S ONIC V I NSPECTION R EPORT

211-E-23

ADAMAASIA WORLDWIDE
04-Nov-18
 04-Nov-18

Table of Contents
Sonic V Inspection Report .............................................................................................................................. 2
General Details ............................................................................................................................................... 3
Inspection Equipment Details......................................................................................................................... 3
Tube Identification System ............................................................................................................................. 4
Test Limitations .............................................................................................................................................. 4
Test Results Summary .................................................................................................................................... 4
Graphical Representation of Results .............................................................................................................. 4
Statistical Breakdown of Results .................................................................................................................... 6
Sonic V Inspection Results .............................................................................................................................. 7
Defects Table by Type .................................................................................................................................. 11
Signal View ................................................................................................................................................... 12
Sonic V - APR Technology Introduction ........................................................................................................ 13

1|P a g e
 04-Nov-18

Sonic V Inspection Report

211-E-23

ADAMAASIA WORLDWIDE
E 1-8 Kuchai Business Park
Jalan 1/127 off Jalan Kuchai Lama
58200 Kuala Lumpur
+603-79836087
amirusli@aagroups.my

PROJECT: Pertamina RU II Dumai – Tube Inspection Trial

CONTRACTOR: Technofas Servisindo, PT
CLIENT: PT Pertamina (Persero)
LOCATION: Dumai, Riau, Indonesia
EQUIPMENT: Cooler
EQUIPMENT NO: 211-E-23
EQUIPMENT LOCATION: Pertamina RU II Dumai
ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA: AS PER CLIENT
REPORT NO: 2018.11.04.0110
TEST DATE: 03-Nov-18
SPECIALIST INSPECTOR: Hakimi Arif
INSPECTION WITNESS: Alfian Ibnu
SWIS QA/QC: Aleksandar Hirsl
REPORTING DATE: 04-Nov-18 Signature

2|P a g e
 04-Nov-18

Scope of Work
To carry out APR Inspection using Sonic V on 148 tubes out of 148 tubes (100%).

Equipment No. 211-E-23

Over their full length and to detect and fully evaluate any defects or any other anomalies.

General Details
Client: PT Pertamina (Persero)
Location: Dumai, Riau, Indonesia
Date of Inspection: 03-Nov-18
Inspectors: Hakimi Arif

HEAT EXCHANGER DETAILS

Equipment: Cooler
Equipment No.: 211-E-23
Tube Material: SA 214
Tube Dimensions: 25.4mm x 2.11mm x 6000mm
Tube Structure: Straight Tubes
Number of Tubes: 148
Number of Tubes Tested: 148
Tube not Tested: 0
Number of Tubes Plugged: 0

Inspection Equipment Details

Sound Wave Inspection Systems SONIC V: Serial No. 5002
Adapter: D07

3|P a g e
 04-Nov-18

Tube Identification System

The following tube identification system was used:

The inspection was carried out from the outlet part. Rows ran from Top to Bottom and Columns were
numbered from Left to Right.

Test Limitations
• Cleaning required for successful leak (hole) detection is according to Swedish SA 1 or SSPC-SP 7/NACE
No.4 standard. Light blast cleaning. Loose mill scale, rust and foreign matter should be removed.
Usually standard air blasting without hydro jetting is sufficient. To enable adequate leak (hole)
detection, a defect should have a minimum diameter of 0.5mm (0.019685”).
• Tubes must be cleaned to Swedish SA 2 or SSPC-SP 14/NACE No.8 standard for successful ID wall loss
detection. Any deposit that remains on the bore of the tubes could cover the inner tube wall and hide
all defects that might be under it. The acoustic wave reflections could be miscalculated or in the worst
case, defects may remain undetected. To enable adequate wall loss detection, a defect has to have a
minimum diameter of 4.75mm (3/16”) - ASME standard pit.
• Blockage detection can be carried out without any prior cleaning.
• Defect sizing tolerance shall be ±10%, according to ASME Section V, Article 18 (ASME BPVC.V-2015).

