Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
FINAL REPORT
Prepared by
Daniel Powell, P.Eng., Mike Bongiovi, Mike Baezner, Marvin Miller, and Delyn Houder
Corrpro Companies, Inc., 7000 B Hollister, Houston, Texas 77040
Prepared for
December 2004
LEGAL NOTICE
This report was prepared by Corrpro Companies, Inc. as an account of work sponsored by Gas
Technology Institute (GTI). Neither GTI, members of GTI, nor any person acting on behalf of
either:
b. Assumes any liability with respect to the use of, or for any and all damages
resulting from the use of any information, apparatus, method, or process
disclosed in this report.
ii
Form Approved
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE OMB No. 074-0188
The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources,
gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of the collection of
information, including suggestions for reducing this burden to Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports (0704-0188),
1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to an penalty
for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control number.
PLEASE DO NOT RETURN YOUR FORM TO THE ABOVE ADDRESS.
1. AGENCY USE ONLY 2. REPORT TYPE 3. DATED
Final Report December 31, 2004
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5. FUNDING NUMBER
Practical Guidelines for Conducting an External Corrosion Direct Assessment (ECDA) Program GRI Contract Number
GRI-04/0093.6
6. AUTHOR(S)
Daniel Powell, P.Eng., Mike Bongiovi, Mike Baezner, Marvin Miller, and Delyn Houder
Steve Foh – GTI Project Manager Harvey Haines (Kiefner & Associates) – PRCI Project Manager
11. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
APPROVED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE; DISTRIBUTION UNLIMITED
This document presents the four-step ECDA process, with an appropriate level of details to facilitate pipeline professionals in conducting integrity assessments
using the ECDA process. Numerous figures and tables are presented to emphasize salient points related to integrity assessments for pipelines, using the
ECDA process. Attachments include a questionnaire for collecting relevant data as part of the pre-assessment step and a worksheet to be used during direct
examinations.
14. SUBJECT TERMS
External Corrosion Direct Assessment, ECDA, Pipeline Integrity Management, Practical Guidelines, Pre-Assessment, Indirect Inspections, Close Interval
Potential Surveys, CIPS, CIS, Soil Resistivity, Direct Current Voltage Gradient Surveys, DCVG, AC Current Attenuation Surveys, ACCA, Direct
Examinations, Prioritizations, Number of Digs, Number of Excavations, Remaining Strength Calculations, Root Cause Analysis, Post-Assessment, External
Corrosion Rates, Remaining Life Calculation, Re-Assessment Intervals, Measuring Effectiveness of ECDA Process, Record Keeping, Pre-Assessment
Worksheet, Direct Examination Worksheets
16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 17. LIMITATION OF 18. NUMBER 19a. NAME OF RESPONSIBLE PERSON
OF: ABSTRACT OF Daniel Powell, P.Eng., Corrpro Companies, Inc.
REPORT ABSTRACT c. THIS PAGE
PAGES
123 19b. TELEPHONE NUMBER (Include area code)
U U U (713) 460-6000 dpowell@Corrpro.com
iii
Acknowledgment of Support from PRCI
Corrosion and Inspection Technical Committee
These pipeline professionals helped in identifying the primary needs for pipeline operators and in
reviewing the document to ensure it provided “practical guidelines.”
Chairman
Jerry Rau Panhandle Energy
Vice Chairman
Walter Kresic Enbridge Pipelines Inc.
PRCI Administrator
Marina Q. Smith
Members:
Saeed AL-Malki Saudi Aramco
Paul Andrews National Grid Transco
Thomas J. Cairns, Jr Consumers Energy
Darrell Catte Saudi Aramco
Jules Chorney TransGas Limited
Jeffrey Didas Colonial Pipeline Company
Donald Drake Exxon Mobil Corporation
Karsten Harneshaug GASSCO A.S.
J.E.(Buddy) Hutson CrossCountry Energy Services LLC
Elden R. Johnson Alyeska Pipeline Service Co. (Representing AOPL)
Charley Jones Marathon Ashland Pipe Line LLC
Dave Katz Williams Gas Pipeline
Arto Korpela Gasum Oy
Dan Larrington Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP
Mark Linville Dominion Transmission, Inc.
Graham Lobley Consultant Saudi Aramco
Michel Meyer Gaz de France - R&D Division
Paul Nichols Shell Global Solutions
Laurie Perry Southern California Gas Company
Gutemberg de Souza Pimenta Cidade Universitaria - Petrobras
Micky Redding CenterPoint Energy
Brad Rigling Texas Gas Transmission LLC
Paul W. Sinclair Duke Energy Gas Transmission
Wytze Sloterdijk N.V. Nederlandse Gasunie
Albert Teitsma Gas Technology Institute
Albert van Roodselaar Chevron Energy Research & Technology Co.
Thomas A. Widin BP p.l.c.
David M. Williams Buckeye Pipe Line Company
Keith Wooten ConocoPhillip
Bob Worthingham TransCanada PipeLines Limited
Timothy Zintel El Paso Corporation
Associate Members:
Garrett Wilkie BJ Pipeline Inspection Services
John Ashworth Team Industrial Services, Inc.
William (Bill) Denson Team Industrial Services, Inc.
Patrick (Pat) Kearns Team Industrial Services, Inc.
Mark Olson Baker Hughes, Inc.
Bill Putman Baker Hughes Inc.
Bryce Brown ROSEN
iv
Special Acknowledgement
For their extensive efforts in reviewing the organization and technical contents of this document,
such that it will be a useful document for pipeline professionals in implementing external
corrosion direct assessment programs to ensure pipeline integrity.
v
Executive Summary
This document provides “Practical Guidelines for Conducting an External Corrosion Direct
Assessment (ECDA) Program.” The purpose of integrity assessments of gas transmission or
liquids pipelines is to minimize hazards to the general public, minimize pipeline leaks and spills,
ensure continuous operations of the pipelines, optimize expenditures for reducing risk, and
satisfying governmental regulatory requirements. The purpose of this document is to provide a
bridge to help pipeline professionals follow NACE RP 0502-2002 (Standard Recommended
Practice Pipeline External Corrosion Direct Assessment Methodology) and conduct pipeline
integrity assessments for their pipeline systems.
This document presents the four-step ECDA process, with an appropriate level of details to
facilitate pipeline professionals in conducting integrity assessments using ECDA. The type of
data to be collected in the pre-assessment step is described, along with how that information will
be used. Next, the indirect inspection techniques are presented, along with descriptions of how
the data from the different tools is interpreted and integrated, such that priorities are established
for direct examinations. The direct examinations section includes a discussion of the number of
excavations, which may be required, data collection during the excavation and direct
examination of the buried pipeline, and remaining strength calculations. External corrosion
growth rates and remaining life calculations are presented in the post-assessment, along with
practical examples for determining the appropriate re-assessment intervals. Measures are also
presented for evaluating the overall effectiveness of the ECDA process, helping to ensure
“continuous improvement”.
Numerous figures and tables are presented to emphasize salient points related to integrity
assessments for pipelines, using the ECDA process. Attachments include a questionnaire for
collecting relevant data as part of the pre-assessment step and a worksheet to be used during
direct examinations.
vi
Practical Guidelines for Conducting an ECDA Program
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 Introduction......................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Purpose of Integrity Assessments – Pipeline Safety....................................................... 1
1.2 Purpose of this Document............................................................................................... 2
1.3 Allowable Methodologies for Demonstrating Pipeline Integrity.................................... 2
1.4 Overview of External Corrosion Direct Assessment (ECDA) ....................................... 3
1.5 Applicability of the ECDA Process ................................................................................ 6
2.0 Definitions........................................................................................................................... 6
vii
4.3.1 Severity of Coating Holidays................................................................................ 43
4.3.2 Advantages and Disadvantages of DCVG Surveys .............................................. 44
4.3.3 How Surveys are Conducted (Procedures) ........................................................... 44
4.3.4 Field Measurements .............................................................................................. 45
4.3.5 Calculating the % IR drop to Determine Severity of Coating Holidays............... 46
4.3.6 Determining the Direction of Current Flow.......................................................... 46
4.4 AC Current Attenuation (ACCA) Surveys ................................................................... 47
4.4.1 Purpose.................................................................................................................. 47
4.4.2 Methodology ......................................................................................................... 48
4.4.3 Data Acquisition ................................................................................................... 49
4.4.4 Theoretical Basis for Interpreting Results ............................................................ 49
4.4.5 Interpretation......................................................................................................... 51
4.5 New Indirect Inspection Techniques Under Development........................................... 52
4.6 Overlaying Results on Spreadsheets and Charts........................................................... 52
4.7 Classification and Prioritization of the Anomalies ....................................................... 54
viii
6.4 Feedback ....................................................................................................................... 78
7.0 Record Keeping – Documenting the ECDA Program and Integrity Management........... 79
7.1 Pre-Assessment Documentation ................................................................................... 79
7.2 Indirect Inspection Documentation............................................................................... 80
7.3 Direct Examination Documentation ............................................................................. 81
7.4 Post Assessment Documentation .................................................................................. 82
8.0 References......................................................................................................................... 82
TABLE OF FIGURES
ix
Figure 23 Four Pin Wenner Method for Measuring Soil Resistivity............................................ 39
Figure 24 Electronic Instrumentation Used in Four Pin Soil Resistivity Measurements ............ 40
Figure 25 Test - Comparing Wenner 4 Pin and Continuous Conductivity Surveys................... 42
Figure 26 Typical Results from DCVG Survey of Gas Transmission Pipeline .......................... 43
Figure 27 ACCA Signal Attenuation Versus Distance................................................................ 50
Figure 28 Theoretical Signal Loss per Unit Length along a Pipeline........................................... 51
Figure 29 Actual Signal Loss in mdB/Ft Along a Pipeline .......................................................... 51
Figure 30 Alignment of Indirect Inspection Results.................................................................... 53
Figure 31 Illustration of Minor, Moderate and Severe CIPS Indications .................................... 56
Figure 32 Magnetic Flux Leakage (MFL) Technology in Pipelines ........................................... 85
Figure 33 Ultrasonic (UT) for In-Line Inspections of Pipelines.................................................. 85
Figure 34 Encapsulate Ultrasonic Pig to Maintain Couplant....................................................... 85
TABLE OF TABLES
x
Practical Guidelines for Conducting an ECDA Program
1.0 Introduction
These Practical Guidelines have been written for pipeline professionals, who work either “in the
field” or at the pipeline offices. The guidelines are intended to help ensure safe pipeline
operations by confirming the integrity of pipelines, using the External Corrosion Direct
Assessment (ECDA) process. Note that the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) Office of
Pipeline Safety (OPS) has approved the use of the ECDA process for gas transmission pipelines,
and proposed rules changes are underway to extend that to include pipelines transporting liquids.
Device Failures
& Malfunctions Threats to Pipeline Integrity Other Conditions
1
1.2 Purpose of this Document
The ASME B31.8S and the US IMP rule recognize four methodologies for
assessing the integrity of gas transmission pipelines. These are:
• In-Line Inspections
• Hydrostatic Pressure Tests
• Direct Assessments
• Other (new) Technology
(Note that at present the U.S. DOT, Office of Pipeline Safety have proposed
rulemaking changes to allow direct assessment methodologies to be applied to
pipelines transporting liquids).
