You are on page 1of 62

Copyrighted material licensed to Luis Eduardo Cabrera on 2018-01-17 for licensee's use only.

NACE SP0116-2016
Item No. 21402

Standard Practice

Multiphase Flow Internal Corrosion Direct


Assessment (MP-ICDA) Methodology for Pipelines
This NACE International standard represents a consensus of those individual members who have
reviewed this document, its scope, and provisions. Its acceptance does not in any respect
preclude anyone, whether he or she has adopted the standard or not, from manufacturing,
marketing, purchasing, or using products, processes, or procedures not in conformance with this
standard. Nothing contained in this NACE International standard is to be construed as granting any

No further reproduction or networking is permitted.


right, by implication or otherwise, to manufacture, sell, or use in connection with any method,
apparatus, or product covered by Letters Patent, or as indemnifying or protecting anyone against
liability for infringement of Letters Patent. This standard represents minimum requirements and
should in no way be interpreted as a restriction on the use of better procedures or materials.
Neither is this standard intended to apply in all cases relating to the subject. Unpredictable
circumstances may negate the usefulness of this standard in specific instances. NACE
International assumes no responsibility for the interpretation or use of this standard by other parties
and accepts responsibility for only those official NACE International interpretations issued by NACE
International in accordance with its governing procedures and policies which preclude the issuance
of interpretations by individual volunteers.

Users of this NACE International standard are responsible for reviewing appropriate health, safety,
environmental, and regulatory documents and for determining their applicability in relation to this
standard prior to its use. This NACE International standard may not necessarily address all
potential health and safety problems or environmental hazards associated with the use of
materials, equipment, and/or operations detailed or referred to within this standard. Users of this

Distributed by Clarivate Analytics (US) LLC, www.techstreet.com.


NACE International standard are also responsible for establishing appropriate health, safety, and
environmental protection practices, in consultation with appropriate regulatory authorities if
necessary, to achieve compliance with any existing applicable regulatory requirements prior to the
use of this standard.

CAUTIONARY NOTICE: NACE International standards are subject to periodic review, and may be
revised or withdrawn at any time in accordance with NACE technical committee procedures. NACE
International requires that action be taken to reaffirm, revise, or withdraw this standard no later than
five years from the date of initial publication. The user is cautioned to obtain the latest edition.
Purchasers of NACE International standards may receive current information on all standards and
other NACE International publications by contacting the NACE International FirstService
Department, 15835 Park Ten Place, Houston, Texas 77084-5145 (telephone +1 281-228-6200).

Approved 2016-02-12
NACE International
15835 Park Ten Place
Houston, Texas 77084-5415
+1 (281) 228-6200

ISBN 1-57590-333-4
© 2015, NACE International
Copyrighted material licensed to Luis Eduardo Cabrera on 2018-01-17 for licensee's use only. No further reproduction or networking is permitted. Distributed by Clarivate Analytics (US) LLC, www.techstreet.com.
Copyrighted material licensed to Luis Eduardo Cabrera on 2018-01-17 for licensee's use only.
___________________________________________________________

Foreword

This standard practice outlines a methodology to assess pipeline integrity because of the threat
internal corrosion in onshore and offshore pipelines and other piping systems that normally carry
multiphase fluids (gas, water, and oil) termed multiphase flow internal corrosion direct assessment
(MP-ICDA). Liquid separators (drips), compressing stations, vessels, and other equipment not
related to pipelines are not included in this standard. This standard applies to pipelines, both
onshore and offshore, containing carbon dioxide (CO2), hydrogen sulfide (H2S), oxygen (O2), and
other corrosive species. Additionally, this standard applies to pipelines that continuously contain a
liquid phase (water and condensate and/or oil and/or petroleum compounds), a possible solids
content of various mineral scales, biofilms, or corrosion product compounds, and a continuous gas
phase with fluid conditions that are not specifically covered by NACE SP01101 for wet gas internal
corrosion direct assessment (WG-ICDA). Additionally, solids may be included as a phase by itself
and may also be included in multiphase flow analysis of fluid streams. This standard is intended for
use by pipeline operators, oil/gas producers (upstream), and other pipeline industry individuals who
manage pipeline integrity (both onshore and offshore) for pipelines that are normally under

No further reproduction or networking is permitted.


multiphase loading conditions and are outside the scope of NACE SP0110,1 NACE SP0206,2 and
NACE SP0208.3

The MP-ICDA methodology has been developed to meet the needs of pipeline operators and
producers to assess the integrity of pipelines with respect to the internal corrosion threats posed by
the fluids. MP-ICDA is a structured process that combines pre-assessment, indirect inspections,
detailed examination, and post-assessment to evaluate the impact of predictable pipeline integrity
threats such as internal corrosion. Specifically, the goal of MP-ICDA is to identify locations with the
greatest likelihood of internal corrosion and its influencing factors, such as water content, flow
regime, liquid hold-up, flow velocities, temperature and pressure changes. These locations are
exposed and examined in accordance with criteria established in Section 4. The results of these
examinations are used as a basis for assessing the condition and integrity of the remaining pipeline
segments (those with less likelihood of corrosion). Direct assessment (DA) does not depend on the
ability of a pipeline to undergo in-line inspection (ILI) by smart-pigging or pressure testing, making it
most valuable to those pipelines unable to accept pigs or those that cannot be hydrostatically

Distributed by Clarivate Analytics (US) LLC, www.techstreet.com.


pressure tested. This standard is intended to provide an integrity assessment methodology for
internal corrosion for pipelines where ILI cannot be performed; however, the MP-ICDA
methodology may also serve, complement, or assist in those cases in which ILI was conducted or
is contemplated to demonstrate the reliability of the ICDA process. It can also be used for
optimizing the selection/justification, inspection frequency, or prioritization of pipelines that are
subjected to ILI.

In multiphase flow systems, subregions of a pipeline that is identified within a region that are more
susceptible to internal corrosion depend on the flow pattern that are defined by flow velocities,
sudden changes of geometries, changes in elevation caused by the topography of the terrain,
sharp elbows, expansions, changes in internal diameter and other changes that may influence the
hydrodynamics of the flow. Multiphase flow and flow regimes can be determined by the use of flow
models that have a hydrocarbon phase envelope (water and hydrocarbon), and the interaction
between the gas and liquid phase, and allow the prediction under flowing conditions that shows
local temperature, pressure, and fluid composition for a pipeline. Depending on the flow (i.e.,
velocity, gas/liquid quality, temperature, pressure, wall surface conditions, etc.), and specific
operating conditions, the effects of flow regimes are considered. Flow regimes and flow
hydrodynamic characteristics influence the threat of internal corrosion, and thus affect pipeline
integrity.

i NACE International
Copyrighted material licensed to Luis Eduardo Cabrera on 2018-01-17 for licensee's use only.
SP0116-2016

The goal of MP-ICDA is to identify confirmatory or most probable locations (MPLs) along a pipeline
subregion for determination of direct assessment sites. These sites are where internal corrosion
damage has been identified by means of integrating available historical information in combination
with the use of flow models to determine flow regimes and internal corrosion prediction models
(ICPMs) that a company deems appropriate for its specific application to predict or calculate
internal corrosion rates. The focus is the identification of conditions along the length of a pipeline
region so that local subregion integrity threats with respect to internal corrosion are identified for
prioritized damage assessment, repair, and mitigation. MP-ICDA emphasizes the identification of
damage distribution on corrosion areas inside pipelines, and the corrosion rate prediction models
can fit into the overall process by serving as tools to predict the corrosion rate at these locations
and the estimation of wall losses within one flow pattern (e.g., stratified, slugging, annular, or mist)
within a specific pipe region and/or subregion.

This standard was prepared by Task Group (TG) 426, “Internal Corrosion Direct Assessment for
Multiphase Flow Pipelines.” TG 426 is administered by Specific Technology Group (STG) 35,
“Pipelines, Tanks, and Well Casings.” This standard is issued by NACE International under the
auspices of STG 35.

No further reproduction or networking is permitted.


In NACE standards, the terms shall, must, should, and may are used in accordance with the
definitions of these terms in the NACE Publications Style Manual. The terms shall and must are used
to state a requirement, and are considered mandatory. The term should is used to state something
good and is recommended, but is not considered mandatory. The term may is used to state
something considered optional.

Distributed by Clarivate Analytics (US) LLC, www.techstreet.com.

NACE International ii
Copyrighted material licensed to Luis Eduardo Cabrera on 2018-01-17 for licensee's use only.
SP0116-2016

___________________________________________________________

NACE International
Standard Practice
Multiphase Flow Internal Corrosion Direct Assessment
(MP-ICDA) Methodology for Pipelines
Contents

1. General .......................................................................................................................... 1
2. Definitions ...................................................................................................................... 7
3. MP-ICDA Step 1—Pre-Assessment ............................................................................ 10
4. MP-ICDA Step 2—Indirect Inspection ......................................................................... 16
5. MP-ICDA Step 3—Detailed Examination .................................................................... 23
6. MP-ICDA Step 4—Post-assessment .......................................................................... 26
7. MP-ICDA Records ....................................................................................................... 27

No further reproduction or networking is permitted.


References ........................................................................................................................ 28
Appendix A: Influencing Factors on Corrosion Severity
(Nonmandatory) ............................................................................................................... 35
Appendix B: Corrosion Rate Models
(Nonmandatory) ............................................................................................................... 44
Appendix C: Examples of Region, Subregion, and Assessment Site Selection
(Mandatory)……………………………………………………………………………………….47
TABLES
Table 1: Minimum Data for Use of MP-ICDA Methodology…………………………………..12
Table 2: Minimum Number of Pipeline MP-ICDA Assessments……………………………..23
Table 3: Final Selection Criteria
Table C1: Hypothetical Case to Show Assessment Site Candidate Selection. For this
Case the ICPM does not Comply with Paragraph 4.5.4.4 ........................................ …. ..55

Distributed by Clarivate Analytics (US) LLC, www.techstreet.com.


Table C2: Final Assessment Site Selection for Hypothetical Example. ............................ 63
FIGURES
Figure 1: Pre-Assessment Step………………………………………………………………....4
Figure 2: Indirect Inspection Step……………………………………………………………….5
Figure 3: Detailed Examination Step…………………………………………………………...6
Figure 4: Post Assessment Step ……………………………………………………………….7
Figure 5: Indirect Inspection Approaches for Predicting Corrosion Rates………………...17
Figure C1: Region Identification for an Idealized Example………………..…………..……48
Figure C2: Region Identification per Paragraph 3.5.1…………………………….….……..49
Figure C3: Region Identification per Paragraph 3.5.3………………………………….……50
Figure C4: Example of a Flow Pattern Map…………………………………………….…… 51
Figure C5: Subregion Identification Example ……………………………………….……….52
___________________________________________________________

iii NACE International


Copyrighted material licensed to Luis Eduardo Cabrera on 2018-01-17 for licensee's use only. No further reproduction or networking is permitted. Distributed by Clarivate Analytics (US) LLC, www.techstreet.com.
Copyrighted material licensed to Luis Eduardo Cabrera on 2018-01-17 for licensee's use only.
SP0116-2016

___________________________________________________________
Section 1: General

1.1 Introduction

1.1.1 This standard describes the NACE International internal corrosion direct assessment (ICDA) process for
multiphase flow pipeline systems. It is intended to serve as a guide for applying the MP-ICDA process on
multiphase flow pipeline systems that meet the feasibility requirements described in Paragraph 3.3.

1.1.2 The three primary purposes of the MP-ICDA method are to assess the integrity of a pipeline because of
internal corrosion in multiphase flow pipelines, to identify the locations where pipeline integrity may be
compromised, and determine the frequency of pipeline integrity assessment.

1.1.3 The MP-ICDA method assesses how the internal corrosion severity is distributed along the
subregion. The methodology includes methods of examination available to a pipeline operator/producer to
determine the occurrence, extent, and severity of internal corrosion.

1.1.4 MP-ICDA also provides a framework for the use of multiphase flow modeling results (e.g., flow
velocities, temperature and pressure profiles, liquid hold-up, and flow patterns) in understanding the

No further reproduction or networking is permitted.


hydrodynamics of the flow along this pipeline segment and aids in understanding how these variables can
affect internal corrosion.

1.1.5 MP-ICDA was developed for onshore and offshore multiphase flow pipelines that transport a
combination of gas, water, solids, and/or crude oil or hydrocarbon liquids as part of normal operations. MP-
ICDA is applicable to pipelines that transport multiphase flows including, but not limited to: gathering,
producing pipelines, well lines, and flow lines. The basis of MP-ICDA is for pipelines, and consists of
following the four types of the direct assessment methodology: pre-assessment, indirect inspection, detailed
examination of selected locations, and post assessment.

1.1.6 One benefit of the MP-ICDA approach is that an assessment can be performed on a pipe segment for
which alternative methods (e.g., ILI, hydrostatic testing, etc.) may be impractical.

1.1.7 MP-ICDA does have limitations, and not all pipelines can be successfully assessed using this method.

Distributed by Clarivate Analytics (US) LLC, www.techstreet.com.


These limitations are dependent on the specifics of each pipeline system and shall be identified in the pre-
assessment step.

1.1.8 The provisions of this standard shall be applied by or under the direction of verifiably competent
persons who, by reason of knowledge of the physical sciences and the principles of engineering and
mathematics, acquired by education or related practical experience, are qualified to engage in the practice of
corrosion control and corrosion risk-based assessment on multiphase pipeline systems. Such persons may
be registered professional engineers with verifiable experience in internal corrosion for pipelines, certified as
corrosion specialists or internal corrosion specialists by organizations such as NACE International, or
professionals (e.g., scientists, engineers, or technologists) with professional experience including
detection/mitigation and evaluation of internal corrosion in pipelines.

1.1.9 For accurate and correct application of this standard, all four steps shall be performed. Using or
referring only to specific paragraphs or sections may lead to misinterpretation or misapplication of this
standard.

1.1.10 In the process of applying MP-ICDA, while performing the detailed examination, other pipeline integrity
threats such as external corrosion, mechanical damage, stress corrosion cracking (SCC), etc. may also be
detected. When such threats are detected, additional detailed examination or inspections must be performed
to ensure that pipeline integrity is not compromised, regardless of mechanism. This may require an external
corrosion direct assessment (ECDA) or a stress corrosion cracking direct assessment (SCCDA).

1 NACE International
Copyrighted material licensed to Luis Eduardo Cabrera on 2018-01-17 for licensee's use only.
SP0116-2016

1.1.11 This standard does not address specific remedial actions to be taken when corrosion is found.
Individual companies have pipeline operating and maintenance manuals (or equivalent), which should cover
such repair practices in compliance with local jurisdictional regulations. The pipeline operator/producer
should use appropriate methods to address threats other than internal corrosion, such as those described in
ASME(1)B31.8,4 ASME B31.8S5, ASME B31.46, API(2) 1160,7 ANSI(3)/API 579,8 CSA(4)Z-662,9 BS(5) 7910,10
ASME B31G,11 RSTRENG,12 NACE standards, international standards, and other documents.

1.2 Four-Step Process

1.2.1 MP-ICDA requires the meticulous validation of data and its subsequent integration from the pipeline’s
physical characteristics, current and historical operating conditions, multiple field examinations, and
inspections to determine the remaining thickness of the pipeline wall.

1.2.2 MP-ICDA includes the following four steps, as shown in Figures 1-4. Numbers in the figures refer to
paragraph numbers in this standard. Details of each step are described in Sections 3-6, respectively.

1.2.2.1 Pre-assessment: The pre-assessment step collects and organizes all existing historic and current
operating data about the pipeline segments, regions, and subregions relevant to assessment of internal

No further reproduction or networking is permitted.


corrosion. This includes determining whether MP-ICDA is feasible. This step includes determination of
regions along a pipeline based on input, withdrawal, and other parameters described in Paragraph 3.4.1.
The types of data collected are typically available in design and construction records (e.g., topography,
grade, routes, material, design pressures, temperatures, flow rates, and microstructures), operating and
maintenance histories, alignment sheets, corrosion survey records, gas and liquid analysis reports, and
inspection reports from prior integrity evaluations and/or maintenance actions. This data must be
validated.

1.2.2.2 Indirect Inspection: The indirect inspection step covers techniques used for the prediction and
prioritization of the internal corrosion threat at different locations along a pipeline segment undergoing
direct assessment (at assessment sites). This step also defines the subregions (as a function of flow
regimes) through multiphase flow modeling, determines corrosion rates within subregions, and
determines the various assessment sites based on the calculated corrosion rates converted to wall loss

Distributed by Clarivate Analytics (US) LLC, www.techstreet.com.


percentages and the specific flow pattern developed within these subregions. Calculations are performed
using different flow models to determine flow hydrodynamics including flow regimes. Corrosion rate
models are used to theoretically estimate corrosion rates. The integrated results of both flow and internal
corrosion rate models are analyzed and used to select the MPLs along a pipeline region for susceptibility
to internal corrosion, which then may be defined as assessment sites.

1.2.2.2.1 The objective of MP-ICDA indirect inspection is the identification of the factors controlled by
flow dynamics, factors influencing corrosion severity (see Appendix A [Nonmandatory]), factors
affecting or controlling corrosion mitigation, upsets, and other corrosion damage-influencing factors.

1.2.2.2.2 This standard covers internal corrosion related to the transportation of multiphase fluids
containing carbon dioxide (CO2), hydrogen sulfide (H2S), oxygen (O2), and/or other corrosive species
together with:

 Liquid water containing corrosive species that are typically found in produced or condensed
waters associated with multiphase fluid production and transportation.
 Microorganisms that can influence corrosion.
 Solids deposits, such as sand, iron sulfide, iron carbonate, or scale.
 Hydrocarbon liquids.

(1) American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Two Park Ave., New York, N.Y 10016-5900.
(2)American Petroleum Institute (API), 1220 L St. NW, Washington, DC 20005-4070.
(3) American National Standards Institute (ANSI), 1899 L Street, NW, 11th Floor, Washington, DC, 20036.
(4) Canadian Standards Association (CSA), 5060 Spectrum Way, Suite 100, Mississauga, Ontario L4W 5N6, Canada.
(5) British Standard Institute (BSI) 389 Chiswick High Road, London, W4 4AL, England.

NACE International 2
Copyrighted material licensed to Luis Eduardo Cabrera on 2018-01-17 for licensee's use only.
SP0116-2016

1.2.2.3 Detailed Examination: The detailed examination step includes direct inspection of assessment
sites predicted to have the highest severity of corrosion as represented in Section 5. The pipe
examination must have sufficient detail to determine the existence, extent, and severity of corrosion.
Examination of the internal surface of a pipe can involve nondestructive examination (NDE) methods
sufficient to identify and characterize internal defects or wall losses. Inspection data is incorporated with
the indirect examination results to help reprioritize assessment sites. Various methods may be used to
incorporate inspection information, e.g., long-range ultrasonic thickness (LRUT) or guided wave
technology (GWT), automated ultrasonic (AUT), manual ultrasonic (UT), etc., for detailed examination.

1.2.2.4 Post-assessment: The post-assessment step is an analysis of data collected in the previous three
steps to validate and assess the effectiveness of the MP-ICDA process, and determine the reassessment
interval.

1.2.2.5 Post Assessment results may also help in the documentation to activate and prioritize mitigation,
control, and maintenance strategies (including the installation of internal corrosion monitoring devices).
Description and how to implement mitigation and maintenance strategies is outside the scope of this
standard.

No further reproduction or networking is permitted.


Distributed by Clarivate Analytics (US) LLC, www.techstreet.com.

3 NACE International
Copyrighted material licensed to Luis Eduardo Cabrera on 2018-01-17 for licensee's use only. No further reproduction or networking is permitted. Distributed by Clarivate Analytics (US) LLC, www.techstreet.com.

4
SP0116-2016

Figure 1: Pre-Assessment Step.

NACE International
Copyrighted material licensed to Luis Eduardo Cabrera on 2018-01-17 for licensee's use only. No further reproduction or networking is permitted. Distributed by Clarivate Analytics (US) LLC, www.techstreet.com.

