Evaluating Pipeline Coating Performance

By: Sankara Papavinasam and R. Winston Revie, CANMET Materials Technology Laboratory,
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
September 01, 2007
http://www.pipelineandgastechnology.com/story.php?storyfile=ad5e72c6-e3eb-4c47-a0355aea1ead4f40.html
Within the pipeline industry, operators are constantly
looking for metrics that can help them accurately
measure coating properties, monitor coating
performance in the field, and predict long-term coating
performance in specific circumstances. These areas
continue to be an active area of research and
development.
Although it is not practical to develop specific tests
and acceptance criteria for all coating systems, the
available information (from laboratory tests, field
experience, and operational practices) can be used to
develop strategies to maintain the integrity of the
pipeline coating.
Coating performance
External pipeline coating performance depends on the events taking place during the five stages
of the coating lifetime:
1. Manufacture
2. Application
3. Transportation
4. Installation
5. Field operation.
In order to predict the performance of external pipeline coatings, the following questions should
be answered:

What are the chemical and electrochemical conditions and their changes under realistic
pipeline environments?

What are the conditions that are independent of coating type?

What are the conditions that depend on coating type?

What are the failure modes of coatings on an operating pipeline?

How are the failure modes identified?

How accurate are the field monitoring techniques?

Do the standard tests simulate the chemical and electrochemicalconditions of the field
environments?

Do the standard laboratory tests simulate the failure modes in the field?

Are the acceleration effects (e.g., aging, extreme CP potential, and elevated temperature)
in the laboratory tests relevant to field conditions?

What information from the laboratory data could be transferred to field performance?

What are the assumptions to be made to transfer the data?

How is the validity of the prediction of field performance monitored and verified in the field?

In the 1980s, a major transmission pipeline company evaluated predictability of long-term

external coating performance from laboratory tests. The study found that, at best, prediction is
difficult and, at worst, inaccurate and misleading. Properties of pipeline coatings most useful for
comparing laboratory test results and field performance are:

Adhesion

Resistance to soil stresses

Chemical and physical stability

Resistance to impact, and

Resistance to cathodic disbanding

Table 1 gives the qualitative correlation found between laboratory testing and field
observations/testing of major coating systems. Data for laboratory testing were taken from
manufacturers literature and testing by others for polyethylene tape, coal tar, and asphalt
enamel and mastic. Laboratory data for epoxy and urethane are taken from the pipeline
companys own testing. Based on the general observations on field performance, asphalt
enamel and mastic coatings had become very brittle, and the soil stress resistance of tape was
very poor.

No relationship between degree of disbonding in laboratory testing and field performance over
time could be established. It was observed that modifications to existing test procedures,
apparatus, test electrolyte, and sample preparations are required to predict long-term
performance.
In 1992, an assessment of the state-of-the-art for coating selection and use was performed as
part of a program to develop quantitative techniques for predicting the rate of disbondment on
buried natural gas pipelines. Information was gathered through questionnaires, interviews, and a
review of the published literature. The results are summarized in Tables 2 and 3. This study
found that the three parameters thought to be most detrimental to the performance of pipeline
coatings are:

Adhesion

Cathodic disbondment
Water penetration.
A paper written in 1993 reviewed the process of coating evaluation over 50 years, and observed
the following:

Selection of appropriate coating and correct application are very important.

CP must supplement the coating for 100% protection.


Soil stress is one of the main problems.

Pipeline coatings should have resistance to cathodic disbondment, soil stress, good
adhesion, adequate thickness, low moisture absorption/transfer, chemical resistance (especially
alkalis from CP), and flexibility.

Field performance test are more reliable than laboratory tests.

Cathodic disbondment tests are the most reliable tests to measure coating performance

The current required for CP is a good measure of coating performance.

Results of adhesion tests do not correlate with those of cathodic disbondment tests.

A test specifically to evaluate adhesion of the coating to the pipeline and cohesion within
itself should be developed.

A comprehensive model to predict long-term performance of coatings should be

developed.

Consolidation of laboratory methods to develop generic tests, leading to specific tests for
specific coatings is recommended.
In the late 1990s and early 2000s, attempts were
made to predict long-term performance of coatings
using kinetic and thermodynamic methods. Based
on only one data parameter (e.g., cathodic current
demand) and/or one coating (e.g., FBE), these
predictions were not able to predict the failures
caused by other mechanisms and/or failures of other
coatings. In 2002, another study was undertaken to
develop a reliable model that could successfully
predict field performance from laboratory studies.
The PreCaution method
More recently, an integrated approach (called the
PreCaution method) has been developed to
evaluate the performance coatings from the
manufacturing to the field operations stages. It
involves three steps:

Projection, based on laboratory evaluation

Validation, based on field conditions and

above-ground survey

Verification, based on field excavation.