This manual focuses on the use of the direct assessment process to determine the
impact that external corrosion may have had on the integrity of the pipeline.
Attachments A and B to this document provide an overview of in-line inspections
and hydrostatic pressure testing, which have historically been used for confirming
the integrity of pipelines.
The ECDA process may be used to demonstrate the integrity of gas transmission
pipelines. Presently, rule changes have been proposed to allow the ECDA process
to be used for evaluating the integrity of pipelines transporting liquids.
The IMP rule allows use of “other equivalent” technologies when assessing gas
transmission pipelines. However, the burden of proof is on the pipeline operator
to demonstrate the equivalence of the other technology. The gas transmission
2
company must notify the Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS) 180 days before
conducting such assessments.
1. Pre-Assessment
2. Indirect Inspections
3. Direct Examinations
4. Post-Assessment
3
the ECDA process. Assuming it is feasible, ECDA regions are
defined, and indirect inspection tools are selected.
4
minimize the size of an excavation (so that traffic is not affected), or to
complete the direct examinations and rebury the pipeline quickly.
• As required by U.S. 49 CFR § 192.933 (d) Special Requirements for
Scheduling Remediation and ASME B31.8S, Section 7, which addresses
the time schedule. That Code requires the pipeline operator to examine all
immediate-rated indications within a period not to exceed five (5) days,
following the determination of the condition (B318S 7.2.1). The U.S.
Rule § 192.933 (a) presents the actions that operators must take to address
integrity issues. It states: “If an operator is unable to respond within the
time limits for certain conditions specified in this section, the operator
must temporarily reduce the operating pressure or take other action that
ensures the safety of the covered segment.” The U.S. rule then presents
the options (within § 192.933 (a)), which the operator must take: (i)
determining the temporary reduction in pressure, using ASME B31G, (ii)
determining the temporary reduction in pressure, using AGA Pipeline
Research Committee Project PR-3-805 – RSTRENG, or (iii) reducing the
operating pressure to 80% of the operating pressure at the time the
condition was discovered. The reduction in operating pressure cannot
exceed 365 days without providing technical justifications. Based upon
the above referenced rules, many pipeline operators will choose to reduce
operating pressures to 80% of the previous operating levels, immediately
after discovery and until the evaluations have been completed.
• ECDA does not detect metal loss – instead it identifies where corrosion is
most likely to occur.
5
• The quality of the pre-assessment is dependent on the quality and
accessibility of pertinent data, and how complete it is.
• It may be difficult to apply ECDA to complex, buried piping networks or
to parallel pipelines in shared corridors
• There may be limitations for pipelines having disbonded coatings.
• It is more difficult and expensive to conduct indirect surveys when the
pipelines are covered by pavement. The surveys may require the
pavement to be cored, to provide access to the underlying soil.
• Indirect Inspections are more difficult to conduct in rocky soil or when the
ground is frozen.
• For best results the right-of-way needs to be cleared. In some cases, this
may result in crop damage
• Property owners need to be notified so that permission to survey is
granted.
• Indirect inspection tools typically cannot detect or distinguish corrosion
along the longitudinal seam of a pipeline.
• Some pipe seams and welds may have localized attack that may not be
detected using the ECDA process. If this is a concern, the pipeline
operator needs to employ other appropriate evaluation techniques.
• The ECDA process requires a number of pipeline excavations and direct
examinations – particularly at the location of “immediate” indications.
Some of these may be at inconvenient locations, such as under major
roadways.
2.0 Definitions
Please refer to Attachment C, which presents terms and definitions associated with
External Corrosion Direct Assessment. These definitions are from NACE International
Recommended Practices (RP).
3.0 Pre-Assessments
• Objectives of Pre-Assessment
o Determine whether ECDA or other inspection methodologies is most
appropriate, most cost-effective tool or technique for conducting integrity
assessment.
o Select the appropriate indirect inspection tools if ECDA is to be used.
o Identify ECDA regions. The same tools must be used throughout each
ECDA region.
6
o Determine the number of pipeline excavations and direct examinations
that will be required for ECDA validation.
• The Pre-Assessment step requires the collection and review of pipeline design,
construction-related, soil and environmental, corrosion control, and operation and
maintenance data.
The Pre-Assessment is perhaps the most critical step for determining whether the ECDA
process can be used for assessing pipeline integrity for external corrosion. If there is not
enough data available for this engineering assessment, then ECDA should not be used.
This requires the collection of data, integrating the data, and analyzing the data to
meet the objectives.
If there is insufficient data, you should not use the ECDA process.
“Sufficient” Data
The NACE RP-0502-2002 states that the pipeline operator will define the
minimum data requirements, based on the history and condition of the pipeline
segment. Each pipeline operator is responsible for the safe operation of its own
7
system, and thus the decision of what data is needed is to be made by the pipeline
operators, as they are the most knowledgeable about their own systems.
The U.S. IMP rule references Appendix A in ASME/ANSI B31.8S to define the
data that pipeline operators must gather and evaluate. The rule also notes that
past incident history, corrosion control records, continuing surveillance records,
patrolling records, maintenance history, internal inspection records, and all other
conditions specific to each pipeline should be included in the evaluation.
8
ECDA is applicable only for ferrous metal pipelines. Most of the information, such as the
material specifications, diameter, wall thickness, and SMYS is used in strength calculations. If
fabricated using ERW pipe, the date is critical, as it relates to the susceptibility to SCC. When
SCC is a potential concern, pipeline operators should conduct a SCCDA in addition to ECDA.
It is also critical to know the SMYS of the pipeline relative to the operating pressures, as that
impacts the required inspection intervals.
9
3.2.2 Construction Related Data
10
It is essential to know as much information about the pipeline as possible before
selecting the indirect inspection tools. Often it will be necessary to electrically connect
the inspection equipment to the pipelines. Hence, the location of all test stations,
rectifiers, valves, bonds between pipes, and points of electrical isolation will need to be
known. It will also be essential to identify the tie-ins for all rectifiers, such that currents
can be interrupted briefly when conducting the surveys. If the pipe was laid on a bed of
sand and covered with additional sand before backfill, it is less likely that rocks within
the backfill could have damaged the external coating. Thus, lower currents would be
needed for the cathodic protection. If sections of the piping are within sections of larger
diameter piping, i.e., casings at road crossings, the precise locations need to be known,
and alternate inspection techniques may be required. If there are high voltage electric
transmission lines within the pipeline right-of-way, they should be identified, as such
AC currents may affect the choice of indirect inspection tools. Note for U.S. pipeline
professionals: The surveys will focus upon the High Consequence Areas (HCAs).
Refer to U.S. 49 CFR Part 192 Appendix E for guidance on determining HCAs and
carrying out the requirements of the IMP rule.
11
3.2.3 Soil and Environmental Conditions
Be sure to check whether the soil types are fairly uniform, or if there are significant
differences, which would require separate ECDA regions. Steep and rocky terrain may make
it more difficult to survey sections of pipe. Ensure the half-cells have proper contact with
the soil, such that valid measurements can be taken. The rocky soil can shield (geological
shield) and reduce the effectiveness of cathodic protection systems, and may necessitate
additional CP. Poor drainage results in the accumulation of water, and may increase the
likelihood for external corrosion – particularly if the water can get underneath the external
coating. If a pipeline is under farmland, it may be necessary to schedule indirect inspections
after harvest. If a pipeline is covered by pavement, it may be necessary to drill holes through
the pavement so accurate potential measurements can be taken. Frozen ground will
influence current flow and may affect the results from survey instruments, and possibly
require the establishment of a separate ECDA Region. (See Section 3.5.)
12
3.2.4 Corrosion Protection Data
13
The present and historical status of the cathodic protection system needs to be determined. Has
the CP system been functional since start-up, or have there been extended periods of time when
the exterior surface of the pipeline was allowed to corrode? Such corrosion would help degrade
pipeline integrity. Are there overhead electric power transmission lines, which could induce
alternating currents? If CP systems have been maintained with proper outputs, the comparative
risks to pipeline integrity are reduced. If there are adjacent ferrous metal pipelines, the
condition of the coatings and the cathodic protection systems of each structure should be
reviewed, such that both systems can be properly protected. The rectifiers may have to be
interrupted simultaneously in order to properly measure CP potentials. Any information
associated with the condition of external coatings or tape wraps will be useful when assessing
possible external corrosion. Older coatings are more likely to fail than new ones. On the other
hand, some coatings, such as coal tar enamels, may still be in excellent condition, even after
decades of service, if they were installed on properly prepared services. Corrosion engineers
will look at current demands over time as one measure of the effectiveness of external coatings.
Records from historical “digs,” i.e., previous excavations of this or an adjacent pipeline, which
allowed visual observation of the pipeline, will be helpful in assessing the effectiveness of
external corrosion control measures. Periodic leak surveys will document that the integrity has
been maintained. Periodic pipeline patrols will document third party activities along the
pipeline, which could potentially impact pipeline integrity.
Information should be gathered to document both the normal and the most severe conditions the
pipeline may have experienced. The stress levels need to be determined, based on the pipeline
material, grade, design information, and operating conditions. If the pipe segment is near a
compressor or pump station, the effect from vibrations may be considerations – particularly for
pre 1970 ERW pipe. Pipeline monitoring records should be reviewed for basic data related to
the status of CP systems over time. If test stations include external coupons, these can provide
a measure of external corrosion rates. If the pipeline was ever modified for tie-ins or rerouting,
such as to go around a new construction site, there may be records to show the condition of
both the exterior and interior surface of the piping. This documents both external and internal
corrosion up to the time of the modifications. By reviewing records of previous excavation, in-
line-inspection, or above ground survey, it is possible to learn of any previous locations of
corrosion. These should be checked in the follow up inspections. It might also be possible to
learn of any shortcomings associated with any particular inspection/survey tool. Historically,
there have not been major concerns related to microbiologically influenced corrosion (MIC).
This may be due in part to not being aware of this threat to pipeline integrity.
14
Table 5 Operations and Maintenance Related Data to be Collected
15
Pipeline System Information Threats to Pipeline Integrity
Consequences of Failures
Prepare Survey/Inspection
Program
16
Sources of Information Used in the Pre-Assessment
• Pipeline Related Data – Basic design records and pipeline drawings are to include
materials, nominal diameter and wall thickness, material strength, and design
pressures.
• Construction Related Data – Records of construction of pipelines are to include
information related to coating material, surface preparation, application and inspection
for line pipe and at girth welds. There should also be information related to the
original (and any subsequent) hydrostatic pressure tests, bedding and backfill, and
depth of cover. Information related to the location of test stations, rectifiers, valves,
clamps, isolation points, and other tie-ins to pipelines should be available on the plan
or profile drawings. Also be certain to identify all features, including bonds between
adjacent pipelines and equipment used to control stray current.
• Soil and Environmental Data – There should be some information available
regarding soil types, terrain, drainage, and the land usage. Typically, states will
publish maps, which illustrate soil types throughout the state. Field personnel will
typically be familiar with the terrain and drainage along each pipeline segment. Land
usage can be identified from aerial photographs and physical inspections.
• Corrosion Protection Data – The person responsible for implementing the corrosion
control programs should either have possession of the data related to those programs,
or know where records are retained. Records related to the weekly, monthly, or
annual checks of the rectifiers, potentials, leak surveys, pipeline patrols, and
maintenance activities are often retained by field personnel, but should be readily
available. As appropriate, retired workers or long-term consultants may provide
historical insight and provide additional background information.
