J Fail. Anal. and Preven.

(2021) 21:723–732
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11668-021-01135-5

CASE HISTORY—PEER-REVIEWED

Corrosion Under Insulation Examination to Prevent Failures

in Equipment at a Petrochemical Plant
Andres Marquez . J. Singh . C. Maharaj

Submitted: 21 November 2020 / in revised form: 26 January 2021 / Accepted: 16 February 2021 / Published online: 10 March 2021
 ASM International 2021

Abstract An examination of the corrosion under insula- Abbreviations

tion phenomenon in insulated equipment at a
petrochemical plant with the purpose of preventing corro-
sion-attributed failures was carried out. The study was
performed after a risk-based inspection analysis identified
the equipment with higher risks of developing corrosion
under insulation. Visual inspections of several accessories
located at several positions of the current process unit’s
pipelines, heat exchangers, filters and pressure vessels were
performed after the insulation was removed. Among the
main findings, most accessories (nozzles, insulation sup-
port rings) located at the top of the equipment showed
moderate corrosion. Additionally, there were differences in
the results depending on the insulation material (mineral
wool, foam glass or calcium silicate) covering the equip-
ment/accessories. This work showed how adequate and
timely monitoring and management of corrosion can suc-
cessfully prevent costly and frequent failures associated
with corrosion under insulation.
Keywords Corrosion under insulation 
Corrosion failure prevention  Risk-based inspection 
Heat exchangers/vessels/pipelines  Insulation material
A. Marquez (&)
San Antonio, USA
e-mail: andresismael1@gmail.com
J. Singh
University of the West Indies, St. Augustine, Trinidad and
Tobago
C. Maharaj
Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering Department,
University of the West Indies, St. Augustine, Trinidad and
Tobago
API American Petroleum Institute
CS Carbon steel (low-carbon/mild-carbon steel)
CoF Consequence of failure
CUI Corrosion under insulation
DF Damage factor
FC Financial cost
LoF Likelihood of failure
PoF Probability of failure
RBI Risk-based inspection
RP Recommended practice
SS Stainless steel
Introduction
It has been abundantly established over the years that
(thermal) insulation in plant equipment is extremely nec-
essary to have installed for several reasons, the more
relevant being minimizing heat losses, keeping the integ-
rity of the material, assuring the continuous operation of
the process to reduce unwanted and/or sudden shutdowns
and plant personnel protection. However, an undesirable
and insidious phenomenon, corrosion under insulation
(CUI), which is external and mostly localized in nature,
may develop on the covered surface (the region between
the external surface of the equipment and the internal part
of the insulation) of the insulated equipment (made of
metallic alloys). This takes place generally in the presence
of moisture that reaches the insulation–external surface
interface of the insulated equipment.
CUI could go undetected if it is not monitored properly,
as has been the case in many instances. Furthermore, in
numerous cases it has led to failures of catastrophic

