Pipeline Integrity

Management
safely managing the life cycle of pipelines

Session 8
In-Line Inspection

October 25, 2004

9:30 AM to 11:30 AM CT

1
 Dr. Neb Uzelac
Technology Consultant
Your
NDT Systems & Services AG
Presenters
Neb Uzelac has B.Sc., M.A. and Ph.D. in engineering science from University of
Belgrade, Yugoslavia.• He joined Pipetronix GmbH in Karlsruhe, Germany in 1993,
as manager special applications in In-line inspection. In 1995 he moved to
Pipetronix Ltd. in Toronto, Canada, as technology manager and moved on to be a
technology consultant in the merged Pipetronix and PII. He’s dealt with application
of NDE techniques for internal pipeline inspection, in recent years mostly for crack
detection.

As a member of NACE he has chaired the Task Group which prepared the state-
of-the-art report NACE TR 35100 "In-Line Nondestructive Inspection of Pipelines",
and is a member of the task group that prepared the NACE Standard RP0102-
2002 and is vice-chair of TEG 267 “In-line Inspection of Pipelines”. He was a
member of API’s work group that created API 1160 standard and member of the
work group preparing API1163 (ILI performance standard).
Neb is working in the field of pipeline integrity, in-line inspection, especially
ultrasonic methods and crack detection, and represents NDT Systems & Services
AG from Germany in America.

Dr. Bruce Nestleroth

Your
Battelle
Presenters
Bruce Nestleroth is Senior Research Scientist in Battelle's Pipeline
Technology Center.
Bruce earned his B.S. degree in Electrical Engineering and his Ph.D. in
Mechanical Engineering from Drexel University in Philadelphia where he
studied ultrasonic wave propagation.
He is responsible for the inspection technology development effort at the
Pipeline Simulation Facility at Battelle.
For the past 18 years, he has been advancing magnetic flux leakage and
other electromagnetic technologies for internal inspection of pipelines,
developing and quantifying methods for detecting corrosion, cracking and
mechanical damage.
Bruce organizes a workshop on “Pipeline Inspection Using Intelligent
Pigs” held twice a year in Columbus, and presents the MFL portion of the
workshop.

2
 IMP Elements
Identify Baseline Direct Confirm
Segments Identify -atory
Assessment Assessment
in HCAs Threats DA Plan
Plan Plan

Remedia Preventive Record Communi IMP

-tion Measures Keeping -cation Reporting
Provisions Provisions Provisions Plan Procedures

Performance Continual Management Quality Identify

Plan Evaluation of Change Assurance Segments
Process Process Process New HCAs

In-Line Inspection Tools

“Intelligent Pigs”
“Smart Pigs”

Non-destructive inspection
Looking at pipe steel from inside
On-line inspection -no disruption of flow
Autonomous – Flow with the product

3
 Solutions to Pipeline Problems

Hydrotest
Geometry and
Mapping Pigs

MFL Corrosion
Pig

Crack Detection
Direct assessment
Pig

Pipeline
Anomalies

What Does a Pigging

Survey Provide?
Information about the defects the pig was
designed to find
Anecdotal information about other defects
Pipeline information
Total Length, welds, tally
Branch connection
Valves
Wall thickness changes

4
 In-line Inspection
Inspection grid – density of acquiring data

External
“in-the-ditch”
inspection
_ in. by _ in.

UT or laser probes

Internal inspection
Axial and circumferential
resolution given in specs.
Inspection technology

Inspection Objectives
Three distinct objectives:
Detection of Anomalies
What is the smallest detectable?
Issue: Probability of detection
Identification of anomalies
Discriminate between defects and irrelevant
features.
Sizing of Anomalies
What parameters: Depth, length, width, profile,
etc
Issue: To what accuracy?
10

5
 Probability of Detection
A typical specification states the inspection tool can
Detect 90% of corrosion anomalies that are greater than
1 wall thickness (1T) in diameter, and 10% in depth
Detect 90% of corrosion anomalies that are greater than
3 wall thickness (3T) in diameter, and 5% in depth
An anomaly must be properly identified to be detected
To verify the specification, many small anomalies must be
assessed. To save excavation costs, size all anomalies
that are daylighted, not just the biggest.

