Proceedings of the 2012 9th International Pipeline Conference IPC2012 September 24-28, 2012, Calgary, Alberta, Canada

IPC2012-90134

IDENTIFICATION OF COINCIDENT FEATURES IN PIPELINES USING ILI DATA

Jane Dawson, Principal Consultant, PII Pipeline Solutions, a GE Oil & Gas and Al Shaheen joint venture Atley Way, North Nelson Industrial Estate, Cramlington, Northumberland, NE23 1WW, UK Tel: +44 191 247 3429 Email: jane.dawson@ge.com Rodger Weller, Software Architect, PII Pipeline Solutions, a GE Oil & Gas and Al Shaheen joint venture 7101 College Blvd Suite 1100, Overland Park, Kansas, United States Tel: +1 913 981 6550 Email: rodger.weller@ge.com

Girish Rao, Software Architect, PII Pipeline Solutions, a GE Oil & Gas and Al Shaheen joint venture 7101 College Blvd Suite 1100, Overland Park, Kansas, United States Tel: +1 913 981 6511 Email: girish1.rao@ge.com

ABSTRACT Many pipelines are vulnerable to multiple threats and damage types such as internal and/or external corrosion, axial and/or circumferential cracking, laminations, gouging, dents, ovalities and wrinkles. These different types of damage may occur in isolation or can occur coincidental at the same location in the pipeline. Whilst two or more of these feature types may be coincident in the pipeline, the different feature types often require detection by different ILI technologies which are quite often run at different times and even by different ILI vendors. It is important to identify where different types of features are coincident: Discrimination and sizing of certain feature types can be adversely affected and hence uncertainties may be higher at these locations Evaluation of feature severity should account for the types of feature present and any interaction between features To aid the excavation and repair planning processes

It can be difficult and time consuming to identify the exact location where multiple features may be coincident with each other because this requires accurate alignment, accounting for positional tolerances, matching and overlay of data from ILI runs of different technologies and often from several years apart. This paper describes an approach to identify where coincidental features occur within a pipeline by: Combining and overlaying multiple ILI technologies and data sets in a common interface Allowing different proximity tolerances to be used to account for positional accuracy in the determination of coincident feature groups Enabling the identification of the ILI reported features (e.g., cracks, internal and external corrosion, dents, mill faults including laminations, gouges etc.) that could be coincident and therefore may interact Case studies are used to illustrate the approach and to evaluate the results obtained.

Copyright 2012 by ASME

NOMENCLATURE Azimuth Circumferential location around the pipe circumference often specified as an oclock location or in degrees Electronic file format (comma separated variable) readable by MS Excel Electromagnetic acoustic transducer technology Pipeline defects found by ILI Global Positioning System High Consequence Area Hydrogen induced cracking In-line Inspection Integrity management plan Magnetic Flux Leakage ILI tool Narrow axial external corrosion Probability of Detection Probability of Identification Stress corrosion cracking Ultrasonic crack detection ILI tool Ultrasonic wall measurement ILI tool Electronic file format readable by MS Excel
Figure 1: ILI Tool Selection Considerations

CSV EMAT Feature GPS HCA HIC ILI IMP MFL NAEC POD POI SCC USCD USWM XLS

ILI TECHNOLOGIES, LIMITATIONS

CAPABILITIES

AND

There are a number of different ILI tool technology types available for inspecting liquid and gas pipelines. The selection of one particular ILI tool type over another tool technology depends on three main aspects: The operating and pipeline characteristics The feature types to be identified The level of accuracy required As no one tool can meet all of the possible combinations of the above variables, the selection of the best tool for the job has to be a considered compromise as illustrated by Figure 1. In terms of the required accuracy of the ILI tool, this is a function of the probability of detection (POD), probability of identification (POI), sizing accuracy, feature discrimination and positional accuracies which in turn depend on the feature type being considered and the tool running conditions in relation to the flow conditions and product type. For many pipelines it will be necessary to run several different ILI tool technologies over a period of time in order to build up the required pipeline condition information that is needed to meet all of the objectives of the pipelines long term integrity management plan.

