Doc. No.: O.B14.

017
REPORT REV: 1

PROJECT TITLE :

MTM INSPECTION WORK FOR

PIPELINES AT “PLACE” SITE

DOCUMENT TITLE :

Non Contact MTM Inspection for

“CLIENT” Pipelines, “PLACE”

REPORT FOR
“NAME OF PIPELINE”

DOCUMENT No: O.B14.017

Contractor: Client:

Principle Local Agent

CLIENT LOGO

14.01.2014

Name Sign Date Name Sign Date Name Sign Date

Prepared By Reviewed By Approved By

DOCUMENT REVISION № 1
 Rev.:
Doc. No.: # OF REPORT
1

Page:
“NAME OF PROJECT”, REPORT OF “PIPELINE NAME”

LLC RDC TRANSKOR-K

Report Originator: 31A, Perovskaya str, 111141, Moscow, Russia
Tel.: +7 495 225 9653
Fax: +7 495 225 9653
E-mail: info@transkor.ru
Web: www.transkor.ru

January
Report No.:
2014

File name:

Prepared by:

E-mail:

Analyst:

E-mail:

Checked by:

E-mail:

Project Manager:

E-mail:
 Rev.:
Doc. No.: O.B14.017
1

Page:
“NAME OF PROJECT”, REPORT OF “PIPELINE NAME” 2

CONTENTS

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..................................................................................................... 3

2. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. 4
3. ESSENTIAL PARAMETERS OF MTM INSPECTION.......................................................... 5
3.1. MTM Guarantee ............................................................................................................ 5
3.2. Quality Control (QC) of MTM ......................................................................................... 5
3.3. Confidence Level of MTM scanning .............................................................................. 7
4. REPORT STRUCTURE DESCRIPTION ............................................................................. 8
5. CODES AND STANDARDS .............................................................................................. 12
6. TERMS, DEFINITIONS & ABBREVIATURES .................................................................. 13
6.1. Definitions ................................................................................................................... 13
6.2. Abbreviations............................................................................................................... 17
7. PREPARATION AND PERFORMANCE ............................................................................ 19
7.1. Preparation of pipeline ................................................................................................ 19
7.2. Preparation of equipment ............................................................................................ 19
7.3. Preparation and performance of MTM scanning ......................................................... 20
7.4. Initial Data for the Analysis .......................................................................................... 20
7.5. SKIF specification........................................................................................................ 21
7.6. MTM requirements ...................................................................................................... 22
7.7. MTM limitations ........................................................................................................... 24
8. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION .......................................................................................... 25
9. RECOMMENDATIONS...................................................................................................... 26
APPENDIX 1. Scheme of Pipeline Route and Location of Anomalies ................................... 27
APPENDIX 2. Density of Anomalies Distribution by Integral Risk Factor [F] ......................... 29
APPENDIX 3. Density of Anomalies Distribution by Stress Calculations [Si] ........................ 31
APPENDIX 4. Density of Anomalies Distribution by Safe Operation Pressure [PSAFE].......... 33
APPENDIX 5. Density of Anomalies Distribution by Estimated Repair Factor [ERF] ............ 35
APPENDIX 6. MTM Anomaly Log with Coordinates of Markers ............................................ 37
APPENDIX 7. MTM Anomaly Log with Parameters of Pipeline Integrity ............................... 41
APPENDIX 8. List of pipeline sections with lower confidence level ....................................... 44
 Rev.:
Doc. No.: O.B14.017
1

Page:
“NAME OF PROJECT”, REPORT OF “PIPELINE NAME” 3

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1.1. MTM technology was applied for “NAME OF PROJECT” OF “PIPELINE NAME” Tech-
nical description of the pipeline is given in item 7.4.
The total inspected length of “PIPELINE NAME” was of 430.58 m.
1.2. The sections with anomalies were revealed on the pipeline. The anomaly sections were
ranked based on Integral Risk Factor [F] by the MTM technology according to the MTM
Specification and RD 102-008-2002. The results of ranking are given in
Appendices 2-7.

Rank of anomaly by Integral Risk Factor [F]

Pipeline 1 2 3
number length (m) number length (m) number length (m)
0 0.00 8 20.52 16 20.03

1.3. The sections with all anomalies were ranked also by mechanical Stress-Deformed
State. This parameter determines the real state of metal and actual environmental con-
ditions (internal pressure, change of temperature etc). Ranking of anomalies by me-
chanical stress-deformed state is based on ERF calculations. The results of such rank-
ing are given in Appendices 2-7.

Rank of anomaly by
Stress-Deformed State
Pipeline 1 3
number length (m) number length (m)
2 4.60 22 35.95

1.4. Inspection results show that there are no sections that require urgent repairs as deter-
mined for actual pipeline operating conditions at the time of MTM inspection.
 Rev.:
Doc. No.: O.B14.017
1

Page:
“NAME OF PROJECT”, REPORT OF “PIPELINE NAME” 4

2. INTRODUCTION

Background
The diagnostic inspection was carried out in accordance with Contract: PO No. 00101/13 be-
tween XXX and XXX
This work has been provided with supporting by LLC RDC TRANSKOR-K, Russia, the origi-
nal developer of MTM technology.

Licenses:
1. License АВ № 307061 № ДЭ-00-011045, issued by Federal Committee on Ecological,
Technological and Nuclear Supervision of Russia on carrying out industrial safety ex-
pertise of dangerous industrial objects, validity date 16.12.2014;
2. Certificate № 61А010767, issued by the Independent Agency on Non-Destructive
Testing Laboratories Certification, certifying the non-destructive testing laboratory cor-
respondence to the requirements of NDT System, validity date 09.07.2013;

Information of the expert organization specialists:

