Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Inspection Tool
Validation
Guidance
Document,
1st Edition
January2016
CEPA Metal Loss Inline Inspection Tool Validation Guidance Document, 1st Edition, Nov. 2014
2014 Canadian Energy Pipeline Association Page 1 of 69
aboutpipelines.com
Notice of Copyright
Copyright 2014 Canadian Energy Pipeline Association (CEPA). All rights reserved.
Canadian Energy Pipeline Association and the CEPA logo are trademarks and/or registered
trademarks of Canadian Energy Pipeline Association. The trademarks or service marks of all
other products or services mentioned in this document are identified respectively.
Disclaimer of Liability
The Canadian Energy Pipeline Association (CEPA) is a voluntary, non-profit industry
association representing major Canadian transmission pipeline companies. The Metal Loss
Inline Inspection Tool Validation Guidance Document (hereafter referred to as the
Guidelines) was prepared to provide common guidelines to enhance industry best practice
and performance.
Use of the Guidelines described herein is wholly voluntary. The Guidelines described are not to
be considered industry standards and no representation as such is made. It is the responsibility
of each pipeline company, or other user of these Guidelines, to implement practices to ensure
the safe operation of assets.
While reasonable efforts have been made by CEPA to assure the accuracy and reliability of the
information contained in these Guidelines, CEPA makes no warranty, representation or
guarantee, express or implied, in conjunction with the publication of these Guidelines as to the
accuracy or reliability of these Guidelines. CEPA expressly disclaims any liability or
responsibility, whether in contract, tort or otherwise and whether based on negligence or
otherwise, for loss or damage of any kind, whether direct or consequential, resulting from the
use of these Guidelines. These Guidelines are set out for informational purposes only.
The CEPA Metal Loss Inline Inspection Tool Validation Guidelines are intended to be
considered as a whole, and users are cautioned to avoid the use of individual chapters without
regard for the entire Guidelines.
CEPA Metal Loss Inline Inspection Tool Validation Guidance Document, 1st Edition, Nov. 2014
2014 Canadian Energy Pipeline Association Page 2 of 69
Aboutpipelines.com
Table of Contents
CEPA Metal Loss Inline Inspection Tool Validation Guidance Document, 1st Edition, Nov. 2014
2014 Canadian Energy Pipeline Association Page 3 of 69
Aboutpipelines.com
A5.1. Standardization of ILI Reporting...................................................................65
A5.2. Documentation of Procedures ......................................................................67
A5.3. Refinement of Scorecard .............................................................................67
A5.4. Technology Specific Verification ...................................................................67
A6. Scoring Verification Process Scorecard Summary ...............................................69
CEPA Metal Loss Inline Inspection Tool Validation Guidance Document, 1st Edition, Nov. 2014
2014 Canadian Energy Pipeline Association Page 4 of 69
Aboutpipelines.com
List of Tables
Table 1: Verification Procedure Scorecard Parameters as per API 1163 .........................14
Table 2: Pre-Run Tool Selection Scoring ....................................................................15
Table 3: Inspection System Data Check Scoring .........................................................17
Table 4: Pre-Run Planning Scoring ............................................................................18
Table 5: Pre-Run Function Check Scoring ..................................................................20
Table 6: Pre-Run Mechanical Check Scoring ...............................................................22
Table 7: Procedure Execution Scoring .......................................................................23
Table 8: Post-Run Mechanical Check Scoring ..............................................................25
Table 9 Post-Run Function Check Scoring ..................................................................27
Table 10: Post-Run Field Data Check Scoring .............................................................28
Table 11: Post-Run Data Analysis Processes Scoring ...................................................30
Table 12: Post-Run Cumulative Assessment Scoring ...................................................31
Table 13: ILI Validation Parameters ..........................................................................35
Table 14: ILI Validation Parameters ..........................................................................37
Table 16: Guidance for Parameter #1 Pre-Run Tool Selection.......................................39
Table 17: Guidance for Parameter #2 Pre-Run Inspection System Data .........................40
Table 18: Guidance for Parameter #3 Pre-Run Planning ..............................................41
Table 19: Guidance for Parameter #4 Pre-Run Function Checks ...................................42
Table 20: Guidance for Parameter #5 Pre-Run Mechanical Checks ................................43
Table 21 Guidance for Parameter #6 in the pipe Procedure Execution ...........................44
Table 22: Guidance for Parameter #7 Post-Run Mechanical Checks ...............................45
Table 23: Guidance for Parameter #8 Post-Run Function Check ...................................46
Table 24: Guidance for Parameter #9 Post-Run Field Data Check .................................47
Table 25: Guidance for Parameter #10 Post-Run Data Analysis Processes and Quality
Checks ..................................................................................................................48
Table 26: Guidance for Parameter #11 Post-Run Cumulative Assessment ......................49
Table 27: Completed Scorecard Example 1 ................................................................50
Table 28: Completed Scorecard Example 2 ................................................................51
Table 29: Considerations when Dealing with Systematic Bias .......................................60
Table 30: Small Population Case Samples ..................................................................63
Table 31: Key Items to Consider for Future Refinement ...............................................65
Table 32: Summary of Data Provided for Scorecard ....................................................66
CEPA Metal Loss Inline Inspection Tool Validation Guidance Document, 1st Edition, Nov. 2014
2014 Canadian Energy Pipeline Association Page 5 of 69
Aboutpipelines.com
Table 33: Verification Process Scorecard Summary .....................................................70
List of Figures
Figure 1: Overall Process .........................................................................................11
Figure 2: Verification Check-Point Flowchart ..............................................................12
Figure 3: Validation Procedure .................................................................................13
............................................................................................................................39
Figure 4: Table 1 from NACE SP 102-2010 giving Guidance on Tool Selection for ILI .......54
Figure 5: Illustration of the Validation Process ............................................................56
Figure6: Random Error and Bias Component Contribute to the Error of any ILI
Measurement .........................................................................................................58
CEPA Metal Loss Inline Inspection Tool Validation Guidance Document, 1st Edition, Nov. 2014
2014 Canadian Energy Pipeline Association Page 6 of 69
Aboutpipelines.com
1. Introduction
The intent of this Guidance Document is to supplement key industry standards such as
API 1163 and industry best practices by providing a methodology to assist CEPA
members with a cost-effective method for validating the results from inline
inspections. In particular, this document is meant to enable an operator to establish a
process to identify if validation excavations are required and assess the value of those
excavations versus employing alternative verification or validation processes to accept
an ILI run that has no actionable anomalies.
This Guidance Document outlines the procedure for the acceptance of an ILI run based
on a Verification and Validation of the run. This Guidance Document shifts the
emphasis of ILI validation from field validation to verification that planning,
preparation, execution, and analysis of the ILI run were correctly done using well-
vetted, industry recognized procedures. The shift to process verification is expected to
provide greater confidence in the resulting ILI run.
Note: This Guidance Document outlines a suggested approach for verification and
validating of the run. Other approaches may be taken at the discretion of the pipeline
operator if other processes are more practical, provided the sections of this document are
followed. In essence, there may be internal practices already in place for a member
company, which are consistent with this document and other existing industry documents
(i.e. NACE SP0102-2010 and API 1163).
CEPA Metal Loss Inline Inspection Tool Validation Guidance Document, 1st Edition, Nov. 2014
2014 Canadian Energy Pipeline Association Page 7 of 69
Aboutpipelines.com
companies and from periodic reviews as deemed necessary by CEPA and/or the
PIWG.
2. Scope
The purpose of this Guidance Document is to assist the operator in evaluating the
quality of an ILI run and deciding whether the run should be accepted or rejected.
Previously, the acceptance of an ILI run had been based primarily on a Validation
process where the results of the inspection are compared to the results of NDT
measurements in the field. At best, the comparison can only show that the ILI run is
consistent or inconsistent with results collected in the field. The procedure does not
prove that the ILI meets its performance specification, however, the ILI run is
accepted unless evidence to the contrary is found. If the field results are inconsistent
with the ILI performance specification, then the ILI run would be rejected and a rerun
would be required.
