PGJ Home Permission to Copy Order Reprints
Inline Technology Ready To
Handle New Pipeline Challenges
By Patrick C. Porter
review of the agenda for the
International Pipeline Conference
& Exposition held in Calgary in
September 2006 gives an insight
into current integrity management concerns.
The Integrity Management (IM) Track offered
122 papers:1

34 papers on assessing features,

21 on Inline Inspection (ILI),

17 on stress corrosion cracking (SCC)
and other cracking issues,

14 on IM program development,

13 on Direct Assessment,

11 on prevention of outside force damage,

Six on corrosion prevention, and

Six on special topics.
This distribution demonstrates that ILI has
matured. There is now more emphasis on fea-
ture assessment than on the actual data gather-
ing. This is the result of a better understanding
of ILI tools, improvements in ILI tool perfor-
mance, requirements to validate tool perfor-
mance and in the economics of pipeline repair.
ILI is still of interest to the industry but
the focus here is on new technology to detect
cracks and axial features or to quantify
mechanical damage (10 papers). There is also
interest in improving the performance of MFL
tools through measurement, testing and statis-
tical assessment of the data (nine papers).
As pipelines age they are prone to different
failure mechanisms. Cracking becomes a con-
cern, as do long-seam weld defects and other
longitudinally oriented imperfections. The 17
papers related to cracking demonstrate this
concern. The 14 papers dealing with Integrity
Management Program development and the 13
dealing with Direct Assessment demonstrate
the proactive position the industry is taking.
The primary concerns appear to be defect
or feature assessment, not only to deter-
mine the affect on integrity and the need to
repair, but also to provide the data needed to
develop growth-rate models, better under-
stand failure mechanisms and validate an
inspection. It is apparent that the industry
needs new technology to deal with the new
issues and concerns such as SCC, electric
resistance weld (ERW) weld cracks, axial
defects and mechanical damage.
Current Status
Several major incidents have focused both
public and regulatory attention on the safety of
pipelines. In today’s environment, any failure
of any pipeline for any reason is unaccept-
able to both the public and the regulators.
Regulators have evolved and become better
informed. They are now dynamic and prepared
to issue rules on new concerns and enforce
compliance to those rules already in place.
In the last few years we have seen changes
50 Pipeline & Gas Journal / October 2006 / www.pgjonline.com
to the Code of Federal Regulation govern-
ing pipelines to include sections on Integrity
Management. This is known as the IMP
rule (Integrity Management Program Rule).
Operator Qualifications have been issued.
ILI technical qualifications were developed
and issued. NACE drafted and published their
Standard Recommended Practice “In-Line-
Inspection of Pipelines” in 2002. ASME pub-
lished the B31.8 2001 Supplement to B31.8
“Managing System Integrity of Gas Pipelines”
in 2001. API issued API 1163 “In-Line-
Inspection Qualification Standards”.
These examples demonstrate that we are see-
ing an industry in transition to an increasingly
regulated and demanding environment. This
transition brings new requirements, challenges
and new responsibilities. Each new challenge
requires skilled, knowledgeable people and, in
some cases, new technology.
From an ILI point of view we are seeing
a maturing pipeline industry with increased
expectation. At the same time we see that the
easy pipelines, those designed for inspection,
have already gone through the inspection cycle
and now some of the more difficult and chal-
lenging lines are being inspected. Difficult
pipelines coupled with high expectation will
lead to some dissatisfaction. This is an issue
that must be understood by both the operator
and the service provider. Cooperation is the
key to success.
We are also seeing operators using ILI for
the first time. There is a need to help these
operators through their initial surveys.
This is where we are. The members of the
Pigging Products and Services Association are
the front line in the effort to provide the neces-
sary resources to meet these challenges.
Figure 1: Defect Classification
Feature Assessment
ILI tools now used can report thousands of
features. As operators rely more heavily on the
ILI Report to manage the pipeline it becomes
necessary to fully evaluate the accuracy of
the data.
On-site feature investigations to determine
necessary repair activities are increasingly
being used to assess the quality of the ILI
results. Sometimes the ILI quality assessment
itself is the reason for such an investigation. A
technically oriented analysis and scientifically
based approach to these activities is required.
It is more difficult than one might think.
It is common for ILI service providers to
supply tool-performance specifications based
on the metal loss feature classifications devel-
oped by the Pipeline Operators Forum (POF)
in the late 1980s.2 The POF defines seven cat-
egories for defects based on axial and circum-
ferential dimensions. Anomalies detected by
an ILI tool will fall into one of seven possible
categories. The seven categories are:

