Proceedings of the ASME 2022 14th International Pipeline Conference
IPC2022
ADVANCED NON-DESTRUCTIVE METHODS FOR DEFECT CHARACTERIZATION UNDER
COATING FOR IN-SERVICE STORAGE TANKS
Touqeer Sohail Katarina Bohaichuk
Enbridge Liquid Pipelines Stantec Consulting Ltd.
Edmonton, AB, Canada Edmonton, AB, Canada
ABSTRACT
In recent years there has been significant development of
non-destructive technologies for on-stream inspection using
remotely operated tools. Many operator companies have a keen
interest in adopting such technologies to fulfil the integrity,
reliability, and regulatory requirements while minimizing the
operational impact. There has been substantial development of
in-line inspection tools for pipeline defect characterization, but
there is an industry gap of such tools for in-service floor
inspections of crude oil storage tanks. Further research and
development are required to overcome the challenges of sludge
removal, sensor data acquisition under sediments, tool
navigation in a viscous product, and electrical hazards in
flammable and combustible products.
To accelerate industry innovation, Enbridge has designed
and constructed a test tank environment which is a small-scale
version of a large-capacity crude storage tank with prefabricated
floor defects for vendors to evaluate their robotic in-service
inspection equipment. This paper will describe the test tank
design as well as the stages of the project for evaluating tool
performance in different product environments. In the first stage,
the tools will be tested in water, and their performance will be
compared with conventional technologies used in out-of-service
inspections.
Keywords: tanks; nondestructive examination, emerging
technologies; tethered & robotic inspection tools; coatings;
defect detection & assessment
NOMENCLATURE
MFL magnetic flux leakage
NDT non-destructive technologies
PAUT phased array ultrasonic testing
SRIT submerged robotic inspection tool
SRUT short range guided wave ultrasonic testing
UT ultrasonic testing
September 26-30, 2022, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
IPC2022-87151
Devin Eley Mike Hill
Enbridge Liquid Pipelines Enbridge Liquid Pipelines
Edmonton, AB, Canada Edmonton, AB, Canada
1. INTRODUCTION
Above ground storage tanks are used in the oil and gas
industry to store crude oil products at various stages of
production until they are transported through pipelines for
further processing. Storage tanks can also provide surge relief of
high pressures on the pipeline and temporary containment to
drain facilities pipeline for inspection or repairs. Periodic
external in-service inspections may be routinely performed on
these tanks, but the tank bottom remains inaccessible during such
assessments. The tank bottom including the critical zone within
3 inches of the inside shell-to-bottom weld are of primary
concern as these areas are most at risk to both product-side and
soil-side corrosion. Without effective cycling, mixing or
chemical programs, crude products may solidify on the tank
bottom and water, contaminants and debris may settle out and
lead to increased product-side corrosion.
Regular out-of-service cleaning and maintenance of these
storage tanks is critical for business operators to address
integrity, leak concerns, and ensure optimal tank product
capacity. As such, periodic tank bottom inspections according to
API 653 – Standard for Tank Inspection, Repair, Alteration, and
Reconstruction are a regulatory requirement under federal liquid
pipeline regulations as well as local fire code and storage
requirements. However, there are many challenges associated
with the tank internal cleaning and inspection including the
health and safety risks posed by confined space entry and
hazardous products.
Existing non-destructive technologies (NDT) which are
based on ultrasonic testing (UT) or magnetic flux leakage (MFL)
require the tanks to be emptied and cleaned. The
scanners/crawlers maneuvered manually inside the tank and
required direct contact with the floor. To avoid the traditional
methods of taking the tank out of service for cleaning and
1 © 2022 by ASME
inspection, Enbridge is evaluating new advanced technologies
that will not require the tanks to be removed from service for
several months. Such technologies may have the capability of
reducing the viscosity of sludge locally, displacing sludge from
the area of interest, moving the sludge out of the tank, and
providing propulsion through the sludge and sediments to
position sensors for floor scanning. The use of in-service robotic
inspection tools to meet the internal tank bottom inspection
requirement is allowed by API 653 Paragraph 6.4.1.2 [1]. By
adopting such technologies, pipelines and tank terminals can
continue to operate with minimal business disruption and allow
planned customer deliveries, maintenance management
programs may be optimized, and safety and execution risk can
be reduced with minimum time spent in a hazardous confined
space.
