Proceedings of the ASME 2022 14th International Pipeline Conference

IPC2022
September 26-30, 2022, Calgary, Alberta, Canada

IPC2022-87344

ILI SYSTEM PERFORMANCE TRIALS FOR MECHANICAL DAMAGE

Sanjay Tiku, Arnav Rana, Binoy John, Aaron Dinovitzer

BMT
Ottawa, Ontario

Mark Piazza
API
Washington, DC

ABSTRACT feature on probability of detection, identification, and sizing

Pipeline integrity management involves the analysis of accuracy by considering unity plots and observed statistical
pipeline condition information (e.g., pipe size, existence, and size variation and trends. The final objective of this work was to
of features), operational/environmental conditions and line pipe report on the performance of ILI systems in detecting,
material properties in engineering assessment (fitness-for- characterizing, and sizing dents with coincident features such
purpose) tools to evaluate operational risk. While nominal or that this information can be used to support the pipeline integrity
minimum specified material properties and SCADA reported, management process and provide feedback to ILI Service
design or estimated operational loading conditions can be Providers to support advancement in technology development.
considered, pipeline operators depend heavily on pipeline The results of this work described in this paper provide
condition data from in line inspection systems. This paper will confidence that ILI systems are capable of reporting dents and
present the details of performance trials supported by the any coincident features to support fitness for service evaluation
Pipeline Research Council International (PRCI) evaluating the or integrity management.
ability of ILI systems to provide pipeline condition information Keywords: Dent, Mechanical Damage, ILI, Inspection,
for dents with coincident or closely aligned features. A set of Coincident, Interacting, Corrosion, Crack, Gouge
sample dent features were prepared along with a trial protocol
and performance metrics beyond those presented in API 1163 NOMENCLATURE
that were used to characterize performance. AX Axial direction
The ILI system pull and pump through trials of magnetic, API American Petroleum Institute
ultrasonic and caliper-based ILI technologies from seven ILI CW Clockwise
Service Providers were used to consider detection, identification CCW Counter-Clockwise
and sizing performance for isolated corrosion features, dents CT Computed Tomography
with variety of shapes including those without coincident ILI In-Line Inspection
features and those with corrosion, gouges, cracks, cracks and L Length
corrosion. The effect of dents on the ILI system detection, LS Surface Laser Scan
identification and sizing of the coincident features was NTSB National Transportation Safety Board
evaluated. OD ID Outside or Inside Diameter
The presentation will describe trial protocols including new POD Probability of Detection
feature characterization techniques that considers the position POI Probability of Identification
of the coincident feature in the dent pipe wall deformation. The PRCI Pipeline Research Council International
trial results include consideration of various technologies, the PHMSA Pipeline and Hazardous Material Safety
effect of speed and relative position of the dent and coincident Administration