Pinholes – Isolated defects with a
width and length less than one times
the wall thickness.

Pitting – Isolated defects with a width
and length greater than one times the
wall. thickness but less than six times
the wall thickness except for defects with
both length and width greater than three
times wall thickness.

General – Isolated defects with a length
and width greater than or equal to three
times wall thickness.

Axial Slotting – axially oriented defects
with a width less than one times the wall
thickness and a length greater than one
times wall thickness.

Circumferential Slotting – A circumfer-
entially oriented defect with a length less
than one times wall thickness and a width
greater than one times the wall thickness.

Axial Grooving – An axially oriented
defect with a length greater than two times
the wall thickness and a width less than
three times the wall thickness except for
defects that fall into the pit classification.

Circumferential Grooving – A circumfer-
entially oriented defect with a length less
than three times the wall thickness and
a width greater than two times the wall
thickness except for those features that
fall into the pit classification.
These definitions are illustrated in Figure 1,
“Dimension Classification” graph.
Defect dimensions are given in terms of ‘A’
where A = 10 mm (0.4-inches) if wall thick-
ness is less than 10 mm (0.4-inches) or A =
wall thickness if wall thickness is greater than
10 mm (0.4-inches).
Service providers will give performance speci-
fications based on the defect categories outlined;
however, it is not as straightforward as it seems.
Each category can have a different accuracy
specified. For example, pitting may be ±5%
while axial grooving is ±20%. There may be dif-
ferent specifications for automatic grading and
manual grading. There may be different accura-
cies assigned to different pipe types. Seamless
pipe, for example, tends to be magnetically
noisy, making defect detection and sizing less
accurate than would be the case in seam-welded
pipe. The specification may change for defects
in the heat-affected zone of welds.
When validating the performance of a tool
it is important to know the specification
to be used. It is also important to note that
most MFL service providers will not declare
a threshold of detection or accuracy for pin-
holes, axial slotting or circumferential slotting.
Features in these categories cannot therefore
be considered for validation purposes because
there is no specification against which to judge
tool performance.
Features that are below the threshold or
probability of detection should also be elimi-
nated as validation features because the ser-
vice provider is not required to detect or size
these anomalies. That leaves pitting features,
general features, axial and circumferential
grooving features that can be used to qualify
or validate the MFL tool run.
In many cases there will be multiple anoma-
lies in close proximity. The codes generally
require that anomalies in close proximity be
grouped into clusters by certain interaction
rules. The cluster is then assessed using B31G,
B31G Modified, RSTRENG Effective Area or
some other acceptable method.
The service providers will state that the
length of the cluster will be the axial extent
from the start of the anomaly to the end of the
anomaly and the depth reported will be the
depth of the deepest anomaly within the cluster.
This presents a problem. If the deepest anomaly
in the cluster is from a feature category for
which no accuracy is declared, then the cluster
depth cannot be used for validation purposes.
The inspection report must be reviewed to iden-
tify an anomaly within the cluster that is from a
reportable category. That anomaly can be used
for validation, but any reduced wall thickness
around the feature will affect accuracy.
ILI tools report feature depths as a percentage
of actual wall thickness. Operators commonly
measure defect depth, then calculate percentage
depth based on nominal wall. This leads to errors.
The length of a feature reported by the tool will
be the length from the threshold of detection line,
typically 5% wall. In the field this defect will be
measured as actual length. This leads to errors.
In addition to these obvious errors operators
must understand the accuracy and tolerance
of the systems being used to measure the
feature in the field. UT equipment operated by
a skilled technician can still have an error of
5%. Errors with pit gauge measurements can
be significantly higher. The accuracy of the
measurement must be considered if the data is
used for validation purposes. Many of the ILI
service providers are starting to issue technical
reference material that highlights these issues.
The most important property, with regards
to accuracy, is the metal loss depth or remain-
ing wall thickness.
From API 11633, A “unity” graph is the
simplest tool to implement this verification
method. This is simply a plot of the depth of
the defect predicted by the ILI tool against the
results of field measurements.
To enable a valid comparison, the physical
units and statistical parameters of the different
measurement methods must be unitized at the
beginning.
Gauging bars and UT devices usually assess
the general wall thickness and the remaining
wall independently. MFL, however, provides
relative wall loss values. The accuracy speci-
