Pipeline Integrity Analysis Based on Interdisciplinary Cooperation

2004 ◽  
Author(s):  
Perry Barham ◽  
Bryce Brown ◽  
Martine Fingerhut ◽  
Patrick Porter
Keyword(s):  
High Resolution ◽  
Field Measurements ◽  
Interdisciplinary Cooperation ◽  
Metal Loss ◽  
Reporting Requirements ◽  
Anomaly Classification ◽  
Inspection Data ◽  
Integrity Analysis ◽  
Available Information ◽  
Flux Leakage

For many years, BP Pipelines, North America has used high-resolution Magnetic Flux Leakage (MFL) in-line inspection (ILI) technology to help maintain the integrity of their pipelines. The improvements in this technology that now allow an Operator to make integrity decisions also bring challenges. Reports from ILI can list thousands, or even hundreds of thousands, of individual anomalies or features. When combined with data from NDT field measurements and existing pipe tallies, it can become overwhelming. Methods had to be developed to distill this information for further analysis. BP Pipelines NA encouraged cooperation between all parties involved in the integrity process to adapt reporting requirements and work procedures to provide the best available information for integrity analysis and to ensure continued improvements. This cooperation is a key part of the integrity equation and essential to a successful program. This paper presents an overview of the validation process undertaken on a 51 km (32-mile) section of 457 mm (18-inch) pipeline. This pipe section was inspected in 1999 and again in 2003 by the same inspection company. This provided an opportunity to evaluate improvements in inspection technology, assess repeatability of performance and develop an engineering based approach to review, analyze, and validate high-resolution metal loss MFL data. Field verification and data validation included the use of a several NDE techniques to acquire field measurements to overlay and compare to the ILI inspection data. Anomaly classification and distribution is examined and methods of selecting validation locations for future inspection developed. In addition to the primary goal outlined, the 2003 repair program provided an opportunity to evaluate the performance of the composite sleeve reinforcements applied in 1999, after 4 years of service.

Corrosion Metal Loss Interaction From In-Line Inspection and How it Can Affect the Calculated Failure Pressure

2012 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lucinda Smart ◽  
Richard McNealy ◽  
Harvey Haines
Keyword(s):  
Field Measurements ◽  
Metal Loss ◽  
Data Correlation ◽  
Failure Pressure ◽  
Industry Standards ◽  
Direct Measurements ◽  
Non Destructive ◽  
Flux Leakage

In-Line Inspection (ILI) is used to prioritize metal loss conditions based on predicted failure pressure in accordance with methods prescribed in industry standards such as ASME B31G-2009. Corrosion may occur in multiple areas of metal loss that interact and may result in a lower failure pressure than if flaws were analyzed separately. The B31G standard recommends a flaw interaction criterion for ILI metal loss predictions within a longitudinal and circumferential spacing of 3 times wall thickness, but cautions that methods employed for clustering of ILI anomalies should be validated with results from direct measurements in the ditch. Recent advances in non-destructive examination (NDE) and data correlation software have enabled reliable comparisons of ILI burst pressure predictions with the results from in-ditch examination. Data correlation using pattern matching algorithms allows the consideration of detection and reporting thresholds for both ILI and field measurements, and determination of error in the calculated failure pressure prediction attributable to the flaw interaction criterion. This paper presents a case study of magnetic flux leakage ILI failure pressure predictions compared with field results obtained during excavations. The effect of interaction criterion on calculated failure pressure and the probability of an ILI measurement underestimating failure pressure have been studied. We concluded a reason failure pressure specifications do not exist for ILI measurements is because of the variety of possible interaction criteria and data thresholds that can be employed, and demonstrate herein a method for their validation.