CEPA Metal Loss Inline Inspection Tool Validation Guidance Document, 1st Edition, Nov. 2014
2014 Canadian Energy Pipeline Association Page 8 of 69
Aboutpipelines.com
The Verification process examines all the aspects of tool selection, run preparation,
running of the tool, and analysis of the results to ensure that the procedures followed
should lead to a successful run. Lacking evidence to the contrary, the ILI run is
accepted.
In practice, inspection results usually enable the operator to assess risk on most
of a pipeline, but there are often localized areas where the data has been
compromised in some way and the inspection data is less than optimal for the
assessment of risk. At these locations, if the risk due to the threat is great, then
the threat would need to be addressed by some other method.
CEPA Metal Loss Inline Inspection Tool Validation Guidance Document, 1st Edition, Nov. 2014
2014 Canadian Energy Pipeline Association Page 9 of 69
Aboutpipelines.com
3.2. Components
The acceptance of an ILI run depends on its Verification and Validation.
4. Overall Process
4.1. Process Description
This Guidance Document defines a process for the acceptance of an ILI run
without need for excavations when there are no actionable anomalies reported
by the inspection. The process has required the definition of a holistic and
comprehensive approach to the acceptance of the ILI data following the
delivery of the report.
The first step towards the acceptance of an ILI run is the Run Verification.
Verification is an 11-point checklist to ensure that run planning and execution
was conducted according to established standards. Depending on the results of
the Verification phase, the process proceeds to one of the Validation processes.
Depending on the available data and the results of the ILI, one, two, or all
three components may be required to validate the run.
CEPA Metal Loss Inline Inspection Tool Validation Guidance Document, 1st Edition, Nov. 2014
2014 Canadian Energy Pipeline Association Page 10 of 69
Aboutpipelines.com
4.2. Process Flowchart
Figure 1 shows the top-level flowchart of the overall process. As discussed
above, the process consists of two steps: Verification and Validation. If the run
fails either the Verification or the Validation, then the run cannot be accepted
to address the threat in question.
4.2.1. Verification
Process verification consists of an 11-point check in two parts: part
one is a 10-point check regarding various aspects of the tool then in
part two the final check is a Cumulative Assessment. The checks are:
1. Tool Selection,
2. Historical performance of the inspection system,
3. Planning,
4. Pre-run Function Check,
5. Pre-run Mechanical Check,
6. Procedure execution (e.g., pigging procedure, tool speed, etc.),
7. Post-run Mechanical Check,
8. Post-run Function Check,
9. Field Data Quality Check, and
10. Data analysis processes: quality checks.
CEPA Metal Loss Inline Inspection Tool Validation Guidance Document, 1st Edition, Nov. 2014
2014 Canadian Energy Pipeline Association Page 11 of 69
Aboutpipelines.com
For each of the 10 points, the operator would follow the flowchart shown in Figure 2.
Guidance on each decision node is provided in A1. Scorecard and Guidance Document.
All checks must have a Pass or Conditional pass for the run to be
accepted. Once the check of the 10 parameters is concluded, they are
reviewed in the Cumulative Check to decide the final verification
result.
CEPA Metal Loss Inline Inspection Tool Validation Guidance Document, 1st Edition, Nov. 2014
2014 Canadian Energy Pipeline Association Page 12 of 69
Aboutpipelines.com
previous ILI, must be matched and compared to the current ILI to
validate the inspection.
Start
Validation
Match known
Pipeline feature to
ILI
YES
Pipeline features
matching successful
YES
No
Is there
a previous ILI run on the Yes Compare ILI results
line?
No
CEPA Metal Loss Inline Inspection Tool Validation Guidance Document, 1st Edition, Nov. 2014
2014 Canadian Energy Pipeline Association Page 13 of 69
Aboutpipelines.com
5. Process Verification
5.1. Process Overview
Process verification is a systematic and consistent approach to ensure that all
proper procedures were undertaken by the operator and ILI vendor prior to,
during, and after the inspection. The fundamental premise of the methodology is
that high-quality ILI data is a consequence of technology, planning, and
execution. The verification process checks ten parameters. Once these ten
parameters have been assessed, a cumulative assessment of all parameters (and
potential deficiencies) is then reviewed cohesively to ensure that results are still
deemed to be tolerable. The ten parameters are shown in Table 1.
For each of these checks, the flowchart in Figure 2 is followed to assign a score to
each item. A score P or Pass indicates that the proper procedure was followed.
C or Conditional pass indicates that some irregularities were found in the
procedure, but that the effect on the data is not significant or that additional
actions may be required to ensure the conditional pass is resolved or can be
confirmed to be a pass. For example, in an area where the ILI experienced an
overspeed, the operator may use a different specification to assess the
uncertainty of the features in that particular area. Finally, F or Fail indicates
that the data is compromised in some way such that the run cannot be accepted.
The final Cumulative Check is a review of all the Conditional Passes to ensure that
the overall effect on the data is acceptable.
CEPA Metal Loss Inline Inspection Tool Validation Guidance Document, 1st Edition, Nov. 2014
2014 Canadian Energy Pipeline Association Page 14 of 69
aboutpipelines.com
The following sections discuss each of these parameters in turn. Specifically,
description of the parameter, motivation of the item, scoring, assessing the
significance of the data impact and potential mitigation options are discussed in
detail. An abridged version of the information is available in the actual scorecard
and guidance document in A1. Scorecard and Guidance Document.
5.2.2. Motivation
The purpose of this check is to ensure that the inspection tool is
capable of assessing the specific threat on the pipeline. An
appropriate inspection tool needs to be selected that can detect
the threats present. During the selection process, the operator
and vendors shall consider the tools resolution range (standard
vs. high resolution). The operator shall review the tools
performance specifications to verify that the tool is capable of
detecting and sizing the anomalies that are deemed a threat on
the pipeline. The vendors tool performance specification shall
contain sizing accuracy standards and confidence levels.
5.2.3. Scoring
Table 2: Pre-Run Tool Selection Scoring
Score Scoring Description
F Tool not capable of detection or sizing of expected anomaly type(s).
C Tool capable of detecting anomaly types but limited sizing or detection
abilities of expected anomaly type(s).
P Best available technology for detecting and sizing expected anomaly
type(s) identified and used.
Note: For a comprehensive Verification Process Scorecard Summary, please
refer to Table 33 in A.6.
CEPA Metal Loss Inline Inspection Tool Validation Guidance Document, 1st Edition, Nov. 2014
2014 Canadian Energy Pipeline Association Page 15 of 69
Aboutpipelines.com
The scoring of this parameter is expected to be relatively
straightforward. For example, the use of a transverse MFL tool
will identify general corrosion, but its sizing tolerances are
limited. Thus, if the dimensions of a potentially injurious defect
are beyond the performance specification of the transverse MFL
tool, then this parameter would be deemed a Fail.
CEPA Metal Loss Inline Inspection Tool Validation Guidance Document, 1st Edition, Nov. 2014
2014 Canadian Energy Pipeline Association Page 16 of 69
Aboutpipelines.com
tested by the vendor, the vendor shall supply relevant
documentation demonstrating successful performance testing.
5.3.2. Motivation
Whereas the emphasis of the Tool Selection check is to ensure
that the technology is capable of detecting and sizing the
anomalies, the motivation of this check is to ensure that the
inspection system is able to deliver quality data as demonstrated
by its history of successful runs.
5.3.3. Scoring
Table 3: Inspection System Data Check Scoring
Score Scoring Description
F Tool is experimental and there is no established history or it has been
demonstrated to have deficiencies in addressing the threat.
C Same model of tool with minor differences (such as diameter) has a
history of successful runs to assess the threat,
Or the specific model of tool has history of successful runs to assess
the threat for other operators, but results of those runs are not
available.
P Operator firsthand knowledge of the performance capabilities of the
tool and has several successful inspections using the tool.
Note: For a comprehensive Verification Process Scorecard Summary, please
refer to Table 33 in A.6.
If, however, the operator does not have firsthand experience with
the specific tool, but has indirect experience or knowledge of the
tools performance, a Conditional pass is scored. For example, a
Conditional is given if the operator has extensive experience
with other tools in the ILI vendors fleet, but those tools differ
from the tool used in the current inspection in some way, such as
diameter. Since there are usually a large number of similarities
between a vendors 24-inch and 30-inch tool, for example, the
performance of the 30-inch tool is a good indication of the
performance of the 24-inch tool.
