Sie sind auf Seite 1von 122

BASIC CONCEPTS

IN PIPELINE
INTEGRITY
MANAGEMENT

Topics Covered

Pipeline Integrity Concept


Purpose of Pipeline Integrity Programs
Difference between Natural Gas and
Hazardous Liquid Pipelines Regulations
Threats to Pipeline Integrity
Risk Assessment Issues
Direct Assessment - ECDA
2

Pipeline Integrity
Assessment

Pipeline Integrity Assessment is a process


which includes inspection of pipeline
facilities, evaluating the indications
resulting from the inspections, examining
the pipe using a variety of techniques,
evaluating the results of the examination,
and characterizing the evaluation by
defect type and severity and determining
the resulting integrity of the pipeline
through analysis
3

Purpose of Pipeline
Integrity Programs

The U.S. Department of


Transportation (OPS) is proposing to
change pipeline safety regulations to
require operators of certain
pipelines to validate the integrity of
their pipelines in high consequence
areas

Regulations Related to
Liquid Pipelines

49 CFR Part 195 Pipeline Integrity


Management in High Consequence areas
Covered pipelines are categorized as follows:
Category 1: pipelines existing on May 29, 2001 that
were owned or operated by an operator who owned
or operated a total of 500 or more miles of
pipelines
Category 2: pipelines existing on May 29, 2001 that
were owned or operated by an operator who owned
or operated less than 500 or more miles of
pipelines
Category 3: pipelines constructed after May 29,
2001

Programs and Practices to


Manage Pipeline Integrity
in Liquid Pipelines

Develop a written management


program that addresses the risks on
each segment of pipeline
Category 1: March 31, 2002
Category 2: February 18, 2003
Category 3: 1 year after the pipeline
begins operation

Programs and Practices to


Manage Pipeline Integrity
in Liquid Pipelines
Include in the program an
identification of each pipeline not
later than:

Category 1: December 31, 2001


Category 2: November 18, 2002
Category 3: date the pipeline begins
operation

Programs and Practices to


Manage Pipeline Integrity
in Liquid Pipelines
Include in the program a plan to carry
out baseline assessments of the line
pipe and this should include:

1. The methods selected to assess the


integrity of the pipeline by any of the
following methods:

Internal Inspection Tool ILI


Pressure test
Other technology that the operator demonstrates can
provide an equivalent understanding of the line pipe
(notification to OPS must take place 90 days before
conducting the assessment)
8

Programs and Practices to


Manage Pipeline Integrity
in Liquid Pipelines
2.

3.

A schedule for completing the integrity


assessment
An explanation of the assessment method
selected and evaluation of risk factors
considered in establishing the assessment
schedule

Complete assessment, prior assessment


and newly-identified areas deadlines have
been set
DA was completed after the liquid gas rule
was ready
9

Regulations Related to Gas


Pipelines

10

Regulatory Issues

Department of Transportation
proposed rule (49 CFR Part 192)
dated January 28, 2003 titled
Pipeline Safety: Pipeline Integrity
Management in High Consequence
Areas (Gas Transmission Pipelines)

11

Federal Regulation

12

Regulatory Issues

This proposed rule will satisfy


Congressional mandates for
RSPA/OPS to prescribe standards
that establish criteria for identifying
each gas pipeline facility located in a
HCA and to prescribe standards
requiring the periodic inspection of
pipelines located in these areas
13

Regulatory Issues

Pipeline Integrity can be best assured by


requiring each operator to:

Implement a comprehensive IMP


Conduct a baseline assessment and periodic
reassessments focused on identifying and
characterizing applicable threats
Mitigate significant defects discovered in this
process
Monitor the effectiveness of their programs so
appropriate modifications can be recognized
and implemented
14

Regulatory Issues

Assessment Methods
Internal Inspection ILI
Pressure Testing
Direct Assessment (data gathering,
indirect examination, and post
assessment evaluation)
Any other method that can provide an
equivalent understanding of the
condition of line pipe