11

Sizing of anomalies (1of 2)

Sizing of anomalies are often
Normalized to wall thickness (WT, T, or t)
Accuracy value given as a function of anomaly size (e.g.
+/- 10% for anomalies > 4t)
Provided only for anomalies exceeding a particular size
Tolerance (often) is associated with the
measurement
Certainty (often referred to as confidence) on the
tolerance

12

6
 Sizing of Anomalies (2of 2)
A typical specification states the inspection tool can
size a corrosion anomaly to within 10% t to and be
right 80 percent of the time.
Translation: for a 0.350 thick pipe
50% defect: 0.175 deep ± 0.035, 4 out of 5 times
20% defect: 0.070 deep ± 0.035, 4 out of 5 times
Both inspection technology and pipeline variables
affect tolerance and certainly (confidence)

13

How to Achieve Reliable

Inspection?
Recognize the problem properly
Chose appropriate ILI technology
Chose appropriate tool
Have a (operationally) successful run
Interpret recorded data correctly
Document results

14

7
 Categories of ILI Tools
Geometry: Dents and ovalities
Inertial: Pipeline mapping, bend and strain
analysis
Metal Loss: Wall thickness, corrosion, pitting
Crack: Surface breaking (internal and
external) and midwall cracks in pipe body
and near welds

15

Geometry Tools Goals

Also referred to as
Caliper Tools
Deformation tools
Deformation detection
Measures dents, buckles and ovalities in
pipelines
Detects girth welds, wall internal thickness
changes and installations (e.g. main line valves,
T-junctions, etc.)

16

8
 Geometry Tools Uses
Acceptance of new pipelines
Mechanical and 3rd party damage
Passage of other in line inspection tools

17

Geometry Tool Types

Mechanical (most
common)
Fingers ride along pipe wall
Arm angle measured Mechanical

Eddy current
Proximity sensors measure
liftoff

Eddy Current

18

9
 Geometry Tools Capability
Typical Sensitivity (minimum detectable) 0.3–0.5% ID
Typical Accuracy ±0.3–0.5% ID
Example 20 inch pipe
Minimum detectable anomaly is .06 to .1 inches

Accuracy is .06 to .1 inches

Recoding capability
All channels summed for average bore change

Individual channel recording reveals circumferential position

Bend capabilities: two modules with angle sensor at the

coupling

19

Mapping Tools Goals and Methods

Determine 3-D position of the pipeline.

Inertial navigation - gyroscopes and accelerometers
Measures angular and
velocity changes in X

X, Y and Z coordinates
between reference locations.

Y Z

20

10
 Mapping Tools Uses

Verifying and creating pipe

books
Determining pipeline
movement
Measuring bends
Benchmarking for
subsequent runs
Overlaid on geographical maps
provide exact “as is” view of
pipeline

21

Mapping Tools Capability

Positioning accuracy: Stand alone tools

horizontal: 0.05%
vertical: 0.09%
?of distance from nearest
reference point
Integrated with other ILI
Example: if distance from
reference is 1km, then
horizontal accuracy is 0.5m
and vertical is 0.9m

22

11
 Corrosion Tools
Magnetic Flux Leakage (MFL)
Most common in-line inspection method

Ultrasonic (UT)
Increasing market share on liquid pipelines

23

MFL Axial Magnetizer

Brushes Sensor
S
N Magnet Magnet N
N
S
S
Backing Iron

24

12
 Flux Around a Defect
Leakage Flux
Pipe

Leakage Flux

Narrow Defect

Flux Lines In Pipe

Wide Defect

Flux Lines In Pipe

25

Flux Leakage is an indirect

measure of corrosion geometry
80

60

40

20

0
-2.0 2.0
0.0 0.0
Circum nches)
ferenti
al (inch 2.0 -2.0 Axial (i
es)

Flux
Pipe ID

Pipe OD

Flux

26

13
Signal from 20%, 50% & 80% pits

120
80% Deep
2 in. Long
Signal Amplitude (Gauss)

100 3 in. Wide 50% Deep

2 in. Long 50% Deep
6 in. Wide 2 in. Long
80 3 in. Wide 20% Deep
2 in. Long
50% Deep 3 in.
60 4 in. Long Wide
3 in. Wide
40

Weld
20

2.5 mph
0 LTR Experiment
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

Distance (inches)

