Proceedings of the ASME 2022 14th International Pipeline Conference
IPC2022
PROBABILISTIC FLAW GROWTH RATE ESTIMATES USING MULTIPLE INLINE
INSPECTION TOOL RUN DATA ANALYSES
Colin Scott
OneBridge Solutions
Edmonton, Canada
ABSTRACT
Many pipeline operators perform run comparisons (or “run-
coms”) during assessment of their inline inspection data.
Analysts match corrosion pit depths reported in back-to-back
tool runs and estimate corrosion growth rates, remaining lives,
and appropriate reinspection intervals. This approach is
generally deemed more accurate than using an assumed constant
growth rate for all reported features. However, the accuracy of
each estimate is subject to the depth sizing error inherent in the
measurements. The larger a dataset, the higher the likelihood of
many calculated corrosion growth rates being misleading. This
is due to there being a higher likelihood of extreme depth sizing
errors. A first run undercall followed by a second run overcall
compounds the depth sizing error and may result in an overly
conservative decision. A first run overcall followed by a second
run undercall and may result in a missed defect. Both scenarios
can lead to a misuse of resources.
This work is a statistical analysis of flaw growth that
considers and accommodates for depth sizing errors. The result
is that the growth rate for each ILI reported flaw is considered
probabilistically. Advanced data ingestion algorithms allow
analysts to align multiple ILI tool run data sets quickly and
conveniently, opening the door to advanced data analytics,
including work with non-linear flaw growth rates. This work
looks at corrosion and SCC growth rates (approximated as
linear) and fatigue crack growth rates that follow established
Paris Law behavior (non-linear).
Keywords: pipeline & facilities integrity, inspection data
management, defect detection & assessment.
September 26-30, 2022, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
IPC2022-87054
Kregg Philpott
OneBridge Solutions
Boise, ID
NOMENCLATURE
C Paris Law coefficient
d true flaw depth
g flaw growth rate
m Paris law exponent
N number of cycles
p pressure cycle magnitude
P probability
r ILI reported flaw depth
s ILI reported systemic bias
t absolute time
α signal to noise parameter
ε random noise term
σ standard deviation on depth sizing error
τ normalized time
1. INTRODUCTION
Inline inspection (ILI) tools and their resultant reports are a
key source of data for integrity programs. This is due largely to
their ability to examine, in detail, the whole of a pipeline in one
run, without the costly and time-consuming requirements to
expose any particular area of the pipeline. A single run can detect
and size flaws above the tool’s minimum depth detection
threshold. Two or more successive runs can be compared to look
at the apparent change in depth of a flaw over time. If
comparison of two subsequent readings makes it appear a flaw
has become shallower over time, any engineer will deftly note
there can be random noise in an ILI depth reading. Faced with
1 © 2022 by ASME
two subsequent readings that show apparent growth of a
neighboring flaw though, it’s much harder for that same engineer
not to take the apparent growth rate at face value even if the same
noise and bias mechanisms may still be present. In this work we
look into explicitly incorporating the uncertainty in ILI readings
into probabilistic estimates of growth.
2. METHODOLOGY
Each depth reading (r) in an ILI can be decomposed into
three different components: the true depth (d), the systemic bias
(s), and the random noise term (ε):
𝑟 =𝑑+𝑠+𝜀 (1)
The true depth is the actual depth of the flaw on the pipe at the
time it was measured. The systemic bias is any offset in the data
that affects all flaws in a predictable way relative to other
available data. In its simplest form this might be a constant offset
if for example the whole ILI was uniformly overcalled or
undercalled. Often the readings are iteratively refined by the ILI
vendor to include the effect of a systemic bias, and thereby
produce a new set of readings where the bias is theoretically zero.
Finally, ε is the random noise, the error part of each individual
reading that cannot be predicted from other information. It is this
random noise that will be most of interest in this work.
