You are on page 1of 8

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

IPC2012-90499

A Combined Approach to Characterization of Dent with Metal Loss


Rick Yahua Wang, Richard Kania TransCanada Pipeline Limited Calgary, Alberta, Canada Udayasankar Arumugam, Ming Gao Blade Energy Partners Houston, Texas, USA

ABSTRACT Current in-line inspection technologies (e.g., Caliper/MFL or Combo) for mechanical damage characterization can detect dent with metal loss but with limited ability to discriminate metal loss between corrosion, gouge and crack with certainty. There are also some cases that metal loss signals were detected but not reported by ILI vendors because of either signals below threshold for reporting or other reasons. Practical experience showed that, with assistance of strain based dent analysis and strain limit damage criteria; detailed characterization of MFL tri-axial signals could effectively facilitate to discriminate metal loss features and identify potential risk of cracks or gouges in the dent. In this paper, the newly developed approach is utilized to identify the critical dents in the pipelines and discriminate those dents associated with metal loss reported by combined ILI technologies. A case study was performed with four real dent features, as an example to demonstrate the effectiveness of this approach. The details of the case study, results and findings are summarized in this paper. INTRODUCTION Pipelines constructed in mountain or rocky territory is vulnerable to damages such as denting. In-line inspection (ILI) of these pipelines often reports thousands of dent features. Some of them are associated with corrosion, gouge and/or cracks. Since current ILI technologies are incapable, or, with limited capability, of discriminating between

corrosion and crack/gouge, ILI venders generally report it as dent associated with metal loss without distinguishing. Because a dent associated with corrosion can be assessed separately as per ASME B31.8 guidelines while a dent with crack/gouge could pose immediate threat to pipeline integrity, it is a great challenge to discriminate between corrosion and crack/gouge, and identify dent with crack or/and with gouge from dents with metal loss. TransCanada has recently developed an in-house dent assessment procedure, which combines the dent strain assessment with characterization of MFL signal to discriminate dent with crack/gouge from dent with metal loss. In this paper, the basis of this combined approach is described first. Predictions are made of 8 dents with cracks/gouges out of a total 4,823 dents with or without reported metal loss by two recent in-line inspections. All the predictions are validated with excavations. Among the 8 dents, 2 are associated with through-wall crack and being leaking during excavation. Examples of this approach and its impact to integrity management of dent are illustrated. APPROACH The approach developed for identifying dent with crack and discriminating dent with crack/gouge from dent with metal loss composed of two component criteria: strain severity based criterion and MFL signal characteristics criterion.

Copyright 2012 by ASME

The strain severity based criterion is used to assess dent susceptibility to cracking. Only those dents meet this strain criterion will be considered as candidates for further investigation with the MFL signal characteristics review criterion. Dents that meet the strain based criterion are a prerequisite and a must (necessary condition) regardless if the dent was reported as a plain dent or dent with metal loss. The MFL signal characteristics criterion is used to determine (1) if the candidate dents are indeed plain dents without any suspicious MFL signal associated with and (2) if the MFL signals reported as metal loss are more likely associated with corrosion or cracking/gouging. This criterion is complemented and sufficient condition for discriminating dent with crack/gouge from plain dent and dent with metal loss. Limited experience showed that this combined approach is able to effectively identify dent with crack for thousands of ILI reported dents, and will be illustrated later in this paper. The following are the procedures used for the assessment: Review the dent geometry and make an inference about the severity of the dent from its geometry. Perform strain analysis using the ILI reported dent profile data and determine the maximum equivalent strain. Calculate the upper bound Ductile Failure Damage Indicator (DFDI) for each dent. Select those dents with DFDI value equal or exceeding 0.6 as candidates for detail review and characterization of MFL signal regardless if the dent was reported as plain dent or dent with metal loss. Review the characteristics of MFL signal in the dent region to determine if the signal is an indication of metal loss and classify the metal loss into crack or gouge or corrosion. Finally, make a dig selection based on the combined findings using the above discussed steps and proceed with field investigation and validation.

available in literatures[1,2]. These strain models often utilize the dent axial and circumferential profiles reported by multichannel ILI geometry tool, which calculates the component strains, bending and membrane strain both in the axial and circumferential and the combined total, or equivalent strain for each point reported by ILI within the dent. Then, the maximum equivalent strain of the dent is identified and compared with strain acceptance limit as per ASME B31.8 or other qualified strain limit criteria. The strain based approach can eliminate or minimize dent depth discrepancies due to, in general, poor correlation with mechanical damage. In this study, Ductile Failure Damage Indicator (DFDI)[6] is adopted as a criterion for selecting candidate dents for further investigation. The detailed discussion of DFDI is given in a companion paper[6] of this conference. For the present study, a simplified upper bound DFDI equation is used:

