Review of Corrosion Protection and Control Techniques For Metallic Pipelines

Engineering Failure Analysis 143 (2023) 106885
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Engineering Failure Analysis

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engfailanal
A comprehensive review of corrosion protection and control

techniques for metallic pipelines
Hassan M. Hussein Farh *, Mohamed El Amine Ben Seghier *, Tarek Zayed
Department of Building and Real Estate, Faculty of Construction and Environment, Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hung Hom, Kowloon, Hong
Kong
A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T
Keywords: Metallic pipelines carrying water and/or oil/gas are exposed to deterioration, leaks/bursts, and
Metallic pipelines failures due to corrosion. A suitable corrosion protection technique can prevent corrosion of these
External and internal corrosion metallic pipelines, particularly in hostile environments, and corrosive soils. It can also reduce
Protection techniques
pipe deterioration, leaks/breaks, and failure, prolong service life, and improve the transportation
Water mains
Oil and gas pipelines
process. Based on prior studies, this comprehensive review is regarded as an early attempt to
Cathodic protection cover both external and internal corrosion protection techniques for metallic pipelines in depth.
The external corrosion protection techniques are classified into passive, active and hybrid
corrosion protection techniques. The passive techniques include coatings, linings, barriers, ma
terial design, electrical isolation, inhibitors, and multi-passive techniques. Whereas active
corrosion protection techniques include sacrificial anode and impressed current cathodic pro
tections. Active and passive techniques are frequently combined to provide a more comprehen
sive corrosion protection system against newly discovered corrosion causes or coating
degradations. On the other hand, internal corrosion protection techniques include internal
coatings/linings/barriers, corrosion allowance, inhibitors/chemical treatments, dehydration,
pigging, pipe material selection and flow control. The functions, merits, demerits, limitations/
shortcomings, and requirements of corrosion protection techniques, as well as the various con
siderations that control their use have been covered and discussed. This comprehensive review
will assist researchers, practitioners, and the industrial sector in prioritizing their policies in order
not only to select the appropriate external and internal corrosion protection technique but also to
fill current research gaps and focus on the future directions.
1. Introduction
External and internal corrosion are the major contributors not only to the deterioration, leaks/breaks, and failure of metallic
pipelines, but it can also cause economic issues and a negative impact on the environment and humans [1–3]. Corrosion appeared to be
the most damaging factor among various causes of pipelines deterioration in Canada and United States, where it weakens the pipe wall,
increasing the failure risk due to mechanical breaks [1,4]. It is also regarded as a major factor influencing maintenance costs and
* Corresponding authors at: Department of Building and Real Estate, Faculty of Construction and Environment, Hong Kong Polytechnic Uni
versity, Hung Hom, Kowloon, Hong Kong.
E-mail addresses: hfarh.hussein@polyu.edu.hk (H.M.H. Farh), mohamed.benseghier@polyu.edu.hk (M.E.A. Ben Seghier), tarek.zayed@polyu.
edu.hk (T. Zayed).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engfailanal.2022.106885
Received 17 May 2022; Received in revised form 15 September 2022; Accepted 15 October 2022
Available online 20 October 2022
1350-6307/© 2022 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
H.M.H. Farh et al. Engineering Failure Analysis 143 (2023) 106885
lifetime of the pipelines [5]. External pitting corrosion is more dangerous than graphitic corrosion and causes more quickly pipe wall
penetration [6,7]. On the other hand, internal corrosion can degrade the distribution system’s functionality (hydraulics, water quality)
[8]. The presence of corrosion components, and the water’s high corrosivity result an increasing failures number and poor water
quality [9]. Although metallic pipe failures are a common issue, they remain uncontrollable even when advanced corrosion protection
technologies are used. Therefore, it’s critical to comprehend the factors causing metallic pipeline corrosion [1].
External corrosion is the most common cause of metallic pipeline failure, which is exacerbated by corrosive soils. Based on the
comprehensive report conducted by the American Water Works Association (AWWA) in the United States, about 70% of buried
metallic pipelines collapse owing to corrosive soils [1]. Soil corrosivity has been measured directly using soil resistivity alone or in
combination with other parameters like soil chemistry. Low resistivity soils are more corrosive than high resistivity soils [10,11]. Soil
resistivity is proportional to moisture levels and chloride concentration. Soil resistivity decreases as moisture levels and chloride
concentration increase [1]. Soil resistivity, pH and moisture level, temperature, redox potential, particle size, organic matter content,
mineral composition, presence of bacteria and soil type are the external corrosion contributors in soils [1,12]. Dissimilar metals/soil
environments are considered the second most common contributors of the external corrosion with 12% while coatings damages and
degradations are considered the third most common contributors of the external corrosion with 10% [1]. Stray currents due to power
and energy infrastructure like trams, railways, and AC power lines are considered the fourth most common contributors of the external
corrosion with 4%. Other contributors like biochemical or bacterial activities, Hydrogen embrittlement, stress and crevice corrosion
are considered the last contributors of the external corrosion with 7% [1,12]. In water and oil/gas systems, the most common con
tributors of the internal corrosion are water corrosivity, corrosive gases including CO2 and H2S, pressure, temperature, flow velocity,
pH [9,13,14] fouling and bacterial activities [15]. Fig. 1 shows the major corrosion causes for metallic pipelines. Based on the
corrosion causes and types discovered, appropriate corrosion protection techniques can be utilized to reduce deterioration, leaks/
breaks, and failure.
The existing reviews on corrosion protection and control techniques for metallic pipelines are summarized in Table 1. The four
reviews [16–19] focus on protection and control techniques against certain corrosion type like biofilms-corrosion [16], hydrogen
embrittlement corrosion [17], pitting corrosion [18], and top of the line (TOL) corrosion [19]. Furthermore, three reviews [20–22]
focusing only on the corrosion inhibitors in metallic pipelines. Lastly, other reviews [23–26] focused on certain or specific protection
and control techniques like coatings, cathodic protection (CP), inhibitors, material selection, and corrosion monitoring and inspection.
The external and internal corrosion protection techniques should be covered and discussed separately as the origin causes are different.
In addition, there is no review paper that has covered external and internal corrosion protection techniques of metallic pipelines in
depth. Consequently, this article is dedicated to fill the knowledge gaps in the existing reviews.
Based on the preceding studies, this comprehensive review is thought to be an early attempt to cover in depth both the external and
internal corrosion protection and control techniques of metallic pipelines, whereas research gap are covered, while insights and future
directions are provided and discussed. This review aims to answer the following questions:
▪ What are the most popular and effective techniques for protecting metallic pipelines against external and internal corrosion?
▪ What are the different reasons for using multi-passive techniques and hybridization between passive and active corrosion
protection techniques?
▪ What are the limitations, requirements, and consideration factors controlling the application of sacrificial anode cathodic
protection (SACP) and impressed current cathodic protection (ICCP)?
▪ What are the factors affecting the use of inhibitors/chemical treatments as external or internal corrosion control techniques
for both water mains and oil/gas applications?
Fig. 1. Major causes of corrosion for the metallic pipelines, redrawn from [1].
2
Table 1
Summary of the existing reviews on corrosion protection and control techniques of metallic pipelines.
Ref. Publication Research focus
year
[16] 2016 The focus of this review was on biofilms monitoring and control technologies in drinking water distribution systems to avoid corrosion.
[17] 2018 The focus of this review was on hydrogen related degradation in metallic pipeline, where the most famous corrosion mitigation methods
are reported.
[18] 2004 This review discussed the mechanisms and some remedial measures to prevent pitting corrosion of copper tubes in drinking water
systems.
[19] 2021 This review focused TOL corrosion in oil and gas pipelines: main causes, mechanisms and protection using different corrosion
inhibitors.
[20] 2011 The focus of this review was on the corrosion green (eco-friendly) inhibitors for wastewater and oil/gas pipelines.
[21] 2021 The focus of this review was on corrosion prevention and control in metallic pipes using different green (organic and inorganic)
inhibitors.
[22] 2017 This review covered in depth the synthetic organic compounds and green inhibitors for inhibiting corrosion of oil and gas pipelines.
[23] 2012 The focus of this review was on the corrosion of the ductile iron (DI) water pipes with general review of some corrosion control methods
of the DI pipes including coating, polyethylene encasement, and CP.
[24] 2013 This review discussed the common types of corrosion in oil and gas industry, as well as how to mitigate them using coating, CP,
inhibitors, material selection, and corrosion monitoring and inspection.
[25] 2005 This review focused on two central corrosion control technologies, which are coatings, and cathodic protection for controlling corrosion
in Mexico water pipelines.
[26] 2012 This review focused on some corrosion types in gas pipelines and how to control corrosion in general using coating, cathodic protection,
and inspection using smart pigs.
Research methodology
The flowchart in Fig. 2 depicts the research methodology used to complete this comprehensive review, while it consists of three
major steps, which are as follows:
Step1: Database and keywords selection.
This review paper is built based on of the two most widely used databases; Scopus and Web of Science (WoS). After selecting the
search databases, relevant keywords should be determined. To retrieve a more comprehensive set of bibliometric data, the most
common keywords related to pipeline corrosion protection techniques are employed. The used keywords for the search process are
“Protection”, “Methods” OR “Techniques”, “Water” OR “Oil and Gas”, “Pipes”, “Corrosion” OR “Erosion”. At the end of this step, 502
preceding articles were obtained.
Step2: Articles list selection.
To filter the preceding studies (502 articles) and keep the relevant ones only, four procedures were taken as follows:
- Inclusion and exclusion criteria: All studies on the corrosion protection techniques for pipelines have been included. Whereas the
ones published in languages other than English have been excluded. The numbers of the preceding articles became 413 articles.
- Articles evaluation by screening titles and abstracts: 226 articles were excluded based on screening title and abstract, reducing the
previous articles to 187.
- Full- text evaluation: Based on evaluation of the full-text, 86 articles were excluded, resulting in 101 articles.
- Snowballing search: The backward snowballing strategy was used to find additional articles not found through the Scopus or WoS.
This search strategy resulted 21 new relevant articles, bringing the total number of relevant articles to 122 (101 + 21).
Step3: Scientometric and systematic review.

