Submitted:
28 October 2025
Posted:
13 November 2025
You are already at the latest version
Abstract
Keywords:
1. Introduction
- Excavation and assessment using laboratory testing methods of the polymer coating properties, such as adhesion strength of the coating to the steel pipe, mechanical properties, specific electrical resistance, cathodic disbondment, etc. [29,30,31,32]. This approach has limited practical applicability because it neglects coating damage (discontinuities) and their impact on the coating’s average specific electrical resistance. Consequently, the selected approach should be based on above-ground indirect inspection methods that evaluate the degree of polymer coating damage, including the number of defects, their specific defect ratio, and their distribution along the pipeline. The galvanic relationship between the examined pipeline section and the overall network should not affect the selected inspection methods.
- Determination of the coating aging by current demand based on coating breakdown factors, defined as the current density ratio required to polarize a coated steel surface compared to a bare steel surface, and aims to determine the pipeline’s cathodic protection current consumption over various service times. Numerous studies and several leading international standards have been proposed with defined threshold values [33,34,35,36]. Therefore, this direction is of less interest from an innovative research perspective.
- Determination of the coating aging by coating average specific electrical resistance, which, according to our first study [37] and two international standards only [38,39], provides a methodology and criteria concerning the average specific electrical resistance (conductance) of newly buried polymer-coated steel pipelines and for predicting their durability over time. The above international standards specify threshold values (criteria) only for the specific electrical resistance (conductance) of newly polymer-coated pipelines [38,39], with no definite criteria or prediction methodology for assessing aging behavior over time. The latter standard [39] includes a single requirement that the insulation resistance, for all types of coatings, shall not decrease by more than three times after 10 years and by over eight times after 20 years of operation.
2. Degradation Mechanisms of Polyethylene
Radical initiation Stage: R-H → R· + H
3. Arrhenius Based Model for Polymer Lifetime Prediction
4. Experimental Procedure
4.1. General
- Polyethylene-coated pipeline sections with high initial average specific electrical resistance exceeding 106 Ohm·m2.
- Preferable pipeline segments that are electrically separated from the pipeline network by insulating joints or pipeline ends with no continuation (or connection to other pipelines). In both cases, the current is zero. Such a method made it possible to isolate inspection zones from the interference of cathodic protection currents present in the pipeline network, incorporating autonomous inspection capabilities, comparison of different inspection methods and allowing precise validation.
- Selected pipeline sections with diverse technical characteristics (age, length, diameter, type and soil resistance, vicinity with high voltage AC power lines (161/400 kV), etc.)
- Selected pipeline sections following three or more consecutive years (the research duration). This has allowed us to determine the ageing rates of the polymer coating, compare the methods, and conclude on a suitable and reliable inspection method.
- The oldest oil/gas and water pipelines with Drainage Test results of average specific electrical coating resistances that were tested in this study were 11 years old (from 2014).
4.2. Assessment Methods of Underground Polymer-Coated Steel Pipelines
- 4.2.1.
- An extensive literature review was undertaken to survey the assessment methods of aged underground polymer-coated steel pipelines [26,33,34,35,36,38,39,40,44,45,84,85,86,87] and [88]. The Drainage Test [40] and the Line Current Attenuation Test [38,88] were selected as the best methods for assessing the aging of buried polyethylene-coated steel pipes.
- 4.2.2.
- The Drainage Test is carried out by applying a current to the pipeline. The On and Off potentials and the electrical current are measured at consistent time intervals. The test is complete when the Off potential is stable (no further negative change) or after a set duration (e.g., an hour). A Drainage Test can be conducted for different purposes, such as assessing the average electrical specific coating resistance or the consumed electrical current to protect an underground object from corrosion. Increased current consumption or decreased coating average specific electrical resistance implies more coating defects on the pipeline and/or larger defect areas, indicating lower coating quality. The results are validated if the Off-potential meets or exceeds the valid protective potential. This method is ineffective for identifying coating defects. To obtain the average specific electrical resistance of the entire surveyed polymer-coated pipeline section, the difference between the On and Off-potentials is divided by the consumed electrical current to obtain the resistance of a pipeline section with an area of 1 m2 and then multiplied by the entire surface area of the investigated coated pipeline section.
- 4.2.3.
- For the LCA method, it is essential to utilize Line Current (LC) testing points that are generally preinstalled and distributed along the length of gas/oil pipelines, as shown in Figure 5. They are usually installed before and after oil/gas stations, isolation joints, at pipeline ends with no continuation, etc. For most water pipelines, the LC test points are not installed. Therefore, for this study, additional LC test points were designed and installed for water pipeline sections, following the same principles as for oil/gas pipelines.

- 4.2.4.
-
The procedure for determining the coating electrical resistance from Line Current attenuation measurements is detailed in the standard [38] and in the reference [88]. Following the review of the LCA procedure principles, which were derived from the two above technical sources, the modified procedure comprises a few stages:
-
1st stage – Calibration of the Line Current (Four Wires) test points for determining the electrical resistance of the tested pipeline sections with defined LC length. The general arrangement for pipeline current measurement calibration is shown in Figure 6. An additional option for calculating the electrical resistance of the tested section is provided by the formula in Appendix B (Standard Pipe Data Tables) of the standard [38] but it is less precise method referred to calibration. The main steps of the section’s calibration are:
- Measuring and recording the initial voltage (U0cal, mV) between inward terminals, as shown in Figure 6. Noting the voltage polarity.
- Applying a test current Ical (mA) between outward test leads.
