Saep 326

Engineering Procedure
SAEP-326 2 March 2020

Inspection Requirements for In-service Pipelines
Document Responsibility: Inspection Engineering Standards Committee
Content
1 Scope ................................................................ 2
2 Conflicts and Deviations ................................... 2
3 References........................................................ 2
4 Terminology ...................................................... 4
5 In-service Inspection Requirements .................. 6
6 Pipeline Risk Assessment ............................... 13
7 Pipeline Integrity Management........................ 14
8 Roles and Responsibilities .............................. 16
Appendix A - Semi-quantitative Pipeline Risk
Assessment Methodology ................ 19
Appendix B - Corrosion Rate and Remaining Life
Calculation for Pipeline On-stream
Inspection ......................................... 28
Revision History ..................................................... 30
Previous Issue: 29 January 2019 Next Revision: 29 January 2024

Revised paragraphs are indicated in the right margin Page 1 of 30
Contact: (lodhizf)
©Saudi Aramco 2020. All rights reserved.
Saudi Aramco: Company General Use

Document Responsibility: Inspection Engineering Standards Committee SAEP-326
Publish Date: 2 March 2020
Next Revision: 29 January 2024 Inspection Requirements for In-service Pipelines
1 Scope
1.1 This SAEP defines the inspection requirements for in-service Saudi Aramco pipelines.
These inspection requirements include Testing & Inspection (T&I) revalidation
methods, On-stream Inspection (OSI) program and External Inspection Surveillance for
pipelines. This procedure also outlines the requirements for pipeline risk assessment
and integrity management.
1.2 The pipelines covered by this SAEP include both upstream (i.e., flowlines, flank lines,
trunk lines, test lines, etc.) and downstream pipelines (i.e., downstream of GOSPs and
major operating facilities) such as cross-country transportation and transmission
pipelines operating at Saudi Aramco.
1.3 Exclusions:
1.3.1 The external inspection surveillance for subsea pipelines is excluded from this
procedure. For subsea pipeline external surveillance requirements, please refer
to 00-SAIP-11.
1.3.2 Cathodic Protection (CP) periodic surveys and inspection are excluded from this
procedure. For CP periodic surveillance and inspection requirements, please
refer to SAEP-333.
1.3.3 The non-metallic pipelines operations inspection requirements are excluded
from this procedure. For operations inspection of RTR piping and pipelines,
please refer to SAEP-384.
2 Conflicts and Deviations
Any conflicts between this document and other applicable Mandatory Saudi Aramco
Engineering Requirements (MSAERs) shall be addressed in writing to the EK&RD
Coordinator.
Any deviation from the requirements herein shall follow internal company procedure
SAEP-302, Waiver of a Mandatory Saudi Aramco Engineering Requirement.
3 References
The requirements covered by this document shall comply with the latest edition of the
documents listed below, unless otherwise noted. The requirements contained in the
following documents apply to the extent specified in this procedure.
©Saudi Aramco 2020. All rights reserved. Page 2 of 30

3.1 Saudi Aramco Documents
Saudi Aramco Engineering Procedures

SAEP-20 (2017) Equipment Inspection Schedule
SAEP-79 (2017) Subsea Pipeline Repair
SAEP-302 (2017) Waiver of a Mandatory Saudi Aramco Engineering Requirement
SAEP-306 (2018) Assessment of Pipeline Defects
SAEP-308 (2016) Operations Inspection Unit Reviews
SAEP-310 (2018) Piping and Pipeline Repair
SAEP-333 (2017) Cathodic Protection Monitoring
SAEP-384 (2018) In-service Inspection Requirements for RTR Pipe
SAEP-1135 (2014) On-stream Inspection Administration
Saudi Aramco Engineering Standards

SAES-A-004 (2018) General Requirements for Pressure Testing
SAES-A-007 (2018) Hydrostatic Testing Fluids and Lay-up Requirements
SAES-A-133 Internal Corrosion Protection Requirements
SAES-A-135 (2018) Establishment of On-stream Inspection (OSI) Program
SAES-B-064 (2017) Onshore and Nearshore Pipeline Safety
SAES-L-150 (2018) Pressure Testing of Plant Piping and Pipelines
SAES-L-410 (2018) Design of Pipelines
SAES-L-850 (2017) Design of Submarine Pipelines and Risers
Saudi Aramco Best Practice

SABP-A-019 (2010) Pipeline Corrosion Control
Saudi Aramco Inspection Procedures

00-SAIP-01 (2018) Dead-legs Inspection and Flushing Requirements
00-SAIP-11 (2018) In-service Inspection Requirements of Subsea Assets
00-SAIP-76 (2018) Defect Notification Control and Tracking Program
3.2 Industry Codes and Standards (latest edition till January 17, 2019)
American Society of Mechanical Engineers

ASME B31.4 Pipeline Transportation Systems for Liquids and Slurries

ASME B31.8 Gas Transmission and Distribution Piping Systems

ASME B31G Manual for Determining the Remaining Strength of Corroded
Pipelines
ASME B31.8S Managing System Integrity of Gas Pipelines
American Petroleum Institute

API RP 581 Risk‐based Inspection Methodology
API RP 1110 Recommended Practice for the Pressure Testing of Steel
Pipelines for the Transportation of Gas, Petroleum Gas,
Hazardous Liquids, Highly Volatile Liquids, or Carbon Dioxide
API RP 1160 Managing System Integrity for Hazardous Liquid Pipelines
API 1163 In-line Inspection System Qualification
American Society for Nondestructive Testing

ASNT ILI-PQ In-line Inspection Personnel Qualification and Certification
National Association of Corrosion Engineers

NACE SP0102 In-line Inspection of Pipelines
NACE SP0206 Internal Corrosion Direct Assessment Methodology for Pipelines
Carrying Normally Dry Natural Gas
NACE SP0208 Internal Corrosion Direct Assessment Methodology for Liquid
Petroleum Pipelines
NACE PUB 35103 External SCC of Underground Pipelines
Det Norske Veritas (DNV)

DNV-OS-F101 Submarine Pipeline Systems
DNV-RP-F107 Risk Assessment for Pipeline Protection
DNV-RP-F116 Integrity Management of Submarine Pipeline Systems
DNV-RP-F105 Free Spanning Pipelines
4 Terminology
4.1 Acronyms
CML: Condition Monitoring Locations
CoF: Consequence of Failure
EIS: Equipment Inspection Schedule
ERF: Estimated Repair Factor

