National Academies Press: OpenBook

Research Opportunities in Corrosion Science and Engineering (2011)

Chapter: Appendix B: Results of the Committee's Corrosion Mitigation Questionnaire

« Previous: Appendix A: Statement of Task
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B: Results of the Committee's Corrosion Mitigation Questionnaire." National Research Council. 2011. Research Opportunities in Corrosion Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13032.
×

B
Results of the Committee’s Corrosion Mitigation Questionnaire

The committee’s questionnaire on mitigation of corrosion was released on March 10, 2009, for community input. Invitations were sent to key personnel at DOD, MTI, and LMI to distribute a link to the questionnaire. On April 1, 2009, the NACE Technical and Research Activities committee distributed the link to all members of NACE technical committees and the NACE Research committee. As of April 23, 2009, 172 respondents had started the survey, and 79 of them (45.9 percent) had completed the entire survey. The data gathered are summarized below.1

RESPONDENT INFORMATION

Respondents described themselves as end users (39 percent), research and development personnel (31 percent), contractors (20 percent), and manufacturers (15 percent). Twenty-five percent of respondents described themselves as “other,” most of whom termed themselves “consultants.”

The majority of respondents had been involved in corrosion mitigation for quite some time (67 percent for more than 15 years and 22 percent for 5 to 15 years) in diverse sectors including utilities, transportation, infrastructure, production and manufacturing, government, and health care. Sixty-seven percent valued their equipment or structures at greater than $10 million. The respondents indicated

1

As of October 21, 2009, 189 respondents had started the survey, and 90 (47.6 percent) had completed it. These new results are not included in the summary presented below. The data are available in the public access file at the National Academies.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix B: Results of the Committee's Corrosion Mitigation Questionnaire." National Research Council. 2011. Research Opportunities in Corrosion Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13032.
×

that they were responsible equipment in the following sectors: oil and gas exploration and production, transmission in pipelines, petroleum refining, chemical/petrochemical/pharmaceutical production, gas distribution, drinking water and sewer systems, and electric utilities.

CORROSION ISSUES

The questionnaire asked which forms of corrosion were of greatest importance or concern to the respondents. All forms of corrosion presented on the questionnaire as choices—general, pitting, crevice, microbially influenced corrosion, galvanic, erosion, and environmental cracking—were described as “sometimes an issue.” Pitting corrosion was most frequently described as “my biggest issues,” with general corrosion coming in second. Microbially influenced corrosion was most frequently described as “not an issue.”

The consequence that most concerned the respondents was safety. Loss of production, environmental issues, and loss of use of the equipment were roughly tied for second place. Legal consequences were less frequently cited. Of those who cited “other,” “cost” was most frequently identified as the primary consequence.

MITIGATION SYSTEMS

This section of the questionnaire explored the types of mitigation systems currently being used by respondents. The most frequently selected options are shown in Table B.1 (respondents were allowed to select more than one).

Respondents were also asked to say how frequently they used each technique. In other words, a respondent might have indicated that he or she used coupons (monitoring), external CP with coatings (electrochemical), and inhibitors such as those in water. In this question respondents were asked to say what percentage of their mitigation effort relied on a particular technique. Overall, external CP with coatings had the highest rate of use (35 percent), followed by materials selection based on environmental application (23 percent), organic barrier coatings (19 percent), corrosion inhibitors such as those used in water (19 percent), materials selection based on cost (18 percent), design of materials based on cost (16 percent), and sacrificial anodes (13 percent).