27

MFL Pit Resolution

6 in 6 in

6 in

6 in

28

14
 Amplitude Corrosion Depth
Predicted Percent Depth
Amplitude only
to predict depth
80

50

20

20 50 80

Actual Percent Depth

29

Primary Variables
That Affect Sizing Accuracy
The corrosion geometry class
General, Axial Grooves, Circumferential Grooves, Pits, Pinholes

Pipe material
Wall Thickness, Diameter, Welded or Seamless, Stress

Inspection conditions
Velocity, fittings, product, pressure

Inspection Tool
Magnetizer strength and length

Sensors resolution

To discuss all these variables would take a full session

30

15
 Pipe Material Example:
Diameter and Wall Thickness
0 in 8 16 24 32 in 40 48 56 64 in
35 1.4
Maximum Wall thickness (mm)

30 1.2

25 1.0

(Inches)
20 0.8

15 0.6

10 0.4

5 0.2

0 0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600

Pipe Diameter (mm)

31

Inspection Variable Example:

MFL Pig Velocity
120

50% Deep
100
Velocity 2 in. Long Direction
6 in. Wide of Motion
Effects
Signal Amplitude (gauss)

80
50% Deep 2.5 mph
50% Deep
4 in. Long 2 in. Long
3 in. Wide 3 in. Wide
60
8 mph

40

20

LTR Experiment
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Distance (inches)

32

16
 Example Sensors:
How many do you need?
1

33

Sensor Width
Center Sensor at Defect Center Sensors Straddle Defect CenterSensor
Sensor s

Pipe Pipe

100 100
Peak Amplitude (percent of max)
Peak Amplitude (percent of max)

0.4 inch Sensor 0.4 inch Sensor

90 90

80 80

70 70

60 60

50 50
-5 -2.5 0 2.5 5 -5 -2.5 0 2.5 5
Circumferential Distance (inches) Circumferential Distance (inches)

Center Sensor at Defect Center Sensor

Sensors Straddle Defect CenterSensor
Pipe Pipe
100 100
Peak Amplitude (percent of max)

Peak Amplitude (percent of max)

2.0 inch Sensor 2.0 inch Sensor

90 90

80 80

70 70

60 60

50 50
-5 -2.5 0 2.5 5 -5 -2.5 0 2.5 5
Circumferential Distance (inches) Circumferential Distance (inches)

34

17
 Circumferential (transverse)
Magnetic Flux Leakage

Magnet S
N
Backing Iron
Sensors

13.80 inches

Magnet S
N

35

Circumferential (transverse)
Magnetic Flux Leakage

36

18
 18
Axial MFL

Example 1
12

50% deep
6 inch long 6

3 inch wide
0
0 6 12 18

10
Circ MFL

0
0 6 12 18

37

18
Axial MFL

Example 2
12
50% deep
6 inch long 6

1 inch wide
0
0 6 12 18

10
Circ MFL

0
0 6 12 18

An axial defect is more easily detected with CMFL 38

19
 18
Axial MFL
Example 3
12
50% deep
1 inch long 6

6 inch wide
0
0 6 12 18

10
Circ MFL

0
0 6 12 18

A circumferential defect is more easily detected with AMFL 39

Axial (Traditional) vs
Circumferential (Transverse) MFL
Circumfernetial MFL is better at detection
and sizing axially oriented corrosion

Axial MFL is better at detection and sizing

all other corrosion types

40

20
Sample Performance Specification
General 3t x 3t - 80% certainty
Minimum depth 10%t
Length sizing +/- 0.5 in
Width sizing +/- 1.0 in

Pitting – same parameters as above, > tolerance

Gouging – same parameters as above, > tolerance
Maximum wall thickness for inspection
Location +/- 1% from nearest reference

41

Sample Operation Specification

Velocity range – 1 to 6 mph
Max pressure – 2000 psi
Temperature Range 32 to 140F
Pipeline Geometry
Tees – max diameter (barred and unbarred)
Maximum / Minimum continuous bore
Min bend radius
Valves

42

21
 Types of Detectable Features
• External metal loss
• Internal metal loss
• Welds: girth welds, longitudinal welds, spiral welds, coil
welds, and thermite welds (if ferromagnetic material
present in the weld)
 Hard spots
 Cold working
• Dents
• Bends
• T-piece
• Flange
• Valves
 Casings
 Location magnets
 Steel sleeves
 Clamps
• Patches
• Spalling (if metal loss associated)
 Near-wall excess metal.
43

MFL metal loss tools

Standard Resolution
(Low Res.)

