrosion cracking (8%). Many structures at the Oil Refineries are coated, and polymers are
used in the aboveground storage tanks with different media: petroleum distillates, aromatic
solvents and oxygenates (MTBE Methyl-Tert-Butyl-Ether) [6]. There is no ideal polymer
which is resistant to all media. Stress corrosion cracking relates to the usage of austenitic
stainless steels as a material of construction for many highly corrosive applications in the Oil
Refining industry [7 - 10]. Corrosion products as deposits plugged heat exchangers` bundles,
filters, tubes, valves, and other equipment in 9 to 14% of cases. Sometimes corrosion products
deteriorated petroleum distillates and aromatic solvents manufactured at the units of the oil
refineries. It was impossible to determine corrosion type in 5 to 13% of cases because of
insufficient communication between various departments and services at the oil refineries.
Sometimes specific corrosion phenomena (hydrogen sulfide corrosion, crevice corrosion,
corrosion under thermal insulation, welding corrosion, and hydrogen induce corrosion) did
not occur several years. This analysis showed that nearly all corrosion phenomena known
corrosion science and engineering [11], occurred at the oil refineries` units during four years,
but with different frequency, and depended on the age of oil refineries, use of oil crude types,
type of materials of units, use of corrosion control and monitoring methods, knowledge and

3
experience of personnel. The last two issues are included in the anti-corrosion
management, and we shall talk about it later.

Table 3.
Corrosion phenomena with the equipment at the Oil Refineries in 2001 2004

Type of Corrosion 2001 2002 2003 2004

Number % Number % Number % Number %
General Corrosion 4 7.7 14 33.3 14 30.4 20/2* 29
Pitting Corrosion 13 25 10 23.8 6 13.0 7/8* 10
Erosion - Cavitation 3 5.8 5 11.9 5 10.9 6/1* 9
Failure of Coatings and 4 7.7 3 7.1 5 10.9 9/1* 13
Polymers
Stress Corrosion Cracking 4 7.7 0 0 4 8.7 0 0
Plugging (Deposit 0 0 0 0 4 8.7 10 14
Formation)
Un-known Failures 7 13.5 3 7.1 2 4.3 4 6
Dezincification 0 0 0 0 2 4.3 0 0
Caustic Embrittlement 1 1.9 0 0 1 2.2 0 0
Under Deposit Corrosion 2 3.8 1 2.4 1 2.2 0 0
Dew Point Corrosion 2 3.8 0 0 1 2.2 1 1
Microbiologically Induced 2 3.8 0 0 1 2.2 2 3
Corrosion
Mechanical Failures 3 5.8 1 2.4 0 0 1 1
Galvanic Corrosion 1 1.9 2 4.8 0 0 0 0
Corrosion because of 0 0 2 4.8 0 0 0 0
Water Stagnation
Over - Heating Corrosion 0 0 1 2.4 0 0 0 0
Corrosion Fatigue 3 5.8 0 0 0 0 1 1
Stray Current Corrosion 2 3.8 0 0 0 0 0 0
Chemical Cleaning 1 1.9 0 0 0 0 0 0
Corrosion
Hydrogen Sulfide 0 0 0 0 0 0 4/1* 6
Corrosion
Unsuitability of Materials 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3
to Standards
Crevice Corrosion 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
*
Corrosion Under Thermal 0 0 0 0 0 0 1/1 1
Insulation
Welding Corrosion 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
Total 52 100 42 100 46 100 70 100
Note: the denomenator is the number of cases wich occurred simultaneously with other
corrosion phemomena; for example, general corrosion occurred with pitting corrosion;
hydrogen sulfide corrosion occurred together with general corrosion at the same equipment;
etc.

4
Analysis of corrosion cases with different equipment at the units of Oil Refineries in 2004
showed that about 60% of total failures occurred with heat exchangers, condensers, pipelines
and tanks (Table 4) [12]. But stacks, coils, pumps, compressors, furnaces, towers, reactors and
valves were also subjected corrosion.