CEPA Metal Loss Inline Inspection Tool Validation Guidance Document, 1st Edition, Nov. 2014
2014 Canadian Energy Pipeline Association Page 17 of 69
Aboutpipelines.com
more rigorous validation process to ensure that the tool is
accurately reporting the severity of the anomalies.
5.4.2. Motivation
The purpose of this item is to ensure that proper procedures were
followed prior to the running of the tool. In many cases, this
parameter may seem moot after the completion of and
apparently successful inspection. However, the success of an
inspection is dependent on planning and preparations prior to the
running of the tool. Ensuring, for example, that cleaning targets
were met prior to the inspection can avoid degradation of the
data quality. Thus proper planning can sometimes make the
difference between optimal inspection results and simply
adequate results.
5.4.3. Scoring
Table 4: Pre-Run Planning Scoring
Score Scoring Description
F Key elements of Pipeline ILI Compatibility Assessment and Inspection
planning not conducted.
C Majority of elements of Pipeline ILI Compatibility Assessment and
CEPA Metal Loss Inline Inspection Tool Validation Guidance Document, 1st Edition, Nov. 2014
2014 Canadian Energy Pipeline Association Page 18 of 69
Aboutpipelines.com
Inspection Scheduling completed but undocumented.
P Elements of Pipeline ILI Compatibility and Inspection Scheduling
completed and documented.
Note: For a comprehensive Verification Process Scorecard Summary, please
refer to Table 33 in A.6.
CEPA Metal Loss Inline Inspection Tool Validation Guidance Document, 1st Edition, Nov. 2014
2014 Canadian Energy Pipeline Association Page 19 of 69
Aboutpipelines.com
Should a Fail score be appropriate for this parameter (i.e.,
significant data degradation), the options are somewhat limited
in that some large-scale program to prove the integrity of the
pipeline must be undertaken. For example, the operator must
re-inspect the line having remedied the planning deficiency or
undertake an alternative set of activities such as hydrostatic
testing, or direct assessment.
5.5.2. Motivation
The purpose of this item is to ensure that the inspection tool is in
good working condition, which requires that the tools mechanical
components perform as designed, prior to the inspection. The
documentation of this check is required by API 1163, and its
documentation is indicative of the ILI vendors diligence in
following established Standards and Guidelines.
5.5.3. Scoring
Table 5: Pre-Run Function Check Scoring
Score Scoring description
F Significant function checks not passed.
C Significant function checks passed but checks are
undocumented.
P All function checks passed and documented.
Note: For a comprehensive Verification Process Scorecard Summary,
please refer to Table 33 in A.6.
CEPA Metal Loss Inline Inspection Tool Validation Guidance Document, 1st Edition, Nov. 2014
2014 Canadian Energy Pipeline Association Page 20 of 69
Aboutpipelines.com
may experience a failure soon after launch. In such a case, the
oversight would result in some significant data degradation, and
the parameter would be deemed a Fail. However, in some cases
documentation confirming the function check may be missing. If
the tool passes a documented post-run function check or if the
tool is received and no data degradation has been identified, then
a Conditional pass would be assigned. A Pass would be
reported if all function checks were passed and documentation to
this effect was readily available.
CEPA Metal Loss Inline Inspection Tool Validation Guidance Document, 1st Edition, Nov. 2014
2014 Canadian Energy Pipeline Association Page 21 of 69
Aboutpipelines.com
5.6.2. Motivation
The purpose of this item is to ensure that the inspection tool is in
good working condition, which requires that the tools mechanical
components perform as designed. The documentation of this
check is required by API 1163 and its documentation is indicative
of the ILI vendors diligence in following established Standards
and Guidelines.
5.6.3. Scoring
Table 6: Pre-Run Mechanical Check Scoring
Score Scoring Description
F Significant mechanical checks not passed.
C Significant mechanical checks passed but checks are undocumented.
P All mechanical checks passed and documented.
Note: For a comprehensive Verification Process Scorecard Summary, please
refer to Table 33 in A.6.
CEPA Metal Loss Inline Inspection Tool Validation Guidance Document, 1st Edition, Nov. 2014
2014 Canadian Energy Pipeline Association Page 22 of 69
Aboutpipelines.com
alternative set of activities such as hydrostatic testing, or direct
assessment.
5.7.3. Scoring
Table 7: Procedure Execution Scoring
Score Scoring Description
F Inspection not carried out as per inspection procedure with potential
material impact to data quality.
C Inspection not carried out as per inspection procedure but deviations
are not material to data quality.
P Inspection carried out as per inspection procedure.
Note: For a comprehensive Verification Process Scorecard Summary, please
refer to Table 33 in A.6.
CEPA Metal Loss Inline Inspection Tool Validation Guidance Document, 1st Edition, Nov. 2014
2014 Canadian Energy Pipeline Association Page 23 of 69
Aboutpipelines.com
The scoring of this parameter is expected to be relatively
straightforward. For example, if there were deviations from the
planned procedure and significant data impacts resulting (i.e.,
impacts that could not be managed through alternative means),
the parameter would be deemed a Fail. However, in some cases
there may have been deviations from the planned procedure but
there was little or no impact to data quality, in these cases, a
Conditional pass would be assigned. A Pass would be reported
when the inspection procedure was executed as planned and
documentation to this effect was readily available.
CEPA Metal Loss Inline Inspection Tool Validation Guidance Document, 1st Edition, Nov. 2014
2014 Canadian Energy Pipeline Association Page 24 of 69
Aboutpipelines.com
receive at the end of the run. As such, post-run mechanical
checks are expected to be largely visual and specific to each
vendor and technology used. The post-run mechanical checklist
should be provided by the ILI vendor, standardized and identified
in advance of the inspection. These include, but are not limited to
assessing: general state of the tool, pressure seals around
electronic components, integrity of cups, tool cleanliness, location
of debris accumulation, tool wear as well as ensuring all parts are
intact and moving appropriately. It is recommended that the
checklist be appended with photographs of the tool and any
damage to mechanical components
5.8.2. Motivation
The purpose of this item is to ensure that the inspection tool was
not damaged during the course of the inspection. The
documentation of this check is indicative of the ILI vendors
diligence in following established Standards and Guidelines.
5.8.3. Scoring
Table 8: Post-Run Mechanical Check Scoring
Score Scoring Description
F Significant tool wear, damage or debris with material impact to data.
C Tool wear, damage or debris observed with no material impact to data.
P Tool received in good mechanical condition (with no unexpected tool
wear, damage or debris).
Note: For a comprehensive Verification Process Scorecard Summary, please
refer to Table 33 in A.6.
CEPA Metal Loss Inline Inspection Tool Validation Guidance Document, 1st Edition, Nov. 2014
2014 Canadian Energy Pipeline Association Page 25 of 69
Aboutpipelines.com
the demonstration that the tool was not damaged may be
difficult.
5.9.2. Motivation
The purpose of this item is to ensure that the inspection tool did
not experience an internal failure during the course of the
inspection. The documentation of this check is indicative of the
ILI vendors diligence in following established Standards and
Guidelines.
CEPA Metal Loss Inline Inspection Tool Validation Guidance Document, 1st Edition, Nov. 2014
2014 Canadian Energy Pipeline Association Page 26 of 69
Aboutpipelines.com
5.9.3. Scoring
Table 9 Post-Run Function Check Scoring
Score Scoring Description
F Significant function checks not passed.
C Significant function checks passed were not documented, but that the
proper functioning of the tool can be Verified by other means
throughout the length of the run.
P Function checks passed and documented
Note: For a comprehensive Verification Process Scorecard Summary, please
refer to Table 33 in A.6.
CEPA Metal Loss Inline Inspection Tool Validation Guidance Document, 1st Edition, Nov. 2014
2014 Canadian Energy Pipeline Association Page 27 of 69
Aboutpipelines.com
data degradation or undertake an alternative set of activities
such as hydrostatic testing, or direct assessment.