123
724
consequences, generated significant process losses, shut-
downs, and disruptions, among other repercussions. Some
works, out of thousands, demonstrate the massive, costly,
and disastrous consequences of not detecting CUI on time
[1–3]. ‘‘Because of a ruptured 1-inch bypass pipe, a gas fire
took place in the high-pressure synthesis loop in an
ammonia plant. The rupture was caused by extensive wall
thinning of the pipe due to corrosion under insulation’’ [1].
In another instance, due to CUI that went undetected for
several years on an 800 CS hydrocarbon pipeline in a
refinery, ‘‘an explosion and fire occurred at a refinery site
leading to the evacuation of the site and to millions of
pounds worth of damage to the facility’’ [2]. Another
related incident showed that at a petrochemical plant
located at the Gulf (of Mexico) coast, a CUI-attributed leak
from a 4-inch hydrocarbon pipeline caused ‘‘a massive fire
that destroyed half the unit and cost the company US$ 50
million’’ [3].
In addition, total corrosion-related costs, specifically due
to remediation/damage control, have been well known to
amount to very high values in many processes and coun-
tries all over the world, ranging from at least 1.5–2.0% to
as much as 5–6% of the GDP or GNP representing on an
annual basis billions of US$ [4–7]. Moreover, according to
some studies, CUI (as opposed to process corrosion) is the
leading cause of corrosion-related leaks in insulated
equipment at oil & gas, petrochemical, refining, petro-
chemical, and chemical facilities [8, 9]. Some works
suggest that around 40–60% of pipeline maintenance/repair
costs are related to CUI [8–11].
CUI is extremely dangerous since it is still difficult to
detect, mostly because it is not visible since it develops
under the insulation of the equipment, as well as possible
inaccessibility of the insulated equipment or part/accessory
above that equipment. Consequently, despite all the evi-
dence and information about the consequences of failure
related to CUI, it still goes undetected in many manufac-
turing plants, causing huge costs derived from shutdowns
and failures [1–3, 8–15]. Perhaps CUI is still a significant
unresolved issue in many organizations because of, in part,
lack of preventive measures and poor decision-making
when it comes to corrosion control, prevention, and man-
agement. Early detection and control of CUI needs to be
enforced at any company, and proper monitoring with
regular periodic inspection must be implemented to ensure
best corrosion management practices.
To prevent failures associated with corrosion under
insulation, a method incorporating risk-based inspection
(RBI) analysis can be performed. An RBI consists of ‘‘a
methodology for using risk as a basis for ranking or pri-
oritizing equipment for inspection purposes. Risk is defined
as a combination of probability and consequence. Proba-
bility is the likelihood of a failure occurring, and
123
J Fail. Anal. and Preven. (2021) 21:723–732
consequence is a measure of the damage that could occur
because of the failure (in terms of injury, fatalities, and
property damage)’’ [5]. The outcomes of such a technique
can then be used to determine the insulated equipment
which will be the focus of further inspections to assess the
level of damage, if any, due to CUI. Many studies that deal
with detecting corrosion under insulation by using different
techniques, scenarios, and equipment have been performed
as listed in [8–16]. Among these, some that are related to
RBIs of this real, important, costly, and dangerous CUI
phenomena have been carried out [3, 8, 10, 11, 13, 17–19].
This work presents a study of CUI examinations that are
performed on insulated plant equipment to prevent corro-
sion-attributed failures at a petrochemical plant. The CUI
examinations were carried out after an RBI analysis, based
on the API’s RP (recommended practice) 581 and was
undertaken to identify the areas of the insulated equipment
evaluated that have the higher associated risks. Several
accessories at the locations in existing key process unit’s
piping, heat exchangers, pressure vessels, and filters were
inspected by using visual inspection after the respective
insulation section was removed. The main findings at the
locations inspected, including values/categories of proba-
bility of failure (PoF), consequence of failure (CoF) and the
resulting risk levels, as well as the more relevant results of
the accessories inspected and actual figures of some of the
equipment examined for CUI, are presented.
Methodology
Insulated piping, heat exchangers and vessels are well
known to be integral and key parts of the equipment in any
manufacturing company which deals with this type of
process (e.g., a petrochemical industry). Thus, in this work
the insulated equipment that was chosen to be evaluated—
piping, heat exchangers, pressure vessels and filters—are
associated with three of the key/strategic process units
located upstream of the process. Any interruption in any of
those units due to sudden failures will cause costly
downtimes in the entire plant process (addressed previously
in a corrosion failure study in equipment at a nearby
petrochemical plant in the same country [20]). It is
imperative to keep these processes in uninterrupted and
continuous operation for as long as possible. This study
was carried out at one of the multiple manufacturing
petrochemical plants located in the Caribbean island of
Trinidad and Tobago. Due to the proprietary nature of this
work, only general mentions without any specifics of the
process, streams, equipment, and units are presented.
It is worth mentioning that an important aspect of this
study is related to the geographic location of the petro-
chemical plant (the Caribbean island of Trinidad and
J Fail. Anal. and Preven. (2021) 21:723–732
Tobago) where the atmospheric corrosivity category has
been determined to be severe [21–26]. The company
location combines industrial, tropical, urban, high humid-
ity, and ambient temperature oscillating (on average)
around 28–36 C year-long and marine (coastal) areas, in
addition to extreme UV ray’s exposure. Specifically, the
high relative humidity exposure (which is exacerbated
during the rainy season) and UV rays encountered at the
plant location (which tends to deteriorate the insulation
material, facilitating moisture to contact the surface of the
material) undoubtedly increase the likelihood of corrosion
under insulation to be developed and accelerated. The need
for proper and frequent monitoring of corrosion at those
facilities becomes more critical.