DFDI upperbound =

eq 0
1.65

where, eq is the equivalent strain (geometric strain) calculated using ILI dent profile and o is the critical strain of the material. The critical strain (true strain) of pipe material is measured from material testing and usually in the range of 0.3 to 0.5. For this study, a lower value of 0.3 is used. In general, dent is susceptible to cracking when DFDI 1. For conservatism and screening purpose, a conservative DFDI value of 0.6 is used as a criterion (DFDI 0.6) to determine if detail MFL signal review for the dent of interest is required. REVIEW OF MFL SIGNAL CHARACTERISTIC OF DENT WITH MECHANICAL DAMAGE The second component of the combined approach is to review and characterize the associated tri-axial MFL signals for the respective candidate dents. It is known that the tri-axial MFL ILI technology is capable of detecting crack signal(s) from the dent[7-9]. However, when the signal(s) are below the reportable threshold, the dent may be reported as plain dent. In other cases, signals are reportable, yet the ILI tool is incapable of differentiating or discriminating cracking/gouging from corrosion according to signal(s) alone, therefore, ILI vendors commonly report them as metal loss. Sometimes, due to lack of experience, data analysts may ignore or dismiss the signals even though they are visible or reportable. When characterizing the MFL signals in combining with the dent strain level, a new insight is gained into ones mind: some unique features of the signals may be associated with crack(s) in dent. Therefore, an approach is developed which combines characterizations of dent strain severity and triaxial

In the following sections, a more detailed discussion on each of the criterion is given. DENT STRAIN SEVERITY BASED CRITERION Dent is a permanent damage of pipeline by local plastic deformation. Dent severity and its susceptibility to cracking, can be assessed using plastic damage criterion. Dent with high strain could be potentially associated with cracks. Recently, the strain based assessment models[1-4] are increasingly accepted and used in the pipeline industry to determine the dent severity for prioritizing field investigation and remediation. ASME B31.8 Appendix R[5] provides a nonmandatory strain assessment and other improved methods are

Copyright 2012 by ASME

MFL signal to identify potential risk of plain dents containing cracks and discriminate cracking/gouging from metal loss. Whenever a dent is reported with metal loss, it is important to carefully review the MFL signal characteristics. There are few steps involved in this to classify the metal loss such as crack or gouge or corrosion. The following are some of the thumb rules used for this study: First, find out how many metal loss features within the dent region, for example, only one isolated metal loss signal or many features clustered. If it is a single strong MFL signal and located at the dent apex or highest strain spot in the dent, then the metal loss feature is most likely to be a crack. If there are many general metal loss signals distributed within the dent area, then it is most likely to be corrosion. If there is a strong metal loss feature signal located at dent apex or highest strain spot surrounded with general shallower metal loss features, then it is probably either a gouge or crack. If there is a strong metal loss feature signal oriented circumferentially and located at dent apex or highest strain spot, then it is probably associated with gouge.

through-wall cracks and were leaking (refer Case-3) after excavations. The following are the four cases that illustrate the effectiveness of the combined approach in capture of the risk of dent with crack/gouging. Case-1: Dent Associated with Branched Cracks A combined caliper and tri-axial MFL ILI reported a bottom side 2.7% OD dent associated with 76% metal loss. The strain analysis of this dent using ILI dent profile showed 17.6% (see Figure 1). In addition, the calculated DFDI for this dent is 0.97, which meets the first criterion (strain severity criterion) for further the MFL signal characterization.

Although the above rule of thumb appears to be quite simple and straightforward, it requires good experience in analyzing and discriminate the MFL signal data, and is still in progress. CASE STUDY A case study was performed utilizing the two recent combo MFL/Caliper inspections. The inspection reported thousands of dents. First, these were quickly screened based on the strain value, which was calculated using the in-house point-topoint dent strain assessment software with the ILI reported dent profile data. Then, calculated the DFDI value for all dents and ranked in the descending order. A DFDI limit was set to 0.6 values to identify those dents that require detail review of MFL signal, in addition to all reported dent with metal loss. This limit was chosen based on the conservative material critical strain and will be fine-tuned in the future based on the future excavation and feedback. Finally, careful examination of MFL signal was performed within the dent region for the short-listed dents. Then, appropriate mitigation was prepared and went after the field investigation for those short-listed dents. At the end, eight dents were short-listed and performed detail review of MFL signal characteristics and selected for excavations. The excavation showed that, among the eight dents, one that ILI reported as dent associated with 76% metal loss was correctly discriminated by the developed approach as dent with crack and three that were reported as plain dents were correctly identified as dents with crack/gouge. The field investigation further showed that 2 of the 3 dents contained

Figure 1: Max. eqv. strain (modified eq) plot Case-1 Figures 2 and 3 are the MFL signal screen shots of the dent, showing a strong single deep metal loss indication located at the dent apex. The type of signal is typical for pit metal loss. However, because it is coincident with the dent apex where the strain is highest, and there are no other metal loss signals or clusters around this single sharp signal in the dent area, indicating that the associated 76% metal loss is most likely a crack. Therefore, this dent was selected for an immediate excavation.

