JULY

AUG
2009
_____

Vol 15
Issue 4

A Simple p. 4
Mistake While
Performing Active
Infared Thermography

Flange Face p. 6
Corrosion Inspection

2010 IPEIA p. 15
Conference

Chinese p. 16
Special Equipment
Inspection & Research
Association

Oil & Gas p. 17

Maintenance
Technology Conference

2009 Central p. 18
Area Conference

1 INSPECTIONEERING JOURNAL July/August 2009

 IJ Industry.....Activities Planner
July/Aug The Inspectioneering® Journal does not warrant nor guarantee the accuracy of any infor-
2009 mation contained, nor the extent of inclusiveness, in the Industry Activities Planner. It
is imperative that interested parties contact the sponsoring organizations, for each par-
_____ ticular event, to verify dates, information and locations, prior to any planning or decision
making regarding the value of each event. Readers may contact the Inspectioneering®
Journal office to obtain appropriate contact information.
Vol 15 Issue 4
Please e-mail any activities of interest you think applicable to the Inspectioneering®
community to tij@gte.net.
The Inspectioneering® Journal AU G U S T 2 0 0 9
is a bi-monthly, 25-27
copyright protected, NDT in Canada Conference, London, Ontario Canada > NDE, For
more information visit the web site http://events.cinde.ca/
periodical published
six times per year.
S E P T E M B E R 20 0 9
Please address all 1-3
Oil and Gas Maintenance Technology Conference, Hilton
correspondence to: Riverside, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA > NDE, RBI, RI, VE, CAS
The Inspectioneering® Journal For more information visit the web site
5315 FM 1960 West,
Suite B 237 20-24
Houston, TX NACE Corrosion Technology Week, Houston, TX > For more
information visit the web site www.Nace.org
77069 USA
27-30
Phone: (281) 397-7075 NACE Central Area Conference, New Orleans Airport Hilton,
Fax: (281) 397-9996 Kenner, Louisiana, USA > NDE, RBI, RI, VE, CAS > For more
information visit the web site http://events.nace.org/sarwebsites/
Email: tij@gte.net CentralArea/conference09/index.asp
Website:
www.inspectioneering.com O C TO B E R 2 0 0 9
Publisher: 27-28
Mary Kay O’Connor Process Safety Center International
Dawn Alvarado Symposium , Hilton Conference Center in College Station, Texas USA.
Beyond Regulatory Compliance, Making Safety Second Nature > For more
Chief Editor: informationcontact Dr. Sam Mannan, e-mail: mannan@tamu.edu or visit the
web site http://process-safety.tamu.edu
Gregory C. Alvarado
28-29
2nd Annual Pipeline Leak Detection and Monitoring Conference,
Contributing Authors: Omni Woodway, Houston, TX , NDE, CAS, RI, VE. For more information
M. Z. Umar visit the web site http://www.pipelineandgastechnology.com/
Malaysian Nuclear Agency
N OV E M B E R 20 0 9
W. J. Perry
9-11
General Electric Inspection Technologies API Fall Refining and Standards Meeting, Hyatt Regency Dallas,
Dallas, TX > CAS, RI, NDE, RBI, FFS, MI RL,VE. For more information visit
the web site www.API.org
(ISSN 1082-6955)
 � YES
I would like to subscribe to the INSPECTIONEERING JOURNAL
Single subscriptions cost $250.00 U.S. per year (6 issues). 10% discount for
2 yr. subscriptions. Contact us for details on multiple subscription pricing.
Non-U.S. subscribers add $50.00 per year for postage.

Digital Subscriptions Available:

Send pricing, format and delivery questions to tij@gte.net

IND E X - _
___
___
______
____
___
___
___
_____
_______
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
Subscriber Name (Recipient)
A Simple Mistake While ................ 4-5 _
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
_
Performing Active Infared Company Name
Thermography
_
___
____
____
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
__
Address
Flange Face Corrosion Inspection. 6-14
_
______
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
____
____
_____
____
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
_____
___
City State/Province Zip/Code
2010 IPEIA Conference................... 15
_
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
_ _
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
__
Phone Fax
Chinese Special Equipment............ 16
Inspection & Research Association _
___
___
Email
__
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
__
URL
__
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
_

Oil & Gas Maintenance .............. 17-18 � Renewal � New Subscription

Technology Conference � Check Enclosed � Bill Me (payment due in 30 days)

2009 Central Area Conference........ 18 _

___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
_
Cardholder Name

_
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
_
The Inspectioneering® Journal assumes no re- Credit Card No. Expiration Date
sponsibilities or liabilities for the acuracy or
application of methodologies, technologies, _
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
__
philosophies, references, case histories, or un- Cardholder Signature Date
authorized release of company information in
relation to any printed subject matter in the In- Please make checks payable to The Inspectioneering Journal
spectioneering® Journal The Inspectioneering® 5315 FM 1960 West, Suite B 237
Journal, the editors and authors, or anyone act- Houston, TX 77069
ing on their behalf, assume no responsibility or Telephone: (281) 397-7075 Fax: (281) 397-9996
liability, without limitation, for the use of informa- Email: tij@gte.net Website: www.inspectioneering.com
tion published in the Inspectioneering® Journal.

