FITNESS FOR PURPOSE ISSUES RELATING TO FBE AND THREE LAYER PE COATINGS

Dr Colin Argent Macaw Engineering Ltd Tyne and Wear, NE28 6UL England

David Norman David Norman Corrosion Control Cornwall, TR8 5SA England

ABSTRACT This paper reviews the development, application and in-service performance of FBE and 3LPE coatings. The main factors affecting the fitness for purpose of a coating are the risk of failure and the modes of failure when the pipeline is in service. Coating failure modes are discussed with particular reference to whether the dominant failure mode will create problems of long term CP shielding and associated corrosion risks. Examples of failures in new 3LPE coatings are discussed. The paper concludes with an overview of representative coating application costs for FBE and 3LPE coatings and the impact of poor application practices on through life inspection costs and integrity management. Keywords: coatings, cathodic protection, degradation, costs

INTRODUCTION The paper discusses coating selection - fitness for purpose with respect to the construction and operating conditions, coating application - essential controls to ensure fitness for purpose, and operation coating failure modes and integrity threats to a pipeline. Each of these issues is comprised of two main components technical and cost. Every decision made on a pipeline, whether driven by cost or technical considerations, will have an impact on the long term integrity of a pipeline. Risk assessment provides a basis for assessing the long term impact of these decisions. WHAT SHOULD A COATING DO? An ideal coating will stop pipeline corrosion. The minimum requirement is that a coating should stop corrosion for the design life of the pipeline but a more realistic objective is that the coating should stop corrosion for as long as the pipeline remains in service. Most pipelines are operated well beyond the original design life. Inevitably coatings get damaged by external forces or by a number of long term degradation processes that affect the constituents of the coating. Typically this results in coating defects that expose the pipe steel to the environment around the pipeline and this corrosion risk can be controlled by cathodic protection. Many coatings also show a loss of adhesion such that water or soil penetrates between the pipe and the coating. Ideally this failure mode should not create new corrosion threats to the pipeline but in many cases it does. For operating pipelines the key coating issues can be resolved into three questions. How is the coating performing? How does the coating impact on monitoring and maintenance costs? When will a coating degrade to the point at which it is no longer sustainable? For new pipelines the problem is simpler. Fore-warned with hindsight, from the experience of others, an operator can select the coating system and application conditions that will guarantee a long, low maintenance life for the pipeline. Experience over the last 10 years suggests that hindsight lacks the 20 20 vision so often claimed for it. New coatings are being applied with inherent problems that will impact on the through life monitoring and maintenance.

COATING APPLICATION Current coating use on high pressure pipelines is dominated by FBE and 3LPE with 3LPP finding increasing use for high temperature applications above the acceptable temperature range for mono-layer FBE or PE. ISO specifications are being developed for these coatings

and excellent specifications have been developed by the CSA (1), and others, for both FBE and for 3LPE. The common baseline standard for FBE stand-alone coating and 3-layer coatings with an FBE first layer requires the following essential stages in the coating application. Phosphoric acid pre-treatment and de-ionised water wash to remove contamination Blast cleaning to an Sa 21/2 finish with an angular profile of >50 micron Chromate pre-treatment to stabilise the surface oxide layer and enhance the wetting of the steel substrate by the FBE. (Chromate pre-treatment is not used in some countries e.g. USA.) Application within the optimum temperature range for wetting and flow of the FBE

The proportionate cost of each of these surface preparation procedures is typically 2 3% of the total applied coating cost and the heating is typically no more than 10%. The major cost in any pipeline coating project will be the coating material which will be ~50% for stand-alone FBE and more than 60% for the FBE, adhesive and PE in a 3LPE coating. Costs will vary from project to project and with plant location but the applied cost of 3LPE coatings are typically ~25% more than stand alone FBE. MCL coatings for field joints typically turn out 5 6% higher than field applied FBE and 3-layer heat shrink materials undercut field applied FBE by ~20%.

