Enhanced Threat Detection and Assessment

Capabilities Using Multiple Dataset ILI

Technology
9 th PIPELINE TECHNOLOGY CONFERENCE 2014, 12-14 May 2014, Berlin
Juergen Ehrhardt, Jed Ludlow

Abstract
T.D. Williamson, has been providing customers with inline inspection solutions using multiple data sets
on a single platform for the last several years. The value of obtaining information from numerous
inspection technologies, at the same point in time, is invaluable in assessing anomalies. This paper will
focus on improved feature assessment through utilization of axial MFL, SpirALL MFL (SMFL), Low Field
MFL, Deformation and XYZ Mapping technologies.

Introduction
The value of gathering multiple inline inspection (ILI) data sets simultaneously on a single inspection tool
has long been understood. Tools equipped with a combination of high field axial magnetic flux leakage
(MFL), mechanical deformation sensors, and high accuracy XYZ mapping technologies have been
available for many years. The value of including additional data sets such as SpirALL MFL and low field
axial MFL is the focus of this paper.
Figure 1 shows MDS inspection tools in 12 and 24 diameter. Each tool is equipped with the following
inspection technologies:

High field axial MFL

SpirALL MFL (SMFL)
Low field axial MFL
Mechanical deformation
ID versus OD discrimination
High accuracy XYZ mapping

Applying multiple independent magnetizing fields differs from a conventional tri-axial MFL
implementation. In a tri-axial MFL implementation, a single axial magnetizing field is applied to the pipe
wall, and three components of the resulting leakage field are measured. In contrast, a multiple
magnetizing field tool applies more than one magnetic field to the pipe wall, each field differing in either
direction or strength, tailored to highlight specific characteristics of targeted anomalies.

Detection and Sizing

The Pipeline Operators Forum (POF) outlines a method for classifying metal loss anomalies by plane
shape [1]. The performance of ILI technologies is usually broken out by POF classification. Not all
technologies are suitable for all anomaly classes. For example, the shaded region in Figure 2(a)
illustrates the rough area of applicability for conventional axial MFL inspection. Small diameter
anomalies and axially long anomalies are the area of greatest weakness for this technology. In contrast,
the shaded region of Figure 2(b) shows the rough area of applicability for transverse or SpirALL MFL
inspection. Small diameter anomalies and circumferentially wide anomalies are a weakness for this
technology. When the two technologies are combined, coverage of the overall anomaly space improves
as shown in Figure 2(c). As an additional benefit, the area where the coverage maps overlap provides
two opportunities to detect and size each anomaly.
Figure 3 shows the blind performance of two metal loss sizing models against field measurements for
1281 natural corrosion anomalies. The anomalies fall largely in the pitting and general POF classes. The
ILI depth estimates in Figure 3(a) were obtained using a metal loss sizing model that uses only axial MFL
signatures. In contrast, the ILI depth estimates of in Figure 2 3(b) were obtained using a full multi-data
metal loss sizing model with a notable improvement in overall scatter.

Practical Examples
Case 1: Mechanical Damage (Figure 4)
Figure 4 shows a relatively shallow dent. By overlaying multiple data sets much more feature
characteristics got revealed culminating in a priority 1 ranking. When further examinations were
performed including Magnetic Particle and Phased Array, cracking was found.
Case 2: Sizing Metal Loss/Corrosion (Figure 5)
An ILI run detected axially extended metal loss. Looking at the MFL data it appears that these are two
separate metal loss defects with a calculated Psafe pressure. The SMFL data reveal that this location is
actually one continuous anomaly with a considerably lower calculated Psafe pressure, 280psi lower than
MOP. Before the operator could mobilize to validate this location the line ruptured.

Case 3: Crack-Like Threat (Figure 6)

This example demonstrates the ability of the SMFL technology to detect planar features. Nothing at all is
visible on the MFL run data whereas the planar defect is clearly visible in SMFL. This was a crack-like
defect that developed in the area of a lamination.
Case 4: Metal Loss through Girth Weld combined with Bending Strain (Figure 7)
SMFL provides a better opportunity to examine girth weld anomalies since the response to the girth
weld itself is much less pronounced. In SMFL it is clearly visible that the metal loss is passing through the
girth weld. Applying bending strain assessment using the results of a mapping unit could reveal that this
metal loss affected girth weld is in an area of increased bending strain. Thus, the girth weld is exposed to
additional stress which could lead to a risk for failure.

References
[1] Pipeline Operators Forum, "Specifications and requirements for intelligent pig inspection of
pipelines," 2009.

Figure 1. Multiple Data Set (MDS) ILI tools in 12" and 24" diameters. Each tool is equipped with high field axial MFL, SpirALL
MFL, low field axial MFL, mechanical deformation, ID versus OD discrimination, and XYZ mapping technologies.

(a)

(b)

(c)
Figure 2. Metal loss coverage: (a) for axial MFL, (b) for SpirALL MFL, (c) for running both technologies together. Note the
region of overlap when running both technologies. A=10 mm or wall thickness, whichever is greater.

(a)
(b)
Figure 2. Metal loss depth unity plots for the same metal loss anomalies from the Pitting and General POF classes: (a) sized
using only axial MFL, (b) sized using both axial MFL and SpirALL MFL together. N=1281 observations.

Figure 4. Mechanical damage initially detected as shallow dent; by overlaying multiple data sets much more feature
characteristics got revealed culminating in a priority 1 ranking

Figure 5. Sizing metal loss/corrosion with MFL and SMFL data; MFL data show two separate metal loss defects, SMFL data
show one continuous anomaly

Figure 6. Crack-like threat developed in the area of a lamination; not visible in MFL, clearly visible in SMFL

Figure 7. Metal loss through girth weld combined with bending strain; in SMFL clear visibility of metal loss across the girth
weld, black circles in the right picture displaying bending strain results represent girth weld locations