Risk Based Management of Corrosion Under Insulation

RECOMMENDED PRACTICE
DNVGL-RP-G109 Edition December 2019
Risk based management of corrosion under

insulation
The electronic PDF version of this document, available at the DNV GL website dnvgl.com, is the official, binding version.
DNV GL AS
FOREWORD
DNV GL recommended practices contain sound engineering practice and guidance.
© DNV GL AS December 2019
Any comments may be sent by e-mail to rules@dnvgl.com
This service document has been prepared based on available knowledge, technology and/or information at the time of issuance of this
document. The use of this document by others than DNV GL is at the user's sole risk. DNV GL does not accept any liability or responsibility
for loss or damages resulting from any use of this document.
CHANGES – CURRENT
Changes current
This is a new document.
Recommended practice — DNVGL-RP-G109. Edition December 2019 Page 3

Risk based management of corrosion under insulation
DNV GL AS
CONTENTS
Contents
Changes – current.................................................................................................. 3
Section 1 General.................................................................................................... 7
1.1 Introduction......................................................................................7
1.2 Objective...........................................................................................7
1.3 Scope................................................................................................ 8
1.4 Application and limitations............................................................... 8
1.5 References........................................................................................ 8
1.6 Definitions and abbreviations........................................................... 9
Section 2 Risk based approach............................................................................. 12

2.1 Corrosion under insulation risk management strategy....................12
2.2 Introduction to the risk based approach.........................................12
2.3 Risk concept................................................................................... 13
2.4 Corrosion under insulation barriers................................................ 13
2.5 Risk assessment model...................................................................15
Section 3 Qualitative corrosion under insulation risk assessment.........................16

3.1 General principles........................................................................... 16
3.2 Qualitative probability of failure model.......................................... 16
3.3 Mitigation of risk............................................................................ 18
Section 4 Risk mitigation...................................................................................... 19

4.1 General risk mitigation principles................................................... 19
4.2 Concept of mitigation..................................................................... 19
4.3 Effect of increased knowledge........................................................ 20
4.4 Relevant nondestructive testing methods for corrosion under
insulation.............................................................................................. 23
4.5 Effect of modifications.................................................................... 24
Section 5 Corrosion under insulation risk management........................................ 25

5.1 Risk dependent corrosion under insulation strategy....................... 25
5.2 Unacceptable risk........................................................................... 25
5.3 Acceptable but rising to unacceptable risk..................................... 25
5.4 Acceptable risk............................................................................... 25
Section 6 Continuous improvement.......................................................................26

6.1 Dynamic process.............................................................................26
6.2 Update of risk assessment..............................................................26

DNV GL AS
6.3 New knowledge and technology..................................................... 26
Contents
6.4 Experience transfer, and lessons learned across assets..................26
6.5 Roles and responsibilities............................................................... 27
6.6 Organisational competence, data management and information
and communication technology systems.............................................. 27
6.7 Effectiveness of the corrosion under insulation management......... 27
Section 7 Bibliography.......................................................................................... 28
7.1 Bibliography.................................................................................... 28
Appendix A Probability of failure assessment material barrier........................... 29

A.1 Materials not susceptible to corrosion under insulation.................. 29
A.2 Probability of failure for carbon steel............................................. 29
A.3 Probability of failure for external stress corrosion cracking in
austenitic and duplex steel...................................................................30
A.4 Probability of failure for pitting corrosion in austenitic and
duplex steel.......................................................................................... 30
A.5 Probability of failure for corrosion resistant alloy systems with
hot dipped galvanized bolts..................................................................30
A.6 Probability of failure at elevated temperatures.............................. 30
Appendix B Probability of failure assessment coating barrier.............................32

B.1 Influencing factors......................................................................... 32
B.2 Type of coating system.................................................................. 32
B.3 Coating age.................................................................................... 32
B.4 Quality of the coating work............................................................ 32
B.5 Coating conditions.......................................................................... 33
B.6 Probability of coating breakdown................................................... 33
B.7 Thermal sprayed aluminium special consideration..........................35
B.8 Breakdown of undocumented coating systems............................... 36
Appendix C Probability of failure assessment water wetting barrier...................37

C.1 Influencing factors......................................................................... 37
C.2 Decision logic..................................................................................37
C.3 Water exposure.............................................................................. 37
C.4 Insulation solution and drainage.................................................... 40
C.5 Complexity...................................................................................... 41
C.6 Workmanship.................................................................................. 42
C.7 Probability of water wetting........................................................... 43
Appendix D Probability of failure assessment design barrier..............................44

DNV GL AS
Contents
Appendix E Probability of failure guidance on input data................................... 47
Appendix F Susceptible areas for corrosion under insulation................................ 49

F.1 Hotspot for corrosion under insulation.......................................... 49
F.2 Hotspot related to specific corrosion under insulation barriers...... 49
F.3 Deck and wall penetrations............................................................ 50
F.4 Corrosion under pipe supports........................................................50
F.5 Grouping of objects for mitigation purposes................................... 50
Changes – historic................................................................................................ 51

DNV GL AS
SECTION 1 GENERAL
1.1 Introduction
This recommended practice (RP) is a response to the major safety threat and the challenge of a multi-
billion-dollar cost faced by the industry as a consequence of corrosion under insulation (CUI). This document
describes a comprehensive methodology for managing CUI in a risk based, safe and cost-efficient manner.
The methodology was developed by a joint industry project in 2017-2018, led by DNV GL with participating
operators from the oil and gas industry.
CUI is defined as the external corrosion of piping and vessels that occurs when water becomes trapped
beneath insulation. CUI damage takes the form of localized external corrosion in carbon and low alloy
steels, /2/, and as external stress corrosion cracking (ESCC) and pitting in austenitic and duplex stainless
steel.
1.2 Objective
The objective of this document is to provide a practical, cost effective recipe for how to manage risk related
to CUI. The work process is built around a plan, do, check, act (PDCA) process aligned with ISO 9000
requirements of continuous improvement, see Figure 11. The target is to mitigate unacceptable risk in the
most effective way by giving priority to high risk.
Figure 11 CUI management based on a fourphased PDCA approach
This recommended practice aim to support efficient the CUI risk management in terms of timely response
based on risk assessment, but also with respect to acting on an identified degraded barrier as a part of
normal operating procedures. Adequate corrective response to degraded barriers is a key to improved CUI
risk management.

DNV GL AS
1.3 Scope
This document addresses the threat of corrosion under insulation in process plants.
Degradation mechanisms not involving CUI are not addressed by this document.
The document describes how to assess the probability of failure (PoF) due to CUI and how the different
mitigation activities alter the probability. In this document, existing data should be used to assign a
consequence of failure (CoF) to obtain the CUI risk.
The model combines individual probability assessments of the four CUI barriers, material barrier, coating
barrier, water wetting barrier and design barrier, into a total probability of failure category, and combines this
with the consequence of failure into a risk (CUI) category.
Guidance note:
To be further detailed in Sec.3.
---e-n-d---o-f---g-u-i-d-a-n-c-e---n-o-t-e---
1.4 Application and limitations

This recommended practice is primarily intended to be used for risk assessment of insulated static
mechanical pressure systems when considering failures caused by loss of containment of the pressure
envelope due to external CUI.
The described methodology is primarily designed to be applied to process systems that operate at
temperatures below 200°C. Special considerations should be made for systems operating at higher
temperatures and these should include assessments of CUI effects caused by temperature fluctuations into
the < 200°C area due to operation or geometrical lay-out effects.
The document is considering CUI on metallic materials with focus on carbon steel.
The document describes an approach to assessing the probability of failure related to CUI. The consequence
of failure should be assessed by the methodology described in other standards.
Guidance note:
DNVGL-RP-G101 App.C describes a good systematic approach for CoF assessment. Other applicable standards are ISO 17776 and
NORSOK Z008.
Risks due to other degradation mechanisms, i.e. other than CUI, are not addressed in this document.
The document is based upon known technology and methodologies publicly available at the end of 2018.
The logic described in this document for assessing the probability of failure related to CUI should be adhered
to as a whole. The process of calculation of individual probability factors and aggregation into an overall PoF
may be accomplished by available software solutions.
1.5 References
This document may be used as a stand-alone document. Informative references to other standards and
specifications are listed in Sec.7.
Table 1-1 lists DNV GL references used in this document.