IJ Article Submission and Publication

1. All articles must adhere to the Guidelines and Requirements listed on our web site at
http://www.inspectioneering.com/publishanarticle.htm.
2. Authors must have/obtain authorized permission to print, with company and name byline, in this publication.
3. Send duplicates of all photos, illustrations, and visual aids with permission to reprint. Must be submitted with draft article.
“IJ” retains right to reprint and archive all visual aids submitted for use.
4. Unless otherwise requested, articles must be one page in length, 10 to 12 cpi, single spaced.
5. Editor and contributing editors will make all final decisions regarding acceptance of article, i.e. value and appropriateness
judgements, along with editing decisions.
6. Author is responsible for final review, following step 5, and authorization from his/her employer to release, as necessary.
7. All articles accepted by the “IJ” become the property of the “IJ”. No reprint is permitted without prior written authorization.
 A Simple Mistake While Performing
Active Infared Thermography Approach:
Something we should think about!
By M.Z Umar
Non-Destructive Testing Group
Malaysian Nuclear Agency, 43000, Kajang, Selangor, Malaysia.
zaki@nuclearmalaysia.gov.my

E-mail questions or comments to tij@gte.net

We have been introduced to Infrared

Thermography (IRT) since World War I
and over the last decade the application
of this technique has gained impetus.
Today, the IRT application is widely
used and accepted by many industries
such as power generation plants, oil &
gas industries, manufacturing factories,
medicine, agriculture and biology etc.
The technique has been recognized as
a reliable tool for technical diagnostics
in particular to condition monitoring
and predictive maintenance. In fact in
some countries, e.g. Russia, in 1998,
the United Electrical Networks of
Russia, the major producer of electrical
power in the country, allowed using IR
inspection instead of a traditional visual
inspection that is to be performed once a
year and recently a few Russian building
companies start to include expenses for
thermographic inspection into building An example of Transient Thermography
budgets. Experiment set-up (visual image)

Above mentioned accounts only give us some ideas how
important this technique can be for people in this industries.
But, once should bear in mind that these examples pointed
to the passive mode of IRT only. How about active modes
of IRT? Can the technique which is often called Transient
Thermography also be reliable for improving quality
control in structures in both metals and non metals? This is
something we should think about!
In May 2007, Wolfgang Bisle from Airbus was quoted
in the forum NDT.net that, an active approach of IRT is
showing promise, but the application of this approach still
has not completely been accepted in all corners of the world
market. Some other new emerging techniques such as
instant Laser Interferometry, Acoustic Emission etc, show
a lot of possibilities but realization for real applications
can sometimes be tricky. At the same time, the background
knowledge amongst average people about these techniques
is poor or and worse ‘inspectors” applying such have no
qualification with little necessary levels of training. In the
case of IRT, such as a thermographer or so called “thermal
evaluator”, he or she should have a solid understanding of
heat transfer laws, thermal dynamics and properties of why
objects appear hot or cold.

