technical

Rehabilitation of a pipeline in a new European country

by Abraham Louwerse, ILF Consulting Engineers, Munich, Germany ILF was invited to assess the integrity status of two pipelines in a new European country. In the last few years there were some leakages and nobody really knew the exact position of these pipelines and equipment. The pipelines were installed 30 years ago, and there was little documentation available; the pipelines are non-piggable and are without any cathodic protection. The client decided to carry out an integrity-assessment study for these two major pipelines before deciding on rehabilitation procedures.
he management wanted to know the actual integrity status of the pipelines and information regarding other details of the lines (such as their exact route). Among other factors, the study involved: Topography survey Terrestrial survey Pipeline detection Geographical investigation for soil-resistivity assessment Collecting and review of existing information Collecting right-of-way information at the local city hall and cadastral data for reimbursement contracts to be made by the client Pipeline inspection and integrity non-destructive testing measurements Production and delivery of alignment sheets.

The goal of the project was to gather integrity data on these pipelines and to evaluate these data to determine the integrity condition of the pipelines and facilities. The pipelines, constructed to API 5L X52 with bitumen wrapping, were designed in the early 1970s. The pipelines were initially installed with 20 inch diameter pipe, but since 1986 some sections have been replaced with 16 inch diameter pipe, due to leakage or other circumstances.

Alternative scope of work

After a few meetings and an ILF presentation of an alternative project and survey plan, the client decided to reduce the scope of work to some basic investigations in order to obtain a first integrity status of the pipelines. The survey work would therefore include a topographic survey, a pipeline-detection survey, a terrestrial survey, a long-range ultrasonic/guided-wave ultrasonic (LRUT/GWUT) survey, excavations, radiographic inspection (x-ray), and visual inspection.

Topographic survey
This measured all topographical items, including landmarks, buildings, streams, rivers, rail tracks, roads, visible crossings of third-party infrastructure, etc., in a 50 m corridor on both sides of the pipeline. The data collected were entered onto alignment sheets and delivered as a database, conforming to the geographical information system (GIS) database structure prescribed by the client, for direct implementation into the GIS.

Pipeline detection survey

This was needed to gather the necessary data to develop detailed alignment sheets and to prepare reliable as-build documentation. This survey recorded the exact pipeline position (x, y, z), bend identification, and possible diameter changes.

Terrestrial survey
All structures and landmarks, in corridor of 100 m on both sides of the pipeline, were surveyed to gather reliable data on terrestrial conditions and to mark the pipeline route with a grid of survey reference markers for possible rehabilitation project execution on the pipelines.

LRUT/GWUT
The most suitable positions for LRUT/GWUT were determined, together with the client; these were at locations were the pipeline route changes from above-ground to below-ground. With these

Figure 1: The LRUT/GWUT system in use.

Pipelines International digest | DECEMBER 2011

technical

Figure 2: EMAT schematic. Diameter (inches) 20 24 16 16 16 16 14 16 16 16 16 20 20 20 20 20 16 Wall thickness (mm) 8.34 11.9 9.36 9.2 8.39 7.75 12.2 7.75 7.95 7.92 7.92 14.38 9.24 9.8 7.92 7.83 9.35 OK Coating degradation, dent in pipeline, welding anomalies Bad support with corrosion indication Coating degradation and damage, welding anomalies Bad support with corrosion indication Coating degradation and damage Crossing is sagging, welding anomalies Coating degradation and damage, four anomalies detected Coating degradation and damage, two welding anomalies Coating degradation and damage, welding anomalies Bad support with corrosion indication Coating degradation and damage Coating degradation and damage Coating degradation and damage, two remnant welding anomalies, Bow crossing of ditch Coating degradation and damage Coating degradation and damage Coating degradation and damage Coating degradation and damage, four anomalies detected (Class 2, 3), four welding anomalies Coating degradation and damage, four anomalies detected (Class 2, 3), nine welding anomalies

Chainage 144 5054 11628 18081 24417 31418 31681 32315 32794 36144 47534 53144 54231 55726 62100 85213 100026