15

Regulatory Issues

The rule proposes to allow direct


assessment as a supplemental assessment
method on:

Any covered pipeline section


As a primary assessment method on a covered
pipeline where ILI and pressure testing are
not possible or economically feasible
Where the pipeline operates at low stress
Can also be used to evaluate third party
damage
16

Regulatory Issues

All three threats considered under


direct assessment:
External Corrosion
Internal Corrosion
SCC

17

Regulatory Issues

Another concept in the proposed


rule is to use Confirmatory Direct
Assessment to evaluate a segment
for the presence of corrosion and
third party damage

18

Trade Group Associations

On August 6, 2002, OPS issued a final rule on the


definition of a high consequence area (HCA).
Then on January 28, 2003, OPS issued a notice of
proposed rulemaking regarding integrity
management for natural gas transmission
pipelines in high consequence areas (HCAs).
AGA, along APGA and INGAA, have made
significant strides in getting OPS to change their
concepts initially reflected in these rulemakings.
While a final rule for integrity management is not
expected until later this year, operators of
natural gas transmission lines are already faced
with integrity requirements under the Pipeline
Safety Improvement Act of 2002.
19

ASME B31.8S

Managing System Integrity of Gas


Pipelines
Specifically design to provide the
operator with the information
necessary to develop and implement
an effective integrity management
program
Appendix B Direct Assessment
process
20

Proposed IM Rule for


Gas Transmission

High Consequence Areas


Operator Requirements for Compliance
Risk Assessment
Integrity Assessment Methods for HCAs
Time Frames
Responding to Integrity Issues in HCAs
Re-Assessments of HCAs

21

High Consequence Areas


(HCAS)

IM Ruling Only Applies to HCAs


Operator Must Identify All HCAs
Proposed Ruling Defines how to
Identify HCAs
Method Revised Once and Could be
Again Overly Complicated
One Year from Final Rule to
Complete Task
22

High Consequence Areas


(HCAS)

Class 3 or 4 Locations are HCAs


Sub-divided into High & Moderate Impact
Zones using the Potential Impact Circle
(PIC)
Moderate is Outside an PIC
PIC has a Threshold Radius (TR) Based on a
Calculated Potential Impact Radius (PIR).
PIC Radius = 0.69*Dia*SQRT of Pressure
TR Extends for Certain Conditions
23

High Consequence Areas


(HCAS)

Class 1 or 2 Locations - HCAs are


Determined Differently
A corridor of 1000 ft (or larger) is used for
a Cluster of 20+ Buildings Intended for
People
Corridors of 300ft, 660 ft or 1000ft
depending on Dia & Pressure used for
Identified Sites.
Identified Sites are Buildings or Outside
Areas with Specific Definitions
24

Operator Requirements
for Compliance

Written Program - Complete within 12


Months
Must follow ASME B31.8S for Implementation
Prescriptive or Performance based Options
Risk Analysis Required To Identify Threats
& Rank HCAs
Must have a Baseline Plan
Plan Must Address the Identified Integrity
Threats
Must Justify Integrity Assessment Method(s)
25

Operator Requirements
for Compliance

Must Complete Assessments within Certain


Time Periods
Must Address Discovered Integrity Issues
Must Re-assess Everything on a Continual Basis
One or more HCAs Plan and Implementation
Required
Must Evaluate Plan Performance
Implement Preventative & Mitigation Measures
Have a QA and Communication Process
Keep Records

26

Risk Assessment

Must Conduct Based on ASME B31.8S


Prescription or Performance Based
Performance Based has to be Rigorous
Benefits of Performance Based Assessment are

Deviate from the Prescriptive Rules in ASME B31.8S


Longer Re-inspection Intervals
Longer Remediation Timescales
Can Use Direct Assessment Only (for Corrosion
Caused Metal Loss and SCC)

Risk Assessment Must be used for Prioritizing


Integrity Assessments
27

Integrity Assessment
Methods for HCAs

In-Line Inspection (Internal inspection)