DNV GL AS
Table 11 DNV GL documents
Document code Title
DNVGL-RP-G101 Risk based inspection of offshore topsides static mechanical equipment
1.6 Definitions and abbreviations
1.6.1 Definition of verbal forms

Table 12 Definition of verbal forms
Term Description
shall verbal form used to indicate requirements strictly to be followed in order to conform to the
document
should verbal form used to indicate that among several possibilities one is recommended as
particularly suitable, without mentioning or excluding others
may verbal form used to indicate a course of action permissible within the limits of the document
1.6.2 Definition of terms

Table 13 Definition of terms
Term Definition
box solution easily removable jacketing insulation on equipment, flanges and valves
cladding external cover of insulation to protect against water or damage to insulation. Can be both metallic or
polymer based. Also referred to as 'jacketing', 'metal sheeting' and/or 'insulation protection' in other
literature
coating layer of material applied to the surface of another material with the intent of inhibiting or preventing
corrosion
coating operation in which different types and layers of paint or other coating materials are applied in a certain
system sequence
contaminants chemical compositions that influence the corrosion rate or coating breakdown
hot-spot location on a pipe or equipment where the condition being discussed is expected to be most severe, see
DNVGL-RP-G101, see API 583:2016, susceptible locations for CUI
insulation layer of material applied to the surface of another material with the intent to insulate an equipment, fire
protect the equipment or protect human health
insulation integrated solution in which different types and layers of insulation materials are applied in a certain
system sequence
object relevant physical item that might suffer from CUI. Examples are pipe systems, vessels and/or valves
PoFcoating probability of failure for the coating barrier, i.e. degraded coating to reveal bare steel
PoFCUI probability of failure for CUI including assessment of all relevant barriers

DNV GL AS
Term Definition
PoFdesign probability of failure for the design barrier, i.e. the design or layout will strengthen or weaken the
potential for CUI degradation
PoFmaterial probability of failure for the material barrier, i.e. breach of containment
PoFwater wetting probability of failure for the water wetting barrier, i.e. water in contact with pipe/vessel surface
PREN value PREN value is calculated based on the following formula: PREN = Cr + 3.3 Mo + 16 N, whereas Cr, Mo
and N represent the % of Chromium, Molybdenum and Nitrogen respectively
qualitative risk analysis using primarily subject matter expertise and experience to assign broad categorizations for
risk model POF and COF (ref API 580)
quantitative risk analysis that uses primarily model-based approaches where numerical values are calculated and
risk model more discreet input data used (ref API 580)
risk combination of the incident probability and its consequences, see also DNVGL-RP-G101
water insulation that will retain water and allow for water exposure on steel surface
retaining
wet condition wet condition is used in the context of describing the exposure of coating and insulation to water. Wet
condition shall mean a situation where moisture and/or water is present all or part of the time
1.6.3 Abbreviations
Table 14 Abbreviations
Abbreviation Description
CUI corrosion under insulation
CoF consequence of failure
CRA corrosion resistant alloys
CUPS corrosion under pipe supports
CVI close visual inspection
ESCC external stress corrosion cracking
gPIMS guided wave pipe monitoring system
GVI general visual inspection
GWT guided wave technique
HDG hot dipped galvanized
HVOF high velocity oxygen fuel
I&M inspection & maintenance
ICT information and communication technology
IE inspection effectiveness, the product of PoD and inspection extent (%)
LoF likelihood of failure, same as PoF

DNV GL AS
Abbreviation Description
NDT non-destructive testing
PEC pulsed Eddy current
PoD probability of detection
PoF probability of failure, same as LoF
PREN pitting resistance equivalent number
RBI risk based inspection
RT radiographic testing
Tg glass transition temperature
TSA thermally sprayed aluminium
TSZ thermally sprayed zinc

DNV GL AS
SECTION 2 RISK BASED APPROACH
2.1 Corrosion under insulation risk management strategy

The CUI risk management strategy should as a minimum include the following elements:
— risk assessment, see Sec.3
— risk mitigation, see Sec.4
— risk update, see Sec.4 and Sec.5
— continuous improvement, see Sec.6.
In addition to the above listed elements, the strategy should include elements such as roles &
responsibilities, change management, reporting requirements and reference to best industry technical
solutions, including coating, insulation, inspection, and monitoring methods.
The CUI strategy shall differentiate between different risk levels and be applicable for both short-time and
long-term periods, as CUI as a degradation mechanism will develop over time. The strategy shall be aligned
to the relevant asset to reflect material selection, coating condition, insulation selection, cladding, process
condition temperature, maintenance strategies and age.
The strategy shall consider the development of the barriers over time and hence increase activities when the
barriers are degrading. It is recommended that the CUI management strategy state that identified defects in
any of the barriers leading to unacceptable risk shall be repaired within a relatively short period of time.
2.2 Introduction to the risk based approach

The risk based approach is based on applying a structured approach and making use of the best available
knowledge to identify, assess, monitor, mitigate (to an acceptable level) and update the CUI risks.
Figure 21 Elements of risk management

DNV GL AS
The approach taken in this document uses a 5x5 risk matrix as shown in Figure 22, where the risk
acceptance limit is at the borderline between medium and high risk.
Figure 22 5x5 risk matrix with example values for safety and financial loss
2.3 Risk concept

The following chapters focus on assessing and reducing the probability of CUI, as the consequence part is
considered to be easily assessable using existing knowledge and standards, see DNVGL-RP-G101.
The methodology described in this document will give a qualitative number for the probability of failure due
to CUI. Qualitative in the risk assessment context means that evaluation will end up in a category ranging
from very low (VL) to very high (VH). This document uses 5 categories: very low (VL), low (L), medium (M),
high (H) and very high (VH).
The other option, which is not used in this document, is a quantitative approach. This would have given a
-3
numeric value of the probability e.g. 2.4 10 probability of CUI during the next year. Such an approach will
require data and information that is not normally available when assessing the CUI threat.
2.4 Corrosion under insulation barriers

In this CUI PoF assessment methodology, the probability of failure due to CUI is based on four barriers:
1) Material barrier: material used in the pipe, tank or pressure vessel, and its corrosion resistance in the
relevant condition. The most essential condition in this context is temperature.
2) Coating barrier: protection of the material against the external environment. In this context, the
protection is often a coating system, and the environment causing CUI is water and corrosive
contamination.
3) Water wetting barrier: extent of water wetting of the equipment surface, which is an effect of restricting
the water entering the insulation, the insulation’s ability to hold water, and the effect of drainage and
evaporation from the insulation system.

DNV GL AS
4) Design barrier: CUI challenges may be reduced or increased based on the design of the system.
Parameters such as wall thickness and pipe diameters will influence the probability of failure due to CUI.
Results of NDT inspections are also included in this barrier.
Figure 23 Material barrier, coating barrier or water barrier is assessed to be intact (PoF assessed
to VL or L)
If either the material barrier, coating barrier or water wetting barrier is assessed to be intact (PoF assessed to
VL or L), it may be assumed that the CUI probability will not exceed M until the relevant barrier is assessed
to M or higher.
Each of the four barriers is assessed based on a subset of factors. These are:
— Material barrier:
— material type
— material surface temperature
— temperature fluctuations
— contaminants:
— the composition of the electrolyte is important for the possibility of corrosion.
— Coating barrier:
— coating age
— coating type
— quality control and workmanship
— wetting conditions:
— the composition of the electrolyte may be important for the coating breakdown.
— temperature:
— surface temperature vs recommended temperature, reference made to coating specification and
glass transition temperature.

DNV GL AS
— Water wetting barrier:
— location
— dew-point temperature
— insulation system
— workmanship
— maintenance routines.
— Design barrier:
— wall thickness
— pipe dimensions
— inspection method, extent, timing and results.
2.5 Risk assessment model

The model combines individual probability assessments of the four CUI barriers - material barrier, coating
barrier, water wetting barrier and design barrier - into a total probability of failure category, and combines
this with the consequence of failure to create a risk (CUI) category, see [1.3].
PoFCUI = f (PoFmaterial, PoFcoating, PoFwater wetting, PoFdesign)
RiskCUI = f (PoFCUI, CoF)
Whether CoF is assessed with respect to the impact on the safety, financial, environmental or all parameters
is not discussed in this document. Advice on this can be found in DNVGL-RP-G101.
The individual qualitative probability assessments of the four barriers into five categories from very low (VL)
to very high (VH), are described in App.A, App.B, App.C and App.D.
Details on how the parameters are combined in a qualitative risk assessment model for CUI are described in
Sec.3.

DNV GL AS
SECTION 3 QUALITATIVE CORROSION UNDER INSULATION RISK
ASSESSMENT
3.1 General principles

The assessment of the probability for CUI is based on assessing each of the four barriers and then
combining the results into one total probability for CUI for the assessed object. This chapter 3 describes the
methodology for assessing the total PoF.
3.2 Qualitative probability of failure model

Based on the evaluation of the four barriers to CUI, see App.A, App.B, App.C and App.D, the four different
PoF values may be entered into a qualitative model with probability values of very low (VL), low (L), medium
(M), high (H) or very high (VH).
The PoF shall be qualitatively assessed in a point model for the four barriers using a systematic approach,
and the four main barriers shall be individually weighted.
This recommended practice proposes the following model for assessing the total PoFCUI for CUI:
PoFCUI = f (PoFmaterial, PoFcoating, PoFwater wetting) + PoFdesign
A initial PoFCUI will be calculated and then adjusted by the PoFdesign . Following this logic, elements such as
wall thickness and inspection results will adjust the initial probability based on material, temperature, coating
and insulation information.
The PoF value will be achieved by transforming the qualitative value (VL, L, M, H or VH) into a numeric
value (see Table 3-1) that is weighted according to the company's CUI strategy. This document recommends
giving equal weight to the material, coating and water wetting barrier. The average value of these three
barriers should then be added the value from the design barrier to end up with a numeric PoF for CUI which
translates to a PoF category according to Table 3-2.
Table 31 Quantitative numbers for different qualitative PoF values

DNV GL AS
Table 32 Total CUI probability categories based on point model in table 31
The calculation of the total POFCUI is:

PoF total CUI = (f(Material barrier) + f(Coating barrier) + f(Water wetting barrier))/3 + f(Design
barrier)
'f' is used as 'function of'.
Guidance note:
Example:
PoF material = M, PoF coating = VH, PoF water wetting = H, PoF design = M
PoFCUI = ((3+10+6)/3) + 0 = 6.33 =VH
The probability of CUI is 7.33, when material is assessed as M, coating assessed as VH and water wetting is assessed as H.
According to assessment of probability categories, this equals a very high PoFtotal CUI.
3.2.1 Weighting of barrier parameters

This document recommends equal weight given to the material, coating, and water wetting barrier. The
average point number of these barriers shall then be adjusted by the design barrier according to numeric
values given in Table 3-1. See also guidance note above in [3.2].
The total maximum (10) and minimum (-15) values after averaging the material, coating and water wetting
barriers shall remain the same and the difference between the various steps shall not be altered.
3.2.2 Risk matrix

A 5x5 type risk matrix should be used, see an example in Figure 22.
If the risk matrix is based on fewer or more categories the methodology should be aligned to fit with the
relevant asset risk matrix.
If a risk matrix has fewer categories, e.g. a 3x3 matrix, it may be more difficult to monitor changes in the
risk as a result of time and mitigating effects.
The focus should be on the categorization of the different cells in the risk matrix to raise awareness of
potential mitigation to create an acceptable risk level.
Guidance note:
If the combination of highest consequence and lowest probability still does not give an acceptable risk, then either the risk matrix
with the set acceptance limit is too strict or the object shall be redesigned.
3.2.3 Hole size for defining consequence of failure

This document recommends using hole sizes as described in DNVGL-RP-G101 if hole size is necessary for
defining the CoF value.

