Case Study

GE RCM Allows Refinery to Precisely Measure

Pipe Corrosion When Processing High Acid
Opportunity Crudes
Background
Knowing the types, locations and severities of possible impacts to the refinery processes allows GE
and Refinery Engineers to jointly develop appropriate mitigation strategies. The core of these strategies will be NDE tools, essential for establishing
baseline conditions in certain high impact areas,
gauging these impact and interpreting the level of
control, and mechanical and chemical recommendations designed to maintain system control and
integrity. Implementation of these strategies will
allow the refiner to take full advantage of the profit
opportunity.
System monitoring is an essential component of
every refineries risk based inspection strategy.
Unfortunately, as more unknown crudes are produced and processed the reliance on past history
for corrosion monitoring becomes less reliable, and
dependence on real time monitoring becomes more
critical. Monitoring experiences, with traditional
techniques like ER probes, UT, radiography and hydrogen activity. show there is not one technique or
method that provides all the information necessary
to effectively monitor an entire refinery system for
high temperature naphthenic acid corrosion.
Fortunately, recent monitoring advances by GE
technologists have gone a long way to address
some of the limitations and deficiencies of these
traditional techniques, and to establish new standards of accuracy in data acquisition and interpretation. The patented RCM (Resistance Corrosion
Monitoring) provides actual pipe wall thicknesses to
within 2% of total pipe wall thickness to a 6 design, or 3.4 defect reading in a million readings, accuracy. The RCM operates on the same underlying
principal as traditional ER probes and other similar
devices, but provides much more accurate and
Find a contact near you by
visiting gewater.com or
e-mailing custhelp@ge.com.

meaningful information. From the principal, as corrosion reduces the amount of metal, the resistance
to a current flow increases so by measuring the
change in voltage the wall thickness can be calculated and actual pipe condition determined. With
the RCM, a grid or array of pins is welded directly
onto the section of pipe to be monitored. The pins
are then attached by wires to a data collection
device that measures the voltage drop across the
pins. To enhance this simple principle and assure
accurate measurement, GE Engineers applied advanced signal processing techniques to correct for
thermal gradients, EMI, parasitic thermocouple
voltages and other common mode noises. So unlike
ER probes that provide a corrosion rate measurement, which can then be used to extrapolate system metal loss and equipment life expectancy, the
RCM provides a direct measurement of pipe wall
thickness and change in pipe wall thickness over
time that can then be used to directly determine
equipment life expectancy and indirectly calculate a
corrosion rate. The advantage of accurately defining the condition of the pipe provides the refiner
with data needed to make reliable processing decision.
In addition to the aforementioned advantage, the
RCM has additional advantages over other similar
devices. These advantages of the RCM over other
traditional methods for monitoring pipe wall integrity or summarized in the Table 1:

Global Headquarters
Trevose, PA
+1-215-355-3300

Americas
Watertown, MA
+1-617-926-2500

2007, General Electric Company. All rights reserved.

*Trademark of General Electric Company; may be registered in one or more countries.

Europe/Middle East/Africa
Heverlee, Belgium
+32-16-40-20-00

Asia/Pacific
Shanghai, China
+86 (0) 411-8366-6489
CS1234EN 0701

Table 1: Advantages of RCM vs. Traditional Monitoring Methods

Feature

RCM

UT

X Ray

ER

Extensive area
coverage

Yes

No

No

No

Read multiple Yes

times per week

Costly

More
Costly

Yes

Monitor inac- Yes

cessible piping
with no scaffolding

No

No

Yes

Direct
meas- Yes
urement
of
pipe wall thickness

Yes

Yes

No

Install without Yes

breaching pipe
wall or impacting corrosion

Not
Installed

Not
Installed

No

Measure a 2% Yes
wall loss to 6
sigma
accuracy

No

No

No

Solution
An RCM was installed on a segment of pipe from the
bottom of the stripper to the pump in an area that
was immediately up stream of the ER probe. The
RCM pin array was placed over an area that
contained both an elbow as well as straight run
pipe.

