A

Proceedings of the 2020 13th International Pipeline Conference

tte
IPC2020

nd
September 28-30, 2020, Virtual, Online

ee
R
ea
d-
O
IPC2020-9288

nl
y
C
op
y
SLOPE MOVEMENT INSPECTION USING AXIAL STRAIN DATA ACROSS MULTIPLE LINES
AND REPEAT INSPECTIONS

Mohamed ElSeify Sylvain Cornu, Raymond Karé Ali Fathi, John Richmond
Baker Hughes Eddyfi Technologies Enbridge, Liquids Pipelines,
Calgary, Alberta, Canada Milton Keynes, UK Edmonton, Alberta, Canada

ABSTRACT
Axial strain inspection using the AXISSTM is an established
tool in the pipeline operator’s toolbox to assess pipeline
geotechnical threats and other strain related events.
Consequently, there is a large database of axial strain data for
several different pipelines operating in different environments
and from multiple inspections at the same geographical
locations.
The Cheecham slope, located south east of Fort McMurray,
Alberta, is a known geohazard site crossed by six individual
pipelines. The lines were constructed between 1999 and 2013
and have a size range of 10” to 36”. Five out of the six lines, 12”
to 36”, have been inspected using the axial strain tool. The
pipelines inspected cover a range of characteristics including,
different vintages, pipe diameters and positions in the ROW.
These differences, and the ILI runs provide an insight into the
effect of a landslide event on the strain response of these
pipelines.
Axial strain measurement of the multiple pipelines in the
Cheecham slope’s ROW allows: i) a direct comparison between
lines ii) evaluation of the strain profile across the slope iii)
assessment of the magnitude of the axial strain in terms of pipe
characteristics e.g. pipe vintage and mechanical properties. More
importantly, the axial strain data may provide an additional tool
to assess the effectiveness of strain mitigation steps carried out
over the years.
An increase in the frequency of axial strain ILI runs resulted
in additional data being available and more importantly data
from run to run inspections spread over months or sometime
years. A single run captures the strain at the time of inspection
but run to run inspections provide an additional comparative tool
to evaluate and monitor pipeline movement. Two out of the five
lines inspected have run to run axial strain data. This paper takes
the Cheecham slope as a case study to discuss the benefits of run
comparison of ILI axial strain data either by comparing strain
values of repeated runs for a single line or by the cross
comparison of strain responses of different lines in the same
ROW. The paper aims to demonstrate how run to run analysis of
ILI axial strain data can be implemented as part of geohazard risk
management program to asses strain risk profiles of these
locations and to assess the effectiveness of strain mitigation
programs previously undertaken by operators.
Keywords: Axial Strain, Geohazard, ILI, Monitoring
NOMENCLATURE
AOI Area Of Interest
GIS Geographic System Information
ILI Inline Inspection
IMU Inertial Measurement Unit
LiDAR Light Detection And Ranging
MFL Magnetic Flux Leakage
ROW Right Of Way
1. INTRODUCTION
Pipeline inspections using ILI tools have been conducted for
over half a century. As the ILI technologies progressed and the
number of inspections increased, data interpretation and analysis
techniques are undergoing continuous improvement. In general,
inspection runs conducted during the early years of a newly
developed tool/technology deliver a basic set of results as their
objectives are normally the detection of the largest feature in a
pipeline. With experience, the rudimentary inspections are
refined with increased data coverage and correlation with other
datasets. Excavations enhance the understanding of the data and
analysis process and provide confirmation and validation of the
data. Single run inspections produce a substantial amount of data
to evaluate the current integrity of a pipeline but for proactive
and predictive maintenance, run to run provide an additional tool
to identify changes in pipeline condition before they become
critical. By comparing datasets from subsequent runs, corrosion
growth rates can be established, dent or ovalities re-assessed and
bending strain associated to ground movement can be monitored.

