Professional Documents
Culture Documents
1. INTRODUCTION
most important to survey, analyze and evaluate the soil parameters for the
useful information for the selection of pipeline paths, the methods of corrosion
structures.
the availability of nutrients from surrounding soils, which means that it is very
meaningful to assess the soil parameters for the prediction of SRB-corrosion risk
also.
The objectives of this study were to conduct extensive field surveys for a
Sixty-nine sites spread over Korea were investigated during 1998 to 2000.
1
Seventeen environmental factors were measured where the coating
The variables measured in this field study were clay content (Clay),
burial depth (BD), disbonded area (DA), soil resistivity (ρ), water content (Wc),
content of sulfate ion (SO42-), content of chloride ion (Cl-), alkalinity (Alk.), pH,
number of SRB (SRB), number of APB (APB), total organic carbon (TOC),
depth (Pmax).
excavation. BD, Eh, DA and Pmax were measured after excavation, whereas other
soils were that attached to coating defects directly, i.e., contacted to the bare
metal surface. ρ was measured by the ASTM G57 Wenner 4-point method [92]. Eh
copper sulfate reference electrode [93], and this value is presented with respect to
2
Figure 1. Location of field survey sites
3
E h (mV / SHE ) = E(mV / CSE) + 242 + 59 × (pH − 7 ) (5.1)
In the final step of the field survey, Pmax was measured using depth gauge or
occurred.
TOC was analyzed by dry combustion method using air-dried soil [94].
Clay content was measured by mechanical sieving [95-96]. Soil pH was measured
after mixing of sampled soil and deionized water in volume ratio of 1:5, followed
by stirring for 5 min [97]. Wc was measured by gravimetric method with oven
drying at 1100C for 24 hours [98]. Water-soluble anion content was analyzed by
ion chromatography [99]. The population of SRB and that of APB were
ductile iron pipes buried in soil. However, this method is relatively simple and
4
Table 1. Environmental factors measured or investigated in field study
pH pH meter pH
*Measured by Korea Testing and Research Institute for Chemical Industry (KOTRIC),
5
quantitative assessment methods [102-103] applicable to buried carbon steel
structures are complex and time-consuming. Therefore, this method was used
underground pipeline, could predict the risk of MIC effectively or not. If the total
score of evaluation is above 10 points, this soil is regard as a corrosive soil, then
depth obtained from this survey were analyzed using graphical methods,
component analysis (PCA) and multiple regression analysis (MRA). Finally, the
predicting equation for the number of SRB and that of maximum corrosion rate
were presented.
Tables and plots of the field survey data are summarized in Appendix A.
Figure A-1 to A-18 shows the locational distribution of burial depth, burial
period, the number of SRB, the number of APB, soil resistivity, water content,
sulfate content, chloride content, alkalinity, TOC, Eh, pH, clay content, P/S, Pmax,
6
Table 2. ASNI/AWWA C105/A21.5 Soil-test evaluation [101]
7
environmental factors investigated. The results showed that the soil was
characterized by:
z Iron sulfides and underground water were found at every corrosion site
It is evident that the ANSI index has linear relationship with corrosion rate and
was relatively accurate when the corrosion was small; however, as the index
reaches above 10 points, which are the criterion for severe corrosivity of soil, the
assessment method can only tell the probability of the occurrence of corrosion,
more scatter than many other types of tests because of a variety of factors as
8
1.0
Maximum Corrosion Rate (mm/y)
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.1 1 10 100
9
mentioned earlier. Statistical analysis can be very helpful in allowing
investigators to interpret such results, especially when test results differ from one
and another sets of variables, such as pH, resistivity, redox potential etc.
closely related to the number of SRB and maximum corrosion depth. Note that a
log transformation (base 10) was used to adjust the range of the six variables such
as the number of SRB, the number of APB, resistivity, content of sulfate, chloride
and alkalinity, because of the wide range of observations (See Table A-2).
on a confidence level of 99% (i.e., a significance level of 1%) [105]. Generally, the
reliability of the results of LCA is strongly related to the size of sample [106].
10
Table 3. Values of Pearson correlation coefficient among environmental factors
P0 a 0.793 0.773 0.682 0.615 0.504 -0.502 0.441 0.408 0.386 0.358 -0.321 -0.292 -0.030
Alka 0.164 0.097 0.565 0.700 0.398 0.111 0.431 0.513 0.313 -0.156 -0.443 0.195
P/S Qb 0.391 0.308 0.465 -0.392 0.289 0.375 0.479 0.339 -0.240 -0.290 0.112
DA Q 0.538 0.187 -0.486 0.511 0.566 0.404 0.249 -0.590 -0.384 0.095
SO4a Q Q Q 0.690 -0.046 0.467 0.484 0.467 0.250 -0.363 -0.375 0.079
Eh Q Q Q Q Q 0.638 -0.350
ρa Q Q Q Q -0.416
Clay Q Q
a: Log value.
