0

Full Content is available to subscribers

Subscribe/Learn More  >

ILI-to-Field Data Comparisons: What Accuracy Can You Expect?

[+] Author Affiliations
Matthew A. Ellinger, Thomas A. Bubenik

DNV GL, Dublin, OH

Pamela J. Moreno

DNV GL, Houston, TX

Paper No. IPC2016-64526, pp. V001T03A032; 8 pages
doi:10.1115/IPC2016-64526
From:
  • 2016 11th International Pipeline Conference
  • Volume 1: Pipelines and Facilities Integrity
  • Calgary, Alberta, Canada, September 26–30, 2016
  • Conference Sponsors: Pipeline Division
  • ISBN: 978-0-7918-5025-1
  • Copyright © 2016 by ASME

abstract

Det Norske Veritas (U.S.A.), Inc. (DNV GL) prepared this paper in order to study the expected accuracy of in-line inspections (ILI) as a function of year, depth (both reported and field measured), and length, amongst other factors. DNV GL has access to a significant amount of data that span many different pipeline operators, ILI vendors, inspection years, and inspection technologies. DNV GL is well suited to complete this study as a result of our access to these various data sets.

Over 3,000 individual comparisons of ILI and field depths and lengths spanning from 2010 through 2015 from 11 operators and 68 line segments were compiled to meet the objectives of this paper. Inspection technologies include axial magnetic flux leakage (MFL), ultrasonic wall thickness (UTWT), spiral MFL, and circumferential MFL.

Based on the analyses conducted in this paper, the following conclusions were generated.

• Axial MFL and UTWT inspections show significant improvements over the last several years.

• Axial MFL inspection systems are capable of meeting a depth accuracy of +/−10% of the wall thickness with 80% certainty, but this has not always been the case. UTWT inspection systems are capable of meeting a higher depth accuracy.

• Axial MFL inspection systems report more pits and circumferential grooves than UTWT systems. This could suggest UTWT systems are less sensitive to pits and circumferential grooves than axial MFL systems.

• Both axial MFL and UTWT inspection systems routinely under call defects with field measured depths greater than 50 to 80% of the wall thickness. This is contrary to a widely held notion that ILI is conservative for deep defects.

• ILI reported defect lengths do not correlate well to field measured defect lengths. In general, field measured defect lengths are greater than ILI reported defect lengths.

• Depth accuracy tends to decrease slightly for very short defects (less than 1-inch) and for very long defects (greater than 40-inches).

Based on these conclusions, the authors make the following recommendations:

• Pipeline operators should dig more than the deepest reported defects to better understand the accuracy of the inspection tools being used and to determine whether deeper anomalies are being under called.

• Pipeline operators should consider methods for evaluating change in corrosion depth from ILI survey to ILI survey to lessen the dependence on the accuracy of the ILI tools. This should include a raw data signal analysis in order to determine whether the general morphology (metal loss length and width) are changing between ILI surveys.

• ILI reported defect lengths should be used in conjunction with field measured defect depths (if available) when performing failure pressure calculations.

• Additional accuracy, especially for deeper defects, may only come with new tool developments. Industry support of such developments will be required to bring them to fruition.

Copyright © 2016 by ASME

Figures

Tables

Interactive Graphics

Video

Country-Specific Mortality and Growth Failure in Infancy and Yound Children and Association With Material Stature

Use interactive graphics and maps to view and sort country-specific infant and early dhildhood mortality and growth failure data and their association with maternal

NOTE:
Citing articles are presented as examples only. In non-demo SCM6 implementation, integration with CrossRef’s "Cited By" API will populate this tab (http://www.crossref.org/citedby.html).

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In