NACE International



Figure 2: Indirect Inspection Step.


SP0116-2016

5
Copyrighted material licensed to Luis Eduardo Cabrera on 2018-01-17 for licensee's use only. No further reproduction or networking is permitted. Distributed by Clarivate Analytics (US) LLC, www.techstreet.com.

6
SP0116-2016

Figure 3: Detailed Examination Step.

NACE International
Copyrighted material licensed to Luis Eduardo Cabrera on 2018-01-17 for licensee's use only.
SP0116-2016

No further reproduction or networking is permitted.


Distributed by Clarivate Analytics (US) LLC, www.techstreet.com.
Figure 4: Post Assessment Step.
_______________________________________________________
Section 2: Definitions

Annular Flow: A multiphase flow regime in which fluids are separated into concentric layers, with heavier (i.e.,
more dense) fluids flowing in an annular pattern near the pipe wall and less dense fluids flowing through the
center.

Annular/Mist Flow: A multiphase flow pattern condition under which the liquid phase is being distributed and
carried in the gas phase in the form of liquid droplets, or vice versa. In many instances, it also forms an annular
area composed of a liquid phase.

Anomalies: See Indication.

Assessment Site: Location within a subregion that is to be exposed for detailed examination after the process of
internal corrosion evaluation has been performed and represents the distribution of the internal corrosion wall loss
based on the MP-ICDA analysis.

7 NACE International
Copyrighted material licensed to Luis Eduardo Cabrera on 2018-01-17 for licensee's use only.
SP0116-2016
Automated Ultrasonic Thickness (AUT): An automated technique that uses ultrasound to measure the wall
thickness of steel elements, pipelines, vessels, tanks, etc.

Cleaning Pig: A device inserted in a pipeline for the purpose of dislodging and removing accumulated
corrodents, such as solids or water.

Corrosion: The deterioration of a material, usually a metal, that results from a chemical or electrochemical
reaction with its environment.

Corrosion Mechanism: Refers to the electrochemical or chemical reactions that occur during a corrosion
process.

Corrosion Severity: The propensity of an environment (e.g. fluid, soil) to be corrosive, which depends primarily
on pH, dissolved oxygen, CO2 and/or H2S, and other influencing factors such as product quality, liquid chemistry,
pressure, and temperature as described in Appendix A.

Coupon: A portion of a material or sample, usually flat, but occasionally curved or cylindrical, from which one or
more specimens can be taken for testing. After cleaning, they are examined. The change in weight over the
exposure period provides a general corrosion rate. By measuring the depth of individual pits, a pitting corrosion
rate can be determined. Specialized analyses can be undertaken to better define corrosion mechanisms.

No further reproduction or networking is permitted.


Detailed Examination: The examination of the pipeline wall at a specific location to determine whether metal loss
from internal corrosion has occurred. This is performed using any industry-accepted technology, such as visual,
ultrasonic, radiographic means, etc.

Direct Assessment: A structured process that combines pre-assessment, indirect inspection, detailed
examination, and post-assessment steps to evaluate the impact of predictable pipeline integrity threats, such as
internal corrosion.

Electrical Resistance Probe (ERP): A method for monitoring corrosion based on the change of electrical
resistance over time of an element exposed to a sweet corrosive environment.

Electrochemical Noise Probes (ENP): The ECN technique measures the naturally occurring fluctuations (noise)
in the potential and/or current generated by the corrosion at the metal (electrode)-electrolyte interface (i.e.,

Distributed by Clarivate Analytics (US) LLC, www.techstreet.com.


without any external influence) and therefore estimating corrosion rates.

Flow Pattern/Regime: The distribution of the gas phase and the liquid phase as they flow through the pipeline
and are dependent on both superficial gas and liquid velocities.

Fluid: A substance that continually deforms (flows) under an applied shear stress. Both liquids and gases are
fluids.

Gas Liquid Ratio: The ratio of gas flow rate to the liquid (water + hydrocarbon) flow rate, m3/m3 (ft3/barrel) at
standard conditions.

Gathering System: The pipeline network that transports oil, gas, or multiphase fluid (gas/oil/water) from the
wells, field manifolds, or any other field facility with a pipeline containing two- or multiphase flow to a flow station,
main storage facility, processing plant, or shipping point.

High-Priority Assessment Site: Assessment sites are qualified as high priorities after a SME study, i.e., if an
assessment site in a subregion is also within a high-consequence area, then it can become a high priority
assessment site.
Hydrostatic Testing: The testing of sections of a pipeline performed by filling the pipeline with water and
pressurizing it until the nominal hoop stresses in the pipeline reach a specified value.

Internal Corrosion Predictive Modeling (ICPM): Engineering and mathematical correlations integrating both
flow modeling and corrosion rate modeling to predict corrosion rates and may include variables such as flow,
superficial liquid velocity (VSL) and superficial gas velocity (VSG), topography, content of CO2 and H2S, pressures,
temperatures, liquid hold-up, and pH. Appendix B (Nonmandatory) shows a list of internal pipeline corrosion rate

NACE International 8
Copyrighted material licensed to Luis Eduardo Cabrera on 2018-01-17 for licensee's use only.
SP0116-2016
prediction models. Results from flow modeling tools can be used as inputs for those corrosion rate models that
do not have the flow modeling subroutine built into their algorithms.

Indication: Any measured deviation from the normal pipeline wall thickness (corrected for mill tolerance).

Indirect Inspection: The use of tools, methods, or procedures to evaluate a pipeline through the use of
flow/corrosion models. MP-ICDA consists of performing flow and corrosion rate modeling techniques and using
the results to select locations along a pipeline subregion for assessment sites.

In-Line Inspection (ILI): The inspection of a pipeline from the interior of the pipe using an instrumented tool. The
tools used to conduct ILI are known as smart or intelligent pigs or scrappers.

Internal Corrosion Direct Assessment (ICDA): A structured four step process to assess the integrity of a
pipeline because of internal corrosion.

Linear Polarization Resistance Probe (LPRP): A method to measure corrosion rates using two or three
electrodes isolated from each other; once they are exposed to the pipeline environment, measurements are
performed.

Liquid: A substance that tends to maintain a fixed volume but not a fixed shape.

No further reproduction or networking is permitted.


Liquid Hold-up (HL): A physical condition found within two flows or multiphase flows. It is estimated with two-
phase or multiphase flow modeling correlations, and is dependent on variables such as superficial gas and liquid
velocities, liquid and gas densities, pipeline diameter, pipeline inclination angle, etc. The hold-up value
represents the accumulation of liquid remaining within a pipeline segment at certain conditions (i.e., input liquid
volume is greater than output liquid volume), with units of absolute liters (absolute barrels).

Microbiologically Influenced Corrosion (MIC): Corrosion affected by the presence or activity, or both, of
microorganisms.

Mitigation: Activities taken to reduce the internal corrosion severity inside a pipeline. For the purposes of this
standard, the objectives are to (1) determine the effectiveness of mitigation measures on the internal corrosion
threat to establish a priority in selecting candidates for the ICDA process, (2) correlate the mitigation technique
data from a detailed examination (i.e., inspection, cut out, etc.) to the history of operations and mitigation, and (3)

Distributed by Clarivate Analytics (US) LLC, www.techstreet.com.


results may also help in proper documentation to activate and prioritize mitigation, control, and maintenance
strategies (including the installation of internal corrosion monitoring devices). Description and how to implement
the mitigation and maintenance strategies is outside the scope of this standard.

Mixture Velocity (VM): The sum of both superficial gas and liquid velocities (VSG + VSL).

Multiphase Flow Internal Corrosion Direct Assessment (MP-ICDA): A process as defined in this standard
practice that is applicable to multiphase flow systems.

Natural Gas: A naturally occurring mixture of hydrocarbon gases. Methane [CH 4] is the main constituent of most
natural gas with lesser amounts of ethane [C2H6], propane [C3H8], butane [C4H10] and pentane [C5H12]. Impurities
can also be present, including carbon dioxide, nitrogen, and hydrogen sulfide.

NORM: Naturally occurring radioactive materials. Consist of materials, usually industrial wastes or by-products
enriched with radioactive elements found in the environment, such as uranium, thorium, potassium and
barium and any of their decay products, such as radium and radon.

Pigging: See In-Line Inspection or Cleaning Pig.

Region: A continuous length of pipeline determined by input, withdrawal, processing, and other characteristics
within a pipeline segment or network. The cumulative number of subregions in a pipeline with a common input
and discharge locations make up or constitute a region (see Appendix C [Mandatory]).

Radiographic Testing: A nondestructive examination (NDE) inspection method to evaluate the condition of
pipeline walls.

9 NACE International
Copyrighted material licensed to Luis Eduardo Cabrera on 2018-01-17 for licensee's use only.
SP0116-2016

SARA Analysis: An analysis performed on the crude oil that defines the amount of saturates, aromatics, resins,
and asphaltenes. From this analysis, the colloidal instability index can be estimated and therefore, the tendency
for asphaltenes to precipitate.

Segment: A portion of a pipeline that is assessed using MP-ICDA. A segment may consist of one or more MP-
ICDA regions.

Subregion: A MP-ICDA subregion is a continuous length of pipeline (including weld joints) that is limited by
changes with respect to flow patterns and/or elevation changes performed after Step 2 (see Appendix C).

Slug Flow: A multiphase fluid flow regime characterized by a series of liquid plugs (slugs) separated by relatively
large gas pockets.

Subject Matter Expert (SME): A professional (usually, but not limited to, a professional engineer) with
documented and sufficient experience or engineering knowledge to perform an activity within a specific subject in
a professional manner and whose actions and work conduct are expected to be acceptable to external scrutiny.
NACE International corrosion certification, although not mandatory, is desirable.

Stratified Flow: A multiphase flow regime in which fluids are separated into distinct strata or layers, with lighter
fluids flowing above heavier (i.e., higher density) fluids.

No further reproduction or networking is permitted.


Superficial Gas Velocity (VSG): The volumetric flow rate of gas (at system temperature and pressure) divided by
the cross-sectional flow area of the pipe.

Superficial Liquid Velocity (VSL): The volumetric flow rate of liquid (water or water plus hydrocarbons) at system
temperature and pressure divided by the cross-sectional flow area of the pipe.

Underdeposit Corrosion (UDC): A form of corrosion that occurs around or under a deposit on metals.

Upset: For the purposes of this standard, this is a situation in which the pipeline operation differs from normal or
steady state; it occurs over relatively short time duration. This change may be caused by design or accidents.
Upsets can result in a change of flow, change of fluid chemistry, and change of pipeline surface condition. These
can all potentially influence internal pipeline corrosion. Upsets occur mainly during start-up (commissioning),

Distributed by Clarivate Analytics (US) LLC, www.techstreet.com.


temporary shutdowns, restart, or a plant turnaround. In contrast to normal operations, these processes result in a
more dramatic change of the operation.

Ultrasonic Thickness Measurements (UT): Techniques using ultrasound to measure the wall thickness of steel
elements, pipelines, vessels, tanks, etc.

___________________________________________________________

Section 3: MP-ICDA Step 1—Pre-Assessment


3.1 Introduction

3.1.1 The objectives of the pre-assessment step are:

3.1.1.1 To collect information related to a pipeline, a terrain, and handled fluids (see Table 1).

3.1.1.2 To determine whether MP-ICDA is feasible for the pipeline being evaluated.

3.1.1.3 To identify MP-ICDA regions.

3.1.1.4 To identify the number of cumulative historical flows that have had unique operating conditions at
different time intervals over the service life of the pipeline. The more historical flows, the more the
modeling influences activities that may be required.

NACE International 10
Copyrighted material licensed to Luis Eduardo Cabrera on 2018-01-17 for licensee's use only.
SP0116-2016
3.1.2 The pre-assessment step must be performed in a comprehensive and thorough manner. Process
quality assurance is essential at this stage to ensure valid data is being used.

3.2 Data Collection

3.2.1 The pipeline operator/producer shall collect the minimum historical (i.e., throughout the life of the
pipeline) and current data as posted in Table 1, along with physical information for each segment evaluated.

3.2.1.1 The pipeline operator/producer shall define minimum data requirements based on the history and
condition of the pipeline segment. In addition, the pipeline operator/producer shall identify data elements
that are critical to the success of the MP-ICDA process (see Table 1 for information that is typically
considered).

3.2.1.2 In Table 1, the information termed “Level of Importance 1” is the minimum required amount of
information that shall be collected to evaluate whether MP-ICDA can be performed, and “Level of
Importance 2” is additional information that is desirable for completeness of the MP-ICDA process, but
whose absence does not substantively compromise the MP-ICDA evaluation. In the second case, the
SME shall determine whether a missing piece of information can be obtained or inferred using other
methods.

3.2.1.3 All parameters that impact the MP-ICDA region definition (see Paragraph 3.5) shall be considered

No further reproduction or networking is permitted.


for initial MP-ICDA process applications on a pipeline segment.

3.2.1.4 Accurate and complete elevation profile, depth of cover, and flow rate data (liquids, gas, and
solids) are essential for predicting the locations of water and solids accumulation.

3.2.1.5 Accurate information regarding pipeline operating and maintenance activities related to internal
corrosion is essential in determining the expected internal corrosion rates.

3.2.2 The pipeline operator/producer shall collect and evaluate, at a minimum, all Level 1 data from the
following categories, as shown in Table 1. In addition, a pipeline operator/producer may determine that items
not included in Table 1 are necessary.

3.2.2.1 Operating history: The amount of historical data collected depends on the age of the pipeline,

Distributed by Clarivate Analytics (US) LLC, www.techstreet.com.


service, service changes, leak history, and last integrity assessment. It is the judgment of the SME to
define the period for which the historical data is required.

3.2.2.2 System design information (i.e., pipe grade, wall thickness of pipe, maximum operating pressure
(MOP), etc.).

3.2.2.3 Presence of liquid water (including upsets).

3.2.2.4 Water and solids content in fluids.

3.2.2.5 Composition of gas, crude oil, solids, and water.

3.2.2.6 Presence of hydrogen sulfide, carbon dioxide, and oxygen.

3.2.2.7 Maximum and minimum flow rates yearly over the life of the pipeline or since the last pipeline
integrity assessment.

3.2.2.8 Pipeline elevation profiles and depth of cover data.

3.2.2.9 Internal corrosion leak or failure history.

3.2.2.10 Internal corrosion identified using GWT, ILI, UT, radiography, AUT, visual inspection, or
other techniques.

11 NACE International
Copyrighted material licensed to Luis Eduardo Cabrera on 2018-01-17 for licensee's use only.
SP0116-2016
3.2.2.11 Mitigation currently being applied to control internal corrosion and what has been
historically applied.

3.2.2.12 Other known and documented causes of internal corrosion, such as microbiologically
influenced corrosion (MIC).

3.2.2.13 Dates of all recorded events. This depends on the type of pipeline being evaluated and
the specific events are defined by the experience of the SME. For example if a well line is being
evaluated, the frequency of acid jobs, changes in water content, and sudden sand production are
important events to define.
___________________________________________________________
Table 1
Minimum Data for Use of MP-ICDA Methodology
LEVEL OF
CATEGORY DATA TO COLLECT
IMPORTANCE
Include the length between inputs/outputs
Defined length and processing, segment, region, and 1
subregion length.
Include the nominal pipe diameter and wall
Diameter and wall thickness 1

No further reproduction or networking is permitted.


thickness.
Include materials according to API 5L13
grade, CSA Z 24514 grade, or other
international grades, microstructure, weld
Pipeline characteristics type and material, chemical composition, 1
geometries, elbows, tees, expansions,
reductions, etc. Also include the pipeline
material, microstructure, and weld material.
Description and location of accessories such
as sampling points, pressure and pressure
Accessories gauges, valves, etc. 1
Safety valve set points and maintenance
program.
Include periods of inactivity or abnormal

Distributed by Clarivate Analytics (US) LLC, www.techstreet.com.


activity, change in gas flow direction, type of
service, removed taps, year of installation,
and upsets. Determine whether the line has
ever been used previously for other service.
Data concerning the length of time that the
pipelines have been used for injection,
withdrawal, or have been inactive.
Data include the location of sludge deposits,
Operating history 1
hydrates, emulsion, etc.
Date of construction and operation initiation,
process information, especially upstream of
the pipeline segment, as these aid in
understanding upsets and the effect on the
pipeline network or segment.
Pressure and temperature profile history.
Past occurrences of flow induced vibrations
and/or “fluid hammer” (pressure surges).

NACE International 12
Copyrighted material licensed to Luis Eduardo Cabrera on 2018-01-17 for licensee's use only.
SP0116-2016
LEVEL OF
CATEGORY DATA TO COLLECT
IMPORTANCE
Include flow rates—normal, maximum, and
minimum flow rates at minimum and
maximum operating pressures for all inlets
and outlets. Significant periods of low or no
Flow rate flow. 1
The period of time for which this data need
to be collected is a function of the age of the
pipeline or the time since the last integrity
assessment.
Collect topographical data (e.g., USGS(6)
data), including consideration of pipeline
depth of cover.
Identify known regions where natural vertical
Elevation profile 1
depressions and/or peaks in pipeline lay-up
profile can potentially cause sediments and
liquid accumulation and/or gas cap
formation, respectively.
Collect gas chromatographic analysis (at

No further reproduction or networking is permitted.


least performed up to C12+), including
methane (CH4), H2S, CO2, O2, specific
gravity, and gas density. Include the
Gas quality (analyses) relationship of gas analyses to pipe location. 1
The presence of any solids or dusts being
carried in the system may have an effect on
the corrosion severity of the system. Any
level of oxygen shall also be included.
Include normal, minimum, and maximum
operating and design pressures (P) and
temperatures (T).
Compressor/pumps discharge P&T,
pressure and temperature fluctuation, burial
Pressure and temperature soil or water temperature, any P&T along 1

Distributed by Clarivate Analytics (US) LLC, www.techstreet.com.


the pipeline where measured.
The period of time for which these data need
to be collected is a function of the age of the
pipeline or the time since the last integrity
assessment.
Identify all locations of current and historic
inputs and outputs to the pipeline.
The period of time for which these data need
Inputs/outputs 1
to be collected is a function of the age of the
pipeline or the time since the last integrity
assessment.
Bacteria and microbiological assessment
Example of data collected: Crude oil assay
(API gravity, specific gravity, TAN, viscosity,
etc.), Density, SARA analysis, basic
Hydrocarbon
sediment and water (BS&W) cloud and pour 1
characterization
points in case of paraffinic crude oils,
elemental sulfur, acidic sulfur compounds,
naturally occurring fatty acids, wettability,
emulsions, and water-oil dispersion.

(6) U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), 12201 Sunrise Valley Dr., Reston, VA 20192.

13 NACE International
Copyrighted material licensed to Luis Eduardo Cabrera on 2018-01-17 for licensee's use only.
SP0116-2016
LEVEL OF
CATEGORY DATA TO COLLECT
IMPORTANCE
Physical-chemical (anions and cations)
characterization of the water and
characterization of other liquids found,
including dissolved oxygen, total dissolved
Water characterization and solids (TDS), and pH. Determine the volume
1
volumes of water transported by the system. Include
the source of water (condensed water vs.
free water from the underground reservoir),
and separators where free water is collected.
Bacteria and microbiological assessment.
Amount of solids produced (amount/unit
time), characterization (angularity, size), and
density.
The presence of any solids or dusts being
Solids carried in the system may have an effect on 1
the corrosion severity of the system.
Identify the presence or absence of naturally
occurring radioactive materials (NORM).

No further reproduction or networking is permitted.


