Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 14

Proceedings of the 2012 9th International Pipeline Conference IPC2012 September 24-28, 2012, Calgary, Alberta, Canada


Mures Zarea GDF SUEZ R&I Division - CRIGEN St. Denis La Plaine, France Geoff Vignal Enbridge Pipelines Edmonton, Alberta, Canada Jerry Rau Panhandle Energy Houston, TX, USA ABSTRACT Onshore pipeline industry has deployed in the last decade comprehensive integrity management programs in a constrained environment. These programs address all types of threats and resulting defects, yet the most complex defects are those due to mechanical damage, as they can combine local pipe deformations (dents) with metal removal (gouges) or even cracks. These programs are first placed in the broader risk management perspective that justify the whole approach and provide a view of the context. Then, operational threat management programs for mechanical damage as implemented by operators are briefly described here, and serve as a basis to identify the main gaps in terms of technology and knowledge. Finally, both incremental and more game-changing innovations as produced by R&D performed by PRCI and consultants, are described in subsequent sections as possible options to fill the identified gaps. Examples of roadmaps are provided that explain the coverage in terms of existing and evolving knowledge and technology, as provided by these R&D programs, to fill these gaps. These various levels of representations are complementary tools to communicate about links between operations, R&D, and their contributions to public safety. INTRODUCTION Onshore pipeline industry is currently challenged by the need to deploy comprehensive integrity management programs in a constrained environment, while having to communicate to Mark Piazza Pipeline Research Council International Falls Church, VA, USA Charley Jones Marathon Pipe Line Findlay, OH, USA Rick Wang TransCanada Pipeline Calgary, Alberta, Canada stakeholders on these issues. These programs address all types of threats and resulting defects, yet the most complex defects are those due to mechanical damage, as they can combine local pipe deformations (dents) with metal removal (gouges) or even cracks [1]. We show in this paper the links between operational threat management programs for mechanical damage as implemented by operators (briefly described here) and both incremental and more game-changing innovations as produced by R&D performed by PRCI and consultants, some of which are developed in other papers at IPC 2012. In a context of tightened resources, it is critical to direct them to the R&D developments with the highest potential for improvement. The overall process to achieve these high impact outcomes and the corresponding internal and external communication tools are illustrated in the paper: - Clarify the threat management process for mechanical damage, both from external interference and from rocky terrain issues; typically, this is how the PIMS (Pipeline Integrity Management System) is implemented for the specific threat; a functional pyramids is shown for this purpose - Show the links between the threat management process for the specific threat and the more general risk management approach, therefore highlighting the contribution of these threat management processes to public safety; the industrys accountability is thereby clearly demonstrated.

Copyright 2012 by ASME

- Practical applications of mechanical damage threat management programs as implemented currently by several North American operators illustrate how these approaches are implemented. These examples provide some indications about knowledge and technology gaps to be filled. - Functional roadmaps help to achieve a common view within the industry, and are used here to map the current R&D programs pursued by PRCI on the risk management / integrity management functional roadmaps, thus highlighting the functions that are well covered by existing technologies, and emphasizing those that need further developments. Most of PRCI R&D programs concerning mechanical damage are addressed in this paper, describing current and planned work and the expected performance level. Formatted in specific program roadmaps, this information shows how R&D provides new technologies in a continuous stream, both incremental improvements and potentially more game changing ones. These various levels of roadmaps are tools to communicate about links between operations, R&D, and their contributions to public safety. FROM RISK MANAGEMENT TO INTEGRITY MANAGEMENT Risk management is the typical approach to deal with industrial safety in industries which may involve hazardous activities. While gas transmission by pipeline is the least risky mode of transportation, the industry strives to improve safety performance. The legal context varies from one country to another, as some (e.g. Netherlands, UK, France) explicitly mention risk targets and others provide prescriptive pipeline integrity management program requirements. Risk approaches focus on the leading causes for the most damaging failure scenarios, which in the case of gas transmission pipelines have been shown to be external interference in the higher population density western countries ([2], [15]). In the context of some accidents that occurred in the USA in the last several years, public perception might be evolving, motivating pipeline operators to more broadly and effectively communicate about their R&D activities aimed at continuously improving safety and integrity: address both the historically highest ranking scenarios like mechanical damage, corrosion, etc., but also emerging scenarios like vintage welds failures. The broader public being not familiar with this approach, it needs explanations, here restricted to mechanical damage. Risk analysis is based on considering plausible scenarios for failure and its consequences. Bow tie models are a common approach to formalize such sets of scenarios, and an example of external interference simplified bow tie model is presented in Figure 1. The presentation is unusual, as it is vertical rather than horizontal, in order to improve its readability. The bow tie knot is the undesired event, in this case, that the pipeline is hit. Events above are causes, and events below are consequences,

but only the main ones are mentioned here as an illustration of the approach. Both prevention barriers (before the undesired event occurs, therefore preventing it) and protection barriers (to mitigate consequences) are represented, highlighting the basic principle of risk management: prevention and protection measures / barriers aim at decreasing the risk and make it manageable / acceptable. This representation shows that prevention and protection barriers that are operators current activities, all but Safety perimeter and flow shut off become prevention barriers if the undesired events considered are actual failures, either immediate or delayed. Another way of representing the main operators damage prevention and damage localization activities is using threat management pyramids, like that in Figure 2, that applies also to external interference. Its main advantage is to convey a semiquantitative indication of the relative numbers of external interference defects: the largest population is that of stable defects (surface defects), of which only a very small minority may eventually fail after a delay (delayed failure). Immediate failures are also a small population when compared to surface flaws, but significantly larger than delayed failures. While the total number of defects can be reduced by damage prevention practices and technologies, other than immediately failed flaws require detection, assessment and repair. Thats why inspection plays such a crucial role in managing the flaw population remaining in the ground, as it is the only way to gather information about these anomalies. This issue will be clearly highlighted in the presentation of actual integrity management programs implemented by four different operators. Other activities identified in Figures 1 and 2 will also be mentioned, but not necessarily with the same importance in all cases, especially when the main threat addressed is that of rock dents. More generally, these representations provide communication means to highlight the impact of different operating activities on improving pipeline integrity and public safety. MECHANICAL DAMAGE INTEGRITY MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS We present as a starting point several examples of approaches used by operators to manage large populations of dents introduced during pipeline construction (contact with an indenter in the form of a rock, or other differential soil loading) or due to external interference in the form of mechanical equipment strikes that result in some geometric pipeline deformation and may also be associated with a scrape or gouge resulting from contact. Operator 1 Mechanical Damage Integrity Program Background: Operator 1 operates a large complex pipeline network that is comprised of pipelines that vary greatly in terms of construction and operational history, pipe specifications, material properties, geography and terrain. This diversity lends itself to a broad range of pipelines susceptibility to mechanical damage (MD) throughout the system.

Copyright 2012 by ASME

Inspection, characterization & assessment: High resolution caliper technologies are used to identify and confirm the

presence of dents or other geometric anomalies based on variation in pipeline curvature at the ID.