- Measuring and recording the voltage (mV) change between inward terminals while interruption is applied with the chosen regime, like On : Off = 8:2 seconds, noting the voltage polarity.
- Measuring and recording the difference in current (mA) between the outward terminals.
- Calculating resistance in span (µΩ):
- Steps 3, 4, and 5 are repeated with different electrical currents to verify results, to obtain additional statistical data and to ensure repeatability.
- 2nd stage – the surveyed pipe section is connected to either a temporary or permanent cathodic station with a connected current interrupter at a specific time regime, like On:Off = 8:2 seconds. Measuring, recording, and calculating the potential change (ΔU) at each LC test location (µV or mV) between ON and OFF potentials:
- 3rd stage – calculating the pipe current at each LC test location from the 1st and 2nd stages.
- 4th stage - the surveyed pipe section is still connected to a temporary or permanent cathodic station with a current interrupter, like On:Off = 8:2 seconds. The measurement of the “ON” (φon [mV]) and “Off” (φoff [mV]) structure-to-electrolyte potentials at each LC test location should be conducted, as in the standard [90]. Calculating the difference between ON and OFF potentials.Δ φpipe= φON - φOff
- 5th stage – Measuring the Soil Resistivity near each LC test location according to the Wenner four-pin or Soil-box method [91]. Calculating the average soil resistivity of the surveyed pipeline section.
- 6th stage - calculating the surface area (A) of the surveyed pipe section between LC test locations (m2)where D - pipe outside diameter and L - length of the pipe sectionA=π·D·L
- 7th stage - calculate the average change in pipe-to-electrolyte potential (Δφ avg) for each pipeline section (between LC test points A and B).
- 8th stage - calculating the current pick-up (ΔI) for each pipeline section (between LC test points A and B):∆I=∆IA-∆IB
- 9th stage - finally, calculating the coating average specific electrical resistance (Rcoat) for the pipeline section (between LC test points A and B) in Ω·m2.
- The obtained results have been normalized for a specific soil resistivity of 10 Ω·m according to the requirements of the standard [38].
-
- 4.2.5.
- To determine the aging rate of the polymer-coated underground steel pipelines, several sections of oil/gas (G1-G4) and water pipelines (N1-N4) were selected as shown in Table 1, respectively.
5. Results and Discussion
- 5.1
- Polyethylene-coated steel pipelines age with time [93,94,95,96]. The polymer coating degrades due to numerous factors [17,18,19,97,98], such as soil composition, static and dynamic stresses, groundwater, microorganisms, and temperature [21,22,23,24]. Aging leads to the formation of spot defects and/or group defects. This may result in loss of the coating’s protective properties, manifested in a decrease in the overall polymer coating resistance [99].
- 5.2
- A decline in the coating’s electrical resistance during the pipeline’s operational period means that the current and number of cathodic stations must be increased, or the insulation in that section must be repaired [27].
- 5.3
- Selected field indirect inspection methods are designed to evaluate the average specific electrical resistance of long polymer-coated buried pipelines, due to the presence of defects at the external 3LPE surface. As the defective exposed area increases with service time, the coating’s electrical resistance decreases, resulting in diminished protective properties.
- 5.4
- The minimum criterion for initial coating average specific electrical resistance was set at 3·106 Ω·m2 , obtained and determined after analysis of DT results from our first study [37].
- 5.5
-
Oil/gas pipelinesTo assess the coating average specific electrical resistance of underground oil/gas pipelines over different service periods, two types of inspections have been performed: LCA and DT. Four oil/gas pipelines from our initial study were selected for this purpose (G1-G4). Each section pair, G1-G2 and G3-G4, was arranged sequentially and connected via an oil/gas station.The oldest of these polymer-coated pipelines was 11 years old. To establish the aging model based on the average specific electrical resistance, evaluations were conducted during 3-4 annual measurements. LCA inspections were performed after 8-9, 10 and 11 years in the underground service. DT measurements were conducted only after 10 years. The results were compared with the initial average specific electrical resistance from the first study [37], and the appropriate model was established based on the initial and aged specific electrical resistance results.
- 5.6
-
Water pipelinesThe LCA method only was used to determine the average specific electrical resistance of coatings on underground water pipelines, as no pipeline sections were electrically separated from the water pipeline network by isolation joints, and thus were not suitable for the execution of DT method. For this purpose, four water pipelines from the first study with various technical characteristics were selected [37]. Like the underground oil/gas pipelines, the maximum age of these pipelines was 11 years. The aging model was based on four time periods of inspections conducted – after construction, and after 9, 10, and 11 years in the underground exposure.
- 5.7
- Table 2 summarizes the average specific electrical resistance results over various service periods of 3LPE-coated oil/gas and water pipelines over time, conducted by the LCA and DT methods.
- 5.8
- The analysis and comparison of the data from the LCA and DT methods for the G1-G2 and G3-G4 oil/gas pipeline sections shows a significant difference between the results of the two techniques. This can be attributed to the fact that the DT method assesses the overall average specific electrical resistance of the coating, including two pipeline sequential sections and the oil/gas station located between the investigated pipeline sections. Many irregular shapes, like T-joints, elbows, and similar, in oil/gas stations are field-applied are protected by epoxy protective coatings. The aging rates of field-applied epoxy coatings, based on coating breakdown factors, are considerably higher than that of factory-applied 3LPE coating [36,51]. At the same time, the LCA method assesses the average specific electrical coating resistance of straight pipeline sections between defined LC test points, without considering oil/gas stations with irregularly shaped epoxy coatings. Thus, the coating aging rates of straight pipeline sections, coated with factory-applied 3LPE and field joint 2LPE coatings only, are much smaller than the epoxy ones. Accordingly, the LCA method’s results are more appropriate to model the aging of the polyethylene coating.