Staff: 25 persons, including 9 Ph.D. All experts have higher education, went through instruc-
tion courses at educational centers of personnel training of the Russian State Technical In-
spection, Moscow association of ecological education and State Industrial Technical Supervi-
sion Committee, certificated as experts in non-destructive testing, expert diagnostic inspec-
tion and technical diagnosing of dangerous industrial objects. Information about the special-
ists participating in the works is attached to the Technical Report.
In frame of this agreement, the inspection of PIPELINE NAME was performed.
Works on the pipelines inspection were carried out in accordance with Order No. “_____”
from “__”_____ 20XX.
The purpose of the inspection is to determine the mechanical integrity parameter of this pipe-
line by detecting and characterizing the presence of damage in the lines, such as wall metal
loss, cracking, geometry changes etc.
The PIPELINE NAME was inspected (from E103°27'40.560 N04°33'46.392 to
E103°27'29.385 N04°33'46.694).
 Rev.:
Doc. No.: O.B14.017
1

Page:
“NAME OF PROJECT”, REPORT OF “PIPELINE NAME” 5

3. ESSENTIAL PARAMETERS OF MTM INSPECTION

The essential parameters of MTM are the following quality parameters:

• Probability of detection (POD)
• Probability of identification (POI)
• Confidence level (СL)
Definitions of these and other parameters for MTM application are given in item 6.

3.1. MTM Guarantee

MTM inspection can be provided for 100% of pipeline length.

MTM equipment (SKIF) is able to inspect horizontal pipeline with 100% of quality.
Within the range of mechanical stresses on defective sections of 30-85% of SMYS the detec-
tion of anomalies associated with metal defects of any type is guaranteed with probability
more than 80% for 97% of the total pipeline length. Maximum POD (> 85%) is achieved at
the level of stresses on defective sections of 55-65% of SMYS.
POD and POI values are proved if the condition of real MTM scanning complies with MTM
Specification requirements (refer to 7.5.2). For this purpose parameter of Quality Control
(QC) is determined after the scanning. Moreover, these guarantees are applied if calibration
has been provided for each inspected pipeline. The dependence between magnetic reply and
real mechanical stresses should be determined and verified in calibration pits. Without cali-
bration the confident level (CL) of MTM quality become lower by 10-15% than original values
even with QC>0.8

3.2. Quality Control (QC) of MTM

Quality Control (QC) criteria of MTM defines the level of confidence to MTM data. If QC value
is more than 0.8, the real parameters of MTM quality correspond to declared values which
described in the MTM Specifications.
The inspection of the PIPELINE NAME pipeline of 430.58 m total length by Magnetic Tomog-
raphy Method was completed by means of “SKIF” - non-contact scanning magnetometer for
pipeline inspection, and the Quality Control (QC) parameter was 92.2%.
 Rev.:
Doc. No.: O.B14.017
1

Page:
“NAME OF PROJECT”, REPORT OF “PIPELINE NAME” 6

QC values
Speed of scanning 100.0
Step of scanning 100.0
Direction 100.0
Deviation 95.0
Magnetization 97.1
TOTAL QC 92.2

The following conditions and parameters define the Quality Control [QC] parameter.

Parameters of MTM scanning quality:

• Maximum step of scanning (not more than 0.02m), QC1.
This parameter defines the frequency of magnetic field measurements. Exceeding the ad-
missible values introduces the risk of missing an anomaly.
• Maximum speed of scanning (not more than 1.8m/s), QC2
This parameter defines the speed of measurements the magnetic field. Range of admissible
values is limited by capability of equipment. Exceeding the admissible values introduces the
risk of missing an anomaly.
• Admissible deviation from the pipeline axis (not more than 3D1), QC3
This parameter is limited by sensitivity of sensors and damping force and reducing the mag-
netic field around the pipe. Exceeding the admissible values introduces the risk of missing an
anomaly.
• Admissible distance from the pipeline axis (not more than 15D), QC4
This parameter is limited by sensitivity of sensors and damping force and reducing the mag-
netic field around the pipe. Exceeding the admissible values introduces the risk of missing an
anomaly.
• Priority direction of scanning, QC5
This parameter is limited of movement of equipment along the pipe. System will have a sta-
ble work if the movement along the pipeline axis exceeds other directions at more 100 times.
For example, if to scan 100m pipe the starting and finishing points must be on the pipeline
axis and the count of measurements along the axis should be at least.

Parameters of pipeline system:

• Level of residual magnetization, QC6
This parameter determines the level of residual magnetization of the pipe. This condition is
typical for pipeline magnetization after the preceding MFL inspection. The range of admissi-
ble values of magnetic field around the pipe should not exceed ± 100mkTl.

1
D - external diameter of the pipeline.
 Rev.:
Doc. No.: O.B14.017
1

Page:
“NAME OF PROJECT”, REPORT OF “PIPELINE NAME” 7

• Quality of preparing pipeline for inspection (any knowledge of pipe locations, quality of
transmitting GPS signal etc.)
This parameter could not be under responsibility of TRANSKOR-K, RUSSIA. But in time of
MTM processing these conditions could be analyzed and used for QC determination.
• Presence of any sources of electromagnetic interference, including mutual interference
pipelines with each other in one corridor, QC7
This parameter cannot be under responsibility of MTM by TRANSKOR-K, RUSSIA. It de-
pends on the detail facilities of the pipeline. In time of MTM scanning these features are
marked by visual inspection. And in time of MTM processing these conditions can be taken
into account and used for QC determination.

Overall QC parameter of MTM inspection is defined as a mathematical multiplication of all

QC1… QC7. Each QCi parameter is calculated in-time of scanning as a number of false indi-
cations. Overall QC parameter of each inspection is defining every time after the scanning.

3.3. Confidence Level of MTM scanning

The confidence level for MTM is determined basing on empiric parameter Quality Control
(QC). It comprises several measurable parameters of inspection (See MTM Specification for
details).
Overall Quality Control was 92.2%.
In case of real inspection, the environment conditions defining a straight motion in time of
scanning, have a significant impact on the quality of MTM results in values QC1…QC5 (See
above 3.2.).
These sections are determined automatically by processing software. Also conditions of mu-
tual interference of inspected pipelines between each other and/or with other possible elec-
tromagnetic sources (crossing the drainage pipe systems, etc) have an impact to the QC7 pa-
rameter. The list of such sections is shown in Appendix 8.
 Rev.:
Doc. No.: O.B14.017
1

Page:
“NAME OF PROJECT”, REPORT OF “PIPELINE NAME” 8

4. REPORT STRUCTURE DESCRIPTION

The main section of current report contains guides to anomaly navigation, terms and abbre-
viations, specifications of method and tool used for inspection and requirements to perform-
ing the inspection. At the end of the main section, a summary of inspection is provided.
The appendices contain the map of pipeline with anomalies, distribution of anomalies along
pipeline length with their Risk Factor F, internal stress, PSAFE and ERF, inspection event log
and list of anomalies that were detected as having lower confidence level due to various
reasons (for example, foreign metal object influence like pipeline intersection).

