Eric Graf, Matthew A. Ellinger, W. Harper, T. Bubenik, Stacy Hickey, Pamela J. Moreno
{"title":"基于MFL- c和MFL在线检测的腐蚀生长速率比对","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":"{\"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}","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
摘要
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。
Establishing Corrosion Growth Rates Based on MFL-C vs. MFL In-Line Inspection Run-to-Run Comparisons
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.