Professional Documents
Culture Documents
2013 Acacp 13 Allisonlowref 120 Final 2013!07!19
2013 Acacp 13 Allisonlowref 120 Final 2013!07!19
net/publication/327051504
CITATIONS READS
0 62
1 author:
Allison Selman
Atteris
7 PUBLICATIONS 3 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
All content following this page was uploaded by Allison Selman on 16 August 2018.
SUMMARY: This paper presents an overview of the status in-line inspection technologies that are
currently available in the industry, including the theory behind each inspection technique. It discusses
application of in-line inspection technology for the use of detecting corrosion features. The main focus
of this paper will be to discuss the practical aspects of performing an in-line inspection of a pipeline
including planning, execution, data evaluation and interpretation. The objective of this paper is to
provide the reader with an appreciation of the capabilities and limitations of using in-line inspection
technology to inspect corroded pipelines.
1. INTRODUCTION
In-line inspection tools are instrumented devices sent down the inside of an operating pipeline system to collect
information about the integrity, physical state, position or conditions in a pipeline using a variety of highly complex
instrumentation and sensors. They are also known as “intelligent” or “smart” pigs, which distinguishes these tools from
their less sophisticated counterpart, “utility pigs” which generally do not have instrumentation, and are used for cleaning,
gauging, dewatering or other pipeline operations or maintenance purposes.
The planning of an in-line inspection campaign is challenging, as
there are many variables to consider. The physical design and
current condition of the pipeline, the physical and chemical
conditions within the pipeline, the objectives of the inspection
program, and the size and type of defects that are required to be
identified define and limit the inspection technology that can be
utilised. This determines the vendors with the required capability
and how the program will be executed.
The execution of an in-line inspection program has many practical
challenges relating to handling, logistics, environmental, available
facilities, inspection procedures and the handling of hazardous
Figure 1: Example in-line inspection tool
materials. Planning and preparation is critical to avoid the primary
(Source: Public image library of Nord Stream AG)
risk of getting a pig stuck.
The final challenge lies in interpretation of in-line inspection data when the final report is received. Engineering
assessment of the reported features is required, so that the impact of any features on the integrity of the pipeline can be
determined.
3. METHOD OF PROPULSION
3.1 Free-Swimming
The most common propulsion method for in-line inspection is to use free-swimming inspection tools. These are tools that
propelled through the pipeline using flow in the pipeline. Normal production flow is used in the majority of cases, but
where this is not practical or does not provide favourable flow conditions, a suitable non-process fluid such as nitrogen, air,
potable water or treated seawater can be used.
Free swimming tools can be used when there are launching and receiving facilities, adequate propulsion medium, as well
as the required differential pressure to propel the tool. Most of these tools are uni-directional however; a number of bi-
directional tools are available.
All inspection tools have limits of velocity (typically 1-5m/s) outwith, which the probability of detection of defects and
also the accuracy of location and size data is adversely affected, due to limitations on sensor and data recorder technology.
Acceptable operating speeds vary with the inspection tool and vendor. Where practical, the appropriate velocity is achieved
by adjusting the flowrate to give an acceptable tool velocity, but where this is impractical (e.g. in pipelines with high
minimum flowrates), tools are available with active bypass technology for speed control – process fluids are allowed past
the tool to lower the tool velocity at a given flowrate. Velocity excursions are common in risers, or scarp crossings, and
where slugging behaviour is observed. Managing velocity is a critical factor in successful inspections.
The various components are modules typically mounted in a train, connected by an articulated joint system. The joints and
the length of the units limit the bending radius of the tool, so pipeline features such as bends, tees, wyes and valves can be
obstacles to a survey. For existing pipelines, this means that the design of the proposed tool train must be carefully
matched to the features and restrictions of the pipeline to be inspected. For a new design pipeline, it is necessary to identify
the generic limitations of tools appropriate to the pipeline, and design the pipeline accordingly.
The length of an in-line inspection tool generally increases as the pipe internal diameter decreases, and also increases with
the intended length of the survey (to accommodate the extra battery, sensors and storage capacity). If in-line inspection is
anticipated during the service life of a pipeline, the appropriate inspection technology must be identified at the design
stage, so that pipe bends and pig traps can be correctly sized. This means that identifying the likely inspection tool is a
critical design decision. For existing pipelines, the existing pig traps must be matched to the proposed tool; if the existing
traps are inadequately sized, new traps may need to be constructed, which can add to the lead time and cost of a survey.