In this work we consider flaw growth, not from simply two
“back-to-back” inspections, but from multiple successive ILI
tool runs. This opens the door to considering both linear and non-
linear flaw growth. Linear growth models are applicable to both
corrosion and (simplified) stress corrosion cracking. Non-linear
growth models are applicable to fatigue crack growth, and the
more complex stress corrosion cracking models. All data
discussed is simulated and only for the purpose of
demonstration. In each case, a mathematically “idealized” data
set was prepared and depth sizing errors included using either
probabilistic integration or Monte Carlo techniques, as discussed
below.
Two Point Linear Growth
When individual flaws are matched between ILIs, as is done
automatically in advanced integrity management software, or
can be performed manually on a smaller scale, it is possible to
compute a growth rate based on those two depth readings. This
nominal growth rate is directly proportional to the nominal depth
change as
𝑔𝑛𝑜𝑚 =
Δ𝑟
=
Δ𝑑+Δ𝑠+Δ𝜀
(2)
Δ𝑡 Δ𝑡
In this work we assume the systemic bias has been corrected for
previously. This is necessary, in part, as the problem becomes
under-constrained for the case of only two ILI tool runs and
analysis can result in meaningless solutions. Future work may
consider this additional error when multiple data sets are
available. The growth can be rewritten as
𝑔𝑛𝑜𝑚 =
Δ𝑑
+
Δ𝜀
=𝑔+
Δ𝜀
(3)
Δ𝑡 Δ𝑡 Δ𝑡
where g is the (unknown) true growth rate. Δε is a difference of
two random variables, and hence itself a random variable: one ε1
from the random noise distribution that characterizes the new
ILI 1; and one ε0 from the random noise distribution that
characterizes the reference ILI 0.
While the true growth rate is fixed (assuming linear behavior
over some time interval), and Δε itself is independent of time, the
noise term’s contribution to the nominal growth rate is weighted
by the inverse of the time between the ILI runs. For given noise
characteristics then between two independent ILI runs, the noise
term becomes more and more dominant in the nominal growth
rate estimation as the time between ILIs grows shorter and
shorter. Two ILI runs taken a year apart would have five times
the effective noise of the same two runs taken five years apart.
Two recent ILIs may better sample any fast-changing flaws
where Δd is large, but any flaws with steady, lower growth will
have depth reading changes and nominal growth rates that are
more volatile and unreliable. This could lead to neglecting some
due to apparent small or negative growth, while falsely repairing
others that seemed to be fast-growing simply due to the amplified
random noise.
In an ideal world, one could determine actual random noise
distributions of each tool noise either from 1) extensive vendor
testing providing such distributions; or 2) enough real-world digs
on the pipeline in question to directly determine the true depth
vs the readings. Unfortunately, due to cost and the variability in
each pipeline even for the same tool, it’s currently unlikely that
detailed distributions of ε will be available. Instead, a best
alternative is to assume the noise is normally distributed with
zero mean and a standard deviation derived either from vendor
specifications, or confidence metrics such as “within 10% depth,
80% of the time.” In the normal (Gaussian) distribution case, the
noise difference term is then itself also a zero mean normal
distribution, this time with
𝜎Δ𝜖 = √𝜎02 + 𝜎12 (4)
Where σ0 and σ1 are the standard deviations of the random noise
terms of the two ILI tool runs.
In the PRCI-331 [1] work on probabilistic noise in depth
readings, they introduce a signal to noise parameter
Δ𝑑 𝑔
𝛼= = Δ𝑡 (5)
σ 𝜎
They fit distributions to the results of Monte Carlo simulation of
random noise added to real signal change. Amongst their results,
they concluded that for a small enough value of α < αmin = 0.25,
they could not make any statement about the true growth rate.
Looking at it from the perspective of this work, if any given
minimum signal to noise ratio is necessary for confidence, one
2 © 2022 by ASME
can see the time between ILIs is directly dependent upon that
minimum and the true growth rate as Δt ≥ σαmin/g. For fixed
noise characteristics, the smaller the growth rate we wish to
