11th Pipeline Technology Conference 2016

A CASE STUDY
HOW REDUCED UNCERTAINTIES OF LATEST ENHANCEMENTS
IN ULTRASONIC WALL MEASUREMENT ILI TECHNOLOGY
BENEFIT ENGINEERING CRITICALITY ASSESSMENTS

Stephan Tappert Ing. Přemysl Kuchař Albrecht Schmid Iryna Lachtchouk

PII Pipeline Solutions MERO PII Pipeline Solutions PII Pipeline Solutions
Lorenzstrasse 10, Veltruská 748, Lorenzstrasse 10, Lorenzstrasse 10,
D-76297 Stutensee, 278 01 Kralupy nad Vltavou, D-76297 Stutensee, D-76297 Stutensee,
Germany, Česká republika, Germany, Germany,
Phone +49-7244/732-185, Phone +420-315 739221, Phone +49-7244/732-155, Phone +49-7244/732-418,
stephan.tappert@ge.com kuchar@mero.cz albrecht.schmid@ge.com iryna.lachtchouk@ge.com

Jane Dawson Martin Tschuch Thomas Reiter

PII Pipeline Solutions PII Pipeline Solutions PII Pipeline Solutions
Atley Way, North Nelson Industrial Estate, Lorenzstrasse 10, Lorenzstrasse 10,
Cramlington, Northumberland, NE23 1WW, D-76297 Stutensee, D-76297 Stutensee,
United Kingdom, Germany, Germany,
Phone +44 191 247 3429, Phone +49-7244/732-460, Phone +49-7244/732-361,
jane.dawson@ge.com martin.tschuch@ge.com thomas.reiter@ge.com

Abstract

A case study is presented by which the operational inspection results demonstrate the added
value of a high resolution versus conventional resolution inline inspection as from an
operator perspective, e.g. the aspects of reduced number of unneeded repairs and
addressing historic “unknowns” are addressed. The increased precision and reliability of data
were identified as key for the selection of higher resolution tools. The high scanning rates
achieved in both the axial, and circumferential, directions of the pipeline has provided the
enhanced information needed particularly for the presence of smaller features, but deemed
as critical defects to pipeline integrity. These enhancements have then enabled a basis for
accurate corrosion rate estimation and life-time predictions of a pipeline. With quantitatively
improved data it was possible for the operator to allocate effort and financial resources more
efficiently.

Wall measurement inline inspection of pipelines that use liquid-coupled ultrasonic

technology, has been established and run for more than 25 years. The technique is based on
pulse echo signals providing the advantage of a quantitative measurement of the wall
thickness with a standard reporting accuracy around +/- 0.5mm. The latest enhancements
have enabled a more reliable detection performance and a more accurate reporting with
improved sizing tolerances, though the true value rests with what the integrity engineering
specialists are now able to do with the enhanced information.

This paper describes how the inline inspection Wall Measurement (WM) uncertainties
influence an engineering criticality assessment within pipeline integrity. Moreover the
development of a high resolution WM tool and its benefits of supporting a more accurate
integrity assessment are described.
BACKGROUND AND MOTIVATION

The Družba Crude Oil Pipeline in the Czech Republic (CR) was the first crude oil pipeline on
the Czech territory. The former Czechoslovakia imported up to 18 million tons of crude oil a
year from the former USSR through this pipeline. The entire length in the CR, including
twinning and branch pipes, sums up to more than 500 km, sectioned in 10 operations units.
MERO administers and maintains the pipeline. As part of MERO´s pipeline integrity program,
a section with a pipe diameter of 530 mm and a length of 74 km from Nove Mesto to Kralupy
Central Crude Oil Tank Farm has been inspected multiple times with inline Ultra Sonic Wall
Measurement tools since its year of construction in 1965 (Figure 1).