Excavator notifies digging YES YES On-site damage prevention succeeds NO

Regulations, One-Call Centres, Public Awareness programs, Excavator outreach, Marking


NO YES Conditions for hit met YES NO ROW surveillance detects NO

Higher surveillance frequency where needed, Warning devices

Locating, Hand digging

Deeper burial, mechanical protections




Pipeline Hit Hit detection Stable defect Inspection, Assessment, Repair Delayed failure
Legend: Colour for Prevention / Protection activities =

Immediate failure Safety perimeter, shut off flow Consequences

Figure 1. Simplified bow tie model of a typical external interference scenario with prevention and protection barriers.

Immediate Leaks and Ruptures Prevention HITS Detection Inspection Assessment Repair Surface defects Delayed Failures

Figure 2. Threat management pyramid for mechanical damage due to external interference.

Copyright 2012 by ASME

The detailed shape data can assist in evaluating the severity of a feature in terms of depth, length, width, symmetry and complexity of the geometric deformation. The shape data is also used to provide insight towards other leading indicators that the damage may be the result of mechanical equipment strike or conversely may be due to the presence of a rock or other soil loading impacting the pipe. Parameters such as circumferential orientation, restraint condition, presence of multiple features and presence of deformation features that occur at oblique angles may be leading indicators of mechanical equipment strikes. In general, MD resulting from a strike with mechanical equipment has a higher likelihood to have a presence of gouging or develop fatigue cracking. Caliper ILI data is supplemented with the use of higher order ILI technologies such as axial and/or circumferential magnetic flux leakage (MFL) and ultrasonic thickness measurement technologies that can identify the presence of stress concentrators such as corrosion or gouges within areas of geometric deformation. Each metal loss ILI technology has strengths and limitations in the ability to identify the presence of metal loss within geometric deformation, however, a high success rate in identifying metal loss in MD features has been achieved, especially when employing multiple complimentary metal loss technologies. Common features identified range from general or pitting corrosion or shallow scrapes or gouges less than 10% wall thickness in depth, to more significant corrosion features or gouges in the order of 40% wall thickness, or greater, in depth. Experience has shown that most ILI technologies have a limited ability to differentiate between corrosion or gouging when metal loss features are identified. Geometric deformation features that are identified as containing a stress concentrator such as metal loss, or are suspected to have been caused by mechanical equipment strike are selected for field excavation due to a higher potential to develop fatigue cracking. Field confirmed MD features caused by mechanical equipment strikes make up a very small fraction of the overall population of MD features. The vast majority of features are restrained rock dents, resulting from contact of the pipe with rock or other differential soil loading. Rock dents are prioritized for excavation and field assessment primarily based on depth, orientation and interaction with seam welds or girth welds, consistent with the requirements outlined in regulatory codes such as the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) in the US [3], or CSA Z662 [4] in Canada. In some circumstances, restrained rock dents have been observed to develop fatigue cracking, even in the absence of an apparent stress concentrator such as a gouge or other metal loss feature. A significant gap currently exists in ILI technology for reliable identification of cracking located within areas of geometric deformation [5]. Repair: When field excavation and direct NDE confirms the presence of cracking in a geometric deformation, or the presence of a feature that has resulted from a mechanical

equipment strike, remediation and repair of the feature is accomplished through the installation of a type B repair sleeve. As the repair procedures are relatively simple and straight forward, the greatest challenge remains with the identification and selection of features for excavation to begin with. Expected R&D outputs: The most significant achievement would be the development of reliable ILI technologies capable of identifying cracking in MD features. Additional tools such as finite element modeling (FEA) to support fatigue life prediction also provide value. Continued development of FEA models are ongoing through PRCI projects, utilizing the results from full scale fatigue testing to further validate existing models. While the current FEA models can be used to conduct assessment of individual features, or other special project scopes, the current development of a fatigue life screening tool would assist in evaluating larger data sets or feature populations existing on pipeline segments to prioritize features for excavation and field assessment. Operator 2 Rock Dent Management Program Operator 2 addresses below the steps taken during a typical dent management program: Inspection: The beginning of the program consists in running a geometry tool to gather deformation geometry. Once the deformation geometry is obtained, field investigations are performed on a selection of the deepest called deformations using a laser scanner to gather profiles. Normally this will be the deformations greater than 2% topside or greater than 6% within the high consequence areas (compliance with US regulations). Characterization: The data from the geometry tool and the laser scanner are correlated to provide a correction factor of the geometry tool data for the strain estimation. If there is a large number of dents are detected the correlation data can be used to determine an aspect ratio (Length/depth and width/depth) to identify which deformations may be over the strain criteria and therefore require investigation. The contractor used information obtained on a PRCI project to evaluate the laser scanner to help develop this process [6]. Assessment: The remaining deformations are evaluated using the 6% strain criterion and fatigue life assessment. Based on the company risk tolerance for the time to failure, deformation features that require field investigations are identified.

Expected R&D outputs: Further development of models to determine the burst pressure and fatigue life of plain deformations and deformations with stress risers that can be used with the geometry tool data will likely provide better criteria to identify which deformations require further investigation and repair.

Copyright 2012 by ASME

Operator 3 Approaches for Threat Management Background: Operator 3 operates a large and diverse pipeline network to a degree comparable to that of Operator 1. The majority of the mileage is located in rural (class1) areas. However some pipelines cross also densely populated areas as well (class 3) with a great deal of construction activity. This diversity lends itself to a broad range of pipeline segment susceptibility to mechanical damage throughout the system. The process of assigning priorities to each pipeline segment and specific assessment and prevention activities are shown in the accompanying chart in Figure 3 and more broadly in Table 1. Inspection: Where mechanical damage is identified as a threat to pipeline integrity, Operator 3 uses high resolution geometry in line inspection tools to identify and characterize, and subsequently to respond and remediate features identified by the ILI tools. These tools allow the operator to manage the threat for latent damage that might be present. Very detailed procedures exist that direct operations personnel in the requirements of response and remediation. This geometry tool data is integrated with other available data such as high resolution MFL to assist in determination of interacting threats or defects. Preferred Prevention / Inspection / Assessment Technique External Corrosion ILI High Resolution MFL Internal Corrosion ILI High Resolution MFL Stress Corrosion Cracking Hydrostatic Spike Test Manufacturing Hydrostatic Strength Test Construction Hydrostatic Strength Test Excavation equipment Surveillance Geometry ILI / Third Party Damage Surveillance / Damage Prevention Program Weather Related & Outside Surveillance / Case Forces Specific Incorrect Operations Training - OQ & SPP Table 1: Example of threat / defect management options practiced by Operator 3. Threat / Defect Damage Prevention: Operator 3 relies heavily on its Damage Prevention and Public Awareness programs. Prior studies [7], [8] have shown that prevention is the most effective means of reducing mechanical damage via third party strikes. . Operator 3 has integrated the public awareness function into the pipeline integrity organization to help verify that it obtains the visibility and focus necessary on the location of its pipelines. Expected R&D outputs: Operator 3, in coordination with other pipeline operators, is supporting the development of Pipeline Watch [9], which undertakes to advance the public awareness model to the next level, where the focus is on public

engagement, utilizing all the outreach tools available in the 21st century. Operator 3 has realized mailing brochures on a periodic basis is not a great communication tool nor does it effectively verify the message is received and understood. They support additional R&D and implementation, e.g. in using social networking for damage prevention. Operator 3 also recognizes that there is a need to improve the detection and characterization capabilities of existing ILI technologies in identifying secondary features in geometric anomalies such as dents, especially the presence of cracks.