detect with a given signal to noise ratio requires inversely longer
time between sampling ILI runs.
Depth Estimation
To estimate a future depth linearly from two data points, the
calculated growth rate is added to a previous depth reading, or
some combination thereof. In addition to the probabilistic effects
of growth estimation, there is additional uncertainty from the
uncertainty in the starting depth. If the depth calculation is
anchored to the most recent reading r1, the depth some time 𝑡
after the reading is
𝑟1 −𝑟0
𝑟 = 𝑟1 + 𝑔𝑛𝑜𝑚 𝑡 = 𝑟1 + 𝑡 (6)
Δ𝑡
Parameterizing the forward time t in terms of the time spacing
between the ILI runs τ = t/Δt, the predicted future depth becomes
𝑑(𝜏) = 𝑑1 + (𝑑1 − 𝑑0 )𝜏 + ((1 + 𝜏)𝜀1 − 𝜏𝜀0 ) (7)
The first two terms are the starting true depth and actual rate of
growth, while the last term is a random variable due to the
random noise in the two ILI readings. In the case once again
where the reading noise is characterized by normal distributions,
then the random error in the depth distribution is a normal
distribution with
𝜎𝑑 = √(1 + 𝜏)2 𝜎12 + 𝜏 2 𝜎02 (8)
As can be seen, the uncertainty starts out with the same width
(σ1) as the most recent reading; then gets more uncertain with
time, asymptotically approaching being linear with time 𝜏. It is
key to note here that all the prediction uncertainty is in terms of
the normalized time, not the actual time. A longer baseline time
between ILI assessments also allows projection into the future an
equal factor longer with the same uncertainty in depth
estimation. This is illustrated in Figure 1 and Figure 2. The
longer assessment interval improves the accuracy of the rate
calculation. It also substantially decreases the likelihood of a
negative nominal calculated growth rate that is physically
meaningless in the context of corrosion.
FIGURE 1: UNCERTAINTY IN FUTURE DEPTH IS INITIALLY
DOMINATED BY THE UNCERTAINTY IN THE LAST READING,
BUT ASYMPTOTICALLY BECOMES DOMINATED BY THE
UNCERTAINTY IN GROWTH RATE ESTIMATION.
Probability Integration
Due to the limited range of flaw depths, the analysis above
isn’t perfectly accurate, particularly near the limits of depth
detection. It is physically impossible for a flaw to have negative
fractional depth; also, once a flaw goes through the wall, it
cannot get any deeper. Hence all readings and true depths will be
between 0 and 1: 𝑟, 𝑑 ∈ [0.0,1.0]. Note this analysis assumes
depths are reported as percent of wall thickness, as is typical of
ILI metal loss reports. In determining a growth rate distribution
or future predicted depth distribution, it is necessary to take all
the possible depths into account and weight them by their
likelihood to occur. For a linear growth rate of g between two
subsequent true depths d0 and d1 measured Δt apart, then the
probability of that growth rate occurring is the probability of all
depth pairs separated by gΔt.
𝑃𝐺 (𝑔) ∝ ∫𝑑 𝑃𝐷1 (𝑑0 + 𝑔Δ𝑡)𝑃𝐷0 (𝑑0 )𝑑𝑑0 (9)
1 ≥𝑑0
Each distribution 𝑃𝐷𝑖 contains the probability of whatever
random noise having been added to a true depth to obtain the
reading recorded. In general, each probability distribution 𝑃𝐷𝑖
will shift along with the recorded depth r, and will be truncated
at 0.0 fractional wall depth, and 1.0 fractional wall depth such
that the probability density is zero outside this domain. This
initial simplification is used as a “proof of concept” type
demonstration. An alternative approach would be to truncate at
0.10 and 0.80 fractional wall depth to represent the typical limits
of ILI reporting.
With enough vendor specifications of the tool noise, or
comparisons of readings to true field depths, it may be possible
to characterize the unique distribution for each tool or tool run.
In general though, sufficient data is not available to do more than
3 © 2022 by ASME
hypothesize an appropriate distribution and adjust its parameters
to best fit that data which is available. In this work, we employ a
truncated normal distribution whose center is at the reading
value, and whose width is related to the quoted accuracy of the
tool. For example, a tool that is accurate “within 10%, 80% of
the time” would have a standard deviation for a normal
distribution of σ = 0.078. Examples of some of the various
simulations are provided in Figure 3.
(a) True and fit depth profiles 1 year
