Assessment of the Capabilities

of Long-Range Guided-Wave
Ultrasonic Inspections

Houston, Texas

February 14, 2012

Ultrasonic Inspection was

developed in the 1950s

Piezoelectric
crystal oscillated
by RF signal

Time of Flight of an
ultrasonic wave is
directly proportional
to the thickness of the
material measured

Conventional UT measures the wall thickness at a

spot, while Guided Wave Ultrasonics can identify
locations of metal loss along a length of the pipe
Flange

Conventional
Ultrasonic
Test
Localized
Inspection

Weld

Metal loss

Metal loss

Conventional ultrasonic inspection provides a local thickness

measurement

Guided Wave

100%
Inspection

Weld

Metal loss

Metal loss

GWUT Inspection provides detection of both internal and

external corrosion typically for 100 or more down the pipe.
3

Some of the differences between conventional

ultrasonic waves and guided waves are:
Guided waves are bulk waves; therefore the entire volume of the pipe is inspected
Frequencies used in guided wave inspection are much lower than conventional
ultrasonic testing; therefore the wave lengths are much longer and are scattered
instead of reflected from changes in the dimension of the wave guide
The pipe acts as a wave guide, permitting the waves to travel long distances
The waves can be introduced at a single location:
When introduced with piezoelectric crystals an array of transducers are used.
Coils of wire are used to create vibrations in the pipe via the magnetostrictive
effect exhibited by ferromagnetic materials

Guided Wave Ultrasonics rely on the use and

interpretation of far more complex waves than the
compression waves used in conventional UT testing

Longitudinal
Torsional
Flexural
5

Guided waves, typically between 30 75 KHz, are

introduced into the pipe by one of two systems:

An array of piezoelectric crystals are

positioned in modules that typically hold two
transducers each. The modules are spaced
around the pipe under an air bladder which
when pressurized forces the units against the
surface. The individual crystals oscillate at
the frequency at which they are excited and
transmit the wave into the pipe.

Coils of insulated wire are wrapped around

the pipe. An alternating current is passed
through the coils, and an oscillating magnetic
field is produced. Due to the
magnetostrictive effect of ferromagnetic
materials, this produces a wave in the pipe
which can be amplified by using a nickel or
cobalt strip bonded to the pipe under the coil.
6

The power and durability of todays

electronics has made it possible to field
the GWUT system in a compact package
Laptop
computer

Umbilical
cable
connecting
electronics to
transducers

Pressurized bladder
containing the array of
piezoelectric crystals

Field
electronics

Some Advantages of Guided Wave Ultrasonic Testing

Can test long distances of pipe from a single access point
Has developed into an effective screening tool useful in locating and
ranking areas of corrosion; thereby minimizing the amount of follow-up
inspection needed to determine the integrity of piping.
Can be used on in-service pipelines
Both internal and external corrosion can be identified
Current commercial systems are packaged in a small number of durable
components. The systems are easily transported and quickly setup in
the field with preliminary results available at the time of the test

Example of graphical data display

Distance Amplitude
Correction (DAC)
Curves

Weld

Welds at two
elbows

Minor
Anomaly

Weld

Area of
corrosion

10

Weld

Zoom Shot

Welds

Area of
corrosion

11

Some Limitations of Guided Wave Ultrasonic Testing

Complicated evaluation of data by highly trained operators is required
because of the complex signals involved
Dimensions of corrosion (wall loss, longitudinal length, profile) cannot be
directly determined
Significant corrosion can be missed, especially localized damage
The scattered signal cannot be directly equated to a specific area or
volume of loss due to a lack of an absolute calibration standard
Many field conditions exist that limit the distances that can be effectively
inspected and that cause artifacts which can complicate analysis.

12

Examples of conditions that can limit the distance

of a piping segment that can be reliably inspected
various coating such as coal tar epoxies, asphalt-tar wraps,
concrete, etc,
plastic sleeves, particularly those with internal mastics
wet insulation, particularly if ice is present
rough internal or external surfaces
direct buried pipe, particularly in situations where heavy or wet soil
is encountered
dense product, internal buildup of solids, and situations with variable
product flow
system noise created by factors such as turbulent product flow or
pumps
temperature variations and gradients that can lead to changes in the
wave velocity
13

Considerations regarding the type of corrosion that

can be reliably located with Guided Wave Ultrasonics
Sensitivity is stated to be positive detection of features with a 10% change
of cross-sectional area, with a potential of locating changes of as low as
2% of the cross-sectional area in ideal situations.
The tests identify CHANGES in cross-sectional area, and can miss
corrosion that is general in nature, is in the configuration of grooves that
pass under the array, or are too small to detect
A very powerful application of guided wave inspection is using the system
with permanently mounted transducers or excitation coils. In this mode,
repetitive tests are conducted on some frequency (say every 6 months as
an example), and the wave forms compared. Using this technique, the
resolution can improve by an order of magnitude, located changes of as
little as 0.2% to 0.5% of the cross-sectional area.
14

Example of resolution of guided wave inspection

relative to the profile of the corroded area for an
ideal situation

15

Wave form obtained from uninsulated section

of a 10 x 0.594 above-grade pipe

16

Largest pit located on 10 Schedule 80 pipe

(0.15 in deep x 4.5 in circumferential extent)

17

Pit at Location +F12 is 25% wall loss, but

only 2% cross-sectional loss

Profile of F12 pit

18

Test on Buried Pipeline loamy, relatively dry soil

19

Example of corrosion that would not have been noted

with Guided Wave on a buried piping segment

This is a photograph of the

corroded area which
caused the leak in a buried
6 line.

Along the line drawn, the

cross-sectional area of the
walled pipe is
approximately 9.62 square
inches, while the area lost
to corrosion through the
hole is 0.5 square inches.

This is a loss of
approximately 5.2% of the
cross-section. It would not
been seen in a scan since
the section was buried.
However, if this line was
above-grade and exposed
the corrosion probably
would have been noted as
a minor anomaly

20

A tethered ILI tool run in this 6 inch pipeline located isolated, deep pits separated by thousands of feet
of undamaged pipe. The pit above was 65% of the wall thickness in depth and inch in diameter

21

Weld profiles are assumed to be uniform along the length of the tested
segment, and represent some arbitrary percent change in cross-sectional
area, typically 25% CSC. There is no absolute calibration standard.
This can compromise the accuracy of the results and can even lead to
miss-calls, as in the case below. The high-low condition extended around
approximately one-forth of the circumference, created an asymmetrical
response, and was therefore ranked as a moderate anomaly.

22

Conclusions
Guided wave offers valuable new inspection technology if its capabilities
and limitations are kept in mind.
It is a SCREENING tool. Need to follow up with other NDT techniques to
quantify / evaluate possible defects.
MAOP calculations per codes require much more detailed knowledge of
corrosion than can be provided by Guided Wave testing
Significant damage can be overlooked

If used without other verification, GWT cannot provide the level of detail
needed to ascertain the integrity of piping.
Main advantage is the ability to screen long sections of pipe to determine
overall, general condition and locate areas that require more detailed
examination.
23