IBP1085_19

ALWAYS BE PREPARED – THE PIPELINE SPECIFIC CRITICAL

CRACK IDENTIFICATION AND ASSESSMENT MANUAL
Andrew Wynne1, Toby Fletcher2, Brian Kerrigan3, Bernardo Pessoa4, Ramon Loback5

Copyright 2019, Brazilian Petroleum, Gas and Biofuels Institute - IBP

This Technical Paper was prepared for presentation at the Rio Pipeline Conference and Exhibition 2019, held between
03 and 05 of September, in Rio de Janeiro. This Technical Paper was selected for presentation by the Technical
Committee of the event according to the information contained in the final paper submitted by the author(s). The
organizers are not supposed to translate or correct the submitted papers. The material as it is presented, does not
necessarily represent Brazilian Petroleum, Gas and Biofuels Institute’ opinion, or that of its Members or
Representatives. Authors consent to the publication of this Technical Paper in the Rio Pipeline Conference and
Exhibition 2019.

Abstract

Managing the threat of cracking is complex and, depending on the severity of the issue, may require a significant number
of in-field digs. Once an ILI tool is run and data is available, the features are typically assessed and locations are
prioritized for excavation depending on the severity and risk they impose. After excavation, all features require an
assessment based on the feature type identified in the ditch, which may be different to that indicated by the in-line
inspection system, and the dimensions given by in the ditch measurements, which may also be different to those
indicated by ILI, requiring in some cases recalibration of the ILI tool. This assessment will then determine the need for a
structural repair and of course has to be completed quickly and safely.

This paper provides an overview of the need for and advantages of a critical defect response manual, which has been
successfully deployed to help manage cracking, found in-field in Brazil. This manual considers all credible features, and
uses pipeline specific properties and loads to enable an adequately conservative and quick assessment of features found
in-situ, improving dig campaign efficiency, and ensuring safety for staff involved in excavation and non-destructive
examination.

1. Introduction

Upon completion of an in-line inspection (ILI) campaign, it is typical for a pipeline operator to mobilize to the field to
investigate potential safety critical indications and complete measurements to validate tool performance, in this case,
Electromagnetic Acoustic Transducer (EMAT) technology.

Following a system wide stress corrosion cracking (SCC) susceptibility analysis and direct assessment campaign, it was
anticipated that a number of gas pipelines may contain SCC. In some cases, a high number of crack colonies were
anticipated. In preparation, a critical defect manual was developed in order to ensure in-field crack investigation
activities were undertaken in a prompt, safe and efficient manner. The manual allowed a gas pipeline operator, Nova
Transportadora do Sudeste (NTS), to complete in-field assessments quickly to confirm integrity across multiple sites,
considering various feature scenarios (cracks, metal loss and milling defects). Figure 1 shows the stages of the defect
management process and at which stage the defect manual is applicable.

Defect Manual

ILI Feature In-Field In-field Remediation

ILI Investigation Assessment
Assessment

Figure 1: Flow Chart of Defect Management Process

______________________________
1
MEng, Engineer - ROSEN
2
MSc, Principal Engineer – ROSEN
3
MSc, Principal Engineer – ROSEN
4
Operations and Maintenance - NTS
5
Operations and Maintenance - NTS
 Rio Pipeline Conference & Exhibition 2019

This paper describes the development of a defect manual, which provided NTS with critical dimensions for every
segment of the pipeline by considering a number of combinations, e.g. wall thickness and material grade. Following the
extensive data collection phase during the SCC direct assessment (SCC-DA) campaign, consideration of multiple crack
scenarios was a requirement. Therefore, the following crack scenarios were considered:

 Axially orientated crack within the pipe body;

 Axially orientated crack within the longitudinal weld area;
 Circumferentially orientated crack within the pipe body; and
 Circumferentially orientated crack within the girth weld.

The use of this manual allowed the client to quickly evaluate whether verified dimensions of each crack measured in-
field was an integrity concern and provided repair guidance for each credible scenario. In addition, the manual provided
acceptance curves to assess other feature types (corrosion, milling defect etc.), which may be present in the same
excavated joint.

