4th Pipeline Technology Conference 2009

Designing a method for selecting the most appropriate external

pipeline protective coating

Ali Reza Moeini, Ali Ehsan Nazarbeygi

Presenter: Ali Reza Moeini
Research Institute of Petroleum Industry
National Iranian Oil Company, Iran

Abstract
Selection of protective pipeline coatings has always been a challenging subject.
The appropriate coating is the one with high performance, high durability, low
monitoring and maintenance costs, easy application method and also the one
that is cost effective and health friendly.

The objective of this article is to present a method which helps with selecting
the most appropriate coating through running a qualitative as well as a
quantitative comparison between different types of external pipeline coatings
considering the technical and financial priorities of the user. To design this
method, we have applied the QFD (Quality Function Deployment), which is a
known process. This method is indeed remarkable since it gives user the
opportunity of applying new data regarding to users own experiences and
records as well as the opportunity of determining whether the technical
concerns are of more importance or the financial concerns.

Keywords: pipeline protective coating; quality function deployment; external

coating; coating selection.

1. Introduction
Transmission of oil, gas, water and other fluids by means of steel pipelines is
one of the safest and most economical methods. But metal pipes suffer from
corrosion across the whole surface if they are exposed to air and moisture
without protection; therefore to minimize the probability of corrosive attacks and
hence the formation of cracks and holes which may lead to serious damages or
even explosion, the pipe surface must be isolated from oxygen and moisture.
Applying appropriate coatings along with cathodic protection system is a
practical way to avoid corrosion and since the coating costs are approximately
4% of the total costs of pipeline construction, it would be an economical way to
prevent failures to occure. It should be attended that application of the selected
coating must be followed by regulated control and inspections in order to
complete the protection process and minimize the in-service repair costs.

To design the method, we have applied the QFD process, in which both
technical and economical concerns are taken into account. On the other hand, it
is necessary to define related technical criteria. These technical criteria are

1
4th Pipeline Technology Conference 2009

taken from reliable international standards that are drawn up by experts and
specialized institutes and have been the reference for technical evaluations of
coatings field performance for years.

2. Theory of the Method

2.1. Standard Criteria

Although assessing and comparing various coatings with each other is possible
if only the experimental procedures applied for testing them are the same (or at
least the results of the different procedures of a special test method are
convertible to a single measure), coatings are being assessed by different
experimental procedures from different standards. In table (1), we have
compared the standard criteria of eight frequently used pipeline protective
coatings in Iran. As it is seen, no uniform measure exists for assessing these
coatings and lack of such uniform and identical measure is the main challenge.
For instance, the methods for testing adhesion of polyurethane and three-layer
polyethylene (3LPE) coatings are completely different from the method used for
testing the adhesion of coal tar based enamel and hence comparing the
adhesion of these coatings would not be correct.

2.2. Comparison between the Coatings

To compare the coatings, standard measures must be normalized for each
characteristic. This normalization has been done regarding to field experiences
and investigations of our working group. It should be attended that each group
or organization can restablish this method and attribute other ratings to
properties according to their own experiences and records and then use the
method.

2.3. Description of the Method

As it is illustrated in table (2), by means of QFD method, requirements of a
coating are first divided into three main categories: performance, application
parameters and hygenic concerns. Then each of these categories branches out
to the related properties, which have the greatest influence and share. For
example, the performance of coatings is divided into four groups: stability and
degredation resistance, mechanical resistance, chemical resistance, and
cathodic protection concerns. Application parameters and hygenic concerns are
also divided into their related properties.

To quantify the importance of each property, a number from 1 to 10 is attributed

to each property, where 1 indicates the lowest importance and 10 the highest.
These numbers, which are located in the third column of table (2), are called
Importance Weight (IW). In the rest of the columns of table (2), specific
numbers (1 or 10 or 100) called as Importance Number (IN) are applied to
show the importance level of coating characteristics related to the coating
properties. Number 100 shows the highest level of importance and number 1
shows the lowest.

2
4th Pipeline Technology Conference 2009

Equation (1) illustrates a logical and quantitative relation between the coating
properties and the coating characteristics; it gives the score for each
characteristic, which is consequently converted to a relative percentage called
as Relative Importance (RI) using equation (2).
10
Score j [3log IN i IWi ] (1)
i =1

IW=Importance Weight
IN=Importance Number

Score j
Relative Importancej = 16
100 (2)
Score
j =1
j

In the next step, as it is shown in table (3), to establish a quantitative relation

between the performance of each coating and the coating characteristics, a
number between 1(the worst) and 10(the best) is attributed to each coating for
the related characteristic; this is called Performance Number. Through the
calculated relative importance and also the performance number, the Absolute
Weight (AW) of each coating is determined, using equation (3):

16
AWK = Performance Numberj, for K=1,,9 (3)
j =1

AW: Absolute Weight

RI: Relative Importance

So, according to the attributed performance numbers, as it is shown in table (3),

liquid epoxy gets the highest and bitumen enamel gets the lowest absolute
weight from the technical point of view.