Circumferential sensor spacing .……...…..approx. 100 mm (4 in.)

Minimum detectable defect depth ……..………………… 20% W.T.
Depth classification

• No discrimination between internal and external defects

• Calibration digs needed
Thick wall is a
• Approximate estimate of corrosion severity problem
44

22
 ul
r ef
Ca
45

MFL metal loss tools

High Resolution
Circumferential sensor spacing ……..…. 10 - 17 mm (0.4 - 0.7 in.)
Minimum detectable defect depth ………..………….……. 10% W.T.
Accuracy of measurement ..………………………………... 10% W.T.

• Discrimination between internal and external defects

• Sizing of defects
• Assessment of corrosion severity

46

23
MFL metal loss tools

High Resolution
Sizing Accuracy for General Corrosion
Minimal depth 10% WT
Depth sizing accuracy ± 10% WT
Length sizing accuracy ± 10 mm (0.4 inch)
Width sizing accuracy ± 10 - 17 mm (0.4 - 0.7 inch )

Location accuracy
Axial (relative to closest girth weld) ± 0.2 m (8 inches)
Circumferential ± 15º (30 min.)

47

ul
r ef
Ca 48

24
MFL metal loss tools
Extra / Ultra
High Resolution

l
e fu
C ar
49

Ultrasonic metal loss tools

Principle of Operation

• Ultrasonic
compression
waves
• Liquid coupled
• Direct measurement
• Highest resolution

50

25
Ultrasonic metal loss
tools Ultrasonic Wall
Thickness
Measurement

Ultrasonic transducer Outgoing signal

Stand-off

Pipe wall

Wall thickness

51

Ultrasonic metal loss tools

Wall Thickness Measurement
Pipe wall

Stand-off
Wall
Thickness

Motion along the pipe

Ultrasonic
Transducer Liquid

Stand-off
distance

Wall
thickness

52

26
 Ultrasonic
metal loss tools

• Direct measurement
• Widest range of detectable features
• Internal / external + mid-wall defect discrimination
• Reliable sizing

• Supports advanced MAOP assessment

• No upper wall thickness limitation
• Straight forward data analysis
• Operates only in liquids (liquid slug in a gas pipeline)
53

Types of Detectable Features

• External metal loss

• Internal metal loss
• Welds: girth weld, longitudinal weld,
spiral weld, coil weld
• Dents, deformations
• Bends: field bend, forged bend, hot bend
• Welded attachments and sleeves
(features under a sleeve are also detected)
• T-pieces
• Flanges
• Valves
 Laminations
 Sloping laminations
 Hydrogen-induced cracking (HIC) and induced laminations
 Blisters
 Inclusions
 Longitudinal channeling
• Wall thickness variations of seamless pipe
54

27
 Ultrasonic metal loss tools
Defect detection
specifications

DEPTH MEASUREMENT:
• Basic resolution and accuracy ± 0.2 mm (<0.01 in.)
(for flat surfaces)
• Average accuracy ± 0.5 mm (0.02 in.)
(depends on surface roughness)
• Threshold level 0.8 mm (0.03 in.)
(can be set down to 0.2 mm (0.01 in.) for low level corrosion)

LENGTH MEASUREMENT:

• Accuracy ± 3 mm (0.25 in.)

WIDTH MEASUREMENT:
• Accuracy ± 8 mm (0.3 in.)

55

ul
r ef
Ca

56

28
 Crack detection
Most likely crack geometries

Longitudinal
and radial
external
internal

Circumferential and
radial
external
internal

Midwall – parallel to
surface
57

Crack detection
Ultrasonic Liquid Coupled Shear Wave Tools
Principle of Detection
Pulse-echo mode
External
Ultrasonic Crack Internal
Transducer Outgoing Crack
signal
Amplitude

Internal
Surface
_
Oil, Wate Internal
r Crack
Steel
45°
External
Crack Time of flight

Generation of a shear wave

Resulting A-Scan:
in the pipe wall

58

29
 Crack detection
Ultrasonic
Liquid Coupled Shear
Wave Tools
• Liquid coupled ultrasonics
Detection of axial cracks and crack-like defects
• Stress Corrosion Cracking (SCC)
• Fatigue cracks
• Long seam (including ERW) weld imperfections, toe-cracks
• Surface breaking laminations
Minimum size of detectable defects
• Length …………………………..………………… 30 mm (1.2 in.)
• Depth ……………………………………………… 1 mm (0.04 in.)