Pressure Test
Direct Assessment
ECDA
If Used Requires a Specific
ICDA
Implementation Plan
SCCDA
Confirmatory Direct Assessment
Other Technology 180 Day Notification
Required

28

Integrity Assessment
Methods for HCAs

Special Rules Apply For Specific


Threats e.g.
Third Party Damage
Cyclic Fatigue
Manufacturing or Construction Defects
Low Frequency ERW Pipe or Lap
Welded Pipe
Corrosion Caused Metal Loss

29

Integrity Threat
Classification

Gas Pipeline incidents data has been


analyzed and classified by the Pipeline
Research Committee International
(PRCI) into 22 root causes. One of the
22 causes was reported by operators
by unknown (no rot cause or causes
were identified. The remaining 21
threats have been grouped into (9)
categories of related failure types
30

Integrity Threat
Classification

A) Time Dependent
External Corrosion
Internal corrosion
Stress Corrosion Cracking

31

Integrity Threat
Classification

B) Stable

Manufacturing Related Defects


Defective pipe seam
Defective pipe

Welding/Fabrication Related
Defective pipe girth weld
Defective fabrication weld
Wrinkle bend or buckle
Stripped threats/broken pipe/coupling
failure

32

Integrity Threat
Classification

Equipment
Gasket O-ring failure
Control/Relief equipment malfunction
Seal/pump packing failure
Miscellaneous

33

Integrity Threat
Classification

C) Time Independent

Third Party/Mechanical Damage


Incorrect Operations
Weather related and outside force

Cold weather
Lightning
Heavy rains or floods
Earth movements

34

Time Frames

Internal Inspection or Pressure Test


Start with the Highest Risk HCA
All HCAs 100% Complete by December
2012
Complete 50% of HCAs Based on Risk
by December 2007
Except for Class 3 or 4 Locations of
Moderate Impact 100% Complete by
December 2015

35

Time Frames

Direct Assessment
Start with the Highest Risk HCA
All HCAs Complete by December 2009
Complete 50% of All HCAs Based on
Risk by December 2006
Except for Class 3 or 4 Locations of
Moderate Impact 100% Complete by
December 2012

36

Responding to Integrity
Issues in HCAs

Discovery of a Condition in an HCA 180


Days to Determine Threat to Integrity Except
for
Immediate Remediation Conditions

Predicted Failure Pressure < 1.1 x Established


MOP at Location
Any Dent with a Stress Raiser Regardless of Size
or Orientation
An Anomaly that Requires Immediate Action
Must Reduce Operating Pressure to a Safe Level
Must Follow ASME B31.8S, Section 7
37

Responding to Integrity
Issues in HCAs

180 Day Remediation Conditions

Plain Dents > 6% of OD Regardless of Orientation


Plain Dents > 2% of OD Affecting a Girth Weld or
Seam Weld

Longer Than 180 Day Remediation Conditions

Only If Anomaly Cannot Grow to a Critical Stage


Only If Internal Inspection used

An Anomaly with a Predicted Failure Pressure > 1.1 x


Established MOP at Location

Any Anomalous Condition Not Covered Above

38

Re-Assessments of HCAs

As Frequently as Needed Operator Decides


But No Longer Than 7 Years Unless A
Confirmatory Direct Assessment is Carried
Out

Internal Inspection or Pressure Test Maximum Periods are

Very Specific Rules Apply


Only Available with Performance Plan

10 Years - Equal to or Greater Than 50% SMYS


15 Years Equal to or Less Than 50% SMYS

Maximum Periods must be Justifiable


39

Re-Assessments of HCAs

Direct Assessment Maximum


Periods are
5 Years for Remediation by Sampling
10 Years for Remediation of All
Anomalies

40

Data Gathering

Identify Company Data Sources for IMP


Development
Evaluate Records and Procedures for

Pipeline Design and Construction


Pipeline Operation
Pipeline Maintenance
Service History
Prior Integrity Assessments

Evaluate systems already in place


database, risk assessment, etc.
Document Results
41

HCA Identification
Impact Assessment

Apply Final Rule Definitions of HCAs


to System to:
Identify HCA Locations and Classify
Determine Potential Impact Zones
Justify Non-HCA Locations
Document Results

