Proceedings of the 2022 14th International Pipeline Conference
IPC2022
September 26 – September 30, 2022, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
RISK-BASED DATA-DRIVEN OPTIMIZATION OF PIPELINE INSPECTION INTERVAL
Josiah SooTot1, Fernando Oviedo2, Guanbo Zheng1, Keng Yap1
1Enbridge Gas Transmission and Midstream (GTM), Houston, Texas, USA
2Stantec Inc, Houston, Texas, USA
ABSTRACT
In-line inspection (ILI) is a standard industry practice in
managing the safety of buried transmission pipelines. It is
important to develop a planning strategy for each ILI program
to ensure pipeline safety while maintaining cost-efficiency.
Defaulting to the maximum inspection interval allowed by
regulations without analyzing time-dependent threats affecting a
pipeline segment could lead to loss of containment. An optimal
inspection interval serves as another barrier in the defense-in-
depth safety concept. In this paper, a risk-based data-driven
analysis approach is presented to optimize the inspection
interval in terms of operational costs while managing the failure
risks. The objective function is formulated to consist of cost
components (in present value) and weighted residual risk of
failure. The cost components are associated with the periodic in-
line inspections, as well as the expected mitigation actions. The
annual mitigation cost is incurred by the number of features that
are sentenced for excavation, field inspection, and repair every
year according to the risk of failure. A shorter inspection interval
would increase the total ILI cost; however, this would also curtail
the rising cost of mitigation due to potential feature growth, as
well as the residual risk of failure that depends on the mitigation
program. The risk of failure is estimated in terms of the
probability and consequence of failure. The residual risk is
calculated based on features that are either unmitigated or
potentially undetected by the in-line inspection tool run. To
demonstrate the application of this approach, numerical
examples based on external corrosion are provided to show how
various conditions of a pipeline segment affect the optimality of
inspection interval. The results support further application of the
analysis approach in an industrial scale system-wide analysis,
such that optimal inspection intervals can be dynamically
updated at segment level using the latest ILI data as they become
available in an ILI program.
Keywords: Pipeline Integrity, Reliability, Risk, Probability of
Failure, In-line Inspection, Inspection Interval, Optimization
NOMENCLATURE
ILI In-line Inspection
IPC2022-86761
PoF Probability of Failure
FFS Fitness-for-Service
𝐹(𝑥) Objective function over 𝑥-year ILI interval
𝐹𝐼 (𝑥) Total present cost of ILI runs over 𝑥-year ILI interval
𝐹𝑀 (𝑥) Total present cost of mitigations over 𝑥-year ILI interval
𝐹𝑅 (𝑥) Total present risk of failure over 𝑥-year ILI interval
𝑤 Risk weighting factor in objective function
𝑓𝐼 (𝑥) Present cost of the 𝑖th ILI run for 𝑥-year ILI interval
𝑐𝐼 Future unit cost of ILI run (constant)
𝑟 Economic rate of return (constant)
𝑡 Time in number of years after the last ILI run
𝑡𝑖 Time of the 𝑖th inspection
𝑛(𝑥) Number of inspections for 𝑥-year ILI interval
𝑁 Number of years in planning horizon
𝑥′ The last ILI interval
𝑓𝑀 (𝑡) Annual mitigation cost function without inspection
𝑓𝑀′ (𝑡) Periodic mitigation cost function with inspection
𝑓𝑅 (𝑡) Annual residual risk function without inspection
𝑓𝑅′ (𝑡) Periodic residual risk function with inspection
1. INTRODUCTION
In-line inspection (ILI) has become a standard practice in
integrity management for underground transmission pipelines
subjected to various threats including corrosion and stress-
corrosion cracking. The ILI runs are repeated periodically for
each pipeline segment over a inspection interval. Pipeline
regulations set the maximum inspection interval, e.g., 5 years for
hazardous liquid pipelines and 7 years for natural gas
transmission pipelines [1]. However, these are minimum
regulatory requirements. Defaulting to the maximum re-
inspection interval without analyzing the threat unique to a
pipeline segment could lead to a failure; when inspection interval
is too long, undetected time-dependent defects may grow and fail
before the next inspection takes place. On the other hand, when
inspection interval is too short, valuable resources allocated for
pipeline integrity management is not being spent wisely, which
could otherwise be better used on other aspects of integrity
threat. Thus, an optimal ILI interval serves as another barrier
under the safety construct of defense-in-depth, alongside with
the sentencing and mitigation of defects found by ILI. It is
1 © 2022 by ASME
important to develop a planning strategy for in-line inspection shown in Figure 1, where the optimal ILI interval 𝑥 ∗ corresponds
program to ensure cost-effectiveness while maintaining safety. to the minimum objective function value 𝐹(𝑥)∗ .
The determination of inspection interval often relies on
engineering fitness-for-service (FFS) approach. An estimated
growth rate is applied to the most critical defect that remained