5.10.2. Motivation
The purpose of this item is to ensure that the inspection tool
collected data for the full length of the line. This check is intended
to identify any major data shortfalls and/or degradation issues,
which would prevent the vendor from meeting the performance
specifications. The documentation of this check is indicative of the
ILI vendors diligence in following established Standards and
Guidelines.
5.10.3. Scoring
Table 10: Post-Run Field Data Quality Check Scoring
Score Scoring Description
F Tool unable to meet stated specifications due to significant lack of data
integrity
C Tool unable to meet stated specifications but manageable through
further analysis
P Tool able to meet stated specifications for entire length of run
Note: For a comprehensive Verification Process Scorecard Summary, please
refer to Table 33 in A.6.
CEPA Metal Loss Inline Inspection Tool Validation Guidance Document, 1st Edition, Nov. 2014
2014 Canadian Energy Pipeline Association Page 28 of 69
Aboutpipelines.com
5.10.4. Options for Dealing with Compromised Data
Quality
Data degradation identified through this parameter must be
addressed on a case-by-case basis since the range of potential
outcomes is large. For example, complete loss of data at launch
would require a re-inspection. At the other end of the spectrum,
the loss of a single sensor half way through the run may not be
deemed material to the quality of the data collected.
CEPA Metal Loss Inline Inspection Tool Validation Guidance Document, 1st Edition, Nov. 2014
2014 Canadian Energy Pipeline Association Page 29 of 69
Aboutpipelines.com
It is recommended that the above listed requirements be
discussed and agreed upon in the Planning and Preparation stage,
to allow the vendor to properly secure the required resources,
including analysts and software programs, for instance, and to
ensure the tool is capable of performing the scope, before the
inspection.
5.11.2. Motivation
This final check is to ensure that the raw data from the inspection
has been properly analyzed by the ILI vendor and that the final
report will satisfy the requirements of the inspection. The
documentation of this check is indicative of the ILI vendors
diligence in following established Standards and Guidelines.
5.11.3. Scoring
Table 11: Post-Run Data Analysis Processes Scoring
Score Scoring Description
F Results of data analysis quality checks are not acceptable.
C Significant data quality checks passed, but quality checks initially
undocumented or reanalysis was required.
P Data quality checks passed and documented.
Note: For a comprehensive Verification Process Scorecard Summary, please
refer to Table 33 in A.6.
CEPA Metal Loss Inline Inspection Tool Validation Guidance Document, 1st Edition, Nov. 2014
2014 Canadian Energy Pipeline Association Page 30 of 69
Aboutpipelines.com
A Fail is given for any situation that cannot be corrected by
reanalysis of the data. Such situations may indicate a problem in
the selection, preparation, or running of the tool.
5.12.2. Scoring
Table 12: Post-Run Cumulative Assessment Scoring
CEPA Metal Loss Inline Inspection Tool Validation Guidance Document, 1st Edition, Nov. 2014
2014 Canadian Energy Pipeline Association Page 31 of 69
Aboutpipelines.com
F Cumulative impact of Conditional passes deemed to materially impact
ILI results.
A Cumulative impact of Conditional passes is unclear and may have
impacted ILI results.
P The cumulative impact of all Conditional passes, if any, deemed to be
tolerable.
Note: For a comprehensive Verification Process Scorecard Summary, please
refer to Table 33 in A.6.
Scoring for this final parameter is in fact the scoring of the entire
verification Process. The final score may be either Fail, Pass,
or Ambiguous, depending on whether the Conditional passes
of the previous checks are cumulative or not. Degradation is
cumulative if one issue magnifies any pre-existing data
degradation (such as a tool over-speed in a location where the
tool performance is already compromised by debris related sensor
lift off). Conversely, issues are not cumulative if their impact on
data quality is largely independent (such as a run where the tool
over-speeds at launch and experiences debris issues at receive).
6. Validation
Validation is the process that compares the data collected and reported by the ILI tool to
some independent reference data to ensure the ILI tool meets its performance
specification. Depending on the available data and the results of the ILI inspection, the
validation procedure may consist of different comparisons. In all cases, the validation
must include a comparison of reported pipeline (non-defect) features such as girth welds
and wall thickness changes to as-built records (or similar record). If there are actionable
anomalies, then they must be excavated and compared to the ILI results. In addition,
previous excavation data can also be another reliable source to validate the ILI run.
External features that have been recoated can be used to validate both Magnetic Flux
Leakage (MFL) and Ultrasonic (UT) inspections and external features under a steel repair
sleeve can be used to validate UT inspection only. Finally, if there is a previous ILI run,
then the reported metal-loss anomalies must be compared to the previous inspection.
CEPA Metal Loss Inline Inspection Tool Validation Guidance Document, 1st Edition, Nov. 2014
2014 Canadian Energy Pipeline Association Page 32 of 69
Aboutpipelines.com
Girth welds,
Wall thickness changes,
Tees,
Valves,
Above ground markers,
Pipeline asset data that should be validated include but are not
limited to:
6.1.2. Procedure
The validation procedure using known pipeline features is listed
below. The procedure is meant as a guideline rather than rigorous
set of instructions. Deviations from the procedure may be
required in some circumstances.
1. Obtain the most recent and complete reference list of pipeline
features: The listing may be the as-built, metal-loss inspection
report, non-metal-loss inspection report, or other reliable source.
2. Match the girth weld locations from the reference list to the
reported ILI girth welds.
3. Compile a list of the matched girth welds.
4. Compile a list of the girth welds reported in the reference list but
not reported by the ILI.
5. Compile a list of the girth welds reported by the ILI but not
included in the reference list.
6. Calculate the percentage of matched girth welds:
100
7. Identify all pipeline features from the reference list and match
them to the corresponding ILI reported feature.
8. Identify all ILI features not listed in the reference list. Thoroughly
investigate the source of all of these discrepancies.
9. Identify all girth weld discrepancies if any. Thoroughly investigate
the source of all the discrepancies.
CEPA Metal Loss Inline Inspection Tool Validation Guidance Document, 1st Edition, Nov. 2014
2014 Canadian Energy Pipeline Association Page 33 of 69
Aboutpipelines.com
only be accepted once all girth weld numbers and pipe asset data
completely match the reference listing. The reported location of
all features must meet location-accuracy specifications to enable
the excavation of any reported feature.
CEPA Metal Loss Inline Inspection Tool Validation Guidance Document, 1st Edition, Nov. 2014
2014 Canadian Energy Pipeline Association Page 34 of 69
Aboutpipelines.com
validation parameters for a typical run are summarized in
Table 13.
And
1
= )2 .
(
1
=1
CEPA Metal Loss Inline Inspection Tool Validation Guidance Document, 1st Edition, Nov. 2014
2014 Canadian Energy Pipeline Association Page 35 of 69
Aboutpipelines.com
6.2.2.4. Acceptance Criteria
The ILI validation criterion is based on the assumptions and
calculations in A4. Validation using a Previous ILI. The ILI
depth accuracy is validated if:
1. The number of available matches is 513 or more, or if
the conditions in A4.4.4. Minimum Sample Size are
satisfied and
2. The calculated value, , of the standard deviation of the
difference in depth is less than 11.6% however, this
value could be different depending on the performance
specifications provided by the vendor.
6.3.2. Procedure
The validation procedure using excavation data is listed below.
The procedure is meant as a guideline rather than rigorous set of
instructions. Deviations from the procedure may be required in
some circumstances.
CEPA Metal Loss Inline Inspection Tool Validation Guidance Document, 1st Edition, Nov. 2014
2014 Canadian Energy Pipeline Association Page 36 of 69
Aboutpipelines.com
6.3.2.1. Validation Parameters
The ILI validation criterion is based on the assumptions and
calculations in A4. Validation using a Previous ILI. The
validation parameters for a typical run are summarized in
Table 14.
And
CEPA Metal Loss Inline Inspection Tool Validation Guidance Document, 1st Edition, Nov. 2014
2014 Canadian Energy Pipeline Association Page 37 of 69
Aboutpipelines.com
1
= )2 .