Table 4.
Corrosion failures of equipment at the Oil Refineries` Units in 2004

Equipment Number of cases Percent

Heat exchangers, condensers 20 28
Pipelines 12 17
Tanks 9 13
Coils, screws, and others 7 10
Stacks 6 9
Pumps and compressors 5 7
Furnaces, superheater 4 5
Accessories in towers 4 5
Reactors 3 4
Valves 2 2
Total 70 100

Analysis of corrosion failures at different units at the Oil Refineries showed that most
corrosion cases occurred at CCR (Continuous Catalytic Cracking) unit, Distillation Crude
units, Hydrodesulfurizers, FCC (Fluid Catalytic Cracking) units, with aboveground storage
tanks and pipelines (Table 5). It is important to emphasize that no corrosion failures occurred
at places where corrosion control (inhibitor and neutralizer injection) and monitoring
(periodical with corrosion coupons and on-line continuous) methods were used. This fact
confirms existence of efficient control methods and introducing corrosion monitoring in new
places where corrosion failures are expected and can occur.

Table 5.
Number of corrosion failures at different units in 2001 2004

Unit Year
2001 2002 2003 2004
Distillation Crude Unit 6 9 8 10
Continuous Catalytic Reforming 5 4 4 12
Fluid Catalytic Cracking 1 2 11 8
Pipelines 19 11 9 7
Aboveground Storage Tanks 7 6 2 9
Hydrodesulfurizers 8 6 5 11
Power Station 0 0 0 3
Merox 0 0 0 1
Visbraker 2 0 0 2
Asphalt 0 1 1 0
*
Petrochemical Plant 4 3 6 7
Total 52 42 46 70
*
Petrochemical Plant: manufacture of organic solvents.

5
 Examples of corrosion cases
Here are several examples of correct and wrong use of corrosion control measures, such as
use of alloys, coating systems, and technological regime at the refinery units.
1. General corrosion of the bed of the catalyst and pipe in the stripper column at the
Continuous Catalytic Reforming Unit (Figure 1).

Figure 1. The carbon steel bed for the catalyst and pipe in the stripper column at the
Continuous Catalytic Reforming Unit.

The medium was the 1% aqueous soda solution containing 1000 ppm of chlorides and 6 ppm
of iron. Severe corrosion of carbon steel internals occurred after 8 years of operation.
Laboratory examination of corrosiveness of this medium showed corrosion rate of 1 mm/year
for carbon steel. It was found in laboratory tests that some kinds of Duplex steels, high
molybdenum stainless steel and Monel were resistant to the corrosive medium in the stripper.
The human factor was responsible in this case, because carbon steel was wrongly chosen as
the material of construction at the project stage.

2. General corrosion and incorrect use of material corrosion of heat exchanger tubes made
of carbon steel after 8 years of operation (Figure 2).

Figure 2. Heat exchanger tubes. Inside of tubes FeS.

Crude oil flew inside of the tubes, outside vacuum bottom. The temperature varied from 280
to 320oC. Sulfur content in crude oil varied from 4.3 to 5.6%. It is well known that carbon

6
steel is not resistant to high sulfur (above 1% weight) crude oil and vacuum bottom at
temperatures above 290oC [7]. Insufficient control (that is, the human factor) at the stage of
the manufacture of carbon steel heat exchanger tubes was the reason for this corrosion failure.
The correct decision is to use a low alloy steel containing 5% Cr.

3. Failure of protective coating systems (Figure 3 and 4). The pipeline was made of carbon
steel. Outside the pipeline was the industrial atmosphere of the Oil Refinery. Water from the
desalter at 90oC flew inside this pipeline (Figure 3). The coating system resistant to industrial
atmosphere at ambient temperature of about 25oC was chosen. This coating failed after
several months of use. Temperature is the critical parameter for use of coating systems.
Another example is the coating system for the air cooler ventilator (Figure 4). The
temperature sometimes rose to 100oC in this area. This coating failed after 2 years of use.
Human factor was responsible for the failures in these two failures.

Figure 3. Failed coating on the pipeline in the atmosphere of the Oil Refinery.