Scheme of Pipeline Route and Anomalies Location

Scheme of Pipeline Route and Anomalies Location is given in Appendix 1.

Density of Anomalies Distribution Charts

Each dot on this graphs correspond to MTM anomaly. The horizontal axis shows the absolute
distance from “0” (starting point) of inspection.

Distribution Charts by Integral Risk Factor [F] of Anomalies is shown in Appendix 2.

The vertical location of each point on this plot corresponds to Integral Risk Factor F. Higher
location of the point here corresponds to a higher risk of danger.

Distribution Charts by Mechanical Stress [Si] of Anomalies is shown in Appendix 3.

The vertical location of each point in this plot corresponds to complex mechanical stresses in
anomaly zone. The values by vertical axis are in scale from 0 to SMYS. Two green horizontal
lines correspond to stress levels that were calculated for operating and design pressure re-
spectively.

Distribution Charts by Safety Pressure of Anomalies [PSAFE] is shown in Appendix 4.

The vertical location of each point in this plot corresponds to the values of PSAFE parameter
in anomaly zone. PSAFE calculation is based on actual mechanical stresses (Si) in anomaly
zone with using initial technical data of pipeline. Lower location of the point on this graph cor-
responds to lower pressure value on which the pipeline will operate safely.

Distribution Charts by Estimated Repair Factor [ERF] is shown in Appendix 5.

The vertical location of each point in this plot corresponds to the values of ERF parameter in
anomaly zone. This graph shows the mutual distribution of anomalies around “1” values. If
ERF>1 (above this line), the pipeline section in anomaly zone should be repair immediately.

MTM Anomaly Logs with Coordinates of Markers

Appendix 6 comprises anomalies logs based on MTM inspection result with Coordinates of
Markers.

Markers:
These are fixed visual reference points indicating peculiarities on the pipeline route or condi-
tions of carrying out MTM inspection.
 Rev.:
Doc. No.: O.B14.017
1

Page:
“NAME OF PROJECT”, REPORT OF “PIPELINE NAME” 9

These markers have longitudinal coordinate [column 1] starting from point 0 of scanning.
SKIF operator inserts explanations of the markers into Register of fixations (Appendix 7) dur-
ing scanning in auto-manual mode. Explanations are given in [columns 2 & 3].
Data on GPS-coordinates [columns 4 & 5] received automatically by equipment during MTM
scanning. GPS-coordinates reflect the accurate location of fixations and anomalies (begin-
ning).

Anomalies:
According to MTM Specification each anomaly has:
• Unique number as shown in column 6;
• Parameter of “condition of metal” in column 8 which is determined by Integral Risk
Factor F in column 9;
• Index of stress-deformed state associated with specific features of operation (real cur-
rent loadings and actual mechanical stress conditions) of the pipeline in the area of
anomaly is given in column 7;
• Longitudinal coordinates of beginning and end of anomaly in columns 10 and 11 re-
spectively and the anomaly length is shown in column 12;
• Distance to the nearest – preceding fixation in column 13 and next fixation in column 14;
• Interpretation of anomaly logs and common rules how to find the anomaly in the field is
described below.

Common rules how to find the MTM anomaly in the field:

In order to find the precise location of anomalies specified in the Anomaly Log [log] one has
to carry out the following steps:
• Locate the anomaly in the log referring to its number (see column – ‘No. of anomaly’);
• Determine the preceding and subsequent markers related to the anomaly (the one be-
fore and the one after the anomaly; see columns – ‘description’ and ‘notes’);
• Locate the above-said(standing) markers on the pipeline route in the field; make sure
that their GPS coordinates correspond to those specified in the column ‘GPS-
coordinates’;
• Measure the distance by any means from the preceding marker (fixation) – to the be-
ginning of the anomaly area, and from a subsequent marker (fixation) – to the end of the
anomaly area (see columns – ‘Distance from preceding fixation’ and ‘Distance to the
next fixation’); mark the determined points of the beginning and the end of the anomaly
area. It is possible to involve Survey service to locate anomalies by their KP or by GPS
coordinates, see respective columns in the table (Appendix 6).
 Rev.:
Doc. No.: O.B14.017
1

Page:
“NAME OF PROJECT”, REPORT OF “PIPELINE NAME” 10

Note:
a) if ‘0’ value of the distance is specified in the columns ‘Distance from preceding fixation’
or ‘Distance to the next fixation’ the beginning or the end of the anomaly area coincide with
the corresponding markers (fixations) on the pipeline route;

b) if a positive value of the distance is specified in the ‘Distance to the next fixation’ column
(in which case the subsequent marker falls inside the anomaly area), the measuring is
done from the subsequent marker forwards to the end of the anomaly area
 Rev.:
Doc. No.: O.B14.017
1

Page:
“NAME OF PROJECT”, REPORT OF “PIPELINE NAME” 11

c) if a negative value of the distance is specified in the ‘Distance to the next fixation’ col-
umn, the measuring is done from the subsequent marker backwards to the end of the
anomaly area;

Check by means of a GPS receiver that the determined points – beginning and end of the
anomaly area – correspond to the GPS coordinates (see column ‘GPS-coordinates’);
Verify that the length of the anomaly area – between the marked points – corresponds to that
specified in the log (see column – ‘length of anomaly’).

Here, we refer to the following terms:

Marker: a peculiar feature on the pipeline or near the pipeline, a point or object that can be
used as a reference to locate a point on the pipeline. These include sea debris, anodes,
flange joints, pipeline intersections, supporting mattresses, etc.
Sign: a feature of the pipeline or an distinctive underwater object that can be used as a ref-
erence.
Point 0: starting point of inspection.
Forwards: in the direction of the inspection.
Backwards: in the direction opposite to the direction of inspection.