The manual allowed NTS to make quick, safe and informed integrity management decisions in the trench that
significantly improved the efficiency of their dig campaign. Occasionally, NTS would still seek specialist advice from
their integrity partner (ROSEN) for additional guidance when dealing with complex feature combinations.

2. The Project

NTS own and operate a 2,000 km multi-diameter gas transmission pipeline network in Southern Brazil. In 2015, one of
the segments suffered a failure, which was confirmed to be axial SCC. Following the 2015 failure, ROSEN were
contracted to implement their crack management framework to assist with understanding and quantifying the threat of
SCC along the system.

Figure 2: ROSEN’s Crack Management Framework

Following a detailed evaluation into the root cause and system-wide SCC susceptibility analysis (combined with a direct
assessment campaign), it was anticipated that some other pipeline segments may contain SCC, both axially and
circumferentially orientated. These segments were then prioritized for inspection.

2
 Rio Pipeline Conference & Exhibition 2019
Considering the findings of the upfront work, it became evident that SCC was most credible in joints subject to cold
field bending, due to the introduction of localized stress concentrations. Therefore, in addition to a crack inspection,
inertial and geometry inspections were identified as essential for each segment to confirm the joints subject to field
bending and to identify any geometric deformations such as wrinkles, ripples, dents and ovality.

The tool fleet selected for the campaign is outlined below:

 Axial Cracking: Electromagnetic Acoustic Transducer, EMAT;

 Geometric Anomalies: RoGeo XT;
 Metal Loss: Circumferentially Orientated Magnetic Flux Leakage, MFL-C; and
 Bending Strain/XYZ: Inertial Mapping Unit, IMU.
.
The Inspection Results

Following an inspection campaign, the EMAT tool identified a significant number of crack-like indications along
multiple pipeline segments. These features were detailed and issued to the client, per segment, in the form of a
preliminary report (PR). NTS then began an in-field investigation campaign targeting some crack-like indications
identified by the EMAT inspection, as recommended by ROSEN.

This mobilization to site had three purposes:

 Remediation of critical defects;

 Validation of the EMAT tool performance (classification and sizing); and
 Data collection to understand feature morphology and local environmental conditions.

The In-field Verification Process

An in-field investigation involves excavation of earth surrounding a pipeline and the removal of external coating. EMAT
anomalies reported by the PR are then located and visualized using Magnetic Particle Imagery (MPI). Following this, the
EMAT anomalies’ identification is verified and the cause of the reflections is identified (SCC, fatigue crack, lack of
fusion at the weld etc.). This information is then fed back to the EMAT data evaluation team, so they can continually
maintain or review their understanding of feature classification.

Once a crack is confirmed on site, the dimensions are measured using an appropriate in-field technology (e.g. Phased
Array Ultrasonic Transducer (PAUT) or Eddy Current (EC)). The verified dimensions are then subjected to a local
assessment to determine acceptability and corresponding remediation, if required. The requirement for a swift assessment
of any updated anomaly dimensions is of paramount importance to ensuring a quick, safe and cost effective in-field
verification campaign.

Limitations of the Typical In-field Verification Process

Typically, updated in-field crack depth dimensions are sent back to an integrity consultancy (e.g. ROSEN) for re-
evaluation. Following which, the client is informed on whether the crack is unacceptable or acceptable to a relevant code
for safe operation. If unacceptable, appropriate mitigation action is recommended such as a suitable repair type. This
process of back and forth communication between an in-field investigation team and an integrity consultancy necessarily
incurs time and cost. Individual defect assessments undertaken by a third-party integrity consultancy for in-field sized
cracks may not only be time-consuming; but other issues such as time differences and language barriers may also lead to
delays and a corresponding increase in financial cost during excavations, which is naturally unwanted by the pipeline
operator.

This paper discusses how ROSEN developed a solution to the issues described above by preparing a critical defect
manual for in-field use. The manual was used by field engineers to reduce the number of third-party assessments
required during a crack verification campaign. The resultant efficiency savings shortened the duration of digs, saved cost
and allowed additional verifications to be carried out. The manual may be adapted for specific client use and has the
potential to be used across a broad spectrum of defect verification campaigns.

