CORROSION ENGINEERING SECTION
Predictive Model for Pitting Corrosion in Buried Oil
and Gas Pipelines
J.C. Velázquez,* F. Caleyo,‡,* A. Valor,** and J.M. Hallen*
ABSTRACT
A predictive model for pitting corrosion in buried pipelines
is proposed. The model takes into consideration the chemi-
cal and physical properties of the soil and pipe to predict
the time dependence of pitting depth and rate. Maximum pit
depths were collected together with soil and pipe data at more
than 250 excavation sites over a three-year period. The time
dependence of the maximum pit depth was modeled as dmax
= κ(t − t0)ν, where t is the exposure time, t0 is the pit initiation
time, and κ and ν are the pitting proportionality and exponent
parameters, respectively. A multivariate regression analysis
was conducted with dmax as the dependent variable and the
pipeline age, and the soil and pipe properties as the indepen-
dent variables. The dependence of κ and ν on the predictor
variables was found for the three soil textural classes identi-
fied in this study: clay, clay loam, and sandy clay loam. The
proportionality parameter κ was found to be primarily influ-
enced by the redox potential, pH value, soil resistivity, and the
dissolved ion concentrations. In contrast, the pitting exponent
ν was found to be influenced mainly by the pipe-to-soil poten-
tial, water content, bulk density, and the pipe coating type. A
real-life pipeline integrity assessment is used as a case study
to illustrate the application of the proposed model and to show
how it can have a positive impact on integrity management
programs.
KEY WORDS: corrosion, modeling, pipelines, pitting, soils
Submitted for publication July 2008; in revised form, December
2008.
‡
Corresponding author. E-mail: fcaleyo@gmail.com.
* Departamento de Ingeniería Metalúrgica, ESIQIE, IPN, UPALM
Edif. 7, Zacatenco, México D.F. 07738.
** Facultad de Física, Universidad de La Habana, San Lázaro y L,
Vedado, 10400, La Habana, Cuba.
ISSN 0010-9312 (print), 1938-159X (online)
332 09/000057/$5.00+$0.50/0 © 2009, NACE International
INTRODUCTION
Pitting is recognized as the most severe type of corro-
sion because of the high rate at which pits can grow
in pressure vessels and pipelines. Statistical stud-
ies have shown that failures in underground oil and
gas pipelines in Mexico are most likely due to leak-
age caused by external pitting corrosion.1 In practice,
this failure mechanism is extremely difficult to model
on the basis of electrochemical reactions. Therefore,
predictive models for pit growth on underground steel
pipelines have been developed mainly using statistical
approaches instead of electrochemical principles.2-9
The statistical approaches available in the litera-
ture for modeling pitting corrosion use maximum pit
depth as the dependent corrosion variable and envi-
ronmental factors as the independent variables.3,7-9
Thus, the three essential elements for developing a
statistical pit growth model are the law governing the
time dependence of maximum pit depth, the data col-
lected on environmental factors, and the mathemati-
cal model used to correlate the measured pit depth to
these factors.
The generally accepted form of the dependence
of maximum pit depth, dmax, on exposure time, t, was
originally developed by Romanoff,10 who, based on
corrosion data for the long-term (17-year) corrosion of
buried ferrous pipes in a range of soils, proposed that:
ν
d ma x = κt (1)
max
where κ and ν are constant regression parameters.
From this equation, the influence of soil characteris-
CORROSION—MAY 2009