Figure 4. Failed coating on the air cooler ventilator.

7
4. Erosion corrosion failure relates to the over-loading of materials incorrect process
conditions and variables: concentrations of reagents, temperature, pressure, presence of
aggressive contaminants and flow rate. The pump made of stainless steel 316 was intended
for pumping the light cycle oil at the processing line at the Fluid Catalytic Cracking Unit.
Catalyst containing particles of silica and alumina entered the pump suddenly (Figure 5). The
pump worked about four years without failure. Erosion corrosion is usually an unexpected
failure and could occur during several months or less. The remedial operation is a prevention
of catalyst penetration into the pump.

Figure 5. Erosion of inner surface of the pump made pf SS 316.

5. Microbiologically Induced Corrosion (MIC) inside of the bottom of a crude oil storage
tank after 18 years of use (Figure 6) [12].

Figure 6. Inside of of the bottom of a crude oil storage tank.

The typical pattern on the inner surface of carbon steel bottom could be determined as a result
of microbial attack. Usually very dense sludge of the height of 1 to 2 meters is formed at the
bottom, and it is impossible to take a sample from the bottom - bottom for the microbial
analysis. The results of the microbial analysis of crude oil do not always show the real picture
of the microbial contamination at the bottom surface. The only solution is to coat the bottom
surface inside the tank and periodical cleaning from the sludge [6]. Sometimes MIC can result
in corrosion damage of equipment in contact with water deteriorated by microorganisms even
in several weeks [13].

Post-scriptum of corrosion cases analysis. Some results of corrosion failures and

determination of their causes at the oil refineries` units were published in literature [14], but
did not find the decision for their prevention.

8
 Corrosion monitoring methods at the Oil Refineries Units
Many problems of correct use of corrosion control measures (for example, injection of
chemicals such as inhibitors, neutralizers, biocides and others) may be solved by means of
corrosion monitoring methods [15 17]. Here are two examples, how we use corrosion
monitoring at the process units and in the cooling water systems. Figure 7 shows the
atmospheric distillation column with air cooler and condensers (overhead). All pipelines,
tubes in the air cooler, naphtha and kero heat exchangers are made of carbon steel. Tubes in
condensers were originally made of carbon steel and Admiralty brass CDA 443, but were
replaced for titanium (Ti Gr. 2 and Ti Gr.12) 12 years ago because of severe acidic and under
deposit corrosion. Hydrocarbons containing water vapors, hydrogen chloride and hydrogen
sulfide, leave the distillation column at 130oC. This mixture becomes very corrosive when
cooled below the dew point temperature of 100oC. In order to prevent high acidic corrosion in
air cooler and condensers, neutralizers and corrosion inhibitor are injected in the overhead of
the distillation column. Weight loss coupons and electrical resistance (ER) probes were
installed in many places and OM On-line Monitoring by means of ER-probes. They were
also installed in the naphtha pump-around and kero pump-around lines. The electrical
resistance probes show the corrosion situation continuously. We change the weight loss
coupons every several months, in order to compare with the results of the ER-probes and to
examine the danger of chloride attack (pitting corrosion). This is very important, and the more
points in the unit that are included for corrosion monitoring, the fuller is the corrosion
coverage we receive. Figure 8 shows typical on-line data dial reading of the ER-probes with
time in one of the condensers in the overhead of the distillation column.

Figure 7. Corrosion monitoring at the overhead of the atmospheric distillation column.

Schematic of setting of corrosion probes. Corrosion rates (mm/year) are shown near the red
points with coupons and ER-probes.

9
 Figure 8. Dial Reading ER-probe vs Time.

One can receive such a picture on the screen of his computer. The sudden rise of corrosion
rate of carbon steel is analyzed for every period. The acceptable corrosion rate of 5 mpy (0.11
mm/year) for carbon steel is defined for units at the oil refineries [15]. Therefore any increase
above 5 mpy is analyzed and the causes are determined. There were two short periods when
the corrosion rate increased above 5 mpy (see Figure 8). Insufficient injection of neutralizer
was the reason of a sudden increase of corrosion rate of carbon steel. Thus, we can monitor
the anti-corrosion program and as a result the corrosion situation in the overhead of the
distillation column.
The average corrosion rate for any period can be compared with the results received by means
of the weight loss coupons (Figure 9). Usually we receive good correlation between these two
methods.