MTM Anomaly Log with Parameters of Pipeline Integrity

MTM Anomaly Log with Parameter of Pipeline Integrity is given in Appendix 7.
Parameter of a pipeline safety is classified by PSAFE parameter in column 14 that deter-
mines maximum safe pressure calculated for a particular anomaly area.
The calculation of this parameter is based on values of complex mechanical stresses regis-
tered during MTM process [column 13].
Parameter ERF (Estimated Repair Factor) in column 15 determines the necessity to repair
the section on the basis of criterion MOP. If ERF>1 the Stress-Deformed State parameter
[column 2] is equal 1 (red color) and it means that anomaly section is overloaded (relatively
for its state) and should be repair immediately.
The Logs contains the calculations of free-of-accident operation term [in years] of the pipeline
for the operating [column 7] and design [column 8] pressures respectively.
 Rev.:
Doc. No.: O.B14.017
1

Page:
“NAME OF PROJECT”, REPORT OF “PIPELINE NAME” 12

5. CODES AND STANDARDS

• ASME B 31G (Copyright © 2009 by THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF MECHANICAL

ENGINEERS All Rights Reserved Printed in U.S.A.);
• RD 102-008-2002 “Directive for diagnostics of pipeline technical condition By the non-
contact magnetometric method”, agreed by Gosgortechnadzor RF (Federal committee
for Mining and Industrial Supervision of Russia), letter № 10-03/118 dd. 1012.2002;
• Calculations of stresses by FEM (final elements method) on free span sections without
defects (OPR);
• DNV-RP-F105 FREE SPANNING PIPELINES FEBRUARY 2006;
• DNV-OS-F101 OFFSHORE STANDARD DET NORSKE VERITAS SUBMARINE PIPE-
LINE SYSTEMS, October 2007 Amended October 2008;
• DNV-RP-C203 DET NORSKE VERITAS FATIGUE DESIGN OF OFFSHORE STEEL
STRUCTURES, April 2010;
• Determinations of stresses by MTM data is carried out in accordance with “Methodic For
Calculating Pipeline Accident Free Operation Term” Attachment- IV of MTM Specifica-
tion;
• TK.CDME.411172.000.00 ST. Specifications and requirements for pipeline inspection
by Magnetic tomography method, January 2013.
 Rev.:
Doc. No.: O.B14.017
1

Page:
“NAME OF PROJECT”, REPORT OF “PIPELINE NAME” 13

6. TERMS, DEFINITIONS & ABBREVIATURES

6.1. Definitions

Accuracy of meas- Proximity of results of measurement to the true value of the measured
urement value. Usually it is indicated within the range in which the fixed per-
centage ratio of characteristic features is measured. This fixed per-
centage is the confidence level (see also СL)
Admissible deviation Maximum distance from the axis of OI, which allows performing MTM
application with guaranteed quality (see also QC)
Anomaly Non-identified deviation of base metal or weld joints, level of mechan-
ical stresses from normative requirements
Anomaly of SDC Section of mechanical stress concentration not connected with metal
defects, e.g. in places of sagging, bending, twisting, land slips, loss of
stability of OI
Assessment of integ- Process including inspection of a pipeline, assessment of data and
rity results of inspection, NDE by various technologies, evaluation of re-
sults of inspection and characteristics of safety parameters to deter-
mine the impacts on OI integrity
Background values Average values of magnetic field strength on free-of-defect pipeline
of magnetic field section at operating pressure at the moment of inspection
Boundary effect Distortion of force lines of magnetic field in the area of pipe ends
Calibration Metrological procedure of correlation of MTM data with actual tech-
nical condition of the pipeline in the area of anomaly.
Characteristic F – Integral Risk Factor as a degree of concentration of complex
(longitudinal, hoop and shear) stresses in anomaly (analogue of SCF)
and derivative ERF
Characteristic pa- Value of measured parameter explicitly determining the anomaly
rameter of anomaly above the background values of OI
Characteristic pa- • F – Integral Risk Factor as a degree of concentration of complex
rameter of MTM (longitudinal, hoop and shear) stresses in anomaly (analogue of SCF)
anomaly and derivative ERF
• L – Anomaly length
Class of safety Notion accepted for classification of importance of pipeline system
relative to an accident consequences
Classification Ranking of anomalies by the factor F value
Cluster Two or more adjacent defects in the pipe wall or weld joint within the
anomaly - which in situation of interaction can weaken the cross-
section more than if acting separately
 Rev.:
Doc. No.: O.B14.017
1

Page:
“NAME OF PROJECT”, REPORT OF “PIPELINE NAME” 14

Confidence interval Interval of possible values of investigated parameter setting the area
around “average” in which with the set level of confidence (0,90; 0.95
or 0.98) the “true” average value takes place
Confidence Level Statistical expression used for describing mathematical accuracy with
which the declaration is made (see also Confidence interval)
Control point of Correctly determined points on a pipe that serve as reference points
route, reference point to fix anomaly.
Quality Control (QC) Degree of correspondence of quality of scanning process to MTM
Specification
Correctness of clas- Extent of correspondence of anomaly classification to actual technical
sification condition determined during verification (see also Reliability)
Debris Strange things/wastes that can decrease MTM quality
Defectiveness, Im- Deviation from the norm detected (by direct indications) or calculated
perfection by signals of tools (see also Metal defects, Anomaly of SDC)
Defects of Metal Damage of metal exceeding regulatory tolerance, which may or may
not cause anomaly
Detection threshold Minimum of characteristic parameter registered with probability more
than 95% (see also Sensitivity threshold)
Effective pipe wall Actual wall thickness without thinning around the characteristic fea-
thickness ture
Error of measure- Characteristic (measure) of accuracy of measurement – evaluation of
ment diversion of measured value from its true value.
Feature Indication to anomaly obtained during NDE, change of nominal wall
thickness, pipe-in-pipe, marking magnet, loadings, fittings including T-
joints, branches, valves, anodes, clamps, supports or facilities for fas-
tening to ground, repair sleeves and cathode protection facilities
GPS coordinates Fixation of location of control point of route or reference mark in the
absolute geographic coordinate system
Indirect measure- Measurement - the result of which is calculated on the basis of direct
ment measurements of values associated with the measured value by the
known dependence. For example, during MTM the mechanical
stresses in separate cross-sections of OI are indirectly measured by
the results of direct cumulative measurements of levels of residual
magnetization
In-line Inspection Inspection of a pipeline on the inside the pipe by applying tools for in-
(ILI): line inspection, also called as intelligent or smart pigging
Integral Risk Factor Degree of concentration the complex (longitudinal, hoop, shear etc)
[F] stresses in anomaly (analogue of SCF) and derivative ERF
Local stress Actual complex stresses of metal in the given point of OI
 Rev.:
Doc. No.: O.B14.017
1