Time
Estimated Growth Rate (fraction wall / year)
(b) True and fit depth profiles 5 years
Time
Estimated Growth Rate (fraction wall / year)
FIGURE 2: FOR THE SAME AMOUNT OF RANDOMNESS
ADDED TO THE SAME TRUE CORROSION GROWTH, THE
UNCERTAINTY IN ESTIMATED GROWTH RATE IS MUCH
HIGHER FOR (A) SHORTER MEASUREMENT INTERVALS VS.
(B) LONGER INTERVALS.
Multi-Point Linear Growth
A linear fit requires a minimum of two points to determine
the degrees of freedom. If these two data points were perfectly
accurate, they would suffice to fully describe the situation.
However, given the relatively large amount of noise in ILI depth
readings, usage of more than the minimum number of readings
may provide a better estimate of the actual growth profile. Given
the availability of integrity management software that
automatically aligns any number of ILIs pit-by-pit, it is now very
realizable to leverage depth readings throughout a period of time,
instead of just the most recent two. Particularly for operators who
have inspected their pipe at a higher frequency than normal (e.g.,
once a year instead of every five years), it seems a waste to throw
away three very useful datapoints that are all within the span of
time the same estimate would be made with five-year sampling.
With a probabilistic approach to uncertainty, one can easily
expand the analysis above to consider any number of ILI
readings 𝑁. If ti is the date of each reading, with 0 being the
earliest reading considered, then the growth rate probability can
be written as
𝑃𝐺 (𝑔) ∝ ∫𝑑 ≥𝑑 Π𝑖 𝑃𝐷𝑖 (𝑑0 + 𝑔(𝑡𝑖 − 𝑡0 ))𝑑𝑑0 (10)
𝑖 𝑖−1
By being able to mathematically combine all valid readings
within a time period, some of the guesswork is removed with
regards to which readings are over or under called.
Examples below show instance of using three data points in
estimating a depth. In the case of the middle data point
undercalled, for instance, this would have led to an over-estimate
of the growth rate if using only the most recent two data points,
as is usual. In the case that the middle data point is overcalled,
this would have led to a negative nominal growth rate. By using
all three, the most likely realistic growth rate can be computed
and seen in Figure 4 and Figure 5. Given the cost of poor
estimates in terms of time and resources, or the potential for a
safety outlier, the value of the third (or more) data point(s)
becomes important. There is a substantial improvement in
confidence and decision making.
4 © 2022 by ASME
(a)
(b)
(c)
FIGURE 3: GROWTH RATE FOR VARIOUS READINGS AND
UNCERTAINTIES. FOR (A) NEGATIVE NOMINAL GROWTH,
THE MOST LIKELY GROWTH RATE IS 0, BUT POSITIVE
RATES ARE POSSIBLE WITH DECREASING LIKELIHOOD.
FOR (B AND C) POSITIVE NOMINAL GROWTH, THE MOST
LIKELY GROWTH RATE IS THE SAME.
Time (years)
Growth Rate (fraction wall / year)
FIGURE 4: FOR AN UNDERCALL IN THE MIDDLE YEAR,
GROWTH BASED ON THE MOST RECENT TWO YEARS WILL
GREATLY OVERESTIMATE ACTUAL GROWTH. GROWTH
CALCULATED WITH ALL READINGS COMPENSATES FOR
THIS.
Time (years)
Growth Rate (fraction wall / year)
FIGURE 5: FOR AN OVERCALL IN THE MIDDLE YEAR,
GROWTH BASED ON THE MOST RECENT TWO YEARS WILL
ESTIMATE A NEGATIVE ACTUAL GROWTH, OR ZERO
LIMITED. GROWTH CALCULATED WITH ALL READINGS
COMPENSATES FOR THIS.
Two Point Non-linear Growth
The analysis above is appropriate for linear flaw growth,
such as that approximated for corrosion or stress corrosion
cracking. However, the analysis becomes more complicated for
non-linear flaw growth, such as fatigue crack growth. Fatigue
crack growth is typically described by the Paris Law [2]:
𝑑𝑑
= 𝐶 ∙ ∆𝐾 𝑚 (11)
𝑑𝑁
5 © 2022 by ASME
Where N is the number of pressure cycles, K the stress intensity In this case, the depth sizing errors are buried in the equation and
factor acting on the crack, and C and m the Paris Law parameters. cannot be isolated as easily as they were for the linear analysis.
Assuming a relatively constant pressure cycling severity (dp/dN There is potential for poor future predictions, given the depth
and dN/dt), we can infer a nominal growth rate by separating the sizing errors and exponential nature of the mathematics in
depth and time components from the equation and then combination.
integrating. This leads to the generic
(a)
∆(𝑟 1−𝑚/2 ) ∆[(𝑑+𝜀)1−𝑚/2 ]
𝑔𝑛𝑜𝑚 = = (12)
∆𝑡 ∆𝑡

