A review on pipeline integrity management utilizing in-line inspection data
Source abstract
Abstract
Abstract Pipelines are widely used in transporting large quantities of oil and gas products over long distances due to their safety, efficiency and low cost. Integrity is essential for reliable pipeline operations, for preventing expensive downtime and failures resulting in leaking or spilling oil or gas content to the environment. Pipeline integrity management is a program that manages methods, tools and activities for assessing the health conditions of pipelines and scheduling inspection and maintenance activities to reduce the risks and costs. A pipeline integrity management program mainly consists of three major steps: defect detection and identification, defect growth prediction, and risk-based management. In-line inspections (ILI) are performed periodically using smart pigging tools to detect pipeline defects such as corrosion and cracks. Significant advances are needed to accurately evaluate defects based on ILI data, predict defect growth and optimize integrity activities to prevent pipeline failures, and pipeline integrity management has drawn extensive and growing research interests. This paper provides a comprehensive review on pipeline integrity management based on ILI data. Signal processing methods for defect evaluation for different types of ILI tools are presented. Physics-based models and data-driven methods for predicting defect growth for pipelines with different categories of defects are discussed. And models and methods for risk-based integrity management are reviewed in this paper. Current research challenges and possible future research trends in pipeline integrity management are also discussed.
Source: openaire · Quality: candidate unverified · Source record ↗
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Structural Integrity and Reliability Analysis · Non-Destructive Testing Techniques · Material Properties and Failure Mechanisms
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (100+)
Show source-provided references
1. A.C. Palmer, R.A. King, Subsea pipeline engineering, PennWell Books, 2004. https://books.google.ca/books?hl=en&lr=&id=vzXgoRfaMjYC&oi=fnd&pg=PA156&dq=Pipeline+engineering&ots=rglfqcpYPz&sig=H9OJkhEuNQ0-zlBBWWYQvAj3w4o (accessed October 20, 2016).
2. G.A. Antaki, Piping and pipeline engineering: design, construction, maintenance, integrity, and repair, CRC Press, 2003. https://books.google.ca/books?hl=en&lr=&id=_gYJj10iocEC&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=Pipeline+engineering&ots=OhaT9bNtK0&sig=l8yp8BWDd6LaFWmytRajzr5kjZ8 (accessed October 20, 2016).
3. Chapter 11 - LCC Modeling for Pipeline Design
4. A comprehensive review of solid particle erosion modeling for oil and gas wells and pipelines applications10.1016/j.jngse.2014.10.001 ↗
5. A review of crack detection in-line inspection case studies
6. A review of the fatigue failure mechanism of metallic materials under a corroded environment10.1016/j.engfailanal.2014.04.016 ↗
7. A review on machinery diagnostics and prognostics implementing condition-based maintenance10.1016/j.ymssp.2005.09.012 ↗
8. Review of pipeline integrity management practices10.1016/j.ijpvp.2010.04.003 ↗
9. M. Zarea, M. Piazza, G. Vignal, C. Jones, J. Rau, R. Wang, Review of r&d in support of mechanical damage threat management in onshore transmission pipeline operations, in: 2012 9th International Pipeline Conference, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 2012: pp. 569–582. http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/proceeding.aspx?articleid=1721401 (accessed July 25, 2016).10.1115/IPC2012-90654 ↗
10. 9th International Pipeline Conference
11. Pipeline mechanical damage integrity management framework
12. M.R. Shaik, Pipeline integrity assessment: methodology, in: ASME 2015 India International Oil and Gas Pipeline Conference, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 2015: p. V001T03A001–V001T03A001. http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/proceeding.aspx?articleid=2397078 (accessed July 25, 2016).
13. Risk-Based Integrity and Inspection Modeling (RBIIM) of Process Components/System10.1111/j.1539-6924.2006.00705.x ↗
14. C.R. Alexander, Evaluating damaged subsea pipelines using an engineering-based integrity management program, in: ASME International Offshore Pipeline Forum, Houston, TX, ASME Paper No. IOPF2009-6002, 2009. http://compositerepairstudy.com/downloads/IOPF_2009-6002_(EB-IMP,_Alexander).pdf (accessed October 20, 2016).
15. C.A. Paul, Managing integrity programmes in a litigious society, J. Pipeline Eng.. 7 (2008). http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&profile=ehost&scope=site&authtype=crawler&jrnl=17532116&AN=34151435&h=90mIFsbRSMMfrnUrEQFWy2qDQatswB8%2F2ypsQJXwAzJq35yCpD61kzZWbsgYyU3tHXsestF5cvsN1R3bog0AfQ%3D%3D&crl=c (accessed September 27, 2016).