tics on pit growth can be taken into consideration by
using different model parameters from one soil envi-
ronment to another. Values of ν ranging from 0.33 to
0.70 have been reported elsewhere.4-5,10
Based on Romanoff’s data, Mughabghab and
Sullivan3 investigated the dependence of κ and ν on
the soil properties for carbon steels. A linear correla-
tion analysis of κ as a function of soil pH and resistiv-
ity revealed that this parameter is influenced primarily
by the pH value of the soil. Also, a linear correlation
analysis revealed that the exponent parameter is
determined primarily by the moisture and the clay
fraction of the soil. The authors concluded that κ and
ν are essentially identical for carbon steel, wrought
iron, and open-hearth steel, and that soil environment
determines the amount of corrosion. The roles of other
soil and pipe characteristics that signifycantly impact
pit growth, such as soil resistivity, were found to be
relatively unimportant. Some factors were not consid-
ered, specifically dissolved chloride concentration,
redox potential, and pipe coating.
Soil texture(1) is one of the first factors to be con-
sidered during corrosion surveys because it deter-
mines the degree of aeration and the permeability of
the soil.11 In this regard, Oguzie, et al.,9 recently have
analyzed how soil texture influences pitting corrosion
of buried steel coupons in a range of soil textures.
Using weight-loss analysis through corrosion prod-
uct count techniques, these authors concluded that
the order of corrosiveness is clay > loam > sand. Their
work, however, does not provide any empirical model
for relating soil texture to pit growth.
Katano, et al.,8 performed a multivariate regres-
sion analysis of pitting depth on soil characteristics
for underground cast iron pipes. Approximately 880
samples of maximum pit depth and environmental
factors were collected at exposed cast iron pipe sec-
tions from five areas in Japan, and an extensive spec-
trum of soil variables was considered (see Table 1 in
Reference 8). An empirical prediction formula of pit-
ting depth was proposed based on the power law
model of Equation (1). The parameter κ was expressed
as a function of the soil characteristics, while ν was
assumed to be a constant regression parameter. The
predictor variables for maximum pitting depth were
proposed to be the soil type, land condition, soil resis-
tivity, pH, redox potential, sulfide content, and expo-
sure time.
Despite the significant contribution by Katano
and coworkers, some issues relevant to pitting cor-
rosion of buried pipelines still remain and should be
properly addressed. Of these, one of the most impor-
tant unaddressed questions is the influence of the
(1)
Throughout this work, the term “soil texture” is used to indicate
the mineral content of the soil based on a weight ratio of the three
soil separates: sand, silt, and clay.11 The terms “soil type,” “soil
category,” and “soil class” are indistinctly used to refer to soil tex-
tural class.
CORROSION—Vol. 65, No. 5
CORROSION ENGINEERING SECTION
pipe coating and pipe-to-soil potential (natural or
imposed by the cathodic protection) on this damage
mechanism. The possible influences of the soil and
pipe characteristics on the pitting initiation time and
on the pitting exponent also have not been investi-
gated.
The motivation for the present study is the need
for a more complete and accurate predictive model for
pit growth on buried oil and gas pipelines. The goal is
to propose an empirical prediction formula of maxi-
mum pitting depth using soil and pipe variables. More
than 250 maximum pit depths have been measured,
together with the respective soil and pipe data, at
exposed pipeline segments in southern Mexico. Equa-
tion (2) defines the maximum pit depth model used in
this work:
ν
d ma
maxx = κ(t – t 0 ) (2)
