Plant Integrity Limited

Granta Park, Great Abington, Cambridge CB21 6GP, United Kingdom

Telephone +44 (0)1223 893994 Telefax +44 (0)1223 893944

SECTION 3

CAPABILITIES AND LIMITATIONS OF

GUIDED WAVE INSPECTIONS

© 2012 Plant Integrity Limited

 Guided Wave Pipe Inspection

CONTENTS

3. CAPABILITIES AND LIMITATIONS OF GUIDED WAVE INSPECTION 3

3.1 Pipe Diameters 3
3.1.1 Access 3
3.1.2 Pipe Configurations 4
3.1.3 Temperatures 4
3.1.4 External Coatings 4
3.1.5 External Environment 4
3.1.6 Internal Environment 4
3.1.7 Pipe Condition 4
3.1.8 Test Range 5
3.1.9 Productivity 6
3.1.10 Proven Applications 6
3.1.11 Potential Applications 6
3.1.12 Requirements on Site 6
3.1.13 Philosophy on Screening 6
3.2 Field Applications 8
3.2.1 Overview 8
3.2.2 Oil and Gas Industry 8
3.2.3 Jay Oil Field, Alabama/Florida 9
3.2.4 North Slope Oil Field, Alaska 10
3.2.5 Gas Pipeline in Venezuela 10
3.2.6 Inspection of Headers in Gas Compressor Stations 13
3.2.7 Inspection of 14" Ammonia Line 14
3.2.8 Inspection of 24" Slurry Line along Lakeshore, Fort McMurry 15

© 2012 Section 3: Capabilities and limitations of guided wave tests Page 2 of 16

 Guided Wave Pipe Inspection

3. CAPABILITIES AND LIMITATIONS OF GUIDED WAVE INSPECTION

The Guided Wave pipe inspection technique was developed to screen pipework for metal
loss features, such as corrosion and erosion. Originally developed for the inspection of
corrosion under insulation in petrochemical plant pipework, the technology is equally suited
for application to structural tubulars and pipelines including road crossings, bridge piers and
pipework with limited access.
Areas highlighted are identified for more detailed assessment using conventional NDT test
methods. The technique is particularly suited to fingerprinting exercises, allowing the pipe
condition to be checked on a periodic basis without the need to remove the entire insulation.
The reliable detection range is equivalent to 9% of the pipe cross sectional area (CSA).
Metal loss features have been detected far smaller than this level; however, a lower
reporting level can result in an increase in false calls.
A Guided Wave inspection will provide information on the metal loss features in terms of
range from the transducer (or agreed datum) and severity, Category 1,2 and 3, three being
the worst case.

3.1 Pipe Diameters.

Transducer tooling is suitable for testing all pipe diameters (ANSI/ASME nominal bore) from
2 to 24 inches, above which tools can be linked together suitable for larger diameters up to
48”.

3.1.1 Access.
Access is required to 1m of bare pipe in order to mount the transducer ring. The ring ideally
needs to be at least 1m from the nearest girth weld or other pipe feature. This may
necessitate removal of more insulation.

Figure 3.1 – Pipe access requirements

© 2012 Section 3: Capabilities and limitations of Guided Wave inspections Page 3 of 16

 Guided Wave Pipe Inspection

3.1.2 Pipe Configurations.

An ideal application for Guided Wave inspection is straight sections of pipework, where
inspection of tens of metres in either direction can be achieved. Testing around swept or
pulled bends generally causes no problems. Testing around elbows can result in distortion of
the Guided Wave and thus reduced testing capabilities. Testing from a main line will not
cover branch lines. If required these should be tested separately if suitable.

3.1.3 Temperatures.
Pipe surface temperatures can be up to 120°C. However, it is recommended when
inspecting pipes above 90°C that the collar should be removed as soon as the data
collection process is complete.

3.1.4 External Coatings.

Mineral wool insulation presents no difficulties. Bonded foam polyurethane insulation leads
to a loss of ultrasound. However, this merely results in a reduced inspection range.
Some limited success has been achieved in testing pipe passing through concrete walls and
pipe encased in lightweight fireproofing cement. However, concrete attenuates ultrasound
rapidly and may prevent effective operation.
Bitumastic coatings provide a high level of attenuation and again may prevent effective
operation. Experience shows that removing a greater amount of coating at the tool location
can improve the data quality. For more details please see ‘Location of tooling and pipe
preparation’ document at the end of this section.
Some types of heavy adherent wrapping (Denso wrap) can result in excessive loss of
ultrasound. Newly applied material causes most problems. Testing has been successful on
pipe where the tape has dried out and is no longer well adhered to the pipe surface. Testing
of this type can be on a trial basis only.