The methodology, sequence, parameters, and measure-
ments needed, and the procedure to follow step-by-step for
employing the risk-based inspection (RBI) technique of the
API RP 581 have been sufficiently explained in detail and
well documented in the respective API-recommended
practice API RP 581 [27]: ‘‘Risk-Based Inspection
Methodology—Documenting and Demonstrating the Thin-
ning Probability of Failure Calculations’’ and elsewhere
[3, 5, 10, 13, 17–19, 28, 29]. The API’s recommended
practice 581 has been developed throughout several years
for performing RBI analysis on fixed equipment in the
facilities of the oil & gas plants and downstream industries
(refining, petrochemical, chemicals) and has been widely
used since it is a cost-effective and reliable tool that
ensures reliability of assets and continuity of operations
[3, 5, 10, 13, 17–19, 28, 29].
The results of that RBI analysis based on the API RP
581 the damage factor (DF) being the key value to obtain
were used to determine the value range of the PoF or
likelihood of failure LoF, from which the category of such
PoF [3, 5, 10, 13, 17–19, 28–32] was established, as seen in
Fig. 1a. In addition, from financial data reported by the
company personnel the (cost-oriented) CoF category, based
on the approximate financial costs (FC) to incur if a failure
in the equipment under analysis took place
[3, 5, 10, 13, 17–19, 28–32] was deduced (Fig. 1a). Such
CoF has different categories, depending on criteria of each
company. [3, 5, 10, 13, 17–19, 28–32]
Finally, a 5 9 5 risk matrix (Fig. 1b) combining the
product of the PoF (or LoF) and the CoF categories was
used to assign the risk ranking [3, 5, 10, 13, 17–19, 28–32]
associated with each insulated equipment evaluated. From
that, an inspection in the form of visual examination after
the insulation was removed was performed to assess the
current degree of CUI (if any) in those pieces of equipment
identified with higher risks. Like the CoF, each company
establishes different levels of risks (i.e., different matrices)
according to the business criteria [3, 5, 10, 13, 17–19,
725
28–32]. Nevertheless, the risk to be estimated is always the
product of PoF vs. CoF in a risk matrix.
The procedure involved in the AP RP 581 for the RBI
studies [3, 5, 10, 13, 17–19, 28–32] is rather tedious. For
simplicity and illustration purposes in this study, only the
basic required data needed to determine the necessary
parameters and values for the estimation of the DF and the
PoF (Fig. 1a) for one piece of equipment (a CS pipeline
transporting a process stream located at a process unit) are
presented in Table 1. The same data (basic and required)
were gathered, and the same procedure was followed to
determine the DF then the PoF category (Fig. 1a) for all
insulated equipment evaluated in this study.
A total of 117 pieces of equipment were evaluated (5
heat exchangers, 7 pressure vessels, 8 filters, and 97
pipelines’ sections which transport different process
streams). The pipelines were made of either carbon steel
(CS) or stainless steel (SS).
The RBI analysis results for all 117 pieces of equipment
at three process units along with the CUI inspection find-
ings for 43 nozzles, four vessel saddle supports, two
insulation support brackets, and two insulation support
rings, for a total of 51 accessories are presented.
Results and Discussion
RBI Analysis
From Table 2, the results from the RBI analysis for the 117
total pieces of insulated equipment revealed that most
equipment (86 pieces or about 80%) presented medium
high levels of risk priority, while eight pieces (around 7%)
exhibited high risk ranking. That represented a combined
94 pieces of equipment (87%) needing to be prioritized for
regular CUI inspection and monitoring. In addition, all the
equipment, except a heat exchanger discussed next,
attained PoF categories on the high-end side, with values of
4 and 5. This was expected, due to the severe atmospheric
conditions on the site.
The specific equipment risk level results are given as
follows (Table 2): four of the five heat exchangers and the
seven pressure vessels were at the medium high-ranking
priority of risk, obtained from a PoF value of 5 for all and
CoF categories of B or C (Fig. 1a, b), located in different
areas of the three process units, while the eight filters
presented a high-ranking risk level having a PoF value of 5
and a CoF category of D. In contrast, only one of five heat
exchangers showed a low risk level with a lower-end value
of PoF and a CoF category of C.
It is worth emphasizing that because of the proprietary
reasons of this work other process operating conditions
values and specific results are not presented. Similarly,
123
726
Fig. 1 a Ranges of DF, PoF and CoF used in the RBI analysis of each
equipment. The DF is calculated following the procedure outlined in
the API RP 581. The CoF categories are established by the
other details of the process such as specific equipment
location, as well as the pictures depicted in Figs. 2a–c and
3a–c were taken close-up to avoid showing more details at
those areas of the plant and other specifics.
Regarding the 97 pipeline sections evaluated, the results
showed that most (75) presented a medium high ranking
risk level with a PoF value of 4 or 5 and a CoF category of
C. Those 75 pipelines separately carry different process
streams. Any event on them (e.g., a failure due to lack of
periodic inspection for CUI) will have catastrophic con-
sequences. The rest of the piping (22 sections) separately
transporting other process streams exhibited a medium
ranking risk level with a PoF value of 4 and a CoF category
123
J Fail. Anal. and Preven. (2021) 21:723–732
(petrochemical) company. b 5 9 5 risk matrix of PoF versus CoF
used to assert the risk levels/priorities for each equipment evaluated
of B (Fig. 1b). It is important to mention that due to the
nature of the contents of these 22 streams any failure will
cause significant damage as well. Therefore about 77% of
the pipelines evaluated had a medium high-risk level while
around 23% had a medium risk level.
Visual CUI Inspections
Table 3 shows the results for all insulated equipment’s
accessories inspected visually after removing the respec-
tive insulation. 43 nozzles, two support brackets, two
support rings, and four saddle supports (a total of 51
accessories) at the respective locations showed different
 Table 1 Basic and required data for the estimation of the DFa,b [3, 5, 10, 13, 17–19, 28–32] of a (CS) process stream pipeline in a process unit of the petrochemical plant
Basic data ? Value or comment Required data ? Value or comment