Page:
“NAME OF PROJECT”, REPORT OF “PIPELINE NAME” 15

Magnetoelastic effect Change of magnetization of ferro-magnet under the influence of me-

(Villari effect) chanical deformations (stretching, twisting, bending, etc.) mechanical
deformations (stretching, twisting, bending, etc.)
Magnetometer non- Automatic measuring-calculating complex for non-contact inspection
contact scanning of technical condition of pipelines by magnetic tomography method
(MBS)
Mapping Software Software that allows to depict MTM data in the map
Maximum Allowable Design pressure deducting positive tolerance of pressure protective
Operating Pressure system
(MAOP)
Method of Magnetic Method of nondestructive testing and technical diagnostics of extend-
Tomography (МТМ) ed ferromagnetic structures (pipelines) by the magnitude of mechani-
cal stress in combination with metal defects based on Villari effect.
MTM contains the recording data of layer by layer contactless scan-
ning the magnetic field of the pipeline during the MBS instrument
movement along the pipeline axis within allowable deviation, the
software processing to determine the complex stresses and calculate
the safety parameters to manage the object integrity.
MTM anomaly Indication registered during MTM inspection associated with metal
defects or feature of base metal, or weld joint, stress concentration
which may be or may be not the actual defect in the OI (see also de-
fect, feature, debris)
MTM Anomaly Iden- Determination of anomalies danger by degree of concentration of
tification mechanical stresses (index F)
MTM calibration Re-calculation of MT results for the whole OI on the basis of the re-
sults of calibration
МТМ inspection sys- Hardware, software and personnel (operators, software specialists,
tem data analysts, experts), required for carrying out the inspection and
interpret MTM results
Nominal wall thick- Wall thickness specified in certificate from manufacturer
ness
Nondestructive Ex- Assessment of technical condition by nondestructive testing methods
amination (NDE)
Object of Inspection Pipeline made of ferromagnetic materials (excluding other compo-
(OI) nents, e.g. pipeline fittings) used for transportation of products that is
subject to inspection
Performance based Complex process of danger identification, risk assessment, schedul-
integrity manage- ing, monitoring, control, maintenance to determine the necessity of
ment program measures for preventing accidents and scheduling the preventive
measures to provide pipeline integrity
Point “0” Point of beginning of recording the information during inspection
(P."0")
 Rev.:
Doc. No.: O.B14.017
1

Page:
“NAME OF PROJECT”, REPORT OF “PIPELINE NAME” 16

Probability of Detec- Probability that an anomaly under the influence of stresses that differ
tion POD from the minimum ones more than for 0.005 SMYS will be detected
Probability of Identifi- Probability that an anomaly in the event of discovery, will be correctly
cation POI classified
Range of measure- Range of values within which the admissible limits of error and meas-
ments uring tools are stipulated by norms
Rank of anomaly Degree of a section of pipeline with anomaly depending on the total
mechanical stress in the anomaly zone by MTM determining the ne-
cessity and timing of repair
Rank of MTM anom- Index of danger of a section with anomaly determining a possibility of
aly pipeline failure
Reliability of МТМ Complex index of quality of inspection connected with probability of
(POR) unmistakable detection and identification of anomalies
Reporting threshold Parameter that determines – if the anomaly to be presented in report
or not
Resolution capability capability to differentiate close values of the measured parameter
within the operating range of measurement
Resolution capability Minimum characteristic parameters of two adjacent anomalies of OI,
of MTM or anomaly of OI and anomaly of a parallel line at which each of these
anomalies are identified separately
Rupture Pressure Rupture pressure calculated on the basis of strength analysis (e.g.,
Ratio (RPR) according to ASME B31G, RSTRENG, etc.)
Section for calibra- Section of OI with anomaly (in particular, excavation pit) on which the
tion procedure of calibration of MTM data is carried out
Specified Minimum Specified minimum tensile strength, determined by manufacturer
Tensile Strength
(SMTS)
Specified Minimum Specified minimum yield strength determined by manufacturer
Yield Strength
(SMYS)
Step of scanning Interval between two subsequently taken measurements
Stress Concentration Rate of local stresses to nominal stresses in stress concentration
Factor (SCF) zone DNV-RP-C203, April 2010 Page 8. item 1.5
Stress Concentration Area of increased (if comparing with background) stresses in which
Zone (SCZ) as a rule, the developing defects of base metal prone to failure are
placed
Stress Concentrator Defects of continuity of base metal or weld joint metal, as well as are-
as of stable slip bands of dislocations caused by residual internal or
operating loads, characterized by spasmodic and / or sign-variable
distribution of residual magnetization Hp
 Rev.:
Doc. No.: O.B14.017
1

Page:
“NAME OF PROJECT”, REPORT OF “PIPELINE NAME” 17

Stress-Deformed Local change of mechanical stresses at deformation of construction

state (SDS)
Threshold of registra- Minimum registered deviation of cumulative magnetization of pipeline
tion cross-section from background free-of-defect sections
Verification Confirmation on the basis of objective evidences/testimonies proving
that the specified requirements have been preserved (ISO 9000)
Verification dig Digging/excavation of a pipeline to verify the results of MTM inspec-
tion in the open pit