Figure3: Flowchart for establishing pipeline susceptibility to external interference Operator 3. Operator 4 Mechanical Damage Integrity Management Background: Operator 4 operates a large pipeline network that crosses various different regions. Its Mechanical Damage management program starts from risk assessment and combines with information concerning damage prevention, leak detection, class upgrade and geotechnical hazards along the pipeline route, as well as population density and human activities. This prioritization scheme provides the background for choosing pipelines to be inspected.

Copyright 2012 by ASME

Inspection: Once the inspection segment has been decided, Operator 4 selects the inspection company capable of using the adequate technology and tools to inspect for mechanical damage flaws. Assessment: After receiving inspection reports, Operator 4 processes the data with the newly developed MD assessment procedure. This procedure includes history data correlation, strain analysis and MFL signal review. With this combined approach, Operator 4 has successfully identified several critical mechanical damage features, including 2 leaking dents with through wall cracks and one dent with a 30% deep gouge. Expected R&D outputs: Based on the experiences of Operator 4 in managing mechanical damage, there is a need to improve ILI tools/technologies to clearly discriminate between corrosion metal loss and metal loss due to gouging. In addition to the technology improvements (and directly related) is improving the methods and models for determining the remaining strength and fitness for service of pipeline affected by mechanical damage. PRCI is continuing to make progress on improving the existing models by fatigue and burst failure of mechanical damage defects [10], [11], [12], [13], [14]. Further improvements are needed on the mechanical damage assessment models. One of the key factors to be considered in developing the models is the critical strain assessment and fatigue life failure of dents and dents with metal loss. Summary of Identified Gaps The above examples have evidenced several gaps that are being addressed by the industry, among others by the collaborative R&D programs and projects of PRCI and related organizations, like EPRG, APIA, GTI, OTD and NYSEARCH. In this paper, the PRCI perspective is the prevailing one. These gaps are: ILI tools capable of discriminating the presence of a crack in mechanical damage defects, i.e. plain dents or dents with associated stress raisers, like gouges, welds, corrosion, axial loads, etc. Improved in-the ditch defect characterization / sizing technologies able to size crack depth in a potentially complex defect like mechanical damage. Improved mechanical damage mechanical strength assessment criteria: for screening purposes, and for burst and fatigue strength, with less scattered predictions. Establish the link between inspection results from new technologies able of measuring changes in material properties (MWM, dual field MFL, etc.) linked to strains & stresses in the pipeline steel on one hand, and the mechanical strength assessment criteria on the other hand. This correspondence is of fundamental importance in order to provide more insight into the use of these emerging NDE technologies, especially for screening purposes.

PRCI ROADMAPS FOR R&D ON MECHANICAL DAMAGE THREAT MANAGEMENT As mentioned, these gaps are related below with the structured approach from PRCI to provide R&D results that contribute in two ways to providing solutions to pipeline operators issues: Contribute to understand the main causes for pipeline failures and clarify the role of the main parameters in failure frequency related to each scenario Once knowledge gaps are identified, generate the necessary knowledge as well as new technologies using this new knowledge to improve safety and operations. Background for Modeling Approaches Recognizing that the approach to managing Mechanical Damage requires a comprehensive strategy, PRCI has multiple research programs and dozens of projects that are being implemented across several of its Technical Committees to develop tools and technologies to manage mechanical damage. In addition, PRCI is coordinating its activities on mechanical damage research with the European Pipeline Research Group (EPRG) through a Virtual JIP, where each organization shares the results of its projects and programs being conducted that address mechanical damage assessment. While the complete program cannot be covered in this paper, a summary of several of the key efforts within PRCI are presented below. PRCI is currently managing 4 separate programs within the area of Mechanical Damage inspection, assessment and repair: MD-1: Tools to detect and Discriminate Mechanical Damage MD-2: Ranking and Screening Mechanical Damage Defects MD-4: Structural Significance of Mechanical Damage MD-5: Guidelines for Inspection and Repair of Mechanical Damage Defects. As shown in Tables 2 and 3, PRCIs research programs are based on a threat management approach. The two distinct types of mechanical damage addressed through PRCIs research programs are: 1). those created by external interference; and 2). rock dents. As shown in the tables, these features are managed through an approach that looks at risk management via failure prevention and failure mitigation. For each of these threat management categories, there are a wide range of completed and current research projects being conducted. The threat matrix is consistent with the Flow Chart shown in Figure 2, with the list of projects showing a clear focus on damage prevention, identification & characterization, and assessment. Risk Management Monitor incident data The scope of industry research for pipeline damage prevention and development of technologies and methods for managing mechanical damage after it occurs is based largely on the available data that relates to pipeline incidents. These data are available from a range of resources, including data from

Copyright 2012 by ASME

publicly available databases (e.g., US Department of Transportation) [15], data from pipeline operators and industry trade organizations, and from databases that are associated with PRCI research projects that require/required the collection of data to perform analysis on the causes of mechanical damage. While the levels of detail provided in each of the databases varies in response to the specific aspects of mechanical damage being evaluated, the information obtained is vital to better understand the factors that contribute to mechanical damage and where to focus resources to address the industry gaps and improve performance. Industry efforts must follow the data and be based on statistics and analysis of trends. The availability of a robust database enables the industry to apply energies on the persistent threats while also monitoring trends on emerging threats and identifying issues that may require attention. Recently completed and current projects are focused on establishing (and maintaining) industry databases within PRCI to measure the effectiveness of damage prevention methods and develop Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) for the transmission pipeline industry [16], [17]. In addition, data collection on the types of damage that occurs, where it occurs (location on pipe), and the primary failure mechanisms (e.g., cracks in dents) is very important for understanding which inspection technologies can be applied to characterize damage and to identify the key parameters that need to be measured to effectively manage mechanical damage. PRCI is sponsoring the development of new tools and technologies to characterize mechanical damage and conducting performance qualification testing of current inspection technologies for mechanical damage. The data obtained from PRCI member companies through surveys on the types and severity of mechanical damage features documented on their systems (PRCI Projects MD 1-2 [5] and 2-1 [18]) was used as the basis for deciding which types of features to study in full-scale testing of mechanical damage defects for dent+gouge (PRCI Project MD 4-1) and for dents, dents with corrosion metal loss, and dents on welds (PRCI Project MD 4-2 [11]). The primary expected outcome for PRCIs programs is to establish a common industry mechanical damage database, where PRCI would serve as the owner of the database. The database would be routinely populated by pipeline operators as data become available and PRCI would perform analysis of the comprehensive database on an annual basis (at a minimum). The analysis would be documented in reports that look at root cause analysis and recommendations to target efforts to continue improvements in prevention, inspection, and assessment of mechanical damage. Data Integration As shown in the threat-based matrix in Table 2, Data Integration has not yet received attention as a topic for PRCI research as it relates to mechanical damage management. Considered an emerging focus area within PRCI, Data