1 © 2022 by ASME
 TR Transverse direction
US DS Upstream or Downstream
WT Wall Thickness
1. INTRODUCTION
The pipeline industry is constantly driving improvements in
its integrity management programs. A key focus area for the
industry is improving the understanding of the performance of
ILI systems. ILI systems are relied on extensively as the primary
tool for pipeline operators to inspect pipeline assets to identify,
characterize, and size anomalies and features. A significant
amount of focus has recently been placed on the ability to detect
and respond to interacting features in a pipeline. This includes
the closely aligned or coincident features within
dents/deformations in pipelines. The failure of mechanical
damage with coincident features resulted in recommendations
being issued to the Pipeline and Hazardous Material Safety
Administration (PHMSA) by the Transportation Safety Board
(NTSB) to promulgate new regulations that provide revised dent
acceptance criteria [1]. To support mechanical damage integrity
management, the energy pipeline industry, including the Pipeline
Research Council International (PRCI), identified mechanical
damage feature management as a strategic research priority and
has sponsored a number of inspection and assessment research
projects to fill industry gaps. This paper presents the results of a
PRCI sponsored project (NDE-4-18 Phase I) that focusses on the
development of an improved understanding of the performance
of ILI systems in detecting, identifying and sizing dents along
with coincident features. The paper provides an update on
previously reported information with the inclusion of additional
mechanical damage and coincident feature types and
consideration of multiple ILI systems.
To develop the desired understanding of ILI system
performance through the test trial demonstrations, this research
project included five primary stages including:
1. Fabrication and characterization of a set of pipe samples with
a range of dents/deformations and coincident features to
construct a pipeline test string to demonstrate inspection
performance of ILI systems for dent/deformation features,
2. Development of a detailed and uniform trial protocol drawing
on the definitions in API 1163 [2] and API RP 1183 [3], but
reaching beyond those standards to specifically consider the
requirements related to mechanical damage,
3. Completion of blind test trials using a range of ILI Systems
considering the effects of tool speed on ILI system
performance to detect, identify and size the dent and any
coincident features,
4. Analysis of the ILI system test trial data using techniques
specifically developed for mechanical damage with
coincident features and provide feedback to the ILI Service
Providers and Pipeline Operators, and
5. Recommendation for the direction of future ILI system
performance trials and development of mechanical damage
integrity management tools and programs.
The sections that follow provide summary descriptions of
the features considered in the performance trial and provides
information related to the performance evaluation and results for
individual and groups of ILI systems that were included in the
pull and pump through trials.
2. FEATURES CONSIDERED IN THE TRIALS
The project collected and prepared test specimens including
a range of mechanical damage with coincident features in 20-
inch diameter pipe including:
- Metal loss (natural corrosion present on pipe samples that
were removed from service),
- Dents with coincident metal loss (creating dents on pipe with
natural corrosion present on pipe samples that were removed
from service),
- Dents with coincident metal loss (creating dents on pipe with
natural corrosion present on pipe samples that were removed
from service) with fatigue cracks grown in the corroded areas
through laboratory-controlled internal pressure cycling of the
corroded dent feature,
- Dents with gouges formed with an excavator tooth in a
controlled environment, and
- Plain dents with fatigue cracks grown by laboratory-
controlled internal pressure cycling.
All of the pipe samples were removed from service and
some of the pipe segments included corrosion features with
depths ranging from 10 to 40 percent of the pipe wall thickness.
The corrosion features ranged across aspect ratios such that they
represent the corrosion feature definitions (e.g., pitting,
grooving, general corrosion) described in API 1163. Figure 1
illustrates a sample of the pipe OD surface with corrosion
features and provides a sample of the statistical range of the
approximately 3,000 corrosion features considered in the project.
The trial specimens included corrosion features within dent
features and those outside of dents so that the performance of the
ILI tool in detecting identifying and sizing corrosion and
corrosion coincident with dents could be compared.
Many of the dented pipe segments were cycled to initiate
cracks with a range of depth from 105 of the wall thickness
surface cracks to through wall cracks. By controlling the dent
depth, shape and restraint condition, the form of cracking (e.g.
isolated versus colonies) initiation surface and orientation of the
cracks were controlled. The cracks had combinations of the