Figure 9. Average corrosion rate with ER-probe (0.037 mm/year) and weight loss coupons
(0.025 mm/year).
Corrosion and deposit monitoring in the cooling water system
Three main problems exist in every cooling water system in the Oil Refining Industry:
corrosion, inorganic deposits containing carbonate scale, corrosion products of iron,
phosphates, silicates and some others, and biofouling (microbial contamination). Two on-line
corrosion and deposit monitoring systems are used in the cooling water system at our
Refinery [2]. Such systems allow monitoring the general corrosion of carbon steel (or any
other alloy) at ambient temperature (non-heated steel surface) and at the drop temperature in

10
the heat exchanger (heated steel surface), pitting tendency also for heated and non-heated
surface, and heat transfer resistance the quantitative value of inorganic and organic deposits
(fouling). General corrosion rate is defined by means of the LPR (Linear Polarizarion
Resistance) method, and the pitting tendency is based on the Electrochemical Noise
Measurements (ENM). The typical change of Heat Transfer Resistance versus Time is
presented at Figure 10. One can calculate the cleaning factor in percent according to these
data. The drawback of these data is that general fouling is measured: total sum of inorganic
and organic deposits.
Heat Transfer Resistance vs Time
DATS data

0.4
0.38
Heat Transfer Resistance,

0.36
x1000, o Cm 2/KW

0.34
0.32
0.3
0.28
0.26
0.24
0.22
0.2
27/09/99 17/10/99 06/11/99 26/11/99 16/12/99 05/01/00 25/01/00 14/02/00

Figure 10. Heat Transfer Resistance vs Time (DATS Deposit Accumulation System data).

Figure 11 presents the dial reading data of general corrosion by LPR corrosometers and
pitting tendency by ENM. Thus, on-line corrosion infromation is received continuously.
On-line Corrosion Rate of Mild Steel vs Time

0.3
0.25
Corr. Rate, m py

0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
27/09/99 17/10/99 06/11/99 26/11/99 16/12/99 05/01/00 25/01/00 14/02/00

Heat Surface Corr. Rate Nonheat Surface Corr. Rate

Heat Surface Pitting Tendency Nonheat Surface Pitting Tendency
Linear (Nonheat Surface Corr. Rate) Linear (Nonheat Surface Pitting Tende
Linear (Heat Surface Pitting Tendency) Linear (Heat Surface Corr. Rate)

Figure 11. On-line corrosion rate of mild steel (general corrosion and pitting tendency) in the
cooling water system vs Time.

Anti-corrosion management at the Oil Refineries

We suggest the following scheme of anti-corrosion management at the Oil Refineries (Figure
12). Such a scheme is useful for all industries. Supervision at the design stage for suitability
of material choice, protective measures and corrosion control must be carried out. We have to
estimate the cost of corrosion in every case, in every corrosion event (Table 6) [18].
Corrosion losses are included in the price of petroleum distillates and all fuels. We have to
differentiate and to analyse direct and indirect, avoidable and unavoidable corrosion losses.

11
We developed and continue to develop the procedures, specifications and standards for
corrosion prevention, control and supervision. Some of them were introduced into practice.
For example, a standard of coating systems for the protection of structures and equipment at
the Oil Refineries. Every two years we revise these systems after analysis of experience and
new data of study of resistance of coating systems under different conditions at the Oil
Refineries. Another example: cathodic protection of underground structures. This document
was introduced into practice for all industrial enterprises in the Haifa area 13 years ago.
Protection of equipment during storage and material control during purchasing are a very
important part of anti-corrosion management. Some kinds of equipment (heat exchangers,
tubes, bundles, elbows, valves, etc.) are not used immediately after purchasing. Therefore,
anticorrosion measures must be carried out for the temporary protection. We have to find
criteria for penalty and prize for anti-corrosive management, computerize the library of
corrosion cases, and disseminate information and knowledge about corrosion, corrosion
control and corrosion monitoring methods.
Supervision at the Economical Benefit of
design stage for estimation of usage of
suitability of material corrosion losses corrosion
choice, protective supervision
measures and methodss
corrosion controll

Direct Indirect

Avoidable Unavoidable

Developing of Protection
procedures, of Material
specifications, equipment control
standards for during during
corrosion storage. purchasing.
prevention,
control and Insurance in corrosion
supervision: damage.