No. IP3A IP22 IP34 IP36C IP37 IP58 IP60 IP61A IP61B IP73 IP77A IP85 IP88 IP92 IP95C IP120 IP139

Defects Coating degradation and damage

Table 1: LRUT and GWUT investigations for the Route 1 pipeline. spot checks, at the most corrosion-sensitive area of the pipelines, it was possible to evaluate the general integrity of the pipeline. The advanced LRUT/GWUT system (Figure 1) is designed for rapid screening of long lengths of pipe to detect corrosion and other forms of axial and circumferential metal degradation. It can be used on a wide variety of pipes including those that are insulated. The tests can be done with the pipeline operational (inservice), so disruption and any expensive down-time are minimised. Hundreds of metres of pipe can be inspected in a single shift and 100 per cent thickness of the pipe wall is inspected during a test. The LRUT/GWUT system uses low-frequency ultrasonic guidedwaves that travel along the full wall thickness of the pipe as a circular type wave front around the pipe circumference. The pulse-echo application means that changes in wall thickness (such as corrosion) along the pipe length will generate signals that return to the transducers. These returning echoes are presented on a simple amplitude versus distance A-scan signal, which the operator can use to discriminate between genuine pipe features (such as welds) and problem areas (such as corrosion wall loss) via the operational software.

Pipelines International digest | DECEMBER 2011

technical
Diameter (inches) 8 14 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 Wall thickness (mm) 7.89 8.63 7.25 7.16 6.9 10.5 10.8 12.33 7.6 8.63 OK Coating degradation and damage Three leak repairs and coating with severe degradation OK Coating degradation and damage Defects in welding OK Welding defects

Chainage 13 94 466 643 672 3420 6318 6318 22271 26757

No. MS2 MS4 MS6 MS7A MS7B MS14 MS23 MS24 MS47 MS54

Defects Coating degradation and damage

Table 2: LRUT and GWUT investigations for the Route 2 pipeline. Chainage 6,375 m 7,648 m 32,489 m 32,792 m 33,664 m 55,569 m 62,725 m 63,425 m 75,231 m 91,747 m Depth (m) 150 130 150 190 60 95 130 150 200 160 Diameter (inches) 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 16 20 20 Spiral Seamless Seamless Bad Poor Good Pipe type Seamless Seamless Seamless Seamless Poor Bad Condition Radius (m) 1.5 1.5 0.6 0.7 Segments 4.6 0.8 0.9 6 6.5 Angle () 159 147 90 110 116 138 112 120 90 140

Table 3: Pipe bends (elbows) and diameter for the Route 1 pipeline. Chainage 3,160 m 3,407 m 3,439 m 8,976 m 9,319 m 18,655 m 22,207 m Depth (m) 120 cm 150 cm 130 cm 130 cm 100 cm 120 cm 120 cm Diameter (inches) 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 Spiral Spiral Corrosion Corrosion Seamless Pipe type Spiral Condition Radius (m) 2.6 3.0 1.5 3.0 7.0 6.4 5.0 Angle () 124 127 148 127 114 140 134

Table 4: Pipe bends (elbows) and diameter for the Route 2 pipeline.

Pipelines International digest | DECEMBER 2011

technical
Pipeline depth (cm) Pipe condition Pipe diameter (inches) 20 Bad 20 20 20 20 Bad Poor Poor 20 Bad Poor Poor API 5L X52 Poor Poor Poor Poor API 5L X52 API 5L X52 API 5L X52 API 5L X52 API 5L X52 API 5L X52 API 5L X52 Spiral 62,725 m 63,425 m 75,231 m 85,213 m 91,747 m 100,026 m 130 150 200 AG 160 AG Spiral Spiral API 5L X52 API 5L X52 API 5L X52 Bad Bad Seamless Seamless API 5L X52 Poor Poor Poor Bad Bad Poor Poor Good Poor Bad 20 22 20 20 14 14 14 20 20 20 Spiral Spiral 53,144 m 54,231 m 55,569 m 55,726 m AG AG 95 Seamless Spiral Spiral 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 16 Wall thickness min (mm) 7.8 9.5 9.2 12.9 8.18 8.5 8.7 8.7 8.0 3.6 9.4 7.7 7.5 12.2 7.2 7.2 7.5 9.6 7.9 7.0 6.9 13.0 8.6 7.9 7.8 7.0 9.3 9.4 8.3 6.5 9 9.5 Wall thickness max (mm) 8.1 12.5 9.2 13.6 13.8 9.6 8.7 8.7 8.9 7.9 9.8 7.8 7.9 12.9 8.8 8.8 9.8 10.9 8.2 7.2 7.5 15.1 9.2 11.9 9.1 7.9 9.3 10.8 9.3 8.2 9.4 9.5