In an effort to minimize the safety risks and downtime,
submerged robotic inspection tools (SRITs) have been developed
by industry that can inspect tank bottoms while in-service. Some
tools can work in water, gasoline, diesel, and other refined
products, but have limited capability to function in a viscous
crude environment. For ultrasonics, the limitation is that the
sound waves cannot pass through any solid particles such as sand
and sediments. The level of bottoms sludge in a typical crude oil
storage tank can be from a few centimeters to several meters. The
crude product can be used as a medium for low frequency sound
waves to pass through to the floor material, but it will be
challenging to provide high resolution which may result in
difficulties in the detection of small discontinuities on the tank
floor.
An additional drawback for traditional ultrasonic crawlers
in a crude environment could be the slip of the encoder within
the product that may go unnoticed. For MFL sensors in the
robotic tool, the sensors require direct contact with the floor or
should be in close proximity to identify product and soil-side
anomalies which may pose issues if the tool cannot maneuver
within the viscous product. Such tools therefore require the tank
floor sediments to be cleaned. Some robotic tools use both MFL
and UT sensors in conjunction at front and back to conduct
automated inspections of floor plates. However, further research
and development are required to overcome the challenges of
sludge removal, sensor data acquisition under sediments, tool
navigation in a viscous product, and electrical hazards in
flammable and combustible products.
2. MATERIALS AND TEST METHODOLOGY
Enbridge has been in contact with different cleaning and
inspection vendors that claim to have remote technologies for
cleaning and/or tank floor assessment. To facilitate technological
advancements for use in crude oil, Enbridge has created a test
tank environment in which vendors can prove their technology.
This research and development will be conducted in various
phases for evaluating tool performance in different product
environments. In the first phase, the tools will be tested in clean
water, and their performance will be compared with typical
inspection technologies used in out-of-service inspections.
Enbridge will then use performance-based assessment criteria to
evaluate the tools based on integrity program requirements.
2.1 Tank Design & Construction
Enbridge has designed and constructed a test tank
environment which is a small-scale version of a large capacity
API 650 storage tank with prefabricated floor defects. The test
tank is constructed to trial the effectiveness of various
conventional NDT equipment and compare the results with
advanced SRITs for in-service inspection. Initially, the test tank
was modelled in SolidWorks to visualize the size, parts,
components, shell, roof, and floor layout which was then
reviewed by the tank manufacturer including all details on
material specification, weldments, and appurtenances. The final
tank design has a nominal diameter of 23 feet, a height of 6 feet
and 6 inches, and a 481 BBL capacity. An overview of the test
tank is shown in Figure 1.
FIGURE 1: TEST TANK OVERVIEW
The tank was constructed with a single shell course. The
tank floor has 14 bottom plates and 4 annular plates which can
be seen in Figure 2. The roof plate thickness is 5/16 inches, the
bottom floor plate thickness is ¼ inches, the annular plate
thickness is 3/8 inches, and the shell plate thickness is ¼ inches.
The bottom floor plate material is CSA G40.21-38W. All
thicknesses and materials used to construct this test tank are
consistent with API 650 design requirements for a crude storage
tank. The tank has two manways - one on the roof with a 24-inch
diameter and other on the shell with a 30-inch diameter.
Additionally, a 3x4 square feet rectangular flanged roof opening
is considered in the design to allow any oversized robot to enter
the tank. To drain the tank, an 18-inch center sump was included
in the design along with a 6-inch suction line. There are also 6
internal roof support columns that will provide navigational
challenges to the robots. The tank was shop fabricated with a
base skid to provide structural support to the tank so it could be
transported to site, offloaded, and moved as necessary as shown
in Figure 2.
2 © 2022 by ASME

FIGURE 2: TANK FLOOR LAYOUT AND CONSTRUCTION
2.2 Manufactured Defects
Manufactured defects were created on the tank floor to
imitate the product and soil-side corrosion defects typically
found in a crude oil storage tank. The defects were placed at
different depths and locations on the annular and bottom plates
to represent different corrosion flaw types such as general
corrosion and pitting. In addition, floor plates with areas of
general corrosion were cut-out from an existing in-service
storage tank. The floor plate cut-outs were sand blasted and
welded flush into the test tank bottom as insert plates to present
examples of real defects and their profiles as shown in Figure 3.
