PIPELINE STRESS CORROSION CRACKING:

DETECTION AND CONTROL

By John Beavers, DNV GL | July 2015, Vol.242, No. 7

John Beavers

Corrosion of underground natural gas and liquid petroleum pipelines occurs in a variety of
forms and requires specialized mitigation methods to detect and control. First identified in the
1960s, stress corrosion cracking (SCC) is a form of corrosion that results in clusters or colonies
of cracks on the external surface of the affected pipeline.

According to the federal Pipeline & Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), the
majority of pipeline incidents caused by SCC are found on natural gas pipelines rather than
hazardous liquid pipelines. However, SCC can manifest itself wherever the right combination of
factors exists.

On behalf of Pipeline & Gas Journal, NACE International invited NACE Fellow and external
SCC expert John Beavers to answer questions on the causes of SCC, the technologies
needed to detect and address this form of corrosion, and new developments to improve the
performance and safety of pipelines susceptible to SCC.

Beavers, corporate vice president and director of Incident Investigation at DNV GL,
acknowledges the input of DNV GL Vice President of Technology Oliver Moghissi, NACE past
president, in the development and review of these comments.

NACE: Why does SCC occur on pipelines?

Beavers: Three conditions are necessary for external SCC on underground pipelines (like
other forms of SCC) to occur: (1) a susceptible metal, (2) a tensile stress of sufficient
magnitude, and (3) a potent environment at the metal surface. The carbon steels used to
manufacture line pipe are susceptible to SCC in a number of environments, including two that
develop beneath disbonded coatings underground.

Tensile stresses on underground pipelines originate from a number of sources, including

residual stresses from pipe manufacturing and construction, internal operating pressure,
damage to the pipeline, such as that caused by from dents and mechanical damage, and land
movement. These stresses can be in the hoop direction (e.g., from the internal pressure),
resulting in axial cracks in the axial direction axial (e.g., from land movement), resulting in
circumferential cracks; or both directions (e.g., the combined stresses or from dents), resulting
in cracks at other orientations.

The majority of underground pipelines are externally coated and cathodically protected to
mitigate corrosion. A potent environment must have access to the metal surface for SCC to
occur. Accordingly, an intact, well-bonded coating will mitigate all forms of external corrosion,
including SCC. The first step in the development of a potent environment at the pipeline
surface is the disbondment of the coating, typically at defects, referred to as holidays, in the
coating.

There are two forms of external SCC on underground pipelines high pH SCC and near-
neutral pH SCC which are associated with two different environments that develop at the
pipe surface within these disbonded areas. Both environments are associated with the
presence of carbon dioxide in the soil, typically from decay of organic matter. High pH SCC is
most commonly associated with coal tar coatings, and the environment that develops at the
pipe surface has a pH of 9-10.

The cathodic protection (CP) causes the pH of the electrolyte beneath the disbonded coating to
increase and the carbon dioxide dissolves in the elevated pH electrolyte, resulting in a potent
high pH-cracking environment containing carbonate and bicarbonate. Near-neutral pH SCC is
most commonly associated with tape and asphalt coatings.

The environment that develops at the pipe surface in this case has a pH of 6-8 as a result of
shielding of the CP current or inadequate CP. Carbon dioxide dissolves in the near-neutral pH
electrolyte, resulting in a second type of potent cracking environment, containing bicarbonate
and carbonic acid.

NACE: What are the risks associated with SCC?

Beavers: External SCC on underground pipelines typically forms in clusters or colonies.

Individual cracks can interlink to produce flaws of sufficient size to cause ruptures. SCC may
cause leaks in the absence of significant interlinking or at lower operating pressures. Leaks
and ruptures of natural gas and liquid petroleum pipelines pose a threat to life, property and the
environment. In general, liquid petroleum pipelines pose a greater environmental threat, while
natural gas pipelines pose a greater threat to life and property, especially when the natural gas
ignites.
NACE: Are some pipelines more at risk than others? If so, which ones and why?

Beavers: Risk is defined as the probability that an event will occur multiplied by the
consequences of the event. The consequences of a failure of a petroleum pipeline increase
with an increase in the diameter or operating pressure of the pipeline and with proximity to
high-consequence areas.

There are a number of factors that affect the probability that external SCC will initiate,
propagate or result in a rupture. These include the internal pressure, wall thickness, diameter,
coating type, pipeline age, operating temperature, distance downstream of a pump or
compressor station and a host of other factors that are summarized in Table 1 of NACE
SP0204-2008.1.