Note that this integration requires that the Paris exponent is not
equal to two. The nominal growth rate reflects the (unknown)
Paris Law coefficient and effective pressure cycling severity
embedded in the calculated constant. This growth cannot be
interpreted as a “depth per time” type rate, due to the
mathematical non-linearity. Note also that depths used in crack
analyses are absolute depths rather than relative wall thickness.
ILI vendors typically report depth sizing errors as “within 1 mm,
80% of the time”, or similar.
The analysis is exacerbated by an unknown Paris Law
exponent. Two depth readings are insufficient to determine this
value. A common approach would be to assume a Paris Law
exponent of three. In this case:

∆(𝑟 −1/2 ) ∆[(𝑑+𝜀)−1/2 ]

𝑔𝑛𝑜𝑚 = = (13)
∆𝑡 ∆𝑡

This analysis suffers from the same difficulties encountered

by the linear analysis. The signal to noise ratio becomes
increasingly important. The effect is magnified due to the (b)
exponential nature of the crack growth. ILI inspection time
intervals short enough to result in true crack growth less than the
depth sizing error leads to low confidence growth rate estimates.
Increasing the ILI reinspection interval becomes necessary to
provide meaningful conclusions. This is illustrated in Figure 6.
Estimated growth rates were calculated using a probability
integration-based methodology. The “true depths” are simulated
idealized data. The rate constant distributions show a substantial
improvement in predictions for the longer reassessment interval.

Depth Estimation

Similar to the analysis provided for linear flaw growth, it is

possible to estimate the depth of a crack subject to fatigue at
some time in the future. There is uncertainty associated with both
the estimation of the growth rate and the starting depth.
Assuming a Paris Law exponent of three:

𝑟1 −1/2 −𝑟0 −1/2

𝑟 −1/2 = 𝑟1 −1/2 + 𝑡 (14)
Δ𝑡

Parameterizing the forward time, the predicted future depth

FIGURE 6: FOR THE SAME AMOUNT OF RANDOMNESS
becomes:
ADDED TO THE SAME TRUE CRACK GROWTH, THE
UNCERTAINTY IN ESTIMATED GROWTH RATE IS MUCH
𝑑(𝜏) = [(𝑑1 + 𝜀1 )−1/2 ∙ (𝜏 + 1) − (𝑑0 + 𝜀0 )−1/2 ∙ 𝜏]−1/2 HIGHER FOR (A) SHORTER MEASUREMENT INTERVALS VS.
(15) (B) LONGER INTERVALS.

6 © 2022 by ASME
Probability Integration and three different depth sizing errors. Note that these figures are
sample results, and some analyses resulted in extreme random
Similar to the analysis provided for linear flaw growth, it is depth errors and therefore poorer predictions.
also possible to perform a probability integration. The
probabilities must be adjusted to reflect the non-linear nature of (a)
the growth. For a non-linear growth rate of g between two
subsequent true depths d0 and d1 measured Δt apart, then the
probability of that growth rate occurring is the probability of all
depth pairs separated by gΔt.
1
𝑚 𝑚
𝑃𝐺 (𝑔) ∝ ∫ 𝑃𝐷1 [(𝑑01− 2 + 𝑔Δ𝑡)1− 2 ] 𝑃𝐷0 (𝑑0 )𝑑𝑑0

(16)
(b)
Each distribution 𝑃𝐷𝑖 contains the probability of whatever
random noise having been added to a true depth to obtain the
reading recorded.
This methodology allows for an estimate of the remaining
life of a given flaw due to fatigue crack growth. A discussed
earlier, the inspection interval is important to the results. Shorter
inspection intervals are more likely to have true crack growth
less than the depth sizing errors of the ILI tool. In these cases,
the random noise may dominate the growth rate estimate and
result in many negative apparent growth rates. The resulting
(c)
remaining life estimates become meaningless. Longer inspection
intervals are required to avoid this issue.