3.1.5 External Environment.

The ultrasonic signal can be transmitted along pipe that is immersed in water, with good
results. However, neither the pulser/receiver itself or the standard transducer tool is suitable
for underwater operation.

3.1.6 Internal Environment.

As the viscosity of the pipe contents increases, the inspection range decreases due to loss
of ultrasound energy. Heavy deposits e.g. scale, on the inside of the pipe can also be highly
attenuative.

3.1.7 Pipe Condition.

The technique works by detecting echoes from changes in cross sectional area of the pipe.
Each change acts as a reflector, in turn reducing the intensity of the ultrasound travelling
beyond it. On pipework exhibiting general heavy corrosion, ultrasound will be scattered from
all the corrosion, effectively reducing the inspection range. It must be remembered that this
in itself is a result and the corrosion would be reported accordingly.

© 2012 Section 3: Capabilities and limitations of Guided Wave inspections Page 4 of 16

 Guided Wave Pipe Inspection

3.1.8 Test Range.

The pipe is interrogated seamlessly first in one direction and then in the other from the one
transducer location. Typically ranges of ±30m may be achieved. Under ideal conditions, this
has increased to ±150m. However, it will be less, if conditions are unfavourable.

Table 3.1 summarises the factors affecting performance, principally the test range over
which adequate signal to noise separation is achieved. As the degree of difficulty of Guided
Wave propagation increases, so the test range decreases and noise increases.

Degree of Surface condition Pipe contents Pipe features

difficulty

Bare metal Straight lengths

Smooth well bonded Gas
paint
Dry mineral wool
insulation Water

Fusion bonded epoxy Pulled bends

Light pitting Low viscosity liquid Attachments /

brackets
Heavy pitting
Plastic coating High viscosity liquid
Branches / elbow
Bitumastic coating
Concrete coating Waxy liquids,
deposits Many bends

Table 3.1 - Factors affecting performance of guided wave inspections

© 2012 Section 3: Capabilities and limitations of Guided Wave inspections Page 5 of 16

 Guided Wave Pipe Inspection

3.1.9 Productivity.
Under ideal conditions, inspection rates in excess of 1km per day have been achieved. As
with conventional NDT, the rate of inspection depends largely on the condition on the
pipework being inspected.

3.1.10 Proven Applications

Guided Waves have been used commercially over a number of years. During this time its
benefits have been proven on:
 Painted pipework
 Mineral wool insulated lines
 Polyurethane foam insulated
lines
 Spirally welded pipe
 Sleeved sections
 Mixed phase lines
 Road crossings
 Offshore risers
 Bund wall penetrations
 Buried pipelines
 High temperature lines
(<120oC)
 Stainless steel pipe

3.1.11 Potential Applications.

Guided Wave technology is in a continual state of development. Among the applications
currently under consideration are:
 Wind turbine towers.
 Offshore platform jacket structures
 Railway lines.
 Cables
 Subsea pipelines

3.1.12 Requirements on Site.

The Teletest Focus + unit is non-intrinsically safe and both it and the laptop are battery
operated. In most cases therefore, work is carried out under a hot work permit system.

3.1.13 Philosophy on Screening.

Guided Wave inspection does not provide a direct measurement of wall thickness, but is
sensitive to a combination of the depth and circumferential extent of any metal loss, plus the
axial length to some degree.
This is due to the transmission of a circular wave along the pipe wall, which interacts with the
annular cross-section at each point. It is the reduction in this cross-section to which the
Guided Wave is sensitive.
Fig 3.2 illustrates that the technique is sensitive to flaw area as a proportion of the pipe-wall
cross-section.
It is equally sensitive to internal and external flaws. The effect of multiple flaws is additive.

© 2012 Section 3: Capabilities and limitations of Guided Wave inspections Page 6 of 16

 Guided Wave Pipe Inspection

Percentage loss of cross sectional area is given by A1

A  A2  A3 D
A%  1  100
Dt A3
A2

Figure 3.2 - Sensitivity to loss of cross section

Corrosion is the most common cause of failure in pipes. It is imperative that any pipe
carrying hazardous or high pressure fluid be inspected at appropriate intervals to detect any
corrosion sufficiently early for remedial measures to be taken before failure or leakage
occurs.
Because Guided Wave inspection requires less preparatory work (excavation, insulation
removal, etc) than other inspection techniques it can be used more frequently in a monitoring
role.
Only when a suspect position on the pipe is identified is that part of the pipe exposed for
more detailed examination by a conventional NDT method. This would usually be visual
inspection for external flaws or ultrasonic thickness gauging for internal corrosion. In
comparison with other methods of monitoring, guided wave inspections can be carried out
more frequently because:

 Scaffolding is not necessary.

 Pipes do not have to be excavated
 Only a small area of insulation has to be removed.
 Plant does not have to be shut down.