fication for UT wall thickness devices is typi-
cally given as a standard deviation, and MFL
uses an 80% certainty level.
One approach is to calculate the relative
wall loss deviation expected for the UT or
gauging devices in percent wall loss at 80%
confidence level. Once this is calculated it
becomes rather obvious how and where these
typical field measurement techniques depend
on the wall thickness and how this compares to
the ILI accuracy. (Note: The “rather obvious”
comment is a direct quote from API 1163. This
may be obvious to you but it is not as obvious
to me. This is an example of how complex
things have become.)
Based on Gaussian error propagation and a
Gaussian distribution, the accuracy of the filed
measurement is as follows:
where:
d = absolute anomaly depth [in / mm]
t = general wall thickness
d/t = relative depth [%]
t-d = remaining wall thickness [in / mm]
s = standard deviation (i.e. 68% confidence)
D= deviation on the basis of 80% confidence
D(d/t)=1.28 * (Ö { [ ( s ( d ))/d] 2 + [ (s (t)) /
t] 2 }) * (d/t)
with s (d) = Ö { s (t-d)2 + s (t)2 }
An individual measurement violates the
common 80% confidence expectations, if the
purported total tolerance is violated:
Pipeline & Gas Journal / October 2006 / www.pgjonline.com
I (d/t)ILI – (d/t)FIELD I > [{D(d/t)ILI2 + D(d/
t)FIELD2}]1/2
API 1163 – Appendix E, goes on to provide
an example and I encourage the reader to
review this document. The point I am trying
to make is that ILI validation is becoming so
complex that it is almost impossible to do.
Let’s simplify things if we can.
It was shown previously that it is impor-
tant to establish the level of acceptability
of the field measurements, even when it is
believed the measurements have been accu-
rately obtained. Therefore, it is often difficult
to conclude whether an observed general
deviation between reported measurements and
field measurements is significant. This state-
ment is also strongly dependent on whether
the population of investigated anomalies is
representative of the anomaly population of
the pipeline. Typically it is not.
Usually, the anomalies investigated repre-
sent a rather specific selection based on, for
example, calculated depth or anomaly type,
not the full range of reported anomalies. This
means that often no basis is presented to assess
the accuracy specification in a statistically
accurate manner.
The forgoing represents only one aspect of
feature assessment. Obviously defects will be
assessed to determine their affect on the safe
operation of the pipeline. These assessments
require similar accuracy of measurement but
the actual calculations then performed are
well-defined in the codes.
There is good reason that feature assess-
ment is a top priority for the industry.
Inline Inspection
The ILI service providers are responding
to the demands of the industry by introducing
new technology to detect and quantify cracks,
locate ERW seam problems and more fully
evaluate mechanical defects. As well, all of the
ILI service providers continue to improve data
display and analysis software.
51
EMAT For SCC
Conventional wet-coupled ultra-
sonic technology (UT) inspection
systems work well if a suitable liq-
uid coupling medium is present. This
technology has serious limitations in
gas pipelines. Rosen has introduced
a dry-coupled ultrasonic technology
based on Electro-Magnetic Acoustic
Transducers (EMAT) for detecting
cracks and coating disbondment. The
tool provides a crack inspection solu-
tion for both liquid and gas pipelines.
The tool is based on an electro-magnetic
conversion resulting from the application of
an eddy current within a static magnetic field.
The Lorentz force and magnetostriction gener-
ated thereby lead to an interaction between the
EMAT and the metal surface. This interaction
in turn produces an acoustic wave within the
material. Since the material being inspected
acts as its own transducer, the need for a liquid
couplant is eliminated.
Crack features such as stress corrosion
cracking (SCC) disturb the guided wave,
thereby producing an echo. On the basis of the
detection and measurement of this echo, the
features and condition of the pipe wall can be
accurately inferred.
Rosen’s EMAT tool is based on the magnetic
configuration of the company’s high-resolution
MFL corrosion detection ILI tool. The innova-
tive placement of the magnets makes the sensor
much smaller and lighter than that of other
EMAT tools currently on the market. A circum-
ferential array containing many sensor scans
can therefore be configured resulting in both
high-resolution crack detection and accurate
collection of coating disbondment information.
Typical data are shown in Figures 3 and 4.
Mechanical Damage
Enduro Pipeline Services has introduced
advanced ILI equipment using multiple tech-
nologies to better assess all detected fea-
tures and specifically to quantify mechanical
defects. The design includes sensors for low-
level magnetic field, high-level magnetic field,
high-resolution deformation, inertial position-
ing, bend measurement, ID/OD discrimination
plus additional sensor to acquire the data nec-
essary to assess the condition of a pipeline.
The mechanical damage detection and siz-
ing employed in the tool is based on work
funded by the pipeline industry and done by
J.B. Nestleroth at Battelle. This work demon-