FIGURE 3: WELDED INSERT PLATE
Some linear indications were ground onto the annular
plates close to the tank shell on both the product and soil-side to
test the tool’s ability to detect features in the critical zone. Each
manufactured defect and the insert plates were then manually
mapped and measured using a pit gauge or pencil probe
ultrasonic to establish a true baseline of the tank condition to
which other methods would then be compared. The tank was
subsequently coated with 25.0 to 40.0 MILS DFT of
NOVACOAT SC3300-50 epoxy liner. Some coating defects
were intentionally introduced through poor surface preparation,
no coating, rough repair patches, and oil cleaning with a solvent
to provide a challenging condition for the robot. These coating
defects will test the tool calibration capability to measure the
actual thickness on uneven surface with no corrosion anomalies.
2.3 Conventional Examination
Corrosion is considered the main driving degradation
mechanism for above ground storage tank failures.
Hydrocarbons are not considered corrosive of themselves, but
impurities such as sulfur, organic acids, bacteria, dissolved
gases, and presence of water contribute to the corrosion in steel
tanks. As such, the tank material in contact with oil sees less
corrosion while the bottom material in contact with water has a
higher corrosion rate [2]. Moreover, the moisture in the soil also
contributes to soil-side corrosion. Different factors can influence
soil-side corrosion such as soil type, drainage and permeability,
conductivity, salinity, pH, and effectiveness of corrosion
prevention methods [1]. With time, the corrosion decreases the
tank integrity and can ultimately lead to bottom perforation
causing loss of primary containment.
To avoid such a situation, operators are required to
perform periodic assessment of the tank bottom to reduce the risk
of leakage while storing hazardous crude products in these tanks.
This has historically involved taking tanks out of service,
cleaning, and assessing the tank bottom integrity using
conventional non-destructive testing methods such as MFL floor
scanning, UT, and phased array ultrasonic (PAUT).
To compare conventional inspection methods with in-
service robotic inspection methods, the test tank floor and critical
zones were initially inspected using PAUT and MFL scanning to
establish defect locations, dimensions, and depths on all the
manufactured corroded areas and insert plates. The short-range
guided wave (SRUT) method was also used to inspect the defects
in the critical zone area from the tank exterior to determine if the
base skid bars and stitch welds shown in Figure 2 create any
interference to the sound path. The results of these conventional
testing methods will also be compared to assess the effectiveness
of the different NDT equipment.
2.4 Field Testing of Robotic Tools
To evaluate technologies that claim to provide floor integrity
assessment with the tank being in service, the test tank was half
filled with clean water. This constituted the first trial phase, with
the main purpose being to provide a safe and clean test
environment for all vendors and for Enbridge to gain an
understanding of how these technologies work. The trials will
also allow Enbridge to further elaborate to vendors the Enbridge
specific requirements for tank integrity assessment. Vendors
were invited to the field site to demonstrate their equipment
capabilities, perform a tank floor NDT assessment, and provide
a subsequent report of the findings. These vendors would have
no prior knowledge of the defect locations and depths, making
this a blind test. After viewing the technology and assessment
results, Enbridge will shortlist the vendors for the next phases of
3 © 2022 by ASME
testing that will introduce sediments, fuel, and then crude to the
tank bottom.

2.5 Performance-Based Assessment

Due to difficulties in precise feature mapping and
correlation between data sets attained through different
technologies, Enbridge developed a qualitative performance-
based assessment to evaluate whether the new assessed
technologies performed better, worse, or the same as the current
FIGURE 4: SAMPLE PAUT SCAN OF SOIL-SIDE
technologies that Enbridge uses in out of service tank
CORROSION ON A PATCH PLATE
inspections. The assessment also takes into consideration any
added values that innovative technology provides. Assessed
categories included the ability to meet API 653 requirements,
speed of execution, cost, safety, ability to accurately locate
features, ability to accurately size features, and ability to work in
tanks with heavy bottom sludge. Based on the relative
performance ranking to existing inspection technologies and the
perceived weight of the added value, technologies would be
assigned an overall rank. At the time of writing, the testing is still
in Phase 1 and not all vendors have completed trials of their in-
service NDT equipment. As such, the preliminary results and
assessment will be discussed in broad terms.
