4th Pipeline Technology Conference 2009

In-Line Inspection using Combined Technologies Magnetic Flux Leakage and Ultrasonic Testing and their Advantages
Thomas Beuker1, Johannes Palmer2, Manuel Quack3 1. Introduction
Both Magnetic Flux Leakage (MFL) and Ultrasonic Testing (UT) are established technologies in the In-line Inspection (ILI) industry. The MFL method is understood as a versatile and robust method to determine the geometry of metal loss found in both liquid and gas pipelines, while the UT method allows a direct measurement of the pipeline wall thickness. Up to now, the combined interpretation of UT and MFL data has not been seriously considered in the industry, since the technologies are understood as competing services. As long as two separate inspection runs are required to obtain both data sets, it is more cost effective for pipeline operation and maintenance to choose one of the two options, than to run both technologies subsequently. The combination of multiple inspection technologies on a single inspection tool (Figure 1) provides the following advantages: combined interpretation of ILI-data and the overall scope of the inspection are enlarged. General wall thinning and largely corroded areas are accurately and reliably scanned with the UT unit, while very detailed information about pitting corrosion is obtained from the MFL measurement. Blind spots of echo loss, occasionally observed in the UT data, are compensated by the more robust measurement from the MFL sensors. This is due to the fact, that a magnetic pattern is typically larger in dimension than the anomaly that caused it, greatly improving the probability of detection.

Figure 1. Magnetic Flux Leakage (MFL) and Ultrasonic Testing (UT) combined on a single in-line inspection tool. Right: 16" RoCorrUT 1.5D; top left: UT sensor carrier; lower left: magnetizer and sensors of the MFL unit.

2. Integrity Management
As a part of pipeline integrity management programs, adequate in-line inspection methods are chosen based on the prospective threat derived from pre-inspection risk analysis for the pipeline. Microbiological Corrosion (MIC) and Top of Line Corrosion (TOL) (refer to Figure 2) being representative examples of such threats, require a careful selection of a suitable inspection technology (Gunaltun 2006). The combination of MFL and UT on a single tool has a

______________________________
1 2

Master Geophysics - ROSEN Technology and Research Center - Germany Master Geophysics ROSEN Technology and Research Center - Germany 3 Ph.D. Physics ROSEN Technology and Research Center - Germany

4th Pipeline Technology Conference broader application range than either one of the technologies alone. Hence the effort for a prospective risk assessment can be reduced with regards to the inspection strategy. One important question that commonly has to be answered as part of an integrity management program is whether the corrosion present in the pipeline is dormant or active. If it is found to be active, the growth rates of the anomalies must be established. Usually this is done by means of corrosion growth analysis. To ensure that even small changes in corrosion depth occurring over many years can be reliably identified, corrosion growth analysis requires extremely accurate inspection results. Since significantly higher accuracy levels can be achieved if MFL and UT are used in combination, the integration of the two technologies into one inspection tool makes a very important contribution to corrosion growth analysis. Combined in-line inspection technologies also have more general benefits for integrity management: with their wider application range, they reduce the need for future threat analysis and minimize the risk of choosing the wrong inspection technology for a given pipeline situation. 2.1 Reduction of Operational Risk Combining two inspection technologies is also beneficial in reducing the operational risk and the operational cost for an in-line inspection. If both technologies were to be applied subsequently, the additional launching, receiving and tool tracking would create additional risks associated with safe operation, measures and cost. In some cases a reduction in pipeline flow or pressure during the inspection is required. In other cases expensive cleaning and batching efforts are required. Cost and operational risk can be reduced by using inspection tools with combined technologies, applied in a single run.

Figure 2. Left: Top of the Line Corrosion (TOL). Right: Microbiological Induced Corrosion (MIC).