1 Copyright © 2020 ASME

 From the pipeline operator’s point of view, development of
maintenance and mitigation plans based on condition assessment
from ILI supported by in depth integrity assessment and decision
making is preferable to decisions based solely on theoretical
modelling. It is always better to measure directly as opposed to
predicting the value based on theoretical modelling.
2. AXIAL STRAIN TECHNOLOGY ADOPTION
The axial strain technology was developed in response to
pipeline operator’s need for detection of axial load, other than
thermal expansion and pressure, to enhance their geohazard
management programs. The tool has since been used as a
complementary technology to the current ILI IMU bending
strain and for run to run movement technology for input into a
geohazard/deformation management program. The axial strain
technology is a non-contacting strain measurement technique
based on the inverse magnetostriction method (also referred to
as magnetoelastic effect or Villari effect) where the magnetic
domain behavior is dependent on the magnetization and the
mechanical strain in a ferromagnetic material. It was initially
developed as the StressProbe™ system with support from the oil
and gas industry for use on steel structures both onshore and in
subsea applications before being developed for ILI [1]
The axial strain tool offers a practical method to measure the
strain along a full length of inspection using a conventional ILI
tool [2]. It is typically mounted at the rear of a combo tool that
includes Caliper and IMU and the MFL tool which acts to
demagnetize the surface of the pipeline to mitigate the effect of
load hysteresis. This offers the most comprehensive set of data
which allows for the assessment of a pipeline’s condition.
Initial deployment was in response to customer demand
concentrated on specific tool sizes to assess known geohazard
sites. The technology has been available since 2010 when it was
used on 36” tool. It is currently available on platforms between
12” and 42”.
Axial strain tool contains an array of sensors distributed
around the pipe circumference. The sensors respond to the
longitudinal strain which is the strain at any point on the pipe
cross-section acting in the longitudinal direction. Longitudinal
strain includes the effects of axial loading, bending moments and
hoop strain in the axial direction. By using distributed sensors
around the circumference, the circumferential longitudinal strain
distribution can be decoupled into its main components.
The axial strain data interpretation and presentation can be
customized to match a specific analysis. For this study, the focus
of the analysis is the axial strain component, which is the
constant longitudinal strain around the circumference usually
associated with external axial loading. The axial strain was
calculated by averaging the longitudinal strain from individual
probes to remove the bending component and by subtracting the
effect of internal pressure in the longitudinal direction. To reduce
the high frequency noise and enhance the trend interpretation,
the axial strain data is put through a low pass filter using moving
average over two pipe joints (≈20 m).
Axial strain is reported in microstrains (με). Strain is a
dimensionless value and can also be reported as a percent, this is
2 Copyright © 2020 ASME
the standard reporting units for IMU bending strain (e.g. 0.15%
corresponds to 1500 microstrains). For reference a X-60 pipe
grade would have a Specified Minimum Yield Strength of 60 ksi
(414 MPa). This is equivalent to 2000 με based on a young
modulus of 207 GPa. The axial strain measurements (Y-Axis) are
plotted as a function of distance (X-axis). The sampling
frequency is reduced to 1 data point per meter. The general
assumption is that the mean axial strain is close to zero over the
whole length of the inspected pipe. Deviation from the mean
indicate abnormal axial strain level. The scale (length),
amplitude and rate of change are characteristic of the source of
the strain. Long axial strain events (from several pipe joints to
few kilometers) with strain moving from tensile to compressive
(or vice versa) are often a characteristic of geohazard events.
Axial strain measurement is used to both assess known
threat locations and to identify previously unknown threats.
Since the first deployment of the axial strain tool over 15,000
kms of inspection data has been collected increasing the database
and experience. There are a number of key benefits in mapping
the full length of a pipeline. The primary objectives of customers
to date are listed below:
• Detection of new geohazard locations; not
identified as AOI
• Assessment of existing geohazards
• Monitoring of existing geohazards
• Validation of newly constructed pipeline
• Base line data for future inspections irrespective of
the presence of geohazard
• Construction related strain
• Validation of mitigation effort, strain relief
In a ROW with multiple pipelines the detection of features
such as a dent or corrosion area on one pipeline would normally
require an assessment of these features on the integrity of that
line. But when a geohazard is detected the effect of the hazard is
not confined to the single pipeline itself but could spread across
a large area and will likely adversely affect any infrastructure in
the same ROW. Therefore, operators with pipelines in the same
ROW tend to cooperate and share inspection data and
experiences relating to pipeline conditions and maintenance
plans. This then makes it possible to assess the effect of a
geohazard on the specific line inspected and possible
implications across the range of pipelines located in the same
corridor.
This comparison can be done at two levels:
• At a single pipeline operator level in a ROW, in depth
knowledge is gained by comparing external load effects
across a range of conditions (pipe size, wall thickness,
vintage and construction technique) and can then
deliver a more considered integrity decision.
• With multiple pipeline operators in a ROW if all parties
are willing to cooperate on issues relation to the safety
and integrity of the ROW it is possible to use all
 available inspection datasets and deliver enhanced
reporting on the integrity of the pipelines.
In general pipelines crossing interacting landslides have
been surveyed for both bending and axial strains on a regular
basis, with intervals ranging from twice a year to once in several
years, depending on the observed rate of movement. These run
to run inspections add to the available data surrounding co-
located pipes and enhance confidence to cross correlate strain
condition data.
Run to run inspection for axial strain condition is the logical
evolution of the technology application and this is evidenced by
the growing number of run to run analyses carried out year on
year. A direct comparison can be drawn with bending strain
surveys now commonly performed using IMUs and first
conducted in the late ‘80s by Baker Hughes with the GEOPIGTM.
Similarly, to axial strain measurement, IMU analysis is
challenged by, and relies heavily upon, the ability of the analyst
to distinguish between bending strain due to an outside force and
residual bending strain from pipe construction. But ILI IMU
analysis of run to run data can provide key indications of whether
or not bending strain is due to pipe construction practices and/or
outside forces based on the activity of the feature and combined
with ground type investigations. Similarly for axial strain run to
run analysis can provide key information to evaluate and monitor
the condition of the pipeline.
Lessons from other technologies [3] have been learnt and
applied to the axial strain tool in reporting run to run analysis. A
brief review of some of these aspects is presented below:
• Differences in the Inspection Tools
The axial strain instrumentation is generally independent of the
tool design and therefore the main difference between older runs
and newer inspections is the data resolution. Initial runs were
relying on 4 probes spaced around the circumference whereas
the latest tool has 8 probes, as shown in Fig. 1. The increase in
circumferential resolution allows a better differentiation between
local circumferential events and true axially oriented strain
events. Higher resolution allows a more accurate calculation of
the axial strain component and better redundancy in the event
that one or more probes needs to be discarded as a result of
debris, from probe running over a seam weld or from damage to
the tool. Data from probe riding on seam weld is routinely
discarded due to the influence of weld geometry and heat
affected zone.
FIGURE 1: AXIAL STRAIN TOOL CONFIGURATIONS. [3]
3 Copyright © 2020 ASME
• Differences between Models/Algorithms
The fundamentals of the axial strain analysis algorithms have
remained constant. The main addition was to accommodate a
larger number of sensors by introducing extended mathematical
models to best evaluate the axial strain component based on up
to 8 values around the circumference. Some of the mathematical
models developed by pipeline operators have been published
previously [4]. But unlike MFL for example which uses sizing
models, the axial strain deliverable is a direct measurement along
the length of inspection, no feature boxing and sizing is required.
The only point to be considered is minor differences which can
occur as a result of different filtering techniques for known
effects (e.g. geometry of seam weld) or to compensate for
degraded data (e.g. debris or tool damage during inspection).
Filters are part of data analysis and are part of an ongoing
development process to follow the evolution of the data. Filters
are used to eliminate unwanted effects encountered in a
systematic way. They are also used on a case by case basis.
• Availability of new information
The axial strain measurement relies on the magnetic properties
of the pipe. The conversion of the magnetic response into strain
may differ from one pipe grade to another. Therefore, as part of
the analysis the line is broken down into pipe type (wall
thickness, grade, seam type, manufacturer, vintage). Availability
of information to define pipe type provides greater accuracy of
the analyzed data. Initial analysis relied on a sample from the
pipe under inspection to be available to obtain a calibration factor
to convert the inspection data into strain values. However, recent
developments have made it possible to use models based purely
on the pipe details and in-situ measurements to predict the
calibration factors [5]. Ten years ago, the pipe type definition
may have been a difficult task to completely fulfill but nowadays
with the drive towards pipe traceability (FR 52245 Section
192.607 current as of April 2020) this is no longer an issue. On
certain occasions in the past pipe samples required for calibration
have been sourced or recovered from service after the initial
inspection was completed and reported. These samples are now
available for run to run inspections. This means that the original
analysis which is needed for the comparison may now need to be
updated to reflect the latest information.
The pipe information, analysis method, and tool differences
can contribute to significant errors in a run to run analysis if they
are not addressed. These errors may be relatively unimportant
when reporting the static condition of a line during a single run
but can be very significant in reporting the variation in strain
activity between two periods in time. The best way to account
for any of the above error sources is to identify if any change has
occurred in the data analysis process or information definition
since the reference run was carried out. Then the run used as
reference for the comparison will always be reprocessed with the
most up to date analysis technique and synchronized information
(pipe type, calibration or relevant geometric features). It must be
noted that the initial report from the first inspection should not
be considered as becoming obsolete because of reprocessing the
data and potentially changing some of the results. The reanalysis
will simply enhance the quality of the analyzed data or normalize
the reference run.
The first axial strain run to run analysis was completed as
part of the tool validation process during a strain relief operation
on an unstable slope. The details and results were published at
the time [6] and illustrated in Fig. 2. The run to run comparison
demonstrated a good correlation between the axial strain
measurements and measurements made using strain gauges in
estimating the strain reduction induced by the strain relief
operation. The run to run comparison was at the time limited to
a short length of pipe. Run to run comparison has now been
routinely extended to the full length of inspections.