- 5.9
- 5.10
-
From the data obtained using the investigated oil/gas pipeline sections, one can identify the following key patterns and dependencies:
- 5.10.1
- The exponential Arrhenius model demonstrated a high determination fitting coefficient (R2) for predicting the aging of 3LPE-coated steel pipelines.
- 5.10.2
- Aging coefficients were determined and defined with a range from 0.05 to 0.07. Thus, the data suggests that 3LPE-coated pipelines exhibit minimal aging and are expected to have a long service life.
- 5.10.3
- The initial average specific electrical resistance of the coating system is a key factor affecting the aging coefficient. The higher it is, the faster the degradation.
- 5.11
- 5.12
-
Analysis of the data collected from the investigated water pipeline sections reveals the following conclusions:
- 5.12.1
- The predictive model based on the exponential Arrhenius model was shown to estimate the aging of 3LPE-coated steel pipelines, with high determination fitting coefficients.
- 5.12.2
- The aging coefficients fall within the range of 0.07 to 0.09, which exceeds the aging coefficient determined in oil/gas pipelines, suggesting a higher aging rates. However, the aging coefficient range is also low, proposing a relatively long service life.
- 5.12.3
- Coating systems with high initial electrical resistance tend to exhibit higher aging rates.
- 5.12.4
- An LCA-based inspection was conducted on one of the water pipelines intersecting a 400 kV AC high-voltage power lines (HVAC). Unreliable results were obtained, making it inapt for such method. This conclusion is also relevant to oil/gas pipelines.
- 5.13
-
From the above-derived exponential aging phenomena, a general exponential correlation can be proposed for predicting the aging behavior of polyethylene-coated pipelines. The aging model is based on the exponential decay of coating average specific electrical resistance over time (25) and it is analogous to Arrhenius model (13, 14).where:Rc(t) - The average coating electrical resistance after service time t in underground exposure [Ω·m2];Rc(0) - The initial average coating electrical resistance after installation and backfilling (t=0) [Ω·m2];α - the aging rate coefficient [1/year].t – service time [years]
- 5.14
- 5.15
-
Figure 9 points out the following conclusions:
- 5.15.1
- 3LPE-coated buried pipelines used for water and oil/gas exhibit low aging rates.
- 5.15.2
- Coatings that initially have higher average specific electrical resistance are more prone to faster aging than those with lower initial electrical resistance.
- 5.15.3
- For oil/gas pipelines, the aging coefficient α [1/year] changes in the range of 0.05-0.07; for water pipelines, in the range of 0.07-0.09. This indicates that 3LPE external coatings in oil/gas pipelines age more slowly than in water pipelines. The higher aging rates of polymer-coated water pipelines are primarily due to different coating technical characteristics compared to oil/gas pipelines, which contain numerous irregular geometrical connections (T-joints, elbows, consumer connections, air, and drainage points). Most of the connections are coated with epoxy coatings that applied in field conditions, which have significantly higher aging rates (coating breakdown factors) than the 3LPE factory-applied coating [36,51]. For oil/gas pipelines, the polymer-coated pipeline sections are usually constructed without epoxy-coated irregular geometrical shapes and adhere to strict quality control methods and pipeline installation procedures.
- 5.16
- It should be emphasized that some of the results are inaccurate due to the influence of AC-induced voltage; therefore, underground pipelines coated with high-dielectric characteristics and located under parallel or across high-voltage power lines (HVAC: 161 or 400 kV) typically yield unreliable results by LCA testing methods. Hence, the attempt to test the 100-inch diameter water pipeline (N4) resulted in a wide range of results, which were used to establish, albeit ineffectively, the aging coefficients for the prediction model.
- 5.17
- Another source of inaccuracies has been traced to the instrument limits due to the voltage drops in the pipeline, as the measurements are around 1 µV. Hence, sensitive amplifier voltmeters paired with data loggers are necessary. Furthermore, performing several LCA tests is recommended to ensure consistent results. The input impedance of the voltmeters should be at least 10 MΩ.
- 5.18
-
The exponential prediction aging model (25) of the 3LPE coated buried pipelines contradicts the conclusions of the reference [40] and supports the aging model proposed in references [41,42,43], with several significant differences:
- 5.18.1
- The aging coefficient spans across a broader range (0.05 to 0.07 year-1) for oil and gas pipelines, indicating a potentially higher aging rate than the above-cited sources.
- 5.18.2
- Water pipelines exhibit a higher aging rate coefficient range (0.07–0.09 year-1) than oil/gas pipelines. This is primarily attributed to the frequent presence of field irregular-geometry joints, such as T-connections and elbows, where two-part epoxy coatings are often applied in the field.
- 5.18.3
- Epoxy coatings have significantly higher aging rates, based on coating breakdown factors, than 3LPE factory-applied coating [34].
- 5.19
-
Consequently, it is possible to calculate the residual lifetime for each coated pipeline section at any given operational time. In Appendix A, the examples for calculations of water and gas/oil pipelines are given:
- For the water pipeline, based on our first study [37], section N1 (L = 4,920 m; Ø = 16’’, initial average specific electrical resistance is 2.0·106 Ω·m2, the minimum threshold of average electrical resistance for repair or replacement is 3·104 Ω·m2), the selected calculated aging coefficient α is 0.08 year -1, since the operational time of this pipeline section is 10 years the residual life time is 42.3 years.
