MAGNETIC TOMOGRAPHY

METHOD
AS A NEW APPROACH FOR PIPELINE INTEGRITY
AND PIPELINE HEALTH ASSESSMENT.

(MTM for onshore and AQUA MTM for subsea pipelines)

 EVEN THE WORLD LEADERS FACE RISKS!

Major operators like BP, Shell, Chevron, Petronas, Gazprom face the risks of accidents.
See the consequences of oil spill in China or gas mainline cracking in Russia

BE CALM WITH YOUR PIPING SYSTEM IF YOU CHECK

MECHANICAL STRESS
 BACKGROUND

• Metal controlling is difficult and expensive as long as you need direct access to the
whole length of pipe (not spot–by-spot NDE with further interpolation).
• Not all pipes subject to ILI(inline inspection).
• With specific points – like digs – only 2% to 20% of total pipe surface is controllable.

There is a solution for integrity of the pipelines that cannot be examined by ILI.

MAGNETIC TOMOGRAPHY METHOD (MTM)

 MTM OBJECTIVE

WHERE IS DANGER ? HOW CRITICAL IS ?

Experience allows Transkor not only determine the intense sections of

pipelines, but determine the degree of danger of the plot (the so-called
"anomalies")
 THE ESSENTIALS

Seems like a medical tomography…

ONLY PIPELINE IS MTM’S PATIENT

 THE ESSENTIALS

SAME DEFECT SIZE –

Which will likely to fail?

MECHANICAL STRESS !!!

 STRESS !!!

Амплитуда напряженности магнитного поля, усл. Ед.

-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50

0
20

39
59
79
99
118
138
158
177
197

217
237
256
276
296
316
335
355
375
394
414
434
454
473

493
513
532
Р ас с т оя ние в м

552
572
592
611
631
651

670
690
710
730
749

769
789
809
828
848
Crack-like defects

868
887
907
927
947
966
986
Stress corrosion cracking &
MTM FINDINGS
 RISK OF FAILURE

The presence of defects in the girth welds can cause cracking in the heat-
affected zones and welds. In case of high stress the risk of failure is rising
up
 Magnetic Field Strength vs Stresses

Defect on Straight pipe Defect on pipe elbow

 Magnetic Field Strength vs Stresses

Defect on low pressure system Defect on high pressure system

 MTM Physical basis

Pipe without defects Corrosion damage The pressure and

temperature effect
 MTM Technological basis

MAGNETIC TOMOGRAPHY METHOD (MTM)

MTM allows to get the
map of mechanical
state of a pipeline
remotely from the 20D
distance from the axis
 MTM Technological basis

WHERE IS DANGER ? HOW CRITICAL IS ?

Determine the weak areas along the pipelines and its

danger degree the so-called "anomalies") related to the
mechanical stress
MTM Technological basis

COST SAVING AND

EFFICIENCY

If other conventional
methods are suitable:
> 75%
For non-piggable and
difficult to inspect
(DTI) pipelines
the MTM efficiency
is not countable
> 95%
MTM Technological basis
 MTM Tools

MTM AQUA MTM

How does MTM work?
Flow chat
 How does MTM work?
Data information questionnaire

Pipeline diameter.
Pipeline length.
Pipeline year in operation/installation year.
Pipeline operation/design pressures.
Pipeline wall thickness.
Pipeline materials (eg. X52)
Pipeline product (gas, oil etc).
Pipeline route/drawings showing routes.
Neighbor pipelines/cables etc.
Pipeline repairs.
Pipeline operating temperature
Results/report of inline inspection/corrosion
inspection etc.
Any other history of the pipeline.
 How does MTM work?
Routing, marking. MTM survey
 How does MTM work?
MTM calibration

Objective of calibration.
To establish the dH/dG equation of pipeline, where
dH – magnetic field gradient
dG – mechanical stress field gradient
Task of calibration.
Three possible ways to carry out the calibration:

Double survey FFS at MTM FFS based on

under different anomaly by Labtest results with
pipeline conditions conventional NDE FEA and design
(pressure changed)
Effectiveness, % 85-100 75-85 0-50

Cost for client, % 0-20 20-50 0-10

Calibration may increase the overall MTM quality for up to 15%

 MTM declaration

Maximum POD at МТМ (not less than 80 %) is reached

when the levels of mechanical stresses in defective area
are within range of 30-85 % SMYS
100
PROBABILITY

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100

Detection Threshold: 0.5% SMYS Mechanical stresses level (% of SMYS)