4 INSPECTIONEERING JOURNAL July/August 2009

From my personal point of
view, to some extent, Bisle’s
statement is quite true. He had
a good point. Various aspects
of IRT techniques have been
thoroughly studied by many
authors, even about the active
approach of IRT. For example
In the 1980s, Vavilov and Taylor
discussed the principles of Active
Thermography, expressing the
ability to provide quantitative
information about hidden defects
or features in a material. Even
though, this technique has a
potential to deliver a great results,
there are various properties of
the materials that need to be
considered, such as thermal
properties (e.g. conductivity,
effusivity, diffusivity etc),
spectral properties (e.g.
emissivity, reflection, absorption
etc) and others. These
considerations may seem simple, The efficient surface of the object is approximately 1 m2.
however they can cause major mistakes while performing Therefore it radiates about half kW – it is a substantial heat
active thermography. For instance, while performing active loss, isn’t it?
putting an incorrect value on emissivity into the infrared
camera can give incorrect temperature readings. Now, let us see how the value of emissivity effects the
radiation being emitted from a surface. Emissivity can be
I would like to share a success story of Malaysian Nuclear defined as the ratio of the radiation emitted by a real body,
Agency, in its use of an IR camera as a tool to measure the compared to the radiation emitted by a blackbody so called
emissivity of an Alluminium Killed Masked (TV screen) universal radiator (ε = 1), both at the same temperature
requested by Samsung (SDI) Malaysia Berhad. But before and at the same wavelength. It is also can be considered as
that, a question might be raised, why are we so interested in an efficiency factor. The efficiency of it can be anywhere
emissivity? Why do television manufacturers like Samsung between 0 to 100% and the value of it can be anywhere
really need to know about the emissivity value of its between 0 to 1. A blackbody radiates at an efficiency of
products? My only quick guess is that during operation, a 100%, whiles a theoretical object with an emissivity of 0, will
screen is being warmed up. Increasing emissivity will help radiate at an efficiency of 0%. As we know that IR camera is
to enhance heat losses from the screen and thus decrease calibrated to blackbody, therefore only blackbody radiation
its temperature. In its turn, in electronic components, can be converted to temperature. So what will happen if
any decrease in temperature enhances reliability. How to our target is not a blackbody? By using Stefan-Boltzman’s
explain and clarify this? To answer the question we need law, let us calculate the value of E for a blackbody at 90º
to know the relationship between energy (heat), emissivity C (363.15 K) and the value of E for a real body (ε = 0.6)
and temperature. The Stefan-Boltzman’s law, E = εσT4 at 140º C (413.15 K). It is surpriseing to see that both will
stated that emitted radiation, E, can vary with emissivity, ε radiate about 1000 Wm-2 and that meane they will look the
and temperature, T. (The sigma symbol, σ is called Stefan same to the infrared camera. Therefore if we put the value
Boltzman’s constant ⊕ 5.67 x 10-8 Wm-2 K-4). Notice the of emissivity as 1.0 in our camera, and look at a real body
relationship between temperature and emitted radiation! at 140º C, the camera will tell us that it is only 90º C. If we
As the temperature of an object increases, the emitted directly convert radiation intensity to temperature without
radiation from that object also increases, but it is not a compensating for the ‘missing’ radiation, we will get a result
linear relationship. The emitted radiation is proportional that is too low. This is a simple mistake often executed by
to the absolute temperature raised to the fourth power. An thermographers while performing NDT inspection. To find
example is an object with a temperature of 300 Kelvin, out how to measure the emissivity value of a specimen
which will radiate about 500 W per m2 object surface. surface, one can refer to ASTM Standard code E 1933-99a.
5 INSPECTIONEERING JOURNAL July/August 2009
 Flange Face Corrosion Inspection
Inspection from the Bolting Surface
WJ Perry
General Electric Inspection Technologies
E-mail questions or comments to tij@gte.net
Background:
In the current economic environment, there is increasing
pressure on petrochemical refineries and delivery systems to be
more productive and to minimize unscheduled shutdowns due to
leakage. Leakage can occur from either the piping itself or the
joints of the pipes. In a refinery there are several thousands of
feet of piping and associated joints, as shown in the photograph
presented in Figure 1. Petrochemical leaks don’t only cost the
companies money for the time and material to repair a leak, but
also to remediate the areas affected and the institution of stricter
controls. Because of this pressure, the involved companies are
looking to replace the current monitoring scheme with a more
effective and cost efficient risk based inspection (RBI) program.
The backbone of such a program is the concept of being able to
quickly identify the most serious conditions so that they can be
attended to immediately, and conditions of lesser concern can be
relegated to remediation at a future shutdown.
One area where leakage is a concern is at the bolted flange
joints. Each joint consists of two mating flanges with a gasket
material between them, Figure 2. Leakage at these joints are
6 INSPECTIONEERING JOURNAL July/August 2009
a result of the corrosive material being transported in the lines
attacking the steel flanges and removing material from the sealing
surfaces to such an extent that the seal is compromised and
leakage occurs. In the petrochemical refinery process, the HSE
concerns for some of the materials are quite severe, and therefore
any leakage is of grave concern,
The current monitoring philosophy relies heavily on the
physical disassembly of the joints to do a visual inspection of
the surfaces. Due to the time involved to disassemble the joints,
perform the visual inspection and reassembly, a push has been
put forth to supplement the visual inspections with a non-invasive
technique, such as ultrasonics. The approaches have ranged from
simple manual single element raster type inspection to complex
phased array scanner based systems. The single element approach
provides simplicity in operation, but complexity in analysis.
A phased array scanner based system sacrifices simplicity in
operation for reduced data analysis complexity. Within the range
of possible ultrasonic techniques, there does not exist a simplistic
manual phased array approach. To answer this need, GEIT has
begun to develop a solution utilizing the PHASOR –XS ® in
conjunction with manual manipulation of a phased array probe.
This solution provides the best of both worlds (i.e., ease of
operation and simplicity of data analysis).
Discussion:
The evaluation of corrosion on the sealing surface of a
flange can be accomplished from three different surfaces (bolting
surface, taper, and outside diameter of the flange). There is not
one that provides the perfect solution. Each one has drawbacks
and advantages. The drawbacks associated with scanning
from the bolting surface is that there will be areas that cannot
be inspected because of the bolt hole and studs, and also, this
approach hinders an assessment of the actual amount of material
loss from the bolt surface, because of the angle of the beams
impinging on the surface of concern. An inspection from the taper
region has the drawback that different curved wedges need to be
developed for each different taper condition, and if full coverage the facility owner must realize that with the operational ease come
is required then a custom low profile probe and wedge are needed several limitations that need to be considered when it is applied.
to fit behind the studs. From the outer diameter of the flange, One is that multiple wedge configurations need to be used because
the drawbacks are the need for an encoded scanning device to with a single element probe no phasing of the inspection angle
maintain the proper probe position while rotating the probe can be accomplished. Also, to obtain the type of detail needed to
around the circumference of the flange. Also, if wall progression provide the assessment, the size of the ultrasonic beam needs to
assessment is required, this technique requires full RF waveform be relatively small. Therefore to cover the necessary area with a
capture to generate a C-scan type image from which to assess single element crystal, a raster type scan needs to be employed.
that progression. With the need for scanning mechanisms for this Employment of raster scanning can identify the areas of concern.
technique an inherent limitation to its use is the proximity of the However, such a procedure is a time consuming approach which
joints to one another. In certain locations the piping runs may be thereby limits the number of areas that can be examined in a given
such that a scanning mechanism cannot fit into the space envelope time. Also, if the technique is being performed in a manual mode,
available. Even with the limitations of the ultrasonic techniques, with no hard copy output being generated, it becomes the inspector
the petrochemical industry has been relying more and more on it responsibility to monitor A-scan (time) traces to identify what are
because of the additional information that is provided to help the geometric signals, and therefore non-relevant, Figures 4 and 5 and
owners minimize their liabilities. what are associated with corrosion, Figure 6.
In an attempt to bridge the gap between the simplest
conventional single element approach and the more comprehensive,
We began a study designed to provide a viable phased array flange
face inspection solution that is highly portable, and simple to use
for an experienced phased array inspector. The approach was
centered on utilizing the system along with both standard and
custom designed wedges as the data acquisition platform, and
the Rhythm software solution for reporting and archiving the
results. The development of a full solution (i.e., one that covers
data acquisition, analysis, reporting and archival) is a benefit
to a customer because inspection can be performed in a logical
fashion and the results are available for future reference for
planning purposes. Presented below will be a brief discussion
of the approaches pursued to arrive at the proposed solution, and
then that will be followed by a discussion of the results for each These interpretations require extensive skill of the operator and
approach and the recommended action that are needed to be taken knowledge of the position of the transducer when the signals are
to achieve a field deployable solution. generated.