16. A.P.I. Standard · 2001
17. An overview of major methods for inspecting and monitoring external corrosion of on-shore transportation pipelines10.1179/1743278215Y.0000000013 ↗
18. Pipeline integrity assessment and management
19. Pipeline integrity information integration
20. A. Young, A. Lockey, The assessment of pipeline integrity in geohazard areas using ILI data, in: ASME 2013 International Pipeline Geotechnical Conference, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 2013: p. (V001T02A008–V001T02A008). http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/proceeding.aspx?articleid=1816475 (accessed July 25, 2016).
21. Inline inspection: both effective data collection and interpretation needed to achieve high quality reporting results
22. Cartz · 1995
23. Development of a magnetic sensor for detection and sizing of internal pipeline corrosion defects10.1016/j.ndteint.2009.06.009 ↗
24. Finite element modelling of a circumferential magnetiser10.1016/j.sna.2005.11.066 ↗
25. Sizing limits of metal loss anomalies using tri-axial MFL measurements: A model study10.1016/j.ndteint.2013.01.011 ↗
26. Maximizing MFL ILI sizing confidence and accuracy using high-resolution field measurement data
27. S. Miller, S. Clouston, Optimizing magnetic fluxleakage inspection sizing model performance using highresolution non-destructive examination data., J. Pipeline Eng.. 11 (2012). http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&profile=ehost&scope=site&authtype=crawler&jrnl=17532116&AN=94239886&h=nPJOwGktP3iwX8ZEEdCtnctm%2FSgevHttNHK24bCPQvwCAI99G0%2B1XXUK5yCB0cz9m7cETmIQCGcI%2FoU%2B6zK5pw%3D%3D&crl=c (accessed September 27, 2016).
28. Signal processing and defect analysis of pipeline inspection applying magnetic flux leakage methods10.1007/s11370-014-0158-6 ↗
29. Empirical structure for characterizing metal loss defects from radial magnetic flux leakage signal10.1016/j.ndteint.2010.05.006 ↗
30. Online data compression of MFL signals for pipeline inspection10.1016/j.ndteint.2012.04.008 ↗
31. Adaptive Wavelets for Characterizing Magnetic Flux Leakage Signals From Pipeline Inspection10.1109/TMAG.2006.880091 ↗
32. Advanced signal processing of magnetic flux leakage data obtained from seamless gas pipeline10.1016/S0963-8695(02)00024-5 ↗
33. Applications of adaptive fuzzy lifting wavelet transform in MFL signal processing10.1784/insi.2010.52.1.16 ↗
34. MFL signals and artificial neural networks applied to detection and classification of pipe weld defects10.1016/j.ndteint.2006.04.003 ↗
35. Signal processing of magnetic flux leakage surface flaw inspect in pipeline steel10.1134/S1061830908120097 ↗
36. An adaptive channel equalization algorithm for MFL signal10.1016/j.ndteint.2011.08.011 ↗
37. Criteria for performance assessment and calibration of in-line inspections of oil and gas pipelines10.1088/0957-0233/18/7/001 ↗
38. Which technology is better for you
39. Ultrasonic pig for submarine oil pipeline corrosion inspection10.1134/S106183090904010X ↗
40. T. Hennig, G. Lokwani, Latest generation of ILI tools for high resolution ultrasonic inspection and integrity assessment, in: ASME 2015 India International Oil and Gas Pipeline Conference, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 2015: p. (V001T03A002–V001T03A002). http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/proceeding.aspx?articleid=2397079 (accessed July 25, 2016).10.1115/IOGPC2015-7947 ↗
41. T. Hrncir, S. Turner, S.J. Polasik, P. Vieth, D. Allen, I. Lachtchouk, P. Senf, G. Foreman, A case study of the crack sizing performance of the ultrasonic phased array combined crack and wall loss inspection tool on the centennial pipeline, the defect evaluation, including the defect evaluation, field feature verification and tool performance validation (performed by Marathon Oil, DNV and GE Oil & Gas), in: 2010 8th International Pipeline Conference, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 2010: pp. 137–143. http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/proceeding.aspx?articleid=1614265 (accessed July 25, 2016).10.1115/IPC2010-31079 ↗
42. Toward Data-Driven Structural Health Monitoring: Application of Machine Learning and Signal Processing to Damage Detection10.1061/(ASCE)CP.1943-5487.0000258 ↗
43. D. Bo, Z. Huiping, S. Sha, D. Jinxi, X. Zurong, T. Dongliang, An Ultrasonic In-line Inspection System on Crude Oil Pipelines, in: 2007 Chinese Control Conference, 2007: pp. 199–203. doi:https://doi.org/10.1109/CHICC.2006.4346972.10.1109/CHICC.2006.4346972 ↗