Geometric Magnetic and Discriminator Sensor for Smart Pigs

2004 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vinicius de C. Lima ◽  
Jose´ A. P. da Silva ◽  
Jean Pierre von der Weid ◽  
Claudio Soligo Camerini ◽  
Carlos H. F. de Oliveira
Keyword(s):  
High Resolution ◽  
Magnetic Flux ◽  
Magnetic Flux Leakage ◽  
Metal Loss ◽  
Research Partnership ◽  
Technical Aspects ◽  
Pipeline Inspection ◽  
Catholic University ◽  
Laboratory Results ◽  
Flux Leakage

A result of a research partnership between Catholic University of Rio de Janeiro – PUC-Rio, PETROBRAS and PIPEWAY is presented: The development of an innovative sensor head for high resolution MFL Pigs, the GMD sensor, Geometric Magnetic and Discriminator. This head makes high resolution magnetic pipeline readings using the MFL - Magnetic Flux Leakage technique, with the addition of geometric readings and the outside/inside defects discriminations. This technique makes possible, with only one crown of GMD sensors, the caliper, metal loss and outside/inside discrimination pipeline inspection. Technical aspects of the development, e.g.: the construction details of the sensor, evaluation tests and laboratory results are also presented.

API 579 Level 3 Assessment of Dents Using High-Resolution ILI Data

2011 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chas Jandu ◽  
Mike Taylor ◽  
Suji Narikotte
Keyword(s):  
High Resolution ◽  
Magnetic Flux ◽  
Single Channel ◽  
Mechanical Damage ◽  
Magnetic Flux Leakage ◽  
Metal Loss ◽  
Operating Pressure ◽  
Data Set ◽  
Level 3 ◽  
Flux Leakage

In-line Inspection (ILI) surveys are periodically performed to determine the condition of the pipeline. Typical ILI surveys involve Magnetic Flux Leakage primarily to determine metal loss and simple single channel Calliper surveys to determine any signs of geometry imperfections. Additional surveys such as high-resolution multi-channel Calliper deformation tools are occasionally used to accurately record imperfections to enable a more accurate assessment of the integrity of the pipeline containing the imperfection. Such tools have had limited employment, and therefore little experience exists of using the data obtainable for the detailed assessment of defects. This paper presents a study of such a case. As part of an In-line Inspection (ILI) of an offshore pipeline, a high-resolution deformation survey recorded numerous dent anomalies which had potentially resulted from a single dragged anchor incident before the pipeline was trenched. This data set was correlated to Magnetic Flux Leakage inspection data to confirm external mechanical damage. Pipeline sections having anomalies that were either found close to girth welds, or had associated corrosion defects were automatically selected for repair. The remaining anomalies were assessed in order to determine their acceptability for the maximum allowable operating pressure using the approaches detailed in API-579. Due to the sharp nature of some of the dents, elastic-plastic finite element analyses (FEA) were performed using denting profiles generated from the calliper data of the ILI run. API-579 level 3 assessments were then carried out using the FEA results. This paper details the high-resolution deformation tool findings and the approach used in order to assess the fitness-for-purpose of the pipe with the recorded anomalies.

Making Integrity Decisions Using Metal Loss ILI Validation Process

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yanping Li ◽  
Gordon Fredine ◽  
Yvan Hubert ◽  
Sherif Hassanien
Keyword(s):  
Field Measurements ◽  
Management Decision ◽  
Metal Loss ◽  
Data Sets ◽  
Guidance Document ◽  
Tool Selection ◽  
Validation Process ◽  
Data Set ◽  
Tool Performance ◽  
Inspection Data

With the increased number of In-Line Inspections (ILI) on pipelines, it is important to evaluate ILI tool performance to support making rational integrity decisions. API 1163 “In-Line inspection systems qualification” outlines an ILI data set validation process which is mainly based on comparing ILI data with field measurements. The concept of comparing ILI results with previous ILI data is briefly mentioned in API 1163 Level 1 validation and discussed in detail in CEPA metal Loss ILI tool validation guidance document. However, a different approach from API 1163 is recommended in the CEPA document. Although the methodologies of validating an ILI performance are available, other than determining whether an inspection data set is acceptable, the role of ILI validation in integrity management decision making is not well defined in these documents. Enbridge has reviewed API 1163 and CEPA methodologies and developed a process to validate metal loss ILI results. This process uses API 1163 as tool performance acceptance criteria while CEPA method is used to provide additional information such as depth over-call or under-call. The process captures the main concepts of both API 1163 and CEPA methodologies. It adds a new dimension to the validation procedure by evaluating different corrosion morphologies, depth ranges, and proximity to long seam and girth weld. The process also checks ILI results against previous ILI data sets and combines the results of several inspections. The validation results of one inspection provide information on whether the inspection data set is acceptable based on the ILI specification. This information is useful for excavation selection. Tool performance review based on several inspection data sets identifies the strength and weakness of an inspection tool; this information will be used to ensure the tool selection is appropriate for the expected feature types on the pipeline. Applications of the validation process are provided to demonstrate how the process can aid in making integrity decisions and managing metal loss threats.