In a nutshell, the operating hoop stress of a pipeline is probably the single most important
factor affecting the probability of a failure. The hoop stress is determined by the combination of
the operating pressure, wall thickness and pipe diameter, and it affects the likelihood of SCC
initiation, the SCC crack growth rate and the likelihood of a rupture.

Coating type, and the associated surface preparation, also has a significant impact on the
probability of an SCC failure. Fusion-bonded epoxy (FBE)-coated pipelines are generally
considered to be immune to external SCC, according to Part A3.3.2 of ASME B31.8S.2. While
this is not absolutely true, the probability of failure of an FBE-coated pipeline is so low that
other integrity risks will almost always be greater. At the other extreme, older vintage
polyethylene tape-coated pipelines have a relatively high probability of experiencing near-
neutral pH SCC.

Pipeline age is another important parameter affecting the likelihood of a pipeline failure as a
result of external SCC. Time is required for the coating to degrade, the potent cracking
environment to develop, the SCC colonies to initiate and the cracks to either grow through the
wall or interlink to create a critical flaw size for rupture. According to Part A3.3.2 of ASME
B31.8S, pipelines that are less than 10 years old are not considered susceptible to SCC.

Elevated operating temperatures have a significant impact on high-pH SCC, increasing the
likelihood that SCC will initiate and increasing the SCC propagation rate. Elevated operating
temperatures also increase the rate of coating degradation for both forms of SCC.

Finally, the likelihood of SCC failures has been correlated with proximity downstream of a
compressor or pump station. This is generally believed to be a result of maximum and cyclic
pressures, as well as operating temperatures being generally higher near compressor or pump
stations.

This results in higher maximum and cyclic stresses, as well as higher rates of coating
degradation, in addition to the other detrimental factors associated with high-pH SCC. Further
discussion of the other factors affecting the probability of an external SCC failure are given in
SP0204-2008 and NACE Publication 35103.3

NACE: Can you describe materials, techniques and technologies used to prevent or mitigate
SCC in pipelines?

Beavers: For new pipelines, the most effective method to prevent SCC is to select a high-
quality coating, such as FBE, that is well adhered to the pipe surface and does not shield the
CP current. The field girth-weld coatings should have equally good properties. With these
coatings, a white or near white surface preparation should be used that enhances coating
adhesion and imparts compressive residual stresses in the pipe surface. These stresses
minimize or prevent SCC initiation.

For existing pipelines, an effective integrity management program can be implemented to

manage the threat of SCC. For discrete locations requiring mitigation, the affected pipe can be
repaired or replaced, or periodically hydrostatically tested to confirm the integrity. For long
pipeline sections requiring mitigation, the affected pipe can be placed in a program involving
periodic inline inspection (ILI) or hydrostatic testing. Alternatively, the entire section can be
replaced.

In some cases, pipeline operation also can be modified to mitigate SCC. For example, in cases
where high pH SCC is a threat on a gas transmission pipeline, this can be mitigated, to some
extent, by installing after-coolers in the compressor stations to reduce pipeline operating
temperatures.

In the case of near-neutral pH SCC of liquid petroleum pipelines, cyclic pressure fluctuations
can be reduced to reduce the driving force for crack propagation. In other situations, effective
control of CP potentials can be effective in mitigation for both forms of SCC.

NACE: What is included in a typical pipeline-integrity management program to assess

susceptibility of pipelines to SCC?

Beavers: Integrity management programs designed to address the threat of external SCC
generally include one or more of the follow three techniques: hydrostatic testing, direct
assessment and ILI. These are used to manage other time-dependent threats, and the SCC
threat can be included in an overall risk management program. In this way, all of the threats
can be prioritized to optimize risk-mitigation activities, such as gaining the highest risk
reduction at lowest cost. In this way, we dont overwork an SCC problem that has little impact
on total risk, or we better understand the impact of a previously under-recognized SCC threat.

Directly following the initial SCC failures of gas transmission pipelines in the 1960s, hydrostatic
testing was the primary tool used to confirm the integrity of the affected pipelines and prevent
additional failures. While hydrostatic testing has been effective in reducing service failures, it
has a number of limitations. Very few, if any, SCC flaws are removed and the pipeline must be
taken out of service for testing. Large, subcritical flaws remain in the pipeline and these can
grow to failure, resulting in the necessity for frequent retesting.

The first recommended practice for SCC direct assessment (SCCDA) was issued in 2004
(NACE RP0204-2004; now SP0204-2008), although elements of SCCDA have been used in
the industry since the first discoveries of SCC in the 1960s. The SCCDA process consists of
four steps.

