In Line Inspection

Interpreting the Results

Defects detected by MFL Tools
Inspection Tools

36” MFL Tool

Inspection Tools

Elastic Wave Tool

Inspection Tools

TFI Tool
Inspection Tools

Ultra Scan Tool

Corrosion

• Corrosion is an increasing problem in ageing pipelines

• High resolution intelligent pig inspections can provide

the operator with the corrosion dimensions and locations

• However, assessment codes (i.e. ANSI/ASME B31.G) are

over conservative and frequently predict large numbers
of repairs are required

• Fitness-for-Purpose assessments can be used to identify

and eliminate some of this over conservatism and release
more performance from the pipeline.
Extensive corrosion
PipeImage Report from corroded pipe
Background to Reporting
Detection

• Inspection vehicle detects and records the magnetic

signals associated with an area of corrosion
Background to Reporting
Boxing
• The individual signals from the corrosion are ‘boxed’
• Analysis software is used to predict depth, length and
width dimensions for each box from the signal shape
and magnitude
Background to Reporting
Clustering

• Clustering is conducted to determine the overall

dimensions of the corrosion area
 Background to Reporting
Information provided

Direction of flow
Distance
from
Reference Axial Length
Girth Weld

Peak
Depth X

Circumferential
Width
Orientation
Significance of Corrosion
Assessment of Part Wall Defects

A
A0

Where:

A  = Failure stress
1–  = Flow stress
 Ao A = Area of metal loss
=
 A -1 A0 = Original Area
1– M M = Folias Bulging Factor
Ao
f(L,D,t)
 Significance of Corrosion
Available Corrosion Assessment Methods

L
ANSI/ASME d Area = 2/3 x d x L
(parabolic) area approximation
B31.G
Reported dimensions (dL) utilised
Most Pessimistic

L
Area = 0.85 x d x L
Simplified d area approximation
RSTRENG Reported dimensions (dL) utilised
Less Conservative than B31.G

L
Area = Actual Area
Detailed d Detailed measurements required
RSTRENG Most Accurate
(LAPA™)
 Detailed RSTRENG (LAPA) Assessment

Field Measurements Inspection Data

5%
Corrosion 10% 50%
15%

Plan 75%

Peak
Reported Length Depth
Project
Depth
Profile
Effective Length Effective Length
Calculate
A1 Minimum A1
Failure
Minimum Failure Pressure over Area A1 Minimum Failure Pressure over Area A1
Pressure
Effective Length Effective Length

A2 Effective A2
Effective
Dimensions Depth
Area A1 = Area A2 Area A1 = Area A2
Detailed RSTRENG Assessment

Effective
Length

A B C D E

2 Trapezoids B to D yield lowest

failure Pressure (Area = A)

Effective
A B C D E Length
Effective
A Depth

1 Calculate Failure Pressure of all 3 Effective Dimensions describe a

combinations of Trapezoids taken from Flat Bottomed defect of Area A
detailed profile measurements
 Case Study

Assessment of a Severely Corroded

Natural Gas Pipeline
Introduction
• Commissioned
Decommissioned
Re-Pressure Tested
Pipe Sections Replaced
Re-dedicated
• Pipeline Length
• Diameter
• Wall thickness
• Pipe Grade
• MAOP
• Re-test Pressure
: 1972 (Crude Oil)
: 1982
: 1984
: 1985
: 1986 (Natural Gas)
: 93.8 km
: 40 inch (1016 mm)
: 8.74mm (predominantly)
: X52 (predominantly)
: 38.2 bar (62% SMYS)
: 56.53 bar (92% SMYS)
Inspection Findings

• 451,085 Internal Metal Loss Features

• 3,688 External Metal Loss Features

• 219 Internal MFG Defects

• 99 External MFG Defects

Assessment of the Corrosion
Basis for Assessment

Philosophy in ANSI/ASME B31.G:

• For operation at 72% SMYS, features must be
able to withstand a pressure test to 100% SMYS
• This results in a safety factor of 100/72 (=1.39)
Re-hydrotest Safety Factor:
• The pipeline operates at 38.2 bar
• Achieved a minimum re-hydrotest level of 56.53 bar
• Re-hydrotest / MAOP ratio of 1.5 achieved (56.53 / 38.2)
• Therefore, have retained this safety factor for the
assessment
Assessment of the Corrosion
Basis for Assessment

In Terms of Detailed RSTRENG Assessment:

Features should be repaired if:

• the Effective Dimensions exceed those

not tolerable at a pressure of 1.5 x MAOP, or

• the Peak Depth exceeds 80% wall thickness

Assessment of the Corrosion
Assessment of the Internal Corrosion (Reported Dimensions)
Reported Peak Depth (%wt)

Reported Axial Length (mm)

 Assessment of the Corrosion
Detailed RSTRENG Assessment of the Internal Corrosion
Effective Depth (%wt)

Effective Axial Length (mm)

Assessment of the Corrosion
Assessment of the External Corrosion (Reported Dimensions)
Reported Peak Depth (%wt)

Reported Axial Length (mm)

 Assessment of the Corrosion
Detailed RSTRENG Assessment of the External Corrosion
Effective Depth (%wt)

Effective Axial Length (mm)

Assessment of the Corrosion
Summary of Assessment Results

For Operation at the MAOP (38.2 bar):

• Only 1 repair is required according to detailed RSTRENG
• This feature was repaired in August 1998

In comparison:
• 19 repairs are required according to Simplified RSTRENG
• 64 repairs are required according to ANSI/ASME B31.G
Assessment of the Corrosion
Repair Savings

ANSI/ASME B31.G
• Base case Repair costs - 64 repairs x £ 10k = £ 640,000

Simplified RSTRENG
• Only 19 repairs are required using Simplified RSTRENG
• Repair saving = £ 450,000

Detailed RSTRENG

• Only 1 repair is required according to detailed RSTRENG

• Repair saving = over £ 600,000
Work on 40 in Pipeline
Assessment of the Corrosion
Growth Mechanisms Considered

Growth Mechanisms Implemented in the Assessment:

• The external corrosion is ‘active’

• The internal corrosion is NOT ‘active’
Assessment of the Corrosion
Corrosion Growth Rates

Background:
• The pipeline is constructed from a variety of pipe types
(including different wall thicknesses, pipe grades and installation dates)

• Therefore, have applied the most pessimistic growth rate to

all the external corrosion features (regardless of parent pipe type)

Definition of growth rate:

• Have pessimistically assumed the corrosion has been
active for only ½ the pipeline life
• Growth rate based on deepest external corrosion feature
(53%wt located in 8.74mm wt pipe)

• Therefore, corrosion growth rate = 0.36mm year

Assessment of the Corrosion
Repair Schedule

Features require repair if:

• the Effective Dimensions exceed those not tolerable at a

pressure of 1.5 x MAOP, or

• the Peak Depth exceeds 80% wall thickness

Assessment of the Corrosion
Repair Schedule Summary

120

100

80

60 Annual repairs
40 Total Repairs

20

0
1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007
Assessment of the Corrosion
Strategy

To ensure the Future Integrity of the pipeline we

made the following recommendations:

• Maximum of 8 repairs before the end of year 2004,

• Measures to reduce external corrosion rates,

• Re-inspect the pipeline in 2004, and

• Conduct a further Fitness-for-Purpose assessment
based on actual corrosion rates.
Permanent Repair Sleeve