(
1
=1
CEPA Metal Loss Inline Inspection Tool Validation Guidance Document, 1st Edition, Nov. 2014
2014 Canadian Energy Pipeline Association Page 38 of 69
Aboutpipelines.com
A1. Scorecard and Guidance Document
Tables 15 to 27 provide guidance for the completion of the scorecard. Any supporting
documentation would be put on file with the ILI report.
CEPA Metal Loss Inline Inspection Tool Validation Guidance Document, 1st Edition, Nov. 2014
2014 Canadian Energy Pipeline Association Page 39 of 69
Aboutpipelines.com
Table 16: Guidance for Parameter #2 Pre-Run Inspection System Data
Item # 2
Parameter Inspection system check
Stage Pre-run
API Category System Results Validation
API 1163 Reference 2
Score (F/C/P) Fail - Tool is experimental and there is no established history or has
been demonstrated to have data gaps.
Conditional Tools of the same model with minor differences have a
history of successful runs or tool has a history of successful runs, but
data is not available to the operator.
Pass Tool has a history of successful runs.
Flowchart Box 1A (Pass Pass if the operator has first-hand knowledge of the performance
Check?) capabilities of the tool and has several successful inspections using the
tool.
Flowchart Box 1B (Is the Conditional if the operator has first-hand knowledge of the similar
impact on data significant?) model of tool on other pipelines. The experiences may be with models of
tool on different diameters.
Conditional if the tool has been successfully run on several other
pipeline systems, but for other operators and the operator has no access
to the data.
Flowchart Box 1C (Is problem Go to Box IE if problem is localized: Localized problems in this check are
localized?) likely due to changes in the pipeline (diameter, wall thickness, etc.)
Go to Box 1D is problem is widespread.
Flowchart Box 1D (Can a re- Fail if a rerun of a more tested ILI tool would lead to a successful run.
run fix the problem?) If a rerun is unlikely to be successful, then the threat must be address by
other means.
Flowchart Box 1E (Can issue Conditional if alternative integrity management tools such as
be addressed by other hydrotesting, direct assessment, etc. can adequately address the
means?) localized problems.
Go to Box 1D of the areas are too numerous or too long to be addressed
economically by other means.
CEPA Metal Loss Inline Inspection Tool Validation Guidance Document, 1st Edition, Nov. 2014
2014 Canadian Energy Pipeline Association Page 40 of 69
Aboutpipelines.com
Table 17: Guidance for Parameter #3 Pre-Run Planning
Item # 3
Parameter Planning
Stage Pre-run
API Category In-Line System Selection
API 1163 Reference 5.3, 7.2
Score (F/C/P) Fail - Key elements of Pipeline ILI Compatibility Assessment and
Inspection Scheduling not conducted.
Conditional - Majority of elements of Pipeline ILI Compatibility
Assessment and Inspection Scheduling completed but undocumented.
Pass All elements of Pipeline ILI Compatibility Assessment and
Inspection Scheduling completed and documented.
Flowchart Box 1A (Pass Use Guidance Document: SP0102-2010 - specifically sections 4, 5 and
Check?) 6.
Pass if the appropriate plan was developed and executed for the
expected line conditions.
Flowchart Box 1B (Is the Conditional if either the plan was deficient or if the plan was not
impact on data significant?) properly executed, but without affecting the data.
Flowchart Box 1C (Is problem Go to Box IE if problem is localized: Localized problems can be caused
localized?) by event not covered by the plan.
Go to Box 1D is problem is widespread.
Flowchart Box 1D (Can a re- Fail if the lack of planning in one of the elements described in the RP
run fix the problem?) contributed to compromising data collection.
If a rerun is unlikely to be successful, then the threat must be address by
other means.
Flowchart Box 1E (Can issue Conditional if alternative integrity management tools such as
be addressed by other hydrotesting, direct assessment, etc. can adequately address the
means?) localized problems.
Go to Box 1D of the areas are too numerous or too long to be addressed
economically by other means.
CEPA Metal Loss Inline Inspection Tool Validation Guidance Document, 1st Edition, Nov. 2014
2014 Canadian Energy Pipeline Association Page 41 of 69
Aboutpipelines.com
Table 18: Guidance for Parameter #4 Pre-Run Function Checks
Item # 4
Parameter Function Checks
Stage Pre-run
API Category System Operational Verification
API 1163 Reference 7.3.2
Score (F/C/P) Fail - Significant function checks not passed.
Conditional - Significant function checks passed completed but
undocumented.
Pass - All function checks passed and documented.
Flowchart Box 1A (Pass Pass if all relevant function checks passed, including but not limited to
Check?) - Adequate power supply available and operational;
- Sensors and data storage operating;
- Adequate data storage available;
- All tool components properly initialized;
Flowchart Box 1B (Is the Conditional if the checks were done but not documented or if the
impact on data significant?) functional integrity of the tool can be demonstrated indirectly.
Flowchart Box 1C (Is problem Go to Box IE if problem is localized: Localized problems are unlikely in
localized?) this check.
Go to Box 1D is problem is widespread.
Flowchart Box 1D (Can a re- Fail if a rerun of the tool with adequate pre-run checks is likely to result
run fix the problem?) in a successful run.
If a rerun is unlikely to be successful, then the threat must be address by
other means.
Flowchart Box 1E (Can issue Conditional if alternative integrity management tools such as
be addressed by other hydrotesting, direct assessment, etc. can adequately address the
means?) localized problems.
Go to Box 1D of the areas are too numerous or too long to be addressed
economically by other means.
CEPA Metal Loss Inline Inspection Tool Validation Guidance Document, 1st Edition, Nov. 2014
2014 Canadian Energy Pipeline Association Page 42 of 69
Aboutpipelines.com
Table 19: Guidance for Parameter #5 Pre-Run Mechanical Checks
Item # 5
Parameter Mechanical Checks
Stage Pre-run
API Category System Operational Verification
API 1163 Reference 7.3.3
Score (F/C/P) Fail - Significant mechanical checks not passed.
Conditional - Significant mechanical checks completed but
undocumented.
Pass - All mechanical checks passed and documented.
Flowchart Box 1A (Pass Pass if all relevant mechanical checks passed, including but not limited
Check?) to:
- Visual inspection of tool to ensure it is mechanically sound;
- Ensuring electronics are sealed;
- Ensuring adequate integrity of cups;
- Ensuring all moving parts are functioning as expected;
Flowchart Box 1B (Is the Conditional if the checks were done but not documented or if the
impact on data significant?) mechanical integrity of the tool can be demonstrated indirectly.
Flowchart Box 1C (Is problem Go to Box IE if problem is localized: Localized problems are unlikely in
localized?) this check.
Go to Box 1D is problem is widespread.
Flowchart Box 1D (Can a re- Fail if a rerun of the tool with adequate pre-run checks is likely to result
run fix the problem?) in a successful run.
If a rerun is unlikely to be successful, then the threat must be address by
other means.
Flowchart Box 1E (Can issue Conditional if alternative integrity management tools such as
be addressed by other hydrotesting, direct assessment, etc. can adequately address the
means?) localized problems.
Go to Box 1D of the areas are too numerous or too long to be addressed
economically by other means.
CEPA Metal Loss Inline Inspection Tool Validation Guidance Document, 1st Edition, Nov. 2014
2014 Canadian Energy Pipeline Association Page 43 of 69
Aboutpipelines.com
Table 20 Guidance for Parameter #6 in the pipe Procedure Execution
Item # 6
Parameter Procedure execution (e.g., pigging procedure/tool speed, etc.)
Stage In the pipe
API Category System Operational Verification
API 1163 Reference 7.4
Score (F/C/P) Fail - Inspection not conducted as per inspection procedure with
potential material impact to data quality.
Conditional - Inspection not carried out as per inspection procedure but
deviations are not material to data quality.
Pass - Inspection carried out as per inspection procedure.
Flowchart Box 1A (Pass Pass if all relevant checks pass, including but not limited to
Check?) -Tool run was executed as per the planned pigging procedure;
-Line condition (fluid composition, flow rate, temperature, pressure, etc.)
was as planned;
-Line conditions for tool launch as expected and the launch proceed as
planned;
-Line conditions for tool receive was as expected and the receive
proceed as planned;
-Tool speed was within the planned range for the length of the run.