FIGURE 3: PIPELINES ROW TO CHEECHAM TERMNIAL

A LiDAR image of the slope [7] is provided on Fig. 4, where the

scarps and ridges associated with the deep-seated slide clearly
outline the boundary between the stable upland area from the
landslide feature on the slope. The section of the pipeline
FIGURE 2: AXIAL STRAIN AT STRAIN RELIEF LOCATION corridor that has incurred the highest ground movements is
(2011 GREEN - 2012 RED) REPRODUCED FROM [6]
within the middle portion of the slope. The direction of slope
movement is approximately 45 degrees to the alignment of the
3. CHEECHAM SLOPE CROSSING
corridor. Consequently, the movements have exerted both lateral
A large interacting landslide with multiple lines in the same
and axial forces on the pipelines.
corridor was selected from the database of inspections as a case
study for this paper.
The site presented in this paper is approximately two
kilometers north of Cheecham Terminal, which is located
approximately 70 kilometers (45 miles) southeast of Fort
McMurray. The site encompasses a major pipeline corridor with
6 liquid lines under the same operator ownership and ranging
from 10” to 36”. The pipelines have been constructed over the
last 20 years. An overview of the ROW is presented in Fig. 3.
In June 2013, the site of interest experienced a pipeline
buckle failure in the 12” line at the toe of the slope causing loss
of containment. The reactivation of movement of the ancient
landslide that originally formed this slope induced compression
stresses that were the cause of the leak. The slide movements
also produced structural damage to one of the other pipelines in
the same area of the corridor at the toe of the slope.
The overall slope is approximately 90 m in height and the
length of the pipeline ROW on the slope is 1.4 km. Investigation FIGURE 4: LiDAR TOPOGRAPHIC IMAGE OF LANDSLIDE
of the event [7] concluded that land disturbance associated with AND CORRIDOR. REPRODUCED FROM [7]
the progressive expansion of the pipeline and adjacent power
corridor, along with extensive timber harvesting and beaver The approximate extent of the slides is represented on the
activity triggered the reactivation of the deep-seated landslide. schematic cross section [7] in Fig. 5. The upper slide is moving
The level of landslide activity and associated pipeline damage along a horizontal slip surface in the clay shale that is positioned
was unforeseen given the very shallow 4.5-degree slope in the mid-height area of the slope; and the lower slide is based
inclination and absence of any surface features typical of active on a slip surface in the shale about 15 m below the level of the
landslides. lake at the slope toe.

