Proceedings of the 2012 9th International Pipeline Conference IPC2012 September 24-28, 2012, Calgary, Alberta, Canada

IPC2012-90244

MULTIPLE DATA SET ILI FOR MECHANICAL DAMAGE ASSESSMENT

Chris Goller T.D. Williamson Inc. Salt Lake City, UT 84107 chris.goller@tdwilliamson.com

James Simek T.D. Williamson Inc. Salt Lake City, UT 84107 james.simek@tdwilliamson.com

Jed Ludlow T.D. Williamson Inc. Salt Lake City, UT 84107 jed.ludlow@tdwilliamson.com

ABSTRACT The purpose of this paper is to present a non-traditional pipeline mechanical damage ranking system using multipledata-set in-line inspection (ILI) tools. Mechanical damage continues to be a major factor in reportable incidents for hazardous liquid and gas pipelines. While several ongoing programs seek to limit damage incidents through public awareness, encroachment monitoring, and one-call systems, others have focused efforts on the quantication of mechanical damage severity through modeling, the use of ILI tools, and subsequent feature assessment at locations selected for excavation. Current generation ILI tools capable of acquiring multiple-data-sets in a single survey may provide an improved assessment of the severity of damaged zones using methods developed in earlier research programs as well as currently reported information. For magnetic ux leakage (MFL) type tools, using multiple eld levels, varied eld directions, and high accuracy deformation sensors enables detection and provides the data necessary for enhanced severity assessments. This paper will provide a review of multiple-data-set ILI results from several pipe joints with simulated mechanical damage locations created mimicing right-of-way encroachment events in addition to eld results from ILI surveys using multiple-data-set tools. BACKGROUND Incidents due to mechanical damage are considerable worldwide, leading to efforts to increase prevention, detection of existing damage, development of severity assessment and response prioritization [1]. The main problems that are increasing prob-

ability of failure are re-rounding, gouging, and cracking. These issues are not necessarily independent as gouging increases the severity of re-rounding and/or cracking [2]. Gouges may contain cracks in the localized cold-working that are caused by bending during re-rounding [3]. Pipelines are the safest method used to transport and deliver crude oil, natural gas, or any number of rened products. Working to provide the most reliable transmission and distribution pipeline systems, pipeline operators have developed integrity management programs to ensure the safe operation of these systems. Assessments are required to address conditions that may represent a potential threat to continued safe operation of pipeline segments and are carried out at predetermined intervals. Among the conditions considered, corrosion, both internal and external, and third party mechanical damage collectively account for nearly half of all reportable incidents for hazardous liquid and gas transmission pipelines. Other conditions that require monitoring include manufacturing related defects, construction or fabrication features, stress corrosion cracking, and ground movement or support loss due to outside forces. The assessment method or technique chosen for an individual segment is dependent upon specic threats or hazards identied, segment location and service conditions, product type, environment, and access limitations. For mechanical damage, ILI tools are often chosen as the method best suited for detecting damaged areas. Most recently, tools capable of acquiring multiple-data-sets have been introduced into service, providing supplemental information helpful in determining the severity of damaged locations. The multipledata-set MFL tool conguration used for acquiring the data pre-

Address

all correspondence to this author.

Copyright c 2012 by ASME

sented in this paper included the use of commonly used methods combined into a single ILI tool including: 1) an oblique or helical magnetizer and sensor assembly for detection and quantication of axially oriented features; 2) a high level axially oriented magnetizer section for volumetric metal loss; 3) a low eld magnetizer (LFM) section to enable detection of magnetic property variations; and, 4) high accuracy deformation sensors incorporating proximity measurement in the pipe wall contact portion for internal/external discrimination and surface condition determination. The results are presented for several test sections in which mechanical damage features were created using Battelles dent and gouge machine. Mechanical damage detection and ILI severity assessment of damaged areas has been the focus of several research projects over the last 15 years [4]. Battelle developed a MFL method using high and low level elds. Battelles prototype tool acquired data using several magnetization levels which became the basis for further development. The Manual for Detection, Classication, Analysis and Severity Ranking of Mechanical Damage Defects [5] provides a decision tree for ranking damage features utilizing data collected by the prototype tool. A ow chart for as-