3. Combined In-Line Inspection

3.1. Complementary Methods MFL and UT inspection technologies are complementary to each other in a two fold way. First the methods are extending the inspection range, meaning either of the methods is sensitive to anomalies, which the other method is not able to characterize reliably. Second the inspection quality is improved significantly for anomalies, where both methods are applicable. MFL technology has superior detection capabilities even for small pitting anomalies. This is due to the fact that the MFL pattern registered by the inspection tool is larger than the anomaly itself. MFL technology is therefore especially suitable for detecting very small pitting defects; even under extremely poor conditions, a magnetic response is still obtained. On the contrary, the UT inspection method cannot, as a general rule, detect anomalies smaller than 10 20 mm. In addition, debris tends to scatter the ultrasonic beam, resulting in missing information. The strength of the UT technology is the direct measurement of the pipe wall thickness. Although MFL technology can derive a value for the wall thickness, this measurement is achieved by comparing the MFL data to calibration joints, obtained prior to the inspection service. Therefore, combining MFL and UT overcomes limitations with small pitting, provides precise measurement of general wall thinning, and offers outstanding probability of detection and reliable inspection coverage. 3.2. Independent Methods MFL and UT are different inspection technologies. The MFL principle requires a disturbance in the applied 2

4th Pipeline Technology Conference magnetic field typically caused by a voluminous interruption of the pipeline steel. This disturbance is measured by field sensors and the data are related to corresponding defect dimensions. The UT technology is deriving a local wallthickness measurement by relating the travel-time of the ultrasonic wave to a travel distance in the pipe material. Defect dimensions are derived from dense grid measurements of the local wall thickness. The two methods are based on different physical phenomena (ultrasound versus magnetism) and can be described as independent methods applied to the same object, the pipe-wall. According to basic statistics for independent measurements (Levenson 2000), the accuracy interval of a measurement can be improved significantly, if independent methods are used. Alternatively, repetitive measurements with a single method would not change the accuracy interval. The improvement in accuracy for independent methods is expressed in Equation 1:

comb =

1 2 2 UT + MFL 2

(1)

Where is the accuracy at 80% confidence level, for combined, UT and MFL method respectively. Depending on the given values an improvement in sizing accuracy of up to 30% can be achieved (ref. to Figure 4).

Figure 3. Relative accuracy improvement is shown for combined utilization of two independent methods as a function of the accuracies of each method. t is the pipeline wall thickness. The highest improvement is achieved for systems with comparable accuracies. The discussed improvement may be explained by the following example. In this case 53 pitting and pinhole anomalies were analyzed, detected with the 16" RoCorrUT tool (figure1). The data were evaluated first for each technology separately and then transferred into a combined evaluation (Figure). Three histograms are shown for MFL, UT and the combined interpretation. In this example the accuracy is calculated for 80% confidence level. The obtained accuracies were 0.060*t, 0.069*t and 0.045*t for MFL, UT and combined evaluation respectively. The wall thickness t was 6.7 mm in this example. The results show an improvement of the overall sizing by 25% for the combined evaluation. This is in good accordance with the theoretical value calculated of 0.0457*t from Equation 1. The improvement of the overall accuracy can also be translated into an improvement of the confidence level of the sizing. Assuming a confidence level of 80% for both methods would improve the confidence level to 93% for the combination of the methods (Gaussian distribution assumed). A similar improvement can be derived for the probability of identification (POI) i.e. the likelihood of identifying the correct defect category for the reported feature (e.g. lamination, corrosion, pitting, mill related defect 3

4th Pipeline Technology Conference etc.). Based on basic statistics (Pitman 1993), the POI is improved according to Equation 2:

Pcom = 1 (1 PUT ) (1 PMFL )

(2)

Where P is the probability, that the predicted defect categorization is correct. If for example one method characterizes a defect in 60% of the cases correctly and the other one in 70% of the cases, the combined POI will increase to 88%. Furthermore the improved POI is supporting the improvement of sizing significantly. The above mentioned improvement of sizing accuracy is based on a statistical identical defect population. In case of a misinterpretation of the defect category, an inadequate sizing model would be applied. This would lead to a systematic sizing error. The improved POI is reducing this effect substantially.