-Tool tracking unfold as planned;
If deviations did occur, they planned or within expectations.
Flowchart Box 1B (Is the Conditional if areas where deviations from the planned procedure are
impact on data significant?) manageable or pose minimal risk to the pipeline.
Flowchart Box 1C (Is problem Go to Box IE if problem is localized: Localized problems can be caused
localized?) by short speed excursions.
Go to Box 1D is problem is widespread.
Flowchart Box 1D (Can a re- Fail if a rerun of the tool with better planning to address the problem is
run fix the problem?) likely to result in a successful run.
If a rerun is unlikely to be successful, then the threat must be address by
other means.
Flowchart Box 1E (Can issue Conditional if alternative integrity management tools such as
be addressed by other hydrotesting, direct assessment, etc. can adequately address the
means?) localized problems.
Go to Box 1D of the areas are too numerous or too long to be addressed
economically by other means.
CEPA Metal Loss Inline Inspection Tool Validation Guidance Document, 1st Edition, Nov. 2014
2014 Canadian Energy Pipeline Association Page 44 of 69
Aboutpipelines.com
Table 21: Guidance for Parameter #7 Post-Run Mechanical Checks
Item # 7
Parameter Mechanical Checks
Stage Post run
API Category System Operational Verification
API 1163 Reference 7.5.2
Score (F/C/P) Fail - Significant tool wear, damage or debris with material impact to
data.
Conditional - Tool wear, damage or debris observed with no material
impact to data.
Pass - Tool received in good mechanical condition (no unexpected tool
wear, damage or debris).
Flowchart Box 1A (Pass Pass if all relevant mechanical checks passed, including but not limited
Check?) to
-Visual inspection of tool to ensure it is mechanically sound?
-Ensuring electronics are sealed;
-Ensuring adequate integrity of cups;
-Ensuring all moving parts are functioning as expected;
-The volume and nature of any debris present was within expectations
and not detrimental to data collection.
Flowchart Box 1B (Is the Conditional if the checks were done but not documented or if the
impact on data significant?) mechanical integrity of the tool can be demonstrated indirectly. The
demonstration of the mechanical integrity of the tool can be difficult
unless it has been properly documented.
Flowchart Box 1C (Is problem Go to Box IE if problem is localized: Localized problems are unlikely in
localized?) this check, except when the damage to the tool occurred near the end of
the run.
Go to Box 1D is problem is widespread.
Flowchart Box 1D (Can a re- Fail if a rerun of the tool after addressing the cause of the problem is
run fix the problem?) likely to result in a successful run.
If a rerun is unlikely to be successful, then the threat must be address by
other means.
Flowchart Box 1E (Can issue Conditional if alternative integrity management tools such as
be addressed by other hydrotesting, direct assessment, etc. can adequately address the
means?) localized problems.
Go to Box 1D of the areas are too numerous or too long to be addressed
economically by other means.
CEPA Metal Loss Inline Inspection Tool Validation Guidance Document, 1st Edition, Nov. 2014
2014 Canadian Energy Pipeline Association Page 45 of 69
Aboutpipelines.com
Table 22: Guidance for Parameter #8 Post-Run Function Check
Item # 8
Parameter Function Check
Stage Post run
API Category System Operational Verification
API 1163 Reference 7.5.2
Score (F/C/P) Fail - Significant function checks not passed.
Conditional - Significant function checks passed but undocumented.
Pass - Function checks passed and documented.
Flowchart Box 1A (Pass Pass if all relevant function checks passed, including but not limited to
Check?) -Adequate power supply available and operational;
-Sensors and data storage operating;
-Adequate data storage available;
-All tool components functioning as expected.
Flowchart Box 1B (Is the Conditional if the checks were done but not documented or if the
impact on data significant?) functional integrity of the tool can be demonstrated indirectly. The
demonstration of the functional integrity of the tool can be difficult unless
it has been properly documented.
Flowchart Box 1C (Is problem Go to Box IE if problem is localized: Localized problems are unlikely in
localized?) this check, except when the functional failure of the tool occurred near
the end of the run.
Go to Box 1D is problem is widespread.
Flowchart Box 1D (Can a re- Fail if a rerun of the tool with better planning to address the problem is
run fix the problem?) likely to result in a successful run.
If a rerun is unlikely to be successful, then the threat must be address by
other means.
Flowchart Box 1E (Can issue Conditional if alternative integrity management tools such as
be addressed by other hydrotesting, direct assessment, etc. can adequately address the
means?) localized problems.
Go to Box 1D of the areas are too numerous or too long to be addressed
economically by other means.
CEPA Metal Loss Inline Inspection Tool Validation Guidance Document, 1st Edition, Nov. 2014
2014 Canadian Energy Pipeline Association Page 46 of 69
Aboutpipelines.com
Table 23: Guidance for Parameter #9 Post-Run Field Data Check
Item # 9
Parameter Field Data Check
Stage Post run
API Category System Operational Verification
API 1163 Reference 7.5.3
Score (F/C/P) Fail - Tool is unable to meet stated specifications due to significant lack
of data integrity.
Conditional - Tool is unable to meet stated specifications but
manageable through further analysis.
Pass - Tool is able to meet stated specification for entire length of run.
Flowchart Box 1A (Pass Pass if the data collection met all the basic quality and quantity checks,
Check?) including but not limited to
-Confirmation of continuous data stream for full circumference of pipe;
-Basic quality requirements have been met;
-The amount of data captured in line with expectations;
Flowchart Box 1B (Is the Conditional if the checks were done but not documented or if the full
impact on data significant?) data collection by the tool can be demonstrated indirectly.
Flowchart Box 1C (Is problem Go to Box IE if problem is localized: Localized problems can be due to
localized?) short losses of data.
Go to Box 1D is problem is widespread.
Flowchart Box 1D (Can a re- Fail if a rerun of the tool with better planning to address the problem is
run fix the problem?) likely to result in a successful run.
If a rerun is unlikely to be successful, then the threat must be address by
other means.
Flowchart Box 1E (Can issue Conditional if alternative integrity management tools such as
be addressed by other hydrotesting, direct assessment, etc. can adequately address the
means?) localized problems.
Go to Box 1D of the areas are too numerous or too long to be addressed
economically by other means.
CEPA Metal Loss Inline Inspection Tool Validation Guidance Document, 1st Edition, Nov. 2014
2014 Canadian Energy Pipeline Association Page 47 of 69
Aboutpipelines.com
Table 24: Guidance for Parameter #10 Post-Run Data Analysis Processes and
Quality Checks
Item # 10
Parameter Data analysis processes: quality checks
Stage Post-run
API Category System Results Validation
API 1163 Reference 8.2.2, Annex C
Score (F/C/P) Fail - Results of data analysis quality checks are not acceptable.
Conditional - Significant data quality checks passed but procedure is
undocumented.
Pass - Data analysis procedures followed; data quality checks passed
and documented; the number and severity of anomalies meets
expectations.
Flowchart Box 1A (Pass Pass if data analysis checks are met including but not limited to
Check?) -Continuous recording of data was for the full pipe circumference;
-Sensor response was within expected range(s);
-Data analysis processes were executed as per pre-defined procedures;
-Analysis was conducted by persons with qualification as agreed;
-Automated detection and sizing parameters were used as agreed;
-Manual intervention by data analysts was conducted as agreed;
-Burst pressure calculations where conducted as agreed;
-Correct pipeline parameters (pipe diameter, wall thickness,
manufacturer, and grade) were documented and used to undertake the
analysis;
-The number and type of anomalies reported are consistent with
expectations.
Flowchart Box 1B (Is the Conditional if the analysis of the data deviated from the planned
impact on data significant?) procedure but that the impact on the data is deemed minimal.
Flowchart Box 1C (Is problem Go to Box IE if problem is localized: Localized problems are unlikely in
localized?) this check or can be corrected by reanalysis of the affected areas.
Go to Box 1D is problem is widespread.
Flowchart Box 1D (Can a re- Fail if a rerun of the tool is likely to result in a successful run. However,
run fix the problem?) rerunning the tool is unlikely to address problems in the analysis of the
data.