FIGURE 5: SAMPLE MFL SCAN OF SOIL-SIDE
3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION CORROSION ON A PATCH PLATE
Initial results were gathered from both conventional
inspection methods and field testing of a SRIT. These results The feature depths obtained by PAUT and the estimated
were evaluated based on the manual sizing of the tank defects percentage loss obtained by MFL were compared with the true
and the methods were compared with each other in terms of feature depth obtained by manual NDT as shown in Figure 6.
accuracy and variation in the sizing and location of defects. When the true depth is within 30% of wall loss both technologies
Preliminary general trends and conclusions were drawn with the presented good correlation within 10% tolerance but as the true
intention of further expanding the evaluation to more tools in the depth increased beyond 40% wall loss, the MFL tool tended to
future to draw a larger dataset. undersize and the PAUT tool tended to oversize the wall loss up
to 60% wall loss. For higher wall loss greater than 70% both
3.1 Comparison of Conventional Methods technologies undersized the estimated wall loss. In the case of
Generally, MFL scanners are used for tank floor the maximum depth feature of 86%, this feature was located in a
scanning to assess the corrosion anomalies based on magnetic cluster of pits which MFL reported as a low volume loss and
material volumetric loss which can be estimated as percentage PAUT was not able to fully resolve the different features.
wall loss. For this test tank, MFL and PAUT NDT equipment
were used to locate and determine the corrosion defect sizing and
depth. The manufactured defects that were introduced in the
tank floor ranged from 12% to 86% wall loss to determine the
tool capability in both extreme cases of minimum wall loss and
minimum remaining wall. Sample scans from this testing are
shown in Figures 4 and 5. In Figure 4, the phased array C-Scan
on a patch plate is presented with significant soil-side corrosion.
The encircled feature on the left top corner has localized pitting
which presents the maximum detected wall loss of 63% and the
encircled feature within the generalized corrosion cluster
presents the minimum detected wall loss of 42%. In Figure 5, the
maximum volumetric wall loss assessed by the MFL tool is 51%
shown by feature K and the minimum volumetric wall loss is
14%. From the data presented in Figure 4 and Figure 5, it can be
deduced that MFL generally undersized the metal loss and PAUT
oversized the metal loss which is also evident in Figure 6. FIGURE 6: UNITY PLOT OF CONVENTIONAL NDT

4 © 2022 by ASME
 Overall, these technologies were able to detect most of
the accessible features but had limitations for sizing, top/bottom
location, and depth. In the area of manufactured defects, both
methods provided reliable data of corrosion wall loss within 10%
tolerance. On the insert plates, the areas of general corrosion
existed on both the soil and product sides. Corrosion was severe
on the soil side, and it was challenging for the phased array
tool/crawler to scan from the bottom to present product-side
features on the plate. As such, no PAUT scan results were
attained on the insert plates for product-side features.
Additionally, as the PAUT tool was scanning from the
product-side to detect the soil-side features, any product-side
corrosion resulted in poor surface contact of the probe and some
gaps in data collection as shown in grey in Figure 4. Using MFL,
both the product and soil-side features were detected. As the
plate surfaces were not flat on either side the MFL scanner results
were deviated from the manual UT and pit gauge data. In the
annular plates, linear indications were grounded near the shell
weld toe within a few inches. It was a limitation of the PAUT and
MFL tools that most of these areas were not accessible to scan.
To inspect the critical zone from outside of the tank, SRUT
was performed only in the areas of known defects from the
exterior of the tank chime and extended 24” into the tank along
the floor. SRUT was able to locate all manufactured features in
the critical zone. The linear indications within 3” of the tank wall
were most visible in the data as shown in the C-Scan shown
Figure 7, but the manufactured corrosion further into the annular
plate was less obvious due to the smooth contour of the features
created by mechanical buffing. Figure 7 clearly indicates high
resolution for the indication which is closest to the shell wall and
reduces as the indications move away from the wall. The
manufactured linear indications are separated which is shown in
Figure 7 but if the indications were to be coincident (next to each
other) that will be a limitation for the tool to precisely resolve.