HIC: Hydrogen Induced Cracking

ILI: In-line Inspection
MAOP: Maximum Allowable Operating Pressure
OSI: On-stream Inspection
PoF: Probability of Failure
ROW: Right-of-Way
SCC: Stress Corrosion Cracking
SOHIC: Stress Oriented Hydrogen Induced Cracking
StE: Structure-to-Electrolyte
T&I: Testing & Inspection
4.2 Definitions
The following definitions are listed and developed for the purpose of this document:
Pipeline: Set of off-plot piping joined and constructed for a hydrodynamic
transportation of fluid from one site to another and fulfills the definition and scope of
SAES-L-410 (P.XXX) and SAES-L-850 (P.XXX), as applicable. Pipelines in this
procedure include upstream and downstream pipelines.
Condition Monitoring Locations (CML): Designated areas on process equipment,
piping and pipelines where periodic On-stream Inspection examinations are conducted.
CMLs may contain one or more examination points.
Corrosion Rate: The rate of metal loss due to erosion, erosion/corrosion or the
chemical reaction(s) with the environment, either internal and/or external.
Critical Piping: A set of pipeline piping systems that are typically not scrapable.
These may include valve bypasses, pipeline cross-overs, kicker lines, lateral lines,
launcher and receiver drums, etc. This applies to onshore and offshore pipelines.
Dead Legs: Components of a piping system that normally have no significant flow.
Piping sections that have potential for internal corrosion, due to flow stagnation.
Equipment Inspection Schedule (EIS): EIS is a record that documents inspection
intervals and inspection procedures of initial and subsequent T&I's and OSI for
equipment, piping, and pipelines within Saudi Aramco facilities.
In-line Inspection (ILI): Steel pipeline inspection technique that uses devices known
in the industry as intelligent or smart pigs. These devices run inside the pipe and
provide indications of metal loss, deformation, and other defects.
Integrity Assessment: A process that outlines the overall pipeline integrity condition
through review of overall inspection results, corrosion/failure mitigation and prevention

measures, risk assessment, and Key Performance Indicators. Integrity assessment is

typically performed after each pipeline T&I revalidation.
Maximum Allowable Operating Pressure (MAOP): Refer to SAES-L-100 (Section 4).
On-stream Inspection (OSI): An inspection performed from the outside of process
equipment, piping and pipelines while they are on-stream using NDT procedures to
establish the suitability of the pressure boundary for continued operation. For pipelines,
OSI is typically performed in critical piping.
Right-of-Way (ROW): A strip of land on which pipelines, railroads, power lines,
roads, highways, and other similar facilities are constructed. Refer to ASME B31.4 and
ASME B31.8.
Risk Assessment: Overall process of risk of failure analysis and evaluation, which
considers probability and consequence of failure. The assessment consists of deciding
whether or not the risk is tolerable.
Pipeline Segment: Length of pipeline or part of the system that has unique
characteristics in a specific geographic location.
Stress Corrosion Cracking (SCC): Form of environmental attack of the metal
involving an interaction of a local corrosive environment and stresses in the metal,
resulting in formation and growth of cracks.
T&I Interval: The T&I interval is the time between scheduled T&I equipment
downtimes. “Month” is the unit of time used for “intervals” in this document. The T&I
interval will start upon completion of the T&I Acceptance Report.
Testing & Inspection (T&I): The scheduled testing and inspection of the process
equipment, piping and pipelines to ensure and revalidate its mechanical integrity for
continued safe operation. This is primarily accomplished by comprehensive inspection
and testing activities.
Un-scrapable Pipelines: Pipelines that are not instrument scrapable due to either lack
of launcher and receiver traps or other operational difficulties.
5 In-service Inspection Requirements
5.1 External Inspection Surveillance for Onshore Pipelines
5.1.1 An external inspection surveillance for onshore pipelines shall be conducted

through the pipeline Right-of-Way (RoW) at an interval not exceeding 3 years
for water pipelines, 2 years for liquid and multi-phase petroleum pipelines and
1 year for gas pipelines. Such surveillance should identify nonconformities
including, but not limited to:
i. Signs of leakage

ii. Signs of external corrosion, coating deterioration or mechanical damages

in above-ground piping
iii. Signs of soil settlement
iv. Unacceptable pipeline berm condition
v. Missing kilometer marker
vi. Unstable slope and other abnormal or nonconforming conditions.
Commentary Note:
Hydrocarbon pipeline areas that follow the defined classifications 3 and 4
according to SAES-B-064 (P.XXX) shall have a more frequent external inspection
surveillance. The surveillance interval at such areas shall not exceed 3 months
for gas pipelines and 6 months for liquid and multi-phase petroleum pipelines.
5.1.2 The external surveillance plans for onshore pipelines shall be created in SAIF
System and shall be approved, as part of the Equipment Inspection Schedule
(EIS) development or revision process, according to SAEP-20 (Section 4).
When nonconformities are observed during surveillance, Defect Notifications
shall be issued in Operating System-SAIF for correction by following the
requirements of 00-SAIP-76.
5.2 On-stream Inspection for Pipeline Critical Piping
5.2.1 On-stream Inspection (OSI) shall be performed on all pipeline aboveground

critical piping. Examples include, but not limited to:
i. Pipeline laterals
ii. Pipeline cross-overs
iii. Valve bypasses, surge relief, and drain piping
iv. Kicker lines
v. Un-scrapable above-ground pipelines.
5.2.2 Critical piping OSI Condition Monitoring Locations (CMLs) shall be created
and assigned by following the requirements of SAES-A-135. The OSI
monitoring method, comprehensive review, OSI program optimization, and
reporting shall follow SAEP-1135.
5.2.3 During OSI execution for a certain CML, the corrosion rate and remaining life
shall be determined by following Appendix B.
5.2.4 The OSI master data and inspection plans shall be created and tracked in SAIF
System.
5.2.5 The maximum OSI interval shall not exceed ½ remaining life. For liquid
hydrocarbon pipelines, the maximum inspection interval shall not exceed ½
remaining life or 10 years, whatever is less. For gas and multi-phase

hydrocarbon pipelines, the maximum inspection interval shall not exceed ½

remaining life or 5 years, whatever is less.
5.2.6 OSI and periodic flushing of pipeline dead legs shall follow the requirements of
00-SAIP-01.
5.2.7 OSI of Injection Point CMLs shall not exceed the regular OSI interval or
3 years, whichever is less.
5.3 Pipeline Testing and Inspection (T&I) Revalidation
5.3.1 Every operating pipeline shall have a Testing & Inspection (T&I) revalidation
plan established as part of the pipeline Equipment Inspection Schedule (EIS).
5.3.2 The T&I revalidation plan shall be created in SAIF System and be approved as
part of the EIS revision or creation process, according to SAEP-20 (Section 4).
5.3.3 Pipeline T&I revalidation shall be performed through either Inline Inspection
(ILI), Pressure Testing, or Direct Examination (DE).
5.3.4 T&I revalidation for pipeline launcher and receiver drums shall be performed by
either internal inspection or Nondestructive Testing (NDT) scanning capable of
detecting susceptible damage threats. When environmental cracking is a
susceptibility, Nondestructive Testing shall be performed.
Commentary Note:
Above-ground critical piping does not normally undergo a T&I revalidation.
Such piping is being monitored as part of the On-stream Inspection Program.
5.3.5 T&I revalidation of other non-scrapable critical piping, including laterals, shall be
performed by pressure testing, DE, unconventional ILI, or NDT scanning capable
of detecting susceptible damage threats, as practical. When environmental
cracking is a susceptibility, Nondestructive Testing shall be utilized.
5.3.6 Inline Inspection (ILI)
5.3.6.1 ILI using intelligent instrument scraping is the most effective T&I
revalidation method for pipelines.
5.3.6.2 The ILI technique shall be selected based on the pipeline risk
assessment and integrity management assessment results.
5.3.6.3 The selection of ILI technique shall follow Table 1 depending on

pipeline susceptible damage threats. ILI techniques not part of Table 1
may be utilized and shall be approved by Inspection Department /
Inspection Technical Support Division.