Multi-Point Non-Linear Growth

A third (or more) data point adds substantiatively to the

analysis for two reasons. The first follows on from the discussion
of linear growth rates. The third depth reading partially
moderates any effects of extreme sizing errors on two depth
readings.
In the examples in Figure 7, a Monte Carlo approach has
been used to develop calculated growth rate distributions from
three successive depth readings, again from simulated data. Five-
year intervals were assumed. The first is based on a depth sizing
error of “within 1 mm, 80% of the time”, and the second and
third with depth sizing errors of 0.5 mm and 0.25 mm,
respectively. Comparison to Figure 6b illustrates the
improvements possible with multiple point regression, and the
effect of more precise depth measurements.
Pipeline operators are often faced with analytical difficulties
due to depth sizing errors, as discussed above. There are physical
limitations to the accuracy of ILI tools, although vendors are
making constant improvements. This analysis demonstrates the
value of the including a third (or more) data set to the growth rate
analysis, somewhat offsetting the depth sizing errors.
Modern analysis algorithms are capable of aligning more
than just three successive ILI reported depths. Figure 8 illustrates
the capabilities of multiple point data analysis and the effect of
improving sizing errors of the depth measurements. A Monte
Carlo approach was used with multiple simulated depth readings
FIGURE 7: GROWTH RATE ANALYSIS BASED ON THREE
DEPTH MEASUREMENTS ON FIVE YEAR INTERVALS
PROVIDES MORE PRECISE ESTIMATES (A) 1 MM DEPTH
SIZING ERROR, (B) 0.5 MM SIZING ERROR, AND (C) 0.25 MM
ERROR.
The increasing number of data points leads to improved
growth rate estimate, though there is still potential for non-
conservative predictions. Trial and error analysis suggested
estimates were comparable for each of the sizing error scenarios
in most cases, with the multiple data points offsetting the effects
of the depth sizing errors. Note that all these simulations provide
substantially better estimates than the depth pairings shown in
Figure 6.
The second benefit of the third data point is, in principle, an
ability to estimate the (unknown) Paris Law exponent. In this
work we will consider a simplified approach. Let us consider
growth in the form “depth per time”:
∆𝑑
= 𝑔 ∙ 𝑑 𝑚/2 (17)
∆𝑡

7 © 2022 by ASME
(a) Note that the rate constant “gnom” is different to the one
previously reported, which was derived from the integrated form
of the equation.
Linear regression of the three (or more) ILI reported crack
depths allows an estimate of both the generic rate constant
(which includes the Paris Law coefficient and cycling severity)
and the Paris Law exponent. Note that this methodology requires
the simplification that the crack growth rate as “depth per time”
is approximately linear between each pair of depth readings.
Experienced analysts will also recognize that linearization
of the equation to allow linear regression will introduce further
errors. The first issue to consider is that any pair of depths in
which the second reading is shallower than the first reading will
result in a negative value (hypothetical crack healing) which
cannot be logged. This issue is of more concern with shorter
(b)
inspection intervals and larger depth sizing errors. These pairs
must be removed from the analysis, or otherwise corrected,
skewing the results towards more logical depth pairings. The
second issue is that linearization of the equation skews the effect
of the depth sizing errors. Despite the expected difficulties,
regression of the idealized data using this technique resulted in
parameter estimates within 2%.
An attempt was made to estimate a Paris exponent from
simulated data with depth sizing errors. A Monte Carlo approach
was used with three simulated depth readings. The first is based
on a depth sizing error of “within 1 mm, 80% of the time”, and
the second and third with depth sizing errors of 0.5 mm and
0.25 mm, respectively. Only a fraction of the depth permutations
allowed for rate estimates. The results appear skewed due to the
(c) issues described.
Figure 9 shows a portion of the sample data. It is interesting
to note that the Paris exponent estimates vary -20 < m < 7 and
the rate constants vary by five orders of magnitude. These
estimates appear non-sensical. The change in sign reflects an
apparent deceleration of the crack growth that is physically
unlikely, unless pressure cycling severity decreases. Note that the
apparent errors in the Paris exponent and rate constants are the
result of a regression optimization, and largely offset each other
mathematically. They are all “correct” for the given data sets.
However, it demonstrates the extreme sensitivity of the
mathematics to minor perturbations in the data. The data trends
tighten up substantially with decreasing depth sizing error.
Many analysts would argue that non-linear analysis
techniques involving parameter estimation followed by iteration
FIGURE 8: EXAMPLES OF MULTIPLE DATA POINT
REGRESSION (PARIS M =3), ASSUMING (A) 1 MM DEPTH
and optimization would provide more precise values. However,
SIZING ERROR, (B) 0.5 MM SIZING ERROR, AND (C) 0.25 MM the difficulties of regression to only three data points appears to
ERROR. remain. Preliminary studies suggest these techniques are
possible, but results remain sensitive to the depth sizing errors.
Work in this area is continuing.
As before, the growth constant includes the Paris Law coefficient Although the estimation of the Paris Law exponent
and pressure cycling severity terms. Taking a logarithm of both encountered complexities with just three data points, it was
sides: attempted with up to eight data points. As discussed above,
increasing the number of data points moderates the effect of
𝑙𝑜𝑔 (
𝑟1 − 𝑟0
)=
𝑚
∙ 𝑙𝑜𝑔 (
𝑟1 + 𝑟0
) + log (𝑔𝑛𝑜𝑚 ) (18) extreme depth sizing errors. It also moderates the issues
∆𝑡 2 2 associated with linearization of the data.