Chainage 144 m 5,054 m 5,141 m 6,375 m 7,648 m 11,628 m

Pipe type

Grade API 5L X52

Spiral AG 150 130 AG Seamless Seamless Spiral Spiral Spiral

API 5L X52 API 5L X52 API 5L X52 API 5L X52 API 5L X52 API 5L X52 API 5L X52 API 5L X52 API 5L X52 API 5L X52

24,417 m 2628 km 29,621 m 30,127 m 31,418 m 31,604 m 32,315 m 32,465 m 32,489 m 32,792 m 33,664 m 36,144 m

AG 130 AG AG AG AG AG AG 150 190 60 AG

Spiral Spiral Seamless Seamless Spiral Seamless Spiral Spiral Seamless Seamless

Table 5: Wall thickness measurement for the Route 1 pipeline. Two types of guided wave longitudinal and torsional are used to broaden the range of possible frequencies and to adjust for different situations, for example the presence of liquids. Symmetrical and flexural waves allow defect detection and interpretation of the results. An important point to note is that LRUT/GWUT techniques do not provide a direct measurement of pipe wall thickness, but are sensitive to a combination of the depth and circumferential extent of any metal loss. LRUT/GWUT is not able to distinguish the difference between internal or external material loss. As a redundancy for the LRUT/GWUT we executed nine EMAT measurements on positions where the spiral-welded pipe was giving bad readings via the LRUT/GWUT technology. In this case, the electromagnetic acoustic transducer (EMAT) technology was a hand-held tool which could be moved around the pipe (it was not a collar, like guided wave). The EMAT must be placed on the pipe and it shoots forwards by approximately 1.5 m (Figure 2). The transducer can be moved circumferentially around the pipe and with this movement a 360 coverage with a measuring length of 1.5 m can be achieved.

Excavations
Fifty locations were selected to excavate the pipeline for the bend identification and wall thickness measurements. The diameter changes should have been excavated as well, but because of the method used for pipeline replacement in the past, these were not detectable.

Pipelines International digest | DECEMBER 2011

technical
Pipeline depth (cm) AG 90 AG 80 120 150 AG 130 AG 130 100 120 120 120 AG Spiral Spiral Spiral Spiral Spiral Seamless Spiral Spiral 8,976 m 9,319 m 18,655 m 22,207 m 22,227 m 26,757 m Pipe condition Fair Bad Corrosion Corrosion Pipe diameter (inches) 814 16 16 16 16 16 Corrosion Corrosion Corrosion 16 16 16 16 16 16 Corrosion Corrosion Corrosion Corrosion 16 16 16 16 Wall thickness min (mm) 7.7 8.2 6.9 7.0 10.0 6.3 7.2 10.9 11.3 11.5 6.3 9.9 10.0 9.3 7.5 7.6 Wall thickness max (mm) 8.0 8.9 7.3 7.3 10.8 6.8 10.8 11.8 12.8 13.5 6.8 10.6 10.0 10.1 7.6 8.8

Chainage 013 m 94 m 466 m 657 m 3,160 m 3,407 m 3,411 m 3,439 m 6,318 m

Pipe type Seamless Seamless Spiral Spiral Spiral

Grade API 5L X52 API 5L X52 API 5L X52 API 5L X52 API 5L X52 API 5L X52 API 5L X52 API 5L X52 API 5L X52 API 5L X52 API 5L X52 API 5L X52 API 5L X52 API 5L X52 API 5L X52 API 5L X52