Commentary Note:
The capabilities and limitations of the ILI techniques against
susceptible pipeline threats can be found in NACE SP0102,
API RP 1160, and ASME B31.8S.
Table 1 - Pipeline Acceptable ILI Techniques against Susceptible Threats

No. Susceptible Threat Acceptable ILI Technique
1 Internal and External Corrosion Standard and High resolution Magnetic Flux Leakage
(MFL)(1)
Ultrasonic Compression Wave
Ultrasonic Shear Wave
Transverse MFL
2 Stress Corrosion Cracking Ultrasonic Shear Wave
Electromagnetic Acoustic Transducer (EMAT)
3 Fatigue Cracking Ultrasonic Shear Wave
EMAT
4 Hydrogen Induced Cracking (HIC) Ultrasonic Compression Wave
5 Mechanical Deformation(2) Deformation ILI Tools (Geometry Measurement tools)
Notes:
(1) Standard resolution MFL may not discriminate internal from external corrosion.
(2) Mechanical Deformations include sharp dents, flat dents, buckles, ovalities, etc.
(3) For further information pertaining to ILI techniques and their limitations, please refer to NACE SP0102.
5.3.6.4 When necessary, multiple ILI techniques shall be used to cover the
inspection of multiple pipeline threats.
5.3.6.5 Prior to use, the ILI technique and procedure, developed by the ILI
service provider, shall be reviewed and qualified following the
requirements of ASNT ILI-PQ or API 1163.
5.3.6.6 The ILI technique and procedure shall be reviewed and approved by
the Proponent Engineering, Technical Support Division, and
Inspection Department/Inspection Technical Support Division.
5.3.6.7 The use of advanced unconventional ILI techniques for un-scrapable

pipelines should be evaluated and approved by the Proponent’s
Engineering Division, Technical Support Division and Inspection
Department/Inspection Technical Support Division.
5.3.7 Pressure Testing
5.3.7.1 Pressure Testing shall not be considered the preferred T&I revalidation
method for scrapable hydrocarbon pipelines that are susceptible to
Hydrogen Induced Cracking (HIC) or other environmental cracking.

5.3.7.2 Pressure testing when performed shall follow the requirements of

SAES-A-004 (P.XXX), SAES-A-007 (P.XXX), SAES-L-150
(P.XXX), SAES-L-850 (P.XXX), ASME B31.4, ASME B31.8, and
API RP 1110, as applicable.
5.3.8 Direct Examination (DE)
5.3.8.1 DE shall not be used as a T&I revalidation method for scrapable

hydrocarbon pipelines. DE should not be the preferred T&I method
for hydrocarbon pipelines that can be pressure tested.
5.3.8.2 DE shall not be used as a T&I revalidation method for pipelines that are
at high or medium high risk or susceptible to environmental cracking.
5.3.8.3 DE should not be used for multi-phase hydrocarbon pipelines, wet gas
pipelines operating at or below water and liquid dew point, neither for
water or liquid petroleum pipelines with sediment and water content
exceeding 5% in volume.
5.3.8.4 DE shall be performed by exposing and directly examining local

pipeline regions that have high probability or consequence of failure.
When directly examining selected pipeline regions cannot be
performed, DE method shall not be selected.
5.3.8.5 DE shall only be conducted with the administration of an experienced

corrosion engineer. The corrosion engineer shall, at least, have a valid
NACE Pipeline Corrosion Integrity Management (PCIM) Technologist
certification, NACE Senior Corrosion Technologist certification,
NACE Senior Internal Corrosion Technologist certification or
equivalent. He shall also have a minimum of 10 years of experience in
pipeline corrosion engineering.
5.3.8.6 Prior to conducting DE, necessary pre-DE assessment data shall be

collected. To a minimum extent, this data shall cover pipeline
construction and operating history, stream composition, design and
baseline data, and inspection and repair history. In addition, pipeline
corrosion control and monitoring results (as per SAES-A-133 and
SABP-A-019) shall also be part of the required pre-DE assessment data.
5.3.8.7 Prior to conducting DE, pipeline flow modeling utilizing operating

parameters and elevation profile shall also be performed. The pipeline
velocity profile as a function of distance shall be obtained from the
flow modeling.

5.3.8.8 Selection of DE Regions
Upon completion of pre-DE data collection and flow modeling, the DE

shall be conducted at all of the following regions:
a) Pipeline regions that have experienced high corrosion rates or
failures based on previous pipeline inspection history.
b) Pipeline regions that have high consequences of failure.
Commentary Note:
For instance, the operating organization may use the location classes
indicated by SAES-B-064 (Section 5), where population density is
relatively highest compared to other locations in the pipeline.
c) Pipeline regions that have the highest risk and highest contained
product inventory volume. The inventory volume shall be
calculated as the contained volume between remotely controlled
isolation valves.
d) Pipeline regions that have a local velocity less than 1.2 m/s for
liquid pipelines and 5 m/s for gas pipelines.
e) Pipeline uphill regions with highest inclination angles.
The inclination angle, Ө, shall be calculated using the following
formula:
Ө = arcsin (Δ elevation / Δ longitudinal distance)
f) For onshore pipelines, external corrosion regions identified based
on at least two indirect inspection techniques such as Close
Interval Survey (CIS), Direct Current Voltage Gradient (DCVG),
Alternating Current Voltage Gradient (ACVG), Current
Attenuation methods, and soil resistivity.
g) For liquid petroleum pipelines, the following regions shall also be
included in DE:
1) Pipeline regions with local velocity yielding a Froude number
greater than 1.5. The Froude number shall be calculated
using the following formula:
𝜌𝜊
𝐹= √ 𝑉
𝛥𝜌𝑔𝐷 𝐿
Where 𝜌𝜊 is the oil density, in kg/m3,

𝛥𝜌 the oil-water density difference, in kg/m3,
𝑔 is the acceleration due to gravity, 9.81 m/s2,
𝐷 is the hydraulic diameter of the liquid phase (oil +
water) in m, and
𝑉𝐿 is the liquid phase velocity, in m/s.