Objective Function,
unmitigated in a pipeline segment to determine when that defect
would grow to failure. If all known defects are mitigated, an
Optimum
undetected defect size can be estimated. Consistent with the
regulatory guideline [1], the inspection interval is planned such
that the next inspection will be executed before such defect is
predicted to fail, considering the tool tolerance with safety factor.
However, this approach may result in suboptimal solution that
ILI Interval,
favors larger inspection interval while overlooking the higher
mitigation cost. In addition, the safety margin chosen may FIGURE 1 OBJECTIVE FUNCTION
underestimate the effect of various sources of uncertainty in the
failure model, especially the growing uncertainty in defect size 2.2 Inspection Cost
prediction, thus resulting in a higher residual risk than desired. For an ILI interval 𝑥, the present cost of the 𝑖th ILI run is
A reliability-based approach would plan for the next in-line given by
inspection before the probability of failure (PoF) exceeds an
acceptable level [2]. Potential hidden defects missed by the last 𝑐
𝐼
𝑓𝐼𝑖 (𝑥) = (1+𝑟)𝑡𝑖 , (2)
ILI run are included in the reliability assessment. Once the
pipeline is inspected, the location and condition of these
previously hidden defects are revealed and repaired accordingly, where 𝑐𝐼 is the future unit cost of ILI run modeled as a constant,
which restores the PoF to the previous level. This approach is a 𝑟 is the economic rate of return, and 𝑡𝑖 is the time in number of
significant improvement to FFS-based approach due to its ability years past the last ILI run. The total present cost of ILI runs for
to account for various sources of uncertainty. A reliability-based an ILI interval 𝑥 is the sum of all individual ILI present costs,
optimization approach can determine the optimal inspection
interval using reliability-based life cycle cost analysis [3], where
costs of inspection, repair, and failure in present value are 𝐹𝐼 (𝑥) = ∑𝑛(𝑥)
𝑖=1 𝑓𝐼𝑖 (𝑥) , (3)
considered [4]. Risk-based framework has also been proposed
for devising an optimum solution for decision-making in capital where 𝑛(𝑥) is the number of ILI runs for a planning horizon of
and operational projects [5]. As a logical extension of previous 𝑁 number of years,
work in this area, a risk-based data-driven optimization approach
for determining the in-line inspection interval is developed and 𝑛(𝑥) =
𝑁
. (4)
presented in this paper. 𝑥

2. ANALYSIS APPROACH In a trivial economic scenario where the rate of return, 𝑟 = 0,

In this section, the formulation of the optimization problem
𝑓𝐼𝑖 (𝑥) = 𝑐𝐼 , (5)
is presented. All elements of the analysis approach, along with
the model assumptions used to arrive at the optimal inspection
interval, are discussed. 𝐹𝐼 (𝑥) = ∑𝑛(𝑥)
𝑁
. (6)
𝑖=1 𝑐𝐼 = 𝑐𝐼 𝑛(𝑥) = 𝑐𝐼 𝑥

