ASSESSING MECHANICAL DAMAGE

USING MULTIPLE DATA SETS IN ILI

Abel Lopes
Market Development Manager EH
14th November 2012

www.tdwilliamson.com

Registered trademarks of T.D. Williamson, Inc. in the United States and in foreign countries. Copyright 2012

Failure Causes

Source: 8th Report of the European Gas Pipeline Incident Data Group

Failure Causes

Source: Performance of European cross-country oil pipelines

Statistical summary of reported spillages in 2010 and since 1971
Prepared by the CONCAWE Oil Pipelines Management Groups Special Task Force on oil pipeline spillages (OP/STF-1)

Technology Limitations
Introduction

TDW Offer
SPIRALL/MDS

Value of Multiple Datasets

MFL w/IDOD
Volumetric Anomalies
Mill Anomalies
Extra Metal
Internal/External Classification
Dents

Planar versus Volumetric

Axially oriented Anomalies
Metal Loss in Seamless Pipe
SMFL Metal Loss crossing Girth Welds
Gouging
Narrow Axial
Corrosion
Selective Seam
Corrosion
Planar / Crack-like
Seam Anomalies
Volumetric
Anomalies (pipe body
or seam)
Mill Anomalies

Dent with Volumetric

Metal Loss

DEF
Dents with Metal Loss
Pipe Characteristic Changes
Gouging/ML without dent
Dent with
residual
stress

Residual / Low Field

Magnetization
Permiability Anomalies Hard spots
Mechanical Stress
Pipe Characteristic Changes

Ovalities
Dents
Misalignments
Other bore changes

Axial MFL

Axial MFL
Circumferential Slotting

Normalized Defect Width, W/A

Circumferential Grooving

Axial MFL

General

Pitting

Axial Grooving

1
Pinhole
0

Axial Slotting
1

3
4
5
Normalized Defect Length, L/A

SpirALL MFL Technology

SpirALL MFL Technology

Circumferential Slotting

Normalized Defect Width, W/A

Circumferential Grooving

General

Pitting

Axial Grooving

SpirALL MFL
1
Pinhole
0

10

Axial Slotting
1

3
4
5
Normalized Defect Length, L/A

SpirALL MFL Technology

Magnetizer
SMFL concept enables Multiple DataSet platform

11

Axial MFL + SMFL

12

Axial MFL + SMFL

Circumferential Slotting

Normalized Defect Width, W/A

Circumferential Grooving

Axial MFL

General

Overlap = Enhanced
Characterization

Pitting

Axial Grooving

SpirALL MFL

1
Pinhole
0

13

Axial Slotting
1

3
4
5
Normalized Defect Length, L/A

Axial MFL + SMFL

16-inch inspection tool runs indicated that SpirALL MFL technology

successfully identifies narrow axial defects that normally would not be
reported by axial MFL alone.

MFL

14

SMFL

Axial MFL + SMFL

15

By combining axial MFL with SpirALL MFL in the same run, it

becomes possible to identify the anomaly as a metal loss feature that
happens to be in the seam weld instead of a crack-like feature in the
seam

The Multiple DataSet Advantage

16

Single Dataset MFL

17

Multiple Datasets

18

Characterization
Metal Loss crossing and within a girth weld

MFL

19

SMFL

Characterization
Mechanical Damage

MFL data not able to capture

anomaly extent

20

SMFL data - reported accurately as

continuous anomalies

Characterization
Axial (Planar) Defects

21

Characterization
Seam Weld Defects

22

Characterization
Planar / Crack-like Anomalies

SMFL

MFL
Long Seam

Seam Anomalies

23

Characterization
Planar / Crack-like Anomalies
Anomaly 1, 2 and 3 (left to right): zoomed in SMFL screenshot with dig photo

24

Descr.

ILI %

Field %

ILI
Length
(mm)

Field
Length
(mm)

ILI Width
(mm)

Field
Width
(mm)

Planar

19

16

109

140

1.3

Linear

Planar

29

14

61

73

1.8

Linear

Planar

15

16

188

198

2.0

Linear

Residual and Low Field MFL

25

Residual and Low Field

Time

26

Two different steel lattices will produce two different

residual measurements (1,2)

This happens with hard spots, heat affected zones, and

stress.

Hardness

BMFL max saturation

Steel Microstructure

27

Steel Microstructure
Low Carbon

28

Steel Microstructure (High-carbon)

High Carbon

29

Hard Spot / Crack

30

Analysis of High-Collapse Grade P110 Coupling Failures - A Case Study by Stork Materials

Mechanical Damage

31

Re-rounded versus Cycled Dents

32

Re-rounded versus Cycled Dents

Re-rounded dent
signature
33

Cycled dent signature,

notice the strong
halo effect

Strain Calculations

34

ASME B31.8 provides non-mandatory Appendix R which outlines methods

for estimating strains in a dent
Enhancements to the ASME formulas, suggested by recent industry
research, have been incorporated
Computations can be carried out using high resolution deformation data
Local dent strain can be estimated by analyzing the deformed shape
The Battelle prioritization model is then supplemented:
If a dent exhibits strain > 6% then considered higher priority

Prioritization
H ig h

Low

M a g n e t iz a t io n

M a g n e t iz a t io n

D a ta

D a ta

A p p ly
D e c o u p lin g

D e c o u p le d
Yes

No

S ig n a l?

Mechanical Damage
Utilization of Battelle Mechanical Damage
Prioritization Model developed in 2002
PRCI L52084
Supplemented with:
Dent Strain
SMFL for gouging and metal loss
Proximity to girth and seam weld
No

R e s id u a l

Yes

No

M e ta l

No

Loss?

Yes

No

G ouge

R e r o u n d in g

D e n t?

Yes No

H a lo ?

R e s id u a l

Yes

P lo w in g

No

Top of
P ip e ?

No

Yes

S ig n a l?

D e n t?

No

Yes

S ig n a l?

Yes

M e ta l

Yes

No

No

R e s id u a l

Loss?

Yes

D e n t?

35

C y c lic

Loads?

Yes

No

R e s id u a l

Yes

D e n t?

Low

M o d -L o w

M o d e ra te

M o d - H ig h

H ig h

P r io r it y

P r io r it y

P r io r it y

P r io r it y

P r io r it y

Prioritization

36

Case Study

37

Conclusion

38

Individual technologies have limitations when used independently as

defined by NACE SP0102-2010

Multiple Datasets (DEF+SMFL+MFL+RES):

Overcome limitations of individual technologies
Provide clarity of axial anomalies, and because of combination of
Axial MFL with SpirALL,
More effectively detects and characterizes crack-like and metal loss
anomalies whether seam or pipe body
Accurately detects and characterizes 3rd party damage for
prioritization
Will ultimately translates into greater accuracy of results
Proven to eliminate unnecessary seam anomaly excavations

Thank You!
Trusted Performance / Innovative Solutions

39