59

Crack detection
Ultrasonic Liquid
Coupled Shear Wave
Tools
Detection of defects
• Axial
(circumferential - if modified)
• External, internal and mid-wall
• Full body of pipe –
no exclusion zones
Defect discrimination
Defect sizing
• Length, width of colonies
• Depth classification
Detection sensitivity
• Defects down to < 10% W.T. typically detected 60

30
 Crack detection
Ultrasonic Liquid Coupled Shear Wave Tools
Visualization of inspection results

(1.2 in.)

Verification excavations, SCC colony detected with a

liquid coupled CD tool and verified in the ditch
61

l
e fu
C ar
62

31
 Crack detection
EMAT - ElectroMagnetic Acoustic Transducer
Ultrasonic wave
Liquid coupled in the probe
ultrasonic Piezoelectric
crystal Couplant
transducers

Ultrasonic wave
in the pipe wall

Permanent magnet
N
EMAT S
Air gap
RF-coil
Ultrasonic sources

Ultrasonic wave
in the pipe wall

63

Combined technologies
Corrosion + Deformation + Mapping

MFL/DEF Module
Hall Sensors
12mm Spacing
Deformation Sensors
36mm Spacing

Recorder Module
Up to 4000 Channels
ID/OD Sensors
INS Module
ODO Wheels
Dynamics

64

32
 Data integration, analysis and
geographical information systems

Corridor Data

Soils Data Topo Data

Operating Data

HCA Data
Profile Data

DEM Data

Geometry Data
Pipe Data
65

Detection Details (1 of 3)
Can the pig find a particular anomaly?
The answer is always yes
Can the pig always find it?
Depends on the anomaly type and size
Depends on tool performance
Depends on the pipeline condition
material variations
proximity to pipeline features (valves, welds, tee)
debris and deposits
66

33
 Detection Details (2 of 3)

Will the pig detect anomaly where

there are none? Probably.
The smaller the anomaly you want
to find the higher the probability of
error
Be careful what wish for.

67

Detection Details (3 of 3)
Will the pig detect anomalies the pig was
not specifically designed to find? Yes
Probability of detection may be low.
This information is good for pipeline
maintenance.
Do not rely on this information for
pipeline safety and reliability
calculations.

68

34
 Conclusions
Universally applicable tool - not available
multiple technology ILI tools are

Overlap in detection capabilities

Identify the right technology
detection limitations
discrimination/sizing capabilities
operational limitations

Integrate all relevant data - ILI and other

Joint effort by operators and service providers
69

ILI – available documents

NACE SOTA 35100

“In-Line Nondestructive Inspection of Pipelines”

NACE RP0102-2002
“In-Line Inspection of Pipelines”

70

35
 ILI Performance Standards
ILI qualification standards ← in the works

API 1163
Systems and umbrella standard

ASNT ILI-PQ-2003
Personnel

NACE RP0102 ← to be revised

Procedure

71

Questions & Answers

Please send in your questions by:
Text chat
or
Raise your hand to ask an audio question

72

36
 Please email your follow-up questions
from today’s web conference to
Mike Grubb
mgrubb@southerngas.org

SGA will be creating a web forum to post and

answer questions.

73

Webcast Schedule
Mondays 9:30 to 11:30 CT
TOPIC DATE
7. Pressure Testing Oct 12, 2004 (Tues)
8. In-Line Inspection Oct 25, 2004
9. Direct Assessment Nov 8, 2004
10. Impact Minimization Nov 22, 2005
11. Risk Management Dec 6, 2004
12. Process Management Dec 20, 2004

74

37
 Webcast Schedule
Mondays 9:30 to 11:30 CT
TOPIC DATE
13. Quality Management Jan 4, 2005 (Tues)
14. Information Integration Jan 17, 2005
15. Emerging Technologies Jan 31, 2005
16. Remediation & Repair Feb 14, 2005
17. Communication Plan Feb 28, 2005 (Tues)
18. Case Study Mar 14, 2005

75

Course Completion
Password

Please include this password on your sign in

sheet for Session 8 as a record of satisfactory
completion.
Thanks for participating!

76

38