2.1 Objective Function

The total present cost of ILI runs is inversely proportional to
The optimization problem is formulated with an objective inspection interval as represented in Figure 2.
function consisting of operational cost components and residual
risk of failure in present value,

min 𝐹(𝑥) = 𝐹𝐼 (𝑥) + 𝐹𝑀 (𝑥) + 𝐹𝑅 (𝑥), (1)

𝑥

where 𝑥-year represents the ILI interval, 𝐹𝐼 is the total present

cost of ILI runs, 𝐹𝑀 is the total present cost of mitigation, and 𝐹𝑅
is the total present risk of failure. The ILI interval 𝑥 is treated as
a discrete integer with values constrained between 1 year and the
statutory upper limit [1]. A typical objective function curve is

2 © 2022 by ASME

ILI Cost,
ILI Interval,
FIGURE 2 TOTAL PRESENT COST OF ILI RUNS
2.3 Mitigation Cost
Following an ILI run, the risks of burst failure associated
with the reported defects can be evaluated in terms of PoF per
unit length and time, and the failure consequence. The PoF
calculation is carried out using limit state method for quantitative
assessment of defects [6][7][8]. The consequence metric is
estimated with population density, internal pressure, and pipe
diameter [9]. The risks of these defects can be mitigated to an
acceptable level defined by safety target [9][10]; the defects are
sentenced and scheduled for excavation, field inspection, and
repair each year, while their growths are modeled and simulated.
Alternatively, these defects can also be mitigated based on FFS
in compliance with regulatory requirements, where excavations
are sentenced based on the safety factor with defect growth. As
FFS-based mitigation does not necessarily align with risk-based
mitigation, it may result in a higher residual risk of failure, thus
it would be particularly prudent to incorporate the residual risk
component in the objective function.
By considering the proximity between defects, average
excavation length, and average mitigation cost per excavation, it
is possible to translate the number of defects mitigated each year
into an annual mitigation cost function denoted as 𝑓𝑀 (𝑡), where
𝑡 is the time in years after the last ILI run. The function can also
be defined specifically for each region, pipe diameter, defect
depth, and repair type. Depending on the ILI findings, 𝑓𝑀 (𝑡) may
be low or exhibit an exponentially increasing trend due to defect
growth, then levels off and returns to 0 as all defects have been
mitigated in due time. It is assumed that the rising annual
mitigation cost is curtailed by re-inspection, such that the trend
is restored and repeated at every ILI interval 𝑥 within the
planning horizon 𝑁. The exploitation of this trend is essential to
the optimization scheme, especially considering the typically
low (about 20%) dig efficiency, defined herein as the percentage
of digs that result in necessary pipe repairs or replacements.
Given 𝑥 ′ being the last ILI interval, the curtailed mitigation
cost function can be scaled by the ratio of 𝑥 to 𝑥 ′ . These
idealizations yield a periodic sawtooth shaped mitigation cost
function as shown in Figure 3,
𝑓𝑀′ (𝑡 + 𝑖𝑥) = 𝑓𝑀′ (𝑡), 𝑡 = 1, … , 𝑁. (7)
𝑓𝑀′ (𝑇) =
𝑥
𝑓 (𝑇), 𝑇 = 1, … , 𝑥. (8)
𝑥′ 𝑀
Annual Mitigation Cost,
ILI Interval
Time,
FIGURE 3 ANNUAL MITIGATION COST FUNCTION
The total present cost of mitigation is the sum of all annual
present mitigation costs,
𝑓 ′ (𝑡)
𝐹𝑀 (𝑥) = ∑𝑁
𝑡=1 (1+𝑟)𝑡 ,
𝑀
(9)
which typically increases with ILI interval as shown in Figure 4,
Mitigation Cost,
ILI Interval,
FIGURE 4 TOTAL PRESENT COST OF MITIGATIONS
2.4 Residual Risk of Failure
As the reported defects are mitigated following an ILI run,
there remains residual risk for those defects that are not mitigated
each year. There are also undetected defects; an ILI tool with
larger detection threshold (poorer sensitivity) should drive a
shorter inspection interval. The PoF per year can be calculated
for each of these defects and multiplied by its associated
consequence to provide a risk estimate. The sum of these
individual risks each year gives the annual residual risk function
denoted as 𝑓𝑅 (𝑡), where 𝑡 is the time in years after the last ILI
run. Depending on the mitigation program, 𝑓𝑅 (𝑡) may rise
exponentially or maintained at a low level. It is assumed that the
annual residual risk is curtailed by re-inspection according to the
idealized annual mitigation cost 𝑓𝑀′ (𝑡), which yields a periodic
sawtooth shaped residual risk function (Figure 5),
𝑓𝑅′ (𝑡 + 𝑖𝑥) = 𝑓𝑅′ (𝑡), 𝑡 = 1, … , 𝑁. (10)
𝑥
𝑓𝑅′ (𝑇) = 𝑓 (𝑇), 𝑇 = 1, … , 𝑥. (11)
𝑥′ 𝑅
3 © 2022 by ASME
 Annual Residual Risk,