1. Standard for coatings (SP-06-01).

2. Cathodic protection.
3. Corrosion under thermal insulation.

Criteria search for penalty and prize for

anti-corrosive management.

Computerized library Dissemination

of corrosion failures of information
with analysis and and
solutions. knowledge.

Figure 12. Anti-Corrosion Management.

12
The cost of corrosion includes two components: corrosion loss and investments in corrosion
control (use of preventive anti-corrosion measures plus corrosion monitoring methods)
(Tables 6 and 7) [18]. Any study of corrosion cost should include the investigation of places
where corrosion costs occur, the size of these costs and their predictability [19]. We suggest
the following approach which allows determining the costs of corrosion loss and proper
responsibility for these data (Table 6).

Table 6.
Corrosion loss (cost per year - example)

Damage Cost, $ Responsible Division

Shutdowns A Maintenance, Production
Maintenance B Maintenance
Production loss, loss in revenue C Production, Operations
Contaminants in products D Production, Operations
Damage to the environment E Environmental, Production
Safety (danger to life) F Environmental
Efficiency decrease of heat exchangers, G Maintenance, Production
pumps, pipelines
Loss of aesthetic appearance (because of H Maintenance
non-pleasant rust, holes and other corrosion
damages)
The influence of changes: I Operations, Production,
- type of crude oil; Technical Services
- processing;
- chemicals;
- conditions (temperature, pressure, etc.);
- duty (function) of heat exchangers.

Total, $.
Note: A, B, C, etc. are the specific cost values.

Anti-Corrosion and Quality Management [18]

When we are talking about corrosion and quality, we can see in corrosion phenomena and
services related to corrosion control and corrosion monitoring similarities to other subjects,
namely, delivering anti-corrosion methods and services faster, better, cheaper and newer. This
is the quality of anti-corrosion management. But corrosion as a phenomenon influences the
quality of products, quality of service and of course, influences our perception. If corrosion is
connected with quality, we may talk about general anti-corrosion management quality which
includes design, performance (implementation), changes (improvement), and control at all
stages. Both corrosion and quality are connected with reliability, availability and profitability
of any industry.
Reliability is a broad term that focuses on the ability of a product to perform its intended
function. The product may be a physical product, a manufacturing process, a service, or any
other activity. Reliability is the probability that a plant or component will not fail to perform
within specified limits while working in a stated environment [20].
Availability is the probability that an item, under the combined influence of its reliability,
maintainability and maintenance support, will be able to fulfill its required function over a

13
stated period of time, or at a given point in time [20]. Availability is the quality of being
present or ready for immediate use [21].
Profitability is a valuable return, or net income for a given period of time [21].
Certainly, quality is mostly well connected with reliability, both may be interpreted in the
values of probabilities. Corrosion influences reliability which is a part of quality. Both
quality and reliability are influenced by the human factor. We saw that human error was the
primary cause of process corrosion failures: from 65% (our estimation in this work) in the
refining industry to 80 - 90% in chemical, naval and aviation fields [4]. While improving anti-
corrosion management, we can get better quality. The inverse statement is also correct: while
improving the quality, we can get better anti-corrosion management. Anti-corrosion
management is supervision at the design stage for suitability of material selection, protective
anti-corrosion measures (corrosion control) and corrosion monitoring. We can show how
investments in corrosion control affect the quality of goods, materials, work, services,
profitability, forecasted opportunities, customer satisfaction, safety, and effectiveness (Table
7).

Table 7.

Investments in corrosion control methods (for a year - an example).