As it was mentioned previously, each user can restablish this method and
attribute other ratings to parameters in tables (2) and (3) according to their own
experiences and records and obviousely the results will be different from those
obtained here.

In the last step, through equation (4), the economical concerns are taken into
account and the final score of each coating is calculated by means of
coefficients of technical and financial concerns (X and Y respectively):

Final score=(X)(T)+(Y)(F) , X+Y=1 (4)

T (Technical score) and F (Financial score) are calculated using equations (5)
and (6) as follows:

T = [ AWK / Max ( AW1 ,..., AW9 )] 100 (5)

F = [ price of the cheapest coating / price of the coating ] 100 (6)

3
4th Pipeline Technology Conference 2009

Prices of the various coatings in Iran are shown in table (4). Regarding to the
price fluctuations (prices of coatings and transportation) during different periods,
the total cost must be determined by the user at the time he wants to use the
method.

At the end, when the final scores, according to the given data by user, are
calculated, the coating with the highest score would be the most appropriate
one for the case.

3. Developing a Software
To facilitate the process, this method can be developed as computer software,
which enables the user to perform more easily and precisely. In addition,
several options can also be considered when designing the software; these
options may ask about: maximum operating temperature, type of transmitted
fluid, pipeline substrate, pipeline pressure, and size of the pipes. So it would be
possible for the user to enter the required project data and let the software to
run the process according to the specifications established for each coating and
make the coating selection automatically.

3.1. Maximum operating temperature: since different types of coatings have

different service temperatures, this software asks about the required maximum
operating temperature and doesnt count those coatings that have lower
operating temperatures than the specified amount.

3.2. Type of the fluid: using some coatings is not advised when the transmitted
fluid is a hydrocarbon liquid and this has been taken into account when
designing the software. For instance the software omits the bituminous coatings
when the fluid is one of the hydrocarbon liquids.

3.3. Pipeline substrate: the pipeline substrate (whether it is in a harsh, rocky or

forestial area or not) is so important for laying a pipeline network. For example
in harsh areas, some coatings- if selected by the software- must be applied with
higher thickness. We have inserted limitations for bitumen and polymer modified
bituminous enamel without PP topcoat for forestial areas where there is root
penetration and bacterial attacks; the user can insert other limitations for other
substrates.

3.4. Pipeline pressure: although there are not pressure limitations for coating
selection, the software is capable of considering limitations if necessary.

3.5. Size of the pipes: it is also possible to insert limitations for the size of the
pipes if necessary.

4
4th Pipeline Technology Conference 2009

4. Example
To explain how the method works, an example is presented. Consider two gas
pipelines with the below-mentioned specifications:

Case (1) Case (2)

Length 120 Km 10 Km
Operating Temperature 40C 25C
Size 42 in. 20 in.
Pressure 1050 psi 200 psi
Substrate Harsh Normal

By using the data in table (2), (which can be changed by the user), the relative
importance of each characteristic is calculated. Then, through table (3), the
absolute weight (AW) is calculated; it is also possible for the user to change the
data in table (3). In the next step, the user must choose the desired values for
technical and economical coefficients X and Y in equation (4) considering the
demands, circumstances and the budget. Since in the first case, the pipeline is
passing through a harsh area, the pipes are heavy, the pressure and
temperature is high, so it is essential to put more emphasis on the technical
issues comparing to the conditions of the second case. Therefore the user can
attribute X=0.7 and Y=0.3 for the first case and X=0.3 and Y=0.7 for the second
case. The calculated final score of each coating is shown in table (5). For the
first case, where the technical issues are of more concern, the polyurethane
coating would be the best selection and for the second case, where the financial
issues are of more concern, the bitumen enamel coating would be the best
selection.