Operators initially run geometry (caliper) tools for line proving purposes, to determine if in-line inspection is possible. Caliper tools identify and size internal diameter reductions or expansions, the presence of dents, ovalities, buckles and wrinkles whilst accurately determining the radius and angle of bends located within the pipeline. However, they do not provide information of any metal loss or crack type features that may also be present. Magnetic and ultrasonic ILI tools each offer unique advantages in detecting and characterizing various types of metal loss, cracks and other material features. Magnetic ILI tools are ideally suited to the detection and sizing of the following feature types: General corrosion Small pitting Girth weld anomalies Detection of hard spots Narrow Axial External Corrosion (NAEC) using multi-axial sensors Whereas ultrasonic ILI tools are more suited to the detection and sizing of: General corrosion Grooving corrosion

Copyright 2012 by ASME

 Laminations, inclusions manufacturing features Erosion wall thinning NAEC

and

other

mid-wall

Hydrogen Induced Cracking (HIC)

pipeline. Whilst two or more of these feature types may be coincident in the pipeline, the different feature types could require detection by different ILI technologies run at different times, maybe years apart and by different ILI vendors. Consequently, when evaluating the condition of a pipeline it is essential to take a holistic view of all the relevant threat and loading information pertaining to that pipeline [1,2]. The same principle should be applied when evaluating the results from an ILI run, these should not be evaluated in isolation but considered together with other ILI data that has been gathered other the last several years. This may sound obvious but consider the scenario where different ILI technologies (for example, metal loss and crack ILI runs) are run more than say four (4) years apart. The ILI vendor will only report on the current ILI results and not on previous ILI runs unless of course contracted to do so. Therefore, will the engineer who is evaluating the new crack ILI data take into account the previous metal loss ILI results or even be aware that a previous metal loss ILI run was performed? May be not as the operator may have different departments responsible for managing the different threats. Why does this matter? Well it is important to identify where different types of pipeline features exist coincidental or in close proximity on a pipeline for the following reasons: The detection, discrimination and sizing of certain feature types may be adversely affected by the presence of other features and hence uncertainties may be higher at these locations. The evaluation of feature severity should account for all the types of feature present and any interaction between features. To assist excavation and repair planning processes it is important to know what features are present in the same pipe joint and also up and down stream of the excavation. E.g., the choice of pipeline repair will be influenced by the types of feature present, the placement of the repair, again, will be influenced by the types and location of other features and also it may be beneficial financially to remediate other features whilst the pipeline is exposed rather than having to return at a later date.

More specialized inspection capabilities are essential in order to identify and accurately describe planar defects, i.e., cracks. Whilst different technologies exist to cater for specific crack-like flaws, at present there is no universal tool. For longitudinally orientated crack-like flaws the most appropriate technologies are the ultrasonic shear wave crack detection, transverse magnetic flux leakage and electromagnetic acoustic transducers (known as EMAT). These crack detection tools can provide information on the following crack flaws: SCC colonies Fatigue, weld-toe and shrinkage cracks Longitudinal weld cracks, lack-of-fusion and hook cracks Axial laps, narrow axial corrosion Seam weld features Preferential seam weld corrosion (e.g., of Electrical Resistance Weld (ERW) seam) Some ultrasonic tools use phased arrays of transducers that allow them to carry out both crack detection and metal loss inspection. The addition of an inertial mapping unit module on an ILI tool allows mapping (GPS) coordinates to be determined which, as well as providing accurate positional information for any location on the pipeline, enables the curvature of the line and hence the bending strain components to be inferred along the pipeline route. This information coupled with the known locations of pipeline features gives the operator further insight into potential problem areas that exist on the pipeline that they may not otherwise of known about.