8 © 2022 by ASME
 value of m = 3, but the regression was allowed to calculate an
appropriate value using the logarithm technique. This required
(a) including errors traps in the analysis algorithm to avoid the
numerical issues discussed above.
The figures show that accurate regression and remaining life
estimates are possible with additional data points, though there
is there is still some potential for non-conservatism. Again, these
figures are sample results, and some analyses resulted in extreme
random depth errors and therefore poorer predictions. Note that
all these simulations provide substantially better estimates than
the depth pairings shown in Figure 6.

3. CONCLUSION

This paper has looked at ILI flaw sizing, growth, and

(b) remaining life estimates from a probabilistic perspective. Both
linear (corrosion and SCC) and non-linear (fatigue) growth is
considered. The work is presented as a “proof of concept”, and
it should be clear to the reader that future work may provide
further insights.
One of the challenges that this work considers is the “under-
constrained” nature of the mathematics. Analysts considering
only two data points, a short inspection interval, an unknown
systemic bias and an unknown depth sizing error, have
insufficient information to perform a meaningful analysis. The
problem is further exacerbated if the flaw growth involves
fatigue cracks, as the unknown Paris exponent comes into play.
Several assumptions have been made in this work to
accommodate the mathematical difficulties; the systemic bias
was presumed zero, though this is unlikely true in all cases
(c) considered, and the ILI vendor sizing error has been taken as
approximately correct. A Paris exponent of three was assumed
for initial fatigue crack growth simulations. Although these
assumptions can rightfully be debated, they do make the
mathematics manageable.
The work does demonstrate that both an increased number
of data points and improved sizing accuracy can provide more
precise estimates of flaw growth and remaining life. A third data
point can moderate the effect of extreme sizing errors. Multiple
data points allow depth sizing errors to offset one another and
narrow predicted growth rate distributions. These provide
greater confidence in growth rate estimates. It is anticipated this
can assist analysts in understanding their inspection data and
supporting re-inspection interval decisions.

FIGURE 9: CRACK GROWTH RATE PARAMETERS

ESTIMATED USING A MONTE CARLO METHODOLOGY,
ASSUMING (A) 1 MM DEPTH SIZING ERROR, (B) 0.5 MM
SIZING ERROR, AND (C) 0.25 MM ERROR.

Figure 10 illustrates the capabilities of multiple point data

analysis and the effect of improving sizing errors of the depth
measurements. A Monte Carlo approach was used with multiple
simulated depth readings and three different depth sizing errors.
In this case, the simulated data used an idealized Paris exponent

9 © 2022 by ASME
 REFERENCES
(a)
1. PR-331-063525-S01, “Development of Detailed
Procedures for Comparing Successive ILI Runs to
Establish Corrosion Growth Rates”, Pipeline Research
Council International, July 2009.
2. Anderson, T. L., “Fracture Mechanics Fundamental and
Applications, Fourth Edition”, CRC Press, Taylor &
Francis Group 2017.

(b)

(c)

FIGURE 10: EXAMPLES OF MULTIPLE DATA POINT

REGRESSION (PARIS M = SOLVED), ASSUMING (A) 1 MM
DEPTH SIZING ERROR, (B) 0.5 MM SIZING ERROR, AND (C)
0.25 MM ERROR.

10 © 2022 by ASME