MPWT19-14377

Techniques for Inspecting Wall Thickness Metal Loss of Pipelines under Nonmetallic
Sleeves

Hatim Alhamdan Fadhel Al Asfoor

Saudi Aramco Sauid Aramco
Al-Midra Tower Inspection Technology Center
Dhahran, 31311 Dhahran, 31311
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

Aziz Rehman Rashed Alhajri

Saudi Aramco Saudi Aramco
Inspection Technology Center Al-Midra Tower
Dhahran, 31311 Dhahran, 31311
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

ABSTRACT

Composite repairs have been applied to pipelines and piping systems for structural reinforcement
after external corrosion. Such repairs may consist of glass or carbon fibers embedded in a matrix
of epoxy. Typically, these repairs are hand applied using either wet lay-up systems or
prefabricated rolls of composite sleeve. In some applications, pipeline continued corrosion growth
under composite repairs were reported using Inline Inspection (ILI) which raises a concern about
the integrity of the metallic piping under composite repairs. When continued corrosion is detected
by ILI, a difficulty is typically faced due to the inability to measure pipeline remaining thickness
under such repairs. To resolve this challenge, this paper will discuss multiple inspection and
corrosion monitoring techniques for metal loss under composite repairs. To measure the pipeline
wall thickness due to internal corrosion, one or more of the three (3) Non-Destructive Testing
(NDT) technologies namely; Dynamic Response Spectroscopy (DRS), Multi-skip Ultrasonic (MS-
UT) and digital radiography were evaluated and found capable. To monitor for external corrosion,
a scheduled visual inspection of the composite repair would be the first inspection step. If the
composite repair appears to be intact then the visual inspection would suffice and the repair
should be acceptable to its design life. If the original defect is external corrosion and a scheduled
visual inspection of the composite repair shows damage to the composite repair then inspection
to assess the integrity of the substrate must be used before permanently fixing the composite
repair. For this scenario, digital radiography or MS-UT are recommended to assess the condition
of the substrate.

Key words: nonmetallic, inspection, pipelines, corrosion

 INTRODUCTION

There are two types of composite repairs internationally used; the wet layup and the pre-fabricated
composites. Figure 1 below shows the two types. Composite repairs are hand applied and
substrate surface preparation is generally a key factor to long term durability.

Composite repairs are designed as “Defined Life Repairs” (DLR). The life span is determined
by manufacturers based on strain condition and typical values are 2, 4, 10 and 20 years. Two
integrity related issues are of concern to end users; how to ensure the integrity of the repair during
its design life and how to justify life extension beyond the design life of the repair? Repair suppliers
are often asked to issue life extensions for their installed repairs beyond the design lives. Typical
extensions are 2-3 years and usually are not based on inspection data [1].

Most of the repairs installed locally are in pipelines and have a design life of 20 years. These
repairs were originally installed to stop the progress of external corrosion. Two issues have been
identified through literature reviews, and interactions with industry experts and engineers from
different oil and gas companies. First is how reliable are these composites in corrosive wet
environment (Subkha). Second is the inspection to ensure substrate integrity for those repairs
that show signs of deterioration or reported with corrosion growth by ILI inspections.

Figure 1: Wet wrapped composite (left) and pre-fabricated rolls composite “clock
spring” (right)

Once the composite non-metallic repairs are installed due to external corrosion, it is reasonable
to assume that corrosion in the substrate has stopped[2] unless there is physically visible damage
to the composite repair that allowed moisture to seep in and reach the substrate. There is no
reason to anticipate external corrosion in the substrate. For the rest of the scenarios (i.e. internal
corrosion to the composite repair) it is reasonable to assume that corrosion under the repair has
resumed and an inspection should be performed prior to applying a permanent repair (i.e. metallic
sleeve or cut and replace in kind).