Bacteria and microbiological assessment.
Include the existence and location(s) of
internal coatings. If coatings are found
within the pipeline ID, then MP-ICDA does
Internal coatings 1
not yield wall loss deliverable information,
but might indicate where premature coatings
degradation may be occurring.
Determine whether there is or has been a
pipeline cleaning program in place based on
the use of maintenance scrapers (pigs). If
there is such a program in place, the user
shall determine the compliance with the
cleaning program and estimate its
Pipeline cleaning
effectiveness. Review the amount of solids, 1
program/history

Distributed by Clarivate Analytics (US) LLC, www.techstreet.com.


frequency of cleaning, type of pig used, and
velocity of pigs when in use. Perform an
analysis of pig residue or residue stuck on
the pig. This helps determine the likelihood
of underdeposit corrosion (UDC).

Include information about the type of


chemical being used, the type of injection
(quill, nozzle, none), location of chemical
injections points, chemical type, and dosage.
Chemical injection system characteristics
Chemicals: corrosion (pump reliability, stand by equipment, tank
inhibitors, biocides, scale capacities, tubing conditions).
1
inhibitors, demulsifiers, anti- Chemical delivery protocol.
hydrate treatments, When the chemical injection was started,
how long it was used, and how effective it
was. Also include batch or continuous,
solubility, and dispersibility in hydrocarbon
and aqueous phases.
Compatibility tests.

NACE International 14
Copyrighted material licensed to Luis Eduardo Cabrera on 2018-01-17 for licensee's use only.
SP0116-2016
LEVEL OF
CATEGORY DATA TO COLLECT
IMPORTANCE
Include the locations and nature of
leaks/failures.
Leaks/failures/flaws Location and description of known 1
construction induced mechanical flaws, such
as dents, gauges, and ovality changes.
Include anomalies, pipe section repair and
replacement, prior inspections, and NDE
Repair/maintenance data data. Other information includes analytical 1
data of all removed sludge and liquids from
liquid separators.
This information includes data from previous
ILI runs, NDE methods employed (i.e., UT
and RT), as well as corrosion rate data from
coupons, ER, LPR, and EN sensors and/or
any other corrosion monitoring sensor used
Corrosion inspection and by the operator/producer. In addition, any
corrosion monitoring time that a pipeline is cut open, information 2
information on the internal condition of the pipe should

No further reproduction or networking is permitted.


be evaluated.
Dates and relationship of monitoring to pipe
location, corrosion rate recorded/calculated,
and accuracy of data (i.e., NACE Publication
3T199).15
These data are defined by the pipeline
Other data that influences
operator/producer, such as locations of 2
internal corrosion
solids, scale, sludge, hydrates, etc.

3.3 MP-ICDA Feasibility Assessment

The pipeline operator/producer shall examine the data collected as defined in Paragraph 3.2 to determine
whether conditions preclude MP-ICDA application or if indirect examination tools cannot be used.

Distributed by Clarivate Analytics (US) LLC, www.techstreet.com.


The following conditions are required to apply this MP-ICDA standard:

3.3.1 All Level 1 information must be obtained. If any of this information cannot be obtained, then the SME
shall make corresponding technically supported and documented assumptions to validate his or her
assessment.

3.3.2 The pipeline is expected to experience multiphase flow and contain a continuous phase of liquid crude
oil/condensate, water, and gas along a region or throughout a whole region during normal operations.

3.3.3 The pipeline must be accessible to perform the detailed examination.

3.3.4 Under normal circumstances, internally coated pipelines cannot be assessed with the same deliverables
as an internally uncoated pipeline. Specifically, it is impossible to predict degradation rates on a surface with
a coating. However, an assessment may be performed, which would suggest possible locations where
coating breakdown may occur as a result of solids or water accumulation. Consequently, although no
corrosion or metal degradation rates are calculated, the potential coating failure locations may be confirmed
through detailed examination. It shall not be assumed that a full MP-ICDA process for internally coated
pipelines is practical or cost-efficient.

3.3.5 The operator/producer shall understand that all four steps shall be performed.

3.3.6 If there are any Level 2 data missing, the SME shall make corresponding technically supported and
documented assumptions to validate his or her assessment.

15 NACE International
Copyrighted material licensed to Luis Eduardo Cabrera on 2018-01-17 for licensee's use only.
SP0116-2016
3.4 Identification of MP-ICDA Segments: The pipeline operator/producer shall define a pipeline segment from the
data collected in the pre-assessment step. A MP-ICDA segment is a portion of a pipeline of any length that
consists of one or more MP-ICDA regions. It is the total length of pipeline on which the MP-ICDA study is
performed.

3.5 Identification of MP-ICDA Regions: The pipeline operator/producer shall define MP-ICDA regions from the
data collected in the pre-assessment step.

3.5.1 An MP-ICDA region is a portion of pipeline with a defined length. A defined length is any length of
pipeline between each point of input or withdrawal of process fluids. In the case of a region with bi-directional
flow schemes (e.g., storage and withdrawal operations), a separate region shall be established for each flow
direction. The following characteristics shall also be considered in the establishment of MP-ICDA regions:

3.5.1.1 Flow entering the segment (inputs) and/or flow being withdrawn from the segment
(withdrawals, outputs) or portions of pipe under bidirectional flow.

3.5.1.2 Unit operation changes, such as temperature and pressure that arise from the use of line
heaters or compression/pump facilities, respectively.

3.5.1.3 Location of chemical injection points.

No further reproduction or networking is permitted.


3.5.1.4 Location of valves, appurtenances, and/or pig traps located within the segment.

3.5.2 Once the above have been identified, superimpose all individually identified regions into as many
resulting regions for the pipeline segment. Appendix C includes an example of how to perform the region
identification in Figure C1. The final number of regions is shown in Figure C2.

3.5.3 Optionally, changes in environmental characteristics such as rivers, location of cities or populated
areas, forestall reserves, and high consequence areas (HCAs) may be considered. The SME and the
operator/producer determine whether this optional characterization is included for the region identification.
Figures C1 and C3 show the results of the region identification that include these optional characteristics.
___________________________________________________________
Section 4: MP-ICDA Step 2—Indirect Inspection

Distributed by Clarivate Analytics (US) LLC, www.techstreet.com.


4.1 Introduction

4.1.1 The objective of the MP-ICDA indirect inspection step is to identify subregions within each MP-ICDA
region where the pipeline is most likely to experience or has experienced internal corrosion damage, and to
identify these as a function of distance and elevation. Modeling shall be used to identify these locations within
the subregion. Once the identification analysis has been performed, the locations within the subregion that
have a wall loss distribution because of internal corrosion damage may then be ascribed assessment site
status as appropriate and may be candidates for detailed examination.

4.1.2 The indirect inspection step requires a fundamental understanding of both fluid hydrodynamics and
corrosion engineering principles, which are influenced by a variety of operating parameters on the prediction
of corrosion severity, such as superficial gas and liquid velocities, flow patterns, pipeline topographic profiles,
water and liquid hold-ups, and identification of possible sites for solids accumulation. Locations within the
subregions that are predicted to have a range of corrosion rates (low through severe) as well as the highest
internal corrosion rates become priority assessment sites, which are selected for direct assessment (DA) in
accordance with minimum total assessment site criteria based on the total length of the pipeline segment, as
shown in Table 2. This process may also follow risk-based methodologies (not covered in this standard).
The historical operation of the pipeline must be considered, and it requires corrosion rate modeling to be
performed for several different scenarios, as operating conditions may have changed over time. The indirect
inspection step uses this analysis to identify potential assessment sites for detailed examination.

4.1.3 The MP-ICDA indirect inspection step shall include each of the following activities for each MP-ICDA
region:

NACE International 16
Copyrighted material licensed to Luis Eduardo Cabrera on 2018-01-17 for licensee's use only.
SP0116-2016

4.1.3.1 Performing two- or three-phase flow modeling using collected data to determine the flow pattern,
pressure and temperature profiles, hold-up, gas and liquid velocities, and integrating the flow calculation
results with the pipeline topographic profile.

4.1.3.2 Identification if other factors for the pipeline system that influence internal corrosion or corrosion
location such as nonsteady state flow, or other factors identified from historical pigging operations.

4.1.3.3 Identification of MP-ICDA subregions based on the flow patterns developed within each region.

4.1.3.4 Predicting the corrosion severity within each subregion using corrosion rate models that
incorporate the activities specified in Paragraphs 4.1.3.1, 4.1.3.2, and 4.3.3.3, as well as technically
supported SME judgment.

4.1.3.5 Identifying the pipeline wall-loss assessment sites as a function of severity, as depicted in Table
2.

4.1.4 For the indirect inspection step, two approaches can be used. One approach uses commercially
available flow models separate from corrosion rate modeling. The output of the flow model is used as input
into corrosion rate models. The other approach uses flow modeling and corrosion rate modeling integrated
into a single modeling tool. This second approach is the internal corrosion predictive model. Figure 5 shows

No further reproduction or networking is permitted.


the two accepted approaches.

Distributed by Clarivate Analytics (US) LLC, www.techstreet.com.


Figure 5: Indirect Inspection Approaches for Predicting Corrosion Rates.

4.2 Flow and Corrosion Rate Modeling

4.2.1 The operator/producer shall procure all Level 1 data, as identified in Table 1.

4.2.2 Any appropriate method to predict fluid behavior along the pipeline length is acceptable, but is not the
definitive criteria for predicting internal corrosion. There are many commercially available models to perform
two- or three-phase flow modeling. Multiphase flow modeling provides insights into the flow-determined
variables along the pipeline segment that are used for prediction of corrosion rates as well as defining the
subregions. Among the principal variables that are used in corrosion rate modeling from flow modeling
simulations are:

4.2.2.1 Changes in superficial gas velocity (VSG).

17 NACE International
Copyrighted material licensed to Luis Eduardo Cabrera on 2018-01-17 for licensee's use only.
SP0116-2016
4.2.2.2 Changes in superficial liquid velocity (VSL).

4.2.2.3 Changes in pressure and temperature.

4.2.2.4 Changes in liquid hold-up (HL).

4.2.2.5 Changes in solids accumulation locations as a function of solid particle size, angularity, density,
fluid viscosity, and particle type.

4.2.2.6 Changes in flow regimes.

4.2.3 The resulting variables from the predictive flow models or internal corrosion predictive models (ICPMs)
that are listed in Paragraphs 4.2.2.1 through 4.2.2.6, require that the flow modeling related values be
validated against actual operational conditions that are being modeled to be within ± 5% as described in an
example in Paragraph 4.2.4. This provides more assurance that the models actually represent the process
conditions of the pipeline. If the flow model does not reproduce the field conditions, then the model or
modeling approach shall be adjusted accordingly (i.e., by selecting another fluid flow correlation) until the
pipeline’s operational conditions are reproduced. It is the responsibility of the SME to follow the
corresponding process to achieve reproducibility and it is the responsibility of the field operator/producer to
document, and retain the assumptions the SME makes to achieve this reproducibility.

No further reproduction or networking is permitted.


4.2.4 The ± 5% accuracy of the predictive flow model is verified by comparing its result to the field operating
conditions, either current or historical. The selection of the current conditions versus the historical ones
depend on what is being modelled. For example, the pressures, temperatures, and flow rates that the model
predicted for a pipeline segment are compared to the current pressures, temperatures, and flow rates
measured in the field for that same pipeline segment. If a historical condition is being modeled, then the
accuracy process is compared against the measured historical conditions. The field measured parameters
can be obtained from the SCADA system, other on-line data gathering systems or from the historical archive
system for different locations along the pipeline segment where operational parameters are being measured.
These values are then compared to the modeled results. Once this comparison is made, if the flow model
results are more than the ± 5% of the threshold, the model can be adjusted to mimic the operational
conditions to within this threshold. These adjustments to the model are performed by the SME based on
experience and usage of the model. Once this is achieved, then it can be said that accuracy has been
reached and the model is predicting the current (or historical) operating conditions of the pipeline segment. It

Distributed by Clarivate Analytics (US) LLC, www.techstreet.com.


is the responsibility of the field operator/producer to document the values and processes used to adjust the
model to mimic the operating conditions.

4.2.5 Use the output of the flow modeling as input into the corrosion rate modeling to calculate corrosion
rates and estimate wall loss percentages.

4.2.6 The ±10% wall loss accuracy for the corrosion rate modeling is explained in Section 5.

4.2.7 Many of the corrosion models listed in Appendix B already have embedded correlations to model flow
under two- and/or multiphase flows, as well as liquid hold-up. This is an integral way of performing the
indirect inspection, as these models use the results from the flow simulations internally as input for the
corrosion rate modeling.

4.2.8 In other cases, flow modeling may be performed separately using commercially available software, and
the results may be used as input into the corrosion rate modeling. Both methods are accepted, and it is the
responsibility of the SME and the operator/producer to select the method that best suits their situation.

4.3 Internal Corrosion Predictive Models – Integrated Flow and Corrosion Rate Models.

4.3.1 The results from ICPM are used to predict corrosion rates at various points or intervals within or across
each subregion. This may be performed by integrating the results of flow and corrosion rate models or by
using corrosion rate models that have the flow modeling capabilities built into the algorithm.

4.3.2 The resulting corrosion rates are then used to identify the assessment sites within the pipeline region
and subregion. Appendix B presents a number of published models to determine corrosion rates. Note:

NACE International 18
Copyrighted material licensed to Luis Eduardo Cabrera on 2018-01-17 for licensee's use only.
SP0116-2016
None of these models are endorsed by NACE International and the selection or use of them is predicated on
operator/producer experience or the choice of the SME.

Note: Not all models cover all forms of internal corrosion that may occur in pipelines; therefore, the resulting
corrosion rates are only for those forms of corrosion for which the model has been designed.

4.3.3 Corrosion rates within each subregion (please refer to Paragraph 4.4 for subregion identification) shall
be determined at discrete points or intervals in order to facilitate the location of the assessment sites within
the subregion. The maximum increment length over which corrosion rates shall be determined in the model is
20 m (66 ft). There may be many increments within a subregion, depending on the size of the subregion. For
example, a subregion 100 m (330 ft) in length with a rate modeling increment of 20 m (66 ft) contains five
locations in which corrosion rates are calculated.

4.3.4 The computed internal corrosion rates for each subregion shall be converted to wall losses (over the
discrete time interval under review) and shall address possible changes in corrosion severity, which could
occur over discrete time intervals during which significant events occurred, such as start-up, reduction in
effluent flow (typical in production operations), increased pipeline gas and water volumes, introduction of
oxygen, introduction of corrosion inhibitors, etc. These influencing factors allow the cumulative computations
of anticipated general wall loss and localized pitting at different time intervals over the operating history of the
pipeline. The pitting factor can also be estimated from historical or lab data.

No further reproduction or networking is permitted.


4.3.5 The accuracy of the ICPM shall be evaluated as described in Paragraphs 4.2.4 and 4.2.5.

4.4 Identification of MP-ICDA Subregions

4.4.1 An MP-ICDA subregion is a continuous length of pipeline contained within a region, which is defined
and limited by changes with respect to flow patterns (see Appendix C, Figure C5) which can be significantly
influenced by the following:

 Changes in elevation profile with respect to the vertical plane.

 Changes in pipeline direction with respect to the horizontal plane.

 Changes in pipeline internal diameter.

Distributed by Clarivate Analytics (US) LLC, www.techstreet.com.


 Changes in flow velocities.

These changes promote pressure and temperature changes and corresponding changes in superficial gas
and liquid velocities may result, which may cause the development of new or different flow patterns/regimes.
They also allow the subregion location to be narrowed as a function of flow pattern. Appendix C shows how
regions and subregions are identified.

4.5 Assessment Site Selection

4.5.1 The operator/producer must determine the assessment sites within a subregion based on the wall loss
percentages, Table 2, and information provided in the pre-assessment step.

4.5.2 The assessment site locations shall be prioritized by means of calculating the cumulative wall loss
(corrected for both wall tolerance thickness and internal corrosion inhibition effectiveness, if applicable) based
on ICPM uninhibited corrosion rates.

4.5.3 Where corrosion inhibition has been or is being used, the pipeline operator/producer must apply a
correction factor to the corrosion rate model (if it is not already embedded in the model) to account for the
dampening or reduction in corrosion rates over the entire service life of the pipeline segment being evaluated.
This process of corrosion rate reduction shall be thoroughly documented by the SME to support the corrected
wall loss prediction, which is then applied into the criteria selection in Table 2.

19 NACE International
Copyrighted material licensed to Luis Eduardo Cabrera on 2018-01-17 for licensee's use only.
SP0116-2016
4.5.4 Once the region and subsequent subregions have been identified for analysis, the end user shall use
the following criteria to select assessment sites:

4.5.4.1 Pre-Selection Criterion 1—Wall Loss

4.5.4.1.1 Select the region to be analyzed. Within that region, select the subregion to be analyzed.
Within the selected subregion take the average of all the calculated wall loss values.

4.5.4.1.2 Within the subregion, highlight the results with wall loss values that are above the average
value. All of these highlighted locations are pre-selected under this criteria.

4.5.2.1.3 The SME may use his or her own judgment to pre-select assessment sites that are not
above the average.

4.5.4.1.4 It is the responsibility of the field operator/producer to document, and retain the basis the
SME uses to select the assessment site.

4.5.4.2 Pre-Selection Criterion 2—Solids Accumulation

4.5.4.2.1 If solids are present, flow modeling for solid deposition shall be considered or SME
judgment may be used to identify locations of potential solid accumulation. Some models have

No further reproduction or networking is permitted.


already incorporated the effects of solid deposition on the corrosion rates. In this case, no additional
modeling is necessary.

4.5.4.2.2 Multiphase pipelines often contain accumulations of solids, sludge, biofilm/biomass, or


scale. They are carried into a pipeline segment, precipitate and/or fall from the liquids and
accumulate on the pipe wall. Sources of solids include corrosion products (e.g., iron carbonates and
iron sulfides), other inorganic scales (e.g., calcium carbonate and barium sulfate), organic scales
(e.g., paraffin and asphaltene), and carryover of solids into the pipeline segment, including silicates
(e.g., formation sand). They can have several effects on corrosion. Solids primarily affect the
transport of materials to (or from) the pipe wall, the transport of surface solution chemicals, and
effects and the kinetics of the electrochemical reactions. They may also affect flow characteristics by
changing the friction factor or, if sufficiently large volumes of scale exist, by reducing the effective
pipe diameter. Their presence in a pipeline may increase the corrosion rate by retaining water

Distributed by Clarivate Analytics (US) LLC, www.techstreet.com.


because of their hygroscopic properties, deliquescence, or by the formation of concentration cells or
crevice corrosion under the deposit. They can decrease the rate of corrosion if they form an intact
protective barrier layer. Their presence also increases the likelihood of bacteria growth.

Note: Handling of NORM contaminated solids requires special procedures. These are outside the
scope of this standard.

4.5.4.2.3 UDC occurs at lower flow conditions in areas where the flow is stagnant, and in the areas in
which liquid hold-up are highest. Below a minimum flow velocity in a horizontal pipeline (or below
critical angles, in inclined pipelines), sand particles in the fluid can form a bed on the bottom of the
line. As the sand is produced, a sand bed builds until the increased velocity above the bed is large
enough to transport the particles farther down the pipeline where they settle, resulting in the increase
in the length of the sand bed. Deposition of the sand, especially in smaller diameter pipelines, can
lead to the partial or complete blockage of the pipelines, enhanced UDC, and MIC. Various flow
patterns may be observed, depending on the mixture flow rate. If the flow rate is high enough, all the
solid particles are suspended because of the high level of turbulence. When the flow rate is reduced,
the solid particles with density higher than that of the carrier fluid tend to settle and agglomerate at
the bottom of the pipe, forming a moving sediment bed. Solids are most likely to settle in areas
where the flow is stagnant and in low flow velocity subregions. The minimal settling bed velocity can
be calculated to determine whether or not solids accumulate, and it is based on the balance of driving
and opposing torques acting on solid particles, and it is influenced by the pipeline inclination angle.
The operator/producer shall consider the system operating conditions (i.e., liquid petroleum
composition, pressure, temperature, flow rate, BS&W, etc.) and select a model that is applicable to
those conditions. Empirical equations to predict conditions for the deposition of solids are
available.16-19 The rationale for selecting a model shall be documented.