- For the oil/gas pipeline, according to [37], the section G2 (L= 7,757 m; Ø = 18’, the initial average specific electrical resistance is 10.9·106 Ω·m2, the minimum threshold of average specific electrical resistance for repair or replacement is 3·104 Ω·m2), the selected aging coefficient α = 0.06 year -1, since the operational time of the pipeline section is 10 years, the residual lifetime is 88.2 years.
- 5.20
- It should be noted that the aging rate of protective coatings is usually higher than that of structural materials (steel). Therefore, insulation degradation does not necessarily indicate corrosion or deterioration of the pipe itself.
6. Conclusions
- 6.1
- Following our initial study [37], an aging model for polyethylene-coated underground pipelines was proposed and validated.
- 6.2
- The model was based on the modified Line Current Attenuation test results used for water and oil/gas pipelines following various service periods and technical parameters. The maximum age of the investigated underground pipelines in this study was 11 years.
- 6.3
-
The following main insights have been derived from this study:
- 6.3.1
- The Line Current Attenuation (LCA) method has proven to be an accurate technique for estimating the specific electrical resistances of 3LPE-coated steel pipelines over their service life (besides the cases of AC induced voltage)
- 6.3.2
- An exponential aging model was developed, based on the coating’s average specific electrical resistance for water and oil/gas pipelines.
- 6.3.3
- Increased initial electrical resistances of polyethylene coatings are directly associated with higher aging coefficients and aging rates.
- 6.4
- The study demonstrated that the coating aging rates of 3LPE-coated water pipelines and oil/gas pipelines are comparatively low. Thus, it can be concluded that degradation in the polyethylene coating exceeding the allowable resistance criterion is caused by localized defects rather than overall coating aging [33,34]. As a result, detecting and repairing local sections with the low coating electrical resistance is vital. This can be achieved by utilizing External Corrosion Direct Assessment (ECDA), indirect inspection methods such as Alternating Current Attenuation Survey (Electromagnetic Method) and/or ACVG/DCVG, as well as direct examinations, during which the insulation is inspected in prioritized test pits according to the standards [26,86]. Post Assessment stage should be combined as the final step of the coating’s and steel’s condition assessment [26].
- 6.5
- Precision equipment capable of recording and analyzing of results is essential, especially in oil/gas pipelines where insulation exhibits high dielectric characteristics.
- 6.6
- To establish a reliable method for determining the average specific electrical resistance of 3LPE-coated buried pipelines under the influence of high-voltage AC power lines (HVAC), further research is required.
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A. Examples of the Residual Isolation Lifetime Calculations for Oil/Gas and Water Pipelines
- The calculation for water pipeline section N1
- The calculation for oil/gas pipeline section G2
References
- Gas Transmission Miles By Decade Installed, Data Source: US DOT Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, 2025, (n.d.).
- Fact Sheet - Corrosion, U.S. Department of Transportation, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, Washington DC, https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/comm/FactSheets/FSCorrosion.htm?nocache=9090, (n.d.).
- Gas Pipeline Incidents, 12th Report of the European Gas Pipeline Incident Data Group (period 1970 – 2022) , December 2023, European Gas Pipeline Incident Data Group (EGIG), https://www.EGIG.eu, (n.d.).
- A.E. Romer, G.E.C. A.E. Romer, G.E.C. Bell, Causes of External Corrosion on Buried Water Mains, in: Pipelines 2001, American Society of Civil Engineers, San Diego, California, United States, 2001: pp. 1–9. [CrossRef]
- ASME B31.8 - 2022: Gas Transmission and Distribution Piping Systems, ASME Code for Pressure Piping, B31, December 2022, The American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York, NY, USA, (n.d.).
- American Water Works Association, Prestressed Concrete Pressure Pipe, Steel-Cylinder Type, (2007). [CrossRef]
- AWWA M11 - Steel Water Pipe: A guide for design and installation, Fifth edition, American Water Works Association, Denver, CO, 2017.
- H. A. Kishawy, H.A. Gabbar, Review of pipeline integrity management practices. International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 2010, 87, 373–380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- AWWA C213-22 Fusion-Bonded Epoxy Coatings and Linings for Steel Water Pipe and Fittings, (n.d.).
- API RP572-2016 Inspection Practices for Pressure Vessels, 4th Edition, 2016, The American Petroleum Institute (API), (n.d.).
- API RP574-2016, Inspection Practices for Piping System Components, 4th Edition, 2016, The American Petroleum Institute (API), (n.d.).
- ANSI - AWWA C213-15, (n.d.).
- ASME B31.8S 2022 - Managing System Integrity of Gas Pipelines, January 2023, ASME Code for Pressure Piping, B31 Supplement to ASME B31.8, The American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York, NY, USA, (n.d.).
- H. Zargarnezhad, E. Asselin, D. Wong, C.N.C. Lam, A Critical Review of the Time-Dependent Performance of Polymeric Pipeline Coatings: Focus on Hydration of Epoxy-Based Coatings. Polymers 2021, 13, 1517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- S. B. Lyon, R. Bingham, D.J. Mills, Advances in corrosion protection by organic coatings: What we know and what we would like to know. Progress in Organic Coatings 2017, 102, 2–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- M. Wasim, S. Shoaib, N.M. Mubarak, Inamuddin, A.M. Asiri, Factors influencing corrosion of metal pipes in soils. Environ Chem Lett 2018, 16, 861–879. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- C. Argent, D. C. Argent, D. Norman, Three Layer Polyolefin Coatings: Fulfilling Their Potential?, NACE 61st Annual Conference & Exposition (n.d.). [CrossRef]
- Fletcher, D. Nicholas, Fusion Bonded Polyethylene Coatings – 40 Years On, Paper 094, Corrosion & Prevention 2014 (n.d.).