Inspection from Bolting Surface

The first approach discussed is the inspection from the bolting
circle surface. In this approach a transducer is placed on the flat
bolting surface of the flange with the ultrasonic beam directed
toward the ID of the pipe section, Figure 3. The concept behind
this inspection technique is that the ultrasonic beam will insonify
the sealing surface of the flange and thereby be able to identify the
presence of corrosion. One factor a facility owner needs to realize
that with this inspection technique there are going to be areas that
cannot be inspected (i.e., where the bolting studs are located).
As stated previously, one ultrasonic technique currently
being used for this inspection technique is a single element crystal
probe. The main benefit to an owner of a plant to employ this
approach is its’ simplicity of operation and portability. However,

7 INSPECTIONEERING JOURNAL July/August 2009


Flange Face Corrosion Inspection
The discussion presented above highlighted some of the
problem areas associated with using a single element probe to
perform an inspection for flange face corrosion from the bolting
surface. The problems specifically associated with single
element inspections can be overcome by the use of phased array
technology on this inspection. With phased array technology, the
concept of the inspection is the same as for the single element
probe (i.e., probe placed on the bolting surface between the studs
and the beam is directed toward the pipe ID). However, phased
array technology provides the advantage that multiple inspection
angles can be generated at the same time. With the proper design
and selection of the phased array probe and wedge, it is possible
to perform the same inspection that a single element probe does
without the need to use multiple wedges or a raster type scanning
motion. In selecting the proper transducer/wedge combination,
the goal is to be able to insonify the entire seating surface area, as
well as part of the inside diameter (ID) of the pipe. To introduce
this technique to the marketplace, we have focused on a synergistic
approach of taking the best of a single element inspection and
incorporating it with the best of a phased array solution. From
the single element inspection comes the ease of equipment
operation and the portability of the equipment. From the phased
array side, the multiple simultaneous inspection angles, an image
to evaluate and the
lacking scanning.
Figure 7 shows that
data acquisition
platform that
incorporates these
features. This is
a highly portable
manual inspection
system that
incorporates both
a 16/64 phased
array board and
a conventional
single element flaw
detector.
In arriving at a potential solution to the problem of detecting
flange face corrosion, we attempted to use as much standard
product as possible, and supplement them with custom designed
products as needed. The phased array probe that we selected as the
8 INSPECTIONEERING JOURNAL July/August 2009
starting point was a 5 MHz 16 element array. The pitch between
elements is 0.040 inch and the elevation of elements is 0.39 inch.
That makes the aperture approximately 0.63 inch x 0.39 inch when
all 16 elements are fired. The overall dimensions of the probe and
the wedge selected are approximately 1.3 inches x 1.3 inches.
The space envelop of this probe is such that it will fit between
the studs on
all flanges
that have
a specified
diameter of
4.0 inch or
greater, as
shown in
Figure 8. For
flanges with
a smaller
specified
diameter,
a narrower
width probe/
w e d g e
configuration is required.
In the performance of this inspection with the system the
operator has at his disposal a weld overlay software option that
can be used to guide in the interpretation of the data. The overlay
software was not written specifically for this application, but it can
be used to define the extent of the sealing surface. This provides
the inspector a quick visual reference to look for the region of
interest on the image. Prior to the start of an inspection cycle
the operator can easily setup all the parameter files that will be
needed. The parameter files will be generated using the geometric
information about the flanges to be inspected, and the pertinent
information about the transducer and wedge combination to be
used. The flange information is readily available from many
sources, while the probe/wedge information is supplied with
the probe and wedge when purchased. After the inspector has
generated the parameter files and stored them on the SD card,
he is ready to begin the inspections. There are two basic types
of inspections that an operator may perform on a flange from the
bolting surface,(Screening Inspection and Progression Assessment)
and each one will be discussed separately. Contained within each
discussion will be representative images of what the operator
should expect to see on the display. Since the images presented
herein are from the relatively limited sample set available, they
cannot possibly cover the entire gamut of conditions that an
inspector may encounter in the field. However, an experienced
inspector should be able to use the knowledge presented in this
document and assess actual field conditions. As the inspector
obtains more field exposure his knowledge base will grow, so that
each successive inspection will become easier. At the start of an
inspection cycle the objective of the inspector should be to perform
a quick screening to assess the overall condition of the joints in
the plant so that he can concentrate on the most severely degraded
joints. Presented below is the technique that an inspector would
use to perform such a screening inspection using the system.
1. Screening Inspection Technique

The first step the inspector needs to perform is to recall the

parameter file for the joint to be inspected. The designation of
the file should be something like “ Flange ID-Pressure rating”
When the file has been recalled, the inspector shall verify the
sweep angles are sufficient for the inspection and also set the “Leg
Length” to 1.0. Such a setting will give the inspector a sufficient
display to see the image of interest. With the Phasor operational,
the inspector then needs to couple the probe/wedge combination
to the flange bolting surface. Depending on the surface condition
and temperature of the flange the operator may need to use
different couplant. Rough surfaces or high temperatures tend to
require a thicker couplant than a smooth cool surface. Place of
the probe should be such that the back of the probe is at the outer
edge of the flange. Such a position will provide the inspector with
a display that shows the entire sealing surface of the flange face as
well as part of the ID of the pipe.
With the probe located in such a position, the inspector
should see for a non-corroded flange a display similar to the severity because a small amount of corrosion in a CO2 environment,
display should in Figure 9. This image is obtained by inspecting a is not as severe as it the piping system is transporting HF based
4 inch raised face flange that has not seen service, and therefore is material. An example of the image for a corroded HF ALKY
flange is seen in Figure 11, and Figure 12 shows an image of a
severely corroded 2 inch flange. These two images provide an
example of the range of conditions that an inspector could expect
to see in assessing whether corrosion has been initiated at a bolted
joint. In examining Figure 11, it appears to be quite similar to that
show in Figure 9 for a non-corroded flange. On the surface that is
true, however with a closer look at the two figures, the thing that is
noticed is that the second leg reflection signal in Figure 11 appears
to have successive hot spots that are separated very slightly with
low amplitude areas. This is indicative of a roughened surface.

known to be free of corrosion. The key item the inspector should

be looking for during the screening process is the connection of
the second leg reflection off the pipe ID to the corner trap signal of
the flange ID. The existence of a connected second leg reflection
means that the sealing surface in close proximity to the flange ID
has not been either roughened up or had its geometry changed by
corrosion. If either of those conditions had occurred the reflection
off of the sealing surface near the ID would be at such an angle
that a connected second leg reflection would not exist.
What an inspector could expect to see for a flange that is
experiencing corrosion can be shown by the image presented in
Figure 10. Figure 10 is an inspection result for a 4 inch raised face What happens for a roughened surface is that slight depressions
flange that has corrosion present. This figure clearly shows there and ridges tend to disrupt the specular reflection off the sealing
is a break in the second leg reflection. The amount of separation surface, and it is those disruptions that yield a pattern of hot
that occurs for the second leg reflection can help the inspector spots and low amplitude areas. Therefore when an inspector is
estimate the severity of the corrosion for a given corrosive performing an examination in a facility where HF Alky is present
environment. The knowledge of the corrosive environment the he must be aware that the screening inspection aspect of the job
joint is experiencing is necessary when estimating corrosion will require close scrutiny of the images to discern that pattern.