This model differs from that of Equation (1) in the
use of the pit initiation time, t0, which is treated as an
unknown parameter to be determined as part of the
analysis. A multivariate regression analysis was per-
formed with dmax as the dependent variable and the
exposure time, and the soil and pipe characteristics
as the independent variables. In contrast to previous
studies, the prediction model obtained in this work
reflects the particular influence that these predictor
variables exert on both the pitting proportionality (κ)
and exponent (ν) parameters. Also, besides the com-
mon prediction formula derived for all the collected
samples, a predictive model was obtained for each
one of the three soil textural classes identified in this
study: clay, clay loam, and sandy clay loam.
A real-life integrity assessment is used as a case
study to show that the proposed model predicts pit
growth more accurately than the linear growth model
commonly used in pipeline integrity analyses. This
improvement is expected to have a positive impact
on integrity management plans addressing the threat
posed by external pitting corrosion in buried pipelines.
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
A total of 259 samples of the soil and pipeline
variables shown in Table 1 were obtained at dig sites
over a three-year period, for onshore buried pipelines
operating in southern Mexico. Any corrosion-caused
metal loss with a diameter equal to or less than two
times the pipe wall thickness was assumed to be pit-
ting. The maximum pit depth in each exposed pipeline
segment was measured using a micrometer pit depth
gauge attached to a bridging bar. Soil properties like
redox potential, pH, pipe-to-soil potential, and soil
resistivity were obtained by in situ measurements.
Soil samples taken from the pipe ditch were brought
to the laboratory to be analyzed for texture, water
content, bulk density, and dissolved chloride, bicar-
333
CORROSION ENGINEERING SECTION

table 1
Investigated Soil and Pipe Characteristics
Measured Variable Symbol Unit        Instrument or Method
Maximum pit depth dmax mm Micrometer pit gauge
Exposure time t years Operating records
Redox potential rp mV ORP meter
pH ph — pH meter
Pipe-to-soil potential pp mV Cu/CuSO4 electrode
Soil resistivity re Ω·m Wenner method (ASTM G57-06)12
Water content wc % Thermogravimetric balance (ASTM D2216-05)13
Soil bulk density bd g/mL ASTM 512G Bouyoucos hydrometer (ASTM D422-63[2007])14
Chloride content cc ppm Titration (ASTM D512-04)15
Bicarbonate content bc ppm Titration (ASTM D1126-02[2007]e1)16
Sulfate content sc ppm Spectrophotometry (ASTM D516-07)17
Coating type ct — Direct observation

Table 2
Non-Parametric Description of the Measured Variables
All Data Clay Sandy Clay Loam Clay Loam
Variable Mean Cov.(A) Min. Max. Mean Cov. Min. Max. Mean Cov. Min. Max. Mean Cov. Min. Max.
dmax 2.02 1.02 0.41 13.4 2.34 0.88 0.41 8.56 1.25 0.80 0.41 5.87 2.03 1.01 0.41 10.4
t 22.9 0.40 5.0 50.0 24.4 0.35 6.0 50.0 18.9 0.36 5.0 39.0 24.6 0.43 5.0 50.0
rp 167 0.51 2.14 348 177 0.50 2.14 348 169 0.56 20 339 158 0.44 19 301
pH 6.13 0.15 4.14 9.88 5.93 0.16 4.14 9.88 6.24 0.13 4.48 7.80 6.34 0.14 4.85 9.36
pp –0.88 0.27 –1.97 –0.42 –0.86 0.28 –1.95 –0.42 –0.95 0.23 –1.97 –0.65 –0.82 0.25 –1.53 –0.47
re 50.2 1.11 1.91 399 61.1 1.07 3.81 399 49.2 0.99 4.26 243 28.2 0.83 1.91 113
wc 23.9 0.27 8.7 66.0 24.0 0.28 8.7 57.5 22.4 0.25 11.3 38.5 24.7 0.21 15.2 37.2
bd 1.30 0.07 1.10 1.56 1.23 0.04 1.11 1.36 1.40 0.04 1.30 1.55 1.32 0.02 1.25 1.38
cc 47.7 1.57 0.0 672 53.1 1.28 6.6 351 21.8 1.08 3.2 185 44.6 1.20 3.5 290
bc 19.6 1.29 0.0 195 19.2 1.31 3.91 156 13.7 0.44 5.1 30.0 22.8 1.03 0.0 104
sc 153 1.10 0.0 1,370 129 0.87 0.0 698 143 0.69 14.9 452 205 1.23 11.3 1,370
ct 0.77 0.17 0.30 1.00 0.77 1.13 0.30 1.00 0.77 0.21 0.30 1.00 0.77 0.17 0.30 1.00
(A)
Absolute value of the covariance.