These steps are further detailed below.
Step 1 projection
Many test procedures have been developed and
methods of using them have been described to
evaluate pipeline protective coatings. Standards
have been developed by various standards-making
organisations for these tests. Recently, the
standards used in the USA and Canada for
evaluating pipeline protective coatings were
reviewed, and included those of ASTM, AWWA,
CSA, NACE, and SSPC. Limited information on
standards used in Europe was also included in the
review. Commonality and differences in these

standards were discussed. The standards can be broadly divided into three types:
1. Standards that provide guidelines to design external protection of pipelines using polymeric
coatings.
2. Standards that provide guidelines to evaluate specific types of pipeline coatings.
3. Standards that provide procedures to evaluate a specific property of pipeline coatings.
These standards are further described below.
External corrosion control design standards
These standards provide guidelines to design external protection of pipelines using polymeric
coatings and cathodic protection system (CP). They are developed by NACE and CSA for
American and Canadian onshore pipelines respectively. The standards are:

NACE RP0169: Control of External Corrosion on Underground or Submerged Metallic

Piping Systems

NACE RP0190: External Protective Coatings for Joints, Fittings, and Valves on Metallic
Underground or Submerged Pipelines and Piping Systems

CSA Z662: Oil and Gas Pipeline Systems (Annex L: Test Methods for Coating Property
Evaluation)
Specific coating evaluation standards
Over the past 60-plus years, several different pipeline coatings have been used by the industry.
Standards that provide guidelines to evaluate specific types of pipeline coatings have been
developed predominately by NACE, AWWA, and CSA. These standards provide general
information about a particular coating, definition of the terms, raw materials to produce the
coating, performance criteria, application procedure, procedures to inspect and test the product,
repair procedure, and procedures to handle, store, and ship the coatings. Separate standards
have been developed for those coatings applied in the plant and those applied in the field. These
standards are outlined in Table 4.

Specific properties evaluation standards

Several parameters influence the performance of a coating at different stages. These standards
have been developed to evaluate each of the properties individually. The standards can further
be classified based on the properties that these standards are used to evaluate:

Steel


Coating

Steel/coating interface

Coating/soil interface

Steel/soil interface.
Based on the performance of the coatings in these standard tests, the performance of the
coating in the field should be projected.
Step 2 validation
In Step 2, the projection made in Step 1 (based on laboratory data) is validated based on the
data from the field. Several techniques are available to detect coating defects on buried
pipelines. A critical review on the advantages and disadvantages of various techniques including
Pearson survey, close interval survey, coating conductance parameter, electromagnetic current
attenuation, and DC voltage gradient methods has been recently published. An instrumented
pipeline pig designed to locate disbonded external coating on operating gas pipelines has been
evaluated as well. The results from each technique have been assessed in terms of defining the
need for coating refurbishment, and in providing the parameters needed to establish the most
cost-effective route to control pipeline corrosion. The Elastic Wave vehicle has proven to be very
effective in detecting disbondment, as well as areas where the coating has been removed.
In addition, instrumentation for field-testing and inspection of coatings has been accelerated by
the use of microprocessor electronics over the last ten years. Such designs are now entering the
fourth generation, and have included many user features which make the assessment of
coatings easier and more accurate than previously possible. These features include storage of
data, statistical analysis, hard copy printout and high accuracy in hand-held fully portable and
rugged units, suitable for use in the most hazardous environments.
Step 3 verification
In step 3, the information obtained from secondary bell-hole inspections is used to refine and
verify the projection. During operation, the pipeline may be bell-hole inspected. Bell-hole
inspection is one of the most direct methods of determining the status of the coating. In primary
bell-hole inspection, a minimal amount of maintenance work is carried out and the status of the
coating is not inspected. In secondary bell-hole inspection, an assessment of the coating is
included, which provides opportunity to measure pH and other chemical and electrochemical
conditions.
One key step remains, and that is the development of an unbiased approach to compiling an
industry-wide historical database on pipeline coating performance. This approach would also
include a method for critically evaluating the data. A program is required to establish userfriendly standardization, including standard and recommended practices for inspection of
protective coatings. A 2004 white paper published by the authors may provide a useful starting
point. It presented and discussed a standardized methodology for the collection and
management of coating performance data.
Acknowledgment
Based on a paper presented at the 61st annual CORROSION NACExpo, held in San Diego,
California.