Commentary Note:
The above Froude number equation can only be applied if
the Reynold number exceeds 2,100. The Reynold number
should be calculated, as follows:
Re = ρuD/ μ
Where ρ is the density of the fluid (in kg/m3), u is the mean
velocity of the fluid (in m/s), μ is the dynamic viscosity of the
fluid (in Pa·s, N·s/m2 or kg/m·s) and D is the diameter of the
pipeline (in m).
2) Pipeline regions with local velocity less than or equal to the
Minimal Settling Bed Velocity (MSBV). The MSBV shall be
calculated using Equation No. C.10 in NACE SP0208:2008.
3) For pipelines, especially with diameter exceeding 0.3 m NPS
carrying petroleum liquids with density greater than 900 kg/m3
and containing solids, deposits and sediments exceeding 0.03%
in volume, additional regions shall cover:
o Pipeline joints downstream of overbends associated with
changes in topographical profile and pipe direction.
o Pipeline joints downstream of isolation valves.
o Pipeline joints downstream of diameter changes.
o Pipeline joints downstream of injection points.
h) For dry gas pipelines, local regions with inclination angles
exceeding the critical inclination angle shall be included.
The critical inclination angle may be calculated using Equation
No. 1 in NACE SP0206:2016.
The minimum number of regions to be examined through DE
should constitute 2 to 5% of the pipeline segment length.
When examining a selected region, at least one complete girth-
weld-to-weld pipeline section (i.e., complete joint), including
upstream and downstream girth welds, should be examined by
using proper set of Nondestructive Examinations (NDE).
Appropriate NDE methods and techniques capable of detecting
susceptible threats shall be applied.
Commentary Notes:
Additional regions not covered by the selection criteria should also
be examined by DE. When severe corrosion is detected in such
regions, DE should not be used and other T&I revalidation method
should be selected.
In some instances, DE regions may either exceed or do not reach 2 to
5% of the total pipeline segment length, depending on pipeline
condition and susceptibility to damage threats and consequences of
failure. When this occurs, the number, with their respective locations,

shall be reviewed and approved by proponent corrosion engineer and

Pipeline Technical Support Division, for downstream pipelines.
5.4 T&I Interval
5.4.1 T&I revalidation shall be conducted at an interval that does not exceed ½
remaining life or maximum interval in Table 2, whichever is less. The remaining
life can be calculated from the projected Estimated Repair Factor (ERF) and d/t
ratio. The ERF shall be calculated using SAEP-306 (Section 7.2). In no case
shall the revalidation T&I interval exceed that of Table II in SAEP-20.
5.4.2 The T&I revalidation interval shall be incorporated in the pipeline Equipment
Inspection Schedule (EIS) by following the requirements in SAEP-20 (Table II).
When the interval is changed, the EIS shall undergo a revision process
according to SAEP-20 (Section 4.11).
6 Pipeline Risk Assessment
6.1 A risk assessment shall be performed on all hydrocarbon pipelines. To a minimum

level, the risk assessment shall be updated after each T&I revalidation is conducted.
6.2 The risk assessment shall follow the criteria included in Appendix A.
Commentary Note:
Other risk assessment methodologies that are equivalent or otherwise more quantitative
than Appendix A may be applied. Prior to application, such methodology shall be
reviewed and approved by Inspection Department / Inspection Engineering Unit.
Table 2 - Maximum Pipeline T&I Revalidation Interval

Maximum MAOP Criteria
T&I
Interval, MAOP 30% SMYS ˂ MAOP MAOP
Revalidation
Year > 50% SMYS ≤ 50% SMYS ˂ 30% SMYS
5 TP at 1.25MAOP TP at 1.39MAOP TP at 1.65MAOP
Pressure Test
10 TP at 1.39MAOP TP at 1.65MAOP TP at 2.20 MAOP
5 Pf ˃ 1.25MAOP Pf ˃ 1.39MAOP Pf ˃ 1.65MAOP
ILI & DE
10 Pf ˃ 1.39MAOP Pf ˃ 1.65MAOP Pf ˃ 2.20 MAOP
Notes:
i. SMYS is Specified Minimum Yield Strength
ii. TP is Test Pressure
iii. Pf is failure pressure calculated by following SAEP-306 (Section 7).
6.3 The Probability of Failure (PoF) in the risk assessment shall consider all susceptible
threats and their susceptibility levels.

6.4 Pipeline threats that shall be evaluated include but not limited to:
i. Metal Loss
ii. External Corrosion
iii. Hydrogen Damage
iv. Internal Stress Corrosion Cracking
v. External Stress Corrosion Cracking
vi. Fatigue Damage
vii. Brittle Fracture
viii. Mechanical Damages
ix. Offshore Free Spans
6.5 The Consequence of Failure (CoF) shall consider all factors that influence pipeline
release and failure consequences.
6.6 The initial and evergreening risk assessment reports shall be addressed to Inspection
Department – Inspection Engineering Unit.
7 Pipeline Integrity Management
7.1 As part of the pipeline Integrity Management Program, an Integrity Management Plan
(IMP) shall be issued for each pipeline, after completing each T&I revalidation.
7.2 The IMP should be updated when required based on the On-stream Inspection, Cathodic
Protection, coating assessment, and external inspection surveillance findings.
7.3 To a minimum extent, the IMP should address the latest and detailed results of the
following:
7.3.1 On-stream inspection
7.3.2 T&I revalidation, including ILI performance and tolerance and DE
7.3.3 Cathodic protection surveys
7.3.4 External visual inspection surveillance
7.3.5 Recommended repair and response plan
7.3.6 Recommended threat mitigation and prevention
7.3.7 Pipeline risk assessment
7.3.8 Integrity Operating Windows
7.3.9 Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) for susceptible threats
7.3.10 Recommended internal and external communication protocols.