Corrosion Control Use / Means Investments, Responsible

Method or Other $ Group/Unit
Investments
Excessive Correct Design Z Development,
corrosion Technical Services
allowance Division
Coatings Atmospheric corrosion A1 Maintenance
Underground pipelines B1 Division
Aboveground Storage C1
Tanks:
- inside; D1
- outside.
Metal Coatings E1
Chemicals Demulsifiers F1 Production Division
Corrosion Inhibitors in G1
Processing:
- Overhead distillation H1
column;
- Hydrodesulfuriser; I1
- Amine unit.
Neutralizers K1
Corrosion Inhibitors in L1
Cooling Water Systems
Biocides M1
Dispersants N1
Oxygen scavengers O1 Power Station
Neutralizers in steam P1 Division
Cathodic Protection Rectifiers Q1 Electrical Division
Sacrificial anodes for the R1
underground pipelines

14
Corrosion Control Use / Means Investments, Responsible
Method or Other $ Group/Unit
Investments
Sacrificial anodes for S1 Maintenance
heat exchangers with Division
cooling water
Consultancy T1 Electrical Division
Polymeric U1 Maintenance
materials Division, and
Ceramic materials W1 Development
Composites X1
Corrosion Resistant Heat exchangers Y1 Maintenance
Alloys Pumps A2 Division, Technical
Pipes and tubes B2 Services Division,
Reactors C2 and Development
Other equipment D2
Corrosion Coupons (Weight Loss E2 R&D Corrosion
Monitoring Method) Laboratory,
Electrical Resistance F2 Maintenance
Probes Division,
Linear Polarization G2 Production Division
Resistance
corrosometers
On-line monitoring in H2
cooling water systems
(Deposit Accumulation
Testing System)
Research & R&D development I2 R&D Division, Plant
Development Consultancy and outer J2 Inspection
(R&D) laboratories` service Department
Total, $.
Note: A1, B1, C1, etc. are the specific cost values.

The role of technical standards

Technical standards are a significant part of anti-corrosion management quality.
The significant role of technical standards in the prevention of corrosion, corrosion control
and corrosion monitoring is well known. We have to emphasize the positive role of ASTM
[22, 23], National Association of Corrosion Engineers International (NACE) [24], American
Petroleum Institute (API) [25], ISO [26, 27] and national standards, such as British (BS),
German (DIN), French (AFNOR), and Russian (GOST).
In spite of their activity, the standards related to corrosion are not widely used. Even those
that are used, do not always satisfy the requirements of a specific industry and particular
conditions. We can give many examples, but we shall restrict ourselves to one. It relates to
use of coating systems under various conditions of oil refinery units. Even those that are
recommended in the technical standards, do not always contain the up-to-date information.
For example, the standard API RP 652 [25] for coating systems does not relate to those based
on zinc-rich, silicone-epoxy, polysiloxane, polyurethane and epoxy novolac materials
resistant to fuels, and does not relate to the fuels containing oxygenates or aromatic
components added to increase the octane number of fuels. We developed our proprietary

15
standard of coating systems for use at oil refineries under various conditions [6, 28]. This
standard helps to improve the quality of corrosion control measures.

Examples of influence of corrosion on quality

We said that corrosion may influence various kinds of quality in different ways: quality of
products, quality of manufacture, quality of management, quality of life, quality of
environment, etc. We have to emphasize the impact of corrosion on service life of the metallic
equipment and construction and as a result on quality of all items. Thus, it was shown that the
annual cost of corrosion in maintenance and repair increased by 100% when an aircraft aged
by 10 years [29]. This is an excellent reminder of the importance of corrosion prevention,
control and monitoring which are so vital to service life and quality. In this case quality is the
main parameter and relates to the safety of flights. Here are several examples. All fuels have
to meet very strict physico-chemical properties. When corrosion products in the form of rust
appear in fuels, the latter may be disqualified. We may mention a case in which several
thousand tons of fuel were disqualified and had to be sent for additional treatment at the oil
refinery. When some plug, valve or any other control instrument or device is corroded, the
result may be stopping the production process or may be a sudden failure, including
explosions, fires, and even death of people.