• Note for U.S. Pipeline Professionals when Defining HCAs - When initially
identifying the locations for each High Consequence Area (HCA), aerial maps of the
pipeline corridors should be obtained. Overlay the position of the pipeline on the
map, whether using Method 1 or 2 in defining the HCAs. Maps, which are a couple of
years old, are typically less expensive than new aerial maps, and may be used.
However, even if new maps are used, the pipeline alignment will need to be visually
inspected to determine if there are any changes in site conditions sites or new
buildings, which could change the boundaries of the HCAs.
17
3.3 Feasibility of ECDA Process
The primary goal of the U.S. DOT IMP rule is to maintain the integrity of gas
transmission pipelines. The IMP rule has provided for three recognized
methodologies to assess the integrity of on-shore buried steel pipelines from
possible external corrosion. These are (a) in-line inspections, (b) hydrostatic
pressure tests, and (c) ECDA. This manual focuses on the ECDA process.
Overviews of in-line inspections and hydrostatic pressure testing methodologies
have been included as Attachments A and B.
18
adverse soil conditions could preclude the collection of valid
indirect inspection data. If that is the case, it may be necessary to
review the assessment methodologies. Likewise, if results from
the indirect inspections yield an inordinate number of indications,
which must be investigated, it may be more cost-effective to
review the assessment methodologies and select a more cost
effective approach to assessing pipeline integrity.
The goal of the ASME B31.8S and the U.S. IMP Rule is to ensure pipeline
integrity and public safety. However, the choice of methodology is left to the
pipeline operator. The operators can change the methodologies employed to
demonstrate pipeline integrity, as needed, and on a case-by-case basis.
Pipeline operators may use in-line inspections, hydrostatic pressure testing, or the
ECDA process when assessing pipeline integrity from the perspective of possible
external corrosion. If necessary, pipeline operators may change methodologies –
provided that pipeline integrity assessments are still completed.
There are a number of indirect inspection tools available for assessing buried
pipelines and determining whether there are holidays in the external coatings.
Techniques include (a) Close Interval Potential Surveys (CIPS), (b) Direct-
Current Voltage Gradient (DCVG), (c) AC Current Attenuation Surveys, (d)
Alternating Current Voltage Gradient (ACVG), and (e) Soil Resistivity /
Conductivity Surveys. There are also numerous variations for how to conduct
and assess or interpret the results from such surveys. Section 4 of this Practical
Guidelines publication presents discussions on the major indirect inspection
techniques, noting the strengths and limitations of each. Table 6 is a reproduction
of Table 2 from NACE RP-0502-2002, and presents guidelines for selecting the
proper tool when conducting an external corrosion direct assessment.
Note numbers 1-3 within Table 6 and described in the footnote below the table.
Numbers 1 and 2 indicate the tool can be used for conducting indirect inspections
when the described conditions exist. Number 1 is associated with small coating
holidays, i.e., < 1 in2, while number 2 is associated with large coating holidays
that cause fluctuations in the CP potentials under normal operating conditions.
Number 3 indicates the tool should generally not be used. As an example, CIPS
and ACVG or DCVG can be used when surveying a section of pipe buried in a
right-of-way having overhead high voltage electric transmission lines. However,
ACCA surveys would generally yield unacceptable results when used under these
conditions. As a second example, CIPS and ACCA may be used near river or
water crossings. However, DCVG and/or ACVG would generally not provide
favorable results for those conditions.
19
Note that the tool choices within Table 6 are only guidelines. There may be
refinements in the tools or the operating procedures, which change or expand the
applicability of the individual tools. It is the responsibility of the pipeline
professionals and the companies providing the indirect inspection surveys to
identify the specific conditions in the field, select appropriate tools and inspection
procedures, and ensure that valid data is collected before completing fieldwork.
1 = Applicable: Small coating holidays (isolated and typically less than 600 mm2 (1 in2) and conditions that do not
cause fluctuations in CP potentials under normal operating conditions
2 = Applicable: Large coating holidays (isolated and continuous) or conditions that cause fluctuations in CP
potentials under normal conditions
3 = Not Applicable: Not applicable to this tool or not applicable to this tool without additional considerations
NACE RP-0502 and the U.S. IMP rule recognize that indirect inspection
technology will change in the future, as new and improved instrumentation and
techniques are developed. (For example, it may become easier or more practical
to assess sections of cased piping at road crossings).
20
Note for U.S. Pipeline Professionals: When new technology is to be
deployed for the first time, the pipeline operator is required to notify the
U.S. DOT/OPS at least 180 days prior to deployment.
The service company that developed the new or improved technology
should provide the proper documentation to demonstrate the validity of the
new approach.
It is the responsibility of the pipeline operator to establish the boundaries for each
of the ECDA regions, and each pipeline segment should be assigned to an ECDA
region.
21
Figure 5 ECDA Regions along a Pipeline
22
Until the clarifications are finalized, it is best for pipeline operators to minimize
the number of different regions. If the conditions along the pipelines are
different, then different ECDA regions should be assigned. However, if the
conditions are essentially identical, the two sections should constitute one ECDA
region – not two regions.
Consider again a section of pipe, which passes under a highway in a casing. The
cased section should constitute one ECDA region, and the piping on either side
should constitute the second ECDA region – not the second and third ECDA
regions.
This section applies exclusively to U.S. pipeline companies, who must comply
with 49 CFR Part 192.
Baseline surveys would follow the prioritization, and the integrity assessments
would follow a schedule established to comply with the rule.
The same type of spreadsheets or commercial software programs, which are used
to conduct relative risk assessments, may also be used to establish prioritizations
for indirect inspections and later, direct examination of a pipeline.
The type of data for the above data classes has been presented in Sections 3.2.1
through 3.2.5, and the tables within each of those sections present the relevance of
the data, how the data is used or interpreted, and a ranking, which indicates the
relative significance of the individual parameters. The spreadsheet program or
23
relative risk ranking software assigns a weighting to each data point, which is
used in the calculations.
The second set of data used in the relative risk/prioritization calculations relates to
the consequences of a corrosion event, i.e., a pipeline failure. The potential loss
of all gas within the section of pipe could be one measure of the consequences.
However, the consequences could be extended to include economic consequences
resulting from a pipeline failure.
By multiplying the score (sum) of points for the likelihood of external corrosion
with the score for the consequences from a failure, a relative score can be
developed for each ECDA region.
Relative Risk Assessments can be use to Prioritize inspections, direct examinations, and
remediation of pipelines. Although commercial programs are available, site-specific
spreadsheet programs can be used to provide the same type of guidance (prioritization)
for managing pipeline integrity.
Above grade surveys or inspections are often the least expensive part of the ECDA process,
and yet provide the data necessary for locating holidays in the external coating of pipelines.
The survey results are used to select sites for excavation and direct examination of the
pipeline. Two indirect inspection techniques are required for each ECDA region.
24
distance along the pipeline and taking the pipe-to-soil potentials at regular
intervals, such as 2.5 or 3 feet, i.e., distance based measurements. The second
approach is to take a specified number of pipe-to-soil measurements throughout a
specified time interval, i.e., time based measurements. Crews may use either
method for triggering the CIPS measurements during the surveys, since in both
cases the measurement interval must be converted to down line distance.
Typically, survey crews will first determine the precise location of the pipeline,
and positional markers (flags) will be inserted into the earth at 100-foot intervals
(or shorter distances if there are any turns or bends along the pipeline). The crew
will then traverse the pipeline, and measure the pipe-to-soil potentials on earthen
cover, directly above the pipeline. Using either a distance based or time based
CIPS instrument, potential measurements are collected at approximately 2.5-3
foot intervals. By virtue of typical depths of burial (3-4 feet), the potential
measurements represent essentially continuous readings.
When the earth directly above the pipeline is covered by concrete or asphalt, it
will typically be more difficult and expensive to take readings every 2.5 feet.
Instead, it may be more practical to record readings every 10 feet. This requires a
hole to be drilled through the concrete or asphalt, so that a reference electrode can
be inserted and contact native earth. Fill the holes with water, before taking the
readings.
25
Figure 6 Cu-CuSO4 Electrodes Strapped to Walking Poles
The potentials are measured and stored, using hand-held field computers
(alpha numeric data loggers), which include a high impedance (100 meg-
ohm) voltmeter. Such systems enable pipe-to-soil potentials to be
measured and recorded. When surveying, notes should be entered into the
data stream to identify permanent, above ground features, such as road or
river crossings, overhead AC transmission lines, pipeline markers, etc.
These serve as reference points when the data is reviewed. It is
recommended that the field computers also have the capability to collect
sub-meter GPS readings, and to embed the GPS data within the CIPS data
stream. Figure 7 illustrates the instrumentation.
26
4.1.3 Distance Measurements Along the Pipeline
27
Quartz and GPS Interrupters
Different types of current interrupters are available. One type is the
quartz-controlled interrupter, while another type is the GPS interrupter.
Quartz controlled interrupters have a tendency to drift with time. Thus, if
quartz interrupters are being used, one of the units should be termed the
“master,” and all the associated quartz interrupters should be synchronized
to that unit. This enables all currents to be interrupted simultaneously
when making the measurements.
28
Note: Current interrupters, which use mercury switches, must be properly oriented so that the
switches will properly function.
There are four primary techniques used when conducting close interval
potential surveys. These are
29
These results should be compared to results from other survey techniques
to identify the locations of most probable coating damage.
-850 mV
The pipeline potentials can be measured using either slow or fast cycle
current interruption. In these techniques, the current is turned “On”/“Off”
at a controlled rate so that the “On” and “Off” potentials can be
differentiated. Slow cycle typically means the current is applied for a
period lasting a number of seconds, and is then turned “Off” for a lesser
number of seconds (Example 8 seconds “On”, 2 seconds “Off”). Fast
cycle typically means the current is “On” for a period of milliseconds,
before it is turned “Off” for a lesser period of milliseconds (Example 800
msec “On”, 200 msec “Off”). The relative ratio of “On” to “Off” time is
called the duty cycle, and is typically 4:1. The cycling of CP enables the
state of cathodic protection to be studied, while minimizing the affects of
soil IR drop.
30
(Section 4.1.6.3 illustrates an approach to verifying that all sources of
current are being interrupted while the measurements are being taken.)
-850 mV
-1.50
On
-1.40
P/S Potential [V]
-1.30
-1.20
Off
-1.10
-1.00
-0.90
-850 mV
Flag Station
-0.80
110+00 111+00 112+00 113+00 114+00 115+00 116+00 117+00 118+00 119+00 120+00
31
The vertical axis in the Fast Cycle CIPS depicts the pipeline potentials,
while the horizontal axis depicts the axial position (stationing) along the
pipeline. Both the upper line (“On”) and the lower line (“Off”) should
meet or exceed the NACE –850 mV criterion. It may be necessary to
boost the CP currents if the “Off” potentials do not meet the –850 mV
criterion. A key to interpreting the results is to look for variations, which
indicates something is different or has changed.
Possible coating
anomaly indicated
by dips in “On”
and “Instant Off”
Potentials
32
-850 mV
33
Figure 16 WFA Potential Survey
An anomaly is indicated where the potentials dip below the –850 mV criterion.