42

Threat Identification,
Data Integration and
Risk
Assessment
Review Data from Phases 1 and 2 for HCA

Locations
Identify Threats Specific to HCAs,
Identify Threats Specific to Non-HCAs,
Justify Non-Applicable Threats
Carry Out a Risk Assessment on HCA
Segments to Determine:

Likelihood of Failure, and


Consequences of Failure Spreadsheet Model
or Vendor Software

Document Results

43

Develop Baseline
Assessment Plan

Decide on Integrity Assessment Method(s):

Method(s) Depend on:

In-Line Inspection
Pressure Testing
Direct Assessment
Nature of Identified Threats
Number and Location of HCAs
Cost Benefit Considerations
Technically Possible

Develop Plan(s) and Schedule


Document Results
44

Integrity Management
Program

A Typical IMP will have Sections:

Threat Identification, Data Integration & Risk


Assessment Current Results & Justifications
Baseline Assessment Plan for Line Pipe in
HCAs Justification for Chosen Method(s),
Direct Assessment Plan if Required, and
Implementation Timescale
Integrity Management of Facilities Other than
Line Pipe in HCAs (May Not be Applicable)
Process for Conducting Integrity Assessments
Satisfies Requirement for Minimizing Safety
and Environmental Risks
45

Integrity Management
Program

A Typical IMP should also include:

Review of Integrity Assessments Results by


Qualified Personnel
Criteria for Remedial Action of Line Pipe in HCAs
and Non-HCAs
Procedure for Identifying Preventative &
Mitigation Measures to Protect HCAs
Integrity Program Performance Measures
Procedure for Continual Evaluation & Assessment
of Pipeline Integrity in HCAs Including a
Confirmatory Direct Assessment Plan if Required
Quality Control Process
46

Integrity Management
Program

A Typical IMP should also have a


Communications Plan

Management of Change
Integrity Management Program Review
Procedure
Record Keeping
Required Notifications to the Office of Pipeline
Safety
Personnel Training

47

Direct Assessment

48

History of Direct
Assessment

Originally Proposed during


Development of Congressional Bills on
Pipeline Safety
Proposed as an Alternative to ILI and
Hydrostatic Testing

Termed Direct Examination (Later


Changed to Direct Assessment )

INGAA Initiative to Develop Framework


of ECDA Process (ICDA Followed)
49

DA Background

Integrity verification for high consequence


areas
In-line inspection
Hydrostatic testing
Direct assessment

Each tool achieves comparable results and


complementary results
Tools are selected based on operating
conditions
All tools are routinely used now
50

Regulations and Standards

Liquid Rule 49 CFR 195 (Jan. 2002)


API Standard 1160
(Nov. 2001)
NPRM Gas Rule 49 CFR Part 192
(Jan. 2003)
ASME B31.8S
(Dec. 2001)
NACE ECDA Standard RP0502-2002
(2002)
Pipeline External Corrosion Direct Assessment
Methodology
51

Regulations and Standards


(Contd)

Proposed NACE ICDA Standard TG


041
(2003)
Pipeline Internal Corrosion Direct
Assessment Methodology

NACE SCC DA Standard TG 273


(In Progress)
Pipeline SCC Direct Assessment
Methodology

52

Liquid Rule 49 CFR 195


Acceptable Integrity Assessment Methods:
Internal inspection tool or tools capable of
detecting corrosion and deformation
anomalies
Pressure testing
Other technology that the operator
demonstrates can provide an equivalent
understanding of the condition of the line pipe.