NACE International 20
Copyrighted material licensed to Luis Eduardo Cabrera on 2018-01-17 for licensee's use only.
SP0116-2016

4.5.4.2.4 Corrosion in locations in which water accumulates or drops out may additionally be
significantly affected by organic or inorganic solids that may coprecipitate from the liquid, grow on the
pipeline surface, or both.

4.5.4.2.5 Non-sedimenting pipeline operations may be demonstrated through the use of mechanical
cleaning programs that do not produce accumulated sand or sediment. Operations cleared through
this method do not require solids accumulation analysis using flow models.

4.5.4.2.5.1 Within the selected region, identify those locations where solids deposition (and
possible UDC) is more likely to occur. The tendency for solid deposition depends heavily on the
use of cleaning tools and its frequency. For pipelines with regular use of cleaning tools, UDC
may be minimized. The effectiveness of the cleaning program shall be evaluated by the SME,
and based on the results, he or she may assess the likelihood of UDC to be negligible.

4.5.4.2.5.2 Local variations in turbulence caused by changing pipe direction, fittings, or pipeline
diameter changes may cause deposition of sediment and result in corrosive conditions at
locations that are not predicted by the analysis derived from the flow models or ICPMs.
Additional direct examinations at the following locations known to cause local sedimentation may
be required to compensate for uncertainties regarding the sedimentation process:

No further reproduction or networking is permitted.


4.5.4.2.5.2.1 Overbends associated with changes in topographical profile and pipe
direction (excavate and examine pipe immediately downstream from the overbend).

4.5.4.2.5.2.2 Isolation valves (examine entire joint downstream from the valve).

4.5.4.2.5.2.3 Pipeline diameter increases (spot check several joints downstream from
diameter increases).

4.5.4.2.5.2.4 Liquid petroleum injection points (spot check several joints downstream
from new injection points).

4.5.4.2.5.2.5 Locations within a subregion where mixture velocities are below 4 ft/s.19

Distributed by Clarivate Analytics (US) LLC, www.techstreet.com.


4.5.4.2.5.2.6 Subregions of stratified flow.

4.5.4.2.5.2.7 Subregions of low spots where liquid and solid accumulations are highly
probable.

4.5.4.2.5.3 In addition to the pre-selected sites (Paragraph 4.5.4.1), pre-select all potential
solids accumulation sites within the subregion (Paragraph 4.5.4.2.7.2). This procedure applies to
all regions and subregions within a pipeline segment. This helps to identify areas of potential
UDC resulting from solids accumulation and bacteria growth that may be present and that may
not have been pre-selected in Paragraph 4.5.4.1.

4.5.4.3 Assessment Site Candidates: Combine criteria (Paragraphs 4.5.4.1 and 4.5.4.2) to perform the
preselection of the assessment site candidates for the subregion. The combination of Paragraphs 4.5.4.1
and 4.5.4.2 is achieved by the addition of all the individual sites pre-selected in Paragraphs 4.5.4.1 and
4.5.4.2 within each subregion. Assessment sites may meet pre-selection criteria 1 or 2 or both. Table C1
on Appendix C shows an example of how these candidates are selected when the ICPM does not follow
Paragraph 4.5.4.4.
4.5.4.4 If the selected ICPM for the indirect inspection step has already incorporated the effects of solids
accumulation/deposition, such as the effect of the flow velocities (low flow velocity), flow pattern, and
regions of low spots, as mentioned in Paragraph 4.5.4.2.7 then the SME may make the decision to only
use the preselection criteria in Paragraph 4.5.4.1. In this case, the ICPM directly determines the wall
losses, taking the variables in Paragraph 4.5.4.2.7 into consideration. The SME shall make the decision
regarding whether to use the criteria in Paragraphs 4.5.4.1 and 4.5.4.2 together or as a separate
evaluation step.

21 NACE International
Copyrighted material licensed to Luis Eduardo Cabrera on 2018-01-17 for licensee's use only.
SP0116-2016
4.5.4.5 It is the responsibility of the field operator/producer to document, and retain the basis the SME
uses to select the assessment site.

4.5.5 A summary table (Table 3) may be assembled with the proper information that describes the
coordinates and physical boundaries of all regions, corresponding subregion or subregions, liquid hold-up,
solids accumulation, pressures, temperatures, flow regime, corrosion rate and wall loss, averages,
preselection criteria, etc.

4.5.6 Final Selection

4.5.6.1 The final minimum number of assessment sites shall be selected following the guidance of the
Table 2 criteria as a function of the overall pipeline network length. The SME is responsible for selecting
any of the preselected assessment site locations according to Paragraph 4.5.4.3 and Table 2. Table 2
recommends the minimum number of assessment sites based on the pipeline cumulative network length,
but the SME selects sites based on the preselection criteria given in Paragraph 4.5.4.

4.5.6.2 For example, for a pipeline network (i.e., one or more pipelines) less than 10 km (6.2 mi) in
length, there are four minimum final assessment site locations (see Table 2). The SME is responsible for
selecting any four sites from the preselected list (see Paragraph 4.5.4.3). There shall be at least one
location selected from each wall loss percentage grouping: one site that contains < 20% wall loss, one

No further reproduction or networking is permitted.


site that contains between 21 and 40% wall loss, one site that contains between 41 and 60% wall loss,
and one site that contains > 60% wall loss. If one of the wall loss percentages is not present, then any
other site that contains any other wall loss percentage may be selected. For a pipeline segment less than
10 km (6.2 mi) in length, if the resulting flow and corrosion rate simulations result in values that are less
than 20% wall loss, and even if the model has been proven to be reliable for the evaluated system, at
least one assessment site shall be selected, and the rest of the pipeline integrity assessment can be
based solely on the model results. On the contrary, if the model has not been proven to be reliable, then
the assessment sites shall be selected as per Table 2, in this case a minimum of four sites. If wall loss
results are dispersed throughout the wall loss values as presented in Table 2, then one assessment site
shall be selected from each one of the categories with a minimum of four assessment sites.

4.5.6.3 When the physical location on the pipeline of the final assessment sites is selected (within the 20
m [66ft] modeled interval as in Paragraph 4.3.3), refining of the location of the actual physical assessment

Distributed by Clarivate Analytics (US) LLC, www.techstreet.com.


sites shall be prioritized by the following:

4.5.6.3.1 Location of high-consequence areas (HCA) or equivalent types of locations in proximity


to the public that have an added level of operational risk.

4.5.6.3.2 Site accessibility, repair history/records, any internal leak/rupture history, low spot areas,
etc.

4.5.6.3.3 If multiple sites have the same corrosion severity threat for the same internal corrosion
mechanism, it may be economically prudent to perform the first inspection at the site that is most
easily accessible.

4.5.6.4 More assessment sites may be selected or they may be prioritized by the SME based on the
presence of HCAs, if applicable, failure history, a risk-based analysis, or any other criterion that has been
technically justified and agreed to by the operator/producer.

4.5.6.5 A final assessment site selection table may be constructed. See Table 3 for further information,
and also Table C2 in Appendix C.

4.5.6.6 Locations selected for detailed examination should be compared to repair records and historical
records to identify any existing steel/composite repair sleeves that would make the inspections difficult.
Also, because internal corrosion is a time-dependent threat, if the location selected is in an area of
replacement pipe, consideration should be given to selecting another site with a similar threat of internal
corrosion severity.

NACE International 22
Copyrighted material licensed to Luis Eduardo Cabrera on 2018-01-17 for licensee's use only.
SP0116-2016
4.5.6.7 In instances in which corrosion rates and their corresponding wall losses do not necessarily have
a requirement for excavation, the operator/producer must perform the minimum assessment site as
shown in Table 2. The minimum is applied to the highest wall loss value predicted. The minimum
assessment site includes the validation evaluation. Appendix C provides a sample of how the completed
process from region selection to assessment site selection is performed.

___________________________________________________________

Section 5: MP-ICDA Step 3—Detailed Examination

5.1 Introduction

5.1.1 The objectives of the MP-ICDA detailed examination are to:

 Determine whether the predicted internal corrosion damage exists at locations selected in the previous
steps.

 Quantify the actual amount of damage by means of NDE techniques.

 Use the findings to assess the overall integrity of the MP-ICDA pipeline region or regions.

No further reproduction or networking is permitted.


5.1.2 The detailed examination step focuses examination efforts on identified and prioritized assessment
sites that are a result of an analysis performed by the SME based on the ICPM results and all relevant
factors as cited herein.

5.1.3 Assessment site evaluation and subsequent inspection must be sufficient to identify and characterize
the internal corrosion features in the pipe being assessed.

5.1.4 Selection and examination of sites for detailed examination shall be based on the detailed
examination process diagram, as shown in Figure 3. Any deviation from this process must be technically
justified by the operator/producer, and the reasons documented.

5.1.5 The ± 10% wall loss accuracy for the corrosion rate modeling is achieved by comparing the corrosion
rates resulting from the model converted to wall loss for a specific pipeline subregion to the wall loss values

Distributed by Clarivate Analytics (US) LLC, www.techstreet.com.


that are actually measured on the same pipeline subregion. These measurements are performed in the
detailed examination step. If the average of these measured values are within ± 10% from the average of
the modelled results, it is said that accuracy has been achieved for the corrosion rate model. It is the
responsibility of the field operator/producer to document the values and processes used to adjust the model
to mimic the operating conditions.

5.1.5 Once the model has been proven to be reliable, and some sites have been identified as having wall
loss greater than 60%, the SME can determine and justify the examination of more assessment sites than
the minimum number of sites in Table 2. Actions taken after the confirmation of the wall loss, such as repair
vs replacement, can be assessed by the SME.

23 NACE International
Copyrighted material licensed to Luis Eduardo Cabrera on 2018-01-17 for licensee's use only.
SP0116-2016
Table 2
Minimum Number of Pipeline MP-ICDA Assessments (by Onshore Excavations or Offshore ROV)
Based on Continuous Pipeline Length and Predicted/Calculated Internal Corrosion Metal Wall Loss
(Corrected for Pipe Wall Mill Tolerance and Corrosion Inhibitor Effectiveness)
Minimum
Continuous
Total
Pipeline
Assessment
Length of All
Sites per
Regions and Low Wall Moderate Wall High Wall Severe Wall
Pipeline
Subregions in Loss Loss Loss Loss
Segment to
System (Pipe < 20% 21-40% 41-60% > 60%
Excavate
Segment)
and Prove
(km) (1 km =
Reliability
0.6 miles)
of the Model
0.1-10.0 1(A,B) 1 1 1 4
10.1-50.0 1 1 2 2 6
50.1-100.0 1 2 2 3 8
100.1-500.0 1 2 3 4 10
> 500.1 2 3 4 5 14
(A) If the model has already been proven to be reliable, then one assessment site is required to be conducted.

No further reproduction or networking is permitted.


However, if the model reliability is uncertain, then all four minimum assessment sites must be conducted.
(B)Model reliability means that it has been validated against direct examinations for the particular system being

evaluated.

Table 3
Final Selection Criteria
Final Assessment

(Paragraph 4.5.6)
Corrosion Rate

Sites Selection
Flow Pattern
Coordinates
Subregion #

Comments
Wall Loss
Elevation
Region #

Length

Distributed by Clarivate Analytics (US) LLC, www.techstreet.com.


ft ft mpy %

5.1.6 Procedures for NDE and subsequent action as a result of identifying anomalies during the inspection
are not included in the scope of this standard. The operator/producer must follow the appropriate guidelines
in related NACE International, ASME, or other acceptable international standards for evaluating each site for
and responding to the presence and extent of internal corrosion.

5.1.7 During the detailed examination step, threats other than internal corrosion may be found. If external
corrosion, mechanical damage, SCC, or other damage is found at an assessment site, alternative methods
shall be considered for assessing their impact.

5.1.8 Additional assessment methods may be found in ASME B31.8,4 ASME B31.8S,5 API 1160,7 ANSI/API
579,8 BS 791010 NACE International standard practices, other international standards, and other documents.

5.2 Performing the Detailed Examination Process

NACE International 24
Copyrighted material licensed to Luis Eduardo Cabrera on 2018-01-17 for licensee's use only.
SP0116-2016
5.2.1 Selection and examination of assessment sites for detailed examination shall be based on the
assessment site procedure mentioned in Step 2 and Appendix C. Any deviation from this process must be
technically justified by the operator/producer, and the reasons documented.

5.2.2 The minimum number of assessment sites, as identified in the indirect inspection step, shall be
exposed and/or identified for detailed examination.

5.2.3 The techniques or the combination of techniques used for detailed examinations shall quantify the
amount of wall loss. These techniques shall be performed by experienced and certified personnel and be
approved by the operator/producer.

5.2.4 Once the examinations have been performed, the integrity of the pipeline assessment site shall be
evaluated using the following criteria. These criteria are the basis for determining the number of required
detailed examinations.

5.2.4.1 Internal corrosion metal loss is considered significant if the wall thickness cannot support the
internal pressure as specified in RSTRENG12 and ASME B31G.11 This criterion requires scheduled
maintenance or repair under ASME B31.8S.5, by the operator/producer’s own procedures or in country or
regional legislation.

5.2.4.2 A pipeline-specific analysis may be performed to develop criteria for significant internal corrosion.

No further reproduction or networking is permitted.


The analysis might include consideration of previous metal loss and years of pipeline service.

5.2.4.3 Other technical criteria for significant corrosion may be used with documented technical
justification.

5.2.5 If the ICPM results are corroborated (± 10% on the average wall loss that is identified in the subregion)
by the detailed examinations, further assessment site exposures may not be necessary, subject to pipeline
operator/producer discretion. If, on the contrary, the detailed inspections exceed the ± 10% of wall loss,
additional assessment sites shall be exposed and the model adjusted and/or MP-ICDA process reassessed.

5.2.6 Operators/producers may perform additional validation examinations at their discretion on regions for
which the detailed examination process has been completed.

Distributed by Clarivate Analytics (US) LLC, www.techstreet.com.


5.2.7 When the detailed examination process reveals the existence of extensive severe internal corrosion, or
no corrosion at all, and the corrosion, or the lack thereof, was not predicted by the indirect inspection step, the
operator/producer shall return to the pre-assessment step and reevaluate all the information obtained,
because the reliability of the model is in question. If this is found to be true, then another model shall be
selected in Step 2.

5.2.8 When performing the detailed examination step, the operator/producer shall measure and record details
of the wall thickness to a grid pattern sufficient to determine the axial length and width (to a tolerance of twice
the nominal wall thickness, i.e., ± 2t) of those wall loss indications present. The length of the pipeline affected
by water accumulation may be extensive in some situations, and care should be taken in selecting a suitable
NDE procedure.

5.2.9 NDE methods used to determine the remaining wall thickness of the pipe in corroded areas shall be
performed in accordance with qualified written procedures, approved by the operator/producer and in
accordance with applicable national or international standards, and performed by individuals certified by
training and qualified by experience.

5.2.10 The pipeline operator/producer shall evaluate or calculate the remaining strength of locations where
corrosion is found. Example methods of calculating the remaining strength include ASME B31G, 11
RSTRENG,12 and DNV(7) RP-F101.20

(7) Det Norske Veritas (DNV), Veritasveien 1, 1322, Høvik, Oslo, Norway.

25 NACE International
Copyrighted material licensed to Luis Eduardo Cabrera on 2018-01-17 for licensee's use only.
SP0116-2016
5.2.11 The inspection procedures, detailed wall thickness data, and strength calculations must be retained
with the MP-ICDA records for the life of the pipeline.

5.3 Assessment Site Exposure

5.3.1 The pipeline operator/producer must use supplementary standards to perform corrosion detection and
mitigation, because these are not included in the scope of the MP-ICDA standard.

5.3.2 Once an assessment site has been exposed, and before it is given clearance (onshore and offshore),
operators/producers may likely desire the installation of corrosion monitoring sensors or probes (e.g., coupon,
electronic probe, ultrasonic sensor, ERP, LPRP, ENP, etc.). This allows an operator/producer to benefit from
long-term monitoring in a location most susceptible to corrosion and confirm inspection intervals.

5.3.2.1 Monitoring devices shall not be installed at arbitrary locations (e.g., beginning of a pipeline).
Detailed examination assessment sites identified through the MP-ICDA process facilitate a more
representative placement of the sensor or end device.

5.3.3 ILI tool (or other assessment) results for an upstream portion of pipe within a region may provide helpful
information for the assessment of downstream conditions of the pipeline where an intelligent pig cannot be
run.

No further reproduction or networking is permitted.


5.3.3.1 Because MP-ICDA evaluates corrosion severity based on a variety of parameters, any integrity
determination shall be performed in locations with minimum acceptable corrosion rates.

5.3.3.2 Use of ILI data for detailed assessment must be supplemented by assessment site exposure and
inspection consistent with the high-priority sites identified in the indirect examination step of MP-ICDA.

___________________________________________________________

Section 6: MP-ICDA Step 4—Post-assessment

6.1 Introduction

6.1.1 The objectives of the post-assessment step are to validate the process, assess the effectiveness of MP-

Distributed by Clarivate Analytics (US) LLC, www.techstreet.com.


ICDA, and determine re-assessment intervals, as described in Paragraph 6.4.

6.2 Validation of the Process

6.2.1 MP-ICDA is a continuous improvement process. Through successive MP-ICDA applications and the
integration of operational data, a pipeline operator/producer should be able to identify and assess locations at
which corrosion activity has occurred, is occurring, or may occur in the future.

6.3 Assessment of MP-ICDA Long-Term Effectiveness

6.3.1 The effectiveness of the MP-ICDA process is determined by the degree of correlation between corrosion
identified by detailed examination and the MP-ICDA prediction at those locations.

6.3.1.1 Operators/producers must evaluate the performance effectiveness of MP-ICDA. The process
shall be documented.

6.3.1.2 Improvements as a result of this assessment shall be continually incorporated into future MP-
ICDA integrity assessments.

6.3.2 If the SME determines that extensive corrosion is found throughout the pipeline or corrosion is found in
areas that were not determined to be a priority or, on the contrary, no corrosion is found in areas that were
determined to be a priority, MP-ICDA has not been effective and the operator/producer should use other
means of integrity assessment

NACE International 26
Copyrighted material licensed to Luis Eduardo Cabrera on 2018-01-17 for licensee's use only.
SP0116-2016
6.3.3 The success of the ICPM and the confirmation of damage is based on the predicted wall loss being
within ± 10% of the actual damage measured, with the range not to exceed 20%. For example, if the actual
wall loss damage was found to average 54% over several pipeline subregions and the “corrected” wall loss
predicted values were 46% on average for the same specific subregions with that level of damage, then the
model and the ICDA process have been confirmed to be valid.

6.4 Determination of Re-assessment Intervals

6.4.1 When internal corrosion is identified during detailed examinations, the maximum re-assessment interval
for each MP-ICDA subregion shall be set at one-half of the calculated remaining pipeline subregion life or the
maximum interval imposed within a jurisdictional area, whichever is shorter.

6.4. 2 Over time, the procedures described in Paragraphs 6.4.2 through 6.4.5 may be used as feedback to
update or optimize the assessment interval.

6.4.3 The selected method(s) of setting re-assessment intervals must be technically justified by the SME and
approved by the operator/producer.

6.4.3 Re-assessment intervals shall never exceed the calculated remaining life of the pipeline.

No further reproduction or networking is permitted.


6.4.4 The distribution and uncertainty of predicted corrosion rates must be considered.
___________________________________________________________
Section 7: MP-ICDA Records

7.1 Introduction

7.1.1 This section describes the MP-ICDA records that document data in a clear, concise, and workable
manner and are pertinent to the pre-assessment, indirect examination, detailed examination, and post-
assessment steps of the DA process. All decisions and supporting assessments must be fully documented.
The records required by this standard shall be kept for the life of the pipeline.