Greater coverage is achieved with Guided Waves because:

 On average, 60m of pipe can be inspected from one location.

 Internal and external corrosion are detected simultaneously.
 The complete pipe volume is inspected.

More consistent results between repeat inspections are achieved with Guided Waves
because:
 Placement of the transducer tool is replicated exactly.
 Calibration of the A-scan is exactly the same; the same pipe welds are used to set
the Distance Amplitude Correction curves that determine the test sensitivity.

© 2012 Section 3: Capabilities and limitations of Guided Wave inspections Page 7 of 16

 Guided Wave Pipe Inspection

3.2 Field Applications.

3.2.1 Overview.
Guided Wave inspection was developed for inspecting pipe that is inaccessible to
conventional inspection techniques, because it is buried, elevated or insulated. This type of
pipe inspection is a major problem in the oil, gas and petrochemical industries and it is in
these industries that Guided Waves have found the most widespread use. However there is
also a growing demand for such services in the power generation industry. Here pipes are
generally more accessible for condition monitoring by conventional NDT methods, but the
benefits of Guided Waves in providing more complete coverage and greater reproducibility
between repeat inspections is recognised.
There are also many applications for Guided Wave inspection which are special ‘one-offs’
and are industry specific.
Some of the Teletest field applications, as performed by Pi, are described in this section.
They have been divided into five categories Fig 3.3.

Offshore oil & gas

Power
 Flow lines
Generation
 Risers

Teletest
Case Studies

Petrochemical
Onshore oil & gas
Special
 Flow lines
Applications
 Jetty lines  Flow lines
 Tank farms  Crossings

Figure 3.3 - Overview of Teletest applications

3.2.2 Oil and Gas Industry.

Work for the oil and gas industry is divided into upstream (exploration and production),
midstream (transmission pipelines) and downstream (petrochemical plant).

© 2012 Section 3: Capabilities and limitations of Guided Wave inspections Page 8 of 16

 Guided Wave Pipe Inspection

3.2.3 Jay Oil Field, Alabama/Florida.

Teletest was being used to inspect a high-pressure water injection line buried in and around
the main Jay facility. The pipe was buried in a light sandy soil and wrapped in plastic. The
test results were acted upon immediately. The position of any anomaly on the Teletest A-
scan was measured and paced out from the Teletest tool placed on exposed pipe in a bell-
hole. One such indication is shown in Fig 3.4.

Corrosion
Weld

Figure 3.4 - A-scan

Fig.23 ofofcorrosion
A-scan corrosion near weld near weld

The anomaly, indicated by the (+) in the figure just beyond the weld is classified as a Cat 3
anomaly.

A bell hole was dug down to the pipe at the indicated position, where corrosion was
revealed. It was decided to cut out the corroded section of pipe Fig 3.5. This confirmed the
presence of severe corrosion at the position indicated, just beyond the weld.

Figure 3.5 - Cut-out of pipe showing severe corrosion

© 2012 Section 3: Capabilities and limitations of Guided Wave inspections Page 9 of 16

 Guided Wave Pipe Inspection

3.2.4 North Slope Oil Field, Alaska.

Before this major survey of road crossings in the oil fields at Kuparuk and Prudhoe Bay, the
Teletest system had to pass field trials to detect examples of ‘weld-pack’ corrosion. Fig 3.6
shows an example of this corrosion.

Fig.25 Weld pack corrosion

Figure 3.6 – ‘Weld-pack ‘corrosion

The corresponding Teletest A-scan is shown in Fig 3.7. The time-base has been magnified
to view the signal just prior to the weld. The corrosion gives rise to a Cat 2 anomaly 750mm
in front of the weld signal. The anomaly signal has a high horizontal flexural component
showing the corrosion being concentrated near the three or nine o’clock positions.

W eld

Corrosion

Fig.26 Anom aly at W eld Pack position

Figure 3.7 – Corresponding Teletest scan

© 2012 Section 3: Capabilities and limitations of Guided Wave inspections Page 10 of 16

 Guided Wave Pipe Inspection

3.2.5 Gas Pipeline in Venezuela.

One of the most rapid pipeline inspections achieved to date was along a 9.5km stretch of
10"diameter x 9.8mm WT gas pipeline at Las Monachas, Venezuela.
Three hundred metres of pipe was tested from each location, resulting in an inspection rate
of over 1.5km of pipe per day, at the time a productivity record.
Working in conjunction with a local inspection company, Plant Integrity tested just over 3km
of 10" 9.8mm wall thickness above ground gas pipe in 12 working hours. One reason for this
high productivity was the large range achieved.
Fig 3.8 shows a typical A-scan. The line was free from significant corrosion. The peaks
shown are reflections from the welds. Weld M is 150m from the transducer assembly. This
means that 300m was inspected from each transducer location.