The most recent inspection was conducted with PII Pipeline Solutions’ latest high resolution
Wall Measurement tool, known as UltraScanTM WMP, in April 2015 as part of its first
qualification run. Besides the historic data from PII Pipeline Solutions UltraScan WM from the
very first inspections in this pipeline section from 1997, the existence of additional ILI data
sets from other vendors has allowed MERO to leverage and asses various inspection
performances. The motivation of utilizing a super high resolution tool in this specific pipeline
section is associated with the expectation that increased accuracy and precision, as further
discussed in next section, supports a more effective integrity assessment. One key
implication of this means a reduced conservatism in the estimate of failure pressure of metal
loss defect through more accurate sizing tolerances and less conservative criteria for the
grouping of defects, such as when most are shallow and just one is deep in depth. In addition
detailed individual defect profile data from the inspection run can offer significant benefits
directly in the accuracy and ease of defect assessment. In this case study, an increased
effectiveness of integrity assessment refers specifically to managing the challenge of
discrimination within the identified metal loss defects between those indications that relate
either to corrosion or to manufacturing-related defects, e.g. one of the inspections had
resulted in more than 9000 metal loss features. [1]

Figure 1: Overview of the Druzhba crude oil pipeline

UNCERTAINTIES ASSOCICIATED WITH THE ACCURACY OF THE ILI DATA

For the purposes of detecting and measuring internal and/or external corrosion in a pipeline
the following two, well proven, ILI technologies are favoured. Magnetic flux leakage (MFL) is
known to be the oldest and most commonly used inspection technology for inline inspection
of pipelines. The other technology has been used since the 1980s, and is based on
ultrasonic sensor technology (UT), from which a distinction into three sensor types can be
made. The use of piezoelectric transducers has the longest operational history and requires
a coupling medium for the ultrasound energy to transmit from the sensor into the pipeline
wall. This method would be the most widely recognized as it is used in industrial, aerospace
and medical industries for several decades. Phased array ultrasonic technology is based on
groups of small piezoelectric sensors working together to operates similarly as a pulse echo
mode, but also with an advantage in flexibility of resolution and use of higher order firing
modes and algorithmic techniques. The third type available as ILI for pipelines is EMAT, a
transmission sensing technique that requires no liquid coupling medium, and is mostly used
in natural gas pipelines.

The ILI data recorded with these technologies, when analysed, provides dimensional
information of detected anomalies, e.g. length, depth, width and orientation. As with all
measurements, this analysed measurement data includes an accuracy tolerance that is be
considered when the ILI data is used to conduct integrity studies and fitness-for-purpose
investigations.

Pipeline integrity analysts and ILI vendors are aware that in an assessment of the severity of
a defect, a key consideration is the accuracy of the reported geometric dimensions of each
anomaly. In this sense, the two important parameters that ILI vendors provide are the
probability of detection (POD) and the sizing accuracy of the tool. [2]

The sizing accuracy associated with an ILI tool is stated in a statistical format, as is done in
most NDE industries, as an accuracy error level (or tolerance) with a percentage certainty.
The depth sizing accuracy associated with corrosion metal loss of today´s high resolution
(HR) and super high resolution (SHR) UT & MFL tools is provided in following Table 1.

Table 1: Typical sizing accuracy at 90% certainty

Experience shows that the depth sizing accuracy of metal loss identified using ILI methods
can be represented by a normal probability distribution that assumes the error is independent
of the measured dimension as illustrated in Figure 2 below. Note that if there is a constant
bias present, e.g. if the ILI tool is consistently over predicting (or under predicting) the depth
dimension of the defects, there will be a non-zero mean value for the error band.
 Figure 2: Probability Distribution of Actual Defect
Dimensions Given Measured Dimension. [3]

In the absence of run specific field verification data the depth measurement error can be
based on the defined ILI tool performance specification, e.g.

 A High Resolution (HR) MFL tool typically has a specified depth sizing performance of
±10%wt with a 80% certainty level, i.e., equivalent to a ±12%wt with a 90% certainty
level (having a mean error of 0%wt and a standard deviation of 7.8%wt). A Super
High Resolution (SHR) MFL tool has an improved performance of ±10%wt with a 90%
certainty level (with a mean error of 0%wt and a standard deviation of 6.1%wt).