9 INSPECTIONEERING JOURNAL July/August 2009


Flange Face Corrosion Inspection
If an inspector sees an image similar to that shown in Figure 12
there should be no uncertainty that corrosion has occurred in that
joint and it is severe. The reason for making that statement is that
the second leg reflective signal is completely missing. The cause
of such a condition in this instance is due to the combination of
the corrosion progressing significantly inboard for the Flange ID
and the corrosion as it has progressed has severely change the flat
planar nature of the sealing surface into a severe convex geometry
where the ultrasound beam is scattered in all directions. With
completion of this brief discussion on the screening for corrosion
for bolted flange geometry, the next area to be discussed is the
technique to estimate the progression of corrosion when inspecting
from the bolting surface.
2. Corrosion Progression Estimation Technique
Once corrosion has been identified to be existent in a joint,
the inspector then needs to perform an assessment of its extent.
Determining the extent of corrosion is important, because corrosion
can exist in a joint and that joint is still performing its function
as long as the corrosion does not progress to the gasket located
between the flange faces. Once corrosion has reached the gasket
the seal of the joint has been compromised and leakage will occur.
Therefore, it is necessary for the inspector to identify during an
inspection what joints are in jeopardy of leaking before the next
inspection cycle. With a Risk Based Inspection (RBI) program,
the idea of generating an estimate of corrosion progression is to
group the degree of corrosion into discrete bins. Those bins could
be identified as: (a) Acceptable, (b) Marginal, and (c) Failed. An
acceptable joint would be one that has either none or very little
corrosion and based on information available presents no chance
of leaking before the next outage, and in fact could if desired be
excluded from the next inspection cycle. A marginal condition is
one that is felt, based on all available information, has a significant
probability of not leaking before the next shutdown, but must be
evaluated during the next shutdown. A failed joint is one that
10 INSPECTIONEERING JOURNAL July/August 2009
is either leaking at the present time or has a high probability of
leaking before the next scheduled shutdown. With all of the
inspected flanges put into one of these three categories, the owner
of the facility can schedule the needed remediation for the current
shutdown and plan for the next shutdown.
The discussion of how an inspector can perform an estimate of
corrosion progression will be presented below and utilize Figures
13-18. These figures will cover representative types of examples
an inspector may encounter in the field. The first conditions to be
presented are ones that experienced CO2 corrosion, and they will
progress from the most severe case to the mildest, Figures 13-16.
Figures 17 and 18 present images for flanges that have experienced
HF Alky corrosion. The basic steps an inspector would follow
to estimate corrosion progression using the PHASOR-XS can be
summarized as follows:
(a) Establish Measurement Zero Point
(b) Review Image for Corner Trap Like Indications
(c) Establish point where Face Related Signals return to
a Plane Indicative of Nominal Face.
For an inspector to assess progression of corrosion on a
sealing surface, he first must identify a datum plane from which
to begin the measurements. With the weld overlay software in
the PHASOR, the inspector has a tool that can help identify the
data plane from which to begin the measurements. Contained
within the parameter files for each flange size to be inspected
should be a description of the length of the sealing surface. When
the parameter file is loaded the inspector will see a horizontal
magenta box on the display that is tied to a vertical line. That
box represents the extent of the gasket sealing surface, based on
nominal flange dimensions. The vertical line is the starting point
of the sealing surface, which correspond to the flange bore and pipe
ID. The end of the box opposite of the vertical line corresponds
to the end of the sealing surface. Because of the geometry of the
flange sealing surface for both raised face and ring type flanges,
a corner trap signal occurs when the ultrasonic beam impinges
on it. In addition to the end of the sealing surface, the beginning
of the sealing surface can also provide a corner trap signal, if it
has not been eroded by the corrosion. The inspector can use this
information to establish a starting point for positioning the weld
overlay box. The inspector would position the box such that the
end of the box lines up with the corner trap signal associated with
the end of the sealing surface and the vertical line associated
with the start of the sealing surface should line up with either
the corner trap signal associated with the flange bore or the pipe
ID. The corner trap signal associated with the flange bore and
the pipe ID will not agree if significant corrosion has occurred.
This is the case for the sectoral image shown in Figure 13A. If
the pipe ID and flange corner trap signal do not agree then the
pipe ID should be used as the starting point for any measurements
because that is where the sealing surface should have been if not
corroded. Another feature of the system display that the inspector
can use to his advantage when estimating corrosion progression
is the ability to set the part thickness to the value corresponding
to the thickness of the flange bolting surface, including the raised
portion of the sealing surface. In doing this the system will
establish a horizontal line that can be used as a datum plane for
identifying the location of the nominal flange face sealing surface.
This is beneficial in evaluating whether signal emanating from the
seal region are associated with corrosion or machining marks on a
pristine flange face.
 Once the inspector has set up the measurement range of
interest, then the inspector needs to closely review the image
concentrating on that region. What the operator is looking for
are corner trap like signals that emanate from facets associated
with the corroded surface. When a surface corrodes it becomes
populated with ridges and valleys where material loss has either
been accelerated of inhibited. These conditions will cause the
ultrasonic beam to be preferentially redirected back toward the
probe, and thereby causing localized hot spots in the images. This
is comparable to what happens when a crack, which has branches,
is insonified by an ultrasonic beam. Because the corrosion starts
at the flange bore and progresses toward the end of the sealing
surface the inspector should begin looking near the ID location
and then progress toward the left of the image to identify the hot
spots. Another factor the inspector can use to help identify signals
due to corrosion is that the signals may be displaced relative to the
data plane associated with a pristine flange face. The displacement
of the hot spots should be vertically upward since the material
thickness is less than for a non-corroded flange. The degree of
movement upward will be dependent on the amount of material
loss. However, because of the interaction of the ultrasonic beams
with the inspection geometry any estimate of actual material
loss associated with the upward displacement shown by the hot
spots is unreliable. To obtain such correlation would require
an extensive data base of flanges inspected, then removed from
service for physical measurements. That extensive effort is not
warranted if the goal is simply to provide a sorting criterion for a
risk based assessment.
Figure 13A provides a sectoral scan for a single location
between two studs of a 2 inch 300# raised face flange. This image
clearly shows the existence of severe corrosion, which is confirmed
by the photograph of the area shown in Figure 13B. The severity
of the corrosion is evident because of the displacement of the
flange bore corner trap and the pipe wall ID. The inward shifting
of the flange bore corner trap signal means that severe material
loss has occurred causing a widening of the bore of the flange.
Examination of the image further shows the evidence of a high
amplitude return signal to the left of the bore signal. That signal
is displaced upward from the bore signal, indicative of a reflection
off a corroded surface. Further to the left of that signal is grouping
of two high amplitude signals. These signals have returned to the
plane associated with the nominal flange face plane. With this
case of corrosion, the inspector would select the location where
this group of two occurs as the end the corrosion. Therefore in
this case with the PHASOR, the inspector would select that spot
as the end of the corrosion and place the vertical line associated
with “Cursor 1” there and place the vertical line associated with
“Cursor 2 at the region identified as the pipe ID. The inspector
would then select the measurement parameter identified as “P1-2”
to obtain the estimate of the corrosion progression. As shown in
Figure 13, the value of P1-2 yields an estimated progression of
0.399 inch. This estimate agrees extremely well with a physical
corrosion measurement of 0.395 inch. As stated before, this was
one location for the 2 inch raised face flange sample that was
available. Listed in Table 2 is a comparison of the PHASOR
measured and physical measurements for all eight (8) locations
of this flange. This table shows reasonable agreement between
the PHASOR and actual, especially when the goal is to provide a
sorting criterion for a customer.
The sectoral scan and photograph shown in Figures 13 A&B
is representative of the most severe cases that were available to
us for this effort. The severity of the corrosion decreases as the
progression is made from Figures 14 to 18. The last two examples
of corrosion presented herein are for flanges that have experienced
an HF environment. The techniques the inspector would use to
estimate the corrosion progression for these cases are the same
as for the example shown for the severe corrosion of the 2 inch
raised face flange. However, because the corrosion is less severe,
the inspector needs to take greater care in evaluating the data
before a call is made. This is similar to any inspection where
as the indications of interest become more subtle, the evaluation
time increases accordingly. However, even with the increased
evaluation time, the customer will be saving significant time and
money over either the conventional single element techniques or
the physical separation and visual inspection of the joints. Also, if
time is of the essence to complete the inspection of as many joints
as possible, then additional analysts can be employed to perform
the data analysis off-line while the inspector continues to scan
each flange and acquire the data. Such a scenario is possible with
the PHASOR because the data sets can be stored on removable
SD cards, and then the stored data can either be read into another
PHASOR for evaluation or into the Rhythm software platform
for analysis, reporting and archiving of the inspections performed
during the shutdown. As with the 2 inch raised face flange,
Tables 2 through 6 provide a comparison of PHASOR generated
corrosion progression estimates and physical measurements.
As these tables show, there is an increased inaccuracy for the
estimates of corrosion progression for the flanges that have been
exposed to the HF environment. The reason for this is that the
corrosion associated with HF alky is a more gradual erosion
11 INSPECTIONEERING JOURNAL July/August 2009