IMPORTANCE OF IDENTIFYING WHERE PIPELINE FEATURES ARE COINCIDENT As numerous historical pipeline failures have illustrated, there are often several mitigating factors at play. Most pipelines are vulnerable to multiple threats and damage types such as internal and/or external corrosion, axial and/or circumferential cracking, laminations, gouging, dents, ovalities and wrinkles. These different types of damage may occur in isolation or can occur coincidental at the same location in the

Examples of feature coincidence Figures 2 to 4 below provide some examples of different configurations of coincidental features.

Copyright 2012 by ASME

The presence of a coincidental surface breaking lamination reduces the remaining ligament below the external corrosion feature. The severity assessment method needs to account for the presence and interaction of both the corrosion and the lamination feature. If a repair is needed, the selected technique will need to be suitable for both features and cover entire defective area.

Figure 2: Coincidental external corrosion and axial cracks

In the two scenarios shown in Figure 2 the following observations are made: The magnetic (or ultrasonic metal loss) ILI tool will detect only the corrosion feature. The axial crack and not the corrosion will only be detected by a crack detection ILI tool. The discrimination and/or sizing of the crack may be affected by presence of the corrosion. The severity assessment method should account for the presence and interaction of both the corrosion and crack. Integrity management plan (IMP) needs to consider both feature types. If a repair is needed, the selected technique will need to be suitable for both external corrosion and the axial crack and cover the entire defective area.

Figure 4: Overlapping external and internal corrosion

In the scenario shown in Figure 4: The magnetic ILI tool will detect and report both the internal and external wall loss where it does not overlap. Where it overlaps only an internal feature will be reported. Similarly ultrasonic (metal loss) tools will detect both the internal and external wall loss but will usually report as an internal feature where it overlaps. The pipelines integrity management plan needs to account for the presence and interaction of both types of corrosion features (different growth rates and remediation techniques will be required). If a repair is needed, the selected technique will need to be suitable for both internal and external corrosion and cover entire defective area.

In addition to the examples shown above, other coincident features scenarios include: Girth weld or seam weld anomalies and corrosion features (or other feature types) located on opposing pipe surfaces resulting in reduced remaining ligament thickness. Circumferentially orientated features such as girth or spiral weld cracks, other weld anomalies or widespread corrosion features coincident with an applied bending stress in the pipeline (e.g., due to ground movement) can lead to premature failure of a pipeline at an otherwise considered innocuous feature that has previously survived hydrostatic

Figure 3: Coincidental external corrosion and internal sloping, surface breaking lamination

In the scenario shown in Figure 3: The magnetic ILI tool will detect the corrosion. The ultrasonic (metal loss) tool will detect the lamination but not the external corrosion.

Copyright 2012 by ASME

pressure testing due environmental loading. Feature interaction

to

the

unknown

Pipeline features are said to interact when the behaviour of the features considered together differs to that of the features when considered individually [3]. The degree of interaction between adjacent features depends upon the spacing between the features; as the spacing decreases, the degree of interaction will increase. Interaction between adjacent features must be considered in order to safely evaluate the severity of the features and the integrity of the pipeline. Interaction between adjacent metal loss features in a pipeline (either machined notches or slots, or real corrosion features) has been extensively studied and various empirical interaction rules and criteria have been developed [4-7]. Similarly, interaction between crack-like features (planar flaws) has also been extensively studied, based on fracture mechanics considerations [8-10]. However, there is little known research reported in the literature that describes experimental studies of the behavior adjacent features of different types, with the exception of smooth dents on welds and dents containing gouges or machined notches. Therefore, only limited guidance can be given on the assessment of interaction between features of different types: Any coincident or overlapping features should be considered as interacting [3] Features in close proximity (up to 3 times the wall thickness) should be considered as interacting [3] Features separated by more than 3 times the wall thickness should be checked for interaction by considering the relevant interaction rules of the different feature types present and adopting the most conservative of these rules [4-10].

cut-out repairs or more complex re-routes or diversions) have not occurred due to missed girth welds and ILI wheel slippage for example. Furthermore, the sheer volume of information contained in a given inspection, particularly for pipelines that span a considerable distance, can make the process of determining coincidence error prone if not performed in a systematic manner.