- B.T.A. Chang, H.-J. B.T.A. Chang, H.-J. Sue, H. Jiang, B. Browning, D. Wong, H. Pham, S. Guo, A. Kehr, M. Mallozzi, W. Snider, A. Siegmund, Integrity of 3LPE Pipeline Coatings: Residual Stresses and Adhesion Degradation, in: 2008 7th International Pipeline Conference, Volume 2, ASMEDC, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, 2008: pp. 75–86. [CrossRef]
- H. M.H. Farh, M.E.A. Ben Seghier, T. Zayed, A comprehensive review of corrosion protection and control techniques for metallic pipelines. Engineering Failure Analysis 2023, 143, 106885. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- N. Guermazi, K. Elleuch, H.F. Ayedi, Ph. Kapsa, Aging effect on thermal, mechanical and tribological behaviour of polymeric coatings used for pipeline application. Journal of Materials Processing Technology 2008, 203, 404–410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- D. Melot, G. D. Melot, G. Paugam, M. Roche, Disbondments of Pipeline Coatings and their effects on corrosion risks, 17th International Conference on Pipeline Protection, BHR Group, Edinburgh, 2009, 2007,.
- M. Roche, D. M. Roche, D. Melot, G. Paugam, Recent Experience with Pipeline Coating Failures, 16th International Conference on Pipeline Protection, BHR Group, Paphos, 2005, (n.d.).
- S. Ranade, M.Y. S. Ranade, M.Y. Tan, M. Forsyth, The Effects of Mechanical Stress, Environment and Cathodic Protection on the Degradation and Failure of Coatings: An Overview, Corrosion & Prevention 2014 Paper 50 (n.d.).
- NACE SP0169-2013 Control of External Corrosion on Underground or Submerged Metallic Piping Systems, 2013, NACE International, Houston, Texas, USA, AMPP, 2024. [CrossRef]
- ANSI/NACE SP0502-2010, Pipeline External Corrosion Direct Assessment Methodology, 2010, NACE International, ISBN 1-57590-156-0, AMPP, 2010. [CrossRef]
- AWWA M28 Rehabilitation of water mains, Manual of Water Supply Practices — M28, Third Edition Rehabilitation of Water Mains, 2014, American Water Works Association (AWWA), Denver, USA, awwa.org, (n.d.).
- R. Morrison, T. R. Morrison, T. Sangster, D. Downey, J. Matthews, W. Condit, S. Sinha, S. Maniar, R. Sterling, State of Technology for Rehabilitation of Water Distribution Systems, National Risk Management Research Laboratory Office of Research and Development U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Ohio, USA (2013) www.epa.gov/gateway/science.
- D. S. De Freitas, S.L.D.C. Brasil, G. Leoni, G.X.D. Motta, E.G.B. Leite, J.F.P. Coelho, Long--term cathodic disbondment tests in three--layer polyethylene coatings. Materials & Corrosion 2023, 74, 1159–1168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bobbi Jo Merten, Coating Evaluation by Electrochemical Impedance Spectroscopy (EIS), Research and Development Office Science and Technology Program Final Report ST-2016-7673-1, December 2015, Research and Development Office U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Denver CO USA, (n.d.).
- B.J.E. Merten, Electrochemical Impedance Methods to Assess Coatings for Corrosion Protection, Technical Publication No. 8540-2019-03 U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation Technical Service Center Materials and Corrosion Laboratory Denver, Colorado, USA (2019).
- D. J. Mills, S.S. Jamali, The best tests for anti-corrosive paints. And why: A personal viewpoint. Progress in Organic Coatings 2017, 102, 8–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- EN 12954-2019, General principles of cathodic protection of buried or immersed onshore metallic structures, 2019, EUROPEAN COMMITTEE FOR STANDARDIZATION, Brussels, (n.d.).
- ISO_15589-1 - 2015 (en), Petroleum, petrochemical and natural gas industries — Cathodic protection of pipeline systems Part 1: On-land pipelines, 2015, Geneva, Switzerland, (n.d.).
- DNV RP B401 - 2021, Cathodic Protection Design, 2021, DNV AS, Oslo, Norway, (n.d.).
- DNVGL-RP-F103-2016, Cathodic protection of submarine pipelines, 2016, DNV GL AS, Oslo, Norway, (n.d.).
- G. Neizvestny, S. Kenig, and K. Kovler, Comprehensive Methodology for Quality Assurance Following Installation and Backfilling of Polymer-Coated Steel Pipelines, Draft, Under Revision, October 2025, (n.d.).
- AMPP (NACE) TM0102-23: Measurement of Protective Coating Electrical Conductance on Underground Pipelines, ©2023 Association for Materials Protection and Performance (AMPP) (n.d.). [CrossRef]
- GOST R 51164-1998, General Requirements for Protection against Corrosion, 1998, Gosstandard of Russia, Moscow, (n.d.).
- W. von Baeckmann, W. W. von Baeckmann, W. Schwenk, W. Prinz, eds., Handbook of cathodic corrosion protection: theory and practice of electrochemical protection processes, 3rd ed, Gulf Pub. Co, Houston, Tex, 1997.
