Server maintenance is scheduled for Saturday, December 21st between 6am-10am CST.

During that time, parts of our website will be affected until maintenance is completed. Thank you for your patience.

Menu
Search
Filters
Close
Menu

Field Experience On Why Pipeline In-Line Inspections (ILI) Fail

Picture for Field Experience On Why Pipeline In-Line Inspections (ILI) Fail
Available for download
Product Number: 51321-16884-SG
Author: Itoro L. Akrasi; Mohammad S. Hamaqi; Tawfiq I. Hathloul; Abdullah F. Almakinzi; Abdulaziz A. Naim
Publication Date: 2021
$0.00
$20.00
$20.00

Pipeline in-line inspection (ILI) is a reliable technique to evaluate and assess the integrity of pipelines.
Multiple technologies are currently deployed for ILI. The most widely used include; Magnetic Flux leakage (MFL), Ultrasonic (UT), Electromagnetic Acoustic Transducer (EMAT) and Eddy Current (EC). ILI is used to identify different anomalies and defects, to prevent pipeline leaks or ruptures that will result in production loss and/or adverse environmental impact. Extensive planning is required before running an ILI tool in a pipeline. Even with extensive and rigorous planning between pipeline owners/operators and the ILI vendors, some ILI runs fail. This paper will discuss field experience as to why some pipeline ILI runs fail. It will also discuss key factors to consider during pre-planning and preparation, to minimize the potential for ILI failure. Several of these factors include understanding all pipeline physical parameters, compliance with ILI vendor tool operational limits; such as magnetization capability, velocity, differential pressure and temperature requirements, and compliance with sound operational practices for launching and receiving of ILI tools. It is essential to identify the root cause(s) of an ILI failure to avoid reoccurrence.

Pipeline in-line inspection (ILI) is a reliable technique to evaluate and assess the integrity of pipelines.
Multiple technologies are currently deployed for ILI. The most widely used include; Magnetic Flux leakage (MFL), Ultrasonic (UT), Electromagnetic Acoustic Transducer (EMAT) and Eddy Current (EC). ILI is used to identify different anomalies and defects, to prevent pipeline leaks or ruptures that will result in production loss and/or adverse environmental impact. Extensive planning is required before running an ILI tool in a pipeline. Even with extensive and rigorous planning between pipeline owners/operators and the ILI vendors, some ILI runs fail. This paper will discuss field experience as to why some pipeline ILI runs fail. It will also discuss key factors to consider during pre-planning and preparation, to minimize the potential for ILI failure. Several of these factors include understanding all pipeline physical parameters, compliance with ILI vendor tool operational limits; such as magnetization capability, velocity, differential pressure and temperature requirements, and compliance with sound operational practices for launching and receiving of ILI tools. It is essential to identify the root cause(s) of an ILI failure to avoid reoccurrence.

Product tags
Also Purchased
Picture for 01627 PIPELINE CORROSION MANAGEMENT
Available for download

01627 PIPELINE CORROSION MANAGEMENT

Product Number: 51300-01627-SG
ISBN: 01627 2001 CP
Author: Jane Dawson, Julia Race, Stephen Peet and Ravi Krishnamurthy
$20.00
Picture for 04182 ILI Reporting for Pipeline Integrity
Available for download

04182 ILI Reporting for Pipeline Integrity Management Programs

Product Number: 51300-04182-SG
ISBN: 04182 2004 CP
Author: Martin Phillips, Daniel Soenjoto, Michiel P. Brongers, and Patrick H. Vieth, CC Technologies Inc.
$20.00
Picture for 07132 In-Line Inspection Performance Verification
Available for download

07132 In-Line Inspection Performance Verification

Product Number: 51300-07132-SG
ISBN: 07132 2007 CP
Author: Richard McNealy, Roger McCann, and Ming Gao
Publication Date: 2007
$20.00

Analytical methods for verification of assumed performance metrics, in terms of sizing are presented in this paper. The application of methods and criteria described in API 1163 for rejection and acceptance of assumed tool tolerance are discussed.
Categories
Industry
Recently viewed
Popular tags
View all

Association for Materials Protection and Performance

© AMPP All Rights Reserved.
Membership Terms of Content Use
Contact Customer Support