following characteristics:
- Axial and circumferential cracks,
- Isolated and clusters (colonies) of cracks,
- ID and OD initiated cracks, and
- Surface breaking and through-wall cracks.
Cracks initiated in dents with coincident corrosion, tended to
follow the corrosion features, as illustrated in Figure 1.
The dent features were created in a test lab by pressing
indenters into pipe samples with and without corrosion features
removed from service. End caps were installed on the samples
and a range of dent features were generated by applying different
indenter shapes and forming the dent features while the pipe
2 © 2022 by ASME
sample was at different pressure conditions. Both single and
multiple peak dents with depths ranging from one to five percent
of the pipe diameter were developed with a range of shapes as
illustrated by the axial profiles of the deformed pipe wall
presented in Figure 2. The data in this figure are presented by
aligning the pipe OD surface to illustrate the range of dent depths
and by aligning the deepest point in the dent to illustrate the
range of dent peak curvatures.
a) Corrosion at the dent center after fatigue crack initiation
20% wall thickness depth
40% wall thickness depth
b) Sample corrosion feature size statistics for 20% and
40% wall depths to illustrate range of feature shapes
FIGURE 1: SAMPLE CORROSION FEATURE SIZE STATISTICS
After the test specimens were created with isolated and
coincident features they were characterized to develop “Truth”
(reference) data as the basis for evaluating the ILI system
performance. For the sake of brevity, the term Truth data is used
in this description even though it is recognized that all
measurements have the potential to contain some uncertainty and
thus should be considered reference measurements using the best
available technologies to characterize pipeline anomalies.
Access to the Truth data was restricted such that the ILI system
trials would be blind trials. The truth data set was collected to
include:
- An ILI identifiable reference mark to relate the position of all
features in the pipe specimens,
- Dent and corrosion feature geometry based on surface laser
scanning verified with pit gauge and pipe diameter caliper
measurements,
- Crack feature location and surface length documented
photographically using magnetic particle inspection (as
shown in Figure 1a. Ultrasonic crack measurements were
taken to estimate the depth of the crack features.
- After the ILI trials a number of pipe specimens were
metallographically sectioned and subjected to detailed
laboratory analysis to report crack depth profiles.
- Sample pipe segments were also subjected to computed
tomography (CT) scanning to characterize the crack profiles.
FIGURE 2: RANGE OF DENT AXIAL PROFILES CONSIDERED
3. PERFORMANCE TRIAL EVALUATION PROCESS
The performance trial was completed with each ILI system
being pulled through the test strings twice at each of five speeds
(e.g., approximately 1.1, 3.3, 5.6, 7.8 and 11.1 mph (0.5, 1.5, 2.5,
3.5 and 5 m/s). Pump through liquid coupled tests were
completed at speeds up to 3.3 mph (1.5 m/s). The ILI systems
included in the trials were comprised of combinations of the
following technologies:
- Uni-axial magnetic flux - Ultrasonic thickness
leakage (MFL) - Ultrasonic calliper
- Multi-axial magnetic - Ultrasonic crack
flux leakage (MFL) detection
- Mechanical calliper
In the evaluation of the ILI system performance each feature
in the truth data was defined to be one of seven specific types
3 © 2022 by ASME
such that the performance of the ILI systems could be evaluated
for each type of feature independently:
1. Crack in corrosion 5. Corrosion
2. Crack in corrosion in dent 6. Gouge in dent
3. Crack in dent 7. Dent
4. Corrosion in dent
Corrosion features were sub-characterized using the feature
type definitions (e.g., pitting, grooving, general corrosion) in API
1163. Corrosion features with depths less than the system
specified threshold (e.g., 10% of the wall thickness) were not
considered in the ILI system performance evaluation process.
The dent shape characterization performance was completed
by comparing the characteristic dent lengths [3] and areas
derived from ILI caliper tools to those derived from laser surface
scan data. Figure 3 illustrates some dent characteristic lengths
derived from an axial profile of a dent taken at a clock position
such that the profile traverses the deepest point of the dent. The
figure also includes a sample illustration of the overlay of the ILI
data, surface scan and the symbols identifying the points used to
define the characteristic lengths for the dent shape definition
process. The illustrations in this figure demonstrate that the
upstream and downstream dent depths can be different if the dent
is not symmetric. The figure illustrates that the characteristic
lengths defined as part of the trial truth (reference) and those
derived by the ILI Service Provider coincide with the dent
feature surface laser scan suggesting good performance of the
ILI system.
Axial Profile
Circumferential
Profile
FIGURE 3: DENT PROFILE SHAPE CHARACTERISTIC
LENGTH TRUTH DATA TO ILI SYSTEM COMPARISON
For this investigation, the coincidence of features with the