3
 Rio Pipeline Conference & Exhibition 2019
3. The Solution – Critical Defect Manual Development

To address the difficulties in carrying out in-field verifications of cracks, ROSEN provided the in-field engineering team
with the autonomy and decision-making abilities required to carry out assessments independently. The solution to this
was a critical defect assessment manual that could be taken into the excavation site. The defect assessment manual was
presented in an easy-to-use format that provided the results of assessments in a series of graphical critical flaw charts and
look-up tables that covered most scenarios the dig team were likely to come across in-field.

The Manual Layout

ROSEN developed a standardized layout for the defect manual. This enabled the defect assessment manual to be
consistently reproduced for additional pipelines as needed. The manual also used standardized inputs such as nominal
outer diameter, minimum material strength, nominal wall thickness and ovality; these inputs allowed an optimum number
of critical flaw curves to be included for in-field use, all of which were sufficiently conservative. The general layout of
each manual contained the following sections:

Section 1. Introduction
Section 2. Pipeline Details
Section 3. Assessment Scenarios
Section 4. Crack Assessment
Section 5. Metal Loss Assessment
Section 6. Mill Anomaly Assessment
Section 7. Repair Guidance for Axial Cracks

Assessment Scenarios

The manual considered a wide range of axial and circumferential feature scenarios. These were created considering the
following parameters:

 Segments: Maximum allowable operating pressure (MAOP), nominal wall thickness variation;
 Spool type: Field bend or straight section (additional loads considered for cracks reported in field bends);
 Crack orientation: Axial or circumferential;
 Crack location: Pipe body, longitudinal weld or girth weld; and
 Other feature type: metal loss (corrosion etc.) and mill anomalies (laminations, inclusions etc.).

Crack Assessment

The following staged approach was used to carry out in-field verification of cracks:

I. Pressure reduction guidance: the degree of any pressure reduction required to ensure safe excavation and
verification activities based on ILI reported feature dimensions. This required input from ROSEN regarding
anticipated failure pressure of each feature prior to mobilizing to site.

II. Assessment procedure flow chart: the process for carrying out the verification and assessment activities. The
crack assessment curves were created using the guidance in API 579 Part 9.

III. Leak / rupture boundaries: the shortest length at which feature(s) reported by the ILI tools were predicted to fail
by leak rather than rupture.

IV. Crack categorization: ASME B31.8S guidance was used to assist with categorizing the severity of SCC
identified in-field in terms of their predicted failure pressure or their dimensions. The categories are provided
below for reference.

1. Category 0: L < 51 mm and Depth < 30% WT or Depth < 10%;

2. Category 1: Failure pressure > 110% Specified Minimum Yield Strength (SMYS);
3. Category 2: Failure pressure > 1.25 x MAOP AND < 110% SMYS;

4
 Rio Pipeline Conference & Exhibition 2019
4. Category 3: Failure pressure > 1.1 x MAOP AND < 1.25 x MAOP; and
5. Category 4: Failure pressure < 1.1 x MAOP.

V. Defect assessment charts: a series of charts and supporting lookup tables to allow an easy way of determining
the critical dimensions of cracks for a wide range of scenarios.

Metal Loss Assessment

The primary client focus was the identification and remediation of critical crack features. However, during any
in-field campaign, the verification of other feature types may also be carried out. For this reason, the manual
also contained guidance for assessment of other features. Section 5 contained defect assessment curves and
corresponding lookup tables to assess the acceptability of metal loss corrosion. The curves for metal loss
corrosion were created following ASME Modified B31G (Level 1b) criterion in terms of their axial and depth
dimensions and the Kastner method in terms of their width and depth dimensions.

Mill Anomaly Assessment

In addition to metal loss, critical flaw curves for mill anomalies including midwall laminations and inclusions
were provided. The curves for mill anomalies were created using the Shannon assessment method in terms of
their axial and depth dimensions and the Kastner method in terms of their width and depth dimensions.

Repair Guidance

The severity of a critical crack can affect the appropriate remediation. This section detailed the appropriate
repair methodology for a crack feature sized and assessed in-field, in accordance with PRCI repair criteria.

