Annex B

(informative)

In-line Inspection Technologies

B.1 Metal Loss Tools
ILI tools are available for locating and sizing internal and external corrosion-caused metal loss. The generic
technologies preferred for this purpose are:

— high-resolution axial field MFL tools,

— transverse flux MFL (inclusive of circumferential or helical field MFL) tools,

— ultrasonic compression wave tools.

Axial Field MFL Tools—This type of tool establishes a direct magnetic field circuit using the pipe wall as a conductor.
The magnetic field is oriented parallel to the axis of the pipe. Metal loss within the pipe causes flux to leak outside or
inside the pipe wall, and arrays of sensors are used to detect the flux leakage. Most tools use Hall-element sensors
that can detect the absolute flux field even when the tool is not moving. Some older tools use coil-type sensors that
rely on movement of the tool through the flux leakage field to induce a detectable voltage in the coil. The physical
dimensions of the metal loss are inferred from the size and shape of the flux disturbance. The axial orientation of the
flux field makes the tool particularly sensitive to the circumferential width and depth of an anomaly but less sensitive
to its axial length. The length is usually inferred from the location of the beginning and end of the flux disturbance. In
areas of multiple metal loss anomalies, the accuracy of the sizing may vary from vendor to vendor depending on the
criterion a particular vendor uses for “clustering” the anomalies.

The magnetic phenomena are independent of the type of fluid in the pipe, as product does not affect the amount of
magnetism that is coupled into the pipe through brushes or skid plates. The amount of magnetism is affected by
debris and deposits which can increase the separation or liftoff between the steel brushes or skid plates and the pipe.
The tools are fairly insensitive to velocity over the range of typical liquid pipeline flow velocities; tools with coil-type
sensors must be moving at some minimum velocity to work. Axial field tools almost always include a mechanism to
detect when the metal loss is internal and when it is external. An evolving variant of this type of tool uses bi- or tri-
directional hall elements which measure magnetic flux levels in two or more directions. It is believed that the use of
this technology will improve quantitative measurement of clusters of pits and complex corrosion profiles.

Axial field MFL tools have poor capability to sense the presence of axially oriented crack-like anomalies, and are not
particularly good at characterizing “narrow axial external corrosion,” a particular type of external corrosion described
in Annex A that is associated with the “tenting” of tape-type coating over the crown of a submerged arc seam weld.
Such tools cannot be relied upon to detect SSWC either. When used in conjunction with adequate verification
excavations to evaluate sensitivity these tools have been found to be highly reliable for detecting and characterizing
the severity of wide corrosion-caused metal loss (i.e. remaining strength of the pipe) and other volumetric anomalies
but generally have decreased sensitivity to mechanical damage gouges due to the cold working of the metal beneath
the gouge, which affects the magnetic field. Axial field MFL tools are probably the most frequently used type of ILI
tool.

Transverse (Circumferential or Helical) Field MFL Tools—These tools employ a direct magnetic field to detect flux
leakage at metal loss anomalies in much the same manner as the axial field MFL tools. The main difference is that
the field is oriented circumferentially instead of axially. This makes the technology more sensitive to the axial length
and less to the circumferential width of the anomaly. Depths of anomalies are also detectable by this method. The
circumferential orientation of the flux makes it possible to detect narrow axial external corrosion, SSWC, and some
types of crack-like anomalies that arise from pipe manufacturing (e.g. ERW seam anomalies). The user of this type of
tool may be able to better characterize the axial lengths of corrosion-caused metal loss (particularly for narrow axial
95
96 API RECOMMENDED PRACTICE 1160

external corrosion) for the purpose of calculating the effect of an anomaly on remaining strength. Generally, these
tools are capable of identifying the orientation of the long seam, even in ERW pipe. Calculating the remaining strength
at a bond line anomaly such as SSWC by means of standard remaining strength equations for metal loss (i.e.,
RSTRENG, ASME B31G) is not recommended. If accurate values of depth and length are known, then a remaining
strength for a SSWC anomaly ostensibly could be calculated from an operator-selected crack equation. This requires
careful consideration as the bondline toughness values can vary significantly from joint to joint.