dent were identified based on their location within the five zones
defined in Figure 4. Based on these definitions of the coincidence
zones, the coincident feature location was identified by the
following characteristics:
- ID and OD
- US shoulder
- DS shoulder
- Sides of the dent
- Center of dent
- Plain pipe (outside of the dent feature)
FIGURE 4: DENT COINCIDENCE ZONE DEFINITION
The performance evaluation probability of detection (POD)
and probability of identification (POI) were calculated as defined
in API RP 1163, noting that the sample sizes may not be
considered sufficient to meet the statistical measures for ILI
system validation established in Std 1163. The POD, POI and
sizing performance was evaluated three times:
1. All features of a given type (e.g., all corrosion features).
2. All features of a given type without dent coincidence
(e.g., corrosion in plain pipe).
3. All features of a given type with dent coincidence (e.g.,
corrosion in a dent).
The POD, POI and sizing were further evaluated separately
for each of feature type, coincidence condition, trial speed,
corrosion metal loss depth in 5% depth increments, corrosion
feature type, crack orientation and feature pipe surface location.
4. PERFORMANCE TRIAL RESULTS
The performance of the ILI systems was evaluated
separately for dents, corrosion coincident with dents, gouges,
and cracks coincident with dents. The evaluation considered
each ILI system independently [4] and then combined the results
to consider the performance of similar technologies as a group.
The results presented in the sections that follow consider ILI
systems with magnetic and mechanical caliper technologies in
addition to ultrasonic thickness, caliper, and crack detection
inspection technologies.
4 © 2022 by ASME
4.1 Dent Feature Performance The average and standard deviation of the percentage
The ILI systems were able to detect and identify features as difference between the six mechanical caliper ILI system and the
dents with nearly perfect performance with a POD >98%. The Truth/reference data interpretation of the dent characteristic
instances where the POD values were not 100% related to the lengths are presented in Tables 1 and 2, respectively. The data is
characterization of adjacent or multi-peak dent features and the presented for all pull tests (e.g., all speeds) with the data shown
performance was shown to be independent of the tool speeds for the upstream (US) and downstream (DS axial profiles as well
tested. as the clockwise (CW) and counterclockwise (CCW) directions.
A unity plot for all mechanical caliper system ILI inspection These results illustrate that the characteristic length
reported dent depth is shown in Figure 5. This data for six ILI measurement errors (i.e., difference between the ILI reported and
systems at one pull speed, shows a good ability to report dent truth data) tends to increase at the shoulders of the dent (i.e.,
depth, relative to the Truth Data. There is a minor bias to over lower percentage dent depths). The higher scatter in dent length
reporting depth which appears to be greater for the dent depth measurements closer to dent shoulder is partly impacted by the
reported for the upstream shoulder. The bounds on the unity plots short pipe segments welded together. The mean errors tend to
of ±2 mm and ±4 mm were arbitrarily selected, however, most be less than 10% of the characteristic lengths. It is also noted that
of the 6,300 depth data observations are within the ±4 mm the upstream difference is typically greater than the downstream
bound. difference. The impact of ILI dent shape variations on dent strain
Prior to completing the performance evaluation of the dent and fatigue life was evaluated in a separate project [5]. The
shape based on characteristic length definitions [3] the ILI fatigue life calculated using engineering analysis tools [3] varied
Service Provider interpretations of the characteristic lengths between 5% - 35% for restrained dent and unrestrained dents,
were compared to those estimated by the Trial coordinators for respectively, for the variations in dent shape observed in these
the same ILI system reported three-dimensional dent shape. This trials. The dent strain estimates varied between 5% -60% based
check ensured that the reported performance was not degraded on the variations in dent shape observed in this trial program.
due to communication or comprehension of the API RP 1183
characteristic length and area concepts. The dent characteristic Depth
US_L_AX DS_L_AX CW_L_TR CCW_L_TR
lengths measure the distance between the deepest point in the %OD (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm)
dent to points on the dent profile that are a specific fraction of 10 -9.0 -26.6 18.1 16.3
the dent depth. The identification of these reference points 15 7.8 -9.6 15.4 12.9
includes some interpretation of the dent profile and depends on 20 12.2 0.1 13.4 11.2
the characterization of the maximum dent depth. As such, there 30 12.7 8.8 11.3 7.8
40 10.0 7.6 9.3 5.3
is expected to always be some variability in these parameters.
50 8.4 5.0 8.2 4.7
60 6.5 3.1 7.3 3.8
75 5.0 1.9 6.2 2.9
85 3.6 1.2 5.4 2.1
TABLE 1: DENT CHARACTERISTIC LENGTH MEAN ERROR