The total relevant articles (122) have been used to do the scientometric and systematic review. Both the scientometric and sys
tematic review have been attained in the following sections as described Fig. 2.
3. Scientometric analysis
3.1. Annual publications trend
The collected database include published articles from 1958 to 2021 in the field of pipeline corrosion protection techniques,
revealed the rapid grouping in this research topic. The bibliometric data capture had no time constraints, and the first publication in
this field appeared in 1958 (Fig. 3) where thick plastic film coating was applied to protect buried pipes against corrosion [27]. The
steady increase in the total number of publications between 1981 and 2017 is evidence of the topic’s importance, as shown in Fig. 3. As
a result, it reflects a global focus on pipeline corrosion protection techniques to reduce deterioration, leaks/breaks, and failure, as well
as to extend pipeline service life.
3.2. Keywords co-occurrence network
The keywords are very important as a reflection of the theme and content for the published articles without going in depth through
3
Fig. 2. Research methodology flowchart.
the publications. Therefore, mapping the keywords of the relevant articles in a certain research area can provide the used method
ologies and gaps in this research area. VOSviewer is used to create the co-occurrence network visualization of the keywords for the 122
relevant articles. 58 keywords out of 1411 keywords met the minimum number of occurrences (i.e. 5). Using VOSviewer software, the
total strength of the co-occurrence with other keywords has been generated for each of the 58 keywords. Fig. 4 shows the co-
occurrence network visualization of the 58 keywords for the 122 relevant articles. The weight of a keyword determines the size of
the label and the circle around it. This latter grow-in-size as the keyword weight increases. For example, the corrosion keyword has the
highest label and size of the circle because it has the most occurrences. The top 20 active keywords in pipelines corrosion protection
research area based on the occurrences and total link strength is reported in Table 2.
3.3. Prominent and active countries in this research area
The determination of the major countries involved in the pipeline corrosion protection research participate in knowledge exchange
and future collaboration [28]. Fig. 5. shows the prominent countries in this research area. This graph was created using VOSviewer
through selecting “bibliographic coupling” as the type of analysis, full counting as the counting method and “countries” as the unit of
analysis, respectively. The top 5 prominent countries in corrosion protection techniques for metallic pipelines based on the analysed
4
Fig. 3. Annual publications trend from 1958 to 2021.
Fig. 4. Co-occurrence network visualization of keywords for the 122 relevant articles.
documents is introduced in Table 3. The label size in Fig. 5 represents the number of documents in each country. For example, United
States, China, Canada, and United Kingdom have larger label than the other countries. On the other hand, this shows that these
countries make the most contributions to this research area based on the extracted and analysed 122 articles.
4. Corrosion protection and control techniques
Two main steps have been done to finalize this comprehensive review. The first step is screening and selection the relevant articles
(122 articles). The second step is extracting the required data for the corrosion protection and control techniques. Based on the
extracted data from the 122 relevant studies, the classification of these techniques was elaborated, as shown in Fig. 6. The corrosion
protection and control techniques are classified into two-major groups, which are the external and internal corrosion protection
5
Table 2
Top 20 active keywords in pipelines corrosion protection research area.
No. Keyword Occurrences Total link strength
1 Corrosion 62 377
2 Pipelines 43 281
3 Corrosion protection 40 257
4 Cathodic protection 37 184
5 Pipeline corrosion 28 240
6 Steel corrosion 24 180
7 Corrosion inhibitors 22 140
8 Corrosion prevention 20 154
9 Pipe 17 123
10 Water pipelines 17 94
11 Iron 16 140
12 Steel pipe 16 126
13 Water supply 14 114
14 External corrosion 14 79
15 Potable water 13 104
16 Water quality 13 103
17 Cast iron pipe 11 110
18 Corrosive effects 11 89
19 Corrosion rate 11 84
20 Coatings 11 67
Fig. 5. Prominent countries in pipelines corrosion protection research area.
Table 3
Top 5 prominent countries in pipelines corrosion protection research area.
Country Documents Citations Total link strength
No. Percentage
United States 39 32% 921 41

China 18 15% 385 37
Canada 15 12% 192 16
United Kingdom 10 8% 667 11
Australia 7 6% 342 1
6
Fig. 6. Classification of the corrosion protection and control techniques.
techniques, respectively.
4.1. External corrosion protection and control techniques
Based on the extracted data from the 122 relevant studies, the external corrosion protection and control techniques are classified
into three main subcategories, which are passive, active and hybrid protection techniques. These three subcategories are discussed as
follow:
4.1.1. Passive protection techniques

Passive corrosion protection means electrically isolating the metal of the buried pipelines from the external corrosive products and
passivating the corrosion. Coatings and linings, barriers/wrapping, pipe material selection and design, electrical isolation, inhibitors/
chemical treatments, and multi-passive techniques are among the techniques covered in the subsections that follow.
i. Coatings and Lining
Coatings are the first defence line against corrosion to maintain the buried pipes’ integrity. It acts as a physical barrier layer be
tween the metal and its surrounding. When used correctly, it can protect more than 99% of the pipeline surface. Coating defects can
occur because of coating machine faults, rough handling, rock or debris penetration during backfilling process, cracking owing to
severe mechanical stresses, microbiological attack in the soil, and damage from subsequent construction works etc. [8,29–31]. Once a
defect occurs in coating, the stray current starts to flow causing cathodic region at the entrance and anodic region at the exit. The
unprotected surface of the pipeline will experience a high corrosion rate as a result. For instance, the corrosion rate equation can be
estimated using the following formula [8]:
K
mpy = (1)
RA
where mpy is the corrosion rate in term of length per time (mils per year), K is the electrochemical constant which varies depending on
the material type and the circumstances, R is the metal electric resistance (ohm), and A is the total area of the corroding sample (sq in.).
A good protective coating should have some characteristics as follow [8,29]:
- Easy to implement and repair

- Good adhesion between the coating and the metal to prevent water from penetrating the surface.
- Excellent dielectric strength: good insulation and moisture barrier
7
Table 4
H.M.H. Farh et al.

The preceding studies of the coating types for external corrosion protection.
Ref. Material Corrosion causes/type Coating Type Corrosion effects/Findings
[8]* Ductile iron (DI) Corrosive soils and Organic: Thermoplastic Sandy backfill reduce corrosion rates
pitting corrosion coatings: PE (since late of compared to other corrosive soils.
1950 s), coal-tar, epoxies, Corrosion rates decreased as coating
and bitumen thickness increased. High operating
Inorganic: Cement temperatures could quickly destroy the
mortar coatings.
Metallic: zinc coating
[29] * cast iron (CI) Cathodic delamination Organic: Waterborne Corrosive media such as water gain direct
coating (Styrene-Acrylic access to the metal, causing corrosion and
and Terpolymer) cathodic delamination (coating adhesion
loss).
[32] * Steel iron (SI) SCC due to high pressure Organic: Fusion bonded The results revealed that FBE coating
and corrosive epoxy (FBE) coating, performed well in preventing the corrosion
environment extruded PE especially stress corrosion cracking (SCC)
of buried pipelines, due to (i) Good barrier
properties (ii) CP compatibility nature.
[33] * SI and DI Corrosive environments Organic: Thermoset Three-layer tape system, cement mortar,
coating (epoxy and polyurethane, extruded PE, and coal-tar
polyurethane resins) coatings are the most prevalent coatings
coal-tar enamel, PE, and for SI pipes in non-corrosive environments.
Tape coating Whereas polyurethane, coal-tar epoxy,
Inorganic: Cement tape wrap coating, zinc, and zinc-AL
mortar coating are all feasible corrosion
Metallic: zinc coating protection methods for DI pipes in
8
and zinc-AL coating corrosive environments.

[34] * DI Corrosive soil Organic: Bitumen paint PE encased zinc coating on DI pipes is a
coating. cost-effective protection technique against
Inorganic: AL anodizing corrosive soil in UK.
[36] * DI Corrosive soils, stray Organic: PE film, Induced AC stray current has a serious
currents, and MIC due to enhanced PE film effect on both pipe material and the
SRB Inorganic: Asphalt protection techniques. PE encasement and
coating metallic zinc coating are the two most
Metallic: Metallized zinc common corrosion protection techniques.
coating
[37] * DI and CI Aggressive soil, Organic: Polyethylene. Aggressive soil, dissimilar metals and stray
dissimilar metals, and Metallic: Galvanized-

stray currents zinc (1960), hot dipping currents produce pits in DI and
or spraying-zinc (1996) graphitisation in CI. These external
corrosion causes (environmental and
operational) lead to pipe deterioration and
failure.
[38] * Metallic Cathodic delamination Organic: polymers Two factors mainly affect the cathodic
delamination and so metallic corrosion:
(1) Physical-chemical factors: Adhesion,
cross-linking density, coating thickness,
test temperature, applied cathodic
potential, time; (2) Coating composition
[39] * Galvanized iron pipes (GIP) Metallic: Zinc coating Heterogeneous materials, water qualities
and peculiar hydraulic circumstances that
(continued on next page)
Table 4 (continued )
H.M.H. Farh et al.

Ref. Material Corrosion causes/type Coating Type Corrosion effects/Findings
Heterogeneous materials contribute to unstable scale features,

and peculiar hydraulic structural breaks and low-velocity regions
circumstances in water mains may have a significant risk
of contamination release that causes
corrosion.
[40] * Unlined cast iron pipe (UCIP) and GIP Heterogeneous materials Metallic: Zinc coating The results revealed that different pipe
and water qualities materials have a substantial impact on
scale characteristics and, as a result, water
quality in water systems. Despite the zinc
release potential, zinc coatings on GIP
were found to have the best water quality
stability.
[41] * SI and DI Corrosive soils and Organic: Thin layer of The bitumen coating is relatively fragile,
coating faults/defects bitumen (1965–1980), and it may damage due to corrosive soils
PE and double layers and coating faults/defects. Therefore,
(hybrid) for high external pitting corrosion can occur in
protection (1990). these affected areas. Existing DI pipelines
Inorganic: Jute/glass- were protected using CP due to the weak
fibre fabric (1960), insulating capabilities of the thin bitumen
1980–1990. Metallic: coating.
hot-sprayed zinc layer
[27] * DI, SI Sulphate-reducing Organic: Thick plastic The thick plastic coating is designed to
bacteria (SRB)/MIC film coating provide the best resistance to anaerobic
sulphate-reducing bacteria. This tape
provides a suitable coating that adheres to
9
both the metal surface and the backing

film, preventing moisture from entering
the laps.
[42] ** Galvanized steel tubes Discontinuities and Metallic: Galvanized Low standards cause the zinc coating of
defects in zinc layer hot-dip zinc coating metallic pipes to deteriorate, which can
result in discontinuities and defects
causing corrosion. Galvanized hot-dip zinc
coating is used to protect the SI pipes from
corrosion.
[43] ** Steel pipes Corrosion due to Inorganic: Omniphobic Omniphobic coating provides superior
barnacles and microbial coating adhesion, abrasion resistance and low
algae surface roughness finish, repelling both