TABLE 1: Test dent and gouge samples with ILI severity ranking

Dent N01 N02 N03 N04 N05 N06 N07 N08 N09 N10 N11 N12 N13 N14 N15 N16 N17 N18 N19 N20 N21 N22 N23 N24 N25 N26 N27 N28 N29 N30 N31 N32 N33 N34

ID Strain 1.1% 8.8% 10.8% 18.0% 11.8% 13.0% N/A 9.8% 1.1% 0.4% 8.5% 12.5% N/A N/A 5.0% 7.4% N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.5% 1.5% 1.9% 5.6% 7.4% 6.7% 8.9% 4.1% 6.9% 8.4% 7.5% 15.4% 7.8% 19.1%

OD Strain 1.0% 8.5% 10.2% 13.8% 9.9% 11.8% N/A 9.2% 1.1% 0.4% 8.3% 9.5% N/A N/A 4.8% 7.2% N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.5% 1.5% 1.9% 5.4% 7.3% 6.5% 8.6% 4.1% 6.8% 7.9% 7.5% 11.1% 7.8% 17.7%

Depth % 1.1% 2.3% 1.1% 6.9% 2.7% 4.1% 0.4% 1.9% 0.7% 0.5% 1.7% 3.2% 0.3% 0.3% 1.1% 1.6% 0.5% 0.5% 0.3% 0.6% 0.4% 0.5% 0.9% 0.8% 0.9% 1.5% 2.4% 1.0% 1.3% 2.6% 1.7% 5.3% 2.8% 3.5%

Gouge yes yes yes yes no no yes no yes yes yes yes yes no no no no yes no yes yes yes yes no yes no yes yes no yes yes yes yes yes

Severity High High High High Mod. High Mod. High High Mod. Mod. High High High High High Mod. Mod. Low Mod. Mod. High Mod. High High High High Mod. High Mod. High High Mod. High High High High High

FIGURE 1: Multi-dataset in-line inspection tool including oblique, high, and low eld as well as deformation.

sessing damage discovered following an excavation [6] serves as a guide for use during a eld examination of a dent. In sequencing through the decision tree process, many of the conditions may be determined using data from the multiple sensing technologies incorporated into the tool used for these tests. For an ILI tool, dent depth and length are provided via the deformation data, with a high density array capable of providing relatively accurate width information. Field measurements of the deformation dimensions will be compared with the information reported in an ILI survey.

EXPERIMENTALS An experimental set of thirty-four dents and gouges was inserted into a new joint of X-42 grade, 16 diameter pipe with 0.250 thickness using Battelles mechanical damage machine [7]. The machine provides close-loop computer-driven servocontrol of a two-axis system, and computer based data acquisition. Sensors provide control and feedback of loads and displacements, that simulates the long digging arc of a backhoe, as well as the more linear action of bulldozers, graders, scrappers, and rippers. Two types of dents were created: simple plunge type and gouge. Dents 29, 30, and 31 were created at atmospheric pres-

Copyright c 2012 by ASME

sure; all other defects were created while the joint was pressurized to 650 psi. From the Battelle report [8], severity ranking of mechanical damage defects begins with recognition of typical MFL signatures. In the case of a dual eld tool, Battelles high-eld /loweld decoupling algorithm is used to indicate the presence of mechanical damage. The main features to be identied in the decoupled signals in deformation areas are gouge and plow signals, indications of re-rounding and pressure cycling, wall stress, and other stress patterns. The mechanical damage defects are prioritized into ve levels, from high to low, based upon data taken from the deformation sensors, high level MFL, low level MFL, and the decoupled signal. Additionally, for this data set, the inclusion of the helical MFL data provides supplemental conrmation of the presence or absence of axially oriented gouge and plowing within deformation zones. Listed in the order of importance: features with long or short gouges and re-rounding, long or short gouges without re-rounding are the highest priority with features having rerounding and residual dent without gouging, re-rounding with no residual dent or gouge, local stresses without gouging and re-rounding, and nally, residual dent without gouging and rerounding and no stress patterns being assigned lower priority. Additional decision points are given for the decoupled MFL signal; gouge and plow signals can create a distinct pattern while energy levels associated with creating the deformation zones and gouging may have an impact upon the pattern of the typical dipole signal in decoupled data. Gouge lengths may be measured using the decoupled dipole signal or in the helical MFL data. A dent depth greater than 4 percent of pipe wall diameter, the circumferential location (top of pipe), and metal loss detected by the MFL data are additional items used in ranking features. Not included in the severity rankings are the actual material properties, which will have an impact on the defect severity. The Battelle severity ranking system was supplemented by calculating the local material strain. Following the suggestions of Leis et al., if the strain was greater than 6% [1] then the dent ranking was increased by one category. Dent Strain Analysis Method The geometry of material strain analysis may be obtained from actual eld measurements or from an in-line inspection geometry tool with sufcient resolution. In the neighborhood of a dent, the deformed pipe geometry is extracted from the cross sections recorded by the deformation tool. Pipe surface proles are developed in both the circumferential and longitudinal directions. The strain estimation process is based largely on computing the curvature of these sections numerically. To facilitate these computations, smoothing splines are t to the raw proles.