Start date 1999 Insulation type Mineral wool

Thickness, mm (inch) 3.91 mm (0.154 inch) Driver(s) Insulation/jacketing
J Fail. Anal. and Preven. (2021) 21:723–732

(CUI promoters) Weather/temperature

Corrosion allowance, mm (inch) 1.60 mm (0.630 inch) Corrosion rate (mm/yr:mpy) 0.076 mm/yr (3 mpy)
Design temperature, C (F) 60.0 (140.0) Coating installation date 1999
Design pressure, MPa(g) (psig) 0.78 (113.13) Coating quality High
Operating Temperature, C (F) 26.3 (79.3) Equipment design/fabrication penalty (Yes/No) Yes
Operating pressure, MPa(g) (psig) 0.35 (50.32) Complexity (design) Average
Design code ASME B31.3 Insulation condition? (Above Average, Average or Below Average) Average
Equipment type Pipe Pipe support penalty? (yes/no) No
Component type PIPE-1 Interface penalty (yes/no) No
Component geometry data Cylindrical Shell Inspection effectiveness category B—usually effective
Diameter: 52.5 mm ID/60.3 mm OD
Material specification A53 GRADE B Number of inspections 1
Yield strength, MPa(g) (psig) 241.32 (35,000) Thickness reading mm (inch) 5.40 mm (0.213 inch)
Tensile strength, MPa(g) (psig) 413.69 (60,000) Thickness reading date 2014
Weld Joint Efficiency 100%
Heat Tracing No
a
The damage factor (DF) is calculated using the basic and required data following step-by-step the API RP 581. In this case, a value of 11,889 was obtained
b
The probability of failure (PoF) is determined by using the calculated DF (11,889 in this case) and establishing the corresponding category from Fig. 1a. A PoF category of 5 is then attained
727

123
728 J Fail. Anal. and Preven. (2021) 21:723–732

Table 2 RBI results for all 117 pieces of insulated equipment evaluateda
PoF category (value) CoF category Risk level
Equipment/description Quantity (total) 1 2 3 4 5 A B C D E Low Medium Medium High High

Heat exchanger 5 1 4 1 4 1 4
Pressure vessel 7 7 7 7
Filter 8 8 8 8
Pipeline (CS or SS) 97 94b,c 3d 22b 75c,d 22b 75c,d
a
Values and categories for PoF & CoF, and Risk levels were obtained from Fig. 1a, b
b
Pipelines made of CS (5 carrying a process stream, while 3 transport a different stream), and 14 made of SS (12 carrying another process stream,
while 2 transport a different stream)
c
10 CS pipelines carrying another stream, and 62 also made of CS transporting a different stream
d
1 pipeline made of CS carrying a process stream (refer to Table 1), and 2 made of SS transporting a different stream

CUI conditions among other characteristics. These were
chosen to be inspected after the RBI analysis of the
respective insulated equipment and revealed at least a
medium high-risk level.
From only the visual inspection findings, 28 of the
accessories inspected after insulation removal(or about
55%) out of the 51 in total exhibited some moderate cor-
rosion development in the form of surface rusting or
scaling (made of metal hydroxides and oxides) due to
insulation breakdown at the locations. On the other hand,
23 accessories (around 45%) exhibited relatively good
condition (no appreciable corrosion was observed on the
surface and no rupture of the insulation covering).
Regarding the nozzles, 19 (about 45%) of the 43 nozzles
belonging to nine pieces of equipment showed good con-
dition, while 24 (around 55%) nozzles exhibited moderate
corrosion.
All these findings were expected due to the severe
atmospheric condition, especially the high relative
humidity (constant moisture and it is exacerbated during
the rainy season/months) and high UV ray incidence. The
UV rays affect thermally and consequently mechanically,
the insulation material of those equipment on the outside
(directly exposed to the environment) at the location of the
plant, causing weakness and subsequent damage on the
insulation, allowing the penetration of water. It is worth
pointing out that for most instances with moderate CUI, the
insulation was damaged prior to insulation removal which
allowed moisture to infiltrate the spot and get in contact
with the surface of the equipment.
The accessories’ results for CUI examinations (Table 3)
show that there was a combination of trends involving
positions (12 o‘clock, 6 o‘clock, or side position) and
insulation material.
refer to pipelines) presented more CUI development
denoted as moderate corrosion. Two instances, Figs. 2a
and 3c, show a 600 nozzle and one of the insulation support
rings. Specifically, a total of 13 accessories (11 nozzles and
the two insulation support rings) at 12 o’clock or top
position and with calcium silicate or foam glass as the
insulation material, or about 24% of the 51 visually
inspected for CUI exhibited moderate corrosion. One
accessory only, a 1000 nozzle at 12 o’clock with insulation
material of mineral wool, exhibited a good condition after
inspection upon removal of the insulation covering. These
results imply that out of the 14 accessories inspected that
were positioned at 12 o’clock or top on the respective
equipment, around 93%, the vast majority, exhibited
appreciable CUI development (moderate corrosion).
6 o‘Clock Position
On the other hand, accessories positioned at 6 o’clock or
bottom of the equipment, a total of seven (about 70%)
exhibited good condition (Fig. 3a shows a vessel saddle
support). Specifically, one nozzle at 6 o’clock and the four-
vessel saddle supports inspected that were at the bottom of
the respective equipment insulated with calcium silicate or
foam glass showed good conditions. Only two nozzles (a
400 , which is shown in Fig. 2b, and a 2400 ) at the bottom of
their equipment and covered with foam glass, presented
moderate corrosion. This could perhaps be due to gravity
effects, in which condensate flowed down around the sur-
face of the equipment and accumulated at the accessory’s
vicinity in combination with the high humidity present
year-long in the surroundings.
Side Position