water and oil-based mixes while also
preventing barnacles and microbiological
algae from attaching and growing.
*
: Water mains;
**
: oil/gas.
Fig. 7. Effect of bonded and polyethylene (PE) encasement on stray current.
- Stability in physical adsorption and chemical bonding to maintain the wet adhesion, attain long-term corrosion protection and
resistant to cathodic delamination.
- Compatibility with CP and its current demand
- Appropriate to the environmental and operational conditions
Table 4 summarizes the previous studies related to external coating techniques for metallic pipelines. The external coatings can be
classified into organic, inorganic, and metallic coatings. Organic coatings are the most common for corrosion protection of buried
pipelines. Some examples of organic coatings include thermoset coating (epoxy and polyurethane resins) [32,33], tape coating,
thermoplastic coatings: polyethylene, coal-tar enamel, and bitumen etc.[8,34,35]. Inorganic coatings are generated through
chemical reaction, with/without electrical helping. These coatings include a wide range of materials such as hydraulic cements, glass,
ceramics and clays, silicates, carbon, enamels, and other materials. The most common inorganic coatings are cement mortar or
concrete coating on steel, and porcelain enamel coatings [33,35,36]. A concrete coating, when encasing reinforcing steel, can be
protective against corrosion where the alkaline reaction of hydraulic cement preserves a high pH at the steel substrate. Whereas the
porcelain enamel coatings are water-insoluble and resistant to most weather conditions [35]. Metallic coatings also act as a barrier
Table 5
The preceding studies for the external corrosion inhibitors in oil/gas applications.
Ref. Pipe Inhibitor type Findings
material
Green Synthetic
[58] Steel pipes – Vapor CIs The Electrochemical Impedance Spectroscopy revealed that corrosion rates
of steel in contact with vapor CIs electrolytes are significantly lower than
those in contact with potable water electrolytes. Vapor CIs are one of the
possible alternatives for carrier pipes corrosion prevention in the casing
annulus space under highways, and other structures because CP is effective
to protect the buried pipes not the casing pipes.
[21] Steel Plants, amino acids, drugs, – The investigations revealed that green corrosion inhibitors are easily
biopolymers, surfactants, and ionic biodegradable, eco-friendly, efficient, and economical in comparison to
liquids synthetic corrosion inhibitors.
[60] Steel pipes Two amino acid-modified dextran – To improve green inhibitors efficiency, two amino acid- dextran derivatives
derivatives from fungus and plants (LDT and S-LDT) were synthesized to protect carbon steel against corrosion.
The results showed that S-LDT has an outstanding inhibition performance,
with a high inhibition efficiency and high corrosion inhibition stability
compared to other eco-friendly corrosion inhibitors.
[13] Steel pipes – volatile CIs Traditional volatile amine inhibitors that are effective against BOL corrosion
may be ineffective against TOL corrosion. Whereas continuous injection of
corrosion inhibitors incorporating volatile CIs effectively controls TOL
corrosion without adding operational difficulty.
[59] Steel pipes – Two SCC SCC inhibitors, IFKhAN-29ACH and IFKhAN-P-3, possess sufficient
composite properties added to bitumen-polymer coatings to protect the pipelines
inhibitors against SCC as the combined CP with polymer coating are not efficient.
[61] Carbon – Synthetic CI The corrosion inhibitor was used to protect the oil/gas pipes against CO2 and
steel H2S corrosion. The inhibitor efficiency depends on the inhibitor capability
to reach the pipe wall.
[62] Metallic – Compound An inhibiting compound coats the pipe and prevents water from entering the
pipes inhibitor surface casing annulus to prevent corrosion due to a very corrosive
environment.
10
between the metallic surface and the surrounding corrosive environment. Metallic coatings are created using some techniques like hot-
dip galvanization, continuous galvanization, cladding, electroplating, thermal spray (flame, arc), chemical deposition, or surface
modification using laser or ion beams. The most common metallic coating technique is galvanization, which means the application of
zinc layer on the metal surface for corrosion protection purpose. Hot dip galvanization involves immersing the steel in a molten zinc
bath to get a zinc layer for corrosion protection. All galvanized materials are smooth and sharp finishing while hot dip galvanization
have a rough finishing [35,37].
ii. Barriers/Wrapping
The barriers are the simplest and most cost-effective solution of pipes corrosion protection in aggressive soils and corrosive en
vironments. They include polyethylene (PE) encasement or other plastic film. The PE encasement is the most common cost-effective
barrier used to safeguard DI pipe against corrosive environments. In 1951, the CI Pipe Research Association (CIPRA) in USA used PE
encasement for the first time to protect a mechanical joint pipe against corrosion in a highly corrosive environment [44]. Whereas, in
1958, PE encasement has been widely utilized for protecting DI pipes against corrosion in USA [36]. The PE encasement uses a special
designed material that meets the minimum mechanical criteria outlined in national and international standards, such as strength,
elongation, propagation rip resistance, dielectric strength, and impact resistance. The PE encasement for DI pipe systems has two main
functions as follow [36,45]:
- Creating an effectively impermeable barrier between the metal and corrosive environment. Therefore, it prevents extra oxygen
from reaching the pipe surface and corrosion products from diffusing away from it.
- Shielding and insulating DI pipe (high dielectric strength) from the stray currents due to the energy and power infrastructure like
trams, railways.
Table 6
A detailed comparison between the galvanic or SACP and ICCP techniques.
Ref. Parameters Galvanic or SACP ICCP
[8,64] Function - Protects metallic structures/pipes against galvanic - Protects metallic structures/pipes against
corrosion, which occur when two dissimilar metals aggressive/corrosive soil and stray currents due to
are electrically connected. trams, railways, and AC power lines etc.
[57,64] Power source and - No power source required. - Require external power source.
circuit Electrochemical natural circuit: (Anode – Cathode Design circuit includes: (AC power source - AC/
Electrolyte/Soil - Return path/wire). DC Rectifier conversion circuit - groundbed
anodes -Cathode - Electrolyte/Soil-Return path/
wire).
[8,57,64,66] Merits - Protects short pipelines and small-scale applications. - Effective in long pipelines and large-scale appli
Suitable for low-medium resistivity soil (500 to cations.
5,000 O-cm). Suitable to protect pipes in all resistivity soil.
Easier in implementation Works well in high resistivity soil
Low installation and maintenance cost. Effective on exposed and poorly coated pipes
Appropriate to hot spot corrosion places for where it can provide unlimited protective current.
existing infrastructure. Effective to install anodes in limited area.
Good electrical isolation is necessary and make Popular with gas and hazardous liquid inter
the application of SACP cost effective. Also, it pro state pipelines for extra protection, safety, and
longs the lifetime of the anodes where the protective cost savings.
CP current required is lower.
[8,64] Demerits and - Not effective in long pipelines and high resistivity - High installation and maintenance cost.
limitations soil. Hydrogen embrittlement and coating
Provides low current and low potential only. disbondment may occur due to over protection.
The protective current must be able to flow The protective current must be able to flow
through electrolyte/soil. through electrolyte/soil.
Protects external surface below the ground only. Protects external surface below the ground only.
[8,41,64,67] Requirements - Anode replacement and monitoring are required on - Requires regular maintenance and replacement
a regular basis. for the rectification circuit and groundbed anodes.
Requires electrically discontinuous metallic pipes. Requires electrically continuous metallic
pipelines.
Proper design is necessary to avoid stray
currents problems; metallic bond and electrical
isolation from other structure is compulsory.
[57,67] Factors should be - Soil resistivity - Pipe materials, soil resistivity, electrical
considered Pipe-to-earth resistance continuity, electrical isolation, coating conditions,
stray currents, and remaining life.
11
Fig. 8. Performance of SACP in ductile-iron pipes under different case studies.
The PE encasement/wrapping represents a common, cost-efficient, and often successful corrosion mitigation technique for buried
DI pipes in water mains applications [10,46]. In [36], the PE encasement of unbonded DI pipe reduced stray current pick-up from 538
mA to 1.5 mA; by about 358 times in this investigation study conducted by the Ductile Iron Pipe Research Association (DIPRA) as
shown in Fig. 7. The PE-encased DI pipe, on the other hand, picked up 0.27 percent of the stray current as the un-encased pipe. This
emphasizes the efficiency of PE in preventing DC stray current on DI pipe [36]. The authors in [8] concluded that corrosion rates were
minimal in DI pipe with an intact PE encasement. In [45], the results revealed that the unprotected DI pipe had a significant corrosion
pitting and several pipe wall penetrations, while the PE-encased DI pipe, which was in a good condition, had no corrosion pitting. The
authors in [6] concluded that PE encasement reduced corrosion of DI pipe. Also, it is impossible to apply PE encasement without
causing damage to the PE. The PE encasement damage does not accelerate corrosion rate where the corrosion rates of a defective PE-
encased DI pipe were not higher than not-encased DI pipe [36,47]. The authors in [48] improved the performance of the medium
density PE encasement in terms of wet adhesion strength, which is an important control parameter for cathodic disbondment (CD), that
causes underfilm corrosion. The higher the wet adhesion strength, the better the CD performance. In low-corrosive soils, PE
encasement was recommended as a corrosion prevention solution for DI pipes. In moderately corrosive soils, PE encasement and CP
were stipulated to protect DI pipes. Whereas bonded coatings and CP were recommended for adequate and extra corrosion protection
of DI pipes in severely corrosive soils [48]. Also, PE encased zinc coated DI pipes is used as a cost-effective protection technique against
corrosive soil in UK, 1984 [34].
To sum up, the barriers like PE encasement can be considered as an effective external corrosion mitigation technique in low-
corrosive soils but cannot be used individually for moderately and severely corrosive soils. In highly corrosive soils, the PE encase
ment is not recommended where it may suffer from some serious technical problems as[10]:
a. Damage and defects are both possible in PE.