Integration includes a systematic process for collecting data and information from a wide range of sources and using advanced analytical methods to better understand the evolution dynamics of mechanical damage incidents and how to best manage these incidents. The volume of data managed by pipeline operators is substantial and will continue to expand. Effective means and methods for not only managing the information and data but for fully understanding and applying that data to improve integrity management is the needed outcome for Data Integration. PRCI defines its research programs through an annual project development process, and intends to address Data Integration for mechanical damage in the near-term as part of the continued efforts to provide the necessary tools for managing mechanical damage. Failure Prevention Damage Prevention Damage Prevention is a high priority for all pipeline operators and the emphasis on this important element of pipeline integrity management is reflected in the PRCI research program. Prior work and the current list of active projects demonstrate the pipeline industry awareness and commitment to this important area of research for pipeline integrity. PRCI research is addressing a number of areas for Damage Prevention, including design factors that promote improvements in damage prevention, developing guidelines and best practices based on industry statistics and metrics, and advanced technology verification and development. One of the key focus areas has been on automation of monitoring and surveillance. Automated methods are being evaluated for ground-based (ROW-5 in Table 2 [19]), aerial (ROW-3 [20]), and satellite platforms (ROW 6-1 [21]). In addition to these projects, PRCI has completed studies on the effects and influences of human factors on damage prevention (DP 3-2 [22]) and has recently partnered with a company to develop a social media web-based platform for improving public awareness and communications with stakeholders on damage prevention . Damage prevention efforts are generally directed to external interference with a pipeline after it is constructed. Another important area for damage prevention is improving construction processes and practices to reduce the potential for rock dents. The research is centered on design and construction practices and the establishment of a unified industry construction Quality Management System that will track the construction of a pipeline from sourcing and manufacture to decommissioning and abandonment/removal tracking the life of the pipe from cradle to grave. Modernization of construction practices (CNST 2-1 [23]) and the continuing development of higher strength materials should progressively reduce the number of mechanical damage features that can be linked to installation of the line.

Copyright 2012 by ASME

To support the continuous improvement to damage prevention programs, PRCI has sponsored a number of research projects that use industry data to measure the effectiveness of damage prevention methods and measures. Performance evaluations are needed to identify where the greatest risks exist and ensure that the appropriate level of attention and energy is being contributed to address the highest priority threats. Past work has focused on analyses of data from trade organization and government databases. More recent work has been directed to use of pipeline operator data (e.g., ROW 2-2 [17]). Pipeline Inspection and Characterization PRCI has substantial level of activity focused on the development and validation of inspection technologies for detecting mechanical damage and to characterizing the extent of damage after a feature(s) is identified. Inspection technologies provide the basis for operators to assess the extent of damage and the repair decisions that will be made based on the assessment models available to the industry. PRCIs programs include substantial efforts to research both in line inspection and in ditch inspection for mechanical damage. There have been a number of multi-year, multi-phased studies to understand the performance capabilities of the current ILI tools in the commercial market for detecting and characterizing mechanical damage (MD 1-2 [5]) and to improve the understanding of MFL ILI tool signals for mechanical damage (MD 1-3 [24]), including the development of magnetic models to provide for interpretation of signals from MFL inspection data. To support the continued evaluation of current technology capabilities and the development of new technologies and improvement of existing commercial tools, PRCI is creating a series of mechanical damage test samples with known features and characteristics that will serve as an industry standard for mechanical damage technology development (MD 1-10 [25], MD 1-11 [26], and MD 4-7 [27]). These created features are replicates of samples created for full-scale tests that are providing the data needed for developing improved mechanical damage models, providing a link between inspection and assessment of mechanical damage. PRCI is also sponsoring projects that are developing new technologies. These projects include development of DualField MFL technology (MD 1-1 [28]) for detecting residual stresses in damaged regions as an indicator of dent re-rounding due to pressure cycling of operating pipelines. A separate project (designated SCC 3-4; link to the SCC/cracking inspection program) is developing a prototype sensor specifically to detect cracks in dented regions of liquids pipelines using guided wave and multi-beam waves for identifying damaged areas [29]. As shown in Table 2, these technologies are applicable to characterizing damage that is the result of either external interference or rocks.

In addition to the in line inspection tools and technology development, PRCI is also performing research that is evaluating technologies and developing methods, protocols, and procedures for in ditch inspection of mechanical damage features. Projects have focused on establishing and validating a consistent in-ditch method for measuring/characterizing mechanical damage from the exterior of the pipe (MD 1-4 [36]) and qualification of tools and technologies for in ditch measurement of mechanical damage using a defect library with well characterized mechanical damage features (NDE 2-2 [30]). This work is ongoing and is capitalizing on an NDE defect repository that has been established by PRCI, which will include the replicate samples from the full-scale testing and defect creation projects referenced above. The key focus for the qualification of in ditch tools will be the ability to measure residual stresses in the damaged region of the pipeline. There are a number of emerging technologies that are included in this evaluation, with the technologies providing the bridge between the ILI tools and the assessment methods. Recognizing that the measurement of metallurgical changes in pipe properties and residual stresses in the damaged region are a critical link between inspection and assessment for mechanical damage, PRCI is currently planning a specific project that is targeted to collect NDE data on residual stresses in pipes of varying grade, material properties, and D/t ratios at various pressure cycling intervals (MD 1-8 [31]). The project will include a series of NDE measurements on a range of dented tests samples that are subjected to pressure cycles, with the cycling stopped at specific intervals to allow measurements to be made and determine the inducted stresses at various times in the rerounding process and how well the NDE technologies can identify/quantify those changes. One or more of these samples may also be evaluated for neutron diffraction measurements as part of the PRCI MD 1-9 project [32]. These data will complement the prior full-scale testing information and supplement the information being used to develop the dent fatigue assessment models (MD 4-9 [33], see below). Severity Assessment and Model Development A primary focus of PRCIs mechanical damage program is the completion of a series of full-scale tests to provide data on the failure modes and mechanisms for pipes that are affected by mechanical damage. The full-scale tests are designed to provide the data needed to improve the existing mechanical damage models that are relied on by pipeline operators to make decisions on management of mechanical damage. It is acknowledged that the data on which the existing models are based are outdated and limited, given the complexity of the mechanical behavior of a e.g. a dent and gouge (see Figure 4) so that predictions show scatter and further and more refined testing is needed. The PRCI full-scale testing program scope is intended to fill the existing gap and provide data for the types of pipe steel in operations for transmission energy pipelines.