Copyright 2012 by ASME

Figure 2: Screen shot showing the Case-1 dent with mechanical damage (Axial view)

Figure 5: Picture showing the Case-1 dent associated with crack Case-2: Dent Associated with Gouge (DNT #2872) The dent #2872 is a top side dent with 2.7% OD (20mm) in depth. It is noted that this dent was reported as plain dent because the metal loss signal was below the reportable threshold. The strain analysis was performed on this dent (#2872) using the ILI dent profile data, which is about 16.9% strain (see Figure 6). The high strain level associated with dent indicates that the dent may contain crack or gouge. In addition to this, the calculate DFDI for this dent is 0.9, which indicates that this dent is required for detail review and characterization of MFL signal.

Figure 3: Screen shot showing the Case -1 dent with mechanical damage (Radial view) Following the excavation, an in-ditch investigation was conducted. Figures 4-5 show the in-ditch examination of this dent feature, which clearly showed the dent is associated with branched cracks emitted from the apex of the dent, but no leak was detected.

Figure 4: In-ditch examination of the Case-1 dent

Figure 6: Max. equivalent strain (modified equation) plot Case-2

Copyright 2012 by ASME

Figures 7-8 are MFL signal screen shots of this dent. The MFL screen shots indicate that it is not a typical plain dent signal. There is a metal loss signal inside the dent but not like the deep pit signal in Case-1. The metal loss signal appears to be in the circumferential orientation and quite blunt, suggesting that the metal loss is more likely a gouge oriented circumferentially which gave rise to a wider but blunt circumferential signal.

Figure 9: In-ditch picture showing the case-2 dent associated with gouge

Figure 7: MFL signal showing the Case-2 dent associated with gouge (Axial view)

Figure 10: Close-up view of the gouge of the Case-2 dent associated with gouge

Case-3: Two Leaked dents (DNT #1718 & #1724) Figure 8: MFL signal showing the Case-2 dent associated with gouge (Radial view) Since this dent is associated with high strain level with suspicious MFL signal and located at the top side, it was called for excavation. Figure 9 shows the in-ditch examination of this dent feature, which clearly showed the dent is associated with gouge. Figure 10 is a close-up look of the gouge, which shows there are quite a few axial cracks that were initiated. A combo inspection of another pipe segment reported 1750 dents. First, dent severity screening was done using strain calculation. Based on the high strain level and DFDI criteria, eight dents were shortlisted for detail MFL signal review and characterization. Following MFL review, two dents (DNT1718 & DNT1724) were identified for further investigation and excavation. These two dents were later found to be associated with through-wall crack and leaking. The strain analysis result, MFL review and field findings of these two dents are summarized and as follows.

Copyright 2012 by ASME

DENT #1718: Again, ILI reported this dent as a plain dent located at the bottom side of the pipe and having depth of 4.4% OD (33.5mm). The maximum equivalent strain associated with this dent is 10.2% (see Figure 11). The calculated DFDI is 0.6, which meets the limit and warranting for review of MFL signal characteristics.

Figure 13: MFL signal showing the Leaked dent #1718 (Radial view) Since this dent is associated with high strain level with suspicious MFL signal and at the bottom side of the pipe, it was called for excavation. Figure 14 shows the in-ditch excavation. During the excavation, attempt was made to remove the broken rock (constraint) by hand and an audible leak was detected, indicating a dent with through-wall crack. After sandblasting the cut-out, a ~70mm circumferential through wall crack can be seen by visual inspection.

Figure 11: Maximum equivalent strain (modified eq) plotLeaked dent #1718 Figures 12-13 show the MFL screen shots of dent #1718. The MFL signal indicates that it is not a plain dent signal. There is sharp signal (blue peak inside the dent) that is not typical corrosion signal. It is more circumferential orientated than axial direction, indicating either a crack or gouge.