This section highlights considerations to ensure valid CIPS data has been
collected.
34
Figure 17 Near Ground – Measured with the Current “On”
The potential is measured when the reference electrode is near the test lead connection to
pipeline.
35
Figure 19 Measuring the Metallic IR Drop
Metallic IR drop should be measured directly, as illustrated above.
A Jump in Measured
Potentials along length
of Pipeline could be
due to a broken wire
-850 mV
36
4.1.6.3 Determining Whether All Influencing Current Sources Have Been
Interrupted
-850 mV
37
4.2 Soil Resistivity and Continuous Ground Conductivity Surveys
One measure for the corrosiveness of soil is its resistivity. Electrical resistivity is
the mathematical inverse of electrical conductivity. Thus, the lower the
resistivity, the higher the conductivity and corrosiveness of the soil. Soil
resistivity is a function of the salinity, clay content, and moisture within the soil.
Typically the soil resistivity is measured at discreet points along the pipeline,
using the Wenner 4 Pin methodology, as described in Section 4.2.1.
The second method for assessing the corrosiveness of soil is through a continuous
ground conductivity survey. These surveys are non-invasive, above ground,
electronic surveys, which measure the ability of soil to conduct electrical currents.
These surveys have an advantage over the Wenner 4 Pin method in so far as data
is electronically collected and recorded continuously, rather than at a series of
discrete points. However, they require the use of specialized equipment, which
can measure and record the horizontal and vertical dipoles from an induced
magnetic field. This is further discussed in Section 4.2.2.
Typically, pipeline operators will conduct either the Wenner 4 Pin or the
continuous ground conductivity surveys for characterizing the corrosivity of the
38
soil along a pipeline. However, occasionally the results are collected by both
methods and compared. Section 4.2.3 presents one such comparison of results.
Although the continuous surveys have an advantage in collecting and presenting
more data, similar trends are seen for both methods
The first method for evaluating the corrosiveness of soils is to measure the
resistivity. The Wenner 4 Pin method is used to make these measurements
“in the field,” using ASTM G57 procedures.
The methodology calls for four pins to be pushed into the ground, all in a
straight line. Each of the pins should be pushed several inches into the
soil, with the pins spaced equidistance from each other. The measurement
reflects the average soil resistivity from grade to a depth equal to the pin
spacing. By using Barnes layer calculations, the resistivity of the soil at
pipe depth can be calculated. For example, if the pipe was in a layer of
soil from 5 to 10 feet below grade, soil measured from 0 to 5 feet and from
0 to 10 feet can be used to calculate the resistivity of the soil from 5 to 10
feet. Figure 23 illustrates the set-up of the pins.
39
Figure 24 Electronic Instrumentation Used in Four Pin Soil Resistivity Measurements
Follow the directions from the manufacturer of the instrument, and adjust
scales as necessary until the proper reading is obtained. Note – start with
the least sensitive range, and adjust to more sensitive ranges, as necessary.
Use the following formula to calculate resistivity:
The transmitter coil transmits the primary magnetic field into the soil,
while the receiver coil measures the induced secondary magnetic field.
40
One channel measures the horizontal dipole, while the other channel
measures the vertical dipole. The instruments typically survey to depths
of 1.5 meters, or approximately 5 feet, and approximately 3000 data points
can be collected per hour.
In general, pipeline operators who are measuring the corrosivity of the soil
along pipelines will use either the Wenner 4 Pin method or undertake a
continuous conductivity survey. Figure 25 presents results from a test in
which data was collected using both methods, and the results aligned
axially, based on pipeline stationing.
41
1,000,000
geonics 1.5 ft geonics 5 ft 4pin5ft 4pin10ft
100,000
Distance [ft]
100
100+00 110+00 120+00 130+00 140+00 150+00 160+00 170+00 180+00 190+00 200+00
It is obvious from the figure above that many more data points are available from
the continuous conductivity surveys, compared to the series of measurements,
using the Wenner 4 Pin method. There is not a 1:1 match between the high and
low points for the two series of measurements. However, the small shift can be
attributed to having a much smaller number of field data points, i.e.,
measurements using the Wenner 4 Pin method. The two sets of results also have
the same order of magnitude, although the specific numbers vary. Soil resistivity
results are not used alone, but instead are interpreted along with other indirect
inspection techniques. Results from either the Wenner 4 Pin or continuous
conductivity surveys are used to provide one measure of the conditions along a
pipeline. The coincidence of indications from multiple (minimum of two)
techniques serve as the trigger for further investigations into possible coating
damage and a determination of whether external corrosion may be present.
Electrical current flows from the pipe, through the soil, at the location of coating
defects. Potentials are measured, using two reference-cell probes (Cu-CuSO4),
42
which are in contact with the soil directly above and perpendicular to the pipeline.
Potentials are measured, using a sensitive, zero-centered voltmeter, with the
polarity noted.
Voltage gradients are a measure of the rate of change in potential with distance
from the anomaly. A pipeline surveyor traverses the pipeline, making
measurements with each stride when both probes are in contact with the ground.
Normally, there should not be a potential difference between the probes.
However, there will be a potential difference at locations having pipeline
anomalies. Through a series of measurements, the precise location of each
coating anomaly is “pin-pointed” by finding the epicenter of the voltage gradient.
100
DCVG
Category 4
% IR
50 Category 3
Category 2
Category 1
0 Station [ft]
0+00 5+00 10+00 15+00 20+00 25+00 30+00
30" Gas Pipeline Percent IR for DCVG
HCA-4 Anomaly Survey
43
Table 8 Severity of Coating Holidays
(Section 4.3.4 presents the formulae used for calculating the % IR drops.)
Advantages
• Provides an assessment of coating condition
• Identifies discrete coating defects
• Provides an indication of the severity of defects
Disadvantages
• Close proximity to other pipelines or metallic structures may cause
problems
• Unlikely to identify disbonded coating
• Rate of progress is dependent upon terrain and coating quality
44
(b) Adjust the pulsed current, such that a potential swing of 500-600
mV is achieved. (However, potential swings as low as 150-200
mV can be used at times.) By virtue of the current pulsing, the
effect of stray or telluric currents can be minimized.
(c) The “On” and “Off” potentials are measured at the test station
nearest the starting point for the survey, and these potentials are
measured at all other test stations encountered. The voltage
gradient is determined by the difference in the “On” and “Off”
readings.
(f) The size of the defect can also be determined by relating the signal
voltage at remote earth (mV1) to the signal voltage recorded at the
nearest test station (mV2)
45
• Marked as an axial length along the pipeline from a known
reference point, i.e., pipeline stationing
• Global positioning coordinates, using sub-meter GPS
% IR = (mV1/mV2)*100%
DCVG data can also be used to determine the direction of current flow
within the soil. This is based on:
Table 9 presents a very brief summary of the possible categories for the
state of corrosion at the location of a pipeline coating holiday. (See
NACE RP-0502-2002, Appendix A. Paragraph A 6.4.3 for further
discussions.)
46
Table 9 Direction of Current Flow in a Holiday
Cathodic/Cathodic Holidays in the coating are cathodically protected while the CP systems are
(C/C) “On,” and they remain polarized while the CP systems are either interrupted
or “Off.” Thus, CP current is being consumed, and corrosion is not active.
Cathodic/Neutral Holidays in the coating are cathodically protected while the CP systems are
(C/N) “On,” but will return to the native state and may corrode when the CP is
interrupted or is “Off.” Corrosion may be active when the CP systems are not
properly functioning.
Cathodic/Anodic Holidays in the coating are cathodically protected while the CP systems are
(C/A) “On,” and are anodic when the CP systems are interrupted. The interrupted
value corresponds to the potential at the interface between the pipe and the
soil. There may be corrosion at the coating holidays – even when the CP
systems are properly functioning.
Anodic/Anodic Holidays in the coating are receiving no /insufficient protection, regardless
(A/A) whether the CP systems are “On” or “Off.” Corrosion is active.
Although it may be of interest to categorize the direction of the current flow, it is more important
for DCVG to locate the epicenter of each anomaly, and to then compare and contrast the DCVG
results with results from other indirect inspection techniques at the same locations. Coating
damage and external corrosion is most likely at locations, where results from independent survey
techniques indicate the presence of an anomaly.
4.4.1 Purpose
47
The second variation is the high frequency ACCA used to assess the
coating quality of relatively small segments over short distances. This
facilitates a more discrete analysis of the condition of the external coating.
The magnitude of the current attenuation is used to prioritize observed
coating damage.
4.4.2 Methodology
(3) The low and high frequency signals are measured, using a
detector/receiver unit to quantify the signal strength, and confirm
the frequency of the signal. By measuring the strength of the
signal, the attenuation of that signal can be determined. This
provides a measure of the extent of any coating damage.
48
(4) The logarithmic rate of decay of the current (the attenuation)
between two given points along the pipeline is used as a measure
of the average condition of the pipeline coating.
Data collected in the field must be stored in an appropriate data logger for
subsequent analysis.
Survey intervals may range from very short distances (e.g., a few meters)
to large distances, (e.g., a few hundred meters). The distances can be
measured by direct measurements, such as chainage, lasers, GPS
coordinates, or taken from the most current pipeline alignment sheets.
Calculated Parameters
Signal attenuation
Depth to centerline
Depth of cover
Coating quality
I(x) = Is10-ax
49
where,
I(x) = magnitude of signal at a given location
Is = magnitude of the source signal
a = attenuation rate at a given frequency
x = distance from source
50
The logarithmic ratios make it possible to normalize results relative to the
expected loss of signal strength with increased distance from the source.
Divide the log of the signal strength current by the length of the pipe
segment to calculate the attenuation per unit length. A graph of the
attenuation per unit length versus the distance along the pipeline can be
used to identify locations, where there may be significant external
corrosion. Figure 28 illustrates this.
4.4.5 Interpretation
4 hz - dB Loss 98 hz - dB Loss
(Gain)
+mdB/ft
0
(Loss)
-mdB/ft
mdB/ft
Distance (ft)
10+00
0+00
1+00
2+00
3+00
4+00
5+00
6+00
7+00
8+00
9+00
51
The high frequency signal is shown as the solid red line, and is particularly
useful when surveying small sections of piping. Per these guidelines, the
most severe external corrosion would most likely be found just beyond the
9+00 stationing, while the second highest priority would be assigned to
the indication centered at the 8+00 stationing.
The previous sections have discussed the most commonly used indirect inspection
tools. However, there are limitations associated with each type of tool. For
example, it may be difficult to impossible to inspect piping within casings.
Fortunately, however, there are new, emerging indirect inspection techniques,
which are being developed. These include waveform analysis, guided wave
ultrasonics, and even radio wave techniques. Such new technologies may be used
in the ECDA process. However, it is the responsibility of the pipeline operators
to identify and validate the effectiveness of the new technology. For the U.S., it
will also be necessary to secure the approval of the DOT OPS at least 180 days
prior to conducting integrity assessments, using new technology per 49 CFR
§192.921 (a) (4).
When conducting surveys, the personnel conducting the surveys must provide
precise locations of the features along the pipeline. This includes the start and
end of each survey, as well as the location of any pipeline feature, such as valves,
bends, road crossings, etc. Typically, this is accomplished, using pipeline
stationing, as well as global positioning system (GPS) coordinates. Hand held
GPS units are readily available that can provide sub-meter positioning. Also,
units are becoming available that will provide sub-centimeter positioning.