strated that stress at mechanical features could
be detected by using both high- and low-level
magnetic fields. When these data are decoupled,
the effects of stress remain. The decoupled data
is then compared to the deformation and inertial
data to provide an assessment of the feature.
The Enduro tool is a robust modular sys-
tem. The sensor arrays have been designed to
ensure that each of the data sets is captured in
identical mechanical configurations, thus ensur-
ing that each data set contains only information
from the particular sensing technology and not
from some mechanical difference of the sensing
assembly.
Data from each data set provide a unique view
of the condition of the pipe. When the data sets
are viewed concurrently, features can be far more
52 Pipeline & Gas Journal / October 2006 / www.pgjonline.com
 Rosen EMAT ILI Tool
 Rosen EMAT SCC Data
accurately assessed than would be
possible from any single data set or
even any two data sets. Figures 5, 6
and 7 show data sets from the tool.
The presence or absence of sig-
nals in the data sets, along with
polarity and amplitude ratios, each
become indicators for identifica-
tion and assessment of features.
Permeability differences exhibited
by the low-level data set and the
presence or absence of signals in
the deformation, MFL and ID/OD
discrimination, when collected
concurrently, form the basis of a
data set necessary to assess the con-
dition of a pipeline. This approach
allows mechanical features to be
assessed more accurately than
before.
An extensive software package
has been developed to allow each
of the data sets to be viewed con-
currently in any of several modes.
Crack Detection
Tuboscope Pipeline Services,
with its partner NDT Systems and
Services AG, has introduced ILI
technology for detecting and quan- crack-type flaws as might occur in girth welds.
tifying cracks and crack-like features. Reliable
detection of these defects constitutes a chal- Advanced Data Analysis
lenge for the pipeline inspection industry. GE Energy has adapted ultrasound technol-
Depending on the type of pipeline, pipeline ogy used in hospitals to create an advanced
material and operating condition, different inspection tool for evaluating the “health” of
types of cracks can occur, including SCC, liquid pipelines. Its new UltraScan® Duo is
fatigue cracks, and cracks in the weld and heat the oil and gas industry’s first pipeline inspec-
affected zone of longitudinal or girth welds. tion pig to utilize “Phased Array Ultrasound
Tuboscope’s Ultrasonic Technology Crack Technology,” an automated sensor system that
Detection (UTCD) tool uses liquid-coupled ultra- GE’s pipeline solutions group has adapted to
sonic transducers where each sensor is inclined at perform comprehensive pipeline inspections
such an angle as to generate a refracted shear wave in a single run. UltraScan Duo uses technology
propagating through the pipe wall at an angle of from GE Healthcare and GE Transportation’s
45 degrees. The tool can also be optimized to inspection services unit. The two GE business-
detect and measure general corrosion defects by es are leaders in phased-array ultrasound tech-
using a different sensor configuration. nology for medical imaging and non-destruc-
The transducers are positioned to propagate tive inspection applications, respectively.4
energy in both directions giving redundant T.D. Williamson’s affiliate Magpie Systems
coverage. There are also transducers to measure has introduced a combination MFL and defor-
wall thickness to allow feature assessment. mation tool. This can be configured either as
The tool has a sensor carrier that allows both deformation with a standard MFL tool or MFL
metal loss and crack inspection to be carried out with an ID/OD tool. This can provide signifi-
on a single run. It has multiple configurations cant cost savings as a single run can provide all
— for metal loss alone, both internal and exter- the data needed to assess a pipeline’s structural
nal corrosion, detecting and sizing mid-wall integrity. The deformation tool locates, sizes
flaws such as laminations, and for detection and determines the orientation of diameter fluc-
and sizing fatigue cracks, ERW weld cracks tuations, also detecting and locating bends.
and stress corrosion cracks. It can be also be Widespread applications are reported of
configured to detect circumferential cracks or
 Baker Hughes new MFLCal ILI system for
detecting both metal loss and mechanical dam-
age. This carries out magnetic flux leakage
and caliper inspections in a single run. The
system also handles extreme bore reductions
— up to 25% in most sizes — and 1.5D back-
to-back bends, minimizing the need to carry
out a preliminary caliper run.
Figure 2.
Cleaning
New ILI technology
has become so sophisticated and the results so
important that preparation for an inspection has
taken on more importance. If an ILI report is
the tool by which the pipeline will be managed
then it is critical that the report’s data be as
accurate as possible. This implies that the tools
be run under optimum conditions in a clean
pipeline.
CDI, Enduro, TDW, Inline, Knapp, PipeTech
Corporation and Pigs Unlimited offer a wide
range of pigs and pigging equipment that con-
tinue to be fine-tuned to meet the customer’s
increasingly sophisticated attention to pipeline
maintenance and servicing.

