Final Report for

CLIENT
COUNTRY

on the GEO & MFL/DMR in-line inspection of the

10” PIPELINE
from START to END

Summary

The inspection of the 10” PIPELINE from START to END was executed on MONTH DAY, YEAR.

Internal metal loss: A total of 303 indications of internal metal loss are reported. The deepest
one with a depth of 36% (relative to the adjacent, unaffected pipe wall) is located at a
distance of 1651m, about 148m upstream the marker M5.

External metal loss: A total of 609 indications of external metal loss are reported. The two
deepest ones with a depth of 65%, already mentioned in the Preliminary Report, are located
at a distance of 77m and 856m, 189m downstream of marker M3.

Mill anomalies: There are 35 mill anomalies detected. The most significant ones are located at
15m and 345m with a contingency depth of 18%.

Girth weld anomalies: Three girth welds show irregularities. One of them is reported as
‘incomplete root’.

Geometric anomalies: There are 20 geometric anomalies reported. The deepest one is
reported with 1.8% reduction (relative to the outer diameter of the pipe) at 1604m, 195m
upstream of marker M5.

Inspection date: MONTH DAY, YEAR

Report date: MONTH DAY, YEAR
 10” PIPELINE
Final Report

Content
1 Background 3
2 Results 3
2.1 Data quality & completeness 3
2.2 Metal loss 4
2.2.1 Internal metal loss 5
2.2.2 External metal loss 6
2.3 Interaction rules 8
2.4 Remaining Strength estimation 8
2.5 Other features 10
2.5.1 Mill anomalies 10
2.5.2 Girth weld anomalies 11
2.5.3 Geometric anomalies 12
2.6 Marker 12
2.7 Data deliverables 12
2.7.1 Raw data 12
2.7.2 Interpreted data 12
3 Pipeline Data 13
4 Inspection preparation & performance 13
4.1 Inspection task 13
4.2 Preparation of the pipeline 13
4.2.1 Inspection procedure 13
4.2.2 Cleaning and Gauging of the pipeline 14
4.3 High Resolution GEO Inspection 14
4.3.1 GEO tool applied 14
4.3.2 GEO tool settings 15
4.3.3 GEO tool performance 15
4.4 High Resolution MFL-Inspection 17
4.4.1 MFL tool applied 17
4.4.2 MFL tool settings 17
4.4.3 MFL tool performance 17
5 Attachments 19
6 Reference Specifications, Codes and Standards 19
7 Report Details 19

2.0 Hardcopy
1.0 Issue for client review
Vers. Description Written by Checked by Approved by Date

Report No.: Contract No.: Proposal No.:

Report Date: MM DD, YYYY page 2 of 19

 10” PIPELINE
Final Report

1 Background

The 10” PIPELINE from START to END was built in 1968 and has never been inspected before.

2 Results

2.1 Data quality & completeness

The inspection of the 10” PIPELINE from START to END was executed on MONTH DAY, YEAR.
The recorded sets of data are complete and of good quality. This allows an interpretation over
the entire length of the pipeline.

data Data
Type of data remarks
completeness quality
Axial distance
complete good all distance counts are aligned
record
Circumferential
complete good
position record

MFL 100% good

GEO 100% good

DMR 100% good

The zero point position of the distance count is set on the weld after the isolation valve at the
polyethylene unit.

Report Date: MM DD, YYYY page 3 of 19

 10” PIPELINE
Final Report

2.2 Metal loss

The indications of metal loss are reported quantitatively if the depth is ≥10% of the adjacent,
unaffected pipe wall. The table below shows the total number of metal loss features detected
by depth classes.

internal external
depth total
in body of in body of
weld area weld area
pipe pipe
≥70% - - - - -

60% to <70% - - 7 - 7

50% to <60% - - 8 - 8

40% to <50% - - 12 1 13

30% to <40% 1 - 40 - 41

20% to <30% 5 2 162 1 170

10% to <20% 273 22 376 2 673

Total 279 24 605 4 912

Further there are 652 “minor indications” (MIIDs) reported. These show small but clearly
visible signals, where it becomes difficult or impossible to distinguish between metal loss, mill
defect, debris or other influences. Should any of those indications be metal loss, their depth
will not exceed 10%.