FAILURE MODES The ideal coating will provide effective corrosion protection for the design life of the pipeline, and beyond but some coating failure or damage is inevitable. Damage control is probably the major argument used in the comparison of the performance of 3LPE and FBE coatings. FBE requires more careful handling during transportation and construction because the coating is more susceptible to mechanical damage than 3LPE. Coating failure can take a number of forms depending on the root cause. A summary of the causes of coating failure and the resulting failure mode is shown in Figs 1 6. The causes include inappropriate material selection, poor process controls in plant and site application, construction damage and in-service failure, for example from inter-action with the backfill. The universal strategy for external corrosion protection on buried or sub-sea pipelines accepts that coating damage will occur and CP is built into the pipeline design to prevent metal loss at these sites of coating damage. If the failed coating does not impede the flow of CP current onto the pipe steel then normal CP monitoring will ensure continued pipeline integrity. When a PE based coating loses adhesion from the metal substrate then a condition of CP shielding can be created. The corrosion risk created by CP shielding can only be eliminated by excavation and re-coating. Coatings that can fail to create conditions of CP shielding include cold applied tapes, heat shrink materials (particularly mastic backed heat shrink), 2LPE, 3LPE and 3LPP.

Extensive adhesion problems (2) have been seen with 3LPE coatings over the last 10 years so the risk of CP shielding must be assumed to apply to these coatings. Loss of adhesion in these coatings has been attributed to two main causes: Poor standards of surface preparation including surface cleanliness, blast profile and lack of chemical pre-treatments Application of the FBE first layer at a temperature compatible with the second adhesive layer but below the optimum temperature for flow, surface wetting and development of good adhesion.

COATING CP INTERACTION External corrosion control on steel pipelines is achieved by the combined use of a protective coating and cathodic protection. The coating provides the first, and major, defence against corrosion and the cathodic protection serves to prevent pitting or general corrosion where the pipe steel is exposed by damage to the coating. Some degree of coating damage is to be expected on all pipelines, for example due to external interference, so this combined approach to corrosion control is essential. Ineffective Cathodic Protection Ineffective cathodic protection can be caused by the accelerated degradation of a coating such that the total cathodic protection current demand for full protection cannot be met. However, inaccurate monitoring of pipe to soil potentials is a common cause of under protection. Common examples include a failure to correct for the voltage drop error inherent in ON potential measurements and lack of close interval survey data between fixed test points. ISO 15589 (3) provides a guide to industry best practice for monitoring pipeline CP systems. Winski (4) poses an argument for the use of DCVG surveys that states this technique has the capability to size coating defects accurately so that large defects can be repaired in order to reduce the total cathodic protection current demand. It is argued that small defects are protected by the cathodic protection. Intelligent pig inspection data provides information on the size, depth and location of corrosion defects in a pipeline and the deepest pit depth is commonly recorded in small features. Polarisation of exposed pipe steel may vary with defect size because the current distribution will be influenced by the local resistance of the soil coating interface. Common causes for loss of protection due to excess cathodic protection current demand include: Accelerated breakdown of thermoplastic coatings due to high temperature operation above the softening point of the coating Progressive failure of field applied tape due to inadequate overlap and loss of adhesion to the mill applied pipe coating.

Cathodic Protection Shielding Total Cathodic Protection Shielding Total cathodic protection shielding is used here to describe the following pipeline condition: The pipe coating has lost adhesion, and Water has penetrated beneath the coating, and The pipe steel remains at, or near, the free corrosion potential, and The pH and chemistry of the water under the coating is not altered significantly by the cathodic reaction of the applied cathodic protection. Total cathodic protection shielding creates the risk of: Pitting and general corrosion Microbial induced corrosion Near neutral pH SCC Corrosion due to total cathodic protection shielding is most commonly associated with poor field application of tapes and heat shrink materials with a polyolefin based outer layer. It has also been recorded on two layer polyethylene coatings with a butyl rubber primer where the primer suffered progressive degradation with time such that all adhesion between the pipe and the coating was lost. Beavers and Thompson (5) report that coal tar and asphalt thermoplastic coatings, and fusion bonded epoxy powder coatings allow some cathodic protection current to leak through the coating such that total shielding would not normally be expected. However, microbial corrosion has been reported beneath coal tar and bitumen coatings with poor adhesion. A polarised potential of 950 mV is required (3) for the effective control of microbial corrosion so this form of corrosion does not necessarily indicate total cathodic protection shielding. However, microbial activity would be expected to reduce in the high pH environment associated with partial cathodic protection shielding and high pH SCC. A significant level of cathodic protection shielding should therefore be expected with mill applied thermoplastic coatings of ~3+ mm thickness should the coating system lose adhesion to the pipe and lift off the surface to allow water penetration. Near neutral pH SCC has been associated with cathodic protection shielding by tape coatings that have lost adhesion to the pipe and with thermoplastic coatings where the cathodic protection shielding is attributed to high ground resistance where bedrock occurs at pipe depth. Partial Cathodic Protection Shielding Partial cathodic protection shielding is used here to describe the following pipeline condition: A coating that has lost adhesion or developed sufficient porosity to allow water to be present at the pipe surface, and Sufficient cathodic protection current flow to the pipe surface to generate hydroxide and create a high pH carbonate bicarbonate environment within, or beneath the coating, and Sufficient cathodic protection current flow to shift the pipe potential into the range 650 to 850 mV with respect to a copper copper sulphate reference electrode.