Ultrasonic Compression Wave Tools—Ultrasonic compression wave tools are equipped with arrays of individual
ultrasonic transducers that transmit and receive acoustic energy through the transported fluid in the pipeline. This is
an important point because the tools may work better in some fluids than others. They do not work at all in natural
gas, and their performance may be degraded in some lighter hydrocarbons. Two reflections of the signal from each
transducer are transmitted back to the transducer: one from the ID surface of the pipe and one from the OD surface.
The difference in arrival times is calculated from the wave speed and constitutes a direct measure of the wall
thickness at a point. If the arrival time of the first reflection is longer than the arrival time for the standoff distance from
the normal ID pipe surface, the corrosion is assumed to be internal. If the arrival time of the first reflection is the same
as the time for the standoff distance and the arrival time of the second reflection is shorter than the arrival time from
the normal OD surface, the corrosion is assumed to be external. While these tools can be quite accurate and can give
thickness along the length of an anomaly, they have some limitations. Wax or debris or an irregular surface can
prevent a recapture of the return wave resulting in no useful information. High tool velocity within the pipeline can
degrade the signal. At bends the tool sensor standoff distance can change, resulting in misinterpretation of the signal.
At dents with certain curvature, the reflection can be lost resulting in an area of no inspection. If the pipe is
significantly laminated, the signal can be almost entirely reflected by the lamination resulting in unreliable inspection
for external metal loss behind the lamination. These tools have been found to give highly reliable detection and
characterization of corrosion-caused metal loss, and they have been widely used.

B.2 Crack Tools

ILI tools are available for locating and sizing cracks and crack-like anomalies. The generic technologies available for
this purpose are:

— ultrasonic angle beam tools,

— electromagnetic acoustic transducer (EMAT) tools,

— transverse flux MFL (inclusive of circumferential or helical field MFL) tools.

API RP 1176 contains a summary of the commercial ILI tool types and utilization considerations to detect cracks.

B.3 Geometry Tools

ILI tools are available for locating and sizing geometric features such as dents, ovalities, and buckles. The generic
technologies available for this purpose are:

— caliper tools,

— high-resolution geometry tools.

Caliper Tools—Caliper tools employ mechanical arms that contact the inner wall of a pipeline at discrete locations. As
the tool moves along the pipeline, the arms deflect in response to physical irregularities in the circular shape of the
pipe. The recorded deflections reveal the circumferential deviations from circularity and the manner in which they vary
along the axis of the pipe. Using this type of tool, a pipeline operator can locate and characterize dents, ovality, and
buckles in a pipeline segment. The level of accuracy depends on the number of mechanical arms employed and the
number of data channels recorded. At a minimum caliper tools can indicate the maximum height of the geometric
 MANAGING SYSTEM INTEGRITY FOR HAZARDOUS LIQUID PIPELINES 97

anomaly and its overall length. Generally, caliper tools are not sufficiently sensitive to determine curvature of the pipe
wall in the vicinity of a geometric anomaly.

High-resolution Geometry Tools—These tools provide measurements of the position of the centerline and ID surface
of the pipe with a higher degree of accuracy than most caliper tools. The physical locations of the pipe wall may be
sensed by electromagnetic or acoustic signals, and in some tools both position sensors and mechanical arms are
used. The accuracy of the data usually is sufficient to indicate the curvature of the pipe wall in the vicinity of a
geometric anomaly. A pipeline operator using a high-resolution geometry tool may be able to estimate metal strains
as well as to determine the height and length of the anomaly. In such cases, the sharpness of the anomaly which
bears on its potential effect on pipeline integrity can be determined without excavating.

B.4 Pipeline Profile and Alignment Tools

Inertial guidance tools, utilizing very high accuracy optical gyroscopes, are available for detecting changes in profile
and changes in alignment as well as the pipeline centerline that can then be used to locate pipeline equipment and
defects in geographical/photographical based systems. This type of information is useful for locating areas of possible
landslide or settlement that could threaten the integrity of the pipeline as well as looking for coincident geographic
features that would lead to root causes of certain threats being uncovered e.g. low points at crossings coincident with
internal corrosion. Note that having a baseline profile and alignment is necessary to determine from a subsequent
inspection whether a change has occurred.

B.5 Combination Tools

ILI vendors are increasingly offering ILI tools with multiple inspection technologies on a single tool chassis. These
tools offer reduced inspection costs and data that are fully integrated between the technologies on-board. This
capability is particularly helpful in identifying certain threats, such as mechanical damage anomalies (gouge and dent
combinations created by mechanical excavating equipment that require multiple inspection technologies to properly
identify and characterize). Some vendors offer a modular approach to tool design that allows operators the flexibility
to pick which inspection technologies they want on-board. Sometimes the combination of these features in one tool
results in the vendor being able to provide a more accurate depiction of the combination anomaly such as a dent
containing metal loss or better characterizing an anomaly class such as a gouge versus metal loss or SSWC.

B.6 Additional ILI Technologies

Below are some additional ILI technologies that may address various needs:

A two magnetic field level approach to MFL, either low field (below saturation) or residual, can detect pipe material
property changes. This can be useful for the detection and assessment of hard spots, gouging in dents, or localized
residual stresses.