Copyright 2012 by ASME

External Interference Current Practice US DOT PHMSA Incident Databas e European Databases - EGIG, CONCAWE API PPTS Database Common Ground Alliance - DIRT PRCI Projects - MD Database (MD 2-1, MD 1-2) PHMSA Incident s tatistics EGIG Interpretive Review of Operator Practices for Damage Prev (DP 1-1) Effectiveness of Damage Prevention Methods (PR-244-05405) GIS Databas e Sys tems PODS Ongoing projects Gaps
Comprehensive annual evaluation and root cause analysis of damage incidents Comprehensive annual evaluation and root cause analysis of damage incidents

Data collection Risk Management Monitor incident data Analys is and caus e ranking

Monitor Effectiveness of Damage Prevention Methods (ROW 2-2) Mechanical Damage Databas e (MD 1-5)

Monitor Effectiveness of Damage Prevention Methods (ROW 2-2) Mechanical Damage Databas e (MD 1-5)

Data Integration

Tools Performance evaluation Prevention Practices & Technologies

Indus try guidance for correlation of multiple data sets

n/a Current Patrol Practices : aerial, vehicle, foot Guidelines for HDD Drilling (DP 2-1) Pipeline Design for Mechanical Damage (PR-244-9910) Damage Management - Gap Analysis (PR-244-03159) Right of Way Automated Monitoring (ROW 3) Pipeline Watch/Social Media for Pipeline (ROW-2-3) Infrasonic Acoustic Technology for ROW Encroachment Det (ROW-5) Encroachment Detection Using Satellite Technology (ROW 6-1) Influence of Human Factors on Pipeline Damage Prevention (DP 3-2)

Damage Prevention

Suite of Tools and technologies for Damage Prevention

Performance evaluation

Interpretive Review of Operator Practices for Damage Prev (DP 1-1) Effectiveness of Damage Prevention Methods (PR-244-05405) Effectiveness of Current ROW Monitoring Processes (ROW-2-1) Improving In-Line Ins pection for MD (GRI 3698) MD Inspection using MFL Technology (GRI 8702) Better Unders tanding of MD in Natural Gas Pipelines (GRI 8075) High Res olution MFL Caliper Transvers e Field MFL

Monitor Effectiveness of Damage Prevention Methods (ROW 2-2)

Indus try databas e that es tablis hed KPIs and guides R&D efforts and continuous improvements

Piggable Pipelines Inspection


Development of Dual-Field MFL ILI Technology (MD 1-1) Detect and size Perf Evaluation of Current ILI Technologies for MD Detection (MD 1-2) cracks, interacting Understanding MFL Signals from Mechanical Damage (MD 1-3) features' es timate Detection, Sizing and Charact of Cracks in Dents - Liquid Pipelines (SCC 3residual s tres ses 4) Development of Dual-Field MFL ILI Technology (MD 1-1) Perf Evaluation of Current ILI Technologies for MD Detection (MD 1-2 ext.) Solutions for unpiggable lines Comprehens ive Perf Evaluation of Current ILI Technologies for MD Detection (MD 1-2 ext.) capabilities Creation of MD Tes t Samples for Per Eval Tes ting - Dent+gouge (MD-1-10, assessment on real MD 1-11, MD 4-7) mechanical damage features Sensors for detecting interacting Evaluation of Magneto Tomography (NDE 3-1) features (corrosion, cracking)

Detection, Location, Identification


Performance evaluation

Perf Evaluation of Current ILI Technologies for MD Detection (MD 12)

Inspection of Difficult Sensor to Ins pect Pipelines Detection, Location, Identification Platform Performance evaluation

Failure Prevention

Direct As ses sment for Mechanical Damage

Difficult to Inspect Pipeline Program (NDE 2-5) Contributions to the "Allowable Strain Limits for Dents " - Dents with Cracks and Gouges (MD 1-8) Neutron Diffraction Meas urements of Residual Strain Ass ociated with Dents and Gouges in Pipelines (MD 1-9) PHMSA SBIRs (PRCI Support)

Capabilities to assess MD in difficult to inspect pipelines Full verification of NDE technology performance for residual s tres ses

Damage Characterization


Field Testing and Verification of in ditch Tool Capabilities for MD Characterization (MD 1-4)

Performance evaluation Enhanced As ses sment Criteria for MD Pipeline (GRI 8076) Models Model for Predicting the Severity of MD Identified by ILI (MD 2-2) Damage Severity Ass ess ment Reference tests Britis h Gas Database

Comprehens ive Performance and Application of Various In-the-Ditch Tools and their Impact capabilities assessment on real on Pipeline Integrity (NDE 2-2) mechanical damage Improved Model for Burst Strength of Dent + Gouge MD (MD-4-3) -modern Model s catter needs steels Improved Model for Predicting the Time/Cycle Dependent Behavior of Dent to be reduced + Gouge MD (MD-4-4) - modern steels Full-s cale database Full-Scale Experimental Validation of MD As ses sment Models of mechanical Dent+Gouge MD (MD 4-1 & MD 4-6) damage failures Delayed Failure of MD (MD 4-8) Full-s cale testing with real mechanical damage samples (former in service lines)


Damage Repair

Repair technology Qualification Monitoring Technology

Evaluation of Compos ite Materials in Reinforcing Pipelines with MD (MATR 3-5) Safe Inspection Procedures for Dent+Gouge MD (PR-218-063505) Real Time Acous tic Monitoring of Contact to Pipelines (PR-33105408) Acous tic Source Level & Signature Measurement of Pipeline Scratches and Gouges (MD 4-5) Comparis on of automated vs. manual ROW monitoring methods (ROW-3)

Evaluation of Repair Technology for Dent+Gouge MD (MD-5) NDE & Ins pection Techniques Applied to the As ses sment of Integrity of Compos ite Wrap Repairs (NDE 2-3) Right of Way Automated Monitoring (ROW 3)

Repair for dents with interacting features

Damage Monitoring

Performance evaluation

Monitor Effectiveness of Damage Prevention Methods (ROW 2-2)


(Small) Leak Detection

Detection Technology Performance evaluation

Detection of Small Leaks in Liquid Pipelines : Gap Study (PL -1)

Evaluation of External Leak Detection Systems for Liquid Service Pipelines (PL 1-1) Pipeline Variable Uncertainties and Their Effects on Leak Detection (PL 1Evaluation of External Leak Detection Systems for Liquid Service Pipelines (PL 1-1)


Real-time continuous monitoring before impact occurs Database of industry metrics on Damage prevention measures effectiveness Retrofit method for installation of cablebased systems Comprehens ive data on field testing of technologies in operational setting

Table 2. External interference: Roadmap of current practices vs PRCI R&D projects.

