Establishing Corrosion Growth Rates Based on MFL-C vs. MFL In-Line Inspection Run-to-Run Comparisons

Eric Graf, Matthew A. Ellinger, W. Harper, T. Bubenik, Stacy Hickey, Pamela J. Moreno
{"title":"Establishing Corrosion Growth Rates Based on MFL-C vs. MFL In-Line Inspection Run-to-Run Comparisons","authors":"Eric Graf, Matthew A. Ellinger, W. Harper, T. Bubenik, Stacy Hickey, Pamela J. Moreno","doi":"10.1115/ipc2022-87272","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n Performing in-line inspection (ILI) run-to-run comparisons is a vital component of any pipeline integrity management program. A primary objective of ILI run-to-run comparisons is to establish corrosion growth rates along the length of a given pipeline segment that are defensible, justifiable, and realistic without being overly conservative.\n Establishing realistic corrosion growth rates based on ILI data can be challenging, especially when considering different technologies are sometimes employed between the subsequent ILI tool runs. One example of this is a circumferential magnetic flux leakage (MFL-C) ILI survey followed by an axial magnetic flux leakage (MFL) ILI survey. While the two technologies are similar in that both can detect and characterize metal loss anomalies, they differ in the direction of the applied magnetic field. As a result, the tools may detect and characterize (i.e., size) the anomalies differently depending on the shapes and orientations of the anomalies.\n This paper explores the differences observed in the detection and sizing of different anomaly types by the two technologies, how these differences contribute to calculated corrosion growth rates, and what considerations should be made when comparing MFL and MFL-C ILI data for the purpose of determining corrosion growth rates.","PeriodicalId":264830,"journal":{"name":"Volume 2: Pipeline and Facilities Integrity","volume":"96 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Volume 2: Pipeline and Facilities Integrity","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1115/ipc2022-87272","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Performing in-line inspection (ILI) run-to-run comparisons is a vital component of any pipeline integrity management program. A primary objective of ILI run-to-run comparisons is to establish corrosion growth rates along the length of a given pipeline segment that are defensible, justifiable, and realistic without being overly conservative. Establishing realistic corrosion growth rates based on ILI data can be challenging, especially when considering different technologies are sometimes employed between the subsequent ILI tool runs. One example of this is a circumferential magnetic flux leakage (MFL-C) ILI survey followed by an axial magnetic flux leakage (MFL) ILI survey. While the two technologies are similar in that both can detect and characterize metal loss anomalies, they differ in the direction of the applied magnetic field. As a result, the tools may detect and characterize (i.e., size) the anomalies differently depending on the shapes and orientations of the anomalies. This paper explores the differences observed in the detection and sizing of different anomaly types by the two technologies, how these differences contribute to calculated corrosion growth rates, and what considerations should be made when comparing MFL and MFL-C ILI data for the purpose of determining corrosion growth rates.
基于MFL- c和MFL在线检测的腐蚀生长速率比对
进行在线检查(ILI)是任何管道完整性管理程序的重要组成部分。ILI的主要目标是确定沿给定管道段长度的腐蚀增长率,这些增长率是可防御的、合理的和现实的,而不是过于保守。根据ILI数据建立真实的腐蚀增长速率可能具有挑战性,特别是考虑到在随后的ILI工具运行之间有时采用不同的技术。这方面的一个例子是一个环向漏磁(MFL- c) ILI调查,然后是一个轴向漏磁(MFL) ILI调查。虽然这两种技术在检测和表征金属损失异常方面是相似的,但它们在应用磁场的方向上有所不同。因此,工具可以根据异常的形状和方向,以不同的方式检测和表征(即大小)异常。本文探讨了两种技术在不同异常类型的检测和尺寸上的差异,这些差异如何影响计算的腐蚀生长速率,以及在比较MFL和MFL- c ILI数据以确定腐蚀生长速率时应考虑哪些因素。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信