OPS notification required 90 days before


assessment

53

API Standard 1160


Managing System Integrity
for Hazardous Liquid Pipelines
Acceptable Integrity Assessment Methods:
In-line inspection technology
Hydrostatic Testing

54

NPRM Gas Rule - 49


CFR Part 192
Acceptable Integrity Assessment
Methods:

Internal inspection tool or tools capable of detecting


corrosion and deformation anomalies as appropriate
Pressure testing
Directed assessment method for external corrosion threats,
internal corrosion threats, stress corrosion, and third party
damage (if other assessment methods are not feasible)
Other technology that the operator demonstrates can provide
an equivalent understanding of the condition of the line pipe.
OPS notification required 180 days before assessment

55

Supplement to ASME B31.8


Managing System Integrity of Gas Pipelines

Acceptable Integrity Assessment Methods:


(Dependent on integrity threats)
In-line Inspection
Pressure Testing
Direct Assessment
ECDA
ICDA
Other methodologies
56

NACE Recommended
Practices
NACE ECDA Standard RP0502-2002

(2002)

Pipeline External Corrosion Direct Assessment


Methodology

Proposed NACE ICDA Standard TG 041


(2003)
Pipeline Internal Corrosion Direct Assessment
Methodology

NACE SCC DA Standard TG 273 (In Progress)


Pipeline SCC Direct Assessment Methodology
57

What is Direct Assessment

A method of assessing pipeline


integrity.

Intended to be no less protective of


public safety and environment than ILI
or Hydrotest.

From direct examination.

Bell hole inspections.


58

Direct Assessment Process


Utilize existing technologies
in an integrated approach
intended to map corrosion
defects
Utilize prediction modeling to
determine like and similar
Use results to safely manage
the pipeline system

59

Direct Assessment Concept

Technologies can be used as a


diagnostic tool to assess pipeline
integrity

Defect growth models can be used


to determine safe operating
conditions and to determine reassessment or inspection
frequency
60

ECDA Technologies

Existing technologies
Test station surveys
Close-interval surveys (CIS)
DC voltage gradient
Electromagnetic inspection
Buried Coupons
Soil Resistivity

Previously used as stand-alone


assessments
Integration of data results in a
predictive integrity model
61

Applicability

External corrosion integrity verification for


pipelines that cannot be inspected by ILI or
pressure test
Condition monitoring of pipelines inspected
by ILI or pressure tested
Have been inspected with other techniques
as a means of establishing reassessment
intervals
Have not been inspected by other means
when future corrosion monitoring is of
primary interest
Not applicable to all pipelines
62

Four Step ECDA Process


1.

2.

3.

4.

Pre-assessment
Assembly and review of pipeline data
Indirect examination
Above-ground survey tools
Direct examination
Excavation, inspection, defect
assessment
Post-assessment
Validation, prioritize repairs, reinspection
63

PreAssessment

Indirect
Examinations

from PreAssessment

Direct Examinations

Post Assessment

(to be used in each DA region)

(to be used in each DA region)

(to be used in each DA region)


Pipeline Data
Collection and
Review

No

From Pre- Assessment


Primary
Examinations

Ensure DA
is
Applicable

Data to
Support
Tool
Selection

From Direct
Examinations

Prior
History

Categorize and
Rank Coating Fault
Locations

Yes

Calculate HalfLife of Remaining


Defects

Further
Characterize
with Indirect
Exams

Select Areas for


Complementary
Examinations

Dig &
Measure

OK

Add Indirect
Techniques

Secondary
Examinations

Validation Dig

Estimate
Corrosion
Rates

Confidence
Functions

No
Define DA
Regions,
Special
Concerns, and
Trouble Spots

More Digs

No

Complementary
Technique Table

ILI or
Pressure
Test

Yes

Coating
Faults?

From Indirect
Exams

Select
Primary
and
Secondary
Tools

Indirect
Examinations

Yes

New Coating
Faults?
No

Explain
through
digs

Not
Acceptable
Estimate Maximum
Remaining Defect
Severity

Yes

Direct
Examination

Define
Repair
Intervals

PostAssessment

Acceptable

Define
ReAssessment
Intervals

Done

64

Pre-Assessment

Data collection
ECDA feasibility for pipeline
Indirect inspection tool selection
ECDA region identification

Step 1
65

Pre-Assessment

Data Collection (Table 1 of NACE


Standard)
Pipe related
Construction Related
Soils/Environmental
Corrosion Protection
Pipeline Operations
Step 1
66

Pre-Assessment

ECDA feasibility Assessment


Indirect inspection tool feasibility
Establish ECDA feasibility regions
Determine which indirect methods
are applicable to each region

Step 1
67

What is a Region?