Copyright 2012 by ASME

Additional full-scale testing may be conducted after analysis of the initial defects is completed. For both burst and fatigue failure modes, some defects are created as highly dynamic impacts (shallower dent, shorter gouge) and others being created by slower, less dynamic aggression (longer gouge with deeper dent). These different types of features reflect the range of actual conditions for mechanical damage that have been identified on/in operating pipelines and provide the foundation for the improved models. Work is also being performed to study the delayed failure of mechanical damage (MD 4-8 [34]). Figure 4. Dent re-rounding & stretching upon removal of the indenter / aggression tool in a pressurized pipe. Highly strained / damaged material at the indenter contact is also shown. (Courtesy B. Leis, Battelle Memorial Institute). Full-scale testing is being performed on dent+gouge damage (MD 4-1 [10] and MD 4-6 [14]) and on plain dents, dents with corrosion, and dents on welds, including both girth welds and longitudinal seams (MD 4-2 [11]). The full-scale program includes testing using modern steels and vintage pipe, with the vintage pipe materials being former in-service pipe. Both the dent+gouge and the plain dent features for the full-scale tests are created in controlled environments with specially designed equipment that replicates damage conditions to match those encountered in the field (based on information obtained from surveys of pipeline operators records). The full-scale tests are highly instrumented and provide a wide-range of data and information that are needed as key input parameters to improve the current mechanical damage models for assessing the structural significance of the features introduced in the test pipes. In addition to the parameters measured throughout the tests, pre- and post-failure analysis is also conducted, including comprehensive material characterization of the pipe materials and the defects/damaged region. The level of detailed analysis being provided is needed to account for the complexities and the number of parameters that need to be considered in developing models to predict pipeline behavior as it responds to the changes created in the damaged region of the pipe. The data from full-scale testing provides the basis for developing new and or improved version of existing models. The models being developed for dent+gouge failure include separate approaches for immediate failure (burst conditions, PRCI Project reference is MD 4-3 [12]) and delayed failure (or fatigue failure, MD 4-4 [13]) as a result of external interference, typically by construction equipment/machinery. While there are conditions where rock dents can result in minor scratches and gouging of pipelines, the dent+gouge features are fabricated using the GDF Suez Pipe Aggression Rig, which was developed to simulate impacts to pipelines by excavating equipment. A series of 9 defect types are/will be created, with 3 replicate samples of each defect, for full-scale testing of both burst and fatigue failure, and detailed destructive characterization, with 5 in modern steels and 4 in vintage pipe. For rock dents, the models are focused on fatigue life predictions (Project MD 4-9 [33]) and severity criteria and a determination of the critical strain limits associated with the dented region (MD 4-10 [35]). The dent models generally consider fatigue life of the damage area and whether cracks initiate upon removal of the indenter or after some re-rounding of the dented region due to fluctuations in the operating pressure of the pipeline. For the fatigue life prediction model, input data are derived from the full-scale dent testing project (MD 4-2 [11]), where nearly 60 test have been performed on dents fabricated in modern and vintage steels using a range of indenter sizes and dent locations (i.e., oclock position) using tests that include restrained (indenter remains in contact with the pipe during the entire full-scale test) and unrestrained conditions. The model involves developing an extensive numerical modeling matrix to develop a regression equation that provides a progressive series of severity criteria (i.e., Grade 0, 1, 2, and 3) that take into account different dent shapes and sizes, pipe geometries (D/t) and material grades, and the effect of welds (MD 4-9 [33]). The model provides a basis for defining the susceptibility of a given pipeline segment to fatigue damage accumulation and further define the interaction of dents and welds. Different levels of assessment criteria will be defined and delivered with increasing levels of accuracy, complexity, and data requirements. Complementary to the fatigue life prediction model is a separate project that is evaluating the critical strain limits for dents. The model being developed will provide an approach for pipeline operators to determine the allowable strain limit and quantify ductile failure damage indicator for plain dents and dents directly on or interacting with welds. The project will investigate the degree of plastic damage associated with a dent on the remaining fatigue life and susceptibility of cracking in the dented region and develop a critical strain based guideline for the dent integrity management. The model will be developed based on initial laboratory testing to measure stressstrain in selected pipe steels, followed by FEA modeling to develop a strain based model and computing tool that correlates dent strain limit to critical strain. The model developed will be validated through full-scale denting experiments for selected pipe sizes (OD/Wall Thickness) and steel grades. The outcome of this work will be a tool that predicts dent severity based on strain limit, providing pipeline operators with information for prioritizing excavations and determine if repair is needed.


Copyright 2012 by ASME

Rock Dents Current Practice US DOT PHMSA Incident Database European Databases - EGIG, CONCAWE API PPTS Database Common Ground Alliance - DIRT PRCI Projects - MD Database (MD 2-1, MD 1-2, MD 1-5) Ongoing projects Gaps Common Industry database, regular evaluation and root cause analysis of damage incidents Common Industry database, regular evaluation and root cause analysis of damage incidents Industry guidance for correlation of multiple data sets

Data collection Monitor incident data Analysis and cause ranking

Monitor Effectiveness of Damage Prevention Methods (ROW 2-2) Mechanical Damage Database (MD 1-5)

Risk Management

PHMSA Incident statistics EGIG Interpretive Review of Operator Practices for Damage Prev (DP Monitor Effectiveness of Damage Prevention Methods (ROW 2-2) 1-1) Mechanical Damage Database (MD 1-5) Effectiveness of Damage Prevention Methods (PR-244-05405) GIS Database Systems PODS n/a Pipeline Design for Mechanical Damage (PR-244-9910) Damage Management - Gap Analysis (PR-244-03159) Modernizing On-Shore Pipeline Construction (CNST 2-1) PHMSA Construction QMS Project

Data Integration

Tools Performance evaluation

Damage Prevention

Prevention Practices & Technologies

Construction Specifications for bacfilling excavation Industry database on rock dent incidents; post-construction inspection database of new pipelines

Performance evaluation



Piggable Pipelines Inspection Detection, Location, Identification



Improving In-Line Inspection for MD (GRI 3698) MD Inspection using MFL Technology (GRI 8702) Better Understanding of MD in Natural Gas Pipelines (GRI 8075) High Resolution MFL Caliper Transverse Field MFL

Performance evaluation

Perf Evaluation of Current ILI Technologies for MD Detection (MD-1-2)

Inspection of Difficult Sensor to Inspect Pipelines Detection, Location, Identification Failure Prevention

Detecting and Development of Dual-Field MFL ILI Technology (MD 1-1) discriminating Perf Evaluation of Current ILI Technologies for MD Detection (MD-1-2 ext.) interacting features, Detection, Sizing and Charact of Cracks in Dents - Liquid Pipelines (SCC detecting cracks in 3-4) dented region Solutions for difficult to Development of Dual-Field MFL ILI Technology (MD 1-1) inspect pipelines Comprehensive capabilities Development of Dual-Field MFL ILI Technology (MD 1-1) assessment on real Perf Evaluation of Current ILI Technologies for MD Detection (MD 1-2 ext.) mechanical damage features Above ground inspection Evaluation of Magneto Tomography (NDE 3-1) technologies; inspection through coatings