44. Wavelet based noise suppression technique and its application to ultrasonic flaw detection10.1016/j.ultras.2005.10.004 ↗
45. Thin thickness measurements by means of a wavelet transform-based method10.1016/S0263-2241(97)00035-3 ↗
46. The use of neural networks in ultrasonic flaw detection10.1016/S0263-2241(98)00075-X ↗
47. Pipeline defects diagnosis based on feature extraction and neural-network fusion10.1134/S1061830906050081 ↗
48. Application of digital signal processing techniques to synthetic aperture focusing technique images10.1016/S0924-4247(99)00028-X ↗
49. Application of neuro-fuzzy techniques in oil pipeline ultrasonic nondestructive testing10.1016/j.ndteint.2005.03.001 ↗
50. Configurable ultrasonic flaw classification of oil pipelines: Part I: image acquisition, preprocessing and flaw area and volume estimation10.1080/10589750701646448 ↗
51. Resolution enhancement of ultrasonic defect signals for crack sizing10.1016/j.ndteint.2012.08.003 ↗
52. Artificial neural networks for non-destructive evaluation with ultrasonic waves in not accessible pipes
53. A signal-processing tool for non-destructive testing of inaccessible pipes10.1016/j.engappai.2006.05.005 ↗
54. An adaptive Morlet wavelet filter for time-of-flight estimation in ultrasonic damage assessment10.1016/j.measurement.2010.01.001 ↗
55. Ultrasonic signal processing methods for detection of defects in concrete pipes10.1016/j.autcon.2011.06.012 ↗
56. System-on-chip design for ultrasonic target detection using split-spectrum processing and neural networks10.1109/TUFFC.2012.2336 ↗
57. Development of an ultrasonic inspection robot using an electromagnetic acoustic transducer for a Lamb wave and an SH-plate wave10.1016/j.ultras.2004.01.059 ↗
58. Emat Pipe Inspection with Guided Waves10.1007/BF03321348 ↗
59. S. Tappert, D.L. Allen, A. Mann, M. Balzer, G. Van Boven, Inline inspection for cracks in gas pipelines: enhancements derived from 5 years’ operational experience, in: 2008 7th International Pipeline Conference, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 2008: pp. 161–167. http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/proceeding.aspx?articleid=1640479 (accessed July 25, 2016).10.1115/IPC2008-64087 ↗
60. R. Kania, S. Klein, J. Marr, G. Rosca, E.S. Riverol, R. Ruda, N. Jansing, T. Beuker, N.D. Ronsky, R. Weber, Validation of EMAT technology for gas pipeline crack inspection, in2012 9th International Pipeline Conference, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 2012: pp. 73–77. http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/proceeding.aspx?articleid=1721420 (accessed July 25, 2016).10.1115/IPC2012-90240 ↗
61. Hilvert · 2015
62. An SH-wave EMAT technique for gas pipeline inspection10.1016/S0963-8695(98)00062-0 ↗
63. Raymond · 2003 · 485
64. Mazal · 2004
65. Two-module robotic pipe inspection system with EMATs
66. Kercel · 2003 · 217
67. Application of special filtering techniques in the analysis of emat data
68. Coleman · 2008 · 2008 · 463
69. M. Mohitpour, Pipeline integrity assurance : a practical approach, ASME, New York:, c2010.10.1115/1.859568 ↗
70. A Bayesian model framework for calibrating ultrasonic in-line inspection data and estimating actual external corrosion depth in buried pipeline utilizing a clustering technique10.1016/j.strusafe.2015.01.003 ↗
71. In-Line Inspection Performance III: Effect of In-Ditch Errors in Determining ILI Performance
72. Desjardins · 2007
73. Dealing with uncertainty in pipeline integrity and rehabilitation
74. McCann · 2012 · 39
75. G.A. Coleman, S.J. Miller, ILI tool tolerance and repeatability effect on corrosion growth rates, in: 2010 8th International Pipeline Conference, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 2010: pp. 549–556. http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/proceeding.aspx?articleid=1614386 (accessed July 25, 2016).10.1115/IPC2010-31381 ↗
76. R.H. Adianto, J.B. Skow, J. Sutherland, The benefits of accurate ili performance on pipeline integrity programs for axial crack and metal loss corrosion threats, in: 2016 11th International Pipeline Conference, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 2016: p. (V001T03A075–V001T03A075). http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/proceeding.aspx?articleid=2583787 (accessed March 9, 2017).