Nonmetallic Repair Requirements

The requirements of design, installation and examination of composite non-metallic repair

systems are detailed in ASME PCC-2 and ISO 24817. The repair system is defined as the
combination of the following elements for which qualification testing has been completed:
substrate (pipe), surface preparation, composite material (repair laminate), filler material,
adhesive, and application method.
The repair life is the useful service period of the non-metallic repair system, as defined by the
design assessment. This may be limited by the defect type and service conditions (e.g., internal
corrosion). During design assessment, the repair lifetime is originally specified by the end user.
The minimum lifetime of the repair is 2 years and is intended to denote those situations where the
repair is required to survive until the next shutdown, after which it should be replaced.

Inspection Technologies

Several NDT technologies with potential to inspect the composite repair and the interface between
the composite repair and the substrate and the pipe metal loss were evaluated. A two-stage
research and development program was conducted to test several technologies using samples
manufactured specifically for this activity. Another field trial on a repair on a live line was
conducted to confirm the results.

Figure 2: Composite repair inspection trials at the PRCI facility

Below is a summary of the inspection scenarios and the appropriate NDT technologies and their
evaluation results:

1. Inspection of The Substrate when The Corrosion is Internal:

If the reason for applying the repair is reinforcement of the structure due to internal corrosion,
then it is reasonable to assume that the corrosion will continue and frequent inspections to ensure
the integrity of the substrate are necessary. The following technologies can be used for such
inspection:

1.1 Digital Radiography:

The best technique to perform this inspection is digital radiography. If the pipe diameter is 10” or
less, then a quantitative direct wall thickness measurement can be obtained using tangential
radiography technique. If the pipe diameter is larger than 10” then a less desirable qualitative
“through wall” digital radiography inspection can be used to make sure that a through wall hole
has not developed. Figure 3 below demonstrates the results of tangential radiography where the
thickness of the remaining wall can be measured (even when it is corroded as in picture “C”).
 Figure 3: Composite repair digital radiography inspection trials at the PRCI facility
[2]

1.2 Dynamic Response Spectroscopy (DRS):

Another technology for the inspection of the internal metal loss under non-metallic repair
is called Dynamic Response Spectroscopy “DRS”. This technology is based on resonance
measurement of the remaining wall thickness using low frequency Ultrasonic Testing (UT). When
the UT wave length matches the remaining metallic wall thickness, the UT waves will
constructively interfere and build their strength. A returned signal that has enough energy to
penetrate the composite wrap will reach the transducer. The emitted UT is usually less than 1
MHz (normal UT inspection uses 2 MHz or higher frequencies). Since this is a UT based
inspection, a signal that disappears is an indication of disbanding between the composite repair
and the substrate or an internal delamination in the composite repair. This means that this
technique is good for the inspection of the three regions of interest; the composite repair, the
interface between the repair and the substrate and the metal pipe under the repair when the
corrosion is internal. As will be explained shortly, the UT signal disappears in the filler material
when the corrosion is external which limits the technology usefulness to internal corrosion.

The PRCI did conducted an extensive evaluation of this technology on manufactured

samples of different composite repair types with embedded defects as can be seen from Figures
4 and 5[4]. The conclusion of the PRCI trials is that “where the composite is well bonded to the
steel it was possible to measure accurately the remaining pipe wall thickness”. When the DRS
signal was lost, it was assumed that disbonding existed between the composite and substrate or
a delamination existed within the composite itself. Due to the high UT attenuation nature of
composite material, the thickness of the composite material that can be inspected with this
technology with reliability was 8mm or less. This meant that the technology cannot inspect
Syntho-Glass composite, 36mm (top left picture in Figure 4). Moreover, well bonded areas of
external wall loss also resulted in the loss of the DRS signal; most likely this is due to UT
attenuation in the filler material. As composite repairs are expected to arrest any external
corrosion, inspection will be more commonly required if the corrosion occurs on the internal
surface where it is likely to progress. DRS was therefore primarily developed for mapping internal
wall loss, where no filler is present. Hence, the wall thickness measurement capability of DRS
would be better demonstrated on samples with internal flaws.

Figure 4: DRS system. Top left: Syntho-Glass; top right: Technowrap 2K; bottom
left: FumaCarbon; bottom right: Clock Spring.