12 o‘Clock Position Regarding the side position, out of the 30 accessories

positioned sidewise, 17 (about 57%) exhibited good con-
Accessories positioned at 12 o‘clock or at the top of the dition upon inspection after insulation removal, while 13
equipment under consideration (o’clock positions generally (around 43%) presented CUI moderate corrosion. Figures 2

123
J Fail. Anal. and Preven. (2021) 21:723–732
Fig. 2 a Moderately corroded 600 nozzle at the 12 o’clock position of
a pipeline. b Moderately corroded 400 nozzle at the bottom of an
equipment. c 400 nozzle positioned side-wise of a horizontally-oriented
pressure vessel, showing good condition after the insulation was
removed
c and 3b show a 400 nozzle (good condition) and an insu-
lation support bracket (moderate corrosion), respectively.
Specifically, 11 nozzles and the two support brackets
covered with any of the three insulation materials, foam
glass, calcium silicate or mineral wool (Table 3) showed
signs of CUI. The rest, 17 nozzles, also covered with any of
the insulation materials exhibited good condition after
visual inspection (Table 3).
Even though there are other factors that need to be taken
into consideration (e.g., gravity effects at specific locations,
729
Fig. 3 a Vessel saddle support at the bottom position of a
horizontally oriented pressure vessel showing good condition after
the insulation was removed. b Moderately corroded insulation support
bracket at the side of one equipment. Because of their shape/geometry
(protuberance, ideal spot for water to accumulate and to induce
damage to the covering-insulation), support brackets in equipment
generally tend to favor moisture settlement, regardless of their
position. c Moderately corroded insulation support ring at the top
head of one equipment. Also because of their shape/geometry (edge-
like), support rings in equipment generally tend to favor moisture
settlement as well, regardless of their position. Another study [1]
shows similar CUI development observations after visual inspection
on two support rings upon insulation removal
insulation jacketing and installation), the position of the
different accessories shows a pattern in which the top
positions are more prone to develop CUI, regardless,
apparently, of the insulation material. Perhaps the top
123
730 J Fail. Anal. and Preven. (2021) 21:723–732

Table 3 CUI visual inspection results for all accessories in the insulated equipment
Accessory/description Quantity Position on equipment Diameter (inches) CUI condition observed Insulation material

Level Bridle Nozzle @ 12 o’clock 03 Top 100 , 200 Moderate corrosiona Calcium silicate
Level Bridle Nozzle @ 12 o’clock 01 Top 2 00
Moderate corrosiona Foam glass
Level Bridle Nozzle @ side of Vessel 09 Side 100 , 200 Moderate corrosiona Foam glass
00 00
Level Bridle Nozzle @ side of Vessel 02 Side 1 ,2 Good Calcium silicate
Level Bridle Nozzle @ side of Vessel 12 Side 100 , 200 Good Mineral wool
Nozzle @ 12 o’clock 03 Top 400 , 600 , 1200 Moderate corrosiona Calcium silicate
Nozzle @ 12 o’clock 04 Top 400 , 2400 , 3000 Moderate corrosiona Foam glass
Nozzle @ 12 o’clock 01 Top 1000 Good Mineral wool
Nozzle@ side Vessel 02 Side 400 , 1000 Good Mineral wool
00 a
Manway Nozzle @ side of Vessel 01 Side 20 Moderate corrosion Calcium silicate
Manway Nozzle @ side of Vessel 01 Side 2000 Moderate corrosiona Mineral wool
Manway Nozzle @ side of Vessel 01 Side 2000 Good Foam glass
Nozzle @ 6 o’clock 01 Bottom 1000 Good Calcium silicate
Nozzle 02 Bottom 400 , 2400 Moderate corrosiona Foam glass
Vessel Saddle Support 02 Bottom … Good Calcium silicate
Vessel Saddle Support 02 Bottom … Good Foam glass
Insulation Support Bracket 02 Side … Moderate Corrosiona Foam Glass
Insulation Support Ring 02 Top Head … Moderate Corrosiona Foam Glass
a
Moderate corrosion development in the form of surface rusting or scaling (made of metal hydroxides and oxides, respectively) due to insulation
breakdown