DNV GL AS
3.3 Mitigation of risk
The risk development should be monitored to ensure that unacceptable risk is mitigated and controlled.
Risk mitigation in this context may be maintenance activities such as the permanent removal or upgrade of
insulation, refurbishment of coating or close visual inspection. The effect of mitigation shall be incorporated
into the PoF assessment as part of the risk assessment, see Sec.2 to Sec.5. The effect of risk mitigation is
described in detail in Sec.4.

DNV GL AS
SECTION 4 RISK MITIGATION
4.1 General risk mitigation principles

To reduce the CUI risk, mitigations performed need to have a positive effect on the parameters leading to the
given risk. As consequence of failure (CoF) is normally not affected by the mitigation process, focus should
be on achieving changes of the probability of failure parameters instead. However, it is recommended to
verify that the CoF is assessed correctly.
Since probability of failure (PoF) tends to change based on age, technical condition and other factors,
reducing PoF for CUI implies changing one or more parameters influencing the CUI barriers:
— material barrier
— coating barrier
— water wetting barrier
— design barrier.
The most effective risk mitigation will be to permanently remove the insulation. It shall be verified the
necessity of the insulation through more detailed assessment with respect to heat conservation, fire safety,
personnel protection, noise protection and other relevant objectives for the insulation.
4.2 Concept of mitigation
4.2.1 General principles

There are two main ways to change the parameters affecting the PoF.
1) Increase knowledge by getting more information and re-evaluate the barriers.
2) Modify and change the condition.
Increased knowledge can be achieved by inspection, or by performing studies or more detailed assessments.
while changing the physical condition can be in form of maintenance or modifications. The latter also includes
the option of permanent removal of insulation.
When risk reduction is required, the PoF factors leading to high risk should be identified so these may be
evaluated for potential alteration first. A cost-benefit assessment is also necessary to ensure a cost-effective
risk mitigation. It is important to note that certain parameters (e.g. temperature and wall thickness) cannot
easily be altered even though they may lead to high risk.
4.2.2 Increase knowledge

In this context, increasing knowledge will reduce the uncertainty or remove conservatism and might reduce
or increase the risk depending on the new knowledge. Knowledge might come from visual and other NDT
inspection results, or as updated lifetime information on the coating system. Typical elements leading to new
knowledge are:
— inspection results, including methods such as: NDT without removal of insulation, external inspection of
cladding and visual inspection of the object underneath the insulation
— new knowledge on probability of detection for the inspection methods
— new knowledge on QA during surface preparation and coating application
— new knowledge of coating system lifetime
— new knowledge of the insulation solution used
— new information of process upsets and temperature alterations
— updated design information
— new procedures for fire water testing
— new CUI risk assessment analysis

DNV GL AS
— experience from other assets and lessons learned
— installation of monitoring systems that will give better CUI information (modifications that affect the
increased knowledge part).
4.2.3 Modification
In this context, typical modifications that will mitigate the risk are:
— permanent removal of insulation
— replace one insulation system with a better design solution
— new coating - for example, full refurbishment or just spot repair of degraded coating - the different
coating repair activities will have different mitigating effects
— re-design of pipe-routing, new material selection, alteration in pipe or vessel wall thickness
— alteration of temperature variations
— permanent or temporary repair of degraded parts.
4.3 Effect of increased knowledge
4.3.1 General
Modification and repair will have a direct impact on the object and the parameters that are changed will be
changed in the PoF assessment. Likewise, new information on any of the four barrier elements coming from
studies or inspections will be used as new knowledge and update the PoF assessment.
For mitigation by increased knowledge, a combination of NDT and close visual inspection of the coating might
be cost effective and provide the necessary risk reduction. Such a combination might have a positive effect
on three out of four barriers provided there is an adequate extent and no identified degradation.
4.3.2 Effect of visual inspection

4.3.2.1 Types of visual inspection
Visual inspection may be one of three types of inspection in the context of CUI:
— general visual inspection of external cladding (GVI)
— close visual inspection of external cladding (CVI external)
— close visual inspection after removal of insulation (CVI).
Each of these visual inspections will have a different impact on the mitigation of risk.
4.3.2.2 General visual inspection of external cladding

GVI is a superficial inspection performed from existing pathways and access platforms. This kind of inspection
will detect severely damaged cladding on parts visible from the pathways or gangways. The inspection is
normally reported based on negative reporting routines i.e. only findings are reported.
GVI will have a limited effect on parameters relevant for the water wetting barrier, and no effect on the
material, coating and design barriers.
4.3.2.3 Close visual inspection of external cladding

o
Close visual inspection shall be performed with access to the object from 360 , within arm's length distance
and performed under good lighting conditions and set requirements to reporting. In this case 'cladding' is
considered the object. CVI of external cladding will normally detect damaged cladding open to water ingress
and reveal if water can enter the insulation due to poor cladding workmanship. The presence of rust-water
indicates active or historical CUI but not necessarily the exact location, nor the extent, of the CUI.
Although there is no access to the insulation material, a CVI of external cladding will influence the
parameters relevant for water wetting such as workmanship and waterproofing.

DNV GL AS
4.3.2.4 Close visual inspection after removal of insulation
o
Close visual inspection shall be performed with access to the object from 360 , within arm's length distance
and performed under good lighting conditions and set requirements to reporting. It is expected that all
coating degradation and ongoing corrosion will be revealed. Based on results from the CVI of piping or
vessels, the coating conditions should be reassessed and given a new lifetime estimate. Furthermore, the
CVI should also inspect both the humidity and quality of the insulation removed from the system as well as
confirming that the new insulation work on the new insulation solution is of good quality.
Based on the results from the CVI, the status of both the coating and water wetting barriers should be
updated. The design barrier should also be updated in the same way as for NDT as CVI is a better inspection
method than any NDT for external corrosion under insulation.
The results of the CVI inspection (e.g. coating in good condition or no water ingress into the insulation) may
be applied to other objects that have not been inspected under certain conditions.
To apply the results of one inspection to other objects, the following criteria should be met:
— The basic parameters shall be similar:
— Coating degradation: same coating system, similar temperature, same age, same expected quality,
similar water exposure, similar geometry/layout.
— Water wetting: similar design, similar exposure, within same area, expected same workmanship,
similar temperature, similar layout.
— The performed inspection shall include a variety of hot-spots and represent all potential hot-spots in the
noninspected parts.
— There should be an external close visual inspection in place to confirm that the external cladding holds a
similar quality and is not damaged.
— The effect on non-inspected objects in terms of reduced PoF shall be less than for the inspected objects
(see also [4.3.3] for the effect of NDT inspection).
4.3.3 Effect of non-destructive testing inspection

4.3.3.1 Nondestuctive testing inspection without findings
NDT inspection with no findings will only reveal no breach or no reduction of the design barrier. The
inspection does not give new information on the material type, temperature, coating type, coating age, water
wetting or design schedule. NDT inspection may be used to give a time-bound effect on the design barrier, as
NDT confirms that the design barrier is not degraded at the time of inspection.
The built-in design ability to withstand CUI in terms of dimension and schedule is combined with NDT results
to give a PoFDesign as seen in App.D. Table 4-1 gives direct categorization based on NDT performed on hot-
spots.

DNV GL AS
Table 41 Mitigating effect on PoFdesign based on NDT with no findings
In Table 4-1 , it is assumed that the selected NDT method will have a probability of detection (PoD) of
minimum 0.8. The PoD value shall relate to a circular defect of 1.5 mm depth with a diameter of 50 mm on a
10" line with a wall thickness of 10 mm, and 100 mm mineral wool insulation and stainless steel cladding.
To use the NDT information on non-inspected objects in the same CUI environment, it is required that
minimum 50% of the hotspots are inspected and that the rules for grouping items stated in [F.5] are
adhered to. The inspection extent may be considered for a 3-year period to determine the percentage of hot-
spots inspected, i.e. the inspections may be performed over a duration of 3 years.
Guidance note:
If NDT is selected as a main mitigation method, it is recommended to inspect 100% of hot-spots over a 6-year period. This
will also give more effective mitigation. Furthermore, the combination of CVI after removal and NDT will enable evaluation of
the coating system and make the assessment more reliable to the assessment. In general removal of insulation and CVI is
recommended for very high risk (VH). For high risk (H) a combination of insulation removal and NDT may give required risk
reduction.
4.3.3.2 Nondestructive testing findings

Whenever wall thinning is revealed by NDT, this should be addressed in the following manner:
1) Remove the insulation and inspect the steel surface by close visual inspection. The area for CVI should
be extended to identify the extent of coating degradation and relevant wet insulation related to the
finding.
2) Assess the coating condition for the relevant objects based on new information. This should also include
removal of insulation for CVI of a larger area than the actual finding.
3) Assess the water wetting condition for the relevant objects based new information. This should also
include a CVI of the insulation and cladding for a larger area than the actual finding.
4) If found relevant, update the inspection and maintenance plan for CUI based on new information and
evaluate how the new information may impact other parts of the plant.
If findings are not mitigated, the immediate action should be to set the design barrier, coating barrier and
water wetting barrier to 'very high'. Furthermore, if the revealed wall thinning indicates high corrosion rates
or excessive corrosion the material barrier should also be set to 'very high'.
It is recommended to explore the state of objects that are exposed to the same condition to seek further
information on the state of the relevant barriers, i.e. to identify whether the finding is just a single case or if
there is a systematic degradation of the barriers.