 QUALITY ASSURANCE

Comparison of MTM results with conventional codes during Mock-Up test

 QUALITY ASSURANCE

Comparison of MTM results with conventional codes during Mock-Up test

SINGLE SCRATCH DEFECT GROUP OF CORROSION DEFECTS

500
500
400 400
Stress, Н/mm2

Stress, Н/mm2
300 300
200 200
100
100
0
10 40 80 120 160 200 240 280 320 0
Working Pressure, bar 10 40 80 120 160 200 240 280 320
Working Pressure, bar

SINGLE DENT DEFECT GROUP OF GAUGE DEFECTS

800 500
Stress, Н/mm2

Stress, Н/mm2
600 400

400 300
200
200
100
0 0
10 40 80 120 160 200 240 280 320 10 40 80 120 160 200 240 280 320
Working Pressure, bar Working Pressure, bar
 QUALITY ASSURANCE

Verification results for "Gazprom“, Russia in 137 test points

Probability of Identification (POI) of MTM anomalies

TOTAL

MTM 2nd rank

MTM 1st rank

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

MTM 1st rank MTM 2nd rank TOTAL
Correct 7 24 31
Overrated 2 17 19
Underrated 0 9 9
Incorrect 2 6 8

probability of detection POD 85-87% probability of identification POI 75-77%

probability of false calls POFC 9-10.7% probability of error POE 3-4%
 VERIFICATION RESULTS

Results of comparison MTM data with ILI in offshore

MTM recommendations
 Principle benefits

No interruption to the pipeline operation

No minimum or maximum operating pressure required
No need for special pipeline equipment or preparation
No contact with or change to mode of the pipeline

No limit to length of pipeline inspected

Identifies all metal defects irrespective of orientation
Identifies defective insulation coatings
Suitable for all ferromagnetic pipelines including tight turns and small diameters
Lower cost and more accurate than traditional survey methods

• No need to equip the pipeline with a pig launch or trap,

• No need for a pipeline cleanout
• No need for inner surface preparation,
• No need to open a section of pipeline to recover a trapped Pig
 Principle benefits

NO LOST
PRODUCTION
WHAT INFORMATION IN
MTM REPORT?
Report content
 Report content

Density of distribution anomalies by Risk Factor F

 Report content

Density of distribution anomalies by hoop stress, MPa

Stress in anomaly zones

of the object P&GE, Line SP5 Antioch Part 2,
180

170

160

150

140

130
Stress in anomaly zones (SI) in MPa

120

110

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6 0,7 0,8 0,9 1 1,1
Absolute distance from start, kft

Pacific Gas and Electric company. San Ramon, California, 20th April, 2018
 Report content

Density of distribution anomalies by Stress Concentration Factor SCF

 Report content

Density of distribution anomalies by Safe Operating Pressure, Psafe

Safety Pressure for anomalies (Psafe)
of the object P&GE, Line SP5 Antioch Part 2,

5
Safety Pressure for anomalies (Psafe), MPa

0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6 0,7 0,8 0,9 1 1,1
Absolute distance from start, kft
 Report content

Density of distribution anomalies by Estimated Repair Factor F

 Report content

Anomaly log with location of anomalies

 Report content

Anomaly log with pipeline integrity parameters of anomalies

 Findings and verification results

VERIFICATION RESULTS
 Findings and verification results

External corrosion up to 2,5 mm

 Findings and verification results

External corrosion up to 2,5 mm

 Findings and verification results

Corrosion
2,5 mm
 Findings and verification results

Dent 510 х 220 х 14,7 mm

Findings and verification results

Dent
 Findings and verification results

General corrosion 2.5 mm

 Findings and verification results

Corrosion
2,0 mm
Findings and verification results

❖MTM – Rank 2 Danger Degree

❖Metal Loss
Findings and verification results

❖MTM – Rank 2 Danger Degree

❖Metal Loss
Findings and verification results

❖MTM – Rank 1 Danger Degree

❖Metal Loss
Findings and verification results

❖MTM – Rank 2 Danger Degree

❖Metal Loss
Findings and verification results

❖Anomaly # 42
❖MTM – Rank 2 Danger Degree
❖Metal Loss
Findings and verification results

❖Anomaly # 180
❖MTM – Rank 1 Danger Degree
❖Metal Loss (Dent)
Findings and verification results

❖Anomaly # 314
❖MTM – Rank 2 Danger Degree
❖Metal Loss
Findings and verification results

❖Anomaly # 92
❖MTM – Rank 2 Danger Degree
❖Metal Loss
THANK YOU
www.transkorgroup.com