7.2 Pre-assessment: All pre-assessment step actions and decisions shall be recorded. They include, but are not

Distributed by Clarivate Analytics (US) LLC, www.techstreet.com.


limited to, the following:

7.2.1 Data elements collected for the segment to be evaluated in accordance with Table 1.

7.2.2 Methods and procedures used to integrate data collected to determine when indirect examination tools
can and cannot be used.

7.2.3 A technical and thorough document supporting the MP-ICDA region identification boundaries, their
complete description, and physical characteristics.

7.3 Indirect Examination: All indirect examination actions and decisions shall be recorded. These include, but are
not limited to, the following:

7.3.1 Geographically referenced locations of the beginning and ending point of each MP-ICDA region and
subregion, and each fixed point (monument) used for determining the accuracy of each measurement.

7.3.2 Procedures for determining accuracy of inclination profiles.

7.3.3 Methodology, including real and assumed data, used to identify and prioritize areas that may be
susceptible to corrosion.

7.3.4 Data used to record or estimate flow, compositions, corrosion growth rates, operations, mitigation, and
prevention decisions.

27 NACE International
Copyrighted material licensed to Luis Eduardo Cabrera on 2018-01-17 for licensee's use only.
SP0116-2016
7.4 Detailed Examinations

All detailed examination actions and decisions shall be recorded. These include, but are not limited to, the
following:

7.4.1 Data collected before and after assessment site evaluation, measured metal-loss corrosion geometries,
techniques used, and reported records.

7.4.2 Planned mitigation activities.

7.4.3 Descriptions of and reasons for selections of additional sites, validation sites, or reprioritizations.

7.5 Post-assessment

All post-assessment actions and decisions shall be recorded. These may include, but are not limited to, the
following:

7.5.1 Maintaining safety through remaining-life calculation results.

7.5.1.1 Maximum remaining flaw size determinations.

No further reproduction or networking is permitted.


7.5.1.2 Corrosion growth rate determinations.

7.5.1.3 Method of estimating remaining life.

7.5.1.4 Results of remaining strength calculations.

7.5.2 Re-assessment intervals, including technical justification and operator/producer validation of the
selected method of re-assessment, and any scheduled activities.

7.5.3 Criteria used to assess MP-ICDA effectiveness and results from assessments.

7.5.3.1 Criteria and metrics.

Distributed by Clarivate Analytics (US) LLC, www.techstreet.com.


7.5.3.2 Data from periodic assessments.

7.5.4 Monitoring Records

7.5.4.1 Feedback and how results were incorporated for continuous improvement.
___________________________________________________________
References

1. NACE SP0110 (latest revision), “Wet Gas Internal Corrosion Direct Assessment Methodology for Pipelines”
(Houston, TX: NACE).

2. NACE SP0206 (latest revision), “Internal Corrosion Direct Assessment Methodology for Pipelines Carrying
Normally Dry Natural Gas (DG-ICDA)” (Houston, TX: NACE).

3. NACE SP0208 (latest revision), “Internal Corrosion Direct Assessment Methodology for Liquid Petroleum
Pipelines” (Houston, TX: NACE).

4. ANSI/ASME B31.8 (latest revision), “Gas Transmission and Distribution Piping Systems” (New York, NY:
ASME).

5. ASME B31.8S (latest revision), “Managing System Integrity of Gas Pipelines” (New York, NY: ASME).

6. ASME B31.4 (latest revision), “Managing System Integrity of Liquid Pipelines” (New York, NY: ASME).

NACE International 28
Copyrighted material licensed to Luis Eduardo Cabrera on 2018-01-17 for licensee's use only.
SP0116-2016

7. API 1160 (latest revision), “Managing System Integrity for Hazardous Liquid Pipelines” (Washington, DC:
API).

8. ANSI/API 579 (latest revision), “Recommended Practice for Fitness-for-Service and Continued Operation of
Equipment” (Washington, DC: API).

9. CSA Z-662 (latest revision), “Oil and Gas Pipeline Systems” (Mississauga, Ontario: CSA).

10. BS 7910 (latest revision), “Guide to Methods for Assessing the Acceptability of Flaws in Metallic Structures”
(London, England: BSI).

11. ANSI/ASME B31G (latest revision), “Manual for Determining the Remaining Strength of Corroded Pipelines: A
Supplement to B31, Code for Pressure Piping” (New York, NY: ASME).

12. P.H. Vieth, J.F. Kiefner, RSTRENG2 (DOS Version) User’s Manual and Software (Includes: L51688B,
Modified Criterion for Evaluating the Remaining Strength of Corroded Pipe) (Washington, DC: PRCI, (8) 1993).

13. API Specification 5L (latest revision), “Specification for Line Pipe” (Washington, DC: API).

14. CSA Z-245, “Steel Pipe” (Mississauga, Ontario: CSA).

No further reproduction or networking is permitted.


15. NACE Publication 3T199 (latest revision), “Techniques for Monitoring Corrosion and Related Parameters in
Field Applications” (Houston, TX: NACE).

16. Z. Zhu, K. Sand, P.J. Teevens, “Effects of Flow Regime on Solids Deposition in Multiphase Petroleum Flow,”
CORROSION/2010, paper no. 10384, (Houston, TX: NACE, 2010).

17. N. Tajallipour, Z. Zhu, P.J. Teevens, “3D Numerical Simulation of Formation Sand and Corrosion Product
Deposition in Liquid Petroleum Pipelines,” NACE Northern Area Western Conference, paper no. 25 (Regina,
Saskatchewan, Canada: NACE, 2011).

18. N. Tajallipour, Z. Zhu, P.J. Teevens, T. Place, “Modeling of Solids Deposition for a Heavy Crude Oil Pipeline
Using enpICDATM–SRC,” Rio Pipeline Conference, held September 20-22, 2011 (Rio de Janeiro, Brazil: IBP,

Distributed by Clarivate Analytics (US) LLC, www.techstreet.com.


2011).

19. J.S. Smart, “Determining the Velocity Required to Keep Solids Moving in Pipelines,” Journal of Pipeline
Engineering, 6 (2007).

20. DNV-RP-F101, “Corroded Pipelines” (Oslo, Norway: Det Norske Veritas).

21. E. Dayalan, F.D. de Moraes, S.A. Shirazi, E.F. Rybicki, “CO 2 Corrosion Prediction in Pipe Flow Under FeCO 3
Scale-Forming Conditions,” CORROSION/98, paper no. 98051 (Houston, TX: NACE, 1998).

22. C. de Waard, D.E. Milliams, “Carbonic Acid Corrosion of Steel,” Corrosion 31, 5 (1975): pp. 177-181.

23. C. de Waard, U. Lotz, “Prediction of CO2 Corrosion of Carbon Steel,” CORROSION/93, paper no. 93069
(Houston, TX: NACE, 1993).

24. C. de Waard, U. Lotz, A. Dugstad, “Influence of Liquid Flow Velocity on CO 2 Corrosion: A Semi-Empirical
Model,” CORROSION/95, paper no. 95128 (Houston, TX: NACE, 1995).

25. E. Adsani, S.A. Shirazi, J.R. Shadley, E.F. Rybicki, “Mass Transfer and CO2 Corrosion in Multiphase Flow,”
CORROSION 2002, paper no. 02492 (Houston, TX: NACE, 2002).

(8) Pipeline Research Council International, Inc. (PRCI), 3141 Fairview Park Drive, Suite 525, Falls Church, VA 22042.

29 NACE International
Copyrighted material licensed to Luis Eduardo Cabrera on 2018-01-17 for licensee's use only.
SP0116-2016
26. N. Sridhar, F.M. Song, M. Nored, “Guidelines/Quality Standards for Transportation of Gas Contaminating
Mixed Corrosive Constituents,” PRCI, PR-015-03131, February 2004.

27. A.M.K. Halvorsen, T. Santvedt, “CO2 Corrosion Model for Carbon Steel Including a Wall Shear Stress Model
for Multiphase Flow and Limits for Production Rate to Avoid Mesa Attack,” CORROSION/99, paper no. 99042
(Houston, TX: NACE, 1999).

28. Y.M. Gunaltun, D. Larrey, “Correlation of Cases of Top of Line Corrosion with Calculated Water Condensation
Rates,” CORROSION 2000, paper no. 00071 (Houston, TX: NACE, 2000).

29. B.F.M. Pots, E.L.J.A. Hendriksen, “CO2 Corrosion under Scaling Conditions—The Special Case of Top-of-
Line Corrosion in Wet Gas Pipelines,” CORROSION 2000, paper no. 00031 (Houston, TX: NACE, 2000).

30. R. Zhang, M. Gopal, W.P. Jepson, “Development of a Mechanistic Model for Predicting Corrosion Rate in
Multiphase Oil/Water/Gas Flows,” CORROSION/97, paper no. 97601 (Houston, TX: NACE, 1997).

31. F.M. Song, D.W. Kirk, D.E. Cormack, “A Comprehensive Model for Predicting CO 2 Corrosion in Oil and Gas
Systems,” CORROSION 2005, paper no. 05180 (Houston, TX: NACE, 2005).

32. N. Sridhar, D.S. Dunn, A. Anderko, M. Lencka, H.U. Schutt, “Effects of Water and Gas Compositions on the
Internal Corrosion of Gas Pipelines–Modeling and Experimental Studies,” Corrosion 57, 3 (2001): pp. 221-235.

No further reproduction or networking is permitted.


33. NACE MR0175/ISO(9) 15156 (latest revision). “Petroleum and natural gas industries—Materials for use in
H2S-containing environments in oil and gas production” (Houston, TX: NACE).

34. J. Kvarekval, R. Nyborg, M Seierten, “Corrosion Product Films on Carbon Steel in Semi-Sour CO2/H2S
Environments,” CORROSION 2002, paper no. 02296 (Houston, TX: NACE, 2002).

35. K.A. Sangita, S. Srinivasan, “An Analytical Model to Experimentally Emulate Flow Effects in Multiphase
CO2/H2S Systems,” CORROSION 2000, paper no. 00058 (Houston, TX: NACE, 2000).

36. F.M. Song, N. Sridhar, “An Approach to Determining Reassessment Intervals through Corrosion,” SwRI,(10)
Project 18.11027, December 2005.

37. K. Sand, C. Deng, P. Teevens, D. Robertson, T. Smyth, “Corrosion Engineering Assessments via a Predictive

Distributed by Clarivate Analytics (US) LLC, www.techstreet.com.


Tool,” paper no. 06T114, Tri-Service Corrosion Conference, held November 14-18, 2005 (San Antonio, TX:
NACE/DoD,(11) 2005).

38. NACE Standard TM0212 (latest revision), “Detection, Testing and Evaluation of Microbiologically Influenced
Corrosion on Internal Surfaces of Pipelines” (Houston, TX: NACE).

39. ASTM(12) G170 (latest revision), “Standard Guide for Evaluating and Qualifying Oilfield and Refinery Corrosion
Inhibitors in the Laboratory” (West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM).

40. ASTM G184 (latest revision), “Standard Practice for Evaluating and Qualifying Oil Field and Refinery
Corrosion Inhibitors Using Rotating Cage” (West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM).

41. ASTM G185 (latest revision), “Standard Practice for Evaluating and Qualifying Oil Field and Refinery
Corrosion Inhibitors Using the Rotating Cylinder Electrode” (West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM).

42. Z. Zhu, N. Tajallipour, P.J. Teevens, H. Xue, Y.F. Cheng, “A Mechanistic Model for Predicting Localized
Pitting Corrosion in a Brine Water-CO2 System,” CORROSION/2011, paper no. 11256 (Houston, TX: NACE,
2011).

(9) International
Organization for Standardization (ISO), 1 ch. de la Voie-Creuse, Case postale 56, CH-1211 Geneva 20, Switzerland.
(10) Southwest Research Institute (SwRI), PO Drawer 28510, San Antonio, TX 78228-0510.
(11) Department of Defense (DoD), 1400 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20310-1400.
(12) ASTM International (ASTM), 100 Barr Harbor Dr., PO Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959.

NACE International 30
Copyrighted material licensed to Luis Eduardo Cabrera on 2018-01-17 for licensee's use only.
SP0116-2016
43. ASTM G76 (latest revision), “Standard Test Method for Conducting Erosion Tests by Solids Impingement
Using Gas Jet” (West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM).

44. ASTM G134 (latest revision), “Standard Test Method for Erosion of Solid Materials by a Cavitating Liquid Jet”
(West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM).

45. ASTM G72 (latest revision), “Standard Practice for Liquid Impingement Erosion Testing” (West
Conshohocken, PA: ASTM).

46. ASTM G119 (latest revision), “Standard Guide for Determining Synergism between Wear and Corrosion”
(West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM).

47. I. Finnie, “The Mechanism of Erosion of Ductile Metals,” Proc. of 3rd National Congress on Applied
Mechanics, held June 11-14, 1958 (New York, NY: ASME, 1958), pp. 432-527.

48. I. Finnie, “Some Observations on the Erosion of Ductile Metals,” Wear 19 (1972): pp. 81-90.

49. M. Hashish, “An Improved Model of Erosion by Solids Particles,” Proceedings of the Seventh International
Conference on Erosion by Liquid and Solid Impact, paper no. 66, held September 7-10, 1987 (Cambridge, UK:
Robinson College, 1987).

No further reproduction or networking is permitted.


50. J.G.A. Bitter, “A Study of Erosion Phenomena, Part I,” Wear 6 (1963): pp. 5-21.

51. H.C. Meng, K.C. Ludema, “Wear Models and Predictive Equations: Their Form and Content,” Wear 181-183,
Part 2 (1995): pp. 443-457.

52. M.M. Salama, “An Alternative to API 14E Erosional Velocity Limits for Sand-Laden Fluids,” Journal of Energy
Resources Technology, 122, 2 (2000): pp. 71-77.

53. O. Kvernvold, ERBEND 2 – Erosion in Pipe Bends, Det Norske Veritas, 1998.

54. B.S. McLaury, S.A. Shirazi, “An Alternate Method to API RP 14E for Predicting Solids Erosion in Multiphase
Flow,” Journal of Energy Resources Technology, 122, 3 (2000): pp. 115-122.

55. C.D. Adams, J.D. Garber, R.K. Sing, V.R. Jangama, “Computer Modeling to Predict Corrosion Rates in Gas

Distributed by Clarivate Analytics (US) LLC, www.techstreet.com.


Condensate Wells Containing CO2,” CORROSION/96, paper no. 96031 (Houston, TX: NACE, 1996).

56. A. Anderko, R.D. Young, “Simulation of CO2/H2S Corrosion Using Thermodynamic and Electrochemical
Models,” CORROSION/99, paper no. 99031 (Houston, TX: NACE, 1999).

57. A. Anderko, “Simulation of FeCO3/FeS Scale Formation Using Thermodynamic and Electrochemical Models,”
CORROSION 2000, paper no. 00102 (Houston, TX: NACE, 2000).

58. A. Anderko, P. McKenzie, R.D. Young, “Computation of Rates of General Corrosion Using Electrochemical
and Thermodynamic Models,” Corrosion 57, 3 (2001): pp. 202-213.

59. M.R. Bonis, J.L. Crolet, “Basics of the Prediction of the Risks of CO 2 Corrosion in Oil and Gas Wells,”
CORROSION/89, paper no. 89466 (Houston, TX: NACE, 1989).

60. J.L. Crolet, N. Thevenot, A. Dugstad, “Role of Free Acetic Acid on the CO 2 Corrosion of Steels,”
CORROSION/99, paper no. 99024 (Houston, TX: NACE, 1999).

61. B. Mishra, S. Al-Hassan, D.L. Olson, M.M. Salama, “Development of a Predictive Model for Activation-
Controlled Corrosion of Steel in Solutions Containing Carbon Dioxide,” Corrosion 53, 11 (1997): pp. 852-859.

62. S. Nesic, J. Postlethwaite, S. Olsen, “An Electrochemical Model for Prediction of Corrosion in Mild Steel in
Aqueous Carbon Dioxide Solutions,” Corrosion 52, 4 (1996): p. 280.

31 NACE International
Copyrighted material licensed to Luis Eduardo Cabrera on 2018-01-17 for licensee's use only.
SP0116-2016
63. S. Nesic, J. Postlethwaite, S. Olsen, “An Electrochemical Model for Prediction of CO 2 Corrosion,”
CORROSION/95, paper no. 95131 (Houston, TX: NACE, 1995).

64. S. Nesic, M. Nordsveen, R. Nyborg, A. Stangeland, “A Mechanistic Model for CO 2 Corrosion with Protective
Iron Carbonate Films,” CORROSION 2001, paper no. 01040 (Houston, TX: NACE, 2001).

65. R. Nyborg, P. Andersson, M. Nordsveen, “Implementation of CO2 Corrosion Models in a Three-Phase Fluid
Flow Model,” CORROSION 2000, paper no. 00048 (Houston, TX: NACE, 2000).

66. NORSOK(13) Standard M-506 (latest revision), “CO2 Corrosion Rate Calculation Model,” (Lysaker, Norway:
NORSOK).

67. C.A. Palacios, “Risk Based Corrosion Management System for Oilfield Production Installations—
Development, Methodology and Application,” CORROSION 2003, paper no. 03160 (Houston, TX: NACE, 2003).

68. D. Quintero, C. Palacios, “Experiences in Assessing Internal Corrosion for Multiphase Flow Pipelines,”
CORROSION 2003, paper no. 03178 (Houston, TX: NACE, 2003).

69. C. Palacios, Y. Hernández, “Application of Simulation Techniques for Internal Corrosion Prediction,”
CORROSION/97, paper no. 97002 (Houston, TX: NACE, 1997).

No further reproduction or networking is permitted.


70. C. Palacios, A. Ferrer, J.L. Morales, “Hydrodynamic Modeling for Corrosion Control in the Oil and Gas
Industry,” CORROSION/95, paper no. 95104 (Houston, TX: NACE, 1995).

71. S. Papavinasam, R.W.Revie, V. Sizov, “Predicting Internal Pitting Corrosion of Oil and Gas Pipelines: Model
Prediction vs. Field Experience,” CORROSION/2007, paper no. 07658 (Houston, TX: NACE, 2007).

72. S. Papavinasam, R.W. Revie, W.I. Friesen, A. Doiron, T. Panneerselvam, “Review of Models to Predict
Internal Pitting Corrosion of Oil and Gas Pipelines,” Corrosion Reviews 24, 3-4 (2006): pp. 173-230.

73. B.F.M. Pots, “Mechanistic Models for the Prediction of CO 2 Corrosion Rates under Multi-Phase Flow
Conditions,” CORROSION/95, paper no. 95137 (Houston, TX: NACE, 1995).

74. L. Smith, C. de Waard, “Corrosion Prediction and Material Selection in Oil and Gas Producing Environments,”

Distributed by Clarivate Analytics (US) LLC, www.techstreet.com.


CORROSION/2005, paper no. 05648 (Houston, TX: NACE, 2005).

75. S. Srinivasan, R.D. Kane, “Prediction of Corrosivity of CO2/H2S Production Environments,” CORROSION/96,
paper no. 96011 (Houston, TX: NACE, 1996).

76. C. Deng, K. Sand, P. Teevens, “A Web Based Software for Prediction of the Internal Corrosion of Sweet and
Sour Multiphase Pipelines,” CORROSION/2006, paper no. 06565 (Houston, TX: NACE, 2006).

77. N. Petalas, K. Aziz, “A Mechanistic Model for Multiphase Flow in Pipes,” Journal of Canadian Petroleum
Technology 39, 6 (2000): pp. 43-55.

78. Y. Taitel, A.E. Dukler, “A Model for Predicting Flow Regime Transitions in Horizontal and Near Horizontal
Gas-Liquid Flow,” AIChE(14) Journal 22, 1 (1976): pp. 47-55.

79. D. Barnea, “A Unified Model for Predicting Flow-Pattern Transitions for the Whole Range of Pipe Inclinations,”
International Journal Multiphase Flow 13, 1 (1987): pp. 1-12.

80. N. Tajallipour, Z. Zhu, P. Teevens, “The Effect of Slug Liquid Front on Inhibitor Effectiveness in Petroleum
Pipelines,” CORROSION/2011, paper no. 11275 (Houston, TX: NACE, 2011).