Table 6: Wall thickness measurement for the Route 2 pipeline. Design pressure classes Pipe diameter (inches) 16 20 ANSI 400 400 ISO (bar) 64 64 Wall thickness (mm) 12.5 14.2 Alternative wall thickness (mm) (client approval needed) 8.8 10

Grade

L360 NB L360 NB

Table 7: Clients technical specification for wall thickness. According to the information received from the client, the bypasses should have been constructed in parallel positions to the old pipeline, and connected with elbows to the original line. It was later discovered that this was not the way these bypasses had been constructed. After a second detection survey, in which these connections were still undetectable, the client mobilised its field inspectors and the construction company who carried out the bypass construction to indicate the positions in the field. During this identification survey we were informed about the changed construction method for the bypass connections: over a length of 50100 m the new pipeline was positioned in the original route of the old pipeline and connected without the elbows as indicated during the project scope. Due to some landowner issues and high water conditions, there were some locations which could not be accessed, and at which excavations were therefore cancelled by the clients project management and ILF. At the other excavations, the pipeline diameter and wall thickness were measured and a general inspection of the coating was performed. angle, wall thickness, position, depth, and coating condition were selected. Table 3 shows the data from these investigations. According to EN 1594, field bends for pipelines greater than 16 inches in diameter shall have at least 40 times the diameter: this is a radius of 16 m for 16 inches, and 20.3 m for 20 inch pipes. Factory bends can have smaller radii. In general bends, made of segments (mitred, or cut elbows) are not permitted according to EN 14161. While only performing visual inspection on the investigated bends, it was not possible to identify if the bends were mitred or factory bends.

Wall thickness
According to EN 1594 the minimum required wall thickness is calculated with following equation:

Bends (elbows)
In agreement with the client, the locations of short-radius bends and elbows which were excavated during the pipeline-detection survey to investigate the bend type, radius, change of direction

where: DP = design pressure (bar) DOD = outside diameter (mm) fo = utilisation factor according to EN 1594 Rt0.5 = yield strength according to API 5L (N/mm) This equation does not consider any supplemental wall thickness, such as might be used for corrosion. Also, the equation

Pipelines International digest | DECEMBER 2011

technical

of 360 N/mm, this leads to a minimum wall thickness of 3 mm for the 16 inch pipeline, and one of 3.9 mm for the 20 inch pipeline. For the Route 2 pipeline with an original operating pressure of 42 bar, a wall thickness of 3.6 mm is the absolute minimum required. To these values a safety design factor of 2 mm and a corrosion allowance of 3 mm is to be added, giving the following results: Route 1: wall thickness >8 mm for the 16 inch and 8.9 mm for the 20 inch pipelines Route 2: wall thickness >8.6 mm for the 16 inch pipeline. According to the clients technical specification, based on the local standard for wall thickness calculations, the specifications in Table 7 are given, included the prescribed 2 mm safety design factor and the 3 mm corrosion allowance. All wall thicknesses below the minimum prescribed values are marked in red in Tables 5 and 6.

Material
The information received from the client stated that there is only API 5L X52 and L360 linepipe material used for these pipelines. According to API 5L, the API 5L X52 and the L360 linepipe materials are equal. The minimum yield strength (Rt0.5) is 360N/ mm and the chemical composition for X52 gives maximum contents (mass fraction) of 0.26 per cent carbon, 1.4 per cent of manganese, and 0.03 per cent of phosphorous and sulphur for welded pipes (in non-sour service).

Radiographic inspection (x-ray)

During the ultrasonic testing (UT) of the pipelines, some very badly welded seams were visually observed, and it was recommended to the client that they be checked or examined by radiographic means. Twelve welded joints were therefore investigated by means of x-ray inspection to gather information about the general quality of some suspicious welding joints. The radiographic test where executed on three joints on the 20 inch line, two joints on the 24 inch line, six joints on the 16 inch line, and one joint on the 14 inch line. The finding after evaluation of the discontinuities on the radiographic films were that there had been incomplete Positive result Negative result Rejected Rejected Approved Approved Rejected Approved Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected 3 Approved 9 Rejected