If a rerun is unlikely to be successful, then the threat must be address by
other means.
Flowchart Box 1E (Can issue Conditional if alternative integrity management tools such as
be addressed by other hydrotesting, direct assessment, etc. can adequately address the
means?) localized problems.
Go to Box 1D of the areas are too numerous or too long to be addressed
economically by other means.
CEPA Metal Loss Inline Inspection Tool Validation Guidance Document, 1st Edition, Nov. 2014
2014 Canadian Energy Pipeline Association Page 48 of 69
Aboutpipelines.com
Table 25: Guidance for Parameter #11 Post-Run Cumulative Assessment
Item # 11
Parameter Cumulative Assessment
Stage Post-run
Score (F/A/P) Fail - Cumulative impact of "Conditional" passes deemed to materially
impact ILI results
A - Cumulative impact of "Conditional" passes is unclear and may have
impacted ILI results
Pass - The cumulative impact of all "Conditional" passes, if any,
deemed to be tolerable
Flowchart Box 1A (Pass Fail if the number and nature of any Conditional passes provide a
Check?) cause for concern on a cumulative basis. Relevant considerations
include, but are not limited to
-Can data gaps be mitigated effectively using alternative methods?
-Can any data gaps actually be addressed through re-running the tool or
are line conditions such that similar challenges will remain?
-Are any Conditional pass issues cumulative in nature? Issues would
be considered to be cumulative if one issue magnifies any pre-existing
data degradation (such as a tool overspeed in a location where the tool
performance is already compromised as a result of debris related sensor
lift off). Conversely, issues would not be considered cumulative if their
impact on data quality is largely independent (such as a run where the
tool overspeeds at launch and experiences debris issues at receive).
Additional Comments:
CEPA Metal Loss Inline Inspection Tool Validation Guidance Document, 1st Edition, Nov. 2014
2014 Canadian Energy Pipeline Association Page 49 of 69
Aboutpipelines.com
A1.1. Verification Examples
To illustrate the verification process, this section presents two examples.
A1.1.1. Example 1
The first example is summarized below:
100 km NPS 36 run.
10 metre over speed at launch.
Intermittent loss of one sensor (km 1.9 to km 2.0).
No record of pre-run mechanical and function tests.
No actionable anomalies; no previous inline inspection.
CEPA Metal Loss Inline Inspection Tool Validation Guidance Document, 1st Edition, Nov. 2014
2014 Canadian Energy Pipeline Association Page 50 of 69
Aboutpipelines.com
During the running of the tool, a short speed excursion occurred
at the start of the run. The excursion was believed to affect sizing
capabilities of the tool, but would have minimal effect on the
detection capabilities of the tool. Since no metal-loss anomalies
were detected in the area of the speed excursion, the effect on
the data was deemed to be not significant.
A1.1.2. Example 2
The second example is:
100 km NPS 24 run 1950 asphalt coated line.
Loss of one sensor bank for last 1 km of inspection.
All pre-run and post-run tests passed and documented.
20 metal loss anomalies reported by ILI tool.
No actionable anomalies identified; no previous inline
inspection.
CEPA Metal Loss Inline Inspection Tool Validation Guidance Document, 1st Edition, Nov. 2014
2014 Canadian Energy Pipeline Association Page 51 of 69
Aboutpipelines.com
In Example 2, Conditional scores were given for the Inspection
System check, the Post-run Field data check, and the Data
Analysis process check.
The Field data check revealed that one sensor bank (24 sensors)
failed for two kilometres of the inspection. This loss was deemed
to have a significant impact on the data (node 1B of the
Verification Check-point Flowchart). The deficiency was localized
(node 1C) and was addressed by a hydrostatic test in the
previous year (node 1E). Therefore, despite that the effect on the
data was significant, the integrity concern in the area of the
issues can be addressed by other means. The item was given a
Conditional pass.
In the review of the ILI results, it was found that there were no
reported metal-loss anomalies with a depth less than 10% NWT.
Discussions with the ILI vendors Manager of Data Analysis, it
was determined that all metal-loss anomalies with a depth less
than 10% NWT were filtered out in error. The operator requested
all anomalies to be included in the report. The vendor added the
shallow anomalies and reissued the report.
CEPA Metal Loss Inline Inspection Tool Validation Guidance Document, 1st Edition, Nov. 2014
2014 Canadian Energy Pipeline Association Page 52 of 69
Aboutpipelines.com
A2. NACE Table
CEPA Metal Loss Inline Inspection Tool Validation Guidance Document, 1st Edition, Nov. 2014
2014 Canadian Energy Pipeline Association Page 53 of 69
aboutpipelines.com
Figure 4: Table 1 from NACE SP 0102-2010 giving Guidance on Tool
Selection for ILI
CEPA Metal Loss Inline Inspection Tool Validation Guidance Document, 1st Edition, Nov. 2014
2014 Canadian Energy Pipeline Association Page 54 of 69
Aboutpipelines.com
A3. Matching
A3.1. Process overview
When validating an ILI inspection using a previous inspection, there are two
ILI run datasets to be compared. Defect matching is done so that defects
from the first run can be compared to the corresponding defect in the
second run. This process involves matching up the girth weld sections,
adjusting the odometer and orientation, and matching the identified
anomalies.
CEPA Metal Loss Inline Inspection Tool Validation Guidance Document, 1st Edition, Nov. 2014
2014 Canadian Energy Pipeline Association Page 55 of 69
aboutpipelines.com
1
= )2
(
1
=1
Although the examples are based on a comparison of the ILI with a previous ILI run,
the theory for comparing the ILI with the results of in-the-ditch depth measurements
is identical.
Assumed tolerance, , of
True Reference depth
reference measurements
(e.g., , 80% of time) measurements
defect depth
Inferred ILI
accuracy Calculated
tolerance, difference, ,
between ILI and
reference
measurements,
ILI depth
measurements
CEPA Metal Loss Inline Inspection Tool Validation Guidance Document, 1st Edition, Nov. 2014
2014 Canadian Energy Pipeline Association Page 56 of 69
Aboutpipelines.com
The results of an ILI run are compared to the reference measurements. The
difference between the ILI depths and the reference depths puts an upper
bound on the tolerance, , of the ILI tool accuracy.
If the reference measurements are made in the ditch with a highly accurate
device (such as a laser scanning device), the tolerance should be very small:
0. However, if the reference measurements are from a previous ILI,
then the tolerance is likely to be 10% of NWT ( = 0.10) and the confidence
level is 80% ( = 0.80).
= +
CEPA Metal Loss Inline Inspection Tool Validation Guidance Document, 1st Edition, Nov. 2014
2014 Canadian Energy Pipeline Association Page 57 of 69
Aboutpipelines.com
Figure graphically shows the relationships between random and systematic
components of the error. Both the random and systematic components
contribute to the total ILI error.
Frequency
Random
component
Bias
component
The random error is different for each metal-loss anomaly and causes the
readings to be scattered about the true value of the depth. Random error
has a mean of zero.
=
10%
= = 7.8%
1.28
1 = 1 + 1
CEPA Metal Loss Inline Inspection Tool Validation Guidance Document, 1st Edition, Nov. 2014
2014 Canadian Energy Pipeline Association Page 58 of 69
Aboutpipelines.com
Where 1 is the random error component for the previous ILI
measured depth.
2 = 2 + 2
= 2 1 = (1 2 ) + (2 1 )
Note that the plus-minus sign indicates a random variable (with mean
zero). If the standard deviation of the random error components, 1 and 2
are 1 and 2 , then the standard deviation of the sum 1 + 2 is
22 + 21 . Thus the mean of the s is an estimate of the relative
systematic bias as (2 1 ), and the standard deviation of the s is an
estimate of the random component of the error.
. 10
= = = 7.8%
80 1.28155
If the specified accuracy of the current ILI is 10% NWT, 80% of the time,
then = 0.10 and = .80. Then we want to demonstrate that the standard
deviation of the current ILI is = 0.078 (7.8%). If the reference
measurements are an ILI, then the standard deviation of the differences, ,
is given by
2
= 2 + = (0.078)2 + (0.078)2 = 0.11
CEPA Metal Loss Inline Inspection Tool Validation Guidance Document, 1st Edition, Nov. 2014
2014 Canadian Energy Pipeline Association Page 59 of 69
Aboutpipelines.com
A4.4.1. Systematic Bias Criterion
This relative bias between two ILI runs does not indicate anything
specifically about either of the ILI runs, but a large relative bias
could indicate that one of the ILI runs does not meet its stated
specification.