DepthUS_L_AX DS_L_AX CW_L_TR CCW_L_TR

%OD (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm)
10 134.7 142.1 69.8 76.8
15 117.2 126.6 58.6 61.5
20 103.2 111.2 49.5 54.6
30 67.6 85.2 38.9 38.3
40 45.3 59.2 28.8 22.5
50 29.8 38.3 23.8 20.2
60 22.1 32.7 21.1 16.2
75 15.4 19.5 19.4 13.4
85 12.9 14.8 18.9 12.5
TABLE 2: DENT CHARACTERISTIC LENGTH STANDARD
DEVIATION OF THE ERROR

Unity plots for the absolute measurement performance were

generated to explore ILI system performance relative to the laser
surface scan (LS) truth/reference data. Unity plots considering
the performance of the six mechanical caliper ILI systems are
presented in Figure 6. These results are presented for
FIGURE 5: DENT DEPTH UNITY PLOT FOR SIX ILI CALIPER
characteristic lengths from the dent deepest point to points to
SYSTEMS
points associated with 85%, 50% and 10% of the dent depth.

5 © 2022 by ASME
FIGURE 6: DENT CHARACTERISTIC LENGTH UNITY PLOTS FOR SIX ILI SYSTEMS
a) All Corrosion Features
b) Corrosion Features
Coincident With Dent

FIGURE 7: CORROSION METAL LOSS FEATURE UNITY PLOTS FOR SIX ILI SYSTEMS

6 © 2022 by ASME
 The graphs are repeated for the axial (US and DS) and (ML) features drops on average 3% when the corrosion feature
circumferential (CW and CCW) directions from the dent depths. is coincident with a dent, POI drops 2% and sizing error
The graphs include reference lines for perfect agreement, with increases by 0.7%. These data demonstrate the limited effect of
the references shown at ±25 mm and ±50 mm. The reference a dent on sizing corrosion features when present within a dent.
lines are not selected based on any standard or specification, but The POD is lowest for features in the clockwise shoulder
rather are included for general reference. This presentation of the and dent peak zones and the sizing error is greatest for features
data suggests that for these six ILI systems, there is a tendency in the dent peak zone, as defined in Figure 4. The reason for the
to underpredict dent characteristic lengths in the axial direction lower performance for corrosion features on the clockwise
and overpredict axial lengths in the circumferential direction. In shoulder is not explainable at this time. The trial results also
the circumferential direction some inspection tools have a bias to indicated that the performance of the ILI tools was insensitive to
over-estimate the dent characteristic length. Similarly tool speed, for the speeds tested.
characteristic areas are overestimated by some ILI systems.
These characteristic length and area overestimated are unique to POD
Error in
POI
individual ILI systems and are expected to be areas for Category Depth Data
(In Specs) (ML Class)
improvement that can be readily addresses as a result of the (%WT)
feedback from these trials. The statistics for the ILI trials All ML 0.81 0.44 -0.86
indicated that there is not a significant trend in measurement 10-15%WT 0.84 0.59 2.09
15-20%WT 0.86 0.58 1.13

Depth Bins %WT

error as a function of ILI trial speed.
20-25%WT 0.80 0.31 -1.90
25-30%WT 0.75 0.41 -2.88
4.2 Corrosion Feature Performance 30-35%WT 0.80 0.47 -4.62
Corrosion features coincident with dents and those in 35-40%WT 0.90 0.53 -5.52
undented pipe were considered in the performance evaluation. 40-45%WT 0.88 0.44 -7.18
The ability of the ILI systems to identify detected metal loss 45-50%WT 0.91 0.44 -8.59
features as corrosion was very good. The ability of magnetic 50-55%WT 0.93 0.11 -14.42
tools to properly classify features may have been hampered by Peak Zone 0.75 0.40 -3.98
Coincident

the fact that the ILI Service Provider reported data did not apply US 0.78 0.44 -2.17
Dent