6.2. Abbreviations

QC Quality Control
d Depth of defect
D Outer diameter of pipeline
DOS Design, Operation And Specification
ERF Estimated Repair Factor - the ratio of the maximum operating pressure and safe
operating pressure
F Factor of anomaly danger by stress concentration degree
GPS Global positioning system
Hp Value of magnetic field.
ILI In-Line inspection
KP Kilometer post
L Length of anomaly or feature lengthwise
M Geometric Factor
MAOP Maximum allowable operating pressure
MOP Maximum operating pressure
NDE Non-destructive examination (expertise)
Pd Design pressure of pipeline, MPa
Po Operating pressure of pipeline at present time during the inspection MTM, MPa
POD Probability of detection of anomaly
POE Probability of “omitting” dangerous defect exceeding the admissible level,
POFC Probability of false call
POI Probability of identification of anomaly
PSAFE Maximum safe operating pressure, calculated for anomaly, during which defects in
the metal would not lead to failure of the pipeline during the calculated failure-free
term of operation, MPa
 Rev.:
Doc. No.: O.B14.017
1

Page:
“NAME OF PROJECT”, REPORT OF “PIPELINE NAME” 18

RPR Rupture pressure ratio

RSF Remaining Strength Factor
SCF Stress Concentration Factor
Sd Mechanical stress in a pipe metal under the pipeline design pressure, MPa
Sflow Flow Stress of The Material (ASME B31G, v2009)
Si Actual mechanical stress in a pipe metal, acting in a separate cross section of the
pipeline determined by MTM survey data, MPa
SMTS Specified Minimum Tensile Strength of metal
SMYS Specified Minimum Yield Strength of metal
So Mechanical stress in a pipe metal under the pipeline operating pressure Po, MPa
t Nominal wall thickness
TSAFE Failure-free term of operation – estimated time since the final moment of inspection
during which a probability of emergency failure of PL (conditioning the absence of
any third party impact) doesn’t exceed 10%
 Rev.:
Doc. No.: O.B14.017
1

Page:
“NAME OF PROJECT”, REPORT OF “PIPELINE NAME” 19

7. PREPARATION AND PERFORMANCE

7.1. Preparation of pipeline

The MTM inspection does not require special equipment, preparation (equipping of pipeline
with pig trap, cleanout, geometry inspection, pipeline inner surface preparation, route mark-
ing), contact with a pipeline or changes of pipeline operation mode before the inspection.
Usually the direction of MTM-inspection is according to a product flow in case of the further
verification with ILI if needed.
MTM inspection is suitable for any pipeline including non-piggable and old ones. The prepa-
ration of the pipeline for the MTM inspection includes the finding of the axes of the buried
pipeline. Survey team on a vessel is responsible for that.

7.2. Preparation of equipment

All equipment of MTM system has been checked in laboratory before field activities. These
rules correspond to Transkor-K (Moscow, Russia) normative standard. Certificates of Calibra-
tion SKIF as a measurement instrument and government proved of using are attached below.

Preparation of Equipment in a field has been performed according to “SITE SPECIFIC PRO-
CEDURE FOR MTM” (DOCUMENT No SSP-TK-07-11).
 Rev.:
Doc. No.: O.B14.017
1

Page:
“NAME OF PROJECT”, REPORT OF “PIPELINE NAME” 20

7.3. Preparation and performance of MTM scanning

The pipelines scanning was carried out after successful completion of all tests (power, com-
munication, GPS) performed by embedded software of SKIF. After the tests in automatic
mode passed the signal on readiness for scanning is put out.
Zero “0” points and direction of MTM scanning were selected with regard to the agreed start-
ing point of each pipeline section.
Name of pipeline Direction of inspection “0” point
PIPELINE NAME Increasing KP Coordinates E103°27'40.560
N04°33'46.392

7.4. Initial Data for the Analysis

The analysis carried out in this report is based on the following data obtained from PCSB
PMO.
Pipeline Name : PIPELINE NAME
Nominal Diameter : 24”
Length : 430.58 m
Pipe Material : API 5L Grade B
Wall Thickness : 38.9 mm
Operating Pressure : 7 MPa
Design Pressure : 14 MPa
Year of Installation : 1983
Product : Gas
 Rev.:
Doc. No.: O.B14.017
1

Page:
“NAME OF PROJECT”, REPORT OF “PIPELINE NAME” 21

7.5. SKIF specification

MTM Tool Setting – Non-contact Scanning Magnetometer “SKIF MBS-04” (Designed by RDC
TRANSKOR-K, Russia).

Table 7.1. SKIF underwater unit Specification

1. Dimensions: 7.7”x7.7”x29.5” (200 х 200 х 750 mm)

2. Weight: 9.9 lbs (4.5 кg)

3. PC Connection: USB, RS 232

Type of revealed anomalies:
4.
Depth of identifiable defect:
5.
Requirements to inspected
surface:
6.
7. Maximum recording speed:
Allowable distance between
magnetometer and the pipe-
8.
line (deviation from axis,
depth of pipeline):
Data scanning and recording:
9.
All defects (metal loss, crack-like defects; geometry
changes, discontinuity, weld defects, stress-
deformed state) due by changing the mechanical
stresses
from 6 % to 90% of pipe wall thickness (Error in cal-
culating actual depth ~ 20%)
No special preparation required. Anomalies can be
revealed on underground (underwater) pipeline in
operation with any type of coating, as well as in
presence of volumetric products of corrosion
up to 6.5’/sec (2 m/sec)
20 pipe diameters
Initial information is recorded at intervals of up to 10”
(250 mm). Built-in memory is capable of recording
data for 18.6 miles (30 km) of inspected pipeline (at
10” intervals). Real time data processing is possible
revealing location of magnetic anomalies.
 Rev.:
Doc. No.: O.B14.017
1

Page:
“NAME OF PROJECT”, REPORT OF “PIPELINE NAME” 22

10. Operating temperature range: 5 to 104 deg F (-15 °С to + 40 °С)

11. Diameters of inspected lines: min. 3”, max. not limited

12. Pipe wall thickness: no limitations

Device Enclosure Classifica- IP-66
13.
tion:
14. Power supply: PS0612 type batteries or 6V to 24V DC.
Maximum continuous opera- 48 hours
15.
tion time:
Limitations: High voltage power lines and digital communication
lines running in close proximity could affect record-
16.
ing data (for complete MTM requirement list please
refer to Table 7.2. below)
17. Locating Accuracy: linear location: ±5’; Clock Position: ±45 Deg

18. Odometer Error: not more than 5%

19. GPS accuracy2: Less 0.2m (<1ft).

Minimum radius of turn no limitations
20.
(bend):

7.6. MTM requirements

MTM requirement list contains a set of minimum items that should provide the maximum
quality. This list is shown in the table 7.2 below.