bonate, and sulfate ion concentrations. In Table 1, the
instruments or methods used to measure the soil and
pipe variables are listed. The pipeline age and coating
type were also recorded. A scoring model was used to
account for the influence of the pipe coating type on
pit growth.
The collected soil samples were categorized first
into the textural classes used by the U.S. Department
of Agriculture (USDA, Washington, DC). The soil tex-
ture was defined on the basis of the weight ratio of
the three soil separates: sand, silt, and clay.11 The
mineral content of the soil was determined using the
Bouyoucos hydrometer method (ASTM 152H hydrom-
eter).14 All subsequent analyses were conducted for
each soil category and for a generic category that
included all collected samples. Standard exploratory
statistical methods were used to analyze the distribu-
tion of the measured variables, determine the pres-
ence of outliers, and examine the correlation between
the variables. Multivariate regression analyses were
conducted based on the model of Equation (2), using
the computer statistical software Statistical Pack-
age for Social Sciences (SPSS†).18 The pitting param-
†
Trade name.
eters κ and ν were treated as a linear combination of
the soil and pipe characteristics under the constraint
that each predictor variable could only be associated
with one of the parameters. The best regression model
was chosen on the basis of the value of the (multiple
regression) correlation coefficient, R,18 taking care to
keep a consistent model for all soil categories.
RESULTS
Data Analysis
Soil Categorization — The soil categories identified
from the collected samples were:
—clay (110 samples)
—sandy clay loam (79 samples)
—clay loam (61 samples)
—silty clay loam (6 samples)
—silty clay (2 samples)
—silt loam (1 sample)
A non-parametric description of the considered vari-
ables is shown in Table 2 for all observed samples (All)
and for the clay (C), sandy clay loam (SCL), and clay
loam (CL) samples. These were the only categories
with a large enough number of samples to ensure sta-
tistical significance.

334 CORROSION—MAY 2009

 CORROSION ENGINEERING SECTION

From the mean values of the variables given

in Table 2, it can be inferred that the investigated
pipeline population has suffered from long-term
(~23 years) exposure to moderately corrosive envi-
ronments. Although the soils under investigation are
types of clay, the moderated potential for corrosive-
ness can be assumed based on the fact that, on aver-
age, the population has been exposed to weakly acidic
soil environments with a relatively high resistivity
(~5,000 Ω·cm), a redox potential above 100 mV, and a
pipe-to-soil potential (natural or imposed) close to the
optimum level of cathodic protection.11,19
It is important to note that the uncertainty in the
measurements is large, with the exception of mea-
surements of bulk density. Among the dependent vari-
ables, soil resistivity and dissolved ion concentrations
show the largest uncertainties. Besides the unavoid-
able experimental errors, the seasonal fluctuations FIgURe 1. Experimental and fitted distributions for all measured
of the soil characteristics might play a role in deter- maximum pit depths.
mining the large covariance associated with field and
laboratory measurements. In this regard, it is worth
noting that the potential variations in soil properties TAble 3
from one season to the next have been incorporated, Coating Type Frequency by Soil Category
to some degree, into the analysis as data collection Soil Category
was carried over a span of three years. Coating (ct) C Cl SCl All
Maximum Pit Depth Distribution — Figure 1 shows
Bare pipe 0.102 0.119 0.194 0.118
the distribution of all measured maximum pit depths. Asphalt enamel 0.019 0.017 0.039 0.024
The distinctive right-skewed, leptokurtic distribution Wrap tape 0.421 0.288 0.429 0.382
commonly observed for maximum pitting corrosion Coal tar 0.449 0.542 0.273 0.443
penetration was also observed in this study. As mea- FBE 0.009 0.034 0.065 0.033
sured by the Kolmogorov-Smirnov statistic (D), the
best fitting distribution (D = 0.071) was the general-
ized extreme value distribution GEVD(ζ, σ, µ): made in a wide variety of soil environments and expo-
sure periods. Thus, these results only suggest that
 –1  the maximum depths are sampled from a population
   χ – µ ξ
GEVD( x ) = exp
exp  – 1 + ξ    (3) in which, for a sufficiently long exposure, the deep-
   σ   
 est pits are the most likely to grow.20-21 This makes the
tail at large depths more extensive and leads to the
where ζ, σ, and µ are the shape, scale (mm–1), and distinguishing right-skewed, leptokurtic-type distribu-
location (mm) parameters, respectively. The value of tion observed in Figure 1. Because the maximum pit
ζ (0.422) indicates that the Fréchet distribution is depth is recorded at each exposed pipeline segment, it
the most likely distribution for describing the maxi- is not surprising that, instead of a lognormal distribu-
mum pit depth data. For the sake of comparison, tion, one of the three extreme value distributions for
the lognormal distribution, LogND(σ, µ), fitted to the maxima arises as the most likely distribution in Fig-
observed data is also presented. In this case, σ and µ ure 1.
represent the mean and standard deviation of the nat- Scoring Model for Pipeline Coating — Field obser-
ural logarithm of the variable depth, respectively. vations confirmed that most of the exposed pipeline
The lognormal distribution has been reported by segments were protected with anticorrosive coating.
Katano, et al.,8 as the best option in describing the Coatings were categorized into five major categories
distribution of maximum pit depth data of cast iron according to their type: fusion-bonded epoxy (FBE),
pipes in soil. According to Figure 1 and the corre- coal-tar, single- or double-wrapped polyolefin tape,
sponding goodness of fit test (D = 0.071), the lognor- asphalt enamel, and non-coated or bare pipe. Table
mal distribution can also provide a good description 3 shows the frequency with which each coating type
of the maximum pit depths measured in this study. was observed in each soil category.
However, it is worth mentioning that in both works, Because coating disbondment is a precursor to
Katano’s and the present one, the statistical fitting pit initiation and growth, pipeline coating significantly
of all measured pit depths has little physical mean- influences the pitting process.11,19,22 Recently, Race,
ing because the observations include measurements et al.,23 have developed a scoring predictive model for