DNV GL AS
4.4 Relevant nondestructive testing methods for corrosion under
insulation
4.4.1 Application and limitations of non-destructive testing methods for

corrosion under insulation
Inspection methods for CUI are in general divided into three categories: indirect methods, screening methods
and detailed inspection methods. Indirect methods target moisture detection as opposed to the direct
methods (screening and detailed) that target loss of material. A description of the application and limitation
of the most relevant NDT methods is found in the relevant open HOIS report /11/.
4.4.2 Detailed sizing methods for corrosion under insulation

Based on qualification programmes up until 2019, there are few NDT methods that meet a requirement of
detecting relevant sized defects under insulation. A relevant sized defect is:
— Wall thickness reduction of 15% with 1:50 depth to axial/circumferential length under 100 mm insulation.
Conventional radiography using isotope sources and film or, increasingly, digital detectors are used for
sampling the inspection of areas that are most likely to have CUI, particularly in small-bore pipework.
Other promising methods based on the pulsed eddy current (PEC) and guided wave technique (GWT) still
shall improve and demonstrate sufficient ability to detect relevant sized flaws. A qualification programme
performed in 2019 indicates that most NDT methods for CUI will have increased PoD value with increasing
wall thickness and decreasing insulation thickness.
Ongoing developments in the industry complemented by qualification programmes by HOIS /12/ will
probably qualify more CUI-detection methods in the near future.
4.4.3 Screening methods for corrosion under insulation

Screening methods for CUI shall be able to detect large defects in an efficient manner. The most used
methods in this context are the GWT and PEC technique, see /11/ for more details. The detecting capabilities
of these techniques are low compared to e.g. the radiographic double image and double wall technique but
defects in the range of 30-50% wall thinning over a large area will probably be detected. Neither of these
techniques can size the defect.
The mitigating effect of screening methods depends on the method's ability to detect wall thinning. Until
there is a reliable screening method available, the screening method should only be used in combination with
other more reliable methods to assess CUI.
Guidance note:
The GWTbased permanently installed monitoring technique will detect smaller defects down to 1% crosssectional area. This is
2
equivalent to e.g. 54 mm wall loss on a 6" Sch. 80 pipe or 30% wall reduction over a circumferential flaw of 18mm on the same
pipe. Systems based on permanently installed probes are considered much more reliable than the ordinary GWT.
4.4.4 Non-destructive testing for corrosion under insulation on corrosion

resistant alloy materials
Defects due to CUI in corrosion resistant alloys are expected to take form of pitting or cracklike flaws. These
types of defects are small and there is no reliable NDT method that will reveal such defects with a sufficient
PoD through insulation.
To detect ESCC or pitting in CRA materials the insulation shall be removed and surface flaw detecting
methods like 'Close visual inspection', 'Eddy current' or 'Penetrant inspection' may be used.

DNV GL AS
4.5 Effect of modifications
Modifications or changes to the asset will have a direct impact on the assessment of the relevant barrier.
Whenever a piping, coating or insulation modification and/or upgrade is performed, the new values shall be
assessed and the risk should be updated. The positive and/or negative impact on the CUI threat should be
considered when selecting a new solution.
For material selection, more corrosion resistant materials will often be a positive element. It is recommended
to always apply protective coating on insulated pipes and vessels also including for corrosion resistant alloys
like 316, duplex and 6 Mo. When using stainless-steel type 316 material, it is recommended to verify that
316 material with high PREN value is used. For re-routing without a change in material, it is wise to design
such that the number of CUI hotspots is limited, see App.F.
When repairing or refurbishing coating, a good coating system should be selected, see App.B, and apply this
under controlled conditions with the necessary quality assurance. The difference in the increased lifetime
of the coating might differ as much as 20 years between good workmanship and poor workmanship for the
coating application work.
When repairing or upgrading the insulation solution, systems that either avoid/limit water ingress or ensure
that water will be drained out of the system in an efficient way, should be selected. Water repellent insulation
material and a good cladding solution with sealer when relevant should be used. Spacers between the
insulation and pipe to enable good drainage have been successfully used by several companies.

DNV GL AS
SECTION 5 CORROSION UNDER INSULATION RISK MANAGEMENT
5.1 Risk dependent corrosion under insulation strategy

It should be applied different risk management strategies for the different risk levels as an unacceptable risk
will require different activities and mitigations opposed to an acceptable risk.
5.2 Unacceptable risk

In this context, unacceptable risk is often defined as very high or high risk and this means that actions
shall be taken to confirm the status of barriers for high risk areas or, in some cases, modifications shall be
performed. To be able to confirm the status of the barriers, the insulation shall be removed to enable CVI of
the object underneath the insulation. A stepwise approach should be taken, starting by inspecting the hot-
spot areas to get more information before a more extensive removal of insulation is considered. The use of
NDT methods as a supplement to CVI to increase the scope should also be considered.
For areas assessed to have very high risk of CUI, the recommended mitigation is to remove the insulation for
inspection and confirm the condition of the material barrier for the entire relevant area.
5.3 Acceptable but rising to unacceptable risk

In this context, acceptable risk but rising to unacceptable risk is the medium category risk that has the
potential to develop over time into high risk. Medium risk implies that actions are recommended to be taken
to confirm the status of barriers and to monitor the status of the barrier to avoid reaching unacceptable
risk. To confirm the status of the barriers, the insulation should be removed and CVI should be performed
on selected objects in combination with NDT, external CVI of cladding or other mitigating and monitoring
measures.
The strategy for medium risk areas shall include areas mitigated from high risk and areas moving from low
risk to medium risk.
5.4 Acceptable risk

In this context, acceptable risk is often described as very low, low or medium risk with no immediate
requirement for mitigation. CUI management in low risk areas is often covered by the operative maintenance
regime. A corrective response to degraded barriers is recommended.
For areas assessed to have very low risk of CUI there will be no specific mitigation requirements.

DNV GL AS
SECTION 6 CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT
6.1 Dynamic process

To manage the CUI risk in a cost-efficient way, the responsible party shall ensure that the development of the
integrity status with respect to CUI is understood and managed and that it includes several elements such
as:
— continuous update of the CUI risk assessment
— capture new knowledge and enable use of the best available technology
— capture experience transfer and lessons learned across assets
— ensure that roles and responsibilities regarding CUI are clear and cover all work processes and equipment
— ensure that organisational CUI competence and information data systems are available and relevant for
both present and future operations
— available resources and correct competence
— benchmarking and monitoring.
6.2 Update of risk assessment

The foundation for a risk based CUI management process is that the risk is monitored and updated based
on developments in either a positive direction after mitigation, or a negative direction because of barrier
degradation over time. In addition, there can be incidents, maintenance, modifications or projects that may
have an impact on the CUI risk. The risk should also be updated based on new knowledge or technologies
that are applicable.
The use of software would be beneficial in order to continuously assess the new risk based on mitigation
effects described in this document.
6.3 New knowledge and technology

The CUI risk management process is targeted to verify and include new knowledge and technologies that
may improve the CUI risk management. New knowledge may for example be improved understanding of
barrier degradation and the relationship between the degradation of the different barriers, leading to a more
accurate assessment of the CUI risk. New technologies may have an impact on preventing CUI, such as
improved barrier condition and durability. Technology improvements and developments may also improve the
CUI mitigation by enabling more effective and efficient ways of both inspecting for, and preventing, CUI.
There are ongoing activities to test and qualify new NDT methods for better inspection of the material barrier.
In addition, there are developments in NDT methods for inspecting and determining the condition of the
coating and water wetting barriers in order to better detect barrier breaches. For CUI prevention, there are
developments in insulation systems and materials to better prevent water from reaching the steel surface.
There is also ongoing testing and qualification of new and improved coating systems for better prevention of
CUI in a lifetime perspective. New knowledge and proven technology should be implemented.
6.4 Experience transfer, and lessons learned across assets

CUI is a cross-industry and cross-facility challenge with a great potential for experience transfer in order to
improve risk management. Presently, the transfer of experience is limited both across industries and across
geographies. Additionally, there has been limited sharing of lessons learned within the oil & gas industry and
even between facilities with the same ownership.
It is evident that improved experience transfer and the sharing of lessons learned will improve CUI
management for the involved parties. In order to improve CUI management, experience and lessons learned
should be shared.
This recommended practice has been developed by sharing experience and learning, and the continued
development of CUI management is dependent on future experience transfer.