4 Copyright © 2020 ASME


FIGURE 5: CROSS-SECTION OF CHEECHAM SLOPE (AT AN
ANGLE TO CORRIDOR ALIGNEMENT [7]
Slope instrumentation installed immediately after the leak event
recorded movement rates averaging about 11 mm/day in mid-
slope area. The area along the corridor that is downslope of the
more active mid-slope area showed total accumulated inferred
ground displacements to be in the general range of 0.5 m or less
and consistently lower movement rates. The lowest movement
rates were experienced in the upper section at 0.5 mm/day. In
addition to the high degree of variability in movement rates
across the landslide area, the direction and character of
movement also varied significantly. There was a 30 degree
difference in movement direction over different portions of the
slope. The boundaries between different movement zones
formed scarps, where abrupt movement differentials occurred,
including significant vertical settlement in places.
A slope management program was adopted to stabilize and
manage the landslide, including a series of targeted surface and
ground water control measures that produced an approximate
100 fold reduction in movement rates. As part of monitoring,
slope stabilization, and strain mitigation actions, the axial strain
tool was run on 5 out of the 6 lines. Following the incident, a
large amount of data collected at this single slope which
experienced a landslide event made the Cheecham slope the
preferred AOI in this study. A summary of the lines and their
construction dates is shown in Table 1. The tool configuration as
reference in Fig. 1 is also reported per run.
Line Name OD Construction ILI Axial Runs
Line 49 36” 2011 2018 (C1)
Line 75 30” 2010 2018 (C1)
Line 19 30” 1999 2014 (C1), 2019 (C1)
Line 50 24” 2013 2016 (C2), 2019 (C2)
Line 37 12” 2006 2018 (C3)
Line 36 10” 2006 Not Inspected
TABLE 1: CORRIDOR LINES UNDER INVESTIGATION
For the long term operation of the pipeline corridor, the
operator is replacing segments of the lines under investigation in
this paper by constructing new pipeline segments in a corridor
that would run west and then north of the Cheecham Terminal.
All pipeline segments will tie back into their respective lines
outside of the slope instability area. New pipe segments will be
placed in-service gradually from spring 2020 to spring 2022 with
final completion of the project anticipated in winter 2022/2023.
4. AXIAL STRAIN – SINGLE RUN
5 Copyright © 2020 ASME
All inspections whether single run or run to run have the
potential to provide added knowledge to the integrity assessment
of the inspected line. The axial strain survey starting point is a
single run measurement with no comparison to any previous
inspections. The industry, from the experience of IMU bending
strain reporting, is fully aware of the importance of
distinguishing between the threats of active strains and inactive
strains that are related to construction or past events. On a single
bending strain run the role of the analyst and software algorithms
during the first screening of the data is predominantly to
distinguish between tool pig to pipe attitude, strain from
construction and strain from outside force. Results interpretation
are then reviewed and refined by company operator
representatives, geotechnical and survey engineers. The wealth
of similar knowledge gained from IMU bending strain reporting
has been incorporated in the development of axial strain analysis.
As with IMU data the axial strain data will also have tool related
behavior (sensors lift-off at geometric features), construction
related strain and strain from outside forces.
Where the AOI is already known by the operator and the
goal of the inspection is to assess existing events, the axial strain
component from external forces can often be identified in the
data and easily quantified by simply using the existing
knowledge (locations, movement direction or third-party data).
However, detection of new events related to outside forces
acting on the pipe can be more complicated especially where the
strain level is smaller and it detection relies on the analyst and
analysis tools available. One of the advantages in running the
axial strain inspection as a bolt-on unit on a combo MFL tool is
having direct access to other datasets collected during the run.
Axial strain AOI will routinely be correlated internally by the ILI
vendors to IMU bending strain (single or run to run movement)
or caliper data for local events before reporting the results to the
pipeline operator. Data comparison across different technologies
combined with close communication with the pipeline operators
can effectively reduce false calls. Pipeline operators can provide
further information, insight, and knowledge on the history of the
affected areas.
4.1 Line 19 (2014)
The first 2014 run on the Cheecham slope is an example of
axial strain data being correlated with IMU data. The inspection
occurred just over a year after the landslide event. At the time,
no mitigation action such as pipe replacement or pipe cut-out
occurred. Therefore, most of the strain was still present from the
interacting landslide. Line 19 (inspected) is the oldest on the
slope and therefore one could assume if the slope was unstable
prior to 2013, the strain would be at the highest level along it due
to the accumulation of slow slope movement over the years. The
AOI was defined by the operator as 2 km upstream from the
Cheecham terminal. Little was known to the ILI vendor on the
actual events and expected axial strain at the location. The only
information available at the time was the IMU run to run analysis
using prior run data (2010) as a reference and clearly identifying
new bending strain along the slope in 2014.
 Figure 6 presents a clear trend in the axial strain data for the
2014 - Line19 inspection with a compressive strain at slope toe
and tensile strain at slope crest. The overlaid bending strain
movement in yellow on Fig. 6 axial strain plot highlights a large