 Whereas, a HR UT tool typically has a specified performance of ±0.5mm with a 90%

certainty level (having a mean error of 0 mm and a standard deviation of 0.3mm). A
SHR UT tool has an improved performance of ±0.4mm with a 90% certainty level
(having a mean error of 0 mm and a standard deviation of 0.2mm).

In order to demonstrate the effect that the depth measurement error can have on the
outcome of assessing an ILI reported metal loss defect, the following example is provided:

Pipeline details related to Nove Mesto to Kralupy section:

21” OD x 7.9mm wall thickness pipeline operating at an MAOP equivalent to 62%SMYS.

Assumed ILI response criteria: a) Metal loss peak depth ≥ 70%wt and b) metal loss predicted
burst pressure ≤ 1.39 x MAOP (see Figure 3 below).

Figure 3: Assessment Criteria Used in Example.

Note that in this example, the focus is solely on the depth sizing accuracy. The sizing
accuracy associated with the length dimension can also be accounted for in the defect
severity assessment. However, it has less of an influence and for the two features presented
here, the effect was deemed negligible.

The probability that a sub-critical metal loss defect (reported by ILI to be just acceptable to
the stated repair criteria (as shown as the blue curve in Figure 3)) could actually exceed the
critical dimensions at the Maximum Allowable Operating Pressure (MAOP) (as shown by the
red curve in Figure 3) has been evaluated using the probability distributions associated with
the ILI depth sizing tolerances (Table 1). The resulting probability of exceedance (POE)
values are shown in Table 2 for two example metal loss defects representing pitting and
general corrosion. [4]

Table 2: Probability of exceedance for pitting and general metal loss defects for the example
pipeline scenario

±Sizing accuracy at 90% certainty level Resulting probability of exceedance (PoE)*

ILI tool Pitting General metal loss
inch/ mm %wt
70%wt x 50mm 42%wt x 500mm
1 0.016 / 0.4 5.6 2.6E-3 1.1E-6
2 0.02 / 0.5 7 1.1E-2 5.4E-5
3 0.027 / 0.7 10 5.0E-2 5.9E-5
4 0.035 / 0.9 12 1.0E-1 1.4E-3
Note: the PoE results are specific to the assumed geometry, operating parameters, ILI response criteria and
metal loss defects associated with this example and are used here for comparison and illustrative purposes.

* In this example the probability of exceedance represents the probability that the stated metal loss defect
exceeds either 80%wt in depth or has a burst pressure ≤ MAOP.

The above PoE results illustrate that the defect severity assessment is very sensitive to the
ILI defect depth sizing accuracy. It is important to understand the effect that the ILI sizing
accuracies can have and to select appropriate depth and pressure based safety factors that
will provide the desired level of certainty in the severity assessment when deciding on the ILI
response criteria. Furthermore, both depth and length dimensions, including consideration of
the stated tolerance, are critical inputs to the burst pressure calculation and for predicting
leak vs rupture outcomes. The choice of assessment methodology is also important and for
complex areas of corrosion an RSTRENG approach (using the corrosion profile) is the
favoured method. [5]

It is further highlighted that whilst the sizing accuracy is certainly a major consideration when
selecting an ILI technology and vendor, it should not be the only consideration. The range of
defects that the ILI tool can detect and size, the probability of detection, the probability of
identification as well as compatibility to the pipeline conditions (product type, flow velocity,
wall thickness, diameter, bend angles, trap lengths etc.) are also very important
considerations.
[6]

LATEST HIGH RESOLUTION WALL MEASUREMENT

The ultrasound pulse echo technique for all thickness measurement is shown Figure 4. The
ultrasonic measurement is based on time-of-flight measurement using perpendicularly
oriented ultrasound sensors to the pipe wall surface. A single sound pulse from the ultrasonic
sensor travels across the stand-off distance SO (through the coupling medium, e.g. oil), is
partially reflected from the inner pipeline wall surface, and returns to the sensor as the so-
called "entry echo". The other part of the sound pulse penetrates the pipeline wall, is for the
major part reflected from the outer pipeline wall surface, and returns to the sensor as the so-
called "rear wall echo". Depending on the impedance of the liquid as compared to steel and
the sound damping, multiple reflections inside the pipeline wall are possible. The signal echo
time across the stand-off distance and the time difference between entry echo and rear wall
echo are stored in the inline inspection tool as measured values which can be interpreted as
distance values. A decreasing wall thickness value points to an external metal loss. A
concurrent appearance of a wall thickness decrease and a standoff increase points to an
internal metal loss.