Seventy-two percent of respondents said that they spent more than $200,000 per year on corrosion mitigation. An additional 13.5 percent spent between $50,000 and $200,000 per year.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix B: Results of the Committee's Corrosion Mitigation Questionnaire." National Research Council. 2011. Research Opportunities in Corrosion Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13032.
×

TABLE B.1 Types of Mitigation Systems Currently Being Used by Respondents

Mitigation Technique

General Type

Total Number of Responses

Most Frequently Cited Specific Techniques

Number of Responses

Monitoring

Passive

108

Inspection

54

 

 

 

Coupons

18

Material selection

Passive

103

Based on lifetime cost analysis

62

 

 

 

Based on environmental application

36

Electrochemical

Active

91

External CP with coatings

57

 

 

 

Sacrificial anodes

18

Organic coatings

Passive

79

Barrier

47

 

 

 

Combination

16

Inhibitors

Passive

72

Those in water

47

Metallic coatings

Passive

70

Flame sprayed

22

 

 

 

Sacrificial or barrier

15

Inorganic coatings

Passive

63

High temperature

24

 

 

 

Low temperature

21

EFFECTIVENESS OF MITIGATION SYSTEMS

This section of the questionnaire attempted to assess respondents’ overall satisfaction with the various mitigation techniques employed. Respondents ranked the various techniques on a scale from 1 to 5 (1 = not satisfied at all, 3 = moderately satisfied, 5 = completely satisfied). Overall, respondents were at least moderately satisfied with the mitigation techniques they used. Active, externally applied CP with coatings had the highest average satisfaction ranking at 4.22. Hybrid organic/inorganic coatings—plasma electrolytic had the lowest average satisfaction ranking at 2.60.

The highest-ranked techniques, in terms of overall satisfaction, are shown in Table B.2, and. the lowest-ranked techniques, in terms of overall satisfaction, are shown in Table B.3.

Ninety-nine responses were received on the specific difficulties encountered with various techniques (questions 14 and 15 of the questionnaire give details). An informal review of respondents’ answers showed that the considerations listed in Table B.4 seemed to be of general concern.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix B: Results of the Committee's Corrosion Mitigation Questionnaire." National Research Council. 2011. Research Opportunities in Corrosion Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13032.
×

TABLE B.2 Highest-Ranked Techniques, in Terms of Overall Satisfaction

Technique

Average Ranking

Number of Responses

Externally applied CP with coatings

4.22

57

Material selection—other

4.07

15

Materials selection based on environmental application

4.00

40

Sacrificial anodes

3.98

50

Design of materials based on cost

3.97

38

Materials selection based on cost

3.90

49

TABLE B.3 Lowest-Ranked Techniques, in Terms of Overall Satisfaction

Technique

Average Ranking

Number of Responses

Hybrid organic/inorganic coatings—plasma electrolytic

2.60

5

Active sensors—automatic

2.91

11

Inorganic coatings—special layered organics

2.92

12

TABLE B.4 Considerations of Greatest Concern to Respondents

General Consideration

Specific Applications or Issues

Monitoring

For high-temperature applications

For measuring (with sensors) localized corrosion

Unreliability

For underdeposit corrosion

For stress corrosion cracking

Remote sensing

Access to information

Materials database with updated costs

Suitability of various materials in different environments

Chemical inhibitors—their use and efficacy (debunking of the proprietary “cocktails”)

Coatings

Surface preparation

Protection under disbonded coatings

Cathodic protection

Insufficient training or knowledge of operators

Prediction

Prediction of lifetime

Prediction of actual conditions

Prediction of damage mechanisms

Suggested Citation:"Appendix B: Results of the Committee's Corrosion Mitigation Questionnaire." National Research Council. 2011. Research Opportunities in Corrosion Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13032.
×

IDEALIZED OR STATE-OF-THE-ART MITIGATION SYSTEMS

This section of the questionnaire addressed current state-of-the-art technologies in corrosion mitigation.

Sixty-six respondents described the current state-of-the-art mitigation system for their application, with many citing a combination of methods. Active protection (cathodic or anodic), materials selection, and coatings/claddings were the most frequently cited techniques. Cathodic protection was often listed in combination with coatings. Chemistry/inhibitors/process control was next most frequently cited technique followed by sensors. Remote monitoring, modeling, pigging, and inspection were mentioned only one or two times each.

Sixty-four percent of those who responded said they used the state of the art, 24 percent said they used it in some instances, 3 percent did not use it, and the remainder, generally self-described as consultants, did not use the technologies at all. For those who used the state of the art, the most frequently given reason was that it worked and was either inexpensive or cost-effective.

