The pipeline industry strives to keep pipelines running safely and reliably. The process involves many steps, including selecting the lines/segments to be inspected with in-line inspection (ILI); maintenance, repair, digs; ILI validation; growth predictions and risk-based programs to establish maintenance and repair practices. Most operators’ programs start with in-line inspections, which generate large data sets and provide interpretations about the pipeline integrity without a validation process. Although ILI information is thorough, it is generated by non-destructive and/or indirect measurements. As with any non-destructive examination (NDE) technique, comparisons must be made to direct observations and measurements to ensure accuracy. This paper overviews validation of the ILI data through four case studies: determining whether the tool is functioning per its listed specification, discussing the applicability of validating crack tool ILI runs and presenting two examples of feature misidentification by the ILI tool. Together, these case studies demonstrate the importance of validating ILI data to ensure the integrity of the pipeline is adequately assessed.

Subject
Nondestructive testing, Piping, Inline inspection, Pipelines, Tools, Tolerances, Inspection, Metal loss, Flaws, Repair, Anomalies, Lasers, Case studies
© 2022 Association for Materials Protection and Performance (AMPP). All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means (electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise) without the prior written permission of AMPP. Positions and opinions advanced in this work are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of AMPP. Responsibility for the content of the work lies solely with the author(s).
2022
Association for Materials Protection and Performance (AMPP)
You do not currently have access to this content.