rd

23 World GAS Conference, Amsterdam 2006

C.P. data, CIPS & DCVG techniques: another way to predict

Corrosion on Gas Pipeline.

A.Taberkokt

ALGERIA

1
ABSTRACT
One of the most important care of gas operators is how to prevent the presence of corrosion
points on their metallic gas pipelines, and therefore repair them before they reach a critical threshold
that could lead to an incident.

This prevention can be assured by inspecting the pipe wall thickness with an intelligent pig tool.
Indeed the evolution of the technology, allows the development of high resolution tools which locate
corrosion points ( if they exist ) and restore them in three axial axis dimensions. The gas operators can
then identify the critical corrosion points and undertake the appropriate actions to ensure a safe
operation of its gas pipeline.

Solely, this alternative of inspection, is on one hand costly and on another hand, depends on
the technical characteristics of the pipe (diameter, thickness, bends.....), without taking into account
the time parameter from the call of tender to the data acquisition. In addition to that, the gas operator
has to prepare the required conditions before and during the pipe inspection (gas equipments to be
replaced, relive of ballast industrial customers in certain cases due to technical reasons, repeating the
inspection if some troubles appear in the acquisition data recorder ...).

Therefore, the gas operators can undertake another alternative which consists of using
electrical field survey methods: ON/OFF CIPS combined with DCVG measures over the buried gas
pipeline. For which, he has to add historical data of cathodic protection parameters, such as soil
resistivities, potential surveys, Off rectifiers time and any other parameters which favor the instability of
the steel pipe wall thickness. The analysis of the obtained results leads in preventing the existence of
the corrosion points. This alternative is undertaken whatever the gas pipeline characteristics are.

The present work shows us an experience done on a part of section of the gas pipeline ∅ 20’’
diameter and 77 Km length gas pipeline (from Relizane town to Sig ) using the two techniques :
Inspection by intelligent pig tool and electrical field survey methods.

We focus our interest over the first ( 10 ) ten kilometers, cause it’s first the section in which
our previous study showed us to be the most probable affected part of the gas pipeline, and
second because it’s the section which supports the high pressure levels (existence of the compressor
station ).

The results of the both techniques were given; time and costs were evaluated showing the
positive and negative sides of the two alternatives. Finally conclusion and recommendations were
done for gas operators, who are interested to inspire with this experiment.

2
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Abstract
2. Introduction
3. Technical characteristics of the gas pipeline
4. Corrosion prediction using CP data and electrical fields surveys.
5. Inspection of the gas pipeline by intelligent tool.
6. Analysis and comparison of the MFL tool and On line surveys results
7. Conclusion.
8. References
9. Annexes

3
1. INTRODUCTION

On 1977 the Algerian Gas & Electricity company SONELGAZ inherited the ∅ 20’’ Relizane –
Maghnia high pressure gas pipeline, called ‘’∅ 20’’ Ouest’’. This pipe made off three sections coated
with bitumen product, was strategic for the north west of Algeria, since it permitted the supply of
natural gas to the towns situated in the neighboring of gas pipeline.
Unfortunately, our company received the gas pipeline in very bad conditions, which required a
rehabilitation programs just after putting gas into the pipeline.
From these years a particular care was and is still given to the ‘’∅ 20’’ Ouest ‘’, by establishing
special programs such as inspections by intelligent pig and rehabilitation, to satisfy the required rules
of supplying natural gas in a safety condition.
From 1979 to 1995 our company has done:
- The change of 30 % of the total gas pipelines length,
- Reparation of all the severe corrosion points,
- Reparation of thousands defects coating.