Table 7.2. MTM scanning requirement list

Item Parameter description Limitations
1. Maximum distance from the magnetometer to the inspect- 15 D
ed pipeline1)
Maximum deviation of SKIF
2. Along X-axis, ex < 0.5D
Along Y-axis, ey < 0.5D
Along Z-axis, ez < 0.5D

2
Depends on the purity sky and satellite condition. Additional software is able to increase the accuracy by using
special soft filters with threshold less 0.2m
 Rev.:
Doc. No.: O.B14.017
1

Page:
“NAME OF PROJECT”, REPORT OF “PIPELINE NAME” 23

3. Stability of scanning (admissible angle around axis)

Around X-axis, αx ≤ 5o
Around Y-axis, αy ≤ 5o
Around Z-axis, αz ≤ 5o

4. Minimum diameter of inspected pipeline 75 mm (3”)

5. Maximum diameter of inspected pipeline No limitations
6. Minimum pipeline wall thickness 3 mm (1/8”)
7. Maximum pipeline wall thickness No limitations
8. Type and presence of protective coating No limitations
9. Type and presence of cathodic protection No limitations
10. Maximum operating pressure No limitations
11. Direction and presence of product flow in pipeline No limitations
12. Minimum length of pipeline segment for MTM survey: 100 m (330’)
13. Maximum length of pipeline segment for MTM survey No limitations
14. Maximum speed during inspection 2.5 m/s (6.5’ per sec)
15. Residual magnetization from prior ILI inspection Shall be nil or at least 2
years after MFL inline
inspection
16. Size of foreign metal objects, structures located near in- Close massive metal ob-
spected pipeline and impacting MTM data jects of will impact the
survey
 Rev.:
Doc. No.: O.B14.017
1

Page:
“NAME OF PROJECT”, REPORT OF “PIPELINE NAME” 24

17. Minimum distance from the inspected pipeline to the paral- 1.2 m (4’)
lel foreign or other utility line without impact on MTM data2)
18. Utility lines running in parallel to the inspected pipeline that - DC lines
could cause signal interference: - Communication cables
- Fiber optic line in steel
casing
- High voltage AC lines:
(10 kV ad higher)
19. Crossovers with underground lines or cables or overhead Will be treated as inter-
power lines ference points or omitted
from survey
20. Pipeline preparation A clean walk path re-
quired over pipe base-
line

Notes to Table 7.2:

1) MTM detects and records all anomalies associated with metal defects of any type that
are causing a significant deviation (over 5% change in magnetic field parameters) of
stresses from the baseline or average stresses recorded within a pipeline segment at
operating conditions during the survey. MTM cannot guarantee the detection of those
defects which do not cause a change in the level of STS including artificial defects,
penetrating hole, pitting.
2) The distance listed is calculated for a 3’ burial depth. Should a foreign line be located
closer, the MTM might not be able to differentiate the anomaly on the foreign line from
the anomaly on the surveyed pipeline.

7.7. MTM limitations

The following limitations are characteristic for MTM, they are caused by the following:
• Damping of signal connected with moving off from the pipeline axis;
• Residual magnetization pipeline (post-production or ILI) - should not exceed 50% of the
threshold measurements;
• Stresses in the area of anomaly exceeding yield strength Si > SMYS;
• Presence of magnetic masses between SKIF and a pipeline;
• Minimum distance from inspected pipeline to a parallel pipe or steel - 1D of the largest
of the neighboring pipes;
• Resolution capability for adjacent anomalies of pipeline is determined by factor
F≤0.9995. Adjacent anomalies in one pipeline are differentiated if the distance between
them increases the lowest value of theirs lengths. Otherwise the anomalies are com-
bined, and F of the joint anomaly is considered to be F of the most dangerous anomaly.
 Rev.:
Doc. No.: O.B14.017
1

Page:
“NAME OF PROJECT”, REPORT OF “PIPELINE NAME” 25

8. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The tables below contain the summary information about the number of anomaly sections
and length of each ones. The information can be used for the analysis of the prescribed order
and manner of repair/maintenance work planning.
8.1. The sections with anomalies were revealed on the pipeline. The anomaly sections were
ranked based on Integral Risk Factor [F] by the MTM technology according to the MTM
Specification and RD 102-008-2002. The results of ranking are given in
Appendices 2-7.

Rank of anomaly by Integral Risk Factor [F]

Pipeline 1 2 3
number length (m) number length (m) number length (m)
PIPELINE NAME 0 0.00 8 20.52 16 20.03

8.2. The sections with all anomalies were ranked also by mechanical Stress-Deformed
State. This parameter determines the real state of metal and actual environmental con-
ditions (internal pressure, change of temperature etc). Ranking of anomalies by me-
chanical stress-deformed state is based on ERF calculations. The results of such rank-
ing are given in Appendices 2-7.