52
Ele vation R esistivity Len gth (in) C om me nt C urrent (mA ) % IR Po tential (m V)
(ft-M SL) (o hm -cm )
50 0
0
1 00 0
1 50 0
0
-5 00
- 10 00
- 15 00
- 20 00
1 00
1 50
2 00
0
1
2
3
4
0%
50 %
1 00 %
1.E + 00
1.E + 05
AG
T EST
M-4STA TIO N F ENC E
0+0 0
F/ 3
F/ 5
F/6
F/7
F/8
F/9
F/1 0
F/1 1
L INFE
E MAR
NC EKE R F/1 2
F/1 4
F/1 5
F/1 6
FEN CE F/1 7
F/1 8
F/1 9
F/2 0
F/2 1
F/2 2
10+00
F/2 3
F/2 4
LIFEN
NE CE MA RK ER TEST STA TIO F/2N5
F/2 6
F/ 27
F/ 28
F/ 2 9
PI F/ 3 0
F/3 1
F/ 32
F/ 33
F/ 34
F/3 5
F/ 36
F/3 7
F/3 8
F/3 9
F/4 0
F/4 1
F/4 2
pipeline.
2 0+00
F/4 3
F/ 4 4
L IN E MAR KE R SI NK H OL E F /4 5
F/ 46
CL CR EEKF/ 4 7
F/ 48
LI NE MA RKF/5 F/ER49
0
FEN C E F/ 52
F/ 53
F/ 54
F/5 5
F/5 6
F/5 7
F/ 5 8
F/5 9
F/ 60
F/6 1
F/6 2
F/6 3
30+00
F/6 4
F/6 5
L IN EFEMAR F/6 6
NC EKE
F /6R7
F/6 8
F/ 6 9
D IR T R O AD F/ 70
F/ 71
F/ 72
F/7 3
F/ 74
F/7 5
F/7 6
F/7 7
F/7 8
F/7 9
F/8 0
FEN
PO Fe
FEN
TES
LTES
WINCE
nER
Ece
CE
TTMSL
SARK
IN
TATIO
TATIO
ESERNN RE CTICLFIEDIR RT RO AD
4 0+00
F/5N99
83
A GM -5F/8 4
F/8 5
F/8 6
F/8 7
F/8 8
F/ 8 9
F/9 0
F/ 91
F/ 9 2
F/ 93
F/ 94
F/9 5
F/ 96
F/9 7
F/9 8
F/9 9
F/1 0 0
F/ 1 01
F/ 1 02
F/ 1 03
50+00
F/ 10 4
F/ 10 5
F/ 1 06
F/1 0 7
F/ 1 08
F /1 09
F/1 1 0
53
F/1 11
F/1 12
F/ 11 3
F/ 11 4
F/ 11 5
F/1 1 6
F/1 1 7
F/1 1 8
F/1 1 9
F/1 2 0
F/1 2 1
F/1 2 2
6 0+0 0
F/ 12 3
FR GN TS F/1 2 4
PI F/ 1 25
F/ 1 26
F/ 12 7
C IS
IL I
FLI
LINENC
NE E E MAR
MA RK KER
ER C ASI NG TEVE
ST NTSFEN
TATI CF/
10 4 7/
OE81 28
N77
F/1 2 9
PCM
C L O LD RR R O W
LI NE MA RK ER F/1 3 0
D CV G
TEL E CA BLitc E XO
S O IL
ED GE H WD Y *3h5 9 F/ 13 1
CL HW Y *3 5 9
ED
P ro file
LI NE
CAst
Te FEN
MA
SIN StRK
GCE
a tio
VERn
EN T P OGWE
E HRW LIYNE 9 1 33
*3S5 F/
F/ 1 34
F/ 13 5
F/ 13 6
PI F/ 13 7
F/ 13 8
AG M- 6 F/1 3 9
F/1 4 0
F/1 4 1
F/1 4 2
70+00
F/1 4 3
F/1 4 4
F/ 1 45
F/ 1 46
F/ 14 7
F/1 4 8
F/1 4 9
F/ 1 50
F/ 15 1
F/ 15 2
F/1 5 3
F/1 5 4
F/1 5 5
F/1 5 6
F/1 57
F eatu res
F/1 5 8
F/ 1 59
F/1 6 0
F/1 6 1
F /1 62
80+0 0
F/ 16 3
F /1 64
F/ 1 65
D itc h F/ 16 6
F/ 16 7
FE NC E FEN CE F/ 16 8
F/ 16 9
F/ 17 0
F/ 17 1
F/ 17 2
F/ 17 3
F/ 17 4
F/1 7 5
F/1 7 6
F/1 7 7
F/1 7 8
90 +00
F/ 18 3
F/ 18 4
F/ 18 5
F/ 1 86
F/1 8 7
F/ 1 88
F/ 1 89
F/ 19 0
F/ 1 91
F/ 19 2
L IN E MAR KE R F/ 19 3
F/ 19 4
F/ 19 5
L I NE MA RKE R F/1 9 6
DI TCH
CL Tr a il
DI TCH F/1 9 6A
FIE LD R O AD F/1 9 7
F/1 9 8
F/1 9 9
F/2 0 0
F/ 20 1
100 +00
F/2 0 2
F/2 0 3
F/ 2 04
F /2 05
F /2 06
F /2 07
F/2 0 8
LI NE MA RK ER F/ 2 09
F/ 21 0
F/ 2 11
F/2 1 2
F/ 2 13
F /2 14
F /2 15
F/2 16
F/ 2 17
F/ 21 8
F/ 2 19
F/2 2 0
F/2 2 1
1 10+00
F/2 2 2
F/2 2 3
r ker FIE LD RF/ O2AD24
HMa ig h Ba n k F/ 2 25
C L CR EE K F/2 2 6
Ma rk er H ig h Ba n k F/ 22 7
F/ 22 8
J unEL
TEST
SH c tio
LSTA
nBBoONTIO
xD N TE ST STATIF/2 O N2 9
F/2 3 0
F /2 31
along the pipeline when assessing anomalies. Do not rely upon the results from a
should be entered into a computer spreadsheet or database so that the results can
utility crossings, any sections of exposed pipe, and any locations, with evidence
intervals and at every pipeline feature or appurtenance along the right-of-way.
It is recommended that sub-meter GPS measurements be collected at 100 foot
be compared point by point along the pipeline. There are commercial programs
Once the data from different sources has been collected, the different sets of data
any points of intersection (PIs), which indicates a change in direction of the
of soil erosion along the right-of-way. It is also critical to mark the location of
F/2 3 2
F/2 33
F/ 2 34
F/ 23 5
F/ 2 36
L IN E MAR KER F/ 2 37
AG M- 7 F/ 2 38
120+0 0
single indirect inspection technique. Instead, overlay results and compare them in
order to gain a consistent picture.
(1) Assign a severity to each indication for each indirect inspection technique
(see Table 10.)
(2) Compare the severity ratings, tool-by-tool for each indication.
(3) Ensure consistency of results between different indirect inspection tools.
If inconsistent:
a. If the results from indirect inspections are NOT consistent with pre-
assessment results and known prior history, review the feasibility of
using the ECDA process. Also, review the definition of each ECDA
region.
b. If the results from indirect inspections are NOT consistent with pre-
assessment results and known prior history, consider using other
proven integrity assessment technologies, i.e., in-line inspections or
hydrostatic pressure testing for certain pipeline segments.
(5) The prioritization of the indications will be used as the basis for
establishing the order of the direct examinations. This step requires the
excavation of the pipeline, such that the exterior surfaces of the pipeline
can be visually examined. The location and order of these excavations are
established, based on a prioritization process, as described above, which
categorizes the severe, moderate, and minor indications into immediate,
54
scheduled, or monitored locations. Section 5.1.1 references the
prioritizations, which are established from the indirect inspections, and
Section 5.1.2 discusses the number of required excavations and direct
examinations, as required, based on the severity and assigned priorities.
If you cannot conduct other indirect examinations and obtain meaningful results
or cannot conduct preliminary direct examinations, it might not be possible to
use the ECDA process for those particular pipeline segments. Instead, there may
be no option but to conduct in-line inspections or hydrotests.
One critical aspect of the ECDA process is assigning severity classifications to the
results from the indirect inspections. “Minor,” “moderate,” or “severe” is
assigned to each of the results from inspecting each indication, and is used when
determining whether an indication needs “immediate action,” “scheduled action,”
or is “suitable for monitoring.” Thus, the choice has economic consequences in
so far as the potential number of direct examinations, i.e., “digs.” Figure 31
illustrates “minor,” “moderate,” and “severe” indications for theoretical results
from a slow cycle CIPS survey. Note that small dips will occur for small
indications, but the “On” and “Off” potentials are above the –850 mV criterion.
For the case of “moderate” indications, “Off” potentials may be below the –850
mV criterion. For the case of “severe” indications, both the “On” and “Off”
potentials would be below the –850 mV criterion.
The severity of the indications should be determined for each indirect inspection
tool, as shown in Table 10. Companies providing the indirect inspection services
should be able to provide the severity of each indication. Then the results from
the different techniques should be integrated to provide a single quantification for
each indication. If there are major contradictions between results from the
different indirect inspection tools, the source should be investigated. It may be
necessary to repeat the indirect inspections, or possibly use an additional tool.
55
Minor Moderate Severe
-850 mV
56
Table 11 Prioritization of Indications from the Indirect Inspections
• Excavation, examination, and data collection at areas where corrosion is most likely
• In-process evaluation
5.1 Purpose
The objectives of the direct examination step are to determine which indications
from the indirect inspections are most severe and to collect data to assess
corrosion activity. In order to perform a direct examination, the pipe must be
excavated to facilitate visual inspection for coating damage and corrosion. Pipe
excavation and examination is expensive and should be done in the minimum
57
number of locations necessary to assess an ECDA region. Excavation locations
will be selected on the basis of the severity of the perceived threat of the
indications, using data collected during the Pre-Assessment and Indirect
Inspection steps of the ECDA process.
5.1.1 Prioritization
In setting the criteria for classification within a region, the year round
conditions (temperature, moisture content of the soil, etc. at the exterior
surface of the pipeline), corrosion history, indirect inspection data, and
other relevant factors specific to each region shall be considered.
Indications or groups of indications shall generally be classified into three
prioritized categories as follows:
Immediate:
This category includes indications that are considered likely to have
ongoing corrosion activity and that, when coupled with prior corrosion,
pose an immediate threat to the pipeline under normal operating
conditions. Multiple severe indications in close proximity and isolated
indications classified as severe by multiple inspection techniques are to be
placed in this category. For initial ECDA inspections, any location at
which unresolved discrepancies between inspection techniques are noted
shall be placed into this category. Immediate indications are be excavated
and inspected – immediate action is required.
Scheduled:
This category includes indications that are considered as having ongoing
corrosion activity but, when coupled with prior corrosion, do not pose an
immediate threat to the pipeline under normal operating conditions.
Isolated severe indications that were not placed in the immediate category
shall be placed in this category. Scheduled indications shall be prioritized
by order of severity.
Monitored:
This category includes indications considered to be inactive or as having
the lowest probability of prior or ongoing corrosion. Monitored
indications shall be prioritized by order of severity.