Segment is a continuous length of pipe


Regions are subsets of one segment
Pipe with similar construction and
environmental characteristics
Same survey tools

Step 1
68

Where Might ECDA Not


Be Applicable?

As with all assessment tools, there are


limitations to consider
Shielded coatings
Rock ditch
Extensive Pavement (Cost issue)
Some CP configurations

Extensive Direct Connected Anodes

Step 1
69

Indirect Examination

Objective: identify coating faults and


areas where corrosion activity may have
or may be occurring
Utilizes a minimum of two complementary
indirect techniques

Step 2
70

Indirect Techniques

Direct Current

Measure structure potential


Identify locations of high CP demand to
small area

Alternating Current

Apply AC signal
Determine amount of current drain (i.e.,
grounding) and location
Identify locations of high AC current

Step 2
71

Indirect Techniques

Direct Current

Close Interval Survey (CIS or CIPS)


Direct Current Voltage Gradient (DCVG)

Alternating Current

ACVG, Pearson Survey


AC Attenuation (PCM , EM , C-Scan)

Step 2
72

Indirect Examination

Objective: identify coating faults and


areas where corrosion activity may have
or may be occurring
Utilizes a minimum of two complementary
indirect techniques

Step 2
73

Direct Examination

Excavate and collect data where corrosion most


likely
Categorize indications
Immediate action required
Scheduled action required
Suitable for monitoring
Characterize coating and corrosion anomalies
Establish corrosion severity for remaining
strength analysis
Determine root-cause
In-process evaluation, re-categorization,
guidelines on number of direct examinations
Step 3
74

Number of Required Digs


Validation Process

Total number of excavation depends on


the results of the aboveground
techniques
Typically 3-5/10 mile Section

Step 3
75

Direct Examination Data

Collect data at dig site

Pipe to soil potentials


Soil resistivity
Soil and water sampling
Under-film pH
Bacteria
Photographic documentation

Step 3
76

Direct Examination Data

Characterize coating and corrosion


anomalies
Coating condition
Adhesion, under film liquid, % bare
Corrosion analysis
Corrosion morphology classification
U/T mapping
MPI analysis for SCC
Step 3
77

Direct Examination

Remaining strength analysis


ASME B31G
RSTRENG
CorLAS
DnV RP-F10

Step 3
78

Direct Examination

Determine root-cause
For example
Low CP
Interference
MIC
Disbonded coatings

Step 3
79

Post Assessment

Validates ECDA Process


Provides performance measures for
integrity management
Growth models are used to establish
safe operation
Corrosion Signature is developed
and applied to entire segment
Establishes reassessment intervals
Step 4
80

Post Assessment

Assessment of ECDA Effectiveness


Comparison of ECDA indications with
Control digs
Comparison of ILI to ECDA results

Remaining Life Calculations


Reassessment Intervals

81

Post Assessment
Assessment of ECDA
Effectiveness

Comparison of ECDA Indications


with Control Digs:
ECDA 100% effective in locating areas
where corrosion was taking place and
where metal was exposed
No coating flaws and no corrosion was
found at control digs

82

Post Assessment
Remaining Life
Calculations

NACE RP0502 Reassessment


Methodology

The establishment of the reassessment


interval is based on establishing the
remaining life of critical defects,
establish a conservative growth rate,
and utilize the following relationship:

RL =C x SM (t/GR)

83

Post Assessment
Remaining Life
Calculations

When corrosion defects are found


during the direct examinations, the
maximum reassessment interval is
calculated as one half the remaining
life (RL).