B.7 Using Multiple ILI Technologies

Choosing the most appropriate ILI technology is an important decision in assuring the integrity of a pipeline. An
example tool selection process is illustrated in Figure B.1 and described next. An ILI program should start with a bore
diameter or geometry inspection to assure the safe passage of tools to assess anomalies such as corrosion and
cracking. This is typically followed by an axial MFL tool for the detection of metal loss. The results of the inspections
can help define future tool selection. Since axial MFL has limitations assessing narrow axially aligned corrosion as
discussed in Section A.1, a multi-tool approach would include choosing a different tool for a future inspection. A
circumferential MFL tool would be appropriate in this case to assure axially aligned corrosion anomalies were not
missed or undersized. This circumferential MFL tool can be used to address other threats associated with the
longitudinal seam. Another situation could be use of an ultrasonic wall thickness tool after an axial MFL tool.
Examples for this approach include pipelines that have a large number of corrosion anomalies of significant depth or
when axial MFL results are not meeting specification. An analysis of the results may produce a recommendation that
the axial MFL inspection be repeated in the next cycle. This approach may be used to establish a corrosion growth
98 API RECOMMENDED PRACTICE 1160

rate. The results from secondary tool inspections can lead to the selection of alternative tools for future inspections.
For example, if a circumferential MFL tool detects anomalies in a vintage ERW seam that are confirmed in the ditch,
additional inspection with a more sensitive ultrasonic crack tool may be appropriate. Tools that may be used, as
detailed in API RP 1176, include ultrasonic shear wave and EMAT technology. Since anomaly type, size and density
along with operational considerations are just some of the variables associated with ILI, no single approach is best for
all pipelines. Using multiple ILI technologies can improve integrity by more completely assessing anomalies.

Figure B.1—An Example Tool Selection Process

B.8 Considerations for Interacting Threats

B.8.1 Internal or External Corrosion and Cracking Threats

The presence of internal corrosion or external corrosion in the same area as a cracking threat, either EAC (typically
SCC), or manufacturing defects (seam weld anomalies) challenges detection technology and assessment methods.
Internal or external corrosion can obscure the crack response for some ILI technologies and affect the depth
measurement accuracy for these technologies. Inspection methods must define the length of the remaining ligament
for the crack tip to the far wall, which could be the original surface or corroded region. Corrosion can affect ILI and
external NDE in three ways:

1) Rough surfaces and internal debris associated with corrosion can interfere with the coupling of ultrasonic energy
into the pipe.

2) Signals returning from interacting cracks and corrosion can combine, adding to the complexity of determining
crack depth.

3) Inspection methods may provide the size of the crack with or without factoring in the metal loss depth.
 MANAGING SYSTEM INTEGRITY FOR HAZARDOUS LIQUID PIPELINES 99

Although transverse flux MFL tools run in association with an EMAT tool are primarily used to assist in discriminating
steep-sided corrosion, they also identify the presence of any coincidental or interacting corrosion. An important
aspect of this is that when the EMAT tool identifies cracking features in corrosion, the reported depth is inclusive of
the corrosion depth. Additionally, certain feature classes detectable by EMAT may not exhibit a magnetic discontinuity
(cold welds) and are therefore undetected with MFL.

Shear wave UT combined with compressive wave UT can identify the interaction of corrosion and cracking, but the
resolved depth of the cracking would be determined in consideration of the depth of corrosion (i.e. the depth that the
corrosion adds will depend on the morphology of the corrosion).

B.8.2 External Corrosion Interacting with Internal Corrosion

As both internal and external metal loss are reported by the same technology within the same ILI dataset, the review
for their interaction is integral to the ILI vendor’s analysis process and would be addressed in the reporting.

Data analysis can be complicated when internal and external metal loss anomalies are coincident to each other. For
MFL data, coincident ID and OD corrosion would be reported as internal. When an ILI calls both types of corrosion in
a region where interaction could occur, additional analysis and assessment may be required. For compression wave
UT data, coincident ID and OD can be reported separately, however, there is the potential for reduced accuracy since
the amount of missing data due to echo loss may increase.

B.8.3 Mechanical Damage Interacting with External Corrosion, Internal Corrosion, or EAC

Mechanical damage often damages the pipeline coating and creates a local stress in the pipeline which makes it
more susceptible to EAC, or external corrosion at the location of the damage. Threat interaction with external
corrosion can occur where the deformation is sufficient to damage the coating and the cathodic protection is locally
impaired. The increase in residual stress associated with the dent or gouge can also be sufficient to initiate and grow
SCC at this location.

The combination of MFL and caliper technologies support dent with metal loss (i.e. gouge or corrosion) as a distinct
reported feature type. There are approaches that have extended the capability of this combination by using the
caliper sizing for screening, but then manually reviewing the MFL signal data for the presence of cracking. This
approach has successfully identified circumstances where cracks were found in association with dents. Alternatively,
cracking ILI technologies can be overlaid against the caliper data, however the probability of detecting cracks in dents
by ILI may be reduced.