CORROSION—Vol. 65, No. 5 335

CORROSION ENGINEERING SECTION

table 4 knowledge on the susceptibility of pipeline coatings to

Scoring Model for Pipe Coating Type in-service failure.11,19,22-23
Coating (ct) Variable Score Correlation Analysis — The plot of maximum pit
depth against exposure time is shown in Figure 2 for
Bare pipe 1.0
Alkyd enamel 0.9
all measured depths. Although an apparent positive
Wrap tape 0.8 correlation is observed between maximum pit depth
Coal tar 0.7 and pipeline age, it is impossible to postulate the
FBE 0.3 existence of a statistically significant linear correla-
tion between these two variables. For each exposure
time, a significant scatter is observed in the measured
depths. This scatter is undoubtedly associated with
the variability of the soil and pipe characteristics from
one exposed pipeline segment to another. This obser-
vation supports the need for realistic nonlinear pit
growth models capable of overcoming the oversimpli-
fied assumption of constant pit growth rate made in
pipeline integrity and reliability assessments.
The results of the correlation analysis between
the soil and pipe variables and the maximum pitting
depth are shown in Table 5. The first observation that
can be gleaned from this table is the relative degree
of influence exerted by each predictor variable on the
observed maximum pit depth. Besides the exposure
time, dissolved chloride ion concentration, bulk den-
sity, soil pH, and pipe-to-soil potential are the most
influential variables among those considered. This is
in agreement with the general body of experimental
Figure 2. Measured maximum pit depth as a function of exposure
time (all data). knowledge about the effect of soil characteristics on
pitting corrosion.11,19,21 It is also worth noting that the
direction (sign) of the correlation of each independent
table 5 variable agrees with its documented influence on pit-
Correlation Between Soil and Pipe Variables ting corrosion penetration. That is, dmax increases with
and dmax for All Data decreasing pH value (negative correlation) and with
increased chloride content (positive correlation).
Variable Correlation with dmax
The correlation matrix for the soil and pipe vari-
t   0.420 ables is shown in Table 6. The use of redundant
rp –0.065
information in the pursued prediction model can
ph –0.369
pp   0.334 be avoided by detecting a high degree of correlation
re –0.140 between the soil and pipe variables. The results pre-
wc   0.304 sented in Table 7 indicate that only a weak-to-mod-
bd –0.365 erate correlation exists between these variables.
cc   0.406
The strongest, though moderate, correlation occurs
bc –0.266
sc –0.122 between soil resistivity and water content. Based
ct –0.118 on this result, the variables shown in Table 6 were
all incorporated into the nonlinear pit growth model
developed in this work.
pipeline external corrosion rates. In this model, coat- Detection of Outlier Observations — An outlier is
ing type is a key variable because it determines the an observation that lies outside the overall pattern
susceptibility of the coating to failure. In contrast to of the data distribution. Four different techniques
the work of Katano, the influence of pipeline coating were used to detect outliers: the boxplot, standard-
was modeled in the present study through an inde- ized residuals, Cook’s distance, and the hat matrix.18
pendent variable (coating type [ct] in Table 1) whose Data found to be outliers in three of the four tests
value was assigned by means of the scoring model were considered spurious. Nine outliers were detected
shown in Table 4. The scores proposed in Table 4 and the corresponding data sets were removed. As
were selected based on the criteria given elsewhere.22 an example, Figure 3 shows the boxplot analysis for
Higher scores are given to coatings that provide lower each dependent variable in the clay data after nor-
protection against corrosion. It is intended that Table malization. The outlier observations (marked with an
4 will summarize and quantify the general body of asterisk in Figure 3) identified in this stage of model

336 CORROSION—MAY 2009

 CORROSION ENGINEERING SECTION

TAble 6
Correlation Matrix for the Independent (Random) Variables for All Data
ph pp re wc bd cc bc sc ct
rp –0.268 –0.248 0.339 –0.291 0.050 –0.267 –0.124 –0.133 0.145
ph 0.048 –0.320 0.165 0.206 –0.051 0.440 0.129 –0.227
pp –0.351 0.274 –0.124 0.302 0.038 0.158 –0.226
re –0.532 –0.092 –0.130 –0.199 –0.188 0.180
wc –0.155 0.196 0.117 0.193 –0.149
bd –0.229 0.166 0.159 0.179
cc 0.102 0.204 –0.052
bc 0.268 0.029
sc 0.082