Flange Face Corrosion Inspection
12 INSPECTIONEERING JOURNAL
of the surface as compared to the surfaces associated with CO2
corrosion. The morphology of the surface for CO2 corrosion is
extensive hills and valleys; whereas for HF alky corrosion, the
surfaces as characterized by gradual changes with occasional
pockmarks. Even with the decrement in the accuracy of the
measurements, it is still possible to generate groups of conditions
from which a customer can assess the condition of his facility and
act to remediate the most severe conditions before they begin to
leak. In fact for the CO2 corrosion it appears that the estimates
made with the PHASOR are slightly conservative and there fore
benefits the customer.
Conclusions:
The work documented herein has shown that the system can be a
July/August 2009
 not needed. There is always room for improvement in both the
equipment and the inspection techniques. Those improvements are
a result of the equipment being used in the field and the inspectors
relaying back what could be done to improve the process. Also,
as more and more experience is gained by the inspectors their
confidence in the inspection and increase accuracy of the calls
made by them will be a natural occurrence. Also, to continue
improvements, laboratory work needs to continue which takes the
form of looking at any flanges removed from service to correlate
the ultrasonic measurements to reality, and to understand what is
causing any significant discrepancies between what the inspector
thinks the flange conditions are and what is found when they are
removed from service. If these correlations and investigations do
not occur then improvements will not occur. Also, the inspection
companies/ facility owners need to have two way communications
with the equipment manufacturers so that suggestion for
improvements and additional features in the equipment can be
factored into any new products intended for field use.

valuable tool to aid an owner of a facility that is concerned with

the minimizing the amount of time their facility is down due to
leakage from bolted joints. The system when used by a skilled
operator, can provide a rapid means of surveying vast numbers
of flanges during a shutdown. The survey process can quickly
identify the existence of corrosion and also provides a means to
categorize the extent for a given joint. With this information, the
owner can then prioritize the remediation efforts to concentrate on
the flanges of greatest concern during the immediate shutdown.
Also, with the ability of the PHASOR to generate images that can
be stored for future retrieval, the owner can proactively plan for
the next shutdown. This will result in minimal unexpected results
and therefore a more efficient expense of manpower and financial
considerations.