b: Pairs having significant correlation at a confidence level of 99% (i.e., a significance level of 1%)
11
Figure 3 shows that the dependence of r-value required for 5% significance level
The analysis showed that close correlation was exhibited between the
corrosion depths and following variables; P/S, DA, SO42-, pH, SRB. R-values
were 0.773, 0.682, 0.615, -0.502, 0.441, respectively. Figure 5-4 to 5-8 show the
respective relationship between P0 and P/S, DA, SO42-, pH, SRB. It is also
remarkable that the population of SRB is closely related with the population of
earlier and with the anaerobic nature of soil, i.e., high clay content, low redox
potential and high water content of soil, etc. Figure 5-9 to 5-14 show the
On the other hand, some of the variables were highly correlated to each
other (i.e., high colinearity), e.g., TOC-Cl--SO42-. High colinearity can yield large
estimated variances (or standard deviations) and it make difficult to detect the
12
1.0
Required for Significance at the 5% Level
0.8
0.6
Absolute Value of r
Reliable
0.4
Unreliable
0.2
0.0
0 10 20 30 40
N (Size of Sample)
at the 5% level and size of sample (N) (redrawn from table in ref.
[106])
13
3
2
P0
0
-2.0 -1.8 -1.6 -1.4 -1.2 -1.0
P/S (V/CSE)
14
3
2
P0
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
2
Disbonded Area (cm )
15
3
2
P0
0
0 1 2 3 4
10 10 10 10 10
2-
[SO4 ] (mg/g of soil)
16
2
P0
0
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
pH
17
3
2
P0
0
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 10 10 10 10 10 10
18
9
10
8
10
7
10
SRB (cells/g of soil)
6
10
5
10
4
10
3
10
2
10
1
10
2 3 4 5 6
10 10 10 10 10
ρ (Ω ·cm)
19
9
10
8
10
7
10
6
10
SRB (cells/g-soil)
5
10
4
10
3
10
2
10
1
10
0
10
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Clay Content (%)
20
9
10
8
10
7
10
6
10
SRB (cells/g-soil)
5
10
4
10
3
10
2
10
1
10
0
10
-0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
Eh (V/NHE)
21
9
10
8
10
7
10
6
10
SRB (cells/g-soil)
5
10
4
10
3
10
2
10
1
10
0
10
0 10 20 30 40 50
Water Content (%)
22
9
10
8
10
7
10
APB (cells/g-soil)
6
10
5
10
4
10
3
10
2
10
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
SRB (cells/g-soil)
23
9
10
8
10
7
10
SRB (cells/g-soil)
6
10
5
10
4
10
3
10
2
10
1
10
-2 -1 0 1 2 3
10 10 10 10 10 10
Chloride (ppm)
Figure 14. the population of SRB vs. the concentration of chloride ion
24
unreliable to predict the corrosion rate using parameters extracted from linear
Therefore, principal component analysis (PCA) was conducted for the extraction
From the LCA result, it was found that there are correlation between
maximum corrosion depth and some variables. However, it was difficult to select
component analysis (PCA), was used to understand the nature of this complexity
and to extract the key variables. The aim of PCA was to determine more precisely
the interrelating with controlling factors affecting corrosion, and to verify the
The basic goal of PCA is a technique to reduce the number of variables. The
25
1
II
Alk
Secondary Principal Component
0.5 I TOC
SO4
Eh
pH Cl
ρ P0
0 Wc ANSI
Clay
I APB
P/S
SRB
DA
-0.5
-1
-1 -0.5 0 0.5 1
26
It was judged from this plot that a group of variables encircled by a broken line
I P0, Cl-, Wc, SRB, APB, Clay, P/S, Eh, pH, Closely related to
ρ, ANSI, DA corrosion
Two groups were found in this case and therefore maximum corrosion rate can
be predicted by only considering “group I” and by ignoring “group II” with little
error. From these variables in group I, ANSI, and APB are closely related to soil
factors were also not considered for the prediction of corrosion rate.
ratio, P0, i.e., the maximum corrosion depth divided by the average maximum
selected by taking the result of PCA into consideration and adding judgment by
27
proper techniques.
expressing the relation between the quantity of corrosion and the reasons is
required. It is well known that the rate at which corrosion pits grow in the soil
equation [109].
P = kt n (2)
where P is the maximum corrosion depth in time k and n are constants. If k and n
extracted in Section 5.3.4. From Figure 15, the constant n depends on the state of
aeration, i.e., Eh. However, all corrosion phenomena occurred in anaerobic soil in
From this deduction, equation (1) was adopted as a basic model equation.