On 1996, because of the possibility to feed a new customers, a ‘’power plant’’ situated at 70 Km far
the end of the network ( after the extension of the pipeline ) , we prepared a rehabilitation study which
undertook actions to short , medium and long term.
Among these actions, we proposed to change the first 44 Km of the Relizane - Sig section, basing
on cathodic protection parameters history, coating condition …. In addition, it’s the part of the gas
pipeline which will support the highest pressures level.
The technical committee of our company didn’t accepted the proposal of the renovation, in fact,
they agreed to undertake this action, only after inspecting the gas pipeline by the intelligent pig tool.
So we took the opportunity to investigate, over the first 10 Km of the gas pipeline’s first section* by
using electrical field measurement methods ( DCVG & CIPS ),combined with the historical CP data
parameters to predict where corrosion could take place and compare it with the results of the
inspection by intelligent pig.

This report throws investigation results, pictures of our undertaken actions, in which time and costs
were evaluated showing the positive and negative sides of the two alternatives, a conclusion and
recommendations are done in such case, someone could inspire with this experiment.

* : the section is the one which support the high pressure levels

2 - TECHNICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE GAS PIPELINE:

The main characteristics of the gas pipeline were as follow:

- Diameter: Ø 20’’
- Total length: 273,524 Km ( 265 Km initially )
- Thickness: 7.92 - 12.70 - 16 mm
- Steel Grade: X 52
- Type of the coating: 88.920 Km coal tar enamel (new parts) and the rest is petroleum bitumen.

4
3 - CORROSION PREDICTION USING CP DATA AND ELECTRICAL FIELD
SURVEYS:

3 – 1 Choice of the area’s pipe to investigate

Starting from the acceptable basis that, containing external corrosion of buried metallic structures is
possible only if two protection techniques are used. The first one is to assure the separation of the
structure from the soil by applying an adequate coating. The second is applying cathodic protection
( CP ) to the structure, cause there in no coating which could insulate the structure from the soil at 100
% ( without taking into account that coating defects appear in time ).
Our work was then, to delineate the coating defects on the buried pipeline.
As we’ve seen in the introduction, we focus our work over the Relizane – Sig section. After
analyzing the historical CP’s data, three areas of the gas pipeline knew a level of potentials (to the
copper – copper sulfate half cell reference Cu/CuSO4), below the criterion protection.(see Fig. 1 ).
Three regions presented the same conditions to undertake investigations, we chose the first one
cause as we said, it’s the part of the gas pipeline which supports the high pressure levels.

20'' Relizane-Sig
On Potential 1995-1999
3500 450
Threshold of protection
3000 On Potential 95 400
On Potential 97

Resistivity [ Ω.m ]
On Potential 99 Soil resistivity 350
2500
Potential [ - mV ]

300
2000 250

1500 200

150
1000
100
500
50

0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
P.K. [ Km ]

Area N° 1 Area N° 2 Area N° 3 : New parts of the pipe

GRD RELIZANE P.K. 0,000 Line breaks GRA SIG

Fig.1 Synoptic plan of Relizane – Sig section and its 1995-97-99 potential plots

P.K. : Kilometer Point.

5
3-2 Coating defects research:

3-2-1 Principle of the survey methods:

Tow survey methods were used simultaneously, the measurement of the lateral voltage drop using
two copper – copper sulfate half cell ( DCVG ) and the close order potential survey using only one half
cell ( CIPS ) ( see Fig.2 ).
The measurements were done in ON-OFF ( by connecting a time contactor to the rectifier ), of
course, prior to undertake these measurements the pipe’s location was done.
The measurements were taken each 5 meters ( when necessary it’s reduced to locate with
accuracy the coating defect’s epicenter).
When an important defect is located it’s marked on a map (experience showed that stakes could
easily be stolen).
At this time of these investigations we didn’t get a GPS equipment, which could gave a big hand to
our work.

Test point
CIPS measurement

mV
Half cell Cu/CuSO4

Ω
ρ soil resistivity measurement DCVG measurement

Pipe detection

Fig. 2 Illustration of the combined methods CIPS & DCVG techniques

3 – 2 – 2 Interpretation of the results:

Thousands of data were gathered, to interpret easily the results we plotted (versus the distance
covered):
- the On – Off potential of the pipeline ( P On and P Off )
- the gradient voltage difference VOn – VOff ( ∆ V ) or IR % (100x∆ V/∆ P ).