58
with the most recent approved version of that document. The comments
below have been based on the 2002 version of the document and reflect
the overall intent of the document, based on discussions with committee
members and cognizant pipeline professionals.
59
Accordingly, they should be examined, based on relative priorities
as established during the Pre-Assessment and Indirect Inspection
Steps.
60
indications can be re-evaluated and reprioritized, using best
engineering judgments.
o Then, from among the list of “scheduled” indications, at
least one “scheduled” indication must also be selected (two
for the first time the ECDA process is applied). Direct
examination(s) must follow. Per the NACE document that
“scheduled” indication and the direct examination should
be located in the ECDA region, which is considered the
most likely to have external corrosion. Note that the
requirement is for one (or two) direct examination(s) per
pipeline – not per ECDA region along the pipeline.
o There may also be an increase in the number of required
direct examinations, based on the results of the required
examinations, per Section 5.10.2.2.3 of NACE RP 0502-
2002. If the results of the direct examination reveal
corrosion which is deeper than 20% of the original wall
thickness and is deeper or more severe than an “immediate”
indication, at least one more direct examination will be
required (two for the first time the ECDA process is
applied).
61
within the ECDA region, which has been identified as the most
likely for external corrosion to occur, per the Pre-Assessment.
Note: In addition to the number of direct examinations identified above, there will be
additional excavations and direct assessments of the pipeline required as part of the Post-
Assessment step. One randomly selected location must be directly examined to confirm
the effectiveness of the ECDA process (two locations for the first time the ECDA
process is being applied). This is required per Section 6.4 of NACE RP 0502-2004 and
Section 6.3.1 of this Guidelines publication.
• Additional flags or stakes offset from the pipeline are also useful
because the original markers placed over the pipe may be removed
during excavation.
62
When analyzing results from the indirect inspections, it is essential to properly align the
data from each of the indirect inspection techniques. Match the data from each indirect
inspection technique to pipeline features and GPS coordinates having sub-meter accuracy.
When overlaying inspection results, select a sufficiently fine scale, such that it is possible
to determine if the different inspection tools are “seeing” the same indications. Use the
same precision when marking positions along the pipeline, prior to excavation and direct
examinations. Remember that incorrect alignments may result in the generation of
meaningless data, wasted money, and “bad” digs.
5.2.2 Excavations
After the pipeline is excavated, the first task is to assess the condition of
the coating.
• Take photographs
63
5.2.4 Measure Pipe-to-Soil Potential
Soil resistivity measurements should be made for soil taken from around
the pipe. Soil resistivity measurements can be used to assess the
corrosivity of the soil. Common methods used “in the field” are the
Wenner Four Pin method, the Soil Box method, and the Single Probe
Method, which uses an electronic corrosivity/resistivity probe.
The soil pH should be measured and recorded at the time of the direct
examination.
Send or take the soil samples to a soil testing laboratory to (a) classify the
soil per the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS), (b) measure the
moisture content, (c) measure the sulfide ion concentration, (d) measure
the soil conductivity, (e) measure the pH, (f) measure the chloride ion
concentration, and (g) measure the sulfate ion concentration. These will
characterize the environment on the exterior of the pipeline.
Carefully pull back any disbonded coating and look for liquids between
the pipe and coating. Using a syringe or cotton swab, collect a small
64
sample. Measure and record the pH of this electrolyte using hydrion
paper. Another method is to carefully slide the hydrion paper between the
coating and the pipe where liquid is present, remove it and record the
reading.
• Please note that some coatings such as coal tar may contain
asbestos, and may require certified asbestos abatement personnel
and containment procedures to remove.
65
to be examined for the presence of stress corrosion cracking
(SCC), a less abrasive blasting medium such as walnut shells or
high-pressure water should be used.
• Record the location of any girth welds and the position of the
longitudinal seam, if present.
Evaluate the remaining strength of corroded areas found during the direct
examination phase. Common methods are ASME B31G, Modified B31G,
RSTRENG, and DNV Standard RP-F101. The operating company shall
determine which method to follow.
66
Common corrosion defect repair methods include the following:
• Pipe Replacement
Type A reinforcing sleeves are not welded to the pipe at the end of the sleeves.
As such, they provide some mechanical reinforcement, but do not provide
pressure containment. Type B reinforcing and pressure containing sleeves are
welded to the pipeline, and as such, provide pressure containment. Both Type A
and B sleeves fully encircle the existing pipeline.
Pipeline operators shall make every effort to identify the root cause of corrosion
found with the ECDA process. The following are a few examples of root causes.
More than one root cause may apply for a particular location.
• Inadequate CP current
• Electrical interference
Pipeline operators shall take appropriate mitigative action dependent on the root
cause(s) identified. For example, it may be necessary to install additional ground
beds to achieve CP at an acceptable level. If widespread disbonded coating is
found, it may be necessary to implement a recoating program.
67
5.5 In-Process Evaluation
• Pipeline operators shall assess the extent and severity of corrosion relative
to the assumptions made in establishing the priority categories for repair
(scheduled, immediate and monitored).
• If the corrosion activity is worse than classified, the criteria for classifying
the severity of all indications shall be appropriately adjusted. The need for
additional indirect inspections shall be considered. Consideration shall
also be given to adjusting the criteria for prioritization.
68
using different indirect inspection tools, or even abandon the ECDA
process and use in-line inspection or hydrostatic testing to assess the
integrity of a segment.
• For each root cause, the operator shall identify and reevaluate all other
indications, which occur in the pipeline segment where similar root causes
exist.
69
Table 12 Data Collected During Direct Examination at ECDA Dig Site
70
6.0 Post Assessment
Post-assessment is the final step in the ECDA process. The primary objectives of the post
assessment step are to define the re-assessment intervals and to assess the overall
effectiveness of the ECDA process. Post-assessment is necessary in order to verify that
ECDA is a valid assessment method for a pipeline segment and that the correct tools are
being used. The post-assessment step includes the following activities.
For the purpose of this calculation, it is assumed that the most severe corrosion
flaw remaining in the pipeline is of the same dimensions as the most severe
corrosion damage found during the direct examination step.
The growth rate used in the remaining life calculation should be based on
actual corrosion rate data applicable to the ECDA region if available. For
example, if direct measurements over a known time period are available
from maintenance records for the region being assessed, or for a similar
one, the actual growth rate for those specific locations can be calculated.
71
Linear polarization resistance (LPR) or buried corrosion coupon data if
available can also be used to estimate corrosion rates, but again, the results
of these methods may not be representative of all locations within the
segment being evaluated.
The remaining life of the pipeline in an ECDA region is the time it will
take for the most severe remaining corrosion anomaly still remaining
within ECDA region to grow to either leakage or failure. Remaining life
should be calculated using a sound engineering method, which is properly
referenced and documented. It is recommended that the conservative
method from NACE RP 0502-2002 section 6.2.4.1 be used to calculate
remaining life as a start. If this method proves to be overly conservative,
another technically justified method can be used.
The Time until Leakage (TL) would simply be the remaining wall
thickness at the corrosion anomaly divided by the corrosion rate. The
relevant equations for TL and Time until Failure (TF) are:
72
t t−d
TF = C × SM TL =
GR GR
Where:
Example 1
73
1. In accordance with Section 6.2.2 of NACE RP 0502, the maximum
remaining flaw size is assumed to be the same as the most severe
indication excavated (6 inches long x 0.150 inches deep).
FP 1222
FPR = = = 0.940
YP 1300
MAOP 936
MPR = = = 0.720
YP 1300
t
TF = C × SM
GR
0.375
TF = 0.85 × 0.220 × = 4.4 Years
.0160
6. The time until leakage (TL) for a 150 mil pit in 0.375” wall
pipe at the same corrosion rate (16 mpy) is calculated as follows:
t − d 0.375 − 0.150
TL = = = 14.1 Years
GR .0160
74
In the example given above, the conservative default value of 16 mpy was
used for the corrosion growth rate. If it can be shown that CP for the
segment has met the 40 mV polarization criteria for most of its life, the
default value can be reduced to 12.2 mpy. Recalculating TF and TL
would give values of 5.7 and 18.4 years respectively.
If the soil resistivity and drainage characteristics are known, a lower value
could be selected from Table 6.0. For example, if the ECDA region was
in soil with a resistivity greater than 12,000 in an area with poor drainage,
a value for GR of 9.1 mpy taken from the “maximum” column of Table
6.0 could be used. Recalculating TF and TL would give values of 7.7 and
24.7 years respectively.
Example 2
FP 1474
FPR = = = 1.134
YP 1300
MAOP 936
MPR = = = 0.720
YP 1300
75
5. The corrosion growth rate (GR) is assumed to be the default value
of 16 mpy = 0.016 inches/year. The time until failure is calculated
as follows:
t
TF = C × SM
GR
0.375
TF = 0.85 × 0.414 × = 8.2 Years
.0160
6. The time until leakage (TL) for a 290 mil pit in 0.375” wall pipe at
the same corrosion rate (16 mpy) is calculated as follows:
0.375 − 0.290
TL = = 5.3 Years
.0160
The re-assessment interval for the ECDA region shall be estimated as one half of
the remaining life as determined in the previous section. Note that this interval
may be further limited by the requirements in ASME B31.4 and ASME B31.8.
For US Pipeline professionals, the re-assessment interval cannot exceed the
maximum values in Table 14 below, which is from the IMP rule (DOT 192.939).
76
assessment (CDA) must be conducted at least every 7 years prior to full
re-assessment at the end of the interval. For example, if a remaining life
of 36 years is determined from the previous steps for a pipeline operating
at less than 30% SMYS, the re-assessment interval would be 18 years. As
a minimum, confirmatory direct assessment (CDA) would need to be
conducted on the ECDA region in years seven and fourteen of the
eighteen-year interval. In year 18, full re-assessment is required, using
ECDA, inline inspection or hydrostatic testing.
If conditions that are more severe than determined during the ECDA
process are found in the validation digs, it may be necessary to reevaluate
the ECDA process, since the most severe indications should have already
been investigated during the direct examination phase. The re-assessment
may also need to be reconsidered.
NACE RP-0502, Section 6.4, and the U.S. DOT require that measures be
defined and monitored to determine the long-term effectiveness of the
ECDA process. The following items are examples of measures, which can
be tracked for each segment where ECDA is used as an assessment
method:
77
• Number of reclassifications that occur during ECDA. A
significant increase in the number of indications reclassified would
indicate that the classification criteria may be unreliable and
should be reviewed.
6.4 Feedback
78
• Remediation activities
• In-process evaluations
7.0 Record Keeping – Documenting the ECDA Program and Integrity Management
Record keeping is an essential part of the pipeline integrity management process. All
ECDA activities must be considered subject to audit by any authority, which has
jurisdiction over pipeline integrity management. NACE RP 0502 provides guidelines for
the data, which “should” be recorded. The U.S. DOT requires the pipeline operators to
retain this information throughout the useful life of the pipeline. It is important to
maintain the records in a well-organized manner, which makes information readily
retrievable and easy to understand.
Upon completion of the ECDA process, all relevant information from each of the four
steps should be collected and compiled into a single document (final report), which
clearly demonstrates that the requirements of NACE RP 0502 have been met. It may be
convenient to combine the ECDA activities for more than one region into a single
document depending on the number of regions and the volume of data required to be
included. This section provides guidelines for necessary information required to
document each of the four steps of the ECDA process.