section of several hundred meters of horizontal movement
associated with smaller vertical displacement. The total bending
strain difference between 2014 and 2010 (Post-Prior landslide
reactivation) identified by the IMU inspections is also presented
in Fig. 6. The total bending strain represents the combined
vertical and horizontal bending strain, it does not give
information on the direction of the movement, but it does help in
identifying its overall amplitude and location. For further
analysis of the direction of movement, individual horizontal and
vertical component are routinely reviewed as two separated
components. For the purpose of this paper, only the movement
location and magnitude are of interest. Identifying the strain
events in this scenario is straightforward, simply using a clear
overlap of data for both techniques.
FIGURE 6: AXIAL STRAIN PROFILE ON LINE 19 – 2014 WITH
AREA OF PIPE MOVEMENT FROM IMU OVERLAY (YELLOW)
& TOTAL BENDING STRAIN DIFFERENCE (2014-2010)
Bending strain from IMU can offer an added level of
confidence in the axial strain detection. But not all axial strain
features have significant corresponding bending strain and vice
versa. As a general guideline, both techniques are
complementary, for example in long length roping, the smaller
change in directions may be difficult to distinguish from tool
attitude for the IMU alone. This is where the axial strain tool will
complement the IMU data in the detection and sizing of the strain
events. An in-depth discussion on the axial strain and bending
strain interpretation was presented in [7] and also includes
discussions on their respective range of measurement in the
elastic and plastic strain region.
On the Cheecham AOI, the direction of the slope movement
is oblique to the alignment of the corridor. Consequently, the
movement generated pronounced axial strain over the length of
the slope with associated localized bending strain at the landslide
boundary from lateral displacement.
6 Copyright © 2020 ASME
4.2 Line 19 (2014) vs Line 75 (2018)
When bending strain is not available or does not provide
additional information, being able to have knowledge of the axial
strain profile from adjacent lines in the same corridor provides
important additional insights into change to soil pipe interaction.
The main points to consider is how to synchronize both datasets
in the geographical space. Two mains options are available:
• Synchronize the chainage between lines, conditional on
the lines being parallel for the full length under
investigation
• Display as pipeline positional data based on the inertial
mapping measurements of the pipe center-line
The Cheecham slope shown in Fig. 3, 4 and 5 for a large
portion of the line runs in a straight corridor. The corridor
undergoes a change of direction upstream to the toe of the slope
and ties up to the Cheecham terminal downstream of the slope
crest. Figure 7 presents axial strain inspection data for Line 75
and Line 19. The data is displayed using the Northing
coordinates (x-axis in reverse to match pipe flow). The corridor
is oriented in an almost perfect north-south direction. Therefore,
by directly using the Northing coordinate, no prior chainage
synchronization was required to conduct the comparison. The
newer Line 75 shows a smaller effect than the older Line 19. The
difference may be related partially to the age difference and the
lower cumulative displacement over the years and partially due
to the location in the corridor. Even though the run was
conducted four years later (2018 vs 2014) no pipe replacement
or cut-out had occurred by then. Therefore, most of the initial
strain from the landslide event was still present giving a trend
comparable between both lines. Because the effect is smaller in
Line 75 it may be more difficult to identify it in the data on its
own but by using the overlap approach it is possible to see a
similar level of the strain distribution. The main difference being
a smaller compressive effect at the toe of the slope that is
possibly related to mitigation work conducted across the ROW
at this location.
FIGURE 7: AXIAL STRAIN PROFILE ON LINE 19 (2014) VS
LINE 75 (2018) USING NORTHING AS REFERENCE
Another representation using the inertial mapping
measurement is shown in Fig. 8. This time the same data is
presented using GIS mapping based on custom mapping
algorithm and readily available mapping software. Each circle
represents the average axial strain across one pipe joint. The
strain amplitude is color coded from compressive (red) to tensile
(blue) with the intensity of the color based on the strain
amplitude.
The GIS mapping can help to correlate other geotechnical
information and identify relationships between different
elements. The shift from tensile to compressive strain can be
clearly related to the position at the top and toe of the slope. Also,
a shift in the transition between tensile and compressive strain
can be observed between both lines. It appeared to be related to
their position on the slope and the angular shift in the landslide
direction. This was also visible in Fig. 7 where the lowest
compression points are offset between the lines.
FIGURE 8: AXIAL STRAIN PROFILE ON LINE 19 (2014) VS
LINE 75 (2018) USING GIS MAPPING
4.3 Line 19 (2014) vs Line 37 (2018)
Using adjacent line profiles as a reference can be a valuable
tool, however the strain condition must be similar at the time of
inspection otherwise the interpretation becomes more
complicated. An example of this is presented in Fig. 9. Line 37
is the smallest diameter line and was only inspected when a
miniaturized platform was available. By which time mitigation
work, replacing two sections of the pipeline, was already carried
out. Replacing an entire section of the pipe means that a strain
relief operation along partial length of the slope had occurred.
The expected trend from compression to tension identified in
both Lines 19 & 75 is not present in Line 37. The strain in Line