ILI Interval

Time,
FIGURE 5 ANNUAL RESIDUAL RISK FUNCTION FIGURE 7 MITIGATION COST WITH LIGHT CORROSION
The total present residual risk of failure is the sum of all The analysis yielded the total cost as shown in Figure 8. Due to
annual present residual risks, lack of strong driver from light corrosion condition, an
inspection interval of 3-7 years does not have much impact on
𝑤𝑓 ′ (𝑡) the total cost, and the minimum point is at 7 years.
𝐹𝑅 (𝑥) = ∑𝑁
𝑡=1 (1+𝑟)𝑡 ,
𝑅
(12)

where 𝑤 can be a conversion factor that monetizes the risk of

failure into cost of failure, although it is generalized herein as a
weighting factor that adjusts the risk tradeoff (or emphasis)
relative to other costs in arriving at the Pareto optimal inspection
interval. As shown in Figure 6, the total present residual risk of
failure increases with ILI interval.
Residual Risk,

FIGURE 8 TOTAL COST WITH LIGHT CORROSION

Another pipeline segment with severe corrosion was also

analyzed for comparison. Based on the same nominal dig cost,
the annual mitigation cost profile (Figure 9) rises exponentially
ILI Interval, over time since the last ILI run as an increasingly number of
FIGURE 6 TOTAL PRESENT RESIDUAL RISK OF FAILURE features are predicted to grow and become high risk.

3. NUMERICAL EXAMPLES
The analysis approach is applied to numerical examples that
are created to show the effect of corrosion severity and
mitigation cost on the optimality of inspection interval. These
examples are based on two line-segments subjected to external
corrosion threat managed by an ILI program, where one line-
segment is more severely corroded than the other. These line-
segments were analyzed by assuming risk-based mitigation, i.e.,
all high-risk features are mitigated annually such that the residual
risk component in the objective function is negligible.

3.1 Corrosion Severity FIGURE 9 MITIGATION COST WITH SEVERE CORROSION

For a pipeline segment with light corrosion, the annual
mitigation cost profile (Figure 7) based on a nominal dig cost is The analysis yielded the total cost as shown in Figure 10. The
incurred sporadically since the last ILI run as the features are severe corrosion condition in this line-segment has driven the
predicted to grow and become high risk. optimal inspection interval toward 2-3 years. In other words, the