FIGURE 7: MANUFACTURED LINEAR INDICATIONS IN
CRITICAL ZONE DETECTED BY SRUT
3.2 Robotic Tool Assessment
A robotic in-service tank inspection was carried out to map
both isolated pitting and cluster-type corrosion to determine the
internal condition of the test tank and then compare the data with
the examination from conventional NDT methods. For the first
trial phase, the tank was half filled with water to learn about the
technology and to avoid any health and safety hazards. An E light
robot with a phased array multiplexed transducer having 128
elements and a 1.38-inch water gap standoff distance, a 0.08-inch
resolution, and a run length of 3.28 feet was used for the in-
service test tank floor inspection. The speed of the robot was 17
seconds per run (3.28 feet). The inspection itself took less than a
day. A total of 247 ultrasonic scan runs were collected to provide
100% coverage of the accessible floor areas which was 80% of
the total tank floor area.
Each run provided the minimum thickness of the plate. A
sample scan on a plate is shown in Figure 8 which has minimum
thickness determined at 0.149 inches. In the area of corrosion or
weldments where there is a loss of ultrasonic back wall signal
the minimum thickness recorded is the minimum measurable.
The measurement of actual minimum thickness proved difficult
due to complex geometry of the corrosion pits in a cluster that
was difficult to analyze. The area where the tool was not able to
acquire the data is less than 2% of the total floor area. A low
frequency transducer was used to quickly acquire the scan data
which limited the minimum remaining thickness measurement
capability in the corroded area to be 0.106 inches. This limitation
is a combined effect of the transducer characteristics and the
scattering effect of sound waves from the pitted areas in the A-
Scan which made high resolution challenging.
FIGURE 8: ROBOTIC TOOL ULTRASONIC SCAN SAMPLE
OF SOIL-SIDE CORROSION
3.3 Technology Assessment and Feature Depth
Comparison
An important consideration in the floor inspection of a
storage tank is the ability to accurately determine the maximum
depth feature in the floor plates. As such, the preliminary robotic
in-service inspection results obtained have been to screen the
tank floor for the maximum depth features in the floor plates.
Thus, direct feature to feature matching with robotic in-service
inspection results to the traditional methods was not possible at
this stage. However, the maximum feature depth percent
obtained in different plates by manual pit gauge and pencil probe
UT was compared with the maximum feature depth reported by
5 © 2022 by ASME
MFL, PAUT, and robotic in-service inspection as shown in
Figure 9.
FIGURE 9: UNITY PLOT COMPARING MAXIMUM FEATURE
DEPTHS RECORDED PER PLATE
When comparing the technologies listed in Figure 9, the
depths obtained by PAUT and the SRIT were observed to be
similar. This is likely because both technologies are based on the
fundamental principle of ultrasonic sound waves traveling
through a medium. Even though PAUT was performed in direct
contact with the floor material and the transducer in the SRIT
had a 1.38-inch standoff distance, the results are very
comparable to what was expected.
When comparing these UT technologies with MFL, a good
depth correlation has been noticed in the areas of isolated pitting
and on one-sided floor corrosion. More variation was noticed in
the areas of clustered corrosion features and where corrosion
exists on both sides of the floor because MFL measurements are
based on material volumetric loss. Due to corroded river bottom
profile, such variance in thickness measurement is common
when using scan area technologies such as MFL and PAUT.
During data analysis, it has been noticed that if the material loss
is less than 40% which represents general shallow corrosion
there is a good correlation in all technologies. However, for
material loss greater than 50%, more variation is observed due
to different corrosion profiles that can present narrow areas of
deep pitting which can be missed depending on tool resolution
capability. The 50% and 86% manual NDT readings in Figure 9
were measured using a high frequency (15 MHz) pencil UT
probe that provides extremely high resolution compared to
PAUT and SRIT transducers (≤ 7.5 MHz). Here, the difference
in measurement is evident due to different probes resolution and
corrosion clustering.