Typical mistakes in anti-corrosion management and improving quality

It is very important to know where the problem is. Therefore we have to analyse typical
mistakes in anti-corrosion management and improving quality. Here is our view of such
mistakes.
1. Improper design and selection of metallic materials for attaining the required
service life of the equipment.
2. Improper selection of preventive anti-corrosion measures: coating systems,
cathodic protection, chemicals (neutralizers, corrosion inhibitors, anti-scalings,
dispersants, oxygen scavengers, biocides), operating parameters.
3. Lack or insufficient use of corrosion monitoring methods.
4. Lack of damage assessment, analysis, monitoring of failures and their
detection. The lack of corrosion information exchange.
5. Lack or insufficient corrosion education and training. Most engineering and
technical personnel, including managers, have little or no education and
training in corrosion science and engineering. We see here two levels of
corrosion curricula. The first one is for engineering and technical personnel
dealing with designing, fabrication, assembly, operation, monitoring,
inspection and maintenance. The second level is for management personnel.
Our experience shows that usually the problems of corrosion are in the last
place of priorities in all industries.
6. Improper use (or not using) the technical standards and other documentation
in the field of corrosion control and monitoring.
All our efforts should be to overcome the above mentioned mistakes, which will allow
improvement of quality in the stages of design, fabrication, assembly, operation,
monitoring and maintenance of any equipment and structure, and as a result to
minimize corrosion costs and to achieve the planned service life.
Anti-corrosion management program requires collaboration of all services and must
include funding for developing predictive corrosion models, developing corrosion
control methods and implementation of corrosion monitoring techniques.

16
 Conclusions
1. The Chinese Taoist philosopher Lao Tzu who lived more than 2600 years ago, said:
Stop thinking, and end your problems. We saw that human factor was responsible in 65% to
85% of corrosion failures. By the human factor we mean: the absence of awareness and
knowledge, of control and supervision, wrong operation and design, and lack of a wish to
improve the corrosion situation.
2. Human error potential can be managed. The human factor is of paramount
importance in both corrosion events and improving the quality. The scheme of
diminishing the corrosion cost and consequently of increasing quality was suggested.
It is impossible to reduce corrosion cost to zero, because methods of corrosion control
and corrosion monitoring are necessary for preserving quality, but they may be
optimised and cost effective.
3. The investments should be at all stages of anti-corrosion management and quality
improvement, including design, fabrication, operation, monitoring, maintenance,
education, training, research, and policy. Every industry and enterprise should have a
program of anti-corrosion management which will allow improving quality.
4. The corrosion cost of each job, of every failure, and of the implementation of specifications
and standards should be recorded. Any corrosion cost study must include the analysis where
corrosion costs take place, the sizes of these costs, and their predictability.
5. The previous French president George Pompidou said: The problems are not solved. We
live with the problems. We live with old problems of general and pitting corrosion, erosion
cavitation, coatings failure and SCC. We know them well and can avoid if we would
emphasize the role of a human factor and corrosion monitoring methods.
6. Insufficient, or sometimes lack of use of corrosion monitoring methods result in a non-
controlling corrosion situation. Periodical and on-line corrosion monitoring in the overhead of
crude distillation columns and cooling water systems proved its high efficiency. Corrosion
failures diminished drastically in these places. Corrosion monitoring methods are universal as
they can be used in all industries. The main our task is to install corrosion monitoring systems
in all critical places, in order to avoid sudden failures and to reach high reliability, availability
and profitability.