4 © 2022 by ASME
higher ILI cost due to shorter interval will be offset by the
reduction in mitigation cost.
FIGURE 10 TOTAL COST WITH SEVERE CORROSION
3.2 Mitigation Cost
Mitigation cost per excavation also plays a factor in the
optimum ILI inspection interval. The cost depends on conditions
such as accessibility (e.g., deep soil cover) and complexity of
excavation procedure. In this analysis, the cost per excavation is
increased by 2.5 times from the previous numerical examples.
When applied to the pipeline segment with light corrosion, the
higher mitigation cost drove the optimum inspection interval
toward 3-5 years (
FIGURE 11) despite the low number of defects.
FIGURE 11 TOTAL COST FROM HIGHER MITIGATION COST
WITH LIGHT CORROSION
When applied to the pipeline segment with severe corrosion,
the higher mitigation cost drove the optimum toward an even
shorter inspection interval of 1 year (Figure 12).
FIGURE 12 TOTAL COST FROM HIGHER MITIGATION COST
WITH SEVERE CORROSION
4. CONCLUSION
A risk-based data-driven analysis approach is presented to
optimize the inspection interval in terms of operational costs
while managing the failure risks. In this approach, re-inspection
is modeled to curtail the potentially rising cost of mitigation (due
to defect growth) and to account for the potentially rising
residual risk of failure (depending on the mitigation program). It
integrates ILI tool performance (detection threshold and sizing
tolerance), field inspection findings, defect growth, and various
sources of uncertainty in the analysis process. Numerical
examples based on external corrosion threat were provided to
assess the effect of various conditions on the optimality of
inspection interval. The analysis results show success in shifting
the optimum toward a shorter inspection interval for a line-
segment associated with either more severe corrosion or higher
mitigation cost per excavation.
These results support further application of the approach in
an industrial scale system-wide analysis, such that inspection
intervals can be dynamically updated at segment-level using the
latest ILI data as they become available. While the approach is
particularly suited for external corrosion threat, it should be
noted that growth of unmitigated and/or undetected defect may
yield a shorted ILI interval especially when the ILI tool has a
lower performance, in which case the approach should not be
used to override the more stringent result.
REFERENCES
[1] PHMSA, “Inspection Reassessment Intervals Guidance
for Less than 7 Years”, 2016.
[2] Palmer-Jones, R., Turner, S., and Hopkins, P., “A New
Approach to Risk Based Pipeline Integrity Management”,
Proceedings of the 6th International Pipeline Conference,
IPC2006-10535, Calgary, AB, Canada, 2006.
[3] Miran, S. A., Huang, Q., Castaneda, H., and Sajedi, S.,
“Optimal Inspection Interval Based on Reliability
Assessment of Corroded Pipelines”, Corrosion Risk
Management Conference, Houston, TX, USA, 2016.
[4] Opeyemi, D. A., Patelli, E., de Angelis, M., Beer, M., and
Timashev, S. A., “Reliability-Based Optimization of the
Inspection Time Interval for Corroded Pipelines”, The
Asian-Pacific Symposium on Structural Reliability and its
Applications, 2016.
[5] Abdolrazaghi, M. and Hassanien, S., “Pipeline Multi-
parameter Decision Making Approaches”, Proceedings of
the 13th International Pipeline Conference, IPC2020-
9726, Virtual, Online, 2020.
[6] Nessim, M., Adianto, R., and Stephens, M. J. “Limit
States Design for Onshore Pipelines – Methodology and
Implications”, Proceedings of the 10th International
Pipeline Conference, IPC2014-33434, Calgary, AB,
Canada, 2014.
[7] Hassanien. S., Leblanc, L., Cuervo, J., and Cheng, K.
“Pipeline Integrity Reliability Analysis Levels”,
5 © 2022 by ASME
 Proceedings of the 11th International Pipeline
Conference, IPC2016-64423, 2016.
[8] Adianto, R., Ibrahim, M., Nessim, M, Hassanien, S., and
Bott, S., “Demonstration of Limit States Design Method
for Assessment of Corrosion and Crack Features”,
Proceedings of the 13th International Pipeline
Conference, IPC2020-9517, Virtual, Online, 2020.
[9] Canadian Standards Association, Oil and Gas Pipeline
Systems, CSA Z662, Annex O, Toronto, ON, Canada,
2019.
[10] Hassanien, S., Leblanc, L., and Nemeth, A., “Towards
an Acceptable Pipeline Integrity Target Reliability,”
Proceedings of the 11th International Pipeline
Conference, IPC2016-64425, Calgary, AB, Canada,
2016.

6 © 2022 by ASME