DNV GL AS
6.5 Roles and responsibilities
CUI management is a challenge that involves many stakeholders and is vulnerable to lack of ownership and
overview of the full risk.
This document has been developed with the intention to take the full CUI challenge into consideration and
will be most effective if a more integrated scheme for roles and responsibilities is implemented.
This RP represents a lifecycle approach seeking to minimize cost while ensuring safety and continuous
operation over the assets lifetime.
It is a challenge to have CUI management running over a assets lifetime from design to decommissioning.
The transfer from project to operations might suffered from a lack of CUI data transfer. The ability to provide
detailed knowledge of the CUI barrier status for a facility going through different phases has proven difficult
and an awareness of roles, responsibilities and good data management is important.
Operators should prioritise the use of integrated team to enable a common continuous understanding of the
CUI risk.
6.6 Organisational competence, data management and information

and communication technology systems
This document focuses on cross discipline responsibilities and is intended to improve the cooperation among
stakeholders for a more effective and efficient management of CUI.
The lack of CUI data management is a crossindustry challenge, with the consequence that important
information on quality, the maintenance status, and the effect of mitigation has to a large degree been
unknown to the operators. Most operators lack an efficient management system to take care of CUI going
from project through operation to decommissioning.
This document recommends operators to have an information and communication technology (ICT) system
to take care of the CUI data over the full lifetime to better be able to assess, mitigate and update the risk,
based on the best dataset available.
6.7 Effectiveness of the corrosion under insulation management

This recommended practice has been developed to ensure a more effective management of CUI. The target
is to mitigate unacceptable risk in the most effective way by giving priority to high risk. The effectiveness
of CUI risk management also depends on the ability to monitor medium risk items so as to prepare for
mitigation to prevent the item from moving into the high risk area.
As a part of continuous improvement, information such as, findings classified in different categories, cost of
CUI management, plant availability and risk development can be monitored to identify the effect of the CUI
strategy

DNV GL AS
SECTION 7 BIBLIOGRAPHY
7.1 Bibliography
/1/ API 583,Corrosion Under Insulation and Fireproofing. Recommended Practice. Washington DC:
American Petroleum Institute, 2014.
/2/ EFC no. 55, CorrosionUnderInsulation. Woodhead Publishing Limited, 2016. European
Federation of Corrosion.
/3/ NORSOK M501, Surface preparation and protective coating. Edition 6, 2012.
/4/ NACE SP0198, Control of Corrosion Under Thermal Insulation and Fireproofing MaterialsA
Systems Approach. NACE 2017.
/5/ ISO 12944, Paints and varnishes Corrosion protection of steel structures by protective paint
systems Part 1: General introduction (ISO 129441:2017).
/6/ ISO 46283, Paints and varnishes Evaluation of degradation of coatings Designation of
quantity and size of defects, and of intensity of uniform changes in appearance Part 3:
Assessment of degree of rusting :2016.
/7/ NORSOK R004, Piping and equipment insulation. Edition 1, 2009.
/8/ EN1609, Thermal insulating products for building applications. Determination of short term
water absorption by partial immersion 2013.
/9/ EN14303, Thermal insulation products for building equipment and industrial installations.
Factory made mineral wool (MW) products. Specification 2015.
/10/ EN14305, Thermal insulation products for building equipment and industrial installations.
Factory made cellular glass (CG) products. Specification 2015.
/11/ HOIS Guidance for insitu inspection of corrosion under insulation (CUI). Oxford: ESR
Technology 2016.
/12/ https://www.esrtechnology.com/index.php/centres-of-excellence/hois.

DNV GL AS
APPENDIX A PROBABILITY OF FAILURE ASSESSMENT MATERIAL
BARRIER
CUI is defined as the external corrosion of piping and vessels that occurs when water gets trapped beneath
insulation. CUI damage takes the form of localized external corrosion in carbon and low alloy steels, /1/, and
as external stress corrosion cracking (ESCC) and pitting in austenitic and duplex stainless steel.
Provided water is present on the metal surface, the temperature on the metal surface is the dominant factor
for the extent of CUI. Contamination from salts and other corrosive chemicals might also affect the corrosion
rates. However, in this context, the temperature in combination with the type of material should be the
factors affecting the probability of CUI for the material barrier.
A guideline for PoFmaterial assessment of carbon steel, austenitic and duplex steels is given below.
A.1 Materials not susceptible to corrosion under insulation

In this guideline, nickel alloys, copper alloys and titanium are not considered susceptible to CUI.
A.2 Probability of failure for carbon steel

The probability of failure due to CUI for carbon steel increases with temperature up to 110°C. At
temperatures above 110°C, the water will evaporate from the material surface and corrosion rates might
decrease if the water is drained and the insulation material does not remain moist. In Figure A1 the
probability of failure is categorised stepwise in different temperature ranges into qualitative PoF categories.
Figure A1 Probability of failure of material barrier (PoFmaterial) as a function of temperature
The different steps of PoFmaterial are based on a compilation of information from acknowledged technical
documents, see DNVGL-RP-G101, /1/, /2/ and industry experience.
When assigning a PoF category, account shall be taken of fluctuations in the temperature, not only as a
function of process changes but also as a function of geometrical layout, including stagnant conditions or
partial insulation. To ensure conservatism when there is fluctuation between two different PoF categories, the
higher category should be used.

DNV GL AS
A.3 Probability of failure for external stress corrosion cracking in
austenitic and duplex steel
The probability of ESCC of austenitic and duplex stainless steel under insulation is considered low if the
operational temperature is in accordance with NORSOK M-001 or ISO 21457 for this type of material. If the
temperature is above these temperature limits, a more thorough evaluation should be performed.
A.4 Probability of failure for pitting corrosion in austenitic and

duplex steel
The probability for pitting corrosion of corrosion resistant steel under insulation is considered relatively
low for coated objects. Industry experience indicates that duplex materials and 6Mo type austenitic steel
materials are not prone to pitting corrosion under insulation.
1
Uncoated CRAs with a low PREN value, (< 24 ), such as 316 austenitic steel, should in general be given a
high probability of degradation of the material barrier in a CUI assessment.
For uncoated CRAs with a high pitting resistance value, such as 6Mo and 25Cr Duplex, CUI is not expected to
be a major concern, but an expert evaluation of this should be performed and documented.
The consequence evaluation of the overall risk assessment for CUI pitting corrosion should incorporate that
pitting corrosion will eventually lead to small holes and small leaks.
A.5 Probability of failure for corrosion resistant alloy systems with

hot dipped galvanized bolts
Insulated systems in CRA material with bolts and nuts in flange connections made of hot dipped galvanized
(HDG) carbon steel should be assessed as for carbon steel, with the flanges as hotspots. In such cases there
might also be a negative effect of potential galvanic corrosion of the bolts. The lifetime of the HDG zinc on
bolts is approximately 5 years shorter than seen in Table B-1.
A.6 Probability of failure at elevated temperatures

At higher temperatures, water vapour can be trapped in the insulation and condense to droplets on the inside
of the jacketing, see Figure A2.
1
The PREN value is calculated based on the following formula: PREN = Cr + 3.3 Mo + 16 N, where Cr, Mo
and N represent the % of Chromium, Molybdenum and Nitrogen respectively.

DNV GL AS
Figure A2 CUI in hot environment /2/
As temperatures rise above 110°C, the probability of failure for the material barrier will decrease due to
vaporisation. However, due to the piping layout, with branched piping experiencing lower temperatures,
and the potential trapping of vapour inside the cladding, the PoFmaterial will never be less than medium at
elevated temperatures, see Figure A1.

DNV GL AS
APPENDIX B PROBABILITY OF FAILURE ASSESSMENT COATING
BARRIER
B.1 Influencing factors

The coating barrier is an important element to reduce the probability of corrosion under insulation. According
to good design, the surface protective coating should always be applied on the metal surface underneath the
insulation during the building phase of the asset. The coating system will degrade depending on different
parameters. This chapter provides guidance on how these different parameters affect the degradation of the
coating and thereby the probability of coating breakdown and failure. The most important factors are:
— type of coating system
— coating age
— quality of the coating application process
— conditions to which the coating is exposed:
— dry or wet condition
— temperature (operating temperature, glass temperature and temperature cycling).
The composition of the electrolyte may be important for the coating breakdown. In this document coating
breakdown is only considering wet condition. Additional increase of chlorides or other elements in electrolyte
giving negative impact on coating lifetime is not considered.
B.2 Type of coating system

There are two main coating categories: organic and inorganic coatings. Examples of organic coatings are
epoxy or polyester based coatings while inorganic coatings can be inorganic copolymer, zinc silicate or
thermally sprayed aluminium (TSA).
Organic coatings used under insulation are recommended to be of an immersion grade as they are less prone
to degradation under wet conditions than those of a non-immersion grade. TSA is regarded as being less
dependent on the water wetting condition, i.e a wet condition will not have a significant negative impact on
the degradation of TSA. Different coating systems and their applications are described in NORSOK M-501 /3/,
NACE SP0198 /4/ and ISO 12944 /5/.
B.3 Coating age

Coating will degrade over time depending on the exposure conditions. Organic coatings applied correctly
can last for 10 years or more before starting to degrade. However, this depends on a range of factors, and
industry experience has examples of coating failure after two years, as well as after 25 years (see [B.5] for
more details). Inorganic coatings, TSA in particular, are expected to last longer. TSA applied in accordance
with best practice may give full protection for more than 25 years under exposure conditions within the
design limits of the TSA system used.
In addition to degradation caused by ageing processes, the coating might also be subjected to mechanical
damage, during operation, in the installation phase, or during regular maintenance.
The criteria for evaluating coating degradation are given in ISO 4628.
B.4 Quality of the coating work

The quality of the coating application process has a strong impact on the coating protection lifetime. It is
important that the surface preparation and coating procedures are qualified and adhered to with respect to
parameters such as:
— humidity, ambient and steel temperatures
— surface pretreatment requirements

DNV GL AS
— film thickness (maximum, minimum and specified)
— maximum and minimum recoating intervals at relevant temperatures
— final curing time at relevant temperatures
— thinners used
— coating repair system, if relevant.
More details on requirements for coating application requirements are found in the NORSOK standard M501.
If the coating is not applied under controlled and correct conditions, it can be fully degraded after just a few
years. It is recommended to have a good quality assurance system in place to ensure the proper quality of
the coating work.
B.5 Coating conditions

The coating system will be exposed to different conditions during the operational phase. In addition to
the quality of the coating work, see [B.4], the most critical factors with respect to lifetime are mechanical
damage, water wetting and temperature impact.
Mechanical damage
Mechanical damage to coating under insulation might be caused by damage during insulation work, damage
from cladding without proper sealing protection in operation, or maintenance activities in general.
Water and moisture impact
Most coating systems tend to degrade faster under wet conditions. Some are designed to be anti-corrosive
under wet conditions, others are designed for immersed conditions. Organic coatings are more disposed to
degradation due to water wetting than metallic coatings. As a rule of thumb, coating systems will have a
longer lifetime in dry conditions, and the assessment model shall also reflect this.
Temperature impact
The operational surface temperature of steel is an essential parameter when choosing the correct coating
system. Good practice when selecting the coating system is to consider both the operating and design
temperature of the equipment. If the operating temperature is outside the temperature range for the coating
system, the PoF for coating shall be set to Very High as default. Increased degradation of organic coatings is
also seen in the higher end of the design temperature range for many systems.
Fluctuation/cycling of temperatures for organic coating systems will also impact the coating lifetime, and the
expected lifetime can be reduced by 5-10 years if cycling implies crossing the glass transition temperature
(Tg) for the specific coating.
B.6 Probability of coating breakdown

Coating breakdown table
The probability of coating breakdown is set as a function of coating type and coating age, see Table B-1.