It’s useful to remind that, when a direct current is applied to a pipeline, a voltage gradient is
established on the ground, due to the passage of the current through the soil to the bare steel exposed
at the defect. Generally, the larger defect is, the greater the current flow and hence larger voltage
gradient.

In the same manner we can use the % IR that represents the percentage of the applied potential (∆
P) which is lost on the fault position (∆ V) , and generally the IR % value increases with the increasing
defect size/current requirement.

6
 Before giving the result of the coating survey it’s useful to define the categories of the coating
defects:
st
- 1 category means IR % greater or equal to 10 and less than 30.
rd
- 3 category means IR % greater or equal to 50.
nd st rd
- 2 category is between 1 and 3 ones.

The following table synthesizes the surveys results by pipe’s sections:

Number of defects coating

Pipe sections rd nd st
3 category 2 category 1 category
P.K 0.2 TO P.K 1.45 0 03 17
P.K 1.45 TO P.K 3.30 0 0 06
P.K 4.4 TO P.K 5.44 22 28 73
P.K 5.8 TO P.K 6.8 26 31 86
P.K 6.9 TO P.K 7.99 37 16 17
P.K 8.0 TO P.K 9.2 61 81 54
st
The first attractive result is that the change of the sections during the 1 programme of gas
pipeline’s rehabilitation presents a few number of defects.
Once detecting the localisation coating defect, we start analysing them from the point of view of
cathodic protection level ( see annexe I), and the soil aggressivity ( for the soil classification see table
N°2 ), we can therefore predict the presence of the corrosion at the defect coating.

The following table shows an example of how the gathered data are arranged to make easier the
analysis:

rd
3 category IR % greater or equal to 50
Pipe sections
Defects Distance Cathodic Prot. Soil Resistivity
Nbr distribution [ Km ] Level [ mV ] Ω.m
1 8.045 - 850 16
7 8.090 to 8.15 - 750 17
1 8.185 - 790 19
44 8.235 to 8.785 -920-570-740 19-25
P.K 8.0 TO P.K 9.2 61
1 8.835 - 860 28
3 8.86 to 8.88 -715 to - 800 30
3 8.925 to 8.935 -670 to -690 30
1 9 - 640 30

Of course, it’s important to recall that we need the historical CP data. For this purpose, we took the
last 08 years of the quarterly* ON potential surveys and the monthly* rectifier’s measurement reports,
in addition to the ON-OFF potential surveys done on 1993-95-97 and 99 ( see Fig.1 for the years
95,97 and 99 ).

Here, it’s important to mention that a ‘’BANK’’ of PC data is vital for of any existing pipeline. As an
example of that, the part of the pipeline situated between P.K 02 and 06 was found protected when we
did the surveys, but it was the one which was the most affected: lack of protection for the years 1994
and 1995 (we have reinforced the protection system by a new rectifier at P.K. 06 ) and subjugated to
an aggressive soil.

* : measurements are done by our regional teams.

7
 rd nd
All the 3 and 2 categories coating defects were well analysed, and we have predicted the
possibility of the corrosion presence (with the ration of one corrosion point per one coating defect in
which the corrosion process is likely to occur: we don’t have tools to predict more than one).

The corrosion prediction is given by section of the pipe as shown in the following table:

Number of the
Pipe section
Corrosion points predicted
P.K 0.2 TO P.K 1.45 00
P.K 1.45 TO P.K 3.30 00
P.K 4.4 TO P.K 5.44 48
P.K 5.8 TO P.K 6.8 25
P.K 6.9 TO P.K 7.99 30
P.K 8.0 TO P.K 9.2 91

The results given in the above table were obtained, after analysing point per point of the second
and third categories coating defects. As an example, the following table shows how the upper table is
obtained.