- N. P. Glazov, K.L. Shamshetdinov, Protection of Steel Pipelines against Underground Corrosion. Protection of Metals 2002, 38, 172–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- N. P. Glazov, Peculiarities of the Corrosion Protection of Steel Underground Pipelines. Protection of Metals 2004, 40, 468–473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- N. P. Glazov, K.L. Shamshetdinov, N.N. Glazov, Comparative analysis of requirements to insulating coatings of pipelines. Prot Met 2006, 42, 94–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- ISO 21809-1:2018 Petroleum and natural gas industries — External coatings for buried or submerged pipelines used in pipeline transportation systems Part 1: Polyolefin coatings (3-layer PE and 3-layer PP), 2018, Geneva, Switzerland, (n.d.).
- DIN 30670-2012, Polyethylene coatings on steel pipes and fittings Requirements and testing, 2012, DIN Deutsches Institut für Normung, Berlin, Germany, (n.d.).
- American Water Works Association, ANSI/AWWA C215-10, Extruded Polyolefin Coatings for the Exterior of Steel Water Pipelines, (2010). [CrossRef]
- SI 30670-2021, Polyethylene coatings on steel pipes and fittings – Requirements and testing (Updates in Hebrew), 2021, SII, Tel Aviv, Israel, (n.d.).
- ISO 21809-3: 2016, Petroleum and natural gas industries — External coatings for buried or submerged pipelines used in pipeline transportation systems Part 3: Field joint coatings, 2016, Geneva, Switzerland, (n.d.).
- DIN 30672-2000, Tape and shrinkable materials for the corrosion protection of buried or underwater pipelines without cathodic protection for use at operating temperatures up to 50 °C, 2000, DIN Deutsches Institut für Normung and DVGW Deutscher Verein des Gas-und Wasserfaches e.V. (German Associaton of Gas and Water Engineers), Berlin, Germany, (n.d.).
- BS EN 12068:1999, Cathodic protection. External organic coatings for the corrosion protection of buried or immersed steel pipelines used in conjunction with cathodic protection. Tapes and shrinkable materials, ISBN: 0580302296, British Standards Institution, London, 1999.
- DNV-RP-F102: Pipeline Field Joint Coating and Field Repair of Linepipe Coating, (2011).
- Steve Lampman, Characterization and Failure Analysis of Plastics, Copyright © 2003 by ASM International, pp. 28-48,. [CrossRef]
- L. McKeen, The effect of heat aging on the properties of polyolefins, polyvinyls, and acrylics, in: The Effect of Long Term Thermal Exposure on Plastics and Elastomers, Elsevier, 2021: pp. 177–202. [CrossRef]
- P. Gijsman, Review on the thermo-oxidative degradation of polymers during processing and in service. E-Polymers 2008, 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- D. Feldman, Polymer Weathering: Photo-Oxidation, Journal of Polymers and the Environment, Vol. 10, No. 4, October 2002 (n.d.).
- J. R. White, A. Turnbull, Weathering of polymers: mechanisms of degradation and stabilization, testing strategies and modelling. Journal of Materials Science 1994, 29, 584–613. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hsuan, Y.G. , Koerner, R.M., Antioxidant depletion lifetime in high density polyethylene geomembranes, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering ASCE, 532–541, 1998., (n.d.).
- R. K. Rowe, H.P. Sangam, Durability of HDPE geomembranes. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 2002, 20, 77–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- W.L. Hawkins, Polymer Degradation and Stabilization, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 1984. [CrossRef]
- Plota, A. Masek, Lifetime Prediction Methods for Degradable Polymeric Materials—A Short Review. Materials 2020, 13, 4507. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- H. P. Sangam, R.K. Rowe, Effects of exposure conditions on the depletion of antioxidants from high-density polyethylene (HDPE) geomembranes. Can. Geotech. J. 2002, 39, 1221–1230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- R. K. Rowe, M.Z. Islam, R.W.I. Brachman, D.N. Arnepalli, A.R. Ewais, Antioxidant Depletion from a High Density Polyethylene Geomembrane under Simulated Landfill Conditions. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2010, 136, 930–939. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Norman Grassie & Gerald Scott, Polymer Degradation and Stabilisation, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1985, (n.d.).
- F. Gugumus, Critical antioxidant concentrations in polymer oxidation—I. Fundamental aspects. Polymer Degradation and Stability 1998, 60, 85–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Y.G. Hsuan, H.F. Y.G. Hsuan, H.F. Schroeder, K. Rowe, W. Müller, J. Greenwood, D. Cazzuffi, R.M. Koerner, Long-term Performance and Lifetime Prediction of Geosynthetics, (n.d.).
- Gerald Scott, Antioxidants, Bull. Chem. Soc. Jpn., 61, 165- 1988, 170, The Chemical Society of Japan, (n.