DNV GL AS
Table B1 Probability of coating breakdown as a function of coating type and age
DNV GL AS
Regarding Table B-1 it should be noted that:
— 3-layer on epoxy primer (zinc free) applied on CS, assessed to be as good as a phenolic epoxy system for
SS under insulation given temp. below 80°C.
— Inorganinc copolymer and/or coatings with an inert multipolymeric matrix has so far proven most capable
in the temperature range above 100°C with only short periods below that temperature.
Table B-1 is based on the following assumptions:

a) The assigned PoF category assumes that coating systems are chosen based on correct exposure
temperatures, and surface treatment and application are executed in compliance with international
standards and supplier's recommendations.
b) The object (vessel/pipe) is subjected to wet conditions.
c) The given probability of coating breakdown categories (VL – VH) should be adjusted for any of the below
conditions:
a) If the operating temperature is outside the coating system's designed temperature interval, the
PoFcoating shall be set to very high (VH).
b) If the application of coating is done with poor quality, the expected lifetime of the coating system
shall be reduced, and the age of the system set equivalent to medium (M), which indicates 5 years
of remaining lifetime (PoFcoating=H). The quality of the work can be at documented and confirmed
through quality control inspections. Until a good application is confirmed, the coating application
should be considered 'poor'.
c) If coating systems are repaired or restored onsite/offshore, the ability to control environmental
conditions, surface preparation and coating application is often poorer than in a shop. Coating
systems applied onsite/offshore are likely to fail after a short time if the parameters listed under
[B.5] are not kept under control. For coating applied in the field with limited control of parameters,
or only mechanical surface preparation, the PoFcoating shall be set to medium after spot-repair.
d) After full refurbishment of the coating, the PoFcoating may be set to '0 years' provided the conditions
during application are controlled and documented to be in accordance with international standards
and supplier's recommendations. In addition, a good quality assurance / quality control system
should be in place.
e) If the probability of water wetting is low or very low, this shall also be reflected in the coating
assessment, which is originally based on wet conditions. The coating lifetime may then be extended
by 5 or 10 years for coatings (moved to the left in Table B-1).
f) Higher temperatures (above 80 °C) tend to reduce the service life of protective coatings, but this
has less effect on inorganic coatings (i.e. TSA or inorganic copolymer) and on systems qualified for
very high temperatures (> 200 °C). Coating use in higher temperature areas should be assessed in
more detail and the lifetime might be reduced by 5–10 years.
g) Fluctuations in temperature can reduce the coating lifetime and shall be addressed specifically
in each case. In general, reducing the lifetime by 5-10 years should be considered if the glass
transition temperature is crossed repeatedly.
Note:
Table B-1 presents generic values and properties for different coating systems. Values and properties might vary a lot for products
defined under the same generic system.
---e-n-d---o-f---n-o-t-e---
B.7 Thermal sprayed aluminium special consideration

The two common TSA coating application methods used in the offshore industry are both wire fed
techniques: twin wire arc (arc spray) and combustion wire fed (flame spray). TSA arc spray provides very
good adhesion to the steel substrate and has high production rates, especially for high volume coating work
in workshops. TSA flame spray does not achieve as good adhesion to the steel substrate as arc spray, but
better mobility makes the method more suitable for on-site work. Two other, more specialized, methods are
high velocity oxygen fuel (HVOF) and plasma spray. These techniques can provide quality coatings that are

DNV GL AS
as good as, or better than, quality coatings than arc spray but are more expensive and have lower efficiency
and mobility.
TSA is considered a very good protection for CUI but has certain limitations:
— It is recommended to only use TSA in environments where the pH is in the range 4.5 to 8.5.
— The application of TSA at field joints might be of poor quality or other coating systems might have been
used at field joints, i.e. field joints may be considered hot-spots on TSA coated objects.
— TSA application during the in-service phase is challenging and under some legislations or safety regimes
not possible.
— It is imortant that the applied TSA has a sealer and thickness above 200 microns in order to be able to
use the suggested coating brakedown data in Table B-1.
— Any areas with overlap of a polymer coating (not zinc based) to TSA will reduce the life time expectancy
to 0-5 years. There shall be no addtional organic coating on the TSA in order to be able to use the
suggested coating brakedown data in Table B-1.
B.8 Breakdown of undocumented coating systems

An assessment of the probability of coating breakdown for an unknown coating system shall include onsite
documentation of the condition and a more detailed assessment by a coating specialist to predict when
degradation can be expected.

DNV GL AS
APPENDIX C PROBABILITY OF FAILURE ASSESSMENT WATER
WETTING BARRIER
C.1 Influencing factors

CUI will only occur when water or moisture is present on the steel surface. The probability of water wetting
relates to several parameters that can be divided into two main elements: water exposure and quality of
workmanship for insulation and cladding.
Water exposure:
— location
— operating temperature above/below dew point
— design of waterproofing (cladding). The insulation design may also include a water/vapour barrier that
improves waterproofing in addition to the outer cladding
— type of insulation material and drainage efficiency.
Workmanship:
— work performed in accordance with specification/best practice
— inspection and maintenance routines.
C.2 Decision logic

The probability of water wetting is assessed in a flow-chart methodology in two independent decision lines
which are set into a matrix at the end to determine the water wetting probability. The two lines are 'water
exposure' and 'workmanship'.
PoFwater wetting = f(water exposure, workmanship)
C.3 Water exposure

Objects that may be subjected to water or moisture shall be evaluated into five probabilities for water
exposure categories ranging from very low to very high. The decision criteria are:
— location
— probability of water entering the insulation (cladding solution)
— probability of water being retained in the insulation (insulation solution and drainage).
The decision logic for placing water exposure into different probability categories is seen in Figure C1.

DNV GL AS
Figure C1 Decision logic for probability of water exposure
C.3.1 Location
This criterion is divided into two categories:
1) Exposed to water:
a) outdoor in geographic area subjected to rain, sea spray or regular deluge testing
b) indoor or outdoor subjected to regular deluge testing, mist or other sources of water
c) process system with temperature below dewpoint.
2) Not exposed to water:
a) this is a dry area with no probable water sources and above dewpoint temperature.
C.3.2 Cladding solution

This criterion addresses the cladding solution and its waterproofing capabilities, divided into three categories.

DNV GL AS
Poor design of cladding:
— Cladding solutions that are not referenced in applicable standards and have proven to have low capacity
for water proofing in practical use.
Normal design of cladding:

— Applicable to systems and plants designed in accordance with used reference standards or standard
practices, such as NORSOK R-004 /7/ and NACE SP0198 /4/, and test methods or specifications such as,
EN 1609 /8/, EN 14303 /9/, and EN 14305 /10/. In short, it applies to cladding in 316 with use of sealer
or similar system.
Premium design of cladding:

— This will be applicable to special cladding solutions that have proven to be waterproof under extreme
conditions.
Table C-1 describes the waterproofing capabilities of different types of cladding solutions.
Table C1 Waterproofing for different cladding solutions
Cladding solution Waterproofing Comment
Poor Normal Premium
Double waterproofing - e.g. The investment in double waterproofing has

PVC tape with sealed metal X proven efficient in harsh conditions.
cladding outside
GRE/GRP cladding with The GRE/GRP cladding is less exposed to

1) X
sealing mechanical damages.
SS 316 (301/302) cladding Standard solution with a proven demand for

2) X
with sealing sealing maintenance.
Flexible polymeric cladding Good resistance to UV and harsh

X environments but is exposed to mechanical
damage.
Aluminium cladding This solution has proven less capable of

X
water proofing over time.
Singel cladding with PVC This solution is challenged by decomposition

3)
tape in harsh environment and UV-degrading.
X (X)
Can be considered somewhat better if no
exposure to harsh a environment and UV.
Box solutions (valves and This might encompass different solutions

flanges) and consist of different materials (GRP,
stainless steel, etc.) and solution SS has
X X
proven less capable of waterproofing over
time while GRP might be considered water
proof. Expert evaluation required.
Jacket solutions This solution is not intended for

X waterproofing due to fitting and refitting
challenges.