References
1. A Groysman, Corrosion Cases, Their Analysis and Solutions in the Oil
Refinery, Paper No. 335, CORROSION/95, Orlando, USA, 1995, 12 p.
2. A. Groysman, Corrosion Problems and their Solutions in the Refining Industry, The
European Corrosion Congress, Proceedings EUROCORR 2004, Nice, 12 16
September, 2004, 9 p., EFC event No. 266, Book of Abstracts, p. 223.
3. A. Groysman, Corrosion Problems and Their Solutions in the Oil Refining
Industry, Abstracts of the 6th Biannual Conference of the Corrosion Forum
NACE Israel, 13 May 2004, p. 34.
4. FAA Research 1989 2002. Human Factors in Aviation Maintenance and Inspection/
Strategic Program Plan, 1998.
5. R. J. Landrum, Fundamentals of Designing for Corrosion Control, NACE, Houston,
USA, 1989, 352 p.
6. A. Groysman, Anticorrosion Techniques for Aboveground Storage Tanks, Materials
Performance, 44, No. 11, 2005.
7. R. A. White, E. F. Ehmke, Materials Selection for Refineries and Associated
Facilities, NACE, USA, 1991, 183 p.
8. Corrosion, Vol. 13, ASM International, USA, 1996, pp. 1262 1287.

17
9. C.P. Dillon, Corrosion Resistance of Stainless Steels, Marcel Dekker, New York,
1995, 365 p.
10. A. John Sedriks, Corrosion of sainless steels, A Wiley-Interscience Publication John
Wiley & Sons, Inc, New York, 1966, 437 p.
11. Mars G. Fontana, Corrosion Engineering, Third Edition, McGraw-Hill, Inc., New
York, USA, 1986, 555 p.
12. A. Groysman, Corrosion of Aboveground Storage Tanks for Fuels, Materials
Performance, 44, No. 9, 2005, p. 44- 48.
13. A. Groysman, Z. Starosvetzky, MIC of Storage Tank Aluminum Floating
Roofs During Hydrotest, Materials Performance, Vol. 41, No. 4, April, 2002,
p. 50-54.
14. A. Groysman, A. Kaufman, B. Feldman, Y. Man, Cavitation Corrosion in a
Continuous Catalytic Reformer Unit, Materials Performance, Vol. 39, No. 6,
2000, p. 62-66.
15. A. Groysman, Corrosion Monitoring and Control in Refinery Process Unit. Paper No.
512, CORROSION/97, New Orleans, USA, 1997, 25 p.
16. A. Groysman, Corrosion Monitoring in the Oil Refinery, Proceedings of the 13th
International Corrosion Congress, 25-29 November 1996, Melbourne, Australia.
17. A. Groysman, Corrosion Monitoring in the Oil Refinery, International Conference
Corrosion in natural and industrial environments: problems and solutions (Italy),
Paper No. 07, 23-25 May 1995.
18. A. Groysman, N. Brodsky, Corrosion and Quality, Proceedings of the 15th
International Conference of the Israel Society for Quality, November 16-18, 2004,
Jerusalem, Israel, p. 223-230.
19. Ashok Kumar, Larry D. Stephenson and Gary Gerdes, Robert Heidersbach, Corrosion
Related Costs for Military Facilities, Paper No. 04269, NACE Conference
CORROSION 2004, New Orleans, USA, 2004, 13 p.
20. Website: http://www.kwaliteg.co.za, 2004.
21. Meriam Webster On-Line Website, 2004.
22. Corrosion Tests and Standards: Application and Interpretation, Robert Baboian,
Editor, ASTM, USA, 1995, 764 p.
23. ASTM, Vol. 03.02, Wear and Erosion; Metal Corrosion, ASTM, USA, 1996, 609 p.
24. Book of Standards, NACE, USA, 1991.
25. API Recommended Practice 652, Lining of Aboveground Petroleum Storage Tank
Bottoms, 1991, 10 p.
26. ISO 9223, Corrosion of metals and alloys Classification of corrosivity of
atmospheres, 1992, 13 p.
27. ISO 12944-5, Paints and varnishes Corrosion protection of steel structures by
protective paint systems Part 5: Protective paint systems, 1998, 28 p.
28. SP 06-01. Standard for use of coating systems at Oil Refineries, Oil Refineries Ltd.,
Haifa, Israel, 2002, 24 p. (in Hebrew).
29. Vinod S. Agarwala, Control of Corrosion and Service Life, Paper No. 04257, NACE
Conference CORROSION2004, New Orleans, USA, 2004, 19 p.

18