Figure 5: Simple illustration of coincident features

When these factors are considered, the process of determining feature coincidence begins to suggest the potential and/or need for increased sophistication, as illustrated by Figure 6 below, to ensure that pipelines continue to operate in the safest manner possible while maximizing the value of investments made during annual maintenance cycles.

COMPLEXITIES IN DETERMINING COINCIDENCE While the thought process behind determining feature coincidence is logical enough when reduced to comparing inspections by axial distance and circumferential locations as noted in Figure 5 below, there are a few pitfalls that need to be considered before attempting to summarize this information using previous or future ILI pipeline feature listings. For example, environmental and/or material conditions can introduce uncertainty in the reported positions of pipeline features, even with high resolution inspection tools. As feature locations are generally reported using a calculated offset or relative distance from a reference location, such as an upstream girth weld or external marker, these same conditions may not hold true when the desired outcome is to compare one inspection technology to another. The ILI measured spool lengths can and often do vary across inspections even in sections of the pipeline where physical changes (i.e., simple

Figure 6: Coincident features using buffering

ILI data alignment challenges As mentioned above, there are quite often differences in the reported length of spools when contrasting two unique inspection runs. While this can complicate the effort to identify coincident features between two runs, the issue is further compounded when attempting to compare numerous

Copyright 2012 by ASME

inspections for a given pipeline over the past five or even more years. Figure 7 illustrates a hypothetical situation for the first ten (10) main welds in a sample pipeline.

Figure 8: Pipeline differences caused by cut-outs Figure 7: Alignment challenges

While some spool lengths differ due to physical changes on the pipeline (in this case cut-out repairs have been conducted in the time interval between the ILI runs), this is not the only reason why the distance of a spool may be reported differently. As discussed earlier missed girth welds during ILI signal analysis and ILI tool distance measurement problems (e.g., wheel slippage and other recording issues) will impact the distances for a given inspection. And as the sample illustration shows, there is a difference of four metres over the first 140m of the inspection, which illustrates the impracticality of simply comparing the features based on orientation and the absolute distance over the duration of the inspections particular as features are generally measured in millimeters vs. the pipeline distance measured in kilometers. It should be noted that although there is a four metre discrepancy at only a short distance into the run, this does not necessitate that the entire run with be off by four metres. The distance could be re-captured, may reduce or it will more likely increase as the inspection continues. Pipeline differences between runs Cut-outs are often used to replace severely damaged pipe segments and this causes differences in the girth weld count between ILI runs as illustrated in Figure 8.

Line configuration differences such as pipe cut-outs tend to complicate the process of determining coincidence as new pipe joints are absent from the older inspections. When attempting to overlay features from older inspections upon new inspections, these sections of the pipeline, generally identified as new joints, must be accounted for using similar methods across the inspections. The purpose of this identification is not to concern the process with handling features that have since been repaired (although this might prove helpful in retrospect), but to ensure that subsequent, downstream features are properly aligned to the correct welds within the system. Positional and reporting tolerances Once the ILI data sets are properly aligned based on the girth weld positions the next step is to align the reported features. At this stage it is important to consider both: Feature positional tolerances and Feature dimensional reporting tolerances

The feature positional tolerances represent where the feature is located both axially and circumferentially with a pipe joint. The axial positional tolerance will typically be 1% of the axial length (from last fixed point, i.e., the girth weld). The circumferential positional tolerance can typically be 15 to 30 minutes around the circumference (e.g., 40 to 80mm in a 24 diameter pipeline). The reporting tolerances represent the feature dimensional (sizing) tolerances and are typically 30 to 50mm axially and 15 minutes around the circumference. It is important to highlight that the exact positional and reporting tolerances will vary for different ILI tool technologies and may even vary from vendor to vendor for the same tool technology type. When establishing feature coincidence the