- H. Zweifel, Stabilization of Polymeric Materials, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 1998. [CrossRef]
- G., Pritchard (Ed.) G. Pritchard, ed., Plastics Additives: An A-Z reference (pp. 73-79), Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, 1998. [CrossRef]
- Y. Hsuan, R. Y. Hsuan, R. Koerner, A. Lord, A Review of the Degradation of Geosynthetic Reinforcing Materials and Various Polymer Stabilization Methods, in: Geosynthetic Soil Reinforcement Testing Procedures, ASTM International100 Barr Harbor Drive, PO Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959, 1993: pp. 228–243. [CrossRef]
- P. P. Klemchuk, P.-L. Horng, Transformation products of hindered phenolic antioxidants and colour development in polyolefins. Polymer Degradation and Stability 1991, 34, 333–346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- W. D. Habicher, I. Bauer, J. Pospíšil, Organic Phosphites as Polymer Stabilizers. Macromolecular Symposia 2005, 225, 147–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- K. J. Humphris, G. Scott, Mechanisms of antioxidant action: reactions of phosphites with hydroperoxides. J. Chem. Soc., Perkin Trans. 1973, 2, 826. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- R. P. Krushelnitzky, R.W.I. Brachman, Antioxidant depletion in high-density polyethylene pipes exposed to synthetic leachate and air. Geosynthetics International 2011, 18, 63–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Y.G. Hsuan, M. Y.G. Hsuan, M. Li, R.M. Koerner, Stage “‘C’” Lifetime Prediction of HDPE Geomembrane Using Acceleration Tests with Elevated Temperature, in: Geosynthetics Research and Development in Progress, American Society of Civil Engineers, Austin, Texas, United States, 2008: pp. 1–5. [CrossRef]
- W. W. Müller, I. Jakob, R. Tatzky-Gerth, A. Wöhlecke, A study on antioxidant depletion and degradation in polyolefin-based geosynthetics: Sacrificial versus regenerative stabilization. Polym Eng Sci 2016, 56, 129–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Y.G. Hsuan, H.F. Y.G. Hsuan, H.F. Schroeder, K. Rowe, W. Müller, J. Greenwood, D. Cazzuffi, R.M. Koerner, Long-term Performance and Lifetime Prediction of Geosynthetics, EuroGeo4 Keynote Paper, 2016 (n.d.).
- R. M. Koerner, A.E. Lord, Y.H. Hsuan, Arrhenius modeling to predict geosynthetic degradation. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 1992, 11, 151–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- A.S. Maxwell, W.R. A.S. Maxwell, W.R. Broughton, G. Dean, G.D. Sims, Review of accelerated ageing methods and lifetime prediction techniques for polymeric materials, NPL Report DEPC MPR 016, National Physical Laboratory, UK (2005).
- R.L. Feller, Accelerated aging: photochemical and thermal aspects, Getty Conservation Institute, Marina del Rey, CA, 1994.
- S. Maxwell and W. R. Broughton, NPL Report MAT 85, Survey of long-term durability testing of composites, adhesives and polymers, National Physical Laboratory, NPL Management Limited, 2017, (n.d.).
- R. M. Koerner, G. R. R. M. Koerner, G. R. Koerner, Y. Hsuan and W. K. Wong, GRI Report #42 - Lifetime Prediction of Laboratory UV Exposed Geomembranes- Part I- Using A Correlation Factor, Geosynthetic Institute, USA, 2012, (n.d.).
- R. Bonaparte, D. E. R. Bonaparte, D. E. Daniel, R. M. Koerner, Assessment and Recommendations for Improving the Performance of Waste Containment Systems, EPA/600/R-02/099, 2002, (n.d.).
- A.J. Doheny, SERVICE LIFETIME OF POLYOLEFIN-BASED PIPELINE COATINGS BY ACCELERATED TESTING OF THERMAL STABILITY, Paper No. 610, NACE International, 1998 (n.d.).
- DVWG GW 12 (A) 2010, Technische Regel – Arbeitsblatt, Planung und Einrichtung des kathodischen Korrosionsschutzes (KKS) für erdverlegte Lagerbehälter und Stahlrohrleitung ((Planning and installing of cathodic corrosion protection (CP) for buried storage tanks and steel pipes - p. 7.2), Bonn, Germany, (n.d.).
- AfK-Empfehlung, Nr. 10 - 2000, Verfahren zum Nachweis der Wirksamkeit des des kathodischen Korrosionsschutzes an erdverlegten Rohrleitungen; DVGW, Bonn, Germany, (n.d.).
- NACE TM0109-09, Aboveground survey techniques for the evaluation of underground coating condition, 2009, NACE International, ISBN 1-57590-226-5, (n.d.).
- NACE SP0207-2007, Performing close-interval potential surveys and DC surface potential gradient surveys on buried or submerged metallic pipelines, NACE International, Houston, Tex., 2007.
- W.B. Holtsbaum, Cathodic protection survey procedures, NACE International, Houston, Tex, 2009.
- NACE SP0286-2007, Standard recommended practice: electrical isolation of cathodically protected pipelines, NACE International, Houston, TX, 2007.
- NACE Standard TM0497-2012, Standard Test Method, Measurement Techniques Related to Criteria for Cathodic Protection on Underground or Submerged Metallic Piping Systems, NACE International, Houston, TX, USA, AMPP, 2022. [CrossRef]
- ASTM G57 - Standard Test Method for Field Measurement of Soil Resistivity Using the Wenner Four-Electrode Method, ASTM, USA, (n.d.).
- ANSI/API 5L, ISO 3183:2007 (Modified), Petroleum and natural gas industries – Steel pipe for pipeline transportation systems, 44th Edition, 2007, American Petrolium Institute, the International Organization for Standardization, (n.d.).
