Direct Assessment Basics: Richard Lopez Office of Pipeline Safety Southwest Region

Direct Assessment Basics
Richard Lopez
Office of Pipeline
Safety
Southwest Region
Why Direct Assessment?
 Alternative to ILI or Hydro Test When
Not Feasible or Practical
 Many Gas Transmission Pipelines are
“Not Piggable”
 The Cost to Make Them Piggable can be
Prohibitive (from $1M to $8M per mile)
Why Direct Assessment?
 ILI or Hydro-testing Could Cause
Customer Supply Interruptions
 LDC Laterals Often Sole Source Supply
 Pipeline Safety Improvement Act 2002
– Section 23
 TPSSC Equivalency Recommendation
Factors Impeding Piggability
 Telescopic Connections
 Small Diameter Pipelines
 Short Pipelines
 Sharp Radius Bends
Factors Impeding Piggability
 Less than Full Opening Valves
 No Alternate Supply if Pig is “Hung Up”
 Low Pressure & Low Flow Conditions
 Scheduling and Coordination is an Anti-
trust Issue
Features in Common with ILI
 Indirect Examinations
 Validation/Excavation/Direct Exam
 Integrate & Analyze Data
 Identify & Address Data Gaps
 Identify Remediation Needs
 Determine Re-assessment Intervals
Factors Impeding Hydro-Test
 Service Interruptions
 Sole Source Supplies
 Concerns of Causing Pipeline Damage
 Dewatering Concerns/Difficult to Dry
Factors Impeding Hydro-Test
 Dewatering Concerns/Difficult to Dry

 Growth of Sub-critical Defects
 Water Availability & Disposal
 No Characterization of Future Risk
DA Basics - Overview
 Distinct Assessment Process for each

Applicable Threat (i.e., EC, IC, & SCC)
 Scope of DA as an IM Assessment is
more Limited than either ILI or Hydro
DA Basics - Overview
 May be the Assessment Method of

Choice (esp. for Non-piggable Lines
and Low-Stress Gas Lines that cannot
be Hydro Tested)
 Involves Integration of Risk Factor
Data to Identify Potential Threats
Keys to Successful DA
 Expertise, Skill, Experience
 Follow NACE Standards
 Document Justifications for Not
Implementing “Should” and “May”
Recommendations in the Standards
 Documents Reasons for Program Decisions
and Options Selected
Keys to Successful DA (cont.)
 Data Management
 Collection, Integration, Analysis
 Data Quality
 Understand Limitations of DA
 Provide Detailed Procedures for All
Process Steps
Today’s Discussion will Focus
on ECDA
 NACE RP0502 has been Issued

 ECDA Process is More Mature than ICDA
or SCCDA
 Overview of NACE RP0502 Process for
ECDA
Limitations of ECDA
 ECDA Can Not Deal With:

 Lines Susceptible to Seam Failure
 Near-neutral pH SCC
 Fatigue Failures in Liquid Lines
 Internal Corrosion
 Plastic Pipe
 Pipe in Shielded Areas
Limitations of ECDA
 ECDA has Limited Applicability to:

 Mechanical Damage (Only to the Degree
that Coating is also Damaged)
4 Step ECDA Process of
NACE RP0502
 Pre-assessment
 Indirect Assessment
 Direct Physical Examination
 Post-assessment
Pre-assessment
 Process Similar to Risk Assessment
 Assemble and Analyze Risk Factor Data
Pre-assessment
 Purpose:
 Determine Whether ECDA Process is
Appropriate and Define “ECDA Regions”
 Select Appropriate Indirect Inspection
Tools (e.g., CIS, DCVG, PCM, C-SCAN)
 Complementary Primary and Secondary
Tools are Required
 Identify Inspection Expectations
Pre-assessment
 Data Collection (Table 1 of NACE
Standard)
 Pipe Related
 Construction Related
 Soils/Environmental
 Corrosion Protection
 Pipeline Operations
Pre-assessment
 ECDA Indirect Insp. Tool Feasibility
 Complementary Tools – Evaluate pipe
with different technologies (see table 2
of NACE RP0502)
Pre-assessment
 Feasibility Influenced by:
 Degree of Shielding (Coating type, Terrain)
 Accessibility (Pavement, Water Crossings,
Casings)
Pre-assessment
 Establish ECDA feasibility regions
 Determine which indirect methods are
applicable to each region
 Tools may vary from region to region
Pre-assessment
 What is a Region?
 Segment is a Continuous Length of Pipe
 Regions are Subsets of One Segment
 Characterized by Common Attributes
 Pipe with Similar Construction and
Environmental Characteristics
 Use of Same Indirect Inspection Tools
Throughout the Region is Appropriate
Indirect Inspection
 Close Interval Survey (CIS)
 Direct Current Voltage Gradient (DCVG)
 C-Scan
 Pipeline Current Mapper (PCM)
 Alternating Current Voltage Gradient
(ACVG) (PCM with A-Frame)
Indirect Inspection
 Pearson
 Ultrasonic
 Waveform
 Soil Resistivity, Pipe Depth
Indirect Inspection
 Direct Current
 Measure Structure Potential
 Identify Locations of High CP Demand to
Small Area
Indirect Inspection
 Alternating Current
 Apply AC signal
 Determine Amount of Current Drain (i.e.,
Grounding) and Location
 Identify Locations of High AC Current
Indirect Inspection
 Types of Direct Current Tools
 Close Interval Survey (CIS or CIPS)
 Direct Current Voltage Gradient (DCVG)
 Types of Alternating Current Tools
 Alternating Current Voltage Gradient
(ACVG)
 Pearson Survey
 AC Attenuation (PCM, EM, C-Scan)
Indirect Inspection
 Purpose:
 Locate Areas Where Coating Damage May
Exist
 Evaluate Whether Corrosion Activity is
Present
 Apply Primary and Secondary Tools
Indirect Inspection
 Timing Such That Conditions are Same
 Overlay and Evaluate Data for Clarity,
Quality, and Consistency
 Distance Correlation Should be Good
Indirect Inspection via CIS
 May Detect Large Coating Holidays
 Measure Pipe to Soil Potential at
Regular Intervals (2.5 – 5 ft. Desirable)
 Protection criteria
 -850mV polarized potential
 100mV polarization
Indirect Inspection via CIS
 Secondary Interpretation
 Change in potential profile
 Amount of IR drop (Low or High)
 ON and OFF Readings are Desirable
Indirect Inspection via DCVG
 Measures Voltage Gradient in Soil
 CP Current Greatest Where Coating is
Damaged
Indirect Inspection via DCVG
 Interrupt Rectifier to Determine ∆V
 One Electrode
 Two Electrodes
 Parallel or perpendicular to ROW
 Coating Holiday Size Indicated by %