84

Post Assessment
Remaining Life
Calculations

CC Technologies Reassessment
Methodology is based on:

Linear Polarization Resistance


measurements are used to give
instantaneous corrosion rates for each
excavated site. The measured rate is a
function of the soil characteristics and
environment surrounding the pipe or
segment being evaluated.
85

Post Assessment
Reassessment Interval

Using the LPR technique, the maximum


actual value obtained will be taken as the
most conservative growth rate. The most
significant external corrosion feature ILI
indication that was field verified is then
grown to 80% (Immediate action).
Therefore the re-assessment interval will
be less of this conservative value.

86

ECDA Case Studies

87

Survey Methodologies Cathodic Protection


Levels

Close-Interval Surveys

Measure pipe to soil potentials at close


intervals to evaluate cathodic protection levels
Locate areas of active corrosion
Identify shorted casings, stray current
interference, electrical shorts, CP shielding
Interrupt CP current to obtain polarized
potentials
Pipe to soil potentials measured at 5 foot
intervals
88

Survey Methodologies
Coating Evaluations

DCVG and ACVG:

Locate and size holidays by measuring


current flow in soil to pipeline coating holidays
Interrupt CP system using a fast cycle (DCVG)
Use AC voltage signal applied to pipeline
(ACVG)
Measure potential difference between two
electrodes

89

Why These Survey


Techniques?

DCVG - Locate and size coating holidays


Electromagnetic - Evaluate overall
coating condition on macro-level
Soil Resistivity - Soil corrosiveness at
holiday locations to prioritize excavations
CIS - Determine CP levels at holiday sites
GPS - Pipe elevation for ICDA and pipeline
mapping

90

ECDA Site Selections

91

ECDA Site Selections

92

ECDA Site Selections

93

Examples of Specific
Anomalies Detected

94

Coating Fault Site

CIS Showed a dip in potential

-1.008v, -0.940v, -0.890v, -0.920v

DCVG Showed Anomaly

95

96

97

Corrosion Anomalies
Found

Indirect techniques can detect areas


of corrosion

98

99

100

Discoveries

Third party damage


Fiber optics line
Dent and gouge

Valves

Leaking

Inhouse damage to pipe


Concrete weights
101

Third Party Damage

Low CP potentials in CIS

-0.840v (100mV of polarization)

ACVG Indication
Required Repair

102

103

104

ECDA Site Selection


Gas Flow

Section 5 - 2nd Block Valve to IPC

Region 3

S
o
i
l
R
e
s
i
s
t
i
v
i
t
y
(
O
h
m
c
m
)

5e+5
4e+5
3e+5
2e+5

D
C
V
G
H
o
l
i
d
a
y
(
%
I
R
)

1e+5
0100

Latitude:

80

Latitude:

60

33.232299 N

40

Longitute:
94.148162 W

20

I 182

33.232636 N
Longitute:

Latitude:
33.232552 N

94.146955 W

Longitute:
94.147253 W

I 183

I 184 I 185

2000
0
Latitude:
33.232684 N
Longitute:
94.146778 W

P
C
M
(
m
V
)

1500
1000
500
0

100
80
60
40
500
20
450
400
350
300
250
2.2
200
2.0
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2

C
r
e
e
k

E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
P
r
o
f
i
l
e
(
F
e
e
t
)
P
i
p
e
t
o
S
o
i
l
P
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
(
V
v
s
C
S
E
)

P
i
p
e
D
e
p
t
h
(
I
n
c
h
e
s
)

120

1.0
0.8
0.6
51000

51100

51200

51300

51400

Latitude:
33.231803 N
Longitute:
94.149786 W

51500

51600

51700

51800

Distance (Feet)

51900

52000

52100

52200

52300

52400
52500
Scale: 1.0 Inch = 100 Feet

105

ECDA Site Selection

Figure 15. E-9 628+40.5


holiday area.