Copyright 2012 by ASME

positional and reporting axial and circumferential tolerances should be included and used to create buffer zones around each feature in order to identify possible coincident feature groups. The coincident feature analysis should allow configuration of the axial and circumferential positional and reporting tolerances based on the accuracy of the ILI tool and the use of feature interaction criteria. The analysis will also need to be sufficiently flexible to account for certain segments of the pipeline where ILI distance errors exist by applying increased tolerances in these problematic pipe joints or if a higher degree of conservatism is required in a certain segment of the pipeline, e.g., in an HCA. Need for automation As discussed above the task of identifying areas of feature coincidence is in fact more complex than it may at first appear to be as there are many different factors that need consideration and many opportunities for errors to creep in that need systematic and consistent handling throughout the pipeline. Added to this, the sheer volume of information captured by the ILI technology (in some cases in excess of millions of features per inspection) multiplied two-fold or three-fold to account for the multiple ILI tool runs means that an automated software based approach for determining feature coincidence is essential. If this process is assigned to an individual rather than automated, particularly for pipelines of significant length, the probability that the same grouping rules are applied consistently over the duration of the pipeline for all inspections is considerably reduced. The implications of human error may be insignificant for features whose peak depths are trivial. However, when considering large volumes of data, the process or method by which coincidence is determined and the ability to apply this process consistently becomes considerably more important. Software tooling can be indiscriminate of the features and created to focus on the pattern, rather than subjectively focusing on features of obvious consequence (i.e. all features are treated the same). Software tooling also facilitates the investigation of sensitivity of the resulting coincident feature grouping to the positional and reporting tolerances and interaction criteria thus enabling an increased level of sophistication in the coincidence feature analysis than would be possible if attempted manually.

created in years passed when XLS files had significant row count limitations and pipe tallies usually spanned multiple files. The information contained in these files must be coalesced for proper coincident feature analysis to occur. At this point in the paper it is worth just to recap that it is not the mission of coincident feature assessment to attempt to predict the progression of time dependent features (i.e., the growth of corrosion) but rather to identify where features of different types (e.g., corrosion and crack-like features) are most likely coincident. SOFTWARE Having surveyed the various ILI technologies, capabilities and limitations, discussed the importance of identifying coincident features and articulated several of the challenges with doing such, the necessity to leverage a software based solution for determining coincident feature groups becomes readily apparent. As well as providing a repeatable, accurate and efficient analysis of feature coincidence, there are a few key functions that such software must provide to effectively meet the need of determining feature coincidence. Multiple Inspection Support the system must allow an operator to visualize, determine and/or report coincident features using two or more inspection sets for a given pipeline within a common interface. Ideally, these inspections will have been performed within a reasonable time to each other and be easily aligned to one another, subject of-course to operational conditions such as the amount of work performed on the line, the quality of the data from the inspection, etc The necessity of presenting this information using a single interface should not be underestimated as often times additional insights can be gleaned by spending time previewing the data. Allow for adjustable proximity/feature reporting tolerances and interaction criteria the system must allow an operator to modify axial and circumferential proximity tolerances by each ILI run and in specific problematic or highly sensitive locations and must use these tolerances during the deterministic process for coincident features. By including all the tolerances, the level of sophistication is increased and allows the operator to modify the sensitivity of the system upon which severity assessment, excavation and repair decisions will be based. Feature Identification enabling the identification of the ILI reported features (e.g., cracks, internal and external corrosion, dents, mill faults including laminations, gouges, etc) and feature dimensions that could be coincident and therefore may interact. The system should allow the operator to easily and intelligently navigate amongst the various feature types to survey the information provided. Reporting the system must allow the operator to generate reports on coincident features as well as the

File sizes, high feature counts As the ILI technology used to perform inspections continues to evolve and pipeline networks continue to age, it is anticipated that the number features identified by a given inspection will continue to increase. This is particular true when inspection technologies which are capable of identifying more than one feature type are used for an inspection on a pipeline. Managing inspection information and understanding the volumes of data from various inspection sources can be a laborious task, particularly when the information is stored in CSV or XLS files. This is also true for pipe tallies that were