81. J.M. Mandhane, G.A. Gregory, K. Aziz, “A Flow Pattern Map for Gas-Liquid Flow in Horizontal Pipes,”
International Journal Multiphase Flow 1, 4 (1974): pp. 537-553.

(13) Norsk Sokkels Konkuranseposisjon (NORSOK), P.O. Box 242, NO-1326 Lysaker, Norway.
(14) American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE), 120 Wall Street, FL 23, New York, NY 10005-4020.

NACE International 32
Copyrighted material licensed to Luis Eduardo Cabrera on 2018-01-17 for licensee's use only.
SP0116-2016

82. K. Aziz, G.W. Govier, M. Fogarasi, “Pressure Drop in Wells Producing Oil and Gas,” Journal of Canadian
Petroleum Technology 11, 3 (1972): pp. 38-48.

83. R.W. Lockhart, R.C. Martinelli, “Proposed Correlation of Data for Isothermal Two-Phase, Two-Component
Flow in Pipes” Chemical Engineering Progress, 45, 1 (1949): pp. 39-48.

84. H.D. Beggs, J.P. Brill, “A Study of Two-Phase Flow in Inclined Pipes,” Journal of Petroleum Technology 25, 5
(1973): pp. 606-617.

85. J. Orkiszewski, “Predicting Two-Phase Pressure Drops in Vertical Pipe” Journal of Petroleum Technology 19,
6 (1967): pp. 829-838.

86. O. Baker, “Gas-Liquid Flow in Pipelines, II. Design Manual,” AGA(15)-API Project NX-28, October 1970.

87. A.E. Dukler, M. Wicks III, R.G. Cleveland, “Frictional Pressure Drop in Two-Phase Flow: B. An Approach
Through Similarity Analysis,” AIChE Journal 10, 1 (1964): pp. 44-51.

88. O. Flanigan, “Effect of Uphill Flow on Pressure Drop in Design of Two-Phase Gathering Systems,” Oil and
Gas Journal 56, 132 (1958): pp. 132-141.

No further reproduction or networking is permitted.


89. B.A. Eaton, D.E. Andrews, C.R. Knowles, I.H. Silberberg, K.E. Brown, “The Prediction of Flow Patterns,
Liquid Hold-up and Pressure Losses Occurring During Continuous Two-Phase Flow in Horizontal Pipelines"
Journal of Petroleum Technology 19, 6 (1967): pp. 815-828.

90. E.J. Greskovich, A.L. Shrier, “Slug Frequency in Horizontal Gas-Liquid Slug Flow,” Industrial & Engineering
Chemistry Process Design and Development 11, 2 (1972): pp. 317-318.

91. J.P. Brill, Z. Schmidt, W.A. Coberly, J.D. Herring, D.W. Moore, “Analysis of Two-Phase Tests in Large-
Diameter Flow Lines in Prudhoe Bay Field,” SPE Journal 21, 3 (1981): pp. 363-378.

92. Z. Schmidt, J.P. Brill, H.D. Beggs, “Experimental Study of Severe Slugging in a Two-Phase-Flow Pipeline-
Riser Pipe System,” SPE Journal 20, 5 (1980): pp. 407-414.

93. R.S. Cunliffe, “Condensate Flow in Wet Gas Lines Can Be Predicted" Oil and Gas Journal 10, 14 (1978): pp.

Distributed by Clarivate Analytics (US) LLC, www.techstreet.com.


100-108.

94. S. Wongwises, W. Khankaew, W. Vetchsupakhun, “Prediction of Liquid Hold-up in Horizontal Stratified Two-
Phase Flow,” Thammasat International Journal of Science and Technology 3, 2 (1998): pp. 48-59.

95. T. Johannessen, “A Theoretical Solution of the Lockhart-Martinelli Flow Model to Calculate Two Phase Flow
Pressure Drop and Hold-up,” International Journal of Heat Mass Transfer 15, 41 (1972): pp. 1443-1449.

96. G.A. Hughmark, “Hold-up and Heat Transfer in Horizontal Slug Gas-Liquid Flow,” Chemical Engineering
Science 20, 12 (1965): pp. 1007-1010.

97. M. Kawaji, Y. Anoda, H. Nakamura, T. Tasaka, “Phase and Velocity Distributions and Hold-up in High-
Pressure Steam/Water Stratified Flow in a Large Diameter Horizontal Pipe,” International Journal of Multiphase
Flow 13, 2 (1987): pp. 145-159.

98. V. Kadambi, “Prediction of Void Fraction and Pressure Drop in Two-Phase Annular Flow,” Canadian Journal
of Chemical Engineering 63, 5 (1980): pp. 728-734.

99. P.L. Spedding, N.P. Hand, “Prediction of Hold-up and Pressure Loss from the Two Phase Momentum
Balance for Stratified Type Flows, in Advances in Gas-Liquid Flow,” Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering
155, 5 (1990): pp. 221-228.

(15) American Gas Association (AGA), 400 North Capitol St. NW, Suite 450, Washington, DC 20001.

33 NACE International
Copyrighted material licensed to Luis Eduardo Cabrera on 2018-01-17 for licensee's use only.
SP0116-2016

100. P.L. Spedding, N.P. Hand, “Prediction in Stratified Gas-Liquid Co-current Flow in Horizontal
Pipelines,” International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 40, 8 (1997): pp. 1923-1935.

101. P. Andreussi, A. Donfrancesco, M. Messia, “An Impedance Method for the Measurement of
Liquid Hold-up in Two-Phase Flow,” International Journal of Multiphase Flow l4, 6 (1988): pp. 777-785.

102. S.S. Agrawal, G.A. Gregory, G.W. Govier, “An Analysis of Horizontal Stratified Two Phase Flow in Pipes,”
Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering 5l, 3 (1973): pp. 280-286.

103. S. Ovadia, Mechanistic Modeling of Gas-Liquid Two-phase Flow in Pipes (Richardson, TX: SPE, 2005).

104. C.A. Palacios, CIMA-TQ, LLC, correspondence to P. Teevens, Broadsword Corrosion, N Mutiphase Flow
Assessment Techniques and Assessment Sites, July 2013.

No further reproduction or networking is permitted.


Distributed by Clarivate Analytics (US) LLC, www.techstreet.com.

NACE International 34
Copyrighted material licensed to Luis Eduardo Cabrera on 2018-01-17 for licensee's use only.
SP0116-2016

___________________________________________________________

Appendix A
Influencing Factors on Corrosion Severity
(Nonmandatory)

This appendix is considered nonmandatory, although it may contain mandatory language. It is intended only to
provide supplementary information or guidance. The user of this standard is not required to follow, but may choose
to follow, any or all of the provisions herein.

To prioritize locations for assessment, the overall cumulative damage (alternatively, risk) in each may be
evaluated numerically. The corrosion severity-influencing factors must be known or estimated so their values
may be numerically assigned based on the significance of their influences either by calculation using well-
established software tools, if available, or by a SME’s technical judgment. For a reliable estimate of influencing
factors, the corrosion mechanisms shall be accurately defined to determine individual effects on corrosiveness
within a subregion. Some ICPM models may be capable of assessing these parameters within their protocols to
yield their respective corrosion rate data. A general description of these corrosion severity factors is provided in
this appendix.

A1 Corrosion Mechanisms Resulting from Multiphase Fluid Flow.

No further reproduction or networking is permitted.


A1.1 Background

Transport of fluids such as gas, crude oil, water or any combination of these, containing contaminants such as
CO2, H2S and sand are a threat to the technical integrity of pipelines, because of internal corrosion. When gas
is transported alone, it may condense out some liquids, including water, and as a result, its combination with
these contaminants may cause internal corrosion and/or erosion-corrosion. The same holds true for pipelines
containing water and oil.

If the fluids (gas, oil, or water) are traveling together within a pipeline, they form a multiphase flow where gas,
water, oil, and sand are interacting as they flow along the pipeline. This interaction induces high turbulences,
sand impacts against the inner wall surface, and the different gas and liquid velocities resulting in the
formation of the different flow patterns. As this interaction is taking place, corrosion is the affected
mechanism.

Distributed by Clarivate Analytics (US) LLC, www.techstreet.com.


It is known that corrosion is more severe and most frequently seen in two-phase or multiphase flow systems.
Near the pipe wall in single phase flows, the velocity of the fluid component normal to the pipe wall is low;
therefore, any process associated with damaging the pipe wall is a slow process. On the other hand, in two-
or multiphase flows, the liquid phase, in the form of slugs or small drops, can be directed towards the inner
wall surface, creating high rates of dissolution and transport as well as high mechanical forces that increase
the rate of corrosion. If this flow carries sand, it could be thrown or rubbed against the pipe surface, removing
inhibitors and/or protective corrosion layers, thus increasing the corrosion rates even further.

A1.2 Effect of Dissolved CO2 and H2S

It has been determined that steel’s corrosion rate in carbonic acid (H2CO3) is greater than that in hydrochloric
acid (HCl) for the same solution pH. The reason is that H 2CO3 itself can be reduced at the steel surface to
form hydrogen. The presence of CO2 and H2S definitely increases the pipeline corrosion rate. In the
operating temperature range, ferrous carbonate (FeCO3) and ferrous sulfide (FeS) are likely to precipitate and
have an impact on the local corrosion rate. Research shows that CO2 hydration can be a slow homogeneous
reaction and limit the corrosion process. Steel corrosion caused by dissolved CO2 and H2S is a complex
phenomenon and has been studied extensively.21-32 Depending on gas quality, H2S may be beneficial or
detrimental to the pipeline. Too little or too much H2S can increase the corrosion rate, while in a middle range
of concentration, the formation of FeS is passive and can decrease the corrosion rate. When there is too
much H2S, the passivity of FeS is saturated at the steel surface, while as H 2S content increases, the solution
pH decreases, and the corrosion rate increases. Other H2S corrosion mechanisms are discussed in NACE
MR0175/ISO 15156.33

35 NACE International
Copyrighted material licensed to Luis Eduardo Cabrera on 2018-01-17 for licensee's use only.
SP0116-2016
With dissolved CO2 and H2S, the solution is acidic. Too little H2S content may not result in formation of FeS,
even though FeS has much lower solubility than FeCO 3. A molar ratio of CO2 to H2S exists in the gas phase,
at which the precipitate exchanges between FeS and FeCO 3. This ratio is determined experimentally to be
roughly 1,400:1.34-36

A1.3 Effect of Dissolved O2

Dissolved O2 likely increases the corrosion rate. This corrosion is diffusion limiting. Although in the corrosion
process, O2 reduction at the steel surface can generate a hydroxide ion or increase the local pH and
potentially decrease the hydrogen ion and water reduction rates, overall, the increase of steel corrosion
dominates. This increase in corrosion rate caused by O 2 can be approximated by the O2 diffusion limiting
current density.37. Oxygen can act synergistically with other corrosion mechanisms.

A2 Effect of Operations Upsets

An upset, caused by design or accidents, results in a change of flow, fluid chemistry, and possibly a pipeline
surface condition; these all potentially influence pipeline corrosion. Upsets occur mainly during start-up
(commissioning), temporary shutdowns, restarts, or plant turnaround. In contrast to steady-state or normal
operations, these processes result in dynamic changes of the operation.

A2.1 Change of Fluid Flow

No further reproduction or networking is permitted.


At start-up, the operation is nonsteady-state for a period of time. During temporary shutdown and plant
turnaround, the liquids stagnate at low spots. Upon restart, either the gas flow cannot move all the settled
liquids or can result in slug flow (where applicable) when it empties the liquids. Temporary production surge
or decline can also affect the fluid flow.

A2.2 Change of Fluid Chemistry

During start-up, the initial well bore self-cleaning might result in higher salinity, and higher contents of the total
suspended solids (TSS) in the produced effluents. The inhibitors might be adsorbed by the very large overall
surface of the fine silts and solids produced, leaving less inhibitor available to protect the pipe surface. In
effect, the solids become “sites” for diminishing inhibitor performance and perhaps even for accelerating
corrosion. Also, it is possible that the high salinity exceeds the operating envelope of the inhibitors.

Distributed by Clarivate Analytics (US) LLC, www.techstreet.com.


During temporary shutdowns or plant turnaround, the settling of solids, including sulfur, may lead to UDC. If
the pipeline is open, admission of air/moisture increases the likelihood of corrosion. The change of flow
resulting from upsets also varies the corrosion condition.

During well workover, the introduction of low pH fluids or fluids with higher chloride levels (if HCl is used) also
increases the severity of corrosion.

The introduction of a foreign substance into the pipeline by design or by accident such as: (1) oxygen ingress
caused by vapor phase recovery operations and negative pressure seals for compressors, (2) microbial
activity (sulfate-reducing bacteria [SRB] or acid-producing bacteria [APB]), all increase the likelihood of
corrosion.

A2.3 Change of Pipeline Internal Surface Condition

During start-up, the original surface of the pipeline, possibly covered by mill scale (mainly oxides or hydrated
oxides) may be converted to FeCO3 or FeS as a result of corrosion caused by the acid gas, CO 2 or H2S.
Thus, the passivity of the mill scale may be lost.

If the pipeline is open for inspection/repair or is opened by vacuum during temporary shutdowns or plant
turnaround, moist air might be introduced and existing scales may be converted to hydroxides.

The temporary production surge or decline also affects flow and the surface condition.

NACE International 36
Copyrighted material licensed to Luis Eduardo Cabrera on 2018-01-17 for licensee's use only.
SP0116-2016
During a pipeline suspension time period, the pipeline might be blanketed with field fuel gas containing acid
gas contents different from the previously produced effluents. Scale previously established on the pipe wall
might be converted into a different one that might not offer the same corrosion resistance when the pipeline is
recommissioned.

During well workover, low pH fluids or higher chloride levels (if HCl is used) can weaken/destabilize the
previously protective scales. Liquid hold-ups or traps at fittings or design locations such as low points, drips,
separators etc. shall be taken into consideration.

A3 Other Factors Contributing to Internal Pipeline Corrosion

A3.1 Effect of Bacteria:38

MIC occurs when a unique combination of biological factors is present simultaneously with other conditions,
such as specific regimes of water chemistry, temperature, flow velocity, metallurgy, and organic and inorganic
fouling materials. The biological factors involve growth of microorganisms that induce or initiate the corrosion
mechanism. There are two types of organisms:

A3.1.1 Planktonic Organisms

Free-floating bacteria are commonly referred to as planktonic organisms, but depending on the type of

No further reproduction or networking is permitted.


system, may also include unattached algae, diatoms, fungi, and other microorganisms that may be
present in bulk fluids. In most cases, it is planktonic bacteria that are the focus of monitoring for MIC
because system fluids are generally easier to sample than metallic surfaces. Unfortunately, the levels of
planktonic bacteria present in the liquids are not always indicative of whether MIC is occurring or, if so, to
what extent. At best, detection of viable planktonic bacteria serves only as an indicator that living
microorganisms are present in a particular system. Some of the organisms may be capable of
participating in microbial attack of materials. In some cases, monitoring for planktonic organisms may be
misleading. For example, following biocide application, elimination or reduction of viable planktonic
organisms imply to many operator/producers a successful treatment program, whereas in reality, attached
organisms may be unaffected by the biocide treatment and may be able to continue their attack on the
metal surfaces.

A3.1.2 Sessile Organisms

Distributed by Clarivate Analytics (US) LLC, www.techstreet.com.


Microorganisms that are attached to a surface are termed sessile organisms. Bacteria and other
microorganisms are almost always present as a consortium or community of organisms, collectively
referred to as a biofilm. Because MIC occurs directly on metal surfaces, sessile organisms are the ones
that are most representative of potential problems and, therefore, are an important component to monitor.
Monitoring sessile organisms requires either that the system or pipeline be regularly opened for sampling
or that accommodations be made in the system design to allow for regular collection or online tracking of
attached organisms during operation. Sessile bacteria can change the chemistry of the solution near the
steel surface and therefore change the corrosion rate. The effects of bacteria as a function of distance
may be difficult to predict. A pipeline known to be affected by MIC is expected to have a higher corrosion
uncertainty. If MIC is considered an important mechanism, additional assessment sites may be
necessary.

A3.2 Bacteria and Biocides

A pipeline known to suffer from MIC is expected to have a large uncertainty with respect to predicted
corrosion severity over distance. Additional direct examinations may be required in systems in which MIC is
expected to be the primary internal corrosion mechanism. It has been recognized that even though MIC can
occur in unexpected places, it is more prevalent in the following locations where there is liquid hold-up:

 At locations where water is allowed to accumulate.

 At locations where solid materials are allowed to accumulate.

37 NACE International
Copyrighted material licensed to Luis Eduardo Cabrera on 2018-01-17 for licensee's use only.
SP0116-2016
 At low points in long-distance pipes.

 In stagnant areas or fittings that rarely or never experience flow (i.e., dead legs).

A4 Effect of Liquid Hydrocarbons

Liquid hydrocarbons can decrease the corrosion rate by entraining or emulsifying water. If water is dispersed
within the hydrocarbon phase, the corrosion rate is expected to be lower than if it is directly in contact with the
pipe wall.

If hydrocarbons condense along a pipeline segment, resulting in an increase in its ratio to water, it is possible that
corrosion is less likely at downstream locations. This is particularly true if liquid water dominates upstream.

Some hydrocarbons may decrease the corrosion rate by inhibition mechanisms similar to inhibitors. The
efficiencies can depend on the water to hydrocarbon ratio.

If water is emulsified in a continuous hydrocarbon phase, and if this emulsion can break over distance, free liquid
water may form. If the flow regime is stratified, liquid water might drop to the pipe bottom to increase the
likelihood of corrosion downstream. This effect might be less if the flow regime is slugging or annular because the
liquid phases are mixed.

No further reproduction or networking is permitted.


A5 Effect of Fluid Hydrodynamics and Flow Behavior

The flow regimes can have a significant and direct effect on the corrosion rate, because they change the
convective transport of solution species and the pipe surface condition. Diffusion of ionic species to and from the
pipeline surface ultimately governs dissolution of the pipe wall, but flow regime is intimately related to the
diffusional processes governing corrosion. A pipeline with similar flow parameters (i.e., flow regime and velocity)
may have corrosion distribution determined only by nonflow-related corrosion severity factors (i.e., gas quality,
inhibitors, etc.). A pipeline with more than one flow regime over a distance can have corrosion distribution
affected by the flow regime and mass transfer processes.

Considered as secondary, the flow effects on corrosion can differ within one regime.

A6 Effect of Corrosion Inhibitors

Distributed by Clarivate Analytics (US) LLC, www.techstreet.com.


The use of corrosion inhibitors may affect corrosion distribution along a pipeline segment because inhibition
effectiveness is usually affected by distance from the injection point and the level of total suspended solids (TSS).
The dependence is different for batch and continuously treated systems and is further influenced by the frequency
of pigging.

The manner in which chemical treatment is applied might result in a nonuniform effectiveness along a pipeline
length. Both selection and application of corrosion inhibitors are important. Standards are available to assist in
the selection of corrosion inhibitors, including ASTM G170,39 ASTM G184,40 and ASTM G185.41

Selection of the proper corrosion inhibitor should be carefully considered, as well as ensuring the inhibitor is
applied properly. Laboratory conditions are carefully controlled, and very sensitive measurement techniques can
be used. These may indicate extremely low inhibited corrosion rates that yield very high efficiencies. In practice,
such low corrosion rates are not achievable in the field. The requirement of a corrosion inhibitor is to reduce the
corrosion rate to that used for the design of the facility. This focus is often lost when discussing efficiency. A high
efficiency does not always ensure that the design corrosion rate is met. It assumes that throughout the life of the
operation, the availability of the inhibitor is 100%, whereas the availability is defined as the fraction (f) or
percentage (%) of time that the inhibitor is applied at the correct dosage. In many cases, this has proven to be
the weakest link for a corrosion inhibitor application. Delivery issues, pump problems, and poor communications
often result in the inhibitor being switched off or not being at the required dosage.