b. Corrosion or damage may occur away from the defective areas or beneath undamaged PE.
c. Dissolved oxygen, water, and other chemicals from the surroundings can get in between the PE and the defective parts in the pipe,
facilitating corrosion.
d. While CP can help prevent corrosion around defective areas, most experts agree that because of the encasement’s shielding effects,
it won’t help outside it.
e. The faster rate of corrosion in highly corrosive soils is more likely to cause pipeline failure before the pipe achieves its lifetime.
iii. Pipe Material Selection and Design
The materials selection for a specific environment is a significant aspect and crucial factor in corrosion protection and control
techniques. Although no material is impervious to all corrosive environments, material selection is critical in controlling many types of
corrosion and failures. The selected material should attain some criteria and requirements like physical and mechanical characteristics,
corrosion and erosion resistance, design availability, cost, maintainability, compatibility with the rest of the system, reliability, and life
expectancy. For buried metallic pipelines in hostile environments and corrosive soils, high-performance corrosion-resistant metals are
required. The corrosive environment influences the material resistance. In one setting, a material may be highly resistant to corrosion,
while in another, it may fail. As a result, understanding a material’s corrosion resistance in a certain environment is critical to its
successful implementation [49]. In [40], scale analysis and bench-scale testing revealed that pipe materials have a significant impact
on corrosion scale characteristics. On the other hand, the chemistry and microstructure of pipe materials can vary depending on the
manufacturing technology used at the time. As a result, different pipe materials may have varied susceptibilities to soil corrosion [4].
Metallurgy as well as pipe operation parameters including flow speed, local turbulence, temperature, and pressure, all contribute to
pipeline material corrosion [50]. Authors in [51] revealed that the pipe material selected first with a suitable anti-corrosive agent
(HSJ-7 inhibitor) can achieve a well-controlled corrosion, as well as satisfy the requirements of oil/gas system. In thermal applications
12
Table 7
Hybrid corrosion protection techniques applied to metallic pipelines.
Ref. Pipe type Hybrid technique used Reasons of hybridization and findings
[70]* DI pipes Hybrid CP, and tightly bonded Hybrid CP, and tightly bonded coating or PE encasement are applied to protect DI water pipes
coating or PE encasement against bacteria activity and microbiological influenced corrosion (MIC) beneath PE
encasement in severe environment that has a high sulphate concentration in the soil.
[71] * Steel CP and coal tar enamel/cement The coal tar enamel coating has deteriorated, and some pitting has occurred on the pipe wall.
pipelines mortar re-lining Furthermore, the cement mortar lining does not adhere well to the lock-bars that protrude from
the interior pipe walls. Hybridization with CP protected the steel pipes from external pitting,
internal corrosion, and third-party failure, thereby extending the pipes’ service life.
[10] * DI pipes bonded coating + CP The committee concluded that bonded coatings with CP may provide superior and robust
protection to DI pipes compared to the PE encasement with CP in low-resistivity or corrosive
soil, anaerobic bacteria, dissimilar metals, and stray currents.
[11] * Steel and DI bonded coating and ICCP The results revealed that hybrid ICCP and bonded coating participate mainly in controlling the
corrosion due to corrosive soil and extend the service life of water pipes.
[8] * DI pipes bonded coating + ICCP Although corrosion rates on PE-encased DI pipe decreased slightly after application of ICCP,
& PE wrap + ICCP corrosion engineers believed that a well-bonded coating with CP could be effective in corrosive
soil. PE wrap is frequently avoided because its shielding effect interferes with CP, and when
loosely wrapped, it did not provide all expected protective coating characteristics.
[63] * DI pipes Coatings + CP The use of PE encasement is good in less-corrosive soils, but in more corrosive soils, pipe
failures may occur in less than five years. External corrosion due to corrosive soils and stray
currents can be effectively mitigated with coatings and CP.
[32] * Steel pipes FBE coating + CP The findings showed that hybrid FBE-coated and ICCP have a high level of performance in
preventing SCC on pipelines. The reason behind this is that FBE coatings have barrier and
adequate properties for preventing corrosion, and their CP-compatible nature helps to prevent
SCC.
[41] * DI, and steel Bitumen coating + CP CP can be an effective countermeasure for corroding existing bitumen coated pipelines due to
pipes corrosive soils, damaged spots, and the thin bitumen coating’s poor insulating ability on the
earlier DI pipes.
[59]** Steel pipes CP + Synthetic polymer inhibitors Although cathodic protection paired with bitumen-polymer coating is effective in combating
+ coating external corrosion, it is insufficient to protect gas pipelines against SCC. To prevent SCC, two
composite inhibitors were added to the bitumen-polymer coating.
[72] Steel pipes Coated pipeline + ICCP External coating protects buried pipes from corrosion, which is reinforced by SACP or ICCP to
**
sustain coating flaws, disbondment and/or delamination.
[73] Steel pipes Vapor CIs gel and CP Vapor CIs gel-based integrated with CP are used to protect the carrier pipes against external
**
corrosion at cased road and railway crossings where end seals and spacers deteriorates due to
severe environments.
[74] Steel pipes Tape coating + CP Corrosion of the buried pipeline was discovered to be caused by a combination of salinity,
**
disbondment, delamination and/or defective coating, ineffective and overprotection CP, and
stray currents. The coating was not properly adhered to provide adequate protection.
Therefore, more protective coating than tape coating is required, and the CP level must be
effective and adjusted to avoid over-protection.
[75] Steel pipes Coating + CP Both the defects and the disbonded coating provide an ideal environment for anaerobic
**
microbes such as sulfate reducing bacteria (SRB) which is a key microbe in the microbiological
influenced corrosion (MIC). Typically, buried steel pipelines are protected from external pitting
corrosion by a combination of coating and CP.
[76] Steel pipes Disbonded Coating + ICCP In high resistivity soils, the ICCP was effective in mitigating the external crevice corrosion of
**
steel pipes underneath a disbonded coating with a defect. The ICCP raises the pH of the solution
within the crevice while decreasing its resistivity.
*
: Water mains;
**
: oil/gas.
[52], flow-induced and CO2 corrosion may occur on the inner walls of metallic pipes, causing a significant wall-thinning as well as
localized corrosion damages, which is the most common cause of pipe failures. In addition, the severe galvanic corrosion may occur
due to dissimilar metals of two interconnected pipes. This study [52] improved the material selection technique through proposing
alternative corrosion-resistant materials to carbon steel that include corrosion resistant alloys (proRSf and proRSc), anti-corrosion
coating (proRA05a), and pre-treated steel (proRAQa) (proRAa and proRAb). ProRSc > proRSf > proRA05a > proRAQa > proRAa
> proRAb is the order of corrosion resistance [52].
iv. Electrical Isolation
Electrical isolation considers one of the external corrosion protection and control strategies. It can be used to isolate the pipelines
from the other infrastructures like energy and power infrastructure (tram, railways, and AC power-lines) to avoid any stray currents.
The rehabilitation and repair of stray current corrosion damage to UK infrastructure cost around £550 million per year. Electrical
isolation is required to provide sufficient insulation between the running tracks and the earth to prevent and control stray current
corrosion. Rail fasteners can be effectively isolated from the tracks using a plastic membrane, concrete track bed, PE encasement,
waterproof coatings, grout slabs, and wood ties over high-resilience neoprene pads [53–55]. The drainage bond between the pipelines
and the tram rails was proposed to control the stray current corrosion created by rail systems [56]. On the other hand, electrical
13
Table 8
Preceding studies of the internal corrosion coating/lining/barriers.
Ref. Name/Type Function/Merits
[15]* Antibacterial material combined with - Combat bacteria in circulating cooling water and avoid internal pipelines corrosion.
Epoxy resin/Coating Has excellent water, heat, and weather resistance.
[78] Cement mortar/Lining - Significantly reduce internal corrosion in chloride and sulfate-containing water.
* The corrosion rate of unlined pipes was approximately 2–5 times that of lined pipes.
[80] Dense and thick Ca-containing corrosion - Protects steel pipes against severe erosion-corrosion (galvanic corrosion) that causes a sig
**
scales/Barrier nificant thinning and failures.
[82] Zinc thermally sprayed/Coating - Prevents internal corrosion of welded joints because they are uncoated and consequently
* subjected to corrosion.
[79] HDPE/Lining - Protects high-pressure water injection flow pipes from internal corrosion.
* HDPE liner does not collapse.
[40] Zinc Coating - Excluding zinc release potential, zinc coatings in GIP systems contribute to water quality
* protection and internal corrosion prevention. GIP > unlined CI pipe > hybrid pipe (HP) is the
order of water quality stability.
[33] High pH cement-mortar or concrete/ - High pH cement-mortar was proven to be a good lining material for preventing pipe wall
* Lining corrosion and tuberculation.
PVC, epoxy, or polyurethane/Barrier Barrier type linings such as PVC, epoxy, or polyurethane should be utilized for corrosive
water (pH less than or equal 5.5 or containing compounds corrosive to concrete such as
sulfates or chlorides).
Can provide an endless lifetime in non-corrosive soils free of stray currents.
[81] Polymer coating and slip lining with PE/ - Prevents internal corrosion occurred due to water corrosivity, fouling, bacterial
**
PP/epoxy contamination, and leakage.
[77] FBE/Coating - Coated pipes with FBE prevents internal corrosion and improves the water quality.
**
Effective compared to biocides and pigging as they cannot prevent internal corrosion at
stratified and static or low flow water places; a pig/scraper can cannot be used for cleaning
and bactericide inhibitors was ineffective.
*
: Water mains;
**
: oil/gas.
isolation can be used to divide the pipeline segments to optimize the output current from CP systems, unless the pipeline and other
structures are electrically connected and cathodically protected as one unit. Dissimilar metals should be avoided or electrically isolated
in appropriate system design. Furthermore, it is better to segment long pipelines using isolation to improve transportation efficiency
and reduce maintenance or repair cost [36,45].
Galvanic or SACP require an effective electrical isolation to function properly as will be discussed later. As the structure-to-earth
resistance increases, as the required current for CP decreases. A galvanic or SACP system cannot efficiently protect the pipeline with
low earth resistance [57]. When pipelines are installed within casing pipes beneath roads and railroad tracks, the ability of CP current
to reach the carrier pipe is primarily determined by the carrier pipe’s electrical isolation from the casing and the environment between
them. As a result, it is unlikely that CP current will reach the carrier pipe inside the casing for complete carrier pipe’s electrical isolation
[58]. Based on the above discussion, the electrical isolation functions can be summarized as follow:
1- Limiting the CP current to the primary structure’s surface to achieve a uniform polarized level of protection.
2- Controlling stray current corrosion.
3- Avoiding galvanic current between metallic pipes, so galvanic corrosion is prevented.
v. Inhibitors/Chemical treatments
Corrosion inhibition can be classified into green or natural-based and synthetic inhibitors. Green inhibitors are derived from plant
leaves, fruit peels, and nuts, which contain corrosion-inhibiting substances. Green inhibitors can be categorized into organic and
inorganic. Organic-green inhibitors include plants, fugus, drugs, surfactants, amino acids, biopolymers, and ionic liquids while
inorganic-green inhibitors contain the rare-earth metals. The most common method of producing green inhibitors is to dry the plants in
the sun and then powder them. The synthetic inhibitors are derived from chemicals, which are expensive, toxic, and harmful to the
environment. These corrosion inhibitors (CIs) like chromates, nitrites, salts of heavy metals, etc. have been diminished and replaced
due to environmental and safety issues [59]. Whereas green inhibitors are low toxicity, available, eco-friendly, and low cost of
preparation. Therefore, they have gained popularity as a long-term corrosion control for steel surfaces. However, because it has a low
inhibitory efficiency, creating green inhibitors with a high inhibitory efficiency remains a challenge [21,60]. As a result, the authors in
[60] synthesized two dextran green inhibitors to improve the performance of these dextran green inhibitors in protecting carbon steel
pipelines against corrosion [60]. Table 5 reports some external CIs, which are popular to the oil/gas industry. Also, each corrosion
inhibitor has its own characteristics and functions where it may be effective against a certain corrosion type and ineffective to another.
vi. Multi-Passive Protection Techniques
14
Table 9
Summary of the internal corrosion inhibitors applied in water and oil/gas systems.
Ref. Inhibitor name/Type Functions/Merits/Demerits
[9] * Calcium polyphosphate/Synthetic - Help to lower the corrosion rate.