development were detected only on the basis of the TAble 7

distributional properties of the predictor variables Result of the Regression Analysis by Soil Category
using the boxplot analysis. Further detection of out- Soil Category/R2
lier observations was conducted in the latest stages Coefficient C/0.90 Cl/0.88 SCl/0.71 All/0.87
of the model development based on the prediction for-
t0 3.05 3.06 2.57 2.88
mula obtained for each soil category. k0 5.51E–01 9.84E–01 5.99E–01 6.08E–01
n0 8.85E–01 2.82E–01 9.65E–01 8.96E–01
Regression Analysis and Pit Growth Model k1 (rp) –8.98E–05 –1.06E–04 –1.82E–04 –1.80E–04
Prediction Model — After the preliminary data k2 (ph) –5.90E–02 –1.15E–01 –6.42E–02 –6.54E–02
analysis, a multivariate regression of maximum pit k3 (re) –2.15E–04 –2.99E–04 –2.12E–04 –2.60E–04
k4 (cc) 8.38E–04 1.80E–03 8.62E–04 8.74E–04
depth on the exposure time and soil and pipe vari- k5 (bc) –1.28E–03 –4.88E–04 –6.78E–04 –6.39E–04
ables was conducted for each soil category. To estab- k6 (sc) –5.33E–05 –2.09E–04 –1.13E–04 –1.22E–04
lish the influence of the predictor variables on the n1 (pp) 4.93E–01 4.61E–01 5.12E–01 5.19E–01
parameters of model (2), κ and ν were expressed as n2 (wc) 3.72E–03 1.69E–02 4.50E–03 4.65E–03
n3 (bd) –1.01E–01 –9.87E–02 –1.58E–01 –9.90E–02
linear combinations of the soil and pipe variables.
n4 (ct) 4.67E–01 5.67E–01 4.34E–01 4.31E–01
Therefore, the regression formula for the estimated
^
maximum pit depth (dmax) was proposed as:

m
n0 + ∑ n j x j
ˆ  n 
d max
max =  k 0 + ∑ k i x i  (t – t 0 ) j=1
(4)
 i =1 

where xi represents the i-th predictor variable (Tables

1 and 2) and ki and nj are the regression coefficients
for this predictor.
For each soil category, a regression analysis was
conducted for each one of the 1,024 possible com-
binations for the distribution of predictor variables
among κ and ν. The best model obtained for the data
from the clay, sandy clay loam, and clay loam soil
types was the one for which:

κ = k 0 + k1rp + k 2 ph
ph + k 3 re + k 4cc
cc + k 5 bc + k 6 s
sc (5)

ν = n 0 + n1pp + n 2 wc
wc + n 3 bd + n 4c
ct
According to these formulas, the proportional-
ity parameter κ is most likely a function of the redox
potential, pH, resistivity, and dissolved ion concentra-
tions. In contrast, the pitting exponent ν is a function
of the pipe-to-soil potential, water content, bulk den-
sity, and the coating type.
The numerical results of the regression analy-
sis are shown in Table 7. It can be observed that, in
(6) FIgURe 3. Boxplot analysis of the clay data. Extreme outliers,
indicated by asterisks, are defined as points beyond three times the
interquantile range from the edge of the box.
all soils, the values of the multiple regression correla-
tion coefficients are high enough to support the con-
sistency of the prediction formula for maximum pit
depth. Also, the sign of each regression coefficient
reflects correctly the influence of the correspond-

CORROSION—Vol. 65, No. 5 337

CORROSION ENGINEERING SECTION
table 8
Model Parameters for Pit Growth in Typical Conditions
Soil Category
Parameter C CL SCL All
κ(A) 0.178 0.163 0.144 0.164
ν 0.829 0.793 0.734 0.780
(A)
Expressed in (mm/y1/ν) units.
Figure 4. Pit growth predicted for typical average conditions.
ing variable on pit growth. Further discussion on the
physical meaning of the obtained prediction model is
provided in the next (Model Discussion) section.
The maximum pit depth in a buried pipeline seg-
ment at a given time point can be estimated by eval-
uating Expression (4) for the soil and pipe variables
measured at that particular segment. The regression
coefficients to be used in the estimations are those
given in Table 7 for the soil textural class of interest.
The time evolution of the average maximum pit
depth in a soil category can be predicted from Monte
Carlo simulations or from the evaluation of the pro-
posed prediction formula using the respective average
values in Table 2. The latter approach has the disad-
vantage that using the mean value of the predictor
variables in the model may produce biased estimates
of the average maximum pit depth because the model
is nonlinear. Therefore, the approach based on Monte
Carlo simulations was adopted to predict how the
average of the maximum pit depth evolves with time.
The distributions of the independent variables
were used as inputs into Monte Carlo simulations.
Random values drawn from the distributions were
used to evaluate Equations (4), (5), and (6) 5,000
times for different exposure times. The regression
coefficients used in the simulations were also those
given in Table 7. Following this procedure, the distri-
butions of the maximum pit depths in each soil class
were obtained for different exposure times. Then, for
338
each soil category, the time evolution of the mean of
the simulated maximum pit depth distributions was
fit to model (2) using the corresponding value of t0
given in Table 7. The model parameters obtained by
this method are shown in Table 8, where they are
assumed to be unbiased estimates of κ and ν for typi-
cal conditions in each soil category. Thus, they can be
used, together with the respective value of t0, to pro-
duce an empirical formula for the time evolution of
the average maximum pit depth in the soil of interest.
Figure 4 shows the time evolution of the average
maximum pit depth, by soil category, predicted from
the Monte Carlo simulations. From the results shown
in Table 8 and Figure 4, the order of corrosiveness
predicted by the proposed model is clay > clay loam >
sandy clay loam. This order agrees with the findings
of previous works on pitting corrosion of low-carbon
steel in soils.6,11
Importantly, if the differences between soil envi-
ronments were not considered in the analysis, a com-
mon prediction formula with the pitting parameters
for the “All” category would be obtained. The resulting
estimations would be close to those obtained for pit-
ting in clay loam soils but would be very unreliable if
the damage has to be assessed in the other two soil
classes; this is especially true for long (>15 years)
exposure times. This comes to confirm that, even for
average soil conditions, considering the actual values
of the environmental factors (soil and pipe-related pre-
dictors) will significantly improve the accuracy of any
predictive model for pit depth growth in underground
pipelines.
Sensitivity Analysis — Corrosion modeling is use-
ful in determining which variables have a greater
influence on pit growth. Figure 5 shows a sensitiv-
ity graph for the model developed in this work. In the
graph, greater values of the magnitude of the slope
of a line correspond to greater influence of the corre-
sponding predictor variables on maximum pit depth.
The sign of the slope indicates whether the influence
exerted by the respective predictor variable on pit
growth is positive or inverse; a positive slope is related
to a positive influence, whereas a negative slope
denotes an inverse influence.
In agreement with the current knowledge on pit-
ting corrosion, the present pit growth model is more
sensitive to the pH value, pipe-to-soil potential, pipe
coating type, bulk density, water content, and the dis-
solved chloride concentration, in that order. The rest
of the measured variables are less influential and
have not been included in Figure 5. The model sen-
sitivity information is of paramount importance for
developing simplified pit growth models based on the
most influential soil and pipe properties. Importantly,
the experience gained during this work indicates that
such models will succeed in predicting external cor-
rosion pit growth only if they account for soil texture
categorization.
CORROSION—MAY 2009