A7 Effect of Solids – UDC

NACE International 38
Copyrighted material licensed to Luis Eduardo Cabrera on 2018-01-17 for licensee's use only.
SP0116-2016
UDC is a general term that refers to localized corrosion that develops beneath or around deposits present on a
metal surface. It primarily manifests as deep cavernous voids which threaten the integrity of oil and gas
production and transportation facilities. The deposited solids are inorganic and include sands, corrosion products
(e.g., FeS, FeCO3), and mineral scales (e.g., CaCO3), as well as organic deposits such as asphalthene, wax, and
biofilms. When pipelines transport production fluids, solids coming from wells may deposit in areas with low flow
velocities and settle depending on inclination changes. Accumulation of deposits shield the covered surface from
the bulk environment, generating a localized concentration of a specific chemical, such as chloride or oxygen, to
be notably different from the amount in the bulk environment. These differences establish an anode at the bottom
of the deposit, but a cathode at the surrounding surface. The generated iron ions from anodic dissolution tend to
effuse into the electrolyte solution. However, because of a confined volume under the deposit, less convection
slows ionic transportation. As ferrous ions are accumulated, chloride ions migrate into the pit as a result of
electroneutrality. Hydrolysis of Fe2+ generates hydrogen ions, which depresses the pH level inside the pit, leading
to a steep Tafel slope. A smaller anode dissipates the current as required for the reduction reaction at the
cathode, elevating the anodic current density. Autocatalytic pitting corrosion is inevitable once Fe 2+, H+, and Cl–
ions are accumulated and maintained inside the pit. Incubation time of UDC is governed by the composition and
characteristics of the deposited solids (e.g., particulate size and shape, permeability, and porosity), solids
accumulation rate, deposit thickness, fluid corrosiveness (which depends on composition of water [e.g., pH,
salinity, acetic acid, sulfur] and gas [e.g., CO 2, H2S, and O2]), temperature and pressure, chemical treatment, and
metallurgy. Flow velocities need to be consider to determine the likelihood these solids accumulate on the bottom
of the pipeline; in particular in the low points and sections of high liquid hold-up. 16-19,42

No further reproduction or networking is permitted.


A8 Effect of Water Accumulation and Water Drop Out.

The internal corrosion threat in multiphase flow systems is based on the assumption that corrosion only occurs
when water drops out of the hydrocarbon phase, or water is in a continuous phase and wets the steel surface of
the pipe. Therefore, in the cases where the water is entrained in the hydrocarbon phase, the operator/producer
shall predict critical parameters for water dropout and accumulation, and when the water is flowing freely as a
continuous phase using flow modeling calculations for each identified MP-ICDA region.

Two cases should be considered when performing the multiphase flow modeling:

 Multiphase flow is composed of a gas phase, hydrocarbon phase, and water. Generally, oil and water are
treated as single phase. It is assumed that water is entrained in the oil phase. In the latter case, any valid
multiphase flow modeling approach that considers the flow regimes and water-in-oil dispersion flow is

Distributed by Clarivate Analytics (US) LLC, www.techstreet.com.


acceptable. The operator/producer shall consider the system operating conditions (i.e., liquid petroleum
composition, pressure, temperature, flow rate, etc.) and select a model that is applicable to those
conditions. The rationale for selecting the model shall be documented.

 Multiphase flow is composed of a gas phase and hydrocarbon phase, and the water flows freely within
the pipeline. Free water does not necessarily lead to corrosion under this condition; wettability of the
hydrocarbon on the steel determines corrosiveness. Based on the wettability, hydrocarbons can be
classified into three categories:

1. Category 1: Oil-wet surface: On an oil-wet surface, the oil has a strong affinity to be in contact with
carbon steel. Oil-wet surfaces physically isolate the pipe from the corrosive environment and, under
such conditions; corrosion is likely to be minimized.

2. Category 2: Water-wet surface: On a water-wet surface, the oil does not have an affinity to be in
contact with carbon steel; in fact, the oil may not be in contact with the carbon steel at all, even when
it is the only phase. A water-wet surface (in the presence of oil) is highly susceptible to corrosion.
Water is the most common electrolyte, which is usually present in different quantities (water cuts)
within the multiphase crude oil pipelines and plays a fundamental role in initiating the electrochemical
reactions necessary for internal general/uniform or localized/pitting corrosion. It has been reported in
the literature that complete absence of internal corrosion is guaranteed only when there is no water
wetting (100% oil wet) and at the same superficial oil and gas velocities, it has been shown that under
intermittent water wetting, the corrosion rate is usually much lower than under full water wetting. It is
expected that the dominant flow regime inside a multiphase pipeline has significant effects on the
level/degree of the water wetting a pipeline experiences at a certain location.

39 NACE International
Copyrighted material licensed to Luis Eduardo Cabrera on 2018-01-17 for licensee's use only.
SP0116-2016

3. Category 3: Neutral-wet surface: On a neutral-wet surface, the oil does not have any preference to be
in contact with carbon steel. The oil may be in contact with the carbon steel surface as long as there
is no competing phase (e.g., water) present.

All locations should be assumed to have the same wettability (whether it is oil-wet or water-wet), unless evidence
suggests otherwise.

Emulsion and wettability are two different properties. A hydrocarbon may hold a lot of water, but as soon as the
inversion point occurs, the surface may become water-wet immediately. On the other hand, an inversion point
may occur at a very low water cut, but the surface may not become water-wet until a very high water cut is
reached.

The difference in behavior is because the emulsion depends on liquid-liquid (oil-water) interaction, whereas
wettability depends on the balance between two solid-liquid (steel-oil and steel-water) interactions.

A8.1 Contact Angle Method

The tendency of water to displace hydrocarbon from steel is estimated by considering the relative surface
energies of all the interfaces involved. A hydrocarbon-steel interface is replaced by a water-steel
interface if the energy of the system decreases as a result of this action.

No further reproduction or networking is permitted.


Displacement of water by hydrocarbon should be expected when the contact angle (θ), measured through
the water, is between 90° and 180°, and displacement of hydrocarbon by water should be expected when
θ is between 0° and 90°. On the other hand, displacement of water by hydrocarbon is expected when θ,
measured through the oil, is between 0° and 90°.

Laboratory setup: Steel samples should be polished (600 grit). The samples should then be placed in a
beaker containing distilled water, and the oil should be injected through a syringe into the water so that it
adheres to the sample surface. A photograph from which the contact angle is measured should be taken.

A8.2 Spreading Method

In this method, the conductivity of the emulsion is measured between two probes placed at various

Distributed by Clarivate Analytics (US) LLC, www.techstreet.com.


distances apart. In the presence of oil with no affinity toward steel (water-wet), good conductivity
(typically between 1 and 2 kΩ) is measured between all probes. On the other hand, in the presence of oil
with an affinity toward steel (oil-wet), no conductivity is measured between any of the probes. In the
presence of oil with no particular affinity (mixed-wet), conductivity is measured between some probes.

A8.3 Flow Disturbance Effects

Flow disturbances caused by pipeline fittings, valves, diameter changes, direction changes, and injection
locations create unpredictable turbulence variations within an operating pipeline. Such disturbances in
susceptible pipelines may precipitate sudden changes in the ability of the working fluid to maintain
uniform transport of the moving sediment bed on the pipe floor, and severely accelerated settling of solid
materials may result, thus accelerating corrosion.

Common characteristics of most susceptible pipelines include:

• Large diameter (> 0.4 m).

• Higher-density petroleum (> 900 kg/m 3).

• Moderate-low flow rates (< 1.2 m/s).

• Measurable base sediment load (even as low as ~ 0.05%). Pipelines exhibiting these
characteristics should have a selection of direct examination sites based on the following
flow-disturbance creating fittings:

NACE International 40
Copyrighted material licensed to Luis Eduardo Cabrera on 2018-01-17 for licensee's use only.
SP0116-2016
 Valves (downstream joint or 5 m minimum).

 Diameter increases (downstream joint or 5 m minimum).

 Overbends (5 m downstream, beginning at overbend).

 Injection points (5 m downstream, beginning at the injection point). Where (units are
dimensionless unless otherwise stated) ρ L is the density of the carrier liquid, kg/m3.

A9 Other Influencing Factors

In addition to the primary factors of water and solids accumulation that affect where internal corrosion may occur,
the following additional factors should be considered in determining the probability of internal corrosion
distribution within a MP-ICDA region:

A9.1 Emulsion Breaking

If sufficient mixing or shear stress is applied to two immiscible liquids such as oil and water, one liquid
becomes dispersed in the form of droplets entrained in the other liquid. Once the agitation in the system
ceases, the dispersion tends to separate into distinct phases over time. The stability of the dispersion is

No further reproduction or networking is permitted.


usually determined by the time required for separation. More stable emulsions require more time for
separation.

A9.2 Water Chemistry

Water chemistry is expected to remain relatively constant throughout the length of the pipeline. However,
the following changes should be considered:

 Increased dissolved iron with distance (e.g., from internal corrosion) may affect the pH of the
water.

 If trace amounts of oxygen enter the system, the oxygen may be consumed at upstream
locations, leaving downstream locations free from oxygen.

Distributed by Clarivate Analytics (US) LLC, www.techstreet.com.


A9.3 Solids Composition

Internal corrosion caused by solids accumulation may be significantly affected by the presence of
different organic and inorganic materials that may be present from corrosion products, scales, and
carryover of solids into the pipeline segment.

 The effectiveness of cleaning pigs over distance should be considered.

 The composition of solids may provide information on potential internal corrosion mechanisms.

 The presence of corrosion products or other adherent scale or organic deposits can reduce the
internal corrosion rate. A system with a changing scaling tendency may have less internal corrosion
where a protective scale has formed.

 The deposition of wax or formation of a stable asphaltenic layer on the surface can effectively
inhibit corrosion.

A9.4 Hysteresis in Wettability

The amount of time required for the pipeline surface properties to change from hydrophobic (oil-wet) to
hydrophilic (water-wet) may be very long, depending on hydrocarbon properties, the presence of
surfactants, and flow and operating conditions.

41 NACE International
Copyrighted material licensed to Luis Eduardo Cabrera on 2018-01-17 for licensee's use only.
SP0116-2016
Locations predicted to be water-wet under normal operating conditions may have a higher likelihood of
internal corrosion than those predicted to be water-wet only during upsets.

A9.5 Hysteresis in Water and Solids Transport

The velocity required to re-entrain settled water and solid materials is higher than the velocity required to
maintain entrainment under steady state operation. The impact of short term shutdown or flow rate
reductions must be considered as a risk factor.

A9.6 Effect of Turbulence and Flow Disturbances

The effect of turbulence and flow disturbances is dependent on flow rates, flow pattern, liquid petroleum
properties, gas liquid ratios, and oil water ratios.

 Additional turbulence at bends or welds may induce entrainment of the water phase, reducing the
internal corrosion rate.

 Turbulence may facilitate water droplets to break through the thin oil film, wetting the pipe
surface, and inducing localized corrosion.

No further reproduction or networking is permitted.


Inertial forces in a bend may also induce additional water/oil separation.

A9.7 Erosion-Corrosion

Erosion-corrosion includes two types of material loss mechanisms: mechanical erosion and
electrochemical corrosion. Mechanical erosion is related to plastic deformation and rupture of the metal
surface layer, in which small pieces of metal are removed from the surface by mechanical forces such as
turbulent flow, fluctuating shear stress, particle impingement (i.e., solids in oil pipelines and droplets in
gas flow), as well as collapse of vapor bubbles in cavitation processes. Electrochemical corrosion is the
dissolution of metal, where the metal enters the bulk solution after it is ionized. The total erosion-
corrosion rate (ECR) is the sum of the material loss rates caused by erosion ( e ) and corrosion ( c ), as
shown in Equation A1:

ECR  e  c (A1)

Distributed by Clarivate Analytics (US) LLC, www.techstreet.com.


Generally, the total material loss in corrosive fluids is larger than the sum of pure mechanical erosion ( e0 )
and pure electrochemical corrosion ( c0 ). According to some ASTM standards,43-46 pure mechanical
erosion is defined as the erosion in an inert environment. It can be obtained from weight loss
measurements without electrochemical reactions through application of cathodic protection. The pure
electrochemical corrosion is the corrosion under erosion-free conditions, which can be determined using
polarization curve measurements in a solids-free solution. The additional wastages of erosion and
corrosion components caused by synergistic effects are regarded as corrosion-enhanced erosion ( ec )
and the erosion-enhanced corrosion ( ce ),46 as shown in Equations (A2) and (A3):

e  e0  ec (A2)

c  c0  ce (A3)

The synergism of erosion and corrosion ( s ) is expressed as the sum of ( ec ) and ( ce ), as shown in
Equation (A4):

s  ec  ce (A4)

NACE International 42
Copyrighted material licensed to Luis Eduardo Cabrera on 2018-01-17 for licensee's use only.
SP0116-2016
Many mechanical models have been developed to predict mechanical erosion.47-51 The API 14E model
can obtain a soundly based and justifiable erosion rate prediction. Other best-known models have been
developed by Salama,52 Kvernvold,53 and Shirazi, et al.54 These models incorporate a general erosion
equation, which is a function of particle impact velocity. In addition, a more comprehensive approach to
erosion modeling includes modeling of the fluid flow as well as particle trajectories. Nonetheless, erosion-
corrosion prediction models are largely based on empirical equations determined from laboratory testing
data, which only apply to operating conditions that are similar to experimental conditions.

No further reproduction or networking is permitted.


Distributed by Clarivate Analytics (US) LLC, www.techstreet.com.

43 NACE International
Copyrighted material licensed to Luis Eduardo Cabrera on 2018-01-17 for licensee's use only.
SP0116-2016

___________________________________________________________

Appendix B
Corrosion Rate Models
(Nonmandatory)

This appendix is considered nonmandatory, although it may contain mandatory language. It is intended only to
provide supplementary information or guidance. The user of this standard is not required to follow, but may choose
to follow, any or all of the provisions herein.

A corrosion rate model can be used to identify locations for detailed examination instead of determining the
probability of corrosion distribution. Several models to predict internal corrosion of oil and gas pipelines are
presented in this appendix. This list is not exhaustive. For example, several other commercial and
noncommercial software packages are available.

Garber, Adams Model55

The Garber, Adams model, developed from the operating conditions of condensate wells, is used to predict
corrosion rates in gas condensate wells based on operating conditions, temperatures, and flow rates.

No further reproduction or networking is permitted.


Anderko Model56-58

This comprehensive model has been developed to calculate the corrosion rates of carbon steels in the presence
of CO2, H2S, and brine. It combines a thermodynamic model (that provides realistic speciation of aqueous
systems) with an electrochemical model (based on partial cathodic and anodic processes on the metal surface).
The partial processes taken into account by this model include the oxidation of iron and reduction of hydrogen
ions, water, carbonic acid, and hydrogen sulfide.

Crolet Model59,60

The Crolet model predicts the probability of corrosion in oil wells. It is based on a detailed analysis of field data
on CO2 corrosion from two oilfield operations. In the Crolet model, the parameters that influence potential
corrosion severity are pH level, carbonic acid (H2CO3), CO2, acetic acid (CH3COOH), temperature, and flow rate.

Distributed by Clarivate Analytics (US) LLC, www.techstreet.com.


Dayalan Model21

This model consists of a computational procedure and a computer program to predict the corrosion rates of
carbon-steel pipelines caused by CO2-containing flowing fluids in oil and gas field conditions. The computational
procedure is based on a mechanistic model for CO 2 corrosion and is developed from basic principles. The model
takes into account the CO2 corrosion mechanism and the kinetics of electrochemical reactions, chemical
equilibrium reactions, and mass transfer.

De Waard and Milliams Model22,23

The model developed by de Waard and Milliams is the most frequently referenced model in evaluating internal
corrosion. The first version of this model was published in 1975, and it has been revised three times since then.
In the earlier versions of the model, there was no significant consideration of the effects of liquid flow velocity on
the CO2 corrosion rate. The corrosion reaction was assumed to be activation controlled, although the observed
corrosion rates were in some cases about twice the rate predicted. Therefore, a somewhat empirical equation
was developed to describe and predict the effect of flow rate. In 1995, the effect of carbides on the CO 2 corrosion
rate was addressed.

Mishra Model61

Corrosion of steel in CO2 solutions is considered to be a chemical reaction-controlled process. In the Mishra
model, a corrosion rate equation was derived on the basis of fundamental reaction rate theory and was then
compared with empirically determined relationships reported in the literature. The prediction of this model is
similar to the empirically developed models; this model, however, accounts for the effects of steel microstructure

NACE International 44
Copyrighted material licensed to Luis Eduardo Cabrera on 2018-01-17 for licensee's use only.
SP0116-2016
and the flow velocity of the solution on the corrosion rate. The application limit for this model occurs when the
corrosion process begins to be diffusion-controlled, usually after the formation of a stable corrosion product scale
on the steel surface.

Nesic Model62-64

Nesic uses a theoretical approach by modeling individual electrochemical reactions occurring in a water-CO2
system. The processes modeled in this system are the electrochemical reactions at the metal surface and the
transport processes of all the species in the system, including hydrogen (H +), CO2, H2CO3, and ferrous iron (Fe2+).
The Nesic model requires the following inputs: temperature, pH, CO2 partial pressure, oxygen concentration,
steel, and flow geometry. Version 2 of the Nesic model predicts the equivalent of a scaling tendency (that is, the
ratio between the precipitation rate and the corrosion rate).

Nyborg Model65

Nyborg integrated the 1993 and 1995 versions of the de Waard and Milliams model with a commonly used three-
phase fluid-flow model. The temperature, pressure, and liquid flow velocity profiles derived from this fluid-flow
model are used to calculate CO2 partial pressure, pH, and corrosion rate profiles along the pipeline.

NORSOK Model66

No further reproduction or networking is permitted.


This model is an empirical corrosion rate model for carbon steel in water containing CO 2 at different temperatures,
pH, CO2 fugacities, and wall shear stresses. It is based on flow-loop experiments at temperatures from 5 to 160
°C (41 to 320 °F). A large amount of data at various temperatures, CO 2 fugacities, pH, and wall shear stresses
are used.

Palacios Model67-70

This is a process hydraulics algorithm for multiphase flow modeling combined with corrosion models based on the
1995 de Waard and Milliams correlation. It includes correction factors that correlate with seven years of field data
from different oil fields around the world.

Papavinasam Model71,72

Distributed by Clarivate Analytics (US) LLC, www.techstreet.com.


This model predicts internal pitting corrosion of oil and gas pipelines. The model accounts for the statistical
nature of pitting corrosion, predicts the growth of internal pits based on the readily available operational
parameters from the field, and includes the pit growth rate driven by variables that are not included in the model.
It also considers the variation of the pitting corrosion rate as a function of time and determines the error in the
prediction.

Pots Model73

This mechanistic model predicts the CO2 corrosion rate and the effects of fluid-flow. The model, also referred to
as the limiting corrosion rate (LCR) model, provides a theoretical upper limit for the corrosion rate based on the
assumption that the rate determining steps are the transport and production of protons and carbonic acid in the
diffusion and reaction boundary layers.

Smith and de Waard74

This model consists of a computational procedure based on de Waard and Milliams correlation and a computer
program to predict the corrosion rates of carbon steel pipelines caused by CO2-containing flowing fluids in oil and
gas field conditions.

Srinivasan Model75

The basis of the Srinivasan model is the de Waard and Milliams relationship between CO 2 and corrosion rate, but
additional correction factors are introduced. The first step in this approach is a computation of the system pH.
The dissolved CO2 (or H2S) that contributes to pH is determined as a function of acid gas partial pressures,

45 NACE International
Copyrighted material licensed to Luis Eduardo Cabrera on 2018-01-17 for licensee's use only.
SP0116-2016
bicarbonates, and temperature. In addition to pH reduction, the Srinivasan model takes into account the role of
H2S as a general corrodent, as a protective film former, and as a pit initiator.