Figure 5: DRS map showing accurate steel WT measurements in areas where the
Technowrap 2K (top right picture in Figure 4 above) repair is well bonded. Areas in white
show where the DRS signal was lost due to either disbondment or filler material.

2. Inspection of the substrate when the corrosion is external:

When visually examining the composite repair and it shows no signs of external damage or severe
discoloration or swelling due to water ingress, then it is reasonable to assume that corrosion in
the substrate has stopped when the repair was applied and there should not be any concern
about the health of the substrate[2]. On the other hand, if there is visible damage to the composite
repair like open edges, water ingress, cracks or third party damage then one should be concerned
about the integrity of the substrate. In such case there are few NDT techniques that can be
deployed to assess the health of the substrate.
 When the diameter of the pipe is 10” or less, tangential digital radiography is the best
technique to use. However, when the diameter is larger than 10” then the chord length that the x-
ray has to go through is too large and other techniques must be used. One technique that has
proven to be successful is the multi-skip ultrasonic “MS-UT”. Another qualitative technique is
double wall radiography especially if the inspection is performed when the pipe is empty from
fluid.

The MS-UT in this configuration is based on measuring the time of arrival of a shear wave
front that is bouncing between the front and back wall surfaces of the pipe in the axial direction
as shown in Figure 6 below. In a corroded pipe the time of arrival will be reduced due to the
reduction in metal path length. The data is plotted as time of arrival vs. position of the transducers
in the circumferential direction.

Figure 6: Multi-skip UT measurement.

One limitation of the MS-UT technique is the ability of the UT signal to reach the receiver
transducer on the other side of the repair before it is completely attenuated. This is why the length
of the repair for this inspection is limited to five (5) feet. Another limitation is the accuracy of the
measurement. If the corroded area is a single pit then the time of arrival will reflect the lost metal
in that pit and the accuracy is good. However, if the defect is a colony of many corrosion pits then
the MS-UT will add the metal losses along the path of the UT and give value that represents the
total depths of the pits.

Figure 7: MS-UT measurement at a pipeline in Abqaiq Area.

The MS-UT technique is being pursued by Saudi Aramco for the detection of metal loss under
composite repair and for other similar applications (such as detection of corrosion in dummy pipe
supports). As shown in Figure 7 above the technique was used in February 2017 to inspect the
metal under a clock spring repair. The attractive feature of the MS-UT technique is its simplicity
in the sense that a good pipe with no obstacles to the signal (corrosion) will always allow the UT
signal to reach the receiver transducer. An absence of the UT signal is an indication of through
wall corrosion and a reduction in the time of arrival of the signal is an indication of corrosion.

PRCI has also evaluated the MS-UT for the inspection of metal loss under composite repair
using samples of different types of composite repairs (wet wrap and pre-fabricated composite
“clock spring repairs”). Example of the scan results obtained at PRCI is shown in Figure 8 below.
The time-of-flight vs. location scan generated was able to identify the seam weld, an embedded
defect and a reduction in the signal amplitude that is most likely due to a change in the boundary
condition on the pipe surface but not a corrosion or metal loss. The conclusion in PRCI report for
the evaluation is that MS-UT “offers accurate defect sizing capability for external simulated
corrosion pits with an axial extent limitation of approx. 5 feet between probes”[4].

Figure 8: MS-UT scan at PRCI [4].

3. Inspection of the interface and composite wrap:

The PRCI study[4] had inter-laminar disbondment defects intentionally internally embedded
in the samples to test the sensitivity of different NDT methods in detecting such defects. Only
DRS was able to indirectly infer the presence of this type of defect through the loss of the UT
signal. Due to the high UT attenuation nature of the composite and filler material the DRS signal
is completely lost and the information about the location of the delamination is lost. Operators can
only assume that the loss of signal is due to either delamination in the composite or disbondment
between the composite and the substrate or filler material used for the repair. Operators cannot
tell which one of these three scenarios caused signal loss.
Other technologies were evaluated by PRCI and HOIS for the inspection of the substrate,
interface and composite laminates. None of these evaluated technologies was convincing as
reliable technology for different reasons specific to each technology[2, 4]. The evaluated
technologies were:
▪ Electromagnetic techniques like pulsed eddy current (PEC), Low Frequency Eddy Current
(LFET), Saturated Low Frequency Eddy Current (SLOFEC) and Off-surface electromagnetic
technique (OSET).
▪ Acoustic emission
▪ Thermography
▪ Ultrasonic (conventional UT with bulk waves)
▪ Penetrant methods
▪ Microwave
▪ Laser shearography
▪ Guided wave
▪ Meandering Winding Magnetormetry (MWM)
▪ Tap testing