7.4 The IMP should summarize the OSI results. The OSI results should be classified in
terms of remaining life and ERF value. To a minimum level, the pipeline critical piping
with remaining life less than 5 years should be highlighted.
7.5 The IMP shall detail the T&I revalidation results. For ILI and DE, the pipeline
anomalies, metal loss, ERF and corrosion rate shall be illustrated as a function of
pipeline length. For pressure testing, the failure locations shall be evaluated and
detailed as a function of pipeline length.
7.6 The IMP shall detail major findings observed during periodic external inspection
surveillance and CP surveys. For CP surveys, the structure-to-electrolyte potential
should be analyzed as a function of pipeline length.
7.7 Once all findings are listed, the IMP shall identify the recommended repair and response
plan. The repair and response plan shall classify findings through the following:
i. Immediate: Findings with defects that are at the failure point within the upcoming
year. For example, this covers current metal loss depth exceeding 60% of
original wall thickness or an ERF value equal or greater than 1.
ii. Scheduled: Findings with defects that are significant but not at the failure point
within the upcoming year. For example, this covers projected metal loss depth
exceeding 60% of original wall thickness or an ERF value equal or greater than 1
at or before the upcoming T&I revalidation or On-stream Inspection.
iii. Monitored: Findings with defects that are not significant and will not reach
failure point before next T&I revalidation or On-stream Inspection.
7.8 Upon receipt of inspection results, the inspection and corrosion unit shall promptly
review and identify all findings that can be classified immediate. Non-immediate
findings can be reviewed within a period of two to five months. Required response and
repair actions, for immediate findings, shall be issued within a period of five days.
Alternatively, mitigation and prevention actions, such as MAOP reduction, shall be
performed, as applicable.
7.9 For external and internal corrosion, immediate inspection and repair action shall be
performed when ERF value will approach 1 or the metal loss will exceed 60%, within
one-year period. Alternatively, mitigation and prevention actions such as MAOP
reduction shall be implemented.
Commentary Note:
Acceptable MAOP reduction values may be obtained from Figure 5 in API RP 1160,
2nd edition, or Figure 7.2.1-1 in ASME B31.8S, 2016 edition, as applicable.
7.10 Cracking defects shall be considered immediate.
7.11 New pipeline injurious mechanical damage, such as dents, buckles, and wrinkles, shall
be considered immediate. The acceptance criteria shall follow SAEP-306 (Section 5.3

and Section 5.4) and SAEP-79 (Section 4), as applicable.
7.12 Pipeline shall be repaired using only the acceptable methodologies demonstrated in
SAEP-310 and SAEP-79 (Section 4), as applicable.
7.13 In addition to required repairs, the IMP shall recommend applicable activities to prevent
or minimize the consequences of unintended release, when required. The activities are
meant to mitigate or prevent pipeline failures. Instances of prevention and mitigation
activities may include, but not limited to:
i. Preventing third party damage.
ii. Remote monitoring and detection of unintended release.
iii. Operating pressure reduction.
iv. Corrosion control, e.g., dehydration, corrosion inhibition, cleaning scraping,
coating, etc.
Commentary Note:
Additional list of prevention and mitigation activities may be obtained from Table 7.1-1 in
ASME B31.8S, 2016 edition.
7.14 The pipeline risk assessment required by Section 6 shall be part of the IMP.
7.15 The IMP shall include Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) to monitor the pipeline
condition against susceptible threats. Additional KPIs shall also be introduced to
monitor the effectiveness of threat mitigation and prevention measures, e.g., cleaning
scraping, corrosion inhibition, dehydration, etc.
Commentary Note:
A comprehensive list of pipeline KPIs can be obtained from Table 9.4-1, Pipeline
Performance Metrics, in ASME B31.8S, 2016 edition, and Appendix I of DNV-RP-F116,
2017 edition. Additional KPIs may be introduced.
7.16 The IMP shall include required communication protocols internally and to the public,
when required. As applicable, such communication may be needed when imminent
failure threat exist, a release has occurred or additional prevention actions are necessary.
8 Roles and Responsibilities
8.1 Project Management
8.1.1 Develop the initial EIS for pipelines, critical piping and equipment associated.
8.1.2 Conduct a baseline OSI survey for the critical piping and associated equipment
in the newly constructed pipelines.
8.1.3 Conduct the baseline ILI for the newly constructed pipelines.

8.1.4 Ensure that initial EIS and baseline surveys are established in SAIF System to
be approved, as required.
8.1.5 Address the EIS and baseline survey records to the proponent organization as
part of project deliverables.
8.2 Operations Inspection and Corrosion Unit
8.2.1 Ensure and maintain effective implementation of the inspection requirements in

this engineering procedure.
8.2.2 Ensure all planned inspections and requirements are conducted on time by
qualified workforce.
8.2.3 Review ILI inspection reports submitted by service providers.
8.2.4 Include the relevant inspection results in the SAIF System.
8.3 Area Operations Foreman
8.3.1 Notify inspector of any pipeline operations upset.
8.3.2 Report to inspector any pipeline overload events and failures, including
mechanical damages, impact, leaks, etc.
8.4 Maintenance Area Foreman/Supervisor
8.4.1 Create work order to repair defects reported by Operations Inspection Unit.
8.4.2 Conduct necessary repairs following inspection recommendations and relevant

standards and procedures.
8.5 PD&T Projects & Technical Support Department
8.5.1 Report pipelines inspection challenges and partner with central engineering in
challenge resolution.
8.5.2 Introduce new technologies for pipeline inspection to Inspection Department -

Inspection Technology Unit, to maintain inspection effectiveness and efficiency.
Commentary Note:
For downstream pipelines, PD&T Projects & Technical Support Department should
additionally review and approve pipeline T&I method selection, Risk Assessment, T&I
results, and Integrity Management Plan.
8.6 Inspection Department/Inspection Engineering Unit
8.6.1 Review and monitor pipeline risk assessments, as required.

8.6.2 Assess pipeline inspection programs according to SAEP-308.
8.7 Inspection Department/Inspection Technology Unit
8.7.1 Review and approve ILI procedures.
8.7.2 Provide technical support to Operations Inspection & Corrosion Units in ILI
techniques and new inspection technologies.

Appendix A - Semi-quantitative Pipeline Risk Assessment Methodology
The risk assessment methodology for pipelines in this appendix is semi-quantitative. It provides
valuable means to rank pipelines in terms of risk of failure with details of probability and
consequence of failure. It identifies the main risk drivers including the drivers of both probability
and consequence of failure. Optimized inspection plans and mitigation actions can be reaped
using this risk assessment methodology.
The risk assessment methodology presented here follows the unbalanced risk matrix included in
API RP 581, Edition 3, which is illustrated in Figure A.1. The Probability of Failure (PoF) is
categorized into five categories, from 1 to 5, where 1 indicates least probability and 5 indicates
most probability of failure. The Consequence of Failure (CoF) is categorized into five categories,
from A to E, where A indicates lowest CoF and E indicates highest CoF. Four risk categories
are introduced which are Low, Medium, Medium High, and High.
Figure A.1 - API RP 581 Risk Matrix
A.1 Pipeline Inventory Groups
The pipeline should be divided into inventory groups. An inventory group represents a pipeline
portion surrounded by remotely controlled isolation valves. Each pipeline inventory group
should be considered a separate component and be risk assessed.
Commentary Note:
In addition to inventory group-to-group risk ranking, the risk assessment methodology may be
applied for pipeline-to-pipeline risk ranking. When this is performed, the pipeline total segment and
contained volume should be considered, instead of solely considering the inventory group.