∆V
 Triangulation Used to Locate Holiday
Indirect Inspection via ACVG
 Impose AC current
 Measure Gradient Between 2
Electrodes Spaced ~1m Apart
 Gradient Corresponds to Current Flow
Direct Physical Examination
 Establish “Priority Categories” from
Indirect Inspection
 Excavations for Direct Examination
 Purpose:
 Confirm Presence of Corrosion Activity
 Determine Need for Repair or Mitigation
 Evaluate Likely Corrosion Growth Rate
 Support Adjustments to Excavation Scope
 Evaluate Need for Other Technology
 Categorize Indications
 Immediate Action Required
 Schedule for Action Required
 Suitable for Monitoring
 Excavate and Collect Data Where
Corrosion is Most Likely
 Characterize Coating and Corrosion
Anomalies
 Establish Corrosion Severity for
Remaining Strength Analysis
 Determine Root Cause
 In-process Evaluation, Re-
categorization, Guidelines on Number
of Direct Examinations
 All “Immediate” Must be Excavated
 Prioritize “Scheduled” & “Monitored”
 If >20% Wall Loss Found, Examine at
Least 1 More (2 More for 1st ECDA)
 If No Indications
 At Least 1, and 2 for 1st ECDA
 Choose More Corrosive Region
 Dig a Bell Hole
 Visual Inspection
 Coating Condition
 Ultrasonic Testing
 Radiography
 Soil Chemistry and Resistivity
 Collect Data at Dig Site
 Pipe to Soil Potentials
 Soil Resistivity
 Soil and Water Sampling
 Under-film pH
 Bacteria & SCC Related Data
 Photographic Documentation
 Characterize Coating and
Corrosion Anomalies
 Coating Condition
 Adhesion, Under Film Liquid, % Bare
 Corrosion Analysis
 Corrosion Morphology Classification
 Damage Mapping
 MPI Analysis for SCC
 Remaining Strength Analysis
 ASME B31G
 RSTRENG
 Determine Root Cause
 For Example
 Low CP
 Interference
 MIC
 Disbonded Coatings
 Construction Practices
 3rd Party Damage
Post-Assessment
 Evaluates Composite Set of Data and
Assessment Results
 Sets Re-inspection Intervals
 Validates ECDA Process
Post-Assessment
 Remaining Life - Maximum Flaw
 Maximum Remaining Flaw Size Taken
Same as Most Severe that was Found
 Second Maximum if Unique
 If No Corrosion Defects, Same as New
 Other (e.g., Statistical)
Post-Assessment
 Remaining Life Growth Rate
 Measured Corrosion Rate
 Maximum Depth / Burial Time
 16mpy (80% C.I. for Corrosion Tests)
 0.3mm/y if at Least 40mV CP
Demonstrated
Post-Assessment
 Linear Polarization Resistance (LPR)
 Probe or Existing Buried Coupon
 Coupon Retrieval
 Assess ECDA Effectiveness
Post-Assessment
 Perform at Least 1 Extra Dig at Random
Location
 Pipe Condition Should be Better than at
Indications
 For 1st ECDA
 Additional Dig at Low Priority Indication
 Company-specific Performance Metrics
ECDA Summary
 There is No Panacea for Pipe Integrity
Verification
 All Tools Have Limitations
 External Corrosion Direct Assessment
is Based on the Use and Integration of
Existing and Emerging Technologies
ECDA Summary
 External Corrosion Direct Assessment
can be Effective if Properly Applied
 Requires Effective Data Collection and
Management as well as a Commitment
to Validation
 Operators Choose Best Tools to Achieve
Pipeline Reliability, Safety, and Asset
Preservation

Direct Assessment Basics: Richard Lopez Office of Pipeline Safety Southwest Region

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Direct Assessment Basics: Richard Lopez Office of Pipeline Safety Southwest Region

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

Direct Assessment Basics: Richard Lopez Office of Pipeline Safety Southwest Region

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Direct Assessment Basics

 Dewatering Concerns/Difficult to Dry

 Distinct Assessment Process for each

 May be the Assessment Method of

 NACE RP0502 has been Issued

 ECDA Can Not Deal With:

 ECDA has Limited Applicability to:

 Coating Holiday Size Indicated by %

You might also like