Robotic In-line Inspection of Pipeline Girth Welds

for Fitness for Service Assessments

By Aaron Huber and Mikhail Sokolov
and presented by Edward Petit de Mange
Diakont, San Diego CA, USA

Pipeline Pigging and Integrity

Management Conference
Marriott Westchase Hotel, Houston, TX, USA
12-13 February, 2014

More than half of the nations pipeline infrastructure was constructed before 1970 when minimum
federal pipeline safety standards were first adopted. Prior to 1970, girth welds were generally of a
lower toughness, and were often not inspected during construction using modern NDE methods.
Despite these factors, operational failure rates of girth welds are low, usually only propagating to a
critical size when in the presence of external loads being applied to a pipeline. These loads can be
caused by ground movement resulting from landslides, mine subsidence, seismic events, or other
geotechnical instability.
With girth weld failures leading to ruptures or leaks having the potential to create public safety
disasters, some pipeline operators have begun to perform work to assess and mitigate the risk of weld
failure. However, existing commercial technologies provide limited means for efficient, economical,
high-resolution in-line inspection of pipeline girth welds. Existing methods for conducting in-service
inspections of the integrity of girth welds include hydrotesting, external inspection, and internal (in-line)
inspection.
A successful hydrotest confirms integrity at a given temperature and pressure. However, even a minor
variance in pipeline temperature will modify the axial stresses applied to the weld, potentially
compromising the validity of the test results. Also, hydrotesting requires that the line be taken out of
service for some time, does not provide information on the locations or types of defects, and has the
potential to weaken the integrity of already-degraded lines. And hydrotesting is inherently invasive,
particularly for natural gas pipeline operators, due to the necessity of introducing and then disposing of
the extremely large amount of test water.
External UT girth weld inspections provide very-accurate integrity data, and can be completed while the
line is in service, but require that each girth weld be excavated to expose the pipe joint. Large-scope
excavation and external coating removal greatly increase schedule duration and financial expense of an
inspection project and increase the risk of potentially damaging a good-condition pipeline in the
process. Lastly, pipeline excavation is often not feasible for long lengths, encased lines, or lines beneath
road or river crossings.
In-line inspections using conventional UT or MFL technology can also provide integrity data of girth
welds. For the highest resolution, crawler-deployed UT is used, but in this case a liquid couplant is
required, which limits tool range and effectiveness for natural gas pipelines.
Radiography can also be used to conduct in-service inspection of girth welds, however this method
typically requires access to both the ID and the OD, making it generally non-feasible.
This paper describes a new girth weld in-line inspection method that was developed in support of
growing industry demand. The paper describes the theory and methodology of using arrays of
Electromagnetic Acoustic Transducer (EMAT) ultrasonic sensors to assess the integrity of pipeline girth
2
Copyright 2014 by Diakont
All rights reserved

welds. The paper also reviews the validation process and pilot projects successfully completed to date
using the method.

In-Line Girth Weld Scanner Solution

Diakont recently completed development and is in the final stages of commercialization of a robotic inline tool system which performs high-resolution ultrasonic girth weld inspection using the dry, noncontact EMAT method. Deployed from a convenient access point on a purged out-of-service line, the
robotic tractor-driven tool drives to each weld in the identified area of interest. The tool then performs
an active scan of each weld for any construction or operational defects such as cracks and volumetric
anomalies which could become critical in the presence of certain external forces. By using an in-line
method, the girth weld scanning tool performs inspections without conducting expensive large-scale
excavations, without the associated coating removal/replacement, and without the negatives of other
inspection methods. It also supports inspection of pipelines not accessible with conventional flowdriven ILI tools.
In 2013 the California Energy Commission awarded a $1M grant to Diakont to perform commercial
demonstrations of this newly-developed robotic in-line tool system on a pipeline in PG&Es service
territory.

Development Considerations
Prior to development, several functional design criteria were established for the in-line girth weld
scanner. An imperative requirement was that the tool had to inspect the entire girth weld from the
internal surface of the pipe. Another requirement was that the system had to employ high-resolution
UT sensors for the scanning technology. EMAT was selected as the preferred sensor solution because it
is a proven method that can easily be conducted remotely, without surface preparation or a couplant.
However, since EMAT transducers operate without contacting the pipe surface, a consistent gap
distance from the inspection surface must be maintained for acoustic coupling over the air gap. The
need to manage the gap across irregularities in pipe wall surfaces, such as build-up and ovality, was
another design consideration.
Environmental performance was another major consideration. The tool had to operate reliably in a
wide range of temperature (-5C to +50C) and humidity (up to 100%) conditions to account for seasonal
variations. The tool also was required to meet explosion-proof standards.
Most importantly, the tool was also specified to meet the requirements of unpiggable pipelines that
are difficult to inspect using traditional flow-driven tools.
3
Copyright 2014 by Diakont
All rights reserved