Report Date: MM DD, YYYY page 4 of 19

 10” PIPELINE
Final Report

2.2.1 Internal metal loss

A total of 303 indications of internal metal loss are reported. The deepest one with a depth of
36% is located at a distance of 1651m, about 148m upstream the marker M5.

Fig. 1: Distribution of internal metal loss over the pipeline length

Fig. 2: Distribution of internal metal loss over the pipeline length and circumference

Fig. 1 & Fig. 2 show no accumulations of internal metal loss over the entire length and
circumference of the pipeline.

Report Date: MM DD, YYYY page 5 of 19

 10” PIPELINE
Final Report

Fig. 3: Distribution of internal metal loss to closest girth weld and circumference

2.2.2 External metal loss

A total of 609 indications of external metal loss are reported. The two deepest ones with a
depth of 65%, already mentioned in the Preliminary Report, are located at a distance of 77m
and 856m, 189m downstream of marker M3.

Fig. 4: Distribution of external metal loss over the pipeline length

Report Date: MM DD, YYYY page 6 of 19

 10” PIPELINE
Final Report

Fig. 5: Distribution of external metal loss over the pipeline length and circumference

Fig. 4 & Fig. 5 show an accumulation of external metal loss at a distance of 77m.

Fig. 6: Distribution of external metal loss to closest girth weld and circumference

Report Date: MM DD, YYYY page 7 of 19

 10” PIPELINE
Final Report

2.3 Interaction rules

Interaction rules are applied to the individual anomalies. By default individual
anomalies are clustered by the ‘multiple of minimum extent’ following the interaction
rules [POF09]:
1. An anomaly shall never be clustered with another adjacent anomaly if the distance
(X/Y) is ≥6t (t: wall thickness). This is applicable for the axial and circumferential
direction.
2. Individual anomalies shall be clustered when the axial spacing between the
anomalies is less than the smallest anomaly length (X1) and the
circumferential spacing is less than the smallest anomaly width (Y1).

Fig. 7: Clustering method overview

Clustered features are reported with their accumulated length and width and their maximum
depth.

2.4 Remaining Strength estimation

In the Feature List included is an estimation of the Remaining Strength for dimensioned metal
loss features from the supplement to ANSI/ASME B31 code. The model “ASME B31G - 2009”
according to GESIP is applied within this calculation. Detailed information about the Remaining
Strength calculation can be found in Att. 3.

The applied parameters are:

term Parameter value unit remarks
measured maximum depth of
d mm from data interpretation
corroded area
measured longitudinal extent of
L mm from data interpretation
corroded area
D nominal outside diameter of the pipe 273.1 mm specified by operator

t nominal wall thickness of pipe 7.8 mm specified by operator

MAOP maximum operating pressure 20 bar specified by operator

Pld local design pressure 20 bar specified by operator

ERF estimated repair factor calculated value (result)

safe maximum pressure for corroded
Psafe calculated value (result)
area
SMYS specified minimum yield strength 245 MPa used for calculation

UTS ultimate tensile strength 415 MPa used for calculation

Report Date: MM DD, YYYY page 8 of 19

 10” PIPELINE
Final Report

Fig. 8: Sentenced Plot

The ERF calculation was executed with Pld =MAOP=20bar. This represents a worst-case
scenario in which every indication in the pipeline results in an ERF of 1.

The target of 3P Services’ inspection is to supply data on metal loss features: location
(internal/external, axial and circumferential) as well as dimension (depth, length and width).
Development of integrity criteria out of this data is not part of 3P Services’ scope of work.
Elaboration of a repair strategy, setting new operating pressure levels etc. are part of what is
called “Fitness-For-Purpose” (FFP), which is not addressed in this report.

However, for practical reasons, some elementary calculations are made, using the interpreted
feature depth and length values. The calculations yield “Estimated Repair Factor” (ERF) and
Psafe numbers, which are based on formulae included in the standards outlined in the Att. 3.
Note that these figures may only be used for statistical purposes and give a general support
to estimate the condition of the pipeline. These values do not replace any aspect of a FFP
study.