Figure 4. Histograms for the accuracy of MFL, UT and combined interpretation of data, obtained from a population of 53 pitting and pinhole anomalies obtained from a pipeline with a wall thickness t = 6.7mm. 3.3 Combined Interpretation The combined interpretation of several data sources is a well established methodology in the oil and gas industry, e.g. exploration geophysics (Telford 1998). Reservoir analysis is based on several completely independent measurement approaches. The evaluation of an exploration well by integrating several measurement sources is common practice. This is also applicable for the in-line inspection of pipelines. Every measurement technique outputs physical properties which are derived from measurement variables. The sources of such properties are objects of interpretation. This interpretation needs to consider all information available.

4th Pipeline Technology Conference As an example the detection and characterization of a lamination are discussed (refer to Figure 5). The UT sensors will identify a midwall lamination by the reflection of the ultrasound from the surface of the lamination.

Figure 5. Examples of lamination, top: midwall lamination, bottom, with volumetric metal loss, surface breaking. Similar data would be obtained in both cases of lamination shown in Figure 5. The extent of metal loss is not detected by the UT measurement. Fortunately this will be revealed by the interpretation of the MFL measurement, which will give a response proportional to the volumetric metal loss at the lamination. The detrimental opening of the lamination in Figure 5 bottom is identified by analysis of the MFL data. In this case, only the combined evaluation of both data sets allows for distinguishing between lamination without opening gap versus a lamination with a significant volumetric metal loss. Another example is shown in Figure 6. Spiral welded pipe has been inspected with the RoCorroUT. At the 12:00 o'clock position missing echoes can be observed in the UT data. This data loss is due to gas pockets interrupting the liquid coupling of the UT sensors, a rather common problem in liquid pipelines. Nevertheless, as seen in the corresponding MFL data set, information is available for this region. This is due to the independency of the MFL inspection from the pipeline product. Therefore, full data coverage is warranted. Another effect can be observed: while the UT tool clearly indicates a slight general wall thinning at 06:00 o'clock, the MFL data indicates mainly pitting corrosion. Furthermore, it can be seen, that the pitting corrosion is not limited to the area with general wall thinning alone. This shows the complementary character of the two methodologies. Pitting corrosion can also be found at 03:00 and 09:00 o'clock position, away from the UT signals. This is clearly detected by the MFL method. A corrosion type like this can be found in pipelines with multiphase liquid flow. In this case again, the advantage of combining the UT technology with the MFL technology results in good coverage and clear identification of small pitting in combination with general wall thinning.

4. Conclusions
Amalgamating the advantages of the two non-destructive testing methods Magnetic Flux Leakage and Ultrasonic Testing, the new RoCorrUT tool makes it possible to detect common defects such as corrosion pitting and irregular general corrosion while also accurately sizing large uniformly corroded areas and laminations. Moreover, it measures pipeline wall thickness to an accuracy of 0.2 mm. The reliable and precise information supplied by tool not only makes an invaluable contribution to integrity management, but both inspection costs and operational risk are also significantly reduced, because a single run is sufficient to gather all relevant data.

4th Pipeline Technology Conference

5. References
GUNALTUN, Yves, PICCARDINO, R., VINAZZA, D., Interpretation of MFL and UT Inspection Results in Case of Top of Line Corrosion, NACExpo-Corrosion 2006, Paper no 06170, p.1 ff, 2006. LEVENSON, M.S., et al. An Approach to Combining Results from Multiple Methods Motivated by the ISO GUM Journal of Research of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, Vol105,No. 4 July-August, p. 57-579, 2000. PITMAN, J., Probability, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York, p.44 and p.194, 1993 TELFORD, W.M. , et al., Applied Geophysics, p 820, Cambridge University Press, 1988.

Figure 6. Above UT data obtained from a spiral welded joint. Below MFL data obtained from the same location