Copyright 2012 by ASME

various features contained by all of the inspections in the system. These reports are expected to form the baseline for operational decisions for mitigating the coincident features. Optionally, it would be beneficial for the system to provide additional capabilities such as linking to imagery data that give great insight into planning for investigations, capabilities to adjust feature parameters that are used in determining coincidence (e.g., peak depth > 15%, length > 10mm, etc), filters to mitigate some of the volume of information contained in the inspections by limiting it to a certain distance of the pipeline for example. It is highlighted that the accuracy of coincident feature assessment software relies heavily on the accuracy of the ILI data sets being studied in detecting, discriminating and positioning the pipeline features. The following figures show some examples of coincident feature determination and the sensitivity to positional tolerances. Figure 9 shows a group of features from two different inspections (metal loss and crack detection ILIs). The coincident feature group (shown by the blue dashed rectangle) has been determined based on zero positional and reporting tolerances. Observe, however, that less than one metre, downstream, that a further crack and corrosion feature appears to be touching but no coincident feature group has been identified.

Figure 10: Same grouping zoomed in

By running the grouping process again and specifying a more appropriate separation distance to account for the different positional and reporting tolerances associated with the inspection technologies a different coincident feature grouping is realized as shown in Figure 11 below.

Figure 11: Coincident feature grouping circumferential positional tolerance

increased

There is an increased confidence in the information provided simply by allowing the computation of coincident feature groups to use the appropriate buffers (positional and reporting tolerances) based on the source inspection accuracy. The analysis can be further adjusted to include interaction criteria.

CASE STUDIES The Coincident Feature Assessment software was used in the following case studies to illustrate the applied process and the results obtained.
The x-axis represents the longitudinal direction along the pipe and the vertical axis represents the circumferential position around the pipe.

Figure 9: Coincident feature grouping zero tolerance

Figure 10 shows a zoomed scale of the same site, and there is a noticeable, albeit small, separation between the features. In all probability, these features should be considered close enough to be potentially overlapping or coincident.

Case Study 1 The first case study is a 130km liquid pipeline in service for 20+ years. Over a period of 6 years, 5 ILI tools were run in the pipeline. The 5 ILI runs consisted of magnetic, ultrasonic wall measurement, ultrasonic crack detection and caliper ILI tool technologies and detected a combined total over 500,000 features comprising of: External metal loss (characteristic of corrosion) Internal metal loss (characteristic of corrosion) Cracks (characteristic of SCC colonies)

Copyright 2012 by ASME

Dents Buckles Laminations Seam weld anomalies Other mill faults

The most recent of the 5 ILI data sets was selected as the master data set. The remaining 4 were each aligned (girth weld alignment) to the master data set taking into account any line changes from one ILI run to another and then consolidating into one overall ILI data set. Figure 12 shows a screenshot taken from the consolidated ILI data set.

Note each grid circumferentially. Note each grid square represents 0.5m axially and 0.226m circumferentially.

square

represents

0.5m

axially

and

0.226m

Figure 13: Case study 1 Overlapping and close proximity coincident feature groups

Figure 12: Case study 1 view of features in a typical pipe joint

Performing the coincidental feature analysis with first zero positional tolerances applied, the findings were as follows: 1700 coincidental feature groups were identified where the features were overlapping, this represented 0.4% of the total feature count in the pipeline. 450 of the 1700 groups (26%) contained a crack together with other features 180 groups (11%) contained a dent together with other features 1000+ groups (60%+) contained corrosion together with other features

Case Study 2 The second case study is from a 150km liquid pipeline. Over a period of 4 years, 5 ILI tools were run in the pipeline. The 5 ILI runs consisted of magnetic, ultrasonic crack detection and caliper ILI tool technologies and detected a combined total of over 21,000 features comprising mainly of: External metal loss (characteristic of corrosion) Cracks (characteristic of SCC colonies) Dents Mill faults

By applying the appropriate positional and reporting tolerances and interaction criteria a further 500+ coincident feature groups were identified. Figure 13 illustrates both the overlapping and close proximity feature groupings that were determined.