Result in a considerable reduction in the number of failures.
Improve the water quality and keep water chemical parameters within the standard range
for human consumption.
Prove to be a highly effective anticorrosive.
Non-toxic corrosion inhibitor
[83] Chlorine and chloramines/Synthetic - Inhibit iron corrosion by both disinfectants and biofilm.
* Inhibit the corrosion product through the synergistic interaction between the iron-oxidizing
bacteria and the iron-reducing bacteria.
[84] Calcium carbonate (CaCO3) deposition - Used to maintain water quality by managing pH and alkalinity
* Provide enough disinfection (limit bacterial regrowth) and control internal corrosion.
[85] Addition of orthophosphate to - Reduce the corrosion of lead and iron while efficiently managing microbe development
* chlorinated water through a precise balance of pH, free chlorine levels, and possibly phosphate levels.
[86] Polyphosphate addition, and pH - Adjusting the pH with NaOH will not provide adequate corrosion protection for the water
* adjustment with NaOH distribution system.
Polyphosphates provide greater corrosion prevention at full scale than pH adjustment with
NaOH.
[87] Phosphate inhibitor/Synthetic - Effective at reducing lead and copper corrosion, they can also be quite harmful to iron
* corrosion.
Perform poorly at low flow or stagnant water.
Silicate inhibitor/Synthetic - Proven to reduce the rate of iron corrosion through raising the pH and decreasing the oxidation
of ferrous iron.
Biocides (chlorine)/Synthetic - Significantly decreases corrosion problems despite the fact that they have oxidative properties.
Natural organic inhibitor/green - Reduced the corrosion rate of galvanized steel and cast iron.
[88] V-active vapor CIs/Synthetic - Reduce or eliminate the water oxidizing action, thereby extending the time allowed before
**
painting after hydrojetting.
It has no effect on the final quality of paint adhesion.
[89] Volatile CIs/Synthetic - To combat bacterial and generic internal corrosion risks.
**
Safe for the individuals engaged
Providing significant cost savings at the time of commissioning.
[50] Synthetic imidazoline inhibitor - Protect pipes against internal corrosion due to stratified flows.
**
Display protective film that adheres to the metal for long time.
High protection efficiency and high thermal stability.
[77] Bactericides/Synthetic - Control microbiologically influenced internal corrosion.
**
*
: Water mains;
**
: oil/gas.
Multi-passive corrosion protection refers the use of multiple passive techniques to overcome external corrosion and increase the
pipeline system reliability and integrity. For example, multi-passive corrosion mitigation techniques like mortar/coal tar epoxy, and
concrete/coal tar/epoxy are applied to meet the reliability requirements and protect DI water pipe system against corrosion [48]. Due
to under-film corrosion or damage and defects related to the PE encasement use in moderately and highly corrosive soils, PE was
encased with some other passive corrosion mitigation techniques. For example; in UK, the PE encased zinc coating is applied in 1984 to
protect the DI pipes against corrosive soils [34]. In some European countries, zinc coating is combined with a top passive material, such
as PE wrap, coal-tar enamel, and a bituminous varnish for extra and most-robust protection [8]. According to DIPRA, PE is not rec
ommended as a sole corrosion protection technique in places with high-density stray currents, aggressive soils, and MIC conditions.
The metallic zinc coating and bitumen or epoxy may be augmented by PE or bonded dielectric coatings [10]. In Canadian cities, the
tight-bonded coating with extruded PE has shown a good corrosion resistance for DI pipe in water system during 1975–2003 [63].
4.1.2. Active protection techniques

Active corrosion protection techniques refer to a set of approaches that do active task in preventing corrosion on metallic surfaces.
CP do this task through converting all anodic areas (active) on the metallic pipeline to cathodic areas (passive) by supplying protective
current. The first application of CP was in 1824, London, when Humphry Davy used iron anodes to protect copper sheathing from
corrosion caused by seawater. It was first applied to protect gas steel pipes and CI water mains against corrosion in the early 1940 s, and
it worked well, dramatically reducing leak rates [35]. The galvanic or sacrificial anode cathodic protection (SACP) and impressed
current cathodic protection (ICCP) are the two well-known CP techniques. Table 6 shows a detailed comparison between the SACP and
ICCP techniques in terms of function, power circuit, merits, demerits, requirements and control factors of each technique.
i. Sacrificial Anode Cathodic Protection
15
Sacrificial anode cathodic protection (SACP) can be defined as a galvanic corrosion cell where the metallic pipe act as cathode and
the anode as the corroding (sacrificial) part. As a result, the anode is depleted/consumed and finally replaced. The sacrificial anodes
usually are aluminium, magnesium, and zinc [8,64]. The CP current for metallic pipelines should be equal to the anode corrosion
current. The current controls corrosion (Protective current) by flowing from anode via the electrolyte/soil to the metallic pipe. There is
a return path for the current flow from cathode to anode [8,64]. SACP is the most frequent type of CP for water mains especially at hot
spot corrosion areas, electrically discontinuous pipelines, and galvanic corrosion [4,37,65]. The older and existing CI water pipes are
electrically discontinuous so the SACP has been beneficial and recommended to prevent the corrosion and reduce the CI main breaks
[65]. The performance of SACP for protecting the unlined DI pipes against corrosion has been investigated under four different case
studies; two pilot and two field studies in Seven-Trent, UK [8]. These case studies have been attained under unwrapped DI pipes,
different soil type/resistivity, where Mg anodes are used. The number of breaks per Km per year before and after installing SACP has
been shown in Fig. 8. There is a significant reduction in the breaks number per Km per year after installing SACP as mentioned in the
results. Although SACP are popular to be used in protecting the CI water pipes against galvanic corrosion due to dissimilar metals, it
may be not beneficial to prevent corrosion due to sulphate reducing bacteria or acidic soil [4].
ii. Impressed Current Cathodic Protection (ICCP)
Impressed current cathodic protection (ICCP) is a corrosion protection technique that uses sacrificial anodes driven by an external
DC source. The DC source’s positive terminal is connected to the anode, which is depleted by corrosion, while the negative terminal is
connected to the metallic pipe (cathode) [8,57,64]. As a result, the anode is compelled to discharge electric current into the ground/
soil. The pipe finally picks up this current and returns it to the source via the negative terminal, completing the corrosion cell [37,64].
The application of ICCP with proper design in the metallic pipes not only prevent the corrosion but also reduce the breakage rate and
extend the pipe’s service life [8]. The ICCP is the most popular CP type applied to protect the metallic pipelines against aggressiveness
of water/oil/gas, corrosive soil, and stray currents problem due to electrical infrastructure like tram, railways and AC high voltage
power lines [68]. In addition, it is appropriate to deal with DI and steel pipes that are electrically continuous in order to prevent
corrosion and reduce the damage [41]. On the other hand, the ICCP performed well to protect steel wastewater pipes from corrosion
due to high chloride and salt concentrations [69]. The corrosion rate increases as the salt concentration rises and as the pH decreases
(acidic media) [69].
4.1.3. Hybrid corrosion protection techniques