Report Date: MM DD, YYYY page 9 of 19

 10” PIPELINE
Final Report

2.5 Other features

The signals of these other features may be more or less typical, which introduces a degree of
uncertainty in characterization. If such uncertainties leave a risk that the identification may be
incorrect and the feature may involve metal loss instead, then this will be noted. As a
contingency for such a case, especially if potentially significant metal loss depth may be
present, a “contingency depth” is reported in the Feature List. It is shaded grey and only
applicable if our descriptions in the following paragraphs should be incorrect.

2.5.1 Mill anomalies

35 mill anomalies are detected, which probably arise during manufacturing process of the
pipeline, as for instance non-metallic inclusion, rollmark or possible lamination.

The most significant ones are located at 15m and 345m with a contingency depth of 18%.

Fig. 9: Distribution of mill anomalies over pipeline length and circumference

Report Date: MM DD, YYYY page 10 of 19

 10” PIPELINE
Final Report

2.5.2 Girth weld anomalies

Three girth welds show irregularities which probably derive from the welding process, like e.g.
root penetration larger than usual.
One of them is reported as ‘incomplete root’. These anomalies are reported with length and
width as well as a severity category as following:

A -
(significant)
B -
(medium)
C 1
(minor)
total 1

Fig. 10: Distribution of girth weld anomalies over pipeline length and circumference

Report Date: MM DD, YYYY page 11 of 19

 10” PIPELINE
Final Report

2.5.3 Geometric anomalies

There are 20 geometric anomalies reported. The deepest one is reported with 1.8% reduction
(relative to the outer diameter of the pipe [POF09][API1163]) at 1604m, 195m upstream of
marker M5. The remaining 19 are reported as minor dents with a reduction <1.5%.

Fig. 11: Distribution of possible geometric anomalies over pipeline length and circumference

2.6 Marker
In total five AGMs (Above Ground Marker) were placed on the pipeline. The locations of all of
them were defined by 3P Services. All of the marker were recorded. For detailed information
please refer to Att.7.

2.7 Data deliverables

2.7.1 Raw data

Attached to this report is the processed raw data together with a single-user license of the 3P
visualisation software (PipeAnalysis). It enables the Client to scroll through the pipeline,
enlarge sections of special interest, print out screen shots and dig sheets as required. This
software does not allow independent quantitative interpretations.

Raw data and software are stored on a USB stick. This further has an installation aid and a
user handbook.

2.7.2 Interpreted data

The main supporting document is the Pipe Book, which is attached to this report as an Excel
file. It includes tables containing all findings resulting from the pipeline inspection. This
document can be used by the Client to incorporate these results into its own pipeline
documentation system, e.g. GIS or other.

Throughout the Pipe Book abbreviations are used, mainly for feature type, identification and
classification. These follow the definitions as recommended by the “Pipeline Operator Forum”
[POF09]. Detailed information is placed as 1st page on each attachment.

Report Date: MM DD, YYYY page 12 of 19

 10” PIPELINE
Final Report

3 Pipeline Data

Pipeline name 10" PIPELINE

Launcher location START

Receiver location END

Nominal diameter 10”

Outer diameter 273.1mm

Length ~1800m
Specified by operator

Wall thickness 7.8mm

Type of the pipe seamless

Pipe Grade API 5L / Gr. B

Min. bend radius ≥3D

Product oil

4 Inspection preparation & performance

4.1 Inspection task

Target of the inspection campaign was to determine metal loss in the pipeline to assess the
integrity of the pipeline.

4.2 Preparation of the pipeline

4.2.1 Inspection procedure

3P Services provided pig traps which were installed as temporary launcher and receiver on
site.

Fig. 12: Pig trap before installation as temporary launcher

Report Date: MM DD, YYYY page 13 of 19

 10” PIPELINE
Final Report

4.2.2 Cleaning and Gauging of the pipeline

To be sure the pipeline is clean enough for the inspection and capable for the MFL tool a 3P
profile tool was applied MMM DD, YYYY.