• All data elements collected for the segment to be evaluated and the data
sources should be summarized within this section. (See Section 3.2 for
details of the required data elements.) A narrative should be included to
summarize the findings and point out any unusual conditions encountered
during the data collection process, or any essential data, which may be
missing.
79
• Methods and procedures used to select the indirect inspection tools should
be documented. Include a discussion of the limitations of the inspection
tools, which demonstrates why the tools selected are the most appropriate
for use within the region(s).
• The characteristics and boundaries of the ECDA regions and the indirect
inspection tools used in each region should be included in this section.
The document should clearly indicate on what basis the boundaries of the
ECDA region(s) were chosen. It is recommended to include schematic
diagrams similar to Figures 3 and 4 in NACE RP 0502-2002 (Figure 5 of
this document).
• The dates and weather conditions under which the inspections were
conducted should be recorded and indicated on the inspection reports.
• The method used for aligning data from the indirect inspections and
expected errors for each inspection tool should be included. Graphical
overlays or stack charts are effective techniques used to compare and align
the data.
80
7.3 Direct Examination Documentation
• Data collected before and after excavation (See Table 5.1 in Chapter 5).
Forms for recording data at ECDA excavations should include these
elements as a minimum. Copies of the completed forms should be
included in the report.
81
7.4 Post Assessment Documentation
• The criteria and metrics used to assess the ECDA effectiveness and the
results of the assessment should be included in this section. Examples of
metrics are included in section 6 of this document.
8.0 References
82
o ASME B 31.8 “Gas Transmission and Distribution Piping Systems,” (New York,
NY: ASME).
o ASME B31.8S “Managing System Integrity of Gas Pipelines (Supplement to
ASME B31.8)”, (New York, NY: ASME).
83
9.0 Attachment A: Overview of ILI for Confirming Pipeline Integrity
The inspection vehicles may be “free swimming,” i.e. propelled by the fluids (gas)
passing through the pipeline, or they may be tethered and pulled through the pipeline.
The vehicles are frequently called “smart pigs.”
References
84
• There are numerous pigs available for specialty analyses, such as quantifying
dents. The in-line inspection vendors and service companies will post their
newest developments on their web pages.
Transducer Transducer
UT Signal Reflected
from UT from
Transducer Defect
85
• If pig cannot pass through a line unimpeded, there can be major expenses in
reconfiguring pipeline or adding a launcher and receiver and the necessary bypass
piping. The pipeline would also be out of service during the reconfiguration.
• Prior to running an In-Line Inspection pig, the pipeline must be thoroughly
cleaned, or proven to be clean. This can be done on-line, and may require the
running of numerous cleaning pigs. There will be labor expenses for the cleaning
pig runs, as well as the cost for the pigs.
• There may be significant mobilization fees for bringing the ILI pigs to the work
site.
86
10.0 Attachment B: Overview of Pressure Tests for Confirming Pipeline Integrity
Hydrostatic pressure testing typically follows new construction, but can be used to
demonstrate the integrity of existing pipelines. By placing the pipeline under the test
pressure, any existing defects greater than a critical size, will fail and leak. Successful
completion of this test demonstrates the pipeline has no defects greater than the critical
size for the operating conditions.
References
• A pipeline is filled with liquid (typically water for cost reasons) and pressurized
until the hoop stress reaches a specified value.
• The pressure must be maintained for a predetermined period of time to
successfully complete the test.
• Only a minor change in pressure is allowed to compensate for changes in
temperature of the fluid.
• All leaks must be repaired, and the hydrotest repeated until successfully
completed.
• Hydrotest water should be disposed of properly.
• May need to weld caps onto section of pipe being tested, and remove them after
successful completion of the test
• Will need source or supply of hydrotest fluids. This may require pumps and
hoses or tanker trucks to transfer the fluids, depending upon volumes
• If fluids are not clean and clear, it may be necessary to set up settling tanks and
filter the hydrotest fluids before entering the sections to be tested
• It may be necessary to add oxygen scavengers, corrosion inhibitors, and biocides
to the hydrotest fluids, unless the fluids will be completely removed, immediately
following completion of pressure testing. There are expenses for the cost of the
chemicals, as well as the labor for injecting the chemicals into the hydrostatic test
fluids.
• If chemicals are added to the hydrostatic test fluids, the fluids cannot be returned
to public body of water. There may be disposal expenses.
87
Strengths of hydrostatic pressure tests
• Historically, well founded and accepted – its been used for years
• Typical practice for new construction to demonstrate the pipeline system is leak-
free prior to going into service
• May use for complicated piping networks
88
11.0 Attachment C: Definitions of Corrosion Related Terms
Active corrosion: The corrosion state at which corrosion is occurring without being
influenced or shielded by corrosion products, such as rust.
Anchor pattern: Roughness of the pipe surface to facilitate adhesion of the coating.
Anomaly: An imperfection, defect, or critical defect present in the wall of the pipe or in
its coating.
Brittle fracture: A rapid failure mechanism that occurs without significant plastic
deformation.
Brittle fracture limit: The maximum stress, strain, or load that may be applied prior to
onset of brittle fracture.
Cathodic disbondment: The destruction of adhesion between a coating and the coated
surface caused by products of a cathodic reaction.
Class location: A criterion for pipeline design set by the Code of Federal Regulations.
Class 1 is rural and Class 4 is heavily populated. A class location is based on the number
and type of buildings situated in an area that extends 200 m (220 yd) on either side of the
centerline of any continuous 1.6-km (1.0-mile) length of a pipeline.
Classify: To separate the cause of indications into one of three categories, namely,
anomalies, non relevant conditions, or pipeline components.
89
Close interval potential survey (CIPS): A method of measuring the potential between
the pipe and earth at regular intervals along the pipeline. Also called CIPS.
Corrosion: The deterioration of a material, usually a metal, that results from a reaction
with its environment.
Critical flaw size: The dimensions (length and depth) of a flaw that would fail at a given
level of pressure or stress.
Data analysis: The process through which a signal is classified and characterized.
Defect: As used in this standard, an anomaly for which an analysis, such as ASME B
31G, would indicate that the pipe is approaching failure as the nominal hoop stress
approaches the SMYS of the pipe material.
Detection limit: The largest anomaly that could be missed (not the smallest anomaly
that could be found) by an assessment process.
Direct assessment process: A process that combines indirect examinations and direct
examinations to assess the integrity of a pipeline.
90
Direct examination: Inspections and measurements made at bellholes as part of the
direct assessment process.
Disbonded coating: Any loss of bond between the protective coating and a pipe as a
result of adhesive failure, chemical attack, mechanical damage, hydrogen concentrations,
etc. Disbonded coating may or may not be associated with a coating holiday.
Double submerged arc weld (DSAW): Weld using filler metal passes on the inside and
outside of the pipe.
Electric resistance weld (ERW): Weld formed by resistance heating of the two edges
of a pipe and then forcing them together to create a solid-state weld.
Electrolyte, undercoating: Water found between the disbonded coating and the pipe
surface.
Flash-welded pipe: Distinct type of ERW pipe, made from individually rolled plates
formed into cans before being welded.
Fusion bonded epoxy (FBE): An inert coating applied to pipes to keep them from
corroding; FBE is shop-applied as a two-part powder, which, with the application of heat,
flows to cover the contours of the pipe surface, including welds.
Gouge: A surface imperfection caused by abrasion that reduces the wall thickness of a
pipe or component.
91
High-pH SCC (classical): Pipeline SCC that is associated with an electrolyte that has a
pH in the alkaline range, specifically greater than pH 9.3, and in which the cracking
follows an intergranular path and is often branched.
Hoop stress: Stress around the circumference of a pipe (i.e., perpendicular to the pipe
length) that results from internal pressure.
Hydrostatic retesting: Proof testing of sections of a pipeline by filling the line with
water and pressurizing it until the nominal hoop stresses in the pipe reach a specified
value.
Hydrostatic test: Pressure test of a pipe or pressure vessel using water or other media.
Imperfection: An anomaly in the pipe that does not result in pipe failure at pressures
below those that produce nominal hoop stresses equal to the SMYS of the pipe material.
In-line inspection (ILI): The inspection of a pipeline from the interior of the pipe using
an in-line inspection tool.
In-line inspection tool (ILI tool): The device or vehicle that uses a nondestructive
testing technique to inspect the pipeline from the inside.
Inspection: (1) A direct examination of pipe. (2) The process of running an in-line
inspection tool.
92
Joint: A single section of pipe that is welded to others to make up a pipeline. A joint of
pipe is often 12 m, 18 m, or 24 m (40 ft, 60 ft, or 80 ft) in length.
Leak: Product loss typically through a small opening, crack, or hole in a pipeline.
Low-pH SCC: Pipeline SCC associated with an electrolyte that has a pH in the neutral
range (pH 6-8); the reference to “low-pH” is simply used to differentiate it from the
“high-pH” SCC form, which is associated with a more alkaline water. The cracking in
this form of SCC is wide, non-branching, and follows a path across the grains of the steel
(i.e., transgranular).
Magnetic flux leakage (MFL): An inspection method that uses a magnetic field to
locate anomalies.
Metal loss: Any of a number of types of anomalies in pipe in which metal has been
removed from the pipe surface, usually due to corrosion or gouging.
Microstructure: Structure of metals and alloys as revealed after polishing and etching
them; hot-rolled steels usually consist of bands of ferrite (iron) and pearlite (carbon) but
may contain other microstructures such as martensite (hard brittle grains) or bainite (not
as hard or brittle as martensite).
93
Mitigate: To take action directed to reduce or prevent the likelihood or consequence of
an event.
Natural gas: Naturally occurring mixture of hydrocarbon gases and vapors found in
porous geologic formations beneath the earth’s surface, often in association with
petroleum; the more important gases are methane, ethane, propane, butane, pentane, and
hexane.
pH: The negative logarithm of the hydrogen ion activity written as:
pH = -log10 (aH+)
where aH+ = hydrogen ion activity = the molar concentration of hydrogen ions multiplied
by the mean ion-activity coefficient.
Pig: A generic term signifying any independent, self-contained device, tool, or vehicle
that moves through the interior of the pipeline for inspecting, dimensioning, or cleaning
purposes.
94
Pigging: The procedure of running a pig through the pipeline.
Pipe: As used in this standard, the steel pipe exclusive of protective coatings or
attachments that is used to transport natural gas.
Pipeline: That portion of the pipeline system between the compressor stations including
the pipe, protective coatings, cathodic protection system, field connections, valves, and
other appurtenances attached or connected to the pipe.
Pipeline segment: All the pipe within a particular portion of a system with the same
diameter and the same coating, e.g., a valve section, an individual pipeline, or a station-
to-station segment.
Pipeline system: All portions of the physical facilities through which gas moves during
transportation including pipe, valves, and other appurtenances attached to the pipe, such
as compressor units, metering stations, regulator stations, delivery stations, holders, and
other fabricated assemblies. (See 49 Code of Federal Regulations 192).14
Polarization: The change from the open-circuit potential as a result of current across the
electrode/electrolyte interface.
Polyethylene tape coating: Polyethylene tape and adhesive used as a pipeline coating
system.
Potential: A measure of the eletromotive force between two points, e.g., between the
pipe surface and the surrounding soil. Same as voltage.