The following table summarizes the available NDT technologies and their applicability to the
inspection of the three regions of a composite repair (the substrate, the interface and the
composite laminates):

Table 1. Available NDT Technologies

NDT Technique Substrate Interface Composite Laminates
Internal Corrosion
DRS
Digital Radiography
MS-UT
Guided wave
External Corrosion
MS-UT
Digital Radiography
PEC, LFET, SLOFEC, OSET
Guided wave
MWM
AE, IR, UT, PT, Shearography,
Tap test

Detection likely Limited sensitivity Detection unlikely

RESULTS

It is recommended that the inspection of composite repairs to be a function of the type of original
defect in the pipe as follows:
▪ If the original defect is an internal corrosion then an inspection program should be
instituted regardless of the physical appearance of the composite repair whether it is intact or not.
One or more of the three (3) NDT technologies namely; Dynamic Response Spectroscopy (DRS),
Multi-skip Ultrasonic (MS-UT) and digital radiography should be used depending on availability
and defects of concern.
▪ If the original defect is external corrosion then a scheduled visual inspection of the
composite repair would be a first line of defence. If the composite repair appears to be intact then
the visual inspection would suffice and the repair should be acceptable to its design life.
▪ If the original defect is external corrosion and a scheduled visual inspection of the
composite repair show damage to the composite repair inspection to assess the integrity of the
substrate must be used before fixing the composite repair. For this scenario digital radiography
or MS-UT are recommended to assess the condition of the substrate.
 CONCLUSIONS

The maintenance and inspection strategy for composite repair systems should be a function of
the type of original defect in the pipe. This highlights the importance of good record keeping of
the condition of the pipe at the time of repair application, including the location of the corrosion
whether internal or external and the degree of metal loss.
In situations where the corrosion is external, it is reasonable to assume that the corrosion has
stopped at the time when the repair was applied. There is no cause for concern about the
corrosion continuing to grow unless there is evidence of composite repair deterioration. Evidence
of damage includes repair edge opening, discoloration due to ingress of water, cracks in the
composite of third party damage and other damages. In such a scenario currently two NDT
techniques can be used to assess the integrity of the substrate namely: Multi-skip Ultrasonic (MS-
UT) and digital radiography. However, there are no available technologies to inspect the interface
between the repair and the substrate whether it is still bonded or not. Also there are no available
technologies to inspect for delamination within the composite laminates.

In situations where the corrosion is internal to the pipe, then it is reasonable to assume that
corrosion has continued to grow after the application of the repair and an inspection program
should be put in place to routinely monitor the progress of the internal corrosion. In such
scenarios, three NDT technologies can be used to assess the integrity of the substrate namely:
Dynamic Response Spectroscopy (DRS), MS-UT, and digital radiography. For the detection of
delamination in the composite laminates or to inspect the bond at the interface between the
composite repair and the substrate only DRS can be used.

REFERENCES

1. Richard Lee & Helen Peramatzis “Inspection of Engineered Composite Repairs to Support
Life Extension”. HOIS presentation 2017.

2. Richard J Lee, Dr. Martin Wall & Dr. Stephen F Burch “NDE & Inspection Techniques
Applied to Composite Wrap Repairs”. Pipeline Research Council International. 2012.

3. Yutaka Morishige & Satoru Shiroshita “Ultrasonic Examination Record of MS-UT”. Field
piloting at Saudi Aramco. February 2017.

4. Richard Lee “Inspection of Composite Repairs for Pipelines and Piping – Phase 3 Further
NDE Trials”. Pipeline Research Council International. September 2016.