feature interaction or boxing rules as requested by the trial
protocol.
In the project, statistical summaries of performance (average
and standard deviation of difference between the Truth data and
ILI system measurements) and unity plots were developed for all
features and separately for each corrosion feature type described
in API 1163. This description will focus on the unity plots
considering all corrosion features and those that are coincident
with dent features in Figure 7. It is noted that this performance is
based on approximately 194,000 corrosion feature observations
for the six magnetic inspection systems. The graphs include
reference lines for perfect agreement, ±10% and ±20% WT as
well as ±12 mm and ±25.4 mm in feature size (i.e., length or
width).
It was suggested that the corrosion feature sizing
performance may have been affected by not applying feature
interaction or boxing rules as illustrated by the under-estimation
of the feature lengths in the unity plots. The feature widths
include many over-estimates and this is likely related to the
number of sensors and the ILI system signal analysis process, the
details of which are proprietary to the ILI Service Provider. The
typical demonstration of probability of identification seeks to
classify metal loss features by type (e.g., corrosion gouge,
manufacturing) rather than corrosion classification as was
considered in this trial. As such the POI considered in these trials
was somewhat non-standard for most ILI systems.
These unity plots illustrate that while the performance of the
ILI systems in reporting corrosion feature depth tested is affected
by the presence of the dent, there is only a limited reduction in
performance. As shown in Table 3, the POD for all metal loss
DS 0.86 0.47 -1.13
ACW 0.79 0.46 -0.59
CW 0.73 0.34 0.19
TABLE 3: CORROSION FEATURE POD, POI AND DEPTH
PERFORMANCE DATA
4.3 Gouge Feature Performance
The performance of the magnetic tools in detecting,
identifying, and sizing gouges coincident with dent features was
considered in the trials. Gouge formation typically involves the
indenter removing or moving material (e.g., reducing the pipe
wall thickness locally) during the indentation process. The
removal or movement of metal can result in cracks (or
microcracks), localized strain hardening, local residual stresses
and a local stress concentration. There have also been
observations of the deposition of indenter material on the pipe
wall. The differentiation of gouges from corrosion metal loss
features is an ILI Service Provider proprietary processes that can
make use of factors such as feature:
- Clock position (gouges most likely on the top of the pipe),
- Shape, orientation, and location with respect to the dent,
- Coincidence with adjacent/parallel metal loss features, and
- Magnetic properties of the material.
In these trials, the clock position of the dent gouge features was
not controlled and thus not available to be used in identifying
gouges which are predominantly on the top of the pipe. Two
types of gouges were considered:

7 © 2022 by ASME
 - Simulated – formed during indentation using a backhoe tooth
in a pipe aggression rig. Simulating a process associated with
an excavation equipment pipe strike, and
- Machined – dented and afterwards machined with a rotary
tool to gradually reduce the pipe wall thickness.
A typical surface laser scan of a gouge feature is shown in
Figure 8. The surface laser scan illustrates the dent feature by the
large blue haloed area and the gouge by the green and yellow
vertical line in the figure which characterizes the pipe gouge OD
metal loss. The axial length of the pipe wall deformation due to
this dent gouge feature is evident in the surface scan based on the
lower red area that exists from the top of the figure to the bottom
surrounding the areas of high dent and gouge surface
displacement.
FIGURE 8: SURFACE SCAN OF A DENT GOUGE FEATURE
The probability of detection for these gouge features was on
the order of 90% whereas the POI was 80% for the simulated
features and on the order of 67% for machined features. The
machined features were detected but it is believed that they did
not have the characteristics or identifications, factors previously
discussed, for gouge features to be identified.
The number of gouge features in the trial was small and thus
the performance results are not as statistically significant as those
for the other feature types. The depth and length sizing
performance for one magnetic ILI system is presented in Figure
9. The depth sizing variance with respect to the reference data is
on the order of ±10% of the pipe wall thickness, whereas the
length is significantly underestimated and further investigation
of this performance needs to be completed. Figure 9 suggests that
the length sizing accuracy of the simulated features is lower than
that for the machined features. An explanation for this is possibly
that the simulated features vary in depth along their length more
than the machined features and are less detectable at the lower
wall thickness reduction magnitude areas or the gradual depth
change is less detectable. This performance with regards to
length sizing is not unlike that observed for corrosion features as
demonstrated in the unity plots in Figure 7 and deserves more
consideration. Tool speed did not affect the ILI system
performance, except for at the highest trial speed of 5m/s and this
consistency of performance is shown across all of the ILI tools
tested.
Simulated
Machined
FIGURE 9: GOUGE FEATURE SIZING PERFORMANCE FOR A
SINGLE MAGNETIC ILI SYSTEM
4.4 Crack Feature Performance
The performance of an ultrasonic ILI system in detecting,
identifying, and sizing cracks in dents was considered in the
trials. As previously noted, the performance trial crack features
include a range of crack depths, lengths, orientations, initiation
surfaces as well as isolated cracks versus colonies of cracks. In
these trials the probability of detection of crack within a dent was
on the order of 80%. This performance is good considering the
range of crack orientations and locations within the dent feature.
The probability of identification in this program may be
more demanding than in other performance evaluations where
identification of a detected feature as a crack versus another
feature type (e.g., lack of fusion). The POI, based on the reported
initiation surface (e.g., ID or OD) and crack orientation (e.g.,
axial or circumferential) was on the order of 74%. A significant
number of false positives detections were reported by the ILI
system in pipes without cracks. The false positives were found
to be approximately twice the number of true positives for all the
pulls.
Figure 10 presents unity plots for crack length and width,
where length is the crack extent along the pipe axis and the width
is defined as the circumferential extent of the crack. In this trial
there was a tendency for the ILI system to over-estimate the
feature length and width which would result in a conservative
input to an integrity management decision. It is presumed that
the crack “width” or circumferential extent is significantly over
estimated and is suspected that this is a systematic issue that the
ILI Service Provider will be able to address. These results along
with the truth/reference data that will be provide to the ILI
Service provider will support performance improvement.
8 © 2022 by ASME