Test Results Summary

Equipment: Cooler
Equipment No.: 211-E-23

Table of Defects1

% Wall Loss Nos. of Tubes

20% - 40% 15
41% - 60% 12
61% - 80% 6
81% - 100% 0
Holes 0
Blockage 0
NDD 115
Plugged 0
Not Inspected 0
TOTAL INSPECTED 148
1
Number of tubes containing stated defect type. Same tube will be counted once per defect type it contains.

4|P a g e
 04-Nov-18

Graphical Representation of Results

2 The most significant defect is used to determine color on the map. Colorized tubes may contain more, less significant defects .

0 PLG: Plugged 15 20< Wall loss<=40

0 Not Tested 12 41< Wall loss<=60
115 No Defect Detected (NDD) 6 61< Wall loss<=80
0 Hole 0 81< Wall loss<=100
0 Blockage
3Table contains total number of all reported defects

5|P a g e
 04-Nov-18

Statistical Breakdown of Results

4 The most significant defect is used to represent a tube. Same tube may contain more, less significant defects.

6|P a g e
 04-Nov-18

Sonic V Inspection Results

Estimated Percentage of Inner Diameter

Row Column Hole Blockage Position
NDD Wall Loss Comment
No. No. (mm) (Area %) (m)
20% - 40% 41% - 60% 61% - 80% 81% - 100%
1 1 •
1 2 •
1 3 •
1 4 •
1 5 •
1 6 • 25 % 1.02 m
1 7 •
1 8 •
1 9 •
1 10 •
1 11 • 20 % 0.58 m
1 12 •
2 1 • 20 % 2.75 m
2 2 •
2 3 • 45 % 1.31 m
2 4 • 45 % 1.25 m
2 5 • 20 % 1.29 m
2 6 • 45 % 1.01 m
2 7 •
2 8 •
2 9 •
2 10 •
2 11 •
2 12 •
2 13 •
2 14 •
3 1 •
3 2 •
3 3 •
3 4 •
3 5 •
3 6 •
3 7 • 45 % 1.11 m
3 8 • 65 % 1.07 m
3 9 •
3 10 •
3 11 •
3 12 •
3 13 •
3 14 •

7|P a g e
 04-Nov-18

Estimated Percentage of Inner Diameter

Row Column Hole Blockage Position
NDD Wall Loss Comment
No. No. (mm) (Area %) (m)
20% - 40% 41% - 60% 61% - 80% 81% - 100%
3 15 •
3 16 •
4 1 •
4 2 •
4 3 • 25 % 1.18 m
4 4 •
4 5 •
4 6 • 25 % 2.25 m
4 7 • 55 % 3.52 m
4 8 • 50 % 2.72 m
4 9 • 45 % 0.67 m
4 10 •
4 11 •
4 12 •
4 13 •
4 14 •
4 15 •
4 16 •
5 1 •
5 2 •
5 3 •
5 4 • 50 % 0.44 m
5 5 •
5 6 •
5 7 •
5 8 • 65 % 2.66 m
5 9 • 45 % 3.33 m
5 10 •
5 11 •
5 12 •
5 13 •
5 14 •
5 15 •
5 16 •
6 1 •
6 2 •
6 3 •
6 4 •
6 5 • 40 % 1.40 m
6 6 •
6 7 •
6 8 •
6 9 •
6 10 • 70 % 2.52 m