77. Advanced assessment of pipeline integrity using ILI data
78. C. Alexander, Evaluating damage to on-and offshore pipelines using data acquired using ILI., J. Pipeline Eng.. 8 (2009). http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&profile=ehost&scope=site&authtype=crawler&jrnl=17532116&AN=102328253&h=SnLt4evvYOcvtt1aUj4vIggZ66HLxhLSyBYJZG2Jy2Spdml4FbaaCcVDuIzlHA155Xuhl%2BYLvPc1td5B5z7ZrA%3D%3D&crl=c (accessed September 27, 2016).
79. A. Lockey, A. Young, Predicting pipeline performance in geohazard areas using ILI mapping techniques, in: 2012 9th International Pipeline Conference, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 2012: pp. 491–499. http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/proceeding.aspx?articleid=1721392 (accessed September 27, 2016).10.1115/IPC2012-90496 ↗
80. Operator assessment of ILI defects
81. In-line inspection (ILI) methods for detecting corrosion in underground pipelines
82. Assessment criteria for ILI metal-loss data: B31G and RSTRENG
83. Evaluation of predictive assessment reliability on corroded transmission pipelines10.1016/j.jngse.2011.07.005 ↗
84. M. Slaughter, K. Spencer, J. Dawson, P. Senf, Comparison of multiple crack detection in-line inspection data to assess crack growth, in: 2010 8th International Pipeline Conference, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 2010: pp. 397–406. http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/proceeding.aspx?articleid=1614342 (accessed July 25, 2016).10.1115/IPC2010-31255 ↗
85. J.E. Marr, E. Sanjuan, G. Rosea, J. Sutherland, A. Mann, Validation of the latest generation EMAT ILI technology for SCC management, J. Pipeline Eng.. 11 (2012). http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&profile=ehost&scope=site&authtype=crawler&jrnl=17532116&AN=89110719&h=uWWQavJTjs5bDKNEr1%2FQm7hGk1MR84AkY1uGgj0aMkNUgc%2FAVClRLobxBsFw64vF6nb0WpKIjgWDgtIE7tQkWg%3D%3D&crl=c (accessed September 27, 2016).
86. A.D. Batte, R.R. Fessler, J.E. Marr, S.C. Rapp, A new joint-industry project addressing the integrity management of SCC in gas transmission pipelines., J. Pipeline Eng.. 11 (2012). http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&profile=ehost&scope=site&authtype=crawler&jrnl=17532116&AN=94239885&h=fbOlhnXpcQcIjAk7xkNuOsVKAuCAz2cO%2F69hmA%2BvG%2FeS4FyWN4gEPbVcohJoqAeVbu0Klqcnn%2FN9jzCBb9o5VQ%3D%3D&crl=c (accessed September 27, 2016).
87. Combining EMAT ILI and multiple data sets for crack detection in natural gas pipelines to reduce validation costs
88. A framework for managing the threat of SCC and other forms of cracking in pipelines using in-line inspection tools
89. A. Nielsen, J. Mallet-Paret, K. Griffin, Probabilistic modeling of crack threats and the effects of mitigation, in: 2014 10th International Pipeline Conference, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 2014: p. (V003T12A021–V003T12A021). http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/proceeding.aspx?articleid=2022753 (accessed September 26, 2016).
90. Schneider · 2001 · 43 · 102
91. A model for predicting failure of oil pipelines10.1080/15732479.2012.756918 ↗
92. Shilin · 2009 · 499
93. Oil and gas pipeline failure prediction system using long range ultrasonic transducers and Euclidean-Support Vector Machines classification approach10.1016/j.eswa.2012.10.006 ↗
94. PIPELINE DEFECT PREDICTION USING SUPPORT VECTOR MACHINES10.1080/08839510903210589 ↗
95. Probability Analysis of Damage to Offshore Pipeline by Ship Factors10.3141/2326-04 ↗
96. An overview of the pipeline defect assessment manual (PDAM)
97. Prediction of ductile failure in materials for onshore and offshore pipeline applications10.1177/1056789513485967 ↗
98. Modelling steel corrosion damage in soil environment10.1016/j.corsci.2009.06.052 ↗
99. Analysis of Pipeline Steel Corrosion Data From NBS (NIST) Studies Conducted Between 1922–1940 and Relevance to Pipeline Management10.6028/jres.115.026 ↗
100. The effect of corrosion defects on the burst pressure of pipelines10.1016/j.jcsr.2005.02.010 ↗