Figure 16. E-9 628+42.9


holiday area.
106

ECDA Site Selection


Gas Flow

Section 5 - 2nd Block Valve to IPC

Region 3

S
o
i
l
R
e
s
i
s
t
i
v
i
t
y
(
O
h
m
c
m
)

5e+5
4e+5
3e+5
2e+5

D
C
V
G
H
o
l
i
d
a
y
(
%
I
R
)

1e+5
0100
80

Latitude:

60

Longitute:
94.084696 W

33.249014 N

40

I 229

20

Latitude:

Latitude:

Latitude:

33.249559 N
Longitute:

33.249665 N

33.249795 N
Longitute:

94.083281 W

Longitute:
94.083025 W

I 230

I 231

94.082657 W

I 232

I 233

2000
0
Latitude:
33.249886 N
Longitute:
94.082442 W

P
C
M
(
m
V
)

1500
1000
500
0

E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
P
r
o
f
i
l
e
(
F
e
e
t
)
P
i
p
e
t
o
S
o
i
l
P
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
(
V
v
s
C
S
E
)

P
i
p
e
D
e
p
t
h
(
I
n
c
h
e
s
)

120
100
80
60
40
20
500
450
400
350
300
250
2.2
200
2.0
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
72000

72100

72200

72300

72400

72500

72600

72700

72800

Distance (Feet)

72900

73000

73100

73200

73300

73400
73500
Scale: 1.0 Inch = 100 Feet

107

ECDA Site Selection


Photo

Figure 23. E-11


holiday as found.

Figure 24. E-11


Coating disbondment
area.
108

Challenges

109

Distribution System
Direct Assessment

Must rely on pipe exposure


opportunities
Develop database of useful
information
Utilize coupon technologies
Utilize standard testing techniques

110

Field Excavation
Summary Report

Important to establishing root cause


of corrosion
Build databases on conditions
contributing to corrosion and its
mitigation
Develop risk-based predictive
capability

111

Availability of Trained
Personnel

Requires experienced engineers and


technicians for data collection and
analysis
Rate limiting step is availability of
trained personnel
Minimum of 1 year of training for survey
techniques
An additional 6 months of training for
recognition of quality data
A minimum of 3 years of analysis experience

112

Information
Management

There will be massive amounts of


data from many systems
Timely processing is critical
User friendly data management systems
are key
Owner/Operator accessibility must be
considered

113

Projections

Cost estimates to implement DA engineering


on typical transmission system of 500 mile
length with 10 anomalies/mile
Model Development Cost

Data review = $ 500/mile


Base survey = $ 600/mile
Diagnostic Survey = $200/anomaly = $2,000
Direct Examination = $500/anomaly = $5,000
Modeling = $ 500/mile

Total Model Development Cost = $8,600/mile


Applies to 50 miles = $430,000
114

Projections (contd)

Model Application Cost

Data review = $ 500/mile


Base survey = $ 600/mile
Direct Examination = $500/anomaly = $2,500
(assumes 5 critical)
Model Enhancement = $100/mile

Total Model Application Cost = $3,700/mile


Applies to 450 miles = $1,660,000
Total DA Engineering for 500 miles = $2.1
Million or $4,200/mile
115

Discussion Points

ECDA Process is generally


underestimated
Complexity
Pre-Assessment Requirements
Data management

Details and accuracy can be overlooked


Training is an issue
Generally need a better understanding
of dig measurements and data collection
116

Discussion Points
(contd)

Need training on how to apply


reassessment intervals
Others?

117

Lessons Learned To
Date

ECDA is presently expensive but costs


will decline with experience

For some pipelines, other assessments will


always be more cost effective

Alignment of data is critical


ECDA requires high attention to detail
Pre-assessment important

118

Summary

For liquid pipelines, the methods


selected for the assessment of the
pipeline integrity are: ILI, pressure
test and other technology that the
operator demonstrates can provide
an equivalent understanding of the
condition of the pipeline

119

Summary

For gas pipelines, the methods


selected for the assessment of the
pipeline integrity are: ILI, pressure
test, direct assessment and other
technology that the operator
demonstrates can provide an
equivalent understanding of the
condition of the pipeline
120

Summary

Direct assessment is based on the


use and integration of existing
technologies
Direct assessment will work if
properly applied
It will require data collection and
management and a commitment to
validation
121

Thank You
Questions and Discussion

122