Figure 3: Examples of poor welding. is only a rule of thumb and is valid for straight pipe (not for bends). For the Route 1 pipeline with its original operating pressure of 36 bar, an fo of 0.72 (which is the reciprocal safety factor), and Rt0.5 Chainage value 3411 6318 5054 5054 11628 11628 11628 31604 32315 53144 85213 85213 No. MS14 MS23 IP22 IP22 IP34 w1 IP34 w2 IP34 w3 IP60 IP61 IP85 IP120 w1 IP120 w2

Measured 1 (joint) on 14 inch 1 (joint) on 16 inch 1 (joint) on 24 inch 1 (ws) on 20 inch 1 (joint) on 16 inch 1 (joint) on 16 inch 1 (joint) on 16 inch 1 (joint) on 14 inch 1 (joint) on 16 inch 1 (joint) on 20 inch 1 (joint) on 20 inch 1 (joint) on 20 inch

Results of the 12 investigation points Table 8: Inspected welded joints.

10

Pipelines International digest | DECEMBER 2011

technical

penetration and/or incomplete fusion, and nine of the 12 investigated joints were therefore rejected. Figure 3 ab and Table 8 give further details.

Visual inspection
For all above-ground installations, excavations, and UT investigation sites, a visual inspection was carried out which included identification of the pipe type (spiral or longitudinally welded), the identification of bends, and the measurement of diameter and wall thickness. Also the general state of the coating was evaluated and recorded. For above-ground installations such as flanges and valves, the general state, presence of all bolts and nuts, and the corrosion condition, were recorded. The presence of handwheels for the valves were also checked. Along the pipeline route there are many roads crossings, some of which have ventilation pipes which indicate an installed casing. On the locations where there were no ventilation pipes observed, especially on the national roads and highways, it was assumed that, according to the old standard that was in place during the construction of the original pipeline, the ventilation pipes were corroded, had disappeared or been stolen for scrap metal collection. Data on all road crossings was obtained, regardless of road type minor, secondary, national, or highway. Some casings made of old oil barrels under a minor road were detected, as well as some concrete pipes as a kind of casing under a secondary road. It was assumed that many of these crossings had not been constructed in conformity with the old standard, and certainly they were not in accordance with new standards and practices. At some water crossings the pipe could be seen lying directly in the watercourse. According to European norms, the rule for thumb for water crossings is to cross at least 0.8 m below the deepest point of the water course.

Instrumentation and pipeline valves

In general, the inspected instrumentation and valves were in a very poor condition, and it was not certain whether the valve diameter matched the pipeline diameter for many valves. None of the valves could be remotely controlled and, in many cases, the handwheels to operate the valves were missing. Even if there was a handwheel, it was very hard or even impossible to operate due to corrosion. In some cases flange bolts were missing. Mostly the external conditions were between bad and poor, and paint had been used for corrosion protection (if existent at all). At facilities, where identifiable, the pressure class was PN64.

Leakages
During the pipeline detection survey leakages were detected which were immediately reported to the client. The client had recorded all leakages on the pipelines in the previous two years: the total number of reported/recorded leakages in 2008 was 28. The repair methods were neither in accordance to the quality control and safety standards of the client nor to internationally accepted standards (Fig.4 a-c). Most repairs were observed as being executed by simple steel screwed-on clamps, without

Figure 4: Examples of poor reinstatement.

11

Pipelines International digest | DECEMBER 2011

technical

Figure 5: Concrete blocks used at a river crossing. even removing and reinstalling the coating. Some severe damage caused by excavation works for leakage repair was also observed on the pipeline.

Buoyancy protection
In areas where the soil contains a lot of water (moor or marsh), and also for larger river crossings, buoyancy protection for the pipeline is required and is mandatory. According to the European standard EN 1594, the pipe should be ballasted or anchored, if necessary, in areas where the pipe tends to float or because of the high groundwater table. It was seen that some kind of buoyancy protection for the pipelines had been used in a few locations, although this was neither according to European standards nor sufficient. At a few locations the bare pipe was seen lying directly in the water, covered by some concrete blocks (Figure 5).