In the first step, pre-assessment, existing information on the pipeline is collected to assess the
likelihood that the pipeline is susceptible to SCC and select susceptible pipe segments and
possible dig sites. In the second step, indirect inspection, additional data are collected, as
deemed necessary by the pipeline operator, to aid prioritization of segments and in site
selection.

The third step is direct examination, in which the pipeline is inspected for SCC at selected field
dig sites. In the final, post-assessment step, the data are analyzed to determine whether SCC
mitigation is required, and if so, to prioritize those actions, define the interval for the next full
integrity reassessment and evaluate the effectiveness of the SCCDA approach.

A significant issue with SCCDA is that it is not capable of reliably identifying the locations of the
most severe SCC on a pipeline segment. Accordingly, it is better suited, currently, as a threat
evaluation tool.

ILI is the third technique used to evaluate SCC threats on operating pipelines. Integrity
management with ILI tools consists of finding and sizing the cracks, assessing the effect of the
cracks on integrity and repairing the cracks, if required.

The greatest challenge with the current generation of crack-detection tools is related to the
accuracy of crack-sizing; specifically, crack depth measurements. Because of these sizing
issues, one or more validation methods, such as confirmatory hydrostatic testing or a validation
dig program, are frequently employed with ILI.

Each of the three integrity techniques (hydrostatic testing, SCCDA and ILI) has strengths and
weaknesses. Accordingly, a combination of these techniques chosen according to the specific
pipeline of interest generally provides the most robust integrity management program to
address the threat of external SCC.

NACE: Are there new, improved assessment methods available that lead to better monitoring,
detection and mitigation?

Beavers: Significant effort is being expended in the pipeline industry to improve the crack
detection and sizing capabilities of ILI tools and this investment is paying dividends. The
electromagnetic acoustic transducer (EMAT) technology looks promising for the detection of
SCC in natural gas pipelines, but it is subject to some of the same limitations as the more
conventional ultrasonic crack detection tools used for liquid pipelines.
NACE: Are there any technology gaps that should be addressed?

Beavers: Field digs are a critical component of an SCCDA program. Dig programs also are
frequently employed with ILI to validate the result of the ILI tool runs. ILI validation generally
consists of performing field digs, inspecting the pipe and comparing the dimensions of the
cracks measured in the field with those measured by the ILI tool.

There are several methods to measure crack dimensions in the field. Crack lengths are
relatively easy to measure by means of magnetic particle inspection (MPI). Crack depths, on
the other hand, are more difficult to measure. This can be done by grinding the cracks in steps,
with periodic MPI, until the cracks have disappeared.

This method is effective but time consuming. An alternative approach is to use in-the-ditch
nondestructive inspection techniques such as ultrasonic testing (UT). Improvements in the
precision and accuracy of these techniques would better ILI verification and SCCDA programs.

NACE: Are there any additional comments you would like to make?

Beavers: External SCC of underground pipelines has been the focus of my comments.
However, over the past 10-15 years, it has become apparent that internal SCC, as a result of
exposure to alcohols, also can pose a threat to pipelines. Both ethanol and methanol are
potent SCC agents. Fuel grade ethanol (FGE) meeting ASTM standards has caused SCC of
carbon steel tanks and piping in terminals where it is stored.

Experience with FGE in underground transmission pipelines is extremely limited, primarily

because of the threat from internal SCC. More recently, it has become evident that methanol
also can pose a threat to pipelines. Methanol is used for pressure testing of pipelines and
pipeline system components in cold climates and as a drying agent, to remove water from
these systems. In at least one instance, the use of methanol has resulted in internal SCC of a
crude oil transmission pipeline.

References
1 NACE SP0204-2008, Stress Corrosion Cracking (SCC) Direct Assessment Methodology
(Houston, TX: NACE International, 2008).
2 ASME B31.8S, Managing System Integrity of Gas Pipelines (New York, NY: ASME).
3 NACE Publication 35103, External Stress Corrosion Cracking of Underground Pipelines
(Houston, TX: NACE International).

Author: John Beavers is corporate vice president and director of Incident Investigation at Det
Norske Veritas (U.S.A.), Inc. (DNV GL), Dublin, OH. He has directed and contributed to
numerous research and engineering programs on corrosion and cracking behavior of
underground pipelines on topics including failure analyses, critical literature reviews, and
laboratory and field evaluations. Beavers holds a doctorate in metallurgical engineers from the
University of Illinois. He can be reached at john.beavers@dnvgl.com.