DNV GL AS
Cladding solution Waterproofing Comment
Poor Normal Premium
Note:
1) GRE cladding is recommended to be coated to prevent the breakdown of GRE caused by UV exposure.
2) SS 316 (301/302) cladding without sealing will have poor waterproofing properties.
3) Single cladding with PVC tape less than 10 years old can have normal waterproofing properties.
Insulation cladding is multifunctional where mechanical protection and weatherproofing are as important
as the improved waterproofing. Weatherproofing reduces exposure to water, and also protects organic
materials underneath the insulation from sunlight (UV radiation) degradation. Both mechanical protection
and weatherproofing will improve the waterproofing of the insulation system, but sealing of joints/openings is
also important to achieve acceptable waterproofing.
Guidance note:
An independent QA/QC system should be enforced to follow up and ensure that the expected waterproofing properties are
achieved.
C.4 Insulation solution and drainage

This criterion addresses the type of insulation solution and its ability to prevent water from remaining at
the metal surface. Insulation solutions which include a water/vapour barrier can mitigate the effect of water
absorbent materials and condensation.
Water retaining insulation solution:
— When water enters the insulation, it is likely to stay so that the insulation is considered as to be
continuously wet. This type of insulation includes all use of water absorbent insulation materials
mounted so as to have direct contact with the pipe/vessel surface and all solutions where the drainage is
insufficient..
Non-water retaining insulation solutions or good drainage:
— This type of insulation includes use of non-water absorbent insulation materials, or where the water
drainage shall be sufficient to ensure that water does not accumulate inside the outer cladding or between
the insulation material and the steel surface.
Non-water retaining insulation solution and good drainage:
— This type of insulation includes use of non-water absorbent insulation materials mounted with a drainage
system sufficient to ensure that water does not accumulate inside the outer cladding or between the
insulation material and the steel surface. Table C-2 describes the water absorbent properties of several
types of insulation materials.
Table C2 Water absorbent properties of typical insulation materials
Insulation material type Temperature Water Comment

range °C absorbent
material
Calcium silicate (type I) 65 650 Yes Water absorbent and drainage is not very effective.
Calcium silicate (type II) 650 980 Yes Water absorbent and drainage is not very effective.
Perlite 65 650 Yes Water absorbent and drainage is not very effective.
Mineral wool 20 650 Yes Water absorbent and drainage is not effective.

DNV GL AS
Insulation material type Temperature Water Comment
range °C absorbent
material
Fiber glass 65 480 Yes Water absorbent and drainage is not effective.
Hydrophobic 65 760 Yes Water absorbent and drainage is not very effective.
microporous blanket
Needled Eglass 65 650 Yes Water absorbent and drainage is not effective.
Cellular glass 270 480 No Closed cells - not water retaining. Water can be trapped if
wrong mounting and lack of drainage from cladding.
1) 2)
Silica aerogel (type I) 270 120 Yes Water absorbent and drainage is not very effective.
2)
Silica aerogel (type III) 65 675 Yes Water absorbent and drainage is not very effective.
1)
Polyisocyanurate (PUR/ 185 175 No Closed cells - not water retaining. Water can be trapped if
PIR foam) wrong mounting and lack of drainage from cladding.
Phenolic foam 155 150 No Closed cells - not water retaining. Water can be trapped if
wrong mounting and lack of drainage from cladding.
1) Some types of aerogel contain alkaline corrosion inhibitor that can represent a threat to TSA.
2) Aerogel is defined as water absorbent (ASTM C1728), but tests by the industry have proven that water retention is
less than 8% for some products.
General comments to the interpretation of the contents of Table C-2:

— None of the insulation solutions described here will prevent water from coming into contact with the
steel surface due to condensation or leakage at damaged areas in the insulation cladding and insulation
material. Non-water retaining insulation solutions combined with efficient drainage will mitigate the CUI
caused by water ingress at damaged areas. However, water due to condensation might not be drained
efficiently.
— Water wetting properties for water absorbent insulation materials may to some extent be mitigated by
spacing solutions and efficient drainage.
— A water repellent mineral fibrous material may be chemically treated to give water repellent properties
(which protects the fibres from degradation by moisture) but will still retain water in the bulk insulation if
not properly drained.
— Calcium silicate is hygroscopic and water will be absorbed (retained) into the insulation material – there
will be water retention without the possibility of drainage.
Note:
Table C-2 is presenting generic values and properties for different insulation materials types, but values and properties might vary
considerably over products defined under the same generic type.
---e-n-d---o-f---n-o-t-e---
C.5 Complexity
The water wetting PoF may be affected by the complexity of the insulated equipment or system. As an
option, complexity can be added to the water exposure evaluation. A potential way of implementing such
additional criteria may be to adjust the water exposure one PoF category higher for complex systems/pipes
and one category lower for less complex (straight) pipes.
To differentiate complexity categories, the number of elements such as change of direction and/or change
of dimension, supports and branch connections may be used. Complexity shall reflect the number of weak
points for water ingress through the cladding.

DNV GL AS
C.6 Workmanship
Insulated objects shall be sorted into three categories, ranging from low to high probability of a breach of
waterproofing, based on the workmanship of the insulation and cladding work and the follow-up regime for
QA/QC of insulation and cladding. The decision criteria are:
1) Work performed in accordance with specification and best industry practice.
2) Inspection and maintenance programme.
3) Time since installation of insulation solution.
Based on the different responses, the decision logic is given in Figure C2.
Figure C2 Decision logic for probability of breach of waterproofing as a function of maintenance
and workmanship
C.6.1 Performed insulation work

Based on good quality control or inspection during operation, the actually performed insulation work
and present condition shall be assessed as good or poor. 'Good' will be applicable if the work has been
performed in accordance with good industry practice, monitored by personnel certified under FROSIO or
a similar institution and confirmed to be in good condition with well performed sealing of the cladding by
a field inspection and site assessment. In such case, the workmanship shall be further assessed based on
maintenance routines and the time that has elapsed since insulation work was performed.
If not in accordance with good industry practice, or inspected and assessed to be not waterproof, then the
workmanship shall be set to 'poor'.

DNV GL AS
C.6.2 Inspection and maintenance routines
The inspection and maintenance routines can be sorted into three categories:
No inspection and maintenance programme:
no plans for inspection and maintenance during the next 8 years.
Weak inspection and maintenance programme:
— Damaged (leaking) waterproofing will not be detected within 4 years after the damage. An example of
an inspection program can be a general visual inspection every two years or close visual inspection of
cladding every 4 years. It is assumed that damaged waterproofing is repaired as it is revealed. Repair in
this context means removing of all wet/humid insulation and replacing it with new insulation and cladding
of the same or better quality as the previous one.
Strong inspection and maintenance programme:

— Damaged waterproofing will be detected and repaired within 4 years after damage. An example of an
inspection programme can be a general visual inspection every 2 years combined with a close visual
inspection of cladding every 4 years. It is assumed that damaged waterproofing is repaired as it is
revealed. Repair in this context means removing wet/humid insulation and replacing it with new insulation
and cladding of the same or better quality as the previous one.
C.6.3 Time since insulation work was performed

If no inspection and maintenance programme exists, the insulation work shall be assessed based on age.
When no maintenance scheme is in place, the insulation and cladding work should be considered 'poor' 4
years after installation of new insulation.
C.7 Probability of water wetting

To obtain the final water wetting probability, the results of water exposure, see [C.3], and workmanship,
see [C.5], are combined into a PoFwatter wetting matrix. There will also be some values entered directly into
the matrix based on no possibility of water (very low PoF), or an operational temperature below dew-point
temperature (very high PoF), see also [C.3].
The final water wetting PoF can be determined from the PoF matrix in Table C-3.
Table C3 PoF matrix for water wetting

DNV GL AS
APPENDIX D PROBABILITY OF FAILURE ASSESSMENT DESIGN
BARRIER
The probability of loss of containment due to CUI will depend on the layout of the object and the wall
thickness of the pipe/vessel.
Statistics from the oil and gas industry indicate that a major part of the CUI leaks on piping are on small
bore pipes with a diameter of less than 4", and this is further backed-up by the knowledge that small-bore
piping will be more difficult to insulate and coat with the correct quality. Small-diameter piping also tends to
have a thinner wall thickness. A high PoFdesign is assigned to equipment with a nominal wall thickness of less
than 8 mm or piping with less than 4" outer diameter.
Based on this knowledge, small-bore and thin-walled piping should be given extra attention. This is reflected
as high or low in Table D-1.

DNV GL AS
Table D1 PoFdesign divided into high or low as a function of pipe schedule and diameter
NDT is often used to confirm the wall thickness. An NDT inspection can be used to further detail PoF for the
design barrier. The detailing of the design barrier based on the schedule and inspection results is given in
Figure D1.

DNV GL AS
Figure D1 Decision logic for design barrier
The following assumptions shall apply for the NDT inspection:

— NDT method: the method used is capable of detecting 15% wall loss on 50 mm x 50 mm area with 0.8
PoD.
— NDT extent: inspected objects with no findings shall be placed in 'No NDT finding 0-3 y ago' for thick wall
pipes (schedule low PoF) while into 'No NDT finding 0-2 y ago' for thin wall piping (schedule high PoF).
— Representative selection equals more than 50% of hot-spots.
— NDT extent: provided that the performed work may be considered a representative selection. Then the
non-inspected objects including hot-spots may be placed in
'No NDT finding 3-6 y ago' category for thick wall pipes (schedule low PoF) and into 'No NDT findings 4-6 y
ago' for thin wall piping (schedule high PoF).
— 100% of hot-spots shall be inspected within a 6-year period.
More details on NDT and how it can mitigate the risk, are found in Sec.4.