Figure 14: In-ditch picture showing the Leaked dent #1718

Figure 12: MFL signal showing the Leaked dent #1718

Copyright 2012 by ASME

(#1724) is associated with a through wall crack. During the excavation, the gas monitoring detected 33% LEL. Figure 20 shows a close-up view of (a) OD crack, and (b) ID crack after cut out. The field investigation further indicated that the crack was oriented mostly in axial direction (Figure 20), however, at the end of the crack, the tail changes the direction to 45 degrees. Most likely this is the location that the MFL picked up the flux leakage (metal loss) signal.

Figure 15: In-ditch picture showing the Leaked dent #1718 DENT # 1724: This dent is also reported as a plain dent located at 5:47 oclock with depth of 4.1% OD (31.2mm). The maximum equivalent strain associated with this dent is 15(see Figure 16). The calculated DFDI is 0.8, which exceeded the limit set for requesting detail review of MFL signal characteristics.

Figure 17: MFL signal showing the Leaked dent #1724

Figure 16: Max equivalent strain (modified eq) plot Leaked dent #1724 Figures 17-18 show the MFL screen shots of dent 1724. Again this is not a plain dent signal. However, initially it was not fully understood why there were two sharp metal loss signals inside the dent but from the sharpness, the metal loss feature is more likely a crack or gouge. Since this dent is associated with high strain level with suspicious MFL signal, it was called for excavation. Figure 19 shows the in-ditch excavation. It was found that this dent

Figure 18: MFL signal showing the Leaked dent #1724 (Radial view)

Copyright 2012 by ASME

The limited examples showed the success of the developed approach, however, studies and refinement of the criteria are still in progress and will be reported in later days. REFERENCE 1. Lukasiewicz, S. A., Czyz, J. A., Sun, C., Adeeb, S. Calculation of Strains in Dents Based on High Resolution In-Line Caliper Survey, IPC2006, Paper No. 10101, 6th International Pipeline Conference, Calgary, Canada, September 25-29, 2006. Gao M et al: Strain-Based Models for Dent Assessment A Review, IPC 2008, Paper No. 64565, 7th International Pipeline Conference, Calgary, Canada, Sept. 29 to Oct. 3, 2008. Robert B Francini and Nader Yoosef-Ghodsi: Development of a Model for Predicting the Severity of Pipeline Damage Identified by In-Line Inspection, Pipeline Research Council International (PRCI) Report, PR-218-063511-B, Final Report No. 08-124, December 2008. Arumugam U, Tandon S and Gao M et al: Portable LaserScan For In-ditch Profiling and Strain Analysis: Methodology and Application Development, IPC2010, Paper No.31336, 8th International Pipeline Conference, Calgary, Canada, September 27-October 1, 2010. ASME B31.8 Gas Transmission and Distribution Piping System (2007). Arumugam U, and Gao M et al: Root Cause Analysis of Dent with Crack, IPC2012-90504, Abstract accepted in 8th International Pipeline Conference, Calgary, Canada, September 24-28, 2012. Miller S and Sander F, Advances in Feature Identification using Tri-Axial MFL Sensor Technology, IPC2006, Paper10327, 6th International Pipeline Conference, Calgary, Canada, September 25-29, 2006. Vanessa, Ironside S, Ellis C and Wilkie G, Characterization of Mechanical Damage Through Use of the Tri-axial Magnetic Flux Leakage Technology, IPC2006, Paper10454, 6th International Pipeline Conference, Calgary, Canada, September 25-29, 2006. McNealy R and Gao M et al: Investigate Fundamentals and Performance Improvements of Current In-Line Inspection Technologies for Mechanical Damage Detection, A final report (PR-328-063502) prepared for Pipeline Research Council International (PRCI) Inc., 2007.

2. Figure 19: In-ditch picture showing the Leaked dent #1724 3.

4.

5. 6.

Figure 20: In-ditch picture showing the Leaked dent #1724 SUMMARY A newly developed approach that combines the dent strain analysis, strain limit damage criterion and the MFL signal characterization was successfully employed to the recent combo ILI inspection data as a part of dent integrity management program. The field excavation examinations demonstrated the effectiveness of this combined approach in capture of cracks from thousands of ILI reported plain dents and discriminate dents with cracks from dents associated with metal loss. Predictions are made of 8 dents with cracks/gouges out of a total 4,823 dents with or without reported metal loss by recent two in-line inspections. All the predictions are validated with excavations. Among the 8 dents, one that ILI reported as dent associated with 76% metal loss was correctly discriminated by the developed approach as dent with crack and three that were reported as plain dents were correctly identified as dents with crack/gouge. Out of the 3 dents, two contained through-wall cracks and were leaking (refer Case-3) after excavations.

7.

8.

9.

Copyright 2012 by ASME

You might also like