5
 4th Pipeline Technology Conference 2009

Table 1: Standard criteria for various coatings

Coating
Characteristic
Impact Cathodic Indentation Electrical Water
Adhesion Water
Pull off Flexibility Elongation Hardness Vapor
Coating Resistance Disbondment Resistance Resistance Absorption
Transmission
Material

Class A:
@23C
@23C: Class A: @23C @23 & 0C: EN ISO 868:
< rating 3 @23C
Polyurethane 7 MPa 5j* K* mm Ave: <8 mm No cracks ISO 527 @23C,100d: Specified by
Class B: @ <0.2 mm NA NA
(EN 10290) (EN24624) Class B: @-5C, Max: <10 mm disbond or > 10% 107 m2 the
max. service
3j*k*mm pinehole manufacturer
temp.
<Rating 4

Liquid Epoxy @23C Class A:

< rating 2 @23C: @23C1.5j EN ISO 868:
(EN 10289) Ave: <6 mm @23C @23C,100d:
7 MPa Class B, C: NR NA Specified by NA NA
Max: <8 mm <0.2 mm 107 m2
(EN24624) @-23C the
5j*k*mm manufacturer

Coal Tar Pen.@25C:

Peel@40,
@25C Bend@0C: 1014 cm3 5-12(0.1mm)
(BS 4164/ISO 5256) 50,60C NA <5 mm NA NA <1.5 g/m2
<10000 mm2 <5 mm >15 mm Pen.@45C:
< 3 mm
8-30(0.1mm)
Three Layer Peel Strengh ASTM-D1000
Polyolefine @ 23C NA @23C>7 j/mm <7 mm @23C
@0C: no crack
@23>400% 42.8V/75m NA NA NA
(ISO 21809) >15 N/mm <0.2 mm
Hot Water
Fusion Bonded Epoxy @23C: Ave: <8 mm @0C: NA ASTM-D149
Soak: NA NA NA NA NA
(NACE RP0394) rating1 to3
min. 1.5 j no failurer 45kv/mm
Polymer Modified @0C: ASTM-F1249
Peel Bend@-10C: Pen.@25C:
Bitumen Enamel NA max.6500 mm2 <7 mm NA NA >108 .m2 95%,100%RH <1 g/m2
>80 N/2cm >15 mm 5-15(0.1mm)
(EN 10300) 0.15 g/ m/day
@23C: ASTM-D1000
Tape Coating >1 N/mm @23C> j @-20C: Min960
NA <20 mm NA NA NA NA NA
(EN 12068) @Tmax: no crack V/mm
>0.1N/mm
Peel max.3
Bitumen Enamel Bend@0C: Pen.@25C:
mm NA Max.6500 mm2 <10 mm <10 mm NA NA NA <1.5 g/m2
(BS 4147/EN 10300) >15 mm 5-17(0.1mm)

6
4th Pipeline Technology Conference 2009

Table2: Relationship between properties and characteristics of coatings

Coating Characteristics

Impact Resistance / Hardness

Weather & UV Resistance

Resistance to Microorganism
Requirements

WaterAbsorption /Water
Indentation / Penetration

VOC% Health & Safety

Adhesion/ Peel/ Pull off

Sag or Flow Resistance

@ Low & High Temp.
Cathodic Disbondment

Soil Stress Resistance

Thermal Cycle & Aging

Stability or Degradation
Surface Preparation
Importance Weight

Vapor Transmition

Shielding Potential
Flexibility or Bend
Specific Electrical

Hot Water Soak

Resistance
Resistanc/

Attack
Coating Properties
Stability & Degradation 10 100 100 10 100 100 10 100 100 10 100 10 100 - 100 10 100
Resistance
Performane

Mechanical Resistance 9 1 1 100 100 100 - 100 100 100 10 - 100 - 10 1 1

Chemical Resistance 5 1 1 1 10 100 - 10 10 1 1 - - - 10 - 100
Cathodic Protection Concerns 9 100 100 1 1 100 100 100 100 1 100 100 100 - 1 - 10
Sensitivity to Surface
Preparation & Application 4 100 100 10 10 - - 10 - 1 10 10 10 10 1 - -
Conditions (speed, equipment
requirements,..)
Application
Parameters

Maintenance & Repair 7 10 100 10 10 100 100 10 10 100 100 10 10 - 1 10 1

Storage & Handling 8 - - 100 100 10 - - - 100 - 1 - - 100 10 -
Inspectability 6 100 100 100 1 1 1 1 1 10 1 1 10 10 10 1 1
Environmental Concerns 5 10 - - - - - 1 - - - - - 100 - - -
Hygenic

Health & Safety Concerns 4 10 - - - - - - - - - - - 100 - - -

10
Score j
i =1
3 log IN i IW 323 338 284 306 390 180 311 294 282 284 158 303 111 242 90 184 Sum=4080

Score j
RI = 16
100 7.92 8.28 6.96 7.5 9.54 4.41 7.62 7.21 6.91 6.96 3.87 7.43 2.72 5.93 2.21 4.51 Sum=100
Score
j =1
j