4. A Worked Example

The following section provides an example of how the defect manual could be used by an in-field team investigating a
crack indication reported by EMAT ILI.

 Check the manual introduction and pipeline details sections in order to confirm the manual is applicable.

 Check the crack assessment process flow chart to check if an initial pressure reduction is required (considering
the predicted failure pressure based on the assessment of ILI dimensions) before the excavation of the pipeline
has begun.

 Confirm the applicable crack assessment scenario – MAOP of section, nominal wall thickness, orientation of
crack, location of crack (i.e. pipe body or weld) and joint type (i.e., straight or field bend).

 Following excavation and removal of the external coating identify and confirm the reported feature(s) as a crack
(visualized with MPI) or otherwise. Carry out inspections for the presence of other cracks and features such as
metal loss corrosion and milling anomalies along the entire pipe spool length.

Size the crack using appropriate technology such as PAUT and assess against relevant critical flaw curves. An example
of such an assessment for an axially orientated crack for various wall thicknesses is shown in Figure 3.

5
 Rio Pipeline Conference & Exhibition 2019

Figure 3: Example of a Critical Flaw Curve

In the example above, the crack is marked as a red cross. In this case, as the dimensions are below the critical curves for
all wall thicknesses, the crack is acceptable.

Note: if in-field dimensions are above the relevant critical flaw curve, appropriate remediation such as a structural repair
is recommended, remediation guidance is provided in the defect manual.

5. What Did the Manual Solve?

Carrying out a large-scale in-field dig campaign can be complex: it involves significant cost, logistics and expertise. A
technique to help make the process operate more efficiently can result in cost and time saving for operators. Using a
defect assessment manual to help field-engineers make on-the-spot decisions that would otherwise require the use of
third-party integrity contractors, shortens the timescale of digs, decreases cost and potentially allows additional
verifications to be carried out.

As the repair techniques likely to be needed for particular features were detailed in the defect manual, the client could
plan ahead with what type of repairs were likely to be required based on previous experience of features found. The
client could therefore mobilize to an in-field site with an appropriate number of appropriate repair sleeves ready for
immediate application if a certain type of expected feature was identified. Before using a defect manual approach, the
client may have under- or overestimated the number of repairs needed.

6
 Rio Pipeline Conference & Exhibition 2019
6. Conclusions

The defect manual was field-tested throughout a dig verification campaign where many SCC colonies were verified. The
manual allowed NTS to make quick, safe and informed integrity management decisions in the trench, which significantly
improved the efficiency of their dig campaign. Occasionally, NTS would still seek specialist advice from their integrity
partner (ROSEN) for additional guidance when dealing with complex feature combinations.

With each use of the manual, the client will become better equipped at self-assessing features and will become more
established at deciding upon appropriate remediation.

Further Development

As more data is collated around material properties and feature behavior, the assessments and acceptance curves can be
further refined, if required. The manual can also be expanded to include additional scenarios and feature types. It is an
easy to tailor document, which can be used during repeat inspections if the properties of the pipelines have not changed.

One potential development of the manual is to create a digital version, which would allow in-field measurements of
ovality, wall thickness and local pressure to be inputted in real time by the in-field team. By reducing conservatism and
improving accuracy, this would provide further efficiency savings and safety benefits.

8. Bibliography

ASME., Managing System Integrity of Gas Pipelines, ASME B31.8S, 2016.

CEPA., ‘Recommended Practices for Managing Near Neutral pH Stress Corrosion Cracking, 3 rd Edition , May 2015.

AS., Pipelines – Gas and Liquid Part 3: Operation and Maintenance. AS 2885.3, 2012.

Fitness for Service, API 579-1/ASME FFS-1, 2016.

ASME B31G, “Manual for Determining the Remaining Strength of Corroded Pipelines”, 2012.

Kastner., ‘Critical Crack Sizes in Ductile Piping’, International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping, 1981, W
Kastner.

‘The Failure Behavior of Line Pipe Defects’, International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping, Volume 9, 1974,
pp243-255, RWE Shannon.

Rosenfeld MJ. Development of a Model for Fatigue Rating Shallow Unrestrained Dents, PR-218-9405, PRCI, 19th
September 1997.