Corrosion prediction Distance Soil Resistivity

Pipe sections
Nbr distribution [ Km ] Ω.m
09 8 to 8.13 17
56 8.235 to 8.785 19-25
12 8.86 to 8.88 30
P.K 8.0 to P.K 9.2 91 03 8.925 to 8.935 30
08 8.94 to 8.98 30
02 9 to9.005 30
01 9.05 30

3 – 2 – 3 Cost of the survey operation:

The DCVG and CIPS surveys were done by our own company team. 04 people (among them two
experts), undertook the investigations which spent 08 days ( in site ). The total cost of the operation is
4 K$.

4 – INSPECTION OF THE GAS PIPELINE BY THE INTELLIGENT TOOL.

4 - 1 Principle of the inspection

The pipe inspection was done by the Magnetic flux leakage process,
using a high resolution equipment with the range of accuracy for depth of
defect up to ± 10%. The corrosion points were given in three axial axis
dimensions. Many information were given concerning the corrosion point
or the pipeline its self. ( see annexe). Fig. 2 shows how corrosion point is
visualized in 3 D, by "zoom plot". The Red zones designate corrosion
defects.
Fig.2 Corrosion points

4 - 2 Time evaluation: from the call of tender to final results

More than one year from the tender of call to the reception of the inspection results ( the time
include the tender launching, analysing the technical offers, asking the tenderer for details and
additional information, commercial offer, preparation of the conditions to permit the inspection of the
gas pipeline…………….).

8
4 - 3 Inspection results

The following table gives the corrosion number per sections of the pipeline.

Number of the
Pipe section
Corrosion points
P.K 0.2 TO P.K 1.45 17
P.K 1.45 TO P.K 3.30 24
P.K 3.30 TO 4.4 48
P.K 4.4 TO P.K 5.44 293
P.K 5.8 TO P.K 6.8 49
P.K 6.9 TO P.K 7.99 17
P.K 8.0 TO P.K 9.2 212

The following graph gives the distribution of the corrosion points for the 10 first kilometres : thickness
loss versus distance:

90

80

70
% T h ic k n e s s lo ss

60 Corrosion Points
50

40

30

20

10

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Distance [ Km ]

Fig.3. Corrosion distribution: % thickness loss versus distance

4 - 4 Cost of the inspection

The total cost of the inspection was 577.8 K$

9
5 - ANALYSIS AND COMPARISON OF THE MFL TOOL AND ON LINE SURVEYS
RESULTS :

The following table synthesizes the corrosion points obtained by MFL tool inspection with the ones
predicted by on line surveys methods:

Number of the Corrosion points

Pipe section
Inspection’s results Predicted by online surveys
N°1 P.K 0.2 TO P.K 1.45 17 00
N°2 P.K 1.45 TO P.K 3.30 24 00
N°3 P.K. 3.30 TO 4.40 48 00
N°4 P.K 4.4 TO P.K 5.44 293 48
N°5 P.K 5.8 TO P.K 6.8 49 25
N°6 P.K 6.9 TO P.K 7.99 17 30
N°7 P.K 8.0 TO P.K 9.2 212 91

At this step, if we had a GPS equipment the comparison of the two results would be very easy and
accurate, because the measure of distance covered by the technician could never be equal to the one
done by the intelligent pig. The P.K of the pipe’s special points and the test points helped us in some
cases to correct our results.

As the work we’ve done for the corrosion prediction, we compare point per point the results
obtained and listed in the above table.