28
6
n
P=kt
5 very poor aeration
Pit Depth (mm)
3 fair aeration
poor aeration
2
good aeration
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Time (year)
Figure 16. Maximum pit depth of steel vs. time in various soils
29
q q q
log Pi = α 0 + ∑
j=1
α jx j + ∑ ∑α
j=1 k =1
jk x j x k + α q + 1 log t i + ε i (3)
εi: error
This predicting equation considered the effect of single variables (αjxj) and the
interaction effects between variable (αjkxjxk) – which was proved from the result
coefficients αj and αjk of the environmental factors were determined by the least
square method, and then a coefficient αq+l of log ti was its residual as the criterion
variables.
equation. Note that the variables used in the regression analysis excluded APB
seven variables such as Cl-, Wc, Clay, P/S, Eh, pH and ρ was used as independent
30
variables. As mentioned previously, a log transformation was used to adjust the
range of variables, Cl-, and ρ because wide range of observations from 0.1 to 220
of soil variables that best describe the maximum corrosion depth. In this method,
variables are added one by one to the model, and the F statistics for a variable to
be added must be significant at the certain α level (conventionally 0.05, i.e., 95%
looks at all the variable that does not produce an F statistic significant at the
Stepwise multiple regression results form the field study data are
summarized in Table 5.
Table 5 shows that 0.887 of R2 was obtained by introducing the variables such as
LogPc = 0.700 + 0.069Log( SRB ) + 0.749P / S + 0.203Log(Cl − ) − 0.050E h × Clay − 0.014pH × Log(ρ)
(4)
Therefore, k in equation (2) was obtained by (4), i.e., the first three terms
31
Table 5. Stepwise regression results from field data
Log P0 = 0.681 + 0.048 Log (SRB) + 0.934 P/S + 0.184 Log (Cl-) R2 = 0.756
Log P0 = 0.434 + 0.104 Log (SRB) + 0.840 P/S + 0.174 Log (Cl-)
R2 = 0.873
– 0.011 Eh × Clay
Log P0 = 0.700 + 0.069 Log (SRB) + 0.749 P/S + 0.203 Log (Cl-)
R2 = 0.887
– 0.050 Eh × Clay – 0.014 pH × Log (ρ)
32
as a function of time, it is necessary to determine n in equation (2). Thus, n was
determined as the regression coefficient for the linear model of equation (3) with
From this regression process, P0 can be predicted from the corrosivity of the
(according to (3))
The correlation coefficient between P0 and P0,cal was 0.947. Figure 16 shows the
scatter diagram of P0 and P0,cal. Data fell closely onto the straight line with the
slope of 0.860.
the regression equation obtained, the standardization residual (εs) was plotted
33
7
6
Measured Pit Depth (mm)
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
34
P0 − P0 ,cal
εs = (7)
S
As shown in Figure 17, there is some tendency that the standardized residual
the result of statistical analysis supported satisfactorily the validity of the model
in this study.
It is also found in this study that the underground corrosion of steel was
affected mainly by three factors as shown in equation (5): (1) chemical factors
such as Cl-, pH × Log (ρ), (2) biochemical (microbial) factors such as Log (SRB)
and Eh × Clay and (3) CP factors such as P/S. This means that the corrosivity of
each factor. Figure 18 shows the relative contributions of each factor. The
Figure 18.
35
3
2
Standardized Residual εs
-1
-2
-3
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
Corrosion Ratio P0,cal (Predicted)
36
100%
90%
80%
n 70%
io
t
u
b
ir 60%
t
n
o 50%
C
e
v
it 40%
la
e
R 30%
20%
10%
0%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Sample No.
CP Chemical Microbial
37
Therefore, it is concluded that the main cause for the anaerobic corrosion of
However, it is important that the corrosion did not occurs at all defects of
coated pipe steel even if the adjacent soil is corrosive, i.e., high activity of SRB,
low ρ, low Eh, low pH, high level of chloride, etc. This is because CP prohibited
affected by soil properties, geometry of coating defects and so on. In this study,
current could not penetrate and was sufficiently anaerobic for active growth of
anaerobic bacteria including SRB. This effect was included as P/S term in the
In Figure 5-18, the contribution of P/S is relatively small, but this is because the
measured value is not the real polarized potential, but the pipe-to-soil potential
which having some error due to the IR drop in soil, and which is the averaged
value over the large area, not the value representing the very defect point alone.
This is also confirmed by the fact that the measured P/S potential in field site is
under –0.85 V/CSE, which are the CP criterion for buried pipeline. Nevertheless,
the corrosion occurred. This means that the steel surface beneath the disbonded
38
technique in practice. Therefore, it was inevitable to use of P/S term in this
model. Rather, more severe CP criterion, e.g., lowering the criterion potential of –
4. CONCLUSIONS
drawn:
(1) From field survey, it was found that the corrosion of underground
steel structures occurred at the steel surface under the disbonded coating. The
corrosion rate of 0.8 mm/y was found. The corrosion site is mainly correlated
with the anaerobic site characterized by the precipitation of biogenic iron sulfide.
(3) A model has been presented to predict the maximum corrosion depth
P=ktn reflecting the environmental factors and n as the regression coefficient has
been established. The results showed that the predicting equation explained
39
(4) The underground corrosion is mainly affected by chemical and
content, the level of chloride and the activity of SRB. It was also found that the
main factor affecting underground corrosion is the action of SRB, which implies
underground structures.
40