Results

Challenge
A North American refinery processing a high acid
opportunity crudes, with TAN values in all high temperature streams in excess of 2.0 mg/gm TAN, was
experiencing corrosion at a rate of approximately
15 mpy and as indicated by ER probes. The pipe
experiencing the corrosion was segment of piping
from the atmospheric tower heavy oil stripper to
the stripper bottoms pump.
The ER probe was located in a straight run of pipe
and was more than 10 pipe diameters from any
elbows. The system was being treated with a corrosion inhibitor. Refinery personnel questioned the
accuracy of the ER probe, and were concerned that
the 15 mpy metal loss could be worse in areas of
high wall shear stress. The concern was that the
limited visibility into the actual pipe condition, and
the absence of valid data made an accurate assessment of the remaining pipe life impossible.
Without the remaining pipe wall life expectancy operational and business decisions would be made
Page 2

without complete information and would expose

the refinery to unknown risk.

The data from the RCM and ER probe were

compared. Corrosion rates of the piping under the
RCM array were significantly lower than the
corrosion rate observed by the ER Probe. (Figures 1,
2, 3) Not only was the corrosion rate observed by
the RCM much lower than that measured by the ER
probe but the only loss of metal noted by the RCM
was indeed located immediately after the elbow in
the area of highest shear stress. Because of the
data, the, refinery personnel were able to determine
that the corrosion in the loop was being controlled
and the pipe wall integrity had not been
compromised.
The complete analysis of the data also revealed an
interesting trend on the one pin pair of the RCM that
was showing metal loss. Figure 4 clearly shows an
increase in the rate of metal loss (to a rate of 6 mpy)
from April through July and an additional stepwise
increase in metal loss (to a rate of 12 mpy) from July
through August. The data presented in this manner
provides for direct analysis of cause and effect relationships so that any fundamental changes in results can be quickly analyzed, and cause and effect
relationships defined so that operational changes
can be implemented.
Using the data from the RCM, refinery personnel
were able to make clear, concise and unambiguous
operating and business decisions.

CS1234EN 0701

RCM
Wall < 318 mils
Start Date: 2/3/2005
Stop Date: 8/23/2005

317
0

0
0

0
20

0
0

19

18

17

317

-1

318

0
317

0
15

14

13

12

0
0

11

10

0
8

-1

-1

0
0

-1

ROW

0
0

-1

16

318

318
0

318

318
316

0
1

COL

Figure 1: RCM Results Wall Thickness

8
0

0
0

20

19

18

17

7
7

0
8

Column

13

12

11

10

RCM

-1

-1

-1

0
0

0
0

0
0

-1

0
14

15

0
5

0
16

-1

6
0

6
10

0
1

0
0
0
5

Corrosion Rate > 5 MPY

Start Date: 2/3/2005
Stop Date: 8/23/2005

0
0

0
0

0
0

Row

Figure 2: RCM Corrosion Rates

Process Capability Analysis for ER Probe Cor

USL

Process Data
15.0000

Target
LSL

LSL

USL
ST
LT

*
0.0000

Mean
Sample N

13.2143
7

StDev (ST)

4.38830

StDev (LT)

3.48912

Potential (ST) Capability

Cp
0.57
0.14
1.00

Cpk
Cpm

0.14
*

RCM % Change
0

10

15

20

25

1.20%

Overall (LT) Capability

Pp
0.72

Observed Performance
PPM < LSL
0.00

Expected ST Performance
PPM < LSL
1300.85

Expected LT Performance
PPM < LSL
76.15

PPU
PPL

0.17
1.26

PPM > USL

PPM Total

PPM > USL

PPM Total

PPM > USL

PPM Total

Ppk

0.17

285714.29
285714.29

342031.02
343331.87

Figure 3: Process Capability Analysis for ER Probe Corrosion

Ch34
Ch35

1.00%

304397.17
304473.32

0.80%

% Change

CPU
CPL

0.60%

0.40%

0.20%

0.00%

-0.20%

-0.40%

12/29

2/17

4/8

5/28

7/17

Time

Figure 4: RCM % Change in Wall Loss

CS1234EN 0701

Page 3

9/5