7
 4th Pipeline Technology Conference 2009

Table3: Relationship between performance and properties of coatings

Resistance to Microorganism attack

Thermal cycle / Aging/ Stability or

Cathodic disbondment @ low &

Water absorption /Water Vaper
Specific Electrical Resistance
Impact Resistance/ Hardness

Weather & UV Resistance

Coating

VOC%/ Health & Safety

Indentation/ Penetration
Adhesion/ peel/ pull off

Sag or flow Resistance

degradation Resistance

Soil Stress Resistance

Technical Ranking
Surface Prepatation

Shielding Potential

Absolute Weight
Characteristic

Flexibility / Bend
Hot water soak

& Chemicals
high Temp.
transmition
Coating Material

F T
57.14 97.93 Poly Urethane 3 9 5 8 8 7 7 7 6 7 9 9 4 9 9 8 716.34 2

50 100 Liquid Epoxy 2 10 5 8 8 6 8 8 6 9 9 9 4 7 8 9 731.48 1

80 83.02 Coal Tar Enamel 9 6 6 5 5 6 7 6 4 6 8 6 4 6 6 7 607.31 5

50 85.93 Three Layer Poly Olefine 2 7 9 8 6 7 6 6 7 8 4 7 6 3 8 7 628.55 4

40 94.46 Fusion Bonded Epoxy 2 8 3 9 7 6 7 8 6 7 9 9 6 8 9 9 690.98 3

57.14 72.09 Polymer Modified 527.38 7

8 6 8 3 4 6 3 3 8 5 7 4 7 5 4 5
BiumenEnamel

50 79.94 Polymer Modified Biumen 584.75 6

8 6 8 4 5 6 4 5 8 5 5 5 7 7 5 6
Enamel with PP topcoat

57.14 67.45 Tape Coating 8 5 6 4 4 6 6 4 9 2 2 2 9 2 7 6 493.36 8

100 61.12 Bitumen Enamel 8 4 4 2 4 5 3 3 5 4 7 4 7 6 3 5 447.1 9

8
4th Pipeline Technology Conference 2009

Table 4: Prices of various types of coatings in Iran

Coating Material Cost

Rial/m2
Poly Urethane 140000
Liquid Epoxy 160000
Coal Tar Enamel 100000
Three Layer Polyethylene 160000
Fusion Bonded Epoxy 200000
Polymer Modified Bitumen Enamal 140000
Polymer Modified Bitumen Enamal with PP topcoat 160000
Tape 140000
Biumen Enamel 80000

Table 5: Calculated final scores of coatings for two different cases

Coating Case1 Case2

Score Rating Score Rating
(1) (1) (2) (2)
Polyurethane 85.7 1 69.4 3
Liquid Epoxy 85 2 65 4
Coal Tar Enamel 82 3 81 2
3LPE 75.15 5 60.8 6
FBE 78 4 56.3 9
Polymer Modified Bituminous Enamel 67.6 8 61.6 5
Polymer Modified Bituminous Enamel + PP 70.96 7 59 8
Layer
Tape 64.36 9 60.2 7
Bitumen Enamel 72.78 6 88.3 1

9
4th Pipeline Technology Conference 2009

References
[1]. S.W.Guan, Corrosion Protection by Coatings for Water and Wastewater
Pipelines, W&W Pipe Coatings, 2001
[2]. S.Papvinasam, R.W.Revie, Coatings for Pipelines, CANMET Materials
Technology Laboratory, Canada, 2000
[3]. E.W.Kelechka, Coatings for Corrosion Protection, Colorado School of
Mines, 2004
[4]. G.Koh, M.Bronger, N.Thompson, Corrosion Cost and Prevention Strategies
in the United States, Technical Report, Technologies Laboratories and NACE
International, Houston TX, 2001
[5]. N.I.G.C. Standards, IGS
[6]. EN 12068, External Organic Coatings for the Corrosion Protection of
Buried or Immersed Steel Pipelines Used in Conjunction with Cathodic
Protection Tapes and Shrinkable Materials
[7]. ISO 21809, External Coatings for Buried or Submerged Pipelines Used in
pipeline Transportation Systems
[8]. J.R.Hauser, D.Clausing, The House of Quality, Harvard Business Review,
1998
[9]. Y.Akao, S.Mizuno, QFD: The Customer Driven Approach to Quality
Planning and Deployment, Asian Productivity Organization, 1994
[10]. J.Terninko, Step by Step QFD: Customer Driven Product Design,
St.Luice Press, 1997

10