As an example, the following table gives the way, of how we did the comparison for the pipe’s
section N°7 :

Corrosion points
Distance
Pipe sections Nbr distribution Observations
MFL Surveys MFL Surveys [ Km ]
00 09 8 to 8.13 Corros. at PK 7.8 and 7.9
8.235 to
170 56
8.785
00 12 8.86 to 8.88
P.K 8.0 to P.K 9.2 212 91
00 03 8.925 to 8.935
08 8.94 to 8.98 Difference of 48 m
06 02 9 to 9.005 Difference of 28m
01 9.05 Difference of 19m

If we neglect the number of the corrosion points, the first attractive result is, our prediction failed for
the first sections N° 1 and 2 (we predicted zero co rrosion point). In fact for the first sections, 15
corrosion points over the 17 (found), are located where we had found a coating defect of second
category.

We also missed to predict corrosion on these parts of the pipe:

- P.K 3.30 to 4.4 : 48 corrosion points. 04 points with respectively metal loss of 25, 25, 22, 17
and 75 at the section P.K. 3.552 – 3.557. The rest are all less than 17 %.
- P.K. 9.674 to 9.804: 24 corrosion points with metal loss, less or equal to 13% of the thickness
and 02 of respectively 22 and 17 %.

For the rest of our predictions, results showed that if we hadn’t got approximately the same P.K. of
the corrosion locations, we’re at least far from of 50 to 70 meters.

10
 Just after getting the MFL tool results, our company started the reparation of the most severe
corrosion points located at P.K. 8.775, this operation confirmed us that our result : coating defect
location and the corrosion prediction.

The graphs given in the annexe show the distribution of the corrosion and coating defect versus
the distance of the pipe, and give an overview what we’ve just explained. (they are better to evaluate
rapidly the obtained results )

6 – CONCLUSION.
There is no doubt that the best way to detect corrosion in pipeline is the inspection by intelligent
tool, because the gas operator will know with accuracy the real condition of the pipe wall thickness
and hence ensure a safe operation of its gas pipeline.

On other hand if the gas operator has a non-piggable pipelines or he wants to save money the on
line surveys ( GVDC – CIPS techniques ) gives good results, providing, to get first of all, a large
‘’BANK’’ of PC data, and an experiment technicians.

7 - REFERENCES

1. DR. J.M. Leeds “A critical review of the techniques used to delineate pipeline coating defects
as a precursor to refurbishment”.

2. DR. J.M. Leeds “ The DC voltage gradient method for accurate delineation of coating defects
on buried pipelines” UK Corrosion 1990.

3. W.G.Von Baeckmane (1973)”Measurement and importance of the Off potential in applying

th
cathodic protection to pipeline’’ 12 WGC NICE73.

4. W.G.Von Baeckmane “Taschenbuch fur den kathodischen korrsionsschutz” .

5. C.Corradetti, E.Bini and D.Gentile “Results of ‘’IN SITU’’ coating integrity surveys as routine
control on new gas lines impact on gas line quality, design aspects and organization of the
work.

11
8 - ANNEXES

12
 Potential On Off Sample N°1
3000
Potential ON
Potential Off
2500 Threshold protection
Potential [ mV ]

2000

1500

1000

500

0
0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6 0,7 0,8 0,9 1 1,1 1,2 1,3 1,4
Distance [ Km ]

IR %
60

50 IR %

40

30
IR %

20

10

0
0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6 0,7 0,8 0,9 1 1,1 1,2 1,3 1,4
-10

-20
Distance [ Km ]

Corrosion points
30

25
% Corrosion depth

Corrosion points
20

15

10

0
0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6 0,7 0,8 0,9 1 1,1 1,2 1,3 1,4

distance [ Km ]

13
 Potential On-Off Sample N°2
1600
Potential On
1400 Potential Off
Threshold protection
1200
Potential [ -mV ]

1000

800

600

400

200

0
4,425 4,525 4,625 4,725 4,825 4,925 5,025 5,125 5,225
distance [ Km ]

VOn-VOff
120
VOn-VOff
100
Voltage Gradient [ - mV ]

80

60

40

20

0
4,425 4,525 4,625 4,725 4,825 4,925 5,025 5,125 5,225
-20

-40

-60
Distance [ Km ]