DNV GL AS
APPENDIX E PROBABILITY OF FAILURE GUIDANCE ON INPUT
DATA
This appendix summarizes what data to collect and the quality impact of these data on all four barriers
applicable for CUI.
Guidance and the data types to be collected for PoF assessment is found in Table E-1.
Table E1 Input data guidance
Data type Data Material Coating Water Design Comment

format barrier barrier wetting barrier
barrier
Line tag no. Line list X X X X
CUI corr. loop Alfa To be used when applying inspection

numeric X X X X results to a larger group.
code
Material type CRA or SS X
Operational °C
X X X
temp.
Temp. Δ °C
X X
fluctuation
Coating type Syst. acc.

to NACE or X
NORSOK
Coating year Year X
Coating Confirmed
application good,
X
quality Unknown
or poor
Tg of coating °C Glass transition temperature,

will be individual for different
X
coating systems, relevant for temp.
fluctuations.
Water Exposed/ Outdoor exposed to rain or exposed to

exposure not X mist/deluge.
(location) exposed
Dew point °C
dependent
on X
geographic
location
Cladding type Premium, See coating chapter for definition.

normal or X
poor

DNV GL AS
Data type Data Material Coating Water Design Comment
format barrier barrier wetting barrier
barrier
Insulation Water
type retaining
or water
X
repellent/
good
drainage
Quality of Confirmed Guideline in water wetting chapter.

workmanship good,
insulation/ Unknown X
cladding (CVI/ or poor
GVI)
Inspection None, weak Guideline in water wetting chapter.

and or strong
X
maintenance
routines
Age of Years Present year subtracted from year of

X X
insulation insulation.
Wall thickness mm X From schedule table.
Pipe diameter Inch X From schedule table or line tag.
Inspection Inspection From inspection data base.

history (NDT) extent and X
results

DNV GL AS
APPENDIX F SUSCEPTIBLE AREAS FOR CORROSION UNDER
INSULATION
F.1 Hotspot for corrosion under insulation

In the mitigation process, it is considered helpful to inspect locations that are more subjected to CUI than
others due to layout or local conditions. In this document, these locations are named 'hot-spots' and this
should not to be mistaken for high temperature locations. API 583 uses the term 'susceptible areas', which
has a similar meaning to 'hotspot' in this document.
The results of hotspot inspections can, under certain conditions, represent locations that are not inspected.
This is because it can be expected that other 'not inspected, not hotspot' locations are in a better condition.
In this context a 'location that is not inspected' shall have similar characteristics with respect to material,
temperature, coating, insulation design solutions, and similar degradation is expected. 'Locations that are
not inspected' can be the same tag or a group of tags. This approach is similar to NDT on selected inspection
points to reveal degradation in corrosion circuits.
For use of hot-spots to represent a larger area, there should be a balance in the type and extent of the hot-
spots and type and extent of the total area.
F.2 Hotspot related to specific corrosion under insulation barriers

To mitigate a risk, it might be useful to use hot-spots relevant to the actual PoF factor leading to
unacceptable risk. In Table F-1, the most relevant hot-spots have been listed and linked to the relevant CUI
barrier element.
Table F1 List of hotspots and their relevance to the different CUI barriers
Hot-spot Material Coating Water Design Other

barrier barrier wetting barrier
barrier
Field joints X X
Complex geometries X X X
Penetration to cladding/weatherproofing X X X
Areas with restricted availability for coating

X X
application, i.e. deck penetrations or under supports
CS bolts and nuts in SS systems X X
Damaged cladding or degraded water proofing Area with

potential
X to receive
water from
damage
Branch connections with temperature in higher PoF

X X
area than main pipe.
Areas subjected to excessive water exposure X X
Vessel insulation support rings and other elements

X X
that trap water
Branch connections X X X
Steam heat tracing X X

DNV GL AS
For a more extensive list of hot-spots, see chapter 5 of API 583 /1/ or chapter 5 of EFC no. 55 /2/.
Guidance note:
It is recommended to remove or avoid insulation in hot-spot areas.
F.3 Deck and wall penetrations

The PoF for CUI in deck and wall penetrations is historically assessed to be high across the industry. It is
recommended to identify penetrations, assess conditions individually, and set up a verification scheme
to confirm acceptable conditions throughout the lifetime. Penetrations are a CUI hot-spot but cannot be
represented by any of the other typical hot-spots for CUI.
F.4 Corrosion under pipe supports

Although not covered by insulation, corrosion under pipe support (CUPS) might suffer from similar challenges
as CUI as this degradation mechanism is difficult to access and relates to the same 4 barriers. Additional
challenge with CUPS is the potential fretting on coating when there are movement between pipes and
supports. Methodology described in this document may also be applied for risk management of CUPS
although not initially built for the purpose.
F.5 Grouping of objects for mitigation purposes

Hot-spots may be used on one object to assess the status of that object. To obtain information on a group of
objects, similar objects may be grouped, and all or some of the hot-spots for the entire group inspected. The
retrieved information may then be used for the entire group.
When objects are grouped together to assess and mitigate risk, there are several requirements that shall be
met:
1) The PoF assessment shall always be performed at the most detailed level and results applied for the
group shall be retrieved from the object with the highest probability of failure.
2) Each object in the group shall be assessed separately, although new information from one object may be
used in the assessment of several objects.
3) The use of information gained from the inspection of one object for another not inspected object shall
rely on the extent and quality of inspection performed.
4) Objects that are not inspected shall have similar characteristics with respect to material, temperature,
coating and insulation, solutions, and similar degradation is expected.
5) Objects in the same group shall have the same location and similar water exposure.
6) There shall be a balance in the type and extent of inspected hot-spots and type and extent of the total
area.

DNV GL AS
CHANGES – HISTORIC
Changes – historic
There are currently no historical changes for this document.

DNV GL AS
About DNV GL
DNV GL is a global quality assurance and risk management company. Driven by our purpose of
safeguarding life, property and the environment, we enable our customers to advance the safety
and sustainability of their business. We provide classification, technical assurance, software and
independent expert advisory services to the maritime, oil & gas, power and renewables industries.
We also provide certification, supply chain and data management services to customers across a
wide range of industries. Operating in more than 100 countries, our experts are dedicated to helping
customers make the world safer, smarter and greener.
SAFER, SMARTER, GREENER

Risk Based Management of Corrosion Under Insulation

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Risk Based Management of Corrosion Under Insulation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

RECOMMENDED PRACTICE

DNVGL-RP-G109 Edition December 2019

Risk based management of corrosion under

DNV GL recommended practices contain sound engineering practice and guidance.

© DNV GL AS December 2019

Any comments may be sent by e-mail to rules@dnvgl.com

Recommended practice — DNVGL-RP-G109. Edition December 2019 Page 3

Section 2 Risk based approach............................................................................. 12

Section 3 Qualitative corrosion under insulation risk assessment.........................16

Section 4 Risk mitigation...................................................................................... 19

Section 5 Corrosion under insulation risk management........................................ 25

Section 6 Continuous improvement.......................................................................26

Recommended practice — DNVGL-RP-G109. Edition December 2019 Page 4

Appendix A Probability of failure assessment ­ material barrier........................... 29

Appendix B Probability of failure assessment ­ coating barrier.............................32

Appendix C Probability of failure assessment ­ water wetting barrier...................37

Appendix D Probability of failure assessment ­ design barrier..............................44

Recommended practice — DNVGL-RP-G109. Edition December 2019 Page 5

Appendix F Susceptible areas for corrosion under insulation................................ 49

Recommended practice — DNVGL-RP-G109. Edition December 2019 Page 6

Figure 1­1 CUI management based on a four­phased PDCA approach

Recommended practice — DNVGL-RP-G109. Edition December 2019 Page 7

1.4 Application and limitations

Recommended practice — DNVGL-RP-G109. Edition December 2019 Page 8

Document code Title

DNVGL-RP-G101 Risk based inspection of offshore topsides static mechanical equipment

1.6 Definitions and abbreviations

1.6.1 Definition of verbal forms

1.6.2 Definition of terms

Recommended practice — DNVGL-RP-G109. Edition December 2019 Page 9

CUI corrosion under insulation

CoF consequence of failure

CRA corrosion resistant alloys

CUPS corrosion under pipe supports

CVI close visual inspection

ESCC external stress corrosion cracking

gPIMS guided wave pipe monitoring system

GVI general visual inspection

GWT guided wave technique

HDG hot dipped galvanized

HVOF high velocity oxygen fuel

I&M inspection & maintenance

ICT information and communication technology

IE inspection effectiveness, the product of PoD and inspection extent (%)

LoF likelihood of failure, same as PoF

Recommended practice — DNVGL-RP-G109. Edition December 2019 Page 10

NDT non-destructive testing

PEC pulsed Eddy current

PoD probability of detection

PoF probability of failure, same as LoF

PREN pitting resistance equivalent number

RBI risk based inspection

Tg glass transition temperature

TSA thermally sprayed aluminium

TSZ thermally sprayed zinc

Recommended practice — DNVGL-RP-G109. Edition December 2019 Page 11

2.1 Corrosion under insulation risk management strategy

2.2 Introduction to the risk based approach

Figure 2­1 Elements of risk management

Recommended practice — DNVGL-RP-G109. Edition December 2019 Page 12

2.3 Risk concept

2.4 Corrosion under insulation barriers

Recommended practice — DNVGL-RP-G109. Edition December 2019 Page 13

Appendix A Probability of failure assessment material barrier........................... 29

Appendix B Probability of failure assessment coating barrier.............................32

Appendix C Probability of failure assessment water wetting barrier...................37

Appendix D Probability of failure assessment design barrier..............................44

Figure 11 CUI management based on a fourphased PDCA approach

Figure 21 Elements of risk management

Table 31 Quantitative numbers for different qualitative PoF values

4.3.3.2 Nondestructive testing findings

Figure A1 Probability of failure of material barrier (PoFmaterial) as a function of temperature