Platform Above ground inspection technologies; inspection through coatings Validated method for measuring residual stresses in pipelines Comprehensive capabilities assessment on real mechanical damage Fully calibrated, validated model Data from realistically shaped dent samples for full-scale testing; insevice lines Full-scale testing of wider range of former in-service vintage pipe Evaluation of Composite Materials in Reinforcing Pipelines with MD (MATR 3-5) Safe Inspection Procedures for Dent+Gouge MD (PR-218063505) n/a n/a Detection of Small Leaks in Liquid Pipelines: Gap Study (PL 1) Evaluation of Repair Technology for Mechanical Damage (MD-5) NDE & Inspection Techniques Applied to the Assessment of Integrity of Composite Wrap Repairs (NDE 2-3) Data on repair for dents with interacting features Validated methods for inspecting composite repairs n/a n/a Evaluation of External Leak Detection Systems for Liquid Service Retrofit method for Pipelines (PL 1-1) installation of cablePipeline Variable Uncertainties and Their Effects on Leak Detection (PL1- based systems 2) Comprehensive data Evaluation of External Leak Detection Systems for Liquid Service on field testing of Pipelines (PL 1-1) technologies in operational setting

Performance evaluation

Direct Assessment for Mechanical Damage

Difficult to Inspect Pipeline Program (NDE 2-5)

Damage Characterization


Field Testing and Verification of in ditch Tool Capabilities for MD Characterization (MD 1-4)

NDE Perf Evaluation for Inspection of MD Test Samples (NDE 2-2)

Performance evaluation

NDE Perf Evaluation for Inspection of MD Test Samples (NDE 2-2) Fatigue Screening and Life Assessment of Pipelines, Dents, and Dents Enhanced Assessment Criteria for MD Pipeline (GRI 8076) Interacting with Welds (MD-4-9) Model for Predicting the Severity of MD Identified by ILI (MD 2-2) Critical Strain and Strain Limit for Mechanical Damage (MD 4-10)


Damage Severity Assessment

Reference tests

Full-Scale Demonstration and Testing of Dents (MD 4-2)


Damage Repair

Repair technology Qualification Monitoring Technology Performance evaluation

Damage Monitoring


(Small) Leak Detection

Detection Technology


Performance evaluation

Operator specific

Table 3. Rock dents: Roadmap of current practices vs PRCI R&D projects.


Copyright 2012 by ASME

Research for Repair of Mechanical Damage PRCI research for repair of mechanical damage (MD-5 [36]) has focused on the use of composite materials (not the only option) and for establishing safe procedures for in-ditch inspection of mechanical damage. The studies completed for composite materials (MATR 3-5 [37]) have been limited to plain dents in small diameter pipelines and there will likely need to be an expansion of the program to look at composite performance over a wider range of pipe D/t and material properties. Replicate samples from the full-scale dent+gouge testing program are being created and will be added to the composite materials testing program. Additional research may also be pursued that looks to develop alternate materials for repair of mechanical damage as an alternative of the next generation solution beyond composites. PRCI research has also led to guidelines being developed for safe in-the-ditch inspection of mechanical damage features [38]. The research has focused on using mechanical damage failure pressure prediction models to determine the pressure reduction on operating pipelines that is needed to ensure safe conditions for field inspection personnel when entering an excavation to perform direct examination of a selected feature. Based on the acknowledged need for improving the current mechanical damage assessment methods and models, the inspection protocols are conservative and PRCI will update and modify these procedures as further data become available and the models are revised and validated. Continued improvements in inspection technologies and mechanical damage characterization will also lead to improvements in the safe inspection procedures. Failure Mitigation PRCIs research directed to mechanical damage failure mitigation is focused on detection of small leaks on both liquids and gas pipelines, each with its specific approaches. For liquids pipelines, leak detection sensing and Computational Pipeline Monitoring (CPM) methods and programs can be applied for either external interference or rock dents, though the size and magnitude of the release does affect the capabilities of both in-situ sensing technologies and CPM systems (i.e., burst vs. rupture). There has been extensive research supported by PRCI that is evaluating technology solutions for detection and alerting operators of a small leak in a liquid pipeline system (PRCI PL-1 Program; see Tables 2 and 3). Leak detection research is focused on advancing existing technologies and developing new sensing systems for in-situ detection of leaks near the pipeline systems (PL 1-1) and better understanding of the performance capabilities of computational systems and models used by operators to provide indications of a release from control room environments (PL 1-2 [39]). PRCIs studies were initiated in 2006 with a Gap Analysis on leak detection technologies [40], and have been evolving since then from desk top studies [41] to controlled testing of leak detection technologies in a laboratory setting [42]. Field testing of

technologies is being planned at the time of writing this paper and will involve testing in the more significant challenges represented by actual operating environments when compared to the controlled conditions of the lab testing completed in 2011. Leak detection for gas transmission pipelines and systems is also addressed by PRCI, with recent efforts focused on use of aerial and ground-based sensing systems and technologies for gas (i.e., methane) leak detection and locating. For the past several years, PRCI has been implementing its Right of Way Automated Monitoring (RAM) Program [20] which includes the detection of leaks from aerial platforms equipped with sensors to either detect vegetation stress indicating a gas leak, or airborne hydrocarbon sensors, as part of pipeline operators routine surveillance and patrol of its Right of Way (ROW) corridors [the RAM Program also addresses detection of machinery threats and unauthorized encroachment (damage prevention) from aerial platforms]. More recently, there has also been emphasis on automation of monitoring for gas leaks using ground-based sensing technologies and the use of satellites as a means of monitoring gas leaks. While aerial patrol remains the primary method of ROW surveillance and patrol for transmission pipeline operators, there are certain locations and conditions where this approach is not viable due to operating constraints. Satellites are seen as an emerging and continually improving technology base that appears to provide an option for effective monitoring in remote, undeveloped areas. PRCI is continuing to address leak detection as a high priority for the pipeline industry. PRCI has developed an R&D Roadmap for leak detection for pipelines in liquids service and uses the Roadmap to guide the research agenda for the transmission pipeline industry. A similar Roadmap is under development for gas transmission pipelines. CONCLUSION As a summary, the present paper covers several aspects from the broad perspective of highlighting how PRCIs R&D to better prevent failure due to mechanical damage defects are driven by the concern of ensuring public safety. First, integrity management and its classical components: inspection, characterization, assessment and repair were placed in the broader framework of risk assessment and management. Incident data analysis shows that external interference is a leading cause of incidental gas releases, therefore justifying significant R&D efforts towards decreasing failure frequency due to this cause, which has the highest leverage on improving public safety. Also consequences mitigation is addressed by R&D as a further option for risk management. Four operators provided information about their specific mechanical damage threat management plans, both indicating