Partial cathodic protection shielding contributes to the risk of high pH SCC.

CURRENT COATINGS 3LPE One of the first methods of applying polyethylene (PE) to pipelines was by sintering or fusion of the polymer directly onto the prepared steel substrate. This was followed by the mastic adhesive / PE pipeline protection system (mastic / plastic) that has been used to protect pipe up to 250mm in diameter, and by a two layer system with a hard polymer adhesive. In order to improve the capability of the 2-layer polymer adhesive / PE system a 2-pack liquid epoxy coating was applied between the cleaned and profiled substrate and the polymer adhesive. This 2-pack epoxy coating forms a mechanical bond with both the substrate and the intermediate, adhesive polymer layer. In the early 1980s Mannesmann developed and patented the system of three layer PE pipe coating using FBE instead of 2-pack epoxy as the first layer. By this time FBEs had become established as mono-layer pipeline protective coatings, and it was accepted that an FBE first or primer layer, in a 3-layer polyolefin system, provided better adhesion of the system to the substrate. For many years the thickness of the FBE layer was specified around 75 microns. However, the use of a thicker 1st layer has generally been accepted as a means of achieving better protection. Some projects are now specified with over 200 microns of FBE. In recent years two main types of 2nd, adhesive layer have been applied. Copolymer adhesives have been improved, but grafted adhesives have provided added capability to the 3-layer PE coating systems. A copolymer adhesive will form a mechanical bond with the FBE and PE layers, but a grafted adhesive can chemically react with the FBE and PE layers. In so reacting the strength of the bond is improved. There is now a tendency to specify over 150 microns of FBE, around 200 microns of a grafted copolymer adhesive, and either MDPE or HDPE. The use of HDPE can reduce the required coating thickness. The overall coating thickness will depend on the density of the PE used, diameter of the pipe and the use to which the coated pipe will be put. Generally the thickness is between 1.5mm and 4.2mm. Three layer PE coatings can be operated at around 60 deg.C with LDPE, and 80 deg. C for MDPE/HDPE. As products carried in pipelines became hotter so coatings were required that would not degrade under higher temperature conditions. Three layer PP coatings provided a higher temperature capability than PE coatings. The first three layer PP coatings were applied in the late 1980s. Three layer PP coating systems are very similar to three layer PE systems in their principles of application and protection. Their thickness depends on the diameter of the pipe, the temperature rating etc., but is usually in the range of 1.3 to 3.8 mm. Three layer PP systems can currently be operated at up to 110 deg. C. Reported Degradation Problems with sintered or fused PE have occurred with a lack of adhesion of the PE to the substrate. In some cases the loss of adhesion has been reported as extensive but there have been few reports from operators of significant corrosion beneath the failed coating.