and refining plants. For the calcium-silicate insulated

Fig. 4 Insulation material performance in all the 51 accessories
inspected for CUI. ‘‘Good’’ denotes in good condition after insulation
removal, while ‘‘corroded’’ indicates moderate corrosion
position presents that higher tendency for CUI develop-
ment due to the higher exposure to sunlight (for that
equipment placed without any roofing/ceiling) which may
degrade the insulation, allowing penetration of moisture to
be in contact with the surface of the material, creating
electrochemical cells for corrosion to be triggered.
Insulation Material
There were differences in the CUI findings for the acces-
sories inspected depending only on the type of insulation
material as is depicted in Fig. 4. The three insulation
materials of the insulated equipment involved in this study,
calcium silicate, foam glass and mineral wool are com-
monly used in many petrochemical, chemical, oil & gas
accessories, seven presented CUI development, while five
exhibited good condition. That is about an equal distribu-
tion CUI vs. good condition for this insulation material.
Regarding the ones having foam glass as the insulation
material, most 20 (or about 85%) showed moderate CUI
corrosion, while only three accessories (or around 15%) of
those covered with foam glass exhibited good condition.
For the accessories insulated with mineral wool, the vast
majority (15 or about 95%) presented good condition with
only one showing moderate corrosion.
According to some publications [33–35], there are dif-
ferent results when the three insulation materials evaluated
in this study (at the petrochemical company) and other
insulation materials as well were exposed to different
scenarios, tests, and experiments. Some claim foam glass
(also referred to as cellular glass) material performs supe-
riorly compared to other insulation materials in some
instances, while in others the calcium silicate shows better
results. Others show combinations of best results between
mineral wool and or calcium silicate [33–35].
In this study, no conclusive trends could be drawn, since
there were mixed patterns regarding position, insulation
material, and accessory. For example, the only mineral
wool-covered accessory that showed moderate corrosion
was a 2000 manway nozzle at the side of a pressure vessel,
while among the three accessories covered with foam glass
that exhibited good condition was a similar 2000 manway