A.2 Probability of Failure (PoF)
The PoF in pipeline risk assessment should evaluate the following pipeline damage threats.
Each threat should be categorized from a PoF, i.e., from 1 to 5:
a) Metal Loss
b) External Corrosion
c) Hydrogen Damage
d) Internal Stress Corrosion Cracking
e) External Stress Corrosion Cracking
f) Fatigue Damage
g) Brittle Fracture
h) Mechanical Damages
i) Offshore Free Spans
A.2.1 Metal Loss
For metal loss factor, Table A.1 should be used for PoF ranking. The PoF ranking is a function
of Corrosion Rate, Metal Loss, and Estimated Repair Factor (ERF). Metal Loss and ERF should
be projected at the next T&I revalidation. The ERF should meet the criteria detailed in
SAEP-306 (P.XXX).
Table A.1 - Metal Loss PoF Criteria

Internal and
External 1 2 3 4 5
Corrosion PoF
Projected Metal Loss Metal Loss 20% < Metal 40% < Metal Metal Loss
Metal Loss ≤ 10% ≤ 20% Loss ≤ 40% Loss ≤ 60% > 60%
Projected ERF [0-0.2] [0.2-0.4] [0.4-0.6] [0.6-0.8] [0.8-1.0]
Corrosion Rate 3 ≤ CR 6 ≤ CR 9 ≤ CR
< 3 mpy CR ≥ 15 mpy
(CR), mpy < 6 mpy < 9 mpy < 15 mpy
A.2.2 External Corrosion
For external corrosion, Tables A.2.1 and A.2.2 should be used for PoF ranking. The external
corrosion PoF ranking is a function of Cathodic Protection Structure-to-Electrolyte (StE)
potential level, coating and soil types.

Commentary Note:
The StE potential levels are taken with a Cu-CuSO4 reference electrode. The required potential
level may not be -1,100 and -1,000 mV under certain circumstances, e.g., offshore. Please refer to
SAEP-333, Appendix A-1. When this is applicable, the categorization of StE sub-factor and other
sub-factors should be amended following a comparable or equivalent manner. In general, other
factors such as the longitudinal pipeline distance with insufficient potential level, coating
performance or high soil resistivity can be customized and included as additional factors for external
corrosion PoF ranking.
Table A.2.1 - External Corrosion PoF Criteria – for Onshore Tape Wrape Coatings
External
1 2 3 4 5
Corrosion PoF
Soil Type Non-subkha Non-subkha Subkha Subkha Subkha
in between
StE Potential,
≤ -1,100 mV > -1,100 mV ≤-1,000 mV -850 mV >-850 V
mV
and -1,000 mV
Table A.2.2 - External Corrosion PoF Criteria - for Onshore FBE and Liquid Epoxy Coatings
External
1 2 3 4 5
Corrosion PoF
Soil Type Non-subkha Subkha Non-Subkha Subkha Subkha
in between
StE Potential,
≤ -1,100 mV ≤ -1,000 mV > -1,100 mV -850 mV >-850 mV
mV
and -1,000 mV
A.2.3 Hydrogen Damage (HIC/SOHIC)
If the pipeline material of construction is carbon or low alloy steel and the process environment
contains water and H2S in any concentration, then the pipeline should be evaluated for
susceptibility to hydrogen damage. The hydrogen damage threat in pipelines should cover
Hydrogen Induced Cracking (HIC) and Stress Oriented Hydrogen Induced Cracking (SOHIC).
For HIC and SOHIC, Table A.3 should be used for PoF ranking. The PoF ranking is a function
of susceptibility to cracking level (None, Low, Medium, and High) included in Table 9.3 of
API RP 581, Edition 3, Part 2.
Table A.3 - Hydrogen Damage PoF Criteria

Hydrogen Damage
1 2 3 4 5
PoF
API RP 581
Susceptibility Low Moderate High
Level

A.2.4 Internal Stress Corrosion Cracking
The internal Stress Corrosion Cracking (SCC) threat in pipelines should, at least, cover Sulfide
Stress Cracking (SSC), alkaline carbonate SCC (ACSCC), and Chloride SCC (CSCC).
Commentary Note:
Typically, these types of SCC are not applicable to the wide spectrum of Saudi Aramco pipelines.
However, when they do, they should be assessed using the provided methodology.
contains water and H2S in any concentration, then the pipeline should be evaluated for
susceptibility to SSC. For SSC, Table A.4 should be used for PoF ranking. The PoF ranking is
a function of susceptibility to cracking level (None, Low, Medium, and High) included in
Table 8.3 of API RP 581, Edition 3, Part 2.
Table A.4 - SSC PoF Criteria
SSC PoF 1 2 3 4 5
API RP 581
Level
contains alkaline water at pH > 7.5 in any concentration, then the pipeline should be considered
for evaluation for susceptibility to ACSCC. For ACSCC, Table A.5 should be used for PoF
ranking. The PoF ranking is a function of susceptibility to cracking level (None, Low, Medium,
and High) included in Table 10.2 of API RP 581, Edition 3, Part 2.
Table A.5 - ACSCC PoF Criteria
ACSCC PoF 1 2 3 4 5
API RP 581
Level
If the pipeline is made of or clad with austenitic stainless steel and the pipeline is exposed or
potentially exposed to chlorides and water, considering upsets and hydrostatic test water
remaining, and operating at a temperature above 38°C; then, the pipeline should be considered
for evaluation for susceptibility to CSCC. For CSCC, Table A.6 should be used for PoF ranking.
The PoF ranking is a function of susceptibility to cracking level (None, Low, Medium, and High)
included in Table 12.2 of API RP 581, Edition 3, Part 2.

A.2.5 External Stress Corrosion Cracking
The external Stress Corrosion Cracking (SCC) threat in pipelines should cover both near-neutral
and high pH Stress Corrosion Cracking.
Table A.6 - CSCC PoF Criteria
CSCC PoF 1 2 3 4 5
API RP 581
Low Moderate High
Susceptibility Level
If the pipeline material of construction is carbon or low alloy steel and the external coating system
is other than fusion boned epoxy (FBE), pipeline age is greater than 10 years, operating stress
level is greater than 40% of SMYS, sodium (Na) and potassium (K) concentration of greater than
10 meq/L; then, the pipeline should be evaluated for susceptibility to external near-neutral pH
SCC. Additionally, if the operating temperature exceeds 35°C, and distance from compressor
discharge is less than 32 km; then, the pipeline should also be evaluated for susceptibility to
external high pH SCC. Table A.7 should be used for PoF ranking. The PoF ranking is a function
of susceptibility to cracking level according to ASME B31.8S Section A-4.3.
Table A.7 - External SCC PoF Criteria
External SCC PoF 1 2 3 4 5
MAOP, %SMYS ˂ 40 40 ≤ MAOP ˂ 50 ≥ 50

Operating 30 ≤ Operating
˂ 30 ≥ 40
Pressure, % SMYS Pressure ˂ 40
Operating Temperature,
˂ 30 30 ≤ Temperature ˂ 40 ≥ 40
°C
Na and Ca
˂7 7 ≤ Concentration ˂ 10 ≥ 10
Concentration, meq/L
Length of Pipeline
Segment Downstream 32 ˂ Segment
> 50 ≤32
of Pump/Compressor Distance ≤ 50
Station, km
A.2.6 Fatigue Damage
Pipeline components exposed to cyclic loading or vibration should be considered for evaluation
for susceptibility to Fatigue Damage. For Fatigue Damage, Table A.8 should be used for PoF
ranking. The PoF ranking is a function of susceptibility to Brittle Fracture Damage Factor
included in section 24 of API RP 581, Edition 3, Part 2. The damage factor should be calculated
using paragraph 24.6.3 of API RP 581, Edition 3.