Two layer PE with mastic adhesive have shown problems with the mastic sinking to the bottom of the pipe in warm weather. Early variants of the mastic are reported to have oxidised to a loose, friable powder after 20 30 years service leading to corrosion problems where water penetrated beneath the pipe coating. CP current access beneath the loose coating is prevented by the insulating properties of the polyethylene. Stress cracking has been a problem on lines coated with low density polyethylene (Fig. 1). The cracking tends to initiate from minor chips or scratches in the coating and in extreme cases have been observed to affect a complete pipeline. The most extreme problems are thought to have been caused by an inadequate material specification. Two layer PE coatings with hard adhesive have shown problems with the hard polymer losing adhesion from the substrate, de-lamination of the PE and polymer layers and cracking of the polymer (Fig. 1). Corrosion has been reported where the polymer adhesive has become detached from the substrate and water has penetrated beneath the coating. The loose polyethylene prevents CP current access to the pipe steel (Fig 4). The long term adhesion performance of three layer PE applied over a two pack epoxy primer depends on how well the primer wetted the metal substrate. Severe problems have been found during construction or within a few years of commissioning on modern three layer PE coatings applied over an FBE primer. Loss of adhesion has been reported on a number of new pipelines within 2 years of commissioning (Figs. 2 & 4). The symptoms range from complete delamination at the steel interface with the formation of corrosion products, to reduced adhesion such that the coating can be easily peeled from the un-corroded substrate. These problems have been attributed to poor surface preparation (incorrect blast profile, inadequate removal of surface scales, residual dust, lack of chemical pre-treatments etc.) and incorrect application temperatures (2). Active corrosion beneath an apparently intact coating has also been observed on new pipelines with low density polyethylene three layer coating. The corrosion was attributed to the relatively high oxygen and water permeability of the low density polyethylene. Stress cracking has been reported in new, low density polyethylene coatings with cracks initiating from minor scratches in the outer surface. In some instances the stress cracking has also originated from minor defects within the polyethylene or at the polyethylene adhesive interface. A failure of three layer PP applied over an FBE has been reported prior to the coated pipe being ditched primarily due to inadequate pipe temperatures in the plant during the application of FBE (Fig 4). Schwenk (6) reported effective corrosion control, in extended laboratory tests, beneath sintered PE coatings that had lost adhesion. Material Properties Degradation problems associated with material properties include: Cracking due to UV degradation and embrittlement (Fig 1) Stress cracking (Fig 2) Permeability to water and oxygen

A compromise in PE resin properties is required to achieve the optimum in-service performance and ease processing during the manufacture of the pipe coating. Various grades of PE have been used for pipe coatings and these are classified as low density (LDPE), medium density (MDPE) and high density (HDPE) Low density PE (<0.930 g/cm) has low strength and fluid permeability coupled with poor stress crack resistance and should not be used. The melt viscosity should be sufficiently high (low MFR) to have good melt strength to maintain the extruded shape without distortion as it exits from the die. However too high a viscosity means that it becomes more difficult to extrude, as it requires higher extrusion pressures. Variation in the melt viscosity between batches of PE could create problems in the coating process because the extrusion systems would require modification between batches. It is possible that variation in the melt viscosity has an influence on coating application and residual stress which is the rate determining factor in the development of stress cracks in the field. Stress cracking is created by stress acting on a defect and initiating a crack that grows very slowly. In the early 1970's, the addition of co-monomers into the polymerisation of PE produced co-polymers with densities of approximately 0.940 g/cm but with a very marked increase in stress crack resistance. The copolymer forms short side branches on the main PE molecular chain and this grade has been used for pipe coatings but some applicators have experienced difficulty in manufacturing pipe coating using such a viscous resin. The Polyethylene Notch Test (PENT) test (7) is the preferred test procedure to assess the stress cracking resistance of PE coating polymers.

Pipe coatings must also be resistant to weathering and the damaging effect of the UV radiation in the sun during storage and construction. Antioxidant and UV stabiliser additives are necessary to control this risk. UV exposure can also introduce minute surface crazes and cracks in the coating that could initiate stress cracking. The oxidation induction time (OIT) is a measure of the thermal stability of a polymer and an OIT of at least 10 minutes is required. Coating Application Problems encountered with the application of thermoplastic coatings include the following: Poor surface preparation, including blast profile and surface cleanliness Low application temperature of FBE Residual stress in the polyolefin outer layer Stretching / tenting over the seam weld Poor application of first layer Poor application of the adhesive Use of incorrect grade of polyolefin, particularly PE Improper running of the extruders, including rate of delivery Incorrect tensioning of the adhesive film and of the polyolefin film

Incorrect use of pressure rollers

Most of these problems can be monitored and controlled by the application of a structured quality control (QC) and testing programme in the pipe mill (8).