Figure 4: Wall thickness measurement principle

Enhancements

The latest UltraScan Wall Measurement WMP ILI tool provides a significantly enhanced
resolution that addresses the threat of pinholes. The tool detects defects as small as 5x1mm
and accurately sizes them starting at a dimension of 8x1mm. The remaining wall thickness is
determined with a significantly higher accuracy compared with standard technologies.

The sensor carrier integrates far more sensors than previous generations. An increased
number of sensors lead to a higher circumferential resolution which leads to more accurate
sizing of the defects at a higher certainty. The example of figure 5 demonstrates the
difference that the resolution has on the sizing. In the case that the deepest point of a metal
loss features is located within the Track 2 it is obvious, that the correct sizing of this feature is
only possible with the high circumferential resolution, where sensor tracks 1- 6 are active.
For a lower resolution, sensors (track 1, 3 and 5), the information from some of the deepest
point could be lost, dependent on the current position of the sensor when passing the defect.
 Figure 5: Influence of circumferential resolution

The typical sampling grid of the tool in axial direction is 1.5mm and an accuracy of the wall
thickness measurement of 0.1mm is achieved independent of the wall thickness of the pipe.
The Figure 6 below shows the difference between low and high axial and radial resolution.

Figure 6: difference between low and high axial and radial resolution

The figure 7 below shows an example of a metal loss feature recorded with both WMP (left)
and WM (right). Due to the significantly higher resolution, the WMP provides a more accurate
river bottom profile on a point by point basis, which then can be used in RSTRENG or similar
profile assessment methods. A higher circumferential resolution of the tool enables more
information about the dimensions of the feature and also a more accurate determination of
the extension of the deepest point.

Figure 7: Example of metal loss feature recorded with WMP (left) and WM (right)

The WMP tool can also be configured to record A-Scans (time of flight records per point) ,
providing additional information for use in analyzing complex defect geometries. By means of
an offline algorithm, all the recorded A-Scans can then be used to refine the inspection
results.
Overall, the UltraScan WMP is an ILI tool with faster operational speeds and with improved
defect detection and sizing specifications and more accurate measurement results (Table 3).
In addition to the comprehensive online algorithm for signal processing, the signals can be
recorded for the further offline analysis, which potentially allows improvement of the data
quality after the run.

Table 4: High vs. Super High Resolution Sizing Specifications

CASE STUDY

Operational Run

The first application of the PII Pipeline Solutions UltraScan WMP inspection tool was in a 21”
operation that occurred on April 2015 in a 74 km section of the MERO crude oil pipeline
system from Nove Mesto to Kralupy. The inspection tool was received after a run time of 19
hours in good condition (figure 8). Apart from minor normal wear, no visible damage to the
tool was observed. The sensors and the entire sensor carrier were free of wax and debris.
The data quality assessment provided acceptable results, so that it was recommended to
proceed with full analysis of the recorded inspection data.

Figure 8: Receiving of UltraScan WMP in Kralupy

Inspection Results

The detailed data analysis was conducted on 3 km section out of the 74 km length as a
qualification set. Within this 3km distance, the benefit of utilizing a super high resolution wall
measurement tool was expected to best demonstrated as part of the tool qualification
program by comparing to other available inline inspection data sets, including excavation
results for this area.