Table A.8 - Fatigue Damage PoF Criteria

Hydrogen Damage
1 2 3 4 5
PoF
API RP 581 Fatigue
1-49 50-100 101-500
Damage Factor
A.2.7 Brittle Fracture
If the pipeline material of construction is carbon or low alloy steel and the operating temperature is
at, below or within 50°C above the minimum design metal temperature, then the pipeline should be
considered for evaluation for susceptibility to Brittle Fracture. For Brittle Fracture, Table A.9 should
be used for PoF ranking. The PoF ranking is a function of susceptibility to Brittle Fracture Damage
Factor (i.e., 0 to 5,000) included in Table 20.4 of API RP 581, Edition 3, Part 2.
Table A.9 - Brittle Fracture PoF Criteria

Hydrogen Damage
1 2 3 4 5
PoF
API RP 581 Brittle
Fracture Damage 0-1,000 1,001-2,000 2,001-3,000 ˃ 3,000
Factor
A.2.8 Mechanical Damages
Mechanical damages include, but not limited to, dents, buckles, ripples, wrinkles, ovalities, and other
instances of mechanical damages. Table A.10 should be used for PoF ranking. The PoF ranking is
a function of the mechanical damage evaluation in reference construction code acceptance criteria
and current and planned operating pressure. When mechanical damages are detected, evaluation
should be performed by following ASME B31.4 Chapter VII, ASME B31.8 Chapter V, SAEP-79
(Section 4), API 1111, API RP 1160, DNV-OS-F-101, and ASME B31.8S, as applicable.
Commentary Note:
Additional mechanical damage sub-factors should be included for offshore pipelines. These may
consider potential of dropped objects, proximity to ship and fishing trailer route, ship anchoring, and
proximity to platform cranes. Alternatively, the concepts included in DNV-RP-F107, Risk
Assessment for Pipeline Protection, may be considered.
Table A.10 - Mechanical Damage PoF Criteria

Mechanical Damage
1 2 3 4 5
PoF
 Required Action Acceptable  Unacceptable  Unacceptable
 Operating Pressure  ≤ 80% MAOP  ˃ 80% MAOP

Mechanical damages that are not acceptable requires repair with minimum reduction of operating
pressure to less than 80% of MAOP until repair is implemented.
A.2.9 Offshore Free Spans
Free spans should be evaluated for offshore pipelines. Table A.11 should be used for PoF
ranking. The PoF ranking is a function of the number of Free Spans exceeding the allowable
limits in 00-SAIP-11 (Section 6.4). Free Spans exceeding the allowable limits shall be evaluated
and repaired following the guidelines and requirements in 00-SAIP-11 (Section 6), SAEP-79
(Section 6), and DNV-RP-F105, as applicable.
Table A.11 - Offshore Free Span PoF Criteria

Mechanical Damage
1 2 3 4 5
PoF
No. of Free Spans
≤5 6-15 15-20 ˃ 20
Exceeding Limits
A.3 Consequence of Failure (CoF)
The CoF in pipeline risk assessment should consider the following pipeline consequence factors.
Each consequence factor should be categorized with a CoF category from A to E:
a) Inventory Volume
b) Location Classification and Population Density
c) Potential of Secondary Failures
d) Transportation redundancy
A.3.1 Inventory Volume
The inventory volume for each inventory group should be calculated. An inventory group
represents a pipeline portion surrounded by remotely controlled isolation valves. To determine
Inventory Volume CoF category, Table A.12 should be used. The inventory group with highest
inventory volume should be identified and assigned Vmax. The inventory group with highest
inventory volume should be placed in CoF Category E. Based on Vmax, CoF category for the
remainder of inventory groups should be defined using Table A.12.
Table A.12 - Inventory Volume CoF Criteria

Inventory
Volume CoF A B C D E
Factor
Inventory
0 – 0.2Vmax 0.21Vmax – 0.4Vmax 0.41Vmax – 0.6Vmax 0.61Vmax – 0.8Vmax 0.81Vmax – Vmax
Volume

Commentary Note:
Alternatively, the inventory volume CoF factor in Table A.11 may consider specific volume ranges
classified from CoF Category A to F instead of Vmax ratio. These ranges shall be defined by the
operating department.
When pipeline-to-pipeline risk ranking is performed, Table A.12 should be used. The pipeline
total inventory volume should be calculated instead of inventory group volume. The pipeline
with highest inventory volume should be identified an assigned Vmax. To consider the
environmental impact, a factor of 1.5 should be multiplied to the inventory volume for offshore
pipelines.
It is advised to obtain the cost per unit volume. This specific cost can be multiplied to each
pipeline or inventory group volume, for the purpose of obtaining an additional financial
consequence measure. This is particular for ranking pipelines or inventory groups with different
fluid streams.
A.3.2 Location Classification and Population Density
For the Location Classification and Population Density factor, Table A.13 should be used.
The Location Class should be identified using SAES-B-064 (Section 5) and SAES-L-850 (Table 2)
as applicable.
Table A.13 - Location Classification and Population Density CoF Criteria

Location and
A B C D E
Population CoF
Location Class Class 2 Class 3 Class 4
A.3.3 Potential of Secondary Failures
The Potential of Secondary Failures is applicable for onshore single and multi-phase pipelines
containing gas. For the Potential of Secondary Failures consequence factor, Table A.14 should
be used. The potential of secondary failures should be identified utilizing the number of adjacent
pipelines within a distance of 10 m.
Table A.14 - Potential of Secondary Failures CoF Criteria

Location and
A B C D E
Population CoF
No. of Adjacent
1 2 ≥3
Pipelines

A.3.4 Transportation Redundancy
When there is a lack of supply redundancy for the medium transported, the pipeline should be
placed at a CoF Category E.
A.4 Inventory Group Risk Category
When PoF and CoF analyses are completed for each susceptible threat and consequence factor,
the worst case scenario PoF and CoF category should be assigned for each inventory group.