123
J Fail. Anal. and Preven. (2021) 21:723–732
nozzle positioned sidewise. There are as well other factors
to be taken into consideration when it comes to insulation,
including installation procedure, type of material to secure
the insulation (jacketing), equipment accessibility, size/
dimensions and positioning, as well as process internal
temperature of exposure (which may cause an effect, for
example thermal degradation, on the insulation material).
All these insulation-related factors differ for each equip-
ment evaluated and each accessory inspected.
Temperature Effects
The internal temperature of operation in the process to
which the insulated equipment is exposed as well as the
material of construction (CS or SS) of the equipment, may
have an effect in the possibility of CUI being developed,
according to several works (studies, industry codes, rec-
ommended practices, among others [3, 10, 17, 19]). These
studies assert that several ranges of temperatures, from a
wide range of about – 4 C (or even  23.5 C) to 204 C,
would favor CUI conditions for CS in some instances, and
in other instances for SS insulated materials including, e.g.,
chloride stress corrosion. [3, 10, 17, 19]
In this study, the internal temperature range at which
most evaluated equipment and inspected accessories were
exposed to (from the process’ conditions) varied from
around 35 C (a moderate temperature value which favors
corrosion’s kinetics) to about 193 C (even higher in some
instances). These value ranges are sufficiently high to
induce certain effects on the insulation material, for
example thermal and subsequent mechanical degradation,
which in turn can create weakening and in consequence
breakdowns at spots of the insulation surface, allowing
moisture to penetrate and then to be in contact with the
equipment surface, promoting CUI.
Regardless of those assessments regarding temperature
range effects [3, 10, 17, 19], it is imperative to emphasize
that when it comes to corrosion at least two important facts
must be considered, high or even moderate temperatures
favor reaction kinetics and CUI heavily depends on the
atmospheric conditions at the location under study. This
was established previously to be severe at the petrochem-
ical plant in this study and in other work in the same
country [21]. In addition, this is especially critical due to
the high relative humidity and UV ray incidence practically
all-year at the plant location (except for the rainy season).
The high humidity is aggravated even further because this
petrochemical plant, as it is the case for virtually all
petrochemical companies and a refinery located nearby in
the country, is located right on the coast. As a matter of
fact, plant personnel reported that CUI was present in three
(03) top-positioned CS nozzles exposed to temperatures out
of the range pointed out in the aforementioned studies
731
[3, 10, 17, 19]. CUI and any other external type of corro-
sion phenomena will undoubtedly always be favored at
plants in these locations which emphasizes the regular
inspections that must be implemented as preventive cor-
rosion control and monitoring strategies.
In this work, more insulated piping sections (97 in total)
were chosen to be evaluated and then inspected in the three
process units investigated not only because these equip-
ment are more prone to corrosion and failures, but they are
more spread out as there are more pipelines than any other
assets in any process. These interconnect between units and
equipment inside any unit, as well as contain more bends
and shape/pattern changes that can go underground and
aboveground in the same line. All these factors make them
more vulnerable. Furthermore, it has been reported that
most pipe leaks (more than 80%) occur in pipelines with
nominal diameters of 400 or smaller [5, 8, 19]; the reason is
perhaps that the thicknesses tend to be lower than larger
pipelines, and therefore loss of material from corrosion and
ensuing failure takes place more rapidly. Thus, special
attention and CUI monitoring needs to be focused on
pipelines.
It is clear from the results of the RBI analysis (Table 2),
and corroborated by the visual inspections (Table 3), that
most of the insulated equipment possessed at least a med-
ium high risk of failure due to CUI, and most of the
accessories inspected developed some degree of moderate
localized corrosion. These results were expected as it was
pointed out the severe atmospheric corrosivity under which
the plant equipment is exposed all-year at the location,
especially the high humidity and strong sunlight (weakens
rapidly the insulation material in equipment located out-
side) enhance the possibilities of developing CUI.
It has been convincingly shown in this study that timely
inspection from regular examination of insulated equip-
ment as a CUI prevention/monitoring measure reduces the
possibility of CUI failures, some of which have caused
extreme consequences [1–3], and assures a reliable and
continuous process operation, especially in these types of
installations where the atmospheric conditions promote
CUI development.
Conclusions
After performing a risk-based inspection (RBI) analysis to
identify the insulated equipment that presented higher risks
of developing corrosion under insulation (CUI), more than
50 accessories were visually inspected for CUI upon
insulation removal. A total of 117 pieces of equipment
were evaluated, including pipelines (97 sections), five heat
exchangers, seven pressure vessels, and eight filters. More
than 80% presented at least a medium high-risk level, and
123
732
the majority of the accessories showed signs of moderate
corrosion, among which the ones positioned at the top of
the respective equipment exhibited the highest tendencies
of CUI development. These results were in accordance
with the expectations for the location of the petrochemical
plant in which the study was carried out, since the atmo-