The pipes in the analyzed section were all seamless and included a lot of very strong
manufacturing-related wall thickness variations. Furthermore, many laminations showed
sloping contours. Numerous wall thickness reductions were identified as a result of grinding
of laminations. As far as ascertainable from the available data, none of the detected wall
thickness reductions are of a corrosive origin, but are related to manufacturing and therefore
expected to have no potential for growth. In summary a total of 140 metal loss features were
reported of which all were discriminated as non-corrosion related features. Although the
discrimination process of manufacturing from corrosion related metal loss is complex and to
certain extends special for this line, the combination of highly experienced data analysts and
availability of additional information from a super high resolution wall measurement tool allow
to asses complex defect geometries. As a result the comparison to historic data sets from
lower resolution wall measurement tools of the years 2005 and 2013 demonstrated the
added value for the pipeline operator, namely understanding the origin of metal loss
indications within the inspection report. The larger amount of reported features from the
UltraScan WMP indicates the increased resolution and sensitivity of the tool while
accomplishing a high discrimination performance (figure 9).

Figure 9: comparison of WMP 2015 determined metal loss origin to other/ lower resolution
inspection tools

The figure 10 is another example of a metal loss feature recorded with both PII Pipeline
Solutions WMP (left from 2015) and WM (right from 1997) within the 3 km section. The
increase in both stand off and wall thickness measurement indicate an internal feature.
Similar to the example of figure 7, a more accurate river bottom profile and more information
about the dimensions and the extension of the deepest point was recorded with WMP. In
addition, the WMP data demonstrated a higher quality of data with reduced echo-loss
occurrence.

Figure 10: metal loss feature recorded with WMP (left) and WM (right)

Figure 11 shows the distribution of all available peak depth sizing differences of various runs
including Nove Mesto to Kralupy between USWM and USWMP. The more central tendency
of the distribution of the WMP curve near zero error and the reduced width (variance) of the
population shows a clear improvement. The higher resolution USWMP is then demonstrated
to provide a better inspection performance in depth sizing accuracy and precision.

Figure 11: WM and WMP peak depth sizing differences

CONCLUSION

UltraSonic high resolution wall measurement inline inspection technology reduces

uncertainty associated with defect sizing accuracies. Improved accuracy leads to a more
certain determination of “proper” dimensions of defect that then lead to improved integrity
assessment in terms of reduced conservatism and fewer “unnecessary dig outs”. This case
study demonstrated that with higher resolution and precision, defects can be assessed better
in terms of its size characterization and nature, even from the direct fact that the overall
“picture” is much clearer.

REFERENCES

[1] PIM (Pipeline integrity management system) in MERO, various aspects

Premysl Kuchar, 8th Annual Pipeline Integrity Management Forum 20154 -5 February
2015 | LONDON,
UK

[2] STATISTICAL CALIBRATION OF PIPELINE IN-LINE INSPECTION DATA J. M.

Hallen et al; WCNDT 2004
http://www.ndt.net/article/wcndt2004/pdf/reliability/712_hallen.pdf

[3] Palomino, M. Bain, A. "GE’S New Magnescan : A new Age of Pipeline Integrity
Management" 10º Congreso Internacional de Ductos, Monterrey, Nuevo León, 11 –
13 de Noviembre del 2009

[4] R G Mora, P H Vieth, C Parker, B Delanty, ‘PROBABILITY OF EXCEEDANCE (POE)

METHODOLOGY FOR DEVELOPING INTEGRITY PROGRAMS BASED ON
PIPELINE OPERATOR-SPECIFIC TECHNICAL AND ECONOMIC FACTORS’,
Proceedings of IPC’02, 4th International Pipeline Conference, September 29-October
3, 2002, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
[5] Anon, Manual for Determining the Remaining Strength of Corroded Pipeline, The
American Society of Mechanical Engineers ANSI/ASME B31.G-2012.

[6] A CASE STUDY HOW LATEST ENHANCEMENTS IN ULTRASONIC WALL

MEASUREMENT ILI TECHNOLOGY BENEFIT ENGINEERING CRITICALITY
ASSESSMENTS; Proceedings of PPIM 2016, S. Tappert, A. Kulhawy, S. Bott, A.
Schmid, I. Lachtchouk, J. Dawson, M. Tschuch, T. Reiter