Figure 6: Concrete block laying on the pipe. This meant that there should be rehabilitated 101 km of new 16 inch pipeline would be installed. The rehabilitation sequence/steps and detailed explanation are discussed later.

Integrity status conclusions

Integrity management
A pipeline integrity management plan had not been implemented, and there was no knowledge of the pipelines integrity. Maintenance had only been carried out in a poor manner following failure, leakage, or breakdown. The followings aspects were observed: Generally, there was no CP system installed; the one that was partly installed on Route 1 was not maintained. Wall thickness measurement indicated that, in the locations that were investigated, +/- 90 per cent, was not sufficient according either the clients standard or the EN standard. There was no coating investigation routine, such as direct current voltage gradient (DCVG). The lines are not piggable because of: Elbow and bend radiuses and welds Gate valves are not full-bore Diameter reductions Different pipeline diameters No pig launcher or receiver stations.

Pipeline integrity assessment

Pipelines to be rehabilitated
The pipeline system is a combination of pipelines constructed in the 1970s and some new sections that have been constructed in recent years due to leakages. The newly constructed pipeline are 16 inch diameter L360 NB with a three-layer polyethylene (PE) coating; the old, original, 20 inch diameter pipeline was constructed from API 5L X52 steel with a bitumen coating. Because of the bad coating condition of the old pipelines, frequent leakages, river and road crossings situations, reduced wall thicknesses, poorly maintained pipeline furniture, non-classified elbows, non-existing cathodic protection (CP) system, non-piggability, and bad welding quality, a rehabilitation was considered for all the old pipelines to the specification of the newly constructed pipelines to bring this pipeline system back to fit-for-purpose condition and to be in line with the standards and pipeline safety regulations.

Health, safety and environment

There had been frequent leakages along the pipeline because of internal and external corrosion, pipe stresses, and geographical

12

Pipelines International digest | DECEMBER 2011

technical

Figure 8: Pipe bent due to ground movement. influences (such as landslides). This was environmentally unjustifiable and public safety, as well as the safety of the clients personnel, was in jeopardy. Corporate reputation was also at stake; when a serious incident occurs, it is realistic to assume that the pipelines present integrity status will be examined and published by the public media. As mentioned already, there had been 28 leakages detected and reported in the last two years.

Design for cathodic protection and isolation couplings

The CP system must be designed, taking the previous soil resistivity survey results as base, for an adequate external corrosion protection. During this design the optimum and preferable positions for isolation couplings are to be calculated.

Pipeline exchange Pipeline operation

When looking at the status of the installations and situations along the pipelines, very strong doubts arose concerning the qualification and pipeline integrity knowledge of the pipeline operators. It was strongly suggested that the pipeline operators and inspectors should be urgently trained in pipeline integrity, safe operating work procedures, and safety awareness. For example, an inspectors alarm bells should normally go off if he observes a heavy concrete block of a few 100 kg laying on top of the pipeline (Figure 6), or when a pipeline is completely kinked because of the support of the river crossing has collapsed (Figure 7). Exchange the old API 5L X52 pipeline material with the L360 NB and three-layer PE coating (according to DIN EN ISO 21809). This means the complete exchange of the 26.766 km Route 2 line and the remaining 74.899 km of 16 inch diameter old Route 1 pipeline. The design of the new pipeline should be piggable with launcher and receiver stations, and with piggable bends and valves.

Crossings
All pipeline crossings should be made by directional drilling, horizontal directional drilling, or prefabricated siphons; if this is not possible, existing crossings should be rehabilitated to be of a safe and reliable construction (Figure 8).

Steps for rehabilitation

The integrity status of the pipeline had a very low quality, and the situation was very dangerous for both public safety and the pipelines direct environment. The asset utilisation and asset capability were both greatly reduced because of this poor integrity status, and it was just a matter of time before the pipeline would have been out of service for a lengthy period because of an incident. The following steps for rehabilitation were therefore considered:

Line valves and valve stations

New 16 inch full-bore line valves should be located in aboveground stations, and preferably equipped with remote process control (safety response), and pressure and temperature transmitters. This means that electrical power supply and communication, by public network, satellite, or by dedicated fibre optic cables along the line, will be necessary.