Active and passive techniques are frequently hybridized to provide a more comprehensive protection system against external
corrosion for metallic pipes. Hybridization can be achieved at the beginning during the pipeline’s installation stage, or it can be applied
for the existing ones to mitigate the corrosion or add extra protection against certain corrosion causes. The reasons of integrating CP as
an active protection technique with another passive technique differ based on the coating/barriers/lining degradation/defects and
new discovered corrosion causes. The different reasons of hybridization are summarized in Table 7 and the hybrid corrosion protection
techniques used with water mains and oil/gas applications can be classified into three categories as follow: (1) Hybrid CP with coating
and/or CIs; (2) Hybrid CP with barriers; and (3) Hybrid CP with linings.
Hybrid CP and coatings represent the most common and primary technique for mitigating external corrosion as demonstrated in
Table 7. The use of CP alone to protect metallic pipelines against corrosion would be impractical. The fact behind this is that the
protective current required is proportional to the exposed area, and cathodically protecting a long, and bare pipeline would be pro
hibitively expensive. To reduce the protective current, coatings are required to reduce the amount of exposed area as much as possible.
defects, disbondment, and delamination may occur due to coating imperfections, mechanical stresses, debris during backfilling, and
degradation [8,35]. Therefore, coatings on their own aren’t completely effective. As a result, both coating and CP are synergistic and
complement each other to prevent external corrosion especially if pre-defective areas exist.
4.2. Internal corrosion protection and control techniques
i. Internal Coatings/Lining/Barriers
Internal coatings/lining/barriers do the same job, where they are used to physically isolate the pipe from the corrosive interior
environments and prevent transported fluids from reaching the pipe’s surface, preventing internal corrosion. These techniques were
employed to address two important issues for pipe systems as internal corrosion protection and fluids quality preservation [8,33,77].
Numerous coatings/lining/barriers applied to protect the water and oil/gas pipelines against different internal corrosion causes are
summarized in Table 8. The antibacterial Fusion bonded epoxy (FBE) internal coating was investigated and proposed to avoid internal
corrosion due to bacterial activities and oxygen intrusion [15,77]. The barriers and linings such as cement-mortar, PVC, epoxy, and
polyurethane were proven to be a good lining material for preventing internal corrosion and tuberculation against corrosive water
containing low pH, chloride and sulfate [33,78]. Water quality degraded because of the iron released by corrosion products, resulting
in red water. Zinc coatings in galvanized iron pipe (GIP) systems performed well to solve this problem, excluding zinc release potential
[40]. High density polyethylene liner (HDPE) are used to protect high-pressure water injection flow pipes from internal corrosion [79].
Dense and thick Ca-containing corrosion scales act as a physical barrier layer and protect the steel pipes against flow-induced
corrosion, galvanic corrosion and corrosion carbonates products that cause a significant wall thinning, and steel pipes failure [80].
Polymer coating and slip lining with PE/epoxy are used to prevent internal corrosion occurred due to water corrosivity, fouling,
16
Fig. 9. A summary of the research gaps/challenges and future directions.
bacterial contamination and leakage [81].
ii. Corrosion Allowance
The predominant corrosion protection and control technology for water pipelines is to increase the pipe-thickness, which takes a
very long time for internal corrosion to permeate. To avoid the loss of the designed thickness, an additional thickness (corrosion
allowance) may be applied after determining the rate of corrosion penetration and determining how much metal thickness would be
lost over time [8,35]. Corrosion allowance is intended to accommodate for corrosion that occurs in the field and can be predictable
[35]. The corrosion allowance has been made at the design stage. Corrosion requires less time to permeate as pipe walls became
thinner. Producing piping with thinner wall and using coatings and CP to increase the lifespan between pipeline replacements became
considerably more cost-effective over time [8,35,57]. Therefore, the trade off between these corrosion protection techniques are
inevitable to achieve both technical and economic benefits.
iii. Inhibitors/Chemical Treatments
Internal corrosion inhibitors can be classified into green and synthetic inhibitors. Some green and synthetic inhibitors are applied
and permitted for use in water systems, while others are prohibited but applied in the oil/gas industry. Water systems necessitate not
only the control of internal corrosion but also the preservation of water quality for public health purpose. Therefore, any inhibitor used
in water system should control the internal corrosion with preserving the water quality. Table 9 summarizes the different internal
17
corrosion inhibitors applied in water systems and oil/gas industry and their functions/merits. The most famous water systems in
hibitors are phosphate, polyphosphate, orthophosphate, silicate, and biocides/bactericides (chlorine). The main purpose of these
water systems inhibitors is to control the internal corrosion and preserve the water quality. The most famous oil/gas inhibitors are
vapor and volatile corrosion inhibitors. Although the green and synthetic inhibitors proved their superiority to control the internal
corrosion for both the water and oil/gas systems, they performed poorly at low flow or stagnant water because stratified or static water
attacks the pipe walls. In this case, a water-soluble inhibitor with an internal FBE coating is recommended to attain better results and
high efficiency in this case [50,77].
iv. Dehydration
Dehydration is the most common proactive treatment used to protect oil/gas, and multiphase pipelines from internal H2S corrosion.
To avoid the development of hydrates, water must be removed from the transfer line. Dehydration removes condensation and free
water that would cause internal corrosion at spots where water droplets condense from the oil/gas flow [90]. Internal corrosion can be
prevented entirely by removing all internal moisture. Ends of all sections must be sealed to prevent moisture from entering the gas
pipes [91]. Dehydration systems are used by most of the gas assembling procedure and storage operators to scrub gas of humidity [3].
Chemical and physical techniques are two used different proactive dehydration to protect the gas pipelines against internal corrosion.
Chemical dehydration is accomplished by injecting a protective gas into a gas flow to remove moisture and thus protect gas pipelines
from internal corrosion [90,91]. Physical dehydration of removing entrained moisture is achieved by scrubbers, which use cyclone
separators to drain water or glycol bubbles from the gas flow. The physical techniques are unable to drastically lower the dew point,
therefore regular disruptions are possible. One of the most effective physical dehydration techniques for protecting undersea gas pipes
from hydrate and internal corrosion is vacuum drying [92].
v. Pigging
Pigging is one of the most useful techniques for combating internal corrosion. A pig is used to clean pipelines on a regular basis to
remove contaminants, water, and other corrosive materials that may cause internal corrosion for oil/gas pipelines [93–95]. Automatic
and smart pigging, as opposed to inject protective chemicals, can effectively minimize wastes, costs, and prevent internal corrosion. It
can also improve water quality and provide additional longevity for the pipelines. Multiple automatic and smart pigging can be used
not only to save time in the field for the crew but also to enhance safety for labour by avoiding H2S exposure [33,96]. Because smart
pigging cannot recognize every problem that could jeopardize a pipeline’s integrity, it should be utilized in conjunction with other
techniques to attain its full potential [93]. Internal corrosion has not been a concern for uncoated pipelines that are scraped and treated
with bactericide on a regular basis to control MIC. Uncoated, unscrapable, and untreatable pipelines, on the other hand, require further
and extra corrosion protection [77].
vi. Pipe Material and Flow control
The pipe material is a crucial factor that can cause not only the external corrosion but also it can cause internal corrosion. Wrong
selection can deteriorate these pipes quickly and may cause leaks/bursts or failures. The selection of corrosion resistant pipe materials
suitable to internal corrosive products is critical to prevent the internal corrosion and preserve the water quality [49]. In [40], the
results of scale analysis and bench-scale testing revealed that pipe materials have a substantial impact on corrosion scale characteristics
and, as a result, water quality variations in water systems. The zinc-coated GIP system maintains a higher water quality level compared
to the UCIP and hybrid pipes. The intricate composition of pipe corrosion scales and structural integrity breakdown by the weld are to
blame for the worst red water issue discovered in the HP system [40]. Therefore, the appropriate selection of the pipe material may
make the difference not only to protect the external and internal corrosion but also to preserve the water quality. On the other hand,
flow speed represents one of the significant corrosion causes. The problem starts to appear with the stratified flow or static water where
the corrosive water containing low pH, chloride and sulfate attacks the pipe walls [50]. To avoid erosion, corrosion, noise, and ram
strikes problems, pipelines should be designed so that the flow speed should be adjusted and controlled at a specific value that is
neither higher nor lower than this value [97]. Therefore, the material pipe selection and flow control are two considerable and
effective techniques that can control the internal corrosion.
5. Research gaps and future directions
Fig. 9 depicts the outlined research gaps/challenges as well as the associated future research directions based on the above
comprehensive review. The following summarizes the major research gaps/challenges and the future directions:
▪ Till now, there is no review paper that has covered in depth the external and internal corrosion protection and control
techniques of metallic pipelines. This paper is the first attempt to covered this research gap by providing some insights and
future perspectives related to metallic pipelines external and internal corrosion protection and control techniques
▪ Although all of the previous protection and control techniques can work against corrosion, they cannot prevent it completely.
As a result, innovative and practical anticorrosion techniques capable of preserving water quality, particularly in hostile
environments, and corrosive soils are regarded as hot development research area.
18
▪ Until recent times, corrosion engineers did not consider induced AC stray current corrosion to be feasible when compared to
DC stray current corrosion [36]. Numerous studies covered and discussed the DC stray current corrosion and solutions.
Nevertheless, few studies covered and discussed the AC stray currents corrosion and solutions. More research is needed in this
area to develop practical and strategic protection solutions to avoid pipeline corrosion and incorrect CP operation.
▪ Despite their popularity as a long-term anticorrosion agent due to their low toxicity, availability, eco-friendliness, and low
cost of preparation, green inhibitors still have a low inhibition efficiency. Therefore, improving and developing green in
hibitors with high inhibition efficiency remains a challenge and an active research area.
▪ The iron released by corrosion products degraded water quality, resulting in red water. Zinc coatings in galvanized pipes
helped to preserve water quality and prevent internal corrosion excluding the zinc release potential [40]. This point requires
more investigations about the effects of zinc release on the water quality and public health.
▪ Although the internal coating is more efficient and can preserve over 99% of the pipe surface, it’s not completely effective
over time and may expose to delamination, and defects [8,35]. Therefore, future smart pigging, and sensors for pipelines
monitoring, detecting, and cleaning is required to prolong their service life. Innovative techniques for monitoring, detecting,
and early discovering the pipeline hot spot corrosion areas are also considered an active development research area.
▪ Over time, producing piping with thinner walls and utilizing coatings with CP to extend the lifespan of the pipeline re
placements to become significantly more cost-effective [57]. As a result, a trade-off between hybrid corrosion protection and
control techniques is unavoidable to achieve both technical and economic benefits.
6. Concluded remarks
Based on the above comprehensive review, notable and significant conclusions are summarized as follow:
- The corrosion issue is regarded as the primary cause of leaks/bursts, deterioration, and failures of metallic pipelines. Although
metallic pipeline failure is common, it remains completely uncontrollable even when advanced corrosion protection technologies
are used. Therefore, understanding and determining corrosion causes of metallic pipelines related to the site itself is the first step to
select the appropriate protection and control technique. Adequate coatings represent the first defence line against corrosion, where
it can protect 99% of the pipeline surface when applied correctly. Coatings lose their effectiveness over the time due to delami
nation, degradation, and defects that can occur for a variety of reasons, resulting in corrosion. As a result, coated pipelines should
be integrated with CP to prevent external corrosion. Furthermore, coatings make the application of CP very cost effective and
prolong the service life of the anodes as the protective CP current required is lower for coated pipes. It can be said that both coating
and CP are synergistic and complement to each other. The first type of CP; SACP; is suitable for low-medium resistivity soil. Also, it
is beneficial and recommended for protecting the electrically discontinuous metallic pipelines. ICCP, on the other hand, is suitable
for protecting pipes in all resistivity soils, especially with high resistivity, but it is more expensive compared to SACP. Thus, it is
beneficial and recommended for protecting electrically continuous metallic pipelines.
- Additionally, ICCP is more appropriate to be applied and performed to protect metallic pipes against corrosion due to aggres
siveness of water components and soil in addition to stray currents problem due to other electrical infrastructure like tram, rail
ways, and AC high voltage power lines. The investigation studies proved that there is a significant reduction in the breaks number
after installing the CP for protecting the DI pipes against corrosion.
- On the other hand, the green inhibitors have gained popularity over synthetic inhibitors as a long-term corrosion control due to
their low toxicity, availability, eco-friendly, and low cost of preparation. Some inhibitors are used and approved for use in water
systems, while others are banned but used in the oil/gas industry. Any inhibitor/chemical treatment used in the water system
should control internal corrosion while also preserving water quality.
- The electrical isolation technique as an external protection technique can not only limit the CP current, and stray current corrosion
but also it can prevent galvanic corrosion. Good electrical isolation not only make the application of CP very cost effective but also
prolong the service life of the anodes where the protective CP current required is lower for the electrically isolated pipes.
- The appropriate selection of the pipe material proved to be efficient not only in preventing corrosion but also in preserving water
quality. In addition, pipelines should be designed so that the flow speed is adjusted and controlled at a specific value that is neither
higher nor lower than this value to avoid erosion, corrosion, noise, and ram strikes problems. As a result, material pipe selection
and flow control are considered two significant and effective techniques for mitigating and controlling internal corrosion.
To sum up, the passive technique can protect metallic pipelines in low-corrosive soils, but it is necessary to be integrated with
another passive or active technique in moderately and severely corrosive soils for adequate and extra corrosion protection. Multi-
passive techniques or combination between passive and active aims to increase the pipeline reliability and integrity, making it
more robust, and overcoming external corrosion. Finally, there is no unique protection strategy for all corrosion forms for the metallic
pipelines. Furthermore, there is no consensus on which corrosion protection methods would be the most effective in specific envi
ronmental conditions. Therefore, the starting point is to check/discover and determine the corrosion causes of the place/site
(metallurgical, geometrical, environmental, and operational), which highly recommended to be a future work. Based on the corrosion