Figure 3.8 – Typical A-scan from Venezuela

At one point along the pipe there was a valve station as shown in Fig 3.9. Note: there are
three branches connecting to the line, two horizontal and one vertical.

© 2012 Section 3: Capabilities and limitations of Guided Wave inspections Page 11 of 16

 Guided Wave Pipe Inspection

Figure 3.9 - Valve station on 10" line

The A-scan obtained by ‘shooting’ from a position just outside the fence is shown in Fig
3.10. Peaks A and B show strong horizontal flexural responses (red line) and are the signals
from the two horizontal branches. Peak C, with a strong vertical flexural response (blue line)
is from the vertical branch. Note that it was possible to inspect the line beyond the branches.

Figure 3.10 – A-scan from just outside the fence

Fig.37 A-scan from valve station

© 2012 Section 3: Capabilities and limitations of Guided Wave inspections Page 12 of 16

 Guided Wave Pipe Inspection

3.2.6 Inspection of Headers in Gas Compressor Stations.

Plant Integrity were asked by their Canadian customer, AITEC West, to assist in a novel
Teletest inspection of headers in gas compressor stations in Montana and North Dakota in
the USA Fig 3.11.
The final client, the station’s owner, was Northern Borders Pipeline (NBPL). AITEC were
sub-contractors to Mears Engineering LLC, NBPL's principal inspection company. The
challenges presented by these inspections were: -

 The presence of some twenty 12" branches Fig 3.11

 The large diameters - 36, 37 and 42"
 The significant thickness - 44mm

As Fig 3.11 shows, the headers were supported on concrete blocks. The aim of the
inspections was to detect possible atmospheric corrosion at the six o'clock position at the
interface between the headers and the concrete supports.

Figure 3.11 - Gas compressor station header

Because of the thicknesses involved, it was decided to inspect using torsional wave
excitation. The Teletest collar was mounted at the quarter length positions of the headers,
which were up to 60m (180 ft) long.
Despite the intervening branches, it was possible to 'see' to the dome ends. The presence of
the branches meant that the top of the pipe was not fully inspected, particularly 'downstream'
of each branch. However, this was not a problem, because, as stated above, the zones of
potential corrosion were at the supports at six o'clock.
NBPL were completely satisfied by these inspections. The plan now is to use Guided Waves
to inspect the headers on a regular three-yearly basis.

© 2012 Section 3: Capabilities and limitations of Guided Wave inspections Page 13 of 16

 Guided Wave Pipe Inspection

3.2.7 Inspection of 14" Ammonia Line.

This insulated line was the feed to a reactor vessel in a chemical plant. It emerged from the
reactor 2m above ground level, ran vertically for 7m, then horizontally for a further 10m.
Visual inspection was difficult owing to the insulation and access was not feasible to the
elevated section without scaffolding. External CUI was suspected.
The Teletest transducer was attached near the base of the vertical section, to examine the
vertical and elevated horizontal legs. An example of the Teletest A-Scan output is shown in
Fig 3.12.
The large peak 5m from the transducer is a weld at the elbow where the pipe turned to the
horizontal. A number of flaws were reported from 13 to 19m from the transducer (marked '+'
on the plot).

Figure 3.12 - A-scan of anomalies in ammonia line

On removal of the insulation for cleaning and visual inspection, these were confirmed as
areas of CUI attack, some of which are shown in Fig 3.13

© 2012 Section 3: Capabilities and limitations of Guided Wave inspections Page 14 of 16

 Guided Wave Pipe Inspection

Figure 3.13 - Ammonia line showing corrosion

3.2.8 Inspection of 24" Slurry Line along Lakeshore, Fort McMurry.

This line carried water-based slurry. It was not insulated and was at ground level, so that
access was not difficult. However, the main concern was local high levels of internal erosion
where turbulence in the flow caused eddies and consequent high impact of particles on the
inside of the pipe.

Figure 3.14 Slurry line

Since service history had shown that these occurrences were difficult to predict, spot
thickness measurements were ineffective in detecting thinned areas prior to leakage.
Teletest overcame this problem as 100% of the pipe wall is examined. During initial trials, a
test was carried out on a section where a small leak had already occurred.

© 2012 Section 3: Capabilities and limitations of Guided Wave inspections Page 15 of 16

 Guided Wave Pipe Inspection

The result is shown in Fig 3.15. The signal approximately 12m from the datum is from a butt
weld. The very large signal which follows at 14m (marked '+') coincided with the location of
the leak.

It was found by subsequent examination that there was a band of erosion almost through the
wall for the majority of the pipe circumference. The pipe was therefore at the end of its life.

Weld

Figure 3.15 – Evidence of the leak on A-scan

© 2012 Section 3: Capabilities and limitations of Guided Wave inspections Page 16 of 16