Even though this effort has demonstrated the ability of the

PHASOR to perform the inspection, it does not mean that future
improvements in either the PHASOR or it implementation are

13 INSPECTIONEERING JOURNAL July/August 2009

 Flange Face Corrosion Inspection

Indices for 2007 and

2008 added to IJ Web Site
These annual indices are especially important for finding content when considering purchase of back
orders or subscribing. Digital subscribers wondering if your archives contain specific content can
use the indices to perform key word searches. This ability makes it much easier to “mine” for “gold”.
Please feel free to e-mail the IJ offices at tij@gte.net if you need added help in finding content.
You can access the indices on-line at http://www.inspectioneering.com/indices.htm to search any
year desired. To search simply click on the year or years desired. Next, if using MS Explorer, click on
the “Edit” button in the tool bar at the top of the page and select “Find on this Page” and enter your

14 INSPECTIONEERING JOURNAL July/August 2009

 IPEIA Conference 2010 -
Call for Papers
The conference will once again be held in Banff, Alberta, Canada. The 2010 Program Committee
for IPEIA (International Pressure Equipment Integrity Association) is soliciting presentations with a
focus on the pressure equipment industry and its technologies. Presentations that deal with issues
of pressure vessel design, plant operations, inspection, maintenance, and in particular, Case Studies
dealing with specific examples, root cause failure analysis, accident / incident investigation, and multi-
jurisdictional concerns. Conference attendees have common concerns and interests, and always
appreciate hearing from their peers.

The Program Committee has representatives from many different disciplines within the Pressure
Equipment Integrity industry. All members of the committee are at your disposal to help you develop your
abstract and presentation. They will be accepting abstracts until September 30th, 2009. All general
enquiries should be forwarded to Kelly Jaskow, Conference Administrator, E-mail: jaskow@shaw.ca.

As Kelly keeps track of all submissions, copy her in Owner-User Operations Ron Hazelwood
all communication to committee members. If you Equipment Inspection
have any questions on any of the following topics, ron.hazelwood@encana.com
contact the following committee members; Pipeline, Maintenance

NDT/NDE Equipment Mark Palynchuk, 2010

Program Chairman
Corrosion info@westerninstruments.com

Regulatory, Jurisdiction Marc Fransen, 2010

Program Vice-Chairman
Equipment Design 2011 Program Chairman
fransen@absa.ca

Engineering, Metallurgy Hennie Prinsloo

Contract Chief Inspectors
hennie.prinsloo@raeengineering.ca

Education, Training Dan Violini

Power Engineering dan.violini@panglobal.ca

Fabrication, Repairs Ken Laplante

Welding, Construction ken.laplante@ticcda.ca

Turnaround/Maintenance
NDT Applications Robert Welke
Technician Certification rwelke@
summitinspection.ca
Environmental, Corrosion

15 INSPECTIONEERING JOURNAL July/August 2009

 Chinese Special Equipment Inspection
and Research Association
The China Special Equipment Inspection and
Research Center (CSEI) is a semi-governmental
organization. It is the sole national technical
organization responsible for the inspection and
R&D of Special Equipment in China. “Special
Equipment” refers to boilers, pressure vessels,
pressure pipelines, elevators, cranes, passenger
ropeways and large amusement devices.
Approved by the State Council of the People’s
Republic of China, Center of Boiler and Pressure
Inspection and Research (CBPVI), it was founded
in October 1979, directly under the former Ministry
of Labor. The China State Bureau of Quality and
Technical Supervision took charge of CBPVI in
July 1998. After the reshuffle of the organizations
of the State Council in April 2001, CBPVI became a
subsidiary institution under General Administration
of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine
of the People’s Republic of China (AQSIQ).
In 2004, CBPVI changed its name to China Special
Equipment Inspection and Research Center (CSEI).
CSEI has international working relationships and,
in some cases, signed cooperation agreements
with the following organizations:
• American Society of Mechanical
Engineers (ASME)
• National Board of Boiler and Pressure
Vessel Inspector (NBBI)
• National Association of Elevator Safety
For more information on this organization visit
Authorities (NAESA)
the web site http://www.cbpvi.org/e_about.html
• American Petroleum Institute (API)
• Kemper Group - USA
• The Hartford Steam Boiler Inspection and
Insurance Company (HSB) - USA
• CEU DG Enterprise
• Technical Supervisory Inspection Institute
of Germany (TUV)
• Technical Standard and Safety Authority
(TSSA) Ontario,Canada
• Alberta Boiler and Pressure Vessel Safety
Association of Canada (ABSA)
• National Institute of Occupational Safety
and Accident Prevention (ISPESL)
• Association Organization of Technical
Cooperation (AOTC UK)
• Loyal Industrial Service of Britain (LRIS)
• Bureau Veritas of France
• OSH and the related organigations in
Australia
• The Association of High Pressure Gas
Safety of Japan ( KHK)
• Japan National Association of Boiler (NB
Japan)
• Japan North-sea Steel Works
• Occupational Safety and Health Service of
the Department of Labour, New Zealand
• Ministry of Manpower (MOM Singapore)
• Labor Department & Fire Fighting
Department in Hong Kong
• Boiler Society of Taiwan Province