CURRENT COATINGS - FBE Fusion bonded epoxy powder (FBE) was introduced in the late 1950s, for the coating of small diameter pipe but the FBE performance did not meet the requirements for large diameter, high pressure pipe. Formulators, resin manufacturers and pipeline operators worked together in the 1970s to produce FBEs with acceptable chemistry and protective properties. Subsequently many thousands of kilometres of pipelines have been coated with FBE, particularly in the Middle East, UK, and North America. The achievement of good surface preparation is critical to the success of FBE coatings in protecting pipelines. Hygroscopic salts remaining on the pipe surface, under the FBE coating, can cause blistering and loss of adhesion (Fig 2). In the early 1980s both phosphoric acid cleaning and chromate pre-treatment were introduced to the FBE pipe coating industry. Phosphoric acid, in association with abrasive blast cleaning, cleans the surface of the pipe and removes the majority of contaminants, including hygroscopic / soluble salts. Chromate pretreatment modifies the surface chemistry of the substrate and thus provides a surface to which FBEs have a better adherence. FBE systems can be also applied in the field for the protection of field joints. Whatever the type of FBE being applied the achievement of an excellent degree of surface preparation remains the most important overall factor. Reported Degradation Extensive loss of adhesion has been reported on early examples of FBE coatings applied to large diameter pipelines. In some cases the delamination is accompanied by the formation of a high pH carbonate bicarbonate environment but high pH SCC has not been reported. FBE coatings are susceptible to construction damage, such as impact (Fig 4) and stone damage, and require more care to contain this problem. Incorrect cure may also lead to cracking problems during field bending. Lowered adhesion of coatings at cut-backs has also been experienced, usually due to a cold-end problem in the coating plant. A deterioration in adhesion has been reported on some pipelines (Fig 2) but is now most commonly associated with poor control of the application process. Poor adhesion may be accompanied by flash rusting if the pipe surface is contaminated by residual salt, for example in scale filled laps. Corrosion is not reported to be a problem on lines affected by a reduction in adhesion and this has been attributed, by Beavers, to the fact that FBE coatings allow some CP current to leak through.

Coating Material Since the late 1950s FBE formulations have radically changed. These changes have usually been for the better, giving increased flexibility, increased resistance to mechanical damage and increased cathodic disbonding resistance, and increased temperature resistance. All FBEs have a tendency to absorb moisture and soluble salts relatively easily. There are three processes by which water and salts enter and penetrate the coating film, these are: osmosis, electro-osmosis and electrophoresis. It is therefore extremely important that FBEs are correctly formulated. There have been instances where extra amounts of fillers have been added, to cheapen the product, with disastrous results. If the substrate is not clean corrosion can take place and the FBE film can blister and lose adhesion.

Coating Application Problems encountered with the application of FBE coatings include the following: Poor surface preparation: blast profile Poor surface preparation: residual corrosion products e.g. mill-scale Poor surface preparation: residual salt Poor surface preparation: residual dust Poor surface preparation: lack of chemical pre-treatments Low application temperature and poor flow High application temperature and foaming Excess thickness and foaming Incomplete cure Blistering

Most of these problems can be monitored and controlled by the application of a structured quality control (QC) and testing programme in the pipe mill (8).

THROUGH LIFE COSTS The main problem with constructing a costbenefit argument for any aspect of pipeline construction or operation is that unit costs vary from country to country and from project to project within a country. A single, comprehensive cost base is therefore difficult to establish. For this study the Corrosion Cost Survey carried out by CC Technologies (9) for the US Government has been selected. The cost structure published in this survey has been used to look at costs of coating and operating a 100 km, 610mm diameter pipeline for a design life of forty years.