7 Copyright © 2020 ASME
37 has rebalanced around the replacement section of the line with
an overall amplitude significantly smaller than that for the
original strain profile for Line 19.
FIGURE 9: AXIAL STRAIN PROFILE ON LINE 19 (2014) VS
LINE 37 (2018) USING NORTHING AS REFERENCE
The axial strain inspection of Line 37 was carried out to
assess the effectiveness of the corrective action taken prior to the
inspection. The axial strain measurement successfully confirmed
that no large-scale strain profile remains and only smaller strain
profiles on either side of the replacement sections were present.
4.4 Line 19 (2014) vs Line 49 (2018)
The axial strain inspection of Line 49 is presented in Fig. 10.
The line was constructed in 2011, 2 years before the incidents. A
comparison with Line 19 shows a variation that may be related
to the age difference between the lines and the lower
accumulated effect over the years. The axial strain inspection
was carried out in 2018, 5 years after the pipeline buckle failure.
Figure 10 shows an overlay of Line 19 (2014) which is co-
located with Line 49.
FIGURE 10: AXIAL STRAIN PROFILE ON LINE 19 (2014) VS
LINE 49 (2018) USING NORTHING AS REFERENCE
From the axial strain measurement, no major trend can be
detected. Smaller variations occurred towards the middle of the
slope and are related to the smaller scale bending strain which
developed over the years.
A comparison with the movement analysis from IMU data
as shown in Fig. 6 would help understand the ILI measurement.
However, the first available IMU inspection was carried out after
the landslide reactivation. The movement analysis can only be
done based on the post event measurement and will therefore
only identify further effects but does provide additional
information to help identify the initial events.
The axial strain measurement confirms that 5 years after the
slide reactivation no large-scale strain profile remains (> ±500
με) and that the strain mitigation measures were effective. A
distinction can be made between the lower and upper slope with
small events (< ±500 με) correlating with the large movement at
the transition zone.
5. AXIAL STRAIN – RUN TO RUN
Single run axial strain inspections measure the current state
of a pipeline. But a single inspection shows only a partial view
of the actual strain activity along the line. Multiple inspections
and an accurate overlay of different ILI runs are required to have
a more complete understanding of the strain activity. Data from
multiple runs makes it possible to identify areas where strain is
increasing or decreasing and to differentiate between newly
identified areas of abnormal strain and those existing areas of
continued strain variation. When carried out on a regular basis,
axial strain inspections can evaluate the change in the strain
profile and thereby provide the means for assessment, validation
of modelling and planning of actions if required. It can also be
used to assess the effectiveness of mitigation measures
implemented.
The Cheecham slope has two lines which have been
inspected more than once using the axial strain tool. These are
Line 19 and the Line 50.
5.1 Line 19 (2014 & 2019)
Line 19 was inspected a year after the loss of containment
in 2014 and is already reported in Fig. 6. It was also inspected in
2019 after mitigation action was undertaken by the pipeline
operator.
The availability of up to date materials information provided
for the 2019 run has meant that one can properly compare the
two runs. The 2014 dataset was reprocessed using the 2019
materials data. The inspection data was synchronized based on
chainage, this is a routine process used to synchronize all ILI
datasets (MFL, IMU, Caliper) between runs. It is based on a
reference chainage. Figure 11 shows the overlap of the axial
strain profile of Line 19 from both the 2014 and 2019
inspections.
FIGURE 11: AXIAL STRAIN PROFILE ON LINE 19 (2014) VS
LINE 19 (2019) USING CHAINAGE AS REFERENCE
8 Copyright © 2020 ASME
The strain profile clearly demonstrates the strain relief
action undertaken by the pipeline operator with a clear reduction
in overall strain along the slope. The main reason behind it can
be attributed to a pipe replacement which resulted in partially
relieving the load exerted on the pipeline.
It is common practice to present the data as difference
between two inspections instead of an overlay plot. Overlaying
datasets can make the data interpretation difficult because of the
inherent noise level. But by only looking at the difference it often
makes the data interpretation far easier. The only caution when
looking at the difference in the data is to understand how the
difference is expressed (Current run – Previous run) and what the
implication are for the data interpretation. Figure 12 presents the
difference in axial strain between 2019 and 2014 as well as the
difference in IMU bending for the same time period. The
increase in the axial strain difference at the slope toe reflect a
reduction in the compressive strain. At the opposite side, at the
slope crest, a decrease in the axial strain towards compression is
reflected in a decrease in tensile strain. On its own the strain
difference can be difficult to interpret. Having an overlay of the
individual run may make the understanding easier.
FIGURE 12: AXIAL STRAIN PROFILE ON LINE 19 (2019 -
2014) WITH TOTAL BENDING STRAIN DIFFERENCE (2019 -
2014)
Another representation of the same Line 19 data is presented
in Fig. 13 using the same GIS mapping as in Fig. 8. The data is
presented for the individual inspections and not for the run to run
difference. The side by side comparison offers a clear overview
of the effectiveness of the strain relaxation measures. The shift
from tensile (blue) to compression (red) has now disappeared
and only areas of locally high strain remain, these relate to local
ovalities or fabrication bends.
 showing a very slow rate of movement, with an average
movement rate below 0.5mm/day.