Rank of anomaly by
Stress-Deformed State
Pipeline 1 3
number length (m) number length (m)
PIPELINE NAME 2 4.60 22 35.95

8.3. Inspection results show that there are no sections that require urgent repairs as deter-
mined for actual pipeline operating conditions at the time of MTM inspection.
8.4. All results were obtained without calibration. According to MTM specification, calibration
is required to better correlate magnetic field with mechanical stress values for a particu-
lar pipeline. Without calibration, the reliability of MTM may be reduced to 65%.
 Rev.:
Doc. No.: O.B14.017
1

Page:
“NAME OF PROJECT”, REPORT OF “PIPELINE NAME” 26

9. RECOMMENDATIONS

To increase the safety of the inspected pipelines basing on the MTM inspection data, it is
recommended to undertake the following measures:
• To verify the final results of MTM applications concerning the assessment of risk degree
of pipeline operation with defects, it is recommended to carry out the calculation of
stresses by FEM or other conventional codes (ASME, API, DNV) and compare these
calculations with MTM. To follow the verification procedure by MTM Specification is rec-
ommended.
• Repair anomalies of the 1st and 2nd rank of danger within the term indicated in Appen-
dix-7 [columns 6,7].
• For assessing dynamics of defect and stress-deformed state development, it is recom-
mended to carry out monitoring by MTM inspection till December, 2014.
 Rev.:
Doc. No.: O.B14.017
1

Page:
“NAME OF PROJECT”, REPORT OF “PIPELINE NAME” 27

APPENDIX 1.
Scheme of Pipeline Route and Location of Anomalies
 Rev.:
Doc. No.: O.B14.017
1

Page:
“NAME OF PROJECT”, REPORT OF “PIPELINE NAME” 28
 Rev.:
Doc. No.: O.B14.017
1

Page:
“NAME OF PROJECT”, REPORT OF “PIPELINE NAME” 29

APPENDIX 2.
Density of Anomalies Distribution
by Integral Risk Factor [F]
 Rev.:
Doc. No.: O.B14.017
1

Page:
“NAME OF PROJECT”, REPORT OF “PIPELINE NAME” 30

Density of distribution of anomalies

of the object PETRONAS CARIGALI, PMOPL54 24" OGT-GPP(A),
0.0

0.1
0.20 0.20
Integral Risk Factor, F

0.2

0.3

0.4
0.55 0.55
0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

0 0.04 0.08 0.12 0.16 0.2 0.24 0.28 0.32 0.36 0.4
Absolute distance from start, km
 Rev.:
Doc. No.: O.B14.017
1

Page:
“NAME OF PROJECT”, REPORT OF “PIPELINE NAME” 31

APPENDIX 3.
Density of Anomalies Distribution
by Stress Calculations [Si]
 Rev.:
Doc. No.: O.B14.017
1

Page:
“NAME OF PROJECT”, REPORT OF “PIPELINE NAME” 32

Stress in anomaly zones

of the object PETRONAS CARIGALI, PMOPL54 24" OGT-GPP(A),
Stress in anomaly zones (SI) in MPa

200

150

100

50

0 0.04 0.08 0.12 0.16 0.2 0.24 0.28 0.32 0.36 0.4
Absolute distance from start, km
 Rev.:
Doc. No.: O.B14.017
1

Page:
“NAME OF PROJECT”, REPORT OF “PIPELINE NAME” 33

APPENDIX 4.
Density of Anomalies Distribution
by Safe Operation Pressure [PSAFE]
 Rev.:
Doc. No.: O.B14.017
1

Page:
“NAME OF PROJECT”, REPORT OF “PIPELINE NAME” 34

Safety Pressure for anomalies (Psafe)

of the object PETRONAS CARIGALI, PMOPL54 24" OGT-GPP(A),
Safety Pressure for anomalies (Psafe), MPa

20

15

10

0 0.04 0.08 0.12 0.16 0.2 0.24 0.28 0.32 0.36 0.4
Absolute distance from start, km
 Rev.:
Doc. No.: O.B14.017
1

Page:
“NAME OF PROJECT”, REPORT OF “PIPELINE NAME” 35

APPENDIX 5.
Density of Anomalies Distribution
by Estimated Repair Factor [ERF]
 Rev.:
Doc. No.: O.B14.017
1

Page:
“NAME OF PROJECT”, REPORT OF “PIPELINE NAME” 36

Estimated Repair Factor (ERF)

of the pipeline PETRONAS CARIGALI, PMOPL54 24" OGT-GPP(A),
Estimated Repair Factor (ERF)

1.00 1.00
1

0 0.04 0.08 0.12 0.16 0.2 0.24 0.28 0.32 0.36 0.4
Absolute distance from start, km
 Rev.:
Doc. No.: O.B14.017
1

Page:
“NAME OF PROJECT”, REPORT OF “PIPELINE NAME” 37

APPENDIX 6.
MTM Anomaly Log with Coordinates of Markers
 Rev.:
Doc. No.: O.B14.017
1

Page:
“NAME OF PROJECT”, REPORT OF “PIPELINE NAME” 38
 Rev.:
Doc. No.: O.B14.017
1

Page:
“NAME OF PROJECT”, REPORT OF “PIPELINE NAME” 39
 Rev.:
Doc. No.: O.B14.017
1

Page:
“NAME OF PROJECT”, REPORT OF “PIPELINE NAME” 40
 Rev.:
Doc. No.: O.B14.017
1

Page:
“NAME OF PROJECT”, REPORT OF “PIPELINE NAME” 41

APPENDIX 7.
MTM Anomaly Log with Parameters of Pipeline Integrity
 Rev.:
Doc. No.: O.B14.017
1

Page:
“NAME OF PROJECT”, REPORT OF “PIPELINE NAME” 42
 Rev.:
Doc. No.: O.B14.017
1

Page:
“NAME OF PROJECT”, REPORT OF “PIPELINE NAME” 43
 Rev.:
Doc. No.: O.B14.017
1

Page:
“NAME OF PROJECT”, REPORT OF “PIPELINE NAME” 44

APPENDIX 8.
List of pipeline sections with lower confidence level
 Rev.:
Doc. No.: O.B14.017
1

Page:
“NAME OF PROJECT”, REPORT OF “PIPELINE NAME” 45

Information about locations

№
Section of pipe with lower quality Quality Control
of section
Begin, KP End, KP Length, m
1 0,0672 0,0789 11,7 Deviation;

Upon analyzing inspection conditions, the following values were determined for MTM inspec-
tion quality parameters for current pipeline:

QC values
Speed of scanning 100.00
Step of scanning 99.99
Direction 100.00
Deviation 94.97
Magnetization 97.06
TOTAL QC 92.17