Without the ability to follow-up SRIT results with manual
UT, a level of tolerance would need to be applied to the results
in order to determine the acceptable tank defect repair threshold
which is based on corrosion growth rates, inspection interval,
and minimum remaining floor thickness. For SRIT wall loss
readings less than 40%, this might present a ±10% tolerance. For
wall loss between 40% to 70%, a 15% tolerance may need to be
added to the measured thickness. The wall loss beyond 70% may
not be accurately determined using these techniques, especially
if the feature is a result of deep pitting in clustered corrosion.
Further evaluation of the defect acceptance criteria for the
technologies will take place in future tests.
3.4 Short Range Guided Wave Ultrasonic Testing
Short Range Guided Wave Ultrasonic Testing (SRUT) was
also performed on the test tank while it was filled with water to
simulate an in-service critical zone inspection. This time, the
NDT inspector did not know the location of the defects. Scans
were taken from the entire exterior circumference of the tank on
the bottom plate projection. The base skid to which the test tank
was welded provided challenges to the SRUT examination. More
indications were noted than what was truly present in the tank.
The SRUT results map was overlayed with the approximate
location of the base skid bars, and it was observed that many of
the indications correlated with the base skid locations as shown
in Figure 10. It was believed that the welds of this skid caused
reflections to the pulsed guided laminar waves in the data. It was
recommended to follow up with PAUT although some
indications were noted as too far into the tank to be assessed by
PAUT. In the future, Enbridge may conduct some additional
testing specific to SRUT critical zone inspections with natural
corrosion and crack defects to further evaluate this technology.
FIGURE 10: SHORT RANGE GUIDED WAVE RESULTS
OVERLAYED WITH BASE SKID STRUCTURE
4. CONCLUSION
The corrosion defects were effectively screened using both
conventional non-destructive equipment and robotic inspection
tools in the first trial phase of a test tank filled with water. Initial
testing indicates that submerged robotic inspection tools are well
established and suited for in-service water tank inspections. The
data attained by all technologies demonstrated good correlation
within ±10% tolerance of the manual baseline data for features
less than 40% wall loss. For features depth greater than 40% but
6 © 2022 by ASME
less than 70% the data was within ±15% tolerance range,
however, greater than 80% wall loss the variation was around
±30%. Such technology sizing limitation is not only associated
with the submerged robotic inspection tool but also with the
conventional NDT automated scanning techniques. Without the
ability to follow-up results with manual UT, further evaluation
of defect acceptance criteria for robotic in-service inspections
will take place during future testing with different tank products
and environments. In the next stage, sediment will be introduced
on the tank floor in water. Following this stage, fuel will be used
as the tank product, and finally crude oil and sludge will be
introduced to evaluate online cleaning & inspection
technologies. This progressive testing will allow inspection
vendors to develop their tools in increasingly challenging
environments.

REFERENCES
[1] American Petroleum Institute. API Standard 653 – Tank
Inspection, Repair, Alteration, and Reconstruction, Fifth
Edition, ADD 1: April 2018, ADD 2: May 2020. API Publishing
Services, Washington (2020).
[2] Zagorski, A., Matysiak, H., Slobodian, Z., Zvirko, Olha,
Nykyforchyn, H.; and Kurzydlowski K. “Corrosion Degradation
of Oil Storage Tank”, Warsaw University of Technology,
Warsaw, Poland, and National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine,
Lviv, Ukraine. 2004.

DISCLAIMER
Any information or data pertaining to Enbridge Employee
Services Canada Inc., or its affiliates, contained in this paper
was provided to the authors with the express permission of
Enbridge Employee Services Canada Inc., or its affiliates.
However, this paper is the work and opinion of the authors and
is not to be interpreted as Enbridge Employee Services Canada
Inc., or its affiliates’, position or procedure regarding matters
referred to in this paper. Enbridge Employee Services Canada
Inc. and its affiliates and their respective employees, officers,
director and agents shall not be liable for any claims for loss,
damage or costs, of any kind whatsoever, arising from the errors,
inaccuracies or incompleteness of the information and data
contained in this paper or for any loss, damage or costs that may
arise from the use or interpretation of this paper.

7 © 2022 by ASME