Appendix R of ASME B31.8 is the basic guidance document for the strain estimation formulas in plain dents [9]. In recent years, corrections and enhancements to this baseline model have been proposed in the literature. Noronha et al. noted that there are fundamental errors in the 2003 version of the published ASME equations, and they offered appropriate corrections [10]. In short the equations for circumferential bending strain and longitudinal bending strain are missing a multiplying factor of 1/2 in the 2003 ASME publications. These corrections have been acknowledged by ASME, and the recent 2010 version of B31.8 includes the corrected equations. Gao et al. questioned the ASME formula for longitudinal membrane strain, suggesting that it is not conservative. They proposed a simplied model for the longitudinal prole length using straight line approximations. Their revised membrane strain formula produces longitudinal membrane strain estimates roughly four times higher than those obtained using the original ASME formula [11]. Lukasiewicz et al. proposed a different approach to estimating overall equivalent strain, taken from plasticity theory. They suggest that the original ASME formulas for combining strains could underestimate the equivalent strain by as much as 50% [12]. Strain calculations for the studied dents are reported with the corrections above. RESULTS Dent 25 as shown in Fig. 2 and in Fig. 3 is an 8 x 0.5 gouge placed to 3% depth and subsequently re-rounded to 0.9% deep. The material strain using the deection data for this gouge is 7.3% OD. The long axially signature in the oblique magnetic eld data indicates an axially oriented metal loss; combined with the metal movement signature in the decoupled magnetic data, the feature can be condently characterized as gouging. The area of the low-eld stress pattern is signicantly larger than the area of measured deection indicating re-rounding. Long gouging features in re-rounded regimes with greater than 6% strain would be classied as a high priority mechanical damage indication. For dent 6, (Fig. 4 and Fig. 5), the mechanical damage machine struck the pipe to 7% deep; the resulting smooth dent rerounded to 4.1% in depth. Using Battelles ranking system, the ranking is moderate as a result of the large low-eld halo caused by re-rounding and deformation depth greater than 4%. However, because the OD strain is 11.8%, the ranking the severity becomes moderately high. Dents 28 and 30 demonstrate limitations of only using decoupled data to determine the presence and length of gouging. Dent 28, (Fig. 6 and Fig. 7), is 14 long and is 1.0% deep. Because the gouge is so long the low-eld, high-eld and deformation data appear to indicate two axially interacting dents. The

Copyright c 2012 by ASME

low-eld halo does indicate re-rounding because it is larger than the deformed area. However, in the obliquely angled eld the anomaly is continuous demonstrating a single long axially orientated feature. As a result the ranking of severity becomes high. Dent 30, (Fig. 8 and Fig. 9), is 8 long and was inserted to 4.0% depth with subsequent re-rounding to 2.6%. The Battelle ranking system uses 2 as a decision point for severity. The decoupled signals show the gouge and plow, but, only a length of 2. The oblique data set, however, shows two long, parallel indications. The length of the gouging does rmly place this defect as high severity. Moreover, this defect is particularly severe as two parallel gouges that have experienced re-rounding create compounding material weaknesses. Dent 04, (Fig. 10 and Fig. 11), was created in a two step process. The rst was to create an 8 long gouge at a depth of 3%; secondly, a large 7% plunge was placed immediately upstream. The resulting pattern in the decoupled signal is complicated by the overlapping stresses placed into the pipe. Thus, the extent of gouging is indeterminate. However, in the oblique eld the gouge is visible as light blue. Additionally, a thin deep axial feature in green is contained with the gouge; this is a material tear as seen in Fig. 12, and likely formed in the sidewall of the gouge during the 7% plunge. The gouge and tear categorize this feature as high priority. While using low-eld signals to indicate mechanical damage re-rounding and gouge and plow is effective for plain dents and shorter gouges, complex interacting features and long gouges may not be fully characterized. Therefore, a data set, such as oblique eld, is needed as a supplement to determine the extents of axial oriented features for full severity classication. Additionally, quantifying local strain helps differentiate between dents that while may have similar depth, but in fact, have far different severities.