Location of isolation couplings Coating integrity

Checking the coating of the previous, already constructed L360 NB pipelines by DCVG and measure the soil resistivity of the complete pipeline routes. The requirements for isolation couplings depend on the CP system that is to be installed. The exact locations for isolation couplings cannot be specified until that time.

13

Pipelines International digest | DECEMBER 2011

technical

Figure 9: Unauthorised excavation of unused section of line.

Fencing and markers

All above-ground installations should be fenced-in to out keep unauthorised people and to hinder unauthorised operations. On the fences, the product identification codes and telephone numbers should be visible. All changes in direction and crossings should be identified with state-of-the-art markers. These markers should have the clients identification/tag plates on which the emergency telephone numbers and the position identifications are clearly visible. According to the new standards, the next upstream and downstream positioned markers should always be able to be seen, to enable the identification of the pipeline route.

PIMS (pipeline integrity management system)

Pipeline operations
A training programme for pipeline operators and pipeline inspectors should be set up to make them a part of the PIMS. This will stimulate a professional dedication to their job and a sense of responsibility. It is also important that the operators report their work and observations to a focal point at their department (the integrity engineer) in order to gather together all relevant information for implementation in the new GIS system, and to make it possible for the integrity engineers to evaluate the right statistics in order to initiate maintenance and other relevant actions for integrity management. The PIMS should include an inspection programme and a maintenance programme.

Route inspection programme

For an inspection programme, the following aspects are to be included: A time schedule for car, walking, and/or helicopter inspections. The pipeline must be clearly indicated by markers. Templates for inspection reports are to be made. All items and installations must be listed, defining how and what is to be checked and inspected; this includes geographical and topographical changes.

Figure 10: The process of managing integrity.

14

Pipelines International digest | DECEMBER 2011

technical

Procedures are to be set up concerning what is to be inspected, what is be to reported, how the reports are to be made, and to whom the reports are to be given. A schedule for ILI to observe the feature degradation and to plan maintenance.

Maintenance programme
In the course of time, several maintenance strategies were developed with their own advantages and disadvantages. The three major existing categories of maintenance are: Corrective maintenance (CM) Preventive maintenance (PM) Risk-based maintenance (RBM).

Close interval potential survey measurements Cleaning/drying liquids in the pipeline (semi-routine) by pigging or drain systems. An extension of preventive maintenance is condition-based maintenance, which has to be developed for each individual pipeline system on the basis of the experience during the first years of operation, followed by continuous improvement based on actual experience (the Deming circle).

Risk-based maintenance
In risk-based maintenance, the system and its components are evaluated in terms of their probability of failure and the risks involved (Figure 10). The results are visualised in a risk matrix. With the focus on the relevant system components for the operation, the integrity of the whole system is improved. Highly qualified staff are required to undertake this analysis. In central Europe, it is recommended that condition-based maintenance is regularly undertaken to achieve a high reliability of the individual components and thus for the whole system.

Corrective maintenance
The CM strategy is independent of time or condition of the system, and the work consists only of repairing defective equipment. Thus, the unscheduled and unpredictable work leads to relatively low costs. High expenditures could arise, however, when the whole system has to be shut down because of the repairs.

Quantitative risk assessment

Before commissioning a pipeline a quantitative risk assessment (Bowtie) should be set up and implemented for all installations and equipment as well as for the pipeline route itself. By evaluating the possible internal and external risks it is possible to direct and customise the operational and integritymanagement system in the high-risk areas along the pipeline, which include high density population areas, industrial areas, environmentally sensitive areas, landslide areas, mining areas, rivers and water crossings, direct current rail tracks, highways, and parallel crossings with high-voltage power lines.

Preventive maintenance
PM contains all the work/interventions performed periodically on critical units according to specified instructions, or vendor maintenance manuals, recommendations, and procedures. Examples of PM are: Greasing the valves Function testing line valves Emission testing valve seals and compressor/pump seals Intelligent pig runs DCVG coating investigation

15

Pipelines International digest | DECEMBER 2011