FIGURE 14: AXIAL STRAIN PROFILE ON LINE 50 (2016) VS

LINE 50 (2019) USING CHAINAGE AS REFERENCE

Figure 15 presents the difference between 2019-2016

FIGURE 13: AXIAL STRAIN PROFILE ON LINE 19 (2014) VS
LINE 19 (2019) USING GIS MAPPING
inspections on Line 50. With no significant movement detected
the variation falls into a band of noise which represents a few
hundred microstrains reflecting normal operating conditions on
an active corridor. Only minor variation can be detected (<0.04%
total bending strain) at the area of highest movement rates. The
small variation reflected the very slow-moving rate measured by
slope inclinometers following the slope mitigation.

5.2 Line 50 (2016 & 2019)

The other section which was inspected multiple times is the
24” Line 50. This line was constructed just prior to the pipeline
buckle but was not in service at the time. The first axial strain
inspection was conducted at the end of 2016 and the second in
2019. The main mitigation work occurred in 2015 with a pipe
replacement at the toe of the slope. As shown from the other lines
presented earlier, by cutting out the pipe, partial strain relief
would have occurred at the location. Hence by 2016 at the time
of the axial strain inspection, the remaining strain from the
landslide would have reduced to normal operating level as a
result of the replacement and other slope mitigation work.
No major bending strain change was detected by the IMU
tool between the 2016 and 2019 inspections. Therefore, the
measured axial strain between 2016 and 2019 should in theory
be very similar, as no pipe movements were recorded by IMU. FIGURE 15: AXIAL STRAIN PROFILE ON LINE 50 (2019 -
Furthermore, the slope inclinometers were recording almost no 2016) WITH TOTAL BENDING STRAIN DIFFERENCE (2019 -
movement as well. The results in Fig. 14 confirm the above. 2016)
As for the previous case, the 2016 dataset was reprocessed
using the latest available information from 2019 run and The last representation of the run to run analysis is presented
synchronized based on chainage. Figure 14 demonstrates a good using GIS mapping in Fig. 16. The side by side comparison
overlap of the data across the slope. The absence of a trend in shows an almost identical pattern on the slope section with only
strain from tensile to compressive is related to the mitigation local variation on either side relating to other construction work.
effort prior to the inspections. As in Line 49 in Fig. 10, the higher The measurements indicate that across the 3 years period
local strain variation remaining can be observed towards the between the two axial strain inspections, the strain activity was
middle of the slope and matches the highest movement zone minimal.
identified during the geotechnical study and slope monitoring.
However, the amplitude remains relatively constant between
both runs and is in agreement with the ongoing slope monitoring