Conclusions
Defect assessment will continue to be a high
priority topic. Service providers will become
directly involved in all field activities related to
tool validation. This will “close the feed-back
loop” and generate the information needed for
continuous improvement. A more cooperative
relationship is developing to the benefit of all
parties. Analysis algorithms and accuracy are
improving. Operators are seeing the value of
looking directly at the ILI data and comparing it
to as-built information. This alone will improve
the record of the pipeline and increase safety.
Data analysis is becoming more complex.
The ILI service providers will generate the ini-
tial integrity report but the operator or others
must be involved in taking the data and further
assessing it for other information. We are see-
ing third parties involved in all aspects of field
Figure 8: 24-inch Crack Detection Tool
measurement and tool validation.
d ILI service providers continue to develop the
f technology that the industry demands. Every ILI
provider has made significant progress in the last
year. Pipeline operators who think they are up-to-
d date and knowledgeable on current ILI technology
probably should contact their selected service
provider and ask “what’s new?” P&GJ
REFERENCES:
1. International Pipeline Conference & Exposition
– Program.
2. POF - Specification and Requirements for
Intelligent Pig Inspection of Pipelines, Version 2.1,
November 1998.
3. API 1163 – In-line Inspection Systems Qualification
Standard, August 2005.
4. Pipeline and Gas Journal – August 2005. Figure 9: Transducer Array

Author: Pat Porter has 35 years of experience

with In-Line Inspection, pipeline repair and
pipeline integrity. He is a member of PPSA
and has recently begun consulting on pipeline,
ILI and integrity issues. He can be contacted
at pcporter@hotmail.com.

Pipeline & Gas Journal / October 2006 / www.pgjonline.com 53