FIGURE 10: CRACK FEATURE UNITY PLOTS FOR A SINGLE
ULTRASONIC ILI SYSTEM
The trial results indicated that there was a minor impact of
tool speed on POD, POI and crack sizing performance. As shown
in Figure 11 for the POD and POI.
FIGURE 11: EFFECT OF TOOL SPEED ON CRACK FEATURE
POD AND POI FOR A SINGLE ULTRASONIC ILI SYSTEM
5. CONCLUSIONS
To support enhancement of pipeline integrity management
programs, the project reported in this paper, sponsored by PRCI,
has focused on the improvement of the industry understanding
of ILI system inspection performance for mechanical damage
features including features coincident with the dent. ILI
performance trials considering a range of ILI systems based on
Magnetic, Ultrasonic and Caliper technologies were completed
using pump through and pull test processes. These trials
developed data describing the performance of individual ILI
systems from seven ILI Service Providers.
The results from the ILI performance trials completed
during this project show the benefits of a controlled testing
program to continue to demonstrate the performance of ILI
systems. The results of these ILI trials demonstrate that
considering mechanical damage with coincident features is
possible and that the trial protocols and assessment procedures
developed in this project should serve as the basis for future
testing. The performance demonstrated across seven ILI systems
for detecting, identifying, and sizing dents and features
coincident with dents is very good and relatively uniform across
all of the ILI systems.
While it is acknowledged that some opportunities for ILI
system performance improvement exist, the performance of
existing technologies demonstrates that they are capable of
supporting fitness for purpose assessment. The feedback and
truth data provided to the participating ILI Service Providers
may support performance enhancements. In addition, the
approaches developed and applied in this project may support
further development of ILI standards such as API 1163 and
uniformity in feature reporting.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors are grateful for the support on the current ILI
system performance trials, that involved contributions by the ILI
Service Provider community and PRCI representing Pipeline
Operator community. Support for the PRCI mechanical damage
strategic research program from Timothy Burns at Shell
Midstream enabled the project to proceed and develop the results
presented here.
REFERENCES
[1] NTSB recommendation P-17-01 in Pipeline Accident
Brief (PAB)-17/01, dated June 05, 2017.
[2] American Petroleum Institute, “In-line Inspection
Systems Qualification”, API 1163, 2021.
[3] American Petroleum Institute, “Assessment and
Management of Dents in Pipelines”, API RP 1183, 2020.
[4] Tiku, S, John, B, Rana, A, Dinovitzer, A, Piazza, M,
Burns, T, “ILI System Performance for Mechanical Damage and
Coincident Features” Pipeline Pigging and Integrity
Management Conference, Feb 2022.
[5] Rana, A, Tiku, S, Piazza, M, Burns, T, “Enhancement of
Mechanical Damage Crack Evaluation”, International Pipeline
Conference, IPC2022-87345, September 2022.
9 © 2022 by ASME