9 Copyright © 2020 ASME


FIGURE 16: AXIAL STRAIN PROFILE ON LINE 50 (2016) VS
LINE 50 (2019) USING GIS MAPPING
6. CONCLUSION
The case study has demonstrated the ability of the ILI axial
strain tool to provide additional information to the operator’s
decision-making processes in a number of different scenarios:
• Assess the strain level induced by the soil pipe
interaction across the multiple pipelines in the ROW.
This was achieved using single run axial strain prior to
any strain mitigation.
• Evaluate the effectiveness of the slope mitigation and
strain mitigation across the corridor.
• Run to run comparison allowed the validation of the
steps undertaken to reduce the strain level across the
lines.
• Provides the operator with the means to monitor the
safe operation of the pipelines until decommissioning
takes place.
The data collected using the axial strain tool across the
Cheecham slope demonstrated that the strain activity on the pipe
remains stable and forms a good basis for future monitoring of
the slope.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors gratefully acknowledge Enbridge Pipelines Inc.
for their support and permission to publish this paper. The
authors also wish to acknowledge the help of Jeremie Choquette
of Baker Hughes for his contribution.
REFERENCES
[1] Westwood, S., Kania, R., Karé, R., Martens, M., Topp,
D., Chebaro, M.R., “Non-contacting bi-axial measurement
method on steel pipeline”, Proceedings of International Pipeline
Conference, IPC 2008-64093.
[2] Elseify, M., Dewar, D., Clouston, S., Janda, D., and
Zhu, Y. 2016. ILI of axial strain: technique, case studies and best
10
practices. Proceedings 2017 Pipeline Pigging and Integrity
Management Conference, Houston.
[3] Czyz, Jaroslaw A., Wainselboin, Sergio E., “Monitoring
pipeline movement and its effect on pipe integrity using
inertial/caliper in-line inspection”, Proceedings of 2003 Rio
Pipeline Conference, IBP575_03.
[4] Dewar, D., Van Boven, G., ElSeify, M., Bjorn, P., Bruce,
N., “Operational Experiences with Axial Strain Inline Inspection
Tools”, Proceedings of International Pipeline Conference, IPC
2018-78466
[5] Elseify, M., Cornu, S., Karé, R., “Addressing pipeline
strain through enhancements to AXISS™ predictive ILI
measurement accuracy by accounting for over half a century of
steel pipe manufacturing”, Proceedings 2020 Pipeline Pigging
and Integrity Management Conference, Houston.
[6] Westwood, S., Jungwirth, D., Nickle, R., Dewar, D.,
Martens, M., “In line inspection of geotechnical hazards”,
Proceedings of International Pipeline Conference, IPC 2014-
33245.
[7] Choquette J., Cornu, S., Elseify, M., Karé, R.,
“Understanding pipeline strain conditions case studies between
ILI axial and ILI bending measurement techniques”,
Proceedings of International Pipeline Conference, IPC 2018-
78577.
[8] Barlow, J. Peter, Richmond, John A., “The Cheecham
Landslide Event”, Proceedings of International Pipeline
Conference, IPC 2016-64515.
DISCLAIMER
Any information or data pertaining to Enbridge Employee
Services Canada Inc., or its affiliates, contained in this paper was
provided to the authors with the express permission of Enbridge
Employee Services Canada Inc., or its affiliates. However, this
paper is the work and opinion of the authors and is not to be
interpreted as Enbridge Employee Services Canada Inc., or its
affiliates’, position or procedure regarding matters referred to in
this paper. Enbridge Employee Services Canada Inc. and its
affiliates and their respective employees, officers, director and
agents shall not be liable for any claims for loss, damage or costs,
of any kind whatsoever, arising from the errors, inaccuracies or
incompleteness of the information and data contained in this
paper or for any loss, damage or costs that may arise from the
use or interpretation of this paper.
Copyright © 2020 ASME