Teevens Model37,76

This mass transfer model is capable of yielding a general corrosion rate for uninhibited corroding multiphase or
two-phase pipeline systems, in which O2, CO2, and H2S contribute to corrosion of carbon steel pipes. The gas-
liquid flow model was updated mainly from the work of Petalas and Aziz,75 Taitel and Dukler,78 and Barnea.79 The
flow model predicts the flow pattern, liquid hold-up, pressure drop, and friction losses, and calculates gas and
liquid velocities.

After indicating the dominant flow regime at a certain location inside the pipeline, the actual velocities of the liquid
and gas phases at different locations are determined. For example, in the case of the slug flow regime the actual
velocity of the liquid phase must be obtained by applying a suitable flow model. As for the intermittent flow regime
(e.g. slug, plug, and elongated bubble) it is also important to estimate the frequency of the gas bubbles or slugs. 78
This enables us to predict the water wetting percentage based on the water-to-oil wetting ratio that the pipeline
internal surface experiences at a certain location. As a final step, an analysis is performed to find out if the actual
velocity of the liquid phase at a certain location is low enough to permit the separation of the oil and the water
phase. Based on the extent of water-wetting because of separation of oil emulsion, corrosion rate profile for
multiphase pipelines is predicted.

No further reproduction or networking is permitted.


Two- or Multiphase Flow and Liquid Hold-up Correlations

Multiphase flow correlations are generally classified into two broad categories, although there is considerable
overlap between the two approaches. Empirical correlations, which were prevalent in the 1970s and 1980s,
depend on combining physical principles with regression analyses of data generated in test loops that generally
should be scaled up to represent real-world conditions. Mechanistic correlations rely more on first principle
physics, supplemented with test loop data, primarily for closure relationships. Some literature on these two
classifications is provided in the references.75-103

Distributed by Clarivate Analytics (US) LLC, www.techstreet.com.

NACE International 46
Copyrighted material licensed to Luis Eduardo Cabrera on 2018-01-17 for licensee's use only.
SP0116-2016

___________________________________________________________

Appendix C
Examples of Region, Subregion, and Assessment Site Selection
(Mandatory)

C1 Example 1: Region and Subregion Identification 104

C1.1 Region Identification (see Paragraph 3.5)

C1.1.1 To identify regions, the operator/producer may use criteria from Paragraphs 3.5 and follow the
steps presented in Paragraphs C1.1.2 through C1.1.5:

C1.1.2 The operator/producer must:

(a) Identify all input and output along the pipeline segment.

(b) Identify those areas along the pipeline that have been subjected to bidirectional flow.

No further reproduction or networking is permitted.


(c) Identify all unit operation changes.

(d) Identify all places where chemical injection is made.

(e) Identify location of valves and/or pig traps.

C1.1.3 The operator/producer may identify regions according to paragraph 3.5.3.

C1.1.4 The operator/producer shall use Paragraph 3.5.2 and superimpose all individually identified
regions into as many resulting regions for the pipeline segment.

C1.1.5 Figure C1 shows an example of a pipeline that is being assessed. In this figure, a pipeline
segment defined from a compressing or pump station (A) to a treatment plant (B).

Distributed by Clarivate Analytics (US) LLC, www.techstreet.com.

47 NACE International
Copyrighted material licensed to Luis Eduardo Cabrera on 2018-01-17 for licensee's use only.
SP0116-2016

No further reproduction or networking is permitted.


Figure C1: Region Identification for an Idealized Example.

NOTE: Equation (C1) is an explanation of how to define the total number of regions based on Figure C1:

Distributed by Clarivate Analytics (US) LLC, www.techstreet.com.


Paragraph 3.5 – Pipeline Segment A-B, Length = X (C1)

Step 1: Identify parameters (see Paragraph 3.5.1.1), then identify regions accordingly.

 Inputs (I) = 3.

 Withdrawals (W) = 2.

 Areas of bidirectional flow = 0.

Step 2: Identify the following parameters:

 Unit operation (see Paragraph 3.5.2.2) = 1 – the compressing or pump station in the
middle.

 Chemical injection points (see Paragraph 3.5.1.3) = 0.

 Valves, pig traps (see Paragraph 3.5.1.4) = 1 – valve station.

Step 3: Superimpose all the identified (Paragraph 3.5.2) regions from Steps 1 and 2 and define the total
number of regions (Figure C2).

 Region #1: From compressing or pump station “A” to the first input (1).

NACE International 48
Copyrighted material licensed to Luis Eduardo Cabrera on 2018-01-17 for licensee's use only.
SP0116-2016
 Region #2: From input 1to withdrawal (1).

 Region #3: From withdrawal 1 to input (2).

 Region #4: From input 2 to valve station.

 Region #5: From valve station to input (3).

 Region #6: From input (3) to compressing or pump station.

 Region #7: From compressing or pump station to withdrawal (2).

 Region #8: From withdrawal 2 to treatment plant “B”.

No further reproduction or networking is permitted.


Figure C2: Region Identification per Paragraph 3.5.1.

Step 4: (Optional): Identify the “optional characteristics” (Paragraph 3.5.3), See Figure C3.

 Optional 1 – City.

Distributed by Clarivate Analytics (US) LLC, www.techstreet.com.


 Optional 2 – River.

Step 5: (Optional): Superimpose all the identified (Paragraph 3.5.2) regions from Steps 1 and 2 and
define total number of regions.

 Region #1: From compressing or pump station “A” to the first input (1).

 Region #2: From input 1to edge of the city.

 Region #3: Through the city (length of the city).

 Region #4: From edge of the city to first withdrawal (1).

 Region #5: From withdrawal (1) to second input (2).


 Region #6: From input (2) to valve station.

 Region #7: From valve station to edge of the river.

 Region #8: Through the river (length of the river).

 Region #9: From edge of the river to third input (3).

49 NACE International
Copyrighted material licensed to Luis Eduardo Cabrera on 2018-01-17 for licensee's use only.
SP0116-2016
 Region #10: From input (3) to compressing or pump station.

 Region #11: From compressing or pump station to second withdrawal (2).

 Region #12: From withdrawal 2 to treatment plant “B”.

C1.2 Subregion Identification (see Paragraph 4.4).

C1.2.1 Subregions are identified from the results of the flow modeling and as a function of the flow
patterns formed along the pipeline region because of pressure and temperature drops, which result in
changes in superficial gas and liquid velocities.

No further reproduction or networking is permitted.


Figure C3: Region Identification per Paragraph 3.5.3.

C1.2.2 Flow patterns are developed as a result of the hydrodynamic interaction between the gas and the
liquid as they flow along a pipeline, which results in their dependence on the superficial gas and liquid
velocities. Different flow patterns can develop within a region, which results in the creation of subregions.
Examples of the different flow patterns that can be found along a pipeline are shown in Figure C4.

Distributed by Clarivate Analytics (US) LLC, www.techstreet.com.

NACE International 50
Copyrighted material licensed to Luis Eduardo Cabrera on 2018-01-17 for licensee's use only.
SP0116-2016

No further reproduction or networking is permitted.


Distributed by Clarivate Analytics (US) LLC, www.techstreet.com.
Figure C4: Example of a Flow Pattern Map. Figure Reprinted with Permission from the Gas Processors
Association.(16)

Figure C5 shows how the different flow patterns develop within a region and therefore define the subregions. In
the figure (see regions #4, #5 and #6) it can be seen how in region #4, two flow patterns developed, therefore,
there are two subregions (identified as 4.1 and 4.2). In region #5, four different flow patterns formed, and
therefore there are four subregions (identified as 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.4). In region #6, one flow pattern formed, so
there is only one subregion (6.1):

 Subregion #4.1: Formed by SL flow.

 Subregion #4.2: Formed by SW flow.

(16) Gas Processors Association (GPA), 6526 E. 60th St., Tulsa, OK 74145.

51 NACE International
Copyrighted material licensed to Luis Eduardo Cabrera on 2018-01-17 for licensee's use only.
SP0116-2016
 Subregion #5.1: Formed by AF flow.

 Subregion #5.2: Formed by SW flow.

 Subregion #5.3: Formed by ST flow.

 Subregion #5.4: Formed by SL flow.

 Subregion #6.1: Formed by SL flow.

No further reproduction or networking is permitted.


Distributed by Clarivate Analytics (US) LLC, www.techstreet.com.
Figure C5: Subregion Identification Example.

C2 Example 2: Region, Subregion, and Assessment Site Identification

C2.1 Using the same figures as before, now Figure C1 shows an example of a pipeline segment from A to B
that is 10,428 m (34,214 ft). To define the total number of regions, the operator/producer may use criteria
from the following step presented in Paragraphs C.2.1.1 through C.2.1.1.2.

C2.1.1 Region Identification

C2.1.1.1 Following steps in Paragraph 3.5, eight regions were identified for this pipeline.

C2.1.1.2 In Figure C1, the continuous blue line represents the elevation profile for a pipeline
segment and has been sectioned in eight different regions based on inputs, withdrawals, and unit
operation changes and other parameters defined in Paragraph 3.5.

C2.1.2 Flow Modeling

NACE International 52
Copyrighted material licensed to Luis Eduardo Cabrera on 2018-01-17 for licensee's use only.
SP0116-2016

C2.1.2.1 If all variables categorized as importance level 1 (see Table 1) have been identified, the
operator/producer shall proceed to the indirect inspection step and flow modeling. There are two way
of performing this step:

C2.1.2.1.1 Use a model that integrates both flow modeling and ICPM.

C2.1.2.1.2 Use a flow model separate from the corrosion rate model. Results from the flow
model are used as part of the input for the corrosion rate model.

C2.1.2.2 In both cases, it is important to ensure that the flow model reproduces the true
field/operating conditions of the pipeline within ± 5%, either from current or historical operating
conditions. This depends if the flow modeling is being performed either for current or historical
conditions. This step requires input from the SME. The corrosion rates results shall result in ± 10% of
the average corrosion rates for the subregion.

C2.1.2.3 Calculations from the ICPM or flow modeling plus corrosion modeling shall be performed at
intervals of at least every 20 m (66 ft). Every 20 m (66 ft), the following information shall be provided:

 Superficial gas velocity (VSG).

No further reproduction or networking is permitted.


 Superficial liquid velocity (VSL).

 Pressure and temperature.

 Changes in liquid hold-up (HL).

 Flow regimes.

 Corrosion rates.

C2.1.2.4 These results can be used to plot the pipeline segment elevation profile as shown in Figure
C1. The use of figures is helpful, as they assist in visually locating the regions and subregions, as
well as aid in identifying the assessment sites.

Distributed by Clarivate Analytics (US) LLC, www.techstreet.com.


C2.1.3 Subregion Identification

C2.1.3.1 The flow modeling step results in the identification of all flow patterns developed in each
subregion. In this particular case, between regions 4 to 6, seven (7) subregions were identified (see
Figure C5).

C3 Assessment Site Selection and Exposure Criteria

C3.1 Summary Table C1 (Paragraph 4.5.5) shows a hypothetical example where pre-selection criterion 1
(Paragraph 4.5.4.1) and pre-selection criterion 2 (Paragraph 4.5.4.2) are used to select assessment site
candidates (Paragraph 4.5.4.3). In the example, the results are shown for only one region of a pipeline. The
same process is applied for every region. Also in the example, the ICPM did not include the calculation of
corrosion rates considering UDC, low points, and other characteristics mentioned in paragraph 4.5.4.2.5, in
which case pre-selection criterion 1 and 2 were used. On the contrary, if the ICPM follows paragraph
4.5.4.4. then only pre-selection criterion 1 should be used.

53 NACE International
Copyrighted material licensed to Luis Eduardo Cabrera on 2018-01-17 for licensee's use only.
SP0116-2016
Table C1
Hypothetical Case to Show Assessment Site Candidate Selection. For this Case the ICPM does not
Comply with Paragraph 4.5.4.4
Length of Region

Superficial Liquid

Assessment Site
Mixture Velocity
Paragraph # for

Superficial Gas

Corrosion Rate
Total Elevation

Pre-selection

Pre-selection
Temperature

Flow Pattern
Total Length
Coordinates

Subregion #

Candidates
Description

(paragraph

(paragraph

(paragraph
Criterion 1

Criterion 2
Wall Loss
Pressure
Region #

Velocity

Velocity

4.5.4.1)

4.5.4.2)

4.5.4.3)
Criteria

ft ft ft psig °F ft/s ft/s ft/s mp %


y
38 –4 649. 99. 0.02 1.42 1.44 S 0.6 1.40 No 4.5.4.2. No
76 46 2 2 3 T 3 5.2.5
Region 1 goes from the beginning of the pipeline from exit pig trap located in installation

119 – 649. 99. 0.03 2.13 2.16 S 2.3 4.77 No 4.5.4.2. No


1 13 16 03 5 2 7 T 8 5.2.5
178 – 649. 98. 0.01 0.71 0.72 S 4.8 9.76 No 4.5.4.2. No
14 10 98 2 0 3 T 8 5.2.5
255 – 648. 98. 0.08 3.44 3.52 S 7.2 14.4 Yes 4.5.4.2. Yes

No further reproduction or networking is permitted.


23 78 47 2 0 1 T 4 7 5.2.5
337 – 647. 98. 0.08 4.79 4.88 S 8.9 17.8 Yes 4.5.4.2. Yes
(NAME) to first withdrawal located near (ROAD)

24 98 26 8 5 3 T 3 6 5.2.6
From UTM E 0474691.692 A N 2037493.562


to UTM E 0474729.044 A N 2037210.186

419 647. 97. 0.11 6.32 6.43 S 6.0 12.0 Yes 4.5.4.2. Yes
24 74 98 6 2 9 T 1 2 5.2.6
508 – 647. 97. 0.17 8.45 8.62 S 9.3 18.7 Yes 4.5.4.2. Yes
24 48 90 4 0 5 T 9 8 5.2.7
Average 11.2
9
586 – 646. 97. 1.82 10.6 12.4 S 8.3 16.6 No N/A No
Region 1

7,864.50
3.5.1

25 97 60 4 54 L 1 2
668 – 645. 97. 3.28 15.2 18.5 S 7.6 15.3 No N/A No
25 93 48 4 21 L 8 6
2 748 – 645. 97. 2.37 21.9 24.3 S 9.2 18.5 Yes N/A Yes

Distributed by Clarivate Analytics (US) LLC, www.techstreet.com.


25 01 14 6 42 L 6 1
829 – 644. 96. 3.10 20.7 31.8 S 9.5 19.1 Yes N/A Yes
26 95 97 6 79 L 6 2
911 – 644. 96. 3.94 36.6 40.5 S 11. 23.1 Yes N/A Yes
26 85 79 1 45 L 55 0
993 – 644. 96. 4.58 42.5 47.1 S 14. 28.2 Yes N/A Yes
26 74 46 3 02 L 12 4
1,0 – 644. 96. 2.07 15.1 17.2 S 5.3 10.7 No N/A No
65 28 63 33 5 14 L 8 7
1,0 – 644. 96. 1.58 10.0 11.5 S 6.2 12.5 No N/A No
48 30 01 00 1 92 L 7 5
1,2 – 643. 95. 1.29 7.77 9.05 S 8.2 16.4 No N/A No
30 36 53 78 7 L 3 6
Average 17.8
6

NACE International 54
Copyrighted material licensed to Luis Eduardo Cabrera on 2018-01-17 for licensee's use only.
SP0116-2016

Table C1 (Continued)
Hypothetical Case to show Assessment Site Candidate Selection. For this Case the ICPM does not
Comply with Paragraph 4.5.4.4
Length of Region

Superficial Liquid

Assessment Site
Mixture Velocity
Paragraph # for

Superficial Gas

Corrosion Rate

Pre-selection

Pre-selection
Temperature

Flow Pattern
Coordinates

Subregion #

Candidates
Description

(paragraph

(paragraph

(paragraph
Criterion 1

4.5.4.1) 2
Wall Loss
Elevation

Pressure
Region #

Velocity

Velocity

4.5.4.2)

4.5.4.3)
Criteria

Length

Criterion
ft ft ft psig °F ft/s ft/s ft/s mpy %

1,3 – 643. 95. 0.1 11.2 11.4 S 12. 24.17 Ye 4.5.4.2. Yes
Region 1 goes from the beginning of the pipeline, from

12 43 09 85 66 73 39 W 09 6 s 5.2.7
1,3 – 642. 95. 0.6 13.0 13.7 S 6.4 12.83 No 4.5.4.2. No
exit pig trap located in installation (NAME) to first
From UTM E 0474691.692 A N 2037493.562

94 43 24 25 62 99 61 W 2 7 5.2.7
to UTM E 0474729.044 A N 2037210.186

3 1,4 – 641. 95. 0.8 24.0 24.8 S 11. 22.40 Ye 4.5.4.2. Yes
76 43 81 09 09 34 44 W 20 2 s 5.2.7
withdrawal located near (ROAD)

No further reproduction or networking is permitted.


1,5 – 641. 95. 0.1 19.5 19.6 S 11. 22.92 Ye 4.5.4.2. Yes
58 41 59 00 46 44 90 W 46 9 s 5.2.7
1,6 – 641. 94. 0.1 15.4 15.6 S 10. 21.12 Ye 4.5.4.2. Yes
40 39 49 96 46 72 19 W 56 4 s 5.2.7
Region 1

7,864.50

1,7 – 641. 94. 0.1 15.1 15.2 S 5.2 10.56 No 4.5.4.2. No


3.5.1

22 37 38 92 13 66 81 W 8 5 5.2.7
1,8 – 640. 94. 0.0 15.8 15.8 S 6.7 13.58 No 4.5.4.2. No
04 36 99 78 52 16 68 W 9 0 5.2.7
1,8 – 640. 94. 0.1 18.9 19.1 S 8.3 16.66 No 4.5.4.2. No
29 35 61 64 93 98 91 W 3 5 5.2.7
1,8 – 640. 94. 0.0 8.21 8.26 S 7.3 14.67 No 4.5.4.2. No
63 34 40 58 43 7 0 W 4 4 5.2.7
1,8 – 640. 94. 0.0 15.4 15.5 S 11. 23.61 No 4.5.4.2. Yes

Distributed by Clarivate Analytics (US) LLC, www.techstreet.com.


86 34 27 53 82 75 56 W 81 2 5.2.7
Average 17.23

C3.2 The final assessment site selection is performed using paragraph 4.5.6 and Table 2.

C3.3 Table 2 is used for the final assessment site selection. Because the line is 10.43 km (6.48 mi) in
length, then the minimum assessment sites must be selected:

 One site having calculated wall loss less than 20%.

 One site having calculated wall loss of 21-40%.

 Two sites having calculated wall loss of 41-60%.

 Two sites having calculated wall loss greater than 60%.

For a total minimum of six assessment sites, as shown in Table C2.

55 NACE International
Copyrighted material licensed to Luis Eduardo Cabrera on 2018-01-17 for licensee's use only.
SP0116-2016

Table C2
Final Assessment Site Selection for Hypothetical Example.

Assessment
% Wall Loss
Coordinates
Subregion #

Comments
Evaluation

Corrosion

Selection
Region #

Pattern
Length
Total

Total

Final
Flow

Rate

Site
ft ft mpy
1 1 508.05 –24.28 ST 9.391 18.782 Yes Located in a HCA

3 1,312 –43 SW 12.09 24.176 Yes Based on wall loss


and Paragraph
4.5.4.2.5.2.7
2 3 9,358.63 25.26 SL 16.056 32.111 Yes Based on wall loss

3 3 14,719.80 –8.37 AM 20.012 40.023 Yes Based on wall loss


and has a history of
previous failures

No further reproduction or networking is permitted.


4 8 25,910.12 57.65 ST 26.592 53.183 Yes Based on rupture
history
5 15 32,440.55 967.39 SW 9.042 22.606 Yes Near a river

Distributed by Clarivate Analytics (US) LLC, www.techstreet.com.

ISBN # 1-57590-333-4
NACEInternational
NACE International 56