Robotic Girth Weld Scanning Using EMAT UT

As mentioned above, EMAT UT was the sensor technology identified for the in-line girth weld scanning
solution. The main operating principle of the EMAT UT method is the electromagnetic-acoustic
transmitting and receiving of ultrasonic shear waves (SH), with linear polarization. These ultrasonic
waves are generated in the surface layer of an inspected metal via the EMATs. A baseline magnetic field
is applied to an inductor coil by a permanent magnet within the transducers, fabricated from a
Neodymium-Iron-Boron (Nd-Fe-B) alloy. This generates ultrasonic waves within the inspected metal,
which reflect off of defects and material changes, and are then registered by the transducer. The
amplitude of the signal received is proportional to the size of the defect. The diagram in Figure 1
presents the operating principle of 0-incidence EMAT.

Figure 1: Diagram of EMAT Operating Principles

Girth welds are challenging to inspect with ultrasonic technology due to their coarse, anisotropic grain
structure which attenuates the ultrasound and creates wave velocity variances. A large dataset,
comprising various angles and frequencies, is required in order to capture all resulting reflections.
However, for expeditious in-line robotic data collection, a scanning process was preferred that did not
require axial and circumferential sweeps of a transducer. The development team solved this issue with
a multi-channel frequency-time (FT) EMAT scanning technique. A set of nine FT scans are generated,
with each frequency corresponding to a different input wave angle. Figure 2 presents a diagram of
multi-channel FT EMAT scanning steps conducted from both sides of a girth weld. In real-time
throughout the weld scan, the nine FT scans are fused into a single combined dataset by sequentially
overlaying scans and using an algorithm to calculate values throughout the scan area.

4
Copyright 2014 by Diakont
All rights reserved

Figure 2: Multi-Channel EMAT Scanning Steps

The in-line girth weld scanning tool is equipped with two manipulator arms that position transducers
along the girth weld. Each arm has two transducers, with one oriented on each side of the weld, within
the heat affected zone. The manipulator arms rotate the transducers circumferentially around the
entire weld throughout the course of the scan. Figure 3 presents a rendering of the in-line girth weld
scanner with the EMAT transducers positioned on the girth weld.

EMAT Transducers

Figure 3: Rendering of the In-Line Girth Weld Scanner

5
Copyright 2014 by Diakont
All rights reserved

The new girth weld scanning systems sensor suite is deployed on a base robotic ILI tool platform design
which has been utilized for unpiggable pipeline inspection for several years. The crawler tool design
uses three-point ruggedized tracks that provide stability and traction for traversing piping systems
historically considered unpiggable, including crossings, compressor station manifolds, pump stations,
storage facilities, and lines with difficult geometries or significant diameter changes. At the current
time, the size of the girth weld in-line scanner hardware limits the tools navigation capability somewhat
in that it cannot travel through piping with diameters under 28 or through vertical sections. Due to
the EMAT methods dry-coupling, the pipes internal surface must also not be overly rough or dirty.

Verification Testing
To ensure that the system met the design specifications, and establish detection specifications,
systematic verification runs were performed in 2013 and early 2014, once the development was
complete. Statistical test runs were performed on a controlled loop containing artificial and operational
defects in the girth welds and the surrounding heat affected zones. These defects consisted of drill
holes and grooves oriented along the girth weld. There were also volumetric defects including lack of
penetration.
Each of the girth welds within the test loop was examined with new girth weld scanning technology and
the defects were mapped and characterized. The girth welds were then scanned using radiography and
handheld manual UT to establish baseline values. The verification revealed that the girth weld scanner
accurately detected and measured all of the defects that were within the technologys specifications (as
shown in Table 1), with a high confidence, and statistically low false positives and false negatives. These
specifications are intended to meet the requirements of potential future fitness-for-service assessment
procedures for in-service pipeline girth welds.