Appendix B - Corrosion Rate and Remaining Life Calculation for Pipeline

On-stream Inspection
During On-stream Inspection (OSI) on critical piping Condition Monitoring Locations (CMLs),
the maximum depth of corrosion (d) and longitudinal distance of corrosion (L) for each detected
corrosion flaw shall be accurately measured and identified.
Figure B.1 - Schematic Drawing to Determine D and L Corrosion Parameters for OSI in Pipelines
Corrosion flaws are considered interacting if they are spaced longitudinally or circumferentially
from each other at or less than a distance of 3 times the base wall thickness (t). Interacting
corrosion flaws shall be evaluated as a single corrosion flaw. For interacting corrosion flaws, the
maximum depth of corrosion of all contained flaws shall constitute the d parameter.
For interacting corrosion flaws, the longitudinal distance of corrosion shall cover the overall
combined corrosion longitudinal distance as illustrated in Figure 1.12-1 of ASME B31G-2012,
Manual for Determining the Remaining Strength of Corroded Pipelines.
The long and short term corrosion rates shall be calculated by comparing the historical L and d
values with L and d values obtained from the most recent OSI inspection. The corrosion rates
shall be represented by the growth rate of longitudinal corrosion distance (CRL) and growth rate
of depth of corrosion (CRd). When determining the remaining life, the maximum of either long
or short rates shall be used.

B.1 Growth Rate of Longitudinal Corrosion Distance (CRL)
For short term growth rate of longitudinal corrosion distance, the following equation shall be used:
CRLs = (Lcurrent – Llast)/time
For long term growth rate of longitudinal corrosion distance, the following equation shall be used:
CRLl = (Lcurrent – Lfirst)/time
Where Lfirst denotes the first historical measurement value of the corrosion longitudinal distance.
B.2 Growth Rate of Depth of Corrosion Distance (CRd)
For short term growth rate of corrosion depth, the following equation shall be used:
CRds = (dcurrent – dlast)/time
For long term growth rate of longitudinal corrosion distance, the following equation shall be used:
CRL = (dcurrent – dfirst)/time
Where dfirst denotes the first historical measurement value of the depth of corrosion.
B.3 Remaining Life Calculation
To calculate the remaining life, the retirement date shall be determined by using the Estimated
Repair Factor (ERF) level-I equations included in SAEP-306, Assessment of Pipeline Defects.
The retirement date is set when the ERF reaches 1 or when d/t ratio reaches 0.8.
Using the calculated growth rate values, CRL and CRd, the projected ERF shall be calculated,
iteratively until ERF value of 1 or d/t ratio of 0.8 is reached. This can be performed by iterative
numeral methods, by using projected d and L values.
Once the retirement date is determined, the remaining life is represented by the period from
current until retirement date.
Commentary Note:
The retirement date defined, herein, does not necessarily indicate the actual retirement of the
pipeline since a repair, derating or ERF Level-II Assessment can be performed. It is used herein
for the purpose of monitoring pipeline critical piping corrosion on-stream.

Revision History
2 March 2020 Editorial revision primarily to change the Next Revision date, updated the list of references,
and changed SAP to Operating System.
29 January 2019 New Saudi Aramco Engineering Procedure developed to:
(1) Introduce the external surveillance inspection requirements for pipelines.
(2) Optimize the On-stream Inspection (OSI) methodology for pipelines by incorporating the
ERF in the OSI calculations.
(3) Formalize the acceptable T&I methodologies and limitations.
(4) Introduce a structured test-hole program based on NACE guidelines to inspect for
un-scrapable pipelines.
(5) Introduce the corporate semi-quantitative risk assessment for pipelines.
(6) Introduce the pipeline integrity management plan requirements.

Saep 326

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Saep 326

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Saep 326

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Engineering Procedure

SAEP-326 2 March 2020

Previous Issue: 29 January 2019 Next Revision: 29 January 2024

Saudi Aramco: Company General Use

2 Conflicts and Deviations

©Saudi Aramco 2020. All rights reserved. Page 2 of 30

Saudi Aramco: Company General Use

3.1 Saudi Aramco Documents

Saudi Aramco Engineering Procedures

Saudi Aramco Engineering Standards

Saudi Aramco Best Practice

Saudi Aramco Inspection Procedures

American Society of Mechanical Engineers

©Saudi Aramco 2020. All rights reserved. Page 3 of 30

Saudi Aramco: Company General Use

ASME B31.8 Gas Transmission and Distribution Piping Systems

American Petroleum Institute

American Society for Nondestructive Testing

National Association of Corrosion Engineers

Det Norske Veritas (DNV)

©Saudi Aramco 2020. All rights reserved. Page 4 of 30

Saudi Aramco: Company General Use

HIC: Hydrogen Induced Cracking

©Saudi Aramco 2020. All rights reserved. Page 5 of 30

Saudi Aramco: Company General Use

measures, risk assessment, and Key Performance Indicators. Integrity assessment is

5 In-service Inspection Requirements

5.1 External Inspection Surveillance for Onshore Pipelines

5.1.1 An external inspection surveillance for onshore pipelines shall be conducted

©Saudi Aramco 2020. All rights reserved. Page 6 of 30

Saudi Aramco: Company General Use

ii. Signs of external corrosion, coating deterioration or mechanical damages

5.2 On-stream Inspection for Pipeline Critical Piping

5.2.1 On-stream Inspection (OSI) shall be performed on all pipeline aboveground

©Saudi Aramco 2020. All rights reserved. Page 7 of 30

Saudi Aramco: Company General Use

hydrocarbon pipelines, the maximum inspection interval shall not exceed ½

5.3 Pipeline Testing and Inspection (T&I) Revalidation

5.3.6 Inline Inspection (ILI)

5.3.6.3 The selection of ILI technique shall follow Table 1 depending on

©Saudi Aramco 2020. All rights reserved. Page 8 of 30

Saudi Aramco: Company General Use

Table 1 - Pipeline Acceptable ILI Techniques against Susceptible Threats

5.3.6.7 The use of advanced unconventional ILI techniques for un-scrapable

5.3.7 Pressure Testing

©Saudi Aramco 2020. All rights reserved. Page 9 of 30

Saudi Aramco: Company General Use

5.3.7.2 Pressure testing when performed shall follow the requirements of

5.3.8 Direct Examination (DE)

5.3.8.1 DE shall not be used as a T&I revalidation method for scrapable

5.3.8.4 DE shall be performed by exposing and directly examining local

5.3.8.5 DE shall only be conducted with the administration of an experienced

5.3.8.6 Prior to conducting DE, necessary pre-DE assessment data shall be

5.3.8.7 Prior to conducting DE, pipeline flow modeling utilizing operating

©Saudi Aramco 2020. All rights reserved. Page 10 of 30

Saudi Aramco: Company General Use

5.3.8.8 Selection of DE Regions

Upon completion of pre-DE data collection and flow modeling, the DE