MODEL DISCUSSION
Discussion of the physical implications of the
proposed prediction model is focused firstly on the
results shown in Table 7 and Figure 4 for the aver-
age time for pit initiation. In contrast to previous
models, the present model is capable of accounting
for the fact that pits do not initiate immediately after
the pipeline has been constructed or commissioned.
The parameter t0 can be related unambiguously to
the total elapsed time from pipeline commissioning
to coating damage plus the time period in which the
cathodic protection is effective in preventing or atten-
uating external pitting corrosion after coating dam-
age. It is important to emphasize that, on average, the
numerical values predicted for t0 in the present study
are in good agreement with those reported in the pipe-
line corrosion literature.19 Unfortunately, uncertain-
ties in the estimates of t0 do not allow for the drawing
of solid conclusions about the influence of soil cat-
egory on this parameter. From the results shown in
Tables 3 and 7 it can be inferred that the pit initiation
times determined during the regression analyses mar-
ginally reflect the influence that coating type exerts on
t0. The fact that the smallest value of t0 is predicted
for the sandy clay loam soils might be associated with
the fact that, in the present investigation, this soil
category showed the largest proportion of non-coated
pipelines and asphalt enamel-coated pipelines. How-
ever, the database is dominated by tape wrap and
coal-tar coatings, which may explain the observation
that pitting initiation time does not vary significantly
from one soil category to another.
Another important issue deserving discussion
is the distribution of the predictor variables among
the two pitting parameters, κ and ν. It is widely rec-
ognized that the exponent ν largely depends on the
aeration of the soil. For example, the results reported
by Mughabghab and Sullivan,3 Oguzie, et al.,9 and
Romanoff10 indicate that poorly aerated soils such as
clay have a greater corrosion exponent. The proposed
model captures this effect correctly in two ways. First,
the model associates the pitting exponent with the
predictor variables that determine aeration, i.e., bulk
density and moisture. Second, the model produces
estimates of the exponent that indicate appropriately
the degree of soil corrosiveness. The estimates of the
model parameters shown in Table 8 for pit growth in
typical conditions support these statements.
The fact that the soil pH and resistivity are both
associated with the proportionality parameter κ has
also been reported by Oguzie, et al.,9 who also found
that resistivity does not significantly influence pit
depth. This latter result seems to be in disagree-
ment with the general body of practical knowledge on
soil corrosion, where resistivity is a key factor in pre-
dicting soil corrosiveness. This apparent contradic-
tion can be explained by noting that the correlation
CORROSION—Vol. 65, No. 5
CORROSION ENGINEERING SECTION
Figure 5. Model sensitivity analysis.
between resistivity and variables such as water con-
tent and dissolved ion concentrations can conceal the
role of resistivity on pit growth.
If the only predictor variable was resistivity, its
strong correlation with the predicted pit depth could
be observed readily. However, in models such as those
developed by Oguzie and coworkers and the pres-
ent one, the effect of the soil resistivity on pit growth
is most probably masked by the marked effect of
soil water content on this phenomenon. Based on
the results presented in Table 6 and Figure 5, it is
expected that the effect of highly influential predictor
variables may conceal the effect of those variables cor-
related to them. As an example, it could be postulated
that the effect of bicarbonate ions is masked by the
significant role that pH plays on pitting.
The other variables considered in the proportion-
ality parameter are the dissolved chloride, sulfate, and
bicarbonate ion concentrations. In the basic theory of
pitting corrosion, the major role of dissolved ions and
pH in pitting of low-carbon steels is well understood
and documented.20-21,24 The insertion of these factors
into the set of predictors used to estimate κ can be
rationalized by recalling that, according to Equation
(2), the magnitude of the pit penetration is determined
primarily by κ while ν determines the form of the pen-
etration rate curve.10 Therefore, at a given time point,
soil conductivity (1/re), soil acidity (pH), and dissolved
ion concentrations (chloride content [cc], sulfate con-
tent [sc], and bicarbonate content [bc]) would seem
to determine the magnitude of pitting penetration.
This result is in accordance with the one-dimensional
pit model under mass-transport, diffusion-controlled
growth.21
On the other hand, the fact that pipe-related vari-
ables, such as coating type and pipe-to-soil potential,
and soil aeration variables, such as bulk density and
water content, are considered in the pitting exponent
and can be interpreted as evidence that they play a
339
CORROSION ENGINEERING SECTION
FIgURe 6. Pit depth predicted using the linear pit growth model
against actual (field-measured) depth. PWT: pipe wall thickness.
role in determining the time dependence of the pitting
penetration rate. However, further statistical studies
are warranted to obtain a more complete understand-
ing of the physical meaning of the pit growth predic-
tion model.
EXAMPLE Of APPLICATION
The proposed model is applied to a real-life case
study involving the integrity assessment of an onshore
buried pipeline with an outside diameter of 914 mm
and a pipe wall thickness of 11 mm. This pipeline was
commissioned in 1979 and inspected in 1997 using
magnetic flux leakage in-line inspection (ILI). The
threat posed by the deeper (external) corrosion pits
detected and sized during the inspection was evalu-
ated and the remaining life of the pipeline was pre-
dicted. For these pits, the most credible failure cause
was determined to be leakage due to the perforation of
the pipe wall.
For the sake of comparison, in a first analysis,
the growth of the detected pits was assumed to be lin-
ear with respect to time, i.e., a constant growth rate
was assumed. Due to the lack of reliable information
regarding pit initiation time, it was also assumed that
pits started to grow right after the pipeline was com-
missioned. Based on these assumptions, the time
dependence of pit depth was predicted as:
ˆ cr ( t ) = υ( t – t I )
d (7)
where tI is the time of in-line inspection and the sub-
script “cr” means that the prediction is made using
340
the constant rate model. For each pit, the growth
rapidity, υ, was computed as the ratio of the mea-
sured pit depth, dm, to the time interval elapsed from
the pipeline commissioning time, tC, to the time of
inspection, tI:
dm
υ= (8)
tI – tC
The time-to-failure by leakage (tL) was predicted
^
by equating dcr(t) to the pipe wall thickness in Equa-
tion (7) and solving it for the variable time (t). Dur-
ing the years that follow the in-line inspection, repairs
were scheduled based on the predicted time-to-fail-
ure and many sections of this pipeline were excavated
and, when necessary, rehabilitated. As a part of this
process, the depth of a total of 123 pits detected at
the threatened pipeline sections was measured in the
field to calibrate the prediction model. For these pits,
the time-to-failure by leakage was estimated to be in
the range from 1 year to 8 years. Given that 18 years
elapsed from the date of the pipeline commissioning
to the date of the in-line inspection, the exposure time
for the measured pit depth data ranges from 19 years
to 26 years.
In Figure 6, the depths estimated using Equa-
tions (7) and (8) are plotted against the field-mea-
sured (actual) depths of the 123 pits of interest. As a
reference, the perfect match (1:1) line is also shown.
Besides the random errors always associated with this
kind of plot, one notices that the predicted depths are
on average greater than the actual depths. The bias
toward greater depth values can be explained by the
fact that the linear trend assumed for pit growth leads
to more conservative prediction when the estimations
are made for long exposure periods.
In contrast to the results presented in Figure
6, the application of the prediction model developed
in this work produced less conservative predictions.
From model (2), the time evolution of the corrosion
rate was expressed as:
υ( t ) = κ
κνν( t – t 0 )ν –1 (9)
To predict pit depth for any future time, the above
expression was used with the parameter values given
in Table 8 for the “All” category (κ = 0.164 mm/y1/0.780
and ν = 0.780). In this way, the growth of each pit
was modeled for the average conditions found in this
study for all collected samples as:
ˆ pm ( t ) = d m + ∫ t L υall ( tt′′ )dt
d )dt ′ (10)
t l
Here, υall(t) = 0.128(t – 2.88)–0.220 (in mm/y) is the
time-dependent average corrosion rate in all soils; tL is
the predicted time-to-leakage; t′ is a dummy variable;
and the subscripts “pm” and “all” mean that the pre-
CORROSION—MAY 2009