6
Copyright 2014 by Diakont
All rights reserved

Parameter

Value

1. Cracks or crack-like defects along a girth weld with length

Defects Detected

(along the weld) 0.59 and depth 0.080 from pipe base
surface (POD 90%)
2. Girth weld volumetric anomalies with reflecting ability
equivalent or greater than that of a side-drilled hole with a
diameter of 0.200 (POD 90%)

Measurement Accuracy

Region Width 0.4

Region Length: not measured
Region Depth: not measured

Circumferential Location
Measurement Accuracy

1.2

Productivity
Width of Weld Bead
Thickness Difference /
Misalignment Tolerance
Surface Roughness of
Adjacent Pipe

1-2 welds/hour
1
0.120 in.
(When greater than specified value,
area shown in red color is not scanned)
Not rougher than Ra 64

Thickness of ID Deposits on
Adjacent Pipe Base Metal

0.015

Diameter Range

28- 55

Table 1: Technical Specifications of In-Line Girth Weld Scanning Tool

Pilot Projects
In 2013, Diakont conducted multiple successful pilot inspection projects using the in-line girth weld
scanning technology. These were performed on natural gas pipelines for Gazprom, and liquid pipelines
owned by a major North American operator. Based on the successful inspections and corresponding
favorable validation results, Diakont has already been contracted to perform inspections during 2014 of
the girth welds on large-diameter piping at six natural gas compressor stations.
7
Copyright 2014 by Diakont
All rights reserved

Conclusion
Some pipeline operators have already incorporated girth weld assessment in their transmission integrity
management programs; however the prior-state-of-the-art methods for inspection were not reasonable
for to use for inspecting a large number of girth welds, or those which are encased or beneath crossings.
The new robotic in-line method developed by Diakont for performing in-service inspection of pipeline
girth welds with EMAT was successfully tested on operational pipelines in 2013. This technology
provides high-resolution data, and is a commercially-reasonable method that fits well an operators
existing operational activities. By accessing the girth welds from the ID, and inspecting with EMAT, the
in-line girth weld scanning solution removes the requirements for excavation, extensive surface
preparation including removing external coatings, or the use of couplant. The automated in-line girth
weld scanning solution takes just 20 minutes to scan a girth weld, and can be remotely navigated over
long umbilical lengths to particular girth welds of interest. Table 2 presents a comparison of the in-line
EMAT girth weld scanner verses conventional UT inspections. The in-line girth weld scanner solution has
proven to be a faster, lower cost, and lower risk option when compared with alternate inspection
methods.

No.

Parameter

Type of
inspection

Access for
inspection

Preparation of
pipeline surface

4
5

In-Line girth weld

scanning with EMAT
Conducted from inside
of the pipeline
Pipeline
temporarily taken
out of service
Deploy tool from
access point
No preparation
required, as long as
buildup is <0.020
EMAT
Not required

Manual UT inspection
of girth welds from
OD
Conducted from
outside of the pipeline

Pipeline remains
in service
Excavate pipe and
remove coating

External cleaning
required on inspection
surface
Piezoelectric
Couplant required

In-line girth weld

inspection with
conventional UT
Conducted from inside
of the pipeline
Pipeline
temporarily taken
out of service
Deploy tool from
access point
Varies cleaning likely
required

UT method
Piezoelectric
Acoustic contact
Couplant required
Typical required
time for
inspection of one
20 minutes
30 minutes
30+ minutes
girth weld (28
diameter)
Table 2: Comparison of In-Line Girth Weld Scanner Solution versus alternate UT methods
8
Copyright 2014 by Diakont
All rights reserved

REFERENCES
1.
2.
3.
4.

CFR Title 49 Part 192: Transportation of Natural and Other Gas by Pipeline
API 1163: In-Line Inspection Systems Qualification Standard
ASME B31G: Manual for Determining the Remaining Strength of Corroded Pipelines
M. G. Silk.(1984). "Electromagnetic Acoustic Transducers", Ultrasonic Transducers for
Nondestructive Testing., pp. 111-119. Adam Hilger Ltd, Bristol.
5. E. Rolland Dobbs.(1973) "Electromagnetic Generation of Ultrasound", Research Techniques in
Nondestructive Testing, Vol. 2, pp. 419-441. Academic Press London and New York.
6. H. Salzburger,. W. Mohr.(1979). "Electromagnetic-Acoustic Generation of Ultrasound", 2nd
Seminar on Characterization of ultrasonic Equipment. October 9-12, 1979. I.Z.S.P, Saarbrcken,
Germany.
7. R. Scrivner, B. Exley, C. Alexander. Weld Failure in a Large Diameter Gas Transmission Pipeline.
(2010) 8th International Pipeline Conference. September 27 October 1, 2010, Calgary, Alberta,
CanadaGirth. Houston, TX.

9
Copyright 2014 by Diakont
All rights reserved