causes and types, the appropriate corrosion protection and control technique should be determined.
19
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to
influence the work reported in this paper.
Data availability
Data will be made available on request.
Acknowledgements
The authors gratefully acknowledge the support from the Innovation and Technology Fund (Innovation and Technology Support
Programme (ITSP)) under grant number ITS/033/20FP, and the Water Supplies Department of Hong Kong.
References
[1] M. Wasim, S. Shoaib, N.M. Mubarak, Inamuddin, A.M. Asiri, Factors influencing corrosion of metal pipes in soils, Environ. Chem. Lett. 16 (3) (2018) 861–879.
[2] M. Sancy, Y. Gourbeyre, E. Sutter, B. Tribollet, Mechanism of corrosion of cast iron covered by aged corrosion products: Application of electrochemical
impedance spectrometry, Corros. Sci. 52 (4) (2010) 1222–1227.
[3] M.E.A.B. Seghier, B. Keshtegar, K.F. Tee, T. Zayed, R. Abbassi, N.T. Trung, Prediction of maximum pitting corrosion depth in oil and gas pipelines, Eng. Fail.
Anal. 112 (2020), 104505.
[4] G. Doyle, M.V. Seica, M.W. Grabinsky, The role of soil in the external corrosion of cast iron water mains in Toronto, Canada, Can. Geotech. J. 40 (2) (2003)
225–236.
[5] E.-S.-A. Rassoul, A. Abdel-Samad, R. El-Naqier, On the cathodic protection of thermally insulated pipelines, Eng. Fail. Anal. 16 (7) (2009) 2047–2053.
[6] M.J. Szeliga, Ductile Iron Corrosion Science and Theories, in: CORROSION 2013, 2013: OnePetro.
[7] M.E.A.B. Seghier, B. Keshtegar, M. Taleb-Berrouane, R. Abbassi, N.-T. Trung, Advanced intelligence frameworks for predicting maximum pitting corrosion depth
in oil and gas pipelines, Process Saf. Environ. Prot. 147 (2021) 818–833.
[8] B. Rajani, Y. Kleiner, Protecting ductile-iron Water Mains: What protection method works best for what soil condition? J.-Am. Water Works Assoc. 95 (11)
(2003) 110–125.
[9] J. Orlikowski, K. Darowicki, A. Jazdzewska, M. Jarzynka, The protection and monitoring of a distribution piping network for potable water supply, Anti-Corros.
Methods Mater. 62 (6) (2015) 400–406.
[10] N.R. Council, Review of the Bureau of Reclamation’s Corrosion Prevention Standards for Ductile Iron Pipe, National Academies Press, 2009.
[11] S. Paul, P. O’Connor, Corrosion Control of Large Diameter Piping Cathodic Protection a Proven Method, in New Pipeline Technologies, Security, and Safety,
2003, pp. 146–155.
[12] A.E. Romer, G.E. Bell, Causes of external corrosion on buried water mains, Pipelines Adv. Pipelines Eng. Construct. 2000 (2001) 1–9.
[13] H. Thomson et al., Development of new laboratory test methods for measuring top of the line corrosion and assessing corrosion inhibitor performance, in SPE
International Oilfield Corrosion Conference and Exhibition, 2016: OnePetro.
[14] M.E.A.B. Seghier, D. Höche, M. Zheludkevich, Prediction of the internal corrosion rate for oil and gas pipeline: Implementation of ensemble learning techniques,
J. Nat. Gas Sci. Eng. 99 (2022), 104425.
[15] F. Liu, X. Wang, W. Li, G. Jiang, C. Kong, Antibacterial and corrosion protection properties of SA-CuZnO@ ODA-GO composite in circulating cooling water,
Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 28 (41) (2021) 57952–57969.
[16] S. Liu, C. Gunawan, N. Barraud, S.A. Rice, E.J. Harry, R. Amal, Understanding, monitoring, and controlling biofilm growth in drinking water distribution
systems, Environ. Sci. Technol. 50 (17) (2016) 8954–8976.
[17] E. Ohaeri, U. Eduok, J. Szpunar, Hydrogen related degradation in pipeline steel: A review, Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 43 (31) (2018) 14584–14617.
[18] D.B. Harrison, D.M. Nicholas, G.M. Evans, Pitting corrosion of copper tubes in soft drinking waters: Corrosion mechanism, J.-Am. Water Works Assoc. 96 (11)
(2004) 67–76.
[19] A.H. Al-Moubaraki, I. Obot, Top of the line corrosion: causes, mechanisms, and mitigation using corrosion inhibitors, Arabian J. Chem. 14 (5) (2021), 103116.
[20] M. Shahid, Corrosion protection with eco-friendly inhibitors, Adv. Nat. Sci.: Nanosci. Nanotechnol. 2 (4) (2011), 043001.
[21] F.S.Z.S. Al Shibli, S. Bose, P.S. Kumar, M. Rajasimman, N. Rajamohan, D.-V.-N. Vo, Green technology for sustainable surface protection of steel from corrosion: a
review, Environ. Chem. Lett. (2021) 1–19.
[22] A.A. Olajire, Corrosion inhibition of offshore oil and gas production facilities using organic compound inhibitors-A review, J. Mol. Liq. 248 (2017) 775–808.
[23] M.J. Szeliga, Ductile Iron Corrosion Theories and Science, in Pipelines 2012: Innovations in Design, Construction, Operations, and Maintenance, Doing More
with Less, 2012, pp. 21–27.
[24] L.T. Popoola, A.S. Grema, G.K. Latinwo, B. Gutti, A.S. Balogun, Corrosion problems during oil and gas production and its mitigation, Int. J. Indus. Chem. 4 (1)
(2013) 1–15.
[25] S.B. Valdez, et al., Corrosion Control in the Rio Colorado-Tijuana Aqueduct. A Review, Corros. Rev. 23 (4-5-6) (2005) 247–276.
[26] M. Karami, Review of corrosion role in gas pipeline and some methods for preventing it, J. Pressure Vessel Technol. 134 (5) (2012) pp.
[27] W. Parker, Plastic coatings for buried pipes, Anti-Corros. Methods Mater. (1958).
[28] M. Hussein, T. Zayed, Crane operations and planning in modular integrated construction: Mixed review of literature, Autom. Constr. 122 (2021), 103466.
[29] H. Wan, D. Song, X. Li, D. Zhang, J. Gao, C. Du, Failure mechanisms of the coating/metal interface in waterborne coatings: The effect of bonding, Materials 10
(4) (2017) 397.
[30] H. Nykyforchyn, O. Zvirko, O. Tsyrulnyk, N. Kret, Analysis and mechanical properties characterization of operated gas main elbow with hydrogen assisted large-
scale delamination, Eng. Fail. Anal. 82 (2017) 364–377.
[31] H. Nykyforchyn, O. Tsyrulnyk, O. Zvirko, H. Krechkovska, Non-destructive evaluation of brittle fracture resistance of operated gas pipeline steel using
electrochemical fracture surface analysis, Eng. Fail. Anal. 104 (2019) 617–625.
[32] F. King, Y. Cheng, L. Gray, B. Drader, R. Sutherby, Field assessment of FBE-coated pipelines and the implications for stress corrosion cracking, International
Pipeline Conference 36207 (2002) 1619–1628.
[33] R.D. Mielke, How to Provide Indefinite Life for Municipal Metallic Transmission Pipelines, Pipelines Advances and Experiences with Trenchless Pipeline Projects
(2007) 1–14.
[34] H. Collins, Corrosion of ductile iron pipes, Br. Corros. J. 3 (22) (1987) 154–155, https://doi.org/10.1179/000705987798271415.
[35] B.V. Salas, M.S. Wiener, Corrosion engineering: principles and practice, Corros. Eng., Sci. Technol. 44 (1) (2009) 8.
[36] S. Lammerts, Case Study: Using a Risk-Based Model to Take the Guesswork Out of Corrosion Protection, in: Pipelines 2019: Planning and Design: American
Society of Civil Engineers Reston, VA, 2019, pp. 196–206.
[37] B. Rajani, Y. Kleiner, Protection of ductile iron water mains against external corrosion: review of methods and case histories, J. Am. Water Works Assn. 95 (11)
(2003) 110–125.
20
[38] M. Petrunin, L. Maksaeva, N. Gladkikh, T. Yurasova, M. Maleeva, V. Ignatenko, Cathodic delamination of polymer coatings from metals. Mechanism and
prevention methods. A review, Int. J. Corros. Scale Inhibit. 10 (1) (2021) 1–28.
[39] M. Li, Z. Liu, Y. Chen, Physico-chemical characteristics of corrosion scales from different pipes in drinking water distribution systems, Water 10 (7) (2018) 931.
[40] M. Li, Z. Liu, Y. Chen, Y. Hai, Characteristics of iron corrosion scales and water quality variations in drinking water distribution systems of different pipe
materials, Water Res. 106 (2016) 593–603.
[41] G. Camitz, Water mains and distribution pipes in soil-external corrosion and protection methods, Water Sci. Technol. Water Supply 1 (3) (2001) 97–105.
[42] F.B. Mainier, R.G.S.d. Santos, and H.N. Farneze, Quality analysis of galvanized pipes applied to natural gas installations in civil construction, Matéria (Rio de
Janeiro), vol. 24, 2019.
[43] M. Nakatsuka, S. Thapa, E. Brown, V. Veedu, and A. Santalucia, In-Field Applicable Coatings for Corrosion and Biofouling Control in Marine Environments, in
Offshore Technology Conference, 2018: OnePetro.
[44] C.P. Hill, A.F. Cantor, Internal corrosion control in water distribution systems, American Water Works Association, 2011.
[45] R.W. Bonds, L.M. Barnard, A.M. Horton, G.L. Oliver, Corrosion and corrosion control of iron pipe: 75 years of research, J.-Am. Water Works Assoc. 97 (6) (2005)
88–98.
[46] D.W. Crabtree, M.R. Breslin, Investigating polyethylene-encased ductile iron pipelines, Mater. Perform. 47 (10) (2008) 49–53.
[47] R.W. Bonds, A. Horton, G.L. Oliver, L.M. Barnard, Corrosion control statistical analysis of iron pipe, Mater. Perform. 44 (1) (2005) 30–34.
[48] D. Roy, G.P. Simon, M. Forsyth, J. Mardel, Towards a better understanding of the cathodic disbondment performance of polyethylene coatings on steel, Adv.
Polym. Technol.: J. Polym. Process. Inst. 21 (1) (2002) 44–58.
[49] Z. Ahmad, Principles of corrosion engineering and corrosion control, Elsevier, 2006.
[50] J. Benitez, C. Martínez, R. Roldan, Tests confirm effectiveness of new inhibitor for pipeline internal corrosion, Oil Gas J. 100 (24) (2002) 66–70.
[51] G. Jiang, D. Hu, C. Ji, and Y. Song, The research of corrosion mechanism and protection measure of waterflood pipes, in: ICPTT 2009: Advances and Experiences
with Pipelines and Trenchless Technology for Water, Sewer, Gas, and Oil Applications, 2009, pp. 508–520.
[52] J. Li et al., Corrosion Failure and Control of Carbon Steel and Anti-Corrosion Performance Evaluation of Candidate Materials in Thermal Applications, in: SPE
Thermal Well Integrity and Design Symposium, 2019: OnePetro.
[53] K. Tang, Stray current induced corrosion of steel fibre reinforced concrete, Cem. Concr. Res. 100 (2017) 445–456.
[54] G. Du, J. Wang, X. Jiang, D. Zhang, L. Yang, Y. Hu, Evaluation of rail potential and stray current with dynamic traction networks in multitrain subway systems,
IEEE Trans. Transp. Electrif. 6 (2) (2020) 784–796.
[55] J. Riskin, A. Khentov, Electrocorrosion and protection of metals, Elsevier, 2019.
[56] K. Zakowski, The determination and identification of stray current source influences on buried pipelines using time/frequency analysis, Anti-Corros. Methods
Mater. (2009).
[57] M.J. Szeliga, Cathodic protection of ductile iron and steel water pipelines, in: Pipelines 2012: Innovations in Design, Construction, Operations, and Maintenance,
Doing More with Less, 2012, pp. 1176–1181.
[58] S. Math and P.K. Shukla, Investigations on Cathodic Protection Current Diversion to Carrier Pipe with VCI Gel Annulus Fill in Cased Pipelines, in: CORROSION
2019, 2019: OnePetro.
[59] Y.I. Kuznetsov, A. Chirkunov, A. Semiletov, Progress in the inhibition of metal corrosion and the prospects of its use in the oil and gas industry, Int. J. Corros.
Scale Inhibit. 8 (4) (2019) 850–881.
[60] Q. Zhang, et al., Dextran derivatives as highly efficient green corrosion inhibitors for carbon steel in CO2-saturated oilfield produced water: Experimental and
theoretical approaches, Chem. Eng. J. 424 (2021), 130519.
[61] M. Achour, C. L. Johlman, and D.J. Blumer, Understanding the corrosion inhibitor partitioning in oil and gas pipelines, in: Abu Dhabi International Petroleum
Exhibition and Conference, 2008: OnePetro.
[62] R.G. Blakney, M.J. Loveland, and P. Klein, Case Study: Shallow Surface Casing Corrosion Mitigation Evaluation, in: SPE/ICoTA Coiled Tubing and Well
Intervention Conference and Exhibition, 2010: OnePetro.
[63] W.S. Spickelmire, Ductile Iron Corrosion Factors to Consider and Why, New Pipeline Technol. Sec., Safety (2003) 130–145.
[64] I. M. Abdulbaqi, Numerical Study and Design of an Impressed Current Cathodic Protection System for Buried Metallic Pipes, in: 2018 Third Scientific Conference
of Electrical Engineering (SCEE), 2018: IEEE, pp. 95–100.
[65] D.K. O’Day, External corrosion in distribution systems, J.-Am. Water Works Assoc. 81 (10) (1989) 45–52.
[66] M. AkhoondAn, G.E. Bell, Cathodic Protection in the Water Utility Industry, Mater. Perform. 56 (10) (2017) 34–37.
[67] M. Akhoondan and G.E. Bell, Water Research Foundation Project# 4618: Status and Application of Cathodic Protection in the Water Utility Industry, in:
CORROSION 2017, 2017: OnePetro.
[68] U. Lelek-Borkowska, M. Gruszka, and J. Banaś, Effect of Cathodic Protection on Corrosion of Water-pipe Network in Kraków-Case Study, Archives of Foundry
Engineering, no. 3, 2021.
[69] F.K. Matloub, M.M. Sulaiman, Z.N. Shareef, Investigating the effect of pH and salt concentration on cathodic protection of pipe-lines, Technology 9 (5) (2018)
474–480.
[70] J. B. Giddings, M. Akhoondan, and G. Bell, MIC Considerations for Cathodically Protected Encased Ductile Iron Pipelines: A Case Study, in: CORROSION 2018,
2018: OnePetro.
[71] A. Corrao, B. Briones, R. VanderSchaaf, and J.E. Bermudo, Condition Assessment Methods for 1920s Lock-Bar Steel Pipe, in: Pipelines 2015, pp. 931–942.
[72] X. Li and H. Castaneda, Damage evolution of coated steel pipe under cathodic-protection in soil, Anti-Corrosion methods and materials, 2017.
[73] L. J. Krissa, J. DeWitt, P. K. Shukla, and A. Nordquist, Experimental Studies to Determine Effects of Vapor Corrosion Inhibitors for Mitigating Corrosion in
Casing, in CORROSION 2016, 2016: OnePetro.
[74] M. Attia, A. Ragab, S. El-Raghy, Failure analysis of buried piping and cold drain vessel, Eng. Fail. Anal. 18 (3) (2011) 933–943.
[75] J. Xu, et al., The effects of sulfate reducing bacteria on corrosion of carbon steel Q235 under simulated disbonded coating by using electrochemical impedance
spectroscopy, Corros. Sci. 53 (4) (2011) 1554–1562.
[76] F. Gan, Z.-W. Sun, G. Sabde, and D.-T. Chin, Cathodic protection to mitigate external corrosion of underground steel pipe beneath disbonded coating, Corrosion,
vol. 50, no. 10, 1994.
[77] E. Chen and T. Ahmed, Why internally coated piping is used for the world’s largest seawater injection system, in SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, 1998: OnePetro.
[78] H. Zhang, D. Liu, L. Zhao, X. Zhang, J. Wang, C. Chen, Corrosion mechanisms of ductile iron pipes in water distribution system: impacts of ionic strength and
cement mortar lining coverage, Desalin. Water Treat. 197 (2020) 237–248.
[79] A. K. Amabipi et al., Corrosion Management, Field Trial Results of High Pressure Black Bimodal PE100 HDPE Liner in a Super Gigantic Field Provides Innovative
Strategy for High Pressure Water Injection Flow Line Internal Corrosion Management, in: Abu Dhabi International Petroleum Exhibition & Conference, 2018:
OnePetro.
[80] J. Li, et al., Investigation on the flow-induced corrosion and degradation behavior of underground J55 pipe in a water production well in the Athabasca oil sands
reservoir, J. Petrol. Sci. Eng. 182 (2019), 106325.
[81] E. Curran, Corrosion control in gas pipelines coating protection provides lifetime of prevention, Pipeline Gas J 234 (10) (2007) 50.
[82] J.P.K. Gervasio, J.A.d.C.P. Gomes, and S.L.D.C. Brasil, Alternative method to protect welded joints in carbon steel pipes used for water transport, in: NACE
International Corrosion Conference Proceedings, 2019: NACE International, pp. 1–10.
[83] H. Wang, C. Hu, X. Hu, M. Yang, J. Qu, Effects of disinfectant and biofilm on the corrosion of cast iron pipes in a reclaimed water distribution system, Water Res.
46 (4) (2012) 1070–1078.
[84] P. Melidis, M. Sanozidou, A. Mandusa, K. Ouzounis, Corrosion control by using indirect methods, Desalination 213 (1–3) (2007) 152–158.
[85] A.F. Cantor, J.K. Park, P. Vaiyavatjamai, Effect of chlorine on corrosion in drinking water systems, J.-Am. Water Works Assoc. 95 (5) (2003) 112–123.
21
[86] L.A. Maddison, G.A. Gagnon, J.D. Eisnor, Corrosion control strategies for the Halifax regional distribution system, Can. J. Civ. Eng. 28 (2) (2001) 305–313.
[87] L.S. McNeill, M. Edwards, Iron pipe corrosion in distribution systems, J.-Am. Water Works Assoc. 93 (7) (2001) 88–100.
[88] M.C. Genovez, L.H. Araujo, T.D. Pinto, R. Hrdina, Applying a new concept of corrosion protection in the presence of water: hydrojetting
application–effectiveness lab test, Anti-Corros. Methods Mater. (2017).
[89] L. Gendron, K. Baker, and T. Natale, Application of Volatile Corrosion Inhibitor to Prevent Internal Corrosion in Pipelines, in: CORROSION 2018, 2018:
OnePetro.
[90] R.R. Fessler, Pipeline corrosion, Report, US Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, Baker, Evanston, IL, 2008.
[91] Z. Mahidashti, M. Rezaei, M.P. Asfia, Internal under-deposit corrosion of X60 pipeline steel upon installation in a chloride-containing soil environment, Colloids
Surf., A 602 (2020), 125120.
[92] Q. He, C. Li, Modeling and simulation of the drying process of natural gas pipeline using vacuum drying method, Drying Technol. 38 (8) (2020) 963–974.
[93] M. Orazem, Underground pipeline corrosion, no. 63, Elsevier, 2014.
[94] L. Zhang, J. Zhou, H. He, Modeling and Simulation of Pigging for a Gas Pipeline Using a Bypass Pig, Mathem. Probl. Eng. 2020 (2020).
[95] M.E.A.B. Seghier, Z. Mustaffa, T. Zayed, Reliability assessment of subsea pipelines under the effect of spanning load and corrosion degradation, J. Nat. Gas Sci.
Eng. 102 (2022), 104569.
[96] A. Guillal, M.E.A.B. Seghier, A. Nourddine, J.A. Correia, Z.B. Mustaffa, N.-T. Trung, Probabilistic investigation on the reliability assessment of mid-and high-
strength pipelines under corrosion and fracture conditions, Eng. Fail. Anal. 118 (2020), 104891.
[97] N. Agbenowosi, G. Loganathan, A. Deb, F. Grablutz, Y. Hasit, J. Snyder, Methods of analysis for pipeline replacement, World Water Environ. Resour. Congr.
2003 (2003) 1–10.
22