10

A full cost model is beyond the scope of this paper which is concerned with pipeline coatings so only costs incurred as a direct result of variable coating performance are considered. The unit costs in the corrosion cost survey give a coating application cost for the 100 km pipeline in the range $1.7m - $2.4m. An FBE coating is assumed to lie toward the bottom end of the scale of costs and 3LPE toward the top end. The unit cost of key stages in the surface preparation is estimated to cost between $51,000 and $72,000. These key stages include phosphoric acid wash, chromate pre-treatment and process controls to ensure appropriate surface cleanliness, angularity of the blast profile and the optimum application temperature. Various studies (10) have looked at construction issues relating to FBE and 3LPE coatings and conclude that projected savings, for example on selective or graded backfill, are only achieved in difficult terrain. Construction costs have therefore been excluded. Unit costs for the applied CP scheme are assumed to be $50,000 regardless of coating type. CP specifications (3) do quote lower design currents for 3LPE in comparison FBE but this will not have a major impact on CP system installation costs. In the authors experience the quoted difference in design current (0.9 mA.m-2 for FBE and 0.4 m-2 for 3LPE for a 30 year design life) is not reflected in the actual current demand required in service. CP monitoring, to ISO 155891 (3), is not coating specific so no difference in through life CP monitoring is anticipated. In line inspection is assumed to be a standard requirement and the CC Technology Corrosion Cost survey quoted in line inspection costs as $3,200 5,300 per Km for gas lines and $4,600 - $6,100 per Km for oil lines. A typical through-life in line inspection programme for a modern pipeline will be based on fixed inspection intervals for a pipeline with effective corrosion control and minimal risk of external damage. The net present value of a strategy based on an in line inspection every 10 years is $0.87m for a gas line and $1.06m for an oil line. An alternative strategy based on a post construction base line survey and repeat inspection at 15 year intervals gives a net present value of $0.95m for a gas line and $1.17m for an oil line. These values have been calculated assuming a 3 % annual depreciation. A typical inspection strategy for a new pipeline with a 3LPE coating showing adhesion problems is more intensive and includes excavations to investigate coating condition in the early years and an initial in line inspection programme at 5 year intervals to monitor risks of CP shielding. Assuming that CP shielding is not a problem, and that a 10 year inspection schedule is possible after 15 years, the net present cost of the through life inspection programme is $1.65m for a gas line and $2.03m for an oil line. If corrosion due to CP shielding is assumed the through life costs increase from repairs to the pipe and selective excavation and re-coating to eliminate the CP shielding problem. On this basis a compromise in the process controls and surface preparation in the pipe coating mill may show a short term benefit but create the risk of significantly greater through life monitoring, inspection and maintenance costs.

11

CONCLUSIONS Modern pipeline coatings such as FBE and 3LPE have shown progressive development since their introduction but the long term performance of these coatings is being undermined by compromises during coating application. This problem is particularly severe for 3LPE coatings. A compromise on the factors that control long term coating adhesion will show some saving in coating application costs. These factors include phosphoric acid washing, chromate pretreatments, blast cleaning and complying with the optimum application temperature for FBE. However, the resulting reduction in long term coating adhesion incurs through life monitoring, inspection and maintenance costs that far outweigh any transient saving achieved in the coating plant.

REFERENCES

1.

CSA Standard Z245.20-02 External Fusion Bond Epoxy Coating for Steel Pipe and External Polyethylene Coating for Pipe. Norman D, Excellent pipeline coatings require excellent pipeline substrates NACE Corrosion 2004, Paper 04035 ISO 15589-1 Petroleum and natural gas industries Cathodic protection of pipeline transportation systems. Part 1 Onshore pipelines

2.

3.

4.

Winski J, Epicenter pipe-to-soil potentials measured without trailing cable. Pipeline and Gas Industry, V84, No6, June 2001 Beavers J A, Thompson N G, Corrosion beneath disbanded coatings: A review. NACE Corrosion 96, Paper 208 Schwenk W, Investigation of corrosion of steel pipe beneath PE coatings without without adhesion. 3R International 28 (6) 1989 pages 381-384 ASTM, F1473-01e1 Standard Test Method for Notch Tensile Test to Measure the Slow Crack Growth of Polyethylene Pipes and Resins Norman D, Are we protecting our assets? BHR Pipeline Protection, Aachen, Oct 2003 Koch G H, Brongers M P H, Thompson N G, Virmani Y P, Payer J H Corrosion cost and preventative strategies in the USA, Sept 2001

5.

6.

7.

8. 9.

12

C C Technologies 10. Thompson I, Espiner R, Barnett J, Coating backfill interactions on high pressure transmission pipelines technical and financial issues. NACE Corrosion 2003 Paper 03046

13

Figure 1: Coating failures resulting from unsuitable material properties

14

Figure 2: Coating failures resulting from problems during application in the coating plant

15

Figure 3: Coating failures resulting from problems during site application

16

Figure 4: Coating failures resulting from inter-action with the backfill

17

Figure 5: Coating failures resulting from problems during construction

18

Figure 6: Coating failures caused by loss of adhesion in service

19