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

ILI Validation – Overview And Case Studies

ILI Validation – Overview And Case Studies
Available for download

The pipeline industry strives to keep pipelines running safely and reliably.  The process involves many steps, specialized groups, and decisions:1, 2, 3

1. The group that chooses the lines or segments to be inspected with in-line inspection (ILI).  This work entails choosing the ILI tools for the anticipated integrity threat.

2. The ILI tool runs to detect and identify defects.

3. Maintenance, repair, and excavation digs.   

4. The ILI validation.

5. Defect growth predictions and risk-based programs to establish maintenance and repair practices. 

Product Number: 51322-18144-SG
Author: Ana Benz
Publication Date: 2022
Industries: Pipelines, Tanks, and Underground Systems , Coatings
$0.00
$20.00
$20.00

The pipeline industry strives to keep pipelines running safely and reliably. The process involves many steps, including selecting the lines/segments to be inspected with in-line inspection (ILI); maintenance, repair, digs; ILI validation; growth predictions and risk-based programs to establish maintenance and repair practices. Most operators' programs start with in-line inspections, which generate large data sets and provide interpretations about the pipeline integrity without a validation process. Although ILI information is thorough, it is generated by non-destructive and/or indirect measurements. As with any non-destructive examination (NDE) technique, comparisons must be made to direct observations and measurements to ensure accuracy. This paper overviews validation of the ILI data through four case studies: determining whether the tool is functioning per its listed specification, discussing the applicability of validating crack tool ILI runs and presenting two examples of feature misidentification by the ILI tool. Together, these case studies demonstrate the importance of validating ILI data to ensure the integrity of the pipeline is adequately assessed. 

The pipeline industry strives to keep pipelines running safely and reliably. The process involves many steps, including selecting the lines/segments to be inspected with in-line inspection (ILI); maintenance, repair, digs; ILI validation; growth predictions and risk-based programs to establish maintenance and repair practices. Most operators' programs start with in-line inspections, which generate large data sets and provide interpretations about the pipeline integrity without a validation process. Although ILI information is thorough, it is generated by non-destructive and/or indirect measurements. As with any non-destructive examination (NDE) technique, comparisons must be made to direct observations and measurements to ensure accuracy. This paper overviews validation of the ILI data through four case studies: determining whether the tool is functioning per its listed specification, discussing the applicability of validating crack tool ILI runs and presenting two examples of feature misidentification by the ILI tool. Together, these case studies demonstrate the importance of validating ILI data to ensure the integrity of the pipeline is adequately assessed. 

Product tags
Also Purchased
Guidelines for the Collection of Reliable and Practicable ECDA Indirect Inspection Data
Available for download

Guidelines For The Collection Of Reliable And Practicable ECDA Indirect Inspection Data

Product Number: 51322-17978-SG
Author: Miqdaad Fatakdawala
Publication Date: 2022
$20.00

The External Corrosion Direct Assessment (ECDA) is formally listed as an acceptable integrity assessment method within Subpart O, Part 192 of the code of federal regulations regarding gas transmission pipeline integrity management2.  It is a 4 step continuous improvement process to identify and address locations where external corrosion activity has occurred, is occurring or may occur1. In the pre-assessment phase, a comprehensive right-of-way inspection is performed, and pipeline operability data is collected to verify the feasibility of conducting a full ECDA for the pipeline under evaluation. In the indirect inspection phase, the status of cathodic protection and pipeline coating is tested using methods such as Close Interval Potential Surveys (CIPS) and Direct Current Voltage Gradient (DCVG) surveys.
Picture for 05164 Assessment of ILI Tool Performance
Available for download

05164 Assessment of ILI Tool Performance

Product Number: 51300-05164-SG
ISBN: 05164 2005 CP
Author: Guy Desjardins, Morrison Scientific
$20.00
Picture for Validating ILI run with and without Data Loss
Available for download

Validating ILI run with and without Data Loss

Product Number: MPWT19-14353
Author: Ahmad Al Saif
Publication Date: 2019
$0.00

In-Line Inspection (ILI) technology is considered one of the safest and most efficient and reliable inspection method to inspect hydrocarbon pipelines. The retrieved data are usually validated and verified upon successful completion of the inspection. This paper is intended to introduce a new approach to validate the ILI run based on a statistical analysis comparing the new ILI run with a previous ILI run of the same pipeline by leveraging a root mean square (RMS) model to quantify the similarity between the datasets. API-1163 and Canadian Energy Pipeline Association (CEPA) offer consistent criteria as a validation methodology for a new ILI run. Also, this paper will demonstrate a new scoring criterion for accepting Magnetic Flux Leakage (MFL) runs with partial data loss as number of MFL runs experience unexpected data loss, which might affect the minimum reporting threshold of the tool. The approach will help pipeline operators to identify the criticality of the missed data via a detailed comparison with the previous MFL run for the same pipeline and detailed analysis of the behavior of the tool during the run. The scoring criteria is aligned with the Pipeline Operators Forum (POF) requirements for data loss. Multiple case studies extracted from actual data will be presented throughout the paper.
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