Corrosion points
40

35 Corrosion points
% Corrosion depth

30

25

20

15

10

0
4,425 4,525 4,625 4,725 4,825 4,925 5,025 5,125 5,225

distance [ Km ]

14
 Potentila On-Off Sam ple N°3

1400
Potential On
Potentiel Off
1200 Threshold protection

1000
Potential [ -mV ]

800

600

400

200

0
8 8,2 8,4 8,6 8,8 9 9,2
Distance [ Km ]

IR %
250

200 IR %

150
IR %

100

50

0
8 8,2 8,4 8,6 8,8 9 9,2

-50
Distance [ Km ]

Corrosion point
90
80
Corrosion point
70
% Corrosion depth

60
50
40
30
20
10
0
8,0 8,2 8,4 8,6 8,8 9,0 9,2
Distance [ Km ]

15
 Contrôle De Canalisation
Algeria
20" VECTRA MFL Inspection ( 0157 )
Informations
Sonelgaz_Relazine to Sig (76.883km)
D'Ellipsoïde: WGS84
Date of Inspection: 25 September 1999 Méridien Central : 3°E
Nombre De Zone: 31 N
BJ Process and Pipeline Services
Ltd.
BJ
Chainag Épais. Prof.
e Position Paroi Long. Larg. Max Longitude / Latitude
(m) Horloge (mm) (mm) (mm) (%) Loc. (DMS)
N: 35 ° 42 ' 58.672 " E: 0 ° 32 '
4,493.55 05 : 30 7.92 40.1 27.2 15 EXT. 9.728 "
N: 35 ° 42 ' 58.672 " E: 0 ° 32 '
4,493.55 04 : 15 7.92 26.3 27.2 11 EXT. 9.728 "
N: 35 ° 42 ' 58.672 " E: 0 ° 32 '
4,493.56 03 : 45 7.92 15.1 19.6 22 EXT. 9.728 "
N: 35 ° 42 ' 58.672 " E: 0 ° 32 '
4,493.57 03 : 15 7.92 40.0 145.1 35 EXT. 9.727 "
N: 35 ° 42 ' 58.672 " E: 0 ° 32 '
4,493.58 02 : 45 7.92 17.8 25.7 35 EXT. 9.727 "
N: 35 ° 42 ' 58.672 " E: 0 ° 32 '
4,493.58 03 : 15 7.92 32.9 42.3 16 EXT. 9.727 "
N: 35 ° 42 ' 58.672 " E: 0 ° 32 '
4,493.60 08 : 30 7.92 23.0 28.7 10 EXT. 9.726 "
N: 35 ° 42 ' 58.672 " E: 0 ° 32 '
4,493.60 07 : 15 7.92 98.0 60.5 26 EXT. 9.726 "
N: 35 ° 43 ' 6.074 " E: 0 ° 29 '
8,774.09 05 : 30 7.92 12.8 24.2 14 EXT. 20.181 "
N: 35 ° 43 ' 6.074 " E: 0 ° 29 '
8,774.10 06 : 00 7.92 14.0 18.1 16 EXT. 20.181 "
N: 35 ° 43 ' 6.074 " E: 0 ° 29 '
8,774.11 06 : 00 7.92 86.0 157.2 35 EXT. 20.180 "
N: 35 ° 43 ' 6.074 " E: 0 ° 29 '
8,774.13 06 : 00 7.92 15.8 24.2 20 EXT. 20.180 "
N: 35 ° 43 ' 6.074 " E: 0 ° 29 '
8,774.14 06 : 00 7.92 38.0 51.4 15 EXT. 20.179 "
N: 35 ° 43 ' 6.074 " E: 0 ° 29 '
8,774.14 05 : 30 7.92 12.9 25.7 20 EXT. 20.179 "

Sample of a part of the inspection’s results

16