CONCLUSIONS For mechanical damage, ILI tools using multiple data sets will provide improved detection capabilities as demonstrated in the data presented. The additional information may be used in a process for ranking or prioritizing deformation zones detected in the course of an ILI survey. The absence or presence of zones within the extents of dented regions may be conrmed through the use of multiple magnetic elds. Improved quantication of the severity of mechanical damage continues to be the focus of several research projects sponsored by both governmental and industry groups, improving existing techniques and developing new methods in hopes of increasing the accuracy of mechanical damage assessment. Continued work on severity ranking will concentrate on material toughness to further characterize mechanical damage extent. Follow-on blind eld results will be performed to test this non-traditional ranking system.

REFERENCES [1] Leis, B. N., and Hopkins, P., 2003. Mechanical Damage Gaps Analysis. Tech. Rep. March, PRCI. [2] Cosham, A., and Hopkins, P., 2003. THE EFFECT OF DENTS IN PIPELINES GUIDANCE IN THE PIPELINE DEFECT ASSESSMENT MANUAL. In Proceedings ICPVT-10, pp. 19. [3] Leis, B. N., and Francini, R. B., 1999. Line Pipe Resistance to Outside Force. Tech. rep., PRCI. [4] Bubenik, T. A., Nestleroth, R. J., Davis, B. N., Leis, B. N., Francini, R. B., Crouch, A., Udpa, S., and Afzal, A. K., 2000. In-Line Inspection Technologies for Mechanical Damage and SCC in Pipelines - Final Report. Tech. rep., U. S. Department of Transportation, Ofce of Pipeline Safety. [5] Davis, R. J., and Nestleroth, J. B., 2000. The Manual for Detection, Classication, Analysis and Severity Ranking of Mechanical Damage Defects. Battelle, 505 King Avenue, Columbus Ohio 43201. [6] Integrity Management Program Delivery Order. Tech. rep., U.S. DOT. [7] Anon., 1998. DOT OPS Mechanical Damage Defect Set Series 1. Interim Report Contract Number DTRS56-96-C0010, Battelle, June. [8] Massopust, P., Torres, C., and Dean, A., 2003. Improving In-Line Inspection for Mechanical Damage in Natural Gas Pipelines. Tech. rep., GRI, Des Plaines, IL. [9] A MERICAN S OCIETY OF M ECHANICAL E NGINEERS, 2003. ASME B31.8 Gas Tramsission & Distribution Piping Systems. New York. [10] Noronha Jr., D. B., Martins, R. R., Jacob, B. P., and Souza, E., 2005. The use of b-splines in the assessment of strain levels associated with plain dents. Rio Pipeline Conference. IBP1245-05. [11] Gao, M., McNealy, R., and Krishnamurthy, R., 2008. Strain-based models for dent assessment - a review. In Proceedings of the ASME International Pipeline Conference. IPC2008-64565. [12] Lukasiewicz, S. A., Czyz, J. A., Sun, C., and Adeeb, S., 2006. Calculation of strains in dents based upon highresolution in-line caliper survey. In Proceedings of the ASME International Pipeline Conference. IPC2006-10101.

Copyright c 2012 by ASME

FIGURE 3: Photo of dent N25.

FIGURE 2: Multidata set signals of dent N25

Copyright c 2012 by ASME

FIGURE 5: Photo of dent N06.

FIGURE 4: Multidata set signals of dent N06

Copyright c 2012 by ASME

FIGURE 7: Photo of dent N28.

FIGURE 6: Multidata set signals of dent N28

Copyright c 2012 by ASME

FIGURE 9: Photo of dent N30.

FIGURE 8: Multidata set signals of dent N30

Copyright c 2012 by ASME

FIGURE 11: Photo of dent complex dent N04.

FIGURE 12: Gouge of N04 in greater detail. Arrow points to tear

on gouge side wall.

FIGURE 10: Multidata set signals of dent N04. Arrow pointing to crack signal.

Copyright c 2012 by ASME