As in case study 1, the most recent of the 5 ILI data sets was selected as the master data set and the remaining 4 were each aligned (girth weld alignment) to the master data set taking into account all the line changes between the ILI runs. The aligned 5 data sets were then consolidated into one overall ILI data set. The coincidental feature analysis was performed with a 100mm axial positional tolerance and approximately 700 coincident feature groups were identified. The groups comprised predominantly of SCC and external corrosion

Copyright 2012 by ASME

features located near field joints. Figure 14 illustrates several coincident feature groups typical of those found in the pipeline.

same pipe joint and up and down stream of the location being excavated. E.g., the choice of pipeline repair will be influenced by the types of feature present, the placement of the repair again will be influenced by the types and location of other features and also it may be beneficial financially to remediate other features whilst the pipeline is exposed rather than having to return at a later date. In order to identify where coincident features exist it is necessary to align and analyse multiple ILI data sets as one combined data set. Bespoke software is best suited for handling the complexities involved in aligning and analyzing several ILI data sets at once whilst systematically accounting for all the appropriate positional/reporting tolerances and interaction criteria and enabling sensitivity analysis of the end result to these tolerances. The software solution must be capable of providing a repeatable and accurate result and at the same time delivering an efficient analysis of feature coincidence.

Each grid square represents 0.5m axially and 0.07m around the

Taking all the relevant pipeline information and where they exist multiple ILI data sets into account even when they span several years is a necessary part of proactive threat and overall pipeline integrity management. This paper has highlighted the challenges involved in identifying coincident feature groups from multiple ILI data sets and has described the need for a software-based approach that can deliver the required accuracy and efficiency whilst providing sufficient flexibility to account for the necessary ILI tolerances and feature interaction criteria.

Figure 14: Case study 2 Examples of the coincident feature groups identified

CONCLUSIONS Many pipelines are vulnerable to multiple threats and damage types such as internal and/or external corrosion, axial and/or circumferential cracking, laminations, gouging, dents, etc. These different types of damage may occur in isolation or can occur coincidental at the same location in a pipeline. Whilst two or more of these feature types may be coincident or overlapping in the pipeline, the different feature types will often require detection by different ILI technologies which may be run at different times and usually years apart. It is important to identify where different types of features are coincident for several reasons: The detection, discrimination and sizing of certain feature types may be adversely affected by the presence of other features and hence uncertainties in the feature attributes may be higher at these locations. For an accurate and conservative evaluation of feature severity, any coincident features or even those features in close proximity should be considered to allow for any interaction between the features. To assist the excavation and repair planning process it is important to know what features are present in the

10

Copyright 2012 by ASME

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors would like to thank PII for the permission to publish this paper.

REFERENCES 1. ASME B31.8S - 2010, Managing System Integrity of Gas Pipelines, Supplement to ASME B31.8, 2010. API 1160, Managing System Integrity for Hazardous Liquid Pipelines, First Edition, November 2001. Cosham, A., Hopkins, P., The Pipeline Defect Assessment Manual (PDAM), Penspen Limited 2003. ASME B31.4-2006, Pipeline Transportation Systems for Liquid Hydrocarbons and Other Liquids. CSA Z662-11 Oil and Gas Pipeline Systems. ASME B31.G-2009, Manual for Determining the Remaining Strength of Corroded Pipelines. DNV RP-F101, Corroded Pipelines, October 2004. API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 2007 Fitness for Service, American Petroleum Institute API and The American Society of Mechanical Engineers ASME Publishing, June 5, 2007. BSI 7910. Guide on Methods for Assessing the Acceptability of Flaws in Fusion Welded Structures, Incorporating Amendment No.1, British Standards Institution, London, UK, 1999.

2.

3.

4.

5. 6.

7. 8.

9.

10. API Std 1104 (R2010) Welding of Pipelines and Related Facilities - 20th Edition.

11

Copyright 2012 by ASME