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.
Use GIVING24 at checkout to save 20% on eCourses and books (some exclusions apply)!
The range of factors affecting the susceptibility of equipment to corrosion under insulation (CUI)are numerous. Some of these factors might be controlled through better design, more robustinstallation procedures, and using better quality coatings. However, there are other risk factors such as operating temperature, material type, and environmental conditions that cannot be easily modified.
Online Risk Monitoring and risk reduction of Corrosion Under Insulation (CUI) is described for use in critical industrial assets using Electro-Magnetic Guided Radar (EMGR) technique and with API 581 guidelines. Risk Based Inspection (RBI) is used to optimize the inspection plan but risk can be reduced with more field data about asset condition. Often inspection plan can be inefficient for CUI in critical assets where either over-inspection or under-inspection scenarios exist. A remote Risk Monitoring system using Electro-Magnetic Guided Radar (EMGR) is described in this paper. This technology involves use of sensors embedded in the insulation and a data logger transmits data wirelessly to a central server. Risk analysis and localization for CUI risk severity are then accessed by the end user to help optimize CUI inspection plan. This provides important data for asset managers to plan, schedule and target their efforts. This presentation will describe in more detail the principles of the technique and recent case studies from various deployments in the context of energy transition to low carbon fuels.
Traditional Corrosion Growth Rate (CGR) models used in the integrity assessment of corroded pipelines are deterministic. A common Magnetic Flux Leakage (MFL) inline inspection (ILI) tool performance specification on general corrosion anomaly depth is +/- 10% Wall Thickeness (WT) at 80% confidence which corresponds to a standard deviation of 7.81% WT. Probabilistic Corrosion Growth Rate (PCGR) models incorporate these large measurement uncertainties and provide more realistic reliability assessments
We are unable to complete this action. Please try again at a later time.
If this error continues to occur, please contact AMPP Customer Support for assistance.
Error Message:
Please login to use Standards Credits*
* AMPP Members receive Standards Credits in order to redeem eligible Standards and Reports in the Store
You are not a Member.
AMPP Members enjoy many benefits, including Standards Credits which can be used to redeem eligible Standards and Reports in the Store.
You can visit the Membership Page to learn about the benefits of membership.
You have previously purchased this item.
Go to Downloadable Products in your AMPP Store profile to find this item.
You do not have sufficient Standards Credits to claim this item.
Click on 'ADD TO CART' to purchase this item.
Your Standards Credit(s)
1
Remaining Credits
0
Please review your transaction.
Click on 'REDEEM' to use your Standards Credits to claim this item.
You have successfully redeemed:
Go to Downloadable Products in your AMPP Store Profile to find and download this item.
While performing cathodic protection surveys, carrier pipe and casing potential readings are typically recorded at the same test station location near the end of a casing. Comparing these potentials should reveal a difference between the cathodically protected pipe versus an unprotected and electrically isolated casing. The difference in potentials is one of available tests to determine whether a casing may be electrically shorted to the carrier pipe. The pipe-to-electrolyte and casing-to-electrolyte potential comparison is usually the initial “screening” method.
The production of hydrocarbons from a reservoir involves the drilling and interaction of a well with a reservoir, which initiates the natural flow of the hydrocarbons from the virgin reservoir to the surface. However, as production continues, the reservoir pressure is depleted, which results in a reduction of the hydrocarbon production rate due to reservoir maturity. This is usually accompanied by increased water-cut levels and a corresponding decrease in gas production, which may not only reduce but completely stop the flow of fluids from a well.