Review of Corrosion Protection and Control Techniques For Metallic Pipelines

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Review of Corrosion Protection and Control Techniques For Metallic Pipelines

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Review of Corrosion Protection and Control Techniques For Metallic Pipelines

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Engineering Failure Analysis 143 (2023) 106885

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Engineering Failure Analysis

A comprehensive review of corrosion protection and control

Step3: Scientometric and systematic review.

3.1. Annual publications trend

3.2. Keywords co-occurrence network

Fig. 2. Research methodology flowchart.

3.3. Prominent and active countries in this research area

Fig. 3. Annual publications trend from 1958 to 2021.

4. Corrosion protection and control techniques

Fig. 5. Prominent countries in pipelines corrosion protection research area.

United States 39 32% 921 41

Fig. 6. Classification of the corrosion protection and control techniques.

4.1. External corrosion protection and control techniques

4.1.1. Passive protection techniques

i. Coatings and Lining

- Easy to implement and repair

H.M.H. Farh et al.

and zinc-AL coating corrosive environments.

Engineering Failure Analysis 143 (2023) 106885

H.M.H. Farh et al.

Heterogeneous materials contribute to unstable scale features,

both the metal surface and the backing

Engineering Failure Analysis 143 (2023) 106885

Fig. 7. Effect of bonded and polyethylene (PE) encasement on stray current.

Fig. 8. Performance of SACP in ductile-iron pipes under different case studies.

a. Damage and defects are both possible in PE.

iv. Electrical Isolation

vi. Multi-Passive Protection Techniques

[9] * Calcium polyphosphate/Synthetic - Help to lower the corrosion rate.

4.1.2. Active protection techniques

i. Sacrificial Anode Cathodic Protection

ii. Impressed Current Cathodic Protection (ICCP)

4.1.3. Hybrid corrosion protection techniques

4.2. Internal corrosion protection and control techniques

Fig. 9. A summary of the research gaps/challenges and future directions.

bacterial contamination and leakage [81].

ii. Corrosion Allowance

iii. Inhibitors/Chemical Treatments

vi. Pipe Material and Flow control

5. Research gaps and future directions

Declaration of Competing Interest

Data will be made available on request.

You might also like