Potential, pipe-to-soil: Potential difference or voltage existing between the pipe and its
environment.
95
Rupture: The instantaneous tearing or fracturing of pipe material causing large-scale
product loss and immediately impairing the operation of the pipeline.
Receiver: A pipeline facility used for removing a pig from a pressurized pipeline.
Residual stress: Stress present in an object, in the absence of any external loading,
which results from the previous manufacturing process, heat treatment, or mechanical
working of material.
Rupture, pipeline: A large-scale failure of a pipeline, as occurs when the flaw exceeds
the critical dimension to initiate longitudinal propagation; typically results in an
uncontrolled release of the fluid.
Seam weld: The longitudinal weld in pipe, which is made in the pipe mill.
Shielding: The effect of preventing cathodic protection from reaching the pipe surface
under disbonded coating; occurs for coatings or soils with high dielectric strength.
Signal: Any measured response from an indirect examination above the normal baseline
signal.
Soil model: A model or tool that predicts SCC susceptibility based on a database of soil
characteristics and excavation information.
Specified minimum yield strength or stress (SMYS): A required strength level that the
measured yield stress of a pipe material must exceed, which is a function of pipe grade.
The measured yield stress is the tensile stress required to produce a total elongation of
0.5% of a gauge length as determined by an extensometer during a tensile test.
Stray current: Current through paths other than the intended circuit.
Stress: Tensile or compressive force per unit area in the pipe wall as a result of the loads
applied to the structure.
Stress corrosion cracking (SCC): Brittle cracking caused by the conjoint action of a
corrosive environment in combination with tensile stress.
96
Tenting: A tent-shaped void formed along the longitudinal seam-weld reinforcement in
a pipe when the external coating is not in continuous intimate contact with the pipe and
weld surfaces.
Transgranular: Crack growth or crack path that is through or across the grains of a
metal.
Voltage: A measure of the electromotive force between two points, e.g., between the
pipe surface and the surrounding soil.
97
12.0 Attachment D: Questionnaire for Collecting Data to Be Used in Pre-Assessment
98
Pipeline Data Form
Construction – Related Data
Pipeline:
Where are the original Construction Records (Including Inspection records) stored/archived?
Construction Techniques:
Any Concerns Related to SCC associated with Welding? If So, describe concerns. If NOT, describe why it’s not a concern.
Design Pressure:
Maximum Allowable Operating Pressure (Describe basis for any reductions in MAOP)
How was the pipeline Dried, following the Original Hydrostatic Pressure test?
99
Describe Valves within the Pipeline: (Location, Type, Size)
Nominal Composition/Specifications for Gas: (Also, Dew Point for any Water Vapor)
Does Pipeline contain Drips or Low Spots, which collect Liquids? If so, How frequently is the Liquid Drained?
Are there protective barriers to help protect integrity of pipeline (e.g., concrete slab above buried pipe)?
Are there public education programs to enhance third-party awareness of the pipeline operations?
How Frequently is Pipeline Corridors Checked for Evidence of Leaks (Leak Patrols)?
What is the Follow-up to any Indications? (e.g., Are work orders generated?)
100
How Frequently is the Pipeline Valves Inspected or Serviced?
Does the Pipeline have Cathodic Protection? ٱYes ٱNo If Yes, Describe System
Are there bonds to any adjacent pipelines? If so, identify the adjacent pipelines.
How Frequently are checks conducted at the Test Stations? Where are the records kept?
Have the voltages always been sufficient to meet the NACE RP 0169 requirements (>0.850 mV)?
What methods/techniques were employed? (Close Interval Surveys. Etc.) Who provided the Services?
Were there sections of the pipelines that could NOT be assessed? (e.g., inside a cased crossing?)
If so, list these locations. If a cased crossing, is the casing electrically insulated from the pipeline?
What Remedial Actions were required and Completed? Where are the records to Document these Actions?
Have sources of electrical interferences, which could affect the functionality of CP systems, been identified and corrected?
If yes, Approximately what volumes of Liquids and solids were removed? Please characterize.
Describe the frequency of cleaning Pig runs. What specific types of cleaning pigs are used?
Are there corrosion coupons or electronic probes to monitor possible internal corrosion? If yes, what are the historical Corrosion rates?
Are there any corrosion coupons or electronic probes at the test stations? If yes, what are the External Corrosion rates?
101
Has there been any monitoring for microbial populations? ٱYes ٱNo
If yes, what were the results?
Are or have corrosion inhibitors been injected into the gas transmission pipeline?
Does any upstream producer or Pipeline Transmission Company inject any corrosion inhibitor?
What are the results of the direct examinations? Where are the records archived? Describe data related to:
Pipe to Soil Potentials Condition of External Coating Depth of any External Pitting Characterize Deposits
UT Measurements of Remaining Wall Thickness Was Coating Replaced? With What? Photo Documentation
Who are Ultimate Users of Transported Natural Gas? (e.g., Hospitals, Cogeneration Power Units, Critical Industries)
Can Consumer’s supply of Gas be Temporarily Disrupted for conducting hydrostatic pressure tests or for installing temporary or
Have there been any hydrostatic pressure tests of this pipeline subsequent to construction?
If so, When was the test conducted? Describe Test Conditions and Results.
102
Has the pipeline ever been inspected, using In-Line tools, i.e., smart pigs? ٱYes ٱNo
If so, What type of tool? ٱMFL ٱUT Which vendor supplied the In-Line tool?
Summarize the findings for each successive inspection run, including any Remedial Activities, which were required.
Have there been any previous External Corrosion Direct Assessments within this particular HCA?
Have there been any previous Internal Corrosion Direct Assessments within this particular HCA?
Have there been any previous Stress Corrosion Cracking Direct Assessments within this particular HCA?
Have there been repairs or replacements of pipeline segments within this HCA?
Have Repairs or Upgrades of the CP systems been made? If so, When? Describe.
Has it ever been necessary to relocate any segment of this pipeline within the HCA? If so, Describe.
Have Repairs been required on any above grade sections of the pipeline within the HCA? If so, Describe the basis for the requirement.
Have Repairs been Required for any Cased Piping? If so, Describe.
If the topsoil is covered by concrete or asphalt pavement, how thick is that layer? (This helps identify which surveys can be conducted).
103
Primary Threats and Recommended Integrity Assessment Methodology
What are Primary Threats to Pipeline Integrity for this particular HCA?
Provide Basis for this Conclusion; Identify Limitations with Alternate Techniques to Assess Pipeline Integrity
Annual Reviews to Identify Changes, which may affect HCAs and Pipeline Integrity
Date Reviewer
Comments:
Date Reviewer
Comments:
Date Reviewer
Comments:
Date Reviewer
Comments:
104
13.0 Attachment E: Direct Examination Worksheets
The attached direct examination worksheets were built upon worksheets used by the
Alyeska Pipeline Service Company. The forms allow for recording more data than may
be the minimums required for integrity assessments. Pipeline companies should use
those portions of the forms, which are relevant to their operations.
105
DIRECT EXAMINATION WORKSHEETS
Name/Signature: Title:
Page: 1 of _____
Location: Station: Date:
I. Visual Examination of Excavation Water first encountered ________ Ft. Depth of Cover: Ft.
from top of Excavation
Water Present? Yes No
Pumping Required? Yes No
Backfill:______________________________________________ R A
Padding: R A
Bedding: R A
106
DIRECT EXAMINATION WORKSHEETS
Location: Station:
Page: 2 of ______
II Tape Examination (Continued) Show the condition of the tape coating and or any unusual conditions of other coatings. Sketch all
areas of disbondment, tearing, bulging, holidays and other tape defects.
Location and Measurement:
Station Station:________________
Upstream Limit Downstream Limit
360o
270o
180o
(bottom) FLOW
90o
0o
(top)
Comments:
107
DIRECT EXAMINATION WORKSHEETS
Type of Coating Damage: Approx. % of Total Area with this Damage Location of damage (o’clock and station)
Station Station:________________
Upstream Limit Downstream Limit
360o
270o
180o
(bottom) FLOW
90o
0o
(top)
Comments:
0
Pipe Temperature F
Description of most extensive corrosion damage area. Include lowest remaining wall reading/survey coordinates/grid location:
108
DIRECT EXAMINATION WORKSHEETS
Station Station:________________
Upstream Limit Downstream Limit
o
360
270o
180o
(bottom) FLOW
90o
0o
(top)
Describe Abrasive Blasting Operation Used to Remove Corrosion Products,Coatings, and Debris from exterior of pipeline (Type
of Grit, Pressures)
Describe Results, including measure of wall thickness and deepest pit within each cluster. Also provide spacing between
clusters, such that areas can be treated independently, or as areas of continuous corrosion. Also describe locations of any grids,
which were established for measurement of the depth of pits in close proximity, including the names of the file that contain the
data, and where they will be kept. Provide Reference to photographs.
Other Comments:
109
DIRECT EXAMINATION WORKSHEETS
Comments:
Reference Cell Position At Edge of Exposed Pipe - Upstream At Edge of Exposed Pipe - Downstream
110
DIRECT EXAMINATION WORKSHEETS
Weld: Crown Height (+) Actual Wall Thickness (-) Maximum Pit (=) Remaining Wall Thickness @ Orientation In Degrees
= ____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Heat Affected Zone (+) Actual Wall Thickness (-) Maximum Pit (=) Remaining Wall Thickness @ Orientation In Degrees
= ___________________________________________________________________________________________________
Classify Corrosion in Weld Cap: Classify Corrosion in the HAZ:
Describe corrosion associated with Weld Cap? Describe corrosion associated with the HAZ?
(e.g. Isolated, Preferential or Generalized) (e.g. Isolated, Preferential or Generalized)
Was there any indication of sharp edge or undercut corrosion or other unusual conditions?
Weld: Crown Height (+) Actual Wall Thickness (-) Maximum Pit (=) Remaining Wall Thickness @ Orientation In Degrees
= ____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Heat Affected Zone (+) Actual Wall Thickness (-) Maximum Pit (=) Remaining Wall Thickness @ Orientation In Degrees
= ___________________________________________________________________________________________________
Classification of Corrosion in Weld Cap: (Using Comparators) Classification of Corrosion in the HAZ: (Using Comparators)
Describe corrosion associated with Weld Cap? Describe corrosion associated with the HAZ?
(E.g. Isolated, Preferential or Generalized) (E.g. Isolated, Preferential or Generalized)
Was there any indication of sharp edge or undercut corrosion or other unusual conditions?
111
DIRECT EXAMINATION WORKSHEETS
Total Feet of Pipe Retired Size Wall Thick. Grade Seam Type Manufacturer
in. in.
FABRICATED BENDS N/A
Total Feet of Bends Added Bend Radius Size Wall Thick. Grade Seam Type Manufacturer
Ft. in. In.
PIPE DETAIL
Reference Point Description (Nearest Road, Fence, Valve, Stn. No) Station Number of Reference Point
_______________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________
Distance from Reference Point to nearest end of : Direction from Reference Point (along pipeline)
Tie-in End of Coating Sleeve Valve Other _________ North South East West
Station Station:________________
Upstream Limit Downstream Limit
o
360
270o
180o
(bottom) FLOW
90o
0o
(top)
112
DIRECT EXAMINATION WORKSHEETS
Ind# NDT Method Repair Method Post Repair RWT Disposition Final Inspection
113