Copyright 2012 by ASME

how they implement the methods and technologies, and what gaps they identify in the currently available toolbox, and that have potential for significantly improving operations. The main gaps concern: a) inspection ILI and in the ditch characterization tools, especially their capability to detect and size accurately cracks in mechanical damage defects; b) improved mechanical strength assessment models, and c) establishing a link between emerging technologies that provide indications on stresses / strains in mechanical damage defects and mechanical strength assessment models, especially for screening purposes. These gaps are used to highlight how PRCI, an energy pipeline industry association that funds and manages R&D, aligns its R&D roadmaps here for improved management of mechanical damage defects with the needs expressed by operators to improve their integrity management methods and technologies, and ultimately contribute to a better risk management. The description of the numerous topics and their development over time provides a better perspective on the complexity and diversity of the R&D process that the industry is managing to provide solutions that can be applied in practice. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors hereby acknowledge the funding received mainly from PRCI. REFERENCES [1] Anon. 2007-2012. Pipeline Research Council International, Inc., Mechanical Damage Research Roadmaps, www.prci.org, member area. Anon. 1970 2010 Gas Pipeline Incidents 8th Report of the European Gas Pipeline Incident Group. www.egig.eu (December 2011). Anon. All reported gas transmission pipeline incidents. Interpretation by the authors (2011). http://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/comm/reports/safety/. United States Code of Federal Regulations, Title 49, Parts 192 and 195. Canadian Standards Association, Standard Z662, Oil & Gas in Pipeline Systems, (2011). Krishnamurthy, R., M. Gao, R. McNealy, Investigative Fundamentals and Performance Improvements of Current In-Line Inspection Technologies for Mechanical Damage Detection Phase 2: Final Report, Final Report for Project PR-328-063502, Catalog No. L52313, Pipeline Research Council International, Inc., (2009). Krishnamurthy, R., R. McNealy and M. Gao, LaserScan Technology for In-Ditch Mechanical Damage Characterization for PRCI Project MD 1-4, Interim Draft Report for Project PR-328-0735 (not publicly released), Pipeline Research Council International, Inc., (2009),


[8] [9] [10]












[3] [4] [5]







Kiefner, J.F., Effectiveness of Current ROW Monitoring Processes, Final Report for Project PR-218-074503, Pipeline Research Council International, Inc., (2009). Common Ground Alliance, CGA DIRT 2010, Analysis and Recommendations, Vol. VII, October (2011). www.pipeline watch.com Full-scale Experimental Validation of Mechanical Damage Assessment Models PRCI Project PR-30605500 (MD 4-1); ongoing project in progress Full-Scale Demonstration of the Interaction of Dents with Localized Corrosion and Welds - PRCI Project PR-214-073510 (MD 4-2); ongoing project in progress. Improved Model for Predicting the Burst Pressure of Dent +Gouge Damage; PRCI Project PR218-063510 (MD 4-3); ongoing project in progress. Improved Model for Predicting the Fatigue/Cyclic Loading Failure of Dents +Gouge Damage PRCI Project PR-003-063509(MD 4-4); ongoing project in progress. Full-scale Experimental Validation of Mechanical Damage Assessment Models - Vintage Pipelines PRCI Project PR-306-083510 (MD 4-6); ongoing project in progress U.S. Department of Transportation, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, Incident Statistics, 2003 2012, http://www.phmsa.dot.gov/hazmat/library/datastats/incidents Kiefner J.F., Effectiveness of Current ROW Monitoring Processes, Final Report for Project PR-218-074503, Pipeline Research Council International, Inc., (2009). Measuring the Effectiveness of Damage Prevention Techniques / Efficiency of Data Collection Tools and Procedures & Influence on Damage Prevention Efficiency - PRCI Project PR-349-113707 (ROW 2-2); ongoing project in progress Inventory of Types of Mechanical Damage Experienced by Gas and Oil Pipelines, PRCI Project PR-218-063511 (MD 2-1). Field Tests and Advanced Development of Pipeline Intrusion Sensor System, PRCI Project PR-319-084511 (ROW-5); ongoing project in progress Right of Way Automated Monitoring Program, PRCI Project PR-361-084505 (ROW-3); ongoing program in progress Satellite Based Pipeline Integrity Management -Phase 1 Proposal Encroachment Management, PRCI Project PR394-113703 (ROW-6-1); ongoing project in progress Influence of Human Factors on Pipeline Damage Prevention, PRCI Project PR-339-093702 (DP 3-2); ongoing project in progress Modernizing On-Shore Pipeline Construction - Research Plan Development, PRCI Project PR-373-094503 (CNST 2-1); ongoing project in progress Understanding Magnetic Flux Leakage Signals from Mechanical Damage in Pipelines, PRCI Project PR-32005304 (MD 1-3); ongoing project in progress


Copyright 2012 by ASME

















Creation of Dent and Gouge Defects for Inspection Technology Evaluation and Repair - Vintage Steels Without and With Cracks, PRCI Project MD 1-10; project being initiated Creation of Dent and Gouge Defects Associated with Cracks - Modern Steels, PRCI Project MD 1-11; project being initiated Development of Full-Scale Experimental Samples for Inspection and Repair Evaluation, Extension of MD 4-1, PRCI Project PR-306-083509 (MD 4-7); ongoing project in progress Dual Field Magnetic Flux Leakage Inspection Technology to Detect and Characterize Mechanical Damage, PRCI Project PR-337-063508 (MD 1-1); ongoing project in progress Detection, Sizing and Characterization of SCC and Other Cracks in Dents in Liquid Pipelines, PRCI Project PR-015-063520 (SCC 3-4); ongoing project in progress Performance and Application of Various In-the-Ditch Tools and their Impact on Pipeline Integrity, PR-404113710 (NDE 2-2); ongoing project in progress Measuring Residual Stresses in Pipeline Dents and Dents with Interacting Features, PRCI Project Reference MD 1-8; project being initiated Neutron Diffraction Measurements of Residual Strain Associated with Dents and Gouges in Pipelines, PR320-113706 (MD 1-9); ongoing project in progress Fatigue Screening and Life Assessment of Pipelines, Dents, and Dents Interacting with Welds, PR-214114500 (MD 4-9); ongoing project in progress Assessment of Delayed Failure for Mechanical Damage Under Constant Pressure, PR-003-104510 (MD 4-8); ongoing project in progress Critical Strain and Strain Limit for Mechanical Damage, PRCI Project Reference MD 4-10; project being initiated Guidelines for Inspection and Repair of Mechanical Damage Defects, PRCI MD-5 Program; ongoing program in progress Evaluating the Use of Composite Materials in Reinforcing Mechanically-damaged Pipelines, PR-201094501 (MATR- 3-5); final report under review, not publicly released. Rosenfeld, M., J. Kiefner, Safe Inspection procedures for dent and Gouge Damage, PR-218-063505 (MD-5); final report under review, not publicly released. New Look at Pipeline Variable Uncertainties and Their Effects on Leak Detection, PRCI Project Reference PL1-2; project being initiated. Siebenaler, S., J.Buckingham, R. Burkey, T. Grimley, R.E. Nicholas, Detection of Small Leaks in Liquid Pipelines: Gap Study, Analysis of Available Methods, Final Report for Project PR-015-064503, Catalog No. L52272, Pipeline Research Council International, Inc., (2007).



Siebenaler, S., Evaluation of External Leak Detection Systems for Liquid Pipelines: Final Report, Final Report for Project PR-015-084510 (not publicly released), Pipeline Research Council International, Inc., (2009). Siebenaler, S., Evaluation of External Leak Detection Systems- Laboratory Work, Final Report for Project PR015-093709 (not publicly released), Pipeline Research Council International, Inc., (2011).


Copyright 2012 by ASME