dictions were made using the proposed model for all
data.
The results of the application of this prediction
method are shown in Figure 7. Note that the bias
toward larger predicted depths observed in the lin-
ear growth model has been reduced significantly. The
relatively small underprediction that is still observed
in Figure 7 can be explained by the fact that the envi-
ronmental factors in this particular example likely
differed from those measured for the “All” soil cate-
gory. For example, the use of the model parameters
obtained for the average conditions observed for clay
soils could further improve the predictions because of
the higher average corrosion rates observed for these
soils. Although less evident, the reduction of the scat-
ter of the predicted depth around the perfect corre-
lation line (with respect to that observed in Figure 6)
indicates that a reduction in the uncertainty of the pit
depth estimations can be associated with the applica-
tion of the proposed model.
From the point of view of pipeline integrity, the
increase in accuracy and precision of the pit depth
estimations results in longer remaining life being
predicted and thus fewer repairs being scheduled.
It is interesting to note that, in the present exam-
ple, a positive impact on integrity management was
achieved using average conditions. It is reasonable to
expect that collecting the actual values of the soil and
pipe characteristics at each exposed pipeline section
would further improve the accuracy and precision of
the maximum pit depth estimations. This is the sub-
ject of ongoing investigations.
Conclusions
v A predictive model has been proposed for pit-
ting corrosion in buried oil and gas pipelines. In con-
trast to previous models, the present model accounts
for the influence of the soil and pipe characteris-
tics on external pitting corrosion in different soil tex-
tural classes. It has been shown that multivariate
regression analysis can be used to obtain a physically
rational model relating pit growth to soil and pipe
variables.
v The power law model proved to be valid for describ-
ing the functional form of the time dependence of
maximum pit depth. It has been shown that it is
possible to establish a physically sound correlation
between the pitting model parameters and the soil
and pipe variables. The proportionality parameter κ
is determined primarily by the soil pH, redox poten-
tial, resistivity, and dissolved ion concentrations. The
pitting exponent is determined primarily by the pipe
coating, pipe-to-soil-potential, soil bulk density, and
water content. Overall, the variables with the greatest
influence on pit growth are pH, pipe-to-soil potential,
coating type, bulk density, water content, and dis-
solved chloride concentration, in that order.
CORROSION—Vol. 65, No. 5
CORROSION ENGINEERING SECTION
Figure 7. Pit depth predicted using the proposed model against
actual (field-measured) depth. PWT: pipe wall thickness.
v For the soils considered in this work, the order of
corrosiveness was found to be: clay > clay loam >
sandy clay loam. Importantly, this order remains un-
altered as the pipelines remain in service. The appli-
cation example developed at the end of this paper has
proven that the use of a realistic pit growth model
that takes into account the actual soil and pipe char-
acteristics could greatly improve the quality of current
and future integrity management plans.
v Finally, it is worth acknowledging the limitations of
the proposed model. Although microbiologically influ-
enced corrosion was not identified as a credible cause
of the observed pitting damage, the role of micro-
bial corrosion, notably by sulfate-reducing bacteria,
could be incorporated in a more complete predictive
model. Seasonal fluctuations in soil properties and
their influence on pit growth were also not consid-
ered in this work. However, the fact that samples were
collected within a time span of several season cycles
allows the authors to assume that the observed dis-
tributions for the soil characteristics contain informa-
tion about the variations in soil properties from one
season to another. It is also worth nothing that the
results shown in Tables 7 and 8 will be applicable to
any corroded pipeline in contact with clay, clay loam,
and sandy clay loam soils in tropical regions. Caution
should be exercised when applying the results
obtained in the present study to pipelines in contact
with these textural classes in non-tropical regions,
for which the probability distribution of the soil char-
acteristics could be quite different to those given in
Table 2. Lastly, it also would be desirable to increase
the number of collected samples and to include other
341
CORROSION ENGINEERING SECTION
soil categories, thereby increasing the statistical
power of the model.
Acknowledgments
This work was performed during A. Valor’s stay
at the National Polytechnic Institute (ESIQIE-IPN),
Mexico, under research project no. 428817805. The
authors are grateful to Petróleos Mexicanos (Pemex)
for permission to publish these results. Comments
provided by the reviewers are also deeply appreciated.
References
1. F. Caleyo, L. Alfonso, J. Alcantara, J.M. Hallen, F. Fernández, H.
Chow, “On the Estimation of Failure Rates of Multiple Pipeline
Systems,” Proc. ASME 6th Biennial Int. Pipeline Conf., IPC06,
paper no. IPC06-10526 (New York, NY: ASME International, 2006).
2. M. Kowaka, H. Tsuge, M. Akashi, K. Masamura, H. Ishimoto, An
Introduction to the Life Prediction of Plant Materials, Applications
of Extreme Value Statistical Methods for Corrosion Analysis (New
York, NY: Allerton Press, 1994; Tokyo, Japan: Maruzen Pub.,
1984).
3. S.F. Mughabghab, T.M. Sullivan, Waste Manage. 9 (1989): p.
239.
4. A.K. Sheikh, J.K. Boah, D.A. Hansen, Corrosion 46 (1990): p.
190.
5. P.J. Laycock, R.A. Cottis, P.A. Scarf, J. Corros. Sci. Eng. 137, 1
(1990): p. 64.
6. T. Shibata, ISIJ Int. 31 (1991): p. 115.
7. F. Kajiyama, Y. Koyama, Corros. Eng. 53, 2 (1997): p. 156.
8. Y. Katano, K. Miyata, H. Shimizu, T. Isogai, Corrosion 59, 2
(2003): p. 155.
342
9. E.E. Oguzie, I.B. Agochukwu, A.I. Onuchukwu, Mater. Chem.
Phys. 84, 1 (2004): p. 1.
10. M. Romanoff, “Underground Corrosion,” National Bureau of
Standards (NBS) Circular 579 (Washington, DC: National Bureau
of Standards, 1957).
11. S. Bradford, Practical Handbook of Corrosion Control in Soils,
CASTI Corrosion Series, vol. 3 (Edmonton, Canada: CASTI Pub-
lishing Inc., 2000).
12. ASTM G57-06, “Standard Test Method for Field Measurement of
Soil Resistivity Using the Wenner Four-Electrode Method (West
Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International, 2006).
13. ASTM D2216-05, “Standard Test Methods for Laboratory Deter-
mination of Water (Moisture) Content of Soil and Rock by Mass”
(West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International, 2005).
14. ASTM D422-63(2007), “Standard Test Method for Particle-Size
Analysis of Soils” (West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International,
2007).
15. ASTM D512-04, “Standard Test Methods for Chloride Ion in
Water” (West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International, 2004).
16. ASTM D1126-02(2007)e1, “Standard Test Method for Hardness
in Water” (West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International, 2007).
17. ASTM D516-07, “Standard Test Method for Sulfate Ion in Water”
(West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International, 2007).
18. B. Tabachnick, Using Multivariate Statistics, 5th ed. (New York,
NY: Pearson, Harper, and Row Publishers, 2005).
19. A.W. Peabody, Control of Pipeline Corrosion, 2nd ed., ed. R. Bi-
anchetti (Houston, TX: NACE International, 2001).
20. G.T. Burstein, C. Liu, R.M. Souto, S.P. Vines, Corros. Eng. Sci.
Technol. 39 (2004): p. 25.
21. P. Marcus, ed., Corrosion Mechanisms in Theory and Practice
(New York, NY: Marcel Dekker, Inc., 2002).
22. S. Papavinasam, R.W. Revie, “Pipeline Protective Coating Evalua-
tion,” CORROSION/2006, paper no. 06047 (Houston, TX: NACE,
2006).
23. J.M. Race, S.J. Dawson, L.M. Stanley, S. Kariyawasam, J. Pipe-
line Eng. 6 (2007): p. 15.
24. Z. Szklarska-Smialowska, Pitting and Crevice Corrosion (Houston,
TX: NACE, 2005), p. 129.
CORROSION—MAY 2009