Comparison of In-Line Inspection Service Provider Magnetic Flux Leakage (MFL) Technology and Analytical Performance Based on Multiple Runs on Pipeline Segments

2012 ◽  
Author(s):  
Guy Desjardins ◽  
Randy Nickle ◽  
Darren Skibinsky ◽  
Joe Yip
Keyword(s):  
High Resolution ◽  
Magnetic Flux ◽  
Service Provider ◽  
Round Robin ◽  
Analytical Performance ◽  
Magnetic Flux Leakage ◽  
Metal Loss ◽  
Inspection Service ◽  
Flux Leakage

This paper presents the results of a comparison between three In-Line Inspection (ILI) vendor’s high resolution magnetic flux leakage (MFL) inspections. Between 2009 and 2011, Alliance Pipeline Ltd. (Alliance) commissioned the inspection of a number of pipeline segments, where each vendor inspected all segments. These inspections have enabled Alliance to conduct a round-robin comparison of the performance and capabilities of each of the vendor’s abilities to detect and size metal-loss anomalies.

789 HIGH RESOLUTION ESOPHAGEAL MOTILITY: VARIABLE GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION IN A LARGE MEXICAN COHORT

2021 ◽  
Vol 34 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Genaro Vazquez-Elizondo ◽  
José María Remes-Troche ◽  
Enrique Coss-Adame ◽  
Edgardo Suárez-Morán ◽  
Miguel Ángel Valdovinos-Díaz ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
High Resolution ◽  
Data Base ◽  
Regional Differences ◽  
Outlet Obstruction ◽  
Central Mexico ◽  
Diverse Population ◽  
Chi Square ◽  
The North ◽  
Available Information ◽  
Diagnostic Outcome

Abstract   High resolution esophageal manometry (HREM) has been in use for about a decade. However, there is no available information regarding geographical or regional differences in diagnostic outcome. Aim Characterize the indications, demographics and diagnostic outcome of HREM in a diverse population of Mexico. Methods Data was collected from four major referral centers representing diverse geographical areas of Mexico: central—Mexico City (two centers, years 2016-2020), south (Veracruz, years 2015-2020) and north (Monterrey, years 2013—2020). All consecutive cases referred for HREM were entered into a data base and analyzed using Chicago 3 classification. Data was evaluated using chi-square to compare frequencies among groups. Results 2,932 patients included: Central n = 877(29.9), North n = 1003(34.2), South n = 1052(35.9). Mean age 47.9(11-93), women 1,795(61.2), men 1,137(38.8). Nationwide, the most common indications for testing were: GERD n = 1677(57.2), followed by dysphagia 587(20), atypical GERD 244(8.3), post-operative GERD 230(7.9), chest pain 114(3.9), and post-operative dysphagia 78(2.8). HREM was normal in 1,468(49.9) patients. Table shows the diagnostic distribution among centers: Central-Mexico had more abnormal cases 531(60.5) (p < 0.0.001) vs 407(40.6) North and 532(50.6) South. Achalasia was more commonly diagnosed in the South n = 104(19.5) whereas outlet obstruction 39(967) p < 0.001 and spastic disorders were more common in the North 47(11.8) p = 0.002. Weak peristaltic disorders were more common in Central-Mexico 369(78.8) p < 0.001. Conclusion This study represents the first large comparative multicenter HREM data base project in Mexico. In this cohort, most patients receiving HREM are women and those whose indication was GERD. These findings indicate variable regional geographical distribution of HERM diagnosis. Our study suggests that further investigation into the causes and epidemiological distribution of motility disorders is warranted.