- L. I. Nyrkova, S.O. Osadchuk, L.V. Goncharenko, A.O. Rybakov, Yu.O. Kharchenko, Influence of long-term operation on the properties of main gas pipeline steels. A review. Phys. Chem. Sol. State 2024, 25, 191–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- S. A. Shipilov, I. Le May, Structural integrity of aging buried pipelines having cathodic protection. Engineering Failure Analysis 2006, 13, 1159–1176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- B. Y. Fang, A. Atrens, J.Q. Wang, E.H. Han, Z.Y. Zhu, W. Ke, Review of stress corrosion cracking of pipeline steels in “low” and “high” pH solutions. Journal of Materials Science 2003, 38, 127–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- F. Hasan, J. Iqbal, F. Ahmed, Stress corrosion failure of high-pressure gas pipeline. Engineering Failure Analysis 2007, 14, 801–809. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- D. S. De Freitas, S.L.D.C. Brasil, G. Leoni, G.X.D. Motta, E.G.B. Leite, J.F.P. Coelho, Long--term cathodic disbondment tests in three--layer polyethylene coatings. Materials & Corrosion 2023, 74, 1159–1168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- M. Y. Tan, F. Varela, Y. Huo, R. Gupta, D. Abreu, F. Mahdavi, B. Hinton, M. Forsyth, An Overview of New Progresses in Understanding Pipeline Corrosion. Corrosion Science and Technology 2016, 15, 271–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- A.W. Peabody, Peabody’s Control of Pipeline Corrosion, 3rd ed., NACE International, The Worldwide Corrosion Authority15835 Park Ten Place, Houston, TX 77084, 2018. [CrossRef]







| Pipeline designation (*) | Diameter (Inch) | Length (m) | Wall thickness (mm) | Pipeline’s age (year) | The initial average specific electrical resistance of the pipeline section, (Ω·m2) (**) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| N1 (N1) South | 16 | 4,920 | 4.0 | 11 | 1,9·106 |
| N2 (N2) South | 20 | 4,990 | 4.0 | 11 | 1.0·106 |
| N3 (N3) South | 24 | 4,940 | 4.8 | 11 | 1.9·106 |
| N4 (N11) Center | 100 | 1,200 | 15.9 | 11 | 4,3·106 |
| G1 (G51) Center | 18 | 9,420 | 12.35 | 11 | 17·106 |
| G2 (G52) Center | 18 | 7,760 | 12.35 | 11 | 11·106 |
| G3 (G53) North | 10 | 14,730 | 10.30 | 11 | 21·106 |
| G4 (G54) North | 18 | 12,540 | 12.35 | 11 | 19·106 |
| Pipeline designation (*) | Type of Test | Coating Electrical Resistance, Ω·m2, vs service time, years | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Initial (**) | 8 years | 9 years | 10 years | 11 years | ||
| N1 (N1) | Line Current Test | 2.0·106 | - | 1.2·106 | 0.9·106 | 0.7·106 |
| N2 (N2) | Line Current Test | 1.0·106 | - | 0.6·106 | 0.5·106 | 0.4·106 |
| N3 (N3) | Line Current Test | 19.2·106 | - | 8.7·106 | 8.4·106 | 8.7·106 |
| N4 (N11) | Line Current Test | 4.3·106 | - | - | (***) | - |
| G1 (G51) | Line Current Test | 16.9·106 | 10.0·106 | - | 9.6·106 | 9.4·106 |
| Drainage Test | 16.9·106 | - | - | 1.4·106 | - | |
| G2 (G52) | Line Current Test | 10.9·106 | 7.1·106 | - | 6.4·106 | 5.4·106 |
| Drainage Test | 10.9·106 | - | - | 1.4·106 | - | |
| G3 (G53) | Line Current Test | 21.0·106 | - | 11.8·106 | - | 9.1·106 |
| Drainage Test | 21.0·106 | - | - | 0.7·106 | - | |
| G4 (G54) | Line Current Test | 19.5·106 | - | 11.6·106 | - | 9.2·106 |
| Drainage Test | 19.5·106 | - | - | 0.7·106 | - | |
| Pipeline designation | Prediction model | Calculated average aging coefficient, α, 1/year |
|---|---|---|
| G51 | RC(t)=16.9·106e-0.058t | 0.058 |
| G52 | RC(t)=10.9·106e-0.056t | 0.056 |
| G53 | RC(t)=21.0·106e-0.070t | 0.070 |
| G54 | RC(t)=19.6·106e-0.063t | 0.063 |
| Pipeline designation | Prediction model | Calculated average aging coefficient, α, 1/year |
|---|---|---|
| N1 | RC(t)=2.0·106e-0.075t | 0.075 |
| N2 | RC(t)=1.0·106e-0.073t | 0.073 |
| N3 | RC(t)=19.3·106e-0.081t | 0.081 |
| The aging coefficient, 1/year | Oil/Gas Pipelines | Water Pipelines |
|---|---|---|
| Calculated Range | 0.06±0.01 | 0.08±0.01 |
| Average | 0.06 | 0.08 |
| Minimum | 0.05 | 0.07 |
| Maximum | 0.07 | 0.09 |
| The General Prediction Model |
| Service time, years | Oil/gas Pipelines | Water Pipelines | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| α=0.05 | α=0.06 | α=0.07 | α=0.07 | α=0.08 | α=0.09 | |
| 0 | 1.0·107 | 1.0·107 | 1.0·107 | 3.0·106 | 3.0·106 | 3.0·106 |
| 10 | 6.1·106 | 5.5·106 | 5.0·106 | 1.5·106 | 1.3·106 | 1.2·106 |
| 20 | 3.7·106 | 3.0·106 | 2.5·106 | 0.7·106 | 0.6·106 | 0.5·106 |
| 30 | 2.2·106 | 1.7·106 | 1.2·106 | 0.4·106 | 0.3·106 | 0.2·106 |
| 40 | 1.4·106 | 0.9·106 | 0.6·106 | 0.2·106 | 0.1·106 | 0.8·105 |
| 50 | 0.8·106 | 0.5·106 | 0.3·106 | 0.9·105 | 0.5·105 | 0.3·105 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2025 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).