spheric corrosivity has been established to be severe, where
all-year conditions of high relative humidity and high
sunlight incidence favor CUI development. In addition, this
work strongly indicates that best corrosion management
practices, in the form of periodic inspections, are suc-
cessful in preventing failures associated with CUI, which
have been proven to be too frequent, costly, and devas-
tating on many occasions throughout the years in these
types of facilities.
Acknowledgments The authors would like to acknowledge the
support of the petrochemical plant personnel in performing this study.
References
1. F. De Vogelaere, Ammonia Technical Manual (2007), pp. 261–
269.
2. W. Geary, Analysis of a corrosion under insulation failure in a
carbon steel refinery hydrocarbon line. Case Stud. Eng. Fail.
Anal. 1, 249–256 (2013)
3. S. Anderson, Out of Sight, Out of Mind? Hydrocarbon Engi-
neering, August (2010)
4. N.G. Thompson, M. Yunovich, D. Dunmire, Cost of corrosion
and corrosion maintenance strategies. Corros. Rev. 25(3–4), 247
(2007)
5. P.R. Roberge, Handbook of Corrosion Engineering (McGraw-
Hill, New York, 2000)
6. E.D. Verink, Economics of Corrosion, Uhlig’s Corrosion
Handbook, ch. 3, 3rd edn. (ECS - Wiley, Hoboken, 2011), pp.
21–30
7. G.H. Koch, M.P.H. Brongers, N.G. Thompson et. al., Corrosion
Costs and Prevention Strategies in the United States (NACE
International, Publication No. FHWA-RD-01-156, 2002)
8. Y. Mubarak Al-Mowalad, Corrosion Under Insulation (CUI)
Management (Saudi Arabian Oil Company, Dhahran, 2012)
9. A. Akmar Mokhtar, M. Che Ismail, A. Bakar Zainordin, S.
Shahid, A Framework for Estimating Piping Reliability Subject
to Corrosion Under Insulation, in MATEC Web of Conferences
(2014), vol. 13, p. 03001.
10. E. Eltai, F. Musharavati, M. El-sadig, Severity of corrosion under
insulation (CUI) to structures and strategies to detect it. Corros.
Rev. 37(6), 553–564 (2019)
11. Corrosion Under Insulation: a New Risk-Based Approach to
Asset Integrity Management, SGS Group Management SA (2017)
12. A. Akmar Mokhtar, N. Saari, M. Che Ismail, Assessment of
Insulated Piping System Inspection Using Logistic Regression,
Engineering Asset Management - Systems, Professional Practices
and Certification, Conference paper, November (2014)
13. F. Wiggen, Risk based management of corrosion under insula-
tion, Inspectioneering J., May/June (2020)
14. B. Bavarian, Y. Ikder, B. Samimi and Lisa Reiner, Protection of
Corrosion under Insulation using Vapor Phase Corrosion Inhibi-
tors, Corrologic VpCI-658, CORTEC Corporation, April (2015).
123
J Fail. Anal. and Preven. (2021) 21:723–732
15. S. Caines, F. Khan, J. Shirokoff, W. Qiu, Experimental design to
study corrosion under insulation in harsh marine environments. J.
Loss Prev. Process Ind. 33, 39–51 (2015)
16. Creating Value with NDT for Corrosion Under Insulation (CUI),
TUV Rheinland, May 31, 2019.
17. D. Conger, Guidelines for Providing Process Conditions for RBI:
Part 2—CUI and How it Relates to Risk Based Inspection, Pro-
cess Conditions for RBI–CUI, Blog 1/8/2019.
18. J.D. Sanders, Effectively Using Risk-Based Inspection Results to
Implement a Corrosion Under Insulation Program, Paper No:
ETCE2002/PER-29125 (2009), pp. 635–649; 15 pages.
19. ptt ME, How to Manage Corrosion Under Insulation (CUI)
Problem?, APCCC18, November 7 (2018).
20. A. Marquez, A. Ramnanan, C. Maharaj, Failure analysis of car-
bon steel tubes in a reformed gas boiler feed water preheater. J.
Fail. Anal. Prev. 19, 592–597 (2019)
21. A. Marquez, R. Ramkellawan, C. Maharaj. Life Cycle Cost
Analysis of Corrosion Prevention for Water Service Systems.
Work manuscript/unpublished, San Antonio TX - University of
the West Indies, Trinidad & Tobago. November (2020).
22. M. Soliman, D.M. Frangopol, Life-cycle cost evaluation of
conventional and corrosion-resistant steel for bridges. J. Bridge
Eng. 20, 1 (2015)
23. D. Kowalski, B. Grzyl, A. Kristowski, The cost analysis of cor-
rosion protection solutions for steel components in terms of the
object life cycle cost. CEER 26(3), 005–013 (2017)
24. K. Jules Kere, Life-Cycle Cost Comparison of Corrosion Man-
agement Strategies for Steel Structures, M.Sc. Thesis (The
University of Akron, 2017).
25. J.L. Helsel, R. Lanterman, K.Wissmar, Expected Service Life and
Cost Considerations for Maintenance and New Construction
Protective Coating Work, Paper No. 08279, NACE International
Corrosion Conference & Expo (2008)
26. P.R. Roberge, Atmospheric Corrosion, Uhlig’s Corrosion
Handbook, ch. 3, 3rd edn. (ECS - Wiley, Hoboken, 2011), pp.
299–326
27. API RP 581, Risk-Based Inspection Methodology: Documenting
and Demonstrating the Thinning Probability of Failure Calcu-
lations, (2014/16).
28. D.G.S. Prayoga, D. Priyanta, N. Siswantoro, Comparative anal-
ysis of probability of failure determination using weibull
distribution and generic failure frequencies on heat exchanger
tube bundles based on API 581. Int. J. Mar. Eng. Innov. Res. 2(3),
210–215 (2018)
29. L. Kaley, API RP 581 Risk Based Inspection Methodology
Document Revisions, 7th Biennial Inspection Summit, Galveston
Island, TX.
30. D. Stewart, The Fundamentals of Asset Management: A Hands-
On Approach, EPA Conferences (2016).
31. Risk-Based Structural Integrity Management of Offshore Jacket
Structures, Bureau Veritas, Guidance Note, April 2017.
32. American Petroleum Institute, API RP 581: Risk Based Inspec-
tion Base Resource Document, Ballot Cover Page, Document
Rev 0-6/11/2012.
33. S. Badger, Effects of Moisture on Thermal Insulation, IDEA 2017
Sustaining Our Success, 108th Annual Conference & Trade
Show, June 26-29 (2017)
34. The Influence of Insulation Materials on Corrosion Under Insu-
lation, Piping Systems, Fluid Handling Pro, APRIL 7 (2020)
35. Insulation systems for industrial applications, Foamglass Insula-
tion Systems, Pittsburgh Corning USA (2002/2009)
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.