ADVANCES IN MITIGATION

Having had an opportunity to consider the types of mitigation systems available, the efficacy of those currently used, and the state-of-the-art technologies available, respondents were asked suggest scientific advances that would contribute to the development of new and/or better mitigation technologies.

The majority (63 percent) of respondents thought that future research should include both fundamental and applied sciences, with some commenting that the balance should tilt toward applied research. Twenty-five percent felt that future research should be applied, and the rest were divided between fundamental and “don’t know.”

When asked where future research should focus specifically to enable advances that would help to develop new and/or better mitigation technologies, the top three areas were monitoring (50 percent), coatings (45 percent), and active systems (41 percent) (more than one option could be selected). Others suggested sensors (29 percent), passive systems (21 percent), and “other” (21 percent). Improvement in mitigation system lifetime and improvement in the costs of mitigation ranked the lowest (14 percent and 12 percent, respectively).

In the area of monitoring, the majority of the suggestions favored improved remote modeling or better sensors and a method of monitoring or measuring localized (pitting) corrosion. Improved inspection methods (nondestructive and/or not requiring shutting down facilities) and improved costs were also mentioned. With respect to coatings, the most frequently suggested improvements related to better

Suggested Citation:"Appendix B: Results of the Committee's Corrosion Mitigation Questionnaire." National Research Council. 2011. Research Opportunities in Corrosion Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13032.
×

high-temperature performance and less need for surface preparation (answers to question 20 of the questionnaire give details).

Respondents were also asked to craft questions they would like to see answered by future research in this field (questions 22 and 23 give details). Common themes included modeling (predicting lifetimes, modeling environments and new alloys, extrapolating the results of short-term testing to long-term performance), and monitoring or assessing localized corrosion, including pitting and microbially influenced corrosion.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix B: Results of the Committee's Corrosion Mitigation Questionnaire." National Research Council. 2011. Research Opportunities in Corrosion Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13032.
×
Page 147
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B: Results of the Committee's Corrosion Mitigation Questionnaire." National Research Council. 2011. Research Opportunities in Corrosion Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13032.
×
Page 148
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B: Results of the Committee's Corrosion Mitigation Questionnaire." National Research Council. 2011. Research Opportunities in Corrosion Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13032.
×
Page 149
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B: Results of the Committee's Corrosion Mitigation Questionnaire." National Research Council. 2011. Research Opportunities in Corrosion Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13032.
×
Page 150
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B: Results of the Committee's Corrosion Mitigation Questionnaire." National Research Council. 2011. Research Opportunities in Corrosion Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13032.
×
Page 151
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B: Results of the Committee's Corrosion Mitigation Questionnaire." National Research Council. 2011. Research Opportunities in Corrosion Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13032.
×
Page 152
Next: Appendix C: Corrosion Modeling »
Research Opportunities in Corrosion Science and Engineering Get This Book
×
Buy Paperback | $47.00 Buy Ebook | $37.99
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

The field of corrosion science and engineering is on the threshold of important advances. Advances in lifetime prediction and technological solutions, as enabled by the convergence of experimental and computational length and timescales and powerful new modeling techniques, are allowing the development of rigorous, mechanistically based models from observations and physical laws.

Despite considerable progress in the integration of materials by design into engineering development of products, corrosion considerations are typically missing from such constructs. Similarly, condition monitoring and remaining life prediction (prognosis) do not at present incorporate corrosion factors. Great opportunities exist to use the framework of these materials design and engineering tools to stimulate corrosion research and development to achieve quantitative life prediction, to incorporate state-of-the-art sensing approaches into experimentation and materials architectures, and to introduce environmental degradation factors into these capabilities.

Research Opportunities in Corrosion Science and Engineering identifies grand challenges for the corrosion research community, highlights research opportunities in corrosion science and engineering, and posits a national strategy for corrosion research. It is a logical and necessary complement to the recently published book, Assessment of Corrosion Education, which emphasized that technical education must be supported by academic, industrial, and government research. Although the present report focuses on the government role, this emphasis does not diminish the role of industry or academia.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    Switch between the Original Pages, where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  9. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!