Run no. #1

Tool function profile

multi module tool with gauge plate

Type
and transmitter

Manufacturer 3P Services

Gauge plate diameter 218mm / 141mm / 190mm

Run by 3P Services

Run date MMM DD, YYYY

Total run time [hh:mm] 00:42

Average tool speed ~0.71m/s

Propelled by water

Tool performance (wear/debris) normal wear / less debris

Gauge plate performance light deformation

Result OK for GEO

Fig. 13: Profile tool with gauge plates and transmitter after run

4.3 High Resolution GEO Inspection

4.3.1 GEO tool applied

The GEO tool is a tool developed by 3P Services for high resolution inspection of geometric
discontinuities such as dents, ovalities and other restrictions of the pipe bore. Details
regarding the GEO tool specification and general features of the measuring principle can be
found in Att. 1.

Report Date: MM DD, YYYY page 14 of 19

 10” PIPELINE
Final Report

4.3.2 GEO tool settings

Type of tool GEO/DMR

Tool version 10” ATEX UNI GEO/DMR 3D Vers.9.8

Type of sensors GEO DMR [WallGuided]

No. of sensors 16 24

Sensor spacing on the circumference 52mm 33.1mm

Sampling frequency 400Hz
[per sensor]
Envisaged sampling distance 2.50mm
[per sensor]

No. of odometers 2

diameter of the odometer wheel 70mm

IP address 172.20.10.84

4.3.3 GEO tool performance

Run no. #2

Date of inspection MMM DD, YYYY

Launch time [local time] hh:mm

Receiving time [local time] hh:mm

Total run time [hh:mm] hh:mm

Measured total distance 1804m

Calculated average tool speed 0.69m/s

Maximum tool speed 1.83m/s at 16.12m

Propelled by water

Tool performance debris recovered

Result successful, OK for MFL

Fig. 14: GEO tool after run

Report Date: MM DD, YYYY page 15 of 19

 10” PIPELINE
Final Report

Fig. 15: Speed profile of the GEO run

Fig. 16: Deviation chart of the internal measured minimum diameter of the pipeline

Report Date: MM DD, YYYY page 16 of 19

 10” PIPELINE
Final Report

4.4 High Resolution MFL-Inspection

4.4.1 MFL tool applied

The tool is a high resolution MFL (magnetic flux leakage) system developed by 3P Services.
Details regarding the tool specification and general features of the measuring principle can be
found in Att. 1.

4.4.2 MFL tool settings

Type of tool MFL

Tool version 10” ATEX UNI MFL 3D Ves.10.3

Type of sensors MFL

No. of sensors 64

Sensor distance on the circumference 12mm

Sampling frequency [per sensor] 400Hz

Envisaged sampling distance [per 2.5mm
sensor]

No. of odometers 2

Diameter of odometers 70mm

IP addresses 172.20.10.91

4.4.3 MFL tool performance

Run no. #3

Date of inspection MMM DD, YYYY

Launch time [local time] hh:mm

Receiving time [local time] hh:mm

Total run time [hh:mm] hh:mm

Measured total distance 1814m

Calculated average tool speed 0.73m/s

Maximum tool speed 0.88m/s at 15.58m

Propelled by water

Tool performance good

Result successful

Report Date: MM DD, YYYY page 17 of 19

 10” PIPELINE
Final Report

Fig. 17: MFL-tool after the run

Fig. 18: Speed profile of the MFL run

Report Date: MM DD, YYYY page 18 of 19

 10” PIPELINE
Final Report

5 Attachments

1. Tool specifications & System properties

2. Preliminary Reports
3. Remaining Strength Calculations
4. Pipe Tally
5. Feature List
6. Installation List
7. Marker List
8. Tool Calibration Certificate

6 Reference Specifications, Codes and Standards

[POF09] Pipeline Operator Forum [POF] - Specifications and requirements for

intelligent pig inspection of pipelines, Version 2009
[API1163] API STD 1163 - In-Line Inspection Systems Qualification Standards
[GESIP 07.05] Groupe d'Étude de Sécurité des Industries Pétrolières et Chimiques
[GESIP] – Surveillance, Maintenance et Reparation des Canalisations
de Transport

7 Report Details

ReportNo.:
ProposalNo.:
ContractNo.:
JobProjectNo.:

Contacts

Project Coordinator:

Inspection team:

Author / Analyst:

Approver:

3P Services GmbH & Co. KG

Meitnerstr. 10-12 - 49835 Wietmarschen/Lohne - Germany
phone +49 5908 2656-0
www.3p-services.com

Report Date: MM DD, YYYY page 19 of 19