Notice-Subscription Agency Orders No Longer Accepted

Please note that the Inspectioneeering Journal will no longer accept subscription orders of any type via subscription agencies.
Due to postal mix-ups, and poor communication which lead to delayed delivery of Journals and monetary losses we can no
longer accept orders via subscription agencies. Introduction of this third party to the order and delivery process adds a layer of
complexity which has lead to problems.
Please use the order form in this journal, or you may download an order form from http://www.Inspectioneering.com/
mailorderform2.htm or by visiting the journal web site at www.Inspectioneering.com
We apologize for any inconvenience. We want to assure you continue to receive your Inspectioneering Journals, on time. This
should reduce your overall cost, too.
Make sure you subscribe directly with the Inspectioneering Journal for your 2009 subscriptions. Please feel free to contact
me with any comments or feedback. It is appreciated.
Greg Alvarado, Chief Editor

16 INSPECTIONEERING JOURNAL July/August 2009

 Oil and Gas Maintenance
Technology Conference
September 1-3, 2009,
New Orleans, Louisiana
This event for maintenance and reliability technologies in North America will offer conference content
focusing on the latest developments in pipeline rehabilitation and oil and gas maintenance, with
sessions covering upstream (including offshore) midstream and downstream. This content will address
topics such as refinery maintenance, offshore structures, environmental issues, vibration, corrosion,
LNG plants, petrochemical plants and more. The Conference will be held at the Hilton New Orleans
Riverside.
Technical Overview: • Prevention of corrosion and fouling due
Upstream to high-sulfur feeds
DOWNHOLE DRILLING AND RESERVOIR • Safety management
MAINTENANCE TECHNOLOGY • Quality control
• Advances in reservoir maintenance • Plant reliability
technology • Energy conservation
• Preventing loss of reservoir porosity, • Planning / scheduling of equipment
EOR, sand control testing
• Advances in downhole / drill string • General shutdown guidelines
inspection & monitoring • Tower and vessel inspection & repair
• Maintenance of equipment such as: • Furnace and boiler inspection & repair
o Artificial lift systems • Heat exchanger monitoring &
o Electronic, pneumatic and hydraulic maintenance
control systems • Rotating equipment maintenance &
o Flow meters vibration monitoring
o Transfer pumps
o Downhole tubing and casing Midstream
o Production separators, tanks, flow PIPELINE SYSTEMS
lines, filters and other processing • Pipeline construction in challenging
vessels environments
o Scada systems • Pipeline manufacturing and metallurgy
• Rehabilitation methods and materials
Downstream technology
REFINERIES AND PROCESS INDUSTRIES • Risk assessment and area classification
• Advances in monitoring technologies for • HAZOP (Hazard and Operability) studies,
refinery equipment security and integrity
• Advances in predicting equipment • Leak detection and cathodic protection
reliability systems
• Repair, rehabilitation and cleaning of • Inline inspection and development of
fouled or damaged equipment repair plans
• Prevention of stress corrosion cracking • Risk Assessment and preventative
• New processes, material and measures
maintenance strategies to minimize • Offshore pipeline inspection, repair and
fouling from off-gases rehabilitation

17 INSPECTIONEERING JOURNAL July/August 2009

 Oil & Gas Maintenance
Technology Conference
• Selection and maintenance of valves
• Project management
• Pipeline damage, measurement and
assessment
• Online inspection work
• Hydrostatic testing
• De-watering and drying of sales gas
pipelines
• CO2 and Biofuels – Conversion hazards,
maintenance worries.
• Third-party damage – Accidental,
Deliberate
• Greenhouse gas moderation (R&M
implications)
• Direct Assessment methodologies
• Coating technology
• Polymer and epoxy degradation
• Environmentally assisted cracking
• SCC
• Microbiological corrosion
For more information visit the web site http://
www.ogmtna.com/index/conference-informa-
tion.html
18 INSPECTIONEERING JOURNAL July/August 2009
Central Area
Conference 2009
Let’s Get Together
and Stop Corrosion Everywhere
The NACE New Orleans Section will host the
2009 Central Area Conference at the New Orleans
Airport Hilton in Kenner, Louisiana, September
27-30, 2009. This year’s conference will highlight
some of the newest technologies in corrosion
prevention for pipelines, refineries, offshore
platforms, and infrastructure. The conference will
provide a program filled with excellent speakers,
great vendors, and warm Louisiana hospitality.
Meet and discuss what’s happening in the
corrosion industry with industry professional from
across the central United States. The Central Area
Conference is a great place to meet new contacts
along with the opportunity to see the latest
products from 45 different exhibiting companies.
There are 14 technical tracks which include:
• Cathodic Protection (Pipelines)
• Corrosion / Erosion Prediction & Modeling
• Infrastructure (Bridges, Buildings &
Utilities)
• Inspection (Risk-Based Inspection & NDT)
• Internal Corrosion Monitoring
• Maintenance Coatings
• Nonmetallics Materials of Construction
(STG 108)
• Oilfield Deepwater – Subsea flow
Assurance & Waterflow
• Pipeline Integrity
• Pipeline Integrity & Regulatory Issues
• Pipeline Protection Applications
• Pipeline Protection Assessments
• Protective Coatings & Linings
• Refinery & Chemical Process Industry
Presenters include representatives from Dairyland
Electrical Industries, Shell E&P Co., Hess, Co.,
Honeywell, Sewerage & Water Board of New
Orleans, Mineral Management Service, DOI and
more…..
For more information visit the web site http://
events.nace.org/sarwebsites/CentralArea/
conference09/index.asp
 Prevention = Safety + Profitability
E2G software offers the winning formula for plant preventative maintenance... that's why major
refiners consider it to be an integral part of their plant business process.
API RBI - The industry standard for risk management and inspection planning, developed
through the API consensus process and documented in API 581

VCESageTM - The benchmark program for equipment review and analysis of structural integrity,
code compliance, re-rating and remaining life evaluations

VCEIntelliJointTM - The “total joint solution” that incorporates knowledge in all the areas required
to effectively solve the root cause of leakage

VCEDamage MechanismsTM - The quick reference guide to identify the potential damage
mechanisms that can cause costly equipment failure

For information, call our Software Help Desk at 216-658-4777.

Smart Technology for Aging Infrastructure

Shaker Heights, OH Houston, TX
www.equityeng.com