A Hybrid Topside Structural Approach to the Management of Aging Fleet

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Biramarta Isnadi ◽  
Luong Ann Lee ◽  
Sok Mooi Ng ◽  
Ave Suhendra Suhaili ◽  
Quailid Rezza M Nasir ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Structural Integrity ◽  
Metal Loss ◽  
Web Based ◽  
Strong Basis ◽  
Asset Risk ◽  
Risk Ranking ◽  
Design Life ◽  
Industry Standards ◽  
Integrity Management ◽  
Inspection Data

Abstract The objective of this paper is to demonstrate the best practices of Topside Structural Integrity Management for an aging fleet of more than 200 platforms with about 60% of which has exceeded the design life. PETRONAS as the operator, has established a Topside Structural Integrity Management (SIM) strategy to demonstrate fitness of the offshore topside structures through a hybrid philosophy of time-based inspection with risk-based maintenance, which is in compliance to API RP2SIM (2014) inspection requirements. This paper shares the data management, methodology, challenges and value creation of this strategy. The SIM process adopted in this work is in compliance with industry standards API RP2SIM, focusing on Data-Evaluation-Strategy-Program processes. The operator HSE Risk Matrix is adopted in risk ranking of the topside structures. The main elements considered in developing the risk ranking of the topside structures are the design and assessment compliance, inspection compliance and maintenance compliance. Effective methodology to register asset and inspection data capture was developed to expedite the readiness of Topside SIM for a large aging fleet. The Topside SIM is being codified in the operator web-based tool, Structural Integrity Compliance System (SICS). Identifying major hazards for topside structures were primarily achieved via data trending post implementation of Topside SIM. It was then concluded that metal loss as the major threat. Further study on effect of metal loss provides a strong basis to move from time-based maintenance towards risk-based maintenance. Risk ranking of the assets allow the operator to prioritize resources while managing the risk within ALARP level. Current technologies such as drone and mobile inspection tools are deployed to expedite inspection findings and reporting processes. The data from the mobile inspection tool is directly fed into the web based SICS to allow reclassification of asset risk and anomalies management.

Development of Pinhole Corrosion Management Using MFL

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Guy Desjardins ◽  
Joel Falk ◽  
Vitaly Vorontsov
Keyword(s):  
Magnetic Flux Leakage ◽  
Metal Loss ◽  
Physical Measurement ◽  
Reporting Accuracy ◽  
Magnetic Modeling ◽  
Number Of Factors ◽  
Modeling Software ◽  
Measurement Methodology ◽  
Integrity Management ◽  
Flux Leakage

While In-line Inspection Magnetic Flux Leakage (MFL) tools have been used for many years to successfully manage corrosion related threats, small pinhole-sized metal-loss anomalies remain a significant concern to pipeline operators. These anomalies can grow undetected to develop leaks and cause significant consequences. The physical dimensions of these anomalies, their proximity to and/or interaction with other nearby anomalies can challenge MFL’s detection and sizing capabilities. Other factors such as tool speed, cleanliness of the line and incorrect assumptions have an impact as well. For pipeline operators to develop effective and efficient mitigation programs and to estimate risks to an asset, the underlying uncertainties in detection and sizing of pinholes need to be well understood. By using magnetic modeling software, the MFL response of metal-loss anomalies can be determined, and the effect of a number of factors such as radial position, wall thickness, depth profile, pipe cleanliness and tool speed on MFL response and reporting accuracy can be determined. This paper investigates these factors to determine the leading causes of uncertainties involved in the detection and sizing of pinhole corrosion. The understanding of these uncertainties should lead to improvements in integrity management of pinhole for pipeline operators. This paper first investigates the physical measurement methodology of MFL tools to understand the limitations of MFL technology. Then, comparisons of actual MFL data with field excavation results were studied, to understand the limitations of specific MFL technologies. Finally, recommendations are made on how to better use and assess MFL results.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document