Space limitations in the pig trap location may also affect the available size of the trap, and so limit the tool selection.
6.1 Content
Pipeline content (phase, and composition) during the inspection run is a key variable that determines which in-line
inspection technology can be used. This should be the primary consideration when planning an inspection program.
Liquid pipelines can be inspected by all the available technologies, so the key considerations for selection of tools for
liquid lines are typically in relation to acceptable pressure, temperature and flow rates. Gas pipelines can limit the use of
UT based tools as described in Section 2.3, as well as being limited by the physical conditions.
Vendors also need to be advised of content in terms of presence of highly corrosive products (e.g. H2S or CO2), sand,
debris, wax, mercury and any other elements that may affect performance of their inspection tool.
7. PRACTICAL CONSIDERATIONS
An in-line inspection program is usually triggered by the inspection plan for the pipeline, by corrosion monitoring data
(e.g. probes, sampling, etc.) that indicates active corrosion in the pipeline or other associated event that have caused
concern about the integrity of the wall (e.g. excessive exposure to untreated seawater during installation). This section
details the practical aspects of planning and executing and in-line inspection program.
8.1 General
The in-line inspection report provided by the vendor should summarise all aspects of the inspection campaign, including
pre-inspection runs, tool specification, how the tool performed, inspection conditions and so forth. The main component of
the report will be the pipe tally or list of features that have been detected. The POF Standard [2] provides a guide for
feature reporting, which is used by the majority of in-line inspection vendors.
Other inspection, maintenance or monitoring data should be considered in the assessment process; especially if a specific
event may have triggered an excessive corrosion rate. If a feature (or cluster of features) fails the assessment (i.e. the safe
working pressure is less than the maximum allowable operating pressure), the mitigation options include de-rating the
pipeline (i.e. lower the maximum allowable operating pressure), or repair of the defect.
Engineering assessment is performed based on the length, width and depth of the features. As discussed throughout this
paper, a significant number of variables could affect the sizing accuracy of the features. Confidence on feature size and
location can be improved through verification activities, but any assessment of a feature’s fitness for purpose must include
adequate consideration of the accuracy of the source tool.
9.1 General
In-line inspections are the main basis of the integrity management programme for most oil and gas pipelines, as inspections
provide the most complete data set on pipeline wall thickness. Some pipeline licenses require design for in-line inspections
and the regulator may require scheduled inspections. As with any technology, continuous improvements and developments
are on going to address more challenging pipelines, achieve better feature detection; provide more robust or mobile
inspection tools. The in-line inspection industry is a dynamic, with a high rate of new technology development. Some of
the current limitations are discussed below; however it is likely that these will be reduce or be overcome in the near future.
11. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors acknowledge Chris Saunders (Engineering Manager) and Enda O’Sullivan (Asia-Pacific Manager) for their
continuous support to ensure technical knowledge is shared within the industry, for the benefit of all.
12. REFERENCES
1. Norli Petter, Haland Erling, Olsen Age A.F. and Waag, Grunde (2011) Using half-wave resonances to measuring
thickness and lack of mechanical contact in lined pipes (In) Proceedings of the 24th International Congress on
Condition Monitoring and Diagnostics Engineering Management, 30 May – 01 June 2011, Stavanger, Norway.
2. Pipeline Operators Forum (2009) Specifications and requirements for intelligent pig inspection of pipelines.
3. Pipeline Operators Forum (2012) Guidance document to achieve in-line inspection first run success.
4. Pipeline Operators Forum (2012) Guidance on field verification procedures for in-line inspection.
5. Pigging Products & Services Association, http://www.ppsa-online.com/
6. API 1163 (2005) In-line Inspection Systems Qualification Standard.
7. DNV RP F101 (2010) Recommended Practice for Corroded Pipelines.
8. ASME B31G (2012) Manual for Determining the Remaining Strength of Corroded Pipelines.
9. Pipeline Defect Assessment Manual (PDAM) Joint Industry Project.
10. API 579 (2000) Recommended Practice for Fitness for Service.
11. BS7910 (2005) Guide to Methods for Assessing the Acceptability of Flaws in Metallic Structures.
Chris Selman is a Principal Materials and Corrosion Engineer at Wood Group Integrity
Management, a position he has held since 2006. He consults on all the major North West Shelf
developments with regards to materials selection, corrosion assessments and the development of
corrosion management plans. He specialises in corrosion modelling and monitoring techniques.