8|P a g e
 04-Nov-18

Estimated Percentage of Inner Diameter

Row Column Hole Blockage Position
NDD Wall Loss Comment
No. No. (mm) (Area %) (m)
20% - 40% 41% - 60% 61% - 80% 81% - 100%
6 11 • 25 % 1.01 m
6 12 • 70 % 2.64 m
6 13 • 45 % 3.19 m
6 14 • 25 % 3.21 m
6 15 •
6 16 •
7 1 •
7 2 •
7 3 •
7 4 •
7 5 •
7 6 • 20 % 0.22 m
7 7 •
7 8 • 65 % 2.47 m
7 9 •
7 10 • 25 % 3.09 m Clustered
7 11 • 20 % 0.66 m
7 12 •
7 13 •
7 14 •
7 15 •
7 16 •
8 1 • 20 % 0.53 m
8 2 •
8 3 • 20 % 0.93 m
8 4 •
8 5 •
8 6 • 55 % 3.45 m
8 7 •
8 8 •
8 9 •
8 10 •
8 11 • 45 % 2.88 m
8 12 •
8 13 • 65 % 2.82 m
8 14 •
8 15 •
8 16 •
9 1 •
9 2 •
9 3 •
9 4 •
9 5 •
9 6 •

9|P a g e
 04-Nov-18

Estimated Percentage of Inner Diameter

Row Column Hole Blockage Position
NDD Wall Loss Comment
No. No. (mm) (Area %) (m)
20% - 40% 41% - 60% 61% - 80% 81% - 100%
9 7 • 20 % 1.98 m
9 8 •
9 9 •
9 10 •
9 11 •
9 12 •
9 13 •
9 14 •
10 1 •
10 2 •
10 3 •
10 4 •
10 5 •
10 6 •
10 7 •
10 8 •
10 9 •
10 10 •
10 11 •
10 12 •

10 | P a g e
 04-Nov-18

Defects Table by Type

Wall loss
Row Column Position
Type Size Comment
No. No. (m)
6 10 2.52 m Wall loss 70 %
6 12 2.64 m Wall loss 70 %
3 8 1.07 m Wall loss 65 %
5 8 2.66 m Wall loss 65 %
7 8 2.47 m Wall loss 65 %
8 13 2.82 m Wall loss 65 %
4 7 3.52 m Wall loss 55 %
8 6 3.45 m Wall loss 55 %
4 8 2.72 m Wall loss 50 %
5 4 0.44 m Wall loss 50 %
2 3 1.31 m Wall loss 45 %
2 4 1.25 m Wall loss 45 %
2 6 1.01 m Wall loss 45 %
3 7 1.11 m Wall loss 45 %
4 9 0.67 m Wall loss 45 %
5 9 3.33 m Wall loss 45 %
6 13 3.19 m Wall loss 45 %
8 11 2.88 m Wall loss 45 %
6 5 1.40 m Wall loss 40 %
1 6 1.02 m Wall loss 25 %
4 3 1.18 m Wall loss 25 %
4 6 2.25 m Wall loss 25 %
6 11 1.01 m Wall loss 25 %
6 14 3.21 m Wall loss 25 %
7 10 3.09 m Wall loss 25 % Clustered
1 11 0.58 m Wall loss 20 %
2 1 2.75 m Wall loss 20 %
2 5 1.29 m Wall loss 20 %
7 6 0.22 m Wall loss 20 %
7 11 0.66 m Wall loss 20 %
8 1 0.53 m Wall loss 20 %
8 3 0.93 m Wall loss 20 %
9 7 1.98 m Wall loss 20 %

11 | P a g e
 04-Nov-18

Signal View
Wall Loss

12 | P a g e
 04-Nov-18

Sonic V - APR Technology Introduction

Acoustic Pulse Reflectometry (APR) is NDT method for tubes and pipes inspection.

In APR specially formed pulses are sent into the air inside the tube. Any change in the tube or pipe inner
cross section will create a reflection that will travel back to the beginning of the tube, and will be recorded
by the Sonic V microphones.

These reflections are carrying valuable information: defects type, location and size data can be extracted
by analysis of acquired signals.

APR can be used to inspect tubes of any material (ferromagnetic, non-ferromagnetic, plastic, glass and
ceramic) and shape (straight, U-tubes, fin fan tubes, spiral and coil) with inner diameter between 6mm
and 50mm.

Figure 1 shows what reflections from typical defects - through wall hole (TWH), local blockage and local
wall loss (pitting) look like.

13 | P a g e