CEPA Metal Loss Inline Inspection Tool Validation Guidance Document, 1st Edition, Nov. 2014
2014 Canadian Energy Pipeline Association Page 60 of 69
Aboutpipelines.com
A4.4.3. Target Tolerance
Sample size is the number of reference measurements
needed to statistically validate the accuracy of the ILI. The
minimum sample size depends on the size of the desired
confidence interval. Since the specification is stated as 10%
and not 10.0%, we assume that only the first digit is
significant. Thus we want to calculate an estimated tolerance,
, such that the true tolerance is within 10% of the
estimate. That is
11%.
11%
= = = 8.6%
80 1.28155
2
= + 2
If = 0.078 and = .085, then the upper bound estimated
value for the standard deviation between the reference and
ILI depth values is
= (
)2
+ 2 = (0.0858)2 + (0.078)2 = .116 = 11.6%
CEPA Metal Loss Inline Inspection Tool Validation Guidance Document, 1st Edition, Nov. 2014
2014 Canadian Energy Pipeline Association Page 61 of 69
Aboutpipelines.com
A4.4.4.1. Large Population Case
In the Section IV.4.3, we assume that the
estimate of the tolerance is within 1% NWT of
the true tolerance: that is the estimated
tolerance is known within a 1% NWT
confidence interval with a 95% confidence level.
To satisfy that requirement, we need a sample
size of some minimum size.
1
= )2
(
1
=1
Thus we want
0.116
( 1)2 ( 1)2
2
2;1 2;1
( 1) 2
2;1 2
Or
2
2 2
( 1) ;1
CEPA Metal Loss Inline Inspection Tool Validation Guidance Document, 1st Edition, Nov. 2014
2014 Canadian Energy Pipeline Association Page 62 of 69
Aboutpipelines.com
If we are comfortable accepting a value for the
sample standard deviation, , that is 10% of
the true standard deviation, , and a one-sided
confidence level of 95% (where = 0.10) then
we can solve for ,
( 1) 11.04
2 = = 0.97.
;1 11.60
CEPA Metal Loss Inline Inspection Tool Validation Guidance Document, 1st Edition, Nov. 2014
2014 Canadian Energy Pipeline Association Page 63 of 69
Aboutpipelines.com
Case 3: If the number of anomalies in the
previous reference inspection is larger than
current inspection, then some care is required.
The operator must ensure that the current
inspection did not miss a large number of
anomalies. (The operator should revisit the data
analysis verification check to ensure that the
proper procedures were followed in the
preparation of the final report.) The number of
matches is sufficient for the validation process if
when the reference inspection is filtered to
include only anomalies deeper than 20% NWT, a
minimum of 75% of the deeper anomalies in the
reference inspection are matched to the current
inspection.
CEPA Metal Loss Inline Inspection Tool Validation Guidance Document, 1st Edition, Nov. 2014
2014 Canadian Energy Pipeline Association Page 64 of 69
Aboutpipelines.com
A5. Opportunities for Future Refinement
Table 30 contains a summary of the key considerations for future development of this
procedure.
Table 31 shows the variability in the data provided to CEPA for various lines.
The documentation of pre-run cleaning, for example was inconsistent. In
some cases it was documented in the report (as indicated by yes in the
table). Sometimes pre-run cleaning was not documented (as indicated by
no in the table). Sometimes pre-run cleaning was documented by it saying
it may not have been applicable (as indicated by Not/App? in the table).
The significance of the differences is not readily obvious.
An area for future consideration is the potential for reporting of the activities
prior, during, and after the inspection to be standardized. Standardization of
the reporting of these activities would result in greater consistency of the
verification process.
CEPA Metal Loss Inline Inspection Tool Validation Guidance Document, 1st Edition, Nov. 2014
2014 Canadian Energy Pipeline Association Page 65 of 69
Aboutpipelines.com
Table 31: Summary of Data Provided for Scorecard
Line Tool/System Tool Speed Debris Funct Data Excavation Sensors Tool Pre-Run Tool Company
Selection Setup -ion Check Data Magnet- Cleaning Temp.
Check ization
1-100 no yes yes yes yes no yes yes yes ILI Vendor A
1-100 no yes no yes yes yes no no no ILI Vendor B
1-100 Not/App? yes yes yes yes no yes Not/App? yes ILI Vendor A
1-301 Not/App? yes yes yes yes yes yes Not/App? yes ILI Vendor A
1-301 no yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes ILI Vendor A
1-350 no yes yes yes no no yes yes yes ILI Vendor A
227 Not/App? yes yes yes yes no yes Not/App? yes ILI Vendor A
227 no yes no yes yes no no no no ILI Vendor C
2-301 Not/App? yes yes yes yes no yes Not/App? yes ILI Vendor A
100 no yes no yes no no no no no ILI Vendor B
Line
100 no no no yes yes no no no no ILI Vendor B
Line
100 no yes no yes yes no no no no ILI Vendor B
Line
350 no yes yes yes no no yes yes yes ILI Vendor A
Note: Yes indicates the parameter was mentioned in the report whereas No means there was no mention of the
parameter.
CEPA Metal Loss Inline Inspection Tool Validation Guidance Document, 1st Edition, Nov. 2014
2014 Canadian Energy Pipeline Association Page 66 of 69
aboutpipelines.com
A5.2. Documentation of Procedures
Throughout the verification process, a score of Pass requires the
documentation of certain activities either by the operator or the ILI vendor
or both. API 1163 requires that procedures such as the pre-run function
check must be documented. However, none of the ILI reports supplied to
CEPA for this project included any documentation of the function checks.
The verification and validation procedure would benefit from a finer grained
scoring. Such finer grained scoring would enable the procedure to measure
incremental improvement in the acquisition of ILI data and may enable
comparisons of vendors.
For future consideration: If the ILI vendors and operators can provide
standardized reporting, the scorecard could be refined to yield a numeric
0-10 score.
CEPA Metal Loss Inline Inspection Tool Validation Guidance Document, 1st Edition, Nov. 2014
2014 Canadian Energy Pipeline Association Page 67 of 69
aboutpipelines.com
In many cases the verification checks need to rely on the ILI vendor to
provide what procedures and checks are required for a specific tool. This
document was unable to include those specifics because they could not be
equally applicable to all vendors and all technologies.
CEPA Metal Loss Inline Inspection Tool Validation Guidance Document, 1st Edition, Sept. 2014
2014 Canadian Energy Pipeline Association Page 68 of 69
aboutpipelines.com
A6. Scoring Verification Process Scorecard
Summary
CEPA Metal Loss Inline Inspection Tool Validation Guidance Document, 1st Edition, Sept. 2014
2014 Canadian Energy Pipeline Association Page 69 of 69
aboutpipelines.com
Item Parameter Stage Score
material impact to data
C - Tool wear, damage or debris observed with
no material impact to data
P - Tool received in good mechanical condition
(with no unexpected tool wear, damage or
debris)
8 Function Check Post-Run F - Significant function checks not passed
C - Significant function checks passed were not
documented, but that the proper functioning of
the tool can be Verified by other means
throughout the length of the run
P - Function checks passed and documented
9 Field Data Quality Post-Run F - Tool unable to meet stated specifications
Check due to significant lack of data integrity
C - Tool unable to meet stated specifications but
manageable through further analysis
P - Tool able to meet stated specifications for
entire length of run
10 Data Analysis Post-Run F - Results of data analysis quality checks are
Process Quality not acceptable
Check A - Significant data quality checks passed, but
quality checks initially undocumented or
reanalysis was required
P - Data quality checks passed and
documented
CEPA Metal Loss Inline Inspection Tool Validation Guidance Document, 1st Edition, Sept. 2014
2014 Canadian Energy Pipeline Association Page 70 of 69
aboutpipelines.com